m
or
MRS G M CALHOUN
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
" MELAKCTHONIS HOC DICTUM EST: SORIPTDRAM NON POSSE IHTELLIGI THEOLOGICB,
HIE I ANTKA SIT IKTELLECTUM GRAMMATIO."
GRAMMAR
OF THE
NEW TEST
GREEK.
ALEXANDER BUTTMANN.
AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION,
WITH NUMEROUS ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS BY THE AUTHOR,
WARREN F. DRAPER, PUBLISHER.
MAIN STREET.
1891.
OPY ADDED
P:
"fc
Entered according to Act of I'ongress, in the year 1873, ty
WAKREN * DIIAFEU,
in tlie Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington.
cussses mi :/;.:':. ~,
AKDOVER: PRINTED BT WARRKN F. DRAPER.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
IT is to be hoped that the reproduction of the following work in
English will nof be regarded as a superfluous labor. The day has gone
by, indeed, when the extravagant maxim could find acceptance, " The
better grammarian, the worse logician and theologian ; " but the some-
what indiscriminate depreciation of the study of the dead languages at
the present day is not without injurious influence upon those who are
preparing themselves to be expounders of the Divine Word. Even in
that land which is reputed to be the home of philological studies, the
prince of New Testament expositors has recently said: "We theo-
logians are still far too deficient in a comprehensive and positive
knowledge of Greek Grammar." 1 The sense of such a deficiency
which the general progress of linguistic science must sooner or later
awaken, and especially the recognition (which the growing tendency to
break away from traditional opinions will force upon theologians)
of the need of taking a new inventory of the biblical data, as preliminary
to a revision of the scientific statements of the Christian faith, will
eventually secure a welcome for works like the present.
Its author is the youngest son of the late Philip Buttmann, whose
Grammars, which have been in use now for more than eighty years,
have rendered the name familiar wherever Greek is studied. After
completing his training at the universities of Berlin and Bonn, he
became, in 1837, a teacher in the gymnasium at Potsdam, where, by
successive promotions, he attained, in 1854, to the rank of Professor.
But in the same year he resigned his office, in order to secure the
leisure needed for his literary labors ; and he has lived since in retire-
ment, except that he has held the position of " Schulrath," to which the
city appointed him in 1864.
Intrusted by the other members of the family with the care of his
father's grammatical works, he has edited at least eight editions of the
so-called Intermediate Grammar (which in its eighteenth edition was
translated into English by the late Dr. Edward Robinson), and seven
1 Meyer's Commentary on the Ep. to the Romans (5th ed.). Pref. p. vii note.
v i TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
editions of the School Grammar. Under his hand these works have
undergone essential changes, especially in the syntax, and have been so
judiciously adapted to the steady progress in grammatical science, as
still (forty-four years after the death of their author) to be able to
maintain themselves in many German sc tools and universities against
the competition of recent Grammars, like those of Curtius and
Kriiger.
Besides many essays upon grammatical, critical, and exegetical topics,
which Professor Buttmann has prepared from time to time for the
Studien und Kritiken, and other periodicals, he published, in 1856, a
book on " German Names of Places." But his chief work, and that
especially for the preparation of which he withdrew from the labor of
teaching, is his N. T. Grammar. This is confessedly the most important
treatise on the subject which has appeared since Winer's. The author
makes generous acknowledgments of indebtedness to Winer ; but a
slight examination of the book will convince the reader that it has a
valid claim to be regarded as an original work. In fact, the general
attitude and drift of the two writers differ perceptibly. While Winer
owing, doubtless, to the lax views respecting the N. T. language
which prevailed when he began to write seems loath to recognize
incipient departures from classic usage, Prof. Buttmann, on the other
hand, is quick to concede and to trace out the general tendency of the
language to degenerate from the classic standard, is inclined to give
greater prominence than Winer to the influence of the Septuagint, and
even to detect traces of the Latin hi the syntax of the N. T. Hence
it comes to pass that respecting several details, such as the unemphatic
use of avrds in the Nom. (p. 107), the use of periphrases for the Geni-
tive (p. 156), of the Indie. Pres. for the Subjunc. in deliberative
questions (p. 208 sq.), etc., his views vary materially from those of his
predecessor. On other and broader topics, too, such as the use of the
Art. (cf. pp. 90, 93), the apparently indiscriminate employment of Aor.
and Perf. (p. 197), the so-called Gnomic Aor. (pp. 201 sqq.), the use
and force of the particle Iva. (pp. 235 sqq.) and of the Infin. with TOV
(pp. 266 sqq.), his clear and thorough discussions will be read with
interest ; while his full exhibition of grammatical forms, 1 especially those
of the verb, will prove to be specially helpful. And as his discussion of
the principles of the N. T. language, both supplementing and qualifying,
as it does, the views of Winer, will interest the student of grammar ;
so his extended application of these principles in elucidating obscure
1 Cf. Tischendorf 's commendatory rema tk in his N. T. ed. Sept. Crit. Maj
Prolegg. p. Ix.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. yjj
passages will be welcomed by those who care for little more than tho
results of exegesis.
The form which the author thought best to give his treatise, viz. that
of an Appendix to Ph. Buttmann's Griechische Grammatik (the work
which Dr. Robinson translated), has doubtless retarded its circulation. 1
By adopting that form, he was enabled, while devoting, at the most,
but a passing remark to those points which the language of the N. T.
has in common with classic Greek, to exhibit what is peculiar to the
N. T. in a more sharp and consecutive treatment than would have been
possible otherwise. But the scientific precision of the plan is counter-
balanced, in the result, by the practical inconveniences to which those
students are subjected who are not familiar with the grammatical
method of Buttmann. It seemed desirable to the translator, therefore,
while, on the one hand, retaining as far as possible the author's exclusive
treatment of his department, on the other hand, to adapt the work to
the easy use of students drilled in other grammatical text-books. In
order to accomplish this twofold object, I have introduced into the trans-
lation so much only from Buttmann's classical Grammar as was neces-
sary, in every case, to render the matter under discussion intelligible to
the student without recourse to that work ; and, on the other hand, I
have added to the references to that Grammar (which is designated by
the letter B.) running references to the other classical Grammars most
hi use in this country and in Great Britain, viz. to those of Hadley,
Crosby, Donaldson, Jelf. These Grammars, as well as Buttmann's,
are referred to by sections, 2 and designated respectively by the initials
H., C., D., J.
Owing to diversity in the arrangement and treatment of topics, these
references will not be found to be all equally pertinent. But in making
them I have been governed by the conviction that a reference to a
familiar work, and one at hand, is more serviceable, especially to a be-
ginner, than a reference, though better in itself, to a work less accessible
or less easily understood.
In addition to the Grammars already named, references have been
given to Prof. Goodwin's Syntax of Moods and Tenses, to Winer's
1 Since the arrangements for this translation -were completed with Prof. Butt-
mann and his publisher, large use of the original has been made in the notes of
Prof. Moulton's excellent translation of the Sixth edition of Winer's N. T. Gram-
mar. But it is believed that those who obtain their knowledge of it through that
medium can hardly fail to desire to possess the entire work in English.
2 Occasionally it has been convenient to refer to Buttmann's Classical Grammar
by pages. In that case the page given is that of Dr. Robinson's translation of the
eighteenth German edition, published in 1851, by Harper and Brothers, N- Y.
Viii TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
N. T. Grammar, and occasionally to Prof. Short's Essay on the Order
of Words in Attic Greek Prose. 1 These works are represented by G.,
W., and S. respectively. The references to Winer are to the pages of
the authorized translation of the Seventh German edition, and are fol-
lowed in each case by the number of the corresponding page in the
original, inclosed within a parenthesis. The references to the " Lehrge-
baude " of Gesenius have been supplemented, so far as possible, by
references to the corresponding matter hi his Hebrew Grammar. The
general references to Pape and to Walil have, for the most part, been
retained. But the sixth edition of Liddell and Scott will ordinarily
serve the student quite as well as the former ; and the revised edition
of Dr. Robinson's N. T. Lexicon, or, still better, Prof. Grimm's edition
of Wilke's Clavis 2 may be substituted for the latter.
The matter incorporated from Buttmann's classical Grammar, and
the references to the other grammatical works above mentioned, are
generally introduced without any distinctive mark ; but all other addi-
tions made by me are carefully distinguished from the original by square
brackets.
With the exception of the slight modification of the plan of the work
which has been already described, and the omission of a paragraph from
the author's Preface which this modification rendered irrelevant, the
translation reproduces the original in full and without change. But
Prof. Buttmann has very kindly furnished me with two hundred and
sixty-one manuscript additions and corrections for tliis edition many
of them of considerable length and much importance. In weaving
them into the text, I have taken pains not to obscure the author's change
of opinion, when any has occurred.
The Greek text of the N. T. generally adopted by the author is that
of Lachmann's larger edition ; see the remarks on this subject at the
close of the Introduction, p. 4. In the same place, the reader will
discover that the printing of this book was begun nearly two years ago.
But the delay is the less regretted, because in the interim the eighth
edition of Tischendorf's text and the Greek Testament of Tregelles
have both been completed, so that hi passages where allusion is made
1 Prefixed to Dr. Drisler's edition of Yonge's English-Greek Lexicon. N. Y.
Harper and Brothers. 1870.
2 The translation of Prof. Grimm's Lexicon which was promised in the Bib-
liotheca Sacra for October, 1864, has been lying in manuscript now for many
months. The protracted work of verifying the references is drawing towards a
close, and the book will be published as soon as leisure can be found for the edi
torial labor requisite to adapt it to the needs of English-speaking students.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. i z
to variation in the text, the reading adopted by both these editors has
been indicated. To accomplish this at the least expense of alteration
in the plates, the ordinary abbreviations Tdf. and Treg. have occasion-
ally been superseded by the simple T. and Tr. respectively. For the
same reason the codex Sinaiticus has been referred to by cod. Sin., Sin.,
and N indifferently.
The Biblical references have all been carefully verified. The N. T.
Index has been enlarged so as to include all the passages from the
N. T. referred to in the Grammar ; and a separate index has been
added, comprising the passages cited from the Septuagint. For the
labor which these improvements involved, as well as for valuable
assistance hi correcting the press, my grateful acknowledgments are
due to my friend Rev. Geo. B. Jewett, D.D.
The other indexes have been materially augmented ; the cross-
references have been multiplied; chapter and verse added to many of
the fragmentary quotations from the N. T. ; the pagination of the
German original has been given in the margin ; and at the end of the
book a Glossary of technical terms encountered more or less frequently
hi commentaries and grammatical works has been added for the con-
venience of students.
Finally, I would reiterate the closing words of the author's Preface,
in reliance upon the promise made to those who shall agree as touching
what they ask.
J. H. THAYEB.
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, ANDOVBB, MASS.
August, 1873.
PREFACE.
As long ago as the appearance of the nineteenth edition of my
father's Greek Grammar, I designed to give, as an Appendix for the
practical purposes of schools, a summary of the grammatical usage of
the N. T. in so far as it differs from ordinary usage, in order subse-
quently to follow it with a copious and scientific exposition of the
entire department. To this twofold undertaking I was led by the per-
suasion that Winer's Grammar is, on the one hand, too comprehensive
and learned for school use ; and that on the other hand, for those who
have been taught according to the plan of Buttmann's Grammar, it pre-
pares manifold difficulties by its arrangement and whole method of
treatment, and requires for its correct understanding almost an inde-
pendent training of its own. But my work also grew under my hands.
The further I entered upon my theme, the more I perceived that such
a summary as I had originally designed could only get a sure founda-
tion and make claim to scientific worth in case the entire department
had previously been explored as far as possible in all directions, and
received a sustained exposition ; and that, at any rate, it is a more
correct and safe procedure to let a practical outline follow a larger work,
executed on scientific principles, than the reverse. Thus arose this
Grammar. That I venture to present it to the learned public in face
of the many and undisputed excellences of Winer's, does not arise from
the mistaken and self-complacent opinion that the work of my respected
predecessor ought to be supplanted by a new one. On the contrary, it
is my firm persuasion that Winer's work will long continue to maintain
its honorable position in philological as well as theological science ; and
it is my highest wish that my work may only succeed hi winning for
itself a modest place in this department of literature behind, or by the
side of, its predecessDr and master.
Winer's Grammar originated at a time when modern philological
criticism, especially as applied by Lachmann and Tischendorf, had not
yet given to the text of the N. T. that form which it now has in most
of the editions used in schools and universities. It is true, the recent
PREFACE. x i
revisions of the text remained by no means unnoticed by Winer.
On the contrary, the indefatigable labors of the man in this particular
are shown by the circumstance that almost every new edition of his
Grammar underwent the most important and radical alterations, in order
to conform it to the stage of criticism at the time. But the work as a
whole acquired by these frequent changes a somewhat ragged look, and
a form often extremely inconvenient for practical use, especially for
citation. Since, too, hardly any performance within his department
escaped the notice of this thorough investigator, inasmuch as he took
notice of all publications in any way relating to it, as well those of spe-
cifically theological science as of philological, both oriental and classical,
and wrought the acquired results into his work, he imparted to it by
degrees such a character that it may be regarded almost as a grammati-
cally arranged Commentary on the N. T. ; a commentary which, by its
copious wealth and its searching treatment of many particular passages,
is, and will remain, indispensable to every member of the theological
profession. But on the other hand it is not to be denied, that by the
accumulation (often unlimited) of learned material the clear grammati-
cal outlook was frequently cut off. Furthermore, as the work did not
adopt any given system of classical Greek grammar, but traversed anew,
in the syntax at least, the entire realm of grammatical phenomena,
much was of necessity given which strictly belonged to the general
grammar, or at least might have been assumed as sufficiently well-known
already. The inevitable consequence of this was, that for an unprac-
tised eye what is distinctive and peculiar in N. T. usage is not discrimi-
nated sharply enough from what, as being common property to all who
spoke and wrote Greek, pertains to Greek grammar in general.
Taking, then, the critical investigations of the recent editors as my
basis, and adopting the philological views which underlie Buttmann's
Greek Grammar, particularly the nineteenth and following editions
edited by me, I have given my N. T. Grammar the form of an Appendix
to that work. In this way the first part of my book, which relates to
Forms and Inflection, has acquired, it must be confessed, a somewhat
fragmentary aspect, as the honored reviewer in Zarncke's literary
" Centralblatt " correctly remarks. Since, however, the deviations, in
the matter of Forms, of the language of the N. T. writers, (with the
exception, perhaps, of the text of the Apocalypse as established by
modern criticism) from the current literary language, especially the
then prevalent /coivrj, so-called, are by no means very important, a
work undertaking to bring out only what is distinctive in the N. T.
language cannot assume any other shape ; just as the same description
Sii PREFACE.
holds true of that portion of Winer's Grammar also which treats of
Forms.
As respects Syntax the case is different. Here what is characteristic
and peculiar is incomparably more marked, in consequence of the nature
of the contents of the N. T. books on the one hand, and of many foreign
influences on the other. That the mental impulse given by the new doc-
trine must produce a noticeable effect upon language, does not need to
be shown at length. Of the foreign influences which impart to the
Greek of the N. T. that complexion which distinguishes it so noticeably
from the classic tongue, there are in particular four : First, the influence
of the linguistic spirit of the Orient, especially of the O. T. Hebrew
and of the Aramaic of the Palestinian Jews of that day (Hebraisms) ;
Secondly (and closely connected with this), the influence of the Greek
translation of the Bible by the Seventy interpreters, generally diffused
as it was among the Jews of that region and so much in use (the Sep-
tuagint) ; Thirdly, the influence coming from the popular language
prevalent in all portions of the Greek world of that day, as distinguished
from the literary diction of the repositories of classic Greek literature
and culture (the Common or Colloquial language) ; Fourthly, the in-
fluence of the Latin language upon the later Greek or so-called /coivrj
(Latinisms).
******
A complete exhibition of the linguistic peculiarities of the N. T.
would comprise a discrimination between the styles peculiar to the
different N. T. authors. For it is not to be overlooked, that (leaving the
Apocalypse aside) there exists a difference not only between the historic
writings and the epistolary, but also within these main divisions, between
the synoptists and John ; between the Pauline and the Catholic epistles ;
between individual Evangelists ; in fact, between the several writings
of one and the same author ; an assertion which is true, for example,
of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. A detailed exposition of
these differences, however, would carry us quite too far, and lies beyond
the limits of this Grammar, which is primarily concerned only with
grouping as far as possible all characteristics together, and so taking a
combined view of the N. T. diction and style. The compass of the
several writings, also, is too small to afford a basis for separate exposi-
tions of the various peculiarities in language ; and an author must be
satisfied to treat this subject in a fragmentary way as opportunity offers.
Moreover, a minute elaboration of this topic falls rather to the depart-
ment of N. T. stylistics, or of exegesis, whose business it is to examine
and elucidate the individual writings on all sides. The reader, there-
x
fore, may be the more readily referred to these exegetical works, as
more thorough treatment and careful investigation have already been
bestowed upon the subject by the recent commentators ; * and in conse-
quence of the critical renovation of the text will continue to be given
it in the future. Whatever grammatical results, however, could already
be mentioned, I have carefully endeavored to note: by speaking of
them in their place as special peculiarities, and by giving as complete a
list of them as possible hi the Index under the head of the respective
N. T. authors. The same has been done in reference to the four aspects
of the language previously mentioned, with regard to which the Index
may be consulted under the topics, Hebraisms, Septuagint, Language
(popular and later Greek), Latinisms.
On two other points it seems to me necessary to say a word in this
place, viz. the proper attitude and relations of New Testament Grammar
to Exegesis and to Lexicography. The contents of the N. T., especially
of the Epistles, are so exceptional both as respects difficulty and impor-
tance, and the compass of the several books is so small, that hi the
domain of interpretation the most diverse results could not fail to be
brought to light. 'Evidence of this is afforded by the extremely numer-
ous and voluminous exegetical writings, the like of which in amount can
probably be shown by no literary productions of ancient or modern
times. Owing to the variety of religious parties and theological sects,
which from the first centuries down have been so numerous and change-
ful, as well as in consequence of the restricted views or one-sided parti-
zanship of individuals, the diversity of exegetical principles is very
considerable ; in fact there are for many passages almost as many
different interpretations as interpreters (see ex. gr. Winer on Gal. iii.
20). And to what assaults from the same quarter and for the same
reasons the sacred text itself has been exposed from the very earliest
times, the collection of various readings affords many a striking proof ;
(see ex. gr. 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; 1 John v. 7 ; 1 Cor. xv. 51, etc.). Nowhere,
however, do the opinions of interpreters diverge more widely than where
a knowledge of grammatical principles was wanting, and consequently
the caprice of the private understanding had free course, so that often
N. T. Grammar was made responsible for the strangest hypotheses and
chimeras. Although the knowledge of grammar is not the only, still
1 Among many others I may mention the commentaries of Bleek on the Epistle
to the Hebrews, of Liicke and Tholuck on John, of Fritzsche on the first two
Gospels, of the same author and of Ruckert and Reiche on the Epistles to the
Romans and the Corinthians, of de Wette and Meyer on all \\e books of the N. T
the numerous N. T. Introductions, etc.
X JV PREFACE.
it is the primary and the main, foundation of interpretation ; at any
rate, it is a check to subjective caprice and inordinate excesses. With-
out this foundation there can be no talk about certainty in explaining
the Scriptures ; for we possess no inspired interpretation. Linguistic
products, even the most sacred, are like all others, subject to the restraint
of linguistic laws, which, be they ever so special, are nevertheless Laws^
which every author spontaneously and unconsciously obeys. To establish
such definite linguistic laws, together with the just as definitely-limited
exceptions (so far forth as the latter either rest upon analogies hi ordi-
nary usage, or at least group themselves together under a distinctly
traceable special analogy), and to combine all these phenomena into
one systematic whole, is the business of a special grammar.
Many passages of Scripture, however, are of such a kind that, owing
to the limited extent of the several books, they are destitute of any
other analogy. These, to be sure, must then be explained from them-
selves, from the context and the tenor of Scripture, or by the aid of
ancient tradition (which must have for us the greater authority the
nearer it stands to the time of composition of the Scriptures), hi a word,
historically rather than grammatically. Such cases must be left prin-
cipally to Exegesis. If Grammar notices them, it does so rather inci-
dentally, and for the sake of completeness ; their value to Grammar
can only be determined by their relation to analogies already estab-
lished. For she can adopt, and work up as solid portions of the system
she would found, only those results of Hermeneutics which rest upon
analogies, if she will not run the risk of being compelled to pull to
pieces to-morrow what she to-day perhaps has laboriously built up, and
to cast away as useless material what she has over-hastily made the
corner pillar of her structure. On the other hand, it would be just as
erroneous, if she hi haughty self-sufficiency should wish utterly to
seclude herself from the results of Hermeneutics. Both sciences must
continually go hand in hand. As Hermeneutics has in Grammar her
constant monitor and the touchstone of her results, so Grammar receives
from the discreet critico-historical inquiry of Exegesis perpetually new
enrichment. It is an unscientific, irrational demand, and one which
misjudges man's powers, that the one science should not begin to act
till after the other has finished its work ; since, on the contrary, they
are loth at the same time called and commissioned for the understanding
of the Scriptures. By progressive discernment, with the help of Gram
mar and under the guidance of critico-historical research, continually to
dimmish the number of passages which refuse to submit to any linguis-
tic analogy (and consequently as to whose meaning commentators
PREFACE. xv
generally diverge in all directions) is one of the leading and abiding
aims of Hermeneutics.
Further : it is difficult to draw a sharp boundary line between Lexi-
cography and the explanation of words (Semasiology) on the one hand,
and Grammar on the other; since both departments often encroach
upon each other, and stand in relations of reciprocity. Indeed, from a
scientific point of view every syntactic phenomenon connected with a
word ought to be included in syntax, of whatever nature that phenome-
non may be : for example, the different significations of a word so far
forth as they proceed from a difference of construction, or on the other
hand occasion a different construction. But a particular grammar, like
that of the N. T., always subserves, hi the main, practical necessities ;
and it would be obliged to extend its limits far too wide, if in the respect
under consideration it would attain to merely relative completeness even.
Here also, therefore, a separation must take place between what can
be traced back to definite laws and perceptible analogies, and what as
an isolated peculiarity can be conveniently left to the dictionaries. It
is true, the general lexicons in common use in the schools, as they are
all based on classical usage, are not sufficient hi many cases for the
understanding of the N. T. (compare ex. gr. the words Tncrrevuv, cX?rt-
eiv, 6/AoA.oyetv ; the prepositions eV, tk, a., etc.) ; and accordingly, a
great number of special dictionaries have been prepared by scholars,
among which may be named those of Schottgen, Schleusner, Wahl,
Bretschneider, Wilke, Schirlitz, etc. Grammar, however, obliged as
it is continually to impose upon itself firm restrictions, cannot possibly
include all that is lexically important unless the fulness of details is
to destroy the evident perspicuity of the whole, but must regard its task
as completely performed when all the combinations and constructions
occurring in the N. T., especially those relating to cases and verbs, are
linguistically accounted for. The possession of a special dictionary,
therefore, will always be requisite to theologians and every one who
desires to investigate the N. T. writings minutely.
These are the principles and the most important aims which have
guided me hi the composition of this work. Whether I have a right to
appear before the literary public with a book which originated hi this
way and has been wrought out according to these principles, those must
judge who join to linguistic knowledge an unprejudiced view of the
great difficulties to be overcome. Whether I hereafter venture to make
an abridgment of this work for the use of schools, will depend upon
the invitation especially of those gentlemen who have charge of religious
instruction in the Gymnasia.
xv i PREFACE.
In conclusion, let me be permitted, with allusion to the closing words
of Winer's Preface to the last [i.e. the 6th] edition of his Grammar, to
utter the deep-felt desire, that under God's assistance it may be reserved
for this book also (hi fellowship with the work of my honored pre-
decessor, to which it owes very much, indeed the greatest part, of its
value) to further the knowledge of Biblical truth so far as any such
work can.
POTSDAM, NOT. 1858.
CONTENTS
PART FIRST: FORMS.
RAM
Introduction, 1
Orthography, .Orthoepy, Euphony, etc., 5
Declension : The Dual, 11
First Declension, 11
Second Declension, 12
Third Declension, "... 13
Declension of Foreign Proper Names, 15
Anomalous Declension, 22
Comparison, 27
Numerals, 28
Pronouns, 31
The Verb, 32
Syllabic Augment, 32
Temporal Augment, 33
The Augment in Composition, 35
Future Subjunctive, 35
Circumflexed Future, 37
Alexandrian Aorist, 39
Verbs in X, ji, v, p, 41
Verbals in TOS, 41
Barytone and Contract Verbs, 42
Verbs in pi, 44
Deponents Passive, 51
List of Anomalous Verbs, 53
Adverbs, 69
Particles of Place, , 70
Changes of Form in Particles, 72
Formation of Words, 73
e xYii
CONTENTS.
PART SECOND: SYNTAX.
MM
Introduction, 75
Substantives and Adjectives, 76
Apposition, 77
Constr. ad Synesin, 80
Omission of the Substantive, 81
Adjectives used for Adverbs, 82
Comparative and Superlative, 83
fhe Article, 85
The Definite Article, 85
Omission of the Article, 88
Use of the Article with more closely defined Substantives, . . 90
The Article with a Substantive to be supplied, 94
The Article before entire Sentences 96
Th<5 Article with several connected Substantives, .... 97
Ths Article as a Demonstrative, 101
pronouns, 103
OVTOS <tnd 686, IKCIVOS, 103
Constr. ad Synesin with Demonstratives, 105
Use ot avrds, 107
The Reflexive Pronoun, 110
rls, TLS, Son-is, . . 114
Possessives, and the use of the Personals and of \!8ios for the same . 115
Pronouns with the Article, 119
Periphrastic Forms of the Negative Pronouns, 121
Neuter Adjectives, 122
Subject and Predicate, 123
Their Agreement in Number and Gender, 125
Constr. ad Synesin in the Predicate, 129
Adverbs as Predicates, 131
Unexpressed Subject, 132
Omission of the Ccpvla, 136
The Cases, 138
Nominative and Vocative, 138
The Oblique Cases particularly che Object, . . . .141
The Accusative, 146
The Genitive, 154
The Dative, 171
CONTENTS. x j x
PAOB
The Verb, .... 187
The Passive, 187
Verbal Adjectives, 190
The Middle, ... 191
The Tenses, 194
The Moods, 207
The Subjunctive, 208
The Optative, ,214
The Particle &v, . .216
A. Conditional Sentences, 220
B. "Relative Sentences, . . . ... . , 227
C. Temporal Sentences, 230
D. Causal Sentences, 232
E. Final Sentences (use of i'va in N. T.), .233
F. Illative Sentences, 243
G. Declarative Sentences, 245
H. Interrogative Sentences, 246
General Kemarks on the Moods, 256
The Imperative, 257
The Infinitive, 258
The Article (TO) with the Infinitive, 261
The Infinitive with TOV, . . . . . . . . 266
The Infinitive for the Imperative, 271
The Accusative and Infinitive, . 272
K\6viv, etc., with the Infinitive, 275
Kal -y 6 ' VTO followed by Infinitive, etc., 276
Attraction with the Infinitive, 278
Construction of Relative Sentences, 280
Constructio ad Synesin with the Relative 281
Attraction in Relative Sentences, 285
The Participle, 288
The Participle with etvcu, 30S
Redundant Participles, . . . 313
Cases Absolute, . . . .314
Adverbs, ....... 319
Prepositions, 321
Prepositions with the Genitive, 321
Prepositions with the Dative, 328
Prepositions with the Accusative, 331
Prepositions with the Genitive and Accusative, 334
XX CONTENTS.
PAGB
Prepositions (continued), 335
Prepositions with all three Cases, 335
Position, etc., of Prepositions, 341
Negatives, 344
(Other) Particles, 357
Certain Peculiar Constructions, 376
I. Attraction, 376
II. Anacoluthon, 378
III. Inversion (H)perbaton) 387
IV. Ellipsis (Brachylogy, Pregnant Construction), .... 390
V. Aposiopesis, 396
VI. Pleonasm, 397
VII. Epexegesis, . 399
VIII. Zeugma, 400
IX. Asyndeton (Polysyndeta), . 401
I. Index of Subjects, 405
II. Index of Greek Words and Forms, 414
III. Index of Passages cited from the O. T., 428
IV. Index of Passages in the N. T. explained or cited, . . . .431
Glossary of Technical Terms, ....,. 470
INTRODUCTION.
B. 1,N. 8; C. 88: H. 4f.; D. 13.
1. THE basis of the Hellenistic language of the N. T. is tho
so-called Macedo-Alexandrian dialect, which, as is well
known, became current in the time of the Ptolemies, especially
at Alexandria, then the seat of culture ; and this again was
founded upon the Koivr) StaXe/ero? which sprang from the Attic
dialect. From Alexandria Greek speech and culture spread
over the Asiatic kingdoms which arose from the Macedonian
conquest, and accordingly over Syria. Here, of course, much
that was local and foreign was mixed with it, not only in the
mouth of the people, but also of the educated who wrote for
the people. Consequently, in the language of the N. T. when
compared with the Attic dialect, the general basis of the
(prose) literary language, we may distinguish, first, the pecu-
liarities belonging to the Alexandrian (Macedonian) dialect;
and secondly, especially in the Syntax, the so-called Hebraisms
(Aramaisms).
REMARK. Since the N. T. writings, however, are (perhaps with
the exception of Matthew) the free products of authors who thought
and spoke in Greek, they do not exhibit nearly as many Hebraisms as
the language of the Seventy, who translated immediately from the
Hebrew ; they consequently constitute an independent idiom. But as
the translated Scriptures of the O. T. exercised a manifold influence
upon the composition of the N. T. books being referred to very often
by the N. T. writers, who inwove into their language quotations from
them, now literal, now free, a N. T. Grammar must often take notice
of the language of the Septuagint.
2. The language of the several books of the N. T. again 2
varies according as every individual writer 1) has his peculiar
modes of expression, 2) and even certain dialectic peculiarities,
3) and approximates more or less to the Hebrew style. In
particular the historic books differ from the epistolary in
consequence of their differing aim and contents; inasmuch
l
2 INTKODUCTION.
as the historic, especially the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and
John, approximate more to the (Aramaizing) language of
the people; the Epistles, on the other hand, part.cularly those
written by Paul to Greek-speaking churches and persons in
Europe and Asia, are connected as respects language with
the literary Greek then in use, yet not without noticeable
deviations in construction and in the formation and meaning
of words, since the common Greek habits of thought and
speech were not adequate to the expression of the new ideas.
The strictly Greek style of writing is approximated most closely
by the writings of Luke, especially by the Acts, of which the
diction and entire mode of expression is often suggestive of
Attic elegance and is full of genuine Greek turns and construc-
tions, although instances of the opposite are not wanting in
them. Lastly, the language of the Apocalypse is distinguished
from all the rest by great and sometimes very anomalous
peculiarities in word and structure.
3. Since the Alexandrian dialect arose from the Koivrj, it is
not surprising that writers speak even of so-called lonisms,
Dorisms, etc. (though very limited in number) in the N.T. also.
But neither the language of the N. T., nor that of the KQIVQI
in general, can be regarded as a mixture, as is sometimes
assumed, of the various Greek dialects ; since all the dialectic
phenomena in question are in part quite isolated and in part
of doubtful origin.
4. Although we possess a large number of MSS. 1 of the
N. T. Scriptures, some of which are very old, and the writings
3 of the oldest church fathers bear witness largely to the text
current in their times, yet very divergent forms of the text
have come down to us. This makes it often very difficult
indeed, owing to the equal authority for the readings, almost
impossible to distinguish between what originally belonged
1 The most important among the so-called uncial Codices (i.e. MSS. written in
uncial letters) are the Cod. Alexandrinus (A) now in the British Museum, Lon-
don, Cod. Vaticanus (B) in Rome, Cod. rescriptus Eplmemi (C) in Paris, Cod.
Cantabrigiensis (D),etc. To these must now be added the Cod. Sinaiticus (&} in
St. Petersburg (recently discovered by Tischendorf in the Convent of Mt. Sinai).
The oldest MSS. are Codd. Vat. and Sin., both of the 4th century. See, for
details concerning the MSS., the Prolegomena of Tischendorf and Scholz, the
Introductions of Hug, [Tregelles, Scrivener], Griesbach's Symb. Crit., [Smith's
Bible Diet. Art. New Testament, especial y in the Am. ed.], etc.
INTRODUCTION. 3
to the author, and what to the transcribers and the time in
which and for which they wrote. The earlier editions of the
N. T. as the editio princeps which appeared (at Alcala) in
Spain, (the so-called Complutensian); then the various editions
by Erasmus which appeared in the sixteenth century (and
which Luther used in his translation), and particularly that
by Robert Stephens (1550), Theodore Beza (1565), and the
Elzevirs (1624, which last gradually acquired general cur-
rency in the Western Church, and hence its text is called the
Textus Receptus) all rest more or less upon a very imper-
fect, in fact, arbitrary, collation of a number of MSS. appar-
ently for the most part the more modern. In the 17th century,
accordingly, and particularly in the 18th, a great multitude
of various readings was collected through the more careful
collation of the most important of the older MSS., and by the
labors of many scholars, as Bengel, Wetstein, Bentley, Birch,
Griesbach, etc. ; but the text of most of the subsequent
editions 1 differed in the main but little from the textus recep-
tus, since the editors (generally theologians) did not venture
to depart too far from that to which usage had given a kind of
ecclesiastical sanction. Hence the need of a text founded
upon a purely philological process became more and more
pressing. The merit of having prepared the way for such a
thorough revision of the text upon critical and philological
principles, belongs unquestionably to Carl Lachmann (Lchm.),
who first in 1831 prepared a smaller edition of the N. T. and
subsequently in 1842 a larger edition 2 furnished with a critical
apparatus and Jerome's Latin version, the so-called Vulgate
Almost at the same time and in pursuance of essentially the.
same method, yet often reaching different .results, partly
because starting with other critical views, 3 partly in conse-
quence of using a much greater number of MSS., collations,
and critical helps of every kind L. F. C. Tischendorf (Tdf.)
1 The greatest reputation among those of more recent date was won by the edi-
tions of Griesbach which were prepared with judicious criticism and great care :
smaller ed. Leips. 1825 ; larger ed. Vol. I. Halle, 1796 (3d ed. care of David Schulz,
Berlin, 1827), Vol. II. Hal. 1806.
2 Novum Testamentum gr. et lat. Car. Lachmannus rec., Ph. Buttmannus
Grsecse lect. auctoritates apposuit. Berol. 1842, 1850.
8 On the critical principles of the tvro editors see the Prefaces to their respective
editions, and the discussions and e>- positions in the theol. Stud. u. Krit. there
referred to.
4 INTRODUCTION.
undertook to restore the text in a series of editions of the N.T.,
the first of which appeared in 1841. After making several
journeys expressly for this purpose, collating for himself
nearly all the most important Codices, and publishing several
ancient and newly-discovered manuscript documents, 1 he pre-
pared a second larger edition [1849] , 2 provided with a copious
critical apparatus, which was- followed (in 1854) by the
Triglot edition, comprising the Greek text, the Vulgate and
the oldest Lutheran translation [cf. note 3 below]. Respect-
ing other modern editions, as that of Scholz, Ed. von Muralt,
the Acts by Bornemann, see Tisch. pref. [Tregelles, on the
Printed Text of the Gr. N. T. 1854 ; cf. the Introductions, etc.,
referred to p. 2, note 1 ]. The present work will in the main
take as its basis the text of Lachmann's large edition, yet con-
stant regard is paid to the readings of Tischendorf ; 3 and,
where it seemed necessary, to those of Griesbach (Grsb.) also,
as well as of the textus receptus (Rec.). [In disputed passages
the reading adopted by Tregelles (Treg.), in his Greek New
Testament (exclusive of the Revelation, which is not yet pub-
lished 4 ), 1857-70, will also be indicated.]
1 See the list of them given in the Preface to the editions of 1849 and 1854
[more fully in his 7th ed. 1859], and at the end of his second edition of the Sept.
(Lips. 1856), [4th ed. 1869].
2 Novum Testamcntum Graece. Ad. antiq. testes rec., appar. crit. apposuit,
etc. C. Tischendorf. ed. II. Lips. 1849.
8 There is just appearing [1855 sqq.] in separate numbers, a new (7th) edition
of Tischendorf 's text of 1849, considerably modified in the text, but more espe-
cially furnished with the critical Commentary of the edition of 1849 greatly
enlarged and perfected, so that the reader is now enabled in every single case to see
the entire stock of variants, and the kind of support given to every reading (even
to those not received) by MSS., versions, fathers, etc. ; the compendious nature of
the former Commentary rendered this often quite impossible, at least very trouble-
some and uncertain. Regard will be paid to this edition also as far as it has already
appeared. [Of his most recent (8th) critical edition (1864 sqq.), eight parts (ex-
tending to 1 Cor. v. 7) have already (Sept. 1871) been published. Unless some
indication to the contrary be given, this is the text of Tischendorf uniformly re-
ferred to. He has edited besides, N. T. Gr. ex cod. Sin. Lips. 1865, and N. T. Vat-
icanum, Lips. 1867 ; to both of these reference will be occasionally made when the
text of a passage is in question.] [The text of Tdf.'s 8th ed. is now complete.]
[ 4 It has appeared since the printing of this book was begun, and its readings
will be referred to so far as practicable.]
ETYMOLOGY.
PRONUNCIATION, ORTHOGRAPHY.
B. 8, 2; C. 79; W. p. 48 (47); Tdf. ed. 7 Prol. xxxvil. sq. 1. sqq.
The letter i is often represented in the MSS. of the N. T. by
ei ; yet no inference can be drawn from this respecting its
quantity, for the change occurs in the case of long vowels
(#Xen/a? 5 ^eivoycrKa)) and of short (rjyyei/cev, icaOeiaas) alike.
Under the influence of Itacism also it is often reproduced by
7) (as KriXitcia, Tr/wro/cXT/o-ta, ^pa^rjovi) , and on the other hand
ei is represented by i (aTreo-rtXez/, avriaQai D). In foreign
words the use of a for i has been in part adopted into the text
(see p. 6 note 1 ). In genuine Greek words the usual spell-
ing is followed in the printed editions. But in Matt, xxviii. 3
all the (older) MSS. give elSea for iSea (Lchm.) ; and it has
consequently been received into the text by Tischendorf [and
Tregelles]. This was the general mode of writing the word.
Hence even Suidas so spelt it, adding expressly ol vvv Sib rov I
Ypdfovcri, ; cf. Bhdy. praef. ad Suid. p. 39 ; Fischer on Plat.
Euthyphr. p. 125.
A similar vacillation is found in the MSS. between e and ai
(several instances of which are given on p. 40, note 1 ) and
other vowels, especially between 01 and v (thus, almost always
rjvvyrjv for TIVOI^V). On the various Itacistic interchanges in
the MSS. see Tdf. praef. ad Vet. Test. pp. 72, 80 [ed. 3, and N.T.
as above] ; Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 117 sq. Before /-t, f is often
written instead of a, as Z^vpv^ (adopted by Tdf. [ed. 8, Rev.
i. 11 and ii. 8]), which spelling, according to Lucian (jud. voc.
9), must have been pretty general.
TERMINAL LETTERS.
B 4,5; H. 74sq.; C. 160; D. 83sq.
Hebrew proper nouns in the Greek text, either, 1) appear
unaltered (and are then indeclinable), so that the eye must
5
6 TERMINAL LETTERS ENCLITICS.
6 accustom itself to a multitude of unusual terminal letters, as
in Jaue/8, c Pa%a/3, Boo?, Na&pdO, etc. 1 ; or, 2) they receive a
Greek termination (and are then inflected according to anal-
ogy), as MOJUOT}?, 'flcraia?, 'lepeyiua?, 'Iowa?, 'Jfyo-oO? ; or, 3)
they appear in both forms, the foreign form then always being
indeclinable ; e.g. 97 'lepovcrdXriiL and ra ' lepoo-oXv/Aa, MapidfA
and Mapia, 'Ia/cd)/3 (so always of Jews, Matt. i. 15, etc.) and
'Ja/c&>/3o9 (so of the various Christians), 2aov\ (so of the son
of Kish, Acts xiii. 21) and ^aOXo? (so always, in narration,
of the apostle before he took the name of JIaOXo? ; but even
then, whenever he is addressed, the national form 2aov\ is
uniformly used, Acts ix. 4, etc.). Latin names are always
Grecized, as HAaro?, 2 'JoOo-ro?, $}Xff, etc. Concerning the
inflection of Grecized proper names see p. 15 sq. below.
ENCLITICS.
B. 14, 4. and N.I; H. 106sq.; C. 787sq.; J. 64 obs. 1; D. 55.
The general laws of Inclination hold to their full extent in
the N. T. writings; that is to say, this method of accentua-
tion has been carried out consistently in the N. T. because
there was no reason for following there different rules in
reference to the accents from those followed in all other Greek
1 As respects the spelling of foreign names there is naturally enough consider-
able diversity, not only in the MSS., but also in the several editions. Thus Lach-
mann, for instance, gives the name Nazareth not only in the form Naapd6 Matt,
iv. 13, but also TXafrped ii. 23 and Nafrper Mark i. 9 ; [Tdf. and Treg. use the
forms in -fO and -er, and also (Matt. iv. 13) the form NafcpcL Tdf. in his 7th ed.
(see Prol. p. Iv. note) had decided that -e6 was the form everywhere to be used in
Matt, and -er in John. In the note on Luke i. 26 in his 8th ed. he thinks this evan-
gelist used the form in -eO, with the exception of -pd in iv. 16]. The name David
(in the MSS. commonly written Ao5) appears now in Lachmann in the form
AouetS throughout (not AaviS or Aa/Si'S), and Tdf. [and Treg.] have followed him
in this respect. In reference to other names there is no such harmony between the
editions, e.g. Kfc and Ke/s [Lchm. with whom Tdf. now and Treg. agree], Xopatfv
[Lchm.] and -<eiV [Tdf. Treg.], pafipi [Lchm. Treg.] and pa&0ei [Tdf., cf. Prol.
ed. 7, p. li.], XepoujSiV and x*P"^" Lchm. [Tdf. ed. 8 ; Treg.] Heb. ix. 5. The
Greek mode of writing the name Beelzebub (as Luther [so A. V.] has it after the
Vulgate) is BeeA^ouA, that of Belial is more probably Ec\lap 2 Cor. vi. 15 Tdf.
[ed. 8 ; Treg.]. See on this subject Tdf. ed. 2. p. 34 [Alf. N.T. Vol. I. prol. p.
94 sq.].
2 As respects the accentuation Hydros see Fritzsche on Mark p. 671 ; Winer p.
52 (51). Bekker in his edition of Josephus always marks this and similar proper
names with the circumflex ; and the recent editors of the N. T. have decided in
favor of this mode of writing. See Tisch. pref. p. 36 [ed. 7, p. Ixi. In ed. 8 he
writes rieiAaros ; see his note on Matt, xxvii. 2]. Elsewhere the long o in words
of Latin origin appears marked simply with the acute (not circumflex) ; as,
(Plut. Romul. 13), \iydpe, &\\iydpf (26), /cwjueo-aoroj (Moral, p. 726).
MUTATIONS OF THE CONSONANTS; ASPIRATES. 7
writings. 1 Dissyllables after perispomena are not marked as
enclitic ; hence iraZs eWtV, yvvcuicwv nv&v, etc. Of. Herm. de 7
emend, rat. I. 71, 73.
MUTATIONS OF THE CONSONANTS.
B, 16, N. 3; H. 41 sq. 60; C. 151 sqq.; J. 34.33;
The use of a<r for TT, described as mainly loni c, is in the
N. T. the only traditional spelling with most words, as 7repicro-Q<$,
QdXacrcra, 7Xwcrcra, Tacr<7&>, etc. In the Comparative, the forms
*pfcWa>z/, e\dcrcra)v are interchanged with KpelrTwv, eKdrrwv ;
and in certain words derived from them the TT has become
established, as e'XaTToa), eXaTTcwe&>, ^TT??//,a, rj-n-acrOai,.
The combination pp is exchanged with pa, e.g. Qappeco and
Oapaeco (see Wahl, clav. min.). But instead of apprjv Lchm.
has everywhere (even in Rev. xii. 5, 13) restored the form
with pa [so Treg. ; and Tdf. also except in Rom. i. 27].
ASPIRATES.
B. 17, N.I; H. 72; C. 167; J. 23.
The use of an aspirate before a smooth breathing conflicts,
indeed, with the general rules of orthography, which are ob-
served also in the N. T., yet in several instances is pretty well
established. Thus we have, e.g. e'^Se Acts iv. 29 [&m8e Tdf.],
a*f)i$a> Phil. ii. 23, tyelSev Luke i. 25 Tdf. [ed. 7], o^eXw/Jiwre?
vi. 35 Lchm., ov% 'lovSaliefa Gal. ii. 14 (Tdf. o^', as cod. A has,
e.g. in ov% o-^reaOe Luke xvii. 22) to write it thus with the
apostrophe was the almost universal usage, see Schneider on Plat.
Rep. p. 455 ; Anecd. Bekk. p. 683 sq. On the other hand, in
the MSS. we also find often ov/cevpov (Exod. xvi. 27), ov/c eveica
in Hernias, etc. ; but see below p. 10. On the omission of as-
piration (OVK eo-rrfKev) see Tdf.'s note on John viii. 44. [He
writes eirlaraTai for e^la-rarai, in 1 Thess. v. 3.] Further
e(f) eX-TTt'St Acts ii. 26 [(Tdf. e\7r.) ; Rom. viii. 20 Tdf. ; iv. 18
Lchm.]. ofy r^yaTrrjcrav Rev. xii. 11, ov% ISov Acts ii. 7, ov%
0X4705 xix. 23 Lchm., cf. xii. 18 ; see Lachmann's pref. p. 42.
The aspiration eXvrt? occurs also in inscriptions ; see Franz,
Epigr. 111. It is possible that the retention of the digamma in
single words (cf. the Lat. video) occasioned these irregularities,
which occur elsewhere also, see Winer p. 45 (44).
B. 18, N. 2; H. 65, c.; C. 159, d.; J. 31, a.; W. p. 44.
The form eOvdrj, which formerly stood in the text (1 Cor
v. 7) has now given place again to the regular form ervOrj.
1 The oldest manuscripts have in general few or no accents ; s'e Hug, Einl. 50.
DOUBLING OF CONSONANTS; CHANGES OF v.
DOUBLING OF CONSONANTS.
B. 21, 3; H. 40 b.; C. 159; D. 98; J. 22,3.
Lachmann , folio wing manuscripts, has often introduced again
in spelling proper names 66 instead of T#, and Tischendorf
[and Tregelles also] has in part followed him in this. Thus
in Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.] we always find Ma66alos (even in Acts
i. 13) Ma66dv, but in Lchm. [Treg.] MarOdr Luke iii. 24
[Tdf. Ma66d6 ; Treg. Ma66dr in Luke iii. 29] ; and in Lchm.
Mar6ia<! Acts i. 23 [Treg. Tdf. Ma00.]. Since in matters of
orthography no uniformity can be attained either by following
8 MSS. or inscriptions, it seems advisable here, where the two
modes of writing cannot have been governed by any difference
in sound (cf. Lchm. pref. p. 40), to follow out consistently
either the spelling with 66 (which occurs here and there in
inscriptions also), or that with r0 as the grammarians prescribe.
The name Zacchaeus is written ZaK^alo^ by all ; on the other
hand, the spelling of ' Air^ia Philem. 2, ZaTrfaipa Acts v. i, is
doubtful.
On the neglect to double p see p. 32.
CHANGES OP v.
B. 25, N. 3; H. 52; C. 166; D. 101; J. 28; W. p. 48; Tdf. ed. 7, Prol. p. xlvii sq.
The rule that crvv in composition, before a followed by
another consonant, and before f, drops its v, is often disregarded
in the N. T. ; thus we always find o-vvo-ravpovv, crm/o-TpartGOT???,
avvQjv, o-vv&Telv, avv^vyos. In other words, however, the omis-
sion is made, e.g. crvcrrariKO^^ o-vcrrevd^a), crvo-TOi^elv^ crvcrrpecfra),
o-vcrrpo^ij, crvcr^^aTi^v. See Wahl's clavis, and Lachmann's
pref. p. 40. Further, the oldest (uncial) MSS. often omit the
assimilation of the v in the two prepositions crvv and ev before
labials and palatals, sometimes also before X and cr, thus
a-vv7rapa\a{3elv, crvvfjLaOrjT^, crvv/taOicravTcov, ev/carceiv, evyeypafi-
/u-ez/05, crvvXirrrovnevos, crwcr&yta, etc., and likewise in separated
words ev fjLeo-M (only in the Apocalypse does Tdf. [ed. T ; cf.
Prol. to Sept. ed. 4, p. Ixxii] write them always as one word :
6^/Lteo-ft)), ev Kava. In particular it may be noticed that in com-
pounds with ev and crvv cod. Vat. (and Sin.) almost always neg-
lects assimilation when these prepositions preserve their proper
signification ; see Bttm.'s Rev. of Kuenen and Cobet's ed. of
cod. Vat. in the theol. Stud. u. Krit. for 1862 p. 180. On the
MOVABLE FINAL LETTERS. cj
other hand, the mode of writing as one word is often found, as e/*-
ey/cava, a-vfjuiracri^ etc. [Tdf. writes einrpocrOev in Rev. iv. 6.]
MOVABLE FINAL LETTERS.
B. 26.2and4; H. 78 sq.; C. 162 sq.; D. 85; J. 20.2; W.p.41sq.
In the earlier editions the rules of the grammarians in ref-
erence to v k$e\Kva-Ti,Kov were followed. These, however, were
found to be so seldom sustained by the manuscripts, that at
present Tischendorf has retained v IfaX/cvcmKov before every
consonant without exception, and has carried out this rule
consistently, with very few exceptions, throughout the N. T.
[i.e. in ed. 7, cf. Prol, p. liii ; in ed. 8 he has dropped it in
several cases, following the best MSS. ; see the note below.]
Lachmann (in his large edition) also writes it before all the
consonants ; yet in particular cases, following the MSS., he has
not admitted it ; these, however, almost disappear in the mul-
titude that remain : e.g. Matt. vi. 24 ; John ix. 30, 32 ; Acts ii.
6, 22, 40 ; vii. 25 ; ix. 22 ; x. 40 ; xii. 6 ; xxi. 33 ; Rom. ii. 8 ;
Rev. xix. 17 ; Luke xvii. 29, etc. 1
The numeral el/coo-i appears everywhere, even at the end of 9
a sentence and before a vowel (Acts i. 15 [yet Treg. -crw]),
without v e(f>e\Kva-T(,K6v. So too in the 0. T., see Tdf 's. ed.
praef. p. xxxiv. [ed. 4 ; cf. N. T. ed. 7, p. liv.].
Precisely the same procedure occurs in connection with
otmw?, so that the other form ovrco is at present almost com-
pletely banished from the text [cf. Tdf. ed. 7, p. liii]. There
are rare exceptions again in Lchm. ; as, Phil. iii. 17 ; Acts xxiii.
11 ; Rom. i. 15 ; vi. 19, etc.
1 Perhaps we can hardly hope ever to succeed in clearing up this point, since, as
',he liberty of later times in the use of v was manifestly unrestrained, and the thing
itself is so trivial, the transcribers (learned and unlearned) of the N. T. books felt
little hesitation in employing or omitting it at option. Consequently the consis-
tent introduction of the v e<pe\Kva-TiK6v throughout maybe justified as a silent con-
fession of the impossibility of tracing out the original mode of spelling of the
authors themselves ; and so much the more, as the cases in which all the MSS. em-
ploy v contrary to the grammatical rule appear to be very frequent, while cases of
the other class (in which oil MSS. omit it), are extremely rare. It would only be
necessary, then, to bring one's self to use the v in these rare cases contrary to the
MSS., as in Luke xvi. 13 ; Matt. vi. 24 (Sv<ri Tdf. [so too Treg.] even in ed. 7, with
the remark : sic codd. unc. omnes, ut videtur [cf. note on Luke 1. c. ed. 8] ). If we are
unwilling to do this, then Lachmann's [and Tdf.'s ?] method of allowing here as
elsewhere the authority of the oldest MSS. to decide, deserves unqualifiedly the
preference, as affording the only stable anchorage in the matter. To be sure, we
should need in that case a more careful collation of the manuscripts in reference
to this particular than we now possess.
2
IQ CRASIS AND ELISION.
The case is quite different with respect to pe^pis and a%^9.
Both these forms never occur before consonants, but always
pexju and ayjpi- On the other hand, //.e^9 * s regularly used
before vowels, e.g. //-e^t? ot>, jjbe%pi,s at/^aro? Heb. xii. 4. Only
a'xpi stands several times even before vowels ; but not always
without reason. For while in the common phrase a%pi,s o
the word remains everywhere unaltered, ayjpi is everywhere
used, manifestly to avoid cacophony, in the phrase a^pi ^9
TjfjLepas: Matt. xxiv. 38 ; Luke i. 20 ; xvii. 27; Acts i. 2,cf. xxiii. 1.
Elsewhere the two forms are interchanged before vowels, as
[-pi Treg. Tdf.] avyfy Acts xx. 11, axpx \_-pt Treg. Tdf.]
<fx>pov xxviii. 15,a%/3t (a%/3^? Rec.) f)fj,epwv Trevre xx. 6.
B. 27, N.I; H. 24D. c.; C. 130c.; J. 10, obs. 2; W. p. 43.
Instead of eveica, evetcev (p. 72), the Ionic form elveicev some-
times occurs (which is not unknown to the Attics also, see
Buttmann's ausf. Sprachl.), as ov eivexev Luke iv. 18, elveicev
r^9 86f?9 2 Cor. iii. 10. As respects termination, the forms
eveicev and eiveicev stand before vowels and consonants, but evetca
only before consonants (Matt. xix. 5 ; Acts xxvi. 21, cf. the
variant in Mark xiii. 9).
CRASIS AND ELISION.
B. 29. 30; H. 68. 70; C. 124. 127; D. 130. 138; J. 13.17; W. p. 46.
Since the writers of the New Testament were far from feeling
such a dislike to hiatus, as, for example, the Attic orators felt,
1 the two means of preventing it, viz. Crasis and Elision, are no
longer employed in all the cases mentioned in the Grammars.
As respects Crasis, although it is by no means wanting in
the N.T., yet it is restricted to a number of customary instances,
very common in other writings also ; and even in these it is far
from being uniform. Thus we find, for example, Kapoi and
teal efjLol, Kayo) and /cal 7(0, icaicel and KOI e/cel^ ravrd and ra
avrd ; further, rovvavrlov, rovvofjua, K.OLV for /cal edv (for so it is
to "be taken even in Mark vi. 56, for details respecting K&V see
the Syntax, p. 360), etc. In the recent printed editions, how-
ever, there is little agreement in this particular, because the
manuscripts very often exhibit both modes of writing.
Elision continues to be most frequently observed with d\\d
and the prepositions, as avro, 8ta, etc. Yet the elided and the
full mode of writing are constantly interchanged ; and indeed,
THE DECLENSIONS. H
fch.s is more or less the case in profane authors also. As re-
spects other words, frequently written elsewhere with the
apostrophe, as e, re, 7?, ouSe, &kre, apa, tW, thus much at least
may be positively affirmed : that elision has passed almost com-
pletely out of use ; hence these words are regularly written in
full, even where ordinary prose certainly would not have
neglected elision. However, in such a matter as elision (and
crasis) it is not advisable to proceed with rigorous consistency,
as Winer maintains [p. 40], since every writer must be allowed
the liberty of occasionally employing elision at his option, even
in cases where he ordinarily neglects it (Matt, xxiii. 16 ; 1 John
ii. 5 ; Acts xix. 2; Heb. viii. 4 ; ix. 25 ; Rom. ix. 7, etc.).
REMARK. The quotation from Menander in 1 Cor. xv. 33 is written
by Tdf. [so K] in full (xprja-rd [Treg. XP^crra]), according to the MSS.,
by Lchm. with the apostrophe xp?jo-0' (as a quotation), but not as the
earlier editions have it xpw(?, contrary to the rule (B. 30, 3 ; H.
100 ; C. 774 ; D. 138 ; J. 63, 2).
The current formula rovr Za-rw is always written with the apostrophe,
and by many (Lchm. also [Treg. in the majority of instances]) as a
single word, because it had become a complete adverb (like SrjXovori, etc.).
DECLENSION : THE DUAL.
B. 33, 3; H. 115; C. 178; D. 149; J. 72.
The Dual, in the language of the N. T. as in Latin, has
wholly passed out of use, in nouns as well as in verbs.
FIRST DECLENSION.
B. 34, 2; H. 134; C. 194sq.; D. 161; J. 78.
The rule that after p the Gen. ends in a? is sometimes dis-
regarded ; as, 0-7T6 6/0179, Trpcoprjs (Acts xxvii. 30 Lchm. [Tdf.]),
7^X77/^/9779 Luke vi. 48 [Treg.] Tdf. (cod. Sin.), paxaipw, -py,
but not throughout (Acts xii. 2 etc. [Lchm.]), Zairfyeipr) Acts
v. 1 Tdf. [a**]. This is not to be looked upon as an lonism
otherwise the Nom. also would be cnreip^ Trpcoprj. But p in
these words has only the influence of any other consonant
before a ; that is to say, it allows the flexion in 77 to follow in
the Gen. and Dat. Now as these words according to the. rule
for quantity (B. 34, N. II, 1.) have a short in the Nom., the
accentuation must be airelpa and also by consequence Trpcopa
(Lchm. [Tdf.] Trp&pa Acts xxvii. 41, on this spelling, which
is common in MSS., see Dindorf in Steph. Thesaur. sub voce ;
Etyin. Magn. 692 ; Cobet, Praef. ad N. T. Yat. p. 12 ; Nov.
Lect. 204.) ; see besides, Lchm. pref. I. p. 43.
12 CONTRACTS.
Quite isolated, yet sufficiently attested by MSS. [Sin. also],
is the Gen. in 779 also from a pure in avvei^vL^ Acts v. 2 ; cf.
Tdf. pref. (1849) p. xxiv, note 1, [ed. 7, p. liv], Exod. viii.
21, 24 ; 1 Sam. xxv. 20 (Vat.).
To the examples of abstract substantives in da with a long
may be added from the N. T. the following : epiOeta working
for hire commonly accented falsely, and apea/ceia desire to
please, from epiOevo^ai and dpeafcevo/juai, (apecncet,a Col. i. 10
Lchm. Tdf. [eds. 2, 7 ; Treg. ; Tdf. ed. 8 -/a'a]).
Concerning the Doric Genitive in a of proper names in as see below,
p. 20.
SECOND DECLENSION.
B. 35; H. 138 sq.; C. 199; D. 166 sq.; J. 85sq.
Several substantives in 09, which ordinarily have but one
gender, occur in the N. T. now as Masculine, now as
Feminine. Thus:
1) f) Xfc/zo9 famine, a use noted as Doric by old gram-
marians, and common also in the Sept., see Is. viii. 21. As
Fern, it appears in Luke xv. 14 ; Acts xi. 28 (where formerly the
Masc. stood, and some MSS. give even \i/j,bv peyav . . . tfrw, re-
specting which see in the Syntax, p. 81); as Masc. in Luke iv. 25.
2) 77 /3aro9 bramble, elsewhere also the current form (see
Pape) Luke xx. 37 ; Acts vii. 35. On the other hand TOV fidrov
(r?}9 fidrov Rec.) Mark xii. 26.
3) Respecting o and rj \rjv6s see 123, 7, p. 81.
To the feminines which are properly Adjectives add from
the N. T. f) a/3v(7(7o<; bottomless deep, in the earlier writers only
an adjective ; see Pape.
The Voc. in e of words in 09 is very common in the N. T.,
as tcvpie, Bi,Bd(TKa\e, fyapiaale, rv(/>Xe, etc. Yet the other form
also (like the Nom.) is not rare, as wc>9 Aaveib Matt. i. 20, etc. ;
and it is the less so, since, as will be shown in 129 a. 5, p. 140,
even the full form of the Nom. with the Article takes the place
12 of the Voc., as 6 0eo9, etc. As a rare exception must be noted
Oee fiov Matt, xxvii. 46, found also in the Sept., e.g. 2 Esdr.
ix. 6 ; Judd. xvi. 28 ; xxi. 8 ; Sap. ix. 1.
CONTRACTS.
B. 36; H. 144; C. 200; D. 169; J. 85, 2.
The regular forms of the Gen. and Dat. of vovs (yov, vaj) are
quite unknown to the writers of the N. T. a and the heteroclite
THE DECLENSIONS. 13
forms of the 3d Declension, in general more current in tlio
later language (Ausf. Sprachl. I. p. 154), are the only ones in
use : TOV i/oc/9, TO> vot, see Wahl. The Gen. of TrXod? also is
TrXoo? in Acts xxvii. 9.
Of ocnouv (John xix. 36) in the Plural only the uncontracted
forms oarea, oa-rkwv occur : Matt, xxiii. 27 ; Luke xxiv. 39 ;
Heb. xi. 22.
ATTIC DECLENSION.
B. 37; H. 146; C. 200; D.170; J. 86.
The forms Xeo>?, vecos (from which comes vecofcopos Acts xix.
35) of the Attic Declension are wholly unused in the N. T. ;
Xao?, rao? are always used instead. Concerning proper names
in -e5 see p. 20 below. The N. T. form for avu><yewv (derived
from avw and 777) is dvdycuov Lchm. Tdf. [Treg.], or dvcaycuov
Tdf. [only in ed. 2 in Mark], Mark xiv. 15 ; Luke xxii. 12, a
Dorism (see An. Cram. II. p. 131, 14, and cf. Mullach, Gr.
Vulgarspr. p. 21 ; Ahrens, Dial. Dor. p. 187). Cf. /rretW p. 61.
THIRD DECLENSION.
B. 41, N. 2; H. 164.
Respecting the (later) accentuation (poivij;, *%>u (1 Tim. ii. 7)
see Winer p. 50 (49) and the works there referred to [also
Lipsius, Gram. Untersuch. p. 36 sq. ; Tdf. (eds. 7,8) and Treg.
write Krjpvj;']. Like fcfjpvj; we must then, with Tdf. [Treg.],
accent $fjpuj; also (Acts xxiv. 3. etc.).
ACCUSATIVE SINGULAR.
B. 44; H. 157; C. 204; D. p. 102; J. 92, 3sq.
From %a/?t? the (rare and later) Accusative %apn-a twice
occurs: Jude 4; Acts xxiv. 27 Lchm. [now Tdf. also, and Treg.],
cf. xxv. 9.
As a peculiarity of the Alexandrian dialect in general is to be noticed
the appending of the Ace. v to the regularly formed Ace. in a, of which
a great number of examples from the Sept. may be seen in Sturz, Dial.
Alex. p. 127; on v e^eA-K. with the Ace. cf. Lob. Parall. p. 142 sq. ; Tdf.
7 [cf. 8] on Heb. vi. 19 [and ed. 7 prol. p. lv]. Recent editors have
with reason hesitated to adopt this form of the Case in the N. T. where
it has been transmitted in a few instances, particularly by cod. Alex. (e.g.
Rom. xvi. 11 o-vyyev^v [Treg.]), because it is not sufficiently guaranteed
by other MSS. Lchm. [Tdf. ed. 7, not 8] has admitted it only in the
Apocalypse, e.g. oipa-evav xii. 13, ei/covav xiii. 14, pfjvav xxii. 2, iro&yprjv
i, 13 [Lchm. in ed. min. only]. In Heb. vi. 19 also, some [Tdf. ed. 7 ;
14 CONTRACTS.
Treg.] would read ao-<j>aXfjv ; this form, however, Lchm, has not
adopted (as Winer asserts p. 69 (67) [yet correctly, as respects
Lachmann's stereotype ed.]) as [in his larger ed.] he there accents
dox^aAijv. and consequently takes it as a metaplasm after the 1st
13 declension. Tdf. [2, 8] has a<r<f>a\r) with cod. Vat. [and Sin.], which
is perhaps to be preferred (cf. d/cXtn} x. 23, /-tovoycn} xi. 17). The
Ace. Ai'av (from Zeus) Acts xiv. 12 Tdf. ed. 7, is not sustained by
codd. Vat. and Sin.
CONTRACTS.
B. 49, N. 3; H. 176 sq.; C. 207; D. 181; J. 111, Ib.
The Gc nitive Plural of neuters in 09, whenever it occurs in
the N. T., retains the uncontracted form opecov Rev. vi. 15,
^etXeW Heb. xiii. 15. But that of ero9, year, is always er&v ;
see the Lexx.
PARTIAL CONTRACTION.
B. 50; H. 185 sq.; C. 219; D. 186 sq.; J. 100.
The contraction of this class of words (which was often
neglected by Attic writers, B. 50, N. 3) is wholly omitted in the
N. T., and that not only in the Nominative (lyOves Luke
ix. 13), but also in the Accusative Plural l^Ova? Matt. xiv. 17,
crrdxyas xii. 1, /36a9 Jno. ii. 14, 15, ftbrpvas Rev. xiv. 18, etc. ;
see Wahl.
CONTRACTS IN ts ETC. GEN. s.
B. 51; H. 185 sq.; C. 220; D. 186 sq.; J. 101.
Words of this class are uniformly contracted in the N. T. ;
indeed, contractions like 7T7?%wi> and Gen. rjpLarovs Plur. ra
rj/jLLcry (B. 51, N. 5) from the later and less pure Attic seem to
have been the only forms in use in the language of the N. T.,
thus TWV Trijxtov John xxi. 8 ; Rev. xxi. 17, f^ivovs Mark vi. 23,
probably also ra rj^lo-rj Luke xix. 8 (^/ucrea Lchm. r^io-eia Tdf.
[Treg.]). On the origin of the spelling TO, rjpicreia (for which
codd. Vat. and Sin. itacistically give rj/jLio-ia) see Bttm.'s Rev.
of Kuenen and Cobet in the theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 194.
The Genitive in -e&)9 of neuter nouns of this class is used also
in the N. T. ; as, awdireax; Matt. xiii. 31 and often.
CONTRACTS IN cvs.
B. 52; H. 189; C. 220; D. 190; J. 97.
The Ace. Plural in ea9, as it is not found at all in later Greek,
so too it does not occur in the language of the N. T., and tLe>
form in efc is the only one current ; accordingly,
701/669, iWcfe, etc. ; see Wahl.
THE DECLENSIONS. 15
VARYING CONTRACTION.
B. 63; H. 178; C. 213 c.; J. 129,2.
The Acc. of ixyt??? which occurs four times (see Wahl) is
never svyia, but always vyirj, as sometimes also even in the
earlier writers.
NEUTERS IN as.
B. 54; H. 168, 182 D. ; C. 222 e.; D. 181; J. 103, 2sq.
The contracted forms of /cepa? and repas are wholly unknown
to the language of the N. T., as in general to the Alexandrian
dialect ; hence always tcepara, repara, /cepdrcov, etc. see Wahl.
The Plural of #pea?, on the other hand, is ra /cpea, Rom. xiv.
21 etc.
The Ionic change of a into e occurs once (Luke i. 36) in the Dative
yrjpct, which the Text. Recept. against all the MSS. has altered into 14
yip*-
CONTRACTS IN wv.
B. 55; H. 175; C. 211; D. 184; J. 129, Obs. 2.
The uncontracted forms of Comparatives in wv are, even in
the Nom. Plur. (e.g. Acts xxvii. 12), used indiscriminately
with the contracted forms (xix. 32 etc.).
ANOMALOUS DECLENSION.
B. 56, N.I; H. 197 sq. ; C.223sq.
It seems to be expedient for convenience of reference to
bring together here under a single head what is to be said
respecting the declension of
Foreign Proper Names,
as well as of certain other names of persons and foreign (i.e.
not Greek) words.
1. As was remarked above, p. 5 sq., proper names which re-
main unaltered dispense with all inflection, even when their
ending seems to render them capable of it, as c le/o^oo, ^apaca
(Acts vii. 10), 'E/tytaoi/9, 'Ez/&>9, reOcr^avij (Lchm. [Treg.]
-vet [Tdf. -vei, cf. ed. 7 Prol. p. Ixi]), B^^ [Lchm., Treg.
(except Luke xix. 29) ; Tdf. -777, cf. also ed. 7, Prol. p. Iv, Ixi] ;
many in -a>v, as ^Aap&v, 'Ea-pcav, Za/3ov\a)v, ^afi^
, and in -a, as 2dpa, 2iva, pawa, BijOeo-Sd,
a, Kava, etc.
2. As soon, however, as the word undergoes a change,
1 That the inflection of the Lexicons TeSfAv, -S>vos, is incorrect see Heb. 3d. 32,
and of. in the O. T. Judges vii. 14, 18 etc.
16 FOREIGN NAMES.
especially such a change as gives it a declinable ending, in-
flection takes place according to analogy. It is not to be
overlooked that names well-known and of frequent occurrence,
such as Jesus, Moses, Solomon, Jerusalem, etc., have accom-
modated themselves in popular usage to the Greek vocal laws
much more frequently than names less familiar. Cf. the
Genealogies.
3. The transformation into Greek took place most simply
with nouns which already had an ending resembling Greek, or
whose ending allowed itself easily to be made such. So in
particular with proper names in cov. These have ordinarily
Gen. -60^09, etc., as 2apa>v Ace. %ap&va Acts ix. 35 (Tdf. ^dpcova
[Treg. -i/a]), Si&ov -0)^09, 2tijLo)v -awo?, (on the other hand the
less altered name 2v/j,ea>v is indeclinable, Rev. vii. 7). But
the name Solomon has a twofold inflection : As it took in
Greek the form oXo/Ao>y, there resulted according to the
analogy of similar well-known names, like Eei/o^ow, the in-
15 flection ^oko^wv (for so the Nom. must then be accented)
2o\o/jiwvTos. etc. ; or, according to the analogy of Ba/3v\a)v. the
inflection So\ofjuov 9 -wi/os, etc. Both modes of inflection have
been received into the text in Lachmann's edition, even in the
same writer (e.g. Matt. i. 6 and xii. 42), a phenomenon
which occurs several times in the case of such familiar names ;
see Moses, Jerusalem, etc. below. Tdf., however, has given
the preference everywhere [except Acts iii. 11 and v. 12 ; in vii.
47 he writes ^a\w^v ; cf. his note on Matt. vi. 29, and ed. 7,
p. liv] to the inflection -wi/o?, etc. [so Treg., yet Acts vii. 47
-fi&v]. With the twofold inflection of ^O\O^MV cf. that of the
old Greek name ZapTrrjScov Gen. 2ap7rr)$6vos and 2ap7rr)$ovrcs.
4. Latin words and proper names, likewise, are shaped ac-
cording to analogy anl inflected agreeably to Latin declension,
as \eyecov (legio) Xe^can/o?, Matt. xxvi. 53 [Treg. also] ; Luke
viii. 30, on the other hand \e<yi,u>v Mark v. 9, 15 (the spelling
Xeyiaiv has on the whole the greatest MS. authority in its favor
[cod. Sin. also] ; so Tdf. everywhere, see ed. 7, Prol. p. 1
[and note on Mark v. 9 in ed. 8]); evpatcvXcov (Vulg. euroaquilo,
it is wan ting in the lexicons) Acts xxvii. 14 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf.]
Northeast wind, formed like euroauster, evpovoros ; $fj\it;
-/to?, Kalcrap -09, etc. Nouns in ens receive in the Nom., in
accordance with Greek vocal laws (B. 25), the form in -^9,
FOREIGN NAMES. 17
as KX?7/z779, Kptfcncr)?, lToi;&79, and are declined KA/^eim)?, etc.
Phil. iv. 3.
5. Further, the following nouns are Grecized by appending
to them (or coining for them) Greek final syllables : 1
Feminines in a Gen. -77?, etc. ; for example, Td^a (Gen. -779,
Dat. -77 in the 0. T., as, Zech. ix. 5 ; Josh. xi. 22) Ace. -av.
Further, yeevva, 766^779, etc. ; from Latin, peujSpdva Ace. plural
-m9, at raftepvai, etc.
6. Feminines in a Gen. -a9, as Mapla, -#9, -<z, -av. In this
noun, however, the inflected form is constantly interchanged
with the indeclinable form Mapidfj, [yet according to Tdf. ed.
7, p. xxxv, the best MSS. favor the former] : Nom. Matt. xiii.
55; Luke i. 27; ii. 19 (John xi. 32; xx. 18, Tdf. [Treg.]),
Dat. Luke ii. 5 (Acts i. 14 Tdf. [Treg.]), Ace. Matt. i. 20;
Luke ii. 16 ; John xi. 19 (Rom. xvi. 6 Tdf.), Voc. Luke i. 30
(John xx. 16 Tdf. [Treg.]). Further, Zapdpeia (not -da, Acts
viii. 14) [Tdf. now everywhere Sajiapui] -e/o-9, -eta, BijOavla,
-ta9, -la. MdpOa John xi. 1 (to which Wahl incorrectly gives
the Gen. -779) and probably " ' Avva also (to judge from the Dative
"Avva in the 0. T. 1 Sam. i. 2, 5, etc.) and Eva (not Eva)
Evav have the Genitive in -a9, contrary to the main rule, but
in accordance with the inflection of other Greek proper names
as^8a,etc. (B. 34,2; H. 126; C.195). Of2Wwa,and
'Iwdvva none of the inflected forms occur in the N. T. 2 Brjd-
aalSd forms its Accusative in -av Mark vi. 45, etc., but is 16
otherwise indeclinable : John i. 45 ; xii. 21. From the Latin
KOftJTewS/a, -0,9, etc.
Feminines in 77 Gen. -779 : -77 '10777777, ^aXo)/^, etc.
7. Masculines in 779, -ov, -77, -77^, e.g. 'Io>aw779, 'Iop$dvr)<$,
and, from the Latin, Ko^pdvrrjf; (yuadrans), ^aiXov^ (paenula
<f)ai,vo\r)s Poll.). 'I&>aw779 (in cod. Vat. almost always, in Sin.
often written with one v : 'Icodvr^ forms its Dat. according to
the same MSS. also ^Iwdvveu ('Iwa^ei), heteroclitically there-
fore ; cf. MWVO-TIS No. 11, p. 19.
8. Masculines in a 9, -ou, -a, -av. This inflection appears
in many words, but always with a preceding vowel, i or e, as
Iepe/^'a9, 'jHcraiV, Bapa^ia^, 'E&Kias (Lchm. -6/0-9 ; Gen.--ou
1 In other writers, as Josephus, etc., this is done with a far larger number of ^
names than in the Old and New Test.
2 On th3 other hand, in the O. T. the Gen. of Saxrcfoj/a (^wadvvrjs) occurs in
Sus. 27.
18 FOKEIGN NAMES.
2 Kings xviii. 13, etc.), Za^apia^;^ 'HX/a?, 'le^oi^a? (Gen. -ov
1 Chron iii. 17, -a Bar. i. 3), 'loocr/a? (-ov 2 Kings xxiii. 34, -a
Jer. XXT. 1), MarraOlas, Ovplas, 'AvSpew, and probably also
Mecrcrias, MarOias, 'OJta?, 'loiwa?, of none of which has the
Gen . been preserved. Respecting ^Avavlas see below, 13, c) p. 20.
9. Masculines and Feminines in 09, -ov, etc.; as, 'Ia/<:<w/3o9,
^ai)Xo9 see p. 6, Zarc^alo^, MaOOalos, 'laetpo?, 77 AafAaaKos, etc.,
and those formed by change of the Latin ending us : IToWto?
UtXaT09, KovdpTos, UoTrXto?, Tloriokoi (JPutzoli), Xwpo? i.e.
Caurus or Corns Northwest wind (wanting in Pape) Acts
xxvii. 12.
Neuters in ov from the Latin : (f>pcvye\\iov flagellum John ii.
15, aovbdpiov, fiikiov a mile, etc.
10. Neuters in a, -a>z/, -049, -a. This inflection is followed
by several names of cities, formed after the analogy of TCL
, Qvdreipa, etc., especially by Jerusalem : TCL 'lepocro-
, -coz/, -ot9 ; this inflected form, however, is constantly in-
terchanged (often in close proximity) with the O.T. indeclinable
form 7] ( IepovaaXr)iL, e.g. Luke ii. 22 and 25, 42 and 43. In
address the Jewish form is always used (Matt, xxiii. 37, etc.).
John uses only the first form ra f J. (see Heydler, iiber die
Namen Hierosolyma, etc., Progr., Frankf. 1856). The third
form given in the lexicons is found in only a single passage in
the whole Bible : Matt. ii. 3 Traa-a 'lepoo-oXvpa. Yet we cannot
infer from this an inflection in -779, -77, etc. as given in the lex-
icons, since in this passage 'lepoaoKv^a seems to be used more
like the indeclinable 'lepovo-dktjfj, (moreover nraaa is wanting
in cod. D), and consequently, as the name of a city, has been
construed as feminine. Such a combination certainly would
have been impossible to a native Greek author.
On the other hand Fo/jboppa has both inflections : Gen. -a9,
and -wv Dat. -0^9. In the 0. T. the forms in -cov and -0^9 do not
occur (but Nom. and Ace. -a Gen. -a9) so that these forms seem
to have been first developed in the N. T. by the word's being
17 frequently connected with ra ^o'SoyLta (-o>i>, -0^9) which is always
neuter.
Av&Sa has -779 in the Gen. (Acts ix. 38 [Tdf. Treg. give -09]),
^ but just before it twice occurs inflected like a Neuter in a : Ace.
Au&Sa vs. 32, 35 ; Josephus (B. J. 1, 15, 6 ad fin.) uses it as a
Neut. Plur. ; cf. T'^fioppa in the 0. T. Svdreipa on the other
FOREIGN NAMES. 19
hand (of which the Gen. in -wv occurs Acts xvi. 14, the Dak
in -0^9 Rev. ii. 18) has once the Ace. in -av^ Rev. i. 11 ; and
Avo-Tpa in Lycaonia has its Dat. in -ot?, but for its Ace. rrjv
Avcrrpav Acts xiv. 6, 8, 21, etc.
11. Masculines in 77 9 of the third declension. Here belongs
especially the name Mwvo-fjs. Its first syllable is in recent
editions almost uniformly written ow, and probably therefore
in the solitary passage where Lchm. has left the simple &>
(Rom. ix. 15), the other spelling wv is with Tdf. [Treg., so K
also] to be restored [Tdf. puts a diaeresis over the v, see
ed. 7, p. Ixii ; and cf. Grimm's Lexicon]. The common inflec-
tion is Gen. (uniformly) -ecu?, Dat. -e, Ace. -ea (Luke xvi. 29),
thus quite after the analogy of the Greek word *Apv)s ; hence
it is idle to assume an unused Nominative form in eu9, as is
generally done in the lexicons. In addition to these forms
there have been preserved (according to the Declension which
follows) a Dative in -fj twice, Rom. ix. 15 (Tdf. Mcovcrel [Treg.
-e] Acts vii. 44, and an Accusative -*fjv four times, Acts vi. 11 ;
vii. 35 ; 1 Cor. x. 2 ; Heb. iii. 3. On the derivation and
spelling of the word see also Fr. on Rom. ix. 15, and cf. Joseph,
adv. Ap. 1. 31.
Further Mamcr<7?}9, the Ace. of which ends in -i) Matt. i. 10
(Gen. -rj Sept.), and 'Icoafjs with a twofold inflection 'lo)cr?}T09
(Mark vi. 3 ; xv. 40) and 'Iwarj in accordance with the Declen-
sion which follows.
12. There still remain a large number of foreign names and
words, which follow none of the modes of inflection described
above, yet among which there exists a great and obvious
analogy. Mehlhorn (Gr. Gram. p. 182) appropriately proposes
for all these words a special declension, which on account of
the simplicity of its endings he calls the weak inflection. The
following is the Table :
as a a av a
??9 T) rj rjv TJ
O>9 O) ft) d)V ft)
OL9 OV OV OVV OV
The first two series, it will be noticed, are founded on the first
declension, the remaining two upon the second. This inflec-
tion is ordinarily, but not invariably, distinguished by the
circumflex on the last syllable.
20 FOREIGN NAMES.
13 A. Words in a 9. The inflection of these, especially
when they are not perispomena, agree? closely with that of
words which have the Doric Genitive (p. 12 ; cf. H. 136
Rem. d.), as ' ' Awiftas etc., and has manifestly been formed after
18 the analogy of this declension. In later times this was the
most usual inflection of foreign proper names, and of such as had
undergone a violent abbreviation (as 'AXegas from ' A\e%avpos)',
and many newly-formed words followed it. Here belong
a) All circumflexed proper names, as 'JWa?, @o>/-ia?, Bap-
pa/3a9, Bapo-afias, Krj(f)as } KXwvra? (John xix. 25), Xoufa? ;
further 'Aprenas, Arm,a<$, 'jETra-^pa?, '.E/9/ia?, Zrjvas, OeuSa?,
Aovfcas, MeXea9, 'OXu/^Tra?, Ilap/jLevas, 2/cevds, ^retyavas, sup-
posed to be mere abbreviations of current Greek names, as
'ApTefjLiSwpos, J^/^T/^Q?, '.E7ra</>>6StTO9, Zrjvo&copos (Anec. Bek.
p. 857), Aovrciavos, MeXea/y/909, IlapfjievLSrjs, etc.
b) Circumflexed appellatives of foreign origin, e.g. /copfiavas,
craravas, /xa/xcoz/a? Gen. -a, etc.
c) Barytone proper names whose last syllable is preceded
by a consonant, as "Avvas, ^Aperas, Bapvd{3as, 'louSa? Luke i.
39 ; Mark vi. 3, etc.), Kaidfyas (or Katyas Luke iii. 2 Lchm.) ;
from the Latin, 'AypiTnra? Agrippa. The same analogy,
doubtless, was followed .also by " Av-r'inras (AvTiTraTpos ?) ,
KXeoVa? (KXeoTrarpo? ? Luke xxiv. 18), 'EXi^a? ; and from
the Latin, 'AicvXas Aquila, 3YXa? (Acts xv. 22, etc., always
called by Paul 2i\ovavos Silvanus, 2 Cor. i. 19, etc.), of
which no Genitive is found. 'Avavias is generally given in
the lexicons with Gen. -a, contrary to analogy (see No. 8, above),
but in the N. T. no Gen. is found ; in the 0. T., indeed, occurs
the Gen. 'Avavia (Neh. iii. 23), but also the regular "Avavlov
Tob. v. 12 (13). Cf. 'Ifflo-Mw, etc. in No. 8, p. 18, above.
14 B. Words in 779. The proper name ^^9, -??, etc. serves
as the paradigm. From the N. T. are to be referred to this
class only a few isolated forms, as the collateral forms of
Mcovarjs given above, p. 19, and the Gen. 'Ivo-fj from 'loxnfc
(Matt, xxvii. 56 [Tdf. reads 'Iwo-^, after N etc.]). The proper
names 'lavwjs and 'lajjuftpris have no oblique cases extant ;
yet according to Suidas (sub voce ) the Gen. of 'lafiftpfj? was
'la^Ppov. The Ace. 'lafjb^prjv occurs in Apocryphal writings.
15 C. Words In &>9. These, according to Mehlhorn, ought
properly all to bo accented as perispomena, as is still done, for
FOEEIGN NAMES. 21
example, in raw?, TOM (B. 58), according to the direction of
the ancient grammarians. Commonly, however, this rule is
not observed in the editions (and MSS.), but the words are
accented as oxytones, and thus made to agree perfectly with
the so-called Attic second Declension (B. 37). And in gen-
eral, amid the variety of views concerning this declension, even
among the ancients, harmony can hardly be attained.
Accordingly, the proper name '^TroAAco? is inflected in the 19
N. T. after the Attic 2d Declension, thus Nom. '^TroAAco?
Acts xviii. 24, Gen. -co 1 Cor. i. 12, but likewise Ace. -co Acts
xix. 1, yet in 1 Cor. iv. 6 Ace. '^TroAAcoz; (after A, B, K) ; so
too Kc25 the name of an island, Ace. Kco Acts xxi. 1.
16 D. Words in o{)?. In the N. T. only "I^o-oO?, -o, -oO, -ovv,
-ov. Lastly, the analogy of all these words is closely followed
by the inflection of
* E) Aevts [-e/9, etc. Tdf. (except in Rev. vii. 7, ed. 7), Treg.]
Luke v. 29, Gen. Aevt iii. 24, Ace. Aevtv v. 27.
17. The Gender of Proper Names in the case of persons
follows the sex. As a specialty it is to be noticed, that the
name of the heathen god Bda\, has the feminine article in a
quotation by Paul from the 0. T. (Rom. xi. 4). In the 0. T.
6 and 77 Bda\ occur ; see Winer 179 (168).
Xepov/Bt/ji (Lchm. [Tdf. 7, 8 ; Treg.] -fielp) is construed as a
neuter plural in Heb. ix. 5.
18. Names of cities, even when indeclinable, follow the
general rule, that is to say, are feminine ; as, 77 'lepoucraAT^u,, 77
IfyflAeeyu,, 77 Kavd, etc. (John iv. 46, etc.). But if they are de-
clinable the general rules hold ; as, ra 6So//,o., ol ^tAtTTTrot, etc.
On 77 * lepoa-oXvfjia see No. 10 above, p. 18.
In like manner the names of rivers are Masculine, according
to the general rule, as 6 'lopSdvrjs ; so, too, when indeclinable :
6 KeSpcov (John xviii. 1 Lchm.), 6 Zikwdii John. Luke, (in
Josephus also 77 Si\. sc. 7777777, B. J. 5, 4, 2 ; 12, 2).
19. The names of the mountains 2iva and %iu>v are given
in the lexicons as masculine. Their gender is not evident
from the N. T., since they occur either without the article or
in connection with TO opo?, and TO %iva (Gal. iv. 25 Lchm.)
may be explained by the rule that a word regarded as an
independent object is made neuter. When we consider, 'how-
ever, that prpper names frequently take the gender of the most
22 ANOMALOUS DECLENSION.
current appellative belonging to them (here, therefore, TO opo?),
it is much more probable that these indeclinable names of
mountains are also neuter. With this agrees the current 0. T.
phrase TO 0/009 TO %iva (Exod. xix. 11, 18, etc.), and there is
no reason for giving a different explanation of this combination
from that of TOZ^ irora^ov TOP Ev^pdrrjv (Rev. xvi. 12) . Further,
Slav when, as is so often the case, it stands for all Jerusalem,
is always feminine in the prophetic writings of the 0. T., as
Ps. cxxxii. 13 ; Lam. i. 17 ; Zech. viii. 2, etc. 1
20 The Mt. of Olives, commonly called TO 0/305 rcov eKai&v (Matt,
xxi. 1 etc.) also has the single name '-EXaww, Gen. -w^o? (Acts
i. 12 UTTO opovs TOV Ka\ovfj,evov 'jEXatwz/05) , and must accordingly,
like Greek names of mountains of the same form (KiQaipwv,
'EhiKcav, etc.), be masculine. Nevertheless, in Luke xix. 29 ;
xxi. 37 it is treated as indeclinable, consequently as neuter :
Trpo? TO opo? TO /ca\ovjj,evov ' E\aut)v ; so, too, in Josephus (e.g.
Antiq. 20, 8, 6 ; B. J. 5, 2, 3). Recent editors have, accord-
ingly, rejected the former accentuation ~wv and write '-EXcwwz/,
to distinguish it from the other designation TWV eXcuwv, which
Luke also uses just afterwards : xix. 37 ; xxii. 39. Of. Fritzsche
ad Marc. Exc. III.
ANOMALOUS DECLENSION.
B. 66,N.2; H. 197; C. 223sq.; J. 116 sq.
The word CTKOTO?, which so frequently occurs, is of the neuter
gender throughout the N. T. The statement in Wahl that it
is also masc. is supported only by the reading long ago dis-
carded of the Rec. in Heb. xii. 18 (TO> O-KOTCO).
"jEXeo?, of the masculine gender in Attic authors (see Pape),
is in the N. T. only neuter, in the four or five passages
where the Rec. had the masculine the neuter having now been
restored ; see the passages in Wahl.
ITXoOTo?, elsewhere only masculine, is often used by Paul as
neuter, but only in the Nona, and Ace., e.g. 2 Cor. viii. 2 ; Eph.
1 Names of mountains, to judge from the Sept., have no established gender.
The neuter, however, is the most common. Thus we have rb 'Ira/SupuH/ (Tabor),
and, in the same combination as that given above with Sinai, rb opos rb 'E^/mfyi,
rb &pos rb Srjei'p, rb 8pos rb 'Afiapi/j., rb 8pos rb 'Aeppdv, etc. Lebanon is masculine,
6 Ai/8aj/os, likewise Carmel, 6 K.dp/j.i)\os or & Xe'p/teA. Isa. xxxii. 15 sq. ; Jer. xlvi.
(xxvi.), 18 ; but rb fyos rb Ko^Atoz/ also occurs (2 Kings ii. 25), and once even ^
KapMhos (1 Kings xviii. 42), as also rj 'Aep^v Josh. xi. 3 etc. But y a&uo :n
I Chron. vi. 77 is the city or region of Tabor.
DEFECTIVE NOUNS. 23
i. 7, etc. ; in the Gen. always of the 2d Declension, Rom. xi. 33,
etc. ; (the Dative does not occur).
ZffKos is masculine as it is everywhere in Greek authors ;
but in 2 Cor. ix. 2 (codd. Vat. and Sin.), perhaps also in
Acts v. 17 (Vat.), the preference might be given to the neuter
form (as in the Clem. Epp.). Only once, in the adverbial ex-
pression Kara 77X09 (Phil. iii. 6), has the neuter been adopted
by all the MSS. [Sin. also].
*H%o?, altogether a later word (see Thorn. Mag.), is mas-
culine ; but in Luke xxi. 25 the Genitive is ^0^9 (if the
reading [so Sin. also] is correct).
Instead of 77 vi/crj, which appears only once (1 John v. 4), the
collateral form TO Ao?, common elsewhere also in later writers,
is usual ; as, Matt. xii. 20 ; 1 Cor. xv. 57, etc. ; so, too, in the
Sept.
B. 56, 6; H. 200; C. 226; D. 284; J. 85,Obs.2.
Of 607109 both plurals (-/-la and -/xot) appear in the N. T. 21
the first in Luke. That Paul takes the word as masculine
follows from Phil. i. 13 (in the other passages the gender is
not evident) and the usage of the Sept. (Jer. ii. 20 ; Job
xxxix. 5, etc.).
A nietaplasm of the N. T. language, which however is in
plain analogy with other metaplasms (cf. TrpocrwTrov, oveipov,
B. 58 ; H. 199 and D ; C. 225 f. ; D. 284; J. 117),
is found in TO crd/Bftarov which regularly has o-aft/Bdrov, -&>,
Plur. ra o-d/3fiara (Acts xvii. 2 ; see the following paragraph)
o-aftftdrcov. The Dative plural is almost uniformly <7d/3/3acn,v
from the Hebr. rsu? , as if from a theme not in use. The reg-
ular form, Tofr o-/3/3aTot9, Lchrn. has adopted from the single
codex B in only two passages : Matt. xii. 1, 12 ; but between
them (vs. 5), he gives adpjBacnv as everywhere else.
DEFECTIVE, PLURAL, AND INDECLINABLE NOUNS.
B. 57, 1; H. 201 ; C. 227 sq. ; D. 284; J. 114. 118.
Jewish Names of Festivals have the plural form, according
to Greek usage, as rd eyKatvia, rd a%upa\ in like manner rd
yeveaia birtli-day festival, and sometimes ol yd/tot, when it is
synonymous with convivium, epulae, Matt. xxii. 2 ; Luke xii.
36 ; xiv. 8. Also the plural rd craft/Sara, both when it signifies
a festival and a week, frequently alternates with TO o-a/3-
pa-rov ; see Wahl, and cf. e.g. I uke xviii. 12 with xxiv. 1, etc.
24 LIST OF ANOMALOUS NOUNS.
The Plural ra ad/3/3ara appears even in the Sept., e.g. Lev.
xxiii. 32, etc. Respecting Names of Cities see above, p. 18.
Further, the following are sometimes used as Plurals in
the N. T. : ol KO\TTOL in the phrase iv rot? KoKiroL^ rov 'A/3pad/j,
elvai, Luke xvi. 23 ; ra dpyvpia in the sense of money Matt,
xxviii. 12 (Vulg. pecuniam), cf. the common reading in Mark
xiv. 11, where, as in most other passages, the Sing, has been
adopted ; ra o^wvua wages, synonymous with TO o-^rcoviov (Luke
iii. 14, etc., cf. the Lat. stipendium) ; and, agreeably to a Jewish
mode of thought, ol alwves the world (arabis Ps. cxlv. 13) Heb.
i. 2, and ol ovpavoi (a^n) Matt. iii. 16, etc. Also 'the "holy
place ' in the temple and ' the holiest of all ' are called in Heb.
ix. 2, 3 ra ayia and ayia dylwv after Ezek. xli., xlii. etc. Also
the newly-formed word pe^ia-raves (equivalent to per/a ovvd-
aevot,, see Phryn. and Thorn. Mag. sub voce) seems (like pro-
ceres) to have been ordinarily used only in the Plural.
In the case of al Ovpau (fores) and ra ipdria (clothing) the
Plural form is sufficiently accounted for by the meaning.
The foreign word TO ai/cepa intoxicating drink, like TO rrda^a,
is indeclinable ; in the N. T. it occurs only in the Ace. (Luke
i. 15), but in the Sept. also in the oblique cases (Num. vi. 3 ;
Deut. xiv. 26).
22 LIST or ANOMALOUS NOUNS.
B. 68 ; H. 202 ; C. 223 sq. ; D. 284; J. 112.
Instead of 6 aX? salt (Mark ix. 49, 50) in the N. T. the later
neuter form is more common: TO aXa? (Gen. aXaT09), Dat.
akari Col. iv. 6, [in Mark ix. 50 Tdf. twice reads Nom. TO a\a,
with N*, etc.].
The Ace. of dprepwv (Gen. -0^09) is according to MSS. [Sin.
also] dpreucova in Acts xxvii. 40 ; so the Scholiast on Eurip.
Med. 273.
In the N. T. epis, after the analogy of opvis, has the two
Plur. forms e/ot8e?, 1 Cor. i. 11, and epe^ at present only in
Tit. iii. 9. In the other passages the editors have given the
preference to the Sing, e/ow (2 Cor. xii. 20 ; Gal. v. 20 ; 1 Tim.
vi. 4); yet in Cor. and Tim. Tdf. ed. 7 restores e/?et9 again, [so
Treg. in Cor. ; N only e/ot?, which Tdf. now adopts uniformly.]
Of tfXefc, likewise, both forms are found in Sing, and Plur. :
K\etv Rev. iii. 7, /cXelSa Luke xi. 52, T9 /eXefc Rev. i. 18,
Matt. xvi. 19.
ADJECT] VES. 25
properly an Adjective, like all words in rj<s of the 3d
Declension, regularly follows the analogy of rptTJp^s. Only once is
the Dat. Plur. o-vyyei/evat found as an important variant Mark vi. 4
(also 1 Mace. x. 89). Whether this erroneous form, which arose
probably from the resemblance between the inflection and that of
nouns in ev? (cf. MWVO-T}?), is to be attributed in the above passage to
the s< ribes or to the author, may be doubtful ; and on this account the
reading has not been adopted [yet so in Mark, Tdf. eds. 7 and 8, and
Treg.]. But it makes in favor of the latter supposition that in another
passage (Luke ii. 44) [many of] the very same MSS. (with the excep-
tion of cod. Vat. which here also exhibits o-vyyeveuo-i) do not repeat
the termination -cSo-i but give the regular form crvyyo/c'o-i, which also
harmonizes perfectly with the general accuracy of form characteristic
of Luke, as on the other hand the form cnryyevevo-i is congruous with
Mark. Further, that the form acknowledged to be erroneous should
be early altered by other scribes into the regular one, is quite natural ;
and finally, it appears from the grammarian Herodian, in Cram. An.
III. p. 246, that this corrupt form must have actually been in frequent
use (TT o \\tav cr <f>a\\o^vwv Kara /cAicnv SoriKr}? Tmoo-eoos /ecu XcyovTwv
o-vy-yevtva-t KT\.). Otherwise he would have hardly found it necessary
to demonstrate in detail, as he does, its erroneousness.
Kar^ywp, a solecistic by-form of fccmjyopos, occurs only in Rev. xii.
10 ; (it is wanting in the lexicons).
ADJECTIVES.
B. 60; H. 209 sq. ; C. 229 sq. ; D. 196; J. 127.
In the distinction of Genders of Adjectives in 09 certain
irregularities and departures from the common usage occur in
the N. T. The following deserve especial notice :
/3e/3cuo9, in Attic authors generally of the common gender,
always in the N. T. takes the form f3epaia in the Fern. ; see
Wahl. eprjfjios, on the other hand, which in Attic writers
lias three endings, has invariably the Fern, 6/977/^09 Gal. iv. 27,
etc., and Wahl is to be corrected accordingly.
eTOifjios fluctuates between three terminations and two,
cf. Matt. xxv. 10 ; 2 Cor. ix. 5 ; 1 Pet. i. 5.
apyr} Fern, of dpyos (1 Tim. v. 13 ; Jas. ii. 20) is altogether 23
a later form ; see Pape, and cf. Tit. i. 1 2.
Not only eirovpavios, which as a composite adj. must be
of the common gender (Heb. iii. 1, etc.), but also the simple
ovpdvios, which is regularly of three endings (see Pape),
has two terminations in the Ii. T. : o-rpart^ ovpdvws Luke ii
13 ; oTrracri'a ovpdvios Acts xxvi. 19.
4
26 ANOMALOUS ADJECTIVES.
is always of three endings, only in Rev. iv. 3 we
find Z/M9 o/ito09 (according to cod. A).
6<rtou9, too, in 1 Tim. ii. 8, as its very position indicates,
is to be joined to xetpo,?, as is done by most of the commentators
and the ancients. The Fern, does not occur elsewhere.
a I a) v i o 9 , ordinarily even in the N. T. of the common gender,
has the Fern, alcovia only in two passages : 2 Thess. ii. 16 ;
Heb. ix. 12, (cf. the common reading in 1 John ii. 25 ; Acts
xiii. 48).
B. 60,6; H. 208; C. 23; J. 121, 2.
Xpvo-eos contracts its feminine XP vcr ^ Heb. ix. 4; on the
other hand, the Ace. 'xpva-av is given by Lchm. [Tdf. Treg. ; so
cod. Sin.] in Rev. i. 13 (analogous to the Plural ^was neut.
'Xpvcra). Contraction is neglected in the Gen. Plur. ^pvaewv
in Rev. ii. 1 Lchm. [Trg., Tdf. 7]. In Rev. also occur according
to cod. Sin. xpvcrea, ^aX/cea, forms which (according to
Phryn. p. 207) must have been generally in use among writers
of the 1 Koivr).
B. 62; H. 212; C. 23; J. 122, 1.
The Genitive ftaOect)?, which now on MS. authority [Sin.
also] is substituted in Luke xxiv. 1 for the regular /3a0eo9,
rests on later usage ; see B. 51 N. 2 ; H. 186 ; D. 101 ; J.
I.e. ; Tdf. ed. 7, p. liv. Perhaps, too, in 1 Pet. iii. 4
[Tdf. Treg.] should be read instead of Tr/raeo?.
Respecting ^/AUTOI;?, etc., see p. 14.
B. 63,1; H. 217; J. 130,1.
The plural vrj cr ret 9 from vrjaris, Matt. xv. 32 ; Mark viii. 3
[here Tdf. now reads VIJ<TTIS ; so too in Matt. I.e. edd. manual.
et stereot.], is a collateral form of the Plur., instead of wjorie?
or vrja-TiSes, which occurs also elsewhere, but is censured by the
Atticists ; see Lob. ad Phryn. p. 326 ; Fritzsche ad Marc. Exc.
III. p. 796.
ANOMALOUS ADJECTIVES.
B. 64,2; H. 219 a.; C. 236c.; D. 216; J. 125, Obs. 2.
The form 7rpao9 seems to be wholly unknown to the language
of the N. T. ; for not (inly in Matt. xi. 29 the single passage
where it still stood has it been made by the editors to give
way to the other form 7rpau9, agreeably to all the other passages
(see Wahl), but the abstract substantive Trpaor^ also has
been, at least by Tdf., everywhere altered into Trpavr^. And
COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES. 27
this procedure is the more defensible because in the two pas-
sages still remaining (Gal. vi. 1 ; Eph. iv. 2) in which Lclim.
has left the form Trpaorrjs (which he writes without iota sub- 24
script), important MS. authorities [Sin. also] offer the other
form ; see the other passages in Wahl, to which Col. iii. 12
is to be added.
An example of the use of the indeclinable word eirdvayices
as an adjective by means of the article, after the manner of
adverbs (see 125, 10 p. 95), is Acts xv. 28 7r\rjv rowwv r&v
Elsewhere the word does not occur in the N. T.
COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES IN -os.
B. 65,N.5; H. 221; C. 257; J. 135.
The comparative of SwrXoO?, which in its ethical sense
antithetic to avrXoO? (see Pape) is capable of comparison,
is in Matt, xxiii. 15 StTrXd'repo?, a form which can be shown
elsewhere also in later authors (Appian, Praef. 10) and is con-
structed as if from SwrXo?, of which the Neut. plural Si,7r\a can
be authenticated, at least in later poets ; see Steph. Thesaur.
and Lob. ad Phryn. p. 234.
OTHER FORMS or COMPARISON.
B. 67; H. 222; C. 261; D. 277; J. 136.
The form of the comparative of TO^U? peculiar to later Greek :
ra%to)i/, rd^iovj is the only form in use in the N. T. as
well as in the Old. In the New Testament, however, it occurs
only as an adverb in the neuter : John xx. 4, etc. The com-
mon form Oacra-ov has so completely passed out of use that it
has not been preserved even as a variant.
ANOMALOUS COMPARISON.
B. 68; H. 223; C. 262; A 280; J. 137.
The common comparison of dyaOos is /tpe/Wwz/, /cpdricrTos
the latter employed in addressing persons of rank and au-
thority : Acts xxiii. 26 ; xxiv. 3 ; xxvi. 25 (cf. Luke i. 3 ; the
Vulg. always uses optimus). Of the other forms of comparison
only ftekriov occurs once (a/s an adverb), 2 Tim. i. 18.
The ordinary comparative of KCLKOS is ^elpmv as well in
the signification deterior as pejor, Matt, xxvii. 64, etc. The
superlative does not occur.
28 DEFECTIVE COMPARISON.
DEFECTIVE COMPARISON.
B. 69, 2; H. 224; C. 262; D. 282; J. MO.
The positive rjpepos (formed from rjpepa), which is very
rare and not yet satisfactorily established from other writers,
occurs in 1 Tim. ii. 2. Of. Lobeck, Path. Proll. p. 158.
The adjectival forms of the comparative azwre/w?, etc.,
(questioned in B. 69, 2 note) cannot be denied, at least in
25 later writers. Accordingly in the N. T. we have them not
only used adverbially in the Neuter, avcorepov Luke xiv. 10 etc.,
but even as adjectives : rrjv eV&vrepaz/ $v\a/crjv (Acts xvi. 24, cf.
Heb. vi. 19), ra /carct)Tepa /^epij Eph. iv. 9.
B. 69, N. 3; C. 262(c); D. 283; J. 140.
Two examples of double comparison occur in the N. T. :
3 John 4 pet for epos, and Eph. iii. 8 eXa^tcrrore/Do^ In
general it is to be noticed, that in all such formations, which are
not altogether rare either in poets or in prose writers, the two
different kinds of comparison (by -repo<?, etc. and -LUV, etc.) are
always found united. The Latin language also presents anal-
ogous phenomena, which in general belonged probably more
to the popular language and to the class of arbitrary formations.
NUMERALS.
B. 70. 1; H. 256; C. 24sq.; D. 249 sq.; J. 166.
Respecting efo /caO' eZ? and similar expressions, see p. 30.
The later spelling ovOels, ^TjOels is found in the N. T.
(see Tdf. 7, 8 on 1 Cor. xiii. 2) alternating with the common
one ; indeed the two are found close beside each other, as in
1 Cor. xiii. 2, 3 (cf. c Iepoo-6\v/jLa, Mapla above, pp. 17,18). The
same holds true of the derivative egovdevea), only that here the
other form with 8 is incomparably more rare ; Lchm. gives it
only in Mark ix. 12 and 2 Cor. x. 10 ; [so Treg. in Mark].
REMARK. The Form eov8evdo>, which is given in the lexicons
on account of Mark ix. 12, has been altered into the common form in
-<o after preponderant MS. authority. On the other hand, the form
in -oo> is very common in the Sept., and has now been adopted again
by Tdf. in Mark ix. 12 (after Sin.) The MSS. fluctuate between
e^ovSeWw, -oco, e^ovflcvew, -ow ; cf. Steph. Thesaur. sub voce.
The form Svolv from Bvo no longer occurs, but instead of it
in the Genitive the indeclinable form Si>o, e.g. Matt, xviii. 16,
and in the Dative Sim, Matt. vi. 24, etc.
The spelling rea crepe?, reo-aepd/covTa is probably hardly
NUMERALS. 29
to be called an lonism, but rests merely on an erroneous usage
of the Alexandrian period. For we never find the inflections
rea-o-epcov, -epcn, as these cases run in Ionic, but invariably
(even in cod. Alex.) reao-dp&v, reo-aapo-^ e.g. Acts x. 11 ; Rev.
xxi. 17 (rea-o-epaKovra recrcrdpwv) . Since, however, the forms
with e have been transmitted principally by the above codex,
whence they have often found their way into the 0. T. (see
Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 118), Lachmann, following the au-
thority of cod. Vat., has adopted them but sparingly, e.g. Acts
i. 3 ; 2 Cor. xi. 24, and almost always in the Apocalypse.
Tischendorf [cf. ed. 7, p. il] has them more frequently,
in particular -recraepaKovra throughout [so Treg.] and the neuter
recrcre/oa, but otherwise recrcrape?, -a?, Tecro-apeo-Kcubetcaros.
To maintain consistency throughout is not advisable, since it
is certain that both modes of spelling were in use, but it is 26
best everywhere to follow the MSS. Compare besides the form
(received by Lchm.) /ce/caOepio- pivos for tceicadap. in Heb.
x. 2, and etca06pt(r6<r) in Tdf 's. last ed. Matt. viii. 3 ; Mark i. 42,
fca6ept,(76v Acts x. 15 Tdf. [ed. 7 ; Treg.] , /uepo? for /ua/oo<? Barn.
Act.19, p.71ed.Tdf. [In Rev. xxi. 17 Treg. prints revaapaKovrd] .
The rule of certain ancient grammarians relative to the
accent of the compounds of ero? (Etym. Magn. rpierrj^ /*/
Xpovos, TpieTys Se Trafc, cf. Winer p. 50 (49)) has been observed
in the N. T. by Lchm.; hence rea-o-epaKovTaerr)? %p6vos Acts
vii. 23 ; xiii. 18, but eKarovraeTr}? sc. avrjp Rom. iv. 19 (-er?7?
Tdf.). In the Rec. the rule was reversed; [Treg. accents
the last syllable in every instance]. On the disagreement
among the old grammarians see Schol. ad II. A|T. 266, and cf.
Lehrs, quaest. epp. pp. 136, 147.
ORDINAL, AND OTHER DERIVATIVE NUMBERS.
B. 71, 1; H. 256; C. 240; D. 253, Obs. 1 d. ; J. 165, 3.
As a later form for recro-apa/auSe/caTo?, and one peculiar to
the N. T., recraap e 9 /catSe/caro? is to be noticed: Acts xxvii.
27, 33. Cf. the Ionic cardinal number B. 70.
The cardinal et? takes the place in one case of the ordinal
TrpwTo? (cf. B. p. 92 note f), namely, in the common phrase
t] pla TWV o-a(3/3drcov i.e. the first day of the week (see p. 23) ;
as, Mark xvi. 2 (on the other hand, in vs. 9 7rpo>T7j <r.) Acts
xx. 7, etc. Matt, xxviii. 1 also, where the article is wanting,
is nevertheless to be understood like the other passages ; cf.
30 ORDINAL, AND OTHER DERIVATIVE NUMBERS.
Rev. ix. 11 77 oval 97 //./a with xi. 14. This use is borrowed
from the Hebrew (see Wahl under efc, or Gesen. under inx),
hence it is to be found frequently in the Sept. also, e.g. ev
fjpepq jjLia TOV /-i7?i>o9 Exod. xl. 2 ; Ezra x. 16, etc. Corres-
ponding to rt9 for TroTGpo? (B. 78, 2) is the use of el? or 6 et?
in the sense of alter, o ere/so? ; see Wahl.
In 2 Pet. ii. 5 the ordinal number is used peculiarly, (having
the force of the German selb-) ; thus 078001; IVwe Noah with
seven others. Cf. auro? u-J/Lwrros (B. 127, N. 2 ; H. 669 ;
C. 541 g. ; D. p. 462 ; J 656 f.).
In compound numeral adverbs it is sufficient if the adverbial
form occurs but once ; as, Matt, xviii. 22 e^o^Kovrdia^ knvrd.
Distributive numerals are destitute of a special adjective-
form in Greek. In the N. T. accordingly they are sometimes,
as in other Greek authors, expressed by adverbial con-
structions, as ava Svo Luke ix. 3 (see 147 under avd,
p. 331), ol KCL& eva, Ka-ra Svo, singuli, bini Eph. v. 33 ; 1 Cor.
xiv. 27 (see 147 under /eara, p. 335). In this case the
combination (unknown to classic Greek) deserves notice, by
virtue of which efc is treated like an indeclinable numeral, or
27 the preposition as a species of adverb, particularly in the for-
mula eUtfafl'e^ Mark xiv. 19 [Tdf. Kara]; John viii. 9 (Rev.
iv. 8 eV Ka& eV), and cf. Rom. xii. 5 TO Se tca0' el? for e? e/eao-ro9,
Rev. xxi. 21 ava efc efcacrTos. Sometimes distributives are
expressed by repeating the cardinal numeral, as is done
in Hebrew (see Gesen. Lehrg. p. 703 ; Gr. 118, 5), e.g. ovo
Bvo Mark vi. 7 with which the analogous expressions in 39, 40
av/JLTTocna o~v/ji7r6cria, irpaaial irpaaiaL may be compared (Gesen.
Lehrg. p. 669 ; Gr. 106, 4).
B. 71,3; H. 268; C. 240,5; D. 256; J. 161,6.
The Multiplicative numerals are formed : in the parable
of the Sower (Luke viii. 8) by means of -TrAao-tW, a termina-
tion which in later writers came into frequent use (see Lob.
Phryn. p. 411 note), /capjrov eKaTovrairXaaiova (like TroXXaTrXa-
criwv Luke xviii. 30 ; see Pape, and cf. Xen. Oec. ii. 3 e/carovra-
TrKao-iova) ; in Mark iv. 8 by circumlocution with a preposition,
after the manner of distributives, as efc Tpid/covra, et9 e/carov 1 ;
finally in Matt. xiii. 8, 23 by the simple cardinal.
1 This, at least, is that one of the ancient readings which Tischendorf [so Treg.]
has followed. As respects the other (Lchm. Grsb. etc.) see Syntax 126, 3 p. 1 )3.
PRONOUNS. 31
PRONOUNS.
B. 72; H. 230; C. 243 sq. ; I>. 232; J. 149, 1.
The reflexive forms of the 3d Pers. Sing, and Plur. (ou, etc.)
have passed quite out of use in the language of the N. T. On
eauroO, (auToO), avrov, etc. see below, Syntax 127, 14 p. 111.
B. 72, N. 8; H. 232; C. 788 e. ; D. 55 (c); J. 64, 3o.
The inclination of the accent in TT/DO? pe has been adhered
to by the editors of the N. T., as in Matt. iii. 14, etc. And
Lchm. accents also the 2d Pers. in the same way when no
especial emphasis rests on the Pronoun, as TT/JO? ere Matt. xiv. 28 ;
xxv. 39 ; Mark ix. 17, etc. On the other hand, in John xxi. 22
T/7rpo? ere; Matt. xxvi. 18 TT^O? ere TTOICO TO Tracr^a. With other
prepositions the pronoun is always orthotone ; as, ev e/W, ev crol,
eVt <76, etc. ; see the rule of the old grammarians in Herm. de
emend, rat. p. 75. The accentuation TT^O? pe often employed
by Tdf. is uniformly to be rejected.
dvrds ; THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN ; THE RECIPROCAL.
B. 74; H. 234sq.; C. 244; D. 234sq.; J. 150 sq.
Respecting the N. T. use of avro? as well as of the reflexive
pronoun e/mirroO, etc., see the Syntax 127, p. 107 sqq.
Though the use of the reciprocal pronoun a\\r)\c0v is quite
current in the N. T., yet the circumlocution by means of the
numeral el? is also found, but only in isolated cases : 1 Thess. 28
v. 11 ot'/eoSo/Ltare efc rov eva (interchanged with aXX^Xou?) ; cf.
1 Cor. iv. 6 iva ^ efc vTrep rov evbs <f>vai,ovcr0e Kara rov erepov.
This use is not a Hebraism, see Winer, p. 173 (163), and cf.
126, 3 p. 102.
rls, rls.
B. 77; H. 244; C. 253; D. 240; J. 156.
The secondary forms of r/9 and TW are quite unknown to
the N. T. ; the Gen orov. of the compound oVrt? occurs, indeed,
but only in the conjunctional phrase eo>? orov Matt. v. 25, etc.
The un- Attic (and poetic) /-wfw for /^Se/? occurs 1 Cor. xvi. 11.
CORRELATIVES.
B. 78, 2; H. 247; C. 53; J. 874, Obs. 4.
The distinction between T/<? and Trore/jo?, which was some-
times neglected even by the Greeks (like the use of quis and
uter by the Romans), seems to be wholly disregarded by the
writers of the N. T. ; for the form iro-repo^ occurs but once and
32 SYLLABIC AUGMENT.
in the double conjunction irbrepov . . . rj (John vii. 17), while
everywhere else rt? is used, even where there is the plainest
reference to two, as Matt. xxi. 31 rt? e/c rcov Suo cTrohjaev.
See Wahl under r/9, and cf. B. 71, 1. An analogy to this is
offered by the obliteration of the difference between Trporepos
and 7r/?wT09, -ov (although the Latins in translating still observe
it in numerous instances), and likewise between aXXo? and
ere/309. For example, Heb. viii, 7 el yap $ Trpwrt] e/celvrj (Vulg.
illud prius sc. testamentum) rjv a/xeyu-Trro?, ov/c av Sevrepas e^rj-
Telro T07T09, John xx. 4 erpe^ov ol &vo o>or 6 Se aXAo9
f]\0ev TTpcoros (prior a, b, c, d,) et9 TO /jLvrj/jLelov. Hence
is even connected with the Gen. compar. (John i. 15, 30),
respecting which see Syntax 123, 14 p. 84.
THE VERB.
SYLLABIC AUGMENT.
B. 83, 2; H. 43; C. 277sq.; D. 305; J. in, and Obs. 6.
The doubling of p after the augment, which, as is well known,
was omitted only by the poets on account of the verse (B.
21, N. 2) has sometimes been neglected also in the N. T.
Although double letters are often written singly in the MSS.
yet the doubling of p in most verbs is never, or only in ex-
tremely rare instances, omitted ; accordingly we find eppn/ra,
epprj^a, etc. Hesitation, therefore, has justly been felt at
making arbitrary alterations in those verbs in which the best
codices sustain almost unanimously the single p. They are
29 Matt. xxvi. 67 epdiria-av^ Acts xvi. 22 Trepiprjgavres (codd. Vat.
and Sin.), 2 Cor. xi. 25 epa/38lo-0rjv, Heb. ix. 19 epdvnae (cf.
below, p. 33), 2 Tim. iii. 11 ; iv. 17 epvo-aro, cpvaBrj^ (on the
other hand, eppva-aro 2 Cor. i. 10 ; Col. i. 13 ; 2 Pet. ii. 7).
According to the analogy of these examples the cod. Alex.
[Sin. also] (and Tdf. [so Treg.]) writes in John xix. 23 apafyos
instead of dppafos ; and so frequently in composition after
prepositions, as Siaptfara-cov Luke viii. 29, eTTiptyavres xix. 35 ;
1 Pet. v. 7 ; cf. Mark ii. 21 ; Luke v. 6 ; Acts xvi. 22, etc.
B. 83, N. 1; H. 319 b. ; C. 280 b. ; D. p. 195; J. 175, Obs. 1.
The former reading /Ae/xv^orcvfien; Luke i. 27 ; ii. 5 is now set
aside on the authority of MSS. ; yet it is often found in the N. T.
Apocrypha, and elsewhere also, e.g. in Diodor. (18. 23); see Lob,
Parall. p. 10 sq.
TEMPORAL AUGMENT. 33
B. 83, N. 4 ; H. 319 ; C. 159 e. ; D. 305 b) Obs. ; J. 176, 1.
The Homeric pepwrrw^eva finds now t tfo parallels in the text
of the N.T., viz. pepi^fjuevov Matt. ix. 36 (Lchm. after cod. D,
epifjbp. Tdf. [Treg.]) and pepavnv pivot, Heb. x. 22 (accord-
ing to codd. [K] A C). Similar instances in later authors are
adduced by Lobeck, Parall. p. 13. As respects the aspiration
of the first /?, Lchm. has in both cases [so Treg. in Heb.] given
the smooth breathing, see Ausf. Sprachl. 6 Anm. 3 Note, and
Lobeck as above, who besides puts a breathing over the second
p, as pepijjLjuLai,. But as the opinions of the old grammarians do
not quite favor the adoption of this, Gottling (on Theodos. p.
213 and Ace. p. 205) advocates the retention of the rough
breathing on the first p, except in words of Aeolic origin ; and
this is done by most editors. Cf. Steph. Byz. p. 543 Mein.
B. 83, N. 5; H. 308 a. ; C. 279; D. 305 (*); J. 171, Obs. 1. ; Tdf. ed. 7, p. Ivi.
With yiteXXo) and ^vvapai in the N. T. both kinds of aug-
ment are used promiscuously ; as, ri^e\\ev John iv. 47, e/^XXei/
vi. 71, rjSvvaro Matt. xxvi. 9, ebvvavro Mark iv. 33. But with
^ov\o^ai the text of Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. apparently] always
gives the simple augment : Impf. e/3ov\6/jbTjv Acts xv. 37 ;
xxviii. 18 ; Philem. 13 ; Aor. efiovXrjOrjv 2 John 12 ; on the
other hand, the Aorist of vvapai is always rjSvvijQrjv {daO'rjv
Tdf. in Mark vii. 24 after ft B], as in Matt. xvii. 16, 19 : 1 Cor.
iii. 1, etc. Cf. besides, the anomalous
B. 83, N. 7; H. 311 ; C. 284 c. ; D. 311 ; J. 171, Obs. 4; Tdf. I.e.
The omission of the syllabic augment of the Pluperfect takes
place, though not invariably (e.g. Luke xvi. 20 ; John ix. 22),
yet in the majority of cases ; hence TreTroiijtceicrav, e/cftefihrjKei,,
yeyovei Mark xv. 7, 10 ; Luke vi. 48, etc. See other examples
in Winer 12,9 p. 72(70).
TEMPORAL AUGMENT.
B. 84, 2; H. 312; C. 278; D. 305, Obs. 2; J. 173, 7; Tdf. I.e.
With epjd^ofjbai the augment et is the common one in the
N. T. also ; yet the other augment (?/) has been received into
the text on preponderant authority in Acts xviii. 3 ; Luke xix.
16 [Treg. et-]. In the other passages it is commonly found as
a noteworthy variant (particularly in codd. Cant, and Clarom.) 30
[and adopted by Tdf.], as in Matt. xxv. 16 [Sin. also] ; xxvi.
10 [Sin. also] ; Rom. vii. 8 ; 2 Cor. x:i. 12.
5
34 TEMPORAL AUGMENT.
The reading of the Rec. in Rev. vi. 14 etXtcrcro/xez/o? is now
set aside.
On the other hand, the number of the verbs that take the
augment e*, is increased in the N. T. by one, viz. eX/cow, Perf.
Pass. Part. etX/coj^o? Luke xvi. 20.
B. 84, 5; H. 310; C. 278 d.; D. 305(2); J. 173,2; Tdf. I.e.
Verbs beginning with ev have now ev, now rjv ; and in fact,
both kinds of augment alternately : ev/ccupea) Mark vi. 31 ;
Acts xvii. 21, evXoyea) Luke ii. 34 ; Heb. xi. 20, 21, ev^patva)
Acts ii. 26 ; vii. 41, ev^apLcrreco Acts xxvii. 35 ; Rom. i. 21,
evplo-Kco in the Imperf. Acts vii. 11 ; Luke xix. 48 ; Heb. xi. 5.
On the other hand, ev alone is used in the other tenses of
evpiaKW) as evpov, evpTjtca, evpedqv, also in ev$o/cea) (yet not
without variants, see Col. i. 19), and in the following verbs,
which occur but once in augmented forms: evOvSpopea) Acts
xvi. 11, evvov^w Matt. xix. 12 ; evTropeco Acts xi. 29.
But ev^xpfjiai, has everywhere only T?I>, as rjv^o/jLrjv Rom. ix. 3 ;
'qi^oz'TO Acts xxvii. 29 [eiJ-Tdf. Treg.] ; Trpo^v^ero^ Trpo^v^avro
viii. 15 ; Luke xviii. 11 ; Jas. v. 17, 18, and in the case of
evfopeco, Luke xii. 16, the MSS. are divided (Lchm. ^v^opTjcrev^
[ev- ft Tdf. Treg.]). Of. further below, p. 35.
B. 84, N. 3; H. 309 D.; C. 284 b.; D. p. 201; J. 174,3.
Neglect of the temporal augment, after the manner of the
lonians, occurs in the N. T. but very rarely. Thus the MSS.
sustain eVatcr^w^ \_e7rrj- ft] 2 Tim. i. 16 (on the other hand,
it is regular in 2 Cor. vii. 14), Siep^rjvevev Luke xxiv. 27 ;
there is preponderant authority also for avopdaOrj [N avcop-']
Luke xiii. 13 ; further, for Trpooptofjbrjv Acts ii. 25, and o^oiwOrnjuev
[&>- ft Tdf. Treg.] Rom. ix. 29, both in quotations from the
0. T. (the latter, indeed, not taken into the text by Lchm., but
placed on an equality with the reading adopted) ; also for
ol/coSopio-ev Acts vii. 47 Tdf. [ed. 2 ; Treg.] cf. Luke vii. 5 var.
[in John ii. 20 Tdf. now reads olKo$o{MJ0r)~], e7roi,Ko$6jj,7)crev
1 Cor. iii. 14 Tdf. [Treg.] (on the forms of the Aug. of this
verb see Tdf.'s crit. com. on Acts vii. 47), 6/jLo\6<yr)<rev Acts vii.
17 (Sin.), heyetpero John vi. 18 (Vat. [Treg.]). See more
examples of the kind from the Sept. in Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 124,
The reading TrepLea-rpaij/ev Acts ix. 3 Lchm., as if formed from
may be noticed as an anomaly quite isolated. It is an
THE AUGMENT IN COMPOSITION. 35
instance of carelessness, which m such a writer as Luke is probably to
be charged only to the transcribers, since in another passage (xxii. 6)
of the same author the Inf. Aor. runs Treptao-Tpai^at. Tdf. accordingly
has not adopted it ; see the various readings, and Steph. Thes. sub
VOC6 o-rpaTTTw.
THE AUGMENT IN COMPOSITION.
B. 86, 3; H. 316; C. 282; D. 310; J. 180, 2.
Of the verbs belonging under this head evayye\l^a) (also
Trpoevayy. Gal. iii. 8) always has the augment in the middle,
also in 1 Cor. xv. 2, see Wahl. On the other hand, the Perf.
Inf. of evapeo-reay is now read after cod. A without augment,
vape(7Tr]Kevai, in Heb. xi. 5 [fit ewy-].
B. 86, N. 3; H. 315; D. 308, Obs. 2 ; J. 181, 6.
Agreeably to the general rule, TrpofyijTeva) in the N. T. has
its augment at the beginning: &jrpo*f>rjTCvoP, -aav, etc. (see
Wahl) ; yet everywhere with the variant irpoetfyr^revov^ etc. 31
(especially in the Vat. cod., which the Rec. followed). Only
once, Jude 14, has the text of Lchm. (not Tdf. [Treg.]) the
augment in the middle. [Cf. Grimm's Lex. sub voce.]
B. 86, N. 4; H. 314; C. 279b.; D. p. 200; J. 181.
The number of examples of a twofold augment can be
increased from the N. T. Thus throughout we find aireica-
TecrTatf?? Matt, xii.13 etc. [so cnre/careo-Tr) Mark viii. 25 Tdf.Treg.] ,
and ^ve^Orja-avj see the anom. o#yo> p. 63. On the other hand,
avexpfwi and Sta/covea) have the simple augment : avel^eade
2 Cor. xi. 1 (and 4 Tdf. [Treg.]) aveo-^o^v Acts xviii. 14 Lchm.
[Tdf. Treg.]. SirjKovovv -vjo-a frequently. On the double aug-
ment see Poppo on Time. 4, 130 ; and on this (common)
Sirjicovovv cf. An. Bekk. p. 1285 ; Moeris sub voce. Respecting
avopOoco see p. 34. (Cf. besides Ps. xlviii. 13, 21 cod. Alex.)
FUTURE SUBJUNCTIVE.
B. 88, 1; H. 262; C. 269b.
From the N. T. a number of examples of the S u b j u n c t i v e
form of the Future are adduced. In very late Greek, like
that of the Byzantine writers and Scholiasts and N. T. Apoc-
rypha (which swarm with similar anomalies), forms of this
sort (lo-awTCM, eXevcrtovrai) are not to be denied ; but, according
to Lobeck's judgment (Phryn. p. 721), in the earlier authors
down to the KOIVOI they are to be charged wholly to the copyists,
36 FUTURE SUBJUNCTH-E.
whose ear had already become accustomed to such hall-
barbarous forms (ib. 720). How far back, however, the
beginnings of this usage are to be carried, would be hard to
decide. A basis for it is offered by fiefjucrOaxTcovTcu in the
Tabul. Heracl. (cf. Ahrens, Dial. Dor. p. 334). Respecting
the usage of the N. T. authors, Lobeck, indeed, does not
generally express himself; yet on the whole he seems to be
opposed to the admission of such subjunctives even in the N.T.
(p. 722). In point of fact, too, recent criticism has done
away with most of the instances (cited by Winer p. 75 (72)) :
e.g. 1 Pet. iii. 1 KepbrjOrja-ovTai, Rev. xviii. 14 evpijaovcriv (evprjs
Tdf. [eds. 2, 7], evprjays Rec.). Also the first of the examples
adduced there (1 Cor. xiii. 3 KavOriaw^ai) has been set aside by
Tdf. yet is still admitted by Lchm. [Treg.] ; but the reading is
altogether uncertain (the three leading MSS. have Kav^aw^aC).
Cf. Lob. p. 722. The reading of the received text in Luke
xiii. 35 rfy) for 77^ Lchm. Tdf. ran likewise be referred to
this head. Away, which in John .Yvii. 2, owing to its strong
support, can hardly be got rid of (although even in the Rev.
it has yielded to the forms &oo-e* and wa-/.i> r viii. 3 ; xiii. 16),
may, if established, still be looked upon as an (erroneous)
Aorist Subjunctive form, which in later times became more
and more prevalent in the mouth of the people ; (some of the
modern Greeks still say e'Soxm). See the numerous forms
of the kind from SiScofju, and ri07jfjLi in Lobeek as above, also in
Cobet's Nov. Lect. 266 ; Var. Lect. 96. Ihe same hoHs good
of the clearly transmitted Subj. otyrjo-de in Luke xiii. 28 [Td f .
32 Treg. read 6SJrecr0e, with codd. B D etc.J, formed from the e ] so
where unused theme OTTTW and the Aorist w^d^v whick
actually occurs here and there. See in particular Plat. legg.
p. 947 c., and cf. Ausf. Sprachl. under opdco.
CHARACTERISTIC.
B. 92, N. 3; H. 328b.; C. 349.
has commonly, in accordance with the rule, ar^pi^w^
arrjpL^Orjvai ; but the Aor. Imperat. is always cmj-
piaov Luke xxii. 32; Rev. iii. 2 (likewise Ezek. vi. 2), and
besides, in cod. Vat. the same inflection is found also in Luke
ix. 51 eo-Tripive [so Tdf. Treg.], 2 Thess. iii. 3 crrypio-et, (not
in Lchm. [Treg.]). Hence the Perf. eV-i^pt/ca (not
Jer. xxi. 10) and Fut. OT^/HW in the Sept
THE FUTURE. 37
Moreover craX7na>, though aaX-jn^ (var. <ra\7rtf) -770? Rev.
i. 10 etc. comes from it, invariably has the forms craX-Tricm,
ecrdXTrtaev Matt. vi. 2 ; 1 Cor. xv. 52 (and often in Rev., see
Wahl), and likewise the subst. o-d^-jriar^ instead of aa\7riy/cTij<}
Rev. xviii. 22.
THE FUTURE.
B. 95 ; H. 372sqq.; C. 305; D. 302; J. 203.
Iii the N. T. (as generally in later Greek, see Ausf. Sprachl.
II. 315) <t>opea) ((/)o/3eo-&>) tyopecra 1 Cor. xv. 49 (Sir. xi. 5)
belongs also to those verbs in eo> which in inflection do not
lengthen the e.
Respecting eTratvecrw see p. 53.
Contrary to rule, Tretrnw has uniformly Fut. Treivdcra), Aor.
eirelvcura : Matt. xii. 1, 3. etc. See Lob. Phryn. p. 204.
The so-called Attic Future of verbs in /&> is quite usual in
the N. T. Yet not from all these verbs ; but, so far as can be
gathered from existing evidence, a portion of them have ex-
clusively the Attic Future, others the ordinary Future, still
others both. By far the greater number, however, do not
occur in the Future, and it is not always safe to draw an
inference from the usage of the Sept. or of later authors re-
specting that of the N. T. The Attic Future forms in the N. T.
(in part quotations from the 0. T.) are the following : a^o/otet,
-lovcriv Matt. xiii. 49 ; xxv. 32, efcrnovaiv Matt. xii. 21 ; Rom.
xv. 12, Trapopyiw Rom. x. 19, icadapiel Matt. iii. 12 ; Heb. ix.
14 etc., eSafaovcriv Luke xix. 44, paKapiovcnv i. 48, fjueroifaa)
Acts vii. 43, lyyiel Jas. iv. 8, %poviei Heb. x. 37, and in the
0. T. there are many more of them. The following, on the
other hand, have the Future in cro> : ryvcopl^co, jnvariably, John
xvii. 26, etc., also Col. iv. 9 (where Tdf. [Treg.] and the Rec.
read yvcoptovo-Lv after [K] A C), Oeplfr 1 Cor. ix. 11 ; Gal. vi.
7 etc., epfyavitp John xiv. 21, e/otfeo Matt. xii. 19, KaOi^w Matt.
xix. 28 ; xxv. 31, /carapTL^a) 1 Pet. v. 10, per acr'xy parity* Phil.
iii. 21, <r^a> Luke v. 36, ^api^o^ai Rom. viii. 32, ^prj/jLar^a) 33
vii. 3, x&pifr viii. 35, and po-r^B Matt. v. 39 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7].
But e^vrrviaw John xi. 11, <TKav$a\lo-co 1 Cor. viii. 13, are Aor.
Subjunctives. Ko^o^ai has both forms : 1 Pet. v. 4 ; 2 Pet.
ii. 13 (-4oD/-wu), Eph. vi. 8; Col. iii. 25 (-tVo/^at) ; this may
have occurred often, as well as in the 0. T., e.g. Trortw Num.
v. 24, 26 ; Sir. xxiv. 31, Trorlaco Sir. xv. 3.
38 THE FUTURE.
Respecting <mjj>a> and adKiri^w see above, p. 36 sq.
B. 95, N. 13.
As proof of the statement that the N. T. writers give the Attic form
of the Future even to such verbs as lengthen the vowel, several
passages are cited with more or less reason (see Fisch. ad Well. II.
p. 359). After the rejection of those passages in which formerly a
Future was erroneously supposed to be discovered (TL TTOIUJ, etc.), the
following have perhaps the greatest probability of such a use in then*
favor: Matt. xxvi. 18 TTOUO, Luke xiii. 32 TeXeiov^at, Luke xii. 20
a.TraiTovo-u'jm particular, Matt. xii. 25 epTy/xourat and John xiv. 19 ; xvi.
16, 17 tfew/aet, QetDpeLTc, since indubitable Futures (o-ra^o-eTai, ctye<r0e,
etc.) correspond to them both before and afterwards. The supposition
is opposed by (1) Its complete irregularity ; (2) The entire silence of
the ancient grammarians, since, had the usage actually found place in
the language, it is hardly credible that they should not on any occasion
have taken notice of it ; (3) The extraordinary circumstance that, if
this form of the Future was possible, the examples of it are so uncom-
monly rare, although the opportunity of employing it was so frequent,
while yet the use of the Attic Future of those verbs that can form it
regularly occurred so very extensively ; finally (4) The fact that the
Vulgate in translating the form employs almost always the Present ;
which, on the other supposition, would hardly have been done where
the temptation to use the Future lay so close at hand as e.g. in Matt.
xxvi. 18. Only ep^/u-ovrai does it translate by desolabitur and #<opetT
by videbitis, probably on account of the other Future forms which
follow. 1 Hence the admission of this anomalous Attic Future is un-
warranted even in the language of the N. T., and such Futures are to
be explained syntactically as Presents in which the future signification
is included ( 137, 10 p. 203). By this, however, it is not meant at
all to deny, that the N. T. writers, affected by their frequent use of
the Attic Future^ were the more easily led to employ in pure verbs
the Present instead of the Future, inasmuch as the feeling which
demands the Future was in some measure satisfied by the circumflexed
34 form. Cf. TL iroiovfjifv (quid faciemus) John xi. 47.
On yewSrai Matt. ii. 4 see Fritzsche on the passage, and below
137, 9 p. 203.
1 The otter (Ital.) versions have some of them the Future in the other passages
also. But that this warrants an inference respecting the sense only, in no wise
respecting the form, is satisfactorily shown by the circumstance that they translate
other indubitable Presents also (leaving out of sight epxA"> tpxfafos, see p. 58),
such as yiixacrreTai, avapaiva), Svi/arat (Luke vi. 44; John vii. 8; Matt. xix. 25)
by the Future, Cf. Lachmann's preface (Ph. Bttm.'s coroll.) p. 50.
ALEXANDRIAN AORIST. 39
ALEXANDRIAN AORIST.
B. 96, N. 1 ; C. 327; J. 192, 8 ; Tdf. ed. 7, p. Ivi ; Scrivener's N. T. Crit. p. 416
Numerous examples from the 0. T. of the Alexandrian
Aorist in a with the cljaracteristic of the 2d Aor. are given in
Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 60 sq., and from the N. T. in Winer 13,
1, a. p. 73 (71). Moreover, it is to be particularly noticed
that both Aorist forms are constantly found in use by the same
writer, often in close proximity (e.g. Matt. xxii. 22 sq. aTrrjXOav
. . . 7rporf\0ov, Acts xxviii. 13 sqq. rfkdo^v . . . rj\0afjbev . . . rjXOov,
xii. 10, etc.). This phenomenon is no more surprising than
the simultaneous use by the Attics of the two Aorists elirov
and elvra, ijvey/cov and ijveyica, formed after the same analogy.
Accordingly, it is a very uncritical procedure (of which the
Rec. has sometimes been guilty) to undertake by correction
to carry through consistently the one form or the other in any
writer ; but here if anywhere the authority of the greater num-
ber of good MSS. alone should decide in every particular case.
To be sure, the editors often arrive in this matter at different
results, according as they give this class of MSS. or that the
preference, (the cod. Alex., particularly, has the Alexandrian
form in such cases). Yet in general it will be found that in
the instances belonging here the Alexandrian forms occur
most frequently in the 1st Pers. Sing., the Plural throughout,
and the inflected forms of the Imperative ; but never m the
Infin. and Partic. Active (seldom in the Middle). Cf. with
this the somewhat variable use of the two Aorists in the anom-
alous (frepo) and elTrdv. For an example from the Sept. of the
2d Pers. Sing, see 2 Sam. iii. 34 eVeo-a?.
Thus in the N. T. we find used promiscuously the forms
Y)\6ov -o/jLev -ere, eX#eT<w, and rfkOav etc. (the 1st Pers. rj\6a is
found only in Rev. x. 9), elBov and elSav (John i. 40 ; Acts xii.
16 etc., elSafjuev in Acts iv. 20), but elSov always in the 1st
Pers. almost without a single variant ; * eireo-ov \_-crav Tdf.
1 It is surprising that in the Apocalypse, amid the uncommonly numerous
instances of the 1st Pers. Sing. e?Sov, nevertheless in one passage elSo is twice
given (xvii. 3, 6) ; so that we are probably justified in attributing the form rather
to the scribe of cod. A, which here is almost the sole authority [so T.,Tr., ft in vs. 6].
It may be further noticed that Tdf. |ed. 7; cf. Prol. p. Iii] in the Apocalypse has
everywhere [' plerumque '] adopted the forms t5oi/, and iSa, which often occur in the
Sept. fcf. Tdf.'s cd Prol. 28, p. Ixxii/ ed* 4], In other books they seldom occur
in the MSS., see e.g. Mark xvi. 5 var. ; Luke ii. 20 [Tdf.].
40 THIRD FUTURE.
Treg.] Mark vi. 40 etc., and eVeo-ov 1 Acts xii. 7 etc., also 1st
35 Pers. eVeo-a. Acts xxii. 7 ; Rev. i. 17, etc. and in the Sept. ;
Treo-ere Luke Xxiii. 30 [-are Tdf. Treg.] and Tree-are Rev. vi. 16.
e^eTreaare Gal. v. 4 ; evpov -opev and evpav Luke ii. 16 Tdf.
[Treg.] , evpdfjbevos Heb. ix. 12. In the Middle aipelaOai the
Aor. etAa/i?;z>, ei\aro has (except in the Partic. and Infiii. Heb.
xi. 25 ; Acts vii. 34) wholly supplanted the other : Acts vii.
10, 21 ; xii. 11 ; xxiii. 27 ; 2 Thess. ii. 13, (in the Active
avei\are Acts ii. 23, ave'iXav x. 39).
Other forms, like tyvyav, e\a/3av, \d{3a/juev, e{3a\av, etydya-
pev, tyavav, belong for the most part only to the 0. T., yet are
found also in the MSS. of the N. T. and here and there in
modern texts, e.g. Luke v. 5 (A) ; Acts xxi. 27 (A [N, Tdf.
Treg.]); Mark xii. 8 (B); Acts xvi. 37 ; Rev. xviii. 19 Lchm.
Tdf. [ed. 7]. But the Imperfect form elyav Mark viii. 7 (Rev.
ix. 8), irapel^av Acts xxviii. 2, is wholly without analogy,
although the editors have adopted it into the text because sus-
tained by the testimony of the leading codices A and B (and N
also). In the N. T. Apocrypha forms of the sort become more
and more numerous.
B. 96, N.2.
In the Active voice KPVTTTCO has commonly the 1st Aor., in
the Passive the 2d ; yet once it has also the 2d Aor. Active
e/cpvffov Luke i. 24 [according to Sophocles, Gram, an Im-
perfect ; cf. 2 Kings xi. 3 ; Soph. Lex. sub Kpv/3a) ; Lob. Phryn.
p. 317]. See B. 92, Note 2, foot-note p. 122.
THIRD FUTURE.
B. 99; H. 394; C. 319.
The Third Fut. (Passive), seldom used even by the Greeks
in its peculiar force as a Paulopost Future and Future Perfect,
belongs to the more delicate and artificial products of the
Greek tongue. In the N. T., therefore, it no longer appears.
On /ce/cpd^o/jLcu see the anomalous /cpd^co p. 61.
1 In Matt. vii. 25 also the MSS. [N also] give irposeircffav, out of which Lchm.,
on account of the Latin translation and taking into consideration the frequent
interchange of c and at (see e.g. ai/airec-at for ai/aTreo-e Luke xiv. 10 ; xvii. 7 [Tdf.
ed. 7, p. Ivi], (Jxryeo-e ib. 8, yweitais 1 Cor. xiv. 34, and the still more uncouth
aiffQfifTai for eVfl/ere 1 Cor. x. 25 cod. G), thought he must make Trposeiraivav.
Yet considering the rarity of the Avord irposvatca (it occurs nowhere else in the
N. T., and in the O.T. also, as well as in other authors, its existence is almost
doubtful, see Stephanus sub voce ; the usual word is irposTrraiw) Tdf. [so Treg.]
has with reason given the preference to the MS. reading. Cf. besides the anom-
alous iriiTTw, p. 07.
VERBS IN X H f p. 41
VERBS IN X jx v p.
B. 101; H. 345; C. 152; J. 222.
Examples from the N. T. of the later formation in a from
verbs in -ao>o>, -alpa) are, aypavai Acts xi. 28 ; xxv. 27 ; Rev.
i. 1, TToifjidvare 1 Pet. v. 2, e/cica6dprj 2 Tim. ii. 21, eftda/cavev
Gal. iii. 1 and even lirityivai Luke i. 79 ; thence the Subjunc.
(/>ai/7? (Rec. $aivri or </>az//? [Tr.]) Rev. viii. 12 ; xviii. 23. Of. the
extended discussion in Lob. ad Phryn. p. 25. The spelling
crrjfjbdvai, tcaBdpcu in earlier authors (e.g. Xen. Hell. 1, 1, 2 ;
Oec. 18, 8, etc.) probably arose only through later copyists.
See Poppo and Dind. on Cyr. 4, 5, 36.
1 ' ATTOKTeivw uniformly retains the v in the 1st Aor. Passive ;
thus, dTreKTavQrjv Mark viii. 31, etc., see Winer 15, p. 83 (79).
With Kplva) and #XtW, however, this is never the case. This 36
usage holds good in the N. T. Of retW and TrXiW no Aor.
Pass, forms occur.
B. 101, N. 7 and 8; C. 50.
The Perfect Passive of /uatW, which in earlier authors
(Plato, Thucyd.) is formed according to common analogy
pefLUHTfjuai, is ^^la^ai in later writers (e.g. Dio C. p. 655,
and cf. An. Cram. IY. p. 197) ; and this is the form given by
all the manuscripts in Titus i. 15. The form pepiavTai, which
occurs in the same passage may be taken (according to B. 101,
N. 7) as 3d Pers\ Plural ; commonly it is explained as 3d Pers.
Singular, like egijpavrcu Mark xi. 21. 1 This last-mentioned
verb also has in the N. T. egrfpappcu in the 1st Pers. Sing.,
cf. Mark iii. 1 ; xi. 20.
VERBALS IN r<fe.
B. 102; H. 398; C. 269 d. ; D. p. 190; J. 318.
Verbals in TO? take the accent on the last syllable, as ypaTrros,
YIWCTTO?, 6/mr6<?, dyaTrijTos, <t>6apr6<i, etc. When compounded,
1 The Vulgate translates it inquinatae sunt. When we add to this the express
testimony of the scholiast on Arist. Plut. 635 (exet 8e rb \f\duirpwrai rpirov
irp6scairov T(av SVIK&V &^.6^xavov rip Tpirca TU>V ir\f]QvvnK<av , us rb e^-fipavrai /col
Ka.Tr]'(TxvvTai Kal '6<ra rotavra) and the other passages cited in the Ausf. Sprachl.
I. 442, we can hardly regard the existence of the 3d Pers. Plural as so improbable
as Schafer on Dion. H. de comp. verb. p. 355 asserts it to be; especially as to a
Greek the ending -vrai would naturally produce the impression of a plural. As
further evidence towards establishing that form /j-e/j-iavrai as plural, the quotation
from an unknown poet in Suidas under ^o^opj may serve : "Ec-rao-cu/, ouSe K6/j.as
^a.^aprj ne/j-iavro Kovtri, where /x6/x. is manifestly plural, whether we read /c^uas
or with Valckenaer K J/xot. Hermann also (on Aesch. Pers. 569) takes the form
as 3d Pers. Plur. of the Perfect.
6
42 REMARKS ON THE REGULAR VERB.
however, they always draw back the ;iccent if the composition
first takes place in the Verbal; as, OeoTrvevcrros, Svo-jSao-raKro^^
ei50ero9, evTrposSe/cros, ei^Tyc-To?, and all those compounded
with a privative, the number of which is very great in the N. T.,
as aw7TT09, a(f)9apTos, aTrposiTOs, aSta/cptro?, etc. On the other
hand, if derived indubitably from verbs already compounded,
they retain the accent on the last, as ebe/ero? from
evXoyrjros from evXoyew, e/cXero? from e/c\e<yo/jLai, also
KT09, crvve-rbs from trvvirifu, etc. Those that do not do this
must be regarded as first compounded in the Verbal, as a7ro8e-
T09 (simple Setcros Luke iv. 19, etc.), cvufyirros, e/^tn-09,
eteOeros, etc.
Verbals in -7-09 derived from intransitive verbs have also an
87 Active (intransitive) sense, as OVTJTOS, iraJd^To^ (Acts xxvi.
23), a7rrat<7T09 (Jude 24), apecmfc, etc. See further respecting
Verbals below, 134, 8, p. 190. On 7rpo9??XuT09 see p. 74.
REMARKS ON THE REGULAR VERB.
B. p. 162; H. 349; C. 293; D.p.179; J. 194.
Respecting the double form of the 1st Aor. Opt. Act. given
in the paradigm, it may be remarked that in the 3d Pers. Sing.
the form in at is the only one in use (hence probably in the
3d Pers. Plur. more correctly Tronjcrcuev Luke vi. 11 Lchm.
[Treg. Tdf.], TfrrjKaffieaiev Acts xvii. 27 var.), and in the 3d
Pers. Plur. of the Imperative of all tenses the forms in --rcocrav
and -adwaav. Examples of both verbal forms abound in all
parts of the N. T., e.g. 1 Thess. iii. 11, 12 ; Heb. xiii. 21 ; Jas.
v. 14; 5-om. xv. 11 ; Luke xxi. 21, etc.
B. p. 162; H. 363; C. 331; J. 196.
Instances of the form in om in the 2d Pers. Sing, of contract
verbs a form which indubitably occurs in the N. T., and is
elsewhere also in use here and there, and is accordingly cen-
sured by the Atticists and even the anti-Atticists (An. Bekk.
II. 77, 98) are the following : oSwdacu Luke xvi. 25, /cav^ac-ai,
KaTcucav)(ao-ai Rom. ii. 17, 23 ; xi. 18 ; 1 Cor. iv. 7. Elsewhere
it appears only in the two Future forms iriecrai and <f>dyecrcu ;
see the anomalous iriva) p. 66, and ecrdla) p. 58.
B. p. 162 ; H. 363 a. ; C. 297 f. ; J. 196, Obs. 4.
The 21 Pers. (3ov\ei, has been retained in the N. T. (Luke
xxii. 42), but the reading of the Rec. o-jret, is not found to be
REMARKS ON THE REGULAR VERB. 43
eptablisbed by tbe codd. ; hence recent editions have -#, as
generally in tbe 2d Pers., also of tbe Future, thus o^y, paivr),
irapefy, aTrapvrjcrr) , etc. ; see Win. 13. 2, p. 75 sq. (73). The
2d Pers. of olopai does not occur. In the N. T. Apocrypha
always j3ov\rj, 0^77 (Nicod. B. 6, 9 ; Ep. Clem. 1, 39, etc.).
B. p. 163; H. 355sq.; C. 330; D. p. 253; J. 192.
The (Alexandrian, see An. Bekk. p. 91) termination, com-
mon in tbe Sept., of -oaav for -ov especially in tbe 2d Aor. (see
examples in Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 59 ; Mullach,Vulg. Spr. p. 16),
does not occur very often in the N. T. The reading of cod.
A [N also] in 2 Thess. iii. 6, 7rape\d(3o<rav, has not been adopted
by Lchm. [yet so Tdf.eds.7,8];eSoXtoi)craz/ in Rom. iii. 13 is in
a quotation from the 0. T. (Ps. v. 9); and eSlSoo-av, which
Winer p. 77 (74) adds to these, cannot be taken into account.
In the 3d Pers. of 2d Aorists the ending -av was more common
(rj\.6av, eZSai/), as observed above, p. 39. Accordingly we
have only el^oaav (John xv. 22, 24) left, an Imperfect form,
therefore, which is as isolated here as efyav was above ; see
respecting it my article in the Stud. u. Krit. for 1858, Heft 3,
p. 485 sqq. It is remarkable that this very form has the au-
thority of cod. Alex, against it.
B. p. 164; C. 330; D. p. 253; J. 191.
The ending -av for -avi in the Perfect is now established in
many passages of the N. T., as John xvii. 7 ; Rev. xviii. 3 38
Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.] ; Jas. v. 4 ; Acts xvi. 36 etc., see Winer
13, p. 76 (73) ; yet not in all, see e.g. Luke ix. 36 \_-av Tdf.
Treg.] ; Rev. viii. 2 ; 1 John ii. 18 (lyeyovacriv, but in Rom.
xvi. 7; Rev. xxi. 6 etc. <yk^ovav), etc.
Quite without parallel is the 2d Pers. Sing, of the same tense with
the ending -es for -as : Rev. ii. 3 KCKOTuaices. See Lchm. pref. p. 42
note, and cf. Exod. v. 22 Alex. This form of the Perf., however,
was by no means uncommon in the Alexandrian dialect, as is apparent
from Apollon. Synt. p. 37, 9 ; 71, 12, and is found both in cod. Vat.
and cod. Sin. in many other passages also.
The 3d Pers. Plur. of the Pluperf. Act. is uniformly -eiaav,
as TreTroirJKeio-av Mark xv. 7, etc., even when in Attic the form
in -eo-av is the only one in use see olSa, p. 51. (But d-Tr-,
ej~rjtcrav Acts xvii. 15, etc.)
44 CONTRACT VERBS.
CONTRACT VERBS.
B. 105; H. 370 sq.; C. 809 sq.; D. 332sq.; J. 238sq.
The uncontracted Imperative aW^ee (B. p. 174, note) has a
parallel in the form (Rev. xvi. 1) eV^e'ere (Rec. e/c^eare). Cf.
Lchm. pref. p. 42 note.
B. p. 167, note ; H. 371 ; C. 809 c. ; D. p. 256 ; J. 239.
In the more recent editions the i subscript is omitted in the
lufin. termination -av. Yet in consideration of the Infin. ter-
mination -olv for -ovv in verbs in 6&>, which is here and there
given and even accepted (Matt. xiii. 32, cf. Mark iv. 32 ; Heb.
vii. 5 where Tdf. [so too Treg.] after cod. B reads airobeicaTolv) ,
the other mode of writing is perhaps to be preferred in the N. T.
B. 105, N. 5; H. 371; C. 120; D. p. 262; J. 239.
Of the -four verbs here mentioned, Sitydco and Trewdw do not
follow the rule, as they everywhere revert to the main rule and
contract into a, e.g. Rom. xii. 20. That Treivdco (not Snjrao>)
retains the a in the other tenses also see p. 37.
B. 105, N. 8; C. 322; H. 370 D. ; D. p. 263 sq. ; J. 240.
As in the case of the forms reWepa etc., see above p. 29, so when
contractions of verbs in aco which have 17 in the Future occur oc-
casionally as if from -e'to (but only into -ov), we are hardly warranted in
regarding them as lonisms, but only as irregularities (perhaps of the
scribes) occasioned by analogous forms. Thus we find ^pwrow Matt.
xv. 23 [Mark iv. 10 Tdf.], vwcowrt Rev. ii. 7, 17 Lchm. [so T. Tr. vs.
17] ; but i/iKon/ras again in xv. 2 (-owras C.); [e'//,/?pi/xov/*ej/o9 John xi. 38
Tdf. ; ei/e/?pi/x,owTo Mark xiv. 5 Tdf.]. Numerous examples of the con-
traction in ov may be quoted, moreover, from the Apocrypha of the
N. T., the Apost. Fathers, etc. ; cf. also Cram. Anecd. IV. p. 412.
Respecting the opposite change of e'w into aw see cA-cew and upeo> in
the list of anomalous verbs, pp. 57, 63.
VERBS IN pi.
B. 107; H. 400; C. 45; D.319; J. 274.
The remark that the contracted forms of the 3d Pers.
Plur. were those used in common Greek, does not hold at least
in the N. T., for there only the ordinary Attic forms are in
use, as riOeao-i, SiSoacn Matt. v. 15 ; Rev. xvii. 13, etc.
Side by side with the common forms of the Pres. m;/u,
the later Present form icrrdva) occurs, especially in the Indie.
39 and Partic., as crvviardvay Gal. ii. 18, avvivrdvopev 2 Cor. v.
12. ef- aw- K,a9i(ndv<i)v Acts i. 6; viii. 9; xvii. 15; 2 Cor. x
CONTRACT VERBS. 45
12, 18, etc. Besides this, the Rec. often had by-forms of the
Pres. from the theme in ao>, see Winer 78 (75). These, how-
ever, in the Indie, and Partic. have all now been changed :
some into the common form (as in 2 Cor. iv. 2 ; vi. 4), and some
into that in vco (see above). The Infinitive in Lachmann's
edition [and Treg.'s] is given, as commonly, io-ravcu (1 Cor.
xiii. 2), and once as from the collateral form in a<w, viz. lardv
(2 Cor. iii. 1). But as important MSS. give in both passages
[aTdf.8in2Cor.Lc.] the form in -ami>,Tdf. [eds. 2,7] in con-
sideration of the above examples has given it the preference.
The contracted forms of the Imperfect (B. p. 183),
erlOovv, ertflefc, e&i8ow, -ov are by far the most common forms
in the N. T. as also in common prose, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 26 ;
Mark iv. 8 ; vi. 7, 56 ; Luke xxiv. 30 ; Acts ii. 47 ; iii. 2; iv. 35 ;
2 Cor. iii. 13, etc. Instances like eS&ocrav John xix. 3 ; Acts
xvi. 4, eireTiOecrav Acts viii. 17, are exceptional, (and have
for the most part important variants against them). In the
Present of both verbs only the common forms (r^fy/u, -<,
etc.) are in use, and the neuter Partic. aTrobiSovv Rev. xxii. 2
is quite isolated. In Rev. iii. 9 we find StSw, which Lchm.
[Tdf. eds.7,8] following the two lead ing MSS. [but not Sin.] has
adopted, manifestly for the Indie, (not Subjunc.), which here
agreeably to the style of the Rev. stands for the Future (Vulg.
dabo), the common form of which, &<ra>, occurs ii. 17, etc.
The fourth formation in VJAI occurs, indeed, in the N.T.,
yet perpetually alternating with the inflection in vco (which is
more common in later authors). For example, from Sei/cvvvai
we have Sel/cvv/jii, 1 Cor. xii. 31, Seucvvew John ii. 18, Sei/cvvcriv
Matt. iv. 8 ; John v. 20, Sei/cvveiv Matt. xvi. 21, eVtSefc/ew?,
aTroSeucvvvra Acts xviii. 28 ; 2 Thess. ii. 4, Seucvvowros Rev.
xxii. 8, 67n$i,KvvijLvai, Acts ix. 39 ; from 6\\vvai : a7rd\\ve
Rom. xiv. 15, ' ' AiroKkvwv Rev. ix. 11 (cf. Sir. xx. 22), a7r6\\vTcu
1 Cor. viii. 11, -v/^eOa Matt. viii. 25, -v^evoi, 2 Cor. iv. 9, etc.
In other verbs the form in vco has almost completely superseded
the other ; for instance, from opvvfju, we have opvvei., bpvvere,
ofjivuovai, ; ofjbvvtiv in Matt. xxvi. 74 (but in the parallel passage
Mark xiv. 71 bpvvvai, ; where, however, cod. A [so Sin.] also
has -veiv) ; further, eo-Tpa>vvvov, efoWue?, etc.
In the Subjunctive of the Pres. and 2d Aor. Act. the
ordinary contracted forms (#w, 0w, etc.) are everywhere found.
46 CONTRACT VERBS.
40 Yet of BtBayfjLt three forms of the 3d Pers. Sing, have been
preserved, viz.
1) The regular (8iS) So> Matt. v. 25 ; John xv. 16 Lchm.
[Treg. Tdf.], and often.
2) StSot, Sot. These forms are not Optative [cf. e.g. Tdf.
cd. 7, p. Ivii] but Subjunctive, and have arisen by regular con-
traction from a theme in 6&> (cf. juo-Oorj, jjaadoT) : 1 Cor. xv. 24 ;
Mark iv. 29 ; [viii. 37 T. Tr.] ; xiv. 10, 11 ; John xiii. 2, (and as
important variants in John xiii. 29 ; Eph. iv. 29 ; IThess. v. 15 ;
Luke xxii. 4). And in like manner from the syncopated Aor.
eyvwv comes the 3d Pers. Subjuric. yvol Mark v. 43 ; ix. 30 ;
Luke xix. 15 (John xi. 57 var.). In 1 Mace. xi. 40 we find
TrapaSol ; in Hermas, Mand. iv., yvol (Sin.). On the Subjunc-
tive cf. 139, 37, p. 233.
3) Scoy (not Sunj or Bayrj) as if from a lengthened form Soxw.
This form is the rarest and is quite without analogies in later
Greek in its favor. It occurs in Eph. i. 17 Lchm. [Sco?? Tdf.
eds. 2, 7, 8 ; Treg.] (B S), 2 Tim. ii. 25 Lchm. [8^ Tdf. eds.
2, 7, 8 ; Treg.] and John xv. 16 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7 ; ed. 8, Lchm.
The 2d Pers. Sing, appears always in the form 8o>?, 71/0)9 :
Mark vi. 25 ; Luke i. 4 ; Rev. iii. 3 [Tdf. Treg. <yv<b<rp], etc.
The (Pros, and) Aor. Optative of 8/&w/u, which in ac-
cordance with the syntax of the N. T. occurs but rarely, lias
the later form (8t&V) 8&>r/v ; see Lob. Phryn. p. 346. Of the
passages cited by Winer p. 78 sq. (75) only Rom. xv. 5 ; 2 Tim.
i. 16, 18 (according to Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] also Eph. i. 17 [ed. 8 ; so
Tr.]; iii. 16 ; 2 Tim. ii. 25 [ed. 8 ; so Tr.]; iv. 14) belong under
this head, as the others have been changed in modern editions,
some into the Subjunctive (&>, aw7)some into theFuture(8wo-et).
B. 107, N. I. 8; H. 402; C. 306c.; D. p. 183; J. 277.
The Aorist in /ca of the three verbs T/#T?/U, 8/&w/u, w?/u is
uniformly in use in the N. T., not only in the Sing, and 3d
Pers. Plur. but also in the 1st and 2d Pers. Plur., so that in
the Indicative it has almost completely supplanted the 2d
Aorist; as, eSavca/-tei/, -re, Matt. xxv. 35; Mark vii. 13; Gal.
iv. 15 ; 1 Thess. iv. 2 ; acfrrJKafjuev, o-wfj/care, etc. Matt. xiii. 51 ;
xix. 27 ; xxiii. 23; Mark x. 28, etc. ; (only on.ce nrape^oaav Luke
i. 2).
The Moods, on the other hand, are formed from the 2d Aor,
throughout.
CONTRACT VERBS. 47
Respecting the very anomalous Subjunctive 8o>cn7, see p. 36
above.
B. 107, N. 1.14; H. 401; C. 297; J. 274.
The 2d Aor. Imperative of limy/u occurs in both forms:
avdcrra Acts xii. 7 etc., and avdo-TTjOi,, eTrlcrrrjOi. Acts ix. 6, 34 ;
2 Tim. iv. 2. Of. the anomalous /3ouW, p. 54.
The Present Imperative Pass, of UTTQIU has only the full
form larcuro : 2 Tim. ii. 16 ; Tit. iii. 9.
The 3d Pers. Sing, of the Imperf. and 2d Aor. Middle of
Si&tofM ought, according to common usage, to run e8/8oro, e'Soro,
as Lchm. [so Treg.] reads in Matt. xxi. 33 ; Mark xii. 1 ; Luke tl
xx. 9. But in other passages according to pretty trustworthy
authority (and in the [last two of the] above three also accord-
ing to cod. A [and in all three according to codd. N B]) it is
preserved for us with the ending -ero, as if from the theme SiSa>.
Thus Sie&iSero Acts iv. 35, aTreSero Heb. xii. 16, TrapeStSero
1 Cor. xi. 23, and often in the Sept. e.g. Ex. ii. 21 ; v. 13 Alex.
That this erroneous inflection is not unexampled in later Greek
may be seen from Stephanus, Thes. under St&w/u ; cf., too, the
theme t&> under M//U, p. 48. The more recent collations have
shown that both cod. Vat. and cod. Sin. rather favor than oppose
this form. Both codd. exhibit prima manu almost always -ero.
Hence it is not to be discarded from the N.T. ; on the contrary,
the form in -oro is rather a later (Grecizing) correction.
The Future form e/cSoererat (Matt. xxi. 41) has been set
aside.
B. 107, m. 21; H. 416; C. 50; J. 319.
The Aorist and Future Pass. eo-rdOrjv, aradrja-o/juai occur very
frequently in a purely neuter force, interchangeably with
ecrnjv, crTrjo-ofjuai. Examples abound in all parts of the N. T.,
as Matt. xii. 25 ; Luke xviii. 10 ; xxi. 36 ; Rev. vi. 17 ; Rom.
xiv. 4, etc. Both forms o-raOfjvai, and <jTr\vai are united in
Mark iii. 24 sq. Tdf. [Treg.]. Winer's statement p. 252 (237)
that the 1st Aor. Act. eo-rrja-a also occurs in an intransitive
sense is without foundation ; for in the isolated instance, Acts
xxvii. 28, an object (as vavv or eairrow) is to be supplied, ac-
cording to the well-known rule ( 130, 4 p. 144), which is to
be applied also to the N. T.
Of the syncopated forms of the Perfect, we find most
frequently in use but always alternating with the full forms
48 CONTRACT VERBS.
the Infiii. eardvat, (Acts xii. 14; 1 Cor. x. 12) and the very
common Partic. ecrrw?, ecrraxra. The Neuter in the abbreviated
form is eo-ro? Matt. xxiv. 15 ; Rev. xiv. 1 (Tdf. [ed. 2] ecrnws
[7, 8, Tr. ecrro?]). On the other hand, the full form ecrr^o? is
found Mark xiii. 14 [-/cora T. Tr.]; Rev. v. 6 [-/wfe T. Tr.].
Of the collateral form of the Present we find cnrf/cei John i.
26 etc., cmjtfere (Indie, and Imperat.), and the Subjunc.
crr^re 1 Thess. iii. 8, (see B. p. 187, Note *) ; and one ex-
ample of the Perfect eara/ca in a transitive sense, Acts viii. 11
(cf. 9 and 13).
feyi.
B. 108, 109; H. 403; C. p. 78; D. p. 295; J. 283 sq.
It is by far the most difficult task to lay down the N. T. use
of the verb M//U ; for nowhere do the MSS. (and consequently
the editions also) vary so noticeably as in the case of this verb.
Since its use is frequent, we will distribute the forms which
occur under the various themes.
1) Present 'i^pi : Under this head we comprise the common
use, which is in the main that of the N. T. also, as is attested
42 by the forms atyrjo-i, aQiere, avviacn (2 Cor. x. 12 Lchm.
[T.Tr.]), a(/>tera), vvvi&viv (Mark, Luke), avviek ; Aorist
awrJKa (see p. 46), Trapdvcu (Luke xi. 42), crwa>, avco (Heb.
xiii. 5), a<e?, crwere (Mark vii. 14), avek ; Passive a^tercw,
a<f>ievTcu, /caOiepevos, Trapeze 1/05. The Aor. Pass, is only found
unaugmented : aveOij Acts xvi. 26, afyedycrav Rom. iv. 7.
2) Theme f IE/2. Here belongs (besides the regular Pres.
Subjunc. given above) the Indie. 3d Pers. Plur. if accented as
perispome (owtowrtv, atyiovaiv), as is done by Tdf. [ds. 2, 7]
Matt. xiii. 13 [ed. 8 also] ; Rev. xi. 9 ; 2 Cor. x. 12. But the form
has few analogies. Still, they are now offered us by Hermas ;
who, indeed, in the Infin. uniformly has awievai, but elsewhere
always o-vviw, avviels. Yet since (according to cod. Simon.)
Hermas gives the Imperat. cnW, perhaps we ought also to read
everywhere <ruvuo t o-vvleis ; but in Mand. 6, 2 crwtet? is a Future.
Lchm. [soTreg.] has accordingly sometimes(with cod. B)changed
it into the regular form, and sometimes accented it as proparoxy-
tone [cf. T. on Rev. 1. c.] in this way bringing it under the
3) Theme f I/2. Here belong, besides this 3d Pers. Plur.
u>v<riv, the 1st Pers. a^Lo^ev Luke xi. 4 (and moreover, as an
important variant i/i Matt. vi. 12, etc.), the Partic. o-vvtcov Rom.
CONTRACT VERBS. 49
iii. 11 (Tdf. again from r lEfl : o-vvicbv, see above ; but quite
erroneously in the Rec. avviwv Matt. xiii. 23), Eph. v. 17 var.,
dfaovrai, in cod. D (Matt. ix. 2, 5 [cod. Sin. also], etc.), and
especially, the thoroughly established Imperfect form rjfyev
Mark i. 34 ; xi. 16, (on which cf. B. p. 194, 5 ; J. 284, and
Lchm. praef. p. 43). Finally
4) Theme 'E/2 to which belongs the isolated ac^efc Rev.
ii. 20.
5) Besides, there is still the Perf. Pass. 3d Pers. Plur.
afacovTai,, already mentioned in B. p. 191, Note *. This seems
to be a Dorism not peculiar to the N. T. but, on the contrary,
rather widely extended, and even received by Attic writers ;
see Ahrens, Dial. Dor. p. 344 ; Bredow, Dial. Herod, p. 395.
Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] adopted it throughout, Lchm. [Tdf. ed. 8,Treg.]
only in Luke and John (also in 1 John ii. 12), but in Matt.
and Mark afyevrat, instead. See the passages in Wahl, and
Winer 14, p. 80 (77).
I) fiat.
The 2d Pers. Sing, /cddp andlmperat. icdOov, noticed (in B.
p. 192) as later forms, are both found in the N. T. the former
in Acts xxiii. 3, the latter in a quotation from the 0. T. (Ps. ex.)
in several passages (Matt. xxii. 44, Acts, Heb., etc.), and else-
where also: Jas. ii. 3.
Instead of ap$izvwpi (Matt. vi. 30, etc.) the N. T. has a
by-form a/M^te^a) Luke xii. 28 Tdf. [Treg.] which has been
formed, it is supposed, from the ordinary Fut. a//,(/>te'cra>. Lchm. 43
(after cod. B) substitutes for it the still more anomalous form
d/jbfad&i, not found elsewhere in the N. T., with which we
have to compare only the (unreceived) reading of cod. D
rj[ji(j)La<TfjLevos in Matt. xi. 8. The form a//,</>taetz/, however, is
found in the 0. T. (e.g. Job xxix. 14 ; xl. 5) and sometimes
elsewhere also in later writers ; see Steph. sub voce. On the
derivation of this form (held by the ancient grammarians to
be a Dorism) cf. Lobeck, Rhemat. p. 223.
The later by-form of the Imperat. 3d Pers. Sing. (B. p. 193,
Notef; 0. p. 74 c. ; D. p. 229; J. 286, 2), r?r&>, is found in
1 Cor. xvi. 22 ; Jas. v. 12, (on the other hand, laOi in Matt.
7
50 CONTRACT VERBS.
ii. 13; 1 Tim. iv. 15; ecrro) in 1 Pet. iii. 3; ea-Two-av, etc.).
Further, the Imperf. 2d Pers. Sing. 979 (questioned by Wirier
80 (T6)) is found without variant, and has accordingly been
received, in Matt. xxv. 21, 23 ; John xi. 21, 32 ; xxi. 18 ; Rev.
iii. 15. On the other hand rjcrOa as usual in Matt. xxvi. 69 ;
Mark xiv. 67.
The 2d Pers. Plur. of the Imperf. is only ^re, Rom. vi. 20,
etc. As to Luke ii. 33 ($v . . . Bav^ovresi) see 129, 3 p. 127.
In the 1st Pers. Sing, the Imperf. has uniformly the Mid.
form ijfji'rjv (so that fy in the N. T. is only 3d Pers. Sing.), as
Matt. xxv. 35, etc. (see Wahl) ; rarely in the 1st Pers. Plur.
a, Matt, xxiii. 30; Acts xxvii. 37. On the other hand,
as usual in Rom. vii. 5 ; Eph. ii. 3[Tdf. Treg. r?/u.e#a], etc
With regard to the inclination of et/u the remarks made,
p. 6 above, hold true.
As an example of the peculiar style of the Apocalypse, often
setting at defiance the laws of Grammar, may be here set down
the frequently recurring formula 6 &v ical 6 r)v\ for here
the Imperf. 3d Pers. Sing, fy, in the want of a Partic. Pret. of
eli/at, is not only used as such a Partic., but also the entire
expression itself (by the use of the Art.) is treated like an
indeclinable noun: i. 4, 8 ; iv. 8; xi. 17.
This verb, so common with the Greeks, does not occur as a
simple verb in the whole N. T. (also not in the 0. T., with
the exception, perhaps, of Wt Prov. vi. 6) ; but instead of it
other and more expressive verbs are everywhere used, as
epXplMLi, /3euW, vTrdyo), etc. Even in John vii. 34, 36, where
some would read et/u, the only correct reading is et/u.
In composition it appears, but almost exclusively in the
Acts (which approximates most closely to the Greek diction),
as ef-, airyeo-av, elsievai, (e?9t& in cod. B Acts ix. 6), elsTJet,,
44 efyov-rwv, 77 eTriovcra sc. rjfiepa ; see the passages in Wahl. Else-
where isolated compound forms occur ; but still only in Luke
(viii. 4) Gvvibvros, and the Ep. to the Heb. (ix. 6) eislaaw.
This verb is plainly used as Perf. Pass, of rt#7;/u (B. p. 198,4)
in Acts xxviii. 20 ravTijv TTJV akvaiv TrepiKeipai. Cf. 134,
7 p. 189.
DEPONENTS PASSIVE. 51
otSa.
Of oZSa the regular (unsyncopated) forms of the Indicative
are the only forms in use ; thus 2d Pers. oZSa9 (Matt. xv. 12,
etc.), Plur. oiSafjbev, oiSare (xxii. 16; xx. 25, etc.), also 3d
Pers. oiSacrw (Jude 10 ; Luke xi. 44, etc.). Only in the Acts
again do we find once (xxvi. 4) the Attic 3d Pers. Plur.
laao-iv, and in James i. 19 the best MSS. give tare (Yulg. also
scitis) instead of the reading of the Rec. wo-re, although the
author elsewhere (iv. 4) writes ot'Sare.
The forms of the Moods correspond to the Attic, even in the
Irnperat. of which the syncopated form fore occurs Eph. v. 5 ;
Heb. xii. 17. 1
The Imperfect has only $Set9 in the 2d Pers. Sing., Luke xix.
22 etc., and in the 3d Pers. Plur. always fjSeicrav, according
to what was said on p. 43 ; as, Mark xiv. 40 ; Luke iv. 41 ;
John ii. 9 ; Acts xvi. 3, etc.
DEPONENTS PASSIVE.
B. 113, 4; H. 413; C. 266; D. 337. 433; J. 320.
The custom of Deponent Verbs or of such as in the Middle
form receive a peculiar meaning, whether transitive or intrans-
itive to form their Aorist out of the Passive steadily increased
in later times, as may be gathered, for example, from the list
of those verbs which may have both Aorists, since then the Pas-
sive A or. belongs for the most part to the later period. Thus
a-rreicpidr), is far more common in the N. T. than aTrefcplvaro
(this occurs e.g. Matt, xxvii. 12 ; Acts iii. 12, etc.) ; avcuyopai,
aXifo/um, have only oi^Afy, etc. Yet there are also cases of
the opposite kind, as apveopa^ oTrXtfo/i-at, and others still are
used quite promiscuously, as cuyaKXiaopai 2 (John v. 35 ; viii.
1 At any rate the Vulg. has scitote in both passages. Still, in both passages it
suits the contents better to take this form as 2d Pers. Plur. Indicative, especially
in the Ep. to the Heb., which, moreover, in many respects approximates to the
classic Greek more nearly than do the other Epp.
2 This verb (peculiar to the N. T. and Sept. and also to the ecclesiastical au-
thors, but to profane writers almost unknown) is in all probability not a Greek
word but of oriental origin, coined out of the Hebr. ^5 (^ <1 ?^ ^*fy abstr.
to rejoice, which is often, especially in the prophetic writings, rendered by a
KiacrQai. Accordingly, with the word cfyaAAojitai it has originally nothing to do.
Probably, however, it may have found support in this well-known word (as is the
case with all languages in the adaption of foreign words, Grimm, deuts.cn. Worterb.
Vorr. p. xxvi) to which in signification also it has a distant resemblance. The
Hebr. consonant " on the reception of the word took its place after the liquids,
a position better suited to the Greek utterance.
52 DEPONENTS PASSIVE.
56, etc.), efj,/3pipdo/j,(u (Matt. ix. 30 ; Mark i. 43). However,
a complete exhibition of the use of all deponent and middle
verbs would carry us too far, and the subject must consequently
be left (as being of a lexical rather than a grammatical
nature) to the special dictionaries, or to a more extended
discussion.
But that in the language of the N. T. the Passive formation
was employed in general, far more than was the case earlier,
to denote the reflexive or intransitive sense answering
to the Active, may for example's sake be illustrated in a few
instances. Thus we have already seen (on p. 47) that the Aor.
Pass, eo-rddrjv often stands precisely in the sense of ea-rrjv, and is
interchanged with it. So e.g. in Matthew KpiOrjvai means in v.
40 merely litigate (but vii. 1 firj /cpiOrjre purely Pass, be judged),
xxi. 21 doubt, fopavffijvcu xxi. 19 etc. dry up,
xxii. 12 grow dumb, crtcav$a\io-@fjvai,, -Orjo-eaOai xi.
6 etc. take offence, <T7r\ay%vicr0rjvcu ix. 36 etc. feel compassion,
apQ^-ri Kal /3\r)6r)Ti xxi. 21 raise yourself and cast yourself (cf.
Luke xvii. 6), ^yepOrj xxvii. 64 surrexit (Vulg. ),eyep0r)Te xvii.
7, eve{3pifjir)6r] ix. 30 comminatus est, inririftfHpav xxii. 34 ; xxv.
32 convenerunt ; and connected with a new object (according
to 135, 3 p. 191) : evrpaTrijo-ovrai, TOV vibv JJLOV xxi. 37 vere-
buntur filium meum. 'EyevijOrjv, yevrjOrjTO) (vi. 10 ; ix. 29)
alternates with the ordinary Aor. Mid. yeveaOai ; and co^drj, so
common (xvii. 3, etc.), means not was seen but appeared, and
46 hence is connected with the Dative avrols (not VTT avrwv ;
with which cf. the familiar use 134, 2 p. 187). Or to take
examples from James : papavOrja-erai, i. 11 will wither away,
vTrordyrjre iv. 7 a pure reflexive submit yourselves, so too
iv. 9, Ta,7rei,va)0r)T iv. 10, etc.
B. 113, N. 6; H. 415; C. 588; J. 368.
That certain tenses of deponent verbs, especially the Perf.
Aor. and Fut. Pass., are used in a passive sense, abundant
examples may be brought from the N. T. to show ; for in fact
the usage was somewhat current among the Greeks. Thus are
used OeaOrjvcu Matt. vi. 1 ; xxiii. 5, aa<f>a\icr9r)vaL from acrfa*
\lo-acrOai xxvii. 64, 65, larat, Mark v. 29, lad^crerat Matt. viii. 8,
yapi(jQr\vai, \oyi,o-0fjvai, fJLVtyr@fjvcU (Acts x. 31), 7rc\e\rja^i>ov
kariv (Luke xii. 6), etc. Very rarely (as also among Greek
ANOMALOUS VERBS. 53
authors) does this take place in the Present, e.g.
Rom. iv. 4, 5, and probably also ftid&Tcu Matt. xi. 12, see the
commentaries and cf. Luke xvi. 16, and relative to the similar
use of pidfycrOai, by the Greeks see Pape.
B. 113, N.7; H. 412; C. 584; D. 844; J. 321.
Exactness in the employment of the Fut. Mid. of many
verbs as an ordinary Fut. has undergone a marked dimi-
nution in the N. T. and among the tcoivol in general. To be
sure, afcovcrofjiai still occurs often enough, especially in the
Acts (the Mid. form almost exclusively in the 1st and 3d Pers.
Plur., John v. 25, 28 ; Acts xxi. 22 ; xxviii. 28 ; xvii. 32 ; Rom.
x. 14 var. ; Active, John x. 16. Cf. K\alco p. 60 sq.), but likewise
often d/cova-co, -crere Matt. xiii. 14 etc. ; further dTravTtjaa) Mark
xiv. 13, 7eXacro> Luke vi. 21, &&>&> John xv. 20 etc., eVao'ecra)
1 Cor. xi. 22 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7, 8 ; Tr.], eiriQptcqtrm Matt. v. 33,
/cXei/ro) Rom. xiii. 9 etc., cnrovSdva) 2 Pet. i. 15. The Future
form in Luke xii. 9 cod. Sin. aTrapvijaerat (although in itself
considered genuine Greek, see B. 113, 6) rests probably on a
mistake of the copyist (for -i
B. 113, N. 9; C. 576.
The remark that the alleged Passive sense of the Aor. Mid.
is extremely rare, holds good also in reference to the N. T.,
inasmuch as the examples referred by some to this head (Gal.
v. 12 ; 1 Cor. x. 2 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7 ; Treg.] ; 2 Cor. v. 4) are all
to be taken in a Middle or Neuter (not Passive) sense. Acts
xv. 22 even the Yulgate translates correctly, eligere viros
ex eis et mittere.
ANOMALOUS VERBS.
B. 114; H. 451; C. 50; D. 353; J. 250 sqq.
ayvvfju. The retention of the augment in tenses other-
wise without it occurs Matt. xii. 20 (/eareafet), John xix. 31
(tfa/rea7W(7M>) . Cf. dvolya) under oityo), p. 62.
a 7&>. For an example of the 1st Aor. in composition see 41
2 Pet. ii. 5 eVafa?. On the other hand, /car-, eTrasyayeiv Acts
v. 28, etc.
at peut. Respecting the Alexandrian Aor. 3d Pers. Plur.
sl\av (Acts x. 39), Mid. el\dfjvrjVi etc., see p. 39. Examples
of the Fut. eXw in composition see in Luke xii. 18
Rev. xxii. 19 (a^eXet) ; cf. Josh. ii. 13 el-e\eia0e.
54 ANOMALOUS VERBS.
a\\ojjLai. The Aorist has the form tfkaTo Acts xiv. 10;
but Partic. e</>aX6/zei>o9 Acts xix. 16 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.] (al.
Matt, xviii. 21. The Aorist
always has in the Indie, the form jjpapTov ; in the Subjunc.
alternate the 2d Aor. d^dpTrj, d^dp-r^re (1 John ii. 1, etc.) and
the 1st Aor. a^aprrjcrr) Matt, xviii. 15, dfjuaprtjcrco^ev Rom. vi. 15
(Rec. -cropev), even in close proximity, as Luke xvii. 3, 4.
The Partic. is always dpaprijo-as : Rom. v. 14, 16 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4 ;
Heb. iii. 17. Hermas invariably uses ^^dprrjaa, dpaprrjcras, etc.
aTretXeo) threaten, elsewhere only Active (1 Pet. ii. 23), is
used by Luke as Mid. in the same sense, Acts iv. 17, 21.
dp7rdo) has the first formation throughout : Fut. dpTrdcrw
Matt. xii. 29 ; Mark iii. 27 ; John x. 28, Aor. jjpTrao-a Acts viii.
39 etc., (Perf.) Pluperf. o-vvTjpTrd/cei Luke viii. 29, 1st Aor.
Pass. rjpTrdo-Orjv Acts xxvii. 15 ; Rev. xii. 5. On the other
hand, from the second formation it has only tenses with a pure
characteristic : 2d Aor. Pass. r^pird^v 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4, Fut.
1 Thess. iv. 17.
has not only the causative sense, make grow,
1 Cor. iii. 6, Fut. av^rjaw 2 Cor. ix. 10 etc., but also the
immediative, grow, (Matt. vi. 28, etc.), for which also the
Mid. or Pass, form av^dvo^ai is used, 2 Cor. x. 15 ; Col. i. 10.
The Aorist in this sense is both Tjv&cra Acts vii. 17 and rjv&jOrjv
Matt. xiii. 32 ; 1 Pet. ii. 2. The simple Pres. form avga) only
in the latter sense Eph. ii. 21, also in Col. ii. 19 av^eu rr^v
av&cnv according to 131, 5 p. 148.
ftaivw. The syncopated Iinperat. Aor. has in composition
both forms, as in the case of ?<jT77/u (see p. 47) ; thus Kara-,
fjuerdfirjOi, John iv. 49 ; vii. 3 etc., /-ter/3a Matt. xvii. 20, dvdpa
Rev. iv. 1 Tdf. [also Treg.]. The further inflection appears Matt.
fcara/Barci) xxiv. 17 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.], Mark xiii. 15; Luke
xvii. 31, dvdjBa-re Rev. xi. 12.
ftapvvco. This theme does not occur at all in the N. T.
(also no longer in Luke xxi. 34), but instead the un-Attic
(except in the Perf., see Thorn. Mag. sub voce) theme /3apea) :
e/BapTjjjuevo^, /BapTjOaHTiv, eTTi/Saprjcrai, etc., [yet /carctr
Mark xiv. 40 Lchm. Tdf. Treg.].
fit 6 co has been almost completely supplanted (in the Fut.
48 and Aor. also) by the verb gi/, as we find only fiiwacu, 1 Pet
iv. 2. See v, p. 58.
ANOMALOUS VERBS. 55
/3\aardvco has in the Aorist only the later form of the 1st
Aor. efiXdcrrrjcra Matt. xiii. 26 ; Heb. ix. 4 ; also in an Active
sense Jas. v. 18, on which cf. 131, 4 p. 147. The Subjunc.
Pres. is jB\aa-ra in Mark iv. 27 (Rec. pKaaravrf) from a col-
lateral form /SXacrrao), hardly to be found elsewhere (see Schol.
Find. Pyth. 4. 113 0aXAet teal j3\aara~).
ryafjLeco. The Aor. runs indiscriminately now eyrjpa Luke
xiv. 20 etc., now eya^o-a Mark vi. 17 etc., both side by side
1 Cor. vii. 28. As respects signification, it is used in the Active
as well of the man as of the woman, as in the above passage
from Cor., where the difference in form does not indicate a
difference in sense, but is purely accidental ; for subsequently
(vs. 34) yajjLrjcrcu is used also of the woman. In the Mid.
(Pass.) it is always used of the woman, but in the Aor. it has
only the Passive form yafjLrjOijva^ instead of the Attic ^rj^aaOai^
vs. 39 etc. On the collateral form yaiu'o>, e/cya/u&>, see the
lexicons.
^ivofjuau. The Aorist has far more frequently the Attic
form of the 2d Aor. Mid., especially in the Subjunc. and Optat.
(/u,?) yeiwro), than the un- Attic 1st Aor. Pass. eyevrjQqv 1 Thess.
ii. 5 etc., of which the Imperat. ryevrjOijrco often occurs in the
Synoptics, the Partic. in Heb. iv. 3. Partic. yeyovcos in sense
like nataSj old, in 1 Tim. v. 9.
Respecting <yvoi (Aor. Subjunctive) see under
, p. 46.
That the Pass, of ywocricw should sometimes (1 Cor. viii. 3 ; xiii. 12 ;
Gal. iv. 9) be taken as Pass, of the causative signification (cause to know,
bring to the knowledge of) like the Heb. Hophal, so that ZyvucrOrjv viro
Geov would mean ' I was brought to knowledge by God,' is an error
which modern interpretation has already left behind it. See the com-
mentaries on the above passages, and Winer 263 (247).
Seoyitat. The uncontracted form e^eero [Tdf., also cod.
Sin.] in Luke viii. 38, Lchm. has altered after several MSS. into
the still more anomalous form e'SeeZro (cf. Job xix. 16 Alex.),
thus formed as it were from the same theme from which comes
the common Aor. eSerjOrjv Matt. ix. 38, etc. Cf. the form
a in the anti-Atticist, Anecd. Bekk. I. p. 90.
By the side of the common 2d Pers. Sing.
is found sometimes the form (censured as Indie.) bvvr),
Mark ix. 22 ; Rev. ii. 2. On the other hand, Swijay is now
56 ANOMALOUS VEEBS.
read [yet Treg. Tdf. ed. 8, &vvy', so K also] in Luke xvi. 2.
Respecting the augment see p. 33.
49 8yo) has in the Present, as often in later writers and the
Sept., the intransitive sense : (of the sun) eV^ero) Eph. iv.
26. The neuter by-form SiW, Luke iv. 40, ought to form the
Aorist e'8w, as also was formerly read in Mark i. 32. But
recent editors, after preponderant MS. authority [yet see be-
low], give even here the 1st Aor. e&vcrav (in Luke iv. 40,
also, cod. D has Sucraz/ro?) used by Greeks only transitively ;
and the compound TrapeiseSvcrav, Jude 4, also has this intransi-
tive sense. Elsewhere the 1st Aor. Act. in composition (eV,
evSvco) regularly has the transitive signification ; in the in-
transitive or reflexive (clothe one's self) the form of the 1st
Aor. Mid. makes its appearance. The syncopated Aor. eSw has
consequently passed quite out of use in the N.T. ; cf. (/>uo> p. 68.
Yet the reading eSv (Mark i. 32 Tdf.) gains now a new support
in cod. Sin. Instead of TrapeLs&va-av cod. Vat. gives -Svr)(rai>,
formed quite after the analogy of tyurjv. Cf. Lobeck's note in
Buttm.'s Ausf. Sprachl. II. p. 321, under (f>vco.
The Present by-form (Si^va-icoi) evSibvcnca), Mark xv. 17 ;
Luke viii. 27 ; xvi. 19, analogously formed but unknown to
earlier writers, has a transitive sense.
eyeipa). The Present Active has sometimes, but as it
seems only in the Imperative (Matt. ix. 5, 6 ; Mark x. 49 ; Acts
iii. 6 ; Eph. v. 14), the intransitive signification (similar to
aye). In the Rec. it was formerly, in opposition to settled au-
thority, altered into the Mid. form eyeipcu ; this form was the
less admissible as the Aorist in a neuter sense always in the
N. T. has the Passive form rjjepOrjv ; see p. 52 above. Cobet
has everywhere restored eyeipai again. But Suidas (sub voce)
censures expressly the erroneous (and hence actually occur-
ring) use of eyeipe.
(efo/zat) KaOe^ofjuat. The Imperf. eKadetp^v has every-
where plainly the Imperf. signification sat, was sitting, Matt,
xxvi. 55 ; John iv. 6 ; xi. 20, synonymous therefore with the
Imperf. eKaOrj^v John vi. 3 ; Mark iii. 32, or with the very
common periphrasis r\v KaO^evo^ Acts ii. 2, etc. In the Present
Kadefyfjuat, is not in use except in the Participle (Luke ii. 46 ;
Acts vi. 15). See the N.T. use of the forms which belong here
under t^, p. 60.
ANOMALOUS VERBS. 57
e0e\o). Although in the Present only the shorter form 0eXo>
occurs, yet the augmented forms always take 77: r)0e\ov, ^OeXrjaa.
The Perf. does not occur. (On redeXTj/ca Ps. xli. 12 see Phryn.
sub voce and Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 64.)
eiirelv. Respecting elirov and elvra see p. 39. Besides the forms
of etTra usual in Attic writers (etTras, etTrare, etc.) we find 1st Pers.
el-jra Heb. iii.10 [Tdf.Tr. retain eLirov] in quotation, Acts xxvi.15,
TrpoeiTra/jLev 1 Thess. iv. 6, 3d Plur. djrav frequently interchanged
with eiTrov (e.g. Matt, xxvii. 4, 6), Partic. ema? Acts vii. 37
etc. and elTrvv vs. 60 etc. The Imperative with the ending 50
-ov is accented by the recent editors elirbv (Acts xxviii. 26 ;
Mark xiii. 4, cf. Luke x. 40 var.). This accentuation, if the
form is taken as 1st Aor. Imperat., conflicts with the rules of
the old grammarians (Arcad. p. 169 Si,crv\\a/3a irapo^vvovrai
T) TrpOTrepio-irwvTcu' vei/juov, elTrov dvrl TOV elire /c.r.X.), and eiTrov
accordingly is the only correct Attic accentuation, see Ph.
Buttm. Exc. I. ad Plat. Men. and Xen. Mem. 3, 6, 3. But as
respects the Scriptures, the testimony of the old grammarian
Jo. Charax (see Etym. Mag. sub voce ; Varini Eel. p. 172 Bind.)
is too clear and definite to allow us to adhere to the same
accentuation in the N. T. (\eyei, 6 Xdpa^ on TO irapa rfj 6eia
rypa<f>f} TTposTatCTi/cbv o^vTovw \ey6fJLevov, olov elirbv dvn TOV eiVe,
Sevrepov dopicrrov earl Kara rrjv ^vpcucovcriwv yKwcrdav \y6jj,vov
. . . olov \d(3e \d(3ov, KOL TO ave\e avekov. el ovv erne o^vrovcos,
&rj\ov on ical dnrbv /c.T.X.) ; on the other hand, the same gram-
marian expressly lays down the accentuation eiTrov for Me-
nande'r. Mid. aireiira^riv 2 Cor. iv. 2. The less Attic mode
of writing the 1st Aor. Pass, eppedyv instead of epprjOyv
(Matt. v. 21, etc. [yet Tdf. reads -edrjv even here]) is now
everywhere established in Paul (Rom. ix. 12, 26 ; Gal. iii. 16)
and in the Apocalypse (vi. 11 ; ix. 4), so also commonly in
the Sept. (Gen. xv. 13 ; 2 Sam. v. 6, etc.). The Partic. is
always prjOefc, even in the Sept. (Gen. xlv. 27).
eXeeo). The collateral Pres. form eXedco is not only estab-
lished by the MSS., Rom. ix. 16 [so N], (18 [not tf]) ; Jude
23 [so N] , but is also sufficiently attested by the testimony of
the old grammarians (see Etym. Mag. and Steph. Thes. sub
voce) as well as by other analogous examples (as f vpeco, gvpda)*) .
In such verbs, however, the forms that arise by flexion always
take rj : eXeTJcrw, eXeT/ao^, ^vptfcrcovTai,, e^vprj/JLevos, etc. See
58 ANOMALOUS VERBS.
Etym. Mag, p. 129, 49 and cf. e\\oyaro Rom. v. 13 (^ , \-arai
N a ]), \\6ya Philem. 18.
Respecting the augment see p. 34.
co, the Alexandrian spelling (see Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 117)
for cpewao), hence often found in cod. Alex., as Rom. xi. 33 ; 1 Pet.
i. 10 ; 1 Cor. ii. 10, has been received only once by Lchm., in Rev.
ii. 23 ; on the other hand by [Treg. and] Tdf. everywhere (even in
Rom. viii. 27 with cod. Sin.).
ep^ofjbai. Respecting the Alexandrian Aor. see p. 39,
Since et/u is not used in the N. T. (except in composition, see
p. 50), the Pres. in its mood-forms (ep^ov KOI t'e), the Im-
perf. rjpxo/jLiiv, and the Fut. eXevcrofjucu, make their appearance
again ; in connection with which it is to be noticed, that (like
the Pres. elfju, in Attic authors) ep^opcu here, agreeably to its
51 signification, often has a future force, John ix. 4 ; xiv. 3 (Trakw
ep'xo^ai KOI irapaXri^o^ai) etc., (cf. the Germ, ich komme).
See the passages in Winer 265 (249), and cf. p. 38 above ;
also 137, 10 p. 203.
eadia). The by-form ecr&, otherwise only poetic (Zon.
Lex. sub voce ecrQeiv wnaviws real, eiirep apa, ol TTOMprat), has
sometimes, although not very strongly attested, been adopted
into the text : Luke xxii. 30 fotfgrc, Mark i. G Tdf. [Treg.]
eo-Owv. Yet the form is found also in the 0. T. : Lev. xvii. 10,
13 ; Sir. xx. 16, etc. [cf. Tdf.N. T. ed. 7 Proleg. p. il].
Instead of the Attic Fut. eSofMcu the N. T. employs the anal-
ogous form (frdyopai,, as Jas. v. 3 (eWat real (frdyerai,) , Rev.
xvii. 16 (in the midst of Futures), Luke xiv. 15 (/xa/m/^o? 09
(f)d<yerat,^ Vulg. manducabit), and with a new anomaly in the
2d Pers. Sing, ^dyea-at,, Luke xvii. 8 (Micah vi. 14, etc.).
See p. 42.
evpla-Kco. On the Alexandrian Aorist see p. 40, on the
augment p. 34, and on the formerly received readings
-crci)fjLv p. 36.
?X On ct^av see p. 40, ctx<xrav p. 43. On the augment of a
see p. 35.
ao>. This verb, common in the N. T., has both forms of
the Future : tya-co John v. 25 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 4 etc. and V/0-o/zai
Matt. iv. 4 etc., see the lexicons. The Future and the Aorist
e&aa have also the signification of a v a fjv come to life (again)
in Matt. ix. 18 ; Rom. xiv. 9 ; Rev. xx. 4, 5 ; and in Luke xv
ANOMALOUS VERBS. 59
24, 32 cod. B [and in vs. 32 a* also, which Tdf. and Treg agree
with] has e&crev instead of the received dvl&crev.
Instead of the Imperf. 1st Pers. Sing. eo>z>, Rom. vii. 9, cod.
B exhibits etyjv a form analogous in structure to 77, J5}0i,
tftvai ; hence it early became current and has been often pre-
served in the manuscripts of Attic authors even. Respecting
its doubtful Attic currency and the contradictory statements
of the Atti cists, see Ellendt, Lex. Soph, under ao>, and Buttm.
Ausf. Sprachl. 114.
97 7 o u a i . The Perf. jjyrjpcu in Phil. iii. 7, taken by some as
a Pres., stands plainly in antithesis to the following yyov/jLcu.
Cf. however Acts xxvi. 2 and Bhdy. Synt. p. 379.
TI K w . The Perf. 3d Pers. Plur. fJKtio-iv, very anomalous not
only as respects form but signification also (for the Present
has already the sense of the Perfect), Lchm. [so Tdf. Treg.] has
adopted in Mark viii. 3, sustained by the codd. AD [tf also]
and the translation (venerunf). As the form does not occur
again in the N.T., the readings rjicovcnv (Rec.) and elcriv (Tdf.
[eds. 2 and 7] after cod. B) seem plainly to be mere correc-
tions. This Perfect is one of those isolated irregularities of
the language, occasioned by the signification and perpetuated 52
by the thoroughly analogous appearance of the form (cf.
Sia7re(f)v\dKao-i, Xen. Cyr. 8, 6, 3), of which examples are to
be met with not only in deteriorating Greek but in all ages,
especially in dialects less cultivated than the Attic. Moreover,
the form rj/ca as Perfect has Alexandrian precedent (jiKapev,
-re, -O-LV Gen. xlii. 7 ; xlv. 16 ; xlvii. 4 ; Job xvi. 22 ; Sus.
52, etc.), and is found elsewhere also in writers of the KOWIJ',
see Steph. Thesaur. ; Lob. ad Phryn. ; Ep. Clem. 1, 12, etc.
Respecting the Subjunc. rfyi see p. 36.
rjTTa.ofj.aL. The Ionic form of the 1st Aor. Pass, (but with the
augment) ^cro-w^re for rjTTrjOrjTc (A) has been received by Lchm.
[Treg.] after a few MSS. [tf also] in 2 Cor. xii. 13.
6 d XX ft>. The 2d Aor. a^aXere, very rare elsewhere or
even doubtful (Lob. Paral. p. 557), is used by Paul, Phil. iv.
10, as also sometimes in the 0. T., Ps. xxviii. 7 ; Sap. iv. 4 ;
Sir. xlvi. 12.
0au/xaw. The Passive which elsewhere means only to be won-
dered at (2 Thess. i. 10) is used in the Apocalypse quite like a depo-
nent Pass. : Aor. I6av/jidcr6ri wondered, Fut. Oavp.aa-0-i^rovTaL, xiii. 3
[Tdf. read* fOav^aa-ev o\rj etc.] ; xvii. 8 [Tdf. Treg. read
60 ANOMALOUS VERBS.
. The syncopated form reOvdvai is given Acts xiv.
19 by Tdf. [ed. 2 ; but in eds. 7 and 8 reOvyicevai, with Lchm.
Treg.].
Ovu. On lOvOrjv see p. 7.
(tfw) fca6la). Respecting the Future see p. 37.
This verb is used by the N. T. writers in both senses (set,
and seat one's self). The Middle occurs only twice in the
Future, and that too in the 2d Pers. Plur. KaOicrecrOe, Luke
xxii. 30 ; Matt. xix. 28.
Further, since the ideas to sit and to seat one's self pass over
into each other variously, the common N. T. uses of all these
related verbs may be grouped as follows :
Ka9l(t) set, KaOlcrco, KaOiw, etc.
/caOlfa seat one's self, Fut. /caQlcra), -1,0) (2d Pers. Plur.
KaOiaecrde), Aor. e/cd0Lcra. The Perf. Ke/cdOifca (Heb. xii.
2) synonymous with
KaOrjpai, sit (Imperat. /cdOov see p. 49, Infin. /cadrjcrOat,
Partic. KaOijiAevos and Ka,6epfj,evo<i), Imperf. e/caOijf^rjv and
Ka0e6{ji'r)v. The Future in this sense is supplied by the
Fut. of KaQl fr.
licvko^ai appears only once, in the 3d Pers. Sing, of the 2d
Aor. dty/cero Rom. xvi. 19.
53 /cato). The 2d Aor. Pass, is Kare/cdwv, Rev. viii. 7; hence
Fut. Pass. KaraKarjo-o^ai, 1 Cor. iii. 15 ; 2 Pet. iii. 10, but
also /cavQrjao/jLcu Rev. xviii. 8. Respecting /cavOijo-co/jLcu (1 Cor.
xiii. 3) see p. 36. The Fut. Act. is regularly /cavao), Rev. xvii.
16. But the Partic. Kavv-jVHeva, 2 Pet. iii. 10, 12, belongs to
fcavo-oa), see the lexicons.
K a p, p. v a) see fivo> p. 62.
Kepdvvvfii. The Perf. Pass. KeKepaa^at, occurs Rev. xiv.
10 ; Heb. iv. 2 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf.,soN] (where Tdf. [eds. 2,7]
reads KeKpa^evo^).
/cepSalvo). The formation (/ee/>8?j(7o//.eu) Aor. etcep&rjcra is
almost the only one in use in the N. T. : Matt, xviii. 15, etc.
Accordingly the Aor. Subjunc. KepSdvco 1 Cor. ix. 21, although
the other form (e/D^cra)) is used four times in the same con-
nection either just before or afterwards, is surprising, but
established by the MSS. [K also] .
Fut. 2d Pers. Plur. Kkavae-re Luke vi. 25; John
ANOMALOUS VERBS. Ql
xvi. 20, 3d Pers. Plur. /c\av<7ovrai Rev. xviii. 9, as in the case
of dfcova), see p. 53 ; (cf. Origen on Luke vi. 25 Trevdrja-ovcri Koi
K\av<r owai).
Kpd^w with long a (Herodian TT. pov. p. 23), hence Kpd&v
Gal. iv. 6 (cf. Lob. Parall. p. 408). and 2d Perf. Kercpaya ir
sense of Pres. (John i. 15 /juaprvpet /cal KeKpayev), never has
[(except dv-e/cpayov Luke xxiii. 18 Tdf.Treg.)] the 2d Aor., but
always, as in later writers, the 1st e/cpaga Matt. viii. 29 etc. The
Future occurs only once : Luke xix. 40. But since the author-
ities there are divided between tce/cpdgovrai, A, /cpdgovo-iv B [] ,
/cpdgovrai, D, and further, in favor of the first the usage of the
Sept. (Ps. Ixv. 14 etc.) [where Kpd^ovcn is nowhere found ; see
Tdf. crit. com. in Luc. I.e.] and the perhaps mutilated reading
of cod. D may be adduced, while the authority of the [two]
oldest MS[S.] and the usage of later authors (Lob.'s note in
Buttm. Ausf. Sprachl. II. 223) weigh in favor of the second, a
decision cannot be given with confidence in a case which stands
so by itself. Among modern editors Lchm. has given the pref-
erence to the common form /ceKpdgovrcu, Tdf. [Treg.] to the
reading Kpd^ovcriv. With tcpd^ov may be compared TrposirXd^ov
II. //,, 285, as according to the intimations of Lobeck (in the
Ausf. Sprachl. II. 268) it is perhaps more correctly written.
/cpe fjidvvvfjLL. From the Middle Kpepapat, we have in Luke
xix. 48 the regular efe/epe/^aro. The oldest MS[S.], however,
read instead ege/cpefjuero, probably not a clerical error, and cer-
tainly no more anomalous than efe8ero, Sie8/8ero (see StScofu
p. 47). But on account of the little support which other
codices give it, this rare form, which occurs besides only here
and there in MSS., has not been adopted by the editors [except
Tdf.].
See p. 40. 54
Besides this form there exist two other by-forms
of the Pres. : the most common airo/crewa) with a doubling of
the liquid, after the Aeolic fashion (see Ahrens, Dial. Aeol.
p. 52 sq.), Matt. x. 28 ; Luke xii. 4 ; Rev. vi. 11, and aTro/muW,
which is said to have been the Doric spelling (id. Dial. Dor.
p. 186), 2 Cor. iii. 6 ; Rev. xiii. 10. Yet this last form, which
is but weakly attested by the MSS., has with reason not been
adopted by Tdf. [or Treg.], and seems, if it was really the
original reading, to be less a (doubtful) Dorism, than to rest
62 ANOMALOUS VERBS.
upon an erroneous spelling of the word, occasioned by the
common Aorist aTre/crdvOTjv (see p. 41) and the familiar poetic
forms e/crav, K-ravkw, etc.
(ATUO>) cnro/cvco or aTro/cveco (forms between which no dif-
ference can be found in Greek authors as respects signification,
see Lob. ad Aj. p. 103) has, where it occurs, the transitive
meaning, bear, bring forth, and forms the Aor. aTre/cvrjo-a Jas.
i. 15, 18. Recent editors accentuate airoicvei,.
\afjLj3dvco. In spelling this verb the recent editors have
everywhere introduced the Alexandrian mode with yu, (Sturz,
p. 130) ; thus, Fut. X?7/Ln/ro//m Acts i. 8 etc., Aor. Pass.
Mark xvi. 19 etc. In the same way in derivatives
dva- ami- fjLera- ^09X77/^^^9, 7rpo9a>7roX77yLt7rTe&>, etc.
The 2d Aor. Imperat. Xa/3e, according to the uniform direc-
tion of the old grammarians (e.g. Jo. Alex. p. 21 TO \a/3e Kal ISe
6% vvofjieva aTTiicd eVrt rd yap fcowa rovrcov jBapvveTdC) , must,
like t'8e, l)e accented as paroxytone in the N. T. : Rev. x. 8, 9 ;
John i. 47, etc.
The 1st Aor. cXa/cr^-ei/ occurs once, Acts i. 18.
has as usual the 2d Aor., and only once the 1st Aor.
Acts vi. 2. The collateral form \ifj,7rdva) occurs
1 Pet. ii. 21.
fj(,0va) and peOvvicopai, are both united without any
important difference of meaning : 1 Thess. v. 7 ol ^eOvcrKo^evoi
VVKTO<; pedvovviv. Aor. Pass. e/jueOvadrjv Rev. xvii. 2.
(//.eXto) //.era/xeXo/xat, Fut. /JL6TafjL\r)6r)o-o/jLcu Heb. vii. 21 (in
quotation), Aor. /iere/^eX?;^^. On the other hand, from eV^e-
\ofMii we have the Fut. eTn^eXijo-o^ai 1 Tim. iii. 5.
/Mtati/w. Respecting the Perf. Pass, see p. 41.
55 Gtuw). The abbreviated (after the Epic fashion, B. 117
N. 2 ; H. 73 D ; C. 136 ; D. 140 ; J. 19.) compound
KafjL/jLvw for KarafjLva), which is severely censured by Phrynichus
(sub voce ), appears, according to the words of the same gram-
marian, to have passed over into somewhat general use in prose
from the time of the comic poet Alexis. At any rate the
Alexandrians employ it frequently (Isa. xxix. 10 ; xxxiii. 15 ;
vi. 10), 1 and from this last passage it passed over into the N. T.
(Matt. xiii. 15 ; Acts xxviii. 27).
1 Whether in Lun. iii. 43 we should accent Ka/j./j.v<rat after the poetic fashion, or
as commonly, may be doubtful. Yet in the case of a word manifestly
ANOMALOUS VERBS. 63
vl%co. Only the other Present viirrm is in use in the
NT. T. (Matt. xv. 2 etc.) as in the Sept. (Ex. xxx. 18 ; 2 Chron.
iv. 6).
(yva-<T<i)) Karavvcrcrct) forms, quite according to analogy,
a 2d Aor. Pass. Karevv^v Acts ii. 37, which is not in use by
the earlier writers, but frequent in the 0. T. : Gen. xxxiv. 7,
etc. This Aorist has everywhere the ethical sense ; Hesych. :
Karevvyrjcrav, eXvTrrjOTjcrav ; Suidas sub voce.
vpu>. On the by-form vpaw 1 Cor. xi. 6, see Etym. Magn. sub
voce ; Lob. on the Ajax p. 181 ; and under eAec'w p. 57.
(ol'7&>) avolyw. The variations in the form of this very
common verb are very great, both in the MSS. ani in the dif-
ferent editions. In order to get a summary view of the forms
we will bring them together as given in Lchm.'s text which
here departs in many respects from the Rec. : FUTURE regularly
avolgco Matt. xiii. 35; IST AORIST r\ v o i %a John ix. 17, 21,
26, 30, 32 ; Acts v. 19 ; ix. 40 ; xii. 14 ; xiv. 27 ; Rev. through-
out, (Subjunc. avolgco Luke xii. 36 etc.. Imperat. avoi^ov xiii. 25,
Infin. avol^ai, Acts xxvi. 18 etc., Partic. azWfa? Matt. v. 2, etc.)
and avewga John ix. 14 (and frequently as a variant, as
ix. 30 etc.) ; 2o PERFECT in an intransitive sense avea><ya
1 Cor. xvi. 9 ; 2 Cor. vi. 11 (Partic. avewyora John i. 52).
PASSIVE: IST AOR. ^voi^Q^v Rev. xx. 12, avew^Oirjv Luke
i. 64, and with double (threefold) augment rjve^^drjv Matt,
iii. 16 ; ix. 30 ; John ix. 10 ; Acts xvi. 26 (Infin. avey^dijvai
Luke iii. 21 with retention of the Augment, as in ayvv/j,i, which
see) ; IST FUT. avoi^drfcro^aL Luke xi. 10 ; 2D AOR. rfvoiyrjv
(was opened, or opened itself) Acts xii. 10 ; Rev. xv. 5 ; xi.
19 (Subjunc. avoi<y&criv Matt. xx. 33) ; 2D FUT. avoLytjcrofJuat
Matt. vii. 7; Luke xi. 9; PERF. PARTIC. a vepyfjuevos Rev.
iv. 1 ; Acts x. 11 etc. ; 2 Cor. ii. 12, rjvtpv/j,ei>o<; Acts ix. 8 ; 56
Rev. x. 2, 8 ; xix. 11, and Snyvoivfjuevos Acts vii. 56 (also in
ix. 8 rjvoiy/jievos according to A [N ; adopted by Tdf.]). More-
over, we find several times in two of the oldest MSS. (A B) the
1st Aor. Act. with the double augment rjvew^e John ix. 17,
21, 32 [but not so cod. Sin.], which has at least as much inter-
nal probability as ^ve^Orjv etc. above. Of course, where the
MSS. vary, different editors have decided in many passages now in
borrowed from the language of poetry the former accentuation is probably to be
preferred.
64 ANOMALOUS VERBS.
favor of one reading and now in favor of another. As, however,
the number of forms in use, which is all we are here concerned
with, is the same (Tdf. agrees in the main with Lchm.), we
will leave disagreements respecting particular instances to the
reader's own observation.
ol/crelpco: Fut. olicTe(,prjcra> Rom. ix. 15 (as in the Sept.
where we find also Aor. Imperat. ol/creiprjcrov Ps. iv. 2).
(oXXf/zt) aTToXXtyu. For the collateral form of the Pres.
in vci) see p. 45. The Future Active is commonly airoKecra)
Matt. xxi. 41 etc. ; on the other hand, only once aTroXw 1 Cor.
i. 19, in a quotation from the 0. T. In the Middle the Fut. is
always a7ro\ov/jLcu Matt. xxvi. 52 ; Rom. ii. 12 ; Matt. ix. 17
Tdf. [eds. 2,7].
6/xetpo/xat is a by -form of i/xctpo/xat, given only in 1 Tbess. ii. 8
(and a few times in the versions of the O. T.), but established by the
MSS., and also attested by Hesychius and Photius sub voce. See
Steph. Thesaurus, and Fritzsche on Mark, excurs. tert. p. 792.
O/MVV/AI. Respecting the form in vo> see p. 45.
op da). The N. T. agrees in the main with the Attic use
of this verb, excepting the forms of the Alexandrian Aor. (see
p. 39) and the accentuation tSe (see under \afi/3dva) p. 62).
On isolated cases like 7rpoopa)/jirjv see p. 34 ; on the Subjunc.
o-^njo-Oe see p. 36. The mode of spelling the Perf. (employed
in Attic poetry, B. p. 251 Note f ; H. 450, 4 ; C. 50)
eopaica is often exhibited by the MSS., but has not been received
by the editors before Tdf., who in his 7th ed. introduced it
several times, e.g. Luke ix. 36 ; John ix. 37, [but in ed. 8 ap-
pears to have returned to the usual form, yet not in Col. ii.
18]. The Passive axfrOriv, o^driao^ai commonly means to
appear (apparere) cf. p. 52. Respecting IBov see p. 70.
Trai^co. The Fut. Mid. 7nufo//,at is the common form in
the Alexandrian dialect (Ezek. xxii. 5; Hab. i. 10), as with
later writers in general (Luc. Dial. Deor. 4, 3 ; Apoll. Lex.
Horn, under /juco^aovrai) ; the Future occurs but once in the
N.T., and then (according to B. 113, N. 7) in the Active form
epirai^ova w Mark x. 34, which is not unknown to the Sept.
also (Isa xxxiii. 4). The other tenses also occur in the gut-
>7 tural formation : eVa^a, eirai^O^v ^ etc., Matt, xxvii. 31 ; ii. 16 ;
Luke xviii. 32, etc.
Travco. The 2d Fut. Pass, of this verb is found once (Rev,
ANOMALOUS VERBS. (55
xiv. 13) formed after the analogy of tcaia)
avdTrarjcrovTai,. (Yet according to codd. Yat. and Sin. we
must so read also in Luke x. 6 [Tdf.] ; the Aor. Trarjvcu occurs
twice in Hernias : (Vis. 1, 3 ; 3, 9 Sin.).) That this form,
unparalleled in earlier authors, was actually current in the
common speech (eV rfj avvr]6eia) is attested by Choerob. in
Anecd. Bekk. p. 1324, where it is used as an example by the
side of eKcur]v and %dprjv. Other examples in very late Greek
may be seen in Steph. Thesaur. under Travco. But in Rev. vi.
11 we have again the regular avarrrauaovTai [so Lchm. in ed.
inin., Tdf. eds. 2, 7 ; but now Lchm. Tdf. Treg. -crcovrat ; so ].
The verbal adjective (Travcrro?, KaraTravo-ros) with a priv.
d/caTaTravo-Tos is read by most editions in 2 Pet. ii. 14.
Lchm., however, has adopted instead the reading of codd.
A B : atcaraTrdo-Tovs. To explain the word in this form as a
verbal from Travco would conflict with all analogy, and the
sense forbids us to derive it from Trdao-co (conspergo). Hence
Tdf. [so Treg.] has adopted d/caraTravcrrov^ with codd. [tt] C
and the Rec. 1
occurs only in the Apocalypse, and in the forms 5?
(Rec. TrercoyLtez/o?) and TreT^rat, xiv. 6 [tf here
, etc.
1 Since, however, the existence of the a in the penult in two of the oldest MS?
weighs heavily against this, it may be that the error is to be found elsewhere
Perhaps it is not the second a, but the first, that is written by mistake, and arose
from the preceding /cai, so that the word was originally Karairdarrovs, a verbal
which occurs elsewhere also (see Stephanus, Thesaur.), formed regularly from /cara-
irdaa-a) (frequent in the Sept.), and here has the meaning spotted, soiled, which then
corresponds very well with the preceding ma-rovs (o^Qa\^ovs exoisres pco-rovs
/uoixaA-'Sos K-al Kcnairdo-Tovs a/jLaprias). Suidassub voce and the Scholiast on Arist.
Eq. 502 expressly render Kardiracrros by /carct/iecr-ros, Tr\"f)pi)s, TreTroi/ctA/ueVos, and in
the same way Karairdo-ca by KarairoiKiXw, Tr\r)p(ixra>. Hesychius, who has so many
biblical terms, has neither anaTdiravarros nor aKardvaaros, but he has the gloss
Kardiraffros TreirotKiXfAevos. The unintelligible d/cara? dcnovs, having once arisen by
a clerical blunder, was easily corrected into aKarairaixTrovs, and naturally passed
over in this form into most of the later MSS. Finally, as respects the derivation
of the word aKard-n-affTos from the ancient FIAOMAI (whence the poetic irda-aa-Bat
to taste, eat), the resulting meaning would be appropriate (insatiable), but the deri-
vation is opposed by the following considerations : (1) that the word in this form
does not occur again in all Greek literature ; (2) that even the underlying verb
was as good as obsolete, and at the most was only sought out by imitative poets
as an archaic term ; (3) that it was used at no time by any author in composi-
tion with Kard ', (4) that a N. T. writer should coin so poetic a word, and that
the ancient grammarians, lexicographers, commentators should pass over in
complete silence a term so unusual and so much needing explanation.
9
66 ANOMALOUS VERBS.
occurs but once in the Participle of the im-
Attic form in dco : eyu-TrtTrXwi/ Acts xiv. 17. Of. tcrr??//^ p. 44 sq.
Of this form we find only the Perf. Pass. Partic.
Luke vi. 38 ; in all other instances it has been
supplanted by the Doric form with a for e (which in the Doric
dialect has the palatal characteristic : irid^w etc., see Ahrens,
Dial. Dor. p. 116), but with the ordinary inflection Fut. Tndcrw,
Aor. eVtWa, vrtacraf., Pass. eTndadtjv^ John vii. 30 etc.
never has the later Future Tnov/jbcu, but the Attic
Matt. xx. 23 ; Mark x. 39 ; Rev. xiv. 10, 2d Pers. Trieaai
Luke xvii. 8, see ecrdiut p. 58. The Aor. Imperat. again is ac-
cording to. rule wle Luke xii. 19, Infin. as usual Trielv. But
besides, this Infin. is several times preserved in the form
Trlv or Trelv : least questionably in John iv. 9, probably also in
iv. 7,10 Tdf. [Treg.],Rev. xvi.GLchm. [Tdf.eds.7,8], and not
unfrequently as a variant in the oldest MSS., as in Matt, xxvii.
34 ; Mark xv. 23 ; x. 38 ; 1 Cor. ix. 4 ; x. T. These forms
(rrlv and Trelv) have now been established in many passages by
the most recent collations of B, as well as by cod. Sin. That
this anomalous Infin. actually existed, at least in the popular
speech, is established by other testimony also, besides those MS.
authorities. Thus the Grammarian Herodian (in Herm. de
Emend, rat. p. 317) expressly rejects the form Trelv as corrupt
(dfJLaprdvovo-iv ol \eyovres 'Trelv fBovXo^ai yLtoj/oo-i>XAa/3cD9, &eov
Trielv Sto"i>AXa/3a>?. /JLOVCI)*} yap OVTWS /cal Trapd rot? dp-
TracTiv eiprirai), and an epigram on the grammarians in
Anthol. Pal. xi. 140 employs, apparently with design, this
form which they censured (oZ? ov cr/cw^a \eyeiv, ov Trelv (frfaov).
Now as respects the form itself, it has been explained ac-
cording as the preference is given to Trelv or Trlv either as
syncopated from Tri.elv, or as apocopated from irlvai (like (f>vv
from fyvvai, see Ph. Buttm. in the Mus. Antiq. p. 248). The
first explanation has little internal probability, 1 although,
since it has appearances in its favor, it became current
among the grammarians, and may even have occasioned the
spelling Trelv (so the cod. Cantabr. always). Philologically
59 the other explanation has a better foundation, although no
1 We can hardly compare with this the extremely rare dialectic absorption of
the * before to in isolated poetic passages (/8<<re<r0e Apollon., ffwirdw Pind.) ; see
Ausf. Sprachl. under fr6u, II. 130.
ANOMALOUS VERBS. 67
Infin. TTIVCU existed, or at least can be proved. But that the
Aorist GTTLOV had an inclination to form syncopated Aorists is
shown by the Imperat. TtWi ; and the abbreviation of the Infin.,
used as it must have been very frequently (86? poi irlv, TTIV /3ov-
\opai), would arise thus in the mouth of the people most natu-
rally. Modern editors of the N. T. have accordingly retained
this spelling, and Jacobs also in his Delectus Epigr. (6. 78) has
returned to the form TTLV. [Tdf. ed. 8 everywhere reads 7reiv.~]
TrtTTTft). Respecting the Alexandrian Aorist seep. 39 sq.
But the former reading avdirecrov (Rec.) or ouvanvedcbi (Grsb.)
is now changed into the common Imperative form avdirea-e
Luke xiv. 10 ; xvii. 7.
pew has in the Future pevaa John vii. 38 ; in the Aorist, as
in Attic (e/5/)W7i>) , Subjunc. Trapapv&fjiev Heb. ii. 1. Cf. p. 32.
craA7rt(o, see p. 37.
(a- fceir-ropaC) eTrtovceTTTo/Aaf. the writers of the Old Test, and
the New are fond of using in the Pres. and Imperf. ; see the
lexicons.
M, see p. 36.
vfjiL) in the N. T. forms only from the other form,
the Aor. ecrrpoxra, Perf. Pass. earpco^ai^ Aor. Pass.
earpci)07]v. On o-rpcovvvo) see p. 45.
. The Perf. in later writers is commonly re-
instead of Teri/^/ca (Lob. ad Phryn. p. 395; Sturz,
Dial. Alex. p. 198) and accordingly in the Sept. also : Job vii.
2, etc. This was formerly the reading also in Heb. viii. 6,
but now instead a third form has been adopted from MSS. [Sin.
also] into the text: rerv^ev. As this form was apparently
altogether unknown to the grammarians, Lobeck, as above,
and Dind., in the Thesaurus of Steph., regard it as a mistake
of the scribes, and it has been on this account expunged by
the editors in classic authors, often it must be confessed
against all MS. authority (e.g. Diod. 12, 17), and commonly
changed into Teresa. In the language of the N. T. the un-
usual and even erroneous (B. 97, 4 p. 134) form of the
Perfect must always be allowed to stand.
<j)alvc0. Respecting e<pava see p. 41.
ipava-fccoj a word formed from the stem <f>a (to shine) after
the manner of iteratives, and used only in compounds (Job
xxv. 5 etc.), to which, quite according to analogy, the form
ANOMALOUS VERBS.
Eph. v. 14 is referred. In the 0. T. we
find frequently the Aor. Sityavae, Siafavo-r} (e.g. eo>? Sia^avo-r)
r)fjipa 1 Sam. xiv. 36 etc.). This rare word, which however
is found even in Herodotus (9, 45), was wholly unknown to
Attic authors.
In a few passages (Matt, xxviii. 1 ; Luke xxiii. 54) it has
the form eVi(/>a)c-/<;<tf, in both instances of day-break. Cf. the
Lat. illucesco.
<f>epa). On fjve<y/cov and rjveyKa see p. 39. Besides the forms
of the 1st Aor. usual also in Attic, we find most frequently
the Partic. evey/cas (Luke xv. 23 etc.), which in the N. T. has
completely supplanted the other in cov, as on the other hand
the Infin. evey/ceiv (Jude 9 etc.) has superseded that in at,
which is still read only in 1 Pet. ii. 5. The 1st Pers. ijvey/ca
is found Acts xxvi. 10 etc., Imperat. Trposeveyicov Matt. viii. 4
(-*e Rec.).
<t>6dvo) . The Aorist efyOrjv is not in use, but only 1st Aor.
e$6ava : Matt. xii. 28 etc.
$ v CD . As the Aor. efyvv has been wholly superseded in the
language of the N. T. by the later 2d Aor. Pass, efyvrjv (hence
<f>vev, avfAfaeicrcu Luke viii. 6, 7, 8), the Subjunc. must be
circumflexed e/cfafj Matt. xxiv. 32 ; Mark xiii. 28 (eK^vrj Rec.
[Tdf.]). Cf. Ma> p. 56.
% aip ft>. The Fut. is always ^aprjaofiat Luke i. 14 etc., as
in the Sept., which, however, in composition always employs
the regularly formed yet elsewhere unheard of form in avjjuu,
as Kara-, eTrt^apovfjuac.
%e&). Respecting the Imperative eVj^ere see p. 44. The
Future, after the manner of the . so-called Attic Futures or of
the Fut. of liquid verbs (cf. Aor. e%ea), is circumflexed : eV^ew
Acts ii. 17, 18 in an O.T. citation (Joel iii. Isq.). We are pre-
vented from accenting it eV^eco, as in Attic, on the one hand
by the testimony of the ancient grammarians (Choerob. in An.
Bekk. p. 1290 ; Cram. IV. p. 194 ; Etym. Magn. sub %ea>) who
adduce it as an example of a second Future (TO e'^eew Sevrepov
fteXXoi/ro? oloi/ Kal TO Karaic\i,els Trap Ev7r6\i8i xr.T.X.) ; on the
other hand, especially by the farther inflection of %ew : %eefr,
%eet, %66tre, ^ovaiv^ forms which it so happens, indeed,
cannot be brought forward from the N. T., but are very frequent
in the Sept., as Ex. iv. 9 ; xxx. 19 ; Lev. iv. 12 ; Num. xix. 17 ;
ADVERBS. 69
Deut. xii. 16 ; 2 Kings xxiv. 4, etc. ^E/c^etrai in Matt. ix. 17
is Pres. ; probably also in Mark ii. 22 [yet dropped here by
Tdf. Treg.].
The Aor. Pass. e%e6r)v, so common in later writers (Lob.
Parerg. p. 732), has not yet been found either in the 0. T. or
the New, but always e^vdrjv, %i>0??cro/zai, as in the Perf.
K.k.yy'rai. On account of this last form we often find %ua> given 61
in the lexicons as a form of the Present ; but it never occurs,
at least in the N. T., but instead (%yva>) crvve^vvev Acts ix. 22,
or, after the Aeolic mode of writing sometimes, %*Wo>, (on -his
form used in codd. Vat. and Sin. see Tdf. N. T. Vat. pref. p.
xxx Note 1 ; [N. T. ed. 7, Prol. p. xlviii]) eKyyvvbpevos Matt.
xxiii. 35 ; xxvi. 28 and the parallel passages, avyxywercu,
Acts xxi. 31 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.] ; xxii. 20. Of. KTevva> under
fCTCLVO), p. 61.
A/ru^ft). 2d Fut. Pass. ^iry^o-oyLtat, Matt. xxiv. 12.
co 06(0 in the historic tenses loses again the syllabic augment,
ef coo-e^, aTrcoaaro Acts vii. 27, 39, 45 ; Rom. xi. 1, 2, and so
also in the Sept. aTrcoaOrjv Ps. Ixxxvii. (Ixxxviii.) 6, aTraxrfjLcu
Jonah ii. 5 etc. This occurs sometimes also in earlier writers,
see Poppo on Thuc. 2, 84.
does the same: tovijcraro Acts vii. 16.
ADVERBS.
B. 115, N. 3; H. 226 sq. ; C. 380 sq. ; D. 260sq. ; J. 324.
Lachmann writes all adverbs, if they arose from the Dative
of even an obsolete noun, as \d6pa Matt. i. 19, eltcfj Col. ii.
18, TrdvTT} Acts xxiv. 3, icpvffi Eph. v. 12, again with the i
subscript, [so Treg. in the case of Travry] ; cf. B. 116, Note
8 p. 272 ; 0. 109. In the MSS. both modes were used. See
Bast, ad Greg. Cor. p. 719, and Cobet,N. T. pref. p. 12, [Tdf.
ed. 7, Prol. p. Ixii].
B. 115,6; H. 223; C. 263; D. 282; J. 141.
Adverbs in o>9 derived from the usual forms of comparison,
accordingly in Te'p&>9 (rarco?) ara>9 (which, moreover, in ear-
lier authors also are not uncommon, see the list in Matthia's
Greek Gram. 262), occur also in the N. T. Thus always
in Paul (Gal. i. 14 etc.), also in Heb. ii. 1,
Phil. ii. 28, the phrase eV%aTo>9 e^eiv Mark v. 23.
Examples of the common adverbial form of the comparative
70 PARTICLES OF PLACE.
in repov are, Trepiao-orepov Heb. vi. 17 ; vii. 15 ; Mark vii. 36,
e/crevea-Tepov Luke xxu. 44, KcutyoTepov John iv. 52, Troppa>Tepoi>
(-T6/OW Rec. [Tdf.]) Luke xxiv. 28, a/cpifievrepov Acts xxiv. 22,
avtorepov Heb. x. 8, etc. ; (but the present reading in Acts xxiv.
10 is evOvfuos instead of evOvporepov, and BiTrhorepov in Matt,
xxiii. 15 is an adjective ; cf. p. 27).
The other form of comparison in &>*>, tcrro? always forms its
adverbs in the usual way : ^rro^, eXarroi/, /cd\\t,ov, j3e\Tiov,
acraov, TCL^LOV (see p. 27), ra^tcrra, etc.
B. 115, N. 7.
Instead of ISov ecce the N. T. writers, especially John, fre-
quently use iSe ; both side by side in Mark xiii. 21 Lchm. Cf.
also 129 a. 2 p. 139. Examples of iSe with the Plural Matt,
xxvi. 65 ; of aye as an Interjection Jas. iv. 13 ; v. 1. Cf. with
!'e attended by the Plur. the similar a</>69 iScofjLev (Matt, xxvii.
49), on which see 139, 4 p. 139. The ordinary distinction
between Sevpo and SeOre, according to which the latter is used
in addressing more than one (yet cf. Bttm. Lexil. II. No. 101),
is observed in the N. T. ; see Wahl.
62 PARTICLES OF PLACE.
B. 116; H. 203. 879; C. 192. 704; D. 262; J. 339.
The local ending -dev has sometimes lost its original reference
to the question whence. Thus eawOev^ egwOev, hardly differ
any longer from the adverbs eW, efo> ; e.g. Matt. vii. 15 ; Rev.
iv. 8 ; v. 1 ; and with the Article, TO eawOev vp&v Luke xi. 39,
40 (cf. 2 Cor. iv. 16), Kvic\bdev in circuitu Rev. iv. 8. This,
as is well known, often occurred in the earlier language and
the poets with the termination -Oev, -9e ; as, oiricrOev, avevOe,
e/juTTpoo-Oev, Trpoirdpoide, etc. From the fact that the suffix -dev
came to take the place thus of a mere adverbial ending we can
explain a pleonastic combination which is frequent in the N.T.,
viz. that to such an adverb, when the reference to the question
whence is manifest, the prepositions a?ro and e/c are still pre-
fixed ; e.g. CLTTO /jbdKpodev, CLTT avcoOev, e/c TraiStdOev Matt. xxvi.
58 ; xxvii. 51 ; Mark ix. 21, etc., combinations, however,
which came into use very early, especially with poets (air
ovpavbOev Horn.).
A strict observance of grammatica" accuracy in the employ-
ment of the local particles is not to >e expected of the N. T
PARTICLES OF PLACE. 71
writers. A portion of these irregularities may be removed, to
be sure, in some syntactical way, as e.g. the expression agcov
row eVetcre 6Wa9 (Acts xxii. 5) by the attractive power of
agwv (B. 151, 1. 8); but in general it does not accord with the
language of the N. T. to explain all the passages of the sort in
such artificial ways. On the contrary, the assumption of a
certain inaccuracy in the employment of such particles seems
to be the more admissible, as even the earlier prose writers by
no means always adhered rigorously to the rule. And in
particular, particles ofrest as eVet, TTOU, ov, OTTOV, evOdSe are
constantly connected with verbs of motion in answer to
the question whither, because the particles TTO, OTTW, etc. seem
to have passed wholly out of use, (a fact which explains the
frequent corruption of these particles in the texts of Attic
writers, and the instructions of Phrynichus ed. Lob. p. 43); as,
TTOI), OTTOU vTrcvyei,, e/cel airrfkdev, eA#e eV#aSe,(with which the usage
of earlier authors as given in B. 116, 3 Note f and 7 Note
may be compared). It is likewise undeniable that w8e, orig-
inally a particle having reference to manner, has in the N. T.
already assumed completely a local signification : and that, too,
not merely ofrest, here, but, like all those previously mentioned,
of direction also, hither, a usage of which the beginnings can
be traced very early (see B. 149, 1 p. 429). It is indeed
quite proper to be extremely abstemious in employing this
method of explaining classic authors, but to insist on observing (33
the same restraint in reference to all passages of the N. T.
would be to increase the difficulties of interpretation unneces-
sarily, and without any considerable gain either philological or
logical. Examples of this local use of &>Se (expressly censured
by the old grammarians) occur, especially in the gospels, very
frequently, as e.g. in Matt. xvi. 28 ; xvii. 4 ; viii. 29 ; xxii. 12 ;
xiv. 8, 18, etc. ; and often in Hermas the expressions wSe tca/cel,
wSe Ka/cela-e are met with (SimiL 6. 1 ; Mand. 5. 2, etc.).
Finally, compare with the general tenor of these remarks the
N. T. use of the two prepositions which correspond most nat-
urally to the two ideas of rest and motion (whither), viz. eV
and /9, as given in the Syntax 147, pp. 328, 332 sq.
72 CHANGES OF FORM IN PARTICLES. ANASTROPHE.
CHANGES OP FORM IN PARTICLES. ANASTROPHE.
B. 117, 2.
Of the three forms edv, r\v, av, the first is used almost ex-
clusively ; av is very rare indeed, or doubtful, John xiii. 20 ;
xvi. 23 ; xx. 23 Tdf. [Treg.], fy not found at all.
Although only the un-Attic form of the adverb ecro> (for
6MTO)) is in use, yet the preposition is written only ek never eV
Instead of %^e? modern editors have everywhere substituted
the (Hellenistic) form e^tfe'?, John iv. 52 etc.
Respecting eveicev before consonants see p. 10.
B. 117, N.I; H. 872; C. 619; J. 423.
Instead of av the form edv is frequently found. Yet this
interchange is not exactly arbitrary, since on comparing the
passages it will be found that it occurs only in relative clauses
with the Subjunctive : in clauses, therefore, of a general nature
which (according to B. 139, 3) include within themselves
the supposition expressed by lav, and allow themselves without
violence to be transformed into such conditional clauses. This
lav, however, continually alternates with av, and in printed
editions there is no agreement in this particular. Since ex-
amples of this manner of writing the word abound in all parts
of the N. T., it may suffice here to illustrate what has been
said by one or two cases : as Matt. xvi. 19 o av Sijo-ys enl 7*79
7779, carat, SeBe/juevov ev rot? ovpavols, /cal o eav \vo-r)^ eirl rrjs
77}?, earat, \e\v(j,.vov ev T. o. ; likewise vs. 25 ; John xv. 7 o av
6e\rjre Lchm. eav Tdf. [Treg.], etc. In the MSS. of other
Greek writers, too, this edv is found only in similar clauses,
see Jacobs ad Achil. Tat. p. 130, 7 ; and the frequent occur-
64 rence of this interchange warrants us in inferring the existence
of this always erroneous (yet not altogether unfounded) mode
' of writing the word, at least in later authors.
B. 117, 3, 2); H. 615; C. 785; J. 63, Obs. 3.
This second case of anastrophe (i.e. when the primitive
dissyllabic prepositions stand alone instead of a compound of
elvai) also occurs in the N. T. in the use of evi for eveo-ri :
1 Cor. vi. 5 ; Gal. iii. 28 ; Col. iii. 11 ; Jas. i. 17.
The words oval, ovd, ea occur in the N. T. as Interjections,
FORMATION OF WORDS. 73
FORMATION OF WORDS.
B. 119; H. 452 sqq. ; C. 359 sqq. ; D. 354 sqq. ; J. 329 sqq.
B. 119, m. 19. Since in verbal Substantives in pa the
long vowel belongs t: the earlier writers, the short vowel to
the later (cf. Cobet's N. T. pref. p. 50), we ought in the N. T.
to write uniformly Kpi^a (not Kplpa) ; so cod. Vat., though
very often writing Kpeivco, constantly writes Kpipa. The form
alricofjiara (Sin. also) for ama//,ara, Acts xxv. 7, is erroneously
formed, but unquestionable.
On $61709 and (0,769 see Fritzsche on Mark, p. 790. On TreiOos
in 1 Cor. ii. 4 (very likely a corrupted passage) cf. 7^769 in
Homer. Yet probably ev ireiQoi should be read, [eV 7ra0oZ?
o-oc/ua? X6"7ot9 is adhered to by Lchm. Tdf. Treg.] ; see the
interpreters.
B. 119, m. 32. As respects substantives compounded with
a/>%o<? ruler, or derived from a/9%&>, the ending 179, according
to the 1st Declension, is the most common, and passed over also
into the Latin language. Thus TraTpidpxrjs, rerpdp^rj^ (pa-
triarcha, tetrarclia) , 0wfpX99, TroXrra/^?;?, ao-tap^9, and many
others besides in the Sept. ; see the list in Winer 61 (60) and
the lexicons. Only in the case of xi\iapxps is the form in 09 the
exclusive form ; and e/carovrdp^^ alternates with eKaTovrapxos,
even in close proximity, as in Acts xxii. 25, 26 ; Matt. viii. 8, 13.
Doubtful is o-TpaTOTreSdpxijs, Acts xxviii. 16, since it is wanting
in codd. [at] AB.
Examples from the N. T. (besides lepwa-vwr) given in B.
119 m. 38) of words in crvvr) with o> preceding are: dyaOo)-
crvvT], dyiaxrvwr], (jLeya\ci)<rvvr}, all with a short vowel preceding
the antepenult. Instead of /3a<7tXeta the N. T. has everywhere
the later form (see Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 151) /3acrl\i,cro-a.
B. 119, m. 83. The adverbial ending i occurs only
in the word Travonci Acts xvi. 34, for so the word should be
written, although several MSS. [Sin. also] give iravoiKd. See
Theodos. Gramm. p. 74 ed. Gttl., and among the moderns
especially Ellendt, Lex. Soph, under dvarei and dvoipwicTL
According to his view, adverbs derived from words of the 2d
Declension have the ending t, at least by preference.
To the new formations of later Greek belong also the two
adjectives eVw>uo-to9 and TrepiovcrioS) respecting whose doubtful
10
74 FOKMATION OF WORDS.
derivation and meaning (( rrigen de Orat. 16 : eV<ouo-<o9 eoi/ce
7r7T\da-0cu VTTO T&v evayy\LcrTa)v) see the lexicons.
B. 121, 8; C. 386c.; D. p. 336; J. 345, 2.
Among the words which in composition change the initial
e into 77 may be reckoned the new word TrposrjXvros, so frequent
in the later language, of which the Prep. TT/JO? and the stem
of rj\6ov, rf\v6ov Fut. eXevcro/xat, manifestly form the basis ;
hence the abstract TrposrjKvais (Just. Mart.) for 7rpo?e\
(JohnChrys.). See the lexicons, and compare the words
Xf9, eV^Xfro?, eTnjXvcrt?, etc.
The practice of separating compound Names of Cities ex-
tends, as is evident from inscriptions, down to the latest times.
Hence in Acts xvi. 11 we should read, with all the [most] an-
cient MSS., Neav TToKw ; and so, consistently, in Col. iv. 13 ev
'lepa TroXe* (for 'lepa-TroXet). Thus it was the uniform practice
to say MeyaXij 7ro\t<?, Kcovaravrlvov TroXt?, 'ASpiavov TroXi?,
but in derivatives MeyaXoTroXtV?;?, NeaTroXm??, Kavaravj wo-
iroklTw ; of. on this Herodian de Adverb, p. 587 ; Cobet's N. T.
pref. p. 12.
SYNTAX.
INTRODUCTION.
1. The language of the N. T. departs from the ordinary
language in all that relates to the structure of clauses and
style of expression far more than in the forms of words ; and
that not merely from the Attic, but also from the later common
Greek. The causes of this are : First, the want of classic-
Greek training and erudition (Acts xxii. 3 ; 2 Cor. xi. 22 ; Gal.
i. 14, etc.) which may be fairly assumed in the case of most
of the N. T. writers ; Secondly, their dependence upon the
language of the 0. T. (in particular tlfat of the Septuagint),
as well as upon Jewish modes of thought in general (the so-
called Hebraisms pertain, strictly speaking, all of them to the
syntactical part of grammar) ; Thirdly, their new Christian
ideas. As was remarked, however, on p. 1 sq. respecting the
Forms, so again in this particular the difference between the
several writings composing the N. T. is not inconsiderable ; and
it is the Book of Acts again which distinguishes itself creditably
from all the rest by its Greek mode of expression anci com-
bination of clauses. Among the Epistolary writings the Epistle
to the Hebrews has most of the Greek complexion. 1 And the
Apocalypse is farthest removed from the Greek diction, in con-
sequence of its peculiar and free style of composition (of which
we have already given an example p. 50), which often conflicts
with all the laws of Greek syntax.
2. Strictly speaking, in a special Grammar only those phe-
nomena should find place which are peculiar to the department
treated of, in the present case, to the N. T. And this prin-
ciple has been in general adhered to in this Grammar. In this
1 Cf. Origen in Euseb. H. E. 6, 25 : 8n iffrlv y liriffroK^ <rw0<rei TTJJ
lAATji/tKwrepa (i. e. than the Epp. of Paul) iras 6 ^iriffrd/j-fvos Kptveiv
Stafyopas 6/mo\oyr]crai &v,
T5
76 THE SUBSTANTIVE. [123.
instance, however, as in all things where practical requirements
also come into consideration, rigid consistency in carrying out
a principle would be injurious to the whole. Frequently it
has been desirable to bring into prominence the agreement
between the N. T. language and ordinary Greek usage, par-
ticularly in those cases where such agreement appears rather
as exceptional, and a departure from the usage of the N. T.
elsewhere. Moreover, the usage of the classic authors them-
selves varies so much, according to time, place, subject, etc.,
that it could not fail often to seem appropriate to indicate
the coincidence between the N. T. usage and this or that de-
partment of classic Greek. And finally, it has been necessary
occasionally, where the more thorough treatment of the peculi-
arities of a department relatively restricted required a more
extended presentation of a topic, to give a more detailed
delineation even of the ordinary usage than could be given in
a general Greek Grammar for the use of schools. This has
been particularly the case where the usage of later writers or
of the Seventy, to which of course little or no regard is wont
to be paid in school Grammars, has had unmistakable influence
upon the language of the N. T.
SUBSTANTIVES AND ADJECTIVES.
THE SUBSTANTIVE.
B. 123.
When a substantive, whether concrete or abstract, in any
Case, refers to another substantive (subject) in the Plural
in such a way that it pertains equally to every individual of
the plurality, accurate usage requires that it also should
stand in the Plural.
57 The ancient languages, as is well known, are more consistent in this
respect than, for instance, the German, which says unhesitatingly,
and perhaps more frequently than not, sie zogen sich das Kleid an,
schlugen das Gesicht nieder, falen auf das Knie, etc. etc. But
irregularities occur also in ancient authors, even (though seldom) in
good Greek prose ; * hence no special N. T. usage can be established
on such passages as Acts xviii. 6 TO at/xa V/AWV eVt rrjv Ke<f>a\r)v
v/xoii', Luke xxiv. 4 eTreo-TT/o-av iv f(r@r)Ti aa-TpaTrrova-y, vs. 5 Lchm.
(/cXtVovcrat) TO TrpooxoTrov cis TTJV yrjv, 1 Thess. iii. 10 vp&v TO
1 The subject requires, according to Bhdy. Synt. p. 60 note 3 , a more careful ex
amination than has yet been given it. See the works there referred to.
123.] APPOSITION. 77
1 Cor. vi. 19 TO (raJ/Aa v/u,<ov, Rev. vi. 11 c86@r) avrots aro\r) XCVKT/, xi.
8, 9 TO TTToi/xa aurujv. On the other hand, the Plural occurs Acts i. 10
(lv ecr^TJo-eo-t ACVKCUS), Rev. xi. 9 (TO, TTTw/aaTa avTwv) ; and in several
of the above passages important authorities (followed sometimes by
Tdf. [Treg.]) have the Plural. This fluctuation in the MSS. proves
the currency of both modes of expression ; and again, the frequent
correction of the Sing, into the Plur. shows that offence was taken at
the Sing, as the inferior form.
Respecting the Hebraistic circumlocutions Sia \etpbs, e* \eLpo<s, Sta
o-T6>aTos awwj/, see 133, 20 p. 182.
Most of the passages adduced by Winer 175 (165) where, on the
contrary, the Plural seems to stand instead of the Singular, rest
upon no fixed usage, and accordingly the explanation of the Plural
must be left to the interpretation of the individual passages ; e.g. Matt.
ii. 20 (ot grovms), xxi. 7 (eVavw avTwv), xxvii. 44 (ot Agorae), 1 Cor.
xvi. 3 (Sc* 7rio-ToA.a>v), Heb. ix. 23 (KpaTTocrtv 0va-tais), etc. The same
holds true of passages in which the interpreters recognize a Hebraistic
pluralis excellentiae (John ix. 3 TO. epya rov Otov, Heb. vii. 6 Tas
cTrayyeXta?, etc.) ; in these the Plural, without any such assumption,
has a natural foundation in the ordinary usage. On the other hand,
the following belong to an idiomatic usage :
1) Those substantives which are Plural only. These, so
far as they are peculiar to the N. T., have already found their
place above on p. 23 sq.
2) The custom, belonging to ancient languages in general,
of expressing abstract ideas by the Plural, inasmuch as
in this way not the idea of the abstract, as such, is to be indi-
cated, but rather its external manifestation, its applicability
to a certain plurality of persons or objects. Thus in the N. T.
occur frequently oucrtpfjiol, i rrpocrwiroX'r)iJL'fytai, vTroHpiaeis, epiOela^
(f>06voi,, /Jboi'xelai, Xo7rat, TrXeoz/ef/at, Trovrjpku, Kara-
t, 7r/30)To/cXt(7/at, etc. In enumerations, the Plural and
the Singular are wont to be interchanged ; as, Mark vii. 22 ;
Gal. v. 19 sq.
APPOSITION.
B. 123, 2; H. 500; C. 393; D. 407; J. 467.
Appositive limitations which are separated from the sub-
stantive to which they belong by a relative clause referring to
the same substantive, may also take the Case of the Relative,
being attracted by it as the nearer word.
The clearest instance is Phil. iii. 18 TroAAot TrepiTraTovo-tv, ovs TroXAaicis
78 . APPOSITION. [123
eXeyov v/uv . . . , TOVS f^0pov<; rov oravpou rov Xp. 1 John ii. 25 r;
CTrayyeXia, >}i/ airros eTr^yyetXaro ^/xtv, T^I/ wj)i/ Tr?v atuwtov, Pliilem. 10
rov TCKVOV, ov eyevvr^cra ei/ TOIS Scor/otots, 'Ovyjo-i/xov, TOV TTOTC etc. Cf.
Rev. xvii. 8 (OH> . . . (3\7r6vruv) ; and respecting 2 Cor. x. 1 3 (o . . .
/aerpou) see 143, 9 p. 286.
4 The assertion that appositive limitations are also expressed by the
Genitive, rests upon an erroneous conception of such combinations
as TroXts T?}S 2;a/zapeux9 Acts viii. 5, TroXas 2o8o/xwv /cat To/xoppas 2 Pet.
ii. 6 (Lat. urbs Romse, fluvius Euphratis), and it is only out of con-
descension to modern usage that an appositive relation is here assumed.
Just as erroneous is it to bring under apposition such phrases as TOV
dppa/2ojva rov Trvcv/xaros, rrjv a.7rapxf)v rov Tirev/xaTOS, crry/xctoi/ 7repiTo/u}s,
etc., since such combinations are either to be taken literally, or at
most as circumlocutions of simple abstract ideas. Such periphrases
are quite current in the ancient languages generally, and in the N. T.
preeminently with the apostle Paul.
5 In certain portions of the N. T., however, a noticeable de-
parture from the grammatical usage of other writers is per-
ceptible. That is to say, appositives whether expressed by a
substantive, an adjective, or a participle, since they may be
regarded as an abbreviation of a relative clause (cf. 125, 3
p. 92 sq.), frequently appear, not in the oblique case demanded
by the context, but in the Nominative, still lingering, as
it were, after the rejection of the relative construction, in the
extraneous case, viz. the Nominative.
The most conspicuous examples of this incorrect grammatical usage
are found in the Apocalypse : i. 5 a-n-b 'Ii/o-ov Xp. 6 //.aprus 6 TTICTTOS, vii. 4
TOV apiOpov TWV ca-c^payicrjtxevojv, e/caroV . . . ^iXiaSe? o-<payi<7/x,i'(H, XX. 2
fxparycrfv rov opaKovra, o 6<j>i<s o dp^aio? ; particularly when the Partic.
with the Art. is used : ii. 20 rrjv 'le^cx/SeX, fj Xcyovo-a eavrvfv 7rpo<r}7ev,
iii. 12 r>;9 Katv^g 'IcpovcraX^/u,, 17 Kara/JcuVotKra, xiv. 12 riov dytwv, 01
Trjpovvrcs, viii. 9 TO rpirov TWV KTtoyAaTOJV, ra e^ovTa i//v^a9, ix. 14 TO)
?KTU> dyyeXw, 6 e^tov rrjv aaX-myyu. ; and even many limiting participles
59 without the article 1 may be conveniently viewed as instances of
this construction, as xiv. 14 (etSov) O/J.OLOV viu avOpwrrov, e^v etc.
whether we refer l^wv to opoiov (rivd) or to viu>, cf. xix. 12 ; and with
especial harshness in vii. 9 Lchm. etSov o^Xov iroXvv (Tdf. [soTreg.] /ca)
i8ov o^Xos TroXvs) . . . <TTa>Tes . . . TTCptjSe^SX^/xcvoi;?. (See respectin
1 That we are justified in assuming that the writer often, instead of the Participle,
had in mind a relative clause in very form, may be seen from such passages as
vi. 1 iJKovffa Ij/fcs . . . \4yovros &s <fxav^ Ppovrys (Rec. by correction Quvrjs). Cf.
on the other hand, Rom. i. 4 etc.
123.J APPOSITION. 79
the very frequent loose annexation of participial clauses in the Nom.
and their use instead of other cases 129 a. 6 p. 141, 144, 3-7 and
especially 13 p. 298, and cf. the examples given in 151, 12 p. 386
of loose connection of clauses in other constructions also). In the
other writers this use appears on the whole less frequently, although
there is reason for supposing that the number of passages of the sort
has been greatly diminished by later corrections (the Rec. in fact had
displaced it almost everywhere). A plain instance occurs in Mark xii.
39 sq. The recent editors, indeed, [Lchm. Tdf. Treg.] place one of
the larger punctuation marks before ot Kareo-tftWres [Kareo-^ovres Treg.]
and let the Partic. be resumed by the following OVTOL, according to
144, 21 p. 306, so that vs. 40 forms an independent clause by itself.
But the asyndeton before ot Kareo-0tWres is not satisfactory, and still
less the assumption that the forcible close (ourot A^/XI^OVTCU etc.) is to
be referred merely to vs. 40, and not at the same time to vss. 38, 39.
On the contrary, by referring ot /careortfiWrcs immediately to rwv ypa.fi.-
/xareW not only does the passage gain in natural flow, but the con-
struction assumed receives external confirmation also on comparing it
with the parallel passage in Luke (xx. 47 Tdf. [Treg.] ot
An instance without the article is Mark vii. 19 (nav) eis rov
e/CTropeverat, Ka$apiwv Travra ra ^Spw/xara (Rec. Ka$aptov). Respecting
Luke xxiv. 47 Tdf. [Treg.] (dpd/tvot) see 150, 7 p. 374.
In' Phil. iii. 19, therefore, it is not necessary to refer back the
loosely appended clause 01 TO, err-iyem, (frpovovvres to the remote leading
subject of the sentence, and in Luke xx. 27 (rives ru>v 3aS6\, ot dvriAe-
yovres) the description ot dvriAe'yovres applies not merely to the part
(rives), but to the whole. But Jas. iii. 8 (ri)v Se yAokrcrai/ . . . d/card-
o-rarov KdKov, fJitcrTr) lov 0avar/7<opov) , 2 Cor. xi. 28 (17 brurrcurk /xoi rj
KO.& ^/xe'pav etc.) and similar passages are rather to be taken as in-
dependent clauses left incomplete and approximating to exclamation. 1
1 An extraordinary example of grammatical inaccuracy is given by the MSS.
[N also] in Acts vi. 5 Lchm. eeAeai/TO Sre'^ai/oi/, &v$pa TT \i\pfis TriaTews. In
such a writer as Luke (particularly in the Acts) such a combination may be held
to be impossible (avrip TTA^PTJJ might have been tolerated) ; hence, in spite of the
emphatic testimony, Tdf. [so Treg.] has refused to accept the reading in this form.
Another example is Acts x. 37 ofSare rb ysi>6ij.evov prjfjia Kad' '6\T]s TTJS 'louSams,
apd/ji.ei'os airb TTJS Ta\t\aias /uera rb /3a7TTi<j>ia (by the by: read /c^piry/ua accord-
ing to cod. Vat., Roman ed. 1868), sustained almost unanimously by the entire
collection of uncials (including Vat. and Sin.), and, what is strangest of all, not
called in question even by the correctors of the MSS., as may be gathered from the
collation of a yet larger number of MSS. The change into apd l utvoi' is easily made,
and forces itself upon every one. But since not even the ancient correctors ven-
tured to make it, we are the less warranted in doing so, but must put up with the
grammatical anomaly, and assume that the formula aplct/uez/os a.^6 to the mind of
he writer had become petrified almost into an indeclinable adverbial adjunct.
80 CONSTRUCTIO AD SYNESIN. [ 123
Respecting the Accusative in appositional specifications see 131,
13 p. 153.
70 REMARK. The question whether adjuncts in the correct gram-
6 matical case (as ] Pet. iii. 21 ; Rom. viii. 23, etc.) are to be taken as
appositive or not, pertains wholly to the exegesis of the several
AGREEMENT OF ADJECTIVAL ADJUNCTS WITH THEIR SUBSTANTIVE.
CONSTRUCTIO AD SYNESIN.
B. 123, 3 and N. 3; H. 511, 23; C. 492-98; D. p. 362; J. 378.
The offences against grammatical accuracy in respect to
Gender and Number in which the language of the N. T.
allows itself, are far less frequent than as respects Case, (see
the preceding chapter). Most instances of the sort, also, may
be comprised under the grammatical categories of Attraction
and Constructio ad Synesin; and accordingly reference
may be made to the sections relative to these topics : 127, 7
p. 105, 129, 8 p. 129, and 143, 4 p. 281. Hence only those
passages will be spoken of here in which similar irregularities
occur with attributive (i.e. adjectival) adjuncts of the
substantive.
The strongest cases are furnished, again, by the Apocalypse. Yet
they are hardly founded in the author's ignorance of the laws of the
language, as there is reason enough for supposing that such roughnesses
of expression were positively designed by him ; cf. deWette on Rev.
i. 4; Winer 534 sq. (497 sq.) : for instance, xii. 5 Lchm. [Tdf.Treg.]
vlov apaev (Tdf. [ed. 2] appcva), os /ueAAei etc., since the idea of
(which word actually follows just afterwards) is suggested by
the verb Ire/co/ (Germ, sie gebar einen Sohn, ein Mannliches, der etc.).
On the altogether analogous combinations Oypiov 09, oVd/x-ara 01, and the
like, see 143, 4 p. 282. Still more surprising is the reading of Lchm.
in xvii. 3 Ka.OyfJiW'iqv CTTI OfjpLov KOKKII/OV, ytfMovra ovo/xara /3Aacr<^>r//xias
f.\ ov Ke^aAas, a harshness which [Treg., not now Tdf.] avoids by
separating the word into ye/tov ra. But harsh expressions of this sort
are quite common in the Rev., as witness immediately afterwards the
Still more surprising, and grammatically viewed almost inexplicable, are two ex-
amples from the Apocalypse, yet whose genuineness we are not warranted on this
account in questioning: xix. 20 Lchm. 4ft\rjdr)(ray eis T^V \(y.vt\v rov irvpbs, TTJS
Krcuo^e'j/Tjs eV Oeicp (Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] rrjv K.) and i. 15 Lchm. ol ir68es avrov 8/xotoi
XahKoXifidvca, &s ev Ka.(j.ivta irfirvp(o/j.evris (Tdf. [eds. 2, 7J -voi}. From the last
passage it at least follows that the word is xa.\KoXi$a.vos, not -v ov (it is wanting
in the Sept.), and is of the Feminine gender, as the simple \ifiavos is so often
(Eurip. Nicand., see Steph. sub voce), and accordingly has pretty nearly the sense
of brazen incense (amber ?). The gloss in Suidas under x^oK\iftavov is not genuine ;
see Bernhardy in loc. [In i. 15 Tdf. ed. 8 reads -vy. Treg. in both agrees with
Lchm.]
123.] OMISSION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE WITH ADJECTIVES. 81
simultaneous dependence of the Ace. and the Gen. upon ye/noi/, see
132, 12 p. 164. The language in the following passages is in com-
plete antagonism to a sense of grammatical propriety, but sustained
by the MSS. [Sin. also] : xi. 4 ovrot eicrw ... at 8vo Xv^vtat at IVWTTLOV
Kvptov r^s yr}s ear cores, where no author would have written any
thing else than ecrruJo-at (the correction of Rec.), and nevertheless
eoTcoTcs must be referred to the OVTOI at the beginning, xxi. 9 Lchm.
et? IK row dyyeXwv TOJI/ e^wrwi/ ras eWa <taXas, TOJV ye/x,oi>Twi> (Tdf. 71
[eds. 2, 7] ye/x-ou'o-as) TOJV TrX^ywv etc., where ye/xoi/rtov as respects sense
can have reference only to </>taXas, and yet has been attracted by TO>V
dyye'Xcov, so that the ayyeXot seem to be, as it were, identified with the
<taXai, xiv. 19 ets ryv Xrjvov rov 6vjj.ov TOV Oeov rov p.iyav (Rec. [cod.
Sin. also] rr/v /xeyaX^v), which cannot be grammatically defended by
the fact that Xrpo's has two genders ; see the lexicons, and cf. xiv. 20 ;
Deut. xvi. 13 ; Gen. xxx. 38, 41, etc. To the examples already given
may be added v. 12 Tdf. and xxi. 14 (Tdf. [Treg. ; X* om., x c X ov.]).
Tn the other writings of the N. T. such anomalies are seldom met
with, even in the MSS. ; for such a combination as Xt/xw /xeyav . . . ^rts
in Acts (xi. 28), the reading given by several MSS., is very improbable ;
see above p. 12. On the other hand, in Phil. ii. 1 ct TIS o-TrXay^i/a /cat
oLKTipfjiol Lchm. [Tdf. eds. 7, 8, Treg.] is not only the reading almost
unanimously [Sin. also] attested, but, however offensive the combina-
tion may sound even to our ears, is to be preferred with Grsb. Lchm.
[Tdf. 7, 8, Treg.] to the manifest corrections rtva or rt, which also are
by no means satisfactory. We have nothing left us here except to con-
nect rts, by virtue of the constr. ad syn. and in view of what precedes,
immediately with the abstract idea (compassion) which follows, although
such a connection is to be justified only by the license of epistolary
style. In Mark xiii. 14 Tdf. (even before the discovery of Sin.) had
adopted the reading orav tS^re TO ^SSeXvy/xa r^s cpTyjacocrews ecrnyKora [so
Treg.], the writer having had in mind a dimly conceived Masc. subst.,
either a heathen statue or a Roman army or something else of the
sort; cf. Fritzsche on Matt. xxiv. 15.
Acts iii. 11 Tras 6 Xaos . . . K0a/i,/3oi is quite according to usage ; the
passage falls under the head of Participles constructed ad synesin,
respecting which see especially 129, 8 p. 129 sq.
OMISSION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE WITH ADJECTIVES.
B. 123, 5 and N. 5; H. 509; C. 506; D. 399; J. 436.
Examples of the omission of easily supplied substantives 8
with adjectives are not uncommon in the N. T. Thus by the
omission of fjpepa we have T?} e%oyLte^, eVtouo-T?, T/K'TT?, 17
(Heb. iv. 4), cf. the similar instances 125, 10 p. 95 ;
11
82 ADJECTIVES USED INSTEAD OF ADVERBS. [ 123
of 6809 Luke xix. 4 etceLwjs r^^e\\ev 8te'/D^ecr^at, v. 19
eiseveyfccoaiv CLVTOV ; of %elp : f] apio-repd, ?} Sefta, Sefta? Si&ovcu
etc. ; of 777: TI ^fjpd, ?) Trepfyaypos, etc. ; of TruX?; John v. 2
eirl r?7 TrpofiaTitcf) ; of av$pe<$ (more specifically Sid/coven,)
Acts xxi. 8 e/c rw^ eTrra (cf. vi. 5) ; of a^a\^a Acts xix. 35
TO &o7rer5 (cf. Eurip. I. T. 950 ; Herodiaii 1. 11).
AVhat omitted word is to be supplied is not always so evident as in
the above examples, and accordingly it has been proposed to regard
the force of the subst. as inhering in the adjective, and (as in 128,
1 p. 122) not to supply any definite word. With Masculines and
F e m i n i n e s, however, this will hardly do, and accordingly we must,
as in all languages, supply a more or less definite idea, although it
may be but dimly conceived. Thus the idea of Time, conformably to
6 xpoVos or r) <5pa, fjpcpa. ; hence both a<j> ^s 2 Pet. iii. 4 ; Luke vii.
45 etc. (cf. Col. i. 6, 9), and dc/>' ov, ov, d^pts ou, etc., further e avr^s
or eavT}s Acts x. 33; xi. 11 etc., Irt rcrpa/u^po's ecrrti/ John iv. 35 ;
Space, Locality y as it were after 17 x^P a ' as e eVai/rtas Mark xv. 39 t
72 CK rr)<; VTTO TOV ovpavov cts TTJV viT ovpavov Xd/jLTTu Luke xvii. 24, further
cv 8e^ta, plur. CK Se^toiv, 1$ euwi/v/xwj/, and the like ; Breeze, after f) avpa :
Acts xxvii. 40 ry Trveovoy ; Water, agreeably to TO vSup : Matt. x. 42
TTorrjptov \f/vxpov, Jas. iii. 1 1 rj Trrjytj . . . ySpuet TO y\vKv /cat TO
more specifically Rain: Jas. v. 7 (yewpyos /xaKpo#u//,on/) ecos
Trp^ifj.ov /cat oi/'t/xov; Raiment : John xx. 12 8w dyye'Aovs ev Aev/cot? sc.
i/xaTtots (a word which by subsequent correction was added Matt. xi.
8 Rec.), Rev. xviii. 12, 16 TreptySe^A-^eVry fivao-wov, TTopfapovv, etc.;
Opinion, in accordance with 17 yvw/x?/, in the phrase aTro /x,tas Luke
xiv. 18.
An example also of the omission of a substantive implied in the
idea of the verb (TOVTOI/ oAtya? 7raio- sc. TrXfjyd? B. 123, N. 5)
occurs in Luke xii. 47 Saprjo-eTai TroAAas . . . oAt'yas (with the Passive
according to the usage treated of in 134, 6 p. 189) ; and similarly
2 Cor. xi. 24 Teo-o-cpa/coi/Ta Trapa fiiav fXafiov.
Respecting adverbial expressions, like KO.T tStW, 8r;/xoo-ta, etc., see
B. 115, 4 p. 266.
REMARK. The opposite case (B. 123, N. 6), viz. the addition
of avrip to substantives, as though it were an adjective, occurs only
with Luke (xxiv. 19 dv-^p Trpoc/^T^s, Acts iii. 14 ai/Spa c/>oWa, etc.) ;
in respectful addresses (aVSpes dSeAcpot, TaAtAatot, etc.) only in the Acts.
ADJECTIVES USED INSTEAD or (ENGLISH) ADVERBS.
B. 123, 6; II. 488; C. 509; D. p. 458 sq. ; J. 714.
9 This use is quite current with the N. T. writers, so that it
is not worthwhile to % give the separate instances, since thej
123.] COMPARATIVE AND SUPERLATIVE. 8
agree in the main with the specifications given in the Grammars ;
as, e/ecbv Trpdcro-a), Sevrepaloi, ij\6o/jLev, 7rv\r) auTo^aT?) r^voi^drj^
eo-Twra? dpyovs (Matt. xx. 3), etc. In like manner these
authors discriminate accurately between n-parros and TT/OWTOI/,
e.g. John xx. 4 ; i. 42 Tdf. ; xviii. 13, etc. ; pbvos and /u,6vov,
e.g. Rom. xvi. 4 ; Matt. v. 47, etc.
COMPARATIVE AND SUPERLATIVE.
B. 123, 7; H. 662; C. 514; D. 415; J. 784.
When the idea or the object with which the comparison is
made is apparent at once from the connection, the Comparative
not infrequently stands alone, and so gets the look of a Positive,
as Acts xvii. 21 rl /caivdrepov. Especially is this the case with
the Comparative of adverbs, as ra%to^, KaXXtcw, fjua\\ov, acraw,
TrepLo-o-orepcos, etc. ; cf. p. 69 sq. Moreover, this usage is by no
means peculiar to the N. T. ; see the literature in Winer 242 sq.
(227 sq.)-
B. 123, N. 8; H. 665; C. 510; D. p. 392; J.784, 2.
Examples of the (pleonastic) strengthening of the Comparative by 11
jLtaAAov are Mark vii. 36 /xaAAov Trcpicrcrdrepov e/oypvcro-oi/ ; still
stronger Phil. i. 23 TroXAw /xaAAop /cpetcrcrov. The strengthening by
means of TroAu, en, etc. needs no explanation.
Respecting the Comparative force of the Positive see 149 under T3
^ p. 360.
B. 123, N. 9; H. 664 sq.; C. 553; D. p. 396; J. 870, Obs. 4.
The intensifications of the Superlative (by TroXv, /xaA-to-ra, etc., the 12
particles u>s, $, etc., the pron. otos, etc.) usual in Greek authors do not
occur in the N. T. On the other hand, certain constructions are
brought forward by the interpreters as (in part intensive) circum-
locutions for the Superlative. That sometimes the Positive may
in a sense take the place of a Superlative is apparent in Matt. xxii. 36
Troi'a cvroXrj /xeyaX^ Iv TO> vo/xw ; cf. vs. 38. To this may be added Matt.
V. 19 (/xeyas K\rj0^crTaL) , Luke x. 42 (rrjv ayaOrjv fiepiBa e^Ae^aro)
and the Hebraistic (Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 692 [Gr. 117]) phrase, Luke
i. (28) 42 v\oyr]fjivr) o~v iv yvva.iiv. But in all these passages our
Positive is fully adequate as a translation (and has been used for the
most part), so that a peculiar (Hebraistic) usus loquendi cannot be
founded upon them. Such a peculiarity might sooner be found in the
circumlocution for the Superlative formed according to Hebrew pre-
cedent (0^715^ fcKp, see Gesen. as above), if it had been perpetuated
in any other expi?ssion than TO. ayta dyiW, already touched upon
84 COMPARATIVE AND SUPERLATIVE. [ 123
p. 24 ; for, substantive phrases, such as (3aa Aevs
can hardly be included under this head, as Winer 246 (231) correctly
remarks.
Concerning /xi/cpov oo-ov ocrov see 150 p. 373.
INTERCHANGE OP COMPARATIVE AND SUPERLATIVE.
13 Luther in his transition of the Bible [so A. V.] has availed
himself, in a number of passages, of the (German) Superlative
instead of the Greek Comparative, (an example, however,
which de Wette has not followed) ; and consequently tlio
opinion has been pretty general, that such an interchange of
the degrees of comparison is a characteristic of the N. T.
language. That this is not the case modern commentators
have shown abundantly, and careful consideration of the sense
will teach every attentive reader for himself.
Since, however, it is not to be denied that the modern languages in
the majority of these cases would have employed the Superlative or
other modes of expression, we will here designate the passages in
question ; but for the extended exposition of them, in particular of
1 Cor. xiii. 13, reference must be made to the commentaries. Besides
this instance, we have Matt, xviii. 1 and the parallel passages (Mark
ix. 34 ; Luke ix. 46), Matt. xi. 11 ; Luke vii. 28 ; xxii. 24. We must
not number among them the passages in which the nature of the Com-
parative is preserved by the addition Travrwv, and at the most we are to
assume a very common circumlocution for the Superlative ; hence
Luther [so A. Y. generally] translates such passages also (but with
greater reason) by the Superlative : Matt. xiii. 32 ; Mark iv. 32 ;
1 Cor. xv. 19. Similar is John x. 29.
14 Lastly, it is said that on the other hand the Superlative can stand
for the Comparative. This opinion rests upon the connection
74 occurring here and there in native Greek writers of the Superlative
with the Genitive (e.g. Horn. Od. X, 482) or with rj ; respecting which
see Herm. ad Vig. p. 718 and ad Eur. Med. p. 343 (V. 67). In the
N. T. only John's connection of TT/OCUTOS with the Genitive can here
come into account ; this, however, receives its natural explanation by
the (later) usage spoken of p. 32, according to which Trpwros often
stands for irp or epos (e.g. Matt. xxi. 28, 36, etc.). The passages are
John i. 15, 30; i. 42 Tdf. ; xv. 18 (Vulg. prior).
That the wish of certain interpreters to refer Luke ii. 2 also to this
head is thoroughly contrary to philology, has of late been sufficiently
demonstrated ; see the commentaries of de Wette, Meyer, and especially
.Winer, R.W.B. under Quirinius, and Gram. 244 sq. (229).
124.] THE ARTICLE. 85
THE ARTICLE.
B. 124, 2; C. 64Sa.; D. p.348; J. 659; W. 117 (111).
Instead of the indefinite article, efc without a partitive 1
Gen. following is not infrequently used, as elsewhere also in
later writers (Achil. Tat. 4, 22), accordingly for rt?. Thus,
for instance, but in connection with a participle, Matt. xix. 16
and the parallel passage el? 7rpose\0G)v eljrev (cf. Mark xv. 36) ;
with a substantive, Matt. xxvi. 69 pia TrcuSla/cTj, xxi. 19 av/crjv
jjblav, Mark xii. 42 pia %^/aa, etc. Among the variants we
often find for el? the reading rt?, and in the versions unus and
quidam.
With this may be compared the Hebrew use of inst (Sept. ets) in
isolated passages, as 1 Kings xx. (xxi.) 13 ; Dan. viii. 3, etc., but it is
unnecessary to assume that it served as the precedent for the N. T.
usage. It is incorrect to refer to this head those passages in which
the idea of unity, in contrast with a (mentioned or unmentioned)
plurality, must have distinctly hovered before the mind of the writer,
as in the Rev. ets ayyeAos xviii. 21 ; xix 17, i/os derov viii. 13, etc.
The pleonastic combination ets TIS (b it always with a partitive Gen.
following) is found in Luke xxii. 50 ; John xi. 49 (Vulg. unus), Mark
xiv. 47 Tdf., without a Gen. following Mark xiv. 51 Tdf. but with
important variants. 1
THE DEFINITE ARTICLE.
B. 124, 1. 3 sq. ; H. 526 sqq. ; C. 520 sqq. ; D. 394 ; J. 446.
In reference to the definite article the rules and regulations 2
given in the grammars hold good, so far as in a subject so
delicate as this we can talk of rules. For in the endeavor to 75
lay down fixed laws respecting the use of the article, many
a learned and laborious inquiry has already come to naught ;
and the intention ought at length to be abandoned of forcing
the use or the omission of the article under precise regulations,
which find the proof of their nullity and uselessness in the
throng of exceptions which it is necessary to subjoin straight-
way to almost every rule laid down. For, a writer's sovereign
pleasure does not allow itself to be curtailed, whenever it
seems good to him (or perspicuity, that supreme law of every
1 It is not allowable to compare with this the classic use of els ns, since in the
earlier writers this combination is never used except where it was necessary to
express at the same t:me unity and indefiniteness united, as is evident
from Soph. Oed. Tyr. .8 ; An tig. 262, and the other passages, (see Steph. under efs
p 289).
g(5 THE DEFINITE ARTICLE. [ 124.
intelligent writer or speaker, requires him) to depart even
from a well-founded grammatical law. Nevertheless, it is the
grammarian's task to settle the nature of the article in
its main features, and to elucidate the same by a number of
examples, and then to trace back the exceptional uses to their
respective principles. It is that of the exegete, to show in
every particular passage by what thought the writer was led in
one case to use the article, in another and perhaps precisely
identical case, to omit it. Accordingly, we shall content our-
selves here with selecting from the mass of pertinent material
such special cases only as at least approximate to a general
use, or rest upon a grammatical basis clearly recognizable.
3 Since the use of the article with Names of Persons is
wholly variable in the N. T. also (let the use of the names
Jesus, Peter, Pilate, in this respect be traced in the Gospels,
and that of Paul in the Acts) , the matter must be left where
the general Grammar places it : viz. by using the article the
writer means to designate the person as one known or already
mentioned ; without the article he wishes simply to give his
name. Accordingly, when rather unimportant persons are
mentioned for the first time, the article is everywhere omitted
unless other reasons render its addition desirable.
Such a reason is the desire to be perspicuous. It will be found,
for instance, that indeclinable names often have the article,
manifestly only to make the case apparent, especially when the name
stands in an oblique case ; as, Mark xv. 45 tSwprjo-aTo TO Trrw/xa TW
'Iw(rr?</>, Rom. xi. 25 Trwpaxns O.TTO /xepovs TO> 'Ioy>ai)\ yeyovcy. When the
case is plain from the connection, the art. is commonly wanting ; as
after a Prep., e.g. e/c Stwv, O.TTO 'IaKw/3; with a Gen. after a subst., as
Acts xiii. 21 ISw/cev aurots TOV ^aovX, wbv Kets, avSpa e/c <f>vXrj<; Bei/ia/xeti/
7(3 etc. That all such rules, however, are only approximately correct,
attentive reading will soon teach.
4 It has further been observed, that names of countries
have the art. far more frequently than names of cities. This
observation is philologically well founded. For the great
majority of names of countries are originally adjectives, as f t
'A'xata, 97 Takaria, which consequently must be first rendered
substantives by the addition of the article; with names of
cities, this as a rule is not the case. Again, however, ex-
amples of the opposite occur in both cases ; and accordingly
here, too, the general remarks made in 2 above apply.
124.J THE DEFINITE ARTICLE. 87
On the other hand, it is to be noticed as a constant exception to the
above rule, that the common word Atyvrrros never has the art. (for in
Acts vii. 1 1 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.] the art. has another cause) ; yet
probably for no other reason than because the word originally is not
an adjective like the rest. And with what has been already said in
3 above, agrees perfectly the fact that names of cities after a prep, (ev,
cis, CK) are connected with the art. very much less frequently than
where they stand without a prep., especially in the Nominative.
The names of rivers approximate so much to the nature
of appellatives that the addition of the article seems to Ve
almost necessary. In the N. T. the art. is never wanting ;
see the names 'lopbdvrjs, Ev^pdrr)?, ^tXo>a/z in the lexicons.
B. 124, N. 2; C. 531; J. 453/3.
Examples of the use and the omission of the art. with roeovros
and TOO-OVTOS are found in the N. T. in sufficient number (cf. e.g.
Rom. i. 32; Mark ix. 37; Rev. xviii. 16 with 1 Cor. xi. 16; 2 Cor.
iii. 12, etc.) to show that the distinction given in B. I.e. is perfectly
observed, (i.e. the prons. are used with and without the art. according
as it is either the object so qualified, or the quality as such, that is
to be made prominent ; and according as reference is made to a de-
scription already g i v e n, or to one still to be given).
B. 124, N. 4; H. 538c.; C. 524; D. p. 352; J. 452.
The use of the art. with possessive prons. is observed by the
language of the N.T. so strictly, that no single instance can be adduced
of its omission where according to the rule it ought to stand. In the
Sept. it is wanting more frequently, but only in certain portions often
(e.g. in Prov. cryv x W a > "* / ^ ? > ^5 o"o</>%> etc.), in others never.
Where it is wanting in the N. T. the expression is predicative, as
then (cf. 129, 1) the art. must be omitted (e.g. John iv. 34; xiii.
35 ; xvii. 9 ; xv. 8, etc. ; cf. Luke x. 29, 36 ; 2 Cor. viii. 23, where,
however, the omission of the art. with the following dSeA^ot ^/AWI/
is erroneous, see 127, 27 p. 119), or the art. is brought in after-
w a rd s in an attributive limitation that follows ; as, Phil. iii. 9 /x,r?
/JiY]V SlKCUCKJWryV TT)V K VO/XOV. S/3Q beloW 125, 3 p. 92 Sq.
B. 124, N. 6; D. 396; J. 446; W. p. 115 (109).
The definite art. cannot stand for the indefinite neither 7
in the N. T. nor in any writer who thinks and writes in Greek ;
although there are passages enough where we, certainly, em- 77
ploy the indefinite art. rather than the definite, or at least might
do so. On the contrary, the use of the article has everywhere
38 OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE WITH APPELLATIVES. [124,
its positive reason, inasmuch as the writer conceives the object
thus designated, as one sufficiently limited, either from its
nature, or by the immediate context. In all cases where the
definite article appears to stand for the indefinite, the writer
has in mind a more closely defining participle or a relative
clause, which if added would have been heavy or superfluous.
Often by this addition of the article a certain rhetorical
emphasis is laid upon the word (cf. 129, 1, Remark p.
124). In the translation of all such passages we shall do well
if, in order to reproduce the intention of the writer, we avail
ourselves likewise as far as possible of the definite article, even
against our sense of propriety.
Compare in particular with this section the detailed exposition given
129, 1 p. 123. To elucidate what has here been said, we will select
but a few examples : Matt. xiii. 2 Tdf. [ed. 7] wore ets TO TrXolov /x/5avro
Ka6f)<rOai he went into the ship (which was there, stood ready, etc.), on
the other hand, Lchm. [Treg. Tdf.], with equal grammatical accuracy,
eis TrXolov into a ship, John vi. 3 <ln}A.0ei/ ets TO opog (Luther [so A. V.]
inaccurately a mountain), 1 Cor. iv. 5 6 7raivo<> yei/rJo-eTai Kacrra> UTTO
TOV Oeov, de Wette the praise (deserved) ; cf. Rom. iv. 4 ; 1 Cor. ix. 1 8 ;
2 Cor. i. 17 fjurjTL apa rfj eAa<pta ^pTr)adjj.r]v ; (where the art. is hard
to reproduce in the translation) ; further, in the standing phrase Matt,
viii. 1 2, etc., Ki orrai 6 /cAavfyxos KUI 6 /3pvy/x,os TWV oSovTwv, emphatic
the well-known, the terrible, pains of hell ; so, too, always in the
Doxologies e.g. 1 Pet. iv. 1 1 m la-nv fj 8oa KOL TO Kpcrros etc., llev.
v. 13, etc., see 129, 22 p. 137. Respecting 2 Thess. iii. 14 see
125, 2 p. 92.
OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE WITH APPELLATIVES.
B. 124, N. 7; H. 530; C. 533; D. p. 347; J. 447, 2.
Since in the N. T. the omission of the article is very
common in cases where we employ it, and where in strictness
it ought to stand in Greek also, Winer gives to this subject in
19 a thorough examination, distinguished for the clearness
and accuracy of its statements. The result he reaches is this :
That the usage of the N. T. in this respect follows closely the
four points specified in B. under this head [viz. ^hat the
Art. is omitted, 1) with general (especially) abstract terms
in apothegmatic sentences, 2) in general adverbial ad-
juncts, 3) with words individualized by the context, 4) with
quasi-proper names]; and that likewise the remark there sub-
124.] OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE WITH APPELLATIVES fcy
joined, viz. " that none of these precepts are settled, and con-
sequently in most cases the art. may still be employed,"
is completely applicable to the N. T. We will therefore con- 78
tent ourselves here, with confirming somewhat more in detail,
and completing, the substance of those four rules, by means of
a few examples from the N. T. The article is often wanting,
accordingly,
a) With abstract terms, as St/catoo-wr;, dyaTr?/, Trtcms, Ka/a'a, TrAe-
ovc&'a, d/AapTta, aa)Tr)pla, also when compound : cor/ cuwnos, 86a 0oC,
Adyos co?5s, etc. ; as, 1 Thess. V. 8 vrj^xo/xev ei/Suo-d/xei'Oi 0a>pa/ca Trurrews
/cat dycxTTTys /cat 7reptKec/>aAatav eATrt'Sa o-wn7ptas, Gal. V. 5 i^/xets Trvcv/^art
IK 7rtcrTa)9 eATTt'Sa StKatocrwTys a7TK8e^d/x,c^a.
b) With such appellatives as approximate to proper names. Thus
with #eoV KvpLos, xpio-To's, Trvcv/xa ay tor, rJAtos, yrj (but not X^P a )>
0dAacrcra, /cdcr/xos (so e.g. always in the phrase obro /cara/foA^s KOO-/XOV,
hence also in the synonymous air dp^s Krwrews), further Bid/3o\o<s and
o-arai/as, the last, however, but extremely seldom, and strictly speaking
only in Luke xxii. 3 ; Acts xiii. 10 ; for in 1 Pet. v. 8 ; Rev. xx. 2,
etc., the omission is regular. Lastly, dvTixptoros in 1 John ii. 18 with
Lchm. Tdf. [Treg.] according to the oldest MSS. [&* also].
c) With such words as commonly seem to be individualized suf-
ficiently by the connection, as ircm/p, 1*17717/9 (Matt. x. 37 ; Luke i. 15,
etc.), yoj/ets (Rom. i. 30, etc.), vtds, di/rjp and ywrj in the sense of
husband and wife (Acts xviii. 2 etc.), TrdAis, etc. Here belongs also
VOJJLOS to denote the Mosaic law, especially in the Pauline Epp., but
not in the Gospels (cf. d), and 0draros, e.g. aios Oavdrov, fjirj iftciv
6a.va.Tov, etc. The combination TrcuSes /cat yvvatKes also, so common in
the classics, occurs Acts xxi. 5 [crw ywait /cat re'/cvots].
d) In general adverbial phrases and standing formulas, especially
when dependent upon prepositions, as Kara /u,<n7/a/?ptW, air dj/aroA^s,
O.TT ayopas, O.TT dypov, iv dypw, ev vif/io-Tois (although an adj., cf. the
note below), viiCTWX CTTI TrpdcrwTrov, KO.T ocfrOaXftovs, ecus and /w-e^pt Oavdrov,
?rpo /catpov, d/r' dp^?, eyetpetv and dvao-r^vat e/c ve/cpwf, 2 and many
similar "expressions. But in one respect the N. T. usage departs
1 Even fyurros, which when it stands for God, though as an adj. it ought to have
the art., is yet used without it in Luke i. 32, 35, 76 ; vi. 35. Still more extraor-
dinary is Rev. xi. 16 Lchm. efcocrt reWopes irpefffivrepot for of irp. (Rec. [T. Tr.]).
' 2 Often also di/afrrcum vtKp&v, but also on the other hand e/c, airb r&v veitpuv.
The remark of Winer 123 (117) that the Greeks regularly omit the art. before
vfKpoi needs considerable limitation. For example, in Thucyd. the use of the art
is far more frequent than its omission ; and the latter, moreover, occurs for th<
most part only in connection with rck vavdyia: 1. 54; 8. 106 ; 4. 14.
12
90 ART. WITH MORE CLOSELY DEFINED SUBSTANTIVES. [ 125.
manifestly from the classic, viz. eve.; when such adverbial phrases are
restricted by a following Genitive to particular cases, and so lose their
general character, the art. is frequently wanting ; so especially in the
Sept. This omission takes place regularly in the Hebraistic circum-
locutions for simple prepositions by means of the terms Trpoo-wTrov,
^eip, o-TOfjLa, as Trpo or OLTTO Trpocrw-rrov rov /cvpiov, Sta x L Ps avo/xa>v, etc.
(see 133, 20 p. 182; 146, 1 p. 319) ; further d 6$0aA//.wi/ croi>,
ev o^aA/Aois r^w (Matt. xxi. 42 quota.), eTrecrov eVi TrpoVcoTrov avruv, e
79 e^/xeptas 'A/3ta, ev T^/xepatg 'HpwSov, N<3e, eis T^uepav aTroAvrpworew?, eV
jy/xepa opy/}?, eis oucov avrov, ev Seta auroO or TOV $povou, drr' aKpov y^
coo? aKpov ovpavov, ev /?i/?Aa> ^w^s, and many others. Such omissions as
belong at the same time to one of the preceding classes (a. b. c.), like
the already mentioned Trpo KarajSoA^? or OLTTO KriWws KOO-/X.OU, the
Pauline phrase e' tpywv vo/xov, i? c^ayyeAtov ^cov, eVt 7rapopyto-/xa)
vfjLwv, KO.T eiKova TOV KTiVavros aur^v, ets (.TTO.LVOV 8o'^<; atirov, ev vo/xo)
Kvpiov (Luke ii. 23, 24), further ev yf) MctSicx/x, Xavaav, ets TroAtv Aavei'8,
e/c y^? Aiyv7rrov, etc., may be justified well enough by .the ordinary
usage. Cf. on this section 127, 27, 1) p. 119
USE OF THE ARTICLE WITH MORE CLOSELY DEFINED SUBSTANTIVES.
B. 125,110^6; H. 531sqq.; C. 523; D. 400. 407; J. 458sq.
As has been already remarked in speaking of the Possess.
Prons. 124, 6 p. 87, the language of the N. T. remained faith-
ful throughout to the general rules of grammar in reference
to the position of the article with a substantive having an
attributive -adjective: That is to say, it either places
the adj. between the subst. and art. (TO ayiov irvsv^a) ; or
after the subst., repeating the art. (TO nrvev^a TO ayiov) ; even
repeating it twice, as Matt. xxv. 41 TO Trvp TO alwviov TO 77-
ToifjuaafJievov, Rev. viii. 3 ; ix. 13 ; xvii. 1. Hence in John,
notwithstanding the frequency with which the phrase %wrj
alvvw occurs without the art. (agreeably to 124, 8 a) p. 89),
as soon as the art. precedes it the expression is reversed : 77
alavios a>?7 (xvii. 3), or if the order is retained the art. is
doubled (1 John i. 2 ; ii. 25).
It would hardly be possible to adduce examples on the other side,
inasmuch as all the instances in which the adj. stands without the
art. after a subst. with the art. are either not genuine or find their
grammatical explanation in other ways. Since Winer 133 (12G)
appears to acknowledge the existence of such exceptional cases, we
will mention them here. In 1 John v. 20 the reading of the Rec. 17
a>^ cucovios is now set aside on MS. authority ind likewise in Luke xil.
125.] ART. WITH MORE CLOSELY DEFINED SUBSTANTIAL ES. 91
12 TO yap 7rvev/xa ayiov. On Mark v. 36 (rov Aoyov XaXovpcvov) see
144, 16 p. 302. In John v. 36 Tdf. (l^w T??V /u,apptW /ma) TOV
'Iwawov) tlie word /-ieia> is predicative, and consequently the example
belongs to those given below (5 p. 94). 1 Pet. i. 18 CK.T^S /aarcua?
v/xaii/ avao-Tpo<j>fj<; TrarpoTrapaSorov is quite regular, since the classic
Greek authors also are- accustomed, after a subst. which already has one
attributive, to put a second without the art., as Xen. Ages. 1, 10 ; Time.
6, 31, 5; see other examples of the sort in Bhdy. Syntax p. 323.
Accordingly, the common reading also in 1 Cor. x. 3 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7]
TO O.VTO fipwfjia TrvfvfjiaTLKov 6<ayov may be defended ; but the oldest
MSS. give [ft* simply TTVCV/X. /?po>/x.] TO ai/ro Tri/evjaaTiKov /3poyia e<ayov
[Treg. Tdf.] or e^ayov /3p^a (Lchm.); likewise Gal. i. 4 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] 80
c/c ToG eveo-TcoTos aiojvos TTovypov, where these MSS. [so fit*] read IK TOV
atoivos TOV ei/co"TtoTo? Trovfjpov (Lchm. [Treg. Tdf.]). Matt. xxiv. 45 TI'S
apa eorii/ 6 TTICTTOS SovAos icai <^po'vi/x,o9 a native Greek, to be sure, would
perhaps not have written ; but it finds its apology in the predicative
position of the whole expression. In John xii. 9, 12 the reading 6
oxAos TroXvs (B C L [so Tdf. N vs. 9, but in vs 12 he omits the art.
with a*]) is the only correct one, since o^Ao? TroAvs was regarded as
butasingle word (vulgus, the great mass), and 6 TroXvs o^Ao? would
sound strange, and very likely give another meaning.
The case is different with adverbial additions to a 2
substantive with the article. According to rule, they also
ought always to stand between the art. and the subst., or to
be placed after with a repeated art. as is often the case in the
N. T. : Rom. vii. 10 77 evTO\rj rj ets $a?z', Acts xv. 23 rot? KCLT&
*jv ' ' Avno^eiav /cal 2vplav aSeA^ot? rot? e'f eOv&v ; see a mul-
titude of similar passages in Winer 133 (126). But the
language of the N. T. has liberated itself somewhat from the
traditionary usage (although the beginnings of such a change
can be traced even in good classic authors), in that it also
subjoins such adverbial adjuncts without the article.
From the examples belonging under this head, however, we nrist
first except (as analogous to some given in 1 above) all those cases in
which the subst. is already furnished with a genitival, adjectival, or
adverbial attributive (whether inserted or subjoined) ; as, Eph. i. 15
rijv Ko.8' tyxas TTLO-TLV tv TW Kvptw, iii. 4 TVJV crvvza-iv JJLOV ev TU> /Aucrn/pi'a),
iii. 13 Tats Q\fyww /xov v-rrep vjaojv, vi. 216 dyaTTTyTo? aSeA</>o? KCU TTIQ-TOS
Iv Kupta), Phil. i. 26 TT)S tp^5 Trapovcrias TrdXtv Trpos v/xa?, iii. 14
TOV Oeov ev XpioTa) 'Irycrov, Gal. i. 13 TTJV Iprjv a.vacrrpo<f>r]v
7TOT6 ev TO) 'lovSatV/Aw, Rom. ix. 3 TOJV o-vyycvwi/ /xov /caTa o-apxa, 1 and 2
Thess. i. 1 rrj cKjcA^o-ia 0(ro-aAoviKeW fv ew, 2 Cor. vii. 7 ; Col. i. 4, 8,
92 ART. WITH MORE CLOSELY DEFINED SUBSTANTIVES. [ 125.
etc. Accordingly, in 2 Thess. iii. 14 the phrase Sta rrjs eino-ToXfjs belongs
to the preceding TO) Aoya> V/A<OI/, and cannot as the position and the
article indicate plainly enough be referred to a-rj/Mfiova-Oe following,
for thus it would receive an inappropriate emphasis. More surprising,
yet absolutely required by the sense (see the recent commentaries and
Winer 220 (206)), is the construction of the phrase iv Saypouriv in
Eph. ii. 15 with the preceding TOV vo/xov TWV ivToXwv, and still more
harsh is the Dative rot? Sdy/xao-iv, which belongs to TO /ca#' rjfjLwv
Xeipdypa^ov, in the parallel passage Col. ii. 14.
But, setting these aside, cases enough are left in which the adverbial
adjunct is placed after a subst. limited only by the art., cases in
which exegesis, to be sure, has made manifold attempts to draw the
adverbial phrase away from the subst. to other parts of the clause,
but in which both position and sense require it to be connected with
the subst. Least of all are we compelled to resort to such an apparent
grammatical make-shift in cases where the governing subst. is an
abstract term whose radical v'erb is capable of the
same adverbial connection; for parallel instances are found
even in the earlier prose writers from Herod, and Thucyd. down (see,
81 among others, Poppo on Thucyd. 2, 52 ; Kriiger on Dionys. Historiogr.
p. 153), and still more frequently in later authors. From the N. T.
e.g. Rom. vi. 4 TO /3a7moyxa eis TOV OO.VO.TOV (cf. vs. 3 i? TOV 6a.va.Tov
e/3a7rTio-$T7/x,ei>), 2 Cor. ix. 13 rj /cotvtovia ets CIVTOVS (agreeably to
cts in 132, 8 p. 160 ; and cf. the examples below, 11 p. 95 sq.).
But such adjuncts also occur in the N. T. often enough where at least
the more accurate style requires the repetition of the art. ; as, 1 Thess.
iv. 16 01 vtKpol iv Xpioru), 1 Cor. x. 18 j3\7TTe TOV 'lcrparj\ Kara. o-ap*ca,
Eph. vi. 5 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7 ; ed. 8, Treg. cod. Sin. TOI? K. o-. /cvpioi?] TOIS
Kvpiois Kara o-ap/ca (cf. the parallel passage Col. iii. 22), Eph. iv. 1 tyw
6 SeV/ouos iv Kupiw, ii. 11 TO, IBvi) Iv o-apKi. But to give a complete list
of all such passages, and in particular to determine when such adver-
bial adjuncts belong not to the subst. but to the verb or some other
part of the proposition, lies quite beyond the limits of grammar, and
must be left to the exegesis of the individual passages, since everywhere
the context alone can decide. A portion of these doubtful passages
are treated by Winer 137 (130). Cf. 11 p. 95.
The usage (cf. B. 125, 3 sub fin.) that, 1) when attributives
are placed after with the art., the art. before the subst. is
dropped ; or, 2) to substantives which (according to 124, 8
p. 88 sq.) commonly stand without the art., the adjunct, when
subjoined, is given with the art., is quite current in the
language of the N. T.
125.] ART. WITH MORE CLOSELY DEFINED SUBSTANTIVES. 93
Examples of 1) are Luke xxiii. 49 yvrauce? at o-vraKoAovflovo-ai, Acts
i. 12 O.TTO opovs TOV K lAov/xevov eAaitovos, vii. 35 dyyeAov TOV 6<f>6evTO<s
(cf. vs. 30), 1 Pet. i. 7 xpvo-iov TOV aTroAAv/x-eVov, Phil. iii. 9 e/x^v Sc/cai-
ocrvvrjv rrjv CK vopov (cf. vs. 6), i. 11 Kapirov SiKcuoa-vV?;? rov 8ta 'I. Xp.
Rom. ix. 30 KoreAa/^ SiKCUoo-vVr/v, SiKaioo-vV^v 8e Tr)v CK TTICTTCWS, John
iiv. 27 elprjvrjv a<f>ir)fu vfjuv, flprjvrjv ryv C/U,T)V 8i'8w/zi v/u,ti/, Acts x. 1, 41 ;
xxv. 23 ; Heb. ix. 2, 3, etc. Examples of 2) are very numerous :
Rom. viii. 33 0eo9 6 Si/caiwy, Gal. i. 1 Oeov Trarpos TOV eyetpai/ros avrov,
ii. 20 ev Trtcrm <o T$ TOV vtov, Luke V. 36 Lchm. eTriySA'ty/x.a TO (XTTO TOV
KCU^OV, Mark viii. 27 Kcucrapeias TT;S <iAi7T7rov ; cf. Acts xxvi. 22 ;
1 Tim. i. 4 ; iii. 13 ; iv. 8 ; 2 Tim. i. 13, 14; ii. 10, etc. etc.
REMARK. Winer's observation 139 sq. (132, cf. ed. 5 p. 159) that
in such cases the substantive is strictly speaking always conceived
indefinitely, and that the limitation following is equal to an
abbreviated relative clause, is at least not to be extended
to the above passages ; probably, however, there are passages to which
it applies. That is to say, since (as we have already seen 123, 5
p. 78, and as will be shown at length 144, 9 p. 294) the par-
ticiple with the art. often takes the place of a relative clause,
such a participle may stand not only after indefinite pronominal ex-
pressions, like T!S, eTepos, aAAo?, TroAvs ( 144, 9f) p. 295), but in general
also after indefinite and consequently anarthrous substantives, as well
as after such as are predicative and on this account (according to
(29, 1 p. 123) also dispense with the article; e.g. Jude 4 Trapeis-
ovo-av T i v 9 av$pa>7rot, o t TToAai Trpoyeypajajuevot ets TOVTO TO /cpt/xa
dc cjScis ; cf. Luke xviii. 9 ; Gal. i. 7 ; Col. ii. 8 ; Luke vii. 32 o>oioi
irutStoi? Tot<? cv dyopa xa^/xcvots, John v. 2 [Lchm. Treg.] rru> iv TOIS
'Icpoo-oA. /foAv/x/3?j0pa, rj eTriAeyo/xcn? BTyflco-Sa, Acts XX. 19 /x,tTa 8a*pvan/
KCU Tretpaoyxon' TWI/ o~iyx,/3avTa>v /u.oi, Rom. ii. 14 Wvi) TO. /Jirj vofjiov l^ovTa,
ix. #0 ; Gal. iii. 21 et e$66r) vo/xos 6 Svva/xcvos ^woTronJo-at, 6W(os av yv
etc Jas. iv. 14 O.T/US (pred.) CCTTC, rj Trpos oAiyov <^aivo/xK>7, Acts xix. 11
8wa/xets Te ov TO.S TvxovVas cTTotet etc. ; and with the omitted participle
of eti'cu : Phil. ii. 9 l^apiararo avTw ovo/za TO v?rp TTO.V ovo/u,a sc. ov. Cf.
besides, the examples given in 144, 9 f ) p. 295.
B. 125, N. 2; H. 659 d. ; C. 523 c. ; S. p. xxxiii. sq.
That the partitive genitive (which, however, frequently ap-
pears in a resolved form, see 132, 6 p. 158) is not inserted between
the subst. and art. is plain from many examples, as rfj -n-pw-nj rwv
dv|U(DV, rfj jaia TWV cra^S/JaTcov, ot TrpwTOt TOV Aaov, TO TrA^os TWI/ /xa^T^rwv,
T^S TroAeojs, etc. Yet discrimination by means of position between the
partitive and the ordinary Gen. is almost wholly at an end in the
N. T., since in the Gospels and in the Rev. there hardly exists an
94 ARTICLE IN LIEU Of A SUBSTANTIVE. [125
instance of insertion (of the ordinary Gen.), and in the Acts and the
Epp. also the modern position grows more and more frequent, as f)
cKTrArjpcoo-is TWV T7/x6/D(3i/ TOV dyvtcT/Aou (Acts xxi. 26), 6 fo/aos TOV irvev-
/ACIT09 rrj<s o/7S ev Xpicrrw (Rom. viii. 2), etc.
B. 125, N. 4; H. 535; C. 523 b. ; D. p. 360; J. 458, Obs. 2.
An adjective without the art., standing either before or
after a substantive with the art., is predicative.
Examples (besides John v. 36 adduced under 1 p. 91) are Mark
Viii. 17 7T7r(OpCO/XV7yV ^T TT]V KttpSt'ttV V/ACJV, Heb. VU. 24 aTTOLpd^aTOV
e^ei r^v lepcoorvnyv, 1 Pet. ii. 12 TVJV dvaorpo^TJv tyx<3i> I^OVTCS KaXrjV, iv.
8 ; Heb. v. 1 4 ; 1 Cor. xi. 5 aKaTa/caAvTrra) TV} K0aX^, Acts xxvi. 24
/xeyaAfl TTJ <o>vfl ^ow, xiv. 10 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] ; Eph. i. 18 7r<co-
Ticrju,evovs TOVS o<#aA/xov's, on which passage compare also 145, 6
p. 317.
B. 125, N. 5; H. 536sq.; C. 523; D. 444; J. 459.
Examples of the predicative position in the case of oXos are
countless, see the lexicons ; but in the case of the other adjs. mentioned
(aKpos, /ACO-OS, co-^aTos) none occur, because the later language is wont
to employ them no longer as adjectives but as substantives, and hence
to frame its expressions by means of the Neuter of the adj. with a
Genitive following ; as, TO a/cpov TOV SaKrvAov or rrjs pa^38ov, iv /t(ra>
n)s avXrjs (not Iv ^arr) TTJ avXfy or avrwv or TO>V Trpeor/^urepwv, ecus
cr\a.Tov TTJS y^5, Heb. i. 1 CTT* ecr^arov TWI/ ^yaepwv (Rec. ea-^artov). On
the other hand, with the last-mentioned word (^/xcpa) the common
adjectival position is often found, but in the other sense : eV TYJ foxa-Ty
^/xcpa not at the end of the day, but on the last day ; so TOV eo-^arov
Koopdvrrjv, rj ecr^a-H? irXdvrj, etc.
ARTICLE IN LIEU OF A SUBSTANTIVE, OR WITH A SUBSTANTIVE TO BE
SUPPLIED.
B. 125, 5; H. 563; C. 527; D. p. 356; J. 436.
In the N. T., besides the common omission of son and
daughter when the art. is followed by a Genitive (cf. 123,
8 p. 81 sq.), that of /ArJTrjp is also to be noticed, Mark xvi. 1 ;
Luke xxiv. 10 Mapla 77 TOV 'latccbftov, Mark xv. 47 Mapia 77
(complete in Matt, xxvii. 56 ; Mark xv. 40) ; of
ij, Matt. i. 6 IK T% TOV Ovplov ; probably also of aeXc/>6?,
Luke vi. 16 ; Acts i. 13 'JouSa? 'IaKa>/3ov (cf. Jude 1 ; Winer,
R.W.B. under Judas, I. p. 632 ; Credner, Einl. p. 613 ; on the
other hand, Meyer in 11. cc.), and of TraTijp in the passage
Acts vii. 16 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] (cf. Gen. xxxiii. 19; xxxiv. 6, etc.).
125.] ARTICLE IN LIEU OF A SUBSTANTIVE." 95
The designation, so frequent especially in the later profane literature, 83
of a person in a broad sense by the phrase ot Trept rtva, strictly 8
speaking does not occur in the N. T. For in Acts xiii. 13 oi ?rpt
JUavXov plainly means, Paul and his companions (Vulg. Paulus et
qui cum eo) ; in xxi. 8 the expression has been discarded ; and John
xi. 1 9 is doubtful : Tdf. ?rpos TO.? TT/H MdpOav KOL Mapta/x, (Lchm. [Treg.,
cod. Sin.] Trpos rr)v M. K. M.). In Mark iv. 10 ; Luke xxii. 49 oi Trcpt
avrov is to be understood quite literally, they that were about him.
On the other hand, the art. ot with a followingGenitive
is often found in the sense of ' the people, adherents, etc., of a person,'
as Rom. xvi. 10, 11 ot 'Apto-ro^SovAov, oi Nap/ctWov, 1 Cor. i. 11 ot XAo'iys,
Acts xvi. 33 auros (6 Seoyxo<uAa) xat ot avrov, for which in vs. 32 we
have ot ev rf} OIK to, avrov ; and transferred to the followers of Christ,
1 Cor. xv. 23 ; Gal. v. 24 ot TOV Xptorov. But in Luke v. 33 /^aft/rat
is to be supplied from what precedes, and in Mark ii. 18 ot <E>apto-atot
is the better reading [so Tdf. Treg., after fit etc.].
REMARK. Respecting the (doubtful) combinations ets $Sov, /
, see 132, 27 p. 171.
B. 125, N. 6; H. 563; C. 528; D. p. 357; J. p. Ill sq.
In general, the designation of persons and things by the
simple article (ot, TO, TO) with a Genitive or an adverbial
limitation following, is by no means uncommon ; and the ex-
amples from the classics may be matched in abundance from
the N. T. Thus with a Gen. following : ra Kaicrapos, TCL rf]s
crap/cos, TCL TOV irvev /-taro?, ra TOV TraTpos /JLOV, TO, T?}? avptov^ TO
TT}? av /c^9, TO TI}? a\7)dov<$ TrapoitfJbtaS) TO, kavT&v tyjTovaiv, etc. ;
with an adverbial adjunct following: oi lv Ty 'JouSata, cnro
KtXt/c/a?, airb 'IraX/as, etc TT}? Kaicrapos ot/c/a?, eV T^ ol/cia oi
K TrepiTO/jLrjs, e/c TTicrTecos TO, irepl e'yae, Trpo? Trjv 'xpeiav, KCLTCL
TOV IlavXov, SLCL TOV O-CD/JLCLTOS TO K pepovs (1 Cor. xiii. 10 [A.V.
that which is in part~], Luth. Stiickwerk') , TO e% vpcov (cf. 128,
2 p. 123), Ta 7T/309 Trjv dvpav (Mark ii. 2 the entrance-half), etc.
B. 125, 6 and 7; H. 492; C. 526; D. 400; J.
The same holds true in reference to the use of adverbs with 10
the art. in lieu of adjectives, as ev T&> vvv icaipip, 6 ToVe /co'cr/409,
6 ecrco av9p(t)7ro<>) Trj e^rjs rj/Aepa, rj ava)0v cro<f)la, etc , and with
the omission of the substantive : o TrX^crtW, ot e'fo>, et9 TO irepav,
TCL oTrt'cro), T?) arji^epov^ eTTavpiov, e^9, etc.
REMARK. Far more rarely will adverbs or adverbial phrases be \\
found joined to a subst. that is not provided with the article or
96 ARTICLE BEFORE ENTIRE SENTENCES. [ 125
another attributive, in particular a participle. Such combinations the
language sought to avoid in order to preclude possible misunder-
standings, to which in the other case, by the insertion of the adverbial
qualification between the art. and the subst., the author was not ex-
posed. Yet such combinations have been occasionally permitted,
where the context is of such a nature as to exclude in advance every
ambiguity ; as, for example, in 2 Cor. xi. 23 , f ,q., where /a'vSwoi e/c ycvovs,
cv cp>7/ua, Iv Oa\d(rcrr), fv vtycrTCtais TroAAaKis, iv KOTTOIS 7repto-o-orepa>9,
84 stand in the relation spoken of. But elsewhere, also, especially in the
Epistles, the interpreter has often found himself compelled to refer
adverbial limitations of this sort away from the predicate, and to con-
nect them immediately with preceding or following substantives
destitute of both art. aid attributive, substantives which for the
most part are either abstract terms (that according to 124, 8 p. 89
often stand without the art.), or verbals whose stem-verb is capable
of a similar construction (cf. 2 p. 92). This procedure must be
regarded as the more permissible in the N. T., as we have seen above
(2 p. 91) there are so many combinations likewise grammatically
loose in which the adverbial adjunct is subjoined to the subst. without
the repetition of the article. Thus Mark (i. 23) says briefly avOpw-rros
v irvevfjiaTi aKaOdprto a man (afflicted) with an unclean spirit, in 1 Cor.
xii. 31 KaO' V7repfio\r]v 6SoV is explained by an excellent way, Eph. vi. 23
O. TTIOT<OS, Gal. V. 5 7ri/v/x,aTi c/c Trtarcws, 1 Tim. ii. 7 StSacr/caAos
ev TTiWet KCU oX^Bua (cf. 131, 6 p. 149), Rom. xiv. 17 x a P<* * v
dyiw (according to 133, 23 p. 185), etc.
B.125,N.8; H. 552 a.; C. 529; D.p.502; J. 456.
12 Besides the adverbial expression TO Xonrov (Matt. xxvi. 45, etc.),
AOITTOV, also, without the art. is often used adverbially; see 128, 2
p. 123. The following also stand adverbially : TO K<x0' fjfMcpav Luke
xix. 47 ; Acts xvii. 11 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7], TO TrAetorov 1 Cor. xiv. 27, TO
e v/xwv Rom. xii. 18, Ta TroAAa xv. 22.
THE ARTICLK BEFORE ENTIRE SENTENCES.
B. 125,N.9; C. 491; D. 400; J. 457.
13 The practice of introducing entire clauses by the neuter
article TO is not uncommon in the N. T. It occurs, 1) before
passages quoted in full or in part, which in this way are made
parts of the sentence ; and, 2) before indirect interrogative
clauses, especially in Luke.
Examples of 1) are Matt. xix. 18 TO Ov <ovcvcrs, ov /x,oix*vcr<; etc.,
Gal. v. 14 6 vo/xos ev evl Aoyo> TTCTrArypeoTai, V TO> 'AyaTrryorcis etc., Rom.
xiii. 9 ; Eph. iv. 9 (TO aveftrj), Heb. xii. 27 (TO en a7ra), Luke xxii.
125.] ART. WITH SUBSTS. CONNECTED BY CONJUNCTIONS. 97
37 Tdf. [Treg., cod. Sin.] ; of 2) Luke i. 62 eveVevoi/ TO> irarpl TO rt
av @\OL KaXeio-Oai avro, ix. 46 ; xix. 48 ; xxii. 2 t,rjrovv TO TTWS di/e'A.<o-
iriv O.VTOV, xxii. 23, 24; Acts iv. 21 ; v. 24 (TO ri yei/oiro, according to
Sin.), xxii. 30. Cf. also Rom. viii. 26 ; 1 Thess. iv. 1. See the com-
mentaries respecting the extremely difficult passage Mark ix. 23, which
according to Lchm. (praef. I. p. 44 ; II. p. 7) needs emendation, and is
left dubious by the MSS.
THE ARTICLE WITH SEVERAL SUBSTANTIVES CONNECTED BY CONJUNCTIONS.
B. 125, 10; C. 534; J. 859, 9; cf S. p. xv.
It will probably never be possible, either in reference to .4
profane literature or to the N. T., to bring down to rigid rules
which have no exception, the inquiry when with several sub-
stantives connected by conjunctions the article is repeated,
and when it is not. Nevertheless, it is the business of the
grammarian to set forth certain established linguistic principles 35
as the foundation of grammatical usage, and to trace back
deviations even, as far as possible, to their analogies.
From this fact alone it follows, that in view of the subjective and
arbitrary treatment of the art. on the part of individual writers (cf.
124, 2 p. 85), it is very hazardous in particular cases to draw im-
portant inferences, affecting the sense or even of a doctrinal nature,
from the single circumstance of the use or the omission of the article ;
see e.g. Tit. ii. 13; Jude 4 ; 2 Pet. i. 1 and the expositors of these
passages, and cf. 17c) below, p. 100. Such inferences are the more
precarious, as, moreover, amid the conflict of variations, the reading
often can hardly be settled as yet ; and the recent editors, therefore,
differ very much on this point.
1) If the connected substantives are of the same gender and 15
number and without attributives, it holds as a general
rule that, a) when the substantives may be regarded as parts of
one whole, as terms belonging together and related or comple-
mentary, it is enough to use the article but once ; but, b) if
they denote contrasted, or at least independent, objects or
notions, to be conceived of as separate, the article is repeated.
Nevertheless, the language is by no means bound by this rule,
well founded though it is in the nature of things. The ex-
planation of this, however, lies not in the negligent style of the
writers, but in the impossibility, as a matter of fact, of drawing
a sharp boundary between the two cases. In particular, (a)
in the first case we often find the article repeated, because the
13
98 ART. WITH SUBSTS. CONNECTED BY CONJUNCTIONS. [ 125.
writer, even when the identity is almost complete, may, if he
will, mention the members as members, consequently each by
itself, without incurring the danger of being ambiguous. In
point of fact, at least half of the examples adduced by Winer
p. 128 (122) consist of such cases, where similar ideas are con-
nected and yet each has the article. On the other hand, (b)
in the second case, i.e. with members which are necessarily to
be thought of as separate, we but very rarely find only a single
article used, since in such circumstances the mind demands
the repetition of the article, and its omission can only take
place where the following term, viewed by itself, may also
for some reason be used without the art.
The remarks which have been made will be elucidated by
the following examples :
86 on a). That with terms of kindred nature the art. is now omitted,
now repeated, even by one and the same writer, is seen in the nu-
merous combinations of the words dpx^pets, ypa/x/xarets, Trpeaftvrepoi,
Oapio-atoi, in the Gospels. Thus they occur, for instance, in Matt.
(according to the text of Lchm.) with but a single art. in ii. 4 ; xvi. 21 ;
xx. 18 ; xxvi. 47 ; xxvii. 3, 41, with a repetition of the art. in xxi.
15, 23, 45; xxvi. 3; xxvii. 1, 12, 20, 62; and so, too, in the other
Gospels. Further, in Luke xv. 6 we read 0-vy/caA.ci rovs e^i'Aovs /ecu
TOVS yetrovas, but directly afterwards in vs. 9 ras <t'A.a? /cat yetrovas
(where Rec. adds a second ras) ; likewise also with associated proper
names, Acts xv. 22 crw TW HavXu KO.I Bapva/3a, but in xiii. 43 etc. TW
II. KCU TW B. Other instances of the repetition of the art. with
words which are manifestly related or belong together are Mark vi. 21 ;
xiii. 17 ; Luke i. 53; xi. 39, 42 ; xii. 11 ; xx. 20 ; John ii. 14 (cf. Luke
xix. 45 Lchm.) ; Acts xv. 4, 6 (cf. xv. 2) ; Rom. vi. 19 ; Col. ii. 3 Tdf.
([buted.8] Lchm.[Treg. M] om. second T?}S) ; Rev. vi. 15 ; vii. 12, etc.
on b). On the other hand, that in the second case the art. is almost
indispensable, we see plainly from Acts xxvi. 30 aveVr?? 6 /3a<riAei>s KCU
6 ^ye/Awv, where if the second art. were omitted we should think of
but a single person. Or if we look at 1 Cor. iii. 8 6 <f>vTtvw KO.I 6
TTOTIWV ei> curiy, or compare Mark xi. 9 01 Trpoayovres /cat ot aKoXovOovvres
with 2 John 9 6 Trpoaywv KCLL pr) /xevwv Iv rfj 8t8a^, we recognize the
difference between the two forms of expression instantly. See more
instances of the legitimate repetition of the art. in this case in Winer
128 (122), many of which, however, belong to 1 p. 90.
16 REMARK. Where several terms are predicated of one and
the same object, the article of necessity can only be used once,
because otherwise uncertainty would arise resoecting the meaning.
125.] ART. WITH SUBSTS. CONNECTED BY CONJUNCTIONS. 99
This appears further from the phrases, 6 0eos KCU Trar^p Col. iii. 17 ;
Eph. i. 3 ; Phil. iv. 20 ; 2 Cor. i. 3 ; 1 Pet. i. 3 ; Jas. iii. 9, etc. ; rov
Kvpiov *ai o-om/pos 2 Pet. ii. 20 Tdf. [Treg.] ; iii. 2, etc., Mark vi. 3
6 wos Maptas /cat dSeA^os 'la/cw/Sov, Acts iii. 14 rov aytov KCU StWiov
rjpvtjo-ao-Oe, Tit. i. 15, etc. Likewise with participles used substari-
tively, John xxi. 24 6 /xaprupwv Trcpi TOVTWV KOI ypd\(/a<s ravra, Gal. i. 7
ot rapd(T(TovT<5 lu/xas Kat $eAovres etc., Phil. iii. 3 ot . . . Xarpevovres Kai
Kavxwpevoi, 1 Tim. iv. 3 ; Luke vi. 49 ; 2 John 9 ; see other examples
belonging to this head under 17 and 18 below. This is the case, also,
even with contrasted predicates (with a\\d) 2 Thess. ii. 1 2. On the
other hand, Acts xvii. 18 ; 2 Thess. iii. 2 ; 1 Tim. iv. 7, etc., may be
regarded simply as the insertion of two adjectives.
2) If the connected members are of the same gender and If
number, arid a) one of them, no matter which, is provided with
an attributive limitation which is to be referred to the
two (or more) members, as a rule the article is not repeated ;
or b) if the attributive is connected with one of the members
and not to be referred to the other, the art. is used with each
member ; or c) if each member is provided with its own attrib-
utive, the case is essentially the same as that above in 15, and
the art. is either repeated or dropped, under the same circum- 87
stances as there. Since, however, examples to the contrary are
not wanting under a) and b) also, it is plain that all rules of
this sort, though grammatically well-founded, are not altogether
unyielding ; but that, over and above them, the law of pers-
picuity, or the writer's desire in a particular case to render
more perceptible either the independence of the members or
their similarity and connection, has great influence over the
use and the omission of the article.
What has been said will be rendered clear by the following
examples :
on a) Without the repetition of the art.: Rom. i. 20 ^ T d'tSios
avrov Swa/xts KCU ^eior^?, 2 Cor. i. 6 ; Heb. iii. 1 ; Phil. i. 19, 20 Kara
rrjv cLTTOKapaooKLav KOL eATu'Sa /xov, 1 Thess. ii. 12 ; iii. 7 CTTI Trdcrr) ry
dvdyKrj Kat OXtytL fj/jiuv Sta rrjs V/AOJV Trtcrrew?, 1 Pet. ii. 25 ; 2 Pet. i. 10,
1 1 ; ii. 20 Lchni. [Tdf.], Eph. iii. 5 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7], etc. Exceptions :
Eph. iii. 10 rats dp^at? Kat rats e^ovcrtats ev rots cTrovpavtots, iii. 12 ;
1 Cor. xi. 27 rov crw/xaros /cat TOV at/xaros rov /cvpt'ov, Acts xxv. 15 ;
Rev. xiii. 10. In the account of the expulsion of the traders from
the temple we read in Matt. (xxi. 12), according to the rule, TOVS
KCU dyopaoi/Tas Iv TW lepaJ ; on the other hand, in Mark xi.
100 ART. WITH SUBSTS. CONNECTED BY CONJUNCTIONS. [ 125
15 TOVS moAowras KCU rovs dyopdovras Iv r<3 tepa) ; in Luke xix. 45
Lchm. again, according to the rule, rovs TrwAowras cv avra) /cat a,yopa-
ovTas; but in John ii. 14 rous TrwAowras /3da< KCU rrpoftara Kal Trepto-Tepas
KCU TOUS Kep/AttTto-ras Ka^ry/xeVov?, where Ka^ryjaeVov? manifestly belongs
to both classes, but perspicuity required the repetition of the article.
on b) With the repetition of the art. : when the attributive limi-
tation is used with the first member; Mark vi. 21 rots /aeywrruo-iv
OLVTOV KCU rots xtAiapxois, 1 Cor. i. 28 ; v. 10 (where with four members
the art. quite regularly is repeated only once, since the limiting genitive
rov KOOT/XOV roi/rou belongs by position only to rots Tropvots, although
according to the sense it may be referred to the following members
also, which again, as expressing kindred ideas, have the art. in common),
Acts vi. 13. When the attributive limitation stands with the second
member ; Luke i. 58 ot Trcptot/cot KCU ol cruyyevas avrr}s, viii. 24 ; Acts
vi. 4 ; xiii. 43 ; 1 Tim. iv. 6 rJ}? TriVrcco? KCU rfjs KaA^s 8i8acrKaAta9,
2 Cor. xiii. 2 rots Trpor}fj.apT-rjK6cnv KCU rots AOITTOIS Tracnv. Exceptions
(respecting which cf. the Remark, 1 6 above) : Col. ii. 8 rfjs <iAocro<ia<;
KCU Keif's a.7raT^9, 2 John 9. Respecting Acts xv. 23 Lchm. [Tdf.
Treg.], see Meyer. It is apparent, moreover, that ambiguity is in
every instance avoided by the position of the attributive limitation
(either before or after the subst.).
on c) (With all which the examples in 15 are to be compared)
with the repetition of the art.: Mark xi. 15 ras rpaTre'^ag TOJV KoAAv-
/2iOTOL>v Kai ras Ka0e8pas TUJV TrwAowrwv, 1 Thess. iii. 11 ; 1 John iv. 6
TO Trvev^a r}9 aAryfoias KOL TO Trvev/xa TTJS irXavt]^ Rev. xi. 4 ; without
the repetition of the art. : 2 Thess. i. 12 TOV 6eov ^/xcov Kai Kvptov 'I. Xp.
cf. 2 Pet. i. 1, etc.; Tit. ii. 13 (see 14 p. 97), Phil. i. 19 (because
vfjiwv is to be referred to both members), iii. 10 Lchm. [Treg.] (where
the addition of T^V is not at all necessary, at least grammatically),
Jude 4 (see 14 p. 97), 2 Cor. i. 3 6 Trarrjp ra>v ot/crtp/xwv KCU Ofbs Tracnys
TrapaKATJo-etos (according to 16 p. 98 sq.), 1 Tim. vi. 15 (cf. 16 p. 98 sq.).
88 3) If the connected nouns differ in gender, the article
18 is as a rule repeated, since in such a case for two (or more)
nouns, whether kindred or dissimilar, one article is no longer
suflficiei t ; thus, Eph. vi. 2 T///.O, TOJ> Trarepa (rov /cat rr]v /j,r)Tepa,
Luke x. 21 Kvpue TOV ovpavov teal r% 77)9, xiv. 26 ; Rom. viii. 2
vofjios 7-779 a/AapT LCLS Kal TOV OavaTov, xvi. 17 ; Col. iv. 1 ; Tit. i.
15, etc., and there ought properly to be no deviation from this
usage.
Only in very rare cases does the language take the liberty to deviate,
viz. where it makes a decided gain in perspicuity by omitting the
article, as with substantives so closely united as to make almost a unity
126.J THE ARTICLE AS A DEMONSTRATIVE. 101
(6 fjitv o-w<povu>i/ KOLL o-ux^poyoTxra Plato), or when according to 2) a. an
attributive limitation is to be referred to both nouns, or further, where
the addition of the art. would have occasioned inconvenience in some
way, as Luke xiv. 23 eis TO.? oSovs KCU <pay/Aovs, Mark xii. 33 Travnav
rtov oAoKcumjo/maroov Kat $vcria>v (where the addition of TWV after the liec.
is positively wrong, on account of TTOLVTW which is manifestly to be
referred to both), Luke i. 6 ; Col. ii. 22 Kara TO. ei/raX/xara Kat StSacrKa-
Xtas TCOV dv^/owTTWv, Rev. v. 12 rrjv 8wa/xti/ KCU TT\OVTOV /cat cro<f>ca.v /cat
i&Xyv etc., Acts xxi. 25 TO re etSwXo^vrov /cat atyaa Kat TTVLKTOV Kat iropvtiav
(cf., on the other hand, xv. 20 Tdf.).
4) If the connected nouns differ also in number, the
genius of the language renders the repetition of the article
still more necessary (Col. ii. 13 ev ro<? TrapaTTTCDfjuaaw Kal rfj
a/cpoflvo-TLa TVJS aap/cbs VJM&V^ Eph. ii. 3, etc.), and no examples
to the contrary are found in the N. T. That 1 Cor. iv. 9
establishes no exception, Winer 127 (121), deWette, and others
have already observed. 1
THE ARTICLE (PREPOSITIVE AND POSTPOSITIVE) AS A DEMONSTRATIVE.
B. 126, 2 and 3; H. 525; C. 518; D. p. 345; J. 444.
The use of the prepositive article standing alone as a de-
monstrative, which was always rather poetic, and accordingly
restricted in ordinary prose to single phrases, is still more rare
in the N. T., and, strictly speaking, appears there only in the
combinations 6 pev and 6 8e, (for the poetic quotation in Acts
xvii. 28 cannot be taken into account). But even these com-
binations, also, have been retained only where they take the
place of the subject, and moreover are in the Masc. or Fern.
1 On this whole subject cf. Jatho, Brief an d. Phil. Exc. IV., who, however, has
arranged all the examples under the single classification of union and separation
of ideas. Important and influential as this distribution in itself considered is, it
is nevertheless always an erroneous and one-sided procedure to group the phe-
nomena of speech only according to such abstract classifications, a procedure
which is the more detrimental to grammar as, owing to their elasticity, it is easy to
succeed in bringing under them the great majority of phenomena. Form and
substance have always, with the N. T. authors as well as with profane writers,
at least an equal share in the structure of discourse; and to deny the effect of
all the more external influences upon the choice of expressions would be to deprive
authors of the instincts of speech. But to lay down the above classification as the
only one leads to a disregard of the formal principle; a disregard which betrays
itself, among other ways, in the above-mentioned essay in this : that the author
(on p. 79) unhesitatingly lays down the principle that in applying this rule it does
not make the least difference whether the nouns to be connected are of the same
or different gender, (why not, then, number also ?J.
1C 2 THfc ARTICLE AS A DEMONSTRATIVE. [ i2&
o, 17, o/, at ; so that all the cases beginning with r (TO and ru
included) must be left out of view. In the oblique cases, as
well as in the Nom. neuter, the form of the postpositive, more
usual in later prose, everywhere makes its appearance ; so that
now all these combinations begin with the rough breathing :
6 Be, ol fjLb (Heb. xii. 10), a p& (Matt. xiii. 4), 6 p,ev . . . o Be
(ib. 8), bv, c5, 01)9 ^ez>, etc.
The only exception, and that, too, more apparent than real, is Eph.
iv. 11 (eSw/cev TOVS /xev aTTOfrroXovs, TOUS Be. Trpo<f>r)Ta<s etc.) ; for in Mark
xii. 5 the reading TOVS //.eV is now set aside by MS. authority [Sin. also].
In the Nom. Masc. the form of the postpositive sometimes appears
instead of that of the prepositive, e.g. os /A/ . . . os 8e Matt. xxii. 5 ;
Rom. xiv. 5, 2 ; 1 Cor. xi. 21, or the MSS. vary, as in 1 Cor. vii. 7 ;
John v. 11 Lchm. [Treg.].
B. 126,4; H. 5257-; C. 618e.; D. 390; J. 444.
2 Examples of this use (of 6 Se alone as a connective in narration in
reference to an object already named) can be brought forward in great
number, yet only from the historical writings of the N. T. Let it be
noticed, too, that in this case only the forms of the prepositive (6, 17,
ot, at) are chosen, hence the exception (John v. 11 Lchm. [Treg.] os
B aTreKptOf)) appears suspicious ; even here cod. Sin. has 6 8e as usual ;
on the other hand, in one other passage (Mark xv. 23 [Tdf. Treg.]) both
the oldest MSS. give 6s Se', but in opposition to [nearly] all other MS.
authorities. The combination /cat os, KOL ot (B. 126, 5) does not occur.
B. 126, N. 4; H. 525 a.; C. 518; D. p. 576; J.764.
3 Of the variations usual in classic Greek instead of 6 /xeV ... 6 Se, the
following are found in the N. T. : Matt. xvi. 14 Lchm. ol piv . . . ot
B (Tdf. [Treg.] oAAot 8e) . . . erepot Se', John vii. 12 Lchm. [Treg.] ot
/xeV . . . cSAAot Sc (Tdf. oAAot, see 149, 13 b) p. 366) cf. 1 Cor. xii. 8 ;
Acts xvii. 18 Ttves .. . ot Se, Mark iv. 4 o /xeV . .. KCU oAAo, Luke viii. 5
o /xeV . . . KCU ertpov. On 1 Cor. xii. 28 see 149, 12 b) p. 365.
Further, under this head belong the various and rather Hebraistic
90 constructions with els (^nx . . . inx Exod. xvii. 12 ; 1 Sam. x. 3), of
which the following approximate most nearly to Greek usage : 6 ets
. . . 6 Se cTepos Luke vii. 41 cf. Acts xxiii. 6 ; less so : 6 ets ... /cat 6 Irepos
Matt. vi. 24 ; Luke xvi. 13 ; xvii. 35 Lchm., etc. ; without the art.
ets ... Kat 6 erepos Matt. vi. 24 ; Luke xvi. 13 ; xvii. 34 Tdf. [Treg.]
etc., /xt'a [17 //.t'a Tdf., cod. Sin.] . . . 77 Se erepa xvii. 35 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] ;
also 6 ets ... 6 oAAos (but in reference to the last two of seven) Rev.
xvii. 10 ; cf. 127, 33 p. 122. Those constructions seem to come
nearest to the Hebrew usage in which ets is repeated. As, however,
127.J PRONOUNS. 103
according to recent editors the article in this case is always
dropped, and the expression is employed in reference to more than
two members, its origin may quite as well be found in that mode of
speech, natural to common people, which arises from a simple enumer-
ation of the several members (just as in German) ; as, ets . . . KCU ets
Matt. xx. 21; xxiv. 40; Mark xv. 27; John xx. 12; Gal. iv. 22;
compare with this the circumlocution for aXX-ijXatv p. 31. Luke uses
this combination only in the single passage ix. 33 (as in the parallel
passages Matt. xvii. 4 ; Mark ix. 5), in an enumeration of more than
two members. After what has been said, the reading of Grsb. Lchm.
etc. in that passage of critical difficulty Mark iv. 8, 20 according to
which in both verses the word Iv (without the art.) is thrice repeated
gains much in intrinsic probability, [Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin. give ets thrice
in vs. 8, Iv in vs. 20] ; see p. 30. Lastly, in Gal. iv. 24 the enumer-
ation, begun with /xta //,>, is continued in vs. 26 by another and similar
construction which connects closely with what precedes.
PRONOUNS.
ovros AND 68e, Ixeivos.
B. 127, 1 b. ; H. 679; C. 544; D. p. 379; J. 657 sq.
The difference spoken of between OUTO? and oSe (that ouro? '
refers ordinarily to what precedes, 6Se to what follows) , although
individual cases in support of it might be adduced from the
N. T. (Rev. ii. 1, 8, 12, etc.), has lost there its general validity,
inasmuch as the use of oSe (rotoerSe, rocroaSe) is quite isolated,
in fact doubtful (Luke xvi. 25 Grsb. ; Acts xv. 23 Grsb. ; 2 Cor.
xii. 19 Grsb.). The N. T. language employs in all cases
almost exclusively the other demonstrative forms ovro?, rotoOros,
etc.
' In James iv. 13 tn^uepov /ecu avpiov Tropevcro/xe&x ets r^v8e rrjv 2
TroAiv, according to the interpreters rr}vSe has the force of an indefinite :
this yr that. As proof of this use, a passage is cited from Plut. Symp.
1, 6, 1 where ryvSe rty vjpipav is thought to have this signification.
Such, however, is not the case ; on the contrary, in Plutarch, as
everywhere in Greek authors, the pronoun has its full
demonstrative force. Accordingly we are not warranted in this single
biblical passage in taking the pronoun in any other than the demon-
strative sense. The apostle intended, to be sure, any city at option,
yet in thought he could point it out definitely ; very much as we, too, 9
say in a similar case : into this city here (Germ, in diese Stadt da).
The familiar Latin usage, according to which, when two 3
objects are spoken of, whatever be the position of the words,
104 PRONOUNS. [ 127
hie refers to that which at the moment is nearest the thought
of the writer and ille to the more distant substantive, is quite
applicable in Greek prose to the two demonstratives ouro? and
e/ceivos. In the N. T., however, there are but few passages
where both demonstrative pronouns make reference in one
and the same proposition to two different ideas previously
mentioned (see Luke xviii. 14 ; John v. 38, and cf. Jas. iv. 15).
In these passages, as well as in others where ouro? and e'/cet^o?
occur alone, it can be plainly seen that OUTO? always refers
to the leading subject directly under discussion, and e/cet^o? to
another, ordinarily more distant. Yet the writer in using
euro? does not allow himself to be disturbed by the accidental
proximity of another substantive, especially when the con-
nection manifestly excludes every false reference ; and on the
other hand, he can for the same reason safely make reference
by means of eiceivos to an object which as respects the thought
is subordinate, though as respects position it is nearer. Cf.
my Article on eicelvos in the Stud. u. Krit. for 1860 pp. 505 sqq.,
and the supplement in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. Bd. V. pp. 204 sqq.
In Acts vii. 19 ; 2 John 7, ovros does not occasion the slightest
doubt or ambiguity. In 1 John v. 20, also, an impartial interpreter
can refer OVTOS only to 0cos, and avrrj in Acts viii. 26 only to ^ 68o's
(for this is the subject of discourse, not Tda which is used merely to
designate the way more precisely). Just as plainly does tVeu/os in
Acts iii. 13 refer to Pilate, and in Matt. xvii. 27 to o-rar^p. Acts iv.
10 sq. may serve to prove how little is to be conceded to the external
position, and how, when the connection is plain of itself, the author
confides in the reader's good sense. Here there was occasion enough
for perspicuity's sake to use the two demonstratives alternately ; yet
OVTOS stands three times in succession : first (ci/ TOVTW) referring to
ovopaTi 'lyarov (although 6 0eds just precedes), then (ovros) to the
lame man, and the third time (OVTOS) again to 'Ir/trovs.
There is an analogy to the familiar Latin use of hie also in speci-
fications of time (ante hos quinque annos) in Acts i. 5 ov /ACTOL TroAAas
ravra<s ^//.e'pas after not many days from this ; where, moreover, the
position of the words (instead of per ov TroAAas) is to be noticed.
Similar instances are found in the (later) Greek writers, see Winer
161 (152).
B. 127, Id.; H.810; C. 551f.; J 817,4.
The omission of the demonstrative bef }re the relative is so
common in the N.T., that it is hardly worth while to adduce examples
127.] CONSTB. AD SYN. WITH DEMONSTRATIVES.
of this general custom. That in this respect the writers have made
the classic usage quite their own may be seen from the following
passages (the examples where attraction occurs besides, will be found
143, 10 p. 286): John xviii. 26 o-vyyevqs o>v ov a7rcKoi//ev IIcTpos TO )2
coTiov, Mark XV. 12 Tdf. rt fle'Xcre TTOI^CTCO ov Xeyere TOV /3ao-iXea TCOV
'Iov8atW (respecting the Ace. after Troteiv see 131, 6 p. 149) ; and
when the Cases differ : Luke vii. 47 w Se oXiyov d^tcrai, oXiyov ayaira,
John xi. 3 tSc ov (/>iXis do-^evct, Rom. iv. 7 /ota/capioi wv a<f>eOr)<rav at
dvo/xt'ai ; or are dependent, variously, upon prepositions : 2 Cor. xi. 12
iva iv u> Kavxa>VTat evpeflakriv Ka&os /cat ^/xcts (for ev TOV'TU) <5, see 133,
23 p. 185), Rom. x. 14 TTCOS CTrtKaXeo-wi/rat as ov OVK emo-revo-av (for
TOVTOV eis 6V), John vi. 29 iva 7rio-Tvcr^Te eis ov aTrco-retAev (for cts TOVTOV
6V), Heb. vii. 13 c<^' ov Xeyerat ravra, <j!>vXr}5 crt'pa? /xereVx^Kev (for
o^ros cV ov) etc. On Rom. vi. 21 cf. 143, 4 b) p. 282. In this way
many Relative conjunctional phrases have arisen, as dv#' wv because (of
this) that, e ov since (the time that), <!<' ov, c'v w, etc., see 147 under
the several prepositions.
Before Relative adverbs, also, the demonstratives are fre-
quently dropped : and that, too, not only when they express similar
relations (there . . . where, etc.) e.g. John xx. 19 TWV 0v/ocov KKXeio-/xVwv,
OTTOV ^crav 01 fj.a6r)Tai, I Cor. xvi. 6 tva /ae TrpoTre/A^re ov cav Tropevco/xat
(for ov here answers to the question whither, see p. 71), but also dis-
similar (thither . . . where) a case which with the N. T. authors was
very common, in consequence of the want of precision just mentioned
in the use of adverbs of place (cf. besides 151, 2 p. 377) ; as, John
xi. 32 ^X0ev OTTOV r}V, vi. G2 dva/foiVovra OTTOU r)V, Mark V. 40 eio-Tropeverai
6Vov YJV i.e. Kto-e (or e/cet) OTTOV.
Respecting attraction in such cases see 143, 12 p. 287.
B. 127, 1 e. ; J. 667, 2.
Ovros is often used redundantly, or rather in reference to what 6
follows, before propositions introduced by 6Vi; as, John iii. 19 avr>7
o~Ttv f) /cpto-ts, on TO <ws cXr^Xv0ev etc. Rom. ii. 3 Xoyt^ 8 TOVTO . . .
6rt e/c^ev^ TO Kpt^a; 2 Cor. i. 12, etc. Likewise before iva, re-
specting which in its connection 139, 45 p. 240. On the introductory
TOUTO before infinitive clauses see 140, 7 and 9 pp. 262 sq.
COXSTRUCTIO AI7 SYNESIN WITH THE DEMONSTRATIVES, ESPECIALLY WITH
The const' uctio ad synesin as respects gender and number
takes place, as with the relative (see 143, 4 p. 281), so, too,
of course with the demonstrative. As this usage harmonizes
completely with the genius of the Greek language (B. 143, 5;
14
106 CONSTR. AD SYN. WITH DEMONSTRATIVES. [?27.
H. 523 ; C. 498 sq. ; D. p. 362 ; J. 378 sqq.), it is sufficient
here to refer to examples: Matt. i. 21 (\abv . . . OLTGW), xiv.
14 and Mark vi. 46 (o%Xoz/ . . . at/rot?), Matt, xxviii. 19
. . . aurou?), Rom. ii. 14 (eOvvj . . . OVTOI), Mark v. 41
. . . aur?7), 2 Cor. v. 19 (KOO-^OV . . . avrofc), Col. ii. 15 (ra?
apx&s teal ra? e^ovcrias . . . aurov?), 3 Jol/n 9. (^6KK\r)crla . . .
avr&v), Rev. xvii. 16 (ra /cepaTa /cal TO Qypiov . . . OVTOI) ;
1 John v. 21 (reKvia . . . eavTovs Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] eavrd Lchm.
[Tdf. Treg.]) is doubtful. Respecting John xvii. 2 (rrav . . ,
aurofc) see 128, 1 p. 122.
8 REMARK. It is an extension of the above usage (an extension which
occurs likewise with the relative), to employ the most general of the
93 demonstratives (avros) in reference to a substantive not expressly
mentioned but only so far as the sense is concerned con-
tained in what precedes. Thus John viii. 44 t/fevcm/s Icrrlv /cat 6 -n-arrjp
CLVTOV SC. TOV i/fevSovs, 1 Rom. ii. 26 17 d/cpo/3vo-Tia . . . airrov sc. TOV Iv d/cp.
oi/TOs, Eph. v. 12 ra yivopfva VTT avruv sc. the children of darkness, to
be supplied from CTKOTOS and re/cva <O>TOS preceding, John xv. 6 where
we find o-wayouatv aura, owing to the neut. /cAry/na and the plurality
suggested in ris, Gal. iii. 12 6 7roo}o-as avra sc. ra TOV vo'yaou. Not
less customary is it to employ the Plural avrot in referring to the
inhabitants of a place or country already mentioned, e.g. 2 Cor. ii. 12 sq.
(TpwaSa . . . aurots), Matt. iv. 23 (FaXiXata . . . avruv), ix. 35 ; Acts
viii. 5 (!a/xapaas . . . avrots), xx. 2 ; 1 Thess. i. 9 ; so that at length
the plur. avToi comes to denote in an indefinite way the general idea
of people, and the reader is left to judge for himself according to the
connection what persons or classes of men stand in necessary relation
to the substance of the statement. So e.g. in 1 Pet. iii. 14 TOV (froftov
avrojv fAT) (f>oj3rjOrjT, where avT&v means the many suggested in rts 6
KaKwoxov v/xas ; cf. Heb. iv. 8 ; viii. 8 ; xi. 28 ; Acts iv. 5 TOUS ap^ovras
ttvrcov viz. of the Jews, Matt. xii. 9 TTJV crwaywy^v avrtoi/ viz. of the
Galileans (see deWette on iv. 23), Acts x. 10 Trapao-Kfv
viz. the inmates of the house, Matt. xix. 2 0^X01 TroXXot, /cat
avrovs viz. TOVS appwcrrovs avTtov according to xiv. 14; cf. xii. 15 ; Luke
v. 17. According to this usage, too, the indefinite interpretation of
avrwv in Matt. xi. 1, and of avrots in viii. 4; Mark i. 44; Luke v. 14,
seems to be perfectly justified. On the other hand, in Acts xii. 21
1 This is the current interpretation according to the well-established reading.
Yet even ancient expositors took exception to it, and Lachmann, following them,
proposes (Vol. II. p. vii of Preface) to read 6s &v for faav. Then the meaning
would be somewhat altered as follows : whoever spcalceth a lie (cf. Ignat. Ep. interp.
p. 283 ed. Dressel Uv TIS Xpio-rbv apvrjTai v'ibv elvcu 0eov) speaketh his own peculiai
language, because his father also (6 8idpo\os) is a liar.
127.] THE USE OF THE PRONOUN avnfc. 107
Trpo? avrovs means definitely to the Tyrians and Siclonians
(vs. 20).
THE USE OF THE PRONOUN avros.
B. 127, 2 and N. 1 ; H. 668; C. 5401.; D. p. 375; J. 656.
No pronoun appears more frequently in the Scriptures of
the Old and New Testaments than avros ; indeed, this pronoun
is employed to such excess (cf. 26 below p. 118, and 129, 12
p. 131, 130, 2 p. 142, 145, 1 p. 314), that it contributes
essentially to the peculiar character which distinguishes biblical
from classical Greek.
AS respects the pronoun's signification, the ordinary rules
(B. p. 307 ; H. 669 ; C. 540 sq. ; D. p. 462 ; J. 656) hold
good in the main ; but in the Nominative there is a notice-
able departure from classic usage. Winer 150 (141 sq.),
Fritzsche (ad Matt. p. 47), and others assert, indeed, that (as
in the classics) aurd? in the Nominative never stands for the
unemphatic Ae, inasmuch as then it is used, either 1) for Jesus
in contrast with his disciples, or 2) with a certain emphasis,
or 3) only in definite antithesis to other objects. Although it
is true that the majority of passages allow themselves to be
distributed among these three classes, yet we have not, by
doing this, demonstrated the agreement of the biblical use
with the classical ; and besides, there are passages enough
where there is absolutely no hint of emphasis or of antithesis
and common classic prose would in no case have employed
auro?, an assertion which can be made also even of most of
the passages where avros represents Christ.
We will endeavor to make what we have said plain by a number
of examples from the Gospels, especially from Luke, with whom the
Norn, is most frequent. The language of Luke i. 22 respecting Zach-
arias : KOL O.VTOS rjv Siavevwv airrots, in the classics could only mean he
also or he himself. It is, however, the simple continuation of the
narrative. And should any one wish to assume an antithesis because
other persons were previously spoken of, the antithesis is only such a
one as the Greek language ordinarily conveyed by 6 8; otherwise we
should be compelled to maintain t aat there is such an antithesis every-
where, in every narrative, provided only several persons are spoken
of. Further in ii. 28, where it is said of Simeon KOL avros eSe'^aro avro
etc., KOL avros might be omitted altogether. In xvi. 24, whe^e it is
said of the rich man KOL avros </>a)V7Jcras etTrev etc., either 6 Se or sirr ply
KCU might have been used ; for just before, too, he was the subject,
108 THE USE OF THE PRONOUN avros, [ 127.
and the mention of Lazarus involves no antithesis. Luke xix. 2
Lchm. [Treg.] Kat ISov avrjp KaXov/xevos ZaKxcuos, Kat avros TJV dpxtreXw-
vrjs, Kat avros rjv TrXovonos, Kat e^ryret etc., where otherwise we should
have had either twice a simple apposition, or at most the participle wv
with apx> and TrXovo-. The peculiarity of the language consists pre-
cisely in its being thus dissected into many individual propositions, in
which avrds is a simple unemphatic repetition of the antecedent subject.
Compare, now, with such sentences, those in which avrds or Kal
avrds really is emphatic, as vi. 42 TTWS Svvao-at Xeyetv 'A8eX<, a<es
K/3aA(o ..., avros TTJV SOKOV ov /JXeVwv etc., V. 37 pi^ei 6 otvos rovs
do-Kovs, Kat avros eK^v^^o-erat Kat ot UCTKOI aTroXovvrat ; vi. 3 o eTrotr/o-ev
AavetS, ore eTret'vacrev avros Kat ot /xer' avrov, xv. 1 4 ; xvii. 1 6 ; xix. 9*
although in such passages even it does not seem to be always necessary
to employ the pronoun, e.g. iii. 15 ; vi. 35.
Further, if we look at the passages in which avros stands for Christ
(some thirty times, more or less, in Luke), we shall find that, in by
far the greater number, the mode of expression or the connection of
clauses is at variance with ordinary usage; as, iii. 16, 23; iv. 15;
v. 1, 14, 16, 17; vi. 8, 20; viii. 1, 22, 37, 54; ix. 51 ; x. 38; xi. 17,
28; xvii. 11; xxii. 41 ; xxiii. 9; xxiv. 25,28, in all which cases
either no pronoun would have been used, or ovros or 6 6V. On the
other hand, it is used with emphasis apparently only in iv. 30 ; x. 1 ;
xviii. 39 ; xxiv. 39, in which passages it accords with Greek usage.
The weakened force of avros is clearly perceptible -in those passages
where it is several times repeated ; as, xxiv. 36 ravra 8e avreov AaAovV-
TWV avros IOTT; Iv /xecru) avroiv Kai Aeyei avrots, xxiv. 31 avroiv Se Sirpot-
xOrjaav ot o$#aA/Aot Kat cTrcyvaxrav avrdv Kat avros a^avros eyeVero O.TT
avrwv. Cf. John ii. 24; Mark iii. 31 sq. ; Acts xxiii. 9, etc.
Similar observations may be applied to the other books, especially
the historical, e.g. Matt. iii. 11; v. 4 ; xiv. 2; xvi. 20, etc. In ref-
95 erence also to a preceding or following Relative, avrds is used in the
sense of Ae, the one, instead of ovros or CKCU/OS which alone is customary
in such cases in Greek prose, (where avrds before a relative always
has its proper meaning, self ) ; as, Mark xiv. 44 ov av ^tA^o-co, avrds
eo-rtv, Matt. xii. 50 oVrts av 77007 OiXfj^a . . . , avrds fiov dSeX<ds etc.
Matt. xxvi. 48, etc. ; so, too, when a participle stands instead of the
relative clause, according to 125, 3 p. 93, as Luke xxiv. 21 ^XTTI-
^0/j.fv OTL avrds eo-rtv 6 /u,eXXwv Xvrpova^ai etc.
10 What has now been taught in reference to the Nom. Masc.
auro9, must of course be applied consistently to all other forms
of the Nominative, both Sing, and Plur.
Thiersch (de Pentat. vers. Alex. p. 98) asserts that in the Sept.
avrds is used for he, but for the Feminine the demonstrative avrrj is
127.] THE USE OF THE PRONOUN avnSs.
regularly employed. This seems to be the case also in the N. T. ; at
any rate, the numerous examples of avro? cannot be matched with a
single indubitable instance of avrq, still less of avrai. Nevertheless,
the state of the matter may have been different, since in the case of
av-n) and avTat it depended only on the accent to make the one form
or the other ; and in point of fact, the readings often fluctuate (Mark
xii. 31 ; Luke ii. 2 ; vii. 12 ; Rom. vii. 10 ; xvi. 2). Further, if we
look at the several passages where at present avrrj stands, we find
many which are quite like those with avro? given above ; to take ex-
amples again from Luke : ii. 36 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.] ("Avra) avrrj . . .
tya-acra /xera dvSpos . . . , KCII avrr) (Tdf. [Treg.] avrr)) XVP a etc *> v ^' 12
Lchm. [Treg.] rrj /u^rpt O.VTOV, Kai avrrj yv xnP a (Tdf. om. fy [in eds.
2 and 7, not in ed. 8]), viii. 42 ; 1 Cor. vii. 12, etc. But since in all
these and similar passages the Vulgate has haec, 1 while CIVTOS it always
reproduces (and on account of all absence of doubt respecting the
form cannot do otherwise) by ipse, and avrrj also where it is indubitably
the Fern, of avros by ipsa (e.g. Luke i. 36 ; Rom. viii. 21 ; xvi. 2 ;
1 Cor. xi. 14; Rev. xviii. 6), recent editors in the above instances
have for the most part acquiesced in the form cum/.
Respecting the Neuter avTo, Thiersch (as above) likewise de- H
clares that in the Sept. it does not, after the manner of OVTOS, stand
for it, but that TOVTO is always used instead. Certainly where it (as
the Subject) refers to purely abstract ideas, the form TOVTO may
alone have been in use ; but that in the more concrete instances
(which, however, from the nature of the case cannot occur frequently)
the form O,VTO straightway makes its appearance again, is shown once
more by a passage from Luke (xi. 14) : fy eK/3aAA<m> Sai/Aovtov, Kai
aVTO fjV KHxf>OV.
Of the M a s c. P 1 u r., again, a number of indubitable passages may
be adduced, as for example the avroi common in the Sermon on the
Mount (Matt. v. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, cf. 3, 10), further Mark ii. 8 Tdf.
[eds. 2, 7] (where Tdf. [7th ed.] remarks correctly, vox ista avroi
delenda videri poterat, non item addenda), Luke ii. 50 ; ix. 36 ; xiii. 4,
etc. This use becomes more frequent in later authors, presumably
through Roman influence.
B. 127, 2, iii. ; H. 502b.; C. 540d.; J. 656.
Of the combination avro TOVTO id ipsum a considerable number of 12
instances may be brought forward, all of them, too, from the Epistles,
viz. Rom. ix. 17 ; xiii. 6 ; 2 Cor. v. 5 ; vii. 11 ; Gal. ii. 10 ; Eph. vi. 96
22 ; Phil. i. 6 ; Col. iv. 8 ; doubtful is 2 Pet. i. 5 ; once also TOVTO avro
1 Yet the versions do not always agree in this particular ; see e.g. Tdf.'s note
on Luke ii. 36.
THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN. [ 127
occurs, 2 Cor. ii. 3 ([cod. Sin. also], see the variants). The Masc. avroi
ovrot occurs in Acts xxiv. 15, 20.
REMARK. Respecting the quiescing avros in relative clauses
(ov . . . O.VTOV) after the example of the Hebrew, see 143, 1 p. 280.
THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN.
B. 127, 3andN.3; H. 670sq.; C. 637 sq.; J. 653sq.
13 In the use of the reflexive pronoun the language of the
N. T. has departed essentially from Attic correctness. It re-
tained, indeed, a knowledge of the difference between the
reflexives and the simple personal pronoun, for it never uses the
reflexive where according to the rule it ought not to stand, e.g.
John viii. 18 eyo> elfju, 6 fjiaprvpcov Trepl /JLCIVTOV, fcal fjuaprvpel
Trepl e/juov 6 Tre/AiJra? /JL TTaTTJp, cf. v. 31, 32 ; Rom. xvi. 2 avrrj
TT/ooo-Tcm? TTO\\WV lyvr)6r} /ecu efjuov auTo>, but it very fre-
quently neglects it, and contents itself with the simple
personal pronoun instead of the usual reflexives.
To make this plain first in reference to pronouns of the First and
Second Pers. (Sing, and Plur.) : the simple personals take the place
of the reflexives not only, a) in those cases which rest upon the analogy
of ordinary Greek usage, that is to say in which the reference to the
leading subject is rendered difficult by the intervention of subordinate
clauses with a different subject, especially participial and infinitive
clauses, e.g. Luke viii. 46 lyvw 8ui/a/uv e^eAflovo-av obr' e/xou, Acts xxii. 7
TJKovcra <o)vi7s Xeyovo-T/s /xot, xxvi. 13 ; Rom. vii. 23 ; Col. i. 29 ; Rev.
X. 9 a.7r^A.^a, Xeycuv aura) Sowat /xot TO /3i/2A., Matt. xiv. 28 (cf. also the
subject-acc. with the Infin. expressed by //., o-e, etc., instead of e/xavroV,
etc., 141, 4 p. 274) ; or, b) in those which find a natural apology in
the fact that other personal pronouns are coupled with them, as Matt,
xvii. 27 A.a/3u)i/ 8os avrois avrl c/xov K<X! trov, Rom. i. 12 (tyxaiv re KCU
cju,ov),.Matt xviii. 15 ; or, c) where the reference to some other term
in the clause, even though it may be merely the article, was more con-
venient than reference to the subject, as in Gal. i. 17 a.Trrj\6ov ?rpos
TOVS Trpb e/xov aTroorToAovs, Phil. ii. 23 ws av d^t'Sw TO. Trepl e/xe, hence
uniformly trov, JMOV, instead of o-cavrov, etc., when the personal pronouns
are used in place of --the possessives (see 19 below, p. 115) ; but
also, d) where the reflexive force of the pronoun goes back directly to
the subject,. -yet particularly, only where the oblique case is preceded
by a preposition, as J3d\ OLTTO am), /AT) <ra\7rtcr^s /x7rpocr^v <rov,
Trapa.Xa.pf /x-era crov, aparc e<' v/xas, etc. (Matt. V. 29, 30 ; xviii. 8, 9 ;
vi. 2 ; xviii. 16 ; xi. 29, etc.) ; but the regular construction also occurs
especially in John : e\KV(7a> Trpo? fyiavroV, Trept (rcavrov /xaprvpels, ay
$127.] THE REFLEXIVE PRONC UN. HI
crcavTou, etc. But where the case is governed immediately by
the verb, the reflexive forms in the Singular are constantly )7
Used, as /SaXe, crwo-ov, Setov acavrov, ^re^e creavra), dyiaeo e//.avrov, l/cpiva
c/xavrw TOVTO, even e8oa e/xavrw miAi videbar (Actsxxvi.9), although
among the Greeks themselves the expressions So/coo /xoi and /xoi SOKOJ
were common enough (see Steph. sub voce) ; in the Plural, on the
other hand, the forms of the reflexive of the 3d Pers. cavrotg, eaurovs,
etc. (respecting which see 15 below, p. 113) are almost always used
in this case, and such instances as Matt. vi. 19, 20 (JMJ Oya-a.vpL&Tt
vfuv Orjaavpovs), Eph. iv. 22 (see 141, 4 p. 274) are extremely rare.
As respects the reflexive pronoun of the Third Person, u
it is to be noticed first of all, that according to the more recent
collations it exists only in the fuller form eauroO, -^79, etc. (not
auroO, etc.). It has, accordingly, been assumed that in all
cases where the forms avrov, avrco, avTov, etc. (not eawroii)
appear, they must be marked with the smooth breathing, and
consequently the reflexive is not used. This procedure was
occasioned by observing the usage of the Sept., and has been
confirmed, 1) by observing that of the 2d Pers., also, only the
fuller form creauroO, etc., has been preserved ; and, 2) that the
reflexive forms of the 1st and 2d Pers. began to be used with
considerably less frequency (see the preceding section) ; 3)
by the usage of ordinary prose, in which (B. 127, N. 3) a
marked vacillation began likewise to show itself in the em-
ployment of the forms avrov and avrov, etc. ; 4) by the
difference in position commonly observed in connection with
the two forms (awrov and eavrov) in a possessive relation (see
on this point 20 below, p. 116) ; 5) by noticing that before
the forms avrov , etc., when decidedly reflexive in sense, the
prepositions eW, /cara, etc., are never aspirated after elision, see
Tdf. praef. ad Yet. Test. p. xxxiii [ed. 3] ; ad N. T. xxvi. [ed,
2 ; Iviiisq. ed. 7] ; Winer 152 (143).
If, now, we compare together the cases in which the forms avrov,
etc., and those in which eavrov, etc., are given, we shall find what was
just now said in reference to the first two persons to be in the main
substantiated in reference to the third also, inasmuch as avrov, etc.,
are used almost exclusively in a possessive relation (therefore for suus),
and in general in all the cases given above (13 p. 110) where im-
mediate reflex reference to the verb is in any way obstructed. If,
however, especial emphasis made the reflexive form necessary, that
is to say, 1) if in specifications of possession not merely the notion his
THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN. [12'
(suns), but his own (suum ipsius, etc.), was to be expressed; 2) in
case of the emphatic repetition of the subject after verba dicendi in
the construction of Ace. with Infin. (see 141, 4 p. 274) ; and 3) if
the case of the reflexive was governed immediately by the verb
(often also after a preposition), the fuller forms cWrov, etc., (so far
as we can be sure about the MSS. in this matter) made their appearance
1)8 EXAMPLES. 1) Of avrov, etc. : in a possessive relation, Matt. x. 8G
6 evpwv, 6 airoXtcras TVJV ij/v^v avrov, Luke ii. 7 TK/ rov viov avrrjs,
and so on times without number ; in immediate dependence on a
participle, Mark x. 32 rjp^aro Aeyav ra /Ae'AAovra avr<3 o-v/x/foiWv, Acts
ix. 4 rJKovcrev <f>wr)v Aeyovcrav avraJ, Heb. xii. 2, etc., or on an infinitive,
Eph. i. 4 eeAeaTO ry/xa? . . . eii/ai i^u.as ctyious Ka,TV(07riov avrov ; as
subject of the Infin. after verba dicendi a case which can occur but
seldom, since according to rule in Greek the reflexive subject is
separately expressed only for the sake of emphasis, and then iavrov
must be used, Acts xxv. 21 TOV IlavAov CTriKaAeo-a/xevov TrjprjOfjvai avrov
(where there is no emphasis, and yet the repetition of the subject was
necessary, cf. 141, 4 p. 274) ; after prepositions, John ix. 21 drros
Trepi avrov AoA.^(7t, Acts xv. 22 /c\e(tyivovs ai/Spas e auTwv, xvi. 3 rovrov
j)6&.ri<rcv o~vv avraJ eeA0u>, Heb. xiii. 21; Mark ix. 16 rl crvvtflrtirc.
Trpos avrovs (cf. i. 27) ; with unaspirated consonants preceding, Matt.
iii. 16 pxofJLvov ITT avrdv, Luke vi. 3, 4; Rev. ix. 11 (where Grsb.
and Rec. give e<* avrwv, a correction ; [cod. Sin. eavTwv]).
2) Of avTov, etc., for his own : Luke xiii. 34 opvis ra eavrJJs voo-ata,
xi. 21 T^V tavrov av\r)v, Matt. viii. 22 TOVS eavroji/ i/c/cpov?, etc., cf. 20
below, p. 116 ; as subject after verba dicendi, see for examples 141,
4 p. 274 ; in immediate dependence on the leading predicate, with
and without a preposition, a7rapvr}o~do~6a) tavrov (Matt. xvi. 24 ; Mark
viii. 34), TToitlv tavrov /Sao-tXea (John xix. 12), raTreu/ow (Matt, xviii.
4, etc.) inf/ovv (Matt, xxiii. 12, etc.) aTroAeW (Luke ix. 25) ewovxieiv
(Matt. xix. 12) eavrov, aya-rrav rbv TrXryatoj/ a>s iavrov (Mark xii. 33),
Iva dyopacruxriv eavrot? (Matt. xiv. 15), /Sao-iAeta /xepio-^eto-a /ca^' eavrfjs
(Matt. xii. 25), avearrj e<^)' tavrov (Mark iii. 26), etc.; to this last class
there are but few exceptions. 1
1 These seem to be John ii. 24 Mffrevev a.in6v (Grsb. eour^), xix. 17
avr$ riv ffravpbis ^A0ci/ (yet with both the other forms as variants ; [Tdf.
Grsb. nlv crravpbv avrov}, Acts xiv. 17 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg. KJ OVK a^dprvpov avrkv
a^Kfv (Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] laur^), Rev. viii. 6 Lchm. [T.Tr.s] ^oitMffav avTovs(Tdf.
[eds. 2, 7] eavrovs, cf. xix. 7), xviii. 7 e'S^cwfj/ avr-^v (Grsb. favr-fjv). Since in this
single class of cases the reflexive is used almost without exception with the first
and second Persons also (13 p. Ill), consistency seems to require that in these
passages too, the reflexive, i.e. the aspirated form, be retained, unless we choose to
restore the fuller form eavrtv, etc., which is that presented, as a rule, by MSS.
(Matt. jiv. 30 does not belong here.)
127.] THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN. 113
B. 127, N.5; H. 672; C. 639; J. 654, 2 b.
It is now universally acknowledged, that in authors of every 15
age, prose writers as well as poets, the reflexive of the 3d
Person often takes the place of the reflexive of the 1st or 2d
Person. In the N. T. this occurs especially with the Plural
reflexives. The following seems to be the account of the
matter: Since the pronoun auro? as a reflexive had lost its
proper sense of self and all emphasis, epawov, o-eavrbv, etc.,
only signifying me, thee, etc. (like the English myself, thyself),
it became necessary in the Sing., if the precise idea my etc.
self was to be expressed, to write the words separately e/ie, 99
ere avrbv or avrbv ere, etc. This was not the case in the Plural,
where the two senses us (reflex.) and ourselves, etc., could
not be distinguished so well as in the Singular ; on the contrary,
the separation of the two pronouns would naturally suggest to
the mind the meaning us etc. ourselves. Accordingly the
usage gradually grew up, after the unquestionable precedent
of the earlier writers (see, for instance, in prose, Time. 1, 82
TO, avr&v /C7ropiZa)fJ,0a, Demosth. Phil. p. 52 elrrep prj eavrwv
arre^vaiKare, de Cor. p. 252, 14 ; 282, 2 ; Chers. p. 95, 5 ; Plat.
Phaed. p. 78 8a ^a? avepeaOai eavrov^, in case the reflexive
of the 1st or 2d Pers. Pliir. was to mean simply us, you, without
emphasis, to employ the form of the reflexive of the 3d Pers.
Plur. consisting likewise of a single word, especially as by
doing so no ambiguity could arise in any way. In the N. T.
this usage has already become so thoroughly established that
the disjoined forms (^a? auroifc, etc.) are no longer used as
mere reflexives, but when they occur have manifestly the force
of us ourselves, etc.
Instances of the Plural are very numerous and completely established
by the MSS. ; that is to say,
Of the 2d Pers., Matt. iii. 9 py So'^re Xcyeiv ev cavrots, xvi. 8 ; xxiii.
31 /xapTVpeu-e cavrots, XXV. 9 dyopao-arc eavrais, xxvi. 11 e^cre //.#' eav-
TWV, Mark ix. 50 ; xiii. 9 /^AcVere v/m? caurovs, xiv. 7 ; Luke xii. 1, 33,
57 ; xvi. 9 etc. ; John v. 42 ; vi. 53 etc. ; Acts v. 35 ; xiii. 46 etc. ;
Rom. vi. 11, 13, 16 etc.; 1 Cor. vi. 7, 19 etc. On the other hand,
Acts xx. 30 e vfjiwv avT&v avaa-rrja-ovTai avSpes (not reflexive) ; 1 Cor.
vii. 35 Trpos TO vfjiCov avrwv (Tii^opov for your own profit; xi. 13 /
vfjuv auTots Kpivart judge by yourselves.
Of the 1st Pers., Acts xxiii. 14 dv0e/aaTio-a/w,v eavrovs, Rom. viii. 23
avrot ev carrots crreva^o/xev, XV. 1 o^eiXopfv . . . /MT) eavrots dp(TKiv,
15
THE PRONOUNS rls, TS, Sorts. [ 127
1 Cor. xi. 31 ; 2 Cor. i. 9 (twice), iii. 1, 5, etc. On the other hand,
2 Thess. i. 4 wore ^/AUS OVTOVS fv vfuv evKavxcurflai so that we ourselves
boast.
REMARK. Of the Singular, it is true, hardly an unquestionable
and satisfactory instance can be adduced from the N. T. In Gal. v.
14 Tdf. [ed. 2] reads again with the Rec. dyaTrrjo-eis . . . w? eavroV, but
by far the greater number of the ancient MSS. [tt also] and authorities
give o-eavroV (Lchm. Grsb. [Tdf.eds. 7,8,Treg.]). In John xviii. 34,
again, the most important MSS. ([tf] B C L) have a-rrb o-eavrov Aeycts
(Lchm. [Treg.]), instead of a<f> eavrov (Grsb. Tdf.). On the other-
hand, examples are common in the apocr. writings, e.g. Protev. 9, 1 ;
Thorn. 7, 2 ; Nicod. 3, 2 ; Ep. Ignat. ad Trail. 3, etc. It is noticeable
that in the classics, also, when the Sing, forms, eavrov etc., appear to be
so used, there is almost always considerable variation in the readings,
but not in the case of the Plural ; see e.g. the variants on Xen. Mem.
1, 4, 9 (where almost all the oldest and more important MSS. give
o-eavrov); 2, 1, 7. 30; 2, 6, 35 ; Anab. 6, 6, 15 ; 7, 5, 5 ; Cyr. 1, 6, 35.
44 ; 5, 1, 20 ; Plat. Phaed. p. 91 C. ; Protag. p. 312 A. ; Amat. p. 136D.;
100 Alcib. II. p. 143 C. etc. Since it is often the inferior and later MSS.
which offer the 3d Pers., we may assume thus much at least as certain :
that the usage was in later times pretty generally (in the Plural almost
exclusively) prevalent, and that it must have been very familiar to
the coypists; hence Apollon. Synt. 3, 2 (p. 195 B) expressly instructs
US ov yap tfrafjifv eavr bv v(3pi(ra. rj eavrbv v/3/aioras, eavrovs Se vfipL-
arafjitv. Consequently, the common assumption (see e.g. Kiihner on
Mem. 1, 4, 9 ; Meyer on Gal. 5, 14) that the copyists out of ignorance
changed the 3d Person into the 1st or 2d, may be given up as erroneous,
if not in all, at least in many, passages of ancient authors, and certainly
in the two from the N. T. given above. See besides, Bhdy. Synt.
p. 272, and the copious references on the subject in Matth. p. 1088;
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I p. 272.
THE PRONOUNS rls, TIS,
B. 127, 4; H. 683; C. 548; D. 412; J. 669.
16 The Indef. Pron. rk, rl in the pregnant sense of a man of
importance, something great, or merely of the emphatic
something in opposition to nothing (see Herm. ad Vig. nott. 112,
113), is not unknown in the N.T.
E.g. Acts V. 36 evSas Aeyoov iW riva eavrov (viii. 9 in full: etvai
Tiva lavrov /neyav) ; Gal. vi. 3 d So/cet ri? ctvat ri /xiySev wv (just as in
Plat. Apol. p. 41 E.), ii. 6 ; vi. 15, etc. Cf. on this head 129, 5 p. 127
127.j PERIPHRASIS FOR THE POSSESSIVES. H5
B. 127,6; H. 682; C. 566; D. p. 382; J. 872.
Instances of the combination of two questions into one 17
(indirect) interrogative clause, are rare. Such appear to be
Mark xv. 24 j3d\\ovTes K\r)pov T/<? TI apy, Luke xix. 15 Iva yvoi
T/9 rl Bieirpay/jiarevcraTO.
REMARK. For the use of TIS, TI sometimes instead of the simple
relative (or of the indirect interrogative clause instead of the relative
clause), see 139, 58 p. 251. It likewise takes the place of TroVepos
(e.g. Matt. xxi. 31) in reference to two, like 6 us for 6 o-epos c p. 30,
B. 127, N. 10; H. 681 b. ; C. 550; J. 816.
The looser use of the relative pron. OO-TI?, in so far as it refers to 18
precisely-defined objects, is constantly gaining ground in the later
language (see Steph. Paris ed. sub voce p. 2309) and also in the N. T.,
as numerous examples show : Luke ii. 4 eis -rroXiv AavciS, rjris /caXctrai
B^Aeeyu, Rom. xvi. 6, 12 ucrTraoxxo-^e Mapta/>t, 777-15 TroXAa tKOTrlacrev cts
tyxas, Luke xxiii. 18 rov Bapa/2/2av, ocrrts rjv . . . /^/SArj/xeVos eis <uAa/ojv,
Gal. iv. 26 77 avo> 'lepovo-aA^u, . . . ^TIS mv prjTyp Ty/xwv. See besides,
Matt. xxi. 33 ; Acts xvii. 10 ; Rom. xi. 4 ; Eph. i. 23 ; iii. 13 ; 2 Tim.
ii. 18 ; Rev. xii. 13, etc. That besides, and indeed in by far the
majority of cases, o<ms has its legitimate general force, it is not neces-
sary to state.
PERIPHRASIS FOR THE POSSESSIVES BY MEANS OF THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS,
THE REFLEXIVES, AND ftuos.
B. 127,7,1); H. 675; D.p.352sq.; J. 652, 3.
The substitution of the genitives JJLOV and a-ov for the pos- 19
sessives of the 1st and 2d Pers. Sing, predominates in the New
Testament as in the Old (the adjectives e'//,o? and 0-09 are 101
employed oftenest by John) ; and the ear had already become
so accustomed to this mode of expressing mine and thine,, that
(according to 13 p. 110 above) it was everywhere * resorted to,
even when classic Greek would have been obliged to employ
the reflexive pronouns epavrov and o-avrov. Their position is
uniformly according to the rule : that is, they either precede
the article or follow the noun.
Examples : 6 d8cA^)os <rov, /AOV TOUS Aoyovs, o-ou rrjv KXivrfv, /MOV VTTO TTJV
a-Tcyrjv (Matt. viii. 8, according to 147, 31 p. 343) ; for reflexives :
John viii. 49 TI/XCO rov Trarepa /xov, Rom. i. 8 cv^apto-rco TU> $e<3 /xou, Matt.
V. 24 a<es TO SaipoV o~ov . . . SiaAAay?7#i T<3 aSeA.<(3 o*ov . . . /cat 7rpos<fpe
TO SwpoV crov, vii. 4, 5, etc.
1 The only contrary example, 1 Cor. x. 33 rb epavTov ffv^opov, finds its explana-
tion from 132, 23 p. 169 as Jin objective, not possessive, genitive, and from the
antithesis to TWV iro\\wv.
PERIPHRASIS FOR THE POSSESSIVES. [ 127
B. 127, 7,2); H. 638; C. 623 sq.; D. p. 858; J. 452.
20 On distinguishing between the forms avrov and kavrov, etc.,
in the place of the Poss. Pron. of the 3d Pers. see 14, p. Ill
above. As to their position, with substantives which have
the article it is, in the main, the regular one, see e.g. Mark
viii. 35 (Vat. Sin.) ; yet here and there (as in classic authors
also, see B. 127, N. 12) instances to the contrary are found :
1) Of avrov, -rjs, etc. Those instances have a foundation in usage
where avrov, etc., get an intermediate position because there are already
other attributive limitations between the art. and the subst., as Matt.
xxvii. 60 fv TO) KCUI/O) avrov /xv^/xeto), Acts in. 21 TO>V etytwv cbr' auSvos
avrov Trpo^Tcuv, 1 Pet. i. 3 Kara TO TroXv avrov e\eos, ii. 9 ; v. 10 ; 2 Pet.
i. 9 TWV TraXai avrov d/uapTitoi/. The intermediate position of avrov is
also justifiable when it has a reflexive sense, as Tit. iii. 5 Kara TO
avrov 2A.os, Heb. ii. 4 Kara TTJV avrov 6t\.rio~iv, Rom. iii. 25. Yet
instances where it is not reflexive are Rom. xi. 11 TO> avrwv
/Lum, iii. 24; Jas. i. 18 ; 1 Thess. ii. 19 ; Heb. vii. 18 Sta TO
do-0eve's. In the Gospels there are no examples of the sort.
2) Of the irregular position of eavTov, -775, etc.: Matt, xviii. 31 TO)
Kvpiw eavTwv, xxv. 1, 4, 7 ; Luke xii. 36 ; xv. 5 ; xvi. 5 ; xxii. 66 ; Gal.
vi. 4, 8 (elsewhere, however, Paul always has the regular position :
Eph. v. 28, etc.) ; Matt. xxi. 8 eoimov TO. ifuma, Luke xxiii. 48 Lchm.
cavruii/ TO, arrrjOr}, Acts xxi. 11.
B. 127, 7, 3); H. 675 sq. ; C. 538; J. 652.
21 To express the possessives of the 1st and 2d Persons
Plural, again, the periphrasis with rj^&v and vp&v is incom-
parably more frequent than the adjective pronouns. Thus, for
instance, our in the Gospels is rendered only by ?7//-coi>, your in
102 Matt, and Luke in like manner only by vp&v ; in Luke v^erepos
occurs only twice (vi. 20 ; xvi. 12), but not in connection with
a subst. ; in John against two passages with v^erepo^ there are
some thirty with V/AOW, and so on.
As respects position, ^/xwv and v/xciv, just as is the case with
avrov, never in the historical books occupy the intermediate place, (but
always stand either before the art. or after the subst.) ; in the other
books this position is also comparatively rare, and indeed there is (as
in 20 above) no deviation from Greek usage when in addition another
adjective or adverbial limitation stands between the art. and subst. ;
e.g. Rom. vi. 6 6 TraXaios rj^iav aV0pw7ros, 2 Cor. iv. 16 6 ew
v. i ; Rom. vi. 12 ; 1 Pet. i. 18 ; v. 9 T# ev KOO-/XW
2 Pet. i. 10 Lchm.; iii. 15 ; Jude 3 Lchm. |Tdf. Treg.J.
127.] THE USE OF tSios. 117
20; but only such examples depart from usage as Rom. xvi. 19 rj
v/xwv vTra/corj, 1 Cor. ix. 12 TTJ<S v/iwv e^ovcrtas. Yet this intermediate
position is peculiar only to the style of the Apostle Paul ; see besides,
2 Cor. i. 6 ; vii. 7 (three times) ; viii. 13, 14 ; xi. 8 ; xii. 19 ; xiii. 9 ;
Phil. i. 19, 25 ; ii. 30 ; Col. i. 8 ; 1 Thess. iii. 7, (all with /x G>v).
B. 127, N. 12; D. p. 353; J. 652, 2.
The non-enclitic form of the 1st Person C/AOV is never used in
dependence on substantives except when it stands in connection
with other genitives (in which case <rov also must retain the
accent) ; as, Rom. i. 12 TTIO-TCWS v/uov T KOL e/xov, xvi. 13 rrji/
aurov KOI e/xou. Hence in Matt. xvi. 23 we are not to read
t e/xou (Lchm. [Tdf. Treg. tt*]), but, according to good authorities,
either /xov (Tdf. [eds. 2, 7]) or the Dative e/xot (cod. D). The accent
is also retained of course when the pronoun is strengthened by
-^s ' Luke ii. 35 /cat o-ov Sc avTrjs TTJV if/vxrjv, Rom. xvi. 2.
B. 127, N. 13; C. 538; D. p. 353, 372; J. 656, 4.
The peculiar classic usage of strengthening the possessive 23
adjective pron. by the Genitive of the substantive pron.
avrov, -&V) etc. (Lat. suum ipsius, etc.) to express the idea of
own, no longer appears in the language of the N. T. 1 As a
substitute for it, the language in expressing this idea avails
itself very commonly of the simple adjective 8*05; which
thus, when it has no special emphasis, frequently takes the
place of the reflexive used possessively, particularly of the 3d
Person. 2
Accordingly 18105 stands in the reflexive-possessive sense of the 103
First Pers. (my etc. own) I Cor. iv. 12, of the Second Pers.
(thy etc. own) Luke vi. 41 ; Eph. v. 22 ; 1 Thess. ii. 14 ; 2 Pet. iii. 17,
of the Third Pers. (for eavrov, etc.) very frequently in all parts of
the N. T. (never in the Rev.) ; see among other passages Matt. xxii.
5 ; Luke vi. 44 ; John i. 42 ; Acts i. 25 ; Rom. x. 3 ; 1 Cor. iii. 8 etc. ;
1 Tim. iii. 4, 5 ; Heb. iv. 10 ; Jas. L 14 : 1 Pet. iii. 1, 5 ; Jude 6, etc.
1 As analogous may be noted Paul's rrj f/j.rj % t P' Tlav\ov, at the end of several
Epistles.
2 That fSios is in fact used quite in the sense and stead of eavrov etc. is manifest
not only from the variants and parallel passages, as in Luke ii. 3 els r^v eavrov
ir6\iv Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.], r^v itiiav ir6\tv Tdf. [eds.2,7J (cf. vi. 41 ; Mark xv. 20,
etc.), but also from the fact that the expressions are exchanged one for the other
without any sensible difference, as in 1 Cor. vii. 2 ; Eph. v. 22, 28, and in 2 Pet.
ii. 22 the proverb (Prov. xxvi. 11 KVWV . . . eVl rbv cavrov e / u6Toi>) is reproduced
Kvcav tTrt(rrp(\l/as etrl rb Jf5ia;> ^epa/j-a. The Latin versions also frequently translate
It simply by suus.
118 PLEONASTIC USE OF POSSESSIVES. [ 127,
It is Doticeable that in the following passages the Genitive avr&v is
added to this 48105 to strengthen it, just as in Greek it is added to the
PosseSsives : Acts i. 19 ry tSia StaXe/cro) avrcov, Tit. i. 12 ris tStos avraJv
fl-po^r^s, 2 Pet. 1 iii. 3, 16 Kara ras tStas avriov 7ri$v/uas, Trpos rrjv
tStW avrwv aTrwXetav.
&j Hence $105 with the article used substantively (ol i&oi, TO. ?Sia)
takes the place of the constructions current in ordinary classic usage :
01 cavrov, TO. caurov, etc. ; as, John i. 1 1 ; viii. 44, etc. ; Acts xxi. 6 ;
1 Thess. iv. 11 ; 1 Tim. v. 8, and with the addition of avrov (cf. 23
above) -Acts xxiv. 23. It stands likewise for TO. fjpvv OLVTWV: Luke
xviii. 28 T^/xcts d^evre? TO, iSia.
25 *I<kos appears to be used more in its strict sense (proprius) in such
passages as John vii. 18 tfirti TYJI 8oav TT)V iStav, x. 3, 4 ; Acts iii. 12 ;
xxviii. 30 ; Gal. vi. 9 ; Rom. viii. 32 ; Heb. ix. 12, etc. Thus Caper-
naum as the city in which Jesus dwelt and taught (Matt. iv. 13;
Mark ii. 1, etc.) is called in reference to him fj tSi'a TTO'AIS Matt. ix. 1.
B. 127,8; H. 527d.; C. 580e.; D.p.353.
26 It is to be noticed as a prominent peculiarity of N. T.
usage, that where classic Greek, even in later (post-Christian)
authors, manifestly avoids adding possessive limitations, as
superfluous, indeed offensive, they are nevertheless subjoined
in by far the majority of cases. This usage was oc-
casioned, without doubt, by the language of the Septuagint ;
which, in consequence of the literal translation of the Hebrew
original, contains manifold constructions of the sort, as a com-
parison of the Sept. with the Hebrew text shows on almost
every page.
The following examples may serve to illustrate this very frequent
(pleonastic) use : Matt, xxiii. 5 ira.vra TO. epya a v r a> v TTOLOVO-IV Trpoq
TO OcaOrjvai, xiii. 44 dzro TTJ? ^apas a v T o v vTrayct KCU TrcoAet Travra, John
ii. 23 0wpowres avrov TO, cr^/xcta a iiroUi, Matt. ii. 15 (quotn.) t/cctyWa
TOV vlov ftov, ix. 18 eVt^cs rrjv x e 'P " ov > Luke iv. 11 (quotn.) ; x. 27
(quotn.) ; xi. 46 i/i rtov ScucTuAwi/ v/xwv ov Trpocn^avcre rots ^oprtots, Matt.
xvii. 8 ; xviii. 8, etc. If in anything syntactical, it is in precisely
this uncommonly frequent employment of the possessives /u,ov, o-ou,
avrou, etc. in which, throughout the Greek of the Bible, the Hebrew
104 tinge becomes apparent. Yet instances are not wanting of genuine
Greek constructions, as e.g. Matt, xxvii. 24 \afiwv vSwp aTrevtyara ras
Xetpas, Mark viii. 1 Tdf. [Treg.] Trpos/caXeo-a/xevos TOVS fjLaOrjrd<s (cf.
1 With the author of this Ep. the predilection for the expression with JfStoj
seems, to judge from the little that is left us, tc have completely suppressed the
other mode o f expression by means of e avrov, etf
127.] THE USE OF PROHOtJNS WITH THE AftTICLE. H9
Matt. xv. 32), etc. ; and in this particular undoubtedly much may be
set down to the account of scribes accustomed to this form of speech,
when we consider that the cod. Vat. especially is devoid of an innu-
merable multitude of these superfluous adjuncts. Cf. with this idiom
the excessive use of the pron. avros 9 above, p. 107, and the Hebraism
ov . . . avrov in 143, 1 p. 280.
Finally, as respects the article, the language of the N. T. 27
is not so consistent in the case of possessive limitations con-
sisting of the Gen. of the subst. pron., as in those that are
adjectival ( 124, 6 p. 87) ; inasmuch as it omits the article
not only, 1) where the omission is allowable according to the
rules given 124, 8 p. 88, but also, though far less frequently,
2) where according to general rules the art. is demanded.
. Examples of 1), as well when the possessive limitation is a sub-
stantive pron. as when it is an actual subst., are comprised among
those already given in 124, 8 p. 88 ;
Of 2) Matt. xix. 28 CTTI Opovov oofys avrov, xxv. 31 ; Luke i. 72
[Avrjo-Ofjvai Sia^ry/c^s dyias avrov, ii. 32 Sdav Xaov <rov 'lo-paTyA, Jas. i. 26
Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.] /x,r) xaAivaycoy<3v yXwcro-av avrov aAAa airaruv
KapSiav avrov (Lchm. eaurov), V. 20 IK. TrXdvys ooov avrov. (Passages
like Luke xiii. 19 ts xfJTrov iavrov, xv. 29 ovoeirore evroX^v crov rcaprjXOoVy
1 Cor. iv. 14 <Ls TeKi/a, fjiov can at all events, according to the princi-
ples laid down B. 124, N. 4, be so interpreted that the substantives
dispense with the article because not limited.) This omission takes
place sometimes also where the possessive limitation is a substan-
tive, as 1 Cor. x. 21 ov SvvacrOz rpa-Tre^s KvpLov /xere^etv KCU
8ai/x,<Wwv, 1 Tim. V. 10 t dyiW Tro'Sas evuf/ev, 1 Pet. Hi. 12
Kvpiov . . . KCU wra avrov . . . TrpdscoTrov Se Kvptov, Rev. ii. 1, 8, 18 Lchm.
In a manner quite analogous the article sometimes falls away also, $
where according to ordinary Greek usage it is apparently necessary,
in the possessive limitation expressed by tStos (23 p. 117) ; e.g. 2 Pet.
ii. 1 6 eAey^iv ecrxev tSuxs Trapavo/xtas, i. 3,20; 1 Cor. vii. 7 ; Tit. ii. 9
SovXovs Seo-TTorats tSi'ois vTrordacrta-Oai. In other passages the omission
of the article is according to rule, as in the adverbial limitations
( 124, 8 d) p. 89) Kara iSiav Trpd^eo-iv, /catpw tStw, /caipots iSiots, Kar
iStai/; or in sentences like John v. 18 Trarepa tSioi/ cAcyev rov 6eov
(where it is a predicate). In 1 Cor. xv. 38 the MSS. fluctuate between
iSiov o-wyua (Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. N*]) and TO 18. o-. (Tdf. [eds. 2, 7]).
POSITION OP OVTOS, eicetvos, iras, ETC., WITH THE ARTICLE.
B. 127, 9; H. 637sq.; C. 524; D. 398; J. 453sq.; S. pp. xviii. sq.
The usage in this matter had become so established, that 29
offences against it do not occur in the N. T. Hence we find
120 THE USE OF PRONOUNS WITH THE ARTICLE. [127
LOS invariably either avrrj % TroTu?, a^orepa TO, TrXota, vra? o 6%Xo?,
or 77 yrj efceivr], ra pij/jLara Tavra, etc. Though mi? does appear
frequently without an article (jraa-a (rapt;, irav SevSpov, ^era
Trdcrijs TTpoOv/JiLas, irdvres avOpcDjrot,, 'AOtjvaloi, Be Tra^re?, etc.),
yet this is quite according to analogy, because the statements
are general and unqualified, or they fall under the class of
cases treated of in 124, 8 p. 88. Whenever the number is
presented as limited, the article is never missing ; hence Traces
ol fjbadrjrai, Trdvras TOU<? TTpotyiJTas, at Ovpai Tracrat, etc.
The insertion of iras, too, between the article and substantive
rests upon classic precedent : Acts xix. 7 yo-av Be oi Wi/res oVSpes wcrci
SwSe/ca i.e. the whole number of the men was twelve (cf. xxvii. 37),
xx. 18 />ie$' vfJLwv TOV TrdvTa %povov eyevd/r^v throughout the whole time
(more emphatic than TrdvTa TOV ^povov), Gal. v. 14 6 7ra<; vo/xos eV ei/i
Xo'ya) TreTrArjpwTat the law in its entire compass and contents, 1 Tim. i.
16 Trjv aTrcurav /xafcpo^v/xtav the entire fulness of his longsuffering.
30 REMARK. Although I/cao-ros, which is commonly used substan-
tively, always appears without the art. in the few passages in which
it is conjoined to a subst. as an adjective, yet no exception from
ordinary usage can be established on this fact, since all the passages
may be brought under the same rules which applied above to TTCIS
without the art. : Luke vi. 44 CKCUTTW SeVSpoi/, John xix. 23 eKao-rw
orpaTiam? (the number of the soldiers has not been previously men-
tioned), Heb. iii. 13 KaO' eKda-rrjv ^/xepcu/, Rev. xxii. 2 Kara [Arjvav eKacrroi/.
So we find in Thucyd. Kara TOV oTrXmyv KO.O~TOV, KaO' ZKdcrTrjv TYJV fj/jLtpav
used interchangeably with *a#' eKacmyv xapa*a, /cara tros cxao-rov ; in
Herod. CTT* ^epas eKao-T?ys and TOV orjiJiap^ov eKacrrov, etc.
The common phrase els CKCUTTOS is likewise found in the classics
also : Thuc. 1. 77 ; 2. 60, etc. Respecting ava els !*a<rros see p. 30.
B. 127, N. 15; H. 538; C. 524 c. ; D. p. 352; J. 453, Obs. 1.
31 Further, the article is regularly wanting, when the
demonstrative takes the place of the predicate, or the sub-
stantive following must be taken as a predicate and separated
from the demonstrative.
Of this rule there are many good examples in the N. T. : Rom. ix. 8
TavTO. TKva TOV Ocov SC. e<rriV, Gal. iii. 7 OVTOL viol tlaiv 'A/?paa/x, iv. 24 ;
1 Thess. iv. 3 TOVTO yap (sc. aTrcxeo-flai 0,776 T^S 7ropvtas) iariv OeXrjfjia
rov Oeov, Luke i. 36; xxi. 22. As an objective clause: John iv. 54
TOVTO TrdXw oevTcpov cny/xctov cTrot^crcv this was the second sign which
etc., ii. 11 TdvTrjv eTroir)o~v apxqv T<Zv (TifUMUir. With e/ceti/os: John
vili. 44 e/ceu/os av6p(D7roKTovos ty, x. 1 ; and in an objective clause, x. 35
127.] PERIPHRASTIC FORMS OF THE NEGATIVES.
ei eKctVovs eZrrev 0eovs. Here belongs also the much debated passage
Luke ii. 2 Lchm. [Treg.] avrrj a.7roypa<f>r) Trpwrrj iyivf.ro ^ye/xoi/euovros r)}s
2vpias KvpiVov [Tdf. K* iyivf.ro irpurrj] ; and therefore the addition
of the article is by no means necessary (Winer, R.W.B. under
Quirinius).
PERIPHRASTIC FORMS OF THE NEGATIVES. 100
Instead of the negatives ooW? and /jujSek, weakened as they 32
were by daily use, the N. T. language employs several more
emphatic modes of expression, effected by resolving these neg-
atives into their component parts, viz.
1) The phrase, current among the Greeks also, ovSe ts (B. 70),
as Matt, xxvii. 14 Trpos ovSc iv pi}/xa, John i. 3 ^copis avrov eyevero ov8
cv o ye'yovev, Acts iv. 32 ; Rom. iii. 10 OVK Itrnv SiKaios ovoe els (still
stronger vs. 12 OVK eoriv cws vos, after Ps. xiv. 1, 3).
2) The simple separation of the two parts of ovoWs (i.e. ov and els,
see B. 70, 1), but reversing their order, thus : els (/xia) . . . ov; as,
Matt. v. 18 iwra fv 17 /xia Kepata ov /XT) 7rapi\@y, x. 29 ci/ e avrcov ov
7ro-tTat, Luke xi. 46 ; xii. 6, etc.
3) The expression, imitated from the Hebrew or borrowed from
the Septuagint, ov (/x?)) ... Tras, but always written separately, so
that the negative comes immediately before the predicate (just as in
the Heb. bb . . . & e.g. Exod. xx. 10 ; Judg. xiii. 4 ; 2 Sam. xii. 3, etc.) :
Matt. xxiv. 22 OVK av iawOr) -rraa-a <rdpg, Luke i. 37 ; Acts X. 14 ovSe'-
TTOTC e<ayov TTOLV KOIVOV, 1 Cor. i. 29 6V<os /XT) Kav^rjo-^rat Traaa o-a/o^, Gal.
ii. 16; Rev. xxi. 27. The Greeks would have preferred to express
themselves by means of a double negation, or to use r\ instead of nav,
both which expressions also are common enough in the N. T. e.g.
Matt. xxii. 16 ; Mark xiv. 60, etc. ; viii. 26 ; Rom. ix. 11 ; Rev. vii. 1
pr,T ITTL n (Rec. [Tdf. tf] TTUV) Se'vopov.
Similar in meaning, but probably of a different origin, is the opposite
arrangement of the two words, Tras ... ov (/xrj), in the following
passages : Rev. xviii. 22 Tras TC^VIT^S ov fj^rj evptOrj iv o-ol en, xxii. 3 ;
2 Pet. i. 20 ; Eph. v. 5 Tras Tropi/os . . . OVK l^t KXypovopiav, iv. 29 Tras
Xoyos aa7r/)6s K TOV oro/xaros v/xwi/ /XT) eKTropevr$(o. This mode of
expression had its origin, we may suppose, in the circumstance that
when the writer began his sentence an affirmative predicate was
hovering before his mind, as is plain in passages where an affirmative
predicate follows the negative one immediately : * John iii. 1 6 Iva Tras
1 "Whether the celebrated passage 1 Cor. xv. 51 Tdf. [Treg. Alf.] (on the
origin of Lchra.'s reading see Riickert in loc. This greatly interpolated passage
ran, as we may suppose, originally thus : irdvrfs . . . KotjWT/07j<r^/ue0a [ner] otf, irdvres
cf. cod. Sin.) is to be explained in the same way is doubtful,
16
122 NEUTER ADJECTIVES. [ 128.
6 TTUTTCvtDV fj.r) aTToAi/TCU dXX* txtl fan" a-^viov (cf. vs. 15), vi. 39 Iva TTO.V
. . . fj.r) aTroXecro) e avrou, dXXa dvao-T^crw avro etc. (on the order see
107 151, 4 p. 379), which affirmat ve predicate, too, in other passages must
be supplied from the negative, as in John xii. 46 ; 1 John ii. 21 ; iii. 15.
Somewhat anomalous, but referable to the above rule, are Rev. vii.
16; ix. 4 (ov8c TTOV Kav/xa, etc.), where the preceding predicates (ov
Hy TreVr;, py dSiKrjcrowiv) must for substance be supplied after the neg-
ative ovSe; on ix. 4 cf. besides 148, 8 p. 352.
The difference in meaning provided that the negative comes im-
mediately before Tras and belongs to it is made plain by such passages
as Matt. vii. 21; xix. 11 ; John xiii. 10, 11, 18; Acts x. 41, etc.
Compare besides the adverbial expressions ov TTCU/TOOS and Travrcos ov in
151, 19 p. 389.
B. 127,10; H. 538e.; D. p. 463; J. 454,3.
33 That aXXo? with the article is exchanged, without difference
of meaning, with 6 erepos (the other of two), we have already
seen in noticing the expressions substituted for 6 yAv . . . 6 8e,
126, 3 above, p. 102. Other instances, also, not connected
with this combination are pretty frequent, as Matt. v. 39 OCTTKS
(7 patrol, ets TTJV Sefyav cricvyova <rov, o"Tf>i^rov avroj Kal rrjv
a\\r)v, xii. 13 ; John xix. 32 ; xx. 3, 4, 8, etc.
NEUTER ADJECTIVES.
B. 128, 8; H. 496; C. 507; D. p. 388; J. 436, 2.
1 In accordance with the familiar metonymy by virtue of
which abstracts are used in a concrete sense (thus in the N.T.
frequently e.g. 77 TTC/MTO/W}, 77 a/cpo/3vo-ria Rom. ii. 26 ; iii. 30 ;
Gal. ii. 7 etc., a%*aXa>e7ta Eph. iv. 8), the neuter Singular of
adjectives and participles also is employed to set forth a
plurality of concrete objects in their union.
Examples: John xvii. 2 Iva TTO.V o SeSw/cas avrw, Soxn? avrots w7)v
alwviov (respecting the arrangement see 151, 4 p. 379), vi. 37 ;
1 John v. 4 ; Heb. vii. 7 TO fXarrov VTTO TOV Kpetrrovos evAoyetrai (where
VTTO with the Gen. makes reference to an author, 147 p. 340).
and has been disputed particularly by Meyer among recent writers, whom
Winer 555 (517) agrees with. Yet the earlier interpretation (Olsh., deWette,
Riickert, etc.) ought not to be held to be "a make-shift opposed by the context
and without warrant or example" in view of the similarity of the above two pas-
sages from John, even notwithstanding the repetition of irdvres. At least the
difficulty does not lie in the grammatical construction (respecting the omission of
1*4? cf. the two passages from John and 149, lip. 364, and especially 148, 14
p. 355), but in the obscure contents of the (repeated) irdvTes. In interpreting the
passage, 1 Thess. iv 15-17 is to be specially compared.
129.] PREDICATE WITH THE ARTICLE. 123
Similar is 2 Thess. ii. 6 KCU vvv TO Karc^ov otSare, for which subsequently
vs. 7 the Masc. 6 Karc^wv is used ; see deWette's excursus on the pas-
sage p. 132. For examples of the Neuter Plural in a concrete
personal sense see 1 Cor. i. 27, 28 ; Gal. iii. 22. The (good classic)
use of the Neuter Participle instead of the simple Substantive
(kindred in sense or in derivation) is found especially in Luke ; as,
TO euu0os or et&cr/ae'vov for !#os (iv. 16 ; ii. 27), TO ycvvw/Acvov i. 35, etc.
See Credner, Einl. p. 135.
B. 128, N. 4; H. 552a.; C. 509; D. p.388sq.; J. 436, 2.
That the Neuter Sing, and Plur. with the article is often used 2
adverbially has already been remarked 125, 12 p. 96. The remark
holds true also of the Neuter Sing, and Plur. without the art., e.g.
XOLTTOV henceforth, for the future, and (in the Epistles) as a conjunction '. (8
consequently, furthermore, ergo ceterum : Mark xiv. 41 ; Acts xxvii.
20; 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; 2 Tim. iv. 8; /xe'ow in the midst, Phil. ii. 15
(Grsb. ei/ /Ao-w) ; TroXAa multum (i.e. both scepe and vehementer) Matt.
ix. 14 [Treg.] ; Mark v. 23, etc. (see Wahl, under TroAvY). On the
phrase clmi to- a 0ew see 129, lip. 131.
REMARK. An isolated Hebraism is the use of the Fern. Sing, in 3
a quotation from the 0. T. for the Neuter : Matt. xxi. 42; Mark xii.
11 (770.00. Kvpi'ov eyevcTo avrr) KOI IO-TIV av ^aa-rrj etc.) taken
from Ps. cxviii. 23 and originating in the literal translation of the
Fern, (as Neut.) nt. See Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 661 [Gr. 105, 8],
On irp<0Ti| TTCIVTCOV eiroXr/ see 150, 6 p. 374.
THE NOUN IN CONSTRUCTION.
SUBJECT AND PREDICATE.
B. 129, 2; H. 535; C. 534; D. 394; J. 460.
The Predicate, if it is a noun, naturally dispenses with the (
article so far forth as it is to be affirmed of the subject merely
as an idea, i.e. when taken as a general and unlimited con-
ception ; as, John iv. 24 TT v e v /* a 6 0e6?, Rom. x. 4 re' A, 09
VO/AOV Xptcrro?, Acts xix. 26 ov/c elorlv Oeol ol Si,a ^eipco
pevoi where, therefore, ol ^Lvo^evoi sc. Oeol is the subject. Yet
the article is admissible as soon as the predicative idea is
limited, i.e. restricted to something conceived as within definite
limits, or assumed as known, or as previously mentioned or
designated. In the N. T. its use is frequent, especially in
John (Winer adduces in IT [5th ed. ; of. 7th ed. 18, p. 114
(109)] alone more thai: eighty instances of the sort, and the
number could be easily increased) ; and on comparing them,
the admissibility, indeed necessity, of the article is everywhere
124 PREDICATE WITH THE ARTICLE. [129.
perceptible, for they can be conveniently distributed into the
three following classes :
a) The predicate, a substantive, contains an idea (generally known
or previously mentioned) definitely limited. To make the distinc-
tion clear, compare the above passage from John (iv. 24) with
2 Cor. iii. 17 6 8 Kvpios TO rrvev/xd ecmv, viz. the Spirit of which
we are speaking, which emanated from Christ and is operative in his
church; or Rom. vii. 7 6 vd/xos d/xapri'a (rru/;) with 1 John iii. 4
Tras 6 TTOLWV rrjv d/xa/o-riav /cat rrjv dvo/xtai/ Troiet, KCU 17 d/xaprta ecrriv fj
dvo/xia; or compare Matt. xii. 23 /x^rt OVTO? eoriv 6 mos Aavci'8; is
this the son of David ! and xiv. 33 aX-rjOus Oeov vtos e? thou art truly
God's Son (cf. John i. 34, 50 ; 1 John iv. 15) ; or Acts ii. 7 ofy ovroi
ewnv 01 XaXowrcs FaXtXatot and Mark vi. 3 ov% ovrds eoTtv 6 TCKTWV, 6
vlos r7s Maptas, etc. Hence everywhere crv cl- eyco ei/xi- OVTOS ccrrtv- 6
109 Xptords, 6 7rpo^>^n;s, i.e. spoken of in the Scriptures, etc., e.g. Matt.
xvi. 16 ; Mark viii. 29 ; Luke iv. 41 etc. ; John i. 20, 21, 25 etc. ; Acts
ix. 22 ; 1 John v. 1 etc. See further John i. 1 cv apxfj ty 6 Xdyos . .
mi Ofo<s ty 6 Xoyos (where, accordingly, the predicate has the art.
although the subject dispenses with it ; yet the passage is also differently
interpreted, see the Comm.), i. 4, 8 ; viii. 12; ix. 19, 20; x. 7, 14;
xi. 25 ; xiv. 6 ; xv. 1, 5 ; xviii. 33 ; Matt. v. 13 ; Mark xv. 2 ; Acts
iii. 25 ; 1 Cor. x. 4; 2 Cor. iii. 2 ; Phil. iii. 3, 19 (where 6 0eo's is the
Pred.), Rev. xviii. 23 ; xix. 10 etc. In many of these passages the
predicate is already more closely defined by an adjective (as in John
xv. 1) or a Genitive (hence John viii. 44 ^CVO-TT/S CCTTU/ KCU 6 Traryp
avrov), in others it allows itself to be more closely limited by a relative
or equivalent participial clause ( 125, 3 p. 92 sq.) which is understood,
and indeed such a clause very often actually follows ; e.g. Matt. iii. 17;
Mark ix. 7 ; 2 Pet. i. 17 ; 1 John ii. 22, etc.
b) The predicate is an adjective or participle rendered substantive
by means of the art., i.e. raised to a definitely limited, objective, idea ;
as, John vi. 69 o-v et 6 ayios rov Ocov not a holy one of God but the holy
one of God, " the one whom God has consecrated (x. 36) and on
whom he has set the seal (vi. 27) of sanctity," see deWette in loc.
Accordingly in 1 Cor. xii. 6 $cos ci/epywv com/ ra iravra Iv fjjjuv would
only declare simply God works in us ; but 6 evepywv signifies it is God
(alone) who (in point of fact) works, etc. substantially, indeed, the
same idea, but differing in conception, in energy of expression. See
besides Matt. x. 20 ; John i. 33 ; v. 39 ; vi. 33, 63 ; viii. 18 ; ix.8 ;
xiv. 21 ; Acts ix. 21 ; 1 John v. 6, 7 ; Rev. i. 17 ; ii. 23 ; iii. 17.
REMARK. That with substantive predicates also the passage
often gains in force by the addition of the article, may be seen from
I Cor. xi. 3 fle'Xco v/xas ctSevai on TTUVTOS dvSpos 17 Ke</>aXr/ 6 XptoTo'?
129.] AGREEMENT OF SUBJECT AND PREDICATE. 125
eoriv, K^>aX^ Se ywaiKo? 6 a.vr)p, K<f>a\r) 8e TOV Xpto-rov 6 0eo9, where
the omission of the art. would not, to be sure, have altered the mean-
ing, but would have weakened its expression ; Eph. ii. 14 avros eerriv
f) clpfyr) rjfjL&v he is our (only, true) peace ; without the art. the prop-
osition would assert of Christ merely in a naked way that he is our
peace ; John xv. 1 eyw ci/u 17 a/x,7reA.o? fj aXij6ivrj, etc. Cf. 124, 7
p. 87 sq.
c) The proposition is one in which subject and predicate stand in
such a relation to each other that one expression is meant to be merely
explained, elucidated, amplified by the other, as 1 Cor. xv. 56 TTOU o-ov,
$arare, TO Kevrpov ; TO Sc /cevrpov TOV 6a.va.rov 17 a/Aaprta, etc. So reg-
ularly in explaining the parables : e.g. Matt. xiii. 37 sq. 6 oWpwv TO
KaXov o-Trep/xa I<TT\V 6 wos TOV dv0pu>7rov, 6 8e dypos ICTTW 6 /coo-/AO5 etc.,
vi. 22 6 Av^vos TOV o-w/ActTos ecmi/ 6 6<0aA/xos. Cf. the example from
1 John iii. 4 in a) above, and deWette in loc. This holds true in
particular of many passages in which a pronoun, as eyw, OVTOS,
KtVos, os, etc., takes the place of the subject ; as, Matt. xxvi. 26 TOVTO
eoriv TO (Ttofjia. fjiov, 28 TovVo Q-Ttv TO al^d fjiov, and in the exposition
of the parables: Matt. xiii. 19, 20, 22 etc. See, besides, John i. 19;
v. 35 ; vi. 14, 50, 51, 58 ; Acts iv. 11 ; vii. 32 ; viii. 10 ; xxi. 28, 38;
Eph. i. 23 ; iv. 15 (cf. v. 23) ; Rev. iv. 5 ; v. 6, 8 ; xx. 14, etc. It is
further to be noticed, that in these instances also the predicative sub-
stantive is, as a rule, more closely defined by an adjective, a genitive,
a relative or participial clause.
AGREEMENT OP SUBJECT AND PREDICATE IN NUMBER AND GENDER. 110
B. 129, 3; H. 515; C. 569; D. p. 399; J. 384sq.
Although the MSS. vary very much, it is nevertheless certain 2
that the N. T. writers proceed rather arbitrarily in reference
to the use of the Singular and Plural where the Subjec t is
a Neuter Plural. For not only is the Singular verb
found where animate and even human beings are the subject,
e.g. Luke xiii. 19 ; Mark iv. 4 (jrereivd, on the other hand in
Matt. vi. 26 the Plural), Luke iv. 41 (Sa^cWa), 1 John iv. 1
(TrvevfjiaTa) , iii. 10 (re/mi, moreover in a contrast of two),
Rom. ix. 8 ; 1 Cor. vii. 14, 1 or where the plurality is made
prominent, as Matt. xii. 45 ; Luke viii. 2 (eTrra irvevjjiara^
Matt, xviii. 12 (e/caroi/ 7rp6/3aTa), Luke viii. 30
TroXXa) ; but also the Plural where inanimate
objects are the subject, as Matt. vi. 28 (/eptW), John vi. 13
1 Hence in 1 Tim. ii. 15 it is quite inconsiderate to supply T^KVU, from the
preceding rsKvoyovias, for (ifl
126 AGREEMENT OF SUBJECT AND PREDICATE. [ 129
, xix. 31 (cr/ee^) ; and abstracts, as Luke xxiv. 11
, 1 Tim. v. 25 (ep^d) ; and even the Neut. Plur. of
a pronoun (very rarely), John xvii. 7 (codd. Yat. Sin.), Rev.
i. 19; 1 Cor. x. 11 Lchm.; 1 and, indeed, both numbers
stand side by side in the same connection : John x. 27 (ra
TTpopara . . . a/covet . . . /cal d/co\ov6ou(rlv /u,ot), Rev. i. 19;
(1 Cor. x. 11). In general, however, it is not to be overlooked,
that the majority of instances of the use of the Plural occur
with animate objects; the majority of instances of the Singular,
with inanimate, abstract, and almost always with pronominal,
expressions.
REMARK. As an anomaly is to be noticed Rev. ix. 12 Tdf. [so
Lchm. Treg, ^ : I8ov !px Tai * TL 8vo ovat, for ovcu is Feminine
(17 ovat r) fjLia). The precedence of the predicate (cf. the following
paragraph) may have led to the introduction of the Singular.
B. 129, 4and5; H. 511; C. 670; D. p. 400; J. 392.
3 Where there are several subjects united by copulative
conjunctions, the Predicate usually stands in the Plural
when it follows, and the first Pers. is preferred in such cases
to the 2d and the 3d : Luke ii. 48 6 Trarijp <rov /cdja) efyrov/juev
o-e, 1 Cor. ix. 6. On the other hand, when the Predicate pre-
cedes, either a) the Plural is used, Mark x. 35; Luke viii.
Ill 19 ; Acts iv. 27 etc., or b) the Singular, the predicate being
in form restricted to a single object; and this occurs, too,
not only with abstract and impersonal objects, as in Matt. v.
18 aw? av i jrape\6r) 6 ovpavos teal TJ 7?}, 1 Tim. vi. 4, but even
with Persons : John xii. 22 ep^erat 'AvSpeas /cal ^tXtTTTro?
/cal \e<yov(nv TO> *Ir)(rov ; cf. i. 35 ; ii. 2, 12 ; xviii. 15 ; xx. 3 ;
Matt. xii. 3 ; Luke vi. 3 ; xxii. 14 ; Mark iii. 33 Lchm. [Treg.
Tdf.]; Acts xi. 14 ; xxvi. 30 ; Philem. 23. Sometimes the Pre-
dicate stands between the subjects, and then it conforms to
that which precedes : Luke viii. 22 avros eve/3rj efc TT\OLOV /cal
ol fjLadfjral avrov, Matt. xxii. 40 ; John iv. 12 ; Rev. xxi. 22.
1 In this passage the harshness of the Plural is essentially abated by the adop-
tion (with Tdf. [eds. 2, 7]) of the reading rviroi (standing as it does between
ravra and the verb ffvvffiaivov] instead of rvrrtK&s. The adoption of the reading
TviriK&s requires the restoration of the Singular [so Treg. Tdf. ed. 8] the more,
inasmuch as it is precisely the same MSS. [so M] which exhibit both this word and
the Sing, (as, on the contrary, others exhibit the Plural and T^TTOJ), and the Sin-
gular follows again immediately afterwards.
129.] AGREEMENT OF SUBJECT AND PREDICATE. 127
REMARK. Analogous is Acts v. 29 a,7roKpt0ts Se JleYpos KOL ol O.TTQ-
trroA.01 etTrav, where, notwithstanding the Plur, e?7rai/, the Participle is
referred to Peter alone as the spokesman in the words that follow,
and consequently stands in the Sing. More surprising and harsh,
however, are Luke ii. 33 rjv 6 Tra-njp CL'JTOV /cat 17 /x-rfnyp 0avjaaoi/res and
Matt. xvii. 3 &(f>6r) avrots Mwvcr^s /cat 'HXttts o-vAAaAowrcs p.er avrov
(Rec. M<f>0rjo-av), on account of the Participles which immediately follow
in the Plural ; cf. Mark iii. 31 ([Tdf.] *t G D). With these instances
may be compared the similar constructions in Greek authors, e.g.
Herod. 5, 12 ; Thuc. 4, 37 ; App. B. Civ. 1, 82.
With disjunctive conjunctions the Singular is used
by far the most frequently, as well when the predicate precedes
as when it follows ; since the assertion, although it may hold
good of the two (or more) members, always applies to the
several objects separately, not to both simultaneously or in
union : e.g. Gal. i. 8 eav r^els 77 cfyyeAo? evayyeX-ityrcu vplv,
1 Cor. vii. 15 ov SeSouXomu 6 aSeA</>6? 97 r] a8eX</>?7, Matt. v. 18 ;
xii. 25 ; Mark iii. 33 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] ; Luke xiv. 5 ; Eph. v. 5,
etc. In Acts xxiii. 9 and similar passages nothing but the
Sing, is to be thought of.
A rare instance of the Plural is Jas. ii. 15 lav Se dSeA(6s 17 dSeA^r)
yv/x-vo! inrdpxoxrw Ko-l AeiTro/xevoi TT}S rpo^s, where the Sing, would have
caused ambiguity, on account of the difference of sex.
B. 129, 8; H. 522; C. 502; D. p. 398; J. 381.
Examples of the usage here spoken of (the Neuter Sing.
of the predicate adj. when the subject is to be conceived of as
thing, xP*H JLa or T are f un d, though rarely, in the N. T. also:
Matt. vi. 34 dpKerbv rfj rjjAepa rj tca/cia avTTjSj 2 Cor. ii. 6 IKOVQV
... 77 eVmytua avrrj.
B. 129, N. 8 ; H. 683 c. ; C. 507 e. ; J. 381, Obs. 3.
Far more frequently are the Neuters ovSe'v, /u^Sev used in ref- 5
erence to Masc. and Fern, subjects, if they blend with the copula
etvat into a single idea: nothing i.e. of no worth, in contrast with
rl dvai (see 127, 16 p. 114) ; as, 1 Cor. vii. 19 f) Trepirojar) ovSev ecmv
Kat 17 aKpopva-TLO. ovSeV ecrrtv, xiii. 2 ; 2 Cor. xii. 1 1 ovSev ct/xi, John viii.
54 ; Gal. vi. 3 d yap SoKet TI<S etvat n ^rf)kv wv. (But Matt, xxiii. 16, 18
belongs under 143, 14 p. 288.) Analogous to this usage is 1 Cor
xi. 5 (yw-*)) cv yap eoriv /cat TO avro T^ c^upTyjaevT/, and that of
n-Xetov, eXarrov when (quite as in the classics) treated almost like
indeclinable word? : Matt. vi. 25 ; Luke xii. 23
128 AGREEMENT OF SUBJECT AND PREDICATE. [ 120
TTJS Tpo<r/9, ix. 13 OVK eto- Iv ^//.iv TrAeTov 77 TTCFTC apToi, (on the other
hand, the Plural is used Acts xxiii. 13, 21 ; xxv. 6) ; with this compare
1 Tim. V. 9 e\arrov ITW cr)Kovra ycyowla. .
B. 129, 9; H. 513; J. 381, Obs. 1.
Pronouns, when, at the beginning of a clause, they are not
only subjects, but refer at the same time to the fol-
lowing predicate, are in the ancient languages, as is well
known, put in the same gender with the predicate. Of this
usage there are a great many examples in the N. T. also :
Mark iv. 15 ovroi elcrw ol Trapa rrjv 6S6y, Matt. xxii. 38 avrrj
earlv rj /j,e<yd\rj eVroX^, Mark xii. 28 ; Luke ii. 2 ; Rom. xi. 15
T/? 17 Trpo^^is, el fj,r) etc. Eph. i. 18 ; vi. 2 ; Phil. i. 28 ^m
(rrlv avrois eVSetft? a-TrwAeia?, 1 Cor. iii. 17 (6 vab<i)
co-re vjieis etc.
Yet passages are not wanting which appear to approximate to our
(German) usage of employing the Neuter in such a case, as 1 Pet.
ii. 19 TOVTO yap x^P ls etc - where, however, TOVTO rather prepares the
way for the following clause with ci as containing the proper subject
for the predicate x^P ts 5 c f* vs> 20 where TOVTO refers back to what
precedes. Nevertheless, in both cases the Vulgate translates, in ac-
cordance with ancient usage, hcec est gratia. Here belong, in par-
ticular, a number of passages where a preceding, and generally a
foreign, word is interpreted, or even directly translated,
by a relative clause beginning with the Neuter o. If the word to be
explained is itself a Neuter, as in Col. i. 24 o-w/ota avrov, o to-rw f)
cK/cAr/aia, the Neuter form of the relative was required by that ; ' and
if the predicate of the relative clause is a Neuter, as in Mark xv. 16
T^S avX^?, o icrriv Trpamopiov, Eph. vi. 17 TTJV fjia^aipav TOV Trvev/xaTos,
o eo-Ttv pT^/xa Oeov, such cases may be regarded as instances of the rule
laid down 143, 3 p. 281. But there are passages in which neither
of these suppositions is the case and yet the Neuter o is used,
passages, therefore, in which (according to B. 125, 8, 2) the word
to be explained is to be taken merely as such, i.e. as a term desti-
tute of gender. We distinguish three cases : a) most frequently the
word to be explained is a foreign word and precedes the relative
clause, as Matt, xxvii. 33 TOTTOV Acyo/Aevov FoXyo^a, o eor> Kpaviov TOTTOS
Aeyo'/u-evos (a harsh combination, for which Mark xv. 22 more
classically o CCTTIV fAeOepfjirjvevo p e v o v etc.), Mark iii. 17
o COTIJ/ vtol /3povri}<j, John i.*42 (Meo'O'tas), 43 (K^as), ix. 7
1 On TOU /Auo-TTjpfov, 8 forty XpTT(fc which follows (i. 27 Lchm. [Treg.]) see
143, 3 p. 281, and on ii. 17 see c) below.
129.] CONSTRUCTIO AD SYNESIN IN THE PREDICATE. - 129
see No. 18 p. 21), Acts h 36 (Ba/ava/Jas), Heb. vii. 2 (SaA^) ; b) the
case is similar when the foreign word fills the place of the predicate
in the relative clause, as Mark xii. 42 AeTrra 8vo, o eo-rtv KoSpavr^s,
John xix. 17 Kpaviov TOTTOV, o (Grsb. and Rec. os) Aeyerat 'EjSpawm
FoAyo^a; c) the term to be explained is a common Greek word
(Masc. or Fern.), as Col. iii. 14 dyaTn?, o la-nv <rwSe<r/x,os T^S reActo-ny-ros 113
(Grsb. Rec. 777-1$ in opposition to the MSS. [Sin. os]), Rev. xxi. 8
Ai^xvr^, o icrnv 6 $ava,Tos 6 Scvrepos. 1
REMARK. All that has been said does not apply, of course, to clauses
in which the pronouns do not refer directly to the predicate, but, as
substitutes for objects previously mentioned, simply constitute the
subject respecting which something is predicated, and consequently
there can be no thought of a change of gender ; as, Acts viii. 10 OUTOS
(sc. 2n/x,cov) IVTW f) Swa/xis TOT; $ov, Eph. iv. 15 eis avrov, os eoriv rj
?j, XptoTos, i. 23 etc. ; see other examples 1, a) and c) above, p. 124.
B. 129, 10 ; H. 511 ; C. 490 sq. ; J. 391.
When there are several subjects, if the predicate is in the
Plural the Masc. is preferred to the Fern., as in Luke ii. 33
(6 Trarrjp /cal 77 f^rjrrjp Qav^aCpvT^ , 48 (oSvvct)fj,evoi) , Jas. ii.
15 etc. The other case, in which, namely, the adjective etc.
refers as respects gender in form to only one of the subjects,
occurs especially with attributives: Luke x. 1 efc Travav
7ro\w /cal -TOTTOV, 1 Thess. v. 23 ; Heb. iii. 6 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf.,
Sin.] rr)v Trapprjaiav /cal TO /cav^rjfia . . . ftejSaiav, ix. 9 $>pd re
/cal Ovaiai, /j,rj Swd/juevai, etc.
CONSTRUCTIO AD SYNESIN IN THE PREDICATE.
B. 129, 11; H. 523; C. 499; D. p. 398 sq.; J. 378.
The construction known by this name, characteristic as it 8
is more or less of all languages, establishes itself especially in
1 Harsher than any of the above instances is the reading Eph. v. 5 Lchm. [T.Tr.]
irXeoveKTTjs, '6 lanv ctSwAoAarprjs, and not analogous to them, because no epfj.T)vtia
of the word TrAeoW/cr^s occurs here. Moreover, since the origin of this reading,
which in its complete form only B [now N also] exhibits, may be satisfactorily
traced (see Tdf.'s crit. note), the older reading '6s has been restored by Tdf. [eds.
2, 7] with reason. Incomparably better accredited is Col. ii. 102 e<rriv r) /ce^aA^,
and preferred by Lchm., as being the more difficult reading, to the equally attested
os effTiv [N also] ; but exegesis opposes the reference (in that case necessary) of 8
to ir\-fipct)fj.a, and the putting of the words /cal eVre eV aura? TreTrArjpw/ieVot in a
liarsnthesis. On the other hand, in Col. ii. 17 the well-attested reading '6 GVTIV, as
the more difficult, may be well sustained against the other a e<rr/ [M also], inas-
much as all that has been previously mentioned, grouped together under the
unifying term '6, is designated as <r/ctek T&V /teAAoVraj/ in contrast with the
XpiaTou, [yet Tdf. Treg. prefer Sj.
17
130 CONSTRUCTIO AD SYNESIN IN THE PREDICATE. [ 129.
the unconstrained popular language, which is averse to gram-
matical punctiliousness ; hence examples of it begin with
114 Homer, and come down to the latest Greek, the N. T. included.
AS the subject is rendered familiar enough by the general
grammars, examples are subjoined at once ; these cannot be
omitted here, since (in connection with those catalogued in
123, 7 p. 80 ; 127, 7 p. 105 ; 143, 4 p. 281) they constitute
an essential element of the N. T. language. And in order not
to distract the attention by too many classes of passages, those
in which the construction appears in participial clauses,
whether predicative or attributive, are included.
a) The predicate stands in the Plural, instead of the Singular,
with collectives : most frequently with the terms o^A.o? and TrA^tfos,
e.g. John vii. 49 6 o^A.os OVTOS . . . tTrdparoi eioriv, xii. 1 2 ; Matt. xxi. 8 ;
Mark ix. 15 ; Luke vi. 19 Tdf. [Treg. ], ix. 12 ; xix. 37 ; xxiii. 1 ;
Acts v. 16; xxi. 36; Rev. vii. 9; also with err par id Luke ii. 13
(trXfjOos or/oanas . . . alvovvriav) , with OIK (a (family) 1 Cor. xvi. 15;
Rev. xix. 1, and the collective limitations TO rpLrov TXOI/ dvflpooTrwi/, TWV
TrAotW Rev. ix. 18 ; viii. 9. Both Sing, and Plur. united : John vi. 2
rjKoXovOti 0^X09 . . . on e'0ecopow, xii. 9, 18 ; Luke i. 21 fy 6 Aaos Trpoo--
SOKWV . . . KCU e#av/Aaov, Acts xv. 12, and in the Genitive Abs. (cf. TOV
o-ro'Aou . . . TrAeoWwv in Demosth. Mid. 45) Mark viii. 1 ?roAAov o^Aou
OI/TOS Kat fjirj IXOVTWV.
b) The predicate follows the natural gender of the subject.
Of this the examples are most numerous in the Apocalypse, in ac-
cordance with the style of the author (see 123, 7 p. 80). Thus iv.
1 ; ix. 13 ; xi. 15 <nDvrj . . . Aeyon', <tovai . . . Aeyovres as the author
thought at once, instead of the voice, of the angel uttering it, vii. 4
XiAiuSes eV<payioyxVoi ( 123 p. 78), V. 12 ^tAiaSc? . . . Aeyoi/TC? (cf.
144, 13 a) p. 298), iv. 8 Tdf. [2, 7, 8, Treg.; cf. Sin.] fluo, & *a<9' &
c^wv ... Ae'y OVTS (cf. Orjpiov 123 p. 80), xix. 14 0-rpareu/x.aTa . . . evSe-
Sv/AeVot, xvii. 3 Lchm. [Tdf., Sin.] (see 123 p. 80). Examples from
other authors are, Mark xiii. 14 (respecting which see p. 81 above),
Luke x. 13 Tupcp Kat 2tS<wi . . . TraAxu ai> . . . Ka6rjjjLvoL (Grsb. and Rec.
-vat) fjiercvdrja-av, Acts xxviii. 26 (Aeycov) Tdf. [Treg. so cod. Sin.],
Gal. i. 23 (see 14 below, p. 133), Eph. iv. 17, 18 ra Wv-r] . . . CO-KOTW-
/iteVot. (But in 1 Cor. xii. 2 aTrayo/xci/ot does not depend immediately
upon #1/17, and in Mark ix. 20 iSwi/ does not refer to TO TTVCV/XU, see
144, 13 c) p. 299.)
In almost all the passages cited under a) and b) it will be found
that the employment of the natural gender and number imparts to
the expression a much more unconstrained character than would have
resulted from strict grammatical correctness.
129.] ADVERBS IN LIEU OF THE PREDICATE.
B. 129, N. 12; H. 514 b.; C. 501; D. p. 399; J. 478.
Instances of the Plural with IKUO-TOS and the like are Acts ii. 6
IJKOVOV el<s C'KCUTTOS, xi. 29, etc. The first hand reading of cod. Vat. in
Acts iv. 32 ovSe et9 IXeyov (Sin. and others IXeycv) is probably not a
clerical error. Similarly 1 Cor. iv. 6 Iva ^ ets inrep TOV tvb<s <j>v(riov<r6
KO.TO, TOV erepou.
B. 129, N.14; H. 518 d. ; C. 499b.; D. p. 399; J. 390 d.
The employment of the so-called Pluralis Majestaticus is everywhere 10
common in the Epistles, agreeably to the general character of their
contents, as Rom. i. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 8 sqq. ; Heb. xiii. 18, etc. Whether
the 1st Pers. Plur. occurring here and there in the Gospels in the
discourses of Jesus is to be understood in the same way, is disputed ;
see the interpreters on Matt. iii. 15 ; John iii. 11. On the plural in
such passages as Mark iv. 30 (TIM O/AOUOO-W/ZCI/ etc.) see 139, 4 p. 209.
ADVERBS IN LIEU OF THE PREDICATE. 115
B. 129, 13; C. 706; D. p. 454; J. 375, 3.
The power of adverbs to be employed as predicative limita- 11
tions is far greater in the Greek language than, for example,
in the Latin, owing to the readiness with which adverbs in
Greek, without further change of form, can be turned into
adjectives and substantives ( 125, 10 p. 95).
In the N. T. the following adverbs among others are found so used :
yyvs, e.g. 6 /ccupos p>u, TO TrouT^a, TO prjfJ-a eyyus rnv Matt. xxvi.
18; Rom. x. 8 (a quotn.), eyyvTepov xiii. 11; TT Arjo-i'ov, e.g.
Luke x. 29, 36 TIS eo-riV /uov irX^ariov who is my neighbor 1 ? (without
the Art. according to 124, 6 p. 87) ; Troppw, Luke xiv. 32 OUTOV
Trdppeo OVTOS ; o VTGJS, Matt. i. 18 rj yevccris OVT<OS ^v, xxiv. 27, 37 ; xix.
10 i oimos CO-TIV fj air La (if the case is so), Rom. iv. 18 (a quotn.)
ovrws ecrrai TO o-Trep/xa crov (viz. as the stars of heaven), 1 Pet. ii. 15,
etc. In this way is to be explained also the phrase TO ilvon Iva. 0<3
Phil. ii. 6 ; on the adverbial use of tcra see Pape.
B. 129,14; H. 667; C. 536; D. 409; J. 652.
The addition of the personal pronouns eyd>, etc., to the verb 1!
takes place, as usual, wherever emphasis, and in particular
sensible antithesis to other subjects, renders them necessary ;
see, for example, 1 Cor. xv. 36 crv b cnreipeis, ov fojoTrotemw, etc.
(cf. 151, 17 p. 388), but subsequently on repetition (vs. 37)
merely o (nrelpeis, John vii. 34, 36 ; i. 19, 22, etc.
Yet it is not to be overlooked that, agreeably to what has been
elsewhere brought forward respecting the immoderate use of the pro-
132 UNEXPRESSED SUBJECT. [129.
nouns, and in particular relative to avros as subject (see 127, 9 p. 107,
26 p. 118, 130, 2 p. 142), the personal pronouns were frequently
employed where no reason of importance is obvious, and a
native Greek, at least, would certainly have contented himself simply
with the form of the verb. We mistake the character of the N. T.
language, and should misapprehend many passages, should we attempt
in this matter to apply the classic standard and assume in all
cases a rhetorical reason for the use of the pronoun, a procedure
which would do injustice to the homely and simple narrative style,
especially of the Gospels. Compare on this point such passages as
Matt. xiv. 16 ; x. 16 ; Mark vi. 37 ; xiv. 30 ; Rom. ii. 3 ; Gal. ii. 19 ;
2 Cor. xi. 29, etc., or look up the numerous passages in which John
avails himself of the personal pronoun as the subject of a finite verb.
Accordingly we encounter here also, as we did above for instance in
the case of the Possessives (avrov etc. 127, 26 p. 118), a continual
variation in the documents ; as some of the scribes, accustomed to the
usage of the N. T., often added the pronouns, while others proceeded
more according to classic principles and omitted the pronouns where
they seemed to them superfluous. See, for example, simply in ref-
erence to eyco the various readings on Mark i. 2 ; Luke vii. 27 ; John
v. 36 ; vi. 40 ; xii. 50 ; xvi. 17 ; xvii. 19 ; xviii. 37, etc.
116 B. 129, N. 15; H. 506; C. 394; D. p. 372; J. 467, 3.
13 An instance of apposition to the omitted pronoun implied in the
verbal ending, is 1 Pet. v. 1 TrapaKaXw 6 o-v/x7rpcr/3vTe/>os /cat /xaprvq.
This occurs most commonly with appositives in the fo r m of a participle
(taking the place of a relative clause), examples of w'aich are given
144, 9 c) p. 295.
UNEXPRESSED SUBJECT (Germ, man, (tc.).
B. 129,15; J. 373.893.
14 Although the language of the N. T. is lar more liberal in
its use of pronouns than the ordinary literary language (see
12 above), yet frequently, when there is an abrupt change
of the subject in a minor clause (co-ordinate or subordinate),
there is found, as in the classics, no corresponding pronoun,
where the connection is evident ; e.g. Mark i. 27 rot? irvtvpacnv
, Kal VTTCLKOVOVO-W aura* sc. ra TrvevfAara, 1 Cor. vii. 36
dfjuaprdvei, rya/neircoo-av (var. 7a^temt>), where any more
precise specification would have been heavy, in ract intolerable.
Thus Luke, relying on the inevitable suggestions of the context,
felt no hesitation in writing, xv. 15 eKoXXybq *vi TV TroAtrcov, Kal
(sc. 6 TroAi'r^s) avrov is TOVS aypov*, Actt> vi. 6 ovs iiarnrjcrav
129.1 UNEXPRESSED SUBJECT. 133
TCOV a7TO(TToX(OV, Kttt . . . 67T^KaV (SC. Ot (XTTOCTToXoi) ttVTOtS T&S
Luke iv. 39 ; xvii. 2 are still more simple and obvious ; but
Acts xvii. 2 /cara TO iw$os TW IlavAu) eio^A^ev sc. 6 IlavXos is harsh, and
hardly Greek, on account of the subject of the leading clause being
supplied from a subordinate adjunct; and Acts viii. 7 TroXXwv TWV
V+ TrvcvfjidTa aKaOapra, POWVTCL (sc. TO. Trvev/jLara) (^wi^ /xeyaX^
, where the subject of the leading clause is identical with the
object of the preceding participial clause (on the other reading, Lchm.
[Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin.], see p. 380), is anacoluthic, or to be explained by
the blending of two constructions ( 151, 10 p. 383). Examples from
Paul's Epistles, are, Gal. i. 23 TJ/X^I/ dyvoov^evos rats e/CKAiyo-iais . . ,
fjLovov 8e aKovovrts ^crav viz. the members of the Jewish churches (see
b) under 8 p. 130 above) ; 1 Cor. vii. 17 et /u/J), OCCIOTM <!>s e/xtpto-ei/ 6
Kuptoc; .... ovrcos TrepiTraTtiTU) sc e/caoTos (on the hyperbaton see 151,
18 p. 389). See, besides, other similar examples 151, 10 p. 383. 1
B. 129, N. 16 ; J. 373. 893. 1 17
Sometimes the unexpressed subject of a clause is also not to 15
be found in what precedes, although a definite subject was
in the writer's mind. In such cases, as a rule it (a) may
either be gathered from the necessary connection, or (b) is
assumed to be sufficiently known to the readers, e.g. in quota-
tions, which in fact are so often given by hint and in a frag-
mentary form.
Examples of (a) are Heb. xi. 12 Sio KCU d<* ei/6? fywrj&Tj&av viz.
the posterity of Abraham, Rom. ix. 11 /MI^HO ycwij&miv /xijSe 7rpadv-
1 I John v. 16 tdv TIS ISy ( [so N] ; Lchm. eitirj) rbv abe\<f>bv UVTOV a/j-aprdvovra . . . ,
cuT7]<rei, teal 8c6<rei aur ^coifji/ etc. is a case hard to decide. Winer (p. 427 5th ed.
[cf. 7th ed. p. 523 (487)]) holds the interpretation of deWette and others (who, com-
paring Jas. v. 14 sqq., would retain the same subject) to be harsh, which is by no
means the case, since it has the grammatical sequence in its favor. It is opposed,
however, by the use of the word SiSdvat in the sense of acquire, procure, a circum-
stance which early induced ancient expositors to assume a new subject, viz. God.
And the parallel passage from James, notwithstanding its similarity, is not quite
in point : in the first place, because there the predicate is <rct><ret, and secondly,
because the causal relation between the two terms firia-rptyai and vaxrai is different
from that between currjo-at and Sovvai. For the <ra><rat is included in the hrurrptyu
and the tvurrptyas is thereby at the same time a auxras. The other explanation
of the passage in John (that of Winer, Liicke, etc.) is manifestly the harsher, not
so much on account of the rapid change of subject, as because the subject under-
stood (6 6e6s) is also previously to be supplied as the object of atV^tret. Neverthe-
less, taking into consideration the usage given above, and in particular vs. 14
(edv rt alrw/uLtOa . . . aitovi rj/J-wv], it seems to be the more probable; and the identity
of the verbal forms (alr^cret . . . 5c6<ret Mey. [i.e. Hutherj) is no obstacle in the
way of this construction ; cf. Acts vi. 6 etc. above.
On the double Dative (OUT<, afjuxprdvovffi} see 133, 13 p. 179.
134 UNEXPRESSED SUBJECT. [i29.
TOH> n viz. Esau and Jacob (vs. 13), Luke xvi. 4 tva Se'^Wrcu ju,c eis
TOV? GIKOVS auTojj> viz. the debtors subsequently mentioned, John
xii. 5 Sia rt TO (Avpov OVK fTrpdOrj . . . /cat C$O@TJ Trrw^ots viz. the proceeds,
Rom. iv. 3, 22 ; Gal. iii. 6 ; Jas. ii. 23 (a quotation) eTrio-rcva-ej/ 'Aftpaap.
r<3 $e<3, KCU fXoyi<rBr) aurw eis SiKaioo-w^i/ sc. TO TTLa-Tevew. Hence it
harmonizes perfectly with the genius of the N. T. language to^upply
in John vii. 51 as subject of aKowrg, not J/O/AOS itself, but 'he who is
administering the law,' and in Heb. x. 38 the general term man educed
from Si/caios (according to 151, 23 d) p. 392). This latter passage
Bleek takes otherwise ; cf. also Hab. ii. 4, where the order of the
clauses is reversed.
Examples of (b) : John vi. 31 (a quotation) apTov e TOV ovpavov
avrots <ayeu/, 2 Cor. ix. 9 (a quotation) eo-/c6p7rio-i/, eoWei/ TOIS
B. 129,16; H. 604c.; C. 671; D. 881b.; J. 373, 2. 3.
16 The case is different with apparently impersonal predicates,
such as craX-Trtfet, etc., with which it is usual to supply a verbal
concrete, as aa\7riy/cTrjs, etc. : 1 Cor. xv. 52 crdhnriGzi 7^/9, KOI
ol veicpol ava<JTr\(70vTai.
Quite in accordance with this usage, the predicates Xcy et or <f>rjo-iv
are often found in the N. T. in quotations, 6 6t6s or even merely rj
ypa^rf being always to be supplied as subject ; as, 1 Cor. vi. 1 6 ; 2 Cor.
vi. 2; Gal. iii. 16; Eph. iv. 8; v. 14 ; Heb. viii. 5; iv. 3 (etp^/cev).
Those subjects are also expressed, as in Gal. iv. 30 ; 1 Tim. v. 18, or
to be supplied from the preceding context, as in Heb. i. 5 sqq. Sim-
ilarly with evSoKTjo-ev in Col. i. 1 9 6 0eos is to be supplied, which is
expressed in 1 Cor. i. 21 ; Gal. i. 15 (doubtful). Respecting
(Luke xxiv. 47) see 150, 7 p. 374.
B. 129, 17; H. 504; C. 571(d); D. 381b.; J. 373.
17 Among the examples of this section respecting an unexpressed and
118 indefinite subject (where in English we use it e.g. Tr/Doo-rj/xcuVei,
may be reckoned Acts ii. 3 w^O-^a-av avrots
aum vrvpo?, KCU Ka6 icrev l<fi tva eKacrrov CLVTWV, where the
subject of e/ca&crev (TT^P or yAoxro-a or Trvcv/xa) has been designedly
left obscure, on account of the mysterious and wonderful nature of the
occurrence. More difficult grammatically is Luke xxiv. 21 TptV^v
ravrrjv fj/Atpav ayet cnj/xcpot/, a<f> ov ravra eyevcTo. The insertion of
a definite personal subject viz. 'Lyo-oSs (Meyer) cannot be justified by
later usage; for in this, ayeiv when connected with an object, as
^epav, CTOS etc., either has the special signification to celebrate, solem-
nize, a day (Dion. Hal. de comp. verb, in.), or is an imitation of the
Latin use of agere annum (i.q. natum esse, to be old, Galen) ; tiee
129.] UNEXPRESSED SUBJECT. 135
Stephanus sub voce. Moreover, the assumption of a personal subject
would only be allowable in case the following relative clause (a<J> ov,
etc.) also contained the same subject, or at least continued the nar-
ration of occurrences relating to the same subject. Still more strange
does it seem to supply 'lo-parjA. as subject from the preceding TOV 'lo-parjA.
(Bornem.). The majority of interpreters (deWette, etc.) have ac-
cordingly taken the expression ayet -nyv ^/xcpav as impersonal (pretty
nearly equivalent to 17 ^/xepa ayerai), which not only gives the simplest
and most natural meaning, but agrees best with the following relative
clause, which is likewise without a personal subject. Although this
supposition seems no less than the other to have the ordinary
usage against it, so that we must regard the expression in this sense
as a a?ra pyOtv, yet it finds its analogue in the use (likewise of isolated
occurrence) of d^e^ei (Mark xiv. 41) it is enough, more closely it
is completed, all is over. 1 All these terms (ayet, aTre'xei, eKaflio-cv) are,
however, to be carefully distinguished from the strict impersonals of
the following section, since they stand out of all connection with verbal
constructions. The meaning of ayet in the passage before us is given
unequivocally in the ancient versions : tertius dies est, agitur. Cf.
further on this subject 130, 4 p. 144.
B. 129, 18; H. 494; C. 571e.; D. 381 o.; J. 373, Obs. 1.
To the ordinary impersonal verbs (Set, TrpeTrei, etc.) a few must be 18
added which are manifestly imitations of the Hebrew idiom or bor-
rowed from the language of the Septuagint. Foremost among these
are the common /cat eyeVero or eyeVero Sc (W}),on the varied construc-
tion of which see 141, 6 p. 276, and the phrase avJ3rj l-nl *ap8iW
(nb b? nb see Gesenius) 1 Cor. ii. 9 (cf. Luke xxiv. 38), which is
used quitt after the manner of impersonal verbs in Acts vii. 23 dW/fy
7ri TTJV jcapStav avrov TTLaK\j/a(rdaL etc.
B. 129,19; H. 504c.; C. 571 c.; J. 373, 7.
The common modes of expressing the indefinite personal 19
subject (English one, Germ, man) are by means of the 3d
Pers. Plur. Act. or Mid. (even Luke xii. 20 is to be taken thus)
and the 3d Pers. Sing. Pass., without any sensible difference ;
hence both modes of expression are united in a single sentence
in Luke xii. 48 vroXu fyirrjOrjaeTai, Trap avrov - . . /cal irepic- 119
aorepov alrija-ovo-iv avrov.
That the 3d Pers. Sing, of the Active was thus used, the in-
1 See on this passage my detailed exposition in the Stud. u. Krit. for 1858 3d
Heft, and cf. the similar use of ircpie'xet (equiv. to Trepje'xfreu) in 1 Pet. ii. 6
Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.J; see p. 144 note.
13(5 OMISSION OF THE COPULA. [ 129.
definite TIS being omitted (cf. B. 129, N. 17), can reasonably be held
only of 2 Cor. x. 10, in case we read <^<riv with Rec., Grsb., Tdf
[Treg., N] etc. : at ptv 7rt<rroAat, ^rycrti/, /Sapetcu etc. (t^ao-tv certainly
looks like a correction, and the translation of the Vulgate inquiunt
like an interpretation, suggested as it was by common usage).
That with both these verbs, however, this usage, in parenthesis, is by
no means unknown to Greek and Latin authors is seen e.g. in Demosth.
c. Aristocr. p. 150 ; Plut. Mor. p. 119 F. ; Liv. 6. 40 ; Cic. de fin. 1. 2 ;
4. 24, etc.
Other passages, which are referred to this head, see under 15 a)
p. 133 sq.
OMISSION OP THE COPULA.
B. 129, 20 and N. 18; H. 508 a. ; C. 572; D. 419; J. 376.
The omission of the copula in the 3d Pers. Sing, of the
Indicative is very common in all parts of the N. T., in fact it
may be said, particularly in the Pauline Epistles, to be pre-
ferred often throughout entire paragraphs. See a great mul-
titude of such passages in Winer 584 (544).
This omission takes place 1) in aphorisms, sententious propositions,
and proverbial phrases, as TTWTOS 6 #os, ov ircwrutv rj Ir/oTis, ev o-w/xo.
Kttt !/ TTVeVtltt, IS KVptOS, TTOLVTa KaOdpOL TOIS Ka0apOlS, TOIS <$ aTTlOTOlS
ovSev KaOapov ; 2) in questions, and exclamations in an interrogative
form, as TI trot 6Vo/xa ; TIS f) ox^eXeia ri^s TrcpiTO/xr/s ; TTOV ovv rj Kain^cns ;
TO CTKOTOS 7TOCTOV (Matt. vi. 23), MS avf&pevvrjTO. TO, Kpip.ct.ra avTOV, etc.
3) in the customary formula <S (ov) oVo/xa or oi/o/xa avrw (avTov), as
Mark xiv. 32 ^copt'ov ov TO oi/o/xa (Lchm. w 6Vo/xa) re^o-Ty/xai/et, Luke i.
5 yvvr), Kol TO ovo/xa avT>}s 'EA.to-a/?T, 26, 27 ; ii. 25 ; viii. 41 ; xxiv.
13, 18, etc., also when unconnected or parenthetic, as John i. 6 av-
0peo7ros, ovo/xa avT<3 'Icoavnys, iii. 1 av^pcoTros, NIKOO^/AOS ovo^ta avra) ;
4) especially with certain predicates (as indeed in Greek authors, see
B. 129, N. 18; D. 419 (b) ; J. 376 c.), for instance, with the
notions necessary, possible, impossible with an Infinitive following, or
to be supplied : Rom. xiii. 5 Sio avdyKr) v7roTao-o-eo-#ai, Heb. ix. 16, 23 ;
vi. 4, 18 iv ols dSvVaTov i//evVao-0ai 0eoV, x. 4; xi. 6, 19 Tdf. [cod. Sin.;
Treg.], Gal. iv. 15 d Swarov sc. ^v; with hard: Acts xxvi. 14 a-K\rjpov
(TO: rpos /cevTpa XaKTt^etv ; with righteous : 2 Thess. i. 6 etvrep SIKCU.OV
dvraTToSovvat, etc. 5) before the Relative when the demonstrative
correlate is also dropped, as iia/capios dv-^p, ov ov /xr/ Aoyto-r/Tat Kvptos
apapTiav Rom. iv. 8 ; Jas. i. 12, etc. ; on this cf. 151, 24 c) p. 395.
That no such rules as these, however, are invariable is obvious.
Respecting other phrases, in part established formulas, such as S^Xov
on, LVO. TI, TI OTI, titKpov oVov oo"ov, K^oXaiov 8c, etc., see the references
in the Index, and 151, IV. Ellipsis, pp. 390 sqq.
129.1 OMISSION OF THE COPULA. 137
Of the other Persons, that most frequently omitted is the 21
3d Pers. Plural elaiv, as in 1 Cor. xvi. 9; Rom. iv. 7, etc., 120
particularly in the course of such statements and deductions
as (according to the preceding paragraph) are generally de-
livered with the omission of the copula ; as, Rom. iv. 14 ; xi.
16 ; 1 Cor. i. 26 ; xiii. 8 ; Heb. ii. 11, etc.
Ic the first and second Persons the omission more rarely
occurs, as a rule, only when the person is expressly designated by
means of the personal pronoun, as in John xiv. 11 TTIO-TCVCTC on eyw iv
TO) Trarpi KCU a Trarryp iv C/AOI, Mark xii. 26 eyoi) 6 $os 'A/3paa/x, 2 Cor. x.
7 KO.$WS avros XpioTov, OVTCOS KO.I Ty/Ae??, John xvii. 23 eya) iv aurots KOL
crv iv ifjLoc ; sometimes also where the person is readily suggested by
the context, and in other respects no ambiguity arises, as 2 Cor. xi. 6
ci Se /cat tStu)T77<> TW Adya> (sc. cfyu) aAA.' ov rrj yi/toa-ei, Rev. XV. 4 TI'S ov
fjirj <f>o/37)6rj, Kvpie . . . ort /xdVos oVios SC. el.
Also when the construction requires the Subjunctive, or 22
the Optative (in wishes), or the Imperative, we find the
copula omitted ; yet here again but rarely.
The Subjunctive: 2 Cor. viii. 13 ov yap Iva aAAois aVeo-ts, v/ui>
8 0Aa/as sc. rj or yeVr/rat which is subsequently used vs. 14; viii. 11
OTTCOS, /cavaVep f) TrpouvfJLLa rov ^eXetv, OVTCOS TO e7rtTXO"ai CK TOV t^ctv.
The Optative is omitted, particularly in certain very current
phrases which have become standing formulas for expressing a wish,
as tAecos crot SC. $eos Matt. xvi. 22, ecp^vr; v/ui/, f) \o.pi^ p*ff v/x-oii/, 6 0e6s
T^S eiprji/ry? /ACTU TTOLVTWV V/AOJJ/, etc. The Imperative, particularly
in connection with preceding imperatives or demands, so that the form
to be supplied is necessarily suggested, as Col. iv. 6 (TrepiTrarctTe . . .),
6 Xdyos v/xaiv Travrorc iv ^apm, Heb. xiii. 4, 5 ; Luke i. 28 ; Rom. xii.
9 sqq. Respecting /x^Sey o-ot etc., see 23 below.
REMARK. Whether in the d o x o 1 o g i e s (Rom. xi. 36 ; xvi. 25 sq. ;
Gil. i. 5 ; Jude 25 ; Rev. i. 6, etc.) and in the opening formulas, as
evAoyqros 6 #eos Kat Tra-njp 2 Cor. i. 3 ; Eph. i. 3 ; 1 Pet. i. 3 (cf. the
song of praise in Matt. xxi. 9), we are to supply et?? or IO-TW, or the
Indicative eo-rtV, may be doubtful. Yet in view of Rom. i. 25 ; 2 Cor.
xi. 31 and particularly 1 Pet. iv. 11 (cf. the various readings on Matt,
vi. 13) the Indicative ecmV decidedly deserves the preference.
Strictly speaking, every case of the omission arid insertion 23
of a verbal idea ought to be treated in the chapter concerning
Ellipsis. Since, however, a sharp discrimination in terms the
supply of which is left solely to oar own judgment is quite
impossible, it seems to be expedient to treat in this place also
18
138 NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. [ 129 a.
of the case where the verb to be supplied is a general term,
closely allied to the copula, as Trapeivcu, <yeveo-0cu, eXdelv, ai d
the like. In every instance it will be found that the supply
of the absent verbal idea (expressed as it is by us in various
ways) is facilitated by other parts of the sentence, in particular
1 21 by a Dative (as the verb's regimen) or a relation indicated
by Prepositions.
Here belongs primarily the Hebraistic formula (2 Chron. xxxv. 21 ;
2 Sam. xvi. 10; xix. 22), which, however, is not unknown to the
Greeks (Arr. Epict. 1, 1, 16, etc.), that occurs in the Gospels : ri e/u.ot /cat
o-o', Matt. viii. 29 ; Mark i. 24 ; v. 7 ; Luke iv. 34 ; viii. 28 ; John ii. 4
[A.V. what have I to do with thee] so Luther, (cf. Sell weigh, on Herod.
5. 33), even when the connection requires an Imperative, as Matt.
xxvii. 19 /-tr/Scv arol KCU TO> SIKCU'U) eKcti/o). Also the phrase (quite classic)
ri Trpos ere ; ri Trpos ty/tas ; Lat. quid hoc ad me [_ A. V. what is that to
thee~\ Luther was gehts dich an (Herm. de ellip. p. Ill), Matt, xxvii. 4 ;
John xxi. 22, 23; similarly 1 Cor. v. 12 ri yap p.oi TOV<S eo> Kpiveiv ;
Other phrases with the Dative are 1 Cor. vi. 13 TO, /Spw/xora T#
KocAta KOLL rj KotAia rots ^8payAa.(Tiv (exist foT etc.), Rom. xi. 11 T<3 aura>v
TrapaTmo/xaTi f) trwnypia rots ZOvecriv (has come), iv. 13 ov yap oia v6(j.ov
rj cTrayycAia TW A/?paa/x.
In connection with Prepositions: Heb. vi. 8 ijs TO re'Xos eis
KavcTiv, 1 Cor. XV. 21 oY dv^ptoTrov 6dvaro<s KOI 8t' avOpuTrov dvacrracrts
vc/cpwv, Acts X. 15 (friDvr) TTpos avTov sc. cycvcro (cf. vs. 13), 1 Cor. iv. 20
OVK iv Xoyu) 17 /JamAa'a rov (}cov dAA* iv oWa/m, 2 Cor. iv. 15 ra Trdvra
8t* v/xas, Rom. iv. 9 6 /xaKapioyxos OVTO? eVt rrjv 7rcpLTOfj.rjv etc. (refer to)}
Matt, xxvii. 25 TO at/xa avrov i< ^/tas, Acts xviii. 6 ri ryv K<f>a\r)v
v/xwv sc. yeveo-Oio or cXOoi (cf. Matt, xxiii. 35). And with an Adverb
instead: Heb. x. 18 OTTOU a(eo-is TOVTWV, OVKCTI 7rpoo-</>opa Trepl d/xapTtas.
Without any adjunct: 1 Cor. xv. 40 /cat oxo/zaTa tTrovpavta /cat o-wjiiaTa
cTrtycia (i.e. JAere are, after the analogy of i. 26, etc.).
The numerous passages in which the predicate is only to be
supplied from the preceding context, are not noticed further here.
With this whole section compare 151, IV. pp. 390 sq.
THE CASES.
NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE.
B. 129 n. ; H. 541-43; C. 401; J. 476 sqq.
1 The instances in which the Nominative stands instead of
other Cases are chiefly occasioned by Anacoluthon (Nonas
Absol.) or by loose construction, and will accordingly be
treated of elsewhere.
[1 Cf. p. 394.]
129 a.] NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. 139
Respecting the Nom. in appositional adjuncts see 123, 5 p. 78 ;
for the Ace. in instances of two Ace., 131,8 p. 151 ; in participial
clauses and instances of Nom. Absol. in general, 144, 4sqq. p. 291,
13 p. 298; 151, 4sqq. p. 379, and numerous examples in 151,
10 p. 383.
The interjection IBov and (especially in John) even I'Se, like 2
the Latin ecce and en, are followed by a Nominative. (The
frequent occurrence of these interjections, both in narration
and in argument, is probably derivable not merely from the
0. T. alone, but from the popular language in general ; hence
they appear more and more frequently in the later period, 122
after Christ.) See numerous examples of ISov particularly in
Matt., Luke, and the Apocalypse ; of I'Se with a Nom. following,
in Mark iii. 34 Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.], xvi. 6 ; John i. 29, 36,
48; xix. 5 [tSou Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin.], 14, 26, 27, in these
passages, therefore, it is an interjection ; on the other hand,
when connected with the Ace. it is the ordinary Imperative of
eZSoz>, as in John xx. 27.
Peculiar to the Apocalypse is the frequent combination elSov KO.I
18 ov likewise followed by a Nona., as in iv. 1 ; vi. 2, 5, etc. Yet the
author sometimes allows himself the syntactic liberty of letting both
cases (Nom. and Ace.) follow interchangeably, so that cTSov again
governs the Ace. although the Nom. has preceded; as, xiv. 14 eTSov
Kat I8ov ve^eA/ty Aev/cry . . . KOL KaO-yfjitvov etc. Cf. iv. 14, and vii. 9
which is spoken of in 123, 5 p. 78 above.
The Nominative stands quite absolutely and as an incom- 3
plete parenthesis, where it is employed as a closer limita-
tion of the predicate, hence adverbially.
It is so used in temporal limitations, in Luke ix. 28 eyei/cro //.era
TOVS Aoyovs TOVTOVS, axrei fjfjitpai o/cTw, /cat TrapaAa/ftbv etc., Matt. xv. 32
CTTT Aayxvto//,ai . . . , on r/Sr; Ty/xepai rpets 7rpoo-/xvovo-tv ; in modal lim-
itations, Mark vi. 40 a.i/7reorov Trpacriat Trpcuriat (see p. 30) ; in vs. 39
the construction of Ace. with Infin. requires us to take crv/ATroo-ia O-V/XTTO'-
o-ta as Accusative (cf. Luke ix. 14). With this use of the Nom. we
may connect the (Johannean) parenthesis oVo/xa auraJ spoken of 129,
20, 3) p. 136, for which other writers employ either the Accusative
adjunct TOWO/AO. ( 131, 12 p. 153), or most commonly the Dative
ovo/oiart followed by that case of the proper name which the construc-
tion requires, as Acts x. 1 avyp TIS 6Vo'/A<m Ko/ovrjXto?, Matt, xxvii. 32
wOpUTTOV OVO/XttTl Sl/ACOI/tt, ActS XXV11. 1 CKaTOVTOLpXy 6Vo'/A(m
etc.
140 NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. [129 a.
Respecting a s e c o n d Nom. and the periphrasis with cis for the
predicate-Norn, see in connection with 131, 7 p. 150.
T The remark (B. 129 a. 1) that the Vocative in classic
Greek commonly takes the interjection w before it, does not
hold in the N. T. On the contrary, not only is this sign of
the Voc. in itself rare (used only sixteen times in all), but in
most of these instances it is more than a mere sign of the
Voc.. inasmuch as the expression generally has an emphatic
character, and so contains rather an exclamation than a
simple address.
For example, Matt. xvii. 17 (and parall. pass. Mark ix. 19 ; Luke
ix. 41) o> ycvca aVurTos, Rom. xi. 33 w /3a0os TrAovrov, Luke xxiv. 25 ;
Gal. iii. 1 o> avorjTot, Acts xiii. 10 o> TrA-^p^s Travros SdAov. As a simple
address in classic style it occurs, strictly speaking, only in the Acts
(i. 1; xviii. 14; xxvii. 21), for even 1 Tim. vi. 20; Matt. xv. 28;
Rom. ii. 1, 3 ; Jas. ii. 20 are not without a certain emphatic accent.
5 Even when the Vocative has its own form, that of the Nom-
inative is not unfrequently chosen (as in the classics). The
123 Voc. of the 2d declension in e is still found most frequently,
as reeve avOpwjre, $ov\e irovrjpe, vie, icvpie (this last word always
in this form if it has not the article, see below), even 6ee fjuov
(cf. p. 12). In the 3d declension, with the exception perhaps
of those nouns which are often used in the Vocative, as Trarep,
/3a,(Ti\ev, the Nominative is ordinarily used ; in Luke xii. 20,
also, and 1 Cor. xv. 36, most of the MSS. [Sin. also] give atypcov
instead of afaov (Grsb.).
The language of the N. T., like that of the Old, differs, however,
essentially from the ordinary literary language in this: that the
Vocative, besides taking the form of the Nom., very often takes the
Article besides (6, ot, etc.); 1 cf. 6 p. 141. Examples abound:
Matt. xi. 26 vat, 6 Tra-njp, Mark v. 41 TO /copdVtov, tfycipe (although the
preceding Aramaic word, TaAt0a, has no article), Luke xviii. 11, 13 6
$eds, IXda-OrjTL /AOI, John xx. 28 6 Kvpto? p.ov KCU 6 6co<; /AOV, Rom. viii. 1 5
d/3/3a, 6 Tra-nyp, Col. iii. 19 ot avopcs, dyaTraYe, Jas. v. 1 aye vw, 01
TrAovcriot, /cAavcraTe, Rev. xv. 3 Si'/caiai at 6801' (rov, 6 /?a<riAei>s ran/ fOvwv.
Also in quotations : Acts xiii. 41 ; Heb. i. 8, 9 ; x. 7, etc.
1 That this use is not a mere Hebraism (cf. Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 654; Gr. 107,
Hem. 2) but rooted in the popular and colloquial language of the Greeks
is expressly recognized by Bernhardy (Syntax p. 67), who cites in support of it
many examples from Aristophanes and the Dialogues of Plato (Ar. Pac. 466
Plat. Symp. p. 218 B).
130.J THE OBLIQUE CASES IN GENERAL.
B. 129a.2; H. 533; C. 401,3; D. 407; J. 467. 476.
A number of the passages in which the Nom. with the article seems 6
to be used as Voc. may also be suitably taken as those in which
adjuncts in apposition with the Voc., and even additions sub-
joined with /cat, take the form of the Nom. with the article,
according to well-known laws of the Greek language. This is the
case when particular persons are expressly designated : Luke xi. 39
v/xets oi Qapiaraloi, Rom. xiv. 4 <rv TL<S ?, 6 /cptVcov ; ii. 1 etc. ; even if
the preceding pronoun stands in a different case an irregularity
sufficiently explained by 123, 5 p. 78: Luke vi. 25 oval fyuv, oi
In the case of adjuncts with KCU: Acts xiii. 16
i *at ot <o/3ov/x,i/oi etc., 26 ; Rev. xviii. 20 ovpave KOL
oi aytoi. In particular we may refer to this head (in accordance
with 144, 9 d) p. 295) participial adjuncts with the Impera-
tive, which frequently occur in the N. T., as Matt. vii. 23 aTroxwpeiTe
oi epyad//.ei>oi, xxvii. 40 ; Mark xv. 29 ; Gal. iv. 21, 27 (a quotn.),
Eph. v. 14; Jas. iv. 13 ; Rev. xii. 12 ; xvi. o.
THE OBLIQUE CASES IN GENERAL.
B. 130, 1-4 ; C. 397 sq. ; D. 148. 469 ; J. 471 sq.
The settlement of the fundamental signification of the 1
oblique cases forms a leading subject of general Greek gram-
mar, and in particular of philosophic researches in syntax.
But to institute such investigations in a special grammar like
the present would not only be a departure from its aim, but 124
would lead to but meagre or even incorrect results, since the
language of the N. T. is already far removed from the primary
and formative period of the Greek tongue. In this particular
the process of development in the language must be regarded
as completed, and the results attained in the general grammar
as respects prose usage must accordingly be assumed as already
established, and valid in the main also as respects the N. T.
language. Since, however, with the decline of a nation a
decline is wont as a rule to appear in its language also, we
shall naturally find, in the writings of the N. T. as well as of
the later writers generally, the syntactic combinations, and
consequently the cases also, no longer employed with such
precision and clearness of reference as prevailed in the earlier
language. Hence we shall see many verbs construed with dif-
ferent cases from those used in the earlier language ; and
in particular, the more analytic and decomposed language of
142 THE OBLIQUE CASES IN GENERAL [ 130.
later writers will often use prepositions with their cases,
where the earlier language was satisfied with the simple cases.
Instances of this sort, as matters belonging strictly to the
province of N. T. grammar, we shall naturally have to treat
with special prominence in the course of the following para-
graphs ; yet completeness of specification, as respects the cases
and other constructions, in reference to every individual
verb, it does not fall (as has been already intimated in the
preface) within the limits of N. T. grammar to give.
B. 130, 5 and N.I; H. 505; J. 893.894.
2 Such an essential departure, as has been alluded to, from
the ordinary usage, we encounter at once in the application
of the general principle that the ancient languages often neg-
lect to designate the object (immediate or remote), where it
is already sufficiently clear from the connection ; and in par-
ticular, are wont to express it but once if two verbs in any
way connected have an object in common, thereby
avoiding a multitude of those pronouns that often so encum-
ber modern languages.
The language of the N. T., however, especially that of Luke and
of the Ep. to the Heb., is not so far removed from the ordinary Greek
as not to avail itself of this advantage ; as may be seen from a
considerable number of examples : Matt. xiii. 44 Orjo-avpv, ov evpw
av0pu)7ros cj<pv{f/v, xxvii. 65 acr^aXio-acrOf sc. rbv rdffrov, Mark vi. 5
125 dppuwrrois tTrt^eis ras ^eipas 0epa7TV(rei>. Luke xiv. 4 c7rtXa^3o/xevos
tacraro avrov KCLL a7r\vo~cv, John X. 29 6 Trarrjp, 09 SeSwKei/ /MOI sc. aura,
Acts xiii. 3 tinOevTCS ras ^etpa? aurots aTrcAvo-av, Eph. V. 11 /AT) crvy*oi-
vcoviT TOIS I/ryots rot? d/capTTOis, tiaAAov 8 KCU eXey^erc, Heb. xi. 19 IK
vtKpuv eyetpeiv Swaros 6 0eo9, 1 Cor. x. 9 ; 1 Tim. vi. 2, etc.
But far more frequently than is the case even in still later Greek
prose writers, we find (in accordance with the great preference for
pronominal constructions often mentioned already) the object expressed
by a pronoun, especially avros ; so that here, too, the influence of
Oriental usage is unmistakable, (cf. 127, 9 sqq. p. 107 sq., 26 p. 118,
129, 12 p. 131 sq.) ; as, Mark x. 16 ej>ayKaAwrd/xvo9 avra, rt^eis ras
T' avra KarevAoya avra. [Tdf. Treg. IvayK. avr. KarevAoyei TiOels
*' a ^ T<{ after codd - Sin - Vat -; cf - 127 > 26 P- 119 J Luke
xvi. 2 <f>wrjcra.<s avrov curey aur<3, Matt, xviii. 2 TrpocrKoAecra/xo'os TrcuStov
Grnprw avro ev yw,ecra). (But in John xv. 2 there are other reasons for
the repetition by means of the pron. avro, see 151, 4 p. 380.) Col.
U. 13 v/xas vKpovs ovros . . . <rwa>O7rot77<ra/ v/xas.
130.] REPETITION OF THE OBJECT. 143
To the same origin is to be attributed the repetition of the same
object in several clauses connected by conjunctions (cf. e.g. Josh, xxiii.
2 ; xxiv. 20 ; Neh. ix. 34 ; 1 Mace. i. 6, etc.), as Luke xxiv. 50 er}yayev
avrovs ... /cat euAo'yqcrei/ avrovs, cf. Matt. xxii. 37 (and its parallel
Mark xii. 30), Rev. ix. 21, etc.; also the un-Greek constructions
in which to the Participle, with and without the art, the pronoun
O.VTOS (not ovros or e/cetvos, on which see 144, 21 p. 306) is subjoined
in the same case quite without emphasi s, 1 as Matt. v. 40 TO)
BfXovri (rot KptOrjvaL . . . a<cs avrw /cat TO Ifjidriov, iv. 16; Rev. vi. 4 ;
Jas. iv. 17 etSoVfc /caXov TTOIZLV /cat /zr) Trotowrt, d/xaprta avrw ecrrti/, yes,
even when it has already been used with the Participle, is repeated
again (cf. Col. ii. 13 above), as Matt. xxvi. 71 e&XOovra O.VTOV ets rov
wvd) ctoW auTov aAA.77, viii. 23 c^SaVrt avrw ts TO TrAotov, r)Ko\pv@7)(Ta.v
and also frequently elsewhere in Tdf.'s text [eds. 2, 7] cf. Matt,
viii. 1, 5, 28 ; xxi. 23 ; Mark ix. 28, etc. ; 2 and lastly, the practice
(also anomalous), in constructions with the Gen. absol. and sometimes
also with the Ace. and Infin., of expressing the subject by means of a
pronoun, although it has already been given in the leading clause ; see
on this in its place 141. 4 p. 274, and 145, 1 sqq. p. 314 sq.
REMARK. In Matt. xxi. 41 /ca/cous KaKoJs a7roAm O.VTOVS the pronoun 3
avTovs was formerly held to be a superfluous addition. Modern ex- 12(j
egesis, however, has acknowledged avrov? to be the true object, so
that KO.KOVS is the word which ought to be held to be the rhetorical
addition, made out of fondness for paronomasia, just as was often
the case in Greek authors ; as, Lucian, Pise. Ka/covs KCIKWS aTroTpti/'o/xev.
That the Latin versions and church fathers seem to take no notice of
aurovs is solely owing to the impossibility of reproducing both words
in their foreign idiom (as in our own also) ; and to take avrovs par-
titively quite contradicts the sense of the passage.
1 Isolated instances of this use adduced from Greek authors do not suffice to
stamp it as an ordinary Greek construction. Where we find something similar
occasionally even in later Greek writers, other causes (generally rhetorical) as
perspicuity, emphasis, the separation by parentheses of words belonging together,
etc., have occasioned the repetition of the pronoun; whereas the frequent
occurrence of this construction in the N. T., considering its small extent, warrants
us in inferring a formal usage.
2 We see from this that the assumption that all such cases as these last named
are examples of the so-called Dative absolute ( 145, 5 p. 316) is quite
erroneous. On the contrary, the dative is everywhere governed by the verb of the
leading clause. The abnormal addition of avrf etc. in the leading clause led to
this false assumption, and probably also often in ancient times to the alteration
(of the MSS.) into the Gen. absol., which in fact is itself not according to rule. Cf.
besides 145, 2 p. 315. [Tdf. ed. 8 adopts the Gen. Abs. (with Treg. Lchm.) in
all except the first.]
144 OMISSION OF THE OBJECT. [ 130.
B. 130, N. 2; H. 684; C. 577; D. 430; J. 359.
The remark that verbs originally transitive, by the frequent
omission of an easily supplied object or of a reflexive pronoun,
assume in the Active voice a neuter signification, is so well
established and applies so commonly to all languages, that it
seems to be quite sufficient simply to give a list here of a
number of verbs so used in the N. T. ; the usage is so wide-
spread that we must desist from attempting to give a com-
plete collection of the passages where it occurs, as well as
from referring to analogous instances of the use of the same
verbs by other writers. We find the following used thus
intransitively :
aye iv, particularly in the summons aye, ayco/xev (on ayci in Lnke
xxiv. 21 see 129, 17 p. 134), together with the compounds
vTrayciv (very frequent, especially in the Gospels, where it seems to
take the place of the wanting tivat, see 137, 10 a) p. 204), Trapayeii/
to pass by, pass on, liravdytiv to return or merely to put off (Matt.
xxi. 18; Luke V. 3, 4), Siayetv to pass, Trepiayciv to go about (Acts
xiii. 11), in this sense it then (according to the analogy of those Middle
verbs that, having acquired a new, transitive, sense, take an object
of their own, of. B. 135, 5) takes after it a new object, viz. of the
place, as K<O//,O,S, oXrjv TTJV Ta\.i\aiav (Mark vi. 6 etc.), Trpoayciv to
go before (Mark xi. 9), likewise with a new object when used in this
sense a use of this verb peculiar to the N. T., and particularly to
Matt, and Mark, as Trpo^yev avrovs went before them Matt. ii. 9 etc.
(so 7rpopxo-0cu with the Ace. of a person Mark vi. 33 ; Luke xxii.
47, perhaps after the Latin) ;
X IV 5 for example KaXws, co-^ara)?, (as in colloquial Latin bene habet);
thus x tv Kttr( * TIVOS means to have something against any one, be angry
with him, Rev. ii. 4. 20 ; cf. Hermae pastor, Mandatum 2 (Sin.),
together with the compounds d TT e \ L v to be at a distance (on aW^a
sufficit see 129, 17 p. 135), ewe'xeiv to stay, both literally (Acts xix.
22) and in a tropical sense, sc. vow, to direct the mind to something
(Acts iii. 5 ; 1 Tim. iv. 16), in which sense Trpocrexciv especially is
current, v IT c p e^ e i v prceesse, valere, and with a new object superare,
prcestare, cvc^eiv to watch, be on the watch for any one, insidiari,
it runs, stands written 1 Pet. ii. 6 Tdf. [Treg.], 1 ev yao-rpi
e with child;
must be taken intransitively in this passage whether we read with
Rec. and others [cod. Sin. also' eV (rrj) ypaQfi, or with Lchm. ^ ypa<f>-fi (sc. ofcus
or rJvSe rbv rp6rov, cf. 2 Mace ix. 18; xi. 16; 1 Mace. xv. 2; Joseph. Antt. 12,
4, 10, etc.). To which of these two readings we ought to give the preference it if
130.] OMISSION OF THE OBJECT. 145
(3a.\\eiv to storm against, rush upon, of the wind (Acts xxvii. 14). 127
and the compounds eTri/SaAAeii/ of the waves (Mark iv. 37), in the
signification to fall to Luke xv. 12, 1 7rpo(3d\\iv to sprout (Luke
Kxi. 30), o-u/A/SaAActv in various senses (see the lexicons) ;
K A i v e i v to incline, together with the compound IKK\LVLV ;
(TT/o</>iv to turn (away) one's self (Acts vii. 42) together with
the compounds dvao-Tpe^ctv, 7ricrTpe<eii>;
uTroppiTTTciv to throw one's self off ;
TrapaSovvat to offer, to present itself 2 (Mark iv. 29) ;
evKTxvtiv transitive and intransitive in Luke (see Wahl) ;
a v a A. v i v to go away, depart, also to return i.e break up, rise
from, a meal (Luke xii. 36) in order to go home (ot/caSe //.era Seun/ov
dvaAueiv Plut. Tib. Gracch. 14); /caraXveiv to put up as at an inn
(common in later writers in this sense) ; not to mention many
others, whose intransitive signification has always been in use side by
side with the transitive, as av^dvtw (p. 54), o-TreuSco/, TrpoKOTrreii/, Starpi-
pew, reXevrav, etc., or whose object was almost uniformly omitted be-
cause involved in the signification of the verb, as dvoiyciv, ava/ca/xTrmv,
yajueu>, etc.
In other cases the omission of the object is not a result of the usage 5
by virtue of which the verb comprises the objective relation in itself,
hard to decide, since the balance of authority is in favor of the latter, but other
and internal considerations favor the former. See my Essay in the Stud. u. Krit.
for 1858 p. 509.
1 In Mark xiv. 72 KOL eirifia\&v exXaiev, the verb Tn&d\\iv has received the
most diverse interpretations ; see the commentaries. The interpretation common
formerly (Luther, he began to weep [Tyndale, Cranmer, A.V. margin]) is supported,
indeed, by the ancient versions, the variant tfptaro K\aiftv, and the gloss of Suidas
eVea\e ^p|aro ; but is both too weak for the tenor of the passage, and also phil-
ologically inaccurate, since cVe^aAe, as even the addition (firexeip-nfffi') in Suidas
shows, may mean conatus est, but not coepit. It would harmonize best with the
connection, considering the parallel narratives (fKXavff^v iriKpoas Matt. xxvi. 75;
Luke xxii. 62), to take eirifraX&v adverbially in the sense of virfp&a\\6i'T<>)s (cf.
the Hebrew ^??7 in 1 Sam. xx. 41 ; see Gesen. under ^) ; but such a use
cannot be proved. The most satisfactory interpretation philologicallyis that
f-TTLfiaXwv (sc. T^J/ vow) is equivalent to tvvoi]aa.s considering i.e. taking to heart, in
case it is designed to intensify the preceding ciz/eju*/V0i7- See a number of very
appropriate precedents for this signification in Wetstein in loc.
2 The 2d Aor. -rrapaSovvai, in analogy with other (syncopated) 2d Aor. forms, is
found in the Sept. also with this purely intransitive meaning, e.g. Isa. xlvii. 3.
Hence in 1 Pet. ii. 23 (irdVxw OVK rjire/Aei, TrapeSiSou Se T< ttpivovn Sinaius), it
appears to be not only more in accordance with the sense but with philology also
to supply with the Imperfect (TropeSiSow) an object like TO cauroD (or /cpurii/)
from the context (with Luther et al.), not eavr6i> (deWette). The passage cited
by deWette, Josh. xi. 19 (not ii. 19), runs quite different y in the Vat. MS. On
TTapaStS^cu in the sense of permitto, also with the objec (a thing) omitted, see
Btephanus (Paris ed.) sub voce p. 247.
19
146 THE ACCUSATIVE. [ 131
but the objects are easily supplied from the context: as e.g.
alpcLv sc. ayKvpav Acts xxvii. 13, o-KaTrreii/ sc. yr)v Luke xiii. 8,
a<j>av L^C iv, K\7TTiv SC. ^p^/xaTa Matt. vi. 19, Stopvcrcreiv SC.
ret^os Matt. vi. 19, prjov (sc. <^><ov^v see Wetst.) /cat ySorycrov Gal. iv.
27, crTptocrov <reavTw SC. K\wi)V Acts ix. 34, Kara Kf<f>aXr)s
128 X wl/ sc ' faXv/A/xa or simply rl 1 Cor. xi. 4, Toijuaeiv sc. KaraXiyxa
Luke ix. 52, crvXXa/z/3ai/ii/ and cruXX. ev y a err pi sc. vioi/ Luke
i. 24, 31 ; or the objects to be supplied are altogether general
;erms, as ctTrocrTeXXciv, TTC/XTTCIV SC. rivas, aKovtras SC. ravra,
(rap KCU at/xa OVK aTrtKoXvtyiv crot viz. that of which I am speaking
Matt. xvi. 17 ; or are intentionally left in the dark by the writer
on account of the variety of notions it is possible to supply, and the
choice among them is referred to the reader, as Jas. iv. 2, 3 ; Col. ii. 21.
Respecting the omission of the object (or of the whole) with parti-
tive statements, see 132, 6 p. 158.
THE ACCUSATIVE.
B. 131, 2 ; H. 544 a. ; C. 472 f. ; D. 464 ; J. 544.
1 Among the verbs which by governing the Ace. depart as a
rule from English and German usage, the following in the
N. T. deserve special mention :
Those signifying to speak well or ill (defame): KaXws, KO.KW
Aeycti', as usually with the Ace., but only used by Luke in vi. 26; Acts
xxiii. 5 (quotn.). The common verb for defame is /SXao-c/^/xeti/, like-
wise used with the Ace., as well of the person Matt, xxvii. 39 (or instead
ovo/za Jas. ii. 7 ; Soa<? Jude 8) as of the thing Mark iii. 28, sometimes
also with ei's Mark iii. 29 ; Luke xii. 10, with eV 2 Pet. ii. 12 eV ots
ayvoova-Lv /SXacrt^/xowres (see 143, 10 p. 287), which, however, des-
ignates rather the sphere within which the evil speaking occurs.
Respecting oveiSi^eiv, /carapao-0ai, see 133, 9 p. 177 ; to do well:
v and KaXa>< TTOLC.'LV with the Dat. : Luke vi. 27 ; Mark xiv. 7 Lchm.
[Treg.] (yet cf. Tdf. ed. 7 in loc.), Matt. v. 44 Grsb. The use of
iroietv with the Ace. of a word expressing time, as XP OI/OV > T P *s MVO.S,
fviavTov etc. for our spend (commorari) is peculiar, e.g. Acts xv. 33 ;
xviii. 23; xx. 3; 2 Cor. xi. 25; Jas. iv. 13, (elsewhere also in later
writers); to flee: favyeiv in its strict sense (to run away) is
construed only with O.TTO (in Rev. xx. 11 hebraistically O-TTO 7rpocru>7iW),
particularly with persons, O.TT avrov, a<f> v/xoiv, and with abstracts
instead, as GOTO /cpio-ewq, opy^s, ttSwXoXarpctas, Luke iii. 7 ; Matt, xxiii.
33 ; 1 Cor. x. 14 (purely local, Mark xvi. 8) ; in the signification to
avoid, abstain from, with the Ace. (of the thing) e.g. ravra, ryv irop-
vciav, etc. Heb. xi. 34 (Z<f>vyov o-ro/xara /xa^atpr;?) is an exception. The
compound /c</>vyeiv takes only the Ace. or is used absolutely, see
131.] THE ACCUSATIVE. 147
Wahl, (CK purely local in Acts xix. 16) ; on a-n-ofavytiv see 132, 5 p.
158; to swear: ofjivvav, with the Ace. only in Jas. v. 12; else-
where with a preposition, and after the example of the Hebrew (cf.
Gesen. under yad) most frequently by far with ei/, sometimes with Kara
and the, Gen. Heb. vi. 13, 16, with eis (after a preceding tv, cf. 147
under eis and cv) Matt. v. 34 sq. 'O/oKt^eu/ and vop/a'eiv (1 Thess. v.
27) to adjure, always with two Aces., see Wahl; on the other hand,
cfrpio&iv with Kara Matt. xxvi. 63. Cf. 151, 24 b) p. 394.
REMARK. With v i K a v the objective limitation is connected once
by K quite unique, yet not so surprising in the language of the
Apoc. abounding as it does in solecisms (as it were, to win the
victory over, Lat. victoriam ferre ex) : Rev. xv. 2 TOUS viKwrras e* roO
Orjpiov, Vulg. qui vicerunt bestiam.
B. 131, N. 3; H. 544 c. ; C. 472 b. ; J. 489, Obs. 2.
On the construction of verbs expressing an emotion of the mind 2
see 133, 23 p. 185. Only those are connected with the Ace. of the 12
person, which, like cAcci?, ouemptu/, are pure transitives. On tvSoKeiv
with the Ace. see as above.
B. 131 N. 4; H. 764 b. ; C. 698 a. ; J. 669, 1.
The Impersonal Set (and Se'ov mv Acts xix. 36; is followed only 3
by the Ace. and Infin. or, in general sayings, by the Infin. alone. Cf.
132, 12 p. 164. Xpij occurs but once, likewise with the Infin.:
Jas. iii. 10.
B. 131, 3; H. 544; C. 577; D. 430; J.359.
To the verbs whose signification is originally or predom- 4
inantly intransitive, but which are rendered transitive by the
addition of an object, belong, among others from the N.T.,
the following : ^ad^-reveiv to be a disciple (verbs in evco formed
from nouns and expressing the state or action of their
primitives, B. 119, 3 a.), nva Matt, xxviii. 19 etc., Qpia/jiftevew
to hold a triumph, rivd (Plutarch) Col. ii. 15 ; 2 Cor. ii. 14 ;
also efjLTTOpeveaQal nva 2 Pet. ii. 3, irewav, SiTJrav ^ncaiodvvrjv
Matt. v. 6, 0XnJret? fte ^kvovGiv (me manent) Acts xx. 23
according to a later and rather poetic use of the word.
On the other hand, /cAatctv and irtvOtiv are found but once
with the Ace. of the object (Matt. ii. 18; 2 Cor. xii. 21), elsewhere
always with lirC and the Ace. or the Dat. see 147 p. 336 sq. ; Trpocr-
Kvve lv is joined to the Dative uniformly by Paul, and predominantly
by the other writers (or to Ivvtnov TU/OS 133, 3 p. 172) ; in the
Apocalypse it is construed with both the Dat. and the Ace. (as
in the Septuagint) without the slightest difference. Its synonym
148 THE ACCUSATIVE. [ 131
yovv7TTLV IB always followed by the Ace. (or /a*-pocr0ei/) ; tvay-
yeAieo-$ai is connected indiscriminately now with the Dat., now with
the Ace., of the person (see more below, nos. 5, 6) ; hence in the
Passive TTTW^OI uayyeAiovTcu Matt. xi. 5; Luke XT i. 16; Heb. iv.
2, 6, etc., (the Act. euayyeAi^eiv occurs only in the Apocalypse).
B. 131, 4; H. 547; C. 477; D. 466; J. 548, 2.
5 The construction by which an intransitive verb takes the
Ace. of its kindred abstract noun ^d^v iiayeaQai, vftpl&iv
vffpw, etc.) rendered more definite by an adjunct, is not only
current in the N.T., but, fostered as it was by the analogous
Hebrew usage (see Gesen. Lehrg. p. 809 sq. [Gr. 135, Rem.
1.]) and consequently by the Sept. also, was taken up eagerly
and even extended.
Thus we find the following constructions used, and with the re-
quisite closer limitation : avcw av&rjcnv, d/xapravetv d/zapT/av, $av//,aiv
6o.vfjia f ojJioXoytiv 6/xoAoyiai/, xpicriv Kpt'veiv, o"TpaTVo~$ai orpaTciaj', dywvi-
<r$ai dyaiva, ^atpciv ^apdv, <d/3ov (also Trrdrycrtv 1 Pet. iii. 6)
and in the Passive ftaarrurfMi fiaTmo-Qfjvat Mark x. 38 etc., ci
vos V$v[JLa ydpov Matt. xxii. 11, Kau/Aarie(70ai /cav/xa /xeya Rev. xvi. 9,
where ySaTTTicr/xa, Iv8v/xa, Kav/xa are the Accusatives of the object
retained in the change of the verb to the Pass. (Mid.) ; see B. 134,
N. 2.
Different from the above are those expressions in which the Ac-
cusative takes the place of a simple object, and therefore the closer
limitation is either wanting, or at least unnecessary, grammatically
considered, (as in the Homeric Krepea Krepet^eiv, etc.) ; thus St8oVat
Sd/xara, at^/xaXwTcdciv ai^aXwo-tai/ ducere captivos (after Ps. Ixvii. 19),
papTvpftv /xaprvptai/, SiSdo-Kciv SiSacrKaXias, ewyyeAiov ewyyeA.io-a<T$at,
130 tSctv dpa/xa, Scart'^ecrflai ^caO^KTjv^ <f>vXdcr(riv 0iAaKa<;, cr7rc.ipf.iv (nropov
(see still other examples in 6 below, and respecting Sclv Secr/xds see
7 p. 150). The difference between these constructions and the pre-
ceding is plain from this, that when the verb is changed into the
Passive, the Accusative, as the natural object, passes into the subject
Nominative, as Acts xvi. 9 opa/xa TW IlavAu) &<}>6-r], Mark xv. 26 17
7riypa<f>r) ty 7rtyeypa/x/xK>7, Gal. i. 11 TO evayyeAtov TO ciuayyeAicr^tv VTT*
e/xov ; and in this way is to be explained 2 Cor. i. 11 Iva TO is ^/xa?
A further extension of this general usage is afforded not only by
the phrases (current elsewhere also) eAtfeu/ ^/xepa? 68 w, 8epcw TroAAds
sc. TrAiyyds ( 134, 6 p. 189) and moreover in several of the examples
of the double Accusative which follow in 6 below, but also in such
Relative constructions as John xvii. 26; Eph. ii. 4 dyaTr^v 77*
131.] THE ACCUSATIVE. 149
yyaiTrrjo-ds //,e (cf. 6 sub fin.), Jude 15 ircpl TWV cpywv dcre/^eias wv fjcre-
J3r)(rav (see 143, 11 p. 287), Rom. vi. 10 o yiy uTreflavev, TT} d/xaprta
aTre'^avev o 8 $, 77 TW 0ea> (i.e. mortem, vitam swam), Gal. ii. 20 o Si
(i.q. rr)v w^v rjv) vvv ui ei/ o-ap/a etc.
B. 131,5; H. 653; C. 480; D. 465; J. 582sq.
Deviations from the construction of the double Accus a- (
tive (with the verbs given in the grammars, cf. J. 583) are
either rare or are founded in the analogy of common usage.
Thus SiSacTKciv is always joined with two Aces, (on Heb. v. 12
see 140, 13 p. 268) except in Rev. ii. 14 eSiSao-Kev ru> BoAox {SaXtlv
etc. (cf. Ev. Nicod. 16,2; Thorn. 4, 2) ; this exception either follows
Hebrew precedent (cf. Job vi. 24, etc., and Gesen. under -ps), or, as is
more probable, is due to the circumstance that SiSacr/ceiv here has
more the signification of o-v//,/3oi;A.ueiv, Trapaivelv (see deWette). The
adjunct tv 7701077 o-o<f>ia Col. i. 28; iii. 16 does not denote the object
but the mode of teaching, cf. i. 9 ; K p v TT T e L v and aTroKpuTrreiv
are used with the Ace. of the nearer and 0,71-0 with the Gen. of the
more remote object, Matt. xi. 25 /cpi;i//as ravra airo o-o</>aiv, Luke x.
21, etc., hebraistically 0.71-0 TrpooxoTrov rtvo? Rev. vi. 16, dvr o^OaX^v
o-ov Luke xix. 42 (cf. 146, 1 p. 320) ; a^atpeTi/ and d<ai-
p eicrtfai rt OTTO TIVOS (according to 132, 5 p. 157) Luke x. 42;
xvi. 3, etc.; likewise airctv and OLTrairf.lv TL O.TTO rtvos Matt. xx.
20; Luke vi. 30; xii. 20. But constructions like atreiv TL Trap a
Ofov, d<^>atptv r iv L TL, eTrepcorryo-at riva TT e p I rov p^/xaros are perfectly
regular; Troietv is found with two Aces, according to the rule
only in Matt, xxvii. 22 TL ovv Troojcrco 'fyrow, Mark xv. 12 Lchm. Treg.
TL ^eAere TTOI^O-OJ TOV (3acrL\ea TWV 'lovSatuov (also according to the other
reading [TTOITJO-W ov Aeyere etc. Tdf. cod. Sin.], see 127, 5 p. 105), else-
where always with the Dative of the person Matt. xxi. 40 ; Luke
xx. 15 ; Acts ix. 13, etc. (in many passages the Dative would have
been used, too, in ordinary prose, e.g. Mark vii. 12; x. 36, 51, etc.),
or a Preposition instead, as Matt. xvii. 1 2 eVoi^o-ay iv a v r c3 6Va
f)0\.r)(rav (cf. Mark ix. 13), John xv. 21 TOLVTOL Trdvra TroiT^rovcrtv ets
v/xas (Grsb. vfuv). Cf. further the double Accusative in 10 p. 152.
The following are more or less peculiar to the N. T. : TrepiySaXAetv
TLVOL TL (in the classics commonly construed otherwise, see Dind. in
Steph. Thes. sub voce), as John xix. 2 ijadViov Trop<f>vpovv Trepie'/foAov
auroV, cf. Luke xxiii. 11 var. (but TLVL TL in xix. 43 [where Tdf.
(with N) now reads 7rape/x,/3aAoi)o-iv]) ; and in combination with the
construction mentioned in 5 p. 148: Trori'^eiv TLVO. yaXa, Trorryptov
Mark ix. 41 ; 1 Cor. iii. 2, ^opri^etv TLVO. <^oprta Luke xi. 46,
\pLLv TLVUL eAaiov dyaAAiacrews Heb. i. 9 (quotn.) and eyxP t/tl/ T0 ^ 131
150 THE ACCUSATIVE. [131.
6<f>0a\fj.ovg KoXAovpiov Rev. iii. 18, ayairav ayauryv nvd (see 5 p. 148 sq.),
EvayyeA.teo-0at also is found once with two Aces, according to
later usage (see Pape's Lex.) in Acts xiii. 32 (a passage which is not
to be explained by 151, 1 p. 376), but elsewhere always, if attended
by two nouns or pronouns as objects, with the Dat. of the Pers. and
the Ace. of the thing announced; as, Luke i. 19 ; Acts viii. 35;
2 Cor. xi. 7, etc. Respecting opKt^etv see above, 1 p. 147. 1
On the construction with the Passive see 134, 5 p. 188.
B. 131, 6; H. 556; C. 480; D. 465; J. 375, 6; 625.
With verbs denoting to make or hold for anything, and those
of kindred signification, we find, besides the common con-
struction of two Accusatives, the combination riva el's n
after the example of the Hebrew (Gesen. Lehrg. p. 814) or
the Septuagint. FLoielv, and also tcaOia-Tavai,, riOevai, have,
indeed, in the N. T. regularly two Aces., but in the 0. T.
commonly efc : Gen. xii. % Troirjcrw ere et? eQvos yu-eya, Ezek. iv.
9 ; 2 Chron. xi. 22 KaTearrja-ev els apxovra 'A/Bid, Deut. xxviii.
13, etc. In analogy with these examples are the following :
Acts xiii. 22 ryyeipev rov Aavelb avrols et? yQacrtXea, vii. 21
o avrbv eavrfj et'<? viov, xiii. 47 reOencd ere et'v c/>a>?
(after Isa. xlix. 6 Alex.), Matt. xxi. 46 ek Trpo^rrjv
dxpv (cf. vs. 26). In Matt. xiii. 30 the MSS. vary between
Sijaare avra el? Beards Lchm. [Tdf. cod. Sin.] and Secr/za?
Tdf. [eds. 2, 7]. [Treg. gives eZ? in brackets.]
This Hebraistic mode of expression occurs more frequently still
where the construction requires the doubleNominative, especially
with cum and yei/eV0ai ; for example in the repeated quotations taovrai
cis o-dpKo. JJLLCLV (after Gen. ii. 24), tyevrjOr) ct? K<f>a\i)v ywi/ta? (after Ps.
cxvii. 22). Cf. Luke iii. 5 (quotn.), xiii. 19 eytWo ets SwSpov /xcya,
John xvi. 20 17 X.vm) eis x a P^ v ycvrjcrerai, Rom. xi. 9 (quotn.), 1 Cor.
XV. 45 (quotn.), 2 Cor. vi. 18 to-o/zat v/juv ts Trarepa /cat uynas Za-earOe JJLOI
ets vtovg (as in 2 Sam. vii. 14 etc.), Heb. i. 5 ; viii. 10 ; 1 John v. 8 ;
Rev. viii. 11. Yet not all the passages of the sort are to be forcibly
brought under this class, since there are many which can be satisfac-
torily explained by Greek usage (for yeWr&u ets rt is a Greek phrase
also), and where the application of the above Hebraism would be
erroneous and disturbing to the sense ; as, 2 Cor. viii. 14; Col. ii. 22 ;
1 Formerly ir tie civ also was numbered among the verbs that take two Aces,
on account of Acts xix. 8 ; xxviii. 23 ; recent editors, however, have expunged
rd in both passages, [restored in xix. 8 by Tdf. with cod. Sin.]. The Ace. with
the Passive (Heb. vi. 9, etc.) is explainable by no. 10 below, p. 152.
131.] THE ACCUSATIVE
Jas. v. 3 (cts <J>Oopdv, 15 fjLaprvpiov lo-rat tend, redound to destruction,
prove a witness), Rev. xvi. 19, etc. Similarly Xa/xySai/eti/ (rl ts rt):
Heb. xi. 8 TOTTOV ov 1/xeXXev Xap.j3a.vfiv tis KXr/ ( 7ovo/u'ai/, and probably
Acts vii. 53 also.
REMARK. Likewise borrowed from the language of the Septuagint
and a departure from classic usage (for Xen. Cyr. 3, 1, 33 and
the like are not parallel) is the current combination Xoyi'o/xat
ci5 T i in the signification to be reckoned or set to the account of, as
etc., for example, in the oft-repeated quotation IXoyia-Orj aurw eis
SiKauovvvrjv (after the Sept. of Gen. xv. 6. That the Hebr. ncn is 132
capable of the same construction, see 1 Sam. i. 13 and Gesen. sub
voce), and further in the phrases 15 ovStv \ayur6ijva.i t f] d/cpoySvori'a 15
TrepLTOfJirjv Xoytcr^^o-erat, TO, re/ci/a XoyicTat ei5 (nrepjjia Acts xix. 27 ;
Rom. ii. 26 ; ix. 8. But the phrases with u>5, Rom. viii. 36 eXoyicr&7/x,i/
u>5 Trpofiara (after the Sept. of Ps. xliii. 23, Hebr. ?), or with /xera
and the Gen. Luke xxii. 37 (for which the Sept. in Isa. liii. 12 use
cv rots dvo/xots), have a different meaning and are not opposed to
Greek usage.
According to a construction not unknown to the Greeks also 8
(see Bhdy. Synt. p. 66 ; Matth. 308 ; Lob. ad Phryn. p. 517 ;
Schaef. in Schol. Apoll. Rhod. p. 209) the predicative term
with verbs of naming sometimes stands in the Nominative
instead of any other case : John xiii. 13 ^xovel-re /t/,e o Si$do-/cd\os
xal 6 Kvpios (cf. 1 Sam. ix. 9), Rev. ix. 11 ovopa, e'^et *A7ro\\va)v.
On TO opo? TO Kakovfjievov 'E\aia)v see p. 22.
From the Hebrew usage (TDIIJT.K x^ Gen. iv. 25, 26 ; v. 2, 3, etc.)
or from the Sept. are borrowed the (pleonastic) expressions mAco-ei?
TO ovo/xa avrov 'Irjarovv, 'Iwavvryi/, also ill the Pass. e'xX?^ TO
ot/o/xa avrov 'l^cro^ Matt. i. 21 ; Luke i. 31 ; ii. 21 ; Rev. xix. 13, etc. ;
for the classic use of KaXeiv oi/o/xa (B. 131, N. 11 ; J. 588, 1) is
manifestly of a different nature.^
1 Quite isolated is the reading of cod. Vat. in Matt. x. 25 ry oiKo8(rir6rr)
8te\&l3ov& [Beee/3oi.-A ed. Tdf. ; SO Sin.] TTKd\fcrav, trAffy /j.a\\ov ro?s o tKia.Ko'is
avrov, which has been adopted by Lchm. It belongs to those which without MS.
support from other quarters will hardly succeed in gaining the general approval of
critics against the entire mass of remaining authorities [cod. Sin. also]. Yet it is
very improbable that it should be the emendation of a grammarian who took tin-
KaXtiv here in the sense of reproach with (Meyer). 'Em/mAea' here, at least in an-
cient times, was taken in no other signification than to name, or more accurately to
give the surname, cognomentum daemonis addiderunt (as Hilary expressly translates
the passage). Too little attention, however, to the composition with evi naturally
led to the result that the Latin versions rendered in accordance with their idiom,
patrem vocaverunt ; and this, again, in the Greek MSS. not only led to the easy alter-
ation of the Dative into the Ace., but also what is very significant to the
152 THE ACCUSATIVE. [ 131
133 B. 131, 7 : H. 649 ; C. 481 ; J. 579.
9 The Ace. of limitation with adjectives and other pred-
icative terms, known under the name of the Greek Ace., has
passed in the N. T. pretty much out of use. Single instances
are Heb. ii. IT meres ap^iepevs ra TT/DO? rbv Oebv, Rom. xii. 18
etc. cf. 125, 12 p. 96. For the most part the Dative, or a
Prep, like Kara, is substituted for it ; as, Luke xxiv. 25 /3/oaSet?
TYJ icapSla, Mark vii. 26 ; Acts iv. 36 Kvrrpios raj yevet,, xviii. 3
cTK^voTTOiol rfi reyvri ([so cod. Sin.], Grsb. rrjv T.), and the
expressions CLTTCOV TO> crco^art^ Trapcov TO> rcvevfAan, aofol . . .
avyryeveis . . . Kvpioi Kara (rdpica, rarreivos Kara rrpoawrrov^ etc.
On the other hand, with the Passive (Middle) the Ace. is
much in use, see 134 and 135.
B. 131, 8 and N. 12 ; C. 478 a. ; J. 579, 6.
10 Instances of the pronominal Accusative neuter with
verbs which otherwise govern a different case, are : Luke ix. 45
alaQvvrai, avro, Matt. xix. 20 ri varepu ( 132, 22 p. 169),
2 Cor. xii. 13 6 rjrnjdrjre (Tjcrcrcw^Te), Acts xxv. 8 ri ijaaprov,
ra rov Kvplov 1 Cor. vii. 32 etc., even ovSev xP ^ av
Rev. iii. 17 (cf. 129, 5 p. 127). Examples of cases in
which the verb is connected with two Accusatives in conse-
quence of this usage only are : Luke iv. 35 w^ev fiXdifrav avrbv,
Matt, xxvii. 44 TO avrb aiveiSi^ov avrbv, Acts xxv. 10 ; Gal. iv.
12 ov&ev ae rjSucrjaare, Mark viii. 36 ; Gal. v. 2 etc. v/Aas ov&ei,
a><p6\rj(7i. With the Passive: rreiOecrdai ovSev, ra Kpeirrova
Acts xxvi. 26 ; Heb. vi. 9.
Respecting Acts xiii. 2 see 147, 30 p. 342.
B. 131, 9; H. 550; C. 482; D. p. 498; J. 548 g., cf. 905, Obs. 2, 7.
The use of the Accusative in giving the duration of time
and the measure of distance agrees with the ordinary use.
It is seldom employed in the more definite specifications of
change of tiriKaXeiv into the simple KaXeiv (see the various readings). To this it
must be added : that another leading authority, the cod. Alex., is wanting here, and
the saying is one of those preserved by the evangelist Matt, alone ; and in particu-
lar, the circumstance that the construction of eiriKatew with the Dat. in consequence
of the cirl in composition (B. 147, N. 9) can not only be established grammatically,
but the employment of the Dative in this connection is so natural that it would be
most likely to suggest itself to an author of little practice, writing in the language ot
the people. Moreover, compare the altogether analogous example of 4 IT o v o IJL d ^e t
with the Dat. in Greek authors in Steph. sub voce, Heind. on Plato's Phacdr. 30
and o e *oAe> tvona. TIV( in B. 131, N. 11 ; Heint on Plato's Crat. 6.
131.] THE ACCUSATIVE. 153
time, as John iv. 52 for which in vs. 53 eV with the Dat. is
used, yet with a slight difference.
Further, mention deserves to be made of the peculiar position
(which originated perhaps through the influence of the Latin usage,
and frequently occurs also in writers of the KOIVT], as Plutarch, Lucian,
Appian, Josephus) of the prepositions OLTTO and irpo in specifications
of place and time ; as, John xi. 18 yv RrjOavia eyyus TOH> 'icpocroXv/xwv
ws a?r6 o-raStW Sc/caTrcVre some fifteen stadia distant from Jerusalem,
xxi. 8 ; Rev. xiv. 20 ; John xii. 1 Trpo e rj^pwv TOV 7rdcr\a rjXOev six
days before the Passover (cf. Amos i. 1 ; iv. 7, and the corresponding 134
(Latinizing) use in Plutarch e.g. Philop. 4; Oth. 11, and in Appian
e.g. 1. 15; 2. 115, etc.). Together with these constructions the com-
mon one is in use, Luke xxiv. 13, etc. Cf. Zumpt, Gr. 396.
B. 131, 10; H. 552; C. 483; D. p. 502; J. 579.
The Ace. as an adverbial adjunct of the mode, etc., 12
as rrjv apx>jv, TOV apidpov as respects number, T-ovvopa by name
(Matt, xxvii. 57), fjia/cpdv sc. 6S6z/, has its foundation in ordi-
nary usage. But a/c^v in the sense of adhuc (Matt. xv. 16)
is un-Attic (see Pape). On the Hebraism 6bv Oakdaa^
(n*n 'rp'n) Matt. iv. 15 see Meyer in loc.
B. 131, NN. 13, 14; H. 547 d. ; C. 481 b. ; D. 467; J. 580.
Analogous to the use of the Ace. in classic Greek as if in 13
apposition to a clause, and before proverbs, quotations, etc., is
its varied employment also in the N. T. in certain abbrevi-
ated and parenthetic adjuncts, appositive limitations,
as it were, of the preceding or following thought (not of single
words, a case in which the Nominative sometimes appeared
contrary to the rule, 123, 5 p. 78). When such adjuncts
are in the Neuter, it is hardly possible to say positively whether
they are to be taken as Nominatives or as Accusatives.
Examples : a) referring to what precedes, Rom. xii. 1
v/xa? Trapao-r^crat TO, truyxaTa //,au> Ovcriav cocrav . . . , TVJV
\arpetav v/xaii/ an adjunct which can neither be regarded as in
apposition to Ovo-iav alone, nor as an object dependent immediately on
2 Thess. i. 5 IvSety/xa r^s StKcuas /cpiVews and Rev. xxi. 17
avOpwTrov may also be taken as Accusatives. Further, Acts
X. 36 Tdf. [cod. Sin. Treg.J TOV Xoyov, ov aTrccrmAev rots viots 'IcrparyA.
etc., for with tyx,eis otSarc (vs. 37) begins a new paragraph, so that TOV
Aoyov does not belong to that as object (Meyer). The omission of
ov (Lchm.) has probably been occasioned by the unusual character
20
154 THE GENITIVE. [ 132.
of the construction. In Rev. i. 20 TO /.'vcmjpiov may be construed
simply as the object of tho preceding ypai/rov ; b) referring to what
follows, Rom. viii. 3 TO yap dSiWrov etc., Heb. viii. 1 Ke<aA.cuov Be
etc. ; yet these two Neuter adjuncts may be taken unhesitatingly as
Nominatives also, according to 151, 6 p. 381.
B. 181, N. 16; H. 545; C. 476; J. 579, 3.
14 An Ace. of exclamation might be found in Rev. xii. 1 2 which
according to Lchm.'stext[soTdf. Treg. ; Sin. gives ova! ets etc.] runs
oval rrjv yfjv /cat rrjv 0aAao-crav, Vulg. vae terrae et mart. But since
ovat (differing from the exclamation of astonishment ova Mark xv. 29)
neither in the Apocalypse nor anywhere else is otherwise construed
than either with the Dative or with the Vocative instead (in which
case the Dative can be omitted, Rev. xviii. 10, 16, 19), and the woe
is aimed at the inhabitants of the earth as is plain from the following
tyxas and the context, it is necessary to educe the idea TOIS KaroiKoimv
(which the Rec. has adopted) out of the preceding O-KTJVOWTCS and to
let the Ace. depend on that. Compare under this head the examples
in 151, 23d) p.392sq.
135 THE GENITIVE.
B. 132, 1; H. 558; C. 444g.; D. p. 482; J. 464.
1 Assuming the distinction between the subjective Genitive
and the objective to have been made plain by the general
grammar, we remark here :
1) That the union of substantives, especially abstract terms,
by the Genitive relation is employed with fondness by some
of the N. T. writers, particularly by Paul in his doctrinal
argumentations and by the author of the Apocalypse, so that
two,three,yes four, Genitives stand in immediate dependence
one upon another. Such an accumulation of Genitives is
manifestly avoided by the native Greeks, because it easily
begets ambiguity (see e.g. 1 Thess. i. 3 ; Rom. xi. 33, etc.).
2) That exegetes, especially where dogmatic interests come
in, differ very much in interpreting a Genitive, whether as
subjective or objective; and yet the settlement of the
matter is properly left to them, because grammar, from its
point of view, must concede in most cases the possibility of
both opinions ; cf. Winer 186 (175). As the subject, however,
is one of weighty importance for the understanding of Scripture,
and the decision in all disputed cases necessarily presumes
thorough investigation of the usage of individual writers, ex-
I 132.] THE GENITIVE. 155
position of the internal com ection in every passage, comparison
of parallel expressions, and the like, it well deserves a separate
and systematic treatment of its own.
The mode of expression mentioned under 1) we will illustrate
in a number of instances. The ambiguity easily occasioned
by accumulating Genitives it was sought to avoid as follows :
a) If the Genitives depend one on another, they stand, as
far as possible, in the order in which they depend on one
another ;
b) If, however, two Genitives depend on one and the
same substantive, this fact is also, at least as a rule, indicated
by the position (before and after the governing substantive).
Examples under a) Of two Genitives : Col. ii. 2 TO TT\OVTO<S
r^5 7rXr)po<f>opLa<; rJJs o-vveo-ews, ii. 1 1 f) aTrc'/cSucris TOV o-to/xaros r^9 crapfcos,
Rom. xi. 33 w fidOos TrXovrov KOL croc^ia? KOL yvwcrcoos 0eov (where, gram-
matically viewed, it may be doubtful whether o-o<xs and yvwo-ews
depend together with TrXovVov upon fidOos, or both together upon
TrXovVov ; the context favors the former opinion, see Mey. in loc.) etc.
Of thr e e Genitives, then as a rule the last is a personal (possessive)
term which easily unites with its predecessor into one whole : 2 Cor.
iv. 4 TOV <amo7iov TOV cvayycXiov TT?9 80^5 TOV Xpiorov, Col. i. 13 TT)V
/JucriXeiav TOV vlov Tr;? dyaTrr/s <XVTOV, 1 Thess. i. 3 (/AVty/xovevovrcs v/x,a>v . . .)
rrjs vTTo/xortys Tr)s /\.7n.'Sos TOV Kvpiov rjfA,wv 'lr)crov X/36o~TOv where the
five Genitives are to be so arranged that TOV KvpLov ^/uu>v 'Ir/o-ov Xpio-Tov
is taken as a whole and governed by eXTrtSos, which together with
V/AWV (according to b) below) is governed by VTTO/XOV^?, and this by the
verb /lAi/iy/AovcvovTes, Eph. i. 19 Kara rrjv ivipyuav TOV /cpctTovs TT}? to-^vo^
avTov, iv. 13 (twice); i. 6; Heb. v. 12, etc. Of four Genitives:
Rev. xix. 15 TraTei TTJV X^vov TOV otvov TOV Ovpov T^S opyrjs TOV ^ov TOV
7rai>To/cpaTopos, cf. xvi. 19 ; xiv. 8. The O. T. also offers examples of
the sort.
Examples under b) : Rev. vii. 17 CTTI 00179 Tnyyas vSaToov (cf. 147,
31 p. 343), Acts v. 32 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7 ; not 8] o-/xev avTov juapTvpes TWV
prjfjid.T(DV TOVTCOV, 2 Cor. v. 1 rj CTrtycios ^/xoJv oiKta TOV o-/c^vovs, Phil. ii. 30
TO v/xaii/ vo-rep>7jua TT}? XetTovpyias, 1 Thess. i. 3, see under a). Further,
position requires us in Rev. iii. 10 (TOV Xoyov rfjs VTTO/XOV^S /xov) to
make /xov depend on VTTO/XOKJ}?, in Heb. vi. 1 TOV Xpurrov on TJ}S />x^? ? >
not on Xoyov ; and in 2 Pet. iii. 2 TOV /cvpi'ov is hardly to be carried
over evToXiy? and connected with aTroo-ToXwv, which according to the
MSS. [Sin. also] has already the Gen. vpov (not ^/xwv Rec. Grsb. and
the translation). The passages where, besides, the Genitive is sep-
arated from its substantive, as 1 Thess. ii. 13; 2 Cor. iii. 6; 1 Pet,
156 PERIPHRASIS OF THE GENITIVE. [ 132.
iii. 21, etc., are of a different sort, and hardly admit of a doubt as re-
spects the meaning; see respecting them in connection with 151, 13,
14 p. 387. The reference of o-ov, however, in Rev. xviii. 14 is doubtful
(even according to the MSS. [tt puts it before -njs linO.~\).
2 REMARK. Exegetical works on the N. T., particularly the older,
often speak of a periphrasis of the Genitive (subjective and
objective) by means of prepositions, especially Ka.ro. with the Ace.
Winer 193 (182), Fritzsche, Meyer, and others, have declared them-
selves as decidedly opposed to this expression ; and in truth, as
respects the origin and philosophy of the matter, with entire correct-
ness, since we cannot speak of the two modes of expression as gram-
matically identical, and in general, caution must be exercised in the
application of such terms. The simplicity and intelligibleness of
grammatical exposition would suffer, however, should we insist in
practice upon carrying this caution too far ; for the rigorous application
of this principle would affect also many other phenomena which in
grammatical discourse we are wont to meet with under the title
" Periphrasis." We do not take offence when grammars speak of a
periphrasis of the partitive genitive by means of prepositions, as e, ev,
in, Latin ex, de, inter ; just as little should we in the present case. The
only important point is that we connect the right views with gram-
matical terminology. (Cf. in 151 the chapter on Ellipsis pp. 390 sqq.)
That is to say, since it was at all times easy (in comparison, for
example, with the Latin) for the Greek language by virtue of its
arrangement of words, which was in this particular rigidly prescribed
(cf. 125), to make prepositional phrases dependent immediately
upon substantives, it is in perfect analogy with the development
of language to assume, that the later language (of prose), agreeably
to its analytic nature, carried the application of this usage further and
further, and employed prepositional expressions even where the earlier
137 language still preferred the simple case. So that, strictly speaking,
the case was not periphrased, but the prepositional phrase displaced
the simple case, or, as Bernhardy (Synt. p. 241) aptly describes it, was
employed in the sense of the Genitive. Just as we, instead of
'your faith,' might also say 'the faith among you' i.e. the faith ex-
isting among you, so too, we find in the N. T. instead of the usual
f) TTI'O-TIS v/xwv the phrase 17 *a0' v/xas TUOTIS (Eph. i. 15), and in other
writers 01 /ca0' vju.a? prjropc? (Longin. 15. 8) instead of the ordinary
01 pr}ropes v/>uov (cf. Acts xvii. 28). Now if such an instance as this
occurs often, and shapes itself into a species of u s a g e, as was un-
deniably the case in the later language with Kara and the Ace. (e.g.
f) Kara rrjv o.px*i v U7rd$e<ns, f) Kara. TO crto/xa pu)fjir] Diod. Sic., 17 /car' avrov
<xpT?7 Ael., at KUT' 'Avvi'/Jav Trpa^is, % Kara TOV ^Xiov dvaroA.^, . . . Tropeia,
732.] PERIPHRASIS OF THE GENITIVE. 157
ra Kara ras TrXaretas Staorrj/xaTa Polyb., etc.), the grammarian is per-
fectly authorized to call this, for brevity's sake, as is done in so
many other cases, a periphrasis for the Genitive in the sense above
defined.
Lastly, it is in no wise agreeable to the nature of these expressions
to supply everywhere in explaining them (as is so frequently done)
an omitted verbal idea (as a>v, ycvo/xevos, etc.) ; just as we do not
deem it necessary also to supply such an ellipsis with the periphrasis
for the partitive Genitive. On the contrary, the verbal idea is either
already included in the governing substantive, as (to take an example
from the N. T.) in Phil. i. 5 rj KOIVWVUL v^w cfc TO evayye'Xiov (see 8
p. 160), or is naturally suggested by the context, or by the force of
the preposition, as Mark V. 26 TO, Trap avrfjs Trdvra (otherwise ra eavr^s),
2 Cor. viii. 7 rj e V[JLWV ayd-jry, Acts xxiii. 21 rj a-rro aov eTrayyeXia (thy
promise, consent). That in this sense also we can call the super-
scriptions (which without doubt are very ancient) cvayye'Xtov Kara
MaOOalov, etc., (precisely, gospel according to the understanding,
apprehension, of Matthew) circumlocutions instead of the Genitive, is
plain. In a manner quite similar, as we shall see below, 10 p. 161,
attributes (with substantives) which we regularly reproduce by
adjectives are expressed both by the Gen. of a subst. and also by
Kara with the Ace.
B. 132, N.I; H. 677; C.'538d.; D. p. 482; J. 652, Obs. 6.
Examples of the use of the Possessive pronoun instead of the 3
objective Genitive of a personal pronoun are Luke xxii. 19;
1 Cor. xi. 24 TOVTO Trotetre eis rrfv i^j]v dvajav^crtv, Rom. xi. 31 rai
i'//,Tepa> eXeei, 1 Cor. xvi. 17 TO vpcrepov vcrTeprjfjLa, xv. 31 Tdf. [so
Lchm. Treg. cod. Sin., etc.] vr) TT/V v/x,Tpav icav^o-tv. In John xv. 9
the idea of mutual love seems to predominate.
B. 132, 2; H. 559b.; C. 418a.; D. p.482sq.; J. 542, vi. b.
The Genitive of the country in the mention of cities is 4
found in Matt. xxi. 11 ; Mark i. 9 Na&per -n}? FoXtXaia?, John
ii. 1 etc. Kava . . . ByOo-a'&a TT}? PaX. ; moreover Tdpcros rfj
, Ilepyrj TTJ? ITayu-^uX/a?, etc.
B. 132, 3. 4 and N. 2; H. 579 sq. ; C. 405; D. 451; J. 529, 530.
That the genitive as the whence-G&sQ, in particular the 5
Genitive of separation with the corresponding predicates,
is very frequently elucidated or periphrased by the addition
of the prepositions air 6 and e/c (e'/c %et/3o<? 133, 20 p. 182)
does not need to be detailed; see the lexicons under cupetv, 13
158 THE PARTITIVE GENITIVE. [132
acjxupeiv and a<f>cu,peicr9ai?- e\ev&6povv, KaQapifyiv, \oveiv (to
bathe, cleanse from) i \vei,v, \vrpovv, pvecrOat,, o-cafav, ^wpifyiv,
the adjectives acr-TrtXo? (Jas. i. 27), tcaOapds (Acts xx. 26),
d<9c5o9 (Matt, xxvii. 24), etc. Cf. 147 under e/c pp. 326 sq.,
and a? pp. 322 sqq.
With other words this insertion of the preposition occurs less fre-
quently ; e.g. Traveiv 1 Pet. iii. 10, avaTraveo-Oai IK ran> KO'TTGH/
Rev. xiv. 13 rest from (after) their labors, vcrrepelv Heb. xii. 15,
KwAvetv Luke vi. 29. In general, the Hebrew use of "jo with these
and similar terms (see e.g. 2 Sam. iii. 28, also the Sept. d&Sos dord)
may not have been without influence.
Other verbs are, perhaps accidentally, connected only with the
Genitive ; see the lexicons under 8ia</>epe/, aTroo-TepeLa-Oai (respecting
Jas. v. 4 see 147, 6 p. 326), 7rau<r0cu. 'A7ro<evyetv, as a transitive
construed commonly with the Ace. (2 Pet. ii. 20), also takes by virtue
of its composition the Genitive (2 Pet. i. 4). On Kpvirreiv and its
compounds see 131. 6 p. 149, and on d/xaprdmv see 133, 3 Rem.
p. 173.
B. 132, 5; H. 559; C. 415 sq. ; J. 583, cf. 893 e.
Agreeably to what was said above (2 p. 156), instead of
the partitive Genitive we far more frequently find a periphrasis
by means of prepositions. Thus particularly (as in Latin)
el?, Suo, rti/e?, TroXXot ef aurw^, or with ev (corresponding to the
Latin inter) as Jas. v. 13, 14, 19 edv rt? ev vplv 7r\avr)0fj, etc.,
and with elvai Matt. ii. 6 ; Rom. i. 6, etc. The language of
the N. T. goes further, too, in that it not infrequently omits
the indefinite part (rii/es), so that there then remains
merely the whole in the Genitive, with or without e/c ; and this
Genitive then takes in the sentence the place of the subject,
or of the object. (On this point compare the earlier Greek
usage in B. p. 484 note, 21st Germ. ed. ; p. 497 note, 22d
ditto.)
Examples : Acts xxi. 1 6 (rvvrjXOov KO.L rwv fj.aOrjTC)v a-vv rjfj.1v, John
XVI. 17 ZLTTOV ovv K TWV fJiaOrjrfav avrov Trpos dXX^Xovs, Rev. xi. 9 /3Ae-
7TOVO-LV K TUJV XttCOV (SC. TToAAoi) ... TO TTTW/Xtt ttVTWV, Matt. XXIU. 34
1 KaOc\c?t/, also, in the signification to take down is used with air6 (Acts
xiii. 29), but in the signification to destroy, always with the Ace. of the object.
Hence in Acts xix. 27 (the text of which is very uncertain) the Accusative
rV (jLeya\ft6Tr]Ta (Tdf. feds. 2, 7]) is more simply taken as Subject-Ace, of
Kadaipe'iffdai (without aur^s it might according to 134, 7 p. 189 be taken as the
O bj ec t-Acc.). On the other reading (which is the more difficult, and is supported
by the most important MSS. [N also]) T^S /te^oAe^TTjros avrrjs (Lchm. Tdf. Treg.)
the Genitive must be explained according to what is said below, 7 p. 159.
132.] THE PARTITIVE GENITIVE. 159
e avruv a.7roKTVLT . . . /ecu c avTcov /xacrTtyco<rT, Luke xxi. 1 6 ; Rev.
ii. 10; Matt. xiii. 47 e/c Travros ycvov? (sc. TI) crwayeiv. Hence, too,
the participial limitations that follow can be subjoined in the
Nominative or the Accusative: John vii. 40 CK TOV o^Xov ow,
aKovo-avres TU>V Xoywv, eXeyov (Grsb. adds TroXXoi), Acts xxi. 16;
2 John 4 cvprjKa CK TCUV TCKVCOV <rov irepiTraTOuvTas ev a\rj6ca.
Similar to these examples is Acts xv. 7 cv v/xtv ^eXe^aro 6 0e6g etc.
Isolated instances of the sort occur even in classic authors; as, 139
Xen. An. 3, 5, 16 ; Ages. 1. 22, etc. Cf. the following paragraph.
REMARK. Examples of the use of the whole with 6 /xeV ... 6 8e in
the same case with the part, do not occur. But similar to Anab.
5, 5, 11 is Eph. V. 33 v/xcts ot KaO' Iva IKCUTTOS . . . ayaTrarw etc.
B. 132, 5c); H. 572a.; C. 421sq.; D. p. 473sq.; J. 533.
The beginnings of the usage treated of above (in 6) appear 7
in the connection (so frequent in the classics) of the partitive
Genitive immediately with verbs, principally with elvat
(with which it is usual to supply rt?, rl for explanation) ; as,
Acts xxiii. 6 TO ev fiepos earlv ^a&Sovfcaicov, TO Se erepov <&api-
cralwv, 1 Tim. i. 20 &v ecmv T^em^o? (on the Gen. with elvai
see in its place, 11 below, p. 162 sq.) and when the Gen. is
resolved by etc: John xviii. 17 /ecu orv e/c rcov fjiadijTcov el. Luke
xxii. 58, etc. But the whole without any specification of part
is commonly enough found also in connection with words of
complete predication, as StSo^at, Xa/i/3a^6^, ecrdieW) etc. ; yet
here again there is this difference, that the whole does not as
in the earlier Greek writers stand in the simple Genitive (with
the exception of Rev. ii. 17), but depends on an intervening
preposition (e', airo).
Examples : Luke xx. 10 euro TOV Kapirov TOV d/ATrcXcovo'? Scuo-ovcrii/
avrw, 1 John iv. 13 IK TOV Trvev/xaros avrov SeSw/cev T^IV, Matt. xxv. 8 ;
Mark xii. 2 Iva Xa/3# aTro TWV KapTrwi', Rev. xviii. 4; John xxi. 10
evey/carc (XTTO TO>V oi^apta>v, Acts ii. 17 CK^ew ctTro TOV Trvev/xaros JJLOV ; and
particularly often with the words ^ayetv and Tneiv, Matt. xv. 27 TO.
Kvrapia IcrOUi 0.770 TCOV i/^t^iW, 1 Cor. xi. 28 IK TOV apTov ecr^terco, Luke
xxii. 18 ov fjir] TTI'CO OLTTO TOU yevvr^naTO? TT}S d^TreXov, John iv. 14 e/< TOV
vSaros, vi. 50 ; 1 Cor. ix. 7, etc. By this construction are also to be
explained Acts v. 2 ei'oo-<tb-aro aTro TT}S TI/X^S i.e. a part of the price,
Rev. V. 9 -^yopao-a? e/< Trao-T/? <f>v\ij<; sc. TroXXovs (for ^/xa? [so cod. Sin.]
is a later addition).
REMARK. (B. 132 5 b. ; H. 589 ; C. 420; J. 527). Examples
of partitive specifications of time with adverbs are Matt. xxviii.
1 <ty o-aftSarcov, Luke XTiii. 12 Sis TOV aaft&xrov. Cf. Col. ii. 16.
1(30 THE PARTITIVE GENITIVE. [ 132.
B. 132, 5d); H. 574; C. 424, 427; D. p. 472 sq.; J. 635.
8 Among the verbs of partaking, etc., we may notice,
K\ypovofjLiv only with the Ace. ; /jberaSiSovai with the
Dat. of the person and Ace. of the thing; \ay%dvei,v with
the Ace. (see Wahl), respecting the Gen. see 140, 16 a)
p. 269: fjL6Te%i,v once also with IK (for the simple Gen.)
1 Cor. x. 17, fikpos e^eiv /-tera TWOS (of the person) John xiii.
8, and ev nvi (of the thing) Rev. xx. 6; tcoivwelv only once
with the Gen. (Heb. ii. 14), elsewhere always with the Dative,
as well of the thing (Rom. xii. 13, etc.) as also of the person,
140 in which case the Dat. of the thing (in which) is expressed by
a circumlocution with ev Gal. vi. 6 (see Mey.), or even with
et9 Phil. iv. 15 ovSe/juta fioi KK\rjala e/coivctijnjo-ev et? \6<yov S6<reo><?
etc. let me take part in the account etc.
The Substantive Kotvwvta is often construed with t? (cf. 2 above)
2 Cor. ix. 13; Phil. i. 5, also with Trpos 2 Cor. vi. 14; KOIVUVLO.V e^eiv
with /nera 1 John i. 3, 6, 7. The Adjective KOUWI/OS is commonly
construed with the Gen. (of the person and the thing) ; the person is
also put in the Dat. (Luke v. 10), and the thing construed with iv
(Matt, xxiii. 30).
B. 132,5 e) and N. 10; H. 574b.; C. 426; D. p. 483 sq.; J. 536.
9 Verbs signifying tolayholdof, to touch, are sometimes
construed with the Genitive, and sometimes also, inasmuch as
from their nature they easily assume a purely transitive sig-
nification, with an object-Accusative.
Among the compounds of Aa/x/?ai/cr0cu the verb eTriAa/x/Jai^crflai,
which governs as well the Gen. of the person as of the thing, is con-
nected with both Genitives at the same time by Luke in xx.
20, 26. But that it is said in the Middle to govern also an Accusative
of the person, arises from a misapprehension of the construction.
Nowhere (not in Greek authors even) does such an Ace., where it
seems to occur, depend on the verb 7nAa/x/?avecr0ai alone, but it in all
cases stands connected with another transitive verb, so that the Ace.
is dependent on both predicates together (by the O^/ACC airo KOLVOV ;
cf. 133, 11 noteip. 178). The examples of this use (quite classic in
cast) are, moreover, all from Luke's writings : Acts ix. 27 eTriAc^So/zevos
avrov T/yayev, xvi. 19 e7riAa/3o/xevoi TOV IlavAov eiAKVcrav, xviii. 17 CTriAa-
/36p.voL ^axrOevyv ZTVTTTOV passages which are to be construed like
Luke xiv. 4 c7riAa/3o/xvos Idaaro avrov. Further, avTiXafAfidvecrOai
always has the Genitive. On the other hand, TT pocrAaju, J3dv ecrO ai
agreeably to its composition and signification (take to one's self, take,
132.] THE GENITIVE FOR AN ADJECTIVE. 161
up, take aside) is uniformly joined to the Accusative (of the person) :
Matt. xvi. 22 ; Acts xvii. 5 ; Philem. 17, etc. The Gen. of the thing
(rpo^s Acts xxvii. 36) may be explained either by 7 p. 159, or 19
p. 167; (but in vs. 34 irpo<r\a(3e.lv is a false reading instead of
To 6xeo-0ai (Heb. vi. 9) we may add the compounds di
and dve'xeo-#ai which always have the Genitive ; (in 2 Thess. i. 4
the Dative is to be explained by attraction, but cod. B has the very
important variant tv e^eo-fle).
K p a T i v which in the N. T. has become for the most part a perfect
transitive to lay hold of, hold fast (/cparrycras rov 'Iwdwyv, Kparelv TTJV
TrapaSocriv, rrjv 8tSa^v, Acparci o t^cis, ot 6<j>@a\fjiol e/cparovvro Luke xxiv.
16, etc.), in a figurative sense is connected sometimes also with the
Genitive, Acts xxvii. 13 (rijs TrpofleWos), Heb. iv. 14; vi. 18 (6/*,oAoyta<?,
eA-TrtSos), and likewise in the proper signification to lay hold of, to touch
viz. rfjs ^etpos with Gen. of person following and dependent on this,
Matt. ix. 25 ; Luke viii. 54 (Mark ix. 27 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.]). But
the combination current in later writers rtvd r^s pipe's occurs only in
Mark ix. 27 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7 ; Grsb.], cf. i. 31 ; analogous to this is
TT t a e t v, Acts iii. 7 Tricuras avrov r}s 8eias
B. 132, N. 12; H. 568; C. 437 d.; D. p. 482; J. 485c.
The use of a substantive in the Genitive as a peri- JQ
phrasis for an Adjective, which is mentioned as a poetic
peculiarity among the Greeks, is found not infrequently in 141
the N. T. ; at any rate, there are numerous genitives that can
hardly be reproduced by us otherwise than by means of their
corresponding adjectives. In this peculiarity the influence of
the genius of the Oriental tongues is unmistakable, for they
were especially addicted to this more poetic mode of expression.
See respecting the Hebrew, Gesen. Lehrg. p. 644 [Gr. 104].
The following may serve as examples : Luke xvi. 8 6 oi/covo/xos -njs
dSt/cta? the unjust steward, xviii. 6 6 fcptTrys -rijs aSma? the unjust judge,
iv. 22 \6yoL T^S XC^H TOS gracious words, Rom. i. 26 Tradrj dri/xta? dis-
honoring passions, xii. 20 avOpaK<s Trvpos, Heb. xii. 15 pt'a
(after the Alex, reading of Deut. xxix. 18), Matt. xxiv. 31
o-aA.7riyyos ^00^9 /xeyaX^s with a loud-sounding trumpet (not, with the
loud sound of a trumpet, see 147, 31 p. 343 ; cf. rpt'a /nxrrrjpia Kpavy*}?
the three loudly-proclaimed mysteries, Ign. ad Eph. 19).
Under this head belong in particular the numerous phrases formed
by means of the substantive VIOL or reKva followed by the Gen. of
an abstract (cf. the Heb. ")a and p;n-tt$i, and the like ; see Gesen.
21
162 THE GENITIVE WITH ctvcu (^vr0cu). [ 132
Lex. under 12) e.g. re/era <O>TOS, Korapas, v7raKo>)s, viol a7rei$eias,
f]fjipa<5, VVKTOS, O-KOTOVS, 6 vtos r^9 aTrwAeia?, etc., 1 Thess. V. 5 ; 2 Pet.
ii. 14; 1 Pet. i. 14, etc.
Yet on the whole this use of the Genitive is by no means so general
as to warrant the laying down of a special rule (the Hebrew
Genitive of material, for example, is even in the Sept. regularly
rendered by adjectives, as ^pvo-ovs, vAtvos, oo-rpa/avos, Ai#ii/os, etc.,
sometimes by CK as in Rev. xviii. 12 but with an adj. subjoined), and
many of the cases otherwise referred to this head, in particular those
in which the Gen. is more closely defined by an attributive (e.g. a
pronoun) and the expression thus loses its general character, are in
translation more suitably reproduced literally. Hence in Col. i. 13
vibs rfjs dyaTnys O.VTOV deWette translates Son of his love (Luther [so
A.V.] his beloved Son), Heb. i. 3 p^/xa rfjs Swa^u-ccos avrov the word of
his power, Acts v. 20 TO. p^/xara rfjs ,(*>rjs Tavrrjs the words of this life,
cf. xiii. 26; Rom. vii. 24, etc. On the other hand, those phrases
(especially Pauline) in which the governing substantive also is an
abstract idea are of a general rhetorical nature; as, 2 Cor. iv. 7
vTrep/SoArj -njs oWa/xeojs (equiv. to vTrep/JaAAovcra Swa/xis), Rom. vi. 4
/caii/or?;? ojr)s, dS^Ao-n/s, j3d@os TT\OVTOV, etc.
REMARK. Quite in accordance with the exposition given in 2 p.
156, qualitative limitations are often expressed by Kara with the
Ace. instead of by the Gen., as 2 Cor. vii. 10 rj Kara 6eov Xv-mj godly
sorrow, Rom. xi. 21 01 Kara <f>vo-Lv K\d8oi the natural branches, ix. 11
fj KO.T cKXoyyv TTpoOtcris (see Mey.) ; also without the article, Ka.6*
vTTpj3oX.r)v 6Soi/ (see 125, lip. 96). But they are seldom expressed
by Kara with the Genitive (see 147, 20 p. 334).
THE GENITIVE WITH etvai
B. 132, N. 13; H. 572; C. 421sq. 437; D. p. 473 sq.; J. 518.
11 Although the N. T. use of the Genitive with elvai arose
142 from common classic usage, and agrees in general with that
of Greek authors, yet the subject is so important that it seems
expedient to review that usage once more here in its special
application by the N. T. writers.
In an examination of it we must first of all set aside those passages
in which, viewed formally, a substantive found in the same sentence
is to be repeated, although as respects sense they may belong to one
of the classes given below ; as, Luke xx. 38 $e6s OVK mv (sc. $eos)
VKpo)i/ oAAa <ovT<ov, 1 Cor. xiv. 33 OVK Icrrw aKaracrrao-tas 6 #eos, aAAa
ciprji/^s, 2 Cor. ii. 3 17 f^rj x a P- vavrtav vpuv (sc. \o.po.) ecrriv, 1 Pet. iii. 3
>v (sc. Kooyxos) ccTTco ovx o t&Ofv . . . KoV/aos, 1 Thess. v. 5, 8, etc,
132.] THE GENITIVE AFTER VERBS. 163
But in Jas. v. 12 v//,uii/ depends immediately on TO vat, and TJTG) is the
copula.
I. If the limiting Genitive with emu is personal, the phrase
signifies, a) most commonly property, possession as well external
or proper, Luke iv. 7 ecrrat crov Tracra, John xix. 24 Xa^co/xev Trept avTov,
rti/os eorat, Luke xx. 14 tva T^/XCUV ya/^rat 17 K\r)povofJiLa, Mark xii. 7 ;
Matt. v. 3 ; xxii. 28 ; Luke xx. 33 ; John x. 12 ; Acts xxi. 11 ; 1 Cor.
iii. 21 ; as also tropically that of ideal connection and dependence,
as Oeov eti/at, Xpto-Tov eli/ai Mark ix. 41 ;- Acts xxvii. 23 ; Rom. viii. 9 ;
xiv. 8; 2 Cor. x. 7 ; 2 Tim. ii. 19 (Tn/ev/xaTo? Luke ix. 55 Grsb.),
na.uA.ov . . . 'ATroAAu) 1 Cor. i. 12, OVK core eavT(oi> vi. 19. Analogous
in structure to these examples is the elliptical phrase TVJS oSovetj/at
sc. Kvpiov or o-a>T77ptas Acts ix. 2 ; l also b) duty or right, power,
Acts i. 7 oi>x vfjujtv eo-rif yi/wvat x/oovovs (cf. Matt. xx. 23), Rom. ix. 16
ov TOV $eAoi/TOS . . . , dAAa TOV eAeoivros Oeov SC. eaTtV, Heb. V. 14 rcA-aW
rni> 17 orepea Tpo<f>rj ; and c) pure causality, 2 Cor. iv. 7 ti/a 17
vTTfpfioXr) TT}? Swa/xew? ) TOV ^cov /cat /x-^ e v/xooi/. But
II. If the limiting Genitive is a th ing, it is to be taken in a qual-
itative sense ; and it may then denote, either a) a permanent
quality a use which in ordinary Greek prose is as rare (see B.
p. 335) as the similar use spoken of in the preceding paragraph
(10 p. 161), as Heb. xii. 11 Tracra TraiSeta ov 8o/c6t ^apas c'vat dAAa
AvTTtys, x. 39 OVK eoyAef VTroo-ToAr}*, ets aTrwAeiav, dAAa Trtarecos, 2 Pet. i. 20
Trao-a Trpoc^^Teta tSias eVtAvo-cws ov ytWai (is of such a nature that, etc.) ;
or b) one that is transient, as in Greek, ty erwv SwSe/ca Mark v. 42 ;
Acts iv. 22, oYe eyeVeTO ercov So;8e/ca Luke ii. 42.
REMARK. Apparently this last idiom underlies the specifications of
size in Rev. xxi. 1 6 sq. e/xerpryo-cv TO Tt^o5 avVrJs CKaroi/ To"O"pa/<oi/Ta
^OJV, and still more anomalously e/xerp^o-ev T^f TrdAti/ TW
7rt o-TaStovs SwScKa ^tAtaScov sc. crTaSiwi/; as though they arose
from the simple statements TO TCI^OS rjv exaTov TCO-O-. TCO-O-. Tny^wv, rj Tro'Ais
rjv
B. 132, 10 a); H. 575; C. 414; D. p. 468; J. 539.
The extension of the causal Genitive with words of plenty, 12
being full, by means of the prepositions IK and d? is frequent in
the N. T. ; and that, too, not only with Pass, and Neut. verbs like
XopTao-6f)va.L, TrXrjpwOrjvai, yepcLv (cf. 147 under OLTTO p. 323, and IK
p. 327), as Matt, xxiii. 25 (cf. vs. 27) Tdf. [cod. Sin.], John xii. 3;
Luke xvi. 21 ; Rev. xix. 21, but also after the transitive y/ztWi,
1 Quite similar is the use of 8vo/j.a absolutely, with the obvious ellipsis of Kvpiov,
as Acts v. 41 ; in Jas v. 14 also cod. Vat. omits TOV Kvpiov (certainly not by
accident).
TVTR GENITIVE AFTER VERBS. [' 1 82
Luke XV. 16 lirtOvpu ye/u'o-at TI)V KoiXtav GOTO TCUI/ Keparian/. More
in accordance with our usage, and yet not unknown to the Greeks
also, is the construction of these words with the (instrumental) Dative,
Rom. i. 29 ; 2 Cor. vii. 4, to which Dative according to N. T. usage
( 133, 17 p. 181) eV is frequently added, particularly with Trepio-o-ev'etv ;
see Wahl.
The Impersonals Set and xPV ( 131, 3 p. 147) are no longei
construed with nouns. The place of these verbs in the sense of to
need is supplied by personal constructions, e.g. with xpT^eiv, x
(cf. 140, 3 note p. 259), Trpoo-Seur&u with the Gen. ; see also v
in 22 p. 169. Actcr&u which only occurs in the sense of to ask for,
entreat, is likewise accompanied uniformly by the Gen. of the person,
but takes the thing in the Ace. (2 Cor. viii. 4 ; x. 2).
REMARK. The Accusative (of a neuter word) with ye'//, civ, Rev
xvii. 3, and in close proximity to another word in the Genitive (vs. 4)
is most simply explained by the analogy of the Accusative after Pas-
sives, as TrXrjpovo-Qai 134, 7 p. 189.
B. 132,10c); H. 578; C. 431; D. p. 478 sq.; J. 519. 520.
IS The prepositions used to characterize more precisely the Genitive
with verbs of buying and selling are e* Matt, xxvii. 7 (whose
force is apparent from the construction in i. 18) and dvrt Heb. xii. 16.
Peculiar is the phrase dyopaeiv r i /A rj s in the pregnant signification
' dearly bought ' 1 Cor. vi. 20 ; vii. 23, and the Gen. S^vaptov without
a verb Rev. vi. 6 ; also the expressions o-u/^wveti/ Srjvapiov and CK
Matt. xx. 2, 13, as it were : make a con tract for a denarius.
B. 132, 10 d) ; H. 576 ; C. 432 b. and c. ; D. p. 484 sq. ; J. 493. 515 Obs.
14 Ileipa^eiv to try, put to the test, commonly in a bad sense, in
later writers and in the N. T. is wholly transitive; 7reipacr0ai does
not occur connected with a noun. Mvr;/u.oveveti/ is construed as
well with the Gen. as with the Ace., without any sensible difference
of signification ; see "Wahl. The Ace. with the Middle avafjufAvrja-Kta-Oai
(2 Cor. vii. 15) is explained by 135, 5 p. 193.
B. 132, 10 e); H. 576. 577; C. 432 d. ; J. 496.
15 To verbs signifying to care for, be anxious, must be added from the
N. T. the newly formed word o-7rXay;(vieo-0ai to have compassion
from ra o-TrXay^va (i.q. QiErVi Prov. xii. 10) ; it is construed sometimes
absolutely, sometimes with the Gen. (Matt, xviii. 27) or Trepl with
the Gen. (ix. 36), but commonly with eVi and the Dat. or Ace.
MeXet /HOI occurs with the Gen. only in 1 Cor. ix. 9, elsewhere
always with wepi. On the construction of /xepi/xvav and other similar
verbs, as jua/<po0v/mj/, Oavfid^ew (which is no longer ever construed
132.] THE GENITIVE AFTER VERBS. 165
with the Gen.) see under verbs of emotion 133, 23 p. 185 and
25 p. 186. On the other hand, </>i8e<r0ai and (in accordance
with their composition) KarayeXav and /cara^povctv are con-
strued only with the simple Genitive whether of the person or of the
thing. In 1 Tim. iv. 12 neither the sense nor usage (cf. 9 p. 160 and
17 note p. 167) prevents our making both Genitives depend
immediately on Karatfrpovew.
REMARK In Gal. v. 26, where with <j>6oviv both the Dative
and the Accusative (dAX^Aovs) have manuscript authority, in the
absence of other passages in support of the Ace. of the person the
reading dAArjAots [so Sin.] deserves the preference.
B. 132, 10 g) and N. 16, 17 ; H. 577 b. ; C. 431 c. d. ; D. p. 479 ; J. 501. 144
To verbs of accusing and the like, belongs Ka-rapapTvpelv 16
followed by the Gen.: Matt. xxvi. 62, etc. Moreover rcarrj-
ryopelv, with the Gen. of the person, has once also Kara
repeated from the verb (Luke xxiii. 14), and once contrary to
usage (and hence not without var.[Sin. too]) the person in the
Ace. Rev. xii. 10 ; the thing it takes, as commonly, in tbe Ace.
KaraSiicd^eiv is used with the Ace. of the person Matt,
xii. 7; Jas. v. 6, /cara/cpivei,v (like Kpivew) also always
with the Ace. of the person (by metonymy also rrjv dp>apriav
Rom. viii. 3) ; but the punishment to which the person is
condemned is put (by the Greeks commonly in the Ace.,
sometimes in the Gen.) in the Dative, because (as is supposed)
this construction was the prevalent one with the verb tyj^Lovv,
as Oavdry Matt. xx. 18 ; Mark x. 33 (in this way 2 Pet. ii. 6
is to be explained), or expressed Deriphrastically : evo%ov dvai
Oavdrov Mark xiv. 64.
The thing or the offence of which one is accused, etc., never
stands in the GenitivB alone ; for whenever it seems to occur thus, it
is to be explained by the law of Attraction ( 143, 8 sq. p. 285) as an
Accusative as in Acts xxiv. 8 ; xxv. 1 1 ; Luke xxiii. 1 4 (on eyxa-
A.e<xr$ai crra(r(Ds see 133, 9 p. 177), or the common circumlocutions
with prepositions appear, especially Trept TIVOS, and also ITTL TWI. Cf.
Acts xxiii. 6 ; xxiv. 21 and xxvi. 6. On the phrase e/cSwcetv x
ru/os see 133, 20 p. 182.
B. 132, 10h.; H. 576; C. 432; D. p. 469; J. 485.
Among the verbs of perception (physical and mental) j;
none is more common than d/covew, the representative, so
to speak, of all other similar verbs. The constructions of this
THE GENITIVE AFTER VERBS. [132
verb in the N. T. are exceedingly various ; yet they connect
themselves closely with those preserved in ordinary Greek.
In the first place, as respects its construction with nouns (on its
construction with verbs see 144, 16 p. 301) the person, so far as
he is the author of the (immediately perceived) sound or speech,
uniformly stands only in the Genitive, never in the Accusative ; *
the thing either in the Accusative, so far forth as the speech or
sound is the natural object of the hearing, or (but only with substan-
115 tives which denote a sound, etc.) in the Genitive, in so far as by
metonymy (cf. 16 above, p. 165) instead of the speaking etc. person,
the thing i.e. the speech, the sound itself, is introduced ; as, d/covci T&V
Adycoi/ avrov equiv. to avrov Ae'yovro?. Examples are: Matt. ii. 9
aKova-avTts TOV /JcuriAe'ws (at the same time with the collateral idea of
obeying), Mark vi. 20 ^Sews avTov fjKovev, Luke ix. 35, etc. ; xi. 31 rrjv
<ro<}>iav 2oA.o/xu>vos, xxiii. 6 raA.iA.aiav (i.e. the word Galilee ; OLKOVCIV
FaAiAaias could only mean Galilee, i.e. to hear the Galileans speak),
Acts vii. 34 (quotn.) j]Kovo-a TOV crrevay/xov avrwv i.e. O.VTWV aTcva^ovrwv,
SO in John x. 3 r}s <f>wvr)s avrov, Luke xv. 25 oayx</>covi'as /ecu ^opojv, etc.
It is hardly possible to express in translation the difference in signi-
fication between <j>u>vr)v and <OH/>}? dKovW, Aoycuv and Aoyovs d/c., since
both expressions are used side by side e.g. John v. 25, 28, 37 ; Acts
ix. 4, 7 ; Rev. xiv. 2, 13, etc., and as respects the sense, therefore, it
is a matter of indifference whether we read in Mark xiv. 64 ^/covo-ar
ryv /2Aacr</>r7/uav (Lchm.) or r^s ySAaox^/xms (Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.]),
in John vii. 40 d/covo-aircs TWV A.oy<ov (Lchm. Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.])
or TOV \6yov (Grsb.j, only the Genitive as a causal case is more
forcible than the Object- Ace.
Frequently both limitations that of the person and that of the
thing are found dependent alike upon the verb. Then a threefold
construction occurs : 1) the thing is put in the Ace., the person in
the Gen., as Acts i. 4 rrjv CTrayycXtav, rjv ^Koucrarc yuov, and perhaps
also such sentences as Matt. vii. 24, 26 6 axovcov /xov TOV<; Aoyovs, see
p. 1 67 note ; 2) the thing in the Ace., the person in the Gen.
but with a preposition intervening, as e/c, -n-apd and (contrary to
ordinary usage) sometimes aTro, as Acts x. 22 OLKOVO-OLL p^/xara Trapa orov,
John viii. 40 dAr7$iav rjv r)Kovo-a Trapa TOV 0eov, 2 Cor. xii. 6 Tdf. [eds.
2, 7 ; ed. 8, Treg. Lchm. cod. Sin. om. Ace.] d/cova TL e e/x,ov, 1 John i. 5
1 When sometimes the person alone is found in the Ace. with aitoveiv, he is not
the author of the sound, but the object of the hearing, and strictly speaking to
be regarded always as the beginning of an Infinitive construction (with the Ace.) ;
as, Eph. iv. 21 efye avrbv ijKovffare etc., not if ye have heard him (personally), but
if ye have heard him that he is Christ etc., hence briefly if ye have heard OF him. See
similar examples in Greek authors in Ar. Pac. 603, Thesm. 1 64 ; Xen. Cyr. 1
1, 4; and cf. my Essay in the Easter programme, Potsdam. 1855, p. 5.
132.] THE GENITIVE AFTER VERBS. 167
dyyeAia, rjv aKrjKoafjiev a-rr avrov ; with this case may be reckoned also
those sentences where the object (a thing) is periphrastically expressed
by an entire clause or by Trept and the Gen. (Acts ix. 13, etc.) or must
be supplied e.g. John vi. 45 6 aKovcras Trapa rov Trorpos /cat p.a@uv (A
adds rr)v oArjtfeiav) ep^erat Trpos /AC, i. 41 ; 3) both the limiting
nouns are put in the Genitive ; as, John xii. 47 lav TI<? //,ov d/cou'o-y TWI/
, xviii. 37 ; Luke vi. 47 ; Acts xxii. 1 d-Kovcrare /xov rjjs Trpos
With the other verbs of perception, such as TrvvOdvecrOai, pavOdvciv,
owtcvcu, the object of the perception always stands in the Accusative,
the person in the Genitive connected by means of a prep., especially
?rapa, (fj.av6a.vtiv almost always with OLTTO see 147, 5 p 324). "ATrrccr^ai
to touch uniformly has the Gen., both of the person and of the thing.
REMARK. Acts ix. 1 2avA.os en e/w-Trvewv a7TtX>}s Kai <f>6vov is an 18
imitation of oeiv, TTVCW /xu'pwi/ (B. 132, 10 h.), and has the stronger
signification of breathing, panting.
B. 132, 10 i); H. 576; C. 432 a.; D. p. 470; J.537.
Among verbs signifying to taste, to enjoy, to have an advan- 19
tage, jeveadai, has commonly the Genitive, yet is also joined as
transitive to the Accusative, John ii. 9; Heb. vi. 5 ; KopevvvadaL,
XppTafav (cf. 12 p. 163), bvivaaOai take the Genitive. On the
phrase Trpoa-eXdftovro Tpofyris (Acts xxvii. 36) see 9 p. 161.
B. 132, N. 20; H. 586; C. 511b.; D. p.391sq.; J. 781.
Of the familiar classic breviloquence by which in comparisons the 20
1 We may be in doubt whether in this last case we ought not rather to make
the Gen. of the person depend immediately upon the Gen. of the thing, and in
this way to reduce the two limitations to a single one, as is indubitably the case in
such sentences as tfKowa TOV arfvay^ov avrwv, etc. The question, however, comes
to be a mere dispute about words, since according to both constructions the re-
sultant sense is the same. Yet since 1) the construction with a double Genitive
cannot be any more surprising than that with a double Ace. and a double Dat.
| 133, 27 p. 165), and is unquestionably found in Greek usage, e.g. with Karnyopew
Aesch. Ctes. p. 61 T>V TtTrdpuv Kcupwv Ka.-rt]yopS> <rov, ib. p. 84 ; Dem. Mid. in.,
with KarayeXyv Plat. Soph. 239 E. cf. eVtAa/uflai/ca-flai above 9 p. 160 and Karafypoveiv
15 p. 165 ; cf. also the double Gen. with SeTo-flcu, xptC lv > B. 132 N. 14 ; C. 414 c;
J. 529 Obs. 1 ; and 2) the personal Genitive in this case so often precedes the
other substantive, or is even separated from it by a word (although position alone
would not decide the matter, cf. Luke xiv. 24, etc.), the grammarian is fully
authorized to make both the limiting nouns in the above passages depend on
aKoveiv. From the circumstance, perhaps not accidental, that the personal lim-
itation always precedes the other substantive if a/coueti/ also stands before it, and
on the other hand, if a/coueii> follows it the personal adjunct also is placed after it
(John x. 16, 27; Heb. iii. 7, 15, etc.), we may infer at least a close connection
between the personal Genitive and the verbal idea.
168 THE GENITIVE OF COMPARISON. [132.
whole of the object compared is substituted for a part, or a single
substantive takes the place of an entire clause (see the examples in
the grammars and cf. Herm. ad Vig. no. 55 and 133, 10 p. 177 below),
the N. T. exhibits a few indubitable instances : Matt. v. 20 lav /*>)
rj SiKaLocrvvrj v/juov TrAetov TWV ypa/xyx,a.Tcoi/ instead of TYJS
TWV ypa/x., John v. 36 Tdf. [cod. Sin.] e^w ryv ^aprvpiav
/u,eta> rov 'leoai/vov for rrj<s TOV 'looai/vov or ^ 6 'Itoavvi;? e\et. But 1 Cor.
i. 25 does not belong here (see Meyer).
B. 132, N. 21 ; H. 660 d. ; C. 511 c. ; D. p. 393; J. 780, Obs. 1.
21 Examples of the omission of rf without change of case
(as in Latin) in connection with the idea more (plus) are the
following : Matt. xxvi. 53 TrapaorT^a-ec /JLOL TrXela) ScoSe/ca Xe7ecoz/a?
dyye\cov (where 77 is an explanatory addition) ; and in like
manner according to later usage in connection with eirdvw^
1 Cor. xv. 6 a>(f>0r) eTrdvo) TrevTa/cocrlow a8eX^>ot?. In Acts xxiii.
13, 21 ; xxiv. 11 ; xxv. 6 (iv. 22) the case is not evident ;
yet these passages, beyond all doubt, must be so construed,
and in Mark xiv. 5 the Genitive is required on other grounds
also. Rarely rj is expressed : Luke ix. 13.
REMARK. That the Gen. of comparison can be used with Positives
also if they include the idea of a comparative (B. 132, N. 24) is
illustrated in the N. T. by TT c p i a- a- 6 s and the adverb v7repK7re-
pto-o-ov, as Matt. v. 37; Eph. iii. 20. Cf. with this the similar
construction with Trapa 147, 27 p. 339. On the Gen. of com-
parison with the Superlative, see 123, 14 p. 84.
B. 132,12; H. 581; C. 406sq.; D. p. 476; J. 504sq.
22 Among the verbs which contain the idea of a comparison,
147 7r\eove/cTelv, according to the usage of later writers (see
Pape's Lex.), is connected as a simple transitive only with the
Accusative, after the analogy of many other verbs ; see Wahl.
Hence the Passive TrXeoveKTelaOcu (2 Cor. ii. 11), as also in
the earlier writers (Xen., Dem.) according to B. 134, 5.
Respecting Siafapeiv see above, 5 p. 158 ; respecting
-ovaOat,, see under -jrapd 147, 27 p. 339.
The Dative with ^rrao^at in 2 Pet. ii. 19 w n
Tovrft) /cal SeSouXtwrai is an instrumental Dat. ; but it may also
be regarded as the Dat. of the Person with a Passive ( 134,
2 p. 187), since ^rrdco in later writers (Polyb., Diod.) has
become a pure transitive, like Sov\6(o.
132,] THE GENITIVE OF COMPARISON. 169
vorrepclv, -eto-0at, commonly construed with the Genitive, occurs
once also with UTTO, see 147, 2 p. 322. In the sense cf the Latin
desum alicui it is joined to the Dative in the Sept. (Neh. ix. 21 ; Eccl.
vi. 2), once also to the Auc. in the sense of the impersonal Set (Ps.
xxii. 1 ouSeV pe vo-TcpTJo-et) , and this is the reading also of some of the
oldest MSS. [Sin. also] in Mark x. 21 (ev o-e vorepel), which reading
Tdf. has adopted instead of the former o-oi ; on the Ace. of the thing
(eV, TI) see 131, 10 p. 152. vTrepc'xeiv is construed with the
Gen. in Phil. ii. 3, with the Ace. in iv. 7. Trepio-o-eveti/ by its
chief signification, to have plenty, abundare, (e.g. apron/, iv eATrtSt)
belongs to no. 12 above p. 163. The derived signification to surpass,
superare, it acquires, strictly speaking, only by the addition of /xaAAov
(Phil. i. 9 ; 1 Thess. iv. 1, 10), yet it is uniformly used absolutely
i.e. without the Gen. of the object surpassed (respecting Matt. v. 20
see 20 above, p. 168), for which the periphrasis of Trapa with the Ace.
is used in Eccl. iii. 19, vTrep in 1 Mace. iii. 30. Of the verbs of
ruling /Sao-iXevetv is joined most frequently to CTU with the Ace.,
Rom. v. 14, etc., more rarely to eVi with the Gen. Rev. v. 10 ; Matt.
ii. 22 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7 ; ed. 8 om. prep, with Lchm.]. On the other hand,
ap^etv and ^ye/xovcvciv always have the Genitive (as has cod.
B also [so Sin.] with /foo-iAev'eiv in Matt. ii. 22), and likewise
^yto-0ai, but only with 6 qyov/xo/os used substantively. Further,
from the N. T. belong here also Kvpuvcw, /caTaSwcurreiW, avOvTrarevtiv
(Acts xviii. 12 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7 ; but ed. 8 avOvTrdrov ovros, with Lchm.
Treg. cod. Sin. etc.], avflevretv, all with the Genitive. apx co-flat
in the sense of to begin is construed only with 0,71-0.
B. 132, N. 26; H. cf. 509; C. of. 444; D. p. 388; J. 436 a.
Since every adjective, participle, verbal adjective, can be 23
rendered a substantive by its position in the sentence (not
merely by the article), it can in such circumstances also be
construed with the Genitive instead of the constructions,
casal (or adverbial), which otherwise properly belong to it.
Examples are frequent : 6 d-yarn/ros pov in the address dyaTrryrot /aov
(1 Cor. x. 14 etc.), cv yo/vT/rots ywaucuv (Matt. xi. 11 ; Luke vii. 28),
ot uAoy7ju,ei/ot TOV Trarpog /AOV (Matt. xxv. 34), TO e/Aavrov ... TO v/xoiv
aurwv crvfjicfropov (1 Cor. vii. 35 etc.), avo//,os and li/vo/x-o? fleou (1 Cor.
ix. 21), K\r]Tol 'Iiyo-oi; Xpto-Tov (Rom. i. 6), SiSafcrot 0eov (John vi. 45),
crj/xju,op<oi T^? ctKovos TOT) vtov (Rom. viii. 29), and likewise also a-v^vroi
777? dvao-Tcxo-cojs Rom. vi. 5 (see deWette). Cf. with these the ex-
pression Otov (not 0<J>) vTTOTao-o-o/xcvot in Ign. ad Eph. 5. Hence 6
ca/uos 'I?7o-ov Xptorov (Eph. iii. 1 etc.) in brief for, 'a prisoner for the
cause of Christ (cf. iv. 1).
22
170 THE GENITIVE OF TIME AND PLACE. [132
B. 132, N. 27; H. 587 e. 584 b.; C. 446b.; D. p. 478; J. 507 sq.
24 But even when the parts of speech just mentioned retain
148 their adjectival nature (in connection with substantives there-
fore) they can be construed with the Genitive so far forth as
it subjoins the necessary complement of the idea of quality
incompletely expressed in the adjective, etc.
1 Cor. ii. 13 OVK ev SiSaKTOts dvOpwTTLvr)? cro<ias Aoyois, dXX' Iv
SiSaKTOts TTtW/xaTos, 2 Pet. ii. 14 /capSia ytyu/zvaoyxevT; TrAeove^taq ([so
cod. Sin.], Rec. -cu?), Jas. i. 13 6cos dircipaoro? /ca/cwv not inexperienced
(that would be aTrcipo?) in evil, but untempted by evil, agreeably to
the parallelism of the passage and the derivation from the N. T.
Tretpa^eiv. 1 Accordingly Ivo^os is construed either (as commonly)
with the Dative, Matt. v. 21, 22, 2 or with the Genitive, Matt. xxvi.
66, etc. (so also Herm. Mand. 2) ; in the same way we have eyyvs
TO/I (for which also ori with the Dat. is used) and TH/OS. But whether
O/AOIOS was also connected in this way with the Genitive (like similis
in Latin) is doubtful, and rests only on John viii. 55 [so cod. Sin.]
where Lchm. [so Treg.] has given the preference to vplv. In Heb.
iii. 12 KapSia TTovypa aTrto-Ttas, the Gen. is rather to be regarded as
dependent on the whole expression KapoYa
B. 132, N. 28 ; cf. D. p. 483 sq. ; J. 540, Obs.
25 To the examples (given in B. note) of a free use of the Genitive with
verbs (Xovo-cu Trora/xoto, etc.) may be added from the N. T. : /3a7rrv TO
a/cpov TOV SaKTvXov uSaros Luke xvi. 24, cf. Arat. 650, 858, 951 (Lev.
xiv. 16), erv/x^xovcti/ Sryvaptov (see above 13 p. 164).
B. 132, 14; H. 590, 591; C. 433; D. 452; J. 522, 523.
a) Examples of the Genitive in general statements of Time are
Xei/zwi/os, VUKTOS (especially in connection with ^epa : VVKTOS KOL ^/ze'pa?
and the reverse), /ACCTOWKTIOV, dAeKTopo^xovtas (Mark xiii. 35), TOV XOLTTOV
1 Similar is the Genitive KapSi'os in Acts vii. 51 with airfpiT/j.nToi in cod. Vat.
after the analogy of other verbals compounded with a privative (Grams, as above).
But the adjunct /cot roTs u<r(v immediately following agrees badly with this Genitive.
The supposition is much more probable that the Vat. reading arose merely by n
clerical error from the Dat. Plur. KapSiais, and accordingly this very old and
well-attested [by cod. Sin. also] reading deserves decidedly the preference over the
other (TT? KopSta Rec.). On &o"iri\os, a6$os air6 see above, 5 p. 158.
2 The construction with els which also occurs in this passage (evoxos ets rrjv
yefwav) hardly rests on a usage of the word tvoxos, nor is a verbal idea (fi^Qrjvat
after v. 29, 30 ; xviii. 9, etc.) to be supplied here outright. It is rather agreeably
to the character of the Biblical Greek a vivid, concrete, circumlocution foi
the Dative ( 133, 2. 3 p. 172), called out by the concrete term yeewa, in an-
tithesis to the preceding abstract term Kpivei and the word vwfSplca used in a
similar sense.
133.| THE DATIVE. 171
(Gal. vi. 17). But it is never used in definite specificatioi.s ; hence in
Matt. xxiv. 20 quite regularly prf yevrjraL 17 <vyr/ u/xun/ ^ct/xwi/o? /xr?8
o-a/J/Sara), and likewise idiomatically oi/^ . . . Sis rov o-a/?/3arov (see 7
above, Rem. p. 159). (The Accusative TO /xci/ <rd(3(3a.Tov Luke xxiii.
56 is used according to 131, lip. 152.) In connection with adjec-
tives or participles the above described specifications of time pass
over into the Gen. absol. ; as, /Accr^s WKTOS, . . . 17/u.epas Matt. xxv. 6 ;
Acts xxvi. 13 ; opOpov ftaOews Luke xxiv. 1 etc.
b) The Genitive in general specifications of Place is more 149
rare, as in the classics. Here only two examples from Luke can
be adduced : v. 1 9 ^ eu/ocWes TT o t a s (sc. 6So) eto-VyKuxr> avrdv, and
xix. 4 IK ivrjs -^/xeXXev Siepxetr&xt.
In both the preceding cases (a. and b.) expressions with prepositions
most commonly appear, even as the received text adds 8id in both the
passages just quoted.
B. 132, N. 30; H. 5090.; C. 438; D. 399)8.; J. 436, lb.
The word aSrys is found construed in Greek fashion (cis oSov) but 27
once, Acts ii. 31 Lchm. [Treg.], although even here the important
authority of codd. Vat. and Sin. (followed by Tdf.) opposes this con-
struction. Elsewhere the word has directly the signification under-
world, hell, and is construed accordingly ; thus ets afyv Acts ii. 27
(quotn.), fv TW aSy Luke xvi. 23 ; 7rv\ai, fcXct? oSov, etc. Hence that
even in the phrase Iws aSov (Matt. xi. 23 ; Luke x. 15) it is not to be
taken otherwise is plain.
REMARK. Very extraordinary for the language of the N. T. would
be the ellipsis after the analogy of the above ek aSov of y^ in
Heb. xi. 26 Lchm. TWV ev AlyvTrrov Oija-avpuv, and probably hardly
to be regarded as anything more than a clerical error of cod. A, (cod.
Clarom. [Sin. also] omits ei>, and the Vulg. translates Aegyptiorum.)
THE DATIVE.
B. 133; H. 594; C. 448; D. 455; J. 586.
As in the general Grammar, we take as the basis of our
treatment of the Dative the two leading distinctions in the
same, viz. the Dative of the Person or of the Object af-
fected (the Dative proper), and the Dative of the Thing
(the Ablative).
. A. DATIVE OF THE PFRSON OR OF THE OBJECT AFFECTED.
In this use it coincide? in general witl? the Dative of other 1
languages, and the grammarian, therefore, can conveniently
pass over all those instances which need no explanation, such
as Souvai,) TrapaSovvai,, \eyeiv nvi^ ireiOeaOai rfj a\7)0ela, aKO\oih
172 THE DATIVE. [ 133.
TIVL etc., and likewise those in which we, to be sure,
generally avail ourselves of prepositions, yet the identity of
which with the examples just given is at once obvious ; as,
a7ro\oyeicr0ai TLVI to defend oneself before any one Acts xix.
33 etc., TTpoOv/jiiav, fjv inrep vp&v Kav^^ai McuceSbviv to the
Macedonians 2 Cor. ix. 2, tyevcrao-Oai, dvOpcoTrow, ro> 6ea> Acts
v. 4, TTpocravakto&ai TOV fiiov larpois on physicians Luke viii. 43,
\d\elv nm to talk to [Germ, z u~] one.
I As everywhere, so especially in the N. T., for the Dative of
150 the Person various periphrases with prepositions are
substituted : the language bringing to view the manifold in-
ternal and ideal significations of the Case by the more concrete
terms of relationship, viz. the prepositions, (in English by 'to,'
i for,' ' towards,' etc.). Inasmuch as here also the grammarian
must proceed upon the views set forth 130, 1 p. 141 and
132, 2 p. 156, he must restrict himself to exhibiting this
general usage in those examples which are peculiarly charac-
teristic of the N. T.
3 The most common circumlocutions which are used
instead of, or in the sense of, the Dative of the object
affected, are formed by means of the prepositions et? (of
which a few examples have been already given, 131, 6 p. 149
and 132, 24 p. 170 note), irpo^ with the Ace. (as in \e<yew
Tivi and 777)69 TWO), perd with the Gen. (as in \a\elv TIVI
and fjierd TWOS John iv. 26, 27) <rvv more rarely ev and eiri
with the Dat. as will appear from the contents of this entire
section.
More peculiar are the periphrases by means of the prepositions
oTrwro), e/mrpocr^ev, and the Hebraistic eVwTrtoj/ (*\!Bb). Thus we often
find OTTIO-O) instead of the Dative (or the more classic /XT( Rev. vi. 8 ;
xiv. 13) with aKo\ov6elv (see Wahl), with which compare Luke xix. 14
aTTCcrmAav 7rpeo-/?etav OTTIO-OD aurov, Acts XX. 30 aTrocrTrav TLVOL OTTUTOJ
avrwv (after them i.e. to attract to themselves) and 22 below, p. 184;
ejjLTT poor 9 ev and e v <o TT i o v (/caro'wTnov) : Matt. V. 1 6 (TO <(ik) Xa/x^'aTw
2/A7rpO(T$ei> T<5v dv^pwTTwv, xi. 26 OVTOOS eycVero fvBoKia e/z7rpocr$i/ trov,
xviii. 14 OVK COTIV OeXrjfjia tfATrpocrOev TOV Trarpos /uot>, x. 32, 33 ; xi. 10 ;
xxiii. 14, etc., Trpoo-Kweti/ ( 131, 4 p. 147) IVWTTLOV TWOS Luke iv. 7 ;
Rev. xv. 4 (and so the Sept. after the Hebrew : Ps. Ixxxv. 9 ; Isa.
Ixvi. 23) ; further Luke viii. 47 dTnyyyciAav CVWTTIOV TTCLVTOS TOV Xaov,
XV. 10 ytveTat X a P** CVWTTIOV TOOV clyyeXcoi/, xxiv. 11 </>ai^crai/ e^o>7rtov avruv
(likewise <J>avepwOfjvcu and the adj. CU/XXVTJS, 2 Cor. vii. 12 ; Heb. iv. 1'J).
133.] CONSTRUCTION OF wurrrfeiv. 173
Acts vi. 5 rjpecrfv 6 Xoyos evwTrtov rov ir\r]0ov^ and in accordance
with this also the verbals dpefrro?, ewpeoTo?, (XTroSeKros, ei/amov TIVOS
1 John iii. 22; Heb. xiii. 21 etc., a/xw/xos, aWy/cA^ros Karevdnriov TWOS
Eph. i. 4; Col. i. 22 (cf. 14 below, p. 179, and 134, 3 p. 188)
Corresponding to Kav^ao-^ai rivi above (1 p. 172) we have Kav^aaOai
evcoTriov rov Oeov 1 Cor. i. 29, to 6vpa<s /xot dva>y/x,evr?s (2 Cor. ii. 12),
6vpa.v IVWTTLOV (rot dveoryjU,. Rev. iii. 8, to the common 6/xoXoyctv TIVI
the construction with /u,7rpocr0ev (7 p. 176) and with CJ/WTUOV Rev. iii.
5, etc.
In all the above passages the Dative might be used just as well, but
the adverbial periphrasis is more lively, pictorial, and suited to the
Oriental way of looking at things ; hence it is added as a sort of com-
plement even to a preceding Dative, as Luke i. 75 Xarpevew avrw . . .
Ivunriov aurov.
REMARK. d/xapTamv also, which in the N. T. retains only the
secondary signification to fail towards one (to sin), ought strictly to
have been joined to the Dative of the person, as indeed is frequently
the case in the Sept. (Judg. xi. 27 ; 2 Chron. xix. 10, etc.) ; yet
everywhere the periphrasis with ets appears instead (as frequently
also even in classic writers, see Pape), Matt, xviii. 21 etc. So in the
O. T. also, where too evavriov, IVO.VTI are connected with d/xaprdvav.
The constructions, in part very diversified, of the following 153
verbs, Trier rev 6iv, ireTroiQevai, e\7rl%eiv, 6 fjio\oyeiv, 4
deserve a special and comprehensive exposition, since these
words as respects their signification also were used often in a
decidedly different sense after the introduction of the new
religion from that which they anciently bore.
IIicrTcvciv. Passing over all those passages where it is used in
the ordinary sense (give credit to, put faith in) and construed as
usual, we notice its appearance
1) Absolutely, equivalent to iricrrw ZX* LV (Mark ix. 42 Tdf. [cod.
Sin.]) i.e. trustfully (fir] Sta/cpt^cVra, cf. Matt. xxi. 21, 22 ; Jas. i. 6) to
cleave to the new dispensation of grace with faith in God the Redeemer :
Mark xvi. 16 ; Luke viii. 12, 50 ; John iv. 53, etc. ; also in the Passive,
Rom. x. 10.
2) With the Dative, and that a) of the P e r s o n, which is
indeed the common construction, but in the majority of cases is applied
also to this new idea; as, Mcowet John v. 46, 'Iwdvvy Matt. xxi. 26,
32; Mark xi. 31 etc., TO> 'Irjcrov Matt, xxvii. 42 Lchm. ; John v. 46;
viii. 31 etc., TO) Trtfj.il/avTi /xe John v. 24, TW Kvptu> Acts" v. 14 ; xviii. 8,
TO) 0e<3 xvi. 34 ; Rom. iv. 3 (quotn.) ; Tit. iii. 8 etc. The gradual
transition into the above special N. T. signification is to be explained
174 CONSTRUCTION OF morefciv. [133.
by the common ellipsis of a clause, as on et/xt, ef, eoriv Xpto-ros etc.
b) Instead of the Dative of the Person who is believed, frequently
by metonymy an abstract in the Dative is substituted, as TTJ ypa.<t>r}
/cat raJ Ao'ya) John ii. 22, ypa/x/xacrtv, pr^aaiv V. 47, rots yeypa/x/xeVots
Acts xxiv. 14, rots epyots (/AOV) John x. 38, CXKOTJ xii. 38 (quotn.),
aXyOeia 2 Thess. ii. 12, ovo/xart 'Ir/o-ov 1 John iii. 23.
3) Exclusively pertaining to the new signification of the
word is its construction very frequent, particularly in John
with eis riva to believe on (in) any one, and here again a) with
the Ace. of the Person: Matt, xviii. 6 ; Mark ix. 42 Lchm. ;
John ii. 11 ; iii. 16, 18 etc. ; Acts x. 43 etc. ; Rom. x. 14 ; Gal. ii. 16 ;
Phil. i. 29 ; 1 Pet. i. 8 everywhere in reference to God or the
person of Christ; and alternating with the Dative 1 John v. 10 ;
b) by metonymy with the Ace. of an abstract again in John,
especially eis TO oVo/xa 'Iryorov i. 12; ii. 23 ; iii. 18 ; 1 John v. 13, also
L<s TO <ws John xii. 36, ets TTJV /xaprvptav 1 John v. 10. That in this con-
struction the ellipsis of a clause is, logically considered, no longer
demanded, is obvious ; hence the word in its new sense, when connected
with nouns, gradually settled upon this construction.
4) Far more rare is the construction CTTI nva, instead of that
with eis. and in the same sense. Thus eVi rov Kvpiov Acts ix. 42 ; xi.
17 ; xvi. 31, cf. xxii. 19 ; Rom. iv. 5, 24. This use is uncertain in
the gospels : Matt, xxvii. 42 (cod. B [ Tdf. Treg.]), John iii. 15 Lchm.
5) The construction with eTrt and the Dative of the Person
seems to belong more to the O. T. ; hence in the quotation from
Isaiah (xxviii. 16 Alex.) in Rom. ix. 33 ; x. 11 ; 1 Pet. ii. 6, cf. 1 Tim.
i. 16. Matt, xxvii. 42 Tdf. [ed. 7] is doubtful. The construction
with eVt and the Dative of the Thing (Luke xxiv. 25; Rom. iv.
18) rests upon the Greek use of the preposition eVt with the Dat.,
see 147, 24 p. 336.
6) The rarest construction is with the preposition eV, unques-
tionably supported only in Mark i. 15, and there with the Dat. of the
thing : iv TW euayyeAiw. Respecting its force (whether to believe in
. . . , trust in . . . , believe through, by virtue of, the gospel) inter-
152 preters differ ; and it is the more difficult to arrive at anything certain
on this point, as in the other passage (John iii. 15) the MSS. and
editors also disagree (Lchm. eV avrov [{* ets], Tdf. [Treg.] Iv avrw).
The Seventy, in accordance with the Hebr. original (cf. Gesen. under
pax Hiphil, and Fritzsche on Mark p. 26), employ the construction /
rtvt frequently in the sense ' to trust in,' e.g. Jer. xii. 6 ; Ps. Ixxvii. 22 ;
1 Sam. xxvii. 12 Alex.
The (Pauline) formula TTICTTOS eV Kvptw, eV Xpicrrw 'Iijo-ov (Eph. i. 1 ;
Col. i. 2, etc.) did not originate in the verbal construction, cf. 5 and
6 p. 175.
133.] CONSTRUCTION OF iretrci0vai, IXir^iv. 175
7) The construction with the object-Accusative (of the thing)
in the sense ' to believe something] as e/ayoi/ Acts xiii. 41 ([so cod.
Sin.] ; Grsb. <5), Trdvra 1 Cor. xiii. 7, ayaTrrjv 1 John iv. 16 (hence in
the Passive: TO papTvpiov ^/xwv 2 Thess. i. 10, cf. 1 Tim. iii. 16).
Further, the Ace. of the object with Triorevciv in the sense of to entrust,
confide, as avrov or iavrov TLVL John ii. 24, and the allied construction
of the Ace. with the Passive (irurrfvopai n, see 134, 7 p. 189) find
their basis in the ordinary Greek usage.
HcTroiOevai to trust admits in the main of the same constructions,
being joined 1) with the Dative, as in Greek writers, e.g. eavroJ,
SOT/WHS, vTraKoy, 2 Cor. x. 7 ; Phil. i. 14 ; Philem. 21 ; 2) with ts,
but only once, eis v/xas Gal. v. 10 ; 3) with i-rri and the Ace. of
the Person, Matt, xxvii. 43 Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.] ; 2 Cor. ii. 3 ;
2 Thess. iii. 4 ; 4) with i TT i and the Dative, and that both of
the person, Luke xviii. 9 ; 2 Cor. i. 9 ; Heb. ii. 13 (quotn.), doubtfully
in Matt, xxvii. 43 (B), and also of the thing, Luke xi. 22 (Trai/oTrAia),
Mark x. 24 (xprj/xao-ii/) .
In the phrase TTCTT. Iv TLVL the expression with iv, if a personal
Dative follows, is more an abverbial adjunct designating the ground
of the trust ; hence it is commonly connected with one of the above
constructions or with a clause introduced by on, as Gal. v. 10 ;
2 Thess. iii. 4 ; Phil. ii. 24 (iv Kvpfo), cf. 6 below and 23 p. 185. But
it is otherwise with the Dative of the thing, as 7r7roi0eWi iv crapKt Phil,
iii. 3, 4 (a periphrasis for the Dative above : to trust in the flesh ; cf. 21
and 22 p. 183).
'EA.7rieii/ to hope, in the earlier Greek prose uniformly prefers,
with the exception of the object- Accusative (aya6d Xen. j3ov\rj(nv Thuc.,
also TI Trapd TU/OS Dem.), the verbal construction (with the Infin. etc.).
The connection with the Dative in Thuc. 3. 97 rij rvxy cAWo-as (but
in the following clause with on, where TU'X^ is the subject) gives
eXTTio-as the sense of 7re7roi#<os, trusting fortune, parallel to the pre-
ceding TOVTOI? irfurOcis a sense in which iX.7rioa t\tw also is often
construed by the Greeks with iv and im with the Dat. On the other
hand, as early as in the Sept., where the Hebr. words brn , fibn , and
niaa are generally all translated by iX-rrL^iv, the construction with
nouns has become by far the predominant one, in fact almost the only
one in use, and from thence passed also into N. T. usage. The con-
struction most current in the Sept. (in consequence of the above
Hebrew verbs being joined with bx and bs) is wit i itrL both with
persons and abstract terms and likewise also ir the N. T. ; that is
to say, 1) with CTTI and the Accusative, frequent in the O. T.,
in the N. T. indubitably only in 1 Tim. v. 5 ; 1 Pet. i. 13 (iii. 5) ;
but 2) most commonly with irrC and the Dative, Rom. xv. 12
176 CONSTRUCTION OF ojioXo^iv. [ 133.
153 (quota.), 1 Tim. iv. 10 ; vi. 17, cf. 1 John iii. 3 ; 3) with e is (rare
in the Sept. e.g. Isa. li. 5), as eis ov John v. 45 ; 2 Cor. i. 10, eis 0eov
1 Pet. iii. 5, cf. i. 21 also Acts xxiv. 15 cXiriSa x wv " s ^ ' v ( Dut w i tn
Ace. and Infin. following) ; 4) with ei/ (likewise rare in the Sept.,
Ps. xxxii. 21 ; 2 Kings xviii. 5, since there the Hebr. S also is com-
monly rendered by eVi, e.g. with nwn in Ps. v. 12; vii. 2; xxv. 20,
etc.), 1 Cor. xv. 19. Respecting Phil. ii. 19 (eX-rr. iv /cvpiu> followed
by the Ace. and Infin.) cf. the similar use in 5 p. 175 and 23 p. 18o.
Only in one passage (Matt. xii. 21) does it appear with the simple
Dative, and that, strange to say, a quotation from the O. T. (Isa.
xlii. 4), where the Sept., which Matt, seems to follow here, gives the
common construction eVi TU> 6vo/um. Fritzsche and others have
therefore taken offence at this Dative ; on account, however, of the
almost unanimous authority [Sin. also] in its favor, it is retained by
the editors, and must be explained by the analogy of the construction
7r7roi0eVeu rwL Of the remaining constructions those with eV and em
with the Dative adhere most closely to classic usage, those with eis
and eVi with the Accusative belong exclusively to the later (biblical)
Greek.
7 C O /mo Xo -yet v is connected 1) in the signification to confess, as
commonly, with the Dative of the person and Accusative of the thing,
as Matt. vii. 23 ; Acts xxiv. 14, etc. 2) in the signification to praise
(equiv. to i/^aAAeiv) o/zoXoyeiv, commonly e^o/AoAoyeio-flai, is likewise
connected with the Dative of the person or of the personified object
(ovd/u.em) ; but the use is borrowed from the Sept. 1 where the Hiphil
rrnft is regularly translated thus ; hence in the quotations from the
O. T. in Rom. xiv. 11 ; xv. 9, cf. Heb. xiii. 15 ; Matt. xi. 25 ; Luke
x. 21 ; 3) in connection with the Accusative of the person
Jesus (Rom. x. 9 ; 1 John ii. 23) it acquires the specific N. T. sig-
nification to confess Jesus (as Redeemer, etc.), and the expression is
then to be taken, in analogy with Tricrreveiv nvL above, as an abbreviated
clause (with a participle), such as appears in full in 1 John iv. 2
6/AoAoyetv 'Iryo-ouv Xpwrov ev crapKi fXrjXvOora^ 2 John 7. The change
into the Passive occurs Rom. x. 10. 4) The construction with
ev TIVI in the same sense is peculiar to Matthew and Luke; as,
Matt. x. 32 ev e/xo6 (Vulg. me), ev avrco (Vulg. eum D avroV), Luke
xii. 8. But this is not a Hebraism, see Fritzsche ad Matt. p. 386.
5) The person before whom as witness, or in whose presence, the
confession is given, is expressed by means of the preposition e/u7rpo-
<r# ev in the last two passages quoted, by evo>7riov in Rev. iii. 5.
Cf. above, 3 p. 173.
1 Hence the Apocalypse connects even at ye IV with the Dative (xix. 5)
according to a less common usage of the Sept. (Jer. xx. 13 ; 1 Chron. xvi. 36
2 Chron. xx. 19, etc.).
133.] THE DATIVE. 177
B. 133, 2 a and b; H. 602; C. 450; D. p. 489; J. 592. 601.
With all verbs (both simple and compound) whose tignifica- 8
tion can be traced back to the idea of union or approach
in a friendly or a hostile sense, manifold periphrases by
means of prepositions make their appearance, as elsewhere,
instead of the Dative.
Thus for example we have /xa^ccr^at, Sia/cpiVe<70at, StoAeyco-^ai, 6/xiA.av Io4
TLVL and Trpog rtva, /xiyvv'eiv /A era rtvos and ei> TLVL, TroXe/actv
p. r a TIVOS, KpiVeo-flat (to contend] TLVI and /u. e r a TIVO? Matt. v. 40 ;
3 Cor. vi. 6 ; with other verbs there is no circumlocution, as rin'0e-
o-#cu, Trpoo-e'xav, KaraXXarreiv, StaXAarreo-^at T i v i, etc. Notice, in par-
ticular, with the Dative : SiaKarcAeyxeo-^ai rtvt 5y controversy to convince
Acts xviii. 28 ; erepo^uyoiWe? aTrtcrrots in a peculiar sense, see the
lexicons ; ya^^vat (of the woman, p. 55) TIVL after the Latin nubere,
1 Cor. vii. 39; Mark x. 12 Tdf. [ed. 7]. Respecting Trpocre^eiv OLTTO
Bee 147, 3 p. 323.
B. 133, 2c.d.; U. 605; C. 452; D. p. 489 Obs.; J. 589.
Among verbs (mostly compounded with a preposition) of exhort- 5
i n g and requesting the following deviate from the usual construc-
tion : Trap a tve t v with the Ace., Acts xxvii. 22; v\t(r@a.L TLVL and
Trpos TLva (2 Cor. xiii. 7); KarapaaOai with the Ace. Mark xi. 21 ;
[Luke vi. 28 Lchm. Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.] ; Jas. iii. 9, with the Dative
Luke vi. 28 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7]. Among those of censuring and
reproaching 6 v e i S i e i v has uniformly the Ace., both of the per-
son and of the thing, Matt. v. 1 1 etc. ; hence in the Passive, 1 Pet. iv.
14; ey/caAetv TLVL and Kara rtvos (Rom. viii. 33), the thing
always with Trept and the Gen. Acts xxiii. 29 ; xxvi. 2 (according to
147, 30 p. 341), xxvi. 7; in xix. 40 also orao-ecos, as the following
article rr/s shows, still depends on Trcpt (cf. 18 below, p. 181) ; /*eV"
<j>eo-6a.L with the Ace., Heb. viii. 8 (where, however, according to
Bleek the reading aurots and the connection of the same with Aeyei are
to be preferred) . Other verbs, as jM/8pt/xacr^ai, 7rm/xj/, are uniformly
construed only with the Dative.
B. 133, 2 f. and N. 4; H. 603; C. 451; D. p. 490; J. 594.
An example of the Dative with 6 auro? is found in 1 Cor. xi. 5. 10
Of the brachylogy already mentioned ( 132, 20 p. 167sq.) and
peculiar to the ancient languages (comparison with the whole
instead of the part) see several examples in the Apocalypse : ix, 10
evoixriv ovpas o/xoias cr /copTrio t<, xiii. 11 /cepara 8vo o/xota dp via). Sim-
ilar is Jude 7 and the construction with icrort/xos 2 Pet. i. 1. In a solitary
instance, in a quotation, ws with the Nominative is loosely used with
ofjioiovv instead of the Dative, Rom. ix. 29 (after the Sept., not the Heb.).
23
178 DATIVUS COMMODI. [ 138
THE DATIVUS COMMODI AND RELATED DATIVES.
B. 133,2g.; H. 597; C. 453; D. 458; J. 595 sqq.
11 To the Dative known under the designation Dativus
com modi et incommodi, many and in part very peculiar
constructions and phrases with the Dative may be referred.
Thus [Aaprvpelv TLVL means to give testimony in one's favor, as
Luke iv. 22, etc. ; by metonymy it is construed also with the Dative
of the thing, as rrj oAr^eta John v. 33 cf. Luke xi. 48 etc., for which
also the circumlocution with Trept and the Gen. is often used. On the
other hand we find Kara/xapTvpctv rtvos according to 132, 16 p. 165.
Notice further Matt. xiii. 14 avaTrXrjpovraL avrots r) Trpo^reia TOV
'Hcratov, 1 1 Cor. vii. 28 0\l\f/iv rrj trap*! I^ovo-tv, 2 Cor. ii. 13 OVK
155 f.v\Y)Ka. aveo-iv TW 7rvev/xaTC fjiov (not equiv. to ev rfj crap/a, tv TW
7rvv/x,aTi) , 2 Cor. ii. 1 e/cpiva e/xavrw, etc.
12 In this way is to be explained the use of the Dative in
various connections which is especially characteristic of the
Apostle Paul, and rests on profound views of language.
Thus, after the analogy of the common phrase r)v TW $eo>, Kvpi'u)
(Rom. vi. 10, 11; xiv. 8 ; eavrw xiv. 7 ; 2 Cor. v. 15), the expression
O.TT oOavf.lv TLVL in the same passages is formed; and this verb is
used by metonymy with the Dat. of the abstract, rfj a/xaprta Rom. vi.
2, 10, 11, TO) vofjut) Gal. ii. 19 cf. Rom. vii. 4. In the same way in
the 1st of Peter (ii. 24) in contrast with r-j SiKcuoo-iVr? j the word
awoycv ccrOai alsc, which according to its composition ought to
have the Genitive, is construed with the Dative rats a/xaprtats. Paul
connects the same view with other predicates in order to express
the ideal reference of an ordinary and every-day act to God or any
individual, or even to a (substituted) abstract term ; see the entire
argument in Rom. xiv. 4-8, where, besides the verbs above-named,
also </>povtv, ccrOifw, OVK laOifiv, o-rrjKtLv, 2 TTITTTCIV stand in the same
construction. In Gal. V. 1 ry eXevOepia (17) ^/xas Xpwrros
1 By comparison with this passage the Dative in Luke xviii. 31 is explained
most satisfactorily, Te\taB-h<TtTa.i iravra TO. yeypa/uL/uLfva. 8ia TU>V irpo^TjTwi/ T< vltf
TO~ avOpdirov ; here the Dative depends on both predicates by virtue of the ox^a
OTT& KOIVOV (as in % 132, 9 p. 160 the Accusative with VzA.aj8eVOai), although ex-
ternally it belongs rather to the former (TeAeo-flTjo-erai). The simple resolution of
the Dative into Trepl TOV vlov is thoroughly unphilological, and the Vulgate's
translation (dejilio) according to the above exposition is only to be defended
in a general way. The Dative if referred to ytypa^va alone, must at least
have been preceded by M, as in John xii. 16. [Yet cf. 3 Mace. vi. 41.]
2 In 2 Cor. i. 24 (TT; yetp Turret fffr-fjicaTe) the assumption of this Dat. would
impart to the passage too high an oratorical coloring. It is more probable that
rij irio-Tfi here is to be taken in the sense of the phrase a-T-fiKeiv iv TT? Trio-ret which
elsewhere occurs (1 Cor. xvi. 13), see Meyer and 19 below, p. 182.
133.] DATIVUS ETHICUS. 179
pwo-i/ etc., rfj eXevflepi'a is according to both readings equally to I e
taken as a Dat. com. (see especially Meyer pp. 256, 259). The Dative
in Rom. vi. 20 eXevflepoi ? T T V St/caioo-vvfl is peculiar and hard to
reproduce ; it is called out by the parallelism of SovXwfleVres TO> Ota
in vs. 22 (and to be rendered perhaps towards, in relation to, but not
from).
B. 133,N.5; H. 599; C. 462e.; D. 459; J. 600, 2.
The softer Dat. com., commonly designated by the gram- 13
marians the Dativus ethicus, is not a mere peculiarity of
the earlier language, but a genuine product of the language
of the people, whence it has found its way so frequently into
the poems of Homer, the writings of Herodotus, Plato, etc.
Accordingly the assumption of such a Dative in the N. T. is
quite in accordance with the genius of its language. Of. the
note on 129 a, 5 p. 140.
Here belong : Rev. ii. 1 6 tpxofjLai <TOI ra^y KOL TroXe/x^o-w /w,er' avrwi/,
5 ep^o/xat (rot /cat Ktv^o-w rrjv Xvyyiav ; l probably also 1 John v. 16 if, 156
according to 129, 14 note p. 133, we assume 6 0os as subject for
SoW and refer aura) as Dat. eth. to the person cu-njcms; and, according
to many interpreters, also the critically and hermeneutically difficult
passage Heb. iv. 2 (according to the more ancient reading [so N]
receivedalsobyTdf.[eds.2,7,8] /u/>) o-vyKe/cpajueVos rfi Tmrm rots O.KOV-
craa-iv i.e. the word which in the hearers was not mixed with faith, see
Mey. [i.e. Lunemann] in loc. On the other hand, for Lchm.'s reading
[so Treg.] see Bleek II. p.' 501 sqq.). Simpler and easily intelligible
is the Dat. in John vi. 13 a eTrepiWevo-av rots /?e/3p(OKoo->. Finally, the
Dative in aTrordgaa-Oai TLVL to dismiss any one, bid him farewell,
literally to withdraw one's self for one ; this phrase is quite un-Attic,
in fact solecistic (eK<vXov TTQ.VV Phryn.), and first made its appearance
in the Alexandrian age (Josephus, Philo), but later became pretty
general : Mark vi. 46 ; Luke ix. 61, etc.
B. 133, N. 7; H. 601; C. 462; D. 459; J. 600, 1.
Also of the Dative of subjective judgment closely re- H
lated to the preceding there are several unquestionable examples :
in particular, Acts vii. 20 fjv ao-retos rw $e<3 (in the sight of God),
2 Cor. x. 4 oTrXa Swara r<3 #a> (Luth. mdchtig vor Gott, [A.V. m irg.
to 6W~1) ; 2 Pet. iii. 14 is doubtful (see 134, 2 p. 187). From the
1 DeWette differently, taking <roi in the sense of to thee. But the appeal to
?)Keiv Tivi Plut. Aem. Paul. 16 is not in point, since there the Dative depends on
the expression ^/ce nyvixDv. In Philostr. Vit. Apoll. 2. 14 Tj/cea/ nvi has quite
another sense, and in Matt. xxi. 5 (Zech. ix. 9) 001 is a literal translation of the
Hebr. ^-? [This note, as respects de Wette, seems to be founded in a mistake.]
DATIVE AFTER SUBSTANTIVES. [133.
O. T. cf. Jonah iii. 3 77-0X15 ^ydXrj TO) 0e<3. But it corresponds more
with N. T. usage (cf. 3 above p. 172) to periphrase this Dative by
means of a preposition, and none was better suited to this purpose
than evwTTtov (Hebr. ijsb, Eng. before i.e. in the sight of) e.g.
SCKCHOS, /3$eXvyfJLa IVWTTLOV rov Ocov, jae'yas cWmoi/ KVpCov (Luke i. 6 Lchm.
15 ; xvi. 15 ; Acts iv. 19, etc.), TroXweXes ei/amov Otov 1 Pet. iii. 4 (cf.
the analogous use of Ivutnov with the so-called Dativus Passivi 134,
3 p. 188), as well as evavri, evavriov, which is often interchanged
with evoWiov in the various readings, Acts viii. 21 ; Luke i. 6 Tdf.
[Treg.], xxiv. 19, and the compound KarevwTTLov see 3 p. 173.
B. 183, 2h. ; H. 595 d. ; C. 454 e. 464 c. ; J. 588.
15 Some relics of the construction (formerly pretty extended, and
called by the old grammarians o-^/xa KoXo<ajvioi/) of the Dative in
immediate dependence upon substantives, particularly those
whose stem-verb permits the same construction (as (3porois Scmjp Aesch.)
have been preserved in 2 Cor. ix. 11, 12 (where in both cases rw $(3 is
best made to depend on cu^aptcrrta), and in 2 Cor. xi. 28 Lchm. [Treg.
Tdf.] according to the reading 7rt<rrao-ts u o i. Respecting the signi-
fication of this expression interpreters differ. If the Dative is genuine
(which, according to the authorities [fit* also] and the rendering of
cod. Claromont. in me, is haidly to be doubted) eVio-rao-ts cannot sig-
nify attention, because then the Dative would not stand in the relation
of verbal regimen to the substantive. The most probable assump-
tion is that as aTrooracri? (from a^iWao-flcu TU/OS) signifies defection,
so tTTi'o-Tacns (from tyurrao-Oai TIVL) signifies accession, uprising (Acts
xxiv. 12), and IvurreurU poi denotes concourse, thronging, to me
(eVio-Tcuris occurs in the sense of thronging also in App. B.C. 4, 129),
more precisely my being encompassed, beleaguered, and the detention
caused thereby, with which the Dative is as necessary as the Gen. is
with aTrdoTcuns, a<f>ujTcur6ai. Cf. Ruckert in loc. The Dative with
157 participles arid adjectives used substantively is still more plainly an
effect of the verbal power of both these parts of speech, and needs no
further confirmation by means of examples.
B. 133, 3 and N. 10 ; H. 605 ; C. 699 f. g. ; J. 622, Obs. 1 ; 623, Obs. 4 ; 635, Obs.
16 That compound verbs, particularly those compounded with
<rvvy tv, tire, are joined to the Dative, see 147, 33 p. 344. In John
ix 6 7rexp7i/ auTov rov TrrjXov CTTI rous 6<j>6a.\p.ov<; the Genitive indeed
seems to depend on eTre'xpurev (according to B even on eTre^Kev),
somewhat after the analogy, therefore, of verbs of touching. This
however is not the case ; on the contrary, the Gen. avrov (cf. vs. 15)
is to be connected by Hyperbaton with 6<j>6a\p.ovs, and the addition
133.] DATIVE OF THE THING. 181
TOV rv<t>Xov to be expunged, with Lchm. Tdf. 1 [Treg.]. See more ex-
amples of the sort from the classics in B. 133, N. 10 and from the
N. T. in the section on Hyperbaton 151, 13sqq. pp. 387 sqq.
B. DATIVE OF THE THING (INSTRUMENT, ETC.).
B. 133,4; H. 606sq.; C. 465sq.; D. 457; J. 607sq.
That the Dative of the Thing comprises most of the relations 17
of the Latin Ablative does not need to be shown at length.
But the language of the N.T. departs a little from the ordinary
usage in that the preposition ev is prefixed to this Dative
with uncommon frequency. 2 Although a similar use is here
and there to be found even in Greek writers also (see the
grammars under eV), yet this N. T. peculiarity is hardly an
extension of those isolated instances in the classics, but mani-
festly a result of the frequent occurrence of the preposition in
the Sept. (after the example of the Hebr. a), as is apparent from
countless examples from the Old T. and New, see 19 p. 182.
And in general, through the influence of the Oriental manner
of expression, both the compass and contents of the signification
of this preposition became essentially modified, see 147, 9 sq.
p. 328 sq.
B. 133, 4 a. ; H. 607 a. ; C. 466 b. ; D. p. 491 ; J. 591, Obs. 2.
With xP^ cr ^ aL ^ elsewhere in the N. T. always construed with the 18
Dative, the Accusative is given to us by the oldest MSS. [Sin. also] in
one passage, 1 Cor. vii. 31 01 ^pw/xei/ot TOV KOCT/XOV o>s /U,T) Kara^po)-
/u-evot. The instance is so isolated that recent editors were the first to
venture to put it in the text. The construction is indeed an erroneous
one (the appeal to Xen. Ages. 11, 11 is inadmissible as the Ace. there
was set aside long ago, and still less ought we to argue back from the
usage of later Byzantines), but finds its apology in the use of the
compound KaraxpTJcrOai with the Ace. by later writers, as Lucian, and 158
Plutarch (see Steph. Thes. sub voce), so that the Ace. in the above
passage is governed to a certain extent OLTTO KOWOV ( 132, 9 p. 160;
133, 11 note 1 p. 178) by the Karaxpco/xevoi also immediately following ;
see another example of such retro-action in 9 above, p. 1 77 (Acts xix.
1 The phrase rov TvQXov, taken up again by Tdf. in his [7th] edition of 1859,
has been expunged once more in his [8th] edition of 1869 (after cod. Sin.).
* Many, particularly of the earlier commentators, believed therefore that <=V was
a sort of sign of the Dative in the N. T., and was added even to a personal
Dative without altering the sense. The error of sucAi a view Winer 217 (204) has
sufficiently shown by examples.
182 PERIPHRASES FOR THE DATIVE OF THE THING. [ 13^,
40). Certainly native Greek writers would hardly have allowed
themselves to employ constructions of the sort.
19 Examples of the addition of ev to the instrumental Dative,
where the Greeks decidedly would have used the simple Dati ve only,
are the following : ei/ TLVL dAur^treTai (Matt. V. 13), eV w //.expo) /zerpetre
(Matt. vii. 2), dya7rv ev o\y rrj /capSta etc. (in Matt. xxii. 37 closely
after the Hebr., cf. the parallel passage Mark xii. 30), KaraTraretv ev
rots TTOCTLV (Matt. vii. 6), aTro/cretVetv eV //.a^atpry (Rev. xiii. 10), a.7roA.ecr$ai
eV /jLa^dLpy (Matt. xxvi. 52), 8ta<epeu/ ev S6y (1 Cor. xv. 41), etc.
Further, examples where eV is alternately used and omitted, often
close together, are vyuuvciv eV T-fi Trio-ret (Tit. i. 13) and r-fi Trtcrrei
(ii. 2) cf. 12 above, note 2 p. 178, ev TO) o-To/xart and o-ro/xart 6/xoA.oyeti',
ev ry Kap8ta and rig /capSt'p TrtoTeuetv (Rom. x. 9 etc. where, however,
the change from the Act. to the Pass, construction has, perhaps, not
been without influence), /3a7TTieiv v8<m (Luke iii. 16 etc.) and eV vSo,
(not in water, Matt. iii. 11 etc.), (3. ev Trvev/xurt, (3. ev Trvpt (e.g. Acts i. 5
'looawtys e/JaTTTto-ev vSart, v/xet? 8e tv Trvc^/xart ftaTTTLaO^a-eo'Oe}^ etc.
That eV can stand even with Persons so far forth as they serve as
the means of an action, see 147, 10 p. 329. 1
20 REMARK. Otherwise, when Persons are the means, Sia with the
Gen. is employed as usual. As a special peculiarity, however, is to be
noticed the Hebraistic periphrasis for it (which really is not rare) by
means of the Substantive x t/ P an< ^ tna ^ both in the form 8 1 a
X tp o s (*T2i), even with a Gen. Plur. following, and also 8 1 a ^ e tp co v :
e.g. Mark VI. 2 Swa/xct? at 8ta ^etptov CLVTOV ytvd/xei/ai, Acts ii. 23 8ta
^etpos avofjuuv, xi. 30 8td ^etpos BapvdySa KOLL ^a^Xov, xiv. 3 ; xix. 11 etc.;
rarely ev ^etpt, Gal. iii. 19 (this is frequent in the Sept., as Gen.
xxxviii. 20 etc.).
Many other periphrases expressive of simple relations are formed
with the word xp after. Hebrew precedent; for example, of the
Dative with 7rapa8t8oVai by means of eis ^etpa? ("^ br), Matt. xxvi.
45 ; Mark ix. 31 etc. ; e/c x*ipds ("V?p) is used with verbs of separa-
tion, liberation, instead of the Gen. or the simple e/c, John x. 39
e^X^ev IK T^S \.ipo<s avrujv, Acts xii. 1 1 ; Rev. xix. 2 e^eSt'/oycrei/ TO
at/xa CK xLpos avr^s (like 2 Kings ix. 7 ; 1 Sam. xxiv. 16 etc.) for
which in Rev. vi. 10 we have merely eKSiKets e/c T&V /carot/cowrwv (cf.
xviii. 20; Luke xi. 50, 51), and a-vv x t P l '> as Acts vii. 35
1 By this addition of tv to the instrumental Dat. it is possible for the language
of the N. T. to make instrumental limitations depend, without a participle, im
mediately upon substantives. Several instances of the sort have already been
treated of 125, 2 p. 92 and 11 p. 96, instances some of which indeed have
their foundation in the analogy of ordinary Greek usage, but some are destitute
of such analogy, and belong tc the peculiar language of the N. T.
133.] DATIVE OF MANNER. 183
by the hand, under the protection, of an angel. All these phrases, like
the trope x^ L P wpiov (Acts xi. 21), plainly bear an Oriental stamp, and
are not to be identified with isolated, analogous (poetic), modes of
expression in Greek authors. Cf. in general Gesen. under *i\ 159
With the idea of speaking, instead of x^P the term <rro'/x,a is sub-
stituted, hence 8ia a-To/xaros Acts i. 16; iv. 25, etc.; also with a
Plural following, iii. 18, 21 (and likewise in the Sept., 2 Chron. xxxvi.
21, etc.). See more respecting these and similar periphrases under
prepositions 146, 1 p. 319.
B. 133, 4 b. ; H. 608 sq. ; C. 467; D. p. 487 sq. ; J. 603.
The Dative of the mode or manner (ablativus modi), as 21
well as the Dative of complement and closer limitation
(in which case it often takes the place of the similarly used
Accusative in Greek writers, see 131, 9 p. 152), is only a
phase of the foregoing Dative ; as, raTreivbs rfj /eapoYa, ffpaBvs
rf) /cap&ia, dSvvaros rot? Trocriv, TrepirefJivecrOai, roS Wei after the
custom (Acts xv. 1), TrpocfyrjreveLv ra> era) ovo^ari, by virtue of
(by) thy name (Matt. vii. 22). In its stead we frequently find
of course, as in Greek authors, periphrases by means of such
prepositions as /cara, 8ta, ez/; and in particular, with ev
many adverbial expressions of mode and manner are formed
likewise after Greek precedent ; as, ev a\r}6eia, ev 7rapafto\fj,
ev TrpavTrjTi,, iv /u-epet, ev Ta^et, etc. On all these, as well as
respecting the common construction Trouelv rt, ev ovo^arl TWOS',
see 147, 10 p. 329 ; and respecting ep%ea0ai, iropevecrBau ev in
particular, the following paragraph under b).
As an extension of this Dative, mention may here be made 22
of two genuine biblical uses of this case, which, since they are
manifestly indebted to Oriental phraseology for their origin,
must have appeared more or less alien to the Greek idiom :
a) The Hebrew usage of subjoining to a finite verb the form of the
Infin. absolute (nwj nio , etc.) to strengthen the verbal idea in divers
aspects (see Gesen. Lehrg. p. 778 sq. [Gr. 128, 3]) is commonly
translated in the Sept. by the Dative of the abstract derived
from the verb (or even by the Participle of the same verb, on
which see 144, 30 p. 313) ; as, 8to/x,aprvpia fji^aprvp^Tai Gen. xliii. 2,
eTTiOvjJiiq. eTri^u/z^cras xxxi. 30, $avaTa> tt7ro0aveur# ii. 17, tfrOopa <$a-
p^crerac Isa. xxiv. 3, KXavOfMW KAau<rV xxx. 19, lao-erat ictcrct xix. 22,
a/coy a.KovcfT vi. 9, ^ap^re X a P Ixvi. 10, ac^rj acfrOrjareTai Jer. xxxi.
(xlviii.) 9, <{>vyfj e^tryov xxvi. (xlvi.) 5, KO.KLO. KaKOTroi^o-crc 1 Sam. xii. 25,
134 X a p X a ^P l v, iropcv<r0ai <jx5p, ETC. l133
aucl many others. Analogous expressions, in part new formations,
are found in the N. T. : aKofj OLKOVCIV Matt. xiii. 14 (quotn.), eVi^v/xetv
liriBv^ia Luke xxii. 15, x a p x a ' L P* LV John iii. 29 (but with a limiting
adjective added in Greek fashion c^apr/crai/ x<xpai/ fj.cydX.r)v Matt. ii. 10),
a.7TL\fj aTretXcii/ Acts iv. 17 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7], TrapayyeAia Trap^yyetAa/xev
v. 28, avaOf^aTL d^c/xaTto-a/xci/ xxiii. 14 (Deut. xiii. 15; xx. 17),
Trpoo-ev^ 7rpoo-r)va.To Jas. v. 17. Similarly Oavdru TcXevrarco Mark vii.
10 (quotn.), o-TroKTetvat ei/ tfavaru) Rev. ii. 23 ; vi. 8. That this usage,
notwithstanding the various similar phrases from earlier and later
writers which Lobeck, Parall. p. 523 sqq., adduces (ya/xw yeya/x^Kcus
160 Dem., ffivcreL 7T6(f)VKv Hippocr., TraiSia Trat^ctv Plut., also <j>vyf) ec^vyov
Plat., in Latin occidione occidere), is not an outgrowth of Greek
phraseology, but solely derived from the Hebrew (or Alexandrian)
idiom, this same scholar shows clearly and convincingly by a compari-
son of examples on both sides.
b) Not less peculiar is the Dative which is subjoined to verbs
of going (7ropVo-0ai, a-Toi^eti/, TreptTraretv), when taken tropically
(cf. our walk), to designate the way i.e. the manner of walk. So
in particular with 68<3, 68ots (after the Hebr., see Geseri. under Tp'n),
which is used indeed in the O. T. in the proper sense (1 Sam. xv. 20),
but often enough also in the figurative (Ps. Ixxx. 14; Tob. iv. 5), in
the N. T. Acts xiv. 1 6 ctacrev Tropevea&u TOIS oSots avraiv, Jude 1 1 rr}
oSu> rov KatV iTroptvOrja-av ; 6S<2 Tropevco-Qai is often found also in
Hernias. Analogous is O-TOI^U/ i^vecrii/ in Rom. iv. 12. After the
same model many other constructions are formed, instead of 68os
some other abstract term being added in the Dative, e.g. TrepiTrareu/
rots tOeotv to walk in, after, the customs Acts xxi. 21, Trvev/xari Gal. v.
16, Troptveo-Oai TW <o/3o) TOV Kvpiov Acts ix. 31, et o>/Aev Tri/ev/Aari, TTI>V-
^um KCU (TToi^ai/xcv Gal. v. 25, KO.VOVL vi. 16, also merely TW aurw sc.
Kavon (see the various readings) Phil. iii. 16.
That in this case also, instead of the simple Dative periphrases
with prepositions appear, follows as a matter of course after all
that has been said above ; particularly with iv and Kara, as iv aydTrrj,
tv oA.r7$aa, Kara dyaTnyi/, (rcxpica, avOptoirov TropeveaOai etc., see the Lex.
OTTI'CTOO also (see 3 above, p. 172) belongs here in the two parallel
passages 2 Pet. ii. 10 ; Jude 7 OTTLCTW crap/cos Tropevo/xevoi, ctTreA^owrai,
literally to walk after the flesh (the lusts), Germ, dem Fleische nach-
gehen. The familiar Etebrew formula of adieu (1 Sam. i. 17
etc.) runs in Greek either iroptvov, \nrayf. eis eip^v^v or ev eipyvr) (Mark
v. 34; Luke vii. 50; Acts xvi. 36 etc.), differing in conception but
not in sense. The phrase ZpxevOa-i iv ovo^an Kvpiov (Matt. xxi. 9)
is also quoted from the O. T.
133.] CONSTRUCTION OF VERBS OF EMOTION. 185
B. 133, 4c.; H. 611; C. 456sq.; D. p. 491; J.607.
Among verbs expressing emotion, the verb dyaA.Aiao-0ai (see 23
p. 51) to rejoice, which did not come into use till the time of the
Sept., has acquired especial currency in the Bible : sometimes, as in
the Sept., with lv ; sometimes with CTTL and tho Dat. Further, the
verb cvSoKetv to be well pleased, used also by later profane writers
(Polyb. Diod.), is employed again most commonly with ev (rarely eis
2 Pet. i. 17) after Alexandrian precedent ; also with the simple Ace.
of the thing, Heb. x. 6, 8 oXoKavrw/xara . . . OVK '/yuSoK^o-as (for which
in Ps. xxxix. 7 the Alex, text reads e^rjrrjo-as). Whether it was also
joined to the Ace. of the person (Gen. xxxiii. 10) is doubtful; in
Matt. xii. 18 Tdf. in ed. 7 [so 8] has returned to the original and
better attested reading cis ov [N* B ov]. The verb Kav^ao-^at to
boast is especially used by Paul, most frequently again with iv
(Jer. ix. 23), also with i-rri and the Dat. (Ps. v. 12) and with the Ace.
of the thing, see Wahl ; on the other hand, the Gen. with KaToxav-
Xao-0cu (Rom. xi. 18) is to be explained by the altered signification
of the verb, after the analogy of the syntactical use of Kara^povelv,
KdTayeXav ( 132, 15 p. 165). Eevi^co-flcu (Luther, sick befremden
lassen, [A.V. think strange~\) is used with the simple Dative and with
iv, 1 Pet. iv. 4, 12. Among other more common verbs 0av/xai
is no longer, as in the classics, joined to the Genitive, but most com-
monly, yet quite idiomatically, to i-ni with the Dat. (not to iv, on Luk<w
i. 21 see below 140, 9 p. 263), Trept with the Gen. Luke ii. 18, in 1(/1
a peculiar, pregnant, sense to OTTUTW Rev. xiii. 3 ; moreover it it
several times used with the simple Accusative not only of the thing
(TO ycyovds, TO opa/xa), but also once of the person Luke vii. f j.
EvapccrTctv and -ela-Oai (only in the Ep. to the Heb.) is used
with the simple Dative. X cup civ commonly with erri and the
Dative, sometimes also with iv (Luke x. 20 ; Phil. i. 18 ; Col. i. ^4).
But in the Pauline phrase xoupciv * v *vpi<j> the words iv icvpuu (as
above in 5 p. 175) are an adverbial adjunct designating the mode or
nature of the joy ; hence e.g. in Phil. iv. 10 the object of the joy is
added in a clause with 6Vt. So with the substantive, x a P"- * v vrvevfjun
ayox> Rorn. xiv. 17 (cf. 125, 11 p. 96). On the diversified construc-
tions of the other verbs of emotion, such as /xa/cpotfu/jictv, cd^pofrtttfa,
opyl&aOai, Av7Tio-0cu, o-u\A.V7rto-0eH, c/fTrXiyrrecr^ai, /nepijuvai/, etc., see the
lexicons.
REMARK. To set up a special class (as is often done) under the 24
title Dative of the end (consilii) is unnecessary either in refe^ace
to general or to N. T. usage, since all the examples brought Mider
this head may be referred to the idea of the preceding Dative (motive,
occasion, propter not causa), whether such a Dative stands rith
24
186 DATIVE O! TIME, ETC. [133.
strict Passives (Rom. xi. 20 propter infidiam, Gal. vi. 12 propter
crucem), or sometimes elliptically with Active or Neuter verbs a
Passive idea being supplied (of. the Lat. metu, odio, studio for propter
metum, etc., Zumpt 454) ; as, Rom. iv. 20 ov Sie/cpt^ ry aTi-ioria,
1 Cor. viii. 7 rives 8e rvj (rwetS^'orct . . . r0iov<m>. 2 Cor. i. 15 ravry rrj
B. 133, 4 c. note; C. 472 e. ; J. 495. 607.
25 To the examples adduced from Greek authors of verbs whose idea
is capable of such varied reference that they can be construed with
all three cases, may be added from the N. T. the verb /xepi/xvav:
according to 11 p. 178 it is construed with the Dative (177 \}/vxfj, rw
oxo/Aon Matt. vi. 25 etc.), takes after it the object of the care as usual
in the neut. Ace. (TO, TOV Kvpiov 1 Cor. vii. 32 ; TO, Trcpt v/xwv Phil. ii.
20), and finally in one passage according to recent editors [so cod. Sin.]
is connected with the Genitive (like other verbs of caring 132,
15 p. 164), viz. Matt. vi. 34 /Kcpi/AVTjo-ei cairn}?. Moreover, it is used
with Trepi, vTrep, see Wahl.
B. 133,4e.; H. 613; C. 469; D. p. 487; J. 606.
26 In reference to Time, the Dative is used to specify a) a
definite point of time; b) the space of time (witliin, for
which the Ace. is also used, see 131, 11 p. 152) ; c)
periodically returning portions of time.
In cases a) and b) iv is often added to the Dative (as in
Lat. in, during)\ in c) we find besides Kara with the Ace. also
(cf. p. 30).
Examples : of a) ravry rfj WKTL, rr} rpirj fjjjLtpa, etc. ; of b) t/cava)
Xpovw > TToAAots, aiwvtois xpdvots ; erepais yci/eats ; Teoxrcpa/covTa KCU e
erco-iv, Acts viii. 11 ; Rom. xvi. 25 ; Eph. iii. 5 ; John ii. 20, etc. The
reading varies between the Dat. and the Ace. in John xiv. 9 ; Acts
xxviii. 12, also with the Nona. Matt. xv. 32 (on which see 129 a. 3
p. 139), now with and now without eV John ii. 20; of c) rot? o-a/3-
(3acrLv, rfj opT"fi, ev <ra/?/:?aT<i>, Matt. xii. 2, 5 ; Luke ii. 41 etc., Kara toprrjv
Matt, xxvii. 15 etc.
B. 133, 6; cf. H. 500 b. ; J. 611, Obs. 1.
152 The possibility of the combination of two Datives in the N. T.
27 according to the tr^/xa /ca#' oAov fcai /xepos is as little to be denied as
the construction of two Aces. ( 131, 6 p. 149) and of two Gens.
( 132, 17 note p. 167). Yet the compass of the N. T. books is so
limited that the opportunity for the construction was rare. 2 Cor.
xii. 7 eS66r) fjioi o-KoXoif/ rfi crap/a plainly belongs here. Elsewhere we
find two different Datives united in one construction, but not aftei
134.1 THE PASSIVE. 187
the above schema: 1 John v. 16 and Heb. iv. 2 (on which see 15
above, p. 179). Rom. vii. 25 TO> voi SovAcvw vo/uw Otov grammatically
viewed presents no difficulty.
THE VERB.
THE PASSIVE.
B. 134, 1-3; H. 693; C. 586; D. 431; J. II. p. 21.
The most common mode of designating the personal 1
author of a passive state is, in the N. T. as in the classics,
by means of VTTO with the Gen. ; in certain cases also by means
of nrapd with the Gen., e/c and even CLTTO. Respecting all this
see the Prepositions.
The personal medium is likewise designated as usual by 8ta with
the Gen., as TO prjOtv Sia 'H/ratou, 'lepe/uov, TO prjdev VTTO rov Kvptov 8 La
TOV Trpo<f>r]Tov XeyovTos etc., or hebraistically by Sta ^po9, oro/xaTos,
according to 133, 20 p. 182.
B. 134,4; H. 600; C. 461; D. pp. 431, 492 ; J. 611.
Instead of the prepositions, the Dative alone, according 2
to an ancient usage, is employed to designate the personal
author (the Dat. rei coincides with the Dat. instrumenti) ,
especially with the Perfect and Aorist Pass., as Luke xxiii. 15
ovftev aj~tov Oavdrov ecnlv TreTTpay/jievov avra). Yet this use ill
Greek is by no means so general that we can assume that it
can be substituted indifferently in any and every case for UTTO
with the Gen. On the contrary, it is restricted, at least in
prose, to certain predicates and phrases, to which this Dative
imparts a somewhat modified signification corresponding
to the force of the Dative. Cf. with this the Latin phrase
alicui probare, and the like, in Lat. prose ; Zumpt 419.
Thus the Dative in the common phrase o^flrpcu nvi (cf. Eur. Bacch.
912) imparts to o^Orfvai the simple neuter force, to appear to one (cf.
p. 52), and the same holds true more or less of the phrases (likewise
often recurring) evpc^vcu and yvwa-Orjvai TO/I ; as, Rom. x. 20 (quotn.)
cvpeOrjv TOIS e/xe fJirj r]Tov(Tiv, c/x^>av^? f.yei'6pf]v Tots e/x^ pr] CTrepooTcoo-tv,
Luke xxiv. 35 ; 2 Cor. xii. 20 ; Phil. iv. 5 yvaxr^Tw TTOLCTIV ai/0pw7rois
(become known). In 2 Pet. iii. 14 avrw, as the very position indicates,
is best referred UTTO KOIVOV to both terms (d/xw/^Toi and cv/oc^mi), 168
since it stands in equally close relation to both, (respecting the Dative
with d/xw/xryros see 133, 14 p. 179).
Formerly many other Datives also were taken in the same sense
(as Dats. of the author), but incorrectly (e.g. Matt. v. 21 ; Heb. iv. 2);
188 THE OBJECT WITH THE PASSIVE. [ 134.
for in general the assumption of such a Dative, particularly in the
N. T., seems only to be warranted where analogy and usage render
its presence manifest.
REMARK. As a periphrasis for this Dative, i.e. to render it vivid or
to approximate it to the Oriental style of thought, the preposition
fixa-n-Lov is employed (agreeably to the closely related cases in 133,
14 p. 180) ; as, Luke xii. 6 tv e aurcov OVK ecrriv eTriAeA/jyoyxo'oi' evtoTrtov
TOII Oeov by him, i.e. concretely, in his sight, before him ; Rom. iii. 20
ov StKaito$^(rTai Traora crup ZVWTTIOV avrov, with which may be compared
Trapa ra> $ca> SIKCUOVTCU, Gal. iii. 11, cf. Rom. ii. 13 ; 2 Thess. i. 6.
B. 134,5; H. 694; C. 586; D. p. 431 sq.; J. II. p. 22.
Since even the earlier authors did not hesitate to construe
in the Passive, like pure transitives, verbal ideas which
take their limiting object in another case than the Accusative,
the N. T. authors also, particularly the better writers among
them, made this good classic usage their own, recommended
as it was by facility of construction.
Thus we find Karrryopelo-Oai in Matt, xxvii. 12; Acts xxv. 16,
*caTyvuxr/xei/os in Gal. ii. 11, 1-yKaXelcrOai in Acts xix. 40 etc., ttapTvpct-
<rOoiL (testimony is given me, I get the witness) frequently in the Acts
and the Ep. to the Heb. (see Wahl), a liberty which John (in his
third Ep. VS. 12 A^/x^Tpuo tie/xapTvpryrat VTTO 7ravro>v) did not avail
himself of, perhaps because it was unknown to him. Further,
vapeo-Tt<r0ai Heb. xiii. 16, BiaKovr)6r)va.i Mark x. 45. Xp?7/xaTieii/ rtvt
to give a response to one (Jos. Antt. 10, 1, 3 etc.) undergoes as a rule
the same change into the Passive : xp?7/xaTio/xat ^ ls revealed to me,
divinitus edoceor (Matt. ii. 12 etc.; Acts x. 22; Heb. viii. 5 etc.);
only in Luke ii. 26 is the other (impersonal) construction found, rjv
avrw Kexpry/xarioyxcvov (but D gives ty /cc^p^/xaTwr/xefos as usual). See
still other examples in 7 below, p. 189.
With other verbs the personal mode of expression is quite universal
because they were in general by later writers connected rather with
the Accusative, i.e. regarded as transitives. Thus particularly TrAeo-
ve/cTeto-0ai according to 132, 22 p. 168, cvayyeXie<rOai in the Passive
131, 4 p. 148.
B. 134,6; H. 553 a.; C. 587; D. 465; J. 545,3; also p. 256, Obs. 3.
The retention of the Accusative of the thing as the
object of the Passive, with verbs which govern two Aces.,
is found with SiSdo-fcew, 2 Thess. ii. 15 cf. Gal. i. 12 ; and with
w according to the present reading in 1 Cor. xii. 13 (ev
134.] THE PASSIVE. 189
The anomalous passive construction with such verbs as
aTroKpvTTTecrOai, <!<aipeto-0ai cnro TIVOS (Col. i. 26 ; Luke xviii. 34 ; x. 42)
rests on the construction of these verbs with OLTTO, more usual even
in the Active, see 131, 6 p. 149. Respecting the Gen.
njs dA^etas (1 Tim. vi. 5) see 132, 5 p. 158.
B. 134, N. 2; H. 556 a. ; D. 466; J. 548, cf. p. 245.
That in the constructions treated of in 131, 5 p. 148 (av&iv 16 1
av&jo-w etc.) the Ace. of the abstract is in like manner retained when g
the verb is changed into the Passive, has already been illustrated by
examples under that head. Of the same origin is the elliptical phrase
(cf. 123, 8 p. 82) in Luke xii. 47 Saprjo-crai TroXXas, oXtyas SC.
and the construction (formed regularly after TrcuSev^vat
e7rcuSev#7 Tracrav vocfriav in a (rejected) reading of cod. D
Acts vii. 22.
B. 134,7; H. 595; C. 587; D. p. 432; J. 584,2.
But not only when the verb is capable of being construed 7
with two nouns in the Accusative is it followed by an Ace. in
the Passive; the Ace. of the thing (often expressed, ac-
cording to 131, 10 p. 152, by a pron. or adj. of the neuter
gender) or of the abstract is also subjoined to the Passive
predicates of many other verbs. That this use stands in the
closest relation to the so-called Greek Accusative treated of in
131, 9 p. 152, has already been remarked there. It is to
such a degree characteristic of the Greek tongue above all
others, and was so firmly rooted, too, in the phraseology of
the people, that it not only did not disappear from the later
language and in particular that of the N. T., but was employed
with decided preference by all the N. T. writers nearly to the
same extent. The Latins also borrowed it. as is well known,
from the Greek.
As the subject itself has been rendered sufficiently familiar by
general Greek grammar, we may adduce here briefly (in order to
exhibit the extension of the usage in the N. T.) the examples only,
among which are to be included the instances where the personal
Subject implied in the verb has arisen from the Dative or the
Genitive in the Active (4 p. 188): fyfju-ovo-Oai rrjv $vxn v Matt.
xvi. 26 ; Mark viii. 36, SeSc/tcvos rovs TroSas /cat ras \CLpas John xi. 44,
ie<$ap/xvos TOV vow 1 Tim. vi. 5, pepavrto'/xevos TO.S /capSias, XcXov/xcvos
"o crw/xa Heb. x. 22, TrXrjpovcrOcu Kapirbv SIKCUOCTW^S, TTJV eTrtyvaxrii/ Phil.
i. 11 ; Col. i. 9 (Eph. i. 23 must be taken as Middle i.e. actively),
(equiv. to TrepiTe'foi/xcu according to B. 109 p. 198) aXvcriv
190 VERBAL ADJECTIVES. [ 134.
Acts xxviii. 20, aarQivtia.v Heb. v. 2, KCKavT^ptacrjuei'os rr]v
1 Tim. iv. 2, Kar^ov/Aevos rov Xdyov Gal. vi. 6, particularly
(to be entrusted with) e.g. TO evayye'Xiov, TO /ojpvy/xa, TVJV ot/covo/xiav, Ta
Xo'yia, Tit. i. 3 ; 1 Cor. ix. 17 ; Rom. iii. 2 ; Gal. ii. 7, etc. (but 2 Thess.
i. 10; 1 Tim. iii. 16 belong to 133, 4, 7) p. 175). The following
are very free and brachylogic, after Paul's style : 2 Cor. iii. 18 ryv
avryv eiKova /xeTa/zop<ou/Ae0a are changed to the same image, vi. 13
Tr)v avTT/v avTifiurOCav 7r\a.Tvv6r)Tc KCU fyms expand yourselves (your
hearts), as I do, after my example, for the recompense. See the
other (Pass.-Mid.) examples under the Middle 135; and respecting
7T($cr0ai TO, KpciTTova, ovSeV see 131, 6 note p. 150, and 10 p. 152.
REMARK. Luke (in Acts xxi. 3) peculiarly and without similar
precedent in other writers has written, instead of dm^aveiVr;? TT/<
KvTrpov . . . 7r\o/x,6v, exchanging the subjects, dva<avevTs r-^v Kv?rpov
appeared before Cyprus, as it were after we had allowed Cyprus to
appear to us i.e. had come in sight of it. Yet the reading of the Vat.
MS. dva^dvavTc? (confirmed now by cod. Sin.) deserves perhaps
the decided preference ; [so Tdf.].
VERBAL ADJECTIVES.
B. 134, 8-10; H. 804 sq. ; C. 458. 682; D. p. 190 sq. ; J. 613. 383; G. 114.
J.65 Of the two verbal adjectives (in -TC'OS and -TO?) the form in -TC'OS is
g rare. The word pXrjrtov occurring in Luke v. 38 ; Mark ii. 22
Lchm. has the Active construction (TOV oTvov). Adjectives in -TOS
include the idea of possibility in an Active and Passive sense (cf. p. 42),
corresponding to Germ, adjectives in -lick and -bar [Eng. -ly and -ble~],
as opaTos, Swords, OvrjTos, TraOrjTos, d^c/cXoX^TO?, d/xapaj/Tos, aTmucrTos,
etc. ; often also without the collateral notion of power (as among the
Greeks, too), as dyaTnrrds, yevv^Tos, yvo>o*T05, IK^CTOS, OLVITTTOS, etc.
Adjectives in -TOS are no longer capable of the verbal construction ;
hence, for example, dya-m/Tos is only connected with the Gen.
t fiov, Oeov), never with the Dative. On the Dative with
(2 Pet. iii. 14), see no. 2 above, p. 187 ; and in like manner
the Dative with yvaxrTos, dpo-Tos, SwaTos, aTroSe/a-os, etc., depends
not on the form but on the signification of the word. Most of
them, consequently, have become as respects their signification and
construction completely adjectives (or substantives, as 6 ^pioros,
ot ayamrrroC) , just as the ending -TOS in other cases also is a common
formative syllable of adjectives e.g. ai^/xdXwTos, <i#e/uTos, dypd/x/xaTos,
Ta cpTreTd, etc.
Hence it is not improbable that, with the disappearance of the
verbal use of the verbal adjectives, the N. T. writers, to designate a
participle corresponding to the Latin in -ndus, have followed Hebrew
135.] THE MIDDLE. 191
precedent (see Gesen. Lehrg. p. 791 ; [Gr. 131, 1]) and frequently
taken other participles in this sense. Yet we have a right to assert
this probably only of the Future Part. (Heb. iii. 5 ets ^aprvpiov TOJI/
XaATy^o-o/xeVtov), or of the Present in which according to 137, 11
p. 206 the notion of futurity or of conatus is already included, most
plainly in Heb. xii. 18 TrpocreXryX^are i^^Xa<^xo/xva) (opei) /cat
KfKa.vfj.fvu irvpi ; (see the other examples ibid.). Other participles, as
Karcyvuxr/xeVos Gal. ii. 11, e/3SeA.vy/u.eVos Rev. xxi. 8, eKpi&OtvTO. Jude
12, which are also so explained sometimes, are to be taken strictly
according to their form as Past Part., and to be translated accordingly.
THE MIDDLE.
B. 135, 1-3 ; H. 687 sq. 694 c. ; C. 578 sqq. ; D. 432 sq. ; J. 362 sq.
That Middle verbs, if translated by us reflexively or intrans- 1
itively, give the preference in the N. T., as in later writers
generally, to the Passive form of the Aorist rather than
the Middle, has already (p. 51 sq.) been taught. The number
of these Passive Aorists (for the most part to be translated
intransitively) is very great ; and examples, therefore, are to
be found everywhere in multitudes. With many verbs, never-
theless, the Middle form of the Aorist had already come into
such universal use (e.g. with fyvKdo-aeaOai, Kopi^eaOai, alrelada^
e%6cr0ai, and all its compounds), that even in the N. T. no
contrary examples of the Aorist formation are extant.
B. 135,4; H. 533 a.; D. p. 434; cf. J. 583.
Instances of the Obj ect- Accusative with verbs which in the 166
Active admit the construction of two Accusatives, are found most 2
frequently with ev- and /cSvecr0ai, and that both in the proper
sense (^troiva, cvSv/xa, rpt^as Kap^Xov) and in the tropical
vkov ai^pcoTTOV, d<$apcriav, rov $a>pa/ca T^S SIKCUOO-UVT/S) ,
or a i i/xart w, iroptfrvpav, 7repi/3aAA.o-0ai (according to 1 3 1 , .6
p. 149) i/xcmoi/, oToAas, etc. often in the Apocalypse, and according to
the same analogy 7repLuwvcr6ai as well with the Ace. of the
girding object (^wi/ryv) as of the girded (ocr<uv), and likewise vTroSeto-^ai
o-avSaAia and TrdSa?. On all these see the lexicons. Exceptions are
rare ; only afji^uvwo-Oai and 7rept/3a/VA.o-0cu permit (like our to wrap
one's self in, clothed with) the construction with ev: Matt. xi. 8 :
Luke vii. 25 ; Rev. iii. 5 (without ev iv. 4 Lchm.).
B. 135, 5; H. 544 a. 687; C. 579; D. p. 436; J. 549sq.
The number of verbs which in the Middle acquire a new
transitive sense, and accordingly govern also a new Object-
192 THE MIDDLE. [ 135
Accusative, is likewise very considerable. The following
deserve notice in this respect as peculiar :
7raiorxvvfo-6ai TWO. to be ashamed of (shame one's self before)
any one Mark viii. 38, etc., analogous to which ivrptir eo-0ai also
in the same sense (which arose from the signification of the Active
to make ashamed, intimidate, abash, 1 Cor. iv. 14) as in later writers
(Polyb.) is regularly joined to the Ace. Matt. xxi. 37, etc. ; in earlier
writers the Middle is current in the sense to give heed to, and accord-
ingly in connection with the Genitive (see Pape) ; airo<rTpa<f)rji ai
TWO. to turn one's self away from one, shun him, 2 Tim. i. 15; <f>vXd(r-
crfa-Oai (to be on one's guard against) is indeed as usual joined to
the Ace. in Acts xxi. 25 ; 2 Tim. iv. 15, but more in accordance with
N. T. usage, as with the Active faXdaro-ew in the sense of to preserve
from etc. (2 Thess. iii. 3 #eos v/nas <j>vXdfi 0,77-6 TOV Trovr/pov) and other
verbs of similar meaning (see 147, 3 p. 323), is the construction
with OLTTO, as Luke xii. 15 <vAcur0-eo-0e atrb Trdcrrjs TrXcovc^ta?, for which
we have in 1 John V. 21 <j>v\da.Te. eavTOVS 0.77-6 TCOV ciScoAoji/. In the
signification to observe it is used in the Active, even in the N. T.
Matt. xix. 20 ; Mark x. 20 Lchm. ; Luke xviii. 21, in which passages
formerly the Mid. was read, as is done still by Tdf. [Treg.] in Mark
after the majority of MSS. [cod. Sin. also]. <o/3eto-0ai is almost
always connected with the Ace., but sometimes (after 147, 3 p. 323)
with dTro, Matt. x. 28; Luke xii. 4; aio-^vi/eo-^at OTTO in 1 John
ii. 28.
B. 135,6; H. 689sq.; C. 582; D. p.436sq.; J. 362,2.
The remark that the Greeks employ the Middle form to
designate an action that takes place in some connection with
the subject, is performed for his own advantage or disadvantage,
in general, stands in some close relation to him. is in the
main applicable to the N. T. also.
Among the numerous examples of this signification of the Middle
in its broader application we may mention besides the verbs named
above (2 p. 191) denoting an action done to one's own body (to
which yet others are to be added, as vlirrtvOai ras xetpas
Keipacr$a.i ryv Ke<aAryv) such as the following : (nrdo-acrOai
7rpo(7- icrKa\L(r6ai rtva ; eTriKoAcwr^ai Otov, Kaicrapa. ; 7rt- Trpocr-
167 xeo-0ai together with its compounds ; further, among those com-
pounded with OLTTO and CK (B. p. 354), aTriDOeia-Oai, airoriB 'ecrflcu, Q.TTO-
Xvco-Oai, aTTOpdo-creo-Oai, a.7rooioo(r6cu, aTreiTrao-Oai, eayopaeo-0ai,
etc.
)35.] THE MIDDLE. 193
B. 135, N.3; C. 585; D. p. 438 sq.; J. 363, 3. 4. 6.
How exactly the N. T. language could still make the distinction
between the Active and the Middle forms of one and the same
verb, can be seen clearly in many cases. Let any one compare in
this respect in the lexicons the examples of VLTTTCLV and vi^Tta-Oat,
\ovew and a.7roAovecr$cu, /ceipav and /cet'peo-0ai, ^vXarrctv and <f>v\a.TT fa-Oat.
(see 3 above, p. 192), d-TroKaAvTrretv and 0,770 KaXv-n-rea-Oai, and of those
verbs whose Middle is used in a signification essentially altered : i-TmiOi-
vttt and e7rm'$e<r$ai, aTroSiSdvai and cbroSiSoo-^ai, Kptvf.iv and /cpu/eo-#<u (Sia-
KpiWcr&u) , aiptiv and atpetcr$ai, Troifiv and 7roitcr$ai the last only in
a mental reference, as in the phrases /AV^/ATJI/, Aoyov, cnrovbyv Trouio-tfcu, 1
etc. Yet instances are not wanting in which the Active, as the
generic form, stands for the Middle and alternates with it without any
sensible difference (cf. B. 135, 6 ; J. 363, 3 and Obs. 2). Thus we
find in particular alrflv and atTt<r#ai, even in close proximity, as Jas.
iv. 3 cureire KO,I ov A.a/x,/3cu/Te, Sio'ri K<XKWS atrewr^e, 1 John v. 15 (airto/xe^a
. . . 7JrrJKa/x,ev), Matt. xx. 20 and 22, Mark vi. 23 and 24; <rvyi<a\clv
and o-iryKaAeicr&u Luke xv. 6, 9 Lchm. [Treg.], Acts v. 21 and x. 24,
etc. ; SiaTao-o-eii/ and SLardcrcrfa-Oai ; for cr7racra<7$ai /^a^aipav (Mark,
Acts) Matt, says, xxvi. 51, aTTfcnr acrev r-^v /xa^atpav ; fv pier Kf.iv
occurs in the sense of cuptcr/cco-^at in Matt. x. 39 (6 evpwi/ TTJV ij/v)(r)v
CLVTOV) ; evepyetv and ei/cpyctcr^ai, although between these forms
this distinction has been observed by Paul (see Fr. on Rom. vii. 5 ,
Winer 258 (242)) : that with the Active the operating subject is
personal, 2 with the Middle (in 1 Thess. ii. 13 also) non-personal; see
the numerous passages in Wahl. But Troietv often stands in the
phrases before designated where, at least in the classic style, the Middle
alone was usual ; as, crv/x,/2ovAiov Trot^cravTes ; Trotrjcrat IXeos, 7rpo$ecrcv, etc.
But on the other hand the Middle is, strictly speaking, never used
without some sort of reference to the subject ; (in Acts ix. 39 this
reference is still intimated, but only very feebly it is true, in the /ACT'
avrwv that follows). In single cases it involves at least a different
signification from the Active (a tropical or mental) ; particularly in
certain compounds, which, because they were used almost ex-
clusively in the Middle form, have almost become complete Deponents.
Thus Paul has written in 2 Cor. xi. 2 ^p/xoo-a/x^i/ tyxas Xptaro), instead
of the ordinary ^pjaocra, in order to express the idea of spiritual
espousal to Christ, iii. 18 rrjv 86av Kvpuov KaroTrrpt^o/xevot (to view in
1 In Acts viii. 2, therefore, the reading of the oldest MSS. [Sin. also]
KoireT6v is to be preferred with Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.] to the Middle form.
2 That with awepyeT also, in Rom. viii. 28, irdivra. was not formerly taken as
Subject is proved by the important (although protably only explanatory) addition
I6e6s (A B Lchm.).
25
194 THE TENSES. [137
a mirror), Heb. xi. 40 rov Oeov Trpo^Xci/'a/xeVov, Col. ii. 15
fievos ras dp^ag *<*(, ra? eovcrias (deWette, to disarm), and many of the
168 most current compounds, as 7rayycAAecr$ai, a7roKpiV(T$ai,dj/TiAa/A/3aj'o-$ai,
7rm'0cr0ai, etc. 1
B. 135, N. 4; H. 688a.; C. 583; D. p. 435; J. 363,2.
6 A deviation from ordinary usage consists, as has already been
intimated 127, 26 p. 118, in the practice of often expressing again
separately the Possessive and Reflexive limitations strictly
speaking already comprised in the Middle form ; as, o-vyKaXeo-a/xei/os
rot's (rvyyeveis avrov (avr.); arreOevTO TO, i/xdrta avrcov (Acts vii. 58).
SiaAoyt^eo-^e Iv rats KapSiai? v/w,cov (Mark ii. 8, etc.), OTTW? fr$c/a>/iac
rrjv Svvafjiiv pov (Rom. ix. 17), etc. "Where, however, especial
emphasis required the addition of the reflexive pron. to the Middle.
N. T. usage harmonizes with the ordinary usage ; as, 8ie//.purai/ro
cavrois John xix. 24 (quotn.), avcOptyaTo avrov cavrfj Acts vii. 21,
(Ttavrov 7rape;(o/xevos Tit. ii. 7.
(THE MIDDLE.)
B. 136, NN.3, 4; H. 415; C. 575 sq. 588; D. 350; J. 365, 3.
That the Perfect of middle and deponent verbs shares the middle
(Active) signification of the verb hardly needs mention, since the
usage is sufficiently established, see e.g. 2 John 8 [?]; Acts xiii. 47; also
in the periphrastic form with eTi/ai ( 144, 24 p. 308), Acts xx. 13
StarcTay/xe'vo? ty. That single tenses, however, especially the Aor.
and Perf. Pass. of these verbs are also used in the P a s s i ve sense,
see on p. 52.
THE TENSES.
B. 137; H. 695sqq.; C. 590sqq.; D. 422sq.; J. 394sq.; G. 8 sqq.
1 Among all known ancient languages none distinguishes the
manifold temporal (and modal) relations of the verb so ac-
curately as the Greek. It is conceivable that under the
prolonged dominion of the Greek language and culture, per-
meating as they did the concerns of all classes, the knowledge
of the signification of these forms of speech (so essential in
making one's self understood) was not only not lost by the
less cultivated portion even of the Greek people, but also
became the possession of those foreign populations and
1 Only ijfjifoaTo Acts vii. 24 seems to stand completely for the Active. But we
must consider that the Active form a^vveiv is pre-eminently poetic and the Middle
came in later prose into such general use that it must be regarded as having be-
come a Deponent, as well in the signification to repel from one's self, as to defend
(another), to avenge (ulcisci). See Lucian, Dial. Mort. 13, 6 ; Jup. trag. 37.
137.] THE TENSES. 195
individuals that made the Greek tongue their own. Had the
Jews and others become acquainted with this foreign tongue 169
only through the medium of the written language, not through
contact with people who spoke Greek themselves, or had the
adoption of the language taken place suddenly and not before
the time when the N. T. books were composed, instead of
gradually and centuries earlier, there would be greater reason
than there is for the assertion that the N. T. writers in the
use of the Greek tenses labored under a degree of uncertainty,
fostered by the well-known poverty of the Hebrew tongue in
this respect ; or even if they had employed exclusively only
certain Greek temporal forms and avoided others, we might
assume at all events the possibility of such a supposition. .We
see, however, that the N. T. writers, even those less practised
in the use of language, avail themselves with great assurance
of the whole treasure of the Greek temporal forms Active,
Passive, and Middle. Obscurity and uncertainty of thought
occasions necessarily a diminished facility in the employment
of the corresponding forms of speech. That this is the case,
for example, with respect to the Moods, particularly the
Optative and the Tenses connected with ai>, will appear from
the exposition given below. But in the use of the Tenses
the N. T. writers are by no means deficient in the requisite
skill. Consequently the so-called Enallage Temporum
or Interchange of Tenses, which was applied by some of the
older interpreters of Scripture often and indiscriminately, is
to be opposed on behalf of the N. T. language at the outset,
and discarded on principle. Still less does the observation
that other languages particularly we ourselves in trans-
lating frequently employ different temporal relations, give
us any right to assume that the writer in Greek connected
with a tense any other conception than that residing in the
tense.
Accordingly, whenever our mode of conception departs from the
tense employed, it is our business to transfer ourselves to the position
of the writer, and take pains in every case to apprehend the temporal
relation which corresponds to the tense he used, and, if possible,
to reproduce it. This, too, thanks to the more recent judicious
criticism and thorough philological study, has already been done by
most modern interpreters ; and thus a multitude of absurdities have:
196 AORIST AND PERFECT. [ 137.
been removed from the interpretation of the N. T. We can ac-
cordingly dispense here with an extended refutation of those gram-
matical errors the more readily, as the scientific treatment of the
Greek language adopted at the present day universally in the schools
secures at the outset the inexperienced (and consequently still impartial)
reader of the N. T. from errors of the sort. Whoever, therefore, out
of professional interest wishes to obtain a closer acquaintance with
them, must be referred to the commentaries or to the ample
170 collection of them in Winer 40. Yet no one will be disposed to
insist that consistency in the maintenance of this position be carried
so far as- to forbid us to recognize the least inaccuracy in expression
or deviation from ordinary usage ; on the contrary, to exhibit such
anomalies is especially the object of this section ; only we shall see
in them, rather, a product of the unconstrained phraseology of
the people or an illegitimate extension of a Greek form of thought,
and not an (immediate) influence of a foreign idiom.
B. 137, Iand2; C. 605d.; J. 399,2sq.; G. 17.
2 The distinction established in the general Grammars between
the Perfect, as a tense having a present reference, and the
Aorist, as a narrative tense, holds completely in the N. T., as
every attentive reader can convince himself by comparing the
verbal forms which occur on every page. It may suffice here,
therefore, to adduce a few passages in which both tenses have
clearly preserved their proper force when united in a single
sentence : Col. i. 16 ev avru> bcrfoBi) rd Trdvra . . . eire Opdvot,
eire /cvpiorrjre^ . . . rd irdvra $L avrov /cal els avrbv
KOi aVTOS eCTTiV TTpO TTCLVTtoV 6tC., 1 Johll 1. 2 7) for)
Kal ecopd/cauev /cal /juaprvpovuev, Mark xv. 44 UtXaro? eOav^acrev
el 778-7? TedvTjKev, Kal . . . eTnypwrrjaev (jov Kevrvpiwva) el
TraXat aTredavev, Acts xxi. 28 f/ E\\rjva<i elo-ijyayev et? TO
lepov Kal Ke/coivcorcev rov d^/iov TOTTOV TOVTOV, John viii. 40 (J^retre
yu/e aTTOKTelvai) 09 rrjv a\r)6eiav v^uv \e\d\rj Ka^ TJV rj/tovaa irapa
rov Oeov. See more examples of the sort in Winer 272 (255).
If, nevertheless, Perfects are sometimes used in a p u r e J y
Aoristic force, that is something which not only took place in
Greek authors (Bhdy. p. 379), but has its natural foundation 1) in
the well-known usage by virtue of which Presents so frequently
take the place of the Aorist in narration (see B. 137, N. 7; H. 699 ;
C. 609 ; D. p. 405 ; J. 395, 2 ; G. p. 6, and as examples of this
Present from the N. T. John i. 44; xx. 4-6; Acts x. 11, etc.),
and 2) in the deterioration of the later language, in which (per-
137.1 PERFECT AND AORIST. 197
haps in consequence of the influence of the Latin) the use of the
Perfect as an historic tense, even by poets, becomes more and more
frequent; see the list from Plutarch in Wytt. adnot. p. 412sq.,
from Nonnus in Lehrs quaest. epp. p. 274. The examples from the
N. T. which belong here are, however, almost all of such a nature
that the Perfects stand in connection with (preceding) Aorists, so
that a narrative character was thereby impressed upon the passage as
it were in advance : (cf. Dem. Hal. p. 84 tytpfruravro KCH w/AoXoy^Kao-iv,
Ach. Tat. p. 100, 33 ed. Jacobs ; Luc. Deor. dial. 19. 1, etc.) Rev. v. 7
Kai r}X6f.v KOL iX.r)<f)v (TO f3i/3Xiov) , viii. 4 sq. KCU ai/f/Sr] 6 Ka7n/os . . .
Kat et'A^ci/ . . . Kal eye;u,wrev, 2 Cor. xi. 25 ; Heb. xi. 28 ; also with the
participle : Matt. xxv. 24 6 TO cv rdXavrov eiA^ok, for which previously
(vs. 20) Xa/3wv was used.
It is therefore more correct certainly, in many passages of the kind,
not to seek out laboriously any subtile distinction in the temporal
reference of these two tenses, as in Jas. i. 24 where in ajrfXr)Xv6f.v 171
some have wanted to assume a protracted stay in contrast with *aTe-
vorjcrev and iTTf.Xa.9f.ro (see further on this passage in 8 below, p. 202),
Luke iv. 18 where aWo-ToA/cci/ in contrast with l^pto-ev is said to sig-
nify continuance to the present time ; nor is it allowable in Heb. xi.
17 to find in the Perf. Trpoo-evrjvoxw (in contrast with the Aorists in
vss. 4, 5, 7, 11, etc.) the expression of an act not yet completed,
which would agree least of all with the Perfect ; see deWette.
B. 137,3; H. 706; C. 605; D. p. 419; J. 404; G. p. 25.
That on the other hand the Aorist may stand for the 3
Perfect, has been denied indeed by many grammarians in
reference to ordinary Greek usage, and by Winer 276 (259)
in reference to the N. T. also ; yet with too little qualification.
As in so many other instances (cf. 132, 2 p. 156) the question
depends simply upon our connecting the correct idea with the
grammatical terminology. That is to say, inasmuch as the
relation of time expressed by the Perfect is compounded, as it
were, of that of the Aorist and that of the Present the action
having its beginning in the past (Aorist) but extending either
itself or in its effects down to the time being (Present) , in
cases where the Aorist is used in the sense of the Perfect we
must take this view of the matter : that the Aorist was not
intended to express both relations of the Perfect at once, but
that the writer for the moment withdraws from the present
and places himself in the past, consequently in the position of
a narrator. This pd sition is uniformly the most natural for the
198 PERFECT AND AORIST. [ 137,
act of composition ; and from it there results of itself, if not a
positive aversion to the Perfect, yet a greater preference for
the Aorist. The continuance of the action, therefore, and its
working down to the present time, resides, not indeed in
the tense, but in the connection; and the necessary
insertion of this relation is left in every case to the hearer.
The following may serve as examples : Matt, xxiii. 2 CTTI T?}? Mwvo-ews
Ka$cSpas Ka$icrai/ ot ypa/x/xarcts Kat ot ^aptcraiot seated themselves (and
Still sit), Heb. viii. 1 txl jiev apX t P /a s e/ca#rev iv Seia etc. (cf.
x. 12) ; the common O. T. quotation (Matt. iii. 17 etc.) ouros VTTW . . .
iv o> evSoKTjcra. In Mark iii. 21 i^a-rrj corresponds closely to the
Presents following (fx et eK/?aAAei),so that certainly we are not to think
of a merely transient IKO-TCUTIS ; Col. i. 21 vvvl 8e aTro/car^AAa^ev
(aTroKar^AAay^Tc Lchm.), deWette : hat etc. versohnet, [A.V. now hath
he reconciled] . In John xv. 8 iv TOVTW eSo^acr^r; 6 Tra/r^p p,ov, Iva Kapirbv
<^>p^T, even ancient interpreters explained i^o^avOr] by SoaeT<u, see
Liicke; xiii. 31 vvv i&oa.o-0rj 6 vtos etc. (prophetic Aorist, for So^ao-et
follows, cf. 4 below). Another example is the common lypa^a in
letters : not merely in reference to previous letters but also to the one
just written, at its close (1 Pet. v. 12, etc.) ; or, in reference to single
172 sections of it, at the end of that section (1 Cor. ix. 15, etc.). In fact
the Present ypa<w often stands in its stead (1 Cor. iv. 14, etc.), and
even the two forms alternate, 1 John ii. 12 sq., at the most with the
difference that ypa<o> is employed rather in reference to the entire
letter, eypa^a to that portion of it thus far written (deWette). But
even this distinction is perhaps too delicate, when we take into consid-
eration the ancient use of 7rep.^a (Acts xxiii. 30 ; Phil. ii. 28 ; Philem.
11) and of the Latin ram, litter as dedi (Kriiger 451) ; so that the
change of tense in the 1st Ep. of John probably arose solely from the
need of variety in connection with the sixfold repetition of the verb.
Respecting Eph. v. 29 and other similar Aorists in aphorisms, etc., see
8 below, p. 201.
4 There is still another case in which the two preterite forms
are interchanged in a way which, as respects the sense at least,
is perfectly indiscriminate, viz. in an impassioned apodosis
after a conditional clause with edv or el the proleptic
Perfect or Aorist. This case has caused certain expositors
even to assume an enallage of these tenses and the Future.
This use, however, is of such a general, rhetorical, nature that
it belongs not only to every age (see among others Joseph. B.J,
4, 3, 10 and more examples in Mtth. Gr. 500), but also to
every language (see, for the Latin, Kriiger 444 Rem. 1).
137.J THE AORIST. 199
The natural tense in such clauses is the P e r f e c t ; as, 1 Cor. xiii. 1
lav rats yXcoo-oms rwv avOpiaTTO)v XaXai ... y e y o v a ^aX/cos r)x&v etc.,
Rom. iv. 14 ei yap ot IK i/o/x,ov fcX^povo/xot, Kf.Ktvu>Ta.i f) TTMTTIS Kat Karr?p-
y/Tai 17 eTrayyeXta, xiv. 23 6 StaKptj/d/xei'os cay <ay#, KaraKeKptrat, 2 Pet.
ii. 20j and with a Participle taking the place of the conditional clause
Rom. xiii. 8. On the other hand, the Aorist is used in John xv. 6
lav /JLrj TIS pevr) Iv e/xot, I {3 \ if) Or) eco o>s TO K\Y)fj.a /cat lr)pdv6r), /cat
o-wayovo-tv avra etc. (see further on this in 8 below, p. 202), Rev. x. 7
craX7rtetv, Kat IT tXtcrOr) TO /A-uoriyptoi', 1 Cor. vii. 28 lav
x ^/xapTes. A difference between the two forms exists
only in so far as in the Perfect the continuous and in the Aorist the
momentary nature of the action comes into prominence.
REMARK. With this obliteration of the difference between the two E
tenses, which later increased more and more, it does not excite sur-
prise that the MSS. in many passages fluctuate between the two forms.
With no verb is this more frequently the case than with oYSw/xi, owing
to the similarity of the two forms. Since, too, the context almost
everywhere permits both forms to seem admissible, according as the
momentary act of giving or the resultant continuous possession
is intended to receive prominence, a decision is often difficult, indeed
positively impossible ; and hence the recent editors, as a matter of
fact, often disagree. Thus, for example, in John v. 36 ; vi. 32 ; vii.
19 ; xvii. 6, 7, 22, 24, Lchm. has decided for eoWa [so Treg. in vi. 32 ;
vii. 19 ; xvii. 6], Tdf. [with cod. Sin.] for Se'oWa [but in xvii. 6 Tdf.
has now adopted eoWa after cod. Sin. etc.] ; see besides, the various
readings on iv. 12 ; vii. 22 ; xii. 49 ; xiii. 3, 15 ; xvii. 4, 8, 9, 14 ; xviii.
9, 11 ; 1 John iii. 1 ; iv. 13; v. 20. Yet here it is to be noticed
particularly, that where the sense necessarily requires the pure
Aoristic time (e.g. John xviii. 22 ; xix. 9, etc.), no fluctuation of the 173
sort occurs in the MSS.
B. 137, N.I; H. 706; C. 605; D. cf. p. 420 sq. ; J. 404; G. p. 25.
The use of the Aorist instead of the (Latin, German, 5
English, etc.) Pluperfect in subordinate clauses,
especially temporal and relative, is so generally acknowledged,
that it is hardlj necessary to adduce passages in proof of it
from the N. T. ; see e.g. Luke vii. 1 ; John xi. 30, etc.
In leading clauses the case is different. Here, since the rela-
tion of time could not be regarded as adequately defined either by an
explanatory conjunction or by immediate connection with other parts
of the sentence (as is the case with subordinate clauses), the form of
the Pluperfect is incomparably more necessary ; and, as matter of fact,
the use of the Aorist is found then ii: Greek authors far more rarely
200 THE AOEIST. [ 137
(see the Grammars as above). Hence, in interpreting the N. T.
the language of which had already become completely wonted to the
somewhat cumbrous form of the Pluperfect (as is evident from numer-
ous examples) we shall proceed more safely if we assert such a use
of the Aor. at the most only where the temporal reference is obvious
from the immediate context. Yet here, too, it must hold as a rule,
after the analogy of the exposition given in 3 p. 197, that the author
where he reports in the Aorist facts that have previously occur-
red (see especially Matt. xiv. 3 sq.) has at once transferred himself
as a narrator to the time then being, leaving his hearer to supply the
temporal relation for himself; as is manifest, for example, in the
passage adduced, from the fact that the writer alternates between the
Aorist and the Imperfect (cf. 7 below). See besides John xviii. 24
(and Liicke in loc.), vi. 22 sq. It is an uncritical procedure, how-
ever, when certain interpreters avail themselves of this circumstance
(very precarious as it is, and suggestive of arbitrary interpretation)
in order by its aid to remove all the discrepancies which occur
in different authors relative to the sequence of the events narrated.
For it is far more probable that the writers, in cases where the tem-
poral reference of the Pluperfect is absolutely necessary to
intelligibility, would have made use of it, since the Pluperfect
form was thoroughly current with them. See in this respect partic-
ularly Matt, xxvii. 37 (and deWette on the passage;, John xviii. 12;
Mark iii. 16 (compared with the narratives of other Evangelists,
John i. 43 cf. Matt. xvi. 18), and still other examples in Winer 275
(259).
B. 137, 4-6; H. 696b. 701. 716; C. 592; D. 426.427; J. 401, 3. 406; G. pp. 7, 8, 24.
7 The established grammatical distinction between the Aorist
as a purely narrative tense (expressing something momentary)
and the Imperfect as a descriptive tense (expressing some-
thing contemporaneous or continuous) holds in all its force in
the N. T., as is plain from many passages e g. Matt. xxi. 8 sq. ;
Mark xi. 15 sqq., etc. But since every writer must be left to
decide to which conception he in narrating the facts will give
the preference, it is quite profitless to adduce all the examples
where an Imperfect appears according to our conception to
be used instead of the Aorist, or, on the other hand, an Aorist
instead of the Imperfect (see e.g. Matt. xxvi. 26 eic\ao-tv . . .
174 eoYSov . . . eS&fcev*). And it would be still more futile, in
matters which the caprice of the writer alone decides, to try tc
establish a general difference of usage.
137.] THE GNOMIC AORIST. 201
What has been said respecting the Indicative of the tenses mentioned,
holds, of course, also for their respective moods (to wit, those of the
Aorist and of the Present). The use of the Participles, how-
ever, is in so far more precise, that with the Present Part, to the idea
of continuance that of incompleteness or of contemporaneousness
(with other predicates) must necessarily be added, and with the Aorist
.Part, that of the completed (real or imaginary) past has sovereign
control, whether the action be momentary or fill the duration of an
entire period. (For details see B. 137, 6 ; W. 45, 1.)
For an example of the Imperfect with the force of to be wont,
see Mark xv. 6 ; and of the Imperf. KC\VOV, which the Attics prefer
to use in the sense of the Aorist, see Acts xyi. 22. Respecting the
Imperfect de conatu see below, 10 c) p. 205.
THE GNOMIC AORIST.
B. 137, N. 5; H. 707; C. 606; D. p. 412; J. 402 ; G. 30.
Respecting this Aorist, commonly designated in the gram- 8
mars the Aorist of habitude 1 with the sense of the
Present (in contrast with the Imperfect), it is necessary to
make a few general preliminary remarks, as the brief notices
hitherto given in the grammars do not suffice to make it
understood.
According to Holler's exposition (Philol. Bd. viii. 1) this Aorist,
used alike by poets and prose writers of every age, can indeed
express habitualness, but just as well and still more frequently the
necessity or universality of an action or state ; which does not, like
habitualness, permit of exceptions. Since now this Aorist was
employed for the most part in general propositions deduced from
experience, propositions whose contents are valid not only for the
past but also for the present and the future, the title "Gnomic Aorist"
designates more correctly its essential nature. Its use in Greek
occurs not only in similitudes, propositions involving comparisons (as
so often in Homer), and ideal pictures (Plato, Phaedr. p. 246 sq.),
but also in abstract, maxim-like declarations founded in practical
observation (see the examples from Thucyd. and Demosth. given by
Moller). The Present (strictly non-preterite) nature of this Aorist
appears not only from its frequent and immediate connection with
Presents (and Perfects), but also from the employment with it of the
Subjunctive with av in subordinate clauses (according to B. 139, 9),
especially temporal and relative clauses (e.g. frequently in the above
passage of Plato, moreover in Horn. II. TT. 690 ; Hesiod. Ipy. 738, etc.)
1 [In German, Aorist des Pflegens ; English, Iterative Aorist.}
202 THE GNOMIC AORIST. [137.
When, then, Winer 277 (260) asserts that the Aorist never in the
N. T. expresses what is habitual, the assertion is well founded so far
forth as the peculiarity of the Aorist in question is not adequately
175 described by the feature of habitualness ; but the occurrence of the
Gnomic Aorist, according to the above description of it, ought at the
same time not to be denied. For the objection that the whole idiom
presumes too nice an observance of the laws of classic Greek and
greater familiarity with them than can be supposed in the N. T.
authors, may perhaps be decisive for a portion of them, but not for
all. On the contrary, the employment of the Aorist, as the most
common historic tense, corresponds perfectly to the character of
popular expression, which so gladly endeavors to break away from
the form of abstract presentation and spontaneously falls into the tone
of narration (cf. 3 p. 197). Observe the form of the Homeric com-
parisons, or the description of the shield in the Iliad (where moreover
Imperfects and Aorists continually alternate in the narrative).
In the N. T. this is the view to be taken of the comparisons in Jas. i.
lOsq. Kav^acr^o> 6 TrAoixnos ei> TTJ TaTretvwcrct aurov, on a>s av6os
TrapeAevo-erai. di/erctAev yap 6 77X105 crvv r<3 /caixraw /cat
rov 'xpprov, /cat TO av@o<s avrov leTre<TV /cat f) evTrpeTrcta TOT; TrpooxuTrov
avrov a TT <6 A. c T o OVTWS /cat 6 TrAovcrios . . . i^apa.v6rjcrf.ra.L. Similar is
1 Pet. i. 24 Tracra <rap o>s ^opros, /cat Tracra S6a avrr}s ws av@o<s ^oprov
^r)pdvOrj 6 \dpro<s, /cat TO aV0os OLVTOV e^Trecrcv. Further Jas. i. 23
OIKV O.v8pl KOLTOLVOOVVTl TO TTpOCTdtTTOV . . . V O"O7rTp<i) ' KO.Tv6r)(TV yap
iavrov /cat a.7T\T]\v@v (see 2 p. 197) /cat tvOeois 7T\a#TO OTTOIOS rjv.
From the same source, viz. the requirements of historic presentation,
proceed the Aorists in Paul's doctrinal analysis in Rom. viii. 29 ov<s
Trpoeypo), /cat Trpowpto-ev* ... ov? 8 7rpooSpto"ev, TOT^TOV? /cat e/ca-
X e o~ v /cat ovq e/caXcaev, Tovrov9 /cat eSt/catoxrcv' ovs 8c eStfcauoo-ev,
TOUTOVS /cat eSd^ao-ev; hence it is not necessary to assume that the
last Aorist (e8o'ao-i/) differs in force from all the rest (cf. Eph. ii. 5 sq.).
Finally, the two Aorists in John xv. 6 quoted in 4 above, p. 199, may
also, in part at least, be included under the head of the Gnomic Aorist,
inasmuch as the thought contains an experimental truth set forth
figuratively, in which the two momentary acts (/2A/jy$?7, e^pdV^fy)
come into manifest antithesis to the continuous one denoted by the
Present (o-wayovo-tv). In Eph. v. 29 ovSet's TTOT ryv cavTov crdpKa
e/uo-^o-ev, dAAa eKTpcc^et /cat 0aA.7ret avnjv, the preterite force is retained
indeed by the particle TTOTC, yet in such a way (as the Presents
following show) that the validity of the statement for the time now
current is, at the same time, included (cf. 3 above p. 197). A like
reference in James ii. 6 (with ^n^acrar^) is at least not excluded.
In John x. 18 alpsi ii probably an early correction for the original
R 137.1 PRESENT WITH FUTURE BORCE. 203
O *
rjpev (the first-hand reading of the Vat. and the Sin. MSS.) and the
latter word, therefore, probably ought to have been adopted by
Tischendorf in his 8th ed.
If, then, it is evident from the exposition given, that the N. T.
writers, so far forth as their writings philologically viewed are
products of Greek modes of thought, 1 must have been led by the
very nature of the popular language to use this Aorist as a matter of
course when occasion occurred (and the cases would certainly be 176
more numerous if the compass of the books were greater, since with
the present compass they are already pretty numerous), it is also a
settled truth on the other side, that where the genius of the Greek
language had no opportunity to develop itself freely, the assumption
also that this Aorist is used seems to be inadmissible. Hence th3
Aorists in quotations from the O. T., as Heb. i. 9 ; x. 5, 6, are not to
be brought under this head, since in the Sept. translation the foreign
idiom has exercised, particularly in the choice of the Greek Tense,
too considerable and unmistakable an influence. On the Aorist
in quotations, see 3 p. 198.
B. 137, N. 8; H. 698; C. 612; D. p. 405sq.; J. 396; G. p. 5.
Of the Presents which include at the same time aPerfect 9
force (i.e. are translated by us commonly by the Perfect), ^KO> and
O.KOVW occur frequently (Luke ix. 9; xvi. 2; 1 Cor. xi. 18; John
ii. 4, etc.) ; d-Trexeiv in the signification to have received already
(Luther, dahin haben Matt. vi. 2 etc., cf. Herm. Vis. 3, 13) is likewise
to be found even in Greek authors, see Pape. That in Matt. ii. 4,
however, yewarai is not to be taken after the analogy of the
(poetic) use of Tt'/creiv, yewav (see B. I.e.) in the sense of the Perfect,
but as a pure Present, the context shows ; see Fritzsche in loc.
B. 137, N. 10; H. 699a.; C. 609; D. p. 405; J. 397; G. p. 6.
Lastly, that the Present frequently stands where things still 10
future are spoken of consequently that the Present comprises
within itself the Future force of the verb, is a phenomenon
so common in all ages and all languages, that in order to
describe it we least of all need the imp' lilosophic designation
enallage temporum.
In order to set the cases in the N. T. which belong under
this head in the right light, we will distribute them into the
following classes :
1 That this, as respects style, holds quite peculiarly also of the Epp. of James
and Peter, has often, and with reason, been emphasized by the interpreters.
204 PRESENT WITH FUTURE FORCE. [ 137
a) The idea of the verb is of such a nature that of itself it
includes the force of the Future. This holds (as in our lan-
guage) pre-eminently of two verbal ideas : that of coming, p^orOai,
together with its synonymes vTrayai/, Tropevecr&u, etc., and that of
becoming, yiveo-Qai. As in 77*0 (see No. 9) there inheres a Perfect
force (I have come, am present), so in epxo/zai a Future (I come, shall
appear). For both ideas the language contents itself with the form
of the Present, as that which, participating alike in botfy temporal
relations, stands midway between both, including in itself the termina-
tion of the one and the beginning of the other. That the Present
epxo/xeu in all the Moods takes the place of eT/xi (which by the Attics
was commonly employed in a Future sense, but in the N. T. as a
simple verb is not used) has already been mentioned (p. 50) and is
plain from innumerable examples ; as, John iv. 23 epxerai wpa KOL vvv
ccmv, xiv. 3 eav erot/xacru) TOTTOV vfuv, TraAii' Ip^o/xat KCU TrapaX^/Juj/ofJLai
vftas, i. 30 OTTIO-W fj.ov Ipxerat o.vrjp etc., especially in the Part. 6
ep^d/xej/os of the Messiah Matt. iii. 11 etc., the formula in the Apoca-
lypse 6 wv KCU 6 rjv Kat 6 ep^d/xevos of God, ra cp^d/Aci/a (John xvi. 13),
6 aiobv 6 epxd/u.ei/09 (Mark x. 30, etc.) of the future. By the Future
177 cXevo-o/xat (Matt. ix. 15 eXevcrovrai ^u,epai etc., 1 Cor. iv. 19 ; xvi. 12,
etc.) the beginning of the future action is placed at a distance, by the
Present it is placed more in the present (to be sure, not always in
the immediate present of which the senses take cognizance as John
xxi. 3, but also proleptically in the imaginary present of prophetic
vision); see under b).
For lpxco-00.1 in the sense of to go i.e. to go away, especially in the
Gospels and the Rev. (never in the Acts, by Paul, or in the Ep. to
the Heb. ; also not in the Sept.), the provincial (cf. the Egyptian
papyrus in Mullach's Vulgarspr. p. 20) vTrayeiv is a favorite word.
This word is often used in the future sense in the Indicative most
frequently by John, also in connection with cp^co-flai e.g. viii. 14 TroOev
i TTOV vTrayw . . . iroOtv ep^o/xat KOL irov VTrayw, cf. xxi. 3 ; xiv. 28.
also is found in the Present like cp^co-^ai and used in
company with it, e.g. John xiv. 2, 3, 12 ; xvi. 28 ; Acts xx. 22 ; Rom.
xv. 25, etc. ; likewise di/a^Satvctv Matt. xx. 18 etc.; John vii. 8;
xx. 17; Trpoayeiv Matt. xxi. 31.
It is hardly worth while to adduce examples of yivco-Oai a
word in which a future force still more evidently resides ; as, Luke
xii. 54 sq. Aeycre OTI o//,/3pos ep^crat, KCU y/j/erai cimo?- . . . Aeyere on
Katxrcov ecrrai, KO.I yfvcrat, cf. xi. 26 ; xv. 10 ; Mark xi. 23, etc.
Similarly eyctperat John vii. 52.
b) The Future force follows inevitably from the context.
In this case the Present as the more common and simple verbal forn?
137.] PRESENT WITH FUTURE FORCE. 205
perfectly takes the place of the Future in all languages, and a multi-
tude of instances can be adduced from the N. T. where not only the
Present alone has the future force, as 1 Cor. xv. 32 avpuov yap ajroOv-f)-
o-Ko/Ao/, 1 but also where (especially in John) Presents alternate with
Futures without a sensible difference, or where (in parallel passages)
one writer employs the Present, the other the Future ; as, John x.
4, 5, 12-16, 18; xvi. 15, 16, the discourses and similitudes of Jesus
in the 14th and 15th chapters ; Matt. vii. 8 Tdf.; Gal. ii. 16 (SiKaioimu
. . . SiKaiw&jo-ercu), Matt. xxiv. 40 compared with Luke xvii. 34.
Further, see those Presents (with the circumflex on the last syllable)
which have already been adduced (p. 38) in connection with the
Attic formation of the Future, and still others below, 139, 3 p. 209 ;
39 p. 235 ; 61 p. 255. If there is any difference between the two
forms, it is that but only taken quite in the general which
has been already given under a) viz. that the Present is rather used
if either the commencement of the future action falls in the present,
or (in general maxims, comparisons, etc.) the statement has equal
validity for the present as well as the future; the Future, on the
other hand, is used with actions whose beginning is projected to a
(definite or indefinite) distance (e.g. John xvi. 13sq. ; 20 sq., etc.),
or whose occurrence is not definitely to be expected till after the
accomplishment of others (expressed perhaps by such general Presents ;
as, John xvi. 19). Yet this criterion is only an approximate one,
since the author certainly allowed himself in many cases to be guided
merely by feeling (cf. p. 38) ; and, for example, even in reference to
actions purely future seems designedly to have chosen the Present, in 178
order to portray the more impressively their closely impending
occurrence, as in Matt. xxvi. 2.
c) Finally, under this head belongs the familiar antique usage (see
B. 1. c. ; H. 702 ; C. 594 ; D. p. 409 ; J. 398, 2 ; G. pp. 5, 7 ;
and, for the Latin, Kriiger 446 Anm. 2) by which the Present,
and consequently in narration the Imperfect, designates the will,
the mere intention, to perform an act ; or, according to grammatical
terminology, is used de conatu : so the Pres. in John x. 32 (Sta rt)
XiOa&rc. /xe; xiii. 6 crv /xou vurms TOVS TroSas; the Imperf. in Luke
i. 59 Ka\ovv avro Za^a/nav (cf. 60), Acts vii. 26 crwjjAAao-crcv avrovg
(cf. 27). In Matt. iii. 14, however, in SieKwAvev the idea of the verb
actually passed into execution, and consequently the Imperf. is used
in the ordinary sense. That the same holds true of other passages
also (as Gal. i. 13 ; Heb. xi. 17), Winer 269 (253) has already noticed.
As the Participles uniformly reproduce the temporal 11
1 After Isa. xxii. 13, where, although the Heb. text has the Future, the Sept.
(like the German) gives the Present.
206 THE TENSES. [ 137.
reference of their respective Indicatives (see above, 7 p. 201),
so the Present Part, also participates in the nature of the
Present that has just been unfolded, inasmuch as, including
within itself a future force, it often stands for the Future Part. ;
and thus the number of actual Future Parts, in the N. T. has
been greatly diminished.
If then a Present Part, stands in connection with an actual Future,
from the idea of contemporaneousness resident in the Pres.
Part, the notion of futurity results of itself; as, 2 Pet. iii. 10 o-rot^ia
Sc Kavcrovfj-fva AV^O-OI/TCU, Luke i. 35 TO yevvoo/xcvov e* crov ayiov
K\ir)0r)(TeTcu vlo<s 0ov, etc. But Present Participles are frequently
used in a future sense also when not thus connected, particularly if
the future action they designate takes its beginning in the real or
imaginary, the absolute or the relative, present, if the statement,
therefore, has a validity quite universal. In this sense food is called
in John vi. 27 unqualifiedly rj aTroAXu/x-eiT; ; gold, in 1 Pet. i. 7, TO
a.7roAAv/xvov (perishable) ; the hardened and believers are called by
Paul so often 01 aTroAAv/xcvot, ot o'w^o/xevoi, 2 Cor. ii. 15 etc. ; mortal
men 01 aTrotfi/TJo-Kovres, Heb. vii. 8 cf. 2 Cor. vi. 9. The blood of Christ
is spoken of as TO Trepi TroAAuiv K^wvo/u,voi/, Matt. xxvi. 28 (Mark xiv.
24 ; Luke xxii. 20) ; all things (Tavra TravTa) in the above passage
from 2 Pet. (iii. 11), directly after the Fut. XvOrjo-ovraL, are straight-
way declared to be XVO/ACI/O. To the general proposition in 1 Cor.
xv. 32 (avpiov o.7ro#i/7Jo-KOju,ev) corresponds precisely Matt. vi. 30 TOV
\6prov . . . a v p i o v ets K\i(3avov j3a\X6fj.cvov. To these may be added
also the Present Participles (so far forth as used ofe conatu) spoken
of in 144, lip. 297. In other cases still, the future force resides
in the signification of the verb, as in the above 6 epxoucvog, ra
(10 a) p. 204), Luke ii. 45 vTrta-Tpfij/av ara^r;-
, 1 Cor. ii. 1 r)X6ov KaTayyeAAwv, Acts xxi. 2 tvpov TrAotov 8ta7repa)v
(on the passage) tts 3>ou/tV7v, 1 Cor. iv. 14 OVK ci/rpcVajv v/xa? ypa^w
ravra. Cf. with the entire contents of this section the sparsely
occurring examples of the actual Future Participle in 144, 10 p. 296.
B. 137, NN. 12, 13; C. 599. 643 h. ; J. II. p. 64; G. p. 21.
12 Instances of the Perfect Subjunctive, and still more of the Perfect
and Future Optative (rather rare, moreover, in Greek authors), no
longer occur in the N. T.
Of the Imperatives Passive, besides the Present, that of the
Perfect is in use in the 2d Person (tppwo-o, Ippwo-^c
179 7r<t/x,axn>), but commonly that of the Aorist in all Persons
etc.).
139.] THE MOODS. 207
THE MOODS.
U. 139; H. 719 sqq. ; C. 613 sqq. ; D. 509 Sa q. ; J. 410 sqq. ; G. Chap. I.
While as respects the Tenses the language of the N. T. does
not, in the main, depart from the general usage of the Greeks,
but, on the contrary, a few minor irregularities excepted, has
known how to conform to it perfectly, it falls manifestly far
behind that usage in the employment of the relations of Mood.
It would be very hasty, however, to draw a conclusion from
the inferior facility in the use of the Moods respecting the
N. T. use of the Tenses also. For, exact discrimination in
the use of tenses is, as has been already remarked, not only
quite indispensable to mutual intelligibility, but it is far easier
for the mind of a common man, that is to say, one little trained
and taught in literature and language, to become familiar
with a system of temporal forms ready to his hand, even though
diversified, than to master the Modal forms, regulating and
presupposing, as the latter do, a more delicate and cultivated
linguistic sense. The wealth and charm of the Modal expres-
sions, as they appear especially at the flourishing period of
Attic prose in the writings of Thucydides, Plato, Xenophon,
exhibits the complete impress of the literary and refined
genius of the Athenian people. The finer shades of Modal
relation disappear more and more the further the language
departs in time and space from this focus of Greek culture.
Only the zealous study of the language of Hellenic culture,
the aspiration after intellectual development in the Hellenic
sense, could render it possible for later authors., such as Lucian,
Plutarch, Arrian, etc., to acquire a beauty and finish of diction
approximating, although never attaining, to that of the
flourishing period. Since the N. T. authors were far from
indulging in any such endeavor, but on the contrary, as the
repositories of a new intellectual movement found themselves
almost in direct antagonism to it, they were little con-
cerned with the acquisition (toilsome at the best) of Greek
phraseology in its more refined development ; all the less as
they were primarily interested only in rendering themselves
plain and intelligible to their own countrymen, who, as a
whole, were certainly far removed at that time from such
culture. Foreign influences, partly the general influence
of the Latin language upon the Greek, partly that of the
208 THE SUBJUNCTIVE AND OPTATIVE. [ 139,
Hebrew, and in particular of the translation of the Bible
(which is extremely restricted in its use of the Moods) into
the language of the N. T. writers, certainly contributed
here also to the far greater imperfection of expression which
characterizes the N. T. ; for, as respects the Moods, it presents
no inconsiderable contrast to the language of contemporary
in fact, much later profane writers, and even of ecclesiastical
writers also. Again, however, Luke's language, particularly
in the Acts, is that which employs the Modal relations with
more certainty and precision.
THE SUBJUNCTIVE AND OPTATIVE IN SIMPLE SENTENCES.
B. 139,m.2; H. 720c.; C. 647; D. 516; J. 417; G. 88.
The Conjunctivus dubitativus or deliberativus.
This Subjunctive is found sometimes standing quite alone in
all three Persons ; sometimes, as occurs so often in Greek and
Latin, in immediate connection (i.e. without the intervention
of conjunctions) with the Indicatives /3ovXet, 0eXet?.
Examples of the 1st Person are, Rom. vi. 1 iiri^ivw^v rrj a^apria;
15 d/x,apT^o-w/xi/ ; 1 Cor. iv. 21 fv /5a/2Sa> e\0w ; vi. 15 TTOITJO-CO; xi. 22
TI euro) vfjiiv ; eTraivcoxD v^aas cv TOVTW ; OVK eTraivai, John xviii. 1 1 ov jjirj
TTIOO avro ; of the 2d Person : Matt, xxiii. 33 TTCOS <f>vyrjT curb 7-179
KptWos; of the 3d Person: Luke xxiii. 31 ev ro> r)p rt yeV^rat;
Matt, xx vi. 54 TTWS ovv 7r\r)p<j)0<Jj<rw at ypa<at; Rom. x. 14 Lchm.
[Treg. ; Tdf. * bis]. In connection with flovXci etc. it is frequent :
tfc'Aets etTTw/xev (Luke ix. 54), 0e'A.ts orvXXegw^v (Matt. xiii. 28), ri
OfXere Trooycro) VJMV (Matt. xx. 32 etc.), rt'ra ^eXcrc airoXvo-tD vfjuv (Matt.
xxvii. 17, 21 etc.), fiovXecrOe aTroXvo-o) vfj.lv rov fiacnXea raiv 'lovScuW
(John xviii. 39), etc. (Cf. the similar construction with afaivai in
4 p. 21C.)
That instead of this Subj- nctive the Future should be substituted
(hence frequently found also as a variant, Rom. vi. 15 ; Matt. xiii. 28 ;
xxvi. 17 ; Mark xiv. 12 ; Luke xxii. 9 ; xi. 5, etc.) is, considering the
internal and external affinity of the two forms, perfectly grammatical ;
as, John v. 47 TTWS TTIOTTCVO-CTC ; Acts iv. 1 6 Lchm. rt Trot^o-o^ei/ ; Rom.
x. 1 4 Tdf. K* TTWS aKovcrovrai ; Cf. besides, with interrogative clauses,
61 p. 254, and Lob. Phryn. 734. Respecting the addition of wo.
after 0e'As etc. see 41 p. 236.
REMARK. Since the Subjunctive in this sense was quite current io
N. T. Greek, it may be doubted whether in the N. T. the form of the
Indicative Present instead of the Subjunctive is admissible, or
the Indicative if thoroughly established critically can be taken in this
139.] THE SUBJUNCTIVE. 209
way. Here belongs the consideration of John x . 47 rt TTOIOV/ACV, on
OVTOS 6 av$pto7ros TroAAa 7roit o-rj/xeta; This sentence is in form and
substance almost identical with those above, so that it seems rather
too artificial to assume with Winer 284 (267) a difference in signifi- 181
cation between this TL TTOLOV^V and the ordinary TI Trot^o-o/xev or
TToirjcrw/xei/ (Acts iv. 16) ; 011 the contrary, the simplest interpretation
(which corresponds also to the popular usage, wets thun wir equiv.
to was sollen wir tkun, [what do we equiv. to what are we to do~\) is
not only adequate, but may be justified by usage also. For we must
consider here 1) that the first stages of this use in free conversational
style are found even in the earlier writers (see Bhdy. p. 396) ;
2) that in later writers, or those who had no positive need of accuracy
of expression, the usage doubtless extended itself still more: 1 and
3) that the form Trotov/xev belongs to those circumflexed Presents
(treated of above, p. 38) which are represented in the vers. Ital. by
the Future (faciemus, in the Vulg. on the other hand facimus, cf.
TTotco in Matt. xxvi. 18 var.). Therefore Trot.ovp.ev here is nothing more
or less than a Present, which, according to 137, 10 b) p. 204 sq., in-
cludes the force of the Future ; and as a trustworthy witness of the
mode of expression current among the people ought not to be called in
question.
Quite in the same way was the word Trapa^AoS/xevin 1 Cor. x.
22 taken by a portion of the ancient translations (cemulemur not
cemulabimur) , an interpretation which appears to be in no wise
unsuited to the sense of the passage, although the more recent ex-
positors (though not Riickert) reject it. Cf. further the Indie. Pres.
with eav, orav, tva below, 23 p. 222, 39 p. 234.
B. 139,m. 3; H. 720 a.; C. 628; D. 516; J. 416; G. 85.
Conjunctivas adhortativus. This Subjunctive also 4
is very common, especially in the 1st Pers. Plural, as
<f)dy(t)/jiev KOI Trico/JLev, yprjjopwfjbev ical vri^wfjbev^ eVl TVJV
rrjra fap&iJueOa etc. ; rare in the 1st Pers. Singular, Acts vii. 34
(after Exod. iii. 10) vvv Sevpo aTroo-re/Xw ae. The relationship
between this Subjunctive and a declaration expressed by the
Fut. Indie, is obvious ; hence both verbal forms are united
with almost the same force in Rev. xix. 7. And in many
passages where the sense admits of both acceptations the MSS.
1 Cf. the completely analogous rl troiov^ev in Pseudo-Luc. Asin. 25, (as several
MSS. give in Luc. Pise. 10 also) ; ri 8pw/j.v ,- (peiryo/uei' fy yueVo/Liei/ , Alciphr. 1, 11
Mein. ; Arr. Exped. 7, 11, 2 (where Kriiger rashly emends irparrtaviv and \fyaxnv);
Lucian 38, 16; 44, 53; 47, 4. 14; Acta Petr. et Paul. 45, and the quite common
use (noticed also below 148, 10 p. 353) of the Indicative with ^TTOTC.
27
210 THE SUBJUNCTIVE. [139.
(and editions) wever between the two forms, as particularly
in the above passage from Acts, where formerly aTroo-reXw was
read ; and, on the other hand, the Subjunctive was read where
now we have Futures : Jas. iv. 13 ; Heb. vi. 3.
Also in the much-debated passage (see Winer 286 (268 sq.)) Jas.
iv. 15, the text of which is very uncertain, the Future seems in both
cases to deserve the preference (^o-o/xcv . . . Trotrjo-o/xcv [so Tdf. Treg.
cod. Sin.]) ; but there are other difficulties besides, see 149, 8 d)
p. 362.
Peculiar to this Subjunctive is the almost pleonastic prefixing
of the Imperative a</>69 let (analogous to the Latin /ac, cave
182 before Subjunctives, and similar to the use of #eXet?, ftovXei in 2
p. 208), supposed to be a provincialism current in the colloquial
language of those regions.
Its use is, therefore, especially characteristic of the Synoptists (cf.
wayw in 137, 10 a) p. 204), and is found as well with the 1st Pers.
Singular of the Subjunct. following, a<es e/c/3aAw let me pull out
Matt. vii. 4; Luke vi. 42, as with the 1st Pers. Plural a</>es tSw/xev
Matt, xxvii. 49, for which in Mark xv. 36 we find the Impera. also in
the Plur. a<f>T tSu>//,ei/. Cf. aye etc. p. 70. On the force of the
verb d<^>tvai for eao-at (the two verbs are interchanged in the MSS. in
Acts v. 38) and the common construction with the Infin., see the
lexicons and 140, 1 p. 258.
5 REMARK. That for this Subjunctive also the Indicative
Present could be substituted, even in the more negligent popular
language, is hardly conceivable: because 1) the proposition would
then be destitute of any intimation how the Indicative is to be taken
(which with the deliberative Subjunc. was still given by the inter-
rogative form) ; and because 2) here the middle term, as it were, is
wanting, viz. the Fut. Indie., for which in such cases the Pres. Indie,
is first wont to appear, see 3 p. 209, 23 p. 222, 39 p. 234. For even
the Future cannot directly take the place of this Subjunct, since it
imparts to the sentence at once instead of the Imperative force the
character of a direct assertion. Hence Lchm. in Gal. vi. 10 in his
larger edition instead of epyaoju,0a has restored the Subjunct.
[Treg. Tdf.] ; yet the Indie. 1 also, in the proper force of the Pres.
Indie., gives a sense not to be rejected, see Mey. p. 306. The Pres.
epxo/x0a, however, in John xxi. 3 rests on the principle in 137, 10 a)
p. 204 ; so too epxo'//,e0a, 7ropvo/A0a, often in the Apocrypha.
1 To the fpya<a/j.e6a in codd. Vat. and Sin. (so frequently are o and o> inter-
changed) the less importar.^e is to be attached, as both MSS. just before give ex*"!"*"
Mislead of exopev which is alone correct.
139.J THE SUBJUNCTIVE. 211
B. 139,m.4; H. 720 b.; C. 628; D. p. 413; J. ? 420, 3; G. 86.
The limitations in reference to the negative Imperative
and the Aorist Subjunctive as its substitute (viz. that
the former expresses a continued or repeated, the latter a single
or momentary, prohibition, etc.) are observed in the N. T. very
rigidly and without exception ; see e.g. the Sermon on the
Mount throughout. Consequently in the Present only the
Imperative is used : fjurj ypdfa, /JLTJ /cplvere, jjurj <o/3oO, fir)
<t)o/3elo-0e ; in the Aorist in the Second Pers. only the
Subjunctive: /jurj vofjslo-rjs, fir) yo/uo^re, fj,r) aTroo-rpatyfjs, /j,rj
KpiOrjre, pr) foprjOfjTe (not foftijOrjTe, cf. Matt. x. 26 and 28)
etc. ; but in the Third Pers. the Imperative in both instances :
A"? %ft>/3tfTft), //,?) eV#eT&>, pr) <yva>TO), fi
B. 139, mm. 5, 6; EU 845; C. 627; D. 544; J. 748; G. 89.
Owing to the great external similarity between the form of 7
the (Aorist) Subjunctive and that of the Future, and the affinity
of the two modes of expression, there occurred, as is well
known, very early (see the examples from Homer in B. I.e.) an
interchange or intermingling of the two forms. In the classic
period that followed, indeed, the use of these forms was settled ;
but in later writers considerable vacillation in the employment
of them is again discernible. Hence the frequent combination 183
of the Subjunctive and the Future to form a single proposition
or thought in the 0. T. as well as the New ; l hence the fluc-
tuation, recurring every where (and already remarked in 2
and 4 above), between the two forms as preserved by the MSS.,
especially where only the change of a letter is involved (o and
ft>, e and 77, see 8 below) ; hence the reproduction and explana-
tion of a Future form by the Subjunctive in the ancient
exegetical writings, glossographies, etc. (see Lob. Phryn. p. 723).
Thus, then, the two forms alternate without the slightest
difference in signification (cf. 2 p. 208) after the combined par-
ticles ov /j,r), a combination which is very common in all parts
of the N. T. (occurring close upon one hundred times). Yet,
on the whole, here the Subjunctive is the prevalent form ;
1 E.g. Lev. x. 6 ; Deut. xxix. 13 ; Isa. vi. 10 ; Matt. vii. 6 ; xiii. 15 quotn., Luke
i. 15 ; viii. 17 ; xi. 5, 7 Tdf. ; xii. 58 ; xxii. 17 sqq. ; xxii. 30 ; John vi. 37 ; x. 28 ;
xii.40 quotn.; Phil. ii. 11 Tdf.; Eev. iii. 9 ; ix. 5, 6 ; xv. 4; xix. 7 ; xxii. 14, a
portion of these, however, allow themselves to be c( nstrued and explained according
to the analogy of the usage treated of 151, 9 p. 382.
212 THE SUBJUNCTIVE. [139
and, moreover, in those cases where the (Aor.) Subjunctive
differs essentially in form from the Future (e'Xffy, TT/O),
crvviJTe, evpe6f), /c\e uQ&o-iv, etc.), is handed down for the most
part without any variation; far less frequently (and
often only as an isolated variant) the Future.
As the Future is often used in the exegetical writings of the Church
Fathers instead of the Subjunctive preserved in the N. T. text, all
the doubtfully transmitted Future forms awaken the suspicion
that they originally served (either as marginal glosses or elsewhere)
only to explain the Subjunctives, and then subsequently passed over
into a portion of the MSS. Such passages are Mark x. 15 elo-eXOy (D
t), xiii. 2 KaraXvOfj (var. KaraXvOrja-tTai [so Sin. without
, Luke xxii. 16 <ayo> (D <ayo/xai), 1 Thess. v. 3 eV^vyaxru' (var.
) . The Future form is firmly established only in Matt.
xvi. 22 ov fjir] ZO-TO.L without var. ; has preponderant authority in Luke
xxi. 33 TrapeXevcrovTcu [so Sin.] ; while the authorities are equally
divided between the two forms [Sin. gives Fut.] in Mark xiii. 31 ;
Heb. x. 17 (cf. Jer. xxxviii. 34), Rev. ix. 6 ; xviii. 14. 1 Cf. besides
the examples in the following paragraph.
The identity in signification of the Subjunctive and
the Future after ov ^rj is established unquestionably : not only
by quotations from the 0. T. like Matt. xiii. 14 dicovo-ere KOI
ov fjur) avvf)T, /^Xe-^ere KOI ov fjirj iSijre (where after the example
184 of the Sept. the Hebr. Future is rendered by the Subjunctive),
but also by such passages as Matt. xxiv. 21 ola ov yeyovev,
ov?) ov /jir) yevrjTat,, John x. 28 ov prj aTrokwwrai . . . KOL ov%
dp7rd(TL rt?, xi. 26 ov /JUT} cLTToOdvr) els TOV alwvo,, Matt. xxiv. 35
(TrapeXevcrercu ... ov /j,rj Trapekdwaiv) cf. with Luke xxi. 33 ;
Heb. x. 17 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.] cf. with viii. 12 ;
Luke i. 15 ; xxi. 18 ; John vi. 37 (viii. 12) ; Rev. xv. 4. Hence
the ancient versions give the Future' almost uniformly
for which, indeed, the (synonymous) Pres. Indicative often
appears as a variant, and the Subjunctive without var. only
in the passages designated in 18 below, p. 218.
That the N. T. writers employed this construction with ov /xrj also
to designate that form of statement which classic Greek expressed
rather by means of ov and the Optative with av see 18 p. 218.
a In other passages still the Future is sufficiently attested, but not the
particles. Thus in Matt. xxiv. 2 ov Kara\v6r]<rerai [so Sin.] has been restored
instead of ov ^ waraA. ; and so rught we to read likewise in John x. 28 (oi>x a-p-
irda-ti [Sin. oil ju)j apirdffr)]), and \? th Tdf. [Treg.] also in Luke xxii. 34 (o
[so Sin.J).
139.] THE SUBJUNCTIVE. 213
Lastly, it is to be noticed particularly, that in the N. T. only
the Aorist Subjunc. (and the Second Aor. as well as the
First, see 8) is used after ov prf, and not a single instance of
the Subjunc. Present is found. For in Heb. xiii. 5 the
variant ey/caTaXeiTra) [Tdf. cod. Sin.] cannot establish itself
against the received reading (-X/TTOJ [Treg. also]).
B. 364, m. 6 and p. 376 Note; C. 627 a. ; J. 748, Obs. 3; G, p. 79 sq.
The much contested canon of Dawes, which, however, Bern- S
hardy (Syntax p. 402) among recent writers adheres to,
with certain limitations, and defends, (according to which
only the Subjunc. of the Second Aor. can stand after ov /*$
and oVftx? in the Active and Middle, otherwise always the
Future) can hardly be carried through as respects ordinary
Greek usage, least of all, however, in the N. T.
Bernhardy maintains the admissibility of the First Aor. Subjunc.
only in cases where it differs essentially from the Future as respects
form (see 7), consequently in liquid verbs, or where the Future has
the Middle form (<XKOU'CTO/>UH etc.), or the circumflexed form (/co/uw etc.) :
consequently, everywhere except when the two forms differ externally
only in the vowel of the Mood. But these are the very cases
where in all MSS., as well those of profane literature as of the Old and
New Testaments, the greatest uncertainty occurs in the readings ; so
that by the way of criticism, and owing to the great internal and ex-
ternal affinity of the two forms, absolutely no sure result can be
attained either in favor of the one or of the other. Hence in-
dubitable and well-attested Subjunctives of the 1st Aorist,
such as a,7roA.ecr?7, aTrayyeiXr^, a(f>opfJLLar], CKTrAevcrrys, Setcrr/s, a.TroAcuxrcoyu.ei',
ought to be allowed to pass as proof, of the admissibility of this Sub-
junctive. In the N. T. also, in almost all cases where the 1st Aor.
Subjunc. and the Future differ only in the Mood-vowel, there occurs
so great a degree of variation in the readings, that there was no other
course left here to the editors, except to follow the authorities, and
put now one form in the text and now the other. Accordingly at 185
present we read after ov p.r)
1) The Future: Matt. xv. 5 TI/AIJO-CI; xxvi. 35, Mark xiv. 31
d-Trapv^cro/xat [in Mk. Tdf. -w/xai, so cod. Sin.] ; Mark ix. 41 ob-oXe'cm
[Tdf. -cry, so Sin.]; Luke x. 19 dSi/ojcm; John iv. 14 Su/^crei; x. 5
VLKoXovOrjcrovaw [-oxru/ cod. Sin.].
2) The 1st Aorist Subjunctive: Matt. x. 23, Gal. v. 16
Matt. x. 42 aTroXevy ; xvi. 28 (Mark ix. 1 ; Luke ix. 27)
; Matt. xxv. 9 dp/ce'cny [Tdf. /ATJTTOTC OVK dp*., so cod. Sin.] ;
214 THE OPTATIVE. l 139.
Mark xvi. 18 J3\dif/y, Luke xviii. 7 TTOITJOT; ; Luke xxii. 67, Acts
xiii. 41 TruTTevcrrjTe ; John viii. 12 TrtpnraTrjcrr) ', John viii. 51 Oewprja-y
[-o-et cod. Sin.], 52 ycvoT/rat; xiii. 8 vti/^s, 38 (jxavrjoy ; Rom. iv. 8
Xoyttnyrat; 1 Thess. iv. 15 <0acr<D/Aev ; Heb. viii. 11 SiSaoxr'; 2 Pet.
i. 10 Trraiicnprc; Rev. xviii. 23 <^avy. In almost all these passages,
indeed, the other spelling (as Future) is also found, but for the most
part far more feebly attested, frequently by single or insignificant
MSS. ; several times, however, (e.g. in 1 Thess. iv. 15; 2 Pet. i. 10;
Acts xiii. 41, etc.) no trace even of a Future form is found among the
variants. Hence in all these cases both Lchm. and Tdf. [so Treg.]
have adopted the Subjunctive form.
3) The passages in which the authorities being pretty equally
divided the editors disagree, seem to be the following : John vi. 35
(ireiracm Lchm. -077 Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.], Sii/^o-ei Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.
cod. Sin.] -077 Tdf. [ed. 2]), Gal. iv. 30 (/cAifpovo/^cm Lchm. [Treg.
Tdf. cod. Sin.], -ay Tdf. [eds. 2, 7]). Cf. besides Luke xxii. 34, 68 ;
John x. 28, and the Lat. verss. on Rev. ix. 6 ; xviii. 14.
REMARK. If then, according to the evidence above given (7 and 8),
the Future with ov py as a rarer form must be recognized along with
the Subjunctive, yet after OTTWS the Subjunctive has decidedly
supplanted the Future ; inasmuch as, in all the passages (some fifty)
with the exception of one (Matt. xxvi. 59), the Subjunctive is given
by the authorities almost without the least variation. The Future is
found in the MSS. as an isolated reading in Mark v. 23 ; Acts ix. 12 ;
Rom. iii. 4; ix. 17; 1 Cor. i. 29; and in the above passage Matt,
xxvi. 59 also there are still authorities enough [cod. Sin. among them]
for the Subjunctive (the reading of cod. Vat. moreover is uncertain
[Tdf. gives it as -craxriv]), so that even here its restoration seems to
be required.
Cf. in general respecting the fluctuation of the MSS. in reference to
both forms, besides Nos. 2 and 4 above, Nos. 22, 23, 31, 38, 61.
B. 139, m. 7; H. 721,1; C. 638; D. p. 548; J. 418,6.; G. 82.
9 The Optative, which is somewhat rare in the N. T. (see
11), is still used most frequently, agreeably to its name, in ex-
pressing a wish, desire; as, Heb. xiii. 21; 1 Thess. v. 23;
2 Thess. ii. 17, etc.
Instead of the Optative the Future is once found, yet with
the particle of wishing oc^eXo^, Gal. v. 12.
B. 139, m.8; H. 721 b.; C. 638; D. 517; J. 418Obs. 1; G. 83.
10 There are also a few examples of the Indicative of r
Preterite with a particle of wishing (ofaXov) to express a wist
139.] THE MOODS. 215
which has now become impossible, or, under the existing circumstances,
is seen in advance to be incapable of fulfilment : 1 Cor. iv. 8 o^eXov
ye e/^ao-iAeuo-are had ye but attained to lordship (by which the
ironical character of what precedes is brought out), Rev. iii. 15 o<f>t\ov
if/v\pos ^9 >} ecrros (previously, ovrc i/or^pos et ovre eoros), 2 Cor. xL 1
6'<eAov uvc9(eo-$ pov . . . a<f>poo-vvr)s Vulg. utinam sustineretis (not
sustineatis), hence the following dXXa /cat dve^ecr^e pov is to be taken
correctively (see Meyer); cf. oc^eAov C/U/AOVVTO Ign. ad Smyrn. 12.
Peculiar is the periphrasis by means of a clause with 0eAo> ei
followed by the Aor. Indie., Luke xn\ 49 ; see below, 52 p. 246. But
that clauses with et without an apodosis following (such as Luke xix. 186
42 etc.) are not clauses of wishing, see 151, 26 p. 396.
B. 139, m.9; H. T28sq.; C. 617; D. 513 sqq.; J. 797; G. 31 sq.
The most considerable departure from ordinary usage as \\
respects the Moods, consists in the fact that the N. T. hardly
puts the Optative in use any longer as a Mood of dependence
in indirect discourse, particularly after an historic tense. It
sometimes employs instead the Indicative in independent
discourse, and that, too, far more extensively than was the
case among the Greeks ; sometimes it includes the dependent
form of statement which the classic language had assigned to
the Optative under the form of the Subjunctive. The
first of these substitutes was essentially favored by the cir-
cumstance, that in accordance with the character of popular
language discourses are almost always quoted directly (as in
Heb. and the Sept.), and a protracted recital in oblique dis-
course hardly occurs ( 141, 1 p. 272). The second, viz. the
greater prominence given to the Subjunctive at the expense
of the Optative (gradually quite disappears g), may have been
a consequence of the general influence of Latin on the later
Greek. The proofs of these statements will not only be
found in great number below, where we treat of the several
forms of dependent clauses, but by the reader who notices the
point will be met with everywhere, particularly in the historic
writings.
The Optative as a dependent Mood appears most fre-
quently in the writings of Luke ; its use even here, however,
is unmistakably on the decrease. In the apocryphal writings
of the N. T. it has almost completely disappeared. Cf. 63
p. 256.
216 THE PARTICLE Av. | 139.
THE PARTICLE &v.
B. 139,m.lOsqq. H. 873; C. 618; D. 601; J. 424; G.36.
12 The use of the Pa. r tide av (so important in expressing
modal relations) had already become so thoroughly established
in the literary language, that all that is taught in the general
grammar respecting its force holds completely in reference
to the N. T., although in its employment the N. T. is
more sparing, and several of the more delicate constructions
(like the av with the Participle and the Infin. 20 p. 219) are
no longer met with. The following points may be noticed
respecting the use of this particle in the N. T. :
B. 139, m. 12 a); H. 704; C. 616b.; D. 515; J. 11.93; G. 30. 2.
13 Examples of av with an Indicative Preterite to denote repetition,
though not numerous, are completely established : Mark vi. 56 OTTOV
187 av [euv Tdf. cod. Sin.] ctscTropeveTo . . . iriOecrav rovs d<r$evowTas /cat
ocrot av ^TTTOVTO [rjij/avro Lchm. Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin.] avrov e<r<joovTO,
Acts ii. 45 ; iv. 35 KaOon av rt<s xpetav et^ev. This principle appears to
explain also 1 Cor. xii. 2 (o>s av rjyeo-fe), see more at length in 151,
10 p. 383.
B. 139, m. 12 b); H. 746, 762; C. 636; D. p. 539 sq. ; J. II. 93; G. 37, 3.
t4 The ordinary force of a Preterite Indicative with ay,
so far forth as it denotes the non-existence or impossibility of
fulfilment of the declaration contained therein, occurs as a
rule (just as in Greek authors) in the apodosis of the fourth
case of hypothesis (cf. below, 25 p. 224).
Yet there are also several examples of this Mood without the
customary protasis, which in such case is either reserved in
the mind or finds expression in a different form : Luke xix. 23 /cayo>
eA.0wv o-vv TOKO) av avro rpaa, where the protasis is contained in the
preceding interrogative clause Sia ri OVK ISco/cas etc. ; similar is Matt.
xxv. 27, see the following paragraph ; Heb. x. 2 crret OVK av eVauo-avro
(cf. ix. 26 in No. 15) where the unfulfilled condition to be supplied in
thought lies in the CTTCI (for otherwise, sc. el $u'varo, see 149, 5 p. 359).
B. 139, m. 13; H. 703, 745 a. ; C. 632; D. pp. 541, 411; J. 398, 3; 858, 3; G. p. 97 sqq.
15 The case here mentioned of the (apparent) omission of
av with predicates such as eSei, avfjfcev, eSiWro, etc., is by no
means rare in the later language (nurtured perhaps by the
analogous 'ise of the Latin, debebam, poteram, etc.), or in the
N. T. also. But it is very erroneous grammatically, and a
139.] THE MOODS. 217
supposition prompted solely by our modern ideas of idiom, to
think that the particle in such cases is only omitted. On
the contrary, we are to conceive of the matter thus : that there
is no addition whatever of av to the form of statement, since
not the necessity or possibility of the fact is denied (that would
be expressed by e8ei av etc.), but the fact itself.
Very instructive examples from the N. T. may be added to those
given in the grammar ; as, Matt. xxv. 27 e8ei ere /3aA,iv TO dpyvpiov
fAov rots Tpa7reiVai<?, KOL t\6wv cyw av eKO/Aio-a/x^v TO e/zov cruv TOKO)
where the addition of av was as necessary in the second clause, as the
simple Imperfect in the first, Acts xxiv. 19 ovs I8 CTTI o-ov Trapeivai, t
Tt exoiev ^P 09 */** (therefore, as the Optative shows, not the fourth
form of hypothesis). See besides, 28 ei in Matt, xviii. 33 ; xxiii. 23 ;
Acts xxvii. 21 ; 2 Cor. ii. 3 ; Heb. ix. 26 ; avfJKcv in Eph. v. 4 Lchm.
[Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin.]; Col. iii. 18; KaOrJKev Acts xxii. 22 ; <3<eiAov
1 Cor. v. 10 ; 2 Cor. xii. 11 ; ^SvvaTo Acts xxvi. 32 ; John ix. 33,
on which last two passages and some others 27 c) p. 226 below is also
to be compared.
A similar difference between our mode of expression and the Greek
idiom occurs in connection with the ideas to wish, be witting, like ; as,
e/3ovA.dju,77v (our I should like), Acts xxv. 22 ejSovXd/A^v rov avOpw-n-ov
aKovcrai, Philem. 13; ^v^d/xryv, Rom. ix. 3 rjv^ofjLrjv avdOtfJLa eTvat . . .
vTrcp TO>V dScX^wv fjiov etc., (in these passages the addition of av weakens
the sense, since then the existence, the possibility, of the wish
itself is put in question); and with the predicates /caXov v,
KpetTTov yv (cf. the Latin melius, aequum fuit, Kriiger 463):
Matt. xxvi. 24; Mark xiv. 21 (see 27 c) p. 226), 2 Pet. ii. 21 K/oetrrov
^v am ots pi) eTreyvwKe'vai ^ etc. See Herm. de Part, av p. 60. Paul,
according to his custom ( 129, 20 p. 136), omits in these cases the
copula altogether, as 1 Cor. ix. 15 KaXov yap poi //.aAAov a,7ro#avetv 17 etc.
B. 139, m. 14; H. 757; C. 619; D. p. 544; J. 428; G. 36, 2.
The Particle av (after Relatives lav also, see p. 72) is used 16
in the N. T. by far most frequently with the Subjunctive.
On the character of this form of statement (the particle
belonging rather to the pronoun etc. than to the verb), see
the general grammars ; and on its employment, see below,
under dependent clauses.
B. 139, m. 15; H. 722; C. 636; D. 504; J. 425; G. 39.
On the other hand, the Optative with av (the Mood 17
formerly employed so frequently to express subjective opinion
218 THE PARTICLE &v. [139.
or softened assertion, which Attic urbanity so readily substitutes
in place of the most positive affirmations), has passed almost
entirely out of use.
In general, this Mood bears so decidedly the peculiar impress of
Greek diction that most of the N. T. writers seem hardly any longer
to be acquainted with it Jeven John does not, for in xiii. 24 the
Optative is no longer read), and it is still found only in the writings
of Luke, who approximates nearest to the classic Greek style : in
the Gospel (according to the older editions) five times, and eight
times in the Acts, which small number recent criticism has again
diminished (see for example Luke xv. 26; xviii. 36; Acts ii. 12
Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.], xvii. 20 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.], xxi. 33 Lchm.).
This Mood is described in the grammar as a modification of the
independent form of statement; hence even in Luke it never
stands after conjunctions or relatives. It commonly appears in
(direct and indirect) interrogative clauses, in which it was especially
favorite with the Greeks also (see H. below p. 254) ; in a non-inter-
rogative direct clause it is found but once, Acts xxvi. 29.
18 REMARK. As a substitute for this characteristic Greek Mood the
Future is introduced in positive sentences, e.g. in a sup-
posed case (Lat. dicat, dixerit aliquis) 1 Cor. xv. 35 ; Jas. ii. 18 lpe.1
rts, Rom. ix. 19 ; xi. 19 epeis ovv, V. 7 /xo'Xis yap vTrep Si/caiov TIS O.TTO-
Oavtlrai ; further, very commonly in direct and indirect questions,
1 Cor. xv. 29 7ret rt Troirjcrov(rw ; Rom. iii. 6 7ret TTCOS /cptvcT 6 $eos ; (sc.
i aSwcos 177, see 149, 5 p. 359), vi. 1 TI ovV epov/aev ; Mark iv. 13 OVK
otSare . . . TTWS Treiuras ras Trapa/JoAas yva>cro-$e ; etc. In many such
and similar passages the Greeks would probably have used the
Optative with oV ; although it cannot be denied also that the mode of
expression with the Future has foundation in usage, and strictly noth-
ing more can be inferred from the above examples than a certain aver-
sion (or ignorance) on the part of the N. T. language as respects this
form of statement, where the possibility of employing it lay so close
at hand.
In negative clauses the substituted mode of expression has taken
on a more recognizable form, inasmuch as for OVK oV with the Optative
following (according to 7 p. 212) the Subjunctive (or the Future)
with ov /xrj appears, a construction which, as is well known (cf. B.
189 139, 6), was interchanged with the other even by the Greeks. As
examples of this, may be set down especially those passages where the
ancient versions either unanimously or in part employ the Lat. Sub-
junctive : Mark xiii. 2 ov /tr) afaOfj XiOos ort At&o, os ov fj.rj KaraXvOyj
(Vulg. destruatur), Matt. xxv. 9 /U,^TTOT ov /AT) ap/ce'cn? rjplv /cat, vfuv
(Vulg. sufficient), Luke xviii. 29 ov /M,T) A.a/3r? (Vulg. recipiat), John x'.
56 ov a^ IXQy (Vulg. veniat, veniet).
139.] THE MOODS. 219
B. 139, m. 16; II. 760; C. 617 d. ; J. 405, 2; 829; G. 20, N. 1 sq.
The rule, carefully observed in good prose, that in relative 19
and other subordinate clauses, whenever the leading thought
falls in the future, the action which precedes and is completed
before it is expressed by the Aorist Subjunc. with av (and
likewise in Latin by the Fut. exactum, or Pluperf. Subjunc.
in its stead), is but seldom disregarded in the N. T. also.
Examples of the regular construction, especially after relatives
(o? av, ocra av, OTTOV av) as well as after conjunctions compounded with
av (coos av, eav, orav), are found abundantly in all parts of the N. T.
That the freer usage also, that is to say the simple Future and even
the Present Indie., is found in such clauses is to be expected, since
instances of it can be pointed out even in Greek and Latin writers ;
e.g. after oorts Matt. v. 39 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] oWts o- paTriVei ...
o-rptyov O.VTV etc. (Lchm. [Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin.] pa7rtei), 41 ; vii. 24
Tras OOTIS a K o v e i /xov rov? Aoyovs KCU TT o i t aurovs o/xotwcrto aurov etc.,
X. 32 OCTTIS ofMoXo-yrjaei . . . Oju-oAoyT/crw Kayo) etc.
A different liberty, viz. the dropping of av with the Subjunctive, is
spoken of below: 31 p. 228, 33 p. 230.
B. 139, m. 17 sq. ; H. 783, 803 ; C. 658 a. ; D. p. 543 ; J. 429 ; G. 41, cf. 42, 3 NN. 1, 2.
The more delicate use of the particle av, by which when 20
joined to the Infinitive and Participle it imparts to
these verbal forms the modal force of an Optative or Indicative
with ai/, is altogether unknown to the N. T.
It is likewise not found with the Infin. after the verbs So/cctv, .\-rieiv,
etc. (see 140, 2 p. 259), and hardly can the solitary instance of the
sort which actually occurs (2 Cor. x. 9) be regarded as a remnant of
the ancient construction after Sofcetv. Rather, in the words /AT) So'w
w5 av /o/3etv vfjLas the expression ws av (which two words were so
often heard, and by later writers used more and more frequently, in
immediate connection ; see the examples from Lucian in Du Mesnil,
Stolper Progr. 1867, p. 24) has become for the apostle, as it were, a
single word with the signification quasi, just as in Greek wo-Trcpavei,
later dxravei (B. 151, IV. 3), h used in the same sense. In further
confirmation of this interpretatio a, compare 1 Cor. vii. 5 pr) aTroo-Tepetre
aXX-^Xovs, i fjLrjTi av IK cru/x^xovov Trpos Katpov, where av also stands
without any verb. To supply here the Optative, such as yevoiro,
in order to connect av with it (as similar phenomena in a few passages
of the Greek poets are to be explained, see Hartung II. p. 330)
militates with the apostle's usage (see 17 p. 217). Hence we must
supply, either the Indicative after the analogy of 2 Cor. xiii. 5 el //T}T
220 A. CONDITIONAL SENTENCES. [ 139.
ASoKifUH ecrrc), or the Subjunctive according to Luke ix. 13 (et ftrjrc . . .
190 dyopao-w/xev), and combine av, again in the sense of somehow, perchance^
with the restrictive particle ci firj-n so as to form one whole. 1
A repetition of av in lengthened sentences, or after the inser-
tion of parenthetic thoughts, nowhere occurs.
A. CONDITIONAL SENTENCES.
Since the various forms of conditional sentences rest upon
the general basis given above and in the grammars, it may
suffice here to assume that the four chief forms of these sen-
tences are familiar, and to point out the deviations from the
same which occur in the writings of the N. T.
B. 139, m. 22-24; H. 745sqq.; C. 631sq.; D. 602; J. 851; G. 47sq.
ti The first two forms of hypothesis (et with the Indicative,
edv with the Subjunctive) are by far the most frequent, and
the distinction given in the grammars is in general applicable
to them in the N. T. But the majority of the writers were so
much accustomed to these two modes of stating an hypothesis,
that they (in harmony with the general observation made in
11 p. 215) manifestly avoided the third case, el with the
Optative, preferring to substitute for it one of the first two (cf.
22 below.)
See the more extended treatment of this point, and the few instances
of ct with the Optative still extant, in 24 below, p. 223. Examples of
the first two species, however, are found everywhere. The difference
between them (described in the grammars) is plainly to be recognized
in sentences where both are used in close proximity ; as, Gal. i. 8, 9,
where the hypothesis expressed in the 8th verse by cav with the Sub-
junctive is resumed or repeated in the 9th with greater energy and
definiteness by ei with the Indicative. So in Acts v. 38, 39.
B. 139, m. 25; H. 747 b. ; D. cf. 513; J. 864, Obs. 1 ; G. 50, 1 NN. 2 and 3.
22 Since the later common Greek writers are pretty negligent
in discriminating between the two particles el and edv and we
1 Possible, however, and not at variance with the character of the N. T. ellipses,
or of Paul's style in particular, is the assumption that &v here is to be taken in
the sense of l&v and (according to 151, 23 b. p. 392, 24 b. p. 394, and 129,
23 p. 137) its predicate to be supplied in an altered form from what precedes
(accordingly here airoarfpfiTe, or the more general yei/rjrcu). The only objection
to this is the extremely rare use of Hv for fdu (see p. 72). As respects the
meaning of the passage, however, it remains a matter of indifference whether we
choose to explain the origin of the ellipsis (which certainly exists he r c) gram
matically in the one way or the other.
139.| THE MOODS. 221
often find in them el with the Subjunctive and edv with the 191
Indicative (see the references in Winer 295 (277)), we might
expect beforehand that the N. T. writers also would not keep
themselves free from such inaccuracies. Of the first case, the
use of el with the Subjunctive, we find, to be sure, accidentally
(for cf. 31 p. 228 and 33 p. 230) no example which is quite
certain ; for in some of them the readings vary, some are set
aside by the MSS. (as Rev. xi. 5 [but cod. Sin. 6e\r)(rr) the
second time]), some are capable of a special interpretation.
The most probable is 1 Cor. ix. 11 el . . . eo-Treipa/xcv, /xcya et ^/xets
V/MOV TO. o-ap/a/ca Oep iVw/xev. So Tdf. reads [eds. 2, 7] with the
majority of the MSS. instead of the former Future [Tdf. Treg. cod.
Sin. also] which is found so often as a variant of the Aor. Subjunct.
(see 8 p. 213). Since strictly considered the Greek Optative would
be in place here, in point of fact the Subjunctive as its substitute
(21 p. 220) seems to deserve the preference even on grammatical
grounds. Further, Luke ix. 13 OVK eto-iV . . . et /ATJTI TropevfleVres i^u-cis
dyopao-w/xev /fyxo/xara. The Subjunct. here is not only thoroughly
established by the MSS. [cod. Sin. also], but as a conjunct, dubitativus
(described above, 2 p. 208) is not at variance with the sense (unless
perhaps we are to buy). In classic Greek, however, the Fut. Indie.
would have been used here in preference (see B. 139 m. 23, and the
example from Xen. An. 4, 7, 3). In 1 Thess. v. 10 (OVK eOero etc.) u/a,
elre ypi7yopuJ/Ai/ elre KaOevBw/Jiev, a/*a <rvv avrw rj<r<o/xev the Subjunct.
stands rather by the attraction of the Subjunct. of the final clause, to
which it is parenthetic (cf. the quite similar examples in 24 p. 224) ;
and the frequent use of the double conjunction elre . . . elre, especially
by Paul (see the Lexx.), caused it, like an unchangeable particle (cor-
responding to the Latin sive . . . sive), to appear even where out of
regard to the Subjunct. following edvre ought to have stood. 1 The
same holds true of the formula CKTOS el fjirj, which in like manner
became so established in the signification except, unless (1 Tim. v. 19;
1 Cor. xv. 2, see on these 148, 13 p. 355) that it remained unaltered
even with the Subjunctive : 1 Cor. xiv. 5 CKTOS el //,?) Sup/x^i/evr;. Lastly,
in Phil. iii. 12 (ei . . . KaToAa/2a>) el means whether, and belongs under
62 p. 255.
1 The use of edvre . . . ^J/TC in Rom. xiv. 8 might seem to contradict this. But
how little we are warranted in expecting from the N. T. authors accuracy, or
even uniformity, in the employment of the conjunctions as well as of the adverbs
and prepositions, is a point on which probably there is hardly a doubt any longer
among N. T. critics. Compare, for instance, the following paragraph, and also
the detailed statements made above on p. 70 sq., and the chapter below on Particles.
Prepositions, etc.
222 A. CONDITIONAL SENTENCES. [139.
23 On the other hand, the se'cond case, edv with the
Indicative, is given so frequently, that it is to be eliminated
as little from the writings of the N. T. as of the Old. See Tdf.
N. T. Praef. p. xxvi [ed. 7 p. Ivii].
192 It is, indeed, not to be denied that the instances in question almost
disappear amid the multitude of those that are grammatically regular,
and suspicion may also be raised by the circumstance that hardly a
single passage with the Indicative is completely beyond question
critically. Yet when we consider that in countless passages with
the Subjunctive not the smallest variation is found (which would not
be the case if the Indicative were chargeable solely to the copyists),
it is far more probable that, where a diversity of readings occurs in
such a number of instances, this fact results from the circumstance
that the copyists, commentators, etc., early altered the Indicative
which gave them offence. When we add to this, that in pretty nearly
as many passages orav with the Indicative occurs, and more-
over the circumstance that the Latin versions, which render the Aor.
Subjunc. very consistently by the fut. exactum, have the first Future
in many of these questionable passages, and that the ancient gram-
marians expressly admit the existence of the usage by their censure
of it (see Bekk. An. p. 144; Thorn. Mag. p. 132 ed. Ritschl), it is
no longer to be disputed that that lax use of the particles lav. orav /
etc., had at least begun to be practised at the time when the apostles
wrote. How far we are authorized to set down merely to the account
of the copyists offenses of the kind in the writings of authors wJio, in
earlier or later times, were educated by Greek literature and wrote
with Greek models before their eyes, is considered by Klotz ad Devar.
II. 468 sqq. and 690.
The decision when the Indicative is to be received into the
text, depends, of course, less upon internal grounds, than upou
the weight which is attached in every instance to the au-
thorities ; and hence the more recent editors differ much in
this respect.
To avoid repetition elsewhere we will include here at the
same time the passages with orav and the Indicative:
The probability of the Indicative is the greatest in the case of the
Future, which according to 8 p. 213 is so often interchanged with
the Aor. Subjunct. The most certain instances are Luke xix. 40 eav
aut>7rr)crov(Tiv [so Sin.], Rev. iv. 9 orav Saxrovo-iv [Sin. -axriv] ; less
certain are Luke xi. 12 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] cav amjo-et [but ed. 8 drops
cat/, so Treg. cod. Sin.] (Vulg. petierit), Acts viii. 31 Tdf. [Treg.]
(after codd. Yat. and Sin.), 1 Tim. v. 11 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7]
139.] THE MOODS. 223
orai/ Karacrrp^viao-ovo-iv [-craxriv Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin.] (Vulg. luxuriatae
fuerint); cf. also Matt. vii. 9, 10 Tdf. ed. 7 [ed. 8 drops eav with Lchm.
Treg. cod. Sin.]. The Future is well attested besides, though not
received, in Matt. x. 19 orav 7rapa8coo-ovo-tv P-wo-tv Sin.] (tradent). Cf.
Herm. Vis. 1, 4 (^eravor/o-ovo-iv) ; 2, 2 etc.
If the examples with the Future, owing to the internal affinity
between this tense and the Subjunctive, still maintain a certain analogy
to Greek usage (cf. the examples from the classics quoted by Klotz
as above), the same no longer holds true of the Present, the em-
ployment of which (or rather of the particle in connection with it),
in the N. T. at least, must be accounted for solely by the indifference
beginning to prevail in reference to grammatical precision of expres-
sion. Thus, firmly established are 1 John v. 15 av (i.e. eav) otSa/xev
[tSw/xev Sin.], Mark. xi. 25 orav crrrJKere [OTTJTC Sin.] ; strongly attested
are Luke xi. 2 Tdf. [ed. 7] orav Trpoo-cv^eo-^e [-XW^ 6 ec ^ 8, so Treg.
cod. Sin.], Rom. xiv. 8 Lchm. cavre a.TroOvycrKop.ev, Luke vi. 34 Tdf.
[eds. 2, 7 ; Treg.] lav Savet'er [oWo-^re Tdf. ed. 8, SO cod. Sin.]
(Lchm. Savetcrqre) ; less so Mark xiii. 7 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] orav d/covere
['ex errore de B', yet so Treg. ; Tdf. ed. 8 d/covo-i/re, so cod. Sin. Lchm.],
Rom. ii. 14 var. orav TTOLOIXTLV.
Lastly the Preterite. Indubitable instances of this are found only 198
with orav owing to its prevalent temporal force, so that it stands then
completely for ore (cum), as e'av stands for cc; from this it follows
that in such fixed compounds the original force of the particle av
begins gradually to disappear in the N. T. (cf. 20 p. 219). Thus,
firmly established are Mark iii. 11 orav eOeupovv, Rev. viii. 1 orav
rjvoiev [ore cod. Sin.] ; and hardly to be doubted is Mark xi. 19 Tdf.
[Treg. cod. Sin.] orav eye'vero, (Lchm. ore).
The Indicative is found besides in isolated instances with both
particles, especially in codd. D and E ; as, Matt. v. 11 ; x. 23 ; Mark
xiii. 4; Luke xi. 21 ; xiii. 28; John viii. 36; Acts viii. 31 (Vulg.
ostenderii). Examples from the Sept. are Ex. viii. 21; Lev. i. 14;
1 Sam. xvii. 34 ; Job xxii. 3 ; Ps. xlvii. 4 (Alex.) ; cxix. 7 ; cxviii. 32,
and there are innumerable instances in the Apocrypha in which the
particle av has lost all force.
B. 139, m. 26; H. 748; C. 631d.; D. p. 639; J. 855; G. 50,2.
That the use of the third form of hypothesis, el with the 24
Optative, is but very limited has already been remarked, 21
p. 220. Of the case in its fully developed form (in the protasis
et with the Opt., in the apodosis the Opt. with az>), not even a
single instance is found ; on the contrary, in the only passage
where the Opt. with av stands in the leading clause, and con-
224 A. CONDITIONAL SENTENCES. [ 139.
sequently there was opportunity for the full construction, this
form of hypothesis was nevertheless not employed.
The instance (otherwise quite regular grammatically, see B. 139,
30 a) is Acts viii. 31 TTCUS yap av Swaija^v, eat/ prf TIS oSrjyrjcrr) fj,. Even
when dependent on historic tenses, the Second form of hypothesis
almost always makes its appearance (pursuant to the general remarks
lip. 215 and 63 p. 256) ; as, John ix. 22 o-were^etKro, Iva eav TIS
O.VTOV ofj.o\oyr)(rr] Xpttrroi/, aTroo-waywyos ycvr^rat, xi. 57 ScScoKeierav, Iva.
ecu/ TIS yva> etc., Acts ix. 2 T/T^a-aro, OTTU>S, eav Ttvas eupfl, ayayy etc.
Cf. 1 Thess. v. 10 above, 22 p. 221. When the Optative occurs, it
appears rather in short, fragmentary, parenthetic clauses, as ei rv\oi
1 Cor. xiv. 10; xv. 37, et TI e^otey Acts xxiv. 19, ei StWivro xxvii. 39
Lchm. [Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin.], el Swaroi/ efy (Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] 5v) xx.
16 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin.], ei fle'Aot TO tfeAr^a TOV Oeov 1 Pet. iii.
17. Both forms of hypothesis, viz. the 2d and the 3d, occur close
together, but grammatically, in 1 Pet. iii. 13, 14. In all other passages
ei with the Optative has the meaning whether, if perhaps, and belongs
then under H. below p. 255 sq. In many of the books (in all four
Gospels, for example) the case is no longer extant.
B. 139,m.28; H. 746; C. 631b.; D. p. 539sq.; J. 866; G. 49, 2.
25 On the other hand, the fourth form of hypothesis, regularly
framed (el with the Pret. Indie., and in the apodosis a Pret.
with ai>), comes into use pretty frequently, as well with the
Imperf. Luke vii. 39, etc., as Aorist Matt. xi. 21, 23 etc., and
Pluperf. John xiv. 7 etc. ; and with different tenses in the two
clauses, John xviii. 30 ; Gal. iii. 21 ; Heb. iv. 8 ; 1 John ii. 19.
Examples of the Imperfect (to express duration, B. N. 4) in
the protasis, in place of the Pluperf., are John xi. 21, 32, cf.
Matt, xxiii. 30.
E.139, m.SOb.; II. 746a.b.; C. 631f.; cf. 615; D. p. 540sq.; J. 856; G. 49, cf. 54.
26 The form of the fourth case of hypothesis is so sharply
194 denned, that the N. T. writers have in the main adhered
strictly to the grammatical model ; for, an alteration of it would
have caused ambiguity, and have disturbed at once the char-
acter of the hypothetical statement. Nevertheless, deviations
are found here and there : and that as well 1) in the Protasis,
as 2) in the Apodosis.
1 ) In the P r o t a s i s. Oi ce, when the apodosis is formed regularly,
et with the Present is the construction given in the protasis : John
viii. 39 Lchm. et TeVo/a TOV 'AjSpaayx CCTTC, TO, tpya TOV *A/3paa/x eTroietTi
139.] THE MOODS, 225
av [Tdf. Treg. omit av ; so cod. Sin.]. Most of the interpreters and
editors, indeed, have taken offence at this reading, and have adopted
into the text instead the very weakly-attested ^re (and thus re-
stored the construction to the ordinary form), explaining to them-
selves the origin of core in various ways (see Lucke). But co-re' is
not only the correct reading, and perfectly suited to the character of
this particular passage, but is founded also in actual usage. This usage,
however, has sometimes not been duly noticed ; and sometimes, owing
to the rarity of its occurrence, it was probably obliterated by correction
very early by the copyists and commentators. In the N. T. there
are, in particular, three other passages where the Present is given by
the most important MSS. viz. John xiv. 28 ; Luke xvii. 6 [so cod.
Sin. Tdf. Treg.] ; Heb. xi. 15 [so cod. Sin. Tdf. Treg.]. In all these,
indeed, the Imperfect (which is likewise found) has been generally
received into the text ; and yet they, particularly the first two, have
(in comparison with the other regularly constructed passages) an un-
mistakable similarity in character to the above passage from John. 1
2) In the Apodosis, inasmuch as the par tide av is 27
omitted with the preterite. Winer, 305 (286), is inclined to
the opinion, that this omission occurs merely in consequence
of negligence peculiar to the later writers. This is the case,
indeed, elsewhere (see e.g. 31 p. 228), but not in the fourth
class of conditional sentences. On the contrary, such an
omission is allowable only in fixed cases, which are observed
also in the N. T., and may be reduced to the four classes that
follow.
That is to say, the omission of av occurs
a) When av has already been expressed previously in the same
connection with another predicate. This instance, which often occurs
in the classics and is founded in the nature of the case, is accidentally
not to be met with in the text of the N. T. ; but it occurs once only
as a various reading of cod. A in Luke xvii. 6 (vTrrjKovo-tv) .
b) When the predicate (or the copula) to which it belongs is also
dropped, as 1 Cor. xii. 19 ei Se rjv TO. Trdvra ev /xeAos, TTOV TO oxo/xa ;
agreeably to which vs. 17 also is to be completed ; and as an important 195
variant in Gal. iii. 21.
c) Where the apodosis contains such a predicative term as &>ei,
KoAov yv, rj&vvaro etc. The omission here (as was explained above,
1 To show all this requires a more extended examination than can be given
here. Such an examination, therefore, I have endeavored to give in another place
(theol. Stud. u. Krit. for 1858, 3d No., pp. 474 sqc.) ; to this, accordingly, I refer
the reader.
226 A. CONDITIONAL SENTENCES. [ 139
15 p. 216) is so necessary according to Greek habits of thought,
that it is only by way of concession to our usage that we can speak
of supplying av. That even the copyists of the N. T. books felt no
need here of supplying the particle, is plainly to be seen from the fact
that av is no longer found even as a variant. Examples are (cf. 15
p. 217) Matt. xxvi. 24; Mark xiv. 21 KaXov rjv aura), i OVK eyevvrjOr) 6
av$pu)7ros cKtu/os, 1 John ix. 33 i urj rjv OVTOS Trapa acou, OVK rjovva.ro
Troulv ovSeV, Acts xxvi. 32 a7roAeAuo-0at rjSvvaro 6 avOpwiros ovros, t JM)
t7riKK\r)TO Katcrapa.
d) Lastly, av is dropped for rhetorical reasons : where, though
the fact itself is impossible or improbable, the orator in the vivacity
of his thought desires to represent it as actually having occurred, or
at least, as almost taken place. This case (which, as is familiar, is
not unknown to the Latin writers also, cf. Zumpt 519, b.) belongs
rather to the more delicate Greek usage (see the examples from the
classics in Hermann, de part, av p. 70 sq.), yet it is discoverable also
in a few indubitable instances in the N. T. ; most plainly in Gal. iv. 15
/xaprvpoi vfMV, on, cl ovvarov (sc. Syi/), rov? 6<f>6a\fjLov<; vuwv copvavTe<s
eSooKare /txot, Rom. vii. 7 rrjv CTnOvuLav OVK yStiv, tl pr) 6 vouos e'Aeyti/ etc.,
perhaps also in Gal. iii. 21 (see the var.). 2 Cor. xi. 4; Acts xi. 17
do not belong here ; in both these passages nothing more than the
first form of a conditional sentence is to be sought for. 2 Moreover, av
is wanting here and there in the MSS. ; as, John viii. 19 ; ix. 41 ; Acts
xviii. 14; Heb. iv. 8; xi. 15.
REMARK. As an appendix to this Section respecting Conditional
Sentences, mention may be made here of another and peculiar mode
of expressing the hypothetical relation of two clauses : viz. without
conjunctions, by the asyndetic juxtaposition of the clauses.
The clause containing the hypothesis stands then in the Indicative,
and by Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.] is commonly (though unnecessarily, see
Herm. de Ellip. p. 180) distinguished by a mark of interrogation ; as,
1 Cor. vii. 18 TrepiTer/x^/xevos TIS eK\.yOr) /AT/ eTrunsdo-Qw, 21 SovAos e/
p.rj O~OL /xeAeru), 27 oeoeo~ai yvvauKL' urj ^rei XVO-LV, Jas. V. 13
Ti? cv viuv 7rpoo-tvxeo-0(D /c.T.A. On the other hand, in Rom. xiii. 3 the
first clause really contains a question.
1 The relationship of the statement put forth as it is here with perfect pos-
itiveness (hence OVK, according to 148, 3d) p. 347) to the first form of con-
ditional sentences is so close, that this last in fact appears in plain shape Mark ix.
42 Ka\6v <TTIV OJ'/TIJ? fj.a\\oi', el irepliceiTai etc.
2 Commonly two passages more, from the Gospel of John (xv. 22, 24 and xix.
11 ), are reckoned among the examples of the omission of &v. See respecting them
both, and also respecting the omission of &v in John viii. 39 (26 above, p. 224 sq.),
as well as on the entire subject, my exposition in the Stud, und Krit. as above,
pp. 485 sqq.
139.J THE MOODS. 227
To be compared with this construction is the prefixing of the
hypothesis in the form of an Imperative, in which case the con- 196
elusion is always subjoined by means of /cat; as, John ii. 19 Xvcrare
TOV vaov TOVTOV, KOL tv TpLalv i^uepais eycpai avrov, Jas. iv. 7 di/riOTr/rc TO>
Sia/3o'A.a>, Kat <eueTai a<f> /;,a>v, Eph. v. 14. That all such cases belong
to the popular language (which likes to resolve periodic structures
into single independent members), and consequently find their analogies
in all languages, is obvious. Cf. the periphrasis or resolution by
which Participles become leading clauses, 144, 2 p. 290.
B. RELATIVE SENTENCES.
B. 139, m. 32 ; H. 755 sq. ; C. 640 sq. ; J. 826 sq. ; G. 58 sq.
On the general statements respecting the Moods in Relative >9
sentences [viz. a clause with the Indie, either refers back to a
demonstr. or is of a general nature ; in a clause with the Sub-
junct. av associates itself with the relative, and the clause is
always general; a clause with the Optative without av cor-
responds to a conditional sentence of the third class, and con-
tains a subjective complement to the leading thought ; av is
added to the Optat. if the relation of thought spoken of in 17
p. 217 is to be expressed ; the historical tenses in the Indie,
with av are used where they would be used in simple clauses],
we need only remark, that the addition of av (or edv, see p.
72) in clauses with the Subjunctive is at least the rule even
in the N. T., as is apparent from numerous examples. Rela-
tive clauses with the Optative as a mood of dependent state-
ment are no longer to be met with ; but we find instead, in
intermediate clauses in the oratio obliqua or after historic
tenses, either (as so frequently in Greek) the Indicative (Mark
vi. 45 etc.), or the Subjunctive with av (according to 11 p. 215
above) .
If this last case after historic tenses is rare, the reason is solely to
be found in the fact that the occasion for using it seldom occurred in
the N. T. writings, in consequence of the choice almost everywhere
Df the direct mode of introducing discourse in the historical books,
and of the predominantly concrete contents of the Epistles. Exam-
ples of the Subjunctive with av thus used are, Matt. xiv. 7
avry Sowai, o av atr^o-^Tat (instead of the regular o air^cratro or
creuv), 1 Thess. ii. 7 sq. a>s eav rpocfrbs 6dX.7rr) ra lavrf)*; TCKVO., ovrw? . . .
evSoKovfjicv etc. (for cvSoKov/xcv is as the context teaches, the Vulg.
translates, and cod. Vat. by the augment r)i>8. intimates only to be
taken as the Imperfect) ; cf. the similar cases in 24 p. 224, and Rev
xiii. 15.
228 B. RELATIVE SENTENCES. [ 139.
Less surprising, and in accordance with the usage given 37 p. 233
and 33, 3) p. 230, is the simple Subjunctive in relative clauses which
contain also the purpose after historical tenses, as Acts xxi. 16
(rvvTJXOov . . . ayovres Trap' <S ei/r0oj/Aev Mvcuraw, see below, 32 p. 229.
30 REMARK. The Indicative Present is given us once with
OTTOV av, and has been adopted by Lchm. [Tdf. 7, Tr.] : Rev. xiv. 4
OVTOI ot aKoXovOovvTCs TO) d/3viu), oTTov av vTTctyct. Although this con-
struction conflicts with the usage of the N. T. elsewhere, it is yet
conceivably correct, especially in the Apocalypse, and finds analogies
in the examples (quoted in 23 p. 222 sq.) of the Indicative after lav
and OTO.V. The employment also (so frequent in Greek authors as
well as in Latin) of the Indicative in general relative clauses
(B. 139 m. 32 ; J. 826, 4 ; 827 c. ; G. 62 N. 1) may have been
not without influence. Cf. further 22 p. 221 above, with the note.
The Indicative, moreover, is often found as a variant, e.g. Mark iv. 25 ;
xi. 24 (Grsb.), Luke x. 22 ; John ii. 5 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 2 ; 2 Cor. viii. 12 ;
Col. iii. 23.
197 B. 139,m.33; H. 759; C. 619d.; J. 828,2; G. 63,1.
31 Corresponding to the lax construction of the Subjunctive
with el (spoken of in 22 p. 220 above), is the employment (far
more frequent) of the simple Subjunctive without dv in
general relative clauses, a construction not uncom-
mon also in the earlier poets (see reff. above). As, however,
it was not allowable in ordinary prose, and at the most appears
as a rare exception to a usage otherwise fixed (see Poppo on
Xen. Cyr. 2, 2, 25), we should err, certainly, in wishing to
identify it with that poetic construction ; especially since it
stands in so obvious analogy with other cases in the N. T. (cf.
33 p. 230), and contains, moreover, in itself its adequate gram-
matical justification. That is to say, since dv falls away only
after the compound relative oWi?, just as after ocro?, Tra? 05, etc.,
and not after the simple 09 (which first acquires a general force
by means of a^), we discover plainly that the N. T. authors
omitted av whenever universality was already sufficiently indi-
cated by the pronoun, and consequently the addition of av
might seem to them to be superfluous.
Here again we find, however, as in all similar cases, considerable
fluctuation in the readings (av besides occurring almost everywhere
as a variant, and still more frequently the interchange, already often
alluded to, of the Subjunctive with the Future taking place, even
where av has been left standing) ; so that the critical editions often
disagree, and we shall probably never succeed altogether in reaching
139.] THE MOODS. 229
certainty on this point. As examples we may take Jas. ii. 10 oo-rts
n/prjcrfl, Matt. x. 33 Lchm. [Treg.] OOTIS apv^o-iyrat (Tdf. [so cod. Sin.]
inserts aV), John xvi. 13 Lchm. oo-a aKovcry (Tdf. [ed. 2] oV, [ed. 7 oo-a
d/covcm without oV, so Treg. ; ed. 8 oo-a aKovct, so cod. Sin.]), Matt.
xii. 36 TTOLV o XaX^o-wcnv (Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.] -o-ovo-iv) ; and as
examples of various readings, Matt. v. 41 ; x. 32 ; xviii. 4 ; John v. 19,
etc. An example of the Subjunct. and the Fut. together is Luke viii.
17 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] ; of the Fut. with oV, Acts vii. 7 Tdf. [Treg.] (Rev.
xi. 6 var.). The Future often occurs as a variant where the Subjunct.
is received: Matt. v. 19 ; xvi. 25; xviii. 19; Mark viii. 35; ix. 41 ;
x. 11, 35 ; Luke xii. 8, etc. Now, though here and there the reading
which offends against general usage is perhaps to be set down to the
account of the copyists, yet this much is certain: that the great
fluctuation in the MSS. would not exist if there had been no mistakes
in this respect on the part of the authors themselves. For it is par-
ticularly to be noticed, that there are cases in abundance where it is
the anomalous modes of expression which are found in the earlier
MSS., and the regular that occur in the later ; consequently the suspicion
arises that the latter are feter corrections.
Respecting the very common Subjunctive after ews orov and similar
conjunction-like phrases, as o^pis ov, a^pi rjs i^epas, see 33 p. 230.
B. 139, m. 34; H. 756; C. 642; J. 836, 4; G. 65.
Instances of relative sentences (whether -with the Future 33
or with the Subjunctive) which at the same time contain an
intimation of purpose are rare in the N. T., since it employs
for this end the express statement by means of the final par- 198
ticle iva almost invariably.
John ix. 36 TI? eo-Tiv, Iva 7rio-Tvo-<o cts avrov, V. 7 avOponrov OVK e^w,
Iva fidXy /xe eis ryv KoAvjU/^pav, 2 Cor. xii. 7 c$6@rj /JLOL crKoXoif/ ... Iva
/xe KoXafftL^rj) Iva p.rj etc. Rev. xix. 15 K7ro/3uerai po/x^cua, Iva iv avrrj
Trara^ ra eOvrj ; especially after aTroorc'AA.co and the like, as Gal. iv. 5
ega.7TcrTiA,ei> rov vlov avrov, Iva rov? VTTO vo/xov e^ayopdcrr], iva etc.
Yet we may with confidence (guided even by the position) take as
relative clauses including the expression of a purpose, the example in
29 p. 228 ayoi/res Trap' w encr#co/xev Mv. (see 143, 7 p. 284), and also
Luke vii. 4 agio's ecrriv w Trape^y TOVTO (cf. the construction with Iva
after atos in 46 below, p. 240), Matt. xxi. 41 yeoopyots, olrives aTroSw-
crowiv etc.
It is to be noticed further, that instead of the regular relative
clause after such predicates as OVK ej(w (non habeo quod followed by
the Subjunct.) e.g. Luke xi. 6 OVK e^w o Trapa^o-w aurw, the form of
230 C. TEMPORAL SENTENCES. [139
an Indirect Question is commonly substituted, see 58 below,
p. 251. On Acts xix. 40 see 151, 29 note p. 400.
C. TEMPORAL SENTENCES.
B. 139, m. 37; H. cf. 758; C. 641 d. ; D. p. 578 sqq. ; J. 840 sqq. ; G. 58 sqq.
33 As the constructions in temporal sentences agree in their
general principles with those in relative sentences, because the
temporal conjunctions themselves were mostly relatives origi-
nally (et>9, ore, eW, e ov, etc.), all the deviations from classic
usage touched on above in connection with relative sentences
will repeat themselves here.
1) The Optative as a dependent Mood no longer occurs except
in a single instance, either the Indicative or the Subjunctive (with and
without av, see 3 below) being substituted for it, as above. The in-
stance of the Optative used in classic fashion is again from Acts (xxv.
16) airtKpCO'rjv, OTI ov/c rm> e$o? . . . irpiv rf e^ot etc.
2) Corresponding to the use of OTTOV av and lav with the Indicative,
orai/ also is sometimes joined to the Indicative; see more on this
point, together with examples, in 23 above, ffc 222. Respecting eu>s av
with the Fut. see the following paragraph (3).
3) Temporal particles which express alimit or goal (our
till, until), e9, Ate%f>t, a%pt, together with all their extensions,
as eo>9 ov, eo)9 orov, etc., if they are joined to the Subjunctive,
take (as being originally relatives) according to rule the par-
ticle av : Matt, xxiii. 39 ; xxiv. 34, etc. Still more commonly,
however, they are construed, agreeably to their signification,
after the analogy of the final particles r iva and 6V 0)9
below: that is to say, with the simple Subjunctive with-
out a v , even after historical tenses.
Examples are very numerous, and are in the main also thoroughly
established critically, while in ordinary Greek prose the construction
with the simple Subjunctive can be regarded only as an isolated and
1 99 doubtful exception. In order to get a view of the great extent to
which this usage is carried in the N. T., we give here a list of the
passages. Thus we find with the Subjunctive, I CDS in Matt, xviii. 30 ;
34 Lchm. ; Mark xiv. 32; Luke xv. 4 ; xvii. 8 ; xxii. 34 ; 2 Thess. ii.
7 ; Heb. x. 13 (after a Pret., but with reference to the Present, see
137, 3 p. 197) ; Jas. v. 7 Tdf. [Treg.] ; Rev. vi. 11 ; ews ov in Matt.
xiv. 22 ; xviii. 34 Tdf. [Treg.] ; xvii. 9 ; xxvi. 36 Tdf. [Treg.] ; Luke
xii. 59 [Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin. om. ov] ; xxiv. 49 ; John xiii. 38 ; Acts
xxiii. 12 (after an historical tense), 14, 21 ; xxv. 21 (after an historical
tense) ; 2 Pet. i. 19 ; Iws or o v Luke xii. 50 ; xiii. 8 ; xv, 8 [ov Treg.
139.] THE MOODS. 231
cod. Sin.]; xxii.l 6,18 [o Treg. cod. Sin.]; /ue'xpt Eph.iv.13 ;
ov Mark xiii. 30 ; a^p < Rev. vii. 3 ; xv. 8 (after an historical tense) ;
xx. 3, 5 (after an historical tense) ; a^pis ov Luke xxi. 24; Rom.
xi. 25 ; 1 Cor. xi. 26 ; xv. 25, [Tdf. in Lk. Cor. -pi ov with cod. Sin.] ;
Gal. iii. 19; iv. 1 9 [/*expis ov Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.] ; o^pi fa ^c'pas Luke
i. 20 ; and finally, also after rrp Iv r/ Luke ii. 26 [TT. 17 oV Tdf., TT. oV
Treg., ews av cod. Sin.], (and in xxii. 34 as a variant for ecus). It is
noticeable that here the Subjunctive does not, as in so many similar
cases, alternate with the Future; but the Future, with the exception
perhaps of the passage Rev. xvii. 17 (itself uncertain) and a few
various readings, is well nigh excluded. That this usage stands in
closest connection with the N. T. structure of final clauses, appears
on comparing the respective paragraphs (37 and 38 p. 233 sq.). And
since also the omission of av with the Subjunctive in all clauses
which contain the expression of a purpose has its foundation in classic
usage (see B. 139, m. 45 and m. 47), much less here can we think
of the retention of av with the Future (cf. 23 p. 222 and 31 p. 228),
an instance of which, in point of fact, hardly occurs even as a
variant, with the exception of a very doubtful case in Luke xiii. 35
Lchni. (see fine print under 4) ; cf. oos ov with the Future in Act.
Petr. et Paul. 63.
On the other hand, the connection of all these particles with the
Indicative Present is not in the least anomalous, since as
temporal conjunctions, particularly in the signification as long as, until
(cf. the Lat. dum, donee, etc.), they can be construed also as such,
consequently with the Indicative ; as, Matt. v. 25 IvOi cwouiv . . . o>s
OTOV et /ACT* avrov ev rfj bow, Heb. iii. 13 Trapa/caAeiTe eaurovs, a^pis ov
TO o-?7/xepov /caXetrat, John ix. 4 ews rjutpa eoriv, xxi. 22, 23 ; 1 Tim. iv.
13 ea>s epxo/xat, Mark vi. 45 ecus cnroAuci, Acts xxi. 26, these last two
passages are at the same time examples of the Indie, instead of the
Optat. in an intermediate clause to express an indirect statement
(11 above, p. 215).
4) With all other particles of time which contain no speci-
fication of a limit, if the construction with the Subjunctive
occurs, the particle av (edv) is added regularly and
almost without exception. Hence, always rjvUa civ, ocrdias edv,
cup ov av, with the Subjunctive following ; and ore, eirei in
such cases become as usual orav, eTrdv,. as Matt. ii. 8 ; Luke
xi. 22, etc.
Only in a single passage (Luke xiii. 35) is the construction of ore
with the Subjunctive extant and received : ov /u,r) tS^re /x, ew? ^ei ore
Yet the Subjunctive ctTriyre here as respects its force man-
D. CAUSAL SENTENCES. [ 139.
ifestly depends rather on the idea of end contained in lu>s, as is plain
from the sense or from a comparison of the parallel passage Matt
xxiii. 39 (fcos av eiTr^Tc), and TJ ore forms a parenthetic insertion
quite superfluous for the sense (and hence omitted also by MSS. of
repute [cod. Sin. among them]).
5) A faulty construction is that of ws in a temporal sense (cum
Luke xii. 58) with the Subjunctive and av, since in this case, at
200 least in Attic prose, it either has a thoroughly telic force (but is never
so used in the N. T.), or signifies as, and then, as introducing a relative
clause, takes av according to rule ; so in the N. T. in 1 Thess. ii. 7
(see 29 above, p. 227). Three times, however, ws av with the Sub-
junctive occurs decidedly in a temporal signification (as soon as) :
most clearly in 1 Cor. xi. 34 ra Xotn-a ws av e;A$a> 8tara^o/xat (Vulg.
cum venero), Phil. ii. 23 a>s av d<i'Sa> (Vulg. ut venero), and probably
also Rom. xv. 24 (see 144, 7 p. 294) ; cf. Joseph. B. J. 2. 14 ; 3. 8 ;
Prov. i. 27 ; Clem. Ep. 1. 12 (o>s lav). For examples of o>s av with
the Indie, in the Sept. see Winer 309 (290).
B. 139, m.39; H. 760c.; C. cf. 641; D. 580; J. 843; G. 60, 62.
34 The employment of the Optative in temporal clauses, and cor-
responding relative clauses, to denote repetition is unknown in
the N. T. The N. T. language employs for this purpose, either the
Indicative with av according to 13 p. 216 (see the examples there),
or the Subjunctive with di>, as, for instance, with oo-a/as 1 Cor. xi. 25,
26 ; Rev. xi. 6. The proper particle of repetition, OTTO'TC, oTrorav, is
never used in the N. T. ; and even in Luke vi. 3 (where Lchm. [so
Treg.] has given ore after the best MSS. [Sin. also]), if OTTOTC is pre-
ferred with Tdf., it would not have the iterative force.
B. 139, m. 41; H. 878; C. 703d. ; D. 583; J. 848; G. 67.
35 The rule laid down in reference to the use of TT p I v or TT p \ v rj is
observed in the N. T. most accurately: the Subjunct. and Optat.,
where they occur, appearing in every case after a preceding negation
(Luke ii. 26; xxii. 34 var. ; Acts xxv. 16); whereas in all the pas-
sages with the Infinitive, the main clause contains no negation.
Of the Indicative after irpLv there is no example extant.
D. CAUSAL SENTENCES.
B. 139, m. 42-44; D. 615sqq.; J. 801sqq.; G. 80,81.
36 In the construction of causal sentences there is no deviation
from ordinary usage (viz. that the Indie, is employed when the
cause is represented as external or objective, the Optat. when
it is subjective), farther than that they are treated only as inde-
139.] THE MOODS. 233
pendent sentences, i.e joined to the Mood of independei ice. Also,
when subjective reasons are specified, the N. T. Language,
even in the Acts, employs (according to the general remarks
in 11 p. 215) instead of the Optative only the Indicative ;
as, Acts vi. 1 eyevero 7077^(7/^09 rwv 'EXhrjvio-rcov, ori irape-
OecopovvTO at xfipai avrwv, x. 45 e^ecrrrjcrav, oil . . . e/crce^vraL etc.
The most common causal particles are on, Sum, eW, eTreiS?}, less
frequently ws. These particles are often used as co-ordinating
particles, and then are to be translated by for (Germ, denn), as Rom.
iii. 6 cTret TTOOS Kpivet 6 0eos ; In the compounds 816 and SioVep the co-
ordinating force is the prevalent one ; hence their frequent construction
with the Imperative, or the Subjunctive in its stead : Sio evOvpciTe
(Acts xxvii. 25), SidVep </>evyT (1 Cor. x. 14), Sto e^w/xev x-P LV (Heb.
xii. 28), etc.
E. FINAL SENTENCES. 201
B. 139, m. 45; H. p. 275 sq. ; C. 624; D. p. 597 sq. ; J. 805; G. 43 sq.
The two particles of design r Cva and OTTO? (never, &>?) nega- 3?
tively iva //,TJ, OTTCOS JJLIJ, or even simply //,?? (^Trore, /M?7ra>9, etc.)
are joined almost uniformly to the Subjunctive, rarely
to the Future (38 p. 234). At the same time it is to be
noticed, that the practice (beginning to show itself even in old
classic authors, e.g. Thucydides) of using instead of the Opta-
tive the Subjunctive, even after historic tenses and in
the midst of narration, as the Mood especially suited to the
expression of a purpose striving to become actual (see B. 1. c.),
has become the established rule in the N. T., as may be seen
from innumerable examples : thus, after tW, Matt. xiv. 36
Trape/caXovv Iva atytoVTcu,, xii. 10 ; xix. 13 ; Acts xxvii. 42 /3ov\rj
eyevero, iva . . . dTrotcrelvcocnv, /j,rj rt? Sicupvyr) (Rec. -70^), John
iv. 8 after the Pluperf. aire\riXvdei<Tav f iva ayopdauxriv ; after
OTTO)?, Acts viii. 15 ; ix. 2, 24 ; xxv. 3 TrapetcaXovv . . . OTTOJ?
fjbeTaTre^^lnrjrai, etc.
Of the Optative not an example is any longer found ; and that
yvot, TrapaSot (also after historic tenses) accordingly are not Optatives,
but Subjunctives, has already been remarked on p. 46 ; e.g. Mark v.
43 Steo-TftXaro Iva yvot, ix. 30; xiv. 10 aTn/Atfev Iva TrapaSoi (cf. VS. 11),
Luke xix. 15 ; John xiii. 2. Only in Eph. i. 17 and iii. 16 has Tdf.
[eds. 2, 7] adopted the Optative Son? after Iva ; yet even the acceptance
of these Optatives would not touch the rule, 1 since 1) here the Optat.
1 Lchm. has in both passages the Subjunctive (once in the form SAy, and once
in the form 8$ , [Treg. Tdf. ed. 8 with cod. Sin .? in i. 1 7 5<p7j, in iii. 1 6 S< ] ) ; and thus
234 E. FINAL SENTENCES. [139.
stands in both cases after leading tenses, and 2) the Optat. in both
passages should be explained as the Optative in the proper sense, viz.
of a wish (not as the Mood of a dependent statement), and therefore.
be taken rather as independent, very much as in one passage the
Imperative even is used after Iva, viz. in a quotation given without
verbal change : 1 Cor. i. 31 Iva ... 6 Kav^w/xcvos ev /cvpiw /cav^ao-^w.
The addition of av to OTTWS has likewise passed almost com-
pletely out of use, it being found only in a few passages by Luke
(Gosp. ii. 35; Acts iii. 19) and solitary quotations from the O. T. :
Acts xv. 17 (after Amos ix. 12 Alex.) ; Rom. iii. 4.
B. 139, m.47; H. 756; C. 624b.; J. 811,2; G. p. 68; W. 289 (271).
38 The rule which holds in classic usage, that the Future
Indicative can stand only after OTHWS, never after /a, is not
202 applicable at all to the N. T. : since 1) according to 8 above, p.
213, OTTO?? is joined to the Subjunctive almost without excep-
tion ; and 2) after iva itself the Future is given (and accepted)
several times indubitably. See Thorn. Mag. p. 186, ed. Ritscbl.
The most frequent and unquestionable use of the Future after Iva
is in the Apocalypse (cf. 33, 3) p. 231) where it was for the most
part displaced by the Rec. frequently in immediate connection with
a Subjunct. (agreeably to 7 note, p. 211) ; as, iii. 9 Iva. rjov<riv *cai
Trpoo-Kwrjo-ovcnv . . . KOLL yvo)(ni>, xxii. 14 Iva. lorai . . . /cat tuTeA.^axriv, vi.
4, 11, etc. But it occurs elsewhere also, as Luke xx. 10 (Soxroixru/),
Acts xxi. 24 where accordingly yvw&ovrai can be also included as a part
of the final clause, just as in Luke xxii. 30 Iva, cicr^re KOL irtvrfrc . . . KCH
KaOurecrOe (Vulg. et sedeatis), Mark xv. 20 (o-ravpwo-ouo-ti/), iii. 2 (/carry-
yopr)<rov<Tiv [notTdf.]), John xii. 20 (Trpoa-Kvvrjcrovcriv) , 1 Cor. ix. 15 Tdf.
[eds. 2, 7 ; not 8] (fccvoxra^xiii. 3 Tdf. (Kav0ijo-o/xai), Gal. ii. 4 (Kara-
SovXtoKrovow), 1 Pet. iii. 1 (icep&^o-ovTai), Luke xiv. 10 Tdf. [Treg.
cod. Sin.] (epct, al. etTn?), Phil. ii. 11 Tdf. (/ca/xi//^ icai e^o/xoXoy^o-erai, al.
[so Treg. cod. Sin.] -a-rjrai), and besides as a variant John xvii. 2 etc.
39 REMARK. A few examples also are extant of Iva with the Indic-
ative Present, as above, in the case of lav and orav. Since, how-
ever, the relation expressed by the Subjunctive or the Future is in-
comparably more important in clauses indicating purpose than after eav,
orav, etc. (cf. the Latin constructions after cum, si, ut), all such cases,
if other considerations do not sustain them or the text is not certain,
give rise to a suspicion of clerical error in later times, when, as is
harmonizes with the ordinary construction of verbs of entreating etc., according to
42 p. 237. But in this case the restoration of the spelling of the Vat. MS. (5<
in both instances) deserves preference. Cf. 62 p 256.
139.] THE MOODS. 235
well known, the Modal relations underwent a constantly increasing
corruption. Lchm. has taken the Indie. Present into his text in three
passages only : it is the almost unanimous reading in 1 Cor. iv. 6
(<f>vo-tow6e [so Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin.]), Gal. iv. 17 (^Xovre [so Tdf. Treg.
cod. Sin. []), less certain in 2 Pet. i. 10 Iva. 7rottcr$ (Tdf. TroitlcrOai [so
Treg. cod. Sin.] cf. 42 p. 237). Perhaps it is no accident that in all
three passages the Present has the circum flexed form, and so
they can be reckoned among the cases (described on p. 38, in 137,
1 b) p. 205, and in 3 above, p. 209) where the Present on account
of its having the circumflex on the last syllable takes the place of the
Future. Tdf., moreover, has adopted the Present in several other
instances also : John xvii. 3 (Iva. ywoo-Kovcriv [so Treg.]), Gal. vi. 12
(SiojKovrat), Tit. ii. 4 (crtu^povi^ovo-H/ [with M* ; so Treg.]), Rev. xiii. 17
(SuWcu [eds. 2, 7]) ; cf. Acta Petr. et P. 58, 81 ; P. et Thecl. 11 etc.
Yet the Subjunctive has everywhere weighty authorities in its favor,
especially cod. Yat. [and in the last four bibl. passages, except Tit.
I.e., cod. Sin. also], and is consequently to be preferred to the Indicative,
especially in the last three passages, where the idea of purpose is
predominant. Only in the passage from John (xvii. 3) has the Indie.,
in addition to the emphatic external attestation, some internal prob-
ability also in its support ; since, as the following section will show,
John is much less rigorous than others in his employment of the
particle ira, and its original telic force is often obscured by him, as in
fact in the above passage : avrrj 8e COTIV rj cuowos (017, Iva ywua-Kovo-iv
o-c etc. Cf. 45 p. 240.
ON THE FORCE OP THE PARTICLE i'va IN THE N. T.
As Iva is one of those particles used' most frequently and 40
peculiarly in the N. T., it seems to be necessary to give a com- 203
plete survey here of the N. T. use of the same. 1
It is not to be denied, that the use of this conjunction in-
creased steadily the farther the Greek language departed from
the classic period, but especially in the popular dialect ; and
that gradually a multitude of relations were expressed by it
for which in the literary language other particles or other con-
structions were employed. An indication of the facts is afforded
even by an external comparison of the Acts or the Ep. to the
Heb , composed as they are in the spirit of classic Greek, with
1 Compare with this the expositions given by Winer 457 sqq. (426 sqq.) [cf.
334 sqq. (314 sqq.)] ; Fritzsche, Excurs. ad Matt. pp. 836 sqq. ; [see also Jelf $ 803 ;
Green, N. T. Gram. pp. 170sq. ; Ellicott on Eph. i. 17; Sophocles, Glossary etc.
88 sq. and Lexicon sub vocej.
236 THE PARTICLE *va. [ 139.
one of the Gospels written more in the popular phraseology,
particularly the Gospel of John. This Gospel employs the
particle r iva nearly a hundred and fifty times (his Epp. twenty-
five times), whereas in the much more extensive book of the
Acts it appears only sixteen times, and in the Ep. to the Heb.
twenty times. The Acts still uses now iva now OTTW? ; but in
John, with the exception of a single passage (xi. 57, where Iva
immediately precedes), the other final particle has wholly dis-
appeared.
41 On a general survey of the clauses introduced by iva, we
find the principal deviation from classic usage to consist in
the fact, that the particle makes its appearance, not only as
usual after complete predicates so that the clause as a
superadded statement of design stands in a certain external
independence as respects the leading predicate (in order that,
to the end that), but also after so-called incomplete pre-
dicate ideas (e.g. deXeiv), and serves to subjoin to them their
necessary complement. In good prose, as is well-known,
the Infinitive is used in this latter case ; or after certain pre-
dicates (as TrapatcaXelv, etc., see B. 139, m. 45) O7ro>9 also,
never (or at least but very seldom) Iva. This classic use of
OTT&)? just mentioned may be regarded as the commencement
of the later prevalent resolution or periphrase of the Infinitive
by means of Particles. In the place of OTHW? (by which the
clause at least still preserved the form of an indirect question)
appeared first of all with such predicates as Trapaicakelv etc.
(see 42) the pure particle of design iva. Gradually, however,
the number of the (incomplete) predicates after which the In-
finitive formerly the only construction used was re-
204 solved by a clause with Iva, increased more and more ; : so that
the proper telic force of the particle constantly receded further,
or was blended with the senses of other particles (as on, ware) ;
see below. Even in the language of the majority of the N. T.
writers this use is by no means still in its initial stage, but has
already become considerably extended, as will appear from the
following paragraphs.
42 Thus much, however, is still to be laid down as respects the
1 In modern Greek the Infinitive has at length completely disappeared, and is
only expressed by the particle vd (which came from ft/a) with a Subjunctive fol
lowing; as, vk Qdyw, vk ypd(f>y. See Mullach, Vulgarspr. S. 373.
139.] THE MOODS. 237
N". T. : that tva cannot as in the later Greek arbitrarily take
the place of every Infinitive (and so even of OTI after verba
dicendi), but the predicates after which it stands are still in
the main of such a nature that the dependent clause can
be regarded as a statement akin to a specification of
purpose.
This is the case, in the first place, with all predicates which
can be referred to the notion of a wish, request, com-
mand, admonition.
These are in particular the following : OeXew, TrapaKaXelv, Siaore'AAe-
aOai, ciTreiv, 1 Trapayye'AAetv, aTrayyc'AAeu/, (e.g. 2 Thess. iii. 12 Iva ecr0iWiv,
for which previously, in vs. 10, on with the Imperative had been used :
ort . . . jarjSe ccrdceni), cf. 51 p. 245), K^pvcro-etv, ypa<eti/ (e.g. Mark xii.
19 where the on before Iva is superfluous, or rather the two kinds of
statement residing in ypa<eu/ are intimated by OTL and Iva, ix. 12, etc.),
7rpoo-etr)(eo-0ai and the substantive Trpoo-evxij (e.g. Eph. vi. 19 ; Phil. i. 9 ;
respecting the Optative with it see 37 p. 233, above), 8et<r0cu and tpwrav
in the sense of beseech, evrcAAeo-^at, ei>ToAas Sioovat. and Aa/x,/?ai/eii/,
aiTi(70ai. Here belong, also, all those passages where the sense re-
quires us to supply the idea of entreaty etc. suggested by Iva, e.g.
yovara Eph. iii. 16, (rvvLcrrdvai commendare Rom. xvi. 2,
1 Tim. v. 21, avaa-tUw rov oy\ov to stir up and entice
Mark xv. 11; Luke xx. 10 aTrcVrnXev 8ov\ov, Iva SOJCTOUO-IV with the
order that etc. ; and often in clauses where the demand is expressed by
the form of the sentence, to wit, by the Imperative, e.g. /2A.7re Iva
7r\rjpoL<s (Subjunct.) Col. iv. 17, <nrov8acraT Iva Troietcrfle (see 39 p. 234),
JJLOV TTJV ^apav Iva TO avrb <f>povf)T Phil. ii. 2, JjqrfiTe Iva 205
1 Cor. xiv. 12, etc.
For the same reason Iva connects itself readily with the ideas to
counsel, admonish, threaten, adjure, as J3ov\r] eyeVero, crvvcj3ov\v<TavTo
Iva a.7roKTtvti)(Tiv avrovs, fTTfTLfMrjcrev avrots Iva /x^Sevi Aeywo-ti/, e^op/ci'^to (T
Iva TJIMV etTnys, o-vvere^eivro Iva, etc., and in general occurs after many
other predicates and constructions, in so far as by the action contained
in them something is to be striven for or averted, hence after the
ideas to exert one's self, to seek, to equip one's self, to prepare, to be on
me's guard, etc., as fyjrelv, irapanqptlv, StwKeiv, ZflXovv, erot/xa^ctv, iyreiv
ev/catptW, <f>v\d<r<T(r6aL, etc.
1 EtVelV and other verba dicendi acquire in this way the force of K\fveiv,
is Matt. xx. 21 ctVe 'Iva KaBiffcoffiv, Mark iii. 9 etc., and it is remarkable that this
latter verb, Kf\e6eiv, is never joined to Iva, but always to the Infinitive. The
influence of the Latin construction with jubere may have contributed to this ;
hence also the (unclassic) construction with the Infin. Pass., see $ 141, 5 p. 275.
238 THE PARTICLE fra. [139
43 Further, iva is used after many predicates in order to desig-
nate the effect contained in the dependent clause as one
designed, one included within the province of the subject's
volition. In this way the force of wa approximates essen-
tially to that of the (apparently opposite) particle wo-re.
Consequently, when lexicographers and commentators adduce among
the significations of Iva those of wore also, they are by no means to be
condemned as holding erroneous philological views. For every effect
or consequence, so far forth as it is to be regarded not as one which
is merely external and resulting as a matter of fact, but as intended
and striven after by the subject, falls thereby under the idea of finality.
Hence, not only do the Latin writers employ for both purposes one
and the same particle (ut), but also in Greek wore when it governs
the Infin. is reckoned with reason by many grammarians (see e.g.
Baumlein, Schulgr. 590 sq. [cf. D. p. 597]) among the final particles ;
and there are cases enough where the final reference in oWe is so
predominant that we can only translate it by in order to (see below,
50 Rem. p. 244 ; Baumlein, as above ; Matth. Gr. 531, Anm. 2). lu
point of fact the majority of the predicates adduced in this and the
following section are in Greek writers predominantly connected with
OKTTC. Accordingly Iva is connected frequently with the ideas to effect,
to make, to compel, to persuade, to admit, to confer, etc. : as, TT o i I v
Mark iii. 14; Luke xviii. 41 TI trot dcXets Trotrjaw; 6 <$ eiTrei/ Iva.
di/a/3Ae'i//w, Rev. xiii. 15 Lchm. j 1 riOcvai John xv. 16 ZOrjKO. fyias Iva
v/ms vTrdyyjTf KOL Kapirov <f>cfyrjTf t StSopat, especially in the Apoca-
lypse in the common construction c$66rj avrw Iva etc., further in eoucn'ai/
3t3oVat, Acts viii. 19 Sore fcd/xol rrjv eovo-tav ravrrjv, Iva . . . Xapflavr),
Mark xi. 28 TIS croi TYJV c^ovcriai/ ravTirjv ISoo/cev, iva ravra Troths ; ayya-
pcvctv Matt, xxvii. 32 ; TrtiOtw Matt, xxvii. 20 ; d^tci/ai Mark xi. 16 ;
is TTJV Kapotav /JaAAeiv (TOO) John xiii. 2, etc.
44 There remain still a great number of predicates and con-
structions in which the idea of purpose decidedly recedes
206 into the background, and iva indicates solely a reference
to something future and still to be realized, and often the
dependent clause contains also merely the completion of the
statement given incompletely in the predicate : in brief, then,
cases where the clause with iva serves as a periphrasis for the
Infinitive (with or without wcrre) alone in use in ordinary
1 The omission of 'Iva in this passage in the text of Tdf. [eds.2, 7, 8; so cod. Sin.]
BO that the simple Subjunctive aironTavQuxriv would depend immediately on iroi-f)<rr),
somewhat as in Latin the Subjunct. without ut after foe, sine, etc., is very improbable
Cf. 49 note p. 243,
139.] THE MOODS. 239
prose ; particularly for the In fin. Fut are, which hardly con-
tinues to be employed in the N. T., or for the Infill, with rov
which is much in use there (and with which it often alternates
after the same predicates and in the same sense ; see 140,
12sqq. pp. 266 sqq.).
This is the freest use of ira in the N. T. And although it never
stands in the strict ecbatic sense (for wo-re with the finite verb), it has
nevertheless here reached the very boundary line where the difference
between the two relations (the telic and the ecbatic) disappears and
it is nearer to the ecbatic s e n s e than to its original final sense.
Necessary as the demand is, that in a systematic inquiry into the use
of the particle, even within a comparatively restricted field, we should
always make its original telic force, which is the only force it has
in earlier Greek writers, our point of departure, and trace out thence
the transitions to its diverse shades of meaning; the interests of
exegesis would gain very little, if in every individual passage
of the N. T. even (the language of which has already departed so far
from original classic Greek usage) we should still take pains, at the
cost of the simple and natural sense and by a recourse to artificial
means, always to introduce the telic force. In our language, as a rule,
the particle that (which in like manner unites in itself both reference?.)
is an adequate translation ; but there are instances where we approx-
imate more nearly to the intention of the writer if we translate it
most simply and in a way which corresponds best to the sense of the
passage, viz. by the mere Infinitive, even with so that, so as (i.e. wore
with the In fin.). All this will be plain from the
EXAMPLES : John viii. 56 'A/^paa/A ^yaAXiararo, Iva. t&y rrjv fj/jitpav
rrjv ci*r)i> equiv. to on oi/^otro not that he saw but that he should see.
like Rev. xiv. 13 /xaKapiot ot ve/cpoi . . . Iva, avow a v) a" o v r a i, John xv.
13 /xeiova ayaTnqv ouSeis e^ei Iva rt<s rrjv ifsvx*) v a ^ TO ^ $# (equiv. to wore
6eivai) which impels him to etc., 1 Thess. v. 4 ov/c eo-rc ei/ o-Koret, Iva.
f) fjiJitpa {yxa? a>s K\TTT^ KaraXd/Sr) so that the day could surprise you,
John ix. 2 TIS ^/xaprci/, Iva rv<f>Xb<s yevvrjOrj no external consequence, but
designating the internal causal connection, ordained by a higher power,
between sin and malady : so that he should (must) be born blind, Luke
ix. 45 rjyvoovv TO prj/j^a /cat rjv TrapaKe/caAv/a/Aevov O.TT avra>v, Iva fjirj
at<T0a)VTai avro not in order that etc. but so that they could not
understand it, John v. 20 /x,ei r ova epya Set^ei, Iva. fyiet? Oav^d^re (not
in order that, but) so that ye will wonder, Matt. x. 25 dp/cerov TO)
fjLaOrjrfj, Iva. yevrjrai ws 6 8i8ao-/<aAos equiv. to TO yei/eV&u, Gal. V. 17,
etc. That, however, many passages were taken by the (earlier)
interpreters in the ecbatic sense where the final is altogether admissible,
240 THE PARTICLE Hva. [ 139
in fact necessary (e.g. John vii. 23, etc.), has been shown by Winer
457 (426) by a number of examples.
207 In accordance now with the foregoing section, we find in the N. T.
45 the following predicates joined to this comparatively ecbatic Iva, where
the Greek literary language certainly would have used either &CTTC
with the Infin. or quite a different construction : crv/x^epeiv Matt. v. 29.
30, etc. ; apKcw John vi. 7 ; dpKcrov ctvai (see 44 p. 239), IKOVOV eti>zi
Matt. viii. 8 ; Luke vii. 6 ; xpeiav e^eu/ John ii. 25, etc. ; o-vi^cia eorrtv
John xviii. 39 ; fjuo-Oos ivnv 1 Cor. ix. 18 ; /caXdv COTIV 1 Cor. ix. 15
Tdf. [eds. 2, 7; not 8] ; e/xot eXa^to-Toi/ eo-nv 1 Cor. iv. 3 ; f) wpa Ip^crai,
' John xvi. 32 (on the other hand vs. 25 Ip^erat wpa, ore ov/cert
etc.) ; eSw/ca ^pdvov Rev. ii. 21 ; e/xov /?pa>//,a eerrti/ era TTOICO TO
etc. John iv. 34; /xei^orcpav OVK e^w ^apav u/a aKotxo 3 John 4;
and when referring to a preparatory demonstrative preced-
ing : TTo'tfei/ /uoi TOVTO tW 2X&7 Trpo's pe Luke i. 43 (cf. Protev. 12. 2;
Acta Andr. 6, this last Apocryphal book was written early, is a
decided imitation of the canonical writings, and exhibits several
instances of the ecbatic fi/a), rovro mv TO tfpyor, Iva TrtoTevcnjTc John
vi. 29, afar) f) w?) Iva yivua-Kovo-Lv (see above, 39 p. 235) John xvii. 3,
avrr) rj ayaTrrj . . . Iva. TOLS cvToXas r>7pw/>tev 1 John V. 3 (cf. iv. 1 7) . Yet
it always remains for the interpreter to decide which reference in ti/a,
agreeably to the most obvious sense, predominates in every individual
case.
45 That all the above prescriptions in reference to the signifi-
cation and use of Iva are not rigidly fixed, and cannot be, in
consequence of the wide difference in style of the several
authors in this particular, has already been intimated, 40 p. 235.
Often the example given above is the only one of the kind in
the N. T. ; many of the predicates mentioned admit quite as
often, sometimes still more frequently, some of them even
commonly, of the construction with the Infinitive (with and
without rou), as 6e\ew, tyireiv, Troiew, TreiOew, a^elvai^ iKavov
elvai, xpetav G^ew, etc.
The complete equivalence of the construction with the Conjunction
and that with the Infinitive is evident from many passages : partic-
ularly from parallel passages, as Matt. xxvi. 17 TTOV 0e'Xas cToi/xao-w/xev
<roi </>ayeiV and Mark xiv. 12 TTOV 0eX. er. Iva. ^>ay^9, John i. 27 aios Iva.
Xvo-co TOV t/xavTa and Acts xiii. 25 oios Xvo-cu TO vTro'S^/xa ; or from
those in which both constructions are dependent immediately upon a
single predicate and united into a single sentence, as 1 Cor. ix. 15 Tdf
[eds. 2, 7 ; not 8J KaXoV /AOC, //aXXov aTroOavciv 7) TO Kav\r}fj.d pov Iva. TIS
KCVWO-CI, Rev. vi. 4 &66rj avrw Xa/2av rrjv etpTJnp CK r^g yfjs KOL Iva,
139.] THE MOODS. 241
o-<oovo-tv ; or where the MSS. are divided between the two
constructions, as 2 Pet. i. 10.
REMARK. In conclusion, mention may be made here of the rather 47
frequent elliptical constructions with tva (<IAA' Iva. etc.). One species
of them, where the governing idea is implicitly given in the predicate
of the leading clause, has already been treated of above in 42 p. 237. .
Often an entire clause, or some such thought as *this happened' etc.,
is suppressed, as it either is easily to be supplied from the context, or
if added would have been cumbersome and prejudicial to the simplicity
of the sentence, which is sufficiently intelligible without it (cf. the
similar instances 151, 24 c) p. 395); as, Mark xiv. 49 KO.& rj^pav
Kol OVK Kparr)<rare //. ctAA' Iva TrXrjpwOCxrLv at ypa<at, John ix.
/xapTev, ovre . . . , dAA' tva (fravepwOrj etc., XV. 25 ; 1 John 208
ii. 19, cf. John xiii. 18; xiv. 30. Similarly Luke xvii. 2 Auo-iTeAei
aura) ei At$os TreptKCiTat . . . rj Iva. o-Kav8a\Lcrrj than if he lives to etc.,
Gal. ii. 9, 10 Setas eSco/cav e/x,ot /cat Bapvd/^a tva ^jaets ets TO. tOvrj . . .
/(XOVOV TO>V TTTW^COV t V a jU, V t] /X O V V W fJi V.
Further, we shall find that by means of such elliptical constructions
with Iva. very much as in the case of the rare Infin. Fut. (according
to 44 p. 239) the far more rare Participle Future (see 144,
10 p. 296), which the classic language likes so much to employ to
express a purpose, was avoided, or even periphrased, as appears from
the following examples: Rev. vi. 2 e^rjXOev vt/ccov *at Iva. viKrj&y,
John i. 8 OVK rjv eKtyo5 TO <w5, aAA' tva papTVprjcrr) vrept TOV </>am>5, Eph.
V. 27 rr)v CKKA-^o-tW, pr) e^ovcrav cnrtXov T) pvrt'Sa, aAA' tva rj dyta xai
a/xu)jU,o9 (dependent as respects construction on Trapao-r^o-ry).
Lastly tva is used (quite as in classical writers the elliptical OTTOOS
B. m. 46 ; H. 756 a. ; C. 626 ; D. 611 ; J. 812, 2 ; G. 45 N. 7)
as a circumlocution for the Imperative: either after a
preceding verbum dicendi, as in Mark v. 23 Ae'ywv 6Vi TO Ovydrpiov JJLOV
eo-^arws ex et ' ^ va ^A^wv 7rt6fj<s Ta? ^ctpa? aur^, tva o-a>^; or
without such antecedent, as in 2 Cor. viii. 7 dAA', wcrTrep Trcptcro-cvcTC . . . ,
tva Kat ev ravrr] rfj ^dpiTt Trepto-crevryTe ; or in continuation of a fore-
going Imperative, as Eph. iv. 29 Tras Ao'yos o-aTrpos ^ e/cvrdpeveo-^co,
aAA' et Tt? . . . tva So) \<ipiv, Y. 33 e/cao-TO? dyaTrdVto T^V eauToi) yvvat/ca, rf
8e yvv-Y] Iva. <f>o/3r]Tai TOV avSpa.
The restrictive conclusion with tva /otr), as Philem. 19 tva
fj,rj Aeyco o-ot OTI . . . Trpoo-oc^et'Aets (cf. 2 Cor. ii. 5 tva pr) eTrtySapw), cor-
responds to the Latin constructions ne dicam and the like.
B. 139, m. 50; H. 720; C. 624; D. 538; J. 814; G. 46.
After verbs of fearing etc. ($>oftela6ai, v\aj3eia0ai) our 48
81
242 pXfcrciv, 6pv ji^ ETC. [139
that is rendered, as in the classics, by /A?}; (that not, Lat. ne non,
by fjirj ov according to 148, 11 p. 354). Of the dependent
moods only the Subjunctive (agreeably to the use in final
clauses) is still employed after //,^, even after historic tenses ;
as, Acts xxvii. 17 fyoftovpevoi fj,rj . . . eWecrwcr^, efapovro, 29 ;
xxiii. 10 fofirjdeis //,?) Siao-Trao-Oy /ce\ev(rev. After leading tenses :
2 Cor. xi. 3 ; Heb. iv. 1, etc. ; Subjunctive in connection with
the Future, 2 Cor. xii. 20, 21.
In Acts v. 26 Lchm. [Treg.J e</>o/3owro yap TOV Xaov, /u,r) Ai$acr$tu<nv,
the subordinate clause does not seem to be dependent on <?<o/3o{Wo,
but to belong as a telic specification (for Iva /U.T) XiO. as Tdf. et al.
actually read, after A) to what precedes, since if it depends on </>o/3owTo,
it ought, according to the analogy of the familiar construction (otSa
ere 6Vt), to have been so framed that TOV Aaoi/ might have been its
Subject, as in Thuc. 4, 108 TOVS ^U/A/XUXOUS C<O/?OWTO, /AT) o.7rocrTa>criv.
Yet it is more probable that the sentence, when compared with the
similar passage Gal. iv. 11 (<o/2oi5/AeH fywas, /AT} TTWS ci/o; Ke/coTrt'aKa ets
v/Aas), contains a blending of two constructions (e<o/3. TOV A.cun/, and
<o/3. /AT) \i6aar6ua-iv) ; or rather, that after the analogy of the instances
given in 151, 10 p. 383 there is a bound from the Active construction
209 ver into the Passive (consequently for /txr) At#acn? or A.i0acrwcriv -^uas).
Further, the reading /AT) XtO. is not only the better attested (codd. Vat.
Sin. etc.), hut the other (Iva t</) Ai0.) would rather appear to be a
correction of it than vice versa ; cf. besides, Ep. Barn. 6 and the quite
similar instance in Thuc. 4, 8, 7. More difficult is it to explain
by the same analogy the change in the passage from the Ep. to the
Gal. (iv. 11), if we avail ourselves merely of the recorded words.
But the thought which was in the mind of the apostle when he began
the sentence (<o/3ov/Aai v tt a s) was something like, * I fear that y e
may render futile my endeavors ' ; for which hy a change of construction
the thought at once was presented, 'that I have labored for you in
vain.' On the use of the Indie. Perfect (K^KOTTLCLKO) in order to set
forth the object of fear as an already existing fact, as it were, or to
anticipate it, cf. Hermas Mand. 12, 5 ; Protev. 14. 1, the corresponding
examples from Greek authors in B. I.e., and below, 148, 10 p. 353.
49 REMARK. The two verbs /JAe'Trctv and opav are often used
tropically, in the sense of <vA.dWeo-0ai, to be on one's guard, take heed.
Hence they take also the same constructions as this verb, viz. either
a noun with OLTTO and the Gen. (see 147 under CLTTO p. 323), or a verb
with fjir] (not Iva toy ; for in 2 John 8 /JAeVere eavrov?, Iva fj.rj aTroXecrrjTe
etc. the first clause forms a complete thought, and the clause which
follows is a subjoined specification of end). Now since both these
verbs always immediately precede the clause negatived by /nrj in the
139.1 THE MOODS. 243
Imperative form, they appear almost like a pleonastic addition,
after the fashion of the very similar constructions in Latin with vide,
cave ne etc. The Mood is as usual in sentences expressing apprehen-
sion and warning the Aorist Subjunct., as Matt, xviii. 10 oparc pr)
Karatjipovijcrrjre evbs TOVTWV, xxiv. 4 ySXeVcre /xrj rt v/xa? TrXavrjcrr), Mark
xiii. 5 ; Luke xxi. 8 fiXeirere ^ TrXavrjOvjrf, Acts xiii. 40 ; 1 Cor. x. 1 2 ;
1 Thess. v. 15 ; Heb. xii. 25 ; yet the Future also, which so frequently
alternates with this Subjunct., may take its place, as Col. ii. 8 /JAeVere
fj.rj 7-19 eo-rat, Heb. Hi. 12. 1
Finally, there are a few passages where those Imperatives (ppa,
opa-re) must really be regarded as thoroughly pleonastic addi-
tions, they being prefixed to another Imperative (or Subjunctive
in its place) negatived by py, and even to a positive Imperative
without anything intervening (cf. 151, 32 p. 402) ; as, Matt. ix. 30
opare /xr/Set? ytvcocr/cerco, viii. 4 opa fjLrjotvi. etTr^s, Mark viii. 15 opart
aTro r}<; u/x/7s rwi/ <. ; hence also in Matt. xxiv. 6 (oparc pr)
) the form 0poeicr#e is not to be taken as Indicative (for the
Future), but as Imperative.
The case is different with the actual Indicative in Luke xi. 35
<r K o TT e i ovv /jiT] TO <{>)<; TO cv Wi (rKOTos e(7TtV. Since, that is to say,
(TKOTretv is never used in the sense of <frv\do-o~eo~@ai, like the above two
verbs (hence in Gal. vi. 1 the clause with /u/) is to be construed as a
pure telic clause, for Iva ^ etc.), but uniformly in its proper significa-
tion to look at, regard, the dependent clause is to be taken as an
indirect question in the Indicative (see H. below) : see to it whether 210
the light . . . is not etc.
On the elliptical opa prj see 151, 24 b) p. 395.
F. ILLATIVE SENTENCES.
B 139, m. 52sqq.; H. 770. 771; C. 671 d. ; D. 596; J. 863; G. 65, 3; 98.
As respects sentences expressing consequence, the N. T. 50
writings depart but little from the general rules. With wo-re,
so far forth as at the beginning of a clause it is the co-
ordinating particle (itaque), the Indicative is joined (Matt,
xii. 12, etc.). And even when the Subjunctive follows
(1 Cor. v. 8 wave eoprdfo/jLev etc.) the particle is co-ordinating,
since the Subjunct. here is the Conjunct, adhortativus described
in 4 above, p. 209, and therefore only takes the place of the
1 The positive injunction rendered by the Future after 8po in Heb. viii. 5
('6pa TTorfffeis etc., a quotn.) is not to be explained by the omission of tva, but results
solely from the literal translation of the Hebrew, and is founded consequently
upon no N. T. usage.
244 F - ILLATIVE SENTENCES. [ 139
Imperative, which after axrre is pretty frequent, fc.g. 1 Cor. iii,
21 ; iv. 5 ; x. 12 ; xi. 33, etc.
But whenever it is the subordinating particle (ita ut), the
construction with the Infinitive (Ace. with Infm.) is almost
the only one in use : and that, too, both when the dependent
clause contains the purely natural consequence of the leading
action, 1 as Matt. viii. 24 ; xiii. 2, etc. ; and when it is a designed
consequence, as Matt. x. 1 ; xii. 22 ; Acts xiv. l.etc. See the
Remark.
Of the use of wore in the sense of so that with the Indicative (which
then of course represents the consequence objectively, as a fact
accomplished) there are but two instances : once after ovrws John iii.
16 (OVTWS rjyaTnrj&ev . . . OXTTC rov vlov avrov ISwKCv), and once almost
in the co-ordinating sense (itaque) Gal. ii. 13. After TOO-OVTOS
likewise wcrrc (not oVos B. m. 57) is used, and with the Infm. Matt,
xv. 33. Of ws with the Infin. instead of wore, according to Greek
usage, there is but one example in Acts (xx. 24), which to judge
from the copious variants seems to have almost ceased to be intelligible
to the copyists, etc. Os occurs as a variant in Luke ix. 52 (sup-
ported by 8 B).
REMARK. Since, as was remarked above (43 p. 238), wore unites
in itself both references that of result and that of design, there
are cases where, as in Iva the ecbatic (44 p. 238), so in wore the
final, force predominates ; or at least, while the issue is still future,
it is anticipated or represented in thought as if already realized.
That in Greek authors also this usage is by no means unknown (see
e.g. Lys. or. 19, 16), and hence even in them, too, ware and OTTWS are
found after the same predicates, has likewise already been remarked
above. Cf. also ets TO followed by the Infin. in 140, 10 p. 264. The
most marked passages of the sort in the N. T. are the following:
Matt, xxvii. 1 crv/xySovXioi/ eA.a/3oi/ ot dp^ccpci?, axrrc OavarwaaL avrov
(where cod. D explains the OKTTC by Iva OavaTucrovo-iv), but after the
same predicate OTHDS with the Subjunct. as usual stands in Matt. xxii.
15 ; Mark iii. 6 ; further Luke iv. 29 rjyayof avrov . . . oWe KaraKpr)-
/xvio-at avrov (where again many MSS. and the Rec. have eis TO K.),
ix. 52 elcnjXOov ets KW/X^V Sa/xapctToiv, ware eTOt/x,ao-cu a{>T(3, XX. 20 Iva
1 This case is by far the more frequent one with Sxrre and the Infin. in the N. T.
(and is also common enough in classic writers, see B. m. 53 and 54), because for
the second, the designed consequence, the particle Iva was employed (according to
what was said above, see 40, 43 sqq. pp. 235 sqq.) by many writers, particularly John ;
hence, as matter of fact, this Evangelist no longer uses &O-TC with the Infiu., and
even &<rrf with the Indie, (after OVTU) occurs only once in his writings, see
above.
139.J THE MOODS. 245
eiriXd(3a)VTa.i avrov Aoyov, wo-rc TrapaSovvcu avrov TQ apxfl' Matt. XV. 33
also is to be taken most naturally in this sense.
G. DECLARATIVE SENTENCES (WITH 6n).
B. 139, m. 58 sqq. ; H. 733 sq. ; C. 643 sq. ; D. 590 sq. ; J. 800 sq. ; G. 69 sq.
The only particle which belongs under this head is on, ; for 51
ax? is always to be translated by how. The Optative as the
Mood of indirect assertion is in this connection completely
excluded, because in its stead the Indicative everywhere
makes its appearance, as Matt. xvi. 20, 21, etc. But even this
use of the Indicative with o-rt, is frequently not observed, as
the N. T. writers (like the Seventy) prefer to introduce dis-
courses in the direct form, even twice or thrice in succession
in one and the same sentence. This is done either without
the intervention of a particle (in which case the more recent
editions [but not Tdf.'s 8th] begin the clause with a capital
letter), or (after a mode in use even by the Greeks, B. m. 61 ;
G. 79) by means of the particle cm, which is then redundant.
(In this case recent editions [except Treg.'s] do not use the
capitals, 1 and also put no stop after ort, a procedure which
sometimes where the third Person is used, or the same Person
in both the dependent and the leading clause, causes am-
biguity.)
Examples occur in great number everywhere : of direct discourse
twice in succession, John i. 15 A.eyu>v OVTOS r)v ov LTTOV 'O ep^o/xevos
yeyovtv etc. (see on this 151, Id) p. 377), v. 12 ^pwr^o-av Tis earn/
6 av@p(a7ros 6 et7ra>i/ croi T Apov /cat TrepiTrarci ; of both kinds (with and
without on), John x. 36 v/xets Aeyere on y8A.acr^>^/xts, on (becai;,se)
ei7rov YIOS rov Ofov t/xt (see on this 141, 1 p. 272) ; of direct dis-
course three times, John x. 34 aTre/cpt^ OVK lo-nv yeypa/x/xei/ov on
eyu> etTra cot e'arc; further, of on before the 2d Pers. Sing, of the
Imperative, John ix. 11; xiv. 9 (cod. Sin., on which Tdf. remarks,
tale on non inferri sed expelli solet), before the 3d Pers., 2 Thess. iii. 10.
The Subjunctive as the dependent Mood is impossible (because
experience has already decided the matter, cf. B. m. 58), and hence
where it occurs it must be taken as the Subjunctive in independent
clauses (see above, 2 sqq. p. 203), as Rom. iii. 8 <ao-tV nvts ^//a? Aeycti/
on Trotr/o-oj/xev ra /ca/ca, u/a eXOrj TO. ayaOd (conjunct, adhort. or
dubit. ; upon the construction see further 141, 3 p. 274) ; or it takes 212
the place of the Future, according to N. T. usage, e.g. after ov jurj :
1 On the other hand, if '6n is written with a capital, it belongs to the direct
discourse itself, e.g. 1 Cor. xii. 15, etc. Cf. below, 59 p. 252.
246 G. DECLARATIVE SENTENCES. [ 139
Matt. v. 20 Aeyeo, on ov /x?) da-fXO^rf. is rrjv /?ao-tAetav TUV ovpai/wv, Mark
xiv. 25 Xeyw V/XO/, ort OVKCTI ov p,rj TTLIO, etc.
Respecting Iva after eiTreti/ and other verba dicendi see 42 note p. 237.
B. 139, m. 59,60; C. 639; J. 804,8. 9; G. 113, NN. 7, 9; 56.
62 After tu/xv^o-Keo-flat and the like, our that is only given in the N. T.
by ort (not ore). On the other hand, ei is frequently found instead
of on after tfar/xa^etf, as Mark xv. 44 IltXaTos c^a^/xacrev, et rjcfy
TeOvrjKtv, 1 John iii. 13 /x^ $av/xaeTe, t /xtcrct v/xas 6 KOCT/XOS. Similar
examples are Luke xii. 49 rt #e'A.a>, ei rjSrj avrj<j>0?) (see above, 10 p. 215),
Acts xxvi. 8 aTTiorov /cpu/erai Trap* {i/xty, ei 6 ^eos vcxpoius eye/pet ; Heb.
vii. 15 Karcx8r;X6i/ earn/, t . . . a.vi(Tra.ra.L tcpevs crcpo? (cf. vs. 14).
B. 139, m. 61; H. 743 b.; C. 644; J. 802, Obs. 8; G. 79.
B3 Among the examples of ort before direct discourse may also be
reckoned the case where, instead of a construction by means of the
verbal adj. or the Impersonal Set, the Imperative itself makes its
appearance, as 2 Thess. iii. 10 TraprpyyeAAo/xev v/xtv, on t n<s ov 6t\u
epyaeo-#at, /txr^Sc e<rdier<i> (cf. the example from Thucyd. in B. m. 36
m. 61 in the last ed. ; the similar case with et /XT} in 149, 4 p. 359;
and in 42 above, p. 237, the other construction with Iva and the
Subjunct.).
Respecting the redundant on before the Ace. with Infin. (Acts
xxvii. 10) see 151, 10 p. 383.
H. INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES, DIRECT AND INDIRECT.
B. 139, m. 62 sqq. ; H. 824 sqq. ; J. 871 sqq. ; G. 68 sqq. 88.
64 The practice just mentioned of quoting language almost
exclusively in the direct form, has as its natural consequence
that the form of the direct interrogative sentence has
become by far the predominant one. In order not to scatter
too much our treatment of a topic of great importance for the
comprehension of the N. T. writings, we will bring together
here into a single summary the entire N. T. usage (in other
respects as well as mood) of both kinds of sentence.
Direct interrogative clauses which have not already an
interrogative pronoun, as T/?; rl ; or an interrogative adverb,
as 7TW5, Troy, etc., at their head, are, as is well known, in both
the ancient languages (contrary to the usage of German and
other modern tongues) generally introduced by an inter-
rogative particle. But in the popular or colloquial language,
which designates interrogative clauses plainly enough merely
by the interrogative accent, this aid was slighted, as a rule,
139.1 THE MOODS. 24T
even by the Greeks and Romans ; and its frequent use was
probably characteristic rather of the literary language.
Agreeably to what has been said, the language of the N. T. has
employed, in by far the majority of cases, the popular mode of in-
troducing interrogative clauses without an interrogative word.
And this it has done not only (as happens for the most part in the
historical books) immediately after a verbum quaerendi in the fore- 213
going narrative, as John ix. 19 rjpuTyaav ovrds ccmv 6 vios V/ACOV,
ov A.eyT6 OTL TV$A.os t-yevvrjOr] ; v. 6 Xeyet avru) $eA.eis vyi^s ytvio~6a.i ;
but also (as often happens in the epistolary style, in protracted
arguments, etc.) without a preceding verbum quaerendi ; in which
case the presence of an interrogative clause, therefore, is only to be
discovered by the connection, as I Cor. ix. 11; 2 Cor. iii. 1, etc.
Questions which expect an affirmative answer are, at least as a rule,
distinguished by a direct negative (ov, oi>x^ ovSe, ovSeis, etc.) placed
at the very beginning of the clause ; as, John xi. 8 or^i SwScKa a>pai
eicriv r>/s i^/xepa? ; vii. 42 ov\ f) ypa<f>r) fZirtv OTL etc. This form of
question is especially characteristic of Paul, who accordingly, assuming
tacitly the affirmative answer of the persons addressed, often uses several
such interrogative clauses in succession, as 1 Cor. ix. 1 sqq.
The practice of distinguishing the interrogative clause by 55
an interrogative particle, although the less frequent, is
yet not an uncommon, practice ; bat the manner of doing so,
or the choice of the particle, deviates more or less from
ordinary usage.
The particle apa (formerly employed most frequently), cor-
responding to the Latin -ne and by no means always expecting a
negative answer, appears, at the most, only in Luke's writings (Gospel
xviii. 8 ; Acts viii. 30) ; for in Gal. ii. 17 et Se . . . cvpe^/xev a/x,apro)Xoi,
apa Xpurros dyaaprcas 8ia*ovos the form apa (as invariably with Paul)
is with Lchm. and many interpreters to be preferred, but the clause
nevertheless to be taken as a question : ' is then, forsooth, after all,
Christ' etc. ; cf. the quite similar clauses, yet without the interrogative
f >rm, in ii. 2t ; iii. 29 ; v. 11 etc. 1 Cor. xv. 18, and on the apa, often
used thus in questions by Greek authors, Plato, Gorg. p. 477, etc.
On the whole, perhaps as respects the N. T. writers the conjecture
has considerable probability, that a precise distinction (which more-
over even in Greek authors it is hard to carry out, see Ph. Buttm.
on PI. Charm. 15 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph, sub voce ; Klotz ad Devar. II
160 sqq.) between the two particles has been lost sight of; hence, too,
the illative particle so often stands at the beginning, see 149, 18
p. 371,
248 H. INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES. [ 139.
Very common, on the other hand, is a question (anticipating
a negative answer) by means of the Particle //,?? (see B.
148, 5 ; H. 829 ; C. 687 ; D. p. 559 ; J. 8T3, 4 ; G. p.
84) for which ^TL is often used ; Eng. surety not? or simply,
perhaps, possibly (spoken in a doubting tone).
Matt. vii. 9, 10 /AT) XiBov . . . /AT) o<j>w eTriSwcm aww; surely he will
not give him a stone . . . a serpent ? Luke xvii. 9 /AT) e^et x^P LV T( ?
8ouAu>; is he perchance thankful to the bondman? vi. 39 /A^TI Swarcu
rv(Aos rv(f>\ov oSr/yctv ; in reply to which we have again a question,
but with ov^i, nonne ? Matt. xxvi. 22, 25 /ATJTI cyw CI/AI, pa/3/3i ;
(although the answer follows, crv etTras), Mark ii. 19 ; Acts vii. 2.8 ;
Rom. iii. 5; Jas. iii. 12; and often in John: iii. 4; vi. 67, etc. (cf.
also 62 p. 256). This form of interrogation we must conceive of as
having sprung originally from an indirect construction, as ' I hope,
am of the opinion, that he surely will not ' etc. ; and this thought
several ancient MSS. suggest immediately after a question of the sort
214 in Luke xvii. 9 by the addition ov SOKW. Peculiar to Paul is the use,
instead of the answer to such questions, of the well-known negatory
formula (Gen. xliv. 7 ; Luke xx. 16) /AT) yeVotro, as Rom. iii. 4, 6 ; ix.
14; xi. 1, 11.
If in such questions the predicate is negatived besides, that
can be done according to the rule ( 148, 11 p. 354) only by the
direct negation ov ; the question requires then an affirmative answer
(nonne), as Rom. x. 18 /AT) OVK r/Kovo-av; /A/owye etc., 19 /AT) 'I<7paT)A
OVK Zyvu) ; Tr/aaiTOS Mwvtrijs Aeyet etc., 1 Cor. ix. 4, 5, 6 ; xi. 22.
Quite in the same way arose, from the form of indirect inter-
rogation, the direct interrogative sentences (particu-
larly frequent in the writings of Luke) with et preceding.
Then el is superfluous, precisely as OTL was in the declara-
tive sentences treated of in G. p. 245 ; and the usage, as in
that case, is to be accounted for by the constant tendency to
pass over into direct discourse.
The direct nature of such interrogative clauses becomes incontes-
tably evident from sentences like Luke xxii. 49 ctTrav Kupic, e i
7raTao/Ai/ Iv /Aa^atpa ; xiii. 23 Kvpie, et oAiyoi ot <rci>o'/Aei/oi ; Acts i.
6 ; xix. 2 eTrrev ct Trvev/Aa aytov eAa/Scre TricrTewrai/Tes ; xxi. 37 IlavAos
Acyet ct c^ccrrtv /AOI eiTreti/ TI Trpos <re; xxii. 25 ; xxiii. 9 ; Matt. xx. 15
Tdf. (where, however, Tdf. in his 8th ed. has correctly altered et again,
with codd. Vat. Sin. etc., into } ; the Lat. versions also give uniformly
either an or aut), Mark viii. 23 Tdf. (after cod. Vat. ; in his 8th ed.
Tdf. reads again /JA^m after cod. Sin.) ; cf. 56 p. 249. Hence we
may probably take without hesitation those clauses also as direct,
139.] THE MC CDS. 249
which externally differ in nothing from the form of the indirect ques-
tion (with i whether), as Acts vii. 1 wrfv 6 dp^tcpevs et dpa ravra,
e^ei ; Matt. xii. 1 7rr)p(i)rr)a-av avrov Acyovrcs ' i l^ecrrtv rots
v 6tpa.TTf.vuv ; xix. 3. This usage is found, moreover, in the
Sept. also, e.g. Gen. xliii. 6; Judg. xiii. 11 ; 1 Sam. x. 24, etc., which
translates in this way the Hebr. Si, which likewise stands before direct
questions and indirect, see Gesen. sub voce.
The particle OVKOVV (B. 149 m. 18; H. 866 a. ; C. 687 c. ;
D. 535; J. 791 Obs.)' in the single passage in which it occurs
(John xviii. 37) is not interrogative, but illative in reference to what
precedes ; but the clause (as above with apa) is an interrogative clause
of the first kind (cf. 54 p. 246) : OVKOVV j3a<ri\ev<s el <rv; ergone rex es?
thou art then (according to what thou sayest) a king ?
Direct double questions (without a material interrog- 56
ative word, as rt?, TTOI), etc.) are properly marked, as with
us, only by the tf (or) in the second clause, consequently
merely by the tone, in the popular fashion spoken of 54 p. 246 ;
as, Matt. xi. 3 GV eZ 6 tpxppetxn, rj erepov nrpoa^oK^ev ; Mark
xii. 14 e^ecmv Souvcu KTJVCTOV Kaio-api, r) ov ; Sw^ey, rj pr) Sa>/iez> ;
Doubtful instances, with the pleonastic et (55 p. 248) at the
beginning, are: Luke xiv. 3 Lchm. where Tdf. [Treg.], com-
paring the parallel passage Matt. xii. 10, have expunged el [Sin.
om.], and Luke vi. 9 where all three editors have preferred
the form of an indirect question.
From strict double questions (i.e. those whose members mutually
exclude each other) those cases are to be carefully distinguished,
where to an antecedent question instead of the answer, or in com
pletion and continuation of the first question a second is subjoined
and connected by r/. For example: after an interrogative clause 215
of the first kind (with ov), Matt. xii. 3 sqq. OVK di/eyi/core, ri eTrot^o-ev . . . ;
rj OVK dvcyvwre Iv TW vo/uu) etc., xx. 15 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.], (Tdf. [eds.
2, 7] ei) ; after a question negatived by py (55 p. 248), 1 Cor. ix. 8
fjirj KO.TO. oivOpwTrov ravra XaXoi, 17 /cat 6 vo/xog ravra ov Aeyet ; 9 /XT) rwv
/Sotov /x,eXet rw ^e<3, 17 oC ^/xa? Travrcos Xeyt; i. 13 ; Matt. vii. 16, etc. ;
after a double question, Gal. i. 10 aprt avflpwTrovs TTCI^W ) rbv 6eov ; fj
frirfo dv^pwTTots dpco-Kctv; The same particle (T}) stands also, as an
does in Latin, with a simple antithetic question after a preced-
ing categoric clause ; as, Matt. xxvi. 53 ; 2 Cor. xi. 7 ; xiii. 5 ; 1 Cor.
xiv. 36 (where even the double % involves no double question), etc.
Indirect interrogates clauses are dependent on a 57
verbum quaerendi, dicehdi, cognoscendi, etc., which
82
250 H. INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES [139.
sometimes must first be educed from the predicate of the lead-
ing clause, or supplied ; as, after eyevero fyCkoveiicia ev amols
(Luke xxii. 24), /SaXXoyre? Kkypov, rt? TI apy (Mark xv. 24),
7jv rdpa'xps, -ri dpa 6 Her/305 eyevero (Acts xii. 18). They
divide themselves into two classes, according as they are
introduced
A. by a merely formal interrogative word, pointing out the
interrogative clause as such (num, whether). The interroga-
tive particle uniformly employed with simple, positive, inter-
rogative clauses is et, as Mark xv. 44 67rr)pa)T i r)crev avrov, el
iraXai direOavev, xv. 36 l'So>//,ei>, el ep^erai, 'JTXi'a?, John ix. 25
el d/jLapTO)\6s eo-Tiv, OVK ol&a ; in negative clauses (whether not,
whether not perhaps) simply fjutj (//^Trore), as Luke iii. 15
>z' Trdwrwv Trepl TOV 'Iwdvvov, /jHJTrore auro? elf] 6
(with which may be compared the prf after /SXevrere,
opare, in 49 p. 242).
With indirect double questions the full form of interrogation
(usual with Greek writers) by means of the two particles TT 6 r p o v
, . . % appears but once viz. John vii. 17 yvwo-eTtu, Trorepov IK TOV Oeov
icrriVy r) cyo> air C/JLCLVTOV Xa\o>. Elsewhere etre is used instead even
twice, as 2 Cor. xii. 3 etrc lv o-w/xari, e?T ^capts TOV o-to/xaTos, OVK oT8a,
6 ^05 ot8/ ; or the question is resolved into two, as 2 Cor. xii. 2
?T V O-W/XttTt, OVK Ot8tt, tT KTO5 CTW/jiaTO5, OVK OtSa. In by far the
majority of double questions, however, the direct interrogative
form is chosen (with the simple TJ in the second clause), see 56 p. 249.
B. by a material interrogative word, i.e. by a pronoun or
a pronominal adverb of place, time, manner. The .language,
as is well known, created interrogative words (in the form of
relatives) for this special purpose, such as oVrt?, oTroto?, oVou,
oTTore, OTTO)?, etc., which it employs as substitutes for the simple
relative forms 05, 0405, &>?, etc., in designating indirect inter-
rogative clauses. As, however, at all times, even in indirect
questions, the direct interrogative pronouns r/?, TTO^O?, etc.,
very frequently make their appearance, this is the case in a
still higher degree in the N.T., owing to the strong inclination
of its authors to employ direct forms of statement.
21 3 Examples of both kinds are found everywhere : as, after o?8a indi-
rect interrogation, oTS> wv xpeiW x T <>TTOV eyw vTrayw otSare ; etSvIa
o yeyovev ; OVK otoWe otot Trvev/xaTos ecrre, etc. direct interrogation, OVK
Tts eortv ; Tt Xeyets c PK oTSev ; OVK oTSa TTOV e^Kav, 7ro#ei/ r)X6ov, Trota
139.] THE MOODS. 251
6 Kvpi&s Ip^crai ; and in connection with the familial construction
(151, 1 p. 377) olod o-e TIS el, OVK oTSa v/uas troOcv core; with other
predicates, as Matt. vi. 28 Kara/xa^ere ra KpiVa TTOJS avavovo-iv, Luke
xii. 36 7rpcxrSexo//,voi TOV Kvptov TTOTC di/aAv^n; etc. Both species are
united in one sentence, as 1 Tim. i. 7 ^ voovVrcs fjL-rjre a \eyovcriv /x^re
Trept TLVWV Sia/3e/3aiowTeu, a combination which in Greek authors also
is not rare ; see the examples in Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 57 ; Schneidewin
on Soph. Oed. Tyr. 71.
REMARK. It is to be noted as a deviation from the regular usage 51
(which, however, occurs likewise even in Greek authors) that the
preference for the direct interrogative form is so great, that this form
is not only substituted for the ordinary indirect question, but is some-
times chosen even where according to rule only a pure relative
clause is allowed to stand. But this occurs only after predicate ideas
which have a certain affinity with verba sentiendi etc., so that the un-
derlying thought can or must be traced back to the form of an indirect
question. This takes place most frequently both in Greek authors
and in the N. T. after the verb ZX LV ( OVK 9( a ')> as Matt. viii. 20 OVK
?Xet TTOV TT]V K<f>a\rjv /cAtvjy (equiv. to he knows not etc.), Mark viii.
1, 2 OVK fyovo-iv TL <ay(oo-iv, Luke xii. 17 OVK ^to TTOV <rwao> TOVS Kap-
TTOVS. Cf. 1 Cor. XV. 2 TLVL Aoyw evrjyy e \LO-dfJirjv vu2v ct /car^ere. On
the other hand the construction is regular in Luke xi. 6 OVK l^to o TTCL-
paOrjo-(D avTw, Heb. viii. 3 c^eii/ TL o Trpoo-cveyK^. The indirect question
after this predicate is the more admissible, as \ tv ^ s ver y often con-
strued with the Infinitive, after the manner of verba sentiendi etc.
(OVK l^ovo-tv avTCLTrooovvai voi Luke xiv. 14, etc.) ; hence both modes
of expression are united: Acts xxv. 26 do-^aAe? ypdif/ai OVK e^w
. . . OTTWS o-^ai TL ypd\f/<0. After the analogy of this verb still other
verbs are found construed in the N. T., as Matt. x. 19 So^crtrrat v^lv
ri AaA^o-ere (equiv. to ye will have etc.), Luke xvii. 8 eroc/xao'oi' TI
oLTTvr)o-w (brachylogically equiv. to that I may have what etc.). Cf. on
this topic Bhdy. p. 443 ; and among the passages from Greek authors,
Plut. Mor. p. 606 C. o-v TI Kpeas Aeyeis Trotets, ov TL vovv e^wv avOpwTros,
Callim. Ep. 30 (and Bentley's note), Schol. on Soph. Oed. Col. 3. In
the Sept. also the usage is not unknown, as Deut. xxix. 18 ; Ps.
xxxix. 6.
Moreover, the following passages come into consideration here :
Matt. xxvi. 62 and Mark xiv. 60 ov8o> aTroKptvry, TI OVTOI crov Kara/xap-
rvpovo-iv ; Hardly is rt to be taken here in a purely relative sense
(equiv. to o, Vulg. ad ea guae). That something must be supplied
here is obvious, as a direct reference of TI to ovSei/ is impossible. It
is most simple to supply a verbal idea like to hear, so that the abbre-
viated thought if rendered grammatically complete would run : an-
252 H. INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES. [ 139.
swerest thou nothing (hearing) what these witness against, thee ? cf.
151, 25 p. 395. That the ancients, too, construed the passage in
this way is apparent from the manner in which the .Evang. Nicod.
(Pars I. B) 2. 1 as it were paraphrases the words : Atyei 6
'A K O V I S TL OVTOL (TOV KOLTafAapTVpOlXTlV) KOL OVK OLTTOKplVr). ActS
25 Tdf. [eds. 2,7] riva (Lchm. [Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin.] TL)
clVai, OVK ei/ou eyu>. Here the first clause in its dependence on the lead-
ing clause is decidedly relative, hence according to rule instead of TWO.
strictly ov ought to have stood ; but, instead of this, the first clause
has retained the form which it would have had if not in dependence,
217 viz. the form of an interrogative clause. Obviously the placing of the
dependent clause before the leading clause occasioned the anomaly.
Similar is Jas. iii. 13 TI'S <ro<os /ecu riem7/xo>i/ cv fyuv, Seiarco TO. cpya
avTov etc. Here the first clause is commonly taken as an independent
direct question, and accordingly an interrogation mark placed after
vfA.lv. But the disruption of clauses produced in this way, as well as
the wholly unprovoked asyndetic transition to Set^ctrw without any sub-
ject, renders it probable that the two clauses are to be separated (with
Lchm.) only by a comma. Then an inversio structurae (cf. 151,8-1 1
pp. 381 sqq.) has taken place here as in the preceding example. The
direct interrogative form of the first clause, occasioned by its precedence
and retained by the immediate proximity of such a predicate as Sei&mo,
passed (owing to the construction that follows) naturally over into the
force of the kindred relative clause ; (cf. the Germ, wer when it pre-
cedes). Lastly, Mark xiv. 36 dAA.' ov TL eyo> tfe'Aw, dXXa ri crv is trans-
lated in the Vulg. by the relative : quod volo, and accordingly a pre-
dicate like yevecr0u> was as a rule supplied. But neither the meaning
nor the form of the sentence permits such an addition. On the con-
trary, the direct negation (ov) as well as the pronoun TL render an
ellipsis in harmony with an indirect interrogation (Fritzsche, quaeritur;
Meyer, the question is) apparently more justifiable.
59 But indubitable instances of the opposite case also occur, viz. in
which the Relative or indirect form of interrogation is employed
in a decidedly direct interrogative sentence. To be sure,
all constructions of the sort (like most of the preceding examples) are
founded in a faulty or negligent treatment of the forms of phraseology
established by the literary language ; and hence the occurrence par-
ticularly of this second case in native Greek writers has been emphat-
ically disputed (see Bhdy. p. 443 ; Schaef. on Demos, p. 1199). Nev-
ertheless, after what Lobeck (ad Phryn. p. 57) has adduced, all such
irregularities in earlier writers can hardly be set aside by arbitrary
emendation ; and to supply a verbum sentiendi and the like in every
individual case, would amount to nothing else than giving the force of
139.J THE MOODS. 253
direct questipn to the Relative form (see Ph. Buttm. on Plat. Meno.
6). Thus in the N. T. an instance, textually quite unquestionable, is
Matt, xx vi. 50 i7rev aurar 'Ertupc, t<f> o Trctpet; (Vulg. ad quod venisti ?).
Since elsewhere, neither in the N. T. nor, according to Lobeck's ex-
press testimony, in profane authors also is any example to be found of
the simple relative so used (but only of the compound oorts), the
interpreters have objected to taking this l<j> o in the sense of cVt TI, and
sought to remove the irregularity of the expression by the assumption
of an aposiopesis ; but this here would be likewise irregular (cf. 151
V. p. 396), and is quite at variance also with the character of the
passage, in which there is no motive for leaving the thought incom-
plete. We reach the natural and only congruous interpretation of the
words solely by the assumption of the faulty use of o in the sense of
an interrogatory exclamation, a use, however, which does not seem
to be more faulty than the use of rts spoken of in 58 p. 251, and in
view of the examples which follow is by no means without analogy.
1 H A. i K o s is loosely used in an interrogative exclamatory sense in
Jas. iii. 5 ISov, fjXiKov Trvp r}\iia)v vXyv avairrei. Cf. the Homeric usage
in B. 139, m. 35 a. p. 373.
In particular, however, is to be traced to the later use of the rel. 21 3
pron. ooris in direct questions (see Lobeck and cf. Apollon. Adv. p.
550) the fact that often in the N. T. o, Tt in the sense of TI or Sta TI
wherefore ? (Tdf. [so Treg.l writes it then without the diastole on)
stands at the head of a direct question ; see Lchm. praef. p. xliii. ;
Epist. Barn. pp. 16, 18, 20 ed. Dress. The passages are the follow-
ing : Mark ix. 11 CTnypumov Aeyoi/res "O,rt Aeyowtv ot ypa^/xaret?, OTI
"HXtav Set \0tv TrpojTov ; 28 eViypajTwv avrbv "O, n rj/Jifls OVK r)8vvr}0r)/j,v
e/c/JaAeu/ avro (Euthym. : TO o, TI O.VTL rov Sta r L etc., which is actually
given by several MSS. see Tdf.'s crit. note), Mark ii. 16 Tdf. [Treg.J
"O,Tt /xeTa TOJV d//.apTioAo>v ecr$iei /cat Trivet, ; Probably also John viii.
25 L7Tv o 'Irjo-ovs Tr)v apx*7 v o? Tt KC " AaAw vfuv ; Commonly this
clause is taken not as a question, but by construing OTI as a pure rela-
tive. But even the ancient Greek interpreters took o, Tt here in the
sense of Sia Tt, which best suits the passage ; see on the whole passage,
which is exegetically very difficult, Liicke's Com. "O, Tt is found
besides as a noteworthy variant in Mark ii. 7. Matt. vii. 1 4 also must
be taken into consideration. Here Tdf. has restored the original read-
ing of the Vat. codex [and Sin.], confirmed also by Origen, OTI crrer*/
17 TrvXr] etc., and has not treated the clause as a question, but taken the
OTI as parallel to the first oVt in the 13th vs. in the sense of for. The
most natural sense, however, is given by the old reading Tt [so Lchm.
Treg.] with the force of an exclamation (Vulg. quam), although else-
where, in the N. T. at least, TI is not used in this way ; see Meyer. If
254 H. INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES. [ 139
the reading on is genuine, this also (in view of the use just treated of,
and that of the Sept. immediately following) may be taken in an ex-
clamatory sense. Yet, owing to the want of precedents from other
quarters, a positive decision in this passage cannot be given just yet.
In the Sept. also the use of OTI in the sense of Sia TL is found ; as,
1 Chron. xvii. 6 *O, TI OVK w/coSo^o-are /xot ot/cov Ke'Spivov ; compared
with the parallel passage in 2 Sam. (vii. 7) Iva. ri OVK wKoSo/njKare etc. ;
and the Heb. rr? , which in 2 Sam. vi. 20 and Cant. vii. 6 is translated
by TL (with exclamatory force) , is rendered in Jer. ii. 3 6 by o, TI (in
the same signification) : o, TL Karec^povrcras crc^oSpa TOV Scvrepaxrai ras
6807;? (TOV, cf. also Herm. Vis. iii. 10 sub fin., Evang. Nicod. xiv. 3. On
the combination TI on see 149, 3 p. 358.
60 As respects Mood, both with direct and indirect questions
the construction with the Indicative is by far the most com-
mon. As this usage, which again springs from the predilection
for direct forms of statement (hence the Present Indie, is so
often used even in narration after historical tenses), is ren-
dered sufficiently familiar by classic Greek, only a few exam-
ples need be given here : Luke vi. 7 TraperypovvTo avrov, el ev
TO) a-afi/Bdra) Oepcnrevei, John x. 6 OVK eyvwcrav rlva r]v a e'XaXet,
ix. 25 ; Acts x. 18 e-jrwddvovro el ^l/jicov evOu&e feWferat, Mark
viii. 23 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.]. Respecting Luke xi. 35 see
above, 49 p. 243. In dependent discourse, consequently, the
Indicative in most of tbe N. T. authors takes completely the
place of the Optative, which in this case (according to what
219 was said above, 11 p, 215) still appears only in the writings of
Luke: Gospel i. 29 SieXojL&ro TroraTro? etij, iii. 15; viii. 9;
xv. 26 ; xviii. 36 ; xxii. 23 ; Actsii. 12 Sin. ; xvii. 11 ; xxv. 20 ;
xxi. 33 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.]. See further 62 below, p. 256.
The mood of subjective opinion which in Greek authors so often
comes into use in these clauses, viz. the Optative with ai/, is found
(agreeably to 17 p. 217) likewise only in Luke: in direct question,
Acts xvii. 18; viii. 31, in indirect, Luke i. 62; vi. 11; ix. 46;
Acts v. 24; x. 17; according to Tdf.'s text [eds. 2, 7] also ii. 12;
xvii. 20 ; xxi. 33 ; as a variant in Luke xv. 26 [Treg.] ; xviii. 36.
61 On the other hand, after what has been said in 11 p. 215.
and 18 p. 218, it will be easily understood that most of the
remaining N. T. writers give admission in these sentences, iu
addition to the Indicative, to the construction with the Sub-
junctive ; here therefore in the form of the Conjunct, dubita-
tivus or deliberativus (2 p. 208). This Subjunctive construe-
139.] THE MOODS. 255
tion they employ both with direct and indirect questions ;
particularly, too, after historical tenses, where classic usage
would certainly have availed itself of the Optative with or
without av.
That this Subjunctive is interchanged with the Fut. Indic-
ative has already been remarked, 2 p. 208. Still more fre-
quently, however, the fluctuation of the MSS. (and editions),
often alluded to, between the forms (externally differing but
slightly) of the 1st Aor. Subjunct. and the Fut. Indie., may be
observed here also.
As the examples of this Subjunctive in direct questions have already
been given in 2 p. 208, we will only exhibit here (by adducing a
number of passages) the extent of the usage in indirect interroga-
tion (yet commonly by means of the direct interrogative word) :
a) The Subjunctive, after leading tenses : Matt. vi. 25 ^ ^ept/zvare
rt ^ay^re, xv. 32; viii. 20; Mark vi. 36; viii. 1, 2; xiii. 11; Luke
xii. 5, 11, 22, 29 ; John xii. 49, etc.; after historical tenses: Mark
ix. 6; xiv. 1, 11 T}T TTOJS avrov TrapaSot (see 37 p. 233), 14, 40;
Luke xxii. 2, 4; Acts iv. 21, etc.
b) The Future Indicative, after leading tenses : Matt. xxiv. 3 ;
Mark xiii. 4 ; ] Cor. vii. 1 6 ; after historical tenses (which takes
place again as in 55 p. 248, 60 p. 254, in consequence of the discourse
passing over into the direct form) : John xxi. 19 ; Markiii. 2 [Tdf. reads
the Pres.], with which, according to 137, 10 p. 203, also the passages
with p\ofj.aL, vTrdya) and similar Presents may be reckoned, as Luke
xvii. 20 ; Mark xiii. 35 ; John iii. 8, etc. Cf. Eph. v. 15 ; 1 Cor. iii. 10.
c) Both forms in one sentence: Matt. x. 19 [Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin.
Subjunct. bis]. The recent editors are divided between the two
forms in Mark ix. 6 [yet Treg. Tdf. now Subjunct. with Lchm. ; so
cod. Sin.], Rom. viii. 26 [all now Subjunct., so cod. Sin.], 1 Cor. vii.
32 sq. [ditto] ; and moreover the MSS. vary in many passages, as
Matt. viii. 20; x. 19; Mark xi. 18; Luke xii. 36; xix. 48; Phil. i.
22, etc.
The clauses that belong under this head with OTTWS after such predi-
cates as {flreiv, (Tv/j.(3ov\.Lov Troteti/, TrapttT^peiv, etc., have already been
included in the previous sections (8 p. 214, 37 sqq. p. 233 sqq.).
B. 139, m. 66 ; J. 877 Obs. 5 ; U. p. 156. 220
Sometimes in Greek a clause placed after a leading clause is yet to 63
be regarded as dependent on a verbum sentiendi understood, like
the Homeric at K TV^W/XI, at K TridrjraL (see reff.), the prosaic edV Trios,
the Latin si forte, the Germ, ob etwa, (to see) whether possibly etc.
256 GENERAL REMARKS ON THE MOODS. [ 139
Several corresponding constructions connected with various conjunc-
tions are found in the N. T., commonly with the Subjunctive or
the Future in its stead, in Luke (after historical tenses) with the
Optative also. An example with ct KCU and the Subjunct. has
already been mentioned 22 p. 221 : Phil. iii. 12 SIWKW, ei /cat
further, with t TTCOS: Phil. iii. ll((rv//yAop(/Ho/Ai/o<;), et TTWS
19 rrjv e^avao-rao-tv (probably also a Subjunctive), Rom. xi. 14 ryv 3ta-
Koviav fjiov 8oaa>, ti TTCOS Trapa^AcoTO) fJiov TTJV crap/ca KCU (TWO-CO Ttvas e
, Acts xxvii. 12 (tQevro (3ov\r]V dva^^i/ai), et TTWS Swaivro Trapa-
with ei apa: Mark xi. 13 tSobt/ CTVK^V ^Xtfcv, ct apa TI tv-
iv avrfj, Acts xvii. 27(e7rotr;crev etc.), t apa yc
Under this head belongs also the clause with the negative interrog-
ative /xrj TTOTC (55 p. 248) and the Subjunct. 2 Tim. ii. 25 Set rpiov
tvat . . . , fjLrf TTOTC 8w>; (better 8<3, Tdf. [Treg. Sin. ?] Saw; ; cf. 37 note
p. 233) avrots 6 $eo<> p.f.ravoiav i.e. waiting to see whether God may
not perchance give etc. ; as well as the similar constructions after
Set<70ai to pray: Acts viii. 22 Ser^ri rov 0eov, et apa
crot etc. Rom. i. 10 8eo/x.evos, ct TTCOS y8r) TTO
GENERAL REMARKS ON THE MOODS.
B. 139, m. 67; H. 728. 729; C. 617; J. 410-414; G. App. I.
63 From the entire course of the preceding exposition of the
use of the Moods in the N. T., we derive with confidence the
four following particular conclusions :
1) That the law respecting consecutio temporum so called,
(in Greek more correctly modorum), viz. that in dependent
clauses leading tenses are followed by the Subjunctive, histori-
cal tenses by the Optative, does not apply at all to the great
majority of the N. T. writings, and retains but a limited appli-
cation even in the writings of Luke. In Luke the Optative
is fctill recognized as the dependent mood after historical
tenses only in certain conditional sentences (24 p. 223), in indi-
rect question (60, 62 p. 253 sq.), and once after irplv r? (33 p.
231) ; but in all other dependent clauses it is no longer current.
2) That the SubjuiiCtive (or its substitute the Future)
to a great extent supplies the place of the disappearing or
wanting Optative as a dependent mood, and also of the Opta-
tive with av as the mood of subjective assertion (cf. 7, 8,
11, 18, 21, 29, 33, 34, 37 sqq., 61 sq.).
3) That the inclination, which begins to appear even in
221 classic authors, to substitute the form of direct discourse fot
139.] THE MOODS. 257
the indirect (agreeably to which the clauses of transition to
indirect discourse often stand in the Indicative of that
tense which would have been employed in direct discourse^
has come in the N. T. to possess still more general sway (see
21, 29, 36, 51, 60) ; and further, as the result of this,
4) That the discourse often bounds quite out of the indirect
form into the direct (see B. 139, m. 69), a transition
which strictly speaking involves in every instance a variatio
structurce, and hence, with other similar cases, will receive
particular consideration again under this heading below, 151,
11 p. 385. Here belongs the frequent use of direct discourse
after on (51 p. 245), the less common direct interrogation
after el (55 p. 248), and the Imperative after iva and ore (37
p. 234, 53 p. 246).
THE IMPERATIVE.
B. 139, m. 72 ; H. 723 cf. 710 a. ; C. 655 cf. 597 ; D. pp. 649 sqq. ; J. 420 cf. 413, 2 ;
G. 84 sqq. cf. p. 37.
Of the periphrastic modes of expressing the Imperative, the 64
categoric by means of the Future Indicative and the
direct negative ov is not uncommon in the N.T. Although
a similar construction occurs also in Greek writers, and else-
where too, owing to the close relationship between the two
forms of time (see Fritzsche on Matt. v. 48), yet the usage, so
far forth as the Imperative is actually in this way peri-
phrased, is in the N.T. at least derived from the Septuagint.
For we must here consider, a) that the construction occurs almost
exclusively in literal quotations from the O. T. ; and b) that the
expression in these quotations is for the most part negative, which
is solely owing to the circumstance that the Imperative in Hebrew is
not negatived, but the Future is used instead (see Gesen. Lehrg. 771
[Gr. 125, 3 c.]), and this subsequently was literally translated by the
Sept. ; e.g. ov 0ov7;cret9, ov /xot^evoreis Matt v. 27, 1 OVK e/CTrapacrets Kvpiov,
OVK e7ri$u/u,7}o-is, etc. More rarely does this use of the Future occur
without a negation : and rather in continuation of other Futures
already negatived (e.g. from the Sept. of Lev. xix. 12), as Matt. v. 33
(quotn.) OVK 7riopK^<Tig, aTToSwcrei? Se TO) Kvpi'a) rovs op/covs <rov, or of
the Imperative, Matt. xix. 19 rt/xa TOJ/ Trarepa KOL /x^repa, /cat dyaTr^crcis
rov 7r\r)o~iov etc. ; or with a certain difference of tone, as Matt. vii. 5
e/c/3aAe Trp&rov . . . , /cat rare Sia/3Ai//ets e/c/SaAetv etc. (The un-negatived
1 On the other hand, in free reference the common Greok construction is em-
ployed : /ATJ (fxweutnjs, ^ /j.oixev<rps Mark x. 19 ; Luke xviii 20.
253 THE IMPERATIVE. [140.
Fifth Commandment is always in the Imperative : ri/xa TOV Traripa
etc., side by side with the other negatived ones in the Future, just as
in the Sept.)
65 From this Hebraistic circumlocution for the Imperative we
222 must carefully distinguish the classic Greek circumlocution,
externally quite the same, viz. also by means of the Future
negatived by ou, but in the form of a question; in this way
the Greek expressed not a negative (as in the preceding case),
but a positive command. This circumlocution, favorite with
classic writers (see reff. and B. 137 N. 6), is found however
but once, and that too in Acts xiii. 10 ov Travo-y Siao-rpefywv ra?
68ouv /cvpiov ; wilt thou not cease ? i.e. cease.
On the common periphrasis of the Imperative by means of the Aor.
Subjunct., and that peculiar to the N. T. by means of the elliptical Iva,
see 6 p. 211 and 47 p. 241 ; and on the Imperative as a rhetorical
substitute for a hypothetical clause or a participle, see 28 p. 227
above and 144, 2 p. 290, after Iva, fore, OTI, Nos. 37, 50, 53.
THE INFINITIVE.
B. 140, 1 ; H. 763, 764; C. 663; D. 684 sq. ; J. 662-666; G. Chap. V.
1 The Infinitive as the subject of a sentence with such predicates
as Set, KaXbv eo-TLv, Trpoarj/cei, etc., and further as the complement
of an incomplete predicate idea, as after the ideas to be wont, to
be able, to be willing, etc., is very common, and needs no further
illustration. As predicates with an Infin. following which
are especially current in the later or biblical language, we may
notice fyjreiv to seek, endeavor (this occurs even in Demosth.,
e.g. Lept. p. 495, 497), afyikvai to permit (on the construc-
tion with the Subjunctive alone after a</>9 see 139, 4 p. 210),
SeSorat, e^oOrj (cf. 4 below, p. 261) av-ra) ryvwvau etc., for which
the Apocalypse prefers to let a clause with Iva, follow, ac-
cording to 139, 43 p. 238).
It follows from what was said 139, 11 sqq. p. 215, that after the
ideas to request (with which in the N. T. eporrav belongs), to command,
to exhort, and the like, the Infinitive can indeed stand (most frequently
so, always in Greek style, in the writings of Luke ; as, with
Acts iii. 3, Seta&u xxvi. 3, Trapaiveu/ xxvii. 22, often after
also in Paul's writings, etc.), but in its stead, agreeably to Hellenistic
or Common Greek usage elsewhere, a periphrasis by means of the
Conjunction tva is wont to make its appearance.
On Ke\v'eu> see 141, 5 p. 275.
140.] THE INFINITIVE AFTER SUBSTS. AND ADJS. 259
B. 140, N.I; H. 711; C. 598.660; D. p. 580; J. 408; G. p. 38.
The Infinitive Future after verbs whose idea has ref- 2
erence to the Future is little used, viz. only a few times after
fjLe\\eiv in the Acts. The N. T. language employed instead
either the Iiifin. Aorist (so especially after e\7r/Je;) or the
Infin. Present (so almost always after /zeXAe^). Where the
future is to be designated more distinctly, on with the Indie.
Future regularly makes its appearance.
Examples of /xe'XActv with the Present Infin. are found every- 22
where, see the lexx. ; with the Future Infin. (eo-eo-flcu) Acts xi. 28 ;
xxiii. 30 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] ; xxiv. 15 (25 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7]) ; xxvii. 10;
with the Aorist Infin. Acts xii. 6; Gal. iii. 23; Rev. iii. 2, 16; xii. 4;
Matt. xx. 22 Vat.
Examples of the Aorist Infin. after eA.7rieii>, and that too (ac-
cording to 139, 20 p. 219) uniformly without ai/, are frequent; see
the lexx. The Future Infin. is found once as a variant of cod. B in
Acts xxvi. 7 ; on the other hand on with the Future Indicative occurs
in Acts xxiv. 26; 2 Cor. i. 13; xiii. 6; Philem. 22.
B. 140,2; H. 767; C. 663g.; D. 586; J. 667; G. 93.
The simple Infinitive dependent on a substantive or an
adjective belongs to the rarer constructions of the N. T.,
other constructions being as a rule preferred in its- stead, e.g.
iva with the Subjunct., wore with the Infin. (see p. 244), et? TO
followed by the Infin., the Infin. with TOV (see below, p. 266 sq.).
The classic mode of expression with the simple Infin. is found most
frequently in the Ep. to the Heb. (cf. Introd. p. 1 sq.) ; as, iv. 1 /cara-
A.ei7ro/zer>7<; eTrayyeXta? eicreA^etv (Vulg. introeundi) ts rrjv /caraTravcnv
avrov, vi. 10 OVK aSi/cos 6 $eos, c7riA.a$cr#ai TOV Ipyov vpwv (Vulg. ut
obliviscatur), v. 11 Aoyos (Wep/i-rji/evros Xeyeii/ (Vulg. ininterpretabilis
ad dicendum). Here belongs also the phrase o>ra O.KOVCW in Mark
and Luke ; in Matt. cod. Vat. fand in xiii. 9, 43 cod. Sin. also] omits
the Infin. adjunct ; so Tdf. also, [Trsg. puts it in brackets].
In other cases when the Infinitive stands after substantives
and adjectives, these latter constitute, together with a verb of
some sort, an incomplete verbal idea of which the Infin. con-
tains the necessary complement (Infin. expletivus).
Thus, for example, xpeiav l^oo /SaTmo-^rJvai, a7reA.$etv, ypa<v, ypa-
0ecr$ai, etc., instead of the common Set, Trpcxr^Kei followed by the Ace.
and the Infin., Matt. iii. 14; 1 Thess. iv. 9 l ; v. 1, etc.,
1 In this passage authorities are equally divided between xp*' iav X eT (Rec.
Grsb. [Tdf. Treg. N*]), and xpeiav ^xP- ev (Lchm.) ypd<peiv fyui/. Since th
260 THE INFINITIVE. [ 140.
irapa KatVapos (equiv. to K. e/ce'Xevo-ev) airoypoifacrOai Tcaarav ryv OIKOV
fj.evr)v Luke ii. 1, e860r} f) \apts avTr] (equiv. to t^apicr^ or simply looOrj
see 1 p. 258) cwyycAicrao-flai Eph. iii. 8, o<eiA.T77s ecrriV (equiv. to
6<f>ftXfi) Troirjcrai Gal. V. 3, iyf.vf.TO op//,?) r&v 'louSatwv (equiv. to ot 'lou-
Saloi a)p/x,7y(ravTo) vfipLaai Acts xiv. 5, dp/ceres ecrrtv (equiv. to dpKei) 6
TraptXrjXvOus ^poi/os xaTfipyaorOaL 1 Pet. iv. 3. Hence the Infin. is
quite common after such predicates as (.^ova-Lav t^eti/ (1 Cor. ix. 4, 5, 6
224 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.J), /caipov exeiv, Swards ct/xt, dSwaroV eo-Tiv, 1/cavds
ei/Lti, e^ovo-ta (sc. eo-Tiv Rev. ix 10), as they all stand for the ideas to be
able, to be unable, to be in a condition, etc. After the same analogy,
but more free, is 1 Cor. vii. 39 (rj yvvrj) fXf.v6f.pa. eoriv ui OfXti yafj.r]0rjvai ;
further o>pa iariv with the Infin. in Rom. xiii. 1 1 wpa rfirj ^aq e VTTVOV
fycpOrjvai (Vulg. correctly : hora est surgere, not surgendi}, Rev. xiv. 15
wpa r)\6fv ^cptcrat crot/xo's ei/xt, agio's ei/xi etc. After all these predicates,
however, the other and above-mentioned constructions also were wont
more or less to appear instead of the simple Infinitive ; see above.
REMARK. In Greek authors the syntactical license mentioned in
B. note 2 p. 384, viz. of letting a Genitive (a noun) and an Infinitive
(a verb) depend simultaneously upon one and the same substan-
tive, although the noun standing in the Gen. strictly speaking belongs
to the Infin. (and consequently ought to stand in the Ace.), is by no
means rare (see Kuhner, ausf. Gr. [ed. 1] II. p. 610 [J. II. p. 642]).
An instance of it occurs in Rev. xi. 18 yXOtv f) opyrj o-ov /cat 6 *aip6s
rwv vtKpwv KpiOrjvai /cat Sowai etc., consequently for the regular rj\0ev
6 icatpo? TOV TOVS vKpov<s KpL6f)va.i. 1 Rom. ix. 21 t\ci e^ovcrtW TOV
iriqXov fK TOV avTov ^>vpd/xaros Troojcrai etc. is of another sort ; here we
can either make TOV TnjXov depend on ^vpd/xaros, or refer both words,
the noun and the verb, to f&vcriav, yet so that the Infin. serves epexe-
getically to explain the substantive.
earlier reading is the more difficult on account of the Active Infin., and a com-
parison with v. 1 (ypdtyfffOai) may easily have occasioned the correction exof^fv,
deWette and Tdf. have returned to it. The use of the Active Infin. for the Passive
is thoroughly established (cf. TO SeWro fiireiv and the like, B. 140, 2; J 667,
obs. 5), and occurs accidentally with the same phrase xP e ' Laif *X elv (but followed
by an Infin. with TOV) in Heb. v. 12 xp*' iav X T T v SiSaV/ce"' v/mas (if with the
majority we put a comma after V/JLUS, see 13 below, p. 268 not 2 As xp f ' iai/ X etl/
in the signification to need (which predominates here as in v. 1; hence in both
instances ex* T*) according to 132, 12 p. 164 takes the place of the impersonals
SeTetc., it shares with them also the same constructions of nouns and verbs (i.e.
Genitive and simple Infinitive).
1 Very probably, in accordance with the style of the Apocalypse, the absolute
Accusative also which follows according to the MSB. [Sin. also] (Lchm. [Treg.]),
TOVS fjiiKpovs Kal rovs nryaXovs, is to be referred to the pervasive force of this leading
predicate (to be punished, judged) ; since, Kaip6s being so far off, instead of the
Genitive the subject Accus. ( 141) could or must now make its appearance.
140.] THE ARTICLE WITH THE INFINITIVE. 261
B. 140,3; H. 765; C. 663h.; D. 607; J. 669; G. 97.
After complete predicate ideas also the simple Infinitive 4
(but always alternating with the periphrastic constructions
mentioned 3 p. 259) is still employed very frequently in the
N. T., as in classic authors, to express the design or de-
signed result (where in Latin the gerundial construction
is commonly used).
This occurs most frequently after verbs which express a motion
or direction whither (cf. below, 16y) p. 270), as rjXflo/xcv irpoo--
Matt. ii. 2, ri c^X^are iSeti/ Matt. xi. 8 sq. ; Luke vii. 25 sq.,
-erai eTrwrr/oei^at KapStas Trarepwv Luke i. 17, rj\@ov KaraXOo-ai
Matt. v. 17, paTTTiaOfjvai Luke iii. 12, eio-TyXtfev Xpicrros . . . Ifji<f>a.vi(r6r)va.i
VTrep fjfJLwv Heb. ix. 24, TI'S dra/^crcrai . . . Xpicrroi/ Karayayetv Rom. X. 6,
7, avq-^Q-r] ts rrp tprjfJLOv . . . ireLpacrOrjvai Matt. iv. 1, dTroo-reXXet avrovs
KTjpva-oreiv Mark iii. 14; cf. 1 Cor. i. 17; x. 7 (quotn.) etc. and similar pre-
dicates, as SiSovat: eStoKare /xot (^ayetv Matt. XXV. 35, tSoj/cav aura)
oos xxvii. 34 (Pass. ciTrev SoOrjvai avrrj ^ayetv Mark v. 43 etc.), /c
TO 7rveyxa eStSov aTro^^eyyeo-^at aurots Acts ii. 4; Xa/xySavetv: Mark
vii. 4 aAAa TToXXa a 7rapeXa/5o^ Kparetv ; but also after those in which
the idea of motion recedes more : Acts v. 31 TOVTOV dpx^y^ K0 "
v<j>(D(Tv . . . , 8oi)i/ai /xeravoiav, XV. 1 rt Treipa^ere TOI/ ^ew, 7rt^cti/at
etc., 2 Pet. iii. 2 Steyeipoo ii/xtov r^v ciXtKptv^ Siavotai/, /mvrja-OfjvaL (Vulg.
w memores sitis). Paul, too, avails himself not infrequently of this 225
Infinitive to denote design (cf. 10 below, p. 264) ; as, 2 Cor. x. 13, 16;
xi. 2 ; Col. i. 22 ; iv. 6, etc.
B. 140, N. 4; H. 772; C. 665; D. 607 a. Obs. ; J. 662,5; G. 100.
Examples of the use of the Infinitive in parenthetic clauses, 5
except the phrase o>s en-os eiTmv (once in Heb. vii. 9) borrowed from
the rhetorical classic usage, are not found.
THE ARTICLE (r6) WITH THE INFINITIVE.
B. 140,5; H. 778; C. 664; J. 678 cf. 670; G. 90; 96.
The Infinitive may take the Article (TO), and it acquires 6
in this way not only the appearance, but to a certain degree
also the nature, of a substantive, inasmuch as it is declined,
serves as the subject or object of a clause, and sometimes (in
addition to the article) is still more closely limited by pronouns ;
as, 2 Cor. vii. 11 avrb TOVTO TO fcaja Oeov \v7r7j6rjvaL
KareipydaaTO crTrouS^z/, Heb. ii. 15 Sea Travrbs rov tfiv
r]<jav SoiAe/a?. In other respects the Infinitive uniformly re-
tains its verbal nature ; since, as may be seen from numerous
262 THE INFINITIVE. [ 14Q
examples, it does not as in other languages (e.g. Germ. Ital.)
take the attributive adjuncts of a substantive (in the fcrm of
Genitives or Adjectives), but always and without change the
constructions which go with a verb as such, (and placed gen-
erally between the Article and the Infinitive).
REMARK. Only the Infin. f)v seems to have been early construed
quite as a substantive (like oj) ; hence we find it not only connected
with an Adjective in the above passage from Hebrews, and frequently
in the Ep. of Ign. ad Eph. written about A.D. 100 : TO aXrjOwov ^v
(Cap. xi.), e/c TOV Trpo/cci/xevov Zfiv (Cap. xvii.), but even with the Gen-
itive : Ep. Ign. ad Magn. I (^/xoiv), V (avrou) ; ad Smyrn. IV TO
aXrjOivbv
B. 140, 6 a. and b., and N. 6; H. 778; C. 664; J. 678; G. 96.
7 The Infinitive, rendered a substantive by means of the
Article, is wont to stand
a) As the Subject of a clause in general sentences ;
Examples are pretty numerous. The predicate is as a rule a noun
(subst., adj., pron.), with or without the copula, as TrXtLov, KaAoV,
aicr^pdv, Trepioxrov, dvayKaioVepoi/, ^oySepdi/, XptcrTOS, /ccpSos, TL io~T(v
(Mark ix. 10 ; Phil. i. 21, etc.), less frequently a verb, as Matt. xv. 20
TO avLTTTOLS \f.po~iv <j>ayLv ov KOIVO? TOV av^pojTrov, Rom. vii. 18 TO 6f.kf.iv
7rapaKlTai fJiOL, TO & KOLTpyOL^O~Oa.L TO KQ.\OV OV, Phil. i. 29 Vfj2v ^aptO"^
TO ... TTlCTTCVetV CtC.
REMARK. After a preparatory Demonstrative in the leading
clause the Infin. following stands according to rule (B. 140 N. 5)
without the Art., the place of which is supplied by the demonstra-
tive ; as, Jas. i. 27 @prjo~KLa KaOapa. avTrj eoViv, e7no-K7rreo-$ai etc., Eph.
in. 8 (see 3 p. 260), 1 Thess. iv. 3 TOVTO eoriv BeX-q^a TOV Oeov . . . ,
airlx^o-OaL v/xas OLTTO T^< Tropvcta?, etSeVcu etc., where, however, subse-
quently (vs. 6) for perspicuity's sake, after the intervention of several
lengthy specifications, the last Infin. again takes the Article : TO prj
vTTfpfiaLvtLv etc. Cf. with this the examples in B. I.e. N. 6.
g b) As the Object of the clause, if the Infinitive is not a
mere complementary predicate of an incomplete verbal idea
226 ( e -g- &7Ttz/, fiovteaQat,, etc.), but is to be regarded as the real
object of the predicate in the clause, and consequently serves
as a circumlocution for an abstract substantive, so far forth as
that is the object of the clause.
Examples of this construction also are numerous enough : Matt.
XX. 23 and Mark x. 40 TO KaOio-ai . . . OVK IOTIV eyu,oi/ Sowat, Acts xxv
11 ov Trapairov/Acu TO a.iro6a.vflv (death), Roq\ xiii. 8 6<^>tXcT TO
140.] THE INFIN. AFTER PREPOSITIONS. 263
A.OVS ayairav (reciprocal love), 1 Cor. xiv. 39 (prophecy, speaking with
tongues), 2 Cor. viii. 10, 11 ; Phil. ii. 13 (the willing and the per-
formance), ii. 6 (equality with God), iv. 10 (your care for me). In
Phil. i. 22 also the term aiprjcro/uai is to be supplied from what follows.
In 2 Cor. x. 2 Seo/xai TO fir) Trapwv Bapprjaai etc. Paul has employed
this mode of expression in a bold, almost violent, yet very expressive
way : literally, I entreat (viz. of you) the not being obliged to be severe,
i.e. I pray you not to force me to severe proceedings against you
(when I arrive in Corinth). In other passages the text varies, as in
1 Thess. iii. 3 where Lchm. Tdf. Treg. have adopted the Ace. (TO [so
cod. Sin.]) in place of the former Dat., so that now TO /x^SeVa o-aivccr^at
depends immediately on Trapa/caAeom ; 1 so in Acts iv. 18 where Lchm.
[and Tdf.] (after B [*]), and in Luke vii. 21 where all three editors
omit TO.
REMARK. In this case (cf. 7 Rem. p. 262) after a preparatory
demonstrative the insertion of the Article with the following Infinitive
seems, so far as the few passages will permit us to form a judgment, to
have been more usual : Rom. xiv. 13 rovro KpwaTt /xoAAov, TO firj
Trpoo-Ko/x/xa TU> dSeA^xp, 2 Cor. ii. 1 expo/a e/xavT(3 TOVTO, TO jj.r) 7raA.il/
etc. But without the Art. in 1 Cor. vii. 37.
B. 140, 5 c) ; H. 779 sq. ; C. 663; D. p. 598 sq. ; J. 678; G. 94.
The genuine Greek practice (which disappeared gradually
in later Greek) of subjoining to a clause adverbial adjuncts
(which in other languages are generally given by means of
entire subordinate clauses) by means of the Infinitive used
substantively and governed by a Preposition, is still in full
force in the N. T., at least in the better written portions. This
construction is employed most frequently by Luke, as well in
the Gospel as in the Acts, by the author of the Ep. to the Heb.,
also by Paul who has quite mastered it ; very rarely by John
(only four times in the Gospel), and never in the Apocalypse.
The (old) prepositions thus used are avrl, Std, eV, efc, /^era, TT/OO,
and Tr/oo?. In reference to their use we may note the following :
O.VTL, but once : Jas. iv. 15 avri rov Aeyeiv v/xas instead of etc.
8 1 a , only with the Accusative, instead of a subordinate causal clause
with because (quia, eo quod), is very common: Matt. xiii. 5, etc.
ev is used in two ways: 1) in a temporal sense, to denote con-
temporaneousness or duration, while, during ; as, Matt xiii. 4 v TO>
tnreipew avrbv a ^kv 7recrei> etc., 25 iv TW KdOevStw avrovs rj\6ev etc.,
1 According to Lchm., Reiske, Cobet (Praef. ad N. T. p. 90) we are to read
i.q. &x^ fcffiai , x a ^ f7r ^> s <t>epfw- [Cf.Valckenaer's Opusc. 11.246 sq.j.
264 THE INFINITIVE. [ 14Q
Acts xi. 15, etc. In ordinary prose, as in Latin, the construction of
the Gen. -absolute would have been preferred ; hence Luke who uses
this Infin. construction most frequently, particularly in connection with
iyivf.ro Se (see 141, 6 p. 276), unites both modes of expression with
227 the same sense in one sentence, as Luke iii. 21 eyeVero Se & r<5 /3a7m-
crOfjvai aTravra rbv Xaov *cat 'l^aou @a7rricr6evro<s ai/eur^rpcu rov ovpavov ;
or the Infin. with iv stands instead of an ordinary participial clause,
and the mode of expression appears still more strange (see on this
especially 141, 3 p. 274), as Luke X. 35 o, ri av Trpoo-oaTravrjoys, eyoj
iv TU> 7ravp^ecrOaL /xe (equiv. to e7rave\0u)v) a7roSa>cra> croi, Acts viii. 6
TTpoo-ct^oi/ 01 o^Xot ... iv T(3 OLKovfiv avTous feat /JAeVeiv (Vulg. dudientes
et videntes), Luke xi. 37 eV 8e rw XaX^o-at avrov (equiv. to ert AaAoiWa)
epwTa avrov <apicr(uos. It is not to be overlooked that the frequent
recurrence of this mode of expression in the Gospel of Luke con-
tributes essentially to distinguish its language from that of the Acts,
where we meet with it far more rarely. 2) to subjoin to the predicate
adverbial adjuncts in which iv preserves its proper or instrumen-
tal force (in, by), nearly for the Lat. Gerund in the Ablative or with
in and the Ablat. ; as, Acts iv. 29 86s rots 8ovXois o-ov . . . iv TO> ryv
Xpa <rov fKTcwctv etc., Heb. ii. 8 (Vulg. in eo quod), viii. 13 eV TW
Aeyciv 'a/7/i/' TrcTraAaiWei/ TTJV Trpurrjv (Vulg. dicendo). In other cases
it may appear doubtful (although the sense would be little affected
thereby) whether we should allow the instrumental force or the tem-
poral to predominate ; e.g. Luke i. 21 iOav^a^ov ev TW XP OV % LV o-vrov
iv TO) vttw (Vulg. mirabantur quod tardaret ; the ordinary construction
of Oavfjid^Lv however is with ri, see 133, 23 p. 185 ; 0av//,ae/ iv
also occurs in Ev. Thorn. 15, 2), Mark vi. 48 ^Sao-avt^o^tevovs iv TW
cAavra? (Vulg. in remigando), cf. Luke xii. 15 ; Acts iii. 26.
Rarely for the instrumental use of the Infin. we find the simple
Dative : 2 Cor. ii. 1 3 OUK to^Kd avto-tv TO) /XT) cvpctv /xe Ttrov. Re-
specting 1 Thess. iii. 3 see 8 p. 263, above.
10 eis followed by an Infin., a construction employed by Paul with
especial fondness (in Rom. alone seventeen times), serves 1) to state
the design, accordingly for Iva. and like ad with the Gerund in
Latin, either connecting itself immediately with the verb, as Matt.
XX. 19 TrapaSokrouo-ii/ avrov rot? IBvtcrw cts TO e/z7rcua6 (Vulg. ad inlu-
dendum), xxvi. 2 Trapaoioorai ets TO o-ravpuOrjvaL ( Vulg. ut cruci figatur ;
for which John, who never employs this construction, says, agreeably
to his usage, Iva oravpwflfj xix. 16; cf. 139, 40 p. 236), Heb. viii. 3
7ras apxtepcvs eis TO Trpocr^c'peti' 8a>pd TC Kat Overeat KaOicrrarai, ix. 28 ;
1 Cor. xi. 22 ouaas ^CTC ci<; TO ivOUiv Kat TTLVCLV, xi. 33 ; Acts iii. 19 :
vii. 19, etc. ; or forming an independent final clause, as Rom. iv. 11,
18 ; xi. 11 ; xii. 2 ; xv. 8, 13 ; 1 Cor. x. 6 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4 ; Gal. ir 17;
140.] THE INFIN. AFTER PREPOSITIONS. 265
Eph. i. 12, 18 etc., and alternating with Iva, as Phil. i. 10; 1 Thess.
ii. 16 ; Heb. ii. 17, particularly if one telic specification is dependent
on another, as Rom. i. 11 ; iv. 16 ; 1 Cor. ix. 18 ; 2 Thess. iii. 9.
2) as in classic Greek, statements of design so often include within
themselves those of result and vice versa (see 139, 43 sq. p. 238 sq., 50
Rem. p. 244), so efc with the Infin. can be employed in stating the
result, i.e. the designed consequence, accordingly for wore ita
ut ; hence it occurs sometimes as a variant in the oldest MSS. instead
of that final oWe ( 139, 50 p. 243). In this sense many passages are
to be taken ; as, Rom. i. 20 TO, aopara avrov rots Trony/uao-iv voovpcva
KaOoparai . . . , ets TO etvai avrovs dva7roXoy^rov9 ; * see besides vi. 12;
vii. 4, 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 4 ; viii. 6 ; Heb. xi. 3, etc.
3) it frequently stands also where ordinary usage would have been 228
satisfied with the simple Infinitive (with or without the Art.),
and in particular for the Infin. (Pres. or) Future after predicates
whose signification looks forward, such as SiSovai, Scto-tfat, epwrav,
paprvpclv (obtestari) etc., and which for the same reason admit also of
the construction with Iva ( 139, 42 p. 237) ; as, Rom. xv. 16 oia rrjv
Xapiv TT/I/ So$etcrav /w,ot, ci's TO tvat /ue Xcirovpybv 'Irjaov XptoToi), 1 Thess.
ii. 12 fJLaprVpOVfJLVOL CIS TO 7Tpt7TaTtV VfJLOLS dl'tOS TOV 0OV, tiL 10 SfOfJ^fVOL
cis TO ioeiv vpwv TO TrpooxoTrov, Phil. i. 23 rrjv C7ri$iyu'av l^wv eis TO avaXv-
crai /cat (rvv Xpto-Tw ctvai, 2 Thess. ii. 2 epwTw/ACv v/xas 15 TO ///) Ta^eca?
oraXcv^vat v/xas . . . /w-^Se 6pocl(r6ai< 6 vvv TO /caTe^ov oi8aT, ts TO a-rroKa-
\v<t>0fjvai avrov ; naturally connected with this use stands
4) the epexegetic Infin. with cis TO (in respect to, to (the intent
that), with which is to be compared the Infin. with TOV in 14 p. 268) ;
as, 1 Thess. iv. 9 ^eoStSaKTOt' eWe et? TO ayairav oAAr^Aovs, Rom. iii. 26
Trpos T^V !vSe(,ii> TTJS 8LKaio(Tvvr}<s avrov, ets TO eTvat avrov StKaiov etc., viii.
29; 2 Thess. i. 5 IVSei-y/xa T-^S StKatas Kpio-ecos . . . eis TO KaTai(i)Of)vai vfj.a.<s
etc., Jas. i. 19 ra^y<s et9 TO d/covcrai, /3pa8us is TO XaX^o-ai, Rom. xii. 3
<t>povv fts TO o-w^povetv, 1 Cor. viii. 10, etc. In these cases we likewise
put either simply the Infin. with to, or the Conjunction that.
fj.fr d only with the Accusative, and always in a temporal force t
(after, after that), as often in Greek authors also ; as, Heb. x. 15, 26;
Matt. xxvi. 32 ; Mark i. 14 ; Luke, Acts, etc.
7rp6 TOV followed by the Infin. likewise only in a temporal
reference serves frequently as a periphrasis for the conjunction irp iv
with the Infin. (hence after positive sentences) and is interchanged
with it : Matt. vi. 8 ; Luke ii. 21 ; xxii. 15 ; John i. 49 ; xvii. 5 ; xiii.
1 That in this passage interpreters have at all periods, even the most recent,
diverged in two just opposite directions, the ecbatic and the final, is one proof
more that the two relations (as so often with Iva. and &VTC) lie u idistinguished
side by side.
34
266 THE INFINITIVE. [ 140
19 Trpb TOV ytvco-Oai (for which in xiv. 29 trplv yevtaOai), Acts xxiii. 15 ; y
Gal. ii. 12, etc.
Trpos, used only with the Accusative, means in accordance with its
original signification primarily with reference to the fact that etc., as
Luke xviii. 1 eXeyev 7rapa/3oAr/v avrots Trpos TO 8eiv Travrore Trpoaev^a-Oa^
Xeywv etc., Matt. xxvi. 12 TOVTO cTrofycrcv TT/DOS TO evTCu^icurcu /xe ; then,
and interchangeably with ets (even in the variants, as Jas. iii. 3), in
a final signification: Mark xiii. 22 ; Eph. vi. 11.
Of the other (improper) prepositions, we find used in this way
. tv/ci/ (for which commonly the simple Genitive appears) but once :
2 Cor. vii. 12, on account of the preceding eivcKei/ ; and tfws, also but
once : Acts viii. 40.
THE INFINITIVE WITH TOV IN THE N. T.
B. 140, NN.10, 11; H. 781; C. 664d.; D. p. 480; J. 492, 678 b. ; G. 94sq.
12 This form of expression, which in the earlier Greek writers
is on the whole pretty rare but in later writers becomes more
229 an( i more frequent, belongs to those constructions of which the
language as well of the Old T. as of the New is especially fond
of availing itself; and which, since the limits of its employment
were materially enlarged, contributes much to the peculiar
complexion of the biblical diction. Hence, it is necessary to
give here a connected exposition of the entire usage.
The general use of the expression, however, does not prevent the
existence of a great diversity in this respect among individual
N. T. writers. John in consequence of his decided predilection for iva
( 139, 40 p. 236) makes no more use of this construction than of ets
TO (10 above, p. 264) either in his Gospel or his Epistles. Matthew
uses it often, but Luke the most frequently and with the most varied
application (twenty-five times in the Gospel and perhaps about as often
in the Acts). In Paul's and the other Epp. it recedes somewhat
before the other and similar construction with cts TO'. In Mark and
the Rev. we are almost in doubt whether it occurs. Cf. in general on
this subject the extended discussions in Winer, p. 324 sqq. (304 sqq.),
and Fritzsche, Com. on Matt. Excurs. II. p. 843 sq.
13 The construction is founded, as its external form shows, in a
Genitive relation ; and hence must be understood and ex-
plained from the nature of this case. To facilitate our review
of the instances that occur, we will distribute them into the
following classes : I. those in which the Infin. with TOV is
governed immediately by some word contained in the leading
clause. which is either a) a Substantive, or b) an Adjective,
140.] THE INFIN. WITH roC IN THE N.T. 267
or c) a Verb ; II. those in which the Infin. with rov stands
more by itself, constituting a clause independent of the leading
clause so far as the case is concerned.
I. The Infinitive with rov stands in immediate dependence
on a term which is contained in the leading clause, and ex-
presses an incomplete thought, to which it stands in the
same relation as the Infin. expletivus in 3 p. 259, above : that
is to say, it contains the necessary complement, generally in a
final sense, of that incomplete idea, Cf. the similar construc-
tions with efc TO in 10, 3) p. 265, and with e iva in 139, 41 sqq.
pp. 236 sqq.
In accordance with the general rules respecting the Genitive
(B. 132, 1 and 7) this Infinitive is dependent
a) On a Substantive.
We should much mistake the nature of most of the clauses falling
under this head, were we to regard the Infin. with rov (after the fashion
of the Lat. gerund in -di) as a Gen. dependent on a noun in such a
way that the Infin. takes pretty nearly the place of an abstract sub-
stantive in like relation, as ars scribendi the art of writing. For the
Greeks, with their copious store of abstract substantives, and the
facility with which in case of necessity they could at any time form 230
new ones, had almost no need of this mode of expression. On the
contrary, the Infin. with rov retains its entire verbal nature and
force, so that it depends merely outwardly upon a substantive in
the leading clause. This is evident, partly from the fact that it is often
accompanied by its own Subject (in the Ace. according to the
rules of 141 pp. 272 sqq.), see the examples subjoined; and partly
from the circumstance, that Latin writers in the extant cases either
would not, or could not, have used their gerund in -di, as Rom. xi. 8
IStoKev 6<f>6aXfjLov<s rov pr] ySAeTmv KCU omx rov pr) d/coveiv, in Latin not
oculos non videndi, aures non audiendi, but ad non videndum etc., or,
as the Vulg. renders it, ut non videant, . . . audiant. It is uniformly
necessary, therefore, to take the substantive on which the Infin.
appears to depend and expand it, with a verb either present in the
clause or to be supplied, into a verbal predicate idea, upon which the
Infinitive adjunct, whether with its subject expressed or understood,
is then made to depend, quite in the way in which in c) below it
depends on verbs. For example, Luke i. 57 rrj 'EAto-a/Jcr eTrXrjo-O-rj 6
Xpovos rov rcKetv a.vr-f)v not the time of her delivery was fully come, but
the full time came that she should be delivered, cf. ii. 6 ; ii. 21 eTrXrjo-Orj-
crav f]p.pa.L OKTW rov 7rcpiT/>ttv avrov Vulg. not literally, as it is in the
habit of doing : circumcidendi eum, but (Passively, cf. the note below),
268 THE INFINITIVE. [ 140.
ut circumcideretur, xxii. 6 c^r/rct ev/caipiav TOV TrapaSovVcu avToV (for
which u/a is used in the parallel passage Matt. xxvi. 16) ; Acts xiv
9 e^ei irumv TOV (rw^vat (Vulg. ut salvus Jieret}, xx. 3 eyevtro yvw^.r}
(i.e. Ae resolved, hence the preceding Partic. Tronjo-as in the Nom. con-
strued ad syne^in according to 144, 13 b) p. 298) TOV vTroo-Tpefaiv 8ta
M., xxvii. 20 Trepi^petTO eATns Tracra TOV cra>O-0at ^/xas, Rom. viii. 12
o^ctAerai (T{j.v (equiv. to 6^)tXo/av) TOV rjv etc., XV. 23 tTwroOlav e^wv
(equiv. to 7ri7ro#a>i/) TOV eA0eu/ (cf. Phil. i. 23), 1 Cor. x. 13 rronycrei T^V
K/?ao-tv TOV SvVao-0at vTrevcyKeii/ (Vulg. ut possitis sustinere), Heb. v. 12
Lchm. xpeiai/ c^rrc TOV SiScur/ceti' v/xas (personal object) TIVO. (subject
Ace.) TO. o-Totxcta (material object) rfs ap^s etc., 1 1 Pet. iv. 17 6
Kcupos (sc. eo-riv) TOV apao-6ai TO Kpi/xa (M incipiat). The Infinitive
alone often stands in the same circumstances (as may be seen from a
comparison of the examples in 3 p. 259), and in point of fact in some
instances the TOV has now been expunged by the editors as a later
addition, e.g Rev. ix. 10 ; xiv. 15, and probably also in 1 Cor. ix. 6
Lchm. [Tdf. Treg. ; so cod. Sin.]. The instances which approximate
most closely to the use of the Latin gerund in -di are perhaps Luke x.
19 oYSto/xi vfjuv rrjv eovo*i'av TOV TTOLT^V cVava) o</>ta>v, 1 Cor. ix. 10 eV
cAmSt TOV /u.Te'x '> although even these admit of being easily referred
to the above category.
14 REMARK. On the other hand, the Infin. with TOV is often found also
231 (quite in accordance with the examples from classic authors given in
B. 1 40 N. 1 1) as an epexegetic addition to an abstract substan-
tive, as though a verbal periphrasis and explanation of it (cf. 10, 4)
p. 265) : Rom. i. 24 Trape'StuKCv avTovs ... is aKaOapviav TOV a
TO. crtu/xaTa avTuiv, 2 Cor. viii. 11 rj 7rpo$v/xia TOV tfe'Acii/, Phil. iii. 21
rrjv evepyciav TOV SvVao-0cu avToV etc., Luke xxi. 22 ^/xepat
avTcu flcriv TOV TrXya-Orjvai. Travra TO. yeypa/x/xeva, Acts ix. 15 Q-/CCVOS
COTI'V ftot ovTO? TOV ^oj<jTu.(ja.i TO ovofjid /otov, xiii. 47 (quotn.) Te^et/ca o~c
cis <ws cOvijjv TOV ctvat o~ is o-wT^ptai/ etc. Only in this way is to be
explained the construction (in other respects also quite anomalous) in
Rev. xii. 7 cycVe-ro TrdAe/xo? eV TO) ovpavw, oMt^a^A Kal ol ayycAot
avTov TOV TroAc^'jai /XCTO. TOV 8pa/covTos instead of the eTroAe^o-av of the
Text. Recept., which aims to avoid the harshness, but falls into another
mistake. The Nominative is used ad synesin with the Infin., since the
latter takes the place, so to speak, of a subordinate clause with a finite verb.
1 So according to Lchm. ; and compare Dem. Lept. 40, where likewise three Aces,
are united. The other construction, which Tdf. [so Treg.] follows : TOV SiSda-Keiv
vpas, Tii/a ret aToixeia etc. differs but little in sense, and has the interpretation of
Origen (8t8a(T/ce(r0aj), the Vulg. (ut vos doceamini), the version in cod. Claromon-
tan. (doceri vos) et al. in its favor. Since this construction also harmonizes with
the genius of the language (cf. the example from Luke ii. 21 above, and 140,
3 p. 259 note) a decision is difficult, indeed from a grammatical point of
view absolutely impossible. See Bleek.
140.] THE INFIN. WITH TOV IN THE N. T. 269
b) On an Adjective contained in the leading clause. As 15
a rule this also constitutes together with the copula the predi-
cate of the clause, and the Infin. with rou contains the neces-
sary complement. Yet, by virtue of the verbal nature inher-
ing in Adjectives, they are also by themselves capable of this
construction.
The connection is the simplest when the Adjective already permits
of itself the construction with the Genitive, as 1 Cor. xvi. 4 lav aiov
77 TOV Kafjif. Troptveo-^ai, Rom. vli. 3 IXevOepa ecrrtv 0.77-0 TOV vofiov, TOV fir]
eu/ai avrty /x,ot^aXt8a ; but it occurs also with other Adjectives, as Acts
xxiii. 15 tToifioL crfiv TOV aveXtlv CIVTOV (cf. with this the Infin. alone in
3 p. 259), Luke xvii. 1 dVei'oWroV itrnv TOV fir) fXOtlv TO. o~Ka.voaXa,
xxiv. 25 a> avorjToi Kat /2paSeis TOV irurrevew (cf. the construction with
is TO in 10 p. 265).
c) On averbalidea contained in the leading clause. This 16
is by far the most common use of the Infin. with TOV. It is
essentially identical with the two preceding constructions, and
differs only externally in the circumstance that the governing
predicate idea here is a verb, there a noun. Further: as in the
construction with an Adjective, it is wholly a matter of indif-
ference whether the verb is elsewhere construed with the
Genitive or not; and that the Infiu. with TOV stands again
in most evident analogy with the similar use of tW, et? TO with
the Infin., and the Infin. alone, may be seen on comparing the
respective sections.
We will classify the examples under the following heads :
a) the construction finds its (rather superficial) occasion in the cir-
cumstance that the verb according to general usage is capable of being
construed with the Genitive ; as, Luke i. 9 fXaytv rov Ovfiiaa-cu (iii
connection with nouns, however, Xay^avetv in the N. T. is construed
only with the Accusative, see 132, 8 p. 160 and cf. Bhdy. p. 176),
Matt. xxi. 32 ov p,r^\r]6rjT^ TOV TriorevVai avT<3, 2 Cor. i. 8 l^aTroprj-
Orjvai TOV tfiv.
(3) the construction takes place if the verbal idea is of a negative
kind and intimates that something is to be avoided, averted etc., these
predicates (according to B. 132, 4) being likewise capable of taking 232
the Gen. [Gen. of separation"]. In this case, moreover, the negative
pr) is as a rule also added to the In fin. (cf. 148, 13 p. 355). Luke
iv. 42 Koretxov avTov TOV fj,r} Tropevco-^cu car' avTaiv, xxiv. 1 6 01 6<f>6a\fjLoi
avToiv e/cpaTOVVTO TOV fir) CTri-yi/wrai avTov, Acts X. 47 firjri TO vSwp
ovvarai TIS TOV fir) j3a.7rTio~6r)vai TOVTOVS ; xiv. 18 KareTravo-ai' TOVS
270 THE INFINITIVE. [ 140
TOV fjLT) Ovew, I Pet. iii. 10 (quotn.) 7ravo-aT<o TT/I> yXcooxrav OLTTO KO.KOV KCU
X t/ ^7 TOV fj.rj XaX^crat SdXov, Acts xx. 20, 27 ovftcv vTreo-TeiA-a/i^t/ TOV /A?) *
d^ayyetXai V/AU/. The omission of prf is decidedly contrary to the main
usage and very rare : Rom. xv. 22 eveKOTrrofjivjv TroXXa/cis TOV
y) after verbs of motion to indicate the purpose of the motion,
alternating with the simple Infinitive (see 4 p. 261) : Matt. xiii. 3 ;
Luke viii. 5 cf)\6ev 6 o-7retpu>v TOV oWpat (but in Mark iv. 3, according
to the recent editors, without TOV), Luke xxiv. 29 eun}A0ei/ TOV /ACIVCU
<rvv avTois, Heb. x. 7 (quotn.) rjKM TOV Trot^crat TO OeXrjfjia. crov, Matt. iii.
13 TrapaytveTat TOV /JaTrrtcr^i/cu VTT' avrov, Luke V. 1 Lchm. CTri/ctio^at,
avTu) TOV d/coveiv, Acts xviii. 10 iTriOrjcreraL CTOL TOV /ca/ccoo-at o-e.
8) also after other words signify ing action, which need an
additional statement to complete their thought in order to express the
purpose or the result designed by the action : accordingly, for Iva.
(which may be rendered in English that . . . should) after the predi-
cates spoken of 139, 41 sqq. pp. 236 sqq. ; as, Jas. v. 17 Trpor^v'^aTo TOV
/AT) /?pe'ai (commonly tW), Acts xxi. 12 TrapcKaXov/xci' TOV pr) ava/Saivew
avrov eis "I. (commonly tva, OTTWS, or the simple Infin.), xxiii. 20 <nW-
0VTo TOV epamycrai ere (tva John ix. 22 ; Infin. alone Luke xxii. 5), xv.
20 eTrio-TeiAcu avTois TOV aTri^crOai airo rtav dXtcry^/xaTcoi/ (Infin. alone
xxi. 25), Luke iv. 10 (quotn.) evTeAcirai avrols TOV Sta<vAaai o-e. So,
moreover, after TTOUW (cf. Iva 139, 43 p. 238) Acts iii. 12,
Luke v. 7, Kpwiv Acts xxvii. 1 (cf. 1 Cor. vii. 37 var.), TO
eo-T^pt|ei/ Luke ix. 51, SITJI/OI&V TOV vovv TOV <rwicvtu (caused them to
understand) xxiv. 45. In an exceptional way the Infin. with TOV
stands once after cycvcTo even : Acts x. 25 <Ls Se fytvero TOV tlo-fkOelv
rov Ilerpov (so also Act. Barn. 7), for which elsewhere the simple
Infin. is always used (141, 6, c) p. 277). Cf. the Latin ut after
fit, etc.
17 II. The other case that in which the Infin. with TOV stands
after complete predicates (accordingly for iva in its proper
signification, in order that, eo consilio uf) 9 so that it is to be
regarded as an independent telic clause is very common ;
and finds adequate explanation in the general use of the Gen.
(to express causal departure and direction upon, B. 132, 8,
9). Hence the assumption of an ellipsis (eVe/ea, %aptv) is
superfluous.
For examples see Matt. ii. 13 ; xi. 1 ; xxiv. 45 ; Luke i. 77,
79 ; ii. 24, 27 ; xii. 42 (Tdf.) ; Acts iii. 2 ; vii. 19 ; xx. 30 ;
1 Classic usage would have demanded in this case the double negative ph ov t
(because the leading verb is itself negative, cf B. 148 Note 6, 2) p. 427); G. p 198.
140.] THE INFINITIVE FOR THE IMPERATIVE. 271
xxvi. 18 ; Rom. vi. 6 ; xi. 10 ; Gal. iii. 10 ; Phil. iii. 10 ; Heb.
xi. 5.
REMARK. In the Sept. the use of the Infin. with TOV occurs to a 283
still greater extent almost. See a great number of examples (to be
found on almost every page) in Winer, p. 325 sq. (305).
B. 140, 7; H. 784; C. 670; D. 526; J. 671 ; G. 101; W. 316 (296).
Of the Infinitive instead of the Imperative, as it 18
is sometimes used in the classics, there is no single instance
wholly unquestionable ; since everywhere the leading mark of
this Infin., viz. the addition of the Subject in the Nominative,
is wanting. The usage, too, is predominantly poetic (see the
examples in the Gramms. 11. c., and cf. Bhdy. p. 388). Hence
it is more correct grammatically, to regard the Absolute
Infinitives which actually occur in this sense as resulting from
an elliptical mode of expression ; and that is perfectly accor-
dant with the unartificial and popular diction of the N. T.
In explaining them we may assume an ellipsis of the simplest pre-
dicate, perhaps Aeyw, for which analogous cases enough are to be found
also in the N. T. writings; see 151, 24 b) p. 394. This suggests
itself most naturally, in fact necessarily, not only when the subject is
At hand in the Accusative, as Tit. ii. 2 Trpfo-fivras vrjfaXiovs ctrat,
ffe/jLvovg, cra'x^pova? etc. (see the analogous instances from classic authors,
B. 141, N. 6), but authenticates itself elsewhere also, as in the salutation
^a ipetv, by the accompanying Dative ; see 151, 24 a) p. 394. The
assumption of this ellipsis is amply sufficient in the remaining cases
also, and the occasion of the ellipsis may always be discovered from
the nature of the individual passage. Thus in Luke ix. 3 we are not
to assume with many interpreters a variatio structurae in explaining
the Infin. (/w^rc . . . X tv )> as ^ the beginning of the discourse after
eiTrcv were direct, and then the words y^u/re dra Suo ^iron/as e^eii/ depended
again in indirect discourse upon eiTrev, and subsequently in the follow-
ing verse the discourse continued in the direct form again ; on the con-
trary, the language is to be construed as flowing unbroken in a direct
form, 1 and with e^etv a predicate like A-eyw, the idea of which is easily
suggested by the context, is to be supplied. The dependent negative
1 Discourse springs far more naturally from the (unwonted) indirect form over
into the almost uniformly employed direct form (see 151, 10. 11 p. 383 sq.) ; as
is the case in the very passage parallel to the above viz. Mark vi. 9.
272 THE ACCUSATIVE AND INFINITIVE. [ 141,
was retained, because the Infin. c^eii/ (not Aeyw) is negatived,
and owing to the Imperatival cast of the entire passage, which is
further continued in the following verses. Further, in Rom. xii. 15
quite absolutely : \a.iptw //.era ^aipdvrwv, KAaietv /xera KXatovrcov. Here,
too Imperatives immediately precede, from which, since the connection
necessarily requires the Infinitives to be taken in an imperative force,
a predicate like Aeyw (or even Set) is to be supplied. In supplying
some such term here we are the more justified as the entire passage is
conspicuous for its great laxity of structure (notice the Participial
clauses that precede and follow, standing in like manner absolutely),
234 merely giving the thoughts and leaving the grammatical connection of
them entirely to the reader. Cf. other passages of the sort under the
head of Anacoluthon below, 151, 12 p. 386. Finally, Phil. iii. 16
TrXr/v eis o e<0ao-a/x/, TO> avrw oroi^ca/ occurs likewise between pure
Imperatives, and Subjunctives in their stead; so that the apostle
deemed the addition of a governing predicate to be no longer necessary
for the understanding of his words.
THE ACCUSATIVE AND INFINITIVE.
B. 141, 2; H. 773; C. 666; D. 684; J. 672; G. cf. 73. 105.
It has often been remarked already that in the rather loose
style of the N. T., notwithstanding great facility in handling
this construction, the substituted conjunctions (ort,, wa) are
far more frequent. And in particular, lengthy passages given
in sermone obliquo no longer occur ; because in sucli cases the
direct form of statement (preferred even in the briefest
statements) takes its place ; see especially 139 E. pp. 233 sqq.,
and G. pp. 245 sq. Not infrequently is a protracted oblique
discourse avoided by a sudden transition into the form of direct
discourse ; respecting this see in its place 151, 11 p. 385.
John x. 36 affords an example of the great predilection for the
direct form of statement ; here, after Xeycre, the direct discourse con-
sisting merely of a single word (/SAao-^r/jtms) comes in, although the
subordinate clause which follows (on etTrovetc.) is construed as if
e/w, J3\aar<t>rip.iv preceded, and the fact too that the entire apodosis
begins with a Relative (o v 6 trarrjp ^ytWcv) would sooner lead us to
expect the Infin. after A/yere; moreover, see i. 15 and other examples
in 151, 1 d) p. 377, an I 139, 51 p. 245. Further, under this head
belongs the direct discou se (current also in our colloquial speech) after
verbs of asking, thi words of the asker himself being at once
introduced (consequently in the Imperative) instead of the contents
of the request in the Infinitive, as Luke xiv. 18 epumo ere,
141.] THE ACCUSATIVE AND INFINITIVE. 273
Trap^r^/xevov, Phil. iv. 3 ; Acts xxi. 39 Sco/xat crov, fartr/M^ov /AOI etc.,
Luke ix. 38 Lchm. Seo/xat o-ov, eTriySAei^ov, 1 1 Cor. iv. 1 6 Trapa/caAoj v/xas,
fUfjirjTai [MOV ywearOe. In narration,, however, according to custom,
another Aeycov is inserted before the direct request : Matt. viii. 31 ;
xviii. 29 ; John iv. 31 ; Acts xvi. 15, etc.
As a peculiarity in the use of this construction it is to be 2
noticed, that the Infinitive in dependent discourse not only takes
the place of the Indicative, but also of the Imperative (or
Subjunctive), so far forth as it would have been employed in
direct discourse ; and that consequently the simple Infinitive
often includes the idea of obligation, necessity, or per-
mission. This is the case especially after such predicates as
contain a wish, request, or summons (8ac#at, ev^eada^ Trapa-
tcakelv, irapaivelv, eWeA,Ae<70a,t, etc.) ; but not infrequently also
after Xeyew, K^pvcrcreiV) and the like, so far forth as they are
used instead of the more expressive terms to command etc. 235
(cf. 139, 42 note \ p. 237) ; further, after the predicates to
believe, to trust, in so far as the idea to consider one's self as
authorized etc. is at the same time contained in them. On
this usage, which belongs to classic Greek, cf. Bhdy. p. 371
and the works there referred to.
Although the Infinitive is used in this way not merely of what
happens but of what ought to happen, yet we are not obliged on this
account to supply Sett/ in order to explain it, but the usage results
solely from the general philological principle (see Kiihner on Xen.
Mem. 2, 2, 1) that the Infinitive in itself is a verbal form without re-
lation, and that it acquires in every case its more precise signification
from the context. That sometimes (when the governing word is a
general term, such as eiTmv, Trio-revctf) ambiguity is easily occasioned
by this mode of expression cannot be denied ; hence in such cases the
decision rests wholly with the reader who carefully examines the con-
text. A few examples of such Infinitives after less expressive pre-
dicates, with or without a subject expressed, are the following : Rev.
X. 9 a7n?A$a, Aeycov aura) S o v v a i /xot TO /3i/3Aapi3iov, Acts xxi. 4 lAeyov
TO> IlavAa) /XT) 7rt/3atVeti/ ets 'lepoo-oAiyxa, 21 Aeywv ^] Treptreyai/etv avrovs
TO. re'/cva /x^Se rots e$ecnv TrepiTrareti/ (cf. xv. 24 Grsb.), Rom. xiv. 2 os
1 It is surprising that Tdf. rejects this reading, in spite of its attestation by cod.
Sin., and has adopted eTrif3\e\l/cu into his text. Nowhere in all Greek literature
has a Middle form of e'Trt/JA.cVo) (except the Future) been preserved ; and even the
Sept. has iiri$\efyov more times than can be counted, never e'7n'/3Ae^cu. The
reading Trt&\\]/cu (cod. Vat. etc.) is to be accented eVijSAe'iJ/ai [so Treg.}, and is
nothing more than a (Grecizing) emendation of the Imperat.
35
274 THE ACCUSATIVE AND INFINITIVE. [ 141
fjiv Trio-revet <j>aycLv TTO.VTO. (deWette : essen zu durfen, that he may eat),
ii. 21 6 Krjpv(T(rwv fj-rj K\e7TTiv y 6 Aeycov /xr) jU-ot^et-CM/, 2 Cor. iv. 6 6 U7ro>v
K O-KOTOVS <co? A.a/x,i//at, Eph. iv. 22 e8t8a^^re a.7ro$cr$ai tyxas . . . TOV
7ra.Xa.Lov av6p(D7rov. So also with the Infin. after wcrre, 2 Cor. ii. 7 OJCTTC
fjLaXXov v/xas xapicracrtfai Kai TrapaKoAeVai ; the Infin. with TO, e.g. after
Kpivf.iv 2 Cor. ii. 1 ; Rom. xiv. 13; and the Nom. with the Infin. 2 Cor.
x. 2, etc.
B. 141, N. 3; H. 823; C. 659 J. 898, 4.
3 An analogous instance to that quoted (B. I.e.) from the Anab. (6, 4,
18) in which the leading clause is attracted by a parenthetic
verbum dicendi and passes over into a subordinate clause with on
is found in Rom. iii. 8 /ecu (supply rt) /AT), *a0ws <ao-tV rives ^/ua? Ae'yeiv,
on TTotrjo-aj/xei/ ra KaKa etc., where according to our idiom on is super-
fluous. So likewise E?. Nicod. 15, 1 (cf. 15, 5). Cf. 139, 51 p. 245
and Meyer on Rom. I.e.
B. 141,N.4; H. 775; C. 667; D. 688; J. 673.
4 The omission of the subject in the Infinitive clause when it
is identical with that of the leading clause is commonly
observed in the N. T. Yet deviations occur : the subject
and that, too, in the Accusative being separately
expressed again,
a) after verba dicendi, especially in the 3d Pers. (in winch
case, according to 127, 14 p. Ill sq., the full Reflexive
form eavjov -ou? etc. is almost always chosen), but for the
most part only when perspicuity and emphasis required the
repetition ;
b) in such Infinitive clauses as subjoin to the leading clause
a temporal or causal limitation ( 140, 9 sqq.), not so much for
236 empbasis' sake as by designating the particular subject to
deprive the clauses of tbe universal character which they would
otherwise have.
Examples of a) after verba dicendi in the 3d Pers. (like the
Lat. se). Luke XX. 20 ctTreo-TetXav lyKaQirovs vTroKpivofttvovs eavrovs
8iKcuovs cTvat, xxiii. 2 Aeyovra lavrov Xpio-rov etvcu, Acts v. 36 0ev8as
Xeycov, ivat rtva eavrov viii. 9 ; xxv. 4 ; Rev. ii. 2, 9 ; iii. 9 ; but
aural/ only in Acts xxv. 21 TOV IlauXov eViKoAeo-ajaevov TyprjOyvaL avrov ;
in the 2d Pers. Eph. iv. 22 (see 2 above, p. 274) where the separ-
ation of the dependent clause from its governing word (eStSax^r/Te) by
the parenthetic clause occasioned the repetition of the subject (t/xas),
2 Cor. vii. 11 crvveo-r^o-are eavrous (see 127, 15 p. 113) dyvous elvai,
Heb. x. 34 Lchm. Treg. Tdf. Sin.J yivwo-Koi/rcs ZX LV CCWTOVS Kpeuro-ora
141.] KtXefciv ETC. WITH THE INFIN. 275
In classic writers likewise cases of the kind are found, but
on the whole far less frequently (see the Gramms. as above).
b) in temporal etc. subordinate clauses (a use which in the Apoc-
ryphal writings of the N.T. has become almost universal) : Matt. xxvi.
32 ; Mark xiv. 28 /LUTO. TO tytptifpal ^f. 7rpoaco u/x,as, Luke X. 35 eyw ev
TW eTravepxto-Oai //, aTroSuJcra) croc, xxii. 15 (tTreOv/jirjcrcL) Trpb TOV /x Tra^etv,
John ii. 24 (eTrto-revev avrw) Sta TO avrov ywit)o~KLV Travra?, Heb. vii. 24;
2 Cor. ii. 13 (OUK eon^/ca) TO) /x^ evpeti/ /tc TiVov. The case is different
in Rom. xv. 16 where the leading subject governing the Infin. clause
(cis TO elfai //,e \tiTovpyov) is not eyco but #eos (virtually contained in
the Passive clause BoOeia-av VTTO TOV 6tov). Finally, with regard to the
fact that in all these passages given under b) the Reflexive form
which according to rule ought to have appeared has not been chosen,
see what is said 127, 13 p. 110.
On the Ace. and Infin. in hortatory sentences see 140, 18 p. 271.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF KeXtueiv, AND SIMILAR WORDS, WITH THE INFIN.
It has already been remarked, p. 237 note \ that ice\eveiv I
in the N. T. only admits of being construed with the Ace. and
Infin., never of being connected with a resolved clause and
the particle f iva ; and in this respect the language of the N. T.
coincides with ordinary usage. 1 But the influence of the Latin
use of jubere is unmistakable in this particular : that the
Passive Infin. and Ace. is so often connected with Kekevew
instead of the Active usual in ordinary Greek.
As a rule, where nothing but the idea is required, the A o r i s t
Pass. Infin. is chosen ; as, Matt, xviii. 25 KA.uo-v avrov Trpafl^i/ai . . .
/cat a.7ro8o@fjvaL, xiv. 9 ; xxvii. 58, 64 /ceAcvo-ov ao-^aAic^rai TOV Ta<ov,
Luke xviii. 40 eKe'Aevo-ev OLVTOV cravat, Acts xii. 19 ; xxi. 33, 34; xxv.
21 (where the change from the Aor. Infin. to the Pres. Infin. is to be
noticed, cf. xxv. 4) etc. It may be remarked further, that only 237
Matthew and Luke employ KeAevai/; but the other writers avail
themselves uniformly of other verbs instead, as eVTeAAeo-$cu, TrapayyeA.-
Xetv, Krjpvvo-ew, etTretv, and that, too, either followed by u/a, according to
1 Only in one passage, Matt. xv. 35, is the Dative given with Infin. following by
a considerable number of M8S. : e/ceAevo-ej/ rots ox^-ois avaireo-e'iv. This reading Tdf.
eds. 2, 7 (even against the authority of B and the express statement of Origen,
which Lchm. [so Treg.] followed) has retained, out of regard for other ancient
authorities (and especially the parallel passage Mark viii. 6), with Grsb. Rec. etc.
(According to the concurrent testimony of codd. Vat. and Sin. however the pas-
sage runs Kal irapayyf i\as r$ ftx^V o-va.-K^<r^iv e'lrl rty yyv I '\afev; and Tdf.
also has rightly adopted this reading in his 8th ed.)
276 *yfrero FOLLOWED BY AN INFIN. ETC. [ 141.
139, 42 p. 236 sq., or the Infinitive construction. But the same unclassic
construction with the Aorist Pass. Infin. is found after these predi-
cates also, in so far as they are intended to represent the precise idea
of KcAeveiv ; as, Mark V. 43 fiTrcv SoOrjvat. avrf) <f>ayiv, vi. 27 eTrera^ei/
evx@ffva.L rrjv KecfraXrjv avrov, Acts V. 21 aTrecrTCiXav a^Oyi/cu avrovs, XXV.
21 eTri/foAecra/xeVov rrjprjOrjvaL avrov (see 4 p. 274), xxii. 24 etTras
dvTao-$cu avrov, 1 Thess. V. 27 (ei/op/a(iu) avayvaxr^i/at r
To the scribes who wrote the MSS. (especially D and B) the construc-
tion still seemed rather strange, and hence they often emended it into
the Infin. Active; see the variants on Mark v. 43 ; vi. 27 ; Acts
xxii. 24. Hence it is very probable that in Mark viii. 7 etTrev 7ra.pa.Tc-
B^va.1 (Lchm.) is the original reading, as cod. A actually gives and
the variant TrapaOfjvai leads us to conjecture. The reading TraparttfeVai
(Tdf. [eds. 2, 7 ; Treg.]), which again is supported particularly by B
and D, might easily have arisen by correction owing to the similarity
of form, but by its Present form does not agree well with the
passage. The same remark holds of Mark x. 49 Lchm. eiTrev avrbv
<f>uvr)6f)vai ; so not only by far the greater number of MSS. give the
passage, but the Latin versions also render it, which they would not
have done if the translators had had before them the other reading
avroV, Tdf. [Treg.] after [>] B C).
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF l-y^vcro FOLLOWED BY AN INFINITIVE AND A
FINITE VERB.
6 ^ conspicuous peculiarity of the historical style in the N.T.
(with the exception of John's Gospel) is the frequent occur-
rence of the Aoristic phrase ical eyevero or ejevero Se, by
which the narrative of new events is announced, and at the same
time connected with what precedes. It arose from the familiar
Hebrew expression wj, and passed over from the translation
of the Seventy into the narrative language of the N. T. In
the first three Gospels, almost without exception imme-
diately after this formula a specification of time is sub-
joined (likewise after the mode of Hebrew discourse) : and that
either by an adverbial phrase (eV pia rwv rj/jiep&v, j^eO' ^e/aa?
T/36t? etc.), or by a clause with ore (in Matt.) or o>? (in Luke),
or by a Genitive Absolute, but ordinarily by an Infinitive clause
introduced with ev ( 140, 9 p. 264). The construction which
then follows is of three forms; according as
a) The occurrence itself (again after Hebrew precedent) is
given inaFiniteVerbconnectedby/eflu: as
238 Mark ii. 15 K<H ryo/cro (Tdf. [Treg.] yti/erai without / TW) ev TOI
141.] i^vero FOLLOWED BY AN INFIN. ETC. 277
KaraKetor$at avrov . . . Kat TroAAol rcAwrat crwave/cetvro r<3 'I^aov, cf. Luke
v. 1, 12 ; ix. 51 ; x. 38 ; xiv. 1 ; xvii. 11 ; xix. 15 ; xxiv. 4, 15 ; Matt,
ix. 1 Kat lyivf.ro O.VTOV avaKCi/Jitvov, Kai tSou TroAAoi. . . . cruvavcKetvTO,
Luke ii. 15 /cat eyc'vero, a>s a.7rf)\0ov . . . Kat ot avOpwTrot elirov, V. 17 KO!
eyevero tv /xta rtov ^/zepaiv, Kat avros ^v StSao-Kwv, Kat ^crav etc., viii. 1, 22.
Somewhat different, and departing from the Heb. idiom, is Acts v. 7
eyo'ero 8e ws wpaij/ rptcov Stacrr^jna Kai 17 ywr) i(n}A#e'. Or
b) The occurrence is given, indeed, in a Finite Verb, but
without Kai. This is the most frequent construction.
Matt. vii. 28 Kat eyevero, ore ere'Aeo-ev 6 'I^crovs TOTJS Aoyovs TOVTOVS,
e7rA?j(7o-oi>To, cf. xi. 1 ; xiii. 53 ; xix. 1 ; xxvi. 1 ; Luke i. 23 Kat eye-
r>To, a)? iTrXrjaOrjcrav at i^uepai . . . , a7n}A.0v, cf. vs. 41 ; xi. 1 ; xix. 29 ;
Mark i. 9 Kat eyevero ev ifcctvaif rat? ^ytxepat?, ^A^ev 'I^croi)?, cf. Luke i.
59 ; ii. 1 ; ii. 46; vi. 12; vii. 11 ; ix. 37 eyeWro 8e iv TYJ e^s ^^pa,
KareA^o^Twv aura*!', o-w^vT^crcv avrw o^Aos, cf. xi. 14; xx. 1 ; Mark iv.
4 Kat eyevero ei/ TW crTretpetv, o /xev eTrecrev etc. cf. Luke i. 8 ; ii. 6 ; viii.
40 ; ix. 18, 33 ; xi. 1, 27 ; xvii. 14 ; xviii. 35 ; xxiv. 30, 51. It is to
be noticed, moreover, that in these sentences the predicate of the lead-
ing clause almost always stands in the first place, i.e. directly
after the specification of time, except in Mark iv. 4 ; Luke xi. 27 ;
xxiv. 30 ; xviii. 35 ; i. 8, where (but generally for perceptible reasons)
this arrangement is departed from somewhat. Hence, in Luke ix. 57
Lchm. the comma must be put after 68o> ; according to the reading of
Tdf. [Treg., who omit eycVero] the passage does not belong under this
head. Or
c) The occurrence stands (dependent on eyewro) in the
Ace. with the In fin. The subsequent facts are then
either subjoined in a finite verb, Mark ii. 23 /cal eyevero irapa-
iropeveaOai avrbv Sia rwv cnropijjicov, Kal rjp^avro ol fJM&fjTcU etc.
cf. Luke vi. 1, 6, or follow likewise in the Infinitive, Lu'se iii.
21, cf. xvi. 22.
This mode of expression, as that which approximates most nearly to
the genius of the Greek language, is employed almost always by Luke
in t h e A C t S , e.g. xix. 1 eyeVero Se iv TU> rov 'ATroAAw eti/at ev KopiV#a>,
IlauAov StcAfloi/ra ... eA0etv, cf. ix. 37; xvi. 16; xxviii. 17, he,
besides, divesting the idiom more and more of its strictly Hebraistic
complexion by omitting the clauses specifying time (so even in the
Gospel, xvi. 22 ; further, Acts iv. 5 ; ix. 32, 43 ; xiv. 1 ; xxviii. 8), or
making them precede (ix. 3), and then by rendering eyo/ero itself
dependent on a conjunction (e.g. xxi. 1 ws Se eyeVero dva^^vat T7/xas
etc. cf. xxi. 5 ; xxvii. 44), and finally by connecting the Dative with
278 ATTRACTION WT1H THE INFINITIVE. [144
it (aurots xi. 26, /xot xxii. 6). Cf. Credner, Einl. ins N. T. p. 133.
On the construction with TOV and the Infin. see 140, 16, 8) p. 270.
7 REMARK. Also the analogous formula used in the prophetical books
of the O. T. (S"Wi, Sept. Kal co-rat followed by the Fut.) is found
unaltered in the N. T., yet only in literal quotations, and always,
as in the corresponding passages of the 0. T., without a following KCU ;
as, Acts ii. 17 co-rat eV rats eV^c-crais r^ae'pats, eK^eto OTTO TOV Tirev/xaros
etc. 21 /cat eorat, Tras . . . oW^o-erai (cf. Rom. X. 13), Acts iii. 23 eorat
239 oe, Trao-a i//^ . . . c^oAeflpcutfrJaerai (a free quotation, after the Heb.,
of Deut. xviii. 19), Rom. ix. 26 (quotn.).
ATTRACTION IN CONNECTION WITH THE INFINITIVE.
B. 142, 2; H. 774, 1.2.3; C. 667; D. 588sq.; J. 672sq.
1 The general rule that predicative and other declinable
adjuncts (Participles, etc.) with the Infin. stand in the Nom-
inative if the (omitted) Subject of the Infin. is identical with
that of the leading clause (</>acr/coi/T69 elvat, aofoi Rom. i. 22,
e^apTvprjdr} elvau oY/ouo? Heb. xi. 4), needs no further illustra-
tion ; still less, the rule that such adjuncts stand in the Accu-
sative when they refer to a preceding word in the same case
(Karefcpivav avrbv elvai evo^pv 6avd-rov Mark xiv. 64).
Of the more refined use of Attraction (which, however, was often
neglected even by the best Greek authors), by virtue of which predi-
cative adjuncts with the Infin. referring to a Genitive or Dative
in the leading clause are put in the same case (eeort /J.OL yeveo-tfat evSai-
IJ.OVL etc.), no example can be adduced from the N. T. It occurs only
occasionally in connection with subjoined Participial adjuncts,
although even here the Accusative has become more usual. See on
this in its place 144, 20 b) p. 305.
B. 142, N. 2 ; H. 774 sq. ; C. 667 ; D. cf. 589 ; J. 674. 676 ; G. cf. 93 N. 2.
2 Of the Impersonals TrpeVei, 7rpoo->yKt, escort, o-u/x/3au/ and the like,
TrpeTrci (TrpeTTov eorii/) occurs in four constructions: 1) as commonly
with the Dative and the Infin. (Matt. iii. 15) or with the Infin. to be
supplied, Tit. ii. 1 XaXct a TrpeVei (sc. XaXeiv) ry etc. ; 2) with the
Dative after TrpeVct and a following Accusative adjunct with the
Infin., see the example Heb. ii. 10 in 144, 20 b) p. 306; 3) the
Dative with TrpeVei is attracted by the following Infin. and as its Sub-
ject passes over into the Accusative (Ace. and Infin.), 1 Cor. xi. 13
TrpeVov OTU> yuvauca aKaraAvTrrov Trpoae^eo-^at ; 4) in a personal con-
struction, Heb. vii. 26 rotovro? r^uv cTrpeTrev ap^tepe^s. "E^eariv
(eov ecrnv) has as B rule the Dative and Infin. ; Luke, however, also
uses the Accus. an</ Infin. in vi. 4 ovs OVK emv </>a-yetv, ei py p o v o v c
142.] THE INFINITIVE. 279
rovs tepets, and according to the best MSS. [Sin. also] in xx. 22
Tdf. [Treg.] ; the Ace. occurs, besides, several times as a variant in
cod. B (Mark ii. 26 [so tf also, and now Tdf.]), and in Origen. Both
these constructions (with the Dat. and with the Ace.) occur also with
eyeWo in the Acts, see 141, 6, c) p. 277. On the construction of
Sa see 131, 3 p. 147.
B. 142, 3. 4; H. 775; C. 667; J. 672, 4.
Examples of a Nominative adjunct with an Infin. used subtan- 3
tively with the Article, or dependent on a Preposition, are extremely
rare (because in sentences of this kind according to N. T. usage the
Subject of the leading clause, if identical with that of the Infin., is re-
peated, and then stands in the Ace. according to the rule 141, 4, b)
p. 274) ; as, 2 Cor. x. 2 Seo/xai Se TO //,?) Trapobv Oappfja-ai etc. (see On
this 140, 8 p. 263.
In clauses with wa-re and Trpiv we find no example of the Nomina-
tive and Infin. ; but only of the Infin. alone, hence without the repeti-
tion of the Subject (Matt, xxvii. 1, etc.), and of the Ace. and Infin., 240
but with a new Subject, Matt. i. 18, etc.
13. 142, N. 3; C. 667; J. 672, Obs. 1; 673, 2 sq.
To such an example as vTreo-^cro avros Troojo-etv (in which avrds is 4
not the Subject, otherwise it would have been in the Ace., but only an
attributive adjunct belonging to the omitted Subject of the Infin.)
an analogous instance occurs in John vii. 4 ovSeis yap TL cv Kpvrrrw
TToiet /cat ?7Tet a v T b s ev Trapprycria elVat. For so all the editors (except-
ing Lchm.) and the commentators read. But we cannot with many in-
terpreters regard OLVTOS as merely a resumption of the Subject ; in such
cases the language of the N. T. requires under all circumstances the
Accusative (and that, too, of the Reflexive eavrdvetc.). The examples
quoted by Liicke (Com. Vol. II. p. 190), viz. Matt. xii. 50 ; Mark xv.
43, have no force in proof of the resumptive use of avro's with an
Infinitive; cf. on the other hand for the opposite use (of eavrov
etc.) the examples cited in 141, 4, a) p. 274. On the contrary, avrds
here has its original signification self, and is nothing more than an
attributive adjunct in the Nominative belonging to the omitted subject ;
subjoined by the writer not for antithesis (to TI) or emphasis, but solely
for perspicuity's sake ; and hence ought not to receive much stress :
and yet seeks himself to be manifest. 1 Against the other reading avro
(which rests, moreover, only on weak authority) Liicke declares him-
self most positively, and with reason. According to it >?Teu>, which
1 Eor this interpretation see Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. for 1836, p. 153. Liicke
did not assent to it, perhaps only because he objected to the too great prominence
given to an antithesis.
280 RELATIVE SENTENCES. [ 143
everywhere else as an auxiliary verb is joined only to the simple Infin.
and the Ace. of the Object, would be construed like a verbum sen-
tiendi with the Infin. and the Ace. of the Subject; for this no pre-
cedent can be found. That reading could only be justified if instead
of *rai such a verb as Troifjcrai followed.
RELATIVE SENTENCES.
B. 143; H. 611 sqq. 807 sqq. ; C. 551 sqq. 562 a. ; D. 401 sq. ; J. 818 sq. 833 Obs. 2.
1 As a special peculiarity in these sentences mention must first
of all be made of an indubitable Hebraism which has passed
over from the language of the Old Testament into certain parts
of the New.
The Seventy, in translating the original, very commonly im-
itated the Hebrew mode of expressing the Relative (^CK with a
separated Personal pronoun following) in this way : to the
Relative Pron., placed at the beginning of the Relative clause,
they subjoined (but never immediately, and likewise only
in the oblique cases as in Hebrew) the Pron. O.UTO? in the same
case : e.g. the Ace. Lev. xvi. 32 bv av 'xpia^div avrdv ("irir^irx),
241 the Gen. Ruth iii. 2 ov 979 /-tera r&v Kopaoriwv avrov (^iiax with
suffix following), the Dat. Neb. viii. 12 lv TO? Xcxyot?, ofc
e<yva)pi(7v aurot? (orb >irx) , 1 Kings xiii. 10 ev rfj 6&>, y rj\6ev
ev avry (na-mrx); frequently also with the Preposition repeated
and with Adverbs, as Ex. iv. 17 ; Lev. xi. 32, 34 ; Josh. xxiv.
13, etc. In Greek authors a similar construction only, not the
same, is found ; see Fritzsche ad Lucian. p. 109.
In the N. T. the Hebraizing language of the Apocalypse most fre-
quently employs this mode of expressing relation, and that without
laying in the least any sort of emphasis thereby upon the pronominal
adjunct ; as, iii. 8 fjv ouScis Swarai /cXetcrou avr^i/, vii. 2 ots c&oBrj avrote,
9 ; xx. 8 ; xiii. 12 ; and likewise with the Relative adverb, OTTOV . . .
Kt xii. 6 Tdf. [so cod. Sin.], 14,o7rov . . . CTT' avruv xvii. 9. In other
writers it occurs only as a somewhat rare exception, e.g. Mark vii. 25,
and probably rather in certain national sayings, as Matt. iii. 12 ; Luke
iii. 16, 17 ; Mark i. 7, or in quotations from the O. T., as Acts xv. 17
(e<' 0^5 ... Tr avrov's), Rom. iii. 14 cod. B, 1 Pet. ii. 24 Tdf. [N*] ov
. . . avrov.
But the emphatic addition of avro rovro to o (quod ipsum) Gal. ii.
10 (cf. Lucian. Abd. 6) does not belong here ; and avros in the Nom-
inative can in Relative clauses have only the signification self: 1 Pot
ii. 24.
143.] CONSTRUCTION OF RELATIVE SENTENCES. 281
B. 143,2; H. 603 a.; C. 496; J. 818.
The general rule, that in Relative clauses which refer back J
to the First or Second Person the verb must stand in the
same Person, is not disregarded in the New Testament, (but
commonly a Participle then takes the place of the Relative
clause, see 144, 9, b) p. 294). Hence we find in John viii.
40 avOpcoTTOv ... 09 Xe\a\?7/ea, because avOpwirov is in apposi-
tion with the //, preceding.
Rev. ii. 24 vfjuv Be. TOLS Aonrots rots ev varcipois, 6Voi OVK e^ovo-iv etc.
is, indeed, a deviation ; but the construction is to be referred to the
underlying simple thought, to those among you (rots Aowrots) who have
not etc., hence to be explained as a constr. ad synesin.
B. 143,4; H. 513b.; C. 500; D. p.362; J. 821, 3.
That the Relative (09, OOTIS) conforms in Gender to the 3
Substantive of its own clause, instead of that of the preced-
ing clause to which it strictly refers, is a very common con-
struction in the N. T. also, as may be seen from the examples ;
with which in general 129, 6 p. 128, should be compared.
Mark XV. 16 avXrjs o eoriv TrpaiTtopiov, Acts xvi. 12 <J>iAi7r7rovs, 777-19
cortv Trpcorry 770X15, Gal. iii. 16 o-Trep/iart, os TTH> Xptorog, Col. i. 27 Tdf.
and Eph. i. 14 Tdf. [Treg.] (where both readings, 09 [so ] and o, are
almost equally attested), vi. 17 ; iii. 13 (but in Col. iii. 5 777-15 probably
refers only to TrAeove^ta), 1 Tim. iii. 15 ; 1 John ii. 8 ; Rev. iv. 5 Lchm.
[Tdf. Sin.], v. 8 (if we refer at to tfu/ua/Aaran/). This construction is
in most cases more natural than the regular one ; especially if the
predicate in the Relative clause is a Personal pronoun, as 1 Cor. iii. 17.
CONSTRUCTIO AD SYNESIN WITH THE RELATIVE. 242
B. 143,5; H. 523; C. 499; D. p.362; J. 819.
With the contents of this paragraph must be compared the 4
detailed statements made previously : 127, p. 105 sq. ; 123.,
p. 80; 129, p. 129 sq. What was there said applies in general
in its full extent to Relative sentences also. Referring, there-
fore, as respects the general subject to those sections, we give
here at once the examples relating to Relative sentences :
a) The Relative in the Singular refers to an antecedent
Plural ; as,
Acts xxiv. 11 ov TrXctovs eicrtV JMOI ^aepcu SoaSeKCt a<f> 179 (sc. ^/xcpas)
avefiyv ; and there is no reason for explaining otherwise the Sing, in
Phil. iii. 20 : ev OV/DCWOIS vTrdp^i, e ov (sc. ovpavov) Kal (rwrijpa aTre/cSc-
the license here is the more natural as the preceding Plural
282 CONSTRUCTION OF RELATIVE SENTENCES. [ 143.
is to be understood only as a Singular and the word (ovpavos) is used
indiscriminately in both numbers ; see p. 24.
b) The Relative in the Plural refers to a collective term
in the Singular ; as,
Luke vi. 17 7rAr?0os TroAv, ot rj\6ov, Acts XV. 36 Kara Traaav Tro'Aiv, cv
ats etc., xxii. 5 TTO.V TO Trpea/Jurcptov, Trap' tui/ etc. But in Rom. vi. 21
before e<' ots an idea like TotaOra or TOIOVTOVS sc. /capTrovs is to be sup-
plied, according to 127, 5 p. 105.
c) The Relative accords with the natural Gender of its
antecedent substantive (cf. 123, 7 p. 80): most frequently
after re/cvov, re/evict,, stands in the Masculine.
Gal. iv. 19 ; John i. 13 ; 2 John 1 ; Philem. 10. Further, TratSapiov
tv, os John vi. 9, WVT) ol Acts xv. 17; xxvi. 17, cf. Rom. ii. 14sq.,
6rjpiov os Rev. xiii. 14 (Rec. o [so cod. Sin.]), 6v6fjLO.ro. ol iii. 4 (Lchm.
[T.Tr.Sin.]a). Then in reference to the Person of Christ : /ce^aX^ os
Col. ii. 19, and in the celebrated passage 1 Tim. iii. 16 according to
the reading now (and indeed by Griesbach) received : /xwTTJptoi/, o s
[so at] <j>avpa>6r) etc. ; see the commentaries on the passage, and cf. Col.
i. 27; Eph. i. 14 in 3 p. 281.
REMARK. Under this head also must be brought the case, where the
Relative, if referring to material or abstract objects, stands in the
Neuter Plural instead of the Masc. or the Fern, (as in the case
of the Demonstrative avra 127, 8 p. 106), having less regard to the
grammatical gender of the word, than to the general neuter idea (of
things etc.) which it expresses ; cf. 129, 4 p. 127. Thus in Acts xxiv.
17 sq. Tdf. [eds. 2, 7], the oldest MSS. [Sin. also, followed by Lchm.
Treg. and now Tdf.] give, indeed, eA.r//xocrwas Trot^o-an/ /cat 7rpocr<opas,
ev ats etc. ; but this reading betrays more the correcting hand of the
copyists than the common reading iv ots.
d) The Relative refers to a noun which is only implied in
the leading clause (cf. 127, 8 p. 106).
2 Pet. iii. 1 Tavrrjv Sevrcpav vfuv ypa<a> eTrioroA^v, Iv als etc. where
from oeurtpav eVtoToA^v the term "two letters" is to be educed ; Phil,
ii. 15 Tfcva Oeov fj.O-ov ycveas o-/co\tas, fv ots (di/0paj7rots r}s ycv. O~KO\.)
etc.
B. 143,6; H. 243. 525 jS. ; C. 557; D. 392; J. 834.
243 Relative clauses are naturally and originally subordinate or
5 secondary clauses, and hence strictly ought always to append
only subordinate thoughts immediately dependent on the
leading clause, or adjuncts of individual members of it. But
the influence of Latin upon the later Greek language is un-
143.] CONSTRUCTION OF RELATIVE SENTENCES. 283
mistakable, in the fact that Relative clauses so often either
stand in Latin style quite at the beginning of a sentence, or
serve as a continuation of the leading clause ; yet in such a
way that in b o t h cases they contain leading thoughts, and
thus assume the relation ofco-ordinateleadingclauses
(hence o? is equivalent to ical oro?, et hie etc.).
Yet this usage is employed less by those authors who wrote in the
popular language, than by those who wrote a literary and periodic style.
Hence this mode of expression, though originally the less idiomatic, is
found most frequently of all in the writings of Luke, particularly in
the Acts ; often also in the Epistles, because these compositions strive
after an extended periodic structure. This is less the case in the
Evangelists, even in the discourses which occur there. A portion of
these clauses still evince their characteristic as subjoined leading
clauses by inserting immediately after the Relative the additional con-
nective Kat (just as in the German sentence was er auch that}.
Examples are very numerous. a) Without *ai: John xix.
17 (but not vi. 21 where efc yv vrrrjyov is a subordinate adjunct to
yfc), Acts v. 16, 36 ; vii. 20 ; ix. 3o, 39 ; xi. 28 ; xiv. 8, 9 ; xvii. 10 ;
xxvi. 12 (ei/ ols), 19 (oBf.v quare), xxviii. 15 ; Gal. iv. 24, etc. On Acts
xxiv. 14 see 151, 10 p. 383 ; on Rom. xvi. 27 144, 7 p. 293.
b) W i t h K a t : Luke x. 30 ; Acts i. 1 1 ; x. 39 ; xii. 4 ; xiii. 22 ; xxviii.
10 ; Gal. ii. 10, etc. On Acts xxiv. 6 see 144, 7 p. 293. Cf. also
149, 8f ) p. 363. This combination is common in later authors.
B. 143, 7 b. ; H. 818 Rem. d. ; C. 562; J. 833. 2.
The usage that when two successive co-ordinate Relative
clauses have one and the same antecedent the Demonstra-
tive (auro?) takes the place of the Relative in the second
clause, harmonizes so closely with the character of the popular
language (hence it is so frequent even in Homer) that in the
N. T. also many examples of it are found, as Luke xvii. 31
09 ecrTaL 7rl rov So)yLtaro9 /cal TCL a/cevr) avrov eV rfj olida, fj,7j
rw, cf. xiii. 4 ; John i. 33 ; Acts iii. 13 Tdf. [ed. 8 omits
oi^, so N], 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; 2 Pet. ii. 3, etc.
A portion of these instances may be fitly traced also to the circum-
stance that the N. T. writers were familiarized by the O. T. with sud-
den transitions from relative, participial, and other subordinate clauses
to leading clauses (in continuation of the subordinate clauses ; cf. on
the Hebrew, Gesen. Lehrg. 802), and hence often employed this
construction of their own accord; see on this in its place 151, 8 sq.
p. 381 sq.
284 CONSTRUCTION OF RELATIVE SENTENCES. [ 143.
REMARK. Also of the more delicate construction (cf. B. 143, 8 ;
J. 825), when the case of the Demonstrative occurring in a closely
244 connected subordinate clause following the Relative is assumed
by the Relative, and, the Demonstrative being dropped, both clauses
are thus blended externally into one (as ols ecu/ ns So) equiv. to ot, cou-
rts avTois 8a>), an example occurs (so far as the great fluctuation of the
MSB. permits us to discover the text) in Matt. vii. 9 Tdf. [ed. 7 ; ed. 8
om. ecu/, so Treg. cod. Sin.] : rig eoriv c v/x-cov aj'$pw7ros, ov ecu/ tur^-
<m (i.e. os, eai/ avrov aiT^crei) 6 vtos avrov dproi/, jjirj \i6ov eTrtSwo-ct avrcp ;
In this case we encounter the additional irregularity that the last
clause, instead of continuing the Relative construction, passes over into
a direct question introduced by /x>j. Cf. the parallel passage from
Luke in 151, 10 p. 384. According to the other reading (which drops
ecu/) the Relative construction alluded to disappears.
B. 143, 12; H. 809; C. 554c.; D. p. 364; J. 824, II.
7 Examples of Relative clauses where the governing noun (or
antecedent so-called) is incorporated into the Relative
clause (but without the Article and not immediately after the
Relative) are, Mark vi. 16 ov eyo> aireicefyaXiaa 'Icodvvrjv, ovros
rfyepOr), Luke i. 4 ; xxiv. 1 (frepovcrai, a r^roi/JLacrav apto/jbara, John
vi. 14, etc. On Phil. iii. 18 ; Philem. 10, etc. see 123, 3 p.
77 sq.
Slightly anomalous is Acts xxi. 16 o~vvfj\6ov . . . dyovres trap <5 evi-
cr$to/AO/ MvacruW rti/t Ku7rpia>, dp^aiw fjiaOr^r-fj. According to the above
rule this would express the following thought : ayovrc? Mvacrcm/a rtva
Kirnynoi/, Trap' <S ei/io-0uyiej/ ; so in fact it is understood by the Vulgate
(which here is guided by a correct grammatical instinct) and several
expositors. But the context and probable facts in the case stand
opposed to this, and require the meaning (which Luther, deWette, et al.
express) who led us TO a certain Mnason etc. Many, among them
Winer 214 (201), have accordingly explained the Dative Mmo-wvt as
a species of local Dative, made it depend immediately on ayovres, and
resolved it by ?rpos Mraowo. Not only has this interpretation (as
deWette has remarked) its difficulty, but, apart from the rarity of such
a Dative, the Greek would not be good ; since in this case the words
must of necessity have been arranged thus : ayovres (sc. ^/nas) Mrao-aw
rwi KuTrpiw, Trap' w etc. The position of the words, moreover, is the
very thing which forces us to the only correct interpretation (proposed
by Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 177), according to which the words
are indeed to be construed according to the above rule, but as follows :
ayojres (^as) Trapa Mi/cwraM/a TWO. Kvrrpioi/, yap* <5 etc. This gives, too.
143.] ATTRACTION IN RELATIVE SENTENCES. 285
the sense demanded by the majority of interpreters, and alone suited
to the passage. The contraction of the two clauses into one is easily
explicable, owing to the similarity of the two adjuncts (wapd TWO. and
Trapd rtvt), and acquires still more grammatical probability if we sub-
stitute in the first place Trapd with the Dative. For this use of a Dat.
dependent on a Preposition with a verb of motion is by no means
unusual, and is found both in Greek authors and in the N. T. ; see
147 under Trapd p. 339. The omission of the object ^//.a?, at which 245
however no one would take offence, occasioned the erroneous assump-
tion (early disseminated by the rendering of the Vulgate) that Mva-
o-iDva was the object of ayovrcs. If this were what Luke had wanted to
say, he would for perspicuity's sake not only have placed Mvaoxora in
the Accusative immediately with ayovrcs, but probably also have
subjoined a local specification, as e/ce<$ev etc.
ATTRACTION IN RELATIVE SENTENCES.
B. 143,13; H. 808; C. 554a.b.; D. 402; J. 822.
Of the constructions pre-eminently peculiar to the Greek &
tongue, perhaps none became more the usage of all times and
dialects, than that known under the name of Attraction in
Relative sentences. It is so thoroughly rooted in the craving
for external symmetry inborn in all native Greeks, and in the
general propensity to subordinate grammatical precision of ex-
pression to beauty of form, that it passed over also into the
popular language and almost suppressed the regular form of
expression. 1 Hence numerous examples of it, moulded thor-
oughly in the spirit of the best Greek prose, are found in all
parts of the N. T. : most frequently, again, in Luke, yet also
not seldom in John and in the Epistles, less prominently in
Matt., Mark, and the Revelation. In the Sept. also this con-
struction is current (see e.g. Deut. xiv. 23 ; xv. 18 ; xvi. 2,
5, 18, etc.).
We will arrange the examples as follows (cf. B. I.e.) :
Ordinary examples of the Genitive (according to the model
jU,TO.SiSa>9 avrw rov CTLTOV ovtrep instead of 6Wep X ls ) : Matt, xviii.
19; Luke v. 9 [Treg. and] B, xv. 16; John iv. 5, 14; vii. 39; xv.
1 In fact examples are not wanting where the regular construction has been
altered into the other by the copyists, or at least it is very doubtful which read-
ing was the original one; see below, and the variants on Mark xiii. 19 (Lchm.
[Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.] V), xiv. 72; John ii. 22 (Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.] g*>),
iv. 5, 50 (Lchm. [Treg. Tdf.] fo), vii. 39 ; Tit. iii. 5 (Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. Sin.] 5),
Rev. i. 20 (Lchm. [T. Tr. Sin.] oSs) ; cf. the note on 9 p. 286.
286 ATTRACTION IN RELATIVE SENTENCES. [ 143.
20; xxi. 10 ; Acts i. 1 ; iii. 21, 25 ; vii. 17, 45 ; ix. 36; x. 39 ; xxii.
10 ; 1 Cor. vi. 19 ; 2 Cor. i. 6 ; x. 8 ; Eph. i. 8 ; Tit. iii. 6 ; Heb. ix.
20 (quotn.), vi. 10 ; Jas. ii. 5 ; 1 Pet. iv. 11 ; 1 John iii. 24 ; Jude 15.
Ordinary examples of the Dative (according to the model ev
Trpoo-^eperat rots <t'Aots 019 instead of ovs e^ei) : Matt. xxiv. 50 ;
Mark vii. 13; Luke ii. 20; v. 9 ; ix. 43; xii. 46; xxiv. 25; John
xvii. 5, 11; Acts ii. 22; vii. 16: xvii. 31; xx. 38; 2 Cor. xii. 21;
Eph. ii. 10 ; 2 Thess. i. 4 ; Rev. xviii. 6.
It is to be noticed that in the majority of the passages referred to
246 there is not the least fluctuation in the text ; only cod. D has some-
times (quite alone) the Accusative instead of the other two cases.
B. 143,14; H. 809; C. 663; D. p.864sq.; J. 82411.
9 The noun of the antecedent clause is incorporated into the
Relative clause (but according to 7 p. 284 not placed imme-
diately after the Relative) and assumes also the case of the
Relative; as,
Luke iii. 19 Trepi Travrwv wv eTrooyo-ev Troyr/pun/ 6 'HpwSry?, xix. 37 Trepi
iracrtav wv cISoi/ Svva/xcwv, Rom. iv. 17 (see lip. 287). Similar is 2 Cor.
X. 13 Kara TO /merpov TOV /cavoVos, ov c/xepwrcv f)fuv 6 $605 /xcrpov, c<tK<r$ai
a-xpt Kai V/ACOJ/ (see de Wette). Here belongs also Acts xxv. 18 if we
adopt [so Treg.] the text of B E etc. viz. Trepi ov ot Kcmjyopoi
atriav
B. 143, 15; H. 810; C. 554 N. : J. 822.
10 The noun or pronoun (TOVTWV, roirrot?, etc.) in the antece-
dent clause is wholly omitted so that the Relative stands quite
alone in the case which properly does not belong to it, accord-
ing to the example fjLe^vrjfjbevo^ &v eTrpafe (i.e. rwv Trpajfjud^wv,
&v for a eVpafe) ; also when dependent on a Preposition (cf.
127, 5 p. 104 sq.) : ^ Oopv^dre e$ ol? av \eyco.
Luke ix. 36 aTr-^yyetXav ovScv &v Iwpa/cav, xxiii. 41 aia a)i> 7rpaa/xev
1 Whether the last word irovijpdv or jrovt\pS>v, pronounced superfluous by
many commentators (condemned also by Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] but given by the oldest
MSS. [N* TTorripd] ) is to be admitted into the text, is a question on which textual
criticism has probably yet to come to a decision. Grammatically viewed there is
nothing against the addition in either form. But (in opposition to Meyer [?]) the
preference is probably to be yielded to the reading irov-rjpdv (adopted by Lchm.
[Tdf.]) as the less common, because here the change of irov^pav into irov^Siv would
take place even more easily than usual, owing to the position of the word ; cf. the
preceding note, p. 285. The meaning is : Among all the accusations which they
brought forward, there was not, as I surmised, a bad one (they brought forward no bad
one). Both the alteration of the word into voviipSii/ and its omission (since it is
contained by implication in virevoow) may very easily have been the work of cor-
recting copyists or commentators.
143.] ATTRACTION IN RELATIVE SENTENCES. 287
, John vii. 31 TrXctova cn^cta TTOI^O-CI wi/ OUTOS CTrotr/crev,
xvii. 9 (epwrco) Trepi wi/ SeSwKcts /AOI, Acts viii. 24; xxi. 19, 24 (arising
from a Karrjx^raL quae docentur), xxii. 15 ; xxv. 18 (see the note on
9 p. 286) ; Rom. xv. 18 ; 1 Cor. vii. 1 ; 2 Cor. xii. 17 ; Eph. iii. 20 ;
Heb. V. 8 tfjiaOfv a<j> wv e7ra$ev rty vTraKorjv, 2 Pet. ii. 12 V ots dyvoov-
viv (3\aa-ff>r)fji.ovvT^. Here belong also Acts xxvi. 22 (where the Par-
ticiple too is drawn into the attraction ; see 144, 20 p. 305), and
xxvi. 1 6 respecting which see 1 1 below.
All the examples quoted hitherto follow strictly the leading 11
rule of attraction, viz. that the Relative if unattracted would
have stood in the Accusative. But so great was the fondness
for this construction that it was employed also where, strictly,
attraction was not grammatically admissible. For, since by 247
means of it members belonging together could be so joined
together as to blend into one externally rounded and recog-
nizable whole, the N. T. writers were unwilling to be deprived
of this advantage even in cases where strict usage was opposed
to it.
A portion of these cases may, to be sure, be referred to constructions
with the Accus., as 2 Cor. i. 4 T^S Trapa/cA^o-coos ijs TrapaKaXovpeOa, Eph.
i. 6 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. fl*J r>}9 \dpiros avrov 175 e^aptrtoo-ej/ ^/xas, iv. 1
n/s K\-r)arcws 179 e/cX^^re (cf. 1 Kings viii. 29 r>}<j Trpoo-cu^s 175 Trpocrevxf-
rai), all which are founded on the familiar construction treated of
131, 5 p. 148. More free, yet sustaining a certain analogy to the
same usage, are Acts xxiv. 21 <J>wvfjs rjs Kpaa (cf. Isa. vi. 4 -ny? <J3wv^j<s
rj<S eKeKpayov) and Jude 15 TWI/ Ipycov dcrejSet'a? avroji/ wi/ rjcri^crav. But
the following stand out of all analogy : 2 Thess. i. 4 OXiij/ea-Lv al<s
(see however 132, 9 p. 161), Acts i. 22 coos TT}S ^/xepas ^s
(Vulg. qua adsumptus est), Rom. iv. 17 Karevavrt ov ITTI-
Oeov ante deum, cui credidit (since in this sense Trwrrcveii/ rtva is
wholly contrary to usage ; see 133, 4 p. 173 sq.), 1 Tim. iv. 6 var.,
Acts xxvi. 1 6 /xtxprvpa <Sv re eTScs 5>v re O^IJCTO/ACU aot (quibus apparebo
tibi). In this last passage the first clause &v re eTScs is perfectly reg-
ular, but the second is drawn into the attraction manifestly only for
symmetry's sake, which is not readily sacrificed to grammatical strict-
ness by a Greek writer (like Luke) 1 ; cf. Jude 15. On Acts xiii. 39,
however, see 147, 30 p. 342.
B. 143, N. 5; H. 811 a. ; C. 554 d. ; D. p. 364; J. 822 Obs. 10.
Relative Adverbs also sometimes undergo attraction. Examples 12
1 The variation of cod. Vat. and sundry versions (3>v elSes /xe etc.) can only be
founded in a misunderstanding of the pavssage (perhaps cf $>v for is).
288 THE PARTICIPLE. [ 144
from the 1ST. T. are Matt. xxv. 24, 26 o-wayo> oOtv (equiv. to
OTTOV) ov oico-KopTTia-a.. Cf. with this 127, 5 p. 105 and the similar
kind of attraction in 151, 2 p. 377.
B. 143, 17; H. 817; C. 534c.; D. 404; J. 824.
13 Of the so-called attractio inversa (a species of anacoluthon
where the antecedent is attracted by the Relative and takes its
case ; see the details in the general Grammars) a few wholly
unquestionable instances are found.
Thus in the oft-repeated quotation from the 0. T. (Ps. cxvii. 22)
XtOov ov aireooKifJiao-av ot oiKoSo/xowres, OVTOS Zytvrjflr) etc. Matt. xxi.
42, etc. ; but in 1 Pet. ii. 7 Lchm. [Treg.] Ai'0os ov [\iOov ov Tdf. '*].
Further, Luke i. 73 (Sta^/cr;?), opKov ov w/xocrcv Trpos 'A/fyaa/x etc.,
1 Cor. x. 16 TOV aprov ov KAw/xev, ov\\ Kowwvia ioriv etc. On Acts
x. 36 Tdf. [8*] see 131, 13 p. 153 sq. An antecedent general pro-
nominal idea is likewise attracted by the Relative in Luke xii. 48
jravrl <5 eooOrj TroAv, TTO\V ^rjrrjO^o-^TaL trap avrov. Cf. here 151,
4 p. 379.
B. 143, 19; H. cf. 822; 853 b.; 757; C. 641; J. 836, 6. 7; G. 60.
14 A general Relative clause (os av etc.) sometimes takes the place of
248 a conditional clause with edV (also a species of anacoluthon) ;
as, Matt. X. 1 4 os av ft/*) oe&qrai v/xas . . . , e^ep^o/xcvoi cKTa'a^are rbv
Kovioprov etc., xxiii. 16, 18 os av O/XOOT? Iv TW vaw, ovScv ecrriv. Cf. the
opposite case in 149, 6 p. 360.
THE PARTICIPLE.
B. 144; H. 784D.; C. 673; J. 662; G. Chap. vi.
1 With respect to the use of Participles by the several N. T.
writers a few general remarks must first be premised. As in
course of time Infinitive constructions in the ancient languages
were gradually resolved into conjunctional clauses ( 141, 1 p.
272), the like takes place also with the Participle. Every one
conversant with Greek literature knows with what predilection
in its classic period participial constructions are employed, and
how the entire system of its structure of sentences depends in
great part on the employment of these clauses. Yet the arti-
ficial periodic structure produced by their aid is rather a pro-
duct of the refined (rhetorical) literary language and re-
mained pre-eminently a characteristic of it, while the plain
popular language of all periods (read the lively and circum-
stantial descriptions, narratives, comparisons of Homer)
preferred, instead of length) and involved periods, to give,
144.] THE PARTICIPLE. 289
rather, the individual members as independent clauses with a
finite verb, and to indicate the mode of their connection by
some of the simplest particles. Since, moreover, this analytic
mode of construction suited more the genius of Oriental ex-
pression (and accordingly prevails in the books of the 0. T.),
it was natural that, particularly in the language of the
Gospels marked especially by the national peculiarities
(Luko's not excepted, cf. 141, 6 p. 276), the employment of
participial constructions should noticeably recede before the
construction by means of finite verbs, and that numerous com-
binations by means of conjunctions (especially Kai) are pre-
ferred where the classic literary language would without doubt
have availed itself of the construction with the Participle, or
of other subordinate dependent clauses.
The following passages will illustrate in general what has been said :
Matt. vii. 27 /cat /care/ity 17 fipoxr) /cat rjK9ov ol Trora/xot /cat em/eva-ai/ ot
aW/Aoi /cat Trpocre/coi^av rfj ot/cta eKeti/ry, /cat eTreo-ev, /cat rjv f) Trrcocris avrrys
jLteyaAT?, viii. 14-16 /cat IXBw 6 'I^o-cws etc., Mark i. 12, 13 ; Luke xviii.
3234 7rapa8oO-tj(TTaL /cat . . . ava j Tr/a-erai /cat avrot ov&ev TOVTWV avvfj- 249
/cav, /cat r)v TO p-iy/aa rovro /ceKpu/A/x-evov air avrcuv, /cat OVK eytVaxr/coi/ TO,
Aeyo/xei/a, xix. 2, 3 /cat tSov dv-^p etc., John iv. 47-50 ; Matt. xxi. 46
compared with the parallel passages, etc. ; see also 151, 31 p. 401.
A multitude of similar examples may be adduced also from the Apoc-
alypse. On the other hand, Luke in the Acts is removed the farthest
from this form of narration ; the language of this book in its manner
of employing participial constructions approximates quite conspicuously
to the style of the classic Greek writers, and in passages reproduces
completely the traits of the Greek mode of thought and expression
(read in particular the speeches put into the mouth of the persons that
make their appearance, e.g. of Peter in Chaps, ii. and iii., of Paul in
Chaps, xvii. xxii. xxiv. xxvi., of Tertullus in Chap, xxiv., in part also of
Stephen in Chap, vii., or separate historical sections such as iv. 13-24;
xvi. 18-23, 27 ; xix. 1-9 ; xxvii. 30, etc.). The Epistolary writings,
particularly those of Paul, and still more the Epistle to the Hebrews,
likewise frequently employ participles, since for the treatment of didac-
tic and dogmatic material no form of expression was better suited than
the philosophic, finished, language of the learned Greeks of that day.
Yet it is not to be denied, that in handling participial constructions
classic dexterity in many respects fails the authors of these Epistles,
and that their periods, on account of the very excess of participles,
relative and other subordinate clauses, parentheses, and changes of
structure, are often deficient in perspicuity and prepare grave ditficul-
3T
290 rH E PARTICIPLE. [ 144.
ties for the interpreter ; see, for example, the first chapters of the
Epp. to the Ephesians and the Colossians.
One mode of resolving a periodic combination of clauses
into juxtaposed independent clauses has already been spoken
of ( 139, 28 p. 226) in connection with hypothetic construc-
tions. Far more extensive would a collection prove to be of
those instances from all parts of the N. T. in which, instead
of Participles (usual in the classic literary language) standing
in some kind of temporal or causal relation to the leading
clause, the finite verb is introduced, to which then the leading
verb is subjoined by icat.
Since an enumeration of all the passages of the sort belongs rather
to a work on N. T. Rhetoric than to a Grammar, it may suffice to
illustrate the usage in separate characteristic examples : Matt, xviii.
21 TrocraKis d/xapT^o-ec ts c/xc 6 dSeA</>o9 fjiov KOLL atfrvjao) <U>TO>; where
certainly every native Greek would have written TO) ... d/xaprrjo-avn,
since the first clause stands temper ally in a subordinate rela-
tion to the second ; Luke xxiv. 18 <rv /xdvo? Trapoi/cets 'lepoDo-aAr)/*, KCLL
OVK eyvcos TO, yci'o/xeva Iv avr-rj ; John vii. 4 ovSet? Iv KpuTrrw ri Trout /cat
77x61 avro<j ev Trappier to, /cu, vi. 50 ouros COTIV 6 apros . . . , iva TIS l
^ I**} Q-TroOdvr), iii. 19 avrrj CCTTIV f) KptVts, on TO <pa>5
. . /cat r)ya.7rir}(Tav /xaAAov TO O-KOTOS $ TO <jSa>5, Rom. X. 20
/cal A-e'yei. Also with an adversative Particle : Rom. vi. 17
rt ^T SoAoi TT^5 d/xapTias, virr)Kov(ra.T 8e etc.
Here belongs, further, the juxtaposition of two Impera-
tives of such a sort that the emphasis lies only on one of the'
250 commands given. This likewise is in accordance with a mode
of popular speech (cf. the Latin divide et impera, i.e. divide if
thou wilt conquer).
Thus the frequent Ip^ov KCU tSe (instead of the literary e'A&W tSe or
Ip^ov Iva 18775) John i. 47 ; Rev. vi. 1, 5, 7, epewr/o-oi/ KCU t'Se John vii.
52, still more plainly Eph. iv. 26 (quotn.) opyieo-$e /cat /XT) d/xapTdVeT
where it is impossible to understand the first command as direct (cf.
Mehlh. Schema GOTO KOIVOV etc. 1833). Further, the combination of an
Imperative with a following finite verb in the Future; as, Ip^ecr^c
KCU oi^o*^e John i. 40 Tdf. [Treg.J, aiTctre Kat So^o-eTat Kpowre KCU
dvotyrJo-Tat Matt. vii. 7 (Luke xi. 9),dpaT /cat evpr)Wr Matt. xi. 29, etc.
B. 144, 1; C. cf. 679; D. cf. 420, 421 Obs. 5; J. cf. 705, 2. 4; 759 Obs. 4; W. 350 sq
(328 sq.).
3 Participles take the place of subordinate clauses only.
There are many passages, particularly in Paul's Epistles, where
144.] THE PARTICIPLE APPARENTLY INDEPENDENT. 291
Participles appear to stand independently ; and hence it has
been frequently asserted that in the N. T. even leading
clauses are formed in Hebrew fashion (see Gesen. Lehrg.
p. 791 ; Gr. 131, 2) by means of Participles. Such an as-
sumption, however, would militate fundamentally with the
genius of Greek (prose) usage ; (not even the Seventy take
this liberty even where they had a Participle before them in
the Original). The probability of this assertion, therefore, in
Paul's case must be disputed at the outset, since even from the
most Hebraistic books of the N. T. no sure instance of such
a usage can be brought forward. It would be unreasonable
likewise to wish to apply to the language of such a writer as
Paul the isolated precedents extant in classic Greek poets
and earlier prose authors (which, besides, are all capable of a
proper explanation). On the contrary, all the examples
adduced as of this class may be brought substantially under
some one of the following heads :
a) The Participle appears to stand independently in in com- 4
plete citations from the 0. T., or those quoted from
memory.
For instance : 1 Cor. iii. 196 Spao-o-o/jicvos TOVS a-o<f>ov<s tv rff Travovp-
yia avrwv. Here it is plain even from the Article that the Participle
can only hold the place of a Subject, and consequently cannot pos-
sibly itself be predicate (with eortV understood), but a complete predi-
cate (fiovXty avrcuv e^eW^o-ev according to Job v. 13) is to be supplied,
provided Paul designed to give a complete thought here where he was
only concerned with the contents of the given words of the quotation ;
cf. Heb. i. 7 (after Ps. civ.), Matt. ii. 18 (after Jer. xxxi. 15). In this
way we can explain, too, most simply the Participle SiSov* in Heb. viii.
10 and x. 16, viz. as a quotation according to the Alexandrian text 1 251
from Jer. xxxi. (xxxviii.) 33. For to connect it grammatically with
Sta&jcro/Acu is so harsh as to seem hardly conceivable, and the connection
with 7riypai//w is prevented by KO.L.
b) In proverbial phrases. 5
These, as is well known, appear in all languages often as gram-
matically incomplete sentences (see e.g. Matt. v. 38), since the supply
of what is necessary to render the sentence grammatically complete is
1 In cod. Vat. it is given completely StSoi/s 5 <ra> etc. The quotations in the Ep.
to the Heb., however, agree almost always with the text of the Alexandrian codex,
(those in the Pauline Epistles more with the Vatican codex) ; see Bleek, Heb. VoL
I. p. 369 sqq.
292 THE PARTICIPLE. [ 144.
made unconsciously and involuntarily by the hearer himself, and in
all such quotations it is the sense only which is important, not the
grammatical construction. E.g. 2 Pet. ii. 22 KvW eVtcrrpei^as eVt TO
tSiov eepa/Aa vs Aovo-a/x-evr? eis /cvA.ioy/,ov fiopfiopov.
6 c) The Participle is to have a finite verb supplied to it
from the context, as was often the case also in Greek authors
(see B. 151, IV. 5, and compare the chapter 011 Ellipsis below,
p. 390) ; and
d) The Participle stands anacoluthically, the sentence for
any reason (generally in consequence of parenthetic inser-
tions) following another construction or even breaking off and
remaining incomplete (cf. the chapter below on Anacoluthon,
p. 378).
To one of these last two heads are almost all Participles apparently
standing absolutely to be referred, especially in Paul's writings. But
as respects the individual cases, especially if both modes of explana-
tion appear to be grammatically admissible, the opinions of the most
reputable interpreters are not infrequently divided. As the number
of passages is very considerable ; as, further, an evident struggling
with expression has often interrupted the grammatical sequence of
thought and forced it into the background, and the correct understand-
ing of the several passages for the most part requires a student to
enter somewhat thoroughly into the context, not only grammatically,
but also doctrinally, historically, rhetorically : the grammarian must
restrict himself, at least in this connection, to establishing the existence
of the two classes of cases described, and to illustrating their nature
in a few prominent examples. 1
Examples of c) are, Rom. v. lOsq. ci yap fyOpol oi/res etc. Here
not only has /cau^oo/xei/oi been taken as a finite verb by many modern
interpreters, but the variant /cav^u/Ac^a (as an ancient interpretation)
is extant. Nevertheless the Part, must be regarded as a " tardily sub-
joined" adjunct to <na&ifcr6fA&a; see the comm. of Fritzsche, deWette,
252 Meyer. 2 Cor. viii. 19 sq. ov /xoi/ov 8e, dXAa /cat xetpoTov7?0eis etc., a
parenthetic clause (left at the same time incomplete) which, since it
stands out of all construction, is to be completed with the aid of the
preceding Relative clause as follows : who not only on this account
(iv TO) cvayy. i.e. as a publisher of the gospel), but also as one chosen
by the churches, is held in respect; the oreAA.oju.6i/oi following is
connected again most simply with the leading predicate
1 On account of their obvious structural difficulties, such sentences even in
ancient times were forced to undergo attempts at emendation of all sorts ; see e.g.
the various readings on Horn. v. 11 ; 2 Cor. viii. 21 ; Heb. vii. 1 ; 1 Pet. ii. 11.
144.] THE PARTICIPLE APPARENTLY INDEPENDENT. 293
In the following verse (21), however, if with Tdf. [eds. 2, 7 ; not 8,
Treg. cod. Sin.] we read Trpoi/oov'/aei/ot ydp, we should be obliged again
to take the participial clause parenthetically and supply with it such
an idea as, I do this etc. (cf. 151, 24 b) c) p. 394 sq.). Mark xii. 5
where for ovs (jitv Seporres, ov<s Be. O.TTOKTVVOVT<S a predicate like they
maltreated is to be derived from aTreKTcivai/ (cf. 151, 23d) p. 392).
See, besides, Heb. vii. 1-3 (according to the difficult reading [so
too tf], adopted by Lchm. [Treg.], 09 crwavnjcras etc., what is neces-
sary to complete it grammatically being given in the second verse),
1 Pet. ii. 18 (01 ot/cerat, tiTroracrcrd/xevot etc.), iii. 1 (at ywat/ces, vTroraa--
cro/xevai etc.), 7 (ot aVSp<j, (Twoi/cowres etc.) with all which Parti-
ciples the appropriate predicates are to be supplied from the context ;
see the commentaries. Since such Participles absolute often cannot
be otherwise translated than by finite verbs, too great compliance
with our usage has led to the taking as leading clauses of yet many
other Participles, the grammatical coherence of which either with
preceding or following clauses has been satisfactorily proved by the
more sharp and discriminating criticism of recent interpreters ; see,
for instance, 2 Cor. v. 12; Rom. xii. 6 (where before ex oVTes Se none
of the larger marks of punctuation is to be placed), xiii. 11 (referring
to vs. 8), Heb. xii. 15 ; 2 Pet. ii. 1 (dpvot;//.ej/oi, eTrayovrcs etc.), iii. 5
(where the participial clause begins with e vSaros), etc.
Examples of d) are, 2 Cor. v. 6 Oappovvre? KO.L tSors etc. Here
the Participles are anacoluthic ; for after the parenthesis Sia Trtcrrecos
yap etc. the sentence, attracted by the predicate of the parenthesis
and resuming the initial tfappowres, takes another turn : 6appovp.f.v Se
etc. In 2 Pet. i. 17 (\a/3wv yap Trapa Oeov etc.) the construction is
completely broken off with vs. 17 ; in vs. 18 a different construction
follows, the subject changing or rather reverting to the preceding one
(in vs. 1G), and the grammatically incomplete thought which began
with vs. 17 being incorporated as object (ravrrjv ryv <covrji/) into this
following clause. John xiii. 1 (dyaTnjo-as . . . ^yaTr^crei/), where the
sentence, begun with ?rp6 Se T?}? copras etc., led astray by the intervening
dyaTT^o-as, suddenly passes over to a conclusion that does not correspond
to the first participial clause (ct'Sws etc.). In the following verse the
interrupted sentence is not indeed grammatically completed, but con-
tinued in the interrupted narrative. In John vi. 22 Rec. the
participial clause (tSobv [Lchm. Tdf. Treg. et8ov, cod. Sin. ctSev] on
etc.) is taken up again in vs. 24 by ore ovv etSev [cod. Sin. /cat tSoVrcs
6Vt etc.]. Acts xxiv. 5 (cupoVre? yap etc.) where the discourse,
instead of giving the leading clause belonging to the Participle, con-
tinues in the 6th verse in a Relative construction, just as in Rom. xvi.
25-27 ; (cf. the doxology in Act. Polycarp. 20, and the similar case
294 THE PARTICIPLE. L 144,
Acts xxiv. 18 in 151, 10 p. 383). Rom. xv. 23 sq. Lchm. [Tdf.
Treg. tt*] (wvl Se /XTJKC'TI etc.) where the participial clause tTrnroOiav
e^cui/ etc., owing to the parenthesis eA.7ua> yap etc., is left unfinished,
and the discourse returns .n vs. 25 to the original wvl Se of vs. 23,
see Lchm. vol. II. pref. p. ix, [and Tdf.'s note on vs. 24 in his ed.
8] ; the addition eAevo-o/xat Trpos v/xas appears to be (an emendation)
of later origin. To be sure, on this method of explaining them, the
sentences acquire for the most part a very irregular and anomalous
253 aspect. Yet compare the great multitude of similar changes in con-
struction (a liberty of which the N. T. writers, and foremost among
them Paul, made a very extensive use) with the Participle in 13
p. 298 below, and in different connections 151, 12 p. 386, 123, 5
p. 78.
8 REMARK. The former practice of construing even participial clauses
which stand in indubitable connection with finite verbs as leading
clauses, because, strictly taken, they contain not subordinate but rather
co-ordinate adjuncts of the action expressed by the leading verb, rests
upon an oversight of the laws of the Greek language ; e.g. Jas. ii. 9
i 8c 7rpo<ro>7roA/>7/A7rTtTe, d/xaprtav e/oya^ccr^e, eXcy^o/^ci/oi VTTO TOV vo/xov
ws 7raptt/3arai; see also Luke iv. 15 (e8iSao-Kv . . . Soao'/x.et/o9), Rom.
iii. 24, etc. Modern exegesis has already shown sufficiently the error
of such an interpretation.
B. 144, 1 and N. 1; H. 786; C. 678; D. 393b., 492; J. 451. 695; G. 108.
9 Participles take the place in particular of Relative
clauses; in which case the Participle as a rule has the
Article before it, cf. 125, 3 Remark, p. 93. This is, to be
sure, a general principle of the Greek language. But since
the N. T. in employing it manifestly goes farther than the
ordinary usage, we will here give a view of the cases by classi-
fying them. The Participle stands in place of a Relative
clause
a) After a Substantive likewise rendered definite by the Art. ; as,
Jas. iii. 6 f) yAxocrcra Ka^tcrrarat ei> rot? /AeXctriv ^ajj/, 17 (nnXovo-a oXov TO
o-w/xa etc. Yet the substantive can also stand without an Art. in
the cases specified 125, 3 p. 92 ; proper names, too, as a rule then
dispense with the article (cf. B. 124, 3), as 1 Thess. i. 10 'fyo-ow, rov
pVO/JLCVOV T^/AttS.
b) After Personal Pronouns, since they uniformly take the place
of a definite substantive, as Rom. ix. 20 (TV rts et, 6 avrairoKpivo^vo^
xiv. 4; Jas. iv. 12 o-u rts eT, 6 KptWv (for which in the passage from
Jas. the Rec. Grsb. etc. have after several MSS. os KpiVets), Rrni. viii.
144.] THE PARTICIPLE INSTEAD OF A RELATIVE CLAUSE. 295
4 v fifuv, rots TreptTrarovo-tv, Eph. i. 12, 19 ^/xas, rous Trpo^XTrtKo'ras, TOVS
Trto-reJovras, 1 Cor. viii. 10 ere rov t^ovra ; rarely after the Demons.
Pron. atrrds in place of the 3d Pers., John i. 12 eSo>Ki/ aurots eouo-t'av . . .
TOtS 7TLCTTVOV(riV.
c) Also when the (1st and 2d) Person is not expressed separately
but contained in the verbal ending (on which cf. 129, 13 p. 132), as
Heb. iv. 3 cio-ep^d/iu^a eis TTJV KaraVavcrti', ot Trto-reucravre';, vi. 18 Iva
7rapa.K\rj(TLv l^o>/x,e^, ot /cara<vyoVres, 1 John V. 13 (ar)v X T atwvtov, ot
d) In appositional adjuncts to the Vocative, for the same reason.
See the examples of this in 129 a. 6 p. 141.
e) When the Participle takes the place of a Substantive, and
accordingly stands alone without referring to an object expressly
mentioned. Here the insertion of the article is required, inasmuch as
in general, according to B. 124, 1, the genus is designated (he
who, such a one as) ; if, however, the Participle expresses indefinite
individuals, or those for any reason not more closely designated,
either rts, rti/es is wont to stand with it, or it is used alone without 25 4
an article.
Examples of this very common usage are, Rom. iii. 11 Tdf. OVK
cortv 6 crvvtoov, OVK Zo~Tiv 6 e/c^r/Toii/ TOV 6c.6v as it were, this class of men
is not to be found among them ; but in vs. 12 OVK Ivnv TTOLWV [Tdf. 6
with N] (sc. rls) xP r 7" r Tr ? ra ? Matt. xxv. 29 rw e^ovrt iravrl
rov O fjirj e^ovros, /cat o e^et dp^o-erat CLTT avrov, 2 Cor. xi. 4 et 6 e
aAAov 'lya-ovv Kr)pv(r(TL. 1 Without the article, Mark i. 3 <f>wr) ftowv-
TOS iv rf) epiy^o), Rev. ii. 14 e^ets e/cet /cparowra? rrjv StSa^V BaAaa/u,,
Rom. iii. 1 2 ; Matt. xxiv. 38. With ris, particularly in the periphrasis
for a finite verb by means of the Participle with etrai (see 24 sqq.
pp. 308 sq.), as Mark xiv. 4 rjvav nveg dyavaKrowrcs etc.
f ) Thus far the insertion of the article in the above cases is perfectly
regular. But the N. T. departs somewhat from ordinary usage
(although a few scattered examples are found in Greek authors also,
see Bhdy. p. 3 1 8 ; Winer 110 (104)) in this respect, that even when
the indefinite and general pronominal words (such as ris, oAAos, erepos,
TroXXot) are expressly inserted, the Participle can retain the article ;
as, Gal. i. 7 rive? etcrtv ot Tapao-o-ovres //.as, Col. ii. 8 fJi-rj rts co-rat 6
(cf. Ignat. ad Eph. 8 /x^Sc/xta Ipts 17 Swa/xeVr;), Luke xviii. 9
Trpos rtvas rovs TrcTroifloras, see besides Jude 4 in 125, 3 Rem.
1 Even if the object which the writer has in mind in using the Participle is
subsequently mentioned, the Participle must nevertheless first of all be so con-
strued for example, John v. 45 earn/ & Karijyopuv vfj.<ai>, Mcouo-fjs not, Moses is he
who accuses you, but, there is one who accuses you, Moses. Cf. with this the case
where the Participle with the Art. takes the place of a Predicate, in 129, 1, b)
p. 124.
296 THE PARTICIPLE. [ 144.
p. 93 ; Acts iv. 12 ovS* yap ovo/xa COTIV Irepov, TO SeSo/Aevov ev dv0puj7rois,
John xii. 12 o^Xos TroAvs 6 eA$<W eis Tr)v eoprryj/, Mark xv. 41 aAAai
TroAAal at dva/Jacrai, 2 John 7 TroAAoi TrAdVoi e^A^av . . . cl fir) 6/xoAoyow-
TK. To these add the other examples in 125, 3 Rem. p. 03. in
which the participle with the article is subjoined to an indefinite
substantive or one standing in a predicative relation. In all these
cases the article intimates that the Participle is an Adjectival
adjunct (and consequently takes the place of a Relative clause), not
a limitation pertaining to the verb (and so to be resolved by a Con-
junction). Nevertheless the Greeks, however, would even then have
preferred the Participle without the article, or a complete Relative
clause.
REMARK. On the practice of the Apocalypse to subjoin without
alteration the Participle in the Nominative (as an apposition) to
other Cases, see 123, 5 p. 78.
B. 144,3; H. 789d.; C. 698b.; D. p. 599; J. 811, 3; G. 108, N.I; 109,5.
10 The Future Participle (which, moreover, in the N. T.
has become a rarity, e.g. with the Article, TO ea-bpevov Luke
xxii. 49, 6 irapa&axrwv John vi. 64, TO ^evrjao^evov 1 Cor. xv.
37, 70, \a\7)67ja-6/jLeva Heb. iii. 5) is found as a substitute for a
final clause only in the Acts : viii. 27; xxiv. 11 (r)\6ev etc.) Trpoo--
Kvvrjacov, xxiv. 17 irot^atov^ xxv. 13 acrTrao-o^evoi ; and with o><?
(to express the purpose as it exists in the mind of the subject,
B. 144, N. 14 ; H. 795 e. ; C. 680 ; J. 701 ; G. 109, N.
4) in the Ep. to the Heb. xiii. 17 a<ypv7rvovo-iv ...&>? \6yov
255 Elsewhere to express the purpose the Infinitive is employed, or
Conjunctions, even in passages where the use of the Participle would
have been more convenient (see the examples in 139, 47 p. 241 and
cf. 140, 4, 10, 13, 17), or the Present Participle is used according
to the following paragraph.
B. 144, N. 4; H. 789 Rem. g. ; J. cf. 397.
11 The Present Participle, besides its ordinary use to ex-
press a continuing action and simultaneousness, expresses in
the N. T. the following relations also :
1) In connection with the article it is often used without any
temporal reference, merely to present the idea of the verb either in the
form of a substantive or an adjective, in the same way that the
Pres. Infinitive (yet in this case interchangeably with the Aorist)
often serves to designate the verb's idea as such. For example,
* 144.] THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE. 297
Eph. iv. 28 6 KXeTrrcov p.rjKeri, /cXeTTTerw, Matt, xxvii. 40 o KaraXvov TOV
vaov Kol . . . otKoSojttaji/, <roicroi> o-eavroV, Rev. xx. 10 6 Sid/3oXos 6 TrXavwv
aurovs, 1 Thess. i. 10 'I^o-ow, TW pvo/x,evov ^/xas etc. Hence in John
(vi. 33, 41, 50, 51) there is a difference between 6 apros 6 Kara^atvwv
(a conception) and 6 dpros 6 Kara/Sag (with a temporal reference), see
Lticke.
2) Like the Indicative it often includes in itself the Future force,
and hence is used, especially in connection with ws, even to express
the end or object; see on both points 137, 10, 11 pp. 203 sqq.
and 144, 22 p. 307.
3) Like the Indicative ( 137, 10 c) p. 205) it is used also of the
intention (de conatu) : Matt, xxiii. 13 v/ms rovs ctcrep^o/xeVovs ov/c
d</>ire eicreX$etv, Acts xxviii. 23 IlavXos ^Ti6ero . . . TreiOwv avrovs Trepi
TOV 'Irjvov (whereupon subsequently, ot fjikv eVa'tfovro, ot Se ^iricrrovv).
So in the evangelic narrative Judas before executing the betrayal is
almost always called 6 TrapaSiSous, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 25 (in Lat. versions
qui traditurus erat), 46, 48 ; Mark xiv. 42, 44; John xviii. 2, 5 etc. ;
but in reference to the betrayal as accomplished 6 TrapaSovs, Matt. x. 4 ;
xxvii. 3 Lchm. [Treg.].
B. 144,4; J. 706; W. 45,3.
In sentences which contain two or more Participial clauses, 12
whether in immediate succession or separated by a finite verb,
we find in general (even in those writers that rather rarely
employ the Participial construction) the rule observed, that
only co-ordinated Participles are connected by teal or re;
as, Matt. iv. 23 ; xxvii. 48 ; xxviii. 12, etc. Otherwise, par-
ticularly if the narrative advances from one fact to another by
means of them, the Participles are placed side by side without
any connective.
Of this genuine classic usage a great many examples are still found :
particularly in the Acts, as xxii. 26 d/cow-as 6 Karovrap^7;s
obnyyyciXev X 'ycov, xvi. 27 i8wv ras uvpas civewy/xci/a?, cr7racra//,fos
Tj/xeXXev eawov ai/cupetv, vo/-uan> etc., xxiv. 5, perhaps also xiiL 27 (if
with Lchm., vol. II. Pref. p. viii, we expunge the Kai before ras <wvas,
since the passage in its extant form can hardly be defended gram-
matically) ; but also in the Gospels, as Matt. iv. 13 /caraXtTrwv rrjv
Naap0 \0a>v KarwK^arev etc., 24 (TrpocrrjveyKav avrw etc.), xxvi. 44
Xeywv), Mark v. 15 Oewpovcrw TOV Sai/Aon^o/xcvov Ka.6rjp.fvov
KCU crw^povowra, 26 sq. (TroXXa -7ra9o>cra KCU SaTrav^cracra . . .
dicovoracra . . . eX^oijo-a), iii. 5 ; Luke vii. 37, etc. ; and in the Epistles,
as 1 Cor. xi. 4; 2 Tim. i. 4 ; 2 Pet. ii. 1, etc Sometimes the MSS. 256
vary, since there are cases enough where in point of fact both inter-
298 THE PARTICIPLE. [144.
pretations are admissible ; see, for example, Matt. ii:'.. 1 sq. (Lchm.
omits /cat, Tdf. [ed. 7] gives it [ed. 8 omits it, K> cod. Sin.]), xxviii. 2,
and elsewhere.
B. 144, N. 6 ; C. 604 b. ; 659 ; J. 707 sqq.
13 The cases where Participles share in the so-called constructio
ad synesin or sensum with respect to Gender and Number
are already to be found in the exposition of this construction
given 129, 8 p. 129 sq. It remains here to make mention
of the instances where this construction occurs in reference to
Case. These are all either a n ft col ut hie, i.e. have arisen
in consequence of a mental change of construction (cf. 7 above,
p. 293), or to be explained by the fact that the Participle
refers, not to the grammatical, but to the logical Subject
of the leading clause. We will arrange the examples according
to the Cases ; yet it is to be noticed that here only those
instances are considered where the Participle stands in the
Nominative instead of another Case. For the instances of
the Genitive and Accusative belong under the head of absolute
cases, consequently to 145, 6 p. 317.
The Participle, then, (without the Article, cf. 123, 5
p. 78) is found in the Nominative
a) Where the precise grammatical connection requires the Gen-
itive; these are pure instances of the second class, the Participle
being referred to the logical, instead of the grammatical, subject of the
preceding or following leading clause: Jude 16 TO o-ro/xa avruv
AaXet irrrepoyKa, 6av /Aaovres (equiv. to Xa.\ov<ri.v etc.), Acts xix. 34
7riyj/ovT9 Se . . . (fxavrj eyevcro p,ia IK TTO.VTMV (equiv. to Travre? xpaav).
Further, see Col. ii. 2 (at KapSiai avraii/, crvyu,/?i/?ao-0eWs), 2 Cor. vii. 5
(<rap fjfjiwv . . . $A.t/?o/u.evoi) , ix. 11 and 13 (7rAovrio/zi>oi . . . <$oaoi/Tes,
making reference to vss. 10 and 12) ; perhaps also Rev. v. 12 since
Aeyovres owing to the Gender can strictly speaking refer only to avrwv
(yet according to 1 29, 8 b) p. 1 30 another mode of explanation is
also admissible, which gives the same sense), 2 Cor. i. 7 (see Meyer).
From the O. T. belongs under this head the frequently occurring
pfjfjM Kvpiov . . . Aeywv, as in Gen. xv. 1 ; 1 Kings xvii. 8 ( Al. text) ;
1 Sam. xv. 10 ; 2 Sam. vii. 4, etc.
b) Instead of the Dative, the construction taking a different turn,
as Acts xx. 3 TT o i r? <r a s fjwjvas rpcts . . . eyevero yvd)fjirj TOV vTroarpe^eiv
(see 140, 13 p. 268) ; or the Participle refers to the logical Subject
of the leading clause, as Col. iii. 16 6 Xoyos TOV Xpurrov IvoiKtiru ev
v/ui/ . . . StSaoxovres etc. (where we are not with Lchm. to assume a
144.] THE PAETICIPLE IN THE NOMINATIVE. 299
parenthesis), Acts xv. 22 sq. c8oev TOIS aTroo-roAois . . . ypai^avres. On
the other hand, in Eph. iii. 18 the Participles may (with Lchm.) be
suitably referred to the grammatical subject in e^tcr^o-^rc (see 151,
18 p. 389), and likewise in Phil. i. 30 l^ovrc? together with Trrvpojucvoi
etc. to o-T^/cere. The first hand reading of cod. Vat., Z-% v > can nar cUy
be founded in a mistake of the copyist, but looks like an emendation
occasioned by the extremely great hyperbaton.
c) Instead of the Accusative: in every instance in consequence
of a change of construction, as Mark ix. 20 iSu>i> avroi/, TO TH/CU/AO. cvOvs
eo-7rapaei> avrov, where the sentence, instead of continuing in the
Passive, suddenly takes an Active turn, and hence the subject changes
(cf. the similar examples in 151, 10 p. 383) ; most naturally after an
antecedent Ace. and Infin., since this construction easily and naturally .
changes in the mind, especially after parenthetic clauses, into a direct 257
statement, as Eph. iv. 2 Trapa/caAoi u//,as TrepiTrar^o-ai (equiv. to TrcpiTra-nj-
(raTc), di/e^d/xei/ot etc., 2 Pet. iii. 3 (fjLvrjcr6f)va.i . . . yivwo-Kovres) arid prob-
ably also 1 Pet. ii. 11, where, however, several MSS. even (see Tdf.'s
crit. note) exhibit the alteration aTre^ecr^e.
REMARK. The examples from the Revelation where the Participle
stands in the Nominative (with or without the Article) and the con-
struction requires a different Case, have not been included here,
because they in part may be referred to the observation in 123, 5 p.
78, in part are a consequence of the connection of clauses peculiar to
that book, and spoken of 151, 12 p. 386.
B. 144, 5 and'N. 6; H. cf. 788. 801 ; C. 677 e. f. ; D. 578; J. 693; G. 112, 2.
The familiar Greek idiom, according to which what with us 14
is a subordinate circumstance is expressed in Greek
by the finite verb and the leading idea by a Participle
dependent on that verb, has in the N. T. in the case of \av-
Odveiv and its associated verbs almost completely disappeared,
only a few instances of it being adducible (almost exclusively
from Luke and the Ep. to the Hebrews) : Heb. xiii. 2 e\a06v
rives %evlcravTs, Luke xxiii. 12 Trpoinrrip'xpv iv e^Opa 6We<?,
Acts viii. 16 VTTTJP^OV Pepaimcr pivot,, xix. 36 /careen aX/juevoi (cf.
18 p. 304), Matt. xvii. 25 TrpoifyOavev avrov \ejcov.
What elsewhere admits, with more or less plausibility, of being com-
prised under this head (which, however, owes its establishment to
our modern linguistic sense) restricts itself to the following: The
idea again (TraXtv) is sometimes given by Luke, after Hebrew prece-
dent (see Gesen. Lex. sub 5]0?, and Lehrgb. 824; Gr. 139, 2 and
3 a.) or the Sept. (Gen. iv. 2; Ex. x. 28; xiv. 13 etc.), by
300 THE PARTICIPLE. [ 144.
cr a i but with an Infinitive following (cf. Ep. Clem. 1, 12), as Luke
xx. 11, 12 7rpoo-e#To erepoi/ Tre/xi/fcu SoOAov (on the other hand in the
parallel passage Mark xii. 4 TraAiv dTreo-reiAev ; so the Seventy some-
times render qo^i by TraAiv, as Gen. viii. 10), Acts xii. 3 Trpoo-etfero
criAAa/?eu/ TOV Ilerpov ; and wee versa (cf. the Homeric aXro Aa0a>v), as
7rpoo-0is ?7Tv Trapu/^oArjv Luke xix. 11. The idea continuing, per-
sisting, Luke expresses by eTrt/xevw with the Participle (cf. John
viii. 7), Acts xii. 16 cTre/xcvev /cpoutov, or ov SiaAciTrw, Luke vii. 45,
after the analogy of 7rav'eo-#ai (15 below). The expression eT / A<rev
SiaTao-o-wv (Matt. xi. 1) also may be fitly translated by the adverb
adequately, sufficiently. On OtXeiv followed by the Infin. see 150, 8
p. 375 ; cf. also 8 above, p. 294.
B. 144, 6; H. 796 sq. ; C. 677; D. 591. 692; J. 681 sqq. ; G. 113.
5 On the other hand, the rule according to which certain
verbal ideas, particularly those of internal and external per-
ception, of learning, of ceasing, take after them their com-
plementary clauses (which we as a rule express by the
Infin. with to or a clause with that) in the form of a Parti-
ciple, is pretty accurately observed by the N.T. writers ; only
that in cases where both constructions, the Participle and the
Infinitive, are admissible (e.g. with aicovew, etSemt), they give
the preference to the latter, but still more frequently introduce
the complementary verbal idea as a subordinate clause, with a
conjunction (OTA).
258 The instances that occur, arranged according to Cases, are
the following :
a) The Participle in the Nominative.
Thus with Travfo-Qai Luke v. 4, frequently in the Acts, the Ep. to
the Heb., and by Paul, see Wahl; with </>aiW0at Matt. vi. 16, 18
(but not Rom. vii. 13) ; with vTrap^etv (only by Luke and in the Epp.,
cf. 14 p. 299 and 18 p. 304) ; with /caAcos irouelv and cv irpdrrciv
Acts x. 33 ; Phil. iv. 14 ; 2 Pet. i. 19 ; 3 John 6 ; Acts xv. 29. Fur-
ther, ov rpe/Aovo-iv /JAao-^/Mowres 2 Pet. ii. 10 (after the model of
aicr^w(j^at), /AT) eyKaKoyxev TO /caAov Troiowres (like 7ravfa-6ai) Gal. vi. 9 ;
2 Thess. iii. 13. On the other hand, with verbs of emotion, as
dyaAAtS<r0ai (Acts xvi. 34), X atpv (John xx. 20 ; Phil. ii. 28), Parti-
ciples stand in the ordinary participial relation, containing as they do
the reason of the emotion. With e^apto-Tetv the statement which
gives the reason or the contents of the thankfulness is almost always
introduced with on ; hence in 1 Cor. xiv. 18 the former reading AaAwu
(which arose from the omission of the connective) has now been
144.] THE PARTICIPLE AS A COMPLEMENTARY CLAUSE. 3Q1
changed with reason into the XoXw of the MSS. [tf also]. On 1 Tim.
v. 13, see 17 p. 303. 1
b) The Participle in the Accusative, or construction of the
Ace. with the Participle ; this occurs most frequently with
verbs of internal and external perception and of learning.
Thus with OKOVCIV (see under c)), bpav Mark i. 10 ; Acts viii. 23;
Heb. ii. 8 etc., /JAcTreii/ Matt. xv. 31, Mark, Luke, Acts, etc., Qeupclv
John vi. 19 ; x. 12, Acts, etc., yo/wo-Keiv Mark v. 30, Luke, Acts, Heb.,
but most frequently with on, 2 eirurrcurOai Acts xxiv. 10 (xxvi. 3 var., on
which see 145, 6 p. 317), evpio-Ketv very often, Matt. xx. 6 ; Rev. iii.
2, etc., hence with the Pass, the Particip. is in the Nom. as Matt. i.
18 ; Phil. iii. 9 etc. (cf. 18 p. 304), opoXoyw 1 John iv. 2 ; 2 John 7.
For the references in all these cases see the Lexicons. Other verbs
which are frequently so construed in Greek authors, e.g. besides
ciSeWt (see note 2 ), xatpcti' ( see a ))> the verba narrandi such as dv-,
a7>, /carayycXXctv, XaXetv (with the exception of Acts xxvi. 22, see 20
below, p. 305), are joined almost exclusively to on, more rarely to
the Ace. with the Infin.
c) The Participle in the Genitive, only with d/cov eiv. It 16
is necessary to bring together here into a single summary the
diversified verbal constructions of this verb, just as in 132,
17 p. 165 sq. we exhibited its construction with nouns.
Since according to p. 166 the Genitive with UKOVCIV designates the
person whose speech or sound is immediately perceived (instead of
which, however, an abstract substantive indicating a sound often appears
by metonymy),
a) It can only be connected with the Genitive and Participle 259
where an immediate hearing or perception occurs ; and the Participle
too must in every instance be the Present, owing to the simulta-
ueousness of the two actions of speaking (or sounding) and hearing.
Examples are very numerous : with persons, Mark xii. 28 ; xiv. 58 ;
Acts ii. 6, 11 ; vi. 11, 14 ; viii. 30 etc., Rev. vi. 3, 5 ; viii. 13 etc., and
with (wi/r}s (instead of the person himself) Acts xi. 7 ; xxii. 7 ; Rev.
xiv. 13 ; xvi. 1.
On the other hand, the Accusative with d/covetv designates simply
1 On the pre-eminently Alexandrian use of evpto-KcffQat with a Participle for cltwu
with a Participle, which increased more and more as time went on, see Dind. in
Stephanus's Thesaurus sub voce, p. 2418.
2 Its synonym etStj/cu is never found with the Participle (yet cf. 18 p. 304)>
but always either with the Infin. (Luke iv. 41 ; 1 Pet. v. 9), or with '6ri, or with an
indirect question. In the last two cases the subject of the dependent clause often
lingers as an object with the leading verb (according to 151, 1 p. 377) : oT8o ae
Is ef, %yv<tiv ffe '6rt eT, accordingly as if an incipient Participial or Infinitive clause.
302 THE PARTICIPLE. [ 144
the object of the perception. In construction with nouns alone,
therefore, strictly speaking only a thing i.e. an abstract, such as Aoyov,
^xovrjv, 1 can be joined to aKoueiv in the Accusative, see 132, 17 and
the note, p. 166. But if the object of the perception is expanded
into an entire clause, d/covetv acquires primarily the signification of
mediate hearing, or internal perception (learning). Inasmuch as,
further, the subject of this dependent clause (which moreover maj be
any term whatever, person or thing) is attracted to aKovetv as o b j e c t.
its predicate (if the clause is not dependent on a conjunction) passes
over either
/3) into the Infinitive : Ace. and Infin. ; or
260 y) into the Participle : Ace. and Particip.
The difference between these two constructions is the general one
(cf. B. p. 402 Note) viz. that the Infin. presents the idea of the verb
indefinitely, while the Participle exhibits an action or state in a clear
and definite relation to another; the Infin. names the action gen-
erally, the Particip. describes it. Still it hardly allows itself to be
reproduced by us in the translation, since we in both cases must em-
ploy a resolved construction with the conjunction that. The construc-
1 It makes no difficulty that a Present Participle can be added as an appo-
sition to such an object-Accusative, as to any other substantive, without forming
the construction of the Ace. with the Particip. which follows under y) below, in-
asmuch as aKoveiv retains its proper signification of to hear (not the secondary one
of to learn, be informed). Several instances of this are actually extant: Acts ix.
4; xxvi. 14 (cf. Rev. v. 13) f)Kov<rei> (fxai/^v \fyov<rav etc. This is in sense hardly
to be distinguished from iJKOvaev <f>uviis Xryoixrys (so, too, without a Part. aKoveiv
\6yovs and \6ytav, see p. 166), but yet taken closely is to be translated he heard a
voice which said etc. Here comes into consideration a passage from Mark (v. 36,
" locus perdifficilis/'Tdf.) : 6 5e 'lyaovs a.Kov<ras (Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.] irapaKoviras )
T)>V \6yov \a\6v fjLfvov \eyci etc. This sentence, too, owing to the signification
(to hear) cannot be brought under the following construction (7) of the Ace. with
the Participle. But according to the analogy of the examples just mentioned
there would result the rather incongruous sense, as he heard the word which or as it
was spoken, a pleonasm hardly conceivable. For while in the other examples
the addition \eyovo-av was necessary, owing to the direct discourse which followed
and was immediately connected with it, in this case every occasion of the sort
quite disappears. Less surprising and more natural would it be to take the Par-
ticiple as a simple attributive adjunct to \6yoi> (just as we say, the spoken word).
But then N.T. usage (which here can hardly be convicted of the slightest anomaly,
see 125, 1 p. 90) would demand the adjectival position, therefore either rbv
\6yov t}>v AaA. or T?>J> \a\. \6yov. The corruption of the passage is certainly very
ancient, as the variants shew. But it is very significant that the Vatican codex
actually exhibits the attributive position mentioned (T}>V \6y. rbv\a\.), and no-
less important that cod. D and many (Old Lat.) versions wholly omit the com-
pletely superfluous addition \a\ov fttvov, but have instead simply rbv \6yov or TOU-
TOV riv \6yov. The original reading, as I think, has been preserved either in these
last or in the position of the words in cod. Vat.
144.] THE PARTICIPLE WITH dKo<*iv. 303
tion of the Ace. and Infinitive occurs only in John xii. 18 rj/covo-av
TOVTO avrov TreTTot^/cevat, 1 Cor. xi. 18 d/covco o-^tcr/xara Iv vfuv virdp^LV ;
that of the Ace. and Participle is somewhat more frequent : Luke iv.
23 ocra r)Kovcrafji.ev yevo/xeva eis Ka<., Acts vii. 12 aKouo-as ovra <nria eis
Aty., 2 Thess. iii. 1 1 ; 3 John 4. The difference between these pas-
sages and those with the Ace. and Participle in the preceding note is
obvious : in those O.KOVCLV still has the signification to hear, here the
mediate sense to learn ; in those only the Present Part, was used, after
the style of the examples under a) ; in these any Participle whatever
may be subjoined to the Ace., since the clauses are no longer contem-
poraneous.
8) Instead of the two preceding constructions the verbal forms are
most commonly resolved into a clause with ore; of this examples
are found everywhere, Matt. iv. 12 etc. Finally,
e) As after every verbum sentiendi, an indirectquestion takes
the place of the objective clause: Matt xxi. 16. d/covs ri OVTOI
Aey o vcr iv ;
That in the last two cases the subject of the subordinate clause can
stand as the object of aKovew follows from 151, 1 p. 376.
REMARK. Only in a single passage does the Participle (after /tav-
OdvcLv) appear to be used in a way opposed to the genius of the language
viz. 1 Tim. V. 1 3 a/aa Sc /cat dpyai ftavOdvovaiv Trepiep^o/xevai ras oi/aas
etc. According to the general rule, fiavOavw &v can only mean / per-
ceive, notice, that lam; on the other hand, the signification I learn
to be belongs exclusively to the construction with the Infinitive, and
indeed occurs just before (vs. 4) : fjiavOaverwcrav tvaefitlv KO.L . . . aTroSi-
Sdvcu. Now although the Infin. as a more general verbal form can take
the place of the Participle (cf. B. p. 402 (465) note), yet the reverse
is never the case. Nevertheless this Participle has been taken in
this sense by the majority of translators (Vulg., Luther, deWette) :
they learn to go about etc. To avoid this grammatical error other
methods of interpretation have been proposed by the interpreters.
Sometimes pat/OdveLv has been taken in the sense of to be accustomed,
in the habit of; this meaning, however, ^avOdvuv never has, at least in
the Present, and even in the Preterite it would require in this sense
the Infinitive, since a Greek could have had no other idea before his
mind than to have learned. At other times dpyai has been rep-
resented as the word immediately dependent on pavOdvova-w, so that
by supplying the copula (clvcu) it would mean, they learn to be idle etc.
(Winer, Meyer [i.e. Huther]). Against this supposition, however,
there are apart from the sense most weighty objections, viz. 1)
the position, according to which dpyat must imperatively be taken as
an attribute of the subject ; 2) the ellipsis of the Infin. etvai, since
304 THE PARTICIPLE. [ 144
according to both general and N. T. usage (see 18 below) we are war-
ranted in supplying only the Participle ovo-ai, and the possibility of
taking the passage in the way described is afforded only by the addi-
tion of the Infin. elvai ; 3) usage. For what is adduced from other
writers as a warrant for it, proves on closer examination to be insuf-
ficient. The reference to Plato, Euthyd. p. 276 (ol d/xa^ei? apa <ro0ot
navOdvovo-i) is not in place, since there the (perfectly senseless) addi-
261 tion cro<oi has been discarded on MS. authority, and the passage from
Dio Chrys. (or. 55 p. 558 ^wcptm?? //,/ Trats an/ e/xav^avc Ai$ooos rr)V
TOV Trarpot T^VT;V) is of quite another sort. Considering the textual
certainty of the Participle in the above passage, and the employment
elsewhere so absolutely correct of the Participle on the part of
the N. T. writers, there is hardly any other choice left us than, accord-
ing to BengePs proposal, to assume here that the mode of expres-
sion is anacoluthic, so as to give rise to the meaning " discunt quae
ooeundo domos discuntur" What they Trepicp^o/xcvat ra? oiKias learn
is sufficiently indicated, not grammatically indeed, but as respects the
sense, by the following epithets dpycu, <Avapoi, Trepiepyoi, \a\ova-ai ra
pr) ovra.\ and the specific thought Bengel supplies (statum familiarum
curiose explorant), which perhaps as too gratuitous and far-fetched has
damaged his interpretation somewhat, is not needed.
B. 144, N. 7; C. 677 d. ; J. 682, 3 ; G. 113, N. 6.
IS The omission of the Participle o>i>, ovra etc. in these
complementary clauses is usual in the N. T. also, in fact rather
more common than its insertion. Cf. 22 p. 308.
Thus with SiareXetv, Acts xxvii. 33 aorroi StareXetTC ; with <J>ai-
ve<r0cu, Matt, xxiii. 27, 28 <<HI/OVTCH wpeuoi, Sucotoi, 2 Cor. xiii. 7 ;
Rom. vii. 13; with otSa, Mark vi. 20 eiSobs avrbv avSpa ayiov ; with
d^>tvat (to leave) Luke x. 30 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf.] dc^eWcs ^iflav?};
and very often with evpiV/ceiv, Luke ix. 36; xxiii. 4, 22; Acts v. 10 etc.,
1 Cor. iv. 2 ; Gal. ii. 17 etc., 2 Pet. iii. 14; Rev. ii. 2 ; v. 4 etc. (quite
elliptical are Mark xiv. 16; 2 Cor. xi. 12). The omission is most
natural with vTrdpxeiv, since this word as a synonym of elvai already
includes in itself dV: Luke viii. 41 ; ix. 48; Acts ii. 30; xxi. 20 etc.
See Wahl.
B. 144, N. 10; J. 438 Obs.
19 The phrase 6 /caXov/xcvos, frequently employed in the writings of
Luke (and a few times in the Rev. also), uniformly takes its proper
position (Ptcp. between the Art. and Subst.) : T^ /caXov/xen7 oWpa (Lk.
i. 36), 2i/u,o>va TCV KaX. ^Xwrrjv (vi. 15), etc. (In Greek writers the
appellation also intervenes between the Art. and the Participle ; as,
', TOVS 'PciVovs KaAov/xeVovs, Thuc. Xen.). On the
144.] THE PARTICIPLE IN ATTRACTION. 3Q5
way in which the other N. T. authors express themselves, see 129, 6
p. 128.
B. 144, N. 12 ; C. 657 d. ; J. 682, 674 sq.
The Participle also (in Greek authors frequently, in the N.T. 20
rarely) suffers attraction. Three classes of cases occur,
which rest, however, essentially on the same principle :
a) The clause with the Participle is already, as a Relative
^clause, attracted ; cf. pp. 285 sqq. Then the Participle, which as
respects its form belongs to the Relative (and which consequently
had there been no attraction would have stood, like the Relative,
in the Ace.), is changed with it into the same case.
This case occurs in Acts xxvi. 22 ov3cv eVros Xe'ywv ou> T* ol
eXaX^crav /x,eXXoi/Twi/ ytVecr^at, arising from ovSev TOVTWV a ...
0-a.v /xeXXovra yivtvOai (a genuine classic example). Cf. 123, 3
p. 77.
b) The Participle dependent on an Infin., if as a closer
limitation of the same it ought, according to the general rule
(B. 141, 1), to have stood in the Accusative, is attracted
by a noun which stands in the leading clause (and which at 2(52
the same time is the subject of the Participle), and assumes the
case of this noun.
This case is a legitimate extension of the familiar construction
L cTvat cvSat/Aon (B. 142, 2). What the predicate adjective
undergoes here takes place also with entire participial clauses ;
and as in this example both constructions are admissible (ev&u^ow and
-/toi/a), so also in the N. T. And in fact the remark made above (cf.
142, 1 p. 278) that the N. T. likes to employ the regular and more
simple construction with the Ace., while classic usage prefers the other
case (as a rule the D a t i v e}, holds good here also. An evident in-
stance of attraction is given in 2 Pet. ii. 21 /cpeurcrov fy aurois prj tVe- *
yru)Kvai ...^ CTT lyvovcriv 7rioTpei//ai etc. (for which CTrtyi/di/ras also
might have stood). Further, in the Acts (the style of which harmo-
aizes most with this idiom) xv. 25 Lchm. [Treg.] c8oev rjfjuv . . . e/cXea-
neVots 7Tfji\l/ai. etc. (where Tdf. [so cod. Sin.] has preferred the other,
just as good Greek, reading e/cXc^a/xeVovs, which is given in vs. 22
without var.), xxvii. 3 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.] eTrerpe^ev (sc.
ivTo>) . . . Tropet^eWi ri^eti/ etc. (where Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] reads with the
oajority of more recent MSS. 7ropu0eWa), xvi. 21 W-q a OVK l^eoTtv f)/jiiv
rapaSe^ea^at ovSc Trotetv 'Pw/xatois ovo-iv ; see also the example from
ixii. 17 in 145, 2 p. 315. Elsewhere the Accusative is always
ised : and that not only where the Dative in the leading clause is
dinitted (1 Pet. iv. 3), or where the Participle stands after the Infin.
39
306 THE PARTICIPLE. [144.
(Acts xi. 12 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf.],xxvi. 20, cf. Matt, xvlii. 8), but also
where the Participle precedes, in which case the Greeks, owing to the
proximity of the Participle to the noun in the leading clause, would
certainly have preferred attraction ; as, Luke i. 73 sq. rov Sowat ^/AIV
...pv(r$ei>Ta9 Xarpeveiv, Acts xxv. 27 aXoyov yap /JLOL SOKCI TT/X-
7roj/ra . . . o-17/xavai, and especially Heb. ii. 10 tTrpeTrev avrco (sc. 0c<3),
ToAAous viovs is S6ai/ dyayovra TOI> apxyybv . . . reXeiajaat. The
reader, therefore, here must not allow himself to be misled by the
ordinary classic usage and refer dyayovra, owing to the identity of
case, to the following dp^iyyoV (instead of to God, avrw).
c) The Participle, although in signification belonging to the
leading clause, is attracted by a different and nearer case
(with which of course it must have the same subject) in a
subordinate clause.
This case occurs in Rev. xvii. 8 (OavfJiao-Oyo-ovTai ol KaroiKowres wi>
. . . /SXcTroWwi/ etc.) where /SAeVovTcs is manifestly a correction. Cf.
145, 1 sq. p. 314 and the use in B. 141, N. 3.
B. 144, 8 and N. 13; J. 696, Obs. 6; G. p. 218 sq.
21 Particles are employed in connection with Participles.
Tims in particular, after an antecedent participial clause, OVTOJ?
serves to resume the same in the leading clause ; as, Actfe xx.
11 az/a/3a9 Se KOL K\daa<; . . . ovrw e%r]\6ev, xxvii. 17 ; cf. John
iv. 6. Cf. 149, 1 p. 357.
Of eTrara in the same sense there is but a single example (and that
rejected by the modern editors) : Mark vii. 5 (eTmra eTrcparrakm/ accord-
ing to many MSS., see vs. 2).
Of the usage (see B. p. 404 note) by which a Participle, rendered
a substantive by means of the Article, is taken up again by an
* Adjective Pronoun (OVTOS, e/ceti/os), there are many examples:
263 Matt. xxiv. 13; Mark vii. 15, 20; Luke ix. 48; John i. 18; v. 11;
vii. 18; Acts ii. 22; xvii. 6; xv. 38; Rom. xiv. 14; (on Mark xii.
40 see 123, 5 p. 79). All these examples are predominantly rhet-
orical in their nature. The same thing happens often after substan-
tives alone, and after Relative clauses, in order to bring the idea in the
leading clause out again with a certain rhetorical emphasis, as John
xii. 48 ; Rom. vii. 15, 19 ; ix. 6, 8 etc., and after the Infin. used sub-
stantively, as Phil. i. 22 (see 149, 8 d) p. 362). The case is different
with the pronoun avro's. This, if it stands with the leading verb in
the N.omi native after a Participle, has its proper sense self, a?
1 Pet. v. 10; but if it stands in an oblique case its use is founded
in the pleonastic style of the N. T. writers, which has been often
144.] THE PARTICIPLE WITH cfe. 307
alluded to already (see 130, 2 p. 142), and of which more will be
said below, 145, 2 p. 315 (cf. 151, 4 and 5 p. 379 sq.).
B. 144, N. 14; H. 793, 795 e. ; C. 598 b. ; 675 e. ; 680; J. 701 sqq. ; G. 109 N. 4.
No example occurs of the addition of the words are, oa, 22
olov to Participles where the latter specify an objective reason.
On the other hand, the connection of &>? with a Participle is
very common. We will bring together the cases that occur
under the three following heads :
a) The participial limitation is to be conceived of as uttered
from the mind of the speaking or acting subject, no matter
whether the statement it contains rests on a matter of fact or
merely on a supposition, (quippe qui, as [Germ, afe] one
who etc.).
For example, 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14 vTroray^re TU> /SacnAet a>s vTrepe^ovrt etc.
(subjective motive), Luke xvi. 1 Ste/SA^r; us Siao-KopTri^wv etc. (state-
ment of the people), 1 Cor. vii. 25 yvuprjv Si'Sco/xi o>s ^Acry/xeVos etc.
(personal conviction), 2 Cor. vi. 9, 10 (general notion, which however
is straightway corrected in the following clauses ; cf. on the contrary
the objective statements in vss. 3, 4), Rom. vi. 13 ; Heb. xii. 27 ; xiii.
3, etc. The understanding of such clauses is commonly facilitated by
expanding them into participial clauses like et'Sdrcs, vo/xi^ovr
on followed by a finite verb (cf. Acts xxvii. 30 Trpo^aa-u o>s
etc.).
b) The limitation rests on a comparison, whether with
given or only supposed facts, objects, views, (perinde ac,
quasi, tanquam, as [Germ, wie] one who etc.).
For example, Acts iii. 12 rjfuv rL aTCVt^ere, a>s iSt'a Swa/xet
etc., xxiii. 15 ws /xe'AAovras Sia/yivoxrKeiv (Vulg. tanquam cognituri), 20;
1 Cor. iv. 7 rt Kav^ao-at ws ///>) XayScov (quasi non acceperis), v. 3 ; 2 Cor.
x. 14; Col. ii. 20; Heb. xi. 27.
c) It contains, when the Participle stands in the Future,
a&taiement of purpose, uttered in the spirit of the acting
or speaking subject.
This case occurs (since Future Participles are so rarely used, see
10 p. 296) but once: Heb. xiii. 17 aypvirvova-w w? Xoyov ttTroSoxrovres.
But since the Present, both in the Indie, and in the Participle
(according to 11 above p. 296, and 137, 10. 11 pp. 203 sqq.), so
often contains telic and other statements having reference to the
future, we may unhesitatingly bring under this head also Rom. xv. 26 *
1 5 eypai^a v/xtv, a>s 7rava/x,t/xvi}(ricwv v/xas etc., 1 Thess. ii. 4 ovrcos
dAAa
308 THE PARTICIPLE. [ 144
REMARK. It is to be noticed besides, that examp.es of the parti-
cipial structure with ws are found in all four cases, and have been
given above (on w? before the Gen. absol. see particularly 145, 7
p. 318) ; further, that the Participle is sometimes to be supplied
from the context, as Eph. vi. 7 /xer' cwot'as SovAeuovres, <!>s TW Kvptto /cat
OVK dv#pu>7rois, Col. iii. 23; 1 Pet. iv. 11, etc.; but particularly, that
according to N. T. usage (see 18 p. 304) the Participle wv, OVTOS etc.
is regularly dropped, so that the (predicative or adverbial) adjunct
thereto pertaining is left standing alone with ws: 1 Pet. ii. 12 KO.TO.-
\a\ovcnv tyxoji/ ws KaKovroton' sc. OI/TOH/, Rom. xiii. 13 ws ev fjfAtpq. (sc.
ovres) t><r)(77/Aoi/u)s TreptTraT^crw/mev, John vii. 10 etc. See in general
Wahl under o>s.
B. 144, N. 15; H. 795 f.; C. 674f.; D. 621.622; J. 697 d!.; G. 109, N. 5.
23 That Participles are to be taken in a restrictive sense (although)
is sometimes indicated simply by the connection, as Matt. xxvi. 60
o^x evpoy, TroAAoJv Trpoo-eXOovrw ij/evSofjiapTvpwv ; but commonly by the
addition of the particles /ccuVcp and KatVot, especially in the Ep. to the
Heb. (iv. 3; v. 8; vii. 5, etc.). The anticipatory position of o/xws,
which as respects the sense is not expected until later, occurs in
1 Cor. xiv. 7 o/xwg TO. di/o^a <j)(av?)v SiSovra, where a /caiVcp is to be
derived from the o/xa>s for the Participle SiSovra, Gal. iii. 15 o/xws
avOpwTrov K/cvpa>/xe^v SiaOrjKrjv ovSets d^eret (where o/x,o>s is antithetic
to the idea avOpwirov KCK.
CIRCUMLOCUTION FOR SIMPLE TENSE-FORMS BY MEANS OF THE PARTICIPLE
WITH tlvai (yivtvQaii).
B. 144,9; H. 797; C. 679; J. 375; W. p. 348 (326 sq.)
It has been remarked in general, that the farther ancient
languages become removed from their origin, the more their
formations both in the department of nouns and of verbs are
gradually resolved into their component parts ; accordingly
we find periphrases (not only of unusual tenses and those
difficult of formation, but also of very common tense-forms)
by means of elvcu (<yivecrQaL) and Participles becoming more
and more common in the later language. To be sure, a similar
periphrastic mode of expression is found at all periods, and in
the best writers, both of poetry and of prose ; since in many
instances it is entitled to preference above the common mode.
Yet even a superficial comparison shows that the above-
named construction appears incomparably more frequently in
the N. T. writings than elsewhere, indeed that it is of such
prominence as to impart to individual portions of the N. T. a
144.] THE PARTICIPLE AND elvcu IN PERIPHRASIS. 309
certain distinctive character which distinguishes their style from
others. As it would be uncritical and erroneous amid the
innumerable phrases of the sort found in the N. T. to discern
in all cases solely a periphrasis for a simple tense-form, so 265
on the other hand it would be a false and fruitless endeavor
to claim that in every single instance they differ syn-
tactically from the simple tense. In our attempt now to
classify the cases, regardless of the question whether a given
construction is to be taken in the periphrastic or the proper
sense (for a strict separation of them into these two classes is
neither theoretically nor practically feasible), the number of
examples is so copious that we must at the outset disclaim any
attempt at completeness in details. We remark
1) That only those passages can be taken into consideration
where the Participle has no Article, since when connected
with the Art. the Participle must at once be construed as
standing by itself i.e. as a part of the sentence separate from
the copula, whether it be as subject (a\??06? larw TO <yivo-
fjuevov, Tt? ea-rtv 6 irapaS&ovs ere, etc.), or as predicate noun
(CTL> el 6 epxpfjuevos, v/jLel? eVre ol XaXowre?, see 129, 1 p.
123 sq.), or as an attributive (ovro? ecmv 6 dv6pa>7ro$ 6 SiSdo-fccov
etc.) ; and
2) That a combination of the verb elvai (yiveadai) with the
anarthrous Participle in a periphrastic sense can only take
place if the Participle is of the Present or the Perfect
tense ; since, as will appear from the exposition that follows, a
circumlocution with the anarthrous Aorist Part, does not
and cannot occur. 1
1 The correctness of this statement is at once apparent on a comparison of
parallel passages. Thus the sentence ris /uou ritya.ro; (Mark v. 30) cannot be
resolved into T'LS -^v atydnevos, but can only le rendered rts (fy or etrrtv) 6 atyd-
nei/os (Luke viii. 45) ; for ris <rot eSw/ce*/ rrjv Qovaiav ravrrjv (Matt. xxi. 23;
Mark xi. 28) we find not ris 4ffnv 8o6s oroi, but ris eVrti/ 6 SotJs crot TT\V Qovviav
ravrrjv (Luke xx. 2) ; and for the Aorist iSoWes ot e na6r}ral r)yavdi<T'!)(rai> (Matt,
xxvi. 8) not ri<rav ayavaKT-fiffavTes, but only ^(rau ayavaKTOVvres (Mark xiv. 4).
Accordingly, where the Aorist Part, occurs in connection with flvai it always
has the article; ovr6<; eo-rtJ/ & pydeis (Matt. iii. 3), 6 yev6pevos eV ry e/c/c\7j(rt<f (Acts
vii. 38), 6 iropOfaas (Acts ix. 21), 6 irapa r^v ftfov virapeis (Matt. xiii. 19), 6 (rweipas
ffrlv 6 SidfioXos (xiii. 39), ris tani/ 6 iraicras <re (Matt. xxvi. 68; Luke xxii. 64)
etc. Hence in Luke xxiii. 19, where the MSS. are divided between r]v jSATjfle/s (Tdf.
[Treg.]) and ^e/SATj^ceVos (Lchm.),from a grammatical point of view the second
reading is certainly the preferable one ; and its existence in the oldest MSS. proves
at least that offence was early taken at the unusual character of the other verbal
810 THE PAR1ICIPLE. [144
The combination, then, of the verb elvcu with a Present or a
Perfect Part, without the article is employed
266 a) If the writer wants to have the predicate of the sentence
25 taken more in a substantial and qualitative than in a
verbal sense, i.e. if not the idea of the action expressed by the
verb as such as it is contained in a finite verb holds the
place of the predicate, but the idea of the verb exhibited
participially in the form of a noun (whether substantive or
adjective).
Thus the sentence avaKpivofJifOa, ev TLVL ovros (rctrwo-rat (Acts iv. 9)
plainly differs from ^apm' co-re owaxT/AeVoi (Eph. ii. 5) in this : that
the predicate of the first is purely verbal (by what means he has been
recovered), that of the other nominal (ye are recovered persons, saved
ones). Further, John v. 7 oAAos Trpo e/xoC Kara/Jcuvei (comes down
before me) is different from Jas. i. 17 irav 8wp>;/xa re'Aciov avuOev earn/
Kara/fou/ov (is one coming down from above, this is its attribute ; cf.
iii. 15 OVK \VTW avwOtv Karep^o/xci/ry, eTrtyetos, IJ/VXLK^ etc.). The dis-
tinction is the same when we say, the hairs of your head have been
numbered (yjpiO^vraL Luke xii. 7), and are (things) numbered (^pifyn?-
fieVai euro/ Matt. x. 30), or between / live (o> Rev. iii. 1) and / am
living (i.e. the living one wi/ ei/xi i. 18).
Among the numerous examples of this sort we select with the
Perfect Part., K/caXv/x/oteVos (hidden, dark), fte/xeorrw/xcVo? (filled,
full), TTCTTtopw/AeVo? (hardened), yeyovws (old, natus, cf. p. 55 s.v.),
with the Present Part. TTOIOW KO.PTTOV, KOLpiro^opov^fvov of such a
nature that it bears fruit, fruitful), Ao'yov e^ot/ (rational), c^aji/ KT^/xara
TroAAa (rich Matt. xix. 22 ; Mark x. 22, instead TrAoiVios <r</>o'Spa in
Luke xviii. 23), rjv vTrorao-o-d/xevos (subject), i<r#i cvvouv, laQi eov<rtav
e^wv, etc. In consequence of this adjectival nature of the Participles,
they can occasionally with the aid of the Part, uv enter into a new
participial formation, as Eph. iv. 18; Col. i. 21 ovres
26 b) Although the idea of duration resides in the simple
tense-forms of the Present and Imperfect, it does not belong
to them invariably, 1 but does to the periphrases with the
form. But it is still more probable that both &\r}6els and ^e0\r}^vos are later
additions (hence the variation), and in point of fact cod Sin. omits both.
On the periphrasis for the various tenses by means of tivat. and a Participle
(particularly also with the doubtful or poetic Aorist Part.) see Bind, in Steph.
Thesaur. suh > pp. 258, 259 ; Cobet, Nov. Lect. 307, 621; var. Lect. 322 ; Person,
Adv. 294 (260).
1 Hence instead of the Moods of the Pros, (which, in contrast with the Moods
144.] THE PARTICIPLE AND tvcu IN PERIPHRASIS, 8H
Participle and the Pres. or Imperf. of elvat, ; hence the latter
are pre-eminently suited to denote continuous actions
or states.
Accordingly CO-TWS, TrpocrSc^o/xei/os, TrpocrSo/cwv ei/u, ytVou ypiyyopwv
(Rev. iii. 2), r)v 7mpao/Avos (Mark i. 13), rjcrav Si a Travros aivovvrts
KOL euAoyoCrres (Luke xxiv. 53) are more expressive than eorr/Ka,
Trpoo-SoKw, yp^yopet, e7mpaero, etc. ; ^(rav i/rycrTevovres (Mark ii. 18),
Ka7rijX.evovT<s eo-/xev (2 Cor. ii. 17) more emphatic than ei/^o-reuoi', /caTri?-
Aeuo/xev, etc. In the Future, which in its simple form does not
discriminate between the two ideas of duration and instantaneousness, 267
the periphrasis is the only expedient by which to express definitely
the idea of duration. Thus everybody feels the difference between
recr$ /xurou/Aei/oi (Matt. X. 22 etc.), IOT; criooTran/ (Luke i. 20), av6pit)7rov<s
eery a>ypcov (Luke V. 10), 'lepoucraX^/x lorai irarovfJievr) VTTO eOv&v (Luke
xxi. 24) and jjucrrjOrio-to-Of, a>yprjo-eis, etc. Both species of Future are
united in Mark xiii. 25 (roi/rai TrtWovTes ... o-aAev#r?crovTai) . Also
the Perfect Part, with lo-o/x-at by no means always forms a periphrasis
for the Futurum exactum, but on the contrary serves to transfer to
the future as continuous the qualitative idea expressed by the Parti-
ciple ; as, Matt. xvi. 19 o av 8170-775 (Fut. exact.), co-rat SeSe/Aeyoy, o ai'
X.va-r)s, la-rai AeAi>ju,i/ov (not, will have been bound, but will remain
bound etc.), xviii. 18 ; Luke vi. 40, and in connection with the simple
Future in Luke xii. 52.
REMARK. It is not to be overlooked, that with many predicates in
frequent use this mode of expressing continuance has become almost
the established usage and suppressed the simple forms of the verbs.
Thus the already mentioned use of ^v Ka0^^vo<s for t/ca^/A^i/ (see
p. 56), yeypa/x/xeVov ecrrtv for the ordinary yeypaTrrcu, o corn/ Xcyo/xei/ov,
fjLeOfpjJirjvfvofjievov, a co-riv aAA^yopov/xcva, etc. Hence r)v SiSao-KOJV, rjv
(c'yeVero) Kypvao-wv, /3a7TTi'an/, means simply he was teaching, preaching,
baptizing, not he was a teacher, a baptizer etc., as may be seen from
the additional adjuncts appended (e.g. the object, Matt. vii. 29 ; Mark
i. 22 ; adverbial qualifications, Mark i. 39 ; John i. 28 ; iii. 23).
c) In both the former cases (a) and b)) the emphasis always 27
rests upon the Participle as the proper predicate, and elvai is
simply a copula. But often it was of importance for the writer
to give more prominence to the idea of being, existence,
residing in the verb, than is done by the simple tense-form.
This is accomplished likewise most naturally by joining the
Participle to elvau (generally preceding).
of the Aor., denote duration pre-eminently ; cf. p. 201 ) the periphrasis is manifestly
avoided, indeed hardly occurs. Hence in Jas. ii. 15 Lchm. Sxrtv is certainly a
later addition.
312 THE PARTICIPLE. [ 144
The Participle in such cases is either itself the subject of elmi, as
Matt. xxiv. 38 rj&av iv rats ^epais rparyovrcs /cat TTII/OVTCS, yayuowres *a<
Kya//,tovTs, Rom. iii. 12 ov/c Icrnv 7rota>j/ ^p^crrdr^Ta ; or commonly
an attributive to the expressed subject, as Acts xxv. 14 avrjp rts ecrru>
s VTTO <^Ai/cos <>oyx,ios, xxi. 23 etcrti/ ai/Spes TeVcrapes evxfjv
In particular, under this head belongs the popular (oriental)
manner of narrating, as the narrator at the beginning of his narrative,
or as often as a new person or object is introduced, by
means of the Imperf. rjv or rjaav lingers as it were a moment on the
object which is to be discoursed about, and then with a Participle
following the subject continues his account, quite after the mode in
which new events are introduced by eyeVero Sc etc. ( 141, 6 p. 276).
Examples are found especially in the Gospels : Matt. viii. 30 fy 8t
G.TT CLVTWV ayeXr) . . . /^ocr/co/xei/ry, xxvii. 55 rjfrav yuviuKs . . . $o>-
i, 61; Mark ii. 6 ; iii. 1 Tdf. [Siu.](cf. Matt. xii. 10 where i&w takes
the place of the ty), v. 11 ; xv. 40 ; Luke ii. 8 ; John ii. 6 ; xi. 1, etc.
28 d) Also, after deducting all the cases already mentioned,
268 there are still a great many examples remaining, where the
union of the Pres. Part, with the 3d Person of the Imperf.
fy, rjaav, stands in narration simply for the historical Imperfect
(alone in use in such cases in Greek authors) as distinguished
from the momentary Aorist. These instances we are the more
justified in taking pre-eminently for periphrases in the strict
sense, as there are two writers especially who have a decided
preference for employing them, viz. Mark and Luke.
The following may pass for examples of such periphrases in the
midst of a narrative. In mentioning them we will cite at the same
time those parallel passages where, instead of the periphrasis, the
simple Imperfect or the Aorist or another construction, e.g. a subor-
dinate participial clause, makes its appearance. From Mark: ty
Ktt^evStov (iv. 38, CKa^cvSev Matt. viii. 24), /cpacov (v. 5), KaraKOTrrcov
(v. 5), ya-av o-uAAaAowres (var. aweXaAow, ix. 4; cf. Matt. xvii. 3;
Luke ix. 30), dva/3au/oj/Ts (x. 32, cf. Matt. xx. 17), ty Trpodyw (x. 32),
^oxxv ayava-KTovvTcs (xiv. 4, for which the Aorist in Matt. xxvi. 8, see
note on 24 p. 309), rjv <nry/<a^/Avos (xiv. 54, c/ca^ro Matt. xxvi.
58; Luke xxii. 55). From Luke: yv Trpoa-evxoptvov (i. 10), Biavevwv
(i. 22), fy 0avju.aovTs (ii. 33), r)<rav drci/t^ovres (iv. 20), ty orwe^o/xeVr;
(iv. 38, cf. Matt. viii. 14), fy CO-TCOS (v. 1, cf. Matt. iv. 18), VTTOX^P^V (v.
16), rffyav Kara/cet/xei/ot (v. 29. crui/aveKeiKro Matt. ix. 10), rjv Siai/v/orepeuwv
(Luke vi. 12), K/3aAXan/ (xi. 14, 0epa7rewei> Matt. xii. 22), rjcrav Trapa-
Tr)pov[j.voi (xiv. 1), eyyt'ovTs (xv. 1), rjv 0eAan> (xxiii. 8), TJCTCLV Tropev-
o/xvot (xxiv. 13), rjv Kaio/aeVr; (xxiv. 32) ; and quite as frequently in
the Acts : i. 10, 14 ; ii. 2 ; viii. 1, 28, etc.
g 144.] REDUNDANT PARTICIPLES. 313
e) Lastly, it can only be regarded, grammatically, as a cir- 29
cumlocution, that in the Perfect and Pluperfect Passive
(sometimes also Active), where in the ordinary language a
periphrasis was already in general use in individual forms
(as the 3d Pers. Plur. of the Pass., the entire Subjunct. and
Opt.), the periphrastic forms with the Perfect Part, have
become very prevalent also in the remaining Persons of
the Indicative, perhaps in consequence of the influence of
Latin upon the later language. The majority of instances
of the sort are, moreover, from Mark and Luke again.
Thus, for example, the Pluperfect appears periphrased in Mark
i. 33 ; xv. 26 YJV YJ emypa.^ eTriycypa/A/jiei/'jy, Luke ii. 26 rjv avT<a /cexp^/xa-
Turpcvov VTTO TOV TTvcv/xttTos, iv. 16, 17 ; v. 17 ; vui. 2; xxiii. 19 (see
24 note, p. 309), 38, 51, 53, 55 ; Acts i. 17 ; xiv. 26 ; xvi. 9 Lchm.
[Tdf. Treg.], xxii. 20 ; xviii. 25 ; xix. 32 ; xx. 13 ; xxi. 29 ; xxii. 29,
and so also by other writers, e.g. Paul, but on the whole more rarely.
REDUNDANT PARTICIPLES.
B. 144, N. 19; H. 788; C. 674; J. cf. 696 Obs. 1; 705, 4; GK 109 N. 8.
Here mention must be made of an acknowledged Hebraism, 30
particularly of the Greek 0. T. The Seventy, namely, often
added to a finite verb the Participle (Present or Aorist) of the
same verb, always placing it close beside, indeed as a rule, 269
before the finite verb. That in this way a special emphasis
was not always aimed at, but that the combination is solely an
imitation of the Hebrew construction with the Infin. absol., has
already been remarked in connection with the similar case in
133, 22 p. 183. Thus we find in the Sept. /u<rwi/
Kvpievutv /evpteucre*.?, yepovres
e^aipwv ej;r)pev, Tropevo/juevrj Tropevo/jiai,, //.a^oyitei/o
and many others, even when the Heb. text presents no similar
construction ; as, Exod. xxiii. 26 (Piel), Gen. xix. 17.
To the language of the N. T. this construction is strictly
speaking foreign, since it is found only in quotations, viz.
Acts vii. 34 IBoov eZSoi>, Matt. xiii. 14 (3\e7rovre<; ySXe^/rere, Heb.
vi. 14 ev\oya)v ev^oy^crci) ere Kal 7r\ij0vvcov TfkiqOvvS) ere.
This species of pleonasm must have appeared still more strange to
a native Greek, hence as a matter of fact nothing altogether similar is
found in classic literature ; see the exposition of the subject by Lobeck
40
314 CASES ABSOLUTE. [ 145.
in his Paralipomena p. 532, and the examples quoted there. Of a
different sort, on the other hand, (as results from the very position
of the Participle), and belonging to Greek usage, are such examples
in the narrative style as eXaX^o-cv carrots Xeycov Matt. xiv. 27 etc., Luke
xxiv. 6 ; John viii. 12 ; Acts viii. 26 etc. (cf. xxvi. 14), Rev. xvii. 1 etc.
(for which in Mark vi. 50, according to 1 arid 2 above pp. 288 sq., we
find eXaXrycrcv ... /cat Xeyet), CITTCV . . . Xe'ywi/ Mark xii. 26 ; Luke xx. 2,
id-re ytvoj<TKovT9 Eph. v. 5. But in Acts xiii. 45 the disagreeable,
indeed un-Greek, tautology (dvre'Xeyov . . . di/TtXt'yonres), which is
especially surprising in the Acts, is not confirmed by the oldest MSS.
31 REMARK. On the common transition from participial clauses into
the finite verb as a continuation of a participial clause, see 151,
8 p. 382.
CASES ABSOLUTE.
B. 145,2.3; H. 790, 791 c. ; C. 675, 658 b. ; D.p.485sq.; J. 695,2 b.; G. 110, 111.
1 In the N. T. also Passive Genitives Absolute are pretty
rare (e.g. Matt. i. 18; Rom. ix. 11, etc.), and in no wise
formed like the Passive Ablativi consequentiae in Latin (see
particularly the instance in Heb. ix. 19, which is neither Latin
nor Greek). In general, however, the N. T. writers are
thoroughly conversant with the employment of the absolute
construction according to the laws of the Greek language;
only they go farther in this respect, that they disregarded
grammatical accuracy (more frequently than Greek
270 writers allowed themselves to do so) by employing this con-
struction even when the subject of the participial clause was
not only present in the governing clause in an oblique case,
but even as its subject. Most of these instances, however, find
their natural explanation in the circumstance (cf. reff. above)
that the Gen. absol. precedes, and so the influence of the
leading clause at the beginning of the sentence was still some-
what in the background. That in this way often an (un-
Greek) accumulation of Pronouns must result, has
already been remarked 130, 2 p. 142.
In reference to the text we find here again such noticeable dis-
agreement in the MSS. (and consequently in the recent editions also)
that a decision is often difficult: on the one hand, because it might
just as easily happen that copyists of Greek education, taking offence at
the inaccurate construction, should seek to remove it by alterations (for
the most part trifling), as that others, once accustomed to a construc-
tion employed on the whole so often, or in order to produce identic
145.] CASES ABSOLUTE. 315
of expression in parallel passages, should write it even where originally
the regular idiom had been employed ; and because, on the other hand,
the compass of the writings is not considerable enough to establish
accurately the usage of the individual writers in this respect. Cf. the
similar observation in 127, 26 p. 118. We arrange the examples
under the two heads :
a) The Genitives absolute precede their leading clause,
which already contains the subject of the participial clause ;
and that
a) In an oblique case : hence either in the Dative, as Matt,
ix. 18 ravra avrov AaAowros avrots, iSov apx wj/ & eA.0obv 7rpoo-e/cwt
avTw, ix. 10 ; xviii. 24 ; xxiv. 3 ; xxvi. 6 ; xxvii. 17, besides also v. 1
Tdf. [Treg.], viii. 1, 5, 28 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf.], xxi. 23 Lchm. [Treg.
Tdf.], Mark xiii. 1 ; Luke xii. 36 (see 4 p. 316), xiv. 29 ; xvii. 12;
xxii. 10 do-t\66vru>v vpwv cts ryv iroAtv orwavT?j(m v/xtv, John iv. 51 ;
Acts iv. 1 (xx. 1 8 Lchm.) ; or in the Accusative, as Matt, xviii. 25
fjir] e^ovro? avrov aTroSowcu, eKeAewev avrov 6 /cvptos TrpaOfjvai, Mark
v. 18 ; ix. 28 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf.], x. 17 ; xi. 27 ; xiii. 3 ; Luke ix. 42 ;
xv. 20; xviii. 40; xxii. 53; John viii. 30; Acts xix. 30; xxi. 17;
xxv. 7 ; xx viii. 17 ; 2 Cor. xii. 21 prf iraXw eAfloVros /xov TaTreivoxret /x,e
6 6*6$ fj.ov. But if it is present in the leading clause as a Genitive,
the employment of the Gen. absol. with the subject expressed
is even more irregular than with the Dative and Accusative, because
it might easily have been avoided, but especially because in this way
an accumulation (to a Greek ear far more disagreeable still) of
altogether identical pronouns must often arise. Since, how-
ever, precisely the same thing occurs with participial clauses in the
Dative and Accusative (tupdvri avra> ^KoAouflr/crav avrw etc., see the
examples in 130, 2 p. 143), the genuineness of sentences of this
kind also is not to be doubted: Matt. vi. 3 o~ov Se TTOIOWTO? . . . pr)
yi/wrw 17 dpio-repa o*ov, v. 1 Lchm., xxvii. 19; Maik ix. 28 Lchm.
[Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.] (where the Ace. may have arisen from emendation
as easily as the Gen.), xiii. 1 ; Luke xv. 20 ; John iv. 51 avrov Kara-
/5atvovros, 01 SovAoi avrov V7rr)vrrfo-av aura). 1 271
ft) Likewise as subject, so that leading clause and subordinate
both have the same subject; as. Matt. i. 18 /^v^o-rev^eio^s -njs
Hyrpos avrov . . . tvpeflr) Iv yacrrpi e^ovcra, where the harshness of the
construction is moderated by the parenthesis (?rpa rj etc.). In Acts
xxii. 17 all three oblique cases in direct succession are in this way
1 Of the opposite case also, viz. that the subject of the leading clause is
contained in the antecedent Gen. absol. in an oblique case (Genitive), an instance
occurs in Heb. ix. 19 \a\ijdi<ri)s Trdffijs tvro\ijs virb Mwi/crews, Xafi&i (sc Mwr- *
T& al.ua . . epdvrifffr.
316 CASES ABSOLUTE. [ U5
united in a single sentence : eye'vero Sc /x, o i vTroa-rptyavn cis 'lep. KOI
7rpo(7i;^o/Avov /A o v ev TO) i/30) yevo-$ai /A e ei> eKorcurei.
b) The Genitives absolute follow the governing clause.
Since the anomaly of this structure is too conspicuous, and
grammatically is even hardly to be justified, but few such
examples are found.
2 Cor. iv. 18 Karepya^crai r) fj.lv, (j,r) CTKOTTOWTOV ^/ncov ra /3Ae7ro/Aeva,
probably in order to connect the participial clause more independ-
ently with the entire leading clause, not merely with the single
word fjjjuv. Heb. viii. 9 (quotn.) ty eTro^cra eV rj/^epa e7rAa/?o/Avov
/xov r>}s ^ctpos avToov etc. after a perfectly un-Greek construction in. the
Sept., so that the instance can hardly be reckoned as belonging to the
Gen. absol. construction. For, apart from the grammatical error of
employing the Gen. absol. where the subjects are identical, a native
Greek could not possibly add the temporal adjunct (eV rj^pa) besides,
since this is already contained in the very construction, and the words
if immediately dependent on eV fjfj-epa. must have run, Jj eVeAa/^o/Ai?!/
(as Justin Mart, cum Tryph. lip. 228 actually writes ; cf. Lam. iii. 57 ;
Ps. xvii. 1 ; Lev. vii. 35), or at least with the Infin. TOV e7rtAa/3e'o-#at
//,. Consequently the construction employed (which occurs also
Baruch ii. 28) is nothing more than a thoughtless imitation of the
original Hebrew ("^tnri D'P?, cf. Gesen. 320), of which no other
similar example is to be found in the N. T. On Rev. xvii. 8
(0av/xao-07JTOi>Tcu . . . pXeirovrw) see 144, 20, c) p. 306.
B. 145, 4; H. 791 a.; C. 676 a. ; J. 695 Obs. 1; G. 110, 1 N. 2.
4 It is rare that an instance occurs where the Participle (if its
subject is obvious from the context) stands alone in the
absolute case, owing to the propensity of the N. T. writers
to insert the pronouns everywhere ( 130, 2 p. 142).
Luke xii. 36 Iva eX^dvros KCU Kpovo-avros ev^e'oo? dvoia>(Tiv avra) (cf.
2 a) a p. 315), Acts xxi. 10 iTn^vovrwv Sc (Grsb. Rec. add rj^wv [cod.
Sin. avroji/]) Ka.rr)\6iv TIS etc. Rom. ix. 11 (see 129, 15 p. 133 sq.).
Cf. besides Luke viii. 20 Tdf. (aTn/yycXiy avru) AeyovTwv [eds. 2, 7])
and the various readings on Matt. xvii. 14, 26 (Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. cod.
Sin.]).
B. 145,5; J. 699.
5 On the pretended Datives absolute for the Gen. abs. see 130.
2 note 2 p. 143. The state of the case is different if the subject of such
an apparent Dative absol. contains itself the notion of time or instru-
272 ment; in this case the employment of the Dative with the Participle
is not only admissible (see the examples in the Gram."), but even if
145.] CASES ABSOLUTE. 317
the N. T. is now restored, after MSS. [Sin. also], with perfect confidence
instead of the former Genitive, Matt. xiv. 6 ytvco-iois Se yevo/xo/ot? TOV
etc.
B. 146, NN. 4, 6, 7; H. 792 sq. ; C. 675 d. sq. ; J. 700 sq. ; G. 110, 2 sq
Nominatives and Accusatives absolute. The
instances in the N. T. which may be brought under the head
of Nom. absol. have already, so far forth as the Participle is
used as such (i.e. without an article), been quoted and treated
of in full above, under 144, 6, 7 p. 292 sq. and 13 p. 298 ;
but in so far as it is used with the article, the examples fall
under 123, 5 p. 78 and 151, 4 sq. p. 379 sq. Hence it remains
for us here to speak of the possible occurrence of an Accusa-
tive absolute. The peculiar classic use, however, of the
Accus. absol. viz. with &>? preceding (ecrtcoTra, 009 irdvras et'Sora?
he was silent as if all knew i.e. because he thought all
knew) does not occur in the N.' T. Hence, whatever else of
the sort is found there, must, like most Nominatives absol.
according to p. 298 above (cf. B. 145 N. 6), be explained
as anacoluthic.
The construction, however, can be pointed out with confidence only
in a single instance : Acts xxvi. 3 ^yiy/xcu e/mavrov /ta/capioi/ CTTI <rov
/zeXXcov a7roAoyetcr$ai, /maA-wra yvoxmyv ovra tre TTCXVTWV etc. That
the clause is actually an Accus. absol. is proved by the express in-
sertion of the Subject (o-c) with 6Wa, whereby all connection of the
participial clause with some other portion of the sentence is prevented.
It is to be explained as having arisen from a construction altered
while in the mind, probably in view of what precedes, so that the
intended thought was I esteem myself happy that thou art appointed my
judged Moreover, several interpreters would discover an Accus.
absol. also in Eph. i. 18 (u/a S<3 v/uv irveyx.a crcx^ias . . ., Trc^xoTtor/xe-
vovs TOV<S 6<J>0a\iJiov<; TTJS KapSias v/zwv), the Participle not being
referred to 6<#oA^ov9 but to the persons addressed. That it cannot
be such, follows from the fact that the subject, hence in the form v/xas,
is not expressed (as it is in the preceding passage). Consequently the
Accusative must be connected by anacoluthon immediately with the
preceding Dative v/uv. But in opposition to that, too, it maybe
remarked, 1) that such a license, although perhaps it might be de-
fensible in classic authors (especially poets), in the N. T. ut least
even in Luke can only be shown to occur with the Nominative, as
1 Cf. with this the very similar sentence in the Act. Andr. (the style of which
often reminds one of Luke) 13 : ou5' &v aoi iriffTtvo-w, f5i6v ftou <ravrbi> \eyovrd 0-e.
318 CASES ABSOLUTE. ]14&
the case whose construction is the loosest, see the exposition in 144,
13 p. 298 ; 2) that the choice of the Accusative of the Participle
(without an expressed subject) would be the more surprising here,
as the employment of the regular Dative (Trc^amoyieVois) referring to
the preceding vfuv was so natural. Hence, on grammatical grounds
the other explanation (see 125, 5 p. 94) unhesitatingly deserves the
preference, as the more probable ; the more so as the sense also is by
no means opposed to it.
B. 145, N. 7; H. 793; C. 675d.; J. 701sq.; G. 113,N. 10.
7 Analogous to the examples of o>9 with the Participle
( 144, 22 p. 307) is the appearance of the same particle in a
similar sense before the construction of the Gen. absol. (Of
273 the Ace. absol. with o><? there is no example, as was said in the
preceding paragraph.)
1 Cor. iv. 18 cos fji^j IpxofMfvov /xou 777309 ty/as, <j>vcrui>@r)ardv TIVCS, 2 Cor.
V. 20 7rpe<T/3evo/xei', 009 TOU Oeov TrapaKaXoiWos, 1 Pet. iv. 12 (009 tvov
orv/jt^aiVovTos) , 2 Pet. i. 3 a>9 Travra rr}? 0i'as Swa/xcw? SeScop^/xe^s etc.,
all which are to be taken as subjective motives of the following
main action, and therefore, as on p. 307 above, to be resolved by eiSores
on, or even simply by VO/U'OVT?, Aeyovres ort . . .
B. 145, N. 10; H. 792; C. 675 b. ; J. 700; G. 110, 2.
8 Impersonalsinan absolute participial construction stand, as is
well-known, in the Accusative. No instance, however, occurs in the
N. T., except that Paul, instead of the short parenthetic clause el rv'^ot
(used a few times, 1 Cor. xiv. 10 ; xv. 37), employs in 1 Cor. xvi. 6
the neuter Ace. T v x 6 v. This TV^OV, however, is used nearly in an
adverbial sense even in classic writers, as Xenophon, Plutarch, et al.
(see Pape under rvy^avetv), and ought not to be taken otherwise here,
since the leading mark of an Impersonal used verbally, viz. the
dependent clause, is wanting : Trpos v/xas, TV^OV (if it so chances, perhaps),
7rapa/Ai/o> icai etc. With %6v however (Acts ii. 29 ; 2 Cor. xii. 4)
ecrnV if always to be supplied. Respecting dpaju.vov (Luke xxiv.
47) see 150, 7 p. 374.
J REMARK. A peculiar, but genuine Greek, example of the blending
of two very current constructions, the absolute Participle and the Ace.
and Infin., is found in Acts xxiii. 30 prjrvOtunp 8e /aoi eTri^ovX^? eis TOT/
ai/Spa p.tXXew Sirccr&Uj e^avnjs erre/xi^a TT/DOS ere, which arose from the
underlying grammatical combination /x^w^evros (or ivqwQcv, see B 145
N. 10) fjiOL r 7ri/3oi>Ar)i/ is TOV oLvSpa /xcAActv cre(r0<u. See on this topic
(of blended constructions) in general 151, 10 below, p. 383.
146.] ADVERBS. 319
\
ADVERBS.
B. 146, 4; H. 588 sq. ; C. 703, 1; D. 488; J. 526 sq.
The number of Adverbs which being joined to the Genitive 1
have acquired almost the force of Prepositions, and hence
are often employed as periphrases of the ordinary prepositions,
may be increased from the N. T. The particulars here which
are of importance grammatically, are the following :
From the old preposition di/ri arose by composition and derivation
(besides the common tvavriov towards, in presence of, and dvTt/cpu over
against}, IVO.VTI before (coram), aTrevavn and KarevavTi over
against, in presence of, also against in a hostile sense (Acts xvii. 7) ;
from ava the common e TT a v <a with the force of vTrcp with the Ace. in
a local and immaterial sense above, over, in a numerical sense more
than (see the constr. in 132, 21 p. 168) Mark xiv. 5 ; 1 Cor. xv. 6.
A preposition, unknown to the earlier writers (and that probably first
arose in the East), with which principally the Seventy render the 27 I
Heb. *\?sb and ^3?, is e v w TT t o v in various constructions, to which for
the most part our prep, before i.e. in conspeclu, ante oculos corresponds,
and often in circumlocutions for the Dative, see 133, 3 sqq. p. 172 sq. ;
also compounded Ka.TtvuTri.ov, in the same signification. The
adverbs e/zTrpoo-flcv before, ante, and OTTIO-W back, behind, even for
ttTrd (Matt. xvi. 23, where immediately afterwards it is employed in
altogether a different sense), are used in various peculiar constructions
and significations ; also in circumlocution for simple cases (see e.g.
pp. 172, 176, 184). The word !o>5, until, rarely used elsewhere as
a prep., is frequently found in the N. T. connected with the Gen. as
well in a local as a temporal reference, particularly in Matt, and Luke.
As a conjunction connecting clauses it stands as often in connection
with the Relative ov, orov, as without it; (so ftexpi, XP 1 )' "Ecus can
also be prefixed to other prepositions (and adverbs, see 4 p. 320, and
cf. the Germ, bis) ; as, os ets (Trpos) Br/flai/iW, Iw? CTTI rrjv 0aA.acr<rav,
CMS t'lco -n}s TroAews. The neuter picrov is once found used quite like
a prep, in the sense of /xcra or /xerav: Phil. ii. 15.
Still more diffuse, and more or less Hebraistic, circumlocu-
tions for simple prepositions are formed by means of the
substantives TrpoawTrov (D^?S), X ^P Cc)> vropa (ns),
For example: irpb TrpocrwTrov for the simple irpo, commonly with
persons, once even metonymically in a temporal reference, Acts xiii. 24
(?rp6 TrpocrwTrov r^9 eicroSoi; O.VTOV) ; OLTTO TrpocrwTrov ("\3B'?) for the
simple OLTTO (Acts, Rev.) ; further, Iv Trpoo-wTrw, Kara TrpocrtoTrov, cts
followed by the Genitive, see the Lexx< With \ ^P P ar-
820 PREPOSITIONS BEFORE AD VEKBS. [ 145.
ticularly the instrumental Sia x t P5 and Sia ^eipcuv ; see on these .and
other phrases with ^etp 133, 20 p. 182. With o-ro/xa, the analogous
Sia o-ro/xaros, see ibid. 1 With oc0aA/Aos : Matt. xxi. 42 ; Mark xii.
ll(quotn.) eo-rtv 6avp.acrTr) ei/ ocpOaXpoLS fjfjiiav, Luke xix. 42 cKpvfirj OLTTO
6</>#aA./xcoi> crov etc.
B. 146,N.2; H. 626; D. pp. 626, 672 ; J. 529, 2 ; 773 Obs. 4.
2 Instead of the ordinary ai/ev, Luke uses twice the poetic a T e p :
xxii. 6, 35. HXirjv except, when it is to serve as the connective of
clauses, is commonly in the earlier writers joined with other conjunc-
tions (ei, dAAa, on, etc.). In the N. T. however, as in general in later
writers from Aristotle on, it often stands alone as an adversative
conjunction. Cf. Iw?.
B. 146,N.3; cf. W. 81,8.
3 Substantially under this head (of the Dative with adverbs) belong
such examples as Matt. viii. 34; John xii. 13 tZyXOfv eis vTrdvrrjo-iv r<3
'I^o-ov, where the Dative is governed by the entire verbal idea (equiv.
to vTnjvnyo-cv) ; on the other hand, in Matt. xxv. 1 the Gen. TOV w^iov
depends immediately on the Substantive viravrrja-w.
275 PREPOSITIONS BEFORE ADVERBS.
4 The facility with which prepositions connected themselves
with other words, or were employed in composition, or were
themselves, especially in the earlier language, used advei bially
(cf. B. 147, N. 5 ; H. 615 ; C. 703 b., 706 ; J. 640, 644),
occasioned a great multitude of constructions or compositions
in part entirely new, adverbs coming to depend on
prepositions just like substantives.
Analogous to the above (1 p. 319) mentioned combinations with
I CDS (viz. loos eis, 2ws fTri, etc.), we find also not only the regular ex-
pressions, with article prefixed, os rov vvv, Icus T^S <n}/Aepov, but also
without an article and in direct connection, !<os a/m, !a>s TTOTC, ecu? Ka,
Ia>s ra> eis (Mark xiv. 54), Io>s ox5f, Iws cr^epov, Iws eTrra/as (as we too
say until now, to here, etc.) ; likewise a //. a, in the expression a/xa
Trpau, Matt. xx. 1. Further, of the old prepositions we find air 6
thus used (it corresponding then entirely to our since), in the phrases
a,7ro TOTC from (since) then, GOTO Trepvcn since a year ago, UTTO Trpwt lu>s
e<r:repa9, air apn ; on the other hand with the article, aTro rov vvv,
1 Hebraistic, also, is the construction M <rr6^aros S5o ^aprvpcov (on the state-
ment of two witnesses, Matt, xviii. 16; 2 Cor. xiii. 1, cf. Deut. xix. 15), and the
expression an imitation of the lv <n6\w.r\. po/jupalas used very often by the Sept.
7T(roGfTot (TT^/iaTi naxaipas, Luke xxi. 24 J cf. Hcb. xi. 34 (sfyvyov ffr
and Gesen. sub FiB no. 3.
147.] PREPOSITIONS. 321
and 7Tt before adverbs of number without affecting their meaning,
7rt T/DI'S, (/>* a7ra. Hence combinations of the sort were regarded also
as actual compositions, and accordingly written in one word, as aTroprt,
<a7ra, avrnrepa l ; further VTrcpXtW, vTrepcKTrcptcro-ov, {iTrepavw (Lchm.
writes even vTrepcyw as one word in 2 Cor. xi. 23), VTTOKCITW,
In general, however, this use takes place only to a limited extent
and rather in certain customary and established phrases. That it
reaches back to pretty early times, may be seen from Kiihner, ausf.
Gr. 620 [Jelf 644] ; Kriiger, Sprachl. 66, and the examples for
the entire language in Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 45 sq.
Respecting the pleonastic combinations 0.776 fjMKpoOev etc. see p. 70.
PREPOSITIONS.
B. 147; H. 614sqq.; C. 688sqq.; D. 470sq.; J. 472. 614 sqq.
An acquaintance with prepositions, as respects their use and 1
their signification, is of great and pervading importance for
the understanding of the N. T., since they, in the first place,
were so often substituted for the constructions by case usual
elsewhere (cf. p. 142), and secondly, deviate in their sig-
nification, both as respects its contents and its compass, not
unessentially from the ordinary usage. But to give an ex-
haustive exposition of the subject would far transcend the
limits of this grammar (indeed the complete exhibition of
the N. T. use of the two prepositions eV and et? alone would
require perhaps the space of a book) ; and the grammarian
may the more readily desist from the undertaking, as the 276
subject has already found minute consideration in the special
lexicons. 2 Here, as everywhere, he must confine himself
merely to pointing out the prominent and distinguishing
peculiarities of usage.
PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
'ANTI. In the signification of this preposition (instead of,
for) no deviation occurs from ordinary usage ; as, John i. 16
X<dpi<; avrl ^aptro? grace for grace.
'AIIO is one of the prepositions most frequently used as 2
1 This, and not avrurepait, almost all the MSS. [Sin. also] have in Luke viii. 26.
This (otherwise poetic, see Stephanas, Thes.) form in -a is found as early as Po-
lybius. Tdf. accentuates it, after MSS., avriirepa ; yet the accentuation according to
analogy deser/es the preference, since " nulla est in accentibus codicum auctoritas."
2 See in particular the clear and well-arranged separate articles in Wahl's clavis
minor.
41
322 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. [ 147
well in the 0. T. as in the New, and often in a manner de-
viating from the ordinary usage. Its fundamental signification,
viz. departure from the exterior of an object, is of course
the prevalent one in the N. T. also. Yet this, as well as all
those delicate shades in the signification of airb which the N. T.
has in common with classic Greek, remains excluded from our
exposition; and even those individual instances where the
preposition is used in a pregnant or especially characteristic
sense, referrible nevertheless to its fundamental meaning, we
must leave to the exegete, 1 turning our attention at once to
1 This mode of proceeding the only one which suits the scientific criticism of
the present day has, as matter of fact, come into general use now among recent
commentators, and thus a multitude of absurd assertions in reference to individual
senses of this preposition (and others) have been expelled from the province of
N. T. exegesis. On this account, respecting such details in the use of the prepo-
sitions we refer to the commentaries. For since such passages are by no means
few in number, a detailed explanation and tracing out of the sense from the
fundamental signification in every individual case, however instructive such a
treatment might be for an acquaintance with the grammatical handling of these
prepositions on the part of the N. T. writers, would carry us much too far. To
render this evident once for all, we will here treat as briefly as possible of a
number of such instances in the case of the prep, curb : Acts viii. 22 (cf. Heb. vi. 1 )
p.frav6T\ffov curb rrjs KaKias <rov ravT-rjs for in the idea of yLeravotiv is included at the
same time that of turning one's self away (Luther renders it very freely
repent for etc., similarly deWette on account of etc.), 2 Thess. ii. 2 craAeuflfjj/cu airb
rov vo6s to be thrown into violent mental agitation so as to lose one's senses,
Acts xvi. 33 irapa\afihv avrovs . . . \ov<rev airb TU>V ir\rjya>t>, the Vulg. renders
freely lavit plagas, but literally to wash away the blood or the dust /Vow the
wounds, 2 Tim. i. 3 \arpev<a rf 0e< curb irpoy6i>iav from my forefathers i.e. in the
way inherited from my forefathers, as they did, Col. ii. 20 aireedvere <rvv Xpio-r$
airb ru>v ffroixfiav rov K6<r^ov, 2 Cor. xi. 3 <po0ov/u.ai /JLIJ tyBaprj ra vo^^ara v^Siv airb
TTJS air\6rTjros, Rev. xviu, 14 irdvra ra \afj.irpa aircaXero airb (Tov, in these last
three passages the idea of turning away or of separation is plainly to be perceived in
the verbal idea itself (in the case of airoQavtiv and air6\\vo-6ai in their very outward
composition), Rom. ix. 3 IJUX^UT/J/ avd6e/j.a fivai airb rov Xpio-rov to be accursed and
thus fall from fellowship with Christ, Heb. xii. 15 IxTrepcav airb TTJS x<*P lTOS T0 ^
6eov keeping aback i.e. at a distance from grace, Rom. vii. 2, 6 etc. narapyt'to-Gai.
airb rov vofjiov. rov Xpiffrov, i.e. the law, Christ, has no influence on a man, and con-
sequently he is released from the law, from Christ, Matt, xviii. 7 oval r$ K^iy
a7rJ> r&v (TKavod\(ov on account of temptation, i.e. the woe comes upon it from etc.
He:b. v. 7 eiffaitovadels airb TTJS u\o^eios on account of, in consequence of, his piety
(see the recent comm.), Acts xx. 9 Karevex^^ 15 a rov virvov in consequence of, as a
result of, the sleep (cf. d) above), Matt. xi. 19 ; Luke vii. 35 e5i/cai0Tj 77 crofyia airb
T&V TeKvwv OUTTJS is justified on or in her children, i.e. taking her children as our
point of departure (considering their works) we perceive wisdom to be justified,
exalted above the calumniation of mockers; but otherwise in Acts xiii. 39 curb
iravTvv 3>v (i.e. a<p' >v) OVK r/Suj^flTjTe 5i/coo>07>at eV v&iuf Ma>u<T6a>s justified and
thereby freed from all etc., likewise in Luke v. 15; viii. 2 redepairevfj-fvos a-rrb
healed and freed from spirits ; similarly Rom. vi. 7 ; Heb. x. 22. In
147.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 323
those respects in which the usage of the N. T. (and essentially
also that of the Old) differs from common usage, viz. in that
the prep. CLTTO is employed where native Greeks would have
preferred, 1 a) a case alone, b) the prep, e'/e, c) the prep.
Trapd, d) the prep. VTTO.
a) That the language of the N. T. often employed the prep- 278
osition CLTTO (extended airo TrpoacoTrov, see p. 319) where the 3
earlier Greek was satisfied with the Genitive alone may be
seen from 130, 1 p. 141 ; 132, 2. 5. 7. 12. 17 etc. pp. 156 sqq. ;
and that with verbs which otherwise ordinarily were joined
with two objects-Accusative, one of the nouns by virtue of a
different conception of the thought is construed with airo, see
131, 6 p. 149 and 134, 5 p. 189. Here we must attend to
still another and altogether analogous use of airb, which like-
wise has already been incidentally mentioned : viz. the ideas
to be on one 's guard, to protect, to be ashamed, to fear,
and the like, as <f>v\dcro-6t,v, <f)v\do-(Teo-0ai, (po/Beladai,, alor^v-
veadai, /3\e7Tiv, 7rpoa-e%iv, Trpoae^eiv eavru> (in the 0. T. also
eW'nJmt, Trro^OTJvai,, uT&XeaOai, etc.), frequently take after
them the object of the fear etc. in the Genitive with 0.73-6.
See the examples above in 135, 3 p. 192, and in the lexicons,
under the several words. Compare also e/c below, and on Acts v. 35
(7rpo<r*xew cum3 CTTI rots etc.) under e?rt p. 337. This construction
might be regarded as an expansion of the classic use of <vAacr<j/
(Xen. Hell. 7, 2, 10 ; Cyr. 1, 4, 7) ; but more probably it grew to such
an extent under the influence of foreign idioms, viz. of the Latin (cf.
specifications of time often merely the name of the person is used, brachylogically,
as fab 'Afipad/j. since the time of Abraham; metonymically awl> al/j-aros "AjSeA., etc.
1 We expressly say preferred, and thereby admit that even in Greek authors
occasionally the mode in which the N. T. writers are wont to express themselves
can be met with as an isolated phenomenon. Yet it would be very rash to insist
on inferring a general usage on account of isolated passages in classic authors
(how often an author in the moment of writing creates new constructions !) ; and
indeed the bringing together of parallel passages, often from out of the way and
sometimes from extremely heterogeneous writings by profane authors, has in
many cases done more harm than benefit to the interpretation of the N. T. To
be sure, the reginnings of a corruption may be sometimes pointed out in native
authors ; then to establish the peculiarity of the N. T. usage it is absolutely neces-
gary to show how what in Greek authors remained an isolated phenomenon,
without influence on the general (or more correctly, the literary) usage, became
in the F. T. customary and not infrequently the rule. Far more frequently,
however, 'the N. T. usage has quite another origin than phenomena, externally
similar, in classic writers ; and then the explanation of it, and of the particular
passages in which it occurs, must be derived from other sources than the classics.
824 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. [147
the constructions cavere, timere, tueri, ab aliquo) on the later Greek,
and of the Hebrew use of "jp and "\55ri upon the language of the Old
and N. T. particularly; (cf. Gesen. under K^, nnn, *wo , itfia).
Examples of the same construction in the Sept. are of O-TTO, Jer.
x. 2 ; xii. 13 ; xxxi. 13 ; ii. 36 ; Ps. cxx. 7 ; Josh. vi. 18 ; Deut. i. 29 ;
Ecclus. xvii. 14, etc. of 0.71-0 Trpoo-toTrov (^Bp), Jer. i. 17 ; Ezek.
ii. 6 ; iii. 9 ; Mai. ii. 5 ; Josh. xi. 6 ; Eccl. viii. 12, etc.
4 b) a? stands where a more exact designation of the relation
would have required etc. Of this the following passages may
serve as examples :
Matt. vii. 16 0,77-0 rw Kapirw eTriyvoxrecrfle, where IK would have been
the more precise expression (cf. the variants on vii. 20 Lchm.), Heb.
xi. 34 eSvva.fjLo'iO'rjcrav O.TTO affOevtias, Rev. xiv. 3, 4 a.yopao-6r)vai 0.776 r}s
yr}s, o.7rb TOW avOpwTraiv. Also in the periphrases for the partitive Gen.
279 with TTtWiv, to-Oitiv, ^oprd^a-OaL, yc/u^cut ordinary usage would certainly
have preferred e* (see 152, 12 p. 163), likewise in such phrases as
01 OTTO -7-775 KK\r)(TLa<; Acts (xii. 1;, ot airo rfjs cupeo-ccos (xv. 5), x tv TO
ei'Siyx.a (XTro rpi^v Ka/x^Xov Matt. (iii. 4, cf. Xapi/a aTro crt^pov App.
B. C. 4, 44), avSpes vXa/?is OLTTO -"-ai/TO? $vovs Acts (ii. 5), etc. In
specifications of descent, awo in Greek writers designates rather the
more remote *and general, c/c the more immediate and special, origin.
Nevertheless in the N. T. the combinations 6 oVo Ntto/>a0, 6 avo
'Api/xa(9ata<;, ovBels airo TT}? <f>v\f]s, rjv ^tXtTTTros o.7r6 B^^o-atSa (John i. 45,
although CK TT)S TToXcws immediately follows in apposition) are quite
as frequent as the regular ot O.TTO KtXiKtias, etc. Both prepositions
occur in their proper relation in Luke ii. 4 oVe'/fy 'I(oo-r/<jf> GOTO TT)S
FaXtAata? e/c TrdXecos Na^apa^.
5 c) where usage would have preferred Trap a.
Thus mention has already ( 132, 17 p. 166) been made of the
thoroughly unclassical construction of oVo with OKOVCIV. It occurs far
more commonly still with fj.av6dv cti/, and that not only when it
has the signification to learn on (i.e. from the case of ) a person or
thing, as Mark xiii. 28 etc. O-TTO rrj<; o-v/oys f^dOcre ryv 7rapa(3oXr)V) Matt,
xi. 29 /xa#T dV ejuov, but also in the signification to be informed,
cognoscere, hence for irapa, as Gal. iii. 2 TOVTO ^eAco /Jta^eiv d<^>' v/xaii/,
Col. i. 7 Ka0a>s e/xa^T air 'E7ra<pa (on the other hand, Trapa in 2 Tim.
iii. 14), and with other verbal ideas, as Aa//,/?ai>iv and its com-
pounds, 1 Matt. xvii. 25, 26; 1 Cor. xi. 23; Col. iii. 24; Heb. vi. 7;
3 John 7, Savi'o-ao-0ai Matt. v. 42; further, in constructions like
J Yet the construction with irapd is likewise frequent with these verbs, and ii!
particular is always used when the recipient takes a thing from the giver im-
mediately; see the exposition in Winer p. 370 (347) note.
147.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 325
6 evraivos ytv-rjo-CTai CKOCTTW GOTO TOV $eoC, e^eiv n cwro TWOS (1 Cor. iv. 5 ;
vi. 19 ; 1 Tim. iii. 7), and after substantives, as Soa a<' V/AWV 1 Thess.
ii. 6, SiaOrjKrj OLTTO opov<s Siva Gal. iv. 24, cny/xetov cbro crov QiXopev i'o>
Matt. xii. 38, and the like.
d) Where the Greeks preferred VTTO. Primarily with A ctive 6
verbs to designate the motive (Lat. prce, our /or, out of,
from}, as Matt. xiii. 44 d?ro T?}9 X a P^ avrov vTrdyei, /cal TrwXei
Trdvra (on the addition, likewise un classic, of the Pron. avrov
see 127, 26 p. 118 ; on the other hand, without a Pron. Acts
xii. 14), Matt. xiv. 26 CLTTO TOV <j>6(3ov e/cpagav, Luke xxii. 45
Kotpcofjievovs CLTTO TTfs XuTT??? ; similar to this use are such ex-
amples as a7r6 TOV o-ftKov ov/c r)$vva,To Luke (xix. 3), OVK tayvov
. . . CLTTO TOV 7r\r)6ov<; TCOV l^Ovwv John (xxi. 6), OVK eve{3\67Tov
OLTTO T% 86^77? TOV 0&JTO9 Acts (xxii. 11). Ill the SCCOlld place,
with Neuter Verbs containing aPassive idea, and even with
actual Passives, to designate the personal author, hence
precisely for VTTO and the Gen., or the Latin a with the Abl.;
sometimes also to denote the cause, and so for the Dative
with the Passive otherwise usual.
This last-mentioned use has, indeed, been often disputed ; but incor- 280
rectly, if we compare the examples given below, in all of which the
Greeks would hardly have expressed themselves otherwise than by
VTTO, or by means of very different constructions. That the possibility
of this use has been doubted, is solely owing to the fact that earlier
expositors, ungrammatically enough to be sure, asserted that cbro was
used in the N. T. indiscriminately for VTTO, and quite in the same sense.
The correct explanation, on the contrary, is this : that in cases where
the Greeks used VTTO to designate an internal causal relation, the
N. T. writers contented themselves (more frequently than is the case
in the classics 1 ) with a more external statement of relationship by
means of (XTTO, just as they (according to b) p. 324) so often used the
same preposition where the more exact view of the relation required
IK. The intrinsic force of aTro, accordingly, is on our supposition in
no wise altered, but only the construction with this prep, set as a loose
and inexact usage over against that which grammatically is preferable
and more correct. Yet it is to be carefully noticed, that even in the
N. T. the lax usage is only exceptional and the construction with
VTTO or the Dative to be assumed as a rule throughout, as well
as that many passages were referred to this usage by the (earlier)
1 For that at least analogous modes of expression are to be found also in earlier
writers, and consequently that the above supposition is philologically well founded,
may be seen in Poppo on Thr.c. 1. 17.
326 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. [% 147
expositors where the interpretation of OTTO in its original sense appears
to be thoroughly admissible ; (cf. the note on p. 322 and Winer 371
(348) note). Perhaps, too, it is not accidental that in several of the
following examples the governing verb itself is already compounded
with 0,73-0 ; cf. the example from Acts xv. 38 in 151, 2 p. 377.
Examples: 1) With Neuter verbs, Matt. xvi. 21 TroXXa iraOelv
aaro TOW 7rpo-/3vT/3a)v (var. vTTo) , cf. Mark viii. 31 etc. ; 1 Thess. ii. 14
var., 2 Xhess. i. 9 St/oyv TLCTOVCTLV 0.770 TrpocrioTrov TOV /cvpiov KOI cbro rr}s
86r)<s rrjs loaves avrov. Similarly Rev. xviii. 15 ot TrXovr^o-avres drr'
av-nj<s (deWette, die von ihr d. h. durch sie reich geworden, that became
rich from her, cf. e* below).
2) With actual Passives, Mark viii. 31 [VTTO] ; Luke ix. 22 ; xvii.
25 TroXXa 7ra#eu/ KOI aTroSoKt/xao-^i/at O-TTO rtuv Trpso-^SvTtpojv etc. cf. 1 Pet.
ii. 4 var., Acts ii. 22 avopa oVoSeSay/AeVoi/ aVo TOV tfeov, 1 2 Cor. vii. 13
dvaTreTravrat TO Trvev/xa avrov OTTO TTCII/TWV v/xun/, Jas. i. 13 OTTO 0eov Tmpa-
O/ACU, T. 4 (/aio-06s) 6 a7recTTpr)fjivo<; a<f> v/xaV (kept back by you), Rev.
xii. 6 TOTTOV T7rot/xao-/xvov OTTO TOV $cov, Acts iv. 36 tTTiKXyGfls Bapva/?as
aTTo TWV aTrocTTo'Xwv where OTTO has only by the recent editors been re-
stored instead of the VTTO' of the Rec. ; likewise x. 33 TrdVro TO 7rpoo-T-
Toy/xeva trot OTTO [Lchm.] TOV Kvpiov (var. Trapo and VTTO [the latter
given by cod. Sin. and adopted by Tdf. and Treg.]). 2
To the above examples the following also may be added, 1 Cor. i. 30
eyevyOr) cro<J>La fjfuv OTTO #eov (for $eo's appears here as the efficient
cause, see the Comm.), Matt, xxviii. 4 O-TTO TOV </>o/?ov avrov eo-eto-^o-av,
Jude 23 xiTwi/a OTTO r^s trapKos etrTrtXco/xevoi/, Rev. ix. 18 a7TKrdv6r)a-av
281 owro TWV Tptcov TrXrjywv TOVTCOI/, a peculiarly turned expression for they
died of (from) the wounds (cf. 2 note p. 322).
REMARK. On the local specification OTTO o-Ta8<W etc. see 131, 11
p. 153.
7 'EK. Although this preposition often appears in peculiar
phrases, yet it departs in no point essentially from the ordinary
usage ; hence for its use in the main the reader may be referred
to the exposition given in the dictionaries and the general
grammars. Further, since the idea of the prep, is so forceful
and transparent that it could hardly be obscured by the modi-
fications of usage, a brief reference here to a few particular
cases will suffice.
Owing to the affinity in signification between * and OTTO, it is
1 In Luke i. 26 also the better attested reading (codd. Vat. Sin. [also Tdf. Treg.])
is aire<rTci\r) airb TOV 6eov ; and this is not to be translated, away from God.
2 The existence of these variants in the best and oldest MSS. is a proof that thai
loose use of air6 was known, and that an endeavor was made to get rid of it by
various corrections of a classic tone.
147.] PKEPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 327
natural that both should often serve to denote one and the same
relation; hence both are united in John i. 45 (see 4 p. 324), 2 Cor.
iii. 5; Rev. ix. 18, and with a certain distinction in Luke ii. 4 (see 4
p. 324). Hence, further, (as follows from what is said in 132) with
so many verbal ideas the Genitive was more closely defined now by e/c,
now by OLTTO. Thus /ueravoetv in the Rev. is uniformly joined to
e/c (see Wahl) instead of to cbrd (see 2 note p. 322), and rrjpelv
(8iarr]pLv) is construed not like the other verbs signifying to be on
one's guard etc. (see 3 p. 323) with OLTTO but with e/c, John xvii. 15 ;
Acts xv. 29 ; Rev. iii. 10. It serves (far more frequently than d,
and rather in a classic acceptation) to designate the author or the
cause with Neuter and Passive verbs: so, for example, very com-
monly (like ex in Latin) after yei/vr^i/cu, as well as the corresponding
predicates eV yaorpi e^eiv Matt. i. 18, /coirr/v l^ctv Rom. ix. 10; further,
after the Neuter verbs a,7ro#ave>, evratvov e^ea/, V\OVTV (cf. cbrd), vjv,
ar>7 earn/ e/c TO/OS, /ce/co7ria/cobs e oSotTropia? and the like, after Passives
like wc/>eA7#ai, SeSo/xeVoi/ eariv, Av7reto-0ai, ^/xioiio-^at, <rwe;(ecr0ai, dSt-
*ceicr#ai, and in such phrases from the Rev. as TrvpovaOai IK Trvpos,
o-KOTOvcrOai e/c KCLTTVOI!, c/>amecr0ai IK So^s. Cf. also 2 Cor. i. 1 1 ; Eph.
iv. 1 6 and the Commentaries on these passages.
On the divers constructions of eu/at and yivecrOai with e'/c, both in a
proper and in a tropical sense, see 132, 11 p. 162 sq. On the peri-
phrasis with e/c for the Partitive Gen., and the construction (to be
referred to this Gen.) with StSovat, Aa/z/^ai/etv, cpayeiv, lo-Oiciv and the
like see ibid. 6, 7 p. 159, and with the idea of fulness ibid. 12 p. 163.
On the (substantival) phrases with IK and the article see 125, 9 p. 95.
Lastly, by means of e/c are formed many adverbial expressions, as CK
pio>v radicitux, e avrfjs illico^ e/c Se&a?, e apiorepas, e/c SeuTepov, e'
IKCLVOV, e/c Trepto-crov, e/c cru/xc/xovov, e^ dvay/o^s, e^ icr^vos, the Hebraistic
e/c /coiXta? /aryrpos (cf. Isa. xlix. 1 ; Judges xvi. 17, etc.), and many others.
Owing to the obviousness of the relations they express, the 8
two opposite prepositions e/c and et? were employed in all sorts 282
of brachylogical and pregnant phrases, the meaning
of which is easily suggested by the phrase itself or by the
context.
For example : TrapeyeVero e o8ov, TTOTC avaXvoy e/c TWI/ ya/nwi/,
arec/Hii/ov e aKOvO&v, Troteti/ c/>payeAAiov e/c o-^oti/wo^, 6 wf e/c r^s y^s CK
r^s y^5 ecrrtv Kai e/c T^S y^s XaXet John iii. 31, A-aAetv e/c TOV /cdtr/xov
1 John iv. 5, e/c TWV iStcov John viii. 44, e^ etAt/cptvetas, e/c ^eov 2 Cor.
ii. 17, avafAwcw TO vibv e/c roil/ ovpai/wv SC. ep^o/Aevoi/ 1 Thess. i. 10.
Similar constructions with eis are the following : Matt. x. 27 o efc TO
ovs aKovere SC. AaAiyfleV, Acts xi. 22 rjKOV(rOr) 6 Aoyos eis Ta WTO TI}S
328 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. [ 147
Luke vii. 1 CTrA^paxrev Travra TO, pry/jtara avrov cis ras d/coac
TOV AaoO (i.e. which he spoke to or in their ears), Matt. x. 9 //,?/ KT/T-
<rr)o-6c xpvvbv eis ras wvas (in order to put it into etc.), Acts xvi. 24
TOV? TroSas r](r<f>a.\i(raTO eis TO v\ov sc. Srjcras. See besides, Mark x. 10 ;
John xvi. 21 ; 2 Cor. v. 5 ; viii. 24; 1 Pet. iii. 20; on eu/ai efe oucoy.
efe r^f Koinqv, 15 below, p. 332 ; on evo^o? cts r)i/ ye'ewav and the like,
132,23 note 2 p. 170.
That general predicates, like to be, to go, to come, are often omitted
with both prepositions may be seen in its place, 151, 24, b) p. 394.
IIPO. On the Hebraistic circumlocution Trpb irpoo-ajTrov see
146, 1 p. 319 ; on Trpb with the Infin. for Trpiv, 140, 11
p. 265 ; and respecting Trpb e fjpep&v etc. 131, 11 p. 153.
PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATITB.
9 'EN is by far the most common of these prepositions, and
used in the most diversified references, both proper and tropical,
external and internal. See the classification in Wahl's smaller
clavis ; and on the numerous constructions of ev with verbs
instead of the simple cases 131-133. For our purpose (cf.
1 above, p. 321) we select the following :
a) There are a number of passages in which ev is joined to
verbs which contain the idea of motion, so that ev stands to
a certain extent for et?; and, on the other hand, els is often
found connected with the idea of rest (see et? p. 332).
Although in presence of the countless examples of the correct
grammatical use of these two prepositions in the N. T. there cannot
be any talk of a complete obliteration of the distinction between them,
it would nevertheless be idle, in fact, contrary to the simple and
natural interpretation of many passages, and prejudicial, if we
should attempt to deny that, as compared with the literary usage of
classic prose, there is a certain carelessness and license in the employ-
ment of both ; and this is in perfect harmony with the popular style
of expression, (cf. the numerous passages in Homer where iv is used
in the same way). In reference to ev there is the less reason for the
denial, as according to p. 71 the local adverbs CKCI, ev#aSe, TTOV, OTTOV,
etc., are so often construed with verbs of motion ; and similar observa-
283 tions may be connected with other prepositions, see under cVt, Trapa,
Trpos. The idea of the preposition itself, however, remains in all such
cases unaltered. When, therefore, kv stands with a verb of motion,
it does not thereby receive the signification of cis ; on the contrary,
grammatically this is always to be explained by the circumstance that
the writer has in view the result of the motion, or the sphere in
147.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 329
which the motion occurs, rather than the motion itself. Compare
with this the Latin construction of in and the Ablat. with verba
ponendi, etc. So we find, in analogy with that Latin usage, the
following verbs joined to Iv: Ti6ivo.i (also riOea-Oai in a tropical
sense) and to-ravat (o-Trjcrai) together with their compounds; as,
Matt, xviii. 2; xiv. 3; xxvii. 29, 60; Mark vi. 29; ix. 36; xv. 46;
Luke i. 66 ; xxi. 14 ; xxiii. 53 ; John xix. 41 ; Acts iv. 7 ; v. 4 (Wov
iv 777 /capSia trov), 18, 25, 27; vii. 16; ix. 37 ; xix. 21 (#o-#ai iv TU>
Tri/c^art), 2 Cor. v. 19. But the construction with cis continues at
the same time in use; cf. Acts v. 18 with iv. 3; v. 25 with xii. 4;
Mark vi. 29 with Acts xiii. 29. In other passages, with these verbs
all reference to the whither is excluded, as Acts v. 27 (differently
xxii. 30), Rom. ix. 33 ; 1 Cor. xii. 18, 28, etc. While with these verbs
the construction with iv became, perhaps in consequence of Roman
influence, a species of usage, isolated instances of something wholly
analogous are found with other verbs of motion : thus in particular
with the closely related verb StSo'vai, as John iii. 35 (cf. xiii. 3),
2 Cor. i. 22; viii. 16 ; further, with IXOelv and its compounds, Luke
ix. 46 ; xxiii. 42; 1 Thess. i. 8; Rev. xi. 11, vTro^wpctj/ Luke v. 16
John v. 4), aTroo-reAAciv Matt. x. 16; Luke x. 3,
Phil. iv. 16, TTLTTTCIV (cf. Pape sub voce) Heb. iv. 11.
And then belong here, e/x^aTrreti/ rrjv x W a e ' v T( ? rpv/3\i(a Matt. xxvi. 23,
eoTpco<rav ra ifjidria Iv rf) 68(3 Matt. xxi. 8 ; Luke xix. 36,
aTmflets iv <j>povrj(rei Si/ccuW Luke i. 17, cf. Mark v. 30, TO
iv rf) KapSia Matt. xiii. 19, fj ayd-Trr) eK/ce^vrat Iv rai? KapSc'ats Rom. v. 5.
On the other hand, the following admit of a different explanation:
1 Cor. vii. 15 iv eiprjvrj KtKXyKtv ^/xas 6 0eos, and Eph. iv. 4 e/cA.rj^r iv
uta cATri'Si, see the Comm. ; and if dyd-Trr) is joined as well to ts TWO.
(2 Cor. ii. 4, 8 etc.) as to Iv nvi (2 Cor. viii. 7 ; cf. 1 John iv. 9, 16),
the reason is contained in the nature of dyaTny, an idea which now
may be conceived of as active, and now at rest.
b) Although the numerous shades of signification of ev are 10
all to be traced back more or less closely to the original idea
of the preposition, yet in one respect in consequence of Oriental
influence (cf. 133, 17 p. 181) an element originally alien
to the idea of the prep., and at variance with the ordinary
Greek usage, has become blended with it. That is to say, eV
in the Old and New Testaments is very commonly used, like
the prep, a in Hebrew, to designate the means: and that not
only with things (equiv. to the instrumental Dative), but also
with persons (ec uiv. to Sid with the Gen., Latin adjutus, opera).
We will select only a few of the examples, since they are to be found
330 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. [147.
on almost every page: Luke xi. 19, 20 iv B\e/2oi!\, iv SaKruXw &eov
iKJSdXXew TO. Saifjiovia, Matt. xxii. 43 iv Trvcv/xart, /caXei avrov Kvpiov in
284 the Spirit i.e. impelled by the Spirit ; and so frequently iv 0eo5, iv
XptOTTU) 'lr)(TOV, iv T<p OJ/d/AClTl KVpLOV, XptCTTOV, l> TTVeVfACLTl dyiO), 6V T<3
'ASd/x, ev trap/a, etc., Acts iv. 7 ev Trota 8wa/xei 17 ev TTOIO) ovojuan eTroo/-
(rar TOVTO; 9 ev rtvi ovros <recra)OTat ; 10 ev TW ovo/xart 'I. Xp., ei/ TOVTW
ovros Trapecrr^Kev vyt^s, 1 Cor. v. 8 ioprd&fJLev /AT) ev v/>7 TraXata . . .
dAX' iv <!u'/x,ots etc. See also on the addition and the omission of cV with
the instrumental Dative, 133, 19 p. 182 ; and on the diversified con-
structions (arising from this) of Iv with verbal and adjectival ideas,
particularly with verbs expressing emotion, 131-133 pp. 146sqq.
On the Infin. with ev see 140, 9 p. 263 sq. When, on the contrary,
ev seems to stand for crvv (i.e. with the accompaniment of) it is always
to be referred to the idea among, in the midst of, as Matt. xvi. 28
ep^o/xevos ev ry ySacrtXeia avrov (not to his royalty, but in the midst of,
or in the splendor of, his royalty; see Fritzsche in loc. and cf. 133,
22, b) p. 184), Luke xiv. 31 cv Se/ca ^tXtdcnv vTravr^crai TW yu,era eucoo-t
XiXidSan/ ep^o/AeVw, or is to be explained as an instrumental w by
supplying a verbal idea, as av0pa>7ros Iv Tri/cv/xari aKaOdprw (Mark i. 23,
125, 11 p. 96), etcrepxerai Iv at/xart Heb. ix. 25, ev pa/38a> cX&o 17 cv
aydTrrj Trveu/xart re 7rpavTrjro<; ; 1 Cor. iv. 21.
11 c) Among the various combinations of elvai, (^ivecrOcu,
e-^iv) with ez/, we give prominence (as a peculiarity) to the
mode of periphrasing the predicate belonging to elvai etc. by
means of eV and an abstract term in the Dative.
Thus often in Luke, as iv covcna yv 6 Xoyos avrov his discourse was
powerful (iv. 32), ot eV rpv^J vTrdp^ovres the luxurious (vii. 25), -yvvrj
ovcra iv pvacL at/xaro? a flowing woman (viii. 43), inrdpxw iv /?acrai/oi9
suffering pain (xvi. 23), iv f\0pa. etvat, iv Kpt/xart c?vat, etc. John vii. 4
iv Trapp-rjo-ia eti/at to be manifest, 1 Thess. ii. 6 iv J3dpei elvai to be esteemed
(or severe) ; further iv 80^17, iv inrepoxd-, iv d/cpoy8vo-Tia, iv Trepiro^ eti/at,
e^etv iv ry do-^ei/ta, iv eTrtyvwcret, iv eroi/xw, iv TrapajSacret y/eo-0ai, etc.
12 d) Not less peculiar are many adverbial expressions
formed with ev and the Dative, particularly if they stand in a
measure where the classic language would sooner have em-
ployed a participial clause or an adjective with a>v.
Such (eagerly and often used) adverbial phrases in the N. T. are
the following : iv aXrjOeia, iv e/crcveta, iv SiKaiocrvvTy, iv <ro<i'a, iv TrpavrrjTi
(equiv. to dX^^ws, e/crevoos, Sucaiot, cro<t>ol ovre?, etc.), Acts ii. 46 /u-ere-
Xd/x,/3avov Tpo<j)Y)<; iv dyaXXidcrct Kat d<^>eXoTr;rt /capStas (equiv. to dyaX-
XtayAevoi Kat d^eXets oi/res), 1 Cor. xv. 42, 43 o-Treiperai iv <f>0opa, iv
dn/xiia, ev dcrfomci eyctpcrai ei/ d</>^apo-ia, ei> Sofj;, ei/ Swdyact, cf. vs. 44.
147.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 331
Thus such a phrase joined to a substantive, without the addition of
<J>v or any other participle, often takes the place of an Adjective
belonging to the same (cf. 125, 2 p. 91, 11 p. 95 sq., and the examples
quoted there) ; as, Tit. iii. 5 Ipya TO. lv Si/caioo-wr?, 2 Pet. ii. 7 fj lv
da-eXyeta avacrTpo<f>r), 13 rj lv fjpepa rpvtfrrj. The combination of lv
with the Neuter of the Relative, lv w, is used as a Conjunction (in
classic authors also, see Pape's Lex. I. 720, and cf. e ou, avO* wv,etc.),
sometimes in a temporal sense (Mark ii. 19 ; John v. 7, etc.), some-
times in a tropical, quatenus, quapropter, on the ground of this, that, 2S5
see Fritzsche on Rom. viii. 3 ; Liinem. on Heb. ii. 18 ; vi. 17. As
a brachylogical peculiarity we may notice, further, Rom. xi. 2
lv 'HAi'a i.e. in the history of Elijah ; cf. l-rrl TOV /?arov in 23 p. 336
and other parallel modes of expression in deWette's Introd. to the
O. T. 78.
REMARK. The extremely surprising combination ([given by codd.
NAB and] adopted by Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.]) in Acts xxvi. 20 TO^S lv
Aa/xacrK<3 /cat lv 'IcpoaoXv/Ltots Tracrdv re. TVJV ^wpav r}s 'lovScu'as
could only be explained by the ellipsis of some such Participle as
IvoiKovcriv ; but for this quite unusual ellipsis no analogous example is
found, since no such Part, can be supplied here, as in Rev. xii. 12
Lchm. (see 131, 14 p. 154), from what precedes. Hence Tdf. [eds.
2, 7] has retained the reading cis Trao-av re, (which, indeed, is also not
Congruous, and looks like an emendation made in the interests of
grammar) .
2TN, like cum in Latin (or sammt in Germ. [Eng. together 13
witliY), is often used instead of /cat; as, Mark iv. 10 rjpojrwv
avrov ol Trepl avrbv avv rofc BcoSe/ca ra<? 7rapa/3oAa9, ix. 4 ; viii.
84 ; Luke xxiii. 11 ; Acts iii. 4 ; x. 2 ; xxiii. 15 ; 1 Cor. xvi.
19 ; Bph. iii. 18, etc.
Yet this phrase is no Latinism, at least the constructio ad synesin
customary in Latin authors (i.e. the use of the Plural with a preceding
or following Singular) is not found in connection with it.
Peculiar is the meaning besides, ad (i.e. super), in Luke xxiv. 21
(TVV Tracnv TOUTOIS rpinrjv TavT-qv ^/xepav ayci ; Vulg. super hcec omnia,
deWette bet alle dem.
PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE.
ANA, a preposition used but rarely in the N.T., is employed 14
most commonly
1) In distributive adjuncts; in which connection we may
notice, that according to p. 30 it is treated as an adverbial addition,
for example before the subject, ava els IKOOTOS Rev. xxi. 21, or before
332 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. [ 147
the object, Matt. xx. 9 OXafiov ava Srjvdpiov, John ii. 6 vSpiat ^copoSo-at
ava fj.eTp7jTa<s 8vo 17 rpet9, Rev. iv. 8 l^ov ava Trrepvyas , cf. Protev.
Jac. 7. 2 ; 8. 3 ; and 2) in the phrase ava /xeVoi/ throughout, as Matt,
xiii. 25 ; Mark vii. 31, in the midst of Rev. vii. 17, and simply inter,
between, 1 Cor. vi. 5 SiaKpTvat ava ptcrov TOV a$\<f>ov avrov where the
abridged form of expression (the use of the Singular with the omission
of the second party to the controversy) is noticeable.
15 EI2. The custom of connecting et? immediately with
verbs of rest has already been spoken of under eV (9 p. 328).
The rudiments of this brachylogical form of expression are
to be found in the popular language of all ages, and this idiom
has its analogies in all languages ; cf. the examples in B.
286 under fe p. 414 (480). Yet since the N. T. writers have
made a far more extended use of this liberty than is made
in the ordinary literary language, it is necessary to specify
here in detail the various species of construction, so far as the
examples given in the N. T. extend.
a) The expression with efc arose from its being attracted
by a verb of motion, present in the sentence, to which it in
part also belongs.
We are the more justified in explaining the extant instances in this
wav (by the o-^/xa a? KOIVOV), agreeing as it does perfectly with the
classic literary usage, as they are almost all from the writings of Luke :
xxi. 37 eep;(o/u,ei/os T/vXt^CfO ets TO opos, Acts ii. 39 vfj.lv yap eoriv
f) cirayy c\ia . . . *at Traorw rots eis /Ma/cpaV, ocrovs av etc., vii. 12
d/corxras ovra crtria eis Aiywrrrov ea7r tarr ctXcv TOV? Trarepas ^/man/,
Matt. iv. 13; ii. 23 \Qu>v KaTUK-qo-ev cis TTO\IV Na., similarly Acts
vii. 4. Hence the same mode of explanation is with reason to be
applied also to Luke ix. 61 eViTpe^ov /xoi airoTa^acrOai TOIS eis rbv OLKOV
l*ov (see Meyer), and in Acts xii. 19 ei? TTJV Kato-opetai/ is to be referred
not merely to nankOw but also to Sierpi/^ev.
16 b) Or it follows a verb of rest in which the (previous) idea
of motion is still contained, as the idea to place one's
self is in arrjvai,, and in KaOi^eiv /cadrjadat, that of seating
one's self, etc. (This case likewise is not uncommon in
Greek authors).
For example, Mark xiv. 60 di/ao-Tas 6 dp^tcpevs cis /xca-ov CTnypamio-ei/,
Luke vi. 8 a-njOi eis TO /xeVov, John xx. 19, 26; xxi. 4 lomy s TO
aiytaAdv, 1 Pet. v. 12 ; Mark xiii. 3 KaOr)p.evov cis TO opos TWV eAatoiv,
2 Thess. ii. 4. Analogous are Acts xx. 14 (rvvefiaXev rjp,lv et? rrjv
' 'Ao-o-ov, Heb. xi. 9 'A/Jpoc/i, Trapw/oyo-ev ets yrjv T^S CTrayyeXtas ; cf. Acts
vii. 4.
147.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 333
c) Or it is used with the verbs elvai and ylveo-Oat,. ll
The ideas of these verbs, being wholly general, and therefore
easily definable, acquire by being connected with els the force
of equally general verbs of motion (to come, go) ; (cf. from
earlier authors Herod. 1. 21 ; 5. 38 ; Thuc. 6. 62, etc.).
Examples of ytvcvOai are Luke i. 44 o>s eyeVero 77 (fxavrj eis TO. WTO*
/MOV, Acts xx. 16; xxv. 15; Gal. iii. 14, which require no further
explanation. More characteristic, on the other hand, are the ex-
amples with eti/at, Luke xi. 7 eis rrjv KOLTTJV eio-iV (popularly, are to
Germ, zu bed i.e. gone), Mark ii. 1 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] rjKovo-Ori on ets
OLKOV eo-Ttv (Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.] ev o<W), John i. 18 6 OH/ eis
TOV KoXrrov TOV Trarpos, 1 John v. 8 ot rpeis eis TO eV eicrij>, cf. John xvii.
23 ; Acts viii. 23 ets yap xoXrjv Trtfcpias . . . 6pw o-e 6Wa, Col. i. 6 TOV
evayyeAiov TOV Trapo'i/Tos eis vyoias. Whether Luke iv. 23 ocra ^/covcra/x,ev
yevo/xcfa is TT)V Ka</>apraov/>i, Trofycrov KOL aiSc ev rij TrarptSt also belongs
here may be doubtful, since if we translate it in Capernaum, the idea
of motion (even antecedent) is excluded. Hence Meyer thinks that
is here has the tropical sense of on (unto). Yet the other inter-
pretation is more natural, and corresponds better with the second
clause. Cf. the examples in the following paragraph.
d) But there still remains a number of instances which can 1&
not without violence be adjusted to any of the above rules. 287
Hence we are compelled here either to supply a missing
idea of motion, or (as in the majority of cases is doubtless
more probable) to recognize (as above in the case of eV) a
more negligent use of efc, and consequently the beginnings
of the subsequent obliteration of the distinction between the
two prepositions. (Hence we find countless passages with et<?
where complete rest is expressed in the Apocrypha of the N. T.)
For examples of this from later writers, see Jacobs ad Anth. Pal.
p. 49 (10), 712; Stephanus sub eis (p. 292 sq.) ; Protev. Jac. 4. 4;
5. 1 ; Thorn. 11. 1 ; Nicod. 15. 1, 4; Herm. Vis. 4. 3 ; and the litera-
ture on the whole subject as referred to in Winer p. 418 (389).
Further, notice from the N. T., Acts viii. 40 cvpeOij ets "Aom>i> sc. f\0wv
or ycrd/xevos, Mark i. 39 rjv AO/pvVcreov ets Tas O"uvaywyas avraiv eis o\rjv
rrjr FaA. where an unforced interpretation, particularly of the second
ets, hardly permits us to take it otherwise than as equivalent to iv o\y
TYJ FaA,., xiii. 9 TrapaSwo-ovo-tv v/u,as eis o-vi/eSpia /cat ets crvvaywyas 8ap^o*eo*^
where in view of the parallel passage and to avoid asyndeton we
should not with Lchm. [Treg.] and Meyer put a comma after crvvaywyas,
Acts ii. 27, 31 eyKareAet^ eis aSov (a6> Tdf. [bis, SO N ; but Lchm.
334 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GEN. AND ACC. [U7
Treg. only in 27] see 132, 27 p. 171), xix. 22 rc<rxv xpovov cl
'Acriav, xxi. 13 ScOfjvau /cat, aTroOavtlv eis 'lepoucraAry/A croi/xco? ^o>, xxiii. 11
<>ia/xapTvpacr0ai cts 'lepovc7a\T^u,, cts 'Pw/xryv, XXV. 4 rrypetcrflai TOV IlaiJXov
eis Kato-apeiav, Mark i. 9 e/2a7rriV0?7 cis rov *lop8avr;v (w the Jordan") :
and its use in connection with the simple article, Mark xiii. 16 6 ets
TOV aypov hardly different from Matt. xxiv. 18 6 lv TO) dypo>; also in
Mark x. 10 the reading eis rrjv oi/aav is now restored as the only
correct one in place of eV rfj OIKIO.. Cf. also the examples given above
in 8 p. 327 sq.
In the passages where cis has a tropical, metaphysical, sense, since
in them the idea of rest or of motion is at the most only secondary, it
must be left to the interpreter to decide which meaning is best suited
to the context in every particular case. But in general the notion
of aim (corresponding to that of motion) is in such instances by far
the prevalent one; cf. Winer 416 (388).
REMARK. On the circumlocution for the predicate Accusative
with verbs signifying to make to be, to elect, by means of eis and the
Ace., and on the corresponding (Old Testament) use of cis with elrai
and yivea-Ocu, see 131, 7 p. 150 ; on the circumlocution for the
Dative by means of ets, see 133, (3 p. 172). Adverbial ex-
pressions, as eis TO. a//.erpa, ets TO KCVOI/, cis Trepio-o-ciW, ^Trep/^oA^v, etc., are
formed like those given in B. p. 414 (480) and to be explained in the
same way.
PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE AND ACCUSATIVE.
If A1A. The N. T. use of this preposition, both when it is con-
nected with the Gen. and with the Ace., presents no anomalies.
Even when according to our ideas it seems to express other
relations, the interpreter will invariably bring to light a sense
suited to the context if he endeavors to trace back its sig-
nification to the two fundamental ideas (through and on
account of).
,288 To the adverbial phrases given in the Gramm. (B. p. 414 ; H. 629
fin. ; D. 478 fin. ; J. 627, 3 f.) may be added from the N. T. oY
vTro/xonJs, Sto Aoyov, SLO. Trpocr/co/x/xaros, 8ta jSpaxcW, BC 6A.iytuv, Sia TroAXwv,
BC oAov, etc.
20 KATA. In respect to this preposition also, only a few trivial
peculiarities deserve to be noticed.
Peculiar to Luke is the local signification of Kara with the Gen.
throughout ; but always in connection with the Adject. 0X09, so that in
this way the relation is designated which the Greeks render by avd
and the Ace., as KO.& oX^ T)S Trepi^wpou Luke iv. 14, KaO* oAiys 1779
147.] PREPOSITIONS WIT7I ALL THREE CASES. 335
'louSaia? xxiii. 5 ; Acts ix. 31, /ca0' oX^s rfjs 'loV^s 42 ; x. 37. In a
tropical sense hostile direction is by far its most common force;
hence in Gal. v. 17 l-mOvutiv Kara TH/OS is not a mere periphrasis for
the Gen. On O/AVVCIV, eopKieii>, /caret TIVOS see 131, 1 p. 147. An
isolated use of Kara and the Gen. is its use as a periphrasis for an
adjectival notion, as 2 Cor. viii. 2 f) Kara. /3a0ovs Trrw^eta deep pov-
erty, with which has been compared Strabo 9. 5 eari TO uavreiov avrpov
KoiXov Kara fidOovs. On the periphrases for the Genitive, the
Possess. Pron., and also an attributive Adject, with a substantive, by
means of K a r a and the Accusative (fj Kara 0coV XVTTTJ, ol Kara <f>va-iv
/cXaSoi), see 132, 2 p. 156 and 10 Rem. p. 162. On Kara with
distributive adjuncts see p. 30; and here again, as above with
ava, it is to be noticed that the expression formed in this way with
Kara is joined to the verb as object, Acts xxi. 19 e^yetro /ca0' ei/
'TIIEP and the Genitive is often used by Paul (after the 21
fashion of later writers, see B. p. 415 ; H. 633 b. ; D. 480 ;
J. 630, 2) for TrepL and the Genitive.
Thus with verba sentiendi etc., as 2 Thess. i. 4 ; Rom. ix. 27, etc.,
also in the sense of as respects, 2 Cor. viii. 23 etrc vircp Ttrov, KOLVWVOS
e/xos, etc. In the MSS. it is often interchanged with Trepi, as in 2 Cor.
i. 8, etc.
vjrep with the Ace. is used in later writers, (as Trapd is in
the earlier classics), after Comparatives and similar verbal
ideas to designate the object surpassed.
Just so in the N. T. ; as, Luke xvi. 8 <poi/i/xojre/ooi vTrep TOVS vtovs
rov (^KOTO'S, Heb. iv. 12 ro/xcorcpo? vrrep Tracrav ynd^atpav, Gal. i. 14 Trpoe-
KOTTTOV virep TToXXovs, 2 Cor. xu. 13 ^(rcrw^re vTrep ra<? AoiTras eKAcX^orta?.
Hence it imparts, just as Trapd does, to the preceding predicate a
comparative force by simple juxtaposition : Matt. x. 24 ov/c !cmi> /xa-
6rjrr)<; vTrtp rov SiSaovcaXov more than his master ', x. 37 ; Acts xxvi.
13 ; Phil. ii. 9 ovoua TO vvrep TTO.V wopa. On the adverbial wcp in
eyw and other combinations see 146, 4 p. 321.
PREPOSITIONS WITH ALL THREE CASES.
and IIEPI. Of these two prepositions the first is 22
not found in the N. T. There is no example also of irepL with
the Dative, the local reference of this combination being
transferred completely to the construction with irepi and the
Accusative.
On the periphrasis ot wept riva see 125, 8 p. 95. Ilepi and the 289
Gen. is employed, as in ordinary Greek usage, only in a tropical
336 PREPOSITIONS WITH ALL THREE CASES. [ 147
reference (de), and hence in Acts xxv. 18 Trept ov does not belong to
orafleVres but to Zfapov. Sometimes it stands in the sense of VTTC/D for
(as, on the other hand, virip is used for Trcpi, see v-n-ep p. 335) : Matt.
xxvi. 28 ; Gal. i. 4 ; Heb. v. 3.
23 'EIII is in use in the N. T. in almost all the manifold shades
of signification which it has in Greek authors. We select the
following as peculiarities :
67TL with the Genitive. The signification in presence of,
coram (B. p. 416), springs from the original notion of ap-
proximation, of being in immediate proximity (on, upon,
near %) ; and in a temporal reference the signification im-
mediately in, at or during, corresponds precisely to this local
signification.
Both meanings may often be pointed out in the N. T. : a) of
place, Mark xiii. 9 eVi ^yc/x.di/wv /cat /?acriAeW a-raOrja-ecrOe, Matt.
xxviii. 14 Tdf. [cod. Sin.] ecu/ aKov<r&r) TOVTO CTTI rov ^ye/xoVos coram
procuratore, like Acts xxiii. 30 \eyuv Irrl crov, cf. 1 Cor. vi. 1, 6 ;
1 Tim. v. 19; vi. 13, etc., hence 17 Kav'x^o-is V/AOH/ fj eVt Ttrou (2 Cor.
vii. 14) my encomiums of you uttered before Titus ; b) of time,
Matt. i. 11 eTTt TT/S /xroiKC<Tta? Ba/?uA.(oi/os, Rom. i. 10 eVt rtuv Trpoo-ev^cov
fjiov 8eo//,evos, Eph. i. 16 ; Philem. 4, and in this way is explained most
simply the brachylogical expression OVK di/cyvcore . . . eVi TOV /3arov
(Mark xii. 26) or Mwvo^s e/iTJvvcrev eVt r^s ftdrov (Luke xx. 37), very
much as we say at i.e. in the occurrence at the bush ; cf. cV 'HAia in
12 above, p. 331.
Moreover, under the tropical meanings it is to be noticed also that
Aeyetv etc. CTTI TWOS is not synonymous with Trept TWOS, but in accordance
with the primary sense of CTTI can only mean, what is said concerns,
is aimed at, has reference to, etc., as Gal. iii. 16 ov Aey- Kai TOIS
aTrep/Acwnv, a>s erf! TroAAwv, dAA* ws <^>' cvos * Kat TW crTrep/xaTt etc. In
Acts xxi. 23 evxyv ej(ovTs <^' cavTwv means literally having a voio
upon themselves. Among the adverbial expressions we may notice
the pretty common CTT' dX^^ctas in truth, actually, truly, as Mark xii.
14, 32 ; Luke iv. 25 ; Acts iv. 27, etc., for which in Matt. xxii. 16 eV
aXrjOeia is used (differently in John iv. 23 sq., xvii. 19 ; 3 John 3,
etc.).
24 eVt with the Dative. The signification on, upon, unusual in
good prose (for which eW with the Gen. is used), is found in
the N. T. pretty frequently ; and that
a) With ideas of rest, as Matt. xiv. 8 Sos /xot eVi TrtW/ct rrjv KtcfxiXyv
'Iwai/i/ov, Mark ii. 4 Tdf. [ed. 7], vi. 39, 55 ; John xi. 38 ; with both
cases at the same time, Acts xxvii. 44 ovs /*' ?rl aavio-Wj ovs 8e CTT/
147.] PREPOSITIONS WITH ALL THREE CASES. 337
uwov etc. 1 To this is to be referred in a tropical sense the meaning 290
on the ground of; for similar to the sentences ITT\ ravrrj rf} Trerpa OIKO-
8o/z>y(Tco rrjv e/CKX^o-iav (Matt. xvi. 18), 7ro6/co8o/xr/^i/res 7rt ro> $e/AeXto)
(Eph. ii. 20), are Heb. viii. 6 CTTI /cpetTTOcrti/ CTrayyeXiats vei/o/xo^er^rat
(cf. vii. 11), Eph. ii. 10 fmo-^evres CTTI epyois aya$ois, Phil. ii. 17 ei Kal
o-TreVSo/xai eTTt XT? 0vcria Kcu, XeiTovpyco, etc., further, the common phrases
7r' eXTTiSi, XaXetv, 8i8acrKetv, Se^eor^at rtva evrt r<3 6vOfJUKrl rtvos (Acts iv.
17; v. 28 ; Matt, xviii. 5, etc.) on the ground of hope, the name, etc.,
Zfiv en aprw and many other verbal combinations, see 133 pp. 174 sqq.
b) With ideas of motion, as Acts viii. 16 (TO Trvev^a) ty eV ovScn
avroiv eTrtTreTTTWKos, particularly again in the tropical sense, so that then
it is often to be rendered by towards (adversus and ergo), for, or
generally with regard to, as Luke xii. 52 Sta/xe/atpiayxei'oc rpets CTTI 8va-w
/cat Suo 7rt rpto-tV ; so in the following verse, and in fact alternating
with 67T6 and the Ace., John xii. 1 6 ravra T\V ITT avrw yeypa/x/AeVa, Acts
xxi. 24 SaTrdvrj&ov ITT a^rots, Rom. x. 19 (quotn.), 2 Cor. ix. 14 X^P LV
rov Oeov Ifi u/xtv, Gal. v. 13 e:r' eAev^epta e/cX^ryre, Rev. X. 11.
With tTTt and the Dat. also many brachylogical phrases are
found, as Acts V. 35 Trpoo-e^cre eaurots CTTI rots di/^pco7rots TOirrois Ti
Trpaara-eti/ not beware of these men (see O-TTO and /<), but ^a^e
yourselves in your treatment of these men, so that thus it belongs
just as well to the main predicate Trpoo-e^ere as to the predicate of the
subordinate clause Trpacrcmv, see 151, 16 p. 388; Mark vi. 52 ou
ow^/cav CTTI rots aprots as if, they remained hardened at the loaves i.e.
they did not understand the occurrence with the loaves.
eTrt with the Ace. designates as usual a movement upon or 25
tendency towards something, in a local and a figurative refer-
ence. But as 67T/ with the Dat. is used with verbs of motion,
so, on the other hand, eVt with the Ace. often stands in a
relation of rest, and that too as well in a local as in a tropical
view. Hence the frequent fluctuation in the text of the MSS.
between the two cases more frequent than with almost any
other preposition ; hence the double construction of many
verbs, e.g. those expressing an emotion, further of Tna-reveiv,
ireTTOiOevai, e'Xmfew, etc., with err I TLVI and iiriTiva 131133 ;
hence, finally, one and the same writer often employs in the
same circumstances both constructions without a perceptible
1 Here too the style of Luke approximates to classic usage, in that he is decid-
edly averse to the construction with the Dative in this (outward) signification.
Hence in Acts ix. 33 eVl Kpapdrrov is now read again [so cod. Sin.], in Luke v.
25 Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.] e y & K are K eiro (see No. 25), and also in Acts vii. 33
authorities differ [Lchm. Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin. ty $]. On the other hand, Luke
xix. 44; xxi. 6; xxiii. 38; Acts iii. 10, 11 fall Under i different head.
338 PREPOSITIONS WITH ALL THHEE (jASES. [ 147
difference, even close together (see Luke xii. 53 in 24 p. 337).
Compare with this the similar observations in reference to the
loose employment of both cases under nrapd and TT/OO? p. 339 sq.,
as well as the free use of the two prep, ev and efc p. 328 sqq.
Example? of fire with the Ace. in a relation of rest are found
everywhere Under the signification (moving) over may be brought
also, Matt. xiv. 29 TrepiTrar^o-cu CTTL TO. Soara, Mark XV. 33 O-KOTOS eyeVero
<' oAryv rrjv yfjv, Rev. xiv. 6 cvayyeAtcrcu CTTI TTOV ZOvos etc. ; in other
instances, as in the case of ct?, the idea of antecedent motion is included
291 in the verb, as Icmyerav CTTI TOUS TrdSas avTaiv, CTTI TT/V Ovpav Rev. iii. 20 ;
xi. 11 ; Acts X. 17, KaBitf.iv and KaOrjaOai CTTI TO rcXwvtov, rov TnAuiva, etc.
Matt. ix. 9 ; Mark ii. 14 ; xi. 2 ; Luke v. 27 ; John xii. 15 ; Rev. iv.
4, etc. (hence di/eVeo-cy CTTI TO o-rijOos John xxi. 20 Zy on tfAe breast) ;
but there still remain many passages where the idea of motion must
be supplied outright, or that of rest predominates (cf. 19 p. 333), as
Matt, xviii. 12 d^aei (TCI Trp6(^o.ra) iir\ TO. oprj (not, up on the moun-
tains implying motion, but leaveth them upon or at the mountains},
Mark iv. 38 rjv /caflcv'oW CTTI TO 7rpoo-*e<aA.aiov, John i. 32, 33 ; iii. 36
fjievti ITT avrov, Acts iv. 22 ; 1 Pet. iv. 14 TO Trvcvfjia c<f> 17x019 dva7rauTai,
Rev. iv. 4 o-Tc^avovs CTTI Tas K<^aXd?, v. 1; vii. 15; xx. 1, etc. To
these may be added also the Accus. in the additive relation, as
A.i'009 7rl \L6ov Matt. xxiv. 2, AVTTTJI/ eTi-t Xvrrrjv Phil. ii. 27, also Luke
xi. 17 olkos 7rt OIKOV TTiTTTtt i.e. house after house JctllSj in this case
elsewhere the Dative is used, as Mark xiii. 2 (many MSS. [so Sin.,
followed by Treg. Tdf.] read here also eVt XiOov) ; and the formula
cTTt TO avro together, as well with words implying motion as with those
of rest, Luke xvii. 35 ; Acts ii. 1, etc. This last term, however, has
become completely an indeclinable adverb, like many other adverbial
expressions with CTTI, as CTTI Tpi's, e</>' 1/cai/oV, e?ri \p6vov, l<j> oo-ov, CTTI
TrXciov and the like.
Further, we may notice as a peculiarity the construction of the
Gen. and the Ace. after CTTI connected together in a single sentence,
Rev. xiii. 1 6 ; xiv. 9 CTTI TOV /otTu)7rov avrov rj iirl r)v X^ipa. avrov.
REMARK. The quotation in Acts xv. 17 c<f> ovs cTi'i/ceKXr/Tat TO oi/o/xa
/xov CTT' auTovs arose from a verbatim translation of the Hebrew
C?y *veii; x^iTp), literally my name is called upon t\ em, i.e. they are
called after my name.
26 MET A. The signification and use of this preposition agree
in all points with ordinary Greek usage ; except that the N. T.
writers like to periphrase, in a brachylogical way by means of
fjierd and the Gen., attributive limitations which otherwise
were commonly expressed by means of adjectives or participles.
147.] PREPOSITIONS WITH ALL THREE CASES. 339
For example : r)\.6tv /nera Swafiecos clothed with might, Trepi/2AeTra> per
opyrjs angry, /zero, aicr^v^s &P&Q etc. (equiv. to atcr^wd/Aevos) . In a
similar way //.era with the Ace. is used brachylogically : John xiii. 27
/nera TO j/'co/xtov, TOTC cicnyA&i/ etc. a/?er the morsel. On the peri-
phrasis with /xera for the Dative with verbs of association etc., see
p. 177.
TIAPA. Since the Dative designates in general approx- 27
i mat ion, when TrapaandtheDat. are construed with verbs
of motion the construction is not so much perfectly grammatical
in itself considered, as in harmony particularly with what was
said above under eV and eVt. It is wrong, therefore, to remove
by emendation (whether with or without MS. authority) such
instances even from classic writers (especially the later), see
e.g. Xen. An. 2, 5, 27 ; Pint. Them. 5 ; Dio C. p. 15, 97 R.
The general usus loquendi, that is to say of the literary
language, was established, to be sure, upon the idea that rest
is associated with nrapd and the Dative ; but relics of the less
exact mode of expression continue .to come to light here and 292
there.
In the N. T., the Dative with Trapa in Luke xix. 7 Trapa a/-iapTtoAa>
avBpl eicrr}A0i/ KaraAucrat may perhaps be connected (by the cr^/za GOTO
KOIVOV) as well with ierr?A0ev as with KaraAucrat (its position draws it
to eicr^A^ei/), and in ix. 47 eorryo-ev avro Trap' eavrw may be explained
after the analogy of o-njo-at cV (see 9 p. 329). But we should compare
and connect with these instances the example under Trpos below, and
what was said above, p. 284, on Acts xxi. 16. That Trapa with the
Ace., however, is used to denote rest, is quite common in all writers,
see B. p. 418. The three tropical senses of Trapa with the Ace.
there given are all to be found in the N. T. the second (on account
of) but once it is true, viz. 1 Cor. xii. 15, 16, but so much the more
frequent are the other two : beyond (praeter) and more than. In this
last sense the construction with Trapa takes the place of the Gen. of
comparison or r/ with the requisite case, not only after comparatives
themselves (particularly in the Ep. to the Heb. for example i. 4 ; iii.
3; ix. 23; xi. 4; xii. 24 cf. Luke iii. 13), or comparative ideas, as
aAAos (1 Cor. iii. 11), eAarrow (Heb. ii. 7, 9), V7rep<poi/etv (Rom. xii.
3), but even when associated with the Positive it imparts to it the
force of a comparative, as Luke xiii. 2, 4 duaprwAoi Trapa Trai/ras,
o^etAerat eyevovro Trapa Travra? rovs cU^pwTrovs. Cf. also the reading
of cod. Vat. [and Sin. also] in Luke xviii. 14 Lchm. [Treg.], and the
similar phenomena above in connection with virep p. 335, and with ij
149, 7 p. 360.
340 PREPOSITIONS WITH ALL THREE CASES. [ 147.
28 IIPO2 with the Genitive is only once extant, and then
used quite in classic style : Acts xxvii. 34 TOVTO 717309 rrjs
v/ierepas acoTrjpias vTrdp^ei.
Also Trpos with the Dative is rare. But in Luke xix. 37 eyyiovTos
fj&rj Trpos ry Kara/Scurei rov opovs, eyyi^orros does not mean when he
was near, but as he came near (to) the mountain. Cf. Trapd.
7r/?o5 with the Ace. corresponds to all the manifold shades
of signification given in the grammars ; only, after the analogy
of Trapd with the Ace. (which see, p. 339), it is more frequently
used than by classic writers to denote rest also, and without
the accessory notion of aim.
For example: Matt. xiii. 56 ai d8eA<al avrov 7rpo<s ^/xas etVtV, xxvi.
18 Trpos <rc TTOICO TO Wo^a, Mark vi. 3 ; xiv. 49 ; John i. 1 rjv Trpos TOV
0eoi/, 1 John i. 2 ; Acts V. 10 ; xii. 20 6/Ao^v/xa8ov Trapfjcrav Trpos avrov,
1 Cor. ii. 3 ; xvi. 7 eA.Tria) erri/mi/ai Trpos tyxas (cf. CTTI with the Ace.
p. 338), 2 Cor. v. 8 (cuSo/cov/tcv) ci/S^/w/JJo-ai Trpos TOV Kupiov etc. (see
Wahl p. 279). In view of such unquestionable passages, it is un-
necessary to search in others after an idea of motion or of aim (whether
expressed, or first to be supplied) if the simple notion of rest suffices,,
and the immediate connection of the preposition with that appears to
be the most natural; see e.g. Rom. iv. 2 ; 2 Cor. 1. 12.
An example of Trpo's inaComparative clause (see Trapa above, p.
339) is Rom. viii. 18 TO, Tra$>^uaTa OVK aia Trpos rrjv [JL&Xovcrav 8oav,
cf. Ignat. ad Magn. 1 2 Trpos eva V/AWV OVK ei//i. Brachylogical and
elliptical phrases, such as TI Trpos o-, d/xapTdVeu' Trpos 6a.va.rov and
the like, are easily explained by the vigorous force of the prep.
Adverbial expressions, as in the Greek writers, are Trpos <0ovoi/,
293 Trpos /caipov, Trpos wpav {for the moment, for a short time) and others.
On the periphrasis with Trpos TI for the Dative, see pp. 172, 177.
29 'TITO is no longer construed with the Dative. In con-
nection with the Genitive and Accusative, the following
particulars may be selected as peculiar in its use :
VTTO with the Gen. is used with Passives not infrequently when a
thing or an abstract notion is the efficient cause. In such cases,
because the cause appears thus personified as it were, the expression
is more forceful than the simple Dative, as Luke vii. 24 /caAa/xov VTTO
dvejaov o-aAevo'/xcvov, viii. 14 VTTO /xept/xi/oiv . . . avpirviyovTa.^ Rom. xii. 21
fj.rj i/iKcu VTTO TOV KaKov, Matt. viii. 24 etc. (see Wahl). On Heb. vii. 7
see 128, 1 p. 122. Neuter verbs which contain a Passive sense
prefer the connection with e* and d,Tro, see these prep. pp. 325 sq.
Instances of VTTO are found only with yii/eo-0ai (which thus becomes a
147.] POSITION OF PREPOSITIONS. 341
complete Passive) as Luke xiii. 17 e^aipev CTU Trao-iv rots VTT O.VTOV
Acts xx. 3, etc. and, agreeably to their significations, with
(Matt, xvii. 12, etc.) and vTro/zc'veiv (Heb. xii. 3), once
also with TrXrjycLs \afjiftdvtiv i.e. vapulare 2 Cor. xi. 24. As
peculiar, we may notice the elliptical and brachylogical mode of ex-
pression in 2 Cor. ii. 6 17 en-m/a'a -fj vwo TWV TrAetovwv where the missing
Passive notion is to be derived from eTriri/ua, and in Rev. vi. 8 0.71-0-
KTetvat VTTO rail/ Orjpiant rJJs yJ}? i.e. jubere (aliquem) interfici a bestiis
(with which has been compared Trpoayopeveiv VTTO /ojpvKos in Herod. 9.
98, see WesseJing). The second class of cases, also, described in
the Gram., viz. where VTTO is used with Actives, an abstract idea being
subjoined as the moving cause of the action (e.g. from fear, for shame),
are rendered in the N. T. not by VTTO, but by O.TTO again and e/c ; see pp.
325 sq. Whether in Rom. xiii. 1 OVK Icrrw coixria ct ^ VTTO Oeov sc.
SeSo/AeViy (Lchm. [Treg. Tdf.]) or O.TTO 6tov (Tdf. [eds. 2, 7]) is the
original reading is hard to decide, as they are equally attested by MSS.
[Sin. VTTO], and both may be defended philologically. With the
Accusative, VTTO responds to the question where (taking the place
of the missing construction with the Dative) more frequently almost
than to the question whither (cf. the classic usage), particularly with
clmi and ytVecrflcu, in a local and a tropical reference : under ; as, John
i. 49 ovra VTTO rrjv CTVK^V, Matt. viii. 9 e^wv VTT fyavrbv
1 Cor. x. 1 ; Gal. iii. 25 ; Rom. iii. 9 ; vi. 14, etc.
B. 147, N. 2; J. 650; W. p. 419 sq. (391 sq.); S. p. Ixxxivsq.
When two or more substantives connected together 30
by conjunctions depend on the same preposition, the
preposition is sometimes repeated, sometimes written but once.
As a ruling principle in such cases, the following may be laid
down : by omitting to repeat the preposition, the writer gives
an intimation that he regards the members rather as homo-
geneous, belonging together, or united into one whole ; by
repeating it, that he wants to have them taken as independent, 294
of a dissimilar or even contrary nature.
From this principle it follows, 1) that the prep, must always
be repeated in the adversative relation (dAAa, 8e, ov), and likewise
in the disj unctive (>}, ov JMOVOV . . . oAAA K<U, ovre . . . o^re, etc.) if
the members are antithetic and after comparatives ; as, John vii. 22
OVK IK TOV Monxrecos eorrtV, dAA.' K TUV TraTCpcov, Acts viii. 34 (Aeyei) Trcpt
u YJ Trepi erepov rtvos ; Col. iii. 17 iv Aoyw 77 ev epyw, Eph. i. 21 ov
342 POSITION OF PREPOSITIONS. [ 147.
/xovoi/ ev TO) aiwvi TOVTW dAAa Kat ev rw /xeAXovrt, cf. Luke xx. 4 ;
1 Thess. i. 8 ; ii. 6 ; Rom. iv. 10 ; v. It ; 1 Cor. iv. 3, 21 ; Gal. iii. 2,
5 ; Acts xxv. 8, etc. On the other hand, 2) if the members in
the disjunctive relation are similar, or if they stand in the cop-
ulative relation and so are united by Kat (re, re /cat, Kat ... Kat),
the preposition is either repeated or not, according as the members
either are to be regarded rather as independent and separate, or are
united into one whole, into a single composite expression. For ex-
ample : with r;, the preposition repeated, Acts iv. 7 Iv TTOLO. Swa/xet rj
Iv Trotu) oi/o/xart cTroir^rare roCro, 1 Cor. xiv. 6 A.aAi?(ra> r) iv a.7roKa\vij/eL
rj Iv yi/axrei r) ev Trpocfrrjreia. 17 ev 8t8a^, John vii. 48 ; 2 Cor. ix. 7, etc. ;
with rj, the preposition not repeated, Heb. x. 28 eVt Svaiv r) rpurlv
fj,dprvcnv, Mark xiii. 32 Trepi TT}<> r}/xepas CKetvrjs r) TT}S <Spas ouSets otSci/,
1 Tim. v. 19 ; ii. 9 ; 1 Pet. i. 11, etc. ; with Kat etc. the preposition
repeated, Mark vi. 4 (OLTI/AOS) eV r^ TrarptSt avroC Kat f rots crvyyet'co-tv
OLVTOV Kat ev T^ otKt'a avrov, Luke xxii. 33 Kat ets <f>v\a.Kr]v Kat cts Oa.va.rov
7ropue<70ai, Mark ix. 22 Kat cts Trvp c/?a\ei/ Kat t< vSara, 1 Cor. ii. 3 cV
da-^ei/eta Kat ev ^>o/3a> Kat eV rpo/xw, Acts xxvi. 4 eV TO) e^j'ti /AOV & re
C lpoo-o\i;/>toi9, 1 Thess. i. 5, etc. ; with Kat etc. the preposition not
repeated, very common, Mark xiv. 43 TrapaytVerat o^Aos /xcra /xa^atpcov
Kai ^uAcuv Trapa TOJV ap^tcpewv Kat TOJV ypafj./j.areo)v Kat TOJV 7rpeo-j3vrepwv,
Acts i. 8 tv re 'lepova-aXrjfj, Kat Tracr^ TT^ 'louSat'a, x. 39 ; vi. 9 ; xiv. 21,
etc. ; Phil. iv. 3 /xcra Kat KA^/xei/ros Kat raiv XotTrwv crwepyoov /x,ov. Both
constructions are united in Phil. i. 7 eV rots 8e<7/x,ots /xov Kat ev rfj
aTToXoyta Kat /3e/3aia)crt TOU evayyeXiov, where, therefore, the last two
members constitute one whole, etc. In general, in this second class
of cases (i.e. where the members are homogeneous and the relation
copulative) no absolutely fixed rule can be laid down, since
the repetition or non-repetition of the prep, rested solely in the
writer's choice and way of looking at the subject, is often more a
matter of feeling and rhetorical accent than of logical discrimination ;
and hence often in precisely the same cases the preposition is found
repeated and not repeated ; cf. e.g. Luke xxiv. 27 with Acts xxviii. 23 ;
Matt. iv. 25 with Mark iii. 8, etc. This holds trie particularly, also,
when the Relative depends on the same prep, as the corresponding
Demonstrative, since even in Greek authors both constructions
(with and without the repetition of the prep.) occur equally. For
example : without repetition, Matt. xxiv. 50 ev rj^epa. y ov Trpoo-SoKa,
Luke i. 25; Acts xiii. 39 (see above 2 note p. 322), Acts xiii. 2 ets
TO epyov o 7rpoo-KtKXr/ju,at avrovs (where the construction spoken of
131, 10 p. 152 may also have had influence) ; with repetition,
John iv. 53 eV eKe'ivy rrj wpa ev rj elirev [Tdf. om. first eV], Acts vii. 4 ;
XX. 18 aTro Trpwrrys ^epas d</>* ry<> eTrejSrjv etc.
147.] POSITION OF PREPOSITIONS. 848
B. 147, N. 3 (Germ, ed.); H. 616; J. 661; S. p. Ixxxiii.
When upon a substantive governed by a preposition a 31
limiting Genitive also depends, there are two general
classes of cases as respects the preposition's position :
a) In case the nouns have no article, it is a fixed rule 295
that the preposition can never be separated by the limiting
Genitive from its substantive, when this substantive (governed
by the prep.) itself stands in the Genitive, even though
the meaning excludes all possible ambiguity.
Hence we always find, c epycov vo/xov, O.TT a/cpov yr;s, Trpo /cara/JoA/)/?
KOCT/JLOV, e d-PXQ'* K*W**Sj a* 71 "' avaToXfjs r)\.iov, Sia T/avTr^aros pa<i'So<, Sta
Xovrpov TraAiyyei/eo-ias etc., and the pronouns crov, /zou, avroi), etc., which
so often stand before their substantives, then follow them without
exception ; thus, air 6</>$aA/Aoui> crov, e/c vedr^ros /xou, e/c Seiaji> aurov,
ota and CK /ae'o-ov avrwv, etc. From this unquestionable observation it
follows, that, wherever the sense might be ambiguous, the grammatical
rule alone must decide. Accordingly, 2 Cor. iii. 18 GOTO Kvpiov TTVCV-
/xaTo? can only mean from the Lord of the Spirit, and Matt. xxiv. 31
/xeru craA.7nyyos c^wv^s /u-eyaA^s only, with a trumpet of loud sound (see
132, 10 p. 161). In phrases where the prep, governs a different
case from the Genitive, the limiting Gen. can indeed be inserted
immediately after the prep., as Matt. xiii. 33 et? dAevpou adra rpia,
Rev. vii. 17 eVi WT)S Tnyyas vSaraH' where, however, it was necessary
on other grounds also that cm}<; should precede (see 132, 1, b) p. 155).
Yet this arrangement is extremely rare (compare the critically
uncertain, too elliptical combinations ei/ AtyuTnrou, ets aSou, in 132,
27 p. 171), and writers had become already so wonted to the natural
arrangement that even here they uniformly said, ts a^eo-iv d/Aaprtaiv,
ei9 ai/acrTacrii/ i>Kpa>v, et<? K^TTOV cavrov, CTT* eAvriSt ar>}s atwvtov, etc. On
the hyperbaton Trpo e ^/xepoiv TOU ?rao-^a and the like, see 131, 11
p. 153.
b) But if the noun governed by the preposition has the
article, when there are two Genitives, at least the article
of this governed noun must stand directly after the prep., and
the second Gen., dependent on this substantive, may be inserted
according to the general rule ; as, IK TTJS Kalaapos (H/c/a?, e/c
r?7? 7ov Sia/36Xou 77617/809, Bia TT?
etc.
Commonly, however, even this does not take place, but the nouns
follow in succession, as 0.77-0 TOV vd/xov TT}S d/Aaprias, IK TOOV fjftovw
a rcov AajUTraoW eauraii', t/c rail/ ^etptov ^/xaiv, crui' T'y 8wa/x TOV
344 NEGATIVES. [ 148.
etc. The pronouns pov and <rou, which, as is well known, cannot
be inserted between the article and substantive, stand accordingly, as
a rule, likewise afterwards (VTTO rov Trarpos /xov, etc.) ; but they can
sometimes, owing to their propensity to precede their substantive
( 127, 19 p. 115), be placed quite at the beginning, i.e. even before
the preposition, as Matt. viii. 8 Iva /xov VTTO ryv a-riy^v fla-\6rj<; t
John ix. 15 TrrjXov cirfOrjKev /xou CTTI TOVS o<$aA/xov5 (cf. vss. 6, 11, and
151, 14 p. 387) ; and so with aurov, John xv. 10 avrov cv rrj a
B. 147, N. 5; H. 615; C. 703 b. 706; J. 640. 644.
32 Strictly speaking, no examples are found in the N. T. in which
prepositions continue to be used adverbially; and all the instances
which might be reckoned under this head reduce themselves to (in
part newly formed) compounds ; see 146, 4 p. 320.
296 B- 147,N.9; H. 683, 605; C. 699; J. 641; W. p. 425 sq. (369 sq.).
33 That prepositions which by themselves govern the Genitive or the
Dative, govern (especially >, crvi/, Trpo) the same cases also when
compounded with verbs, is a well-known fact ; see the lexicons
under avvfcfjv, o-weA^ctv, crvv7recr$ai, crwavaKetcr^at, orvvcrTavpovv, ei/nry-
, c/crtvacroreiv, Trpocrrrjva.L, TrpOTropevtaOai, etc. With other verbs
the repetition of the preposition (or of a synonymous one) prevails,
especially with verbs compounded with cbro and e/c, see under e
Actv, K/3aAAeiv, aTrc^ew/, aTroo-rJJrai, aTraijpetv, eKTropcvto-Oai,
, a7roKpv7rre>, uTTOTrXavav, TrpoK-^pvo-tretv, evcvXoyetcr^at, etc.
NEGATIVES.
B.148; H.832; C. 686; D. 528; J.
In no respect, perhaps, has the language of the N. T. ad
hered more closely to the usage established by the literary
language, than in the employment of the two negatives ov and
fjuj with their compounds ; so that it proves to be easy to point
out analogies in classic usage for the deviations even that
occur. Hence, for the general principles in all their extent,
we refer the reader to the specifications given in the Grammars,
and here need make mention only of particular instances of
somewhat rare and peculiar use.
B. 148, 2 b) and note; H. 835; C. 686i.sq.; D. 531; J. 744, 1; W. p. 477 sq. (445sq.)
The use of o v in the protasis of a conditional sentence
occurs in the N. T. relatively very often ; so that we are
justified in inferring a difference in usage, since in classic
148.] NEGATIVES. 345
writers this use is only exceptional. It is true, the attempt
haw been made to explain the individual instances all according
to the analogy of those which occur in classic authors, and
consequently to consent to recognize merely an extension in
the N. T. of a usage elsewhere rare. This method of treatment
may be applied, indeed, to a portion of the extant passages,
but is decidedly inapplicable to many, and is especially opposed
by the circumstance that whereas after el the predicate is so
often negatived by ou, this never occurs under the same
conditions in clauses with edv, (cf. e.g. Matt. vi. 15 with
Mark xi. 26). The usage of the N. T., on the contrary, may
be referred to the following simple and almost invariable
principles :
1) The first form of hypothesis ( 139 A. pp. 220 sq.), i.e.
el with the Indicative as expressive of objective certainty, 297
takes the direct negative ov. Exceptions are extremely
rare : 1 Tim. vi. 3 el rt? eT6po$i$a<7Ka\el /cal firj Trpoo-ep^erat
Xo705 etc.
2) The second form of hypothesis (edv with the Subjunctive),
and the fourth (el with a Preterite Indicative), require in-
variably the dependent negative /JLIJ. (The third
species of hypothesis, el with the Optative, occurs in the N. T.
only in a positive form.) On Matt. xxvi. 24 and Mark xiv. 21
see 3) d. p. 347.
3) The combination e'^ro? el /jutj (see 13 p. 355) even
when followed by the Indicative, the compound e I p rj (used
for the most part elliptically, i.e. without a predicate) in the
signification except, nisi (see 149, 4 p. 359), after a preceding
negative or interrogative clause, as well as the elliptical for-
mulae el Se /* 17, el Se py ye ( 151, 23, e) p. 393) are, like
established conjunctions or adverbs, no longer capable of
changing their outward form.
Now since 2) and 3) admit of no exceptions and are perfectly gram-
matical, it is only necessary here to establish the first class. We
will so arrange the examples as first of all to exhibit those which
stand in obvious analogy with those from classic authors treated of in
B. I.e., and then proceed to those which Depart more or less from the
ordinary usage.
a) The predicate of the conditional clause negatived by ov 3
is found in evident antithesis to a positive notion (com-
i*
346 NEGATIVES. [ 148
monly the same, but sometimes synonymous), either in what
precedes or in what follows (see B. 148, 2. g).
For example: in what precedes, Mark xi. 26 Lchm. d</>tTe
Lva etc. . . . ct Sc v/xets OVK d<tTC, ovSc 6 iraTrjp a<f>r)cri, 1 John v. 47 ct
yap eTTto-TCvcTC etc. ... t 8c rots CKCIVOV ypd/x/zacrtv ov TnorevcTC, TTOJS
etc., Acts XXV. 1 1 ei /xcv ovV dStKoo . . . et Sc ovSeV eVrtv tof ovVot Karr)-
yopovcrtV /xov. So in Rom. viii. 9 ; 1 Cor. vii. 9 ; Jas. iii. 2 ; in what
follows, 1 Cor. ix. 2 ct aAAois OVK elfju aTrooroAos, dAAa ye i/.av ct/>u,
John x. 37 ei ov TTOICO ra epya . . . , ct Sc 7rota> etc., Luke xi. 8 ct Kai ou
Stocret avraJ . . . , Sia ye Tr)i> dvat'Setai/ avrov 8oao-t avrw (cf. the similarly
formed sentence in xviii. 4), 1 Cor. xi. 6 ei yap ov KaTaKaAvVrerai yui/>J
with reference to the following KaraKaAvTrreo-^co.
In all the above passages the dependent negative would be in no-
wise erroneous, and by the Greeks would perhaps have been preferred.
298 More necessary, on the other hand, is the use of the negative ov even
according to classic usage, when to the negatived predicate another,
still in the protasis, is immediately so appended or contrasted with an
adversative particle that the entire emphasis falls upon this second
part (cf. 8 p. 352); as, Jas. ii. 11 t 8 ov /zot^evctg, </>oi/evet<; Se,
2 Pet. ii. 4, 5 ci yap 6 $eos dyyeAwv d/xapr^o-ai'Twv OVK e^eto-aro, dAAa. . . .
Trape'SwKev eis KpiVtv etc. (cf. with this the example II. xv. 162, B. p. 493
Germ. ed.).
b) For the same reason as in a) the negative ov may be
grammatically defended also in the following pretty common
class of sentences (though the Greeks, however, here also
would have perhaps preferred for the most part the dependent
negative) : where a negative protasis is associated with em-
phasis, or rather contrasted, with an apodosis likewise
negatived (or negatively conceived).
The plainest example of this is 1 Cor. xv. 13-17 et dvao-rao-i? vtKpwv
OVK to-Tiv, ovSe Xpto-rbs cyryyeprai el Sc Xptoros OVK ey/yyeprai, K e v o v
apa TO K7;pvy/xa ^yaaiv "... Xpiorov OVK r/ycipev, etTrep dpa vcKpoi OVK
eyapovrai ei yap veKpot OVK eyetpovrat, ovSe etc., Rom. xi. 21 t . . . OVK
t^etcraro, ovSe o~ov </>ei'crTai, Luke xvi. 31 ct MOJVO-CWS . . . OVK a.KOVov<nv,
ov8' lav TIS CK vcKpwv dvao-r^ Trcto-^r/o-ovTat, 2 Thess. iii. 10 ct rts ov BeXti
cpyd^co-^at, /x-^Sc eo-^tcrco. See besides Heb. xii. 25, and, with the
substitution of a question instead of a negation in the apodosis, Luke
xvi. 1 1 sq. ct ... OVK eyeVeo-0e, TO aXrjOivbv TI'S v/xtv Trto-rcvcret ; Kai ct etc.,
John iii. 12 ct ov TTIO-TCVCTC, TTOJS . . . TTICTTCVO-CTC ; 1 Tim. iii. 5 et Tts . . .
1 If vs. 26, which is wanting in several ancient MSS. [Sin. also], was really first
transferred (as is said) from Matt. vi. 15, then at least the alteration made ic
the words of Matthew turns out to correspond perfectly with N. T. usage.
148.] NEGATIVES. 347
OVK otSei/, 7TOJ5 lKK\rjcrias 7rt/x\r5 rTat > c ^ 1 Cor. xv * 29 ; xv. 32 (sub-
stantially) ; and several of the passages quoted under a) may be
brought under this head also, as Mark xi. 26 ; John v. 47 ; Acts xxv.
11 ; Rom. viii. 9.
c) Further, an endeavor has been made to bring a number
of passages under the rule proposed by Hermann (ad Yig.
p. 831), according to which ov is said to stand in conditional
clauses when it blends as it were with the negatived word into
a single (positive) notion. Since, however, this view affords
no satisfactory objective test, but, on the contrary, all con-
ditional clauses in which the predicate is negatived may be
brought with more or less ease under this category (e.g. ov
<f)ei8ofjLcu equiv. to <#etp&>, OVK CLKOVO) equiv. to av jicoos el/M, OVK
olSev equiv. to cvyvoel, ov o^vvarcu equiv. to aSvvarov ea-nv, etc.),
we can with tolerable confidence bring under this head only
those passages in which a different part of the clause from the
predicate is negatived, and consequently the predicate is
evidently positive.
For example, 2 Cor. xii. 11 ouSei/ voTC/a^cra . . . , ei KOLL ovSeV et/xt,
Jas. i. 23 ei ris d/c/aoaTr)s Xoyov ecrnv KOU ov TroirjTrjs where only the
notion TTOI^T^S in antithesis to aKpoanqs is negatived (yet without
constituting a single idea), and the predicate remains positive. But
Luke xii. 26 et ovv ouSe eXa^wrrov Swcur$e, rt Trept raV AOITTCOV /xcpt/xvare
does not belong under this head, since by ovot the predicate is also
negatived, so that the sentence belongs with the passages under b).
The other passages, also, with a negatived predicate adduced under 299
this head, we have already distributed under the first two more
obvious rules ; as, 1 Tim. iii. 5 ; Luke xvi. 31 ; Heb. xii. 25 ; 2 Pet.
ii. 4; Jas. ii. 11.
d) In justification of the direct negative, reference has
also been made to the special emphasis with which the
predicate alone is rendered prominent as negatived. This
may be affirmed with reason of the two parallel passages Matt,
xxvi. 24 and Mark xiv. 21 KO\OV rjv avrw, d OVK eyevvrjQrj 6
av6pa)7Tos eKelvos (where, moreover, the direct negation appears
to find an adequate occasion in the evident approximation of
the sentence to the first form of hypothesis, cf. 139, 27 c)
p. 225), and also of John i. 25 r( /3a,7mfet9, el crv OVK el 6
Xpiaros (if'i.Q. since thou certainly art not etc.).
Yet since the majority of such passages coincide with one of the
Dbjective characteristics propounded under a) and b), and accordingly
348 NEGATIVES. [ 148.
have already been quoted there ; further, since without such objective
indications the interpreter is left to decide solely according to hia
feelings whether he will recognize a special emphasis or not ; and
especially, since in the N. T. the direct negative makes its appearance
in clauses with the Indicative almost without an exception
(cf. 4 below), the circumstance above mentioned is not of itself suited
to constitute a separate class or rule, at least for the New
Testament.
e) Finally, the following additional examples are to be
noticed as those which do not admit of being classed under
any one of the above rules, and consequently belong to tbe
characteristically free usage of the N. T., according to which
conditional clauses of the first kind are uniformly
negatived by ov:
Luke xiv. 26 et TIS lp\tra.i Trpos /xe Kat ov tuo-et TOV Trarepa . . . ov
SvWat etc., 2 John 10 (cf. 1 Tim. vi. 3), 1 Cor. xvi. 22 ei TIS ov ^tXct
TOV Kvpiov, rjroo dva#e/xa, 2 Thess. iii. 14 et TIS ov^ vTra/covct TW Aoyw . .
TOVTOV <rrjfJLLovo~Oe ) 1 Tim. V. 8 ei TIS TUJV IOLWV ov Trpovoet, rrjv TTLCTTW
fjpvrjTOLi, Rev. XX. 15 et TIS oi>x tvptOr) eV rf) /3i/?Aa> . . . ZfiXtjOr) etc.
Hardly would any classic writer have employed the direct negation
in any of these passages, even on the assumption of a special emphasis
in the negative. On the other hand, in Matt. xxvi. 42 ov is used
more with reference to lav /XT} immediately following (with which the
clauses with et /XT} nisi after an antecedent ov are to be compared, see
149, 4 p. 359) ; and in John x. 35 the clause *at ov ovvarai \vOfjvai
rj ypa<f>y is to be taken as independent and parenthetic.
4 The use of the negative in Relative Sentences is quite
like that in conditional sentences, as in general the former
share in all essential particulars the nature and construction
of the latter, (see B. 139 B.). Accordingly, relative sen-
tences in the Indicative, whether of a general nature or not,
are almost exclusively negatived by ou, so that sentences
with fjiij are extremely rare; on the otber hand, relative
sentences in the Subjunctive with av (edv) are without any
exception negatived by fj,rj.
BOO Examples with o v : Matt. xii. 2 ; Mark ii. 24 ; Luke vi. 2 TTOIOVOW
o OVK t^eo-Tti/ Troietv eV o-a/3/2ara>, Matt. X. 38 os ov Aa/x/?avet TOV (rravpov
. . . OVK coTtv ttov a^tos, Gal. iii. 10 (quotn.) Tras os OVK e^/xeVet etc., and
after OOTIS with the Indie. Luke xiv. 27 ; xv. 7, etc. ; further, in
antithesis (similar to the instances unfolded above in 3 a) and b)), as
Matt. xiii. 12; Mark iv. 25 os cxei ... KOL os ov^ ex t > Ro^- vii. 15,
148.1 NEGATIVES. 349
19 6 0e'A.o> . . . o ov OeXo), xv. 21 (quotn.) ots OVK dv^yyeA.^, oi/fovrcu, ot
OUK aKrjKoacnv, crw^o-ovcrtv, IV. 15 ou yap OUK ZCTTLV vo/xos, ouSe Trapa/Jao-ts.
Cf. besides, in 12 below, p. 354, the sentences with two (mutually
annulling) negatives in two clauses dependent on one another.
Examples with ^77 and the Indicative (never in the historical
writings), 2 Pet i. 9 <5 yap p) Trapecrnv ravra., rv^>Xos corn/, Tit. i. 11
SiSacTKovTcs a /i/// Set. On the /oir} in Col. ii. 18, critically very doubtful
[wanting in 8* and emitted by Treg. Tdf.] (and in no wise necessary
to the sense), see Meyer. Examples with /xrj and the Subjunctive
are very common in all parts of the N. T. e.g. Matt. x. 14, etc. ; also
in antithesis, Luke viii. 18 cf. Matt. xiii. 12, etc.
On the other hand, in all illative, causal, and declarative
sentences, the language of the N.T. follows closely the ordinary
Greek usage.
Accordingly, after wore with the Indicative ov is regularly used,
Matt. xix. 6 ; Gal. iv. 7, etc., after wore with the Infin. invariably fj,rj
(see 6) ; further, after on (because and that), KaOon, cTret', eTmS??, etc.,
uniformly ou, Luke i. 34 ; 1 Cor. i. 21, etc. John iii. 18 on (because)
IM] TreTrioTeuKei/ is to be regarded solely as a deviation from ordinary
usage (hence instances of the sort are often to be found also in later
writers, especially Lucian, see Herm. ad Vig. p. 806 ; Cobet, var. Lect.
315 sq., and on the usage of Arrian and Lucian, Ellendt praef. ad Arr.
p. 24; Du Mesnil, Stolp. Progr. 1867 p. 43); and on Heb. ix. 17
(eVci /XT} TTOTC iVx^ei) see 10 p. 353. Also after on in the signification
that, fjirj is sometimes used in later writers, e.g. App. B.C. 3, 96.
B. 148, 2 d. ; H. 837 ; C. 686 c. ; D. 594 Obs. ; J. 745 ; W. p. 481 sq. (449).
With the Infinitive, the N. T. writers are so in the habit
of using the dependent negation, that they negative a state-
ment by fjbri where the direct negation was not only admissible,
but in Greek authors even more usual ; so that, in point of
fact, examples of ov with the Infinitive are hardly to be met
with longer.
Hence, in particular, jj.rj stands (as in Greek authors) without ex-
ception with an Infinitive introduced by the Article, Matt. xiii. 5 ;
Rom. xiv. 13, 21, etc. ; further, after wore, Mark ii. 2 ; 1 Cor. i. 7, etc.,
no exception to which is established by Rom. vii. 6, since here only
TraXaioTrjTL in contrast with Kaivor^n is denied, and not the Infin.
MTJ stands also after verba dicendi, etc., so far forth as a preference,
counsel, wish, command is contained in them, and after predicates
like 8et, SoKet /xot, KO.\OV eoriv, oAoyoV co-riv, etc., as Matt. v. 34, 39 ;
xxiii. 23; Luke xxi. 14; xxii. 40; Acts i. 4; xv. 28; 2 Pet. ii. 21 ;
350 NEGATIVES. [148.
801 Eph. iv. 1 7 ; Rom. ii. 21 ; xv. 1, etc. 1 But also where the Infin. clause
(after the verba dicendi, etc.) contains only a declaration, and the
Greeks use, at least in part, the negative ov, we always find /U.TJ ; as,
Luke xx. 7 a.7reKpi#7?crav /AT? a'Se'vai etc., Matt. xxii. 23 ; Mark xii. 18 ;
Luke ii. 26 ; Acts xxiii. 8 ; 2 Cor. xi. 5.
REMARK. In cases of accumulated (intensified) negation, the main
rule (B. 148, 6, cf. 11 below p. 354) requires the same kind of
negative to be used with the Infin. as with the predicate, consequently
ov; as, Luke xx. 40 OVKCTI eroX/^cov CTrepcorav ovSei/, John iii. 27 ov
af$poo7ros Xa/u,/?avetv ov8ei>, V. 19, 30 ; Rev. V. 4, etc.
B. 148e(f); H. 839 C. 686(<T); D. p. 554; J. 746; W. p. 482 sqq. (450 sqq.).
With Participles (as in Greek authors and under the
same conditions as there) both kinds of negation occur ; only
in circumstances where either is admissible (see b below), the
disposition to employ fuj etc. is incomparably stronger.
a) If the Participle lias the Article (cf. the Infin.), it is
regularly negatived by /^ ; thus, 6 fir) &v fjuer efjuov, rot? ^77
TreTrXai^/xe^oi?, ol /JLT) t'&We? /cal TncrreiKravre^, etc.
Only those cases are exceptions where antithesis occurs, as Rom.
IX. 25 (quotn.) r^v OVK fjya.Trrjfj.w'rjv ^yaTrr/jaevryi/, 1 Pet. ii. 10 01 OVK
f)\cr)[j,evoi, vvv 8e eAer^eWes, Gal. iv. 27 (quotn.) crreipa 17 ov TIKTOVO-CI
(Heb. $), Rom. iv. 12. In Eph. v. 4 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] the reading
TOI ov/c avr)KovTa would be an exception also, 2 but the reading is by no
means established [Tdf. now with Treg. Lchm. cod. Sin. a OVK <XI/J}KCV] ;
cf. Rom. i. 28.
b) Should the Participle have no Article, JJLIJ is used
unqualifiedly when the participial clause is equivalent to a
hypothetical sentence, and so is to be resolved by if; as, eiSori,
/cal firj TTOiouvTi, ajjuapria avT( earns (Jas. iv. 17 ; Matt. xiii. 19,
etc.). On the other hand, if the participial clause contains
an actual matter of fact, and so is to be resolved by means of
a Relative, or by since, whilst, during, without, etc., it is neg-
atived (often when the circumstances are altogether the
same) sometimes by ou, sometimes, and indeed more com-
monly, by jjbij.
1 In Acts xix. 27 [Treg.] Tdf. (KivSweiei . . . els ouSev [oi/0e/ ed. 8] \oyurerjvai)
rather the single fragment of the sentence (ouSef) is negatived, although usage
elsewhere would nevertheless have led us to expect ^urjSev, and hence the other
strongly [yet not by cod. Sin.] supported reading (Aoyto-^o-erai Lchm ) perhaps
is to be preferred. On 2 Tim. ii. 14 see 8 p. 352.
2 In Greek authors also such cases, when no antithesis occurs (as in Ar. Eccl.
187), are extremely rare, e.g. Luc. adv. Ind. 5 6 Kvfiepvt}v OVK etScta /cai li
148.] NEGATIVES. 351
The original difference between the two negatives (although in
point of fact no longer adhered to in employing them) is still evident
in such sentences as Matt. xxii. 11, 12 ctSci/ avOpu-n-ov OVK cvScSu/Aci/op
(who had not on), but subsequently eio-rJAtfe? py Ixwi/ wov^a (although
thou hadst not etc.), 1 Pet. i. 8 ov OVK ioovres (having in point of fact
not seen him) dyaTrare, eis ov apri fj-rf opaWcs (although ye do not see)
TTLo-TtvovTes o etc. Examples of the less common negative ov (ovSeV)
in a Participial clause which is temporal or causal, or to be resolved by
means of a Relative, are Luke vi. 42 (ov /JAeVwi/), John x. 12 OVK o>i/
Troi/ATyv explained by ov OVK ZO-TIV TO. Trpo/Jara iSia, Acts xxvi. 22 ovBw $02
CKTOS Aeywv, xxviii. 17 ovSei/ rroojcras (although in point of fact),
vii. 5 (Gren. absol.), 1 Cor. ix. 26 TrvKrevco o>s OVK depot oepuv, Gal. iv. 8
OVK etSore<?, Col. ii. 19 ; Heb. xi. 1, 35. Examples of ov in consequence
of the emphasis of antithesis, are 2 Cor. iv. 8, 9 iv iravrl OXifiopevoi
dAA ov o-re^o^wpov/xevot, aTropov/Aevoi dAA OVK ea7ropov/x,i/oc etc., Phil,
iii. 3 ot Tri/ev^aart $eov Aarpevorres . . . KCU OVK iv o-ap/ci TreTroi^orcs, 1 Cor.
iv. 14 ov/c cvTp7ra)v v/xS? ypu^to TctvTa, dAA* ws etc. ; and because a
particular part of the sentence (rather than the whole) is denied,
are Luke vii. 6 rj&y avrov ov /xa/cpav aTre'xovTos, Acts xvii. 27 ; xxvii.
20 ^ei/xoJvos OVK oAt'yov 7rtKi/xei/ov.
Everywhere else the dependent negative ycf) is used, even with the
most definite matters of fact, and in cases thoroughly concrete. Ex-
amples are so abundant in all parts of the N. T., that it is enough to
give a few corresponding to those above with ov, or passages quite
parallel : Matt, xviii. 25 pr) j(ovros avrov obroSovi/at, eVeAevo-ev etc., xxii.
25 fir) e^(ov o-7Tpfj.a d^Kev rrjv yvvatKa, 29 TrAavaa^e, fjirj etSdres (because)
ras ypa<^>as /xyySt etc., Acts V. 7 ; ix. 26; xii. 19 'Hpoxfys eTrt^T^r^cras K<U
It?) evpajv eKe'Aevo-ev etc., xvii. 6 ; Luke xviii. 2, etc. ; even in antithesis,
Mark v. 26 /txiySev w^eAry^etcra, dAAa /xaAAov ets TO ^etpov eA#ovo-a, Acts
ix. 7 eto-rryKeto-av eVcot, aKovovres /xcv r^5 ^XOVT}?, /nrySeVa 8c ^cwpovvrcs,
2 Cor. vi. 9.
c) When the Participle with elvai, is used as a periphrasis
for a finite verb ( 144, 24 sq. p. 308 sq.), the dependent neg-
ative /JUT) must be used, even in the most concrete cases, if it
is not the copula (and thus the entire sentence), but the
Participle alone, that is to be negatived.
Accordingly we must distinguish Luke vi. 43 OVK ZO-TIV SevSpov KO.AOV
TTOLOVV KapTTOV O-CtTTpoV, XXui. 53 V /XV^/XttTt, OV OVK ?)V OvSet? OV7TO) Kl/Xl/OS,
xii. 6 ; John iii. 24 ; Rom. iii. 12 ; 2 Cor. ii. 17 ; Jas. iii. 15, etc., from
Luke xiii. 11 v\v o"vyKV7rrovo~a KCU fj^rf ovva/Aevty draKvi^at, i. 20 IOT^
ytajTrcuv Kat /u^ Swd/xevos AaA^o-at, Acts IX. 9 ty ^/xepas rpei? ftrj
j8 A 7T 0> V.
352 NEGATIVES. [ 148
d) Lastly, the Participle is negatived by /} (sometimes
even in case of antithesis, cf. 8 below), whenever the entire
sentence to which the Participle belongs requires the de-
pendent negation.
Of this case also there are many examples : 1 Cor. vii. 29 (TOVTO 8e
<j>rjp.i) Iva ol e^ovrcs yuraucas a>s /XT) e^ovrcs wcriv, Kal 01 /cAaiovrcs a>s /XT)
etc., Eph. V. 27 Iva TrapaoTTJcn; evSoov TT)V eK/cA^o-iav /XT) e^ovaai/ etc.,
Phil. in. 9 eupe0w /XT) ^wv etc., Rom. xii. 16, 17, 19, etc.
B. 148, 2 g. (Germ, ed.) ; J. 744, 1 Obs. ; W. p. 479 (446 sq.).
8 Several examples of the use of the direct negative, in
sentences which otherwise prefer //,?;, as soon as the negatived
word stands in sharp antithesis (marked by aXXa, Se, el prf) to
some other and following part of the sentence, have already
been given above, see 3 a) p. 345, 7 a) and b) p. 350. According
to this principle the direct negative makes its appearance in
such cases (although by no means necessarily) even in sentences
which positively require //-?;, as final and imperative
sentences ; see 7 d) above. The difference between these two
modes of expression is this : when the direct negative is used,
the negatived part of the sentence is, as it were, brought out
303 conspicuously from the rest (by supplying some such word as
Xeyw), and the emphasis falls on what follows introduced by
dXXa, etc. (cf. 3 a) p. 345) ; on the other hand, where ^ is
used, both parts of the sentence remain equally related to tho
whole.
Examples : 1 Pet. iii. 3 wv eorw o v x Zo>0w . . . Kooyxos, dAA' 6
KpvTiTos etc. whose adorning ought to be not (or, / do not say} the out-
ward . . . but etc., Rev. ix. 4 Iva /XT? dStKT/crovcriv rov ~^oprov rJJs yr}s, o v 8
TTOV xAtopOV O V 8 TTttV 8'SpOl>, 1 [AT] TOVS dv^pWTTOVS 6tC. Cf. 1 Cor. V.
10 f.ypa\(/a /XT; (jwava/uyvv<T0ai rots Tropvois, ov Traj/rw? etc., on this see
151, 19 p. 389. On the other hand, 1 Pet. v. 2, 3 Trot/xavaTc ... /XT)
avayKcurrcos dAA' KOU<rtu)<>, /XT) awr^poKepSais aAAa 7rpo0v/xws /XT;8e etc.,
Phil. ii. 2-4 TrXT/pwo-arc /xov rrjv -^apav Iva TO avro ^>poi/f/T, . . . /XT) ra
eavcuv o-KOTToiWes, dAAd etc., John xviii. 40, etc. 2 Tim. ii. 14 /XT; Ao-
yo/xaxei (Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.] Aovo/xa^ctv) ITT ovSci/ ;(P?}<ri/xov, without
an adversative clause following, ib more surprising, and only to be
explained by the emphatic prominence given to an individual
word.
On ov, as a second and independent negation of a particular
part of a sentence, in sentences with /XT;, see 11 p. 354.
148.] NEGATIVES. 353
B. 148, N.3; H. 840; C. 686 a.; 686 e.; D. 534; J. 745, Obs. 5.
Examples of negatived substantives, i.e. of substantives trans- J
formed by the negative into their opposites and blending with it, as it
were, into a single word, occur only in O. T. quotations. The negative
then is always ou, because compounds of the sort are formed in Hebrew
with fi&, Rom. ix. 25 ; 1 Pet. ii. 10 ot TTOTC ou A.aos, vvv Se Aads, Rom.
x. 19 ITT OVK I0i/ei. In Greek elsewhere both species of negative are
met with, see particularly B. and J. as above.
On the negative with the Imperative, and the Subjunctive as its
substitute, see 13.9, 6 p. 211.
B. 148, 4 and N. 5; H. 720 d. ; 846; C. 626; D. 538 sq, ; J. 814; G. 46 N- 4.
On fir) as the conjunction after verbs and notions of fear and
anxiety, see 139, 48 p. 241 sq. Of the usage according to
which sentences with /^ (/-tr/Tro)?, /x^Trore) , when no verb um
timendi is expressed, contain the idea of fear or anxiety,
the N. T. also affords a few evident examples. Thus, with a
Subjunctive following, Matt. xxv. 9 \eyovo-at,' yu-TJTrore ov firf
ap/ceo-rj rjiuv KOI vfuv ; and with a Future following, Rom. xi. 21
Tdf. [eds. 2, 7 ; ed. 8 omits fi^ira)? with Lchm. Treg. cod. Sin.]
/iuJ7r&>9 ov&e o-ov </)6/cr6Tat. See on the second negative in both
sentences No. 11 following.
As, according to B. 139, m. 50 ; G. 46, N. 5, etc. (cf. Gal. iv. 11
above in 139, 48 p. 242), in sentences where a verb of fearing is
expressed, a preterite Indicative may be used after /x?J in order to
represent the object of fear as in a degree an actually existing fact,
so here too ; as, Gal. ii. 2 dve/^v Se KOL avcOtfA-rjv aurots TO evayyzXiov . . .
KttT* iStav Sc rot? SoKovcriv, IA.TI TTWS ets Ktvbv T/ae^w 17 &pafj.ov i.e. in the
anxiety lest (or, in order to see whether, cf. Luke xi. 35 in 139, 49
p. 243) perchance my efforts are, or have already been, in vain. So
recent interpreters, with this difference only, that they unnecessarily
still want to retain rpe^a) as a Subjunctive. On the contrary, it is in
the Indicative as really as the following eSpa//,oi/, and glancing at the
latter presents in advance the notion of the present as a like object of 304
anxiety. 1 Thess. iii. 5 7re/xi^a ets TO yi/coj/at ryv Tricmv v/ia>v, /nr/Trws
7m/ocurev {>/za<; 6 7reipaa)i/ Kal ts KCVOI/ yevT/Tcu 6 KOTTOS i^/xaiv, fearing
I or, in order to see whether) perchanct, the tempter has tempted you,
and my labor thus might become in vain. Heb. ix. 17 Sia&j/o?
jSe/Jata, eirei w TTOTC ur^vci 6Ve 77 6 Sta0e/x,ei/os affords an example of
the use (which increased more and more in later Greek) of /A^OTC
with the Indicative, the notion of anxiety or of doubting inter-
45
354 NEGATIVES. [ Ha
rogation residing in the negative having gradually receded, and so
/nrJTrore being used almost like OUTTOTC in the sense of probably never}-
On ///; as an interrogative particle, see 139, 55 p. 248;
and on ov /u-rj as a strengthened negation with the Fut. and the
Subjunct., ibid. 7 p. 211sq. Of /*/>/ ov as a mere intensification
there is no instance.
B. 148, N. 7 a. ; H. 846; C. 713 sub fin. ; D. 537; J. 750.
11 Similar negatives as a rule strengthen each other, or the
second is only the continuation of the first. Hence iu
sentences already, for any reason, negatived by (the conjunc-
tion) fjLij, as soon as a particular part of the sentence is
to be negatived again, and independently of the first negation,
this must be done in every instance by the other form of
negation, that is to say by ov.
Examples from classic authors after the /xij implying anxiety (Lat.
ne non) may be seen in the Grammars. From the N. T. we have
2 Cor. xii. 20 <o/3o9/xai /A^TTCOS eA.0coi/ ov\ oiov? 0e'Aa> cvpw v/xas ; see
further Matt. xxv. 9 and Rom. xi. 21 in the preceding paragraph.
For the same reason, in an interrogative sentence with the ^ of
doubt, as soon as an affirmative answer is expected (nonne), not
/txrj again but ov must be introduced as the second negative ; for
examples of this, see 139, 55 p. 248.
B. 148, N. 7b. and N. 8; J. 747; W. p. 498 (464).
12 Cases may occur, however, in which two similar negatives
destroy each other, inasmuch as both the sense and the natural
position of the words exclude all ambiguity. In the N. T. there is
only one passage where similar negatives destroy each other in one
and the same sentence: 1 Cor. xii. 15 eav ^nry 6 TTOVS, ... ov
Trapa TOVTO OVK eortv CK rov trw/xaros. Here it was necessary to use
the same negative twice, because the nature of the sentence did not
305 permit any other than the oljective form of negation either at the
beginning or in the middle ; and that they mutually destroy each other
follows from the sense inevitably.
1 Still more frequently, in the writings e.g. of Aristotle, and especially in the
literary language of the Alexandrians (the Grammarians, and the Scholiasts), it
may be rendered simply by perhaps (i.e. tatas], which sprung by abbreviation
from the complete sentence '6pa ^irore followed by the Subjunctive : see to it lest
perchance etc.; as, Arist. Eth. Nic. 10 init. (^ irore ov Ka\ws TOUT) \eyerai),
iii. 2 (fjL^iror" ov \eyovffi TO alnov). M-f) with the Indie, also is so used; as,
Apoll. Adverb. 567. On this subject see further, Steph. Thes. sub voce ; Bhdy
p. 397 ; De\ar. ed. Klotz I. p. 137.
148.f NEGATIVES. 355
On the other hand, a double self-destroying negation for the
purpose of an emphatic affirmation is more common in two
sentences immediately dependent one on the other, viz. a
leading clause and a Relative clause dependent upon it,
after the analogy of the classic usage discussed in B. 148,
N. 8 ; C. 559 c. ; J. 824, 2 (yet without such attraction
as in ovSels ocrrt? oy, ovbevl OTO> ov etc.) ; as, Matt. x. 26
ovBev eo-Tiv KeKaXvfJLfJievov o OVK a7rofca\v(f)0r)cr6Tai,, KOL tcpuTrrbv
o ov ryvwaOija-eTcu, xxiv. 2 ov fjurj dfaOfj d>Se Xt^o? eirl \i6ov ', 05
ov /caTa\v6rjcreTai, Mark xiii. 2 ; Luke viii. 17 ; xii. 2 ; xxi. 6.
Here belong those sentences, also, in which, instead of the
negatived leading clause, the form of a question is chosen ; as,
Acts xix. 35 r/9 CTTIV dvdpcDTrcov 09 ov yivcoa/cet etc., Heb. xii. 7
Tt<? yap vto? ov ov Trcuo'evei Trarrjp.
B. 148, N. 9; H. 838; C. 713d.; D. 595; J. 749; G. pp. 198sq.
The pleonastic use, too, of ^ in dependent Infinitive
clauses after predicates which include within themselves a
negative force, has been preserved, at least in certain parts
of the N. T. (e.g. Luke's writings), especially with the Infini-
tive introduced by rov.
See examples of this last kind in 140, 16 p. 269. We have,
besides, without TOV, Luke xx. 27 ot avriAeyorres dvaoraow ya>)
xxii. 34 Tdf. <os rpis d.7rapvr]o~y /u,r) ciSemi /x,e, Heb. xii. 19
p,ij TrpocrTeOfjvcu a^rots Aoyov, Gal. V. 7 rts v/j.as IvtKotytv ry
Tret'^eo-^at. Analogous is the pleonastic ov when an Infin. is resolved
into a clause with on, 1 John ii. 22 6 apvov/j,evo<s on Irjcrovs OVK
IOTIV 6 Xptcrros, cf. Mark -ix. 38 Lchm. [Tdf. cod. Sin.], and from
classic authors, Demosth. Phil. p. 124 extr. ; Xen. Anab. 2, 3, 25 ;
Ath. 2. 17, etc. Pleonastic also is the negative in the common
phrase e/cros ei ^rj i.e. except if, except it be, as 1 Cor. xiv. 5 /xet^cov 6
7rpo<^ryri;a>v, . . . CKTOS ci JJLTJ Sicp/x/^vevry, xv. 2 ; 1 Tim. v. 19 ; see Lob.
ad Phryn. p. 459, and on the Subjunct. 139, 22 p. 221.
REMARK. In Rom. iv. 19 Lchm. [so Treg. Tdf.] in his text has 14
omitted the ov before Karevd-qo-ev, with the oldest authorities [cod. Sin.
also]. But since the context seems to require a negation, other editors
have adopted ov, which likewise is sufficiently attested ; or it is
thought necessary, at least to supply the direct negative ov with
Karevoyo-w from the /x?j with ourflei/rjo-as. That a single negative can
belong (XTTO KOLVOV to two notions is certain (see, among others, Poppo
on Thuc. 1,12; O. Schneider on Isocr. 4, 3 ; Grot, on Eur. Tro. 638 ;
Mehlhorn on the Schema COTO KOLVOV p. 14sq. ; Kruger, Gram. 67, 8
356 NEGATIVES. [ 148
Anm. 4) ; e.g. Luke viii. 12 Iva. ^ 7rwrrevo-avTs o-wflwo-iv, and cf. the
command opyi^ecr^e KCU fjirj af^aprdveTc in 144, 2 p. 290. But whether
Greek usage permits the direct negative to be supplied from the
dependent negative is more than doubtful. Further, against either
supplying or adopting ou makes the manifest reference of the words
to Gen. xvii. 17 ; for only to this passage, not to Gen. xv. 5 sq., does
306 the express mention of the I/CK/DUXTIS r}s /w/^rpas Sa/opa? in the nine-
teenth vs. point us. But then the words //,>) do-#v>7<ras -n} Trurm
seem to be at variance with the narrative in Gen. xvii., and still
more with the positive KOTCVO^O-O/ immediately following, as well as
with the drift of Paul's entire argument. In order to solve, this
difficulty the assumption is perhaps justifiable, that the words JJ.TJ
ao-0evrj<ras TYJ TTIOTCI are to be taken pr olep tically, and that the
true consequent clause does not begin till the twentieth vs. (d<s 8c ryv
7rayyX(W etc.). The words KarevoT/o-ev etc. form, then, not so much
a parenthetic insertion to designate more precisely the passage of the
O. T. which the apostle had in mind, as an antithesis to the following
ov SifKptOr), such as is otherwise wont to be indicated by the particles
/u,ev ... 8e ; hence the thought is as follows : not wavering in faith, he
considered, indeed, his senility and the deadness of Sarah's womb, but
in reference to the promise of God etc. The want of //.ev would
indeed be an offence in a classic writer ; but how often in all parts of
the N. T. the sharpest antitheses are given merely by a simple 8c (see
examples in 149, 11 p. 364 and the note on p. 121), or even by KCU
(see the examples under 149 8, b) p. 361 sq.), is well known; how
much more occasion for this liberty was there here, where the writer
might have contented himself with the simple participle (Karavor}o-as),
but, as he wrote, was precluded from that by the do-flevrjo-as which
be had just used. This construction of the passage, moreover, is by
no means destitute of parallels in the composition of the apostle. On
the contrary, a number of passages stand in the plainest analogy to
it : where two members of a sentence are connected with each other
by OVK . . . ctAAct (8e), and yet the thought in the first member is not to
be denied absolutely, but only relatively in reference to the
leading thought, in order, as Winer 497 (462) aptly says, "to
direct undivided attention to the second and principal thought, the first
comparatively disappearing from view," accordingly for rhetorical
reasons ; cf. Fritzsche on Mark, Exc. II. Such passages are from
the historical writings Matt. x. 20 ; Mark ix. 37 ; Luke x. 20 ; John
xii. 44 ; Acts v. 4 ; from the Epistles, 1 Cor. xv. 10 ; 1 Thess. iv. 8,
cf. also 1 Cor. i. 17 and deWette's Comment. As in all these passages
the writer hurries over the negative and parenthetic thought to the
second and positive member, so Paul above hurries over the first and
positive member to the second and negative (ov
149.] cis,oi'T s ; Vva; TU 357
OTHER PARTICLES.
B. 149, m. 1 ; H. 875 ; 795 a. ; C. 711 a. ; J. 626, Obs. 1 ; 696, Obs. 5.
Os, OVTCDS. The combination of o>s with a preposition of direction 1
(versus) seems to have been unknown to the N. T. writers ; for in the
only passage where it occurs (Acts xvii. 14 ws eTri Grsb. Tdf. [eds. 2,
7]), the most important authorities [cod. Sin. also] read ews 7rt, which
Lchm. [so Tdf. Treg.] has adopted. The accented ws for OVTWS also
is not found.
It is an extension of the familiar idiom by virtue of which
oi;Ta>9 stands after participial clauses in order to resume
them again in the conclusion ( 144, 21 p. 306), when, the
participial clause being wanting, this adverb by a somewhat 307
easy and popular mode of expression completely takes the
place of the participle; as, Acts vii. 8 eSatcev avrp &t,a-
OrJKijv TrepiTOfjLrjs KOI oimw? (i.e. after this happened) eyevvrjaev
rbv 'lo-adtc, xxviii. 14 ; 1 Cor. ix. 24 ov/c ot'Sare etc. ; OUTW?
(i.e. TOVTO etSore?) rpe^ere, xiv. 25 ; Gal. vi. 2 ; 1 Thess. iv.
17 ; 2 Pet. i. 11.
In this way it passes over insensibly, like the Latin sic, into the
meaning of the connective then, so then, as Acts xvii. 33 ; Rev. iii. 16.
Quite analogous to this is its use after a protasis with e t (almost
pleonastically like the German so, but more emphatic and resuming
the protasis) to mark the beginning of the apodosis ; as, 1 Thess. iv.
14 ei yap TrtoTeuo/ACv ort 'I^crou? dW^avev KOLL avearr], OVTCDS /cat 6 $eos a^ct
etc., Rev. xi. 5 t TI? avrous 0eA.et dSt/oJo-at, ovrws Set avrov
B. 149, m. 2; H. 508 b. ; C. 566 a. ; J. 882, 1.
"Iva. Of the elliptical use of Iva ri (equiv. to Sta rt; wherefore^} 2
with an Indicative following (which occurs even in the earlier writers :
Aristoph., Plato), there are many examples in the Old Test, as well
as the New, and in later writers generally ; as, Matt. ix. 4 Iva TI
cvOvfJLelcrOf. Trovrjpa iv rats /capStats v/xa>v / xxvii. 46 ; Luke xiii. 7 ; Acts
iv. 25 (quotn.), vii. 26 ; 1 Cor. x. 29 ; cf. Herm. ad Vig. p. 847.
B. 149, m. 3; H. 868; 869; C. 701, N.; D. p. 571; J. 800sq.; 802 Obs. 8.
"On. Like the English that (cf. Germ, doss, Ital. che, French 3
que), ori, is the most frequent (subordinating) conjunction,
and employed in manifold phrases ; for, besides its common
and most general sense (that), like the corresponding particles
just mentioned in other languages, it is used sometimes pleo-
nastically, sometimes elliptically, and sometimes passes over
into the signification of other and more pointed particles
{especially because).
358 PAKTICLES. [149
On the pleonastic use of ort after verba dicendi see 139, 51
p. 245.
To the elliptical, belongs the expression r i on (which may
be compared with the Lat. quid quod; but it is uttered without any
rhetorical emphasis) in such sentences as Luke ii. 49 n' on c^r/retrc
/x,e; (why is it that etc.), Acts v. 4, 9 ; Mark ii. 16 Lchm., where,
however, Tdf. [so Treg.] after cod B has given the preference to the
interrogative on ( 139, 59 p. 252), and often in the Sept., as Gen.
xviii. 13 ; xliv. 4 ; Judg. ix. 28, etc. ; with the ellipsis supplied, John
xiv. 22 TL yeyovei/ on r^fuv /xeAAets e//,<ui/iiv o-cavToV; John vii. 35 TTOV
ovros /xeAAei Trope veo-$at, on ^/u-tts ov\ eup^o-o/oiev avrov ; is to be explained
by a different kind of ellipsis ; it arises from the two thoughts Whither
will he go ? and How is it to be that we are not to find him ? united
into a single sentence by abbreviation, in popular fashion. Similar
is Matt. xvi. 7 ot Se SuAo-yi^oi/ro Aeyoi/Tes on aprou? OVK eXa^Soyotev,
where he says this because, or he has reference to the fact that etc , is
to be supplied. Of an elliptical nature, further, is the combination
(peculiar to Paul) ws on in the sense of quasi ; 2 Thess. ii. 2 <Ls ore
cvta-TrjKtv YJ rjfj.pa TOV Kvpiov abbreviated from, as (happens when it is
the case) that the day of the Lord is at hand. Similar, but with more
of the common meaning of on, accordingly as if that, because, is the
808 use of ws on in 2 Cor. v. 19 ; xi. 21 (see Meyer on the passages, and
the instances of o>s on which he quotes from Greek writers ; and on
the not infrequent use of o>s on in later writers, especially in the
Alexandrian literary language, see Bast on Greg. Cor. p. 52). on
equivalent to o^W on in 1 Tim. vi. 7 Lchm. [T. Tr. *] (Tdf. [eds. 2, 7]
&}A.oi> on) is exceptional. On the elliptical oi>x on see 150, 1 p. 372.
B. 149, m. 4 ; H. 872 ; C. 701 f. sq. ; J. 850 sq. ; 860, 5.
4 El. The elliptical use of el in oaths is a Hebraism current
in the Sept. and transferred thence into the N. T. This el arose
from the literal translation of the Hebrew ox , which imparts
a negative force to the contents of the oath, and hence b es a
positive force indeed! of a truth!, see Gesen. Lehrg. p. 844 ;
Gr. 152, 2 f.
Examples of t from the Sept. are, 1 Sam. iii. 14; 2 Sam. xx. 20;
xi. 11 ; Ps. xcv. 11, etc., less frequently cav Cant. ii. 7 ; Judg. v. 8, also
the Infin. with fuj Gen. xxi. 23, (the affirmative intensification &<b ox
is either not translated at all, as Josh. xiv. 9 ; Isa. xiv. 24 ; Job xxx.
25 ; xxxi. 36, or by 5 p-ty Job i. 11 or ei ^ xxii. 20, etc.). This mode
of expression is evidently founded in an ellipsis (Aposiopesis), a
thought being reserved in the mind which in other passages of the
O. T. is expressed, and is commonly translated by the Sept. as follows :
149.] ft|fc4;iircC. 359
raSe 7roirj(Ta.i o*ot 6 Otos KO! raSe Trpoo-^eo?, e.g. 1 Sam. iii. 1 7 ; 2 Sam.
lii. 35, etc. In the N. T. this d is found in Mark viii. 12 (where it is
interpreted in the various readings by ov), and several times as a
quotation from Ps. xcv. 11 in the Ep. to the Heb., viz. iii. 11 cf. 18;
iv. 3, 5. On the other hand, et ^v in Heb. yi. 14 is positive, like
the 5 MV in use elsewhere, and (according to Etym. mag. 416, 50)
only a different (itacistic) way of writing it ; and in fact, in Gen. xxii.
17 (whence the above passage is taken) the MSS. offer both readings.
But it is construed with the Indie., except in Judith i. 12 where the
Infin. (current in Greek writers) is given : oywxrc ei pry ejcSiKrjo-eti/.
The elliptical use of the combined particles e I /x rj (which have
become almost a single conjunction) in the sense of except, nisi,
after a preceding negation, is so general that passages in which the
predicate is added, as Mark vi. 5, are very rare ; and the phrase
became so established in this sense, that, like etre . . . etre in 139, 22
p. 220 sq., it was retained even where the construction would sooner
lead us to expect eav ft^ (Matt. xxvi. 42 ; Gal. ii. 16, etc., cf. 6 p. 360),
as Mark vi. 8 Iva /x^Sev atpwcni' et /AT) pa/3Sov etc., ix. 9, etc., and the
clause dependent on it was insensibly changed even as respects its
form into a leading clause, as 1 Cor. vii. 17 et /AT), eKacrra> a>s e/Ae'pto-ev 6
Kvpios, OUTGJS Trep tTrare troj, with which may be compared the
similar grammatical phenomena in connection with Iva ( 139, 37
p. 233), on ( 139, 53 p. 246), <So-re ( 139, 50 p. 243). All that has
been said holds also with more or less force as respects the extended
combinations of particles ei /A 77 TI (on which see 139, 20, 22
pp. 219 sq.) and e/cros et //,rj (see ibid 22 p. 221, and 148, 13
p. 355).
B. 149, m. 5; H. 877, 5; D. p. 569; 617 Obs. ; J. 839, Obs. ; 860, 2.
'E TT e L In consequence of a brachylogical mode of expression, 5
this conjunction plainly lias in several passages the signification.
since or/or otherwise, it being necessary to supply or repeat
from the immediately preceding context the supposition sug-
gested by our particle otherwise, else.
For example : Rom. iii. 6 /AT) aSt/cos 6 0eos . . . , eWt TTWS Kpirfl 6 0eos
TOV Ko'cr/jtov; for otherwise how etc. (sc. et aSiKos 6 #eos), xi. 6 eVet 77
Xapt? OVKZTL ytverat X^pts (sc. et e epycov XetjLi/fa yeyovei/ or simply et e 309
epycov ytVerat rt) ; . . . eVei TO epyov ov/cert ecmv epyov (sc. et ^aptrt or
X<xpi<; SC. ecrru>), xi. 22 eVet /cat crv eKKOTr^o-]/, SC. eav fjirj eTri/xetVrjs etc.,
Heb. ix. 26 ; x. 2 in both which instances a hypothetical protasis of
the fourth kind is to be supplied for the apodosis, which is evidently
constructed on this model (cf. 139, 14 and 15 p. 216). So, too,
1 Cor. v. 10, on which see 151, 19 p. 390. See besides the very
similar idiom with dAAa in 14 p. 369.
360 PARTICLES. [ 149.
B. 149, m. 6.
eav. By a certain inaccuracy of expression eav stands once ap-
parently for os av in Mark x. 30, 31 ovSei? ICTTW os a<J>rJKCv oi/aW . . . ,
eav fj,r] Aa/Sr; etc. (D os av). This construction arose and is to be
explained in the same way as ei /X,TJ (lav /AT}) nisi, by which the pre-
ceding negative is destroyed (see above, 4 p. 359), so that the meaning
here is nearly as follows : no one leaves etc. unless he receives, i.e.
every one who leaves etc. will receive.
The contracted KO.V (from /cat edV) stands several times, by an ellipsis,
without a finite verb (cf. Demosth. p. 415, 24; Soph. EL 1483)
almost adverbially in the sense of if only, at least (in which sense
it occurs times without number in later writers and the Apocrypha) ;
as, Acts v. 15 ira cp^o/xei/ov Tltrpov KOV TJ CTKLO. cTrio-KiaoT? i.e. if (it were)
only his shadow, Mark vi. 56 ; 2 Cor. xi. 16 et 8e pr) ye, KO.V u>s a<j>pova
B. 149, m. 7; H. 860; C. 713h.; 511,513; D. p. 669; J. 875 Obs. 3; 779 Oba. 3.
rj. To the examples cited here of r) ou after a negative (or inter-
rogative) clause instead of the simple i}, a parallel is apparently given
in 1 Thess. ii. 19 TI'S yap f)p.wv l\7ns ?} x a P a *7 ^X l KOL ^ ^/^ts; Yet
since the antecedent question is not to be taken in an exclusive
(negative) sense, as the Kal before v/xcts proves, the clause fj ot^l etc.
is to be joined to the first question as a second, which, because it
assumes an affirmative answer, is negatived by ov.
On the other hand, indubitable instances are found of the
other power of 77 mentioned here, viz. to impart to a Positive
notion the force of a Comparative ; as, Matt, xviii. 8 ; Mark
ix. 43, 45 KaXbv ecrriv <re KV\\OV, %(o\bv ela-e\6elv rj etc., Luke
XV. 7 X a P a ^" Tai ( so * /^eifo)^) 7rl evl d/jLapra)\a> /jLeravoovvri rj
etc. Accordingly it imparts to the signification of 9e\w the
force of matte in 1 Cor. xiv. 19, and to \va-ire\elv the force of
satius esse in Luke xvii. 2 ; cf. the parallel passages above from
Matt, and Mark. See the similar phenomena under inrep
(p. 335) and Trapd with the Ace. (p. 339).
B. 149, m. 8 ; H. 855-57 ; C. 701 ; D. 549 sqq. ; J. 758 sq.
T c, K a L The particle re, which is but rarely employed in the Gospels,
is used by Luke in the Acts with fondness, sometimes simply for the
ordinary KCU (ii. 37 ; iv. 33, etc.), sometimes in the combination re *ai.
But where these two particles do not connect immediately with one
another two similar or parallel terms, they can only signify and also,
the TC in such case belonging to the sentence and KO.L to the single
word, as Acts xxi. 28 ovros eoriv 6 avOpuTros 6 ... TrdVras
149.] T*; KaC. 861
SiSatr/ccoi/, en re /cat "EXXrjvag et<7i}yayev, Rom. i. 27 Tdf. 1 [cod. Sin.].
In the reverse order, /cat connects the sentence, re the particular term, 3 10
as Acts xxvi. 10 /cat TroAAou's re rwv ayiW KareKXeto-a etc. A double
TC rarely appears except in composition or with corresponding particles
(etre, /A-^re, lav TC). as Acts xxvi. 16; xvii. 4; Heb. vi. 2.
Kat is by far the most frequent of all the Greek particles in
the N. T. ; and as it is used not only beyond comparison more
frequently than in the Greek literary language, but also in
another sense often, or rather under other circumstances, it
contributes much to the peculiar complexion of the N. T. style.
This extended use of /cal (particularly in the Gospels, see 144,
1 p. 288 sq.) proceeds from the practice, characteristic of all
popular languages, of placing in juxtaposition, with the simplest ^
connection and as independent little sentences, the several parts
especially of an historic narrative, which in a more choice style
are wont to be wrought together into a single whole. In the
Homeric language, and in part also in Herodotus, this takes
place commonly, indeed, by means of several of the many little
copulative conjunctions (re, 8e, pd, etc.) ; but in the N. T.,
predominantly by /cat. Hence connection by means of ical
appears, times without number, in part for participial con-
structions ( 144, 1 and 2 pp. 288 sq.), in part where the
Greeks would have employed divers other particles. But we
are not on this account warranted in supposing that it any-
where includes any other than its characteristic and -proper
signification (and, also, even). The leading cases in which
its use deviates more or less from the ordinary usage are the
following :
u) With the use of KCU in place of a Participle agrees its employ-
ment, where, as a rule, the first of two independent sentences
connected by /cat expresses the relation of time for the second (the
leading) sentence : as, Matt. xxvi. 45 r/yyiKv ^ <5pa KOI 6 wos TOV
av@pw7rov TrapaStSorai, Mark xv. 25 rjv o>pa rpirq KOL eoravpeoo-av
avroV, Luke xix. 43 ; xxiii. 44 ; John x. 22 Lchm., Acts v. 7 ; Heb.
viii. 8. Cf. the various constructions with *ai eyei/ero 141, 6 p.
276.
b) Very commonly the N. T. language, particularly in the Gospels,
1 Here, however, the other reading (8e Lchm. [Treg. marg.]) seems to be pref-
erable; the apostle, instead of connecting the second member by r\ (ol re tfpaeve?
etc.), having given his discourse a different and more emphatic turn by means of
the words dpo'ims 5c KOI. Cf. Winej 571 (531).
46
362 PARTICLES. [ 149
contents itself with this most simple method of jonnecting sentences
where other Greek writers are wont to employ either a simple
adversative particle (8c, dAAa, /ACI/TOI), or the corresponsive //iv . . .
8e; as, Luke xx. 19; Mark xii. 12 e^rovv O.VTOV Kpar^o-at, /cat e^o^-
6r)(rav rov o^Xov, Matt. xi. 25 Kpv\j/a<; . . . /cat a7re/caAi;i//as, Mark vii. 24 ;
John viii. 49 TI/ACU . . . K<X! v/xts dri/xa^cTe, vi. 36 (/cat . . . /cat), xvii. 11
ovKfri flfjii ... /cat ovrot curly, vii. 30 (compared with 44), Luke xviii.
311 13 [Tdf. with tf and] (B 6 Be), 34 (D dAA'), 1 Thess. ii. 18 (even
after a preceding /xeV, cf. 126, 3 p. 102, and Hartung, Part. II. p. 410),
Jas. iv. 2, etc. On /cat ov after positive clauses see also particularly
below, 13 e) p. 368.
c) In comparative sentences after ws, /caflws, the leading clause or
the member corresponding to o>s etc. is often introduced merely by
*,Kat, so that it then seems to stand for OVTODS. More correct, however,
is the assumption that ovrws drops out before /cat, and /cat while re-
taining its own proper meaning (i.e. also) takes upon itself besides
the relation to be expressed by ovrws; as, Matt. vi. 10 ycvr^Tto TO
OfXyiJid crov o>? ei/ ovpavw /cat e?rt yr}s as in heaven, so (also) on earth,
Acts vii. 51 /ca$o>< ot Trarcpe? V/AOJV /cat t>/xet9, John vi. 57 /ca#a)s eycu u> . . . ,
Kal 6 Tpwya>v j/,e ^rjo-ct etc., xiii. 15, 33 ; Gal. i. 9 ; Phil. i. 20 ; 1 John
ii. 18, etc. That a similar use occurs also in Greek authors, see
(among others) Kiihner on Xen. Mem. 2, 2, 2.
d) There are several passages also, where, after an antecedent
dependent clause (protasis), the leading or consequent clause
begins with /cat", very much as in Greek authors so often with (the
copulative and adversative) 8e (see B. 149 m. 9 ; J. 759, Obs. 3) ;
as, Luke ii. 21 ore eTrX^o-^rycrav at fjfJLtpat . . . , /cat e/cX^ry TO oVo/xa
avrov 'Lyo-ovs, cf. 22; Acts xiii. 19 <os cTpo<j>o<f>6p-r)<rcv avrovs ... , /cat
/caflcAon' etc., Phil. i. 22 (where after Ipyov no great punctuation mark
is to be placed, cf. 144, 21 p. 306), 2 Cor. ii. 2 et yap eyw AVTTW v/xas,
/cat TIS 6 uc/>patVwv /A* etc., Jas. iv. 15 ; Rev. iii. 20 Tdf. [cod. Sin.],
x. 7 (see deWette). 1 Sentences in which the consequent clause is
preceded by /cat tSov, as Luke vii. 12 ; Acts i. 10 ; x. 17 Tdf. [ed. 8
drops /cat], have a predominantly Oriental (or O. T.) complexion.
On the other hand, the N. T. accords with ordinary usage
as respects,
e) The union by means of KM of two adjectival notions which are
not co-ordinate, as in the case of TT o A v s : Luke iii. 18 ; John xx.
1 With these sentences belongs also Jas. iv. 15 &v 6 Kvpios Oe^a-p KOI ^o-o^et
Kal Troi-f)<To/j.i> etc., where, however, it is doubtful whether the consequent clause
begins with the first KCU or the second ; but grammatically it is preferable to begin
it with the first Kal, especially as the text now stands w: th a Future in both in-
stances [so Lchm. Tdf. Treg., after N etc.].
*
149.] KO.I', 8*. 363
30 TroXXa fiv ovv Kat aAAa cri^eta eTronyerev Ifjcrov<;, Acts xxv. 7 TroAAa
Kai /3apea airtto/Aara, Tit. i. 10.
f ) Kat in the sense of as (ac) after 6 auro's is not met with in the
N. T. (the Dative is always used instead, B. 133, 2). Only in a
single passage has KO.L the meaning as, viz. Eph. iv. 10 6 Kara/3as crirros
co-ru/ /cat 6 avapds, where probably the 6 before avros has been omitted
owing to the 6 before Kara/3as, (yet cf. Meyer [or Ellic.] in loc.).
The common phrases 6/x,oitos /cat, dxravra)? /cat, and 6 avros Kat, on the
other hand, are of an entirely different nature, and in them Kat has
only the meaning also (Matt. xxii. 26; xxvii. 44; Mark xiv. 31;
1 Cor. vii. 7 ; xv. 48 ; 1 Thess. ii. 14, etc.) ; so too after a Relative,
d)5 Kai, oTrotos /cat, ocra) Kai, on which the general use of Kat after
Relatives ( 143, 5 p. 282 sq.) may be compared; as, Luke xi. 1 ;
Acts xv. 8 ; xxvi. 29 ; Heb. viii. 6.
g) Kat as strengthening the Comparative, like the Latin etiam :
Matt. xi. 9 vat Aeyoo v/xtv, Kai Trepio-crorcpov Trpo^rov, John xiv. 12
(and even), 2 Cor. xii. 15 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7 ; 8, Treg. N* om.], Heb. viii. 6.
h) Although sentences with Kat according to their grammatical
form can contain nothing else than specifications additional to what
precedes, yet these specifications may at the same time serve
also as explanatory supplements to the antecedent sentence or notion,
so that they then sustain the relation of an epexegetical adjunct 812
to the latter. In such cases we are wont to render the Kat by namely,
and indeed ; as, John i. 16 CK TOV TrA-typco^aros avrov TrdVres
Kai xapiv O.VTL ^aptro?, 1 Cor. iii. 5 ; xv. 38 ; Acts xxiii. 6 Trept
Kat avacTTacrecos vcKpwi/ eya) Kpivo//,ai.
i) On Kat . . . 8e 'see 10 p. 364; on Kat in continuation of a negative
(equiv. to ov8e etc.) 13d) p. 368 ; and on the (apparent) omission of
Kat 14 p. 369.
B. 149, m. 9 ; H. 862 ; C. 701 c.q. ; 705 a. ; D. 559 sq. ; J. 764 sq. ; 768 sq.
A e. Owing to the prevalent employment of Kai as a particle
of transition and continuation, the number of passages where
the particle Se is used, as in the classics, rather copulatively,
i.e. to subjoin a subordinate circumstance in a supplementary
way or to form a connection with what follows, is comparatively
small ; as, Matt. xxi. 3 ; John vi. 10 ; Acts vi. 2 ; xxiv. 17 ;
Rom. viii. 8, etc.
In other passages Be. has probably found its way by means of the
copyists into the text instead of the more common particles of transi-
tion in the N. T. (yap, Kat), which particles have sometimes been
restored (e.g. Col. iii. 25 ; 1 Cor. vii. 38 ; Mark xvi. 8 Lchm. [Treg.
Tdf. cod. Sin.], xiv. 2 ; xv. 33 ; Luke xii. 42, etc.) ; or S was first
354 PARTICLES. [ 149
added by the copyists (as ovi/, KCU often were also) to avoid the
asyndeton displeasing to a Greek ear ; this has been done times with-
out number in John, as i. 26 Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.], 40, 43 ; ii. 4, 17 ;
iv. 31, 50, 54 ; v. 29 ; vi. 43, 45, etc. Cf. 151, 33 p. 402.
Of Se in the Apodosis we find but one example, Acts xi. 17 et
ovv rrjv i&rjv Swpeav eSooKcv . . . , eyw Be TIS r/yw/tyv etc. This 8c Tdf. [eds.
2, 7 ; not 8] adopted, in opposition indeed to the oldest MSS. [Sin. also] ;
but this (genuine classic) use is so rare in the N.T. that we can under-
stand the omission of the 8 by the copyists (cf. Acts xx. 4, 5). Tdf.
has now adopted 6 Se [ed. 7 ; in ed. 8 dropped Sc again] in the apodosis
in 1 Pet. iv. 18 also, after cod. Yat. On the other hand, dXXa is often
found in the apodosis in Paul's writings, e.g. Rom. vi. 5 ; 1 Cor. iv.
15 ; ix. 2.
B. 149, m. 10 ; H. 856 b. ; J. 769.
10 Kal . . . Se. Of the combination teal . . . Se in the sense of
and also, (when the antithesis is stronger but also), there are
a great many indubitable instances : Matt. x. 18 KOI eVt
rjiye/jLovas Se a%6ij(Tecr@e, John viii. 16 (ou Kpivat) Kal eav /cplva)
Se eVo etc., Matt. xvi. 18 ; Mark iv. 36 Tdf., Luke ii. 35 ; John
vi. 51 ; viii. 17 ; xv. 27 ; Acts iii. 24 ; xxii. 29 ; 2 Tim. iii. 12 ;
Heb. ix. 21, etc.
B. 149, m. 11; H. 862 a. ; C. 701 sq. ; D. 559 sq. ; J. 764.
11 Mev . . . Se. In the use of these two particles the N. T.
writers, especially Luke, the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews,
and Paul, are by no means unpractised. Yet it is not to be
overlooked, that, in general, antithetic relationship is far from
always being indicated by these particles where native Greeks
would hardly have omitted them. In their stead, N.T. writers
contented themselves often with the simple 8e, and even
merely with Kai (see 8 b) p. 361 sq.).
Compare, for instance, the antithetic setting of the language in the
maledictions (roAavio-fiot) in the twenty-third chap, of Matt., particularly
313 vss. 3, 4, 8, 11, 23, 24, 25, and often besides in the same chapter. Here,
indeed, there is no sharp antithesis ; yet the Greeks would have em-
ployed the form of antithesis : /xev . . . Se. Only in vss. 27, 28 is /uer
. . . Se actually used. Further, see John v. 29 ; viii. 15 ; Jas. ii. 2, 10,
14; iv. 6, the examples in 127, 32 note p. 121, 148, 14 p. 356,
and many others especially from the Gospels and the Apocalypse
(in which ficv is not used throughout). Hence it is probable that, as
we saw above (9 p. 363 sq.) in the case of S so here, /xeV first found its
way into the text by the aid of (Grecizing) copyists ; see particularly
149.] MV. 365
in the recent editions, Mark i. 8 ; ix. 12 Tdf. (cf. Matt. xvii. 11), Acts
v. 23 ; 2 Cor. iv. 12 ; 1 Cor. xii. 20 var. ; Matt. xxv. 33 var. Whether
in Rom. vi. 21 also (TO it.lv yap rc'Aos etc.) /u,ei/ is to be expunged [so
Tdf. Treg. in text, with K*], because the following wvl Be does not
correspond with it, is much to be doubted. Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 4 in b)
below.
B. 149, m. 13; H. 862,la.; D. 562; 667; J. 765,7sq.
Me v. Every clause with pep to which no following clause 12
with e corresponds, is properly to be regarded as an anacolu-
thon. Nevertheless, most of the instances of this sort which
occur in the N. T. admit (as in the classics) of being referred
to certain classes, of which the most evident, perhaps, are the
following :
a) Instead of Se a different adversative particle is substituted ; thus
aXXa in Acts iv. 16; Rom. xiv. 20; 1 Cor. xiv. 17; irXrjv in Luke
xxii. 22, even KCU, see 8 b) p. 361 sq., and on o /xev . . . /ecu oAAo and
the like 126, 3 p. 102.
b) In enumerations the particle is often dropped in the second
member when it is sufficiently marked as such by some other word,
particularly by eTreira, as John xi. 6; Jas. iii. 17; similarly 1 Cor.
xii. 28, yet here the anacoluthon is stronger, the writer continuing
his enumeration (instead of with the pronominal oSs Se) by means of
the adverbial expressions Trpwrov, eTrctra, etc. In like manner 8t is
wanting with aAAoi after ot /xcv in many MSS. [Sin. also] in John vii.
12 Tdf. (cf. 9 p. 263). In 1 Cor. iii. 4 cyo> p.cv is immediately followed
indeed by erepos Se, but the two corresponding terms are strictly rls
and Ircpos ; yet this slight inaccuracy does not mar the perspicuity of
the whole.
c) Sometimes the first member of the antithesis is marked by /*/,
but the subsequent Se was of necessity dropped because the writer
suddenly chose another construction which did not permit the
addition of 8e: thus Acts iii. 13 where the antithesis is contained in
the participial clause (e/ceivov fcptvavros), xxvii. 21 where the antithesis
is indicated by the more forceful KCU ra vvv in the 22d verse ; so it is
<n Heb. xii. 9 by ov TroAu /otaAAov.
d) Sometimes the first member, marked by Trpwrov /*,/, has no cor-
responding iTretra, or other construction in its stead, the writer having
lingered so long over the first member that he loses the grammatical
sequence of thought, as Acts i. 1 ; Rom. i. 8 ; iii. 2 ; 1 Cor. xi. 18 ;
but the same thing happens also without any such reason, the writer
leaving it to the reader alone to complete the antithesis begun (the
completion being sometimes plainly suggested by the context)
and beginning a new thought which has a greater claim upon him :
366 PARTICLES. [ 149
see e.g. Acts iii. 21 ; xix. 4 Tdf. [ed. 8 om. ^iv, so cod. Sin.] ; xxviii.
22 ; Rom. vii. 12 ; x. 1 ; xi. 13 Tdf. [ed. 8 adds ow; so Lchm. Treg.],
2 Cor. xii. 12; Col. ii. 23 ; Heb. vi. 16 Tdf. [ed. 8 om. /xev; so cod.
Sin.]. Now since the copyists in such passages easily took offence at
314 P*v owing to the missing Se, we find occurring here just the opposite
of what was described in 11 p. 364, viz. the omission of /w,eV in the
MSS. ; see Acts iii. 13 ; xix. 4 ; Rom. xi. 13 ; Heb. vi. 16. On p.lv ow
see 16 p. 370.
B. 149, m. 15 : H. 858. 859 ; C. 701 a. e. ; 713 b. c. ; J. 775 ; 776.
13 O8e, jjLTj&e- ovre, /-tijre. a) The rule, that the double
conjunction ovSe (//-^Se) . . . ovSe (ft^Se) can only appear in
continuation of an antecedent simple negative and to
connect a new (negative) clause, is found confirmed in the
N. T. almost throughout ; see Matt. vi. 26 ; xii. 19 ; x. 9, 10 ;
Mark xiii. 32 ; Luke xiv. 12 ; John i. 13, 25 ; Rom. xiv. 21 ;
Col. ii. 21 ; 1 Thess. ii. 3 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.], Rev.
v. 3 ; vii. 16 ; ix. 4.
Hence, examples to the contrary must either be so explained that
the first negative is copulative and connects the entire sentence with
what precedes, making reference to some negatived portion of the
same (and so does not mean neither -, but also not), as Gal. i. 12 Lchm.
[Treg. cod. Sin.] (cf. p. 367 note), or the negative stands for ne . . .
quidem, as Mark viii. 26 (/u^Sc floreXOy^ . . . ^Sc CITT^S) is interpreted,
see Meyer ; yet the received reading here seems critically to be still
quite unsettled, see Fritzsche in loc. and Lchm. praef. p. 44. In Vat.
Sin. and a few other MSS. the second clause is wholly wanting, and
Sin. has simply /XT} instead of the first /ar/Se; Tdf. has now [ed. 8]
adopted this reading. In this way certainly we get rid of all difficulties.
What holds true of the double conjunction, holds also for the simple
ovSe (/AT/Se), inasmuch as in the signification and not (not ne . . .
quidem) it invariably forms the continuation of an antecedent negative,
as well in sentences and larger portions of sentences, as with single
words. Examples abound : Matt. vi. 25, 28 ; Luke x. 4 ; xii. 24, 33 ;
Acts iv. 18 ; ix. 9 ; Rom. ix. 16 ; 2 Tim. i. 8 ; Gal. i. 1 ; 2 Pet. i. 8 ;
Heb. ix. 12 ; xiii. 5, etc.
b) On the other hand, the double conjunction ovre (/^re;
. . . ovre (/-wfre), as a negatived ical . . . teal, stands as well with
entire sentences as particular parts of sentences, sometimes
without a previous negative, sometimes with a preceding
negative ; in this latter case, the members negatived by ovre
constitute LS a rule a composite whole within the
149.] 0<JT6...0T. 367
limits of a sentence already negatived, -not a con-
tinuation of that sentence, (just as we say, not-. . . neither . . .
nor~).
Examples: without an antecedent negative, Matt. vi. 20; xi.
18 ; Mark xiv. 68 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.], John v. 37 ; Acts xv.
10 ; Rom. viii. 38 ; 1 Cor. iii. 7 ; viii. 8 ; Rev. iii. 15, etc. ; with
an antecedent negative, 2 Thess. ii. 2 i<; TO /x^ renews craXevOfjvai tyxa?
/arySe OpoticrOaL, /z 17 r e Sta Trvcv/xaros yu, 77 r Sta Xoyou /u, r) r oY CTrtoToA.?}?,
Matt. v. 34 sq., xii. 32; Luke ix. 3; Jas. v. 12, and according to
preponderant MS. authority [Sin. also] Acts xxiii. 8 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf.],
ayyeXov and Trvtvpa then constituting the two members (TO, d/x,</>6Vepa)
of the negative partition. With the (more difficult and probable)
reading ^Se etc., the two members of the partition are to be taken
differently, see the note below. But in John i. 25 the reading now
is OVK . . . ovSe . . . ovSe, according to rule.
Cons 
