Skip to main content

Full text of "A grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research"

See other formats

I '^' ' ^m 















Critical Notes to Broadus' Harmony of the 

Life and Letters op John A. Broadus 

Teaching of Jesus Concerning God the Father 

The Student's Chronological New Testament 

Syllabus for New Testament Study 

Keywords in the Teaching of Jesus 

Epochs in the Life of Jesus 

A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testa- 

Epochs in the Life of Paul 

Commentary on Matthew 

John the Loyal 

The Glory op the Ministry 

A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in 
THE Light of Historical Research 

^aSiammar of the greek new 
testament in the light of 
historical research 

__^.>»^'*-.* BY 

Af T.' ROBERTSON, M.A., D.D., LL.D. 

Professor of Interpretation of the New Testament in the 

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary 

Louisville, Ky. 

"'Exofitv Se Tov Orjaavpov tovtov iv dcrrpaKlvois aKelecnv, 
iva rj virepfioXr] Trjs 8vvafj.ecjs b tov dead Kai (jltj k^ riixCiv. 

— 2 Cor. 4:7 









Composition, Electroiyping and Presswork: 






It is with mingled feelings of gratitude and regret that I let 
this book go to the public. I am grateful for God's sustaining 
grace through so many years of intense work and am fully con- 
scious of the inevitable imperfections that still remain. For a 
dozen years this Grammar has been the chief task of my life. I 
have given to it sedulously what time was mine outside of my 
teaching. But it was twenty-six years ago that my great prede- 
cessor in the chair of New Testament Interpretation proposed to 
his young assistant that they together get out a revised edition 
of Winer. The manifest demand for a new grammar of the New 
Testament is voiced by Thayer, the translator of the American 
edition of Winer's Grammar, in his article on "Language of the 
New Testament" in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible. 

I actually began the work and prepared the sheets for the first 
hundred pages, but I soon became convinced that it was not 
possible to revise Winer's Grammar as it ought to be done without 
making a new grammar on a new plan. So much progress 
had been made in comparative philology and historical grammar 
since Winer wrote his great book that it seemed useless to go on 
with it. Then Dr. Broadus said to me that he was out of it by 
reason of his age, and that it was my task. He reluctantly gave 
it up and pressed me to go on. From that day it was in my 
thoughts and plans and I was gathering material for the great 
undertaking. If Schmiedel had pushed through his work, I 
might have stopped. By the time that Dr. James Hope Moulton 
announced his new grammar, I was too deep into the enterprise 
to draw back. And so I have held to the titanic task somehow 
till the end has come. There were many discouragements and I 
was often tempted to give it up at all costs. No one who has 
not done similar work can understand the amount of research, 
the mass of detail and the reflection required in a book of this 
nature. The mere physical effort of writing was a joy of expres- 
sion in comparison with the rest. The title of Cauer's brilliant 
book, Grammatica Militans (now in the third edition), aptly 
describes the spirit of the grammarian who to-day attacks the 


problems of the language of the New Testament in the light of 
historical research. 

From one point of view a grammar of the Greek New Testa- 
ment is an impossible task, if one has to be a specialist in the 
whole Greek language, in Latin, in Sanskrit, in Hebrew and the 
other Semitic tongues, in Church History, in the Talmud, in 
English, in psychology, in exegesis.^ I certainly lay no claim to 
omniscience. I am a linguist by profession and by love also, but 
I am not a specialist in the Semitic tongues, though I have a 
working knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, but not of Syriac 
and Arabic. The Coptic and the Sanskrit I can use. The Latin 
and the Greek, the French and German and Anglo-Saxon com- 
plete my modest linguistic equipment. I have, besides, a smat- 
tering of Assyrian, Dutch, Gothic and Italian. 

I have explained how I inherited the task of this Grammar 
from Broadus. He was a disciple of Gessner Harrison, of the 
University of Virginia, who was the first scholar in America to 
make use of Bopp's Vergleichende Grammatik. Broadus' views 
of grammar were thus for long considered queer by the students 
who came to him trained in the traditional grammars and unused 
to the historical method; but he held to his position to the end. 

This Grammar aims to keep in touch at salient points with the 
results of comparative philology and historical grammar as the 
true linguistic science. In theory one should be allowed to as- 
sume all this in a grammar of the Greek N. T., but in fact that 
cannot be done unless the book is confined in use to a few tech- 
nical scholars. I have tried not to inject too much of general 
grammar into the work, but one hardly knows what is best when 
the demands are so varied. So many men now get no Greek 
except in the theological seminary that one has to interpret for 
them the language of modern philology. I have simply sought 
in a modest way to keep the Greek of the N. T. out in the middle 
of the linguistic stream as far as it is proper to do so. In actual 
class use some teachers will skip certain chapters. 

Alfred Gudemann,^ of Munich, says of American classical 
scholars: "Not a single contribution marking genuine progress, 
no work on an extensive scale, opening up a new perspective or 
breaking entirely new ground, nothing, in fact, of the slightest 
scientific value can be placed to their credit." That is a serious 
charge, to be sure, but then originality is a relative matter. The 

1 Cf. Dr. James Moffatt's remarks in The Expositor, Oct., 1910, p. 383 f. 

2 The CI. Rev., June, 1909, p. 116. 


true scholar is only too glad to stand upon the shoulders of his 
predecessors and give full credit at every turn. Who could make 
any progress in human knowledge but for the ceaseless toil of 
those 1 who have gone before? Prof. Paul Shorey,^ of the Uni- 
versity of Chicago, has a sharp answer to Prof. Gudemann. He 
speaks of "the need of rescuing scholarship itself from the 
German yoke." He does not mean "German pedantry and 
superfluous accuracy in insignificant research — but ... in all 
seriousness from German inaccuracy." He continues about "the 
disease of German scholarship" that "insists on 'sweat-boxing' 
the evidence and straining after 'vigorous and rigorous' demon- 
stration of things that do not admit of proof." There probably 
are German scholars guilty of this grammatical vice (are Amer- 
ican and British scholars wholly free?). But I wish to record my 
conviction that my own work, such as it is, would have been im- 
possible but for the painstaking and scientific investigation of the 
Germans at every turn. The republic of letters is cosmopolitan. 
In common with all modern linguists I have leaned upon Brug- 
mann and Delbriick as masters in linguistic learning. 

1 cannot here recite my indebtedness to all the scholars whose 
books and writings have helped me. But, besides Broadus, I 
must mention Gildersleeve as the American Hellenist whose wit 
and wisdom have helped me over many a hard place. Gilder- 
sleeve has spent much of his life in puncturing grammatical 
bubbles blown by other grammarians. He exercises a sort of 
grammatical censorship. "At least whole grammars have been 
constructed about one emptiness." ^ It is possible to be " grammar 
mad," to use The Independent's phrase.* It is easy to scout all 
grammar and say: "Grammar to the Wolves."^ Browning sings 
in A Grammarian's Funeral: 

"He settled Hoti's business — let it be! — 
Properly based Oun — 
Gave us the doctrine of the enchtic De, 
Dead from the waist down." 

^ F. H. Colson, in an article entitled "The Grammatical Chapters in Quin- 
tilian," I, 4-8 (The 01. Quarterly, Jan., 1914, p. 33), says: "The five chapters 
which Quintilian devotes to ' Grammatica' are in many ways the most valuable 
discussion of the subject which we possess," though he divides "grammatica" 
into "grammar" and "literature," and (p. 37) "the whole of this chapter is 
largely directed to meet the objection that grammar is 'tenuis et jejuna.'" 

2 The CI. Weekly, May 27, 1911, p. 229. 

3 Gildersleeve, Am. Jour, of Philol., July, 1909, p. 229. * 1911, p. 717. 
* Article by F. A. W. Henderson, Blackwood for May, 1906. 


Perhaps those who pity the grammarian do not know that he 
finds joy in his task and is sustained by the conviction that his 
work is necessary. Prof. C. F. Smith {The Classical Weekly, 
1912, p. 150) tells of the joy of the professor of Greek at Bonn 
when he received a copy of the first volume of Gildersleeve's 
Syntax of Classical Greek. The professor brought it to the Semi- 
nar and "clasped and hugged it as though it were a most precious 
darling {Liehling)." Dr. A. M. Fairbairn^ once said: "No man 
can be a theologian who is not a philologian. He who is no 
grammarian is no divine." Let Alexander McLaren serve as a 
good illustration of that dictum. His matchless discourses are 
the fruit of the most exact scholarship and spiritual enthusiasm. 
I venture to quote another defence of the study of Greek which 
will, I trust, yet come back to its true place in modern education. 
Prof, G, A, Williams, of Kalamazoo College, says-: "Greek yet 
remains the very best means we have for plowing up and wrink- 
ling the human brain and developing its gray matter, and wrinkles 
and gray matter are still the most valuable assets a student can 
set down on the credit side of his ledger," 

Dr. J. H. Moulton has shown that it is possible to make gram- 
mar interesting, as Gildersleeve had done before him. Moulton 
protests^ against the notion that grammar is dull: "And yet there 
is no subject which can be made more interesting than grammar, 
a science which deals not with dead rocks or mindless vegetables, 
but with the ever changing expression of human thought," I 
wish to acknowledge here my very great indebtedness to Dr, 
Moulton for his brilliant use of the Egyptian papyri in proof of 
the fact that the New Testament was written in the vernacular 
KoivT], Deissmann is the pioneer in this field and is still the 
leader in it. It is hard to overestimate the debt of modern New 
Testament scholarship to his work. Dr, D. S. Margoliouth, it is 
true, is rather pessimistic as to the value of the papyri: "Not one 
per cent, of those which are deciphered and edited with so much 
care tell us anything worth knowing."* Certainly that is too 

1 Address before the Baptist Theological College at Glasgow, reported in 
The British Weekly, April 26, 1906. 

2 The CI. Weekly, April 16, 1910. 

3 London Quarterly Review, 1908, p. 214. Moulton and Deissmann also 
disprove the pessimism of Hatch {Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 1): "The lan- 
guage of the New Testament, on the other hand, has not yet attracted the 
special attention of any considerable scholar. There is no good lexicon. 
There is no good philological commentary. There is no adequate grammar." 

* The Expositor, Jan., 1912, p. 73. 


gloomy a statement. Apart from the linguistic value of the 
papyri and the ostraca which has been demonstrated, these 
letters and receipts have interest as human documents. They 
give us real glimpses of the actual life of the common people in 
the first Christian centuries, their joys and their sorrows, the 
little things that go so far to make life what it is for us all. But 
the student of the Greek New Testament finds a joy all his own 
in seeing so many words in common use that were hitherto found 
almost or quite alone in the New Testament or LXX. But the 
grammar of the N. T. has also had a flood of light thrown on it 
from the papyri, ostraca and inscriptions as a result of the work 
of Deissmann, Mayser, Milligan, Moulton, Radermacher, Thumb, 
Volker, Wilcken and others. I have gratefully availed myself of 
the work of these scholars and have worked in this rich field for 
other pertinent illustrations of the New Testament idiom. The 
material is almost exhaustless and the temptation was constant 
to use too much of it. I have not thought it best to use so much 
of it in proportion as Radermacher has done, for the case is now 
proven and what Moulton and Radermacher did does not have 
to be repeated. As large as my book is, the space is precious for 
the New Testament itself. But I have used the new material 
freely. The book has grown so that in terror I often hold 
back. It is a long step from Winer, three generations ago, to 
the present time. We shall never go back again to that stand- 
point. Winer was himself a great emancipator in the gram- 
matical field. But the battles that he fought are now ancient 

It is proper to state that the purpose of this Grammar is not 
that of the author's Short Grammar which is now in use in various 
modern languages of America and Europe. That book has its 
own place. The present volume is designed for advanced stu- 
dents in theological schools, for the use of teachers, for scholarly 
pastors who wish a comprehensive grammar of the Greek New 
Testament on the desk for constant use, for all who make a 
thorough study of the New Testament or who are interested in 
the study of language, and for libraries. If new editions come, 
as I hope, I shall endeavour to make improvements and correc- 
tions. Errata are sure to exist in a book of this nature. Occa- 
sionally (cf. Accusative with Infinitive) the same subject is 
treated more than once for the purpose of fulness at special 
points. Some repetition is necessary in teaching. Some needless 
repetition can be eliminated later. I may explain also that the 


works used by me in the Bodleian Library and the British Mu- 
seum had the citations copied twice with double opportunity for 
errors of reference, but I have guarded that point to the best of 
my ability. I have been careful to give credit in detail to the 
many works consulted. 

But, after all is said, I am reluctant to let my book slip away 
from my hands. There is so much yet to learn, I had hoped 
that Mayser's Syntax der griechischen Papyri could have ap- 
peared so that I could have used it, but he sorrowfully writes me 
that illness has held him back. Neither Helbing nor Thackeray 
has finished his Syntax of the LXX. The N. T. Lexicon of Moul- 
ton and Milligan, though announced, has not yet appeared. 
Deissmann's Lexicon is still in the future. Thumb's revision of 
Brugmann's Griechische Grammatik appeared after my book had 
gone to the press.^ I could use it only here and there. The same 
thing is true of Debrunner's revision of Blass' Grammatik des 
neutest. Griechisch. New light will continue to be turned on the 
Greek of the N. T. Prof. J. Rendel Harris (The Expository Times, 
Nov., 1913, p. 54 f.) points out, what had not been recently no- 
ticed, that Prof. Masson, in his first edition of Winer in 1859, 
p. vii, had said: "The diction of the New Testament is the plain 
and unaffected Hellenic of the Apostolic Age, as employed by 
Greek-speaking Christians when discoursing on religious sub- 
jects . . . Apart from the Hebraisms — the number of which 
has, for the most part, been grossly exaggerated — the New 
Testament may be considered as exhibiting the only genuine 
facsimile of the colloquial diction employed by unsophisticated 
Grecian gentlemen of the first century, who spoke without 
pedantry — as IbLOiTai and not as ao(l)L(TTal." The papyri have 
simply confirmed the insight of Masson in 1859 and of Lightfoot 
in 1863 (Moulton, ProL, p. 242). One's mind lingers with fas- 
cination over the words of the New Testament as they meet 
him in unexpected contexts in the papyri, as when aperr] (cf. 
1 Pet. 2:9) occurs in the sense of 'Thy Excellency,' exco irapa- 
(Tx^lu rfi afj aperfj, O. P. 1131, 11 f. (v/a.d.), or when vTzepcoov (Ac. 
1 : 13) is used of a pigeon-house, t6v vivepcoov tottou ttjs vTapxovarjs 
ahrCo h Movxivvp oldas, O. P. 1127, 5-7 (a.d. 183). But the book 
must now go forth to do its part in the elucidation of the New 

1 Prof. E. H. Sturtevant (CI. Weekly, Jan. 24, 1914, p. 103) criticises Thumb 
because he retains in his revision of Brugmann's book the distinction between 
accidence and syntax, and so is "not abreast of the best scholarship of the 
day." But for the N. T. the distinction is certainly useful. 


Testament, the treasure of the ages.^ I indulge the hope that 
the toil has not been all in vain. Marcus Dods {Later Letters, 
p. 248) says: "I admire the grammarians who are content to 
add one solid stone to the permanent temple of knowledge in- 
stead of twittering round it like so many swallows and only 
attracting attention to themselves." I make no complaint of the 
labour of the long years, for I have had my reward in a more 
intimate knowledge of the words of Jesus and of his reporters 
and interpreters. Td prjixara a €70? XeXdXTj/ca v/uv irvevixb. kcTiv koI 
^0517 koTLv (Jo. 6 : 63). 

I must record my grateful appreciation of the sympathy and 
help received from many friends all over the world as I have 
plodded on through the years. My colleagues in the Seminary 
Faculty have placed me under many obligations in making it 
possible for me to devote myself to my task and in rendering 
substantial help. In particular Pres. E. Y. Mullins and Prof. 
J. R. Sampey have been active in the endowment of the plates. 
Prof. Sampey also kindly read the proof of the Aramaic and 
Hebrew words. Prof. W. O. Carver graciously read the proof of 
the entire book and made many valuable suggestions. Dr. S. 
Angus, of Edinburgh, read the manuscript in the first rough 
draft and was exceedingly helpful in his comments and sympa- 
thy. Prof. W. H. P. Hatch, of the General Episcopal Theological 
Seminary, New York, read the manuscript for the publishers and 
part of the proof and exhibited sympathetic insight that is greatly 
appreciated. Prof. J. S. Riggs, of the Auburn Theological Semi- 
nary, read the proof till his health gave way, and was gracious in 
his enthusiasm for the enterprise. Prof. Walter Petersen, Ph.D., 
of Bethany College, Lindsborg, Kansas, read all the proof and 
freely gave his linguistic attainments to the improvement of the 
book. Last, but not least in this list, Mr. H. Scott, of Birken- 
head, England, read the whole book in proof, and in the Accidence 
verified all the references with minute care and loving interest, 
and all through the book contributed freely from his wealth of 
knowledge of detail concerning the Greek N. T. The references 
in Syntax were verified by a dozen of my students whose labour 
of love is greatly appreciated. Pres. J. W. Shepherd, of Rio 
Janeiro, Brazil, and Prof. G. W. Taylor, of Pineville, La., had 
verified the Scripture references in the MS., which were again 
verified in proof. The Index of Quotations has been prepared by 

1 Brilliant use of the new knowledge is made by Dr. James Moffatt's New 
Testament (A New Translation, 1913). 


Rev. W. H. Davis, of Richmond College, Va. ; the Index of Greek 
Words by Rev. S. L. Watson, Tutor of N. T. Greek for this ses- 
sion in the Seminary. All this work has been done for me 
freely and gladly. The mere recital of it humbles me very much. 
Without this expert aid in so many directions the book could 
not have been produced at all. I must add, however, that all 
errors should be attributed to me. I have done the best that I 
could with my almost impossible task. I have had to put on an 
old man's glasses during the reading of the proof. 

I must add also my sincere appreciation of the kind words 
of Prof. Edwin Mayser of Stuttgart, Oberlehrer H. Stocks of 
Cottbus, Pres. D. G. Whittinghill of Rome, Prof. Caspar Rene 
Gregory of Leipzig, the late Prof. E. Nestle of Maulbronn, Prof. 
James Stalker of Aberdeen, Prof. Giovanni Luzzi of Florence, 
Prof. J. G. Machen of Princeton, Profs. G. A. Johnston Ross and 
Jas. E. Frame of Union Seminary, and many others who have 
cheered me in my years of toil. For sheer joy in the thing Prof. 
C. M. Cobern of Allegheny College, Penn., and Mr. Dan Craw- 
ford, the author of Thinking Black, have read a large part of the 

I gladly record my gratitude to Mr. G. W. Norton, Misses 
Lucie and Mattie Norton, Mr. R. A. Peter (who gave in memory 
of his father and mother, Dr. and Mrs. Arthur Peter), Rev. R. 
N. Lynch, Rev. R. J. Burdette, Mr. F. H. Goodridge, and others 
who have generously contributed to the endowment of the plates 
so that the book can be sold at a reasonable price. I am in- 
debted to Mr. K. B. Grahn for kindly co-operation. I am deeply 
grateful also to the Board of Trustees of the Seminary for making 
provision for completing the payment for the plates. 

It is a pleasure to add that Mr. Doran has shown genuine 
enthusiasm in the enterprise, and that Mr. Linsenbarth of the 
University Press, Cambridge, has taken the utmost pains in the 
final proofreading, 

I should say that the text of Westcott and Hort is followed 
in all essentials. Use is made also of the Greek Testaments of 
Nestle, Souter, and Von Soden whose untimely death is so re- 
cent an event. In the chapter on Orthography and Phonetics 
more constant use is made, for obvious reasons, of variations 
in the manuscripts than in the rest of the book. It is now four 
hundred years since Cardinal Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros 
had printed the Greek New Testament under the auspices of 
the University of Alcala or Complutum, near Madrid, though it 


was not circulated till 1522. Erasmus got his edition into circu- 
lation in 1516. "The Complutensian edition of 1514 was the first 
of more than a thousand editions of the New Testament in Greek" 
(E. J. Goodspeed, The Biblical World, March, 1914, p. 166). It 
thus comes to pass that the appearance of my Grammar marks 
the four hundredth anniversary of the first printed Greek New 
Testament, and the book takes its place in the long line of aids 
to the study of the "Book of Humanity." The Freer Gospels 
and the Karidethi Gospels show how much we have to expect 
in the way of discovery of manuscripts of the New Testament. 

I think with pleasure of the preacher or teacher who under 
the inspiration of this Grammar may turn afresh to his Greek 
New Testament and there find things new and old, the vital 
message all electric with power for the new age. That will be 
my joy so long as the book shall find use and service at the hands 
of the ministers of Jesus Christ. 

Louisville, Ky., 1914. 




Chapter I. New Material 3 

" II. The Historical Method 31 

" III. The KoLPv 49 

« IV. The Place of the New Testament in the Koivi] ... 76 


Chapter V. Word-Formation 143 

" VI. Orthography and Phonetics 177 

" VII. The Declensions 246 

" VIII. The Conjugation of the Verb 303 


Chapter IX. The Meaning of Syntax 379 

" X. The Sentence 390 

" XI. The Cases 446 

" XII. Adverbs 544 

" XIII. Prepositions 553 

" XIV. Adjectives 650 

" XV. Pronouns 676 

" XVI. The Article 754 

" XVII. Voice 797 

" XVIII. Tense 821 

" XIX. Mode •. . . . 911 

" XX. Verbal Nouns 1050 

" XXI. Particles 1142 

" XXII. Figures of Speech 1194 

Additional Notes l-'09 

Index of Subjects 1223 

Index of Greek Words 1-49 

Index of Quotations 1-^5 



I HAD prepared an exhaustive analytic bibliography of the per- 
tinent literature, but it was so long that, on the advice of several 
friends, I have substituted an alphabetical list of the main works 
mentioned in the book. The editions of Greek authors, the pa- 
pyri and the inscriptions will be found in the Index of Quota- 
tions. Look there for them. For full histories of grammatical 
discussion one may turn to Sandys, A History of Classical Scholar- 
ship, vols. I-III (1906-1908); Gudemann, GrundriB der Geschichte 
der klassischen Philologie (2. Aufl., 1909); and Hubner, Grund- 
riB zu Vorlesungen iiber die griechische Syntax (1883). By no 
means all the works consulted and referred to in the Grammar 
are given below. Only the most important can be mentioned. 
Hundreds that were consulted are not alluded to in the Gram- 
mar. But the following list represents fairly well the works that 
have contributed most to the making of my book. The chief 
journals quoted are also mentioned here. 

Abbott, E. A., Clue. A Guide through Greek to Hebrew (1904). 

, Johannine Grammar (1906). 

, Johannine Vocabulary (1905). 

A7n. J. Ph., The American Journal of Philology (Baltimore). 

Alexander, W. J., Participial Periphrases in Attic Orators (Am. 
J. Ph., IV, pp. 291-309). 

Allen, H. F., The Infinitive in Polybius compared with the In- 
finitive in Bibhcal Greek (1907). 

Am.. J. of Sem. L. and Lit., The American Journal of Semitic 
Languages and Literature (Chicago). 

Am. J. of TheoL, The American Journal of Theology (Chicago). 

Angus, S., Modern Methods in New Testament Philology (Har- 
vard Theol. Rev., Oct., 1909). 

, The KoiPT], the Language of the New Testament (Princ. 

Theol. Rev., Jan., 1910). 

Anz, H., Subsidia ad cognoscendum Graecorum sermonem vul- 
garum e Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina repetita (Diss, 
phil. Hal., XII, 1894, pp. 259-387). 


Apostolides, Essai sur rHellenisme figyptien et ses rapports 

avec I'Hellenisme cla.ssique et THellenisme moderne (1898). 
, Du grec alexandrin et des rapports avec le grec ancien et.le 

grec moderne (1892). 
Archiv fur Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gehiete (Leipzig). 
Arnaud, Essai sur le caractere de la langue grec du N. T. (1899). 
Arnold and Conway, The Restored Pronunciation of Greek and 

Latin (1885). 
AuDOiN, E., De la declinaison dans les langues indo-europeennes 

Babbitt, The Use of Mr] in Questions (Harvard Studies in Class. 

Phil., 1901). 
Bacon, Roger, Oxford Greek Grammar. Edited by Nolan and 

Hirsch (1902). 
Bamberg, Hauptregeln der griechischen Syntax (1890). 
Baron, Le Pronom Relatif et la Conjonctive en Grec (1892). 
Barry, W., The Holy Latin Tongue (Dublin Rev., April, 1906); 

Our Latin Bible (ib., July). 
Baumlein, Untersuchungen iiber die griech. Modi und die Par- 

tikeln Kev und av (1846). 

, Untersuch. iiber griech. Partikeln (1861). 

Bekker, Anecdota Graeca. 3 Bde. (1814-1821). 

Benard, Formes verbales en grec d'apres le texte d'Herodote 

Berdolt, Der Konsekutivsatz in der altern griech. Lit. (1896). 
Bernhardy, G., Wissenschaftliche Syntax der griechischen 

Sprache (1829). 
Bihl. Ec, Bibliotheque de I'ecole des hautes Etudes (Paris). 
Bibl. Gr. V., Bibliotheque grecque vulgaire (Paris). 
Bihl. S., The Bibliotheca Sacra (Oberlin). 
Bibl. W., The Biblical World (Chicago). 
BiRKE, De Particularum /xi? et ov Usu Polybiano Dionysiaeo Dio- 

doreo Straboniano (1897). 
BiRKLEiN, F., Entwickelungsgeschichte des substantivierten In- 

finitivs (1882). 
Blass, F., Acta Apostolorum (1895). 

, Die griech. Beredsamkeit von Alex, bis auf August. (1865). 

, Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa 

, Die rhythm. Kompos. d. Hebr.-Briefes (Theol. Stud, und 

Krit., 1902, pp. 420^61). 
, Evangelium sec. Lukam (1897). 


Blass, F., Grammatik d. neut. Griech. 2. Aufl. (1902). 

, Hermeneutik unci Kritik (1892). 

■ , Philology of the Gospels (1898). 

, Pronunciation of Ancient Greek (translation by Purton in 

1890 of 3. Aufl. of Tiber die Aussprache des Griech. (1888). 
Blass-Debrunner, Grammatik d. neut. Griech. 4. Aufl. (1913). 
Blass-Thackeray, Grammar of New Testament Greek. 2d ed. 

Bloomfield, study of Greek Accent (A. J. Ph., 1883). 
BoHMER, J., Das biblische "im Namen" (1898). 
BoiSACQ, Les dialectes doriens (1891). 

, Dictionnaire etymol. de la langue grecque (1907 ff.). 

BoLLiNG, The Participle in Hesiod (Cath. Univ. Bulletin, 1897). 

BoNHOFFER, A., Epiktet und das N. T. (1911). 

Bopp, Vergleichende Grammatik (1857). 

Br. W., The British Weekly (London). 

Broadus, John A., Comm. on Matt. (1886). 

Brockelmann, C., GrundriB der vergleichenden Grammatik der 

semitischen Sprachen (1907). 
Brugmann, K., Elements of Comparative Grammar of the Indo- 

Germanic Languages (translation by Wright, 1895). 
, Griechische Grammatik. 3. Aufl. (1900), the ed. quoted. 

Vierte vermehrte Aufl. of A. Thumb (1913). 
, GrundriB der vergl. Gr. d. indog. Sprachen. 2. Aufl., Bde. 

I, II (1897-1913). 
, Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen 

Sprachen (1904). 
Buck, C. D., Introduction to the Study of the Greek Dialects 

BuLTMANN, R., Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch- 

stoische Diatribe (1910). 
Buresch, Teyovav und anderes Vulgargriechisch (Rhein. Mus. 

f. Phil., 1891, pp. 193-232). 
BuRKiTT, F. C., Syriac Forms of N. T. Proper Names (1912). 
Burrows, R. M., Discoveries in Crete (1907). 
Burton, E. D., Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the N. T. 

Gk. 3d ed. (1909). 
BuRTON-ZwAAN, Syntax d. Wijzen etijden in h. Gr. N. T. (1906). 
Butcher, S. H., Some Aspects of the Greek Genius (1893). 

, Harvard Lectures on Greek Subjects (1904). 

BuTTMANN, A., Grammatik d. neut. Sprachgebrauchs (1859). 
Buttmann-Thayer, a Grammar of the N. T. Greek (1880). 


Bywater, J., The Erasmian Pronunciation of Greek and its Pre- 

• cursors (1908). 
Byz.Z., Byzantinische Zeitschrift (Leipzig). 
Cambr. Ph. J., Cambridge Philological Journal. 
Cath. Univ. Bull., Catholic University Bulletin. 
Cauer, Grammatica Militans. 3d ed. (1912). 
Chandler, H., A Practical Introduction to Greek Accentuation. 

2d ed. (1881). 
Chase, F. H., The Credibihty of the Acts (1902). 
Christ, W., Geschichte der griech. Literatur bis auf die Zeit Jus- 

tinians. 4. Aufl. (1905). 5. Aufl. (1913). 
Churton, The Influence of the Septuagint upon the Progress of 

Christianity (1861). 
Claflin, Edith, Syntax of Boeotian Dialect Inscriptions (1905). 
Classen, J., De Grammaticae Graecae Primordiis (1829). 
CI. Ph., Classical Philology (Chicago). 
CI. Q., Classical Quarterly (London). 
CI. Rev., Classical Review (London). 
CI. W., Classical Weekly (New York). 
Clyde, J., Greek Syntax (1876). 
CoMPERNASS, De Sermone Gr. Volg. Pisidiae Phrygiaeque meri- 

dionalis (1895). 
CoNYBEARE and Stock, Selections from the LXX. A Gram- 
matical Introduction (1905). 
CouRTOZ, Les Prefixes en Grec, en Latin et en Frangais (1894). 
Cremer, H., Biblico-Theological Lexicon of N. T. Greek (1892). 

Urwick's translation. 
, Bibl.-theol. Worterbuch d. neut. Gracitat. 9. Aufl. (1902). 

Cremer-Kligel, neue Aufl. (1912). 
Cronert, W., Memoria Graeca Herculanensis (1903). 

, Questiones Herculanenses (1898). 

Crum, W. E., Coptic Ostraca from the Collections of the Egypt 

Exploration Fund, the Cairo Museum and others (1902). 
Curtius, G., Greek Etymology. 2 vols. (1886). 

, Studien zur griech. und lat. Grammatik (1868-1878). 

Dalman, G., Grammatik des judisch-palastinischen Aramaisch 


, Worte Jesu (1902). 

, The Words of Jesus (1902). Translation by D. M. Kay. 

Dawes, E. S., Pronunciation of the Gk. Aspirates (1894). 

D. B., Dictionary of the Bible (Hastings, 1898-1904). 

D. C. G., Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (Hastings, 1906). 


Deissmann, a., Bible Studies (1901). Tr. by A. Grieve; cf. Bibel- 

studien (1895) and Neue Bibelstudien (1897). 

, Biblische Gracitat etc. (Theol. Rundschau, Okt. 1912). 

, Die Hellenisierung des semitischen Monotheismus (N. 

Jahrb. f. d. kl. Alt., 1903). 

, Die neut. Formel "in Christo" (1892). 

, Die Sprache d. griech. Bibel (Theol. Rundschau, 1906, 

. No. 116). 
, Die Urgeschichte des Christentums im Lichte der Sprach- 

forschung (Intern. Woch., 30. Okt. 1909). 
, Hellenistisches Griechisch (Herzog-Hauck's Realencyc, VII, 


, Licht vom Osten (1908). 

, Light from the Ancient East (1910). Tr. by Strachan. 

, New Light on the N. T. (1907). Tr. by Strachan. 

, Papyri (Encyc. Bibl., Ill, 1902). 

, St. Paul in the Light of Social and Religious History (1912). 

Delbrijck, B., Ablativ LocaHs Instrumentalis (1867). 

, GrundriU der vergl. Gramm. d. indog. Sprachen. " Syntax. 

Bde. III-V (1893, 1897, 1900). 
, Introduction to the Study of Language (1882). Einleitung 

in das Sprachstudium. 4. Aufl. (1904). 5. Aufl. (1913). 

, Syntaktische Forschungen. 5 Bde. (1871-1888). 

Dick, Der schriftstellerische Plural bei Paulus (1900). 

Dickey, S., New Points of View for the Study of the Greek of the 

N. T. (Princeton Theol. Rev., Oct., 1903). 
Diel, De enuntiatis finalibus apud graecorum rerum scriptores 

posterioris aetatis (1894). 
Dieterich, K., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Sprache von 

der hellen. Zeit bis zum 10. Jahrh. n. Chr. (1898). 
Donaldson, J. W., The New Cratylus (1859). 
Draeger, Hist. Syntax d. lat. Sprache (1878-1881). 
Dubl. Rev., The Dublin Review (Dublin). 
DtJRR, Sprachliche Untersuchungen (1899). 
Dyroff, a., Geschichte des Pronomen Reflexivum (1892, 1893). 
Earle, M. L., Classical Papers (1912). 

Ebeling, H., Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zum N. T. (1913). 
Eckinger, Die Orthographie lateinischer Worter in griech. In- 

schriften (1893). 
E. G. T., Expositor's Greek Testament. 
Encyc. Bibl., Encyclopaedia Biblica. 
Encyc. Brit., Encyclopaedia Britannica. 11th ed. (1910). 


Engel, E., Die Aussprache des Griechischen (1887). 

Ernault, Du Parfait en Grec et en Latin (1886). 

Evans, A. J., Cretan Pictographs and Pre-Phoenician Script 

, Further Researches (1898). 

Exp., The Expositor (London). 

Expos. T., The Expository Times (Edinburgh). 

Farnell, L. R., Greek Conditional and Relative Sentences (1892). 

Farrar, F. W., Greek Syntax (1876). 

Fick-Bechtel, Die griechischen Personennamen. 2. Aufl. (1894). 

Field, F., Otiura Norvicense. Pars Tertia (1881). 

Flensberg, tJber Ursprung und Bildung des Pron. auros (1893). 

Fowler, The Negatives of the Indo-European Languages (1896). 

FoY, K., Lautsystem der griech. Vulgarsprache (1879). 
^Frankel, Griechische Denominativa (1906). 

Frenzel, Die Entwick. des relativen Satzbaues im Griech. (1889). 

, Die Entwick. der Satze mit irpiv (1896). 

FucHS, A., Die Temporalsatze mit den Konjunktionen "bis" und 
"solangals" (1902). 

FiJHRER, De Particulae ws cum Participiis et Praepos. punctae 
Usu Thucydideo (1889). 

Galloway, W. F., On the Use of Mtj with the Participle in Clas- 
sical Greek (1897). 

Geddes, a Compendious Greek Grammar (1888). 

Gelbart, The Modern Greek Language in Its Relation to An- 
cient Greek (1870). 

Gersdorf, C. G., Beitrage zur Sprachcharakteristik der Schrift- 
steller des N. T. (1816). 

Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hebrew Grammar. 

Geyer, M., Observationes epigraphicae de praepositionum graec. 
forma et Usu (1880). 

GiLDERSLEEVE, B. L., Editions of Pindar and Justin Martyr. 

, Latin Grammar. Many editions since 1867. 

, Notes on Stahl's Syntax of the Greek Verb (1910). 

, Numerous articles in the American Journal of Philology. 

GiLDERSLEEVE and Miller, Syntax of Classical Greek. Part I 
(1900), Part II (1911). 

Gildersleeve Studies. Volume in honour of Prof. Gildersleeve of 
Johns Hopkins (1902). 

Giles, P., A Short Manual of Comparative Philology. 2d ed. 

, The Greek Language (Encyc. Britannica, 1910). 


Giles-Hertel, Vergl. Grammatik (1896). Tr. of Giles' Manual. 
GoETZELER, L., De Polybii elocutione (1887). 

, Einflufi d. Dion. Hal. auf d. Sprachgebrauch (1891). 

GooDSPEED, E. J., Did Alexandria Influence the Nautical Lan- 
guage of St. Luke? (The Expositor, VIII, 1903, pp. 130-141). 
Goodwin, W. W., Greek Grammar. Various editions. 
, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb. Rev. 

ed. (1890). 
Granit, De Inf. et Part, in Inscr. Dial. Graec. Questiones Sjnit. 

Green, Mrj for ov before Lucian (Studies in Honour of B. Gil- 

dersleeve, 1902)., 
Green, B., Notes on Greek and Latin Syntax (1897). 
Green, S. G., Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek N. T. 

Rev. ed. (1904). 
Gregory, C. R., Canon and Text of the N. T. (1907). 

, Die griech. Handschriften d. N. T. (1908). 

, Nov. Test. Graece, ed. Tischendorf. Bd. Ill, Prolegomena 


, Textkritik d. N. T. 3 Bde. (1900-1909). 

Grimm-Thayer, a Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T. (1887). 
GrIjnewald, L., Der freie formelhafte Inf. d. Limitation im 

Griech. (1888). 
GuDEMANN, A., GrundriB der Geschichte d. klass. Philologie. 

2. Aufl. (1909). 
GuiLLEMARD, W. H., Hebraisms in the Greek Testament (1879). 
GuNTHER, R., Die Prapos. in d. griech. Dialektinschriften (Indog. 

Forsch., 1906). 
Hadley and Allen, Greek Grammar (1895). 
Hadley, James, Essays Philological and Critical (1873). 
, Language of the N. T. (vol. II, Hackett and Abbott's ed. of 

Smith's B. D., 1898). 
Hahne, Zur sprachlichen Asthetik d. Griechischen (1896). 
Hale, W. G., The Anticipatory Subj. in Gk. and Lat. (Stud. CI. 

Phil., 1895). 

, The Cum Constructions (Studies in Class. Phil., 1887). 

, The Origin of Subj. and Opt. Conditions in Gk. and Lat. 

(Harvard Studies in Class. PhiloL, 1901). 
Hamilton, The Negative Conditions in Greek (1899). 
Hammer, De re Particulae Usu Herodoteo Thucydideo Xeno- 

phonteo (1904). 
Hammerschmidt, tjber die Grundb. von Konjunktiv und Optativ. 


Harnack, a., Luke the Physician (1907). 

, The Acts of the Apostles (1909). 

Harris, J. Rendel, Side-Lights on N. T. Research (1908). 
Harrison, Gessner, A Treatise on the Philology of Greek Prepo- 
sitions (1858). 
Harrison, Miss Jane, Prol. to the Study of Greek Religion (1903). 
Harsing, C., De Optativi in Chartis Aegyptiis Usu. Diss. Bonn 

Hartel, Abrifi der Gr. d. hom. und herod. Dial. (1888). 
Hartung, J. A., Lehre von den Partikeln der griech. Spr., I, II 

Hatch, E., Essays in Bibl. Greek (1892). 
Hatch, W. H. P., Some Illustrations of N. T. Usage from Greek 

Inscriptions of Asia Minor (Journ. of Bibl. Lit., 1908, pp. 

Hatzidakis, G. N., Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik 

Havers, W., Untersuch. zur Kasussyntax der indog. Sprachen 

Hawkins, J. C., Horae Synopticae. 2d ed. (1909). 
Heine, G., Synonymik des neutest. Griechisch (1898). 
Heinrici, K. F., Der literarische Charakter der neutest. Schriften 

HEiTMiJLLER, W., Im Namcu Jesu (1902). 
Helbing, R., Die Priipos. bei Herodot und andern Historikern 


, Grammatik der Septuaginta. Laut- und Wortlehre (1907). 

, tJber den Gebrauch des echten und soziativen Dativs bei 

Henry, Precis de grammaire du grec et du latin. 5th ed. (1894). 

Elliott's tr. of 1st ed. (1890). 
Hermes, Zeitschrift fiir klassische Philologie. 
Hesseling, D. C., De Koine en de oude dialekten van Griechen- 

land (1906). 
Hicks, E. L., St. Paul and Hellenism (Studia Biblica et EccL, 

, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the N. T. 

, Use of Political Terms in the N. T. (Class. Rev., March 

and April, 1887). 
Hicks, E. L., and Hill, G. F., A Manual of Greek Historical In- 
scriptions (1901). 


HiRT, H., Handbuch der griech. Laut- und Formenlehre (1902). 

2. Aufl. (1912). 
HoBART, W. K., The Medical Language of Luke (1882). 
Hoffmann, F., Neutestamentliche Bibelstudien, 5 Bde. (1903). 
, tjber die Entwick. des Begriffs der Grammatik bei den 

Alten (1891). 
Hoffmann, O., Das Prasens der indog. Grundsprache (1889). 

, Die griechische Dialekte, I-III (1891-1898). 

, Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihr Volkstum (1906). 

, Geschichte d. griech. Sprache (1911). 

Hogarth, D. G., Philip and Alexander (1897). 

HoLL, K., Das Fortleben der Volkssprachen in nachchristlicher 

Zeit (Hermes, 1908, 43, pp. 243 ff.). 
HooLE, C. H., The Classical Element in the N. T. (1888). 
HoRT, F. J. A., Notes on Orthography (pp. 141-173, vol. H of the 

N. T. in the Original Greek, 1882). 
Howes, The Use of Mrj with the Participle (Harv. St. in CI. Ph., 

Hatch and Redpath, Concordance to the LXX (1897). 
HiJBNER, E., GrundriB zu Vorlesungen iiber die griech. Syntax 

HuBSCHMANN, Zur Kasuslchre (1875). 
Humphreys, M. W., The Problems of Greek (Congress of Arts 

and Sciences, 1904, vol. Ill, pp. 171 ff.). 
Indog. Forsch., Indogermanische Forschungen (StraCburg). 
Immer, J., Hermeneutics of the N. T. Tr. by A. H. Newman 

Intern. Woch., Internationale Wochenschrift. 
Jacobsthal, H. K., Der Gebrauch der Tempora und Modi in 

den kretischen Dialektinschriften (1906). 
Jacquier, E., Histoire des Livres du N. T. Tomes I-IV. Ch. ii, 

Tome I, Langue du N. T. 
J. kl. Ph., Jahrbuch fiir klass. Philologie (Leipzig). 
Jannaris, a. N., a Historical Greek Grammar (1897). 
, On the True Meaning of the KoLvri (Class. Rev., 1903, pp. 

93 ff.). 
Jebb, R. C, Attic Orators. 2d ed. (1893). 

, Introduction to the Iliad and the Odyssey (1892). 

, On the Relation of Classical to Modern Greek (Appendix 

to Vincent and Dickson's Handbook to Mod. Gk., 1887). 
Jelf, W. E., a Grammar of the Greek Language. 2 vols. 



JoHANNESsoHN, M., Dgt Gebrauch der Kasus und der Praposi- 

tionen in der Septuaginta. Teil I (1910). 
Jolly, Ein Kapitel d. vergl. Syntax, Der Konjunktiv und Op- 


, Geschichte des Infinitivs im Indog. (1873). 

Joy, On the Syntax of Some Prepositions in the Greek Dialects 

J. of Phil., The Journal of Philology (London). 
J. B. L., The Journal of Bibhcal Literature (Boston). 
J. H. S., The Journal of Hellenic Studies (London). 
J. T. S., The Journal of Theological Studies (London). 
JtJLicHER, A., Introduction to the N. T. Tr. by Ward (1904). 
Kaerst, J., Geschichte des hellenistischen Zeitalters (1901). 
Kaibel, Stil und Text der 'AQtivaiwv IIoXtTeta. 
Kalker, F., Questiones de elocutione Polybiana (1880). 
Kallenberg, Stud, iiber den griech. Artikel (1891). 
Kautzsch, E., Grammatik d. bibl. Aram. (1884). 
Kennedy, H. A. A., Recent Research in the Language of the 

N. T. (The Expos. T., xii, 1901). 

, Sources of N. T. Greek (1895). 

, St Paul and the Mystery Rehgions (1913). 

Kenyon, F. G., Evidence of the Papyri for Textual Criticism of 

the N. T. (1905). 

, Handbook to the Textual Grit, of the N. T. 2d ed. (1912). 

, Palseography of the Greek Papyri (1899). 

, Papyri (Hastings' D. B., extra vol., 1904). 

King and Cookson, The Principles of Sound and Inflexion as 

Illustrated in the Greek and Latin Languages (1888). 
Krauss, S,, Griechische und lateinische Lehnworter in Talmud, 

Midrasch und Targum. I (1898), II (1899). 
Krebs, F., Die Prapositionen bei Polybius (1882. Schanz' Bei- 

, Die Prapositionsadverbien in der spateren hist. Gracitat. 

Tl. I (1889). 
, Zur Rektion der Kasus in der spateren hist. Gracit. (1887- 

Krenkel, Josephus und Lukas (1894). 
Kretschmer, p., Die Einl. in die Geschichte der griech, Sprache 


, Die Entstehung der Kotj'^ (Sitz. ber, d, Wien. Akad., 1900), 

, Die griech, Vaseninschriften ihrer Sprache nach untersucht 



Krumbacher, K., Beitrage zu einer Geschichte der griech. 

Sprache (Kuhn's Zeitschr., 1885, pp. 481-545). 

, Das Problem d. neugriech. Schriftsprache (1902). 

, Das Programm des neuen Thesaurus d. griech. Spr. (1909). 

, Die griech. Lit. des Mittelalters (Kultur d. Gegenwart, 

Tl. I, Abt. viii, 1905). 
Kuhner-Blass, AusfiihrHche Grammatik d. griech. Sprache. 

3. Aufl. of Kuhner. Teil I, Bde. I, II (1890, 1892). 
Kuhner-Gerth, Ausf. Gramm. d. griech. Spr. 3. Aufl. of Kiihner. 

Tl. II, Bde. I, II (1898, 1904). 
KuHRiNG, G., De praepositionum Graecarum in chartis Aegyp- 

tiacis (1906). 
KuPFF, Der Gebr. d. Opt. bei Diod. Sic. (1903). 
K. Z., Kuhn's Zeitschrift flir vergl. Sprachforschung (Berlin). 
Lafoscade, Infl. du Lat. sur le Grec (Bibl. de TEcole des hautes 

fit., 1892, pp. 83-158). 
Lagarde, p. de, Septuagintastudien. I (1891). 
Lake, K., The Text of the N. T. 4th ed. (1908). 
Lambert, fitude sur le dialecte eolien (1903). 
Lang, A., Homer and His Age (1906). 
Laqueur, R., Questiones epigraphicae et papyrologicae selectae 

La Roche, Beitrage zur griech. Gr. (1883). 

, Das Augment des griech. Verbums (1882). 

Laughlin, T. C., The Solecisms of the Apocalypse (1902). 

Lautensach, Verbalflexion der attischen Inschriften (1887). 

Lefevre, Race and Language (1909). 

Lell, Der Absolut-Akk. im Griech. bis zu Aristoteles (1892). 

Leutner, W. G., The Article in Theocritus (1907). 

LiDDELL and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon. 7th ed. (1882). 

LiETZMANN, H., Die klass. Philologie und das N. T. (N. Jahrb. 

f. kl. Alt., 1908, Bd. 21). 

, Griechische Papyri ausgewahlt und erklart. 2. Aufl. (1910). 

Lightfoot, Trench, Ellicott, The Revision of the N. T. (1873). 
Lipsius, K. HA-'., Grammatische Untersuchungen iiber die bibl. 

Gracitat (1863). 
Livingston, The Greek Genius and Its Meaning to Us (1912). 
LoBECK, C. A., Phrynichi ecloga nominum et verborum Atticorum 

Lock, W., The Bible and Christian Life (1905). 
LoiSY, A., Histoire critique du texte et des versions de la Bible 



LoTTicH, B., De sermone vulgari Atticorum (1881). 
LuTZ, Die Kasus-Adverbien bei att. Rednern (1891). 
Madvig, Bemerk. iiber einige Punkte des Griech. (1848). 

, Syntax of the Greek Language (1880). 

Mahaffy, J. P., A Survey of Greek Civilization (1897). 

, Greek Life and Thought (1896). 

, Progress of Hellenism in Alexander's Empire (1905). 

, The Greek World under Roman Sway (1890). 

, What Have the Greeks Done for Civilization? (1909). 

Margoliouth, D. S., Language of the O. T. (Hastings' D. B.). 
Margolis, The Particle ij in O. T. Gk. (Am. J. of Sem. Lang, and 

Lit., July, 1909). 
Marshall, J. T., The Aramaic Gospel (The Expositor, ser. IV, 

ii, iii, iv, vi, viii; The Expos. Times, iv, 260). 
Marti, K., Kurzgef. Gr. d. bibl. aram. Spr. (1911). 
Mayser, E., Grammatik der griech. Papyri aus der Ptolemaerzeit. 

Laut- und Wortlehre (1906). 
Meillet, a.. Introduction h 1' etude comparative des langues indo- 

europeennes (1908). 3d ed. (1912). 

, L'aoriste en lat. (Revue de Phil., 1897, p. 81 f.). 

, Notes d'fitymologie Grecque (1896). 

Meister, R., Beitrage zur Lautlehre d. LXX (1909). 

, Der syntakt. Gebrauch d. Genitivs in den kret. Dialekt- 

inschriften (Indog. Forsch., XVIII, pp. 133-204). 

■ , Die griech. Dialekte. 2 Bde. (1882-1889). 

, Prol. zu einer Gramm. d. LXX (1907). 

Meisterhans-Schwyzer, Gramm. d. attischen Inschriften. 3. 

Aufl. (1900) of Meisterhans. 
Merriam, a. C, Temporal Coincidence of the Aor. Part, with the 

Principal Verb (Proc. Am. Phil. Assoc, 1877). 
Meyer, A., Jesu Muttersprache (1896). 
Meyer, G., Griech. Grammatik. 3. Aufl. (1896). 
Meyer, L., Griech. Aoriste (1879). 
, Vergl. Gr. d. griech. und lat. Spr. 2 Bde. 2. Aufl. (1882- 

1884). h.. 

MEYER-LtJBKE, Gramm. d. roman. Spr. 3 Bde. (1890-1899). 
MiDDLETON, Analogy in Sjmtax (1892). 

, The Doctrine of the Greek Article (1855). 

MiLDEN, The Limitations of the Predicate Position in Greek. 
Miller, C. W. E., The Limitation of the Imperative in the Attic 

Orators (Am. J. Ph., 1892, pp. 399-436). 
MiLLiGAN, G., Selections from the Greek Papyri (1910). 


MiLLiGAN, G., The Greek Papyri with Special Reference to their 
Value for N. T. Study (1912). 

, The N. T. Documents (1913). 

MiTSOTAKis, Praktische Gr. d. neugriech. Schrift- und Umgangs- 
sprache (1891). 

MiTTEis und WiLCKEN, Grundziige und Chrestomathie der Papy- 
ruskunde. 2 Bde. (1912). 

MoFFATT, J., The New Testament. A New Translation (1913). 

MoMMSEN, T., Beitrage zur Lehre der griech. Prapositionen 

, Die Prap. crvp und nera bei den nachhom. Epikern (1879). 

Monro, D. B., Homeric Grammar (1882). 2d ed. (1891). First 
ed. used. 

Moulton; J. H., A Grammar of N. T. Greek. Vol. I, Prolego- 
mena (1906). 3d ed. (1908). 

, Characteristics of N. T. Greek (The Expositor, 1904). 

, Einleitung in die Sprache des N. T. (1911). 

, Grammatical Notes from the Papyri (The Expositor, 1901, 

pp. 271-282; 1903, pp. 104-121, 423-439. The Classical Re- 
view, 1901, pp. 31-37, 434-441; 1904, pp. 106-112, 151-155). 

, Introduction to N. T. Greek (1895). 2d ed. (1904). 

, Language of Christ (Hastings' One-vol. D. B., 1909). 

, N. T. Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery (Cambr. 

Bibl. Essays, 1909, pp. 461-505). 

, The Science of Language (1903). 

Moulton, W. F., and Geden, A. S., A Concordance to the Greek 
Testament (1897). 

Moulton and Milligan, Lexical Notes from the Papyri (The 
Expos., 1908—). 

, A Lexicon of N. T. Greek based on these "Notes" is 


MozLEY, F. W., Notes on the Bibl. Use of the Present and Aorist 
Imperative (Journ. of Theol. Stud., 1903, iv, pp. 279-282). 

MuLLACH, F., Grammatik d. griech. Vulgarsprache (1856). 

MtJLLER, H. C, Hist. Gramm. d. hellen. Sprache (1891). 

MtJLLER, I., Handbuch d. klass. Altertumswissenschaft (1885 — ). 

MtJLLER, Max, Three Lectures on the Science of Language (1891). 

Murray, G., A History of Ancient Greek Lit. (1897). 

MuTZBAUER, C, Die Grundbedeutung des Konjunktivs und Op- 
tativs und ihre Entwick. im Griech. (1908). 

, Die Grundlagen der griech. Tempuslehre und des hom. 

Tempusgebrauchs. I (1893), II (1909). 


Nachmanson, E., Beitrage zur Kenntnis der altgriech. Volks- 

sprache (1910). 
, Epigraphisch-grammatische Bemerkungen (Eranos 11, 


, Laute und Formen der magnetischen Inschriften (1903). 

Nageli, T., Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus. a — e (1905). 
Navarre, Etude sur les particules grecques (R. E. A., vii, pp. 

Nestle, E., Einfiihrung in das griech. N. T. 2. Aufl. (1899). 

Introd. to the Textual Crit. of the N. T. (Tr. 1901). 

, Novum Testamentum Graece. 8th ed. (1910). 

, Septuagint (Hastings' D. B., 1902). 

, Septuaginta-Studien. I-V (1886-1907). 

, Zum neutest. Griechisch (Z. N. W., vii, 1906). ' 

Neubauer, Studia Bibhca (1885). 

N. k. Z., Neue kirchhche Zeitschrift (Leipzig). 

N. Jahrb. U. Alt, Neue Jahrbiieher fiir das klass. Altertum 

NiLssoN, Kausalsatze im Griech. bis Aristoteles. I., Die Poesie. 
NoRDEN, E., Die antike Kunstprosa. 2. Aufl. (1909). 
Oertel, H., Lectures on tlie Study of Language (1902). 
Ogden, De infinitivi finalis vel consecutivi constr. apud priscos 

poetas Graecos (1913). 
Paley, Greek Particles and their Combinations (1881). 
Pallis, A., A Few Notes on the Gospel (1903). 
, 'H Nea ^la^r]Kr) (1902). The N. T. (Gospels) in modern 

Greek vernacular. 
Pater, W., The Renaissance (1904). 

Paul, H., Principles of the History of Language (1888). Tr. 
Petersen, W., Greek Diminutives in -lov (1910). 
Pfeifauf, Der Artikel vor Personen- und Gotternamen bei Thuk. 

und Herod. (1908). 
Pfister, Die parataktische Darstellungsform in der volkstiim- 
hchen Erzahlung (Woch. f. klass. Phil, 1911, pp. 809-813). 
Ph. W., Philologische Wochenschrift. 
Ph. Z., Philologus: Zeitschrift f. d. kl. Alt. (Gottingen). 
Postgate, J. p.. Contrasts of Oh and M?? (Cambr. Phil. Jour., 1886). 
Prellwitz, Etym. Worterbuch d. griech. Sprache (1893). 2d ed. 

Preuschen, E., Vollstandiges griechisch-deutsches Handworter- 
buch zu den Schriften d. N. T. und d. ubrigen urchristlichen 
Literatur (1908). 


Pr. Rev., The Princeton Review (Princeton). 

PsiCHARi, J., Essai sur le grec de la Septante (Rev. des etudes 

juives, April, 1908). 

, Essais de grammaire historique neo-grecque (1886-1889). 

Radermacher, L., Neut. Grammatik. Das Griechisch des N. T. 

im Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache (1911). 
Ramsay, W. M., Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. 2 vols. (1895, 


, St. Paul the Traveller (1896). 

R. E., Herzog-Hauck's Realencyclopadie. 
R. E. Gr., Revue des etudes grecques (Paris). 
Reffel, tJber den Sprachgebr. d. Agathias. 
Reik, Der Opt. bei Polyb. und Philo (1907). 
Reinach, S., Pap. grecs et demotiques (1905). 
Reinhold, H., De graecitate Patrum (1898). 
Reisart, Zur Attraktion der Relativsatze in der griech. Prosa. 
Reitzenstein, Geschichte d. griech. Etym. (1897). 
Renaud, The Distributed Emphasis of the Pers. Pronoun (1884). 
Rev. and Exp., The Review and Expositor (Louisville). 
Rev. d. Ling., Revue de Linguistique de la Phil, comparee (Paris). 
Rev. d. Ph., Revue de Philologie (Paris). 

Rev. of Th. & Ph., Review of Theology and Philosophy (Edin- 
burgh) . 
Rh. M., Rheinisches Museum (Bonn). 
Ridgeway, W., The Early Age of Greece. Vol. I (1901). 
RiEMANN and Goelzer, Grammaire Comparee du Grec et du 

Latin. I (1897), II (1901). 
RiES, Was ist Syntax? (1894). 
Roberts, A Short Proof that Greek was the Language of Jesus 

Roberts-Gardner, Introduction to Greek Epigraphy (1883). 
Robertson, A. T. A Short Grammar of the Greek N. T. (1908). 

3d ed. (1912). 

, Syllabus on N. T. Greek Syntax (1900). 

Robertson-Bonaccorsi, Breve grammatica del Nuovo Testa- 

mento greco (1910). 
Robertson-Grosheide, Beknopte Grammatica op het Grieksche 

Nieuwe Testament (1912). 
Robertson-Montet, Grammaire du grec du N. T. (1911). 
Robertson-Stocks, KurzgefaBte Grammatik des neut. Griechisch 

Rose, A., Christian Greece and Living Greek (1898). 


RossBERG, C, De prapos. graecamm in chartis aegyptiis ptolem. 

aetatis usu (1909). 
RouFFiAC, J., Recherches sur les caracteres du grec dans le N. T. 

d'apres les inscriptions de Priene (1911). 
Rutherford, W. G., A Chapter in the History of Annotation 


, The New Phrynichus (1881). 

RiJGER, Prap. bei Joh. Antiochenus (1896). 

, Priip. bei Pausanias (1889). 

Sand AY, W., The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel (1905). 
Sandys, J. E., A History of Classical Scholarship. I-III (1906- 

Sayce, a. H., Introduction to the Science of Language (1880). 

, Language (Encyc. Brit., Uth ed., 1910). 

, Principles of Comparative Philology (1875). 

ScHAEFER, Das Partizip des Aor. bei d. Tragikern (1894). 
ScHAFF, p., A Companion to the Greek N. T. and Engl. Vers. 

3d ed. (1889). 
ScHANZ, M., Beitrage zur histor. Syntax d. griech. Sprache 

Schilling, D., Comm. exeg.-philol. im Hebraism, d. N. T. (1886). 
ScHiRLiTZ, S. C, Anleitung zur Kenntnis d. neut. Grundsprache 

ScHLACHTER, Statist. Unters. iiber den Gebr. der Temp, und 

Modi bei einzelnen griech. Schriftst. (1908). 
ScHLAGETER, J., Der Wortschatz d. auCerhalb Attikas gefunde- 

nen Inschriften (1912). 
, Zur Laut- und Formenlehre d. aufi. Att. gef . attischen Inschr. 

Schleicher, A., Compendium d. vergl. Gr. d. indog. Sprachen. 

4. Aufl. (1876). 
ScHMiD, J., tJber den gnomischen Aor. des Griech. (1894). 
ScHMiD, W., Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern. 4 Bde. 

Schmidt, De Articulo in nominibus propiis apud Att. scriptores 

Schmidt, W., De Flavii Josephi elocutione (1894). 
ScHMiTT, P., tJber den Ursprung des Substantivsatzes mit Rela- 

tivpartikeln im Griech. (1889). 
Schoemann, Die Lehre von den Redet. nach den Alten (1862). 
Schroeder, tlber die form. Untersch. d. Redet. im Griech. und 

Lat. (1874). 


ScHUERER, A., A History of the Jew. P. in the Time of Jesus 

Christ. 5 vols. (1898). Tr. by Macpherson. 
ScHULZE, Der schriftsteller. Charakter unci Wert des Petrus, Judas 

und Jakobus (1802). 
ScHULZE, W., Graeca Latina (1901). 
Schwab, O., Hist. Syntax der griech. Komparative in d. klass. 

Lit. Heft I (1893), II (1894), III (1895). 
ScHWEiZER, E., Bericht iiber die Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der 

griech, Sprachw. mit Ausschlufi der Koine und der Dialekte 

in den Jahren 1890-1903 (Bursian's Jahresbericht, cxx, 1904, 

pp. 1-152). 
, Die griech. Sprache in Zeit d. Hellen. (N. Jahrb. f. kl. Alt., 

1901, vii, viii). 

, Grammatik der pergamen. Inschriften (1898). 

, Neugriech. Sjmtax und altgriech. (N. Jahrb. f. kl. Alt., 1908, 

pp. 498-507). 
ScHWYZER (Schweizer), E., Die Weltsprachen des Altertums 

ScoMP, H. A., The Case Absolute in the N. T. (Bibl. Sacra, April, 

Seymour, T. D., Homeric Language and Verse (1902). 

, Life in the Homeric Age (1907). 

, The Use of the Gk. Aor. Part. (Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc, XII, 

1881, pp. 88 ff.). 
S. H., Sanday and Headlam on Romans. 
Sharp, G., Remarks on the Definitive Article in the Greek of the 

N. T. (1803). 
Sheffield, A. D., Grammar and Thinking (1912). 
SiMCOX, W. H., The Language of the N. T. (1890). 

, The Writers of the N. T. 

SiMONSON, A., A Greek Grammar. 2 vols. (1903, 1908). 

Smith, R. H., The Theory of Conditional Sentences in Greek and 

Latin (1894). 
Smyth, H. W., The Sounds and Inflexions of Greek Dialects. I, 

Ionic (1894). 
SoDEN, H. VON, Die Schriften des N. T. in ihrer altesten erreich- 

baren Textgestalt. Teil I, Untersuch. (1902-1910) ; Teil II, 

Text und Apparat (1913). 

, Griechisches N. T. Text mit kurzem Apparat (1913). 

SoLMSEN, F., Beitrage zur griech. Wortforschung (1909). 

, Inscriptiones graecae selectae (1905). 

, Untersuch. zur griech. Laut- und Verslehre (1901). 


Sophocles, E. A., Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine 

Period (1888). 
SouTER, A., Novum Testamentum Graece (1910). The Revisers' 

Text with a New Apparatus Criticus. 
Spieker, The Gen. Abs. in the Attic Orators (Am. J. of Ph., VI, 

pp. 310-343). 
SL B., Standard Bible Dictionary (Ed. by M. W. Jacobus, 1909). 
Stahl, J. M., Kritisch-historische Syntax des griech. Verbums 

der klass. Zeit. (1907). 
Staurac, tjber den Gebr. d. Gen. bei Herodot. 
Steinthal, H., Geschichte der Sprachwiss. bei den Griech. und 

Romern. 2. Aufl. (1890-1891). 
, Introduction to the Psychology and Science of Language 

Sterenbourg, The Use of the Cond. Sentence in the Alex. Ver- 
sion of the Pentateuch (1908). 
Sterrett, J. R. S., Homer's Ihad with Grammar (1907). 
Stocks, H., Das neutestamentliche Griechisch im Lichte der mo- 

dernen Sprachforschung (Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, XXIV. 

Jahrgang, 633-700). 
Strack, H. L., Grammatik des bibl. Aram. 4. Aufl. (1905). 
Strong, Logeman and Wheeler, Introduction to the Study of 

the History of Lang. (1891). 
Sturm, J., Geschichtl. Entwick. der Konstrukt. mit Upiu (1882). 
Sturtevant, Studies in Greek Noun Formation (01. Philol., VII, 

4, 1912). 
SusEMiHL, Gesch. der griech. Lit. in der Alexandrinerzeit. I (1891), 

II (1892). 
SiJTTERLiN, Gesch. der Verba denom. in Altgriech. (1891). 
Sweet, History of Language (1900). 
SwETE, H. B., Introduction to the O. T. in Greek (1900). 

, The Apocalypse of St. John (1906). 

, The 0. T. in Greek according to the Septuagint (1887). 

3 vols. 
SzuczuRAT, De Inf. Hom. Usu (1902). 
Telfy, Chron. und Topogr. der griech. Ausspr. nach d. Zeugnisse 

der Inschr. (1893). 
■ Thackeray, H. St., A Grammar of the O. T. in Greek. Vol. I, 

Introduction, Orthography and Accidence (1909). 

, Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Thought (1900). 

Thayer, J. H., Greek-Enghsh Lexicon of the N. T. (1887). 
, Language of the N. T. (Hastings' D. B., 1900). 


Theimer, a., Beitrage zur Kenntnis des Sprachgebr. im N. T. 

Th. L.-Z., Theologische Literaturzeitung (Leipzig). 
Th. R., Theologische Rundschau (Tubingen). 
Th. St. u. Kr., Theol. Studicn und Kritiken (Gotha). 
Thieme, G., Die Inschr. von Magnesia am Maander und das 

N. T. (1906). 
Tholuck, Beitrage zur Spracherklarung des N. T. 
Thompson, E. M., Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography 

(1893). New ed. (1913). 
Thompson, F. E., A Syntax of Attic Greek. New ed. (1907). 
Thomson, J. E. H., The Language of Palestine during the Time 

of Our Lord (Temple Bible Diet.). 
Thomson, P., The Greek Tenses in the N. T. (1895). 
Thouvenin, p., Les Negations dans le N. T. (Revue de Philologie, 

Thumb, A., Die Forsch. liber die hellen. Spr. in den Jahren 

1902-1904 (Arch. f. Pap. 3, pp. 443-473). 

, Die griech. Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus (1901). 

, Die sprachgesch. Stell. des bibl. Griech. (Theol. Rund., 1902). 

, Handbuch der griech. Dial. (1909). 

, Handbuch d. neugriech. Volkssprache. 2. Aufl. (1910). 

, Handbuch des Sanskrits. I, Grammatik (1905). 

, Unters. iiber d. Sp. Asper im Griech. (1889). 

Thumb-Angus, Handbook of the Modern Greek Vernacular 

TiscH., Novum Testamentum Graece, by C. Tischendorf. Edi- 

tio octava critica major. 2 vols. (1869-1872). 
Trench, R. C., Synonyms of the N. T. 11th ed. (1890). Deutsche 

Ausgabe von Werner (1907). 
TsouNTAS and Manatt, The Mycenaean Age (1897). 
Tucker, T. G., Litroduction to the Natural History of Language 

Vandacle, L'Optatif Grec (1897). 

Veitch, W., Greek Verbs, Irregular and Defective. 2d ed. (1871). 
Viereck, p.. Die griech. Papyruskunde (1899-1905). 34. Jahr- 

gang 1906. UL Abt. (1907). 
, Die Papyrusliteratur in den 70 Jahren bis 1898 (1900). 

27. Jahrgang 1899. IIL Abt. 

, Sermo Graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus (1888). 

ViERKE, De A£T7 Particulae cum Indicative Conjunctae Usu An- 

tiquiore (1876). 


Vincent and Dickson, A Handbook to Modern Greek (1887). 
ViTEAU, J., Essai sur la syntaxe des voix dans le grec du N. T. 

(Rev. de Phil., 1894). 
, Etude sur le grec du N. T. I, Le Verbe (1893) ; II, Le Sujet 

VoGEL, H., Zur Charakteristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil 

Vogrinz, Grammatik d. hom. Dial. (1889). 
VoLKER, F., Papyrorum graecorum syntaxis specimen (1900). 

, Syntax d. griech. Papyri. I, Der Artikel (1903). 

VoTAW, C. W., The Use of the Infinitive in Bibl. Greek (1896). 
Wackernagel, J., Das Dehnungsgesetz der griech. Komposita 

, Die hellenistische Gemeinsprache. (Die Kult. d. Gegenwart, 

Tl. I, Abt. viii, 1905, pp. 98-305). 

, Die Sprache des Plut. etc. Teile I, II (1895-1896). 

Wagner, R., Questiones de epigrammatis graecis ex lapidibus 

collectis grammaticae (1883). 
Walch, Observationes in Matt, ex graecis inscriptionibus (1779). 
Walker, D., Elementary Greek Syntax (1897). 
Warfield, B. B., An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of 

the N. T. New ed. (1914). 
Warren, Winifred, A Study of Conjunctional Temporal Clauses 

in Thucyd. (1897). 
Weber, P., Entwick. der Absichtssatze. Heft I (1884), Heft II 

Wecklein, Curae epigraphicae ad grammaticam graecam et ad 

poetas scenicos pertinentes (1869). 
Weiss, B., Der Gebr. des Artikels bei den Gottesnamen (Th. 

Stu. u. Krit., 1911, pp. 319-392). 

, Textkritik (1894 ff.). 

Weiss, J., Beitrage zur paulinischen Rhetorik (1897). 
Wellhausen, J., Einl. in die drei ersten Evangelien (1905). 

2. Ausg. (1911). 
Wendland, p., Christentum und Hellenismus (1907). 

, Hellen.-rom. Kultur. 3. Aufl. (1912). 

Wesseley, C, Die lat. Elemente in d. Gracitat d. agypt. Pap. 

(Wien. Stud., xxiv, 1902). 
, Lit. der Papyruskunde (Stud, zur Palaogr. und Pap. I, 

1901, pp. 17-20; II, 1902, pp. 43-52). 
, Proleg. ad papyrorum graecorum novam collectionem eden- 

dam (1883). 


Westcott, B. F., Language of the N. T. (Smith's B. D.). 

W. H., Westcott and Hort's Edition of the N. T. in the Original 

Greek. Numerous eds. 
, The N. T. in the Original Greek. Introduction and Appen- 
dix (1882). 
Weymouth, On the Rendering into English of the Greek Aorist 

and Perfect (1894). 
Wheeler, B. I., The Whence and the Whither of the Modern 

Science of Language (1905). 
Whibley, L., Companion to Greek Studies (1905). 2d ed. (1906). 
Whitney, S. W., The Revisers' Greek Text. 2 vols. (1892). 
Whitney, W. D., A Sanskrit Grammar (1891). 4th ed. (1913). 

, Language and the Study of Language (1867). 

, Life and Growth of Language (1875). 

WiLAMOWiTZ-MoLLENDORFF, U. VON, Die griech. Literatur des 

Altertums (Die Kult. d. Gegenw., 1907, Tl. I, Abt. viii, pp. 

3-238. 3. Aufl. 1912). 
, tjber die Entstehung der griech. Schriftsprachen (Verf. 

deutscher Phil, und Schulm., 1879, pp. 36^1). 
WiLCKEN, U., Die Forschungen tiber die hellen. Spr. in den 

Jahren 1902-1904 (Archiv f. Pap., 1906, pp. 443-473). 
Wilhelm, a., Beitrage zur griech. Inschriftenkunde (1909). 
WiLHELMUs, De Modo Irreali qui Vocatur (1881). 
WiLKE, Neutestamentliche Rhetorik (1843). 
Williams, C. B., The Participle in the Book of Acts (1908). 
Wilson, A. J., Emphasis in the N. T. (Jour, of Th. Stud., VIII, 

pp. 75ff.). 
Winer, G. B., De verborum cum praep. compos, in N. T. Usu 

, Gramm. d. neut. Sprachidioms (1822). 7. Aufl. von Liine- 

mann (1867). 
Winer-Masson, a Grammar of the N. T. Gk. (1859). 
WiNER-MouLTON, A Treatise of the Grammar of N. T. Gk. 3d 

ed. (1882). Various eds. 
WiNER-ScHMiEDEL, Winer's Grammatik des neutest. Sprach- 
idioms. 8. Aufl. (1894—). 
Winer-Thayer, a Grammar of the Idiom of the N. T. (1869). 

Various eds. 
WiTKOWSKi, St., Bericht iiber die Lit. zur Koine aus den Jahren 

1898-1902 (Bursian's Jahrb. CXX, 1904, pp. 153-256). 
, Bericht iiber die Lit. zur Koine aus den Jahren 1903-1906 

(Jahresber. f. Alt., 1912, III. Bd., 159). 


WiTKOWSKi, St., Epistulae privatae graecae (1906). 

, Prodromus grammaticae papyrorum graecarum aetatis 

Lagidarum (1897). 

Woch. /. M. Ph., Wochenschrift fiir klassische Philologie. 

Wright, J., A Comparative Grammar of the Greek Language 

WuNDT, Volkerpsychologie. 2. Aufl. (1904). 3. Aufl. (1911 f.). 

Young, Language of Christ (Hastings' D. C. G.). 

Zahn, Th., Einl. in das N. T. Bd. I (1906), II (1907). 

, On the Language of Palestine. Vol. I, pp. 1-72. Introduc- 
tion to the N. T. Tr. by Jacobus (1909). 

Zarncke, E., Die Entstehung der griech. Literatursprachen 

Zeitlin, The Ace. with Inf. and Some Kindred Constrs. in Eng- 
lish (1908). 

Zezschwitz, Profangrac. und bibl. Sprachg. (1859). 

ZiEMER, Vergl. Syntax der indog. Kompar. (1884). 

Z. N.-T. W., Zeitschrift fiir neut. Wissenschaft (GieBen). 



The Ideal Grammar? Perhaps the ideal grammar of the New 
Testament Greek may never be written. It is a supremely diffi- 
cult task to interpret accurately the forms of human speech, for 
they have life and change with the years. But few themes have 
possessed greater charm for the best furnished scholars of the 
world than the study of language.^ 

The language of the N. T. has a special interest by reason of 
the message that it bears. Every word and phrase calls for 
minute investigation where so much is at stake. It is the task 
and the duty of the N. T. student to apply the results of linguistic 
research to the Greek of the N. T. But, strange to say, this has 
not been adequately done.^ 

New Testament study has made remarkable progress in the 
sphere of criticism, history and interpretation, but has lagged 
behind in this department. A brief survey of the literary history 
of the subject shows it. 

I. The Pre-Winer Period. It was Winer who in 1822 made a 
new epoch in N. T. grammatical study by his Neutestamentliches 
Sprachidiom. It is hardly possible for the student of the present 
day to enter into sympathy with the inanities and sinuosities 
that characterized the previous treatises on the N. T. idiom. 
Not alone in the controversy between the Purists and Hebraists 
was this true, but writers like Storr, by a secret system of quid 
pro quo, cut the Gordian knot of grammatical difficulty by ex- 
plaining one term as used for another, one preposition for an- 
other, one case for another, etc. As a university tutor Winer 

1 See J. Classen, De Gr. Graecae Primordiis, 1S29, p. 1, who says: "Inter 
humani ingenii inventa, quae diuturna consuetudine quasi naturae iura adepta 
sunt, nullum fere magis invaluit et pervulgatuni est, quani grannnaticae ratio 
ct usus." 

2 "And despite the enormous advance since the days of Winer toward a 
rational and unitary conception of the N. T. language, we still labour to-day 
under the remains of the old conceptions." Samuel Dickey, Prince. Thcol. 
Rev., Oct., 1903, "New Points of View." 



combated "this absurd system of interpretation," and not 
without success in spite of receiving some sneers. He had the 
temerity to insist on this order of interpretation: grammatical, 
historical, theological. He adhered to his task and lived to see 
"an enlightened philology, as deduced and taught by Herrmann 
and his school," triumph over the previous "unbridled license."^ 

II. The Service of Winer. 

(a) Winer's Inconsistencies. It must be said, however, that 
great as was the service of Winer to this science, he did not at all 
points carry out consistently his own principles, for he often ex- 
plained one tense as used for another. He was not able to rise 
entirely above the point of view of his time nor to make persist- 
ent application of the philosophical grammar. It is to be borne 
in mind also that the great science of comparative philology had 
not revolutionized linguistic study when Winer first wrote. In a 
true sense he was a pathfinder. 

(6) Winer Epoch-Making.— Winer IN English. But none the 
less his work has been the epoch-making one for N. T. study. 
After his death Dr. Gottlieb Liinemann revised and improved the 
NeutestamentUcJies Sprachidwm. Translations of Winer's Gram- 
matik into English were first made by Prof. Masson of Edin- 
burgh, then by Prof. Thayer of Harvard (revision of Masson), 
and finally by Prof. W. F. Moulton of Cambridge, who added 
excellent footnotes, especially concerning points in modern Greek. 
The various editions of Winer-Thayer and Winer-Moulton have 
served nearly two generations of English and American scholars. 

(c) ScHMiEDEL. But uow at last Prof. Schmiedel of Ziirich is 
thoroughly revising Winer's Grammatik, but it is proceeding 
slowly and does not radically change Winer's method, though 
use is made of much of the modern knowledge.^ Deissmann,^ 
indeed, expresses disappointment in this regard concerning 
Schmiedel's work as being far "too much Winer and too little 
Schmiedel." But Deissmann concedes that Schmiedel's work 
"marks a characteristic and decisive turning-point in N. T. 

1 See Pref . to the sixth and last ed. by Winer himself as translated by Dr. 
J. H. Thayer in the seventh and enlarged ed. of 1869. 

2 Winer's Gr. des neutest. Sprachid. 8. Aufl. neu bearbeitet von Dr. Paul 
Wilhelm Schmiedel, 1894—. 

3 Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898, p. 20. He adds, "Der 
alte Winer war seiner Zeit ein Protest des philologischen Gewissens gegen 
die Willktir eines anmaCenden Empiricismus." Cf. also Exp., Jan., 1908, 
p. 63. 


(d) BuTTMANN. Buttmann's Grammatik des neutestamentlichen 
Sprachgebrauchs had appeared in 1859 and was translated by 
Thayer as Buttmann's Grammar ofN.T. Greek (1873), an able work. 

(e) Blass. It is not till the Grammatik des neutedamentlichen 
Griechisch by Prof. Blass in 1896 that any other adequate gram- 
mar appears in this field. And Blass departs a little from tradi- 
tional methods and points of view. He represents a transition 
towards a new era. The translation by H. St. John Thackeray 
has been of good service in the Enghsh-speaking world. ^ 

^ ^m. The Modern Period. It is just in the last decade that 
it. has become possible to make a real advance in New Testa- 
ment grammatical study. The discovery and investigation that 
have characterized every department of knowledge have borne 
rich fruit here also. 

(a) Deissmann. Deissmann^ sees rightly the immensity of the 
task imposed upon the N. T. grammarian by the very richness of 
the new discoveries. He likewise properly condemns the too fre- 
quent isolation of the N. T. Greek from the so-called "profane 
Greek." 3 Deissmann has justly pointed out that the terms "pro- 
fane" and "bibhcal" do not stand in linguistic contrast, but 
rather "classical" and "biblical." Even here he insists on the 
practical identity of biblical with the contemporary later Greek 
of the popular style.* 

It was in 1895 that Deissmann published his Bibelstudien, and 
his Neue Bibelstudien followed in 1897. The new era has now 
fairly begun. In 1901 the English translation of both volumes 
by Grieve appeared as Bible Studies. In 1907 came the Philol- 

1 First ed. 1898, second ed. 1905, as Blass' Gr. of N. T. Gk. A revision 
of the work of Blass (the 4th German edition) by Dr. A. Debrunner has ap- 
peared as these pages are going through the press. 

2 Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898, p. 5: "Durch neue Erkennt- 
nisse befruchtet steht die griechische Philologie gegenwiirtig im Zeichen eincr 
vielverheiCenden Renaissance, die fordert von der sprachlichen Erforschung 
der griechischen Bibel, daO sie in engste Fiihlung trete mit der historischen 
Erforschung der griechischen Sprache." 

» lb., p. 7. Like, for instance, Zezschwitz, Profangrac. und bibl. Sprachg , 

* Die Spr. der griech. Bibel, Theol. Rnnds., 1898, pp. 4G3-472. He aptly 
says: "Nicht die Profangriicitat ist dor sprachgeschichtliche Gegensatz zur 
'biblischen,' sondern das classische Griechisch. Die neueren Funde zur Ge- 
Bchichte der griechischen Si)rache zeigen, dafi die Eigontiinilichkeitcn des 
'biblischen' Formen- und Wortschatzos (bei don original-griechischon Schrif- 
ten auch der Syntax) im groBen und ganzon Eigentiinilichkeiton des spiiteren 
und zwar zumeist des unliterarischen Griechisch iiberhaupt sind." 


ogy of the Bible. His Licht vom Osten (1908) was his next most 
important work (Light from the Ancient East, 1910, translated 
by Strachan). See Bibliography for full list of his books. The 
contribution of Deissmann is largely in the field of lexicography. 

(b) Thumb. It was in 1901 that A. Thumb published his great 
book on the kolvt], Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hel- 
lenismus, which has done so much to give the true picture of the 
KOLvrj. He had already in 1895 produced his Handbuch der neu- 
griechischen Volkssprache. In 1912 the second enlarged edition 
issued in English dress, by S. Angus, as Handbook of Modern 
Greek Vernacular. This book at once took front place for the 
study of the modern Greek by English students. It is the only 
book in English that confines itself to the vernacular. 

(c) MouLTON. In 1895, J. H. Moulton, son of W. F, Moulton, 
the translator of Winer, produced his Introduction to N. T. 
Greek, in a noble linguistic succession. In 1901 he began to pub- 
lish in The Classical Review and in The Expositor, "Grammatical 
Notes from the Papyri," which attracted instant attention by 
their freshness and pertinency. In 1906 appeared his now famous 
Prolegomena, vol. I, of A Grammar of N. T. Greek, which 
reached the third edition by 1908. With great ability Moulton 
took the cue from Deissmann and used the papyri for grammatical 
purposes. He demonstrated that the Greek of the N. T. is in 
the main just the vernacular kolvt] of the papyri. In 1911 the 
Prolegomena appeared in German as Einleitung in die Sprache des 
Neuen Testaments. 

(d) Other Contributions. It is not possible to mention here 
all the names of the workers in the field of N. T. grammar (see 
Bibliography). The old standpoint is still found in the books of 
Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (1889); Hoole, The Classical Ele- 
ment in the N. T. (1888); Simcox, The Language of the N. T. 
(1890) ; Schaff , A Companion to the Greek Testament and English 
Versio7i (1889); Viteau, Etude sur le grec du N. T. — Le Verbe 
(1893); Le Sujet (1896). The same thing is true of Abbott's Jo- 
hannine Vocabidary (1905) and Johannine Grammar (1906); Bur- 
ton's Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the N. T. Greek (1888, 
third ed. 1909) is yet a genuine contribution. In Kennedy's 
Sources of N. T. Greek (1895) we see a distinct transition toward 
the new era of N. T. grammar. In 1911 Radermacher's Neu- 
testamentliche Grammatik is in fact more a grammar of the kocvti 
than of the N. T., as it is designed to be an Einleitung. The au- 
thor's Short Grammar of the Greek N. T. (1908) gives the new 


knowledge in a succinct form. The Italian translation (1910) by 
Bonaccorsi has additional notes by the translator. Stocks (1911) 
made numerous additions to the Laut- und Formenlehre of the 
German edition. Grosheide in the Dutch translation (1912) has 
made a revision of the whole book. The French edition (1911) 
by Montet is mainly just a translation. The third enlarged edi- 
tion in English appeared in 1912. Many special treatises of 
great value have appeared (see Bibliography), by men like Angus, 
Buttmann, Heinrici, Tliieme, Vogel, Votaw, J. Weiss, Wellhausen. 
(e) Richness of Material. Now indeed it is the extent of 
the material demanding examination that causes embarrassment. 
But only twenty years ago K. Krumbacher^ lamented that it was 
not possible to give "a comprehensive presentation of the Greek 
language" because of the many points on which work must be 
done beforehand. But we have come far in the meantime. The 
task is now possible, though gigantic and well-nigh insurmount- 
able. But it is not for us moderns to boast because of the material 
that has come to our hand. We need first to use it. Dieterich^ 
has well said that the general truth that progress is from error to 
truth "finds its confirmation also in the history of the develop- 
ment that the Greek language has received in the last two thou- 
sand years." By the induction of a wider range of facts we can 
eliminate errors arising from false generalizations. But this is a 
slow process that calls for patience. Dionysius Thrax,^ one of the 
Alexandrian fathers of the old Greek grammar (circa 100 B.C.), 
said: Tpa/xfiariK-f] kaTLV efiireLpia twv irapa TrotTjraTs re /cat avyypa- 
4>ev(nv ws krcl to ttoXv Xeyopikvwv. Andrew Lang^ indeed is a dis- 
ciple of Dionysius Thrax in one respect, for he contends that 
students are taught too much grammar and too little language. 
They know the grammars and not the tongue. A bare outline 
can be given of the sources of the new material for such gram- 
matical study. 

' Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn's Zeits. fur vergl. Sprach- 
forsch., 1882, p. 484: "Eine zusammenhiingende Darstellung des Entwick- 
lungsganges der griechischen Sprache ist gegenwiirtig nicht moglich. Auf 
allzu vielen Pimkten eines langen und viel verschlungenen Weges gcbricht 
es an den Vorarbeiten, welche fiir ein solches Untcrnchmen unerlilBlich sintl." 

2 Unters. zur Gesch. der griech. Spr. von der hell. Zeit bis zuni 10. Jahrh. 
n. Chr., 1898, p. x. 

' As quoted in Bekker, Anec. Graeca (1816), vol. II, p. 629. Dionysius 
also mentions six ixkpn in grammar: dLvayviisaiz, i^Tiyncns, yXwaawv re nai urro- 
piuv irpSxei-pos inroSoais, ervnoXoylas evpr](Ti.s, ifaXoylas iK\oyi(rn6s, Kplffis iroi- 
tjhAtwv. a generous allowance truly! * Morning Post, Lond., May 5, 1905. 


IV. The New Grammatical Equipment for N. T. Study. 

(a) Comparative Philology. We must consider the great ad- 
vance in comparative philology. The next chapter will deal 
somewhat at length with various phases of the historical method 
of linguistic study. 

1. The Linguistic Revolution. A revolution has been wrought 
in the study of language. It must be confessed that grammatical 
investigation has not always been conducted on the inductive 
principle nor according to the historical method. Too often the 
rule has been drawn from a limited range of facts. What is 
afterwards found to conflict with a rule is called an ''exception." 
Soon the exceptions equal or surpass the rule. Unfortunately the 
ancients did not have the benefit of our distinctions of "regular" 
and "irregular." Metaphysical speculation with lofty superi- 
ority to the facts is sometimes charged upon grammarians.^ 
"Grammar and logic do not coincide." ^ Comparative grammar 
is merely the historical method applied to several languages to- 
gether instead of only one.^ 

2. A Sketch of Greek Grammatical History. The Greek has 
had its own history, but it is related to the history of kindred 
tongues. "From the days of Plato's Kratylus do^vnward . . . the 
Greek disputed as to whether language originated by convention 
(vofxco) or by nature {(t)vaeL)."* Indeed formal Greek grammar 
was the comparison with the Latin and began "with Dionysius 
Thrax, who utilized the philological lucubrations of Aristotle and 
the Alexandrian critics for the sake of teaching Greek to the sons 
of the aristocratic contemporaries of Pompey at Ilome."^ His 
Greek grammar is still in existence in Bekker's Anecdota,^ and is 
the cause of much grotesque etymology since.' 

This period of grammatical activity came after the great crea- 
tive period of Greek literature was over, and in Alexandria, not 

1 So Dr. John H. Kerr, sometime Prof, of N. T. in the Pac. Theol. Sem., 
in conversation with me. ^ Paul, Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., 1888, p. 18. 

3 lb., pp. 1 ff. So Oertel, Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1901, p. 42, 
"Comparative grammar in Schleicher's sense is in its essence nothing but 
historical grammar by the comparative method." 

4 Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philol., 1875, p. 259 f. 

6 lb., p. 261. « Op. dt., pp. 629-643. 

7 See Sayce, Intr. to the Sci. of Lang., 1880, vol. I, p. 19 f.; Dionysius 
Thrax's rkx^v ypa/xfiarLKr) was developed into a system by ApoUonius Dysco- 
lus (ii/A.D.) and his son Herodian. Dionysius Thrax was born b.c. 166. Dys- 
colus WTote a systematic Gk. Syntax of accentuation in 20 books (known to 
us only in epitome) about 200 a.d. 


in Athens.^ Rhetoric was scientifically developed by Aristotle 
long before there was a scientific syntax. Aristotle perfected log- 
ical analysis of style before there was historical grammar.^ With 
Aristotle 6 ypan/j-aTLKos was one that busied himself with the let- 
ters (ypaufxaTo). He was not ay pa nnaros; fi ypaufxaTui] then had 
to do with the letters and was exegetical.^ Plato does not treat 
grammar, though the substantive and the adjective are distin- 
guished, but only dialectics, metaphysics, logic* The Stoic gram- 
marians, who succeeded Plato and Aristotle, treated language from 
the logical standpoint and accented its psychological side.^ So 
the Alexandrian grammarians made ypaufxaTiKr] more like KptTuiJ. 
They got hold of the right idea, though they did not attain the 
true historical method.*' 

Comparative grammar was not wholly unknown indeed to the 
ancients, for the Roman grammarians since Varro made a com- 
parison between Greek and Latin words.^ The Roman writers 
on grammar defined it as the "scientia recte loquendi et scri- 
bendi,"^ and hence came nearer to the truth than did the Alex- 
andrian writers with their Stoic philosophy and exegesis. It has 
indeed been a hard struggle to reach the light in grammar.^ But 
Roger Bacon in this ''blooming time" saw that it was necessary 
for the knowledge of both Greek and Latin to compare them.^^ 
And Bernhardy in 1829 saw that there was needed a grammatico- 
historical discussion of syntax because of the "distrust of the 
union of philosophy with grammar." ^^ We needed "the view- 

1 See Jebb in Whibley's Comp. to Gk. Stud., 1905, p. 147 f. 

2 See Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. bei den Griech. und Rom., 2. Tl., 
1891, p. 179. 

3 F. Hoffmann, tjber die Entwickelung des Begriffs der Or. bei den Alien, 
1891, p. 1. 

* lb., p. 144. The early Gk. grammarians were "ohne richtiges historisches 
BewuBtsein" (Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. etc., 1. Tl., 1863, p. 39). Even 
in Plato's Kxatylus we do not see "das Ganze in seiner Ganzheit" (p. 40). 

6 lb., p. 277 f. For a good discussion of Dion. Thr. see Jannaris, Hist. 
Gk. Gr., p. 34 f. 

« See Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, p. 1. 

^ See Ivretschmer, op. cit., p. 4. 

8 F. Blass, Hermen. und Krit., 1892, p. 157 f. 

9 Steinthal, Gesch. etc., 2. TL, 1891, p. 1, calls this time of struggle "ihre 

10 Roger Bacon, Oxford Gk. Gr., edited by Nolan and Hirsch, 1902, p. 27: 
"Et in hac comparatione Grammaticae Graecae ad Latinum non solum est 
necessitas propter intelligendam Grammaticam Graecam, sed omnino necea- 
Barium est ad inteUigentiam Latinae Grammaticae." 

" Wissensch. Synt. der griech. Spr., 1829, pp. 7, 12. 


point of the historical Syntax." Humboldt is quoted by OerteU 
as saying: "Linguistic science, as I understand it, must be based 
upon facts alone, and this collection must be neither one-sided 
nor incomplete." So Bopp conceived also: "A grammar in the 
higher scientific sense of the word must be both history and 
natural science." This is not an unreasonable demand, for it is 
made of every other department of science.^ 

3. The Discovery of Sanskrit. It is a transcendent fact which 
has revolutionized grammatical research. The discovery of San- 
skrit by Sir William Jones is what did it. In 1786 he wrote thus^: 
"The Sanskrit language, whatever may be its antiquity, is of 
wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious 
than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either; yet 
bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of 
verbs and the forms of grammar, than could have been produced 
by accident; so strong that no philologer could examine all the 
three without believing them to have sprung from some common 
source which no longer exists. There is a similar reason, though 
not so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, 
though blended with a different idiom, had the same origin with 
the Sanskrit." He saw then the significance of his own discovery, 
though not all of it, for the Teutonic tongues, the Lithuanian 
and Slav group of languages, the Iranian, Italic, Armenian and 
Albanian belong to the same Aryan, Indo-Germanic or Indo- 
European family as it is variously called. 

4. From Bopp to Brugmann. But Bopp^ is the real founder of 
comparative philology. Before Bopp's day "in all grammars the 
mass of 'irregular' words was at least as great as that of the 
'regular' ones, and a rule without exception actually excited 
suspicion."^ Pott's great work laid the foundation of scientific 
phonetics.^ Other great names in this new science are W. von 

1 Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1901, p. 47. 

2 See C. Herrmann, Philos. Gr., 1858, p. 422: "Die Natur der philoso- 
phischen Grammatik war von Anfang an bestimmt worden als die eine 
Grenzwissenschaft zwischen Philosophie und Philologie." But it is a more 
objective task now. 

8 Cf. Benfey, Gesch. der Sprachw., p. 348. "This brilliant discovery, de- 
clared in 1786, practically Ues at the root of all linguistic science." J. H. 
Moulton, Sci. of Lang., 1903, p. 4. 

« See his Vergl. Gr., 1857. He began pubhcation on the subject in 

6 Delbriick, Intr. to the Study of Lang., 1882, p. 25. 

6 Etym. Forsch. auf dem Gebiet der indoger. Spr., 1833-1836. 


Humboldt,^ Jacob Grimm,^ Schlegel,^ Schleicher,* Max Muller,^ 
Curtius/ Verner/ Whitney,^ L. Meyer.^ 

But in recent years two men, K. Brugmann and B. Delbruck, 
have organized the previous knowledge into a great monumental 
work, GrundriB der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogerma- 
nischen Syrachen}^ This achievement is as yet the high-water- 
mark in comparative grammar. Brugmann has issued a briefer 
and cheaper edition giving the main results." Delbruck has also a 
brief treatise on Greek syntax in the light of comparative gram- 
mar, ^^ while Brugmann has applied comparative philology to the 
Laut- und Formenlehre of Greek grammar.^^ In the GrundriB 
Brugmann has Bd. I, II, while Delbruck treats syntax in Bd. 
III-V. In the new edition Brugmann has also that part of the 
syntax which is treated in Vol. Ill and IV of the first edi- 
tion. The best discussion of comparative grammar for begin- 
ners is the second edition of P. Giles's ManuaU* Hatzidakis 
successfully undertakes to apply comparative grammar to the 
modern Greek.^^ Riemann and Goelzer have made an exhaustive 
comparison of the Greek and Latin languages.!^ There are, in- 
deed, many interesting discussions of the history and principles 
growing out of all this hnguistic development, such as the works 

* Always mentioned by Bopp with reverence. 

^ Deutsche Gr., 1S22. Author of Grimm's law of the interchange of let- 
ters. Next to Bopp in influence. 

2 Indische Bibl. 

< Vergl. Gr. der indoger. Spr., 1876, marks the next great advance. 

^ Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1866. He did much to popularize this study. 

8 His most enduring work is his Prin. of Gk. Etym., vols. I, II, fifth ed., 

^ The discovery of Verner's law, a variation from Grimm's law, according 
to which p, t and k, pass into h, d and g, instead of /, th and h when not im- 
mediately followed by the word-accent. 

8 Life and Growth of Lang., 1875; Sans. Gr., 1892, etc. 

» Vergl. Gr., 1865. 

" Bd. I-V, 1st ed. 1886-1900; 2d ed. 1897—; cf. also Giles-Hertel, Vergl. 
Or., 1896. 

" Kurze vergl. Gr., 1902-1904. 

" Die Grundl. der griech. Synt., 1879. 

" Griech. Gr., 1900, 3. Aufl.; 4. Aufl., 1913, by Thumb. See also G. Meyer, 
Griech. Gr., 3. verm. Aufl., 1896. 

" A Short Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901. 

16 Einl. in die neugr. Gr., 1892. 

" Gr. compar6e du Grec et du Lat.: Syntaxc, 1897; Phon6tiquo ct fttudo 
de Formes, 1901. Cf. also King and Cookson's Prin. of Sound and Inflexion 
as illustrated in the Gk. and Lat. Lang., 1SS8. 


of Jolly ,^ Delbruck,2 Sweet,^ Paul," Oertel/ Moulton/ Whit- 
ney,' Max Miiller,^ Sayce.^ It is impossible to write a grammar 
of the Greek N. T. without taking into consideration this new 
conception of language. No language lives to itself, and least of 
all the Greek of the N. T. in the heart of the world-empire. i*' It 
is not necessary to say that until recently use of this science had 
not been made by N. T. grammars.^^ 

(6) Advance in General Greek Grammar. There has been 
great advance in the study of general Greek grammar. The 
foundations laid by Crosby and Kiihner, Kruger, Curtius, Butt- 
mann, Madvig, Jelf and others have been well built upon by 
Hadley, Goodwin, Gildersleeve, Gerth, Blass, Brugmann, G. 
Meyer, Schanz, Hirt, Jannaris, etc. To the classical student this 
catalogue of names ^^ jg f^n of significance. The work of Kiihner 
has been thoroughly revised and improved in four massive vol- 
umes by Blass" and Gerth,i" furnishing a magnificent apparatus 
for the advanced student. Hirt's handbook ^^ gives the modern 
knowledge in briefer form. These make use of comparative 
grammar, while G. Meyer ^^ and Brugmann ^^ are professedly on the 

* Schulgr. und Sprachw., 1874. 

* Intr. to the Study of Lang., 1882; .5th Germ. ed. 1908. tjber die 
Resultate der vergl. Synt., 1872. Cf. Wheeler, The Whence and Whither of 
the Mod. Sci. of Lang., 1905; Henry, Precis de gr. du grec et du latin, .5th 
ed., 1894. ' The Hist, of Lang., 1899. 

* Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., 1888; 4th Germ. ed. 1909. 

» Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1901. « The Sci. of Lang., 1903. 

^ Lang, and the Study of Lang., 1867. 

8 Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891. » Prin. of Comp. Philol., 1875. 

10 By "die historische Sprachforschung " the Gk. tongue is shown to be a 
member of the Indo-Germanic family; thus is gained "der sprachgeschicht- 
liche Gesichtspunkt," and then is gained "ein wesentUch richtiges Verstand- 
nis . . . fiir den Entwicklungsgang der Sprache." Brugmann, Griech. Gr., 
1885, p. 4. Cf. p. 3 in third ed., 1901. 

11 See J. H. Moulton's Prol. to the N. T. Gk. Gr., 1906, and A. T. Robert- 
son's N. T. Syll., 1900, and Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., 1908. 

12 The late G. N. Hatzidakis contemplated a thesaurus of the Gk. language, 
but his death cut it short. 

" Ausfiihrl. Gr. der griech. Spr. von Dr. Raphael Kiihner, 1. Tl.: Elemen- 
tar- und Formenlehre, Bd. I, IL Besorgt von Dr. Friedrich Blass, 1890, 1892. 

" lb., 2. TL: Satzlehre, Bd. I, IL Besorgt von Dr. Bernhard Gerth, 1898, 

18 Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenlehre, 1902, 1. Aufl.; 2. Aufl., 1912. 

16 Griech. Gr., 3. Aufl., 1896. 

" lb., 1900; 4. Aufl., 1913, by Thumb; 3d ed. quoted in this book. And 
now (1912) Wright has given in Enghsh a Comp. Gr. of the Gk. Lang. 


basis of comparative philology. Jannaris^ is the first fairly suc- 
cessful attempt to present in one volume the survey of the prog- 
ress of the language as a whole. Schanz^ makes a much more 
ambitious undertaking and endeavours in a large number of mono- 
graphs to furnish material for a future historical grammar. Gil- 
dersleeve^ has issued only two volumes of his work, while the 
grammars of Hadley-Allen and Goodwin are too well known to 
call for remark. New grammars, like F. E. Thompson's (1907, 
new ed.) and Simonson's (2 vols., 1903, 1908), continue to appear. 

(c) Critical Editions of Greek Authors. The Greek authors 
in general have received minute and exhaustive investigation. The 
modern editions of Greek writers are well-nigh ideal. Careful 
and critical historical notes give the student all needed, sometimes 
too much, aid for the illumination of the text. The thing most 
lacking is the reading of the authors and, one may add, the study 
of the modern Greek. Butcher^ well says "Greek literature is 
the one entirely original Uterature of Europe." Homer, Aris- 
totle, Plato, not to say ^Eschylus, Sophocles and Euripides are 
still the modern masters of the intellect. Translations are better 
than nothing, but can never equal the original. The Greek lan- 
guage remains the most perfect organ of human speech and 
largely because "they were talkers, whereas we are readers."^ 
They studied diligently how to talk.^ 

(d) Works on Individual Writers. In nothing has the ten- 
dency to specialize been carried further than in Greek grammatical 
research. The language of Homer, Thucydides, Herodotus, the 
tragic poets, the comic writers, have all called for minute investi- 

1 An Hist. Gk. Gr., chiefly of the Att. Dial., 1897. Of. also Wackernagel, 
Die griech. Spr. (pp. 291-318), Tl. I, Abt. VIII, Kultur der Gegenw. 

2 Beitr. zur histor. Synt. der griech. Spr., Tl. I. Cf. also Hubner, Grundr. 
zur Vorlesung fiber die griech. Synt., 1883. A good bibliography. Ivrum- 
bacher, Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn's Zeitschr. etc., 1885, 
pp. 481-545. 

3 Synt. of Class. Gk., 1900, 1911. 

* Harv. Lect. on Gk. Subj., 1904, p. 129. See also Butcher, Some Aspects 
of the Gk. Genius, 1893, p. 2: "Greece, first smitten with the passion for 
truth, had the courage to put faith in reason, and, in following its guidance, 
to take no account of consequences." So p. 1 : "To see things as they really 
are, to discern their meanings and adjust their relations was with them an 
instinct and a passion." 6 j^^ p 203. 

» See Bernhardy, Griech. Lit., Tl. I, II, 1856; Christ, Gesch. der griech. 
Lit. bis auf die Zeit Justinians, 4. revid. Aufl., 1905; 5. Aufl., 1908 fif. Far- 
nell, Gk. Lyric Poetry, 1891, etc. A. Croiset and M. Croiset, An Abr. Hist, 
of Gk. Lit., transl. by Heffelbower, 1904. 


gation/ and those of interest to N. T. students are the mono- 
graphs on Polybius, Josephus, Plutarch, etc. The concordances 
of Plato, Aristotle, etc., are valuable. The Apostolic Fathers, 
Greek Christian Apologists and the Apocryphal writings illus- 
trate the tendencies of N. T. speech. Cf. Reinhold, De Graec. 
Pair. Apost. (1898). The universities of America and Europe 
which give the Ph.D. degree have produced a great number of 
monographs on minute points hke the use of the preposition in 
Herodotus, etc. These all supply data of value and many of 
them have been used in this grammar. Dr. Mahaffy,^ indeed, is 
impatient of too much specialism, and sometimes in linguistic 
study the speciaHst has missed the larger and true conception of 
the whole. 

(e) The Greek Inscriptions. The Greek inscriptions speak 
with the voice of authority concerning various epochs of the lan- 
guage. Once we had to depend entirely on books for our knowl- 
edge of the Greek tongue. There is still much obscurity, but it 
is no longer possible to think of Homer as the father of Greek 
nor to consider 1000 B.C. as the beginning of Greek culture. The 
two chief names in epigraphical studies are those of August 
Boeckh {Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum) and Theodor Momm- 
sen {Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum). For a careful review of 
"the Nature of the New Texts" now at our service in the ui- 
scriptions see Deissmann, Light, etc., pp. 10-20. See W. H. P. 
Hatch's article {Jour, of Bibl Lit., 1908, pp. 134-146, Part 2) 
on "Some Illustrations of N. T. Usage from Greek Inscriptions 
of Asia Minor." Cf. also Thieme, Die Inschriften von Magnesia 
am M&ander und das Neue Test. (1906), and Rouffiac, Recherckes 
sur les Caracteres du Grec dans le N. T. d'apres les Inscriptions 
de Prime (1911). Deissmann, op. cit., p. 18, thinks that aya[Trr]]v 
is rightly restored in a pagan inscription in Pisidia of the imperial 
period. For the Christian inscriptions see Deissmann, op. cit., 
p. 19. Schliemann^ has not only restored the story of Troy to 
the reader of the historic past, but he has revealed a great civi- 

1 Cf., for instance, Die Spr. des Plut. etc., Tl. I, II, 1895, 1896; &ebs. Die 
Prapositionen bei Polybius, 1881; Goetzeler, Einfl. des Dion. Hal. auf die 
Sprachgesch. etc., 1891; Schmidt, De Flavii Josephi eloc. observ. crit., 1894; 
Kaelker, Quest, de Eloc. Polyb. etc. 

2 "A herd of specialists is rising up, each master of his own subject, but 
absolutely ignorant and careless of all that is going on around him in kindred 
studies." Survey of Gk. Civilization, 1897, p. 3. 

3 Mycenae and Tiryns, 1878. 


lization at Mycense.^ Homer stands at the close of a long ante- 
cedent history of linguistic progress, and once again scholars are 
admitting the date 850 or even 1000 b.c. for his poems as well as 
their essential unity, thus abandoning Wolff's hypothesis.^ They 
have been driven to this by the abundant linguistic testimony 
from the inscriptions from many parts of Greece. So vast is this 
material that numerous grammatical discussions have been made 
concerning the inscriptions, as those by Roehl,^ Kretschmer,* 
Lautensach,^ Rang, ^ Meisterhans,^ Schweizer,^ Viteau,^ Wagner,^" 
Nachmanson," etc. 

These inscriptions are not sporadic nor local, but are found in 
Egypt, in Crete, in Asia Minor, the various isles of the sea,^^ jn 
Italy, in Greece, in Macedonia, etc. Indeed Apostolides" seems 
to show that the Greeks were in Egypt long before Alexander 
the Great founded Alexandria. The discoveries of Dr. A. J. 

^ See also Tsountas and Manatt, The Mycensean Age, 1897. 

2 Ridgeway (Early Age of Greece, vol. I, 1901, p. 635) says that the methods 
apphed to dissection of the lUad and the Odyssey would pick to pieces the 
Paradise Lost and The Antiquary. "The hnguistic attack upon their age 
may be said to have at last definitely failed." (T. W. Allen, CI. Rev., May, 
1906, p. 193.) Lang, Homer and His Age (1906), advocates strongly the 
unity of the Homeric poems. ^ Inscr. Graecae Antiq., 1882. 

* Die griech. Vaseninschr. und ihre Spr., 1894. 

6 Verbalfl. der att. Inschr., 1887. ^ Antiquites hellen., 1842. 

"> Or. der att. Inschr., 3. Aufl. von E. Schwyzer, 1900. 

8 Gr. der perg. Inschr., 1898. 

' La decl. dans les inscr. att. de I'Empire, 1895. 

^o Quest, de epigram. Graecis, 1883. 

" Laute und Formen der magn. Inschr., 1903; cf. also Sohnsen, Inscr. 
Graecae ad illustr. Dial, sel.; Audollent, Defix. Tabellae, 1904; Michel, Rec. 
d'inscr. Graec, 1883; Dittenberger, Or. Graeci Inscr. Sel., 1903-1905; Roberts- 
Gardner, Intr. to Gk. Epigr., 1888. See Bibhography. Cf. especially the 
various volumes of the Corpus Inscr. Graecarum. 

12 As, for example, Paton and Hicks, The Inscr. of Cos, 1891; Kern, Die 
Inschr. von Magn., 1900; Gartingen, Inschr. von Priene, 1906; Giirtingen 
and Paton, Inscr. Maris Aegaei, 1903; Letronne, Rec. des inscr. lat. et grec. 
de I'Egypte, 1842. As early as 1779 Walch made use of the inscriptions for 
the N. T. Gk. in his Observationes in Matt, ex graecis inscriptionibus. Cf. 
also the works of E. L. Hicks, Lightfoot, Ramsay. 

1' Essai sur I'Hellenisme Egypt., 1908, p. vi. He says: "Les d(?couverte3 
rdcentes des arch6ologucs ont dissip6 ces illusions. Des ruines de Naucratis, 
de Daphn6, de Gurob, et de I'lllahoun (pour ne citer que les locaUtt^s dans 
lesquoUes les recherches ont donn6 le plus de r^sultats) est sortie toute une 
nouvelle Grdce; une Gr^ce ant<5rieure aux Ramsds . . .; et, si les recherches se 
continuent, on ne tardera pas, nous en sommes convaincus, k acqui^rir la 
certitude que les Grecs sont aussi ancicns en Egypto qu'en Gr^ce mfiine." 


Evans in Crete have pushed back the known examples of Greek 
a thousand years or more. The Hnear script of Knossos, Crete, 
may be some primitive form of Greek 500 years before the first 
dated example of Phoenician writing. The civilization of the 
Hellenic race was very old when Homer wrote, — how old no 
one dares say.^ For specimens of the use of the inscriptions see 
Buck's Introduction to the Study of the Greek Dialects (Gram- 
mar, Selected Inscriptions, Glossary), 1910. 

(/) Fuller Knowledge of the Dialects. The new knowledge 
of the other dialects makes it possible to form a juster judgment 
of the relative position of the Attic. There has been much confu- 
sion on this subject and concerning the relation of the various 
Greek races. It now seems clear that the Pelasgians, Achseans, 
Dorians were successively dominant in Greece.^ Pelasgian ap- 
pears to be the name for the various pre-Achsean tribes, and it 
was the Pelasgian tribe that made Mycenae glorious.^ Homer 
sings the glories of the Achseans who displaced the Pelasgians, 
while "the people who play a great part in later times — Dorians, 
Ji]olians, lonians — are to Homer little more than names."* 
The Pelasgian belonged to the bronze age, the Achaean to the 
iron age.^ The Pelasgians may have been Slavs and kin to the 
Etruscans of Italy. The Achaeans were possibly Celts from 
northern Europe.^ The old Ionic was the base of the old Attic.'' 
This old Ionic-Attic was the archaic Greek tongue, and the 
choruses in the Attic poets partly represent artificial literary 
Doric. There was not a sharp division^ between the early dia- 
lects owing to the successive waves of population sweeping over 
the country. There were numerous minor subdivisions in the 
dialects (as the Arcadian, Boeotian, Northwest, Thessalian, etc.) 
due to the mountain ranges, the peninsulas, the islands, etc., 
and other causes into which we cannot enter. For a skilful at- 
tempt at grouping and relating the dialects to each other see 
Thumb's Handbuch, p. 54 f. The matter cannot be elaborated 
here (see ch. III). But the point needs to be emphasized that 

^ A. J. Evans, Ann. Rep. of the Smiths. Inst., p. 436. 

2 See Ridgeway, The Early Age of Greece, vol. I, p. 84. 

' lb., p. 293. For the contribution of the dialects to the kolvt) see ch. III. 

< Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901, p. 526. * lb., p. 406. 

* Ridgeway, op. cit., vol. I, p. 337. ' lb., pp. 666-670. 

8 Hoffmann, Die griech. Dial., Bd. I, p. 7. A more recent treatment of the 
dialects is Thumb's Handb. der griech. Dial. (1909), which makes use of all 
the recent discoveries from the inscriptions. On the mixing of the dialects 
see Thumb, p. 61 f. 


the literary dialects by no means represent the linguistic history 
of Greece Itself and still less that of the islands and other colonies 
(cf. Buck s Greek Dialects, p. 1). The blending of these dialects 
into the KOLvi, was not complete as we shall see.i "Of dialects the 
purest Hellenic is Dorian, preserved in religious odes, - pure be- 
cause they kept aloof from their subjects. The next is the ^olic 
preserved in lyric odes of the Lesbian school. The earliest to be 
embodied m hterature was Ionic, preserved in epic poems The 
most perfect is Attic, the language of drama, philosophy and 
oratory. This arose out of the Ionic by introducing some of 
the strength of Doric-^olic forms without sacrificing the sweet 
smoothness of Ionic." ^ In general concerning the Greek dialects 
one may consult the works of Meister,^ Ridgeway,^ Hoffmann,^ 
Thumb,6 Buck,7 Boisacq,^ Pezzi,^ etc. 

{g) The Papyri and Ostraca. Thiersch in 1841 had pointed 
out the value of the papyri for the study of the LXX in his De 
Fentateuch versione Alexandrina, but nobody thought it worth 
while to study the masses of papyri in London, Paris and Ber- 
lin for the N. T. language. Farrar {Messages of the Books, 1884 
p. lol) noted the similarity of phrase between Paul's correspon- 
dence and the papyri in the Brit. Mus. "N. T. philology is at 
present undergoing thorough reconstruction; and probably all the 
workers concerned, both on the continent and in English-speaking 
countries, are by this time agreed that the starting-point for the 
philological investigations must be the language of the non-literary 
papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions" (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 55) 
Ihe KOLvrj IS now rich in material for the study of the vernacular 
or popular speech as opposed to the book language, this distinc- 
tion belongs to all languages which have a literature and to all 
periods of the language. It is particularly true of the modern 

^ SeeDieterich DieKo..^unddieheut.kIeinasiat. Mundarten-Untors. zur 
Gesch. etc., pp. 271-310. Cf. Chabert, Hist, sommaire des ct. d'cpigr. grecque, 

Collc^e^" ^''^'' °'' ^^' ^'■' ^^ ^- ^- ^^''^'' ^^^" P""^- °^ ^^- ^* Ri^hniond 

' ' * Op cit 

« Op cit. and Bd^II, 1S93, Bd. III. 1898. See also various volumes of the 
Samml. der griech. Dial.-Inschr. 

• Handb. der griech. Dial., 1909. 7 Qk Dialects 

onlyUSgf ''*'' ^°"'"'' ^^^^' '^- ''''^ ^- ^- ^'"y*'^' '^^^"^ ^''^•" ^'''^1- (I^'^ic 
« Lingua Greca Antica, 1888. Cf. Lambert, fit. sur le dial, eolicn, 1903. 


Greek to-day as it was true in the early period. Witness the 
Athenian riot over the Pallis vernacular translation. Occasion- 
ally a writer like Aristophanes would purposely write in the lan- 
guage of the street. It is not therefore a peculiarity of the kolvt] 
that the vernacular Greek prevailed then. It always prevails. 
But the Kadapevovcra has secured a more disastrous supremacy 
over the Stjixotlkt] than in any other language. And we are now 
able to estimate the vernacular kolvt], since the great papyri 
discoveries of Flinders-Petrie, Grenfell and Hunt and others. 
We had already the excellent discussions of Mullach/ Niebuhr,^ 
Blass,^ Foy^ and Lottich.^ But in the last fifteen years or so a 
decided impetus has been given to this phase of Greek grammatical 
research. It is in truth a new study, the attention now paid to 
the vernacular, as Moulton points out in his Prolegomena (p. 22). 
"I will go further and say that if we could only recover letters 
that ordinary people wrote to each other without being literary, 
we should have the greatest possible help for the understanding 
of the language of the N. T. generally" (Bishop Lightfoot, 1863, 
as quoted in Moulton's Prol, 2d and 3d ed., p. 242). If Lightfoot 
only lived now! Cf. Masson's Preface to Winer (1859). 

The most abundant source of new light for the vernacular kolvt} 
is found in the papyri collections, many volumes of which have 
already been published (see Bibliography for fuller list), while 
more are yet to be issued. Indeed, Prof. W. N. Stearns'' com- 
plains: "There would seem to be a plethora of such material 
already as evidenced by such collections as the Berlinische Ur- 
kunde and the Rainier Papyri." But the earnest student of the 
Greek tongue can only rejoice at the "extraordinary and in part 
unexpected wealth of material from the contemporary and the 
later languages."^ See the publications of Drs. Grenfell and Hunt, ^ 

^ Gr. der griech. Vulgarspr., 1856. 

« tJber das Agyp.-Griech., Kl. Schr., II, p. 197 f. 

' Die griech. Beredsamkeit von Alex, bis auf Aug., 1865. 

* Lauts. der griech. Vulgarspr., 1879. 

» De Serm. vulg. Att., 1881. 

« Am. Jour, of Theol., Jan., 1906, p. 134. 

^ Samuel Dickey, New Points of View for the Study of the Gk. of the N. T. 
(Prince. Theol. Rev., Oct., 1903). 

8 Oxyrhyn. Pap., vols. I-VIII, 1898-1911; Fayfim Pap., 1900; Tebtunis 
Pap., 1902 (Univ. of Cal. Publ., pts. I, II, 1907; Hibeh Pap., pt. I, 1906; vol. 
IV, Oxyrhyn. Pap., pp. 265-271, 1904; Grenfell and Hunt, The Hibeh Pap., 
1906, pt. I. In general, for the bibliography of the papyri see Hohlwein, 
La papjTol. grec, bibliog. raisonn6e, 1905. 


Mahaffy/ Goodspeed,^ the Berlinische Urkunde,^ Papyri in the 
British Museum/ the Turin Papyri,^ the Leyden Papyri,^ the 
Geneva Papyri,^ Lord Amherst's collection (Paris, 1865), etc. For 
general discussions of the papyri see the writings of Wilcken,^ 
Kenyon,^ HartcV Haberlin," Viereck,^^ Deissmann,^^ de Ricci,^^ 
Wessely.^^ A great and increasing hterature is thus coming into 
existence on this subject. Excellent handbooks of convenient 
size are those by H. Lietzmann, Greek Papyri (1905), and by 
G. Milligan, Greek Papyri (1910). For a good discussion of the 
papyri and the literature on the subject see Deissmann, Light, 
etc., pp. 20-41. The grammatical material in the papyri has not 
been exhausted. There are a number of excellent workers in the 
field such as Mayser,^^ St. Witkowski,^^ Deissmann,^^ Moulton,^^ 
H. A. A. Kennedy,2° Jannaris,^^ Kenyon,^^ Voelker,^^ Thumb.^'* 

1 Flinders-Petrie Pap., 1891, 1892, 1893. 

2 Gk. Pap. from the Cairo Mus., 1902, 1903. 

3 Griech. Urk., 1895, 1898, 1903, 1907, etc. 

* F. G. Kenyon, Cat. of Gk. Pap. in the B. M., 1893; Evid. of the Pap. for 
Text. Crit. of the N. T., 1905; B. M. Pap., vol. I, 1893, vol. II, 1898. 
6 Peyron, 1826, 1827. 

8 Zauber Pap., 1885; Leeman's Pap. Graeci, 1843. 
» J. Nicole, 1896, 1900; cf. Wessely's Corpus Pap., 1895. 

8 Griech. Papyrusurk., 1897; Archiv fiir Papyrusforsch. und verw. Gebiete, 

9 Palajog. of Gk. Pap., 1899; art. Papyri in Hast. D. B. (ext. vol.). 
1" tjber die griech. Pap. 

" Griech. Pap., Centralbl. fiir Bibhothekswesen, 14. 1 f. 

12 Ber. liber die altere Pap.-Lit., Jahresb. iiber d. Fortschr. etc., 1898, 1899. 

1^ Art. Papyri in Encyc. Bibl. 

1* Bui. papyrologique in Rev. des fit. grecques since 1901. 

15 Papyrus-Samml. since 1883. Cf. also Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., 
1903; Reinach, Pap. grecs et demot. etc., 1905. 

i« Gr. der griech. Pap., Tl. I, Laut- und Worth, 1906. 

" Prodromus Gr. Pap. Graec. aetatis Lagidarum, 26. Bd. der Abhandl. 
der Phil, class, der Acad, zu Krakau, 1897, pp. 196-260. 

18 B. S., 1901; Light, etc.; art. Hell. Griech. in Hauck's Realencyc; art. 
Papyrus in Encyc. Bibl., etc. 

" Gr. Notes from the Pap., CI. Rev., 1901; Notes on the Pap., Exp., 
April, 1901, Feb., 1903; Characteristics of N. T. Gk., Exp., March to Dec, 
1904; Prol. to Gr. of N. T. Gk., 1908, 3d ed., etc. 

2" Sources of N. T. Gk., 1895; Recent Res. in the Lang, of the N. T., Exp. 
Times, May, July, Sept., 1901. 

21 Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897; The Term Koiv^, CI. Rev., March, 1903. 

22 Art. Papyri in Hast. D. B. 

2» Syntax der griech. Pap., Tl. I, 1903. 

2< Die Forsch. iiber die hell. Spr. in d. Jahr. 1896-1901, Archiv fiir Papyrus- 
forsch., 1903, pp. 396-426; Die Forsch. liber die hell. Spr. in d. Jahr. 1902-4, 


These are all helpful, but Cronert^ is right in urging that we 
need a comprehensive discussion of the syntax of the Ptolemaic 
papjT-i in order to set forth properly the relation of the papyri 
both to the N. T. Greek and to the older Attic. This wall require 
time, for the mass of material is very great and is constantly 
growing.^ But enough already is clear for us to see the general 
bearing of the whole on the problem of the N. T. It is just here 
that the papyri have special interest and value. They give the 
language of business and life. The N. T. writers were partly 
aypaiJL^iaTOL, but what they wrote has become the chief Book of 
Mankind.^ Hear Deissmann^ again, for he it is who has done 
most to blaze the way here: "The papyrus-leaf is aUve; one sees 
autographs, indi^^dual peculiarities of penmanship — in a word, 
men; manifold ghmpses are given into inmost nooks and crannies 
of personal life in which history has no eyes and historians no 
glasses ... It may seem a paradox, but it can safely be affirmed 
that the unliterary pap^'ri are more important in these respects 
than the hterary." Some of the papjTi contain hterary works, 
fragments of Greek classics, portions of the LXX or of the N. T., 
though the great mass of them are non-literary documents, let- 
ters and business papers. Cf. also Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 29. 
Unusual interest attaches to the fragments containing the Logia 
of Jesus, some of which are new, dating from the second or third 
centuries a.d. and sho\\ing a Gnostic tinge.^ It is no longer pos- 
sible to say, what even Friedrich Blass^ did in 1894, that the N. T. 
Greek "is to be regarded something by itself and following laws 
of its own." That view is doomed in the presence of the papyri. 
Hatch^ in particular laboured under this error. The N. T. Greek 

Archiv fiir Pap., 111. 4; also Jahresb. iiber die Fortschr. des Class., 1906; 
Die griech. Pap>-rusurk., 1899-1905, pp. 36-40; Die griech. Spr. etc., 1901. 

1 Archiv fiir Pap.-Forsch., 1900, p. 215. 

2 " Zum ersten Mai gewinnen wir reale VorsteUungen von dem Zustand 
und der Entwickelung der handschriftlichen Lebenslieferung im Altertum 
selbst. Neue wichtige Probleme sind damit der Philologie gestellt." N. 
Wilcken, Die griech. Papyrusurk., 1897, p. 7. Mayser's Tl. II will supply 
this need when it appears. 

3 See Deissmann, Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898, p. 27. 
* Art. PapjTi in Encyc. Bibl. 

6 See AoYia 'Iriffov, Sayings of Jesus, by Grenfell and Hunt, 1897. New 
Sayings of Jesus, by Grenfell and Hunt, 1904. See also two books by Dr. C. 
Taylor, The Ox^Thyn. Logia, 1899; The Ox>Thyn. Sayings of Jesus, 1905; 
Lock and Sanday, Two Lect. on the Sayings of Jesus, 1897. 

« Theol. Literaturzeit., 1894, p. .3.38. 

^ Essays in Bibl. Gk., 1892, p. 11 f. The earhest dated papyrus is now 


will no longer be despised as inferior or unclassical. It will be 
seen to be a vital part of the great current of the Greek language. 
For the formal discussion of the bearing of the papyri on the N. T. 
Greek see chapter IV. A word should be said concerning the 
reason why the papyri are nearly all found in Egypt.' It is due 
to the dryness of the climate there. Elsewhere the brittle material 
soon perished, though it has on the whole a natural toughness. 
The earliest known use of the papyri in Egypt is about 3400 B.C. 
More exactly, the reign of Assa in the fifth dynasty is put at 
3360 B.C. This piece of writing is an account-sheet belonging 
to this reign (Deissmaim, Light from A. E., p. 22). The oldest 
specimen of the Greek papyri goes back to "the regnal year of 
Alexander .'Egus, the son of Alexander the Great. That would 
make it the oldest Greek papyrus document yet discovered" 
(Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 29). The discoveries go on as far as 
the seventh century a.d., well into the Byzantine period. The 
plant still grows in Egypt and it was once the well-nigh universal 
writing material. As waste paper it was used to wrap the mum- 
mies. Thus it has come to be preserved. The rubbish-heaps at 
Faylam and Oxyrhynchus are full of these papyri scraps. 

Mention should be made also of the ostraca, or pieces of pot- 
tery, which contain numerous examples of the vernacular Kot-v-q. 
For a very interesting sketch of the ostraca see Deissmann, Light, 
etc. (pp. 41-53). Crum and Wilcken have done the chief work on 
the ostraca. They are all non-literary and occur in old Egyptian, 
Arabic, Aramaic, Coptic, Greek and Latin. "Prof. Wilcken, in 
his Griechische Ostraka,^ has printed the texts of over sixteen 
hundred of the inscribed potsherds on which the commonest re- 
ceipts and orders of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt were written."^ 
It was the material used by the poorer classes. 

(h) The Byzantine and the Modern Greek. The Byzantine 
and modern Greek has at last received adequate recognition. 

P. Eleph. 1 (311 B.C.), not P. Hibeh, as Thackeray has it in his Gr. of the O. T. 
in Gk., p. 56. This was true in 1907; cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., March, 1910, p. 53. 

1 The practical limitation of the papyri to Egypt (and Herculaneum) has 
its disadvantages; cf. Angus, The Koivq, The Lang, of the N. T. (Prince. 
Theol. Rev., Jan., 1910, p. 80). 

* Griech. Ostraka aus Xgypten und Nubien, Bd. I, II, 1899; cf. also Crum, 
Coptic Ostraca, 2 vols. (1899); cf. Hilprecht, S. S. Times, 1902, p. 560. " In 
many Coptic letters that are written on potsherds the writers beg their cor- 
respondents to excuse their having to use an ostrakon for want of papyrus" 
(Deissmann, Exp. Times, 1906, Oct., p. 15). 

» E. J. Goodspeed, Am. Jour, of Theol., Jan., 1906, p. 102. 


The student of the N. T. idiom has much to learn from the new 
books on this subject. The scorn bestowed on the kolvt] by the 
intense classicists was intensified by the modern Greek, which 
was long regarded as a nondescript jumble of Greek, Albanian, 
Turkish, Italian, etc. Indeed the modern Greeks themselves 
have not always shown proper appreciation of the dignity of the 
modern vernacular, as is shown, for instance, in the recent up- 
heaval at Athens by the University students over the translation 
of the Gospels into the Greek vernacular {b-qnoTiKri) of to-day, 
though the N. T. was manifestly written in the vernacular of its 
day. "While the later Greeks, however, could no longer write 
classically, they retained a keen sense for the beauties of the 
classical language."^ Just as the "popular Latin finally sup- 
pressed the Latin of elegant literature, "^ so the vernacular Koivrj 
lived on through the Roman and Byzantine periods and survives 
to-day as the modern Greek. There is unity in the present-day 
Greek and historical continuity with the past. Dr. Rose is pos- 
sibly correct in saying: "There is more difference between the 
Greek of Herodotus and the Greek of Xenophon than there is 
between the Greek of the latter and the Greek of to-day." ^ And 
certainly Prof. Dickey* is right in affirming "that the Greek of 
N. T. stands in the centre of the :development of which classical 
and modern Greek may be called extremes, and that of the two 
it is nearer to the second in character than the first. The inter- 
pretation of the N. T. has almost entirely been in the sole fight 
of the ancient, i. e. the Attic Greek, and, therefore, to that ex- 
tent has been unscientific and often inaccurate." Hatzidakis^ 
indeed complained that the whole subject had been treated with 

^ Dr. Achilles Rose, Chris. Greece and Living Gk., 1898, p. 7. 

2 R. C. Jebb, On the Rela. of Mod. to Class. Gk., in V. and D.'s Handb. 
to Mod. Gk., 1887, p. 287. "In other words, the Bible was cast into spoken 
Latin, famihar to every rank of society though not countenanced in the 
schoolroom; and thus it foreshadowed the revolution of ages whereby the 
Roman tongue expanded into what we may label as Romance." W. Barry, 
"Our Latin Bible," in DubUn Rev., July, 1906, p. 4; cf. also art. on The 
Holy Latin Tongue, in April number. 

' Chris. Greece and Living Greek, p. 253. 

< New Points of View for the Study of N. T. Gk. (Prince. Theol. Rev., 
Oct., 1903). See also S. Angus, Mod. Methods in N. T. Philol. (Harv. Theol. 
Rev., Oct., 1911, p. 499): "That the progress of philology has thus broken 
down the wall of partition of the N. T. and removed its erstwhile isolation is 
a great service to the right understanding of the book's contents." 

5 Einl. in die neugr. Gr., 1892, p. ix; cf. also H. C. Muller, Hist. Gr. der 
heU. Spr., 1891. 


unworthy " dilettanteism " and not without ground for the com- 
plaint. He himself did much by his great work to put the study 
of modem Greek on a scientific basis/ but he has not worked 
alone in this important field. Another native Greek, Prof. Sopho- 
cles, has produced a Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine 
Periods in which there is an excellent discussion for that time^ of 
the KOLvi], the Byzantine and the modern Greek. Other scholars 
have developed special phases of the problem, as Krumbacher,^ 
who has enriched our knowledge of the Byzantine* or Middle 
Ages Greek. Dieterich ^ also has done fine work in this period of 
Greek, as has Thumb.^ Worthy of mention also is the work of 
G. Meyer,^ Geldart^ and Prestel,^ though the latter have not 
produced books of great value. See also Meyer-Liibke's gram- 
mar,^" Jannaris' Historical Greek Grammar and the writings of 
Psichari." In general great progress has been made and it is now 
possible to view the development of the N. T. idiom in the 
light of the modern Greek. The apparent drift in the vernacular 

^ "Und wenn es mir gelingt, die wissenschaftliche Welt von ihrer wohl- 
berechtigten Zuriickhaltung abzubringen und ihr nachzuweisen, daC das 
Mittel- und Neugriechische ein vielversprechendes unkultivirtes Gebiet der 
Wissenschaft ist, woraus man viel, sehr viel beziiglich der Sprachwissenschaft 
iiberhaupt wie des Altgriechischen speciell lernen kann, so ist mein Zweck 
vollkommen erreicht." lb., p. x. 

'^ 1870. One of the pressing needs is a lexicon of the papyri also. See 
Contopoulos, Lex. of Mod. Gk., 1868, and others. 

3 Das Problem der neugr. Schriftspr., 1903. "Heute bedarf das Studien- 
gebiet der byzantinischen und neugriechischen Philologie keine Apologie," p. 3. 
In his hands the middle Gk. (Byzantine) is shown to be a rich field for the 
student both of philology and hteratm-e; cf. also Gesch. der byzant. Lit., 
p. 20. 

* Gesch. der byzant. Lit. etc.; cf. also his Byz. Zeitschr. and his Beitr. 
zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn's Zeitschr., 1885. 

^ Unters. zur Gesch. d. griech. Spr. etc., 1898; Gesch. der byz. und neugr. 
Lit., 1902. 

« Handb. d. neugr. Volkspr., 1895; Thumb-Angus, Handb. of Mod. Gk. Ver- 
nac, 1912; Die neugr. Sprachforsch. in d. Jahr. 1890 u. 1891 (Anz. fur indoger. 
Spr., I, 1892; VI, 1896, and IX, 1898); Die griech. Spr. im Zeitalter dea 
Hellen., 1901; Die sprachgesch. Stellung des bibl. Griechisch, Theol. Runds., 
March, 1902. 

^ Neugr. Stud., 1894. 

8 The Mod. Gk. Lang, in its Rcla. to Anc. Gk., 1870. On the Orig. and 
Devel. of the Mod. Gk. Lang., .lour, of Philol., 1869. 

' Zur Entwickolungsgcsch. der griech. Spr. 
'" Gr. der romanischen Spr. 

" Essais de Gr. hist. Ncogrecque, 1886; cf. also Boltz, Die hell. Si)r. dor 
Gegenw., 1882. 


KOLVT] of the N. T., like ha in the non-final clause, is too common 
for remark in the modern Greek. Indeed the N. T. had a pre- 
dominant influence on the later Greek as the chief literature of 
the period, and especially as Christianity won the victory over 
heathenism. The Byzantine Greek is in subject-matter largely 
ecclesiastical. The sermons and treatises of the Greek Christian 
Fathers constitute a large and valuable literature and amply il- 
lustrate the language of the time.^ The modern Greek is in all 
essential points the same as the Byzantine Greek of 1000 a.d. 
In forty years ^ we have seen a revolution in the study of the 
modern Greek. But as late as 1887 Vincent and Dickson^ could 
say: "By many it is believed that a corrupt patois of Turkish 
and Italian is now spoken in Greece; and few even among pro- 
fessed scholars are aware how small the difference is between the 
Greek of the N. T. and the Greek of a contemporary Athenian 
newspaper." The new Greek speech was developed not out of 
the Byzantine literary language, but out of the Hellenistic popular 

(0 The Hebrew and Aramaic. Less that is new has come 
from the Hebrew and Aramaic field of research. Still real ad- 
vance has been made here also. The most startling result is the 
decrease of emphasis upon Hebraisms in the N. T. style. In 
chapter IV, iii the Semitic influence on the N. T. language is dis- 
cussed. Here the literary history is sketched. 

1. The Old View. It was only in 1879 that Guillemard'^ issued 
his Hebraisms in the Greek Testament, in which he said in the 
Preface: "I earnestly disavow any claim to an exhaustive exhibi- 
tion of all the Hebraisms, or all the deviations from classical 
phraseology contained in the Greek Testament; of which I have 
gathered together and put forward only a few specimens, in the 
hope of stimulating others to fuller and more exact research." 
Even in 1889, Dr. Edwin Hatch ^ says: "Biblical Greek is thus a 

1 See the Migne Lib. and the new Ber. Royal Lib. ed; 

* Dieterich, op. cit., p. 10. 

' Handb. to Mod. Gk., p. 3. See also Horae Hellenicae, by Stuart Blaekie, 
1874, p. 115: "Byzantine Gk. was classical Gk. from beginning to end, with 
only such insignificant changes as the altered circumstances, combined with 
the law of its original genius, naturally produced." Cf. Rangabe, Gr. Abre- 
g6e du grec actuel; TewdStos, Tpa/xnaTiK'^ ttjs 'EWeviKrjs VKwffffijs. 

* Dieterich, op, cit., p. 5. 

^ See also A. Miiller, Semit. Lehnw. in alteren Griech., Bezzenb. Beitr., 
1878, I, pp. 273 ff.; S. Ivrauss, Griech. und lat. Lehnw. im Tal., 1898, 1899. 
6 Essays in Bibl. Gk., p. 11. 


language by itself. What we have to find out in studying it is 
what meaning certain Greek words conveyed to a Semitic mind." 
Again he says^: "The great majority of N. T. words are words 
which, though for the most part common to biblical and to con- 
temporary secular Greek, express in their biblical use the concep- 
tions of a Semitic race, and which must consequently be examined 
by the light of the cognate documents which form the LXX." 
And W. H. Simcox^ says: "Thus it is that there came to exist a 
Hellenistic dialect, having real though variable differences from 
the Common or Hellenic." 

2. A Change with Kennedy. But a turn comes when H. A. A. 
Kennedy 3 says: "But while the writer began with a complete, 
though provisional, acceptance of Hatch's conclusions, the far- 
ther the inquiry was pushed, the more decidedly was he com- 
pelled to doubt those conclusions, and finally to seek to establish 
the connection between the language of the LXX and that of 
the N. T. on a totally different basis." He finds that common 
bond in "the colloquial Greek of the time."^ 

3. Deissmann's Revolt. The full revolt against the theory of a 
Semitic or biblical Greek is seen in the writings of Deissmann,^ 
who says'': "The theory indicated is a great power in exegesis, 
and that it possesses a certain plausibility is not to be denied. 
It is edifying, and what is more, is convenient. But it is absurd. 
It mechanizes the marvellous variety of the hnguistic elements 
of the Greek Bible and cannot be established either by the psy- 
chology of language or by history." There is here some of the 
zeal of new discovery, but it is true. The old view of Hatch is 
dead and gone. The "clamant need of a lexicon to the LXX" 
is emphasized by Deissmann^ himself. Prof. H. B. Swete of 
Cambridge has laid all biblical students under lasting obligation 

^ lb., p. 34. See also p. 9: "Biblical Gk. belongs not only to a later period 
of the history of the language than classical Gk., but also to a different coun- 
try." On page 14 we read: "It is a true paradox that while, historically as 
well as philologically, the Gk. (LXX) is a translation of the Hebrew, philo- 
logically, though not historically, the Hebrew may be regarded as a trans- 
lation of the Gk." 

2 The Lang, of the N. T., 1890, p. 15. Note the date, as late as 1890. 

» Sources of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. v. 4 ib., p. hg. 

6 Die sprachl. Erforsoh. dcr griech. Ribel, 1898; B. S., 1901; Hell. Griech., 
Hauck's Ilcalencyc, New Light (1907), etc. 6 g. s_^ p_ p5_ 

^ lb., p. 73. Schlcusncr, 1821, is hopelessly inadequate and out of date. 
Hatch and Redi)ath have issued in six parts (two volumes) a splendid con- 
cordance to the LXX and other Gk. versions of tlie O. T., 1892-189G, 1900. 


to him by his contribution to the study of the Septuagint, con- 
sisting of an edition of the LXX^ with brief critical apparatus 
and a general discussion ^ of the Septuagint. Brooke and McLean 
are publishing an edition of the Septuagint with exhaustive crit- 
ical apparatus.^ Students of the LXX now rejoice in Helbing's Gr. 
der Septuaginta: Laut- u. Formenlehre (1907) and Thackeray's 
Gr. of the 0. T. in Greek, vol. I (1909). Conybeare and Stock's 
Selections from the Septuagint (1905) has the old standpoint. 
Other modern workers in this department are Nestle/ Lagarde,^ 
Hartung,^ Ralfs/ Susemihl,^ Apostolides.^ 

4. The Language of Jesus. Another point of special interest in 
this connection, which may be as well discussed now as later, is 
the new light concerning the Aramaic as the language habitually 
spoken by Jesus. This matter has been in much confusion and 
the scholars are not at one even now. Roberts^'' maintains that 
Greek, not Hebrew, was "the language of the common public 
intercourse in Palestine in the days of Christ and His apostles." 
By Hebrew he means Aramaic. In The Expositor (1st series, vols. 
VI, VII) Roberts argued also that Christ usually spoke Greek. 
He was replied to (vol. VII) by Sanday. Lightfoot (on Gal. 4 : 6) 
holds that Jesus said 'AiS/Sd 6 Trariyp thus, Mark not having trans- 
lated it. Thompson, "The Language of Palestine" {Temple D. of 
the Bible), argues strongly that Christ spoke Greek, not Aramaic. 
Neubauer" contends that there was spoken besides at Jerusalem 
and in Judea a modernized Hebrew, and comments ^^ on "how 

1 The O.T. in Gk. according to the LXX, vols. I-III, 1887-1894. He does 
not give an edited text, but follows one MS. at a time with critical apparatus 
in footnotes. 

2 An Intr. to the O. T. in Gk., 1900. 
8 The Larger Camb. LXX, 1906—. 

* Ed. of the LXX with Grit. Apparatus, 1880-1887; Sept.-Stud., 1886- 
1896; Urtext und Ubersetz. der Bibel, 1897. Nestle died in 1913. 

6 Sept.-Stud., 1891-1892. e lb., 1886. ' lb., 1904. 

8 Gesch. der griech. Lit. in der Alexandrinzeit, Bd. I, II, 1891, 1892. 

9 Du grec Alexandrin et de ses rapports avec le grec ancien et le grec mo- 
derne, 1892. Gf. among the older discussions, Sturz, De dial. Maced. et 
Alexan., 1808; Lipsius, Gr. Unters. iiber die bibl. Grac, 1853; Churton, The 
Infl. of the LXX upon the Prog, of Ghris., 1861. See also Anz, Subs, ad 
cognos. Graec. serm. vulg. e Pent. vers. Alexan., 1894. 

1" Disc, on the Gosp., pt. I, On the Lang. Employed by Our Lord and His 
Apost., 1864, p. 316; A Short Proof that Greek was the Language of Jesus 

" On the Dial, of Palestine in the Time of Ch., Stud. Bibl., 1885. 

" Stud. Bibl., p. 54. 


little the Jews knew Greek." A. Meyer ^ urges that the vernacular 
of Jesus was Aramaic and shows what })earing this fact has on 
the interpretation of the Gospels. A. Jiilicher^ indeed says: "To 
suppose, however (as, e.g. G. B. Winer supposes, because of 
Mk. 7:24; Jo. 7:25; 12:20) that Jesus used the Greek language 
is quite out of the question." But Young, vol. II, Dictionary of 
Christ and the Gospels (Hastings), article "Language of Christ," 
admits that Christ used both, though usually he spoke Aramaic. 
So Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 8. But Dalman^ has done more 
than any one in showing the great importance of the Aramaic for 
the interpretation of the words of Jesus. He denies the use of a 
modernized Hebrew in Jerusalem and urges that proper names 
hke ^rjdeaba, ^"rm n^S, are Aramaic (but see J. Rendel Harris, 
Side Lights on the N. T., p. 71 f.). Dalman further urges that 
"Aramaic was the mother tongue of the Galileans."* J. T. 
Marshall^ makes out a plausible case for the idea of a primitive 
Aramaic Gospel before our Mark, and this would make it more 
probable that Jesus spoke Aramaic. E. A. Abbott^ also attempts 
to reproduce the original Aramaic of the words of Jesus from the 
Greek. But Prof. Mahaffy^ can still say: "And so from the very 
beginning, though we may believe that in Galilee and among His 
intimates our Lord spoke Aramaic, and though we know that 
some of His last words upon the cross were in that language, yet 
His pubhc teaching. His discussions with the Pharisees, His talk 

1 Jesu Mutterspr. : das gaUlaische Aram, in seiner Bedeut. fur die Erkl. der 
Reden Jesu und der Evang. uberhaupt, 1896. So Deissmann (Light, etc., 
p. 57) says that Jesus "did not speak Gk. when He went about His public 
work," and, p. 1, "Jesus preaches in his Aramaic mother-tongue." 

* Art. Hellenism in Encyc. Bibl. Canon Foakes-Jackson(Interp., July, 1907, 
p. 392) says: "The Jews of high birth or with a reputation for sanctity are 
said to have refused to learn any language but their own, and thus we have 
the strange circumstance in Roman Palestine of the lower orders speaking 
two languages and their leaders only one." 

' The Words of Jesus considered in the Light of the post-Bibl. Jewish 
Writings and the Aram. Lang., 1902. Cf. also Pfannkuche (Clark's Bibl. 

* lb., p. 10. 

5 Exp., ser. IV, VI, VIII. See also Brockelmann, S>Tische Gr., 1904; 
Schwally, Idioticon des christl.-palestinischen Aramiiisch, 1893; Riggs, Man. 
of the Chaldean Lang., 18G6; Wilson, Intr. S>Tiac Meth. and Man., 1891; 
Strack, Gr. des bibl. Arainiiischen. 

6 Clue, A Guide through Gk. to Hob., 1904. 

^ The Prog, of Hcllen. in Aloxan. Emp., 1905, p. 130 f. Hadley (Ess. Pliil. 
and Crit., p. 413) reaches the conclusion that Jesus spoke both Gk. and Aram. 


with Pontius Pilate, were certainly carried on mainly in the 
Greek." Zahn {Intr. to the N. T.) labours needlessly to show 
that Hebrew was no longer the language of Palestine, but he does 
not prove that Aramaic was everywhere spoken, nor that Jesus 
always spoke Aramaic. Wellhausen {Einl. in die drei erst. Evang.) 
is prejudiced in favour of the Aramaic theory. It may be admitted 
at once that Aramaic was known to the majority of the Jews in 
Palestine, particularly in Judea. Cf. Ac. 1 : 19: rfj StaXeKrw avTcbv 
'AKeXdafiax', 22:2, aKovaavres otl rrj 'E/3pat5t 6i.aXe/crco irpoae- 
(j)coveL avTOLS (xaWov irapeaxov rjavxiav. There is no doubt which 
language is the vernacular in Jerusalem. Cf. also 26 : 14. Jo- 
sephus confirms Luke on this point {War, V, 6. 3), for the people 
of Jerusalem cried out ttj TaTpio: yXdoaari, and Joscphus also acted 
intermediary for Titus, rfj Trarptoj yXdcaari (War, VI, 2. 1). See 
also 2 Mace. 7:8, 21. Josephus wrote his War first in Aramaic 
and then in Greek. The testimony of Papias that Matthew 
wrote his Xoyta in Aramaic bears on the question because of the 
tradition that Mark was the interpreter of Peter. The brogue 
that Peter revealed (Mt. 26 : 73) was probably due to his Gali- 
lean accent of Aramaic. Aramaic was one of the languages for 
the inscription on the cross (Jo. 19:20). It is clear therefore that 
the Hellenizing work of Jason and Menelaus and Antiochus 
Epiphanes received a set-back in Palestine. The reaction kept 
Greek from becoming the one language of the country. Even in 
Lycaonia the people kept their vernacular though they under- 
stood Greek (Ac. 14 : 11). On the other hand Peter clearly spoke 
in Greek on the Day of Pentecost, and no mention is made of 
Greek as one of the peculiar "tongues," on that occasion. It 
is clear that Paul was understood in Jerusalem when he spoke 
Greek (Ac. 22:2). Jesus Himself laboured chiefly in Galilee 
where were many gentiles and much commerce and travel. He 
taught in Decapolis, a Greek region. He preached also in the 
regions of Tyre and Sidon (Phoenicia), where Greek was neces- 
sary, and he held converse with a Greek (Syro-Phoenician) 
woman. Near Csesarea-Philippi (a Greek region), after the 
Transfiguration, Jesus spoke to the people at the foot of the 
mountain. At the time of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus ad- 
dressed people from Decapolis and Perea (largely Hellenized), be- 
sides the mixed multitudes from Galilee, Jerusalem and Judea 
(Mt. 4 : 25). Luke (6 : 17) adds that crowds came also from Tyre 
and Sidon, and Mark (3 : 8) gives "from Idumaea." It is hardly pos- 
sible that these crowds understood Aramaic. The fact that Mark 


twice (5:41; 7:34) uses Aramaic quotations from the words of 
Jesus does not prove that He always spoke in that tongue nor 
that He did so only on these occasions. In Mk. 14 : 36, *A/3/3a 6 
waTYip, it is possible that Jesus may have used both words as 
Paul did (Ro. 8: 15). In the quotation from Ps. 22: 1, spoken 
on the cross, Mt. 27:46 gives the Hebrew, while Mk. 15:34 
has an Aramaic adaptation. There is no reason to doubt that 
Jesus knew Hebrew also. But Thomson (Temple Bible, Lang, of 
Palestine) proves that Matthew gives the quotations made by 
Christ in the words of the LXX, while his own quotations are 
usually from the Hebrew. It is clear, therefore, that Jesus spoke 
both Aramaic and Greek according to the demands of the occa- 
sion and read the Hebrew as well as the Septuagint, if we may 
argue from the O. T. quotations in the Gospels which are partly 
like the Hebrew text and partly like the LXX.^ In Lu. 4: 17 it 
is not clear whether it was the Hebrew text or the LXX that was 
read in the synagogue at Nazareth.^ One surely needs no argu- 
ment to see the possibility that a people may be bilingual when 
he remembers the Welsh, Scotch, Irish, Bretons of the present 
day.3 The people in Jerusalem understood either Greek or Ara- 
maic (Ac. 22:2). 

(j) Grammatical Commentaries. A word must be said con- 
cerning the new type of commentaries which accent the gram- 
matical side of exegesis. This is, to be sure, the result of the 
emphasis upon scientific grammar. The commentary must have 
other elements besides the grammatical. Even the historical 
element when added does not exhaust what is required. There 
still remains the apprehension of the soul of the author to which 
historical grammar is only an introduction. But distinct credit 
is to be given to those commentators who have lifted this kind 
of exegesis out of the merely homiletic vein. Among the older 
writers are to be mentioned Meyer, Ellicott, Godet, Broadus, 
Hackett, Lightfoot and Westcott, while among the more recent 
commentators stand out most of the writers in the International 

» See C. Taylor, The Gospel in the Law, 1869; Boehl, Alttestamcntl. Cit. 
im N. T., 1878; Toy, Quota, in the N. T., 1884; Huhn, Die alttestamcntl. 
Cit. etc., 1900; Gregory, Canon and Text of the N. T., 1907, p. 394. 

^ On the Gk. in the Tal. sec art. Greek in Jew. Encyc; Ivrauss, Gricch. 
und lat. Lehnw. im Tal.; Schiircr, Jew. Hist., div. II, vol. I, p. 29 f. 

' See Zahn, Einl. in das N. T., ch. 11. On the bilingual character of many 
of the Palestinian Jews see Schiircr, Jew. Peo. in the Time of Ch., div. II, 
vol. I, p. 48 f .; Moulton, Prol., p. 7 f. 


Critical Commentary, Holtzmann's Hand Comm., The Expositor's 
Greek Test, Swete, Mayor, G. Milligan, Lietzmann's Handhuch, 
Zahn's Kommentar, The Camb. Gk. Test., etc. In works like these, 
grammatical remarks of great value are found. There has been 
great advance in the N. T. commentaries since Winer's day, when 
these comments "were rendered useless by that uncritical empi- 
ricism which controlled Greek philology."^ 

V. The New Point of View. It will hardly be denied, in view 
of the preceding necessarily condensed presentation of the new 
material now at hand that new light has been turned upon the 
problems of the N. T. Greek. The first effect upon many minds 
is to dazzle and to cause confusion. Some will not know how to 
assimilate the new facts and to co-ordinate them with old theories 
nor be willing to form or adopt new theories as a result of the 
fresh phenomena. But it is the inevitable duty of the student in 
this department to welcome the new discoveries and to attack 
the problems arising therefrom. The new horizon and wider out- 
look make possible real progress. It will not be possible to avoid 
some mistakes at first. A truer conception of the language is 
now offered to us and one that will be found to be richer and more 
inspiring.2 Every line of biblical study must respond to the new 
discovery in language. "A new Cremer, a new Thayer-Grimm, 
a new Winer will give the twentieth century plenty of editing to 
keep its scholars busy. New Meyers and Alfords will have fresh 
matter from which to interpret the text, and new Spurgeons and 
Moodys will, we may hope, be ready to pass the new teaching 
on to the people." ^ The N. T. Greek is now seen to be not an 
abnormal excrescence, but a natural development in the Greek 
language; to be, in fact, a not unworthy part of the great stream 
of the mighty tongue. It was not outside of the world-language, 
but in the very heart of it and influenced considerably the future 
of the Greek tongue. 

1 Winer, Gr. of the N. T. Idiom, Thayer's transl., p. 7. 

2 "Nun hat man aber die Sprache der heiUgen Biicher mit den Papyrus- 
denkmalern iind den Inschriften der alexandrinischen und romischen Zeit 
genau verghchen, und da hat sich die gar manchen Anhanger der alten Dok- 
trin verbUiffende, in Wahrheit ganz natiirhche Tatsache ergeben, da(5 die 
Sprache des N. T. nichts anderes ist als eine fiir den hterarischen Zweck 
leicht temperierte Form des volkstumhch Griechisch." Krumbacher, Das 
Prob. der neugr. Schriftspr., 1903, p. 27. 

3 J. H. Moulton, New Lights on Bibl. Gk., Bibl. World, March, 1902. 


I. Language as History. The scientific grammar is at bottom 
a grammatical history, and not a linguistic law-book. The seat of 
authority in language is therefore not the books about language, 
but the people who use the language. The majority of well-edu- 
cated people determine correct usage (the mos loquendi as Horace 
says). Even modern dictionaries merely record from time to 
time the changing phenomena of language. Wolff was right 
when he conceived of philology as the "biography of a nation." 
The life of a people is expressed in the speech which they use.^ 
We can well agree with Benfey^ that "speech is the truest picture 
of the soul of a people, the content of all that which has brought a 
people to self-consciousness." However, we must not think that 
we can necessarily argue race from language.^ The historical 
conception of grammar has had to win its way against the purely 
theoretical and speculative notion. Etymology was the work 
of the philosophers. The study of the forms, the syntax, the 
dialects came later. The work of the Alexandrians was originally 
philology, not scientific grammar.^ 

(a) Combining the Various Elements. It is not indeed easy 
to combine properly the various elements in the study of language. 
Sayce considers Steinthal too psychological and Schleicher too 
physical.^ The historical element must be added to both. PauF 
objects to the phrase "philosophy of language" as suggesting 
"metaphysical speculations of which the historical investigation 

1 See Oertel, Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1902, p. 9 f. 

2 Kleinere Schr., 1892, 2. Bd., 4. Abt., p. 51. 

3 See Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philol., 1875, p. 175 f. 

* See Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 2, 3. 

^ Prin. of Comp. Philol., p. xvi. 

« Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., 1888, p. xxi. "The truth is that the science 
of which we are thinking is philosophy in the same way as physics or i)h3'si- 
ology is philosophy, neither more, nor less." 



of language needs to take no count." He prefers the term "sci- 
ence of principles." The study of language is a true science, a 
real philosophy, with a psychical as well as a physical basis. It 
is properly related to the historical natural sciences which have 
been subject "to the misdirected attempt at excluding them 
from the circle of the sciences of culture." ^ Language is capable 
of almost perfect scientific treatment. Kretschmer- outlines as 
modern advances over ancient grammar the psychological treat- 
ment of language, the physiology of sound, the use of the com- 
parative method, the historical development of the language, the 
recognition of speech as a product of human culture, and not to 
be separated from the history of culture, world-history and life 
of the peoples. He thinks that no language has yet received such 
treatment as this, for present-day handbooks are only "speech- 
pictures," not "speech-histories." 

(b) Practical Grammar a Compromise. Historical practical 
grammars have to make a compromise. They can give the whole 
view only in outline and show development and interrelation in 
part. It is not possible then to write the final grammar of Greek 
either ancient or modern. The modern is constantly changing 
and we are ever learning more of the old. What was true of 
Mistriotes^ and Jannaris^ will be true of the attempts of all. 
But none the less the way to study Greek is to look at it as a 
history of the speech-development of one of the greatest of peo- 
ples. But it is at least possible now to have the right attitude, 
thanks to the books already mentioned and others by Bernhardy,^ 

1 Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., 1888, p. xxvii. See Von Ulrich's Grundl. und 
Gesch. der Philol., 1892, p. 22: "Zu der wissenschaftlichen Grammatik gesellt 
sich die historische Betrachtung. Sie unterscheidet die Periodisierung der 
Satze von deren loser Verkniipfung, die wechselnde Bedeutung der Partikeln, 
den Gebrauch der Modi und Tempora, die erfahrungsmaCig festgestellten 
Regeln der Syntax, den Sprachgebrauch der Schriftsteller." On the scientific 
study of the Gk. language sketched historically see Wackernagel, Die Kult. 
der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, pp. 314-316. 

2 Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., pp. 3-5. He himseK here merely 
cutUnes the historical background of the Gk. language. 

* " Kara ravra \oLir6v ij ypanfJ-aroXoyia dkv elvat. ovre aniyris laropiKr], ovre d/xt- 
7^s aia0r]TiKri eiri(TTriixr] dXXd fxerkxtt- aix4>0Tkpuiv." '^W-qvLK-q TpapnaToXoyia, 1894, 
p. 6. 

* "As a matter of course, I do not presume to have said the last word on 
all or most of these points, seeing that, even in the -case of modern Gk., I 
cannot be expected to master, in all its details, the entire vocabulary and 
grammar of every single Neohellenic dialect." Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897, p. x. 

B Wissensch. Synt. der griech. Spr., 1829. 


Christ/ Wun(lt,2 Johannsen,'' Krumbacher,'' Schanz,* G. Meyer/ 
I. Miiller/ Hirt/ Thumb/ Dieterich/" Steinthal." The Latin 
syntax received historical treatment by Landgraf/^ not to men- 
tion EngUsh and other modern languages. 

II. Language as a Living Organism. 

(a) The Origin of Language. Speech is indeed a character- 
istic of man and may be considered a divine gift, however slowly 
the gift was won and developed by him.'-^ Sayce is undoubtedly 
correct in saying that language is a social creation and the effort 
to communicate is the only true solution of the riddle of speech, 
whether there was ever a speechless man or not. "Grammar has 
grown out of gesture and gesticulation."!* But speech has not 
created the capacities which mark the civilized man as higher 
than the savage. ^^ Max Miiller remarks that "language forms an 
impassable barrier between man and beast." Growls and signs 
do not constitute "intellectual symbolism." i« Paul indeed, in op- 
position to Lazarus and Steinthal, urges that "every linguistic 
creation is always the work of a single individual only."i^ The 
psychological organisms are in fact the true media of linguistic 

^ Gesch. der griech. Lit., 1893. 

2 Volkerpsychol., 1900, 3. Aufl., 1911 f. 

' Beitr. zur griech. Sprachk., 1890. 

< Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1885. 

» Beitr. zur hist. Synt. der griech. Spr., Bd. I-XVII. 

« Ess. und Stud, zur Sprachgesch. und Volksk., Bd. I, II, 1885, 1893. 

7 Handb. der Altertumswiss. He edits the series (1890—). 

8 Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl. Eine Einfuhr. in das sprach- 
wiss. Stud, des Griech., 1902, 2. Aufl., 1912. 

9 Die griech. Spr. im Zeitalter des Hellen., 1901, 
1" Untersuch. zur Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1898. 

" Gesch. der Sprachwiss. bei den Griech. und Rom., TI. I, II, 1891. 

12 Hist. Gr. der lat. Spr., 1903. Cf. Stolz und Schmalz, Lat. Gr., 4. Aufl., 
1910; Draeger, Hist. Synt. der lat. Spr., Bd. I, II, 1878, 1881; Lindsay, The 
Lat. Lang., 1894. In Bd. Ill of Landgraf's Gr., GoUing says (p. 2) that Latin 
Grammar as a study is due to the Stoics who did it "in der cngsten Vcrbin- 
dung mit der Logik." Cf. Origin of Gk. Gr. 

" See Whitney, Lang, and the Study of Lang., 18G8, p. 399. 

1^ Sayce, Intr. to the Sci. of Lang., vol. II, p. 301. 

15 Whitney, Darwinism and Lang., Reprint from North Am. Rev., July, 

16 Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 9. See also The Silesian Horse- 
herd: "Language and thought go hand in hand; where there is as yet no 
word, there is as yet no idea." Many of the writers on animals do not 
accept this doctrine. 

" Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., p. xHii. 


development. Self-observation and analogy help one to strike a 
general average and so make grammar practical as well as scien- 

(6) Evolution in Language. Growth, then, is to be expected 
in a living tongue. Change is inseparable from life. No language 
is dead so long as it is undergoing change, and this must be true 
in spoken and written usage. It is not the function of the gram- 
marian to stop change in language, a thing impossible in itself. 
Such change is not usually cataclysmic, but gradual and varied. 
" A written language, to serve any practical purpose, must change 
with the times, just like a living dialect."^ In general, change 
in usage may be compared to change in organic structure in 
"greater or lesser fitness." ^ The changes by analogy in the 
speech of children are very suggestive on this point. The vocab- 
ulary of the Greek tongue must therefore continually develop, 
for new ideas demand new words and new meanings come to old 
words. Likewise inflections vary in response to new movements. 
This change brings great wealth and variety. The idea of prog- 
ress has seized the modern mind and has been applied to the 
study of language as to everything else. 

(c) Change Chiefly in the Vernacular. Linguistic change 
occurs chiefly in the vernacular. From the spoken language new 
words and new inflections work their way gradually into the 
written style, which is essentially conservative, sometimes even 
anachronistic and purposely archaic. Much slang is finally ac- 
cepted in the literary style. The study of grammar was originally 
confined to the artificial book-style. Dionysius Thrax expressly 
defined grammar as ejUTretpta roiv irapa TrotijraTs re Kal crvyypa4>evaLU 
cos ewl TO TToXv \eyofjL€P(jop. It was with him a concern for the 
poets and writers, not "die Sprache des Lebens."^ Grammar 
(ypafxnaTLK-fi, 7pd0aj), then, was first to write and to understand 
what was wTitten; then the scientific interpretation of this litera- 
ture; later the study of hterary linguistic usage. It is only the 
moderns who have learned to investigate the living speech for 
its own historical value. Before the discovery of the Greek in- 
scriptions the distinction between the vernacular and the literary 
style could not be so sharply drawn for the Greek of the classical 

^ Paul, Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., p. 481. 

2 lb., p. 13. Kiihner speaks of "das organische Leben der Sprache" and 
of "ein klares, anschauliches und lebensvoUes Bild des groBen und kraftig 
bliihenden Sprachbaums." Ausfiihrl. Gr. der griech. Spr., 1. Bd., 1890, p. iii. 

3 Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 3-5. 


period, though Aristophanes should have taught us much. We 
have moved away from the position of Mure^ who said: "The 
distinction between the language of letters and the vulgar tongue, 
so characteristic of modern civilization, is imperceptible or but 
little defined in the flourishing age of Greece. Numerous peculi- 
arities in her social condition tended to constitute cla'ssical ex- 
pression in speaking or writing, not, as with us, the privilege of a 
few, but a public property in which every Hellene had an equal 
interest." The people as a whole were wonderfully well educated, 
but the educated classes themselves then, as now with us, used a 
spoken as well as a literary style. Jannaris^ is clear on this point: 
"But, speaking of Attic Greek, we must not infer that all Athe- 
nians and Atticized Greeks wrote and spoke the classical Attic 
portrayed in the aforesaid literature, for this Attic is essentially 
what it still remains in modern Greek composition: a merely 
historical abstraction; that is, an artistic language which nobody 
spoke but still everybody understood." We must note therefore 
both the vernacular and the literary style and expect constant 
change in each, though not in the same degree. Zarncke indeed 
still sounds a note of warning against too much attention to the 
vernacular, though a needless one.^ In the first century a.d. the 
vernacular Greek was in common use all over the world, the char- 
acter of which we can now accurately set forth. But this non- 
Uterary language was not necessarily the speech of the illiterate. 
Mahaffy* is very positive on this point, "I said just now that 
the Hellenistic world was more cultivated in argument than we 
are nowadays. And if you think this is a strange assertion, ex- 
amine, I pray you, the intellectual aspects of the epistles of St. 
Paul, the first Christian writer whom we know to have been thor- 
oughly educated in this training. Remember that he was a practi- 
cal teacher, not likely to commit the fault of speaking over the 
heads of his audience, as the phrase is," Hatzidakis^ laments that 
the monuments of the Greek since the Alexandrian period are no 
longer in the pure actual living speech of the time, but in the ar- 

' A Crit. Hist, of the Lang, and Lit. of Anc. Greece, 1850, vol. I, p. 117, 

2 Op. cit., 1897, p. 3 f. 

3 Die Entst. der griech. Literaturspr., 1890, p. 2: "Denn man liefe Gefahr, 
den Charakter der Literaturdeiikinaler giinzlich zu zenslorcn, indcni man, 
ihre eigenartigc Gestaltung vcrkcnnend, sie nach den Normen eincr gespro- 
chenen Mundart corrigirt." But see Lottich, De Serm, vulg. Att., 1881; and 
Apostolides, op. cit. 

* Prog, of Hcllen. in Alex. Emp., 1905, p. 137. 
^ Einleitung, p. 3. 


tificial Attic of a bygone age. The modern Greek vernacular is 
a living tongue, but the modern literary language so proudly 
called Kadapevovaa is artificial and unreal.'^ This new conception 
of language as life makes it no longer possible to set up the Greek 
of any one period as the standard for all time. The English 
writer to-day who would use Hooker's style would be affected 
and anachronistic. Good English to-day is not what it was two 
hundred years ago, even with the help of printing and (part of 
the time) dictionaries. What we wish to know is not what 
was good Greek at Athens in the days of Pericles, but what was 
good Greek in Syria and Palestine in the first century a.d. The 
direct evidence for this must be sought among contemporaries, 
not from ancestors in a distant land. It is the living Greek that 
we desire, not the dead. 

III. Greek not an Isolated Language. 

(a) The Importance of Comparative Grammar. Julius Csesar, 
who wrote a work on grammar, had in mind Latin and Greek, for 
both were in constant use in the Roman world.^ Formal Sanskrit 
grammar itself may have resulted from the comparison of San- 
skrit with the native dialects of India. ^ Hence comparative 
grammar seems to lie at the very heart of the science. It cannot 
be said, however, that Panini, the great Sanskrit scholar and 
grammarian of the fourth century e.g., received any impulse 
from the Greek civilization of Alexander the Great.^ The work 
of Panini is one of the most remarkable in history for subtle orig- 
inality, "une histoire naturelle de la langue sanscrite." The 
Roman and Greek grammarians attended to the use of words in 
sentences, while the Sanskrit writers analyzed words into syl- 
lables^ and studied the relation of sounds to each other. It is 
not possible to state the period when linguistic comparison was 
first made. Max Miiller in The Science of Language even says: 
"From an historical point of view it is not too much to say that 
the first Day of Pentecost marks the real beginning of the Science 
of language." One must not think that the comparative method 
is "more characteristic of the study of language than of other 

^ "Eine Literatursprache ist iiie eine Art Normalsprache. " Schwyzer, 
Weltspr. des Altert., 1902, p. 12. 

^ ffing, Intr. to Comp. Gr., p. 2. 

' Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philol., p. 261. 

« Goblet d'Alviella, Ce que I'lnde doit a la Grece, 1897, p. 129. 

^ King, op. cit., p. 2 f . "The method of comparative grammar is merely 
auxiliary to historical grammar," Wheeler, Whence and Whither of the 
Mod. Sci. of Lang., p. 96. 


branches of modern inquiry." i The root idea of the new gram- 
mar is the kinship of languages. Chinese grammar is said to be 
one of the curiosities of the world, and some other grammatical 
works can be regarded in that light. But our fundamental obli- 
gation is to the Hindu and Greek grammarians. - 

(6) The Common Bond in Language. Prof. Alfredo Trom- 
betti, of Rome, has sought the connecting link in all human 
speech.3 It is a gigantic task, but it is doubtless true that all 
speech is of ultimate common origin. The remote relationships 
are very difficult to trace. As a working hypothesis the compara- 
tive grammarians speak of isolating, agglutinative and inflectional 
languages. In the isolating tongues like the Chinese, Burmese, 
etc., the words have no inflection and the position in the sen- 
tence and the tone in pronunciation are relied on for clearness 
of meaning. Giles* points out that modern English and Persian 
have nearly returned to the position of Chinese as isolating lan- 
guages. Hence it is inferred that the Chinese has already gone 
through a history similar to the English and is starting again on 
an inflectional career. Agglutinative tongues like the Turkish ex- 
press the various grammatical relations by numerous separable 
prefixes, infixes and suffixes. Inflectional languages have made 
still further development, for while a distinction is made between 
the stem and the inflexional endings, the stems and the endings 
do not exist apart from each other. There are two great families 
in the inflexional group, the Semitic (the Assyrian, the Hebrew, 
the Syriac, the Arabic, etc.) and the Indo-Germanic or Indo-Euro- 
pean (the Indo-Iranian or Aryan, the Armenian, the Greek, the 
Albanian, the Italic, the Celtic, the Germanic and the Balto- 
Slavic).^ Indo-European also are Illyrian, Macedonian, Phrygian, 
Thracian and the newly-discovered Tocharian. Some of these 
groups, like the Italic, the Germanic, the Balto-Slavic, the Indo- 
Iranian, embrace a number of separate tongues which show an 
inner affinity, but all the groups have a general family likeness." 

» Whitney, Life and Growth of Lang., 1S75— , p. 315. 
^ F. Hoffmann, Ubcr die Entwickel. des Begriffs dcr Gr. bei den Alten, 
1891, p. 1. 

* See his book, The Unity of Origin of Lang. Dr. AUison Drake, Di^c. in 
Heb., Gaehc, Gothic, Anglo-Sax., Lat., Basque and other Caucasic Lang., 
1908, undertakes to show "fundamental kinship of the iVryan tongues and 
of Basque with the Semitic tongues." 

* Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901, p. 36. 

^ Brugmann, Kurze vergl. Gr. dcr indogcr. Sjjr., 1. Lief., 1902, p. 4. 

^ See Misteli, Characteristik der hauptsachliohsten Typen des Sprach- 


(c) The Original Indo-Germanic Speech, It is not claimed 
that the original Indo-Germanic speech has been discovered, 
though Kretschmer does speak of "die indogermanische Ur- 
sprache," but he considers it only a necessary hypothesis and a 
useful definition for the early speech-unity before the Indo-Ger- 
manic stock separated. 1 Brugmann speaks also of the original 
and ground-speech ( Ur- und Grundsprache) in the prehistoric back- 
ground of every member of the Indo-Germanic family .2 The 
science of language has as a historic discipline the task of inves- 
tigating the collective speech-development of the Indo-Germanic 
peoples.^ Since Bopp's day this task is no longer impossible. The 
existence of an original Indo-Germanic speech is the working 
hypothesis of all modern linguistic study. This demands indeed 
a study of the Indo-Germanic people. Horatio Hale* insists that 
language is the only proper basis for the classification of man- 
kind. But this test breaks down when Jews and Egyptians speak 
Greek after Alexander's conquests or when the Irish and the 
American Negro use English. The probable home and wander- 
ings of the original Indo-Germanic peoples are well discussed by 
Kretschmer.^ It is undeniable that many of the same roots exist 
in slightly different forms in all or most of the Indo-Germanic 
tongues. They are usually words that refer to the common do- 
mestic relations, elementary agriculture, the ordinary articles of 
food, the elemental forces, the pronouns and the numerals. In- 
flexional languages have two kinds of roots, predicative (nouns 
and verbs) and pronominal. Panini found 1706 such roots in 
Sanskrit, but Edgren has reduced the number of necessary San- 
skrit roots to 587.^ But one must not suppose that these hypo- 
thetical roots ever constituted a real language, though there was 
an original Indo-Germanic tongue.^ 

baues, 1893. For further literature on comparative gi-ammar see ch. I, 2 (j) 
of this book. There is an Enghsh translation of Brugmann's Bde. I and II 
called Elements of the Comp. Gr. of the Indo-Ger. Lang., 5 vols., 1886-97. 
But his Kurze vergl. Gr. (1902-4) is the handiest edition. Meillet (Intr. k 
1 'Etude Comp. etc., pp. 441-455) has a discriminating discussion of the Mtera- 

1 Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 7-9. 

2 Kurze vergl. Gr., 1. Lief., 1902, p. 3. 

3 lb., p. 27. 

4 Pop. Sci. Rev., Jan., 1888. 

6 Einl. in die Gesch. etc., pp. 7-92. 

8 See Max Muller, Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 29. 

» Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philol., 1875, p. vi. 


(d) Greek as a "Dialect" of the Indo-Germanic Speech. 
Greek then can be regarded as one of the branches of this original 
Indo-Germanic speech, just as French is one of the descendants of 
the Latin/ Hke Spanish, Portuguese, Itahan. Compare also the re- 
lation of English to the other Teutonic tongues.^ To go further, 
the separation of this original Indo-Germanic speech into various 
tongues was much like the breaking-up of the original Greek into 
dialects and was due to natural causes. Dialectic variety itself 
implies previous speech-unity.' Greek has vital relations with all 
the branches of the Indo-Germanic tongues, though in varying 
degrees. The Greek shows decided affinity with the Sanskrit, the 
Latin and the Celtic" languages. Part of the early Greek stock 
was probably Celtic. The Greek and the Latin flourished side by 
side for centuries and had much common history. All the com- 
parative grammars and the Greek grammars from this point of 
view constantly compare the Greek with the Latin. See especially 
the great work of Riemann and Goelzer, Grammaire comparee 
du Grec et du Latin.^ On the whole subject of the relation of the 
Greek with the various Indo-Germanic languages see the excel- 
lent brief discussion of Kretschmer.^ But the hypothesis of an 
original Graeco-Italic tongue cannot be considered as shown, 
though there are many points of contact between Greek and 
Latin. ^ But Greek, as the next oldest branch known to us, shows 
marked affinity with the Sanskrit. Constant use of the San- 
skrit must be made by one who wishes to understand the 
historical development of the Greek tongue. Such a work as 
Whitney's Sanskrit Grammar is very useful for this purpose. 
See also J. Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik. I, Lautlehre 
(1896). II, 1, Einleitung zur Wortlehre (1905). So Thumb's 

1 See Meyer-Liibke, Gr. der rom. Spr., 3 Bde., 1890, 1894, 1899. 

2 See Hirt, Handb. der gricch. Laut- und Fornienl., 2d ed., 1912, p. 13. 
Cf. Donaldson, New Crat., p. 112 (Ethn. Affin. of the Anc. Greeks). 

3 Whitney, Lang, and the Study of Lang., 1868, p. 185. See Brugmann, 
Griech. Gr., p. 5: "Die griechische, lateinische, indische u.s.w. Grammatik 
sind die konstitutiven Teile der indogermanischen Grammatik in gleicher 
Weise, wie z. B. die dorische, die ionische u.s.w. Grammatik die griechische 
Grammatik ausmachen." 

^ See Holder, Altcelt. Sprachsch., 1891 flf. 

* Synt., 1897. Phon6t. ct Et. dcs Formes Grq. et Lat., 1901. 

8 Einl. in die Gesch. der gricch. Spr., pp. 153-170. 

' Prof. B. L. Gildersleeve, Johns Hopkins Univ., has always taught Greek, 
but his Latin Grammar shows his fondness for Latin. See also Henry, A 
Short Comp. Gr. of Gk. and Lat., 1890, and A Short Comp. Gr. of Eng. and 
Ger., 1893. 


Handbuch des Sanskrit. I, Grammatik (1905). Max Mliller^ 
playfully remarks: "It has often been said that no one can know 
anything of the science of language who does not know Sanskrit, 
and that is enough to frighten anybody away from its study." 
It is not quite so bad, however. Sanskrit is not the parent stock 
of the Greek, but the oldest member of the group. The age of 
the Sanskrit makes it invaluable for the study of the later speech- 

The Greek therefore is not an isolated tongue, but sustains vital 
relations with a great family of languages. So important does 
Kretschmer consider this aspect of the subject that he devotes 
his notable Einleitimg in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache 
to the setting forth of "the prehistoric beginnings of the Greek 
speech-development." 2 This effort is, of necessity, fragmentary 
and partly inferential, but most valuable for a scientific treat- 
ment of the Greek language. He has a luminous discussion of the 
effect of the Thracian and Phrygian stocks upon the Greek when 
the language spread over Asia Minor.^ 

IV. Looking at the Greek Language as a Whole. We cannot 
indeed make an exhaustive study of the entire Greek language in 
a book that is professedly concerned only with one epoch of that 
history. As a matter of fact no such work exists. Jannaris^ in- 
deed said that "an 'historical' grammar, tracing in a connected 
manner the life of the Greek language from classical antiquity to 
the present time, has not been written nor even seriously at- 
tempted as yet." Jannaris himself felt his limitations when he 
faced so gigantic a task and found it necessary to rest his work 
upon the classical Attic as the only practical basis.^ But so far 

1 Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 72. 

2 P. 5. Prof. Burrows (Disc, in Crete, 1907, pp. 145 fT.) raises the question 
whether the Greek race (a blend of northern and southern elements) made 
the Gk. language out of a pre-existing Indo-European tongue. Or did the 
northerners bring the Gk. with them? Or did they find it already in the 
.^gean? It is easier to ask than to answer these questions. 

3 See pp. 171-243. * Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897, p. v. 

^ lb., p. xi. Thumb says: "Wir sind noch sehr weit von einer Geschichte 
oder historischen Grammatik der griechischen Sprache entfernt; der Ver- 
such von Jannaris, so dankenswert er ist, kann doch nur provisorische Gel- 
tung beanspruchen, wobei man mehr die gute Absicht und den FleiB als das 
sprachgeschichtliche Verstiindnis des Verfassers loben muB." Die griech. 
Spr., etc., 1901, p. 1. Cf. also Krumbacher, Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. 
Spr. (1884, p. 4): "Eine zusammenhangende Darstellung des Entwickelungs- 
ganges der griechischen Sprache ist gegenwartig nicht mogUch." But it is 
more possible now than in 1884. 


he departed from the pure historical method. But such a gram- 
mar will come some day. 

(a) Descriptivp: Historical Grammar. Meanwhile descriptive 
historical grammar is possible and necessary. " Descriptive gram- 
mar has to register the grammatical forms and grammatical con- 
ditions in use at a given date within a certain community speaking 
a common language." i There is this justification for taking 
Attic as the standard for classical study; only the true historical 
perspective should be given and Attic should not be taught as 
the only real Greek. It is possible and essential then to correlate 
the N. T. Greek with all other Greek and to use all Greek to 
throw light on the stage of the language under review. If the 
Greek itself is not an isolated tongue, no one stage of the lan- 
guage can be so regarded. ''Wolffs deprecates the restriction of 
grammar to a set of rules abstracted from the writings of a 
'golden' period, while in reality it should comprise the whole his- 
tory of a language and trace its development." H. C. Miiller' 
indeed thought that the time had not arrived for a grammar of 
Greek on the historical plan, because it must rest on a greater 
amount of material than is now at hand. But since then a vast 
amount of new material has come to light in the form of papyri, 
inscriptions and research in the modern Greek. Muller's owti 
book has added no little to our knowledge of the subject. Mean- 
while we can use the historical material for the study of N. T. 

(b) Unity of the Greek Language. At the risk of slight repe- 
tition it is worth while to emphasize this point. Muller^ is apolo- 
getic and eager to show that "the Greek language and hterature 
is one organic, coherent whole." The dialectical variations, while 
confusing to a certain extent, do not show that the Greek did not 
possess original and continuous unity. As early as 1000 b.c. these 
dialectical distinctions probably existed and the speech of Homer 
is a literary dialect, not the folk-speech.^ The original sources of 

' Paul, Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., 18SS, p. 2. 

2 Oertel, Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1902, p. 27. Thumb (Thtol. Litera- 
turzeit., 1903, p. 424) expresses the hope that in a future edition of his Gr. 
des N. T., Blass may do this for his book: "Die Sprache des N. T. auf dem 
grofien Hintergrund dcr hellenistischen Sprachontwickhmg boschreibcn zu 
konnen." s m^^ q^ fi,>,. i,(.ii j^^j.^ jj,f)|^ ^^ j^ f 

* lb., p. 16. On "die griechische Spraehe als Einlioit" see Thumb's able 
discussion in Handb. d. gricch. Dial. (pp. 1-12). With all the diversity of 
dialects there was essential unity in comparison with other tongues. 

* Brugmann, Vergl. Gr., 1902, p. 8. 


the Greek speech go back to a far distant time when as one single 
language an Asiatic idiom had taken Europe in its circle of- in- 
fluence.^ The translator of Buttmann's Greek Grammar speaks 
of Homer "almost as the work of another language." This was 
once a common opinion for all Greek that was not classic Attic. 
But Thiersch entitled his great work Griechische Grammatik vor- 
ziiglich des homerischen Dialekts, not simply because of the worth 
of Homer, "but because, on the contrary, a thorough knowledge 
of the Homeric dialect is indispensably necessary for those who 
desire to comprehend, in their whole depth and compass, the 
Grecian tongue and literature." ^ But Homer is not the gauge by 
which to test Greek; his poems are invaluable testimony to the 
early history of one stage of the language. It is a pity that we 
know so little of the pre-Homeric history of Greek. " Homer pre- 
sents not a starting-point, but a culmination, a complete achieve- 
ment, an almost mechanical accomplishment, with scarcely a 
hint of origins."^ But whenever Greek began it has persisted as a 
linguistic unit till now. It is one language whether we read the 
Epic Homer, the Doric Pindar, the Ionic Herodotus, the Attic 
Xenophon, the ^Eolic Sappho, the Atticistic Plutarch, Paul the 
exponent of Christ, an inscription in Pergamus, a papyrus letter 
in Egypt, Tricoupis or Vlachos in the modern time. None of 
these representatives can be regarded as excrescences or imperti- 
nences. There have always been uneducated persons, but the 
Greek tongue has had a continuous, though checkered, history all 
the way. The modern educated Greek has a keen appreciation of 
"die Schonheiten der klassischen Sprache."" MuUer^ complained 
that "almost no grammarians have treated the Greek language 
as a whole," but the works of Krumbacher, Thumb, Dieterich, 
Hatzidakis, Psichari, Jannaris, etc., have made it possible to ob- 
tain a general survey of the Greek language up to the present 
time. Like English,^ Greek has emerged into a new sphere of 
unity and consistent growth. 

1 Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, p. 6. On the un- 
mixed character of the Gk. tongue see Wackernagel, Die griech. Spr., p. 294, 
Tl. I, Abt. 8 (Die Kult. der Gegenw.). On the antiquity of Gk. see p. 292 f. 

2 Sandford, Pref. to Thiersch's Gk. Gr., 1830, p. viii. 

3 Miss Harrison, Prol. to the Study of Gk. Rel., 1903, p. vii. 
* Hatzidakis, Einl. in die neugr. Gr., 1892, p. 4. 

6 Hist. Gr. der hell. Spr., 1891, p. 2. 

6 See John Koch, Eng. Gr., for an admirable bibhography of works on Eng. 
(in Ergeb. und Fortschr. der germanist. Wiss. im letzten Vierteljahrh., 1902, 
pp. 89-138, 325-437). The Germans have taught us how to study Enghsh! 


(c) Periods of the Greek Language. It will be of service to 
present a brief outline of the history of the Greek tongue. And 
yet it is not easy to give. See the discussion by Sophocles in his 
Greek Lexicon (p. 11 f.), inadequate in view of recent discoveries 
by Schliemann and Evans. The following is a tentative outhne: 
The Mycenaan Age, 2000 b.c. to 1000 b.c; the Age of the Dia- 
lects, 1000 B.C. to 300 B.C.; the Age of the Koivij, 300 b.c. to 330 
A.D.; the Byzantine Greek, 330 a.d. to 1453 a.d.; the modern 
Greek, 1453 a.d. to the present time. The early stage of the 
Byzantine Greek (up to 600 a.d.) is really KOiv-q and the rest is 
modern Greek. See a different outline by Jannaris^ and Hadley 
and Allen.2 As a matter of fact any division is arbitrary, for 
the language has had an unbroken history, though there' are 
these general epochs in that history. We can no longer call the 
pre-Homeric time mythical as Sophocles does.^ In naming this 
the Mycenaean age we do not wish to state positively that the 
Mycenseans were Greeks and spoke Greek. "Of their speech we 
have yet to read the first syllable." ^ Tsountas^ and Manatt, 
however, venture to believe that they were either Greeks or of 
the same stock. They use the term "to designate all Greek 
peoples who shared in the Mycenaean civilization, irrespective of 
their habitat." ^ Ohnefalsch-Richter {Cont. Rev., Dec, 1912, 
p. 862) claims Cyprus as the purveyor of culture to the Creto- 
Mycenaean age. He claims that Hellenes lived in Cyprus 1200 to 
1000 B.C. The Mycenaean influence was wide-spread and comes 
"do^vn to the very dawn of historical Greece." ^ That Greek was 
known and used widely during the Mycenaean age the researches 
of Evans at Knossos, in Crete, make clear.^ The early linear 

^ Hist. Gk. Gr., p. xxii. Cf. also Schuckburgh, Greece, 1906, p. 24 f. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 184) counts 32 centuries of the Gk. language from 1275 
B.C., the date of the mention of the Acha;ans on an Egyptian monument. 

2 Gk. Gr., 1885, p. 1 f. Deissmann indeed would have only three divisions, 
the Dialects up to 300 b.c, Middle Period up to 600 a.d., and Mod. Gk. up 
to the present time. Hauck's Realencyc, 1889, p. 030. Cf. Miillc-, Hist 
Gr. der hell. Spr., 1891, pp. 42-62, for another outline. 

' Gk. Lex., etc., p. 11. 

* Tsountas and Manatt, The Mycenaean Age, 1897 p 316 

^ lb., p. 335 fT. 

« lb., p. 235. 

^ lb., p. 325. See also Beloch, Grieoh. Gesch., I., 85: "Auch sonst kann 
kern Zweifel sem, dafi die mykeniiischo Kultur in Griechonland bis in das 
VIII. Jahrhundcrt gehorrscht." Flinders-Petrie (Jour, of Hell. Stud., xii 
204) speaks of 1100 to 800 b.c. as the "age of Mycemran decaxlcnce." 

» Cretan Pictographs and Pre-Phoenician Script, 1895, j). 362; cf. also 


writing of the Cretans came from a still earlier pictograph. The 
Greek dialects emerge into light from about 1000 b.c. onward and 
culminate in the Attic which flourished till the work of Alexander 
is done. The Homeric poems prove that Greek was an old language 
by 1000 to 800 b.c. The dialects certainly have their roots deep 
in the Mycensean age. Roughly, 300 b.c. is the time when the 
Greek has become the universal language of the world, a Welt- 
sprache. 330 a.d. is the date when the seat of government was re- 
moved from Rome to Constantinople, while a.d. 1453 is the date 
when Constantinople was captured by the Turks. With all the 
changes in this long history the standards of classicity have not 
varied greatly from Homer till now in the written style, while 
the Greek vernacular to-day is remarkably like the earliest known 
inscriptions of the folk-speech in Greece.^ We know something 
of this history for about 3000 years, and it is at least a thousand 
years longer. Mahaffy has too poor an idea of modern Greek, 
but even he can say: "Even in our miserable modern pigeon- 
Greek, which represents no real pronunciation, either ancient or 
modern, the lyrics of Sophocles or Aristophanes are unmistakably 
lovely." 2 

(d) Modern Greek in Particular. It is important to single out 
the modern Greek vernacular^ from the rest of the language for 
the obvious reason that it is the abiding witness to the perpetuity 
of the vernacular Greek as a living organism. It is a witness 
also that is at our service always. The modern Greek popular 
speech does not differ materially from the vernacular Byzantine, 
and thus connects directly with the vernacular kolvI]. Alexandria 
was "the great culture-reservoir of the Greek-Oriental world . . . 
the repository of the ancient literary treasures.""* With this 

Jour, of Hell. Stud., xiv, 270-372. See Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 22, for fur- 
ther proofs of the antiquity of Gk. as a written tongue. Mosso (Palaces of 
Crete, 1907, p. 73 f.) argues that the Mycenaian Unear script was used 1900 
B.C. Cf. Evans, Further Researches, 1898. 

^ Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 13. See also Hatzidakis, Einl. in die neugr. 
Gr., 1892, p. 3. 

2 Survey of Gk. Civihz., 1896, p. 209. Cf. further Mosso, Dawn of Civiliz. 
in Crete, 1910; Baike, Kings of Crete, 1910; Firmen, Zeit und Dauer der 
kretisch- myken. Kult., 1909. 

* The modern hterary language (Kadapevovaa) is really more identical with 
the ancient classical Gk. But it is identity secured by mummifying the dead. 
It is identity of imitation, not identity of life. Cf. Thumb-Angus, Handb. of 
Mod. Gk. Vern., Foreword (p. xi f.). 

■* Dieterich, Gesch. der byz. und neugr. Lit., 1902, p. 2. 


general position Thumb heartily agrees.^ Hatzidakis^ even says: 
"The language generally spoken to-day in the towns differs less 
from the common language of Polybius than this last diifers from 
the language of Homer." Since this is true it at first seems odd 
that the students at the University of Athens should object so 
much to the translation of the N. T. into the modern vernacular. 
They forget that the N. T. is itself written in the vernacular 
KOLPT]. But that was so long ago that it is now classic to them. 
Certainly in the Gospels, as Wellhausen^ insists, the spoken 
Greek became literature. Knowledge of the modern Greek* helps 
the student to escape from "the Procrustean bed of the old 
Greek" which he learned as a fixed and dead thing.^ It is prob- 
able that Roger Bacon had some Byzantine manual besides the 
old Greek grammars.^ "In England, no less than in the rest of 
Western Europe, the knowledge of Greek had died away, and 
here also, it was only after the conquest of Constantinople that a 
change was possible."^ Western Christians had been afraid of 
the corruptions of paganism if they knew Greek, and of Moham- 
medanism if they knew Hebrew (being kin to Arabic!). But at 
last a change has come in favour of the modern Greek. Boltz in- 
deed has advocated modern Greek as the common language for 
the scholars of the world since Latin is so httle spoken.^ There is 
indeed need of a new world-speech, as Greek was in the N. T. 
times, but there is no language that can now justly make such a 
claim. English comes nearer to it than any other. This need 
has given rise to the artificial tongues Uke Volaptik and Espe- 

1 "Die heutige griechische Volkssprache ist die natiirliche Fortsetzung der 
alten Kolvt]." Die neugr. Spr., 1892, p. 8. See Heilmeier's book on the Ro- 
maic Gk. (1834), who fii-st saw this connection between the mod. vcrn. and 
the vern. kolvt). 

2 Transl. by J. H. Moulton in Gr. of N. T. Gk., 1906 and 1908, p. 30, from 
Rev. des fit. Grq., 1903, p. 220. Of. Ivrumbachcr, Das Prob. der ncugr. 
Schriftspr., 1902. ' Einl. in die drei erstcn Evang., 1905, p. 9. 

* See Riiger, Prap. bei Joh. Antiochenus, 1896, p. 7. 

6 Thumb, Handb. der neugr. Volkspr., 1895, p. x. 

6 Roger Bacon's Gk. Gr., edited by Nohxn and Hirsch, 1902, p. ]x f. 

^ lb., p. xlii. 

8 Hell, die internat. Gelehrtenspr. der Zukunft, 18SS. Likewise A. Rose: 
"Die griechische Sprache . . . hat . . . cine gliinzcnde Zukunft vor sich." 
Die Griechen und ihre Spr., 1890, p. 4. He pleads for it as a "Weltsprache," 
p. 271. But Schwyzer pointedly says: "Die Rollc einer Weltsprache wird 
das Griofihische nicht wieder spiclen." Weltspr. des Altcrt., 1902, p. 38. Of. 
also A. Boltz, Die hell. Spr. der Gegcnw., 1882, and Gk. the Gen. Lang, of 
the Future for Scholars. 


ranto/ the latter having some promise in it. But the modern 
Greek vernacular has more merit than was once conceded to it. 
The idioms and pronunciation of the present-day vernacular are 
often seen in the manuscripts of the N. T. and other Greek docu- 
ments and much earlier in inscriptions representing one or an- 
other of the early dialects. The persistence of early English forms 
is easily observed in the vernacular in parts of America or Eng- 
land. In the same way the late Latin vernacular is to be compared 
with the early Latin vernacular, not with the Latin of elegant 
literature. "Speaking generally, we may say that the Greek of a 
well-written newspaper [the literary language] is now, as a rule, 
far more classical than the Hellenistic of the N. T., but decidedly 
less classical than the Greek of Plutarch." 2 What the rela- 
tion between the N. T. Greek and the modern Greek is will be 
shown in the next chapter. It should be noted here that the 
N. T. Greek had a strong moulding influence on the Byzantine, 
and so on the modern Greek because of the use of the Greek New 
Testament all over the world, due to the spread of Christianity 
throughout the Roman Empire.^ The great Christian preachers 
did not indeed use a peculiar ecclesiastical Greek, but the N. T. 
did tend to emphasize the type of kolvt] in which it was written. 
"The diction of the N. T. had a direct influence in moulding 
the Greek ordinarily used by Christians in the succeeding cen- 
turies."^ Compare the effect of the King James Version on the 
English language and of Luther's translation of the Bible on 

V. The Greek Point of View. It sounds like a truism to 
insist that the Greek idiom must be explained from the Greek 
point of view. But none the less the caution is not superfluous. 
Trained Unguists may forget it and so commit a grammatical 
vice. Even Winer ^ will be found saying, for instance: "Appel- 
latives which, as expressing definite objects, should naturally 

* Cf. J. C. O'Connor, Esperanto Text-book, and Eng.-Esper. Diet. 

^ Jebb, On the Rela. of Mod. to Class. Gk., in Vincent and Dickson's 
Handb. to Mod. Gk., 1887, p. 294. Blass actually says: "Der Sprachge- 
brauch des Neuen Testaments, der vielfaltig vom Neugriechischen her eine 
viel bessere Beleuchtung empfangt als aus der alten klassischen Literatur." 
Kiihner's Ausf. Gr. etc., 1890, p. 25. Blass also says (ib., p. 26) that "eine 
wissenschaftliche neugriechische Grammatik fehlt." But Hatzidakis and 
others have written since. 

3 See Reinhold, De Graecitate Patrum, 1898. 

* Jebb, ib., p. 290. 

' Gr. of the N. T. Gk., Moulton's transl., 1877, p. 147. 


have the article, arc in certain cases used without it." That 
"should" has the wrong attitude toward Greek. The appel- 
lative in Greek does not need to have the article in order to be 
definite. So when Winer often admits that one tense is used 
"for" another, he is really thinking of German and how it would 
be expressed in German. Each tongue has its own history and 
genius. Parallel idioms may or may not exist in a group of lan- 
guages. Sanskrit and Latin, for instance, have no article. It is 
not possible to parallel the Hebrew tenses, for example, with the 
Greek, nor, indeed, can it be done as between Greek and English. 
The English translation of a Greek aorist may have to be in the 
past perfect or the present perfect to suit the English usage, but 
that proves nothing as to how a Greek regarded the aorist tense. 
We must assume in a language that a good writer knew how to 
use his own tongue and said what he meant to say. Good Greek 
may be very poor English, as when Luke uses h tQ Haayaytlv tovs 
-yoveZs TO TraiBlov 'Irjaovv (Lu. 2:27). A literal translation of this 
neat Greek idiom makes barbarous English. The Greeks simply 
did not look at this clause as we do. "One of the commonest and 
gravest errors in studying the grammar of foreign languages is 
to make a half-conjectural translation, and then reason back 
from our own language to the meaning of the original; or to ex- 
plain some idiom of the original by the formally different idiom 
which is our substantial equivalent." ^ Broadus was the greatest 
teacher of language that I have known and he has said nothing 
truer than this. After all, an educated Greek knew what he 
meant better than we do. It is indeed a great and difficult task 
that is demanded of the Greek grammarian who to-day under- 
takes to present a living picture of the orderly development of 
the Greek tongue "zu einem schonen und groBen Ganzen" and 
also show "in the most beautiful light the flower of the Greek 
spirit and life."^ Deissmann^ feels strongly on the subject of the 
neglect of the literary development of Primitive Christianity, "a 

1 Broadus, Comm. on Mt., 1886, p. 316. See also Gerber, Die Spr. als 
Kunst 1. Bd., 1871, p. 321: "Der ganzc Charakter dieser odcr jener Sprache 
ist der Abdruck dor Natiir des Landcs, wo sic gcsprochen wird. Die gricchi- 
schc Sprache ist der gricchische Himniel selbst mit seiner tiefdunklen Bliiue, 
die sich in dem sanft wogcnden agaischen Meere spiegelt." 

^ Kuhner, Ausf. Gr. der griech. Spr., 1834, p. iv. How much more so 


3 Expos. Times, Dec, 1906, p. 103. Cf. also F. Overbeck, Hist. Zeitschr., 

neue Folge, 1882, p. 429 ff . 


subject which has not yet been recognized by many pBrsoTis in its 
full importance. Huge as is the library of books that have been 
written on the origin of the N. T. and of its separate parts, the 
N. T. has not often been studied by historians of literature; that 
is to say, as a branch of the history of ancient literature." 



The Greek of the N. T. has many streams that flow into it. 
But this fact is not a pecuharity of this phase of the language. 
The KOLvrj itself has this characteristic in a marked degree. If 
one needs further examples, he can recall how composite English 
is, not only combining various branches of the Teutonic group, 
but also incorporating much of the old Celtic of Britain and re- 
ceiving a tremendous impress from the Norman-French (and so 
Latin), not to mention the indirect literary influence of Latin and 
Greek. The early Greek itself was subject to non-Greek influ- 
ence as other Indo-Germanic tongues were, and in particular from 
the side of the Thracians and Phrygians in the East,^ and in the 
West and North the Italic, Celtic and Germanic pressure was 

I. The Term Koivn. The word kolvt], sc. StdXe/cros, means 
simply common language or dialect common to all, a world- 
speech (Weltsprache). Unfortunately there is not yet uniformity 
in the use of a term to describe the Greek that prevailed over 
Alexander's empire and became the world-tongue. Kiihner- 
Blass^ speak of " rj kolvt] oder eXXrjVLKri SiaXeKTos." So also Schmie- 
del* follows Winer exactly. But Hellenic language is properly 
only Greek language, as Hellenic culture'' is Greek culture. Jan- 
naris" suggests Panhellenic or new Attic for the universal Greek, 

* Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 171-243. But 
the true Phrygians were kin to the Greeks. See Percy Gardner, New Ch. 
of Gk. Hist., p. 84. 

'^ Kretschmer, op. cit., pp. 153-170, 244-282, 

3 Griech. Gr., Bd. I, p. 22. i W.-Sch., N. T. Gr., p. 17. 

8 Mahaffy, Prog, of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., p. 3. Mahaffy does use Hel- 
lenism like Droysen in his Hist, of Ilollenism, as corresponding to Hellon- 
istic, but he does so under protest (p. 3 f.). He wishes indeed that he had 
coined the word "Hellcnicism." But Hogarth (Philip and Alexander, p. 277) 
had ah-eady used "Hellenisticism," saying: " Hellcnisticism grew out of Hel- 

« Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 6. 



the Greek 'par excellence as to common usage. Hellenistic Greek 
would answer in so far as it is Greek spoken also by Hellenists 
differing from Hellenes or pure Greeks. Krumbacher applies Hel- 
lenistic to the vernacular and mivi] to the " conventional Uterary 
language" of the time,i but this is wholly arbitrary. Krumbacher 
terms the Hellenistic "ein verschwommenes Idiom." Hatzida- 
kis and Schwyzer include in the Koivi] both the literary and the 
spoken language of the Hellenistic time. This is the view adopted 
in this grammar. Deissmann dislikes the term Hellenistic Greek 
because it was so long used for the supposedly peculiar biblical 
Greek, though the term itself has a wide significance.^ He also 
strongly disapproves the terms "vulgar Greek," "bad Greek," 
"graecitas fatiscens," in contrast with the "classic Greek." 
Deissmann moreover objects to the word koivt] because it is used 
either for the vernacular, the literary style or for all the Greek 
of the time including the Atticistic revival. So he proposes 
"Hellenistic world-speech." ^ But this is too cumbersome. It is 
indeed the world-speech of the Alexandrian and Roman period 
that is meant by the term Koivi]. There is on the other hand the 
literary speech of the orators, historians, philosophers, poets, the 
public documents preserved in the inscriptions (some even Atti- 
cistic); on the other hand we have the popular writings in the 
LXX, the N. T., the Apostolic Fathers, the papyri (as a rule) 
and the ostraca. The term is thus sufficient by itself to express 
the Greek in common use over the world, both oral and literary, 
as Schweizer^ uses it following Hatzidakis. Thumb ^ identifies 
KOLvi] and Hellenistic Greek and applies it to both vernacular and 
written style, though he would not regard the Atticists as proper 
producers of the Koivij. Moulton^ uses the term KOLvi] for both 
spoken and literary kolvt]. The doctors thus disagree very widely. 
On the whole it seems best to use the term KOLvq (or Hellenistic 
Greek) both for the vernacular and literary Koivi], excluding the 
Atticistic revival, which was a conscious effort to write not Koivii 

1 Miinchener Sitzungsber., 1886, p. 435. 

2 Art. Hell. Griech., Hauck's Realencyc, p. 629. 
s lb., p. 630. 

4 Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 19 f. ^ Die griech. Spr. etc., p. 9. 

" Prol., p. 23. It is not necessary to discuss here the use of "Hellenistic" 
Gk. as "Jewish-Gk." (see "Semitic Influence" in ch. IV), for it is absurd. 
The notion that the kolv^ is Macedonian Gk. is quite beside the mark, for 
Mac. Gk. is too barbarous. The theory of an Alexandrian dialect is obsolete. 
Du Ganges, in his Glossarium called Hell. Gk. " corruptissima lingua," and 
Niebuhr (Uber das Xgyp.-Griech., Kl. Schr., p. 197) caUs it "jargon." 

THE Komn 51 

but old Attic.i At last then the Greek world has speech-unity, 
whatever was true of the beginning of the Greek language.^ 

n. The Origin of the Kotvii. 

(a) Triumph of the Attic. This is what happened. Even 
in Asiatic Ionia the Attic influence was felt. The Attic ver- 
nacular, sister to the Ionic vernacular, was greatly influenced 
by the speech of soldiers and merchants from all the Greek 
world. Attic became the standard language of the Greek world 
in the fifth and the fourth centuries b.c. "We must not 
infer that all Athenians and Atticized Greeks wrote and spoke 
the classical Attic portrayed in the aforesaid literature, for this 
Attic is essentially what it still remains in modern Greek compo- 
sition: a merely historical abstraction, that is, an artistic language 
which nobody spoke, but still everybody understood." ^ This is 
rather an overstatement, but there is much truth in it. This 
classic literary Attic did more and more lose touch with the ver- 
nacular. " It is one of our misfortunes, whatever be its practical 
convenience, that we are taught Attic as the standard Greek, and 
all other forms and dialects as deviations from it . . . when many 
grammarians come to characterize the later Greek of the Middle 
Ages or of to-day, or even that of the Alexandrian or N. T. 
periods, no adjective is strong enough to condemn this 'verdor- 
benes, veruneinigtes Attisch'" (S. Dickey, Princeton Rev., Oct., 
1903). The literary Attic was allied to the literary Ionic; but 
even in this crowning development of Greek speech no hard and 
fast lines are drawn, for the artificial Doric choruses are used in 
tragedy and the vernacular in comedy.^ There was loss as well 
as gain as the Attic was more extensively used, just as is true 

1 Blass indeed contrasts the literature of the Alex, and Rom. periods on 
this principle, but wrongly, for it is type, not time, that marks the difference. 
" If then the hterature of the Alexandrian period must be called Hellenistic, 
that of the Roman period must be termed Atticistic. But the popular lan- 
guage had gone its own way." Gr. of the N. T. Gk., 1898 and 1905, p. 2. On 
the Gk. of Alexandria and its spread over the world see Wackernagel, Die 
Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 304 f. 

2 See Kretschmer, Einl., p. 410. Dieterich: "Das Sprachgebiet der Koi«^ 
bildet eben ein Ganzcs und kann nur im Zusammenhang betrachtet werden." 
Unters., p. xvi. 

» Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897, p. 3 f. On the superiority of the Attic see 
Wackernagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., TI. I, Abt. 8, p. 299. 

* Rutherford, Zur Gesch. des Atticismus, Jahrb. fiir class. Phil., suppl. 
xiii, 1884, pp. 360, 399. So Audoin says: "Ce n'est point arbitrairement que 
les dcrivains grecs ont employ6 tel ou tel dialecte." fit. sommaire des Dial. 
Grecs. Litt., 1891, p. 4. 


of modern English. "The orators Demosthenes and ^schines 
may be counted in the new Attic, where other leading representa- 
tives in literature are Menander, Philemon and the other writers 
of the New Comedy." ^ As the literary Attic lived on in the literary 
KOLvr], so the vernacular Attic survived with many changes in the 
vernacular kolvt]. We are at last in possession of enough of the 
old Attic inscriptions and the kolut} inscriptions and the papyri to 
make this clear. The march of the Greek language has been 
steadily forward on this Attic vernacular base even to this pres- 
ent day .2 In a sense, therefore, the kolvt] became another dialect 
(^olic, Doric, Ionic, Attic, kolvt]). Cf. Kretschmer, Die Ent- 
stehung der Koivij, pp. 1-37. But the kolvt] was far more than a 
dialect. Kretschmer holds, it is fair to say, that the kolutj is " eine 
merkwiirdige Mischung verschiedenster Dialecte" {op. cit., p. 6). 
He puts all the dialects into the melting-pot in almost equal pro- 
portions. Wilamowitz-Mollendorff considers the Ionic as the 
chief influence in the kolvt], while W. Schmidt denies all Doric 
and Ionic elements. Schwyzer rightly sees that the dialectical 
influences varied in different places, though the vernacular Attic 
was the common base. 

(6) Fate of the Other Dialects. The triumph of the Attic was 
not complete, though in Ionia, at the end of the third century b.c, 
inscriptions in Attic are found, showing that in Asia Minor pure 
Ionic had about vanished. In the first century b.c. the Attic 
appears in inscriptions in Boeotia, but as late as the second cen- 
tury A.D. Ji]olic inscriptions are found in Asia Minor. ^Eohc first 
went down, followed by the Ionic. The Doric made a very stub- 
born resistance. It was only natural that the agricultural com- 
munities should hold out longest. See Thumb, Hellen., p. 28 f. 
Even to-day the Zaconian patois of modern Greek vernacular 

» Simonson, Gk. Gr., Accidence, 1903, p. 6. He has a good discussion of 
the dialects, pp. 221-265. 

2 Riemann and Goelzer well say: "Quant au dialecte attique, grace aux 
grands ccrivains qui I'illustrerent, grace a la preponderence politique et com- 
merciale d'Athenes, grace aussi a son caractere de dialecte interinediaire entre 
I'ionien et les dialectes en a, il se repandit de bonne heure, hors de son domaine 
primitif, continua a s'etendre meme apres la chute de I'empire politique 
d'Athenes et finit par embrasser tout le monde sur le nom de langue com- 
mune {Koiv-n SLoXeKTos)" (Phonetique, p. 16). And yet the common people 
understood Homer also as late as Xenophon. Cf. Xenophon, Com. 3, 5, 
Kal vvi' hvvaljxriv av 'IXtd5a oXrjj' koI 'Obvaatiav airo crxoyuaros elweii'. Cf. Lottich, 
De Serm. vulg. Attic, 1881. On the "Growth of the Attic Dialect" see 
Rutherford, New Phrynichus, pp. 1-31. 


has preserved the old Laconic Doric "whose broad a holds its 
ground still in the speech of a race impervious to literature and 
proudly conservative of a language that was always abnormal to 
an extreme."^ It is not surprising that the Northwest Greek, 
because of the city leagues, became a kind of Achaean-Dorian 
KOLVT]^ and held on till almost the l^cginning of the Christian era 
before it was merged into the kolvt] of the whole Grajco-Roman 
world.^ There are undoubtedly instances of the remains of the 
Northwest Greek and of the other dialects in the Koivri and so in 
the N. T. The Ionic, so near to the Attic and having flourished 
over the coast of Asia Minor, would naturally have considerable 
influence on the Greek world-speech. The proof of this will ap- 
pear in the discussion of the kolvt] where remains of all the main 
dialects are naturally found, especially in the vernacular.^ 

(c) Partial Koines. The standardizing of the Attic is the 
real basis. The kolpt] was not a sudden creation. There were 
quasi-koines before Alexander's day. These were Strabo's aUi- 
ance of Ionic- Attic, Doric- JiloHc (Thumb, Handh., p. 49). It is 
therefore to be remembered that there were "various forms of 
KOLvi]'^ before the Koivi] which commenced with the conquests of 
Alexander (Buck, Gk. Dialects, pp. 154-161), as Doric Koi.vq, Ionic 
KOLvi], Attic KOLVT], Nortliwcst KOLvi). Hybrid forms are not un- 
common, such as the Doric future with Attic ov as in ttolt](tovvti 
(cf. Buck, p. 160). There was besides a revival here and there of 
local dialects during the Roman times. 

{d) Effects of Alexander's Campaigns. But for the conquests 
of Alexander there might have been no kolvt] in the sense of a 
world-speech. The other Greek koines were partial, this alone 
was a world-speech because Alexander united Greek and Persian, 
east and west, into one common world-empire. He respected the 

. 1 Moulton, Pro!., p. 32. ^ lb., p. 37. 

2 Radermacher(N. T. Gr., p. 1) puts it clearly: "Es geniigt zu sagcn, dafJ die 
Koivii starksten Zusammenhang mit dem Attischen, in zweitcr Linie mit dem 
lonischen, verriit. In der altesten Pcriode des Hellcnismus zeigt sich daneben 
geringcr EinfluO anderer Dialektc, dcs Dorischen und Aolischcn." 

* " II est k peine besoin de r6p6ter que ces caracteires s'effaccnt, k mcsure 
que Ton descend vers I'ere chrctienne. Sous I'influencc sans cesse grandis- 
sante de I'atticisme, il s'etablit une sorte d'uniformite." Boisacq, Los Dial. 
Dor., 1891, p. 204. "The Gk. of the N. T. is not, however, mere Koivi). In 
vocabulary it is fundamentally Ionic" (John Burnet, Rev. of Tlieol. and 
Phil., Aug., 190G, p. 95). "Fundamentally" is rather strong, but dTroaroXos, 
as ambassador, not mere expedition, evXoyia, vqarela, give some colour to the 
statement. But what does Prof. Burnet mean by "mere koivi?"? 


customs and language of all the conquered nations, but it was in- 
evitable that the Greek should become the lingua franca of the 
world of Alexander and his successors. In a true sense Alexander 
made possible this new epoch in the history of the Greek tongue. 
The time of Alexander divides the Greek language into two peri- 
ods. "The first period is that of the separate life of the dialects 
and the second that of the speech- unity, the common speech or 
KOLVT]" (Kretschmer, Die Entst. d. Kolvt], p. 1). 

(e) The March toward Universalism. The successors of 
Alexander could not stop the march toward universalism that had 
begun. The success of the Roman Empire was but another proof 
of this trend of history. The days of ancient nationalism were 
over and the KOLvq was but one expression of the glacial move- 
ment. The time for the world-speech had come and it was ready 
for use. 

m. The Spread of the KoivTJ. 

(a) A World-Speech. What is called 17 kolutj was a world- 
speech, not merely a general Greek tongue among the Greek 
tribes as was true of the Achaean-Dorian and the Attic. It is not 
speculation to speak of the kolpt] as a world-speech, for the in- 
scriptions in the kolvt] testify to its spread over Asia, Egypt, Greece, 
Italy, Sicily and the isles of the sea, not to mention the papyri. 
Marseilles was a great centre of Greek civilization, and even Gy- 
rene, though not Carthage, was Grecized.^ The kolvt) was in 
such general use that the Roman Senate and imperial governors 
had the decrees translated into the world-language and scattered 
over the empire.^ It is significant that the Greek speech becomes 
one instead of many dialects at the very time that the Roman 
rule sweeps over the world.^ The language spread by Alexander's 
army over the Eastern world persisted after the division of the 
kingdom and penetrated all parts of the Roman world, even 
Rome itself. Paul wrote to the church at Rome in Greek, and 
Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor, wrote his Meditations 
(tojv eis 'EavTov) in Greek. It was the language not only of letters, 
but of commerce and every-day life. A common lan?,uage for all 

1 See Churton, Infl. of the LXX Vers., 1861, p. 14. 

2 Viereck, Sermo Graecus quo Senatus Popul. Rom. etc., 1888, p. xi. 

3 See Wilamowitz-MoUendorff: "In demselben Momente, wo die casari- 
sche Weltmonarchie alle Strome hellenischer und italischer Kultur in einem 
Bette leitet, kommt die griechische Kunst auf alien Gebieten zu der Erkennt- 
nis, daI5 ihre &eise erfiillt sind, das einzige das ihr bleibt, Nachahmung ist." 
tJber die Entst. der griech. Schriftspr., Abhandl. deuts. Phil., 1878, p. 40. 


men may indeed be only an ideal norm, but " the whole character 
of a common language may be strengthened by the fact of its 
transference to an unquestionably foreign linguistic area, as we 
may observe in the case of the Greek kolvt]."^ The late Latin 
became a Kotvf] for the West as the old Babylonian had been for 
the East, this latter the first world-tongue known to us.^ Xeno- 
phon with the retreat of the Ten Thousand'' was a forerunner of 
the KOLvrj. Both Xenophon and Aristotle show the wider outlook 
of the literary Attic which uses Ionic words very extensively. 
There is now the "GroB-Attisch," It already has yipofiaL, eueKev, 
—roiaav, elwa and rjve'yKa, e8coKaiJ.€P and eSco/caj', ^aaiXtaaa, btLKVvoi, 
G(j, vaos. Aheady Thucydides and others had borrowed aa from 
the Ionic. It is an easy transition from the vernacular Attic to 
the vernacular kolvyj after Alexander's time. (Cf. Thumb's Hand- 
huch, pp. 373-380, "Entstehung der Koivrj.") On the development 
of the KOLVT) see further Wackernagel, Die Kultur der Gegenwart, 
Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 301 ff.; Moulton, Prol, ch. I, II; Mayser, Gr. d. 
griech. Pap., Kap. I. But it was Alexander who made the later 
Attic the common language of the world, though certainly he had 
no such purpose in view. Fortunately he had been taught by 
Aristotle, who himself studied in Athens and knew the Attic of 
the time. " He rapidly established Greek as the lingua franca of 
the empire, and this it was which gave the chief bond of union 
to the many countries of old civilizations, which had hitherto 
been isolated. This unity of culture is the remarkable thing in 
the history of the world." ^ It was really an epoch in the world's 
history when the babel of tongues was hushed in the wonderful 
language of Greece. The vernaculars of the eastern Roman 
provinces remained, though the Greek was universal; so, when 
Paul came to Lystra, the people still spoke the Lycaonian speech 

^ Paul, Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., p. 496. See also Kaerst, Gesch. d. Hel- 
lenist. Zeitalt., 1901, p. 420: "Die Weiterentwicklung der Gcschiehte des 
Altertums, so weit sie fiir unsere eigene Kultur entschcidende Bedeutung er- 
langt hat, beruht auf einer fortschreitenden Occidentalisierung; auch das im 
Oriente emporgekorninene Christentum entfaltet sich nach dem Westen zu 
und gelangt hier zu seiner eigentlich weltgeschichtlichen Wirksamkeit." 

2 Schwyzer, Die Weltspr. etc., p. 7. 

* See Mahaffy, Prog, of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., p. 7; cf. also Rutherford 
New Phrynichus, 1881, p. 160 f.; Schweizer, Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 16. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 31) points out that the vase-inscriptions prove the state- 
ment of the Const, of Athens, 11. .3, that the Athenians spoke a language com- 
pounded of all Greek and barbarian tongues besides. 

* Mahaffy, Prog, of Hellen., etc., p. 40. 


of their fathers.^ The papyri and the inscriptions prove beyond 
controversy that the Greek tongue was practically the same 
whether in Egypt, Herculaneum, Pergamum or Magnesia. The 
Greeks were the school-teachers of the empire. Greek was 
taught in the grammar schools in the West, but Latin was not 
taught in the East. 

(6) Vernacular and Literary. 

L Vernacular. The spoken language is never identical with the 
literary style, though in the social intercourse of the best edu- 
cated people there is less difference than with the uncultured.^ 
We now know that the old Attic of Athens had a vernacular and 
a literary style that differed considerably from each other.^ This 
distinction exists from the very start with the kolvti, as is apparent 
in Pergamum and elsewhere.* This vernacular kolvt] grows right 
out of the vernacular Attic normally and naturally.^ The colo- 
nists, merchants and soldiers who mingled all over Alexander's 
world did not carry literary Attic, but the language of social and 
business intercourse.^ This vernacular kolut] at first differed little 
from the vernacular Attic of 300 B.C. and always retained the 
bulk of the oral Attic idioms. "Vulgar dialects both of the an- 
cient and modern times should be expected to contain far more 
archaisms than innovations."^ The vernacular is not a varia- 
tion from the literary style, but the literary language is a develop- 
ment from the vernacular.* See Schmid^ for the relation between 
the literary and the vernacular kolvt]. Hence if the vernacular is 
the normal speech of the people, we must look to the inscriptions 
and the papyri for the living idiom of the common Greek or kolvt]. 
The pure Attic as it was spoken in Athens is preserved only in 

1 Schwyzer, Weltspr., p. 29. ^ Schweizer, Gr. der perg. etc., p. 22. 

3 See Ivretschmer, Die griech. Vaseninschr. und ihre Spr., 1894; and Mei- 
sterhans, Gr. der att. Inschr., 1900. Cf. Lottich, De Serm. vulg. Attic, 1881. 

* Schweizer, Gr., p. 27. 

5 Thumb, Griech. Spr. im Zeitalter etc., p. 208 f. Lottich in his De Serm. 
vulg. Attic, shows from the writings of Aristophanes how the Attic vernacular 
varied in a number of points from the Uterary style, as in the frequent use of 
diminutives, desiderative verbs, metaphors, etc. 

8 Schweizer, Gr., p. 23. 

7 Geldart, Mod. Gk. Lang, in its Rela. to Anc. Gk., 1870, p. 73. See also 
Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 10, who calls "die kolvt) weniger ein AbschluC 
als der Anfang einer neuen Entwicklung." On the okler Gk. kolvt] see 
Wackernagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 300 f. 

8 Deissmann, HeU. Griech., Hauck's Realencyc, p. 633. 

9 Atticismus, Bd. IV, pp. 577-734. A very important treatment of the 
whole question is here given. 


the inscriptions.^ In the Roman Empire the vernacular kolvt) 
would be understood almost everywhere from Spain to Pontus. 
See IV for further remarks on the vernacular kolvti. 

2. Literary. If the vernacular kolvt] was the natural develop- 
ment of the vernacular Attic, the literary kolvt] was the normal 
evolution of the literary Attic. Thumb well says, "Where there 
is no development, there is no life."^ "In style and syntax the 
literary common Greek diverges more widely from the collo- 
quial."* This is natural and in harmony with the previous re- 
moval of the literary Attic from the language of the people.^ The 
growth of the literary kolvt] was parallel with that of the popular 
KOLVT] and was, of course, influenced by it. The first prose monu- 
ment of literary Attic known to us, according to Schwyzer, is the 
Constitution of Athens^ (before 413), falsely ascribed to Xeno- 
phon. The forms of the literary kolvt] are much like the Attic, as 
in Polybius, for instance, but the chief difference is in the vocab- 
ulary and meaning of the same words.^ Polybius followed the 
general literary spirit of his time, and hence was rich in new 
words, abstract nouns, denominative verbs, new adverbs.^ He 
and Josephus therefore used Ionic words found in Herodotus and 
Hippocrates, hke 'ivSeais, irapacfyvXaKi], not because they consciously 
imitated these writers, but because the Koivi), as shown by papyri 
and inscriptions, employed them.^ For the same reason Luke and 
Josephus^ have similar words, not because of use of one by the 
other, but because of common knowledge of literary terms, Luke 
also using many common medical terms natural to a physician 
of culture. Writers like Polybius aimed to write without pedan- 
try and without vulgarism. In a true sense then the literary KOi.vj] 
was a "compromise between the vernacular kolvt] and the literary 
Attic," between "life and school." ^^ There is indeed no Chinese 

1 Hirt, Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formonl., 1902, p. 41. 

2 Griech. Spr., p. 251. =• Moulton, Prol., p. 26. 

^ Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 5. Deissmann (New Light on the N. T., 1907, 
p. 3 f.) shows that part of Norden's criticism of Paul's Gk. is nothing but 
the contrast between hterary Koivq and vernacular koivt)] cf. Die ant. Kunstjir. 

5 Schwyzer, Die Wcltspr. der Alt., p. 15. See also Christ, Gesch. der 
griech. Lit., p. 305. See Die pseudoxenophontische 'Adrjvalo:v IloXireia, von 
E. Kalinka, 1913. 

« Schweizer, Gr., p. 21. '' Christ, op. cil., p. 5SS. 

8 Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 213. See also Goetzeler, De Polyb. EIoc, 
1887, p. 15. 

9 Thumb, ib., p. 225 f. See also Krenkel, Josephus und Lukas, 1894, 
pp. 283 ff. " Thumb, ib., ji. 8. 


wall between the literary and the vernacular kolvyj, but a constant 
inflow from the vernacular to the written style as between prose 
and poetry, though Zarncke ^ insists on a thorough-going distinc- 
tion between them. The literary KOLvrj would not, of course, use 
such dialectical forms as tovs iravTes, toIs TpayfiaroLs, etc., com- 
mon in the vernacular Koivi]} But, as Krumbacher^ well shows, 
no literary speech worthy of the name can have an independent 
development apart from the vernacular. Besides Polybius and 
Josephus, other writers in the literary kolvt) were Diodorus, Philo, 
Plutarch, though Plutarch indeed is almost an "Anhanger des 
Atticismus"^ and Josephus was rather self-conscious in his use of 
the literary style.^ The literary kolvt) was still affected by the 
fact that many of the writers were of "un-Greek or half Greek 
descent," Greek being an acquired tongue.^ But the point must 
not be overdone, for the literary Koivi] "was written by cosmopoli- 
tan scholars for readers of the same sort," and it did not make 
much difference "whether a book was written at Alexandria or 
Pergamum."^ Radermacher^ notes that, while in the oldest 
Greek there was no artificiality even in the written prose, yet in 
the period of the KOLvi] all the literary prose shows "eine Kunst- 
sprache." He applies this rule to Polybius, to Philo, to the N. T., 
to Epictetus. But certainly it does not hold in the same manner 
for each of these. 

(c) The Atticistic Reaction. Athens was no longer the centre 
of Greek civilization. That glory passed to Alexandria, to Per- 
gamum, to Antioch, to Ephesus, to Tarsus. But the great crea- 
tive epoch of Greek culture was past. Alexandria, the chief seat 
of Greek learning, was the home, not of poets, but of critics of 
style who found fault with Xenophon and Aristotle, but could 
not produce an Anabasis nor a Rhetoric. The Atticists wrote, to 
be sure, in the kolvt] period, but their gaze was always backward 
to the pre-Kot^i7 period. The grammarians (Dionysius, Phryni- 

1 Zarncke in Griech. Stud., Hermann Lipsius, 1894, p. 121. He considers 
the Homeric poetry a reflection of the still older historical prose and the epic 
the oldest hterary form. See his Die Entst. der griech. Literaturspr., 1896. 
Cf. Wilamowitz-MoUendorff, Die Entst. der griech. Schriftspr., Verhandl. d. 
Phil., 1878, p. 36 f. ^ Hatzidakis, Einl. in die neugr. Spr., p. 6. 

3 Das Prob. der neugr. Schriftspr., 1903, p. 6. A valuable treatment of 
this point. 

* Weissenberger, Die Spr. Plut. von Charonea, 1895, pp. 3, 11. 

6 Jos., Ant., XIV, I, 1. 

8 Susemihl, Gesch. der griech. Lit. in der Alexandrienzeit, 1. Bd., 1891, p. 2. 

» Croiset, An Abr. Hist, of Gk. Lit., 1904, p. 425. ^ n. T. Gr., p. 2. 


chus, Moeris) set up Thucydides and Plato as the standards for 
pure Greek style, while Aratus and Callimachus sought to revive 
the style of Homer, and Lucian and Arrian ^ even imitated Herod- 
otus. When they wished to imitate the past, the problem still 
remained which master to follow. The Ionic revival had no great 
vogue, but the Attic revival did. Lucian himself took to Attic. 
Others of the Atticists were Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Dio 
Chrysostom, Aristides, Herodes Atticus, ^Elian, etc. "They as- 
sumed that the limits of the Greek language had been forever 
fixed during the Attic period."^ Some of the pedantic declaimers 
of the time, like Polemon, were thought to put Demosthenes to 
the blush. These purists were opposed to change in language 
and sought to check the departure from the Attic idiom. "The 
purists of to-day are like the old Atticists to a hair."^ The Atti- 
cists were then archaic and anachronistic. The movement was 
rhetorical therefore and not confined either to Alexandria or Per- 
gamum. The conflict between the kolvt] (vernacular and literary) 
and this Atticistic reaction affected both to some extent.* This 
struggle between "archaism and life" is old and survives to-day.* 
The Atticists were in fact out of harmony with their time,^ and 
not like Dante, who chose the language of his people for his im- 
mortal poems. They made the mistake of thinking that by 
imitation they could restore the old Attic style. "The effort and 
example of these purists, too, though criticized at first, gradually 
became a sort of moral dictatorship, and so has been tacitly if 
not zealously obeyed by all subsequent scribes down to the pres- 
ent time."^ As a result when one compares N. T. Greek,^ he 

1 A sharp distinction as a rule must be made between the language of 
Arrian and Epict. The Gk. of Epict. as reported by Arrian, his pupil, is a 
good representative of the vern. koivt] of an educated man. Arrian 's intro- 
duction is quite Atticistic, but he aims to reproduce Epictetus' own words as 
far as possible. 

^ Sophocles, Lex., p. 6. Athena;us 15. 2 said: Et /ni) iarpol ^aav, ov5h av fjv 
rdv ypaufxaTecop ixijiportpov. 

3 Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 180. On Atticism in the Koivii see Wacker- 
nagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 309. 

* Norden, Die griech. Kunstpr. bis Aug., Bd. I, 1898, p. 150. 

6 Thumb, ib., p. 8. 

6 lb., p. 252 f. 7 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 7. 

' Moulton, Prol., p. 26. The diction of Aristophanes is interesting ii8 a 
specimen of varieties of speech of the time. Cf. Hope, The Lang, of Parody; 
a Study in the Diction of Aristophanes (190G). Radermacher (N. T. Gk., 
p. 3) holds that we must even note the " barbarischcs Griechisch" of writers 
like John Philoponos and Proclos. 


must be careful to note whether it is with the book Greek (Ka- 
dapevovaa) or the vernacular (ojuiXou^ei'Tj). This artificial reac- 
tionary movement, however, had little effect upon the vernacular 
KOLvrf as is witnessed by the spoken Greek of to-day. Consequently 
it is a negligible quantity in direct influence upon the writers of 
the N. T.^ But the Atticists did have a real influence upon the 
literary kolvt] both as to word-formation ^ and syntax.^ With 
Dionysius of Halicarnassus beauty was the chief element of style, 
and he hoped that the Attic revival would drive out the Asiatic 
influence.'* The whole movement was a strong reaction against 
what was termed "Asianism" in the language.^ It is not surpris- 
ing therefore that the later ecclesiastical literary Greek was largely 
under the influence of the Atticists. "Now there was but one 
grammar: Attic. It was Attic grammar that every freeman, 
whether highly or poorly educated, had learned."^ "This purist 
conspiracy" Jannaris calls it. The main thing with the Atticists 
was to have something as old as Athens. Strabo said the style 
of Diodorus was properly "antique."' 

IV. The Characteristics of the Vernacular Koivii. 

(a) Vernacular Attic the Base. One must not feel that the 
vernacular Greek is unworthy of study. " The fact is that, during 
the beBt days of Greece, the great teacher of Greek was the com- 
mon people."^ There was no violent break between the vernacu- 
lar Attic and the vernacular KOLvrj, but the one flowed into the other 
as a living stream.^ If the reign of the separated dialects was 
over, the power of the one general Greek speech had just begun 
on the heels of Alexander's victories. The battle of Chseronea 
broke the spirit of the old Attic culture indeed, but the Athenians 

1 Schmid, Der Atticismus etc., Bd. IV, p. 578. ^ jb., p. 606 f. 

^ Troger, Der Sprachgeb. in der pseudolong. Schr., 1899, Tl. I, p. 61. 

* Schmid, ib., Bd. I, pp. 17, 25. See Bd. IV, pp. 577-734, for very valu- 
able summary of this whole subject. 

6 Norden, Die griech. Kunstpr., 1898. 1. Bd., p. 149. So Blass calls it 
" gleichzeitige atticistische Reaction gegen die asianische Beredsamkeit." 
Die griech. Beredsamkeit etc. von Alex, bis Aug., 1865, p. 77. 

6 Jannaris, op. cit., p. 11. See also Fritz, Die Brief e des Bischofs Syne- 
sius von Kyrene. Ein Beitr. zur Gesch. des Att. im 4. und 5. Jahrh., 1898. 

7 Strabo, 13. 4, 9. 

8 Sophocles, Lex. of Rom. and Byz. Period, p. 11. 

9 Deissmann, Die sprachl. Erforsch. etc., p. 11. Rutherford (New Phryn., 
p. 2) says that "the debased forms and mixed vocabulary of the common 
dialect would have struck the contemporaries of Aristophanes and Plato as 
little better than jargon of the Scythian policemen." On the form of the kolvti 
see Wackernagel, Kult. etc., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 305, 


gathered up the treasures of the past, while Alexander opened the 
flood-gates for the change in the language and for its spread over 
the world.^ "What, however, was loss to standard Attic was 
gain to the ecumenical tongue. The language m which Hellenism 
expressed itself was eminently practical, better fitted for life than 
for the schools. Only a cosmopolitan speech could comport with 
Hellenistic cosmopolitanism. Grammar was simplified, excep- 
tions decreased or generalized, flexions dropped or harmonized, 
construction of sentences made easier" (Angus, Prince. Rev., 
Jan., 1910, p. 53). The beginning of the development of the ver- 
nacular KOLvi] is not perfectly clear, for we see rather the com- 
pleted product.2 But it is in the later Attic that lies behind the 
KOLvi]. The optative was never common in the vernacular Attic 
and is a vanishing quantity in the kolvt]. The disappearance of 
the dual was already coming on and so was the limited use of the 
superlative, -Twaav instead of -vrwv, and -adwaav instead of -aduiv, 
yivofiaL, aa, dira, tLs instead of Torepos, eKaaros and not eKarepos.^ 
But while the Attic forms the ground-form* of the kolptj it must 
not be forgotten that the kolvt] was resultant of the various forces 
and must be judged by its own standards.^ There is not complete 
unanimity of opinion concernmg the character of the vernacular 
KOLPT). Steinthal^ indeed called it merely a levelled and debased 
Attic, while Wilamowitz ^ described it as more properly an Ionic 
popular idiom. Kretschmer « now (wrongly, I think) contends that 
the Northwest Greek, Ionic and Boeotian had more influence on 
the KOLvi] than the Attic. The truth seems to be the position of 
Thumb,^ that the vernacular kolvy] is the result of the mingling with 
all dialects upon the late Attic vernacular as the base. As between 
the Doric d and the Ionic rj the vernacular kolpy] follows the Attic 

» Christ, Gesch. der griech. Lit., 1905, p. 509 f. For "the Attic ground- 
character of the KOLvri" see Mayscr, Gr. dcr griech. Pap. (1906, p. 1). 

2 Kaibel, Stil und Text der 'Adr)valu}v UoXiTeia, p. 37. 

' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 3. Even in the htorary koivt] the dual is nearly 
gone, as in Polybius and Diodorus Siculus; cf. Schmidt, De Duali Grace, et 
Emor. et Reviv., 1893, pp. 22, 25. 

* Gott. Gel.-Anz., 1895, p. 30 f.; Ilatzidakis, Einl. in die neugr. Gr., 
p. 168 f.; Krumbacher, Byz. Lit., p. 789. 

* "Die Erforschung der kolvti hat lange gcnug unter dem Gesichtswinkel des 
'Klas-sicismus' gestanden." Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 10. 

* Gesch. der Sprachw., H, p. 37 f. 

^ Verhandl. der 32. jihil. Versamml., p. 40. 

8 Wochenschr. fiir klass. Philol., 1899, p. 3; Die Entst. der Koivv, 1900. 

» Op. cit., pp. 53-101, 202 f. 


usage, and this fact alone is decisive.^ Dieterieh^ indeed sums 
up several points as belonging to the "Attic kolvtj" such as verbs 
in -voo instead of -vfii, in -uaav instead of -cov in contract imper- 
fects, disuse of the temporal and the syllabic augment in com- 
position, disuse of reduplication, -rjv instead of -tj in ace. sing, 
of adjs. in -17s, -01; instead of -ovs in gen. sing, of third declen- 
sion, -a instead of -ov in proper names, disuse of the Attic de- 
clension, -es for -as in accusative plural, t6v as relative pronoun, 
tStos as possessive pronoun. But clearly by "Attic kolvt]" he means 
the resultant Attic, not the Attic as distinct from the other dialects. 

Besides the orthography is Attic (cf. I'Xecos, not tXaos) and the 
bulk of the inflections and conjugations likewise, as can be seen 
by comparison with the Attic inscriptions.^ Schlageter* sums 
the matter up : " The Attic foundation of the kolvt] is to-day gen- 
erally admitted." 

(h) The Other Dialects in the Koivq. But Kretschmer ^ is 
clearly wrong in saying that the KOivq is neither Attic nor decayed 
Attic, but a mixture of the dialects. He compares the mixture 
of dialects in the kolut] to that of the high, middle and low Ger- 
man. The Attic itself is a kolvt] out of Ionic, ^Eolic and Doric. 
The mixed character of the vernacular kolvt) is made plain by 
Schweizer^ and Dieterich.^ The Ionic shows its influence in the 
presence of forms like idlr], awelprjs, eiSvZa, —vlrjs, Ko.d' eros (cf. 
vetus), oarea, x^tXecoi', /3Xa|3ecof, xP^^'^ov, -as, — aSos; absence of the 
rough breathing (psilo&is or de-aspiration, ^olic also); dropping 
of ixi in verbs like StSco; KiQiiv (xtTwi'), reaaepa, irpaaaoo for xpdrrco 
(Attic also), etc. Ionic words like iJLov-6(j)da\fios (Herod.) instead 
of Attic tT€p-b4)daKp.os occur. Conybeare and Stock {Sel. from 
LXX, p. 48) suggest that Homer was used as a text-book in Alex- 
andria and so caused lonisms like <nrelpr}s in the kolpt]. The spread 
of the Ionic over the East was to be expected. In Alexander's 
army many of the Greek dialects were represented.^ In the Egyp- 
tian army of the Ptolemies nearly all the dialects were spoken.' 
The lonians were, besides, part of the Greeks who settled in Alex- 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 33 f. 

2 Unters. zur Gesch. d. griech. Spr., 1898, p. 258 f. 
' Meisterhans, Gr. der Att. Inschr. 

* Der Wortsch. der auBerhalb Attikas gefundenen att. Inschr., 1912. 

* Wochenschr. fiir klass. Phil., 1899, p. xvii. 
« Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 201 f. 

7 Unters. zur Gesch. etc., p. 259 f. ^ Arrian, II, 20. 5. 

9 Myer, Das Heerwesen der Ptolemaer und Romer in Agypten, 1900. 


andria.* Besides, even after the triumph of the Attic in Greece 
the Ionic had continued to be spoken in large parts of Asia Minor. 
The Ionic influence appears in Pergamum also. The mixing of the 
Attic with foreign, before all with Ionic, elements, has laid the 
foundation for the kolvt]} The Molic makes a poor showing, 
but can be traced especially in Pergamum, where Schweizer con- 
siders it one of the elements of the language with a large injection 
of the Ionic. ^ Jilolic has the a for r/ in proper names and forms 
in as. Bceotian-^olic uses the ending -oaav, as etxoaap, so common 
in the LXX. Moulton'* points out that this ending is very rare 
in the papyri and is found chiefly in the LXX. He calls Boeotian- 
.^olic also "the monophthongizing of the diphthongs." In the 
Attic and the Ionic the open sound of rj prevailed, while in the 
Boeotian the closed. In the kolvt] the two pronunciations existed 
together till the closed triumphed. Psilosis is also Ionic. The 
Doric appears in forms like Xaos (Xews), vaos (vecos), Trtafco (tu^cS), 
kcrirovda^a, 17 Xi/x6s, to ttXoOtos, oKeKTCop, K\l^avos (KpilSapos) ; and in 
the pronunciation perhaps /3, 7, 8 had the Doric softer sound as 
in the modern Greek vernacular. But, as Moulton^ argues, the 
vernacular kolpt] comes to us now only in the written form, and 
that was undoubtedly chiefly Attic. The Arcadian dialed possibly 
contributes a(t>ecopTaL, since it has d^ecbo-^r?, but this form occurs 
in Doric and Ionic also.^ Cf. also the change of gender 17 Xt)u6s 
(Luke) and to ttXoCtos (Paul). The Northivest Greek contrib- 
uted forms like apxoPTois, tovs "Kejopres, rJTaL {riiJ.T)p cf. Messe- 
nian and Lesbian also), tjpcotovp (like Ionic), etxoaav (cf. Bosotian), 
\e\vKap. The accusative plural in -es is very common in the 
papyri, and some N. T. MSS. give rkaaapes for reaaapas.'' The 
Achsean-Dorian kolpt] had resisted in Northwest Greece the 
inroads of the common Greek for a century or so. The Mace- 

1 H. Anz, Subsidia ad cognoscendum Graec. Serm. vulg. etc., 1894, p. 386. 
Mayser, Gr., pp. 9-24, finds numerous Ionic peculiarities in the Ptolemaic 
pap. far more than ^Eolic and Doric. He cites — rcoo-a/', iiaxa.Lpr]s, ecrco, (ftKiv, 
opkoiv, yoyyv^cj, wapaOijKTi, rkaaipts, €K7rTco/ja, etc. On the Ionic and other non- 
Attic elements in th(! Koivrj see Wackernugel, Kult., p. 3()G f. 

2 Kaibel, Stil und Text etc., p. 37. ^ Gr. d. pej-g. Inschr., p. 202. 

< Prol., p. 33. The caution of Tsichari (Essais de Gr. Hist. Neo-grq., 2*"^° 
6d., 1889, p. cxhx) is to be noted, that the vernacular is not necessarily dia- 
lectical, but "destin6e au peuple et ven;iit du j)euple." Cf. on .iEolic ele- 
ments, Mayser, Gr., p. 9. He cites 17 Xi/u6s in the pap.; cf. N. T. 

» Prol., p. 34. 

« Moulton, ib., p. 38, n. 3. For l)ori(! clcincnts in the paj). see Mayser, 
Gr., p. 5 f. ^ W. H., Iiitr. to the Gk. N. T., App., p. 150. 


donian Greek, spoken by many of Alexander's soldiers, naturally 
had very slight influence on the kolvt]. We know nothing of the 
old Macedonian Greek. Polybius ^ says that the Illyrians needed 
an interpreter for Macedonian, Sturz^ indeed gives a list of 
Macedonian words found in the kolvt], as ao-xtXos, Kopacnov, Tapen- 
/3oXi7, pu/iTj. But he also includes d77€XXw! The Macedonians 
apparently used |3 instead of ^ as j3l\LTnros, 6 = 9 as davaros, a = ^ 
as akpedpov. Plutarch^ speaks of Alexander and his soldiers 
speaking to each other Ma/ceSoj/to-rt. For full discussion of the 
Macedonian dialect see O. Hoffmann, Die Makedonen, ihre 
Sprache und Volkstum, 1906, pp. 232-255. 

(c) NoN-DiALECTiCAL CHANGES. It is uot always possible to 
separate the various peculiarities of the kolpt] into dialectical in- 
fluences. "Where Macedonian, Spartan, Boeotian, Athenian and 
Thessalian were messmates a kolvt] was inevitable. Pronounced 
dialecticisms which would render unintelligible or ludicrous to 
others were dropped" (see Angus, Prince. Theol. Rev., Jan., 1910, 
p. 67). The common blood itself went on changing. It was a 
living whole and not a mere artificial mingling of various ele- 
ments. There is less difference in the syntax of the KOLvi} and that 
of the earlier Greek than in the forms, though the gradual disap- 
pearance of the optative use of 'iva and finite verb in the non-final 
sense rather than the infinitive or even 6tl, the gradual disuse of 
the future part, may be mentioned. It was in the finer shades 
of thought that a common vernacular would fail to hold its 
own. "Any language which aspires to be a Weltsprache (world- 
language), as the Germans say, must sacrifice much of its deli- 
cacy, its shades of meaning, expressed by many synonjins and 
particles and tenses, which the foreigner in his hurry and without 
contact with natives cannot be expected to master."^ 

1 Polybius, 28. 8, 9. 

2 De Dial. Alexan. etc., 1786, p. 56 f.; see also De Dial. Macedonica et 
Alexan., 1808, pp. 37, 42; Maittaire, Graecae Ling. Dial. Sturzii, 1807, p. 184; 
Sophocles, Lex. of Rom. and Byz. Period, p. 3. Schweizer, Gr. der perg. 
Inschr., p. 27, sees very little in the Macedonian influence. 

» I, 592 B, 694 C. Kennedy (Sources of N. T. Gk., p. 17) says: "In any 
case, the Macedonian type of Greek, whether or not it is admissible to call it 
a special dialect, was so far removed from ordinary Attic as to make it cer- 
tain that the latter on Macedonian hps must soon and inevitably suffer thor- 
ough-going modification." 

4 Mahaffy, Survey of Gk. Civilization, p. 220. Cf. Geldart, Mod. Gk. 
Lang, in its Rela. to Anc. Gk., p. 73, for discussion of "the levelling tendency 
common to all languages." 

THE KOI Nil . 65 

(d) New Words, New Forms or New Meanings to Old 
Words. Naturally most change is found either in new words or 
in new meanings in old words, just as our English dictionaries must 
have new and enlarged editions every ten years or so. This growth 
in the vocabulary is inevitable unless the life of a people stops. A 
third-century inscription in Thera, for instance, shows avvayuyrj 
used of a religious meeting, ivapoiKos (not the Attic fxtToiKos) for 
stranger, aToaroXos and Karrixw-'^ in their old senses like those 
Americanisms which preserve Elizabethan English ("fall" for 
"autumn," for instance).^ Here are some further examples. It is 
hard to be sure that all of these are words that arose in the kolvt], 
for we cannot inark off a definite line of cleavage. We mention 
ayairt], ayioTrjs, ayvorrjs, adeafxos, aderrjaLs, oXKoTpioeTrlaKOTros , d/card- 
\vTOS, aKpoaTTjpLOV, ai'dpuTrapeaKos, avT'CkvTpov, avaKaivow (and many 
verbs in -ooj, -a^oi, -tfw), avay ^wabi, ^awTtaixa (many words in -^o), 
^aTTiafj.6s, ^aTTTLffT-qs, yprjyopew (cf. also arrjKw), deLaidaifxovla, SrjvapLOV, 
SLKaLOKpLala, e\er](jLoavv7], e/c/caKeco, eKfJLVKTrjpi^o^, decoT-qs, OeoTri/evaTOS, \oyia, 
Karrix^iji, KpajSaTTOs, p.a6y]Ttvw, OLKobeairbTTqs, bpdpl^oi, 6\pa.pL0v, b\p6}vi.ov, 
irpoaKaipos, poiJ.(f)aia, avp.^ovKLOV, reKiiviov, vlodeaia, viroTrodiov, <^tXa5eX- 
({)ia, CotIov, etc. Let these serve merely as examples. For others 
see the lists in Deissmann's Bible Studies, Light from the Ancient 
East, Moulton and Millegan's "Lexical Notes on the Papyri" 
{Expositor, 1908 — ), Winer-Schmiedel (p. 22), Thayer's Lexicon, 
(p. 691 f.), Rutherford's New Phrynichus, and the indices to the 
papyri collections. One of the pressing needs is a lexicon of the 
papyri and then of the kolvy] as a whole. Many of these words 
were already in the literary Koivrj, though they probably came from 
the vernacular.^ Some old words received slightly new forms, 
like auadefxa 'curse' {avadr]p.a 'offering'), aTrapri](TLS (airavTrjixa), airo- 
(TTaaia (airdaTaaLs), dporptdo; (dpoco), (SaaiXiaaa (/3acrtXeia) , 761'eo'ta 
(yeveOXLo), Se/caroco {deKarevo:), XvxJ^lo. (Xux^^oi'), paadaivoboaia {fnado- 
8oaLa), iJL0p6(t}da\(JL0S (erep6(/)^aXjuos), vovdeala {vovderrjaLs), oiKobopii] {pl- 

1 Hicks, St. Paul and Hellen., in Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., 1896, p. 5. Mayser 
(Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 24-35) gives an interesting list of words that were 
chiefly "poetical" in the classic literature, but are common in the papjTi. 
The poets often use the vernacular. Some of these words are dXtKTwp, /3i;Spw- 
ffKOj, btay.ios, duina, iKTivaaaw, evrpiiroiiai, kiraiTea), eiriaelu), daXiru:, KaraaTtWo), 
Koindofxai, Koiros, \aol = people,, vqirios, oIktjttipmu, irepf/cei/iot, Trpo<7<{)(jJviu), 
ffKvWo}, urkyri, avvavraco, verSs. New forms arc given to old words as XL/jiravo} 
from XetTTco, etc. Ramsay (see The Independent, 1913, p. 37G) finds ififiartvo) 
(cf. Col. 2 : 18) used in the technical sense of entering in on the part of in- 
itiates in the sanctuary of Apollos at Clai'os in an inscription there. 

2 See W.-Sch., p. 19, n. 8. 


KoSofxriaLs), bveibicxubs (oveLSos), oirraaia (oi^ts), iravSox^vs (TavSoKevs), 
■jrapa4)povia {irapaippoavvr]) , pai^rifco {palvw, cf. /SaTTTifco, jSaTrrco), arrjKO} 
(effTrjKo), Tafxetov (TafiLelop), (popTiov (and many diminutives in -iov 
which lose their force), Tai.8apLov (and many diminutives in -apiop), 
4>vaiaofj.aL {(^vaaojiai) , etc. 

Words (old and new) receive new meanings, as avaK\iv(a ('re- 
cline at table'). Cf. also avaTrlTTTCo, dvaKeiixaL, avTiXkyoi ('speak 
against'), aTOKpidrjvaL (passive not middle, 'to answer'), baiixovLov 
('evil spirit,' 'demon'), buiixa ('house-top'), epccraco ('beg'), evxapLareco 
('thank'), eTrto-reXXco ('write a letter'), 6\papLov ('fish'), o^/oovlov 
('wages'), TTapa/caXeco ('entreat'), Tapprjaia ('confidence'), TrepLairao- 
nat. ('distract'), iraidevo} ('chastise'), TVTwp.a ('corpse'), avyKpivcx) 
('compare'), axoXr] {'schooV), 4>da.voj ('come'), xoprafco ('nourish'), 
Xpr]f^o.Ti-^(^ ('be called').^ This is all perfectly natural. Only we 
are to remember that the difference between the kolvtj vocabulary 
and the Attic literature is not the true standard. The vernacular 
KOLvri must be compared with the Attic vernacular as seen in the 
inscriptions and to a large extent in a writer like Aristophanes 
and the comic poets. Many words common in Aristophanes, ta- 
boo to the great Attic writers, reappear in the kolvt]. They were 
in the vernacular all the time.^ Moulton^ remarks that the ver- 
nacular changed very little from the first century a.d. to the 
third. "The papyri show throughout the marks of a real lan- 
guage of daily life, unspoilt by the blundering bookishness which 
makes the later documents so irritating." It is just in the first 
century a.d. that the kolvt] comes to its full glory as a world- 
language. " The fact remains that in the period which gave birth 
to Christianity there was an international language" (Deissmaim, 
Light from the Ancient East, p. 59). It is not claimed that all the 
points as to the origin of the Koivi] are now clear. See Hesseling, 
De koine en de oude dialekten van Griechenland (1906). But 
enough is known to give an intelligible idea of this language 
that has played so great a part in the history of man. 

(e) Provincial Influences. For all practical purposes the 
Greek dialects were fused into one common tongue largely as a 
result of Alexander's conquests. The Germanic dialects have 
gone farther and farther apart (German, Dutch, Swedish, Nor- 
wegian, Danish, English), for no great conqueror has arisen to 

' Schlageter (Wortsch. etc., pp. 59-62) gives a good list of words with 
another meaning in the kolvt). 

2 Cf. Kennedy, Sour, of N. T. Gk., pp. 70 f., 147. 

3 CI. Quar., April, 1908, p. 137. 


bind them into one. The language follows the history of the peo- 
ple. But the unification of the Greek was finally so radical that 
"the old dialects to-day are merged into the general mass, the 
modern folk-language is only a continuation of the united, Hel- 
lenistic, common speech." ^ So completely did Alexander do his 
work that the balance of culture definitely shifted from Athens 
to the East, to Pergamum, to Tarsus, to Antioch, to Alexandria.^ 
This "union of oriental and occidental was attempted in every 
city of Western Asia. That is the most remarkable and interest- 
ing feature of Hellenistic history in the Graeco-Asiatic kingdoms 
and cities." 3 Prof. Ramsay adds: "In Tarsus the Greek qualities 
and powers were used and guided by a society which was, on the 
whole, more Asiatic in character." There were thus non-Greek 
influences which also entered into the common Greek life and 
language in various parts of the empire. Cf. K. Holl, "Das Fort- 
leben der Volkssprachen in nachchristlicher Zeit" {Hermes, 1908, 
43, p. 240). These non-Greek influences were especially noticeable 
in Pergamum, Tarsus and Alexandria, though perceptible at other 
points also. But in the case of Phrygia long before Alexander's 
conquest there had been direct contact with the Arcadian and 
the ^olic dialects through immigration.^ The Greek inscriptions 
in the Hellenistic time were first in the old dialect of Phrygia, 
then gliding into the Koivij, then finally the pure kolvt].^ Hence the 
KOLvi] won an easy victory in Pergamum, but the door for Phry- 
gian influence was also wide open. Thus, though the kolvt] rests 
on the foundation of the Greek dialects, some non-Greek elements 
were intermingled.'' Dieterich^ indeed gives a special list of 
peculiarities that belong to the KOivi] of Asia Minor, as, for in- 
stance, -av instead of -a in the accus. sing, of 3d deck, proper names 
in as, ris for oaris, SoTts for 6s, dixai. for dfj.[, use of ^tXco rather than 
future tense. In the case of Tarsus "a few traces of the Doric 

1 Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. etc., p. 417. 

2 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 6. The multitudinous mod. Gk. patois illus- 
trate the KOLvi). 

3 W. M. Ramsay, Tarsus, Exp., Mar., 1906, p. 261. 

■• Schweizer, Gr. der pcrg. Inschr., pp. 15 IT. * lb., p. 25. 

« Bnms, Die att. Bestrebungcn in dor gricch. Lit., 1896, p. 12, says: "Statt 
ihrcr (classische attische Sprache) rogicrt ein gemcines Kcbswoih, das aus 
irgend ciner phrygischen SjK'lunkc stanmit — das ist der hellenistische Stil" ! 
A slight exaggeration. Cf. Brugmann, Vergl. Gr., p. 9. 

^ Untersuch. zur Gesch. etc., pp. 258 ff. The speech of Asia Minor has in- 
deed close affinity with that of Paul and Luke and with all the N. T. writers. 
Cf. Thierae, Die Inschr. von Magn. am Maandcr ur.d das N. T., 1906. 



dialect may perhaps have Hngered" in the kolvt], as Ramsay sug- 
gests {Expositor, 1906, p. 31), who also thinks that vaoKopos for 
vecoKopos in Ac. 19 : 35 in D may thus be explained. 

But no hard and fast distinction can be drawn, as -av for -v 
as accusative appears in Egypt also, e.g. in dvyarepav. Is it proper 
to speak of an Alexandrian dialect? Blass^ says so, agreeing 
with Winer-SchmiedeP (77 'A\e^av8pecov StdXe/cros). This is the old 
view, but we can hardly give the name dialect to the Egyptian 
Greek. Kennedy^ says: "In all probability the language of the 
Egyptian capital had no more right to be called a dialect than 
the vernacular of any other great centre of population." Schwei- 
zer^ likewise refuses to consider the Alexandrian kolvt] as a dialect. 
Dieterich^ again gives a list of Eg>T)tian peculiarities such as ol 
instead of at, -a instead of -as in nominatives of third declension, 
adjectives in -77 instead of -a, kaov for aov, Kadeh for e/caaros, im- 
perfect and aorist in -a, iifirju for rjv, disuse of augment in simple 
verbs, indicative instead of the subjunctive. Mayser {Gr. d. 
griech. Pap., pp. 35-40) gives a list of "Egyptian words" found in 
the Ptolemaic papyri. They are words of the soil, like toltvpos 
itself. But Thumb "^ shows that the majority of the so-called 
Alexandrian peculiarities were general in the Kotvr) like riXdoaav, 
dxo.v, yeyovav, ecbpa/ces, etc. "There was indeed a certain un- 
wieldmess and capriciousness about their language, which displays 
itself especially in harsh and fantastic word-composition." As 
examples of their words may be mentioned Karapc^TL^o/jLevos, irapa- 
avyypactieLv, (jyCkavOpo^Tretv, etc. It is to be observed also that the 
KOLvi] was not the vernacular of all the peoples when it was spoken 
as a secondary language. In Palestine, for instance, Aramaic was 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., 1905, p. 3 note. 

2 Gr. des neut. Sprachid., § 3. 1, n. 4. 

3 Sour, of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. 23. Irenseus (Minucius Pacatus) and De- 
metrius Ixion wTote treatises on "the dialect of Alexandria" (Swete, Intr. 
to the O. T. in Gk., p. 289). But they probably did not understand that the 
vernacular kolvti, which differed from the hterary Koivi), was international 
(Thackeray, Gr. of the O. T. in Gk., vol. I, p. 19). "It is certain that many 
forms of this later language were specially characteristic of Alexandria" (ib.). 

* Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 27. ^ Unters. zur Gesch. etc., pp. 258 ff. 

* Die griech. Spr. etc., p. 168 ff. See also Anz, Subs, ad cognos. Graec. 
Serm. vulg. etc., 1891, p. 262. "Nee quae ApostoUdes homo doctus Alexan- 
drinus nuperrime protulit omnes caHgines propulsaverunt. Certe nemo 
jam existet qui cum Sturzio Macedonicam dialectum ibi quaerat, sed altera 
e parte neminem puto judicare illam quae vulgo appellatur dialectum Alexan- 
drinam soUs vindicandam esse Alexandrinis." Cf. Susemihl, Lit. der Alexan- 


the usual language of the people who could also, most of them, 
speak Greek. Moulton's parallel of the variations in modem 
English is not therefore true, unless you include also peoples Uke 
the Welsh, Scotch, Irish, etc. 

But as a whole the vernacular koivt] was a single language with 
only natural variations like that in the English of various parts 
of the United States or England.^ Thumb perhaps makes too 
much of a point out of the use of kfxos rather than nov in Asia 
Minor in its bearing on the authorship of the Gospel of John 
where it occurs 41 times, once only in 3 Jo. and Rev. (34 times 
elsewhere in the N. T.), though it is interesting to note, as he 
does, that the infinitive is still used in Pontus. But there were 
non-Greek influences here and there over the empire as Thumb ^ 
well shows. Thumb ^ indeed holds that "the Alexandrian popular 
speech is only one member of a great speech-development." 

(/) The Personal Equation. In the vernacular Koivrj, as in the 
literary language, many variations are due to differences in edu- 
cation and personal idiosyncrasies. "The colloquial language in 
its turn went off into various shades of distinction according to 
the refinement of the speaker" (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient 
East, p. 59). The inscriptions on the whole give us a more for- 
mal speech, sometimes official decrees, while the papyri furnish a 
much wider variety. "The papyri show us the dialect of Greek 
Egypt in many forms, — the language of the Government offi- 
cial, of the educated private person, of the dwellers in the temples, 
of the peasantry in the villages."^ We have numerous examples 
of the papyri through both the Ptolemaic and the Roman rule in 
Egypt. All sorts of men from the farm to the palace are here 
found writing all sorts of documents, a will or a receipt, a love- 

^ Sir Jonathan Williams, an Eng. savant, is quoted in the Louisville Cou- 
rier-Journal (May 9, 1906) as saying: "I have found in the city of Louisville 
a pronunciation and a use of terms which is nearer, to my mind, to Addison 
and the Enghsh classicists than anything which the counties of England, the 
provinces of Australia, or the marshes of Scotland can offer." He added that 
the purest English known to him is spoken in Edinburgh and Louisville. 
These two cities, for geographical reasons, are not provincial. 

2 Grioch. Spr. etc., pp. 102-lGl; Theol. Literaturzeit., 1903, p. 421; cf. 
also Moulton, Prol. p. 40. Moulton sets over against i/xos the fact that 
John's Gospel uses IVa rather than the iiifinitivc so often. Much of the 
force of su(!h an argument vanishes also under the personal equation. 

' Gricch. Spr. etc., \i. 171. Cf. also Zahn, Einleitung in tlas N. T., 
I, 38. 

* Kenyon, ext. vol. of Hast. D. B., art. Papyri, p. 355''. See also iil., 
Pala^og. of the Gk. Pap., 1899. 


letter or a dun, a memorandum or a census report, a private letter 
or a public epistle. "Private letters are our most valuable 
sources; and they are all the better for the immense differences 
that betray themselves in the education of the writers. The well- 
worn epistolary formulae show variety mostly in their spelling; 
and their value for the student lies primarily in their remarkable 
resemblances to the conventional phraseology which even the N. T. 
letter- writers were content to use."^ Deissmann^ has insisted on 
a sharp distinction between letters and epistles, the letter being 
private and instinct with life, the epistles being written for the 
pubhc eye, an open letter, a literary letter. This is a just dis- 
tinction. A real letter that has become literature is different 
from an epistle written as literature. In the papyri therefore we 
find all grades of culture and of illiteracy, as one would to-day if 
he rummaged in the rubbish-heaps of our great cities. One need 
not be surprised at seeing t6v fir}Tpo:s, t6v deaiv, and even worse 
blunders. As a sample Jannaris^ gives a^eLccdels viraipaTUiv ypa- 
Hara nei eidcoTOOv, for a^LCodels ur' avTcov ypaiJ.iJ.aTa /jr} tlboTOiv. Part 
of these are crass errors, part are due to identity of sounds in 
pronunciation, as o and w, ei and -q, ei and t. Witkowski^ properly 
insists that we take note of the man and the character of work 
in each case. 

It is obvious that by the papyri and the inscriptions we gain a 
truer picture of the situation. As a specimen of the vernacular 
KOLvi} of Egypt this letter of the school-boy Theon to his father has 
keen interest (see O. P. 119). It belongs to the second century 
A.D. and has a boy's mistakes as well as a boy's spirit. The writ- 
ing is uncial. 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 27 f. 

* B. S., 1901, pp. 3-59. "The distinction holds good, even if we cannot go 
all the way with Deissmann in pronouncing all the Pauline writings ' letters ' 
rather than 'Epistles.'" G. Milligan, Gk. Pap., p. xxxi. 

3 "Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 7. Quoted from Griech. Urk., Berlin, 13^, belonging 
to year 289 a.d. 

* The papyri contain "exempla ex vita deprompta, cum sermo scripto- 
rum ut solutae ita poeticae orationis nuUo modo veram nobis imaginem ser- 
monis illius aetatis praebeat. Etenim sermo, quem apud auctores hellinisticos 
deprehendimus, arti, non vitae, debetur." Witkowski Prodr. gr. pap. Graec, 
etc., 1898, p. 197. He urges that in case of variations in forms or syntax one 
must inquire "utrum ab alia qua dialecto petita sit an in Aegypto nata, utrum 
ab homine Graeco an barbaro formata." lb., p. 198. He thinks it is necessary 
that we have "Ubrum de sermone pap>Torum, librum de sermone titulorum, 
librum de sermone auctorum poeticae et pedestris orationis iUius aetatis, 
librum de dialecto Macedonica tractantem." lb. 


Qkciov QeoJVL ra3 Trarpt xatpfti'. 

/caXcos kirolrjaes. ovk cnreprjxts ne ner' e- 

crov eis irokiv. i] ov 9e\ts a-KevtKKHV /xe- 

T* effoO eis 'AXe^ai/Spiav ou ^n) 7pdi/'co (tc I- 

■KicFToKriv ovTe \a\Ci ae, ovre viyevco ae, 

elra. av 8e eXdus els 'A\e^ap8piap, ov 

fxrj XdjSco x^^P^'^ Tvapa \a\ov ovTe ttoKl X'^'^P^j^ 

at \vTrbv. a/x ni] OeKjis cnreveKai fJi[e], 

ravTa 7e[t]j'ere. Kal 17 iJ.r]Tr]p jiov dire 'Ap- 

XeXdw OTL avaaraTot p.e ' ixppou avrbv. 

koKSjs 81 eTTOtTjcres. 5copd jjlol eTeiJ.\j/e[s 

fxeyaXa apaua ireirXavTjKav ly/xws e/ceft], 

TTJ ■qp.kpa 1.(3' OTL eir'Kevaes. \vt6v -Keixypov d[s 

fxe, TrapaKaXoj ere. d/x /xtj TreiJLx{/r]s ov fxr] (pa- 

7W, ov ixi] ireivw raDra. 

kpusade ere ei;x(o/xat). 

T0/3t 17?'. 

On the other side : 

dTToSos QeoiVL [d]7r6 Qeoovaros vlQi. 

Milligan (Greek Papyri, p. xxxii) admits that there may be now 
a temptation "to exaggerate the significance of the papyri." But 
surely his book has a wonderful human, not to say linguistic, in- 
terest. Take this extract from a letter of Hilarion to his wife 
Alis (P. Oxy. 744 B.C. 1) : 'Edi' iroWaTroWQip TtKijs, eav rjv apaevov, 
a(f)es, eav rjv drjXea, eK^aXe. 

(g) Resume. To all intents and purposes the vernacular kolvt] 
is the later vernacular Attic with normal development under 
historical environment created by Alexander's conquests. On 
this base then were deposited varied influences from the other 
dialects, but not enough to change the essential Attic character 
of the language. There is one kolptj everywhere (cf . Thumb, Griech. 
Spr., p. 200). The literary KOLvi] was homogeneous, while the 
vernacular kolptj was practically so in spite of local variations 
(cf. Angus, The Koine: "The Language of the N. T.," Prince. 
Theol. Rev., Jan., 1910, p. 78 f.). In remote districts the language 
would be Doric-coloured or Ionic-coloured. 

Phonetics and Orthography. It is in pronunciation that the 
most serious differences appear in the KOLvrj (Moulton, Prol., p. 5). 
We do not know certainly how the ancient Attic was pronounced, 
though we can approximate it. The modern Greek vernacular 
pronunciation is known. The koivt) stands along the path of 
progress, precisely where it is hard to tell. But we know enough 



not to insist too strongly on "hair-splitting differences hinging 
on forms which for the scribe of our uncials had identical value 
phonetically, e.g. ol, tj, -q, v, i=ee in feet, or at = e" (Angus, op. cit., 
p. 79). Besides itacisms the i-monophthongizing is to be noticed 
and the equalizing of o and w. The Attic tt is aa except in a few 
instances (like eXaTTcov, KpelTTcov). The tendency is toward de- 
aspiration except in a few cases where the reverse is true as a 
result of analogy (or a lost digamma). Cf. ec^' eXTlBc. Elision is not 
so common as in the Attic, but assimilation is carried still further 
(cf. kfjL/jLeao:) . There is less care for rhythm in general, and the 
variable final consonants v and s appear constantly before con- 
sonants. The use of -et- for -tet- in forms like relu and ra/jLelou 
probably comes by analogy. OWels and /jL-qdeis are the common 
forms till 100 B.C. when ov8eis and ixrjSeis begin to regain their 

Vocabulary. The words from the town-life (the stage, the mar- 
ket-place) come to the front. The vocabulary of Aristophanes is 
in point. There was an increase in the number of diminutive 
forms. The kolpt] was not averse to foreign elements if they were 
useful. Xenophon is a good illustration of the preparation for 
the Koivr]. Cf. Radermacher, A^. T. Gr., p. 8. 

Word-Formation. There is the natural dropping of some old 
suffixes and the coining of new suffixes, some of which appear in 
the modern Greek vernacular. The number of compound words 
by juxtaposition is greatly increased, like xXTjpo-c^opeoj, x^'-po-ypa-<t>ov. 
In particular two prepositions in compounds are frequent, like 
avv-avTL-\ayi^avoiiai. New meanings are given to old words. 

Accidence. In substantives the Ionic -prjs, not -pas, is common, 
bringing nouns in -pa into harmony with other nouns of the first 
declension (Thackeray, Gr. of the 0. T. in Gk., p. 22). The Attic 
second declension disappears. Some feminine nouns in -os be- 
come masculine. The third declension is occasionally assimilated 
to the first in forms like vvKrav, Ovyarepav. Contraction is absent 
sometimes in forms like bpkwv. Both x^Pf-v and xapira occur. 
Adjectives have forms like aacfjoXyjp, irX-qp-qs indeclinable, irav for 
iravra (cf. p'e'yav), bval for bvoiv. The dual, in fact, has disappeared 
in all inflections and conjugations. Pronouns show the disap- 
pearance of the dual forms like tKarepos and uroTepos. Tis is used 
sometimes like oo-rts, and os eav is more frequent than 6s av about 
A.D. 1. Analogy plays a big part in the language, and this is proof 
of life. In the verb there is a general tendency toward simpli- 
fication, the two conjugations blending into one {pi, verbs going). 


New presents like airoKT'twoi, oirTavo}, are formed. There is con- 
fusion in the use of -dco and -eco verbs. We find ylvoixaL, yivdoaKd}. 
The increase of the use of first aorist forms hke ecrxa (cf . tlirov and 
diva in the older Greek). This first aorist termination appears 
even in the imperfect as in etxa. The use of -oaav {dxocrav, taxo- 
aav) for -ov in the third plural is occasionally noticeable. The 
form -av {bkbwKav) for -dcri may be due to analogy of this same 
first aorist. There is frequent absence of the syllabic augment 
in the past perfect, while in compound verbs it is sometimes 
doubled like aireKaTeaT-qaav. The temporal augment is often ab- 
sent, especially with diphthongs. We have -rcoaav rather than 
-vrwv, -adwaav rather than -aOoiv. 

Syntax. There is in general an absence of many Attic refine- 
ments. Simplicity is much more in evidence. This is seen in the 
shorter sentences and the paratactic constructions rather than 
the more complex hypotactic idioms. The sparing use of parti- 
cles is noticeable. There is no effort at rhetorical embellishment. 
What is called "Asianism" is the bombastic rhetoric of the arti- 
ficial orators. Atticism aims to reproduce the classic idiom. The 
vernacular kolvt] is utterly free from this vice of Asianism and 
Atticism. Thackeray (op. cit., p. 23) notes that "in the breach 
of the rules of concord is seen the widest deviation from classical 
orthodoxy." This varies a great deal in different writers as the 
papyri amply testify. The nominaiivus -pendens is much in evi- 
dence. The variations in case, gender and number of substan- 
tives, adjectives and verbs are frequent KaTo. avveaiv. The neuter 
plural is used with either a singular or plural verb. The com- 
parative does duty often for the superlative adjective. The 
superlative form usually has the elative sense. Ilpcoros is com- 
mon (as sometimes in older Greek) when only two are compared. 
'EavTwv occurs for all three persons. The accusative is regaining 
its old ascendency. There is an increase in the use of the accu- 
satives with verbs and much freedom in the use of transitive 
and intransitive verbs. The growth in the use of prepositions 
is very marked both with nouns and in composition, though some 
of the old prepositions are disappearing. Few prepositions occur 
with more than two cases. Phrases like ^Xkirui airo show a de- 
parture from the old idiom. New adverbial and prepositional 
phrases, are coming into use. The cases with prepositions are 
changing. The instrumental use of h is common. The optative 
is disappearing. The future participle is less frequent. The in- 
finitive (outside of rod, kv Tc3, ets TO and the inf.) is receding before 


tva, which is extending its use very greatly. There is a wider use 
of oTL. Everywhere it is the language of life and not of the books. 
The N. T. use of expressions like els to ovoixa, 8vo 8vo, once cited 
as Hebraisms, is finding illustration in the papyri (cf. Deissmann, 
Light, etc., p. 123 f.). M17 begins to encroach on ov, especially 
with infinitives and participles. The periphrastic conjugation is 
frequently employed. The non-final use of tva is quite marked. 
Direct discourse is more frequent than indirect. Clearness is 
more desired than elegance. It is the language of nature, not of 
the schools. 

V. The Adaptability of the Kotvii to the Roman World. It is 
worth while to make this point for the benefit of those who may 
wonder why the literary Attic could not have retained its suprem- 
acy in the Grseco-Roman world. That was impossible. The 
very victory of the Greek spirit made necessary a modern com- 
mon dialect. Colonial and foreign influences were inevitable and 
the old classical culture could not be assimilated by the Jews 
and Persians, Syrians, Romans, Ethiopians. " In this way a Pan- 
hellenic Greek sprang up, which, while always preserving all its 
main features of Attic grammar and vocabulary, adopted many 
colonial and foreign elements and moreover began to proceed in a 
more analytical spirit and on a simplified grammar."^ The old 
literary Attic could not have held its own against the Latin, for 
the Romans lamented that they were Hellenized by the Greeks 
after conquering them.^ Spenserian English would be an af- 
fectation to-day. The tremendous vitality of the Greek is seen 
precisely in its power to adjust itself to new conditions even to 
the present time. The failure of the Latin to do this not only 
made it give way before the Greek, but, after Latin became the 
speech of the Western world during the Byzantine period, the ver- 
nacular Latin broke up into various separate tongues, the modern 
Romance languages. The conclusion is irresistible therefore that 
the KOLVT] possessed wonderful adaptabihty to the manifold needs 
of the Roman world. ^ It was the international language. Nor 
must one think that it was an ignorant age. What we call the 
"Dark Ages" came long afterwards. "Let me further insist that 
this civilization was so perfect that, as far as it reached, men were 

* Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 6. 

* Gk. was the language of culture in Rome. Gk. tutors, often slaves, 
taught in the schools, cf. Epictetus. Paul wrote to Rome in Gk. 

5 Lafoscade, Infl. du Lat. sur le Grec, pp. 83-158, in BibHot. de I'Ecole des 
hautes 6t., 1892. , 



more cultivated in the strict sense than they ever have been 
since. We have discovered new forces in nature; we have made 
new inventions; but we have changed in no way the methods of 
thinking laid down by the Greeks . . . The Hellenistic world was 
more cultivated in argument than we are nowadays." ^ Moulton^ 
cannot refrain from calling attention to the remarkable fact that 
the new religion that was to master the world began its career 
at the very time when the Mediterranean world had one ruler 
and one language. On the whole it was the best language possible 
for the Grseco-Roman world of the first century a.d. 

1 Mahaffy, Prog, of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., 1905, p. 137. He adds (p. Ill): 
"The work of Alexandria was a permanent education to the whole Greek- 
speaking world; and we know that in due time Pergamum began to do similar 

2 Prol., p. 6. See also Breed, Prep, of the World for Chr., 1904, ch. IX, 
The Hellenizing of the Nations, and ch. XI, The Unification of the World. 
Jannaris (op. cit., p. 8) indeed puts the LXX, N. T. and many pap. into "the 
Levantine group" of the Uterary language, but this is a wrong assignment 
for both the LXX and the N. T. 


I. The New Testament Chiefly in the Vernacular Koivrj. Ob- 
serve "chiefly/' for not quite all the N. T. is wholly in the ver- 
nacular KOLVT] as will be shown. ^ But the new point, now obvious 
to every one, is just this, that the N. T. is in the normal kolvt) of 
the period. That is what one would have looked for, when you 
come to think of it. And yet that is a recent discovery, for the 
Purists held that the N. T. was in pure Attic, while the Hebraists 
explained every peculiarity as a Hebraism. The Purists felt that 
revelation could only come in the "best" Greek, and hence it had 
to be in the Attic. This, as we now know, could only have been 
true if the N. T. writers had been Atticistic and artificial stylists. 
So the Hebraists got the better of the argument and then overdid 
it. The most popular language in the N. T. is found in the 
Synoptic Gospels. Even Luke preserves the words of Jesus in 
colloquial form. The Epistle of James and the Johannine writings 
reflect the vernacular style very distinctly. We see this also in 
the Epistles of Peter (Second Peter is very colloquial) and Jude. 
The colloquial tone is less manifest in Acts, some of Paul's Epistles 
and Hebrews. Cf. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 63 f. 
Wellhausen (Einl., p. 9) stresses the fact that in the Gospels the 
Greek spoken by the people makes its entry into literature.^ 

(a) Not a Biblical Greek. As late as 1893 Viteau^ says: "Le 
grec du N. T. est une variete du grec hebraisant." Again: "C'est 
par le grec des LXX qu'il faudrait expliquer, le plus souvent, le 
grec du N. T."^ Viteau is aware of the inscriptions and the pa- 
pyri and even says: "The Greek of the N. T. must be compared 
continually wdth the post-classical Greek in its various branches: 
with the Greek of the profane writers, the Greek of the inscrip- 

^ Cf. Deissmann, Light, pp. 55, 69. 

2 Cf. Moulton, N. T. Ok. (Camb. Bibl. Ess., pp. 488 ff.) who notes a special 
deficiency in Gk. culture in Mark's Gospel and the Apocalypse. 

3 Etude sur le Grec du N. T., Le Verbe, p. Uv. * lb., p. Iv. 



tions of the Alexandrian and GriECO-Roman periods, the He- 
braizing Greek, finally the Christian Greek," ^ But he labours 
under Hatch's false idea of a distinct biblical Greek of which the 
N. T. is a variety; both of these ideas are erroneous. There is no 
distinct biblical Greek, and the N. T. is not a variety of the LXX 
Greek. Jowett^ over forty years ago said: "There seem to be 
reasons for doubting whether any considerable light can be 
thrown on the N. T. from inquiry into language." That proph- 
ecy is now almost amusing in the light of modern research. 
Simcox^ admitted that "the half-Hebraized Greek of the N. T. is 
neither a very elegant nor a very expressive language," but he 
found consolation in the idea that "it is a many-sided language, 
an eminently translatable language." Dr. Hatch* felt a reaction 
against the modern Atticistic attitude toward the N. T. language: 
"In almost every lexicon, grammar and commentary the words 
and idioms of the N. T. are explained, not indeed exclusively, but 
chiefly, by a reference to the words and idioms of Attic historians 
and philosophers." In this protest he was partly right, but he 
went too far when he insisted that^ "biblical Greek is thus a 
language which stands by itself. What we have to find in study- 
ing it is what meaning certain Greek words conveyed to a Semitic 

Dr. Hatch's error arose from his failure to apply the Greek in- 
fluence in Palestine to the language of Christianity as he had done 
to Christian study. Judea was not an oasis in the desert, but was 
merged into the Grseco-Roman world. Rothe^ had spoken "of a 
language of the Holy Ghost. For in the Bible it is evident that 
the Holy Spirit has been at work, moulding for itself a distinc- 
tively religious mode of expression out of the language of the 
country." Cremer,^ in quoting the above, says: "We have a very 
clear and striking proof of this in N. T. Greek." Winer ^ had in- 
deed seen that "the grammatical character of the N. T. language 
has a very slight Hebrew colouring," but exactly how slight he 
could not tell. Winer felt that N. T. Greek Avas "a species of a 
species," "a variety of later Greek," in a word, a sort of dialect. 
In this he was wrong, but his notion (op. cit., p. 3) that a gram- 
mar of the N. T. should thus presuppose a grammar of the later 

1 lb., p. lii. 4 Ess. in Bibl. Glc, ISSO, p. 2. 

^ Ess. and Rev., p. 477. » lb., ]). 11. 

3 Lang, of the N. T., 1890, p. 20. « Dogniatik, 1S03, p. 23S. 

7 Biblico-Theol. Lex. of N. T. Gk., 1802, p. iv. 

8 W.-M., 1877, p. 38. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 28. 


Greek or kolvt] is quite right, only we have no such grammar even 
yet. Winer made Httle use of the papyri and inscriptions (p. 21 
ft. n.). We still sigh for a grammar of the kolvt], though Thumb 
has related the kolvt] to the Greek language as a whole. Kennedy ^ 
contended that there was "some general characteristic" about 
the LXX and N. T. books, which distinctly marked them off from 
the other Greek books; but "they are both children of the same 
parent, namely, the colloquial Greek of the time. This is the secret 
of their striking resemblance." Even in the Hastings' Dictionary 
Thayer^ contends for the name "Hellenistic Greek" as the proper 
term for N. T. Greek. That is better than "biblical" or "Jew- 
ish" Greek, etc. But in simple truth we had better just call it 
N. T. Greek, or the Greek of the N. T., and let it go at that. It is 
the Greek of a group of books on a common theme, as we would 
speak of the Greek of the Attic orators, the Platonic Greek, etc. 
It is not a peculiar type of Greek except so far as that is due to 
the historical conditions, the message of Christianity, and the 
pecuharities of the writers. Deissmann,^ however, is the man 
who has proven from the papyri and inscriptions that the N. T. 
Greek is not a separate variety of the Greek language. He denies 
that the N. T. is like the LXX Greek, which was "a written Sem- 
itic-Greek which no one ever spoke, far less used for literary pur- 
poses, either before or after. "^ Blass^ at first stood out against 
this view and held that "the N. T. books form a special group — 
one to be primarily explained by study," but in his Grammar of 
N. T. Greek he changed his mind and admitted that " a grammar 
of the popular language of that period written on the basis of all 
these various authorities and remains" was better than limiting 
oneself "to the language of the N. T."^ So Moulton^ concludes: 
"The disappearance of that word 'Hebraic' from its prominent 
place in our dehneation of N. T. language marks a change in our 
conceptions of the subject nothing less than revolutionary." The 
new knowledge of the kolvt] has buried forever the old controversy 
between Purists and Hebraists.^ The men who wrote the N. T. 

1 Sour, of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. 146. 

2 Art. Lang, of the N. T., Hast. D. B., 1900. 

' B. S., 1901; Hell. Griech., Hauck's Realencyc. etc. 

* B. S., p. 67. « Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 2. 

6 Thcol. Literaturzeit., 1895, p. 487. ^ Prol., p. 1. 

8 Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 120. It lasted "solange die bibhsche Gra- 
citat als etwas isoliertes betrachtet wurde." Thumb attacks the idea of a 
N. T. dialect or a pecuhar bibhcal variety of the Koivrj, pp. 162-201. For his- 
tory of the Purist controversy see W.-Th. § 1, W.-Sch. § 2. 


were not aloof from the life of their time. "It embodied the 
lofty conceptions of the Hebrew and Christian faith in a language 
which brought them home to men's business and bosoms."* 
Wackernagel understates the matter: "As little as the LXX does 
the N. T. need to be isolated linguistically." ^ 

(b) Proof that N. T. Greek is in the Vernacular Koivq. The 
proof is now at hand. We have it in the numerous contemporary 
Greek inscriptions already published and in the ever-increasing 
volumes of papyri, many of which are also contemporary. As 
early as 1887 a start had already been made in using the inscrip- 
tions to explain the N. T. by E. L. Hicks.^ He was followed by 
W. M. Ramsay/ but it is Deissmann who has given us most of 
the proof that we now possess, and he has been ably seconded l)y 
J. Hope Moulton. Deissmann^ indeed insists: "If we are ever in 
this matter to reach certainty at all, then it is the inscriptions 
and the papyri which will give us the nearest approximation to 
the truth." Hear Deissmann^ more at length: "Until the papyri 
were discovered there were practically no other contemporary 
documents to illustrate that phase of the Greek language which 
comes before us in the LXX and N. T. In those writings, broadly, 
what we have, both as regards vocabulary and morphology, and 
not seldom as regards syntax as well, is the Greek of ordinary 
intercourse as spoken in the countries bordering on the Mediter- 
ranean, not the artificial Greek of the rhetoricians and litterateurs, 
strictly bound as it was by technical rules. This language of or- 
dinary life, this cosmopolitan Greek, shows unmistakable traces 
of a process of development that was still going on, and in many 
respects differs from the older dialects as from the classical 

1 Thayer, Hast. D. B., art. Lang, of the N. T., Ill, p. 366. 

2 Die griech. Spr. (Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8), p. 309. 

3 CI. Rev., 1887. 

* Exp. Times, vol. X, pp. 9 ff. 

^ B. S., p. 81. Deissmann calls attention also to a booklet by Walch, 
Observ. in Mattha3um ex graecis inscr., 1779. So in 1850, Robinson in the 
Pref. to his N. T. Lex. says: "It was, therefore, the spoken language of 
common life, and not that of books, with which they became acquainted"; 
cf. also the works of Schweizer, Nachmanson, Dittcnbcrger, etc. 

6 Encyc. Bibl., art. Papyri. "At the time when the ancient Greek culture 
was in conflict with Christianity, the assailants pointed sarcastically at the 
boatman's idiom of the N. T., while the d(>fenders, glorying in the taunt, 
made this very homeliness their boast. Latin apologists were the first to 
make the hopeless attempt to prove that the literary form of the Bible as a 
whole, and of the N. T. in particular, was artistically perfect." Deissmann, 
Exp. Times, Nov., 1906, p. 59; cf. also Norden, Kunstpr., II, pp. 512 f., 526 f. 


Attic." As Moultoni puts it, "the Holy Ghost spoke absolutely 
in the language of the people." 

The evidence that the N. T. Greek is in the vernacular kolvt] is 
partly lexical and partly grammatical, though in the nature of 
the case chiefly lexical. The evidence is constantly growing. See 
Deissmann, Bible Studies, Light from the Ancient East; Moulton 
and Milligan's "Lexical Notes on the Papyri" {The Expositor, 
1908 — ). We give first some examples of words, previously sup- 
posed to be purely "bibUcal," now shown to be merely popular 
Greek because of their presence in the papyri or inscriptions: 
ayaTTT], aKarayvciocrTOs, ava'^ao^, apaaraTOOJ, avTL\r]iJ.TTO}p, aWoyevijs, 
a(j)L\dpyvpos, aWevreo), jSpoxv, ivavri, evbibhaKOJ, hdoircov, eTriKardparos, 
einavvaycjoyr], evapearos, evTrpo(XO)ireo3, ieparevo}, t/xarti'co, KaTaireTaap-a, 
KarayyeXevs, Karrjyo^p, Kadapl^u, kokklvos, KvpLaKos, XetrovpyLKOs, Xoyela, 
ve6(f)VT0S, 6(/>etXi7, -Kapa^oKtvojiai, Treptaaela, TXrjpocjiopew, irpodKapTepriffLS, 
TrpoaKvi^rjTTjs, irpoaevxV} t pcoToroKos , aiTop-erpiov, avvavTiKaix^avonaL, 
</)tXo7rpajreuco, (f)pepaTraTr]s, etc. For a lively discussion of these 
words see Deissmann {Bible Studies, pp. 198-247; Light, etc., pp. 
69-107). The recovery of the inscription on the marble slab that 
warned the gentiles from the Updv is very impressive, M-qdha 
aWoyovrj daTTopeveadaL kvTOS tov irepl to lepov Tpv4>aKT0V Kal -Ktpi^oKov. 
OS 5' av \r]<i>drj, eavTccL a'cTLOS earai olcl to h^aKoXovOetv davaTOV. The 
words above are no longer biblical avra^ \ey6fxeva. But this is 
not all. Many words which were thought to have a peculiar 
meaning in the LXX or the N. T. have been found in that very 
sense in the inscriptions or papyri, such as d5eX06s in the sense of 
'common brotherhood,' adeTrjaLs, d/xerai'OJjTos, aiJL4>6TepoL = iravTes, dm- 
CTpe4>onaL, a.vacj)epoo, avTiKrjixxJ/LS, avrexco, anoKpLixa, airoTaacTOfiaL, apeTr],- 
apKeTos, 'AcTLapxv^, aarnios, aai: agonal, cltottos, jSaaTa^w, /3e/3atco(rts, 
^La^ofxai, jSouXo/xat, ykvqiia, yoyyv^oo, ypa/JLfxaTevs, ypacjjco, SeLirvku}, bkov 
effTL, StajSdXXco, biaadw, bUaios, 8l6tl = otl, bixorojikw, 8ok'lhlos, 56/ct- 
IJLOS, dojfia, eau = av, el lurjv, el8os, els, eKTeveia, Utos, eKTivdacroi, ev, 
evebpehoi, epoxos, evTvyx^vw, kin^akiov, eTlaKOiros, epcordw, evaxVfJ-^Vj 
eTTLOvaios, tiixaptcrreco, ecos, riyovfxaL, riXiKla, riavxia, dep-ekiov, decxipeo), 
'idios, IXaaT-qpiov, I'Xecos, laTopeo), KadapV^oi, Kadapos, Kaivos, KaKoirddeLa, 
Kard, KaTO-Kpiixa, KaTavrdu!, kXIvt}, KoXdfopat, KoWdco, KoXa^tfw, kotos, 
KopaaLOV, KTOLOixaL, KvpLOS, XtK/xdco, Xti^, Xouojuai, fxevovvye, iJ.apTvpovp.aL, 
Ixei^oTepos, piKpbs, poyCKoKos, povi], mDs, veKpol, vt], vofxos, oU'ia, 6p.o~ 
\oyeu, opo/ia, 6\poji>LOV, irapd, Tvapabeiaos, TvapaO-qKr], Trapa/cuTrrw, irapei- 
a<j>'epw, ■Kapeirib-qpos, Trdpecrts, irdpoLKOs, Tvapo^vvofiai, -rraTpoirapaboTOS, 
xepto-TrdoJ, irepLTtfjiVb), Ttrixvs, irXeoveKTeoj, ttXtjOos, 'ir\r]po(})opeu, irpdyna, 

1 Prol., p. 5. 


TrpcLKTWp, Trpe<Tl3uTepos, wpodeaLS, ivpocfkxoi, TrpoffKaprepeoj, Trpo(f>T)Tr]s, 
(Tawp6s, (TKvWa), okoKox}/, anapaySLPos, crovoaptov, aireKovXaTo^p, araaLS, 
(TTpaTevofxai, a(j>pa'y'i^w, <T(j)vpLS, avyyevris, (tvh^ovXlov, cvveidrjcns, avp- 
€xo}, (TvvevdoKeo}, crvvevcjoxeoidai, avvlaTriixL, aujia, awTrjp, r-qpricns, tottos, 
vios, vios deov, vlodeala, vwo^vyLOv, VTroirbhov, VToaraaLS, (pacns, <f>€p(t3, 
c})6avo}, (f)i\os, 4>L\oaTopyLa, (fiCKoTitxkoixaL, xapayfxa, xo-pis tui Gew, XP^'i-O-, 
xpovos, ypoiixlov, xl/vxhv aojaai. This seems like a very long list, but 
it will do more than pages of argument to convince the reader 
that the vocabulary of the N. T. is practically the same as that of 
the vernacular KOLvrj in the Roman Empire in the first century 
A.D.i This is not a complete list, for new words will be added 
from time to time, and all that are known are not here included. 
Besides neither Deissmann nor Moulton has put together such 
a single list of words, and Kenyon's in Hastings' D. B. (Papyri) 
is very incomplete. After compiling this list of words I turned to 
the list in the Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible by Thayer (art. 
"Language of the N. T.") where are found some thirty new words 
common to the N. T. and the vernacular kolvtj, words not com- 
mon in the classic Greek. Thayer's hst is entirely different save 
a half-dozen. In his list are comprised such interesting words as 
aX\r]yop€0}; aPTo4)da\{jLeo), airoKapadoKia, 5eLaL5aLp.ovia, eyxplo:, kyyl^co, 
kmxoprjyeui, evBoKea:, eu/catpeco, dpLa{jLJ3evo), etc. This list can be 
largely increased also by the comparison between words that are 
common to the N. T. and the comic poets (Aristophanes, Menan- 
der, etc.) who used the language of the people. See Kennedy's 
lists in Sources of N. T. Greek (ch. VI). Many of these, as Ken- 
nedy shows, are theological terms, like aladrjTrjpLov, appa^wv, ^a-w- 
TL^Q}, €vxo.pL(7Tia, Kvpia, fxvaT-qpLov, ^tXaSeX^ia. The Christians found 
in common use in the Roman Empire terms like dSeX^os, cTrt^dj^eta, 
eiTLcfiavrjs, Kvpcos, XeLTOvpyla, rapovala, Tpea(3vTepos, Tpoypa(f>o), aojrrjp, 
acoTTjpla, vios Qeov. They took these words with the new popular 
connotation and gave them "the deeper and more spiritual 

1 It is not meant, of course, that the bullc of the N. T. words are new as 
compared with the old Gk. Far from it. Of the 4829 words in the N. T. 
(not including proper names) 3933 belong to older classic language (litenxry 
and vernac.) while 99G arc late or foreign words. See Jacquier, Hist, des Livres 
du N. T., tome 1", 1906, p. 25. Thayer's Lex. claimed 707 N. T. words, 
but Thayer considered 89 as doubtful and 76 as late. Kennedy (Sour, of 
N. T. Gk., p. 02) found about 550 "biblical" words. But now Deissmann 
admits only about 50, or one per cent, of the 5000 words in the N. T. (Light, 
etc., p. 72 f.). Findlay (Exp. Gk. T., 1 Cor., p. 748) gives 5594 Greek 
words in the N. T. (whole number), while Viteau (Syntaxe des Prop., p. xxx) 
gives 5420. 


sense with which the N. T. writings have made us famihar" 
(Milhgan, Greek Papyri, p. xxx). They could even find tov 
neyaXov Qeov evepykrov Kal awTrjpos (GH 15, ii/B.c). Cf. Tit. 2 : 13; 
2 Pet. 1:1.^ The papyri often show us how we have misunder- 
stood a word. So airoypa^yi] (Lu. 2 : 2) is not "taxing," but "en- 
rolHng" for the census (very common in the papyri). But this 
is not all, for the modern Greek vernacular will also augment the 
list of N. T. words known to belong to the oral speech. When 
this much is done, we are ready to admit the vernacular character 
of all the words not known to be otherwise. The N. T. Greek is 
like the Koivi] also in using many compounded ("sesquipedalian") 
words like avtKbii]'yr]TOS, ave^epavvr]Tos, dXXoTpto€7rt(TK07ros, virepevTvy- 
xavoo, etc. There is also the same frequency of diminutives, some 
of which have lost that significance, as irXoLapLov, dirapiov, lotIov, etc. 
The new meanings to old words are well illustrated in the fist 
from the papyri, to which may be added avakvui, hrpoTr], fwoxoteco, 
o'Xo^^j XopTo.^^, etc. 

As to the forms we need say less, but the evidence is to the same 
effect. The papyri show examples of 'AKuXa (and -ov) for geni- 
tive, dvojv and Svai, tyevap.riv, eXa/3a, ekeyas, 'ekev^a, ^\da, r]V0Lyr]v, 
ripirayriv, ri^a, 6e5co/f6S, oUes, eypa\pes, tl6oj, airelpr]s; the imperative 
has only the long forms -rcoaav, -adcoaav, etc. The various dialects 
are represented in the forms retained in the N. T., as the Attic in 
^ovXei, 5t56a(7t, rifxeXKe, etc.; the Ionic in ixaxalp-ns, yivop.aL, yLPo^aKu, 
etc.; the Doric in a.(j)eo)UTaL, rirco, etc.; the ^Eolic in airoKTewi^, 3d 
plural in -aav, etc.; the Northwest Greek in accusative plural in 
-€s, perfect in -av (3d plural), confusion of -aco and -eco verbs, etc.; 
the Arcadian-Cyprian group in accusative singular in -av, d(/)ecov- 
rat (also). It is curious that Thayer in Hastings' D. B., follows 
Winer's error in giving eblhoaav as an example of a form like e'ixoaav, 
for the present stem is 5t5o-, and aau is merely the usual p.L ending. 
See Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 4-20. 

Among the syntactical peculiarities of N. T. Greek which are 
less numerous, as in the kolvt], the following are worthy of note 
and are found in the KOLvrj: the non-final use of IW; the frequent 
use of the personal pronoun; the decreased use of the possessive 
pronouns; disuse of the optative; increased use of 6tl; disuse of 
the future participle; use of participle with elfxl; article with the 
infinitive (especially with h and els); cities and /SXcxe with sub- 
junctive without conjunction; the absence of the dual; use of 
6^e>iOv as conjunction; frequency of kav; orav, etc., with indicative; 
1 Moulton, Prol., p. 84; Wendland, Hell.-rora. Kult., p. 100. 


interchange of eav and ap; jui? increasing upon ov; decreased use of 
indirect discourse; els = TLs; disuse of some interrogative particles; 
use of tdm as possessive pronoun; Trapd and Wep with compara- 
tives; disappearance of the superlative; frequency of prepositions; 
vivid use of present tense (and perfect); laxer use of particles; 
growth of the passive over the middle, etc. 

Various phrases are common both to the N. T. and to the 
papyri, like Se^tav StSw/it; ku rots = 'in house of,' avro tov vvv, els to 
8tr]veKes, Kad<hs yeypawraL, e/c avix^wvov, kiri to avTO, KaT ovap, KaTO. to 
Wos, ovx o Tvx<j^v, -irapexofiaL kjxavTov, to avTO (fypoveXv. "There is 
placed before us in the N. T. neither a specific speech-form nor 
a barbaric Jewish-Greek, but a natural phase of the Hellenistic 
speech-development." 1 Deissmann {Exp. Times, 1906, p. 63) 
properly holds the N. T. to be the Book of Humanity because 
it "came from the unexhausted forces below, and not from the 
feeble, resigned culture of a worn-out upper class." Swete (0. T. 
in Gk., pp. 295 ff.) shows how the LXX is influenced by the 
vernacular Koivrj. As early as 1843 B. Hase (Wellhausen, Einl, 
p. 14) explained the LXX as "Volkssprache." Thackeray {Gram- 
mar, pp. 22 ff.) gives a good summary of "the kolvt] basis of LXX 

II. Literary Elements in the New Testament Greek. It is true 
then, as Blass^ sums it up, that "the language employed in 
the N. T. is, on the whole, such as was spoken in the lower circles 
of society, not such as was written in works of literature." The 
N. T. writers were not Atticists with the artificial straining after 
the antique Attic idiom. But one must not imagine that they 
were mere purveyors of slang and vulgarisms. FreudenthaP 
speaks of the Hellenistic Jews as "one of those societies without 
a mother-tongue which have never attained to any true excel- 
lence in literature." And even Mahaffy^ speaks of the Greek 
learned by the Jews as "the new and artificial idiom of the trad- 
ing classes" which had neither "traditions nor literature nor 
those precious associations which give depth and poetry to 
words." That is a curious mistake, for it was the Atticistic re- 
vival that was artificial. The kolpt] had all the memories of a 

1 Thumb, Die sprachgesch. Stell. des bibl. Grioch., Tliool. Runds., 1002, 
p. 93. Cf. also Arnaud, Essai sur le caractcre dc la languo ^rccquc du N. T., 
1899. Viteau (Et. sur le Grec du N. T., 2 vols., 1893, 1896) insists on the dis- 
tinction between the lit. and the vernac. elements in the N. T. 

2 Gr. of the N. T. Gk., p. 1. '' Hell. Stud., 1875. 
4 Gk. Life and Thought, 1896, p. 530. 


people's life. Instance Robert Burns in Scotland. It is to be 
said for Mahaffy, however, that he changed his mind, for he later ^ 
wrote : " They write a dialect simple and rude in comparison with 
Attic Greek; they use forms which shock the purists who examine 
for Cambridge scholarships. But did any men ever tell a great 
story with more simplicity, with more directness, with more 
power? . . . Believe me against all the pedants of the world, the 
dialect that tells such a story is no poor language, but the out- 
come of a great and a fruitful education." The N. T. uses the 
language of the people, but with a dignity, restraint and pathos 
far beyond the trivial nonentities in much of the papyri remains. 
All the N. T. Greek is not so vernacular as parts of the LXX.^ 
The papyri often show the literary kolvt] and all grades of varia- 
tion, while the lengthy and official inscriptions^ "often approx- 
imate in style to the Hterary language." Long before many 
words are used in literature they belong to the diction of polite 
speech." In a word, the N. T. Greek "occupies apparently an in- 
termediate position between the vulgarisms of the populace and 
the studied style of the litterateurs of the period. It affords a 
striking illustration of the divine policy of putting honour on 
what man calls 'common.' "^ It would indeed have been strange 
if men like Paul, Luke and the author of Hebrews had shown no 
literary affinities at all. Prof. J. C. Robertson {The Classical 
Weekly, March 9, 1912, p. 139) in an article entitled "Reasons 
for Teaching the Greek N. T. in Colleges" says: "Take the par- 
able of the Prodigal Son, for instance. In literary excellence this 
piece of narrative is unsurpassed. Nothing more simple, more 
direct, more forceful can be adduced from among the famous 
passages of classical Greek literature. It is a moving tragedy of 

1 Prog, of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., 1905, p. 114 f. Cf. Schiirer, Jew. Peo. 
in Time of Jes. Ch., div. II, vol. I, pp. 11 ff., Hellen. in the Non-Jew. Regions, 
Hellen. in the Jew. Regions. He shows how Gk. and Lat. words were common 
in the Aram, and how thoroughly Gk. the Jews of the Dispersion were. On 
this point see Schiirer, Diaspora, in ext. vol. of Hast. D. B. "Greek was the 
mother-tongue of the Jews" all over the gentile world. Susemihl holds that 
in Alexandria the Jews gave "quite a considerable Hebraic tinge" to the 
KOLPr,, Gesch. der griech. Lit., Bd. II, 1892, p. 602. An excellent discussion 
of the hterary elements in the Gk. N. T. is to be found in Heinrici's Der ht. 
Charakter der neutest. Schr. (1908). He shows also the differences between 
Palestinian and Alexandrian Judaism. 

2 Cf. Geldart, Mod. Gk. in its Rela. to Anc. Gk., 1870, p. 180. Cf. also 
Kennedy, Som*. of N. T. Gk., p. 65; Frankel, Altert. von Perg., 1890, p. xvii. 

3 Deissmann, B. S., p. 180. " Kennedy, Sour, of N. T. Gk., p. 77. 
5 Thayer, art. Lang, of the N. T., Hast. D. B., Ill, 36*'. 


reconciliation. Yet its literary excellence is not accidental. The 
elements of that excellence can be analyzed." In an age of un- 
usual culture one would look for some touch with that culture. 
"I contend, therefore, that the peculiar modernness, the high in- 
tellectual standard of Christianity as we find it in the N. T., is 
caused by its contact with Greek culture." ^ In his helpful article 
on N. T. Times Buhl^ underrates, as Schlirer^ does, the amount 
of Greek known in Palestine. It is to be remembered also that 
great diversity of culture existed among the writers of the N. T. 
Besides, the educated men used much the same vernacular all 
over the Roman world and a grade of speech that approached 
the literary standard as in English to-day .^ One is not to stress 
Paul's language in 1 Cor. 2 : 1-4 into a denial that he could use 
the literary style. It is rather a rejection of the bombastic rhet- 
oric that the Corinthians liked and the rhetorical art that was so 
common from Thucydides to Chrysostom.^ It is with this com- 
parison in mind that Origen (c. Celsus, vii, 59 f.) speaks of Paul's 
literary inferiority. It is largely a matter of standpoint. Deiss- 
mann^ has done a good service in accenting the difference between 
letters and epistles. Personal letters not for the public eye are, 
of course, in the vernacular. Cicero's Letters are epistles written 
with an eye on posterity. " In letters one does not look for trea- 
tises, still less for treatises in rigid uniformity and proportion of 
parts." ^ There may be several kinds of letters (private, family, 
pastoral or congregational, etc.). But when a letter is published 
consciously as literature, like Horace's Ars Poetica, for instance, 
it becomes a literary letter or epistle. Epistles may be either 
genuine or unauthentic. Tire unauthentic may be either merely 

1 Mahaffy, Prog, of Hellen., p. 139. ^ Ext. vol. of Hast. D. B. 

3 Jew. Peo. in Time of Jes. Ch., div. II, vol. I, p. 47 f. He admits a wide 
diffusion of a little knowledge of and easy use of Gk. among the educated 
classes in Palestine. 

« Cf. Norden, Ant. Kunstpr., Bd. II, pp. 482 ff ., for discussion of literary 
elements in N. T. Gk. Deissmann makes "a protest against overestimating 
the literary evidence" (Theol. Runds., 1902, pp. 66 ff.; Exp. Times, 1906, p. 9) 
and points out how Norden has missed it in contrasting Paul and that ancient 
world, merely the contrast between non-Hterary prose and artistic lit. prose. 

5 Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 15. 

« B. S., pp. 16 ff. However, one must not think that the N. T. Epistles al- 
ways fall wholly in one or the other category. Ramsay calls attention to the 
"new category" in the new conditions, viz., a general letter to a congregation 
(Let. to the Seven Chur., p. 24). 

■> lb., p. 11. See also Walter Lock, The Epistles, pp. 114 ff., in The Bible 
and Chr. Life, 1905. 


pseudonymous or real forgeries. If we examine the N. T. Letters 
or Epistles in the hght of this distinction, we shall see that Phile- 
mon is a personal letter. The same is true of the Pastoral Epistles; 
but Ephesians is more like an epistle from its general nature. 
The Thessalonian, Corinthian, Galatian, Colossian, Philippian 
writings are all congregational and doctrinal letters. Romans 
partakes of the nature of a letter and an epistle. Jacquier, how- 
ever {Histoire des Livres du N. T., 1906, tome V, p. 66), re- 
marks that "The Pauline Epistles are often more discourse than 
letter." It will thus be seen that I do not agree with Deissmann 
(Bible Studies, p. 3 f.) in calling all the PauHne writings "letters" 
as opposed to "epistles." Milligan (Greek Papyri, p. xxxi) like- 
wise protests against the sweeping statement of Deissmann. 
Deissmann gives a great variety of interesting letters from the 
papyri in his Light from the Ancient East, and argues here (pp. 
224-234) with passion that even Romans is just "a long let- 
ter." "I have no hesitation in maintaining the thesis that all 
the letters of Paul are real, non-literary letters." Hebrews is 
more like an epistle, as are James, 1 John, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude, 
while 2 and 3 John are again letters. The Letters to the Seven 
Churches again are epistles. This is a useful distinction and 
shows that the N. T. writers knew how to use one of the favourite 
literary methods of the Alexandrian period. Dr. Lock concludes: 
"Letters have more of historic and literary interest, epistles more 
of central teaching and practical guidance."^ That Paul could 
use the more literary style is apparent from the address on Mars 
Hill, the speech before Agrippa,^ and Ephesians and Romans. 
Paul quotes Aratus, Menander and Epimenides and may have 
been acquainted with other Greek authors. He seems also to 
have understood Stoic philosophy. We cannot tell how extensive 
his literary training was. But he had a real Hellenic feeling and 
outlook. The introduction to Luke's Gospel and the Acts show 
real literary skill. The Epistle to the Hebrews has oratorical flow 
and power with traces of Alexandrian culture. Viteau^ reminds 

* Bible and Chr. Life, p. 117. For the history and literature of ancient 
letters and epistles see Deissmann, B. S.; Susemihl, Gesch. der griech. Lit.; 
Overbeck, tJber die Anf. der patrist. Lit. The oldest known Gk. letter was 
written on a lead tablet and belongs to the Iv/b.c. and comes from near 
Athens. It was discovered by Prof. Wiinsch of Giessen. See art. by Dr. 
Wilhelm of Athens in Jahresh. des osterreich. archilol. Inst. (1904, vii, pp. 
94 ff.). 

2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 5. ' Le Verbe: Synt. des Prop., p. xxx. 


US that about 3000 of the 5420 words in the Greek N. T. are 
found in ancient Attic writers, while the syntax in general " obeys 
the ordinary laws of Greek grammar."^ These and other N. T. 
writers, as James, occasionally use classic forms like IV/xej', tcrre, 
laaaL, e^fjeaap, etc. Konig^ in his discussion of the Style of Scrip- 
ture finds ample illustration in the N. T. of the various Uterary 
linguistic devices, though in varying degree. See "Figures of 
Speech" (ch. XXI). But the literary element in the N. T. is sub- 
ordinate to the practical and is never artificial nor strained. We 
have the language of spirit and life. The difference between the 
old point of view and the new is well illustrated by Hort's remark 
{Notes on Orthography, p. 152 f.) when he speaks of "the popular 
Greek in which the N. T. is to a certain extent written." He con- 
ceives of it as literary KOLv-q with some popular elements. The 
new and the true view is that the N. T. is written in the popular 
KOLvri with some literary elements, especially in Luke, Paul, He- 
brews and James. 

Josephus is interesting as a background to the N. T. He wrote 
his War in Aramaic and secured the help of Greek writers to 
translate it, but the Antiquities was composed in Greek, probably 
with the aid of similar collaborateurs, for parts of Books XVII- 
XIX copy the style of Thucydides and are really Atticistic' It 
is interesting to take a portion of 1 Maccabees as we have it 
translated from the Hebrew original and compare it with the cor- 
responding portion of Josephus. The Greek of 1 Mace, is, like 
the IjXX, translation Greek and intensely Hebraistic, while Jo- 
sephus smooths out all the Hebraistic wrinkles and shifts it into 
the rolling periods of Thucydides. The N. T. has slight affinities 
in vocabulary, besides Josephus, with Philo, Plutarch, Polybius, 
Strabo, Diodorus and a few other writers in the literary kolvt}.^ 

Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 64) holds that 
Paul's "Greek never becomes literary." "It is never disciplined, 
say, by the canon of the Atticists, never tuned to the Asian rhythm: 

1 W.-M., p. 37. Kennedy indeed (Sour, of N. T. Gk., p. 134) says that 
80 per cent, of the N. T. words date from before 322 B.C. 

^ Hast. D. B., ext. vol. 

3 See Thackeray, art. Josephus in ext. vol. of Hast. D. B.; of. also Schmidt, 
De Flavii Jos. Eloc, 1893. Thumb (Die griech. Spr., p. 125) and Moulton 
(Prol., p. 233) accent the fact that Josephus has only one Hebraism, wpoffH- 
dtadai with infinitive = ^ '^Qh. Cf. also Raab, De Fl. Jos. Eloc. Quest., 1890. 

< Kennedy, Sour, of N. T. Gk., pp. 50 ff. Hoolo, The Class. I'^lem. in the 
N. T., 1888, gives an interesting list of Gk. and Rom. i)r()por names that 
occur in the N. T. 


it remains non-literary." But has not Deissmann given a too 
special sense to "literary"? If 1 Cor. 13 and 15, Ro. 8 and 
Eph. 3 do not rise to literary flavour and nobility of thought and 
expression, I confess my ignorance of what literature is. Har- 
nack (Da's hohe Lied des Apostels Paulus von der Liehe und seine 
religionsgeschichtliche Bedeutung, 1911) speaks of the rhythm, the 
poetic form, the real oratory, the literary grace of 1 Cor. 13. The 
best literature is not artificial nor pedantic hke the work of the 
Atticists and Asian stylists. That is a caricature of literature. 
We must not forget that Paul was a man of culture as well as a 
man of the people. Deissmann (Light, p. 64 f.) does admit the 
literary quality of Hebrews. This epistle is more ornate as Origen 
saw (Eus., Eccl. Hist., VI, xxv, 11). 

III. The Semitic Influence. This is still the subject of keen 
controversy, though not in the same way that the Purists and the 
Hebraists debated it. Now the point is whether the N. T. Greek 
is wholly in the kolvt] or whether there is an appreciable Semitic 
colouring in addition. There is something to be said on both 
sides of the question. 

(a) The Tradition. See i, (a) , for proof of the error of this posi- 
tion. It is certain that the idea of a special Hebraic Greek for the 
N. T. is gone. Schaff ^ said that the Greek spoken by the Grecian 
Jews "assumed a strongly Hebraizing character," and the N. T. 
Greek shared in this "sacred and Hebraizing character." Ac- 
cording to Hatch2 "the great majority of N. T. words ... ex- 
press in their biblical use the conceptions of a Semitic race." 
Viteau^ calls it "Hebraizing Greek," while Simcox^ speaks of "the 
half-Hebraized Greek of the N. T." Reuss^ calls it "the Jewish- 
Greek idiom." Hadley^ considered the "Hellenistic dialect, 
largely intermixed with Semitic idioms." Westcott^ spoke of 
"the Hebraic style more or less pervading the whole N. T." But 
Westcott^ admitted that "a philosophical view of the N. T. lan- 
guage as a whole is yet to be desired," as Hatch ^ lamented that 
the N. T. Greek "has not yet attracted the attention of any con- 
siderable scholar." That cannot now be said after the work of 
Blass, Deissmann, Moulton, Radermacher and others, and was an 
overstatement then. And yet the old view of "biblical Greek" 

1 Comp. to the Gk. Test., 1885, pp. 22, 25. 

2 Ess. in Bibl. Gk., p. 34. « Lang, of the N. T., Smith's B. D. 

3 Synt. des Prop., p. xxxvi. ^ Art. N. T., Smith's B. D. 
« Lang, of the N. T., p. 20. « lb. 

6 Hist, of the N. T., 1SS5, p. 36. » Ess. in Bibl. Gk., p. 1. 


for both N. T. and LXX is still championed by Conybeare and 
Stock in their grammar of the Septuagint {Selections from the 
Sept., 1905, p. 22 f.). They insist, against Deissmann, on the 
"hnguistic unity" of the LXX and of the N. T. as opposed to the 
vernacular kolpt]. They admit, of course, that the LXX is far more 
Hebraic than the N. T. This sturdy contention for the old view ' 
is interesting, to say the least. Wellhausen {Einl. in die drei ersten 
Evangelien) is rather disposed to accent the "Semiticisms" (Ara- 
maisms) in the Synoptic Gospels in contrast \vith the Attic Greek. 
Nobody now claims the N. T. Greek to be Attic in purity. " No 
one denies the existence of Seraiticisms; opinions are only divided 
with reference to the relative proportion of these Semiticisms" 
(Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 65). The old view 
is dead beyond recall. 

(6) The View of Deissmann and Moulton. Over against the 
old conception stands out in sharp outline the view of Deissmann^ 
who says: "The linguistic unity of the Greek Bible appears only 
against the background of classical, not of contemporary 'pro- 
fane' Greek." Note the word "only." Once more^: "The few 
Hebraizing expressions in those parts of the N. T. which were in 
Greek from the first are but an accidens which does not essentially 
alter the fundamental character of its language." The portions 
of the Synoptic Gospels which were either in Aramaic or made 
use of Aramaic originals he considers on a par with the LXX. 
They use translation Greek. No one "ever really spoke as he 
may have translated the Logia-collection, blessed — and cramped 
— as he was by the timid consciousness of being permitted to 
convey the sacred words of the Son of God to the Greeks." =^ 
Thumb* accepts the view of Deissmann and admits "Hebraisms 
in a few cases" only and then principally the meaning of words. 
In 1879 Guillemard^ disclaimed any idea of being able to give 
"an exhaustive exhibition of all the Hebraisms," but he "put for- 
ward only a few specimens'' \ Moulton '^ admits practically no 
Hebraisms nor Aramaisms outside of "translation Greek." "Be- 
tween these two extremes the N. T. writers lie; and of them all 

1 B. S., 1901, p. 66. ' lb., p. 177. 

3 lb., p. 76. "What would wc give if we could recover but one papjTus 
book with a few leaves containing genuine Aramaic sayings of Jesus! For 
those few leaves we would, I think, part willingly with the theological out- 
put of a whole century" (Deissmann, Light, p. 57). 

* Griech. Spr. etc., p. 121. 

6 Hebraisms in the Gk. Test., Pref. « Prol., p. 10. 


we may assert with some confidence that, where translation is 
not involved, we shall find hardly any Greek expression used 
which would sound strangely to speakers of the kolvt] in Gentile 
lands." Once more^: "What we can assert with assurance is that 
the papyri have finally destroyed the figment of a N. T. Greek 
which in any material respect differed from that spoken by ordi- 
nary people in daily life." Moulton^ realizes "the danger of go- 
ing too far" in summing up thus the issue of the long strife 
over N. T. Hebraisms. According to Moulton (p. 18) the matter 
is complicated only in Luke, who, though a gentile, used Aramaic 
sources in the opening chapters of the Gospel and Acts. This new 
and revolutionary view as to Semitisms is still challenged by Dal- 
man^ who finds many more Aramaisms in the Synoptic Gospels 
than Moulton is willing to admit. Dcissmann indeed is not dis- 
posed in his later writings to be dogmatic on the subject. "The 
last word has not yet been said about the proportion of Semiti- 
cisms" {Expositor, Jan., 1908, p. 67). He is undoubtedly right 
in the idea that many so-called Semiticisms are really "interna- 
tional vulgarisms." Schtirer, Theol. Literaturzeiiung, 1908, p. 
555, criticizes Deissmann (Licht vom Osten, 1908, p. 35) for run- 
ning the parallel too close between the N. T. and the unliterary 
papyri. It is truer of the LXX than of the N. T. 

The old view cannot stand in the light of the pap3Ti and in- 
scriptions. Both the Purists and the Hebraists were wrong. 
Many words and idioms heretofore claimed as Hebraisms are 
shown to be current in the vernacular kolvt]. As specimens^ one 
can mention huinou ("^.^c^ according to Winer-Liinemann, p. 201, 
and "biblical" according to Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, 
p. 90) is found in the papyri; Trpecr/Surepos in the official sense 
occurs in the papyri of Egypt in combinations like irpea^vTepoi 
tepets; epcordco = ' to beg' is in the papyri; els in sense of irpooTos also; 

» Prol., p. 18. 

2 lb., p. 18. He quotes approvingly Deissmann's remark that "Semitisms 
which are in common use belong mostly to the technical language of religion" 
and they do not alter the scientific description of the language. Moulton 
(Interp., July, 1906, p. 380) says: "Suffice it to say that, except so far as the 
N. T. writers are quoting baldly Hteral translations from the LXX, or making 
equally hteral translations from the Aramaic in which the Lord and His 
disciples usually spoke, we have no reason whatever to say that the N. T. 
was composed in a Greek distinguishable from that spoken all over the Roman 

3 Wds. of Jes., 1902. 

* See Deissmann (B. S. and Light) and Moulton (Prol.). 


Tpoaevxv can no longer be regarded as a word of Jewish formation 
for a Jewish place of prayer, since it appears in that sense in a 
Ptolemaic inscription in Lower Egypt in the III cent. B.C.; ovofxa 
occurs also in the sense of "person"; expressions like vlos dauarov 
are found in the papyri; jSXexeij' airo occurs in a papyrus letter; 
ets ovofxa is in inscriptions, ostraca, papyri; 8vo 8vo is matched in 
the papyri by rpla rpla (this idiom has been traced in Greek for 
2500 years); the instrumental use of h as iu fiaxalpji is common; 
the use of h tcS and the infinitive so common in Luke appears in 
the papyri; and even ets a-rravrriaLv meets us in the papyri (Tebt. 
Pap. 43, II cent. b.c). Certainly a full list of the words and 
phrases that can no longer be called Hebraisms would be very 
formidable. Besides, the list grows continually under the re- 
searches of Deissmann, Moulton, Mayser, Thumb, Kalker, Wit- 
kowski, Milligan and other scholars. The presumption is now 
clearly against a Hebraism. The balance of evidence has gone 
over to the other side. But after all one has the conviction that 
the joy of new discovery has to some extent blurred the vision of 
Deissmann and Moulton to the remaining Hebraisms which do 
not indeed make Hebraic Greek or a peculiar dialect. But enough 
remain to be noticeable and appreciable. Some of these may 
vanish, like the rest, before the new knowledge. The LXX, 
though "translation Greek," was translated into the vernacular of 
Alexandria, and one can but wonder if the LXX did not have some 
slight resultant influence upon the Alexandrian KOLvi) itself. The 
Jews were very numerous in Alexandria. "Moreover, it remains 
to be considered how far the quasi-Semitic colloquialisms of the 
papyri are themselves due to the influence of the large Greek- 
speaking Jewish population of the Delta" (Swete, The Apocalypse 
of St. John, 1906, p. cxx). Thackeray (Gr. of the 0. T. in Gk., 
vol. I, p. 20) uses the small number of Coptic words in the Greek 
papyri against the notion of Hebrew influence on the kolvt] in 
Eg5T)t. However, Thackeray (p. 27) notes that the papyri so far 
discovered tell us little of the private life of the Jews of Egypt and 
of the Greek used by them specifically. The marshes of the Delta 
were not favourable for the preservation of the papyri. The 
KOLVT] received other foreign influences we know. The Jews of the 
Dispersion spoke the vernacular kolvti everywhere, but they read 
the LXX, " a written Semitic Greek which no one ever spoke, far 
less used for literary purposes, either before or after." ^ And yet 

1 Deissmann, B. S., p. 67. See also Angus, N. T. Philol., Harv. Theol. 
Rev., July, 1909, p. 453. The I.XX, though translation Greek (see above), 


the Hellenistic Jews all over the world could not read continually 
the LXX and not to some extent feel the influence of its peculiar 
style. No one to-day speaks the English of the King James Ver- 
sion, or ever did for that matter, for, though like Shakespeare, it 
is the pure Anglo-Saxon, yet, unlike Shakespeare, it reproduces 
to a remarkable extent the spirit and language of the Bible. As 
Luther's German Bible largely made the German language, so the 
King James Version has greatly affected modern English (both 
vernacular and literary). The situation is not the same, but there 
is enough of truth to justify the comparison. There are fewer 
details that preserve the Semitic character, but what does not 
disappear is the Hebrew cast of thought in a writer like John, for 
instance. No papyrus is as much a parallel to John's Gospel as 
the Book of Job, for instance. Westcott^ has true insight when 
he says of N. T. Greek: "It combines the simple directness of He- 
brew thought with the precision of Greek expression. In this way 
the subtle delicacy of Greek expression in some sense interprets 
Hebrew thought." What is true of John's Gospel is true also of 
James. The numerous quotations both from the LXX and the 
Hebrew in the N. T. put beyond controversy the constant use of 
the O. T. in Greek on the part of the N. T. writers. Besides, 
with the possible exception of Luke and the author of Hebrews, 
they all knew and used Aramaic as well as Greek. The point is 
that the N. T. writers were open to Semitic influence. How great 
that was must be settled by the facts in the case, not by pre- 
sumptions for or against. Dr. George Milligan {Greek Papyri, 
p. xxix f .) says : " In the matter of language, we have now abun- 
dant proof that the so-called 'peculiarities' of biblical Greek are 
due simply to the fact that the writers of the N. T. for the most 
part made use of the ordinary colloquial Greek, the KOLvi] of their 
day. This is not to say that we are to disregard altogether the 
influence of 'translation Greek,' and the consequent presence of 
undoubted Hebraisms, both in language and grammar. An over- 
tendency to minimize these last is probably the most pertinent 

is in the vern. KOLvij, and thus the N. T. writers had a double point of contact 
with the KOLvi}. Cf. Wackernagel, Theol. Lit., 1908, p. 38; Milligan, Epis. to 
the Th., p. Iv. 

1 Exp., 1887, p. 241. Thumb (Griech. Spr. etc., p. 132) denies any influ- 
ence on the development of the Gk. But Thayer (Hast. D. B., Lang, of the 
N. T., Ill, 40^) is not surprised to find "idioms having a distinctly Hebra- 
istic flavour even in native Greek circles." Cf. also Reuss, Hist, of the N. T., 
1884, vol. I, p. 33. 


criticism that can be directed against Dr. J. H. Moulton's Pro- 
legomena to his Grammar of N. T. Greek." So Dr. Swete 
"deprecates the induction which, as it seems to him, is being 
somewhat hastily based upon them (the papyri), that the Greek 
of the N. T. has been but shghtly influenced by the famiharity of 
the writers with Hebrew and Aramaic" {Apocalypse of St. John, 
p. cxx). 

Von Soden^ sums up the whole matter as follows: "It was 
unavoidable but that the primitive Christian writers often used 
compulsion with the Greek tongue and offended against its 
genius. They wished to bring to expression things which, up 
to that time, were foreign to the Greek spirit and only found ex- 
pression in Semitic languages. And besides, it is only natural 
that the phraseology of the Greek translation of the O. T., to 
which they were habituated from their youth, should uncon- 
sciously flow from their pens, and still more, that when their sub- 
ject-matter brought them into close contact with the O. T. or 
when they translated from the Aramaic dialect of Palestine, their 
Greek should receive a foreign tinge." This by no means makes 
a special N. T. dialect nor even Jewish-Greek, but it admits a 
real, though slight, Semitic influence even where it is not " trans- 
lation Greek." This position is more nearly in accord with all 
the facts as we now know them. It is pleasing to find Deissmann 
{Expositor, Oct., 1907, "Philology of the Greek Bible," p. 292) 
rather reacting a bit from the first extreme position. He accents 
here strongly the influence of the LXX on the N. T. "It is one 
of the most painful deficiencies of biblical study at the present 
day that the reading of the LXX has been pushed into the back- 
ground, while its exegesis has been scarcely even begun." {lb., 
p. 293): "A single hour lovingly devoted to the text of the Sep- 
tuagint will further our exegetical knowledge of the Pauline 
Epistles more than a whole day spent over a commentary." {lb., 
p. 294) : " This restoration of the Greek Bible to its own epoch is 
really the distinctive feature of the work of modern scholarship." 
That hits the point. We cordially agree with his remark {Exposi- 
tor, Nov., 1907, p. 435) that the Semiticisms of the Greek Bible 
do not place the N. T. outside of the scope of Greek philology, 
but are merely its birth-marks. In the Dec. (1907) Expositor 
(p. 520) Deissmann comments feelingly on the fact that the LXX 
"has served the Christian Church of Anatolia in unbroken con- 
tinuity down to the present day." 

1 Early Chr. Lit., 1906, p. 11 f. 


(c) Little Direct Hebrew Influence. The Hebrew was not 
a living language any longer. Less than half of the O. T. quota- 
tions^ in the N. T. are from the Hebrew text. It was still read 
in most of the synagogues of Palestine and it is possible that a 
modernized Hebrew was in use to some extent for literary pur- 
poses.2 Perhaps the Hebrew text was consulted by the N. T. 
writers who used it much as a modern minister refers to his Greek 
Testament. The reading of the Hebrew 0. T. would give one 
dignity of style and simplicity of expression. The co-ordination 
of clauses so common in the Hebrew is not confined to the Hebrew, 
but is certainly in marked contrast with the highly developed sys- 
tem of subordinate sentences of the Greek. But this paratactic 
construction is partly Hebraic and partly colloquial. The total 
absence of extended indirect discourse is a case in point also. 
Compare the historical books of the N. T. with Xenophon and 
Thucydides. Likewise the frequent use of /cat and the sparing 
use of particles may be mentioned. The pleonastic use of pro- 
nouns like Tjv ovdels Svvarai KXeiaai avTrjv (Rev. 3 : 8) finds an occa- 
sional parallel (Moulton) in the papyri, but none the less its 
frequency in the N. T. is due to the Hebrew. The same remark 
applies to the effort to express in Greek the Hebrew infinitive ab- 
solute by the participle, as ^Xkirovres ^Xkipere (Mt. 13 : 14), or the 
instrumental, as xo-pq. x^tpet (Jo. 3 : 29). Both of these construc- 
tions are found in the Greek, but with far less frequency. The 
use of TpoaridrjiJLL with an infinitive for repetition, as Tpoaedero rplrov 
TefxxJ/ai (Lu. 20 : 12) is in evident imitation of the Hebrew cjo;;'. 
Et=ti5i! does not mean ov as in ei SoOrjaerai. a-qixdov (Mk. 8 : 12), but 
is aposiopesis, the apodosis not being expressed. This use is in 
the papyri. Ou-xas in the sense of ovhds is due to the LXX trans- 
lation of i3"!*ii, though Moulton (p. 246) has found in the papyri 
oivev and x^P^s so used with ttSs. 

The use of py)p.a, in the sense of "i^l ' thing ' is a Hebraism after 
the LXX. The classic Greek already has X670S in this sense. IIpo- 
aoi-Kov \ap.^a.veiv ^^^^ Si'iJp is a clear Hebraism. YlpoawTroKruxivTko) 
first appears in the N. T. So also is apkaKeiv kvwiriov tlvos rather than 
ap€(TKHv TLvl CI Hcbraism. Cf. the circumlocutions irpo Trpoaunrov tt]s 
elabbov avrov (Acts 13 : 24) rather than the simple 7rp6 avrov. The 
frequent use of the article in address, though occasional in Greek, 

1 Swete, Intr. to the O. T. in Gk., 1900, pp. 381-405. 

2 Schiirer, Jew. Peo. in Times of Ch., div. II, vol. I, p. 10. "Hebrew also 
continued to be the language of the learned, in which even the legal discus- 
sions of the scribes were carried on." 


is like the Hebrew and Aramaic vocative. The common use of 
rjv or ecrrt and the participle suits both the Hebrew and the analy- 
tic tendency of the kolvt]. Cf. the more frequent use of the instru- 
mental h. So the frequent construction ehat els is due to h in 
Hebrew, though in itself not out of harmony with the Greek 
genius. It occurs in the papyri. 'Atto irpocruirov='''2'B'^ and rpd 
7rpoo-cb7rou=''35^ are both Hebraisms. The use of hbovai. in the 
sense of TLdkvai is due to inp having both senses (Thackeray, Gr. 
of the 0. T. in Gk., p. 39); cf. Deut. 28 : 1, Scoo-et ae vwepavoj. So 
rinkpat takes the flavour of the Hebrew Q"^??-; and eiprjpr] is used in 
salutation like tiii^'. The superfluous pronoun calls for notice 
also. The frequency of kv rw with the infinitive is due to 2i. So 
also vlos occurs in some Hebraistic senses like 1?, but the papyri 
have some examples of vlSs for 'quahty,' 'characteristic' Thack- 
eray (p. 42) notes the Hebrew fondness for "physiognomical 
expressions" like 600aX/x6s, irpoacoTov, aro/jLa, x^'i-P, ttous, etc. The in- 
creased use of avrjp and avdpwTos like Tii''i< rather than tIs, ttSs, eKaaros 
must be observed. The very extensive use of prepositions is ac- 
cented by the Hebrew. Kal kyevero translates ^ri'^l. The use of 
a question to express wish is Uke the Hebrew idiom (cf. 2 Kgs. 
18:33). But these constructions are doubtless due to the LXX 
rather than to Hebrew itself. It is not possible to give in clear 
outline the influence of the Hebrew Bible on the N. T. apart 
from the LXX and the Aramaic, though there was httle of just 
that kind. Kennedy^ gives thirteen words common to the LXX 
and the N. T. (Thackeray, Gr., pp. 31 ff., gives a hst of "Hebra- 
isms in Vocabulary") and counts "twenty Hebrew and Aramaic 
words which do not occur in the LXX, e.g. ^t^dviov, na/xoipas, paKa, 
cbo-ai'ra." The words in the N. T. known to be Hebrew and not 
Aramaic are as follows: d/3a56wj'=ii"^35*; dXXrjXoi;id=n^"ib):n; afxrjv 
= '\?2N; dp)ua7€5cbj'=li^a>? "^n; dppa/3cbj'= Ills'!?; j8dTOS=ria; /SeeXfejSoujS 
= ^inT b?5; (3oai/77P7es = ^'^'l "^5? (cf. Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 
49); |8u(7o-os=Y'^2 (cf. also ^maLvos); l^paiaTl from ^3?; ^Xet ="'';» 
(MSS. Mt. 27:46); Kd)Lt?7Xos = ^p3; lovbat^co, iovdaia/jLos, iovdaUos, 
101)5010$ = nnin"!; Kop^ap = '\:^')'p/, Ki'/xtwf=li?23; Xt/^aras = reia^ ; fxawa 
= ^'>?; iJ.wpe=T^y2; -7raaxa = 'no*^ (LXX, but same for Aramaic s^v^s); 
pai3^i{€l)='^^^; (xa^a6)d=t^-\ii:^'2; ad/SiSaro;/ = nsp ; o-arams = l^i? ; crdTr- 
4>€tpos = ^'''SO ] StXcod/x from riblip; au;:d/xtt'os = n'Ol5ffi; i;cr crcoTTOS = niTx; 
xepoi;j3tM=^^^^'^?; wo-aj'vd = !*3 ycin (Dalman, Words of Jesus, 
p. 222). Some of these were already in classical Greek (fimaos, 

1 Sour, of the N. T. Gk., p. 110 f. Cf. Gregory, Pro!., etc., p. 102 f., for 
foreign words in the N. T. 


"Kl^auos, (j-aTTe^etpos) . Of doubtful Origin are vapdos, vlrpov (Jer. 2 : 22), 
avKaiJLLvos. This is a fairly complete list of the Hebrew words in 
the N. T. The Aramaic words will be given later. There are to 
be added, however, the very numerous Hebrew proper names, 
only a few samples of which can be given, as Mapid/x= U'^^??; 
M€Xxto-€5k = p'ir-'i3^>a; 2aouX= b^s^i^i; 2a/iou7;X = ^5i!^?ar2; kt\. Deiss- 
mann is correct in saying ("Papyri," Encyc. Bihl.) that lexical 
Hebraisms "must be subjected to careful revision," but these 

Certain it is that the bulk of the examples of Hebraisms given 
by Guillemard vanish in the light of the papyri and inscriptions. 
He feared indeed that his book was "a return to old exploded 
methods." It is indeed "exploded" now, for the N. T. is not 
"unlike any other Greek, with one single exception, and abso- 
lutely unique in its peculiarities."^ There are three ways of giv- 
ing these Semitic words: mere transliteration and indeclinable, 
transliteration and declinable, Greek endings to Aramaic words. 

(d) A Deeper Impress by the LXX. It is true that the 
N. T. at many points has affinities with the LXX, the "single 
exception" of Guillemard, but the LXX is not ''the basis of the 
Christian Greek." ^ In his second volume Viteau began to see 
that he had been too extreme in his notion that the N. T. was 
Hebraized Greek: "The language of the N. T. is not derived from 
that of the LXX; it is its sister. It is the same familiar Greek 
language which one finds employed in the one or the other. But 
the Greek of the LXX has exercised a considerable influence upon 
that of the N. T."^ But even in this volume Viteau overestimates 
the influence of the LXX on the N. T. Westcott'' had the old 
idea that the N. T. language, "both as to its lexicography and 
as to its grammar, is based on the language of the LXX." It is 
undoubtedly true^ that a very large proportion of the N. T. 

1 Hebr. in the N. T., 1879, p. ix f. 2 Schaff, Comp. to the Gk. Test., p. 23. 

' Sujet, Compl. et Attr., 1896, p. ii. 

* Art. N. T., Smith's B. D. Helbing in his Gr. der LXX (1907) promises 
to investigate the Hebraisms in the second volume (p. iv). But he ah-eady 
sees that irpoaTLdkvai occurs in the papyri as well as constructions Uke k^Siv . . . 
€$ avTuv. In general (p. vii) the LXX shows the same tendency as the rest of 
the Koivri towards uniformity (the disappearance of the opt., the superl., the 
2d aorist, the middle, etc.). Cf. also Sel. from the LXX by C. S. (1905) 
with a brief Gr. of the LXX; Deissmann, Die Anf. der Sept.-Gr., Intern. 
Wochenschr., Sept. 26, 1908. 

« Kennedy, Sour, of N. T. Gk., p. 142 f. Cf. Brockehnann, Grundr. der 
vergl. Gr. der semit. Spr. (1907). 


words are found in the LXX, but there are very few words that 
are found in the N. T. and the LXX and nowhere else.^ Both 
the LXX and the N. T. use the current vocabulary. There are 
indeed numerous theological terms that have a new meaning in 
the LXX, and so in the N. T., Hke ayLa^etv, ac^eais, ykevva, eKKk-qala, 
Kvptos, \6yos, \vTp6w, fjLOVoyeurjs, Truevfia, auTrjpla, xpiaTos, ktK. (See 
longer list in Swetc, Introduction to 0. T. in Greek, p. 454.) So 
also many N. T. phrases are found in the LXX, like dKwv 
6eov, oajjiri evwdlas, Tvpoao^irov Tpos Trpbauiirov, 'Ka/j.^aveLV irpoauirou, 
i] haffTTopa, kt\. {ib.). The 0. T. apocryphal books also are of 
interest on this point. We have a splendid treatment of the 
LXX Greek by Thackeray. He shows "the kolvt] basis of LXX 
Greek," as to vocabulary, orthography, accidence and syntax 
(pp. 16-25). He notes a<x, reaaepaKovTa, finds v movable before 
consonants, vaos, vmrav, irXrjp-qs indechnable, do-e/Srjj', disappearance 
of /xt-verbs, rikdoaav, rjXOa, ave^aivav, ecopaKav, 6s eau, oWeLs, nomina- 
tivus pendens, even in apposition with genitive (cf. Apocalypse), 
constructio ad sensum, \eycov and Xeyopres with construction like 
ax-qyyeXr] Xeyovres, recitative ort, neuter plurals with plural verb, 
partial disappearance of the superlative and usually in elative sense, 
TpuiTos instead of wporepos, eavrovs, -wv, -oTs for all three persons, 
disappearance of the optative, great increase of tov and the 
infinitive, co-ordination of sentences with /cat, genitive absolute 
when noun in another case is present, blending of cases, in- 
crease of adverbial phrases and prepositions, elpX els, interchange 
between kv and els (increase of els), etc. See also Psichari 
(Revue des etudes juives, 1908, pp. 173-208) for a discussion of 
the Semitic influence on the N. T, Greek. The use of el/j-l els 
occurs occasionally in the papyri, the inscriptions and kolvt] 
writers, but it is extremely common in the LXX because of the 
Hebrew ^. Li the realm of syntax the LXX is far more Hebra- 
istic than the N. T., for it is a translation by Jews who at 
many points slavishly follow the Hebrew either from ignorance 
of the Hebrew or the Greek, perhaps sometimes a little of both. 
B in Judges, Ruth, 2-4 Kings, has eyu elpa with indicative, as 
eydo elfXL Kadiaonat (Judges 6 : 18) .^ BA in Tobit 5 : 15 have 'iaoixai 
5t56mt. B in Eccl. 2 : 17 has enlarjaa avv ttju ^oorju = ts'^'^tiri-n^t. 

J The 150 words out of over (?) 4800 (not counting proper names) in the 
N. T. which Kennedy (Sour, of N. T. Gk., p. 8S) gives as "strictly peculiar to 
the LXX and N. T." cut a much smaller figure now. New pap. may remove 
many from the list that are still left. 

2 Cf. Swetc, Intr. to O. T. in Gk., p. 308. 


Swete^ finds this misunderstanding of nis! common in A in Ec- 
clesiastes and six times in 3 Kings. It is the characteristic of 
Aquila.2 No such barbarisms as these occur in the N. T,, though 
the "wearisome iteration of the obhque cases of personal pro- 
nouns answering to the Hebrew suffixes" finds illustration to 
some extent in the N. T. books, and the pleonastic use of the pro- 
noun after the Greek relative is due to the fact that the Hebrew 
relative is indeclinable.^ The N. T. does not have such a con- 
struction as rip^aTo Tov oLKohoixelv (2 Chron. 3 : 1), though tov kaek- 
deiv with kyevero (Ac. 10 : 25) is as awkward an imitation of the 
Hebrew infinitive construct. The LXX translators had great 
difficulty in rendering the Hebrew tenses into Greek and were 
often whimsical about it. It was indeed a difficult matter to put 
the two simple Hebrew timeless tenses into the complicated and 
highly developed Greek system, and ''Vav conversive" added to 
the complexity of the problem. Conybeare and Stock, Selections 
from the LXX, p. 23, doubt if the LXX Greek always had a 
meaning to the translators, as in Num. 9:10; Deut. 33:10. 
The LXX Greek is indeed "abnormal Greek," ^ but it can be un- 
derstood. Schiirer^ is wrong when he calls it "quite a new lan- 
guage, swarming with such strong Hebraisms that a Greek could 
not understand it." It is indeed in places ''barbarous Greek," but 
the people who spoke the vernacular kolvy] could and did make it 
out. Many of the Hellenistic Jews knew no Hebrew nor Ara- 
maic but only the kolvt]. The Greek proselyte, like the Ethiopian 
eunuch, could read it, if he did need a spiritual interpreter. Schli- 
rer,® who credits the Palestinian Jews with very little knowledge 
of the current Greek, considers "the ancient anon\Tnous Greek 
translation of the Scriptures" to be "the foundation of all Ju- 
dseo-Hellenistic culture." He is indeed right in contrasting the 
hardness of Palestinian Pharisaism with the pliable Hellenistic 
Judaism on the soil of Hellenism.'' But the Jews felt the Greek 
spirit (even if they could not handle easily oratio indireda) not 
only in the Diaspora, but to a large extent in the cities of Pales- 
tine, especially along the coast, in Galilee and in the Decapolis. 

1 Intr. to O. T. in Gk., p. 308. 

2 Use should be made of the transl. of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus, 
though they are of much less importance. Cf. Swete, p. 457 f . 

3 Swete, ib., p. 307. * Moulton, Prol., p. 13. 
6 Hist, of Jew. Peo. in Time of Ch., div. II, vol. Ill, p. 163. 

6 lb., vol. I, p. 47 f., and div. II, vol. Ill, p. 159. 

7 lb., p. 157. 


On the spread of Greek in Palestine see Milligan, iV. T. Documents, 
pp. 39 ff. The prohibition/ about the time of the siege of Jerusa- 
lem, against a Jew teaching his son Greek, shows that it had previ- 
ously been done. The quotations in the N. T. from the O. T. show 
the use of the LXX more frequently than the Hebrew, sometimes 
the text quoted in the Synoptics is more like that of A than B, 
sometimes more like Theodotion than the LXX.^ In the Synoptic 
Gospels the quotations, with the exception of five in Matthew 
which are more like the Hebrew, closely follow the LXX. In 
John the LXX is either quoted or a free rendering of the Hebrew 
is made. The Acts quotes from the LXX exclusively. The 
Catholic Epistles use the LXX. The Epistle to the Hebrews "is 
in great part a catena of quotations from the LXX."^ In Paul's 
Epistles more than half of the direct quotations follow the LXX. 
Here also the text of A is followed more often than the text of B. 
Swete^ even thinks that the Hterary form of the N. T. would 
have been very different but for the LXX. The Apocalypse in- 
deed does not formally quote the O. T., but it is a mass of allu- 
sions to the LXX text. It is not certain^ that the LXX was 
used in the synagogues of Galilee and Judea, but it is clear that 
Peter, James, Matthew and Mark, Jewish writers, quote it, and 
that they represent Jesus as using it. In the Hellenistic syna- 
gogues of Jerusalem it would certainly be read. It would greatly 
facihtate a just conclusion on the general relation of the N. T. 
Greek to the LXX Greek if we had a complete grammar and a 
dictionary of the LXX, though we are grateful for the luminous 
chapter of Swete on the Greek of the Septuagint in his Introduc- 
tion to the 0. T. in Greek; to Kennedy for his Sources of N. T. 
Greek; to Hatch for his Essays in Biblical Greek; to Deissmann for 
his Bible Studies and his Philologij of the Greek Bible (1908); to 
Helbing for his very useful Grammatik, and especially to Thack- 

» Megilla, I, 8. Cf. Hamburger, Realencyc, art. Griechentum; R. Meister, 
Prol. zu einer Gr. der Sept., (Wiener Stud., xxix, 27). 

^ Swete, Intr. to O. T. in Gk., p. 395. Cf. Deissmann in Exp. Times, 
Mar., 1906, p. 254, who points out that Pap. Heid. (cf. Deissmann, Die Sept. 
Pap., 1905) "assimilates such passages as are cited in the N.T., or are capa- 
ble of a Christian meaning, as far as possible, to their form in the N. T. 
text, or to the sphere of Christian thought." Ileinrici shows the same thing 
to be true of Die Leip. Pap. frag, der Psalmcn, 1903. 

3 Swete, Intr., etc., p. 402. All these facts about LXX quotations come 
from Swete. 

* lb., p. 404. See ib., p. 404 f., for bibliography on N. T. quotations. 

s lb., pp. 29 ff. 


eray for vol. I of his Grammar. It is now possible to make in- 
telligent and, to a degree, adequate use of the LXX in the study 
of N. T. Greek. The completion of Helbing's Syntax and of 
Thackeray's Syntax will further enrich N. T. students. The Ox- 
ford Concordance of Hatch and Redpath and the larger Cambridge 
Se-ptuagint are of great value. Swete^ laments that the N. T. 
grammars have only "incidental references to the linguistic char- 
acteristics of the Alexandrian version." 

The translation was not done all at once, and not by men of 
Jerusalem, but by Jews of Alexandria who knew "the patois of 
the Alexandrian streets and markets." ^ One doubts, however, 
if these translators spoke this mixture of Egyptian KOLvi] and 
Hebrew. On this point Swete^ differs from most scholars and in- 
sists that "the translators write Greek largely as they doubtless 
spoke it." They could not shake off the Hebrew spell in trans- 
lation. In free Greek like most of the N. T. the Semitic influence 
is far less. Mahaffy was quick to see the likeness between the 
papyri and the LXX.'* But one must not assume that a N. T. 
word necessarily has the same sense that it has either in the LXX 
or the KOLvi]. The N. T. has ideas of its own, a point to be con- 
sidered later. We agree with Swete^ that the LXX is "indispen- 
sable to the study of the N. T." Nestle'' justly remarks that the 
Greek of the LXX enjoys now a much more favourable judgment 
from philologists than some twenty years ago. Conybeare and 
Stock {Set. from the LXX, p. 22) observe that, while the vocabu- 
lary of the LXX is that of the market-place of Alexandria, the 
syntax is much more under the influence of the Hebrew original. 
The LXX does, of course, contain a few books like 4 Maccabees, 
written in Greek originally and in the Greek spirit, like Philo's 
works. Philo represents the Atticistic revival in Alexandria that 
was a real factor with a few. But the "genitivus hebraicus," like 
6 KPIT17S T^s dSiKtas, is paralleled in the papyri and the inscriptions, 
though not so often as in the LXX. Cf. Radermacher, N. T. 
Greek, p. 19. So also (p. 21) roh e^ kpideias (Ro. 2:8) is like k 
irXrjpovs in the papyri and already in the tragic poets. Thumb ^ 
properly takes the side of Deissmann against Viteau's exaggerated 

1 Intr., p. 289. ^ ib., p. 299. 

2 lb., p. 9. * Exp. Times, iii, p. 291. 

^ Intr. to O. T. in Gk., p. 4.50 f. Hitzig, of Heidelberg, used to open his 
lectures on O. T. by asking: "Gentlemen, have you a LXX? If not, seU 
whatever you have and buy a LXX." Nestle, LXX, in Hast. D. B., p. 438. 

6 LXX, Hast. D. B., p. 451. ^ Griech. Spr. etc., pp. 128-132. 


idea of LXX influence (following Hatch). It is not always easy 
to decide what is due to the use of the LXX and what to the 
development of the ko.^ vernacular. One must have an open 
mind to light from cither direction. Deissmann^ is clearly right 
in calling for a scientific investigation of the Hebrais-s o the 
LXX. Even the LXX and N. T. use of aperrj (Is. 42 : 8 12, i 
Pet 2- 9- 2 Pet 1:3) is paralleled by an inscription m Caria. 
We" are not then to think of the Jews or the Christians as ever 
using in speech or Uterature the peculiar Greek used m thetrans- 
lation of the Hebrew O. T., which in itself varied much m this 
respect in different parts. The same intense Hebraistic cast 
appears in the O. T. apocryphal books which were originally m 
Hebrew and then translated, as Tobit, Ecclesias icus, 1 Macca- 
bees etc. Contrast with these the Greek of the Wisdom of Solo- 
mon, 2 Maccabees and the Prologue to the Greek translation of 
Ecclesiasticus, and the difference is at once manifest. 3 The Wis- 
dom of Solomon is of special interest, for the author, who wrote 
in Greek and revealed knowledge of Greek culture, art, science 
and philosophy, was yet familiar with the LXX -d imjtated 
some of its Hebraisms, being a Jew himself. Cf Siegfried, Book 
of Wisdom," Hastings' D. B. It must never be forgotten that 
"by far the greatest contribution of Alexandrian Pro^^ to the 
great literature of the world is this very translation of the O. 1. 
The name Christ (Xp.ar6s) is found in the LXX "and so the very 
terms Christian and Christianity arose out of the language em- 
ployed by the Alexandrian interpreters."^ The only Bible known 
to most of the Jews in the world in the first Christian century was 
the LXX The first complete Bible was the Greek Bible ihe 
LXX was the "first Apostle to the Gentiles" and was freely used 
for many centuries by the Christians. Conybeare and Stock (^eL 
from the LXX, p. 24) go so far as to say that the N. T itsel 
would not have been but for the LXX. Certainly it would not 

1 Hell -Gricch., Hauck's Realencyc, p. 638. ^ •. n^ 

■ . DelLann, B. S., pp. 95 f ., 360 ff. Cf . G-tzschius, Spec. Exer^^^^^^^^^^^ 
1778 p 23. H. Anz, Subs, ad cognos. Grace. Scrm. etc., 1894, p. 38o points 
out that poetic words are in the LXX also through the common speech. Cf . 

T.insius Gr Unters. tiber die bibl. Griic, 1863, p. vu. , , ,, . 

Lipsius, ur. ume . , jl attention to the fact that 

3 Deissmann, a. b., p. /di. xit. n^ii^'J' t w o,i,l hri^tle 

many of the Ptolemaic pap. are eontemporary with the LXX _ and bn.tU, 
with proof that the LXX on the whole is in the vernac. ko.., of Li^jpt- 
The Hebraisms came from the Hebrew itself in the act of translating. 

« Mah;iffy, Prog, of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., p. 80. 

6 Churton, Infl. of the LXX Vers., 1861, p. 1. 


have been what it is. "The Bible whose God is Yahweh is the 
Bible of one people, the Bible whose God is Kupios is the Bible of 
the world" (Deissmann, Die Hellen. des Semit. Mon., p. 174). 

Thackeray {Grammar of the 0. T. in Greek, pp. 25-55) gives a 
careful survey of the "Semitic Element in the LXX Greek." He 
admits that the papyri have greatly reduced the number of the 
Hebraisms heretofore noted in the LXX. He denies, however 
(p. 27), that the Greek of the LXX gives "a true picture of the 
language of ordinary intercourse between Jewish residents in 
the country." He denies also any influence of the Hebrew on the 
vernacular Greek of the Jew^s in Alexandria outside of the vocabu- 
lary of special Jewish words like aKpo^varia. He thinks (p. 28) 
the Book of Tobit the best representative of the vernacular Greek 
of the Jews. There are more transliterations like yetupas for Ara- 
maic s^'ii'^3 (Heb. 13) in the later books where the early books had 
irdpoLKos or TpoarjXvros. The fact of a translation argues for a 
fading of the Hebrew from the thought of the people. In the 
early books the translation is better done and "the Hebraic 
character of these books consists in the accumulation of a number 
of just tolerable Greek phrases, which nearly correspond to what 
is normal and idiomatic in Hebrew" (p. 29). But in the later 
books the Hebraisms are more numerous and more marked, due 
to "a growing reverence for the letter of the Hebrew" (p. 30). 
We cannot follow in detail Thackeray's helpful sketch of the 
transliterations from the Hebrew, the Hellenized Semitic words, 
the use of words of like sound, Hebrew senses in Greek words 
like 8l8u!fj.L= Tidi]fj.L after ^£]., vids dSi/ctas, 600aX/i6s, TpoaoiTov, arona, 
X^'i-P, the pleonastic pronoun, extensive use of prepositions, /cat 
kykvero, ev for accompaniment or instrument, etc. 

(e) Aramaisms. N. T. grammars have usualty blended the 
Aramaic with the Hebrew influence. Schmieden complains that 
the Aramaisms have received too little attention. But Dalman^ 
retorts that Schmiedel himself did not do the matter justice, and 
still less did Blass. Moulton^ recognizes the distinction as just 
and shows that Aramaisms are found chiefly in Mark and Mat- 
thew, but does not point out the exact character of the Aramaisms 
in question. We take it as proved that Jesus and the Apostles, 
like most of their Jewish contemporaries in Palestine who moved 
in pubhc life, spoke both Aramaic and Greek and read Hebrew 

* W.-Sch., Gr., § 2, 1 c. And Dalman (Words of Jesus, p. 18 f.) criticizes 
Schmiedel for not distinguishing Aramaisms from Hebraisms. 

2 Words of Jesus, p. 18. » Prol., p. 8. 



(cf. Lu. 4 : 17). Even Schiirer^ admits that the educated classes 
used Greek without difficulty. There is no doubt about the Ara- 
maic. Jerome says that all the Jews of his time knew the He- 
brew O. T. The LXX disproves that, but Hebrew was used in 
the schools and synagogues of Palestine and was clearly read by 
many. The discourses of Jesus do not give the impression that 
he grew up in absolute seclusion, though he undoubtedly used the 
Aramaic in conversation and public address on many occasions 
if not as a rule.^ The Aramaic tongue is very old and its use as a 
diplomatic tongue (Is. 36 : U) implies perhaps a previous Ara- 
maic leadership .3 There was a hterary as well as a vernacular 
Aramaic. The Aramaic portions of Daniel, Ezra, the Targum of 
Onl^elos are in the literary Aramaic." Dalman^ suggests that 
Matthew wrote his Gospel originally in the Judean literary Ara- 
maic rather than the Galilean vernacular, but the reason is not 
very apparent. Zahn<^ doubts the validity of Dalman's distinction 
between a Judean and a Galilean Aramaic, but Peter was recog- 
nized in Jerusalem by the Galilean pronunciation (Mt. 26 : 73). 
The Gahleans^ had difficulty with the gutturals and '^. This 
Aramaic is not to be confounded with the later Christian Ara- 
maic or Syriac into which the N. T. was translated. The Ara- 
maic spoken in Palestine was the West Aramaic,^ not the East 
Aramaic (Babylonia). So keenly does Dahnan^ feel the differ- 
ence between Hebraisms and Aramaisms that he avers that "the 
Jewish Aramaic current among the people was considerably freer 
from Hebrew influence than the Greek which the Synoptists 
write." Not many can go with him in that statement. But he 
is right in insisting on a real difference, though, as a matter of 
fact, no great point was made about it at the time. With Jo- 
sephus 7j TCLTpLos 'y\w(i(Ta was the Aramaic (B. J. pr. § 1; v. 6, § 3; 

1 Hist, of the Jew. Peo. in Time of Ch., div. II, vol. I., p. 48. On the 
Gk of the Mishna see Fiebig, Zeitschr. fiir neutest. Wiss., 1908, 4. Heft. 

2 Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 9, 11; Ch. I, § IV, (i) 4, for full discussion. 

3 D. S. Margoliouth, Lang, of the O. T., Hast. D. B. 

4 Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 80. ^ lb., p. 81. 

6 Einl. in das N. T., I, 1897, p. 19. 

7 See Neubauer, Stud. Bibl., 1885, p. 51. 

8 Meyer Jesu Muttcrspr., 1896, p. 58 f . Some of the Lat. monks actually 
thought that Jesus spoke Lat. and that the N. T. was written in that tongue! 
But Meyer (ib., p. 63 f.) will not allow that Jesus knew Cd<. Chase, on the 
other hand, shows that Peter necessarily spoke Gk. on the Day of Pentecost 
(Credibility of the Acts, 1902, p. 114). 

» Words of Jesus, p. 42. 


V. 9, § 2). He wrote his War originally in the native tongue for 
Tois avco ^apl3apoLs. John (5 : 2; 19 : 13, 17, 20; Rev. 9 : 11; 16 : 16) 
uses 'E/Spato-Ti in the sense of the Aramaic. So Luke has 17 
'EjSpats dLoXeKTos (Ac. 21 : 40; 22 : 2; 26 : 14). The people under- 
stood Paul's Greek, but they gave the more heed when he dropped 
into Aramaic. 4 Mace. (12 : 7; 16 : 15) likewise employs 'E/3pais 
4>0!}vr]. The two kinds of Jewish Christians are even called (Ac. 
6 : 1) 'EX\r]VLaTal and 'E/3patot, though 'EWrjVLaTai and Supto-rat 
would have been a more exact distinction.^ It is beyond contro- 
versy that the gospel message was told largely in Aramaic, which 
to some extent withstood the influx of Greek as the vernacular 
did in Lycaonia^ (Ac. 14 : 11). One cannot at this point discuss 
the Synoptic problem. It is not certain that Luke, probably a 
gentile, knew either Aramaic or Hebrew, though there is a real 
Semitic influence on part of the Gospel and Acts, due, Dalman^ 
holds, to the LXX example and a possible Aramaic or Hebrew 
original for the opening chapters of the Gospel, already put in- 
to Greek. Mark was probably written in Rome, not Palestine. 
Hence the Aramaic original of Mark, Bousset argues, cannot be 
considered as proved.* He rightly insists, as against Wellhausen,* 
that the question is not between the classic Greek and Aramaic, 
but between the vernacular kolvt] and Aramaic. But whatever is 
or is not true as to the original language of Mark and of Mat- 
thew, the gospel story was first told largely in Aramaic. The 
translation of the Aramaic expressions in Mark proves this be- 
yond all doubt, as ToKeida, kovix by to Kopaaiov, eyeipe (Mk. 5 : 41). 
Dalman^ indeed claims that every Semitism in the N. T. should 
first be looked upon as an Aramaism unless it is clear that the 
Aramaic cannot explain it. The Mishna (Neo-Hebraic) was not 
itself unaffected by the Greek, for the Mishna has numerous 

* Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 7. ^ Schwyzer, Weltspr. etc., p. 27. 

^ Words of Jesus, p. 38. Dabnan doubts the Heb. document, but admits 
a "wealth of Hebraisms" in Lu. Vogel (ZurCharac. des Lu., p. 32 f.) argues 
for a "special source" for these opening chapters. Blass, Philol. of theGosp., 
p. 195, denies that Luke knew Hebrew. 

4 Theol. Runds., Jan., 1906, pp. 2-4, 35 f. 

^ Einl. in die drei Evang., §§ 2-4. 

6 Words of Jesus, p. 19; cf. also Schaf?, Comp. to the Gk. N. T., p. 28. In 
1877 Dr. John A. Broadus said in lecture (Sum. of the Leading Peculiarities 
of N. T. Gk. Gr., Immer's Hermen., p. 378) that the N. T. Gk. had a "Hebrew 
and Aramaic tinge which arises partly from reading Hebrew and chiefly (so 
his own correction) from speaking Aramaic." If instead of Hebrew he had 
said LXX, or had added LXX to Hebrew, he would not have missed it far. 


Greek words and phrases that were current in the Aramaic.^ 
The Aramaisms of vocabulary that one can certainly admit in the 
N. T. are the following words: d(3i3a=sas; 'AKeX5a/idx='<'?1 ip-"; 
all words beginning with /3ap="i5 hke Bapra/Sas; BeeXi'e/3oL'X = i''?2, 
i^nT; B7?^e(76d=»iDD rr^?; Brjd^ada, B77fa0d=!!<n7. rr^?; Ta^^aBa = 
Kri53; yeepua = ^^^ S*?.; FoXTO^d = KIJ^3^3; eXcot, eXwt, Xa/zd aa^ax- 
davd (or probably Heb. "^^Js^^Xet, and the rest Aramaic, Dal- 
man, Wcrrds of Jesus, p. 53 f .) = ^^^P?".?' s^^i^ ^^)^ ^'^i^; t4><t>oJda.= 
nnsri^; /cop/3aj/as = »J?'^^p; /xaAtcoms=!*;'i?2!S:'9; fxapava, 0d = sn S^J'^^^; 
Meo-crtas = S^nittiTp ; Trdo-xa^'*'??^; 0apt(raTot=i*'\'45 ■'")?; pa^l3o{ov)vL{el) = 
''pia'l; j5aKd=Spil; o-d|3/3aTa = 5^ri:3'0; aaraj'as = 5<3pO ; o-drof =«^S9; 
(7kepa=!s'i^t:"; ToKada, Kouii=^'!2'^p '^fi'^^P; names of persons like 
K7j0ds = 5*p'^5; Ta;Set0d=Kri-^nt?, etc. 

Aramaisms of syntax are seen in the following. The expression 
yeveadaL davarov seems to be in imitation of the Aramaic. Well- 
hausen {Einl. in die drei Evang., pp. 31 ff.) suggests that els Kad' els 
(Mk. 14 : 19) is a hybrid between the Aramaic els els (but this is 
an old Greek idiom) and the vernacular (kolvt)) Kad' eh. He suggests 
also that Aramaic meanings are found in such words as aco^eLu, 
TvoieXv Kapirov, avfj-^ovXiov Trotelv (5t56i'at), elpi]vq, eiprjvrjv SidopaL, 686s 
6eov, TrXTjpoofxa, etc. As already explained, apart from the question 
of a possible original Aramaic Mark and an original Aramaic 
Matthew and Aramaic sources for the early chapters of Luke and 
the first twelve chapters of Acts,^ many of the discourses of Christ 
were undoubtedly in Aramaic. There was translation then from 
this Aramaic spoken (or written) gospel story into the vernacular 
KOLvr] as we now have it in large portions of the Synoptic Gospels 
and possibly part of Acts. The conjectural efforts to restore this 
Aramaic original of the words of Jesus are suggestive, but not 
always convincing. On the whole subject of Semitic words in 
the. Ptolemaic papyri see Mayser, Grammatik, pp. 40-42. The 
list includes ap{p)a^6)P, ^vaaos, Kvp-ivov, Vi^avos, cvKap-LVOs, x^t-wv. It 
is not a very long list indeed, but shows that the Orient did have 
some little influence on the Greek vocabulary. These words oc- 
cur in older Greek writers. 

* Schiirer, Hist, of the Jew. Peo., etc., div. II, vol. I, pp. 29-50. Cf. mod. 

2 Cf. Bickel, Zcitschr. fiir Cath. Thool., viii, 43. This would then mean, 
"Lord, come." Cf. Rev. 22 : 20. W. 11. give it fiapav iiOa. 

' Sec Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., ch. XI; Dahiian, Words of Jesus, pp. 17- 
78; Wellhausen, Einl. m die drei Evang. (Die aram. Grundl. der Evang., pp. 


(/) Varying Results. It is natural that different writers 
in the N. T. should diverge in the amount of Semitic influ- 
ence manifest in their writings. They all used the vernacular 
KOLvr] which in itself may have had a very faint trace of Semitic 
influence. But of the nine authors of the N. T. six were prob- 
ably Palestinian Jews.^ Now these six writers (Mark, Mat- 
thew, James, Peter, Jude, John) are just the very ones who 
reveal the Semitic mould of thought. It is often merely the 
Hebrew and Aramaic spirit and background. In Mark the 
Aramaic influence appears; in Matthew ^ the LXX is quoted 
along with the Hebrew, and Aramaisms occur also; in James 
there is the stately dignity of an O. T. prophet with Aramaic 
touches (cf. his address and letter in Ac. 15) but with many 
neat turns of Greek phrase and idiom; Peter's two letters pre- 
sent quite a problem and suggest at least an amanuensis in one 
case or a different one for each letter (cf. Biggs, Int. and Crit. 
Comm.); Jude is very brief, but is not distinctly Hebraic or 
Grecian; John in his Gospel is free from minor Semitisms be- 
yond the frequent use of /cat like "i, but the tone of the book is 
distinctly that of a noble Jew and the sum total of the impres- 
sion from the book is Semitic, while the Apocalypse has minor 
Hebraisms and many grammatical idiosyncrasies to be discussed 
later, many of which remind one of the LXX. If the absence 
of the optative be taken as a test, even when compared with 
the vernacular kolvyi, Matthew, James and John do not use it 
at all, while Mark has it only once and Jude twice. Peter in- 
deed has it four times and Hebrews only once, but Luke uses the 
optative 28 times and Paul 31. The remaining three writers 
(Paul, Luke, author of Hebrews) were not Palestinian Jews. 
Paul was a Hellenistic Jew who knew his vernacular kolvt] well 
and spoke Aramaic and read Hebrew. His Epistles are addressed 
chiefly to gentile Christians and naturally show little Semitic 
flavour, for he did not have to translate his ideas from Aramaic 
into Greek. In some of his speeches, especially the one delivered 
in Aramaic, as reported by Luke in Ac. 22, a trace of the Semitic 
point of view is retained. In contrast with Ac. 22 note Paul's 
address on the Areopagus in 17. The author of Hebrews makes 
abundant use of the LXX but exhibits possible Alexandrian 
origin or training, and it is not clear that he knew either 

1 Swete, Intr. to the O. T. in Gk., p. 381. 

2 Dalman (Wds. of Jes., p. 42) thinks that the Heb. of Mt. are due to 
the LXX. 


Hebrew or Aramaic.^ Luke presents something of a problem, for 
he seems to have had Aramaic sources in Lu. 1 and 2 (possibly 
also Ac. 1-12), while it is uncertain whether he was famiUar 
with the Aramaic. There seems little evidence that he knew 
Hebrew. Blass^ thinks that he may have read his Aramaic 
sources or had them translated for him. Curiously enough, 
though a gentile and capable of writing almost classic Attic 
(Lu. 1 : 1-4), yet Luke uses Semitisms not common elsewhere 
in the N. T. Dalman^ shows that the few real Hebraisms in 
Luke like \6yovs in sense of things (9 : 28 but classical authority 
for this exists), bia. aTonaros (1:70) are due to the LXX, not the 
Hebrew. The use of ev tc3 with the infinitive and followed by the 
subject of the clause occurs 25 times in Luke, once in Mark, thrice 
in Matthew and in John not at all.^ See kv tc3 vTvo(jTpt<i)ii.v tov 
'l-qaovv (Lu. 8 : 40). Blass calls this an Aramaism.^ But it is not 
a pecuharity of the discourses of Jesus, as it is found there only in 
kv TOO awdpeLv (common to all the Synoptics, Mk. 4: 4; Mt. 13: 4; Lu. 
8:5), and in Lu. 10:35; 19:15. Hence the idiom is common^ 
in Luke from some other cause. The construction occurs in " clas- 
sical historians, in Polybius and in papyri," ^ but is most common 
in the LXX, and the parallel is wanting in the spoken Aramaic. 
Luke also freely uses /cat kyhero (almost peculiar to him in the 
N. T.), which at once suggests ^^':l. He doubtless got this from 
the LXX.s He has three constructions, viz. Kal kyhero koL rfKde, 
Kal eyhtTo riWe and koX eykuero ehdeZv. The first two^ are common 
in the LXX, while kyepero ekSeiv is due to the Greek vernacular i" 
as the papyri testify. The superfluous d<^ets, rip^aro, etc., are Ara- 
maisms, while ei/xt and the participle is Aramaic, Uke the Hebrew, 
and also in harmony with the analytic vernacular Koivi]. Nestle" 

1 Biesenthal (Das Trostschreiben des Ap. Paulus an d. Heb., 1878) even 
thinks that the Ep. was written in Ai'am. or Heb. 

2 Philol. of the Gosp., p. 205. 

3 Wds. of Jes., p. 38 f. Cf. also Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., pp. 113 f., 118; 
Vogel, Zur Charac. des Lukas, p. 27. ^ Dalman, Wds. of Jes., p. 33. 

6 Evang. sec. Lucam, p. xxii. But kv tw with the inf. occurs with great fre- 
quency in the LXX, 555 times in the O. T., Apoc. and N. T. (Votaw, Inf. 
in Bib. Gk., p. 20), chiefly in the LXX (455 times, only 72 in the N. T.). It 
occurs nearly as often in the LXX as all other prepositions with the infinitive 
together. ^ Dalman, Wds. of Jes., p. 3-4. 

' Moulton, Prol., p. 14 (1st ed.). » W.-M., p. 760 note. 

9 Cf. Thackeray, Gr.,-pp. 50 ff. We have the type iykvtro f,\Oe 145 times, 
and iykvero Kal v\Oe 209 times in the LXX, but kyhiro kUetv only once (1 Kgs. 
11:43 B). ^° Moulton, Prol., p. 17. 

" Zeitschr. f iir ncutest. Wiss., 190G, p. 279 f. 


agrees with Blass (p. 131) in taking buoKoydv kv in Mt. 10 : 32 and 
Lu. 12 : 8 as a Syrism. n with nnin is not in the Hebrew, nor 
bixok. ev in the LXX, but "^nist is used with n in the Jewish-Ara- 
maic and Christian-Syriac. Nestle refers to o/xoXoyovvrcov tQ bvb- 
fxaTL (Heb. 13 : 15) as a Hebraism, for in such a case the Hebrew 
used ^. The LXX and the Aramaic explain all the Semitisms in 
Luke. Dalman^ ventures to call the LXX Hebraisms in Luke 
"Septuagint-Grsecisms" and thinks that the same thing is true 
of the other Synoptists. Certainly it is proper to investigate ^ the 
words of Jesus from the point of view of the peculiarities of style 
in each reporter of them. But, after all is said, the Semitisms in 
the N. T. Greek, while real and fairly numerous in bulk, cut a 
very small figure in comparison with the entire text. One can 
read whole pages in places with little suggestion of Semitic in- 
fluence beyond the general impress of the Jewish genius and point 
of view. 

IV. Latinisms and Other Foreign Words. Moulton^ considers 
it "hardly worth while" to discuss Latin influence on the kolvt] of 
the N. T. Blass ^ describes the Latin element as "clearly trace- 
able." Swete^ indeed alleges that the vulgar Greek of the Em- 
pire "freely adopted Latin words and some Latin phraseology." 
Thumb'' thinks that they are "not noteworthy." In spite of 
the conservative character of the Greek language, it yet incor- 
porated Latin civil and military terms with freedom. Inas- 
much as Judea was a Roman province, some allusion to Roman 
customs and some use of Latin military and official terms was to 
be expected,^ though certainly not to the extent of Romanizing 
or Latinizing the language. Cicero^ himself described Latin as 
provincial in comparison ^vith the Greek. Latin words are fairly 
common in the Mishna.^ Latin names were early naturaUzed 
into the Greek vernacular and in the N. T. we find such Roman 
names as Aquila, Cornelius, Claudia, Clemens, Crescens, Crispus, 
Fortunatus, Julia, Junia, Justus, Linus, Lucius, Luke, Mark, 

1 Wds. of Jes., p. 41. " Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 4. 

2 lb., p. 72. ^ Comm. on Mk., 189S, p. xliv. 

3 Prol., p. 20. ^ Griech. Spr. etc., p. 152. 
' Hoole, Class. Element in the N. T., p. 4. 

8 Pro Archia 10. Cato lamented: airoXoCo-t 'PwAtaiot ra -Kpayixara ypafj.naTo:v 
'EWtjvikwu a.vaTr\T)ue'evTe% (Plut., Cato Maj. 23. 3). Cf. Colin, Rome et la Grece 
de 200 h 146 avant Jesus-Christ (1905). 

9 Schiirer, Jew. Peo. in Time of Ch., div. II, vol. I, pp. 43 ff. Krausa 
(Griech. und lat. Lehnw. im Tal., Tl. I, p. xxi) says: "One speaks of the lan- 
guage of the Romans with the greatest respect as the speech of the soldiers." 


Niger, Paul, Priscilla, Publius, Pudens, Rufus, Sergius, Silvanus 
(Silas), Tertius, Titus among the Christians themselves (Jewish 
and gentile), while Agrippa, Augustus (translated ^e^aaros), 
Caesar, Claudius, Gallio, Felix, Festus, Julius, Nero (Text. Rec.), 
Pilate, TertuUus are typical Roman names. Note the Roman 
cities mentioned in Ac. 28, Ca^sarca and Tiberias in Palestine. 
More than forty Latin names of persons and places occur m 
the N. T. The other Latin words, thirty (or thirty-one), are mili- 
tary, judicial, monetary or domestic terms. They come into the 
N. T. through the vernacular kolvt], none of them appearing in 
the LXX and but two in Polybius. "Plutarch uses Latin words 
more frequently than Polybius, but for the most part not those 
employed in the N. T.''^ Jannaris^ observes that "the Roman 
administration, notwithstanding its surrendering to Greek culture 
and education, did not fail to influence the Greek language." 
But in the N. T. only these Latin words are found: aaadpLov (as), 
dvvapLov (denarius), ?x^=aestimo (exe fie irapvrw^vov, Lu. 14 : 18), 
evpaKv\o^v, 6 piap.^eheiv , Kevrvplc^v (centurio), K^uaos (census), KoSpav- 
T-qs (quadrans), Ko\oivia (colonia), Kovarwhla (custodia), \eyi6:v 
(legio), \kvTi.ov (linteum), Xt/SeprTvos (libertinus), Virpa (libra), txa- 
KeWov (macellum), ixep-^pava (membrana), ii'CKiov (mille), MoStos 
(modius), ^earrjs (sextarius), Trpan6,pLov (praetorium) , (xuaptos (si- 
carius), aLpuKivdLov (semicinctium), covhaptov (sudarium), aizeKov- 
Urcop (speculator), a^ ra^eppat (taberna), rlrXos (titlus), cj^eKouris 
(paenula), ^opo^forum), ct>payk\\Lov (fiagellum), cj^payeWdo: (flagello), 
xaprrjs (? charta), x^ipos (corus). This is at most (31) not a for- 
midable list. A few Latin phrases occur like epyaaiav SovpaL (ope- 
ram dare), to Ikupop \ap.^apeip (satis accipere), rb kapop Tvoietp (satis 
facere), cvix^ov\iov \aix^kpeiv (consilium capere). But Deissmann 
{Light from the Ancient East, p. 117 f.) notes the use of kpyo-aiap 
blbo^ixi in an Oxyrhynchus papyrus letter of the vulgar type in 
2d cent. b.c. and also in an inscription in Caria with a decree of 
the Senate. A lead tablet at Amorgus shows Kplfco to bkaiop (cf. 
Lu. 12 : 57). So aumipco Uyop (Mt. 18 : 23 f.) occurs in two pa- 
pyri letters of 2d cent. a.d. (Moulton, The Expositor, April, 1901, 
p. 274 f.). Thayer =' calls attention also to ai) oypxi (Mt. 27 : 4) as 

1 Burton, Notes on N. T. Gr., 1904, p. 15. 

2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 7. , ^. , . -ni • 

3 Lang of the N. T., Hast. D. B. Cf. also C. Wessely, Die lat. Elem. in 
der Griic der ilgyp. Papyrusurk., Wien. Stud., 24 (1902). On the whole sub- 
ject see L. Laforcade, Infl. du Lat. sur le Grec, pp. 83-158. T6 lKav6^> Trotetv is 
as old as Polybius (Moulton, Exp., Feb., 1903, p. 115). 


being like videris. So also 6\peade avroi (Ac. 18 : 15). Griimn^ 
considers \ayL^avtLv in Jo. 5 : 34, 41 equal to capto ('to catch at'). 
The majority of these instances occur in Mark and Matthew, 
Mark using more Latinisms than any other N. T. writer. Too 
much, however, cannot be argued from this point. ^ There are 
besides such adjectives as 'HpwStawt, XpiaTiavol, ^LKnnrrjaLoi, which 
are made after the Latin model. 

Blass^ thinks that the syntax shows a greater Latin influence, 
but admits that it is difficult to tell the difference between native 
development in the Greek and a possible Latin bent. It is in- 
deed difficult to speak with decision on this point. Ultimately 
Greek and Latin had great influence on each other, but at this 
stage the matter is at least too doubtful to appeal to with con- 
fidence." Paul indeed may have spoken in Latin at Lystra, ac- 
cording to Prof. Ramsay .5 Thayer'' indeed gives a longer list of 
Latin syntactical influences on N. T. Greek, but not all of them 
are certain. The anticipatory position of airo and irpo in expres- 
sions of time and place, as wpd U w^poiv (Jo. 12: 1), is a possible 
Latinism, though only of the secondary sort, since the Doric and 
the Ionic use this construction occasionally and the kolvt] frequently 
(cf. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 101). Cf. also Merd xoXXas ravras 
rinkpas (Ac. 1:5).'^ The increased use of the subjunctive rather 
than the optative after a past tense of the indicative is a necessary 
result of the disappearance of the optative rather than a Latin- 
ism. The alleged blending of present perfect and aorist might 

1 Gk.-Eng. Lex. of the N. T. 

2 Swete, Comm. on Mk., p. xliii. Cf. Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., p. 211 f. 

3 Or. of N. T. Gk., p. 4. 

4 Viereck, Sermo Graecus, 1888, pp. 60, 66. Thumb (Griech. Spr., p. 152) 
considers the matter .inconclusive, as does Moulton (Prol., p. 21). For the 
later Latinisms see Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 13 f. See also W. Schulze, Graeca 
Lat., 1891; Schwyzer, Weltspr. des Altert., p. 20. Cf. Sophocles, Lex., pp. 
25-30 for Latinisms in Gk. 

6 Exp., Sept., 1905, and March, 1906. "As his father, and possibly also 
his grandfather, had possessed the Roman citizenship, the use of Latin speech 
and names was an inheritance in the family" (Ramsay, Ex-p., Aug., 1906, 
p. 160). Cf. also Ramsay, Pauhne and Other Studies (1906, p. 65), where 
he says it is "certain" that he spoke the Latin language. So holds Alex. 
Souter (Did Paul Speak Latin?, Exp., April, 1911). At Iconium "a certain 
affectation of speaking Latin was fashionable." Moulton also thinks that 
Paul preached in Lat. at Lystra, since the earhest inscriptions there are Lat. 
(Prol., p. 233). 

6 Lang, of the N. T., Hast. D. B. 

1 On this matter of time see Schulze, Graeca Lat., pp. 13 ff. 


be a Latinism, but it is at least doubtful if that is found in the 
N. T. The use of 6ri and 'Lva rather than the infinitive follows 
naturally as the infinitive vanishes, but it is parallel to the grow- 
ing use of ut with rogo, etc. 'Atto and the ablative after 4)v\a.(x<rHv 
may be due to cavere ab or to the general analytic tendency to 
express the preposition with the case (cf. the Hebrew also). 
Other smaller details are the absence of o: with the vocative, avv 
as equal to Kal, 6s = /cat outos {qui=et hie), 7aMeco with dative =nw- 
bere alicui, infinitive alone with KeKehw. There is no evidence that 
the absence of the article in Latin had any influence on the ver- 
nacular Koivi], though Schmidi thinks he sees it in the irregular 
use of the article in iElian. It is interesting in this connection 
to note the development in the vernacular Latin as represented 
in the Old Latin and the Vulgate versions. Unusual cases are 
used with many verbs; prepositions are much more frequent; the 
indicative with final ut and in indirect questions; common use of 
quia and quoniam like quod with verb rather than the accusative 
and infinitive; ille, ipse, hie, is, more like the article, as the later 
Itahan il, Spanish el, French le."^ 

Other foreign words had, of course, entered the kolvt] or the 
earlier Greek, like /Souros (Cyrenaic and Sicilian); peSrj (Gallic or 
Celtic); ayyapevoo (even J^^schylus), ya^a, Trapadetaos, aavdoKLov (Per- 
sian); xiTcbv (Oriental); Kpa^arros (cf. Latin grabatus), irapefx^oXi,, 
pvixr] (Macedonian); appa(3uu, Kivvaixwuov, kvixlvov, nva (Phoenician); 
Pa'Cov, iStjSXos, iSucraos, alvaTi, <nv86}v (Egyptian or Semitic?); ftfa- 
vLov (Arabic?). On the Egyptian words in the Ptolemaic papyri 
see Mayser, Grammatik, pp. 35-40; on the Persian words, 26., 
p. 42 f., including ya^a and 7rapa5eio-os. StmTrt is of uncertain origin. 
But Greek was known in all parts of the Roman Empire except 
parts of North Africa and the extreme west of Europe. There were 
great hbraries in Alexandria, Pergamum and elsewhere. Schools 
were numerous and excellent. But none the less the mass of the 
people were ^ap^apoi to the real Greeks and inevitably brought 
laxities into the vernacular. Cf. Eadermacher, N. T. Gr., pp. 
9 ff., who gives a good discussion of the Latinisms in kolvt] writers. 

1 Atticismus etc., p. 64. Cf. Gcorgi, Dc Latinismis N. T., iii, Vita, 1733. 

2 On this whole subject sec Ronsch, Itala unci Vulgata. Das Sprachid. der 
urchristl. Itala und der Kath. Vulg. unter Beriicks. der rom. Volksspr., 1875, 
p. 480 f . Cf . also The Holy Lat. Tongue, W. Barry, in Dublin Rev., April, 
1906, and Our Lat. Bible, ib., July, 1906. "The common dialect, spoken 
with local differences in every part of Italy, in Gaul, Spain and Africa, saw 
its happy moment arrive when Christianity spread over those shores" (Dub- 
lin Rev., April, 1906, p. 293). 


V. The Christian Addition. But was there a Christian ad- 
dition if there was no separate bibhcal Greek, not to say a special 
Christian Greek? Winer ^ admitted "religious technical terms" 
in the Christian sense, but thought that "the subject scarcely 
lies within the limits of philological inquiry." Blass has nothing 
to say on the subject. But even Deissmann^ insisted that "the 
language of the early Christians contained a series of religious 
terms peculiar to itself, -some of which it formed for the first 
time," but he added that this enrichment did not extend to the 
"syntax." Once more hear Deissmann^: "Christianity, like any 
other new movement affecting civilization, must have produced 
an effect upon language by the formation of new ideas and the 
modification of old ones." Moulton^ sounds a note of warning 
when he says that "it does not follow that we must promptly 
obliterate every grammatical distinction that proves to have 
been unfamiliar to the daily conversation of the first century 
Egyptian farmer . . . The N. T. must still be studied largely by 
light drawn from itself." Westcott^ indeed thinks the subject 
calls for "the most careful handling" in order to avoid Jewish 
usage on the one hand and the later ecclesiastical ideas on 
the other. This is obviously true. Connect the discussion of the 
Semitic influence on the N. T. wdth this point and recall the 
revolutionary effect that Christianity had upon the Greek lan- 
guage in the ecclesiastical Greek of the Byzantine period, and 
the difficulty will be appreciated. Mahaffy^ does not hesitate to 
say that the main cause of the persistence of Greek studies to-day 
is due to the fact that the Gospels are written in Greek. "Greek 
conquered Jew and Jew conquered Greek and the world inherited 
the legacy of their struggle through Roman hands." Under the 
influence of Christianity some of the old heathen vocabulary 
vanished and the remaining stock "was now considerably re- 
duced and modified in a Christian and modern spirit."^ The 

1 W.-M., p. 36. 

2 B. S., p. 65 (note). 

3 Encyc. Bib., art. Papyri, p. 3562. 

4 Prol., p. 20. Cf . Thumb, Griech. Spr., p. 182 f. 
B Smith's D. B., art. N. T. 

6 The Gk. World under Rom. Sway, 1890, p. 389 f. Butcher, Harv. Lect. 
on Gk. Subj., 1894, p. 2 f., calls the power of Jew and Gk. on modern Hfe 
one of "the mysterious forces of the spirit." "Each entered on a career of 
world-wide empire, till at length the principles of Hellenism became those 
of civilization itself, and the religion of Judea that of civiUzed humanity." 

» Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 10 f. 


N. T. Greek became the standard for ecclesiastical Greek as the 
Attic had been for the ancient world. 

Winer ^ indeed curtly says: "To attempt to explain such ex- 
pressions of the apostolical terminology by quotations from Greek 
authors is highly absurd." Rutherford ^ almost despairs of un- 
derstanding N. T. Greek as well as "classical Greek," since it con- 
tains so many alien elements, "but it has at least begun to be 
studied from the proper point of view," though he overestimates 
the difficulty and the difference when he speaks of "the singular 
speech in which the oracles of God are enshrined." On the other 
hand 3 we must not let the papyri make us swing so far away 
from the old "biblical" Greek idea as to imagine that we can 
find in the vernacular kolvv all that Christianity has to offer. The 
Christian spirit put a new flavour into this vernacular kolpt} and 
lifted it to a new elevation of thought and dignity of style that 
unify and glorify the language. This new and victorious spirit, 
which seized the best in Jew and Greek, knew how to use the 
Greek language with freedom and power.^ If the beauty of the 
N. T. writings is different from the ancient standard, there is 
none the less undoubted charm. Matthew Arnold put the Gospels 
at the acme of simplicity and winsomeness, and Renan spoke of 
Luke's Gospel as the most beautiful book in the world. Norden^ 
admits that the N. T. style is less exclusive and more universal. 
There was indeed a compromise between the old and the new. 
The victory of the new brought rhythm (not the technical sort) 
and unity as the chief characteristics.^ In Christianity Hellenism 
becomes really cosmopolitan.^ If Christianity had merely used 
the Greek language and had been entirely alien to Hellenism, the 

1 W.-M., p. 36, n. 3. ^ Epis. to the Rom., p. x f. 

3 Cf. Zezschwitz, Profangrac. und bibl. Sprachg., 1859, p. 4, where he 
speaks of "dieses neue geistige Princip an der Sprachc." Deissmann (Die 
sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, p. 8) accents the dilTcrence between the 
Christian ideas and the Gra!CO-Rom. heathen words that express them. 

* lb., p. 12. Norden (Die griech. Kunstpr., Bd. II, pp. 453 ff.) indeed 
thinks that the N. T. wants the "freedom" (Freiheit) and "serenity" {Hei- 
terkeit) of the ancient hterature. This is true in part of Paul's wTiting, 
where passion rages fiercely, and in Rev. and other apocalyptic passages. 
But what can excel Lu. and Jo. in lucidity and beauty? " Ileiterkeit — 
blitheness or repose, and Allgemeinhcit — ft,cnera\ity or breadth, are the 
supreme characteristics of the Hellenic ideal." Walter Pater, The Renais- 
sance, 1904, p. 225. 

6 Die griech. Kunstpr., Bd. II, p. 456. 

6 lb., Bd. I, p. 290. ^ lb., Bd. II, p. 463. 


N. T. would not have belonged to Greek literature, but this 
sympathy with the best in the world must not be overworked.^ 
The N. T. language is real Greek, though with the Christian 
spirit supreme in it because Christianity seized the Hellenic 
spirit and transformed it. W. Christ ^ rightly calls attention to 
the fact that Christianity brought "a renewal of the human 
race," "the moral worth of man and a purer view of God." So 
"this ethical new birth of mankind" found expression in the 
N. T. The touch of life is what distinguishes the N. T. writings 
from the philosophical, historical, religious and ethical writings of 
the time.^ In the Synoptic Gospels this quality reaches its height. 
"Far above these details is the spirit, the literary conception of 
a life to be written without ornament, without reflection, without 
the writer's personality."* This fact constitutes a literary phe- 
nomenon amounting almost to a miracle. This vital spirit dis- 
closes itself on every page and baffles analysis. It is the essence 
of the N. T. language, but "is as pervasive as the atmosphere," 
"as intangible as a perfume."^ If some concentration and 
strength are lost, there is great adaptability.^ Thayer^ does not 
hesitate to speak of the fitness of N. T. Greek for its providential 
office. It is the language of men's business and bosoms. It is 
the language of life, not of the study nor the cloister. It is not the 
language of a bygone age, but the speech of the men of the time. 
" The Book of the people has become, in the course of centuries, 
the Book of all mankind" (Deissmaim, Light, p. 142). Chris- 
tianity "began without any written book at all" except the Old 
Testament. "There was only the living word — the gospel, but 
no Gospels. Instead of the letter was the spirit. The beginning, 
in fact, was Jesus HimseK" {ih., p. 245). The N. T. is in close 
sympathy with both Jew and Greek, in a sense has both languages 
to draw on, can reach both the Semitic and the gentile mind, 
becomes a bond of union, in a word (as Broadus used to say) it 
is better suited to be the vehicle of truth conveyed by Jewish 
minds than classical Greek would have been. And a grammarian 
must admit that, however necessary and fundamental grammat- 

1 Cf. Hatch, Infl. of Hellen. on Christ. 

2 Gesch. der griech. Lit., 1905, p. 912. 

3 Hicks, Gk. Phil, and Rom. Law in the N. T., 1896, p. 12. 
« Mahaffy, Su^\^ of Gk. CiviUz., 1897, p. 309. 

6 Thayer, Hast. D. B., art. Lang, of the N. T., p. 40^. 

6 Rodwell, N. T. Gk., 1899, p. 2. 

7 Hast. D. B., ib. Cf. Schaff, Comp. to the Gk. N. T., p. 26. 


ical exegesis is, it forms only the basis for the spiritual exposition 
which should follow. 

When one comes to details, he notes that the influence of 
Christianity is chiefly lexical, not grammatical.^ But a few points 
in syntax are to be observed, as in expressions like kv Xpto-rcS^; h 
Kupicp; TTio-reuco^ h with locative, els with accusative, kirl with the 
locative or the accusative, Trtareuco with the dative, with the accu- 
sative or absolutely. As to the lexical element the lists of aira^ 
€vpy]ixkva require severe sifting.* It is too soon to pass a final verdict, 
but in the nature of the case the number would be small. Such 
words as clvtIxpi-'^tos, erepoStSao-KaXeco, evayyeXLCTTjs , avvaravpow, \pev- 
5d5eX0os, xf/ev8aTr6aTo\os, etc., naturally spring out of the Christian 
enterprise. The vocabulary of the N. T. Greek is not very ex- 
tensive, somewhere near 5600 words, including proper names.^ 
But the main point to note is the distinctive ideas given to words 
already in use, like 01701x77, ayM^cc, 0,7105, dSeX^os, avrlTviros, avrifiL- 
adla, dTToXurpcocris, (ZTrcoXeta, airoaToXos, airoaToXi] , apTOS, ^acrtXeta, fiair- 
Tifco, /SaTTTto-juct (-M05), yXcccrcra, Slclkovos, SiKatoco, eiprjvr], eKKKrjala, 
CK'XeKTOs, eX-TTtfco, eXTrts, eTlaKoiros, tTnaTp'tc^ojiaL, epya, evayyeXiov, evay- 
yeXitco, k^ovala, ^cor], davaros, lepevs, /caXeco, KaToWayri, KaToWaaac^, 
KTipvaaw, Kk-qTOS,. K6(jp.o<;, Koivwvia, \vTpov, \vrpbw, neravoia, 656s, Tra- 
paKKrjTOS, tt'l<jtls, ttlotos, irKXTevw, irpevna, irvevp-aTLKOs, irpea^VTepos, 
irpoaKonida, aap^, cravpos, (Xvvel8r](XLS, ado^o:, (rcoTi7p, cruTr]pla, raireLVOs, 
TaTreLVOcppoavpt], 6 vios tov deov, 6 vlos rod avOpoiwov, viodeala, X^P^s, Xpt- 
o-t6s, yj/vxr], xpvxi-Kos. When one considers the new connotations 
that these words bear in the N. T., it is not too much "to say that 
in the history of these and such like words lies the history of 
Christianity.'"^ The fact that these and other terms were used 

1 Cf. Thumb, griech. Spr., pp. 1G2-201. 

2 Cf. Deiss., Die neutest. Formel "in Christo Jesu" untersucht, 1892. 

3 Cf. Abb., Job. Vocab., 1905, pp. 19-80. On the whole question see 
Buttmann, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 173 ff.; Moulton, Prol., p. 67 f. 

4 Cf. Deiss., Hell.-Griech., Hauck's Realencyc, p. 636. Not 550 (as Ken- 
nedy, Sour, of N. T. Gk., p. 93) bibl. words, but only 50 N. T. formations 
(Deissmann, Exp., Jan., 1908; Light, p. 73). 

6 Kennedy, Sour, of N. T. Gk., p. 88. The Eng. of the King James Vers. 
(O. T. and N. T.) contains only about 6000 words (Adey, The Eng. of the 
King James Vers.). Max Miillor (Sci. of Lang., p. 16) says that we use only 
about 4000 words in ordinary Eng. 

6 Weatcott, Smith's B. D., N. T. Cf. also Hatch, Ess. in Bibl. Gk., p. 11. 
"Though Greek words were used they were the symbols of quite other than 
Greek ideas." That is, when the distinctively Christian ideas are given. 
On the influence of Gk. on other languages see Wack., Die Kult. der Gegenw., 
Tl. I, Abt. 8, pp. 311 ff. 


in the popular language of the day gives a sharper point to the 
new turn in the gospel message. The deification of the emperor 
made Christians sensitive about the words dtos, vlbs deov, detos, 
KvpLos, KvpLaKos, (7(iOTr]p, xttpttT/xa, ^aatXevs, ^aaCKda. See the lumi- 
nous discussion of Deissmann {Light, pp. 343-384). The papyri 
and the inscriptions throw almost a lurid light on these words. 
Cf. Ki)ptos Katcrap and Kuptos 'Iriaovs {Martijrium Polycarpi, viii, 2) 
with 1 Cor. 12 : 1-3. The Christians did not shrink from using 
these words in spite of the debased ideas due to the emperor- 
cult, Mithraism, or other popular superstitions. Indeed, Paul (cf. 
Col. 2 : 1 f .) often took the very words of Gnostic or Mithra cult 
and filled them with the riches of Christ. Cf. The Expositor for 
April, 1912, "Paul and the Mystery Religions," by H. A. A. 
Kennedy. For the stimuli that Christianity derived from popu- 
lar notions of law, religion and morality see Deissmann, Light, 
pp. 283-290. The mass of the N. T. vocabulary has been trans- 
figured. The worshippers of a Csesar would indeed call him 
(TUT-qp Tov Kocrixov or vlbs deov, but the words were empty flattery. 
Deissmann^ well shows that a LXX word, for instance, in the 
mouth of a citizen of Ephesus, did not mean what it did in the 
LXX, as dpxtepei'S, dLadijKr], deos, ttpo^tjttjs, acorripia. Much more is 
this true of the N. T. The new message glorified the current kolvt], 
took the words from the street and made them bear a new con- 
tent, linked heaven with earth in a new sense. In particular the 
N. T. wi'iters took and greatly enriched the religious vocabulary 
of the LXX. 

VI. Individual Peculiarities. The language of Christianity 
was not stereotyped at first and there was more play for indi- 
vidualism. If the style is not all of the man, certainly each 
writer has his own style. But style varies with the same man also 
at different stages of his own development, with varying moods 
and when discussing different themes. Style is thus a function 
of the subject. All these points of view must be kept in mind 
with several of the N. T. writers, as Paul, Luke, Peter and John, 
whose writings show marked variations. Simcox^ notes that in 
the Thessalonian and Corinthian letters Paul uses kv Tavrl twelve 

1 B. S., p. S3. Cf. Schleierm., Hermen., pp. 66 ff., 138 ff., who early called 
attention to the Christian element in the N. T. Cf. also Viteau, Le Verbe; 
Synt. des Prep., p. xl f . 

2 Writers of the N. T., p. 37. A. Souter (The Exp., 1904, Some Thoughts 
on the Study of the Gk. N. T., p. 145) says: "We must take each writer's 
grammar by itself." 


times, in the Pastoral Epistles h iraai five (or six) times, while in 
Ph. 4 : 12 he has both. In thus accenting the individuahty of the 
N. T. writers one must not forget that each writer had access to 
the common religious terminology of early Christianity. There was 
a common substratum of ideas and expressions that reappear in 
them all, though in certain cases there may have been actual use 
of documents. But one can never be sure whether Peter had 
James, or the author of Hebrews Luke's writings. Peter probably 
had some of Paul's letters when he wrote 1 Peter, and 2 Peter 
3 : 15 f. expressly refers to them. The grammarian cannot be 
expected to settle questions of authorship and genuineness, but he 
has a right to call attention to the common facts of linguistic 
usage. Immer^ indeed complains that the linguistic peculiarities 
of the N. T. writers have been worked more in the interest of 
criticism than of exegesis. The modern method of biblical 
theology is designed to correct this fault, but there is a work 
here for the grammarian also. Winer ^ declines to discuss this 
question and is horrified at the idea of grammars of each writer 
of the N. T.3 Language is rightly viewed from the point of view 
of the speaker or writer. The rapid and continued changes in 
the individual mind during the mental process of expressing 
thought find a parallel in the syntactical relations in the sentence.* 
One cannot protest too strongly against the levelling process of 
an unsympathetic and unimaginative linguistic method that puts 
all the books of the N. T. through the same syntactical mill and 
tags this tense as "regular" and that one as "irregular." It is 
not too much to say that the characteristic of the Greek litera- 
ture of this time was precisely that of individuality (cf . Plutarch's 
Lives). ^ Viteau^ has a brief discussion of "The Psychological 
Character of the Syntax of the N. T.," for, added to all other 
things, there is "the influence of the moment." Differences in 

1 Hermen. of the N. T., 1877, p. 132. Thayer (Lex. of N. T. Gk., p. 689) 
speaks of "the monumental misjudgments committed by some who have 
made questions of authorship .turn on vocabulary alone." 

2 W.-M., p. 1 f., remands \''^ TL^ »Jiole matter to the realm of N. T. rhetoric 
(cf. Wilke, 1843, N. T. Rhet.; Schleicrm., Ilermcn.; Gersdorf, Beitr. zur 
Sprachchar. d. N. T.), but some discussion is demanded here. Schmiedel 
abbreviates Winer's comments. 

3 W.-M., p. 4. He did not live to see Dr. Abbott's two stout volumes, 
Joh. Vocab. (1905) and Joh. Gr. (190()). 

* Cf. Steinthal, Intr. to the Psych, and Sci. of Lang. 

6 Cf. Norden, Die griech. Ku^iiitpr., Bd. I, p. 243. Cf. also Blass, Ilermcn. 
und Krit., p. 206. * Le Vcrbe; Synt. dcs Prep., pp. xUff. 


culture, in environment, in gifts, in temperament inevitably af- 
fect style, but this fact is not to be stressed so as to make a new- 
dialect for each writer.^ In the following discussions some lexical 
comments are given besides the grammatical to give a better idea 
of the writer's style as a whole. 

(a) Mark. Certainly Blass' theory ^ of an original Aramaic 
Mark is not proven, but Peter often spoke in Aramaic, and Mark 
was bilingual like Peter. For the Aramaisms and Hebraisms of 
Mark see previous discussion (Semitic Influence). The idea that 
Mark first wrote in Latin need not be seriously discussed. Mat- 
thew and Luke have also nearly as many Latinisms as Mark. 
It is not in his vocabulary that Mark is most distinctive, for of 
the 1270 words in Mark (besides 60 proper names) only 80 are 
pecuhar to him among the N. T. writers.^ He has 150 in common 
with Matthew and Luke alone, while only 15 belong to Mark and 
John and nowhere else in the N. T. About 40 words belong 
only to Mark and the LXX in the Greek Bible, while Mark has 
38 (besides proper names) occurring nowhere else in the N. T. or 
the LXX; but these are not all real awa^ 'Xeyofxeva, for there are 
the papyri! Mark seems fond of diminutives like the vernacular 
KOLPT} in general (dvyarpLov, KopaaLov, Kwapiov, etc.); et/xt and epxofxai 
with the participle are common, as in Luke (cf. 1 : 6, ^j' . . . k- 
8e8vtxhos; 1 :39, ri\dev Krjpvaawv); in fact he multiplies pictorial 
participles (cf . 14 : 67, ibovaa . . . efx(3\€\paaa Xe7et) ; av occurs with 
past tenses of the indicative (3 : 11, orav ainbv kQedopow); he loves 
the double negative (1 : 44, ixribevl ii-qUv e'lirris) ; the article is com- 
mon (as in N. T. generally) with the infinitive and sentences 
(9 : 23, TO d dvprf) ; broken and parenthetic clauses are frequent 
(cf . 7 : 19, Kadapi^o)v) ; at times he is pleonastic (2 : 20, Tore kv 
iKelvji TT) rjfxepa); he uses eWvs or eWews al)out 40 times; he is emo- 
tional and vivid, as showTi by descriptive adjectives, questions 
and exclamations (cf. 1 :24; 2:7); the intermingling of tenses 
(9 : 33 ff., eTTTjpajra . . . XeTet . . . elTrev) is not due to ignorance of 
Greek* or to artificiality, as Swete well says, but to "a keen sense 

^ As Simcox does in Writers of the N. 1 ., y.'A 

2 Philol. of the Gosp., pp. 196 ff. Cf. MarshaU, Exp., ser. 4, vi, pp. 81 ff.; 
Allen, ib., ser. 6, vi, pp. 436-443. 

3 Swete, Comm. on Mk., 1898, p. xl. Thayer (Lex. of N. T. Gk., App., 
p. 699) gives 102, but the text of some 32 is in dispute. Hawkins, Hor. Syn. 2, 
p. 200, gives 71. Swete gives interesting Hsts of Mark's vocabulary from 
various points of view. Cf. also Salmond, Mark (Gosp. of), in Hast. D. B. 

* Swete, Comm. on Mk., p. xhii. Thi'erie (Die Inschr. von Magn. am 
Maander und das N. T., 1906, p. 4) says: "Die Gruppe der sogenannten Ha- 


of the reality and living interest of the facts; there are 151 his- 
toric presents in the W. H. text against 78 in Matthew and 4 
in Luke; there is frequent and discriminating use of prepositions 
(2 : 1, 2, 10, 13) ; the connective is usually Kal rather than 8k, sel- 
dom ovv; there is little artistic effect, but much simplicity and great 
vividness of detail; the vernacular kolvt] is dominant with little 
literary influence, though elreu, raihbdev and b\}/ia are held so by 
Norden.i n€7rXi7pcoTat (Mk. 1 : 15) is paralleled by eTrXrypco^rj in a 
Fayum papyrus and 'avynvbcna avy.TrbaLa, xpaatat xpaatai by Taynara 
raTMara in the "Shepherd of Hermas" (Goodspeed, Bihl. World, 
1906, p. 311 f.). In general Mark is not to be considered illiterate, 
though more Semitic in his culture than Greek. Wellhausen has 
noted that D has more Aramaisms in Mark's text than B. But 
Mark's Semitisms are not really barbarous Greek, "though 
Mark's extremely vernacular language often makes us think so, 
until we read the less educated papyri" (Moulton, Camb. Bihl. 
Essays, p. 492). Even his fondness for compound (even double 
compound) verbs is like the vernacular kolvJ]. If the influence of 
Peter is seen in the Gospel of Mark, it was thoroughly congenial 
as to language and temperament.^ He gives an objective picture 
of Jesus and a realistic one. 

(6) Matthew. The writer quotes both the Hebrew and the 
LXX and represents Jesus as doing the same. He has 65 allusions 
to the 0. T., 43 of them being verbal quotations. And yet the 
book is not intensely Hebraistic. He has the instinct for Hebrew 
parallelism and the Hebrew elaboration, and his thought and gen- 
eral outlook are Hebraistic, though his language is "colourless Hel- 
lenistic of the average type" (Moulton, Camh. Bihl. Essays, p. 484). 
We need not enter into the linguistic peculiarities of Q as distinct 
from our Greek Matthew if that hypothesis be correct. In Mt. 9 : 6 
we see kKIvt] rather than the vulgar Kpa^arTos of Mark. In 12 : 14 
Matthew has avix^ovKiov 'eXa^op for a. e8idovv of Mark (Moulton, 
op. cit., p. 485). He can use paronomasia as in KaKovs Ka/cojs dTro- 
Uaei avTovs (21:41). He uses rbre 91 times against 6 in Mark 
and 14 in Luke; he has 17 ^aacXeia rihv ovpavdv 32 times, while he 

paxlegomena ist bedenklich zusammensoschrumpft; cs handclt sich im Ncucn 
Testament meistens um aTra? tvp-qukva, nicht aira^ dp-nfxiva. 

1 Die Ant. Kunstpr., Bd. II, p. 488. 

2 Schaff, Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 51. Cf. on Mark, Schulze, Dor schrift- 
Btcllcr. Charakter und Wert des Marcus (Keil and Tzschirncr's Analecta, II, 
2, .3). Sec Hawkins, Hor. Syn.2, pp. 114-153. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 
203, 2G1, 270, 278, 302) has comments on the narrative style of Mark. 


has ri ^aacXeia rod Oeov 14 times (Mt. 4; Lu. 32); he uses 6 Trarrip 6 
ovpavLos 7 times and 6 Trariip 6 kv toIs ovpavols 13 times; he 12 times 
quotes the O. T. with the formula h>a (ottws) ifK-qpo^dfi to p-qdh or 
Tore hifK-qpiidi] to prjdh, whereas Luke does not have it at all, Mark 
only once and John 7 times; /car' 6vap occurs 6 times and no- 
where else in N. T.; like Luke he uses Kal l8ov often (27 times) 
and idov after the genitive absolute 11 times; he alone speaks of 
rj ayia ttoKls and TroXts tov ixejaXou jSao-tXews; like Mark he uses 
'lepoaoKviia always save once (23 : 37), whereas Luke usually has 
'lepovaaXrjiJL] 6p.vvw kv or els, common in Matthew, does not occur 
in the other Gospels; rd</)os, not in the other Gospels, is found 
6 times; o-wreXeta tov aiwuos occurs 5 times, and only once more 
in the N. T. (Heb.); note the pleonastic use of avdpwTos as avdpw- 
TTos jSao-iXeiis; he twice uses ds to ovofxa, but the other Gospels h re? 
ovofxaTL or eirl ; the oriental particularity is seen in using Trpoaepxoixai 
51 times while Mark has it only 5 and Luke 10 times; awayeLv 
is used by Matthew 24 times; the vernacular kolvt] is manifest in 
many ways as in the use of /xovocpdaKixos (like Mark), KoXXu/Stcrrat. 
Thayer in his list {Lexicon, p. 698 f.) gives 137 words occurring 
in Matthew alone in the N. T., but 21 are doubtful readings. 
Matthew has fewer compound verbs than Mark. Matthew does 
not use adverbial ttoXXol, while Mark has it 9 times. He has 8e 
where Mark has Kal about 60 times. Matthew has ort after 
verbs of saying 38 times, while Mark has it 50 times. Of 
the 151 historic presents in Mark only 21 appear in Matthew, 
though Matthew has 93 historic presents in all. See Hawkins, 
Horae Syriopt., p. 144 f. Matthew frequently has aorist when 
Mark has imperfect (see Allen, Matthew, p. xx f.). The periphras- 
tic tenses are less common in Matthew than in Mark and Luke 
(op. cit., p. xxii). Matthew is less fond than Mark of redundant 
phrases {o-p. cit., p. xxvi). The Gospel is largely in the form of 
discourses with less narrative element than Mark. The style is 
more uniform and less graphic than either Mark or Luke and so 
less individual.^ 

(c) Luke. Whether Luke knew Hebrew or Aramaic or both, 
cannot be stated with certainty. He did make use of Aramaic 
documents or sayings in Lu. 1 and 2, and in the earl}^ part of 
the Acts. He was also quite familiar with the LXX, as his quo- 

1 Cf. Dalman, Wds. of Jes., 1902; Gla, Die Originalspr. des Mt., 1887; See 
Hawkins, Hor. Syn.-, pp. 154-173; Allen, Mt., pp. xix-xxxi; Plummer, Mt., 
p. xiiif.; Zahn, Einl. in d. N. T., Bd. II, 1898. On Matthew's style see 
Blass, Gr. of N. T. Ok., pp. 203, 276, 278, 300, 302, 305. 


tations from it show. The Semitic influence in his writings has 
already been discussed. "He consciously imitates the Greek 
Bible and in the parts of his narrative which have their scene 
in Palestine he feels it congruous to retain the rough diction of 
his sources" (Moulton, Camh. Bihl. Essays, p. 479). One thing 
is certain about him. He had a good command of the vernacular 
KOLvi, and even attains the literary KOLvii in Lu. 1 : 1-4 and Ac. 
1 • 1-5- 17 : 16-34. The preface to his Gospel has often been 
compared to those of Thucydides and Herodotus, and it does not 
suffer by the comparison, for his modesty is an offset to their vain- 
glory 1 Selwyn^ thinks that Luke was a Roman citizen, and he 
was a fit companion for Paul. He exhibits the spirit of Paul in 
his comprehensive sympathy and in his general doctrinal position. 
Renan^ calls Luke's Gospel the most literary of the Gospels. He 
writes more like an historian and makes skilful use of his mate- 
rials^ and with minute accuracy .« His pictures in the Gospel have 
given him the title of "the painter." Norden indeed thinks that 
Luke alone among the N. T. writers received Atticistic influence 
(Kunstprosa, II, pp. 485 ff . Cf . Blass, Die Rhythmen der asiamschen 
und ramischen Kunstprosa, p. 42). But we need not go that ar. 
His versatility is apparent in many ways, but withal he makes 
a faithful use of his materials.^ His vocabulary illustrates his 
breadth of culture, for he uses 750 (851 counting doubtful readings) 
words not occurring elsewhere in the N. T.« Some of them are 
still avra^ \ey6fxem. One special item in his vocabulary is the large 
number of medical terms in his writings, as is natural, since he 
was a physician.^ His command of nautical phraseology is abun- 

1 SchniT, Comp. to Gk. N. T.. p. 55. He calls attentbn to the fact that 
the intr. of Herodotus and Luke are about the same length. Cf . Blass, Philol. 

of the Gosp., pp. 7 ff . 

2 St. Luke the Prophet, 1901, p. 81. 

3 Davidson, Intr. to N. T., ii, p. 17. 
* Les Evang., pp. 232, 283. 

B Plummer, Comm. on Luke, 1896, p. xlvn. , ^ ,, , u •?■ 

e Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 1895; Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?, 
rVii'^o Credibility of Acts, 1902. 

fvogel (Zur Charak. d;s Lukas, 1899, p. 19) calls attention to differences 
in the sDccches of Stephen, Peter and Paul m the Acts. 

8 See the lists of Thayer (Lex., pp. 699 ff.), Plummer (Comm., pp. lu ff.) 
Hawkins (Ilor. Syn.S pp. 201-207). Of the 851 some 312 occur m the Gospel 

and 478 in the Acts. , , • i^i „ 

« Hobart, Medical Lang, of St. Luke, 1882. Many o those occur n. the 
LXX also, but plenty remain to show his knowledge of the medical phra- 
ecology of the time. 


dantly shown in Ac. 27 and 28.^ The question of a double edi- 
tion of the Gospel and Acts does not belong here.^ His language 
is that of a man of culture with a cosmopolite tone, who yet knows 
how to be popular also (Deissmann, Light, p. 241 f.). He not 
only has a rich vocabulary, but also fine command of the KOLvrj 
diction. In particular his stjde is more Hke that of Paul and 
the writer to the Hebrews. Among matters of detail in Luke one 
will note his use of the infinitives with kv tc3 (37 times) and of 
ToO with the infinitive (25 instances); avv (25 times) is frequent, 
though seldom in the other Gospels; Kai avros {avrr]) he has 28 
times, and often constructions like avros 6 xpovos; Kal kykvero or 
eyevero 8e he uses 43 times; he has 8e Kal 29 times; he loves iropevo- 
fxai (88 examples); he uses el like an interrogative 18 times; to 
occurs often before a clause, especially an indirect question; he 
makes frequent use of Kal l8ov; Uavos is common with him; rjv 
with present participle occurs 47 times; the descriptive genitive 
is common; irpds with the accusative occurs 151 times with him 
and only 25 in the rest of the N. T.; he is fond of hoiinov; re (and re 
Kal) is almost confined to him in the N. T.; the optative is alone 
used by Luke in indirect questions and more often otherwise than 
by any other N. T. writer save Paul. This is a literary touch 
but not Atticistic. He alone makes any special use of the future 
participle; he is fond of xas and awas; cbs in temporal sense is com- 
mon in Luke, once in Mark, not in Matthew; a good many ana- 
colutha occur in Acts, and the change from direct to indirect 
discourse is frequent; the relative is often attracted to the case of 
the antecedent and often begins a sentence (Ac. 2 : 24) ; cTrio-rdra 
is used 7 times (peculiar to Luke) rather than /cupte or ^a^^el; the 
syntax is throughout in general that of the kolvt] of the time.^ 

1 Smith, Voy. and Shipw. of St. Paul, 1882. 

2 Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., and Acta Apostol. Bacon (Story of St. Paul, 
1905, p. 156, note) actually urges Kai kytvtTo in the "we" sections of Acts as a 
"pronounced Septuagintism improbable for a Greek"! Cf. Moulton, Prol., 
p. 16 f. On Luke's style see Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 1, 3, 5, 203, 250 f., 
261, 276, 278, 280, 300, 305. 

3 Cf. Vogel, Zur Charak. des Lukas, pp. 21-37, for criticism of the Syntax of 
Luke; Plummer, Comm. on Luke, has many sensible remarks; Wright, Gosp. 
ace. to Luke, 1900, p. xi, on Luke's literary habits, and see also Hawkins, Hor. 
Syii.^, pp. 174-193. On relation of Luke to Josephus, cf. Bebb, Luke's 
Gosp. in Hast. D. B. On Luke's Hebraisms cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 13 f. Cf. 
Norden, Ant. Kunstpr., II, pp. 486 ff., for differences between Luke and Mark 
and Matthew. See also Harnack, Lukas der Arzt der Verfasser des dritten 
Evang. und der Apostelgesch. (1906). On p. 15 he gives a hst of 84 words 


Luke is also fond of 6 fxev ovv (Acts). The historic present is rare 
in Luke (4 or 6 times). Luke uses the conjunctions and sub- 
ordinate clauses with more literary skill than the other N. T. 
writers. He makes choice use of words .and idioms. Cf . his report 
of Paul's speech on Mars Hill. He accumulates participles, espe- 
cially in the Acts, but not without stylistic refinement. In the 
Acts he is fond of eh when kv would ordinarily be used. 

{(J) James. It is at first surprising that one recognized as 
such a thorough Jew as James, the brother of our Lord, and who 
used Aramaic, should have written in such idiomatic Greek. "In 
the skilful use of the Greek language its [Epistle of James] author 
is inferior to no N. T. writer."^ There are very few Hebraisms 
in the Epistle, though the tone is distinctly Jewish, perhaps the 
earliest Christian document in the N. T. But one cannot 
think that James wrote the book in Aramaic, for the ear-marks 
of translation are not present, as Bishop John Wordsworth once 
argued." There is not, however, in James studied rhetoric nor 
keen dialectics. The author of Hebrews, Luke and Paul far 
surpass him in formal rhetoric. "The Epistle of James is from 
the beginning a little work of literature," "a product of popular 
literature" (Deissmann, Light, p. 235). The writer uses asyn- 
deton very often and many crisp aphorisms. Just as the 
Synoptic Gospels preserve the local colour of the country- 
side, so the Epistle of James is best understood in the open air 
of the harvest-field {ih., p. 241). The incongruity of such a 
smooth piece of Greek as this Epistle being written by a Pales- 
tinian Jew like James vanishes when we consider the bilingual 
character of the people of Palestine (cf. Moulton, Camh. Bibl. 
Essays, p. 487). But, all the same, the author has a Hebrew 
mould of thought reminiscent of 0. T. phrases. The atmosphere 
is Jewish and "international vulgarisms" do not explain it all. 
The pleonasms are just those seen in the LXX, and the book has 
the fondness for assonance so common in the 0. T. Cf. Oester- 
ley, Exp. Gk. Test., p. 394. He uses many examples that re- 
peculiar in the N. T. to Luke and Paul. On p. 15 of Luke the Physician 
(trans., 1907) Harnack considers the Gk. of Luke's Gospel "excellent." "It 
occupies a middle position between the kolvt] and Attic Gk. (the language of 
Mterature)." This is not a very exact description, for Harnack here uses 
Koivri for vernac. Koivri and Attic was not the language of literature in Luke's 
time (save the Atticists), but the literary KOLvrj. 

1 Thayer, Lang, of N. T., Hast. D. B. 

"^ First series of Stud. Bibl., pp. 144 ff. Cf. Mayor, Comm. on James, 
pp. ccv ff. 


mind one vividly of the parables of Jesus and many of the ideas 
and phrases of the Sermon on the Mount are here. There is 
also a marked similarity between this Epistle and the speech of 
James in Ac. 15 and the letter there given, which was probably 
written by him.^ He is fond of repeating the same word or root, 
as OprjaKos, 9p7]aKeia (1 :2QL)^; his sentences, though short, are 
rhythmical^; he is crisp, vivid, energetic; there is little in the 
forms or the syntax to mark it off from the current kolvt] or 
the N. T. representatives of it, though his idiomatic use of the 
pronouns is worth mentioning, as is also that of a7€ as an in- 
terjection, the gnomic aorist, the possible nominative Aieori? in 
apposition with yXuaaav (3 : 8). But it is in the vocabulary 
that James shows his individuality, for in this short epistle there 
are 73 (9 doubtful) words not appearing elsewhere in the N. T., 
some of which are found in the LXX,^ like TapaXXayr]. The 
use of avvaycoyr] (2 : 2) of a Christian assembly is noteworthy 
(cf. eKKXrjaia in 5 : 14 and eTnawaycoyr] in Heb. 10 :25). He has 
many compound words like Mlcikpltos, bookish words like efxcjiVTos, 
philosophical terms like vXrj, picturesque words like oXoXv^co, some 
of a technical nature like inqhaXiov, some strictly classical like 

(c) JuDE. It is here assumed against Spitta^ and Bigg^ that 
Jude is prior to 2 Peter, the second chapter of which is so much 
like Jude. There is not in Jude the epigram of James, but he has 
a rugged rotundity of style that is impressive and vigorous, if a 
bit harsh. His style is marked by metaphor and the use of trip- 
lets. He cannot be said to be "steeped in the language of the 
LXX" with Chase, ^ but there is a more Hebraistic flavour than 
is observed in James, his brother. He has literary affinities with 
some of the apocryphal books and with some of Paul's writings. 
If he shows a better command of Greek than 2 Peter, yet his 

^ See this point well worked out by Mayor, James (Epis. of), Hast. D. B. 
Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 279. 

2 Cf. Mayor, Comm., pp. cxcvff., for exx. 

' lb., p. cci f. Mayor, ch. viii, has also a luminous discussion of the "Gram- 
mar of St. James," which shows conclusively that he has httle that is distinc- 
tive in his grammar. Cf. Thayer (Lex., p. 708) for Ust of words pecuhar 
to James. 

* Cf. Mayor, Comm., p. cxci f. On awaycoyfj cf. Hort, Judaistic Christian- 
ity, p. 150. 

* Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas, 1885. 
6 Comm. on St. Peter and St. Jude, 1901. 

» Jude (Epis. of), Hast. D. B. 


"Greek is a strong and weighty weapon over which, however, he 
has not a ready command." ^ Per contra, there is httle that is 
peculiar in his grammar, for he shows a normal use of the Greek 
idiom. The optative occurs twice {w\7]6vvddr], verse 2, and kinTLixriaai 
in 9) and the article is used skilfully with the participle. Cases, 
pronouns, tenses, free use of participles, indicate a real mastery 
of current Greek. . The true superlative occurs in rfj dTtwrdrj? 
xto-ret. The idiomatic use of e^Sofxos without article is seen in 
Jude 14. The adverbial accusative is seen in to Sevrepov 5 and tov 
oiioLov TpoTvov 7. For further details see Mayor on "Grammar of 
Jude and of Peter" {Cofrmi., pp. xxvi-lv). He has 20 words 
(one doubtful) not found elsewhere in the N. T.^ A few of them 
like Tr\apr]Tr]s occur in the LXX. Some of them have a stately 
ring like Kvixara 6.ypi.a, and a number occur which are found in 
writers of the literary kolptj. He uses 17 kolvyi awTr]pia ("the safety 
of the state") in a Christian sense, and so ol Tpoye-Ypamjihoi ("the 
proscribed"). But he has also command of technical Christian 
terms like 017101, kXtitoI, irlaTLs, irvevfxa, if/vxi-Kos as Paul used them. 
The vividness of his style hardly justifies the term "poetic."^ 
Deissmann (Light, p. 235) considers Jude a literary epistle in 
popular style and "cosmopolite" in tone (p. 242), with a certain 
degree of artistic expression. The correctness of the Greek is 
quite consonant with the authorship of the brother of Jesus, since 
Palestine was a bihngual country (Moulton, Catnh. Bibl. Essays, 
p. 488). Besides, the Epistle has only 25 verses. 

(/) Peter. As Peter was full of impulses and emotions and ap- 
parent inconsistencies, the same heritage falls to his Epistles. 
The most outstanding difference between 1 Peter and 2 Peter is 
in the vocabulary. 1 Peter has 361 words not found in 2 Peter, 
while 2 Peter has 231 not in 1 Peter." Many in each case are 
common words like ayia^oj, eXiri^o:, evayyeki^o:, etc., in 1 Peter, and 
/Sao-tXela, €7ra77eXta, eTnyLvo^aKw, etc., in 2 Peter. 1 Peter has 63 
words not in the rest of the N. T., while 2 Peter has 57 (5 doubt- 
ful); but of these 120 words only one (aTrodeais) occurs in both.^ 
This is surely a remarkable situation. But both of them have a 

1 Chase, Jude (Epis. of), Hast. D. B. 

2 See Thayer's list (Lex., p. 709). For fresh discussion of the gram, aspects 
of Jude and 2 Pet. see Mayor's Comm. (1908). He accepts the genuinenefs 
of Jude, but rejects 2 Peter. 

3 Maier, Der Judasbrief, 1906, p. 1G9. 

* Bigg, Comm. on St. Peter and St. Judo, p. 225. 
5 Thayer, Lang, of the N. T., Hast. D. B., p. 42*. 


number of words in common that occur elsewhere also in the 
N. T., like a.vacrTpo(}>i], ypvxh, etc.^ Both use the plural of abstract 
nouns; both have the habit, like James, of repeating words, ^ 
while Jude avoids repetitions; both make idiomatic use of the 
article; both make scant use of particles, and there are very few 
Hebraisms; both use words only known from the vernacular 
Koivi]; both use a number of classical words like avayKaards (1 
Peter, Plato), TrXatrTos (Her., Eur., Xen., 2 Peter) 3; both use pic- 
ture-words^; both seem to know the Apocrypha; both refer to 
events in the life of Christ; both show acquaintance with Paul's 
Epistles, and use many technical Christian terms. But, on the 
other hand, 1 Peter is deeply influenced by the LXX, while 2 
Peter shows little use of it; 1 Peter is more stately and ele- 
vated without affectation, while 2 Peter has grandeur, though it 
is, perhaps, somewhat "grandiose" (Bigg) and uses a number 
of rare words hke Taprapooj; 1 Peter makes clear distinctions be- 
tween the tenses, prepositions, and uses smooth Greek generally, 
while 2 Peter has a certain roughness of style and even apparent 
solecisms like jSXkfxiJia (2:8), though it is not "baboo Greek" 
(Abbott) 5 nor hke modern "pigeon Enghsh"; 1 Peter shows little 
originality and rhetorical power, while 2 Peter, though not so 
original as Jude, yet has more individuality than 1 Peter. 
Deissmann {Light, p. 235) says: "The Epistles of Peter and 
Jude have also quite unreal addresses; the letter-like touches are 
purely decorative. Here we have the beginnings of a Christian 
literature; the Epistles of Jude and Peter, though still possessing 
as a whole many popular features, already endeavour here and 
there after a certain degree of artistic expression." It is not for 
a grammarian to settle,' if anybody can, the controversy about 
those two Epistles, but Simcox" is not far wTong when he says 
of 2 Peter that " a superficial student is likelier than a thorough 
student to be certain that it is spurious." Spitta,^ Bigg^ and 

1 Cf. Zahn, Einl. in d. N. T., Bd. II, p. 108; B. Weiss, Einl. in d. N. T., 
p. 445. 

2 Bigg, Comm., p. 225 f. Cf . also Schulze, Der schriftstellcr. Charakter 
und Wert des Petrus, Judas und Jacobus, 1802. 

' Cf. excellent lists by Chase, Hast. D. B., 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Many of 
these words are cleared up by the pap., Uke Bodiiiov and dperr]. 

* Vincent, Word-Studies, vol. I, p. 621. 

6 Exp., ser. 2, v. III. Chase, Hast. D. B., p. SOS**, finds needless difficulty 
with irap€L(T4)epeit> (2 Pet. 1 : 5), for irapa is 'alongside,' 'in addition.' 

« Writers of the N. T., p. 64. 

' Der Zweite Brief des Petrus. ^ Comm. on St. Peter and Jude. 


Zahn^ among recent writers suggest that in 2 Peter we have Peter's 
own composition, while in 1 Peter we have the Greek of an aman- 
uensis who either wrote out Peter's ideas, revised them or trans- 
lated Peter's Aramaic into Greek. We know that Peter had 
interpreters (Mark, for instance), and Josephus used such literary 
help and Paul had amanuenses. On the other hand Chase (Hast- 
ings' D. B.) and others reject 2 Peter entirely. It is worth men- 
tioning that 2 Peter and the Apocalypse, which are the two books 
that furnish most of the linguistic anomaUes in the N. T,, both 
have abundant parallels among the less well-educated papyri 
writers, and it is of Peter and John that the terms aypannaroi 
and tStljTat are used (Ac. 4 : 13). As we have a problem con- 
cerning 1 Peter and 2 Peter on the linguistic side, so we have 
one concerning John's Gospel and Epistles on the one hand and 
Revelation on the other. The use of the article in 1 Peter is 
quite Thucydidean in 3 : 3 (Bigg), and eight times he uses the 
idiom like top ttjs TapoLKias vixSiv xpovov (1 : 17) and once that 
seen in to ^ov\r]na roiv Wpwv (4:3), the rule in the N. T. The 
article is generally absent with the attributive genitive and with 
prepositions as eis pavriayLov alfxaros (1 : 2). There is a refined 
accuracy in 1 Peter's use of <hs (Bigg), cf. 1 : 19; 2 : 16, etc. A 
distinction is drawn between jui? and ov with the participle in 1 : 8. 
Once 'iva occurs with the future indicative (3:1). The absence 
of iiv and the particles apa, ye, kirei, eireidr], re, dr], ttov, ttcos is notice- 
able. 1 Peter makes idiomatic use of fj.ev, while 2 Peter does not 
have it. 2 Peter uses the "compact" structure of article, attribu- 
tive and noun, Uke 1 Peter (cf. 2 Pet. 2 : 1, 10, 13, 16), but the 
"uncompact" occurs also (cf. 2 Pet. 1 : 3, 9, 11, 14). In Jude 
and 2 Peter the commonest order is the uncompact (Mayor, Jude 
and Second Peter, p. xxii). The single article in 2 Pet. 1 : 1, 11 is 
used of two names for the same object. Cf. also Jude 4. The 
article with the infinitive does not occur in 2 Peter (nor Jude). 
2 Peter has some unusual uses of the infinitive after exw (2 Pet. 

1 : 15) and as result (2 Pet. 3 : 1 f.). 1 Peter has the article and 
future participle once (3 : 13) 6 KaKcoao:v. Both 1 Pet. (1 : 2) and 

2 Pet. (1 :2) have the optative TrXvdvudeiv (Uke Jude). 1 Peter 
twice (3 : 14, 17) has ei and the optative. See further Mayor on 
"Grammar of Jude and 2 Peter" (Comm., pp. xxvi-lv). 

(g) Paul. There was a Christian terminology apart from 
Paul, but many of the terms most familiar to us received their 

1 Einl. in d. N. T. Mayor in his Comm. on Jude and 2 Pctor (1007) re- 
jects 2 Peter partly on linguistic grounds. 


interpretation from him. He was a pathfinder, but had inex- 
haustible resources for such a task. Resch^ has done good ser- 
vice in putting together the words of Paul and the words of 
Jesus. Paul's rabbinical training and Jewish cast of mind led Far- 
rar^ to call him a Hagadist. Simcox^ says that "there is hardly 
a line in his writings that a non-Jewish author of his day would 
have written." Harnack'* points out that Paul was wholly un- 
intelligible to such a Hellenist as Porphyry, but Ramsay^ replies 
that Porphyry resented Paul's use of Hellenism in favour of Chris- 
tianity. But Hicks ^ is certainly right in seeing a Hellenistic side 
to Paul, though Pfleiderer'' goes too far in finding in Paul merely 
"a Christianized Pharisaism" and a "Christianized Hellenism." 
Paul and Seneca have often been compared as to style and ideas, 
but a more pertinent linguistic parallel is Arrian's report of the 
lectures of Epictetus. Here we have the vernacular kolvt] of an 
educated man in the second century a.d. The style of Paul, 
like his theology, has challenged the attention of the greatest 
minds. ^ Farrar^ calls his language "the style of genius, if 
not the genius of style." There is no doubt about its indi- 
viduality. While in the four groups of his letters each group 
has a style and to some extent a vocabulary of its own, yet, as in 
Shakespeare's plays, there is the stamp of the same tremendous 
mind. These differences of language lead some to doubt the 
genuineness of certain of the Pauline Epistles, especially the Pas- 
toral Group, but criticism is coming more to the acceptance of 
all of them as genuine. Longinus ranks Paul as master of the 
dogmatic style (IlaCXos 6 Tapo-eus ovTiva koL ivpCirbv 4)7] jxi. wpoLCTTdnevop 

* Der Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu, 1904. 

2 Life and Work of St. Paul, vol. I, p. 63S. 

3 Writers of the N. T., p. 27. 

* Miss, und Ausbr. des Christent., p. 354. Cf. Moffatt's transl., vol. II, 
p. 137. 

6 Exp., 1906, p. 263. 

6 St. Paul and Hellen., Stud. Bib., IV, i. 

' Urchristentum, pp. 174-178. 

8 See Excursus I to vol. I of Farrar's Life of Paul. 

9 lb., p. 623. On Paul's style cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 1, 5, 251, 
276, 279, 281 f., 284 f., 289, 300-305. As to the Pastoral Epistles it has been 
pointed out that there is nothing in Paul's vocabulary inconsistent with the 
time (James, Genuin. and Author, of the Past. Epis., 1906). It is natural 
for one's style to be enriched with age. The Church Quart. Rev. (Jan., 
1907) shows that all the new words in the Past. Epis. come from the LXX, 
Aristotle, kolvt] writers before or during Paul's time. Cf. Exp. Times, 1907, 
p. 245 f . 


SojiJLaTos avvTrode'iKTov) . Baur^ says that he has "the true ring of 
Thucydides." Erasmus (ad Col. 4 : 16) says: "Tonat, fulgurat, 
meras flammas loquitur Paulus." Hausrath^ correctly says that 
"it is hard to characterize this individuality in whom Christian 
fulness of love, rabbinic keenness of perception and ancient will- 
power so wonderfully mingle." It is indeed the most personal^ 
and the most powerful writing of antiquity. He disclaims classic 
elegance and calls himself IBlcottis t(2 \6ycp (2 Cor. 11 : 6), yet this 
was in contrast with the false taste of the Corinthians. But 
Deissmann (St. Paul, p. 6) goes too far in making Paul a mere 
tentmaker, devoid of culture. He is abrupt, paradoxical, bold, 
antithetical, now like a torrent, now like a summer brook. But 
it is passion, not ignorance nor carelessness. He was indeed no 
Atticist. He used the vernacular kolvt] of the time with some 
touch of the literary flavour, though his quotation of three 
heathen poets does not show an extended acquaintance with Greek 
literature.* The difference between the vernacular and the liter- 
ary Koivi] is often a vanishing point. Paul's style is unhellenic in 
arrangement, but in Ro. 8 and 1 Cor. 13 he reaches the eleva- 
tion and dignity of Plato.^ Certainly his ethical teaching has 
quite a Hellenic ring, being both philosophical and logical.^ 
Hatch ^ considers Paul to be the foremost representative of the 
Hellenic influence on early Christianity. He shows some knowl- 
edge of Roman legal terms ^ and uses arguments calling for edu- 
cated minds of a high order.^ The grammar shows Uttle Semitic 
influence. He uses many rhetorical figures such as paronomasia, 
paradox, etc., which will be discussed in the chapter on that sub- 

1 Paul, vol. II, p. 281. Cf. K. L. Bauer, Philol. Thucyd.-Paul., 1773; also 
his Rhet. Paul., 1782. Cf. Tzschirner, Observ. Pauli ap. epist., 1800; La- 
sonder, De ling. paul. idiom., 1866. 

2 Der Apost. Paulus, p. 502. 

' Renan, St. Paul, p. 232. Cf. also Jacquier, Hist, des Livres du N. T., 
tome l", 1906, p. 37: "Son grec, nous le verrons, n'est pas le grec litt(5raire, 
mais celui de la conversation." Cf. also pp. 61-70 for discussion of "Langue 
de Saint Paul." Cf. also Adams, St. Paul's Vocab. St. Paul as a Former of 
Words, 1895. 

4 Cf. Farrar, Exc. Ill, vol. I of Life of St. Paul. 

6 Norden, Die Ant. Kunstpr., Bd. II, 1898, pp. 499, 509. 
« Hicks, St. Paul and HoUcn., 1896, p. 9. 

7 Hibbert Lect. (Infl. of Ilellen. on Cln-is., p. 12). 

8 Ball, St. Paul and the Rom. Law (1901). Cf. Thack., Rola. of St. Paul to 
Contemp. Thought (1900). Paul's use of vo/xos shows knowledge of the Roman 
lex as well the Jewish Torah. 

8 Mahaffy, Surv. of Gk. Civihz., p. 310. 


ject, some thirty kinds occurring in his writings. Farrar^ sug- 
gests that Paul had a teacher of rhetoric in Tarsus. He is noted 
for his varied use of the particles and writes with freedom and 
accuracy, though his anacolutha are numerous, as in Gal. 2 : 6-9. 
He uses prepositions with great frequency and discrimination. 
The genitive is employed by Paul with every variety of applica- 
tion. The participle appears with great luxuriance and in all 
sorts of ways, as imperative or indicative or genitive absolute, ar- 
ticular, anarthrous, etc. He is 'E/3patos e^ 'E^palcov, but he handles 
his Greek with all the freedom of a Hellenist. He thinks in Greek 
and it is the vernacular kolvt] of a brilliant and well-educated man 
in touch with the Greek culture of his time, though remaining 
thoroughly Jewish in his mental fibre. The peculiar turns in 
Paul's language are not due to Hebraisms, but to the passion of 
his nature which occasionally (cf. 2 Cor.) bursts all bounds and 
piles parenthesis and anacoluthon on each other in a heap. But 
even in a riot of language his thought is clear, and Paul often 
draws a fine point on the turn of a word or a tense or a case. To 
go into detail with Paul's writings would be largely to give the 
grammar of the N. T. In Phil. 2 : 1 we have a solecism in e'i tls 
oirXayxva.. His vocabulary is very rich and expressive. Thayer 
{Lexicon, pp. 704 ff.) gives 895 (44 doubtful) words that are found 
nowhere else in the N. T., 168 of them being in the Pastoral 
Epistles. Nageli^ has pubhshed the first part of a Pauline lexicon 
(from a to e) which is very helpful and makes use of the papyri 
and inscriptions. The most strildng thing in this study is the 
cosmopolitan character of Paul's vocabulary. There are very 
few words which are found only in the Attic writers, like 
alaxpoTTjs, and no cases of Atticism, though even in the letters a to 
€ he finds some 85 that belong to the literary kolvt] as shown by 
books, papyri and inscriptions, words hke adavaala, aderko}, etc. In 
some 50 more the meaning corresponds to that of the literary 
KOLvrj, as in dvaXuco (Ph. 1 : 23). To these he adds words which 
appear in the literary kolvt], papyri and inscriptions after Paul's 
time, words like apirayixos, ava^rjv, etc. Then there are words 
that, so far as known, occur first in the N. T. in the 
Christian sense, like kKKk-qaia. But the vernacular kolvt] as set 

1 Life of St. Paul, vol. I, p. 6.30. 

2 Der Wortsch. des Apost. Paulus, 1905. He says (p. 86): "Es iiberrascht 
uns nicht mehr, dafi jeder paulinische Brief cine Reihe von Wortern enthalt, 
die den iibrigen unbekannt sind." This is well said. Each letter oxight to 
have words not in the others. 


forth in the papyri and inscriptions furnishes the ground-work 
of his vocabulary, when to this is added the use of the LXX 
(including the Apocrypha) as in avTi\an^avofj.aL, ayia^oi}. Espe- 
cially noteworthy are some nice Greek points that are wanting 
in Paul (as well as in the rest of the N. T.) and in the papyri and 
inscriptions, as olos re el/iL, aiadavonat, tclvv, fiaXa, eTrojuat (seldom in 
the inscriptions), etc. Niigeli sums up by saying that no one 
would think that Paul made direct use of Plato or Demosthenes 
and that his dihgent use of the LXX explains all his Hebraisms 
besides a few Hebrew words like afirjv or when he translated He- 
brew. His Aramaisms (like a^^d) are few, as are his Latinisms 
(like TpaLTupLov). "The Apostle writes in the style natural to a 
Greek of Asia Minor adopting the current Greek of the time, 
borrowing more or less consciously from the ethical writers of the 
time, framing new words or giving a new meaning to old words 
. . . His choice of vocabulary is therefore much like that of Epic- 
tetus save that his intimate knowledge of the LXX has modified 
it."^ Paul's Greek, in a word, "has to do with no school, with no 
model, but streams unhindered with overflowing bubbling right 
out of the heart, but it is real Greek" (Wilamowitz-MoUendorff, 
Die griechische Literatur des Altertunis, pp. 1-126. Cf. Die Kultur 
der Gegenwart, Tl. I, Abt. 8, 1905). Deissmann (Light, p. 234) 
seesi Paul wholly as "a non-literary man of the non-literary 
class in the Imperial Age, but prophet-like rising above his class 
and surveying the contemporary educated world with the con- 
sciousness of superior strength." 

1 Walter Lock, Jour, of Theol. Stud., 1906, p. 298. Athletic figures are 
almost confined to Paul (and Heb.), and Ramsay (Exp., 1906, pp. 2S3ff.) thinks 
Tarsus left this impress on him. A further discussion of Paul's rhetoric will 
be found in the chapter on Figures of Speech. Cf. J. Weiss, Beitr. zur pauUn. 
Rhetorik, 1897; Blass, Die Rhyth. der asian. und rom. Kunstpr., 1905. Deiss. 
(Theol. Literaturzeit., 1906, pp. 231 ff.) strongly controverts Blass' idea that 
Paul used conscious rhythm. Cf. Howson, Metaph. of St. Paul. On Paul's 
Hellen. see Hicks, St. Paul and Hellen. (Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., 1896); Curtius, 
Paulus in Athens (Gesamm. Abhandl., 1894, pp. 527 ff.); Ramsay, Cities of 
St. Paul (pp. 9, 30-41); Heinrici, Zum Hellen. des Paulus (2 Cor. in Meyer); 
Wilamowitz-Moll., Die griech. Lit. des Altcrt. (p. 157); G. Milligan, Epis. to 
the Th. (1908, p. Iv). Paul had a full and free Gk. vocab., thought in Gk., 
wrote in Gk. as easily as in Aramaic. But his chief indebtedness seems to 
bo to the LXX, the vernac. koivt] and the ethical Stoical writers. Milhgan (see 
above, pp. lii-lv) has a very discriminating discussion of Paul's vocab. and 
style. Garvie (Stud, of Paul and His Gospel, p. 6 f.) opposes the notion that 
Paul had a decided Gk. influence. 


(h) Writer OF Hebrews. Bruce ^ is certain that the author 
was not a disciple of Paul, while Simcox^ is willing to admit that 
he may have belonged once to the school of Philo, as Paul did to 
that of Gamaliel. Harnack suggests Priscilla as the author. If 
Paul had "imperial disregard for niceties of construction," He- 
brews shows "a studied rhetorical periodicity." ^ Von Soden* 
considers that in the N. T. Hebrews is "the best Greek, scarcely 
different in any point from that of contemporary writers." This 
is the more surprising when one observes his constant quotation 
of the LXX. The grammatical peculiarities are few, like the fre- 
quent use of Trapd in comparison, kwei with apodosis (protasis sup- 
pressed), the perfect tense to emphasize the permanence of the 
Scripture record which sometimes verges close to the aorist (4 : 3), 
the frequent participles, the varied use of particles, periphrases, 
the absence of the harsher kinds of hiatus, the presence of rhythm 
more than in any of the N. T. books, and in general the quality 
of literary style more than in any other N. T. writing. Westcott 
notes "the parenthetical involutions." "The calculated force of 
the periods is sharply distinguished from the impetuous eloquence 
of St. Paul." The writer does not use Paul's rhetorical expres- 
sions tI ovv; t'l yap; Moulton {Camb. Bihl. Essays, p. 483) notes 
the paradox that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by one 
who apparently knew no Hebrew and read only the LXX. The 
use of subordinate sentences is common and the position of words 
is carefully chosen. There is frequent use of fxeu and re as well as 
odev and 8l6. The optative occurs only once and shows that it is 
true KOLvrj. The studied style appears particularly in ch. 11 in the 
use of TTto-ret. The style is hortatory, noble and eloquent, and has 
points of contact with Paul, Luke and Peter. The vocabulary, 
like the style, is less like the vernacular kolvt] than any book in 
the N. T. Of 87 words which are found in the LXX and in this 
book alone in the N. T., 74 belong to the ancient literary works 
and only 13 to the vernacular. 18 other words pecuhar, to this 
Epistle are found in the literary kolvt]. There are 168 (10 doubt- 
ful) words in Hebrews that appear nowhere else in the N. T. 
(cf. Thayer, Lexicon, p. 708). These 168 words are quite char- 
acteristic also, like a4)opav, aiadrjT-qpLOV, iravrjyvpLS, irpooTOTOKLa. West- 

» Hast. D. B., Hebrews. 2 Writers of the N. T., p. 42. 

» Thayer, Lang, of the N. T., Hast. D. B. 

* Early Chris. Lit., 1906, p. 12. On the lang. of Heb. see the careful re- 
marks of Jacquier (Hist, des Livres du N. T., tome V, 1906, pp. 457 ff.). Cf. 
Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 1, 5, 279, 280 f ., 288 f., 296 ff., 303 f. 


cott^ considers the absence of words like evayykXLou, ixvar-qpLov, 
irXrjpoo} remarkable. The chief bond of contact in the vocab- 
ulary of Hebrews with the kolvti is in the use of "sonorous" 
words like aPTiKaOiaTrjixL, euTrepto-raros, but the author is by no 
means an Atticist, though he does approach the literary kolptj. 
Deissmann^ indeed considers Hebrews as alone belonging "to an- 
other sphere: as in subject-matter it is more of a learned theo- 
logical work, so in form it is more artistic than the other books 
of the N. T." He even feels that it "seems to hang in the back- 
ground like an intruder among the N. T. company of popular 
books" {Light, p. 243). 

(i) John. The Johannine question at once confronts the mod- 
ern grammarian who approaches the books in the N. T. that are 
accredited to John. It is indeed a difficult problem.^ There is 
a triple difficulty : the Gospel presents a problem of its own (with 
the Epistles), the Apocalypse also has its burden, and there is the 
serious matter of the relation of the Gospel and Apocalypse on 
the linguistic side. Assuming that John the Apostle wrote the 
Gospel, Epistles and Apocalypse, we have the following situation. 
The Gospel of John has a well-defined character. There are few 
Hebraisms in detail beyond the use of vloi cfx^Tos (12 : 36), /cat in 
the sense of "and yet" or "but" (cf. Hebrew 1 and Kal in LXX) 
as in 20 : 14, the absence of the particles save ovp, and the con- 
stant co-ordination of the sentences with rhythmical parallelism. 
In the formal grammar the Greek is much like the vernacular 
(and literary) kolvt], but the cast of thought is wholly Hebrew. 
Ewald"* rightly calls its spirit "genuinely Hebrew," while Renan^ 
even says that the Gospel "has nothing Hebrew" in its style. 
Godet^ calls the Gospel a Hebrew body with a Greek dress and 
quotes Luthardt as saying that it "has a Hebrew soul in the 
Greek language." Schaff compares Paul to an Alpine torrent 
and John to an Alpine lake. There is indeed in this Gospel great 
simplicity and profundity. John's vocabulary is somewhat lim- 
ited, some 114 words (12 doubtful, Thayer, Lexicon, p. 704) be- 

J Comm. on Heb., p. xlvi. ^ gxp. Times, Nov., 1906, p. 59. 

' Cf. Drummond, Charac. and Author, of the Fourth Gosp., 1904; Sanday, 
Crit. of the Fourth Gosp., 1905; Bacon, The Fourth Gosp. in Res. and De- 
bate, 1910. 

* Quoted in Schaff, Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 67. 

5 lb. On p. 73 Sch;iff puts Jo. 1 : 18 side by side in Gk. and Heb. The 
Heb. tone of the Gk. is clear. 

8 Comm. sur I'Evang. de S. Jean, vol. I, pp. 226, 232. 

» Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 66. 


longing to the Gospel alone in the N. T. But the characteristic 
words are repeated many times, such as oKriQaa, anapria, ytuuaKoo, 
86^a, fco57, k6(j/xos, KplaLS, X670S, fxaprvpeco, -maTevco, ckotos, 4>uis, etc. 
"He rings the changes on a small number of elementary words 
and their synonyms."^ But words like eKKXrjaia, evayyeXiov, pura- 
voLa, irapa^oXi], irlaTLs, crocjiLa do not occur at all. However, too 
much must not be inferred from this fact, for TncrTevoo and thayyt- 
Xtfco do appear very often.^ Other characteristics of the Gospel 
are the common use of tva in the non-final sense, the distinctive 
force of the pronouns (especially eKtlvos, kfxos, I'Sios), the vivid use 
of the tenses (like Mark), the unusual use of ovv,^ fw?) atcb^tos is 
frequent (21 times, and more than all the rest of the N. T.), fre- 
quent repetition, favourite synonyms.^ The Johannine use of 
/cat, 5e, dXXd, yap, el, otl, /jlt], oh, etc., is all interesting (see Abbott). 
The prepositions, the cases, the voices, the modes all yield good 
results in Abbott's hands. The Epistles of John possess the same 
general traits of the Gospel save that ovv does not occur at all 
save in 3 Jo. 8 while on is very common. Kat is the usual con- 
nective. Only eight words are common alone to the Gospel and 
the Epistles in the N. T., while eleven are found in the Epistles 
and not in the Gospel. Westcott,^ however, gives parallel sen- 
tences which show how common phrases and idioms recur in the 
Gospel and the First Epistle. The Apocalypse has much in 
common with the Gospel, as, for instance, no optative is found in 
either; oiroos is not in either save in Jo. 11 : 57; Iva is very common 
in Gospel, 1 John and Apocalypse, more so than in any other 
book of the N. T. save Mark, and 'iva /jlt] is very common in 
Gospel and Apocalypse; ovv is almost absent from the Apocalypse 

1 Abb., Job. Vocab., p. 348. 

2 lb., p. 158. Abbott has luminous remarks on such words as Trto-reuw, 
k^ovaia, and all phases of John's vocabulary. 

^ Occurs 195 times in the Gospel and only 8 of the instances in the dis- 
courses of Jesus. Nearly aU of these are in the transitional sense. Cf. Abb., 
Joh. Gr., 1906, p. 165. 

* On Joh. Synon. (like deoipkw, opaco) see ch. Ill of Abbott's Joh. Vocab., 
1905. In John 6pdw is not used in present (though often ewpa/ca), but /SXcttw 
and Oewpew. Luke uses it also in present only 3 times, Heb. 2, Jas. 2, Ac. 8, 
Apoc. 18. On the whole subject of Joh. gr. see the same author's able work 
on Joh. Gr. (1906), which has a careful and exhaustive discussion of the most 
interesting points in the Gospel. 

* Comm. on Epis. of Jo., pp. xh ff. The absence of ovv, when so character- 
istic of the Gospel, shows how precarious mere verbal argument is. Baur, 
Die Evang., p. 380, calls the Gospel the Apocalypse "transfigured." Cf. 
Blass on John's style, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 261, 276, 278 f., 291, 302. 


as in Epistles and the discourses of Jesus, being common as tran- 
sitional particle in narrative portion of GospeP; apa, common in 
other Evangelists and Paul, is not found in Gospel, Epistles or 
Apocalypse; fxev, so common in Matthew, Luke (Gospel and Acts), 
Paul and Hebrews, is not found at all in Apocalypse and John's 
Epistles and only eight times in his Gospel; coo-re, which appears 
75 times elsewhere in the N. T., is not found in Gospel, Epistles 
or Apocalypse save once in Jo. 3 : 16; /xiy Tore, fairly common in 
Matthew, Luke and Hebrews, does not occur in John's writings 
save in Jo. 7 : 26 (Paul uses it also once only, 2 Tim. 2 : 25, 
preferring ^117 ttcos, which John does not have) ; napTvpkw is more fre- 
quent in Gospel than in 1 John and Apocalypse, but fxaprvpla is as 
common in Apocalypse as Gospel; ovoixa is frequent in Gospel and 
Apocalypse as applied to God; oUa is found less often in Apoca- 
lypse than in Gospel; a\r]divbs is common in Gospel, Epistle and 
Apocalypse, though a\r]dr]s and oXrjOeLa do not appear in the Apoca- 
lypse; plkckjo occurs only once in Gospel (16:33), but is common 
in 1 John and Apocalypse; diScofjiL is more frequent in Gospel and 
Apocalypse than in any other N. T. book (even Matt.); 5et- 
KvvfXL appears about the same number of times in Gospel and 
Apocalypse; X670S is applied to Christ in Jo. 1 : 1 and Rev. 
19 : 13; the pecuHar expression Kal vvv eariv which occurs in John 

5 : 25 is similar to the Kal ka/xev of 1 Jo. 3:1, and the Kal ouk eial 
of Rev. 2:2, 3 : 9; all are fond of antithesis and parenthesis 
and repeat the article often. Over against these is to be placed 
the fact that the Apocalypse has 156 (33 doubtful) words not in 
the Gospel or Epistles, and only nine common alone to them. 
Certainly the subject-matter and spirit are different, for the Son 
of Thunder speaks in the Apocalypse. Dionysius^ of Alexandria 
called the language of the Apocalypse barbaric and ungram- 
matical because of the numerous departures from usual Greek 
assonance. The solecisms in the Apocalypse are not in the realm 
of accidence, for forms like d^rj/ces, irkirrooKav, 8l8co, etc., are com- 
mon in the vernacular kolvt). The syntactical peculiarities are 
due partly to construdio ad sensum and variatio structurae. Some 
("idiotisms" according to Dionysius) are designed, as the expres- 
sion of the unchangeableness of God by awo 6 uv (1 :4). As to 

6 rjv the relative use of 6 in Homer may be recalled. See also 
77 oval in 11 : 14, o/xolou viov in 14 : 14, oval tovs k. in 8 : 13. Benson 

' Similarly re, which occurs 160 times in the Acts, is found only 8 times in 
Luke's Gospel. Cf. Leo, Speaker's Comm., p. 457. 
2 Apud Eus. H. E., VII, xxv. 


(Apocalypse) speaks of "a grammar of Ungrammar," which is a 
bold way of putting it. But the "solecisms" in the Apocalypse 
are chiefly cases of anacolutha. Concord is treated lightly in the 
free use of the nominative (1 : 5; 2 : 20; 3 : 12), in particular the 
participles Xe7wj' and exo^v (4:1; 14 : 14) ; in the addition of a 
pronoun as in 3 : 8; in gender and number as in 7 : 9; in the use 
of parenthesis as in 1 : 5 f . Cf. Swete, Apocalypse, p. cxviii f. 

The accusative, as in the vernacular kolvt] (cf. modern Greek) 
has encroached upon other cases as with Kar-qyopdv (12 : 10). The 
participle is used freely and often absolutely in the nominative as 
6 vLKwv (2 : 26) . Most of the variations in case are with the parti- 
ciple or in apposition, as 6 ixaprvs after XpiaTov (1:5). Moulton^ 
has called attention to the numerous examples of nominative ap- 
position in the papyri, especially of the less educated kind. The 
old explanation of these grammatical variations was that they 
were Hebraisms, but Winer ^ long ago showed the absurdity of 
that idea. It is the frequency of these phenomena that calls for 
remark, not any isolated solecism in the Apocalypse. Moulton* 
denies that the Apocalypse has any Hebraisms. That is possibly 
going too far the other way, for the book is saturated with the 
apocalyptic images and phrases of Ezeldel and Daniel and is very 
much hke the other Jewish apocalypses. It is not so much par- 
ticular Hebraisms that meet us in the Apocalypse as the flavour 
of the LXX whose words are interwoven in the text at every turn. 
It is possible that in the Apocalypse we have the early style of 
John before he had lived in Ephesus, if the Apocalypse was writ- 
ten early. On the other hand the Apocalypse, as Bigg holds true 

" 1 Exp., 1904, p. 71. Cf. also Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. 151; Reinhold, 
Graec. Patr. etc., p. 57 f.; Schlatter, Die Spr. und Heimat dea vierten 
Evang. Schl. overemphasizes the Aramaic colour of the Gospel. 

2 W.-M., p. 671. 

' Prol., p. 9. Cf. also Jiilicher, Intr. to N. T.; Bousset, Die Offenb. Joh., 
1896; Lee, Speaker's Comm. on Rev. Swete (Apoc. of St. John, 1906, p. 
cxx) thinks that John's "eccentricities of syntax belong to more than one 
cause: some to the habit which he may have retained from early years of 
thinking in a Semitic language; some to the desire of giving movement and 
vivid reality to his visions, which leads him to report them after the maimer 
of shorthand notes, jotted down at the time; some to the circumstances in 
which the book was wTitten." The Apoc. "stands alone among Gk. hterary 
writings in its disregard of the ordinary rules of syntax, and the success with 
which syntax is set aside without loss of perspicuity or even of literary power." 
Swete welcomes gladly the researches of Deissmann, Thumb and Moulton, 
but considers it precarious to compare a literary document Uke the Apoc. 
with slips in business letters, etc. 


of 2 Peter, may represent John's real style, while the Gospel and 
Epistles may have been revised as to Greek idioms by a friend or 
friends of John in Ephesus (of. Jo. 21 : 24). With tliis theory 
compare Josephus' War and Antiquities. One is slow (despite 
Moffatt's positiveness in the Exp. Gk. Test.), in the light of Dante, 
Shakespeare, Milton, to say that John could not have written 
the Apocalypse, though it be the last of his books. Besides what 
has been said one must recall that the Apocalypse was composed 
on the Isle of Patmos, in some excitement, and possibly without 
careful revision, while the Gospel and First Epistle probably had 
care and the assistance of cultured friends. At any rate the ver- 
nacular KOLvr] is far more in evidence in the Apocalypse than in 
the Gospel and Epistles. "As Dante had the choice between the 
accepted language of education, Latin, and the vulgar tongue, so 
St. John had to choose between a more artificial kind of Greek, 
as perpetuated from past teaching, and the common vulgar 
speech, often emancipated from strict gramm.atical rules, but 
nervous and vigorous, a true living speech."^ 

Vn. N. T. Greek Illustrated by the Modem Greek Vernacu- 
lar. Constant use will be made of the modern Greek in the 
course of the Grammar. Here a brief survey is given merely to 
show how the colloquial kolvtj survives in present-day Greek ver- 
nacular. Caution is necessary in such a comparison. The hterary 
modern Greek has its affinities with the hterary Koiv-q or even 
with the Atticists, while the vernacular of to-day often shows 
affinities with the less educated writers of papyri of the N. T. 
time. The N. T. did indeed have a great effect upon the later 
KOLvr] when theological questions were uppermost at Alexandria 
and Constantinople.^ The cleavage between the literary and the 
vernacular became wider also. But apart from ecclesiastical 
terms there is a striking likeness at many points between the ver- 
nacular KOLpi] and modern Greek vernacular, though modern Greek 
has, of course, Germanic and other elements ^ not in the Koivn. 
The diminutive'* is more common in the modern Greek than in 

1 Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, 1905, p. 209. In general see 
Seeberg, Zur Charak. des Apost. Joh., Neuc Kirch. Zeitschr., 1905, pp. 51-64. 

2 Cf. Gregory Naz., II, 13, A; Gregory Nyssa, III, 557 B; Reinhold, De 
Graec. Patr. etc., 1898. 

» Thumb, Indoger. Forsch., 1903, p. 359 f. Boltz (Die hell. Spr., 1881, 
p. 10) quotes Rangab6 as saying that the mod. Gk. is as far removed from 
that of the LXX as from that of Xenophon. 

* Cf. Hatz., Einl. in d. ncugr. Gr., p. 37 f., for Ust. 


the KOLVT] and usually in i, as t6 apvl. The optative is rare in the 
N. T.; in the modern Greek it has disappeared. The infinitive is 
vanishing before I'ra in the N. T. ; in the modern Greek va has dis- 
placed it completely save with auxiliary verbs.^ The accusative ^ 
in modern Greek has made still further headway and is used even 
with ttTTo and all prepositions. The fxi verb has entirely vanished 
in modern Greek vernacular except dvai. The forms in -oaav, 
-ovaav are very common, as are the a forms in aorist and imper- 
fect. The forms in -es (-as) for perfect and first aorist are also 
frequent. The middle voice has almost vanished as a separate 
voice (cf. Latin). Prepositions in the vernacular (chiefly eis) have 
displaced the dative. The superlative is usually expressed by 
the article and the comparative. Kennedy^ gives an interesting 
list of words that appear either for the first time or with a new 
sense in the LXX or the N. T. (or the papyri) that preserve that 
meaning in the modern Greek, as 8a}fj.a{' rooi') fdvcnaarrjpLov ('altar'), 
Kadr]yriTr]s ('professor,' in N. T. 'master'), ^evodoxelov ('hotel,' in 
N. T. ^ti'oSoxeco =' entertain strangers'), iraLbehw ('chastise,' from 
TraTs) , ^^dj/co (' arrive ') , xoprdf co (' feed ') , etc. The Ust could be greatly 
extended, but let these suffice.'* A specimen of modern Greek 
vernacular is given from Pallis' translation of Jo. 1 : 6-8: By^/ce 
ej^as avdpwTOS (TTaXixhos clto to Geo' r' bvofxa tov 'Iccavqs. Autos rjpde 7td 
Kripvy/Jia, 7id J^d Krjpv^ei to c/xis, irov va Kavei kl oKol va TncFTeif/ovv. Aev 
HTav eKelvos to 4>cos, Tapa 7td va Kripv^ei to 0cDs. The literary modern 
Greek in these verses differs very httle from the original N. T. 
text, only in the use of vTijp^ev, 6vop,a^6iJ.evos, 5td va, dev, rJTo. Moul- 
ton* in an interesting note gives some early illustrations of 
modern Greek vernacular. In the second century a.d. kaov is 

1 It still persists in Pontic-Cappadocian Gk. according to Thumb, Theol. 
Literaturzeit., 1903, p. 421. 

^ There is a riot of indifference as to case in the vernacular Byz. Gk., as 
avv rrjs yvvaiKos. Cf. Mullach, Gr. der griech. Vulgarspr., p. 27. Jean Psichari, 
'P65a KoX M^Xa (1906), has written a defence of the mod. Gk. vemac. and has 
shown its connection with the ancient vernac. The mod. Gk. has like free- 
dom in the use of the genitive case (cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 32 ff.). Prep- 
ositions have displaced the partitive gen., the genitive of material and of 
comparison (abl.), in mod. Gk. The mod. Gk. shows the ace. displacing the 
gen. and dat. of the older Gk. {op. cit., p. 35 f.) after aKoXovdu, &kovo}, airavTu, 
etc. The double ace. goes beyond anc. Gk. usages {op. cit., p. 36) as oKa p65iva 
TO. /SXtTTw, *I see everything rosy.' 

» Sour, of N. T. Gk., pp. 153 ff. 

* Cf. Thumb's Handb. der neugr. Volksspr. (1895); V. and D., Handb. to 
Mod. Gk. (1887); Thumb-Angus, Handb. of Mod. Gk. Vernac. (1912). 

6 ProL, p. 234. 


found in OP 528. He quotes Thumb (BZ ix, 234) who cites 
from an inscription of the first century a.d. exouaes as nommative 
and accusative plural. And Ramsay {Cities and Bish., II, p. 537) 
gives kmrvdemovu as third plural form on a Phrygian inscription 
of the third century a.d. As one illustration note Paul's use of 
Karkxoi (Ro. 1 : 18). In modern Greek dialects KaTexw = 5?^eupw, 'I 





I. Etymology. Grammar was at first a branch of philosophy 
among the Greeks, and with the foundation of the Alexandrian 
library a new era began with the study of the text of Homer.^ 
After Photius etymology "rules the whole later grammatical 
literature." 2 The Stoic granmiarians were far better in ety- 
mology than in anything else and we owe them a real debt in 
this respect, though their extended struggle as to whether anal- 
ogy or anomaly ruled in language has left its legacy in the long 
lists of "exceptions" in the grammars.^ In some granmiars the 
term etymology is still applied to the whole discussion of Forms 
or Accidence, Formenlehre. But to-day it is generally applied 
to the study of the original form and meaning of words.* The 
word krvfioXoyia is, of course, from eru/zos and \6yos, and er-viios, 
meaning 'real' or 'true,' is itself from the same root er- from which 
er-eos, 'true,' comes. So also tr-dfco, 'to test.' Compare also San- 
skrit sat-yas, 'true,' and sat-yam, 'truth,' as well as the Anglo-Saxon 
soS, 'sooth.' To tTVjjLov is the true literal sense of a word, the 
root. No more helpful remark can be made at this point than to 
insist on the importance of the student's seeing the original form 
and import of each word and suffix or prefix. This is not all that 
is needed by any means, but it is a beginning, and the right be- 
ginning.^ " It was the comparative study of languages that first 

1 Riem. and Goelzer, Phonet. et fit. des Formes Grq. ct Lat., 1901, p. 245. 

"^ Reitzenstein, Gesch. der griech. Etym., 1897, p. vi. 

' Stcinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. etc., 2. Tl., pp. 347 ff. 

^ "6 tru/uos X670S heiBt ja auch 'die wahre Bedeutung'; daI3 man hior Itx>- 
fios sagte und nicht d.\-n6i]s, liegt daran, daO ionische Sophisten, namentlich 
Prodikos, die Etymologic und Synonymik aufbrachten." F. Blass, Herman, 
und Krit., Bd. I, Muller's Handb. d. klass. Alt., 1892, p. 183. 

6 See Pott, Etym. Forsch., 1801; Curtius, Gk. Etym., vols. I, II, 1SS6; 
Prellwitz, Etym. Worterb. der griech. Spr., 1893; Brug. und Delb., Grundr. 
der vergl. Gr., 1897-1901; Skeat, Etym. Diet, of the Eng. Lang., etc. 



gave etymology a surer holcl."^ Curtius means etymology in 
the modern sense, to be sure. 

II. Roots.2 It is not to be supposed that what are called roots 
necessarily existed in this form. They represent the original 
stock from which other words as a rule come. What the original 
words actually were we have no means of telling. They were not 
necessarily interjections, as some have supposed. Mere articu- 
late sounds, unintelligible roots, did not constitute speech. Some 
interjections are not roots, but express ideas and can often be 
analyzed, as "]emme"= J esu Domine.^ Others, hke most nursery 
words, are onomatopoetic. There is, besides, no evidence that prim- 
itive man could produce speech at will.^ But a few root-words 
appear like the Latin i ('go') and probably the Greek 77 (though i]k 
is found in Epic Greek) . The number of Greek roots is compara- 
tively few, not more than 400, probably less. Harris^ observes 
that of the 90,000 words in a Greek lexicon only 40,000 are what 
are termed classic words. The new words, which are constantly 
made from slang or necessity, are usually made from one of the 
old roots by various combinations, or at any rate after the anal- 
ogy of the old words.^ Words are "the small coin of language,"' 
though some of them are sesquipedalian enough. There seem to 
be two ultimate kinds of words or roots, verbs and pronouns, 
and they were at last united into a single word as 077-/X1, 'say I.' 

1 Curtius, Gk. Etym., vol. I, p. 16. 

2 The whole subject of N. T. lexicography calls for reworking. Deissmann 
is known to be at work on a N. T. Lex. in the hght of the pap. and the 
inscr. Meanwhile reference can be made to his Bible Studies, Light, and 
his New Light on the N. T.; to J. H. Moulton's articles in the Ex-p. 
(1901, 1903, 1904, 1908); to Kennedy's Sour, of N. T. Gk. (for LXX and 
N. T.); to Thayer's N. T. Gk. Lex. and his art. on Lang., of N. T. in Hast. 
D. B.; to Cremer's Theol. Lex. of N. T.; to Mayser's Gr. d. griech. Pap. For 
the LXX phenomena see careful discussion of Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 112- 
136. Nothing hke an exhaustive discussion of N. T. word-formation can yet 
be attempted. But what is here given aims to follow the hnes of historical 
and comparative grammar. We must wait in patience for Deissmann's Lex. 
George MiUigan is at work with Moulton on his Lexical Notes from the Pap. 
(Exp., 1908 — ). Cf. also NageH, Der Wortsch. des Apost. Paulus, a por- 
tion of which has appeared. Especially valuable is Abb. Joh. Vocab. (1905). 
For the LXX cf. also Swete, Intr. to O. T. in Gk., pp. 302-304. The indices 
to the hsts of inscr. and pap. can also be consulted with profit. 

3 Paul, Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., p. 181. * lb., p. 187. 
6 MS. notes on Gk. Gr. 

« Cf. on slang, Wedgwood, Intr. to the Diet, of the Eng. Lang.; Paul, 
Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., p. 175. 
» GUes, Comp. Philol., p. 235. 


It does not seem possible to distinguish between verbal and nomi- 
nal roots, as in English to-day the same word is indifferently verb 
or noun "walk," for instance. The modern view is that verbs are 
nominal in origin (Hirt, Handb., p. 280). The pronominal roots 
may furnish most of the suffixes for both verbs {pwara) and nouns 
(opouiaTa). Verbs, substantives and pronouns {aura^voixiaL) , there- 
fore, constitute the earliest parts of speech, and all the others are 
developed from these three.^ Adjectives {opdfxara kindera) are 
merely variations from substantives or pronouns. Adverbs (e^^p- 
pwara) are fixed case-forms of substantives or adjectives or pro- 
nouns. Prepositions {Tpodkcas) are adverbs used with nouns or 
with verbs (in composition). Conjunctions {Mea,.o.) are adverbs 
used to connect words and sentences in various ways. Inten- 
sive (^TTtrdaecos) particles are adverbs from nominal or pronominal 
stems of a special kind. Speech has made a very smal be- 
ginning with isolated words; in fact the sentence is probably as 
old as human speech, though we first discuss words.^ The number 
of root-words with the mere ending is not very great, but some 
few survive even in the N. T., where the case-ending is added 
directly to the root, as aX-s {6:Ka, Mk. 9 : 50), with which compare 
Latin sal, English sal-t. So mCs (Ac. 27:41), Latin nav-is. In- 
stead of aXs the N. T. elsewhere follows the kolvv in using to 
aXas, and r6 xXoTov instead of vavs. In .ohs {.68-s) the root is only 
slightly changed after the loss of 5 (analogy of ovs or 68ovs). ihe 
pronoun els (e.-s) is similarly explained. Pronouns and numerals 
use the root directly. In verbs we have many more such roots 
used directly with the personal endings without the thematic 
vowel o/e and sometimes without any tense-suffix for the pres- 
ent, Uke 4>vy^ (<^a-MO. The whole subject of verbs is much more 
compUcated, but in general the non-thematic forms are rapidly 
disappearing in the N. T., while in the vernacular modern Greek 
the non-thematic or m^ verbs are no longer used (save in the case 
of et^aO, as 515a. for dldc-nc for instance. A number of these roots 
go back to the common Indo-Germanic stock. Take 8ck, the root 
of 8elKPv-nc. The Sanskrit has dig-a-rm.; the Latin dic-o, in-dic-o, 
ju-dex; the Gothic teiho; the German zeigm. Take the thematic 
verb aKk-.-To-m- The Sanskrit root is spa? ('look), spaf =spy. 
The Zend has fpaf, the Latin ^yec-io, spec-ulum, spec-to, etc. in 
the Greek root metathesis has taken place and areK has become 
X "t)ber das relative Alter der einen oder der andercn W^^^^lasse Mt 
sich nichts Sicheres ausmac-hcn" (Vogrinz, Gr. dc8 hom. Dud., ISbO, p. 164). 
2 Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., p. 281. 


cKtT in (TKkir-To-fMaL ('to spy out'), o-kott-tj ('a watching'), (jkott-io. 
('a watch-tower'), oKoir-bs ('a spy,' 'a goal'), ctkco;/' ('owr).^ Cf. 
Ph. 3 : 14 Kara (xkottov. The old Greek writers ^ made iJ,vaTr]pLov = 
/xOs T-qpeivl 

in. Words with Formative Suffixes. The Indo-Germanic 
languages have a highly developed system of affixes,^ prefixes, 
infixes, suffijfes. The suffixes are used for various purposes, as 
case-endings of nouns, as personal endings of verbs, as aids in the 
creation of words (formative suffixes). The Greek is rich in these 
formative sufl&xes, which are more or less popular at various peri- 
ods of the language. The suffixes in the Greek are quite similar to 
those in the older Sanskrit. When the formative suffixes are used 
directly with the root, the words are called primitives; when the 
stem of the word is not a root, it is called a derivative. Hence 
there are primitive and derivative verbs, primitive and deriva- 
tive substantives, primitive and derivative adjectives. There 
are, of course, in the N. T. Greek no "special" formative suffixes, 
though the kolvt] does vary naturally in the relative use of these 
terminations from the earher language. In the modern Greek a 
number of new suffixes appear like the diminutives —ttouXos (ttcoXos, 
'foal'), ktX. "In all essentials the old patterns are adhered to" 
in the N. T. word-formation.'' See also Hadley-Allen (pp. 188 ff .) 
for the meaning of the Greek formative suffixes. 

(a) Verbs. On the stem-building of the verb one can consult 
Hirt or Brugmann for the new point of view.^ Without attempt- 
ing a complete list of the new words in the kolvt], I give what 
is, I trust, a just interpretation of the facts concerning the new 
words appearing from the time of Aristotle on that we find in the 
N. T. Hence some classes of words are not treated. 

1. Primary or Primitive Verbs. No new roots are used to 
make verbs with old or new terminations^ in the kolvt]. The ten- 

1 Cf. Rachel White, CI. Rev., 1906, pp. 203 ff., for interesting study of 


2 Blass, Hermen. und Krit., Bd. I, p. 191 . Heine, Synon. des neutest. Griech., 
1898, has a very helpful discussion of N. T. word-building (pp. 28-65), but 
does not distinguish the kolpti words. 

8 Next to Sans. Gk. uses more inflections and so more affixes. Cf. Jann., 
Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 45. 

* Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 61. On the whole subject of word-building see 
Brug., Griech. Gr., 1900, pp. 160-362; K.-BL, Bd. II, Ausf. Gr., pp. 254-340. 

6 Brug. op. cit. Hirt, Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl., 1902, pp. 

6 Schmid, Der Atticis. etc., 4. Bd., p. 702. 


dency is all towards the dropping of the non-thematic or /zt forms 
both with the simple root and with the suffix. The remnants of 
the fXL forms, which are not quite obsolete in the N. T., will be 
given in the chapter on the Conjugation of the Verb. Here may 
be mentioned dTroXXu/zt, which uses the suffix -I'l;.^ Thematic verbs 
made from the root by the addition of o/e are very common, like 
\ey-w, XeiTc-w (Xt-rr). The N. T., as the kolvt], has new presents like 
KpvjSo:, viTTTw, x^vvw, etc. These kept increasing and are vouched 
for by modern Greek. Cf . Thumb, Handbook, pp. 129 ff. 

2. Secondary or Derivative Verbs. Not all of these verbs are 
formed from nouns; many come also from verbs. Denominatives 
are made from nouns, like rt/xd-oj from rt/xiy, while verbals (post- 
verbals, Jannaris^) are made from verbs. The simple denomi- 
natives,^ ending in -dco, -eco, -euco, -dfco, -tfw, are not always 
distinguished from the intensive verbals or the causative denomi- 
natives, though -6co, -alvw, -vpco more commonly represent the 
latter. 'Ottclvoo (from otttco) besides Ac. 1 : 3 appears in the LXX, 
Hermes, Tebt. Papyri. Cf. also the rare 'Ktuwdpoj. The kolvt) is 
rich in new verbs in -vco. Verbs in -dco are common in the N. T., 
as in the kolvt], like tl/jlclo:, bal/aw, fdco, etc. 'Aw-fdco occurs in Artem., 
Sotion, inscriptions, etc. In the modern Greek verbs in -dco have 
gained at the expense of verbs in -ew.'* They belong to the oldest 
Greek speech and come from feminine stems in -a.^ Verbs in -a^ij) 
show great increase in the N. T. as in the kolvt] and modern Greek,^ 
like ayia^cji (ajLOs, ayi^w, LXX), evTa(f)La^oj {ePTacf)ia, Anthol., Plut.), 
vriTTLCi^oo (vrj-n-Los) in Hippocrates, arvypa^o) (from aTvypds) in Schol. 
on ^sch. and in LXX aiPLa^co {aLpiop, eccl., Byz.). Iluppdfco (Mt. 
16 : 2 f.) occurs in LXX and Philo, but W. H. reject this passage. 

The majority of the new verbs in -eco are compound, as aaxvi^opew, 
■!r\r]po(f)op€o) (ir\T]po-(f)6pos, LXX, pap.), but Sumreoj (only in N. T.) 
is to be noticed on the other side.^ 'Aratpeco (from d/catpos) is found 

1 On history of the m verbs see Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 234. In the pap. 
verbs in -vjj.l keep the non-thematic form in the middle, while in the active 
both appear. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 38. 

2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 300. 

» Harris, MS. Notes on Gk. Gr. 

* Thumb, Handb., p. 175; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 21S, 300. 

^ Siittcrlin, Gesch. der Verba Denom. in Altgriech., 1S91, p. 7. Cf. also 
Pfordten, Zur Gesch. der griech. Denom., 1886. Mayser (Gr., pp. 459-466) 
has an interesting list of derivative verbs in the Ptol. pap. 

8 Thumb, Handb. of Mod. Gk., V., p. 135 f. There is frequent inter- 
change between forms in -afw, -ifco and -w. 

7 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk.,'p. 61. 


in Diodorus; evrpoaoiTrkco {evTrpoacairos) is found in Gal. 6 : 12 (in 
papyri, 114 B.C.; ottojs evTpocroiTrciixeu, Tebt. P. No. 19i2f.). Cf. 
Moulton, Expositor, 1903, p. 114. These verbs have always been 
very numerous, though -eco gradually retreats before -aco. Tp-qyo- 
pk(ji (Arist., LXX, Jos.) is formed from the perfect kyprjyopa, 
which is not in the N. T., but Winer long ago found a similar 
form in kinKexeLpeoo (Papyri Taurin. 7).^ 'EXarroj'eco (Arist., LXX, 
pap.) is from eXarTov. 'EXXoyeoi (and -dco) is in inscriptions and 
papyri. 'E^o.Kokovdeco (Polyb., Plut., inscriptions) is not "biblical" 
as Thayer called it. AWevrecc {aWevrrjs, avros and evTea) is in the 
KOLVT], according to Moeris, for the Attic avTohiKkui. (In the late 
papyri see Deissmann, Light, p. 85.) No great distinction in 
sense exists between -dco and -eco. 

Verbs in -eucu are also very conmion and are formed from a 
great variety of stems. Aixi^aXo^Tevca (from aixp.a\ooTLs) is read in 
2 Tim. 3: 6 only by D" EKL al. pi. Or., the form in -^w being 
genuine. It is, however, common in the LXX, as is eyKparevofxaL 
(1 Cor. 9 : 25), from kyKparrjs (in Aristotle). Tvp.vLTevo3 (not yvp.PT]- 
Tevo), Dio Chrys., Plut., Dio Cass., etc.) is found in 1 Cor. 4: 11 
and is from yvjjLvrjT-qs. ZrjKeve (Simplic, Democr.), not ^77X^0-01', is 
the correct text in Rev, 3 : 19 (so W. H. with ABC against KP). 
Both are from f^Xos. QpLan^evoi (from dpiafx^os) is in the literary 
K01V17.2 'leparevcjo (Lu. 1:8) is from lepevs and is found in the 
LXX, the KOLVT} writers and the inscriptions. Meo-trtuo) (Heb. 
6 : 17) is from fxealrris and is found in Arist., Polyb. and papyri. 
MadrjTevco is from /jLadrjTrjs (Plut., Jambl.) ; oKoBpevoi (Heb. 11:28, 
LXX) is from bXedpos (ADE read dXedpevuv in Heb. 11:28). In 
Ac. 3 : 23 k^oXedpevoi is the form accepted by W. H. after the 
best MSS. of the LXX.^ Uaytdevo: (Mt. 22 : 15) is from wayls 
and occurs in the LXX. Uapa-^oXevofiai. is the correct word in 
Ph. 2 : 30 against CKLP which read Tapa-^ovXevonai. The word 
is from xapa-jSoXos, which has not been found in other writers, but 
an inscription (Ii/a.d.) at Olbia on the Black Sea has the very 
form Trapa^oXevacifjLevos used by Paul (cf. Deissmann, Light, p. 84). 
UepirepevofxaL (1 Cor. 13 : 4) is made from irepwepos and is found in 

» W.-M., p. 115. 

* Cf. dplan^ov daayeiv, triumphuin agere. Goetzeler, Einfl. d. Dion, von 
Ital. auf d. Sprachgeb. d. Plut., 1891, p. 203: Deiss. (Light, p. 368) gives 
this word (with aperri, k^ovcrLa, 86^a, icrxvs, Kparos, ixeyakeioT-qs) as proof of a paral- 
lel between the language of the imperial cult and of Christianity. 

3 Cf. W.-M., note, p. 114. Mayser (Gr., pp. 415-509) gives a very com- 
plete discussion of " Stammbildung " in the Ptol. pap. 


Antoninus. Xprjareuo/iai is from xpv^^tos. Three verbs in -6oi 
appear which are made from verbs in -dco and -koo, viz. dXijSoj 
(dXew), KPTjdoj (/cmoj), urjOa: (veoS), one (vriOw) being found also in Plato 
Polit. (p. 289 c). Cf. modern Greek dkro) (TidrjijLi). 

The causative ending -ow is usually formed on noun-stems and 
is very common, sometimes supplanting verbs in -evoo or -ifco, as 
ava-Katuoco (Isocrates, dj^a/cati'tf co) / avacTTarboi (from dwcrra tos, LXX, 
papyri. Cf. avaaTarot /xe, 'he upsets me,' Deissmann, Light, p. 81); 
a4>-VKvb(j: {AnthoL, classical d^DTrfif oj) ; beKarboi (classical beKaTtvoi)] 
80X1.600 (LXX, from 56Xtos); bwanboi (LXX, eccl. and Byz., from 
bwanii); k^ovbevboi (often in LXX, but W. H. read k^ovbevkw in 
Mk. 9:12, Plutarch even k^ovbtvl^w); deixeXibco (LXX) is from 
BefxeKiov; Kavabu (from Kavaos, Disc, Galen); K€</)aXt6co (Lob., ad 
Phryn., p. 95, /c€(/)aXtfco, though not in any known Greek author) 
W. H. read in Mk. 12 : 4 with KBL as against /ce^aXatoco and it 
means 'beat on the head' (cf. /coXa^tfco). So koXojSow (from k6Xo/3os, 
Arist., Polyb., Diod.) ; i/e/cpoco (from veKpbs, Plut., Epict., M. Aur., 
inscriptions); Kparaiboo (LXX, eccl.), from Kparvvw; aapow (Artem., 
Apoll., Dysc), from catpco (<rdpos); o-ij/^etoco (from arjiietov, Theoph., 
Polyb., LXX, Philo, Dion. Hal., etc.); adevboi (Rhet. Gr.), from 
adtvk(jo (adevos); xo-pi-rboi (LXX, Jos., eccl.), from xap^?- Verbs in-6co 
do not always have the full causative idea,^ d^t6w='deem worthy' 
and 5tKat6c<;='deem righteous.' 

Verbs in -ifco do not necessarily represent repetition or inten- 
sity. They sometimes have a causative idea and then again lose 
even that distinctive note and supplant the older form of the 
word. Forms in -If co are very common in modern Greek. Tai^Tlf oj 
(LXX, Athen.), for instance, in the N. T. has displaced patfco, and 
/SaTTTtfcj (since Plato) has nearly supplanted iSdrrco. These verbs 
come from many sorts of roots and are very frequent in the N. T., 
as the KOLVI] is lavish with them. The new formations in the Koivi] 
appearing in the N. T. are as follows: aiperifco (from alperbs, LXX, 
inscriptions); aixMaXcorifco (literary Koivrj and LXX), from alxy^b.- 
XcoTOs; avadenaTi^w (LXX and inscriptions), from ava.dep.a; ave^xl^io 
(Jas. 1 : 6) is found in schol. on Hom. Od. 12, 336, the old form 
being aveixboj; drej/tfco (from arevrjs, Arist., Polyb., Jos.); detynaTl^u 
(from delyfjLo) appears in apocryphal Acts of Peter and Paul; 
SoyixaTL^o} (from 667/xa) is in Diodorus and the LXX; eyyi^cj: (from 
€77i's, from Polyb. and Diod. on); e^-virvLi;co (from vtvos, LXX, 
Plut.); dearpi^cj (from OkaTpov) in ecclesiastical and Byzantine 
writers, eKdeaTpi^oj being in Poly bins; ijjLaTi^co (from iixaTLov) is 
1 Cf. Siitterlin, Zur Gcsch. der Verba Denom., p. 95. ^ lb. 


found in Serapeum papyrus 163 e.g.; lovdat^o) (from 'lovSatos) is 
found in the LXX and Josephus and is formed like eXkr]vi^a3 and 
similar ethnic terms; Kadapi^o: (classic Kadalpw, from Kadapos, LXX, 
Jos., inscriptions); /cpuo-raXXtfco (from /cpuo-raXXos, Rev. 21:11) is 
still "not found elsewhere" (Thayer); ixvkttipI^co (from hvkttjp, 'the 
nose') is in the LXX; dpdpl^u (from opdpos) is in the LXX; TreXe/cifco 
(from TreXcKus) is common in literary kolpt]; aKopirL^to (akin to aKop- 
ttIos, root skerp) is in LXX and in literary kolvt], Attic form being 
oKehavvvixi, old Ionic according to Phrynichus; (nr\ayxv''-^ojjLai (from 
o-TrXdyxra, Heb. tj'^^qin'i) occurs in LXX, Attic had an active 
(TTrXaYx^euco ; (jvp.p.op(i)i^o3 (from avfjiiiop(pos) is the correct text in 
Ph. 3 : 10 against avp.p.op^bu> (EKL), though neither word is known 
elsewhere, perhaps coined by Paul; ct)v\aKl^oo (from (l>v\aKri) is in 
LXX and Byzantine writers. Of verbs in -v^u, yoyyv^w (ono- 
matopoetic, like TovSpv^oi of the cooing of doves) is in the LXX 
and the papyri. 

Verbs in -hvio are fairly common, like irapo^vvo}. Only one word 
calls for mention, aKk-qphvco (from aKK-qpos), which takes the place 
of the rare cK'Xrjpow and is found in LXX and Hippocrates. No 
new verbs in -aipo) (like ev(t)palvcS) appear in the N. T. Verbs in 
-o-Kco are, like the Latin verbs in -sco, generally either inchoative 
or causative. It is not a very common termination in the N. T., 
though evplffKui, Tivcoo-Kco and StSao-Kco occur very often, but these 
are not derivative verbs. In the N. T. the inchoative sense is 
greatly weakened. The suffix belongs to the present and the im- 
perfect only. In modern Greek it has nearly disappeared save 
in the dialects.^ TafilaKO) (accepted by W. H. in Lu. 20 : 34) 
rather than yani^o} is causative (Arist. pol.) ; yTjpaaKco and fxtdvaKO} 
both come from the earher Greek.^ 'Ep-8l8v-(tkcj) occurs in the 
LXX, Jos., inscriptions. The new present o-r^/cco (Mk. 11 : 25) is 
made from the perfect stem eaTrjKa (areKco in modern Greek). As 
in N. T., so in modem Greek desideratives in -aeioo, -ataw drop 
out. The verbs in -toco still retained {iiyaWLdo}, aporp-ido}, dv/x-Ldo:, 
Koir-idi^ have no desiderative meaning. Of these d7aXXtdco, for 
the old dydWofxai, is late kolvt]; dporptdco is from Theophr. on, 
/coTTidco is late in the sense of 'toil.' No new redupUcated verbs 
appear in the N. T. 

(6) Substantives. 

1. Primary or Primitive Substantives. Here the formative 
(stem-suffix) suffix is added to the root. It is important to seek the 

1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 302; Thumb, Handb., p. 133. 

2 Cf. Donaldson, New Crat., p. 615, for discussion of -aKw verbs. 


meaning not only of the root, but of this formative suffix also 
when possible. The root has in most cases the strong form, as 
in X67(X€7)-o-s. These substantives are thus from the same root 
as the verb. With -ju^-s, -ixt], expressing action, are formed in 
the old Greek words like 6v-/j,6s, tl-iit). With -/xa, denoting re- 
sult, we find aPT-air6-8o-na (LXX, old Greek avT-aTr6-8o-aLs, from 
aPT-airo-8i8oj^ii.) ; Sid-CTTj-jua (from 8L-iaTr]iJ.L, Arist., Polyb., Philo); 
tv-8v-fj.a (from ep-8vo}, LXX, Strabo, Jos., Plut.); dk\r]-na (from 
^eXco, Arist. and LXX); Kara-Kpi-na (from Kara-Kpivo}, Dion. Hal., 
pap.) ; Kara-Xv-fxa (from Kara-Kv-co, literary kolvt] for old Kar-ajcoyeiov, 
and with idea of place); KaTa-aTrj-iia {Kad-laT-q-iiL, Plut. and the 
LXX) ; KTla-jjia (from ktI^(j3, Strabo, Dion. Hal.) ; Trp6a-KoiJ.-ixa (from 
Tpoa-KOT-Tco, in LXX and Plut.). The suffix -cn-s, meaning action 
(abstract), appears in kvb.-^\el/-Lt (Arist., LXX) ; d^d-Sei^-ts (from 
ava-8dK-vv-ixi, Plut., Diod., Strabo, Sirach); dkXrj-aLs in Heb. 2 :4 
(from deXco, a "vulgarism," according to Pollux); KaT6.-pv^-Ls (from 
Kara-vvaa-co, LXX) ; KariL-KpLcns (from Kara-Kplvw, Vettius Valens, 
eccl.); ire-TToW-rf-ats (from -Kk-iroLd-a, Treldoo, Josephus and Philo, 
condemned by the Atticists) ; tp6(x-kKl-(tls (from Trpoa-K\lv-w, Polyb. 
and Diod.); xp6(j-xi'-<ns (from Trpoa-xe-co, Justin Martyr and later). 
The suffix -ixovq is used with Teia-novr] (from x€t0aj, Ignatius and 
later) and hirc-\7]a-fxovr} {eTt-\apd-avco, kTn-\r]<j-p.uiv , Sirach). llay-rjvr] 
(LXX, Plut., Lucian) has suffix -rivrj (cf. ~opo, -ovq, etc.). Aia- 
(TTTop-d {8La-cnreip(ji, LXX, Plut.) and Tpoa-evx-V {■n-poa-evx-op-o.i, 
LXX, inscriptions) use the suffix -a (-77). Cf. aTro-^pa(p-r] (N. T., 
papyri), olto-Soxv (inscriptions), ^poxi (papyri), kixwXoKr] {kfiTXeKO}, 
inscriptions), 5ta-Ta7T7 (Sia-Taaaw, papyri, inscriptions, later writ- 
ings). The agent is usually -rijs (Blass, Gr., p. 62), not -rojp or 
-T7/P as in 5tcb/cT7js (from Slwkui, earliest example) and 86-Trjs (from 
8i-8oi-iJLL, classic 8oT-qp. But cf. aco-rrjp). See yvcharrjs (yL-vwaKOJ, 
LXX, Plut.), KTicr-T-qs (kt'l^co, Arist., Plut., LXX), ewL-aTa-Tris (only 
in Luke, e^tcrrrjAti) . See further under compound words for more 
examples. In modern Greek -ttjs is preserved, but -rcop and ttjp 
become -Topr]s, -Trjpas. Jannaris, op. ciL, p. 288; Thumb, Hand- 
hook, p. 49. I pass by words in -evs, -mv, -rpov, etc. 

2. Secondary or Derivative Substantives. Only important words 
not in common use in the older Greek can be mentioned. 

(a) Those from verbs. Words in -p.6s expressing action. From 
verbs in -dfco come ayiaa-iios (ancient Greek ayi^o}, but later form 
common in LXX and N. T.); ayvia-ixds (from ayvl^co, Dion. Hal., 
LXX, Plut.); airapTLa-ixbs (Dion. Hal., Apoll. Dysc, papjTJ); 
apiray-fios (apTrdfco is from root dp7r, like Latin rapio. 'Apiray-pos once 


in Plutarch, apirayri common from iEschylus)^; yoyyva-nos (from 
yoyyv^io, Antonin.) ; evTa^naa-^bs (Plutarch and scholia to Eur, and 
Arist., errac^td^co) ; lixaTia-ixos (from t/xartfco, LXX, Theophr.,Polyb., 
Diod., Plut., Athen.); ireLpaa-nos (from xetpdfco and common in 
the LXX) . From verbs in -tf co we have ^airTicr-iJLos (Blass, Gr. of 
N. T. Gk., p. 62) used by Josephus of John's baptism,^ but not in 
the N. T. of the ordinance of baptism, save in Col. 2 : 12, in J-i" 
BD*FG 47, 67**, 71, a Western reading rejected by W. H.; 
ovtihiff-ixos (Plutarch and Dion. Hal.); irapopyia-ixos (not found 
earlier than LXX nor in kolvt] writers, Dion, uses Tvapopyl^w) ; Topia- 
ixos (Sap., Polyb., Jos., Plut., Test. XII Patr.); pauna-ixos (LXX); 
aa^^aTLCT-fMos (Plut. and eccl. writers); aa:<l)povLa-iJ.6s (Jos., Plut., 
etc.); xf/LdvpL(7-p.6s (from xpidvpi^o}, LXX, Clem. Rom., Plut., ono- 
matopoetic word for the hissing of the snake). The ending -p.6s 
survives in literary modern Greek. Cf. Jannaris, op. cit., p. 288. 
The tendency to make new words in -fios decreased. The modern 
Greek vernacular dropped it (Thumb, Handbook, p. 62). 

Abstract nouns in -ais are /Stw-crts (in Sirach, from (3t6co); ava- 
Kaiv(j}-(JLS (ava-Kaivo-a), Etym. M. Her7n.); airavTri-aLS {aT-avTa-w, 
LXX, Polyb., Diod., papyri); airo-Ka\v\l/Ls (LXX, Plut.); awo-KaTa- 
o-Ta-crts (Potyb., Diod., papyri, etc.) ; dTro-o-ra-o-ta (LXX) ; eK^i]T7]-cn% 
{kK-^r]Teco, true text in 1 Tim. 1 : 4, Basil Cses., Didym.) ; kv-bbii-q-aLs 
(from evSofiew, Jos., also hddojjLTjaLs)', kirLirodrj-cns (LXX, from evrt.- 
Todeoo); vTr-dvTr]-ais (LXX, Jos., App.). Words in -o-is, common 
in Hebrews, make few new formations in the later Greek. 
'Ayairrj begins to displace ayaTrjats (LXX, inscription in Pisidia, 
and papyrus in Herculaneum) . Abstract nouns in -eia (W. H. 
-ia) are chiefly from verbs in -evoo as apeaKela (from apeaKivw, 
Polyb., Diod., papyri, and usually in bad sense); kin-TrSdeLa (so 
W. H., not ein-irodla, in Ro. 15 : 23, from einTodeo:, probably 
by analogy like tTnOvixla. Not found elsewhere). 'Epidela (from 
epLdevoo, Arist. pol. The verb from eptdos, 'working for hire'); 
lepareia (from leparevco, Arist. pol., Dion. Hal., LXX, inscriptions); 
Xoyela {-ia) is from \oyevco ('collect') and is found in inscrip- 
tions, ostraca, papyri (see Deissmann, Light, p. 105); fiedoSeia 
(from fxedodevo}, which occurs in the kolvt], from (xWodos, but not 
the abstract noun). 

1 Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 407; Donaldson, New Crat., p. 451; Light- 
foot on Ph. 2:6. 

2 Ant. 18. 5, 2. Cf. Sturtevant, Stud, in Gk. Noun-Formation (CI. Philol., 
vii, 4, 1912). For long list of derivative substantives in the Ptol. pap. see 
Mayser, Gr., pp. 416-447. 


From 64)el\w we have b(l)€L\r} (common in the papyri), b4>d\7]tia 
(Plato, Arist., LXX). Words in -jua (result) are more common in 
the later Greek and gradually take an abstract idea of -ats in 
modern Greek. ^ The new formations appearing in the N. T. are 
a-yp6r]-ij.a (O. T. Apoc, from ayuoew); alTLw-fia (correct text in 
Ac. 25 : 7, and not alTiana), from alTLa.oiJ.aL. Cf. aiTio^a-Ls in 
Eustathius, p. 1422, 21. This form as yet not found elsewhere); 
avrXtjua (from auT^eoo, Plut., what is drawn, and then strangely a 
thing to draw with, like ai^rX-qTrjp or avT\r]T7}pLov); air-avyaa-na 
(from awavyd^o:, and this from diro and 01)717, in Wisdom and 
Philo); d-Ko-aKLaa-jia (from axoo-Kidfo), and this from d-Ko and oklo.. 
Only in Jas. 1:17); dadkvq-iia (from dadevkoi, in physical sense in 
Arist. hist., papyri) ; |Sd7rrto--Ata (from j8a7rrtfco, "pecuHar to N. T. 
and ecclesiastical writers," Thayer). In ^divTLa-txa, as distinct 
from ^aiTTLa-nos, the result of the act is included (cf. Blass, Gr. 
of N. T. Gk., p. 62); k^epa-na (from e^epdco, in Dioscor., example of 
the verb, cf. Lob., ad Phryn., p. 64); ^rrrj-pLa (from r]TTdo-ixaL, 
LXX, in ecclesiastical writers); tepdreu-^ua (from Uparevu, LXX); 
Kar-opdw-fjia (from Kar-opdoo:, literary kolvt], as Polyb., Diod., Strabo, 
Jos., Plut., Lucian and 3 Mace); pdirLa-ixa (from pairl^w, An- 
tiph., Anthol., Lucian); aTtpkoo-jxa (from arepioo:, Arist., LXX). 
Blass 2 calls attention to the fact that in the later Greek words in 
-/xa, like those in -o-ts, -ttjs, -tos, often prefer stems with a short 
vowel, as 86{xa (86(tls), d'efxa (deaLs), though this form is already in 
the older Doric, KKt-p-a, Kpt-fxa, Trbp-a (Attic xco/xa). Hence dvdde-fxa 
inN. T., though duddvpa in Lu. 21: 5 (W. H. ace. to BLQr, etc.), 
and in the papyri "nouns in -fxa are constantly showing short 
penult."^ But dvadejia, like Qkua and bbp.a, belongs to the list 
of primary substantives. 

Words in -rrys (agent) are fairly numerous, like ^airTLa-rrfs (from 
/SaTTTtfo), Jos.) ; ^Laa-TT)s (from /Stdfco. Pind., Pyth. and others use 
/Stards); yoyyv(j-rri<i (from 707711^0;, Theodotion ojid SjTnm. trans- 
lation of the LXX); eXXTivLa-T-qs (from iW-qvl^o}, not in Greek 
authors, though iWrjvl^co is, as in Xen., Anab., and Strabo, etc.); e^- 
opKLa-Tr\s (from e^-op/ctfo), Jos., Lucian, eccl. writers); evayyeXLa-TTjs 

^ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 289. Thumb, Ilandb., p. G5. On frequency in 
LXX see C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 28. Cf. Frankel, Griech. Denom., 1906. 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 62 f. For same thing in LXX {kvhOttxa, -n-pSaOeiJia, 
S6na, etc.) see C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 28. 

^ Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. 108. lie instances besides d^vaOttxa in tlie 
sense of 'curse,' Okixa, k-KiOttxa, irpbaOtna, irpobona. On ivaOf/jLa, for exx. in iii/B.C. 

inscr., see Glaser, De Rat., quae intorc. inter serm. Poljb. etc., 1894, p. 82. 


(from evayyeXi^w, eccl. writers) ; KepfiarLa-Trjs (from KepfxaTi^o), Nicet., 
Max. Tyr.); koXKv^kt-ttjs (found in Men. and Lys.) has no verb 
KoWv^i^co, but only koWvjSos, a small coin; Xvrpu-Trjs (from Xvrpbo), 
LXX and Philo); p-tpia-T-q^ (from jxepl^w, Pollux); Tpoa-Kwrj-rris 
(from -irpoaKvveo), inscriptions, eccl. and Byz.); araaLaa-rris (from 
o-rao-iafoj, Diod., Dion. Hal., Jos., Ptol.); Ttkuw-T-qs (from reXeidco, 
only in Heb. 12 : 2). 

A few late words in -rrjp-tov (from -rrjp and -lov) occur as aKpoa- 
TT)pi.ov (from cLKpodoixai, Plut. and other kolut} writers) where 
-TTjpiov means 'place'; iXaa-rripLov (from IXdaKo/jLaL, LXX, inscrip- 
tions, papyri, Dio Chrys.) is a substantive in the N. T., made 
probably from the adjective IXaarrjpLos (cf. auTrjpLos) and means 
'propitiatory gift' or 'means of propitiation' and does not allude 
to the mercy seat^ or covering. However, in Heb. 9 : 5 ikaarrjpLov 
does have the meaning of 'place of propitiation' or 'mercy seat' 
(cf. dvjjLta-TrjpLov). Deissmann passed this passage by, though he is 
correct in Ro. 3 : 25. Cf. 4>v\aKTy]pLov. 

(0) Those from substantives. Several words expressing place 
are formed after the fashion of the older Greek as d(f>e8p6:v (prob- 
ably from the Macedonian acpeSpos, and that from edpa and dTro) 
which may be compared with Koirpuv; (3paj3eLov (from ^pa^evs, Me- 
nand. Mon., 0pp., Lycoph., Clem. Rom.); eXacuv (from eXaLov, 
like diJLTreX-6:p from a/jLireXos, in the LXX, Jos., inscriptions and 
papyri),- with which compare fjLvXoiv {-wvos) in Mt. 24 : 41 accord- 
ing to DHM and most cursives instead of fivXas. Moulton {The 
Expositor, 1903, p. Ill) has found </)ot/ccbj^ {-ojuos), 'palm-grove,' in 
A. P. 31 (112 B.C.). EldcjcXelou (-LOV W. H.), found first in 1 Mace, 
and 1 Esd., is formed after the analogy of povae-lo-v. "YiXwvLov 
(from reXiovrjs) is found in Strabo. Herpahov (Philo) is from rerpas, 
the usual guard in the prisons. Several new words in -ttjs (qual- 
ity) appear, as dSeX^o-TTjs (from a.8eX(t)6s, 1 Mace, 4 Mace, Dio 
Chrys., eccl. writers); ded-rrjs (from deos, Lucian, Plut.); KvpLo-Trjs 

* See Deiss., B. S., p. 131 f., where a lucid and conclusive discussion of the 
controversy over this word is given. See also Zeitschr. fiir neutest. Wiss., 4 
(1903), p. 193. 

2 Blass is unduly sceptical (Gr., p. 64). Deiss. (B. S., p. 208 f.) finds nine 
examples of eXatwi' = ' place of olives' or 'oUve orchard' in vol. I of the Ber. 
Pap., and Moulton (Exp., 1903, p. Ill; Prol., p. 49) has discovered over 
thirty in the first three centuries a.d. In Ac. 1 : 12 it is read by all MSS. 
and is correct in Lu. 19 : 29 (ag. W. H.) and 21 : 37 (ag. W. H.). 'EXaiuv is 
right in Lu. 19 : 37, etc. In Lu. 19 : 29; 21 : 37, question of accent. Cf. 
also afxireXcoi' (from d/xTeXos, LXX, Diod., Plut.) which is now found in 
the pap. 


(from Kvpios, originally adj., eccl. and Byz. writers). l^ivpo-^oLvlKLaaa. 
is the text of J<AKL, etc., in Mk. 7 : 26 as against 26pa ^oLv'iKLaaa. 
in BEFG, etc. In either case (fjoivlKLaaa, not (polpLcraa (Text. 
Rec.) which is the usual feminine of 0otj't|, as KiXto-o-a is of 
KtXt^. Lucian has a masculine I,vpo4>oivL^ and Justin Martyr a 
feminine 1^vpo4>oiv'LK-q. From this last (jjoivlKLcaa probably comes. 
Cf. the use of ^aaiXLaaa, the Atticists preferring /SacnXts or 

'Ilpw8-Lav6s (from 'HpobSrys) and Xpiar-Lavos (from XptcxTos) first 
appear in the N. T., and are modelled after Latin patronymics 
like Caesariamis {Kaiaap-iapos, Arrjan-Epictetus) . Blass^ goes un- 
necessarily far in saying that the N. T. form was Xprjar-Lavos 
(from Xprjaros), though, of course, t and ij at this time had little, 
if any, distinction in pronunciation. MeyLardv is from fxeytaTos 
(as peav from veos)^ Cf. Latin megistanes. MeyLardv is found in 
LXX, Jos., Maneth. UXT^/jLixvpa (LXX, Dion. Hal., Jos., Philo) is 
from 7r\r]fxixr]. There was, of course, no "Christian" or "biblical" 
way of forming words. 

Diminutives are not so common in the N. T. as in the Byzan- 
tine and modern Greek ^ where diminutives are very numerous, 
losing often their original force. Bt/3Xapt5toj' (a new form, but 
compare Xt^aptStoj/) is read in Rev. 10 : 2 by NACP against 
jSt/3Xt5dptoi^ (fragment of Aristoph.) according to C* and most of 
the cursives and ^l^XIov (by B) . Variations occur also in the text 
of verses 8, 9, 10. TwaiKapLOP (from ywrj) is used contemptuously 
in 2 Tim. 3 : 6 (also in Antonin. and Epict.). 'Ixdvdiov (from 
ixdvs), K^Lvidiov and kKlvolplov (from kKIvt]) occur from Aristoph. on. 
Kopaaiov (from Kop-q, called Maced. by Blass) is used disparagingly 
in Diog. Laert. and Lucian, but in LXX and Epict. as in the N. T. 
that is not true, though it hardly has the endearing sense (some- 
times found in the diminutive) in Kwapiov (k6v€s=' street-dogs'), 
but that sense appears often in TTaibiov as in Jo. 21 : 5. 'Ovapiov 
(from ovos) is found in Machon and Epictetus. 'Oypapiov (from 
oypov) is found in Alexis and Lucian, and b^puvLov (likewise from 
o\}/ov) is used by Dion., Polyb., Jos., Apocrypha and papyri. Hre- 

' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 63. Cf. Lipsius, Ursp. dos Christcnnamons, 1873. 
W.-Sch. (p. 135) suggests that these two words are not after the Lat. model, 
but after the type of 'Kai.avb%, which was foreign to the European Greeks. 
But 'kaiavbs (from ' Kaia) is in Thucyd. and besides is not parallel to Xpiaris, 
XpiffT-iaws. Cf. Eckinger, Die Orthog. lat. Worter in griech. luschr., 1893,. 
p. 27. 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 292; Thumb, Ilandb., p. 62. 


pvyLov (from vrrepu^) comes from Arist. down, but \1/lxIop (from 
i^t^) does not appear elsewhere. Both cbrdptoi' {Anthol., Anax.) and 
iOTLov (LXX) are from o5s, but have lost the diminutive idea, just 
as Atdrt in modern Greek means merely 'eye' {omiaTLov) . Blass^ 
indeed accuses Luke of atticising when he uses ovs in Lu. 22 : 50. 

(7) Those from adjectives. The new substantives derived from 
adjectives in the later Greek found in the N. T. all have suffixes 
expressing quality. With -ia we find airo-To^i-la (from airo-TOfios, 
Diod., Dion., pap.); eXa^pta (from e\a(j)p6s, cf. Lob., ad Phryn., 
p. 343. Cf . alaxp-la- from alaxpos, Eust.) ; Trapa4>pop-ia (from irapa- 
<i)pwv. Greek writers use rapacfipo-avvr], but cf. evdai/jLov-ia from eu- 
balfjLWv). So irepiaaeia (from Trepiaads, LXX, inscriptions, Byz.). 
W. H. use the ending -la with KaKoirade-ia (from KaKowadris) . 
With -avvT] several new words occur from adjectives in -os 
with the lengthening of the preceding vowel, as ayadu-avvr] (from 
ayados, eccl.); ajLco-avvrj (from ajLos, not in earlier Greek writers); 
IxeyoKoi-avvr] (from stem fxeyaXo of fieyas, LXX and eccl.). These 
forms are like kpoi-avvri from upbs (also in N. T.) which is as old as 
Herod, and Plato. Still ixeyaKo-avvr] and upo-avvq are both found 
in inscriptions or in Glycas.^ Most of the words in -avvri belong 
to the later language.^ 'EXerjuo-avvrj (from k\er]ij.uu, Callim. in Del., 
Diog. Laert., LXX), like other words in -avvt], loses the v. So 
TairHvo-4>po-avv7] (Jos., Epict.). 

Rather more numerous are the new words in -ttjs,* as 01716-77/5 
(from 0,7105, 2 Mace); ayv6-Tr]s (from d7J'6s, inscriptions); dStj'Ko- 
T7JS (from adrjXos, Polyb., Dion. Hal., Philo); a(j)e\6-Tr]s (from 
a(l)eKr]s, eccl. writers, ancient Greek d^eXeia); yviivb-ryis (from yvix- 
vbs, Deut., Antonin.); /xarato-rjjs (from (xaTaios, LXX and eccl. 
writers); peyaXeLd-rris (from neyaXelos, Athen., Jer.); ttio-tt/s (from 
TTLOJv, Arist., Thcophr., LXX). ' AKadap-TTjs (Rev. 17:4) is not 
supported by any Greek MSS. 

The neuter (and often the mascuhne and feminine) of any ad- 
jective can be used as a substantive with or without the article, as 
TO SoKL/jLLov (from SokLulos, Dcissmann, Bible Studies, p. 259 f., Dion. 
Hal., Long., LXX, papyri). Like ixedopiov (the Syrian reading for 
opia in Mk. 7 : 24) is ■Kpoa<i}ayi.ov {Tpo<T-4>ayLos, —ov from Tpoa-tpa- 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 63. 

2 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 124, n. 14. On the termination -crwrj see Aufrecht, Ber. 
Zeitschr. fur verp;!. Sprachf., 6. Heft. 

3 W.-M., p. 118, n. 1. 

* On words in -ttjs see Lob. ad Phryn., p. 350; Biihler, Das griech. Secun- 
darsuffix ttjs, 1858; Frankel, Gesch. d. Gr. Norn. Ag. (1910). 


yelv, inscriptions) , (T(f)ayLOP (o-</)d7tos, -ov, from <T(})ayn, Am., Ezek.), i'tto- 
\t]ulov {vTroKr]VLos, -ov, from utto \7]p6v, Demiopr. in Poll., Geop., LXX. 
Cf. vTTo-^vyLov). As already seen, ikaa-Tnpiov is probably the neuter 
of the adjective iKaa-r-qpLos, -a, -ov (from iXacr/co/iat) . So <^i;XaK- 
TrjpLov is the neuter of the adjective <i)vKaK-Ty]pios, -a, -ov (from 
4>v\aKTi]p, <i>vKa(jc(ji, Dem., Diosc, Plut., LXX).i ^wTr]pLov and 
auTTjpia (from auTrjpLos) are both common in the old Greek as 
is the case with virep-uov (from vTepwos, -cotos). ZevK-Trjpla (from 
feuK-Tijpios, only in Ac. 27 : 40) reverts to the abstract form in -ia. 

(c) Adjectives. 

1. Primary or Primitive Adjectives. These, of course, come 
from verbal roots. 'A/xdpr-ojXos (from root afxapr-dvco, Arist., 
Plut., LXX, inscriptions) is like (/)et5-wXo5 (4 Mace. 2:9), from 
<^et5-o/xat. UtLd-6s (W. H. tlB-os from ireido}, as ^et5-6s from 4>e'L8ofiat) 
is not yet found elsewhere than in 1 Cor. 2 : 4, but Blass^ regards 
it as "a patent corruption," Tret^oTs for Tret^oT. The evidence is 
in favour of Treidots (all the uncials, most cursives and versions). 
^ayos (from root (f)ay-) is a substantive in the N. T. with paroxy- 
tone accent as in the grammarians, the adjective being 4>ay-bs. 
The other new adjectives from roots in the N. T. are verbals in 
-Tos. There is only one verbal (gerundive) in -reos (Lu. 5 : 38, 
elsewhere only in Basil), and that is neuter (jSXTjreoj'), "a survival 
of the literary language in Luke."'' The sense of capability or 
possibility is only presented by the verbal iraQ-q-Tos (from root 
7ra0-, xdo-xo), eccl. writers). But the weakened sense of the verbal 
in -Tos, more like an ordinary adjective, is very common in the 
later Greek.^ But they are rare in the modern Greek (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 151). These verbals correspond to the Latin participle 
in -tus,^ like yvucrros, or to adjectives in -hilis, like dpards. They 
are common in the N. T., though not many new formations 
appear. They are usually passive like ypaT-Tos (from ypacfio:, 
Georg. apol., LXX), though irpoa-rjXv-TOs {irpoa-'epx-oixai, root 
-qkvB-, LXX, Philo) is active in sense. The ancient form was 

* This termination became rather common in the later Gk., as, for instance, 

in (ij'a/caXi;7rT:7ptOJ', btriT-qpiov, Oavar-qpiov, 'i.a)iari)pi.ov. See also btratton, Lnap- 

ters in the Hist, of Gk. Noun-Formation, 1889. 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. G4. So W.-Sch., p. 135. 

' Viteau, Ess. sur hi Synt. des Voix, Rev. de Thilol., p. 38. 

< Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 297. 'V.k<^v also is wholly adjective and ixk\\<^v 
sometimes so. Cf. Brugmann, Grundr. d. vergl. Gr., p. 429. 

^ W.-M., p. 120. Cf. Viteau, Ess. sur le Synt. de Voix, Rev. de Philol., 
p. 41. For deriv. adj. in the Ptol. pap. see Mayser, Gr., pp. 447-455. 


eTTiyXus. A number of new verbals were formed on compound 
words which will be discussed later. For the syntactical aspects 
of the verbal adjectives see discussion of the participle (cf. Moul- 
ton, Prolegomena, p. 221). 

2. Secondary or Derivative Adjectives. 

(a) Those from verbs. Strtcr-ros (from o-irtfc;, Jos., Athen.) is 
to be mentioned. It is equivalent to the Latin saginatus and is 
passive in meaning. 

(0) Those from substantives. Some new words in -lvos occur 
as anapavTLVos (from afxdpavTos, Philost., inscriptions); Kadrjidep-Lvos 
(from Kad' rj/xepav, Athen., Plut,, Jos.) is for ancient Kad-qixkpLos] 
KOKK-ivos is from kokkos (LXX, Plut., Epict., papyri) ; opOp-ivos (from 
opOpos, LXX, older form opdpLos), with which compare ea-rrep-ivos 
(from iawepa, from Xen. on) in the minusc. 1, 118, 209 (Lu. 12 : 38); 
irpoiLvos (so W. H., from xpcot, for the older Trpcotos, LXX, Plut., 
Athen., etc.); irvp-Lvos (from irvp, Arist., LXX, Polyb., Plut.); 
raxt-vos (from rdxa) from Theocritus on (LXX also). 

There are several words in -lkos, like Wvlkos (from Wvos, Polyb., 
Diod.); Kepafx-LKos (from Kepafxos, Hipp., Plat, pol., LXX) which 
supplanted the earlier KepajXLos, Kepa/jieods; Kvpi-aKos (from Kvptos, 
-aKos instead of -ikos after t, eccl. writers) is found in papyri of 
Fayum and in inscriptions of Phrygia and Lydia.^ So XecTovpyt- 
Kos (from \eiTovpyia, LXX, papyri) and ovlkos (from ovos, in a con- 
tract in the Faytim Papyri dated Feb. 8, a.d. 33). 

Of special interest are several words in -tj^os and -lkos. 'OarpaK- 
ivos (from oarpaKov, Hipp., Anthol., LXX), 'made of clay,' 
'earthen'; aapK-ivos (from aap^, Aristoph., Plato, Arist.) is thus 
not a new word, but is used in Heb. 7 : 16 and by Paul in 1 Cor. 
3:1; Ro. 7 : 14 (correct text in each instance), where many 
MSS. have aapK-iKos. Indeed aapuvos in these two passages must 
mean more than made of flesh or consisting in flesh, perhaps 
"rooted in the flesh" (Thayer) .^ Cf. relation of a\r]d-iv6s to clXtj- 
6ks. Still a real distinction seems to be observed between adpK- 
ivos and aapK-LKos in 1 Cor. 3 : 1 and 3 : 3. Sap/c-i/cos (from adp^, 
Arist., Plut., LXX) is a man who lives according to the flesh 
and is here opposed to those who are irvevnar-LKol (from xi'eO^ua, 
from Arist. down, but not in LXX, pertaining to the wind). 
But 6 rpvx-Liids (from \j/vxv, Arist., Polyb., down) is the man pos- 

> Deiss., B. S., p. 217 f.; Liget, p. 361; Thieme, Die Inschr. v. M., p. 15. 

^ See comm. in loco. W.-M. (p. 123) held that aapKivos was "hardly to be 
tolerated" in Heb. 7 : 16, but Schmiedel (p. 139) has modified that statement. 
Cf. on -iTOs, Donaldson, New Crat., p. 458. 


sessed of mere natural life (1 Cor. 2 : 14) as opposed to regenerate 
{irvevfjiaT-iKos) life (1 Cor. 2 : 15). ZapK-LKos can-be applied to either 
of these two distinct classes.^ But in 1 Cor. 3 : 3 en yap aapKiKol 
eo-re Paul reproaches the Corinthians. Proper names also have 
-tKos, as 'E|3pa-u-6s. Note accent in Tux-ikos. Tcojua-V/cos (from 
TcoMi?) is read in Lu. 23 : 38 by the Western and Syrian MSS., 
common in the literary kolvt] (Polyb., Diod., etc.). 

Aicoi/tos, though found in Plato and Diod., is not a common 
adjective. But cf. LXX, O. T. Apoc, Philo, inscriptions, papyri. 
Cf. Moulton and Milligan, Expositor, 1908, p. 174. AokIulos 
is from So/ci/ii? (Dion. Hal., Long., LXX, papyri). MladLos is 
from uLaOos (LXX, Plut.), while 'Fa^fiaios is common in the lit- 
erary K0LV7]. MeXttrcnos (from ixtKiaca, like da\aa<XLOS from OaXaaaa) 
is read by the Syrian class of documents in Lu. 24 : 42. The 
word occurs nowhere else, though Nic. has /zcXiao-aTos and 
Eustath. neKlaaeios. 

(7) Those fro7n adjectives. There are only a few new adjectives 
of this character, but they present special difficulties. About 
kmovaios (found only in Mt. 6:11 and Lu. 11: 3 and used with 
apros) there has raged a long controversy. It has been derived 
successively from eiri and ovala, 'bread for sustenance,' though 
omia only has the sense of inrap^is in philosophical language (an- 
other theory, ' bread of substance' in the spiritual sense) ; from €7rt 
and ojv {e-irovTLos, kirovaLos, like eKOiv, eKovaLos, etc.), 'bread for the 
present,' though the t in ctti is not allowed to remain with a vowel 
save when a digamma existed as in tTneLKrjs; from eTr-icoj' (eT-eiixi, 
'approach'), like 17 einovaa {wepa), 'the next day' (Ac. 16 : 11), this 
last a common idiom. Lightfoot^ has settled the matter in favour 
of the last position. See also ripefxos (from rjpeixrjs, adv. vpkua, 
Lucian, Eustath., Hesych); vecoreptKos (from vecorepos, 3 Mace, 
Polyb., Jos.). In irepLomLos (from Trept-cov, Treptetjut, LXX) no seri- 
ous problem in etymology arises, for Trept retains the t in composi- 
tion with vowels. It is used with Xaos, to express the idea that 
Israel belongs to God as his very own.^ Xltar-uos (from Trtaros, 

1 See Trench, N. T. Synon., 1890, pp. 268 ff. 

* See Rev. of the N. T., pp. 194-234. Deiss., B. S., p. 214, calls attention 
to Grimm's comment on 2 Mace. 1:8 about tovs kwiovfflovs being added to tov% 
&PTOVS by "three codices Scrgii." Cf. W.-Sch., p. 13G f., n. 23, for full details. 
Cf. Bischoff, 'ETnoljffLos, p. 2G6, Neutest. Wiss., 1906. Debrunner (Clotta, IV. 
Bd., 3. Heft, 1912) argues for iirl rijv ovaav r\titpav, 'for the day in question.' 

» Cf. Lightfoot, Rev. of the N. T., pp. 234-242, for full discussion of 


Plato, Diog., Dion. Hal., in sense of persuading, but Artem., 
Cedrenus and othqf late writers in sense of 'genuine') is hardly 
to be derived from TrtxtcrKo; or ttico and hence =' drinkable.' 
'Genuine nard' is a much more probable meaning. For curious 
details see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 138, n. 24. UoTairos is from the 
older TTobaTTos and occurs in Dion. Hal., Philo, Jos., papyri. 

(5) Those from adverbs. From avw come di/cbrepos (Polyb., LXX, 
Arist.) and avoo-repLKos (Hippoc, Galen); e^do-repos (LXX, Strabo, 
etc.). See also eaw-repos (only N. T.); Karco-repos (Theoc, Hippoc, 
Athen.). Cf. Hagen, Bildung d. griech. Adverbien. 

(d) The Adverb. The adverb (peLooiJLevoos (from the participle 
(j)abbp.ivos, Plut., Mosch., Alex.) is a new word of this nature. Cf. 
dfjLoXoyoviJihcos in the older Greek. So tvxov, ovtoos and vTrep^aWov- 
Tcos. The neuter accusative singular and plural of adjectives con- 
tinue to be used adverbially. Badews occurs also in Theoc. and 
iElian. 'Akixtju (Theoc, Polyb., Strabo) is in the inscriptions also 
as well as ev d/c/iat (cf. Ditt., Syll. 326, 12). 'E/Jpatart (Sirach) is 
properly formed (cf. "EWrjmarL) from Expats. 'lovdaUCos is in Jos. 
See also WvuCbs (Apoll. Dysc, Diog. Laert.). Elrtv (correct text 
Mk. 4 : 28) is a rare Ionic form for eUa (papyri also) . Kei^ws 
is used from Arist. on. 'OXtycos occurs out of the N. T. only in 
Anihol. and Aquila. Ilpcbrcos (correct text Ac. 11 : 26) occurs here 
for the first time. Tr?rcos is found in Polyb., Strabo, Plut. 
'PwjuatVrt is common in the literary kolvj) (Plut., App., etc.) and 
in Epictetus. SojyuartKws comes from Aristotle and Plutarch. 
HvKLKws is in the ecclesiastical writers. ^vcnKchs is in Aristotle, 
Philo, etc. Mayser (GV., pp. 455-459) has a good hst of deriva- 
tive adverbs. See ch. VII for full discussion of the formation 
of the adverb. 

rV. Words Formed by Composition (Composita). The Greek 
in the Ptolemaic papyri is not equal to modern German in the 
facility with which agglutinative compound words (5t7rXa Aris- 
totle termed them) are formed, but it is a good second. The N. T. 
writers make use of many of the new compounds (some new 
kinds also), but not more than the literary kolpti, though more than 
the Atticists or Purists.^ The following lists will show how fond 
the N. T. is of double prepositional compounds hke a.vT-ava-ir\r]pbo3, 
dTTO-zcaT-aXXdcro-co, hiri.-avv-a'yoi, avv-avTL-\ap^avoixaL, etc. So also com- 
pound prepositional adverbs like kvLoiTLov, KaTevchinov, KarkvavTi, etc. 
On the whole subject of compound words in the Ptolemaic papyri 
see Mayser, Gr., pp. 466-506. Compound words played an in- 
^ Schmid, Der Atticismus, Bd. IV, p. 730. 


creasing role in the Koivrj. Cf. Jannaris, op. cit., p. 310. See in 
particular F. Schubert, Zur mehrfachen prdfixalen Zusammen- 
setzung im Griechischen, Xenia Austriaca, 1893, pp. 191 ff. 

(a) Kinds of Compound Words in Greek : proper composition 
(crvvdecns), copulative composition {irapadeais) , derivative composi- 
tion (irapaavudeaLs). In the first class the principal idea is ex- 
pressed by the second part of the word, while the first and 
qualifying part is not inflected, but coalesces with the second, 
using merely the stem with connective vowel. As an example 
take oiKo-vbuos, 'manager of the house.' The second kind of 
composition, paratactic or copulative, is the mere union of two 
independent words hke wapa-KXrjTos. It is not common in the 
old Greek save in the case of prepositions with verbs, and even 
this usage is far more frequent in the later Greek. It is seen in 
many late compound adverbs as in vTep-avco. The third or deriv- 
ative composition is a new word made on a compound, whether 
proper or copulative, as etScoXo-Xarpta (or -ela) from etSwXo-Xarpeuw. 
The above classification is a true grammatical distinction, but it 
will be more serviceable to follow a more practical division of the 
compound words into two classes. Modern linguists do not like 
the term "proper composition." In principle it is the same as 

(6) Inseparable Prefixes. These make a cross-line in the 
study of compound words. They enter into the formation of 
verbs, substantives, adjectives and adverbs. By prefixes here is 
not meant the adverbs and prepositions so commonly used in 
composition, but the inseparable particles d- (av-) privative, d- 
coUective or intensive, dpxi-, 8va-, r\p.L-, vr]-. As examples of such 
new formations in the N. T. may be taken the foUomng substan- 
tives and adjectives (chiefly verbals) with d- privative: d-/3api7s 
(from Arist. down, papyri, in metaphysical sense) ; a-j€vea-\6yT]Tos 
(LXX); a-yva(t)os (Thom. Mag.); a-yporjixa (0. T. Apoc, papyri); 
d7pt-eXaios (Arist., papyri); a-yvokoj (Apoc, papyri); d-STjXorrjs 
(Polyb., Dion. Hal., Philo); d-Std-Kptros (from Hippocrates dowai); 
a.-8La-\eLirTos (Tim. Locr., Attic inscriptions, i/B.c); a.-8ia-(t>6opla 
(not in ancient Greek); a-SwaTeo: (LXX, ancient Greek means 
'to be weak'); a-dkp.LTO'i (for earlier d-^eptaros) ; a-deayios (LXX, 
Diod., Philo, Jos., Plut.) ; d-^er^o; (LXX, Polyb.); d-Katpeo; (Died.); 
a-deT-qais (Diog. Lacrt., eccl. writers, papyri); a-KaTa-yua^aTos 
(2 Mace, eccl. writers, inscriptions, papyri); d-Kara-zcdXi'Trros 
(Polyb., LXX, Philo); d-K-ard-Kptros (earliest example); d-zcard- 
XuTos (4 Mace, Dion. Hal.); d-Kard-Tracrros (found only here. 


This is the reading of AB in 2 Pet. 2 : 14 rather than ct-KaTa- 
iravaTos, verbal of Karairavoi, found in Polyb., Diod., Jos., Plut., 
cf. W. H., App., p. 170; Moulton, Prol., p. 47); a-KaTa-araaia 
(Polyb., Dion. Hal., papyri); a-Kara-cxTaTos (Hippoc, Polyb., 
LXX); d-Kard-(Txeros (LXX, Diod.); a-Kvpbw (Diod., Dion. Hal., 
Plut., 1 Esdr.); d-XdXrjTos (Anth. Pal.); a-nedvaros (LXX, Dion. 
Hal., Plut.); a-idera-deTos (Polyb., LXX, Diod., Plut., inscriptions); 
a-nera-vo-qTos (Lucian, Philo, papyri); av-avrl-priTos (from Polyb. 
down, inscriptions); av-aTro-KoyrjTos (Polyb., Dion. Hal., Plut.); 
av-eK-dL-rj-Y-qTos (Clem. Rom., Athen.) ; di'-k-Xetxros (Diod., Plut., 
papyri); av-ev-5eKTos (Artem., Diog. Laert., eccl., Byz.); av-e^- 
epevvTjTos (LXX, Symm., Dio Cass.); av-e^-LxviaaTos (LXX, eccl. 
writers); av-ew-alaxwTos (Jos.); av-ev-deros (Moschion); di^-tXecos 
(reading in Jas. 2 : 13 of L, other MSS. have di'-eXeos, old Greek 
av-r]\er]s) ; d-vo/xos (LXX, a-vo/Jiia from Thuc); av-viro-TaKTOS (Artem., 
Philo); d-Trapd-jSaros (Jos., Plut., papyri, etc.); a-TeipaaTos (Jos., 
eccl., old Greek d-7retparos) ; a-Tepi-Tn-qTos (LXX, Philo, Plut.); 
a-Trp6a-LTos (lit. KOLvij); a-rrpoa-KOTos (Sir., Sext., inscriptions); a-pa^os 
(LXX, Jos.); a-aiTLkos (Anthol., eccl.); a-aTaTkco{Anthol.); d-o-roxeoj 
(Polyb., Plut., Lucian, papyri); a-arripLKTos (Anthol.); a-4>e\6Tr]s 
(eccl. writers) ; a.-4>dapTo$ (Arist., Wisd., Plut., inscriptions); d-<?!)tX- 
ayados (papyri and 2 Tim. 3:3); a-cj)L\-apyvpos (Diod., Hippoc, 
inscriptions, papyri) .^ 

With dpxt- (from apx^) we have dpx-d77€Xos (eccl); apx-i-epa- 
riKos (inscr., Jos.); apx-i-^p^vs (LXX, inscr.); apxi.-Trot.ixi]v (Test, 
of 12 Patr., wooden tablet from Egypt, Deissmann, Exp. Times, 
1906, p. 61); apxi-crvv-aywyo^ (inscr., eccl.); dpxi-reXdjvrjs (only in 
Lu. 19:2); apxi--rpl-K\ivos (Heliod., cf. avp.Troai-apxy]s in Sirach). 
Cf. apxi.-4>v\aKlTr]s, P.Tb. 40 (b.C. 117), apxi--^ea p.o-^v\a^ (LXX). 

With d- connective or intensive are formed a-veyj/ibs (for a-veir- 
Tios, LXX, cf. Lat. con-nepot-ius), a-revl^co (Polyb., Diod., Jos., 
Lucian) .^ 

With dva- we have 8v<r-^a(TTaKTos (LXX, Philo, Plut.); 8v(t- 
evrepLov (late form, correct text in Ac. 28 : 8, older form bm-tvTepla) ; 

1 Cf. Hamilton, The Neg. Comp. in Gk., 1899. "The true sphere of the 
negative prefix is its combination with nouns, adjectives and verbal stems 
to form adjective compounds" (p. 17). Cf. also Margarete Heine, Subst. 
mit a privativum. Wack. (Verm. Beitr. zur griech. Sprachk., 1897, p. 4) 
suggests that ^Stjs is from ael and -de, not from d- and Idetv. Ingenious! Cf. 
Wack. again, Das Dehnungsgesetz der griech. Composita, 1889. 

2 Cf. on a- connective or intensive, Don., New Crat., p. 397. Also Doder- 
lein, De aX</)a intense, 1830. 


8v(x-eptJi^v€VTos (Diod., Philo, Artcm.); 8v(T-v6r]Tos (Arist. Diog. 
Laert.); 8v(r-(j)r]nla (LXX, Dion. Hal., Plut.). 

With rifj.L- (cf. Lat. semi) are found only fifiL-dap-qs (Dion. Hal., 
Died., LXX, Strabo), rjfxi-ojpov (so W. H., Strabo, Geop., ^{P have 

—WpiOv). Cf. V/JLLCVS. 

For vrj-- note vrjina^oi (Hippoc, eccl.). 

(c) Agglutinative Compounds {Juxtaposition or Parathesis). 
This sort of composition includes the prepositions and the cop- 
ulative composition {dvaiidvd). This last is much more com- 
mon in the kolvt] than in the older Greek. Cf. Jannaris, op. cit., 
p. 310, and Mayser, Gr., p. 469. 

1. Verbs. The new compound verbs are made either from 
compound substantives or adjectives or by combining adverbs 
with a verb-stem or noun-stem or by adding a preposition to the 
older verb. This last method is very frequent in the later Greek 
due to "a love for what is vivid and expressive."^ This embel- 
lishment of the speech by compounds is not absent from the sim- 
plest speech, as Blass- shows in the case of Titus, where over thirty 
striking compound words are found, omitting verbals and other 
common ones. Moulton {CI. Quarterly, April, 1908, p. 140) shows 
from the papyri that the compound verb is no mark of the literary 
style, but is common in the vernacular also. The preposition fills 
out the picture as in avTi-fxeTpeco (Lucian), and so avrL-Xafx^avo) 
(Diod., Dio Cass., LXX). So also observe the realistic form of 
the preposition in e^-aarpaTTco (LXX, Tryphiod.) in Lu. 9 : 29; 
Kara-Xt^dfco (eccl. writings) in Lu. 20 : 6. The modern Greek 
even combines two verbs to make a compound, as irai^w-yeXo). 
As examples of new compound verbs may be given ayadovpyeo:, 
ayadoepyeo), in 1 Tim. 6 : 18 (eccl.) ; ayado-Troikco (LXX, later writers) ; 
dXX-777opeco (Philo, Jos., Plut., grammatical writers); dm-faw (in- 
scriptions, later writers) ; ava-dew-pko: (Diod., Plut , Lucian) ; dm- 
araTo-o) (LXX, papyri); df-erdfoj (LXX, papyri); avTL-ha-TLdTi]iii 

1 W.-M., p. 127. Cf. Winer, De Verb, cum Praep. compos, in N. T. usu, 

^ Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 70. Mostly adj., but ireid-apxtlv occurs in the list. 
Blass, ib., p. 65, even thinks that it is not the province of granunar to discuss 
the numerous compounds with prepositions. It belongs to the lexicon. The 
lists that I give are not complete for prepositional compounds because of lack 
of space. See Helbing (Gr. d. Sept., pp. 128-130) for good list of compound 
verbs in the LXX. Mayser (Gr., pp. 48G-506) gives list of compountl verbs 
in the Ptol. pap. The Koi.vri is fond of compound verbs made of noun and 
verb. Cf. d iT€KVOTp64>ri<Tev, el £^€co56x'70^ti' (1 Tim. 5 : 10). So v\prj\o<i>poi'eii' 

(text of W. H. in 6: 17). 


(Philo, eccl. writers); avTL-Tvap-kpxo-jJLai {Anthol., Sap., eccl. writers, 
Byz.); avT-o(l)da\neo: (Sap., Polyb., eccl. writers); dTr-eXTrt^w (LXX, 
Polyb., Diod., inscriptions); airo-ypaepofxaL (papyri); airoSrjaavpi^c^ 
(Sir., Diod., Jos., Epict.); dTro-Ke^aXtfco (LXX, Epict., etc.); aW- 
ePT€0} (Polyb., papyri); yovv-Tereoo (Polyb., Heliod., eccl. writers); 
Sia-yvopl^co (Philo, schol. in Bekk.); Sta-yoyyv^o: (LXX, Heliod., 
Byz.); ha-yp7]yopeoi (Herod., Niceph.); h-avya^w (Polyb., Plut.); 
8La-4>T]iJ.i^w (Aratus, Dion. Hal.); dL-epixrjvevo} (2 Mace, Polyb., 
Philo); 5t-o5ei;co (LXX, Polj^b., Plut.); 5oi;X-a7co7eco (Diod. Sic. and 
on); dp-qvo-iroLkw (LXX, Hermes); kK-dairavaoi (Polyb.); eK-biKkw 
(LXX, Apoll., Diod.); €M-/3aTeuco (inscr.); kv-KaivL^oi (LXX); kv- 
Ka/ceco (Polyb., gymm. translation of LXX, Philo, Clem. Rom.); 
kv-xploo (Tob., Strabo, AnthoL, Epict.); e^-aprtfco (Jos., Hipp.); 
e^-iaxvco (Sir., Strabo, Plut.); ein-aKr]v6oi (Polyb.); eTn-(l>avaKoi 
(LXX, Acta Thom.); kiri-xop-qykoi (Dion. Hal., Phal., Diog. Laert., 
Alex. Aphr.); erepo-bLhaaKciKko: (eccl. writers); lTepo-l;vy'ew (LXX); 
ev-apeareoo (LXX, Philo, Diod.); ev-doKeco (probably simply from 
ev and SoKeco, as there is no such form as 86kos or evdoKos, and cf. 
Kapa-Soaew in Polyb., Diod., Dion. Hal.); evdv-bpoiikoi (Philo); 
ev-Kaipeco (from Polybius on, papyri); ev-Tpoa-coweco (P. Tb., Chrys.); 
dripLo-naxeco (Diod., Artem., Ign.); ^wo-yopeca (Theophr., Diod., 
Lucian, Plut.) ; fcoo-Troieoj (Arist., Theophr., LXX) ; mK-oi^xew (from 
obsolete KaK-ovxos, i.e. KaKov, exw, LXX, Diod., Dio Cass., Plut.); 
KaXo-TToteco (Et>Tn. Magn., LXX, Philo); Kara-^apeoo (Polyb., 
Diod., App., Lucian papyri); KaT-ayuvl^oiJLaL (Polyb., Jos., Lucian, 
Plut., iElian); Kar-avTaoo (Polyb., Diod., eccl. writers, papyri); 
KaTa-Kk-qpo-boTew (LXX); Kara-TTovkw (2 and 3 Macc, Hipp., Polyb., 
Diod., Jos., ^EL, etc.); /car-e^-ouo-tdfoj (only N. T.); Kar-oTTpl^co 
(Athen., Diog. Laert., Philo); if the conjectural Kev-efx-^aTevo) in 
Col. 2 : 18 be correct (as is now no longer probable), Kev-ep.- 
^aTTf]s has to be presupposed; Xa-rofxeco (LXX, Diod., Dion. Hal., 
Strabo); Xido-jSokkoo (LXX, Diod., Plut.); Xoyo-piaxeoo (only instance 
in 2 Tim. 2 : 14) ; ixaKpo-dvu'ew, (LXX, Plut.) ; iied-tpp.r]vehcji (Polyb., 
Diod., Sir., Plut.); fxera-ixopcjido} (Diod., Philo); ixeTpLo-iraQeo} (Philo, 
Jos.) ; noaxo-Tvoikco (LXX and eccl. writers) ; p.v-wTra^w (Arist.) ; oUo- 
Seo-TToreco (Lucian, Plut.) ; bpLeipojiai is a puzzle (Fritzsche derives it 
from 6/xoO and el'pco, but other compounds with 6/xoO have instru- 
mental-associative, not genitive case, as 6jut-Xeco, from ojutXos 
{bpLov, '[Xr]); Photius and Theophr. get it from ofiov rjpfxdadaL; but, 
as Nicander uses fxelpo/xaL Ifxelpopai, modern editors print 6/xeL- 
pbjxevoi in 1 Th. 2 : 8 (6-, W. H., elsewhere only in Job and 
Synom., Ps. 62) ; bpdo-irobkw (only instance) ; opdo-rofieco (LXX, eccl. 


writers) ; 6xXo-7roieco (only in Ac. 17:5); Trapa-^okevonaL (inscr. 
ii/A.D.); Trap-eia-epxofJLaL (Polyb., Philo, Plut.) ; Trept-Xd/xTraj (Diod., 
Jos., Plut.) ; 7rX?7po-0op€a} (LXX, eccl. writers) ; Trpo-eXTrifco (Posid., 
Dexipp., Greg. N.); irpoa-eyyi^oi (LXX, Polyb., Diod., Lucian); 
Tpo(T-K\r]p6oo (Philo, Plut., Lucian); TrpoacoTo-XTjuTTeco (N. T. word); 
0vp-av^ap(jo (LXX, inscriptions) ; cruv-aTroo-reXXoj (LXX, papyri, in- 
scriptions); (XTparo-Xoyea) (Diod., Dion. Hal., Jos., Plut., etc.); (Polyb., Plut.) and many other verbs with aw; 
TeKTO-yovecx) (Anthol.) ; TeKvo-rpo4)ew (Arist.) ; Terpa-apxkio (Jos.) ; 
TpoTro-<i)opkcii (LXX and eccl. writers, so W. H. with NBDHLP, 
etc., in Ac. 13 : 18); Tpo<i>o-(i>opk(j: (LXX and eccl. writers, so ACE 
and some cursives in Ac. 13 : 18) ; vTep-irXeovd^w (Ps. Sal, He- 
rond., Herm.); viro-XLijnravoo (Themist., Dion. Hal., eccl. and Byz.); 
(t)L\o-TpcoT€va) (Artem., Plut.); 4>pev-airaTaoi (eccl. and Byz. writers); 
Xpovo-TpL^kb} (Arist., Plut., Heliod., Byz. writers). Thus, it will 
be noticed, verbs compounded with nouns are very common in 
the KOLvr}. 

Often two prepositions are used in composition with the same 
verb, where the proper meaning must be given to each. The use 
of double prepositional compounds grew rapidly in the kolvt); cf. 
Schmid, Att. IV, pp. 708 ff. Mayser gives a long hst in the Ptol. 
papyri (Gr., pp. 497-504), some of which are old and some new. 
Of 162 examples 96 are new. The N. T. is in perfect accord with 
the KOLvrj here. So it is with avTL-Trap-'epxop.aL {Anthol., Wisdom, 
eccl. and Byz. writers) in Lu. 10 : 31; avr-ava-wX-qpooi in Col. 1 : 24 
(Dem., Dio Cass., Apoll. Dysc); avTL-BLa-TidrjpL (Philo, Diod.); 
airo-KaT-aXKacrcrw (not in old Greek), cTrt-Sta-rdo-ffo/xat (only in 
N. T.); ewL-avv-ayoj (LXX, yEsop, Polyb.); /car-e^-ouo-tdi'co (only in 
N. T.); ■Kap-aa-' (Polyb., Philo, Plut.); Tpo-ev-apxcfxaL (only 
in N. T.) ; aw-ava-plyvvjiL (LXX, Plut.) ; avu-ava-iravopai (LXX, 
Dion. Hal., Plut.); (jvv-avTL-\aix^avo}xo.L (LXX, Diod., Jos., inscrip- 
tions, papyri); virep-eK-xvvoj (LXX); u7r€p-ej'-TU7xdj'aj (eccl.). There 
is in the papyri (P. Tb. I, 66) a triple prepositional compound, 

2. Substantives. Here again the new compound substantive 
draws on verbs, substantives, adjectives, adverbs and pri^posi- 
tions for part or all of the word. There are also double compound 
substantives from compound substantives, adjectives, adverbs and 
prepositions like Trpoawiro\rifji\l/La, dXXorpteTriaKOTros, SiairapaTpL^r]. The 
great majority have substantive or adjective for the second half 
of the word. These nouns are more often abstract than concrete, 
' Ayado-TToua (from adjective and verb-stem, eccl. writers); ayado- 


TTotos (adjective and verb-stem, Sirach, Plut. and later papyri); 
aypL-kXaLos (from iiypLOS and eXaios, Arist.); alixaT-eK-xvala (from 
substantive, preposition and verb x^'i'co, eccl. writers) ; aKpo-^vaHa 
(LXX) ; aXeKTopo-4>o:vLa (iEsop, Strabo, ecel. writers) ; aXXoTpL-eiri- 
cKOTTos (from dXXorptos and eiri-aKoiros, Dion. Areop., eccl. writers. 
Deissmann finds a synon3rm for the word in aXXoTploov kindviiri- 
TTjs, Fayum Papyri. See Bible Studies, p. 224); afxcji-odop (LXX, 
Aristoph., Hyper., papyri); dm-5et^ts (Sir., Polyb., Plut.); dra- 
(TTpo(j)r] in the ethical sense (LXX, Polybius on, inscriptions in 
Pergamum and Magnesia) ; dm-xuats (Strabo, Philo, Plut.) ; av9- 
vTaros (Polyb., Dion. Hal., Lucian, Plut., inscriptions); avTi-\vTpov 
(one translation of Ps. 48 : 9, Orph.) ; clvtI-xplcttos (probably 
formed by John, eccl.); apyvpo-Kowos (Plut., LXX, papyri); apaevo- 
Kolrris (Anthol., eccl.); diro-Kapa-SoKla (verb -ceo in LXX, Jos., Plut.); 
acTL-apxvs (inscriptions, Polyc); ya^o-4)v\aKLov (LXX, Jos., Strabo); 
yXoiaao-Kofxov (earlier yXo^aaoKOfxetov, LXX, Jos., Plut., Longin., in- 
scriptions, papyri); 8eLaL-8aLiJLovia (Polyb., Diod., Jos., Plut.); deaixo- 
(j)v\a^ (Jos., Lucian, Artem., dpx'-Seo-juo-^uXa^, LXX); h-epixri-via 
(only in AD 1 Cor. 12 : 10; bi-tpix-qvevTq'i probably correct 1 Cor. 
14 : 28, {<AKL against Ipix-qvtvT-qs by BDFG) ; ha-Tvapa-Tpi^i] (not 
found elsewhere) is the correct text for 1 Tim. 6 : 5, not irapa- 
dia-TpL^ri, which may be compared with Trapa-KaTa-dr]-Krj in 2 Tim. 
1 : 12, but Trapa-drj-KT] (Herod., LXX, inscriptions, papyri) is the 
true reading; ScoSe/cd-^uXov (Clem, of Rome, N. T. Apoc); 5t/cato- 
KpL<ria (Test, xii Pat., eccl., papyri); 8(jopo-(f)opia is read by MSS. 
BDFG against diaKovia in Ro. 15:31; kdeXo-dprjada (from verb 
e^eXco and OprjaKia, eccl., cf. kdcXo-dovXeia) ; etSwXo-Xarpeta (W. H. -la, 
two substantives, eccl.) and ei5coXo-Adrpr;s (eccl.) ; d\i-KplveLa (LXX, 
Theophr. Sext., Stob.); k-TrXTjpcoo-ts (2 Mace, Dion. Hal., Philo, 
Strabo); eK-Teveia (2 Mace, Judith, inscriptions); ev-e8pov (late 
form of kvk8pa, LXX); el-ara-ara-o-ts (double compound, Polyb.); 
eTTL-avv-ayojyr} (double compound, 2 Mace, inscriptions, Artem., 
Ptol.); eTL-av-aracns (double compound, LXX, Philo, Sext.); eTrt- 
xop-rjyia (eccl.) ; ev-8oKia (LXX, inscriptions) ; evp-aKvXuv (a hybrid 
from evpos and Lat. aquilo, like auto-mobile; so W. H. for Text. 
' Rec. €vpo-K\v8o:v in Ac. 27 : 14, which is Etjin. Magn. alone) ; 
ri8v-ocrnos (Strabo, Theophr.); 'lepo-o-oXu/ietrrjs (Jos.); /caXXt-eXatos 
(Arist.); KaXo-StSdo-zcaXos (only in Tit. 2:3); KapSLo-yvo^aTrjs (eccl. 
writers) ; Kar-ayyeXevs (inscriptions) ; /card-^epa (onty in Rev. 22 : 3) ; 
KaTa-Kpifia (Sir., Dion. Hal., papyri); Kara-XeLfxpa (N^'DEFGKLP 
in Ro. 9:27 for utto-X, LXX, Gal.); Kar-ijyojp (papyri; cf. Deiss- 
mann, Light, p. 90; Radermacher, Gr., p. 15); /card-Xu^a (LXX, 


Polyb., Diod.); KaTa-ireTacrna (LXX, Jos., Aristeas, Philo, inscrip- 
tions); Kepo-8o^la (4 Macc, Polyb., Philo, Plut., Lucian); koct/xo- 
Kparcop (Orph., eccl. writers, inscriptions); kojuo-toXls (Strabo, Ag. 
and Theod., eccl.); Xoyo-fxaxla (only in 1 Tim. 6:4); fiaTaio-'Xoyla 
(Plut., Porph.); ixtao-vvK-Tiov (Arist., LXX, Koivi) writers); titab- 
TOLXov (Erat.); nea-ovpavqiJLa (Manetho, Plut.); utT-oLKtala (LXX, 
Anthol); ixiad-aTvo-boola and -boTiqs (eccl.); ncopo-'Koyla (Arist., 
Plut.); vono-didaaKaXos (eccl); vvxQ-w^pov (Alex., App., Geop.); 
OLKoSeaTOT'ns (Alexis, Jos., Plut., Ign., etc.); oko-doixi) (possibly 
Arist., Theophr., certainly LXX, Diod., Philo, Jos., Plut., con- 
demned by Phrynichus); olvo-iroT-qs (Polyb., LXX, Anthol., 
Anacr); oKiyo-TnaTla (eccl. and Byz.); 6\o-KKr]pla (LXX, Diog. 
Laert., Plut.); opK-wixoaia (LXX, Jos., rd 6pK-coiJ.6aia in Attic); 
opo-deala (eccl.) ; dcpdaXfxo-dovUa (only instance is in N. T.); 
TToKiv-yeveaia (Philo, Longin., Lucian, Plut.); iravTo-KpaTOip (LXX, 
eccl., Anthol); Tapa-K\r]Tos (Aq. Theod., Diog. Laert., Dio Cass., 
papyri, inscriptions); irapa-x^Liiaala (Polyb., Diod.); TaTpL-dpxv^ 
(LXX); Tepi-deaLs (Arr., Gal., Scxt.); ivepi-Kad-apixa (LXX, Epict., 
Curt.); trepL-oxv (Theophr., Diod., Plut., etc.); Trept-ro/xi? (LXX, 
Jos., papyri) ; wepl-rj/'qi^a (Tob., Ign.) ; Tpav-waOla (Philo, Ign.) ; Tpo- 
avXiOP (Pollux); Trpo-aa^^arov (LXX, eccl.) ; ir po<T-aLT7]s (lit. KOLvr]); 
irpoa-Kop-na (LXX, Plut.); irpoa-KapTep-qaLS (inscriptions, 81 A.D.); 
Trpo(r-KVPT]Tr]s (inscriptions, eccl., Byz.); Tcpoa-4>ayi.ov (inscriptions, 
01^01' 'Attikws, irpoa-ipayLOV 'EWrjVLKoJs, Moeris); Trpo(TO}iro-\r]ixirTr]s 
(Chrys.); Trpoo-coTro-Xr^M'/'ta (eccl.); irpwT0-Kade8pLa (eccl.; xpcoro-KXiaia 
(eccl. writers); -n pcoro-TOKLa (LXX, Philo, Byz.); pa^8-ovxos (pd/35os, 
exw, literary kolvt}); pabi-ovpynp-a (literary Koivq, eccl.); aapb-bw^ 
(Jos., Plut., Ptol.); (jLTo-pLiTpLov ( Polyb., Diod., Jos., inscriptions); 
aKT]vo-Tr]yia (Arist., LXX, Philo, inscriptions); cK-qvo-iroLbs (^Elian, 
eccl.); aKkripo-Kapdia (LXX); (XTpaTo-ired-apxos, -apxv^ (reading of 
Syrian class in Ac. 28 : 16), though critical text rejects both 
(Dion. Hal., Jos., Lucian) ; o-uKo-yuopea (Geop.) ; various new words 
with avv, like (Tvv-aLxlJia.\coTOS, avv-KaTa-dea-is, <jvv-K\it]povbp.os (Philo, 
inscriptions); cfvu-kolvcovos, avv-o8ia (LXX, Strabo, Jos., Epict., 
Plut.); avv-Trpea-^vTtpos, (XVV-Tpo(t>os (LXX), etc.; TaTTiLVO-^poavvT] 
(Jos., Epict.); TeKvo-yovia (Arist.); rtrpa-dpx'js (Strabo, Jos.); vlo- 
Beaia (Diod., Diog. Laert., inscriptions); uTrep-ketm (Byz. and eccl.); 
VTTO-y panixb^ (2 Macc, Philo, eccl.); VTb-Xeifxpa (from i)7ro-Xel7rw, 
LXX, Arist., Thcoph., Plut., Galen) ; vtvo-X^plop (LXX, Demioph.) ; 
viro-TrbbiOP (LXX, Lucian, Att.); viro-aToXi) (Jos., Plut.); viro-Tayi] 
(Dion. Hal.); viro-Tvirooais (Sext. Emp., Diog. Laert.); <i>ptp-aTra.Tj]s 
(papyri, eccl. writers) ; xaXKo-Xt/3aj^oi^ (LXX) ; x^i-po-ypo.(l>ov (Polyb., 


Dion. Hal., Tob., Plut., Artem., papyri); xp€-o</>€tX€r7js (from 
xpeos or xpe<^s and dcpeLKerrjs, LXX, ^Esop, Plut., Dion. Hal.); 
XprjcrTo-Xoyia (Eust., eccl. writers); xp^'o'o-Xt^os (Diod., LXX, Jos.); 
Xpvo-o-irpaaos (only in Rev. 21:20); \pev8-a8eX(j>6s, \pev8-aT6crTo\os, 
xpevdo-didaaKaXos, \pev86-xpi-o-Tos are all compounds of \pev8r]s and are 
N. T. words; ^ev8o-irpo4>r]Ty]s (ancient Greek 4^ev8bixavTLs) is found 
in LXX, Philo, Jos.; \}/ev86-ijLapTvs (LXX) and \l/ev8o-txapTvpla 
both go back to Plato and Aristotle. The papyri show many 
examples of such compounds. Cf. Kwixo-ypaix^iaTevs, P.Tb. 40 
(B.C. 117). 

3. Adjectives. It will not be necessary to repeat the adjec- 
tives formed with inseparable prefixes d-, etc. The method of 
many grammars in dividing the compounds according to the 
element in the first or second part has not been followed here. It 
is believed that the plan adopted is a simpler and more rational 
exposition of the facts. These adjectives are compounded of 
two adjectives like 6\Ly6->pvxos, an adjective and substantive like 
aKpo-ycjouLalos or vice versa avOpcorr-apeaKos; a substantive and a 
verbal like x^tpo-TrotTjros; a preposition and a verb like (xv/ji-iradr]s, 
with two prepositions and verbal like Tap-eia-aKTos; an adverb 
and a preposition and a verbal like ev-Trp6a-8eKTos, etc. The ad- 
jective compounds used in the N. T. characteristic of the kolvt] 
are somewhat numerous. ' Ayado-iroLos (Sirach, Plut.); aypt-tXaLos 
(Anthol.) ; dKpo-ycjvLOLos (eccl.) ; aXXo-yevqs (LXX and Temple 
inscriptions meant for gentiles to read); av-e^l-KaKos (from dj/d, 
exo/uat and KaKos, Lucian, Justin M., Poll., papyri); avdpooTr-dpeaKos 
(LXX, eccl.); dwo-SeKros (Scxt. Emp., Plut., inscriptions); diro-aw- 
d7co7os (2 Esdi'.) ; dpn-yepi'riTos (Lucian, Long.) ; avTo-Kard-KpLTos 
(eccl. writers) ; ^apv-Tiixos (Strabo) ; ypa-6i8ris (from 7paDs, el8os, 
Strabo, Galen) ; 8e^Lo-\di3os (true reading in Ac. 23 : 23, late eccl. 
writers); Seurepo-Trpcoros (cf. 8evTep-e(Txo.Tos, only MSS. in Lu. 6: 1); 
8L-dd\aaaos (Strabo, Dio Chrys., eccl.); 8i-\pvxos (eccl.); 'h-dap-^os 
(Polyb., eccl.); eK-Tevrjs (Polyb., Philo); eK-rpofios (only in KD 
Heb. 12:21, other MSS., ev-rpo/xos, LXX, Plut.); e/c-0o(3os (Arist., 
Plut.) ; eTTL-dapcLTLOS (Dion. Hal.) ; e-m-Tr6dr]TOS (eccl.) ; hepo-yXwa- 
<jos (LXX, Strabo, Philo); ev-dpecrros (Wisd., eccl., inscr., but 
Xen. has euapeurcos) ; ev-KOwos (Polyb., LXX^) ; ev-XoyriTOS (LXX, 
Philo); ev-fxeT6.-8oTos (Anton.); ev-Tdp-e8pos (for Text. Rec. ev-irp6a- 
eSpos, Hesych.) ; ev-wepi-aTaTos (only in Heb. 12 : 1) ; ev-Tr p6(7-8eKTos 
(Plut., eccl.); €vpv-xo}pos (Arist., LXX, Diod., Jos.); ev-awXayxvos 
(Hippoc, LXX, eccl. writers); deo-8l8aKTos (eccl.); deo-irvevaros 
(Plut., Phoc, eccl. writers, inscriptions); to--d77eXos (cf. lao-deos, 


Philo, eccl.); loo-TLfxos (cf. ia6-\l/vxos, Philo, Jos., Plut., Lucian, 
^lia, etc.) ; Kadrjueptvos (from Kad' r]fxepau, Judith, Theophr., Athen., 
Plut., Alciph., Jos.); Kar-eiScoXos (only in Ac. 17 : 16); Kev6-8o^os 
(Polyb., Diod., Philo, Anton., eccl. writers); Xa-^ewros (LXX); 
XeLT-ovpyLKos (LXX, eccl. writers); fxaKpo-xpovLos (LXX, Hipp., 
Agath.); /xarato-XoYos (Telest.) ; fxoyL-XaXos (LXX, schol. to 
Lucian); veb-cjiVTos (LXX, papyri, Aristophanes?); oKra-rnjiepos 
(eccl. writers); oXLyo-Tnaros (only in N. T.); okLyo-xl/vxos (LXX, 
Artem.); oXo-reXiys (Plut., Hexapla, eccl. writers); irav-ovpyos 
(Arist., KOLvi], LXX) ; Trapa-XuTtKos (eccl. writers) ; Trap-etcr-aKros 
(Strabo); Tvap-eirl-b-qixos (Polyb., Athen., LXX); Tarpo-Tapa-SoTos 
(Diod., Dion. Hal., eccl. writers); irevTe-KaL-8eKaTos (Diod., Plut., 
etc.); iroXXa-TXaaio^v (Polyb., Plut., etc.); TroXv-airXayxi^os (LXX, 
Theod. Stud.); woXv-TLiJios (Plut., Herodian, Anthol); TrorapLo- 
(f)6pr}Tos (only in Rev. 12 : 15 and Hesych.); 7rpo-/3art/c6s (from 
TTpb-^arov, LXX, Jo. 5:2); irpba-Kaipos (4 Macc, Jos., Dio Cass., 
Dion. Hal., Strabo, Plut., Herodian); ■Kpo-(f)r]TLKbs (Philo, Lucian, 
eccl.); TrpwTb-TOKos (LXX, Philo, Anthol., inscriptions, eccl.); o-tjto- 
/SpcoTOS (LXX, Sibyll. Or.) ; aKkripo-rpaxv^os (LXX) ; aKooXrjKb-^pooros 
(Theophr.) ; avfji-fiopcfyos (Lucian, Nicand.) ; avix-irad-qs (LXX) ; abv- 
\j/vxos (eccl. writers) ; ow-eK-XeKrbs (onlj^ in 1 Pet. 5 : 13) ; avv-aufxos 
(eccl. writers) ; av-ararLKbs (Diog. Laert.) ; jaiT€Lvb-4)poiv (from ra- 
iriLvbs, 4>p'nv, LXX, Plut.); Tpi-areyos (Dion. Hal., Jos., Symm.); 
4>6Lv-oTO)pLvbs (Arist., Polyb., Strabo, Plut.); 4>L\-ayadbs (Arist., 
Polyb., Wisd., Plut., Philo); </)tX-ai;Tos (Arist., Philo, Plut., Jos., 
Sext.); 4)l\-7]8ovos (Polyb., Plut., Lucian, etc.); 0tX6-0eos (Arist., 
Philo, Lucian, etc.); (fypev-airaTrjs (eccl. writers); x^i-P-o-y^yos 
(Artem., Plut., etc.); x^'^po-TroirjTos (LXX, Polyb., Dion. Hal., 
papyri); xpv<^o-daKTv\Los (Jas. 2 : 2, elsewhere only in Hesych.). 
It will be apparent from this list how many words used in 
the N. T. appear first in Aristotle or the literary kolvt]. Aris- 
totle was no Atticist and broke away from the narrow vocab- 
ulary of his contemporaries. Many of these late words are found 
in the papyri and inscriptions also, as is pointed out. But we 
must remember that we have not learned all that the papyri and 
inscriptions have to teach us. Cf. also the numeral adjective 
SeKa-Tcaaapes (LXX, Polyb., papyri).^ Sec further chapter VII, 

4. Adverbs. The late Greek uses many new adverbs and new 
kinds of adverbs (especially compounds and prepositional ad- 
verbs). For list of the new prepositional adverbs see chapter on 
1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 70. 


prepositions. These are usually formed either from adjectives 
like kv-6}inov (neuter of h-doTLoi) or by composition of preposition 
and adverb as in virep-avoo, or preposition and adjective as in eK-we- 
PLcr-aov, or two or more prepositions (prepositional adverbs as in 
aT-kv-avTi), or a preposition and a noun-root as in airo-Toiiws, or a sub- 
stantive and a verl3 as in vow-exois, or an adjective and a substan- 
tive as in Trav-Tr\r]6ei, or an adjective and an adverb as in irav-roTe, 
or a preposition and a pronoun as in k^-avrrjs. In a word, the com- 
pound adverb is made from compound adjectives, substantives, 
verbs with all sorts of combinations. The kolvt} shows a distinct 
turn for new adverbial combinations and the N. T. illustrates 
it very clearly. Paul, especially, doubles his adverbs as in vrep- 
eK-wepLaaov. These adverbs are generally formed by parathetic 
composition and are used as prepositions in the later Greek, in- 
correctly so according to Blass.^ But it must be remembered that 
the KOLVT] developed according to its own genius and that even the 
Atticists could not check it. In Luke Trav-wk-qdd (Lu. 23 : 18) and 
irav-oLKei (Ac. 16 : 34) are not derived from adjectives or previous 
adverbs, but from substantives (perhaps assoc. instr.). As to the 
use of adverbs as prepositions, all prepositions were originally 
adverbs (cf. h-avTlov). In the later language we simply can see 
the process of development in a better state of preservation. No 
magical change has come over an adverb used with a case. It is 
merelj^a helper of the case-idea and is part of the analj'tic linguistic 

The chief compound adverbs used in the N. T. characteristic 
of the KOLVT] are here given. As the list of adverbs is much smaller 
than those of verbs, substantives and adjectives, compounds 
with d- privative are included here. 'A-Sta-XetTrrcos (Polyb., Diod., 
Strabo, 1 Mace, papyri) ; ava-fxeaov and ava-fiepos is the Text. Rec. 
in Rev. 7 : 17 and 1 Cor. 14 : 27, but this is not the modern edit- 
ing, rather ava p-kaov, etc.; av-avTL-pT]To)s (Polyb., etc.); avTL-irkpa 
(Xen. avTL-wepav, Polyb., etc.); aiv-kvavTL (Polyb., LXX, papyri 
and inscriptions) ; d-Trept-o-.Trdo-rws (Polyb., Plut.) ; airo-ToiJLOJs 
(Polyb., Diod., Wisd., Longin.); 87]\-avyw (so KCLA in Mk. 
8 : 25 for TT]\-avyC}s) ; bLa-iravrbs is the way Griesbach and Tisch. 
print 5td wavros; e/c-7raXai (Philo and on, inscriptions); eK-revoos 
(Polyb., LXX, inscriptions); ev-avTL (LXX, inscriptions); h-ooiTLov 
(Theoc, LXX, papyri); e^-a-n-Lva (LXX, Jamb., Byz.); h^-avTTjs 
(Theogn., Arat., Polyb., Jos., etc.); k^-aira^ (Lucian, Dio Cass., 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 65. Cf. Mayser's Gr., pp. 485 ff. Jannaris, 
§ 1490. 


etc.); Kae-e^7]s (iElian, Plut.); KaT-h-avTL (LXX, Hermas); Kar- 
ev-wTTLov (LXX) ; vovv-ex^os (Arist., Polyb.) ; irap-Tr\r]d€l (Dio Cass.) ; 
Trav-oLKei (rejected by the Atticists for iravoLKia [LXX], Plato Eryx., 
Philo, Jos.); Tvav-TOTe (Sap., Menancl., Dion. Hal., condemned by 
the Atticists for eKaaTOTe) ; irap-eKTOS (LXX); 7rpocr-<j!)drcos (LXX, 
Polyb., Alciph.); virep-avoo (Arist., LXX, Polyb., Jos., Plut., etc.); 
virep-eKeiva (Byz. and eccl.); vTep-eK-irepL(xaov (Dan. 2:22, Aid., 
Compl.); vTrep-eK-7repL(T(Tus (T, W. H. marg. 1 Th. 5:13, Clem. 
Rom.); virep-Xiav (Eust.); virep-wepLaaais (only Mk. 7 : 37). There 
are two ways of writing some of these compound adverbs, either 
as single words or as two or more words. The editors differ as 
to 5td TavTOS, €(/)' dTra^, e/c-TrdXat, Kad' r]ixkpav, Kad' 6\ov, vwep ketra, 
etc. The editors do as they wish about it. These compound 
adverbs were still more numerous in the Byzantine writers. ^ For 
further list of verbs compounded with prepositions see "Language 
of the N. T." by Thayer, in Hastings' D. B. The kolvt] was fond 
of compound words, some of which deserve the term sesquipe- 
dalian, like KaraSwacTTevo}, (rvvavTikan^kvonai, etc. We must not for- 
get that after all these modern words from Aristotle onwards 
are only a small portion of the whole. Kennedy {Sources of N. T. 
Greek, p. 62) claims that only about 20 per cent, of the words in 
the N. T. are post-Aristotelian. Many of this 20 per cent, reach 
back into the past, though we have no record as yet to observe. 
The bulk of the words in the N. T. are the old words of the 
ancients, some of which have a distinct classic flavour, literary 
and even poetic, like ala6r]Tr]pLou, TroXuroktXos. See list in Thayer's 
article in Hastings' D. B., Ill, p. 37. 

These lists seem long, but will repay study. They are reason- 
ably complete save in the case of verbs compounded with preposi- 
tions and substantives so compounded. As a rule only words 
used by Aristotle and later writers are given, while Demosthenes 
is not usually considered, since he was more purely Attic. 

V. Personal Names Abbreviated or Hypocoristic. The chap- 
ter on Orthography will discuss the peculiarities of N. T. proper 
names in general. Here we are concerned only with the short 
names formed either from longer names that are preserved or 
from names not preserved. This custom of giving short pet- 
names is not a peculiarity of Greek alone. It belonged, moreover, 
to the early stages of the language and survives still.- It was used 
not merely with Greek names, ])ut also with foreign names brought 
into the Greek. It is proof of the vernacular kolvt] in the N. T. 

1 W.-M., p. 127. ^ Junn., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 293. 


Cf. English "Tom" and "Will." Many of these abbreviated 
names are compound also, as Zrjvds for Z7]v6-8upos (Tit. 3 : 13). 
Of the various forms used in these abbreviated names only- 
three occur in the N. T., -as, -^s, -cos. The great majority 
belong to -as or -as.^ 'A/xTrXtas (or -iSs) is the reading of the 
Western and Syrian classes in Ro. 16:8 for ' AfxirXiaTos (Latin 
Ampliatus); 'AvSpeas is, according to Blass,^ "a genuine old Greek 
form," while Schmieden thinks it can come from 'AvdpofjLeSrjs; 
'AvTlwas is a contraction of 'AvTlTarpos (Rev. 2 : 13) (found in 
inscription iii/A.D. at Pergamum^); 'AttoXXcos may be^ a con- 
traction for 'AtoWloplos, is the reading of D in Ac. 18 : 24, though 
N 15, 180 read 'AvreXXT^s here, while 'AireXXrjs is read by all MSS. 
in Ro. 16 : 10 (cf. Doric 'AreXXas in inscriptions, PAS, ii, 397); 
'Apre/iSs (Tit. 3 : 12) is an abbreviation of 'ApTefj.l8copos; Ar?/ias 
(Col. 4 : 14; Phil. 24; 2 Tim. 4 : 10) is probably an abbreviation 
of ArjperpLos, though Ar]peas and Arjpapxos are both possible, not 
to mention ArjfxapaTos, ArjpoBoKos; 'E7ra0pas (Col. 1:7; 4:12; 
Phil. 23) may (Ramsay so takes it, Expositor, Aug., 1906, p. 
153. Cf. genitive 'ETra({>pa8os, PAS, iii, 375) or may not be a con- 
traction of 'ETa(f>p68LTos (Ph. 2 : 25; 4 : 18), but it does not follow 
that, if true, the same man is indicated in Ph. and Col.; 'Eppas 
(Ro. 16 : 14) is from the old Doric form contracted from 'Ep- 
)u65wpos; 'EppTjs (Ro. 16 : 14) may be merely the name of the 
god given to a man, though Blass doubts it^; Z-quds (Tit. 3 : 13) is 
from Zr]p68upos; Qev8ds (Ac. 5 : 36) is possibly a contraction of 
GeoScopos; 'lowias (sometimes taken as feminine 'lovvia, Ro. 16: 7) 
may be 'lowtds as contraction of 'lowiavos; KXeowas (Lu. 24 : 18) 
is apparently a contraction of KXeoTrarpos; AoukSs (Col. 4 : 14; Phil. 
24; 2 Tim. 4 : 11) is a contraction of AovKavos and of Aovklos'^; 
Ni;/i0as (Col. 4 : 15) is probably derived from Nu/x065copos; 'OXu/xTras 

1 See Fick-Bechtel, Die griech. Personennamen, 1894; Pape, Worterbuch 
dergriech. Eigennamen, 1842, ed. Benseler, 1870; Keil, Beitr. zur Onomatolo- 
gie; W. Schulze, Graeca Lat., 1901; Hoole, the Class. Elem. in the N. T., 1888; 
Kretsch., Gesch. der griech. Spr., Die kleinasiat. Personennamen, pp. 311-370. 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 71. 

3 W.-Sch., p. 143. 4 Deiss., B. S., p. 187. 

5 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 143 f., for objections to this derivation. In a Fajolm 
pap. (Deiss., B. S., p. 149) 'AiroXXcbwos occurs os Kal crvpLarl 'Iwcdeas. Cf. 
Drug., Griech. Gr., 1900, p. 175. 

« Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 71. Cf. also Fick-Bechtel, p. 304. Fick (xxxviii) takes 
it from 'Ep/xoKpdrrjs, as also 'EpjuSs. 

7 Ramsay (Exp., Dec, 1912, pp. 504 ff.) quotes inscription of Pisid. 
Antioch where Aowas and Aovkios are used for the same person. 


(Ro. 16 : 15) is apparently contracted from '0\vnTn68o)pos, though 
•0\vfnnav6s is possible; llapfxevas (Ac. 6 : 5) is probably a con- 
traction of UapfJLivi8r}S, though Blass^ suggests Uapixha:v; Uarpo^as 
(Ro. 16 : 14) is derived from narpo/Stos; 2tXas (Ac. 15:22, etc.) is 
the same man as StXouaws (MSS. often StX/Sai'os) as Paul always 
calls him (1 Th. 1 : 1, etc. So Peter in 1 Pet. 5 : 12); Sre^avas 
^l Cor. 1 : 16; 16 : 15, 17) may be either a modification of Sre</)a- 
vos or a contraction of Sre^aj/rj^opos; ScjTrarpos (Ac. 20:4) is read 
Sojo-tTraTpos by a dozen of the cursives and the Sah. Cop. Arm. 
versions, while ZcoaiTarpos is the correct text in Ro. 16:21, but 
it is not certain that they represent the same man, for SajTrarpos 
is from Beroea and Scoo-irarpos from Corinth, though it is pos- 
sible. 'ApxeXaos, NiKoXaos appear in the N. T. in the uncontracted 
forms, though in the Doric the abbreviated forms in -as were used. 
On the subject of the N. T. proper names one can consult also 
Thieme, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Mdander und das N. T., 
1906, p. 39 f. He finds twenty of the N. T. names in the Mag- 
nesia inscriptions, such as 'Aircpia, ' kpnixasi' kpTep.'ihwpoi) , etc. Kupta 
is a common proper name (cf. Hatch, Journal of Bibl. Lit., 1908, 
p. 145). For the papyri illustrations see Mayser, Gr. der griech. 
Papyri {Laid- und Wortlehre, 1906), p. 253 f. Cf. also Traube, 
Nomina Sacra (1907), who s hows that in both B and J< as well 
as D the abbreviation IHC XPC is found as well as the more 
usual TC XC. Cf. Nestle, Exp. Times, Jan., 1908, p. 189. Moul- 
ton {CI. Quarterly, April, 1908, p. 140) finds 'AKovalUos in the 
body of a letter in a papyrus and 'Akovtl, the abbreviated ad- 
dress, on the back. See also Burkitt, Syriac Forms of N. T. Proper 
Names (1912), and Lambertz, Die griech. Sklavennajnen (1907) . 

VI. The History of Words. This subject concerns not merely 
the new words appearing in the N. T. but all words there used. 
This is the best place for a few remarks on it. It is not enough 
to know the etymology, the proper formation and the usage in 
a given writ'er. Before one has really learned a word, he must 
know its history up to the present time, certainly up to the period 
which he is studying. The resultant meaning of a word in any 
given instance will be d(^tormined by the etymology, the history 
and the immediate context.^ The etymology and the history be- 
long to the lexicon, but the insistence on these principles is within 

» Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 71. Cf. Meistcrh., Gr. dcr att. Inschr. (pp. 114- 
118), for formation of proper names. 

2 Cf. Heine, Synon. dcs neutest. Griech., p. 29. Goodcll, The Gk. in Eng., 
1886, gives a popular exhibition of the inlhience of Gk. on Eng. 


the purview of grammar. The N. T. Greek on this point only- 
calls for the same treatment granted all literature in all languages 
and ages. 

Take (TKavSaXov, for instance. It is a shorter form of the old 
Greek word aKavdaXrjdpov, ' trap-stick.' The root aKav8 is seen in the 
Sanskrit skdnddmi, 'to dart/ 'to leap.' The Latin has it in scando, 
de-scendo. The termination -ak-qdpov is possibly the suffix —rpov 
{-dpov) for instrument and aKav8-a\a{ri). The form (TKavdaXrj occurs 
in Alciphro, of which (7Kav8-aXo-v is simply the neuter variation. 
XkclvS-oXo-v occurs first in the LXX as a translation for TiJpi^a or 
iiiu:p)a, 'a noose,' 'a snare,' as in Ps. 69 (68) : 23. It was the trap- 
stick, the trap, the impediment; then a stumbling-block or any 
person who was an occasion of stumbling, as in Josh. 23 : 13, So 
Peter became a stumbling-block to Jesus, arnvhakov el efxod (Mt. 
16 : 23). Christ crucified became a aKavdoKov to the Jews (1 Cor. 
1:23). Take again eK-KXrjaia (from e/c-zcXjjros, k/caXeco). The root 
KaX appears in the Latin cal-endae, con-cil-ium, nomen-dd-tor; in 
the Old High German hal-on, Ho call.' Originally kK-KXrjala was a 
calling-out of the people from their homes, but that usage soon 
passed away. It became the constitutional assembly of Athens 
and "we must banish from our minds all remembrance of its ety- 
mology."^ In the LXX the word is used as the equivalent of 
iinp,, the assembly of the Israelites as a whole. In the N. T. 
the word takes a further advance. It still appears in the sense of 
'assembly' at times, as in 1 Cor. 11 : 18, but usually, as Thayer 
shows (Lexicon), the idea of the word is that of body or company 
of believers whether assembled or not, the body of Christ. This 
is true at times where the idea of assembly is impossible, as in 
Ac. 8:3. The word in this sense of body of Christians is used 
either in the local (Ac. 8:3) or the general sense (Mt. 16 : 18). 
In the general sense the word does not differ greatly from one 
aspect of the word /SacnXeta. These examples must suffice. 

VII. The Kinship of Greek Words. The study of the family tree 
of a word is very suggestive. AeiK-vv-ixi is a good illustration 
in point. It has the root 8lk which appears in the Sanskrit dig-d- 
mi, 'to show,' Latin dic-o, Gothic teiho, German zeigen, etc. 
On the root 8lk a number of Greek words are built, as SU-r}, 
'the way pointed out,' 'right' or 'justice'; dUrjv, 'after the way' 
or 'like'; SeT^-is, 'a showing'; Sety-pa, 'something shown'; 5t/c-atos, 
'a man who seeks to go the right way,' 'righteous'; 5iK-at6w, 'to 

1 Hicks, CI. Rev., 1887, p. 43. See also Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. 
N. T., pp. 57-60. , 


make or declare one to be righteous'; 5tK-atw-(ns, 'the act of declar- 
ing one righteous'; diK-a'^-ixa, 'the thing declared to be right'; 
8tK-aLo-avpr], 'the quality of being right,' ' righteousness '; Su-aiojs, 
'righteously' or 'justly'; 5tK-atco-Ti7s or dLK-aa-T-qs, 'one who decides 
righteously'; SiK-aff-TVPLov, 'the place for judging righteously.' 
Each of these words occurs in the N. T. save three, S'lktjv, bu-aioi- 
Ti]z, dLKaa-Trjpiou. With these twelve words the difference in mean- 
ing is not so much due to historical development (like k/cXTjaia) as 
to the idea of the various suffixes. It is, of course, true that the 
N. T. has a special doctrine of righteousness as the gift of God 
which colours most of these words. The point is that all these 
various points of view must be observed with each word. An- 
other illustration that will not be followed up is Xv-rpov (Mt. 
20 :28), dTTo-Xu-rpco-ots (Ro. 3 :24). The ideas of action, agent, 
result, instrument, quality, plan, person, etc., as shown by the 
suffixes, differentiate words from each other. 

Green in his Handbook to Grammar of N. T. Greek^ illustrates 
this point well with the root kpl {kplv), giving only the examples 
that occur in the N. T. They will be found interesting: first, the 
verb, Kplv-o), ava-Kplv-w, avT-aTro-Kplv-ofxaL, aro-Kplv-Ofxai,, dLa-Kpiv-u), 
ky-Kplv-o}, kTL-Kplv-c^, KaTa-Kpiv-oi, avy-Kplv-u, <Tvv-VTro-Kpiv-op.aL, viro- 
Kplv-cc; second, the substantive, Kpl-cns, Kpl-fxa, kpl-ttiplov, kp^-t^s, 
&pa-KpL-(TLS, airo-Kpi-ixa, dvro-Kpi-ats, Std-zcpt-cns, elXL-Kplv-aa, Kara-KpL-fxa, 
Kara-KpL-cns, Tpo-Kpi-fia, viro-KpL-aLS, VTro-KpL-Trjs; third, adjectives, 
KpL-TLKOS, a-dia-KpL-TOS, a-Kara-KpL-TOS, av-viro-KpL-TOS, avTO-Kara-KpL-Tos, 


The development of this fine of study will amply repay the 

N. T. student. 

VIII. Contrasts in Greek Words or Synonyms. The Greek is 
rich in synonyms. In English one often has a choice between the 
Anglo-Saxon word or its Norman-French equivalent, as "to ask" 
or "to inquire." 2 The Greeks made careful distinctions in words. 
Socrates tripped the Sophists on the exact meaning of words as 
often as anywhere. We are fortunate in N. T. study in the pos- 
session of two excellent treatises on this subject. Trench, Syno- 
nyms of the N. T., 1890, is valuable, though not exhaustive. But 
he gives enough to teach one how to use this method of investi- 
gation. Heine, Synon. des neutest. Griech., 1898, is more com- 
prehensive and equally able. The matter can only be mentioned 

1 § 149, new ed., 1904. 

2 Cf. Skeat, Prin. of Eng. Etym., Ist Bcr. (Native Words, 1892); 2d ser. 
(Foreign Words, 1891). 


here and illustrated. With dkaios, for instance, one should com- 
pare d7a06s, a7ios, Kadapos, koXos, oaLos, before he can obtain a 
complete idea of N. T. goodness or righteousness. We see Jesus 
himself insisting on the use of ayaOos for the idea of absolute 
goodness in Mk. 10 : 18, ovSels ayaOds el yu?) els 6 deos. Both ayados 
and SUaLos occur in Lu. 23 : 50. In Lu. 8 : 15 the phrase KapSla 
ayaOrj Kal koXt] approaches Socrates' common use of koKos k ayados 
for "the beautiful and the good." It is also the Greek way of 
saying "gentleman" which no other language can translate. To 
go no further, repas, dhva/xis and arjfxeXov are all three used to de- 
scribe the complete picture of a N. T. miracle. Neos is 'young' 
and 'not yet old,' mtws is 'recent' and 'not ancient.' 


The term orthography is used to include all that pertains to the 
spelling of Greek words. Phonetics deals with the sounds of the 
letters. The orthography was constantly changing, but not so 
rapidly as did the sounds. Each had an independent develop- 
ment as is seen very strikingly in the modern Greek vernacular 
(Thumb, Handbook of the Mod. Gk. Vernac, p. 6). There has 
never been a fixed orthography for the Greek tongue at any stage 
of its history. There has always been an effort to have new 
phonetic spelling to correspond to the sound-change, Cf. Blass, 
Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 6. The confusion in spelling grew with the 
centuries as in English. Many delicate questions confront us at 
once. It has not seemed possible to give the explanation of all 
the varied phonetic (true or merely analogical) and orthographic 
changes in the use of the vowels and consonants. An orderly 
collection of the facts with historical side-lights is all that is 

I. The Uncertainty of the Evidence. It is difficult to tell 
what is the vernacular usage in N. T. times on many points, 
though somewhat less so since the discovery of the papyri. 

(a) The Ancient Literary Spelling. The difficulty is much 
increased by the comparison of the phonetic spelling of the modern 
vernacular with the historical orthography of the ancient literary 
Greek.^ This method applied to any language may lead one into 
error. Modern conversational English differs widely in orthog- 
raphy from Spenser's Faerie Queene. For most of the history 
of the Greek language no lexicons nor grammars were in use. 
There were the schools and the books on the one hand and popu- 
lar usage on the other. The movement of the Atticists was just 
the opposite of the modern phonetic spelling movement in Eng- 
lish. The Atticists sought to check change rather than hasten it. 
It is to be remembered also that the Atticists were the cloister 

* Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 19 f. 


copyists of the ancient Greek writings and of the N. T. Later 
copyists reflect local types, some more conservative, some less so. 
The law of life is best here, as always, without artificial impulse or 
restraint. In seeking to restore the orthography of the kolvt] ver- 
nacular of the first century a.d. one must not be handicapped by 
the literary Attic nor the modern Greek vernacular, though each 
will be of service. In simple truth one has to be less dogmatic 
these days concerning what could or could not have been in the 
past. Breasted^ calmly assures us that over 3000 b.c. "the al- 
phabetic signs, each of which stood for one consonant," were in 
use in Egypt. He adds: "Had the Egyptian been less a creature 
of habit, he might have discarded his syllabic signs 3500 years 
before Christ, and have written with an alphabet of 24 letters." 
The Greek language was a growth and did not at first have 24 
letters. E, even in early Attic,^ not to mention Cretan, had the 
force of €, 7] and sometimes et. Indeed Jannaris^ asserts that 
"the symbols r] and w, in numerous cases also i, originated at 
school as mere compensatory marks, to represent positional or 
'thetic' e or o." It is not surprising with this origin of vowels 
(and consonants do not differ) that variations always exist in the 
sound and use of the Greek letters. Blass* is clearly right when 
he points out that in changes in the sounds of words "it is usual 
for the spelling not to imitate the new sound off-hand," and in the 
case of the N. T. writers there was "no one fixed orthography in 
existence, but writers fluctuated between the old historical spelling 
and a new phonetic manner of writing." Moulton^ adds that the 
N. T. writers had to choose "between the literary and illiterate 
Greek of their time," and "an artificial orthography left the door 
open for not a few uncertainties." Here is a "letter of a prodigal 
son" (B.G.U. ^6 ii/A.D. See MiUigan, Gk. Papijn, p. 93 f.) in which 
we have "phonetic" spelling in abundance: Kai 8la iravTwlv] evxonai 
(Tat xryeiaiveLV. To TrpoaKvvrjixa aov [ttoiJco /car' alKaaTrjv rjiJ,aipap irapa 
tQ Kvpiijo [2ep]a7r€i5€t. VeivdoaKtiv aai deko: kt\. There is here inter- 
change of e and at, of t and et. 

(b) The Dialect-Coloured Vernacular. The dialects explain 
some variations in orthography. One copyist would be a better 
representative of the pure vernacular kolvt}, while another might 

' A Hist, of Egypt, 1906, p. 45. 

2 Meisterh., Gr. etc., p. 3; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 26 f.; Solmsen, Inscr. 
Graecae etc., pp. 52 ff. 

3 Op. cit., p. 27. 

* Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 6. ^ Prol., p. 42. 


live where Attic, Ionic, Doric or Northwest Greek had still posi- 
tive influence. Often what looks Hke a breaking-down of the lan- 
guage is but the survival or revival of old dialectical forms or 
pronunciation. But these variations are mainly due to the per- 
sonal equation. It was not till the time of Marcus Aurelius that 
the learned grammarians succeeded in formulating the artificial 
rules which afterwards prevailed for writing the old classical 
Greek. The first century a.d. was still an age of freedom in or- 
thography. Even in the fourth century a.d. the scribe of ^{ pre- 
fers t rather than ei, while in the case of B et often occurs where i 
is the rule elsewhere. This is not mere itacism, but is also indi- 
vidual preference.^ "The oldest scribes whose work we possess 
(centuries 4 to 6) always kept themselves much freer from the 
schools than the later." ^ But, even if Luke and Paul did not 
know the old historical spelling in the case of t mute (subscript) 
and €t, it is merely cutting the Gordian knot to "follow the By- 
zantine school, and consistently employ the historical spelling in 
the N. T." and that "without any regard to the MS. evidence." 
It is not the spelling of the Byzantine school nor of the Attic 
dialect that we are after, but the vernacular Greek of the first cen- 
tury A.D., and this is not quite "the most unprofitable of tasks," 
as Blass would have us beheve.^ 

(c) The Uncials. They do complicate the situation. On some 
points, as noted above, the great uncials X and B differ, but usu- 
ally that is not true. There is a general agreement between the 
older uncials in orthography as against the later uncials and the 
cursives which fell under the spell of the Byzantine reformers, 
who sought to restore the classical Uterary spelling. The Syrian 
class of documents therefore fails to represent the orthography of 

1 Hort, The N. T. in Orig. Gk., App., Notes on Sel. Read., p. 152. But 
in the Intr. (p. 304) Hort is not willing to admit 'peculiarities of a local or 
strictly dialectic nature" in the N. T. Still Hort (Notes on Orth., p. 151) 
allows the Doric oSaykco (oSrjTtoj) in "single MS." like B and D, trpoaaxtiv in 
B, k^aau in D, etc. Hirt (Handb. d. Griech., p. 53) attributes much of the 
vocal change to dialect-mixing and analogy. On K and B see Hort, op. cit., 
p. 30G f. '' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 6 f. 

3 lb., p. 7. Hort (p. 302 f. of the Intr. to the N. T. in Orig. Gk.) makes a 
strong defence of his effort to give as nearly as possible "the spelling of the 
autographs by means of documentary evidence." There must not be "slov- 
enly neglect of philological truth." But Moulton (Prol., p. 47) docs not "set 
much store by some of the minutiae which W. H. so conscientiously gather 
from the great uncials." Certainly "finality is impossible, notwithstanding 
the assistance now afforded by the papyri" (Thack., Gr., p. 71). 


the vernacular kolvt] of the first century a.d. The Syrian class, for 
instance, reads Kairepvaovn, not Ka4)apvaoviJ.. But do the MSS. 
which give us the pre-Syrian types of text preserve the auto- 
graphic orthography? The fourth century is a long time from the 
first and the presumption might seem to be to some extent against 
the Neutral, Alexandrian and Western classes also. The temp- 
tation is constant to spell as people of one's time do. This diffi- 
culty is felt by every editor of classical Greek texts and often 
purely arbitrary rules are used, rules made by modern critics. 
Hort^ is willing to admit that in some instances the spellings 
found in the great uncials which are at variance with the Textus 
Receptus are due to the "literary spellings of the time" when the 
MSS. were written, "but for the most part they belong to the 
'vulgar' or popular form of the language." Hort could see that 
before we had the new knowledge from the papyri and inscrip- 
tions. He adds 2: "A large proportion of the peculiar spellings of 
the N. T. are simply spellings of common life. In most cases 
either identical or analogous spellings occur frequently in inscrip- 
tions written in different countries, by no means always of the 
more illiterate sort." This fact showed that the unclassical spell- 
ings in the uncials were current in the Apostolic age and were the 
most trustworthy even if sometimes doubtful. "Absolute uni- 
formity belongs only to artificial times," Hort^ argues, and hence 
it is not strange to find this confusion in the MSS. The confusion 
existed in fact in the first century a.d. and probably the auto- 
graphs did not follow uniform rules in spelling. Certain it is that 
the N. T. writings as preserved in the MSS. vary. But itacism 
apphes to all the MSS. to a certain extent and makes it difficult 
to know what vowel or diphthong was really before the scribe. 
In general the N. T., Hke the LXX, is grounded in matters of or- 
thography on the rules of the grammarians of the time of the 
Caesars (Appollonius and Herodian) rather than upon those of 
the time of Hadrian, when they had an archaistic or Atticistic 
tendency (Helbing, Grammatik d. LXX, p. 1). Moulton (ProL, 
p. 42) thinks that "there are some suggestive signs that the great 
uncials, in this respect as in others, are not far away from the 
autographs." But Thackeray (op. cit, p. 56) denies that this 

1 Op. cit., p. 303 f. Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 35) calls attention to the fact 
that the professional copyists not only had to copy accurately, but "in the 
received uniform spelling." Cf . also Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, p. 2. For further 
remarks on the phenomena in the LXX MSS. see Swete, O. T. in Gk. p. 300 f. 

2 Op. cit., p. 304. * Op. cit., p. 308. 


conclusion can be drawn ipso facto of the LXX, since it was trans- 
lated (the Pentateuch certainly) some three centuries earlier than 
the N. T. was written. 

(d) The Papyri. They strengthen the case for the uncials. 
Deissmann^ and Moulton^ show that the great uncials correspond 
in orthography not only with the contemporaneous inscriptions 
as Hort had seen, but also with the papyri of the better-educated 
writers. Among the strictly illiterate papyri writers one can 
find almost anything. The case of eav = dv in relative clauses is 
worked out well by Moulton to prove this point. In the papyri 
dated b.c. the proportion of eav to iiv in such cases is 13 to 29, while 
in the first century a.d. it is 76 to 9. But in the fourth century 
A.D. it is 4 to 8 and the usage disappears in the sixth century a.d. 
Thackeray (Grammar, vol. I, pp. 65 ff.) shows (after Deissmann^) 
how the LXX confirms this conclusion for eav=av. The usage 
appears in b.c. 133; copyists are divided in different parts of the 
same book as in Exodus or Leviticus; it is predominant in the 
first and second centuries a.d., and then disappears. Thackeray 
(p. 58) traces oWels (jurj^els) "from its cradle to its grave" (from 
378 B.C. to end of ii/A.D.) and shows how in ii/A.D. ovdeis is supreme 
again. This point very strikingly confirms the faithfulness of the 
uncials in orthography in a matter out of harmony with the time 
when the MSS. were written. We may conclude then that Hort 
is right and the uncials, inscriptions and papyri give us the ver- 
nacular orthography of the kolvt] with reasonable correctness. 

n. Vowel-Changes (crToiX€ia 4)a)VT|€VTa). In the old times the 
vowels underwent many changes, for orthography was not fixed. 
Indeed is it ever fixed? If the Atticists had let the kolvt] have a 
normal development, Dr. Rutherford would not have complained 
that Greek was ruined by their persistence "in an obsolete or- 
thography instead of spelling as they speak." ^ But as early as 
403 B.C. the orator Archinos^ had a law passed in Attica prescrib- 
ing the use of the Ionic alphabet in the schools. The early Greek 
used only a, e, i, o, v, and no distinction was made in writing be- 

1 B. S., pp. 202 ff. 2 prol., pp. 42 ff. 

3 B. S., pp. 202 ff. On the whole subject of the difficulty of N. T. orthog. 
see W.-Sch., pp. 31 ff. Deiss. (B. S., p. 180) is clearly right in denying a 
"N. T. orthography" save as individual writers, as now, have their peculiar- 
ities. For general remarks about vowel changes in LXX MSS. see Swete, 
O. T. in Gk., p. .301 f.; Thack., Gr., vol. I, pp. 71-100; Ilelbing, Gr., Laut- u. 
Wortl., pp. 3-14. 

•• Nicklin, CI. Rev., 1900, p. 115, in review of Rutherford's A Chap, in 
the Hist, of Annotation, 1905. ^ Cf. Bekker, Anec. Gr., vol. II, p. 783. 


tween long and short vowels, as indeed was never done in the 
case of t and v. The Ionic invented^ 12 for long o. Before the 
introduction of the Ionic alphabet, o and e were both represented 
by z. H was at first the aspirate like Hebrew n and then now 
aspirate and now long e or a as the inscriptions amply show. It 
is very common in the early inscriptions to see e thus used as long 
and o likewise, as in hat and ros. Indeed e sometimes represented 
ct as did ov. The kinship of these vowels with the Phcenician 
alphabet is plain, as a is from ^{, e from H, t from », o from p, u 
from the doubling of •) (and so a Greek invention). It is inter- 
esting to note that the Sanskrit has three pure vowels, a, i, u, 
while e and o are diphthongs in origin. In Sanskrit a far surpasses 
all other vowel-sounds, more than twice as many as all other vowel- 
sounds put together. 2 Schleicher^ speaks of the weakening of a 
into i and m, and thus he goes back to an original a sound for all 
the vowels. In Latin also a breaks into e, i and u^ Even in 
Attica in the first century e.g., in spite of Archinos' law, the in- 
scriptions use sometimes at and ae, et and t, 77 and i, v and t, i; and 
VL, t and et interchangeably.^ Uniformity did not exist in one dialect, 
not to mention the persistent differences between the various Greek 
dialects. These changes were going on constantly all over the 
Greek world in the first century a.d. For the alphabetical changes 
in the dialects see Buck's Greek Dialects, pp. 15 ff. These inter- 
changes between vowels are interesting. 

(a) The Changes (Interchanges) with a. The first sound 
made by a baby is a. These changes became dialectical peculiari- 
ties in many words like the Lesbian Kperos (kpcltos, "ablaut" varia- 
tions), the Boeotian drepos (erepos), Doric lapos (lepos).^ So in the 
vernacular Attic we find kperrf {apery]) where a breaks to e before 
€ (vowel assimilation), as in the Ionic- Attic a sometimes changes 
to € after t and vJ See Kiihner-Blass^ for many examples. 

1 Riem. and Goelzer, Gr. Comp. du Grec et du Lat., Phonet., p. 38. 
Cf. also Donaldson, The New Crat., pp. 207 £f.; K.-Bl., Griech. Gr., Tl. I, 
Bd. I, pp. 39 ff.; Earle, Names of the Orig. Letters of the Gk. Alph. (Class- 
Papers, 1912, pp. 257 ff.); Flin.-Pet., Form, of the Gk. Alph. (1912). But 
Sir Arthur Evans gets the Gk. Alph. from Crete. 

2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 10. 

3 Vergl. Gr., p. 55. His opinion is now considered antiquated. 

* Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 149 f. 

* Telfy, Chron. und Topog. d. griech. Ausspr. etc., 1893, p. 39. See also 
Larsfeld, Griech. Epig., 1892, pp. 494 ff.; King and Cookson, Sounds and 
Inflex. in Gk. and Lat., 1888. « K.-Bl., Tl. I, Bd. I, p. 115 f. 

^ Hirt, Handb. der griech. Laut- u. Formenl., pp. 115, 119. Vk is the form 


a and €. 'Ayyapevco appears as kyyap. in Ji{ (Mt. 5 : 41) and {<B 
(Mk. 15 : 21).^ The New Ionic e'ipeKev (more commonly eveKep) has 
nearly displaced the Attic eveKa which Blass^ admits only in 
Ac. 26 : 21. Elrev for elra appears in Mk. 4 : 28 as a rare Ionic 
form. Herodotus^ had both| elra and cTretra. Kadapi^oi in the 
aorist (active and passive) and perfect middle has e for the second 
a in many of the best MSS. both in LXX and N. T. (cf. Mk. 
1:42; Mt. 8 : 3 W. H.). Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 82, gives the 
facts. Blass"* points out that Xldrepa (Ildrapa) occurs in AC in 
Ac. 21 : 1. TeaaepoLKovTa is the form given always by W. H. This 
is an Ionic form (vowel assimilation) which is not so common in 
the papyri as in the N. T. MSS.^ In modern Greek both aapavra 
and aepavTa survive. Likewise W. H. always give the preference to 
reaaepa, though the papyri do not use it till the fourth century a.d.^ 
But in the inscriptions reaaepa is found several times, ^ one case in 
the first century a.d.^ Teaaepas, however, does not occur in the 
N. T. MSS., though the papyri have it in the Byzantine age.^ The 
Ionic and the modern Greek have recraepes and recrcrepa. The N. T. 
thus differs from the kolpt] papjrri, but is in harmony with the Ionic 
literature and inscriptions. In some MSS. in both LXX and N. T. 

in Doric and BcEotian, while ye is found in the Ionic, Attic and Cypriote 
(Meister, Griech. Dial., Bd. II, p. 29). 

* Deiss., B. S., p. 182, gives ivyapias in a pap. (iv/A.D.). 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 20. Cf. Note in W.-Sch., p. 50; Thack., pp. 82, 135; 
Mays., p. 14. 

3 According to Phrynichus (Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 204) both of these 
words are eo-xaTcos /3dp/3apa. 

* Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 20. ^ Moulton, Prol., p. 46. 

6 lb. For assimilation between a and e in modern Gk. dialects see Dictcrich, 
Unters. etc., pp. 272, 274. In mod. Gk. vernacular a frequently displaces 
initial e or o. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 14. 

' Dieterich, Unters. zur Gesch. der griech. Spr., p. 4; also Schweizer, Gr. 
d. perg. Inschr., p. 163. 

8 Nachm., Laute und Formcn d. magn. Inschr., p. 146. 

9 Moulton, Prol., p. 46. For further evidence see Cronert, Mem. Graeca 
Hercul., 1903, p. 199. In the Apostolic Fathers^ and the N. T. Apoc. rkaatpa 
and TtaaepcLKovTa are common as well as 'eKad<iplad-q (Reinhold, De Graicitate 
Patr. Apostol. etc., p. 38 f. On the whole subject of a and e in the papjTi see 
careful discussion of Mayser, Gr., pp. 54-60, where he mentions tKoLo}, kyyapiUii, 
(wtXevcraffOaL (for similar confusion of aorist and fut. inf. see eK(t>ev^acrOai, 2 Mace. 
9 : 22 V). Tkaffipa. and TeaaepaKovra are very common also in the LXX MSS. 
Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, p. 5; Thack., Gr., p. 62 f. This spelling occurs as 
early as iv/B.c. in Pcrgamum (Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 163 f.). In 
Egypt it hardly appears before i/A.D. and is not conunon till ii/A.D. (Thack., 
Gr., p. 62). The uncials give the later spelling. See "Additional Notes." 


Ttaaapes is accusative as well as nominative, like the Achaean dia- 
lect, but this is another story. J^ in Rev. 3 : 16 has x^i-^pos. The 
common (Ionic and Northwest Greek) use of -eco instead of -aco 
with verbs as in epwreco will be discussed in the chapter on Verbs. 

Conversely e is sometimes changed to a. 'A^c^tafet is accepted 
by W. H, in Lu. 12 : 28 rather than either the late afx^Lk^u or the 
early ajx^Levvvai. The form epavvao> instead of epewdu) W. H, have 
everywhere received into the text, and so with k^epawaw and ave^e- 
pavvqTos. {<B always read it so, sometimes AC. It is supported 
by the papyri. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 113; Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, 
p. 7, for similar phenomena in the LXX. 

Initial e often becomes a in modern Greek vernacular, as dXa- 
4)pbs {e\a4)p6s), avrepa (evTepa), etc. Cf. Thumb, Handbook, p. 14. 
So the Doric irLa^co is used in the N. T. everywhere save in Lu. 
6 : 38, where, however, TeinecriJLevos has the original idea ('pressed 
down,' not 'seized'). Both occur in the LXX. The Attic forms 
^tdXTj, vaXos are retained in the N. T. (as in LXX) rather than the 
Ionic and vernacular kolvt] forms in e, a mark of the influence of 
the literary^ kolvt]. 

Some verbs in -eco also use -dco forms, like eXedw, eXXo7dco, ^vpao:. 
See the chapter on Verbs. 

Changes in a take place in a few Hebrew proper names. Kairep- 
vaovjjL is the Syrian reading for Kacfjappaov/j, (W. H.). So W. H. read 
MaXeXeTyX in Lu. 3 : 37, not MeX. (Tisch.) , and Na^awTjX. SeXa^tiyX (in- 
stead of SaX.) appears in B. Thumb ^ remarks that these changes 
between a and e occur to-day in the Kappadocian dialect. 

a and t|. The Doric forms dSayos, oSdyco are found in the Koivfi, 
though Schweizer^ calls it hardly a Dorism. So in N. T. MSS. 
we have Tpoaaxeco in B (Ac. 27 : 27) and pdaaco in D (Mk. 9 : 18). 
The Ptolemaic papyri regularly have avriKiaKeiv till ii/A.D. (May- 
ser, Gr., p. 345). For a and a see ?? and rj under (c). 

a and o. The changes* between these two vowels are seen in 
the Lesbian vira. (vtvo), Arcadian TpiaKaaLoi, Doric etKan {eiKoat), etc. 
W. H. give ^aTToKoykoi in Mt. 6 : 7 (cf. ^aTTapl^oo) instead of ^ar- 
ToXoyew. ABK and twice 'J»{ and many cursives have vrpos KoXao-o-aeTs 

1 Dieterich Unters. etc., p. 70. Cf. Thack., Gr., vol. I, p. 75 f. So AaXfxarla 
in 2 Tim. 4 : 10, though C has AeXi^. as Lat. has both. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., 
p. 21. Both forms are in the pap., Deiss., B. S., p. 182. 

2 Hellen. (Griech. Spr.), p. 76. See also Radermacher, N. T. Gr., pp. 34 ff. 

3 Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 49. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 62, xpaadai. for xpw^ai. 
So A in 2 Mace. 6 :21. 

* K.-Bl., Tl. I, Bd. I, p. 117 f. Cf. Meisterh., Gr. etc., p. 117, where Attic 
inscr. are shown to have N£07roXtrr?s. 


as the title, while in Col. 1 : 2 nearly all MSS. read h KoXoaaals. 
Blass finds the title in o also in accordance with the coins and the 
profane writers; Xen., Anab. I, 2. 6, has a variant reading in KoXao-- 
o-ai. In Mk. 13 : 35 B has ixeaavvKnov and D in Lu. 11:5 instead 
of neaovvKTLov} In 1 Tim. 1 : 9 W. H. give ^tTjrpoXwats and irarpo- 
Xciats (instead of -aXoiats) on the authority of }<ADFGL. Blass^ 
compares irar po-kt6vos. 

a and <o. 'AvayaLov is read by the most and the best MSS. in 
Mk. 14 : 15; Lu. 22 : 12, 'Avooyeov, LvccyaLov, avuyeoov, avayeov have 
only "trifling authority." ^ Taios is Doric and Ionic. 

a and ai. The papyri^ sometimes have the Epic and Ionic atet, 
though the N. T. only reads det. The t early dropped out between 
the vowels. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 103. B has aid in 1 Esd. 1 : 30. 
The N. T., like the LXX, has Kalw and /cXatco, though the Ptole- 
maic papyri rarely have Kdco and k\6.w. 

d and av. In Lu. 2 : 1 J<CA have ' Kyovarov instead of khyohaTov. 
This spelling of d for av is found in Pergamum by Schweizer^ 
in the reflexive pronoun earbv, while Meisterhans^ gives examples 
of it as early as 74 b.c. in the Attic inscriptions. Moulton^ is 
probably correct in saying that we need not assume the existence • 
of this spelling in the N. T. autographs, though it is not impos- 
sible. He indorses Mayor's suggestion {Exp., VI, x, 289) "that 
d/caraTrdcrrous in 2 Pet. 2 : 14 AB may be thus explained: he com- 
pares axiJiVPQ 1 '■ 19 A." This dropping of u between vowels ex- 
tended to the dropping of i; before consonants. In the modern 
Greek we have avros (aftos) and dros (in Pontus) , whence comes 
TO (not the article).^ The examples of 'Ayovaros and dros {aroyev- 
vrjTou once) in the papyri are very common.-' Thackeray (Gr., 
p. 79) finds no instances in the LXX. 

1 Hort (Notes on Orth., p. 152) compares ixkaa^ov, and Blass (Gr., p. 21) 
necraffTvXiov. Mero^v {fxera^v) is in 1 Clem, and Barn. (Reinhold, De Graec, 
p. 40; . Cf . Mayser, Gr., p. GO f ., oXXot for aXXot. Illiterate scribes confused 
a and o, a and e in the LXX (as ixiTo^v) and in the pap. (Thack., Gr., p. 77). 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 21. 

' Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 151. W.-Sch., p. 51, compare KaTa-4>ayas and 
Karoi-^ayai as parallel. Cf. Meistcrh., Gr., p. 17. 

« Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 31, 1904, p. 107. ^ Gr. etc., p. 91 f. 

6 Gr. etc., p. 61. Cf. also Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 78. ^ ProL, p. 47. 

* Moulton, Exp., 1904, p. 3G3. So also in the Rom. period occasionally 
e/uaroO, taTov. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 35; Wack., Kuhn's Zeitschr., 
xxxiii, pp. 2 \^. 

» Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 33; 1904, p. 107. He quotes Laurent (B.C.IL, 
1903, p. 356) us saying that this phenomenon was very common in the latter 
half of i/u.c. 


ai and €. at was written ae in early Boeotian and Attic inscrip- 
tions (cf. Latin transliteration) and so naturally was pronounced 
as e (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 28). By 100 a.d. in the KOLvrj at 
was the mere equivalent of e. The Egyptian papyri show abun- 
dant illustrations of it. Especially do the LXX MSS. exhibit it 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 78). The modern Greek pronounces both these 
vowel-sounds alike, as indeed did the Boeotian dialect long before 
the KOLPT]. Numerous examples of this interchange of spelling exist 
in the Pompeian wall-inscriptions and in the vernacular kolvt] from 
100 A.D. on.^ Indeed in the N. T. MSS. it is very common to 
find -adai and -ade used indiscriminately, probably representing the 
common later pronunciation which was already developing in the 
first century a.d. Hort^ compares this "shortening of an identical 
sound" to the late (ttvKos for arvXos and Kplixa for Kplfxa. So com- 
mon did this blending become that Blass^ places little confidence 
in the N. T. MSS. on this point. Such readings occur as kretade 
for aLTelade and yweKats for yvvoLKes. Sometimes only the con- 
text^ can decide between e and at where different forms result, as 
in avaTeae or -at (Lu. 14 : 10), eyetpe or -at (Mt. 9 : 5), kirduayKes 
(Ac. 15:28),^ epxeade or -a^at in ^<ADL (Lu. 14:17), ertpots or 
eratpois (Mt. 11 : 16 Syrian reading), TapheyKe or -at (Mk. 14 : 36), 
etc. In Gal. 4 : 18 both K and B read ^riXovade for ^r]\ovadaL. B 
reads AtXa/xtrat in Ac. 2 : 9, from fi^"!?, the rest 'EX. The author- 
ity according to Hort^ is "usually preponderant" for e^e(l)vr]s and 
k4>vldLos instead of at0. So Kepka for Kepaia is accepted^ in Mt. 5 : 18; 
Lu. 16 : 17, and KpeiraKy] for KpanraKy] in Lu. 21 : 34. Likewise 
W. H. receive Aacrea for Aacrata m Ac. 27 : 8. NAG in 2 Pet. 2 : 17 
read XeXaxos, but XalXaxp is the undoubted reading in Matthew, 
Luke. The uncials all have pe8r], not palSr], in Rev. 18 : 13. So 
all the early uncials but A have '^vKop.opka (not -ata) in Lu. 19 : 4. 
Hort^ accepts also <j)e\6vr]s for (fyaiXourjs (2 Tim. 4 : 13), though 
Moulton ^ doubts, because of the Latin paenula. 

1 W.-Sch., p. 47. 

2 Notes on Orth., p. 150. Cf. on at and e, Mayser, Gr., p. 107. 

3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 9. ■» W.-Sch., p. 47. 

5 'Ett' d;'d7Kais "Alexandrian only" according to Hort, Notes on Orth., 
p. 151. 

« lb. 

^ lb. Cf . the Western Kaivo4>o:vlas for Kevfxjxj^via^ in 1 Tim. 6 : 20. In 1 
Th. 3 : 3 instead of aalveadai FG read cuveadai. Nestle (Neut.-Zeit., 1906, 
p. 361) finds parallels in the forms ffLawoixevcov and aiavdeis. 

8 Notes on Orth., p. 151. 

9 CI. Rev., 1904, p. 107. The pap. give (paip6Xi.ov. 


(6) The Changes with €. The interchanges of c and a have 
already been discussed under (a), but others took place with rj, t, o. 

€ and €1. In the Boeotian these were freely interchanged^ and 
the same interchange occurs in the Doric, New Ionic and Attic 
as TrXecoi' or TrXelwv. The Attic inscriptions ^ show this common 
phenomenon. The i before a vowel easily and early loses its force 
and drops out. Before the adoption of the scholastic orthography 
at Athens (b.c. 403) e stood for e, rj, et. Sooner or later et became 
everywhere a monophthong (Buck, Greek Dialects, p. 28), But 
the Koivri usually wrote et before vowels rather than e (Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 81). The LXX MSS. reveal the same traits as the N. T. 
'Ap€07ra7tTJ7s is in Acts 17 : 34, but "Apeios occurs (Ac. 17 : 19, 22). 
'Axpetos is uniform in the N. T., but in Ro. 3 : 12 we have -qxpeu- 
dwav (iXABDG). In Lu. 3:13; Jo. 21:15; Ac. 15:28, W. H. 
print TrXeoj' (Attic has even irXkouos),^ but elsewhere the N. T. has 
forms in et. The derivatives all have e like wXeoveKTeo}. But the 
N. T. has only reXeLos, TeKubw, though Herodotus always and the 
Attic usually used reXeooi}. D" has TeXeaxraL in Heb. 10 : 1.^ Of 
words with e and et before consonants one may note that dTro- 
oretXco in Ac. 7 : 34 is aorist subjunctive. (Cf. Ex. 3 : 10.) Both 
eveKep and e'lveKeu occur in the N. T. (both Ionic and Attic). The 
N. T. never has es, but always els. However, eaw is the uniform 
reading in the N. T. Homer used either eiVco or eo-co. 

€ and T|. Numerous examples of long e occur in the inscriptions 
like Here (fjLTjTe).^ These changes are probably all analogical and 
not phonetic. But in the N. T. we have only the shortening of 
7], back to short e in some words like avade/xa, though this particular 
word ('curse') came to be distinct from avadrj/jia ('votive offering'). 
'Avadrjua occurs only once in the N. T. (Lu. 21 : 5), and even here 
NADX, etc., have avadefxa. Tisch. quotes Moeris as saying ava- 
6r]fji.a aTTLKus, avadefxa eXXrjVLKois. But the use of avadefxa as 'curse' 

1 BruR., Griech. Gr., p. 28, as 0et6s = 0e6s; Thumb, Handb., p. 220. 

' Meisterh., Gr., p. 20 f. Cf. Schweizer, Gr. etc., p. 44 f. The change 
in e and ei was very common in vi/iii u.c. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 37. 

' But even the Arcadian dial, has nXkoua, irXfovwv (Sohnsen, Inscr. Graec, p. 
4). UXkov is common in the N. T. Apoc. (Reinhold, De Graec. Patr. Apost. etc., 
p. 40). Cf. Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 40 f. On the whole subject of e 
and 6t in the pap. see Mayser, Gr., pp. 67-73. They are very numerous indeed, 
these changes in the pap., both ways. * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 22. 

^ Solmscn, Inscr. Graecae etc., p. 1. Arcadian dial. Cf. also Meisterh., 
Gr., p. 3. In the Pontic dial, to-day there is a wide-spread use of e instead of 
t], as in akiroixai (Thumb, HeUcn. [Griech. Spr., referred to hereafter usually as 
HeUen.], p. 149). 


"is not an innovation of biblical Greek" (Moulton, Prolegomena, 
p. 46). In Ac. 11 : 11 NABDcr read rjfxeu, not wv^- Perhaps this 
exchange between e and ij bears on the use of (TTr}KeTe with Iva 
in Mk. 11 : 25; 1 Th. 3 : 8, and of MS. evidence for davixa^ere in 
Jo. 5 : 20 and k^oixoXoyqaeraL in Ph. 2:11. Cf. also oxl/rjad^ and 
6\l/e(rd€ in Lu. 13 : 28. So in 13 : 25. Mayser {Gr., p. 64) thinks 
that sometimes e represents an original open rj as in irapeaTeKOTes. 
The KOLVT] shows quite a preference for words in -e^a rather than 
-77jua (Mayser, Gr., p. 65 f.), and the LXX has new words in -ejua, 
though some words have both forms (Thackeray, Gr., p. 80). 

In the papyri this shortening (as in the LXX) appears in words 
like eirieeixa, Trpoadeixa, etc.^ The interchanges between 77 and et, tjl 
and €t will be discussed under rj (c). Mayser (Gr., p. 63 f.) thus 
(tj for e) explains xXijprjs as an indeclinable neuter form. 

€ and t. Dieterich^ mentions as one of the marks of the Attic 
and Egyptian kolvt] the fact that t and e interchange when used 
with X and v. Cf. the modern Greek, and the Lesbian Greek used 
rkpros for tp'ltos, and the Thessalian Olos for Beds. It is a Doric 
characteristic. This variation appears in the inscriptions ^ and in 
the papyri,^ especially in the case of XeTtajv, which is also Xeyedov and 
even X€7etcb;', not to mention a genitive \eyLOPo:s (o and co having 
the same sound). AeyLOiv is the reading of the best N. T. MSS. 
(NBDL; cf. Latin legio), as in the papyri. Especially in the case 
of the Latin short i does the kolvt] have e. 'AXeeTs, not aXteZs, is the 
reading in the N. T. according to the best MSS. (Mk. 1 : 16, etc.).^ 
This is a natural assimilation after a liquid. The frequency of e 
for I in the Egyptian papyri may be due in part to the Coptic, 
which has no short i (Steindorff, Kopt. Gr., p. 13). Note a 
soldier's use of x^pc^v for xetpa(v), B.G.U. 423 (ii/A.D.). Ahnov 
(Jo. 13 : 4, Latin lenteum) is a change in the other direction, 
Latin i to Greek c. Blass^ says that \evTeov would have looked 

1 Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. 108. Cf. also Moulton, Prol., p. 46, and 
Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., pp. 47 ff., has good discussion of this short- 
ening of 77 to e and also w to o. " E and 7; interchange times without number 
from v/b.c. down to ix/A.D." (Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 36). Reinhold (De 
Graec. Patr. etc., p. 101 f.) shows how the confusion between ij and e led to 
forms like mv ay ay ere. Cf. the mod. Gk. orkw (aTT]Kco) and Oeru {drjTw). 

2 Unters. etc., p. 136. ^ Schweizer, Perg. Insclir., p. 43 f. 

4 Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, pp. 33, 434; 1904, p. 107. Cf. Mayser, Gr., 

p. 80 f . 

5 "AXuTs occurs in pap. also. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 307; Thackeray, 

p. 84. 

6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 22. 


unnatural to a Greek. N770dXtos also is alone well-attested/ not 
vri4>b.\eos (1 Tim. 3 : 2, etc.). IioTlo\oL in Ac. 28 : 13 represents the 
Latin Puteoli, using i for e (cf. Dittenberger, p. 145). ZcfjuKlvdLou 
(not -eou) is the N. T. reading (Ac. 19 : 12) for Latin semidnctium. 
So Ti^epLos (not Te^eptos) is the N. T. rendition of Tiberius in Lu. 
3 : 1, though the later Greek writers used TejSepios, AofierpLos, etc.^ 
It is really surprising that more examples of this exchange of e 
and I do not appear. The interchanges between et and t are dis- 
cussed under (d), those between eu and v under (/). 

€ ando. The Lesbian ^olic had aTp6<j)u: for the Doric arpdcfxc. 
The Ionic-Attic made it o-rpe^co. Meisterhans^ gives numerous ex- 
amples of this change in e and o: djSoXos for 6/3eX6s as early as the 
middle of the fourth century b.c. Dieterich^ mentions the assimi- 
lation of e and o as one of the marks of the Egyptian kolpt,. In Ac. 
18 : 24 }<{ 15. 180. Cop. arm. and in 19 : 1 N* 180. read 'ATreXXT^s for 
'AxoXXws, though D has ' AiroWcovm in 18 : 24. The Doric and the 
Attic inscriptions^ had 'Att^XXo^v, 'ATreXXconos, 'ATreXXtos, etc. In 
1 Cor. and Titus we have only 'AttoXXojs. Indeed Blass^ suggests 
that 'ATreXXTjs is the reading of the a text in Acts and that 'AttoXXcos 
is an interpolation from 1 Cor. It is more likely to think that 
the two old forms of the name were still in use, though 'AttoX- 
Xws is the correct text in Acts also. The MSS. of the N. T., even 
good uncials, have dXodpeOco, k^oKodpeboi, oXodpevT-qs as well as the 
usual oXedpehc^, etc. (cf. 6/3oX6s for 6(3eX6s by assimilation), and 
Hort7 accepts the e form only in Ac. 3 : 23. The Syrian class 
has the o form. Blass,^ who usually cares httle for such points, 
properly insists on the documentary evidence. In Heb. 11:28 
only ADE have the e form, while in 1 Cor. 10 : 10 DFG read e. 

^ Notes on Orth., p. 151. 

' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 21. But always Tiro,. Cf. Nachm., Magn. 
Inschr., p. 22, in discussion of e for Lat. i. Both Xe7twj' and XkfTcop are road in 
Magn. inscr. (Thieme, Die Inschr. von Magn. etc., p. 8). Cf. also Schwcizer, 
Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 46. For assimilation between e and t in mod. Gk. see 
Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 272 f. 

» Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 22. Cf. also K.-Bl., Tl. I, Bd. I, p. US. 

* Unters. etc., p. 135 f. Cf. Ilirt, Ilandb. d. Griech. etc.', p. 115 

" K.-Bl., Tl. I, Bd. I, p. 118, and Ilirt, op. ciL, p. 115. 

« Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 21. Cf. Mayser (Gr., pp. 94-97) for a discussion of 
the pap. situation. 

^ Notes on Orth., p. 152. 

« Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 21. He quotes Buresch, Rhein. Mus., p 210 f as 
m favour of e in the N. T. as well as the LXX. '()\,o. ajipears in the Apost. 
Fathers (Goodspeed, Index) and 6\o0. in N. T. Apoc. (Reinhold, p. 40). For 
assimilation between e and o in mod. Gk. see Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 274. 


The LXX according to NAB reads e, though the modern Greek 
has ^oXoOpevw. But oKedpos is the uniform spelhng in the N. T. 
and is the rule in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 88). 

In Mk. 8 : 14 B has kireKadevro as is common in the LXX 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 89). Cf. also kirkbtTo (Heb. 12:16, LXX), 
k^ebtro (Mk. 12 : 1), 5te5t5ero (Ac. 4 : 35), irapedldeTo (1 Cor. 11 : 23), 
and k^eKpeneTo (Lu. 19 : 48 NB). Hort {Appendix, p. 167 f.) ex- 
plains these changes as "euphonic," but it is a change of the root- 
vowel of 8o, a confusion of thematic and athematic conjugations. 

€dv and dv. See also i (d) under Papyri. This is as good a 
place as any to say a word further on the interchange of these 
two forms, not strictly vowel-changes, however. We have also 
elav (really el-\-av) as in P Eleph. 1 (b.c. 311). See also aldv for kav, 
B.G.U. 530 (i/A.D.). The use of eai/ = modal av in relative sentences, 
so common in the LXX, N. T. and papyri of i/ii a.d., is not an ex- 
change of vowels, but possibly a slurring over of the e before a. 
"Ap=eap survives from the ancient Greek in a few instances, as Jo. 
5 : 19 (NB) ; 12 : 32 (B and accepted by W. H.) ; 13 : 20 DEFG, 
etc., have eav, but NBC iiv and accepted by W. H.) ; 16 : 23 (BACD, 
accepted by W. H.) ; 20 : 23 (twice and accepted by W. H., though 
AD have first eav and NAD second). In Ac. 9 : 2 only NE have iiu 
and W. H. read eav. Blass^ thinks that as kdv made encroachment 
into the province of ap " a kind of interchange of meaning between 
the two words " grew up. The modern Greek vernacular uses ap for 
'if.' Hort^ considers the whole subject of the interchange between 
eav and iiv after relatives " peculiarly irregular and perplexing. 
Predominantly iiv is found after consonants, and edv after vowels, 
but there are many exceptions." Cf. edv in Mt. 20 : 4 and Hv in 
Mt. 20 : 26 f. Moulton^ has shown that edv = iiv is scarce in the 
papyri save from 100 b.c. to 200 a.d. In the Magnesian inscrip- 
tions^ only edv appears, not Hv nor riv, as riv = edv is not in the 
N. T. But in the Herculaneum papyri these particles interchange 
freely. ^ The Attic inscriptions uniformly have av with relatives.^ 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 60. Omitted by Debrunner in ed. 4. 

2 Notes on Orth., p. 173. Hort has a curious error here, for the references 
under av and eav should be exactly reversed. "Av = ka.v ('if') is rarely found 
in the pap. also. Moulton (CI. Rev., 1901, p. 434) gives av fxi) airobun. (AP 43, 
ii/B.c). Cf. also CI. Rev., 1901, p. 32; Mayser, Gr., p. 152 f. Mayser gives 
exx. of edv = av and of av = tav. ^ Prol., p. 43; CI. Rev., 1901, p. 32, etc. 

* Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 68. See Gregory, Prol. (Nov. Test. Gr.), p. 
96, for the facts about the N. T. MSS. and kav. 
^ Cronert, Mem. Graeca Here, p. 130. 
^ Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 326. 


Indeed Attic does not contract ea with exception of kav= ^v.^ But 
cdi' = modal av is found in Xen. Mem., w eau apuoTTy, in Lysias, 
oOs kav ^ovK-qQdaLv, etc. (see Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 421). This 
use of kav occurs over sixty times in the N. T. Examples occur in 
late Greek of el — eav as well as ei — av, instead of kav. Cf . Rein- 
hold, De Graecitate Patrum Apost. etc., p. 35; Moulton, Classical 
Review, 1901, p. 32. Thackeray {Gr., pp. 65 ff.) finds that in the 
ii/B.c. the papyri nearly always have 6s av, while in the i/A.D. they 
nearly always have 6s kav. In the books of Exodus and Leviticus 
he notes that in the first half of each book both forms occur 
while in the second part ds eav almost vanishes. Each book may 
have been written on two rolls. 

(c) The Changes with t). The changes between rj and a, t] and 
(. have already been discussed. 

'x\ and I. As already stated, originally H was merely the rough 
breathing, but the Ionic psilosis left a symbol useless, and heta was 
called eta.^ Thus the new letter took the old long e value in Ionic 
and Attic and also largely supplanted the long a where a became e. 
The Sanskrit used long a, the Greek tj and the Latin either e or i. 
This new (in spelling) ?? (v/b.c.) gradually turned more to the i 
sound in harmony with the growing itacism of the language, though 
there was some etacism on the other hand.^ As early as 150 B.C. 
the Egyptian papyri show evidence of the use of t for rj.^ By the 
middle of the second century a.d. the confusion between t] and i, 
r/ and et, rj^and et is very general. By the Byzantine times it is 
complete and the itacism is triumphant in the modern Greek.^ 
Reinhold^ thinks that the exchange between r; and t was natural 
in view of the relation between tj and e and the interchange be- 
tween € and I. As early as the fifth century b.c. the change 
between tj and t is seen on vases and inscriptions. But the Ptole- 
maic papyri^show little of it and it is rare in the LXX MSS. NAB 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 85). In the N. T. times the interchanges 
between 77 and i, 17 and et, til and et are not many. In 1 Cor. 4:11 
W. H. read yvuvLTevo:, though L and most of the cursives have 77. 

1 Thumb, Hellon., p. 92. 

* Hirt, Handb. d. Griech. etc., p. G3. 
» Thumb, Ilellen., p. 98 f. 

* Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 29. Cf. also Thumb, Ilellon., p. 138. In Bcrotia 
also 77 and i interchange in ii/B.c. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 41). Maj'ser (Gr., p. 82) 
cites from a Horn. pap. of i/B.c. ^^iice for WrjKe, and per contra (p. 84) a<j)r)KeTo. 

^ Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 47. He gives iwii for iirl from a Byz. 

' De Grace. Patr. etc., p. 41. C"f. also Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inselir., p. 34 f. 


The N. T. always has b-qvapiov, though btvapLov appears very early.^ 
For Kafxr]\os in Mt. 19 : 24 and Lu. 18 : 25 a few late cursive MSS. 
substitute K-d/xtXos ('rope'), a word found only in Suidas and a 
schoUum on Arist. But "it is certainly wrong," ^ a mere effort to 
explain away the difficulty in the text, an effort as old as Cyril 
of Alexandria on Luke. For Kvprjvios B^ it. vg. sah. have Kvptvos, 
while B* has Kvpetvos and A has KvpvuLos, a striking example of 
itacism, 77, t, ei, v having the same sound in these MSS. The 
N. T. MSS. give aLiJUKlvdiov in Acts 19 : 12, but Liddell and Thayer 
both suggest crju. as an alternative spelling like the Latin semi- 
cindium. So also the best MSS. in Rev. 18 : 12 read (tlplkos, though 
some cursives have a-qpiKos (like Jos, and others), and still others 
avpiKos.^ Indeed in 1 Pet. 2 : 3 for xPW^os L and many cursives 
have XpLffTos. The heathen misunderstood the word XpLaros and 
confounded it with the familiar xPW'o'i, pronounced much ahke. 
Suetonius (Claudius 25) probably confused Christus with Chres- 
tus. In Ac. 11 : 26 ^^ 61 have Xpr^crTLavovs, while B has Xpeiar. 
So in Ac. 26 : 28 N has Xp-rjaTiavov for Xptcrr., while B has again ei. 
The same thing occurs in 1 Pet. 4 : 16. 

T| and €1. The Boeotian and the Thessalian dialects early 
changed^ 7? for et, TldeLiJLL = TidrinL. Schweizer^ gives irapddTjcros for 
TrapdSeto-os (Byzantine inscription). In Lu. 14 : 13 (21) we have 
dmTretpos (ABDEL), avaweipos (GHK, etc.), and -Trip- (^{R). This 
itacism is condemned by Phrynichus the Atticist as vulgar.^ In 
the LXX J^ has draTrctpos in Tob. 14:2 and AV show it in 2 
Mace. 8 : 24 (Thackeray, Gr., p. 83). In Heb. 6 : 14 W. H. 
follow J<ABD in reading et nrjv rather than rj jii]v. This form 
occurs in the LXX and in the papyri. Moulton' has shown that 
several times in the papyri it is obviously for ri nrjv by mere ita- 
cism, and so is not due to a confusion between the Hebraistic 
use of ei ^i77 = i<ib "^i^, thus correcting Hort. The uncials and the 

^ Blass, Ausspr. d. Griech., pp. 37, 94. 

2 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 151. 

3 lb., refers to o-iptKOTrotos in Neap, inscr. (C. I. G. 5834). In the mod. 
Gk. ■(j = i in pronunciation. Cf. Thumb, Handb. d. neugr. VoLkerspr., p. 2. 
W.-Sch. (p. 46) mention ei7/3r?i', ei^v", 6ii0-nv in Ex. 2 : 3-6. 

* Cf. Blass, K.-BL, Tl. I, Bd. I, p. 135. 

5 Perg. Inschr., p. 47. Cf. also p. 56. See numerous exx. of this change in 
Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 47 f. 

6 Cf. Bekker, Anec, I, pp. 9, 22. It is found also in 2 Mace. 8 : 24. Hort 
(Notes on Orth., p. 15) shows that aireipos (not airripos) is read in Herod, 
i. 32. 

^ ProL, p. 46; CI. Rev., 1901, p. 33. See also Thackeray, p. 83. 


papyri here agree. Deissmanni calls attention to the use of el 
mv in a Doric inscription of the first century b.c. Blass {Gr 
oJN T Gk., p. 306) observes that a papyrus reads Krjpla for K^pia 
(.ci. Jo. 11:44, Keip^, KTip-, KLp-iais). 

_ 111 and €1. In the old Attic there was no 771 in writing, only ei, 
since 7] was not used as a vowel. As early as 400 b.c. the Attic used 
m and et interchangeably, K\r,c, becoming ^Xetco, /cXjys = «Xets, Xyrovp- 
yos-Xecrovpyos, etc.^ This usage was not very common in Perga- 
mum3 nor in Magnesia.^ Cronert finds this interchange in the 
Herculaneum papyri only in the papyri copies of Epicurus and 
Polystratus.^ In the N. T. Xecrovpyos, ~ia, -eXu, -ckos are taken over 
trom the Attic, but they occur also in Pergamum^ and Magne- 
sia.7 The Attic indeed carried the fondness for ec so far that it 
was used always in writing in the second singular indicative middle 
everywhere, the other dialects using y save the Ionic. The kocpt, has 
W save m ^oOXa, o'la, b^^a. In the N. T. y is universal according to 
W^H. save in Lu. 22 :42 where iSovXec is genuine, though some 
Mbfe. have ec m other passages. Blass ^ observes that this is a 
hterary touch in Luke for the colloquial ^eXe.s. Hatzidakis^ notes 
how difficult this process made it to tell the difference between 
TroL-fiays and Trotijaets, for instance, because of this Attic intermix- 
ture of the diphthongs. Blass 10 will not hear of this as a possible 
explanation m any cases, but one must remark how well this 
vowel-blending harmonized with the kinship in meaning between 
the aorist subjunctive and the future indicative (cf. 8o:av in 
some MSS. for SchaeL in Jo. 17:2) and made it easy for the 
later so-called future subjunctive (cf. Latin) to develop. Winer- 
Schmiedel indeed accept as possible this vowel confusion in sev- 
eral mstances.ii In Mk. 8 : 35 (Lu. 17 : 33) 8s a. a^oXean, Lu. 12 : 8 
OS av dfxoXoyriaei, 2 Cor. 12 : 21 fxi) TaireLPuaei, Ro. 3 : 4 (Ps. 51 : 6) 

' B. S pp. 205-8. Cf. Dittenb., Syll., No. 388, p. 570. See also Mayser, 
ur., pp. 74-79, for careful discussion. 

1 M^isterh. Gr. d. att. Inschr., pp. 36 ff. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 39 
and 49. See also Mayser, Gr., pp. 79 f., 126-131. 
' Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 60 f. 

* Nachm Magn. Inschr., p. 50 f. e Schweizer, op. ciL, p. 60. 

^ Mem Graeca Hcrcul., p. 37. 7 Nachm., op. cit., p. 51. 

Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 8. /3ouXet, oUl, 64,u in Ap. Fathers (Goodspeed, Index). 
Einl. m d. neugr. Gr., p. 306. He gives exx. from the N. T. Apoc 
'« Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 8. ^ ' 

'; W.-Sch., p. 47. Moulton (Prol., p. 16S) woul.l take indifTerently (nrhy,, 
or uxAtt, in Rev. 14 : 4. For many similar exx. in the inscr. see Dittenb 
&TVW B.V iw&pxei (117. 17), tlpkB-ntrav (352. 66), etc. 


viKrjaeLS (cf. 8LKaL(jodfjs) , Ac. 5 : 15 'Iva exicrKtacrei, 8 : 31 eav odr^yrjcrei. 
Winer-Schmiedel would find the aorist subjunctive and not the 
future indicative. This is possible but by no means certain, since 
the future indicative was undoubtedly used both with edp and 
'iva (oTTcos). W. H. read 'IcoaveL instead of 27 in Mt. 11:4; Lu. 7 : 18. 
Tc3 hoiKTirel occurs in papyri Brit. Mus. I, Nr. 2. 135. In 2 Cor. 
2 : 9 AB 109 have fi where et is probably correct. 

T] and T). Irrational Iota. The iota subscript was iota adscript 
till the twelfth century a.d., but as early as the third century B.C. 
it was not pronounced.^ When et was practically equal to r; in 
sound, it was natural that xi (^0 should be. The t was then dropped 
in sound long before it was subscript.^ Gradually it was felt to 
be a matter of indifference in some words whether this iota was 
written or not. Examples of i] instead of -q occur in the inscrip- 
tions of Pergamum^ as ev rj as well as in the Attic* Moulton 
finds irrational t adscript (excot, for instance) abundant in the 
Ptolemaic Tebt. Papyri {Classical Review, 1904, p. 106). Cf. 
Mayser {Gr., pp. 122-126) who gives many examples. In the 
N. T. t has dropped from 6vT]aKoo. Indeed since the second cen- 
tury B.C. L adscript in the diphthongs a, 27, v ^^'^ become mute. 
Hort,^ hoAvever, argues for the retention of i in ^fjv^ and infinitives 
in -av instead of the Doric-Attic form, as well as in adcios, eUrj, 
fc3ov, 'UpcoSrjs, Kpv(l)fj, \adpa, iravraxd} ttclvtii, irpcopa, cwfco, virepQiov, 
^uiov, though he hesitated to put crwfoj in the text. It is just as 
well to finish the discussion of the iota subscript here, though 
some of these examples go beyond the range of J7. The best edi- 
tors print also drjuoaia, i8ia, jur/rpoXojas, irarpoXwas, Trarpwos, Tre^fj, 
"LanodpaK-q, Tpwas, though iJLLfj.vr]<rKo: and irpaos. W. H. have forms 
in -olv also, as KaraaK-nvoTv (Mt. 13: 32). Moulton^ gives a curious 
example of the loss of the irrational t in the case of the subjunctive 
II which sometimes in the papjTi appears as rjv, having lost the i, 
and taken on irrational v. As a matter of fact iota adscript (iota 

1 Blass, Pronun., etc., p. 50. ^ Hirt, Handb. d. Griech., p. 114. 

3 Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 65. 

* Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 64. In the Iv/b.c. the Attic often 
wrote €1 for rji., but not for p. In the Thess., Jilol. and Ionic inscriptions 
the 1 with a, 77, 03 is freely omitted or wrongly inserted (irrational i), as in 
rfj iroXei, to. opu, as early as vi/s.c. Cf. K.-BL, Tl. I, Bd. I, p. 183 f. Strabo 
(14. 41) says that many regularly dropped the t in spurious diphthongs. ttoX- 
\ol yap x^P''^ Tov I ypa^ovai ras Sotikcls, Kal fK/3d\Xoi»(n 8e to Wos 4>^(nKriv airlav 
ovK exop. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 29 f. Schweizer (Perg. Inschr., p. 47) 
cites T'fiiv evvoiav. ^ Introd. to N. T. Gk., p. 314. 

6 Mayser, Gr., p. 121, finds no i with av in the pap. ' Prol., pp. 49, 168, 187. 


subscript not yet, of course) does not appear in the great uncials 
save fiLdLaav in D (Mk. 1 : 34) and ^uXojt in K (Lu. 23 : 31).^ Forms 
with and without the mute iota appear in the Herculaneum pa- 
pyri,2 as eUrjc or dKrj. Blass^ would also restore t to avTLTrepa(a). 
He doubts if t was written in such new optative forms as Scotjj/ 
(Solrjv Attic) though it should be put in the text. 

r\ and v. Since these two vowels came to be pronounced alike 
as in modern Greek/ it was to be expected that some interchange 
would come, though any early examples are wanting. However, 
by the second century a.d. the inscriptions give many instances 
such as drjpa (dupa), iJ.r]<JTr]pLOV {fxvar.), aKvirrpov {aKT]TTpov), etc.^ It 
is already in the Egyptian kolvtj according to Thumb.^ Hence 
we are not surprised to see the N. T. MSS. get mixed over 17/xets 
and vixels. Especially in 1 Peter does this itacism lead to a mixing 
of the historical^ standpoint as in 1 : 12, where vfxXv is read by 
KABCL, etc., rjfxlv by K and most cursives Syr^<=^ Cop. In 1 Pet. 
5 : 10 the MSS. similarly support vnds and 17/xas. In 2 Cor. the 
personal relations of Paul and his converts are involved in this 
piece of orthography as in 8 : 7 e^ vfxoiv kv rj/juv (J<CDE, etc.) or 
el rjiJLoJv kv vixtv (B 30, 31, 37, etc.). See especially Kad' 17/xas in Ac. 
17 : 28 (B 33 Cop., etc.) which reading would make Paul identify 
himself with the Greeks on this occasion. 

{d) The Changes with i. For t and e see under (6) ; for i and 
ri see under (c) ; for iota subscript (adscript) , mute or irrational i, 
see under (c). For irrational iota see also Infinitive under Verb. 
The papyri show it in queer forms like aXrjdiJL, 'KkycoL, P. Oxy. 37 
(a.d. 49). 

I and €1. The interchange between these vowel-symbols began 
very early (certainly by the sixth century b.c.^) and has been very 
persistent to the present day. The inscriptions give numerous 
examples^ in the fifth century B.C., such as airoKTivt], 'E7ra</)p65etTos. 
This was apparently the beginning i" of itacism which was extended 
to V, 7], and then to 77, ol, vl. Jannaris" thinks that the introduc- 

1 Gregory, Prol. (Now Test. Gr.), p. 109. 

2 Cronert, Mem. Grace, llercul., pj). 41 IT. 

' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 7. The LXX phenomena are Bimilar. Cf. Helbing, 
Griech. d. LXX, pp. 3 ff. 

* Hatz., Einl. in neugr. Gr., p. 304. 

* Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 48. « Ilcllen., p. 171. 

^ Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 310. On the subject of -q and v sec Maj^ser, 
Gr., p. 85 f. He denies (p. 86) that the itacising pronunciation of 77 i)rcvailed 
in the Ptolemaic period. 

8 Jann., Hist. Gk. CIr., p. 47. » lb. 10 lb. " lb., p. 41. 


tion and rapid spread of ?? contributed to this confusion as by 
that time et was pronounced hke t, and 77 was taken by many, not 
as long €, but equal to t. The confusion apparently began in the 
BcEotian dialect^ and in postclassical times, but swept the field 
in all the dialects till every et (closed and open) was pronounced 
as I. By 100 b.c. the Attic inscriptions show a general inter- 
change between et and I, and in the second century a.d.^ the con- 
fusion exists between et and I. Dieterich^ thinks that this itacism 
had its widest development in Egypt. The Ptolemaic papyri of 
ii/B.c. show itacism very frequently. It is only the more illit- 
erate scribes that use et for l, though B has opeiov (Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 86 f.). Thumb ■* considers the interchange between t and 
€1 in the kolvt] on a par with that between o and co. In Pergamum^ 
the change from i to et is much more common than that from et 
to t, though forms in -la for -ela occur, as d/xeXta. The same thing 
is true in Magnesia, where rifxelu {fifxTv) is common." The Hercu- 
laneum papyri tell the same story,'' while it is so common in the 
Egyptian papyri that Moulton^ is unable to set much store by 
the minutiae gathered by W. H. from the great uncials, "for even 
W. H. admit that their paramount witness, B, 'has little authority 
on behalf of et as against t.'" Clearly the partiality of N for t and 
of B for et throw them both out of court as decisive witnesses on 
this point. ^ So it is not merely itacism that we have to deal with 
in the numerous N. T. examples of exchange between t and et, 
but "genuine peculiarities of original orthography" also.^'' What- 
ever Dr. Hort meant, all that is true is that different scribes 
merely preferred one or the other method of representing Z. The 
whole matter therefore remains in doubt and one is prepared for 
all sorts of variations in the N. T. MSS., because the koipt] no 

1 K.-Bl., p. 131. Mayser (Gr., pp. 87-94) has a full discussion of the prob- 
lem in the pap. of the first tliree centuries B.C. and finds that in Egypt the 
pronunciation of et closely approached that of t. 

2 Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 49. In the succeeding pages he gives 
numerous exx. in cliron. order of the various interchanges between i and «, 
many of them identical with the N. T. exx. ^ Unters. etc., p. 45. 

* Hellen., p. 172. The next most common interchange of vowels in the 
N. T. MSS. are ai and e, 77 and t or «, ot and v (Warfield, Text. Crit. of the 
N. T., p. 103). 5 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 53 f. 

« Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 35 f. Cf. Egyp. pap. also. 

^ Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., pp. 27 ff. 

8 Prol., p. 47. For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, pp. 7 S. Thack. 
(Gr., p. 86 f.) thinks that the orthography in this point is older than that of 
K and A. ^ Warfield, Text. Crit. of the N. T., p. 103. 

10 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 152. 


longer' insisted in the vernacular on the distinction between long 
or short i and et. The examples here presented will give a fair 
idea of the situation. For the textual evidence see careful dis- 
cussion by Gregory.^ Where et is written for i it is to be pro- 
nounced like I. El is shortened to t in some abstract substantives, 
-la instead of -ela, as^ 'ArTaKla, ay via (possibly), perhaps aKpi^ia, 
aXa^ovia, avaSla, apeaKla, perhaps aireidla, WeKodp-qaKla (but dp-qaKeia), 
etScoXoXarpta (but XaTpela), elXuKpLvia, perhaps tKTevia, eTrteuta, kpidia, 
epfj.r]v'i.a, leparla, Katcapta, KaKorjdia, KaKoiradla, KoXaKia, Kv^la, AaoStKta, 
fiayla, pLtdobla, 6(f)da\fxo8ov\ia (8ov\ia doubtful), possibly TratSta (cf. 
Ps. 53 : 5), TToXtrta, -Kopia, xrcoxtct, irpayixaTla, Trpaviradia, probably 
2a/iapta, XeXevKla, perhaps dTparla, (papfiaKla, $tXa5eX(^ta, co^eXta. 
Deissmann^ shows that it is Xo7ek, not \oyia in the papyri and 
so in 1 Cor. 16 : 1 f. Some MSS. have cTrapxeta (for -La), evrpaTeXeLa 
(for -la), late MSS. KoXcovela. 

The endings -eiov and -etos appear sometimes as -lov, -los. So 
alyLos, "Aptos (nd7os), acrtos, baviov (cf. bavV^o), davLarris), el8o)XLOV, 
'ExiKOvptos, eTLTTjdiOS, fieyaXia (cf. fxeyaXLor-qs) , irav8oKiov, (xtolx'lov. 
Strong testimony exists for all these. So also -lvos for -eLvos 
appears in opivos, aKonvbs, (pccTipos. 

Further examples of t for et are found as in the MSS. in aStd- 
XiiTTOS, aueKXiirros, aXicpw, cLTvidew, aTndrjs, aindLa, aTro8e8Lyfj,evos, "Apeoira- 
yir-qs, 8iyp.a, e^aXicjicc, KaTaXeXLp.p.epos (Ac. 25 : 14), even Kpiaffuv, Xinfxa, 
XiTovpyos, fJLapyapLTrjs (cf. 7roXtrT?s, TexvlTrjs), [j.eaiTr]s, olKripoj, irapa- 
dtyfiaTL^co, Tidos, uTroXt/xyua, 4>lX6plkos, ^tXoj^t/cta, xP^o(f)LXeTr]s. This is 
not to mention the verb-forms Uov, 'i8av, lueu which W. H. count 
alternate forms in Revelation, but which are pure examples of 
itacism. In the case of 'Ikovlov (Ac. 13 : 51; 14 : 1) the inscriptions 
give both 'Ik. and Elk.* 

The use of €i for i is seen in several ways also in N. T. MSS. 
In Mt. 28 : 3 W. H. give etSea, not I8ea. TeluoiiaL and yeLvcjaKw are 
very common in the best MSS. 'II/xeTj/ and v/jLeXv are rarely seen, 
however. 'A^elvr], FaXetXata, 'EXa/jLelTrjs, Aevelr-qs, A€V€ltlk6s, Xelap, 
'NLvevdrrjs, IletXaros, '^ap.apelTrjs all arc found, as well as rpaTrefetrT/s, 
^'apetaatoi. Tdx^toi' appears in John and Hebrews. In the Pas- 
toral Epistles, Hort^ finds -XetTr- for -Xlt- forms. Ketpmts is 
correct in Jo. 11:44. Hort*^ also prefers iravoLKei, but Ta/jLTrX-qdei 
is undisputed. Such verb-forms occur as iidyvvp-L, ret/^dco, reiaco. 

1 Prol., pp. 83-90. 

''■ According to Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 153. 

" B. S., pp. 142 f., 219 f. 6 Notes on Orth., p. 155. 

« Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 8. « lb., p. 154. 


Semitic proper names in * have €i as 'ASdei, ' kpvei, 'EcXet, 
'HXct, MeXxet, ^rjpd. Cf. also^ 'kbixdv, 'Axd/j., Bepianeip, Aavel8, 
'EXia/cet^t, 'loopeln, Keis, Aevels, N€(/)^aX€t/^, SaXei^t, liefxeeiv, x^pov^elv, 
Xopa^elv. So also 'EXetcra/3er, 'HXetas, Guaretpa, 'Idetpos, 'lepetxw, 
'Ic(j(rets, 'Of etas, Sd7r</)etpa, TajSeida. Cf. also 17X61, pa/3;Set, pa^^ovvel, 
(Ta^axdavei. But ' appears as i in 'AnLvada^, MeXxtceSe/c, Stw, Stcoi'. 
Likewise the MSS. usually read 'Ami^tas, Bapaxtas, 'Efc/ctas, Zaxa- 
pias, 'lepeixlas, 'lexovias, Maddias, Marradias, Ovpias. 

In many of these examples of changes in t and et the testimony 
is greatly divided and one must not stickle too much for either 
spelling. The papyri and the inscriptions have nearly all of 
them. See 1 (c) for remarks on the difficulty of relying on the 
uncials in the matter of orthography. It is impossible to be dog- 
matic on the subject. 

I a7id 0. It is a peculiar change, as Blass^ observes, that we 
have in diieLpo/jievoi. for lixapbixtvoL (1 Th. 2:8). It appears in the 
LXX (some MSS. for Job 3 : 21 and Symm. at Ps. 62 : 2). The 
only example so far brought to light is vireponeipeaOaL in Iren. 60. 
Winer-SchmiedeP sees no comparison in KaraprpoKv for KaravTiKph. 
Meisterhans^ gives airavrpoKV for airavTLKpv. 

I and OL. Jannaris^ defends the exchange of t and ot possibly as 
early as the fifth century b.c. Certainly in the first century B.C. 
AvyovaroLPos occurs in the inscriptions.^ Ot was exchanged with 
et and ji as well as with t. In the N. T. the only example is in 
Mk. 11 : 8 where ACSVXr Or. have aroL^as for the usual o-7t/3ds 
(from (7T€ti3co). N and a few other MSS. read arv^as. Zonar. 
illustrates this also by using o-rot/3ds. Cf. also (ttol^t], c7rot/3dfco, 
etc. This word thus illustrates well the common itacistic ten- 
dency, showing forms in -t, -ot, -v and -et (in the verb). The 
LXX has only arixos and crrtxtr<^, not aroLx- (Thackeray, Gr., 
p. 92). 

I and u. These two vowels sometimes have the force of the 
consonants^ j (?/) and v (cf. Latin). Cf. av- (af) and eu- (ef) in 
modern Greek, and e in TroXecos. In modern Greek "every i- or 
e-sound which collides in the middle of a word with a succeeding 

1 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 155. 

* Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 22. But it is quite possible (see j) that this is a case 
of prothetic o. 

3 W.-Sch., p. 52. * Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 81. 

6 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 53. Cf. on the other side K.-BL, I, 3, p. 53. 
6 Jann., ib., p. 52. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 112. 
^ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 27, 55, etc. 


vowel, loses its syllabic value and becomes consonanted" (Thumb, 
Handh., p. 10). So ayLos = mjos. The t is the last of the five 
original vowel-sounds in this order: a, o, i;, e, t. This relative value 
has persisted in modern Greek (Thum])'s Handbook, p. 12 f.). 
Jannaris^ gives a-rro^doviJLevoi as an illustration of this gradation in 
sound. But as a matter of fact the interchange between t and v 
is not frequent. Meisterhans^ finds only five examples in the 
Attic inscriptions, two of which, ^v^Xiop and MltvXtjvolos, are found 
in N. T. MSS. (assimilation). Examples occur in the kolvt] of Asia 
Minor, though Thumb ^ agrees with Kretschmer in calling it a 
"barbarism." Still the old distinction in sound between t and u 
slowly broke down till in modern Greek the two vowels have the 
same sound. BiypuXXos in Rev. 21 : 20 is spelled also in MSS. ^-q- 
piWos, /SiVtXXos, jStpuXXtos, a fine illustration of itacism. D reads 
jSyiSXos for /3i/3Xos in Mk. 12 : 26 and Lu. 20 : 42. In Ac. 20 : 14 
McTv\r]vr] is the correct text for the old Mur., but AE have Mtri;- 
Xlpri and L MvTv\ivr]. For the TpwylXiov of Strabo and the By- 
zantine writers the Textus Receptus addition to Ac. 20 : 15 has 
TposyvMa, other MSS. TpuyvWiov, Tpo:yv\Lou.^ The LXX shows 
also niJLvav in 9 Dan. 7:25 (B). The Ptolemaic papyri vary in 
this word (Thackeray, Gr., p. 95). In Lu. 19 : 8 D has vi^vaov. 

(e) The Changes with o. For changes with a see under (a), 
for and e under (h), for o and t under (d). 

and ov. The old Attic used AtoaKopos, which Phrynichus^ pre- 
fers, though Thucyd. and Plato have the form in -ovpos also (Epic 
or Ionic). In Ac. 28 : 11 only some of the cursives have the form 
in -opos. Both forms appear in the inscriptions.^ This exchange 
is rather common in the Ptolemaic papyri (Mayser, Gr., pp. 10 f., 
116 f.). In the LXX {< shows sometimes 6k for ovk (Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 91). The modern Greek dialects have much diversity of 
usage on this point. Of. Thumb, Handh., p. 8. 

1 lb., p. 84. ^ Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 28 f. 

3 Hellen., pp. 139, 193 ff. Cf. Kretschmer, Einl. in d. Gesch. d. griech. 
Spr., p. 225 f. Croncrt (Mem. Grace. Hercul., p. 21 f .) gives exx. in Hercul. 
pap. Cf . Mayser, Gr., pp. 100-103, for exx. like m\os, ^vjiUov, etc., in the pap. 

< Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 22. In Athens before 403 B.C. o stood for 
o, 03, ov (Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 24). 

6 Lobeck, p. 235; The New. Phryn., p. 310. Cf. K.-Bl., I, p. 140 f., for this 
change in Old Attic and New Ionic. The N. T. Apoc. (Reinhold, Do Grace, 
etc., p. 41) has exx. hke i^oU/jL-nv as the mod. Gk. vernac. (Thumb, Nougr. 
Volksspr., p. 6). Cf. Buresch, Phil. l\, 89. Most common bet. vi/iii u.c. ace. 
to Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 37. 

8 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. GG f. 


and V. The MSS. vary between* irpaos (Syrian) and 7rpai5s in 
Mt. 11 : 29; 1 Pet. 3 : 4, as well as between Tpaorrjs and Tpavrrjs in 
Pauline Epistles. W. H. adopt the form in -v. Von Soden varies 
between these forms, giving no reasons. It is the old distinction 
surviving in the kolvt]. The LXX has the i; form. The papyri 
have other illustrations (Mayser, Gr., p. 97). Cf. UotLoKol in Ac. 
28 : 13 for the Latin Puteoli. 

and (0. Originally o represented both the short and long sounds, 
so that it was easy with careless pronunciation for more or less con- 
fusion to exist after co came into use. The Boeotian Pindar, for 
instance, has Aidowaos instead of Aiowaos.^ The New Ionic ^orj 
(parox.) appears in heu of fcoi]. However, the introduction of the 
Ionic alphabet in 403 b.c. kept the two vowels pretty distinct 
in Attic till the Roman time, though the change began in the 
third century b.c.^ After the second century b.c. the exchange 
of these two vowels was indiscriminate in the more ilHterate 
vernacular.^ The confusion was earliest in Egypt, but the Attic 
inscriptions kept the distinction well till 100 a.d. The early un- 
cials for the LXX and the N.T. show httle evidence of the inter- 
change (Thackeray, Gr., p. 89). Jannaris finds it common. The 
modern Greek makes no difference in sound between o and w ex- 
cept medial o as in not. "In the early papyri the instances of 
confusion between o and co are innumerable."^ The inscriptions 
tell the same story about the kolvt] in Magnesia^ and Pergamum.'' 
In some instances,^ like Sofxa for 5cbixa and irpodofxa, an co is shortened 
to o after the analogy of e from 77 in ^e^a. In the N. T. MSS. 
"probably the commonest permutation is that of and w, chiefly 
exemplified in the endings -onev and -uixepJ' ^ It is useless to fol- 
low the MSS. through their variations on this point. In Ro. 
5 : 1 excojuei' is supported by all the best documents and gives a 
difficult sense at first, though a better one on reflection than 
exoiJiev. In 1 Cor. 15 : 49 the evidence is so nearly balanced that 

1 Gregory, Prol., p. 82. ' K.-Bl., I, p. 141. 

3 Meisterh.,Gr. d. att. Inschr.,p. 24 f., gives numerous exx. of the exchange 
in inscr. of various dates. 

4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 37. Jann. quotes a Louvre pap. (165 b.c.) which 
has r5 abro Tp6ivu,i. Mayser (Gr., pp. 97 ff.) finds only two exx. of this confusion 
of o and CO in the Ptol. pap. of iii/s.c, but seventy in the next two. 

6 lb. Cf. Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 19 f. 

6 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 64. 

» Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 95. Cf. Thumb, Hellen., pp. 143, 172. 

8 Reinhold, De Graec. Patr., p. 41, and Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. 108. 

9 Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 309. 


W. H, cannot decide between (f)ope(TO}iJ.ev and (})opkcronev (the latter 
in the margin). Von Soden gives -o-co-. This difficulty of dis- 
tinguishing between o and w in the indicative and subjunctive 
increased in later kolvt] times.^ Several further N. T. examples of 
interest are ayopaaccixev (Lu. 9 : 13), I'm avaTrar]aovTaL (Rev. 14 : 13), 
I'm avairamovTai (Rev. 6:11), kav aTodvn(XKOfj,ep as read by Lachmann 
(Ro. 14 : 8), I'm yLva}<xKoixev (1 Jo. 5 : 20), I'm StwKovrat according to 
Tisch. (Gal. 6 : 12), i'm dLepxoiJ.aL according to Treg. (Jo. 4 : 15), 
Sucunev according to Treg. and Tisch., and preceded by ayopa- 
acofxiv (Mk. 6 : 37), (Mt. 13 : 15; cf. Is. 6 : 10), i'm Kavdr](jwnai 
or Kavxriawp-aL (1 Cor. 13:3), I'm ^vprjaopraL (Ac. 21:24). In all 
these instances syntactical questions enter also besides the mere 
question of vowel interchange.^ 

The o appears instead of w in ttomci (1 Cor. 10 : 4; Heb. 9 : 10), 
Trpoi'juos (J as. 5:7), Ztolkos (Ac. 17: 18),^ avKop-opea, not -/xcopea (Lu. 
19 : 4), xp^o4)Lh.eTr]s according to W. H. and not xP^o4>eL\eTr]s (Soden) 
nor xpew^etXerTjs according to LU, etc. (Lu. 7:41; 16 : 5). But w is 
correct apparently in ayaOooavvr], aycwavvr], ei^Sw/xTjcris (Rev. 21 : 18, 
Soden -dop.-), iepcoavvr], p.eyaKwahvq, xpcotVos. So also the LXX, but 
irpoipos (Thack., Gr., p. 90). Codex B shows others in the LXX 
(ih.). In Lu. 18:5 and 1 Cor. 9 : 27 the MSS. vary between 
i)7rw7ridfco (from vir-coTnop) and vtotlol^co (-Trtefco old form), though 
the best MSS. read uttcott.* In Ro. 13 : 3 tw ayadQ epyu) may 
possibly be rcS ayadoepyco. So in 2 Pet. 3 : 6 5t' o}v may be^ for 
5t' 6v. In Rev. 4 : 7 f . ex^^v, not exov (Soden), is read by the best 
MSS., though the substantive is ^wof. Now second century B.C. 
papyri have viropvrjpa exo)v where co and o are exchanged.^ 

(/) The Changes with v. For the changes with i; and t see 
under (d) , v and o under (e) . 

V and €\). Only one example of this exchange appears in the 
N. T., that of Tpea^vTTjs in Phil. 9. Here the sense seems to 
demand Trpea^evriis. Bentlcy suggested it long ago and Lightfoot 
(comm. in loco) collected a number of instances of the omission 

1 Cf. Reinhold, De Grace. Patr., p. 102; Hatz., Einl. etc., p. 306. 

2 W.-Sch., p. 48. 

3 Hort thinks so "perhaps." The Doric had (ttolo.. Blass (Gr. N. T. Gk., 
p. 22) prefers the correct 2rcotK6s, Von Soden 2toik6s. 

■> Ace. to W.-Sch. (p. 48 f.) this is not orthographical at all, but etymolog- 
ical. Why not both? 

6 lb., p. 48. 

« Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 37. Doubtless other vowel-exchanges in Rev. 
may have a similar explanation and so do not violate concord of gender. 


of € from ev in single MSS. Hort^ thinks it due to a scribe and 
not to Paul, since the earher Greek shows no examples of this 
interchange. However, Wood^ has found irpea^evTepos for irpea^v- 
repos in an Ephesian inscription (analogy: in modern Greek 
€u = e/). Thackeray (Gr., p. 97) finds this "natural error" in the 

V and ov. This has always been a rare exchange in the Greek, 
the Boeotian dialect having retained the original v sound of v 
after the Attic gave it up.^ The Zaconian preserves it in the 
modern Greek.^ The kolvt] has sometimes xpov(r6s for xpi^cos-^ But 
ov was rather frequent in the kolvt] to represent the Latin u as 
Apovcros.^ In Rev. 3 : 18 the Latin collyrium is given in the MSS. 
as KoWovpLov, KoWvpiov, KovXKovpiov, ctc. W. H. prefer KoWovpLov, 
though KBC read -vptov (so Soden). Blass^ observes that we have 
long V in -hpiov. B in the LXX shows the same variations (Thack., 
Gr., p. 92). The Ptolemaic papyri have few instances. Of. change 
of i; and ov (Mayser, Gr., p. 118). Thumb {Hellen., p. 193 f.) thinks 
that i; in the Koivi] was pronounced like German il, i and also u. 
In Rev. 1 : 5 the distinction between Xvaavn (J^AC) and XovaavTL 
(BP) is more than mere orthography, though the confusion was 
rendered easy. TI is always so written in the N, T. uncial MSS.,^ 
though the iota was sometimes dropped in the inscriptions. 

{g) The Changes with «, For changes with co and a see under 
(a), for CO and o under (e). 

ca and ov. The Thessalian dialect^ exchanged co and ov as in 
Tov KOLvov for Tco KOLvoj. This change reappears in Rhodes and 
the iEolic-Doric.^" Buresch^^ finds the change between co and ov 
common in the Egyptian vernacular, as in the Sahidic Greek oo 
is often used for co.^^ It is, of course, possible, according to the 
view of Winer-Schmiedel,^^ that some indicatives in ov may really 

» Notes on Sel. Read., p. 136. 2 djsc. at Ephesus, App., p. 24. 

s Thumb, HeUen., p. 31. Cf. Bnig., Griech. Gr., 4th ed., p. 32 f. 
< Hatz., Einl. etc., p. 103. ^ Thumb, HeUen., p. 85. 

6 Cf. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 62. Schweizer, Perg. Insclir., p. 71 f. 

7 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 22. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 118. 

8 Cf. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 46 f.; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 9 f., ob- 
serves that B occasionally divides thus v/i6s at end of a hne and so practically 
A and D. 

9 K.-Bl., I, p. 135. Common in mod. Gk. (Thumb, Handb., p. 8). 
'" Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 70 f . 

" Jahrb. f. klass. Philol., 1891, p. 434. 12 Tattam's Egyp. Gr., p. 5. 
" P. 52. Reinhold (De Grace. Patr. Apost., p. 41) gives similar exx. TIwkv- 
pOivra appears in Egyp. pap. (B. M., vol. II, cUv). Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 99 f. 



be subjunctive as a result of this vowel-interchange. The con- 
tract form for the present participle t<2 vlkovvtl is read by AC in 
Rev. 2 : 17 and A in 2 : 7, a change more likely due to confu- 
sion of -dco and -ew verbs. So with tva ^rjXovre (Gal. 4 : 17) and 
Ua 4>vcnomde (1 Cor. 4:6), but the present indicative can be used 
with Iva, and one is slow to credit this form to a mere vowel- 
exchange. The same remark applies to tva Tpecf^ovatv (W. H. marg. 
Rev 12 • 6) as well as I'm jiPcoaKovaLv (Tisch. and Treg., Jo. 17 : 3) 
and tm a<,4>povi^ovaLv (Tisch. and Treg., Tit. 2 : 4). The future 
indicative with tm as KaradovXc^aovaLP (Gal. 2:4), rpoaKwiiaovcnp 
(Rev. 9:20), aravpi^aovatv (Tisch., Treg., Lach., Mk. 15:20), 
aci)6.^ov(n (Rev. 6 : 4) has rival readings with co, aorist subjunctive. 
It is hardly mere vocal similarity. Similar instances are fxijTOTe 
KaraTarrjaovaLV (Mt. 7:6), kap neravoi,(xovaLP (Rev. 2 : 22), w eav 8ov- 
\ehaovaLP (Ac. 7:7). In these and similar examples where the 
MSS. vary between w and ov it is probable that, as with 77 and e, o 
and CO, the difference in mode may have been blurred by the ten- 
dency to exchange these vowels. But the syntactical question is 
not essentially altered by this incidental orthographical problem. 
(0 and (ou. Lachmann, Tregelles, W. H. all write cou in Moivarjs, 
but Thayer urges that the word is a trisyllable Mc^mrjs (Fritzsche, 
Gesenius, Tisch., Soden). The Ionic eoovrov is a trisyllable. Cf. 
Mayser, Gr., p. 138. Blass^ indeed says that the diphthong wu 
is non-existent in the N. T. as in the Attic. The Text. Rec. 
reads Ucoarjs, following Strabo and Josephus in the Antiquities, 
though in the LXX and Josephus elsewhere we have McouaTjs. 

(h) Contraction and Syncope. In general the kolvv uses 
contraction of vowels from the standpoint of the Attic,^ though a 
strong Ionic infusion^ is present also as in forms like xetXt"", opku^, 
etc. The N. T. examples of unusual contraction find illustration" 
in the KOLpi,. In the N. T. contraction is rarely neglected, as 
Winer^ saw, though kdkero (NC for Lu. 8 : 38, though BL 33 read 
ede-LTo), pot (1 Cor. 1 :10, etc.), oarka (Lu. 24:39), dcrrko^u (Mt. 
23:27, etc.), dpko^p (Rev. 6 : 15, Attic as well as Ionic), xeiXecoi/ 
(Heb. 13 : 15), xpv<^^^v (R^v. 2:1, Lach., Treg.) show that the 
N. T. in this respect was like the kolpt] and not the literary Attic. 
Blass« observes that the N. T. Greek did not go quite as far in 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 10. - Schwcizor, Perg. Inschr., p. 100. 

3 Thumb, Ilollcn., p. 237. C^f. also ih., p. G3. For the mod. Gk. contrac- 
tion sec p. 249. Cf. K.-Bl., Bd. I, pp. 201-21S. 

* Schwcizor, Perg. Insdir., pp. lOUlT.; Nachiu., Magn. Iiisclir., pp. 68 ff. 
» W.-Th., p. 40; W.-M., p. 51. " Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 22 f. 


contracting vowels as the Attic did. In illustration can be men- 
tioned ayadoepyelv (1 Tim. 6 : 18), though ayadovpyoov is the cor- 
rect text in Ac. 14 : 17. But we have aiiirekovp'yb^, lepovpyetv, 
KaKovpyos, okovpyos, iravovpyos, not to mention the conjectural read- 
ing ayadoepyos for Ro. 13 : 3 on the other hand. In Col. 2 : 16 
veonrjvla for the Attic vovfi7]vla is read by W. H., though supported 
only by BFG 121 f g vg. So the LXX (Thack., Gr., p. 98). In 
the case of eXeLvos W. H. have the regular form in Rev. 3 : 17, but 
eXeetj'os in 1 Cor. 15 : 19. Blass^ reminds us, however, that even 
tXeivos may represent eXe'ivos. The N. T. likewise has voaaos in Lu. 
2 : 24 (hke the LXX) and voaaia (or voaaLo) in Lu. 13 : 34; Mt. 23 : 
37. Phrynichus^ condemned this dropping of e in veoacros. Kaixp.vca 
(Mt. 13 : 15; Ac. 28 : 27, both from Is. 6 : 10) comes from the Epic 
and the old vernacular. Kar was an old form parallel with /card. 

There are several noteworthy points about t. The t is retained 
in dXXoTpteTTttrKOTTos (1 Pet. 4 : 15). The same thing is true with 
rip.L(jipov (Rev. 8:1), like riixiw^oKov in the Attic inscriptions.^ The 
form 'iadoiv in Mk. 1 : 6 (already in Homer) is a twin rather than 
a syncopated form of kadlo^v (Mt. 11 : 19) .^ In the N. T. the i 
is not dropped in such forms as jSLooaeade, evvirvLov, (nwindv, vlos. 
Blass^ calls the contraction of LeL = ii = l "an entirely new kind," 
though it appears in the kolvt], as in cTrei/ccos, rap,eiov, vyeta, etc.^ 
When et came to be equal to t, the two sounds naturally blended 
into one. Cf. the Ionic dative xoXt for ttoXu. So in the N. T. we 
find iretv (BCD), even tIv (NAL) for Tnetv in Jo. 4:9, and else- 
where in the N. T. In Mt. 6 : 6, etc., raixetov is read for Tap.ia.ov.'' 
On the other hand in Rev. 21 : 20 A reads aapbibwi, for aapbbvv^. 
W. H. read rerpaapx^oj, reTpaapxn'^ rather than rerpapxew, etc. The 
use of yXucraoKonov instead of the earlier y'KcoaaoKop.eLov {-lov) should 
be noticed also. For the use of edj' = modal av see under (c). 

(i) Diphthongs and Diuresis. The Boeotians monoph- 
thongized the diphthongs at, ei, ol, ov in the fourth and fifth 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 23. 

2 Rutherford, New Phrjm., p. 287. For other syncopated forms in the 
LXX see Thack., Gr., p. 99. 

^ Meisterh., Gr. etc., p. 23. * Hort., Notes on Orth., p. 145. 

^ Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 23. Omitted by Debrunner. 

6 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 101. Cf. Dittenb., Or. Graec. Inscr. Sel., 
iireiKCos (565. 19), raptelov (515. 26 ff.), vyelas (618. 2). For the same phenomena 
in the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, p. 10 f. 

^ See Deiss., B. S., p. 183, for pap. illustrations of TreTf, irlv, ratietov. Moul- 
ton, Prol., p. 45, calls this coalescence of two successive i sounds "a universal 
law of Hellenistic phonology." Cf. for the LXX Thack., Gr., pp. 22, 63 f., 98. 


centuries b.c.^ The Boeotians pronounced xo-'t-P^i- = cheri as the 
vernacular kolvt] did. Thumb (Hellenismus, p. 228) objects to "this 
emphasizing of Boeotian" by Kretschmer {Die griech. Vasenin- 
schriften; Einleit. in d. Gesch). Moulton {Prolegomena, p. 33 f.) 
allows this Boeotian influence on the koivt] with a "perhaps." The 
itacising process still further developed this use of the diphthongs 
as monophthongs. Indeed Jannaris^ insists that the term bl^Qoy- 
70s as applied to avKka^i] concerned the eye rather than the ear 
and meant more biliteral than bivocal. The spurious diphthongs 
show the process in a state of completion. The papyri, unlike the 
inscriptions, do not dissect a diphthong at the close of a line.' 
Where two vowels do not blend into one syllable, it is necessary 
to indicate it. Hence from very early times marks of diaeresis 
were used to show that each vowel has its own sound. The mark 
is put over the i or i; which might otherwise be considered to 
unite with the preceding vowel. These marks are found in the 
oldest N. T. MSS. with such words as aXXryXouta (Rev. 19 : 1; 
but in the case of proper names transliterated from the Hebrew 
or Aramaic W. H. follow the Hebrew or Aramaic spelling. 
Cf. Hort, Intr., p. 313. So in other examples below), 'Axata, 
'Axa'iKos (1 Cor. 16 : 17), Brjdaa'iSa, Taios (also Tatos in Ac. 20:4, 
etc., but cf. Allen, Harvard Studies in Class. Philol., ii, 1891, pp. 
71 ff.), 8Lv\i^eLv {Mi. 23:24), 'E^paiarl, eXcot (Mk. 15:34), 'E0- 
pai/jL, however, or 'E^peju (NL in Jo. 11 : 54), 'Ho-atas, though B usu- 
ally without,^ 'lovdaiKuiS, taxi^t (2 Pet. 2 : 11), KaVd^as, KdiV (W. H. 
Kail'), so W. H. Katj'dj' (not Ka'ivav nor -ol/jl), Aeveir-qs and not AevLTrjs 
in W. H., Acots (W. H. -ts), Mwvarjs in W. H., not Mccmfjs, Nii'eueirTjs 
and not NivevtTT^s, irpoino^ according to W. H., but Trpwi, irpuLvos. 
W. H. have HroXejuatSa in Ac. 21 : 7 and Tco/xaio-rt in Jo. 19 : 20. 
D reads Xopa'^atp. The Semitic etymology complicates the matter 
with some of these words.'' Many of the MSS. use diaeresis at 
the beginning of words as in iVa." ^{A regularly write t]v, while 
coi; is correct also.^ See Giles ^ on the subject of diphthongs. For 
iota subscript see under (c). 

(j) Aph^resis and Prothetic Vowels. QeXoo, not t^eXco, is the 
only form in the N. T., as it is the common form in the kolvt] and 
is that used in modern Greek. It is as old as Homer, and since 

> Hatz., Einl. etc., p. 304. Cf . K.-Bl., Bd. I, pp. 243 ff. 

2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 29. » lb., j). 43. Cf. Mayscr, Gr., p. 153 f. 

^ lilass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 17. So 'Uacral. 

" lb. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 34. ^ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 10. 

6 Gregory, Prol. etc., p. 108. » Comp. Philol., pp. 158 ff. 


250 B.C. is the only form in the Attic ^ and Ionic ^ inscriptions. 
The augment, however, is always r]. Cronert^ finds e^eXco after 
consonants. The kolvti does not follow the Ionic in the use of 
Ketvos for eKelvos. Aphseresis is frequent* in the modern Greek 
vernacular, KeZ and e/cet, 8ev for ov8ev, etc. But the N. T. has 
only kxdks (so LXX) in the best MSS. (cf. Jo. 4 : 52 kVABCD; 
Ac. 7:28 NBCD; Heb. 13:8 ^<ACD), the usual Attic form, 
though the papyri sometimes have x^« instead of the common 
hxOes. The N. T. does not have Svponai, KeXXco, (xeiponaL, where 
o is dropped. Cf. Kuhner-Blass, Tl. I, Bd. 1, p. 186. The form 
fielponai (cf. dfxeLpofjLevot. in 1 Th. 2 : 8) occurs in Nicander for 
l/jLelponai. It is possible that in b{o)iielpop.aL we have prothetic o 
instead of aphseresis. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 152; Winer- 
Schmiedel, p. 141. See Additional Notes for full list. 

(Jc) Elision. Besides the use of the movable final v and s the 
Greeks had two other methods of obviating hiatus (elision, era- 
sis). The hiatus was distasteful to the finished writers, though 
more freedom was exercised in poetry. The avoidance of hiatus 
was always a more or less artificial matter and hiatus was un- 
avoidable in the most careful Attic writers, as in the case of on, 
xept, irpo, TL, TL, the article, relative, the small "form-words" (/cat, 
€1, ixT)), etc. But the harsher hiatus like kblboTo aurw would be 
avoided by the literary kolvt] writers as well as by the Atticists. 
The inscriptions and the papyri show far less concern about hia- 
tus than do the literary writers of the Koivi]. As might be expected 
the N. T. books agree in this matter with the vernacular kolvt] 
and the MSS. vary greatly among themselves. Blass^ considers 
this situation in harmony with the tendency to greater isolation 
of the words in the later language. Indeed he thinks that only 
one^ book in the N. T. (Hebrews) shows the care of an artistic 
writer in the avoidance of hiatus. By omitting the O. T. quota- 
tions and chapter 13 he finds that hiatus where there is a pause 
is a matter of indifference, as also with nal. He finds fifty-two 
other instances of hiatus, whereas Romans goes beyond that num- 

1 Meisterh., Gr., p. 178. 

2 Smyth, Ionic Dial., p. 482. Cf. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 155. 

3 Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 133 f. 
< Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 13. 

6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18. Cf. on hiatus K.-Bl, I, pp. 190 ff . 

8 lb., p. 296 f. On indifference of later Gk. to hiatus see Bischoff, Neut. 
Wiss., 1906, p. 268; Thieme, ib., p. 265. Moulton (Prol., p. 92) quotes Kaelker 
(Quaest., p. 245 f.) as saying that Polyb. uses '6(ttl% for 6s merely to avoid 
hiatus. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 160. 


ber as far as ch. 4 : 18. But even then Blass has to admit cases 
of harsher hiatus in Hebrews, like adeXcpol 0,7101, ivoxoi ^aav, etc. 
The Attic inscriptions show that the vernacular tongue did not 
care much about hiatus.^ The Hghter ehsions like 5' were used or 
not at will, while the heavier ones like Skat' ottojs were rare. The 
same indifference to elision appears in the koivt] inscriptions^ and 
in the papyri.^ In general in the N. T. elision takes place regu- 
larly before pronouns and particles and before nouns in combina- 
tions of frequent occurrence^ like kut' oXkov. Blass ^ has carefully 
worked out the following facts in the N. T. MSS. Te, ovre, fxTjre, 
alia, apa, ye, kfie, ert, tra, ware, etc., do not undergo elision nor do 
noun- or verb-forms. The verse of Menander quoted in 1 Cor. 
15 : 33 is properly printed XPV'^^^ 6/it\tat by W. H.^ Even the 
compound words TeaaepaKovraeTris (Ac. 7:23) and eKaTovTaerrjs 
(Ro. 4 : 19) do not suffer elision, while TeTpa-dpxv^ has no eli- 
sion in J<CA (Alexandrian, Hort). Tout' eo-rt or rovrkcTi is the only 
example in the pronouns that we have in the N. T.'' It is in the 
particles then that most N. T. elisions occur, though there are 
comparatively few. 'AXXa, according to Gregory,^ has ehsion in 
215 cases and fails to have it in 130, though the MSS. vary much. 
Hort^ observes that in dXXa elision is usual before articles, pro- 
nouns and particles, but rare before nouns and verbs. Ro. 6 : 
14-8 : 32 has many non-elisions of dXXd, and the elision varies be- 
fore the different vowels except that it is constant before i. Ae 
rarely suffers elision outside of 6s 5' av, but here frequently, while 
W. H. read U ahrb^'m Ph. 2 : 18 after NBP. In 2 Cor. 3 : 16 
W. H. put 171^1^ 5' av in the margin, text iiv. U kav (so Tisch., 
Nestle). In obbk elision takes place several times, as in ovb' av 
(Heb. 8:4), ohb' d (Ac. 19:2, NAB), ohb' Iva (Heb. 9:25), owS' 
'6ri (Ro. 9:7), ou5' ov (Mt. 24 : 21; Heb. 13 : 5), ovb' oOrcos (1 Cor. 
14 : 21). Blass ^"^ further notes that prepositions seldom use elision 

^ Mcisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 69 f. 

2 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 134; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 71 f. 

3 Cronert, Mem. Grace. Hereul., p. 138 f. Cf. also Thumb, Hcllen. etc., 
p. 82. * Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 146. 

6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18. Cf. also Gregory, p. 93 f. 

6 Moulton (CI. Rev., Feb. 31, 1901) finds that the pap. hke the Lat. have 
a vowel not used in the metre. The inscr. concur in this practice. Moulton, 
Prol., p. 4.5. Cf. also Mayser, Gr., pp. IS.'j-l.^S, 100-162. He shows that in 
the pap. it is largely a matter of inditTerence. On the scarcity of elision in the 
LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, p. 12 f.; Thackeray, pp. 22, 136 f. 

' Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 306) refers to the Oxyrhynchus pap., which 
have tovt' diTosv in Jo. 20 : 22. * Prol., p. 93 f . 

» Notes, p. 146. »" Blaas, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18. 


with proper names, since it was thought better, as on the in- 
scriptions, to keep the name distinct and readily discernible, 
though W. H. read 8l' 'A^paan in Heb. 7 : 9. Elision is most 
common with 5td as 8l' eaoiTTpov (1 Cor. 13: 12), "because there 
were already two vowels adjacent to each other" Blass^ thinks. 
'AvtI has elision only in avd' oou (Lu. 1 : 20, etc.). Elsewhere the 
prepositions show elision with pronouns and in current phrases, 
as in air' apxvs, air' apri, aw' avrov, air' e/xoO, eir' avTU), Kar' 'efxk, /car' 
Iblav {Kad' I8iap), Kar' oIkov, fxer' e/ioD, Trap' o:v, vcj)' r]ij,oov' (vficou), vir' 
ov8ev6s (1 Cor. 2 : 15) .2 So the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 137). 

(I) Crasis. The Attic official inscriptions make little use of 
crasis, though it is fairly common in the vase-inscriptions of the 
fifth century b.c.^ In Magnesia Nachmanson finds only a few 
examples of /cat and the article.^ The same thing is true of Per- 
gamum.^ In the N. T. it is confined also to /cat and the article. 
And in the case of /cat crasis only occurs if the following word is 
a pronoun or a particle. Kat thus often, though not always, 
coalesces with kydo and the oblique cases, as Ka,7cb, /cd/iot, /cd/xe. If 
there is a " distinct co-ordination of eycb with another pronoun or 
a substantive," crasis does not take place.^ Even the MSS. vary 
greatly.'' KaKeivos also is found as well as /cd/cet and KaKeWev. Kal 
likewise blends only occasionally with eav in the sense of ' and if, ' 
as in Mk. 16 : 18; Lu. 13 : 9; Jas. 5 : 15. In the sense of 'even 
if' the crasis is more common, as in Mt. 26:35; Jo. 8: 14. In 
the sense of 'if it be but' or 'if only' the crasis is uniform as in 
Mk. 5:28; 6:56; 2 Cor. 11 : 16.^ Cf. mv — Kal 'eav (Jo. 8:14, 
16). The article suffers crasis very often in the older Greek, but 
in the N. T. it is seldom so. Hort^ declines to accent ravTo. for 
ravTa in 1 Cor. 9 : 8 or raurd for rd aijrd in Lu. 6 : 23, 26 ; 17: 30, 
though supported in Luke by some good MSS. He does, how- 
ever, accept Tovvoixa in Mt. 27:57 and TovvavTlov in 2 Cor. 2:7; 
Gal. 2:7; 1 Pet. 3:9 ("stereotyped as a single word," Blass^o). 
Crasis is quite rare in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 137). 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18. See Additional Notes. 

2 For more minute details about the prep, see Gregory, Prol., pp. 94 ff. 

3 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., pp. 70 ff. * Magn. Inschr., p. 74. 

^ Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 133. Cf. Mayser, Gr., pp. 158 ff., for the 
common pap. exx. Uke Kdyw, TaXtjdks, etc. * Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 145. 

' See Gregory, Prol., p. 96; Von Soden, I, p. 1380. 

8 See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18, and W.-Sch., p. 38; Von Soden, I, p. 1380. 
Blass gives KairfBhuei from D (Lu. 15 : 16). ^ Notes on Orth.,. p. 145. 

10 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 19. For scarcity in LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, 
p. 13 f. 


III. Consonant-Changes (o-roixeta (n3|X(})<ova). The Greek, hke 
other Indo-Germanic tongues, wrote out both vowels and con- 
sonants save in the case of iota adscript, which was not always 
used. But, as with the Phoenician and Hebrew, which wrote only 
consonants, the consonants form the backbone of the language. 
Both consonants and vowels are originally pictographic. "Beth" 
(jSTjra) is 'house,' "gimul" {yaixixa) is 'camel,' "daleth" (5eXra) is 
'door,' etc.^ The Greek indeed developed the vowels a, e, t, o out 
of the Phoenician consonants aleph, he, yod, ayin? 

(a) Origin and Character of the Consonants. Though 
the Greek consonants undoubtedly come chiefly from the Phoeni- 
cian sjnubols, they were not all used at once nor in the same 
places. At first the digraphs KB, TB, V\ B were used for the later 
X, 6, $, and even after these letters won a foothold K2, XS, 
ns, $S were used in Attic for ^, \p. It is only since 403 B.C. that 
the Greek alphabet (aX^a /Sjjra) has had regularly twenty-four 
letters. Jannaris^ gives an interesting study of the way the 
Greek letters looked in eighth, sixth, fifth and fourth centuries 
B.C. as shown by the inscriptions. In the inscriptions, however, 
KOTTTra continued to be used (like Latin Q) and /3aO or diyaidfia. 
This last, though called double yafx/j-a, perhaps represents the Phoe- 
nician vau. On the use of digamma in Homer see Kiihner-Blass.^ 
It is a half-vowel in fact, as t and v are partly consonant in force, 
like Latin u {v) and i (j).^ The dropping of digamma affected 
many words, some of which have the rough breathing, though 
Thumb ^ and Moulton^ think that this is an accident simply, and 
the rough breathing is due to analogy and not to the digamma in 
cases like Kad' eros, etc. But changes in the use of the consonants 
did not cease when the Euclidean spelling reform was instituted 
403 B.C. As the vowels underwent steady development, so it was 
and is with the consonants. B early began occasionally to have 
the force of v, and y sometimes the j value of t as in modern Greek, 
and it was even inserted (irrational 7).^ In general in the kolvt] the 

1 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 21. 2 jb. Cf. Mcisterh., Gr. etc., p. 3. 

' lb., p. 24 f. On the whole subj. of changes in the pap. see Mayser, Gr., 
pp. 163-248. For general remarks about consonant-changes in LXX MSS. 
Bee Swete, O. T. in Gk., p. 301. ■» Bd. I, pp. 85-101. 

5 lb., pp. 77-85, 101-103. The mod. Gk. pronounces avT6s = aftos. The 
inscr. give the form dFuToD. Cf. Riem. and Goelzcr, Phonet., p. 34. 

8 Hellen., pp. 245 ff. 

^ ProL, p. 44. But Sommer, Gr. Lauistudien, shows tluit tlie rough 
breathing is sometimes due to digamma. 

* Thumb, Ilcllen., p. 187 f.; cf. p. 134 f. for mtervocal 7. 


consonant-changes are much fewer than those of the vowel. Such 
pecuUarities as era, ylvojiaL, \i]ii4/oyLaL are common (Thackeray, Gr., 
p. 100). 

(6) The Insertion of Consonants. In the older Greek 5 
is inserted in a.v-b-pbs, and so with /3 in iiea-qix-^-pia} The 
Attic used either form in tii-K[{iji)-K\r}p.L, e/i7rt(/i)7rpr7;ut. So in Ac. 
14 : 17 DEP read kfXTnfnrXwp (D h-), and in Ac. 28 : 6 N*'^BHLP 
most cursives have Tiiu-irpaadaL. The LXX MSS. show the same 
variation. D in Lu. 2 : 32, etc., has 'la-r-paijX. The retention of 
H in all the forms (derivatives also) of Xa/x/Sdj^co (root \a0) is in ac- 
cord with the usage of the papyri ("almost invariably")- and the 
inscriptions of the Koivrj, and is due to the Ionic \aii\pofxaL.^ Hence 
\7]iJ.\po{xai, tKi]ii4)Qy}v, etc. In the Ptolemaic age (iii/i B.C.) the 
papyri give both forms. From i/iv a.d. the papyri and uncials 
(LXX and N. T.) give almost wholly /x forms. In the Byzantine 
period (vi/viii a.d.) the classic \i]\pojiaL reappears. Cf. Thack- 
eray, Gr., p. 108 f.; Mayser, Gr., p. 194 f.; Cronert, Mem., p. 66. 
In the LXX the uncials give the spelling of their own date, not 
that of the translation. In Mk. 7: 32 the extra 7 in /xo7(7)tXdXoj' 
is inserted by the Syrian class only and is not to be accepted. In 
Heb. 11 : 32 tt is added to 'Laixawv (Sa/zi^coj^) . So also in Ac. 3 : 7 
({<ABC) 5 is added to o-(j^L'(o)p6i' which is as yet "unexplained."^ 
In the case of 'kbpaixvvTrfvQ) (Ac. 27: 2), read by W. H. on author- 
ity of AB 16 Copt, instead of ' kbpanvrrripQ, a slightly different 
situation exists. Two ways of pronouncing and spelling the 
name of the city existed. 

(c) The Omission of Consonants. There are not many 
cases where a consonant drops out of a N. T. word. In Rev. 
13 : 2 the correct reading (all the uncials) is undoubtedly apKov, 
not apKTov. This form is found also in the LXX and in inscrip- 
tions of the first or second century a.d.^ W. H., following B and 
J<, also (save in Mk. 3 : 22) read jSeefe/SouX instead of ^eeX^e^ovX. 
Tivo/xai and ytvoicrKO} are the exclusive forms in the N. T., though 
some MSS., as in the papyri and inscriptions, have yeLv-. Nach- 

' Blass compares the insertion of consonants in Semitic names like "Ecr-5- 
pas, Ma^l-p-pr]. 2 Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 34. 

3 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 179 f. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 64, for full references 
concerning the use of n with XanlSavw. Cf. Gregory (Prol., p. 72) for list and 
references of the various compounds of Xanfiavu and Xij/ji/'ts in the N. T., 
&va—, iviwir-, &VTI—, aTTO— , Kara—, ixera—, irapa—, wpo— irpocr—. The LXX MSS. 
have Xrifixpofiat (Q \ri\povTai) and kXr!fji(f)9rjv. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 22. 

* Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 24; W.-Sch., p. 64. 

" lb., p. 65. 


manson^ states clearly the facts. The Ionic as early as the fifth 
century B.C. used the 711^ forms, and the Doric shows the same 
situation in the fourth century. Even in Athens the jlv forms 
appear, and in the kolvt] the 7171' forms vanish. To\yo9a follows 
the Hebrew nibapa rather than the Chaldaic s^n^alba in having 
only one X. According to Winer-SchmiedeP the two forms Kav5a 
and KKavda (Ac. 27 : 16) represent two different islands near each 
other, which were confused in the MSS. It is hardly worth while 
to remark that aapdcov (correct text in Rev. 4 : 3) is a substantive, 
while aaphvos (Text. Rec.) is an adjective. 

(r/) Single or Double Consonants. Blass^ and Winer- 
Schmiedel* comment on the obscurity concerning the use of single 
or double consonants in the kolvt). The phenomena in the N. T. 
in general correspond to the situation in the kolvt].^ In the modern 
Greek vernacular (cf. Thumb, Handbook, p. 27) the double con- 
sonants, except in Southeastern Greek dialects, have the value of 
only one. In the oldest Attic inscriptions in most cases where 
the doubling of consonants was possible the single consonant was 
used.^ The rule with initial p was that when it passed to the 
middle of a word as a result of reduplication or the prefixing of 
a preposition, etc., it was doubled. But pepapTLa/xhos is read by 
KACDP in Heb. 10 : 22 as in Ionic and late Greek, pepLUfxeuoL in D 
(Mt. 9 : 36), and -irepLpepapLixhos in N* (Rev. 19 : 13). Blass'' observes 

1 Magn. Inschr., p. 108. Cf. also Hoffmann, Griech. Dial., Bd. Ill, p. 173; 
Meisterh., p. 128; Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 165; Schmid, Atticismus, Bd. 
IV., p. 579 (for the Atticistic yLyv); Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 91 f.; 
Reinhold, De Graec. Patr. etc., pp. 46-48. In the LXX yivoixat and yivuaKOi 
are uniform. Cf. Holbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 21. Thack. (Gr., p. Ill f.) finds 
illustrations of the omission of intervocalic 7 in the LXX uncials as in the 
pap. (Mayser, Gr., p. 167 f.). 

2 P. 65, where a full discussion of the geographical points is given. 

3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 10. 

* P. 55; cf. also Riem. and Goelzer, Phonet., pp. 225 ff. 

6 See Thumb, Hellen., pp. 20 ff.; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., pp. 122 ff.; 
Nachm., Magn. Inschr., pp. 88 ff.; Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., pp. 74 ff. 
Cf. Mayser, Gr., pp. 211-219. For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 
14-16. The MSS. of the LXX are largely the same as those of the N. T. and 
show similar phenomena in orthograpliy. So in Ex. 7: 10 B has tpiftv, 'App. 
Both Appaftuv and kpafiwv occur, and it is in the paji. that we can often find the 
true Pt()l(Mnai(! spelling. A curiously has usually yif-rjtxa and B yffvrii^a. 

« Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 93. 

' Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 10, 32<S. Similar variations in usage as to p or pp 
appear in the inscr. of the koivt) (Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 124, Ai'o»'Tipi7rajs, 
etc.; Nachm., Magn. etc., p. 91) and even in the Attic inscr. (Meisterh., p. 95, 
dvaprjOii'Tts, etc.). Cf. Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p. 42, for exx. of ipixraro, etc. 


that the Syriac versions use S4?3in"i for 'Fufirj, though some Attic 
inscriptions use initial pp. In Mt. 9 : 20 alixoppoovaa is correct 
(NL one p). In Ac. 10:29 BD 61 read avavTLpy]To:s, and in Ac. 
19 : 36 BL have avavTipi]TOJv. In Ac. 27 : 43 W. H. follow NC in 
awoplxpavTas, and in Lu. 19 : 35 all but the Syrian class read ewL- 
pl\j/avTes and NAB have the same form in 1 Pet. 5:7. In Mt. 9 : 36 
the Neutral (and Alexandrian) class has epin/xevoL, the Syrian epp., 
while D has pepL/j.^.-. In Mt. 15 : 30 ^^DL read eptxpav, while only 
the Syrian class has lppL\pav, and so in Ac. 27: 19. But in Lu. 17: 2 
'ippiTTTai is supported by all MSS. save 11 and p^'=^ In Jo. 19 : 23 
apa<t)o<i is read by W. H., though B has app. In 2 Cor. 12 : 4 apprjra 
is right as appcoaros in Mk. 6 : 5, 13, etc. In 2 Cor. 1 : 22 W. H. 
follow BCD vs. NAL in reading appa^cova, a Semitic word which 
in its Semitic form has the doubling of the consonant and the 
metrical prosody --- according to Blass/ who compares also 
the Latin arrha. W. H. have Staprj^as in Mk. 14 : 63 after BN, 
while in Lu. 8 : 29 Siapricrcrcov is supported by ABCRUA. In Mt. 
26 : 65 W. H. give bCtpri^tv on the authority of only 9f according 
to Tisch., though BL read dLeprjaaero in Lu. 5 : 6. But Tpoakprj^ev 
in Lu. 6 : 48 is supported by }<BDL and in 6 : 49 by BDL. In 
Ac. 16 : 22 xeptpiy^a^res is the reading of all uncials save P, but 
most cursives follow P. But in Ac. 14 : 14 all MSS. have biappi]- 
^avres and in Lu. 9 : 42 the same thing is true of epp-q^ev. In Mk. 
2 : 21 kwipairTH is read by all the best MSS. and the Syrian class 
is divided, and the same is true of Mt. 26 : 67 kpaTnaav. In 2 Cor. 
11:25 epa^bladrjv is correct, while likewise epaPTLtxev (Heb. 9:19, 
21) has all save late Syrian support. So -pp- in eppWir] (BD epp-qd-q, 
not W. H., Mt. 5 : 21, etc.) is the constant reading in the N. T. 
In Eph. 3 : 17 (18) and Col. 2 : 7, all MSS. have kppLto^/xhoL. W. H. 
follow B alone in 2 Cor. 1 : 10; 2 Pet. 2 : 7 with epvaaro, while in 
Col. 1 : 13 B is joined by FGP. In 2 Tim. 3 : 11 AD read epvaaro, 
and NAC 37 give epvaOrjv in 2 Tim. 4 : 17. All MSS. have eppcoaOe 
(Ac. 15 : 29). Mvppa (B) is changed to Mvpa in the Syrian text (Ac. 
2 : 5; cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 160), but Winer-Schmiedel (p. 58) 
found only Mvpa in the inscriptions. Uapapvcipev (Heb. 2 : 1) is read 
by all the pre-Syrian classes. UappTjala, Tapprjcna^ofxat. (from Tav- 
priaia), not Tvapt]-, is the usual reading in the N. T. (see Additional 
Notes), as occasionally in the inscriptions.^ W. H. read ivvppbs in 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 10. 'Apa/Scoj- "only Western," Hort, Notes on Orth., 
p. 148. But the pap. (Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 33; Deiss., B. S., p. 183 f.) 
frequently have apa^6>v, and, as Deissmann remarks, people are not always par- 
ticular to preserve mere etymology. 2 CIGn,2722. 5. Cf.W.-Sch.,p. 56. 


Rev. 6 :4 and 12 :3, though the evidence is pretty evenly balanced.^ 
The Alexandrian class has wvpa^eL in Mt. 16 : 2, but W. H. reject the 
passage. The MSS. all have XeL/jiappov in Jo. 18 : 1. 

The other instances outside of p are not so numerous. The 
MSS. (all but late Syrian) support ^aWapTLov, not fioKavTiov, as 
do the papyri. 2 Blass^ argues for it also on metrical grounds. 
TevrjfjLa, because given by no grammarian, was "attributed by 
Fritzsche (on Mark, pp. 619 £f.) to the carelessness of transcribers" 
(Thayer), but as sometimes in the LXX (Ezek. 36 : 30) so in the 
N. T. the best MSS. distinguish between yhvqixa (from yepuaoS), 
'living creatures,' as yevprifxara extSt-iif (Mt. 3 : 7) and ykpyjixa (from 
yivonai), 'the fruits of the earth/ as k rod yePTjuaros ttjs a/xTeXov (Mk. 
14:25). Phrynichus* condemns the use of ykppriiia = Kapirbs (Dio- 
dorus, Polybius, etc.). Root of both verbs is yep. This distinction 
between yhrjfxa and y'tvvr}pi.a appears in the papyri also, though ytp-q- 
dePTa occurs in the Fayiim Papyri (B.U. 110. 14) "undoubtedly 
from yeppao)."^ So N. T. MSS. vary^ about ytppr]p.a. The gram- 
marians (Lobeck, ad Phrynichum, p. 726) reject tKxvvoi for e/cx€w, 
but the best MSS. give eKxvvfo) everywhere in the N. T. W. H. 
accept this ^olic form in Mt. 23:35; 26 : 28; Mk. 14:24; Lu. 
11 : 50 marg.) ; Lu. 22 : 20 (bracket the passage) ; Ac. 9 : 22; 22 : 20. 
So also avpxvvpco (W. H.) in Ac. 9 : 22; 21 : 31. Cf. vwepeKxvppofxe- 
vov in Lu. 6 : 38. Likewise MSS. support apa^alppoi, oTTappofxaL, 
while the ^Eolic airoKTeppu is received by W. H. in Rev. 6:11 and 
aiTOKTeppvoi in Mk. 12 : 5, though rejected elsewhere in N. T. on 
divided testimony. "Emros has been restored throughout the 
N. T. by W. H. instead of epparos of the Text. Rec. The inscrip- 
tions support the N. T. MSS. in this change (Thayer). So W. H. 
give epeprjKOPTa (Mt. 18:12 ff.; Lu. 15:4, 7) but kppea always. 
'Epeos, not kpueos, W. H. give (Ac. 9 : 7) as the LXX (Is. 56 : 10), a 
word possibly identical with a.peo:s (apaos). W. H. present^ /cpd/Sar- 
Tos instead of the Kpa^^aros of the Text. Rec, though Kpa^aros 
would more nearly represent the Latin grabatus as it appears 
in Etym. M. (154. 34; 376. 36). KpajSarptos is found also for the 

1 Tho inscr. show irvpd^ also (Dittcnb., 177. 15; 748. 20). 

2 Cninert, Mem. Graec. ilercul., p. 76. ^ Qr. of N. T. Gk., p. 11. 
* Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 348. 

s Dciss., B. S., pp. 109 f., 184. Cf. Thackeray, p. 118. 

^ Gregory, Prol., p. 79. 

^ In Mk. IJ (.5) has Kp&^aros, but is not followed by W. 11. in .To. and Ac. 
(6). Thumb, Ilellen., p. 22, argues for (ifi as the correct form from mod. Gk. 
usage. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 328) cites both KpafiaTTo-: anti Kpa^anov from 
Arrian's Diss. Epict. and Kpaliarros from the pap. Cf. Moult on's note in Einl. 


Latin grahatarius (CIGII 2114 d i)- {^> however, has 10/11 times 
the strange form Kpa^aKTos {-tt- only in Ac. 5 : 15). Aaaea (Ac. 
27 : 8) is Aao-crata in some MSS. Maixwvas, from Aramaic s^^itisiD, 
is correct. Mao-ao/xat is the right reading in Rev. 16 : 10 (NACP). 
Only the Western class has TX-quvprjs for irXrjiJLiJLvprjs in Lu. 6 : 48. 
W. H. properly have paKos, not pd/cKos, from prjypvjjLL (Mt. 9 : 16; 
Mk. 2 : 21). In the Western interpolation in Ac. 20 : 15, W. H. 
read TpwyvXiou, not -vWtov nor -tXtoj'. Some Latin MSS. read 
hysopus for vaawTos in Jo. 19 : 29 and Heb. 9 : 19. ^vyeXos, not 
-eXXos, is read in 2 Tim. 1 : 15 by all save A and most cursives. 
Cf. ^vyeXios in CIGn 3027. 

The Hebrew and Aramaic proper names call for special re- 
mark. "Avms = '\-^ (Josephus "Avavos) may be due to the drop- 
ping of a or to the analogy of "Aj^m = "jn. W. H. (Ac. 1:23; 
15:22) prefer Bapaa^jSas (from i^3"4:i5, 'son of the Sabbath') to 
BapaajSas (from s^nri ^?, 'son of Saba').^ The Text. Rec. has Tepr]- 
aaper (W. H. Tevvr]aapeT) in Mk. 6 : 53, elsewhere -vv-.^ V6p.oppa is 
read in LXX and N. T. (Mt. 10: 15, etc.), nSa^. W. H. accept 
'EXio-atos, not 'EXtcro-. (Syrian) in Lu. 4 : 27 = S'^'"'^'*. 'leaaal 
(Lu. 3 : 32, etc.) comes from ^"43^. The N. T. and 1 Mace, have 
'loTTTTTj, but the ancient grammarians and lexicographers pre- 
fer 'loTrry.^ In Lu. 3 : 27 'loiavav (indeclinable) is the right text. 
W. H. prefer 'Icodra (ini'^) to 'Icodvm in Lu. 8:3; 24 : 10. But more 
doubt exists concerning 'IcodfTjs, which W. H. read everywhere 
save in Ac. 4:6; 13:5; Rev. 22:8, following B and sometimes 
D. The single v prevails in D in Luke and Acts, while 'Iwawq^ is 
more common in D in Matthew, Mark, John.* }< has the single 
V in the part written by the scribe of B.^ The inscriptions have 
it both ways. Blass^ finds the explanation in the Hebrew termi- 
nation -an, which was treated as a variable inflection in the Greek, 
the LXX MSS. having now 'loiavav and now 'Iwavov. This fact 
opposes the derivation of the name '\wavvr]s from 'lwavav-y}s, leaving 
the -jjs unexplained.^ Maptd/x {"^T^p) = MapLafxp.rj in Josephus.* 
Mecalas is from the Aramaic i*n;^":;?3 = Hebrew niffi^n, but the Syr- 

1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 57. 

2 Cf. Pliny (Nat. Hist., V, 15. 71 for Tevv) also. In W.-Sch., p. 57, the 
point is made that the unpointed Targums do not distinguish between "^Q'^ 
and ^Qli. 

3 W.-Sch., p. 56, =13' or "2\ Cf. on this subject Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., 
p. 26 f. * Blass,"Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 328, quoting E. Lippett. 

6 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 159. ' W.-Sch., p. 57; E. Bibl., p. 2504 f. 

6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 11. « Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 11. 


ian class reads Meaias in Jo. 1:41 (42); 4:25. Sdppa, Heb. 
n-iic (feminine of ■^ia), is read by MSS. generally in N. T., though 
L has ^apas in Ro. 4:19 (vulg. Sarae). All the MSS. have vv 
in Xovaavpa (Lu. 8: 3) after the Heb. nr^^T:; ('a lily')- Xappav is 
supported by most MSS., though D and a few cursives have 
Xapap in Ac. 7:2 after the Hebrew T)n. The LXX has Xappap 
and the Greek writers (Strabo, etc.) have Kdppat, Latin Carrhae. 
Doubling of the Aspirate. As a rule the aspirated mutes (0, x, 
(f>) are not doubled in more correct writing either in early or late 
Greek, but N. T. MSS. give examples of 66, xx, 00- In Philemon 
2 D has 'A(t>(pia, while 3 has 'AxTria (so vulg.) and FG, etc., even 
'Aix(t)ia. In Mk. 7 : 34 all MSS. have e(j)cj)ada (or €</)0e0d) save A 
and two Coptic MSS. which have kiT4>a6a. W. H. give Ua66ato^ = 
Hebrew .-"in?? in the N. T. (Mt. 9:9ff., etc.), and ^la66av in Mt. 
1 : 15. W.'h. read MaT^dr in Lu. 3 : 24, but Ma^^dr in Lu. 3 : 29. 
In Ac. 1 : 23, 26 W. H. have Ma66im, but in Lu. 3 : 25 f . they pre- 
fer Marra^tas to Ma66a6las. In Ac. 5 : 1, W. H. consider 2d0(/)etpa 
Western and read SdTr^etpa (either Aramaic »TQp, 'beautiful,' or 
Hebrew ^"^QP, 'precious stone ').^ The LXX MSS. show the same 
variations. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 121. 

(e) Assimilation of Consonants. In the early period of the 
Greek language the inscriptions often show assimilation of con- 
sonants between separate words. The words all ran together 
in the writing {scriptura continua) and to some extent in pro- 
nunciation like the modern French vernacular. Usage varied 
very early, but the tendency was constantly towards the dis- 
tinctness of the separate words (dissimilation). However, e^ 
came finally to be written k before consonants, though ky, Ikk, ex, 
k^K and even e (cf. Latin) are found in Attic inscriptions,^ as ky 
vTja^v, etc. Only sporadic examples outside of e^ and k appear 
in the N. T. as di^e7Xt7rros in D (Lu. 12:33), aireySvaeL in B (Col. 
2 : 11), eyyova in D (1 Tim. 5 : 4), eggona, not cngona? The Attic 
inscriptions even have s assimilated in tovK \ldovs. The most 

» On the whole subject see Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 159, and Blass, Gr. of 
N. T. Gk., p. 11, Cf. also Schweizer, Pcrg. etc., pp. 110 f., 114 f. Cf. for 
the pap., Mayser, Gr., pp. 190-224; Soden, I, pp. 1372 ff. 

2 Cf. Meistorh., pp. 105-109. In North Engl, one hears "ith wood" for 
"in the wood." The MSS. of the LXX show the same phenomena as one 
sees in the N. T. MSS. and the pap., like iy yaarpL, tfj. nfcrv, avyypa(l)fi.i', etc. Cf. 
Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 16 f.; Thack., Gr., pp. 130 ff. 

' Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 12; Ausspr. etc., p. 123. Alexandrian 
writers followed the Attic in this assimilation. Rlass compares the gullural 
use of a in aijXi (Mt. 27 : 4()) in L and in the LXX 'Atpudif, 'Atvdup. 


common assimilation between separate words is in words ending 
in -V, especially with the article and h. Examples like tthjl -koXlv, 
ToK \6yov, Top 'F68lov, eX Aea^co, ea XlSuvi, etc., are very common. ^ 
Similar phenomena occur in the kolvtj inscriptions, though the 
failure to assimilate is far more noticeable. See list of examples 
in Nachmanson.^ As a rule the papyri do not assimilate such 
cases.^ In the N. T., as in the later kolpt] generally, only a few 
remnants survive of this assimilation of v between words. Blass,* 
who has used the MSS. to good purpose, finds several, as, for in- 
stance, ky yaarpi in A (Lu. 21 : 23), ey Kavd in AF (Jo. 2 : 11), e^i 
fikaoi in AC (Rev. 1:13; 2:1, etc.), in AP (Heb. 2:12), in LA 
(Mt. 18 : 2; Lu. 8:7), e/x Trpaurrjrt in J< (Jas. 1 : 21), av^ Mapta^ in 
AE, etc. (Lu. 2 : 5), avfx iraaiv in EG, etc. (Lu. 24 : 21). The earlier 
papyri (up to 150 b.c.) show a good deal of this assimilation be- 
tween words (Thackeray, Gr., p. 131). This assimilation between 
separate words is common in modern Greek (cf. Thumb, Handh., 
pp. 16 ff.). So Tov TaTepa = tombatera. But a much more difficult 
matter is presented in the case of h and avv in composition, 
though in general "assimilation is the rule in compounds of ku, 
retention of v in those of avv."^ But in 1 and 2 Peter assimila- 
tion is the rule (only two clear exceptions) for both avv and h, 
due possibly^ to the absence of uncials. The later papyri as a 
rule do not assimilate avv, though often h.'' In the N. T. no ex- 
amples occur of h or avv before ^ or p.^ Hort^ gives a list of what 
he considers "the certain and constant forms" of h and aiiu in 
composition. "All other compounds of avv and h are included in 
the list of alternative readings." Hort thus reads kp.- before the 
labials (x, j8, 0) and the liquid p except evTepLiraTTjcrco (2 Cor. 6 : 16), 
possibly kvTvv'eoiv (Ac. 9:1), and evwpoadev once (Rev. 4:6) and 
Western class elsewhere. So assimilation takes place before the 
liquid X, as hWoyaw. But before the palatals k, y the usage varies, 
though before % we have kyxp'^crai (Rev. 3 : 18) with K reading h. 

1 Meisterh., p. 110 f. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 97. 

2 Magn. Inschr., p. 100 f. Cf. also Schwcizer, Perg. etc., p. 127; Jann., 
Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 92. 

3 Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 57; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 12. 

* lb., pp. 11 f., 30G. 6 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 149. 

8 lb. In general see Wecklein, Curae Epigr. ad Gr. Graecae etc., 1869, 
p. 47 f. 

' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 12. Cf. Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 61. 

8 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 149. See for LXX Thackeray, pp. 132 ff. 

^ lb. For the inscr. see Nachm., Magn., p. 104 f. The Coptic shows similar 
variation. For the loss of final u in mod. Gk. vernac. see Thumb, Handb., p. 24 f. 


We read hy^y pafxfihr] in 2 Cor. 3 : 2 f . (NABCDFG) and kvKai- 
vt.a, kvKaLvi^o:, tPKaroLKeoo, ej^/cayxw/xat, kvKevTpi^u, kvKplvoi, though €7- 
Kokkiji, eyK\T]na, etc., and tyKaTaXelTTOj except in Acts.^- As to avv 
here is Hort's decision. Zwir- he accepts save in avfj-iroaLa. ■ On the 
other hand Hort has only aw^aaCkeboo, aw^i^a^w, elsewhere avu^- 
as in avfjL^alvcj; only avv^y-qpn, cvp(f>vcj:, but cru/z^- as in (Tun4)epo:. With 
the palatals Hort reads awK- always, as in avvKa.Q-np.aL, only avyyi- 
vr]s, (7vy KaXviTTO}, but avvxpo^paL and avyxv(n%. He has both avvkakku), 
avvKvirovpai and avWap^avw, avWeyco; avvpadrjTrjs, etc., but avppop- 
<^tfco, (jvppop4)os. Hort has aw^C:, etc., but ch^vye; avp\Pvxos, but 
has both avvoTavpow, etc., and <yvaTpe4)w, etc. For the detailed 
MS. evidence see Gregory .2 Hort also prefers -KoXLvyeveala, but 
is doubtful about Kevxptal, iravTX-qdei. 

(/) Interchange and Changing Value of Consonants. One 
cannot here go into the discussion of the labial, palatal, dental, 
velar stops, the spirants, liquids, nasals. One can give only the 
special variations in the N. T. The 6 sound was rare in the older 
Indo-Germanic languages and easily glided into u or v.^ The Greek 
/Saifco is like venio in Latin, /Stos is like vivus though different in his- 
tory. In modern Greek ^=v (English v). In the N. T. as in the 
LXX all the uncials have v in AaveiS (W. H.) where the minuscules 
read AajSiS.^ In the case of I3e\iap (2 Cor. 6 : 15) it is from n?: 5? 
('lord of the forest'), while the Text. Rec. /SeXtaX is from "2?^^|i 
('worthlessness').^ The variation between pa and pp, Moulton^ ob- 
serves, runs down to modern Greek. The Attic pp did not displace 
the Ionic and early Attic pa entirely in the Attic inscriptions.^ In 
the N. T., like the rest of the kolvt], usage is divided.^ Hort (p. 149) 
prefers aparjv except apprju perhaps 4/4 times in Paul. In the Gos- 
pels and Acts dapaos and the two imperatives Oapaei, Oapae'lre are 
uniform, but in 2 Cor. (5 : 6, 8; 7: 16; 10 : 1, 2) and Heb. (13 : 6) 

' About iv in composition see Gregory, Prol. etc., p. 70 f.; Sodcn, I, 
p. 1383. 'Ep in MSS. appears in composition as iv-, ey- and even «-, as 
iKK6Trr]v. On tvirpoadev in the pap. see Mayser, Gr., p. 45. 

» Prol. etc., p. 73 f. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 91-97, for the history of 
this subject during various stages of the language. 

» Cf. Giles, Man. of Comp. PhiloL, pp. 98, 124 

* Cf. W.-Sch., p. 66 note. 

' Cf. ib., p. 58 note, for further discussion. 

« Pro!., p. 45. Cf. also Thumb, Thcol. Literaturzeit., XXVIII, p. 122. 

^ Meisterh., Att. Inschr., pp. 99 f. 

' Schweizcr, Perg. Inschr., p. 125; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 91. In the 
pap. 6.PP7IV "greatly preponderates over &pcrriv" (INIoulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 
33). Cf. also Reinhold, De Grace, etc., p. 44 f. Thumb, llellen., p. 77 f. 


dappttv is the correct text, f displaces o- in a few words. Voiced 
0- in union with voiced consonants had the sound of z, and f was 
pronounced ad} "Afcoros (Ac. 8 : 40) lilffi!!*!, Ashdod. Lagarde's 
LXX has 'Aae8d6}8 in Josh. 11:22 (A has 'Ao-rjSwS, B 'AaeXSw). 
»nt? is rendered also "Efpas or "Ecrdpas. But in the N. T. period 
f is changing from the ds sound to z. 'Ap/iofoj, not the Attic 
dpjUOTTco, is the N. T. form.^ Lachmann has /xa^os for /j-aaros in 
Rev. 1 : 13. In 1 Th. 5 : 19 BDFG (Western class) read ^(3hpvre,^ 
simply phonetic spelling. Hort^ considers Zfxuppa as Western 
only in Rev. 1 : 11; 2 : 8, but the papyri and inscriptions both 
give it.^ The most noticeable feature of all is, however, that 
the Attic and Boeotian tt did not hold against the Ionic aa 
(though even Thucydides and the Tragic poets used o-cr). Papyri, 
inscriptions and N. T. MSS. all unite in using aa as the rule, 
though all occasionally have tt. It does not seem possible to 
reduce the usage to an intelligent rule.'' 'EKirXrjTTOfxevos is ac- 
cepted by W. H. in Ac. 13 : 12, elsewhere aa. Both eXaaacov 
(Jo. 2:10; Ro. 9:12) and eXaTTuv (1 Tim. 5:9; Heb. 7:7) are 
found, but only the "Hterary" (so Blass) words eXarroco (Jo. 3 : 
30; Heb. 2:7, 9) and eXarroj/ew (2 Cor. 8: 15). Similar diversity 
exists between riacov (1 Cor. 11 : 17; 2 Cor. 12: 15) and i](rGudr]Te 
(2 Cor. 12 : 13) on the one hand and riTTrjjxa (1 Cor. 6:7; Ro. 
11 : 12) and riTTaadai (2 Pet. 2 : 19 f.) on the other. In Heb. 6:9; 
10:34 W. H. read Kpdaaova, elsewhere KpeWTova (Heb. 1:4; 7:7, 
19, 22; 8:6; 9:23; 11:16, 35, 40; 12:24), and Hebrews has 
some literary influence, an argument for Blass' idea above. Paul 
has KptLTTov only in 1 Cor. 7 : 9, while Kpetaaov is found in 1 Cor. 
7 : 38; 11 : 17; Ph. 1 : 23. Hort accepts KpelTTov in 1 Pet. 3 : 17 

1 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 113, 115. On the whole subject of the 
exchange of consonants in the pap. see Mayser, Gr., pp. 169-188, 219-224. 

For the LXX exx. {ovbkv, oWkv; yX&aaa, yXcoTTa; <j}v\aaao}, (f)vXa.TTu', kXdacrcov, 

kXcLTTuv; apprjp, dappo), etc.) see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 17-20; Thack., Gr., 
pp. 100-124. 

2 Cf. Rutherford, New Phyrn., p. 14. 

3 Cf. a^^ecTTos in N (Mk. 9 : 43), iyvw^ixhos, etc., in pap. (W.-Sch., p. 59). 
* Notes on Orth., p. 148. 

6 Deiss., B. S., p. 185. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 45; Dittenb., 458. 41, ku 

6 Cf. Thumb, HeUen., pp. 53, 78 ff.; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 125; 
Nachm., Magn. etc., p. 95 f.; Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 32; Prol., p. 45; 
Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 23; Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 148; Reinhold, De 
Graec. etc., p. 43 f. Giles (Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 115) thinks that the aa 
in Athens was a literary mannerism and pronounced just like tt. 


and 2 Pet. 2:21 (doubtful). Cf. arifxepou for the Attic Trjfiepou. 
"OpvL^ (Lu. 13:34) is called Western by Hort, though Moulton^ 
observes that it has some papyrus support and is like the modern 
Greek (Cappadocian) dpvix. 

(g) Aspiration of Consonants. There is besides some fluc- 
tuation in the aspiration of consonants. See under (d) for the 
double aspirates Hke 'k^cfila, etc. This uncertainty of aspiration is 
very old and very common in the inscriptions and papyri, ^ though 
the N. T. has only a few specimens. W. H. read "kKt\bap.dx in 
Ac. 1:19, ^W bm. So paKo. (Mt. 5:22), S^p^^:,, but aa^axdavd 
(B has -KT~) in Mt. 27:46. TivvqaaptT is correct; the Syrian 
class has -ed in Mt. 14 : 34. W. H. have uniformly Ka0apj'aou/x, 
and read ^a^apkr save in four passages, Na^apW in Mt. 21 : 11; 
Ac. 10 : 38, and Nafapa in Mt. 4 : 13; Lu. 4 : 16. In Lu. 11 : 27; 
23 : 29 DFG have fiaadoi for fxaarol, likewise {< in Rev. 1 : 13. 'EdWri 
is read by cursives, Clem., Or., etc., in 1 Cor. 5:7. In oWeis and 
H-ndels after elision of e the 8 has blended with the eh as if it were 
T and become d. It is first found in an inscr. 378 b.c. and is the 
usual form in the pap. in iii/B.c. and first half of ii/B.c. By I/a.d. 
the 5 forms are supreme again (Thack., Gr., pp. 58 ff) . Blass^ finds 
ovdepos in Lu. 22 : 35 (ABQT); 2 Cor. 11:8 (NBMP); oWh in Lu. 
23 : 14 (NET) ; Ac. 15 : 9 (BHLP) ; 19 : 27 (NABHP) ; 26 : 26 (NB) ; 
1 Cor. 13 : 2 (kVABCL) ; fxrjdh in Ac. 27 : 33 (N*AB). But k^ovdeveo: 
in the LXX and the N. T. prevails, though W. H. (after BD) read 
e^ov8€P7]drj in Mk. 9 : 12. N and KD read the Attic TravSoKdov, -evs 
in Lu. 10:34f., but W. H. accept iravBoxelop, -evs (from dexonai). 
Zapewra in Lu. 4 : 26 is the LXX rendering of riQi;^. T poirocfyopeo} 
and Tpo(t)0(i)opew are two distinct words, though the MSS. differ 
widely in Ac. 13 : 18, the Neutral and Western supporting rpoir-. 
Hort considers a4)vph for cnrvph right (Mt. 15:37, etc.). It is 
well attested by the papyri." W. H. read <t>6^'qdpov; not (p6(3r]Tpop, 
inLu. 21:11. 

(h) Variable Final Consonants. The use of p e(t)e\KvaTLK6v 
(paragogic p) cannot be reduced to any clear rule. The desire to 
avoid hiatus extended this usage, though it probably originally had 
a meaning and was extended by analogy to cases where it had none. 
Cf. English articles a, an (Giles, Man. of Camp. Philol, p. 208). 

' Prol., p. 45. Cf. Thumb, Ilellon., p. 90. « Cf. W.-Sch., p. 59. 

» Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 24; W.-Sch., p. (jl. Cf. Mcisterh., p. 48, for this 
interuspiration in the old Attic inscr. Cf. Mayser, pji. ISO fT. 

* Moulton, Prol., p. 45. The Ptol. pai). have both spellings, Deiss., B. S., 
p. 185. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 173. 


The same thing is true of movable final s. In the old Attic before 
403 B.C. this movable v was seldom used. It is more frequent in the 
new Attic up to 336 b.c, and most common in the kolvt], vanishing 
again in the modern Greek, as v easily disappears in pronuncia- 
tion. Meisterhans^ has an interesting table on the subject, show- 
ing the relative frequency in different centuries. This table 
proves that in the kolvt] it came to be the rule to use the movable 

V both before consonants and vowels. This is shown also by the 
inscriptions^ and the Ptolemaic papyri. Per contra note the dis- 
appearance of final V in modern Greek vernacular, when not pro- 
nounced (Thumb, Handh., pp. 24 ff.). However, as a rule, this 
movable final v occurs only with the same classes of words as in 
the Attic as after -ct, karl and e in verbs (3d sing, past tenses). 
The irrational v mentioned as common later by Hatzidakis^ is 
rare. The older N. T. MSS. (^^ABC) are in harmony with the 
Koivq and have the movable v and s both before consonants and 
vowels with a few exceptions. The later N. T. MSS. seem to 
feel the tendency to drop these variable consonants. Moulton* 
mentions ixd^oiv (Jo. 5 : 36) as a good example of the irrational v 
in N. T. MSS. (ABEGMA). Cf. also the irrational v with the 
subjunctive in the papyri. So eav r]v apaevov P. Oxy. 744 (i/s.c.) for 
%. See Moulton, Prol., pp. 168, 187, for further examples. The 
failure to use this v was originally most common in pause, some- 
times even before vowels.'^ Blass^ observes that it was only the 
Byzantine grammarians who made the rule that this v should be 
used before vowels and not before consonants, a rule of which 
their predecessors did not have the benefit, a thing true of many 
other grammatical rules. We moderns can teach the ancients 
much Greek! Since the N. T. MSS.'' show no knowledge of this 
later grammatical "rule," W. H. follow a mechanical one indeed, 

1 Att. Insclir., p. 114. 

"^ Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 137, whose table confirms that of Meisterh. 
Cf. also Thieme, Inschr. von Magn., p. 8; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 110, 
with similar table. The pap. agree, Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 137, and 
Mayser, Gr. d. gi-iech. Pap., pp. 236 ff. In the LXX v k<f>e\K. occurs before con- 
sonants also. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 22 ff.; Thack., Gr., pp. 134 ff. 
So as to movable s. Cf. i^expi- vixo>v and m«xpis ov in LXX. 

3 Einl. etc., p. Ill, like laToprje-rjv 6 uaos. Cf. Schweiz., Perg. Inschr., p. 137. 

* Prol., p. 49. Cf. also Reinhold, De Graec, p. 37. 

^ W.-Sch., p. 62. . « Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 19. 

7 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 147 f.; Gregory, Prol., p. 97 f. In simple truth 

V movable was not so uniform in the earher Gk. (esp. Thuc.) as the grammars 
imply. Cf. Maasson, De Uttera v Graec. parag., 1881, pp. 47, 61. 


but the only practical guide under the circumstances. They go 
by the testimony of the oldest uncials. Hort gives a considerable 
list of examples where the v is wanting in one or more of the older 
uncials, but where W. H. have v, as in apovcnv (Mt. 4 : 6), iraffLv 
(Mt. 5 : 15), etc. But in Lu. 1 : 3 eSo^e is read by J<BCD. In Ac. 
24 : 27 /careXtTre is supported by {<B. There are about a dozen 
more instances in Hort's long list of alternative readings where 
W. H. prefer the form without v, rather more frequently after ai, 
than after e.^ W. H., however, have dKocn every^vhere, as was 
usually the case in the Attic inscriptions and always in the Ptole- 
maic papyri and the LXX MSS. both before vowels and con- 
sonants.^ So efxirpoadev, 'i^wdev, owLadev in the N. T. Likewise 
■jrepvaL is correct in 2 Cor. 8 : 10; 9:2.^ 

The variable s calls for a few words more. All good MSS. give 
avTLKpvs Xiov in Ac. 20 : 15.^ But as in Attic, the N. T. MSS. 
usually have axpi- and /x^xpt even before vowels. "Axpt (always 
before consonants) thus precedes vowels some fifteen times, and 
once only do we certainly^ have axpts (Gal. 3: 19), though it is 
uncertain whether it is followed by av or ov. Mexpt is always used 
in the N. T. before a consonant and once before a vowel, M^xpt 
'Iwavov (Lu. 16 : 16). The early N. T. editors used to print ovtoj 
before consonants and ourcos before vowels, but W. H. print ovtcos 
196 times before consonants and vowels and only ten times outco 
(air before consonants). These ten instances are Mk. 2:7; Mt. 
3: 15; 7: 17; Ac. 13:47; 23:11; Ro. 1:15; 6:19; Ph. 3:17; Heb. 
12:21; Rev. 16:18." 

(i) Metathesis. ^atXoi'Tjs (2 Tim. 4: 13), Latin paenwZa. See 
Additional Notes. 

IV. Breathings. 

(a) Origin of the Aspirate. As is well known, in the mod- 
ern Greek no distinction is made in pronunciation between spiri- 
tus asper and spintus lenis, or -wvevp-a daav and iruevfjia \pL\bv. That 

' See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 19; Gregory, Prol., p. 97. 
'^ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 328, and references there given. Cf. Thack., 
Gr., p. 135. 

* Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 19) quotes Attic usage for irkpuffiv before vowels. 
'' For the Horn, avrupv and further items see W.-Sch., p. G3 and note. 

'S.VTIKPVZ {KaravTLKpv) in Attic is 'downright,' not 'over against' (Blass, Gr. of 
N. T. Gk., p. 20). Cf. for the pap. Mayscr, Gr., pp. 242 ff. 

* Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 148. But W. H. read dxp« ov in Heb. 3 : 13, else- 
where axpi ov. ¥oT further discussions of axpt and m«xp' see W.-Sch., p. 63 note. 

' For illustrations from the Koturj inscr. sec Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 1 12. 
Cf. Reinhold, p. 37 f . 


is to say, the "rough" breathing is only a conventional sign used 
in writing. This sign is indeed a comparatively modern device, 
' and ', in use in the MSS. generally since the eleventh century 
A.D.^ This form was an evolution from H (Phcenician B, he), 
then \- and H, then L and J.^ This breathing (rough or smooth) 
did not find a place in the Greek alphabet, and so is not found in 
the early uncial MSS. It becomes therefore a difficult question 
to tell whether the modern ignoring of the rough breathing was 
the rule in the first century a.d. The MSS., as Hort^ points out, 
are practically worthless on this point. The original use of H as 
equal to h or the rough breathing was general in the old Attic 
and the Doric, not the vEolic and Ionic. And even in the Attic 
inscriptions the usage is very irregular and uncertain. Numerous 
examples like HEKATON occur, but some like HEN also, so that 
even H was not always rough.'* The modern English cockneys 
have no monopoly of trouble with /I's. In French h is silent as 
Vhomme. The Greeks always found the matter a knotty prob- 
lem. The use of H = 7j in the Ionic and Attic (after 403 B.C.) 
left the Greeks without a literary sign for h. The inscriptions 
show that in the vernacular II continued to be so used for some 

(fe) Increasing De-aspiration (Psilosis). But there was a 
steady decrease in the use of the h sound. The Ionic, like the 
^olic, was distinguished by psilosis, and the kolv-t] largely^ fol- 
lowed the Ionic in this respect. More certain is the use of the 
aspirated consonants x, &, </>> which succeeded the older KH, TH, 
IIH.^ But certainly the rough breathing was in early use as the 

1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 63. The marking of the rough breathing was 
general in the earlier forms in vii/A.D., ib., p. 65. 

2 Cf. Beldcer, Anec, II. 692, and Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 63. 

» Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 310. Cf. also Sitterley, Praxis in MSS. of the Gk. 
Test., 1898, p. 32. See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 25 f., for remarks on breath- 
ings in the LXX MSS., where ^olic and Ionic psilosis occur in iw' 65o0 
/car' «Va as well as exx. of aspirated consonants like KaO' 6(p0a\novs, Kad' kviavrbv, 
k(f)' eUev, not to mention ovk kcopaKaaiu and ovx l5ov. For further remarks on 
breathings in the LXX see Swete, O. T. in Gk., p. 302. 

* Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 81, 91. The stop for the opening of the 
glottis (lenis) easily becomes breathed (rough). Cf. also Thumb, Unters. 
ijber d. Spir. Asper. im Griech., 1888, p. 63. 

^ Cf. Thumb., p. 73 f. The Laconic Gk. used H in interaspiration as well 
as at the beginning (ib., p. 8). Dawes (Pronun. of the Gk. Aspirates, 1894, 
p. 103) is not able to reach a final decision as to whether the Gk. aspirates are 
genuine aspirates Uke the Sans, according to Brugmann, Curtius, etc. 

« Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 91. On the whole subject of the aspirated 


inscriptions show, though not with much consistency.^ Some- 
times the rough breathing may be due to the disappearance of a 
digamma, though sometimes a smooth breathing displaces it, as 
epyov from Fepyov"^ (cf. Enghsh 'work'). Then again the disap- 
pearance of 0- has the same result, as Laap6s = lep6s.^ It is not strange 
therefore that usage in the kolvt] is not uniform. Examples like 
vt' avTov, v(j>' avTov, ovk eoipconev, etc., appear in the Pergamum in- 
scriptions, not to mention Ka9' eVos, Ka9' I5iav, etc* The same 
story of uncertainty is told elsewhere in the kolvt] as in Magnesia,* 
Herculaneum.^ Some of this variation is probably due to anal- 
ogy,^ so that though "de-aspiration was the prevailing tendency," ^ 
yet the N. T. shows several examples in the opposite direction. 

(c) Variations in the MSS. {Aspiration and Psilosis). The 
aspiration of the consonants k, t, t in case of elision is therefore 
a matter of documentary evidence ^ and occurs in the case of olvtI, 
kwi, Kara, fieTo., ovk, vtto. The N. T. MSS. vary considerably among 
themselves as in the LXX, though some like D in the Gospels 
and Acts are wholly untrustworthy about aspiration.^" In general 
Attic literary usage cannot be assumed to be the kolvt] vernacular. 
Hort^^ prefers 'AdpaiJ.vvTr}v6s (Ac. 27: 2) like Hadrumetum. 'AXodco 
(1 Cor. 9:9 f.; 1 Tim. 5 : 18) is connected with aXcjs or aXoorj and 
may be compared with dTTTjXiojrr/s (r?Xios).^^ Hort (p. 144) prefers 
a\v(TLs (Mk. 5:3), but elXiKpLvrjs and eVKLKpLvla, though eiX. has 
ancient authority. 'A^eXTrtfoj^res is read by DP in Lu. 6 : 35 
and the LXX has several similar instances," not to mention one 

consonants see Riem. and Goelzer, Phonet., pp. 194 ff., and for the dialects and 
interaspiration see K.-Bl., Bd. I, pp. 107-114. 

1 Cecil BendaU, Jour, of Philol., 1904, pp. 199 ff. 

2 R. Weiss, De Dig. etc., 1889, p. 47. Cf. also Panes, De Dig. Hesiodea 
Quest., 1887, p. 48. 

' Cf. Sommer, Griech. Lautstudien, 1905, p. 2. On metathesis in aspiration, 
aa Ixco {ix'^), see Meistcrh., p. 102, exx. of txw in Attic inscr. v/b.c. See also 
article by Pernot in Rev. des fit. Grq., 1906, pp. 10-23, on La Metathese 
dans les Dial, de Chio. 

* Schweizor, Perg. Inschr. etc., pp. 116 ff. The Attic had only i5ios, but 
ioprij (Meistcrh., p. 87). * Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 83. 

• Cronert, Mem. Grace. Hercul., p. 152 f. 
» Thumb, Hellen. etc., p. 64. 

8 Moulton, Prol., p. 44. Cf. also for the inscr., Dittenb., e<i>' Ito% (458. 71), 
KoJB' iUav (233. 49), and for the pap., Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901 (pp. 33, 434) and 
1904 (p. 106). Cf. also Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 312. 

9 lb., p. 311. '«, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 15. 
" Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 313; App., p. 160. 

" W.-Sch., p. 40. " Gregory, Prol., p. 91; Thack., p. 125. 


in Hermas and in the Attic.^ In Ro. 8 : 20 W. H. accept €</>' 
eXiridL, while various MSS. support it in Ac. 2 : 26; 1 Cor. 9 : 10; 
Ro. 4 : 18; 5:2; Tit. 1 : 2, and FG have Kad' k\Trl8a in Tit. 3 : 7. 
Hort^ thinks this is due to digamma dropped as well as in the case 
of d(/)t5co (Ph. 2 : 23), but analogy to a4)opav may be the explana- 
tion.^ "E^tSe is read by a few MSS. in Ac. 4 : 29 as k4>Zbev in 
Lu. 1 : 25. Gregory* gives many examples of d(/)-, e^-, Kad- with 
eXxtfco and dbov in the LXX. W. H. offer ohx l5ov as an alternative 
reading in Ac. 2 : 7, while B reads ovx Ibovres in 1 Pet. 1 : 8 and ovx 
eUop in Gal. 1 : 19. A has ovx oiPeade in Lu. 17: 22. W. H.^ put 
ovx 'lovdaLKoJs in the margin in Gal. 2 : 14. Ka^' idiav appears in K 
once, in B eight times, in D three times, in A once (Mt. 14 : 23; 17: 
1,19; 20: 17; 24:3; Mk.4 :34; 6 :31; 9 :28; 13:3). But W. H. no- 
where accept it, not even when B combines with }< or D. }<B have 
it in Mt. 24 : 3. The form Kad' IBlav is common in the kolpt] inscrip- 
tions and the papyri. KadeiSoAov is read by M in Ac. 17 : 16. On the 
other hand Kad' eros, so common in the kolv-q (cf. Latin vetiis), is 
not found in the N. T., all MSS. in Lu. 2 : 41 reading Kar' 'eros. 
Hort^ considers ovk loT-qKev (Jo. 8 :44) to be merely the imperfect 
indicative of (xttjko}. So also as to lar-qKev in Rev. 12 : 4. f< has 
k(})iopKr](T€Ls in Mt. 5 : 33, a form common in the Doric inscrip- 
tions.^ DP have 'e4>lopKo% in 1 Tim. 1:10. Li Rev. 12:11 A 
reads ovx vyaT-rjaeu, while ovx oXiyos is read in the LXX and pa- 
pyri as well as a number of times in Ac. (12 : 18 by }<A, 14 : 28 
by N, 17 : 4 by B, 19 : 23 by N*AD, 19 : 24 by Js*, 27 : 20 by A). 
In Ac. 5 : 28 D has 'tcj^aya-ydv. W. H. print on the other hand 
airoKaTLUTavei in Mk. 9 : 12 rather than aTOKaraaTaveL though with 
hesitation.^ So likewise W. H. give eTrto-rarat instead of k(j)l<7TaTaL 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 16. Cf. Thumb, Unters. d. Spir. Asper, p. 65. 

2 Notes on Orth., p. 143. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 44} Thumb, Spu-. Asper, p. 71. Moulton (CI. Rev., 
Mar., 1910, p. 53) now says: "I am quite wilhng to be convinced that the 
long-lost digamma was an accessory here if no better explanation turns up." 
Thumb (Spir. Asper, pp. 11, 71) admits the possibihty of the digamma ex- 
planation in some eases. * Prol., p. 91. 

^ Cf. Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 313 f., where Hort really favours ovx 'lov8. and 
the rough breathing for all the forms of 'lovdas, 'lovdalos, etc. For the varia- 
tions in the LXX MSS. see Thack., p. 125. 

6 Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 312. 

^ Rutherford, New Plu-yn., p. 363. For this transfer of aspiration cf. 
Cmiius, Gk. Verb, II, 109. Nestle (Am. Jour, of Theol., July, 1909, p. 448) 
urges that, since the Gk. of the Bible is an "east-west language," attention 
must be paid to oriental tongues. He notes that the Coptic has aspiration in 
helpis, hisos, for eXn-ts, laos. ^ Notes on Orth., p. 168. 


in 1 Th. 5 : 3 (like B in Sap. 6 : 8), a wholly unusual^ absence of 
aspiration in compounds of taT-qixt. For the LXX phenomena 
see Thackeray, Gr., p. 127 f. It is wholly doubtful whether o/xet- 
pojiai or oixelpoiJLaL is right (1 Th. 2:8). Om evpov in some MSS. 
in Lu. 24 : 3, and ouk IveKev in 2 Cor. 7 : 12, Blass^ considers as cler- 
ical errors, though they are common in the LXX and in the in- 
scriptions.^ N.T. MSS. (late cursives) even have atrew, ocrrecbi', 
o-x\os, etc. For nrjdels, .oWeis see this chapter iii (/), the Inter- 
change of Consonants and chapter on Pronouns. 

(d) Transliterated Semitic Words. The aspirate in the 
case of transliterated Semitic words (chiefly proper names) causes 
some difficulty. Blass^ calls it "insoluble," though he accepts 
Hort's practice as rational,^ expressing J»{ and V by the smooth 
breathing and H and H by the rough breathing. The MSS. dis- 
agree and are not consistent, but Blass calls the result of this 
procedure "strange." Hence Hort argues for "A/SeX (,1), 'A/3pad/i 
(J>{), "Aya^os (J/), "Ayap (n), 'A/ceXSa/xdx (H), aXkrj'KovLa (H), 'AX^atos 
(n), ^Avaulas (il), "Awa (H), 'Aperas (H), 'Apt^a^ata (H), "Ap Ma7ei5ci>j' 
(n), 'E^3ep (p), 'E/3paTcs (p), 'E/3pats (;?), 'E^paiari {^),'' 'EXtcraTos (^), 
'EXjua5d/i (X), eXcot (J<), 'E/Jixcop (Pi), 'Eudox (H, but 'Evccs, {<),'Epp(i/x 
(n, but 'EaXei, N), Eua (H), ijXet (K), but "HXei (H), 'HXetas (X), "Up 
(^), i;(r(rco7ros (N),^ o^aavva {r\) , '^o'rje (M). Hort^ gives, moreover, 
the smooth breathing to all names beginning with *> as 'llaalas. 
Besides he considers it a "false association"^ to connect 'lepefiias, 
'lepetxw, 'lepocroKvfjLa (-/ietrT/s), 'lepovaaKrjiJ. with lepos, though Blass 
retains 'lepocroXu/xa rather inconsistently.^" 

(e) The Use of Breathings with p and pp. W. H. follow 
Tischcndorf and Lachmann in dropping the breathings in pp as in 
dppr/ra (2 Cor. 12:4), though retaining the rough breathing with 
initial p as in prjiiara {ih). Winer ^^ argued that the Romans 
heard an aspiration with pp, since they used Pyrrhus, Tijrrhenus, 
etc. W. H. seem justified in using the smooth breathing with the 
first p in the word pepavTcafxhoL (Hcb. 10 : 22) by old Greek cus- 

1 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 144. s W.-Sch., p. 39. 

^ Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 16. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 16. 

6 Hort, Intr. to N. T. Gk., p. 313. Cf. also Gregory, Prol., p. 106 f., for 
list of these words. 

" Strange as it may seem, "Hebrew "rather than "Ebrew" is modern (Hort, 
Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 313). 

^ Hort (Notes, etc., p. 144), however, merely follows custom and prints vffcr. 

8 Intr. to N. T. Gk., p. 313. " » lb. 

»» Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 16. Cf. Ilelbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 30 f. 

" W.-M., p. 53. 


tom.^ The MSS., of course, give no help in the matter. The 
breathing with p is not written in the modern Greek vernacular 
text as in Pallis or Thumb. 

(/) The Question of Avtov. This is somewhat knotty. It 
seems clear that as a rule avTov and not avTov is to be printed in 
the N. T. A number of reasons converge^ on this point. The 
older Greek often used avrov rather than eavTov as shown by the 
aspiration of the prepositions like d^' avrov, etc. In the N. T. 
there is not a single case of such aspiration after elision save in a 
few single MSS. Add to this the fact that the N. T. uses the re- 
flexive pronoun much less than the earlier Greek, "with unusual 
parsimony" (Hort). Besides the personal pronouns of the first 
and second persons are frequently employed (Buttmann) where 
the reflexive might have been used. Buttmann urges also the 
point that in the N. T. we always have aeavrov, not aavrov. The 
earliest uncial MSS. of the N. T. and the LXX that use the dia- 
critical marks belong to the eighth century, but they all have 
avTov, not avTov. Even in the early times it was largely a matter 
of individual taste as to whether the personal or the reflexive pro- 
noun was used. Blass (p. 35) indeed decides absolutely against 
avTov. But the matter is not quite so easy, for the kolvt] inscrip- 
tions give examples of v(f>' avrov in first century B.C. and a.d.^ 
Mayser^ also gives a number of papyri examples like Kad' avrov, 
IJLeO' avrov, vcf)' avrwv, where the matter is beyond dispute. Hort 
agrees with Winer in thinking that sometimes avrov must be read 
unless one insists on undue harshness in the Greek idiom. He in- 
stances Jo. 2 : 24, avrbs be 'IrjcroOs ovk kwiarevcrev avrov avrols, and 
Lu. 23 : 12, irpovwrjpxov yap tv exdpa ovres irpos avrovs. There are 
other examples where a different meaning will result from the 
smooth and the rough breathing as in 1 Jo. 5 : 10 (avrui), 18 {av- 
rov, avrov), Eph. 1 : 5 (avrov), 10 (avrcp), Col. 1 : 20 (avrov), 2 : 15 
(avrui). W. H. print avrov about twenty times. Winer leaves the 
matter "to the cautious judgment of the editors." 

V. Accent. 

(a) The Age of Greek Accent. The MSS. are worth as lit- 
tle for accent as for breathings. The systematic application of 
accent in the MSS., like the regular use of the spiritus lenis, dates 

1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 40 f . 

2 On the whole matter see Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 144 f.; W.-M., p. 183 f.; 
Buttmann, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. Ill; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 35. 

' Nachm., Magn. Inschr., pp. 84, 144; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 161. 
* Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 306. 


from the seventh century a.d.i Hort^ caustically remarks that 
most modern grammarians have merely worked out " a consistent 
system of accentuation on paper" and have not recovered the 
Greek intonations of voice, though he has little to offer on the 
subject. Chandler^ indeed laments that modern scholars scatter 
their Greek accents about rather recklessly, but he adds: "In Eng- 
land, at all events, every man will accent his Greek properly who 
wishes to stand well with the world." It is a comfort to find one's 
accents irreproachable, and Chandler rightly urges that the only 
way to use the accents properly is to pronounce according to the 
accent. The ancients were interested in Greek accent. Herodian 
in his KaOoKiKri Tpoaudla investigated the accent of 60,000 words, 
but the bulk of his twenty books is lost. Chandler ^ found most 
help from Gottling, though others have written at length on the 
subject.^ There are no accent-marks in the early inscriptions and 
papyri; in fact tradition ascribes the invention of these signs as a 
system to Aristophanes of Byzantium in the third century b.c, 
though the beginnings appear in the preceding century.^ He and 
his disciple, Aristarchus, made the rules at any rate.^ The Alex- 
andrian grammarians developed these rules, which have shown a 
marvellous tenacity even to the present day in the modern Greek, 
though, of course, some words would naturally vary in accent 
with the centuries.^ There is the Harris papyrus of Homer in 
the first century a.d. which has accents, and clearly the word had 
the accent in pronunciation like English long before it was writ- 
ten out. After the fourth century a.d. the use of accentual 
rhythm in Greek in place of quantitative rhythm had a tendency 

' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 66. Cf. also pp. 507 ff. on the Origin and History 
of Accent. 

2 Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 314. 

^ Gk. Accentuation (1881), p. xxiii. * lb., p. xvii. 

" Cf. Meister, Bemerk. zur dorischen Accentuation (1883); Hadley, On the 
Nat. and Theory of the Gk. Accent. (Ess. Phil, and Grit., pp. 110 ff.); Wheeler, 
Die griech. NominaIaccente(1885); Bloomfield, Study of Gk. Accent (Am. Jour, 
of Philol., 1883); Wack., Beitr. zur Lchre vom pjiech. Akzent; Brusmann, 
Griech. Gr. (1900), pp. l.Wff.; K.-Bl., I, pp. 317 ff.; for further ht. see Brus- 
mann above. On accent changes in mod. Gk. see Ilatz., Einl., pp. 418-440; 
Thumb, Hundb., p. 28 f. For the accent in the LXX see llelbing, Gr. d. 
Sept., p. 24. Here the same MSS. present the same problems that we have 
in the N. T. 

« Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 62. ^ Ricm. and Goclzer, Phonet., p. 77. 

« Krumb., Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn's Zeitschr. fiir 
Sprachl., 1885, p. 521. Cf. also Ilatz., Einl. etc., p. 418; Chandler, Gk. Accen- 
tuation, p. v; Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 150. 


to make the accent rather more stable.^ "Of all the phonetic 
pecuHarities of a language accent is the most important." ^ The 
earlier use of accents and breathings was probably "for the text 
of poetry written in dialect"^ (cf. our reading-books for children). 
They were not written out "in ordinary prose till the times of 
minuscule writing," though Euthahus (a.d. 396) made use of 
them in his edition of the N. T.^ The Christian hymns early 
show signs of changing from tone (pitch) to stress as is the rule in 
modern Greek. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 6. 

(6) Significance of Accent in the Kolvij. In Greek it is 
pitch, not stress, that is expressed by the accent, though in mod- 
ern Greek the accents indicate stress. "In the ancient Sanskrit 
and the ancient Greek the rise and fall in musical tone was very 
marked."^ In English we are familiar with stress-accent. "Had- 
ley has ably argued that the compass of tone used by the Greeks 
was a musical fifth, i.e. from C = do to G = sol, involving also the 
intermediate third or E = me."^ It was not a stronger current of 
breath,'' but a higher musical note that we have. It was in a 
word "das musikalische Moment."^ Hadley (" Nature and Theory 
of Gk. Accent," Essays Philol. and Crit., p. Ill f.) points out that 
TTpoawbla comes from a root meaning ' to sing ' (like the Latin ac- 
centus) and so 6^us and 0apvs answer to our high and low pitch. 
Giles ^ thinks that in the original Indo-Germanic language pitch 
and stress-accent were more evenly balanced. The accent singles 
out one syllable sharply and raises it higher than the rest, though 
as a matter of fact each syllable in a word has an accent or pitch 
lower down in the scale. Cf. the secondary accent in the English 
"incompatibility." The Harris papyrus of Homer even accents 
every syllable in each word.^*^ Then again " the accent of a sen- 
tence is as much under the influence of a law of some kind as the 
accent of the word." ^^ Language without accent or musical va- 

^ Sophocles, Lex. of Rom. and Byz. Period, p. 48. 

2 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 91. ^ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 14. 

* lb. Cf. Gregory, Prol., p. 114, for specimen from Euthahus. 
6 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 92. 

6 Harris, MS. Notes on Gk. Gr. Cf. Riem. and Goelzer, Phonet., p. 77 f., 
for a discussion of the musical aspect of the matter. 

^ Arnold and Conway, The Restored Pronun. of Gk. and Lat., 1895, p. 18. 

* Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 129. ^ Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 94. 

10 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 65. 

11 Bloomfield, Study of Gk. Accent, Am. Jour, of Philol., 1883, p. 22. Cf. 
Plato, Crat., 399 A-B. Hirt (Der Indoger. Akzent, 1895, p. 17) contends for 
the two-tone principle. 


riety in tone would be hopelessly monotonous and ineffective. 
An instance of the importance of accent and breathings is seen in 
ov oh, Ac. 19 : 40. 

(c) Signs of Accent. In practical usage (in our school gram- 
mars) there is only one distinction, the accented syllable and the 
unaccented syllables. The Greeks themselves distinguished the 
pronunciation of the acute and the circumflex. The differ- 
ence is well illustrated by etjut and dixl. The three signs (acute 
or b^da, grave or fiapeta, circumflex or TepLairaifxepr]) come to 
symbolize the higher pitch of the accented syllable. ^ Originally 
the accented syllable was marked by the acute and all the unac- 
cented syllables by the grave (merely the absence of the acute), 
but by and by this use of the grave accent was felt to be useless 
and was dropped.^ Then the grave accentual mark of falling in- 
flection was used for the acute when an oxytone word comes before 
another word (not enclitic), though this "grave" accent has the 
pitch of the unaccented syllable. Similarly in contraction of two 
syllables with acute and grave (' ') arose the circumflex, the grave 
and the acute making acute still. The actual use in pronunciation 
of both acute and grave in the contracted syllable disappeared, so 
that the circumflex in pitch differed little, if any, from the acute. 
The difference, for instance, between the acute in STjXoxrat and the 
circumflex in dr]\u>aaL was not perceptible in sound.^ The Greek 
and the Latin agree in having the accent only on one of the three 
last syllables and thus differ from English and French for instance. 
It is not necessary here to go into the rules (not wholly arbitrary) 
which the Greeks developed for the accent of words. In the use 
of unaccented words (proclitics or enclitics) Greek does not differ 
radically from English. If the Greek has ev oIkco, the English has 
"at-home." If the Greek has elirk (xol, the English has "tcll-me." ' 

(d) Later Developments in Accent. There was not in- 
deed uniformity among the dialects in the use of accent. They 
agreed only in the one point of not accenting further back than 
the third syllable from the end. "In other respects the Greek 
dialects show the widest divergencies in their accentuation. The 
two antipodes are ^olic and Doric, which are so closely i\\Vn\\ 
phonetically: JEoVic throws the accent as far back as possible in 

' Jaiin., Hist. Gk. (!r., p. 6G. 2 lb., pp. 05, 68. 

' Iladloy, Uber Wcscn und Thcorie der griech. Bcton., 1872, pp. 409, 415. 

* Giles, Man. of Coinp. Philol., p. 9G. Giles thinks that words like ^tp6Mefla 
originally had the accent further back. Cf. Rieni. and Goelzer, Phonet., 
p. 80, for Plato's word of 17 syllables and Aristophanes' word of 7S. 


all words, e.g. /SaatXeus = /SaatXeus, . . .; Doric, on the contrary, 
faithfully preserves the original oxytone accent. Between these 
two dialects lie Ionic and Attic, which, however, are much nearer 
to Doric than to ^olic. But all the dialects, including Doric, 
observe the rule that, in those forms of the verb which are capa- 
ble of being conjugated, the accent goes back as far as possible."^ 
iEoHc, for instance, has r) arj where the Attic has ^ 0-17. But all 
the dialects 2 have eyoo, eyoije. On this point in general see 
Kiihner-Blass, I, pp. 323 ff. The Dorians even had avOpoiTroL, 
eXvaav, etc. Perfect uniformity was no more possible in Greek 
than in English. The modern Greek preserves the three-syllable 
accent rule. Examples like eTrtao-e, k^paSvaae are not exceptions, 
since the t and i; count as consonants. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 28. 
French follows tone Hke the ancient Greek. Pecheur is 'fisher,' 
while pecheur is 'sinner,' for example, a difference only in quality, 
not in accent. 

(e) N. T. Peculiarities. Where so much is in doubt, ex- 
cessive refinement is certainly not desirable. But the follow- 
ing points call for remark, and Gregory ^ can be consulted for the 
actual evidence (very slight) from the N. T. MSS. on the subject 
of accent. D alone among the older uncials has the accent (and 
that the occasional circumflex) save by the hand of a corrector. 

1. Shortening Stem-Vowels. There is quite a tendency in the 
KOLvt] towards shortening some of the stem-vowels, especially in 
words in -/xa. Hence W. H. do not follow the Attic accent here, 
but that of the kolvy], and give us KXl/xa, Kpifxa, fj.iyfj.a (cf. eXLyna), 
irojia, xpto-^a, though as to xP^o-^a Blass^ suggests that xpto-^a is 
correct because of xpi-<^Tos and because B (1 Jo. 2 : 20, 27) has 
XpeUp-a. Analogy plays havoc with rules. Herodian^ says that 
t and i; were usually shortened before ^ So W. H. give us ktjpv^, 
KTipv^at, (jrqpi^aL (Ro. 16:25), probably (i)oivL^, xoi-vi^- Accord- 
ing to Winer-SchmiedeP this rule appHes to yp also, but W. H. 
and Blass^ do not agree. So W. H. have 0Xti/'ts, pl\l^av (Lu. 

1 Henry, Comp. Gr. of Gk. and Lat., Elliott's transl., 1890, p. 93 f. Cf. 
Meister, Bemerk. zur dorischen Accentuation, p. 1. 

2 Cf. Wheeler, Griech. Norn, etc., p. 11, and Wack., Beitr., p. 19. 

3 Prol., p. 99 f. 

« Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 15. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 67, for further parallels. Also 
W.-M., p. 57. "> Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 15. « P. 68. 

7 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 15. Blass urges that B has e\e"l^pLs, but W. H. refuse 
to follow B in matters of orthography. But the Herculaneum rolls here rein- 
force B with et before yp. On the whole subject see Lipsius, Gr. Unters., pp. 
31 ff.; Lobeck, Parall., pp. 400 ff.; Cobet, N. T. Vatic, pp. xHxff. 


4:35). By parity of reasoning W. H. reject the circumflex ac- 
cent in eXKvaaL, ytpov, ^xvpov, airiXos, (ttvXos, <JvvTeTp[cj)dai (Mk. 5:4), 
though (TvvTpl^ov (Lu. 9:39) and <jKv\a (Lu. 11:22). Cf. nWos, 
fxapyapXraL, vIkos, (tItos, (jvkov, etc. W. H. read ypbxos also. The 
length of V in kutttco is uncertain; avaKvxpaL and Trapa/cu^at usually 
appear in the N. T. W. H. have, however, Kpa^ov in Gal. 4 : 6 
and XaiXai/' in Mk. 4 : 37. But eardrnt (Ac. 12 : 14) is right, though 
apai (Mt. 24 : 17), ^wAttao-at. (Lu. 1 : 9) because of long o. Cf. also 
kirapai (Lu. 18:13), eTVL^avai (Lu. 1:79), TrpS^at (Ac. 26:9), but 
TTtdo-at (Jo. 7 : 30). So KaToXvaai (Mt. 5 : 17), KaTtvOvvaL (Lu. 1 : 79) 
and KcoXOaat (Ac. 10 : 47). 

2. Separate Words. These are not so easily classified. W. H. 
read ayopaloi, not ay opatoL; avTLKpvs, not avriKph; avTlirepa, not avn- 
Trepa(p); aw68eKTOs, not cnrodeKTOs but e/cXe/cros, evXoyrjTos, lULadooTOs ; 
apeada (from apeaKevoi), with which compare epLOia (from epLOevco); 
axpetos (Attic dxpetos), as also eprjfjLos (Attic kprjfxos), eroLpos (Attic 
eTotpos), p-wpos (Attic pccpos), opoios (Attic dpotos), xXcopos (Attic xXw- 
pos); (3pa8uTr]s (3d decl.), but adpoTrjs (3d dccl.); ya'^ocpvXdKLOP, not 
-eioi' and dbwXiov, with which compare reXcovtoj', yXuaaoKopov being 
for the earher yXwaaoKoixLov; bkapuri, not SecrAtj?; Steriys (Mt. 2: 16), 
not 5terr?s (Attic), and so with other compounds of -er-qs, like 
tKaTOVTaerifs, etc., but eKaroPTapxojP (Ac. 23 : 17) is from -dpxvs, not 
-apxos; etxoj/ is the imperative (Mt. 18 : 17), for dirop is only 
Attic, and Charax calls eiirop Syracusan,^ with which one may 
compare 'i8e (t5e only Attic according to the Alexandrian gram- 
marians, though Bornemann urged ide when verb and I8e when 
exclamation) and \d^e (Xa^e only Attic); dprjaKos (J as. 1 : 26), not 
6p^<rKos; Idpcos (Lu. 22:44), not ISpcbs; ipapra (Mk. 1:7), not the 
Attic ipapTa; Uos, not the Epic laos^; IxOvs (Mt. 7: 10), not IxOvs; 
6<T(l>vs (Mt. 3:4), not dacjivs; laxvs, not iaxvs; KXets in nominative 
singular (Rev. 9:1), though /cXeTs (I : 18) and KXeldas (Mt. 16 : 19) 
in accusative plural, etc., with which compare irovs (Mk. 9 : 45), 
not TTovs, and ar]s (Mt. 6:19), not arj^; Krlar-qs (1 Pet. 4:19), 
not KTLaryjs, as ypcoarrj^, etc.; KpvwTr}, not KpuTrrij (Lu. 11 : 33); poyi- 
XdXos (Mk. 7 : 32), not -XaXos; pvXcop (Mt. 24 :41) is read only by 
DHM and most of the cursives, nvXos being correct; nvpiaboip (-ds) 
as in Lu. 12: 1; Rev. 5: 11, not the Attic pvptad^p, and so as to 
xiXiddup; opyvLo. (Ac. 27:28), not opyvLa; oi'd (Mk. 15:29), not 
ova; TToippLop (Lu. 12 : 32), not -koiixpIov, and Tpv^Xiov in Mk. 14 : 20 

' Cf. W.-M., p. 58. 

2 As shown in W.-M. (p. GO), the N. T. MSS. have la^,, not n<rco, thouf^li tij, 
not es. 


(called no diminutive by some)/ but TtKviov always; ir'K-niifj.vpa (Lu. 
6:48) is preferred by Winer-SchmiedeP as nominative to ttXt^m- 
nvprjs rather than -/xupa ; iropripos always, not irbvripos in the physical 
sense (Rev. 16:2) and Tovrjpos in the moral (Gal. 1:4)^; Trpu>pa 
(Ac. 27:41), not xpcbpa; aireipa (Mk. 15:16), not airelpa; </)Xi)apos 
(1 Tim. 5 : 13), not (pXvapos. The compound adverbs eTrketm, i;7rep- 
ketra have thrown back the accent. 

3. Difference in Sense. With some words the accent makes a 
difference in the sense and is quite important. We have, for in- 
stance, "A7ta, not ayla, in Heb. 9:2. W. H. read aXXd, not tiXXa, 
in Jo. 6:23. In Jas. 1 : 15 W. H. have cnroKvel (from -eco), not 
airoKvei (from -kuw). So W. H. print apa (interrog.) in Gal. 2 : 17, 
not apa (illative). Aiirr] and avrrj are easily confused, but W. H. 
prefer avrrj to avri] in Mt. 22:39 {avrfj in margin); Ro. 7:10; 
1 Cor. 7:12; and airij to avrr] in Lu. 2:37; 7:12; 8:42; Ro. 
16 : 2. In Rev. 2 : 24 the adjective ^adea is correct, not the sub- 
stantive I3adea (uncontracted from ^ados). Ae^ioXd/3os or Se^ioXa- 
^os is possible in Ac. 23:23 (cf. Winer-Schmiedel, p. 69). So 
W. H. give us e7xpto'at (infinitive) in Rev. 3 : 18, not e7xpto'ai 
(imperative). Cf. also eTrtn/xiyo-ai (Jude 9), optative, not infinitive 
-TJaaL. Note the difference between ^o/Sry^ryre (subjunctive) and 
(t)o^T]dr}Te (imperative) in Lu. 12 : 5. In Jo. 7 : 34, 36, W. H. prefer 
elfii rather than dp-L (not elsewhere used in the N. T. save in com- 
position with prepositions airo, els, k^, eirl, avv). In Mk. 13:28 
and Mt. 24:32 W, H. have k^vrj (present active subjunctive), 
not k'(/)uf] (second aorist passive subjunctive). In Lu. 19:29; 
21 : 37 W. H. prefer 'EXatwj', not 'EXatwv (the correct text in Ac. 
1 : 12, and possibly in Luke also according to the papyri, though 
'EXatcom would be the form expected).'* In Mk. 4 : 8, 20, W. H. put 
kv in the text and eV in the margin. "Ei^t, not kvl, occurs with ovk 
several times, once (1 Cor. 6 : 5) ok 'hi kv. In Lu. 9 : 38, W. H. 
read eTL^Xeipai (infinitive), not eirl^XtxpaL (imperative). In 1 Cor. 
5 : 11 W. H. read fj (subjunctive), not r) (conjunction as Rec). In 
Ro. 1 : 30 W. H. follow most editors in giving deoarvyels (pas- 
sive), not deo(TTvyeLs (active sense of the adjective). In Mk. 5 : 29 
all editors have the perfect iarai, not the present iarat. In Lu. 
22:30 W. H. read Kadrjade (subjunctive), not KadrjaOe (indicative) 
nor KaOrjaeade (future, margin). In 1 Cor. 9:21 W. H. prefer 
Kepdavoj (future indicative) to KepSavo) (aorist subjunctive), and in 

1 Cf. W.-S., p. 73. 2 lb., p. 72. 3 lb., p 69. 

* Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 69. On accent of the vernac. see Apostolides, 
T\u(T(TiKai MeXerai (1906). 


1 Cor. 6:2 KpLvomiv (future) to Kplvovaiv (present indicative in 
marg.). In Mk. 12 : 40 we have nanpa, not naKpa. In 1 Cor. 3 : 14 
W. H. prefer p.evel (future) to tikvei (present), and in Jo. 14 : 17 they 
have ixkvei. In 1 Cor. 4 : 15 (14 : 19) and Mt. 18 : 24 no distinction 
can be made in the accent of tivploL C innumerable') and juuptot 
(' ten thousand') because of the cases. Dr. E. J. Goodspeed, of Chi- 
cago University {Expository Times, July, 1909, p. 471 f.), suggests 
(h(t>e\ridris in Mk. 7:11 instead of w0eX77i9fj$. It is entirely possible. 
In 1 Cor. 14 :7 o^ucos is correct, not ojuws = o/iotcos. In Jo. 18:37 
W. H. give ovKovv, not omow, in Pilate's question. In Ac. 28 : 6 
W. H. print ■Kip.irpaaBai {pn verb), not inpTrpaadaL (w verb). In 
Rev. 17 : 5 ivopvlxiv (feminine) is probal^ly right, not iropvoiv (mas- 
culine). ripcoToro/cos (Col. 1 : 15), not tpuitotokos, is manifestly 
right. The difference between the interrogative tLs and the in- 
definite Tts calls for frequent attention. In Heb. 5 : 12 W. H. 
have TLva, not rtm, but in Heb. 3 : 16 ripes, not Tives, and in 3 : 17 
rlaiv, not Ticrlp, while in Mt. 24 : 41, 1 Th. 4 : 6, 1 Cor. 15 : 8 and 
16 : 16 the article tw is to be read, not the indefinite rw, which 
form 'does not occur in the N. T. In 1 Cor. 10 : 19 H kariv (twice) 
is not interrogative, but the enclitic indefinite with the accent of 
kcTTLv. In Jas. 3:6 Tpoxos ('wheel') is properly read, not rpoxos 
('course'). In Mk. 4:12 W. H. read awiwaLv, not awLwaiv, as 
avvLov(7ivm.M.i. 13 : 13. Winer ^ considers the suggestion of 4>o:t(^v 
for </>a)Tcoi' in Jas. 1 : 17 "altogether absurd." 

4. Enclitics {and Proclitics). Proclitics are regular in the N. T. 
The accent of enchtics calls for comment. As a rule W. H. do not 
accent them. So we have avrov rtms (Mk. 12 : 13), elval Tiva (Ac. 
5:36), Ibov TLves (Mt. 28: 11), 686v elaLv (Lu. 8: 12), aavveToi tare 
(Mk. 7 : 18), yap kare (Mk. 13 : 11), rat 0r?(7t (Ac. 10 : 31; 25 : 24). 
However, plenty of cases call for accent on the enclitic, as^ for 
example, in evpelp nvas (Ac. 19: 1) for emphasis, yap, 4)r]aiv (Heb. 8:5 
and cf. Mt. 14 : 8; Ac. 25 : 5, 22; 26 : 25; 1 Cor. 6 :16; 2 Cor. 10 : 10) 
for clearness in punctuation, Kal elaiv (Mt. 19 : 12 and cf. Ac. 5 : 25) 
for emphasis, deov eaph (1 Jo. 3:2), bird tlvC^v (Lu. 9 : 8) likewise, 
ovK dpi (Jo. 1 : 21). In oTvov dpi (Jo. 7 : 34, 36) the accent is regular, 
though some critics wrongly prefer dpi. 

The use of eaTlv and Iotlv demands special comment. When 
uncmphatic, not at the beginning of a sentence, not preceded by 
dXX', d, Kal, OVK, on, tovt', or a paroxytone syllable, as, for example, 
in 'lovdaiuiu tarlv (Jo. 4 : 22), we have unaccented (.ctlv as in aypbs 
kaxLv (Mt. 13:37, 39), Ka^ojs kariv (1 Jo. 3:2), etc. In some ex- 

1 W.-M., p. 62. 


amples of mild emphasis W. H. have earlv, as in vvp eaTiv (Jo. 
4 : 23; 5 : 25), wov kaTiv (Mt. 2:2; Mk. 14 : 14). But the cases 
are numerous where 'Iotlv is correct, as when it is emphatic, and 
expresses existence or possibihty, as in ei5es eartv (Rev. 17 : 18), 
avTOV ecTTLV (Ac. 2 : 29), ayiov eariv (Ac. 19 : 2), 6 els earLV (Rev. 
17 : 10), ov8eis i(JTLv (Lu. 1 : 61; 7 : 28; 18 : 29). -'Ecttlv is also the 
accent at the beginning of sentences, as in Jo. 21 : 25; 1 Cor. 15 : 44; 

1 Jo. 5 : 16 f.; Heb. 11:1. Cf. karlv in Col. 1 : 15 and eaTiv in 
1 : 17. Then again we have, according to the usual rule, iarLv 
after dXX' (Jo. 13 : 10), et (1 Cor. 15 : 44), Kal (Mk. 12 : 11; 2 Cor. 
4 :3), '6ti (2 Th. 2 :4; Mk. 6 : 55; Heb. 11 : 6), but on karlv 
(Ac. 23 : 5) when the idea of existence is not stressed, ovk (1 Cor. 
11 : 20; Ro. 8 : 9, etc.), tovt' (Mk. 7 : 2; Ro. 7 : 18). W. H. give 
only harlv after ttoO (Jo. 9 : 12; U : 57; Mk. 14 : 14). 

Sometimes two enclitics come together. Here the critics differ 
and W. H.^ do not make clear the reasons for their practice. In 
Ac. 13 : 15 W. H. have d tls earLv, and in Gal. 6 : 15 TepiTOfj-rj tl 
eaTLv, because they take eaTLv to be emphatic in both instances. In 
Jo. 6 : 51 W. H. have aap^ ixov kariv. But in many examples the 
first enclitic is accented and the second unaccented as in Lu. 8 : 46 
Tjxl/aTO }xov TLS, 10 : 29 tLs kariv ixov, Jo. 5 : 14 x^'^pov aoi tl, 8:31 
jjiadrjTai nou eare, 12 : 47 kav tls /xov, 14 : 28 ne'i^wv /lov tOTLV, Ac. 2 : 25 
8e^Lcov fjLov kcTTLu, 25 : 5 €t TL koTLv, 25 : 14 avi]p TLS kcTTLv, 1 Cor. 10 : 19 
dbiSKbdvTOV TL tcxTLV and eiboSKbv t'l earLV, 11 : 24 tovto (xov kcxTLV, 

2 Cor. 11 : 16 yui? t'ls fj.e, Ro. 3 :8 Kadws 4>aa'Lv TLves, Heb. 1 : 10 
X^i'P<Jov <Jov dcTLv, 2 : 6 5e xou tls, Tit. 1 : 6 et t'ls eaTLv. Modern Greek 
only has a second accent when the accent is in the third syllable 
as in t' dpfxaTCL juas (Thumb, Handbook, p. 29). 

The personal pronouns now have the accent in W. H. and 
now are without it, as 6(f)daXnu) aov and 6cf)da\iJ.ov gov (both in 
Mt. 7:4). Cf. also eyw ae (Jo. 17:4), av fxe (17:8), but t'l kfxoi 
Kal (jo'l (Lu. 8 : 28). With prepositions generally the enclitics are 
accented, as kv aoi (Jo. 17 : 21), though ewpoadev ixov and ottio-co jiov 
(Jo. 1 :30 both, and so continually with these two prepositions). 
''EiVLOTVLov e/ioO (Lu. 4 : 7) and kvdoirLov fiov (Ac. 2 : 25) both appear. 
With the prepositions usually e/ioO, not nov, occurs as 'eveKa eiJ.ov 
(Mt. 5 : 11). It is only with irpos that we have much trouble. 
The N. T. editors have generally printed wpos at, but W. H. have 
that only in Mt. 25 : 39, elsewhere irpos ak as in Mt, 26 : 18. 
Usually we have, according to W. H., irpos /xe as in Mt. 25 : 36; 
Jo. 6 : 65; 7 : 37, etc., and where the "me" is emphatic in sense, 
1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 77. 



as Mt. 3 : 14; 11 : 28, in the first of which Tisch. and Griesbach 
have Trpos /xe, a usage not followed by W. H., though kept in the 
LXX text of B, as in Is. 48 : 16, etc.^ W. H. a few times prefer 
Trpos k/xk (not enclitic) as in Lu. 1:43; Jo. 6:35, 37 (both ways 
here), 44 (marg.), 45; Ac. 22 : 8, 13; 23 : 22; 24 : 19. Occasionally 
the enclitic nves is found at the beginning of a sentence, as in Mt. 
27 : 47; Lu. 6 : 2; Jo. 13 : 29; Ph. 1 : 15; 1 Tim. 5 : 24. 

5. Proper Names cannot always be brought under rules, for in 
Greek, as in English, men claim the right to accent their own 
names as they will. On the accent of the abbreviated proper 
names see chapter V, v. It is difficult to make a clear line of 
distinction as to why 'Ai'TtTras (Rev. 2 : 13) is proper, but 'Apre/xas 
(Tit. 3 : 12), save that in ' Aprenidupos the accent was already 
after /x. But cf. KXeoTras (Lu. 24 : 18) and KXcovras (Jo. 19 : 25) .^ 
In general one may say that proper names (geographical and 
personal) throw the accent back, if the original adjectives or sub- 
stantives were oxytone. This is for the sake of distinction. 'AXe^ai'- 
SpLvos (Ac. 27 : 6; 28 : 11) is the adjective. "Aaaos (Ac. 20 : 13 f.) 
is doubtless correct, though Pape gives 'Aaaos also.^ In 'Axa'tKos 
(1 Cor. 16 : 17) the accent is not thrown back nor is it in 'AttoXXws 
(1 Cor. 16 : 12). 'Ao-w/cptros (Ro. 16 : 14) retains the accent of 
the adjective, like Tp60i/xos (Ac 20 : 4) and 'T^teratos (1 Tim. 1 : 
20). But we have BXdaros (Ac. 12 : 20), Atorpe^Tjs (3 Jo. 9), 'ETrai- 
veros (Ro. 16:5), "Epaaros (16:23), 'Eppioykpr]s (2 Tim. 1 : 15), 
EvTuxos (Ac. 20:9), KdpTros (2 Tim. 4 : 13), probably ' OviaL(i>opos 
(2 Tim. 1 : 16; 4 : 19), ndrapa (Ac. 21 : 1), Hippos (Ac. 20:4), 
llvvrvxv (Ph. 4 :2), Zoiadh-qs (1 Cor. 1:2), Tipwi/ (Ac. 0:5), Ty- 
XiKos (Ac. 20:4) ^l\r]Tos (2 Tim. 2 : 17). But XpLaros always re- 
tains the oxytone accent whether proper name (1 Tim. 1 : 1) or 
verbal adjective (Mt. 16 : 16). In 2 Tim. 4 : 21 Atj'os, not Atvos, 
is read. So Tiros (2 Cor. 2 : 13, etc.). In Ac. 27 : 17 Zi^prts is read 
by W. H. But ^fj\L^ in Ac. 24 : 22, etc. 

6. Foreign Words. These always give occasion for diversity 
of usage in transliterating them into another tongue. Blass'* 
lets the quantity of the vowel in Latin determine the accent in 
the Greek equivalent for Latin words. So Marcus, Map/cos, etc., 
but W. H. do not accept this easy principle and give us IVIdpKos 
in Ac. 12 : 25, etc., Kptaxos (1 Cor. 1 : 14), etc. W. H. likewise 

» Cf. Lipsius, Gr. Unters., p. 01. Cf. .ilso W.-Sch., p. 78. 
* In W.-Sch., p. 74 f., sec remarks on the subject. 

' Cf. W.-Sch., p. 7.3. Thi.s word is, of course, not to be confounded with 
&a<Toi> (Ac. 27 : 13) as Text. lice. did. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 15. 


throw the accent back on Latin names like Kovapros (Ro. 16:23), 
Upi(TKi.\\a (Ac. 18:2), i:€Kovu8os (Ac. 20:4), TepruXXos (24:2), but 
we have on the other hand Talos (Ro. 16 : 23), not rdtos, Ovp- 
^avos (Ro. 16 : 9), ZiKovavos (2 Cor. 1 : 19), ^Kevas (Ac. 19 : 14) .^ 

But not even Blass attempts to bring the Semitic words under 
regular rules. Still, it is true, as Winer ^ shows, that indeclinable 
Semitic words (especially proper names) have the accent, as a 
rule, on the last syllable, though the usage of Josephus is the con- 
trary, because he generally inflects the words that in the LXX 
and the N. T. are indecHnable. So 'Aapwp, 'A^a88cov, 'A/Sta, 'A/3tou5, 
'A^paa/jL, to take only the first two pages of Thayer's Lexicon, 
though even here we find on the other side "A/SeX and 'A^Ladap. 
If you turn over you meet "Ayap, 'Aoap, 'Ad8ei, 'A8p.eiv, 'Afwp, etc. 
It is not necessary here to give a full list of these proper names, 
but reference can be made to Lu. 3 : 23-38 for a good sample. 
In this list some indeclinable words have the accent on the penult, 
as 'EXie^P (29), Zopoi3d/3eX (27), Ad^ex (36), *dXe/c (35) .^ The in- 
flected Semitic words often throw the accent back, as "Afwros, 
'Id/cw|3os, Adf apoj. Many of the Aramaic words accent the ultima, 
as 'AjS^a, ToXyoda, Kop^av, 'EXcot, aajSaxdavei, etc. For further re- 
marks on the subject see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 26-31. The 
difficulties of the LXX translators are well illustrated here by 

VI. Pronunciation in the Koivii. This is indeed a knotty 
problem and has been the occasion of fierce controversy. When 
the Byzantine scholars revived the study of Greek in Italy, they 
introduced, of course, their own pronunciation as well as their 
own spelling. But English-speaking people know that spelling is 
not a safe guide in pronunciation, for the pronunciation may 
change very much when the spelling remains the same. Writing 
is originally an effort to represent the sound and is more or less 
successful, but the comparison of Homer with modern Greek is a 
fruitful subject.* Roger Bacon, as Reuchlin two centuries later, 
adopted the Byzantine pronunciation.^ Reuchlin, who intro- 
duced Greek to the further West, studied in Italy and passed on 
the Byzantine pronunciation. Erasmus is indirectly responsible 
for the current pronunciation of ancient Greek, for the Byzan- 

1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 75. 2 W.-M., p. 59. 

3 Cf. also Gregory, Prol., p. 102 f.; W.-Sch., p. 75; Westcott, Notes on 
Orth., pp. 155, 159; Thackeray, pp. 150 ff. 
* Blass, Ausspr. des Griech., 1888, p. 7. 
5 Nolan, The Gk. Gr. of Roger Bacon, p. xx. 


tine scholars pronounced ancient and modern alike. Jannaris^ 
quotes the story of Voss, a Dutch scholar (1577-1649), as to how 
Erasmus heard some learned Greeks pronounce Greek in a very 
different way from the Byzantine custom. Erasmus published a 
discussion between a lion and a bear entitled De Recta Latini 
Graecique sermonis pronuntiatione, which made such an impres- 
sion that those who accepted the ideas advanced in this book were 
called Erasmians and the rest Reuchlinians. As a matter of fact, 
however, Engel has shown that Erasmus merely wrote a literary 
squib to "take off" the new non-Byzantine pronunciation, though 
he was taken seriously by many. Dr. Caspar Rene Gregory 
writes me (May 6, 1912): "The philologians were of course down 
on Engel and sided gladly with Blass. It was much easier to go 
on with the totally impossible pronunciation that they used than 
to change it." Cf. Engel, Die Aussprachen des Griechischen, 
1887. In 1542 Stephen Gardiner, Chancellor of the University 
of Cambridge, "issued an edict for his university, in which, e.g. 
it was categorically forbidden to distinguish at from e, et and ot 
from I in pronunciation, under penalty of expulsion from the 
Senate, exclusion from the attainment of a degree, rustication 
for students, and domestic chastisement for boys."^ Hence 
though the continental pronunciation of Greek and Latin was 
"Erasmian," at Cambridge and Oxford the Reuchlinian influence 
prevailed, though with local modifications. Geldart,^ however, 
complains that at Eton, Rugby and Harrow so little attention 
is paid to pronouncing according to accent that most Greek 
scholars handle the accents loosely. The Classical Review (April, 
1906, p. 146 f.) has the scheme approved by the Philological So- 
cieties of Cambridge and Oxford for "The Restored Pronuncia- 
tion of Latin," which is the virtual adoption of the Continental 
principle. The modern Greeks themselves rather vehemently in- 
sist that ancient Greek should be pronounced as modern Greek 
is. Miiller,^ for instance, calls the "Erasmian" pronunciation 
"false" because it treats Greek "as dead." Gcldart {Modern 
Gk. Language in Its Relation to Ancient Gr., p. vii) says: "Mod- 
ern Greek is nothing but ancient Greek made easy." It is not 

1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 31 f. Cf. Mayser, Gr., pp. 138-151. 

2 Blass, Pronun. of Anc. Gk., Purton's transl., p. 3. 
8 Guide to Mod. Gk., p. x. 

* Hist. Gr. dor hell. Spr. (pp. 2G, 30). In pp. 35-40 he states the case 
against the squib of Erasmus. Cf. Engel (Die Ausspr. dcs Gricch., 1S87) who 
defends the mod. Gk. method, as already stated. 


quite as simple as that. Foy^ properly distinguishes between the 
old Greek vocal sounds and the modern Greek and refers to the 
development of Latin into the several Romance languages. There 
is this difference in the Greek, however, that it has only one 
modern representative (with dialectical variations) of the ancient 
tongue. One must not make the mistake of comparing the pro- 
nunciation of the modern Greek vernacular with the probable 
pronunciation of the literary Attic of the fifth century b.c. Then, 
as now, there was the literary and the vernacular pronunciation. 
The changes in pronunciation that have come in the modern 
Greek have come through the Byzantine Greek from the kolvtj, 
and thus represent a common stream with many rills. The vari- 
ous dialects have made contributions to the pronunciation of the 
KOLvrj and so of the modern Greek. In cultivated Athens at its 
best there was a closer approximation between the people and the 
educated classes. "Demosthenes, in his oration xept aTe4>avov, 
called ^Eschines a ixiado^Tov, but had accented the word erroneously, 
namely, iiladc/iTov, whereupon the audience corrected him by cry- 
ing uLadojTov."^ Like the modern Italian, the ancient Greek had a 
musical cadence that set it above all other European tongues.^ 
We can indeed appeal to the old Greek inscriptions for the popu- 
lar pronunciation on many points.* According to this evidence 
in the first century b.c. in Attica at = ae, ei = i, 17 = 1, i; = i, vl = v, et=t, 
/3 = y (English v).^ Clearly then in the kolvt] the process of itacism 
was already at work before the N. T. was written. What was 
true of the kolvt] vernacular then does not of course argue conclu- 
sively for the pronunciation of cultivated Athenians in the time 
of Socrates. In versatile Athens "a stranger, if introduced on the 
stage, is always represented as talking the language or dialect of 
the people to which he belongs."^ Blass^ indeed thinks that in 
Tarsus the school-teacher taught Paul Atticistic Greek! ""lafxev, 

^ Lautsystem der griech. Vulgarspr., 1879, p. 83 f. 

2 Achilles Rose, Chris. Greece and Living Gk., 1898, p. 61. 

3 Cf. Mure, A Grit. Hist, of the Lang, and Lit. of Anc. Greece, I, p. 99; 
Bolland, Die althell. Wortbet. im Lichte der Gesch., 1897, p. 6. Cf. Pronun. 
of Gk. as deduced from Graeco-Latin Biling. Coins. By Cecil Bendall in 
Jour, of Philol., vol. XXIX, No. 58, 1904. Here the rough breathing is 
represented by h, d = th, <j>=ph. 

* Thumb, Unters. etc., 1888, p. 1. Cf. Sophocles, Hist, of Gk. Alph. and 
Pronun., 1854. 

^ Telfy, Chron. und Topog. der griech. Ausspr. nach d. Zeugnisse der 
Inschr., 1893, p. 39. 

« Rutherford, The New Phryn., p. 32. ' Philol. of the Gosp., p. 9. 



Ure, 'l<xa<xLV, he must have said, are the true forms which you 
must employ if you care to be considered a cultivated speaker or 
writer." Yet in Paul's Epistles he constantly has oiSafxeu, -are, 
-aoLv. The Atticistic pronunciation was no more successful than 
the Atticistic spelling, forms and syntax. We may be sure of one 
thing, the pronunciation of the vernacular koij'i? was not exactly 
like the ancient literary Attic nor precisely like the modern Greek 
vernacular, but veering more towards the latter. In Greek as 
in English the pronunciation has perhaps varied more than the 
spelling. Giles 1 observes that English pronunciation "is really 
a stumbling-block in tracing the history of the English language." 
Hadley2 ^as a very able and sane discussion of this matter of 
changes in Greek pronunciation. He insists on change all through 
the centuries (p. 139), which is the only rational position. If we 
turn to the earUest N. T. MSS. we shall find undoubtedly traces 
of this process of change from the old Attic toward the Byzantine 
or modern Greek pronunciation. Indeed in the fourth and fifth 
centuries a.d.,^ the date of the earUest uncials, the process is 
pretty well complete. The N. T. scribes make no hesitation in 
writing at or e; t, et, -q, r, oi ow according to convenience or indi- 
vidual taste." Blass,^ contrary to his former view about Tarsus, 
says that it is impossible to suppose that there was anybody in 
the schools at Tarsus who would have taught Paul the correct 
historical spelling or pronunciation. To the student of the kocj'i?, 
as to us, in a sense ''the Greek rd ypafxfxara were dead symbols, 
from which must be recovered the hving sounds." ^ Of one thing 
we may be sure, and it is that other dialects besides the Attic 
contributed to the kolvt] pronunciation. The kolvv would be 
dialect-coloured here and there in its pronunciation. Alexan- 
der's conquest, like the railroad and the steamship of the present 
day, levelled the dialectical variations in many points, whereas 
before every valley in Greece had its own pronunciation of 
certain words.^ One taught the KOLvi, in a Doric environment 

1 Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 103. Cf. also Ellis, Early Eng. Pronun. 

2 "Gk. Pronun." in Ess. Philol. and Crit., pp. 128-140. 
» Hatzidakis, Einl. etc. 

* Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 34 f. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 6 f. 

8 Nicklin, CI. Rev., Mar., 190G, p. 116. This is precisely the objection that 
Jannaris (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 33) brings against the ancient grammarians aa 
"post-Christian scribes" and unable to "speak with authority of the pro- 
nunciation of classical Greek." 

' Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 75. Cf. Oppcnhcim und Lucixs, Byz. 
Zeitschr., 1905, p. 13, for cxx. of phonetic .spelling. 


would show it somewhat. As a matter of fact the Boeotian dia- 
lect contributed largely to the kolvt] vernacular pronunciation (and 
so the modern Greek) in points where the Boeotian differed radi- 
cally from the old Attic.^ Boeotian Greek "modified its vowel- 
system more than any other Greek dialect." ^ Thus already in 
Boeotian at and e are confused and interchanged (yhrire, for in- 
stance), not to mention ae and 77. So in Boeotian -q, ei and t blend^ 
in sound, as eTrLdd = eTreLdr]. The early Greek generally, as already 
shown, made no distinction in sound between and co, and 77 
was a slow development from e. The Ionic dialect never took 
kindly to the rough breathing and greatly influenced the kolptj 
and so the modern Greek. By the Christian era (3 is beginning 
to be pronounced as v, as the transliteration of Latin words like 
BepyiKios shows. Z is no longer ds, but 2, though 5 seems still 
usually d, not th. Who is right, therefore, the "Erasmians" or 
the Reuchlinians? Jannaris^ sums up in favour of the Reuch- 
linians, while according to Riemann and Goelzer^ the "Erasmians" 
are wholly right. As a matter of fact neither side is wholly right. 
In speaking of ancient Greek one must recognize other dialects 
than the literary Attic of the fifth century B.C. If you ask for the 
pronunciation of the vernacular kolvt] of the first century a.d., 
that Avill be found as a whole neither in the literary Attic alone 
nor in the N. T. MSS. of the fifth century a.d. The papyri* and 
the inscriptions of the time throw light on a good many points, 
though not on all. But even here the illiterate papyri do not fur- 
nish a safe standard for the vernacular of a man like Paul or 
Luke. It is small wonder therefore that N. T. MSS. show much 
confusion between -aet (future indicative) and 0-77 (aorist subjunc- 
tive), -ojjLev (indicative) and -co/xej' (subjunctive), -adai (infinitive) 
and -ade (indicative middle), etc. It is possibly as well to go on 
pronouncing the N. T. Greek according to the literary Attic, since 
we cannot reproduce a clear picture of the actual vernacular 
KOLVT] pronunciation, only we must understand frankly that this 

^ Cf. Riem. and Goelzer, Phonct., p. 41. 

2 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 540. 

3 Riem. and Goelzer, Phonet., pp. 41, 46. Thumb (Hellen., p. 228) warns 
us against overemphasis of thje Ba?otian influence. 

* Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 31. "The pronunciation of ancient Gk. in the manner 
of the present Greeks had been traditionally accepted at all times, before 
and through the Middle Ages, as a matter of unquestioned fact." 

^ Phonet., p. 56. "En resume, la prononciation grecque ancienne etait, 
6ur presque tous les points, diflerente de la prononciation moderne." 


is not the way it was done. On the other hand the modern Greek 
method misses it by excess, as the literary Attic does by default. 
There was, of course, no Jewish pronunciation of the KOLpfj. The 
Coptic shows the current pronunciation in many ways and prob- 
ably influenced the pronunciation of the kolpt] in Egypt. Cf. a 
German's pronunciation of English. 

VII. Punctuation. In the spoken language the division of 
words is made by the voice, pauses, emphasis, tone, gesture, but 
it is difficult to reproduce all this on the page for the eye. Many 
questions arise for the editor of the Greek N. T. that are not easy 
of solution. Caspar Rene Gregory insists that whenever N. T. 
MSvS. have punctuation of any kind, it must be duly weighed, 
since it represents the reading given to the passage. 

(a) The Paragraph. As early as Aristotle's time the para- 
graph (7rapaypa(t)os) was known. A dividing horizontal stroke was 
written between the lines marking the end of a paragraph. Some 
other marks like > (SLTrXrj) or 7 (/copwfts) were used, or a slight 
break in the line made by a blank space. Then again the first 
letter of the line was written larger than the others or even made 
to project out farther than the rest.^ The paragraph was to the 
ancients the most important item in punctuation, and we owe a 
debt to the N. T. revisers for restoring it to the English N. T. 
Cf. Lightfoot, Trench, Ellicott, The Revision of the N. T., 1873, 
p. xlvi. Euthalius (a.d. 458) prepared an edition of the Greek 
N. T. with chapters (Ke<j)a\aLa) , but long before him Clement of 
Alexandria spoke of Trepi/coTrat and Tertullian of capitula. These 
"chapters" were later called also tLtXol? The arlxos of Euthalius 
was a line of set length with no regard to the sense, like our prin- 
ter's ems. W. H. have made careful use of the paragraph in their 
Greek N. T. The larger sections are marked off by spaces and 
the larger paragraphs are broken into smaller sub-paragraphs 
(after the French method) by smaller spaces.^ Another division 
is made by W. H. in the use of the capital letter at the beginning 
of an important sentence, while the other sentences, though after 
a period, begin with a small letter. This is a wholly arbitrary 
method, but it helps one better to understand W. H.'s interpre- 
tation of the text. 

' On the para^aph soc Thompson, Handb. of Gk. and Lat. PaliroR., 
pp. G7 fT. Occasionally the double point (;) was used to close a paragraph. 

2 Cf. Warfield, Text. Crit. of N. T., pp. 40 ff. 

' Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 319. For the arlxos see further Gregory, 
Prol., p. 112 f. 


W. H.^ have also printed in metrical form passages metrical in 
rhythm like the Magnificat of Mary (Lu. 1 : 46-55), the fragment 
of a hymn in 1 Tim. 3 : 16, etc., while Lu. 2 : 14 and the non- 
metrical hymns in Revelation are merely printed in narrower 
columns. The Hebrew parallelism of 0. T. quotations is indicated 

(6) Sentences. The oldest inscriptions and papyri show few 
signs of punctuation between sentences or clauses in a sentence,^ 
though punctuation by points does appear on some of the ancient 
inscriptions. In the Artemisia papyrus the double point (:) occa- 
sionally ends the sentence.^ It was Aristophanes of Byzantium 
(260 B.C.) who is credited with inventing a more regular system 
of sentence punctuation which was further developed by the 
Alexandrian grammarians.'' As a rule all the sentences, like the 
words, ran into one another in an unbroken line {scriptura con- 
tinua), but finally three stops were provided for the sentence by 
the use of the full point. The point at the top of the fine (•) (orrtTMi) 
Tekda, 'high point') was a full stop; that on the hue (.) (vToaTLyni]) 
was equal to our semicolon, while a middle point (aTLynij /xecrr]) 
was equivalent to our comma.^ But gradually changes came over 
these stops till the top point was equal to our colon, the bottom 
point became the full stop, the middle point vanished, and about 
the ninth century a.d. the comma (,) took its place. About this 
time also the question-mark (;) or epwrr/^art/coj' appeared. These 
marks differed from the cTTlxot in that they concerned the sense 
of the sentence. Some of the oldest N. T. MSS. show these marks 
to some extent. B has the higher point as a period, the lower 
point for a shorter pause.^ But still we cannot tell how much, if 
any, use the N. T. writers themselves made of punctuation points. 
We may be sure that they did not use the exclamation point, 
the dash, quotation-marks, the parenthesis, etc.^ Parenthetical 
clauses were certainly used, which will be discussed elsewhere, 
though no signs were used for this structure by the ancient 
Greeks. W. H. represent the parenthesis either by the comma 
(Ro. 1 : 13) or the dash with comma (1 Tim. 2:7). Instead of 

1 Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 319 f. ^ Thompson, Handb., etc., p. 69. 

2 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 62. * lb., p. 70; Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 67. 
^ I follow Thompson (Handb., etc., p. 70) on this point instead of Jannaris 

(pp. 6.3 and 67), who makes the vTroaTLynr] = our comma. 

6 Of. Gregory, Prol., pp. 345, 348; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 17. D has 
the arlxoL in the way of sense-Unes (Blass, ib.). 

^ Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 67. 


quotation-marks W. H. begin the quotation with a capital letter 
with no punctuation before it, as in Jo. 12 : 19, 21. One way of 
expressing a quotation was by to, as in Ro. 13 : 8. In the case 
of O. T. quotations the Scripture is put in uncial type (Jo. 12 : 13). 
The period (ireplodos) gives very Httle trouble to the modern edi- 
tor, for it is obviously necessary for modern needs. Here the 
editor has to make his interpretation sometimes when it is doubt- 
ful, as W. H. give ev. 5 yeyovep h, not ev 6 yeyoveu. kv (Jo. 1:4). So 
W. H. read dav/jLa^ere. 5td tovto Mcouo-tjs in Jo. 7 : 22, not davnai^ere 
5id TOVTO. Moivarjs, etc. The colon (kcoXov),^ 'limb of the sentence' 
formed a complete clause. See Jo. 3 : 31 for example of use of 
colon made by W. H. The comma {kohho) is the most conunon 
division of the sentence and is often necessary, as with the voca- 
tive. So AtSdcr/caXe, tL TroLr]acon€p; (Lu. 3 : 12) and many common 
examples. In general W. H. use the comma only where it is 
necessary to make clear an otherwise ambiguous clause, whether 
it be a participial (Col. 2 : 2) or conjunctional phrase (Col. 1 : 23), 
or appositive (Col. 1 : 18), or relative (Col. 2:3). The first chap- 
ter of Colossians has a rather unusual number of colons (2, 6, 14, 
16, 18, 20, 27, 28) as Paul struggles with several long sentences, 
not to mention the dashes (21, 22, 26). The Germans use the 
comma too freely with the Greek for our English ideas, leaving 
out the Greek! Even Winer defended the comma after Kapirov in 
Jo. 15 : 2 and 6 vlkc^v in Rev. 3 : 12, not to mention Griesbach's 
"excessive" use of the comma, Winer himself being judge.^ My 
friend. Rev. S. M. Provence, D.D. (Victoria, Tex.), suggests a full 
stop before jua^coj^ in Ac. 23 : 27 f. That would help the character 
of Claudius Lysias on the point of veracity. 

(c) Words. The continuous writing of words without any 
space between them was not quite universal, though nearly so.^ 
The oldest Attic inscription (Dipylon vase, probalily eighth cen- 
tury B.C.) is written from right to left. With the common method 
it was not always easy for the practised eye to distinguish between 
words. Hence there arose the SiaaroX?; or virohaaToXi}, a comma 
used to distinguish between ambiguous words, as eort vovs, not 
cffTii' oDs. But W. H. make no use of this mark, not even in o, tl 
to distinguish it from the conjunction on. They print uniformly 
OTL (Lu. 10 : 35; Jo. 2 : 5; 14 : 13; 1 Cor. 16 : 2, etc.), not to mcn- 

1 Thompson, Handb., etc., p. 81. So Suidas. The colon is the main semi- 
division of the sentence, but mod. Eng. makes less use of all marks save the 
period and comma. 

2 W.-M., pp. 63, 07. » Thompson, Handb., etc., p. 07. 


tion doubtful cases like Mk. 9 : 11, 28; Jo. 8:25; Ac. 9:27; 2 
Cor. 3 : 14.^ As to the marks of dieeresis (") reference may be had 
to the discussion of diphthongs and diaeresis in this chapter under 
II (i). W. H., like other modern editors, Use the apostrophe (') (or 
smooth breathing) to represent elision, as air' apxrjs (Mt. 24: 21) .^ 
The coronis is the smooth breathing used also to show when crasis 
has taken place, as in Kaixoi (Lu. 1:3).^ The hyphen, a long 
straight line, was used in the Harris-Homer MS. to connect com- 
pound words, but it is not in the N. T.^ The editors vary much 
in the way such words as dXXd ye, ha ri, tovt' 1(tti, etc., are printed. 
The MSS. give no help at all, for tovto 8e karLv in Ro. 1 : 12 is not 
conclusive against tovt' eaTLv elsewhere.^ W. H. prefer dXXd ye (Lu. 
24 : 21; 1 Cor. 9 : 2), dpd ye (Ac. 8 : 30), 5td ye (Lu. 11 : 8; 18 : 5), 
et ye (2 Cor. 5 : 3, etc.), Kai ye (Ac. 2 : 18; 7 : 27), 6s ye (Ro. 8 : 32), 
5td TravTos (Mk. 5 : 5, etc.), 5td tL (Mt. 9:11, etc.), iW tI (Mt. 9 : 4, 
etc.), et TTcos (Ac. 27 : 12), /xij woTe (everj^where save in Mt. 25 : 9 
where nrjTOTe), ixi) tov (Ac. 27 : 29), f^i] xws (1 Cor. 9 : 27, etc.), fXT] 
Tts (1 Cor. 16 : 11, etc.). So also 8rj\ov 6tl in 1 Cor. 15 : 27, oo-rts 
ovv (Mt. 18 : 4). But on the other hand W. H. print Slotl as well 
as etre, ovTe, fxriTe, cicrre, Kalirep, ixrjrroTe (once), iJ,r]8eiroTe, jurjSeTrco, 
ovSeiroTe, nrjKeTL, oi'KeTC, iirjirco, oviroo, fj.r]TLye, even iiriye (Mt. 6:1), 
Kadd, KaQb, Kad6:s, KaBdirep, nadoTL, KadoXou, ihairep, ojael, wairepei (1 Cor. 
15 : 8), etc. But W. H. give us Kad' eh in Ro. 12 : 5, di'd neaov in 
Mt. 13 : 25, etc.; KaTo. /xoms in Mk. 4 : 10, Kad' 6<jov in Heb. 3 : 3. 
Adverbs hke eireKeLva (Ac. 7 : 43), vrrepeKeiva (2 Cor. 10 : 16), irapeKTos 
(2 Cor. 11 : 28) are, of course, printed as one word. W. H. prop- 
erly have virep eyoo (2 Cor. 11:23), not i'7repe7cb. In Ac. 27:33 
TeacrapeaKacSeKaTos is one word, but W. H. have 'lepd IloXts in Col. 
4 : 13 and Nea ttoXls in Ac. 16 : 11. It must be confessed that no 
very clear principles in this matter can be set forth, and the effort 
of Winer-Schmiedel ^ at minute analysis does not throw much light 
on the subject. 

(d) The Editor's Prerogative. Where there is so much con- 
fusion, what is the editor's prerogative? Blass ^ boldly advances 

1 W.-Sch., p. 35. 

2 See this ch. ii (k) for discussion of elision. For origin and early use of 
the apostrophe see Thompson, Handb., etc., p. 73. 

^ See this ch. ii (Z) for discussion of crasis. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., 
p. 88. * Thompson, Handb., etc., p. 72. 

^ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 14. For the usage of Tisch. in the union and 
the separation of particles see Gregory, Prol., pp. 109-111. In most cases 
Tisch. ran the particles together as one word. * P. 35. 

^ Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 17. Left out by Debrunner. 


the German idea: "The most correct principle appears to be to 
punctuate wherever a pause is necessary for reading correctly." 
But Winer ^ shrinks from this profusion of punctuation-marks by 
the editors, which " often intruded on the text their own interpre- 
tation of it." The editor indeed has to interpret the text with 
his punctuation, but certainly good taste demands that the mini- 
mum, not the maximum, of punctuation-marks be the rule. They 
must of necessity decide "a multitude of subtle and difficult 
points of interpretation." 2 Hort indeed aimed at "the greatest 
simplicity compatible with clearness," and this obviously should 
be the goal in the Greek N. T. But the editor's punctuation may 
be a hindrance to the student instead of a help. It is the privi- 
lege of each N. T. student to make his own punctuation. 

1 W.-M., p. 63. 2 Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 318. 



Space will not be taken for the inflection of the nouns and pro- 
nouns, for the student of this grammar may be assumed to know 
the normal Attic inflections. Aristotle ^ used the term " inflection " 
(TTTcoo-ts) of noun and verb and even adverb, but practically inflec- 
tion is appHed to nouns and conjugation (kXIctls priixa.TUiv = av^vyLa) 
to verbs. Noun (ovo/jlo) does, of course, include both substan- 
tive and adjective without entering the psychological realm and 
affirming the connection between name and thing (cf. Plato's 
Cratylus) . 


The Substantive (to ovo/jlo) is either concrete (aoJ/jLo) or abstract 
(TpdyiJLa), ordinary appellative {ovoiia TrpoarjjopLKov) or proper {ovo/xa 
Kvpiov) . 

1. History of the Declensions. It is only since the seventeenth 
century a.d. that modern grammarians distinguish for conveni- 
ence three declensions in Greek. The older grammars had ten 
or more.2 In the modern Greek vernacular the first and third de- 
clensions have been largely fused into one, using the singular of 
the first and the plural of the third.^ Thumb {Handbook, pp. 
43 ff.) divides the declension of substantives in modern Greek 
vernacular according to gender simply (masculine, feminine, 
neuter). This is the simplest way out of the confusion. In San- 
skrit five declensions are usually given as in Latin, but Whitney^ 
says: "There is nothing absolute in this arrangement; it is merely 
believed to be open to as few objections as any other." Evidently 

^ Donaldson, New Crat., p. 421. It is in the accidence that the practical 
identity of N. T. Gk. with the popular Koivii is best seen, here and in the lexical 
point of view (Deissmann, Exp., Nov., 1907, p. 434). 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 102; Gildersl., Am. Jour, of PhiloL, 1908, p. 264. 

3 lb., pp. 10.5, 111. Cf. Hatzidakis, Einl. etc., pp. 376 ff. 
* Sans. Gr., p. 111. 



therefore the ancient Greeks did not have the benefit of our mod- 
ern theories and rules, but inflected the substantives according to 
principles not now known to us. The various dialects exercised 
great freedom also and exhibited independent development at 
many points, not to mention the changes in time in each dialect. 
The threefold division is purely a convenience, but with this justi- 
fication: the first has a stems, the second o stems, the third con- 
sonant and close vowel (i, v) stems. There are some differences in 
the suffixes also, the third declension having always the genitive 
ending in -os. In the third declension especially it is not possible 
to give a type to which all the words in all the cases and numbers 
conform. Besides, the same word may experience variations. 
Much freedom is to be recognized in the whole matter of the de- 
clensions within certain wide limits. See metaplasm or the fluc- 
tuation between the several declensions. 

2. The Number of the Cases (irToxreis). The meaning and 
use of the cases will have a special chapter in Syntax (ch. XI). 

(a) The History of the Forms of the Cases. This is called 
for before the declensions are discussed. The term "case" (Trrcoo-ts, 
casus) is considered a "falling," because the nominative is regarded 
as the upright case (tttcoo-u 6pdr}, eWela), though as a matter of 
fact the accusative is probably older than the nominative (Trrcoo-t? 
oponacTTLKr] or opOrj). The other cases are called oblique (7rXd7tat) 
as deviations from the nominative. In simple truth the vocative 
(KXrjTLKT] or Trpoa-ayopevTLKr]) has no inflection and is not properly a 
case in its logical relations. It is usually the noun-stem or like 
the nominative in form. There are only three other case-endings 
preserved in the Greek, and the grammars usually term them ac- 
cusative (TTTcocrts aiTiartKij), genitive {ttcoctls yeviKYj) and dative 
(tttuxtls boTui})} There is no dispute as to the integrity of the ac- 
cusative case, the earliest, most common of all the oblique cases 
and the most persistent. In the breakdown of the other cases 
the accusative and the prepositions reap the benefit. In truth 
the other oblique cases are variations from the normal accusative. 
But this subject is complicated with the genitive and the dative. 
It is now a commonplace in comparative philology that the 
Greek genitive has taken over the function of the ablative (d0at- 
ptTiKi]) also. In the singular the Sanskrit had already the same 

' Mod. Gk. vernac. has only three cases (nom., \:,n\. and ace.) and these 
are not always formally ditTcrcntiated from each other. The mod. Cdc. has 
thus carried the blending of case-forms almost as far as mod. Eng. Cf. Thumb, 
Handb., p. 31. 


ending {-as) for genitive and ablative, while in the plural the San- 
skrit ablative had the same form as the dative {bkiyas; cf. Latin 
ihus). Thus in the Sanskrit the ablative has no distinctive end- 
ings save in the singular of a stems like kamat ('love') where 
the ablative ending -t (d) is preserved. In Latin, as we know, 
the ablative, dative, locative and instrumental have the same 
endings in the plural. The Latin ablative singular is partly 
ablative, partly locative, partly instrumental. Some old Latin 
inscriptions show the d, as hened, in altod marid, etc. In Greek 
the ablative forms merged with the genitive as in the Sanskrit 
singular, but not because of any inherent "internal connec- 
tion between them, as from accidents affecting the outward 
forms of inflection."^ The Greek did not allow r or 5 to stand at 
the end of a word. So the Greek has irpos (not irpor for irpoTi). 
KaXcos may be (but see Brugmann^) the ablative KokuiT and so all 
adverbs in -cos. The meaning of the two cases remained distinct 
in the Greek as in the Sanskrit. It is not possible to derive the 
ablative (source or separation) idea from the genitive (or '^kvos) idea 
nor vice versa. The Greek dative {Sotlkt]) is even more compli- 
cated. " The Greek dative, it is well known, both in singular and 
plural, has the form of a locative case, denoting the place where 
or in which; but, as actually used, it combines, with the mean- 
ing of a locative, those of the dative and instrumental."^ This 
is only true of some datives. There are true datives like 68(2, 
xcopa. The Indo-Germanic stock, as shown by the Sanskrit, 
had originally three separate sets of endings for these cases. 

1 Hadley, Ess. Philol. and Crit., Gk. Gen. or Abl., p. 52. Cf. also Miles, 
Comp. Synt. of Gk. and Lat., 1893, p. xvii. This blending of the cases in 
Gk. is the result of "partial confusion" "between the genitive and the ablative 
between the dative and the locative, between the locative and the instru- 
mental" (Audoin, La Decl. dans les Lang. Indo-Europ., 1898, p. 248). In 
general on the subject of the history of the eight cases in Gk. see Brugmann, 
Griech. Gr., pp. 217-250,375 f.; Comp. Gr. of the Indo-Ger. Lang., vol. Ill, pp. 
52-280; Kurze vergl. Gram., II, pp. 418 fT.; K.-Bl., I, pp. 365-370, II, pp. 
299-307; Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 268-301; Bopp, tJber das Dem. 
imd den Urspr. der Casuszeichen etc., 1826; Hartung, tJber die Casus etc., 
1831; Hiibschmann, Zur Casuslehre, 1875; Rumpel, CasusL, 1845; Meillet, 
Intr. h I'Etude Comp., pp. 257 ff.; Penka, Die Entst. der Synkr. Casus im 
Lat., Griech. und Deutsch., 1874. See also p. 33 f. of Hiibner, Grundr. zu 
Vorles. viber die griech. SjTit.; Schleicher, Vergl. Griech.; Schmidt, Griech. 
Gr., etc. 

2 Brugmann (Griech. Gr., 1900, p. 225), who considers the s in ovtcjs, kt\., 
due to analogy merely, like the s in iyyv-s, kt\. But he sees an abl. idea in 
iK-rds. Cf . also ovpavo-de like coeli-tus. * Hadley, Ess. Phil, and Crit., p. 52. 


The Greek plural uses for all three cases either "the loca- 
tive in -(TL or the instrumental forms in -ots."^ "The forms in 
-ats, Latin -4s, from -o stems, are a new formation on the analogy 
of forms from -o stems." ^ 'AdT]vr}aL is locative plural. In the 
singular of consonant, t and i; stems, the locative ending -t is used 
for all three cases in Greek, as wktI. In the a declension the 
dative ending -at usually answers for all three cases. The form 
-at contracts with the stem-vowel a into ^ or ij. A few examples 
of the locative -t here survive, as in vraXat, 'OXv/xTriat, Qrj^at-yevr]?.^ 
Xa/jLai may be either dative or locative. In the o declension also 
the dative ending -at is the usual form, contracting with the o 
into CO. But a few distinct locative endings survive, like kei, 
'ladjxol, o'lkol (cf. oLKcp), TToT, ctc. Thc Homeric infinitive 86ixev and 
the infinitive like c{>epeLv are probably locatives also without the t, 
while the infinitives in —at {bbixevai, bovvai, 'KeKvKevai, \veadaL, XDuat, 
etc.) are datives.'* The instrumental has left little of its original 
form on the Greek singular. The usual Sanskrit is a. Cf. in 
Greek such words as a/xa, eveKa, ha, ixtra, irapa, TreSd, possibly 
the Doric Kpv(j)a, Lesbian aXXd. Brugmann^ thinks the Laconic 
7n7-7roKa= Attic Toj-TroTe is instrumental Uke the Gothic M (English 
why). Cf. the in " the more the better," etc. Another Greek suffix 
-</)t (Indo-Germanic, bhi) is found in Homer, as /Stry^t, ^e60tv 
(plural). But this -0t was used also for ablative or locative, and 
even genitive or dative. It is clear therefore that in Greek the 
usual seven (eight with the vocative) Indo-Germanic cases are 
present, though in a badly mutilated condition as to form. The 
ideas, of course, expressed by the cases continued to be expressed 
by the blended forms. In actual intelligent treatment it is simpler 
to preserve the seven case-names as will be seen later. 

(h) The Blending of Case-Endings. This is a marked pe- 
culiarity of the Indo-Germanic tongues. Neuter nouns illustrate 

1 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 287. 

^ lb., p. 290. For survivals of the dat. -at sec the Rhodian tSi (Bjorkegren, 
De Sonis dial. Rhod., p. 41). 

' Brugmann, Grie(!h. Or., p. 228. Cf. the Lat. doml, Ro»icr{i). For nu- 
merous exx. of loc. and dat. distinct in form in the various dialects see Meistcr, 
Griech. Dial., Bd. II, pp. 61 ff.; Hoffmann, Griech. Dial., Bd. I, p. 233 (dat. 
-dt, loc.-i; dat. -wt, loc. -oi). Cf. Collitz and Bechto?l, Samml. d. griech. dial. 
Inschr., p. 308. " Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 278 f. 

6 Griech. Gr., 3. Aufl., p. 220. Cf. K.-Bl., II., pp. 301-307, for examples of 
the survival of abl., loc. and in.str. forms in Gk. adverbs. Cf. also Moister, 
Griech. Dial., II., p. 295, for survivals of instr. forms in Cypriotic dial, (ipa, 
eLlXw^a). See Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I. 'II., p. 194. 


the same tendency, not to mention the dual. The analytic pro- 
cess has largely triumphed over the synthetic case-endings. 
Originally no prepositions were used and all the word-relations 
were expressed by cases. In modern French, for instance, there 
are no case-endings at all, but prepositions and the order of 
the words have to do all that was originally done by the case- 
forms. In English, outside of the old dative form in pronouns 
like him, them, etc., the genitive form alone remains. Finnish 
indeed has fifteen cases and several other of the ruder tongues 
have many.^ On the other hand the Coptic had no case-end- 
ings, but used particles and prepositions like NTE for genitive, 
etc. It is indeed possible that all inflectional languages passed 
once through the isolating and agglutinative stages. English may 
some day like the Chinese depend entirely on position and tone 
for the relation, of words to each other. 

(c) Origin of Case Suffixes. Giles ^ frankly confesses that 
comparative philology has nothing to say as to the origin of the 
case-suffixes. They do not exist apart from the noun-stems. 
Some of them may be pronominal, others may be positional (post- 
positions), but it adds nothing to our knowledge to call some of 
the cases local and others grammatical. They are all gramma- 
tical. The ablative and the locative clearly had a local origin. 
Some cases were used less often than others. Some of the case- 
forms became identical. Analogy carried on the process. The 
desire to be more specific than the case-endings led to the use of 
prepositional adverbs. As these adverbs were used more and more 
there was "an ever-increasing tendency to find the important 
part of the meaning in the preposition and not in the case-ending." ' 
In the modern Greek vernacular, as already stated, only three 
case-forms survive (nominative, genitive, accusative), the dative 
vanishing like the ablative.** 

1 Farrar, Gr. Synt., p. 23. 

2 Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 271. Bergaigne (Du Role de la Deriv. dans la 
Decl. Indo-Europ., Mem. de la Soc. de Ling, de Paris, to. ii, fasc. 5) and G. 
Meyer (Zur Gesch. der indo-germ. Stammb. und Decl.) both argue that case- 
endings had no distinctive meaning in themselves nor separate existence. 
But see also Hirt, Handb. etc., pp. 231-288, for careful treatment of the cases. 
On the general subject of syncretism in the Gk. cases see Delbriick, Vergl. 
Synt., 1. Tl., pp. 189 ff., 195 f. See also Sterrett, Horn. II., N. 15, for traces of 
abl., loc. and instr. forms in Horn. (loc. -i, -Ol; instr., -4>i, -<t>Lv; abl., -dtv). 

3 Giles, op. cit., p. 273. 

* Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 149. Cf. also Keck, Uber d. Dual bei d. griech. 
Rednern etc., 1882. 


3. Number (dpiefios) in Substantives. The N. T. Greek has 
lost the dual (ouuos) and uses only the singular (epiKos) and the 
plural {Tr\ridvvTLK6s). The Sanskrit and the Hebrew had the dual, 
but the Latin had only duo and amho (and possibly odo and vi- 
ginti) which had a plural inflection in the oblique cases. Coptic^ 
had no plural nor dual save as the plural article distinguished 
words. English has only the dual twain, but we now say twins. 
The scholars do not agree as to the origin of the dual. Moul- 
ton2 inclines to the idea that it arose " in prehistoric days when 
men could not count beyond two." It is more likely that it is 
due to the desire to emphasize pairs, as hands, eyes, etc., not to 
accept "Du Ponceau's jest that it must have been invented for 
lovers and married people." ^ In the oldest Indo-Germanic lan- 
guages the luxury of the dual is vanishing, but Moulton considers 
its use in the Attic as a revival.'' It never won a foothold in the 
^Eolic and the New Ionic, and its use in the Attic was hmited and 
not consistent.^ The dual is nearly gone in the late Attic inscrip- 
tions,^ while in the kolvt} it is only sporadic and constantly vanish- 
ing in the inscriptions and papyri.'' In Pergamum*^ and Pisidia^ 
no dual appears in the inscriptions. The only dual form that 
occurs in the LXX and the N. T. is 8vo (not 5uco) for all the cases 
(as genitive in 1 Tim. 5: 19), save 8val{v) for the dative-locative- 
instrumental, a plural form found in Aristotle, Polybius, etc., and 
called a barbarism by Phrynichus.i^ Only in 4 Mace. 1 : 28 is 
SvoiP A found, but 8velv in ^{V, as in Polybius and the Atticists 
(Thackeray, p. 187). For examples of 8v(tI{v) see Mt. 6:24; Lu. 
16 :13; Ac. 21:33; Heb. 10:28, etc. In the papyri, however, 
8vco, 5uco, 8ve2v occasionally appear" along with 8v(tI{v). In the 
modern Greek the dual is no longer used. "Am</)co has vanished in 
the N. T. while d/x^orepot occurs fourteen times (Mt. 9 : 17, etc.), 

1 Tattam's Egyp. Gr., p. 16. ^ Prol., p. 57. 

3 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 23. Cf. Geiger, Ursp. d. Spr., § ix. Cf. Giles, 
Man. of Comp. PhiloL, p. 264. < Prol., p. 57. 

6 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 101. « Meistorhans, Att. Inschr., p. 201. 
' Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 436. » Schweizcr, Perg. Inschr., p. 138. 
» Compemass, De Serm. Vulg. etc., p. 15. Tatian (p. 96 of his works) 

shows a dual. 

'» Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 289 f. But cf. K.-Bl., I, p. 362, for further 

items about the dual. 

'1 Dcissmann, H. S., p. 187. For Svalif) in the inscriptions see Dittcnberger, 
118. 22, etc. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pa))., p. 313. For similar situations 
in the LXX MSS. (rots 5uo, roh dvai, and A Svolv, K Svtiv) see Hclbing, Gr. d. 
Sept., p. 53. Cf. also C. and S., Scl. from the LXX, p. 25. 


once (Ac. 19 : 16) apparently in the sense of more than two, like 
the occasional use of the English "both" and the Byzantine use 
of d/i^orepot and "two clear examples of it in NP 67 and 69 
(iv/A.D.)."^ Once for all then it may be remarked that in the 
N. T, both for nouns and verbs the dual is ignored. The dual was 
rare in the later Ionic and the kolvt) follows suit (Radermacher, 
N. T. Gk., p. 184). The syntactical aspects of number are to be 
discussed later. 

4. Gender (-ye'vos) in Substantives. In the long history of the 
Greek language gender has been wonderfully persistent and has 
suffered little variation.^ It is probably due to the natural differ- 
ence of sex that grammatical gender^ arose. The idea of sense 
gender continued, but was supplemented by the use of endings 
for the distinction of gender. This personification of inanimate 
objects was probably due to the poetic imagination of early peo- 
ples, Imt it persists in modern European tongues, though French 
has dropped the neuter (cf. the Hebrew) and modern English 
(like the Persian and Chinese) has no grammatical gender save in 
the third personal pronoun (he, she, it) and the relative.^ Anal- 
ogy has played a large part in gender.^ The Sanskrit, Latin and 
Greek all gave close attention to gender and developed rules that 
are difficult to apply, with many inconsistencies and absurdities. 
In Greek i]\Los is masculine and aekrjvq feminine, while in German 
we have die Sonne and der Mond. Perhaps we had better be 
grateful that the Greek did not develop gender in the verb like 
the Hebrew verb. Moulton^ thinks it "exceedingly strange" that 
English should be almost alone in shaking off "this outworn ex- 
crescence on language." The N. T., like Homer and the modern 
Greek, preserves the masculine (apaevLKOp), feminine (drj'KvKov) and 
neuter (ovSerepov). Some words indeed have common {kolvov) sex, 
like 6 7] TOLs, ovos, Beds, while others, applied to each sex, are called 
epicene {eirlKOLvov) , like -q dXcoTrr?^, apKTos. In German we actually 
have das Weib ('wife')! 

(o) Variations in Gender. They are not numerous. 'H 
a^vaaos (x^po) is a substantive in the LXX (Gen. 1 : 2, etc.) and 
the N. T. (Lu. 8:31, etc.), else where soonly in Diogenes Laertes. 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 80. ^ jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 103. 

^ Paul, Prin. of Hist, of Lang., pp. 289 fT. Brugmann thinks that gender 
came largely by formal assimilation of adj. to subst. as avOpuiros kclkos, x<^po- 
iepa. Dan. Crawford, the Bantu missionary, claims 19 genders for Bantu. 

4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 26 f. ^ Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 64, 259. 
^ Prol., p. 59. On the whole subject of gender see K.-Bl., I, pp. 358 ff. 


In Mk. 14 : 3 W. H. and Nestle properly read rriv aXa^aarpov, 
though the Western and Syrian classes give t6v dX. after Herod- 
otus, and a few of the late MSS. to dX. In Rev. 8:116 (not 17) 
a\J/tvdos is read, though K and some cursives omit the article, be- 
cause the word is a proper name. In Mk. 12 : 26 all editors 
have 6 /Sdros (the Attic form according to Moeris), elsewhere 
17 /Sdros (Lu. 20 : 37; Acts 7 : 35). Qeos may be either masculine as 
in Ac. 19 : 11 or feminine as in Ac. 19 : 37, but in Ac. 19 : 27 we 
have dea (Text. Rcc. also in 35, 37), an "apparently purposeless 
variation." 1 Thieme {Die Inschr. von Magn., p. 10) says that 
17 deos is used in the inscriptions of Asia Minor in formal religious 
language. Burnet {Review of Theology and Philosophy, 1906, 
p. 96) says that in Athens -q deos was used in every-day language, 
but 17 dea. in the public prayers, thus taking the Ionic ded. Cf. 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Papyri {Laid- und Wortlehre, 1906), p. 254 f., 
for papyri illustrations. Blass^ considers 17 'lepovaaXrjij. (Ac. 5 : 28, 
etc., the common form in LXX, Luke and Paul) feminine be- 
cause it is a place-name, and hence he explains Traaa 'lepoaoXvixa 
(Mt. 2 : 3) rather than by toXls understood. Ar]v6s in Rev. 14 : 19 
strangely enough has both masculine and feminine, riiv \r}vbv . . . 
TOP neyav but Ji{ fem. (his) . The feminine is the common construc- 
tion, but the masculine is found in LXX in Is. 63 : 2 only. At^os 
is always 6 in the N. T., even when it means a precious stone 
(Rev. 5 times), where Attic after 385 b.c.^ had 17. Al/jlos is mascu- 
line in Lu. 4 : 25 as in the Attic, but is chiefly feminine in Acts 
and Luke, Hke the Doric and late Attic, as in Lu. 15: 14; Acts 
11 : 28.* In Lu. 13 : 4, Jo. 9:7, 11 we have 6 2)tXcod/i, while Jose- 
phus has both ii {War, V, 12. 2) and 6 {War, II, 16. 2). Blass* 
explains the use of 6 in the Gospels by the participle dTreo-raX/xej'os 
in Jo. 9 : 7. ^rdnvos in Heb. 9 : 4 is feminine after the Attic 
instead of the Doric 6 ar., as in Ex. 16 : 33. In Rev. 21 : 18 (21) 
we read also 6 vaKos rather than 17 uaXos as is customary with 

' Moulton, Prol., p. 60, but he adds "is explained by inscriptions." Cf. 
Nachmanson, Magn. Inschr., p. 12(), for many exx. 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 32. Cf. Ilort, Notes on Orth., p. IGO. Mk. and Jo. 
have only t6 'lepoaoXvua and Mt. usually. 

^ Mei.sterhans, Att. Inschr., p. 129. 

* Cf. llort, Notes on Orth., p. 157. Moulton (Prol., p. GO) fuuls Xtjuos 
now masc. and now fem. in the pap. LXX MSS. show similar variations. Cf. 
Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 45; Thack., p. 145 f., for same situation in LXX 
concerning /Jdros, iXafiaaTpos {-ov), \tjv6s, ardnvos. Cf. C. and S., Sel. from the 
LXX, p. 27, for further exx. 

» Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 32. 


precious stones.^ "Taawiros (Heb. 9:19; Jo. 19:29) reveals its 
gender only in the LXX (Lev. 14 : 6, 51 f.) where it is masc. in 
BA, fem. in E and 1 (3) Ki. 4 : 19 BA. The neuter to aXas occurs 
in papyri as early as third century B.C. (Moulton and Milligan, 
Expositor, 1908, p. 177). 

(6) Interpretation of the LXX. In Ro. 11:4 Paul uses 
TTj /3daX rather than the frequent LXX tQ /3daX. The feminine is 
due, according to Burkitt, to the Q'ri ti'^'2. (alaxwrj)- Moulton 
speaks of fj /3daX as occurring "three times in LXX and in Ascen- 
sio Isaiae ii. 12." ^ But 17 jSdaX occurs "everywhere in the pro- 
phetic books, Jer., Zeph., Hos., etc." (Thayer), though not so 
common in the historical books, far more than the "three times" of 
Moulton. In Mk. 12 : 11 and Mt. 21 : 42 the LXX avr-q is due to 
nsir, though the translators may have "interpreted their own Greek 
by recalling KecfyaX^nv yo^vlas."^ In Gal. 4:25 Paul has not mis- 
takenly used TO with "Ayap, for he is treating the name as a word 
merely. Any word can be so regarded. 

(c) Variations in Gender Due to Heteroclisis and Me- 
taplasm. These will be discussed a little later. Delbriick thinks 
that originally all the masculine substantives of the first or a de- 
•clension were feminine and that all the feminine substantives of 
the second or o declension were masculine. 

5. The First or a Declension. There was a general tendency 
towards uniformity* in this declension that made it more popular 
than ever. Here only the N. T. modifications in this general de- 
velopment can be mentioned. 

(a) The Doric Genitive-Ablative Singular a. This form 
survives in /Soppa (Lu. 13:29; Rev. 21 : 13) and was common in 
the Attic after 400 b.c. Note also fjLafxwvd (Lu. 16 : 9). It is fre- 
quent in the LXX, papyri, inscriptions, though mainly in proper 
names. These proper names in -as, chiefly oriental, make the 
genitive-ablative in -S or, if unaccented -as, in a. So A^uXa and 
'AkuXoi; m papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 187), though no 
gen. in N. T. (only -as and -av) 'AypiirTa^ (Ac. 25 : 23), 'Avavla 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26. Cf. Theophrast, De lapid. 49, for r, SeXos. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 59. He corrects this erratum in note to H. Scott. 

3 lb. 

" Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. lOG. Swete, O. T. in Gk., p. 304 f., has some 
good illustrations and remarks about the declensions in the LXX. 

* Both 'Aypinira and 'Ayplirirov occur in the pap. Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., 
1901, pp. 34 and 434. This gen. in -a gradually became "a ruling principle" 
for all substantives in -os (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 108, 110). See Thumb, 


(from -as, so Thayer), "kvva (Lu. 3 : 2), 'AvrtTras (indeclinable here 
or mere sHp for -a, Rev. 2 : 13), "Apera (2 Cor. 11 : 32), Bftpa^^a 
(gen. does not appear, only nom. -as as Mk. 15 : 7, and accus. -av 
as 15:11, etc.), Bapm/3a (Gal. 2 : 1 ; Col. 4:10; see Deissmann, 
Bible Studie&, p. 187), 'Era</.pa (Col. 1 : 7), 'Epfxap (Ro. IG : 14, Doric 
accusative), Zrjvdu hkewise (Tit. 3 : 13); 'IlXeta (Lu. 1 : 17) accord- 
ing to NB (so W. H.); 'lohda (person, Lu. 3 : 33; Mk. 6:3; tribe, 
Mt. 2 : 6; Heb. 8 : 8; land, Lu. 1 : 39), 'Icora (Mt. 12 : 39), Katd^a 
(Lu. 3:2; Jo. 18: 13), K#a (1 Cor. 1 : 12), KXcoTra (Jo. 19:25), 
AovKOis (only in nominative, as Col. 4 : 14, but genitive would be -a), 
Xarava (Mk. 1 : 13), StXas (dative 2tXa in Ac, and genitive SiXa • 
in Jos. Vit, 17), 2/ceua (Ac. 19 : 14), ^Te(t>aud (1 Cor. 1 : 16). Nach- 
manson finds the Doric genitive fairly common with such short 
proper names and mentions Stj^^S in his list.^ Very common in 
modern Greek, cf. Hatzidakis, Einl, p. 76. 

(b) The Attic Genitive-Ablative. The usual Attic form for 
the genitive-ablative (ov) is found also as in Alueas (so Lobeck, 
Prol. Pathol, p. 487), 'AvSpkou (Mk. 1 : 29), Bapaxiov (Mt. 23 : 35), 
'E^eKlov (so LXX), 'HXetou (Lu. 4:25), 'Uaaiov (Mt. 3:3, etc.), 
'lepetiiov (Mt. 2: 17), Avaaviov (Lu. 3:1), Ohpiov (Mt. 1:6), Zaxa- 
piov (Lu. 1 :40). These Hebrew proper names ended in n— , but 
receive the regular inflection for masculine nouns of the first 
declension. There are likewise some proper names in -^s with 
genitive-ablative in -ov. 'laup'fjs and 'lap-^pvs (2 Tim. 3 : 8) only 
appear in the N. T. in the nominative. Kp-fjaKTis (2 Tim. 4 : 10) and 
Uov8r]s (2 Tim. 4:21) belong to the 3d declension. Ev(t)pdTrjs (Rev. 
9 : 14; 16 : 12) has only accusative and dative (instrumental-loca- 
tive) in the oblique cases in the N. T., though the genitive-ablative 
form is -ov. 'llpvdou (Mt. 2 : 1) and 'lopSavov (Mt. 3 : 5) follow the 
usual rule like a8ov (Mt. 16: 18). 'AvreXX^s (Ro. 16: 10), 'EpMr?s 
(Ro. 16 : 14), like Kodpavrr^s (Mt. 5 : 26) and cj^eXovris (2 Tim. 4 : 13), 
have no oblique case in the N. T. save the accusative (-vv).^ 
'Icodvrjs in W. H. always has genitive-ablative in -ov for the Apostle 
and in Jo. 1 :42; 21 : 15, 16, 17, for the father of Simon Peter, 
though Baptcora in Mt. 16 : 17.=^ So for John Mark (Acts 12 : 12). 

Handb., p. 49. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., pp. IGO-IGG. Ilelbing, Cr. d. Sept., p. 33, 
for LXX illustrations. 

1 Magn. Inschr., p. 120. Cf. also Schweizor, Terg. Iiischr., p. 1:59. 

2 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 94. 

3 Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 159. See Naiainumson (Maf^n. Insehr., p. 
119) and Schweizcr (PcrR. Inschr., p. 138 f.) for illustrations of these jwinta 
from the KocfTj inser. The gen. iu -ov is more common in the paj). than that m 


Iiojadkpris has accusative in -^i> (Ac. 18 : 17) for the first declension 
and is heterochte.^ We have only ^earuv in Mk. 7 : 4. Words like 
veavlas have the genitive-ablative in -ov (Ac. 7 : 58). 

(c) Voc. in -a of masc. nouns in -rrjs in dkaTora, kirLaTaTa, Kap- 
dioyvcoara, VTroKpna.. Cf. ixdr]. 

{d) Words in -pa and Participles in -via. These come reg- 
ularly ^ to have the genitive-ablative in -^s and the dative-locative- ' 
instrumental in -r; like the Ionic. Moulton^ indeed thinks that 
"analogical assimilation," on the model of forms like 56^ci, hb^-qs, 
had more to do with this tendency in the KOLvi) than the Ionic in- 
fluence. Possibly so, but it seems gratuitous to deny all Ionic in- 
fluence where it was so easy for it to make itself felt. The "best 
MSS."* support the testimony of the papyri and the inscriptions 
here.^ So W. H. read (Rev. 13 : 14), ■w'Krjfjifxvprjs (Lu. 6 : 
48), irpwpris (Ac. 27 : 30), SaTrc^etpTj (Ac. 5 : 1), (nreiprjs (Ac. 21 : 31; 
27 : 1). In Acts B is prone to have -as, -a as with D in Ac. 5 : 1, 
but W. H. do not follow B here. In Ac. 5 : 2 aweLdvirjs may be 
compared with einl3e^r]Kviris (1 Sam. 25 : 20), and other examples in 
the LXX,^ but the forms -vlas, -via still survive in the Ptolemaic 
period.'^ The preference of the LXX MSS. and the early papyri 
for naxalpas (-pa) shows that it is a matter of growth with time. 
In the early Empire of Rome -prjs forms are well-nigh universal. 
Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 142. On the other hand note the adjective 
cTeipa (Lu. 1 : 36). Words like rnjiepa (-pa) and oXrjdeLa, ixia (m, eta) 
preserve the Attic inflection in -as, a.^ 

(e) The Opposite Tendency to (d). We see it in such exam- 
ples as Av88as (Ac. 9 : 38, but Soden reads -Brjs with EHLP) and 
Mdp^as (Jo. 11 : 1). Moulton^ finds the Egyptian papyri giving 
Ta/jLvadas as genitive. Qepfxa is given by Lobeck, though not in 
N. T. (genitive ^s, Ac. 28:3), and note irpvtxva in Ac. 27:41. 

-a. See Mayser, Gr. griech. Pap., 1906, p. 250 f. (Laut- u. Wortlehre). For 
the contracted forms see p. 252. It is also more frequent in the LXX. Cf. 
Thackeray, Gr., p. 161 f. 

1 W.-Sch., p. 94. 2 B. S., p. 186. 

3 Prol., p. 48; CI. Rev., 1901, p. 34. where a number of exx. are given hke 
apovprjs, Ka6r]Kvir]s, etc. Cf. Thumb, Hellen., p. 69. Cf. Hclbing, Gr. d. Sept., 
pp. 31-33, and Thack., Gr., p. 140 f., for similar phenomena in the LXX. 

4 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 1.56. ^ Deissmann, B. S., p. 186. 

6 Gregory, Prol., p. 117. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 81. 

7 Moulton, Prol., p. 48. 

8 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25. 

' CI. Rev., 1901, p. 434. For examples in Attic inscriptions see Meister- 
hans, p. 119 f. Cf. -ou^dwas in LXX, C. and S., Sel. fr. the LXX, p. 26. 


Moulton' suggests that Nvn<}}av (Col. 4 : 15 according to the cor- 
rect text) is not due to a Doric Nu/x^av, but by a "reverse analogy 
process" the genitive Nu^</)r?s produced the short nominative N6/x</>a 
hkc 86^a, 86^r]s. Blass^ calls xpv(tS.p (Rev. 1 : 13) "a gross blunder, 
wrongly formed on the model of xP'^o'Ss 1 : 12," but Moulton' 
holds that we have "abundant parallels." 

(/) Double Declension. This phenomenon appears in the 
case of Neav UoXlp (Ac. 16 : 11) and 'lepS HoXet (Col. 4 : 13), the 
adjective as well as the substantive being treated separately in 
the first and third declensions. 

(fif) Heteroclisis (erepd/cXtcrt?) and Metaplasm (ytteraTrXacr/Lto?) . 
Blass"* makes no distinction in his treatment of heteroclisis and 
metaplasm, though the distinction is observed in Winer-Schmie- 
del.^ For practical use one may ignore the distinction and call 
all the examples metaplasm. with Blass or heteroclisis with Moul- 
ton.« The fluctuation is rare for the first declension in the N. T. 
In Ac. 28 : 8 editors properly read SvaeprepLov rather than Svaevre- 
pla (supported only by a few cursives). The usual Attic form Oea 
(Ac. 19 : 27) and 17 deos (Ac. 19 : 37) are both found. This variation 
between the first and the second declensions is well illustrated by 
ToLxbppas (2 Pet. 2:6) and Tofioppoiu (Mt. 10: 15; -ots, Mk. 6: 11 
Rec), Amrpav (Ac. 14:6) and AvarpoLs (Ac. 14:8). Moulton^ 
finds abundant parallel in the Egyptian papyri use of place-names. 
In Rev. 1 : 11 ABC and some cursives read 'QvareLpap instead of 
the usual evaretpa. So in Ac. 27 : 5 some of the MSS. read Mvppav 
instead of Mvppa as accus., a reading confirmed by Ramsay, ^ who 
found the accus. in -av and the gen. in -up. Moulton^ cites 17 
'lepoaoXvfjLa from two MSS. of xI/a.d. (Usener, Pelagia, p. 50). 

The chief variation between the first and second declensions 
appears in the compounds in -apx^s and (Attic) -apxos. Moulton^" 
finds examples of it passim in the papyri and calls the minute 
work of Winer-Schmiedel "conscientious labour wasted thereon." 
But Hort" does not think these variations in good MSS. "wholly 

1 Prol., p. 48. Cf. also his pai)cr in Proc. Camb. Philol. Soc, Oct., 1893, 
p. 12. 

2 Gr., p. 25, but 4th cd., p. 28, cites P. Lond. I, 124, 26, xpwar rj apyvpdv. 
» Prol., p. 48. "Falschc Analogic" ace. to W.-Sch., p. 81. 

* Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 28 f. 

6 Pp. 83 ff. Thack. (Gr., p. 153) inckidcs heteroclisis under metaplasm. 

« Prol., p. 48. ' lb., p. 244. 

8 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 129. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 48. » lb. 

'0 lb. Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 34. 

" Notes on Orth., p. 150. 


irregular." In the N. T. forms in -apxvs, like most of the dialects 
and the kolvt], are greatly in the majority.^ Thus in the N. T. we 
have 'A(na,px7?s (Ac. 19:31; not in nom. in N. T.), kSvapxn^ (2 
Cor. 11:32), TrarpLapxn^ (Heb. 7:4), 7roXtTapxr?s (Ac. 17:6, 8), 
Terpaapxv^ (Lu. 3 : 19), but always x'^^apxos- In the addition of 
the /3 text to Ac. 28 : 16 the MSS. divide between aTpaToirkSapxos 
(HLP) and -apxv^ (cursives). "EKaTourapxos is the nominative 
in Mt. (8 : 5, 8; 27 : 54), and the accusative in -xov is found once 
in Acts (22:25). Elsewhere in all cases in Matthew, Luke and 
Acts the form in -xvs is read by the best MSS. (as Ac. 10 : 1). 

The first and the third declensions show variation in 8i\pos (old 
form 8l\J/a) in 2 Cor. 11 : 27, where indeed B has dl\py instead of 
dlipei.. Ni/cT7 (the old form) survives in 1 Jo. 5 : 4, but elsewhere the 
late form v2kos prevails (as 1 Cor. 15:54 f.). The LXX hkewise 
shows TO bbpos, TO vIkos interchangeably with the 17 forms. Helbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., p. 49; Thackeray, Gr., p. 157. The dative 'Icodi/ti 
(third declension) instead of 'Icoavy (first declension) is accepted a 
few times by W. H. (Mt. 11 : 4; Lu. 7 : 18; Rev. 1:1). ^a\a}xlvri 
(first declension) for ^akapXvi (third declension) in Ac. 13 : 5, Hort^ 
considers only Alexandrian. 

The third declension nouns often in various N. T. MSS. have 
the accusative singular of consonant stems in -v in addition to -a, 
as xeTpai' in Jo. 20 : 25 (NAB), 1 Pet. 5 : 6 (NA). This is after the 
analogy of the first declension. Other examples are apaevav in 
Rev. 12 : 13 (A), aae^ijv in Ro. 4 : 5 (NDFG), aaTkpav in Mt. 2 : 10 
(KC), aacjiaXvp in Heb. 6: 19 (ACD), Mau in Ac. 14 : 12 (DEH), 
elKovav in Rev. 13 : 14 (A), fx^mv in Rev. 22 : 2 (A), iroBijprjv in Rev. 
1 : 13 (A), avyyepfjv in Ro. 16 : 11 (ABD), vyiijv in Jo. 5:11 (N). 
Blass^ rejects them all in the N. T., some as "incredible," though 
properly recalling the Attic Tpii]pr]v, Arfixoadhriv. Moulton^ finds 
this conformation to the "analogy of first declension nouns" very 
comjnon in "uneducated papyri, which adequately foreshadows 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 28; K.-Bl., I, 3, 502. Cf. also W.-M., p. 70 f.; 
W.-Sch., p. 82; Soden, p. 1387 f. For illustrations from the LXX see W.-M. 
Cf. also Nachmanson, Magn. Inschr., p. 121. For numerous pap. examples 
of compounds from dpx<^ see Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap. (Laut- u. Wortl.), 
p. 256 f. For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 37 f. Thack., Gr., 
p. 156, finds -apxv^ ousting -apxos. 

2 Notes on Orth., p. 156. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26. Not in ed. 4. 

* Frol., p. 49. Cf. Gregory, Prol., p. 118; W.-M., p. 76; Jann., pp. 119, 
542; Psichari, Grec de la Sepf., pp. 165 ff. Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 
34 f., for this "very common" ace. in the pap. See Mayser, Gr. d. griech. 
Pap., p. 286 f . 


its victory in modern Greek." The inscriptions' as well as the 
papyri have forms like ywoLKav, Ixvbpav, etc. It is these accusative 
forms on which the modern Greek nominative in ixpxovTas is made 
(cf. Thumb, Handh., p. 47) and thus blended the first and the 
third declensions.^ Hort^ will accept none of these readings in 
the N. T. because of the "irregularity and apparent capricious- 
ness" of the MS. evidence, though he confesses the strength of 
the testimony for a(r(})a\rju in Heb. 6 : 19, avjyeprjv in Ro. 16: 11, 
and xeipai' in Jo. 20 : 25. These nouns are treated here rather 
than under the third declension because in this point they invade 
the precincts of the first. The LXX MSS. exhibit the same phe- 
nomena (eXTiSav, fjLovoyeprjv, etc.). See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 50; 
Thackeray, Gr., p. 147. The opposite tendency, the dropping of 
V in the first declension accusative, so common in modern Greek, 
is appearing in the papyri, as 5e^td x^ipa (Volker, Papyrorum 
Graecorum Syntaxis etc., p. 30 f.). 

(h) Indeclinable Substantives. These are sometimes inflected 
in some of the cases in the first declension. B-qOavLa is accusative 
in Lu. 19 : 29, and so indeclinable, hke BrjOcjiayr], but elsewhere it is 
inflected regularly in the first declension (so -Lav Mk. 11:1, etc.) 
save once or twice in B. BrjOaaLda has accusative B-qdaatdav in 
Mk. 6:45; 8:22, but it may be only another alternate inde- 
clinable form (Thayer) like Ma7a5dj^. So likewise ToXyoda has 
accusative in -au in Mk. 15:22. Hort^ finds "the variations 
between Mapla and the indechnable Mapid/x" "singularly intricate 
and perplexing, except as regards the genitive, which is always 
-las, virtually without variation, and without difference of the 
persons intended." It is not necessary to go through all the 
details save to observe that as a rule the mother of Jesus and 
the sister of Martha are Maptd^u, while Mary of Clopas is always 
Mapla. Mary Magdalene is now Maptd/x, now Mapla. In the 
Aramaic as in the Hebrew probably all were called Mapia/j.. 
Mapla is merely the Hellenized form of Maptd^t. It is probably 
splitting too fine a hair to see with Hort^ a special appropriate- 
ness in Maptap. in Jo. 20 : 16, 18. 

6. The Second or o Declension. There is no distinctively 
feminine inflection in the o declension, though feminine words oc- 

' Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 1.33. 

^ Cf. Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 156 f.; Sohmid, Atticismus, IV, 586. 

' Notes on Orth., p. 158. Kretschmcr (Entst. dcr Koiptj, p. 28) finds this 
ace. in -av in various dialect inscriptions. Cf. also Reinliold, Dc Grace, etc., 
p. 24, for xApiToi', etc. * Notes on Orth., p. 156. ^ Jb. 


cur, like 17 656s. But the neuter has a separate inflection. Modern 
Greek preserves ver}^ few feminines in -os.^ Thumb (Handb., p. 53 f). 
gives none. The main peculiarities in the N. T. are here noted. 

(a) The So-Called Attic Second Declension. It is nearly 
gone. Indeed the Attic inscriptions began to show variations 
fairly early .^ The kolpt] inscriptions^ show only remains here and 
there and the papyri tell the same story."* Already Xa6s (as Lu. 
1 : 21) has displaced Xecbs and va6$ (as Lu. 1 : 21) vedos, though veo)- 
Kopos survives in Ac. 19 : 35. 'AvayaLov hkewise is the true text 
in Mk. 14 : 15 and Lu. 22 : 12, not av6)yeoop nor any of the various 
modifications in the MSS. In Mt. 3 : 12 and Lu. 3 : 17 17 aXcov 
may be used in the sense of 17 aXcos (see Thayer) by metonymy. 
The papyri show aXws (Attic second declension) still frequently 
(Moulton and Milligan, Expositor, Feb., 1908, p. 180). Cf. same 
thing in LXX. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 49 f.; Con. and Stock, 
Sel. Jr. LXX, p. 26; Thackeray, Gr., p. 144. 'AttoXXcos has accusa- 
tive in -6iv in 1 Cor. 4 : 6 and Tit. 3 : 13, though the Western and 
Syrian classes have -co in both instances. In Ac. 19 : 1 'AttoXXw is 
clearly right as only A^L 40 have -coj/. The genitive is 'AxoXXcb 
without variant (1 Cor. ter). So the adjective I'Xecos is read in Mt. 
16 : 22 and Heb. 8 : 12, though a few MSS. have I'Xeos in both places. 
The best MSS. have riiv Kw in Ac. 21 : 1, not KcDi' as Text. Rec. Cf. 

1 Mace. 15 : 23. Blass^ compares alBoas of the third declension. 
(6) Contraction. There is little to say here. The adjectives 

will be treated later. 'Oarovv (Jo. 19 : 36) has baTta, accus. pi., in 
the best MSS. in Lu. 24 : 39 and ocrrecoi/ in Mt. 23 : 27 and Heb. 
11 : 22. So also oarecov in the Western and Syrian addition to Eph. 
5:30. 'Opi'eou (Rev. 18:2) and opvea (Rev. 19:21) are without 
variant. The papyri show this Ionic influence on uncontracted 
vowels in this very word as well as in various adjectives (Moul- 
ton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 435). For examples in the LXX (as barko^v 

2 Ki. 13 : 21) see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 82, and Helbing, Gr. d. 
Sept., p. 36; Thackeray, p. 144; Con. and Stock, Sel. jr. LXX, 
p. 27. Moulton « considers it remarkable that the N. T. shows 

1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. Ill f. 2 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 127 f. 

3 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 123 f.; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 142. 

* Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 34. See also Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., 
1906, p. 259 f. For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 38 f., where a few 
exx. occur. 

« Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25. Necos appears in 2 Mace. 6 : 2, etc. 

6 Prol., p. 48 f. He thinks it proof that the N. T. writers were not iUiterate, 
since the pap. examples are in writers "with other indications of illiteracy." 
Cf. also Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 34. 


no traces of the contraction of kvplos into kvpls and irai8lov into 
Tvaidlu, for instance, since the papyri have so many illustrations 
of this tendency. The inscriptions ^ show the same frequency of 
the -Ls, -Lv forms which finally won the day in modern Greek. Cf. 
Thumb, Handb., p. 61. 

(c) The Vocative. In the o declension it does not always end 
in e in the masculine singular. Geos in ancient Greek is practically 
always retained in the vocative singular. The N. T. has the same 
form as in Mk. 15 : 34 (cf. also Jo. 20 : 28), but also once Oek 
(Mt. 27 : 46). This usage is found occasionally in the LXX and 
in the late papyri.^ So also Paul uses Tifxodee twice (1 Tim. 1 :18; 
6:20). Aristophanes had ' kix4>i0ee, Lucian Tt/x69ee, and the in- 
scriptions <i)L\6det? Note also the vocative utos AaueiS (Mt. 1 : 20) 
and even in apposition with Kbpie (Mt. 15 : 22). The common use 
of the article with the nominative form as vocative, chiefly in the 
third declension, belongs more to syntax. Take as an instance of 
the second declension m^? <i>o^ov, to (xiKpbv -koijivIov (Lu. 12 : 32). 

(d) Heteroclisis and Metaplasm. Variations between the 
first and second declensions have been treated under 5 (/). The 
number of such variations between the second and third declen- 
sions is considerable. NoDs is no longer in the second declension, 
but is inflected hke /3oCs, viz. vob$ (2 Th. 2:2), vot (1 Cor. 14 : 15, 
19). So ttXoos in Ac. 27 : 9, not ttXoO.^ The most frequent inter- 
change is between forms in -os, masculine in second declension 
and neuter in the third. In these examples the N. T. MSS. show 
frequent fluctuations. To 'ekeos wholly supplants tov eXeov (Attic) 
in the N. T. (as in the LXX), as, for instance, Mt. 9 : 13; 12 : 7; 
23:23; Tit. 3:5; Heb. 4:16, except in a few MSS. which read 
eXeov. Without variant we have eXeovs and eXeet. On the other hand 
6 r^iXos is the usual N. T. form as in the ancient Greek (so ^-qX^, 
Ro. 13 : 13; 2 Cor. 11 : 2), but rd f^Xos is the true text in 2 Cor. 
9 : 2 and Ph. 3:6. In Ac. 5 : 17 only B has tv^ovs, and all read 
f 77X01; in Acts 13 : 45. 'Hxos is usually masculine and in the second 
declension, as in Heb. 12 : 19 (cf. Lu. 4 : 37; Ac. 2 : 2), and for the 

1 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 125; Schweizer, Perg. laschr., p. 143. On 
the origin of these forms sec Hatz., Einl., p. 318; Brug., Grundr., ii, § 02 n.; 
Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 34. 

2 Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, pp. 34, 434. 

3 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 81. In the LXX both OtSs and 9ek occur. Cf. Ilclbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., p. 34; C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 26; Thack., p. 145. 

* Cf. Arrian, Peripl., p. 17(3. See W.-Sch., p. 84, for similar exx. m the 
inscr., as f>ods, pod': in late Gk. For pap. exx. of (iovp, irXovf and xovu see Mayser, 
Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 257 f., 268 f. 


earlier 17x17 according to Moeris and Blass.^ In Lu. 21 : 25 W. H. 
read rixovs from rjxo}, but Hort^ admits i]xovs from to rjxos to be 
possible, and Nestle reads ijxovs in his sixth edition. In Ac. 3 : 10 
C reads dan^ov instead of danlSovs. In eight instances in Paul 
(2 Cor. 8:2; Ph. 4 : 19; Col. 1 : 27; 2 : 2; Eph. 1:7, 2:7; 3:8, 
16) in the nominative and accusative we have to tXovtos, but 
6 t\ovtos m Gospels, Jas., Heb., Rev. The genitive is always -tov. 
To (jKOTos instead of 6 okotos is read everj^where in the N. T. save 
in the late addition to Heb. 12 : 18 where o-zcorw appears, though 
^b4)u> is the true text. The form baKpvaiv (Lu. 7 : 38, 44) is from 
boLKpv, an old word that is found now and then in Attic, but to 
doLKpvov appears also in Rev. 7: 17; 21 :4; baKphwv may belong to 
either decl. Sd/S^aro?/ {-tov, -rw) is the form used in the N. T. al- 
ways, as Mk. 6 : 2, but aa^^aaiv as Mk. 1 : 21, etc. B has (7al3j3a.TOLs, 
like the LXX sometimes, in Mt. 12 : 1, 12. KaTr]yu)p is accepted 
by W. H. and Nestle in Rev. 12 : 10 on the authority of A against 
XBCP, which have the usual KaTriyopos. According to Winer- 
SchmiedeP this is not Greek, but a transliteration of the Aramaic 
^la'itjp. Blass,"* however, thinks it is formed on the model of pi77cop. 
Several words fluctuate between the masculine and the neuter 
in the second declension. In Lu. 14 : 16; Rev. 19 : 9, 17, several 
MSS. read Selirvos instead of the usual 8e1irvov. Like the old Greek, 
SeafjLos has the plural deafxd in Lu. 8 : 29; Ac. 16 : 26; 20 : 23, but 
ol decr/jLoi in Ph. 1 : 13. Before Polybius ^vyov was more common 
(Thayer), but in the N. T. it is ^vyos (Mt. 11 : 30). '0 depieXios is 
the only form of the nom. sing, in the N. T., as 2 Tim. 2 : 19 
(supply \idos) ; Rev. 21 : 19, but to. 6ep.k\La (ace.) in Ac. 16 : 26 
like the LXX and the Attic. The plural depLeXlovs we have in Heb. 
11 : 10; Rev. 21 :i 14, 19. QefxeXiov (ace.) may be either mascuhne 
or neuter. In Ro. 11 : 10 6 vcoros is used in the quotation from the 
O. T. instead of the older to vwtov. In the early Greek 6 o-iros 
(never to cjItov) had a plural in atra as well as o-Trot. The same 
thing is true of the N. T. MSS. for Ac. 7 : 12 except that they di- 
vide between to. alra and rd aiTla, and cnTia is the correct text. 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 28. Of. LXX MSS., for Uke variations in rb fiJXos 
and 6 f ., 6 eXeos and t6 eX., 6 fixos and to fj., 6 irXoDros and to ttX. See Helbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., p. 47 f. See p. 49 for aa^^aai and ffafiffdroLs, baKpvov and Sd/cpwi. 
Cf. also Thack., Gr., pp. 153 ff. 

2 Notes on Orth., p. 158. See W.-Sch., p. 84, for exx. of t;xoi;s in the LXX. 
For similar variations in the inscr. see Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 135. 

' P. 85. So also Thayer, the Rabbins' name for the devil. 

4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 29; Deiss., Light, p. 90; Raderm., Gr., p. 15. 


Blass^ indeed objects that aiTia does not suit the sense. Zradtou 
has aradiovs rather than the Attic o-rdSta in Lu. 24 : 13; Jo. 6 : 19 
(W. H. and Nestle, but Tisch. o-rdSia ND), and is a marginal 
reading in Rev. 21 : 16 instead of (jTablwv. 

(e) The Mixed Declension. Some substantives with spe- 
cial inflection have this. It is particularly in foreign names in 
the a and o declensions that this inflection became popular. " The 
stem ends in a long vowel or diphthong, which receives -s for nom- 
inative and -V for accusative, remaining unchanged in vocative, 
genitive, and dative singular. 'Irjaovs is the most conspicuous of 
many N. T. examples. It plays a large part in modern Greek." ^ 
Hence we have 'Irjaovs nominative, 'Itjo-oO genitive-ablative, as 
Mt. 26 : 6; dative, etc., as Mt. 27 : 57; vocative Mk. 1 : 24. Some 
MSS. of the LXX have dative 'I-qaol in Deut. 3 : 21, etc. The 
accusative is 'Irjaovv, as Mt. 26 : 4. 'Icocrrj is the genitive of 'Icoarjs 
according to the reading of Mt. 27 : 56 in W. H. instead of 
'Icoo-170, but in Mk. 6 : 3 'looarJTos is the reading. So runs Aevels 
(nominative, Lu. 5:29), Aevel (genitive, Lu. 3:24), Aeveiu (accu- 
sative, Lu. 5:27). Dative appears only in the LXX as Gen. 
34 : 30 Aevel. Mamo-arjs has accusative Mavaaaij in Mt. 1 : 10 and 
the genitive in -^ (Rev. 7:6), but Hort^ calls attention to the 
fact that ii.^B have Mavaaarj instead of the nominative in Mt. 
1 : 10, making the word indeclinable. 

(/) Proper Names. 'IaKw/3 is indeclinable in Mt. 1 : 2, but we 
have 'IcLKw^op in Mt. 4 : 21. Several proper names have only the 
plural, as Qvaretpa (Rev. 2 : 18, but B -prj and ABC -pav, 1 : 11), 
'lepoaoXvixa (Mt. 2 : 1, but wdaa 'I., 2 :3), ^lXlttol (Ac. 16:12), 
Kav8a (Ac. 27 : 16), Mvppa (Ac. 27: 5), Uarapa (Ac. 21 : 1), "LapeiTTa 
(Lu. 4 : 26), 265o/xa (Jude 7). The Latin words nbhos (Mt. 5 : 15) 
and ixaKeWov (1 Cor. 10 : 25) are inflected. So Latin proper names 
like 'lovaTos (Ac. 18:7) and IlaOXos (Ro. 1:1). For Tonoppas and 
Avarpav see 5 (/). 

7. The Third Declension (consonants and close vowels i and 
v). The third declension could easily be divided into several 
and thus we should have the five declensions of the Sanskrit and 
the Latin. But the usual seven divisions of the third declension 
have the genitive-ablative singular in -os (-ws). The consonantal 

» Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 28. In the LXX MSS. wc find Sec^tiol and -a, ^vyol 
and -a, Oe/jikXioi and -o, vutoi and -o, arddtov and <rrd5ioi, airos and aiTa. Cf. 
Hclbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 46 f.; Thack., p. 154 f. " Moulton, Prol., p. 49. 

' In the LXX proper names have great liberty in inflection. This is quite 
natural in a transl. Cf. Thack., Gr., pp. 160-171. 


stems show more sweeping changes than the vocahc (sonantic) 
stems in this declension.^ Only those changes that are related to 
the N. T. Greek can be here discussed. 

(a) The Nominative as Vocative. There is an increasing 
use of nominative forms as vocatives. This usage had long ex- 
isted for nouns that were oxytone or had labial or guttural stems. 
Elsewhere in g"eneral the stem had served as vocative. No 
notice is here taken of the common use of the article with the 
nominative form as vocative, like rj ttols (Lu. 8 : 54), a construc- 
tion coming under syntactical treatment. According to Winer- 
Schmiedel- the use of the singular without the article belongs also 
to syntax and the solution of W. H. is called "certainly false." 
Hort ^ had suggested that in the case of OvyaT-qp as vocative (Mk. 
5 : 34; Lu. 8 : 48; Jo. 12 : 15) and TrarTjp (Jo. 17 : 21, 24, 25) the 
long vowel (??) was pronounced short. Why not the rather sup- 
pose that the vocative is like the nominative as in the case of la- 
bial and guttural stems? The usage is thus extended sometimes 
to these liquids. Indeed, in Jo. 17 : 25 we have iraTrip ayaQ'e, the 
adjective having the vocative form. In Mk. 9 : 19 (Lu. 9 : 41) we 
have d> 7ej'ea aTrto-ros and a(})pu)v in Lu. 12:20; 1 Cor. 15:36). 
See also w TrXiyprjs (Ac. 13 : 10) for -es, which might be an inde- 
clinable form like the accusative (ii, 2 (/)). But these adjectives 
show that the usage is possible with substantives. There are in- 
deed variant readings in the MSS. above, which have dvyarep and 
Tarep, but in Mt. 9 : 22 DGL have Ovyar-qp. Note also o.vep (1 Cor. 
7: 16) and yvvai (Lu. 13 : 12). For peculiarities in nom. see (d). 

(fe) The Accusative Singular. The theoretical distinction 
that consonant-stems had the accusative singular in -a and vocalic 
stems in -v began to break down very earh\ From the third cen- 
tury B.C. Jannaris^ suspects that popular speech began to have all 
accusative singulars vnih. v, an overstatement, but still the ten- 
dency was that way. The use of v with words hke -koKiv, vavv (Ac. 
27 : 41, only time in N. T., elsewhere vernacular ifKotov), etc., to- 
gether wnth the analog}^ of the first and second declensions, had a 
positive influence. See 5 (/) for discussion of the double accusa- 
tive ending -a plus v, like avbpav in the papjTi.^ These forms belong 
in realit}' to the third declension, though formed after the analogy 
of the first, and so were presented when first reached in the dis- 

1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 121. 2 P. 90. 

' Notes on Orth., p. 158. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 35, gives mi7T7?p as 
voc. three times in a iii/A.D. pap. (B.U.). 

4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 119. b Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 435. 


cussion. However, there are other consonant-stems which form 
the accusative in -v instead of -a. In Tit. 3 : 9 and Ph. 1 : 15 
we have epcp instead of eptda.' So in Rev. 3 : 7 and 20 : 1 the Attic 
KXeTu is read, for this is not a new tendency by any means, but 
in Lu. 11 : 52 the MSS. have /cXeTSa, though here also D has 
KXetv. KXet5a is found in the LXX as in Judg. 3 : 25. Xdptra 
appears in Ac. 24 : 27 and Ju. 4, and A has it in Ac. 25 : 9, but 
the Attic xapii' holds the field (forty times) .2 In the LXX the 
Ionic and poetical xo-pi-ra occurs only twice (Zech. 4:7; 6 : 14) and 
is absent from the papyri before the Roman period. Cf Thack- 
eray, Gr., p. 150. For the irrational p with M«tf^ in Jo. 5 : 36 see 
Adjectives. In Ac. 27 : 40 the correct text is apreixo^va, not -ova, 
from nom. aprknuv. 

(c) The Accusative Plural. In Winer-Schmiedel (p. 88) 
epeis is given as nominative and accusative except in 1 Cor. 1:11 
{iptSes, nom.), but as a matter of fact the accusative plural 
does not appear in the N. T. except as an alternative reading 
'ipeis in {^''ACKLP, in Tit. 3 : 9 (correct text eptp). In Gal. 5 : 20 
W. H. put epets in the margin rather than epis, probably "an 
itacistic error." =^ W. H. read ras /cXets in Rev. 1 : 18, but K\el8as 
in Mt. 16 : 19. In Ac. 24 : 27 x^ptras is supported by HP and 
most of the cursives against x^-pi-Tf^ (correct text) and xapti' (N^EL, 
etc.). The accusative in -vs has changed into -as with -i; and -ov 
stems, as /36as from /3o0s (Jo. 2 : 14 f., cf. LXX), jBdrpvas from ^6- 
rpvs (Rev. 14 : 18), IxOvas from Ixevs (Mt. 14 : 17) .^ This simplifica- 
tion of the accusative plural was carried still further. Just as 
TToXeas had long ago been dropped for TroXeis, so ^aaiXkas has be- 
come -eTs hke the nominative, "and this accusative plural is reg- 
ular in N. T. for all words in -evs."^ In the LXX -eas appears a 
few times, but since 307 B.C. the Attic inscriptions show -eis as 
accusative.6 It is found indeed sometimes in Xenophon and 

1 Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157. For the LXX sec Thack., p. 140; Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 40 f., where the N. T. situation is duplicated. 

2 See Schweizer, Pcrg. Inschr., p. 151, for illustr. of these aces, in the insor. 
For the pap. see Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 35, both x&P^ra and x-ip'", etc. 
Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. gricch. Pap., p. 271 f. 

3 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157. 

4 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26, and W.-Sch., p. 86. Arrian has IxBvas. 
LXX MSS. (Thack., Gr., p. 147) show vt^os and vtchs, vrjo-^ and mDs, P6as. Cf. 
Holbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 43. Usually ixOvas, p. 44. 

6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26. 

8 Meisterh., p. 141. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 86. So the LXX. Cf. Thack., Gr., 
p 147 f.; Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 43. Wackcrn. (Indogcr. Forsch., 1903, 


Thucydides, though the strict Atticists disown it. Cf. ypaufxa- 
rels in Mt. 23 : 34, etc. A few forms in -eas survive in the in- 
scriptions.^ Niyo-reis (from vrjaris) is the correct accusative in Mk. 
8 : 3 and Mt. 15 : 32. ^{ here reads vrjarLs, but is unrehable on 
this itacism (Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157). The Achaean, Elean, ' 
Delphian and Phocian inscriptions^ (Northwest Greek) have the 
accusative plural in -es just like the nominative (cf. Latin) .^ It is 
very common in the modern Greek vernacular and in the papyri.* 
Moulton^ finds many examples like ywalKes, nrjves, ovres, Travres, 
TeKToves, Teaaapes, etc. In the LXX reacrapes as accusative is very 
common as a variant in the text of Swete.^ In Herodotus reaaa- 
peaKaldeKa is indeclinable and TptiaKalbeKa in Attic since 300 B.C. ^ 
So in the N. T. some MSS. read rkaaapes (though the most still 
have Teaaapas) as J^A in Jo. 11 : 17, X in Ac. 27 : 29, AP in Rev. 
4 : 4; 7: 1, N* in Rev. 9 : 14.^ In Rev. 4 : 4 the best authority (N, 
AP, etc.) is really on the side of reaaapes (second example).^ In- 
deed "in the N. T. reaaapas never occurs without some excellent 
authority for reaaapes." ^^ In the first 900 of Wilcken's ostraca, 
Moulton (ProL, p. 243) finds forty-two examples of accusative 
reaaapes and twenty-nine of reaaapas. Moulton ^^ considers it prob- 
able that other nominative forms in Revelation, like aarepes in A 
(Rev. 1 : 16), may be illustrations of this same tendency. 

p. 371) thinks the ace. in -€is is due not to the nom. but to compensative 

^ Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 150. 

2 Also early in Phthiotis (J. Wackernagel, Zur Nominahnfl., indoger. 
Forsch., 1903, p. 368). Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 119; Mayser, Gr. d. griech. 
Pap., 1906, p. 270 f. 

3 Giles, Man. of Comp. PhiloL, p. 546. 

4 Moulton, ProL, p. 36. Cf. Volker, Pap. Graec. Synt., p. 28. 

6 CI. Rev., 1901, pp. 34, 435. Cf. also Buresch, Rhein. Mus., XLVI, 218. 
6 W.-Sch., p. 87. ' lb. Cf. Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 163 f. 

8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26. Cf. Jann., p. 120. 

9 Cf. Hort, Notes on Sel. Read., p. 138. 

10 Moulton, Pro!., p. 36. "In Rev. CB have -pas, ik 3/5, AP 3/6." H. 

11 lb. This use of -es as ace. may be compared with the common ace. pi. 
in -es in the mod. Gk. vernac. Cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 47 ff. Cf. nom. like 
6 irarepas (Psichari, Ess. de Gr. Hist. Neo-grecque, 1886, P partie, p. xviii). 
Even vfxkpes, iroXires, etc. In the Eleatic dial, the loc.-dat. pi. is -ots as in 
XPVfJ-a-TOLs. Cf. Meister, Bd. II, p. 61. The LXX MSS. show rtaaapes as ace. 
See Hclbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 54. The ace. in -es rare in LXX MSS. outside of 
Ttaaapes. Thack., Gr., p. 148 f. Moulton (Prol., p. 243, ed. 2) suggests that 
this tendency started with reaaapes because it is the only early cardinal that 
had a separate form for the ace. plural. 


(d) Peculiarities in the Nominative. In general one may- 
say that the various ways of forming the nominative singular in 
Greek are blending gradually into unity, the masculine in s and 
the feminine in a or 77. Many of the new substantives went over 
to the first declension.^ Luke has gen. 'EXaLoJvos, in Ac. 1 : 12 from 
nom. 'EXaiOiv, and the papyri give nearly thirty examples of this 
noun.2 Jos. also (Ant. vii, 9, 2) has 'EXaicows. On the other 
hand the use of 'EXala is frequent (in Jos. also), as eis to 6pos tCov 
'EXaicoj' (Mt. 21 : 1). But in Lu. 19:29 we have Trpos to opos rb 
KoKovfjLevov 'EXaioov (W. H.),and in Lu. 21:37 els to opos kt\. In 
both these examples it would be possible to have 'EXatcbi/, not as 
an indeclinable substantive, but as a lax use of the nominative 
with 6 KoXovfjiepos (cf. Revelation and papyri). So Deissmann.^ 
But even so it is still possible for 'EXatuiv to be proper (on the 
whole probably correct) in these two disputed passages.* It is 
even probable that the new nominative 'EXaidov is made from the 
genitive 'EXatcof .^ "Epets is a variant with epts in Gal. 5 : 20 ( marg. 
W. H.), 1 Cor. 3:3; 2 Cor. 12:20; 1 Tim. 6:4, but in 1 Cor. 
1:11 all MSS. have €>5es. W. H. once (Ac. 1:10) accept the 
rare form eadriats (2, 3 Mace.) rather than the usual kadrjs, though 
the Alexandrian and Syrian classes have it also in Lu. 24 : 4. In 
Lu. 13 : 34 J<D read bpvL^, nominative not found in ancient Greek 
(Thayer), though the Doric used the oblique cases opvLxos, etc.^ 
Elsewhere in all MSS. the usual opvis occurs, as Mt. 23 : 27, and 
in the N. T. only the nominative singular is found.^ Another con- 
trary tendency to the usual s in the nominative singular is seen in 
(h8iv (1 Th. 5 : 3; cf. also Is. 37: 3) for the usual wdls. The papyri 
show forms like o^upptv. 

One or two points about neuter substantives call for remark. 
The inflection in -as, -aos = -a;s, has nearly vanished.^ A few ex- 
amples still survive in the inscriptions.^ In Lu. 1 : 36 the Ionic 
form yrjpet from yfjpas is found, as often in the LXX and Test. 

1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 12L 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 49; CI. Rev., 1901, p. 35. Deiss., B. S., pp. 208 ff. 

3 B. S., p. 210. 

* Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 93. Moulton (Prol., pp. 69, 
235) has a full presentation of the facts. 

6 Moulton, Prol., p. 235. 

* The form opvi^i ai)i)ears several times in the pap. Moulton, CI. Rev., 
1901, p. 35. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 149. 

7 W.-Sch., p. 89. LXX 6pi'Lduii>. 

8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26. 

* Schweizer, Perg. Insclir., p. 156. 


XII Pat.^ Kepas always in the N. T. (as in LXX) has the Attic 
plural Kepara (Rev. 8 times) and repas regularly rkpara (11 times). 
The plural Kpka (from Kpkai) is the only form in the N. T. (1 Cor. 
8 : 13; Rom. 14 : 21) as in the LXX, though a MSS. or so in each 
case has Kpkas (singular). 

(e) The Genitive-Ablative Forms. These call for little re- 
mark save in the adjective, for which see later. ZtmTrecos (from 
alvain) is uniform in the N. T., as Mt. 17 : 20. Tlr]xvs has no geni- 
tive singular in the N. T. though Trrjxeos is common in the LXX,^ 
but has irrjxociv (from Ionic Tni]x^(^v or through assimilation to neu- 
ters in -os), not the Attic Trjxecoi'. In Jo. 21 : 8 only A Cyr. have 
Trr]xeo}v and in Rev. 21:17 onl}^ K.^ For the genitive singular of 
'lucrrjs and Mavaaarjs see 6 (e). 

if) Contraction. It is not observed in dpeoov (Rev. 6 : 15) 
and xetXecoj' (Heb. 13 : 15). In both instances the Ionic absence 
of contraction is alwaj^s found in the LXX (Prov. 12 : 14). This 
open form is not in the Attic inscriptions, though found in MSS. 
of Attic writers and the poets especially.^ In the kolvt] it is a 
"widespread tendency" to leave these forms in -os uncontracted, 
though huv is correct in Ac. 4 : 22, etc.^ So the LXX, Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 151. 

(g) Proper Names. Mcouo-^s has always the genitive-ablative 
Mcoucrecos (Jo. 9 : 28), though no nominative Moivaevs is known. The 
genitive Mcoarj appears usually in the LXX, as Num. 4 : 41, and 
the vocative Mojo-^ as in Ex. 3 : 4. Cf . Thackeray, Gr., p. 163 f. 
W. H. have McovaeX (always with v. r. -afj) as in Mk. 9 : 4, except 
in Ac. 7 : 44 where the form in -f? is due to the LXX (usual form 
there).^ The accusative is Mcouo-ea once only (Lu. 16:29), else- 
where -7]v, as in Ac. 7:35 (so LXX). '^oKofxuv (so in the nom- 
inative, not -u!v) is indeclinable in J< in Mt. 1 : 6 as usually in 
the LXX. But the best MSS. in Mt. 1 : 6 have the accusative 
ZoXo/xoim, a few -oopra. So the genitive llo\ofjt,ojvos in Mt. 12 : 42, 

1 W.-Sch., p. 86. So Sir. 2.5 : 3, etc. The LXX also has the Ionic gen. 
yr)povs. See Thack., Gr., p. 149; Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 42. Cf. Mayser, 
Gr. d. Griech. Pap., p. 276. ^ As Ex. 25 : 9. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 87. 

' Hort, Notes on Orth. But Xen. and Plut. (often) have ir-qx^v. See 
W.-M., p. 75. In LXX note 7n7xeos and Tnyxews, irrixeoji' and TT-qxi^v. Helbing, 
Gr., p. 45; Thack., p. 15L 

^ W.-Sch., p. 88. 5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 27. 

« Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 58-60, for 
discussion of the dccl. of proper names in the LXX. The phenomena corre- 
spond to those in N. T. MSS. UpofjLrjdtvs had an Attic nom. -rjs, gen. -ews, 
Thumb, Handb., § 330. 1. 


though a few MSS. have -ojvtos. The Gospels have uniformly the 
genitive in -uvos. But in Ac. 3: 11 W. H. accept SoXo/xw^ros (so 
also 5 : 12), though BD etc. have covos in 5: 12. Cf. Eew^coj/ros 
(from nominative -oiv). ALOTpe<j)r}s (3 Jo. 9) and 'Ep/jLoykv-qs (2 Tim. 
1 : 15) occur in nom. There are other proper names (Roman and 
Semitic) which are inflected regularly hke Ba(3v\cov (Mt. 1:11), 
TaXKloiv (Ac. 18: 12), 'EXato^p (Ac. 1 : 12) Kalaap (Mt. 22: 17), Sapcbv 
(Ac. 9 : 35), 2t5cbj' (Mt. 11 : 21), Zl^o:v (Mt. 4: 18). There should 
be mentioned also SaXa/xts (dative -Tvl, Ac. 13:5). Cf. proper 
names in the LXX, Thackeray, Gr., pp. 163 ff . 

(h) Heteroclisis and Metaplasm. Most of the examples 
have already been treated under the first declension 5 (g) or the 
second declension 6 (d) . The accusative iiXa (Mk. 9 : 50) • is like 
the old Greek 6 aXs. Some MSS. (Western and Syrian classes) in 
Mk. 9 : 49 have dXi also. In Mk. 9 : 50 KLA have to a\a as nomi- 
native (cf. Lev. 2 : 13) Hke yaXa. But the best MSS. (k\BDLA) 
give TO aXas in the first two examples in 9 : 50 and aXa (accusative) 
in the third (so W. H.). So also Mt. 5 : 13 and Lu. 14 : 34. Cf. 
dative aXart in Col. 4 : 6. In the LXX to aXas is rare (Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 152). Papyri show to aXas in third century b.c (Moulton, 
and Milligan, Expositor, Feb., 1908, p. 177). Instead of opvis in 
Rev. 18 : 2 we have the genitive bpvkov, from opveov (good old Greek 
word), opveoLs in Rev. 19 : 17, and opvea in 19 : 21. In Mk. 6 : 4 
and Lu. 2 : 44 avyyevemi (cf. 1 Mace. 10 : 88) is probably^ from 
cvyyevevs, not avyyevr]s. Cf. 1 Mace. 10 : 89. This is a good 
place for me to record the admiration which has possessed me as I 
have tested the work of Hort through the maze of details in the 
MS. evidence concerning the forms. 

8. Indeclinable Words. These do not, of course, belong to 
any declension. Josephus Grccizcd most of the Hebrew proper 
names like 'A/xtra/Sos (Mt. 1:4, ' kixivaba^) ? Some he put in the 
first declension, many in the second and third declensions.^ Blass* 
sums the matter up by observing that "the Hebrew personal 
names of the O. T., when quoted as such," arc indeclinable. This 
is an overstatement. But certainly many that in the LXX and 
the N. T. are not inflected, might have been, such, for instance, 
as ' Kapwv, 'laKujS, KeSpwp, waX/xcof, -i^/xecoj', to go no further.-'' It 
is hardly worth while to give the entire list of these words. 

1 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158. ^ W.-Sch., p. 91. 

2 lb. for extensive list. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., j). 20. 

^ Thack., Gr., p. 169, suggests that i)laoe-namc3 in -uv are declined or in- 
declinable according to rank and distance. 


They include such other words as the majority of those in the 
genealogy in Mt. 1 and that in Lu. 3, besides many other proper 
names/ including such geographical names as Alv6:v, Bri9(f)ayri, 
Hlwv, "ZlvS., etc. 

There are other indeclinable Hebrew and Aramaic words such 
as Kop^dp (Mk. 7 : 11), /xdwa (Rev. 2 : 17), Trao-xa (Lu. 2 :41), ai- 
Ktpa (Lu. 1 : 15 as in LXX). The gender (fem.) of the inde- 
clinable oval (Rev. 9 : 12; 11 : 14) is probably due, as Blass^ sug- 
gests, to 6\i\l/Ls. In 1 Cor. 9 : 16 oval is used as a substantive (so 
also LXX). 

The use of 6 cop /cat 6 rju Kal 6 epx6n€vos in the nominative after 
airo in Rev. 1 : 4, etc., belongs more to syntax than to accidence. 
It is evidently on purpose (to express the unchangeableness of 
God), just as 6 SidaaKoKos Kal 6 Kvptos is in apposition with ixt (Jo. 
13 : 13) in lieu of quotation-marks. 


Donaldson^ is probably right in saying that, in general, the 
explanation of the adjective belongs to syntax rather than [to 
etymology. But there are some points concerning the adjective 
that demand treatment here. 

1. The Origin of the Adjective. Adjectives are not indis- 
pensable in language, however convenient they may be."* In the 
Sanskrit, for instance, the adjective plays an unimportant part. 
Whitney^ says: " The accordance in inflection of substantive and 
adjective stems is so complete that the two cannot be separated 
in treatment from one another." He adds^ that this wavering 
line of distinction between substantive and adjective is even 
more uncertain in Sanskrit than in the other early Indo-Ger- 
manic tongues. Most of the Sanskrit adjectives have three 
endings, the masculine and neuter being usually a stems while 
the feminine may have a or i, this matter being "determined in 
great part only by actual usage, and not by grammatical rule." 
So likewise Giles in his Comparative Philology has no distinct 
treatment of adjectives. The adjective is an added descriptive 
appellative {ovofxa eTlderop) while the substantive is an essential 
appellative [ovotxa ovcnaaTLKou). But substantives were doubtless 

1 See further list in W.-Sch., p. 91. ^ ^ew Crat., p. 502. 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 32. * Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 29. 
6 Sans. Gr., p. 111. 

^ lb. Cf. Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 117, for the adjectival use of the substantive. 


used in this descriptive sense before adjectives arose, as they are 
still so used. So, for instance, we say brother man, Doctor A., 
Professor B., etc. Cf. in the N. T. h tc3 'lopdavp iroTa^w (Mt. 
3:6), etc. This is, indeed, apposition, but it is descriptive ap- 
position, and it is just at this point that the adjective emerges in 
the early period of the language.^ Other Greek adjectives in 
form as in idea are variations from the genitive case, the genus 
case."^ In itself the adjective is as truly a noun as the substantive. 
As to the form, while it is not necessary^ that in every case the 
adjective express its gender by a different inflection, yet the ad- 
jectives wath three genders become far commoner than those 
with two or one.^ From the etymological point of view this in- 
flection in different genders is the only distinction between sub- 
stantive and adjective.^ The Greek has a much more highly 
developed system of adjectives than the Sanskrit, which has sur- 
vived fairly well in modern Greek, though a strong tendency is 
present to simplify adjectives to the one declension (-oj, -77, -ov). 
Participles, though adjectives in inflection, are also verbs in sev- 
eral respects and call for separative discussion. The process of 
treating the adjective as a substantive belongs to syntax.^ The 
substantivizing of the adjective is as natural, though not so com- 
mon in Greek as in Latin, as the adjectivizing of the substantive 
which we have been discussing.'^ The distinction between adjec- 
tive and substantive is hard to draw in modern Greek (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 66). In modern Greek every adjective has a special 
feminine form. The development is complete. Cf. Thumb, pp. 
66 ff. 

2. Inflection of Adjectives. In Greek as in Sanskrit, the ad- 
jective has to follow the inflection of the substantive in the various 
declensions, the three genders being obtained by combining the 
first with the second or the third declensions. 

(a) Adjectives with One Termination. Of course at first 
this may have been the way the earliest adjectives arose. Then 
the genders would be formed. But analogy soon led to the for- 
mation of most adjectives with three endings. Some of these 

1 Delbriick, Syntakt. Forsch., IV, pp. 65, 259. Cf. Giles, Man. of Comp. 
Phik)l., p. 239. 

2 Donaldson, Now Crat., p. 474. * Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 139. 

3 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30. » Donaklson, Now Crat., p. 502. 

" Brug. (Griooh. Gr., pp. 41.3-417) has no discussion of the adjective save 
from the syntactical point of view. 

^ See Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 414 f., for numerous exx. in the carHer Gk. 


adjectives with one ending were used only with the mascuUne or 
the feminine, and few were ever used with the neuter.^ Jannaris^ 
considers them rather substantives than adjectives, but they il- 
lustrate well the transition from substantive to adjective, like 
airaLs, fxamp, 4)vyas. In fact they are used of animated beings. 
In the N. T. we have ixpiva^ (Mt. 7 : 15; 1 Cor. 5 : 10), irkv-ns (2 Cor. 
9 : 9. Cf. TrXarrjTes, Jude 13 B), and avyyevl'i (Lu. 1 : 36). ZvyYevls 
is a later feminine form lilce ehyevls for the usual avyyevrjs (both 
masculine and feminine) which Winer ^ treats as a substantive (so 
Thayer). Strictly this feminine adjective belongs* only to words 
in -Ti7$ and -evs. Blass^ quotes evyevldwv ywaiKo^v by way of com- 
parison. Modern Greek still has a few of these adjectives in use. 
The ancient adjectives in -tjs (evyevqs) have disappeared from the 
modern Greek vernacular (Thumb, Handb., p. 72). 

(6) Adjectives with Two Terminations. Some adjectives 
never had more than two endings, the masculine and the femi- 
nine having the same form. In the so-called Attic second de- 
clension this is true of tXecos (Mt. 16:22). But a few simple 
adjectives of the second declension never developed a feminine 
ending, as, for instance, ^dp^apos (1 Cor. 14 : 11), e{al)ct)vi8Los (Lu. 
21:34), acori7ptos (Tit. 2 : 11)." In the N. T. riavxos has changed 
to Tjavxi-os (1 Pet. 3:4). The adjectives in the third declension 
which end in -ijs or ~o)v have no separate feminine form. So 
eu7ei/?7s (Lu. 19:12), emel3rjs (Ac. 10:7) ixei^c^v (Jo. 15:13), etc. 
Then again some simple adjectives varied'' in usage in the earlier 
Greek, especially in the Attic, and some of these have only two 
endings in the N. T., like dtStos (Ro. 1 : 20), epTj/xos (Ac. 1 : 20, etc., 
and often as substantive with yrj or x<^po- not expressed), Koapnos 
(1 Tim. 2:9), ohp6.vLos (Lu. 2:13; Ac. 26:19), </>X6apos (1 Tim. 
5:13), 4>pbvip.o^ (Mt. 25:2, 4, 9), co^^Xt/xos (1 Tim. 4:8; 2 Tim. 
3: 16). With still others N. T. usage itself varies as in the case 
of atcbi/ios (Mt. 25:46, etc.) and aloivia (Heb. 9:12; 2 Th. 2:16, 
and often as a variant reading); 'tTOLjjios (Mt. 25 : 10) and ItoIixt] 
(1 Pet. 1:5); ixdraios (Jas. 1 : 26) and fiarala (1 Pet. 1 : 18); o^otos 
(Rev. 4:3, second example correct text) and d/jLoia (Rev. 9:10, 

1 K.-BL, I, p. 547 f. 2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 143. 

3 W.-M., p. 80. But cf. W.-Sch., p. 97. 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33. ^ ib. 

6 Cf. K.-BL, I, p. 535 f., for fuller list. Some of the simple verbals in -ros 
also had no fern., as ihvrjTos. 

' In the LXX we see a very slight tendency towards giving a fern, form to 
all adjs. Thack., Gr., p. 172. 


though W. H. put dfxoLOLs in the margin instead of ofiolas, 19) ; oo-tos 
(1 Tim. 2:8; so probably, though daiovs may be construed with 
kiralpovTas instead of xetpas)- The early Attic inscriptions furnish 
examples of two endings with such adjectives as doKLfxos (no fem- 
inine example in the N. T.) and Xoittos with either two or three 
(N. T. only three). ^ The papyri furnish eprjfjLos and ovpavLos as 
feminine and others not so used in the N. T., as 5u-atos, ixerpLos, 
aTTopipos.- It was the rule with compound adjectives to have only 
two endings, for the most of them never developed a feminine 
form, as 6 (17) iiXoyos.^ This tendency survives in the inscriptions, 
especially wth compounds of a- privative and prepositions, and 
in the papyri also we have abundant examples.^ The N. T. usage 
is well illustrated by 1 Pet. 1 : 4, els KXrjpovofjiiav a<pdapTov Kal b.p.iav- 
rov Kal afxapavTOP . Cf. Jas. 3 : 17. 

(c) Adjectives with Three Terminations. The great ma- 
jority of Greek adjectives, like d7a06s, -fj, -6v, developed three 
endings and continue normal (cf. Thumb, Handbook, p. 68), as 
is universal in the modern Greek. Some of the compound adjec- 
tives also had three endings, especially compounds in -lkos and 
-LOS, as {jLovapxt-KV, ava^ia (Plato) .^ The same thing is observed in 
the inscriptions" and the papyri.^ In the N. T. we have several 
examples, as apyos, -n (Attic always apyos, though Epimenides has 
-17) in 1 Tim. 5 : 13; Tit. 1 : 12; Jas. 2 : 20 according to BC. In 
Mk. 4 : 28 avToparr] is not entirely new, for classic writers use it. 
In 2 Jo. 13 (and probably also 1) we have kXe/cri?. In Mt. 4 : 13 
the MSS. give irapadaXaaala, but D has -Lov. However, in Lu. 
6 : 17 TrapaXtos is the feminine form, though occasionally the LXX 
and older Greek had -la, varying like the other compounds in 
-LOS. Other adjectives of three endings belong to the third and 

1 Cf. Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 148. Cf. also aicovios, Koanio^, in Magnesia 
(Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 140). Aristophanes used PaaiXetos, ^e/3aios, fiaKa- 
pios, oijpavios, warpios with two endings (G. Wirth, De Motione Adjcctivorum, 
1880, p. 51). This is true also of Euripides (ib., p. 49 f.). For further discus- 
sion of adjectives with two endings see Willielm, Zur Motion der Adjec. dreier 
End. in Griech. etc., p. 23; Wilhelm, Der Sprachgebr. der Lukianos etc., p. 
23. Cf. llelbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 57 f. On the whole the LXX shows the ex- 
tension of the fcni. so that adjs. which in Attic have two or three terminations 
have tliree in the LXX {aypios, ^e^aios, dUaLos, eXeWtpos, /xdraLos). Thack., Gr., 
p. 172. 

2 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 289 f. ' K.-Bl., I, p. 538. 

* Cf. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 141; Schweizer, Terg. Inschr., p. 158; 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 291. 

6 K.-Bl., I, p. 538 f. ^ Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 158. 

7 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 291. 


the first declensions, like o^vs, o^ela, d^v; ttSs, iracra, tcLp; hcov, eKovcra, 
eKov] fxeXas, fieKaiva, /xeXav; jikyas, /JieyaKr], iJ-eya; ttoXvs, iroXKi], toXv. 
Cf. the perfect active participle in -cos, -via, -~6s. The LXX MSS. 
sometimes have irav as indeclinable {tolv t6v totov, etc.) like 
Tr\rjpris. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 51. Indeclinable ttXtjpt?? 
is retained by Swete in Sir. 19 : 26. Cf. Helbing, ib. See (/) 

(d) The Accusative Singular. Some adjectives of the third 
declension have v after the analogy of the first declension. See 
this chapter, i, 5, (g), for the discussion in detail. W. H. reject 
them all, though in a few cases the testimony is strong.^ They are 
aae^rjv (Ro. 4: 5), aa<l>aKT]v (Heb. 6: 19), iiel^wv (Jo. 5: 36), avyyevriv 
(Ro. 16: 11), vyiriv (Jo. 5: 11). The use of irrational ?/ with ixei^o) 
(Jo. 5 : 36 ixd^oiv in ABEGMA) is likened by Moulton {Prol, p. 49) 
to irrational v with subjunctive fi {^v). Cf. ch. VI, ii (c). 

(e) Contraction m Adjectives. Two points are involved, 
the fact of contraction (or the absence of it) and the use of a or 
77 after e, t, p. The uncontracted forms of adjectives are not so 
common as is the case with substantives. Cf. this chapter, i, 6, 
(6). The contracted forms are practically confined to forms in 
—ovs, like aTrXoOs, StTrXoDs, dp7i;poOs, Trop4>vpovs, (nSrjpovs, xciX/v'ous, 
Xpvaovs. Here again we have a still further limitation, for the 
uncontracted forms occur chiefly in the Apocalypse and in {< 
and in the case of xp^(^ovs.^ Cf. Rev. 4:4; 5:8, where J^ reads 
Xpvaeovs, -eas. But in Rev. 2 : 1 XPB read xpi^cwv, while AC have 
xpvaecov. Xpvadv in Rev. 1 : 13, though accepted by W. H. and 
read by J^AC, is rejected by Blass, but achnitted by Debrunner 
(p. 28), as shown on p. 257. P. Lond. reads xpvaav r) apyvpav, and 
L. P.^ (ii/iii a.d.) also has xpvf^W V apyvpTJv.^ In each instance 
probably analogy has been at work."* Thackeray (Gr., p. 172 f.) 
gives a very few uncontracted forms in -eos in the LXX. W. H. 
accept the genitive ^adeoos in Lu. 24 : 1 and xpaews in 1 Pet. 3 : 4 
instead of the usual form in -os. Hort^ considers the variations 
in TjiiLavs as "curious," but they find abundant parallel in the 

^ Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157 f. For pap. exx. of vyi^v see Mayser, Gr. d. 
griech. Pap., p. 295. Thack. (Gr., p. 146) considers it a vulgarism, though it 
began as early as iv/B.c. (see ScoKpdxTjj', rpLrjptjv). It is common u/a.d. 

2 Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25. Cf. Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 34 f., for LXX. 

3 Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, pp. 35, 435. 

* Moulton, Prol., p. 48. Cf. T-qv Itp-qv Kt(t>a\r]v on Rom. tomb (Kaibel, Epi- 
gram. Graeca, 1878, p. 269). 
6 Notes on Orth., p. 158. 


papyri as does xpv<^^^^ abovc.^ In Mk. 6 : 23 rnjLla-ovs, not -eos, 
is the genitive form, the usual (probably only) form in the pa- 
pyri.- The neuter plural riniaea has practically no support in Lu. 
19 : 8, though ruilarj is the Text. Rec. on the authority of late 
uncials and cursives. Td rjulav has slight support. W. H. read 
rd r]nlaia (NBQ 382, L having itacistic -eta) and derive it from a 
possible rnxiaios.^ But it is possible, if not probable, that rj/jLiaeLa 
was the earlier form changed by itacism to rudiaLa^ The plural of 
vrjaTLs is i>7]aT€Ls (Mk. 8:3; Mt. 15: 32), and not vrjaTLs as already 
sho^vn.^ For participles in -via, -vlrjs see this chapter, i, 5, (c). 
As a rule the forms in -virjs and -prjs predominate, but note aTdpq. 
in Lu. 1 : 36.'^ In the case of v'^i-ns, whereas the Attic had accu- 
sative v'Yio. {vjLy) in Plato, Phadr. 89 d), the N. T., like the inscrip- 
tions, papyri and the LXX, has only vyLTJ (Jo. 5: 11, 15; 7: 23).^ 
In Jo. 18 : 1 x^i-mppov is almost certainly from x^'i-f^o-ppos instead of 
the classical xetM^ppoos.^ In 2 Pet. 2 : 5 oySoov is not contracted, 
though sometimes the papyri have 6y8ovs, 6y8ovvy 

(/) Indeclinable Adjectives. The papyri have cleared up 
two points of much interest here. One is the use of ir\r]pr]s in 
N. T. MSS. in an oblique case. In Mk. 4 : 28 Hort (Appendix, 
p. 24) suggests Tr\r]py]s alrov (C* two lectionaries) as probably the 
original. In Ac. 6 : 5 W. H. put ap8pa irXriprjs in the margin, 
though Tr\r]pT] is read only by B among the MSS. of importance. 
In Jo. 1 : 14 all the MSS. (save D 5 followed by Chrys. and 
Theoph.) have irXripris. Moulton^'' indeed suggests that 7rXi7p7y was 
the original text, which was changed to the vulgar irXrjprjs. But 
the argument can be turned round just as easily. In almost 
every N. T. instance of an oblique case of ttXtjptjs good uncials 
have the indeclinable form (Moulton, Prol., p. 50). The LXX 
also has examples of indeclinable irXrjprjs (cf. Hort, Appendix, p. 

1 Xpvakifi is exceedingly common in the pap. (Moulton, CI. Rev., Dec, 1901, 
p. 435). 

2 Mayscr, Gr. d. grioch. Pap., p. 294 f. Cf. also Deiss., B. S., p. 186; Moul- 
ton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. M. So also the LXX, Thack., Gr., p. 179. 

3 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 87. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. 
Sept., p. 52. 

* Cf. W.-Sch., p. 87. 'II/xt(7£ta occurs in Antoninus Libcralis (ab. 150 a.d.) 
and oLKtlos is analogous. 

6 Ilort, Notes on Orth., p. 157. « Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25. 

^ Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 35. For adjs. with ace. in-r; (and sometimes 
;' added, —r;^) see Dieterich, Unters., p. 175. ('f. this ch., ii, 2, ((/). 

8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25. " Mayscr, Gr. d. griech. Bap., p. 294. 

10 Prol., p. .50. See Croncrt, Mem., p. 179; Turner, Jour. Tlieol. St., I, pp. 
100 ff. Milligan (N. T. Doc. $, p. 05) finds one ex. of indecl. wXripr]s b.c. 


24). So Job 21 : 24, J^ABC. The examples of TrXiypiys so used are 
"fairly common" in the papyri^ and come as early as the second 
century B.C.- There seems therefore no reason to refuse to con- 
sider 7rXi7p7js in Jo. 1 : 14 as accusative and to accept it as the text 
in Mk. 4 : 28 and Ac. 6:5. The other example of indeclinable 
adjectives is found in comparative forms in -co, like TrXeiw. Moul- 
ton^ points out that in Mt. 26 : 53 NBD read TrXetw 5co5e«;a Xeytcofas, 
while the later MSS. have mended the grammar with irXeiovs. 
He quotes also Cronert^ who has furnished abundant evidence 
from the papyri and literature of such a use of these forms just 
like irXrjprjs. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Papj/ri, p. 63 f. 

3. Comparison of Adjectives. The comparative is a natural 
development in the adjective, as the adjective itself is a growth 
on the substantive. 

(a) The Positive (OercKov ovojxa or ovofia airXovv). This is the 
oldest form of the adjective, the most common and the most per- 
sistent. It is not always true that the comparative and superla- 
tive forms represent an actually higher grade than the positive. 
The good is sometimes more absolute than better or even best. 
See ayados in Mk. 10 : 18, for instance. Sometimes indeed the posi- 
tive itself is used to suggest comparison as in Mt. 18 : 9, koXov aol 
k(TTLv daekdelv . . . ^ bvo xetpas, kt\. This construction is common 
in the LXX, suggested perhaps by the absence of comparison in 
Hebrew.^ The tendency of the later Greek is also constantly to 
make one of the degrees do duty for two. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., 
p. 181. But this matter belongs rather to the syntax of compari- 
son. Participles are, of course, used only in the positive save in 
a few cases where the adjective-idea has triumphed wholly over 
the verb-conception.^ Verbals in -tos sometimes have comparison, 
though jiaXKov may be freely used with participles. 

(6) The Comparative {avyKptTtKov oi^o/xa) . The stem may be 
(besides adjective) either a substantive (^aaiKev-Tepos) or an adverb 
{irpo-Tepos) . Cf. Monro, Homeric Grammar, p. 82. The primary 
comparative-ending -iwv (Sanskrit iyans) is probably kin to the ad- 
jective-ending -tos.'^ This form along with the superlative -tcrros is 

^ Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 35. For the indecl. wXr/pris in Acta Thomae see 
Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p. 24. Cf . Sir. 19 : 26. See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., 
p. 52. It is not till I/a.d. that it is common in the pap. Thack. (Gr., p. 176) 
thinks it not genuine in the LXX. 

2 lb., p. 435. But see Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 297. 

3 Prol., p. 50. 4 Philologus, LXI., pp. 161 ff. ^ W.-M., p. 302. 

fi K.-Bl., I, p. 553; Schwab, Die Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comparative, 3. 
Heft, 1895, pp. 152 ff. " Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 290; Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30. 


probably originally qualitative in idea and does not necessarily 
imply excess. In the modern Greek these forms are not used at all.^ 
They have disappeared before the secondary comparative form 
-Ttpos, which even in the earlier Greek is far more common. The 
ending -repos docs imply excess and appears in various words that 
are not usually looked upon as comparatives, as e-repos ('one of 
two'), eKCL-Tepos ('each of two'), we-Tepos {nos-ter), vfie-repos (vos-ter), 
ua-repos." So also biv-repos like wpo-Tepos (cf. Latin al-ter, Eng- 
lish other) is a comparative form.^ "The comparison-suffixes lwv, 
LOTOS, repos belong to the Indo-Germanic ground speech."^ In the 
N. T. the forms in -lwv, as in the papyri,^ hold their own only 
in the most common words. Schwab (op. cit., p. 5) makes -aros 
older than -raros. 'Kptdvoiv is not used in the N. T. and /3eX- 
TLov only as an adverb once (2 Tim. 1:18). 'Ekaaauv appears 
four times, once about age as opposed to p-d^wv (Ro. 9: 12), once 
about rank as opposed to Kpdaawv (Heb. 7:7), once about excel- 
lence (Jo. 2:10) as again opposed to Kpelaacov, and once as an 
adverb (eXaaaov, 1 Tim. 5:9) in the sense of 'less, not /juKpoTepos 
('smaller'). ''E.aaov (neuter only) is found in 1 Cor. 11: 17 as op- 
posed to Kpeiauov, and as an adverb in 2 Cor. 12 : 15. KdXXtoj' (Ac. 
25 : 10) is an adverb. Kpelaawv is confined to Peter, Paul's Epis- 
tles and Hebrews (some eighteen examples, ten of them in Heb.). 
Meifcov is common (some fifty times), though some of them dis- 
place the superlative as we shall see directly. The neuter plural 
{p.d^ova) appears once as ^etfco (Jo. 1:50).^ Once also (3 Jo. 4) 
the double comparative form fxeL^orepos occurs, several simi- 
lar examples appearing in the papyri, as ixeL^orepos, fxeKavrcoTepov, 
■Kpta^vTepwTtpa.'' A few other examples in poetry and late Greek 
are cited by Wincr-Moulton,^ like KpeLTTorepos, pLeL^ovorepos, fia^o- 

1 Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 73. 

2 Cf. Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 292; Brug., Indoger. Forsch., 1903, pp. 7 ff. 
2 Cf. Ascoli in Curtius' Stud, zur gricch. und lat. Gr., 1876, p. 351. 

* Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., Heft I, 1893, p. 3. 

* Mayser, Gr. d. gricch. Pap., p. 298. He mentions ^eKrlwp, iXaaauv, 
vaaojif, ir'ktlwv {irXkoiv). For the inscr., Nachm. (Magu. Inschr., p. 143) adds 
6.ixtivoiv and ixti^wv. 

« The pap. have many exx. of the form without v as in TrXeico (ou$), etc. See 
Mayser, Gr. d. gricch. Pap., pp. 298 ff. But the usage varies greatly. The 
LXX MSS. show similar variations. See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 54 f. As 
LXX exx. of uniformity in form of comp. note LyaBiloTepos and alaxporepos, but 
only 677(011' (-a Tos), not kyyvrtpos (-raros), C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 29. Thack. 
(Gr.,pp. 184 ff.) gives a careful sunnnaryof the exx. of -MVy-iaros in the LXX. 

^ Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, pp. 35, 435. 

* P. 81. Cf. also Dieterich, Untcrs. etc., p. 180, for dXt-iSrepos. 


Tepos itself, jjLeioTepos, TrXetorepos. Cf. English vernacular "lesser," 
TaxLov (W. H. eLov), not daauov, is the N. T. form as we read in 
the papyri also.^ Cf . Jo. 20 : 4, etc. Xdpwv is found a dozen times 
(cf. Mt. 9:16). The ending -Tepo's is more and more the usual 
one. Cf. To/jLcoTepos (Heb. 4:12). Some comparative adjectives 
are derived from positive adverbs like e^wrepos (Mt. 8:12), 
kacoTepos (Ac. 16:24), KaTcorepos (Eph. 4:9). These latter adjec- 
tives are common in the LXX and the later Greek, not to say 
Attic sometimes.^ AtrXorepos (Mt. 23 : 15) is for the old Attic 
StxXoucrrepos. So Appian also. Cf. airXbrepov, Anthol. Pal., Ill, 
158 (Dieterich, Unters., p. 181). The Ionic already had oXtycorepos 
and Taxvrepos (Radermacher, Gr., p. 56). Cf. ayadcorepos (Hermas, 
Mand. VIII, 9, 11) and ayadi^Taros (Diod., 16, 85). The rules 
for the use of -dorepos and -orepos apply in the N. T. As iJ.aX\ov 
is often used with the positive in lieu of the comparative ending, 
so it is sometimes with the comparative, a double comparative 
(ixclXKop Kpelcraov, Ph. 1:23; yuaXXov TepLcraorepop, Mk. 7:36), a 
construction not unknown to the classic orators of Athens where 
emphasis was desired.^ Paul did not perpetrate a barbarism when 
he used k\axt-<y tot epos (Eph. 3 : 8), a comparative on a superlative. 
It ''is correctly formed according to the rule of the common 
language."^ Cf. also such a late form as eo-xarcbrepos.^ 

(c) The Superlative {virepOerLKov 6vo/xa). As with the com- 
parative, so with the superlative there are primary and secondary 
forms. The primary superlative ending -kttos (old Indian isthas, 
Zend, and Goth, istay did not perhaps represent the true super- 
lative so much as the elative (intensive like English "very") super- 
lative.^ It was never very widely used and has become extinct in 
modern Greek.^ The kolvt] inscriptions show only a few examples 
like ayxi-f^Ta, eyy Lara, KaXXtcTos, kpcltlcftos, ixkyiaros, TXelaros.^ In 
the papyri Maj'scr^^ notes ^eXTLarov, tkaxicfrov {-laT-q also), mXXt- 
GTt], KpcLTLaros, TrXelaTOi, Tax't-crTriu (—terra), x^'P^ottji'. In the N. T., 
however, the superlative in -to-ros is more common than that in 
-TttTos, though none too frequent in itself. They are besides usu- 
ally elative (intensive) and not true superlatives.^^ D reads €7- 

^ Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 35. Cf. also aneiforepos in the older language 
(Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 34). 2 w.-M., p. 81; Thack., Gr., p. 183. 

3 Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Heft HI, p. 65. 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 34. » W.-M., p. 81, Jann., p. 147. 
6 K.-Bl., I, p. 554; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 291. 

» Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30. « Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 144. 

9 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 160; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 143. 
10 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 298. " Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33. 


7t(rTa in Mk. 6 : 36. '0 e\axi-(^Tos (1 Cor. 15:9) is a true superla- 
tive, a thing so rare in the N. T. that Blass^ attributes this ex- 
ample either to the literary language or to corruption in the 
text.^ But Moulton^ is able to find a parallel in the Tb.P. 24, 
ii/B.c. But more about true and elative superlatives in Syntax 
(eh. XIV, xiv). In 2 Cor. 12:9, 15 (D in Ac. 13:8), we have 
TJdLara. Kparto-re (Lu. 1 : 3, etc.) is "only a title" (Moulton, 
p. 78). MdXto-Ta appears a dozen times only, though (jloWop is 
exceedingly common. Blass^ indeed suggests that a popular sub- 
stitute for jiaKiaTa as for xXeto-ra was found in the use of wepLaaos. 
This is much more true of the use of irepLaaos as the equivalent of 
naWov or TrXetwj' (cf. Mt. 5 : 37; 27 : 23). Paul uses the comparative 
adverb wepLacroTepoos (Ph. 1 : 14. Cf. double comparative in Mk. 
7:36). In Heb. 7: 15 (cf. 2:1; 13 : 19 -cos) irepLaaoTepov en /cara- 
dr]\ov we have more than /jlolWop. Cf. fxeyLaros (2 Pet. 1 : 4) and 
TrXelaTos in Mt. 11 : 20; 21 : 8; 1 Cor. 14 : 27. Tdxtcr™ (Ac. 17 : 15) 
Blass^ credits again to the literary element in Luke. In u^toros 
we have a superlative that occurs thirteen times and always 
about God or heaven (as Mk. 5 : 7; 11 : 10). 

When we take up the form in -raros in the N. T. the story is 
soon told. Brugmann^ finds the origin of this ending in forms 
like SeKUTos (cf. Latin decimus), Trpwros (cf. Latin primus), vTaros, 
vararos. It has no direct parallel in the other languages.^ Hirt^ 
suggests -Tap-os and -aros as two forms which finally resulted in 
-Taros. It is true that the forms in -aros faded away as superla- 
tives and eaxa.rov became eaxarcoTaTov in the KOLVT] inscriptions,^ 
but this is true also of the forms in -raros.^ The papyri have 
"scores" of examples of superlatives in -raros (chiefly elative). ''^ 
The rarity of the -raros forms in the N T. ma}^ be purely acci- 
dental (Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. 154). It is not quite true that 

1 lb. 8 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33 f. 

2 Prol., p. 79. * lb., p. 33. 

B Indog. Forsch., 1903, pp. 7-9. Ascoli (Curtius' Stud., etc., 1876, p. 351) 
suggests Tp'iTos (cf. Horn. TpiraTos.) also. Cf. also ?(rxaros. 

« Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 294. ^ jb. 

* Sc^hweizer, Perg. Iiischr., p. IGl. 

" This double superl. does not appear in the N. T., but various instances 
are noted in the paj). and the latcT Gk. as eXax'^Toraros, neyiaToraTos, Trpwriara, 
So Lat. rninissitnus, pessinm^simus. Cf. W.-M., p. 81; Dieterioh, Unters., 
p. 181. 

»o Moulton, Trol., p. 78; Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Tap., j). 297 f. Sec Ilelbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., pp. 54-57, for corresponding infrequency of the supeii. forms in 
the LXX. The compar. is driving it out. Cf. also ib., p. vii. 


"only one example of the -raros superlative" (Moulton, Prol., 
p. 78) survives in the N. T. There are three with -raros, besides 
those with -aros: aytdoTaros (Ju. 20), aKpL^karaTos (Acts 26 : 5), rtyutcj- 
raros (Rev. 18 : 12; 21 : 11). Thackeray {Gr., p. 182) finds -raros 
much more common in the LXX, though chiefly in the elative 
sense and in the more literary books of the LXX (Wisd., 2^ 
Mace, Prov., Esd.). ' AKpLJ3eararos (Ac. 26: 5) Blass again credits 
to the literary language. "Eaxaros and Trpcoros (co from cofa, Doric 
d) are both very frequent in the N. T. See Mt. 19 : 30 for the 
contrasted wpccroL eo-xarot Kr\. The very great number of times 
that Trpojros {jpCorov included) is used in the N. T. (some 200) in 
contrast to only ten instances of irporepov and one of irporepa (Eph. 
4 : 22) deserves comment. This seems in conflict with the ob- 
served disuse of the superlative in favour of the comparative. But 
a counter-tendency is at work here. The disappearance of dual- 
ity before plurality has worked against irporepov. Luke does not 
use irporepov at all and it appears only once in Grenfell and Hunt's 
four volumes of papyri.^ The LXX shows vrpcoros displacing irpore- 
pos (Thackeray, Gr., p. 183). So in English we say first story of 
a house with only two, first edition of a book which had only two, 
etc. It is almost an affectation in Greek and English, however 
good Latin it may be, to insist on irporepos. So in Jo. 1 : 15 (rpco- 
Tos p-ov), 15: 18 {irpCirov vpcov), Ac. 1 : 1 {rdv irpLcrov \6yov) we have 
merely first of two and in the two first instances the ablative con- 
struction as with the comparative. Winer properly saw this usage 
of rpwrov to be true to the Greek genius.^ In Mt. 27: 64 we have 
both eaxo-Tos and irpooros used of two, earai ri eaxarT] tXclvt] x^tpwj' 
TTjs Tpcorr]s. Uporepos is indeed used in the sense of the former in 
Eph. 4 : 22, whereas irporepov in the sense of the first of two does 
appear in Heb. 7:27 {irporepov — exetra).^ It is probably a de- 
fect in both Latin and Greek that the same forms were used to 
express the elative and true superlative sense (so as to compara- 
tive also).^ As the dual vanished, so it was inevitable that with 
the same principle at work either the comparative or the superla- 
tive would. Outside of ecrxaros and Trpcoros where the principle 
crossed with a different application because irporepos was dis- 
appearing, it is the superlative that goes down, especially the true 
superlative as opposed to the elative (intensive) . Hermas, though 
in the vernacular, still uses the superlative in the elative (inten- 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 79 ^ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 34. 

« W.-M., p. 306. * Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30. 


sive) sense very often.^ In the N. T. then the comparative is 
beginning to take the place of the superlative, a usage occasion- 
ally found in classical Greek,^ and found now and then in the 
papyri.^ See 1 Cor. 13: 13 rd rpia raDra ■/xetfcoj' 8e TovTuiv 57 a-yaivri. 
See also 6 /jLei^uv (Mt. 18:4). But this matter will call for more 
comment under Sjmtax (ch. XIV xiii, (i)). 


No great space is demanded for the discussion of the non- 
syntactical aspects of the numerals. 

1. The Origin of Numerals. Donaldson^ thinks that seven of 
the first ten numerals may be traced to primitive pronominal ele- 
ments. Pronouns and numerals belong to the stable elements of 
language, and the numerals are rather more stable than the pro- 
nouns in the Indo-Germanic tongues.^ See the numerals in sub- 
stantial integrity in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., pp. 80-84). 
The system of numeration is originally decimal (cf. fingers and 
toes) with occasional crossing of the duodecimal.^ There possibly 
were savages who could not count beyond two, but one doubts if 
the immediate ancestors of the Indo-Germanic peoples were so 
primitive as that.'' See previous discussion in this chapter, i, 3. 
Counting is one of the first and easiest things that the child 
learns. It is certain that the original Indo-Germanic stock had 
numerals up to 100 before they separated.^ The roots are wide- 
spread and fairly uniform. 

2. Variety among Numerals. 

(a) Different Functions. The numerals may be either sub- 
stantive, adjective or adverb. So 17 x^^'ds (Lu. 14:31), x^^tot 
(2 Pet. 3 :8), eTrrciKts (Mt. 18:21).9 Number thus embraces sep- 
arate ideas. 

(b) Thu C AB.DIN Ahs (6v6 fiara apiOfirjTiKa). They may be either 
declinable or indeclinable, and this according to no very well-de- 
fined principle. The first four are dcclina!:)lo, possibly from their 
frequent use.^'^ After 200 {bia-KoaLOL, -at, -a) they have the regular 

' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33. He cites the mod. Italian also which makes 
no distinction between the comp. and supcrl. 

''■ Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. gricch. Comp., \\, j)]). 172 iT. 

3 IVloulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 439. ^ Giles, Man., etc., p. 393. 

* New Crat., p. 294. " lb. 

^ However, see Moulton, Prol., p. 58. Cf. Taylor, Prim. Cult., I, p. 242 f. 

8 Moulton, Prol., p. 58. 

» Cf. K.-BL, I, p. G21 f. »" Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35. 


inflection of adjectives of the second and first declensions. The 
history of els, /xta, ev is very interesting, for which see the compara- 
tive grammars.^ Els is exceedingly common in the N. T. as a 
cardinal (Mt. 25 : 15) and as an indefinite pronoun (Mt. 8 : 19), 
approaching the indefinite article. For the use of els in sense 
of ordinal see Syntax, ch. XIV, xv, (a), but it may be remarked 
here that the papyri have rfj ulS. Kal et/cd5t (Moulton, CI. Rev., 
1901, p. 35). The indeclinable use of els (or adverbial use of Kara) 
is common in later Greek. Cf. Kad' els in Mk. 14 : 19; (Jo. 8:9); 
Ro. 12 : 5.^ So modern Greek uses ha as neuter with which 
Mayser^ compares eva as feminine on an early ostrakon. But the 
modern Greek declines eVas, nia, eva in all genders (Thumb, Handb., 
p. 81). Ov8els and ixrjdeis are both very cormnon in the N. T. with 
the inflection of els. Mrjdeis occurs only once (Ac. 27 : 33). W. H. 
admit oWels only seven times (all in Luke and Paul, as Ac. 20 : 33), 
and once (Ac. 15 : 9) ovSkv is in the margin. Jannaris (Hist. Gk. 
Gr., p. 170) calls this form in 6 chiefly Alexandrian, rare in Attic, 
but Mayser (Gr., p. 180) notes ov8eis as "Neubildung" while 
oWeis is good Attic. For history of it see Orthography and Pho- 
netics, 3, (/). The frequent use of 8vo as indeclinable save in the 
plural form 8vai in the later Greek has already been commented 
on in this chapter (i, 3) , as well as the disappearance of a/x0co be- 
fore a/x^orepot. Indeclinable 8vo is classical, and after Aristotle 8v(rl 
is the normal dative (Thackeray, Gr., p. 186). Tpia (possibly also 
rpTs) is occasionally indeclinable in the papyri.'* The common use 
of reaaepa in the kolvt] and the occasional occurrence of reaaapes 
as accusative in N. T. MSS. (like Northwest Greek) have been 
noticed in chapters VI, 2, (a), and VII, i, 7, (c).^ Uhre, e^ and iirra 
need not detain us. The originally dual form oktco is found only 
ten times, and five of them with other numerals. 'Ewea appears 
only five times, while 5k-a is nothing like so common as eTrrd, not 
to mention the first five cardinals. "Eu8eKa is found six times, but 
8co8eKa is quite common, due chiefly to the frequent mention of the 
Apostles. From thirteen to nineteen in the N. T., like the pa- 
pyri ^ and the modern Greek, Ska comes first, usually without Kal, 

1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 211; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 311; Giles, Man., p. 394. 
On numerals in the LXX see Thack., Gr., pp. 186-190; C. and S., Sel. fr. the 
LXX, p. 30 f. 2 Cf. W.-M., p. 312. So dm eh (Rev. 21 : 21). 

3 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 312. Perhaps the earliest ex. of indeclinable eW. 
For the LXX usage cf. W.-Sch., p. 90. 

* Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 315. 

6 lb. Cf. also Dittenb., 674. 28. *' « Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 316. 


as 8eKa oKTio (Lu. 13 :4), though once with Kal (Lu. 13 : 16). But 
unlike the papyri the N. T. never has beKabvo} But SeKairevTe (as 
Jo. 11 : 18) and SeKarkaaapes (as Gal. 2 : 1) occur several times 
each. Ekocri is a dual form, wtiile TpcaKovra and so on are plural.^ 
'EKaTov is one hundred like d-ira^. W. H. accent eKaTOPTaerrjs, not 
-€77/5. Usually no conjunction is used with these numerals, as 
eiKocrt reaaapes (Rev. .19 :4), eKarov e'UoaL (Ac. 1 : 15), but recraapa- 
Kovra Kal e'^ (Jo. 2 : 20). Cf. Rev. 13 : 18. In the LXX there is 
no fixed order for numbers above the ''teens." Thackeray, Gr., 
p. 188. The N. T. uses xiXtot often and 5t(Txt>*>tot once (Mk. 5 : 13) 
and TpLaxi^^LOL once (Ac. 2 : 41). The N. T. examples of p-vpios by 
reason of case do not distinguish between phpioi, 'ten thousand' 
(Mt. 18 : 24) and pvploi, 'many thousands' (1 Cor. 4 : 15). The 
N. T. uses pvpLOL^ several times for the latter idea ('myriads'), some- 
times repeated, as pvpiaSes pvpLabwv (Rev. 5:11). So also xiKias 
is more common in the N. T. than xt>^toi, both appearing chiefly 
in Revelation (cf. 5:11). In Rev. 13 : 18 B and many cursives 
have x^^' = ^^(^'<o(rLOL e^rjKovTa e§, while the cursive 5 has x«' = t^a/c6- 
ffLoi 8eKa e^. As a rule in the N. T. MSS. the numbers are spelled 
out instead of mere signs being used. 

(c) The Ordinals {ovofiara TaKriKo). They describe rank and 
raise the question of order, Toaros.^ They are all adjectives of 
three endings and all have the superlative form -ros save irpo- 
repos and dev-repos which are comparative.^ In most cases the 
ordinals are made from the same stem as the cardinals.^ But 
this is not true of Trpcoros nor indeed of dev-repos (not from 8vo, but 
from 5e6o/xat).^ Cf. the EngHsh superlative 'first' (with suffix -4sto). 
UpCJTos has driven Tporepos out of use in the N. T. except as an 
adverb (or to irpbTepov) save in one instance, irporepau avaaTpo4>r]v 
(Eph. 4:22). The disappearance of irpuros before the ordinal 
use of els belongs to Syntax. In the N. T. as in the papyri^ the 
ordinals up to twelve are regular. From 13 to 19 the N. T., like the 
vernacular papyri^ (so Ionic and kolvt} generally), puts the smaller 

1 Aka bvo is normal in the pap. of the Ptol. age. Cf. Rec, Ac. 19 : 7. Cf . 
Thack., Gr., p. 188. So also Ska rpels, and even Ska yua^ once. Always 
6ka reaaapts, 6ka irivre, dtKa oktw. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 35. 

2 Giles, Man., p. 398. 

3 K.-Bl., I, p. 622. Cf. BruM;., Tro^rro^, CI. Pliilol., 1907, p. 208. 

* These both have a suporl., as Trpcoros and 5tvraTos (Honi.). Brug., Gk. Gr., 
p. 212. 

'' C;ilrs, Man., j). 400. C^f. Brug., Grioch. Gr., p. 212; Moulton, Prol., p. 95 f. 

" Mayser, Gr. d. grioch. Pap., p. 318. 

^ lb. Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 35. 


number first and as a compound with /cat, only the second half of 
the word in the ordinal form. So TeaaapeaKaideKaTos (Ac. 27:27), 
not T€TapTos Kal BeKUTos (Attic). ^ But the papyri show examples 
of the usual Attic method,^ as evaros Kal eUoaTos. The distinction 
between the decades (like TpLaKoaros) and the hundreds (like rpta- 
KoaioaTos) should be noted. In modern Greek all the ordinals 
have disappeared out of the vernacular save Trpajros, devrepos, rpl- 
Tos, Tcrapros.^ The article with the cardinal is used instead. 

(f/) Distributives in the N. T. The multipHcative distrib- 
utives (with ending -ttXoDs) occur in the N. T. also. 'AttXoDs as an 
adjective is found onty twice (Mt. 6 : 22; Lu. 11 : 34), both times 
about the eye. AlttXovs appears four times (as 1 Tim. 5:17). 
Cf. the Latin sim-plex, du-plex, English simple, diplomatic. The 
proportional distributives end in —wXacrioiv. As examples one 
may note iKaTOVTaivXaaiova (Lu. 8 : 8) and TroWaTrXaaiova (Lu. 18 : 
30). Cf. English "two-fold," "three-fold," etc. One of the com- 
monest ways of expressing distribution is by repetition of the 
numeral as in 8vo 8vo (Mk. 6:7). Cf. avinvbaia avpTrbaia (Mk. 6 : 
39 f.). In Lu. 10 : 1 we have ava bho 8vo in the text of W. H., a 
"mixed distributive" (Moulton, ProL, p. 97). The modern Greek 
has either aird dv6 or 8vd 8v6 (Thumb, Handb., p. 83). It is a 
vernacular idiom which was given fresh impetus (Brugmann, 
Distributiva, p. 9) from the Hebrew idiom. Deissmann cites rpla 
Tpla from 0. P. 121 (iii/A.D.). j Moulton {ProL, p. 21) follows 
Thumb (Hellen., p. 152) in denying that it is a Hebraism. See 
further ch. XIV, xv (d). 

(e) Numeral Adverbs. These are of two kinds, either like 
ana (Ac. 24: 26), bixa, 'in two' (not in the N. T., though see Stxaf'^ 
Mt. 10 : 35), or like aira^, 8'ls, rpis, etc. The one kind answers to 
multiplicatives and the other to proportionals.^ The numeral ad- 
verbs continue in use in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 189 f.). The 
modern Greek instead of the numeral adverb uses 4>opd (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 83). 


1. Idea of Pronouns. It is not the idea of a subject or object 
that is set forth by the pronoun, but the relation of a subject or 
object to the speaker.^ Sometimes, to be sure, as in conversation, 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 35. So the LXX also. Thack., Gr., p. 188. 

^ Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 35. And even the use of forms like tv Kal 
elKoarop, Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 318. 

^ Thumb, Handb. d. neugr. Volksspr., p. 56. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., 
p. 175. " Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 36. ^ K.-Bl., I, p. 579. 


the pronoun does not strictly stand in the place of a substantive. 
When one person addresses another, "I" and "thou" are plain 
enough from the nature of the circumstances. The pronoun in- 
dicates, but does not name the speaker, etc. In a sense then 
language is a sort of drama in which there are three characters, 
the speaker, the person addressed and the person spoken of.^ 
Hence the first and second personal pronouns have no gender, 
while the third person, who may or may not be present, has gen- 
der. Giles ^ cites the case of Macaulay who repeated the substan- 
tive so often as almost to make the pronoun useless, though the 
reverse tendency is more common. The right use of pronouns 
is a good index of style. 

2. Antiquity of Pronouns. The personal pronouns are prob- 
ably the oldest part of the Indo-Germanic declension.^ Pronouns 
(and numerals) are the most persistent parts of speech. They are 
essential to the very life of a language.* Strange enough, the 
Coptic and the Hebrew, for instance, are only alike in their pro- 
nouns and their numerals.^ In Greek as in Sanskrit and English 
the pronouns maintain themselves with great tenacity. The pro- 
nouns are also closely akin in all the Indo-Germanic tongues. Cf. 
Sanskrit aham, Greek e7cb(i'), Latin ego, Gothic ik, Anglo-Saxon 
ic, German ich, English /, French je. They retain the case-forms 
better than any other parts of speech. 

3. Pronominal Roots. Indeed pronouns present an indepen- 
dent set of roots parallel to the verbal and nominal roots. As 
verb, noun, adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunctions, inten- 
sive particles grow up around the old verbal (and nominal) roots, 
so pronouns represent a separate history. There are two great 
root-stocks then (verbal or nominal and pronominal).^ The pro- 
nouns can be resolved into monosyllabic roots.'^ One may not fol- 
low Donaldson^ (now obsolete), when he calls all the pronouns 
originally demonstrative, and yet something can be said for that 
idea. In the -Sanskrit Whitney^ calls this "very limited set of 
roots, the so-called pronominal or demonstrative roots." Monro'" 
remarks that noun-stems name or describe while pronouns only 

' Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 32. He accents irpoaunvov (persona) as illustrating 

this dramatic aspect. 

« Giles, Man., p. 238. ^ jb., p. 297. •" lb., p. 13. 

' Renan, Ilist. des Lang. Somit., p. 84 f. 

« Cf. Bopp, Uber den Einfl. der Pron. auf die Wortbild., 1832. 

^ Donaldson, New Crat., p. 241. 

8 lb., p. 245. 9 Sans. Cr., p. 185. 

" Horn. Gr., p. 57; Bopp, Vcrgl. Gr., § 105. 


point out; the one is predicative, the other demonstrative. The 
difference then is fundamental. "Pronouns are found to contain 
the same elements as those which furnish the person-endings of 
verbs." (Monro, ib.) 

4. Classification. Pronouns are either substantive in signifi- 
cation and inflection as eyu, adjective as rjiJ.€Tepos, or adverb as 
ourcos. The other classification is into nine or ten great classes: 
personal, intensive, reflexive, possessive, demonstrative, relative, 
interrogative, indefinite, distributive.^ The correlative pronouns 
can be regarded separately also. These classes will call for spe- 
cial comment in detail See also ch. XV, i. 

(a) The Personal Pronouns. In all the Indo-Germanic 
tongues the personal pronouns vary a good deal in inflection from 
the substantives and adjectives.^ The various Greek dialects 
show great variety in the inflection of the personal pronouns.^ 
The nominative singular has a different stem in the first personal 
pronoun from the other cases in all the Indo-Germanic languages. 
The N. T. follows current and ancient usage fairly well in the 
form of the first and second personal pronouns. The same thing 
is true as to the enclitic and the emphatic forms in the oblique 
cases. The MSS. vary between nov and enov, etc. Not only do 
MSS. give the regular wpos jue, but the papyri* furnish eU ixt, 
irepi fjLov, viro jiov. The question whether cov or coD should be 
read is a very delicate one and rests almost wholly with the 
editor. W. H. have, for instance, k tov d(})da\iJLov aov and h ti2 
6(j)da\iJLcp aov in the same sentence (Mt. 7:4. Cf. also the next 
verse). Nestle here has no such refinement, but aov all through 
these verses. The third personal pronoun gave trouble in 
Greek as in some other languages. In Attic the old ov, ot, e 
(without nominative) was chiefly reflexive,^ though not true of 
the Ionic. Possibly this pronoun was originally reflexive for 
all the persons, but came to be used also as the simple pronoun 
of the third person, whereas in Latin it remained reflexive and 
was restricted to the third person.*' The N. T. is like the kolvtj 

1 K.-Bl., I, p. 579, have only five. 

2 Hirt, Handb., p. 296. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 84, for mod. Gk. 

' Cf. K.-BL, I, pp. 580 £f. See briefer summary in Giles, Man., p. 298 f., 
and Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 244 f. On the multiplicity of roots in the pers. 
pron. see Riem. and Goelzer, Phon6t., p. 336. 

* Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 302 f. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 165. 
6 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 33. He illustrates by the Eng.: "I will lay me 

down and sleep." Cf. vixlv in Mt. 6 : 19 f. 

* Riem. and Goelzer, Phonet., p. 341. 


in the use of avros (common also in Attic) instead of ov as the 
third personal pronoun. It is used in all three genders and 
in all cases save that in the nominative it usually has emphasis 
(cf. Mt. 1 : 21), a matter to be discussed under Syntax. Indeed 
avTos, whatever its etymology, is originally an intensive pro- 
noun (like Latin (pse), not a personal pronoun.^ The "frequent 
and almost inordinate use" (Thayer) of avros in the LXX (cf. 
Jer. 18 : 3 f .) and the N. T. is noticeable. So modern Greek 
(Thumb, Handb., p. 86) 

(b) The Intensive Pronoun. The N. T. has nothing new to 
say as to the form of the intensive avros. It is usually in the 
nominative that it is intensive like avros iibvos (Jo. 6 : 15), though 
not always (cf. Jo. 14 : 11). The modern Greek ^ uses also a 
shorter form rov, etc. (also Pontic arov), as personal pronoun. The 
use of 6 abrb's may be compared with 6 tStos. See ch. XV, iii, yg). 

(c) Reflexive Pronouns. The reflexive form is nothing but 
the personal pronoun plus the intensive ahrbs. The reflexive is 
one use of this intensive in combination with the personal pro- 
noun. They were originally separate words.'' So avrbs 'eyio (Ro. 
7: 25) which is, of course, not reflexive, but intensive. The Greek 
reflexives have no nominative and the English has almost lost 
''himself," "myself" as nominative.^ In the N. T. the first and 
second persons have a distinct reflexive form only in the singular 
{k^xavrov, aeavrov). In 2 Th. 1:4 avrovs rjfxas is obviously inten- 
sive, not reflexive. In 1 Cor. 7 : 35 rnxoiv avraiv it is doubtful.^ See 
ch. XV, IV, for further discussion. The contracted form aavrov 
is not found in the N. T. It is common in the Kingdom books in 
the LXX and occurs in the papyri. See even aarbv in aii /SXeire 
carov airo ruv 'lovbalwv, B.G.U. 1079 (a.D. 41). So as to avrov. 
Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 190. The modern Greek uses rod enavrov 
nov for the reflexive (Thuml), Handb., p. 88). The reflexive for the 
third person^ (usually eavrov in the singular, about twenty times 
avrov, etc., in W. H., as avrbv in Jo. 2: 24), while the only reflexive 
form for all persons in the plural in the N. T. has no secure place 
in the N. T. for the first and second person singular. The pos- 
sil^le reflexive (or demonstrative?) origin of ov made this usage 
natural. It appears in the papyri'' (rd avrov, Pet. I. 15, 15) and the 

> Flcnsborg (dbcr Urspr. und Bild. dos Pron. avrd^, 1893, p. 69) denies that 
it is from av, but rather from ai, ava. Cf. BruR., Griech. Gr., p. 244. 
2 Thumb, Handb., p. 85. ^ q{ ii^rt, Notes on Orth., p. 144. 

" K.-Bl., I, p. 596. 6 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 33. 

* Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 62. ^ Mayscr, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 303 f. 


late inscriptions ^ for the first and second person singular. In the 
modern Greek the same thing is true.^ But in the N. T. only late 
MSS. read d^' eavTov against a-rro aeavrov (NBCL) in Jo. 18 : 34. In 
Gal. 5 : 14 and Ro. 13 : 9 only Syrian uncials have eavrov for 
aeavTOP.^ This use of eavrojv for all three persons is fairly common 
in classical Attic. Indeed the personal pronoun itself was some- 
times so used {8oKu} ixoL, for instance).^ 

(d) Possessive Pronouns {icT-qriKal avToow/xiat). It is some- 
what difficult in the discussion of the pronouns to keep off 
syntactical ground, and this is especially true of the possessive 
adjectives. For the etymology of these adjectives from the cor- 
responding personal pronouns one may consult the compara- 
tive grammars.^ But it is the rarity of these adjectives in the 
N. T. that one notices at once. The third person possessives {6s, 
(T(j)€Tepos) have entirely disappeared. 1,6$ is found in only two of 
Paul's letters: 1 Cor. and Phil., and these only three times. I,ds 
is found about twenty-six times and viikrepos eleven (two doubtful, 
Lu. 16:12; 1 Cor. 16:17). 'T/xerepos appears in Paul only in 
1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Ro. 'H^eT-epos appears only nine times counting 
Lu. 16 : 12, where W. H. have viikrepov in the margin, and Ac. 24 : 6 
which W. H. reject. It is only e^tos that makes any show at all in 
the N. T., occurring some seventy-five times, about half of them 
(41) in the Gospel of John. Thumb *^ and Moulton^ have made a 
good deal of the fact that in Pontus and Cappadocia the use of 
t/x6s, (Tos, etc., is still common, while elsewhere the genitive per- 
sonal pronoun prevails.^ The point is that the Gospel of John 
thus shows Asiatic origin, while Revelation is by another writer. 
But one can easily go astray in such an argument. The Gospel 
of Luke has e^tos three times, but Acts not at all. The large 
amount of dialogue in the Gospel of John perhaps explains 
the frequency of the pronoun there. The possessive e/x6s is 
naturally in the mouth of Jesus (or of John his reporter) more 
than CTos, for Jesus is speaking so much about himself. The 
possessive is more formal and more emphatic in the solemn 

1 Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Insclir., p. 161. ^ Thumb, Handb., p. 88. 

3 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 167. These last two quote Lev. 19 : 18. 
Cf. Simcox, ib.; Dyroff, Gesch. des Pron. Reflex., 2. Abt., pp. 23 ff. (Hefte 9 
und 10 in Schanz's Beitr. etc.). 

* Cf. Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 63; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 167. 

6 Giles, Man., p. 301; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 250; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 307. 

6 Theol. Literaturzeit., 1893, p. 421. 

^ Prol., p. 40 f. He admits that the other possessives do not tell the same 
Btory. ^ Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 89. 


words of Jesus in this Gospel.^ This is probably the explanation 
coupled with the fact that John was doubtless in Asia also when 
he wrote the Gospel and was open to whatever influence in 
that direction was there. The discussion of details will come 
later, as will the common use of the genitive of the personal pro- 
nouns rather than the possessive adjective, ' not to mention the 
article. The reflexive pronoun itself is really possessive when in 
the genitive case. But this as well as the common idiom 6 tSios 
need only be mentioned here. The Boeotian inscriptions show 
fldLos in this sense as early as 150 b.c. (Claflin, Syntax of Boeotian 
Inscriptions, p. 42). The line of distinction between the pronouns 
is thus not always distinct, as when eavrwv {avTOiv) is used in the 
reciprocal sense (Lu. 23 : 12), a usage known to the ancients. 
The necessity in the N. T. of using the genitive of personal pro- 
nouns in the third person after the disappearance of 6s is like 
the Latin, which used ejus, suus being reflexive. Farrar (Greek 
Sijntax, p. 34) recalls the fact that its is modern, his being origi- 
nally neuter also. 

(e) Demonstrative Pronouns (SeiKTiKol avrcovu/jLLai). But 
deictic must have a special limitation, for all pronouns were pos- 
sibly originally deictic (marking an ol^ject by its position). The 
anaphoric (avacfiopLKai) pronouns develop out of the deictic by 
usage. They refer to or repeat. The true relative is a further 
development of the anaphoric, which includes demonstrative in 
the narrower sense. In a strict historical method one should be- 
gin the discussion of pronouns with the demonstratives in the 
larger sense and show how the others developed.^ But here we 
must treat the demonstrative pronouns in the narrower sense 
as distinct from the original deictic or the later relative. The 
demonstrative thus applies both to position and relation. The 
declension of the demonstratives is more akin to that of substan- 
tives than any of the other pronouns.^ "05t'' occurs only ten times 
in the N. T., and eight of these in the form raSe, seven of which 
come in the formula in Rev. rade Xeyet (as Rev. 2 : 1, etc.). The 
others are rdSe (Ac. 21 : 11), rfide (Lu. 10 : 39), rrivSe (Jas. 4 : 13).^ 

1 Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 54. Dr. Abbott (Joh. Gr., p. 295) thinks 
that John's love of contrast leads him to use ujueTs as often as all the Synoptists. 

2 So Iliem. and Goelzcr in their PhonC't., pp. 31G fF. » lb. 

* Gildersleeve (Am. Jour, of Phil., liK)7, p. 'I'AFi) con.siders 65€ the pron. of 
the first person, ovto^ of the second, eKetvos of the third. 

6 Cf., Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 35 f. For the etymology of the dem. pron. 
see Brug., Cik. Gr., p. 242 f. 


The inscriptions and the papyri agree with the N. T. in the great 
rarity of 65e in the later kolvt].^ But in the LXX it is commoner, 
but chiefly here also rdSe Xeja (Thackeray, Gr., p. 191). There 
are also many examples of 6s as a demonstrative, as Ro. 14 : 5 
and also cf. 6, 17, to with 5e, as ol 8e in Mt. 27 : 4. This latter de- 
monstrative construction is very common. Autos is beginning to 
have a semi-demonstrative sense (common in modern Greek) in 
the N. T., as in Lu. 13:1, kp aura) tQ KaipCo. There is little to say 
on the non-syntactical side about kttvos and oCros save that both 
are very common in the N. T., oSros extremely so, perhaps four 
times as often as keTws which is relatively more frequent in John.^ 
Blass^ points out the fact that ovToa-i does not appear in the 
N. T. (nor in the LXX), though the adverb vw-l is fairly common 
in Paul and twice each in Acts and Hebrews. Ovxl is much more 
frequent especially in Luke and Paul. Smith ^ compares k-KeXvos 
(Kelvos in Homer) to Oscan e-tanto. Modern Greek uses both 
forms and also e-roOros and tovtos in the nominative.^ 

Of the correlative demonstratives of quality roTos is not found 
in the N. T. and roLoaSe only once (2 Pet. 1 : 17). Totouros (neuter 
TOLOVTO and -ov) occurs less than sixty times, chiefly in the Gospels 
and Paul's earlier Epistles (Gal. 5 : 21). We find neither rocros 
nor Toaoade and roaovTos (the only correlative demonstrative of 
quantity) is less frequent than tolovtos (cf. Lu. 7:9). The neuter 
is also in -op and -0. Of the correlatives of age t7}\lkovtos alone is 
found four times (cf. Jas. 3:4). See also ch. XV, vi. 

(/) Relative Pronouns (ava^opiKal avrcow/XLai). Homer 
shows the transition of the demonstrative to the relative, using 
five forms (6, 6 re, 6s, 6s re, 6s rts). Attic dropped 6 and 6 re as 
well as 6s re. This use of re with 6 and 6s may be compared with 
the common use of the Latin qui = et is. So the Hebrew mt (' this') 
is sometimes relative. Cf. German der and English that.^ Rela- 
tives in the narrower sense grew naturally out of the anaphoric 
use of the demonstrative. The weakening of 6 to the article and 
the introduction of the longer demonstratives (65e, ouros, tKeiPos) 
left 6s more and more for the true relative use. '0 and 6s have a 

1 See Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 145; Dieterich, Unters., p. 197; Mayser, 
Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 308. 

» Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 171. » lb., p. 35; Thackeray, p. 191. 

< The Ionic Dial., p. 448. 

5 Cf. Thumb, Handb. d. neugr. Volkspr., p. 64. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., 
p. 161. 

6 Cf. Monro, Horn. Gr., pp. 185 ff.; Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35. 


different etymology. Relative 6s = Sanskrit yds. There are thus 
only two pure relatives that survive in the N. T., 6s and bans, 
for oairep and oadrjiroTe are not found save that the Western and 
Syrian classes read ovirep in Mk. 15 : 6. 'OadrjiroTe in Jo. 5 : 4 dis- 
appears with the rejection of that verse. Already the papyri^ 
and the inscriptions^ show the rare occurrence of octtls, confined as 
a rule to the nominative and gradually disappearing in the mod- 
ern Greek before 6 owolos and even tov.^ Compare the vulgar 
"whar" in "the man whar said that." "0<ttls is, of course, merely 
OS plus the indefinite rts in the sense of ' any one ' or again of ' some- 
body in particular. ' Both of these senses occur in the N.T. usage. 
The N. T. follows the papyri and inscriptions in using only the 
nominative of oarts save the neuter accusative 6 tl (Lu. 10 : 35), 
and the genitive in set phrases like ecos otov (Jo. 9 : 18). It is 
used in both the singular and the plural, however, but is other- 
wise nearly indeclinable. "Os ye (Ro. 8 : 32) is, of course, simply 
OS plus the intensive particle ye. "Os itself is many times more 
common in the N. T. than oo-ns and raises no questions save many 
syntactical ones. OIos, ottoTos, oaos, -qXlKos are also relatives of 
quality, quantity and age. OIos is found only fourteen times in 
the N. T., ten of them in Paul's writings (cf. 2 Cor. 10 : 11). 
"Ottoios can count up only five examples, four in Paul if we credit 
to him Ac. 26 : 29. This is a little strange when one recalls how 
common it is in the modern Greek. But the correlatives generally 
are weak in the vernacular'* kolvt]. 'Oiroaos is not in the N. T. 
nor modern Greek, but oo-os (1 Cor. 7 : 39) holds its own. As to 
rjXlKos, it drops to four instances, two of them in the same sentence 
(Jas. 3:5). 

(g) Interrogative Pronouns. Tis (ri) is fairly common in 
the N. T. both in direct (Mt. 21 : 31) and indirect questions (Mt. 
20 : 22) like the papyri usage. Tts, tL in the Thessalian Greek 
is KLs,^ kL. So Sanskrit kds, Latin quis, Gothic hwa, English loho, 
German wer. In Latin and English the relative is formed from 
the same root, but not so in the Greek. In modern Greek, how- 
ever, Tts has vanished before ttoTos (cf. oo-rts before 6 ttoTos),*' ac- 
cented xotos, though Tt (indeclinable) survives strangely enough 
in the sense of "what sort."^ In the N. T. the qualitative cor- 

' Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 310. ^ Nachm., M:ign. Inschr., p. 145. 

« Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 167 f. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 93. 

* Mayser, Gr. d. grioch. Pap., p. 311; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 145. 

" K.-Bl., I, p. 013; Hoffmann, Die gr. Dial., Bd. II, p. 558. 

« Thumb, Handb., p. 94. ^ lb. 


relative xoios is used fairly often as a direct interrogative (cf. Mk. 
11:28) and sometimes as an indirect interrogative (Mt. 24:42). 
XIoraTTos is used a few times in direct (Mt. 8 : 27) and indirect 
also (Lu. 7:39). Uoaos is still used as a direct interrogative 
(Mt. 12 : 12) in quantitative questions and a few times in indi- 
rect questions (Mk, 15:4). IlrjXt/cos occurs only twice (one of 
these doubtful, Gal. 6 : 11, W. H. tiXIkols margin) and both times 
in indirect question (Heb. 7:4). The disappearance of duality 
has taken Torepos entirely away, though irorepov occurs once as an 
adverb in an indirect question (Jo. 7: 17). In the LXX we find 
-wbrepov only once in Job (Thackeray, Gr., p. 192). Modern Greek 
does not use TrrjXlKos, though Toaos survives. 

(h) Indefinite Pronouns. Like the Latin ali-qids (interrog- 
ative quis) the Greek tIs differs from the interrogative rts only in 
accent. It is very common in the N. T. (as Lu. 1:5), but already 
it is giving way to els (Mk. 8: 19), a usage not unknown to the 
older Greek.^ In the N. T. we have els rts together (Mk. 14: 47; 
Lu. 7: 19). Modern Greek has supplanted ris, ri by Kaveis {kHu, 
els) and Ka^ets (cf. Kad' eh in N. T.).^ The negative forms juiyrts 
and ovTLs do not appear in the N. T. save that fxrjTL occurs in 
questions (Mt. 12 : 23) and firj rts with IVa. But ixTjdeis and ovdels 
are very common. The old delua meets us only once (Mt. 26 : 18), 
but hangs on in the modern Greek.^ Oi; ttSs and fxi] was belong 
wholly to Syntax. 

(i) Distributive and Reciprocal Pronouns. These pro- 
nouns have an insecure place in the N. T. with the exception of 
dXXos, aX\r]\o:v, eKaaros and erepos. 'E/cdrepos like irbrepos has van- 
ished, as impljdng duality. It is rare in the LXX (Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 192). "Am0co is gone, but ajjLcjjoTepoL lingers on in some four- 
teen instances (cf. Mt. 9 : 17). 'AW-q'Kcov (composed of aXXos, aX- 
Xos) is naturally only in the oblique cases of the plural, but is 
fairly common (cf. Jo. 4 : 33). It has vanished in the modern 
Greek. "Eicacrros on the other hand appears only in the singular 
except in Ph. 2:4 (probably twice there). It too has disap- 
peared in the modern Greek. "Erepos is beside d/x06repot the only 
surviving dual pronoun, and it goes down in the modern Greek 
along with dAt^orepot.'* It is less common (97 times) in the N. T. 

1 Dieterich, Unters., p. 202; Hatz., Einl., p. 207. 

2 Thumb, Handb., p. 95 f. ^ jb.^ p. gg. 

^ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 179. The pap. (Mayser, Gr. d. gxiech. Pap., 
p. 312) show a few examples of eKarepos, ^irjSerepos, b-Korepos. Once (Prov. 
24 : 21) the LXX has uriOtTepos. 


than aXXos (150), chiefly in Matthew, Luke, Paul, Heb., never in 
Revelation, Peter, and only once in Jo. (19: 37) and Mk. (16: 12) 
and this latter in disputed part. It is usually in the singular 
(73 times, plural 24). The distinction (not always observed in 
the N. T.) between aXXos and erepos belongs to Syntax. The use 
of eh Tov €va as reciprocal (1 Th. 5:11) and of tavTihv (1 Cor. 6: 7) 
along with other uses of dXXos and erepos will receive treatment 
under Syntax. 


1. Neglect of Adverbs. A glance at the average grammar will 
show that the grammarians as a rule have not cared much for the 
adverb, though there are some honorable exceptions. Winer has 
no discussion of the adverb save under Syntax. Still others have 
not understood the adverb. For instance, Green ^ says that once 
in the N. T. "a preposition without change is employed as an 
adverb," viz. uTrep eya; (2 Cor. 11:23). That is a perfunctory 
error which assumes that the preposition is older than the ad- 
verb. It is of a piece with the idea that regards some adverbs 
as "improper" prepositions. Donaldson^ says that, with com- 
pliments to Home Tooke, "the old grammarian was right, who 
said that when we know not what else to call a part of speech, 
we may safely call it an adverb." Certainly it is not easy 
nor practicable always to distinguish sharply between the ad- 
verb and preposition, conjunction, interjections and other 
particles.^ But the great part played by the adverb in the 
history of the Greek language makes it imperative that justice 
shall be done to it. This is essential for the clear understand- 
ing of the prepositions, conjunctions and particles as well as 
the adverb itself. Substantive and verb blend at many points 
and glide easily into each other in English, for instance. At- 
tention has often been called to the use of "but" in English 
as adverb, preposition, conjunction, substantive, adjective and 

1 Handb. to the Gr. of the N. T., p. 138. 

2 Gk. Gr., p. 37. Dolbiiick, Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 535-G43, has the most com- 
plete treatment of the adv. 

' Brug., Gk. Gr., p. 250. In the Sans, the line is still loss clearly drawn 
between the various indeclinable words (Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 403). 

* Giles, Man., p. 237 f. Cf. Schroedor, Ubor die form. Untersch. der Redet., 
p. 35 f.; Dclbriick, Grundr., Bd. Ill, p. .5;5() f. 


2. Formation of the Adverb. The name suggests a mere 
addendum to the verb, an added word (hke the adjective) that is 
not necessary. But in actual fact adverbs come out of the heart 
of the language, expressions fixed by frequent usage. 

(a) Fixed Cases. A large number^ of words retam the case- 
ending in the adverb and often with the same function. Perhaps 
the bulk of the adverbs are either the simple case used directly 
in an adverbial sense or the formation by analogy. It is just be- 
cause adverbs are usually fLxed case-forms or remnants of obsolete 
case-forms that they deserve to be treated under the head of De- 
clensions. They have to be approached from the standpoint of 
the cases to understand their history. Leaving analogy for the 
moment let us see some examples of the cases that are so used. 
The cases most commonly used thus are the ablative, locative, 
instrumental and accusative.^ The dative and genitive are sel- 
dom employed as adverbs. The vocative never occurs in this 
sense, and the nominative (so occasionally in Sanskrit) only in a 
phrase like Kad' eh in the addition to John's Gospel (Jo. 8 : 9), ro Kad' 
eh (Ro. 12 : 5). Cf. ava-txl^. Examples of the various cases as used 
in the N. T. will be given without attempting to be exhaustive. 
The KOLvi] and the modern Greek illustrate the same general ten- 
dencies as to adverbs that we see in the earlier Greek. Here the 
N. T. is in close accord with the papyri as to adverbs in use.^ 

(1) The Accusative. The most obvious illustration of the ac- 
cusative in adverbs is the neuter of adjectives in the positive, 
comparative and superlative (singular and plural). In the com- 
parative the singular is the rule, in the superlative the plural, but 
variations occur.* In the modern Greek accusative plural is more 
common even in the comparative (Thumb, Handh., p. 77). Take 
for the positive avpiov, eWv (s added later), €7711(5), iJ.eya, ixeaov, 
TrXtjaiov, to\v, raxv, (rrjiiepov, dXXd {iiWo.), TroXXd, /laKpav. The com- 
parative may be illustrated by varepov, ^ekriov, and the superlative 
by TrpooTov (and TcpCbTa) and rfhara. Cf. also Ta-xl(TTr]v. Sometimes 
the article is used with the adjective where the adverbial idea is 
encroaching, as to \ol-k6v, to. iroWa, and note also rriv apxw (Jo. 
8:25), substantive with article. But the substantive alone has 
abundant examples also, as 6.Kixi}v, apxw, 5wpeav, wepav, xapLV. 

1 Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 250 ff. 2 jjirt, Handb. etc., pp. 320 ff. 

^ Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 456 ff. 

4 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 251; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 322. In the Sans. 
the ace. also is the case most widely used adverbially (WTiitney, Sans. Gr., 
408). Cf. Delbnick, Grundl., pp. 34 ff. 


SxfSoi' is a specimen of the adverb in -8op, -8a. Cf. also o/iodvfia- 
bov, poL^ribbv. The accusative in adver})s is specially characteristic 
of the Koivrj (cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 459; Schmid, 
Attic, II, pp. 36 ff.). In the modern Greek the accusative for 
the adverbs is almost universal. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 77. 

(2) The Ablative. All adverbs in -cos are probably ablatives. 
KaXws, for instance, is from an original koKccS. The 5 (Sanskrit t) is 
dropped and a final s is added. ^ Cf. old Latin meritod, facilumed.^ 
The outcjos, cos of the Greek correspond exactly with the old Sanskrit 
tad, ydd. The ending in -cos comes by analogy to be exceedingly 
common. Practically any adjective can by -cos make an adverb 
in the positive. Some, like dStaXetTrroos, belong to the later Greek 
(KOLvrj).^ Participles also may yield such adverbs as (^et^o^iei'cos 
(2 Cor. 9:6), 6tio\oyovixho:s (1 Tim. 3:16), 6vtus (Mk. 11 : 32). 
Radermacher (A''. T. Gk., p. 54) cites apKovvTws, TeToXurjKOToos 
(Diod., XVI, 74. 6), etc. The bulk of the adverbs in -cos are from 
adjectives and pronouns. But the examples of -cos are rare in the 
modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 77). 

(3) The Genitive. There are not many adverbs in this case 
outside of those ending in -ov, like avrov, oirov, tov, 6/xoD and -tjs 
(e^rjs). This use survives in modern Greek. Cf. the local use of 
the genitive in 'E^eo-ou (Ac. 19: 26). The common use of rifxepas, 
vvKTos verges toward the adverb.* Cf. also rod XoixoO (Gal. 6 : 17). 
The genitive is almost never used adverbially in Sanskrit.^ 

(4) The Locative. This is a rare use in Sanskrit,^ but more 
frequent in Greek. Instance cKeT, kvkXw, o'Uol, irpwl. So also act, 
irepvaL, etc. Hirf (but not Brugmann) likewise treats examples 
like drjfxoaLa, ioia, Tre^fj, etc., as locative. Certainly irol is locative, 
but it does not appear in the N. T. Cf. also rco ovti (article and 
participle) in adverbial sense (Ro. 7:23). 

(5) The Instrumental. This case lends itself naturally to the 
adverb where the idea of manner (associative) is so common.* In 
the Sanskrit it is very common for adverbs to be in the instrumen- 
tal.^ Such adverbs as a/xa (cf. ablative o/icos from same root), ekr], 
Kpv(})7]{fi), '\a.dpa{a), p.a'Ka, TravT7](ji) , -wavTaxviv)} "^^X^y etc., are doubt- 

1 Giles, Man., p. 240. ^ Hirt, Ilandb. etc., p. 320. 

' Cf . Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 457 f., for further exx. Cf. the Lat. 
adv. (abl.) ram, quomodo etc., Bopp, Vergleich. Gr., § 183. Cf . also Delbriick, 
Grundl., pp. 48 ff. 

* Brug., Griocli. Gr., p. 252. ^ Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 410. « lb. 

^ Handb. etc., p. 321. Drug., Griech. Gr., p. 252 (dat. ace. to Drug.). 

8 Ilirt, Handb., p. 321. » Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 409. 


less instrumental. In some cases l is added to bring it in harmony 
with the locative-dative cases with which it blended.^ Brug- 
mann^ also puts here such words as avw, kLtw, e^w, dj/cortpco, di^w- 
rdrco, ou-ttco. -IIco is by al)laut from -Trr? (so Laconic Trrj-iroKa) . 

(6) The Dative. As in the Sanskrit/ so in the Greek the dative 
is very rare in adverbs. Indeed Hirt* is not far wrong when 
he says that it is not easy to find any dative adverbs distinct 
from the locative, though he accepts irapal, xo^Mot, kt\. as dative 
(p. 260). Brugmann^ thinks otherwise, and one is slow to dis- 
sent from the modern master of comparative grammar. He cites 
TrdXat, xo-fJ-(^h Karat, irapai, kvkKco, awovofj, etc. But Delbriick^ is 
against Brugmann here. Besides the dative in its proper sense is 
a little difficult to fit into an adverb. But we have given enough 
to justify the treatment of adverbs under the declensions.'^ 

(6) Suffixes. Other adverbs are formed by suffixes which 
may be relics of lost case-endings that are no longer clear to us. 
Here only the main suffixes in use in the N. T. will be mentioned. 
For -ciKL-s take iroWaKLs and the numeral adverbs hke rerpd/cts, etc. 
For -axov note wavTaxov. For -8e take oUade. For -8ou take oijlo- 
dvixabbv (Ac. 18:12). For — ?7s we may note e^ai<t)vr]s, e^rjs, k(j)e^rjs. 
Those in -de{v) are numerous, like avwdtv, 'i^wdev, ohpavbdev, TratSto- 
dtv, etc. AvTodc is common in the papyri, but not m the N. T.^ 
The deictic l appears in vvvi and ovxi- An example of -is appears 
in ijloKls (cf. fxoyLs Text. Rec. in Lu. 9:39). For -tL note 'E(3pai- 
OTL, 'FiXK-qvLffTl, AvKaovLari, "Paj/xaiVrt. For — /ca take r]vlKa. For —v 
we have vvv, ttoKlv. For -re we may mention o-re, To-re. Then -s 
is added in the case of 8'ls, rpls and various other words like dxpts, 
eWvs, fxexpi-s, ovtoos, TerpaKLs, x<^p'i-^) etc. 'E/cetcre is an instance of 
—ere. Then -ros appears in eKtos, evros, Finalty -xa is seen in ev- 
wxa. The papyri furnish parallels for practically all these N. T. 
examples (and many more).^ "Aira^ seems to stand by itself. 

(c) Compound Adverbs. Some adverbs are due to the blend- 

1 Hirt, Handb., p. 321 f. 

2 Griech. Gr., p. 252 f. Cf. Delbriick, Grundr., Ill, p. 581 f. 

3 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 410. * Handb., p. 321. 

* Griech. Gr., p. 252. Cf. also p. 229 f., where he acknowledges the other 
point of view as possible. ^ Grundl., p. 60 f. 

^ In Lat. adv. are partly remnants of case-forms and partly built by anal- 
ogy. Draeger, Hist. Synt., p. 109. For Gk. see also Lutz, Die Casus-Adv. 
bei att. Rednern (1891). 

* Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 456. 

9 lb., pp. 455-459. See also Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 253-257. Cf. Donald- 
son, New Crat., pp. 449-501, for discussion of these adv. suffixes. 


ing of several words into one word, perhaps with modification 
by analogy. The kolvt] is rather rich in these compound ad- 
verbs and Paul fairly revels in them. As samples take e/c7raXai 
(2 Pet. 2:3), KarhavTi (2 Cor. 12:19), KaTevco-mov (Eph. 1:4), 
irapavTiKa (2 Cor. 4:17), d7rpoo-a)7roXi7jU7rrcos (1 Pet. 1:17), Trapa- 
XPWo- (Lu. 1:64), vwepavoj (Eph. 4: 10), virep'tKeiva (2 Cor. 10: 16), 
virepeKTrepLcraov (1 Th. 3:10), vwepXiav (2 Cor. 11:5), virepTrepiaaCis 
(Mk. 7:37), etc. The intense emotion in 2 Cor. explains the 
piling-up and doubhng of some of these prepositional phrases. 
Occasionally a verbal clause is blended into one word and an ad- 
verb made by analogy with -cos. So (from vovv ex^) vowexl^'i (Mk. 
12:34), used by Aristotle and Poly bins along with another ad- 
verb Uke vovvtxovTiMs in Isocrates.^ But in Mark it is used without 
any other adverb. 'Tirep^aXKSvTws (2 Cor. 11:23) is made from 
the participle and is common in Attic (Xen., Plato). There are, 
besides, adverbial phrases like cltto /xaKpodev (Mk. 15 : 40) oltt' avw- 
dev, ews Kctrco (Mt. 27: 51), etc. Cf. Con. and Stock, Sel fr. LXX, 
p. 47. See chapter IV, iv, (/), for discussion of the formation of 
compound adverbs which are very common in the kolvt]. Paul 
uses the idiom frequently. For the use of adverbs in the kolvt], 
see Mayser's careful list from the papyri, pp. 455 ff ., and Nach- 
manson, Magn. Inschr., p. 138 f. New adverbs are continually 
made in the later Greek, though many of the older ones survive 
in the modern Greek. Cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 78 ff. He groups 
them under place, time, manner and quantity. 

(fl) Analogy. A word is needed to accent the part played by 
analogy in the formation of adverbs, though it has already been 
alluded to. The two examples mentioned above, povvex(^s and 
virepj3a\\6uTO)s will serve as good illustrations of the work done by 
the principle of analogy. The bulk of the -m adverbs are abla- 
tives made by analogy.^ 

(e) The Comparison of Adverbs. In general the adverb is 
like the adjective save that in the comparative the accusative 
singular is used, like rdxi-ov, and the accusative plural in the super- 
lative, like raxifrra. But, per contra, note irpC>Tov and KaTurepco 
(Mt. 2 : 16), Trepia-o-orepcos (2 Cor. 1: 12), (TTTovdaLOTkpcos (Ph. 2:28), 
eaxdrcos (Mk. 5:23), Troppwrepw (Lu. 24:28. AB -pov). Cf. fur- 
ther ch. XII, III. 

3. Adverbial Stems. The derivation of the adverb deserves 
a further word, though the facts have already been hinted at. 
Brief mention is all that is here called for by way of illustration. 
1 Giles, Man., p. 240. » lb. 


(a) Substantives. As N. T. examples of adverbs from sub- 
stantives may be mentioned apxhv, Scjopeav, x^-pi-v. 

(h) Adjectives. It was and is always possible to make an 
adverb from any Greek adjective by the ablative ending -u>s. Cf. 
both Taxv (accusative) and raxews (ablative). Indeed the line be- 
tween the adjective and adverb was never sharply drawn, as will 
be shown when we come to the study of the syntax of the adjec- 
tive (cf. Enghsh ''looks bad," "feels bad," a different idea from 
the adverb, however). In passing note hovaa (Ro. 8 : 20) and 
SevTepaXoL (Ac. 28 : 13) in strict accordance with the Greek idiom. 
The comparison of adverbs is another link between adverb and 
adjective. In most cases, however, it is merely the use of the 
comparative and superlative forms of the adjective as an adverb. 
But in some cases the comparative and superlative adverb is 
made without any corresponding adjective, done by analogy 
merely. So fxaXXov, /idXio-ra, from ^tdXa, avcorepov from the adverb 
av(a. Cf. also kyyvTepop (Ro. 13 : 11) from €77115, KaroiTepco (Mt. 
2 : 16) from kcltco, and woppccTepov (Lu. 24 : 28) from Toppoj. Com- 
parative adjectives made from positive adverbs are, on the other 
hand, seen in e^cbrepos (Mt. 8 : 12), kaurepos (Heb. 6 : 19), Karoirepos 
(Eph. 4:9). Karcorepco, TreptaaoTepus (Heb. 2:1, often in Paul; 
Gal. 1:14), o-xouSatorepcos (Ph. 2:28), ToXixrjpoTepcos (Ro. 15:15) 
rather than the forms in -repov are due to analogy of the abla- 
tive -COS. Adverbs made from participles can be looked upon as 
adjectival or verbal in origin, since the participle is both verb 
and adjective. 

(c) Numerals. All that is necessary here is to mention such 
words as irpC^Tov, bis, Itttclkls, etc. In Ac. 11 : 26 we have Trpwrcos 
instead of xpcDrov. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 58) cites for -ws 
Clem., Hom. 9, 4; 16, 20; Polyb. vi, 5. 10; Diod., etc. 

(d) Pronouns. The pronominal adverbs are very numerous, 
like ourcos, oxravTcos, etc., avTov, Trore, Tore, w5e, etc. As with the 
correlative pronouns, so the correlative adverbs are lessening. 
Of the indefinite adverbs only tot€, ttov (a few times), and xcos • 
(only in el-Kws, /xr] xcos) appear.^ Forms like ol, 6tol, ttoI have van- 
ished before ov, oirov, wov. Cf. English,^ "where (rather than 
'whither') are you going?" Cf. also the accusative H (Mk. 
10 : 18) = 'why.' 

(e) Verbs. Besides such words as vowexojs (verbal phrase) and 
participles like ovtws, bpiokoyovukvois, <f>ei,8oiJLhcjos, virep^aXKovTois one 
should note 'E^paiaTi (from 'EjSpat^u), 'EWr]VL(7Tl (from 'E\\r]d^cS) , 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 59 f. 2 Green, Handb. to N. T. Gk., p. 137. 


etc. In Jas. 4 : 13; 5:1 a7e is used with the phiral as an adverb, 
if indeed it is not in reahty an interjection. The modern view of 
the imperative forms Hke iiye (cf. vocative 0,76 from ayos) is that 
it is merely the root without suffix.^ In the case of devpo we 
actually have a plural Sedre. Moulton^ illustrates the close con- 
nection between inter jectional adverb and verb by the English 
"Murder!" which could be mere interjection or verbal injunction 
according to circumstances. 

4. Use of Adverbs. This is still another way of looking at the 
subject, but it is a convenience rather than a scientific principle. 
Blass^ in his N. T. Grammar follows this method solely. 

(a) Adverbs of Manner. These are very numerous indeed, 
like TTvev/mTLKCjs, airovdaMS, etc. 'E(Txarws ex^L (Mk. 5:23) is not 
like the English idiom. The phrase really means that she has it 
in the last stages. Cf. /Sapecos exovaa (Pap. Brit. M., 42). ES, so 
common in Attic, has nearly gone in the N. T. (only in Mk. 14 : 7; 
Mt. 25 : 21, 23; Ac. 15 : 29; Eph. 6 : 3 quot.). ESts occurs also in 
Lu. 19 : 17 (W. H. text, margin ev). KaXws is common. BeXrLov ap- 
pears once (2 Tim. 1 : 18) and Kpdaaov often (1 Cor. 7: 38). The 
comparative adverb Snr'KoTepov (Mt. 23 : 15) is irregular in form 
(airXowTepov) and late.^ 

(6) Adverbs of Place. These answer the questions "where" 
and "whence." "Whither" is no longer a distinct idea in N. T. 
Greek nor the kolvt] generally. Even in ancient Greek the distinc- 
tion was not always maintained.^ Blass'' carefully illustrates how 
"here" and "hither" are both expressed by such words as kvdade 
(Ac. 16 : 28; Jo. 4 : 16), oddly enough never by evravda, though 
Side (especially in the Gospels) is the common word (Lu. 9 : 33, 
41). But ket is very common in the sense of 'there' and 'thither' 
(here again chiefly in the Gospels) as in Mt. 2 : 15, 22. 'EKelae 
('thither') is found only twice, and both times in Acts (21 : 3; 22 : 
5), which has a literary element. So ov in both senses (Lu. 4 : 16; 
10 : 1) and oirov (very common in John's Gospel, 14 : 3 f.). The 
interrogative ttou (Jo. 1:39; 3:8) follows suit. The indefinite 
irov is too little used to count (Heb. 2 : 6) and once without local 
idea, rather 'about' (Ro. 4 : 19). 'AXXaxoO occurs once (Mk. 1: 
38), but wavraxov several times (Lu. 9 : 6, etc.). 'Onov is found 
four times only (Jo. 4 : 36, etc.), and once D adds ofxoae (Ac. 20 : 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 17L 

'^ lb., p. 171 f. But adv. from verbs arc "late and always rare," Giles, 
Man., p. 342. 

5 Gr. of N. T. Gr., pp. 5S ff. " lb. ' lb. « lb. 


18). UavTaxviv) likewise is read once (Ac. 21:28), Syrian class 
-oO. In Ac. 24 : 3 TravTrjiri) is contrasted with iravraxov. Other 
adverbs of place in the N. T. are avco, €pt6s, kros, ecroo, e^oo, kLtw. 
A number of adverbs answer to the question "whence." They 
are usually words in -dev. 'AWaxodev (Jo. 10 : 1) is found only 
once in the N. T. "kvwdev (Mk. 15 : 38) is more frequent, though 
never Karcodev. The only pronominal forms that appear in the 
N. T. are eKetdev (Rev. 22 : 2, rather common in Matthew), evdev 
(Mt. 17 : 20), euT.vdev (twice in Jo. 19 : 18, and in contrast with 
eKeWep Rev. 22:2), TavroOev (Mk. 1:45), odev (Mt. 12:44), wodeu 
(Mt. 21:25). The last two are fairly frequent. Blass^ notes 
how "stereotyped and meaningless" the ending -dev has become 
in many examples, especially with enrpoadev (common in Matthew 
and Luke) and oirMdev (rare). See both in Rev. 4:6. In some 
cases by a little effort the real force of -Oev may be seen, but the 
old Greek soon allowed it to become dim in these words. In the 
case of laoidev and ^i^}^ev Blass^ insists on the force of -dev only in 
Mk. 7: 18, 21, 23; Lu. 11:7. Cf. also KVK\6dev (Rev. 4:8). The 
addition of avb occasionally may be due either to the weakened 
sense of -dev or to a fuller expansion of its true idea. So air' avco- 
dev twice (Mt. 27:51, so W. H. against ^VL Hvicdev, Mk. 15:38), 
(ZTTo jiaKpodev (Mk. 5:6; 15:40, etc.), U TatdLodev (Mk. 9:21). 
Blass^ observes that both naKpoOev and TvaLbibdev are late words and 
that late writers are fond of using prepositions with -dev as Ho- 
mer had oltt' oi'pavodev. But Luke used only oi'pavodev in Ac. 14 : 17. 

(c) Adverbs of Time. The list is not very great, and yet ap- 
preciable. 'Aet (Ac. 7:51) is not in the Gospels at all and is 
largely supplanted by iraPTore (Jo. 6 : 34) hke the kolvt] and modern 
Greek. 'Hi'I/ca is read twice only (2 Cor. 3 : 15 f.). "ETretra (1 Cor. 
12 : 28) and etra (Mk. 4 : 17) are about equally frequent. "Ore 
(Mt. 9:25) and orav (Mt. 9:15) are both used freely. 'OwdTe 
appears only in the Syrian class in Lu. 6 : 3 against the neutral 
and Western ore (so W. H.). Uore (Mt. 17:17) and vrore (Lu. 
22:32) are both far less common than ore and orav. But rore 
and ttoXlv amply atone for this scarcity. All the numeral ad- 
verbs (ciTra^, irpuiTov, his, ewTciKLs etc.) belong here also. 

5. Scope of Adverbs. Here again we are retracing ground and 
crossing our steps, but a brief word will be useful to show how 
from adverbs grew other parts of speech. The fact has been 
stated before. What is here called for is some of the proof and 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 59. 2 lb. ^ Jb. 


(a) Relation between Adverbs and Prepositions. When 
we come to study prepositions (ch. XIII) a fuller discussion 
of this matter will be given. Here the principle will be stated. 
"The preposition therefore is only an adverb specialized to define \j 
a case-usage." ^ That puts the matter in a nutshell. Many of the 
older grammars have the matter backwards. The use of prepo- 
sitions with verbs is not the original one. In Homer they are 
scattered about at will. So with substantives. "Anastrophe is 
therefore no exception, but the original type"^ like tLvos eVera 
(Ac. 19: 32), To quote Giles^ again, "between adverbs and prep- 
ositions no distinct line can be drawn." As samples of cases in 
prepositions take vap-bs (gen.), Tvap-al (dat.), irep-l (loc), irap-a 
(instr.). It is unscientific to speak of adverbs which "may be 
used like prepositions to govern nouns "^ and then term them 
"preposition adverbs" or "spurious prepositions." Preposi- 
tions do not "govern" cases, but more clearly define them. 
When adverbs do this, they are just as really prepositions as any 
others. These will be treated therefore in connection with the 
other prepositions. They are words like ai^a, avev, e^w, ottIo-co, etc. 

(6) Adverbs and Conjunctions. These are usually of pro- 
nominal origin like o-re (ace. plus re), ov (gen.), ws (abl), dXXa 
(ace plural), X-va (instr.), etc. Some conjunctions are so early 
as to elude analysis, like de, re, etc.^ But in most cases the 
history can be traced. Blass {Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 60) re- 
marks on the poverty of the N, T, Greek in particles, a pov- 
erty as early as the 'ASr/ratcov XloXtreta of Aristotle, which is 
much barer than the N. T, These conjunctions and other par- 
ticles in the N. T, are cited by Blass: dXXd, apia, apa, apaye, apa, apa 
ye, axpt(s), yap, ye, be. Si], br}irov, ho, bioirep, eav, eavirep, el, elirep, elra, 
elre, kirav, eirei, eireLdr], eireib-qTvep, eTreiirep (only as variation in Ro. 
3: 30), eweLTa, eo)s, t), rj or el nrju, tjSt?, riuLKa (r/Trep only variation in 
Jo, 12:43), 7/rot, tra, Ka9a, Kaddirep, Kado, KadoTi, Kaddct, Kai, Kalirep, 
KalTOiiye), p.'ev, iievovvye, /levTOL, p.'exp'-i'i) ov (p-expi-b] variation for), nrj, 
Uribe, fxrjTe, ixt^tl, val, vr],'6pws, bivore, ottojs, orav, ore, otl, ov, ovx'h ov8e, 
ovKovp, ovv, ome, irep with other words, ttXtji^, wplp, re, roi (in Kairoi, 
jikvTOi, etc.), TOL-^ap-ovv, Toivvv, COS, uaav, ucrel, ooawep, oiairepei, (hare. 
Several of these occur only once {drjirov, eireLb-qirep, vi], oiroTe, ov- 

^ Giles, Man., p. 341. Cf. also Krebs, Die Priipositionsadverbion in der 
spiitcron hist. Griic, Tl. I, 1884. 

2 Giles, ib. On "Nouns used as Prep." see Donaldson, New Crat., pp. 
478 ff. " lb. 

* Green, Handb., etc., p. 138. ^ Giles, Man., p. 343. 


Kovf). But Blass has not given a complete list. Cf. also 8l6tl, 
oQev, ov, OTTOL, TTore, etc. Fifteen other Attic particles are absent 
from this N. T. list. The matter will come up again in ch. XXI. 

(c) Adverbs and Intensive Particles. Hep is an older form 
of Trep-t. Usually, however, as with ye, the origin is obscure. 
Others used in the N. T. are 8r], drjirov, n'ev, roi (with other par- 
ticles). Seech. XXL 

(d) Adverbs and Interjections. Interjections are often 
merely adverbs used in exclamation. So with aye, Sevpo, Sevre, ea, 
ISe, Iboh, ova, oval, co. Interjections may be mere sounds, but they 
are chiefly words with real meaning, "kye and Ibe are both verb- 
stems and Ibov is kin to Ue. The origin of the adverbs here used 
as interjections is not always clear. Oi^at as in Mt. 1 : 21 (common 
in the LXX, N. T. and Epictetus) has the look of a dative, but one 
hesitates. As a substantive 17 oval is probably due to B\l\l/i.s or 
TaXatTTOjpta (Thayer). Cf. chapters XII, v, and XVI, v, (e), for use 
of article with adverb, as ro vvv. For the adverb like adjective, 
as 17 ovTws xipo. (1 Tim. 5:5), see ch. XII, vi. In Lu. 12:49 tI 
may be an exclamatory adverb (accusative case), but that is not 
certain. Aevpo sometimes is almost a verb (Mk. 10 : 21). The rela- 
tive adverb cos is used as an exclamation in cos copatot (Ro. 10: 15) 
and cos ave^epevvrjra (Ro. 11 : 33). The interrogative ttcos is like- 
wise so employed, as ttcos 8vaKo\6p ean (Mk. 10: 24), ttcos avvexofxai 
(Lu. 12: 50), TTCOS e0iXei avrop (Jo. 11 : 36). Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. 
Gk., p. 258. Thus we see many sorts of adverbs and many ways 
of making them. 


I. Difficulty of the Subject. The discussion of the verb gives 
greater difficulty than that of the noun for two reasons especially. 
For one thing the declension (/cXto-ts) of nouns is more stable than 
the conjugation (av^vyla) of the verb. This difficulty applies to 
both the forms and the syntax of the verb.^ There is besides spe- 
cial difficulty in the Greek verb due to the ease and number of new 
verbal formations. ^ Sanskrit and Greek can be compared with 
more ease than Greek and Latin. Giles ^ indeed calls the Latin 
verb-system "only a mutilated fragment" of the original parent 
stock, so that "a curious medley of forms" is the result, while in 
the syntax of the verb no two Indo-Germanic languages are fur- 
ther apart than Greek and Latin. Both noun and verb have 
suffered greatly in the ravages of time in inflection. It is in de- 
clension (cases) and conjugation (personal endings) that noun and 
verb mainly differ."* "These suffixes [used for the present tense], 
however, are exactly parallel to the suffixes in the substantive, 
and in many instances can be identified with them."^ 

II. Nature of the Verb. 

(a) Verb and Noun. In itself verhum is merely 'word,' any 
word, and so includes noun also. As a matter of fact that was 
probably true originally. In isolating languages only position and 
the context can determine a verb from a noun, and that is often 
true in English to-day. But in inflected tongues the case-endings 
and the personal endings mark off noun and verb. But in simple 
truth we do not know which is actually older, noun or verb; both 
probably grew up together from the same or similar roots.^ 
Schoemann,'' however, is much more positive that "the first word 

» Giles, Man., p. 403 f. « Hirt, Handb., p. 332. » Man., p. 404. 

* Steinthul, Zcitschr. fiir Volkerpsych. etc., p. 351. Cf. Schleicher, Unter- 
Bchcidung von Nomen und Verbum etc., 4. Bd. der Abh. d. phil. etc., 1865, 
p. 509. ^ Giles, Man., p. 424. 

8 Schroeder, tlber die form. Untersch. d. Rcdet. im Griech. und Lat., 1874, 
pp. 10 ff. ' Die Lehre von den Redet. etc., 1864, p. 31. 



which man spoke was essentially much more a verb than a noun." 
But, whether the verb is the first word or not, it is undoubtedly 
the main one and often in the inflected tongue forms a sentence in 
itself, since the stem expresses the predicate and the ending the 
subject.^ It is worth noting also that by the verb-root and the 
pronominal root (personal endings) the verb unites the two ulti- 
mate parts of speech. The verl) and noun suffixes, as already 
said, are often identical (Giles, Manual, etc., p. 424). In all 
sentences the verb is the main part of speech (the word par 
excellence) save in the copula (eo-rt) where the predicate is com- 
pleted by substantive or adjective or adverb (another link be- 
tween verb and noun). "A noun is a word that designates and 
a verb a word that asserts" (Whitney, Aw. Jour, of Philol., xiii, 
p. 275). A man who does not see that " has no real bottom to his 
grammatical science." 

(b) Me.\ning of the Verb. Scholars have found much diffi- 
culty in defining the verb as distinct from the noun. Indeed there 
is no inherent difference between nouns and verbs as to action, 
since both may express that.- The chief difference lies in the idea 
of affirmation. The verb affirms, a thing not done by a noun ex- 
cept by suggested predication. Verbs indicate affirmation by the 
personal endings. Affirmation includes negative assertions also.^ 
Farrar^ cites also the German "abstract conception of existence" 
(Humboldt) and action (Tdtigkeitswort) , but they do not fit the 
facts. Curiously enough many ancient grammarians found time 
to be the main idea in the verb. 

(c) Pure and Hybrid Verbs. The close kinship between 
nouns and verbs appears in the verbal nouns which partake of 
both. The infinitive is a verbal substantive, and the participle is 
a verbal adjective. There is also the verbal in -tos and -reos. 
Some of the properties of both verb and noun belong to each. 
They are thus hybrids. Thej' are generally called non-finite 

^ Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 1. In the Sans, it is to be noted that the noun had 
an earher and a more rapid development than the verb. The case-endings 
appear first in the Sans., the verb-conjugation in the Gk., though the personal 
endings are more distinct in the Sans. '^ Cf. Garnett, Philol. Ess. 

3 Cf. Gr. Gen. of Port Royal; Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 38. 

* lb. He considers the verb later than the noun because of its complex 
idea. Cf. Schramm, tjber die Bedeutung der Formen des Verbums (1884); 
Curtius, Die Bildung der Tempora und Modi im Griech. und Lat. (1846); 
Junius, Evolution of the Greek Verb from Primary Elements (1843) ; Lauten- 
sach, Verbalflexion der att. Inschr. (1887); Hogue, Irregular Verbs of Attic 
Prose (1889). 


verbs, because they do not make affirmation. They have no per- 
sonal endings. They fall short of being mere verbs, but they are 
more than the noun. The pure verb has personal endings and is 
thus finite (limited). The two must be kept distinct in mind, 
though they run together sometimes in treatment. The finite 
verb has person and number expressed in the personal ending.^ 
The verhum finitum has modes while the verbum infinitum (in- 
finitive and participle) has no modes. 

III. The Building of the Verb. This is not the place for a full 
presentation of the phenomena concerning verb-structure. The' 
essential facts as to paradigms must be assumed. But attention 
can be called to the fact that the Greek verb is built up by means 
of suffixes and affixes around the verb-root. So it was originally, 
and a number of such examples survive. Afterwards analogy, of 
course, played the main part. The oldest verbs are those which 
have the simple root without a thematic vowel like 0rj-/xt or e-pr]-v. 
This root is the ground floor, so to speak, of the Greek verb. On 
this root the aorist and present-tense systems were built by merely 
adding the personal endings. This was the simplest form of the 
verb. There is no essential difference in form between e-^ij-j^ and 
'i-arrj-v. We call one imperfect indicative and the other second 
aorist indicative, but they are originally the same form.^ The 
term second aorist is itself a misnomer, for it is older than 
the so-called first aorist -<ra or -a. The thematic stem (vowel 
added to root) is seen in verbs like -Xt7r-o/e. On this model the 
rest of the verb is built. So all Greek root-verbs are either non- 
thematic or thematic. The denominative verbs like tl/jlcl-o) are 
all thematic. On roots or stems then all the verbs (simple or 
compound) are built. The modes, the voices, the tenses all con- 
tribute their special part to the whole. The personal endings 
have to carry a heavy burden. They express not only person 
and number, but also voice. There are mode-signs and tense-suf- 
fixes, but no separate voice suffixes apart from the personal 
endings. The personal pronouns thus used with the verb-root 
antedate the mode and tense suffixes. The Sanskrit preserves 
the person-endings more clearly than the Greek, though the Greek 
has a more fully developed system of modes and tenses than 
the later classical Sanskrit.^ It seems certain that these pro- 

* Cf. Bru^., r.niiulr., Bil. II, pp. 2, 837. On differciu'c bctwocn finite and 
non-finite vcrh.s wee Curtius, Diis Vcrbinn d. f^riecli. Spr., p. 1 f. 
2 Hirt, Ilundb., p. 3(j:i f. Cf. also Giles, Man., pp. 425 ff. 
^ Donaldson, New Crat., pp. 570 IT. 


nominal suffixes, like -jut, -ai, -n, are not in the nominative, but 
an oblique case^ connected with the stem: ne, o-e, tl (cf. demon- 
strative to). But the subject of personal endings is a very exten- 
sive and obscure one, for treatment of which see the comparative 
grammars.^ There is a constant tendency to syncretism in 
the use of these personal endings. Homer has fewer than the 
Sanskrit, but more than Plato. The dual is gone in the N. T. 
and other endings drop away gradually. The nominative pro- 
noun has to be expressed more and more, hke modern English. 

IV. The Survival of -ijll Verbs. 

(a) A Cross Division. Before we take up modes, voices, 
tenses, we are confronted with a double method of inflection that 
cuts across the modes, voices and tenses. One is called the -fxi 
inflection from the immediate attachment of the personal endings 
to the stem. The other is the -co inflection and has the the- 
matic vowel added to the stem. But the difference of inflection 
is not general throughout any verb, only in the second aorist and 
the present-tense systems (and a few second perfects), and even so 
the -Mt conjugation is confined to four very common verbs {tr]fXL, 
'i(TTr]iJ.L, di8o:fxi, ridrj/jLi.), except that a number have it either in the 
present system, like delK-vv-nL (with w inserted here), or the aorist, 
like e-^r}-v.^ The dialects differed much in the use of non-thematic 
and thematic verbs (cf. Buck, "The Interrelations of the Greek 
Dialects," Classical Philology, July, 1907, p. 724). 

(6) The Oldest Verbs. This is now a commonplace in Greek 
grammar. It is probable that originally all verbs were -mi verbs. 
This inflection is preserved in optative forms like Xuot/it, and in 
Homer the subjunctive* WeKufxi, Uc^fXL, etc. The simplest roots 
with the most elementary ideas have the -fxi, form.^ Hence the 
conclusion is obvious that the -^t conjugation that survives in 
some verbs in the second aorist and present systems (one or 
both) is the original. It was in the beginning \ey-o-ixL with the- 
matic as well as (jbij-jut with non-thematic verbs.^ 

(c) Gradual Disappearance. In Latin the -/jll ending is 
seen only in inquam and sum, though Latin has many athematic 
stems. In English we see it in am. Even in Homer the -/xi 

1 Donaldson, New Crat., pp. 570 ff. Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 39. 

2 Cf. Hirt, Handb., pp. 355 ff.; Giles, Man., pp. 413 ff. 

3 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 232 f. 

* Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 51. * Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 46. 

« Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 2. Cf. Clyde, Gk. Synt., 5th ed., 1876, p. 54; Riem. 
and Goelzer, Phonct., pp. 347 ff. 


forms are vanishing before the -co conjugation. Jannaris (Hist. 
Gk. Gr., p. 234) has an excellent brief sketch of the gradual 
vanishing of the -jui forms which flourished chiefly in pre-Attic 
Greek. The LXX MSS. show the same tendency towards the 
disappearance of -/jll forms so noticeable in the N. T., the 
papyri and other representatives of the kolvt]. See numerous 
parallel illustrations in Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 104-110. In 
the LXX the transition to -co verbs is less advanced than in the 
N. T. (Thackeray, Gr., p. 244) and the middle -/il forms held on 
longest. In the koiptj this process kept on till in modern Greek 
vernacular et/iat is the only remnant left. In the Attic SeUvvfii, 
for instance, is side by side with SeiKvvw. In the N. T. we find 
such forms as 5t5co (Rev. 3:9), icrrco (Ro. 3:31, EKL), avvLaroo (2 
Cor. 3 : 1, BD). 

(d) N. T. Usage as to -^it Verbs. The -/xt verbs in the 
N. T. as in the papyri are badly broken, but still in use. 

1. The Second Aorists (active and middle). We take first the 
so-called second aorists (athematic) because they come first save 
where the present is practically identical. In some verbs only 
the second aorist is athematic, the stem of the verb having dropped 
the -jut inflection. A new view^ makes the second aorist some- 
times "a reduced root," but this does not show that in the parent 
stock the old aorist was not the mere root. Analogy worked here 
as elsewhere. Kaegi^ properly calls the old aorists of verbs like 
/SctXXco (c-jSXtj-to instead of the thematic and later e-jSaX-e-ro) "prim- 
itive aorists." In the early Epic the root-aorists and strong 
thematic aorists outnumber the o- or weak aorists by three to one.^ 
The important N. T. -/it verbs will now be considered. 

BaCvo). Only in composition in N. T. (ava-, irpoa-ava-, aw- 
ava-, CLTTO-, 6ta-, e/c-, ejLt-, Kara-, nera-, irapa-, irpo-, avjx-). In the 
LXX it is rare in simplex. The papyri use it freely with nine 
prepositions.^ Note the common forms like ave^r] (Mt. 5:1). The 
"contract" forms are in the imperative as in the Attic poets 
(ela^a, Kara^a).^ Mayser^ gives no examples from the papyri, nor 
does the LXX have any (LXX only ava^rjOL, Kara^-ndL, -^-nre, -/Sijrco, 
-^r}TW(Tav) .'' So avafia (Rev. 4:1), dm/Sare (Rev. 11 : 12), Kara^a. 
(Syrian class in Mk. 15 : 30), KaraiSdrco (Mt. 24 : 17; 27 : 42. Cf. 

* Cf. King and Cookson, Prin. of Sound and Inflexion, ISSS, pp. 225 ff. 
2 Gk. Gr., 1893, p. 245. 

=> Thompson, Horn. Gr., 1890, p. 127. » Hlasa, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 50. 

* Maysor, Gr. d. sriech. Pap., p. 389. * Gr. tl. gricch. Pap., p. 3C4 f. 
' W.-Sch., p. 115. Cf. Veitch, Gk. Verb, p. 110. 


also Mk. 13 : 15; 15 : 32; Lu. 17 : 31), ^xeTa(3a (Mt. 17 : 20). On 
the other hand note the usual Kara^-qdc (Mt. 27 : 40, etc.), (jLera- 
/3rj0t (Jo. 7:3), irpoaavaQrjdL (Lu. 14 : 10). The forms in -arw, -are, 
-cLTooaav are like the Doric. 

rivwcrKo). This verb in the Ionic and kolvti jlv. form is very 
common in John's Gospel and the First Epistle. It is used in com- 
position with dm-, 5ta-, ewt,-, Kara-, Trpo-, the papyri adding still 
other compounds.^ The N. T. shows the usual second aorist forms 
like eyvcov (Lu. 16 : 4). What calls for remark is the second aorist 
subjunctive yvol instead of yvQ. W. F. Moulton's view^ on this 
point is confirmed by the papyri^ parallel in d7ro5ot and accepted 
by W. H. and Nestle. Analogy seems to have worked here to 
make yvol like 8oX. But Winer-Schmiedel (p. 115) cite yvol from 
Hermas, Mand. IV, 1, 5 N. It is in accordance with the contrac- 
tion of -00) verbs when wc find forms like 71^01, do2, etc., brj — oi in- 
stead of bri = Q. For 71^01 see Mk. 5:43; 9:30; Lu. 19: 15. But 
see also 71^05 in Jo. 7 : 51; 11 : 57 (D has 7^1); 14 : 31; Ac. 22 : 24 
(ert-). But the MSS. vary in each passage. In the LXX the 
regular yvQi occurs save in Judith 14 : 5, where B has kinyvot. 

Ai8(i>|JLL. This very common verb is frequently compounded 
{ava—, avT—, airo-, 5ta— , eK—, kwi—, fxera—, irapa—, Trpo-) as in the 
papyri.^ The old indicative active appears only in TrapkSoaav in 
the literary preface to Luke's Gospel (1 : 2).^ Elsewhere the first 
aorist forms in -Ka (like rjKa, Wr]Ka) sweep the field for both singu- 
lar and plural. These k forms for the plural appear in the Attic 
inscriptions in the fourth century b.c.^ and rapidly grow. In the 
papyri Mayser'' finds only the k aorists. The other modes go 
regularly 56s, 8oj, etc. The indicative middle occasionally, as 
the imperfect, has e for o of the root. This is possibly due to 
proportional analogy {e^kSeTo : e^e86i.i.r]v — eKvero : kXvo/xrjp) .^ These 
forms are aTedero (Heb. 12 : 16), k^kdero (Mk. 12 : 1; Mt. 21 : 33; 
Lu. 20 : 9). The usual form aireSoaOe, etc., appears in Ac. 5 : 8; 
7 : 9. The subjunctive active third singular shows great varia- 
tion between dol, 5c3 (cf. yvol above), and durj (especially in 
Paul's Epistles).^ The LXX MSS. occasionally give -80I and 

1 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 391. 2 w.-M., p. 360 note. 

5 Moulton, Prol., p. 55. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 137, 325, 
for oTTcos So2. Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, pp. 37, 436. 

* Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 392, " Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 188 f. 

B Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 49. ^ Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 367 f. 

8 So W.-H., Notes on Orth., p. 167 f. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 121. For pap. exx. 
see Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 37. » Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 49. 


even -6fj by assimilation (Thackeray, Gr., p. 255 f.). For papyri 
examples see references under 'ylvcjcko:. Mark four times (all the 
examples) has wapaBol according to the best MSS. (4 : 29; 8 : 37; 

14 : 10 f.) and John one out of three (13 : 2). Tisch. (not W. H.) 
reads dToSoT in 1 Th. 5 : 15, but all MSS. have d7ro5c3 in Mt 
18 : 30. W. H. accept 5c3 in Jo. 15 : 16; Eph. 3 : 16; 1 Th. 5 

15 (dTTo-). Most MSS. read 8oon in Eph. 1 : 17 and 2 Tun. 2 
25, in both of which places W. H, put dcorj (opt. for 5oIr?) in 
the text and Scot? in the margin. The opt. 8ccr; appears in the 
LXX (Jer. 9 : 2) in the text of Swete. Con. and Stock, Sel. from 
LXX, p. 45, give dco-q twenty-nine times in LXX and dolrj three 
times as variant. They give an interesting list of other forms of 
8l8o:iJLL and its compounds in the LXX. Hort^ is doubtful about 
such a subjunctive in ddori except in the epic poets. Blass^ is 
willing to take dcorj, and Moulton^ cites Boeotian and Delphian 
inscriptions which preserve this Homeric form. He adds that the 
subjunctive seems "a syntactical necessity" in Eph. 1 : 17 and 

2 Tim. 2 : 25. The opt. 8cc7] = 8o'lt] (cf. subjunctive 86ri = 8ui) is with- 
out variant in 2 Th. 3 : 16; 2 Tim. 1 : 16, 18." Blass^ scouts 
the idea of a possible first aorist active eScoo-a from tua 8uari 
(Jo. 17 : 2 N'^AC), 8ooawiJL€v (Mk. 6 : 37, ND), on the ground that rj 
and et, and co so often blend in sound in the kolvt]. The so-called 
future subjunctive will be discussed later (ch. XIX). 

"Itijii. Not in simplex in N. T. (see p. 314 for details), but 
d0tT7/xt is quite common (especially in the Gospels), and awlrjiJLL 
less so. Besides a few examples occur also of aviriiJLL, Kadlrjiii, 
wapiritxL. The papyri^ use the various prepositions freely in com- 
position with trjiJiL. The common /xi second aorists, hke acfies (Mt. 

3 : 15), d(/)fj (Mk. 12 : 19), apevres (Ac. 27:40), are found. In the 
indicative active, however, the form in -Ka is used alone in both 
singular and plural, as a(i>r]Kajx€v (Mt. 19 : 27), d0i7KaTe (Mt. 23 : 
23), acjifJKav (Mk. 11 :6). This is true of all the compounds of 
I'rjMt in the N. T. as in LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 252). The 
form d0r)/c€s (Rev. 2 : 4) is on a par with the second person sin- 
gular perfect active indicative as accepted by W. H. in KeKoirlaKes 
(Rev. 2 :3), ireTruKes (Rev. 2:5), etXTj^es (Rev. 11 : 17).^ 'A<f)riKaneu 
is aorist in Mk. 10 : 28 as well as in its parallel Mt. 19 : 27 

- 1 Notes on Orth., p. 168. Cf. also W.-Sch., j). 121. 
2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 48 f. => Prol., p. 55. Cf. Dittcnb., Syll., 462. 17, etc. 
* Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 168. ^ Qr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 49, 212. 

8 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 398. 
^ Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 166. The evidence is "nowhere free from 


(cf. Lu. 18 : 28). So also as to avvrjKaTe in Mt. 13 : 51. The per- 
fect in -eT/ca does not, however, occur in the N. T. nor in the LXX 
(cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 51), though the papyri have it 
(Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 331). 

"lo-T-nfii. This verb is used freely by itself, especially in the 
Gospels, and occurs in twenty prepositional combinations ac- 
cording to Thayer {av-, kw-av-, k^-av-, avd-, d0-, 5t-, kv-, e^, ctt-, 
I0-, Kar-icf)-, avv-ecf)-, Kad-, avn-Kad-, aTO-Kad~, fxed-, Tap-, irepL-, irpo-, 
<xvv-), going quite beyond the papyri in richness of expression.^ The 
second aorist active indicative eaTrj (cnreaTr], etc.) is common and is 
intransitive as in Attic, just like karadr] (cf . Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., 
p. 50). The other forms are regular (o-rco, ar^dL, etc.) save that 
avaara (like ava^a) is read in a few places (Ac. 9 : 11; 12 : 7; Eph. 
5 : 14), but ffTijOi, ava<TTr]dL (Ac. 9 : 6, 34), eiriaT-qdL, (TTijre, avTlarrjTe, 
airdaT-qre, aroaTrjToo.^ Winer ^ cites axoaTa, irapaara also from late 
writers and a few earlier authors for avaara. The LXX shows a 
few examples also.^ 

'OvivTiiJLi. This classic word (not given in the papyri, according 
to Mayser's Gramniatik) is found only once in the N. T., the sec- 
ond aorist opt. middle 6vaip.y}v (Phil. 20). 

Tl9t||xl. The compounds of rld-qpi in the N. T. {ava-, irpocr-ava-, 
airo-, hia-, avTi-ho.-, k-, eTrt-, cvv-ein-, Kara-, avv-KaTa-, pera-, ira- 
pa-, irepL-, irpo-, irpoa-, aw-, viro-) vie with those of 'larrjpL and 
equal the papyri use.^ The second aorist active in -/ca alone ap- 
pears (so LXX) in the indicative singular and plural as Wr^Kav 
(Mk. 6 : 29), but the subjunctive in -6cb (Mt. 22 : 44), imperative 
Tpoades (Lu. 17:5). The middle has the regular second aorist 
edero (Ac. 19 : 21 and often). 

$T||XL. If one is surprised to see this verb put under the list of 
second aorists, he can turn to Blass,^ who says that it is "at once 

doubt," some MSS. read ?5co/ces (Jo. 17 : 7 f.) and (i(^i^«re (Mt. 23 : 23), not to 
say «a)paK6s (Jo. 8 : 57), k\v\vee^ (Ac. 21 : 22, B also). Moulton (Prol., p. 52) 
considers -es a "mark of imperfect Gk." For further exx. of this -es ending in 
the LXX and kolpt, see Buresch, Rhein. Mus. etc., 1891, p. 222 f. For tv/xi 
and its compounds in the LXX see C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 45 f., showing 
numerous -co forms, acprjKav (Xen. fjKav), etc. 

1 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 398. 

2 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 168. ^ w.-M., p. 94. 

* Thack., Gr., p. 254. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 122 f. On iardvai and its compounds 
in the LXX see interesting list in C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 43 f., giving 
-w forms, transitive taraKa, etc. ^ Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 411. 

6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 50. The verb is mentioned here to impress the fact 
that it is aorist as well as imperfect. 


imperfect and aorist." It is common in the N. T. as aorist (Mt. 
4 : 7, for instance, t^??). It is not always possible to decide. 

2. Some -/it Presents. It is difficult to group these verbs ac- 
cording to any rational system, though one or two small groups 
(like those in -vv/jll, -^/jll) appear. The presents are more com- 
mon in the N. T. than the aorists. The list is based on the un- 
compounded forms. 

AcLK-v\j-|JiL. Already in the Attic deLKvvo: is common, but Blass^ 
observes that in the N. T. the middle-passive -/xt forms are still 
rather common. It is compounded with dm-, arro-, h-, ctti-, utto-. 
No presents (or imperfects) occur with dm- and utto-. The word 
itself is not used very extensively. The form deUvvni is found 
once (1 Cor. 12 : 31), -Oco not at all. So on the other hand deu- 
vvtis occurs once (Jo. 2 : 18), -us not at all. AelKwaLv is read by 
the best MSS. (Mt. 4 : 8; Jo. 5 : 20). The middle hdelKPWTaL ap- 
pears in Ro. 2 : 15. The -fXL participle active is found in Ac. 18 : 
28 (eTndeLKvvs) and 2 Th. 2 : 4 {airobuKvhvTa) . The middle -/xt par- 
ticiple is seen in Ac. 9 : 39; Tit. 2 : 10; 3:2 {-vfievos, etc.). In 
Heb. 6:11 the infinitive evMnvvudai. is read, but beLKvveLv (Mt. 16 : 
21 B -hvai).'^ The other N, T. verbs in -vul (dTroXXu/zt, ^dcwvixL, viro- 
^uvvvfxi, o/jLvvfiL, a^eppvfjLL, (TTPCCVVVIJ.L, vToarpwvvviJLL, ktX.) will be dis- 
cussed in alphabetical order of the simplex. The inscriptions show 
these forms still in use (Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 178). The 
verbs in -vv/xi were the first to succumb to the -co inflection. In 
the LXX the -/zt forms are universal in the middle, but in the 
active the -co forms are more usual (Thack., Gr., p. 245). 

AC8a)|xi. See under (d), 1, for list of compounds in the N. T. 
Attic Greek had numerous examples from the form 5t56-co {8i8ov, 
eSLdovv, -ovs, -ou). This usage is extended in the N. T. as in the 
papyri^ to Sidco (Rev. 3:9), though even here BP have 5t5co/xi. In 
VVisd. of Sol. 12 : 19 SlSols occurs, but Lu. 22 : 48 has the regular 
TTapa5i8(x)s. Al8co(n is common (in LXX, Ps. 37:21, 5t5oT appears) 
and hihoaaLv in Rev. 17 : 13. The uniform imperfect khibov (Mt. 
15 : 36) is like the Attic. Hort observes that Mk. (15 : 23) and 
Ac. (4 : 33; 27 : 1) prefer kbibovv. Jo. (19 : 3) has, however, kbibo- 
aav and Acts once also (16 :4). Albov (Attic present imperative) 
is read by some MSS. in Mt. 5 : 42 for bb%. In Rev. 22 : 2 the 

' lb., p. 48. 

* In the pap. both -I'/it and -6co, but only -u/^at. Mayser, Gr. d. grioch. 
Pap., p. 392. 

' Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 37. Cf. Dciss., B. S., p. 192. Mod. Gk. lias 


text has participle aTo8i8ovv for -6v (marg. -om), while irapaSi- 
8cov is read by N* in Mt. 26 : 46 and D in Mk. 14 : 42, etc.^ The 
middle-passive forms in -ero (imperfect) from a present StSco are 
like the aorist forms, which see above. So 5ie5t5ero (Ac. 4 : 35) and 
irapeblbeTo (1 Cor. 11:23). So also subjmictive -KapaMot is found 
only once (1 Cor. 15:24) and is probably to be rejected (BG), 
though the papyri amply support it.^ In the imperfect kbiboaav 
holds its place- in the LXX, while in the present the -^t forms 
generally prevail (Thackeray, Gr., p. 250). The LXX is quite 
behind the N. T. in the transition from -p.L to -co forms. 

AvvaixaL. The use of bhvri (Mk. 9: 22; Lu. 16: 2; Rev. 2:2) in- 
stead of bvvaoai argues for the thematic 5uw/xat. Elsewhere bwaaai 
(Lu. 6 : 42, etc.). This use of bvvri is found in the poets and from 
Polybius on in prose (Thayer), as shown by inscriptions^ and 
papyri.^ Hort^ calls it a "tragic" form retained in the kolvt). It 
is not surprising therefore to find B reading bbvoixai (also -o/xeda, 
-bfxevos) in Mk. 10:39; Mt. 19:12; 26:53; Ac. 4:20; 27:15; 
Is. 28 : 20 (so N in Is. 59 : 15). The papyri« give plenty of illus- 
trations also. MSS. in the LXX give bbvoixai and bbvri. 

EljiL. The compounds are with oltt-, kv-, k^- (only e^e<rTLv, k^bv), 
Trap-, aw-, avv-irap-. The papyri^ show a much more extended use 
of prepositions. This very common verb has not undergone many 
changes, though a few call for notice. In the present indicative 
there is nothing for remark. The imperfect shows the middle 
riijLriv, weda regularly (as Mt. 25 :43; 23 :30), as modern Greek 
uniformly has the middle present elfxai, etc., as well as imperfect 
middle. Cf. already in ancient Greek the future middle eao^xaL. 
The use of riny]v, seen in the papyri^ and inscriptions^ also, served 
to mark it off from the third singular rjv. But examples of we" 
still survive (Ro. 7:5, etc.). Moulton^'' quotes from Ramsay^^ 
a Phrygian inscription of elfxai for early fourth century a.d. He 
cites also the Delphian middle forms rJTaL, eoiVTai, Messenian ^j/rat, 

1 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 167. Cf. also W.-Sch., p. 121. 

2 Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 37. ^ Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 177. 

* Mayser, Or. d. griech. Pap., p. 355; Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 36. Cf. 
also Dieterich, Untersuch., p. 222; Schmid, Atticismus, IV, p. 597; Deiss., 
B. S., p. 193. 

B Notes on Orth., p. 168. Cf. Lobeck, Phryn., p. 359 f. 
6 Mayser, Or. d. griech. Pap., p. 355; Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 36. 
^ Mayser, ib., p. 394. 

8 lb., p. 356. ^ Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 178. 

" Prol., p. 56. D (M. shows) alone has fiv in Ac. 20 : 18. 
11 Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, II, 565. 


Lesbian 'iaao, as early instances of this tendency, not to mention 
the Northwest Greek. ^ The pecuHar classical second person r)ada 
is found in Mk. 14:67; Mt. 26:69, but elsewhere ^s (Jo. 11:21, 
32, etc.), the common form in the KOLvi]} ^llre (Ro. 6 : 20, for in- 
stance) is regular. So with the imperative ladi (Mt. 2 : 13, etc.). 
"Htw (as 1 Cor. 16: 22) is less common^ than the usual ecrrco (Gal. 
1:8). "'EiCTOiaav (never ovtoov nor tGTiiov), as in Lu. 12:35, is a 
form found in Attic inscriptions since 200 b.c* Some of the pa- 
pyri even have rjTo:aav.^ Mention has already (Orthography) been 
made of the irrational v with the subjunctive xi in the papjTi,^ as 
in orav Tjv — 8r]\coao}. The use of evL='eveaTL (as 1 Cor. 6:5; Gal. 
3 : 28, etc.) is an old idiom. "EvL=h and in modern Greek has 
supplanted karL in the form ehe or etmt (so for elai also).'' Cf. 
Sir. ^37 : 2. 

EifJLi. Only in compounds (d7r-, etcr-, e^-, Itt- crvv-). The pa- 
pyri*^ and the inscriptions^ show only the compound forms. 
Blass^'' indeed denies that even the compound appears in the 
popular KOLvr], but this is an overstatement. The Attic em- 
ployed epxoiJLaL for the present indicative and kept ei/xi for the fu- 
ture indicative. The kolvt] followed the Ionic (and Epic) in the 
use of epxofjiaL for all the tenses to the neglect of et/^t. In the 
N. T. only Luke and the writer of Hebrews (once) use these com- 
pound forms of elfXL and that very rarely. "AireinL only occurs in 
the imperfect indicative (Ac. 17: 10, airfieaav). Etcrei^ut appears 
four times, two in the present indicative (Ac. 3:3; Heb. 9:6), 
two in the imperfect indicative (Ac. 21:18, 26), while elakpxonat 
appears over two hundred times. "E^et^it also occurs four times, 
all in Acts (13 : 42; 17: 15; 20 :7; 27: 43), against a host of instances 
of e^epxo/xat. "ETretjut is read five times in Acts and all of them in 
the participle rrj enovar} (Ac. 7: 26, etc.). Xwet/JLL is found only in 
Lu. 8:4. B reads etcn^t in Ac. 9:6, not daeXde. Blass" rather 

1 Prol., p. 37. 

2 W.-Sch., p. IIV. 

' Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 56. Both forms in pap. and inscr. On i^firiv, ^s, 
flufOa, fiTco, iarccffap in thc LXX see C. and S., Hel. fr. LXX, p. 31 f. Thack., 
dr., p. 256 f. Beyond this the LXX goes very Httle. 

* Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 191. 

^ Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 436. 

« lb., p. 38. Cf. Gen. 6 : 17 E, according to Moulton, Prol., p. 49. 

' Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 51 f.; Thack., p. 257. 

* Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 355. 

» Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 157. '« Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 52, 54. 

" lb., p. 52. 


needlessly construes e^Lovruv (Ac. 13 : 42) in the aoristic sense (so 
as to 17: 10, 15; 21 : 18, 26). Et/xt is nearly gone from the LXX 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 257). 

'ETTLCTTaixaL. This verb occurs fifteen times in the N. T., chiefly 
in Acts (10 : 28, etc.) and always in the present tense.^ 

ZiVYVv\Li. Only in the compound (Tv-^evypvtJ.(, and in the aorist 
active alone, awk^ev^ev (Mk. 10 : 9; Mt. 19 : 6). 

ZcowuiJLi. The compounds are with ava-, ha-, irepi-, vtto-. 
Curiously enough the verb does not appear in Mayser, Nach- 
manson nor Schweizer, though Mayser (p. 397) does mention 
^evyvv/jLL, which on the other hand the N. T. does not give save 
the one form above. But the uncompounded form is read in the 
N. T. only three times, one aorist indicative (Ac. 12 : 8), one future 
indicative (Jo. 21 : 18), and one imperfect (Jo. 21 : 18, k^covwes, a 
form in -vco, not -vnC) . There is only one instance of the compound 
with dm- and that an aorist participle (1 Pet. 1 : 13). The three 
examples of Staf., all in Jo. (13 : 4, etc.), yield no presents nor im- 
perfects. The same thing is true of the half-dozen instances of 
Treptf ., as Lu. 12 : 35. The LXX has irepi^wvvvTaL (Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 269). The one instance of viro^. is in Ac. 27 : 17 and shows 
the form in -vijll, vTro^o^pvvPTes. 

'^H|Jiai. It is only in the compound form Kadriixai that this verb 
is seen in the N. T. and thus very frequently, twice with aw- 
prefixed (Mk. 14 : 54; Ac. 26 :30). It is usually the participle 
Kadrjuevos that one meets in the N. T. (as Mt. 9:9). The imper- 
fect is regularly hKadriro, etc. (as Mt. 13 : 1), the future Kadrjaonai 
(as Mt. 19 : 28). No -w forms appear in the present, though Kady 
(Ac. 23 : 3) is a contract form like dvprj for KaOrjaaL (already in Hy- 
perides).^ The short imperative mdov for Kad-qao (as Jas. 2 : 3) 
is already in the LXX (cf. Mt. 22:44 from Ps. 110:1) and 
indeed in the late Attic (Blass, ih), though chiefly postclassical.^ 

"It1|Jli. Like elixi this verb only appears in the N. T. in the 
compounded form {ap-, acf)-, Kad-, wap-, crvp-). The same thing 
appears to be true of the papyri as given by Mayser," though fif- 
teen combinations greet us in the papyri. But the papyri and 
the KOipi] inscriptions have not yet furnished us with the -co 
formation with 'irjfjLL compounds which we find in d<^- and avpLrjtit 

» Just so the pap., Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 395. 

2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 52. Cf. also for pap., Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, 
p. 38. For LXX see Thackeray, p. 272. 

3 W.-Sch., p. 118; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 177; Rcinhold, De Graec, 
p. 89. ^ Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 398. 


in the N. T.^ and the LXX.^ But Philo^ and the N. T. Apoc- 
rypha and early Christian writers^ follow the LXX and the 
N. T. 'kvL-qixL indeed has only avLhres (Eph. 6 : 9) in the present 
stem. So also Kadi7]fjLL shows only Kadikixevov {-iikv-qv) in Ac. 10 : 11; 
11 : 5, while irapl-qtii has no present, but only an aorist (Lu. 11: 
42) and a perfect passive (Heb. 12 : 12). 'A^trj/xi is the form of 
the verb that is common in the N. T. In Rev. 2 : 20 dc^eis is 
probably a present from d^eco.^ But Blass (p. 51, of A''. T. Gram- 
mar) compares the Attic d^iets and Tideis. Only acjiirjfjn (Jo. 14 : 
27) and d(/)t7?(7t (Mt. 3 : 15) occur, but in Lu. 11:4 a4)ionev is from 
the Ionic d</)ico (cf. 8I803). So also in Rev. 11 : 9 a(f)iovaiu and in 
Jo. 20 : 23 marg. W. H. have a.<i)iovTaL. Elsewhere acfyUvTai (Mt. 

9 : 2, etc.). In the imperfect r/^tev from d</)tw is read in Mk. 1 : 34; 
11 : 16. 'A(^ecovrat (Lu. 5 : 20, 23, etc.) is a perfect passive (Doric 
Arcadian, Ionic) .^ Cf. Ionic eojKa. Simcox (Language of the 
N. T., p. 38) quotes also avkwvTai from Herodotus. With (twItjul 
the task is much simpler. Blass ^ sums it up in a word. In Ac. 
7 : 25 (TWikvaL gives us the only undisputed instance of a -^t form. 
All the others are -co forms or have -co variations. However 
avvikvros is correct in Mt. 13 : 19 and awikvaL in Lu. 24 : 45. There 
is a good deal of fluctuation in the MSS. in most cases. W. H. 
read awlovcnv (Mt. 13 : 13), owlioaiv (Mk. 4 : 12), o-wicov (Ro. 3 : 
11). In 2 Cor. 10 : 12 W. H. read awidaLu after B. In the LXX 
only the compounded verb occurs, and usually the -/xt forms save 
with avv[y]ixL (Thackeray, Gr., p. 250 f.). 

"laT-qiii. Cf. also tTT-to-rajuat (see above) and aTi]K03 (from ecr- 
TT?xa, imperfect eoTTj/ce in Rev. 12 : 4, o-rkco in modern Greek). 
For the list of compounds^ see list of aorists (1). But the essen- 
tial facts can be briefly set forth. The -jut form in the present 
stem has disappeared in the active voice save in KadiarrjaLu (Heb. 
7:28; 2 Pet. 1:8), (xvpiaTr]ixL (Ro. 16 : 1) and avpiaTrjcn (2 Cor. 

10 : 18; Ro. 3:5; 5:8).^ The middle (passive) forms retain the 
-Ml inflection regularly with IVrTjAit and its compounds (di^-, d(/)-, 
avd~, e^, €</)-, Trpo-, cfvv-), as KadiararaL (Heb. 5 : 1), TrepudTaao 

* Mayser, ib., p. 354; Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 167. 

* W.-Sch., p. 123. Herod, is cited for the use of i^iu and neTlei as -co presents. 
' Ib. « Reinhold, De Grace, p. 94. 

' So Ilort, Notes on Orth., p. 167; W.-Sch., p. 123; Hatz., Einl., pp. 309, 334. 
« Moulton, Prol., p. 38 f. 

^ Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 51. He gives the MS. variations and parallels in 
Hermas and Barn. See further A. Buttmann, Gr., p. 48. 

* Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 398. 

» Ilort, Notes on Orth., p. 168; Blass, Gr. of N. T., p. 48. 


(2 Tim. 2 : 16).^ Two -co forms supplant the -fxL conjugation of 
'iaTTjfjLL and its compounds, that in -dw and that in -avw, though 
usually the MSS. vary greatly between the two.^ In 1 Cor. 13 : 2 
NBDEFG read ixeQiardvaL, though W. H. follow ACKL in txtBi- 
(jTOLveiv.^ The form in -dw is found in various MSS. for to-rdco (as 
laTLOixev Ro. 3:31), airoKad- (Mt. 9:12 Rec), k^Loraw, KadiaTaw, 
nedcarao}, avvLaraco, but is nowhere accepted in the W. H. text, 
though Hort^ prefers avvLarav to avvLaraveLv in 2 Cor. 3:1. In 
2 Cor. 4:2a threefold division occurs in the evidence. For avui- 
(TTCLVovTes we have ABP (so W. H. and Nestle), for avvLardPTes 
NCD*FG, for avvLarCiVTes D^EKL.^ The form in -dvco is uniformly 
given by W. H., though the form in -dco comes from Herodotus 
on and is frequent in the LXX.^ But the -^t forms hold their 
own pretty well in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 247). The form 
in -avi>i may be compared with the Cretan aravveiv and is found 
in the late Attic inscriptions.^ Instances of the form in -dj/cj in 
the W. H. text are Ac. 1:6; 8:9; 17:15; 1 Cor. 13:2; 2 Cor. 
3:1; 5:12; 6:4; 10:12, 18; Gal. 2:18; Ro. 3: 31; 6: 13, 16). In 
Mk. 9 : 12 W. H. (not so Nestle) accept the form dTro/carto-rdj/et after 
B, while ND read dvoKaTaaTaveL (cf. Cretan oraj/uoj). D has this 
form also in Ac. 1 : 6 and 17 : 15. 

KeLjJLai. This defective verb is only used in the present and 
imperfect in the N. T. as in the papyri,^ and with a number of 
prepositions in composition like the papyri also. The prepositions 
are di^a-, aw-ava-, dvTL-, dwo-, kin-, Kara-, irapa-, Trept-, Trpo-. The 
regular -fXL forms are always used, and sometimes as the passive 
of Tldr]fjLL, as ireplKeLiJLaL (Ac. 28: 20; Heb. 5:2). For dm/ceiMai only 
the participle dvaKeiiJiepos appears (so Mt. 9 : 10) save once dve/cetro 
(Mt. 26: 20) and twice with aw- (Mt. 9 : 10 = Mk. 2 : 15). In 
Lu. 23 : 53 rjv Kelp-evos follows the Attic, but KB have yj^ reOeLixe- 
vos in Jo. 19:41.^ So in the LXX TldyjixL partially replaces KeT/xai 
(Thackeray, Gr., pp. 255, 272). 

Kpe|JLa'H''a''" This verb is used as the middle of the active Kpe/xdu- 
vvfiL (this form not in N. T.) and does not appear in Mayser's hst 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T., p. 49. 

2 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 168; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 49. 

3 Here Hort (Notes, etc., p. 168) differs from Westcott and prefers -avaL. 

4 lb. 6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 48. 

6 lb. W.-Sch., p. 122. 

7 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 177. For many -vu verbs in mod. Gk. see 
Thumb, Handb., p. 133 f. 

8 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 354, 399. For the Byz. and mod. Gk. 
usage see Dicterich, Unters., p. 223. ^ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk*., p. 51. 


for the papyri. The form^ KpenaTai. is read in Mt. 22:40 and the 
participle Kpenayievosiy) in Gal. 3 : 13; Ac. 28 : 4. In Lu. 19 : 48 NB 
(so W. H. and Nestle) read e^e/cpe^tero, an -co form and the only 
compound form of the verb in the N. T. The other forms are 
aorists which come from an active present KpenawvfXL, -awvoi, -doj 
or -afco. They are Kpetxaaavres (Ac. 5 : 30) and Kpe/jtaadrj (Mt. 18 : 
6). But none of these presents occurs in the N. T. Cf. Veitch, 
Greek Verbs, p. 343 f., for examples of the active and the middle. 
So also no present of K€pdvvu|XL (compound aw-) is found in the 
N. T., but only the perfect passive (Rev. 14 : 10) and the aorist 
active (Rev. 18 : 6). 

MiYvuixt. The only-^tt form is the compound avv-ava-p.iyvvadaL 
(1 Cor. 5:9, 11) and so 2 Th. 3 : 14 according to W. H., instead of 
cvv-ava-fjiiypvade. Elsewhere, as in the papyri,^ the N. T. has only 
the perfect passive (Mt. 27 : 34) and the aorist active (Lu. 13 : 1).^ 

Oiyvv\LL. This verb does not appear in the N. T. in the simple 
form, but always compounded with av- or 8L-av-. Besides it is 
always an -co verb as in the papyri^ and the LXX.^ It is worth 
mentioning here to mark the decline of the -/jll forms. 

"OXXvfii. Only in the common dr- and once with auv-air~ (Heb. 
11 : 31). In the active only the -co forms are found as aroWvet. 
(Jo. 12:25), airoWve (Ro. 14:15). But in the middle (passive) 
only the -/xl forms^ meet us, as airoWuraL (1 Cor. 8: 11), awciAXwro 
(1 Cor. 10:9). So the LXX. 

"0(ivi)|xt. A half-dozen examples of the present tense of this 
verb occur in the N. T. All but one {bp-vvvai, Mk. 14:71) belong 
to the -co inflection, as bixvvei (Mt. 23 : 21 f.). The Ptolemaic pa- 
pyri also have one example of opvvpn, the rest from bfxvvw.^ The 
LXX sometimes has the -fxi form in the active and always in the 
middle (Thackeray, Gr., p. 279). Neither -niy^vv^i (aorist Heb. 
8 : 2) nor Trpoair-qypvpL (aorist Ac. 2 : 23) appears in the present in 
the N. T. 

ni'fnrXT|}xi. No present tense in the N. T., though a good many 
aorists, save the compound participle efiinirXoiu, from the -co verb 
-dco. Mayser^ gives no papyri examples. LXX has -co form 

^ In the LXX the active goes over to the -w class. Thack., Gr., p. 273. 

^ Mayscr, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 403. 

' lb., p. 404. And indeed the old Attic avoLyu, Meistcrh., p. 191. 

* Thack., Gr., p. 277. 

' So the pap. Mayscr, Gr., p. 352; Thackeray, p. 246. 

• Mayser, ib., pp. 351 f., 404. 
^ lb., p. 406. 


nL}JLTrpTi|xi. The simple verb occurs once only, TriixirpaadaL (Ac. 
28 : 6) according to W. H.^ This is the only instance where a 
present occurs at all in the N. T. The papyri give no light as yet. 
No simplex in the LXX, but evewlnirpo^v in 2 Mace. 8 : 6 (Thack- 
eray, Gr., p. 249). 

' Pii"YVU|XL. The compounds are with 5ta-, irept-, -Kpoa-. No pres- 
ents appear save in the simple verb and 5tap-. With hap. only the 
-co forms are used as SceprjaaeTo (Lu. 5:6), dcap-naawv (Lu. 8 : 29). 
But we have p-qyvvvTaL (Mt. 9 : 17) and prjaaeL (Mk. 9 : 18). May- 
ser gives no papyri examples of the present. 

'Pwwujii has no presents at all in the N. T., but only the per- 
fect passive imperative eppcoa^e (Ac. 15 : 29). 

Sp€vvv|i,i. This verb has only three presents in the N. T. 
and all of the -/zt form, one active a^twvTt (1 Th. 5 : 19, Tisch. 
^^evv.), two middle a^kwvTai (Mk. 9 :48) and (x^kvvvvTai (Mt. 25 : 
8). The LXX has only -jxl forms and in the more literary books 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 284). 

STp(bvvi)|ii. The compounds are with Kara-, vwo-. There are 
only two present stems used in the N. T., earpuvpuop (Mt. 21 : 8) 
and vTToaT. (Lu. 19 : 36). Thus the -pa form is wholly dropped as 
in the papyri^ and the LXX.' 

Tl9t||jli. For the list of compounds see Aorist (1). This verb has 
preferred the -pn form of the present stem as a rule in the kolvt]. 
The inscriptions^ do so uniformly and the papyri^ use the -co in- 
flection far less than is true of 8i8wixi. In the present indicative D 
has tIOl {rWeL) for rt^Tjo-t'' (Lu. 8:16). In the imperfect eTldei is read 
twice (Ac. 2 : 47; 2 Cor. 3 : 13) from rt^eco, as already in the Attic. 
So likewise kridow (as in Attic) twice (Ac. 3 : 2; 4 : 35), but the best 
MSS. have hideaap in Mk. 6 : 56 (NBLA) and Ac. 8 : 17 (NAC, 
though B has -oaav and C -ei.aav).'' The reading of B in Ac. 8 : 17 
(eTidoaav) calls for a present rt^co which the papyri supply against 
the idea of Winer-Schmiedel,^ as TapariOdpevos (BM 239), irapa- 
KaTarWoixai (B.U. 326).^ Good cursives show that the late language 
used Tt^eco in the present (Mk. 10 : 16; 15 : 17). Cf. viroTLdovaa in 
second century papyrus (B.U. 350). i** In the LXX -pa forms pre- 
vail in the present and imperfect (Thackeray, Gr., p. 250). 

1 Tisch. reads (ninTrpc.(T9ai from -rrnrpaco. Nestle agrees with W. H. 

2 Mayser, Gr., p. 352. » Thack., Gr., p. 286. 

4 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 156; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 176. 

5 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 352 f. ^ Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 167. 

6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 49. » P. 121. 

9 Deiss., B. S., p. 192 f.; Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 37. 
10 lb. Mod. Gk. has dkru. 


ir\\ii. The only N. T. compound is with evv-, none in the pa- 
pyri according to Mayscr.^ In the papyri 0a<r/caj (lengthened 
form) is usually employed for the participle and infinitive^ of 
07/^1. The participle is so used in the N. T. (Ac. 24 : 9; Ro. 1 : 
22). I,vv<f)r]iJLL appears only once (Ro. 7 : 16). The -fxi inflection 
is uniform in ^Tj^tt both in the present and the imperfect (aorist). 
The only forms in the N. T. are c^rjjut (1 Cor. 7 : 29), ^tjo-ij/ (Mt. 
13 : 29), (j)aalv (Ro. 3 : 8), and the common €0?? (Mt. 4:7). It is 
regular -^t in the LXX. 

XpTJ. This impersonal verb had a poetic infinitive xP'j^'cit of the 
-fiL inflection, but Veitch (p. 627) and L. and S. get it from xpaco. 
At any rate XPV is found only once in the N. T. (Jas. 3 : 10), Set 
having supplanted it. Mayser does not find it in the papyri nor 
Nachmanson and Schweizer in the inscriptions. 

3. Some -/jll Perfects. There are only three verbs that show the 
active perfects without (K)a in the N. T. (mere root, athematic). 

©VTjCTKw. The compounds are dxo- (very common), avu-airo- 
(rare). The uncompounded verb occurs nine times and forms 
the perfect regularly as an -co verb {redv-qKa), save that in Ac. 14 : 
19 DEHLP read redvavaL instead of TedvrjKevaL, but the -/xt form 
is not accepted by W. H. The N. T. has always TedprjKws, never 
redvecos. In the LXX these shorter second perfect forms occur a 
few times in the more literary books (Thackeray, (7r., pp. 253, 270). 
They show "a partial analogy to verbs in -jui" (Blass, Gr., p. 50). 

Ot8a is a -/xl perfect in a few forms ('laidev, 'iare) from root l8- (cf. 
Latin vid-eo, Greek eUov). The word is very common in the N. T. 
and avvoiba is found twice (Ac. 5 : 2; 1 Cor. 4:4). The present per- 
fect indicative like the papyri^ usually has oUa, oUas, oUe, o'ldafiev, 
-are, -aaiv, which was the Ionic inflection and so naturally pre- 
vailed in the ^011^17. Three times indeed the literary Attic I'crre ap- 
pears (Jas. 1 : 19; Eph. 5:5; Heb. 12 : 17). The passage in James 
may be imperative instead of indicative. In Ac. 26 : 4 '(.aaaiv (lit- 
erary Attic also) is read. The imperfect also runs f]5eiv, j/Sets, etc. 
"EtSeLaav (Mk. 1 : 34; 14 : 40) is like larr]K€Laav (Rev. 7 : 11).' The 
other modes go regularly elbch (Mt. 9 : 6), dbhat (1 Th. 5 : 12), 
dbw (Mt. 12 : 25). The LXX usage is in accord with the N. T. 
Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 278. 

"I(rTT||i,i. See Aorist (1) for compounds. The second perfect is 
in tlie N. T. only in the infinitive iaravaL (Lu. 13 : 25; Ac. 12 : 14; 

* Cr. (1. (rricch. Pap., \^. .355. 2 n, >^„ inscr., Nacliin., p. 157 
' MayKcr, dr. d. sriccli. iVip., p. ,372. 

* Cf. W.-Sch., p. 114 f. Neither olaOa. nor VibuaOa apjx^u-.s in the N. T. 


1 Cor. 10 : 12) and the participle earws (Mt. 20 : 3, 6, etc.) though 
eaTTjKcos (-co form) also sometimes (Mk. 13: 14; 15: 35, etc.), earuxxa 
(1 Cor. 7 : 26; 2 Pet. 3 : 5), earos (Mt. 24: 15; Rev. 14 : 1) although 
eaTrjKos also (Rev. 5 : 6 text, W. H. marg. -cos). The same variation 
occurs in the papyri. '^ Curiously enough the earlier LXX books 
show less of the short perfect than the later ones and the N. T. 
Thackeray (Gr., p. 253) suggests an "Atticistic reversion" for a 
while. The form earaKa (papyri also) belongs to the -co form as 
well as the late present o-nyKco from the perfect stem. These -fxL 
perfects of laTtjixL are always intransitive, while earajKa is intransi- 
tive and eo-ra/ca is transitive.^ This in brief is the story of the -fii 
verbs in the N. T.^ The new transitive perfect earaKa is common 
in the kolvt] from second century B.C. onwards. Cf. Schweizer, 
Perg. Inschr., p. 185; Mayser, Gr., p. 371. 

V. The Modes (c-yKXio-eis). The meaning and use of the modes 
or moods belongs to syntax. We have here to deal briefly with 
any special items that concern the differentiation of the modes 
from each other by means of mode-signs. There is no clearly 
proper method of approaching the study of the verb. One can 
begin with tense, voice and then mode or vice versa. The first is 
probably the historical order to a certain extent, for the matter is 
complicated. Some tenses are later than others; the passive voice 
is more recent than the other two, the imperative as a complete 
system is a late growth. Since no purely historical treatment is 
possible by reason of this complicated development, a practical 
treatment is best. There are reasons of this nature for taking 
up modes first which do not apply to syntax. The two main 
ideas in a verb are action and affirmation. The state of the action 
is set forth by the tense, the relation of the action to the subject 
by voice, the affirmation by mode. Tense and voice thus have 
to do with action and mode with affirmation. Mode deals only 
with the manner of the affirmation. The same personal endings 
used for voice limit the action (hence finite verbs) in person and 

(a) The Number of the Moods or Modes (Modi). This is 
not so simple a matter as it would at first appear. Modern gram- 
marians generally agree in declining to call infinitives, participles 
and the verbal adjectives in -t6s and -Aos moods. Some refuse 
to call the indicative a mood, reserving the term for the variations 

1 Mayser, Gr. d. gi-iech. Pap., p. 370 f. 2 lb. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 119. 

' See Hoffmann, Die gricch. Dial., Bd. II, pp. 572 ff., for -^i verbs in North 
Achaia. For the "strong" perfects, Hke yeyova, see vii, (g), 2. 


from the indicative as the normal verb by means of mode-signs. 
Thus Clyde ^ thinks of "only two moods, viz. the subjunctive 
and the optative, because, these only possess, in combination with 
the personal endings, a purely modal element." There is point 
in that, and yet the indicative and imperative can hardly be 
denied the use of the term. Jannaris^ admits three moods; in- 
dicative, subjunctive and imperative. He follows Donaldson' in 
treating the subjunctive and optative as one mood. Others, like 
Monro,^ find the three in the subjunctive, optative and impera- 
tive. Once again five moods are seen in early Greek by Riemann 
and Goelzer^: the indicative, injunctive, subjunctive, optative, 
imperative. On the injunctive see Brugmann, Griechische Gram- 
matik, p. 332, though he does not apply the term mode to the 
indicative. So Hirt, Handbuch, p. 421 f. Moulton'' admits this 
primitive division, though declining to call the indicative a mode 
save when it is a "modus irrealis." The injunctive is no longer 
regarded as a separate mood, and yet it contributed so much to 
the forms of the imperative that it has to be considered in an his- 
torical review. The indicative can only be ruled out when it is 
regarded as the standard verb and the moods as variations. Cer- 
tainly it is best to let the indicative go in also. The modern 
Greek, having no optative, has a special conditional mode (virode- 
TiKT]). Cf. Sanskrit. Indeed, the future indicative is considered 
by some grammarians as a separate mode. Cf. Thompson, 
Sijntax of Attic Greek, p. 494; Moulton, Prolegomeim, p. 151. 
Thumb accepts the four modes in modern Greek {Handbook, 
p. 115). 

{b) The Distinctions between the Moods. These are not 
absolute, as will be seen, either in form or in syntax. The indica- 
tive and the imperative blend in some forms, the subjunctive and 
the indicative are alike in others, the injunctive is largely merged 
into the imperative and subjunctive, while the subjunctive and 
optative are closely akin and in Latin l)lend into one. Greek 
held on to the optative several centuries longer than the San- 
skrit.^ Moulton^ indeed despairs cf our being able to give the 
primitive root-idea of each mood. That subject belongs to 

1 Gk. Synt., p. G2. Cf. Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 417. 

2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 179. '' Horn. Gr., p. 49. 

3 New Crat., p. 617 f. " Phonet., p. 455. 

8 Prol., p. 1G4 f. Farrar (Gk. Synt., p. 45) refers to Protagoras as the one 
who first distinguished the moods. 

' Giles, Man., p. 459. * Proh, p. 104. 


syntax, but the history of the mode-forms is in harmony with 
this position. As with the cases so with the moods: each mood 
has fared differently in its development and long history. Not 
only does each mood perform more functions than one, but 
the same function may sometimes be expressed by several^ 
moods. The names themselves do not cover the whole ground 
of each mood. The indicative is not the only mood that indi- 
cates, though it does it more clearly than the others and it is 
used in questions also. The subjunctive not merely subjoins, but 
is used in independent sentences also. The optative is not merely 
a wish, but was once really a sort of past subjunctive. The im- 
perative has the best name of any, though we have to explain 
some forms as "permissive" imperatives, and the indicative and 
subjunctive, not to say injunctive, invade the territory of the im- 
perative. "It is probable, but not demonstrable, that the indica- 
tive was the original verb-form, from which the others were 
evolved by morphological changes" (Thompson, Syntax of Attic 
Greek, p. 494). The origin of the mode-signs cannot yet be ex- 

(c) The Indicative {opiaTLKri eyKXtai';). There is indeed little 
to say as to the form of the indicative since it has no mode-sign. 
It is the mode that is used in all the Indo-Germanic languages 
unless there is a special reason to use one of the others. In fact 
it is the normal mode in speech. It is probably the earliest 
and the one from which the others are derived. Per contra it 
may be argued that emotion precedes passionless intellection. 
The indicative continues always to be the most frequent and per- 
sists when others, like the injunctive and optative, die. It is the 
only mode that uses all the tenses in Sanskrit and Greek. In the 
Sanskrit, for instance, the future is found only in the indicative (as 
in Greek save in the optative in indirect discourse to represent 
a future indicative of the direct) and the perfect appears only in 
the indicative and participle, barring many examples of the other 
modes in the early Sanskrit ( Vedas) . In the Sanskrit the modes are 
commonest with the aorist and the present.'^ And in Greek the 
imperfect and past perfect never got beyond the indicative. The 
future barely did so, never in the subjunctive till the Byzantine 
period. The perfect subjunctive and optative, not to say impera- 
tive, were always a rarity outside of the periphrastic forms and 

* Clyde, Gk. Sjiit., p. 62. Cf. Kohlmann, Uber die Modi des griech. und 
dee lat. Verbums (1883). 

s Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 201. 


in the kolvt] have practically vanished.^ Thus we can clearly see 
the gradual growth of the modes. In modern English we have 
almost dropped the subjunctive and use instead the indicative. 
In the modern Greek the indicative survives with as much vigor 
as ever. The N. T. peculiarities of the indicative can best be 
treated under Syntax. It may be here remarked, however, that 
besides the regular indicative forms a periphrastic conjugation 
for all the tenses of the indicative appears in the N. T. The 
present is thus found as earlv TpoaavaTr\7]povaa (2 Cor. 9 : 12), the 
perfect as eariv ireTpaynhov (Ac. 2G : 26), the imperfect as rjv 5t5d- 
(TKcop (Lu. 5: 17), the past perfect as ^aau TpoecopaKores (Ac. 21 : 29), 
even the aorist as riu /SXT^^et? (Lu. 23: 19), the future as eaeade \a- 
Xovvres (1 Cor. 14:9), the future perfect as ecrofiai irewoLdo^s (Heb. 
2: 13). This widening of the range of the periphrastic conjuga- 
tion is seen also in the LXX. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 195. 

(d) The Subjunctive {viroraKriKrj) . The function of the sub- 
junctive as of the other modes will be discussed under Syntax. 
Changes come in function as in form. Each form originally had 
one function which varied with the course of time. But the bond 
between form and function is always to be noted.^ The German 
grammarians (Blass, Hirt, Brugmann, etc.) call this the conjunc- 
tive mode. Neither conjunctive nor subjunctive is wholly good, 
for the indicative and the optative both fall often under that 
technical category .^ It is in the Greek that mode-building reaches 
its perfection as in no other tongue.^ But even in the Greek sub- 
junctive we practically deal only with the aorist and present 
tenses, and in the Sanskrit the subjunctive rapidly dies out save 
in the first person as an imperative.^ In Homer lixev is indicative^ 
and 'iopi€v is subjunctive so that non-thematic stems make the 
subjunctive with the thematic vowel o/e. Thematic stems made 
the subjunctive with a lengthened form of it co/rj. Cf. in the Ionic, 
Lesbian, Cretan inscriptions^ forms like ap.el\l/eTaL. The same thing 
appears in Homer also in the transition period.^ Jannaris'' in- 
deed calls the aorist subjunctive a future subjunctive because he 

* See discussion bet. Profs. Harry and Sonnensrh(Mn in CI. Rev., 1905-6. 
Cf. also La Roche, Beitr. zur prioc^h. Gr., 1893; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 197. 

2 For contrary view see Burton^ N. T. Moods and Tenses*, p. 1. 
' Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 45 f. 

* K.-Bl., Bd. II, p. 40. 6 Giles, Man., p. 458 f. 

^ lb., p. 4.'39. In the Bo-otian dial, the subj. does not api)ear in simple 
sentences (Claflin, Hynt. of Bcrotian, etc., p. 73) 
^ Rieip. and Goelzer, Phont't., p. 450 f. 
8 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 49. a Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 179. 


conceives of the aorist as essentially past, a mistaken idea. The 
subjunctive does occur more freely in Homer than in the later 
Greek, partly perhaps because of the fact that the line of dis- 
tinction between it and the indicative (especially the aorist sub- 
junctive and the future indicative) had not been sharply drawn.^ 
Add to this the fact that iroirjari and Toc-qaeL came to be pronounced 
exactly alike and one can see how the confusion would come again. 
Cf. tVa SuxreL {8coar]) in the N. T. MSS.^ On the short vocal ending 
of the subjunctive and its connection with the indicative one may 
recall edo/jLat, iriofxai, (payo/jLat in the N. T., futures which have a 
strange likeness to the Homeric subjunctive 'ioiJt.ev. They are really 
subjunctives in origin. It is still a mooted question whether the 
future indicative is always derived from the aorist subjunctive 
or in part corresponds to the Sanskrit sya.^ The only aorist 
subjunctives that call for special comment in the N. T. are the 
forms yvol and 5oT, for which see this chapter, iv, (d), 1^ There are 
parallels in the papyri as is there shown. The form oxf/rjade in Lu. 
13 : 28 (supported by AL, etc., against 6\peade, BD) is probably a 
late aorist form like edwaa (Bccari) rather than the Byzantine future 
subjunctive.^ As already pointed out, the examples in N. T. MSS. 
of the Byzantine future subjunctive are probably due to the 
blending of o with co, et with ry, e with rj, etc. N. T. MSS., for in- 
stance, show examples of apKeadrjao^fxeda (1 Tim. 6:8), yvuKxcovTai 
(Ac. 21 : 24), yevr^a-qaee (Jo. 15 : 8), bo^awaiv (Lu. 20 : 10; Rev. 4 : 
9), evprjacoaLv (Rev. 9:6), ^r]a7]TaL (Mk. 5 : 23), i]^coaLu (Rev. 3 : 9), 
KavdrjawfxaL (1 Cor. 13 : 3), Kepbrjd-qao^VTaL (1 Pet. 3:1), wopevao^/jLat 
(Ro. 15 : 24), (roid-qa-qraL (Ro. 11 : 26), etc. It is to be admitted, 
however, that the Byzantine future subjunctive was in use at the 
age of our oldest Greek N. T. MSS. Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, p. 107. 
Hort dismisses them all {Appendix, "Notes on Orthography," 
p. 172). The present subjunctive 81801 is parallel to 8o2. No ex- 

1 Sterrett, Horn. II., Dial, of Homer, p. 27 (1907). Cf. Moulton, The Suffix 
of the Subj. (Am. Jour, of Philol., 10, 185 f.); La Roche, Die conj. und opt. 
Formen des Perfects (Beitr. I, pp. 161 fT.). 

2 Cf. ah-eady in the Attic inscr. the spelling of the subj. in -et. Meisterh., 
Att. Inscr., p. 166. For this phenomenon in the pap. see Mayser, Or. d. 
griech. Pap., p. 324. 

3 Cf. Henry, Comp. Or. of Gk. and Lat., Elliott's transl., 1890, p. 115 f. and 
note; Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 459. 

* Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 37, and 1904, p. Ill, for subjs. dTroSoT, 
fTnyvol in the pap. 

5 Cf. dp^ri<rd€ in Lu. 13 : 25, but dp^^ade (BEG, etc.) and apk-nade («AD, etc.) 
in verse 26. 


ample of the periphrastic present subjunctive appears in the 
N.T. In Gal. 4 : 17 (iVa fTjXoOre) the contraction of or] is hke that of 
the indicative oe/ unless indeed, as is more probable, we have here 
(cf. also 1 Cor. 4 : 6, (l>vaLova6e) the present indicative used with I'm 
as in IJo. 5 : 20 (yLvwcTKoixev). In Gal. 6 : 12 ACFGKLP read tva jxi] 
hCiKovTaL. Cf. Ro. 14 : 19. Cf. Homer. The perfect subjunctive 
does not exist in the N. T. save in the second perfect db(h {'iva 
eidooijiev, 1 Cor. 2 : 12) and the periphrastic form as y TrexoiTy/cws (Jas. 
5 : 15. Cf. ireiroLdoTes wjxev, 2 Cor. 1 : 9) and usually in the passive 
as J7 TeTrXripuiJLevr] (Jo. 16 : 24). In Lu. 19 : 40 Rec. with most MSS. 
read KeKpa^ovrai (LXX). In the papyri rjv sometimes is subjunctive 
= ^t. Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 38, 1904, p. 108; Prolegom- 
ena, pp. 49, 168. He cites oaa eav rjv in Gen. 6 : 17E. But the 
modern Greek constantly uses eav with the indicative, and we find 
it in the N. T. and papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 203 ff.). 
Some of the papyri examples may be merely the indicative with 
kav, but others undoubtedly give the irrational v. In the LXX the 
subjunctive shows signs of shrinkage before the indicative with 
eav, orav, Iva (Thackeray, Gr., p. 194). 

(e) The Optative {evKTiKrj). Like the subjunctive the opta- 
tive is poorly named, as it is much more than the wishing mood. 
As Giles ^ remarks, difference of formation is more easily discerned 
in these two moods than difference of meaning. In the Sanskrit 
the subjunctive (save in first person) gave way before the 
optative, as in Latin the optative largely {sim originally op- 
tative) disappeared before the subjunctive.^ The Greek, as 
already stated, is the only language that preserved both the 
subjunctive and the optative,* and finally in the modern 
Greek the optative has vanished, jxr] yevoLTo being merely "the 
coffin of the dead optative."^ It is doubtful if the optative was 
ever used much in conversation even in Athens (Farrar, Greek 
Syntax, p. 142), and the unlearned scribes of the late Greek blun- 

I Blass, Gr. of N. T. Ck., p. 48. But in 1 Cor. IG : 2 we have resularly evo- 
durai (marg. evoSwdfj). Ilort (Notes on Orth., pp. 167, 172) is uncertain whether 
(MioTai is perf. ind. or subj. (pres. or perf.). He cites irapa^riXodiiei' (1 Cor. 
10 : 22) and ha^tjiaLovvTai. (1 Tim. 1 : 7) as [)ossible pres. subjs. 

" Man. of Conip. Philol., p. 458. Cf. Drug., Griech. Gr., p. 337, for hst 
of works on optative. 

» Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 202. Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 503 f. 

■• Giles, ib., p. 459. On the blending of subj. and opt. in Ital., Germ, and 
Balto-Slav. tongues sec Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., 2. Tl., p. 585. Cf. the Byz. 
Gk. mingling of subj. and ind. in Hatz., Einl., p. 216 f. 

^ Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 84. 


dered greatly when they did use it (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 
204). Moulton {Prol, p. 240) agrees with Thumb that the opta- 
tive was doomed from the very birth of the kolvt}, and its disappear- 
ance was not due to itacism between ol and y, which was late. 
Clyde/ however, suggests that the blending of sound between ol 
and n had much to do with the disappearance of the optative. 
But apart from this fact the distinction was never absolutely 
rigid, for in Homer both moods are used in much the same way.^ 
And even in the N. T., as in Homer and occasionally later, we 
find an instance of the optative after a present indicative, ov iravo- 
fiat evxapLffTuiu tva 8cor] (Eph. 1 : 17, text of W. H., subj. dooy or 8(2 
in marg., question of editing). Jannaris^ calls the Greek optative 
the subjunctive of the past or the secondary subjunctive (cf. Latin). 
Like the indicative (and originally the subjunctive) the non-the- 
matic and thematic stems have a different history. The non-the- 
matic stems use lt] (te) and the thematic ol (composed of o and t)- 
The 0- aorist has a+t besides the form in -eta. This two-fold 
affix for the optative goes back to the earlier Indo-Germanic 
tongues^ (Sanskrit ja and i). The optative was never common in 
the language of the people, as is shown by its rarity in the Attic 
inscriptions.^ The Boeotian dialect inscriptions show no optative 
in simple sentences, and Dr. Edith Claflin reports only two ex- 
amples in subordinate clauses.^ The optative is rare also in the 
inscriptions of Pergamum.^ The same thing is true of the pa- 
pyri.^ In the N. T. the future optative no longer appears, nor does 
the perfect. The classic idiom usually had the perfect subjunctive 
and optative in the periphrastic forms.^ Examples of the peri- 
phrastic perfect optative survive in the papyri, ^^ but not in the 
N. T. There are only sixty-seven examples of the optative in the 
N. T. Luke has twenty-eight and Paul thirty-one (not including 
Eph. 1 : 17), whereas John, Matthew and James do not use it at all. 
Mark and Hebrews show it only once each, Jude twice and Peter 
four times. The non-thematic aorist appears in the N. T. some- 
times, as 54)7? (perhaps by analogy). So W. H. read without reser- 
vation in 2 Th. 3: 16; Ro. 15:5; 2 Tim. 1 : 16, 18. This is the 

1 Gr. S., p. 85. 2 Monro, Horn. Cxr., p. 219. » Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 179. 

* Riem. and Goelzer, Phonet., p. 461. Cf . K.-Bl., Bd. II, p. 40 f . ; Brug., Gk. 

Gr., pp. 337 ff. 6 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 166. 

« Synt. of BoDot. Dial. Inscr., pp. 77, 81. 

^ Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 191. 

8 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 326. ^ K.-BL, Bd. II, p. 99. 

>" Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 327. 


preferred text in Eph. 1 : 17; 2 Tim. 2 : 25, but in Jo. 15 : 16; Eph. 
3 : 16, W. H. read 5c3 (subjunctive). In Eph. 1 : 17 the margin has 
5a)j7 (subjunctive) also.^ The inscriptions^ and the papyri^ show 
the same form {-ccrjv instead of -olrjv). In Eph. 1 : 17 Moulton^ con- 
siders doi-g (subjunctive) a "syntactical necessity" in spite of the 
evidence for 8cor] (optative). But see above. The aorist optative 
in -at is the usual form, as Karevdhvai (1 Th. 3: 11), xXeomaai koI 
irepLaaevaai (1 Th. 3:12), KarapTiaai (Heb. 13:21), etc., not the 
^oHc-Attic -ete. So also iroLrjaaLep (Lu. 6 : 11), but \l/r]\a(^T](TeLav 
(Ac. 17:27) according to the best MSS. (B, etc.).^ Blass« com- 
ments on the fact that only one example of the present optative 
appears in the simple sentence, viz. eirj (Ac. 8:20), but more 
occur in dependent clauses, as Tracrxotre (1 Pet. 3: 14). The opta- 
tive is rare in the LXX save for wishes. Thackeray, Gr., p. 193. 
(/) The Imperative {irpoaraKTiKr]). The imperative is a later 
development in language and is in a sense a makeshift like the 
passive voice. It has no mode-sign (cf. indicative) and uses only 
personal suffixes.'' These suffixes have a varied and interesting 

1. The Non-Thematic Stem. An early imperative was just 
the non-thematic present stem.^ In the imperative the aorist is 
a later growth, as will be shown directly. Forms like 1(jt7], deUw 
are pertinent. 

2. The Thematic Stem. Cf. aye, Xeye. This is merely an in- 
terjection (cf. vocative \6ye).^ This is the root pure and simple 
with the thematic vowel which is here regarded as part of the 
stem as in the vocative \6ye. The accent elire, eXOe, evpk, t5e, Xa/3e 
was probably the accent of all such primitive imperatives at the 
beginning of a sentence. ^° We use exclamations as verbs or nouns.^^ 

' Hort, Intr. to N. T. Gk., p. 168. Cf. LXX. 

* Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 191. 

' Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 326 f . ; Cronert, Mem. Gr. Hercul., p. 215 f . ; 
Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. Ill f. Aol also appears in pap. as opt. as well aa 

* Prol., p. 55. Cf. Blass' hesitation, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 49 f. 

' Cf. W.-Sch., p. 114. In the LXX the <'orm in -eie is very rare. Cf. Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 68 f. The LXX has also -oiaav, -aiaav for 3d plu. Cf. 
Thack., Gr., p. 215. Opt. is common in 4 Mace. 

8 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p 220. « Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 464. 

^ K.-Bl., Bd. II, p. 41. 9 lb., p. 269. 

»» lb., p. 464. Cf. Brug., Grundr., II, §958; Iliem. and Goelzer, Phon^t., 
p. 359. It is coming more and more to be the custom to regard the thematic 
vowel as part of the root. Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 415. 

" Moulton, Prol., p. 171 f. 


In Jas, 4 : 13 we have aye vw oi Xeyovres, an example that will il- 
lustrate the origin of aye. Note the common interjectional use 
of Ue (so N. T.). Cf. also accent of \a^e. The adverb 8evpo (Jo. 
11:43, Aa^ape 8evpo e^co) has a plural like the imperative in -re 
(Mt. 11 : 28, 8evTe xpos /Jte iravres ol KOTLcovTes). 

3. The Suffix -6l. The non-thematic stems also used the suf- 
fix -di (cf. Sanskrit dhi, possibly an adverb; cf. "you there!"). So 
yvcodi for second aorist active, 'iaOc for present active, <j)avr]di, \v- 
6t]tl for second and first aorist passive.^ In the N. T. sometimes 
this -9l is dropped and the mere root used as in ava^a (Rev. 4 : 
1), fxera^a (Mt. 17:20), avaara (Eph. 5:14; Ac. 12:7) according 
to the best MSS.^ The plural apd^are (Rev. 11:12) instead of 
ava^r]Te is to be noted also. The LXX MSS. exhibit these short 
forms (avaara, airoara, but not avd^a) also. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. 
Sept., p. 70; Con. and Stock, Sel. from LXX, p. 46. See en^a, 
Kara^a, etc., in Attic drama. But dvdarrjdL (Ac. 8 : 26), kiriaTrjdL 
2 Tim. 4:2), /xerdjSry^t (Jo. 7:3), Kara^ridi (Lu. 19:5), Trpoaavd^7]dL 
(Lu. 14 : 10) occur as usual. In the papyri -di has practically 
disappeared save in 'iadt.^ 

4. The Suffix -rw. It is probably the ablative of the demon- 
strative pronoun (Sanskrit tod). It is used with non-thematic 
(earw) and thematic stems (Xtye-roS). The Latin ^ uses this form for 
the second person also (agito). In the case of earo) (Jas. 1: 19) 
the N. T. has also t/tco (Jas. 5 : 12) .'^ The form Kara/Sarw (Mt. 24: 
17) has the unlengthened stem, but eX^arco is like the first aorist 
k-KKXTpeparoi. The N. T. like the koivt] generally^ has the plural only 
in Twaav which is made by the addition of aav to rco. Cf. eo-rcoaai' 
(Lu. 12:35). The middle aQw (of uncertain origin)^ hkewise has 
the plural in the N. T. in aOo^aav. So Tpoaev^daduxxav (Jas. 5 : 14). 
This is true of the plural of both present and aorist as in papyri 
and inscriptions. So the LXX cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 69 f. 

5. The Old Injunctive Mood. It is responsible for more of the 
imperative forms than any other single source. "The injunctive 

1 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 341. 2 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 168. 

* Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 327. 

4 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 466. Cf. Brug., Gk. Gr., p. 341. 

^ So pap. and late inscr., Moulton, Prol., p. 56. 

« Cf. for pap. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 327. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., 
p. 343. It is after iii/s.c. that -Tcoaav completely supplants -vtoiv. Cf. 
Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 167. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 149. Schweizer, 
Perg. Inschr., p. 167. 

^ Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 343 (he cfs. iireadu} with (TreaOai) ; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 
430. Giles (Comp. Philol., p. 467 f.) gets it from tw by analogy of re and ade. 


was simply an imperfect or aorist indicative without the aug- 
ment." ^ So XttiSoD was originally e-XajSeao, XajSeade was k-Xa^eade, 
'Kr](l>driT€ was k-'KT]<i>er]T€, Xa^ere was e-XajSere.^ So ctx" (f-o-X«) may 
be compared with e-\ves (diyes with e-OLyes), but 56s, h, 6es Brug- 
mann considers of uncertain origin, possibly subjunctive.^ Forms 
hke Xvere may be injunctive (e-Xuere)" or merely the indicative.^ 
Note the difficulty of deciding on imperative and indicative in 
forms like epavvdre (Jo. 5:39), 7rto-rci»ere (Jo. 14:1), laTe (Jas. 1: 
19). But in these cases, except Jo. 5 : 39, we probably have the 
imperative. In the case of tare the N. T. indicative would be 
oUare.'^ In the N. T. Kadov (Jas. 2:3) is the shorter form of 
KaOriao, though not by phonetic processes. The injunctive survives 
to some extent in the Sanskrit and borders on the subjunctive 
and the imperative and was specially common in prohibitions.'' 
It consists of the bare stem with the personal endings. 

6. Forms in -aau These, hke ^aTTLaai (Ac. 22 : 16), are prob- 
ably just the infinitive sigmatic aorist.^ Cf . Set^ai. Cf. also Latin 
legimini with the Homeric infinitive Xeyefxevai.^ The infinitive is 
common in the Greek inscriptions in the sense of an imperative.^" 
In the N. T. as in the papyri this use is not infrequent. So 
Xaipeiv (J as. 1:1), aroLX^lv (Ph. 3:16), Ml? (TwavaiiiyvvadaL (2 Th. 
3 : 14). In modern Greek instead of the imperative in -aai the 
form \vaov occurs with the sense of Xu^rjrt.^^ 

7. The Form in -aov (Kvaov). It is difficult of explanation. It 
may be injunctive or a verbal substantive.^' The N. T. has eiirov 
(Mt. 4 : 3) rather than elire (Mt. 8 : 8) in about half the instances 
in W. H.i^ This is merely in keeping with the common kolvtj cus- 
tom of using first aorist endings with second aorist stems. The 
form elTTov is traced to the Syracusan dialect.^* 

8. First Person. The Sanskrit used the first person subjunctive 
as imperative of the first person. Cf . English " charge we the foe." 
The Greek continued this idiom. But already in the N. T. the 
use of the imperative d</)es (cf. modern Greek as and third person 
subjunctive) is creeping in as a sort of particle with the subjunc- 
tive. So a(^€s kiSdXco (Mt. 7:4). Cf. Enghsh "let" ^v^th infini- 

I Moulton, Prol., p. 165. ^ Brug., Gricch. Gr., p. 332. » lb. * lb. 
' Hirt, Handb., p. 429 f. « W.-S(!h.,p. 119. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 165. 

8 Ricm. and Goelzcr, Phonet., p. 372. Cf. Drug., Griech. Gr., p. 345. 

9 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 468; Hirt, Handb., p. 430; Wright, Conip. Gk. 
Gr., p. 334. '° Moulton, Prol., p. 179 f. 

II V. and D., Handb., p. 81. Cf. Dietcrich, Unters., p. 205. 
'2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 345; Hirt, Handb., p. 427. 

» Hurt, Notes on Orth., p. 164. " K.-BL, Bd. II, p. 45. 


tive. Cf. 5eDre airoKTelvcoiJLev in Mt. 21 : 38. Besides aye, SeDre we 
may have 6pa with the subjunctive (Mt. 8:4), /SXeTrere with future 
indicative (Heb. 3 : 12). 

9. Prohibitions. Here the aorist subjunctive with fxi] held its 
own against the aorist imperative quite successfully. In the 
Sanskrit Veda the negative md is never found with the impera- 
tive, but only with the subjunctive.^ Later the Sanskrit uses the 
present imperative with md, but not the aorist. This piece of 
history in the Greek ^ is interesting as showing how the impera- 
tive is later than the other modes and how the aorist imperative 
never won its full way into prohibitions. However, in the N. T. 
as in the inscriptions and papyri, we occasionally find the aorist 
imperative with ii-q in 3d person. So fxri KaTa^aToo (Mt. 24 : 17). 

10. Perfect Imperative. In the Sanskrit the imperative is 
nearly confined to the present tense. The perfect imperative is 
very rare in the N. T. (only the two verbs cited) as in all Greek. 
We find eppwaOe (Ac. 15: 29; in 23 : 30 W. H. reject eppcoao) and 
Tre^t^wo-o (Mk. 4 : 39). The perfect imperative also occurs in the 
periphrastic form as ecrTwaav irepie^waiikvai (Lu. 12 : 35). 

11. Periphrastic Presents. Other periphrastic forms of the im- 
perative are Icrdi evmccv (Mt. 5 : 25), tadi excoj' (Lu. 19 : 17), /xi) ybeade 
irepo^vyovvTes (2 Cor. 6 : 14) and even iVre yivcoaKovres (Eph. 5:5). 

12. Circumlocutions. But even so other devices (see Syntax) 
are used instead of the imperative, as the future indicative {aya- 
irrjaeis, Mt. 5 : 43) ; Iva and the subjunctive (Eph. 5 : 33) ; a ques- 
tion of impatience like ov ■Kavari Staorpe^coi' (Ac. 13 : 10), etc. 

VI. The Voices (SLaGeo-cis). 

(a) Transitive and Intransitive. The point is that ''tran- 
sitive" is not synonymous with "active." Transitive verbs may 
belong to any voice, and intransitive verbs to any voice. Take 
kblba^a, edida^afXT^v, ehibaxdiqv, which may be transitive in each voice. 
On the other hand eiVt, yivo/jLai, eXWrjv are intransitive. The same 
verb may be transitive or intransitive in the same voice, as ayo}. 
A verb may be transitive in Greek while intransitive in English, 
as with KarayeKdoi} and vice versa. This matter properly belongs 
to syntax, but it seems necessary to clear it up at once before we 
proceed to discuss voice. Per se the question of transitiveness 
belongs to the idea of the verb itself, not to that of voice. We 

1 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 240. 

2 lb.; cf. also Delbriick, Synt. Forsch., IV, p. 120. Hence Delbriick argues 
that the aorist imper. did not come into use until after the pres. imper. The 
imper. was originally only positive, not negative. 


actually find Green ^ making four voices, putting a neuter (ovSk- 
Ttpov) voice (using active and middle endings) on a par with the 
others! The Stoic grammarians^ did speak of a neuter voice as 
neither active {Kar-qyop-qua bpObv) nor passive {v-ktlov), meaning the 
middle {txear]}. Jannaris^ confounds transitiveness with voice, 
though he properly says (p. 356) that "the active voice is usually 
transitive," i.e. verbs in the active voice, not the voice itself. 
Even Whitney^ speaks of the antithesis between transitive and 
reflexive action being effaced in Sanskrit. Was that antithesis 
ever present? Farrar^ speaks of verbs with an "active meaning, 
but only a passive or middle form," where by "active" he means 
transitive. Even the active uses verbs which are either transi- 
tive (aWoTrad-qs) or intransitive (avToiradr]s) . So may the other 
voices. If we clearly grasp this point, we shall have less difficulty 
with voice which does not deal primarily with the transitive idea. 
That belongs rather to the verb itself apart from voice.^ On 
transitive and intransitive verbs in modern Greek see Thumb, 
Handb., p. 112. 

(6) The Names of the Voices. They are by no means good. 
The active (evepjeTtKri) is not distinctive, since the other voices ex- 
press action also. This voice represents the subject as merely act- 
ing. The Hindu grammarians called the active parasmai padam 
('a word for another,') and the middle (iJLeari) dtmane padam ('a 
word for one's self').^ There is very little point in the term mid- 
dle since it does not come in between the active and the passive. 
Indeed reflexive is a better designation of the middle voice if 
direct reflexive is not meant. That is rare. The middle voice 
stresses the interest of the agent. Cf. Moulton, Prolegomena, 
p. 155 f. In truth we have no good name for this voice. Passive 
(Tradr}Ti.Kri) is the best term of all, for here the subject does experi- 
ence the action even when the passive verb is transitive, as in 
thboLxd-qv. But this point encroaches upon syntax. 

' Handb. to the Gk. of N. T., p. 55. 

2 Cf. Dion. Thr., p. 886. Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 40. 

» Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 179. 

* Sans. Gr., p. 200. 

6 Gk. Synt., p. 41. Cf. Bnip;., Griooh. Gr., p. 4()7 f. 

" Giles, CoHip. Pliilol., p. 476: "Tiio (listiiiction hctwoon the transitive and 
intransitive meanings of the active; voice (lei)(>ncls upon the nature of the root 
in each case." 

' Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 200. ('f. also 15rug., Kurze verj^h Gr., II, p. 492. 
See also Clark, Comp. Gr., p. 182, for the meaningless term "middle." It is 
as active as the "active" voice. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 119. 


(c) The Relative Age of the Voices. It is a matter of doubt 
as between the active and middle. The passive is known to be a 
later development. The Sanskrit passive is the yd class.^ In 
Homer the passive has not reached its full development. The pas- 
sive future occurs there only twice. The aorist middle is often used 
in passive sense ('^XrjTo, for instance). ^ That is to say, in Homer 
the passive uses all the tenses of the middle with no distinct forms 
save sometimes in the aorist. In later Greek the future middle (as 
TLfxrjaoixaL) continued to be used occasionally in the passive sense. 
The aorist passive in fact used the active endings and the future 
passive the middle, the passive contributing a special addition in 
each case (??, 6r], rja, drja). Some languages never developed .a 
passive (Coptic and Lithuanian, for instance), and in modern 
Enghsh we can only form the passive by means of auxiliary verbs. 
Each language makes the passive in its own way. In Latin no 
distinction in form exists between the middle and the passive, 
though the middle exists as in potior, utor, plangor, etc. Giles^ 
thinks that the causative middle (like dLdaaKOfxai, 'get taught') is 
the explanation of the origin of the Greek passive. Cf. j8dxTio-at 
(Ac. 22 : 16). It is all speculation as between the active and mid- 
dle. An old theory makes the middle a mere doubling of the active 
(as /ia-/it = /iat) ."* Another view is that the middle is the original 
and the active a shortening due to less stress in accent, or rather 
(as in TtdefxaL and TidyjiuL) the middle puts the stress on the reflexive 
ending while the active puts it on the stem.^ But Brugmann^ 
considers the whole question about the relation between the per- 
sonal suffixes uncertain. Of one thing we may be sure, and that 
is that both the active and the middle are very old and long 
antedate the passive. 

(d) The So-called ''Deponent" Verbs. These call for a 
word (cf. ch. XVII, iii, (k)) at the risk of trespassing on sjTitax. 
Moulton^ is certainly right in saying that the term should be ap- 
plied to all three voices if to any. The truth is that it should not 
be used at all. As in the Sanskrit^ so in the Greek some verbs 
were used in both active and middle in all tenses (like X6aj) ; some 
verbs in some tenses in one and some in the other (like ^abu, 

1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 275; Thumb, Handbuch d. Skt., pp. 394 ff. 

2 Sterrett, Horn. II., Diah of Horn., p. 27. * Clyde, Gk. Sjoi., p. 55. 

3 Comp. Philol., p. 477. » Moulton, Prol., p. 152. 

« Griech. Gr., p. 346. Cf. Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 599. Cf. Giles, Comp. 
Philol., p. 419. 

^ Prol., p. 153. 8 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 200. 


PrjaoiJLaL); some on one voice only (like Kelixat). As concerns voice 
these verbs were defective rather than deponent.^ Note also the 
common use of the second perfect active with middle verbs {ylvotiai, 
jkyopo.).^ A number of verbs sometimes have the future in the 
active in the N. T. which usually had it in the middle in the older 
Greek. These are: olkouo-co (Jo. 5 : 25, 28, etc., but aKovao/xai, Ac. 
17 : 32), a/jLapTrjcroj (Mt. 18 : 21), airaPTrjao} (Mk. 14 : 13), dpTracroJ 
(Jo. 10 : 28), ^Xex^co (Ac. 28 : 26), yeUaoo (Lu. 6 : 21), Slu^co (Mt. 
23 : 34), fiycrw (Jo. 5 : 25), kiriopKiiao: (Mt. 5 : 33, LXX), /cXauaco (Lu. 
6:25), /cpd^co (Lu. 19 :40), rat^co (Mk. 10 : 34), pehao: (Jo. 7 : 38), 
Gm-Kr}(T(i} (Lu. 19 :40), GTrovbacoi (2 Pet. 1 : 15), avvavrrjao} (Lu. 22 : 
10). But still note a-rroOavovixai, laoixaL, ^rjao/ML, davp.a(JOjxai, XrjfxxJ/o- 
HaL, 6\{/, Treeov/jLai, TriofiaL, rk^opaL, 4>, 0ey^o/iat, etc. Cf. 
Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 42 f.; Winer-Schmiedel, p. 107; Moul- 
ton, ProL, p. 155. See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 89 f.; Thackeray, 
pp. 231 ff., for illustrations in the LXX. The term ''deponent" 
arose from the idea that these verbs had dropped the active 
voice. Verbs do vary in the use of the voices in different stages 
of the language. 

(e) The Passive Supplanting the Middle. In Latin the 
middle and passive have completely blended and the grammars 
speak no more of the Latin middle. Greek indeed is the only 
European speech which retains the original middle form and 
usage.^ In fact, when we consider other tongues, it is not strange 
that the passive made inroads on the middle, but rather that 
there was any distinction preserved at all.^ In most modern lan- 
guages the middle is represented only by the use of the reflexive 
pronoun. The Greek itself constantly uses the active with re- 
flexive pronoun and even the middle. Jannaris^ has an interest- 
ing sketch of the history of the aorist and future middle and 
passive forms, the only forms where the two voices differ. As 
already remarked, the old Greek as in Homer'' did not distinguish 
sharply between these forms. In Homer the middle is much 
more common than in later Greek,^ for the passive has no distinct 
form in the future and not always in the aorist. In the modern 
Greek the middle has no distinctive form save Xvaov (cf. XOcrat) 

' BruK., Kurzo vcrgl. dr., p. .598; Moulton, Prol., p. 153. 

2 Ilirt, Hand})., p. ;}34; Moulton, Prol., p. 154. 

3 Dolbriick, Synt. Fors(;h., Bd. IV, p. ()!). 

4 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 55. ^ Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 362 ff. 
« Storrett, Honi. II., Horn. Dial., p. 27. 

^ Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 7. 


and this is used as passive imperative second singular.^ Else- 
where in the aorist and future the passive forms have driven out 
the middle. These passive forms are, however, used sometimes 
in the middle sense, as was true of aiveKpldt], for instance, in the 
N. T. The passive forms maintain the field in modern Greek and 
appropriate the meaning of the middle. We see this tendency at 
work in the N. T. and the kolvt] generally. Since the passive used 
the middle forms in all the other tenses, it was natural that in 
these two there should come uniformity also.^ The result of this 
struggle between the middle and passive in the aorist and future 
was an increasing number of passive forms without the distinc- 
tive passive idca.^ So in Mt. 10 : 26 (mi? <l>o(37]dr]re avrovs) the pas- 
sive is used substantially as a middle. Cf. the continued use of 
TLfxrjaofxai, as future passive in the earlier Greek as a tendency the 
other way. The history of this matter thus makes intelligible 
what would be otherwise a veritable puzzle in language. Here is 
a list of the chief passive aorists in the N. T. without the passive 
idea, the so-called "deponent" passives: aireKpld-qv (Mt. 25 : 9 and 
often, as John, Luke alone having Attic aireKpivaTo also, Ac. 3 : 12), 
huKpWy]v (Ro. 4 : 20), avvvirtKpl6y]v (Gal. 2 : 13), dTreXoyr]dr]v (Lu. 21 : 
14, but see 12 : 11), riyaWLadr^u (Jo. 5 : 35), kyev-qdrju (Mt. 6 : 10, 
but also eyevotJiTjv often, as Ac. 20 : 18) ; cf . yeyopa and yeyemjuai., 
ed(r]dr]v (Lu. 5 : 12) ; riy€pdr]v (Lu. 24 : 34), rjSvvaadTjv (Mk. 7 : 24, 
as New Ionic and LXX) and ri^vvrjdriv (Mt. 17 : 16), bLeK'exQw (Mk. 

9 : 34), edavjjLaaOrjp (Rev. 13 : 3, but passive sense in 2 Th. 1 : 10), 
eeafjL^r]9r]v (Mk. 1 : 27), kvOvii-neds (Mt. 1 : 20), ixereixeX-qdriv (Mt. 21 : 
32), k<i>o^i]dr]v (Mt. 10 :26), evXa^rjdels (Heb. 11 : 7), etc. For the 
LXX usage see Thackeray, p. 238. The future passives without 
certain passive sense are illustrated by the following: dm/cXtSiyo-o- 
fiaL (Mt. 8 : 11), aTTOKpLdrjaoixai (Mt. 25 : 37), eTTavaTarjaerai (Lu. 

10 : 6), dav/jLaadrjaofjiaL (Rev. 17 : 8), KOL/JLTjOrjaofxaL (1 Cor. 15 : 51), 
hrpaTrjaovraL (Mk. 12 : 6), fieTa/Jie'KTjdrjaoiJ.aL (Heb. 7 : 21), <j)avr]aofxaL 
(Mt. 24 : 30), <f)o^r]driaoiJLai (Heb. 13 :6). But we have yevrjao/iaL, 
dvvqaonai, kinfxeXrjaofxaL, TTopthcjojxaL. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gr., p. 
44 f.; Winer-Schmiedel, p. 108. For the rapid development of. this 
tendency in later Greek see Hatzidakis, Einl., p. 192 f. See Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 97-100, and Thackeray, p. 240 f., for simi- 
lar phenomena in the LXX. These so-called deponents appear 
in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 113). Cf. ch. XVII, iv, (c). 

' Thumb, Handb., p. 111. So mod. Gk. has only two voices; V. and D., 
Handb., to Mod. Gk., p. 81. « jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 362. 

' lb. KoiJ'^ exx. are numerous, Uke fidkaOrjv, kveOvfxrjOriv, eiroptWy^v, e<t>o^T)d-qv, etc. 


(/) The Personal Endings. They are probably pronominal/ 
though Brugmann- does not consider the matter as clear in all 
respects. One point to note is the heavy burden that is placed 
upon these endings. They have to express voice, person and num- 
ber, everything in truth that has to do with the subject. Mode 
and tense are indicated otherwise. There was a constant ten- 
dency to slough off these personal endings and get back to the 
mode and tense-stems. Hence Stow/xi becomes 6i5a> (papyri) in 
late Greek. Ae7co was originally Xeyoni.^ 

(g) Cross-Divisions. These personal endings have two 
cross-divisions. The active and middle have a separate list, the 
passive having none of its own. Then there is another cleavage 
on the line of primary and secondary tenses in the indicative, i.e. 
the unaugm exited and the augmented tenses. The subjunctive 
mode falls in with the primary endings and the optative uses the 
secondary endings. But the first person active singular of the 
optative has one primary ending (as Xyoijut).^ But may it not be 
a reminiscence of the time when there was no distinction between 
subjunctive and optative? The imperative has no regular set of 
endings, as has already been shown, and does not fall in with 
this development, but pursues a line of its own. As a matter of 
fact the imperative always refers to the future. 

(h) The Active Endings. They have received some modifica- 
tion in the N. T. Greek. The imperative can be passed by as 
already sufficiently discussed. The disappearance of the -/it 
forms in favour of the -co inflection has been carefully treated 
also, as acjiiofiev (Lu. 11:4). The subjunctive Sot and optative Swtj 
have likewise received discussion as well as the optative -at and 
-ete. But some interesting points remain. 

The use of -oaau instead of -ov is very common in the LXX (as 
Jer. 5 : 23, 26) and was once thought to be purely an Alexandrian 
peculiarity (Simcox, Language of the N. T., p. 37). For the 
LXX phenomena see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 65-67; Con. and 
Stock, Sel. from the LXX, p. 32 f. The LXX is the principal 
witness to the -oaav forms (Thackeray, Gr., p. 195), where they 

1 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 53. " Gk. Gr., p. 346. 

' Cf. Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. .54. The same thing has happened in Eng. 
where the loss is nearly e()rni)l('te save 2d and 3d pors. sing. 

■• It is not worth while here to take time to make a careful discussion of each 
of these endings. Vov the hist, treatment of them see Brug., Griech. Gr., 
pp. 34.5 ff.; Giles, Comp. Philol., pp. 413 ff.; Riem. and Goclzer, Thonet., pp. 
348 ff. 


are exceedingly frequent (/&., pp. 212 ff.). It is not so abundant 
outside of the LXX, but the Boeotians used it for the imperfect 
and optative.^ Mayser^ has found more examples of it in the 
Tebtunis Papyri, both aorist and imperfect, than Moulton'^ had 
discovered. The inscriptions also show it."* In the N. T. the con- 
tract verb eSoXiovaav (Ro. 3 : 13) is a quotatipn from the LXX. 
In Jo. 15 : 22, 24, the imperfect dxooav has to be admitted. In 
2 Th. 3 : 6 irapeKa^oaav is read by {<AD and W. H. put it in 
the margin. The text TrapeXa^ere is supported by BFG. This 
use of the -/^t inflection may be compared with the use of rco-aau 
in the imperative. In the modern Greek it is common with con- 
tract verbs (cf. LXX) like edoXiovaav above. The modern Greek 
kpccTovaa is a new formation (Thumb, Handb., p. 171) modelled 
after it. 

Blass^ needlessly hesitates to accept ~av in the present perfect 
instead of the usual -dat, and even Moulton^ is reluctant to ad- 
mit it for Paul and Luke, preferring to regard it "a vulgarism 
due to the occasional lapse of an early scribe." It is certainly 
not a mere Alexandrianism as Buresch'^ supposed. The ending 
-avTL in the Doric usually dropped v and became -do-t in Attic, but 
the later Cretan inscriptions show -av after the analogy of the 
aorist.^ The Alexandrian kolvt] followed the Cretan. The papyri 
examples are very numerous'-* and it is in the inscriptions of Per- 
gamum^" also. Hort (Notes on Orthography, p. 166) considers it 
"curious," but has to admit it in various cases, though there is 
always some MS. evidence for -dai. Thackeray (Gr., pp. 195, 
212) thinks that in some instances -av with the perfect is gen- 
uine in the LXX. The earliest examples are from Lydia, Trapel- 
\7}4)av (246 B.C.) and aTearaXKav (193 B.C.). Cf. Dieterich, Unters., 
p. 235 f. The N. T. examples are direaToXKav (Ac. 16 : 36), 7670- 

1 Moulton, ProL, p. 33. Cf. Dieterich, Unters., p. 242. 

2 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 323. 

3 Prol., p. 52; CI. Rev., 1901, p. 36, 1904, p. 110. 

* Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 148; Sehweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 166. See fur- 
ther Dieterich, Unters., p. 242 f. Cf. Deiss., B. S., p. 191; W.-Sch., p. 112 f. 

6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 46. « Prol., p. 52. 

^ Tiyovav und anderes Vulgargriechisch, Rhein. Mus., 1891, pp. 193 ff. Cf. 
Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 36. » K.-Bl., Bd. II, p. 48 f. 

8 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 323 f. "A fair show in the papyri," 
Moulton, Prol., p. 52. 

1° Sehweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 167. Thumb (Hellen., p. 170) rightly denies 
that it is merely Alexandrian. For LXX e.xx. {kwpaKav, wkirpaKav, etc.) see Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 67. 


vav (Ro. 16:7; Rev. 21:6), eyvcoKai' (Jo. 17:7), elprjKav (Rev. 19: 
3), dffeXrjXvdav (Jas. 5:4), ewpaKav (Lu. 9:36; Col. 2: 1), Tr'e-KTWKav 
(Rev. 18: 3), reriyprj/caj' (Jo. 17: 6). On the other hand the Western 
class of documents (KADN Syr. Sin.) read yjKaaLv in Mk. 8:3 
instead of dalv. But it is in the LXX (Jer. 4: 16), and Moulton^ 
finds riKaixev in the papyri. The form of r}Kw is present, but the 
sense is perfect and the k lends itself to the perfect ending by an- 

Another ending that calls for explanation is the use of -€s in- 
stead of -as in the present perfect and the first aorist (in -/ca es- 
pecially). Hort considers the MS. evidence "scanty" save in 
Revelation. The papyri give some confirmation. Moulton^ 
cites act)rjKes, €ypa\}/es, etc., from "uneducated scribes" and thinks 
that in Revelation it is a mark of "imperfect Greek." Deiss- 
mann^ finds the phenomenon common in a "badly written private 
letter" from Fayum. Mayser^ confirms the rarity of its occur- 
rence in the papyri. In the inscriptions Dieterich^ finds it rather 
more frequent and in widely separated sections. In Mt. 23 : 23 
B has d</)77Kere; in Jo. 8 : 57 B has ewpa/ces; in Jo. 17 :7 and in 
17:8 B has UoiKes; once more in Ac. 21:22 B gives eXrjXvdes.^ It 
will hardly l^e possible to call B illiterate, nor Luke, whatever 
one may think of John. D has a'ir.eKa\v\pes in Mt. 11 : 25.'' W. H. 
accept it in Rev. 2:3 (/ceKoxta/ces), 2:4 {a(j>rjKes), 2: 5 (TreTrrco/ces), 
11:17 (etXry^es), all perfects save a(j)rjKes. It is rare in the LXX 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 215); found in A (Ex. 5 : 22, cnrkaTakKes) and 
in e5coKes (Ezek. 16:21; Neh. 9:10). The modern Greek has it 
as in Ueaa, -es (Thumb, Handb., p. 152). 

We have both ^ada (Mt. 26 : 69) and ^s (Mt. 25 : 21). The form 
in -da is vanishing (Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 166). Cf. also 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 321. The papyri have oUas, as 
N. T., and e^rys. But see -/xl Verbs. 

Much more common is the use of the first aorist endings -a, 
-as, etc., with the second aorist stem and even with the imperfect. 
This change occurs in the indicative middle as well as active. 
This matter more technically belongs to the treatment of the 

1 Prol., p. 53. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 169. Tlio N. T. does not follow 
illiterate jjiip. in putting -aai to aorist stems (Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 36). 

2 lb.; Prol., p. 52. 

» B. S., p. 192. * Gr. d. griech. Pap., ]). 321. 

" Untcrs. etc., p. 239. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 46, citee Apoll., Synt., 
I, 10, p. 37, as saying that dpijKes, iLypa\pes, ypaxpkrw, etc., gave the grannnarians 
trouble. o Blass, Gr. of N. T. Glc, p. 46. ' Cf. W.-Sch., p. 113. 


aorist tense, as the -a is part of the tense-stem, but it is also con- 
veniently discussed here. The Attic already had el-pra, eireaa, ^veyna. 
The Attic inscriptions indeed show eo-xa, evpafi-qv and even the 
imperfects riXin^a, e^epa.^ This tendency towards uniformity 
spread in the kolvt] somewhat extensively. ^ Moulton^ finds the 
strong aorists with -a chiefly in "uneducated writing" in the 
papyri, but common in general. This process of assimilation of 
the strong with the weak aorist was not yet complete.* Blass^ 
thinks it an "intermediate" form already in the ancient Greek 
which spread in the kolvt]. Cf. the liquid form riyyeiXa. But both 
the strong and the weak aorists appear in the N. T. Thackeray 
{Gr., p. 195; cf. also pp. 210 ff.) notes that the -av termination 
was finally extended to all past tenses, though in the LXX the 
imperfect forms are due to later copyists. In the modern Greek 
we note it regularly with KaTe\a(3a, rjdeKa, elxa, etc. (Thumb, 
Handb., pp. 152, 160, etc.). Hort*^ has a detailed discussion of the 
matter in the N. T. This mixture of usage is shown in elwa and 
eLTTOv. The -a form is uniform wdth endings in -r (etTrare, etTrarco, 
eiirancaav) . Both dirov and etTre occur. We have aireLTraiJieda (2 
Cor. 4 : 2) and TrpoeiTranev (1 Th. 4:6). The participle is usu- 
ally -6:v, but sometimes et-rras. Both eliras and etvres, elirov and 
elirav meet us. We always have the ripeyKa inflection save in the 
infinitive and the imperative. And even here we once have di'e- 
pkyKaL (1 Pet. 2 : 5) and once also wpoaeveyKou (Mt. 8 :4 BC). So 
also with eweaa we have the weak or first aorist inflection in the 
indicative and imperative plural Treaare (Lu. 23 : 30; Rev. 6 : 16). 
But in these two examples Hort^ (against W. H.) favours Trecrere 
on MS. grounds (N*ABD, kS*BC). In Lu. 14 : 10; 17 : 7 apaireae is 
correct. The other forms that are accepted by W. H. are 'i^oKav 

1 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 1S3 f. 

2 Dieterich, Unters., p. 237 f. For the inscr. see Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., 
p. 181 f.; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 166 f. 

3 CI. Rev., 1901, p. 36. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 368 f. 

* lb. Cf. Deiss., B. S., p. 190 f. 

* Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 45. The LXX is in harmony with this tendency also. 
Is it Cihcian according to HeracUdcs? W.-Sch., p. Ill note. Cf. in Horn, 
forms Uke fi^ovTo, kfUjatTo, where the sec. aorist endings go with the first aorist 
stem (Sterrett, Horn. II., N. 42). 

6 Notes on Orth., p. 164 f. See also Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 45; W.-Sch., 
p. Ill f. The LXX MSS. tally with the N. T. in the use of -o. Cf. Helbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., pp. 62-65; C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 35 f. 

^ Notes on Orth., p. 164. Moulton (Prol., p. 51) speaks of "the functionally 
useless difference of ending between the strong and the weak aorist." 


once (Ac. 16 : 37); tTrkfiaXav twice (Mk. 14 : 46; Ac. 21 : 27); tlbav, 
dbaixev in a few places (Mt. 13 : 17; Lu. 10 : 24; Mt. 25 : 37, etc.); 
the indicatives aveTKav (Ac. 10 : 39), dveiXare (Ac. 2 : 23), avtlKaTo 
(Ac. 7:21), eCkaro (2 Th. 2 : 13), i^eCkayn^v (Ac. 23 : 27), k^eikaro 
(Ac. 7 : 10; 12 : 11); evpav once (Lu. 8 : 35, or avevpav), evpa^ev once 
(Lu. 23 : 2), and eupafxeuos once (Heb. 9 : 12); the imperatives eX- 
dare, eX^droj uniformly, both rjXdav and rj\dov, once a-Krfkda (Rev. 
10 : 9), regularly T]\dap.ev (Ac. 21 : 8). There are many other ex- 
amples in various MSS. which W. H. are not willing to accept, 
but which illustrate this general movement, such as airkdavav (Mt. 
8 : 32, etc.), eXa/Saj^ (Jo. 1 : 12), kXa^anev (Lu. 5:5), eXd/Sare (1 Jo. 
2 : 27), €te/3aXai/ (Mk. 12 : 8), emap (1 Cor. 10 : 4 D), '^clivyau (Lu. 8 : 
34 D), KaTe4>ayav (Mk. 4:4D), avvkaxo-v (Ac. 7 : 57 D), yepa/jLevos 
(Lu. 22 : 44 N), etc. But let these suffice. Moulton^ is doubtful 
about allowing this -a in the imperfect. But the papyri support 
it as Deissmann- shows, and the modern Greek ^ reinforces it also 
as we have just seen. W. H. receive elxav in Mk. 8:7; Ac. 28 : 2 
(TrapeTxai') ; Rev. 9:8; elxap^^v in 2 Jo. 5. But D has elxo^v in Jo. 
15 : 22, 24; N* has 'eXeyav in Jo. 9 : 10; 11 : 36, etc. There is a dis- 
tinct increase in the use of the sigmatic aorist as in rnxapTrjcra 
(Mt. 18 : 15), 6^Pr]a^e (Lu. 13 : 28). It appears already in the LXX 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 235). But see further under vii, (d). 

The past perfect has the -eiv forms exclusively as uniformly in 
the KOLvr].^ So eiaTr]K€Laav (Rev. 7 : 11), t^eLcrav (Mk. 14 : 40), 7re- 
7roir]KHaap (Mk. 15 : 7). So the LXX. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., 
p. 68. But the imperfect e^fjeaav (Ac. 17 : 15) is to be observed. 

(?') The Middle Endings. These call for less remark. Bov- 
Xet (Lu. 22 : 42) is the only second singular middle form in -ei, for 
6\pii (Mt. 27 : 4) displaces oi/'ct. The inscriptions^ sometimes show 
/3oi/Xr/. Blass^ regards ^ovXh a remnant of literary style in Luke, 

1 Prol., p. 52. So Buresch, Rhein. Mus., 46, 224. Hort (Notes on Orth., 
p. 1G5) needlessly considers iKxeere (Rev. 16 : 1) a second aorist imper. instead 
of the present. Cf. e^ex^af (usual form in Rev. 16:6). Cf. W.-Sch., p. 111. 
But Karex^ev (Mk. 14 : 3) is the usual Attic aorist. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 55. 

2 B. S., p. 191, eXeyas, etc. 

» Cf. Siiiicox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 36; Geldart's Guide to Mod. Gk., p. 
272 note. 

* With rare variations in the inscr. and pap. Moulton, Prol., p. 53. Cf. 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 320 ff. 

^ Schweizcr, Perg. Inschr., p. 168. Cf. also Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 
328. The pap. do not show oUi and 6\pti, but only 0ov\ei. 

8 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 47. For oln, 6^v, arid ^o6Xjj in LXX MSS. sec Helbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., p. 60 f.; C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 33 f. B in the LXX shows a 
fondness for -u forms (itacisni). Cf. Thack., Gr., j). 217. 


but the papyri also have ^ovXei. The occasional use of 8vvr} (Mk. 
9 : 22 f.) has been discussed under -jjll Verbs. It appears only 
once in the LXX, but the "poetic and apparently Ionic" kwiaTji 
is more frequent (Thackeray, Gr., p. 217). Cf. also kclBov (Jas. 2 : 3) 
as LXX and Kadrj (Ac. 23 : 3). On the other hand we have (fyayeaai 
and TTtecrat (Lu. 17 : 8). This revival of the use of -o-at parallel with 
-fj-ai, -rat in the perfect of vowel verbs in the vernacular amounts 
to a "new formation" in the view of Blass.^ So Moulton, Prol., 
p. 54 f. To call this revival a "survival" is "antediluvian philol- 
ogy." In the LXX irkcraL is universal and 0d7ecrat outside of the 
Pentateuch where (l^ayri holds on (Thackeray, p. 218). The -aai 
form is universal in modern Greek. The love of uniformity made 
it triumph. But see Contract Verbs for further discussion. The 
middle form r^ix-qv (Mt. 25 : 35) and riixeda (Mt. 23 : 30) is like the 
KOLvi] generally and the modern Greek et/xat. Cf. also eaofxat. For 
k^kdero (Mt. 21 : 33) with loss of root o and w inflection (thematic 
e) see -/it Verbs. Cf. also e^eKpefj-ero (Lu. 19:48). The LXX has 
-evTo for -ovTo (Thackeray, p. 216). 

(j) Passive Endings. As already observed, the passive voice 
has no distinctive endings of its own. The second aorist passive, 
like k-^avr]-v, is really an active form like l-^-q-v {t-(i)6.vr]-v is the 
proper division) .^ Cf. Latin tace-re. So i-xa-p-q-v from xatpeco. The 
first aorist in -d-qv seems to have developed by analogy out of 
the old secondary middle ending in -^tjs {k-bb-d-qs) parallel mth 
(TO (Sanskrit thds).^ The future passive is a late development 
and merely adds the usual ao/e and uses the middle endings. 
The ending in -O-qv is sometimes transitive in Archilochus,^ as 
the middle often is, and perhaps helps to understand how in the 
KOLVT] these forms (first aorist passive) are so often transitive ("de- 
ponents") as in aireKpidriv, kcj^o^-qd-qv , etc. The second aorist passive 
as noticed above is really an active form. So the passive forms 
have a decidedly mixed origin and history. There is nothing 
special to note about these passive endings in the N. T. save the 
increased use of them when even the passive idea does not exist. 
In some verbs a is inserted contrary to Attic practice. So /ck- 
Xeio-rat (Lu. 11:7), XeXovafxaL (Heb. 10:22). It is a common 
usage in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., pp. 219 ff.). See also vii, 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 47. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 328. 

2 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 410, 427. 

* lb., pp. 411, 422. On "Passive Formations" see Hadley, Ess. Phil, and 
Grit., p. 199. On the strong passive forms in LXX see C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, 
p. 41. * Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 411. 


(g), 9. In Rev. 8:12; 18:23, W. H. print ^ai/T? (first aorist 
active, cf . kinct)avai, in Lu. 1 : 79) rather than the passive <t>apfi. 
Note eK(f)vn (Mt. 24 : 32, but Rec. e/c^uf}, though k</)ii27 in Mk. 
13 : 28), crvv(l)velaai. (Lu. 8 : 7) and TraptLaehh-qaav (Ju. 4) for Uvv 
(Rec. Mk. 1 : 32) which the LXX retains (Thackeray, Gr., p. 
235) . In the LXX, when a verb had both first and second aorist 
passive forms, the first disappeared {ih., p. 237). But see vii, {d), 
for further discussion, 

(/v) Contract Verbs. The use of -(rai was mentioned above. 
It appears^ in Kavxaaat (1 Cor. 4:7; Ro. 2 : 17, etc.) and oSwaaaL 
(Lu. 16 : 25) where ae regularly contracts into a. Sec x^pteaat 
(=-eT<raO P. Oxy. 292 (a.d. 25). 

Verbs in -aw. The confusion with verbs in -eco is already seen 
in the Ionic (Herodotus). The LXX in general preserves the dis- 
tinction between -aoj and -ew verbs, but NAB occasionally have 
the confusion (Thackeray, Gr., p. 241). In the modern Greek the 
blending is complete. One conjugation is made up, some forms 
from -aw, some from -eco (Thumb, Handb., p. 169 f.). The N. T. 
MSS. vary. W. H. receive rip6:Tovv in Mt. 15 : 23 (}<BCD), but 
i]pwTwv in Mk. 4 : 10 though -ow is here supported by {<C and by 
single MSS. elsewhere. Hatzidakis {Einl. in d. Neug., p. 128 f.) 
considers rjpwrovv due to Ionic influence. In Mt. 6 : 28 we have 
KOTTLovaip in B 33, but W. H. reject it, as they do vlkovvtl in Rev. 
2 : 7, 17; 15 : 2, and KareUyovu (Lu. 8 : 53) .^ In Mk. 14 : 5 W. H. 
read helSpLfjLojpTo (i^C -ovvto) and in Jo. 11 : 38 eiJi.(3pLiJL6)nevos (HA. 
-ovjxevos) . So there is a variation as to iiTTchvTaL (2 Pet. 2 : 20) 
from rjTTaofiat. and y]a<TioQr}Te (2 Cor. 12:13) from eo-o-oco after the 
analogy of eXacraoco.^ W. H. print ^fiv (Ro. 8 : 12). This is a 
matter of much dispute with the editors, but it is more than 
doubtful if W. H. are correct. On the other side see Winer- 
SchmiedeH and Moulton.^ But both faco (Ro. 8 : 12) and xP<^o- 
ixai (1 Tim. 1 : 8) have the 77 contraction rather than a (-ijco 
verbs, Moulton, Prol, p. 54). In Ro. 7 : 9 B even has t^j]v for 
i'^wv. But the KOLvi] uses xpao'^cti, though not in the N. T.^ Paul 

1 Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 328, for xapteTaat. The LXX (1 Ki. 14 : 
6 A) shows 6iTrti,evov<Tai. The only certain instance in the LXX is /cratrat (Sir. 
6 : 7). See Thack., p. 218. Cf. further Hatz., Einl., p. 188. 

2 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. IGG. 

* lb. Moulton (CI. Rev., 1901, p. 36) cites IvLkh and Tinodvres from pnp. 

* Pp. 42, 116 note. 

^ Prol., p. 54. Cf. Brus., Griech. Gr., p. 61. The pap. sujiport ^vv, not fjjj'. 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 347. So in general the pap. are in harmony 
with N. T. usage here, Mayser, pp. 346 ff. « Moulton, Prol., p. 54. 


has XP'?™^ (pres. subj.) in 1 Tim. 1:8. Elsewhere also the a 
forms prevail in the kolvt] as in dL^pdu and Tretuap. So ireLvq. (1 Cor. 
11: 21), ireLPaw (Ph. 4 : 12), 8i4^q. (Ro. 12 : 20) as subjunctive (so 
ireLvq. same verse). The LXX keeps Attic ^ijv and xpwdo^i-, but 
8L\pdp and veLvdv (Thackeray, Gr., p. 242).^ 

Verbs in -ew sometimes show forms in -aco. So €XX67a in Phil. 
18, eWoyoLTaL in Ro. 5 : 13, eKeoLTe in Ju. 22, 23, and eXeco^/Tos in 
Ro. 9 : 16, but eXeet in Ro. 9 : 18. LXX has both forms. The 
KOLvr} usually has the -etp forms.^ For further examples of this 
confusion between -aw and -eco in LXX and isolated N. T. MSS. 
see Winer-Schmiedel.^ In 1 Cor. 11:6 all editors print ^vpaadat 
(cf. Keipaadai just before), though in 1 Cor. 11:5 k^vprjukpr] and ^vprj- 
ooPTai (Ac. 21 : 24) probably come from ^vpkw} Cf. edoj, edcrco.^ 

Contraction does not always take place with ee in verbs in -ew. 
In Lu. 8: 38 W. H. follow BL in giving ebdro, but Horf admits 
that it is not free from doubt. Blass'' and Moulton^ consider 
kbktTo correct and the contraction a mere correction, and it is sup- 
ported by the LXX and papyri. AP even have eSeetro. In Rev. 
16 : 1 kx«Te is undoubtedly right and e^exeej/ in 16 : 2, but note 
kKxtiTai (Mt. 9 : 17). In Mk. 14 : 3 Karexeep is to be noticed also 
(cf. Attic aorist). On the other hand in Jo. 3 : 8 note irpei, e^cTrXet 
(Ac. 18 : 18), TrXtZp, diroTr^eip (Ac. 27 : 1 f.). In the LXX these 
words appear now one way, now the other.^ Aew ('to bind'), pew 
have no ee forms in the N. T. W. H. accept in text only e^ov9eP€(a 
in all the dozen examples in the N. T. (as Lu. 18 : 9, e^ovdepovpras) , 
but in Mk. 9 : 12 they have 5 instead of 6.^'^ Observe also d(f)ecov- 
rai (Lu. 5 : 20, etc.) instead of d0covrat or the regular a4>a.PTaL. In 
the N. T., W. H. give kppkdr] (Gal. 3 : 16; Mt. 5 : 21, etc.), but 
Hort^^ thinks the Attic eppr]dr] should appear always in Matthew. 

Verbs in -oco have two knotty problems. In Gal. 4 : 17 frjXoOre 
and 1 Cor. 4 : 6 cf)vaiou(Tde are regular if indicative. But if they are 
subjunctive, the contraction 077 is hke the indicative oe (cf, indica- 

1 W.-Sch., p. 116 note. Cf. Karvpa/xhos (Mt. 25 : 41). 

2 Hatz., Einl., p. 128 f. Moulton (CI. Rev., 1904, p. 110) cites (ppovcovres and 
per contra ayairodi'Tes from pap. ' P. 117 note. 

* Hort (Notes on Orth., p. 166) prefers ^vpaadai after Plut. and Lucian. 

^ Cf. W.-Sch., p. 116 f. See further on this mixing of contract verbs, Mayser, 
Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 349. The LXX MSS. show much the same situation as 
to contract verbs that we find in the N. T. and the pap. Helbing (Gr. d. Sept., 
pp. 110-112) gives the facts in detail. 

6 Notes on Orth., p. 166. » Cf. Thack.,Gr., pp. 242ff.; W.-Sch.. p. 115 note. 

7 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 47. " Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 166. 

8 Prol., p. 54. " lb. BD always have it. 


tive and subjunctive of -ow verbs). So Blass^ and Moulton.^ 
Hort^ doubts the indicative here. If evoSoJTaL (1 Cor. 16 : 2) be 
regarded as a present subjunctive no problem in contraction is 
raised.* But in Col. 4 : 17 we have the subjunctive in I'm ttXtj- 
poh as in Attic for both indicative and subjunctive. In Ro. 
3 : 13 k5o\tov(rau is the common LXX form in -oaau. The other 
point is the infinitive in -ovv or -olv. W. H. give -olu for 
this infinitive everywhere except TXrjpovv in Lu. 9 : 31.^ Cf. -q.p 
and -fjv in W. H. Blass*' considers the -olv termination "hardly 
established for the N. T." since even in the N. T. the evidence is 
"small," though "of good quality" Hort contends.'^ In Mt. 13: 
32 KaTaaKr]uo7v is supported by BD (in Mk. 4 : 32 by B), in 1 Pet. 
2 : 15 (t>tiJ.0Lv has N, and in Heb. 7 : 5 dTroSe/carotj' has BD. Moul- 
ton^ finds no support earlier in date than B save one inscription 
cited in Hatzidakis {Einl., p. 193) and one papyrus of second cen- 
tury A.D. Mayser^ likewise finds no infinitive in -olv till after 
first century a.d. and gives some references for this late infinitive 
form. It looks as if the case will go against W. H. on this point. 
The form is probably due to some late grammarian's refinement 
and is linguistically unintelligible. 

ULiiv is often contracted (sounded finally ZI, then I) into ireXv 
(so W. H., Jo. 4: 7, 9, etc.) and in some MSS. (N 8/9 times) into 
irlv. But TTteiv is the Syrian reading (Mt. 20 : 22, etc.).^» Con- 
traction in -aoj, -eoo, -ooi verbs, of course, takes place only in the 
present, imperfect and present participle. 

VII. The Tenses (xp6voi). 

(a) The Term Tense. It is from the French word temps, 
'time,' and is a misnomer and a hindrance to the understanding 
of this aspect of the verb-form. Time does come finally to enter 
relatively into the indicative and in a limited way affects the op- 
tative, infinitive and participle. But it is not the original nor the 
general idea of what we call tense.^^ Indeed it cannot be shown of 

1 Or. of N. T. Gk., p. 48. Cf. K.-Bl., Bd. II, p. 5S7. 

2 Prol., p. 54. 3 Notes on Ortli., p. 171 f. 

* Moulton, Prol., p. 54. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 1G7. 

" Ilort, ib., p. IGG. « Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 48. 

^ Notes on Orth., p.lGG. 

« Prol., p. 53. Cf. Nestle (Am. Jour, of Theol., July, 1909, p. 448) for 
fjia(TTiyYoti> in Coptic. " Gr. d. griech. Pup., p. 349; Raderm., p. 74. 

" Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 170. 

» Cf. D(;lbrtick, Grundi. d. Kriech. Synt., Bd. IV, p. SO; BruK., Grioch. Gr., p. 
469 f.; Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 481 f. See Swetc, O. T. in Gk., p. 305, 
for remarks about tenses in the LXX. 


any verb-form that it had originally any reference to time. We 
must therefore dismiss time from our minds in the study of the 
forms of the tenses as well as in the matter of syntax. It is too 
late to get a new name, however. 

(6) Confusion in Names. The greatest confusion prevails in 
the names given to the various tenses. The time idea appears in 
the names present, past perfect and future. The state of the ac- 
tion rules in the names aorist, imperfect and perfect. Thus it is 
clear that the time idea did not prevail with all the names that 
the grammarians used. In the indicative, indeed, in the past three 
tenses appear, in the present two, in the future one (sometimes 
two). In the other modes as a rule only three tenses are found; 
in truth, in the subjunctive, optative and imperative practically 
only two are in common usage, the aorist and the present. 

As a matter of fact there are nine possible tenses for each 
voice in the indicative: the aorist present, the imperfect pres- 
ent, the perfect present, the aorist past, the imperfect past, the 
perfect past; the aorist future, the imperfect future, the perfect 
future. These ideas do occur. In the past the distinction is 
clear cut. In the present no sharp hne is drawn between the 
aorist and durative (unfinished or imperfect) save when the peri- 
phrastic conjugation is used or when Aktionsart comes in to 
help out the word itself. In the future, as a rule, no distinction 
at all is made between the three ideas. But here again the peri- 
phrastic conjugation can be employed. As a rule the future is 
aoristic anyhow. For further discussion see Jannaris, Hist. Gk. 
Gr., p. 180; Farrar, Greek Syntax, p. 120, and the references there 
to Harris' Hermes, Harper's Powers of the Greek Tenses, and 
H. Schmidt's Dodrina Temporum Verbi Graeci et Latini. The 
modern Greek preserves as distinct forms the aorist, present, im- 
perfect; the future, the perfect and past perfect using periphrastic 
forms. Mr. Dan Crawford reports 32 tenses for Bantu. 

(c) The Verb-Root. There were originally two types of verb- 
roots, the punctiliar and the durative. The tense called aorist 
(aopLdTos, 'undefined action') is due to the use of the punctiliar 
verbs (the idea of a point on a line). The present tense comes 
out of the durative verb-root. But it is worth repeating that 
tenses are a later development in the use of the verb.^ 

Hence it was natural that some verbs never developed a pres- 
ent tense, like eldov, and some made no aorist, like opdco. The de- 
fective verbs thus throw much light on the history of the tenses. 
1 Giles, Man. of Comp. Pliilol., p. 482 f. 


Out of these two ideas grew all the tenses. Each language had its 
own development. Some aorists in Sanskrit had no presents, like 
the Greek ecTov. Each tense in the Greek pursued its own way. 
It is a complex development as will be seen. The idea of com- 
paring the aorist to a point and the present to a line is due to 
Curtius, but it has since been worked out at length.^ Instead of 
saying "irregular" verbs, Delbruck (Vergl. Sijntax, Tl. II, p. 256) 
speaks of "several roots united to one verb." 

This Aktionsart or kind of action belongs more specifically to 
syntax.2 g^^ i^ is not possible to make a modern study of the 
tense formations without having clearly in mind this important 
matter. It will come out at every turn. Along with the various 
tense-suffixes which came to be used to express the tense-distinc- 
tions as they were developed there remains also the meaning of 
the verb-root itself. This is never to be left out of sight. Prepo- 
sitions also enter into the problem and give a touch much like a 
suffix (perfective). So dvr]aKuv is 'to be dying' while airodavetv is 'to 
die' and aTOTedvrjKevai is 'to be dead.' Cf. exei, and airexet., Ha'yov 
and KaTe4>ayov. But more of this in Syntax. The point here is 
simply to get the matter in mind. 

(d) The Aorist Tense (adpio-ro? xP'^^°^)- ^^ '^^ ^^t true that 
this tense was always the oldest or the original form of the verb. 
As seen above, sometimes a durative root never made an aorist 
or punctiliar stem. But the punctiUar idea is the simplest idea 
of the verb-root, with many verbs was the original form, and logic- 
ally precedes the others. Hence it can best be treated first. This 
is clearer if we dismiss for the moment the so-called first aorists and 
think only of the second aorists of the -jxl form, the oldest aorists. 
It is here that we see the rise of the aorist. Henry ^ has put this 
matter tersely: "The ordinary grammars have been very unfortu- 
nate in their nomenclature; the so-called second perfects are much 
more simple and primitive than those called first perfects; the same 
is the case with the second aorists passive as contrasted with the 
first aorists," etc. The same remark applies to second aorists active 
and middle. The non-thematic second aorists represent, of course, 

1 Cf. Mutzbauer, Gruiull. der Tenipuslohre (1893); Dolbriick, Grundl. d. 
griech. Synt., II, pp. 13 fT.; V>v\i^., Griech. Gr., pp. 470 IT.; Giles, Man. of Comp. 
Philol., p. 480 f.; Moulton, Prol., pp. 108 ff. 

2 Thumb (Handb., p. 123) likewise feels the necessity of a word about 
Aktionsart under Morphology. 

' Comp. Gr. of the Gk. and Lat., Elliott's transl., 1890, p. 105 f. note. Cf. 
Leo Meyer, Griech. Aoriste, 1879, p. 5 f. 


the most primitive form. The survivals of these forms in the 
N. T. have been discussed under -/it Verbs. The difference between 
the strong aorist (both thematic and non-thematic) and similar 
presents is syntactical and not formal.^ The point is that the 
strong aorists and the corresponding presents represent the simple 
stem of the verl). Brugmann^ indeed treats them together. It 
is not possible to make an etymological distinction between the 
imperfects e(t)r]p, eypa(})OP and the aorists eaTrjv, ecfyvyov. The im- 
perfect, of course, differs from the present only in the augment 
and secondary endings.^ The kinship l^etween the aorist and 
present stems is further shown in reduplication. Reduplication 
in the aorist, as riyayov, is supposed to be originally causative.* 
Cf. the use of it with inceptive presents like 7t(7)j/djo-/ca;. The 
aorist was quite common in the older Sanskrit, but is rare in the 
later language.^ Cf. the blending of the aorist and the present 
perfect forms in Latin. The strong aorist (both non-thematic 
and thematic) is far more common in Homer than in the later 
Greek.^ Indeed in the modern Greek the strong aorist has well- 
nigh vanished before the weak aorist.'^ 

As often, the grammars have it backwards. The so-called sec- 
ond is the old aorist, and the so-called first is the late form of the 
verb. This weak form of the aorist has a distinct tense-sign, a, 
the sigmatic aorist. The a (-aa) was not always used, as with 
liquid verbs,^ like ecxTeLXa. This sigmatic aorist appears also 
in the Sanskrit.^ The distinction was not always observed be- 
tween the two forms, and mixed aorists of both kinds occur in 
Homer, like i]^ovTo, r/i/et/ca.^" No wonder therefore that uniformity 
gradually prevailed at the expense of the strong aorist in two 
ways, the disuse of the strong aorist (so rj^a) and the putting of 
first aorist endings to the second aorist stems, as elira, eVxa. 

The K aorists in the indicative {edccKa, W-qKa, rJKo) continued to 
hold their own and to be used usually in the plural also. An ex- 

1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 268. 

2 lb. Cf. also Riem. and Goelzor, Phonct., pp. 396, 410, 414. So K.-BL, II, 
p. 92 f. 3 Cf. Giles, Man. of Comp