Skip to main content

Full text of "A grammar of New Testament Greek"

See other formats







M.A. (Cantab.), D.Lit. (Lond.) 








Edinburgh : T. & T. CLARK, 38 George Street 

I 906 


N \ 









The call for a second edition of tliis work within six or seven 
months of its first appearance gives mc a welcome opportunity 
of making a good many corrections and additions, without 
altering in any way its general plan. Of the scope of these new 
features I shall have something to say later ; at this point I 
have to explain the title-page, from which certain words have 
disappeared, not without great reluctance on my part. The 
statement in the first edition that the book was " based on 
W. F. Moulton's edition of G. B. Winer's Grammar," claimed 
for it connexion with a work which for tliirty-five years had 
been in constant use among New Testament students in this 
country and elsewhere. I should hardly have yielded this 
statement for excision, had not the suggestion come from one 
whose motives for retaining it are only less strong than my 
own. Sir John Clark, whose kindness throughout the progress 
of this work it is a special pleasure to acknowledge on such 
an opportunity, advised me that misapprehension was fre- 
quently occurring with those whose knowledge of tliis book 
was limited to the title. Since the present volume is entirely 
new, and does not in any way follow the lines of its great 
predecessor, it seems better to confine the history of the 
undertaking to the Preface, and take sole responsibility. I 
have unhappily no means of divining what judgement either 
Winer or his editor would have passed on my doctrines ; and 
it is therefore, perhaps, due to Pietdt that I should drop what 
Pietdt mainly prompted. 

It is now forty years since my father, to whose memory 
this book is dedicated, was invited by Messrs T. & T. Clark 
to translate and edit G. B. Winer's epoch-making Grammatik 
des neidcstamcntlicJien SpracMdioms. The proposal originated 
with Bishop Ellicott, afterwards Chairman of the New Testa- 

viii PREFACE. 

ment Eevision Company, and the last survivor of a band of 
workers who, while the following pages were in the press, 
became united once more. Dr Ellicott had been in corre- 
spondence on biblical matters with the young Assistant Tutor 
at the Wesleyau Theological College, Eichmond ; and his 
estimate of his powers was shown first by the proposal as to 
Winer, and not long after by the Bishop's large use of my 
father's advice in selecting new members of the Eevision 
Company. Mr Moulton took his place in the Jerusalem 
Chamber in 1870, the youngest member of the Company; 
and in the same year his edition of Winer appeared. My 
brother's Life of our father (Isbister, 1899) gives an account 
of its reception. It would not be seemly for me to enlarge 
on its merits, and it would be as superfluous as unbecoming. 
I will only allow myself the satisfaction of quoting a few 
words from one who may well be called the greatest New 
Testament scholar this country has seen for generations. In 
giving his Cambridge students a short list of reference books, 
Dr Hort said {Romans and Ephcsians, p. 71): — 

Winer's Grammar of the New Testament, as translated 
and enlarged by Dr Moulton, stands far above every 
other for this purpose. It does not need many minutes 
to learn the ready use of the admirable indices, of 
passages and of subjects : and when the book is con- 
sulted in this manner, its extremely useful contents 
become in most cases readily accessible. Dr Moulton's 
references to the notes of the best recent English com- 
mentaries are a helpful addition. 

In 1875 Dr Moulton was transferred to Cambridge, 
charged by his Church with the heavy task of building up 
from the foundation a great Public School. What time a 
Head Master could spare to scholarship was for many years 
almost entirely pledged to the New Testament and Apocrypha 
Eevision. Naturally it was not possible to do much to his 
Grammar when the second edition was called for in 1877. 
The third edition, five years later, was even less delayed for 
the incorporation of new matter; and the book stands now, 
in all essential points, just as it first came from its author's 
pen. Meanwhile the conviction was growing that the next 


edition must be a new book. Winer's own lust edition, 
though far from antiquated, was growing decidedly old ; 
its jubilee is in fact celebrated by its English descendant 
of to-day. The very thoroughness of Winer's work had made 
useless for the modern student many a disquisition against 
grammatical heresies which no one would now wish to drag 
from the lumber-room. The literature to which Winer 
appealed was largely buried in inaccessible foreign periodicals. 
And as the reputation of his editor grew, men asked for a 
more compact, better arranged, more up-to-date volume, in 
which the ripest and most modern work should no longer be 
stowed away in compressed notes at the foot of the page. 
Had time and strength permitted, Dr Moulton would have 
consulted his most cherished wish by returning to the work 
of his youth and rewriting his Grammar as an independent 
book. But " wisest Fate said No." He chose his junior col- 
league, to whom he had given, at first as his pupil, and 
afterwards during years of University training and colleague- 
ship in teaching, an insight into his methods and principles, 
and at least an eager enthusiasm for the subject to which ho 
had devoted his own life. But not a page of the new book 
was written when, in February 1898, "God's finger touched 
him, and he slept." 

Since heredity does not suffice to make a grammarian, 
and there are many roads by which a student of New Testa- 
ment language may come to his task, I must add a word 
to explain in what special directions this book may perhaps 
contribute to the understanding of the inexhaustible subject 
with which it deals. Till four years ago, my own teaching 
work scarcely touched the Greek Testament, classics and com- 
parative philology claiming the major part of my time. But 
I have not felt that this time was ill spent as a prepara- 
tion for the teaching of the New Testament. The study of 
the Science of Language in general, and especially in the field 
of the languages which are nearest of kin to Greek, is well 
adapted to provide points of view from which new light may 
l)e shed on the words of Scripture. Theologians, adepts in 
criticism, experts in early Christian literature, bring to a task 
like this an equipment to which I can make no pretence. 
But there are other studies, never more active than now, 


which may help the biblical student in unexpected ways. 
The life-history of the Greek language has been investi- 
gated with minutest care, not only in the age of its glory, 
but also throughout the centuries of its supposed senility 
and decay. Its syntax has been illuminated by the com- 
parative method ; and scholars have arisen who have been 
willing to desert the masterpieces of literature and trace the 
humble development of the Hellenistic vernacular down to 
its lineal descendant in the vulgar tongue of the present day. 
Biblical scholars cannot study everything, and there are some 
of them who liave never heard of Brugmann and Thumb. 
It may be some service to introduce them to the side-lights 
which comparative philology can provide. 

But I hope this book may bring to the exegete material 
yet more important for his purpose, whicli might not otherwise 
come his way. The immense stores of illustration which have 
been opened to us by the discoveries of Egyptian papyri, ac- 
cessible to all on their lexical side in the brilliant Bible Studies 
of Deissmann, have not hitherto been systematically treated 
in their bearing on the grammar of New Testament Greek. 
The main purpose of these Prolegomena has accordingly been 
to provide a sketch of the language of the New Testament as 
it appears to those who have followed Deissmann into a new 
field of research. There are many matters of principle need- 
ing detailed discussion, and much new illustrative material 
from papyri and inscriptions, the presentation of which will, I 
hope, be found helpful and suggestive. In the present volume, 
therefore, I make no attempt at exhaustiveness, and often 
omit important subjects on which I have nothing new to say. 
By dint of much labour on the indices, I have tried to provide 
a partial remedy for the manifold inconveniences of form 
which the plan of these pages entails. My reviewers en- 
courage me to hope that I have succeeded in one cherished 
ambition, that of writing a Grammar which can be read. 
The fascination of the Science of Language has possessed me 
ever since in boyhood I read Max Miiller's incomparable 
Lectures ; and I have made it my aim to communicate what 
I could of this fascination before going on to dry statistics 
and formulae. In the second volume I shall try to present 
as concisely as I can the systematic facts of Hellenistic acci- 


clence and syntax, not in the form of an appendix to a cjrammar 
of classical Greek, but giving the later language the inde- 
pendent dignity which it deserves. Both Winer liimself and 
the other older scholars, whom a reviewer thinks I have unduly 
neglected, will naturally bulk more largely than they can do 
in chapters mainly intended to describe the most modern 
work. But the mere citation of authorities, in a handl»ook 
designed for practical utility, must naturally be subordinated 
to the succinct presentation of results. There will, I hope, 
be small danger of my readers' overlooking my indebtedness 
to earlier workers, and least of all that to my primary teacher, 
whose labours it is my supreme object to preserve for the 
benefit of a new generation. 

It remains to perform the pleasant duty of acknowledging 
varied help which has contributed a large proportion of any- 
thing that may be true or useful in this book. Tt would be 
endless were I to name teachers, colleagues, and friends in 
Cambridge, to whom through twenty years' residence I con- 
tracted debts of those manifold and intangible kinds which 
can only be summarised in the most inadequate way : no 
Cantab who has lived as long within that home of exact 
science and sincere research, will fail to understand what I 
fail to express. Next to the Cambridge iniluences are those 
which come from teachers and friends whom I have never 
seen, and especially those great German scholars whose labours, 
too little assisted by those of other countries, have estal)lished 
the Science of Language on the firm basis it occupies to-day. 
In fields where British scholarship is more on a level with 
that of Germany, especially those of biblical exegesis and of 
Greek classical lore, I have also done my best to learn what 
fellow-workers east of the Ehine contribute to the conmion 
stock. It is to a German professor, working upon the 
material of which our own Drs Grenfell and Hunt have 
provided so large a proportion, that I owe the impulse whicli 
has produced the chief novelty of my worlc. My appreciation 
of the memorable achievement of Dr Deissmann is expressed 
in the body of the book; and I must only add here my 
grateful acknowledgement of tlie many encouragements lie 
has given me in my eClbrts to glean after him in the field 
he has made his own. He has now crowned them with the 


all too generous appreciations of my work which he has con- 
tributed to the Theolofjische Literaturzeitung and the Theo- 
logische Bundscliau. Another great name figures on most of 
the pages of this book. The services that Professor Blass 
has rendered to New Testament study are already almost equal 
to those he has rendered to classical scholarship. I have 
been frequently obliged to record a difference of opinion, 
though never without the inward voice whispering " imiyar 
congressus Achilli." But the freshness of view which this 
great Hellenist brings to the subject makes him almost as 
helpful when he fails to convince as when he succeeds ; and 
I have learned more and more from him, the more earnestly 
I have studied for myself. The name of another brilliant 
writer on New Testament grammar will figure more con- 
stantly in my second volume than my plan allows it to do 
in this. Professor Schmiedel has unfortunately been called 
away from grammar by the h'ne Jcrahmcel, to perform a post- 
mortem examination upon the Gospel history. The un- 
rivalled ability of his dissection is beyond question. But 
as there is reason to believe that the Gospels may still be 
studied for some time to come, we will venture to express an 
earnest hope that the learned and painstaking grammarian 
may soon resume his place among the interpreters, and con- 
clude the monumental work which keeps Winer's memory 
green in the country of his birth. 

The mention of the books which have been most fre- 
quently used, recalls the need of one or two explanations 
before closing this Preface. The text which is assumed 
throughout is naturally that of Westcott and Hort. The 
principles on whicli it is based, and the minute accuracy with 
which they are followed out, seem to allow no alternative to 
a grammatical worker, even if the B type of text were held 
to be only the result of second century revision. But in 
frequently quoting other readings, and especially those which 
belong to what Dr Kenyon conveniently calls the S-text, 
I follow very readily the precedent of Blass. I need not 
say that Mr Geden's Concordance has been in continual 
use. I have not felt l)Ound to enter much into questions 
of " higher criticism." In the case of the Synoptic Gospels, 
the assumption of the " two-source hypothesis " has suggested 

PREFACE, xiii 

a number of grammatical points of interest. Grammar helps 
to rivet closer the links which bind together the writint'.s of 
Luke, and those of Paul (though the Pastorals often need 
separate treatment) ; while the Johanniue Gospel and Epistles 
similarly form a single grammatical entity. Whether the 
remaining Books add seven or nine to the tale of separate 
authors, does not concern us here ; for the Apocalypse, 1 Peter 
and 2 Peter must be treated individually as much as Hebrews, 
whether the traditional authorship be accepted or rejected. 

Last come the specific acknowledgements of most generous 
and welcome help received directly in the preparation of this 
volume. I count myself fortunate indeed in that three 
scholars of the first rank in different lines of study have 
read my proofs through, and helped me with invaluable 
encouragement and advice. It is only due to them that I 
should claim the sole responsibility for errors whicli I may 
have failed to escape, in spite of their watchfulness on my 
behalf. Two of them are old friends with whom I have 
taken counsel for many years. Dr G. G. Findlay has gone 
over my work with minute care, and has saved me from 
many a loose and ambiguous statement, besides giving me the 
fruit of his profound and accurate exegesis, which students 
of his works on St Paul's Epistles know well. Dr Eendel 
Harris has brought me fresh lights from other points of 
view ; and I have been particularly glad of criticism from a 
specialist in Syriac, who speaks with authority on matters 
which take a prominent place in my argument. The third 
name is that of Professor Albert Thumb, of Marburg. The 
kindness of this great scholar, in examining so carefully the 
work of one who is still ayvoovfi€po<; tu> nrpoaajTru), cannot 
be adequately acknowledged here. Nearly every page of my 
book owes its debt either to his writings or to the criticisms 
and suQ-crestions with which he has favoured me. At least 


twice he has called my attention to important articles in 
English which I had overlooked ; and in my illustrations 
from Modern Greek I have felt myself able to venture often 
into fields which might have been full of pitfalls, had I not 
been secure in his expert guidance. Einally, in the necessary 
drudgery of index-making I have had welcome aid at home. 
By drawing up the index of Scripture quotations, my mother 


has done for me wliat she did for my father nearly forty years 
ago. My brother, the Rev. W. Fiddiau Moiilton, M.A., lias 
spared time from a busy pastor's life to make me the Greek 
index. To all these who have helped me so freely, and 
to many others whose encouragement and counsel has been 
a constant stimulus — I would mention especially my Man- 
chester colleagues, Dr E. W. Moss and Professor A. S. Peake — 
I tender my heartfelt thanks. 

The new features of this edition are necessarily confined 
within narrow range. The Additional Notes are suggested 
by my own reading or by suggestions from various reviewers 
and correspondents, whose kindness I gratefully acknowledge. 
A new lecture by Professor Thumb, and reviews by such 
scholars as Dr Marcus Dods, Dr H. A. A. Kennedy, and Dr 
Souter, have naturally provided more material than I can at 
'present use. My special thanks are due to Mr H. Scott, of 
Oxton, Birkenhead, who went over the index of texts and 
two or three complicated numerical computations in the body 
of the book, and sent me unsolicited some corrections and 
additions, for which the reader will add his gratitude to 
mine. As far as was possible, the numerous additions to the 
Indices have been worked in at their place ; but some pages 
of Addenda have been necessary, which will not, I hope, 
seriously inconvenience the reader. The unbroken kindness of 
my reviewers makes it needless for me to reply to criticisms 
here. I am tempted to enlarge upon one or two remarks in the 
learned and helpful Athenaeum review, but will confine myself 
to a comment on the " awkward results " which the writer 
anticipates from the evidence of the papyri as set forth in my 
work. My Prolegomena, he says, " really prove that there can 
be no grammar of New Testament Greek, and that the grammar 
of the Greek in the New Testament is one and the same with 
the grammar of the ' common Greek ' of the papyri." I agree 
with everything except the " awkwardness " of this result 
for me. To call this book a Grammar of the ' Common ' 
Greek, and enlarge it by including phenomena which do 
not happen to be represented in the New Testament, would 
certainly be more scientific. But the practical advantages of 
confining attention to what concerns the grammatical inter- 
pretation uf a Book of unique importance, written in a language 


which has ahsoUitoly no otlier literature worthy of the name, 
need hardly be laboured here, and this furevvurd is already 
lono; enough. I am as conscious as ever of the shortcomings 
of this book when placed in the succession of one which has 
so many associations of learning and industry, of caution and 
flawless accuracy. But I hope that its many deficiencies may 
not prevent it from leading its readers nearer to the meaning 
of the great literature which it strives to interpret. Tiie 
new tool is certain not to be all its maker fondly wished it 
to be ; but from a vein so rich in treasure even the poorest 
instrument can hardly fail to bring out nuggets of pure gold. 

J. H. M. 

DiDSBURY College, Aug. 13, 1906. 


I. General Characteristics 
II. History of the "Common" Greek 

III. Notes on the Accidence . 

IV. Syntax : The Noun .... 
V. Adjectives, Pronouns, Prepositions 

VI. The Verb : Tenses and Modes of Action 
VII. The Verb : Voice .... 
VIII. The Verb : The Moods 

IX. The Infinitive and Participle . 

Additional Notes .... 
Additional Notes to the Second Edition 
I. Index to Quotations . 
II. Index op Greek Words and Forms 
III. Index of Subjects 
Addenda to Indices 



















Abbreviations for tlie names of Books of Scripture will explain them- 
selves. In the OT and Apocrypha the names of the Books follow the 
English RV (except Ca for Song of Songs), as also do the numbers for 
chapter and verse : the LXX numbering, where it differs, is added widiiu 

Centuries are denoted iii/B.c, ii/A.D., etc., except when an exact 
date is given. Where the date may fall within wider limits, the notation 
is ii/i B.C., iv/v a.d., etc. Where papyri or inscriptions are not dated, 
it may generally be taken that no date is given by the editor. 

The abbreviations for papyri and inscriptions are given in Index I (c) 
and (d), pp. 251 ft", below, with the full titles of the collections quoted. 

The ordinary abbreviations for MSS, Versions, and patristic writers 
are used in textual notes. 

Other abbreviations will, it is hoped, need no explanation : perhaps 
MGr for Modern Greek should be mentioned. It should be oliserved 
that references are to pages, unless otherwise stated : papyri and inscrip- 
tions are generally cited by number. In all these documents the usual 
notation is followed, and the original spelling preserved. 

Abbott — see Index I (e) iii. 

.4 JP=American Journal of Philology, ed. B. L. Gildersleeve, Baltimore 
1880 fF. 

Archiv — see Index I (c). 

Audollent — see Index I (c). 

BGH—see Index I (c). 

Blass = Grammar of NT Greek, by F. Blass. Second English edition, 
tr. H. St J. Thackeray, London 1905. (This diff^ers from ed.^ only 
by the addition of pp. 306-333. Occasional reference is made to the 
second German edition, GiJttingen 1902.) Sometimes the reference 
is to notes in Blass's Acta AiMstolorum ((iuttingen 1895) : the context 
will make it clear. 

Burton ilfr=New Testament Moods and Tenses, by E. D. Barton. 
Second edition, Edinburgh 1894. 

Buttmann = Grammar of New Testament Greek, by A. Buttmann. 
English edition by J. H. Thayer, Andover 1876. 

7?Z=Byzantinische Zeitschrift, ed. K. Krumbacher, Leipzig 1892 ff. 

Gauer — see Index I (t). 

C'(Tjr= Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges. 
h xvu 


CJ2 = Classical Review (London 1887 ft'.). Especially reference is made 

to the writer's collection of forms and syntactical examples from the 

papyri, in CR xv. 31-38 and 434-442 (Feb. and Dec. 1901), and 

xviii. 106-112 and 151-1.55 (March and April 1904— to be continued). 
Dalman Worils = T\\Q Words of Jesus, by G. Dalmau. English edition, 

tr. D. M. Kay, Edinburgh 1902. 
Dalman (rra?7i?ji. = Grammatik des jiidisch-palastinischen Aramiiisch, by 

G. Dalman, Leipzig 1894. 
2)5= Dictionary of the Bible, edited by J. Hastings. 5 vols., Edinburgh 

Deissmann £6'= Bible Studies, hj G. A. Deissmann. English edition, 

mc\\x(}i\\\g Bihelstiulien and Neue Biheldudien, tr. A. Grieve, Edinburgh 

Deissmann In Chrisfo = T>ie neutestamentliche Formel " in Christo .Jesu," 

by G. A. Deissmann, Marbui'g 1892. * 
Delbrilck Grundr. = Grundvisis der vergleichenden Grammatik der 

indogermanischen Sprachen, by K. Brugmann and B. Delbriick : 

Dritter Band, Vergleichende Syntax, by Delbriick, Strassburg 1893- 

1900. (References to Brugmann's part, on phonology and morphology, 

are given to his own abridgement, Kiirze vergleichende Orauunutik, 

1904, which has also an abridged Comparative Syntax.) 
Dieterich [/"HicTs. = Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griechischen 

Sjjrache, von der hellenistischen Zeit bis zum 10. Jahrh. n. Chr., by 

K. Dieterich, Leipzig 1898. 
DLZ= Deutsche Literaturzeitung, Leipzig. 
£J5 = Encyclopaedia Biblica, edited by T. K. Cheyne and J. S. Black. 

4 vols., London 1899-1903. 
£(tT= Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. 

4 vols. (vol. iv. not jet published), London 1897-1903. 
Exj) i?= Expositor's Bible, edited by W. R. Nicoll. 49 vols., London 

Expos = The Expositor, edited by W. R. Nicoll. Cited by series, volume, 

and page. London 1875 ff. 
Exp T= The Expository Times, edited by J. Hastings. Edinburgh 1889 ff. 
Gildersleeve iSiwdies = Studies in Honor of Professor Gildersleeve, Baltimore. 
Gildersleeve *%?(i. = Syntax of Classical Greek, by B. L. Gildersleeve and 

C. W. E. Miller. Part i. New York 1900. 
Giles ilffmMaZ- = A Short Manual of Comparative Philology for classical 

students, by P. Giles. Second edition, London 1901. 
Goodwin MT= Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb, by 

W. W. Goodwin. Third edition, London 1889. 
Goodwin Greek Gram. = A Greek Grammar, by W. W. Goodwin. London 

Grimm-Thayer = Grimm's AYilke's Glavis Novi Tesfamenti, translated and 

enlarged by J. H. Thayer, as " A Greek-English Lexicon of the New 

Testament." Edinburgh 1886. 
Hatzidakis = Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik, by G. N, 

Hatzidakis. Leipzig 1892. 


Hawkins HS^Hovtc Synoplica', hy J. C. Hawkins. Oxford 1890. 

HR = A Concordance to the Septuagint, by E. JIalcIi and II. A. Itcditatli, 

Oxford 1897. 
IMA— see Index I (c). 
Imlo<j. i'^orsc/i,. = Indogermani.sclie Forschungen, edited by K. I'riigmanii 

and W. Streitberg. Strassburg 1892 ff. 
Jannaris HG=A Historical Greek Grammar, l)y A. N. Jannari.s. London 

JBL = J onrnul of Biblical Literature. Boston 1881 ff. 
JHS — see Index I (r). 

J'TS= Journal of Theological Studies. London 1900 ff. 
Jiilicher JHi)-0(:Z. = Introduction to tlie New Testament, by A. Jiilicher. 

English edition, tr. by J. P. Ward, London 1904. 
Kiilker = Qua3stiones de elocutione Polybiana, by F. Kaelker. In Leipziger 

Studien III. ii., 1880. 
Kiihner''', or Kiihner-Blass, Kiihner-Gerth = Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der 

griechischen Sjirache, by R. Kiihner. Third edition, FAiiiiiuDlar- und 

Formenlehre, by F. Blass. 2 vols., Hannover 1890-2. Hatzhhre, by 

B. Gerth. 2 vols., 1898, 1904. 
iirZ=Kuhn's Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Sprachforschung. Berlin and 

Giitersloh 1852 ff. 
LS = A Greek-English Lexicon, by II. G. Liddell and R. Scott. Eighth 

edition, Oxford 1901. 
Meisterhans ^5 = Grammatik der attischen Inschriften, by K. Meisterhaus. 

Third edition by E. Schwyzer (see p. 29 n.), Berlin 1900. 
MG = Concordance to the Greek Testament, by W. F. Moulton and A. S. 

Geden. Edinburgh 1897. 
Milligan-]\Ioulton = Commentary on the Gospel of St John, by W. Milligau 

and W. F. Moulton. Edinburgh 1898. 
Mithraslit. — see Index I {d). 
Monro 170 = Homeric Grammar, b}- D. B. Monro. Second edition, 

Oxfor.1 1891. 
Nachmanson = Laute und Formen der Magnetischen Inschriften, b_v E. 

Nachmanson, LTppsala 1903. 
Ramsay Paul^Vawl the Traveller and Roman Citizen, by W. M. Ramsay. 

Third edition, London 1897. 
^J53=Herzog-Hauck Realencydo'ptkUe. (In progress.) Leipzig. 
REG'r = 'R.evne des Etudes grecques. Paris 1888 tf. 
Reinhold = De Grtccitate Patrum, by H. Reinhold. Halle 1898. 
i2fcikf=Rheini&ches Museum. Bonn 1»27 ff. 
Riddell = A Digest of Platonic Idioms, by J. Riddell (in his edition of 

the Ajiology, Oxford 18C7). 

Rutherford NP = The New Ph rynichus, by W. G. Rutherford, London 1 881 . 
Schanz£e^■<r. = Beitragezurhistorischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache, 

edited by M. Schanz. Wiirtzburg 1882 fl". 
Schmid Attic. = 1)61' Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von Dionysius 

von Halikarnass bis auf den zweiten Philostratus, by W\ Schmid. 

4 vols, and Register, Stuttgart 1887-1897. 


Schmidt J'os. = De Flavii Joseplii elocutione, by W. Schmidt, Leipzig 1893. 
Schulze Gr. Zrt<. = Gr0eca Latina, by W. Schulze, Gottingen 1901. 
Schwyzer Pe?-^. = Graminatik der pergamenischeu Iiischrif'ten, Ijy E. 

Schweizer (see p. 29 n.), Berlin 1898. 
SH = The Epistle to the Eomans, by W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam. 

Fifth edition, Edinburgh 1902. 
T/iI(Z= Theologische Literaturzeitung, edited by A. Harnack and E. 

Schiirer, Leipzig 1876 ff. 
Thumb Hellen. = Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus, 

hy A. Thnmb, Strassburg 1901. 
Thumb i7««c?6. = Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache, by A. 

Thumb, Strassburg 1895. 
Ti = Novum Testamentum Greece, b_v C. Tischendorf. Editio octava 

critica maior. 2 vols., Leipzig 1869-72. Also vol. iii, Ijy C R. 

Gregory, containing Prolegomena, 1894. 
Viereck SG — see Index I (c). 
Viteau=: Etude sur le grec du Nouveau Testament, by J. Viteau. Vol. i, 

Le Verbe : Syntaxe des Propositions, Paris 1893 ; vol. ii, Sujet, 

ComiDlement et Attribut, 1896. 
Volker= Syntax der griechischen Papyri. L Der Artikel, by F. Vdlker, 

Miinster i. W. 1903. 
Votaw = The Use of the Infinitive in Bil)lical Greek, by C. W. Votaw. 

Chicago 1896. 
Wellh. = Einleitung in die drei ersteu Evangelien, by J. Wellhausen. 

Berlin 1905. 
WH = The New Testament in the Original Greek, by B. F. Westcott and 

F. J. A. Hort. Vol. i. Text (also ed. minor) ; vol. ii, Introduction. 

Cambridge and London 1881. 
WH ^y^. = Appendix to WH, in vol. ii, containing Notes on Select 

Readings and on Orthography, etc. 
WM = A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, regarded as 

a sure basis for New Testament Exegesis, by G. B. Winer. Trans 

lated from the German, with large additions and full indices, by 

W. F. Moulton. Third edition, Edinburgh 1882. 
WS = G. B. Winer's Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sjirachidioms. 

Eighth edition, newly edited by P. W. Schmiedel, Gottmgen 1894 ff. 

(In progress.) 
^iVT?F= Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by 

E. Preuscheu. Giessen 1900f;'. 



New Lights. 


General Characteristics. 

As recently as 1895, in the opening chapter 
of a beginner's manual of New Testament 
Greek, the present writer defined the language as "Hebraic 
Greek, colloquial Greek, and late Greek." In this definition 
the characteristic features of the dialect were expressed 
according to a formula which was not questioned then by 
any of the leading writers on the subject. It was entirely 
approved by Dr W. F. Moulton, who would undoubtedly at 
that time have followed these familiar lines, had he been able 
to achieve his long cherished purpose of rewriting his English 
Winer as an independent work. It is not without impera- 
tive reason that, in this first instalment of a work in which 
I hoped to be my father's collaborator, I have been com- 
pelled seriously to modify the position he took, in view of 
fresh evidence which came too late for him to examine. 
In the second edition of the manual referred to,^ " coinmon 
Greek " is substituted for the first element in the definition. 
The disappearance of that word "Hebraic" from its pro- 
minent place in our delineation of NT language marks a 
change in our conceptions of the subject nothing less than re- 
volutionary. This is not a revolution in theory alone. It 

1 Introduction to the Study of Neic Testament Greek, witli a First Reader. 
Second Edition, 1904 (0. H. Kelly). 


touches exegesis at inuumerable points. It demands large 
modifications in our very latest grammars, and an overhauling 
of our best and most trusted commentaries. To write a new 
Grammar, so soon after the appearance of fresh light which 
transforms in very important respects our whole point of 
view, may seem a premature undertaking. But it must not 
be supposed that we are concerned with a revolutionary 
theory which needs time for readjusting our science to new 
conditions. The development of the Greek language, in the 
period which separates Plato and Demosthenes from our own 
days, has been patiently studied for a generation, and the 
main lines of a scientific history have been thoroughly estab- 
lished. What has happened to our own particular study is 
only the discovery of its unity with the larger science which 
has been maturing steadily all the time. " Biblical Greek " 
was long supposed to lie in a backwater ; it has now been 
brought out into the full stream of progress. It follows that 
we have now fresh material for illustrating our subject, and 
a more certain methodology for the use of material which 
we had already at hand. 

The isolated position of the Greek found 
"(SSk^"^ in the LXX and the NT has been the problem 
dividing grammatical students of this liter- 
ature for generations past. That the Greek Scriptures, and 
the small body of writings which in language go with 
them, were written in the Koivr], the " common " or " Hellen- 
istic " Greek ^ that superseded the dialects of the classical 
period, was well enough known. But it was most obviously 
different from the literary Kotvr) of the period. It could not 
be adequately paralleled from Plutarch or Arrian, and the 
Jewish writers Philo and Josephus ^ were no more helpful 
than their " profane " contemporaries. Naturally the pecu- 
liarities of Biblical Greek came to be explained from its own 
conditions. The LXX was in " translation Greek," its syntax 
determined perpetually by that of the original Hebrew. 
Much the same was true of large parts of the NT, where 

^ I shall use the terms Hellenistic, Hellenist, and Hellenism throughout for 
the Greek of the later period, which had become coexteusive with Western 

2 See below, p. 233. 


translation had taken place from an original Aramaic. But 
even where this was not the case, it was argued, tlie writers 
used Greek as foreigners, Aramaic thought underlying Greek 
expression. Moreover, they were so familiar with tlie LXX 
that its idiosyncrasies passed largely into their own style, 
which accordingly was charged with Semitisms from two dis- 
tinct sources. Hence this " Judaic " or " Biblical " Greek, this 
" language of the Holy Ghost," ^ found in the sacred writings 
and never profaned by common use. It was a phenomenon 
against which the science of language could raise no a priori 
objection. The Purist, who insisted on finding parallels in 
classical Greek literature for everything in the Greek NT, 
found his task impossible without straining language to the 
breaking-point. His antagonist the Hebraist went absurdly 
far in recognising Semitic influence where none was really 
operative. But when a grammarian of balanced judgement 
like G. B. Winer came to sum up the bygone controversy, he 
was found admitting enough Semitisms to make the Biblical 
Greek essentially an isolated language still. 

It is just this isolation which the new 

Deissmzmn ' ^"^^'i®^^^ comes in to destroy." The Greek 
papyri of Egypt are in themselves nothing 
novel ; but their importance for the historical study of the 
language did not begin to be realised until, within the last 
decade or so, the explorers began to enrich us with an output 
of treasure which has been perpetually fruitful in surprises. 
The attention of the classical world has been busy with the 
lost treatise of Aristotle and the new poets Bacchylides and 
Herodas, while theologians everywhere have eagerly dis- 
cussed new " Sayings of Jesus." But even these last must 
yield in importance to the spoil which has been gathered 
from the wills, official reports, private letters, petitions, 
accounts, and other trivial survivals from the rubbish-heaps 
of antiquity.^ They were studied by a young investigator of 
genius, at that time known only by one small treatise on the 
Pauline formula ev Xpiarw, which to those who read it now 
shows abundantly the powers that were to achieve such 

1 So Crenier, Bihlico-Theological Lexicon of NT Greek, p. iv (E.T.), follow- 
ing Rothe. (Cited by Thumb, Hellenisvius 181.) ["''See p. 242. 


splendid pioneer work within three or four years. Deiss- 
mann's Bihelstiulien appeared in 1895, his Neuc Bihelstudien ^ 
in 1 8 9 7. It is needless to describe how these lexical researches 
in the papyri and the later inscriptions proved that hundreds 
of words, hitherto assumed to be " Biblical," — technical words, 
as it were, called into existence or minted afresh by the 
language of Jewish religion, — were in reality normal first- 
century spoken Greek, excluded from literature by the nice 
canons of Atticising taste. Professor Deissmann dealt but 
briefly with the grammatical features of this newly-discovered 
Greek ; but no one charged with the duty of editing a Gram- 
mar of NT Greek could read his work without seeing that a 
systematic grammatical study in this field was the indis- 
pensable equipment for such a task. In that conviction the 
present writer set himself to the study of the collections 
which have poured with bewildering rapidity from the busy 
workshops of Oxford and Berlin, and others, only, less 
conspicuous. The lexical gleanings after Deissmann which 
these researches have produced, almost entirely in documents 
published since his books were written, have enabled me 
to confirm his conclusions from independent investigation.^ 
A large part of my grammatical material is collected in a 
series of papers in the Classical Bevietv (see p. xviii.), to which 
I shall frequently have to make reference in the ensuing 
pages as supplying in detail the evidence for the results here 
to be described. 

The new linguistic facts now in evidence 
Greek show with startling clearness that we have 

at last before us the language in which the 
apostles and evangelists wrote. The papyri exhibit in their 
writers a variety of literary education even wider than that 
observable in the NT, and we can match each sacred author 
with documents that in respect of Greek stand on about the 
same plane. The conclusion is that " Biblical " Greek, except 
where it is translation Greek, was simply the vernacular of 
daily life.^ Men who aspired to literary fame wrote in an 

^ See p. xviii. above. 

2 See Expositor for April 1901 and February anrl December 1903. 
^ Cf Wellhausen (Einl. 9): "In the Gospels, spoken Greek, and indeed 
Greek spoken among the lower classes, makes its entrance into literature." 


artificial dialect, a would-be revival of the langungc of Athens 
in her prime, mucli as educated Greeks of tlie present day 
profess to do. The NT writers had little idea tliat they 
were writing literature. The Holy Ghost spoke absolutely 
in the language of the people, as we might surely have 
expected He would. The writings inspired of Him were 

AVhich he may read that binds the sheaf, 
Or builds tho house, or digs the grave, 
And those wikl eyes that watch tlie wave 

In roarings round the coral reef. 

The very grammar and dictionary cry out against men who 
would allow the Scriptures to appear in any other form than 
that " uuderstauded of the people." 

. __ . ^ There is one very striking fact brought out 

Language. ^^ ^^® study of papyri and inscriptions which 
preserve for us the Hellenistic vernacular. 
It was a language without serious dialectic differences, 
except presumably in pronunciation. The history of tliis 
lingua franca must be traced in a later chapter. Here it 
suffices to point out that in the first centuries of our era 
Greek covered a far larger proportion of the civilised world 
than even English does to-day." The well-knuwn heroics of 
Juvenal (iii. 60 f.) — 

Non possum ferre, Quirites, 
Graecam Urbem — , 

joined with the Greek " Ek 'Eavrov " of tlie Eoman Emperor 
and the Greek Epistle to the Romans, serve as obvious evidence 
that a man need have known little Latin to live in Eome itself.^ 
It was not Italy but Africa that first called for a Latin Bible.^ 
That the Greek then current in almost every part of the Em- 
pire was virtually imiform is at first a startling fact, and to 
no one so startling as to a student of the science of language. 
Dialectic differentiation is the root principle of that science ; ^ 

» Cf A. S. Wilkins, Roman Edvcalion 19 ; SIX Hi fF. 

^ So at least most critics believe. Dr Sauday, however, j)refer.s Antiocli, 
which suits our point equally well. Rome is less likely. See Dr Kennedy in 
Hastings' BD iii. 54. 

•* See, for instance, the writer's I'wo Lectures on the Science of Langna'je, 
pp. 21-23. [» See p. 242. 


and when wc know how actively it works within the narrow 
limits of Great Britain, it seems strange that it should ap- 
parently be suspended in the vast area covered by Hellenistic 
Greek. We shall return to this difficulty later (pp. 19-39): 
for the present we must be content with the fact that any 
dialect variation that did exist is mostly beyond the range 
of our present knowledge to detect. Inscriptions, distributed 
over the whole area, and dated with precision enough to 
trace the slow development of the vernacular as it ad- 
vanced towards Mediieval and Modern Greek, present us 
with a grammar which only lacks homogeneity according 
as their authors varied in culture. As we have seen, the 
papyri of Upper Egypt tally in their grammar with the 
language seen in the NT, as well as with inscriptions like 
those of Pergamum and Magnesia. No one can fail to 
see how immeasurably important these conditions were for 
the growth of Christianity. The historian marks the fact 
that the Gospel began its career of conquest at the one 
period in the world's annals when civilisation was concen- 
trated under a single ruler. The grammarian adds that 
this was the only period when a single language was under- 
stood throughout the countries which counted for the history 
of that Empire. The historian and the grammarian must of 
course refrain from talking about " Providence." They would 
be suspected of " an apologetic bias " or " an edifying tone," 
and that is necessarily fatal to any reputation for scientific 
attainment. We will only remark that some old-fashioned 
people are disposed to see in these facts a cyi/fxelov in its 
way as instructive as the Gift of Tongues. 

It is needless to observe that except in 
the Greek world, properly so called, Greek 
did not hold a monopoly. Egypt throughout the long 
period of the Greek papyri is very strongly bilingual, the 
mixture of Greek and native names in the same family, and 
the prevalence of double nomenclature, often making it diffi- 
cult to tell the race of an individual.^ A bilingual country 

^ It should lie noted tliat in the papyri we have not to do only witli 
Egyptians and Greeks. In Par P 48 (158 B.C.) tlierc is a letter addressed to an 
Aral) by two of liis hrothers. The editor, M. Brunet de Presle, remarks as 
follows on this :^" It is worth our while to notice the rapid diffusion of Greek, 


is vividly presented to us in the narrative of Ac 1 4, where 
the apostles preach in (Ireek and are imahlc to understand 
the excited populace when they relapse into Lycaonian. What 
the local Greek was like, we may gauge from such specimens 
as the touching Christian epitapli published by Mr Cronin in 
JHS, 1902, p. 369 (see Exp T x\y. 430), and dated " httle 
if at all later than iii/A.D." We need not develop the evidence 
for other countries : it is more to the point if we look at the 
conditions of a modern bilingual country, such as we have 
at home in the country of Wales. Any popular English poli- 
tician or preacher, visiting a place in the heart of the Princi- 
pality, could be sure of an audience, even if it were assumed that 
he would speak in English. If he did, they would understand 
him. But should he unexpectedly address them in Welsh, we 
may be very sure they would be " the more quiet " ; and a 
speaker anxious to conciliate a hostile meeting would gain a 
great initial advantage if he could surprise them with the 
sound of their native tongue.^ Now this is exactly what 
happened when Paul addressed the Jerusalem mob from the 
stairs of Antonia. They took for granted he would speak 
. p 1 X- in Greek, and yet they made " a great 
silence " when he faced them with the gesture 
which indicated a wish to address them. Schiirer nods, for 
once, when he calls in Paxil's Aramaic speech as a witness of 
the people's ignorance of Greek." It does not prove even the 
" inadequate " knowledge which he gives as the alternative 
possibility for the lower classes, if by " inadequate know- 
after Alexander's conquest, anions a mass of people who in all other respects 
jealously preserved their national characteristics under foi'cign masters. The 
papyri show us Egyptians, Persians, Jews, and here Arabs, who do not appear 
to belong to the upper classes, using the Greek lan'j;uagc. We must not be too 
exacting towards them iu the matter of style. Nevertheless tlie letter wjiich 
follows is almost irreproachable in syntax and orthography, wliieh does not 
always happen even with men of Greek birth." If these remarks, published in 
1865, had been followed up as they deserved, Deissmann wouhl have come 
too late. It is strange how little attention was aroused by tlie great collections 
of papyri at I'aris and London, until the recent flood of discovery set in. 

1 These words were written before I had read Dr T. K. Abbott's able, but 
not always conclusive, article in his volume of Essays. On ]i. 164 he gives an 
incident from bilingual Ireland exactly piirallcl witli thai iuingined aliovo. Prof. 
T. H. Williams tells me he has often heard Welsh teachers illustrating the 
narrative of Ac 21'*" 22^ in the same way. (On Lystra, see p. 233.) 

2 Jexoish Peoi^le, ii. i. 48 (^» ii. 63). 


ledge " is implied that the crowd would have been unable to 
follow a Greek speech. They thought and spoke among 
themselves, like the Welsh, exclusively in their native tongue ; 
but we may well doubt if there were many of them who could 
not understand the world-language, or even speak in it when 
necessary.^ We have in fact a state of things essentially the 
same as in Lystra. But the imperfect knowledge of Greek 
which may be assumed for the masses in Jerusalem and 
Lystra is decidedly less probable for Galilee and Peraea. 
Hellenist Jews, ignorant of Aramaic, would be found there as 
in Jerusalem ; and the proportion of foreigners would be 
much larger. That Jesus Himself and the Apostles regularly 
used Aramaic is beyond question, but that Greek was also 
at command is almost equally certain. There is not the 
slightest presumption against the use of Greek in writings 
purporting to emanate from the circle of the first believers.^ 
They would write as men who had used the language from 
boyhood, not as foreigners painfully expressing themselves 
in an imperfectly known idiom. Their Greek would differ 
in quality according to their education, like that of the 
private letters among the Egyptian papyri. But it does 
not appear that any of them used Greek as we may some- 
times find cultured foreigners using English, obviously trans- 
lating out of their own language as they go along. Even 
the Greek of the Apocalypse itself does not seem to owe any 

^ The evidence for the use of Greek in Palestine is very fully stated by Zahn 
in his Einl. in das NT, ch. ii. Of also Jiilicher in EB ii. 2007 ff. I am glad 
to find my view corroborated by Mahaffy, in his lectures on " Hellenism in 
Alexander's Empire" : see pp. 130 f., where he says, " Though we may believe 
that in Galilee and among his intimates our Lord spoke Aramaic, and 
though we know that some of his last words upon the cross were in that 
language, yet his public teaching, his discussions with the Pharisees, his talk 
with Pontius Pilate, were certainly carried on in Greek." Professor Mahaffy 
is no specialist on Gospel criticism — any more, I might add, than on Buildliism, 
(p. 100), — and it would be hard to persuade modern scholars that Christ's ^*?<&//c 
teaching was mainly in Greek. But though he goes too far, he takes the 
direction in which every student of Hellenism is driven. I wish he had de- 
veloped his thesis : we could have spared for this purpose many space-filling 
allusions to modern politics, on which the Professor is no wiser than the rest of us. 

- Dr T. K. Abbott {Essays 170) jtoints out that Justin Martyr, brought up 
near Sichem early in ii/A.D., depends entirely on the LXX — a circumstance 
which is ignored by Mgr Barnes in his attempt to make a different use of 
Justin {jrS vi. 369). (See further below, p. 233.) 


. „, of its blunders to " ircbiaisin." The author's 

Apocalypse. • , • . ., 

uncertain use ot cases is obvious to the most 

casual reader. In any other writer we might be tempted to 

spend time over ra? Xv^fia^ in V^, where twv \v)(vio)v is 

clearly needed : for him it is enough to say that the 

neighbouring 01/9 may have produced the aberration. We 

find him perpetually indifferent to concord. But the less 

educated papyri give us plentiful jiarallels from a field where 

Semitism cannot be suspected.^ After all, we do not suspect 

Shakspere of foreign upbringing because he says " between 

you and I." ^ Neither he nor his unconscious imitators in 

modern times would say " between I and you," any more 

than the author of the Apocalypse would have said airh 

/MapTVi 6 TTio-To? (1^): it is only that his grammatical sense 

is satisfied when the governing word has afTected the case of 

one object.^ We shall find that other peculiarities of the 

writer's Greek are on the same footing. Apart from places 

where he may be definitely translating a Semitic document, 

there is no reason to believe that his grammar would have 

been materially different had he been a native of Oxyrliynchus, 

assuming the extent of Greek education the same.'* Close to 

^ See my exx. of jiom. in apposition to noun in another case, and of f^encliT 
neglected, in CH xviii. 151. Cf also below, p. 60. ('AttA 6 wv, V, is of course 
an intentional tour de force. ) Note the same thing in the 5-text of 2 Th 1®, 
'Irjaov . . . didovs (D*FG and sonic Latin authorities). 

^ Mercliant of Venice, in. ii. (end — Antonio's letter). 

^ There are parallels to this in liorrect English. "Drive far away the 
disastrous Keres, they who destroy " (Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of 
Greek Religion, p. 168) would not be mended by substituting Ihcm. 

* The grammatical peculiarities of the book are conveidently summarised 
in a few lines by Jiilicher, Introd. to NT, p. 273 : for a full account sec the in- 
troduction to Bousset's Commentary, in the Meyer series. It may be well to 
observe, a propos of the curious Greek of Eev, that grammar here nnist play a 
part in literary criticism. It will not do to appeal to grammar to prove that 
the author is a Jew : as far as that goes, he might just as well liave been a 
farmer of the Fayiim. Thought and material must exclusively determine that 
question. But as that point is hardly doubtful, we pass on to a more iuii)ortant 
inference from the imperfect Greek culture of this book. If its date was 
95 A.D, the author cannot have written the fourth Gospel only a short time 
after. Either, therefore, we must take the earlier date foi' Rev, which would 
allow the Apostle to improve his Greek by constant use in a city lilvc Eiihesus 
where his Aramaic would be useless ; or we must suppose that someone (say, 
the author of Jn 21--') mended his grammar for him throughout the Gospel. 


the other end of the scale comes the learned Eabbi of Tarsus. 

" A Hebrew, the son of Hebrews," he calls 
^Hebrews^' himself (Phil 3^), and Zahn is no doubt right 

in inferring that he always claimed Aramaic 
as his mother tongue. But he had probably used G-reek from 
childhood with entire freedom, and during the main part of 
his life may have had few opportunities of using Aramaic at 
all. It is highly precarious to argue with Zahn from "Abba, 
Father " (Rom 8^^, Gal 4^), that Aramaic was the language 
of Paul's prayers. The peculiar sacredness of association 
belonging to the first word of the Lord's Prayer in its original 
tongue supplies a far more probable account of its liturgi- 
cal use among Gentile Christians.^ Finally, we have the 
Gentile Luke^ and the audor ad Hcbra:os, both of whom 
may well have known no Aramaic at all : to the former we 
must return presently. Between these extremes the NT 
writers lie ; and of them all we may assert with some con- 
fidence that, where translation is not involved, we shall find 
hardly any Greek expression used which would sound strangely 
to speakers of the Koivrj in Gentile lands. 

To what extent then should we expect 
Genume ^^ ^^ .^^ ^^ Jewish Greek writers 

Semitisms. ^ ^ „ , . ^.^ . 

coloured by the influence of Aramaic or Heb- 
rew ? Here our Welsh analogy helps us. Captain Fluellen is 
marked in Shakspere not only by his Welsh pronunciation of 
English, but also by his fondness for the phrase " look you." 
Now " look you " is English : I am told it is common in the 
Dales, and if we could dissociate it from Shakspere's Welsh- 
man we should probably not be struck by it as a bizarre 
expression. But why does Fluellen use it so often ? Because 

Otherwise, we must join the ranks of the Xwpijo^'res. Here we ouly state the 
contribution f;rammar must make to this great problem : other considerations 
must decide the answer. Dr Bartlet (in Ex}^ T for Feb. 1905, p. 206) puts Rev 
under Vespasian and assigns it to the author of Jn : he thinks that Prof. 
Ramsay's account {Seven Churches, p. 89) does not leave sufficient time for the 
development of Greek style. 

^ Cf Bp Chase, in Texts and Studies, i. iii. 23. This is not very different from 
the devout Roman Catholic's "saying Paternoster" ; but Paul will not allow 
even one word of prayer in a foreign tongue without adding an instant transla- 
tion. Note that Padcr is the Welsh name for the Lord's Prayer. (See p. 233.) 

2 Cf Dalman, Words, 40 f. 


it translates two or three Welsh phrases of nearly identical 
meaning, which would be very much on his tongue when 
talking with his own countrymen. For the same reason the 
modern Welshman overdoes the word " indeed." In exactly the 
same way the good Attic interjection tSov is used by some NT 
writers, with a frequency quite un-Attic, simply because they 
were accustomed to the constant use of an equivalent inter- 
jection in their own tongue.^ Probably this is the furthest 
extent to which Semitisms went in the ordinary Greek speech 
or writing of men whose native language was Semitic. It 
brought into prominence locutions, correct enough as Greek, but 
which would have remained in comparatively rare use but for 
the accident of their answering to Hebrew or Aramaic jihrases. 
Occasionally, moreover, a word with some special metaphorical 
meaning might be translated into the literally corresponding 
Greek and used with the same connotation, as when the verb 
pn, in the ethical sense, was represented not l)y the exactly 
answering avacnpe<^ecr6ai, but by Trepnrareiv? But these 
cases are very few, and may be transferred any day to the 
other category, illustrated above in the case of Ihov, by the 
discovery of new papyrus texts. It must not be forgotten 

^ Note that James uses lSo6 6 times in his short Epistle, Paul only 9 times 
(including one quotation) in all his writings. In Ac 1-12 it appears 16 times, 
in 13-28 only 7 : its rarity in the Gentile atmosphere is characteristic. It is 
instructive to note the figures for narrative as against speeches and OT quotations. 
Mt has 33 in narrative, 4 in quotations, 24 in speeches ; Mk 0/1/6; Lk 16/1/40; 
Ac (1-12) 4/0 12, Ac (13-28) 1/0/6 ; .In 0/1/3. Add that Hob has 4 OT quotations 
and no other occurrence, and Rev has no less than 26 occurrences. It is 
obvious that it was natural to Hebrews in speech, and to some of them (not 
Mk or Jn) in narrative. Luke in the Palestinian atmosphere (Lk, Ac 1-12) 
employs it freely, whether reproducing his sources or bringing in a trait of 
local character like Shakspere with Fluellen. Hort {Ecdesia, p. 179) says l5ov 
is "a phrase which when writing in his own person and sometimes even in 
speeches [Luke] reserves for sudden and as it were providential interpositions." 
He does not appear to include the Gospel, to which the remark is evidently in- 
applicable, and this fact somewhat weakens its application to Ac 1-12. But 
with this reservation we may accept the independent testimony of Horfs instinct 
to our conclusion that Luke when writing without external influences upon 
him would use l5o<> as a Greek would use it. The same is true of Paul. Let 
me quote in conclusion a curiously close parallel, unfortunately late (iv/v a.d.) 
toLk 13'" : BU 948 (a letter) yiviiiuKeiv iOiXwori direvo ■Kpayfj-aTevrrji on i) fjL-qrrip 
cov aaOcvZ, ei5ou, d^Ka rpls firjves. (See p. 70.) It weakens the case for 
Aramaism (Wellh. 29). 

^ Deissmann, BS 194. IIo/)et/oynot is thus used in 1 Pet 4^ al. 


that the instrumental eV in ev fxaxaipr] (Lk 22^^) and ev pdjBSw 
(1 Co 4^1) was only rescued from the class of "Hebraisms" 
by the publication of the Tchtunis Pajj^jri (1902), which 
presented us with half-a-dozen Ptolemaic citations for it.^ 

A very important distinction must be 
andLexicaf ^^^"^'^ at this point between Semitisms con- 
cerning vocabulary and those which affect 
syntax. The former have occupied us mainly so far, and 
they are the principal subject of Deissmann's work. Gram- 
matical Semitisms are a much more serious matter. We 
might indeed range under this head all sins against native 
Greek style and idiom, such as most NT books will show. 
Co-ordination of clauses with the simple /cai,^ instead of the 
use of participles or subordinate clauses, is a good example. 
It is quite true that a Hebrew would find this style come 
natural to him, and that an Egyptian might be more likely, 
in equal absence of Greek culture, to pile up a series of geni- 
tive absolutes. But in itself the phenomenon proves nothing 
more than would a string of " ands " in an English rustic's 
story — elementary culture, and not the hampering presence 
of a foreign idiom that is being perpetually translated into 
its most literal equivalent. A Semitism which definitely 
contravenes Greek syntax is what we have to watch for. 
We have seen that airb 'Irjaov Xpiarov o jxapTVi o iria-TO'i 
does not come into this category. But Rev 2^^ iv rat? 
rjfiepat^ 'AvTLTra^ 6 fjuuprvi ... 09 direKTavOt] would be a 
glaring example, for it is impossible to conceive of 'AvTL7ra<i 
as an indeclinable. The Hebraist might be supposed to 
argue that the nom. is unchanged because it would be un- 
changed (stat. ahs.) in Hebrew. But no one would seriously 
imagine the text sound : it matters little whether we mend 
it with Lachmann's conjecture 'Avriira or with that of the 
later copyists, who repeat ah after rj/xepat^ and drop 6'?. 
The typical case of iyevero rfkOe will be discussed below ; 

^ Expos. VI. vii. 112 ; cf OR xviii. 153. 

" Cf Hawkins HS 120 f., on the frtquency of Kal in Mk. Tluinili observes 
that /cat in place of hypotaxis is found in MGr— and in Aristotle {Hdlenismus 
129) : here even Viteau gives way. So rjpOe Kaipbs kC dppioa-TT]aei' (Abbott 70). 
The simple parataxis of Mk 15^^, Jn 4^^ uss^ js illustrated by the uneducated 
document Par P 18, ^ri 5i;o -q/iipas ixott-^v xai cpdaaofMev eis IiT]\ov<n. 


and in the course of our enquiry we shall dispose of others, 
like '^9 TO dvjdrptov avTrj'i (Mk 1-^), which we now find occur- 
ring in Greek that is beyond suspicion of Semitic influences. 

There remain Semitisms due to translation, from the 
Hebrew of the OT, or from Aramaic " sources " underlying- 
parts of the Synoptists and Acts. The former case covers 

all the usages which have been supposed 
Translation ,  e ^■x. ^ i •  

Greek arise from over-literal rendering in the 

LXX, the constant reading of which by Hel- 
lenist Jews has unconsciously affected their Greek. Here 
of course we have abnormal Greek produced by the effort of 
Greek-speaking men to translate the already obsolete and 
imperfectly understood Hebrew. When the Hebrew puzzled 
them, they would take refuge in a barbarous literalness, like 
a schoolboy translating Vergil. It was ignorance of riN, not 
ignorance of avv, which was responsible for Aquila's iv 
KecjitiXaiM eKTcaev 6 ^eo? avv rov ovpavov Kal avv ttjv yrjv. 
It is not antecedently probable that such " translation 
Greek" would influence free Greek except by supplying 
phrases for conscious or unconscious quotation : these phrases 
would not become models to be followed by men who wrote 
the language as their own. How far such foreign idioms 
may get into a language, we may see by examining our own. 
We have a few foreign phrases which have been literally 
translated into English, and have maintained their place 
without consciousness of their origin : " that goes without 
saying," or " this gives furiously to think," will serve as 
examples. Many more are retained as conscious quotations, 
with no effort to assimilate them to English idiom. " To return 
to our muttons " illustrates one kind of these barbarisms ; but 
there are Biblical phrases taken over in a similar way without 
sacrificing their unidiomatic form. We must notice, however, 
that such phrases are sterile: we have only to imagine 
another verb put for sai/ing in our version of Cela va sans dire 
to see how entirely such an importation fails to influence 
the syntax of our language. 

The general discussion of this important 

^^^l\T ^" subject may be clinclied with an enquiry into 

the diction of Luke, whose varieties of style in 

the different parts of his work form a particularly interesting 


and important problem.^ I restrict myself to grammatical 
Hebraisms mainly, but it will be useful to recall Dalman's 
list (Words 20 ff.) to see how far Luke is concerned in it. 
He gives as pure Aramaisms (a) the supertluous a(/)et? or 
KaTaXtircov and rjp^aro, as more Aramaic than Hebrew the 
use of elvaL with participle as a narrative tense. Either 
Aramaic or Hebrew will account for (b) the superfluous 
iXOoiv, Kadiaa'i, eo-T&)9, and dvaard<i or eyepdei'i. Pure 
Hebraisms are (c) the periphrases with Trpoawitov, the use 
of eV Tft) with infinitive, — but this is found in classical 
historians, in Polybius - and in papyri, and therefore cannot 
fairly be reckoned, — the types aKofj uKovaere and ^Xe7rovT€<; 
IBXeylrere (see below, pp. 75 f.), and the formulae /cat eyevero, 
iXdXrjaev XuXmv and aTroKfjideU eiTrev.^ In class (a), we find 

1 In a-ssumhig the unity of the two books ad Theophihim, I am quite 
content to shield myself beliiud Blass. To be a great "philologist" is 
apparently as sure a guarantee of incompetence as to be an "apologist," to 
judge from Jalicher's lofty scorn. But common sense suggests that on the 
integrity of a Greek book the somewhat narrow training of the professional NT 
critic cannot compare with the equipment of a master in criticism over the 
whole range of Greek literature. 

2 See Kiilker 253, and below, p. 215. Add Par P 63 (ii/B.c.) n's yap ourm 
iarlv d.vd\yT]T(i}i ev rqi Xoyl^eadai Kal Trpd.y,uaTos oiatpopav (vpciv, Ss ouS' avrb tovto 
dw-naeraL (jvvvoelv ; It is of course the frequency of this locution that is due to 
Semitic thought : cf what is said of t'Soi^, above, p. 11. 

^ See Wellh. 16. To class (c) I may append a note on e/s a-rravT-qaiv , 
which in Mt 27^- (5-text) and 1 Th 4" takes a genitive. This is of course a 
very literal translation of n.s'-ipb, which is given by HE as its original in 29 
places, as against 16 with dative. (Variants avvav., viravr., and others are 
often occurring : I count all places where one of the primary authorities has 
eh air. with gen. or dat. representing '''?. In addition there are a few places 
where the phrase answers to a different original ; also 1 ex. with gen. and 
3 with dat. from the Apocrypha.) Luke (Ac 28*') uses it with dat., and in 
Mt 25*^ it appears absolutely, as once in LXX (1 Sa 13'^). Now this last may 
be directly paralleled in a Ptolemaic papyrus which certainly has no Semitism 
— Tb P 43 (ii/B.c.) irapey€vf}drifj.ev els airduTriaiv (a newly arriving magistrate). 
In BU 362 (215 A.D.) Trpbs [oyiravrrjl^aLv Tov]i]y€/x6pos has the very gen. we want. 
One of Strack's Ptolemaic inscriptions (Archiv iii. 129) has iV elSiji fjv ^axv^^v 
TTpbs avTou T) ■wtiXi's evxdpicTTov aTrdurrjaiv. It seems tliat the special idea of the 
word was the official welcome of a newly arrived dignitary — an idea singularly 
in place in the NT exx. The case after it is entirely consistent with Greek 
idiom, the gen. as in our "to his inauguration," the dat. as the case governed 
by the verb. If in the LXX the use has been extended, it is only because it 
seemed so literal a translation of the Hebrew. Note that in 1 Th I.e. the 
authorities of the o-text read the dat., which is I suspect better Greek. (What 
has been said applies also to eis viravT-rjcriv avrQ, as in Mt S^'*, Jn 12^^ : the two 
words seem synonymous). See also p. 242. 


Luke unconcerned with the first case. The third we must 
return to (see pp. 225 If.): suffice to say n^vv that it has its 
roots in classical Greek, and is at most only a more lil)eral use 
of what is correct enough, if less common, pjut rjp^aro laises 
an interesting question. In Lk Z^ we find koI fj,i] ap^ijade 
XeyeLv iv eavTot<;. Dalman (p. 27) shows that in narrative 
" the Palestinian-Jewish literature uses the meaninirless ' he 
began,' " a conventional locution which was evidently parallel 
with our Middle-English auxiliary gan. It is very common 
in the Synoptists, and occurs twice as often in Luke as in 
Mattliew. Dalman thinks that if this Aramaic ''']f with 
participle had become practically meaningless, we might well 
find the same use in direct speech, though no example 
happens to be known. Now in the otherwise verbally 
identical verse Mt 3^ we find S6^i]Te for ap^Tjade, " do not 
presume to say," which is thoroughly idiomatic Greek, and 
manifestly a deliberate improvement of an original preserved 
more exactly by Luke.^ It seems to follow that this original 
was a Greek translation of the Aramaic %m-document, used 
in common by both Evangelists, but with greater freedom by 
the first. If Luke was ignorant of Aramaic,- he would be 
led by his keen desire for accuracy to incorporate with a 
minimum of change translations he was able to secure, even 
when they were execvited by men whose Greek was not very 
idiomatic. This conclusion, which is in harmony with our 
general impressions of his methods of using his sources, 
seems to me much more probable than to suppose that it was 
he who misread Aramaic words in the manner illustrated 
by Nestle on Lk 11*^ *• (Exjy T xv. 528): we may just as 
well accuse the (oral or written) translation he employed. 

Passing on to Dalman's (l) class, in which Luke is con- 
cerned equally with the other Synoptists, we may observe that 
only a very free translation would drop these pleonasms. In 
a sense they are " meaningless," just as the first verb is in " He 
went and did it all the same," or " He got tip and went out," 
or (purposely to take a parallel from the vernacular) " So he 

^ But see E. Norden, Antil-e Kvnstjjrosa ii. 4S7. 

-Luke "probably did not understand Aramaic," says Jiilicher, Introd. 
359. That Dalman ( JVcn-ds 38-41) holds this view, is almost decisive. 


ups and says." But however little additional information 
they may add — and for us at least the " stand praying " is 
not a supertluous touch — they add a distinct nuance to the 
whole phrase, which Luke was not likely to sacrifice when he 
met it in his translation or heard it from the avToirrai whose 
story he was jotting down. The same may be said of the 
pleonastic phrases which begin and end Dalman's list of 
"pure Hebraisms." In this class (c) therefore there remains 
only the construction with Kal iyevero, answering to the 
narrative ^7^5, which is (strangely enough) almost peculiar to 
Luke in the NT. There are three constructions : — (a) eyevero 
rjXde, (b) eyevero Kal rfkde, (c) iyevero (avrov) eXOelv} The 
occurrences of these respectively are for Lk 22/11/5, for 
Ac 0/0/17.^ It may be added that the construction occurs 
almost always with a time clause (generally with iv) : in Lk 
there is only one exception, 16^-. The phrase was clearly 
therefore temporal originally, like our " It was in the days 
of . . . that . . ." (This is (c), but we could use the 
paratactic (a) form, or even (b), without transgressing our 
idiom.) Driver (Tenses, § 78) describes the ""ni!! construction 
as occurring when there is inserted " a clause specifying the 
circumstances under which an action takes place," — a descrip- 
tion which will suit the Lucan usage everywhere, except 
sometimes in the (c) class (as 16"), the only one of the three 
which has no Hebrew parallel. We must infer that the 
LXX translators used this locution as a just tolerable Greek 
which literally represented the original f and that Lk (and 
to a minute extent Mt and Mk) deliberately recalled the 
Greek OT by using the phrase. The (a) form is used else- 
where in the NT twice in Mk and five times in Mt, only 
in the phrase eyevero ore ireXeaev ktX. Mt 9^** has (b) and 
Mk 223 has (c). There are (a) forms with eVrat Ac 2i7-2i 323^ 
Rom 92^ (all OT citations) ; and (c) forms with ylveTai Mk 2^^, 

^ Once (Ac 10-^), iy^veTo toO elaeXde?!' rhv Ilirpov. 

- Blass cites Ac 4^ D for (a), aud linds {b) in H''. Certainly the latter sentence 
may be thus construed (see below, p. 70); nor is it a fatal objection that the 
construction is otherwise isolated in Ac. See p. 233. 

" W. F. Moulton (\VM 760 n.) gives a number of LXX exx. for the («) aud (b) 
forms : the only approach to the (c) form is 2 Mac 3^^, ^v . . . optjvra . . . 


eav jev')]Tac Mt 18^^, and otto)? /a); yei^tjTat Ac 20^^ Now 
in what sense is any of this to be called " Hebraism " ? It is 
obvious that (b) is a literal translation of the Hebrew, while 
it is at least grammatical as Greek, however unidiomatic. 
Its retention to a limited extent in Lk (with a single 
doubtful case in Ac), and absence elsewhere in NT (except 
for Mt 9^°, which is affected by the author's love for koI 
l8ov), are best interpreted as meaning that in free Greek 
it was rather an experiment, other constructions being 
preferred even by a writer who set himself to copy the 
LXX style. At first sight (a) would seem worse Greek still, 
but we must note that it is apparently known in MGr : cf 
Pallis's version of Mt 11^, Kal avve^7]Ke, aav TeKiwae . . ., 
€(})vye . . ., etc. We cannot suppose that this is an inva- 
sion of Biblical Greek, any more than our own idiomatic 
" It happened I was at home that day." ^ What then of (c), 
which is characteristic of Luke, and adopted by him in Ac as 
an exclusive substitute for the other two ? It starts from 
Greek vernacular, beyond doubt. The normal Greek awe^r) 
still takes what represents the ace. ct inf. : avve^ri on rjpde 
is idiomatic in modern Athenian speech, against hv)(e va 
eXOrj which, I am told, is commoner in the country districts. 
But eav ryevrjrai with inf. was good contemporary vernacular: 
see AP 135, BM 970, and Paj). Catt. (in ArcUv iii. 60) — all 
ii/A.D. So was jiverat (as Mk 2^^) : cf Par P 49 (ii/B.c.) jiveTai 
jap ivTpaiTrfvaL. From this to ejevero is but a step, which 
Luke alone of NT writers seems to have taken : - the isolated 
ex. in Mk 2^^ is perhaps a primitive assimilation to Lk 6^^ 

^ Cf Thumb's remarks on this criterion of genuineness in vernacular 
suspected of Hebraism : " What appears Hebraism or Aramaism in the Bible 
must count as Greek if it shows itself as a natural development in the MGr 
vernacular" {Hellcnismus 123). 

2 An interesting suggestion is made by Prof. B. W. Bacon in Expos., April 
1905, p. 174 n., who thinks that the "Semitism" may be taken over from the 
"Gospel according to the Hebrews." The secondary character of this Gospel, 
as judged from the extant fragments, has been sufficiently proved liy Dr 
Adeuey [Hihbert Jounud, iii. pp. 139 ff.); but this does not prevent our positing 
m earlier and purer form as one of Luke's sources. Bacon's quotation for this 
is after the (a) form : ^'Factum est autem, cum ascendisset • . ., dcscendil ..." 
(No. 4 in Preuschen's collection, Antilcgomcna, p. 4). The [a] form occurs in 
frag. 2 of the "Ebionite Gospel " (Preuschen, p. 9). 

■* Uapairopevea-dai (XALA al) may be a relic of Mk's original text. 



By this time we have perhaps dealt suf- 
°" . . ticiently with the principles involved, and may 

leave details of alleged Semitisras to their 
proper places in the grammar. We have seen that the 
problem is only complicated in the Lucan writings : else- 
where we have either pure vernacular or vernacular tempered 
with " translation Greek." In Luke, the only NT writer 
except the author of Heb to show any conscious attention to 
Greek ideas of style, we find (1) rough Greek translations 
from Aramaic left mainly as they reached him, perhaps 
because their very roughness seemed too characteristic to be 
refined away ; and (2) a very limited imitation of the LXX 
idiom, as specially appropriate while the story moves in the 
Jewish world. The conscious adaptation of his own style to 
that of sacred writings long current among his readers reminds 
us of the rule which restricted our nineteenth century Biblical 
Revisers to the English of the Elizabethan age. 

On the whole question. Thumb (p. 122) quotes with 
approval Deissmann's dictum that " Semitisms which are in 
common use belong mostly to the technical language of reli- 
gion," like that of our sermons and Sunday magazines. Such 
Semitisms " alter the scientific description of the language 
as little as did a few Latinisms, or other booty from the 
victorious march of Greek over the world around the Medi- 
terranean." ^ In summing up thus the issue of the long strife 
over NT Hebraisms, we fully apprehend the danger of going 
too far. Semitic thought, whose native literary dress was 
necessarily foreign to the Hellenic genius, was bound to 
fall sometimes into un-Hellenic language as well as style. 
Moreover, if Deissmann has brought us a long way, we must 
not forget the complementary researches of Dalman, which 
have opened up a new world of possibilities in the scientific 
reconstruction of Aramaic originals, and have warned us of 
the importance of distinguishing very carefully between 
Semitisms from two widely different sources. What we 
can assert with assurance is that the papyri have finally 
destroyed the figment of a NT Greek which in any 
material respect differed from that spoken by ordinary 

* Art. Hcllenistisches Griechisch, in EE^ vii. p. 638. 


people in daily life tliroughout the Eoman world. If the 
natural objection is raised that there have lieen dialectic 
variation where people of very different races, scattered over 
an immense area, were learning the world language, and that 
" Jewish-Greek " is thus made an a iwiori certainty, we can 
meet the difficulty with a curiously complete modern parallel. 
Our own language is to-day spoken over a far vaster area ; 
and we have only to ask to what extent dialect difference 
affects the modern Weltsiirache. We find that pronuncia- 
tion and vocabulary exhaust between them nearly all the 
phenomena we could catalogue. Englishman, Scotchman, 
American, Colonial, granted a tolerable primary education, 
can interchange familiar letters without betraying except in 
trifles the dialect of their daily speech." This fact should 
help us to realise how few local peculiarities can be expected 
to show themselves at such an interval in a language known 
to us solely from writing. We may add that a highly 
educated speaker of standard English, recognisable by his 
intonation as hailing from London, Edinburgh, or New York, 
can no longer thus be recognised when his words are written 
down. The comparison will help us to realise the impression 
made by the traveller Paul. [" See p. 243. 

There is one general consideration which 
diction' must detain us a little at the close of 
this introductory chapter. Those who have 
studied some recent work upon Hellenistic Greek, such as 
Blass's brilliant Grammar of NT Greek, will probably be led 
to feel that modern methods result in a considerable levelling 
of distinctions, grammatical and lexical, on which the exegesis 
of the past has laid great stress. It seems necessary there- 
fore at the outset to put in a plea for caution, lest an 
exaggerated view should be taken of the extent to which 
our new lights alter our conceptions of the NT language and 
its interpretation. We have been showing that the NT 
writers used the language of their time. But that does not 
mean that they had not in a very real sense a language of 
their own. Specific examples in which we feel bound to assert 
this for them will come up from time to time in our inquiry. 
Tn the light of the papyri and of MGr we are compelled to 
give up some grammatical scruples which figure largely in 


great commentators like Westcott, and colour many passages 
of the EV. But it does not follow that we must promptly 
obliterate every grammatical distinction that proves to have 
been unfamiliar to the daily conversation of the first century 
Egyptian farmer. We are in no danger now of reviving 
Hatch's idea that phrases which could translate the same 
Hebrew must be equivalent to one another. The papyri have 
slain this very Euclid-like axiom, but they must not enslave ua 
to others as dangerous. The NT must still be studied largely 
by light drawn from itself. Books written on the same subject 
and within the same circle must always gather some amount 
of identical style or idiom, a kind of technical terminology, 
which may often preserve a usage of earlier language, obso- 
lescent because not needed in more slovenly colloquial speech 
of the same time. The various conservatisms of our own 
religious dialect, even on the lips of uneducated people, may 
serve as a parallel up to a certain point. The comparative 
correctness and dignity of speech to which an unlettered man 
will rise in prayer, is a very familiar phenomenon, lending 
strong support to the expectation that even a<ypdfiixaTot would 
instinctively rise above their usual level of exactness in 
expression, when dealing with such high themes as those 
which fill the NT. We are justified by these considerations 
in examining each NT writer's language first by itself, and 
then in connexion with that of his fellow-contributors to the 
sacred volume ; and we may allow ourselves to retain the 
original force of distinctions which were dying or dead in 
every-day parlance, when there is a sufficient body of internal 
evidence. Of course we shall not be tempted to use this 
argument when the whole of our evidence denies a particular 
survival to Hellenistic vernacular : in such a case we could 
only find the locution as a definite literary revival, rarely 
possible in Luke and the writer to the Hebrews, and just 
conceivable in Paul. 

It seems hardly worth while to discuss 

Latinisms ^" ^ general way the supposition that Latin 

has influenced the Koivr] of the NT. In the 

borrowing of Latin words of course we can see activity 

enough, and there are even phrases literally translated, like 

Xa^elv TO Uavov Ac 17^; irotetv to i Mk 15^^ (as early as 


Polybius); /ierA TroWaf ravTa^i 7)/iepa<i Ac 1^, etc. But 
grammar we must regard as anotlier matter, in spite of such 
collections as Buttmann's (see his Index, s.v. Latinisms) or 
Tliayer's (Hastings' DB iii. 40). It will suffice to refer to 
Prof. Thumb's judgement {Hellenismns 152 f!'.). Romans writ- 
ing Greek might be expected to have difficulties for example 
with the article ^ — as I have noticed in the English ef'lbrts 
of Japanese boys at school in this country ; but even of this 
there seems to be no very decisive proof. And though the 
bulk of the NT comes to us from authors with Roman names, 
no one will care to assert that Latin was the native language 
of Paul ^ or Luke or Mark. Apart from lexical matters, we 
may be content with a general negative. " Of any efl'ective 
grammatical influence [of Latin] upon Greek there can be no 
question : at any rate I know nothing which could be 
instanced to this effect with any probability." So says Dr 
Thumb, and the justification of his decision in each alleged 
example may be safely left till the cases arise. It should 
of course be noted that Prof. Blass (p. 4) is rather more 
disposed to admit Latinisms in syntax. Greek and Latin 
were so constantly in contact throughout the history of the 
Kotvr'], that the question of Latinisms in Greek or Graecisms 
in Latin must always lie outside the range of really decisive 
answer : ^ our decision will turn largely on general impressions 
of the genius of each language, and for this point the specialist 
in KoLU7] Greek seems better qualified than the specialist in 
the classical language. 

1 Foreigners sometimes did find the article a .stainlJing-block : witness the 
long inscription of Antiochus i of Commageue, OGlii 383 (i/is.c.)— see Ditten- 
berger's notes on p. 596 (vol. i.). 

" This does not involve denying that Paul could speak Latin : see the 
additional note to p. 7 (p. 233 below). 

3 How inextricably bound together were the fortunes of Greek and Latin in 
the centuries following our era, is well shown in W. Schulze's pamphlet, Gmcca 
Latina. He does not, I think, jirove any real action of Latiu on Greek early 
enough to affect the NT, except lor some mere trifles. 


History of the " Common " Greek. 

We proceed to examine the nature and 
history of the vernacular Greek itself. This 
is a study which has almost come into existence in the 
present generation. Classical scholars have studied the 
Hellenistic literature for the sake of its matter : its language 
was seldom considered worth noticing, except to chronicle 
contemptuously its deviations from " good Greek." In so 
suffering, perhaps the authors only received the treatment 
they deserved ; for to write Attic was the object of them all, 
pursued doubtless with varying degrees of zeal, but in all 
cases removing them far from the language they used in 
daily life. The pure study of the vernacular was hardly 
possible, for the Biblical Greek was interpreted on lines of 
its own, and the papyri were mostly reposing in their Egyptian 
tombs, the collections that were published receiving but little 
attention. (Cf above, p. 7 n.) Equally unknown was the 
scientific study of modern Greek. To this day, even great 
philologists like Hatzidakis decry as a mere patois, utterly 
unfit for literary use, the living language upon whose history 
they have spent their lives. The translation of the Gospels 
into the Greek which descends directly from their original 
idiom, is treated as sacrilege by the devotees of a "literary" 
dialect which, in point of fact, no one ever spoke ! It is 
left to foreigners to recognise the value of Pallis's version 
for students who seek to understand NT Greek in the light 
of the continuous development of the language from the age 
of Alexander to our own time. See p. 243. 

As has been hinted in the preceding 

paragraph, the materials for our present-day 

study of NT Greek are threefold: — (1) the prose literature 


of the post-classical period, from Polybius down, and includ- 
ing the LXX ; (2) the Koip/] inscriptions, and tlie Plgyptian 
non-literary papyri; (3) modern vernacular Greek, with 
especial reference to its dialectic variations, so far as these 
are at present registered. Before we discuss the part which 
each of these must play in our investigations, it will be 
necessary to ask what was the Koivi] and how it arose. 
We should premise that we use the name here as a convenient 
term for the spoken dialect of the period under review, using 
" literary Kolvi] " and similar terms when the dialect of 
Polybius, Josephus, and the rest, is referred to. Whether this 
is the ancient use of the name we need not stay to examine f 
the curious will find a paper on the subject by Prof. 
Jannaris in CE xvii. 93 ff., which may perhaps prove that he 
and we have misused the ancient grammarians' phraseology. 
Ou (ppovrh 'iTTTTOKXeiSr]. ["Seep. 243. 

Greek and its ^^® history, geography, and etlinology 

Dialects ^^ Hellas are jointly responsible for the 
remarkable phenomena which even the 
literature of the classical period presents. The very school- 
boy in his first two or three years at Greek has to realise 
that " Greek " is anything but a unity. He has not thumbed 
the Anabasis long before the merciful pedagogue takes him 
on to Homer, and his painfully acquired irregular verbs de- 
mand a great extension of their limits. When he develops 
into a Tripos candidate, he knows well that Homer, Pindar, 
Sappho, Herodotus and Aristotle are all of them in their 
several ways defiant of the Attic grammar to which his own 
composition must conform. And if his studies ultimately 
invade the dialect inscriptions,^ he finds in Ehs and Heraclea, 
Lacedaemon and Thebes, Crete ^ and Cyprus, forms of Greek 
for which his literature has almost entirely failed to prepare 
him. Yet the Theban who said Fltto) Aev<; and the 
Athenian with his laro) Zem lived in towns exactly as far 
apart as Liverpool and Manchester ! The bewildering variety 
of dialects within that little country arises partly from racial 

1 An extremely convenient little selection of dialect inscriptions is now 
available in the Teubner series : — Inscriptiones Graecae ad inlustrandas Dialectoa 
seledae, by Felix Solmsen. The book has less than 100 pp., but its contents 
might be relied on to perplex very tolerable scholars ! ^ See p. 233. 


differences. Upon the indigenous population, represented 

best (it would seem) by the Athenians of history, swept first 

from Northern Europe ^ the hordes of Homer's Acha^ans, and 

then, in post-Homeric days, the Dorian invaders. Dialectic 

conditions were as inevitably complex as they became in our 

own country a thousand years ago, when successive waves 

of Germanic invaders, of different tribes and dialects, had 

settled in the several parts of an island in which a Keltic 

population still maintained itself to greater or less extent. 

Had the Norman Conquest come before the Saxon, which 

determined the language of the country, the parallel would 

have been singularly complete. The conditions which in 

England were largely supplied by distance, were supplied in 

Greece by the mountain barriers which so effectively cut 

off each little State from regular communication with its 

neighbours — an effect and a cause at once of the passion for 

autonomy which made of Hellas a heptarchy of heptarchies. 

. , „ , Meanwhile, a steady process was going 

Survival of the u- -i ^ ^ • a a u ^^ if 

Fittest °^ whicfi determined finally the character 

of literary Greek. Sparta might win the 
hegemony of Greece at Aegospotami, and Thebes wrest it 
from her at Leuktra. But Sparta could not produce a 
man of letters, — Alkman (who was not a Spartan !) will 
serve as the exception that proves the rule ; and Pindar, 
the lonely " Theban eagle," knew better than to try poetic 
flights in Boeotian. The intellectual supremacy of Athens 
was beyond challenge long before the political unification of 
Greece was accomplished ; and Attic was firmly established 
as the only possible dialect for prose composition. The 
post- classical writers wrote Attic according to their lights, 
tempered generally with a plentiful admixture of gram- 
matical and lexical elements drawn from the vernacular, 
for which tliey had too hearty a contempt even to give it 
a name. Strenuous efforts were made by precisians to 
improve the Attic quality of this artificial literary dialect ; 
and we still possess the works of Atticists who cry out 

^ I am assuming as proved tlio thesis of Prof. Ridgeway's Early Age 
of Greece, which seems to me a key that will imlock many problems of 
Greek history, religion, and language. Of course adhue sub iudice lis est ; 
and with Prof. Thumb on the other side I sliould be sorry to dogmatise. 


against the " bad Greek " aiul " solecisms " of their con- 
temporaries, thus incidentally providing us with information 
concerning a Greek which interests us more than the artificial 
Attic they prized so highly. All their scrupulousness did 
not however prevent their deviating from Attic in matters 
more important than vocabulary. The optative in Lucian 
is perpetually misused, and no Atticist successfully attempts 
to reproduce the ancient use of ov and fii] with the participle. 
Those writers who are less particular in their purism write 
in a literary Koivr'] which admits without difliculty many 
features of various origin, while generally recalling Attic. 
No doubt the influence of Thucydides encouraged this 
freedom. The true Attic, as spoken by educated people in 
Athens, was hardly used in literature before iv/B.c. ; ^ 
while the Ionic dialect had largely influenced the some- 
what artificial idiom which the older writers at Athens 
used. It was not strange therefore that the standard for 
most of the post-classical writers should go back, for 
instance, to the Trpdaaai of Thucydides rather than the 
TrpaTTQ} of Plato and Demosthenes. 

, Such, then, was the " Common Greek " 

of literature, from which we have still to 
derive our illustrations for the NT to a very large extent. 
Any lexicon will show how important for our purpose is 
the vocabulary of the Koim] writers, from Polybius down. 
And even the most rigid Atticists found themselves unable 
to avoid words and usages which Plato would not have 
recognised. But side by side with this was a fondness for 
obsolete words with literary associations. Take vav^;, for 
example, which is freely found in Aelian, Josephus, and 
other Koivi] writers. It does not appear in the indices 
of eight volumes of Grenfell and Hunt's papyri — except 
where literary fragments come in, — nor in those to vol. iii 
of the Berlin collection and the small volume from Chicago. 
(I am naming all the collections that I happen to have by 
me.) We turn to the NT and find it once, and that is 

^ Scliwyzer, Die Weltsprachcn des AUerhims, p. 15 n., cites as the earliest 
extant prose monument of genuine Attic in literature, tlie pseudo-Xenophoii's 
De repuhlica Atheniensi, which dates from before 413 c.c. 


in Luke's shipwreck narrative, in a plirase which Blass 
{Philology 186) suspects to be a rcmiuiscence of Homer. 
In style and syntax the literary Common Greek diverges 
more widely from the colloquial. The bearing of all this 
on the subject of our study will come out frequently in the 
course of our investigations. Here it will suffice to refer 
to Blass, p. 5, for an interesting summary of phenomena 
which are practically restricted to the author of Heb, and 
to parts of Luke and Paul,^ where sundry lexical and 
grammatical elements from the literary dialect invade the 
colloquial style which is elsewhere universal in the NT. 

The writers who figure in Dr W. 
"Attic" Schmid's well-known book, Dcr Atticismus, 
were not the last to found a literary lan- 
guage on the artificial resuscitation of the ancient Attic. 
Essentially the same thing is being tried in our time. 
"The purists of to-day," says Thumb (Hellenismns 180), 
"are like the old Atticists to a hair." Their " mummy- 
language," as Krumbacher calls it, will not stand the test 
of use in poetry ; but in prose literature, in newspapers, 
and in Biblical translation, it has the dominion, which is 
vindicated by Athenian undergraduates with bloodshed 
if need be.- We have nothing to do with this curious 
phenomenon, except to warn students that before citing MGr 
in illustration of the NT, tliey must make sure whether 
their source is Kadapevovaa or ofitXovfxevT}, book Greek or 
spoken Greek. The former may of course have borrowed 
from ancient or modern sources — for it is a medley far 
more mixed than we should get by compounding together 
Cynewulf and Kipling — the particular feature for which it 
is cited. But it obviously cannot stand in any line of his- 
torical development, and it is just as valuable as Volaptik to 

^ In quoting Blass here, we do not accept unreservedly his opinion that 
Luke (Ac 20-") misused the literary word d(pL^is. The Kolvt) passages cited 
in Grinim-Thayer are at any rate ambiguous, and the misunderstanding of the 
d7r6 may have been no peculiarity of Luke's. There is also the suggestion that 
Paul meant "after my arrival, home-coming." For literary elements in NT 
writers, see especially E. Norden, Antike Kunsiprosa ii. 482 ff. 

- See Krumbacher's vigorous polemic, Das Problem d. li.eugr. Schri/tsprache, 
summarised by the present writer in Exp T xiv. 550 ff. Hatzidakis replies witli 
equal energy in REGr, 1903, pp. 210 ff., and further in an 'ATrdcTTjcrij (1905). 


the student of linguistic evolution. The popular patois, on 
the other hand, is a living language, and we shall soon see 
that it takes a very important part in the discussions on 
which we are entering. 

We pass on then to the spoken dialect 

Koii/ii : Sources. °^ ^^® ^^"^^ century Hellenists, its history 
and its peculiarities. Our sources are, in 
order of importance, (1) non-literary papyri, (2) inscriptions, 
(3) modern vernacular Greek. The literary sources are 
almost confined to the Biblical Greek. A few general words 
may be said on these sources, before we examine the origin of 
the Greek which they embody. 

- p . The papyri have one very obvious dis- 

advantage, in that, with the not very import- 
ant exception of Herculaneum,^ their provenance is limited 
to one country, Egypt. We shall see, however, that the 
disadvantage does not practically count. They date from 
iii/B.c. to vii/A.D. The monuments of the earliest period 
are fairly abundant, and they give us specimens of the spoken 
KoLvrj from a time when the dialect was still a novelty. 
The papyri, to be sure, are not to be treated as a unity. 
Those which alone concern us come from the tombs and waste 
paper heaps of Ptolemaic and Eoman Egypt ; and their style 
has the same degree of unity as we should see in the contents 
of the sacks of waste paper sent to an English paper-mill 
from a solicitor's office, a farm, a school, a shop, a manse, and 
a house in Downing Street. Each contribution has to be 
considered separately. Wills, law-reports, contracts, census- 
returns, marriage - settlements, receipts and ofiicial orders 
largely ran along stereotyped lines; and, as formulse tend 
to be permanent, we have a degree of conservatism in the 
language which is not seen in documents free from these 
trammels. Petitions contain this element in greater or less 
extent, but naturally show more freedom in the recitation of 
the particular grievances for which redress is claimed. 
Private letters are our most valuable sources; and they 
are all the better for the immense differences that betniy 

1 On these see the monumental work of W. Cronei t, Memoria Graeca Her- 
culanensis (Teubner, 1903). 


themselves in the education of their writers. The well-worn 

epistolary formuhe show variety mostly in their spelling ; and 

their value for the student lies primarily in their rouiarkable 

resemblances to the conventional phraseology which even the 

NT letter-writers were content to use.^ That part of the 

letter which is free from formuhe is perhaps most instructive 

when its grammar is weakest, for it shows which way the 

language was tending. Few papyri are more suggestive than 

the letter of the lower-school-boy to his father, OP 119 

(ii/iii A.D.). It would have surprised Theon pere, when he 

applied the well-merited cane, to learn that seventeen centuries 

afterwards there might be scholars who would count his boy's 

audacious missive greater treasure than a new fragment of 

Sappho ! But this is by the way. It must not be inferred 

from our laudation of the ungrammatical papyri that the 

NT writers are at all comparable to these scribes in lack of 

education. The indifference to concord, which we noted 

in Eev, is almost isolated in this connexion. But the 

illiterates show us by their exaggerations the tendencies 

which the better schooled writers keep in restraint. AVith 

writings from farmers and from emperors, and everj^ class 

between, we can form a kind of " grammatometer " by which 

to estimate how the language stands in the development of 

any particular use we may wish to investigate. 

,„, ^ . ^. Inscriptions come second to papyri, in 

(2) Inscriptions. ^, . ^ .  . . K • 

this connexion, mainly because their very 

material shows that they were meant to last. Their Greek 
may not be of the purest ; but we see it, such as it is, in its best 
clothes, while that of the papyri is in corduroys. The special 
value of the Common Greek inscriptions lies in their corroborat- 
ing the papyri, for they practically show that there was but 
little dialectic difference between the Greek of Egypt and that of 
Asia Minor, Italy, and Syria. There would probably be varieties 
of pronunciation, and we have evidence that districts differed 
in their preferences among sundry equivalent locutions ; but 
a speaker of Greek would be understood without the slightest 
difficulty wherever he went throughout the immense area 

^ On this point see Deissmann, BS 21 ff'. ; J. R. Harris, in Expos, v. viii. 
Ifil ir. ; G. G. Findlay, Thess. {CUT), Ixi. ; Robinson, Eph. 275-284. 


over which the Greek world-speech reigned. With the caveat 
already implied, that inscription-Greek may contain literary 
elements which are absent from an nnstudied private letter, 
we may use without misgiving the immense and ever-growing 
collections of later Greek epigraphy. How much may be 
made of them is well seen in the Frcisschri/t of Dr E. 
Schwyzer,^ GrammatiJc dcr rergamenischcn Inschriftcn, an 
invaluable guide to the accidence of the Koivrj. (It has been 
followed up by E. Nachmanson in his Laute tmd Formen der 
Magnetischen Inschriftcn (1903), which does the same work, 
section by section, for the corpus from Magnesia.) Next to 
the papyrus collections, there is no tool the student of the 
NT Koivrj will find so useful as a book of late inscriptions, 
such as Dittenberger's new Oricntis Graeci Insci'iptiones 

^ Finally we have MGr to bring in. The 

Greek discovery that the vernacular of to-day goes 

back historically to the Koivi] was made in 
1834 by Heilmaier, in a book on the origin of the 
" Eoraaic." This discovery once established, it became clear 
that we could work back from MGr to reconstruct the 
otherwise imperfectly known oral Greek of the Hellenistic 
age.^ It is however only in the last generation that the 
importance of this method has been adequately recognised. 
We had not indeed till recently acquired trustworthy materials. 
Mullach's grammar, upon which the editor of Winer had to 
depend for one of the most fruitful innovations of his work,* 
started from wrong premisses as to the relation between the 
old language and the new.^ We have now, in such books 

1 He was Schweizer in 1898, when this book was published, but lias changed 
since, to our confusion. He has edited Meisteihantj' Grammalik der attischcn 
Inschriftcn^, and written the interesting lecture on Die IFcltsprache named 

^ The appearance of vol. ii. has made it many times more valuable by 
the provision of a word-index, and an excellent conspectus of grammatical 

^ I cite from Kretschmer, Die Entstchunrj der YLoivii, p. 4. 

* Cf WM index s.v. "Greek (modern)," p. 821. 

^ Cf Krumbacher in A'^^' xxvii. 488. Krumbacher uses the epithet "dilet- 
tante" about Mullach, ib. p. 497, but rather (I fancy) for his theories than his 
facts. After all, Mullach came too earl}' to be blameworthy for his unscientific 


as Thumb's Handhuch der neugriechischcn Volkssjirache and 
Hatzidakis's Einleitung in die neugricchische Grammatik, the 
means of checking not a few statements about MGr which were 
really based on the artificial Greek of the schools. The per- 
petual references to the NT in the latter work will indicate 
forcibly how many of the developments of modern vernacular 
had their roots in that of two thousand years ago. The 
gulf between the ancient and the modern is bridged by the 
material collected and arranged by Jannaris in his Historical 
Greek Grammar. The study of a Gospel in the vernacular 
version of Pallis^ will at first produce the impression that 
the gulf is very wide indeed ; but the strong points of con- 
tact will become very evident in time. Hatzidakis indeed 
even goes so far as to assert that " the language generally 
spoken to-day in the towns differs less from the common 
language of Polyljius than this last differs from the language 
of Homer." 2 

We are now ready to enquire how this 
the K ' Common Greek of the NT rose out of the 
classical language. Some features of its 
development are undoubted, and may be noted first. The 
impulse which produced it lay, beyond question, in the work 
of Alexander the Great. The unification of Hellas was a 
necessary first step in the accomplishment of his dream of 
Hellenising the world which he had marked out for conquest. 
To achieve unity of speech throughout the little country 
which his father's diplomatic and military triumphs had 
virtually conquered for him, was a task too serious for 
Alexander himself to face. But unconsciously he effected 
this, as a by-product of his colossal achievement ; and the 
next generation found that not only had a common language 
emerged from the chaos of Hellenic dialects, but a new and 

^"H Ne'a AiaOi^Ky], iJi€Ta<ppa<r/j.€Prj awb rbv 'AXef. IIciXXtj (Liverpool, 1902). 
(Pallis has now translated the Hind, and even some of Kant — with striking 
success, in Thumb's opinion, DLZ, 1905, pp. '2084-6.) Unfortunately the 
B.F.B.S. version contains so much of the artificial Greek that it is beyond 
the comprehension of the common people : the bitter prejudice of the 
educated classes at present has closed the door even to this, much more to 
Pallis's version. 

2 REGr, 1903, p. 220. (See a further note below, pp. 233f.) 


nearly homogeneous world-speech had been created, in which 
Persian and Egyptian miglit do business together, and 
Koman proconsuls issue their commands to the subjects of a 
mightier empire than Alexander's own. His army was in 
itself a powerful agent in the levelling process which ulti- 
mately destroyed nearly all the Greek dialects. The 
Anabasis of the Ten Thousand Greeks, seventy years before, 
had doubtless produced results of tlie same kind on a small 
scale. Clearchus the Lacedaemonian, Menon the Thessalian, 
Socrates the Arcadian, Proxenus the Boeotian, and the rest, 
would find it difficult to preserve their native brogue very 
long free from the solvent influences of perpetual association 
during their march ; and when Cheirisophus of Sparta and 
Xenophon of Athens had safely brought the host home, it is 
not strange that the historian himself had suffered in the 
purity of his Attic, which has some peculiarities distinctly 
foreshadowing the Koiv^} The assimilating process would 
go much further in the camp of Alexander, where, during 
prolonged campaigns, men from all parts of Greece were 
tent-fellows and messmates, with no choice but to accom- 
modate their mode of speech in its more individual character- 
istics to the average Greek which was gradually being 
evolved among their comrades. In this process naturally 
those features which were peculiar to a single dialect would 
have the smallest chance of surviving, and those which most 
successfully combined the characteristics of many dialects 
would be surest of a place in the resultant " common speech." 
The army by itself only furnished a nucleus for the new growth. 
As Hellenism swept victoriously into Asia, and established, 
itself on all the shores of the eastern Mediterranean, the' 
mixture of nationalities in the new-rising commimities de-y 
manded a common language as the medium of intercourse, 

1 Cf Rutherford, A^P 160-174. The same may be said of tlie Liiiguage of 
thehiwerclassesin Athens herself in v/b.c, consisting as they did of immigrants 
from all parts. So [Xenophon] Constitution of Athens 11. 3 :— "The Greeks 
have an individual dialect, and manner of life and fashion of th.eir own ; hut 
the Athenians have what is compounded from all the Greeks and barbarians." 
The vase-inscriptions abundantly evidence this. (Kretschmer, Entstehimg d. 
'KoivT), p. 34.) The importance of Xenophon as a forerunner of Hellenism \a 
well lirought out by Mahaffy, Progress of Hellenism in Alexanders Eminrt, 
Lecture i. 


and the Greek of the victorious armies of Alexander was 
ready for the purpose. In the country districts of the 
motherland, the old dialects lived on for generations ; but by 
this time Greece herself was only one factor in the great 
Hellenisinn; movement to which the world was to owe so 
much. Besides, the dialects which strikingly differed from 
the new Kolvi] were spoken by races that mostly lay outside 
the movement. History gives an almost pathetic interest to 
an inscription like that from Larissa (Michel 41 — end of 
iii/B.c), where the citizens record a rescript from King 
Philip V, and tlieir own consequent resolutions : — 

TayeuovTovv 'jivayKLTnroL HerOakeioc k.t.X., ^CKnnroi toZ 
f3acri\eio<; iTrcaroXav airvareWavro'i ttot to? 7070? Kal rav 
TToXiv rav viro'ye'ypa/jifjbepav 

Baai\ev<i ^tXiTTTro? AapLcratcov Tot9 Tayol'i kui rf]c TroXet 
-^aipeiv (and so on in normal Koivrj). 

The old and the new survived thus side 

Dialects by side into the imperial age; but Christianity 
had only a brief opportunity of speaking in 
the old dialects of Greece. In one corner of Hellas alone did 
the dialect live on. To-day scholars recognise a single modern 
idiom, the Zaconian, which does not directly descend from 
the Koivj]. As we might expect, this is nothing but the 
ancient Laconian, whose broad d holds its ground still in the 
speech of a race impervious to literature and proudly con- 
servative of a language that was always abnormal to an 
extreme. Apart from this the dialects died out entirely.* 
They contributed their share to the resultant Common Greek ; 
but it is an assured result of MGr philology that there are 
no elements of speech whatever now existing, due to the 
ancient dialects, which did not find their way into the stream 
of development through the channel of the vernacular Koivij 
of more than two thousand years ago. [» See p. 243. 

So far we may go without difference 
Relative Contri- ^^ opinion. The only serious dispute arises 
butions to the , ^ ^ ^ . ^u ^ *-• 

Resultant when we ask what were the relative magni- 
tudes of the contributions of the several 
dialects to the new resultant speech. That the literary 
Koiv^ was predominantly Attic has been already stated, and 
is of course beyond doubt. But was Attic more than one 


among many elements assimilated in the new vernacular ? 
It has always been taken for granted that the intellectual 
queen of Greece was the predominant partner in the busi- 
ness of establishing a new dialect based on a combination of 
the old ones. This conclusion has recently been challenged 
by Dr Paul Kretschmer, a brilliant comparative philologist, 
previously distinguished for his studies on the language of 
the Greek vase-inscriptions and on the dialects of the Greeks' 
nearest neighbours.^ In his tractate entitled Lie Entstchung 
der Kotv7], published in the Transactions of the Vienna 
Academy for 1900, he undertook to show that the oral 
Koivrj contained elements from Boeotian, Ionic, and even 
North-west Greek, to a larger extent than from Attic. His 
argument affects pronunciation mainly. That Boeotian 
monophthongising of the diphthongs, Doric softening of /3, 
h and 7, and Ionic de-aspiration of words beginning with A, 
affected the spoken language more than any Attic influence 
of this nature, might perhaps be allowed. But when we turn 
to features which had to be represented in writing, as contrasted 
with mere variant pronunciations of the same written word, 
the case becomes less striking. Boeotians may have supplied 
3 plur. forms in -aav for imperfect and optative, but these do 
not appear to any considerable extent outside the LXX : the 
NT exx. are precarious, and they are surprisingly rare in 
the papyri.2 North-west Greek has the accusative plural in 
-69, found freely in papyri and (for the word Teaaape^) in 
MSS of the NT ; also the middle conjugation of elfii, and the 
confusion of forms from -dco and -eco verbs. Doric contri- 
butes some guttural forms from verbs in -^<w, and a few lexical 
items. Ionic supplies a fair number of isolated forms, and 
may be responsible for many -co or -w flexions from -/xi 
verbs, and some uncontracted noun-forms like oaTewv or 
Xpvo-im. But the one peculiarly Attic feature of tlie Kocvv 
which Kretschmer does allow, its treatment of original d, in 
contrast with Ionic phonology on one side and that of the 
remaining dialects on the other, is so far-reaching in its effects 

1 Die griccli. Faseninsehriften, 1894 ; Einleiiung in die Gatchiehte der griech. 
Sprache, 1896. 

2 See CE xv. 36, and the addenda in xviii. 110. 



that we cannot but give it more weight than to any other 
feature. And while the accidence of Attic has bequeathed 
to the vernacular much matter which it shared with other 
dialects, one may question whether the accidence of any 
single dialect would present anything like the same similarity 
to that of the Kotv^ as the Attic does. We can hardly resist 
the conclusion of the experts that Kretschmer has failed to 
prove his point. At the same time we may allow that the 
influence of the other dialects on pronunciation has been 
commonly underestimated. Kretschmer necessarily recognises 
that Attic supplied the orthography of the Koivrj, except for 
those uneducated persons to whom we owe so much for their 
instructive mis-spellings. Consequently, he says, when the 
Hellenist wrote ^ai'pet and pronounced it cMri, his language 
was really Boeotian and not Attic.^ It is obvious that the 
question does not seriously concern us, since we are dealing 
with a language which, despite its vernacular character, comes 
to us in a written and therefore largely Atticised form." For 
'our purpose we may assume that we have before us a Greek 
which includes important contributions from various dialects, 
but with Attic as the basis, although the exclusive peculiarities 
of Attic make but a small show in it. We shall see later on 
(pp. 213ff.) that syntax tells a clearer story in at least one 
matter of importance, the articular infinitive. 

At this point it should be observed that 
rronuncmtion pi^-onunciation is not to be passed over as a 
Tradition. matter of no practical importance by the 
modern student of Hellenistic. The undeni- 
able fact tliat phonetic spelling — which during the reign of 
the old dialects was a blessing common to all — was entirely 
abandoned by educated people generations before the Christian 
era, has some very obvious results for both grammar and 
textual criticism. That ai and e, ei (rj) and t, ot and v were 
identities for the scribes of our MSS, is certain.^ The scribe 
made his choice according to the grammar and the sense, 

^ Against this emphasising of Bceotian, see Thumb, Hellenismus 228. 

^ On the date of the levelling of quantity, so notable a feature in MGr, see 
Hatzidakis in 'A6i]vd for 1901 (xiii. 247). He decides that it began outside 
Greece, and established itself ver}' gradually. It must have been complete, or 
nearly so, before the scribes of N and B wrote. [" Seep. 243. 


just as we choose between hings, Icing's, and kings', or 
between how and hough. He wrote av nominative and aol 
dative ; \vaaa6ai infinitive and Xvaaade imperative ; (^tXet?, 
ecSofiev indicative, and ^iX?}?, 'iSwfiev subjunctive ; ^ovkec verb, 
but ^ovXfi noun — here of course there was the accentual 
difference, if he wrote to dictation. There was nothing 
however to prevent him from writing i^6(pvr)<i, e^i^t'Sto?, 
dcfyetprjfxevo'?, etc., if his antiquarian knowledge failed ; while 
there were times when his choice between (for example) 
infinitive and imperative, as in Lk 19^^, was determined only 
by his own or perhaps a traditional exegesis. It will be seen 
therefore that we cannot regard our best MSS as decisive 
on such questions, except as far as we may see reason to 
trust their general accuracy in grammatical tradition. WH 
may be justified in printing liva . . . eTriaKidaei in Ac 5^'\ 
after B and some cursives ; but the passage is wholly useless 
for any argument as to the use of Iva with a future. Or let 
us take the constructions of ov fir] as exhibited for WH text 
in the concordance (MG). There are 71 occurrences with aor, 
subj., and 2 more in which the -aco might theoretically be 
future. Against these we find 8 cases of the future, and 15 
in which the parsing depends on our choice between ei and i^. 
It is evident that editors cannot hope to decide here what 
was the autograph spelling. Even supposing they had the 
autograph before them, it would be no evidence as to the 
author's grammar if he dictated the text. To this we may 
add that by the time N and B were written o and co were no 
longer distinct in pronunciation, which transfers two more 
cases to the list of the indeterminates. It is not therefore 
simply the overwhelming manuscript authority which decides 
us for exoifiev in Eom 5^ "Without the help of the versions 
and patristic citations, it would be diflicult to prove that the 
orthography of the MSS is really based on a very ancient 
traditional interpretation. It is indeed quite possible that 
the Apostle's own pronunciation did not distinguish o and co 
sufficiently to give Tertius a clear lead, without his making 
inquiry.^ In all these matters we may fairly recognise a 

' and w were confused in various quarters before this date : cf Schwyzer, 
Pergam. 95 ; Nachmanson, Magnet. 64 ; Thumb. Re^lenismus 143. We have 


case nearly parallel with the editor's choice between such 

alternatives as TtVe9 and rive<i in Heb 3^", where the tradition 

varies. The modern expositor feels himself entirely at 

liberty to decide according to his view of the context. On 

our choice in Eom, I.e., see below, (p. 110). 

Before we leave dialectology, it may be 
Contributions n i. i j? ^ 4--u 

f NW Greek '^ make a lew more remarks on the 

nature of the contributions which we have 
noted. Some surprise may be felt at the importance of 
the elements alleged to have been brought into the language 
by the " North-west Greek," ^ which lies altogether outside 
the literary limits. The group embraces as its main consti- 
tuents the dialects of Epirus, Aetolia, Locris and Phokis, and 
Achaia, and is known to us only from inscriptions, amongst 
which those of Delphi are conspicuous. It is the very last 
we should have expected to influence the resultant language, 
but it is soon observed that its part (on Kretschmer's theory) 
has been very marked. The characteristic Achaian accus. 
plur. in -69 successfully established itself in the common 
Greek, as its presence in the vernacular of to-day sufficiently 
shows. Its prominence in the papyri^ indicates that it was 
making a good fight, which in the case of T€aaape<; had 
already become a fairly assured victory. In the NT Teacrapa<; 
never occurs without some excellent authority for reaaape^i : ^ 
cf WH A2yp 150.'^ Moreover we find that A, in Eev 1^^, has 
aarepe^ — -with omission of ex'^v, it is true, but this may 
well be an effort to mend the grammar. It is of course 
impossible to build on this example ; but taking into account 
the obvious fact that the author of Eev was still decidedly 
dypdfi/jbaTO'i in Greek, and remembering the similar phen- 
omena of the papyri, we might expect his autograph to 
exhibit accusatives in -e?, and in other instances beside 
re'crcra/je?. The middle conjugation of el/j.t is given by 

confusion of this very word in BIT 607 (ii/A.D.). Par P 40 (ii/s.c), vnth. &vtos, 
MaKedihvos, etc., shows us how early this begins with illiterates. See also p. 244. 

1 Brugmann, Ghr. Gramm.^ 17. [" See jDp. 243 f. 
^ See on XV. 34, 435, xviii. 109. I must acknowledge a curious mistake I 

made there in citing Dr Thumb for, instead of against, Kretschmer's argument 
on this point. 

2 Jn 11" .N A ; Ac 2723 and Rev 9" n ; Eev 4* n A (AVHmj?), 7' A bis P seviel. 


Kretscbmer as a NW Greek feature ; but the Dclpliiiiu i}Tat 
and eoivTUi are balanced by Messenian rjVTai. and Lesbian 
ea-ao, which looks as if some middle forms had existed in the 
earliest Greek. But the confusion of the -day and -eco verbs, 
which is frequent in the papyri ^ and NT, and is complete in 
MGr, may well have come from the NW Greek, though 
encouraged by Ionic. We cannot attempt here to discuss the 
question between Thumb and Kretscbmer; but an a 2'>'riori 
argument might be found for the latter in the well-known 
fact that between iii/ and i/B.c. the political importance of 
Aetolia and Achaia produced an Achaian-Dorian Koivq, which 
yielded to the wider Koivrj about a hundred years before Paul 
began to write : it seems antecedently probable that this 
dialect would leave some traces on that which superseded 
it. Possibly the extension of the 3rd plur. -aav, and even 
the perfect -av, may be due to the same source : ^ the former 
is also Boeotian. The peculiarities just mentioned have in 
common their sporadic acceptance in the Hellenistic of i/A.D., 
which is just what we should expect where a dialect like this 
contended for survival with one that had already spread over a 
very large area. The elements we have tentatively set down 
to the NW Greek secured their ultimate victory through 
their practical convenience. The fusion of -dw and -e'tu verbs 
amalgamated two grammatical categories which served no 
useful purpose by their distinctness. The acous. in -e? 
reduced the number of case-forms to be remembered, at the 
cost of a confusion which English bears without difficulty, 
and even Attic bore in TroXet?, /SacrtXet?, TrXe/'ouv, etc. ; while 
the other novelties both reduced the tale of equivalent 
suffixes and (in the case of -aav) provided a useful means of 
distinction between 1st sing, and 3rd plur 

We come to securer ground when we 
and of Ionic, gg^-^^^^^g ^^^ p^^.^ taken by Ionic in the 

formation of the Koivi], for here Thumb and Kretscbmer 
are at one. The former shows that we cannot safely trace 
any feature of Common Greek to the influence of some 

1 See CR xv. 36, 435, xviii. 110. Thumb suggests that the common aor. in 
-Tjffo, started the process of fusion. 

' The -ffixv suffix is found in Delphian (Valaori, Ddj^h. Dial. 60) rather pro- 
minently, both in indie, and opt. The case for -av (ibid.) is weaker. 


particular dialect, unless it appears in that dialect as a distinct 

new type, and not a mere survival. The nouns in -a9 -aBo^; 

and -0U9 -ovSo'i are by this principle recognised as a clear 

debt of MGr to Ionic elements in the Koivrj. Like the 

other elements which came from a single ancient dialect, 

they had to struggle for existence. We find them in the 

Egyptian Greek ; but in the NT -a9 makes gen. -a, as often 

even in Asia Minor, where naturally -aho'i was at home.^ 

Kretschmer gives as Ionic factors in the Koivri the forms 

KiOoiv ( = ')(iToiiv) and the like,^ psilosis (which the lonians 

shared with their Aeolic neighbours), the uncontracted noun 

and verb forms already alluded to, and the invasion of the 

-fiL verbs by thematic forms (contract or ordinary).^ He 

explains the declension (nrelpa <77relp'r]<; (normal in the Koivrj 

from i/B.C.) as due not to lonism, but to the analogy of <y\wacra 

<y\(i)aar]<;. To his argument on this point we might add the 

consideration that the declension -pd -pr)<i is both earlier and 

more stable than -via -VLr]<i, a difference which I would connect 

with the fact that the combination irj continued to be barred 

in Attic at a time when pr] (from pFd) was no longer objected 

to (contrast vyta and Kopr]) : if Ionic forms had been simply 

taken over, elSvcr]<i would have come in as early as cyrrelprj'i. 

But such discussion may be left to the 

Did dialectic pj^Hoiogical journals. What concerns the NT 
differences , 

persist? student is the question of dialectic varieties 

within the Kolvi] itself rather than in its 

previous history. Ai-e we to expect persistence of Ionic 

features in Asia Minor ; and will the Greek of Egypt, Syria, 

1 But -d8os is rare both at Pergamum and at Magnesia: Schwyzer 139 f., 
Nachmanson 120. 

" Kt^cii', Kvdpa and ivBavTa occur not seldom in papyri ; and it is rather 
curious that they are practically absent from NT MSS. I can only find in Ti 
XeLdQiva-i D* (Mt 10") and wrwi^as B* (Mk 1463_"ut alibi .v," says the editor). 
'Kvdpa occurs in Clem. Roin. 17 fin. (see Lightfoot). Bci^/jaKos, which is 
found in MGr (as Abbott 56) I cannot trace, nor iradv-i]. Cf Hatzidakis 
160 f. 

^ The perfect 'iuKa from tiqixi (NT dcpiuvrai.) is noted as Ionic rather than 
Doric by Thumb, ThLZ xxviii. 421 n. Since this was a prehistoric form (cf 
Gothic saisu from sam, "sow"), we cannot determine the question certainly. 
But note that the imperative dcpewcrdo} occurs in an Arcadian inscription (Michel 
585'^ — iii/?B.c.). Its survival in Hellenistic is the more easily understood, if it 
really existed in two or three dialects of the classical period. [" Sec p. 244. 


Macedonia, and Italy differ to an extent which we can detect 
after two thousand years ? Speaking generally, we may 
reply in the negative. Dialectic differences there must have 
been in a language spoken over so large an area. But they 
need not theoretically be greater than those between British 
and American English, to refer again to the helpful parallel 
we examined above (p. 19). We saw there that in the 
modern Weltsprachc the educated colloquial closely approxi- 
mates everywhere when written down, differing locally to 
some extent, but in vocabulary and orthography rather than 
in grammar. The uneducated vernacular differs more, but 
its differences still show least in the grammar. The study 
of the papyri and the Koivrj inscriptions of Asia Minor dis- 
closes essentially the same phenomena in Hellenistic. There 
are few points of grammar in which the NT language differs 
from that which we see in other specimens of Common Greek 
vernacular, from whatever province derived. We have already 
mentioned instances in which what may liave been quite 
possible Hellenistic is heavily overworked because it happens 
to coincide with a Semitic idiom. Apart from these, we 
have a few small matters in which the NT differs from the 
usage of the papyri. The weakening of ov ixr] is the most 
•important of these, for certainly the papyri lend no coun- 
tenance whatever to any theory that ov fi^ was a normal 
unemphatic negative in Hellenistic. We shall return to this 
at a later stage (see pp. 187 ff.) ; but meanwhile we may note 
that in the NT ou fi/] seems nearly always connected with 
"translation Greek" — the places where no Semitic original 
can be suspected show it only in the very emphatic sense 
which is common to classical and Hellenistic use. Among 
smaller points are the NT construction of evoxo^ with gen. 
of penalty, and the prevailing use of a-jreKpid'nv for aireKpL- 
vdfirjv : in both of these the papyri wholly or mainly agree 
with the classical usage; but that in the latter case the 
NT has good Hellenistic warrant, is shown by Phrynichus 
(see Eutherford, iVP 186 ff.), by the witness of Polybius, and 
by the MGr airoKpiOrjKa. 

The whole question of dialectic differ- 
Thumb's Verdict. ^^^^^^ ^.^^^.^ ^^^^ ^p^^.^^ j^^^^^ -^ judicially 

summed up by our greatest living authority, Dr Albert 


Thumb, in chap. v. of his book on Grcch in the Hel- 
lenistic Age, ah^eady often quoted.^ He thinks that such 
differences must have existed largely, in Asia Minor especially ; 
but that writings like the Greek Bible, intended for general 
circulation, employed a DurchseJinittsprache which avoided local 
peculiarities, though intended for single localities. (The letters 
of Paul are no exception to this rule, for he could not be 
familiar with the peculiarities of Galatian or Achaian, still 
less of Eoman, Kotvr}.) To the question whether our autho- 
rities are right in speaking of a special Alexandrian Greek, 
Thumb practically returns a negative. For nearly all the 

/purposes of our own special study, Hellenistic Greek may be 

Y^ f regarded as a unity, hardly varying except with the education 

13 / of the writer, his tendency to use or ignore specialities of 

I literary language, and the degree of his dependence upon 
foreign originals which might be either freely or slavishly 

* rendered into the current Greek. 

It is however to be noted that the minute dialectic 
differences which can be detected in NT Greek are some- 
times significant to the literary critic. In an article in 
ThLZ, 1903, p. 421, Thumb calls attention to the promin- 
ence of iixo^ in Jn, as against fiov elsewhere.^ He tells us 
that ijjio'i and its like survive in modern Pontic-Cappadocian 
Greek, while the gen. of the personal pronoun has replaced it 
in other parts of the Greek-speaking area. This circumstance 
contributes something to the evidence that the Fourth 
Gospel came from Asia Minor. We might add that on the 
same showing Luke should come from Macedonia, or some 
other country outside Asia Minor, for he hardly uses e/A09 ; 
while Eev, in which out of the four possessive pronouns e/409 
alone occurs, and that but once, seems to be from the pen of 
a recent immigrant. Valeat quantum ! In the same paper 
Thumb shows that the infinitive still survives in Pontic, 

1 Cf Blass 4 n. 

" 'E/x6s occui's 36 times in Jn, once eacli in 3 Jn and Rev, and 34 times in 
the rest of the NT. It must be admitted that the other possessives do not tell 
the same story : the three together appear 11 times in Jn (Ev and Epp), 12 in 
Lk, and 21 in the rest of NT. Blass (p. 168) notes how vixQiv in Paul (in the 
position of the attribute) ousts the emphatic v/j-erepos. (For that position cf 
170-01; oi;o-ta, Mitliraslit. p. 17 and note.) 


while in Greece proper it yields entirely to the periphrasis. 
The syntactical conditions under which the infinitive is found 
in Pontic answer very well to those which appear in the NT: in 
such uses Western Greek tended to enlarge the sphere of tW. 
This test, applied to Jn, rather neutralises that from eVo<f : 
see below, p. 205, 211. Probably the careful study of local 
MGr patois will reveal more of these minutiae. Another field 
for research is presented by the orthographical peculiarities of 
the NT uncials, which, in comparison with the papyri and 
inscriptions, will help to fix the provenance of the MS8, and 
thus supply criteria for that localising of textual types which 
is an indispensable step towards the ultimate goal of criticism.^ 

1 One or two hints in this direction are given by Thumb, Hcllenismus 
179. Of Prof. K. Lake's remarks on the problems awaiting us iu textual 
criticism, in his inaugural lectui-e at Leiden (Oxford, 1904). See also p. 244. 


Notes on the Accidence. 

Before we begin to examine the conditions 
The Uncials and ^ rr ^^  ^- i. i. i i. 

the Pauvri Hellenistic syntax, we must devote a 

short chapter to the accidence. To treat 
the forms in any detail would be obviously out of place in 
these Prolegomena. The humble but necessary work of 
gathering into small compass the accidence of the NT writers 
I have done in my little Introduction (see above, p. 1 n.) ; and 
it will have to be done again more minutely in the second 
part of this Grammar. In the present chapter we shall try 
to prepare ourselves for answering a preliminary question of 
great importance, viz., what was the position occupied by the 
NT writers between the literary and illiterate Greek of their 
time. For this purpose the forms give us a more easily 
applied test than the syntax. But before we can use them 
we must make sure that we have them substantially as they 
stood in the autographs. May not such MSS as N and B — 
and D still more — have conformed their orthography to the 
popular style, just as those of the " Syrian " revision con- 
formed it in some respects to the literary standards ? We 
cannot give a universal answer to this question, for we have 
seen already that an artificial orthography left the door open 
for not a few uncertainties. But there are some suggestive 
signs that the great uncials, in this respect as in others, 
are not far away from the autographs. A very instruc- 
tive phenomenon is the curious substitution of idv for av 
after 09, ottov, etc., which WH have faithfully reproduced 
in numberless places from the MSS. This was so little recog- 
nised as a genuine feature of vernacular Greek, that the 
editors of the volumes of papyri began by gravely subscribing 
" 1. dv " wherever the abnormal edv showed itself. They 


were soon compelled to save themselves the trouble. Deiss- 
mann, BS 204, gave a considerable list from the papyri, 
which abundantly proved the genuineness of this edv; and 
four years later (1901) the material had grown so much 
that it was possible to determine the time-limits of the 
peculiarity with fair certainty. If my count is right,^ the 
proportion of edv to dv is 13 : 29 in papyri dated B.C. The 
proportion was soon reversed, the figures being 25:7 for 
i/A.D., 76:9 for ii/, 9:3 for iii/, 4:8 for iv/. This edv 
occurs last in a vi/ papyrus. It will be seen that the above 
construction was specially common in i/ and ii/, when edv 
greatly predominated, and that the fashion had almost died 
away before the great uncials were written. It seems 
that in this small point the uncials faithfully reproduce 
originals written under conditions long obsolete.^ This 
particular example aflbrds us a very fair test ; but we 
may reinforce it with a variety of cases where the MSS 
accurately reproduce the spelling of i/A.D. We will follow 
the order of the material in WH App 141 ff. ("Notes on 
Orthography ") : it is unnecessary to give detailed references 
for the papyrus evidence, which will be found fully stated 
in the papers from CR, already cited. We must bear 
in mind throughout Hort's caution (p. 141) that "all our 
MSS have to a greater or less extent suffered from the 

1 CR XV. 32, XV. 434 : foi" the exx. B.C. I have added figures from papyri 
subsequently read. I am sorry I caiuiot now complete the statistics. See 
further on p. 234. 

2 The case of av, if, is separate. In the NT this is confined apparently to Jn, 
where it occurs six times. In the papyri it is decidedly a symptom of illiteracy. 
With this agrees what Meisterhaiis^ 255 f. says: "Only six times is cfc found 
from v/ to iii/B.C. The form av is entirely foreign to the Attic inscrip- 
tions, though it is often found in the lonicising literary i)rose of v/ 
(Thucydides : of the Tragedians)." Since 6.v is the modern form, we may 
perhaps regard it as a dialectic variant which ultimately ousted the Attic i&v. 
It is not clear to what dialect it is to be assigned. Against Meisterhans' 
suggestion of Ionic stands the opinion of H. W. Smyth (Ionic Dialect, p. 609) 
that its occasional appearances in Ionic are due to Atticising ! Certainly r)v is 
the normal Ionic form, but S.v may have been Ionic as well, though rarer. (So 
Mr P. Giles.) Nachmanson (p. 68) gives iav as the only form from Magnesia. 
Some peculiar local distribution is needed to explain why 6.v (if) is absent 
from the incorrectly written Rev, and reserved for the correct Jn. Both 
av and idv are found promiscuously in the Herculaneum rolls (Crbnert 


effacement of unclassical forms of words." Note also his 
statement that the " Western " MSS show the reverse 
tendency. "The orthography of common life, which to a 
certain extent was used by all the writers of the NT, though 
iu unequal degrees, would naturally be introduced more 
freely in texts affected by an instinct of popular adaptation." 
He would be a bold man who should claim that even Hort 
has said the last word on the problem of the S-text; and 
with our new knowledge of the essentially popular character 
of NT Greek as a whole, we shall naturally pay special 
attention to documents which desert the classical spelling 
for that which we find prevailing in those papyri that were 
written by men of education approximately parallel with that 
of the apostolic writers. 

« . , , We begin with the " unusual aspirated 

Orthography. » / i^ox 'jl' '^ 's: . /O' 's^' 

forms (p. 143), e^ eXTnoc etc., kuU ibiav, 

cicptBe etc., and ov-^^ 6X1709.* For all these there is a large 

body of evidence from papyri and inscriptions. There are a 

good many other words affected thus, the commonest of 

which, eVo?, shows no trace of the aspiration in NT uncials. 

Sins of commission as well as omission seem to be inevitable 

when initial h has become as weak as in later Greek or in 

modern English. Hence in a period when de-aspiration 

was the prevailing tendency, analogy produced some cases of 

reaction, — Kad' eVo? due to kuO^ rjixepav, acpiBe to acpopav, 

etc. ; ^ and the two types struggled for survival. MGr icjiiro 

shows that the aspirated form did not always yield. The 

uncertainty of the MS spelling thus naturally follows from 

the history of the aspirate. It is here impossible to determine 

the spelling of the autographs, but the wisdom of following the 

great uncials becomes clearer as we go on. The reverse 

phenomenon, psilosis, exx. of which figure on p. 144, is 

part of the general tendency which started from the Ionic 

and Aeolic of Asia Minor and ' became universal, as MGr 

shov/s. The mention of Ta/meiov (p. 146 — add Trelv from 

^ The curious coincidence that many, but by no means all, of these Avords 
once began with F, led to the fancy (repeated by Hort) that the lost con- 
sonant had to do with the aspiration. I need not stay to explain why this 
cannot be accepted. The explanation by analogy within the Koivi^ is that 
favoured by Thumb. (See additional note, p. 234.) [" See p. 244. 


p. 170) brings up a universal law of Hellenistic phonology, 
viz. the coalescence of two successive i sounds : the inf. Scacrelv 
for -aeUiv (L2g — i/B.c.) will serve as a good example — cf 
avaal in Lk 23^ t^.^ Tafielov, irelv and v'^eia are overwhelm- 
ingly attested by the papyri, where there are only rare 
exx. of the curious reversion seen in Mt 20^-, In akeel<; 
(Mk V^ al) we have dissimilation instead of contraction. 
Under the head of Elision (p. 146), it may be worth while 
to mention that the neglect of this even in a verse citation, as 
in the MSS at 1 Co 15^^, is in accord with an exceedingly 
common practice in inscriptions. The presence or absence of 
movable v (pp. 146 f.) cannot be reduced to any visible rule: 
the evanescence of the nasal in pronunciation makes this 
natural. Cf p. 49 below. Among the spellings recorded on 
p. 148 we note a(f)vpL<i, yevrj/na (vegetable product), and 
-'^vvvco ^ as well attested in the papyri ; while the wavering of 
usage between pp and pa- is traceable down through Hellen- 
istic to MGr.^ The case of the spelling apa^cov ("only 
Western") is instructive. Deissmann (^>S^ 183) gives but 
one ex. of the pp form, and nine of the single consonant, 
from three documents. His natural questioning of Hort's 
orthography is curiously discounted by the more recently 
published papyri, which make the totals 1 1 for the " Western " 
and 15 for pp^ The word will serve as a reminder that 
only the unanimity of the papyri can make us really sure 
of our autographs' spelling: cf Deissmann, BS 181. The 
wavering of inscriptional testimony as to Zfxupva {ib. 185) 
makes it impossible to be decisive ; but the coincidence of 
Smyrntean coins makes it seem difficult to reject the witness 
of i«, on suspicion of " Western " taint. In words with aa the 
papyri show the Attic tt in about the same small proportion 
as the NT uncials, and with much the same absence of 
inteUigible principle. "Opvc^ (Lk 13^* SD, also banned as 
" Western ") has some papyrus warrant, and survives in the 
MGr (Cappadocian) opvLX- cf Thumb, ffellen. 90. It started 
in Doric Greek. Coming to the note on reaa-ape<; and Teaa-a- 

1 Correct Ti in loc. I owe the ref. to Buresch EhM xlvi. 213 n. 

2 So MGr (Cyprus), says Thumb in ThLZ xxviii. 423. 

2 Thumb I.e. 422. * C'R xv. 33, since supplemented. 


paKovra (p. 150), we meet our first dissonance between NT 
uncials and papyri. The e forms are in the latter relatively 
few, and distinctly illiterate, in the first centuries a.d. Indeed 
the evidence for reaaepa or riaaepa'i is virtually nil before 
the Byzantine age,^ and there does not seem to be the 
smallest probability that the Apostles wrote anything but 
the Attic form. For reaaepuKovra the case is a little better, 
but it is hopelessly outnumbered by the -ap- form in docu- 
ments antedating the NT uncials ; the modern aepdvra, side 
by side with aapavra, shows that the strife continued. No 
doubt before iv/A.D. Teaaepe'i -a (not Teaaepwv) had begun to 
establish themselves in the place they hold to-day. 'Epavudco 
is certain from i/A.D. onward ;2 and Deissmann (£S 182) 
gives a iv/A.D. papyrus parallel for i^yapevo) (X his, B semel). 
Spellings like Kpi/xa (p. 150) are supported by a great multi- 
plication in Kotvr] documents of -/xa nouns with shortened 
penultimate. Cf Moeris (p. 28), dvadrjixa ^Attlko)'^, avdde/xa 
'EXk'r]vLKOi<i ; and note d(ji€upefjba his in Par P 6 2 (ii/B.c). 
Even (Tvcnep,a is found (not "^crvaTa/jia), Gen 1^^, which shows 
how late and mechanical this process was. The convenient 
differentiation of meaning between dvdOrjfxa and dvade/ia ^ 
preserved the former intact, though xADX are quotable for 
the levelling in its one NT occurrence. The complete estab- 
lishment of el jjirjv by the papyri is an interesting confirmation 
of the best uncials. Despite Hort (p. 151), we must make 
the difference between el jirjv and rj fjbrjv " strictly orthograph- 
ical " after all, if the alternative is to suppose any connexion 
with el, if. Numerous early citations make this last assump- 
tion impossible* On ei and l (p. 153) the papyri are 

^ Tiacrapes ace. is another matter : see above, p. 36. 

" Whether it was general in the Koipr) is doubtful. MGr has ^pevva : cf 
also Par P 60- (ii/B.c. ?), Tb P 38 {ib.). See Buresch, BhM xlvi. 213 f.; but 
note also Thumb, Hcllcn. 176 f., who disposes of the notion that it was an 
Alexandrinism. Kretschmer, BLZ, 1901, p. 1049, brings j^arallels from Thera 
(ai)- in compounds of eC). See papyrus citations in CR xv. 34, xviii. 107. 

^ Deissmann has recently shown that dvaOe/xa, curse, is not an innovation of 
"Biblical Greek" (ZNTJF ii. 342). 

* I have 8 exx. from papyri between ii/u.c. and i/A.D. Still more decisive is 
the syntax of el fudv in a well-known Messenian inscription, dated 91 B.C. 
(Michel 694) : opKt^ovTU) rbv yvvaLKOvSfioV el jxav e^etv eiritxiXeiav, kt\. (The 
same inscription has the form etrev for eTra, found in Mk 4^^. ) 


entirely indecisive : ei even for l is an everyday occurrence. 
At any rate they give no encouragement to our introducing 
yeivofiai and yeivcoaKco, as WH would like to do : to judge 
from mere impressions, yivofiai is at least as common as 
jeLvo/xai. This matter of the notorious equivalence of et 
and t is adduced by Thumb (reviewing Blass^, ThLZ, 1903, 
421) as a specimen of philological facts which are not always 
present to the minds of theological text-critics : he cites 
Brooke and M'Lean (JTS, 1902, 601 ff.), who seriously treat 
iSev, cSov, as various readings deserving a place in the LXX 
text. Ti did the same in Eev, where even WH (see App 162) 
marked iSov, etc., as alternative. In this matter no reader 
of the papyri would care to set much store by some of the 
minutiffi which WH so conscientiously gather from the great 
uncials. It would probably be safer in general to spell 
according to tradition ; for even WH admit that their para- 
mount witness, B, " has little authority on behalf of ei as 
against i." Finally might be mentioned a notable matter 
of pronunciation to which Hort does not refer. The less 
educated papyrus writers very frequently use a for av, before 
consonants, from i/B.c. onwards.^ Its frequent appearance in 
Attic inscriptions after 74 B.C. is noted by Meisterhans^ 
154. In Lk 2^ (Ayovarov) this pronunciation shows itself, 
according to XC* J ; but we do not seem to find dro^, earov, 
etc., in the MSS, as we should have expected.^ An excellent 
suggestion is made by Dr J. B. Mayor {Expos, vi. x. 289) — 
following up one of Hort's — that d.Kara'Trdarov'; in 2 Pet 
2^'* AB may be thus explained: he compares d-^firjpoj V^ A. 
In arguing his case, he fails to see that the dropping of a u 
(or rather F) between vowels is altogether another thing ; but 
his remaining exx. (to which add those cited from papyri in 
CR XV. 33, 434, xviii. 107) are enough to prove his point. 
Laurent remarks (BCff, 1903, p. 356) that this phenomenon 
was common in the latter half of I/b.c. We need not assume 
its existence in the NT autographs. 

1 The same tendency appeared in late vulgar Latin, and perpetuated itself 
in Romance : see Lindsay, Latin Language 41 f. 

2 In MGr (see Thumb, Handhuch, p. 59) we find airbs (pronounced aft6s) 
side by side with dros (obsolete except in Pontus), whence the sliort form t6, 
etc. There was therefore a grammatical difference in the Ko^v-f] itself. 


We pass on to the noun flexion (p. 156). 
Inflexion : — -vt • - i l- • i • " • .-i 

Nonns JNouns in -pa and participles m -vta m the 

papyri regularly form genitive and dative in 
-7)<; -7], except that -via?, -via are still found in the Ptolemaic 
period. Here again the oldest uncials alone — and even they 
are not without lapses — support the unmistakable verdict of 
the contemporary documents of the Koivi]. We saw reason 
(above, p. 38) to regard this as the analogical assimilation of 
-pa nouns (and — somewhat later and less markedly — via 
participles) to the other -a flexions of the first declension, 
rather than as an Ionic survival. We may add that as /jid-^acpa 
produced fu,axci^pv^ on the model of So^a S6^r]<;, so, by a 
reverse analogy process, the gen. Nv/jb(pr]<; as a proper name 
produced what may be read as Nv/jucpa Nv/jb(f)av in nom. and 
ace. : the best reading of Col 4^^ {avTi)<=; B) may thus stand, 
without postulating a Doric Nv/jbcf)dv, the improbability of 
which decides Lightfoot for the alternative.^ The heteroclite 
proper names, which fluctuate between 1st and 3rd decl., are 
paralleled by Egyptian place-names in papyri. Critics, like 
Clemen, whose keen scent has differentiated documents by the 
evidence of Avarpav and AvaTpoi,<; in Ac 14^-^ (see Knowling, 
UGT in loc), might be invited to track down the " redactor " 
who presumably perpetrated either KepKecrovxj} or Kep'^e- 
uov^wv in GH 46 (ii/A.D.). Eamsay {Paul 129) shows that 
Mvpa had ace. -av and gen. -cov. Uncritical people may 
perhaps feel encouraged thus to believe that Mt 2^ and 
Mt 2^, despite the heteroclisis, are from the same hand.* The 
variations between 1st and 2nd decl, in words like eKarovrap- 
%09 (-779) are found passim in papyri : for conscientious labour 
wasted thereon see Schmiedel's amusing note in his Preface 
to WS. In contracted nouns and adjectives we have 
abundant parallels for forms like ocrrecdv, XP^<^^^^> 9,nd for 
Xpvadv (formed by analogy of apyvpdu). The good attesta- 
tion of the type vo6<i vol, after the analogy of /3oi)9, may 
be observed in passing. The fact that we do not find 
short forms of nouns in -to9 -lov (e.g. Kvpt<;, rrabhiv) is a 

1 See the writer's paper in Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. Oct. 1893, p. 12, where 
the archaic vocative in -a is suggested as the connecting link. Cf AoGXa as a 
proper name (Dieterich, Unters. 172), and Wiprivix in a Christian inscr. (Ramsay, 
C. tfc£. ii. 497n.). [«6Seep. 244. 


noteworthy test of the educational standard of the writers, 
for the papyri show them even as early as iii/]5.C., and always 
in company with other indications of comparative illiteracy. 
These forms, the origin of which seems to me as perplexed as 
ever, despite the various efforts of such scholars as Thumb, 
Hatzidakis, and Brugmann to unravel it, ultimately won a 
monopoly, as MGr shows everywhere. We must not omit 
mention of the " Mixed Declension," which arose from 
analogies in the -d- and -o- nouns, and spread rapidly because 
of its convenience, especially for foreign names. The stem 
ends in a long vowel or diphthong, which receives -9 for nom. 
and -V for ace, remaining unchanged in voc, gen. and dat. 
sing. 'It]crov^ is the most conspicuous of many NT exx. It 
plays a large part in MGr.^ Passing lightly over the exact 
correspondence between uncials and papyri in the accusatives 
of /cXetV and %a/ct9 (p. 157), we may pause on %etpay in 
Jn 20^^ x'^AB. The great frequency of this formation in 
uneducated papyri, which adequately foreshadows its victory 
in MGr," naturally produced sporadic examples in our MSS, 
but it is not at all likely that the autographs showed it (unless 
possibly in Eev). Gregory (in Ti, vol. iii. 1 1 8 f.) registers 
forms like acr^akrjv and 7roSi]pr]v, which also have papyrus 
parallels, but could be explained more easily from the analogy 
of 1st decl. nouns. Mei^wv ace. (Jn 5^"^ ABEGMJ) is a good 
example of the irrational addition of v, which seems to have 
been added after long vowels almost as freely as the equally 
unpronounced i.^ One further noun calls for comment, viz., 
'EXai,covo<i in Ac l^MP- 158). The noun iXaicov = olivetum 
occurs nearly thirty times in papyri between i/ and iii/A.D., 
which prompts surprise at Blass's continued scepticism. 
'EXiKcov (salicetum) is an ancient example of the turning of 
a similar word into a proper name.^ 

1 See CR xviii. 109, Kiihner-Blass § 136. 

- It seems most probable that the modem levelling of 1st and 3rd decl. 
started witli this accusative. See Thumb, ffandbuch 28, 35; also p. IS for 
the pronunciation of -v final. 

=* Thus aXwt is ace. sing. , while tjv { = r)) is sometimes subjunctive. For 
exx. see CE xviii. 108. So lia-a iav 9ji> in Gen 6"E. 

*See Deissmami, BS 208 ff., and the addenda in Exjjos. vi. vii. Ill, viii. 
429 ; also below, pp. 69 and 235. See also p. 214. 


Two curious indeclinables meet us period- 
Adiect-ves ica-^lj among the adjectives. UXrjprj'i should 
be read in Mk 42s (C^% Hort) and Ac 6^ 
(«AC*^DEHP al.), and is probably to be recognised in Jn 1^*. 
Cf 2 Jns (L), Mk 8^^^ (AFGM al), Ac 6^ (AEHP al.) ID^s 
(AEL 13). Thus in every NT occurrence of an oblique case 
of this word we meet with the indeclinable form in good 
uncials. The papyrus citations for this^ scarcely begin, how- 
ever, before ii/A.D. ; and we cannot well credit educated 
writers with such a form. We may probably assume that 
in Jn 1^* an original ifKrjpr] was corrupted to the vulgar 
irXijpi]'; in an early copy. B. Weiss and others would make 
the adj. depend in sense upon aurov, but So^av seems more 
appropriate, from the whole trend of the sentence : it is the 
" glory " or " self-revelation " of the Word that is " full of 
grace and truth." One might fairly doubt whether expositors 
would have thought of making Kal eOeaad^eOa . . . irarpo^ 
a parenthesis, had it not been for the supposed necessity of 
construing TrX^jprj^; as a nominative. We may regard D as 
having either preserved or successfully restored the original 
reading here.^ The other indeclinables in question are TrXelco 
and the other forms in -to from the old comparative base in 
-yos. Cronert (in Philologus Ixi. 161 ff.) has shown how 
frequently in papyri and even in literature these forms are 
used, like irki^prj'i and ij/xLav, without modification for case. 
In Mt 26-^^ we have a good example preserved in nBD, the 
later MSS duly mending the grammar with TrXetbu?. Is it 
possible that the false reading in Jn 10^^ started from an 
original /xei^o) of this kind ? 

Many more noun forms might be cited in which the 
MSS prove to have retained the genuine Hellenistic, as evi- 
denced by the papyri ; but these typical examples will serve. 

1 GE XV. 35, 435, xviii. 109. See also C. H. Turner in JTS i. 120 iT. and 
561 f. ; Radermaclier in FihUflvil 151 ; Eeinliold 53. LPc (ii/n.c.) is the only- 
ex. I know, eai'lier than ii/A.D. It may very well be original in Mk. 

^ "Winer, p. 705, compares the "grammatically independent" ir'Krfprjs clanse 
with the nom. seen in Phil 3", Mk 12'*''. W. F. Moulton makes no remark there, 
l)ut in the note on Jn 1^* (Milligan-MoTilton in loc.) he accepts the construction 
found in the RV, or permits his colleague to do so. At that date the case 
for the indeclinable ttXij/jtjs was before him only in the LXX (as Job 21^^ 
nBAC). See also p. 244. 


Verbs naturally supply yet more abundant material, but we 

need not cite it fully here. Pursuing the order of WH A]')}'', 

xr h • ^® pause a moment on the dropped augments, 

etc., in pp. 161 f., which are well illustrated 

in papyri. This phenomenon goes back to Herodotus, and 

may well be a contribution of Ionic to the 
Augments. ^ "^ /^, i -rx- , ,, , ,, , 

Common tTreek. Diphthongs are naturally the 

first to show the tendency : it is not likely, for example, that 
Drs Grenfell and Hunt would now, as in the editio princeps 
of the Oxyrhynchus Logia (1897, p. 7), call olKoSofjL7)fj.evr] a 
" more serious error " than ai for e or ei for t. The double 
augment of direKaTeaTadi] in papyri and NT may be noted as 
a suggestive trifle under this head of augments before we pass 
on. Very satisfactory confirmation of our 
,. ' uncial tradition is supplied by the person- 
endings. The functionally useless difference 
of ending between the strong and the weak aorist began to 
disappear in our period. Tlie strong aorist act. or mid. is 
only found in some thirty -w verbs (and their compounds) in 
the NT ; and while the great frequency of their occurrence 
protected the root-form, the overwhelming predominance of 
the sigmatic aorist tended to drive off the field its rival's 
person-endings. The limits of this usage in the NT text are 
entirely in accord with the better-written papyri. Thus we 
find little encouragement for ^evdixevo^^ for which any number 
of papyrus citations may be made. But when we notice 'yeva 
[. . .] in BU 1033 (ii/A.D.) corrected to ^evo ... by a second 
hand,2 we see that education still rebelled against this develop- 
ment, which had begun with the Attic etTra? centuries before. 
The tendency, in fairly cultured speech, mainly concerned the 
act., and the indie, middle. For the details see the careful 
note in WS p. 111. Whether the same intrusion should 

1 So Lk 22-*-' N, Lk 24- B, and Mk G^s and \b^- A : there is no furtlier uncial 
support, if Ti is reliable, throughout Mt, Mk, and Lk, in a total of 40 occur- 
rences. The ptc. does not occur in Jii. I have not looked further. 

2 EupdMefos in Heb Q^- (all uncials except D„) is perhaps due to the frequency 
of 1st aor. in -pa. The ptc. itself appears in an inscr. of the Roman age, 
I?JJ iii. 1119. P. Buttmann cites Yei'd^fos from Archimedes (iii/i;.c.), though 
Wilamowitz-Mollendorf in his extracts from the Psammites {Lcsehich 2i3 ft'.) 
edits yevSfievos seven times. But in a Doric author the question concerns us 
little. MGr shows that yevdp.euos came to stay. 


be allowed in the imperf., e.g. el^av Mk 8^, is doubtful, in 
view of the scanty warrant from the papyri. It is for the 
same reason more than doubtful whether we can accept 
TrapeXd^oaav 2 Th 3*^ n*AD''^ : I have only 4 imperf. and 

2 aor. exx. from Ptolemaic times, and the forms iXafx^d- 
veaav and dcplXeaav (BM 18, 41, 161 B.C. — cited by WM 
91 n.^) show that the innovation had not attained great 
fixity before I/a.d. The ocular confusion suggested by Hort 
in 2 Th I.e. would be furthered by the later currency of this 
convenient ending. What we find it hard to allow in a 
writer of Paul's culture is a little easier in Jn (IS^^-^* 
kBL etc.) ; and iSoXiova-av Kom 3^^ (LXX) might have been 
written by Paul himself, apart from quotation — we can 
hardly cite any other 3 pi. imperf. from -ow verbs. As 
early as ii/B.c. we find r/^tovcrav in Marjn. 47 : see Nach- 
manson's parallels, pp. 148 f. The -e? of 2 sg. perf., read 
by WH in Eev 2^-^ 11^'^, and in 1st aor. Kev 2^ may 
perhaps be allowed in Eev as a mark of imperfect Greek : 
it has no warrant from educated writing outside.^ The 

3 pi. perf. in -av is well attested in Ac 16^*^ and Ko 16'^ 
kAB, Lk 936 BLX, Col 2^ s*ABCD*P, as well as in Jn, Jas 
and Eev, where it raises less difficulty. It certainly makes 
a fair show in the papyri, even as early as the Ptolemaic 
period, but not in documents which would encourage us to 
receive it for Luke or Paul. As the only difference between 
perf. and 1 aor.-endings, the -acri was foredoomed to yield to 
the assimilating tendency ; but possible occurrences of -av are 
relatively so few, and the witness of the papyri so dubious, 
that it is safer, except in Eev, to suppose it a vulgarism 
due to the occasional lapse of an early scribe.^ If it were 
really Alexandrian, as Sextus Empiricus says, we could 
understand its comparative frequency in the papyri ; but 
Thumb decisively rejects this (Hellenismus 170), on the 
ground of its frequent appearance elsewhere.^ The termina- 

' Even B sliows it, in Ac 21". 

- Yeyovav formed the starting-point of a valuable paper Idj K. Burescli in 
EhM, 1891, pp. 193 ff., which should not be missed by the student of Hellenistic, 
though it needs some modification in the light of newer knowledge. Thus he 
accepts the Alexandrian provenance of this and the -otra!' type. 

^ At Delphi, for example, with imperf. and aor. -offav (see p. 37). 


tion -aac invades what is formally, though uot in meaning, a 
present, in the case of rjKaa-i, which is a genuine vernacular 
form (cf ijKUfiev in Par P 48 (ii/B.c.)). WII {AjJ}} 169) reject 
it as " Western " in Mk 8^ regarding it as a paraphrase 
of elaiv (BLJ); but it must be observed tliat the Lewis 
Syriac is now to be added to xADN, with the Latin and 
other versions, which support it. It is after all a form 
which we might expect in Mk, and equally expect to find 
removed by revisers, whether Alexandrian or Syrian. By 
way of completing the person-endings, we may observe that 
the pluperf. act. has exclusively the later -eiv form, with 
-ei- even in 3 pi. ; ^ and that the 3 pi. imper. in -Tcoaav and 
-aOodcrav are unchallenged. 

Taking up the contract verbs, we note how the confusions 
between -dw and -eco forms (p. 166) are supported by our 
external evidence, and by MGr. Our first serious revolt from 
WH concerns the infinitive in -olv (and by analogy -av). The 
evidence for it is "small, but of good quality" (p. 166 — cf 
Introd. I 410): it is in fact confined to B*D in Mt 13^^^ B* 
in Mk 432, s* in 1 Pet 2^^ BD* in Heb 7^ (where see Ti), 
and a lectionary in Lk 9^^ This evidence may pass if our 
object is merely to reproduce the spelling of the age of B ; 
but absolutely no corroboration seems discoverable, earlier 
than the date of B itself, except an inscription cited in 
Hatzidakis (p. 193),^ and a newly published papyrus, also 
fromii/A.D., PFi 24. Blass (p. 48) does not regard the form 
as established for the NT. We can quote against it from 
i-iv/A.D. a dozen examples of -ovv in papyri. (That -ovv and 
-av (not av) are the correct Attic forms, may be seen from 
Meisterhans^ 175 f., which Hort's hesitation as to -av 
prompts me to quote : for the reason of the apparent 
irregularity see Brugmann, Gr. Gramm:^ 61, or WS 42.) 
Next may be named, for -dw verbs, the 2nd sing. pres. mid. in 
-daaL (Kavxdcrat,, ohvvdaai), which has been formed afresh 
in the Kolv^ with the help of the -aai that answers to 3rd 

^ Tliere are isolated exceptions in the papyri. 

2 So AVS 116 n. Two other inscriptions are cited by Hatzidakis, but 
without dates. Vitelli (on PFi I.e.) refers to Ciunert 220 n., who corrects 
Schniiedel's pliilology : the form is of course a simple product of analogy— 
Xvei. : Xveiv : : orjXol : OrjXo'ii'. 


sing. -Tat in the perfect.^ It is well paralleled by the early 
Ptolemaic future )(apieiaai, for which '^apiecraL appears in 
OP 292 (i/A.D.). ^djeaai and irieaai, which naturally went 
together, give us the only exx. outside -dw verbs, to which 
the quotations in G. Meyer Gr. Gram?' 549 suggest that 
the innovation was mainly confined. The later extensions 
may be noted in Hatzidakis 188. Note the converse change 
in hvvrj. Unfortunately we do not seem to have exx. of the 
subj. of -0(0 verbs, to help the parsing of Xva ^rfKovre and 
the like (p. 167). Blass (Kuhner^ i. 2. 587, and Gr. 48) 
accepts Hort's view that the subj. of these verbs became 
identical with the indie, just as it always was in the -atu 
verbs. (See W. F. Moulton's note, WM 363. Ex l^e ^Vai/ 
fiacovaOe . . . kuI oxtl, there cited, is a very good example.) 
But Blass rightly, I think, rejects the supposition that 
euoScoTat (1 Co 16^) can be anything but a pres. subj. To 
read evoBcorai, as perf. indie, is possible, though the editors 
do not seem by their printing to have favoured that 
alternative. That it is a perf. subj. is extremely unlikely. 
The parallels on which Hort (p. 172) relies — set forth with 
important additions in Blass's Kiihner i. 2. 100 f. — do 
nothing to make it likely that the Koivrj had any perf. subj. 
apart from the ordinary periphrastic form.^ It is hard, 
moreover, to see why the pres. subj. is not satisfactory here : 
see Dr Findlay's note in loc. {EGT vol. ii.). Finally we 
note the disappearance of the -rjoi verbs from the Koivrj, 
with the exception of ^i-joi and ^pjyo/iat ^ (as we ought to call 
them) ; also the sporadic appearance of the uncontracted 
iSeero Lk 8^^ (B and a few others -ecTo, which looks like a 
correction). It is supported by Esth 14=^ A, BU 926 (H/a.d.) 
and the Mithras Liturgy (p. 12): it is probably, as Blass 
suggests, a mere analogy-product from Seofiat conjugated 

^ To suppose this (or (pdyeffai, similarly formed from (pdyeraL) a genuine 
survival of the pre-Greek -esai, is characteristic of the antediluvian philology 
which still frequently does duty for science in this country. Krumbacher, KZ 
xxvii. 497, scoffs at E. Curtius for talking of an "uralte" -(xai. 

2 To argue this would demand a very technical discussion. It is enough 
to say that the Attic KeKrQfiai and fiefivw/xai. are not derivative verbs, and that 
the three derivative verbs which can be quoted, from Doric, Cretan and 
Ionic respectively, supply slender justification for the sui^jjosed Koij'^ parallel. 

^ XpS.a6aL was the Hellenistic infin., but there is no example of it in NT, 


like Xvoixat^ and owes uothiiig to Ionic. It affordg no 

warrant for suspecting uucontracted forms elsewliere : Kare'^eev 

Mk 14^ is an aor., as in Attic. 

The verbs in -/^t continued in Hellenistic to suffer from 

the process of gradual extinction which began even in 

Homeric Greek, and in MGr has eliminated every form 

outside the verb "be." The papyri agree with the NT 

„ , . uncials in showing forms like Bvvouat and 

Verbs in -/xi. ,^ » /?. x ^ • 

-ed€To (as well as -edoTo), and various 

flexions after contract verb types. New verbs like la-rdvo) ^ 
are formed, and new tenses like eaTuKa (transitive). The 
most important novelty apart from these is the aor. subj. 
Sol and fyvoi,^ as to which W. F. Moulton's view (WM 360 n.) 
is finally established by good attestation from papyri. The 
pres. subj. SiSol, after the -6co verbs, set the analogy at 
work. That in much later documents such forms may be 
opt. need not trouble us. The form Smt] is more difficult. 
Schwyzer (p. 191) quotes Moeris for 7roia)r] in Common 
Greek, and calls in the analogy of rc/xMr] : the further step 
to Smt] (also attested by Moeris) was eased by the fact 
that 8oL7] drew towards dll, and would consequently become 
monosyllabic: 'see p. 45. Jm-jj (subj.) seems a syntact- 
ical necessity in Eph 1^'' (B Sm), 2 Tim 2-^ (cf later 
uncials in Eph 3^^ and Jn 15^*"): this form, well known in 
Homer, survives in Boeotian and Delphian inscriptions, as 
Michel 1411 (ii/B.c, Delphi), 1409 (doy It is quite intel- 
ligible that NW Greek (cf above, p. 36 f.) should have 
thus contributed to the Koivrj an item which (like other 
contributions from a single quarter, e.g. rea-aape^; ace.) kept 
only a precarious existence by the side of other forms. We 
return to this later (pp. 193 f.). From olSa we have in papyri, 
as in NT, ordinary perfect indie, flexion,^ and pluperf. for 
yheiv, with occasional literary revival of the older irregular 
forms. Finally, in the conjugation of el^ll, the middle forms 

1 See below, p. 234. 

'•' The form -crTavu in n and D (p. 168) is interesting in that it exactly 
anticipates the MGr. So NP 53 (iii/A.c), in Wilcken's reading. 
■• So in 2nd person also, airoSois Lk 12''' D (as papyri). 
* See G. Meyer Gr. Gramm." 656. 
^ Probably Ionic : so Herodotus, and even our texts of Homer {Od. i. 337). 


are well established {rnjirjv, i^fieOa — see above, p. 37), as to 

a still further extent m MGr. Even the MGr present" 

elixai is found already in a Phrygian inscription ap. Eamsay 

G. and B. ii. 565 (early Iv/a.d.). G. Meyer {Gr. Gramm.^ 

569) regarded eo-rat as the 3rd sing, of this, transferred to 

future meaning ; but this view seems questionable. It may 

be noted that the old 1st sing, ^v reappears in D at Ac 20^^: 

elsewhere ijfjLTiv stands alone. The rarer tjtq) alternates with 

€a-T(o, in papyri and late inscriptions, as in NT. 

,_. „ It is needless to add any details as to 

Miscellaneous. ^ ,, „ -, • . ■, 

noteworthy forms among the principal 

parts " of verbs. Papyrus parallels may be cited for ^volyqv, 

for the double formation of dpird^co and ^aard^w (rjpTrdjTjv 

and ijpirdadrjv, ijBdaTaaa and i^dara^a^), for the alternative 

perf. of Tvy^^dvca (see Ti on Heb 8*^), for the 1 aor. of ci>y(o, 

etc. Note especially the intrusion of the yu, from the present 

of \a/jb^dvco into various parts of the verb, and into derivative 

nouns (p. 142). This is normal in the papyri after the 

Ptolemaic period, in which there is still some lingering of 

the older forms. The same phenomenon occurred partially 

in Ionic ; but the Ionic f ut. Xd/juylro/xai,, by taking over the d 

as well as the nasal of the present, shows that it was an 

independent development in the Koivrj. This will serve as 

a final example to show that the late uncials and cursives, in 

restoring classical forms which the best MSS set aside, were 

deserting the Greek of the NT period in the interests of an 

artificial grammar. 

^ So P 1 38 in Rev 2". It is MGr, and may quite probably be read in 
Rev: cf Suo-^da-raKros Lk 11*^. 



Syntax: The Noun. 

We address ourselves to the syntax, beginning with that of 
the Noun. There are grammatical categories liere that 

scarcely ask for more than bare mention. 

On the subject of Numher there is one 

obvious thing to say — the dual has gone. Many Greek 

dialects, Ionic conspicuously, had discarded this hoary luxury 

„, _^ . long before the Common Greek was born; 

Neuter Plurals. ^"^^ ^^*^ theory of the relation of the Koivrj to 

the dialects would allow Attic to force on 
the resultant speech a set of forms so useless as these. The 
dual may weljl have arisen in prehistoric days when men could 
not count beyond two ; and it is evidently suffering from 
senile decay in the very earliest monuments we possess of 
Indo-Germanic language. It had somewhat revived in Attic — 
witness the inscriptions, and folk-songs like the " Harmodius " ; 
but it never invaded Hellenistic, not even when a Hebrew 
dual might have been exactly rendered by its aid. We shall 
see when we come to the adjectives that the disappearance 
of the distinction between duality and plurality had wider 
results than the mere banishment of the dual number from 
declensions and conjugations. The significant new flexion of 
hvo should be noted here : there is a pluralised dative hval, 
but in other respects hvo is indeclinable. "AfK^w has dis- 
appeared in favour of the normally declined aix(^6repo<i. 
Apart from this matter the only noteworthy point under 
Number is the marked weakening of the old princiijle that 
neuter plurals (in their origin identical with collectives in 
-a ^) took a singular verb. In the NT we have a large 

^ See Giles, ManuaP, 264 ff. (I might add here that Mr Giles thinks the 
dual may have been originally a specialised form of the plural, used (as in 
Homer always) to describe natural or artificial pairs. That this is its earliest 



extension of what in classical Greek was a comparatively rare 

licence, the plural verb being allowed when the individual 

items in the subject are separately in view, while the singular 

treats the subject as a collective unity.^ The liberty of using 

the plural freely makes the use of the singular distinctly 

more significant than it could be in classical Greek. 

. „ It may be added that the converse 

' ' Pindaric 
Construction pl^enomenon, known as the ^xvi^^ IltvSa- 

pLKov, is found in the NT : see Mk 4*\ Mt 5^^ 
6'^, 1 Co 15^*^, Eev 9^^. It is really only a special case of 
anacoluthon, no more peculiar to Pindar than to Shakspere. 
An interesting communication by Prof. Skeat to tlie Cam- 
bridge Philological Society {Proceedings, Ixvii. p. 2) describes 
a rule in English, from Alfred downwards, that " when a verb 
occurs in the 3rd person in an introductory manner . . ., 
it is often used in the singular number, though the subject 
may be in the plural." Thus " what cares these roarers for 
the name of king ? " — " and now dbideth faith, hope, [love], 
these three," — etc. ; the last being as true to English idiom 
as to its original Greek. That the construction is also pos- 
sible with order inverted, is shown by another citation, " For 
thy three thousand ducats here is six." (See also p. 234.) 

An idiomatic use of the plural appears 
Plural ■^^ passages like Mt 2-° redvyKaaiv, Lk 12^0 

acTovcnv, where there is such a suppression 
of the subject in bringing emphasis on the action, that 
we get the effect of a passive, or of French on, German 
man. Our " they say " is like it. Lightfoot compares the 
"rhetorical plural" in Euripides IT 1359, Kke'movTe<i e'/c 
7?}9 ^oava koI 6v7)7r6\ov<i (i.e. Iphigenia). Add Livy ix. 1, 
" auctores belli [one man] dedidimus." Winer gives other 
parallels, but rightly refuses to put Mt 98 27*^ 1 Co 1529 
16^ into this category. If Heb 10^ has not a primitive 
error (as Hort suspected), the plural subject of irpoaj^epovaiv 

extant use is certain, but its origin may very well have been as suggested above. 
There are savages still who cannot count beyond two : see Tylor, Primitive 
Culture, i. 242 f. The Indo-Gernians had numerals up to 100 before their 
separation ; but the superfluous dual, I suggest, had been already utilised for a 
new purpose. 

^ This is conspicuous in D (Wellh. 12). 


and ZvvavTaL might fairly be described in this way ; for the 

priests are certainly not prominent in the writer's thought, 

and a passive construction would liave given the meaning 

exactly. So Westcott (for irpoacf).) who quotes Jn 15" 20-, 

Eev 12", Mt 7^^ Mk lO^^ Lk 17^^. See also p. 163, n.\ 

_, , On Gender likewise there is not much to 

Gender : — „, , , . „„ 

say. ihere are sundry differences m the 

gender of particular words ; but even MGr is nearly as much 
under the domination of this outworn excrescence on language 
as was its classical ancestor. That English should still be almost 
the only European language to discard gender, indicating only 
distinction of sex, is exceedingly strange. As in the case of 
Number, we have to refer to ordinary grammars for some 
uses of gender which NT Greek shares with the classical. 
One or two cases of slavish translation should be mentioned. 
In Eom 11* the LXX tw BdaX is cited as rfj B., which 
occurs however three times in LXX, and in Ascensio Isaiae 12. 
Prof. E. C. Burkitt (OB xiv. 458), in commenting on this last 
passage, accepts the explanation that the gender is deter- 
mined by the Q'rt nt:'3, translated ala^vi'V- In Mk 12^^ 
and Mt 21*2 ^g hsiYe the LXX avrrj = niiv. the translators 
may perhaps have interpreted their own Greek by recalling 
Ke^aXrjv <y(ovia<;. Breach of concord in Gender 

^^ ■, has been already alluded to in a note on the 
Greek of Eev (p. 9)." The very difficult el' Ti? 
(TTrXdyxva koL olKTcpfxoi of Phil 2^ comes in here, involving 
as it does both number and gender. We might quote in illus- 
tration Par P 15 (ii/fi.C.) iirl re fiiav rwv . . . oIklcov, and 
BU 326 (ii/A.D.) el Se rt TrepLaaa ypd/x/jiaTa . . . KaroKiTrw. 
But Blass's et rt, read throughout, is a great improvement: 
si quid valet is the sense required, as Lightfoot practically 
shows by his translation. H. A. A. Kennedy {EGT in loc.) 
makes independently the same suggestion. Note that the Codex 
Amiatinus (and others) read si quid viscera. ["''See p. 244. 

A significant remark may be quoted from the great 
Byzantinist, K. Krumbacher, a propos of these breaches of 
concord. In his ProUem d. ncugr. Schriftsioraclie (p. 50) he 
observes : " If one finds in Greek literature, between the early 
Byzantine age and the present day, mistakes like Xeaivcov firj 
<jv<yxwpovvT(iiv, j>v\al KaTa\a^6vre<;, ttuvtcov tmv jvvatKMU, 


etc., it shows that we have to do with a half-dead form, in 
which mistakes slip in as soon as grammatical vigilance nods." 
When we remember that the MGr present participle, e.g. 
8evovTa<;, is as indeclinable as our own equivalent " binding," 
we can see some reason for the frequency of non-agreement 
in this part of the verb. What became common in the early 
Byzantine literature would naturally be incipient in the 
vernacular of imperfectly educated persons centuries before, 
like the author of Kev.^ A few nouns waverina; in o;ender 
may be named, ^t/w.09 is masculine in Par P 22 (ii/B.c.) and 
feminine in 26, which is written by the same hand; further 
parallels need not be sought for the inconsistency between 
Lk 42^ and Ac ll^^, Lk IS^'*, The apparently purposeless 
variation between rj ^eo? and rj 6ed in Ac 19 is explained by 
inscriptions.^ Some masculine -09 nouns like eXeo?, ^'/^o?, 
'jrXovTO'i, passed into the neuter declension in Hellenistic, 
and remain there in MGr: see Hatzidakis, pp. 356 ff. 

Qg^gg . . We are free now to examine the pheno- 

Disappearance mena of Case, To estimate the position of 
of the Hellenistic cases alono- the line of develop- 

ment, we may sum up briefly what may be seen 
at the two ends of this line. MGr has only the three cases 
we ourselves possess — nominative, accusative, and genitive. 
(The survival of a few vocative forms, in which MGr and 
Hellenistic are on practically the same footing, does not affect 
this point, for the vocative is not really a case.) At the 
very dawn of Greek language history, as we know it, there is 
only one more, the dative, though we can detect a few 
moribund traces of instrumental, locative, and ablative. For 
all practical purposes, we may say that Greek lost in pre- 

1 Of Reiuhold 57 f., and p. 234 below. We may cite typical breaches of con- 
cord from tlie papyri. Firstly, case : — KP 37 (ii/A.D.)"Hpw;' iypa\pa vwep avrov 
fxT] eidihs yp{ : — this is quite true as it stands, but Heron meant et'Soros ! 
So BU 31 {eid6sl). BU 1002 {ij B.C.) 'AvTt(pl\ov"'EX\7iv . . . iTnrdpxvs. Letr. 
149 (ii/A.D.) Tov a.5e\(pou . . . 6 Siaroxoi ( = 5ta5.). OP 527 (ii-iii/A.D.) wepi 
Hieprivov Tou yvacpews 6 avvepya^Sfievos.'^^ Tlien gender: — BU 997 (ii/s.C.) ttjv 
vwdpxov avrQi oUiav. lb. 577 (iii/A.D.) e/c tt]s fierriWax^TOS yvvaiKav. lb. 1013 
(i/A.D.) 7] ofioXoyiov. lb. 1036 (ii/A.n.) crT6\i)v Xeivovf. LP« (ii/B.c.) ttjv tCiv 
OeGiv dvaaaov aKovaavra. AP 113 (ii/A.D.) 6 TereXeyxryKws aiirrjs fi-qryip. 

- Cf Blass on 19"^ : " Usitate dicitur ij 0e6s (ut v.^^) ; verum etiam iiiscriptio 
Ephesia . . . ry fieyia-Trj deq,'E(p€iii(}'ApT€/j.L8L, cnm alibi . . , ^ ^eds eadem dicatm-. 
. . . Itaqueformulamsollemneni^/xe7aXi; ^ed"A. raira diligentia L. conservavit." * 

« » See p. 244. 


historic times three out of the primitive seven cases (or ei^'ht, 
if we include the vocative), viz., the from case (ablative), the 
xvith case (instrumental ^), and the at or in case (locative), all 
of which survived in Sanskrit, and a})preciably in Latin, 
though obscured in the latter by the formal syncretism of 
ablative, instrumental, and (except in singular of -a- and 
-0- nouns) locative. In other words, the purely local cases, 
in which the meaning could be brought out by a place- 
adverb (for this purpose called a preposition), sacrificed their 
distinct forms and usages.^ Greek is accordingly marked, 
1, + -^^^^ English, by the very free use of preposi- 
of Prepositions '^^o^^- ^^^^^ characteristic is most obviously 
intensified in Hellenistic, where we are per- 
petually finding prepositional phrases used to express rela- 
tions which in classical Greek would have been adequately 
given by a case alone. It is needless to illustrate this fact, 
except with one typical example which will fitly introduce 
the next point to be discussed. We have already (pp. 1 1 f.) 
referred to the instrumental eV, formerly regarded as a trans- 
lation of the familiar Hebrew 3, but now well established as 
vernacular Greek of Ptolemaic and later times. The examples 
adduced all happen to be from the category " armed with " ; 
but it seems fair to argue that an instrumental sense for iv 
is generally available if the context strongly pleads for it, 
without regarding this restriction or assuming Hebraism.^ 
Nor is the intrusion of iv exclusively a feature of " Biblical " 
Greek, in the places where the prep, seems to be superfluous. 
Thus in Gal 5^ the simple dative appears with eve-^ofiat,: 
Par P 63 (ii/B.C. — a royal letter) gives us toi)? eVecrp^T^yaeVoi;? 

' The instruiiiental proper all but coincided with the dative in form 
throughout the sing, of the 1st and 2iid decl., so that the still surviving 
dative of instrument may in these declensions be regarded as the ancient case : 
the comitative " ^\ith," however, was always expressed by a preposition, except 
in the idiom avToh dvdpda-L, and the "military dative.' 

2 Note that the to case also disappeared, the "terminal accusative" seen in 
ire Romam. The surviving Greek cases thus represent purely grammatical 
relations, those of subject, object, possession, remoter object, and instrument. 

» I should not wish to exclude the possibility that this iv, although correct 
vernacular Greek, came to be used rather excessively by translators from 
Hebrew, or by men whose mother tongue was Aramaic. The use would be 
explained on the same lines as that of iSov on p. 11. 


ev Tiacv dyvo/jfjiaa-Lv. lu Par P 22 (ii/B.c.) we have rw Xifjua. 
hiaXv6r)vaL, while the contemporary 28 has htaXvoixevai ev 
Tft> Xt/Ao5. What gave birth to this extension of the uses 
of eV ? It seems certainly to imply a growing lack of 
clearness in the simple dative, resulting in an unwilling- 
ness to trust it to express the required meaning without 
further definition. We may see in the multiplied use of pre- 
positions an incipient symptom of that simplification of cases 
which culminates in the abbreviated case system of to-day. 

The NT student may easily overlook the 

Dative • ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^® dative has already entered 

the way that leads to extinction. I take 
a page at random from Mk in WH, and count 21 datives 
against 23 genitives and 25 accusatives. A random page 
from the Teubner Herodotus gives me only 10, against 
23 and 29 respectively; one from Plato 11, against 12 
and 25. Such figures could obviously prove nothing con- 
clusive until they were continued over a large area, but 
they may be taken as evidence that the dative is not dead 
. yet. Taking the NT as a whole, the dative 

Prenositions ^"^^^^^ prepositions falls behind the accusative 
and genitive in the proportion 15 to 19 and 
17 respectively. This makes the dative considerably more 
prominent than in classical and post-classical historians.^ 
The preponderance is, however, due solely to eV, the commonest 
of all the prepositions, outnumbering et? by about three to 
two : were both these omitted, the dative would come down 
to 2 1 in the above proportion, while the accusative would still 
be 10. And although ev has greatly enlarged its sphere of 
influence ^ in the NT as compared with literary Kolv^j, we 

^ Helbing, in Schanz's Beitrdgc, No. 16 (1904), p. 11, gives a table for the 
respective frequency of dat,, gen., and accus. with prepositions, wliich works out 
for Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon, taken together, at 1 : 1 "2 : 3 ; for 
twelve post-classical historians, from Polybius to Zosimus, at 1 : 1'5 : 2'4. 

^ This is well seen by coniiiaring the statistics of Helbing, pp. 8 f. He gives 
the figures for the three favourite prepositions of the historians. 'Ei* is one of 
the three in every author except Polybius, Diodorus, and Joseplins ; e/s falls out 
of the list in Eusebius only. The total occurrences of et's in the three classical 
historians amount to 6,531, those of iv to 6,031 ; while in the twelve Hellenistic 
writers et'y conies to 31,651, and ev to only 17,130. Contrast the NT, where 
ds is preferred to iv only in Mk and Heb, and the total occurrences amount to 
1,743 and 2,698 respectively. See the list in p. 98 below : note there also the 


find very clear examples of et9 encroachinp; on its domain." 

There are many NT passages where a real distinction between 

et? and iv is impossible to draw without excessive subtlety, 

for which all the motive is gone when we find in MGr <tt6 

with accusative ( = et<? t6v) the substitute for the now obsolete 

dative ; while the language in its intermediate stages steadily 

tends towards this ultimate goal.^ By the side of this we 

may put the disappearance of vtto with the dative, the 

accusative serving to express both motion and rest : in the 

classical historians the dative is nearly as frequent as the 

accusative, and some of their successors, notably Appian and 

Herodian, made it greatly outnumber its rival — see Helbing, 

op. cit., p. 22. Similarly tt/oo? with dative stands in NT in 

the ratio of less than '01 to 7rp6<; with accusative : in the three 

classical historians it averages nearly '12 ; in the later twelve, 

'01 again. 'Eirl and Trapd are the only prepositions in which 

the use with three cases is really alive ; and even iirL rather 

illustrates our tendency than contradicts it — see p. 107. 

We pass on to other symptoms of sen- 
Otner cases . ^. , ^. t ^i • ^i 

substituted escence m the dative. In the papyri there 

are some clear examples of an accusative 

expressing point of time instead of duration (see CE xviii. 

152); and in Ac 20^*^ and Jn 4^^, Eev 3^ we may recognise the 

same thing.^ Of course the dative of " time when " was still 

very much more common. There were not wanting, indeed, 

instances where a classical use of the accusative, such as that of 

specification (Goodwin Greek Gram. § 1058), has yielded to a 

dative of reference (instrumental).^ We have examples of 

its survival in Jn 6^'' cil (WM 288 f.) ; but, as in the papyri, 

the dative is very much commoner. The evidence of the 

decay of the dative was examined with great minuteness by 

F. Krebs in his three pamphlets, Zur Rection cler Casus in dcr 

spdteren historischen Grdcitdt (1887-1890). He deals only 

marked drop in the total for iirl, which in the twelve writers of literary Koivri 
comes not far behind ev (14,093). 

1 See below, p. 234. 

-Thus OP 477 (ii/A.D.) rb TreixirTov iTO% "in the fiftli year"— a recurrent 
formula. Add Gen 43"^ (Dieterich, Untcrs. lol). With ihpav, liowovor, the 
use began in classical times : see Blass 94. See also p. 245. 

2 Cf OR XV. 438, xviii. 153, and the useful Frogmm by Compernass, Dc 
Sermone Gr. Volg. Pisidiae PJirygiaeque vicridionalis, ]ip. 20 f. ["See p. 245. 


with the literary Kolvtj ; but we may profitably take up his 
points in order and show from the NT how these tendencies 
of the artificial dialect are really derived from the vernacular. 
Krebs starts with verbs which are beginning to take the 
accusative, having been confined to the dative in the earlier 
language. The distinction in meaning between transitive 
verbs and verbs whose complement was properly instrumental 
(as with 'x^pdadac — which itself takes an abnormal accus. in 
1 Co 7^^)," or the dative of person interested, inevitably faded 
away with time, and the grammatical distinction became 
accordingly a useless survival. Of Krebs' exx., rroXefieiv 
takes accus. also in vernacular, ivehpeveiv and euBoKelu in the 
NT ; but ^evl^eadai, airavTciv and viravTav retain the dative 
there.^ The movement was accompanied with various 
symptoms of reaction. TIpoaKvvelv in the NT takes the 
dative about twice as often as the accusative.^ The phrase 
irapa^aXkeaOai Trj "^v^y (Polybius) is matched in respect of 
its innovating dative by irapa^oXevea-Oat in Phil 2^''. We 
will dismiss the decay of the dative with the remark that 
the more illiterate papyri and inscriptions decidedly show it 
before the NT had acquired any antiquity. The schoolboy 
of OP 119, referred to already (p. 28), uses ere for croi after 
ypdcfico ; while later samples (see CB as above) include such 
monstrosities as rivt \6jov, a-vv tcov vicov, x^pL^ere e/xov.^^ 
Dittenberger would actually recognise the same thing in 
OGLS 17 ^A6i]vat Ilcoreipa NUr] koI /Saa-iXifa UrokeixaLov. 
But at the beginning of iii/B.c. this confusion is surely 
unthinkable, and there is a curious asyndeton left : should 
the Kai be transposed?^ Even OP 811 (a.d. 1), ev-)(apiOT(ov 
'EpfiLTTTTou, seems much too early to be intentional. We may 
follow Krebs further as he shows the encroachments of the 
accusative upon the genitive, and upon the field of verbs 
which M'ere formerly intransitive. It will be seen that the 

^ Also, we may add, weiOapxew, which takes a gen. (like Akoiju}) in Tb P 104 
(i/i!.c.), OP 265 (i/A.D.), and the "Gadatas" inscr. (Michel 32). For the dat., 
as in NT, cf Magn. 114, etc. EvSoKely c. ace. is only in a quotation. 

-Contrast the inscriptions: see CH xv. 436. But note Par P 51 (ii/B.c.) 
iva TTpoaKwrjcrrjs avTov. 

^ See other exx. in Dieterich, Unters. 150. 

•* D.'s further ex., No. 87 (iii/u.C.) vn^p paaCKiuis . . . Kal pacriXicrarj^ . . 
Kal riroXe/iatwi Twt vlQi seems merely a mason's carelessness. ["^See p. 245, 


NT does not tally in details with the literary Kotvi], though 
it independently shows the same tendencies at work. In 

his second part Krebs turns to the tjenitive. 
Accusative gams m r. - , • , . , . ° 

from genitive, -'-"^ "^^^ ^^^'"^ ^^^ which we are interested is 

the late compound airekirii^eLv, which gene- 
rally takes ace. instead of the natural gen. This it seems 
to do in Lk 6^^, if we read /irjBeva with s* etc. and the 
Lewis Syriac : ^ so Ti WHmg EVnig. KpuTeiv (Krebs 
ii. 14) takes the gen. only 8 times in NT, out of 4G occur- 
rences, but Sia(f)6peiv (" surpass ") has gen. always. 'Ev- 
Tpeireadai (p. 15) takes only the acc.,^ and so does KXrjpom/xelv. 
Apdcrao/jbat (p. 17) has the ace. in the only place where it 
occurs (1 Co 3^^, cited from the LXX). 'ETridvfxcb may be added 
to this list, if we may follow BD al. in Mt 5-^. Add likewise 
the sporadic exx. of ace. with verbs of filling (Eev 17^ al; 
see Blass 102): Thumb observes (ThLZ xxviii. 422) that 
the usage lives on in MGr.^ There follows a category 

. . of intransitive verbs which in Hellenistic 
from intransitive , , ,-i i-.i-^-^i 

construction ^^® begun to take a direct object in the 

ace. Of these we recognise as NT examples 

ivepjelv (six times), a-vvepyeiv (in Rom 8-^ AB and Origen), 

irXeoveKrelv (four times, and once in passive), and 'x^oprjyeiv. 

The third part of Krebs' work deals with 

and from dat. compound verbs and their cases. Here 

and gen. after '- . „ i • tt pi"? u *. -i. 

compounds 'n-poa^wveiv c. ace. may claim Lk b^^ but it 

has the dat. four times ; vTroTpi'^eiv has ace. 
in its only occurrence; eTrepx^o-dai has only dat. or prepositional 
phrase ; Kara^apelv occurs once, c. ace. ; KaraXaXelv takes gen. in 
NT, but is once passive, as is Karairovelv in its two occurrences ; 
while KaTLCT'xveiv shows no sign of the ace. construction. 

It would of course be easy to supplement 
Limits of the ^^^^ ^j^^ -^rp gj-^mmar these illustrations of 
blurring of old w i i *. v ^- j- 

distinctions. ^ general tendency, but exhaustive discussion 

is not needed here. We must proceed to 
note a few special characteristics of the individual cases as 
they appear in NT Greek, in uses deviating from earlier 

1 MrjUv, if not to be read ix-q5iv\ is an internal accus., nil deapcr antes. 

2 A passage from Dionysius (Krebs 16), ovre delov (po^Tid&Tes x^^o" o^^^ 
av6pu}iriv7\v ivrpairei'Tes vi/xecriv, bears a curiously close resemblance to Lk 18'. 

'^ See further, p. 235. 



language. Before doing so, however, we must make some 
general observations, by way of applying to noun syntax the 
principles noted above, p. 20. We should not assume, from 
the evidence just presented as to variation of case with verbs, 
that the old distinctions of case-meaning have vanished, or 
that we may treat as mere equivalents those constructions 
which are found in common with the same word. The very 
fact that in Jn 4-^ irpoaKvveiv is found with dat. and then 
with ace. is enough to prove the existence of a difference, 
subtle no doubt but real, between the two, unless the writer 
is guilty of a most improbable slovenliness. The fact that 
the maintenance of an old and well-known distinction between 
the ace. and the gen. with aKovco saves the author of Ac 9'' 
and 22^ from a patent self-contradiction, should by itself be 
enough to make us recognise it for Luke, and for other writers 
until it is proved wrong. So with the subtle and suggestive 
variation in Heb G"*^- from gen. to ace. with yeveaOai}" 
Further, the argument that because et? often denotes rest 
in or at, and sometimes represents that motion toivards (as 
distinguished from motion to) which may perhaps have been 
the primitive differentia of the dat., therefore it is immaterial 
whether et? or iv or the simple dat. be used with any par- 
ticular word, would be entirely unwarrantable. It depends 
upon the character of the word itself. If its content be 
limited, it may well happen that hardly any appreciable 
difference is made by placing it in one or another of cer- 
tain nearly equivalent relations to a noun. But if it is a 
word of large content and extensive use, we naturally expect 
to find these alternative expressions made use of to define the 
different ideas connected with the word they qualify, so as to 
set up a series of phrases having a perfectly distinct meaning. 
In such a case we should expect to see the original force of 
these expressions, obsolete in contexts where there was no- 

^ To illustrate with a lexical example, we need not think that the evidence 
which proves ipcordp in the vernacular no longer restricted to the meaning 
question (cX Expos. VI. viii. 431), compromises the antithesis between the verbs 
in Ju 16-^, rightly given by RVmg. Our English ask is the complete equivalent 
of the Hellenistic epwrdv ; and if we translated air-qariTe by some other word, say 
ieg ov petition, we should naturally take ask to mean question there. See West- 
cott or Milligan-Moulton in loc, or Loisy, Le Quatritme jEvangile, p. 789. 

« See p. 245. 


thing to quicken it, brought out vividly where the need cif a 
distinction stimulated it into new life. A critical example 
is afforded by the construction of iricrTeva), as to which Blass 

« . X- ^ (P- 11*^) declares that (beside the prepositional 
Construction of „ , , • -.i .1 • „ , ,. . „ 

construction, with the meaning " believe in ) 

it takes the dat. "passim even in tlio sense 
' to believe in,' as in Ac 5^* 1 8^." 1 Again, p. 1 2o, " Tnarevetv 
el<i alternates with ivLar. ev (Mk l^^) and Tnar. eiri, in 
addition to which the correct classical irta-T. nvl appears." 
Let us examine this. In classical Greek, as LS observe, 
" the two notions [believe and believe in] run into each 
other." To be unable to distinguish ideas so vitally different 
in the scheme of Christianity would certainly have been a 
serious matter for the NT writers. Blass allows that with 
the preposition the meaning is believe in. Is this meaning 
ever found with the simple dat., or is Triareveiv rivo appro- 
priated entirely for the other idea ? The answer must, it 
would seem, come from examination of the NT passages, 
rather than from outside. There are about forty occurrences 
of TTiaTevetv with dat., apart from those where the verb means 
entrust. It will be admitted that in the great majority of 
these passages the meaning is believe. There remain a few 
passages where tlie alternative is arguable, such as Jn 5-^- ^^ 
(in which the XG709 just preceding shows that believe is more 
appropriate), 8^^ (where the variation from the previous tt. et? 
cannot be merely accidental), Ac 5'^'^ (where the dat. may be 
construed with irpoaeTidevTo, as in liV), 16^* and 18^ (where 
accepting the truth of God's word satisfies the connexion). 
(See p. 235.) It might be said that the influence of the 
LXX tends to weaken the normal distinction in the phrase 
TT. Tw deep. But it is very clear that the LXX is not re- 
sponsible for the NT use of irtarevetv. The only pre- 
positional phrase used in the LXX is that witli iv, which 
is itself very rare, and this occurs in only one NT passage,^ 
Mk V^, where there can be little doubt that Deissmann 
is right 2 in translating " believe in (the sphere of)" the 

1 The second passage is ch-opped in -, but not in the English edition. 
- Eph 1^^ is only an apparent exception, for the second ^v y is as.-iiinilated to 
the first, and its sense is determined by ea<ppayic6r]T£. 

3 In Christo 46 f. ["^eu p. 245. 



Gospel": he compares 1 Th 3^, Eom 1^ 2 Co S^s iQi*, etc. 
The construction ttlot. iiri, which outside John is commoner 
than et?, is found in Is 28^°, where B omits eVt, and conformity 
to the NT application of the passage may well have occasioned 
its insertion in «AQ. It would seem therefore as if the 
substitution of et? or eVt for the simple dative may have ob- 
tained currency first in Christian circles, where the import- 
ance of the difference between mere belief (? PP!??!]) and personal 
trust (3 "n) was keenly realised. The prepositional construc- 
tion was suggested no doubt by its being a more literal 
translation of the Hebrew phrase with 3, But in itself it 
was entirely on the lines of development of the Greek 
language, as we have seen. There was, moreover, a fitness 
in it for the use for which it was specialised. To repose 
one's trust tqjon God or Christ was well expressed by iria-reveiv 
iiri, the dative suggesting more of the state, and the accus- 
ative more of the initial act of faith ; while el<; recalls at once 
the bringing of the soul into that mystical union which Paul 
loved to express by ev Xpicnu). But as between eVt and 
619, we may freely admit that it is not safe to refine too 
much : the difference may amount to little more than that 
between our own believe on and believe in} The really im- 
portant matter is the recognition of a clear distinction between 
believe on or in and believe with the dative simply.- 

^ For a closely allied equivalence, cf that of ev and eVi ry ovofxan, as de- 
monstrated by Heitraiiller, Im Namen Jesu (1903), i. ch. i. 

^ We may give a table of the constructions of iriaTevio, when not absolute, and 
not = entrust. As elsewhere, it depends on WH text, ignoring passages in [[ ]]. 

C. els 

c. eVt 

C. ev 

c. dat. 




Mt . . . 
Mk . . . 
Lk and Ao . 
Jn and 1 Jn. 
Paul . . . 
Jas . . . 
1 Pet . . . 

























1 Jn 4^^ is omitted, as eyvuKa/Mev determines the construction. 
Ac 5'* and Eph 1'^, for reasons given above. 

So also are 


We have still to gather some noteworthy 
Special uses ^ • j.  ^.v, e i.i  , , 

of the Cases :— P°^"^^ ^^ ^'^^ "se of the cases, particularly 

Nominative, ^he Nominative, on which nothing has been 
said hitherto. The case has a certain tend- 
ency to be residuary legatee of case-relations not obviously 
appropriated by other cases. We have its use as the name- 
case, unaltered by the construction of the sentence, in Eev 
9^^: the fact that this has classical parallels (see Blass 85) 
is perhaps only accidental, for we have already seen that 
ungrammatical nominatives are prevalent in Eev (see p. 9), 
and the general NT usage is certainly assimilation (Mt 1^^ 
Mk 3^^ Ac 27^). The classical parallels may serve for a 
writer such as Luke, if we are to write eXaiwv in Lk 
1929 21^7. In WH and the RV it is eXaiSyv, gen. pi., and so 
Blass. We noted above (p. 49) the conclusive evidence which 
compels us to accept the noun iXamv, oliveticm, as a word 
current in the Kolvj]. WH {App 158) regard the presence 
of 'E\aLO)vo<i in Ac V^ as corroborating the argument drawn 
from the unambiguous to 6po<; tmv iXatcov. Tertullian's in 
Elaconem secedehat, the prevalence of olivetum in the Latin 
versions, and the new fact (unknown to WH) that ekaiwv is 
a word abundantly occurring in the vernacular, may together 
perhaps incline us rather to the other view, with Deissmann, 
Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Weiss (cf W. F. Moulton's note in 
WM 227). Certainly, if we were forced to emend on 
conjecture, to substitute 'EXacwva in Lk — in one of which 
places the initial d. following makes it especially easy — would 
cause much less disturbance than to force Blass's iXaioJv 
upon Acts and Josephus. (See further on p. 235.) 

The nominative which stands at the 
" Nominativus , , « i vi *. i- i-  

Pendens " head of a clause witliout construction is 

a familiar phenomenon hardly needing to 
be illustrated: it is one of the easiest of anacolutha, 
and as much at home in Enghsh as in Greek. The 
special case in wliich the participle is concerned will en- 
gage our attention later (p. 225). Typical exx. are Lk 21^, 
Ac 7*^ Mt 5**^ D (6 deXcov . . . o^e? avTu> — a plausible 
reading, as to, OeXovn is an easy correction), 1 Jn 2-*, 
Eev 226, gtc 

The parenthetic nominative in expressions of time is well 



seen in Mt 1 5^-, Mk 8^, also Lk O^s. In popular Attic the 

construction goes as far back as v/b.c.^ Viteau {Sujct 41) cites 

. Eccles 2^^ (note emendation in A and x'^- ^■) and 

Nominative '^'^^ ^^^' ^^^ ^^^*^ latter Nestle notes {Ex}-) T 
xvi. 429) that B (ert r^ixepai rpet? Kat Sia- 
^aivere) gives the rationale/' Deissmann adds from the Acta 
Fauli et Theclae (in OP i. p. 9) t'^ixepai^ap i'jSrj rpet? Kal vvkt€<; 
T/3€t9 GeKXa ouK ij/jjeprai.'^ We must leave it an open ques- 
tion whether Ac 5"^ (see p. 16) belongs to this category: it 
means an isolated return to the construction of iyevero which 
Luke used in his Gospel, but then abandoned. This may not 
however be quite decisive. The use of parenthetic nominat- 
ives appears in the papyri most abundantly in descriptions 
with ov\r/ or iy€LTOve<;. Thus " 6LK6ve<i " ^ will run, " to A., 
long-faced, straight-nosed, a scar on his right wrist " ; and a 
piece of land or a house is inventoried with " belonging to 
A., its neighbours on the south the open street, on the west 
the house of B." — all nominatives without construction. We 
compare such examples as Jn 1*^. 

There is a very marked increase in the 
Articular ^^g^ ^^ ^j^^ articular nominative in address. 

in address Nearly sixty examples of it are found in the 
NT. There seems no sufficient reason for 
assigning any influence to the coincident Hebrew use, for 
classical Greek shows the idiom well established. The rough 
and peremptory tone which characterises most of the other 
examples seems to have disappeared. Contrast the Aristo- 
phanic 6 iraU uKoXovOei, " you there ! the lad, I mean " 
(Blass), with the tender t] Trat? eyecpe ^ in Lk 8^* : we may 
still recognise a survival of the decisiveness of the older use. 
Descriptiveness, however, is rather the note of the articular 
nom. of address in the NT: so in Lk 12^^, Jn 19^, where we 
may represent the miance by " Fear not, you little flock ! " 
" Hail, you ' King ' ! " In the latter passage we can easily 
feel the inappropriateness of the /SaaiXev found in K, which 
would admit the royal right, as in Ac 26^. Its appearance 

1 Mcisterlians'' 203. See OP. xvii. 197, where Cronert reads in BM ii. 299 
(no. 417^iv/A.D.) eTTELSi] dcxoXiD eXOlv irpbs oiv avri ( = -ai) rjp-ipe, "his diebus " 
— a violent example if true. Of j). 11 n.^ ad Jin. ["Sec p. 245. 

» See p. 235. 


in Mk 15^^ is merely a note of the writer's imperfect 
sensibility to the more delicate shades of Greek idiom. 
Note that Lk, and perhaps Mt (xAL), cor- 
rect Mk here. The anarthrous nom. should 
probably be regarded as a mere substitute for the vocative, 
which begins from the earliest times to be supplanted by 
the nominative. In MGr the forms in -e are practically the 
only separate vocatives surviving. Hellenistic has little 
more, retaining some in -a and -eO, with the isolated <yvvai, 
irdrep, and Ov^arep ; but the nom. is beginning to assert 
itself even here, for irari'ip^"' and Ovycnrjp are well attested 
(see the evidence in Blass 86 n.). The vocative itself need 
not detain us, the presence or absence of w being the only 
feature calling for comment. In the Lucan writings only is 
the interjection used in the classical manner without emphasis. 
Elsewhere it is mostly used as we use 0, except that this is 
with us appropriate in prayer, from which it is markedly 
absent in the NT, though not entirely in the translation 
Greek of the OT. The progressive omission of w is not wholly 
easy to explain, for the classical examples (see Gerth's 
Kiihner^ § 357. 4) show that the simple voc. has normally 
a touch of dignity or reserve. A specially good ex. occurs in 
Plato Crito 52a, ravTai^ Sij jiafxev Kal <xe, l!coKpaTe<;, rah 
alriaa ive^eadac, where " the effect of omitting w is to 
increase the impressiveness, since w l!(i)KpaTe<; is the regular 
mode of address : in English we obtain the same effect by 
exactly the opposite means" (Adam). NT use has thus 
approximated to our own, and may well have travelled upon 
the same path without any outside interference, such as A. 
Buttmann would find in Latinism.^ 

Common to nominative and accusative is the use of et? 
with ace. to replace a predicate, in such phrases as ehai ek 
and iryeipecv ek (Ac 8^3 1322). This cannot fairly be described 

^ There seems no adeiiuatc reason to write Tarrjp, as WH [App 158). 

2 J. A. Scott, in AJP xxvi. 32-43, has a careful study of the classical use 
of w. He shows tliat w "with the vocative was familiar, and was not freely 
used until the familiar language of comedy, dialectic, and the law courts hecarae 
the language of literature, when the vocative rarely appears without the inter- 
jection." The Attic scrmo vulgaris in this case did not determine the usage of 
the Hellenistic vernacular. ["Seep. 215. 


as a Hebraism, for the vernacular shows a similar extension 
of the old use of et<? expressing destination : so for example 

KP 46 (ii/A.D.), ea'^ov irap vfMcov ei? 8d(veiov) 
Freoicates airep/xaTa, a recurrent formula. It is obvious 

that " I received it as a loan " and "for a 
loan " do not differ except in grammar. The fact that this 
et? is mainly found in translation falls into line with other 
phenomena already discussed — the overdoing of a correct 
locution in passages based on a Semitic original, simply 
because it has the advantage of being a literal rendering. 
, We may pass over the accusative, as 

little remains to be said of it except on 
points of detail. As to the genitive, readers of Winer will 
perhaps hardly need reminding now-a-days that to call the 
case " unquestionably the whence-case " is an utterly obsolete 
procedure. The Greek genitive is syncretic (cf p. 61); and 
the ablative, the only case which answers to Winer's " case 
of proceeding from or out of" is responsible for a part of the 
uses of the genitive in which it was merged. Most of the 
ordinary divisions of the case we find still in extensive use. 
The objective gen. is very prominent, and exegesis has often 
to discuss the application of this or the subjective label to a 
particular phrase. It is as well to remember that in Greek 
this question is entirely one of exegesis, not of grammar. 
There is no approximation to the development by which we 
have restricted the inflexional genitive in our language almost 
entirely to the subjective use. The jmr^tYtvc gen. is largely 
replaced by the abl. with airo or e'/c,** but is still used freely, 
sometimes in peculiar phrases. In Mt 28^ (KV) we have 
oy^re with this gen., " late on the sabbath : " cf Tb P 230 (ii/B.c.) 
oyjrLTepov tj}? wpa?, and Par P 35, 37 (ii/B.c.) oyjre t^? copa<;, and 
Philostratus (a^?. Blass^ 312) o'^e twv TpwiKwv, "at a late 
stage in the Trojan war." This last writer however has also 
6y\re tovtcop, " after these things," and Blass now (I.e.) adopts 
this meaning in Mt, giving other quotations. This use of 
oyjre = after involves an ablative gen., " late from!' There 
remains the vefipere sabbati of the Latt. and the Lewis Syr., 
favoured by Weiss, Wright, etc. Since oyjre could be used 
practically as an indeclinable noun (see Mk 11^^ al), this seems 
a natural development, but the question is not easy to 

"See p. 245. 


decide.^ How freely the partitive gen. was used in the Koivi) 
may be seen in passages like Ac 21i«, wliere it is subject of a 
sentence. See WM 253 for classical parallels: add OGIS 56^'-' 
6 7rpo(f))]rr)<; rj tmv . . . lepewv . . . oiaei. How unnecessary 
it was there for Dittenberger to insert ri<;, may be seen from 
the standing phrase 6 Belva rwv (f)LXwv, " X., one of the Privy 
Council " (as Par P 1 5 (ii/B.c), etc.). 

. . The papyri show us abundantly the 

Timrand Place, g®"^*^^^^ of time and 2Jicicc, like v6tov " on 
" the south," erov<i /S "in the 2nd year." It 
comes most naturally from the simplest of all genitives, that 
of possession, " belonging to " ; but the abl. is possible, as we 
find the place idea expressed in Piev 21^^ by airo votov. 
" Time or place vnthin which " — cf rov oVto? fMT]v6<; " within 
the current month," FP 124 (ii/A.D.) — is the normal differentia 
of this genitive, which has thus perhaps its closest affinity 
with the partitive. For time, this genitive is common in 
NT, as in phrases like vvKro'i, ^eLfjLMvo<;, opdpov ^aOew^, rov 
XobTTov. For place, we have mostly stereotyped words and 
])]irases like iroia'; Lk 5^^, and ancient words like avrov, 
irov. It is strange that the commentators and grammarians 
have so much neglected the difficult gen. in Ac 19^^ Dr 
Knowling merely declines Hackett's suggestion that 'E(^4gov 
and irdar]<i rrj^ 'A(Tia<; depend on oxXov, for which however 
we might quote a good parallel in Sophocles OT 236 (see 
Jebb). The gloss ew? (D), " within," may possibly express 
the meaning ; but the vernacular supplies no parallel, except 
the stereotyped phrases for points of the compass, nor was it 
ever normal in classical Greek after the Epic period : see the 
exx., nearly all poetical, in Kiihner-Gerth i. 384 f. On the 
whole, one feels disposed to make o^Xov responsible after all. 
The question of Hebraism is raised again by the genitive 
of definition. Some of the " long series of phrases " coming 

1 See below, p. 101, for a construction which may be parallel. There is a 
note in Dalman's Gram. d. jM.-imI. Aram. p. 197, in which Lightfoot'.s 'p£D3 
{Hor. Hchr. 500) is tentatively approved as the original of 6\pi. The phrase 
"means always the time immediately after the close of the Sabbath." In Mt 28', 
accordingly, " at most a late hour of the night would be designated : the term 
is impossible for dawn. A reckoning of the Sabbath from sunrise to sunrise 
(Weiss iw loc.) is unheard of." 


under this head " obviously take their origin from Hebrew," 
says Blass (p. 98). The poetical examples collected in 

Jebb's note on Sophocles, Antig. 114 (or 
Snitfon^ more fully in Kiihner-Gerth, p. 264), include 

some which are quite as remarkable as the 

" Hebraisms " quotable from the NT. Thus KapBia irovrjpa 

diria-TLa'i (Heb 3^^) will pair off' well with roaovSe toX/a?;? 

TrpoawTTov (Soph. OT 533). That many of these phrases 

really are literal translations from the Hebrew need not be 

questioned ; and if an existing usage was available for the 

purpose, we can understand its being overstrained. Our 

only concern is with passages where no Semitic original 

is admissible. In these it seems fair to assume that the 

poetical phraseology of the Attic period had come down 

into the market-place, as happened also, for example, in 

cnreipaaTO^; KaKOiv Jas 1^^, aKaTa7rdarov<i (p. 47) d/iapTia'i 

2 Pet 2^^ which have plentiful illustration from papyri.^ 

The rapid extension of the genitive 

A if ^\ T^ absolute is a very obvious feature of Hel- 
Absolute. . . '' . , 

lenistic Greek — so obvious, indeed, that we 
are not tempted to dwell on it here. In the papyri it may 
often be seen forming a string of statements, without a finite 
verb for several lines. We also find there a use frequently 
seen in the ^T—e.g., in Mt l^^ 31 g^^, Mk 13\ Lk 12^, Ac 
22^'', etc.- — the gen. abs. referring to a noun or pronoun already 
in the sentence, without any effort to assimilate the cases.^ 
Rarely in NT, but frequently in papyri, we find a participle 
standing by itself in gen. abs. witliout a noun or pronoun in 
agreement: thus Mt 17^*, Ac 2P^. A violent use occurs in 
Heb 8^ (LXX) ev ri/xepa eirtXa^opLevov /xou : so Blass, but 
the construction was probably suggested innnediately by the 
original Hebrew. Westcott compares Barn 2^^ ev v/jiepa evreiX- 
a/jiivov aov avrcp. The old accus. abs., belonging to impersonal 
verbs, has vanished except in the word Tvyov " perhaps " (1 Co 
16*^): Blass points out how Luke avoids it in Ac 23^*^, where 
classical Greek would demand ixrjwOev c. ace. et inf. The papyri 
show i^6vTo<; passim for the classical i^ov, it hcing allowed. 

^ See p. 235. 

* Cf exx. from I'olybius in Kalker 281 ; and bolow, p. 236. 


One example of a noteworthy pure dative, the dalivva 

incommodi, may Ije briefly refeii-ed to. In liev 2-'- ''' ep^ofial 

croc is used rather markedly in place of e. tt/do? ae : a reason 

for the ]3eculiar phraseology is offered in 

Difadvlntage. "^^^ '''■ ^^^- ^^ should however be added 
now that the very phrase occurs in a recently 
published papyrus, BU 1041 (ii/A.D.), an illiterate document, 
with context less clear than we should like. See p. 245. 

Side by side with the common locative 
Datives of fiative of time (point of time), we have an 
accompaniment '^'''^stricviental dative of extension of time, 
which is not always easy to distinguish from 
it. Thus in Lk 8^^ TroXXot? -x^povoi^ is " oftentimes " (loc.) 
in RV text, " of a long time " (instr.) in mg. The latter, 
which is clearly found in XP^^^V i^i^d-vip Lk 8^^, and ^9^^°^^ 
alwvioi'i Eom 16'-^, is supported by the recurring formula in 
private letters, eppwadal ere evxpiiai, iroWol'; p^powt?.^ The 
field of accusative and instrumental is contiguous also in the 
" dative of reference ": ^evei in Mk 7^6, Ac 4^6 al, as in BU 887 
(ii/A.l).) 7ei'et ^pvylav. Jn 6^° affords one of the few NT exx. 
of the ace. in similar construction. TP 1 (ii/B.c.) irpo^e^r]- 
Korat; i'jSr] to69 ereaiv (class.), compared with Lk V- ^^ 2^^, 
shows how the ubiquitous iv came in with datives that did 
not need it : here we may presume an Aramaic background. 
A difficult dative in Eev 8*, Tat<; irpoaevxah (EV text " with 
the prayers," and so Milligan and Holtzmann), is probably 
to lie taken as the sociative instrumental: cf BU 69 (ii/A.P.) 
a9 Kal airohoicrw aot, rai evyidTa So6i]crofiev(p o-^covup, " 'ivith 
i^t.e. at the time of) my next wages." Cf Abbott Joh. Gr. 519. 

Finally, we may speak of one more dative 
J. ,. use, that of which aKofi uKovaeTe, Mt 13^*, 

will serve as a type. In giving a list of 
these phrases, Blass (p. 119) remarks that " the usage is an 
imitation of the Hebrew infinite absolute like nv:^ ni?3, and 
is consequently found already in the LXX"; also that "the 
analogous classical phrases such as '^dfiat 'yafxelv ('in true 

1 W. Scliulze {Gr. Lett. 14) would make Latin responsible for the first start 
of this extension. But it must be allowed that the classical phrase ry x/^''V, 
"by lapse of time," was capable of giving the impulse. For the antiquity of 
this instrumental, see Delbriick, Gnmdr. § 109. Cf CR xv. 438, xviii. 153. 


wedlock '), cf^vyfj (f)€vyeiv {' to Hee with all speed ') are only 
accidentally similar to these." There are two points here on 
which we might venture to state the case rather differently. 
It may be freely allowed that this construction, and that 
with the participle (^Xeirovre'; ^Xeyjrere) are examples of 
" translation Greek." But in what sense are they imitations of 
the Hebrew ? It seems to me that such a description implies 
something much nearer and more literal, such as aKoveiv 
aKovaere} Is it then mere accident that we find the Hebrew 
locution represented by Greek which recalls respectively the 
7a/i« 'ya^elv and (^v^y (pevyetv quoted by Blass, and the well- 
known Aeschylean 

ot TrpcoTa fiev ^Xeirovre'? e^XeTrov fjLarrjv, 

KXuovTe<; ovk t^kovov (P.V. 447 f.),^ 
or the (f>€vycov eK(f)evy€i of Herodotus ? The Greek translator, 
endeavouring to be as literal as he could, nevertheless took 
care to use Greek that was possible, however unidiomatic.'* 
Those who have had to do much in the way of marking 
classical examination papers, know very well that " possible, 
but unidiomatic," is a good general description of the kind 
of language used by translators who have attained the con- 
scientious accuracy, but not the sure-footed freedom, of the 
matiu'e scholar. 

^ As we actually tind in Jos 17^'^ e^oXeOpevaaL de aiTous ovk e^uXeOpevaav : 
A emends oXeOpevaet.. (I owe this to Votaw, p. 56.) 

^ The idea of these words became provei'bial : cf [Demosthenes] 797, ware, to 
TTJs irapoifiias, opwvras /mrj opav Kai aKovovras fir] aKoveiv. Of com'se the resem- 
blance to Mt I.e. is more superficial than real, for Aeschj'lus means " tlioiigh they 
saw, they saw in vain." But there is enough nearness to suggest the NT form 
as possible Greek. An exact parallel is quoted by Winer from Lucian (Dial. 
Marin, iv. 3) l5Cov eldov : the participle has vanished in the Teubner text, 
whether with or without MS authority I cannot stop to examine. It sliould be 
made penal to introduce emendations into classical texts without a footnote ! 

» See p. 245. 


Adjectives, Pronouns, Prepositions. 

... ^. There is not much to be said under the 

« Duality," ^^®'^*^ °^ Adjectives, except on the important 
" Duality " question raised by the phenomena 
of comparison. The question touches the use of dual 
pronouns of the erepof class, as well as the relation between 
comparative and superlative. The abolition of a dis- 
tinction between duality and plurality is almost inevitable 
sooner or later in language history. English affords us 
instructive parallels. The simphcity and convenience of our 
suffixes -er and -est have helped to preserve in common speech 
the old degrees of comparison. Piut how often does the man 
in the street say " the better of the two " ? One would not 
like to say offhand how far in this matter modern litera- 
ture is impeccable on Lindley Murray rules ; but in conver- 
sation the most correct of us may at times be caught 
tripping, and even when the comparative is used we are most 
of us conscious of a kind of pedantic accuracy. That " the 
best of the two " is the English of the future is a fairly safe 
assertion. Whether, adjectivally, is as archaic as irorepo'i : ^ 
when we translate rlva airo tmv Bvo (Mt 27^^) by the 
archaism " whether of the twain," we are only advertising 
the fact that the original was normal speech and our trans- 
lation artificial. We have not yet arrived at " either of the 
three," but people say "either A. or B. or 0." without a 
qualm. Of course the first step was taken ages ago in the 
extinction of the dual, the survival of which in Germanic 

^ I have twelve papyrus collections by nie, with oiie oceurreiice of Tr&rtpos in 
the indices, and that is nearly illegible and (to me, at least) quite unintelligible 

(AP 135, ii/A.D.). 



is evidenced, centuries after the NT, by Wulfila's Gothic. 

Other modern languages tell the same tale. In the NT the 

obsolescence of the superlative, except in the elative sense, is 

. _ . most marked. It is mere chance that only 

in Comparison, , . ^i, w i 

one example ot the -raro? superlative has 

survived,^ for there are scores of them in the papyri. Of the 

genuine superlative sense, however, the examples there are 

very rare ; practically we may say that in the vernacular 

documents the superlative forms are used to express the 

sense of our " very." The confusion of comparative and 

superlative is well seen in some illiterate papyri, where 

phrases like to i^k'^iarov /cat 'yvrjcnooTepQv occur. One or 

two typical examples of irregular comparatives may be cited 

— the references will be found, witli other examples, in 

CR XV. 439 and xviii. 154. Specially instructive is the 

papyrus of the astronomer Eudoxus, written in ii/B.c. There 

we have KaG' ov o 7]Xio^ (f)€po/ii€vo<i rrjv fiev rjfiepav /Spw^v- 

repav Troiel rrjv Be vvktu fiuKporipav. The context demands 

a superlative, and Blass no doubt rightly assumes that the 

author (iv/B.C.) wrote ^pa'^vTurrjv and fiaKpordnjv. In that 

case the scribe's alteration is very significant. He has in the 

same way altered /xeyLaTrj to p-ei^ovei in another place, and 

he writes iv eKurepwi rcov ^(oiBicov for " in each of the 

(twelve) signs," In Tb P 33 (ii/B.c.) we have iv fiel^ovi 

a^ioy/jbaTt, an elative.^ It is in fact clear that /neyia-ro'i is 

practically obsolete in Hellenistic : its appearance in 2 Pet 

is as significant as its absence from the rest of the NT. 

The Eevisers' scrupulous margin in 1 Co 13^^ "and Mt 18^ 

may be safely dispensed with, on the new evidence. KpeirTcov 

and xelpcov are always strictly comparative in NT, but they 

have no superlatives:^ KpdTiaro<i is only a title. BeXTicov^ 

(in adv.) occurs once, in 2 Tim l^^but does not appear in any 

of Grenfell and Hunt's papyri, except in an official Ptolemaic 

document : ^eXrca-TOf (not in NT) has a somewhat better 

claim (ter in ii/B.c). 'A/xeLvcuv and dpcaTO'i (not NT) appear 

occasionally. Note especially OP 716 (ii/A.D.) ryi/ ajxeivova 

^ Ac 26", in true superlative sense ; this speech is niucli affected by literary 

* See p. 236 below. 


a'ipeaiv 8iS6vtl, " to the highest bidder." Yet apLaro^ is ff)uud 
in OP 292 (i/A.D.), a vernaenlar document, but the sole witness 
among the papyri named. 'EXdaacov is common, but i\d^i(TTo<i 
(a true superl. in 1 Co 15», as in Tb P 24 (ii/B.c.) — an official 
document, but in veiy bad Greek) has not wholly disappeared. 
TlXelwv and TrXelaro'i are common, but the latter is generally 
elative in the papyri — note however Tb P 105 (ii/n.c.) rrjv 
eao/xevr)v irXeiarrjv rifirjv, and other exx. which may support 
1 Co 142". ^i^ lyio j-,,.^y gjjQ^ j-l^g elative — "those very 
numerous mighty works " ; but tlie other rendering is as good. 
In Jn 1'^ TrpcoTo? jjlov, and 15^^ nrpuiTop vficov, we have the 
superlative ousting the comparative. Winer quotes Aelian 
(WM 306), and we can add aov TrpcoToi; elfii from LPw 
(ii/iii A.!).— magic)." There seems no longer adequate reason 
to question that irporepo^ has here been superseded ; for the 
great rarity of the comparative form in the papyri reinforces 
the natural inference from Jn In the Gren fell- 
Hunt volumes it only occurs once, in a legal document. 
The mere use of tt/jwto? in Ac P, it must be allowed, proves 
very little as to the author's intention to write a third 
treatise. Pamsay himself {Paul, p. 28) admits that the 
absence of Trporepo? from the Lucan writings precludes 
certainty for the hypothesis. See further p. 236. ["Seep. 245, 

The case is not quite so strong for the 
Pronouns pronouns. There are plenty of places where 
€repo<i, e/carepo?, oTTorepoq, etc., are used of more 
than two, and a\Xo<; of two only; but also j>laces where the 
pronouns are used carefully according to classical precedent. 
It seems a fair assumption that these words held much the 
same relative position as was described just now for our own 
comparative and superlative in phrases like " the better (best) 
of two." Educated men would know the distinction and 
observe it, unless off their guard. In these cases we must let 
the context decide, paying due attention to the degree of 
grammatical precision usually attained by each several author. 
It is remarkable that in this respect we find Luke by no 
means particular. In Lk 8" ^ he actually substitutes eTepo<i 
for the correct aX'\o<i which appears in his presumed source, 
Mk 4^-8 (cf Mt IS'^-s) ; and in Lk 6^9 he does not alter ttjv 
aW'rjt' (a-iayoi'a !) whicli appears also in Mt 5'^^, but is corrected 


in Clem. Horn. 15^. This will clearly need remembering 
when we examine other "dual" words in Luke.^ See pp. 245 f. 
,, - A difficulty under this head is raised by 

Ac 19^^ The probability that afi<}>oTepoi 
was used for ircivTe^ in BM 336 (ii/A.D.), and two clear 
examples of it in NP 67 and 69 (iv/A.D.),^ with the undeniable 
Byzantine use, form a strong temptation where the relief would 
be so great.^ I cannot but think that Ramsay is quite right 
in saying {Paul, p. 272), " The seven sons in v.^* change in an 
unintelligible way to two in v.^^ (except in the Bezan text)." 
Luke must have been a very slovenly writer if he really 
meant this, and the Bezan reading of v.^'* does not help us to 
understand how the more difficult " neutral text " arose if it 
really was secondary. On the other hand, Luke is one of 
the last NT writers whom we should expect to fall into a 
colloquialism of which early examples are so rare : that he 
shares the loose use of eVe/ao?, etc., current in his time, does 
nothing to mitigate this improbability. If we are to defend 
these verses from Eamsay's criticisms — and in a purely 
grammatical discussion we cannot deal with them except on 
this side — must we not assume that the original text of v.^* 
is lost ?" If this contained a fuller statement, the abruptness 
of ro TTvevfia to irovrjpov in v.^*, and of our a/jL(f)OT€po)v, 
might be removed without compromising the characteristic 
eTTTtt : we might also have a clearer term to describe Sceva's 
office. The alternative is to suppose the verses an interpo- 
lation from a less educated source, which has been imperfectly 
adapted to Luke's style.^ 

We pass on to the Article, on which there is not very 
much to say, since in all essentials its use is in agreement 

^ The aberrant 'irepov . . . dWov in Lk 7^^^- B is most simply explained by 
supposing that the scribe has found a place for two variants. If we press the 
reading, the messengers are represented as softening the message, — no longer 
"another kind of Messiah," but "another of the same kind": cf Gal l**^-. 
The meaning "different" naturally developed out of "the other class (of two)," 
and it survived when the normal use of ^r epos had faded out. See also p. 246. 

- A much earlier ex. seemed to present itself in the just published BU 1057 
(13 B.C.) ; but I think the d/x(poTipti}v can be otherwise referred than to the 
three names immediately preceding. 

^ See notes in Expos, vi. viii. 426 and CP>, xv. 440. 

* The Sahidic and some later versions took dfKporepuv as "all." Were this 
better supported, we should find another ex. in Ac 23** ["See p. 246. 


with Attic. It might indeed be asserted that the NT is in 
this respect remarkably " correct " when compared witli the 
„, . . , papyri. It shows no trace of the use of the 

" Correctness " ^^^^'^'■^ ^^ ^ relative, whicli is found in classical 
of NT Greek, ^^^eek outside Attic, in the later papyri,^ 
and to some extent in MGr. The papyri 
likewise exhibit some examples of the article as demonstra- 
tive, apart from connexion with /lev or Se7 whereas the NT 
has no ex. beyond the poetical quotation in Ac 17-^. Further, 
we have nothing answering to the vernacular idiom by which 
the article may be omitted between preposition and infini- 
tive. In family or business accounts among the papyri we 
find with significant frequency an item of so much et? Tretj/, 
with the dative of the persons for whom this thoughtful 
provision is made. There are three passages in Herodotus 
where avri, behaves thus: see vi. 32, uvtI ehai, with 
Strachan's note, and Goodwin, 3IT § 803 (see further below, 
p. 216). In these three points we may possibly recognise 
Ionic influence showing itself in a limited part of the 
vernacular ; it is at least noteworthy that Herodotus will 
supply parallels for them all. The Ionic elements in the 
KoLvrj were briefly alluded to above (pp. 37 f.), where other 
evidence was noted for the sporadic character of these 
infusions, and their tendency to enlarge their borders in the 
later development of the Common Greek. 

. We are not much troubled with Hebra- 

ism under the article.^ Blass (p. 151) 
regards as " thoroughly Hebraic " such phrases as irpo 
TrpoacoTTov Kupiov, ev 6<p6a\/jbOi<i '^/xcov, iv rjH'epa 0/57% ; but 
KUT oIkov avTcbv " Is a regular phrase and perhaps not 
a Hebraism." Where Semitic originals lie behind our 
Greek, the dictum is unobjectionable ; but the mere admis- 
sion that KUT oIkov avTcbv is Greek shows how slightly 
these phrases diverge from the spirit of the translator's 
language. Phrases like tou? iv oXkw, hia x^''P^^ ^^ oIkov, 
etc., are recurrent in the papyri, and the extension, such as 
it is, lies in the addition of a dependent genitive.-"^ The 
principle of " correlation " (on which see the note in WM, 

1 See Volker 5 f. ; also CR xviii. 165. 2 gge p. 236. » See pp. 99 f. 


p. 175) here supports the strong tendency to drop the 

article after a preposition. This is seen working in the 

papyri: cf Y olker, Der Artikel pp. 15-17. Without laying 

down a law that the noun is naturally 

Anarthrous anarthrous when attached to a preposition, 
Prepositional , . , .■> ^ .i.  

Phrases ^^ "^^^ certainly say that the usage is so pre- 
dominant that no refinements of interpreta- 
tion are justifiable. Obviously iv oIkw (Mk 2^) is not " in a 
house," nor iv dyopa (Lk 7^^) "in a market-place," nor 
iv dyvia, in the current papyrus formula, " in a street." We 
say " down town," " on 'Change," " in bed," " from start to 
finish." ^ If we substitute " in my bed," " from the beginning 
to the end," we are, it seems, more pictorial ; we point, as it 
were, to the objects in question. There is nothing indefinite 
about the anarthrous noun there ; but for some reason the 
qualitative aspect of a noun, rather than the deictic, is 
appropriate to a prepositional phrase, unless we have special 
reason to point to it the finger of emphatic particularisation. 
To this Dr Findlay adds the consideration that the phrases 
in question are familiar ones, in which triteness has reduced 
their distinctiveness, and promoted a tendency to abbreviate. 
It would seem that English here is on the same lines as Greek, 
which, however, makes the anarthrous use with prepositions 
much more predominant than it is with us. Pursuing further 
the classes of words in which we insert the 
"Headines" ^^^ translation, we have the anarthrous use 
"in sentences having the nature of headings" 
(Hort, 1 Peter, p. 15&). Hort assigns to this cause the 
dropped articles before 6eov, 'Kvevixaro^; and a(^iaTo<i in 
1 Pet 1^; Winer cites the opening words of Mt, Mk, and 
Eev. The lists of words which specially affect the dropped 
Qualitative article will, of course, need careful examina- 
Force in tion for the individual cases. Thus, when 
Anarthrous Winer includes irarrip in his list, and quotes 
Nouns. j^ ju and Heb 12^, we must feel that 

in both passages the qualitative force is very apparent — 

^ According to Ramsay {Paul, p. 195), irapa Trora/jLov, Ac 16'^, shows famili- 
arity witli the locality. To accept this involves giving up ivonl^ofxev Trpoarevxvv 
(nABC), a step not to be lightly taken. (See further p. 236.) 


" what son is there whom his father, as a father, does not 
chasten ? " (On the former passage see KV margin, and 
the note in WM 151.) For exegesis, there are few of the 
finer points of Greek which need more constant attention 
than this omission of the article when the writer would lay 
stress on the quality or character of the object. Even the 
EV misses this badly sometimes, as in Jn 6<^s. ^ 
Proper Names. Scholarship has not yet solved completely 

the problem of the article with proper names. 
An illuminating little paper by Gildersleeve may be referred 
to {AJP xi. 483-7), in which he summarises some elaborate 
researches by K. Schmidt, and adds notes of his own. He 
shows that this use, which was equivalent to pointing at a 
man, was originally popular, and practically affects only prose 
style. The usage of different writers varies greatly ; and the 
familiar law that the article is used of a person already 
named (anaphoric use), or well known already, is not uni- 
formly observed. Deissmann has attempted to define the 
papyrus usage in the Berlin Philol. Wochensclirift, 1902, 
p. 1467. He shows how the writers still follow the classical 
use in the repetition with article of a proper name which on 
its first introduction was anarthrous. When a man's father's 
or mother's name is appended in the genitive, it normally has 
the article. There are very many cases where irregularities 
occur for which we have no explanation. See also Volker, 
p. 9, who notes the curious fact that the names of slaves and 
animals receive the article when mentioned the first time, 
where personalities that counted are named without the article. 
The innumerable papyrus parallels to I!av\o<i 6 kuI TTayXo? 
(Ac 13^) may just be alluded to before we pass from this 
subject : see Ueissmann BS 313 ff., and Eamsay, CB xix. 429. 
. . The position of the article is naturally 

Article much affected by the colloquial character of 

NT language. In written style the ambi- 
guous position of elq top OdvaTov, Eom 6*, would have been 
cleared up by prefixing rov, if the meaning was (as seems 

^ The marginal reading stood in the text in the First Revision. It is one 
among very many places where a conservative minority damaged the work by 
the operation of the two-thirds rule. 


probable) " by this baptism into his death." In most cases, 
there is no doubt as to whether the prepositional phrase 
belongs to the neighbouring noun. A very curious misplace- 
ment of the article occurs in the o o%Xo9 ttoXu? ^ of Jn 1 2^. 
As Sir K. C. Jebb notes on Sophocles, OT 1199 i., the noun 
and adjective may be fused into a composite idea ; but Jebb's 
exx. (like 1 Pet 1^^ and the cases cited in W. F. Moulton's 
note, WM 166) illustrate only the addition of a second 
adjective after the group article-adjective-noun (cf OP 99 
— I/a.D. — ri]<i vTrap'^ovarj'i avro) fjb'r)TpiKt]<; olKia<i rpLaTe<yov)r 
We cannot discuss here the problem of Tit 2^^ for we must, 
as grammarians, leave the matter open : see WM 162, 156 n. 
But we might cite, for what they are worth, the papyri 
BU 366, 367, 368, 371, 395 (all vii/A.D.), which attest the 
translation " our great God and Saviour " as current among 
Greek-speaking Christians. The formula runs eV ovo/xaTt rov 
Kvpiov Kol heairoTOV 'Irjaov Xpicrrov rov deov koI (ra)T7Jpo<; 
't]fi(av, KOI rr]<i 8eo-7roti^j;? rjfjbMi> tt}? a<yi,a<; deoroKov, ktX. A 
curious echo is found in the Ptolemaic formula applied to the 
deified kings: thus GH 15 (u/b.c), rov fxerydXov deov evep- 
lyeTov KOL (7WTrjpo<i [ein^avov^^ ev^apiarov. The phrase here 
is, of course, applied to one person. One is not surprised to 
find that P. Wendland, at the end of his suggestive paper 
on Xwrrjp in ZNTW v. 335 ff., treats the rival rendering 
in Tit I.e. summarily as "an exegetical mistake," like the 
severance of toO Qeov rj/juMv and (T(oTrjpo<; 'I. X. in 2 Pet 1\ 
Familiarity with the everlasting apotheosis that flaunts itself 
in the papyri and inscriptions of Ptolemaic and Imperial times, 
lends strong support to Wendland's contention that Christians, 
from the latter part of i/A.D. onward, deliberately annexed for 
their Divine Master the phraseology that was impiously 
arrogated to themselves by some of the worst of men. 

Personal From the Article we turn to the Per- 

Pronouns: sonal Pronouns. A very short excursion 

" Semitic here brings us up against another evidence 
Redundance." ^f u ^^le dependence of [NT] language on 

1 If it is merely careless Greek, one nray compare Par P 60" (ii/B.c. ?) dwb tQu 
7rX??pcjjudTwc apxaiuv. (On the whole subject, see further p. 236.) 
^ See note in CH xviii. 154a. 


Semitic speech," in the " extraordinaiy frequency of tlic 
oblique cases of the personal pronouns used without emphasis " 
(Blass 164). Dependence on Semitic would surely need 
to be very strongly evidenced in other ways before we 
could readily accept such an account of elements affecting 
the whole fabric of everyday speech. Now a redundance 
of personal pronouns is just what we should expect in 
the colloquial style, to judge from what we hear in our own 
vernacular. (Cf Thumb, Hcllcn. 108 f.). A reader of the peti- 
tions and private letters in a collection of papyri would not 
notice any particular difference in this respect from the Greek 
of the NT. For example, in Par P 51 (ii/B.c.) we see an 
eminently redundant pronoun in avv'^w ( = nvolya)) tov<; 
6cf)da\fjbov<i fiov. A specially good case is OP 299 (i/A.D.) 
Ad/MTTcovt ixvodrjpevTrj eSooKa avrco . . . Spa'^fia<i rj : the 
syntax is exactly that of Eev 2'^, etc. Kalker (Quccst. 274) 
quotes Slo koX irakiv eTreppcocrOrjcrav Bia ravra from Polybius, 
with other redundances of the kind. Such a line as this 
from a Klepht ballad (Abbott 42), 

Kal arpi^eL to fiovaTaKL tov, KXcoOei Koi ra fiaWla rov 
(" and he twirls his moustache and dresses his hair ") illus- 
trates the survival of the old vernacular usage in MGr. In 
words like Ke^aXi], where the context generally makes the 
ownership obvious, NT Greek often follows classical Greek and 
is content with the article. But such a passage as Mt 6^^ 
aXeiy^al crov rrjv Ke^aXijv, where the middle voice alone 
would suffice (cf p. 236), shows that the language already 
is learning to prefer the fuller form. The strength of this 
tendency enhances the probability that in Jn 8^ rov irarpof is 
"the Father" and not " yoiir father": see Milligan-Moulton. 

It is perhaps rather too readily taken for 

Emphasis in „j.a^nted that the personal pronouns must 
always be emphatic when they appear m 
the nominative case. H. L. Ebeling (GUdcrslcevc Studies, 
p. 240) points out that there is no necessary emphasis in 
the Platonic rjv S" iya), ecf^rjv eyo), ft)? av <f)rj<;, etc.; and 
Gildersleeve himself observes (Synt. § 69): "The emphasis of 
the 1st and 2nd persons is not to be insisted on too much 
in poetry or in familiar prose. Notice the frequency of 
iyfZSa, iycZfiac" Are we obliged then to sec a special 


stress in the pronoun whenever it denotes the Master, like 
the Pythagorean auTo<i e(pa ? We may perhaps better 
describe it as fairly represented to the eye by the capital in 
" He," to the ear by the slower pronunciation which reverence 
likes to give when the pronoun refers to Christ. Generally 
the pronoun is unmistakably emphatic in nom., from Mt 1^^ 
onwards ; but occasionally the force of the emphasis is not 
obvious — -cf Lk 19^. The question suggests itself whether 
we are compelled to explain the difficult av etTra? and the 
like (Mt 26^^ 27^Mk I52, Lk 227o 23^, Jn IS^O by putting 
a stress on the pronoun. Can we drop this and translate, 
" You have said it," i.e. " That is right " ? It is pointed out 
however by Thayer (JBL xiii. 40-49) that the ttXijv in 
Mt 26*^* is not satisfied by making the phrase a mere 
equivalent of " Yes " — to mention only one of the passages 
where difficulties arise. We seem thrown back on Thayer's 
rendering " You say it," " the word is yours." 

. „ , , . There remains here the difficult question 

Hfj,eis for Eyw ? » , , . r - p ' ' mi 

or the use 01 77/^6*9 tor eyoo. ihe gram- 
marian's part in this problem is happily a small one, and 
need detain us only briefly. K. Dick, in his elaborate study 
of the question,^ gives a few apposite examples from late 
Greek literature and from papyrus letters, which prove 
beyond all possible doubt that / and we chased each otlier 
throughout these documents without rhyme or reason. We 
may supplement his exx. with a few more references taken at 
random. See for example Tb P 58 (ii/B.c), and AP 130 (I/a.d. 
— a most illiterate document) : add Tb P 26 (ii/B.c.) ovti /loi iv 
IlToXefjbaiSei . . . iireTreaev rj/xlv, JITS xix. 92 (ii^A.D.) xcupe 
jjLOi, fi^jrep jXvKVTdTTj, kol (^povri^ere -^ficov oaa ev veKpol^, and 
BU 449 (ii/iii a.d.) oKovaa^ on vcoOpevr] d<y(ovtov/jiev. Dick 
quotes as a particularly good ex. BU 27 (ii/iii a.d.), an 
interesting letter, reproduced with some notes in Expos, vi. 
iii. 276.** He succeeds in showing — so Deissmann thinks — 
that every theory suggested for regularising Paul's use of 
these pronouns breaks down entirely. It would seem that 
the question must be passed on from the grammarian to 

^ Der schriftstellerisclic Plural bei Paxdiis (1900), pp. 18 ff. See also 
Deissmann's summary of this book, Theol. Rundschau \. 65. ["Seep. 246. 


the exegete ; for our grammatical material gives us not the 
slightest evidence of any distinction hetween the two 
numbers in ordinary writing. It is futile to argue from 
Latin to Greek, or we might expect help from Prof. Convi'ay's 
careful study of 7ios in Cicero's Letters;^ Init the tone of 
superiority, in various forms, which the nos carries, has no 
parallel in Greek. 

The reflexive pronouns have developed 


Pronoun some unclassical uses, notably that in the 
plural they are all fused into the forms 
originally appropriated to the third person. The presence 
or absence of this confusion in the singular is a nice test of 
the degree of culture in a writer of Common Greek, In the 
papyri there are a few examples of it in very illiterate docu- 
ments,^ while for the plural the use is general, beginning to 
appear even in classical times.^ This answers to what we 
find in the NT, where some seventy cases of the plural occur 
without a single genuine example of the singular ;* late 
scribes, reflecting the developments of their own time, have 
introduced it into Jn 18=^* and Eom 13^ (Gal 5^*). As in the 
papyri, kavTov<; sometimes stands for aX\7]Xov<;,'* and some- 
times is itself replaced by the personal pronoun. In 
translations from Semitic originals we may find, instead of 
eavTov, a periphrasis with "^/^f;^?; ;^ thus Lk 9^^, compared 
with its presumed original Mk 8^*^. But this principle will 
have to be most carefully restricted to definitely translated 
passages ; and even there it would be truer to say that eavrou 
has been levelled up to t7]p ■>^v'^i]v avTov, than that i/^f^^ 
has been emptied of meaning. 

In one class of phrases eavrov is used 

"Exhausted" ^^j|3i^Q^^t; emphasis, in a way that brings up the 

I'Sios discussion of its fellow tS^o?.^ In sepulchral 

inscriptions we find a son describing his 

' Transactions of Cambridge Philological Society, v. i., 1899. 

' See CR xv. 441, xviii. 154. I find it rather hard to believe that Lucian's 
text is sound where he is recorded as using this eminently illiterate idiom : e.g. 
Dial. Marin, iv. 3^ 

^ Polybius always uses avrwv (Kiilker, Quxstiones, p. 277). 

Mn 1 Co 1029 iavTod= "one's." 

' See J. A. Robinson, Study of the Gospels, p. 114, on periphrases for the 
reflexive. ["''See p. 246. 


father as o irar-qp, 6 t'Sto? Trarrjp, or 6 eavrov irarrip, and the 
difference between the three is not very easily discernible. 
In a number of these inscriptions contained in vol. iii. of the 
IMA I count 21 exx. with t'Sto?, 10 with eavrov, and 16 
with neither. The papyrus formula used in all legal 
documents where a woman is the principal, viz. fxeTu Kvplov 
Tov €avT7]<; avBp6<; (aBeXcjiov, etc.), gives a parallel for this 
rather faded use of the reflexive. It starts the more 
serious question whether t8io<; is to be supposed similarly 
weakened in Hellenistic. This is often affirmed, and is 
vouched for by no less an authority than Deissmann (BS 
123 f.). He calls special attention to such passages in the 
LXX as Job 24^^ (ockcov Ihiwv), Prov 27-^^ {tov IBiov otKov), 
9^^ {tov eavTov afxiTekwvo^ . . . tov ISlov jecopyiov), 22^ 
{lScoi<; hecriTOTai'^), in which the pronoun has nothing what- 
ever answering to it in the original. He reminds us that 
the " exhausted iSto? " occurs in writers of the literary 
Koivrj, and that in Josephus even olKeio^ comes to share this 
weakening : a few Attic inscriptions from I/b.c. (Meisterhans^ 
235) show XBta with the like attenuated content. Our 
inference must be that in Ac 24^* Luke is not ironically 
suggesting the poverty of Felix's title, and that in Mt 22^ 
there is no stress on the disloyal guest's busying himself with 
his own farm instead of someone else's. (Cf p. 237 below.) 
Perhaps, however, this doctrine of the exhausted IfSto? is 
in some danger of being worked too hard. In GB xv. 
440 f. are put down all the occurrences of tSio? in BU vols, 
i. and ii., which contain nearly 700 documents of various 
antiquity. It is certainly remarkable that in all these 
passages there is not one which goes to swell Deissmann's 
list. Not even in the Byzantine papyri have we a single 
case where I'Sio? is not exactly represented by the English 
oivn. In a papyrus as early as the Ptolemaic period we 
find the possessive pronoun added — 6Wa r)p.wv cBtov, which 
is just hke "our own." (Cf 2 Pet 3'% Tit l^^, Ac 2«.) 
This use became normal in the Byzantine age, in which cBia 
still had force enough to make such phrases as iSiav koI 
vofiijxriv yvvoLKa. Now, in the face of the literary examples, 
we cannot venture to deny in ioto the weakening of tSto?, 
still less the practical equivalence of lhio<i and eavTov, which 


is evident from the sepulchral inscriptions above cited, as 
well as from such passages as Prov 9^^ ^nd 1 Co 7^. But 
the strong signs of life in the word throughout the papyri 
have to be allowed for. 

In correlating these perplexing phenomena, we may 
bring in the following considerations: — (1) The fact that 
Josephus similarly weakens olKeio<; seems to show that the 
question turns on thought ratlier than on words. (2) It is 
possible, as our own language shows, for a word to be 
simultaneously in possession of a full and an attenuated 
meaning.! People who say " It's an awful nuisance," will 
without any sense of incongruity say " How awful ! " when 
they read of some great catastrophe in the newspaper. No 
doubt the habitual light use of such words does tend in 
time to attenuate their content, but even this rule is not 
universal. " To annoy " is in Hellenistic a-KvWetv,^ and in 
modern French ffe7icr. There was a time when the Greek 
in thus speaking compared his trouble to the pains of flaying 
alive, when the Frenchman recalled the thought of Gehenna ; 
but the original full sense was unknown to the unlearned 
speaker of a later day. Sometimes, however, the full sense 
lives on, and even succeeds in ousting the lighter sense, as 
in our word vast, the adverb of which is now rarely heard 
as a mere synonym of veri/. (3) The use of the English 
07on will help us somewhat. " Let each man be fully 
assured in his own mind" (Eom 14'^) has the double 
advantage of being the English of our daily speech and 
of representing literally the original ev tm tS/w vot "What 
function has the adjective there ? It is not, as normally, an 
emphatic assertion of property : I am in no danger of being 
assured in someone else's mind. It is simply a method of 
laying stress on the personal pronoun : ev tm vot and " in 
his mind " alike transfer the stress to the noun." This fact 
at once shows the equivalence of tSio^ and eavrov in certain 
locutions. Now, when we look at the examples of " exhausted 
I'Sto?," we find that they very largely are attached to words 
that imply some sort of hclonging. Husband and wife 
account for seven examples in the NT, and other relation- 

^ Cf p. 237 below. ^ See Ex^ms. vi. iii. 273 L [" iScc p. 2itJ. 


ships, including that of master and slave, for a good many 
more. A large number come under the category of the 
mind, thoughts and passions, and parts of the body. House, 
estate, riding-animal, country or language, and similar very 
intimate possessions receive the epithet. If occasionally 
this sense of property is expressed where we should not 
express it, this need not compromise the assertion that 
iSto? itself was always as strong as our English word own. 
There are a host of places in the NT, as in the papyri, 
where its emphasis is undeniable ; e.g. Mt 9\ Lk 6^\ Jn 1*^ 
(note its position) 5^8 etc., Ac V\ 1 Co 3^, Gal 6^ Heb V\ 
and many others equally decisive. One feels therefore quite 
justified in adopting the argument of Westcott, Milligan- 
Moulton, etc., that the emphatic position of rov iBtov in Jn 1*^ 
was meant as a hint that the unnamed companion of Andrew, 
presumably John, fetched his brother. What to do in such 
cases as Ac 24-* and Mt 22^ is not easy to say. The Eevisers 
insert own in the latter place ; and it is fair to argue that 
the word suggests the strength of the counter-attraction, 
which is more fully expressed in the companion parable, 
Lk 14^^. The case of Drusilla is less easy. It is hardly 
enough to plead that tSto? is customarily attached to the 
relationship ; for (with the Eevisers) we instinctively feel 
that oivn is appropriate in 1 Pet 3^ and similar passages, 
but inappropriate here. It is the only NT passage where 
there is any real difficulty ; and since B stands almost alone 
in reading IBla, the temptation for once to prefer N is very 
strong. The error may have arisen simply from the common- 
ness of the combination ■>] ISla yvvrj, which was here trans- 
ferred to a context in which it was not at home. 

, Before leaving tSto? something should 

be said about the use of o t8io<i without a 
noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1^^ 13\ Ac 4^-^ 24^^ 
In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term 
of endearment to near relations : e.g. 6 Betva rw IhUp 
'Xaipeuv. In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a 
possilile encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who 
would translate Ac 20^^ "the blood of one who was his 
own." Mt 27^*, according to the text of sL and the later 
authorities, will supply a parallel for the grammatical 


ambiguity: there as here we have to decide whether the 
second genitive is an adjective quahfying the first or a noun 
dependent on it. The MGr use of o cSio^, as substitute for 
the old 6 avT6<;, has nothing foreshadowing it in the NT ; 
but in the papyrus of Eudoxus (ii/B.c.) we find a passage 
where ttjl Ihiai is followed by rrji avrrjt in the same sense, 
so that it seems inevitable to trace, with Blass, an anti- 
cipation of MGr here. Perhaps the use was locally 

., X . „„, There is an apparent weakening of 

Auro? o and ' V f • TT 11 • • 
6 auTos. ai^T09 o m Hellenistic, which tends to blunt 

the distinction between this and e'/cetvo? 6. 

Dean Eobinson (Gospels, p. 106) translates Lk lO^i "in that 

hour" (Mt 1125 iv eKelvM tu> Kaipw), and so Lk 12^2 q^^-^ j 311 

eKeivr)), and 1 01 It is difficult to be satisfied with " John 

himself " in Mt 3* ; and in Luke particularly we feel that 

the pronoun means little more than "that." Outside Luke, 

and the one passage of Mt, avT6<i 6 has manifestly its full 

classical force. From the papyri we may quote OP 745 

(i/A.D.) avTov Tov "Avrav," thQ said A.": note also GH 26 

(ii/B.c.) o avTo<i ''flpo'i, " the same Horus," i.e. " the aforesaid," 

and so in BU 1052 (i/B.c). We find the former use in 

MGr, e.[j. avrb to Kpl(xa, "this sin" (Abbott 184), etc. We 

have already seen (p. 86) that the emphatic avro'^ standing 

alone can replace classical iKelvof. (See now Wellh. 26 f.) 

_ . . Turning to the Eelatives, we note the 

Use of oa-Tis l™iting of 6a-Ti<;, a conspicuous trait of the 

vernacular, where the nominative (with the 

neuter accusative) covers very nearly all the occurrences of 

the pronoun. The phrase eft)9 orov is the only exception in 

NT Greek. The obsolescence of the distinction between 09 

and oo-Tf9 is asserted by Blass for Luke, but not for Paul. 

A type like Lk 2* et9 ttoXlv Aavelh yri^ KoXelrat BTjOXecfi, 

may be exactly paralleled from Herodotus (see Blass 173) 

and from papyri : so in an invitation formula avptov 7]Tt<i 

icTTlv Te, "to-morrow, which is the 15th" — cf Mt 27^'^. Hort, 

on 1 Pet 2^^ {Comm. p. 133), allows that "there are some 

places in the NT in which oo-Tt9 cannot be distinguished from 

09." "In most places, however, of the NT," he proceeds, "oc-Tt9 

apparently retains its strict classical force, either generic, 


' which, as other like things,' or essential, ' which by its very 
nature.'" A large number of the exceptions, especially in 
Lucan writings, seem to be by no means cases of equivalence 
between 09 and o(nL<i, whether agreeing or disagreeing with 
classical use. Some of them would have been expressed 
with oairep in Attic: thus in Ac 11^^ we seem to expect 
y^irep iyevero. Others throw a subtle stress on the relative, 
which can be brought out by various paraphrases, as in Lk 1^^, 
" which for all that." Or oVrt? represents what in English 
would be expressed by a demonstrative and a conjunction, as 
in Lk 10*2, c^and it shall not be taken away." In Mt we 
find oarci used four times at the beginning of a parable, 
where, though the principal figure is formally described as 
an individual, he is really a tyj^e, and 6(ttl<; is therefore 
appropriate. We may refer to Blass 173, for examples 
of 09 used for oo-rt?, with indefinite reference. The large 
number of places in which o(TTt<i is obviously right, according 
to classical use, may fairly stand as proof that the distinction 
is not yet dead. We must not stay to trace the distinction 
further here, but may venture on the assertion that the 
two relatives are never absolutely convertible, however 
blurred may be the outlines of the classical distinction in 
Luke, and possibly in sporadic passages outside his writings. 
Kalker (Qucvst. 245 f.) asserts that Polybius uses oaTi,^ for 09 
before words beginning with a vowel, for no more serious 
reason than the avoidance of hiatus ; and it is curious that 
among twenty-three more or less unclassical examples in the 
Lucan books fourteen do happen to achieve this result. We 
chronicle this fact as in duty bound, but without suggesting 
any inclination to regard it as a key to our problem. If 
Kalker is right for Polybius — and there certainly seems 
weight in his remark that this substitution occurs just where 
the forms of 09 end in a vowel — we may have to admit that 
the distinction during the Koiv^] period had worn rather 
thin. It would be like the distinction between our relatives 
who and that, which in a considerable proportion of sentences 
are sufficiently convertible to be selected mostly according 
to our sense of rliythm or euphony : this, however, does not 
imply that the distinction is even blurred, much less lost. 
The attraction of the Ptelative — which, of course, does 


not involve oo-ri? — is a construction at least as popular in late 
A 4.4. +■■ ^^ ^^ classical Greek. It appears abundantly 

in the papyri, even in the most illiterate 
of them ; and in legal documents we have the principle 
stretched further in formulae, such as apovpfav BeKa Svo 
Tj oa-cov iav waiv ovao)v. There are to be noted some 
exceptions to the general rule of attraction, on which see 
Blass 173. In several cases of alleged breach of rule we may 
more probably (with Blass) recognise the implied presence 
of the " internal accusative " : so in 2 Co 1*, Eph 1^ 4\ where 
Dr Plummer (CGT, 2 Co I.e.) would make the dative the 
original case for the relative. 

Confusion of relative and indirect inter- 
Relatives and rogative is not uncommon. " ''Oo-o9, olo<;, 
Interrogatives < „ , , . 

confused. o7roio<i, ^jXt/co? occur in the NT as indirect 

interrogatives, and also — with the exception 
of r)XLKo<; — as relatives," W. F. Moulton observes (WM 210 n.); 
and in the papyri even o? can be used in an indirect question. 
Good examples are found in Par P 60 (ii/B.c.) uTroarikop /xoi 
TToaov e^ei Tvapd aov 2. koI [ckJ)'] ov '^povov, and EL 29 (iii/B.C.) 
(jipd^ovTe'i [to Te] avrwv ovoiia kov iv rji km/xtjl oIkovctlv kuI 
7r[6arov Ti.jjLc!)v]Tai. So already in Sophocles, Antiy. 542, 
OT 1068 (see Jebb's notes); and in Plato, Euth. 14e a fxev yap 
8i86a(Tiv, Travrl Sr]Xov. It is superfluous to say that this usage 
cannot possibly be extended to direct question, so as to justify 
the AV in Mt 26^^*. The more illiterate papyri and inscrip- 
tions show ri<i for relative oo-ri? not infrequently, as evpov 
'yeopjov Tt9 avra ekKvarj — rtfo? eav XP^^^ ^XV^ — '^^'^ "^ kuko)^ 
'7roi7]aeL,^ etc. Jebb on Soph. OT 1 141 remarks that while 
" Ti9 in classical Greek can replace oVrt? only where there is 
an indirect question, . . . Hellenistic Greek did not always 
observe this rule: Mk 14^^." There is no adequate reason 
for punctuating Jas 3^^ so as to bring in this misuse of tw. 
But Mt 10^^ and Lk 17^ are essentially similar ;2 nor does 
there seem to be any decisive reason against so reading Ac 
13^^ Dieterich (Unters. 200) gives several inscriptional 
exx., and observes that the use was specially strong in Asia 

1 BU 822 (iii/A.D.), BM 239 (Iv/a.d.), JffS xix. 299. 
^ I nmst retract tlie denial I gave in CH xv 441. 


Minor. It is interesting therefore to note Thumb's statement 

{ThLZ xxviii. 423), that the interrogative is similarly used in 

Pontic now — a clear case of local survival. The NT use of 

oTi for t/ in a direct question is a curious example of the 

confusion between the two categories, a confusion much 

further developed in our own language. 

^ , MGr developments are instructive when 

Developments . . ,, , ,. _ . 

in MGr. ^^ ^^^ exammmg the relatives and mter- 

rogatives. The normal relative is ttoO, fol- 
lowed by the proper case of the demonstrative, as 6 ^larpo^ 
irov rov GaTeika, " the doctor whom I sent," etc. The 
ingenious Abbe Viteau discovers a construction very much 
like this, though he does not draw the parallel, in Jn 9" oVt 
Tjvew^ev aov rov'i 6(f)daXfiov<i, " thou whose eyes he hath 
opened": he cites Mk 6^"- 8^* as further exx. Since 6 ti 
and "1^^^. are passable equivalents, we have here a " pure 
Hebraism "■ — a gem of the first water ! We might better 
Viteau's instruction by tracing to the same fertile source 
the MGr idiom, supporting our case with a reference to 
Jannaris ^6^ § 1439, on MGr parallels to Mk 7^5 (^9 . . . 
avrrj<;) and the like.^ It will be wise however for us to sober 
ourselves with a glance at Thumb's remarks, Hellen. 130, 
after which we may proceed to look for parallels nearer home 
than Hebrew. In Old English this was the regular con- 
struction. Thus, " thurh God, the ic thurh his willan hider 
asend waes" (Gen 45^); "namely oon That with a spere 
was thirled his brest-boon" (Chaucer, Knightes Tale 1851 f.). 
Of the German " der du bist " = who art.^ The idiom is 
still among us ; and Mrs Gamp, remarking " which her 
name is Mrs Harris," will hardly be suspected of Hebraism ! 
The presence of a usage in MGr affords an almost decisive 
disproof of Semitism in the Kolvtj, only one small corner of 
whose domain came within range of Semitic influences ; and we 
have merely to recognise afresh the ease with which identical 
idioms may arise in totally independent languages. It does 
not however follow that Blass is wrong when he claims 

^ See below, p. 237 ; also Wellh. 22, who adds exx. from D. 
^ See Skeat's Chaucer, Frologue and Knightes Tale, p. xxxvi, I owe the sug- 
gestion to my frieud Mr E. E. Kellett. 


Mk 72^ 1^ 13^", Lk 3i«, and passages in Eev, as "specially 
suggested by Semitic usage." The phenomenon is frequent 
in the LXX (see WM 185), and the NT exx. are all from 
places where Aramaic sources are certain or suspected. 
A vernacular use may be stretched (cf pp. 10 f.) beyond its 
natural limits, when convenient for literal translation. But 
Blass's own quotation, ov r) irvoij avrov iv t'l^lv eariv} comes 
from a piece of free Greek. That this use did exist in the 
old vernacular, away from any Semitic influence, is proved 
by the papyri (p. 85). The quotations in Kiihner-Gerth 
§561 n.^, and in Blass and Winer, show that it had 
its roots in the classical language. As was natural in a 
usage which started from anacoluthon, the relative and 
the pleonastic demonstrative were generally, in the earlier 
examples, separated by a good many intervening words. 

The modern Interrogative is mostly Troio?, for ri? has 
practically worn down to the indeclinable rt, just as our 
tuhat (historically identical with the Latin qtiod) has become 
indifferent in gender. The NT decidedly shows the early 
stages of this extension of ttoIo^;. It will not do for us to 
refine too much on the distinction between the two pronouns. 
The weakening of the special sense of irolo'i called into being a 
new pronoun to express the sense qualis,name\y,7roTa7r6<;,which 
was the old TroSaTro? (" of what country ? "), modified by popular 
etymology to suggest ttotc, and thus denuded of its associa- 
tion in meaning with dXX.oS-aTro'i, rjfA,e8-a'ir6<;, and vfjLeB-airo^} 

We take next the Numerals. The use 
Numera s .— ^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^ ordinal is " undoubtedly a 

CIS 3'S OrCilll3;i y , -i A A 

Hebrew idiom, accordmg to Blass, p. 144. 
Our doubts, nevertheless, will not be repressed ; and they 
are encouraged by the query in Thumb's review. To 
begin with, why did the Hebraism affect only the first 
numeral, and not its successors ? If the use was vernacular 
Greek, the reason of the restriction is obvious : tt/jwto? is 
the only ordinal which altogether differs in form from the 

1 Clement ad Cor. 21 Jin. (Lightfoot, p. 78). Nestle {ZNTW i. 178 tf.) 
tliinks the writer was of Semitic birth. 

2 The suffix is that of Latin joro^-Mig'wos, long-inquos, Skt. anv-anc, etc. : ttoS- 
and dWoS- are quod, xvhut, aliud, while i)ixto-, vfieS-, answer to ablative forma 
in Skt. 


cardinal.^ When we add that both German and English say 
"^ja^€ forty" (WM 311), we are prepared for the belief that 
the Greek vernacular also had this natural use. Now, although 
et? Koi elKoaTO'i, unus et vicesimus, one and hoenticth, are (as 
Blass says) essentially different, since the ordinal element is 
present at the end of the phrase, this is not so with r^ fxia koI 
elKciht,^ BU 623 (ii/iii A.D.). But the matter is really settled 
by the fact that in MGr the cardinals beyond 4 have ousted 
the ordinals entirely (Thumb, Hanclbuch 56); and Dieterich 
(Unters. 187 f.) shows from inscriptions that the use is as old 
as Byzantine Greek. It would seem then that the encroach- 
ment of the cardinal began in the one case where the ordinal 
was entirely distinct in form, spread thence over other 
numerals, and was finally repelled from the first four, in which 
constant use preserved alike the declension and the distinct 
ordinal form. Had Semitic influence been at work, there is 
no conceivable reason why we should not have had tj} irevre 
at the same time. Simultaneously with this process we note 
the firm establishment of simplified ordinals 

of the " teens " • ^^'^^ 13th to 19th, which now (from iii/B.c. 
onwards) are exclusively of the form rptaicai- 
8eKaTo<;, reaa-apeaKacBeKaTO'i, etc., with only isolated exceptions. 
Similarly we find SeVa rpet?, 8eKa e^, etc., almost invariably in 
papyri, and SeKu Bvo more often than SooSeKa.^"' These pheno- 
mena all started in the classical period: cf Meisterhans^ 160. 

There is a further use of eh which calls 
€19 as Indefinite « i-i.ii ^  j. -in-. 

Article remark, its development into an mdennite 

article, like cin in German, un in French, or 

our own an : in MGr the process is complete. The fact that 

^ Aevrepoi is not derived from dvo, but popular etymology would naturally 
connect them. Curiously enough, Hebrew shares the peculiarity noted above, 
which somewhat weakens our argument: Aramaic, like Latin and English, uses 
a word distinct from the cardinal for second as well as Jirst. Hebrew has lost 
all ordinals beyond 10, and Aramaic shows them only in the Jerus. Targ. See 
Dalman, Gramm. 99 f. For days of the month, the encroachment of cardinals 
has gone further still in both dialects. The fact that the ordinals up to 10 are 
all treated alike in Hebrew, reinforces our view. 

^ EtVds, like Tpids, Sefcds, rpiiKas, etc., was originally either No. SO or a set 
of 20, though used only for the 20th of the month. Cf rpids in Vhilo = 3Td day 
(LS), and rerpas, the usual name for Wednesday, surviving in MGr : see p. 237. 

* Wellhauseu notes that D has ouh Sh-a 8iJ0 and ip. [" See p. 246. 


eh progressively ousted ri'? in popular speech, and that even 

in classical Greek there was a use which only needed a little 

diluting to make it essentially the same,^ is surely enough to 

prove that the development lay entirely within the Greek 

language, and only by accident agrees with .Semitic. (See 

Wellh. 27.) We must not therefore follow Meyer (on Mt 

8^^), in denying that eU is ever used in the NT in the sense 

of Tt9 : it is dangerous to import exegetical subtleties into the 

. , NT, against the known history of the Common 

Greek. The use of 6 eh in Mk 14^*^ is, as 

noted in Expos, vi. vii. Ill, paralleled in early papyri.^ 

In Blass's second edition (p. .330) we find a virtual sur- 

_^. ., . render of the Hebraism in hvo hvo, (rvuiroaia 

JJistributivss. / /Ti»i ntnt \ c> \ cv //■•«- 

av/jLTToaia (Mk O"*'''-), oea/jba<i oecr/xa? (Mt 13^'^ 

in Epiphanius — a very probable reading, as accounting for the 

variants): he remarks on fxiav /xiav in Sophocles (Frag. 201) 

that " Atticists had evidently complained of it as vulgar, and 

it was not only Jewish-Greek." Winer compared Aeschylus 

PerscG 981, /Mvpia fxvpia TrefMiraaTav. Deissmann (ThLZ, 

1898, p. 631) cites Syja-rj rpia rpla from OP 121 (iii/A.D.) ; 

and (as W. F. Moulton noted WM 312 n.) the usage is 

found in MGr.^ Thumb is undeniably right in calling the 

coincidence with Hebrew a mere accident. In the papyri 

(e.g. Tb V 63^ — ii/B.C.) the repetition of an adjective produces 

an elative = fieydXou /xeydXov = fiejiarov. It should be added 

that in Lk 10^ we have a mixed distributive dva 8vo Svo 

(B al): so in Ev. Petr. 35, as Blass notes, and Acta Philippi 

92 (Tisch.).^ 

Two single passages claim a word before 

 1.J.I- .. we pass on from the numerals. "OyBooj> 

eigntn person. « , / «, 

Nm€ €<j)v\a^€v in 2 Pet 2^ presents us with 

^ It is difficult to see any difference between els and ris in Aristophanes, 
Av. 1292 :— 

7re'p5i^ /jAf eh KdTri]\os wvofid^ero 

X0}\6s, MeulTTTrqi 5' tji' xeXtSibi' roijuo/xa, k.t.X. 

From the papyri we may cite as exx. AP 30 (ii/B.c.) Kou8v\ov ivbs tQv aXieluv 
(sc. irpo(TK\7)divTO$) ; BU 1044 (iv/A.D.) eVos {sic = eh) Xeyb/xevov (=-o$) •t'a^tris. 

^ We may add good exx. from Par P 15 (ii/E.C.) tov eva avrwu^Qpov — tov eroj 
Twv iyKoXovfievaiv 'Nexovdou. 

3 Thumb, ffcllen. 128, Handburh 57. 

* See W. Schulze, Graeca Latina 13. Add now Wellh. 31. 



a classical idiom which can be shown to survive at any rate 
in literary Common Greek : see exx. in WM 312, and Schtefer 
I.e. I have not noticed any occurrences in the papyri, and 
in 2 Pet we rather expect bookish phrases. The AV of 
this passage is an instructive illustration for our inquiries 
as to Hebraisms. " Noah the eighth person " is not English, 
for all its appearing in a work which we are taught to regard 
as the impeccable standard of classic purity. It is a piece of 
" translation English," and tolerably unintelligible too, one 
may well suppose, to its less educated readers. Now, if this 
specimen of translators' "nodding" had made its way into 
the language — lilce the misprint " strain at a gnat " — we 
should have had a fair parallel for " Hebraism " as hitherto 
understood. As it stands, a phrase which no one has ever 
thought of imitating, it serves to illustrate the over-literal 
translations which appear very frequently in the LXX and in 
the NT, where a Semitic original underlies the Greek text. 
(Compare what is said of Gallicisms in English on p. 13.) 

Last in this division comes a note on 
" Seventy times j^^. j^g22_ gj^gg janores entirely the ren- 
seven. . 

dering " seventy-seven times " (KVmargin), 

despite the fact that this meaning is unmistakable in Gen 4^* 
(LXX). It will surely be felt that W. F. Moulton (WM 
314) was right in regarding that passage as decisive. A 
definite allusion to the Genesis story is highly probable: 
Jesus pointedly sets against the natural man's craving for 
seventy-sevenfold revenge the spiritual man's ambition to 
exercise the privilege of seventy-sevenfold forgiveness. For 
a partial grammatical parallel see Iliad xxii. 349, heKUKt^ [re] 
Kol FeUoai, " tenfold and twenty-fold," if the text is sound. 

It will be worth while to give statistics 
Prepositions : ^^^ ^.j^g relative frequency of Prepositions in 

Freauency ^^® ^^' answering to those cited from Helbing 
(above, pp. 6 2 f.) for the classical and post- 
classical historians. If we represent iv by unity, the order of 
precedence works out thus: — et? "64, i/c "34, eTrt "32, 7rpo<? 
•25, Std -24, ciTTo -24, Kara "17, //.era "17, irepl -12, vtto 
•08, -rrapd "07, vTrep -054, aw -048, irpo -018, civtc •008, 
dvd -0045. We shall have to return later to prepositions 
compounded with verbs, following our present principle of 


dealing with them in connexion with the parts of speech 
witli which they are used. A few miscellaneous matters 
come in best at this point. First let us notice the pro- 
minence in Hellenistic of combinations of 
Prepositions prepositions with adverbs. In papyri we 

Adverbs. ^^^ '^"^^ '^^ ^'^ '^^'^^' ^^ 486 (ii/A.D.), utto 
'rrepvai (Deissmann ^aS' 221), and even acf) 
6t€ tXovau/j,7]v, "since I last bathed," OP 528 (ii/A.D.). In 
NT we have uTrb totc, utto irepvai, air' apn, e/c irakai, e(j>' 
aira^, enrl rpk, etc. The roots of the usage may be seen in 
the classical eV del and the like. Some of these combinations 
became iixed, as vTroKuro), virepdvo), Karevavrt. This may 
be set beside the abundance of " Improper " prepositions. All 
of these, except i<y'yu<;, take the genitive only. Thumb 
comments ^ on the survival of such as eco?, eirdvo), ottiVo), 
vTroKUTQ), in MGr. Hebraism in this field was supposed to 
have been responsible for the coining of eva>inov, till Deiss- 
mann proved it vernacular.^ The compound preposition dva 
fieaov was similarly aspersed ; but it has turned up abundantly 
in the papyri, — not however in any use which would help 
1 Co 6^, where it is almost impossible to believe the text 
sound. (An exact parallel occurs in the Athenmum for Jan. 
14, 1905, where a writer is properly censured for saying, 
" I have attempted to discriminate between those which are 
well authenticated," i.e. (presumably) " [and those which are 
not]." It is hard to believe Paul would have been so slovenly 
in writing, or even dictating.) We have a further set of 
" Hebraisms " in the compound prepositions which are freely 
made with irpoaooirov, ')(elp and aTo/xa (Blass 129 f.): see 
above, p. 81. Even here the Semitism is still on the 
familiar lines : a phrase which is possible in native Greek 
is extended widely beyond its idiomatic limits because it 
translates exactly a common Hebrew locution ; and the 
conscious use of Biblical turns of speech explains the appli- 
cation of such phrases on the lips of men whose minds are 
saturated with the sacred writers' language. As early as iii/B.c, 

1 TkLZ xxviii. 422. 

2 BS 213. Gi Expos, vi. iii. 113 : add now OP 658 (iii/A.P.), where it appears 
in the formula of a libclhis. Tb P 14 (114 B.C.) TrapriyyeXKdTes ivuinov, "I 
gave notice in person," is the earliest ex. I have seen. F>ut see p. 246. 


in a Libyan's will, we meet with Kara irpoa-ui'Trov rtvo'i ;^ and 

in mercantile language we constantly find the formula Slu 

X^'-po'i, used absolutely, it is true — e.g. MP 25 (iii/B.c), "from 

hand to hand," as contrasted with " through an intermediary." 

We may refer to Heitmilller's proof ^ that the kindred phrase 

eh TO ovofid Tivo<i is good vernacular. The strong tendency 

to use compound prepositional phrases, which we have been 

illustrating already, would make it all the easier to develop 

these adaptations of familiar language. 

The eighteen classical prepositions are, 

„,;+ir«v,^ «„„« as we have iust seen, all represented in NT 
witn one case. , / . 

Greek, except afx^i, which has disappeared 
as a separate word, like anibi in Latin, and like its correlative 
in English, the former existence of which in our own branch 
is shown by the survival of um in modern German. It 
was not sufficiently differentiated from irepl to assert itself 
in the competition ; and the decay of the idea of duality 
weakened further a preposition which still proclaimed its 
original meaning, " on both sides," by its resemblance to 
ajji^orepoi. ^Avci has escaped the same fate by its distributive 
use, which accounts for seven instances, the phrase ava fjueaov 
for four, and dva fiipo^ for one. 'Avrl occurs 22 times, 
but dvd' oiv reduces the number of free occurrences to 17. 
Bare though it is, it retains its individuality. " In front of," 
with a normal adnominal genitive, passes naturally into " in 
place of," with the idea of equivalence or return or substitu- 
tion, our for. For the preposition in Jn l^*", an excellent 
parallel from Philo is given in WM (p. 456 n.).^ JJpo occurs 
48 times, including 9 exx. of irpo tov c. inf., which invades 
the province of irpiv. In Jn 12^ we have irpb e| ij/xepMV 
TOV irda-^a, which looks extremely like ante diem iertium 
Kalendas. The plausible Latinism forces itself on our 
attention all the more when we compare IMA iii. 325 (ii/A.D.) 

1 Deissmami BS \iO. 

2 Tm Namen Jem 100 ff. So p. 63, for ^v ovd/j-aTi on, Mk 9^i. 

■* Blass compares yiju wpb yrj? eXavveuOaL, "from one liind to another," 
cXirLaiv i^ eX-n-iduv, and the like (p. 124). The Philonic passage is from De 
Poster. Caini § 145 (p. 254 M.) : Sib rets wpwras akl xctptras, irplv Kopeadei'Tas 
e^v^piaaL roi)s \ax6vTas, eVicrxwj' Kfxl Ta/juevadp-evos ehavOis erepas dur' eKelvuiv, 
KoX rpiras dvri tCov devrepwv /cat akl vcas dvri iraXaioripuv . . . iiribibuai. 


TTjOo le KaXavhwv Av<^ovar(i)v, and parallels iu translated 
docunieuts to be seen in Viereck's JScr/no Grc/'cns (see pp. 12, 
13, 21, etc.). And yet it is soon found that the same 
construction occurs in phrases which have nothing in 
common with the peculiar formula of Latin days of the 
month. In the Mysteries inscription from Andania (Michel 
694, iJB.G.) we recognise it iu Doric — Trpb afxepav BeKu twi/ 
/jbvaTTjpLcov ; and the illiterate vernacular of FP 118 (ii/A.D.), 
irpoi Suo rjfiepov dyopaaov ra opviddpia Trj'i eio^T?}? (" buy the 
fowls two days before the feast"), when combined with Jn I.e., 
makes the hypothesis of Latinism utterly improbable. The 
second genitive in these three passages is best taken as an 
ablative — " starting from the mysteries," etc. It is found as 
early as Herodotus, who has (vi. 46) Sevrepo) eVet Toyxtuj^, " in 
the second yearfroin these events": cf also OP 492 (ii/A.D.) fier 
ivcavTov eva Trj<i re\evTr]<; fiov, " a year after (starting from) 
my death." See also the note on oi/re, stipr. p. 72. There 
remains the idiomatic use of irpo, seen in 2 Co 12^ irpb iroiv 
heKareaadpwv, "fourteen years before." Blass (p. 127 n.) 
cites irpo d/xepdv 8eKa from the will of Epicteta (Michel 
1001), written in the Doric of Thera, "end of iii/B.c. or 
beginning of ii/B.C, therefore pre-Roman" — to cite Blass's own 
testimony.^ It becomes clear that historically the resem- 
blance between the mite diem idiom and the Greek which 
translates it is sheer coincidence, and the supposed Latinism 
goes into the same class as the Hebraisms we have so often 
disposed of already.^ This enquiry, with the general con- 
siderations as to Latinisms which were advanced above (pp. 
20 f.), will serve to encourage scepticism when we note the 

1 Add FP 122 (i/ii a.p.), BU 592 (ii/A.D.), NP 47 (iii/A.D), Cli P 15 (iv/A.D.), 

2 W. Schulze, Graec. Lat. 14-19, has a long and striking list of passages 
illustrating the usage in question, wliich shows how common it became. His 
earliest citation is irpb TpiQv Tj/xepuiv ttjs reXevT-qs from Hippocrates (v/b.c), 
which will go with that from Herodotus given above. Wo have accordingly 
both Ionic and Doric warrant for this Koivrj construction, dating from a period 
which makes Latin necessarily the borrower, were we bound to deny independent 
development. Schulze adds a parallel from Lithuanian ! Our explanation of 
the dependent gen. as an ablative is supported by Trpb /^las 7]fj.^pas ■)) c. ace. et inf., 
in OGIS 435 (ii/B.c.) and Jos. Ant. xiv. 317 : ^ rei)laces the ablative genitive 
exactly as it does after comiJaratives. 


resemblance of &)<? diro a-rahiuiv SeKUTrevre (Jn 11^*^) to a milli' 
hus passimm duobus (Blass 95). Blass cites Jn 21^, Eev 14-*^, 
and the usage of Koivy writers like Diodorus and Plutarch. 
Mutatis mutandis, this idiom is identical in principle with that 
just quoted for irpo. After noting the translation-Hebraism 
(^o^eladai diro in Mt 10^* ( = Lk 12*),^ we proceed to observe 
the enlargement of the sphere of citto, which encroaches upon 
eK, vTTo, and irapd!^ The title of the modern vernacular 
Gospels, " /jL6Ta(f)pacr/jiivr] diro top '-4Xe^. UdWrj" reminds us 
that diTO has advanced further in the interval. Already in 
the NT it sometimes expressed the agent after passive verbs 
{e.g. Lk 8'*^), where it is quite unnecessary to resort to 
refinements unless the usage of a particular writer demands 
them. The alleged Hebraism in Ka9apb^ d-no is dispelled by 
Deissmanu's quotations, B& 196. The use of prepositions, 
where earlier Greek would have been content with a simple 
case, enables e'/c in NT to outnumber d^rd still, though 
obsolete to-day,^ except in the Epirot d-^ or h-^?- Thus dTrd 
is used to express the partitive sense, and to replace the 
genitive of material (as Mt 27"^ 3*); e/c can even make a 
partitive phrase capable of becoming subject of a sentence, as 
in Jn 16^'^. For present purposes we need not pursue further 
the NT uses of diro and eK, which may be sought in the 
lexicon ; but we may quote two illustrative inscriptional 
passages with e«. Letronne 190 and 198 have acoOeU eK, 
" safe home from " (a place), which has affinity with Heb 5'^ ; 
and virdp'^wv 6eo<i eK deov koX ded<;, from the Eosetta stone 
{OGIS 90 — ii/B.c), will elucidate Phil 3^ if the reader of 
the Greek should, conceivably, fall into the misconceptions 
which so many English readers entertain. It gives us an 
unpleasant start to find the language of the Nicene Creed 
used centuries earlier of Ptolemy Epiphanes ! ^ 

We have already (pp. 62 f.) sketched the developments of 

^ Were the active 4>o^elv still extant (below, p. 162), this might be taken as 
"do not be panic-stricken by." It is much like Trpoa^x^iv dird, Lk 12^. 

^ Thus ox TO ^ovvd, " from the hill," occurs in a modern song, Abbott 128 f. 

^ Epiphanes = Avatar : the common translation "illustrious" is no longer 
tenable. See Ditteuberger's note, OGIS i. p. 144. So this title also antici- 
pates the NT {i-TrKpaveia). Cf what is said on Christian adaptations of heathen 
terms, above, p. 84. (On cnrd see also below, p. 237.) ["^See p. 246, 


elf, and need say no more of the single-case prepositions; 

with one very large exception/* The late Greek uses of 

„ ^^ iv would take too much space if discussed in 

Further uses n „ , t^ ^ ^ , . . „ 

q£. ^^ lull here, it has become so much a maid-of- 

all-work that we cannot wonder at its ulti- 
mate disappearance, as too indeterminate. Students of Pauline 
theology will not need to be reminded of Deissmann's masterly 
monograph on " The NT Formula iv Xpiar<p 'Ir]aov," with its 
careful investigation of LXX uses of iv, and proof of the 
originality of Paul's use. But SH (on Eom 6^^) seem riglitly 
to urge that the idea of the mystic indwelling originated witli 
the Master's own teaching : the actual phrase in Jn 1 5'' may 
be determined by Pauline language, but in the original Aramaic 
teaching the thought may have been essentially present. 
While there are a good many NT uses of iv which may be 
paralleled in vernacular documents, there are others beside 
this one which cannot : in their case, however, analogy makes 
it highly improbable that the NT writers were innovating. 
If papyri have irpo^e^rjKore'i t/Bt} Tot9 ereatv (TP 1 — ii/B.c), 
we need not assume Hebraism in Lk 1'^ merely because the 
evangelist inserts iv : his faithful preservation of his source's 
'})/j.epaL<i is another matter. See pp. 6 If. above. In Ac V^'* 
(LXX) we have ev = " amounting to," from which that in 
Mk 4^ his does not greatly differ. This is precisely paralleled 
by BU 970 (ii/A.D.) irpoolKa iv hpa'^jiah iwaKoaLai^, OP 724 
(ii/A.D.) ecr-^^e? ttjv irpdiTqv Soaiv ev Bpa-y^fxal^ reacrapaKovra, 
BU 1050 (i/A.D.) i/jbaTia . . . iv . . . 8pa^ixai<; eKurov ("to 
the value of "). The use in Eph 2^^ ev 86y/xaai.v, " consisting 
in," is akin to this. Por ev toZ<? — " in the house of," as in 
Lk 2^9, we have EL 382 (iii/e.G.) ev toi'; 'A-rroXXcoviov, Tb P 12 
(ii/B.c.) ev Tot? 'Aixevvewf "in A.'s office/' OP 523 (ii/A.D.) 
ev Toh KXavSlov: cf Par P 49 (ii/B.c.) eU to, npeoTdp-^ov 
KaTaXvao), and even ev rwt, "Slpov in Tb P 27. We have in 
official documents ev meaning " in the department of ": so 
Tb P 27 (ii/B.c.) TO iv avrcoc 6(f)6i'\.6fievov, 72 a? iv Map pel 
To-KoypafxfjbaTei, al. I do not recall an exact NT parallel, but 
1 Co 6-, el ev v/xtv Kpiverat 6 K6a-fj,o<i, is not far away. We 
have another use of ev with a personal dative in 1 Co 14^^ 
" in my judgement " : possibly Jude^ ev 0ea) is akin to this. 
Such uses would answer to Trapd c. dat. in classical Greek 

» See p. 246. 


The last might seem to be expressed more naturally by the 
"dative of person judging" (like Ac ^-'^ dareto^i rai Qew, or 
1 Co I.e. 'iaofiat tu) Xakovvri ^ap^apo'i). But the earliest 
uses of dative and locative have some common ground, which 
is indeed the leading cause of their syncretism. Thus we find 
loc. in Sanskrit used quite often for the dat. of indirect object 
after verbs of speaking. How readily ev was added to the 
dative, which in older Greek would have needed no preposi- 
tion, we see well in such a passage as OP 488 (ii/iii a.d.), 
where " more . . . hy one aroura " is expressed by eV. This 
particular dative is an instrumental — the same case as our 
" the more the merrier " — , and is therefore parallel to that 
of ev fia^acprj, " armed with a sword," which we have already 
mentioned (pp. 12,61). We may fairly claim that " Hebraistic" 
ev is by this time reduced within tolerably narrow limits. One 
further iv may be noted for its difficulty, and for its bearing 
on Synoptic questions, — the o/xoXoyelv ev tlvl which is conmion 
to Mt 10^^ and Lk 12^: this is among the clearest evidences 
of essentially identical translations used in Mt and Lk. W. F. 
Moulton (WM 283 n.) cites, apparently with approval, Godet's 
explanation — " the repose of faith in Him whom it confesses": 
so Westcott, quoting Heracleon, who originated this view 
{Canon^ 305 n.). Deissmann {In Christo 60) quotes Delitzsch's 
Hebrew rendering ^3 ru\\ and puts it with Mt 3" 9^* 1 1^ 
23-^ as an example of a literal translation "mit angstlicher, 
die hermeneutische Pedanterie nahelegender Pietat." Dr 
Eendel Harris recalls the Grascised translation in Eev 3^, and 
gives me Syriac parallels. On the whole, it seems best not 
to look for justification of this usage in Greek. The agreement 
of Mt and Lk, in a point where accidental coincidence is out 
of the question, remains the most important element in the 
whole matter, proving as it does that Luke did not use any 
knowledge of Aramaic so as to deal independently with the 
translated Logia that came to him.^ 

Of the prepositions with two cases, hid 
Prepositions ^^^^^ nerd show no signs of weakening their 

Cases • ^^^^^ °^ ^°^^ ' ^^^^ Kara c. gen. and irepi, 

virep and vtto c. ace. distinctly fall behind. 

^ Cf the similar agreement as to (po^eladai dird, above, p. 102. 


We may give the statistics in proof. Aid gen. 382, ace. 
279; fierd gen. 361, ace. 100; Kara gen. 73, ace. 391; 
irepi geu. 291, ace. 38; virep gen. 12G, ace. 19; viro gen. 
165, ace. 50. Comparing this list with that in a classical 
Greek grammar, we see that /xerd, irepl and vtto ^ have been 
detached from connexion with the dative — a fact in line 
with those noted above, pp. 62 ff. Turning to details, we 
find that Kard (like dvd, Eev 2V"^) is used as an adverb 
distributively, as in to Kad^ eh or eh Kara eh Mk 14^^ [Jn] 8^, 
Kom 1 2^ The MGr Ka6eh or KaOeva^, " each," preserves this, 
which probably started from the stereotyping of to Kaff eva, 
ev Ka& ev, etc., declined by analogy : cf evStjfio^ from ev 
Sj;/x&) (mv), or proconsul from pro consule. The enfeebling of 
the distinction between irepl and virep c. gen. is a matter of 
some importance in the NT, where these prepositions are 
used in well-known passages to describe the relation of the 
Eedeeraer to man or man's sins. It is an evident fact that 
virep is often a colourless "about," as in 2 Co 8^^ : it is used, 
for example, scores of times in accounts, witli the sense of 
our commercial " to." This seems to show that its original 
fullness of content must not be presumed upon in theological 
definitions, although it may not have been wholly forgotten. 
The distinction between avri, and the more colourless virep, in 
applying the metaphor of purchase, is well seen in Mk 1 0^^ 
( = Mt 20"*^) XvTpov dvTi iroXkcov, and the quotation of this 
logion in 1 Tim 2^ dvriXvrpov virep irdvrcov.'^ Aid c. ace. 
retains its meaning " for tlie sake of," " because of," distinct 
from the meaning " through," " by the instrumentality of," 
which belongs to the genitive. As early as MP 16 and 
20 (iii/B.c), we have iva Sia ae /dacriXev rod Zikulov rvyoa; 
but if the humble petitioner had meant " through you," 
he would have addressed the king as a mere medium of 
favour : referring to a sovereign power, the ordinary meaning 
" because of you " is more appropriate. This applies exactly 
to Jn 6^''. So Eom 8-^, where Winer's explanation is correct 
(p. 498). In much later Greek, as Hatzidakis shows (p. 213) 

' For Ii-kI) c. dat. can be quoted OGIS 54 (iii/u.c.) v(p' eavrwL woirja-d/ji.ei'Oi, 
and OP 708 (as late as ii/A.D.) ^k tov virb aol vo/xou. 

- Note tliat oous iavrhv is substituted for the translation-Greek Sovvai Tj]f 
^vxr]v avTov : on this see above, p. 87. See further on vw^p, p. 237. 


Bed c. ace. monopolised the field, which it still holds in 
MGr.^ With the genitive, Su'i is often contrasted with 
e/c, vTTo, etc., as denoting mediate and not original authorship, 
as 1 Co 8«, Mt 122. In Heb 2^^ it is used of God, who is " the 
final Cause and the efficient Cause of all things " (Westcott). 
There seems no adequate reason for accepting Blass's con- 
jectural emendation, 8c uadev6ia<i, in Gal 4^^ : " because of an 
illness " is an entirely satisfactory statement (see Lightfoot 
in loc), and the Vulgate per is not strong enough to justify 
Blass's confidence.^ Merd c. gen. has in Lk 1^^ a use 
influenced by literal translation from Semitic."^ Its relations 
with avv are not what they were in Attic, but it remains 
very much the commoner way of saying ivith. Thumb 
points out {Hellen. 125) that MGr use disproves Hebraism 
in TToXe/juelv jxerd 7ivo<i, Eev 1 2'^ al!" Thus, for example, Abbott 
44 : iroXefiTjae fie rpel<^ '^tXcdSe'i TovpKOVi, " he fought with 
3000 Turks." 

The category of prepositions used with 
and with , ,  ^  ,. i 4.- .■ 

three three cases is hurrying towards extinction, 

as we should expect. Merd, irepc and vtto 

have crossed the line into the two-case class ; and in the NT 

7r/jo9 has nearly gone a step further, for its figures are 

c. gen. 1 (Ac 27^\ literary), dat. 6 ( = " close to" or "at," 

in Mk, Lk, Ju ter and Eev), ace. G79. With the dative, 

however, it occurs 104 times in LXX, and 23 times c. gen. : 

the decay seems to have been rapid Cf however PFi 5 

7r/309 TM TTvXcovi, as late as 245 A.d. For irapd the numbers 

are, c. gen. 78, dat. 50, ace. 60. Blass notes that c. dat. it 

is only used of persons, as generally in classical Greek, except 

in Jn 19'"'''. One phrase with rrapd calls for a note on its 

use in the papyri. 01 Trap* avrov is exceedingly common 

there to denote " his agents " or " representatives." It has 

hitherto been less easy to find parallels for Mk 3'-i, where 

it must mean " his family " : see Swete and Field in loc. 

We can now cite GH 36 (ii/B.C.) 01 irap 7)/j,mv irdvre'i, 

^ Contrast Ac 24- with OP 41 (iii/iv a.d.) ttoWQv dyaOui' d.iTo\avofi€i> 
Slo. aai. 

- Ov 8vvd/jLepos 5i' acydeveiav -ir\evcrai maybe quoted from OP 726 (ii/A.D. ), 
and a like phrase from OP 261 (i/A.u.), but of course they prove little or 
nothing. [" See pp. 246 f. ; '' see p. 247. 


BU 998 (ii/B.c), and Par P ;5G {u/r..c.)} Finally we come 
to tW, the only preposition which is still thoroughly at home 
with all the cases (gen. 21G, dat. 176, ace. 464). The 
weakening of case-distinctions is shown however by the very 
disproportion of these figures, and by the confusion of meaning 
which is frequently arising. In Heb 8^*^ 10^^ we construe 
Kap8la<i as ace. only because of eVi ttjv Suivoiau which follows 
it in the latter passage : on the other hand, the original in 
Jer 31(38)^^ is singular, which favours taking it as genitive.- 
Our local tipon can in fact be rendered by eV/ with gen., 
dat., or ace, with comparatively little difference of force. 
Particular phrases are appropriated to the several cases, but 
the reason is not always obvious, though it may often be 
traced back to classical language, where distinctions were 
rather clearer. Among the current phrases we may note 
tVt TO avTo " together," " in all," often used in arithmetical 
statements: see Ac 1^^ 2*'^. Blass^ 330 might be read as 
suggesting comparative rarity for this phrase, which recurs 
scores of times. The common i(f>' & c. fut. indie. " on 
condition that," does not appear in the NT. But with a 
pres. in 2 Co 5^ and an aor. in Eom 5^^, the meaning is 
essentially the same (" in view of the fact that "), allowing 
for the sense resulting from a jussive future. 

^ Expos. VI. vii. 118, viii. 436. 

^ See also Mk 6"^ eirl ri£ x°pTV> where Mt 14^* substitutes iirl tou x-, but 
witli eVi Tbv X- in D. In Ac 7*^ D substitutes gen. for ace, and in 8'" ace. for 
dat. In Epli 1'" it seems diffieult to draw any valid distinction between the 
cases of iirl toIs ovpavoh and iirl ttjs 7^5. To add one further example, there 
seems no dilference between iir iaxa-rov in Heb 1^ and the dative in Tb P 69 
(ii/B.c), &V Tj 5ioiK7](Tii iw iuxo-TO! TiraKTM. 


The Verb: Tenses and Modes of Action. 

Our first subject under the Verb will be one which haa 

not yet achieved an entrance into the grammars. For 

the last few years the comparative philologists — mostly in 

. , . ^ „ Germany — have been busily investigatino- 

" Aktionsart." / ^ ah- / ^i ai^ , ^ 

the problems or Akhonsart, or the knid oi 

action " denoted by different verbal formations. The subject, 
complex in itself, has unfortunately been entangled not a 
little by inconsistent terminology ; but it must be studied by 
all who wish to understand the rationale of the use of the 
Tenses, and the extremely important part which Compound 
Verbs play in the Greek and other Indo-Germauic languages. 
The English student may be referred to pp. 477 ff. of Mr P. 
Giles's admirable Manual of Comparative Philology, ed. 2. 
A fuller summary may be found in pp. 471 ff. of Karl Brug- 
mann's Griech. Graiiim., ed. 3, where the great philologist sets 
forth the results of Delbrlick and other pioneers in compara- 
tive syntax, with an authority and lucidity all his own. 

The student of Hebrew will not need 

Conjugation Celling that a Tense-system, dividing verbal 
and Tense . . 

Stems action into the familiar categories of Past, 

Present and Future, is by no means so 
necessary to language as we once conceived it to be. It 
may be more of a surprise to be told that in our own 
family of languages Tense is proved by scientific inquiry to 
be relatively a late invention, so much so that the elementary 
distinction between Past and Present had only been developed 
to a rudimentary extent when the various branches of the 
family separated so that they ceased to be mutually intel- 
ligible. As the language then possessed no Passive whatever, 
and no distinct Future, it will be realised that its resources 



needed not a little supplementing. But if they were scanty 
in one direction, they were superabundant in another. Erug- 
mann distinguishes no less than twenty-three conjugations, 
or present-stem classes, of which traces remain in Greek ; 
and there are others preserved in other languages. We 
must add the aorists and perfect as formations essentially 
parallel. In most of these we are able to detect an 
Aktionsart originally appropriate to the conjugation, though 
naturally blurred by later developments. It is seen tliat the 
_ . . . , Aorist has a " punctihar " action,^ th.-it is, it 

regards action as a point: it represents the 
point of entrance {Ingrcssive, as ^aXeiv " let fly," ^aaCkevaai 
" come to the throne "), or that of completion (Effective, as 
/3a\€Lv " hit "), or it looks at a whole action simply as having 
occurred, without distinguishing any steps in its progress 
(Constaiive,^ as ^aaiXevaai, "reign," or as when a sculptor 
says of his statue, eitoirjaev 6 Selva " X. made it "). On 

the same graph, the Constativc will be a 
Persnective • ^^^^ reduced to a point by perspective. The 

Present has generally a durative action — 

" linear," we may call it, to keep up the same graphic 

. , . illustration — as in ^dXkeiv " to be throw- 
Lmear Action ; • „ ^ ^ / « .- u ^-i i-u 

mg, paaikeveiv to be on tlie throne. 

The Perfect action is a variety by itself, denoting what 

. bsg^ii ^^ t^6 P^st ^^^ ^^i^^ continues: thus 
* from the " point " root wcido, " discover, 
descry," comes the primitive perfect olha, " I discovered {elhov) 
and still enjoy the results," i.e. " I know." The present 
stems which show an t-reduplication (to-TT^/tt, yiyuo/xat) are 
supposed to have started with an Iterative 
Action action, so that <yi'yvo^ai would originally 

present the succession of moments which are 
individually represented by iyevofirjv. And so throughout 
the conjugations which are exchisively present. Other con- 
jugations are capable of making both present and aorist 

^ I venture to accept from a correspondent this new-coined word to represent 
the German jmiili.vcll, the English of wliich is preoccupied. 

" Unity of terminology demands our accepting this word from the German 
pioneers, and thus supplementing the stores of the New Etiglish Dictionary. 
Otherwise one would prefer the clearer word "summary." 


stems, as ecpijv compared with e/3r]v, ypcKfjetv with rpairetv, 
areueiv with ^yevicrdai. In these the pure verb-root is by 
nature either (a) " punctiliar," (5) durative, or (c) capable of 
being both. Thus the root of evejKeiv, like our h^ing, ia 
essentially a " point " word, being classed as " Effective " : 
accordingly it forms no present stem. That of (pepco, fcro. 
hear, on the other hand, is essentially durative or " linear ", 
and therefore forms no aorist stem.^ So with that of eo-rt, est, 
is, which has no aorist, while ijevofirjv, as we have seen, had 
no durative present. An example of the third class is e^o, 
which (like our own have) is ambiguous in its action. " I had 
your money " may mean either " I received it " (point action) 
or " I was in possession of it " (linear action). In Greek 
the present stem is regularly durative, " to hold," while eay^ov 
is a point word, " I received " : ea^op jrapa aov is, for instance, 
the normal expression in a papyrus receipt.^ Misappre- 
hension of the action-form of ep^;&) is responsible for most of 
the pother about e^co/xev in Eom 5\ The durative present 
can only mean " let us enjoy the possession of peace " : (BiKam- 
0evTe<;) e(T-)(oiiev elpijvTjv is the unexpressed antecedent premiss ; 
and Paul wishes to urge his readers to remember and make 
full use of a privilege which they ex hypothesi possess from 
the moment of their justification. See p. 247. 

It is evident that this study of the kind 

^Def°cti^ °^ of action denoted by the verbal root, and the 

Verbs modification of that action produced by the 

formation of tense and conjugation stems, 

will have considerable influence upon our lexical treatment 

of the many verbs in which present and aorist are derived 

from different roots. 'Opdoa (cognate with our " beware ") 

is very clearly durative wherever it accurs in the NT ; and 

* The new aorist (historically perfect) in the Germanic languages (our hore) 
has a constative action. 

^ Note also a petition, Par P 22 (ii/u.c.), in which the tenses are 
carefully distinguished, as the erasure of an aorist in favour of the imperfect 
shows. Two women in the Serapeuni at Memphis are complaining of their 
mother, who had deserted her husband for another man : /cat tovto irorjffacra 

ovK i(JX^ ■'■^ fV^ ddiKriffdar]^ irpbawwov, aXKk crvuripyaaaTO (lis eirave\e'iTai avTov o 
Sr]\ovfxeuos, "she did not put on the face of the wrong-doer, but (her para- 
mour) began to intrigue with her to destroy (her husband)." 


we are at liberty to say that this root, which is incapable of 
forming an aorist, maintains its character in the perfect, " I 
have watched, continuously looked upon," while oirwira would 
be " I have caught sigiit of." Elhov " I discovered," and 
io^Qrjv " I came before the eyes of," are obviously point- 
words, and can form no present. Elirov has a similar dis- 
ability, and we remember at once that its congeners {F)e'iro<;, 
vox, Sanskrit vac, etc., describe a single utterance : much the 
same is true of eppidrjv, and its cognate nouns {F)'prj[Jia, 
verhum, and loord. On the other hand, Xeyco, whose constative 
aorist eXe^a is replaced in ordinary language by el-rrov, clearly 
denotes speech in progress, and the same feature is very 
marked in X0709. The meaning of /V.0709 has been developed 
in post-Homeric times along lines similar to those on which 
the Latin serino was produced from the purely physical verb 
scro. One more example we may give, as it leads to our 
remaining point. 'Eadico is very obviously durative : 6 eadiwv 
fier i/jiov, Mk 14^^, is "he who is taking a meal with me." 
The root ed is so distinctly durative that it forms no aorist, 
but the punctiliar ^ayetv (originally " to divide ") supplies the 
defect. It will be found that j)a'^eLv in the NT is invariably 
constative : ^ it denotes simply the action of ia-dcecv seen in 
perspective, and not either the beginning or the end of that 

action. But we find the compound KareaOieiv, 

Compounds and ^aracpayeiv, used to express the completed 

Action ^'^^> sating something till it is finished. How 

little the preposition's proper meaning affects 
the resulting sense is seen by the fact that what in Greek 
is Karea-Oieiv and in Latin " f?cvorare," is in English " eat 
up " and in Latin also " comesse." In all the Indo-Germanic 
languages, most conspicuously and systematically in the 
Slavonic but clearly enough in our own, this function of verb 
compounds may be seen. The choice of the preposition which 
is to produce this perfective action ^ depends upon conditions 

^ There is one apparent exception, Rov 10'°, where ore ^(payov avro is 
"when I had eaten it up." But i(pa.yov is simply tlic continuation of 
KaTe(payoi' (see behjw, p. 115). 

- One could wish that a term had been chosen which would not have 
suggested an echo of the tense-name. "Perfective action" has nothing 
whatever to do with the Perfect tense. 


which vary with the meaning of the verbal root. Most of them 
are capable of " perfectivising " an imperfective verb, when the 
original adverb's local sense has been sufficiently obscured: 
We may compare in English the meaning of hring and hring 
up, sit and sit down, drive and drive away and drive home} 
knock and knock in and knock doion, take and overtake and 
take over and betake, carry and ca^^y off and cai^ry throufjh, 
vjork and work out and work off, fiddle and Jiddle in (Tenny- 
son's " Amphion "), set and set hack and set at and overset, see 
and see to, vjrite and write off, hear and hear out, break and 
to-break (Judg 9^^ AV), make and make over, wake and loakc 
up, follow and follow up, come and come on, go and go round,, 
shine and shine away ( = dispel by shining). Among all the 
varieties of this list it will be seen that the compounded 
adverb in each case jierfcctivises the simplex, the combination 
denoting action which has accomplished a result, while the 
simplex denoted action in progress, or else momentary action 
to which no special result was assigned. In the above list 
are included many exx. in which the local force of the 
adverb is very far from being exhausted. Drive in, drive out, 
drive off, drive away, and drive home are alike perfective, but 
the goals attained are different according to the distinct 
sense of the adverbs. In a great many compounds the 
local force of the adverb is so strong that it leaves the action 
of the verb untouched. The separateness of adverb and 
verb in English, as in Homeric Greek, helps the adverb to 
retain its force longer than it did in Latin and later 
Greek. In both these languages many of the compound 
verbs have completely lost consciousness of the meaning 
originally borne by the prepositional element, which is 
accordingly confined to its perfectivising function. This is 
especially the case with com {con) and ex (e) in Latin, as in 
consequi " follow 07it, attain," efficcre " work out " ; ^ and with 
OTTO,'* Zed, Kara and crvv in Greek, as in dirodaveiv " die " 
{Ovrja-KeLV " be dying "), Siacfivyeiv " escape " {^evyeiv = 
" flee "), KaTuSicoKeiv " hunt down " (Bicokq) = " pursue "), 

' "Prepositions," when compounded, are still the pure adverbs they were 
at the first, so that this accusative noun turned adverb is entirely on all fours 
with the rest. ^ gee p. 237. ["^ee p. 247. 


KaTepyd^ecrdai " work out," avvrrjpetv " keep safe " {rrjpeiv 
= " watch "). An example may be brought iu here to 
illustrate how this principle works in details of exegesis. 
In Lk 8-^ the true force of the pluperfect, combined with the 
vernacular usage of ttoXXo?? 'xpovoi'i (see p. 75), goes to show 
that the meaning is "it had long ago obtained and now 
kept complete mastery of him." Xwapira^oi then, as the 
perfective of dpira^co, denotes not the temporary paroxysm, 
but the establishment of a permanent hold. The inter- 
pretation of (Tvv here depends upon the obvious fact that 
its normal adverbial force is no longer at work. It is 
however always possible for the dormant (tvv to awake, as 
a glance at this very word in LS will show. " Seize and 
carry away " is the common meaning, but in ^vvapirda-aa-ac 
ra? e'/ia? eL-)(^ov ^e'pa? (Euripides Hec. 1163) we may recognise 
the original together. Probably the actual majority of 
compounds with these prepositions are debarred from the 
perfective force by the persistency of the local meaning : in 
types like hiairopevea-Oat, Kara^aiveiv, a-vvepj(6adaL, the pre- 
position is still very much alive. And though these three 
prepositions show the largest proportion of examples, there 
are others which on occasion can exhibit the perfectivising 
power. One is rather inclined to bring livL'^ivuxTKOi under this 
category, and so take a middle course between the old view 
of Lightfoot and that recently propounded by Dean Eobinson 
{Ephes. 248 ff.). The present simplex, fyLVMaKeiv, is durative, 
" to be taking in knowledge." The simplex aorist has point 
action, generally effective, meaning "ascertain, realise," but 
occasionally (as in Jn l7^^ 2 Tim 2^^) it is constative : e'yvwv 
ae gathers into one perspective all the successive moments of 
yivcoaKcoari ai in Jn 17^. ' ETnyvcovai, "find out, determine," 
is rather more decisive than the yvcovai, (effective) ; but in 
the present stem it seems to differ from jivtoaKeiv by includ- 
ing the goal in the picture of the journey there — it tells 
of knowledge already gained. Thus 1 Co 13^^ may be 
paraphrased, " Now I am acquiring knowledge which is only 
partial at best : then I shall have learnt my lesson, shall 
know, as God in my mortal life knew me." 

The meaning of the Present-stem of these perfec- 
tivised roots naturally demands explanation. Since 6v)]- 


aK€iv is " to be dying " and aTToQavelv " to die," what is 
there left for airoOvrjdKeLv ? An analysis of the occur- 
rences of this stem in the NT will anticipate 
Present btem gQj^g important points we shall have to make 
Verbs under the heading of Tenses. Putting aside 

the special use fieXkco airoOvrjaKetv} we find 
the present stem used as an iterative in 1 Co 15^^, and as 
frequentative in Heb 7^ 10"^, 1 Co 15^-, Eev 14^^: the 
latter describes action which recurs from time to time with 
different individuals, as the iterative describes action repeated 
by the same agent.^ In Jn 21^^ and 1 Co 15^^ it stands 
for a future, on which usage see p. 120. Only in Lk 8*^, 
2 Co 6^, and Heb 11^^ is it strictly durative, replacing the 
now obsolete simplex OvrjcrKoo.^ The simplex, however, 
vanished only because the " linear perfective " expressed its 
meaning sufficiently, denoting as it does the whole process 
leading up to an attained goal. KaracftevjeLv, for example, 
implies that the refuge is reached, but it depicts the journey 
there in a coiqj d'ceil : KaTacj>vy6lv is only concerned with the 
moment of arrival. A very important example in the NT 
is the recurrent oi airoWvixevou " the perishing." Just as 
much as aTTOKTelvo) and its passive diroOvrjaKw, air oXkv fiat * 
implies the completion of the process of destruction. When 
we speak of a " dying " man, we do not absolutely bar the 
possibility of a recovery, but our word implies death as the 
goal in sight. Similarly in the cry of the Prodigal, Xifim 
aTToWv^ai, Lk 15^*^, and in that of the disciples in the storm, 
acoaov, aTroWv/ieOa, Mt 8^^, we recognise in the perfective 
verb the sense of an inevitable doom, under the visible con- 
ditions, even though the subsequent story tells us it was 
averted. In oi airoWvjjbevoL, 1 Co 1^^ al, strongly durative 
though the verb is, we see perfectivity in the fact that the 
goal is ideally reached : a complete transformation of its 

^ M^XXw c. pres. inf. comes eighty-four times in NT ; c. fut. twice in Ac 
(/i. iaeadai) ; c. aor. six times (Ac 12", Rom 8^^ Gal Z^'\ Eev 3^ {airoBavdv) Z^^ 
12* ; also Lk 20"" in D and Marcion). 

^ Both will be (. . .), a series of points, on the graph hitherto used. 

^ l^dvrjKa is really the perfect of airodvydud} : a perfect needed no per- 
fectivising in a "point-word" like this. 

■* Note that in all three the simplex is obsolete, for the same reason in 
each case. 


subjects is required to briug them out of the ruin imphcit 
in their state. 

. . Before passing on, we may note the 

norrTpe!ted. ^iirvival in NT Greek of a classical idiom 

by which the preposition in a compound is 
omitted, without weakening the sense, when the verb is 
repeated. Thus in Euripides, Bacch. 1065, KaTrj<yov, rj'yov, 
rjjov, answers to the English " pulled down, down, down." 
I do not remember seeing this traced in the NT, but in 
Eev 1 0^° {supra, p. 1 1 1 n.) ecpayov seems to be the continuation 
of Karecpayov ; in Jn 1^^ eka^ov takes up irapiXa^ov, and in 
Eom 15* 7rpoe<ypd(jiT] is repeated as ijpd(f)r). So also epav- 
vwvT6<; 1 Pet 1^*^^-, evSu(Td/jL6Vot 2 Co 5^, and arrjvat Eph 6^^ 
(It is just possible that rj'yeade in 1 Co 12^ is similarly related 
to the ciirayofievoi that follows, but its position makes serious 
difficulty.) In all these cases we are justified in treating the 
simplex as a full equivalent of the compound. 

" The perfective Aktionsart in Polybius," 

Growtn 01 ^YiQ earliest of the great Kotvi] writers, forms 

Aorist ^^® subject of an elaborate study by Dr 

Eleanor Purdie, in Indog. Forsch. ix. 63—153 
(1898). In a later volume, xii. 319-372, H. Meltzer con- 
troverts Miss Purdie's results in detail ; and an independent 
comparison with results derivable from NT Greek ehows 
that her conclusions may need considerable qualification. Ee- 
search in this field is, as Brugmann himself observes (Griech. 
Gram? 484), still in its initial stages ; but that the Newnham 
philologist is on the right lines generally, is held by some 
of the best authorities, including Thumb, who thinks her 
thesis supported by MGr." Her contention is that since 
Homer the aorist simplex had been progressively taking 
the constative colour, at the expense of its earlier punc- 

tiliar character ; and that there is a 
wp^f +• >• growing tendency to use the compounds, 
Compounds especially those with Zid, Kara, and avu, to 

express what in the oldest Greek could be 
sufficiently indicated by the simplex. To a certain extent 
the NT use agrees with that of Polybius, Thus (f)vyelv is 
constative eleven times, " to flee," with no suggestion of the 
prolongation of flight ((pevyeiv) or of its successful accom- 

" See p. 247. 


plishment {hiac^vyetv or Kara^vyetv). (It seems to me clear 
that in Heb 11^* we have ecfivyov for the heginning of action, 
— not the goal of safety attained, but the first and decisive step 
away from danger. Similarly in Mt 23^^ we should read 
" how are ye to flee from the judgement of Gehenna ? " — ^just 
as in 3'''. The thought is not of the inevitableness of God's 
punishment, but of the stubbornness of men who will not take 
a step to escape it. The perfective therefore would be inap- 
propriate.) The papyri decidedly support this differentiation 
of simplex and compound. In the same way we find that 
StM^ai is always constative in NT, while the perfective 
KaraStM^ai, " hunt down," occurs once in Mk 1^^, where 
" followed after " (AV and EV) is not exact. 'Epydaaa-dat 
is certainly constative in Mt 25^"^, 3 Jn^, and Heb 11^^: it 
surveys in perspective the continuous labour which is so often 
expressed by ipyd^eaOai. In Mt 26^*^, and even 2 Jn^, the 
same is probably the case : the stress lies on the activity rather 
than on its product. This last idea is regularly denoted 
by the perfective compound with Kara. ^vXd^at " guard " 
seems always constative, Sia(f)v\d^aL " preserve " occurring 
in Lk 4^*^. Similarly r'rjprjaac " watch, keep," a continuous 
process seen in perspective : aw- and Bta-rrjpelv (present stem 
only) denote " watching " which succeeds up to the point of 
time contemplated. (See p. 237.) ^Aycovi^ea6atis only used 
in the durative present, but Kara<ycoviaaadat, (Heb 11^^) is 
a good perfective, ^ayeiv and Karacpayelv differ quite on 
Polybian lines (see above). On the other hand, in the 
verbs Miss Purdie examines, the NT makes decidedly less 
use of the compound than does Polybius ; while the non- 
constative aorists which she notes as exceptions to the 
general tendency are reinforced by others which in Polybius 
are seldom such. Thus ISelv is comparatively rare in 
Polybius : " in several cases the meaning is purely constative, 
and those exx. in which a perfective ^ meaning must be 
admitted bear a very small proportion to the extremely 
frequent occurrences of the compound verb in the like 

^ That is, " punctiliar " : Miss Purdie does not distinguish this from per- 
fective proper (with preposition). Brugmann, following Delbriick, has lately 
insisted on reserving "perfective" for the compounds. Uniformity of ter- 
minology is so important that I have adapted the earlier phraseology throughout. 


sense" {op. cit. p. 94 f.). In the NT, however, the simplex 
ISetjj is exceedingly common, while the compound {Kadopav, 
Kom 1-^) only appears once. It is moreover — so far as I can 
judge without the labour of a count — as often punctiliar 
(ingressive) as constative : Mt 2^*^, " when they caught sight 
of the star," will serve as an example, against constative 
uses like that in the previous verse, " the star which they 
saw." (In numerous cases it would be difficult to dis- 
tinguish the one from the other.) Here comes in one of 
Meltzer's criticisms, that the historian's strong dislike of 
hiatus (cf above, p. 92) accounts for very many of his 
preferences for compound verbs. This fact undeniably 
damages the case for Polybius himself; but it does not dis- 
pose of inferences — less decided, but not unimportant — 
which may be drawn from NT Greek and that of the papyri. 
We are not surprised to find that the NT has no perfective 
compounds of Oedofiat, Oecopico, Xoycl^ofiai, irpdcrcrfo, KivSvvevco, 
ap'^o/xai, /jbeXXo), opji^o/jbac, Svvco, or fxlcryco (fxtyvvfic), to set 
beside those cited (rightly or wrongly) from the historian. 
Noeo) is rather difficult to square with the rule. Its present 
simplex is often obviously linear, as in vowv koX ^povoyv, the 
standing phrase of a testator beginning a will : the durative 
" understand " or " conceive " is the only possible translation 
in many NT passages. The aor. in Jn 12*'' and Eph 3* may 
be the constative of this, or it may be ingressive, " realise." 
But it is often difficult to make a real perfective out of the 
compound KaravorjcraL, which should describe the completion 
of a mental process. In some passages, as Lk 20-^ ("he 
detected their craftiness "), or Ac 7^^ (" to master the mystery "), 
this will do very well ; but the durative action is most cer- 
tainly represented in the present Kuravoetv, except Ac 27^^ 
(? " noticed one after another "). Madeiv is sometimes con- 
stative, summing up the process of /lavddveiv ; but it has 
often purely point action, "ascertain": so in Ac 2327, Gal 3^, 
and frequently in the papyri. In other places moreover it 
describes a fully learnt lesson, and not the process of study. 
On Miss Purdie's principle this should be reserved for 
KarafjbaOelv, which occurs in Mt 6^^ : both here and for 
KaTavorjcrare in the Lucan parallel 122*-27 the PtV retains 
the durative " consider." It may however mean " understand. 


take in this fact about." The NT use of reXew, again, differs 

widely from that of Polybius, wliere the perfective compound 

(avvT.) greatly predominates : in NT the simplex outnumbers 

it fourfold. Moreover the aorist in the NT is always punctiliar 

(" finish ") : only in Gal 5^^ is the constative " perform " a 

possible alternative. 'OpjLa-dPjvai, is another divergent, for 

instead of the perfective Biopy., " fly into a rage," we six 

times have the simplex in the NT, where the constative 

aorist " be angry " never occurs.^ Finally we note that 

Kade^eaOat is always purely durative in NT (" sit," not " sit 

down," which is KaOia-ai), thus differing from Polybian use. 

A few additions might be made. Thus Lk 19^^ has the simplex 

irpa^ixa-revcracdai " trade," with the perfective compound in 

v.^^ BteTrpay/xarevaavTo "gained by trading." But the great 

majority of the hid compounds retain the full force of the ^La. 

The net result of this comparison may 
Provisional , , ^^1^.1 •  n c 

Results perhaps be stated thus, provisionally : tor 

anything like a decisive settlement we must 
wait for some ■)(^aX/cevT€po^ grammarian who will toil right 
through the papyri and the Koivrj literature with a minuteness 
matching Miss Purdie's over her six books of Polybius — a 
task for which a year's holiday is a condicio sine qua non. 
The growth of the constative aorist was certainly a feature 
in the development of later Greek : its consequences will 
occupy us when we come to the consideration of the Tenses. 
But the disuse of the " point " aorist, ingressive or effective, 
and the preference of the perfective compound to express 
the same meaning, naturally varied much with the author. 
The general tendency may be admitted as proved ; the extent 
of its working will depend on the personal equation. In the 
use of compound verbs, especially, we cannot expect the negligS 
style of ordinary conversation, or even the higher degree of 
elaboration to which Luke or the auctor ad Helrceos could rise, 
to come near the profusion of a literary man like Polybius.^ 

Perhaps this brief account of recent re- 
Tense searches, in a field hitherto almost untrodden 

by NT scholars, may suffice to prepare the 

^ Rev 11^^ might mean "were angry," but the ingressive "waxed angry" 
(at the accession of the King) suits the context better. * See p. 237. 


way for the necessary attempt to place on a scientific basis 

the use of the tenses, a subject on whicli many of the most 

crucial questions of exegesis depend. It has been made 

clear that the notion of (present or past) time is not by any 

means the first thing we must think of in dealing with tenses. 

For our problems of Aldionsart it is a mere accident that 

(peuyo) is (generally) present and e^evyov, ecpvyov, and <^v<yoiv 

past : the main point we must settle is the distinction between 

^eu7 and ^vy which is common to all their moods. 

On the Present stem, as normally denoting 

Tli6 Pr6S6nt ' . ./ o 

linear or durative action, not much more 

need now be said. The reader may be reminded of one idiom 
which comes out of the linear idea, the use of w^ords like 
trakat with the present in a sense best expressed by our 
perfect. Thus in 2 Co 12^^ "have you been thinking all 
this time?" or Jn 15^'^, "you have been with me from the 
beginning." So in MGr, k^rivra jirjva^ aa'^aTroi (Abbott 222). 
The durative present in such cases gathers up past and pre- 
sent time into one phrase. It must not be thought, however, 
that the durative meaning monopolises the present stem. In 
the prehistoric period only certain conjugations had linear 
action ; and though later analogic processes mostly levelled 
the primitive diversity, there are still some survivals of 
importance. The punctiliar force is obvious in certain 
presents. Burton (if T 9) cites as "aoristic presents " such 
words as jrapayyeXko) Ac 16^^, acpievTat Mk 2^ ("are this 
moment forgiven," — contr. d(})ecovraL Lk 5^^), larai Ac 9^^ 
etc. So possibly a^ioiJiev Lk ll^ which has acfiyJKafiev as 
its representative in Mt. But here it seems better to 
recognise the iterative present — " for we hahitually forgive " : 
this is like the generalising of Luke seen in his version of 
the prayer for daily bread. (Cf also Lk 6^0.) Blass (p. 188) 
adds aa-TTd^eTat as the correlative to the regular da-TrdaaaOe. 
It is very possible that in the prehistoric period a distinct 
present existed for the strong aorist stem, such as Giles 
plausibly traces in apxecrOat compared with the durative 
epxecrOai} The conjecture — which is necessarily unverifiable 

1 ManuaP 482. The ap is like pa in rpaireTv against Tpivuv, the familiar 
Greek representative of the original vocalic r. 


— would sufficiently explain this verb's punctiliar action, 
But it may indeed be suspected that point and line action 
were both originally possible in present and aorist-stem for- 
mations which remained without formative prefix or suffix. 
On this assumption, analogical levelling was largely responsible 
for the durative character which belongs to most of the 
special conjugation stems of the present. But this is con- 
jectural, and we need only observe that the punctiliar roots 

which appear in the present stem have given 
denotmg future • , ,f e ^.-u ^^ j 4. ? 

time- ^^^^ ^^® so-called present tense 

to denote future time.^ In avpiov airodvy- 

aKo/Mev (1 Co 15^2) we have a verb in which the perfective 

prefix has neutralised the inceptive force of the suffix -iV/ceo : 

it is only the obsoleteness of the simplex which allows it ever 

to borrow a durative action. E2fit in Attic is a notable 

example of a punctiliar root used for a future in the present 

indicative. But though it is generally asserted that this use 

of present tense for future originates in the words with 

momentary action, this limitation does not appear in the 

NT examples, any more than in English, We can say, 

" I am going to London to-morrow " just as well as " I go " : 

a.nd htepyoixai in 1 Co 16^ ylveTat in Mt 26^ and other futural 

presents that may be paralleled from the vernacular of the 

papyri, have no lack of durativity about them. In this stage 

of Creek, as in our own language, we may define the futural 

present as differing from the future tense mainly in the tone 

of assurance which is imparted. That the Present is not 

primarily a tense, in the usual acceptation of the term, is 

shown not only by the fact that it can 
and past time ; , p » • , ^  n 

stand for future time, but by its equaliy 

well - known use as a past. The " Historic " present 

is divided by Brugmann (Gj\ Gram.^ 484 f.) into the 

" dramatic " and the " registering " present. The latter 

occurs in historical documents with words like 'yl'yveTai, 

Tekevra, etc., registering a date. TevvaTai in Mt 2* is the 

nearest NT example I can think of, and it is not really 

parallel. The former, common in all vernaculars — we have 

^ Compare the close connexion between aorist (not present) subjunctive and 
the future, which is indeed in its history mainly a specialising of the former. 


only to overhear a servant girl's " so she says to me," if we 
desiderate proof that the usage is at home among us — is 
abundantly represented in the NT. From that mine of 
statistical wealth, Hawkins's Horce Sijnopticcc, we find that 
Mk uses the historic present 151 times, Mt 93 times, Lk 8 
times, with 13 in Ac ; also that it is rare in the LXX, except 
in Job, and in the rest of the NT, except in Jn. It does 
not, however, follow from this that it was " by no means 
common in Hellenistic Greek." Sir John Hawkins himself 
observes that it is common in Josephus, and of course it was 
abundant in Attic. The fact that Luke invariably (except in 
8*^) altered Mark's favourite usage means probably that it 
was too familiar for his liking. I have not catalogued the 
evidence of the papyri for this phenomenon, but it is common. 
OP 717 may be cited as a document contemporary with the 
NT, in which a whole string of presents does duty in nar- 
rative. It may be seen alternating with past tenses, as in 
the NT: cf the curious document Par P 51 (ii/B.c), recording 
some extremely trivial dreams. Thus avv^w . . . opw . . . 
K\aiya> . . . eTropevofiTjv . . . Kal ep-^ofiaL . . . eXeyov, etc. 
It was indeed a permanent element in prose narrative, 
whether colloquial or literary ; ^ but it seems to have run 
much the same course as in English, where the historic 
present is not normally used in educated conversation or in 
literature as a narrative form. It carries a special effect of 
its own, which may be a favourite mannerism of a particular 
author, but entirely avoided by others. Applying this prin- 
ciple, we conceive that Josephus would use the tense as an 
imitator of the classics, Mark as a man of the people who 
heard it in daily use around him ; while Luke would have 
Greek education enough to know that it was not common in 
cultured speech of his time, but not enough to recall the 
encouragement of classical writers whom he probably never 
read, and would not have imitated if he had read them. 
The limits of the historic present are well seen in the fact 
that it is absent from Homer, not because it was foreign to 

1 A peculiar use of the historic present is noticeable in MGr, where it fre- 
quently takes up a past tense : thus, oTo-o'X/cas e^ea-n-dduire, Kpdi'ei to. waWyiKapia, 
"drew his sword and calls" (Abbott 44 — see also 22, 26, etc.). See p. 139 n. 


the old Achaian dialect, but because of its felt incongruity in 
epic style : it is absent from the Nibelungenlied in the same way. 
The Moods of the present stem will be treated under their 
separate heads later. But there are two uses which should 
come in here, as bearing on the kind of action belonging to 

the tense-stem. The first concerns the two 

Present and normal methods of expressing Prohibition in 

Prohibitions • classical Greek, which survive in NT Greek, 

though less predominant than before. There 
is a familiar rule that i^rj is used with present imperative 
or aorist subjunctive ; but the distinction between these, 
expounded by Gottfried Hermann long ago, seems to have 
been mostly unnoticed till it was rediscovered by Dr 
Walter Headlam in OR xvii. 295, who credits Dr Henry 
Jackson with supplying the hint. Dr Jackson himself con- 
tributes a brief but suggestive note in xviii. 262 f. (June 
1904), and Dr Headlam then writes in full upon the subject 
in xix. 30-36, citing the dicta of Hermann from which the 
doctrine started, and rebutting some objections raised by Mr 
H. D. Naylor.'* Dr Jackson's words may be cited as linking 
the beginning and end of the language-history, and proving 
incidentally that the alleged distinction must hold for the NT 
language, which lies midway. " Davidson told me that, when 

he was learning modern Greek, he had been 
Greek- puzzled about the distinction, until he heard 

a Greek friend use the present imperative to 
a dog which was Imrking. This gave him the clue. He 
turned to Plato's AiJology, and immediately stumbled upon 
the excellent instances 20e fir) Oopv^ijarjTe, before clamour 
begins, and 21a /xt) Oopv^elre, when it has begun." The 
latter means in fact " desist from interrupting," the former 
" do not interrupt (in future)." Headlam shows how the 
present imperative often calls out the retort, " But I am not 
doing so," which the aorist locution never does : it would 
require " No, I will not." This is certainly the case in MGr, 
where fxr) ypd^rj'i is addressed to a person who is already 
writing, firj rypdylrrj<; to one who has not begun. The 
. . _ facts for classical and for present-day Greek 

' may be supplemented from the four volumes 
of OP : we need not labour the proof of a canon which 
could hardly be invalid for a period lying between periods 

"See p. 247. 


in which it is known to liavo been in force. I have 
noted in OP six cases of /z?; c. aor. subj. referring to 
requests made in a letter, which of course cannot be 
attended to till the letter arrives. Thus firj uixe\i]a-r)^, 
fjurj dXXco^ 7roit'](T'r]<i, opa firjSevl . . . 7rpocrKpovarj<;, etc. (all 
ii/A.D.). One other (OP 744, i/B.c.) is worth quoting as a 
sample of such requests followed by a reply : etprjKa^ . . . 
oTt Ml] fie iTTiXdOrj'i. ITco? Buva/xai ere eirCkadelv ; On the 
other hand, we have four cases of firi c. pres. imper., all clearly 
referable to the rule. Tovto fxrj Xeje (what he had said)- — /xt) 
dycovLa (bis) " don't go on worrying " — fxr) aKXvWe eari^v 
ivTTrjvai, (sic !) " don't bother to give information (??) " : in the 
last case (295 — i/A.D.) the writer had apparently left school 
young, and we can only guess her meaning, but it may 
well be " stop troubling." As we shall see, the crux is the 
differentia of the present imperative, which is not easy to 
illustrate decisively from the papyri. Only one case seems 
to occur in FP (no. 112, from I/a.d.), and a gap there makes 
the meaning very obscure ; nor are we more fortunate in Tb P, 
the prevalence of reports and accounts in this volume giving 
little opportunity for the construction. In the royal edict, 
Tb P 6 (ii/B.c), we find Kal ixi-jOevl iirLTpeTreTe Ka6' ovtlvovv 
rpoTTOv irpdaaeLV n t(ov TrpoSeSujXwfjiivcov, the conformity of 
which with the rule is suggested by the words "as we have 
before commanded," with which the sentence apparently opens : 
a hiatus again causes difficulty. The frequency of these prohi- 
bitions in NT presents a very marked contrast 
to the papyri, but the hortatory character of 
the writing accounts for this. The following table gives the 
statistics for fit] with the 2nd person : — 

and in NT. 


pres. imp. 

c. aor. subj 


. 12 








Ac . 



Jn and Epp 







. 47 





.Jas . 



IPet . 






We have included the cases where /u.77 is preceded by opa or 
the like. But sometimes this is not (as in the Gospels) a 
mere compound prohibition, like our " take care not to . . ." 
In Gal 5^5 "take heed lest" can hardly be classed as a 
prohibition at all ; while in Mk 1^*, opa /xTjBevl etTTT??, there 
is virtual parataxis, opa being only a sort of particle adding 
emphasis. The analysis of the list raises several suggestive 
points. In Mt we note that except V^ and 3^ all the 
examples are from sayings of Christ, 39 in all, while in 
Lk 32 are thus described (36 if we include a citation of 
four precepts from the Decalogue). Since Mt has 12 pres. 
to 27 aor., but Lk 21 to 11, we see that there was no sort of 
uniformity in translating from the Aramaic. There is no 
case where Mt and Lk have varied the tense while using 
the same word in reporting the same logion ; ^ but we find 
Mt altering Mk in 24^^, manifestly for the better, if the 
canon is true. In Mk the balance is heavily inclined to 
the pres., for 5 out of 9 aor. examples are in the recitation 
of the commandments. In Jn there is only one aor., 3^, 
an exception the more curious in that desine mirari seems 
clearly the meaning; but see below. Paul uses the aor. 
even less than he appears to do, for Eom 10*^ is a quotation, 
and Col 2^1 ter virtually such : this leaves only 2 Th 3^^, 
1 Tim 5\ 2 Tim l^ with Gal 5^^ on which see above. Heb 
has only two aorists (10^^ 12^5 — the latter with ^XeVere), 
ajDart from a triple quotation 3^- ^^ 4^. The very marked 
predominance of the fir] irolet type is accordingly unbroken 
except in Mt, and in Eev and 1 Pet so far as they go. In 
the NT as a whole the proportion is 61 p.c. to 39, which 
does not greatly differ from the 56 to 44 noted in the 
Attic Orators by Miller {AJP xiii. 423). 

Before we proceed to draw our deduc- 
Passages ^.^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^j^^^ applied to the NT, 

it will be well to present a few of the 
passages in which it obviously holds. In the following 
places the reply to the (x^ Troiet must clearly be either 
" I am not doing so " or " I will stop doing it " : — Mk 5^^ 

* D uses Kw\v(rT]T€ in Lk 18'", where Mt and Mk, as well as the other MSS 
in Lk, have the much more appropriate present. 


9=59 a^ti parallels, Lk 7^3 349 352 (cf Mk ri /cXa/ere :) iO^c 

117 1412 2328, Jn 2i<5 51^ 1921 2017-27, Ac 1015 is" 20io, 

Ptom 1118- 20 1420^ 1 Qo 727^ 1 Tim 523, Jas 2\ 1 Pet 4^2, 

Kev 5^ In the following, the iiy] iroiyjar)^ would be answered 

with "I will avoid doing so": — Mt Q^^ 10^ 179, Mk 8-'^ 

925, Lk 62!> 10^ (contrast the two prohibitions) 148 218, 

Ac 7«« 938 1628 2321, 1 Tim 5^, 2 Tim 18, Eev 6« 7^ 10* 

(following ij/xeWov ypd(f3eiv — he had not begun). 

_,.„ ... It must however be admitted that rather 

Dimculties. , ^ T . , , 

strong external pressure is needed to force 

the rule upon Paul. It is not merely that his usage is very 

one-sided. So is that of Jn, and yet (with the doubtful 

exception of 10^^^ every present he uses fits the canon 

completely. But does /xr] ajxekei in 1 Tim 4^* require us to 

believe that Timothy was " neglecting " his " charism " — 

fxrjSevl eTTirlOei, and fiT^he Kocvcovet in 522 — that he was warned 

to stop what he was hitherto guilty of ? May we not rather 

say that firj a/MeXet is equivalent to irdvroTe fieXera or the 

like, a marked durativc, with a similar account of fir^he 

Koivcovetl If we jDaraphrase the first clause in 522 "always 

be deliberate in choosing your office-bearers," we see the 

iterative ^ force of the present coming in ; and this we 

recognise again in typical passages like Lk 10^, Kom G^^, 

Eph 426, Heb 13^, 2 Jn^^, 1 Jn 4.\ Then in 1 Co 1439 j^ow 

are we to imagine Paul bidding the Corinthians " desist from 

forbidding " the exercise of their darling charism ? His 

/JLT) KcoXvere means " do not discourage glossolaly, as after 

my previous words you might be incUned to do." In other 

words, we have the conative^ which is clearly needed also in 

such passages as Gal 5^. M?) irolei, accordingly needs 

various mental supplements, and not one only. It is " Stop 

doing," or " Do not (from time to time)," or " Do not 

(as you are in danger of doing)," or " Do not attempt to do." 

We are not justified in excluding, for the purposes of the 

present imperative in prohibitions, the various kinds of 

action which we find attached to the present stem elsewhere. 

1 See below, p. 128. In 1 Co I.e. we might also trace the iterative, if the 
meaning is "Do not repress glossolaly, whenever it breaks out." So Dr 


But since the simple linear action is by far the commonest 
in the present stem, it naturally follows that /xr/ Tro/et usually 
means " stop doing," though (as Headlam admits, CB 
xix. 31) it does not always mean this. To account for 
such difficulties on the other side as Ju 3'^, we may well 
pursue the quotation from the scholar who started us on 
this discussion. " M^ Bpaay^; always, I believe, means I 
warn you against doing this, I beseech you will not ; though 
this is sometimes used when the thing is being done ; notably 
in certain cases which may be called colloquial or idiomatic, 
with an effect of impatience, fii] (^povrlcrr]'; Oh, never mind ! 
fit] Seia-y'i Never fear ! fir) dav/xday'i You nuistn't he surprised" 

Perhaps my main motive in pursuing 
wny Jr'aui ^j^-^ j^ discussion has been to solve a 
^ ^o^gi, question that has consequences for our 

Church History. What are we to infer 
when we find Paul bidding his converts firj [xedvaiceaOe 
(Eph 5^^), fir] y^ev^eade (Col 3^), or James changing the 
logion of Mt 5^^- ^^ into the suggestive j)resent (5^^) ? 
What has been said will make it clear that such commands 
were very practical indeed, — that the apostles were not 
tilting at windmills, but uttering urgent warnings against 
sins which were sure to reappear in the Christian com- 
munity, or were as yet only imperfectly expelled. The critics 
who make so much of lapses among Christian converts of the 
first generation in modern missions might have damned Paul's 
results with equal reason. Time has shown — time will show.^ 

The second point in which we shall 
Participle anticipate later discussion concerns the uses 

of the Participle. Like the rest of the verb, 
outside the indicative, it has properly no sense of time 
attaching to it : the linear action in a participle, connected 
with a finite verb in past or present time, partakes in the time 
of its principal. But when the participle is isolated by the 
addition of the article, its proper timelessness is free to 
come out. This can hardly happen with the aorist, where 
point action in such a connexion cannot well exist without 
the suggestion of past time : 17 reKouaa must be rendered 
" she who bore a child," not because reKovoa is past in 

1 See p. 238. 


time like eVe/ce, but because the action is not in progress 
and therefore must be past. But i) rUrovaa is common 
in tragedy (cf Gal 4-'') as a practical synonym of t) fj-yjTrjp, 
the title of a continuous relationship. Winer (p. 444) gives 
a good selection of classical exx. : add from the papyri such 
as CPE 24 etc. (ii/A.D.) T049 yafj,ovcn, " the contracting 
parties," who are called ot ryeya/mijKore'; in a similar docu- 
ment, CPE 2 8 (ii/A.D.). So 6 Kki-mcov, Eph 4^8, is not " he who 
stole " or " he who steals," but simply " the stealer," differing 
from 6 KXeirrr]^ " the thief " only in being more closely 
associated with the verb KXeTTTera) which is coming. If the 
Baptist is called ^airrl^cov (Mk G^^- 2^), " the baptiser," the 
phrase is less of a technical term than the noun, but is other- 
wise synonymous therewith. An agent-noun almost neces- 
sarily connotes linear action : there are only a few exceptions, 
like " murderer," " bankrupt," where the title is generally 
given in respect of an act committed in the past. Hence 
it coincides closely with the action of the present participle, 
which with the article (rarely without — see Kiihner-Gerth 
i. 266) becomes virtually a noun. We return to the aorist 
participle later, and need not say more on the minute part 
of its field which might be connected with the subject of 
this paragraph. But it must be remarked that the principle 
of a timeless present participle needs very careful application, 
since alternative explanations are often possible, and grammar 
speaks to exegesis here with no decisive voice. In my 
Introduction'^ (p. 199) Mt 27*^ KaTaXvoav rov vaov, "the 
destroyer of the temple," was given as an ex. of a participle 
turned noun. But the conative force is not to be missed here : 
" you would-be destroyer " gives the meaning more exactly. 
Another ambiguous case may be quoted from Heb 10^"^: is 
T0U9 dy(.a^o/x€i/ov<; timeless, " the objects of sanctification," or 
iterative, " those who from time to time receive sanctification," 
or purely durative, " those who are in process of sanctifica- 
tion"? The last, involving a suggestive contrast with the 
perfect TerekeicoKev — telling (like the unique eVre aecwa^evoi 
of Eph 2^- s) of a work which is finished on its Author's 
side, but progressively realised by its objects, — brings the 
tense into relation with the recurrent ol aq)^6/xevoi and 
01 cnroWv/xevoi, in which durative action is conspicuous. 


The examples will suffice to teach the importance oi 

We turn to the Imperfect, with which we 
enter the sphere of Tense proper, the idea of 
past time being definitely brought in by the presence of the 
augment. This particle — perhaps a demonstrative base in 
its origin, meaning " then " — is the only decisive mark of 
past or present time that the Indo-Germanic verb possesses, 
unless the final -i in primary tenses is rightly conjectured to 
have denoted present action in its prehistoric origin. Applied 
to the present stem, the augment throws linear action 
into the past ; applied to the aorist, it does the same for 
punctiliar action. The resultant meaning is naturally various. 
We may have pictorial narrative, as contrasted with the 
summary given by the aorist. Thus the sculptor will some- 
times sign his work o Belva eiroiei, sometimes eVotT/cre : the 
former lays the stress on the labour of production, the latter 
on the artist's name. When the difference is a matter of 
emphasis, we naturally find it sometimes evanescent. "E^iq, 
imperfect in form, is aorist in meaning, because 0a is a 
punctiliar root. But eXe^ev often differs very little from 
elirev — its pictorial character is largely rubbed off by time, 
and in MGr the two forms are mere equivalents. In words 
less worn the distinction can hardly ever be ignored. The 
categories to which we were alluding just now, in discussing 
the participle, are everywhere conspicuous in the imperfect 
indicative. Thus we have frequently the iterative, its graph 

( ) instead of ( ), describing past action that was 

repeated. Especially important, because more liable to be 
missed, is the conative imperfect, for which we might give the 

graph ( ). Action going on implies the contingency 

of its failure to reach an end : our linear graph may either 
be produced beyond our vision, or reach a definite terminus 
in view {Karrjadiov, perfective, see above, p. Ill), or stop 
abruptly in vacuo. How important this is for the NT may 
be seen from some of the passages, in which the Eevisers have 
earned our gratitude by their careful treatment of the Tenses, 
a specially strong point of their work. Ac 26^^ is a notable 
example : the AV commits Paul to the statement that he had 
actually forced weak Christians to renounce their Master. 



Now in itself i^vajKa^ov"^ might of course be " I repeatedly 
forced," the iterative imperfect just referred to. ]jut the 
sudden abandonment of the aorist, used up to this point, gives 
a strong grammatical argument for the nlternative " I tried to 
force," which is made certain by the whole tone of the Apostle 
in his retrospect : we cannot imagine him telling of such a 
success so calmly ! Other typical exx. are Mt 3^*, Lk 1^^, 
Ac 7^*^, the EV being right in all : in Ac I.e. the AV curiously 
blundered into the right meaning by mistranslating a wrong 
text. (Their avvi^Xaaev would naturally mean that he " drove " 
them to shake hands ! Did the translators (Tyndale and 
his successors) mistake this for crvvifSXaacrev, or did they 
consciously emend ? The Vulgate reconcilidbat may have 
encouraged them.) In Mk 9^^ the Eevisers unfortunately 
corrected the text without altering the translation : it seems 
clear that the imperfect is conative, the man refusing to be 
stopped in his good work. So also in Heb 11^'^ irpoa-e^epev 
appears to be a conative imperfect, as the RV takes it : the 
contrast between the ideally accomplished sacrifice, as per- 
manently recorded in Scripture {nrpoaevipo-^ev), and the 
historic fact that the deed was not finished, makes an 
extremely strong case for this treatment of the word. I 
cannot therefore here agree with Thumb, who says that we 
expect an aorist, and suggests that ecpepov had already begun 
to be felt as an aorist as in MGr e(j)€pa, the aorist of ^epvco 
(TIiLZ xxviii. 423). He cites no ancient parallel; and of 
all NT writers the author of Heb is the least likely to start 
an innovation of this kind.'' (See p. 238.) 

„, . . In the Aorist indicative, as in the Imper- 

Tlie Aorist : . . 

feet, wo have past time brought in by the 

use of the augment. To appreciate the essential character of 
aorist action, therefore, we must start with the other moods. 
The contrast of its point action with tlie linear of the present 
stem is well seen in 809 ai^fiepov in Mt 6^\ against hihov to 
Kad' rj/j,epav in Lk 11^: cf also Mt 5*^ t&> aiTovvrt 809, but 
iravrl airovvn SlSov in Lk 6^'' ; and (with respective parts 
reversed) Mt 5^- x^lpeTe, without note of time, but Lk 6^^ 
■Xapr^re iv eKecvj) Trj vfiepa. The Imperative shows the con- 
trast so well that we may add another example :'' Eom 6^^ gives 
us present TrapiaTdvere (see pp. 122 ff.) and TrapaaTijaare to- 
g »«":Seep. 247. 


gether in marked antithesis — the daily struggle, always ending 
in surrender, and the once-for-all surrender to God which 
brings deliverance. Note further the delicate nuance in Ac 
2537f. . Barnabas, with easy forgetfulness of risk, wishes cvv- 
irapaXa^etv Mark — Paul refuses avvTrapaXaii^aveiv, to have 
with them day by day one who had shown himself unreliable. 
Examples are very numerous, and there are few of the finer 
shades of meaning which are more important to grasp, just 
because they usually defy translation. The three kinds of 
point action, Ingressive, Effective, and Constative,^ are not 
. always easy to distinguish. Two or even 

three of them may be combined in one verb, 
as we saw above with /SaXelv (p. 109) ; for of course this may 
be the summary of ^dWetv " throw," as well as " let fly " and 
" hit ". In usage however nearly all verbs keep to one end 
or other of the action ; though the marked growth of the 
constative enlarges the number of cases in which the whole 
action is comprised in one view. Thus from ^acnXeveiv we 
have the ingressive aorist in ^aaL\eva-a<i dvairarjo-erai, " having 
come to his throne he shall rest" (Agraphon, OP 654 and 
Clem. Al.), and the constative in Eev 20* "they reigned 
a thousand years." The ingressive especially belongs to 
verbs of state or condition (Goodwin MT 16). For the 
effective aorist, we may compare durative reXeiv " fulfil, 
bring to perfection" (2 Co 12^ "my power is being per- 
fected in weakness ") with the aorist TeXeaat " finish " (Lk 
2^^ etc.). The constative is used apparently in Gal 5^^ 
(above, p. 118). 

The aorist participle raises various ques- 

Aonst Participle ^:^q^^ ^^ j^g ^ which must be considered 

of Coincident , . „ ^i i.i ^ n 

Action liQre m so far as they concern the nature oi 

aorist action. The connotation of past time 
has largely fastened on this participle, through the idiomatic 
use in which it stands before an aorist indicative to qualify 
its action. As point action is always completed action, except 
in the ingressive, the participle naturally came to involve 

1 We may express them by the graph A > B, denoting motion from 

A to B. A will be Ingressive, B Effective, and the Constative would be the 
line reduced to a point by perspective. 


past time relative to that of the main verb. Presumabl}' 
this would happen less completely when the participle stood 
second. The assumption of past time must not however be 
regarded as a necessary or an accomplished process. In 
many cases, especially in the NT, the participle and the 
main verb denote coincident or idenfAcal action. So otto- 
Kpi6e\<i eltrev Mt 22^ etc./ Ka\co<; eiTo[riaa<; 7rapa<yev6fi€i'o<; 
Ac 10^^. The latter puts into the past a formula constantly 
recurring in the papyri: thus FP 121 (i/ii a.d.) ev TrotJ^Vet? 
8ov<i " you will oblige me by giving " — si dederis in Latin. 
In Jn 11^^ we have elirovaa first for past action and then 
etiraa-a (BC*) for coincident : the changed form is suggestive, 
but is perhaps without conscious significance. One probable 
example of coincident action may be brought in here because 
of its inherent difficulty, though it belongs rather to lexicon 
than to grammar. The participle ein^akoov (Mk 14'^-) — 
which may well have been obscure even to Mt and Lk, who 
both dropped it — has now presented itself in the Ptolemaic 
papyrus Tb P 50, iirt^aXoov avveywcrev ra iv rrji eavrov <yrjL 
fiepr] Tov arj/jLacvo/xefou vSpaywyov, which I translate, " he set 
to and dammed up." It is true that in Tb P 13 eTn^okyj 
means " embankment," as Dr Swete has pointed out to me.^ 
But Dr F. G. Kenyon has since observed that if e7rc/3dW(o 
were here used of casting up earth, it would add nothing to 
(xvve^waev alone. Moreover, since Mark's phrase has to be 
explained in any case, there is good reason for taking the 
word in the same sense in both places. Many versions 
either take this view of iirt^aXayv (cf Euthymius' gloss 
ap^dfj,evo<i), or translate the paraphrase rjp^aro found in D. 
Mt and Lk substitute the ingressive aorist eKkavaev. If this 
account is right, iirt^aXdov is the aorist coincident with the 
first point of the linear eKkacev, and the compound phrase 
expresses with peculiar vividness both the initial paroxysm 

1 This phrase, except for Ac 19^^ 25^, occurs in the Semitic atmosphere alone ; 
so that we should look at the Hebrew icN-i fj;-], whieli suggested it through the 
medium of the LXX. (It is not Aramaic, Dalman thinks, ^orcJs 24 f.) The 
form of the Hebrew prompts Dr Findlay to suggest that dTroKpiOeis is ingressive, 
d-rrev consecutive upon it. That dTroKpidrjvaL is generally constative, does not 
make this account any less possible. 

* See notes in Expos, vi. vii. 113 and viii. 430. 


and its long continuance, which the easier but tamer word of 
the other evangeHsts fails to do. 

There are even cases where the participle 
■'^^ "^^^f ®i^^-^ ^°^ seems to involve subsequent action. Thus in 
auent Action. I'i^clar Pyth. iv. 189 we have, "when the 
flower of his sailor-folk came down to lolcos, 
Jason mustered and thanked them all (Xe^aro eTTai,vrjcrai<i). 
This is really coineident action, as Gildersleeve notes ; but 
of course, had the poet felt bound to chronicle the exact 
order of proceedings, he would have put the muster first. 
I am strongly disposed to have recourse to this for the 
much - discussed daTraad/xevot in Ac 25^^, though Hort's 
suspicions of " prior corruption " induce timidity. It might 
seem more serious still that Blass (p. 197) pronounces 
" the reading of the majority of the MSS . . . not Greek," ^ 
for Blass comes as near to an Athenian revenant as any 
modern could hope to be. But when he says that the 
" accompanying circumstance . . . cannot yet be regarded 
as concluded," may we not reply that in that case Pindar's 
eiraLvn^aai'^ equally needs emending ? The effective aorist 
KaTi]VT7}(rav is very different from a durative like eiropevovTO, 
which could only have been followed by a word describing 
the purpose before them on their journey. But in " they 
arrived on a complimentary visit " I submit that the case is 
really one of identical action. The KV text gives the meaning 
adequately.- There are a good many NT passages in which 
exegesis has to decide between antecedent and coincident 
action, in places where the participle stands second : Heb 9^^ 
will serve as an example. It would take too much space 

^ Blass here slurs over the fact that not one uncial reads the future. The 
paraphrastic rendei'ing of tlie Vulgate cannot count, and a reading su}i}>orted 
by nothing better than the cursive 61 had better be called a conjecture outright. 
(Blass's misquotation KarrjXdov, by the way, is not corrected in his second 
edition.) As little can I share his confidence that Jn 11- "is certainly an 
interpolation" (p. 198 n.). What difficulty is there in the explanation he 
quotes, "who as I'f^ well known did (or, has done) this " ? (See p. 238.) 

-We may quote an example from the vernacular: OP 530 (ii/A.D.) i^ Zv 
5tl)creis 'SapairiiiM'L ry <pi\u} . . . 'KvTpuxxacTd fiov to. i/j-aria op. cKarov, " of which 
you will give 'my uncle' Sarapion 100 draclunce and redeem my clothes. " AVe 
should add that Dr Findlay would regard da-Tr. in Ac I.e. as denoting the 
initial act of KaTT^vrrjaav, See further p. 238. 


to discuss adequately the alleged examples of suhsequenl 
action participles for which Eamsay pleads {Paul, p. 212), 
but a few comments must be ventured. In Ac 1 G'' (WH) 
— the first of a series of passages which Rackham {Ads, 
p. 184) regards as "decisive" — we really have nothing to 
show when the Divine monition was given. Assuming 
Ramsay's itinerary correct, and supposing that the travellers 
realised the prohibition as far on as Pisidian Antioch, the aorist 
remains coincident, or even antecedent, for they had not yet 
crossed the Asian frontier. In 23^^ (and 22^*) it is entirely 
arbitrary to make assumptions as to the order of the items. 
The former is " he said . . ., meanwhile ordering him . . .," 
which may perfectly well mean that Felix first told his 
soldiers where they were to take Paul, and then assured 
the prisoner of an early hearing, just before the guards led 
him away. In 22^^ Lysias presumably said in one sentence, 
" Bring him in and examine him." In 1 7^^ the opiaa^ is not 
" later " than the iirotijaev in time : the determination of 
man's home |-?rcce(^6c? his creation, in the Divine plan. 
Rackham's other " decisive " exx. are 24^^ in which etVa? 
and 8caTa^dfM6vo<i are items in the action described by dve- 
(SdXeTo ; and 7^*", where the constative i^y]ya<y6v describes 
the Exodus as a whole. Rackham's object is to justify 
the reading of nBHLP al in 1 2^^, by translating " they 
returned to J. and fulfilled their ministry and took with 
them John." Now " returned ... in fulfilment . . ." is a 
good coincident aorist and quite admissible. But to take 
(Tvv7rapa\a^6vTe<i in this way involves an unblushing aorist 
of suhseqaent action, and this I must maintain has not yet 
been paralleled either in the NT or outside. ITort's conjecture 
— Tr}v el<i 'I. iT\7]pu>cravTe<i SiaKovLuv — mends this passage 
best. The alternative is so flatly out of agreement with the 
normal use of the aorist participle that the possibility of it 
could only introduce serious confusion into the language. 
Prof. Ramsay's appeal to Blass will not lie, I think, for any 
" subsequent action " use : we have already referred to the 
great grammarian's non possunnis for Ac 25^^, which entirely 
bars his assent to any interpretation involving more than 
coincident action. All that he says on 23^^ is that KeXevaa^ 
— cKeXcvaev re, which is not warrant for Ramsay's inference. 


On the whole case, we may safely accept the vigorous state- 
ment of Schmiedel on Ac 16« {EB ii. 1599): "It has to 
be maintained that the participle must contain, if not 
something antecedent to ' they went ' (Su^Xdov), at least 
something synchronous with it, in no case a thing subsequent 
to it, if all the rules of grammar and all sure understanding 
of language are not to be given up." ^ 

The careful study of the aorist participle 
Aorists ^^^^ show surviving uses of its original time- 
less character, besides those we have noted 
already. Lk 10^^ idecopovp (durative) top Saravdv . . . e'/c rov 
ovpavov Treaovra, — which is exactly like Aesch. FV 9561, 

ovK iK T(ovB' iyo) [sc. Trepydficov^ 
Bi(raov<; Tvpdvvov<i €K7rea6vra<; rjaOojJL'qv^ 
or Homer //. vi. 284, 

el Ketvov ye FISoi/xl KareXOovT "yltSo? ecaw — 
belongs to a category of which many exx. are given by 
Goodwin MT § 148, in which the sense of past time does 
not appear : cf Monro HG 212, 401. " I watched him fall" 
will be the meaning, the aorist being constative : irLinovTa 
" falling " (cf Vulg. cadentem) would have been much weaker, 
suggesting the possibility of recovery. The triumphant 
eireaev eireaev of Eev 18^ (cf next page) is the same action. 
We need not stay to show the timelessness of the aorist in 
the imperative, subjunctive and infinitive : there never was 
any time connotation except when in reported speech an 
optative or infinitive aorist took the place of an indicative. 
Cases where an aorist indicative denotes present time, or even 
future, demand some attention. 'E^Xrjdr] in Jn 15*^ is 
paralleled by the well-known classical idiom seen in Euripides 
Ale. 386, dTTcoXofirjv €0 fie Xei-v|rei9, " I am undone if you leave 
me." ^^ Similarly in i^iaTr), Mk 3^^, English again demands the 
perfect, "he has gone out of his mind." Jannaris ITG § 1855 
notes that this idiom survives in MGr. In Eom 14^3 an 
analogous use of the perfect may be seen. The difficult 
aorist of Mk 1^^ and parallels, iv crol ev86Ki]a-a,is probably "on 
thee I have set the seal of my approval " : literally " I set,"" 

^ Ac 21^^ may be leiidered " we ceased, with the words . . ." 

- Suggested by my friend Mr H. Bisseker. 

3 See Giles, ManuaP 499. [« See p. 247. 


at a time which is not defined. None of these exx. are 
really in present time, for they only seem to be so through 
a difference in idiom between Greek and English. We have 
probably to do here with one of the most ancient uses of 
the aorist — the ordinary use in Sanskrit — expressing what has 
just happened:'' ci Mk 16^ Lk 7^^ I420 15^2 24^^ Jn 11*2 
1219 131 (^xM 13^^ 2P«,Eev 148 132, etc., and see p. 140.^ 
In two other uses we employ the present, the " epistolary " 
(as Eph 6^2), and the so-called " gnomic " aorist. Goodwin 
(3IT § 155) observes that the gnomic aorist and perfect 
" give a more vivid statement of general truths, by employ- 
ing a distinct case or several distinct cases in the past to 
represent (as it were) all possible cases, and implying that 
what has occurred is likely to occur again under similar 
circumstances." The present is much commoner than the 
aorist, which generally (Goodwin § 157) refers to "a 
single or a sudden occurrence, while the present (as usual) 
implies duration." The gnomic aorist survives in MGr 
(Jannaris HG § 1852), and need not have been denied by 
Winer for Jas 1^^ and 1 Pet l^*: see Hort's note on the 
latter. Jas 1^* combines aor. and perf. in a simile, reminding 
us of the closely allied Homeric aorist in similes. 

English ^® have seen that the aorist descriptive 

Rendering of what has just happened has to be rendered 
of Aorist Iq English by what we call our Perfect Tense. 
Indicative. j^ ^^^^ ^^ admitted that this is not the only 
usage in which the English and the Greek past tenses do not 
coincide. Our English Past — historically a syncretic tense, 
mostly built on the Perfect — is essentially a definite tense, 
connoting always some point or period of time at which the 
action occurred. But in Greek this is not necessarily involved 
at all. Idiomatically we use the past in pure narrative, where 
the framework of the story implies the continuous dating of 
the events ; and though the Greek aorist has not this implica- 
tion, we may regard the tenses as equivalent in practice. 
But outside narrative we use the periphrastic have tense as an 

^ In classical Greek we may find an aorist of this kind used with a sequence 
wliich would naturally suggest a foregoing perfect, as Eurijiides, Medea 213 f. : 
i^TjKdov oofj.ui' [xi) fxoi Ti /ji.e/j.<pT](Td'. See Verrall's note. ["See p. 247. 


indefinite past ; and it thus becomes the inevitable representa 
tive of the Greek aorist when no time is clearly designed : e.g 
1 Co 15*^ Tivh iKoifM/]di]a-av, "fell asleep (at various times)," 
and so "have fallen asleep." This has two unfortunate 
results. We have to decide for ourselves whether a Greek 
aorist refers to definite or indefinite time — often no easy 
task. And we have to recognise that our own perfect is 
ambiguous : it is not only the genuine Perfect, describing action 
in the past with continuance into present time, but also the 
simple indefinite Past. As Dr J. A. Eobinson says {Gospels, 
p. 107), on eKpv\\ra'i and uTreKciXvyjra'i in Mt 11^^: "If we 
render, ' Thou didst hide . . . Thou didst reveal,' . . . our 
minds are set to search for some specially appropriate 
moment to which reference may be made. The familiar 
rendering, ' Thou hast hid . . . Thou hast revealed,' expresses 
the sense of the Greek far more closely, though we are using 
what we call a ' perfect.' The fact needs to be recognised 
that our simple past and our perfect tense do not exactly 
coincide in meaning with the Greek aorist and perfect 
respectively. The translation of the aorist into English 
must be determined partly by the context and partly by 
considerations of euphony." ^ The use of the English perfect 
to render the aorist evidently needs careful guarding, lest the 
impression of a true perfect be produced. Take for example 
Eom 1^ The AV " we have received " decidedly rings as a 
perfect : it means " I received originally and still possess." 
This lays the emphasis on the wrong element, for Paul 
clearly means that when he did receive a gift of grace and a 
commission from God, it was through Christ he received it. 
This is not an indefinite aorist at all. If a man says to his 
friend, " Through you I got a chance in life," we should 
never question the idiom : " have got " would convey a 
distinct meaning. Among the paraphrasers of Eom, Mofiatt 

^ This thesis was elaborately worked out by Dr R. F. Weymouth in a 
pamphlet, On the B,endcring into English of the Greek Aorist and Perfect (1890 : 
since in 2nd ed.). His posthumous NT in Modern Speech was intended to give 
effect to the thesis of the pamphlet. Weymouth's argument is damaged by 
some not very wise language about the RV ; but in this one point it may 
fairly be admitted tliat the Revisers' principles were sometimes applied in 
rather too rigid a manner. See however pp. 137 ff. 


and the Tiventieth Century NT rightly give the pcast tense 

here with the EV : Eutherford, Way and Weymouth less 

accurately give the perfect. The limitations of our idiom 

are evident in the contrasted tenses of Mk 16*^ and 1 Co 

15*. 'Hyepdr) states simply the past complete fact, the 

astounding news of what had just happened — see above on 

this use of the aorist. 'EyrjjepTat sets forth with the utmost 

possible emphasis the abiding results of the event, which supply 

the main thought of the whole passage. But " He is risen " 

is the only possible translation for the former ; while in the 

latter, since a definite time is named, our usage rather rebels 

against the perfect which the sense so strongly demands. 

We must either sacrifice this central thouoht with the AV 

and the free translators, who had a chance that was denied 

to the literal versions, or we must frankly venture on 

" translation English " with the EV : to fit our idiom we might 

detach the note of time and say " that he hath been raised 

— raised on the third day, according to the scriptures." 

, „„ The subject of the rendering^ of the 

A AT a,Tid. El V 

in Mt Grreek aorist is so important that no apology 

is needed for an extended enquiry. We will 

examine the usage of AV and EV in Mt, which will serve 

as a typical book. If my count is right, there are 65 

indicative aorists in Mt which are rendered by both AV and 

EV alike with the English perfect,^ or in a few cases the 

present ; while in 41 the AV is deserted by the EV for the 

simple past.^ These figures alone are enough to dispose 

of any wholesale criticism. In 11 of the 41 Weymouth 

himself uses the past in his free translation. His criticism 

therefore touches between a quarter and a third of the 

1 Including 6'-, where the AV would certainly have translated dcpi'iKafxev as 
the RV has done. In a private memorial wliich was sent to the Revisers by an 
unnamed colleague, before their final revision, it is stated that out of nearly 
200 places in the Gospels where the aorist was rendered by the English perfect, 
the Revisers had only followed the AV iu 66. The figures above for Mt show 
that the appeal took effect ; but in Ju 17, wliich is specially named, the 21 exx. 
remain in the published text. That the majority were right there, I cannot 
doubt: the English perfect in that chaitter obscures a special feature of the 
gi'eat prayer, the tone of detachment with which the Lord contemplates His 
earthly life as a period lying in the past. 

- One passage, 18'^, is only in EVmg. 


passages which come under our notice in Mt. From which 
we may fairly infer that the Eevisers' English was, after 
all, not quite as black as it was painted. In examining the 
material, we will assume in the first instance that the aorist 
is rightly rendered by our perfect (or present) in all the 
places where AV and EV agree. (This is only assumed for 
the sake of argument, as will be seen below.) Our first task 
then is with the 41 passages in which there is a difference. 
Of these Weymouth's own translation justifies 2^^ (a very 
definite aor. — see Hos 11^) 531. 33. as. 43 ^j^g^.^ ^y ^g^g misled 
by its wrong translation of T6t<i dp^aLOL<; — it is right in 
vv.21-27) 103«. (AV ca77ie in one of the three) 17^^ 2142 
25^0 his^ We may further deduct 2V^ as justified by the AV 
in v,*2, and 25^^-^^ as on all fours with the past "I sowed." 
It remains to discuss the legitimacy of the English past in 
the rest of the exx. Our test shall be sought in idiomatic 
sentences, constructed so as to carry the same grammatical 
conditions : they are purposely assimilated to the colloquial 
idiom, and are therefore generally made parallel in grammar 
only to the passages they illustrate. In each case the pre- 
terite tacitly implies a definite occasion ; and the parallel 
will show that this implication is at least a natural under- 
standing of the Greek. Where the perfect is equally idiomatic, 
we may infer that the Greek is indeterminate. Taking them 
as they come, 2^ etSofiev seems to me clearly definite : " I saw 
the news in the paper and came off at once." 3'^ vireBei^ev : 
" has warned " may be justified, but " Who told you that ? " 
is presumably EngKsh. We may put together S^'' 10^^^- 
(•^XOov) 152* (aTreaTaXrjv). As we have seen, the AV and 
Weymouth use the past in one of these passages, and they 
are all on the same footing. " I came for business, not 
for pleasure " is good enough English, even if " have come " 
is likewise correct and not very different. Or compare 

" Why came I hither but for that intent ? " 

In 7^^ (eTrpo^riTevaaixev, e^e/SaXo/xev, i7rot7]aa/xev) the perfect 
would be unobjectionable, but the past is quite idiomatic : 
cf such a sentence as " Now then — didn't I make speeches 
all over the country ? Didn't I subscribe liberally to the 


party funds?" 10^ (eXa/Sere): cf "What do you expect' 
You paid nothing: you get nothing." IV' (rjvXicrafJLev, 
etc.) : cf " There's no pleasing you. I made small talk, and 
you were bored : I gave you a lecture, and you went to 
sleep." 11^^ (dTTeKpvyjra'i, a'ireKakv>\ra'i — see above): cf 
" I am very glad you kept me in the dark, and told my 
friend." 13^'' {eTrediifiijcrav, elSov, rjKovaav): here no better 
justification is needed than Watts's 

" How blessed are our ears 

That hear tliis joyful sound, 
Which kings and prophets waited for, 
And sought, but never found." 

13** (eVpf i/re) : the aorist is almost gnomic, like Jas 1-*, but 
it would be wrong to obliterate the difference between the 
aorist and the present (historic) which follows.^ 15^^ i^v- 
revaev) : cf " Every movement which you didn't start is 
wrong." 16'^ {eXa^ofiev) : cf "I brought no money away 
with me." 19^^ (evvov'^io-av) is to my mind the only decided 
exception. Unless Origen's exegesis was right, the third 
verb does not refer to a single event like the other two, 
except so far as concerns the moment of renunciation in the 
past : the perfect therefore would perhaps be less misleading, 
despite apparent inconsistency. 21-*^ (e^rjpdvdt]) : cf "How 
on earth did that happen ? " (AV wrongly joins ttw? and 
-jrapa^pT^fia.) 21^^ (ijevrjOr] — for iyevero see above) is 
ambiguous : if it is the aorist of an event just completed, 
the AV is right, but this may well be pure narrative. 28^^ 
(8c6(f)r]fXiadT]) : here the added words " [and continueth] " 
leave the verb to be a narrative aorist. Finally 28^° (iverei- 
Xdfirjv) is obviously idiomatic : cf " Mind you attend to 
everything I told you." In all these passages then, with one 
possible exception, the simple past is proved to be entirely 
idiomatic ; and if this is allowed, we may freely concede the 
perfect as permissible in several cases, and occasionally 
perhaps preferable. 

Let us go back for a moment to our lists for Mt, to 

1 For this idiom see p. 121 n. above. Wellhausen, on Mk T^ {Einl. 16), 
makes it an Aramaism. In view of the MGr usage, we can only accept this 
with the proviso that it he counted good vernacular Greek as well. 


draw some inferences as to the meaning of the aorist where 
simple narrative, and the reference to a specific time, are 
mostly excluded. Parenthetically, we might strike out a few 
of the passages in which AV and RV agree on the English 
perfect. 13^^ is not indefinite : " You did that " is quite as 
correct as " You have done it," and seems to me more suitable 
where the emphasis is to lie on the subject. In 19^ avve!^€v^ev 
carries the thought immediately and obviously to the wedding 
day : " those whom God joined together " is on this view 
preferable. Similarly dcp/jKa/jLev {-Kev) in 19-^-^^ calls up 
unmistakably the day of the sacrifice. In 20^ we cannot 
object to rendering " has hired "; but it may be observed 
that " nobody asked you " is not exactly a Grtecism. And 
surely rjiJbapTov '7rapaBov<i (27*) is definite enough — "I sinned 
when I betrayed " ? We may end this section by putting 
together the exx. of two important categories. Under the 
head of " things just happened " come 9^^ ijekevrr^aev (with 
dpri): 5^^ e/jiOL-^evaev and 14^^ irapifkOev and 17^^ rfkde (with 
rjhri); 6^^ d(f))]Ka/ji€v, 12^^ e(f)0aa€V, 14^ ^*°' T^yepOr), 16^^ dire- 
KaXv^Ire, 18-^^ eKephriaa<i, 20^^ iiroiTjaav -a?, 26^'' r/pydaaro 
26^^ iTTOiTjae, 26*^^ i^Xa(T(f)ri/j,i]aev, rjKOvaare, 26^^-*^* etTra?, 27^^ 
e7ra0ov, 21^^ eyKareXcTre^, 28^ elirov, 28^^ iSoOv (unless ll^' 
forbids), and perhaps 21*^ eyevrjOr}. Some of these may of 
course be otherwise explained. If they rightly belong to this 
heading, the English perfect is the correct rendering. Equally 
tied to the have tense are the aorists of indefinite time-refer- 
ence ; but we must be ready to substitute our preterite as soon 
as we see reason to believe that the time of occurrence is at 
all prominently before the writer's mind. Clear examples of 
this are 5-^ ^^'^' rjKovaare, 8^*^ evpov, 10^^ eireKuXeo-av, 12^ ^^'^ 
dviyvcore (ovSeTroTe in 21^^ brings in the note of time: cf 
Shakspere, " Why dost thou wrong her that did ne'er wrong 
thee?), 13^^ iiraxvvdr] etc., 15« riKvpayaare, 13^^ IS^s 22^^ 
wpLOLOiOrj (probably because the working out of tlie comparison 
included action partially past: Zahn compares Jn 3^^), 21^*^ 
KaTrjpriaa), 23^^ d(f)i]KaTe, 24*^ KaTeaTtjaep, 25'^- ^^ eKepSijaa, 
27^^ eiroiriae. 

^ f. Our study of tlie English periphrastic 

' perfect prepares us for taking up the most 

important, exegetically, of all the Greek Tenses. In Greek, as in 


English, the line between aorist and perfect is not always easy 
to draw. The aorist of the event just passed has inherently 
that note of close connexion between past and present which 
is the differentia of the Greek perfect ; while the perfect was 
increasingly used, as the language grew older, as a substitute 
for what would formerly have been a narrative aorist. A 
cursory reading of the papyri soon shows us how much more 
the vernacular tends to use this tense ; and the inference 
might be drawn that the old distinction of aorist and perfect 
was already obsolete. This would however be entirely 
unwarrantable. There are extremely few passages in the 
papyri of the earlier centuries a.d. in which an aoristic perfect 
is demanded, or even suggested, by the context. It is simply 
that a preference grows in popular speech for the expression 
which links the past act with present consequences." A casual 

example from the prince of Attic writers 
of Aorist ^^^^ show that this is not only a feature of late 

Greek. Near the beginning of Plato's Crito, 
Socrates explains his reason for believing that he would not 
die till the third day. " This I infer," he says in Jowett's 
English, " from a vision which I had last night, or rather only 
just now." The Greek, however, is reK/jLatpofiat €k rivo'? 
evvTTViov, o iaypaKa oXvyov irporepov ravrrj'i t?}? vvkt6<;, where 
point of time in the past would have made elSov as inevitable 
as the aorist is in English, had not Socrates meant to em- 
phasise the present vividness of the vision. It is for exactly 
the same reason that iy/jjepraL is used with the point of time 
in 1 Co IS'* (see above). So long as the close connexion of 
the past and the present is maintained, there is no difficulty 
whatever in adding the note of time. So in Eom 1 6^ we have 
to say either " who were in Christ before me," or (much better) 
" who have been in Christ longer than I." A typical parallel 
from the papyri may be seen in OP 477 (ii/A.D.) rcbv to ire^iTnov 
ero? . . . i^r/^evKOTQjv — a fusion of " who came of age in " and 
" who have been of age since the fifth year." Now, if the 
tendency just described grew beyond a certain limit, the 
fusion of aorist and perfect would be complete. But it must 
be observed that it was not the perfect which survived in the 
struggle for existence. In MGr the old perfect forms only 
survive in the passive participle (with reduplication syllable 

« Sec pp. 247 1". 


lost), and in the -Ka which was tacked on to the aorist 
passive {ehedrjKa for iSeOrjv) : there is also the isolated evprjKa 
or ^prjKa (Thumb, Handb. 94), aoristic in meaning. It does 
not appear that the perfect had at all superseded the aorist 
— though in a fair way to do so — at the epoch when it was 
itself attacked by the weakening of reduplication which 
destroyed all chance of its survival as a distinct form, in 

competition with the simpler formation of 
of the Perfect ^^^® aorist. But these processes do not fairly 

set in for at least two centuries after the 
NT was complete. It is true that the LXX and inscrip- 
tions show a few examples of a semi-aoristic perfect in 
the pre-Eoman age, which, as Thumb remarks {Rellenismus, 
p. 153), disposes of the idea that Latin influence was work- 
ing; cf Jannaris, § 1872. But it is easy to overstate their 
number.'* Thus in Ex 32^ Ke^poviKe is not really aoristic 
(as Thumb and Jannaris), for it would be wholly irregular 
to put an aorist in oratio oUiqua to represent the original 
present or perfect " Moses is tarrying " or " has tarried " : 
its analogue is rather the ;^poi/i^et of Mt 24^^. Nor will it 
do to cite the perfects in Heb 11^'^ al (see pp. 129, 143 ff.), 
where the use of this tense to describe what " stands written " 
in Scripture is a marked feature of the author's style :^ cf 
Plato, Apol. 28c, ocrot iv Tpola rerekevWjKacriv, as written in 
the Athenians' " Bible." In factMt 13*^ TreTrpaKev kuI rjyopa- 
a-ev is the only NT example cited by Jannaris which makes any 
impression. (I may quote in illustration of this OP 482 (ii/A.D.) 
^&)/3i9 oi)v aTreypayp-dfiTjv koX ireirpaKa.) The distinction is very 
clearly seen in papyri for some centuries. Thus t?;? yevoiu,evT]<; 
Kot aTTOTreTre/xfievT]'; yvvaiKo'i NP 19 (ii/A.D.), "who was my 
wife and is noio divorced " ; o\ov top -^oXkov [8eSa]7rdpr]Ka et9 
avT(o BIT 814 (iii/A.D.), where an erased e- shows that the scribe 
meant to write the aorist and then substituted the more appro- 
priate perfect. As may be expected, illiterate documents show 

confusion most: e.g. OP 528 (ii/A.D.) ovk iXov- 

Perfect and a-dixi-jv ovk i)\Ljx€ ( = ■}]\€LfxiJ,at) y".e'^(oet i/3 'A6vp. 

toffether ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^ combinations of aorist and perfect 

that we naturally look first for the weaken- 
ing of the distinction, but even there it often appears clearly 
drawn. At the same time, we may find a writer like Justin 

"i » See p. 248. 


Martyr guilty of confusion, as in Apol. i. 22 TreTroajKevaL . . . 
dveyelpai, 32 eKd6i,cre Kal elcrek-i'fKvOev, 44 vorjaai, SeSvp7)UTat kul 
i^7]y7]aavTO. Other aoristic perfects may be seen in 60 i^tjXOov 
. . . Koi yeyovaat, 62 uKi'jKoe . . . koX . . . eXa/3e, ii. 2 TreTroi'rjKe . . . 
Kal . . . eKoXdaaro, etc. We may compare from the LXX such 
a mixture as Is 53^ irpavfj^aTiaOT) . . . /nefiaXuKiarai, (aor. in A). 
The NT is not entirely free from such cases: cf Mt 13^^ (above). 
In Jn o'^- ecopafcev and rficovaev — contrast 1 Jn 1^ — is explained 
by Blass as due to the greater stress laid on the seeing. 
Mk 5^^ oaa . . . (JOL ire'iTO it] Kev Kal rfKerjaev ae shows the 
proper force of both tenses. In Lk 4^^ it seems best, with 
Nestle and Wellhausen, to put a stop after expia-e fie, so that 
uTrea-TaXKe is the governing verb of all the infinitives, and is 
not parallel with e')(^pi<Te. Ac 2P^, elarjyayev Kal k€ko[v(ok€v, 
needs no explaining. To Eev 3^ 5'' and 8^ we must return 
later. There are other places where aorist and perfect are 
used in the same context, but they do not belong to this 
category of aorist and perfect joined with Kal and with 
identical subject. When the nexus is so close, we might 
fairly suppose it possible for the tenses to be contaminated by 
the association, even where a perfect would not have been 
used aoristically by itself. But there are evidently no NT 
exx. to place by the side of those from Justin, except Mt 13*^ 
and the passages from Eev. (See further p. 238.) 

We come then to the general question of 
Perfects in NT "> ^^^ existence of aoristic perfects in the NT. 
It is a question which must be settled on its 
merits, without any appeal to the a priori, for aoristic 
perfects may certainly be found in and even before the epoch 
of the NT writings. We are entirely at Hberty to recognise 
such perfects in one writer and deny Lhem to anotlier, or to 
allow them for certain verbs and negative the class as a 
whole. Among the authorities we find Blass (p. 200) 
admitting them for Eev and most sparingly in other places. 
Even less concession is made by W. F. Moulton (WM 340 n.). 
Burton (MT 44) allows rather more, but says, " The idiom is 
confined to narrow limits in the NT." The extremely small 
proportion of even possible exx. will naturally prevent us 
from accepting any except under very clear necessity. We 
begin by ruling out the alleged exx. from Heb (7^^ 9^^ 11^^ 


11^^), since they are obviously covered by the author''s usm 
loquendi described above (p. 142). Some isolated cases may 
also be cleared out of the way. Lk 9^*^ ecopuKav seems to 
be virtually reported speech : a ewpaKajxev takes this form 
regularly in orat. ohl., which the form of this sentence suggests. 
In Jas 1^^, KarevoTjaev kol aireXijXvOev Kal evOeca eireKadero, 
the aorist expresses two momentary acts, which are thrown 
into narrative form, and the perfect accurately describes the 
one action with continuance. In Ac 7^^, airearaKKev, with 
the forest of aorists all round, is more plausibly conformed 
to them, and it happens that this word is alleged to have 
aoristic force elsewhere. But, after all, the abiding results of 
Moses' mission formed a thought never absent from a Jew's 
mind. Then there is an important category in which we are 
liable to be misled by an unreal parallelism in English. 
Burton rightly objects to our deciding the case of vv)^d/]/u,epov 
ev TM ^v6u> ireiToirjKa (2 Co 11^^) by the easy comment that 
it " goes quite naturally into English " (Simcox). But it does 
not follow that we have here a mere equivalent for eVoiT^o-a. 
That would only place the experience on a level with the 
others : this recalls it as a memory specially vivid now. 
There is in fact a perfect of broken as well as of unbroken 
continuity: in the graph " '^ ...>... ?," which leads from a 
past moment to the moment of speech, the perfect will 
tolerate the company of adjuncts that fasten attention on the 
initial point (as in Rom 16'^, above) or on some indeterminate 
point in its course (as here), or on several points in its course. 
Cf Lucian Pise. 6 irov yap eyed vfjia<; v^piKa; — Plato Thccet. 
144b cLKrjKoa fi6v Tovvofia, p,vrj/j,ov€vco 8' ov (see Goodwin 
MT § 46) — BU 163 (ii/A.D.) cfiacrl ol 7rap6vTe<i eKeivov jxaXkov 
(?" often") TovTo TreiroiTjKevai, Kal yap aXkot q)<; ir\r]yevTe<i 
viro avTov dva^optov BeScoKaai. To this category belong 
[)erfects with TrcoiroTe, as Jn 1^^ 5^'^ 8^^, and such cases as 
2 Co 1 2^'', wv direaraXKa, " of those whom (from time to 
time) I have sent." That the aorist is very much com- 
moner in this delineation of repeated action is obvious ; 
but that does not prevent the use of the perfect when the 
additional thought is presented of a close nexus with the 
present time. 

We turn finally to the residuum of genuinely aoristic 


perfects, or those which have a fair claim to be thus regarded. 
First, we may frankly yield those alleged for Eev, viz. 5^ 

T Rev ^^^*^^ ^^ et\7](f)ev (and by consequence probably 

33 1117 and 227), 71* and 19^ eiprjKa (-ap). 
Since these are without apparent reduplication, they may 
well have been actual aorists in the writer's view : Bousset 
remarks how little Eev uses eXa/Sov. Secondly, we have 
eaxnKa in 2 Co 2^^ V 7^ Eom 52'^— outside 
^' ' Paul only in Mk 5^^. We must, I think, 
treat all the Pauline passages alike, though Blass believes the 
perfect justifiable except in 2 Co 2^^ It seems clear that an 
aorist would suit all four passages, and in the first of them it 
seems hopeless to squeeze a natural perfect force into the 
Greek : ^ an aorist would suit Mk I.e. perfectly, but that 
matters less. Now, if we may take them altogether, we can 
see an excellent reason why ea-^^rjKa should have been used 
as an aorist. There is no Greek for possessed, the constative 
aorist, since ea-'^^ov is almost (if not quite) exclusively used 
for the ingressive got, received. "Ea'^ov occurs only 20 
times in the NT, which is about 3 per cent, of the whole 
record of e;^£u. There is not one place where ea)^ov must be 
constative : Jn 4^^ may be rendered " thou hast espoused " — 
as in Mk 12^2, the forming of the tie is the point. The NT 
does not contravene Dr Adam's dictum (p. 49 of his notes on 
Plato's Apology) that " the aorist means got, acquired, not 
had." The similarity of ea'^rjKa to the aorists e6r]Ka and 
a^rJKa gave a clear opening for its apj)ropriation to this 
purpose, and the translation " possessed " will suit the case 
throughout. We thus get in the required aoristic perfects 
in Eev and in Paul without sacrificing a princijile. Passing 
over ireirpaKa (Mt 13*^), where the absence of an aorist from 
the same root may have something to do with the usage, we 
come to the perplexing case of yeyova. Its 

eirpaKa. affinities would naturally be with the present, 

and there seems small reason tor lettmg it 

do the work of the common eyevofirjv. Yet even Josephus 

1 Plummer {CG2' in loc.) says, "As in 1", the perfect shows how vividly he 

recalls the feelings of that trying time " : so Findlay. This means a^iplying 

what is said above on Tr€iroir]Ka in 2 Co 11"^. But is this natural, when the 

coming of Titus with good news had produced avecris so conijilete ? (See p. 2SS.) 

TO «Seep. 248. 


(c. Apion. 4. 21) has oXt'yo) irporepov t?}? TIeitnaTpdrov. 
TvpavvlSoi; avOpooirov 'yeyovoTO'i, " who flourished a little 
before P." From the papyri we may cite two exx. (both from 
ii/A.D.). OP 478, "I declare that my son . . . has reached 
(irpoa-^e^rjKevac) the age of 13 in the past 16th year of 
Hadrian . . . and that his father was (yeyovevai) an in- 
habitant . . . and is now dead {TeTeXevrriKevaL)." BU 136 
8iaj3el3acov/j,evov tov II. fir) yeyovevai tov irajepa tTj^ 
iK8iKovfjb€V7]<i 6vr]\dr7]v. Now there are not a few NT passages 
in which it is far from easy to trace the distinct perfect force 
of yeyopa, and exx. like those above make it seem useless to 
try. But aoristic sense is not really proved for any of the 
45 NT passages in which yey ova (indie.) occurs, and in the 
great majority it has obviously present time. Lk 10^^ and 
Jn 6-^ are unpromising for our thesis. But the first has the 
vivid present of story-telling — " seems to have shown himself 
neighbour." The second — inevitably translated " when 
earnest thou hither ? " — is only another instance of the perfect 
with point of time, dealt with already : it is the combination 
of " when did you come ? " and " how long have you been 
here ? " The aoristic use of yeyova is said by Burton to be 
general in Mt : Blass only admits it in 25*^. Even this last 
is more like a historic present. The remaining passages 
mostly belong to the formula which tells us that the abiding 
significance of an event lies in its having been anticipated in 
prophecy. In general, it would appear that we can only 
admit a case of the kind with the utmost caution. K. 
Buresch, in his valuable article "Feyovav" {BUM 1891, 
pp. 193 ff.), noting an example of aoristic yeyovaai, in Plato (?) 
Alcih. 124a,^ observes that this is never found in Greek that 
is at all respectable. In later Greek, he proceeds, the use of 
yeyova greatly increases. " It has present force always where 
it denotes a state of rest, preterite force where it denotes 
becoming. Hence in innumerable cases it is quite an 
equivalent of elfxi, as with exstiti, /actus or natiis sum, 
veni, etc." (p. 231 n.). It may be doubted however 
whether this canon will adequately account for the exx. 
from Josephus and the papyri with which we began. 

Since the earliest period of Greek, certain perfects pos- 

1 But see below, p. 238. 


sessed a present meaning, depending upon the mode of 
action belonging to the root, and on tliat exhibited in the 

■^ ^ ^ •.-, present. Tims the markedly conative present 
Perfects with ^a u ^ ■„•.,. 

Present Force. '^^'^^' ^^PPv persuasion, with its new per- 
fect nreTreiKa and aorist eireiaa to match, kept 
its ancient perfect ireiTOLOa, which is intransitive (like most 
early perfects — see below, p. 154), with meaning / trust. 
Monro's account of the I'erfect in its Homeric stage of 
development may be quoted : " If we compare the meaning 
of any Perfect with that of the corresponding Aorist or 
Present, we shall usually find that the Perfect denotes a 
permanent state, the Aor. or Pres. an action which brings 
about or constitutes that state. Thus, . . . cokero was lust, 
oXcoXe is undone. . . . Thus the so-called Perfecta proiseyitia, 
. . . eaTTjKa, . . . ixefJuvqiMai, ireiroiOa, olha, eoiKa, KkKTr^iiai, 
etc., are merely the commonest instances of the rule. . , . 
Verbs expressing sustained sounds . . . are usually in the 
Perfect" {HG 31). This last remark explains KeKpa'ya, which 
has survived in Hellenistic, as the LXX seems to show 
decisively. W. F. Moulton (WM 342 n.) says, "In Jn V" 
hath cried seems the more probable meaning," observing that 
the pres. Kpd^o) is rare in classical writers. It is common 
in NT, a fact which probably weighed with him in making 
K6Kpa<y6v a normal perfect. But the LXX, when exx. are 
so numerous and well distributed, must certainly count as 
evidence for the vernacular here ; and when we find KeKpaja 
14 times, sometimes indisputably present, and never I think 
even probably perfect — cf esp. Ps 141(140)^ Trpo^ ae €K€Kpa^a 
. . . irpoayeii rfj cjjcovy rrj^ Seijcreco'i /ulov ev rw KeKpajevai fxe 
7rpb<i ak (Heb. ''^?"!P3) ; and Job 30"°, where KeKpaja translates 

the iinpf. VHt/'i^ , it is difficult to suppose the word used 

as a true perfect in NT. It has not however been " borrowed 
from the literary language in place of the Hellenistic Kpd^ei " 
(Blass 19S). Kpd^Q) has its own distinction as a durative 
— cf Ps 32(31)^ diro Tov Kpd^etv fie oXrjv t7]v r/fxepav; and 
KeKpaya, with KCKpd^ofiac and eKeKpa^a, may well have been 
differentiated as expressing a single cry. In any case we 
cannot treat the LXX as evidence for the literary character 
of the survival. One may doubt the necessity of putting 
nXTTLKa and ireireia [xai into this category ; but rkdurjKa 


uaturally belongs to it ; and rjyijfiat in Ac 26^ (contr. Phil 3'') 

is one of the literary touches characteristic of the speech 

before Agrippa : see Blass in loc. (See further p, 2 3 8.) 

The Pluperfect, which throws the Perfect 
The Pluperfect. . ^ ^ J , . • 

into past time, was never very robust m 

Greek, It must not be regarded as a mere convenience 
for expressing relative time, like the corresponding tense in 
English. The conception of relative time never troubled 
the Greeks ; and the aorist, which simply states that the 
event happened, is generally quite enough to describe what 
we like to define more exactly as preceding the time of the 
main verb. A typical case of a pluperfect easily misunder- 
stood is Lk 8^^, which we referred to on p. 75 in connexion 
with the concurrent ambiguity of iroWoh ')(^povoL<i, and again 
(p. 113) in connexion with the perfectivisiug force of avv. 
Since vernacular usage so clearly warrants our rendering the 
former " for a long time," we are free to observe that to 
render " oftentimes it had seized him " (EV text) involves a 
decided abnormality. It would have to be classed as the 
past of the " perfect of broken continuity " which we discussed 
above (p. 144) on 2 Co 11^^ But it must be admitted that 
the extension of this to the pluperfect is complex, and if there 
is a simple alternative we should take it ; EVmg is essen- 
tially right, though " held fast " would be better than " seized." 
We need not examine further the use of this tense, which 
may be interpreted easily from what has been said of Perfect 
action. It should be noted that it appears sometimes in 
conditional sentences where an aorist would have been pos- 
sible : e.g. 1 Jn 2^^ fiefiev^Keicrav av. The pluperfect expresses 
the continuance of the contingent result to the time of speak- 
ing. In Mt 12'^ iyvcoKeire is virtually an imperfect to a 
present eyvcoKa, in which the perfect form has the same 
rationale as in olSa; and in Jn 19^^ iSoOij^ would have only 
pictured the original gift and not the presence of it with 
Pilate at the moment. 

Last comes the Future. The nature of 

e u ure . -^^ action may be looked at first. This may 

be examined in the history of its form. Its 

^ On tlie periphrastic pluperfect, ^v oedofi^vov, see pp. 225 ff. 


close connexion with the sigmatic norist act. and mid., and 
the two aorists pass., is obvious. Except in the passive, in 
fact, the future was mainly a specialised form of the aorist 
subjunctive.^ As such it will naturally share the point action 
of the aorist. We cannot however decisively rule out the 
possibility that another formation may have contributed to 
the Greek future, a formation which would be originally 
linear in action. The Aryan (Indo-Iranian) and Letto-Slavonic 
branches of the Indo-Germanic family have a future in -syo, 
which however was very moderately developed in these con- 
tiguous groups before they separated. Greek, geographically 
contiguous with Aryan on the other side in prehistoric times, 
may have possessed this future ; but the existing Greek future 
can be very well explained without it, though it might be 
safest to allow its probable presence. In any case there is no 
question that the action of the Future is in usage mixed. 
"A^w is either " I shall lead " or " I shall bring " — the former 
durative, the latter effective. Thus in Mk 14^^ irpod^M v^a<i 
is probably "I shall go before you," while a^wv (Ac 22^) "to 
bring," and a^ei (1 Th 4^*) "he will bring," refer to the end of 
the action and not its progress. An ingressive future may 
probably be seen in vTrorayrjaerai, 1 Co 1 5^^ : the rore seems 
to show that the Parousia is thought of as initiating a new kind 
of subordination of the Son to the Father, and not the per- 
petuation of that which had been conspicuous in the whole of 
the mediatorial ?eon. The exposition of this mystery must 
be taken up by the theologians. We pass on to note 
another example of the ingressive future, to be found in 
Jn 8^2. ^EXevOepovv appears to be always punctiliar in 
NT, but it is not necessarily so: cf Sophocles OT 706 to 7' 
et9 kavTov irav iXevdepoi aro/xa, " as for himself, he keeps his 
lips wholly pure " (Jebb). (It is true Sir E. Jebb uses " set 
free" in his note, but the durative force of his translation 
seems more suitable.) It is therefore noteworthy that in v.^^ 
we have the paraphrase iXevOepoi ^evrjcreade, to bring out the 
(ingressive) point action of the future that precedes. Some- 
times the possession of two future forms enabled the language 
to differentiate these meanings. Thus e^co was associated 

1 See Giles, Manual " 446-8. 


with ep^ft), and meant " I shall possess " ; a'^ijaco with ea')(pv, 
and so meant " I shall get." ^ There is one possible ex. 
in NT : in 1 Pet 4^^ ^aveirat may well be durative as in 
Attic — note the durative o-ci^erai preceding it in the same 
clause; while (^aw^crerat (Mt 24^*^) has obviously point action. 
See the classical evidence marshalled in Kiihner-Gerth i. 1 14 ff., 
170 ff . : add the note in Giles, Manual^ 483 n. Since Hellen- 
istic generally got rid of alternative forms — even a'^^rjaw is 
entirely obsolete, — this distinction will not be expected to 
play any real part in NT Greek. Indeed even those futures 
which by their formation were most intimately connected with 
the aorist, such as (fio/BojO/^aonai, (for which Attic could use a 
durative cfyo/Sr^aofxai), exercised the double mode of action 
which was attached to the tense as a whole: cf Heb 13^ 
where " be afraid " (durative) seems to be the meaning, rather 
than " become afraid." This question settled, we next have 
Qh II A wii ^^ decide between shall and will as the 
appropriate translation. The volitive future 
involves action depending on the will of the speaker or of the 
subject of the verb : in / will go, you shall go, it is the former ; 
in will you go ? it is the latter. Side by side with this 
there is the purely futuristic we shall go, they will go. 
It is impossible to lay down rules for the rendering of the 
Greek future — the case is almost as complicated as are the 
rules for the use of sliall and loill in standard English. 
Not only are the volitive and the futuristic often hard to 
distinguish, but we have to reckon with an archaic use of 
the auxiliaries which is traditional in Bible translation. For 
instance, in such a passage as Mk 1 324-27 ^^ have shall 
seven times where in modern English we should undeniably 
use ^vill. But in v.^^ (" the same shall be saved ") the 
substitution of loill is not at all certain, for the words may 
be read as a promise (a volitive use), in which shall is 
correct.^ Speaking generally, it may fairly be claimed that 

^ See Brngmann, Kurze vcrgl. Gramm. 568, for this as seen in koKCos ffxv<^et 
and AcaXtDs e|ei : also his GV. Gravi.^ 480. 

" The use of shall wlien prophecy is dealing with fxiture time is often par- 
ticularly unfortunate. I have heard of an intelligent child who struggled under 
perplexity for years because of the words "Thou shalf, deny nic thrice:" it 
could not therefore be Peter's fault, if Jesus commanded him ! The child's 


unless volilive force is distinctly traceable from tlie context, 
it would be better to translate by the futuristic form. The 
modernising of our English NT in this respect would involve 
the sacrifice of a very large number of shalls in the ord 
person, for our idiom has changed in many dc])endent 
clauses, in which neither shall nor will is any longer correct. 
In Mk 14^*, for example, we should certainly say, "Follow 
him, and wherever he goes in. . . ." It is one of the points 
in which modernising is possible without sacrificing dignity 
— a sacrifice only too palpable in the various attempts to 
render the NT into twentieth century English. We are still 
waiting for our English Lasserre. 

What remains to be said about the 
Future Future will most appropriately come in when 

we discuss categories such as Commands and 
Prohibitions, Conditional Sentences, etc. It will suffice to 
remark here that the moods of the Future have in Hellenistic 
Greek receded mostly into their original non-existence, as 
experiments that proved failures. The imperative and sub- 
junctive never existed : a few lapsus calami like KavOrjacofun,, 
or analogically formed aorist subjunctives like 6'^i](x66, Scoar} 
(WH Ajyp 172), will not be counted as efforts to supply the 
gap. The optative, which only performed the function of oral, 
obi. substitute for fut. indie, has disappeared entirely. The 
infinitive, originally limited in the same way, except for the 
construction with fieWco,^ has shrunk very considerably, though 
not obsolete. With /xeWco it is only found in the word 
eaeaOai. The innumerable confusions in the papyri, where a 
future form often is a mere blunder for an aorist, show that 
the tense was already moribund for most practical purposes : 
see Hatzidakis 190 ff. Finally the participle, the only modal 
form which may claim prehistoric antiquity, retains a limited 
though genuine function of its own. The volitive force (here 
final or quasi-final) is tlie commonest, as Brugmann remarks,^ 
and the papyri keep up the classical use ; but futuristic forms 
are not wanting— cf 1 Co 15^7, Heb 3^ Ac 2021 

determinism is probably more wiilely shared tlian we think ; and a modernised 
version of many passages like Mk 14™ — e.g. "you will be renouncing me three 
times " — would relieve not a few half-conscious difficulties. 

1 Goodwin MT § 75. '^ Gr. Gravi.^ 496. 

Voice : — 


The Verb: Voice. 

The phenomena of Voice in Greek present 
us with conditions which are not very easy 
for the modern mind to grasp. Active we know, and Passive 
we know, nor can we easily conceive a language in which 
either is absent. But nothing is more certain than that the 
parent language of our family possessed no Passive, but only 
Active and Middle, the latter originally equal with the 
former in prominence, though unrepresented now in any 
language save by forms which have lost all distinction of 
meaning. What the prehistoric distinction 

^^M'^ddl ^ ^^^' ^® ^^" °^^^ gaess. It is suggestive 
that in the primitive type which is seen 
in the Greek TiOrnxi — jWe^iai, the principle of vowel-grada- 
tion (Ablaut) will account for -6e- as a weakening of -6r)-, 
and -fjbi as a weakening of -fiac, if we posit an accent on the 
root in one form and on the person-ending in the other. 
Such an assumption obviously does not help with riOe/xev — 
TiOiixeda, nor with Xixa — \vofiai ; but if it accounts for part 
of the variation, we have enough to suggest a tentative inter- 
pretation of the facts. If such be the origin of the two forms, 
we might assume a difference of emphasis as the starting- 
point : in the active the action was stressed, in the middle 
the agent. We may illustrate this by the different emphasis 
we hear in the reading of the sentence in the Anglican liturgy 
which reminds the penitent of the Divine forgiveness. One 
reader says " He pardoneth," wishing to lay all stress on 
the one Source of pardon, another " Hq pardoneth" the pardon 
itself being the uppermost thought with him. We could easily 
suppose the former represented by d^ieTat and the latter 
by d(f)ir]cn in a language in which stress accent is free to 
alter the weight of syllables as it shifts from one to another.^ 

1 See below, p. 238. 


„, „. , ,, . Out of these postulated conditions, which 

The Middle m » ^i , . , , , 

Sanskrit ^^® ° course the merest conjecture, we could 

readily derive the nuance which meets us in 
the earliest accessible developments of Indo-Germanic speech. 
The Indian grammarians acutely named the active parasmai- 
pada and the middle dtmane-pada, " a word for another " and 
" for oneself " respectively. Thus ^('(jate would be " he sacrifices 
for himself," while ydjati, unless the dat. dtmane is present in 
the context, is " he sacrifices for another." The essence of the 
middle therefore lies in its calling attention to the agent as 
in some way closely concerned with the action. The same 

characteristic is ultimately found in other 

languages. In Latin the middle has been some- 
what obscured formally by the entrance of the r suffix, which 
it shares with its most intimate relative, the Keltic branch. 
But this has not caused any confusion with the active ; so that 
the Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit middle voice may be put together, 
the differentia of Latin being that it has made no reserve like 
the Greek aorist and future middle, in lending its middle 
forms to the invading passive. In our inquiry into the 
, meaning conveyed by the middle, we naturally 

start with the verbs which are found in active 
only or middle only, to both of which classes the unsatisfactory 
name " deponent " should be given, if retained for either. 
Typical words not used in the middle, in the parent language, 
are the originals of our verbs eat, come, am, and the Greek 
SiScofjui (simplex) and pew ; while no active can be traced for 
veoybai, eiro^ai ( = sequor), fiaivofiai,, fnjrLOfxat ( = metior), 
Kd9i]^ai, Kelixai} The former class will be seen to denote 
" an action, an occurrence, or a state " ; as likewise do the 
latter, but " prevailingly such as take place in the sphere of 
their subject, the whole subject being concerned in the action." 
Where the distinction is so fine, it is easily seen that many 
cases must arise in which we can no longer detect it, and are in 
danger of over-refining if we try. Our investigation must take 
account of the rather extensive categories in which one part 
of the verb aflects the middle and another the active form. We 

^ I qTiote from Brugmaun, Knrze vergl. Gramm. % 799, and mainly follow 
his account throughout this paragraph. 


have a number of cases in which the " strong " perfect active 
attaches itself in meaning to the middle, either figuring 
among the parts of a verb which has no other 
Intransitive r^^^i^Q forms, or siding with the intransitive 
Perfects middle where the rest of the active is transi- 
tive. So conspicuous is this, that the grammars 
in which we learnt Greek thirty years ago actually gave 
" rervrra " — the product, by the way, of an inventive imagina- 
tion — as the perfect middle of that highly irregular and defec- 
tive verb which in those days was our model regular.^ As 
exx. of this attachment we may cite jejova from jLvofiai and 
iXijXvda from ep'^^o/xai," with ai^ewya, kardvat, uTroXcoXa, 
crean^ira, and iretroiOa as intransitive perfects from transitive 
verbs. Among the few remaining strong perfects occurring 
in the NT, we note aKrjKoa, KeKpa'ya^ ireTrovOa, reT{e)v^a, and 
elX'r)(^a, as from verbs with a future middle. We have the 
defectives otSa, eoiKa, and etwOa ; and the two isolated actives 
evy]vo^a and jeypa(f)a remain the only real exceptions to the 
rule wliich finds some link with the middle in each of the 
relatively few survivors of the primitive perfect active. The 
list might perhaps be slightly extended from other vernacular 
Greek : thus djijo^^a (uyeio'^a, dye(o^a) is found freely in 
papyri, and belongs to a purely active verb. The conjecture 
that the perfect originally had no distinction of active and 
middle, its person-endings being peculiar throughout, affords 
the most probable explanation of the facts : when the much 
later -Ka perfect arose, the distinction had become universal. 

„ ,,. Parallel with this peculiarity, but much more 

Future Middle , . • ^i V. p • -, n i- i. 

in Active sense extensive, is the category or middle lutures 

attached to active verbs. As an abnormality 

for which no reason could be detected, it naturally began to 

suffer from levelling in Hellenistic, but is still prominent. We 

have in NT aKovcrco as well as uKovaofjuai, Kpd^w beside KeKpd- 

^ofiai, yeXdaa), e/XTTTvaco, d'7ravr7]crco, Slco^co, pevaw, crTrovSdcro), 

^ In this the grammars followed ancient authority : thus Dionysius Thrax 
says, " fxeaoTijs 8e ij TTOTS /xev ivepyeiav iroTe de irdOos rrapiffTuiaa, olov wiwoida.^ 
Su(f>0opa, € TTOir] a a /j,T]v, iypa'il/dfiriv.'' 

 Tlie aorist fjXdov is really due to the influence of a third constituent root in 
this defective verb. 

^ KeKpa^ofiaL is only formally passive. 


'^(opyjaco, efiirat^Q), upirdao), Kkey^w, dfiapTi'](T(o — all these from 
the selected list of such verbs in Rutherford's small raammar 
of Attic Greek, which supplies only about as many exx. of the 
preservation of the old future middle. (Some of these active 
futures, indeed, have warrant in classical Greek of other 
dialects than Attic, even from the Homeric period ; but the 
list will sufficiently illustrate the weakening of this anomaly.) 
In spite of this, we still find in NT o-^ojxat, -(Syjaofiai, 
'yvMcro/xat,, (f)d'yofxai, aTrodavovfiai, KOfilao/jiac and Ko/xiovfiai, 
\7']/u,ylro/jLai, Trio/jiai,, Treaovfiai, re^Ofxai, (j)€v^o/xai., which are 
enough to show that the phenomenon was anything but 
obsolete. Eutherford classes most of them as " verbs which 
denote the exercise of the bodily functions " or " intellectual 
or emotional activity " ; and he would suggest that " the 
notion of willing implied in the future tense" may be the 
reason of the peculiarity. Brugmann connects it with the 
tendency of the strong aorist to be intransitive. This 
would naturally prompt the transitive use of the sigmatic 
aorist and consequently the future, so that the middle future 
attaches itself to the active intransitive forms. The explana- 
tion is only invoked for cases like ^yjao/jbac, and does not 
exclude Eutherford's suggestion. We may fairly take the 
existence of this large class of futures as additional evidence 
of a close connexion between the middle flexion and the 
stressing of the agent's interest in the action of the verb. 
Use of the What has been said of the history of 

Middle : how the Middle prepares us for the statement 
far is it that this voice is quite inaccurately described 
reflexive. ^j empiric grammarians as essentially re- 
flexive. As a matter of fact, the proportion of strictly 
reflexive middles is exceedingly small. In NT we may cite 
diTi'i'y^aTo (Mt 27^) as the clearest example, and a survival 
from classical Greek. But even here one may question 
whether the English intransitive choke is not a truer parallel 
than the reflexive hang oneself. It is curious that in 
Winer's scanty list of exx. (WM 316), presumably selected as 
the most plausible, we have to discount all the rest. Aovoiiai 
accompanies its correlate vi'TTTOfiai ; and its one decisively 
middle form (5? Xovaafievrj, 2 Pet 2-"^) would raise diffi- 
culties if it occurred in a better Hellenist. Certainly, if the 


pig's ablutions are really reflexive rather than passive, sundry 
current notions need revising. To our author at any rate 
XovarafxevT) did not suggest willing co-operation.^ In citing 
KpvTTTOfMai, (Jn 8^^), bonus dormitat Homerus : eKpv^r) is not 
middle in form, nor does the verb show any distinct middle 
in NT. In irapacrKeudaeTat (1 Co 14^) the intransitive 
•prepare, make preparations, gives a better sense than the 
reflexive. We might bring in such an example as fih 
(TKvXKov Lk 7^ compared with the illiterate contemporary 
papyrus OP 295, fxr] tr/cXuXXe eaTtjv. But though no doubt 
a reflexive meaning ultimately accrued to the Middle, and 
in MGr almost drives other uses off the field, it would 
be wrong to suppose that it was originally there. If the 
active is transitive, the middle indicates that the action 
goes no further than the agent himself, a sense which 
naturally comes out of the concentration on the agent 
characteristic of the middle. Thus vi'jrTOfiat is " I wash," 
with or without object, but implying that the action stops 
with myself. If then there is no object, viVTo/j-ai = " 1 wash 
myself " : if there is, vinnofiai ra? %et/3a'? = " I wash my 
Bearinff of the ^^^^^^s." This characteristic produced a passive 
Passive upon use of the middle, in Brugmann's opinion, 
Theory of before the dialectic differentiation of Indo- 
Miadle. Germanic speech. Intransitive use is a 
natural development from the fundamental idea of the 
middle ; and from intransitive to passive is but a step. 
The well-known classical use of airodv^a-Kei, viro tlvo'^, as 
correlative to a'KOKTelvei rt?, illustrates the development. 
It may seem to us strange that the same form should be 
used indifferently as active or passive in meaning — that, 
for example, ivepyov/uuevr} in Jas 5^^ should be translated 
" working " (EV) or " inwrought," ^ with only the context 
to decide. Our own coincident transitive and intransitive, 

^ The rhythmical conchision of the proverb suggests that it originated in 
an iambic line from comedy. Was 2 Pet citing from memory a verse the 
metrical nature of which he did not realise ? If so, the original would of course 
not admit \ov(rafiivri — it would run \e\ovfiivy} 5'6s ei's KvXia/' ^op^bpov, or \ovde1<r 
ixTrat. Cs, or the like. But see below, p. 238. 

2 See Mayor in loc, and J. A. Robinson, Exih. 247. W. F. Moulton strongly 
favoured the second rendering. Why the Revisers did not give it even a 
marginal place, is hard to divine : it was there in their first revision. 


however, is almost equally capable of producing ambiguity, 
or would be if it were not for the studied avoidance of 
ambiguity which is necessarily characteristic of an analytic 
language. " He who hides can find," " He who hides is safe," 
exhibit the same form both as transitive and intransitive ; 
and it would be easy to devise a context in which the second 
would become really ambiguous. 

The Middle From what has been said, it is clear that 

paraphrased the most practical equivalent of the Middle 

by Reflexive will generally be the active with the dative 

in Dative case, ^f ^|^g reflexive pronoun. This is in fact 

the nearest approach to a general statement which we can 

formulate, premising of course that it is rough in itself, 

and an exaggeration of the differentia. In Trpoa-e'xeTe 

eavToU (Lk 12^), "pay attention for yourselves," we have a 

phrase differing little from (pvXdaaeade (v.^^), " be on your 

guard," being only rather more emphatic. Mk 14*'^ oTraa-d- 

IJLevo<i Ti-jv /xd'^atpav is paraphrased by Mt (26^^) direaTraoev 

T. /JL. avTov : here, as in Ac 14^^ where 8tapp)]^avT€<; ra ifxaTia 

eavTMv replaces the more idiomatic Ziapprj^dixevot, ra i, 

we see the possessive gen. expressing the same shade of 

meaning. Sometimes we find redundance, as when in Jn 1 9-* 

Bie/xeplaavTo . . . eavTOL<i stands against the unaccompanied 

verb in the same quotation Mt 27^^ A few 

Midges • typical illustrations of the general principle 

may be added. IIpoaKdXov/LLai, " I call to 
myself," is clear : its opposite aTrcodov/xai, " I thrust away 
from myself," is not really different, since diroidoi epLavTw 
would show a legitimate dativus commodi. We have in fact 
to vary the exact relation of the reflexive perpetually if we 
are to represent the middle in the form appropriate to 
the particular example. Hvve^ovXevaavro Mt 26* answers 
. to o-vve/SovXevaav kavroh, " they counselled 

' one another " : here we have the redi^rocal 
middle, as in pidyeaQai} 'E^eXeyovro Lk 14'^ " they picked 
out for themselves," and so " chose " : cf the distinction 

1 Cf the closeness of dWr/Xovs and eavrovs. Brugnianu has some notes on 
this middle in Indoc/. Forsch. v. 114. Cf MGr va irapiTYopridov/j.€, "that we 
may comfort one another " (Abbott 228, distich 56). 


of alpa) and alpov/juai. UeiOeiv is " to exercise suasion " : 

in the middle it keeps the action within the sphere of the 

agent, and consequently means " to admit suasion to oneself." 

XpMfiai, from the old noun %/3>7 " necessity," is " I make 

for myself what is necessary with something " — hence the 

instrumental, as with the similar middle utor in Latin. Less 

. easy to define are the cases of " dynamic " 

' middle, where the middle endings only 

emphasised the part taken by the subject in the action of 

the verb, thus vij^fo and v^^o/xai (not NT) " to swim." 

The category will include a number of verbs in which it is 

useless to exercise our ingenuity on interpreting the middle, 

for the development never progressed beyond the rudimentary 

stage. We need not stay to detail here the cases where the 

middle introduces a wholly new meaning. On the point of 

principle, it should however be noted that mental as opposed 

TUT 1 A +• ^^ physical applications of the idea of the 

verb will often be mtroduced m this way, 

since mental action is especially confined within the sphere of 

the agent. Thus KaTaXa/jb^dvo) " seize, overtake" (Jn 1^ 12^''), 

in the middle denotes mental " comprehending," as Ac 4^^. 

" On the whole the conclusion arrived at 
Hellenistic ^^^^^^ ^^ ^-^^^ ^j^^ -^rj^ ^^^^^gj^g ^^g^g perfectly 

ivElddle capable of preserving the distinction between 

the active and middle." Such is the authori- 
tative summary of Blass (p. 186), which makes it superfluous 
for us to labour any proof. Differences between Attic and 
Hellenistic use in details are naturally found, and the un- 
classical substitutions of active for middle or middle for 
active are so numerous as to serve the Abbe Viteau for proof 
of Hebraism on a large scale. As Thumb remarks (Hellen- 
ismus 127), a mere glance into Hatzidakis's Einleitung — an 
indispensable classic, the absence of which from Viteau's list 
of works consulted accounts for a great deal — would have 
shown him that in the Hellenistic period Greeks by birth 
were guilty of many innovations in the use of the voices 
which could never have owed anything to Hebrew. The NT 
exx. which Hatzidakis gives (pp. 195 ff.) are not at all in- 
consistent with the dictum of Blass quoted above. The 
sphere of the middle was, as we have seen, not at all sharply 


delimited, and usage inevitably varied in different localities 
and authors. There are plenty of middles in Attic, and 
even in Homer, in which the rationale of the voice is very 
hard to define. Naturally such words may have dropped 
a no longer intelligible distinction, just as popular Latin 
did in such words as scqiLor and utor, while in other 
words the distinction may have been applied in a dif- 
ferent manner. We can see why 'yaixelaOat, = nuhcre fell 
out of use in Hellenistic : ^ even if a need was still felt 
for a separate word to suit the bride's part in a wedding, 
the appropriateness of the middle voice was not clear, and 
the distinction was liable to lapse. The accuracy with which 
the middle was used would naturally vary with the writers' 
Greek culture. Note for example how Mt and Lk correct 
the i<j)vXa^djj,i]v (legem ohservare) of their source in Mk 10'^**. 
In Mk 2^^ they have removed another incorrect use, unless 
oSoTToielv is to be read there with B etc. (WHmg) ; for 
68ov TToielv means " construct a road " (Gildersleeve Synt. 
69), and the middle should have been used instead. In the 
less educated papyrographers we find blunders of this kind 
considerably earlier than the time when the more subtle 
meanings of the middle disappeared.** As early as 95 B.C. 
we find iav alprjre and eav alprjade used side by side for " if 
you like" (GH 36), and in the preceding century hiaXvwfjiev 
appears in the sense of ScaXvoofieOa in LPc. These are of 
course sporadic, but some violations of classical usage have 
almost become fixed. This especially applies to the idiom- 
atic use of TTOLetadat with a noun as substitute for a verb. 
Here the middle sense was not clearly discernible to the 
plain man, and iroLeiv invades the province of the middle 
very largely. We still have ixveiav Troteladat (as in Eph 1^^) 
BU 632 (ii/A.D.), Kara^vyrfv iroietadai, TP 5 (ii/i B.C.), 
BU 970 (ii/A.D.), etc. But the recurrent phrase to irpoaKv- 
vrjfid (aov) iroiu) only once (Letronne 117) shows the middle; 
and Mt 6^ tt. e\ei]pioavvT]v, Mk 15^ avfi^ovXtov it.," Lk 18'' 
TT. GKSiK'qaLv, etc., will serve as specimens of a fairly large 

1 Speaking generally : it survives in the legal language of marriage contracts 
as OP 496 (early ii/A.D.). [°See p. 248. 

- Cf the modern jihrase av/x^ovXio yia va KapLovv "to consult," of physicians 
(Abbott 200). (On Troielf in such phrases, cf Robinson, Uj^h. 172.) 


class of usages, in which we cannot accuse the writers of 
ignorance, since the middle could only defend itself by pre- 
scription. So when a new phrase was developed, there might 
be hesitation between the voices : awapau Xoyov appears in 
Mt 1823 25^^ BU 775 (ii/A.D.), but the middle, as in FP 109 
(i/A.D.), OP 113 (ii/A.D.), is more classical in spirit. In places 
however where an educated Hellenist like Paul markedly 
diverges from the normal, we need not hesitate on occasion 
to regard his variation as purposed: thus rjpfMoadfxijv 2 Co 11^ 
fairly justifies itself by the profound personal interest the 
apostle took in this spiritual irpo^vrjaTLKr']. 

, _ This is not the place for discussing, or 

., - even cataloguing, all the verbs which vary 

from classical norm in respect of the middle 
voice ; but there is one special case on which we must tarry 
a little longer. The distinction between anoi and ahoOfxai, 
claims attention because of the juxtaposition of the two in 
Jas 42'-, 1 Jn 5^ Mk 622-25 iq^s-ss ( ^ Mt 2020-22). The 
grammarian Ammonius (iv/A.D.) declares that alTco means to 
ask simpliciter, with no thought of returning, while alrovfiai 
involves only request for a loan. This remark serves as an 
example of the indifferent success of late writers in their 
efforts to trace an extinct subtlety. Blass (p. 186) says that 
alTovfxat was used in business transactions, atTco in requests of 
a son from a father, a man from God, and others on the 
same lines. He calls the interchange in Jas and 1 Jn 
" arbitrary " ; but it is not easy to understand how a writer like 
James could commit so purposeless a freak as this would be. 
Mayor in his note cites grammarians who made ahov/xat = 
ask /xed' lKecrLa<;, or fiera TrapaKXijaeco';, which certainly suits 
the idea of the middle better than Ammonius' unlucky guess. 
" When alT€CT€ is thus opposed to alreicrde," Mayor proceeds, 
" it implies using the words, without the spirit, of prayer." 
If the middle is really the stronger word, we can understand 
its being brought in just where an effect of contrast can be 
secured, while in ordinary passages the active would carry as 
much weight as was needed. For the alternation of active 
and middle in the Herodias story, Blass's ingenious remark 
may be recalled, that " the daughter of Herodias, after the 
king's declaration, stands in a kind of business relation to 


him" (p. 186 n.), so that the differentia of the middle cited 
above will hold. 

The line of demarcation between Middle 
Passive Aorists. ^^^ Passive is generally drawn by the help 
of the passive aorist, which is supposed to be 
a soimd criterion in verbs the voice of which is doubtful. 
It should however be pointed out that historically this 
criterion has little or no value. The " strong " aorist passive 
in -7)v is nothing but a special active formation, as its 
endings show, which became passive by virtue of its pre- 
ference for intransitive force. The -Ot^v aorist was originally 
developed, according to Wackernagel's practically certain 
conjecture, out of the old aorist middle, which in non- 
thematic formations ran like eBoixijv — e86di]<; — eSoro : when 
the thematic -ao displaced the older -61]^ (Skt. -thds), the 
form e8607]<i was set free to form a new tense on the 
analogy of the -rjv aorist, which was no more necessarily 
passive than the identic formation seen in Latin Jic/hes, hahct. 
Compare i^dpijv from %at/3(w (also ■)(alpoixai in MGr, by 
formal levelling),^ where the passive idea remained imper- 
ceptible even in NT times : the formally passive eKpu/St], from 
Kpvirrco, in Jn 8^^ (cf Gen 3^*^) will serve as an ex. of a pure 
intransitive aorist from a transitive verb.- In Homer (cf 
Monro HG 45) the -drjv aorist is very often indistinguishable 
in use from the aorist middle ; and it is unsafe to suppose 
that in later periods of the language the presence of an aorist 
in -Otjv or -rjv is proof of a passive meaning in a " deponent " 
verb. Of course the -6t]v forms, with their derivative future, 
were in the very large majority of cases passive ; but it may 
be questioned whether there was markedly more passivity in 
the " feel " of them than there was in the present or perfect 
formations. For example, from airoKpivo/xai,, " answer," we 
have aTreKpLvdjjbrjv in Attic Greek and predominantly in the 
papyri, while aTreKpldrjv greatly outnumbers it in the NT ; 
but the evidence noted above (p. 39) shows that the two 
forms were used concurrently in the Koivrj, and without 

1 So Ac 3^ D : cf Tiygaeus in Arist. Pax 291 (Blass). 

^ To match these specimens of formal passives with mifldle meaning, we may 
cite middles in passive sense. Thus BU 1053, 1055 (i/j;.c. ) to ev 6(piXrj 
Orja-ofjievov, "the amount that shall be charged as due." 


the slightest difference of sense. W. F. Moidton was inclined 
to see " a faint passive force ... in most of the instances " 
of earddr^v in NT, though observing that it " is in regular 
use as an intransitive aorist " in MGr ^ (WM 315 n.). He 
also suggested the possibility that iKoifjLTjdrjv in 1 Th 4^* 
might be a true passive, " was put to sleep," which gives a 
strikingly beautiful sense. A purely middle use of Koi/xrjdrivat, 
"fell asleep," is patent in such phrases as Ch P 3 riviKa 
yfjbeWov KocfjbT]6r]vat eypayfra eina-ToXia /? (iii/B.c). The active 
Koifidv however, though apparently dormant in classical prose,'-^ 
revives in the LXX, as Gen 24^1. We may also compare the 
clear passive in FP 110 (I/a.D.) tm ra irpo^aTa eKel KoifxijOPji, 
" may he folded," as the edd. translate. It seems possible 
therefore to conceive the passive force existing side by side 
with the simple intransitive, as apparently happened in eVra- 
Oijv (see note ^ below) ; but we cannot speak with confidence. 

Perhaps the matter is best summed up 
Ground ^^^^ ^^® remark that the two voices were not 
differentiated with anything like the same 
sharpness as is inevitable in analytic formations such as we 
use in English. We have seen how the bulk of the forms 
were indifferently middle or passive, and how even those 
which were appropriated to one voice or the other are 
perpetually crossing the frontier. Common ground between 
them is to be observed in the category for which we use the 
translation " submit to," " let oneself be," etc. Thus in Tb P 
35 (ii/B.c.) eavTov alrida-eTat, "will get himself accused," is 
a middle ; but in 1 Co 6^ dZiKeiaOe and diroa-repelaOe are 
described as passives by Blass, who says that " ' to let ' in the 
sense of occasioning some result is expressed by the middle " 
(p. 185). The dividing line is a fine one at best. 'Atto- 
rypd-yjraaOai in Lk 2^ might seem to determine the voice of 
the present in vv.^- ^, but Blass finds a passive in v.^ Is 

^ 'EcTTadriKa is used as aor. to ctt^kw "stand," and iaT-qd-rjKo. to arrivw "place" 
(Thumb Handh. 92). 

^ Cf iropeveiv and (po^eTv, which have entirely given up their active : we 
should hardly care to call TropevOiivai and <po[ii)Orivai passive. In MGr we have 
some exx. of the opposite tendency, as Sat/xoJ'/j'w "drive mad" (Abbott 224, 
no. 47) : in older Greek this verb is purely middle. See other exx, in Hatzi- 
dakis 198 f. 


there adequate evidence for separating them ? Formally 
aTToKoylrovrat, Gal 5^^ (Dt 23^), is middle,' and so are ^diTTLaa; 
and a-TToXovaai, Ac 22^^ (cf 1 Co e^i lO^); but if the tense 
were present or perfect, could we decide ? The verb inrordaaw 
furnishes us with a rather important application of this 
question. What is the voice of virora'-p'](TeTai in 1 Co 15^^? 
Is it passive — " be subjected " hy as well as " to him that did 
subject all things to him"? Or is it middle — "be subject"? 
Findlay {EGT in loc.) calls it " middle in force, like the 2nd aor. 
pass, in Rom 10^, in consistency with the initiative ascribed to 
Christ throughout." I incline to this, but without accepting 
the reflexive " subject himself," which accentuates the differ- 
ence between the identical viroTwyrj and vTrorayi'jaeTac ; the 
neutral " be subject " explains both, and the context must 
decide the interpretation. In Eom 10^ the RV renders "did 
not subject themselves," despite the passive; and the reflexive 
is an accurate interpretation, as in vTrordaaeade Col 3^^. 
The question next presents itself whether we are at liberty 
to press the passive force of the aorist and future and perfect 
of eyelpci), when applied to the Resurrection of Christ. A 
glance at the concordance will show how often rj'yepdr^v etc. 
are merely intransitive ; and we can hardly doubt that 'ijyepdrj, 
in Mk 16^ and the like, translated np (cf Delitzsch). But if 
the context (as in 1 Co 15) strongly emphasises the action of 
God, the passive becomes the right translation. It is in fact 
more for the exegete than for the grammarian to decide 
between rose and was raised, even if the tense is apparently 
unambiguous : one may confess to a grave doubt whether the 
speaker of Greek really felt the distinction.^ 

^ The verb must be similarly treated with reference to its voice, whether we 
translate with text or margin of RV. The various arguments in favour of 
the margin, to which the citation of Dt I.e. commits us above, are now reinforced 
by Ramsay's advocacy, Exjws. for Nov. 1905, pp. 358 ff. He takes the wish 
rather more seriously than I have done {infr. 201) r but I should be quite ready 
to go with Mr G. Jackson, in the same Expos., p. 373. See also Findlay in loc. 
{Ex2). B 328 f.). 

^ On the Passive, reference should be made to Wellh. 25 f., for exx. showing 
how this voice was largely replaced by other locutions in Aramaic (osjipcia'ly 
the impersonal plural, p. 58 f. above), and consequently in Synoptic translations. 


The Vekb: The Moods. 

The Moods which wc have to discuss will be 
in general ^^^® Imperative, Subjunctive, and Optative, and 
those uses of the Indicative which make it 
a " modus irrcalis." In this preliminary chapter we shall 
aim at evaluating the primary meanings of the Moods, 
leaving to the systematic grammar the exhaustive classi- 
fication of their uses, especially in dependent clauses. 
The moods in question are characterised by a common 
subjective element, representing an attitude of mind on 
the part of the speaker. It is not possible for us to 
determine with any certainty the primitive root-idea of each 
mood. The Imperative is tolerably clear : it represented 
command — prohibition was not originally associated with it, 
and in Greek only partially elbowed its way in, to be elbowed 
out again in the latest developments of the language. The 
Subjunctive cannot be thus simply summarised, for the only 
certain predication we can make of its uses is that they all 
concern future time. We shall see that its force can mostly 
be represented by shall or will, in one of their various senses. 
Whether the Subjunctive can be morphologically traced to a 
single origin is very problematic. A possible unification, on 
the basis of a common mood-sign -a-, was conjectured by the 
writer some years ago {AJP x. 2 8 5 f . : see the summary in 
Giles, Manual^ 460 n.). It is at least a curious coincidence 
that the mood-sign thus obtained for the Subjunctive should 
functionally resemble the -yc- under which the Optative can 
confessedly be unified. We are dealing with prehistoric 
developments, and it is therefore futile to speculate whether it 
would be more than a coincidence, should these two closely 
allied moods prove to have been formed by suffixes which 



make noims of nearly identical function. However clearly 
the Optative may be rednced to a single formation, it gives 
us nevertheless no hope of assigning its meanings to a single 
root-idea : Optative and Potential, may and might in their 
various uses, defy all efforts to reduce them to a unity. In 
this book the discussion of the Potential might almost be 
drawn on the lines of the famous chapter on snakes in Iceland, 
but for literary survivals in the Lucan writings. (See pp. 1 9 7 K) 
No language but Greek has preserved both Subjunctive and 
Optative as separate and living elements in speech, and 
Hellenistic Greek took care to abolish this singularity in a 
fairly drastic way. It ought to be added, before we pass 
from this general introduction, that in a historical account 
of the Moods a fourth, the Injunctive, has to be interpolated, 
to explain certain phenomena which disturb the development 
of the others, and perhaps of the Indicative as well. The 
Injunctive was simply an imperfect or aorist indicative 
without the augment. Avov, Xveade, 'kvaaaOe, \ii6rjT6, \vere, 
Xvaare and <xp^;e? will suffice as specimens, enough to illustrate 
how largely it contributed to the formation of the Imperative. 
Syntactically it represented the bare combination of verbal 
idea with the ending which supplies the subject ; and its 
prevailing use was for prohibitions, if we may judge from 
Sanskrit, where it still remains to some extent alive. The 
fact that this primitive mood thus occupies ground appropriate 
to the Subjunctive, while it supplies the Imperative ulti- 
mately with nearly all its forms, illustrates the syntactical 
nearness of the moods. Since the Optative also can express 
prohibition, even in the NT (Mk 11^^), we see how much 
common ground is shared by all the subjective moods. 

Before taking the Moods in detail, we 
Particles affect- ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^ ll^-^^jg ^^.gj, ^^le consideration 

ij^^ ' of two important particles which vitally 
affect their constructions, av and firj. The 
former of these is a very marked peculiarity of Greek. It is 
a kind of leaven in a Greek sentence : itself untranslatable, 
it may transform the meaning of a clause in which it is 
inserted. In Homer we find it side by side with another 
particle, /cei/ or Ke (probably Aeolic), which appears to 
be somewhat weaker in force : the later dialects generally 


select one or the other for exchisive use. The general 
definition of its meaning is not very easily laid down. 
" Under the circumstances," " in that case," " anyhow," may 
express it pretty well.^ The idiomatic use of " just," common 
in Scotland, approximates to av (Kev) very fairly when used 
in apodosis : iyoo Be Kev avTO'i eXw^ai, " I'll jist tak her mysel'." 
(See p. 239.) It had become stereotyped by the time we 
reach Hellenistic Greek, and we need not therefore trace its 
earlier development. Two originally connected usages are 
now sharply distinguished. In one, av stands with optative 
or indicative, and imparts to the verb a contingent meaning, 
depending on an if clause, expressed or understood, in the 
context. In the other, the av (in the NT period more often 
written edv — see pp. 42 f., 56) has formed a close contact with 
a conjunction or a relative, to which it generally imparts the 
meaning -soever : of course this exaggerates the differentia in 
most cases. Here the subjunctive, invariable in Attic, does 
not always appear in the less cultured Hellenistic writers. 
How greatly this use preponderates in the NT will best be 
shown by a table ^ : — 

"Av (idv) with subj. (or indie.) "Av conditional, with verb. 

joiued ' 

with relative or 

With indie. 






Aor. P] 




Mt . 


. 55 



Mk . 


. 30 


|-Lk . 


. 28 





\Ac . 


, 10 




Jn, 1 Jn, 

3 Jn 

. 15 





ijdeLT€ bis) 

Rev . 


. 5 



. 27 



Heb . 


. 1 



Jas . 


. 1 


. 172 






^ Brugmann Gram.^ 499 gives "allenfalls, eventuell, unter Umstanden." 
- The corresponding figures for the LXX will be instructive. A rough count 
in HR gives 739 as the total occurrences of dv (including k&u), apart from 
idv = dv. Out of these 26 are with aor. opt. ; drj conies 3 times and ^x^'M' once 
(in 4 Mac, an artificial work which supplies by itself 11 out of the exx. just 
noted) ; 22 can be classified as iterative ; 41 are with aor. indie, 6 with imperf. 
and 1 with pluperf. ; and 8 are abnormal (6 with relative and fut. indie, and 
1 each with pres. indie, and fut. indie). I have included all cases in which di> 
was read by any of tiie authorities cited in Swete's manual edition. 


The disproportion between these totals — 172 and 51 — would 
be immensely increased if idv (if) and otuv were added. We 
shall see later (pp. 198 and 200) that the conditional av is 
rapidly decaying. The other use, though extremely abundant 
in our period, falls away rapidly long before the papyri fail 
us ; and even within the NT we notice some writers who 
never show it, or only very seldom. This prepares us for 
the ultimate disappearance of the particle except in composi- 
tion (MGr civ if, from the old 3,v ; ^ a-dv as or ^ahen, from ta? 
av — see below ; and kuv even, used like the NT kciv — kuI, not 
affecting construction). 

We proceed to mention a few miscellaneous points in 

the NT use of av. There are three places in which the old 

„ iterative force seems to survive : Ac 2*^ and 

ItSratilVS etc. .„- ^ , „ I ^ ji -\ r^ -\ i^9 

4-^^ KauoTi av Tt<? 'x^peiav et')(ev, and 1 uo 11- 
ft)9 av rjiyeaOe.^ " As you would be led (from day to day) " 
translates the last by an English iterative construction which 
coincides with the conditional, as in Greek : Goodwin MT 
§ 249 pleads for a historical connexion of these two uses of 
dv. The aorist no longer appears in this construction as in 
classical Greek. Then we should note the 
appearance of cIj? av in constructions which 
foreshadow the MGr idiom just mentioned.^ Eom 15^* is 
an interesting case, because of the present subjunctive that 
follows : " when I am on my way " (durative) transfers into 
the subjunctive the familiar use of present for future. In 
1 Co 11^* it has the easier aorist, "whenever I shall have 
arrived," and so in Phil 2^^. In 2 Co 10^, however, it 
means " as it were." ^ MGr adv has gone further, and takes 
the indicative as an ordinary word for when. The weakening 
of the connexion between compounds of dv and the sub- 
junctive is seen in the appearance of the indicative with 

^ On 'dv and idv {if) in NT see above, p. 43 n. 

2 Winer (p. 384) would make all these iiarallel with the use of 6irov di> c. 
indie, in Mk d^'' and the like. I deal with the question below. 

3 For vernacular evidence see Par P 26 (ii/B.c— with gen. abs.), 46 (ii/B.c — 
with aor. subj.) ; BM 20 (ii/B.c.) crwera^as ws cLu ds M^fM(piv ; OGIS 90-^ 
(ii/B.c. — the Rosetta Stone) ws Av . . . (xvveaTijKvias, etc. 

■* Both the exx. of &v c. partic. quoted by Winer (p. 378) are ws S.v : add 2 Mac 
12*. I have noted one ex. of genuine Hv c. pte. in a Koij'?; inscr., IMA iii. 174 
(A.D. 5) 8iKai6Tepov B.V aiodevra. 


orav and edv (if), and other words of the kind. So not 

infrequently in Mk, as 3'^ otuv idewpovv, 11-^ orav aT7]K6Te, 

,, 11^^ orav eyevero : add Rev 4^ otuv Bcoaouaiv, 

indie " ^^ oTav ypot^ev. Parallel with these are 

Mk 6^*^ OTTOV av elaeTTopeveTO and oaoi civ 
7]-\lravTo, Rev 14^ oirov av vrrdyei (where however we are 
entirely free to spell vTrdyy if we like). Since these are 
in the least cultured of NT writers, and include presents and 
futures as well as past tenses, we should hardly class them 
with the cases of iterative dv just given from well-educated 
writers such as Luke and Paul, though there is an obvious 
kinship. If dv added -ever to the force of a relative or con- 
junction, there seemed no reason to forbid its use with a past 
tense where that meaning was wanted. The papyri yield 
only a small number of parallels, showing that in general 
the grammatical tradition held. Thus BU 607 (ii/A.D.) 
oirorav dvatpovvrai, PP 126 (iv/A.D.) oV dv Trda-^^ere, 
Par P 26 (ii/B.C.) orav e^iiixev Kar dp'^d<i et? to lepov 
( = merely ivheri), BU 424 (ii/iii A.D.) eirdv i7rvd6/j.r]v (also 
= when), BM 331 (ii/A.D.) oaa idv 7rap6Xa/36/M7)v. The 
tendency to drop the distinction of lohc^i and whenever"' may 
be connected with the fact that oiroTe is freely used for ^ohe7i 
in papyri — so the later uncials in Lk 6^. 'Edv with indica- 
tive is found in 1 Th 3^ ar/jKere, 1 Jn 5^^ othafiev, to mention 
only two cases in which indie, and subj. are not formally 
identical in sound. Winer quotes even edv yada, from Job 
22^ (y<iA.), and similar atrocities (as the Atticist would count 
them) from the Byzantine writers. We may add a selection 
from papyri : — Par P 1 8 idv fia-)(^ovaiv fjuer eaov. 6 2 (ii/B.c.) 
edvirep eKirXypooaovaLv. Tb P 58 (ii/B.C.) edv Bet BU 546 
(Byz.) idv olBev. OP 237 (ii/A.D.) idv 8' daiv. AP 93 
(ii/A.D.) idv (^aiverai. There are several exx. of idv rjv, but in 
some cases it certainly stands for r] — for this curious recurrent 
phenomenon see notes in CB xv. 38, 436, and above, p. 49 : 
I cannot therefore quote with certainty. (See further p. 239.) 

The same lesson is taught by conjunctions 
't ounds which still take the subjunctive, though dv has 

been allowed to fall out. It does not seem to 
make any difference whether eiw? or ew? dv is written, and 
so with many other compounds. Thus PP 13 (Ptol.) oaa 

"»Seep. 21S. 


6(f)ei\o)(Ttv Tiue9, CPE 24, 25 (ii/A.D.) e</>' ov fj ^povov, 237 
oaa avTcZ 7rpoaTeKi]Tai, Tb P 6 (ii/B.C.) eo)? fievcoai, GH 38 
(i/B.C.) e&)9 KUTa/Sfj'i, OP 34 (ii/A.D.) /i?;Te SiSorw , . . irplu avToj 
iTria-TeWTjrai, etc., etc. The prevalence of this omission in 
the papyri with conjunctions meaning imtil {axp^, H-^XP^' 
fiexpi ov, eco?, irpiv, irpo rod, etc.), is paralleled in the NT : 
cf Mk 1432, 2 Pet V\ Lk 138, etc.— see the list in WM 371. 
With TTplv (?/), however, the av occurs in the only place (Lk 
226) where it is used with subjunctive.^ 

^, , „ In 1 Co 7^ fjih aTroarepeiTe a\X?jXoi;?, 

El M.11TI av. > ' * r -A 1 

€1 /j,i]Tc av [om. B, probably to ease a diffi- 
culty] Sk avfi^aivov irpo'i Kaipbv, we have a curious combina- 
tion which seems to be matched in the papyri.2 So BU 326 
(ii/A.D.) el Ti eav avQponTivov 'na\6ri\ and et Tt eav piera Tavra 
'ye^papbpeva KaTokiTro), " if I should leave a codicil " : the 
latter phrase is repeated subsequently without edv in this 
rather illiterate will. OP 105 (ii/A.D.) et tl dWo alav (e>%w, 
PP 130 (iii/A.D.) el Tii/09 i]hv xP^O' ^oi earip. BM 233 
(Iv/a.d.) el Tc civ dira^aTrXo)'; dva\war)(;. These documents 
are too illiterate for illustrating Paul : some early scribe is 
more likely to be responsible than the apostle. Note that 
Origen quotes edv p^Tjri. This explanation (Deissmann's) seems 
on the whole preferable to the alternative cited from Buttmann 
in WM 380 n. Winer's editor himself compared the dv to 
that in kciv and w? av which does not affect construction : 
cf Tb P 28 (ii/B.C.) el kuv Svvarat. 

, More important still in its influence on 

the moods is the subjective negative /x?}, the 
distinction between which and the objective ne (replaced in 
Greek by ov) goes back to the period of Indo-Geraianic unity, 
and survives into the Greek of the present day. The history 
of p,r] has been one of continuous aggression. It started in 
principal clauses, to express prohibition. As early as Homer 

^ Lnke once uses it with sul>j. and once with opt., both times correctly with 
a negative clause preceding (Lk I.e., Ac 25^"). The papjyrus writers are not so 
particular. Elsewhere in NT the infin. construction is found. 

^ See Deissmann BS 201 n. He quotes BU 326, but will not allow that tl 
H-rjTL &i> is a kind of analysis of euu ix-fjTL, though this gives the meaning coiTectly. 
Blass", p. 321, has not summarised him quite adequately, if I understand Deiss- 
mann correctly. The point is that S.v is added to el /jltitl as it might be to 6irov 
or fire, meaning unless in a given case, unless 2)erhaps. See further p. 239. 


firi had established itself iu a large and complex variety of 
uses, to which we have to appeal when we seek to know 
the true nature of the modal constructions as we come to 
them. Since every Greek grammar gives the ordinary rules 
distinguishing the uses of ov and /iry, we need not examine 
them here in their historical relationship : what must be said 
will come up best as we deal with the moods seriatim. But 
the broad differences between Hellenistic and earlier Greek in 
this respect raise questions affecting the moods as a whole, 
and especially the verb infinite. We must therefore sketch 
the subject briefly here. 

, The difference between ov and jjut) in the 

KoLvrj of the NT becomes a very simple 
matter if we accept the rule which Blass lays down (p. 253). 
" All instances," he says, " may practically be brought under 
the single rule, that ov negatives the indicative, fit] the other 
moods, including the infinitive and participle." In review- 
ing Blass, Thumb makes the important addition that in 
MGr hev (from ovBev, which stepped into the place of ov, 
as we can easily understand from many of its adverbial 
uses in NT) belongs to the indicative and /J't]{v) to the sub- 
junctive. The classical paper of Gildersleeve in the first 
number of his AJF (1880), on encroachments of fi7] upon ov 
in the later Greek, especially in Lucian, makes it very clear 
that the Attic standard was irrecoverable in Lucian's day 
even by the most scrupulous of Atticists : cf the parallel case 
of the optative (below, p. 197). It is of course obvious 
that the ultimate goal has not been completely reached in 
NT times. Mt] has not been driven away from the indicative. 
Its use in questions is very distinct from that of ov,^ and is 

^ Blass (p. 254 n.) thinks that /x^rt in Jn 21^ " hardly lends itself to the 
meaning ' certainly not I sni^pose.' " Bnt the tone of this word, introducing a 
hesitant question (as Jn 4^"), is not really inappropriate. We often hear "I 
suppose you haven't got ... on you, have you?" Moreover, the papyri show 
us that ■7rpo(X(pa.yiov is not so broad a word as "something to eat." See my note, 
Expos. VI. viii. 437, to which I can now add OP 736 and 738 (cir. a.d. 1). Tlie 
apostles had left even iLpTOL behind them once (Mk 8") : they might well have 
left the "relish" on this occadon. It would normally be fish; cf Mk 6^^. 
(While speaking of Jn I.e., I should like to add that the address Waioia, 
"Lads!", may be paralleled in MGr, e.g. in the Kluiiht ballad, Abbott 42— 
iraiUa fxov and iraidia, to soldiers.) See further p. 239. 


maintained in NT Greek without real weakening. Mr; re^ 
mains after et c. indie, iu unfulfilled conditions, except in 
Mk 1 421 (and Mt). But in simple conditions et ov is common. 
Luke has 6, Jn 3, Paul 16, Jas 2, and Mt, Heb, 2 Pet, and 
Eev one each. Against this total of 31, we have 4 exx. of 
el firj in simple conditions with verb expressed, and three of 
these (1 Co 15^, 2 Co 13^, Gal 1^) are anything but normal : ^ 
1 Tim 6^ is more ordinary, according to classical standards. 
Blass adds el Se fir] olSwi from the agraphon in 1) at Lk 6^. 
El firj is three times as common in NT as el ov, but we 
soon see that it is restricted to three uses: (1) iu protasis 
of unreal conditions ; (2) meaning except, much like ifKi^v ; 
(3) with he, meaning otherivise, without verb expressed. Lk 
9^^ with a deliberative subjunctive following, is exceptional. 
Such being the facts, it is difficult to combat the assertion 
that el ov came to be the norm ; ^ though doubtless several of 
its exx. were correct according to classical standards, as in 
Eom 8^, where a single word is negatived rather than a 
sentence. A few survivals of fii] in relative sentences pre- 
serve literary construction ; so Ac 15^^ D, 1 Jn 4^ (unless we 
desert the extant MSS for patristic evidence and read \vei, 
with WHmg and Blass) Tit l^^, 2 Pet 1^. A genuine 
example of the old distinction is traceable in the otherwise 
identic phrases of Jn 3^^ and 1 Jn 5^*^ : the former states 
the charge, q\iod non crediderit, the latter the simple fact, quod 
non credidit. But it must be allowed that this is an isolated 
case.^ We will leave to the next chapter the only other excep- 
tion to Blass's canon, the limited use of ov with the participle. 

First among the Moods we take up the 
T . .^ Imperative. It is the simplest possible form 

of the verb. "Aye the imperative of dyco, and 
aye the vocative of dyof, are both of them interjections formed 
by isolating the root and adding no suffix — the thematic vowel 
e is now generally regarded as a part of the root rather than 
a suffix. In our own language, where nouns and verbs have 
in hosts of cases reunited through the disappearance of suffixes, 
we can represent this identity easily. " Murder ! ", in Eussia 
or Armenia, might be either verb or noun — a general order to 

1 See below, p. 239. " See p. 240. 


soldiers charging a crowd, or the scream of one of the victims 
The interjection, as we might expect, was iuditTerently used 
for 2nd and 3rd person, as is still shown by the Latin agito, 
Skt. ajatCit, ( = age + tod, the ablative of a demonstrative pro- 
noun, " from this (moment)," added to make the command more 
peremptory). How close is the kinship of the interjection 
and the imperative, is well shown by the demonstrative 
adverb Sevpo, " hither," which only needs the exclamation 
mark to make it mean " come here " : it even forms a plural 
Sevre in this sense. We shall recall this principle when we 
describe the use of the infinitive in commands. 

There being in Greek a considerable 

one variety of forms in which one man may 

Imperative. '' . .... , 

express to another a wish that is to control 

his action, it will be necessary to examine the tone of that 
mood which is appropriated to this purpose. As we might 
expect from our own language, the imperative has a very 
decided tone about it. The context will determine how much 
stress it is carrying : this may vary from mere permission, as 
in Mt 8^^ (cf eTrerpeyjrev in the presumed source Mk 5^^) or 
1 Co 7^^ to the strongest command. A careful study of the 
imperative in the Attic Orators, by Prof. C. W. E. Miller 
{AJF xiii. 399 ff.), brings out the essential qualities of the 
mood as used in hortatory literature. The grammarian Her- 
mogenes asserted harshness to be a feature of the imperative;^ 
and the sophist Protagoras even blamed Homer for addressing 
the Muse at the beginning of the Iliad with an imperative.^ 
By a discriminating analysis of the conditions under which 
the orators use the imperative. Miller shows that it was 
most avoided in the proem, the part of the speech where con- 
ciliation of the audience's favour was most carefully studied ; 
and the criticism of Protagoras, which the ancients took 
more seriously than many moderns have done, is seen to 
be simply due to the rhetorician's applying to poetry a rule 
that was unchallenged in rhetoric. If a cursory and limited 
observation may be trusted, the ethos of the imperative 
had not changed in the age of the papyri. Imperatives 

^ Zx7';^taTa de rpax^a, yudXtcrra /.u'^ tu TTpoaraKTiKa,. 
2 A2J. Aristotle Poetics ch. 19. 


are normal in royal edicts, in letters to inferiors, and among 
equals when the tone is urgent, or the writer indisposed to 
multiply words : they are conspicuously few in petitions. 
When we come to the NT, we find a very different state 
of things. The prophet is not accustomed to conciliate 
his hearers with carefully softened commands ; and in the 
imperial edicts of Him who "taught with authority," and 
the ethical exhortations of men who spoke in His name, 
we find naturally a large proportion of imperatives. More- 
over, even in the language of prayer the imperative is at 
home, and that in its more urgent form, the aorist. Gilder- 
sleeve observes (on Justin Martyr, p. 137), " As in the Lord's 
Prayer, so in the ancient Greek liturgies the aor. imper. 
is almost exclusively used. It is the true tense for ' instant ' 
prayer." The language of petition to human superiors is 
full of Zeojxai, Ka\w<i irocr/aeiii, and various other periphrases 
whereby the request may be made palatable. To God we 
are bidden by our Lord's precept and example to present 
the claim of faith in the simplest, directest, most urgent 
form with which language supplies us. 

The distinction between present and 

enses aorist imperative has been drawn already, 
Imperative. ^ . , , . . » 

to some extent, m the discussion of pro- 
hibitions ; for though the subjunctive has to lie used in the 
aorist, it is difficult to question that for this purpose the 
two moods hardly differ — the reason for the ban on /xrj 
TTohjaov lies buried in the prehistoric stage of the language. 
And whatever the distinction may be, we must apply the 
same essential principles to commands and prohibitions, 
which were felt by the Greeks to be logically identical 
categories: see Miller op. cit. 416. The only difference 
will be that the meaning of firj 7roi7]crr]<; (above, pp. 122 ff.) 
comes from the future sense inherent in the subjunctive, 
while in estimating the force of iroirjcrov we have nothing 
but the aorist idea to consider. Tliis, as we have often 
repeated, lies in the "point action" involved. In the 
imperative therefore the conciseness of the aorist makes it a 
decidedly more sharp and urgent form than the present. The 
latter may of course show any of the characteristics of linear 
action. There is the iterative, as in Lk IP, the eonative. 


as in Mk 9^^ (" do not try to stop him, as you are doing "). 
Phil 2^^ (" set to working out ") ; and of course the simple 
durative passim. Writers differ in their preferences between 
the tenses. Thus 1 Pet shows a marked liking for the aorist, 
which he has 22 times in commands (2nd pers.), against 
6 presents ; on the other hand Paul has 9 presents to 1 
aorist (apart from LXX citations) in Gal, and 20 to 2 in 
Phil. In Mt 5-7 the presents (still 2nd pers.) are 19 to 
24, and in corresponding parts of Lk 21 to 16. In seven 
passages only do the two evangelists use different tenses, and 
in all of them the accompanying variation of phraseology 
accounts for the difference in a way which shows how delicately 
the distinction of tenses was observed. Mt 5^^ = Lk 6^", and 
Mt 6^^ = Lk 11^, we have dealt with. Mt 5^^ has continuous 
presents, following oTav c. aor. subj. : in Lk 6-^ a little more 
stress on the ingressive element in these aorists makes the 
addition iv eKelvrj rfj rj/xepa suitable, and this carries with it 
the aor. imper. In Lk 12^^ S09 is natural with iv rfj oSm: 
Mt 5^^ has ta0i evvooiv, which is curious in view of Ta')(y. 
But since et/it has no aorist, it is not surprising that its 
imperative is sometimes quasi-ingressive : cf Mk 5^^ Lk 
19^'^, and the phrase yvcoa-rov earw (Ac ter). The punctiliar 
(npey\rov, turn, in Mt 5^^ answers well to the linear Trdpexe, 
hold out, offer, in Lk 6^^. The vivid phrase dycovi^ea-Oe 
elaeXdetv of Lk 13^* may well preserve more of the original 
than the constative elaeXOaTe of Mt 7^^. In all these cases 
we may reasonably see the effects of varying translation 
from Aramaic original, itself perhaps not wholly fixed in 
detail; but we see no trace of indifference to the force of 
the tenses. The remaining example is in a quotation from 
Ps 6®, in which Mt 7'^^ preserves the LXX except in the verb 
air 0^(1) peiTe, while Lk 13^'^ modifies the address to epydrai 
d8iKla<; : here it is enough to say that the meaning of diro- 
'Xwpelre imposes a quasi-ingressive sense even on the present. 

"We have so far discussed only commands 
'im^trltivr ^^^ prohibitions in the 2nd person. Not 
much need be added as to the use of the 
3rd. Here the veto on the aorist in prohibition is with- 
drawn : we need not stay to ask why. Thus in Mt 6^ firj 
yvdiTw, 24P' ^^ fir] Kara/Sdrco , , , firj eTnaTpey^aTw, which 


all come under ordinary aorist categories. As in classical 
Greek, the 3rd person is naturally much less common than 
the 2nd. Though the 1st person is not 
"^for Fi^rsr ^0^'"^^^^^ brought in under the Imperative, 
Person. ^^ ^^^^ ^^ '^®^^ ^o treat it here : a passage 
like Mk 14*^ iyeipeade aycofiev shows that 
logically it is fair to speak of three persons in the imperative 
mood, since arywixev only differs from iyeipeaOe in that the 
speaker is included with the objects of the command. That 
this should affect the tone of the command is of course 
inevitable ; but indeed all three persons necessarily differ 
considerably in the etJios they severally show. The closeness 
of connexion between this volitive subjunctive 1st person 
and the regular imperative is well seen in Sanskrit, where 
the Vedic subjunctive is obsolete in the epic period except 
for the 1st person, which stands in the grammars as an 
ordinary part of the imperative — hhardvia, hharata, hharantu, 
like (pepco/juev, <^epere, ^epovrwv (Att.). In Hellenistic Greek 
the imperative 1st person is beginning to be differentiated 
from other subjunctives by the addition of a^e?, a<^ere, a use 
which has recently appeared in a papyrus of the Koman 
period (OP 41.3, a^e? e7&) ainrjv dprjvija-Q)), and has become 
normal in MGr (a<? with 1st and 3rd subj. making 
imperative). This is always recognised in Mt 7* = Lk 6*^ : 
why not in 27^^ = Mk 15^^ one has never been able to 
see. To force on Mt a gratuitous deviation from Mk seems 
a rather purposeless proceeding. Translating both passages 
simply " Let us see," the only difference we have left is in 
the speakers, which is paralleled by several similar variations 
(Hawkins US 56 ff.). It is possible that Jn 12'^, a^e? avr^v 
iva rrip-qarj,^ has the same construction in the 3rd person, to 
be literally rendered like the rest by our auxiliary, " Let 
her keep it." (So practically EV text.) The alternative is 
" Let her alone : let her keep it," which is favoured by Mk 14^. 
The ace. aimqv, compared with the e^ca seen in OP 413, dis- 
courages our treating a^e? as a mere auxiliary.^ We shall 

^ TerriprjKev (a-text) IS a self-evident correction. 

^ If we suppose the ri Kdwovs irapexere ; (diirative) to indicate tliat Judas and 
the rest were trying to stop Maiy, the " let her keep it" (rTjprjcrTj constative) 


be seeing shortly that 'iva c. subj. is an imperative (tW 
et7r»79 = MGr va ''rrfj<;^ say !). The word had not yet by any 
means developed as far as our let, or its own MGr derivative 
a?. Note that it much more frequently takes the infiu. 
(8 times in NT) : other parts of the verb take infin. 7 times 
and ha c. subj. once (Mk ll^*^). Our own word helps us 
in estimating the coexistence of auxiliary and independent 
verb in the same word : in our rendering of Mt 7* " allow 
me " is the meaning, but to substitute " allow " for " let " 
in a phrase like "let us go" would be impossible. M0e<f 
is " let " as in " do let me go," while MGr a9 is the simple 

The scanty relics of the Perfect Impera- 
Perfect ^-^^ rLQQ(\ detain us very briefly. In the 
active it never existed, except in verbs whose 
perfect liad the force of a present : '^ we find KeKpayeToyaav 
in LXX (Is 14^1), but no ex. in NT. In the passive it was 
fairly common in 3rd person (periphrastic form in plural), 
expressing "a command that something just done or about 
to be done shall be decisive and final " (Goodwin). We have 
this in Lk 1 2^^. The rare 2nd person is, Goodwin adds, " a 
little more emphatic than the present or aorist " : it shares, 
in fact, the characteristic just noted for the 3rd person. 
Cf Tre^/'yixcoo-o Mk 4^^ with (pifMwOijrt V^. The epistolary 
eppwa-o in Ac 23^° (a-text), 15-^ (passim in papyri), does not 
come in here, as the perfect has present meaning. 

We are ready now to look at the other 
Substitutes for ^ ^ Command— we use the word as 

Imperative : — , . . , . , , , 

includmg Prohibition — which supplement the 

mood appropriated to this purpose. We shall find that 

forms of command can be suppHed by all six moods of the 

verb — acquiescing for the moment in a convenient misuse 

of the term " mood," to cover all the subjects 

(1) Future ^^ ^^^^ chapter and the next. The Future 
Indicative; _ _. ^. .^ ,. . . ,,. 

Indicative is exceedingly common m this sense. 

may be taken as forbidding interference with an act already begun. That the 
7]fx€pa Tov ivracjuaa-p-ov was already come, is stated as much by tlie Trpoc'Xa^ei' of 
Mk 14^ as liy tlie jilirasc in Jn. The action of v.^ is narrated completely (as it 
is by Mk), before the interruption is described. 

1 Thumb Randb. 100. '^ Goodwin MT § 108. 


It seems to come to it by two roads, as may be seen by 
the study of its negatives. A command like ov cf^ovevaei^;, 
which can be seen in earlier Greek and becomes abundant in 
the Hellenistic vernacular, is proved by its ov to be a purely 
futuristic form. Such a future may have the tone of absolute 
' indifference, as in the colloquial (tv 6-^\rr], " you will see to 
that," Mt 21 \ Or it may show that the speaker takes the 
tone of one who does not contemplate the bare possibility of 
disobedience. Thus in Euripides Med. 1320 X'^^'P'' ^' ^^ 
ylrav(Tei<i TroTe, " you ivill never be able to touch me," shades 
into " you shall never touch me." Against Winer's remark 
(p. 397) that this form "was considered milder than the 
imperative," we may set Gildersleeve's emphatic denial. " A 
prediction may imply resistless power or cold indifference, 
compulsion or concession" {Sy7it. 116). We have also a 
rare form in which the negative firj proclaims a volitive future, 
in its origin identical with the ixtj Troojarj'i type already dis- 
cussed. Demosthenes has i^r] ^ovX/jcreade elSevai, and ixtj 
e^earat BU 197 (i/A.D.), (jltj a(/)7)o-69 BU 814 (iii/A.D.), show 
its sporadic existence in the vernacular Koivi']. Blass adds 
fiTjSeva jxtarjaeTe from Clem. Horn. iii. 69.^* These passages 
help to demonstrate the reality of this rare form against 
Gildersleeve's suspicions {Synt. 117).^ Yet another volitive 
future is seen in the imperatival use of the future with ov in 
a question : Ac 13^*^ ov iravar] Siaarpe(j)(ov ; Prediction and 
Command approximate in the NT use of ov firj (see below, 
pp. 187 ff.), which in Mt 15^, Lk l^^, Jn 13^, Gal 43o, and 
possibly elsewhere, is most naturally classed as imperatival. 
Next among these forms of command comes 
' the subjunctive, already largely dealt with. 
So we have had the 1st person, as Jn 14^^ d^wpucv, Gal 5^*^ 
firj rycvco/jieda. The future and the imperative between 
them carried off the old jussive use of the subjunctive in 
positive commands of 2nd and 3rd person. The old rule 
which in (" Anglicistic ") Latin made sileas ! an entirely 
grammatical retort discourteous to the Public Orator's sileam ? 

^ To this class I should assign the use of Sttws c. fut. =imper., as in Plato 
337b Sttcos /j.01 p.!) ipeh, don't tell me: Sttws is merely a conjunction, "in 
which case." Though common in colloquial Attic, it is ousted in Hellenistic 
by IVa : note however BU 625 (ii/iii a.d.) 5ib oirus ivToKrjs. (Sec p. 240.) 
12 "See p. 24S. 


— which iu the dialect of Elis produced such phrases as 
€Tn/xe\etav irofqajai NcKoSpofjuop, " let Nicodromus attend to 
it " ^ — has no place iu classical or later Greek, unless we admit 
as an ex. one line of Sophocles, much beloved of examiners.^ 
We have dealt already with /xrj iroL^a-rj'i, the historical equi- 
valent of the Latin ne feccris. In the 3rd person the sub- 
junctive is little used: 1 Co 1Q^\ 2 Co ll^^, 2 Th 2^ are 
exx. The tone of these clauses is less peremptory than that 
of the imperative, as may be seen from their closeness to the 
clauses of warning. Such fi^ clauses, with subj. — rarely 
future (as in Col 2^, Heb 3^^), which presumably makes the 
warning somewhat more instant — are often reinforced by opa, 
ySXeVe, or the like. It must not be supposed that the fiij 
clause historically " depends on " this introductory word, so 
that there is an ellipsis when it stands alone. Even where 
the apparent governing verb is a real independent word and 
not a mere auxiliary — e.g. in Mk 14^^, Trpoaev'x^eade I'va /xr) 
eXdrjre et? Treipaafiov — the parataxis was probably once as 
real as it is in a phrase like Lk 12^^ opdre koI ^vXaaaeade. 
In Eev IQ^** 22^ we find firj standing alone after opa: cf our 
colloquial " Don't ! " One important difference between pro- 
hibition and warning is that in the latter we may have either 
present or aorist subjunctive: Heb 12^^ is an ex. of the 
present. But we must return to these sentences later. An 
innovation iu Hellenistic is Xva c. subj. in commands, which 
takes the place of the classical oTTfo? c. fut. indie. Whether 
it was independently developed, or merely came in as an 
obvious equivalent, we need not stop to enquire. In any case 
it fell into line with other tendencies which weakened the 
telic force of Xva ; and from a very restricted activity in the 
vernacular of the NT period it advanced to a prominent 
position in MGr syntax (see above, p. 176). In the papyri we 
have a moderate number of exx., the earliest of which is 
FP 112 (I/a.D.) eVe^oy { = -cav) ZwtXoii koI eiva aurbv fir) 
Zvacd'in]crrj<;, " attend to Z. and don't look askance at him." 
An earlier ex. appears in a letter of Cicero {Att. vi. 5-) ravra 

^ Cauer 264 (iv/iii B.C.). It must however be noted that Brugmanu {Gram."^ 
500) calls the connexion of this with the prehistoric jussive 3rd sing, "sehr 
zweifelhaft " : he does not give his reasons, 

2 Philoct. 300 : see Jebb. 


ovv, irpoorov fiev, iva irdvTa a-(p^i]Taf Sevrepov 8e, iva /jbrjSe tcHv 
TOKcov oXcyaipy'jarj'i. Winer (WM 39G) would fiud it "in the 
Greek poets," citing however only Soph. 00 155. W. F. 
Moulton, in setting this aside as solitary and dubious, 
observes that the scholiast took the passage this way — in 
his day of course the usage was common.* An ex. for the Ist 
person may be added : BU 48 (ii/iii A.d.) eav ava^y^ ttj eopTfj, 
iva opuoae ^evco/bieOa. In the NT the best ex. is Eph 5^^ 
7) 8e yvvr] 'Iva (f)o^7]raL rbv dvSpa, which is correlated with 
uyaTTciTOi in the first clause. So 2 Co 8^, Mk 5^3 ; Gal 2^^ 
may be regarded as the same construction put indirectly. 
Mk 1 0^^ and parallels have really the same : deXw iva more 
nearly coalesce in Mk 6"-^ 10^^, Jn 17^*. The combination 
OeXco ivaj' which of course is not* confined to quasi-imperative 
use, gave birth ultimately to the MGr auxiliary 6d {devd, etc.), 
cw n + +■ • foi'iiii^ig the future tense. The Optative can 
express commands through either of its main 
constructions, but its evanescence in the Koivi] naturally 
limits NT illustrations. The Optative proper (neg. firj), 
however, does occur in Mk ll^"*: note that Mt (21^^) sub- 
stitutes the familiar construction ou pij] c. subj. The Poten- 
tial with av (neg. ov), as Xe^oi? dv, " pray speak," is not 
_ found in NT at all.^ The imperatival 
' Infinitive has been needlessly objected to. 
It is unquestionable in Phil 3^^, Eom 12^^, and highly pro- 
bable in Tit 2^"^*^ : we must not add Lk 9^ which is merely 
a case of mixed direct and indirect speech. The epistolary 
'X^aipeiv, Ac 15^^ 23^", Jas 1^, is the same in origin. We no 
longer need Winer's reminder (p. 397) that the verbs in 
1 Th 3^\ 2 Th 217 3^ are optatives ; but it is well to note 
that our assurance rests on something better than the 
accentuation, which any one of us may emend, if he sees fit, 
without any MS that counts saying him nay. The infin. for 
imper. was familiar in Greek, especially in laws and in 
maxims. It survives in the Koivtj, as the papyri show ; 
on AP 86 (I/a.d.), i^elvai and fiiaOwaai, cf Eadermacher in 
RhMWii. 147, who notes it as a popular use.*^ Hatzidakia 

^ An ex. perhaps occurs in Par P 42 (ii/i!.o.), x°-p''-^°^ {1=-olo) 5' cLv Kal tov 
auifiaTos eTn/xeXo/xeuos IV vytaivijs. [a 6 c g^g ^i. 248. 


shows (p. 192) that in the Pontic dialect, the only form 
of MGr in which the infinitive form survives, the infin. is 
still used as an imperative for all numbers and persons. We 
have therefore every reason to expect it in the NT, and its 
rarity there is the only matter for surprise.^ Last among 
-s p . . ^ these substitutes for the imperative comes the 
Participle, the admission of which, despite 
Winer's objections (p. 441), is established beyond question by 
the papyri. The proof of this will be given when we deal with 
the Participle in its place. Here it is sufficient to point out 
that a passage like 1 Pet 3^*-, where adjectives and participles 
alike obviously demand the unexpressed eVre, gives us the 
rationale of the usage clearly enough. It is a curious fact 
that while ta-0i occurs 5 times in NT, eaTO) (^tw) 14, and 
earwaav twice, eVre, which we should have expected to be 
common, does not appear at all. TivecrOe occurs and eaeade, 
but it seems more idiomatic to drop the copula : compare 
the normal absence of the verb with predicates like 
/j.aKupto'^, Kardparo<i, evXoyrjTot;, oval, which sometimes raises 
doubts whether an indicative or an imperative (optative) is 
understood. We are accordingly absolved from inventing an 
anacoluthon, or some other grammatical device when we come 
to such a passage as Eom 12^^^^, where adjectives and parti- 
ciples, positive and negative, in imperative sense are inter- 
rupted by imperatives in vv.^*- ^^- ^^ and infinitives in v.^^ 
The participles are obviously durative in their action : this is 
well seen in v.^^, where €KS(,Kovvre<;, meaning either " do not 
avenge yourselves (whenever wronged) " — iterative sense — 
or "do not (as your tendency is)" (sitp7\ p. 125), is strongly 
contrasted with the decisive aorist Sore, " once and for all 
make room for the Wrath ^ (which alone can do justice on 
wrong)." The infinitives are appropriate in the concise 
maxim of v.^^. Assuming the cogency of the vernacular 

^ See Deissinann BS 344. I do not however think tliere is any real ellipsis 
of a verb of command : see below, p. 203. Historically there is probably no 
ellipsis even in the epistolary xa^peiv. It should be stated that Viteau i. 146 
claims this also as a Hebraism ! See Thumb, Hellen. 130 f. ; also Meisteihans* 
244-6, for its use in decrees. 

^ So the RV in the First Revision, and the American Eevi.sers, beyond all 
(piestion rightly. It is one more example of the baneful etlects of the two- 
thirds rule upon the KV. 


evidence given on p. 223 below, we may select the following 
as probable exx. of imperatival participle from the list of 
passages in which the absence of such evidence compelled 
Winer I.e. to adopt other interpretations^: — 1 Pet 3^-^ 2^^ 
4^^- : in this last passage e')(ovre<i might of course be con- 
structed with vrjy^are, and at first sight it seems possible in 
this way to avoid an asyndeton. But irpo nrcivrcov only intro- 
duces a series of asyndetic precepts, in which ^Cko^evoi and 
8LaKovovvTe<i must have the same construction. To supply 
the imperative idea (as in 4^^) seems simplest, though of 
course vv.^~^^ are all still dependent on the imperatives of 
v.^. Since Peter is evidently given to this construction, we 
may take 2^^ in the same way, though it would pass as an 
easy constr. ad scnsum with v.^^ : one would be inclined to add 
1^^, but Hort's alternative must be noted.^ These are all the 
passages we can accept from Winer's list of exx. proposed ; a 
glance at the unrecorded remainder will vividly show what 
astounding fatuities, current in his day, the great grammarian 
had to waste his space in refuting. But we may extend the 
list somewhat. Paul was not so fond of this construction as 
his brother apostle : note how in 1 Pet 3^, echoing Eph 5-^, 
the vTTOTaaao/xevat is slipped into the place where Paul 
(according to B and Jerome) left an ellipsis, having used the 
verb just before in a regular sequence. But the exx. we have 
already had are conclusive for Paul's usage. Add Col 3^*^ 
(note the imperative to be supplied after irdvra in v.^'^), 
2 Co 911- 13 and Eph 42- s (cf 1 Pet 2i2). In 2 Co 8^1 ivhei- 
KvvfMevoi is read by B (and the S-text uncials, — presumably 
the reason why WH relegate it to the margin) : it is how- 
ever obvious that the ivhel^aaOe of xC and the later uncials 
is not likely to be original as against the participle, which 
would challenge correction. The imper. in Versions counts 
for little, if we are right in our account of the idiom ; but 
the participle iistaiknyanclans in Wulfila is a noteworthy piece 

^ We follow Winer's order, tacitly agreeing with his explanation when we 
pass over a passage cited. The exx. in which the ptc. would be indicatival will 
be dealt with below. (An important ex. is added on p. 240.) 

" I must withdraw 5^, cited in Expos, vi. x. 4.'>0 : the participle there goes 
closely with TaireivtbOriTe. Probably 3^ was meant — " sed ixv-qfioviKov a/xdprrifia," 
as Cicero says. 


of evidence ou the other side. 2 Co 9^^ is more simply ex- 
plained this way than by the assumption of a long parenthesis. 
Eom 13^^ means "and this (do) with knowledge," the parti- 
ciple being rather the complement of an understood imperative 
than imperative itself. Heb 13^ gives us an ex. outside 
Peter and Paul. With great hesitation, I incline to add 
Lk 24*^, punctuating with WHmg : " Begin ye from Jeru- 
salem as witnesses of these things." The emphatic v^eh, 
repeated in v.*^ thus marks the contrast between the Twelve, 
for whom Jerusalem would always be the centre, and one to 
be raised up soon who would make the world his parish : 
the hint is a preparation for Luke's Book II. There are 
difficulties, but they seem less than the astonishing breach of 
concord which the other punctuation forces on so correct a 
writer. (See p. 240.) On this usage in general W. F. Moulton 
(WM 732 n.) sided with Winer, especially against T. S. Green's 
suggestion that it was an Aramaism ; but he ends with 
saying "In Heb 13^, Rom 12^'*-, it must not be forgotten 
that by the side of the participles stand adjectives, with 
which the imperative of elvat is confessedly to be supplied." 
This is, as we have seen, the most probable reason of a use 
which new evidence allows us to accept without the mis- 
givings that held back both Winer and his editor. It is not 
however really inconsistent with Lightfoot's suggestive note 
on Col 3^*^, in which he says, " The absolute participle, being 
(so far as regards mood) neutral in itself, takes its colour 
from the general complexion of the sentence. Thus it is 
sometimes indicative {e.g. 2 Co 7^, and frequently), some- 
times imperative (as in the passages quoted [Eom 12^^- ^^^•, 
Eph 42f-, Heb 135, i Pet 2i2(?)])^ sometimes opta- 
tive (as [Col] 22, 2 Co ^^\ cf Eph 3^7) » The fact is, when 
we speak of a part of elvai, being " understood," we are 
really using inexact language, as even English will show. 
I take the index to my hymn-book and note the first line of 
three of Charles Wesley's hymns : — " Happy the souls that 
first believed," " Happy soul that free from harms," " Happy 
soul, thy days are ended." In the first, on this grammatical 
principle, we should supply were, in the second is {the), while 
we call the third a vocative, that is, an interjection. But 
the very " ! "-mark which concludes the stanza in each case 


shows that all three are on the same footing : " the general 
complexion of the sentence," as Lightfoot says, determines 
in what sense we are to take a grammatical form which is 
indeterminate in itself. 

A few more words are called for upon 
Some Elliptical ^j^^ subject of defective clauses made into 
Imperative ^ . . u ^u 

Clauses. commands, prayers, imprecations, etc., by the 

exclamatory form in which they are cast, or 
by the nature of their context. In Kom 13^^ and Col 3^'^ we 
have already met with imperatives needing to be supplied 
from the context: Mt 27^9.25^ q^i 46^ q^I is (gee Lightfoot) 
and Jn 20^*^ are interjectional clauses, and there is nothing 
conclusive to show whether imperative or optative, or in 
some like clauses (e.g. Lk 1^^) indicative, of ehat would be 
inserted if the sentence were expressed in full logical form. 
Other exx, may be seen in WM 732 ff. But there is one 
case of heaped-up ellipses on which we must tarry a little, 
that of Eom 12''"^. There is much to attract, despite all the 
weight of contrary authority, in the punctuation which 
places only a comma at end of v.^, or — what comes to nearly 
the same thing — the treatment of e;^ovTe<? as virtually equi- 
valent to e^ofiev : " But we have grace-gifts which differ 
according to the grace that was given us, whether that of 
prophecy (difl'ering) according to the measure of our faith, or 
that of service (differing) in the sphere of the service, or he 
that teaches (exercising — ex^^v — his gift) in his teaching, or 
he that exhorts in his exhorting, he who gives (exercising this 
charism) in singleness of purpose, he who holds office in a 
deep sense of responsibility, he who shows compassion in 
cheerfulness." In this way we have Bidcpopov supplied with 
•7rpo(f)7jTeiav and StaKovlav, and then the €xovTe<; xaplafxara 
is taken up in each successive clause, in nearly the same 
sense throughout : the durative sense of e^a), hold and so 
exercise, must be once more remembered. But as by advanc- 
ing this view we shall certainly fall under the condemnation 
for " hardihood," pronounced by such paramount authorities 
as SH, we had better state the alternative, which is the justi- 
fication for dealing with this well-known crux here. The 
imperatival idea, which on the usual view is understood in 
the several clauses, must be derived from the fact that the 


prepositional phrases are successively thrown out as inter- 
jections. If we put into words the sense thus created, 
perhaps eaTm will express as much as we have the right to 
express : we may have to change it to Mfiev with iv rf} 
BiaKovia (" let us be wrapped up in," like iv rouroi? taOi 
1 Ti 4^^). In this way we arrive at the meaning given in 
paraphrase by the KV. 

„, We take next the most live of the 

Subiunctive ^oods, the only one which has actually 

increased its activities during the thirty-two 
centuries of the history of the Greek language.^ According to 
the classification adopted by Brugmann,^ there are three main 
divisions of the subjunctive, the volitive, the deliberative, and 
the futuristic. Brugmann separates the last two, against W. 
G. Hale, because the former has firj as its negative, while the 
latter originally had ov. But the question may well be 
asked whether the first two are radically separable. Prof. 
Sonnenschein well points out {OR xvi. 166) that the "deli- 
berative " is only " a question as to what is or was to be done." 
A command may easily be put in to the interrogative tone : 
witness ola& ovv o Spaaov ; quin redeamus ? ( = wJnj shoidd 
we not ? answering to redeamus = let us), and our own " Have 
some ? " The objection to the term " deliberative," and to the 
separation of the first two classes, appears to be well grounded. 
It should further be observed that the future indicative has 
carried off not only the futuristic but also the volitive and deli- 
berative subjunctives ; cf such a sentence as ecTrcofxev rj aLiywfiev; 
i] tI Spacro/juev -j^ With the caveat already suggested, we may 
outline the triple division. The Volitive has 
' been treated largely under the substitutes for 
the imperative. We must add the use with yu,i; in ivarning, 
which lies near that in prohibition; cf Mt 25^. Intro- 
ductory words like (^o^ovixai, crKoTreL, etc., did not historically 

1 So if we start from the mention of the Achaians on an Egyptian monu- 
ment of 1275 B.C. — 'Akauvasa='AxaiFQs, the prehistoric form of 'Axaiol. See 
Hess and Streitberg in Indog, Forsch. vi. 123 ff. 

2 Gram.^ 490 if. 

' Eurip. Ion 771. On tliu subjunctive element in the Greek future see 
above, p. 149. Lat. ero, faxo, Greek irio/xat, (pdyo/xai. (Hellenistic mixture of 
^Sofiat and tff'a.yoi'), x^w, are clear subjunctive forms, to name only a few. 


determine the construction : thus Heb 4^ was really " Let us 
fear! haply one of you may . . .!"« Out of the Volitivc 
arose the great class of dependent clauses of Purpose, also 
paratactic in origin. The closeness of relation between 
future and subjunctive is seen in the fact that final clauses 
with oTTco? c. fut. were negatived with fxi] : the future did not 
by any means restrict itself to the futuristic use of the mood 
which it pillaged. On the so-called Deliberative we have 

(2) Deliberative • ''^^^'^''^^y ^^^^ nearly enough for our purpose. 
' It is seen in questions, as Mk 12^^ Sw/xev y 
fit] BMfxev; Mt 23^3 ^^^ cpvyriTe; Eom 10^* ttw? eTrLKakeacovraL; 
The question may be dependent, as Lk O^^ OeXei^ etrrcofiei^ ; 
(MGr 6a ecTTovfie ; is simple future, shall %vc say f) We 
see it both with and without Xva in Lk 18*^. In the 
form of the future we meet it in sentences like Lk 22^^ el 
irara^o^ev ev /xa-^aiprj ; The present subjunctive is probably 
to be recognised in Mt 11 ^ erepov irpoahoKwp.ev; Finally, the 

(3) Futuristic ^^^^^^^^^^^ is seen still separate from the 
future tense in the Homeric koI irore xi? 
FecTrrjcn, and in isolated relics in Attic Greek, like tI Trddw ; 
Its primitive use reappears in the Koivij, where in the later 
papyri the subjunctive may be seen for the simple future. 
Blass (p. 208) quotes it occurring as early as the LXX, Is 
SS''^* acfiedfj yap avTol<i 7) cifxaprla} It is from the futuristic 
subjunctive that the dependent clauses with idv and orau 
sprang: the negative /i?;, originally excluded from this 
division of the subjunctive, has trespassed here from tlie 
earliest times. There is one passage where the old use of 
the subjunctive in comparisons seems to outcrop, Mk 4"'^ to? 
av6pwiTo<i /SdXr) rov airopov . . . koX KaOevSy (etc., all prcs. 
subj.).^^ It is hard to say to which of the three divisions 
this belongs — Brugmann remarks on the impossibility of 
determining the classification of dependent clauses in general, 
— but perhaps the futuristic is best, like our " as a man vjill 
sow," etc. The survival of this out-of-the-way subjunctive 
in the artless Greek of Mk is not very easy to explain ; 

^ See some exx. beloAV, p. 240. [" See p. 248. ^ Sec p. 249. 

- It must be noted that Blass" (p. 321) calls this impossible, and inserts tav. 
But nBDLA and the best cursives agree on this reading : why should they agree 
on the lectio ardita ? 'iis edv (AC) has all the signs of an obvious correction. 


it is indeed hardly likely, in the absence of evidence from the 
intermediate period, that there is any real continuity of 
usage. But the root-ideas of the subjunctive changed 
remarkably little in the millennium or so separating Homer 
from the Gospels ; and the mood which was more and more 
winning back its old domain from the future tense may well 
have come to be used again as a " gnomic future" without 
any knowledge of the antiquity of such a usage. Other 
examples of this encroachment will occur as we go on. 

m The kind of action found in the present, 

aorist, and perfect subjunctive hardly needs 
further comment, the less as we shall have to return to 
them when we deal with the dependent clauses. One result 
of the aorist action has important exegetical consequences, 
which have been very insufficiently observed. It affects rela- 
tive, temporal or conditional clauses introduced by pronoun or 
conjunction with av (often edv in NT, see pp. 42f). The verbs 
are all futuristic, and the av ties them up to particular occur- 
rences. The present accordingly is conative or continuous or 
iterative: Mt 6^ orav Trotfj-i iXei-Jixoavvi^v " whenever thou art 
for doing alms," 6^*^ otuv vrjarevrjTe "whenever ye are fasting" 
Jn 2^ oTi av \eyrj " whatever he says (from time to time)." 
The aorist, being future by virtue of its mood, punctiliar by 
its tense, and consequently describing complete action, gets a 
future-perfect sense in this class of sentence ; and it will be 
found most important to note this before we admit the less 
rigid translation. Thus Mt 5-^ 09 av cpoveva-rj "the man who 
has committed murder," 5'^'^ iav daTvaarjade " if you have only 
saluted," Mk 9^^ ottov edv avrov KardXd^r} " wherever it has 
seized him : " the cast of the sentence allows us to abbreviate 
the future-perfect in these cases. Mt 5^^ at first sight raises 
some difficulty, but aTroXvarj denotes not so much the carrying 
into effect as the determination. We may quote a passage 
from the Meidias of Demosthenes (p. 525) which exhibits 
the difference of present and aorist in this connexion very 
neatly : p(;pj) Se orav fiev ridPjade rou? vofiov<i oTrotoi rt,v6<i elcnv 
aKovetv, eTreiSdv Se drjade, (^vkdrreiv Kal '^ftrjaOat, — Ti,drjade 
applies to hills, Orjade to acts. 

The part which the Subjunctive plays in the scheme of 
the Conditional Sentences demands a few lines here, though 


any systematic treatment of this large subject must be left 

for our second volume. The difference between el and 

Conditional ^'"'^ ^^^ heen considerably lessened in Hellen- 

Sentences, istic as compared with earlier Greek. We 

Simple, have seen that edv can even take the indi- 

General and cative ; while (as rarely in classical Greek) 
Future > 

€(, can be found with the subjunctive. The 

latter occurs only in 1 Co 14^, where the peculiar phrase 

accounts for it : cf the inscription cited by Deissmann 

{BS 118), iKTo^ el fir} eav'^ . . . Oekt'^arj. We should hardly 

care to build much on Eev 1 1^. In Lk 9^^ and Phil 3^"- wc 

probably have deliberative subjunctive, " unless we are to go 

and buy," " if after all I am to attain ... to apprehend." 

The subjunctive with el is rare in early papyri: cf OP 496 

(ii/A.D.) el he r)v ( = 17) 6 <yafiu)V irporepo'i reTe\evT7)K(o<;, e%e'Tft) 

ktX. The differentiation of construction remains at present 

stereotyped : el goes with indicative, is used exclusively when 

past tenses come in (e.g. Mk 3^^), and uses gv as its negative ; 

while edv, retaining /nj exclusively, takes the subjunctive 

almost invariably, unless the practically synonymous future 

indicative is used. ^Edv and el are both used, liowever, to 

express future conditions. This is not only the case with el 

c. fut.— in which the NT does not preserve the " minatory or 

monitory " connotation which Gildersleeve discovered for 

classical Greek — but even with el c. pres. in such documents 

as BU 326, quoted above, p. 59. The immense majority 

of conditional sentences in the NT belong to these heads. 

We deal with the unfulfilled condition below, pp. 200 f., and 

with the relics of el c. opt., p. 196. 

Leaving the Dependent Clauses for sub- 

Some Uses 01 sequent treatment, let us turn now to some 

the Negatives :— . t .. ,- > • i 4-u v. 

Ou uri aspects or the negative /*??, mainly though 

not exclusively concerning the Subjunctive. 
Into the vexed question of the origin of the ov iMrj con- 
struction we must not enter with any detail. The classical 
discussion of it in Goodwin MT 389 ff. leaves some very 
serious difficulties, though it has advanced our knowledge. 
Goodwin's insistence that denial and prohibition must be 

^ Cf what is said above (p. 1G9) about ei /xi^tl av. 


dealt with together touches a weak spot in Prof. Sonnen- 
schein's otherwise very attractive account of the proliibitory 
use, in a paper ah-eady quoted {CB xvi 165 ff.). Sonnen- 
schein would make ov fxrj iroL^jarj'; the interrogative of the 
prohibition /mt) iroirjarj'^, " won't you abstain from doing ? " 
Similarly in Latin quin noli faccre ? is " why not refuse to 
do ? " The theory is greatly weakened by its having no 
obvious application to denial. Gildersleeve {AJP iii. 202 ff.) 
suggests that the ov may be separate : ov' /ir/ aKO)-\lrrj<; = no ! 
don't jeer, ov- fir) yevrjTat = no ! let it never he!"' Brugmann 
{Gram.^ 502) practically follows Goodwin, whom he does not 
name. We start from /mt] in cautious assertion, to which we 
must return presently : /mt] r^evqTai = it may perchance hap2^en, 
/Mt] a-Kcoylrrj<; = yon vAll 'perha'ps jeer, \xr\ epet? tovto = you will 
lierliain say this. Then the ov negatives the whole, so that 
ov fir) becomes, as Brugmann says, " certainly not." Non 
nostrum est tantas comjjonere lites : these questions go back 
upon origins, and we are dealing with the language in a late 
development, in which it is antecedently possible enough that 
the rationale of the usage may have been totally obscured. 

The use of ov fxij in the Greek Bible calls for special com- 
ment, and we may take for our text some remarks of Gilder- 
sleeve's from the brief article just cited. " This emphatic 
form of negative (ov fir)) is far more common in the LXX and 
the NT than it is in the classic Greek. This tendency to 
exaggeration in the use of an adopted language is natural." 
And again, " The combination has evidently worked its way 
up from familiar language. So it occurs in the mouth of 
the Scythian archer, Ar. Thcsmoph. 1108 ovkI fir) \aXr)at 
av ; " Our previous inquiries have prepared us for some 
modifications of this statement. " The NT " is not a phrase 
we can allow ; nor will " adopted language " pass muster 
without qualification. In Exp T xiv. 429 n. the writer 
ventured on a preliminary note suggested by NP 51, a 
Christian letter about coeval with N and B, in which Mt 10*^ 
or Mk 9"*^ is loosely cited from memory and ovk airoXkl 
(sic) substituted for ov fir) airoXeo-r]. There are, if memory 
serves, scarcely more than half-a-dozen cases of ov fir) in 
the non-literary papyri. On the other hand, we find it 
13 times in OT citations in NT, and abundantly in the 

" See p. 249. 


Gospels, almost exclusively in Logia. In all of these we have 
certain or probable Semitic originals. Apart from these, and 
the special case of Eev, it occurs only four times in Paul and 
once in 2 Pet. It will be seen therefore that if " translation 
Greek " is put aside, we have no difference between papyri 
and NT. Paul's few exx. are eminently capable of bearing 
emphasis in the classical manner. The frequency of ov firj in 
Kev may partly be accounted for by recalling the extent to 
which Semitic material probably underlies the Book ; but the 
unlettered character of most of the papyrus quotations, coupled 
with Gildersleeve's remark on Aristophanes' Scythian, suggests 
that elementary Greek culture may be partially responsible 
here, as in the rough translations on which Mt and Lk had 
to work for their reproduction of the words of Jesus. The 
question then arises whether in places outside the free Greek 
of Paul we are to regard ov firj as bearing any special 
emphasis. The analysis of W. G. Ballantine (AJF xviii. 
453 ff.), seems to show that it is impossible to assert this. In 
the LXX, i6 is translated ov or ov firj indifferently within a 
single verse, as in Is B-*^. The Eevisers have made it emphatic 
in a good many passages in which the AV had an ordinary 
negative ; but they have left over fifty places unaltered, and 
do not seem to have discovered any general principle to 
guide their decision. Prof. Ballantine seems to be justified in 
claiming (1) that it is not natural for a form of special 
emphasis to be used in the majority of places where a negative 
prediction occurs, and (2) that in relative clauses, and questions 
which amount to positive assertions, an emphatic negative is 
wholly out of place: he instances Mk 13^ and Jn 18^^ — Mt 
25^ is decidedly more striking. In commenting on this article, 
Gildersleeve cites other examples of the " blunting . . . 
of pointed idioms in the transfer from classic Greek " : he 
mentions the disproportionate use of "the more pungent 
aorist" as against the "quieter present imperative" — the 
tendency of Josephus to " overdo the participle " — the con- 
spicuous appearance in narrative of the " articular infinitive, 
which belongs to argument." So here, he says, " the stress " 
of ov fi-)'] " has been lost by over-familiarity." One is inclined 
to call in the survival among uneducated people of the older 
English double negatives — " He didn't say nothing to nobody," 


and the like — which resemble ov fiy in so far as they are old 
forms preserved by the unlearned, mainly perhaps because 
they give the emphasis that is beloved, in season and out of 
season, by people whose style lacks restraint. But this parallel 
does not take us very far, and in particular does not illustrate 
the fact that ov firj was capable of being used by a cultured 
writer like Paul with its full classical emphasis.^ 

Let us now tabulate NT statistics. In WH text, ov fi^ 
occurs in all 9 6 times. Of these 7 1 exx. are with aor. subj. ; 
in 2, the verb is ambiguous, ending in -co ; and 1 5 more, ending 
in -et? {-€(,) or -??9 (-rj), might be regarded as equally indetermin- 
ate, as far as the evidence of the MSS readings is concerned. 
There remain 8 futures. Four of these — Mt 1 6^^ earat, with 
Lk 21^^ and Eev 9*^ 18^* (see below) — are unambiguous : the 
rest only involve the change of o to co, or at worst that of ov 
to 0), to make them aor. subj. The passages are : — Mt 2 G^^ 
(-aofiai, sBCD) = Mk 14^^ {-a-ofiuL ABCD, against N and the 
mob). (The attestation in Mt is a strong confirmation of the 
future for the Petrine tradition in its earliest Greek form.) 
Lk 21^^ {-(TovTat hBDIj) answers to the Marcan ov irapeXev- 
(jovTai (13^^ BD : the insertion of /a?; by S'ACL etc. means 
a mere assimilation to Lk), while Mt has ov fir) irapeKOuxriv 
(24^^): it is at least possible that our Lucan text is only 
a fusion of Mk and Mt. In Jn 10^ ABD al. support 
aKo\ov6r)covaLv. In Heb 10^^ (from LXX) we have the 
fivrja-dijaofiat of xACD 17 and the Oxyrhynchus papyrus 
emended to fivrjado) (following the LXX) in correctors of N 
and D and all the later MSS. There remains evpijaovatv 
in Rev 9^ (AP evpcoaiv, against nB^) 18^*. We need 
not hesitate to accept the future as a possible, though 
moribund, construction : the later MSS in trying to get rid 
of it bear witness to the levelling tendency. There is no 
apparent difference in meaning. We may pass on to note 

^ Winer (p. 634) refers to " the prevailing opinion of philologers " in his own 
time (and later), that ov fir] ■nroiyjaris originates in an ellipsis — " no fear that he 
will do it." It is advisable therefore to note that this view has been abandoned 
by modern philology. To give full reasons would detain us too long. But it 
may be observed that the drop[)ing out of the vital word for fearing needs 
explanation, which has not been forthcoming ; while the theory, suiting denials 
well enough, gives no natural account of prohihitimis. 


the distribution of ov jjn] in NT. It occurs IP. times in 
LXX citations. Apart from these, there are no exx. in Ac, 
Heb, or the " General Epp ", except 2 Pet 1^". Eev has it 
1 6 times. Paul's use is limited to 1 Th 4^^^ {v. infr.) 5^ 1 Co 
8^^, Gal 5^^. Only 21 exx. in all come from these sources, 
leaving 64 for the Gospels. Of the latter 57 are from actual 
words of Christ (Mt 17, Mk 8 [Mk] 1, Lk 17, Jn 14) : of 
the remaining 7, Mt 16^2 and 26^5 ( = Mk 143i), j^ 138 
20^^ have most obvious emphasis, and so may Lk 1^^ (from the 
special nativity-source^) and Jn IP*^. That the locution was 
very much at home in translations, and unfamiliar in original 
Greek, is by this time abundantly clear. But we may attempt 
a further analysis, by way of contribution to the minutiae of 
the Synoptic problem. If we go through the exx. of ov firj in 
Mk, we find that Mt has faithfully taken over every one, 8 in 
all. Lk has 5 of these logia, once (Mk 13^ = Lk 21*^) dropping 
the firj. Mt introduces ov fit] into Mk 7^^ and Lk into Mk 4^^ 
and 1 0"^ both Mt and Lk into Mk 1 S^i (see above).^ Turning 
to " Q ", so far as we can deduce it from logia common to 
Mt and Lk, we find only two places (Mt 526 = Lk 12s^ Mt 
23^^ = Lk 13^^) in which the evangelists agree in using ov fir], 
Mt uses it in 5^^ (Lk 21-^^ has a certain resemblance, but 
16^'^ is the parallel), and Lk in 6^'^ &zs (contrast Mt 7^). 
Finally, in the logia peculiar to Mt or Lk, the presence of 
which in " Q " is therefore a matter of speculation, we find ov 
[irj 4 times in Mt and 7 in Lk. When the testimony of Jn 
is added, we see that this negative is impartially distributed 
over all our sources for the words of Christ, without special 
prominence in any one evangelist or any one of the documents 
which they seem to have used. Going outside the Gospels, 
we find ov yJ) in the fragment of Aristion (?) ^ ([Mk] 16^^) ; in 
1 Th 4^^ (regarded by Ropes, BB v. 345, as an Agraphon) ; and 
in the Oxyrhynchus " Sayings " — no. 2 of the first series, and 

1 It comes from the LXX of 1 Sam 1", if A is right there, with wieTat 
changed to the aor. subj. But A of course may show a reading conformed to 
the NT. 

2 As to Mk 4=2, note that in the doublet from " Q " neither Mt (lO^") nor Lk 
(12=) has ou /J.7J : the new Oxyrhynchus " Saying," no. 4, has also simple 01). 

^ The criticisms of B. W. Bacon, in Expos, for Dec. 1905, may dispose us to 
double the query. 


the preface of the second. The coincidence of all these separate 
witnesses certainly is suggestive. Moreover in Eev, the only 
NT Book outside the Gospels which has ov firj with any fre- 
quency, 4 exx. are from the Epp. to the Churches, where 
Christ is speaker; and all of the rest, except 18^* (which is 
very emphatic), are strongly reminiscent of the OT, though 
not according to the LXX except in I822 ( = Ezek 261^). It 
follows that ov fxrj is quite as rare in the NT as it is in the 
papyri, when we have put aside (a) passages coming from the 
OT, and (&) sayings of Christ, these two classes accounting 
for nearly 90 per cent, of the whole. Since these are just 
the two elements which made up " Scripture " in the first age 
of Christianity, one is tempted to put it down to the same 
cause in both — a feeling that inspired language was fitly 
rendered by words of a decisive tone not needed generally 

In connexion with this use of negatives, 
Mti in uau lous ^^ ^ ^^^i pursue here the later develop- 
Assertions. „ , n / ,. , • 1 

ments or that construction 01 (mt] Irom which 

the use of ov fi7] originally sprang, according to the theory 
that for the present holds the field. It is obvious, whatever 
be its antecedent history, that fi^ is often equivalent to our 
" perhaps." A well-known sentence from Plato's Apology 
will illustrate it as well as anything: Socrates says (p. 39a) 
dXKa fir) ov tovt' y '^oXeTrou, Odvarov eKipvyetv, " perhaps it 
is not this which is hard, to escape death." This is exactly 
like Mt 25^ as it stands in nALZ : the ov fxi'i which replaces 
ov in BCD does not affect the principle. The subjunctive 
has its futuristic sense, it would seem, and starts most 
naturally in Greek from the use of fjur} in questions : how 
this developed from the original use of ^nq in prohibition 
(whence comes the final sentence), and how far we are to 
call in the sentences of fearing, which are certainly not 
widely separable, it would not be relevant for us to discuss 
in this treatise. Mr] tovt y x^Xeirov, if originally a question, 
meant " will this possibly be difficult ? " So in the indicative, 
as Plato Protag. 312a aXX' dpa firj ou;^ viro'kaiJbfidveL^, "but 
perhaps then you do not suppose" (Eiddell 140). We have 
both these forms abundantly before us in the NT : — thus 
Lk 11^^ aKoirei /Ltr; to ^co? . . . 0-/COT09 eVrtV, " Look ! perhaps 


the light ... is darkness " ; Col 2^ /SXeVere jju-q rt? earac o 
avXaycoydw, " Take heed ! perhaps there will be someone who 
. . . ' (cf Heb 3^^) ; Gal 4^^ (f)o^ov/jcac vfid^ fii] ttw? et/c?} 
KeKOTriaKa, " I am afraid about you : perhaps I have toiled in 
vain." So in the papyri, as Par P 49 (ii/B.C.) dycovLM ixrjiroTe 
appwarel to TraiSdpiop, NP 17 (iii/A.D.) ucfjcopov/xe . . , /Lt?) 
dpa ivOpdoa-Kwv eXaOev vSart. In all these cases the prohibi- 
tive force of /jby is more or less latent, producing a strong 
deprecatory tone, just as in a direct question fiy'j either 
demands the answer No (as Mt 7^ etc.), or puts a suggestion 
in the most tentative and hesitating way (Jn 4^^). The 
fineness of the distinction between this category and the 
purpose clause may be illustrated by 2 Co 2'^, where the 
paratactic original might equally well be " Perhaps he will 
be overwhelmed " or " Let him not be overwhelmed." In 
Gal 2^ the purpose clause (if such it be), goes back to the 
former type — " Can it be that I am running, or ran, in 
vain ? "1 Cf 1 Th 3^ The warning of Ac 5^^ might similarly 
start from either " Perhaps you will be found," or " Do not 
be found " : the former suits the ttotc better. It will be 
seen that the uses in question have mostly become hypotactic, 
but that no real change in the tone of the sentence is 
introduced by the governing word. The case is the same 
as with prohibitions introduced by opa, /SXeVere, Trpoa-e^ere, 
etc.: see above, p. 124. One very difficult case under this 
head should be mentioned here, tliat of 2 Tim 2^^. We have 
already (p. 55) expressed the conviction that Booij is really 
8(07}, subjunctive. Not only would the optative clash with 
dvavrjylrmaiv, but it cannot be justified in itself by any clear 
syntactic rule. The difficulty felt by WH (Aj^p 168), that 
" its use for two different moods in the same Epistle would 
be strange," really comes to very little ; and the survival of 
the epic Scotj is better supported than they suggest. There 
is an apparent case of yvcarj subj. in Clement Paed. iii. 1, 
eavTov yap riq idv yfcorj, deov elaerai. A respectable number 
of quotations for hoirj is given from early Christian litera- 

^ T^pix'^ ^^ tiest perhaps subjunctive, since the sentence as it stands is felt as 
final. This interpretation as a whole has to reckon with the alternative render- 
ing, "Am I running (said I), or have I run, in vain T' There is much to be 
said for this : see Findlay in Exp B p. 104. 



ture in Eeinliold 90 f. Phrynichus (Paitherford NP 429, 

456) may fairly be called as evidence not only for the 

Hellenistic hwr} and hihwr) (which he and his editor regard 

as " utterly ridiculous ") but for the feeling that there is 

a subjunctive Swt;, though he only quotes Homer. But 

we must not press this, only citing from Eutherford the 

statement that some MSS read " hotr] " for Sw in Plato 

Goi'g. 481a, where the optative would be most obviously 

out of place. If we read the opt. in 2 Tim I.e., we can 

only assume that the writer misused an obsolete idiom, 

correctly used in Lk 3^^ in past sequence. Against this 

stands the absence of evidence that Paul (or the auctor ad 

Timothcum, if the critics demur) concerned himself with 

literary archaisms, like his friends the authors of Lk, Ac, 

and Heb. Taking Soorj and avavr]y\rwaiv together, we make 

the ixrjiTore introduce a hesitating question, " to try whether 

haply God may give " : cf the well-known idiom with el, 

" to see if," as in Ac 271^, Eoni V^, Lk U^s, Phil 3^". See in 

favour of the subj. Bcoij the careful note in WS 120. Blass 

(p. 50) agrees.^ 

We take next the Optative, which makes 
The Optative :— ^^ p^^^, ^ ^^^^.^ -^^ ^1^^ j^rj. ^^^^^ ^^ ^^.^ tempted 

Proper • ^° hurry on. In MGr its only relic - is the 

phrase /u.?; •yevono, which appears in Lk 20^® 
and 14 times in Eom (10), 1 Co (1) and Gal (3). This is 
of course the Optative proper, distinguished by the absence 
of av and the presence (if negative) of firi. Burton {MT 79) 
cites 35 proper optatives from the NT, which come down to 

^ Unfortunately \vc cannot call the LXX in aid : there are a good many 
exx. of 5(^77, but they all seem optative. Tts oi^r) ... ; in Num 11-'', Judg 9^^, 
2 Sam 18^^, Job 31^^, Ca 8^, Jer 9", miglit ^ve^ seem deliberative subj., but 
Ps 120(119)^ tI doOeirj croi Kal ri irpoa-Tedeir] aoi ; is unfortunately q^uite free from 
arabiguit}'. We may regard these as real wishes thrown into the interrogative 
form. The LXX use of the optative looks a promising subject for Mr 
Thackeray's much-needed Grammar. We will only observe here that in Num 
I.e. the Hebrew has the simple imperf. — also that A has a tendency to change 
opt. into subj. (as Kuth V S(^ . . . evp-qn), which accords witli the faint 
distinction between them. In Dt 28"*** we have opt. and fut. indie, alternating, 
■with no variation in the Hjbrew. A more surprising fusion still — worse 
than 2 Tim I.e. with Syi? — is seen in 2 Mac 9-^ idv n Trapddo^ov diro^ali} Kai 

^ But see p. 240. 


20 when we drop /x?; yevoiTo. Of these ra,ul claims 14 
(Eom 155- 1=^, Philein ^o^ 2 Tim P^-is, and the rest in 
1 and 2 Th), while Mk, Lk, Ac, Heb, 1 Pet and 2 Pet have 
one apiece. 'Oval/juTjv in Pliilem-" is the only proper optative 
in the NT which is not ord person.^ It will be noticed that 
though the use is rare it is well distributed : even Mk has 
it, and Lk 1^ and Ac 8-*' come from the Palestinian stratum 
of Luke's writing. We may bring in here a comparison from 
our own language, which will help us for the Hellenistic 
optative as a whole.^ The optative be still keeps a real 
.though diminishing place in our educated colloquial: "be it 
so " or " so be it," is preserved as a formula, like fxr) yevoiro, 
but " Be it my only wisdom here " is felt as a poetical archaism. 
So in the application of the optative to hypothesis, we should 
not generally copy " Be it never so humble," or " If she 
be not fair to me " : on the other hand, " If I ivere you " 
is the only correct form. " God bless you ! " " Come what 
may," " I wish I were at home," are further examples of 
optatives still surviving. But a somewhat archaic style is 
recognisable in 

"Were the whole realm of nature mine, 
That were a present far too small." 

We shall see later that a Hellenist would equally avoid in 
colloquial speech a construction like 

ei Koi TO. TTavT i'fi eirj, 
TO. TTavra fioi ye volt uv 
e\arT(Tov r] coare Sovvcu. 

The Hellenist used the optative in wishes and prayers very 
much as we use our subjunctive. It is at home in formulse, 
as in oaths passim : evopKovvri fjbefi fiot ev eirj, i(f)topKovvTi 8e to. 
evavrla (OP 240 — i/A.D.), r] evo'^ot etrj/mev tool opKcoL (OP 715 
— ii/A.D.), . . . TrapaSwao) ...■)) evaj^eOeirjv tm opKW (BM 
301 — ii/A.D.), etc. But it is also in free use, as OP 526 
(ii/A.D.) j(aLpoL<;, KakoKatpe, LP& (ii/p-.C.) o? SiSoLrj aoL, LPw 
(ii/iii A.D.), /jb7}SeL<; fie KaTajBidaano and elaeK6oi<i kol 7roi7]aai<;, 

^ Some support for the persistence of tliis optative in the Koivri may be found 
in its appearance in a curse of iii/i5.c., coming from the Tauric Chersonese, and 
showing two Ionic forms (Audollent 144, no. 92). 

* Cf Sweet, New English Grammar : li:>ynlax 107 ff. 


BU 741 (ii/A.D.) o fjbt) yeiPOLTO, BM 21 (ii/B.C.) aol Se yevoiTc 

evr]fiepetv, BCH 1902, p. 217, Ke^oXcofjuevov €y(^ono Mrjua 

KUTaxdoviov, HI P 6 (iii/iv A.D.) ippco/Mevov ae rj 6ia irpovoca 

(pvXd^ai. In hypotaxis the optative of wish appears in 

. „ ^, . clauses with el, as is shown by the negative's 
in Hypothesis, , ^ .-, f . .-, . 

being fjtr), as well as by the tact that we can 

add el, si, if, to a wish, or express a hypothesis without a 

conjunction, by a clause of jussive or optative character. Ei 

with the optative in the NT occurs in 11 passages, of which 

4 must be put aside as indirect questions and accordingly 

falling under the next head. The three exx. in Ac are all in 

or. ok: 20i« ("I want if I can to . . . "), and 27^9 ("We 

will beach her if we can"), are future conditions; and 24^^ 

puts into the past (unfulfilled) form the assertion " They 

ought to bring their accusation, if they have any " (e-^ovat). 

The remainder include el tu')(ol in 1 Co 14^^ 15^'', the only 

exx. in Paul, and two in 1 Pet, el koI irdcr'X^oiTe S^'^ and el 

Oekoi 3^^. The examination of these we may defer till 

we take up Conditional Sentences together. We only note 

here that HE give no more than 12 exx. from LXX of el 

c. opt. (aj)art from 4 Mac and two passages I cannot trace) : 

about 2 of these are wishes, and 4 are cases of (oaiirep) 

et Tt9, while 2 seem to be direct or indirect questions. 

Neither in LXX nor in NT is there an ex. of el c. opt. 

answered with opt. c. av, nor has one been quoted from the 

papyri.^ To the optative proper belongs also that after final 

particles, as we infer from the negative /u,?; and from its being 

an alternative for the (jussive) subjunctive. It does not how- 

. „. , , ever call for any treatment in a NT grammar. 

m Final clauses. " i / crx .i ^ '' s^ - 

We have seen already (p. 55) that iva hot 

and 'iva <yvo2 are unmistakably subjunctives : if iva SojT] be read 

(ib. and pp. 193 f.) in Eph 1^'^ it will have to be a virtual loish 

clause, tva serving merely to link it to the previous verb ; but 

Scot] is preferable. This banishment of the final optative only 

means that the NT writers were averse to bringing in a 

^ Meanwhile we nia_y oliserve tliat Blas.s's dictum (p. 213) that tlie ei c. ojit. 
form is used "if I wish to represent anything as generally possible, without 
regard to the general or actual situation at the moment," suits tlio NT exx. 
well ; and it seems to fit the general facts better than Goodwin's doctrine of a 
"less vivid future" condition (Goodwin, Greek Gram. 301). 


construction which was artificial, though not quite obsolete. 
The obsolescence of the optative had progressed since the 
time of the LXX, and we will only compare the writers 
and papyri of i/A.D. and ii/A.D. Diel in his program De 
enuntiatis finalibus, pp. 20 f., gives Josephus (i/A.D.) 32 
per cent, of optatives after iW, oVft)? and &)9, I'lutarch 
Lives (i/A.D.) 49, Arrian (ii/A.D.) 82, and Appian (ii/A.D.) 87, 
while Herodian (iii/A.D.) has 75. It is very clear that the 
final optative was the hall-mark of a pretty Attic style. The 
Atticisers were not particular however to restrict the optative 
to past sequence, as any random dip into Lucian himself will 
show. We may contrast the more natural Polybius (ii/B.c), 
whose percentage of optatives is only 1 } or Diodorus (i/p-.c), 
who falls to 5. The writer of 4 Mac (i/A.D.) outdoes all 
his predecessors with 71, so that we can see the cacoethes 
Atticissandi affecting Jew as well as Gentile. The papyri 
of our period only give a single optative, so far as I have 
observed: OP 237 (late ii/A.D.) tW . . . 8vvr]6eLT]v. A 
little later we have LTw (ii/iii a.d.) tv evoSov clpn [loi 
€c7]t, in primary sequence ; and before long, in the Byzantine 
age, there is a riot of optatives, after edv or anything else. 
The deadness of the construction even in the Ptolemaic 
period may be well shown from TP 1 (ii/B.c.) rj^Lwa-a ha 
-Xprj/xaTcaOrjaoLTo — future optative! Perhaps, these facts 
and citations will suffice to show why the NT does not 
attempt to rival the litterateurs in the use of this resuscitated 

. We turn to the other main division of 

Ontative ^^® Optative, that of which ov and av are 
frequent attendants. With av the Potential 
answers to our own / should, you or he would, generally 
following a condition. It was used to express a future in 
a milder form, and to express a request in deferential style. 
But it is unnecessary to dwell upon this here, for the table 
given above (p. 166) shows that it was no longer a really 
living form in NT times. It was literary, but not artificial, 
as Luke's use proves. It figures 30 times in LXX, or 
19 times when 4 Mac is excluded, and its occurrences are 

^ See Kiilkei's observations, Quasi. 288 f. 


tolerably well distributed and not abnormal in form. We 
should note however the omission of av, which was previously 
cited in one phrase (p. 194 n.)} We shall see that av tends 
to be dropped with the indicative ; the general weakening of 
the particle is probably responsible for its omission with the 
optative as well. Tt? av Sort], Job 31^^ al, does not differ 
from Tt9 Bwr) elsewhere ; and no distinction of meaning is 
conveyed l)y such an omission as appears in 4 Mac 5^^ 
avy'yv(ofiou7](T€iev, " even if there is (earl) [a God], he would 
forgive." In other ways we become aware how little differ- 
ence dv makes in this age of its senescence. Thus in Par 
P 35 (ii/B.C.) i^)]veyK6v oiroa av €pevv[u)\To^ the dropping 
of dv would affect 'the meaning hardly at all, the contingent 
force being practically nil. So when Luke says in 1^- 
ivivevov . . . to tl av deXot " how he would like," — cf 
Ac 10l^ Lk 1526 1836 (D) 9*6,— there is a minimum of 
difference as compared with Ac 21'^^ eirwOdveTo Ti<i eXri "who 
he might be," or Lk 18^6 j<AB t/ eit] tovto. Not that dv 
c. opt. in an indirect question is always as near as in this case 
to the unaccompanied optative which we treat next. Thus in 
the inscr. Magn. 215 (i/A.D.) iirepwra . . . ri avru) a-rj/xacvei i) 
TL av iroirjaa'^ aSeco? SLareXoir] represents the conditional sen- 
tence, " If I were to do what, should I be secure ? " i.e. " what 
must I do that I may . . . ?" So in Lk 6^^ rt av ironjaaiev 
is the hesitating substitute for the direct rl 7roii]ao/jbev; Ac 5-* 
Tt dv yevoLTo tovto answers to " What tvill this come to ? " 
Cf Esth 13^ irvdofjuevov . . . ttw? dv d-^deLij . . . "how this 
might be brought to pass " (KV). In direct question we 
have Ac 17^*^ rt dv 6e\oi . . . \e<yeiv\ The idiomatic opt. c. 
dv in a softened assertion meets us in Ac 26^^ X°AB, ev^aifxrjv 
dv " I could pray." Among all the exx. of dv c. opt. in Luke 
there is only one which has a protasis, Ac 8^^ ttw? 7a|c» dv 
Svvalfjiijv, edv /m7] Ti<i oSrjy/jaet /x,e ; — a familiar case of future 

^ Par P 63 (ii/s.c.) has a dropped &v in a place where it is needed 
badly : dWd. /J.h oxidiva iirelTrai/xi ttXtjc 6'rt ^XKeadai jSe/Soi/Xei/xat. But I 
should prefer to read ovdh a<^v^ — if one may conjecture without seeing the 

- It is unfortunate that this crucial y is missing, for epewaro (an nnaug- 
mented form) is quite possible, though less likely. The papj'rus has another 
optative, in indirect question, eirjcrai' dairopivadfxevoL. 


condition with the less vivid form in the apodosis.^ No 
more need be said of this use ; nor need we add much about 
the other use of the Potential, that seen in indirect questions. 
The tendency of Greek has been exactly opposite to that of 
Latin, which by the classical period had made the optative 
(" subjunctive ") de rigueur in indirect questions, whatever 
the tense of the main verb. Greek never admitted t/? el7}v 
= quis sim into primary sequence, and even after past tenses 
the optative was a refinement which Hellenistic vernacular 
made no effort to preserve. On Luke's occasional use of it 
we need not tarry, unless it be to repeat Winer's remark 
(p. 375) on Ac 21^^, where the opt. is appropriate in asking 
about the unknown, while the accompanying indicative, " what 
he has done," suits the conviction that the prisoner had com- 
mitted S07ne crime. The tone of remoteness and uncertainty 
given by the optative is well seen in such a reported question 
as Lk 3^^ /xjJTTore avro? etrj 6 Xpicrro?, or 22-^ to Tt<? dpa e'lrj 
... 6 ravra fieWcav irpdaaeiv. It will be noted that Luke 
observes the rule of sequence, as he does in the use of irplu 
(p. 169).2 

The Indicative — apart from its Future, 

T J- i- which we have seen was originally a sub- 

Indicative. . . , . . -^ -, , -^ -, ^ 

junctive m the mam — is suited by its whole 

character only to positive and negative statements, and not 

to the expression of contingencies, wishes, commands, or other 

subjective conceptions. We are not concerned here with the 

forces which produced what is called the " unreal " use of the 

indicative, since Hellenistic Greek received it from the earlier 

age as a fully grown and normal usage, which it proceeded to 

limit in sundry directions. Its most prominent use is in the 

two parts of the unfulfilled conditional statement. We must 

1 It is sentences of this kind to which Goodwin's "less vivid form" does 
apply : his extension of this to be the rule for the whole class I should ven- 
ture to dissent from — see above, p. 196 n. 

■^ On the general question of the obsolescence of the optative, reference may 
be made to F. G. Allinson's paper in Gildersleeve Studies 353 IF. , where itacism 
is alleged to be a contributory cause. Cf OP 60 (iv/A.D.) iV odv e'xoire . . . Kal 
KaTaaTrjffTiTa.1. ( = -e), where exvre is meant; OP 71 (ib) where ei aol BokoI is 
similarly a misspelt subj. (or indie). When oi had become the complete 
equivalent of v, V, «'> a"'l «' «'' ^' the optative forms could no longer preserve 
phonetic distinctness. Prof. Thumb dissents : see p, 240. 


take this up among tlie other Conditional Sentences, in 
vol. ii., only dealing here with that which affects the study of 
the indicative as a modus irrealis. This includes the cases of 
omitted av, and those of ov instead of fi-q. It happens that 
the only NT example of the latter has the former character- 
istic as well: Mk 14-^ ( = Mt 26-^) Kokov avrai el ovk 
eyevv)]6r]^^lt improves the Greek by adding rjv. It is only 
the ultimate sense which makes this " unreal " at all : as far 
as form goes, the protasis is like Heb 12-'' et eKelvoc ovk 
e^ecpvyop, " if they failed to escape " (as they did). There, " it 
was a warning to us " might have formed the apodosis, and so 
that sentence and this would have been grammatically similar. 
We might speak thus of some villain of tragedy, e.g. " A good 
thing if (nearly = that) there never was such a man." Trans- 
ferred as it is to a man who is actually present, the saying 
gains in poignancy by the absence of the contingent form. 
El ov occurs fairly often with the indicative, but elsewhere 
always in simple conditions : see above, p. 171. The dropping 
of av in the apodosis of unfulfilled conditions was classical with 
phrases like eZei, ixPW> Kokov rjv. Such sentences as " If he 
did it, it was the right thing," may be regarded as the 
starting-point of the use of the indicative in unfulfilled 
condition, since usage can easily supply tlie connotation " but 
he did not do it." The addition of av to an indicative 
apodosis produced much the same effect as we can express in 
writing by italicising " if " : " if lie had anything, he gave 
it," or " if he had anything, in that case {av) he gave it," 
alike suggest by their emphasis that the condition was not 
realised.^ We need not enlarge further on this form of 
sentence, except to note the familiar fact that the imper- 
fect in all " unreal " indicatives generally denotes present 
time: cf tlie use with ocfieXov in Eev 3^^ and 2 Co 11^. 
(These are the sole NT examples of this kind of unreal 
indicative. The sentences of unrealised wish resemble 
those of unfulfilled condition further in usino- the aorist 
(1 Co 4^) in reference to past time; but this could 

^ Two papyrus exx. may be cited to illustrate this tendency of av to drop. 
OP 526 (ii/A.D. ) el Kal fiyj dvi^eve, e7tb tov \oyov /^lov ov irapifievov. OP 530 
(ii/A.D.) ii Tr\eiov bi fxoc irapeKUTO, ttoXlv croi aTreardX/cet;'. 


hardly have been otlierwise.^) The difference of time in 
the real and nnreal imperfect will be seen when we drop 
the aV in the stock sentence ei rt dxov, eScSovv civ, " if 1 
had anything {noiv), I should give it," which by elin)inating 
the av becomes " if {i.e. whenever) I had anything, I used to 
give it." Goodwin {MT § 399, 410 ff.) shows that this use 
of the imperf. for present time is post-Homeric, and that it is 
not invariable in Attic — see his exx. For the NT we may 
cite Mt 2330 24*3 (^'ge^) = Lk 12^'^ Jn 410 1121.32^ 1 j^ 2^^ 
as places where el with imperf. decidedly denotes a past 
condition ; but since all these exx. contain either I'uxrjv or yheiv, 
which have no aorist, they prove nothing as to the survival 
of the classical ambiguity — we have to decide by the context 
here, as in all cases in the older literature, as to whether 
present or past time is meant. The distribution of tenses in 
the apodosis (when civ is present) may be seen in the table on 
p. 166. The solitary pluperf. is in 1 Jn 2^^. It need only 
be added that these sentences of unfulfilled condition state 
nothing necessarily unreal in their apodosis : it is of course 
usually the case that the statement is untrue, Ijut the sen- 
tence itself only makes it untrue " under the circumstances " 
{av), since the condition is unsatisfied. The time of the 
apodosis generally determines itself, the imperfect regidarly 
denoting present action, except in Mt 23^0 (?;/xe^a). 

Unrealised purpose makes a minute addition to the tale of 
unreal indicatives in the NT. The afterthought eBpa/xov in 
Gal 2'^, with which stands 1 Th 3'', has plenty of classical 
parallels (see Goodwin MT § 333), but no further exx. are 
found in NT writers, and (as we saw above, p. 193 n.) the 
former ex. is far from certain. Such sentences often depend 
on unfulfilled conditions with av, and the decadence of these 
carries with it that of a still more subtle and less practical 
form of language. 

^ There is one ex. of o<pe\ov c. fut. , Gal 5'", and there also the associations of 
the particle (as it now is) help to mark an expression never meant to be taken 
seriously. The dropping of augment in cJ(pe\oi> may be Ionic, as it is found 
in Herodotus ; its application to '2nd or 3rd pers. is probably due to its being 
felt to mean "1 would" instead of "thou shouldst," etc. Note among the 
late exx. in LS (p. 1099) that with fie . . . oXiadai, a lirst step in tliis develop- 
ment. Grimm -Thayer gives LXX parallels. See also Schwyzer Percj. 173. 



The mention of " The Verb " has been omitted 
Nominal Verbs j,-^ ^j^g heading of this chapter, in deference to 
and Verbal ,. .i -i-^- e  i 

Nouns susceptibilities oi grammarians who wax 

warm when Xveiv or Xvaa^ is attached to the 

Verb instead of the Noun. But having thus done homage 

to orthodoxy, we proceed to treat these two categories ahnost 

exclusively as if they were mere verbal moods, as for most 

practical purposes they are. Every schoolboy knows that 

in origin and in part of their use they belong to the 

noun ; but on this side they have been sufficiently treated 

in chapters iv. and v., and nearly all that is distinctive is 


. . The Greek Infinitive is historically either 

The Infinitive : — , ,. . > ' n i ^- / %- 

Its Oriein ^ locative (as Xueiv) or a dative (as Xvaai, 

elvai, etc.) from a noun base closely connected 
with a verb.^ We can see this fact best from a glance at 
Latin, where regcre is obviously the locative of a noun like 
f/enns, regi the dative of a noun much like rex except in 
quantity, and rectum, -tul, -tu the accusative, dative, and loca- 
tive, respectively, of an action-noun of the 4th declension. In 
Plautus we even find the abstract noun tactio in the nomi- 
native governing its case just as if it were tangcre. Classical 
Greek has a few well-known exx. of a noun or adjective 
governing the case appropriate to the verb with which it is 
closely connected. Thus Plato Apol. 18b to. /jLerecopa (fypovTt- 
arri<i, Sophocles Ant. 789 o-e ^u^t/^o? : see Jebb's note. Vedic 

^ On the morpliology of the lufinitive see Giles Manual- 468 fF. It should be 
noted that no syntactical difference survives in Greek between forms oi'igiually 
dative and those which started in the locative. 



Sanskrit would sliow us yet more clearly that the so-called 
infinitive is nothing but a case — any case — of a noun which 
had enough verbal consciousness in it to " govern " an object. 
The isolation and stereotyping of a few of these forms produces 
the infinitive of Greek, Latin, or English, It will be easily 
seen in our own language that what we call the infinitive is 
only the dative of a noun : Middle English had a locative with 
at. In such a sentence as " He went out to toil again," how 
shall we parse toil ? Make it " hard toil," and the Noun claims 
it : substitute " toil hard," and the Verb comes to its own. 
One clear inference from all this is that there was originally 
no voice for the infinitive. Avvaro<i davfxd- 

distinction. °"^'' "capable for wondering," and a^io^ 
davfidaai, " worthy for wondering," use the 
verbal noun in the same way ; but one means " able to 
wonder," and the other " deserving to be wondered at." The 
middle and passive infinitives in Greek and Latin are merely 
adaptations of certain forms, out of a mass of units which 
had lost their individuality, to express a relation made 
prominent by the closer connexion of such nouns with 
the verb. 

There are comparatively few uses of the 

C «5e force Grreek Infinitive in which we cannot still 
trace the construction by restoring the dative 
or locative case from whence it started. Indeed the very 
fact that when the form had become petrified the genius of the 
language took it up afresh and declined it by prefixing the 
article, shows us how persistent was the noun idea. The 
imperative use, the survival of which we have noticed above 
(pp. 179 f.), is instructive if we are right in interpreting it in 
close connexion with the origins of the infinitive. A dative 
of purpose used as an exclamation conveys at once the 
imperatival idea. The frequent identity of noim and verb 
forms in Eno-lish enables us to cite in illustration two lines of 
a popular hymn : — 

" So now to watch, to work, to war, 
And then to rest for ever ! " 

A schoolmaster entering his classroom might say either " Now 
then, to work ! " or " at work ! " — dative or locative, express- 



ing imperative 2nd person, as the hymn lines express 1st 
person. Among the NT exx., Phil 3^^ has the 1st/ and the 
rest the 2nd person. The noun-case is equally traceable in 
many other uses of the infinitive. Thus the infinitive of 
purpose, as in Jn 2P aXceveiv a-jishing, or Mt 2^ irpoaKwrjo-ai 
for worshiiJjnng , — of consequence, as Heb 6^*^ i-rrcXaOeaOai, to 
the extent of forgetting, — and other " complementary " infini- 
tives, as Heb 11^^ Kaipov avaKajjiy^aL opportunity for returning, 
2 Tim 1^- 8vuaTo<i ^ukd^at competent for guarding. The force 
of such infinitives is always best reached by thus going back 
to the original dative or locative noun. 

From the account just given of the 
genesis of the infinitive it follows that it 
was originally destitute of tense as much as of voice. In 
classical Sanskrit the infinitive is formed without reference 
to the conjugation or conjugations in which a verb forms its 
present stem : thus v f^"^ {kXvco), inf. p-otiim, pres. grnomi — 
V yW (i^'^ngo), yohtum, yunajmi — V ^^^'^ (4'^'^' f'^^'^> ^^)' ^havi- 
tum, hhavdmi. We can see this almost as clearly in Latin, 
where action-nouns like sonitum, positum, tactum and tactio, 
etc., have no formal connexion with the present stem seen 
in sonat, ptonit, tangit. The cr in XvaaL lias only accidental 
similarity to link it with that in eXvaa. But when once 
these noun forms had established their close contact with the 
verb, accidental resemblances and other more or less capricious 
causes encouraged an association that rapidly grew, till all 
the tenses, as well as the three voices, were equipped with 
infinitives appropriated to their exclusive service. Greek had 
been supplied with the complete system from early times, 
and we need say nothing further on the subject here, since 
the infinitive presents no features which are not shared with 
other moods belonging to the several tenses.^ 

^ Brugmann, Gram.^ 517 n., regards ws ^iros e'nre'iv as being for etirwixei', and 
coming therefore under this head. It is a literary phrase, found only in Heb 
7" : cf the would-be literary papyrus, OP 67 (iv/a.d.). On this and other exx. 
of the "limitative infin." see Grliueuwald in Schanz Beitriige ir. iii. 22 ff., 
where it is shown to be generally used to qualify ttSs or oi)5ets, and not as here. 

^ The Hellenistic weakening of the Future infinitive, which in the pajiyri 
is very frequently used for aorist or even present, would claim attention here 
if we were dealing with the Koiv-q as a whole. See Kalker 281, Hatzidakis 
190 f., 142 f. The NT does not show this form— whether any MS variants 


. Some important questions arise from the 

Purpose etc ^^^^ ^^® "^ ^^ °^ ^'^^ infinitive whicli is 
equivalent to iva c. subj. In ThLZ, 1903, 
p. 421, Prof. Thimib has some suggestive remarks on this 
subject. He shows that this infinitive is decidedly more 
prominent in the Koivr] tlian in Attic, and is perhaps an 
Ionic element, as also may be the infin. with tov, of wliich the 
same is true. In the Pontic dialect of MGr — as mentioned 
above, pp. 40 f. — the old infin. survives, while it vanished 
in favour of vd c. subj. in European MGr, where the infin. 
was less prominent in ancient times." Now the use of the 
infin. in Pontic is restricted to certain syntactical sequences. 
To these belong verbs of movement, like come, go wp (cf Lk 
18^*^, Par P 49 (ii/B.C.) kav uva^o) Ka^co 'irpoaKVv?]craC), turn, 
go over, run, rise wp, incline, etc. It is found that, speaking 
generally, the NT use agrees with this ; and we find a similar 
correspondence with Pontic in the NT use of the infinitive 
after such verbs as jBovkoixai, eTndvfjbw, airovSa^u). ireipd^o), 
eiri'^eipw, ala'^upofiat,, (po^ovfxai, d^tw, Trapaivcv, KeKevo), Tdcraco, 
ew, eTTLTpeiray, Svva/Mac, £X^> dp'^o/xai. With other verbs, as 
TTapaKoXSi, the Iva construction prevails. This correspondence 
between ancient and modern vernacular in Asia Minor, Thumb 
suggests, is best explained by assuming two tendencies within 
the KoLvri, one towards the universalising of ha, the other 
towards the establishment of the old infinitive in a definite 
province : the former prevailed throughout the larger, western 
portion of Hellenism, and issued in the language of modern 
Hellas, where the infinitive is obsolete ; while the latter held 
sway in the eastern territory, exemplifying itself as we should 
expect in the NT, and showing its characteristic in the dialect 
spoken to-day in the same country. Prof. Thumb does not 
pretend to urge more than the provisional acceptance of this 
theory, which indeed can only be decisively accepted or rejected 
when we have ransacked all the available inscriptions of Asia 
Minor for their evidence on the use of the infinitive. But it 

do so I cannot say. Jn 2125 has x^PVi^^^" (»<BC), replacerl hy xwp^Jfrai in the 
later MSS ; biit the future is wanted here. The aorist may be due to the 
loss of future meaning in xcop^crec by the time when the late scribes wrote. 
The obsoleteness of fut. infin. with /^eXXw in NT and papyri has been remarked 
already (p. 114 n.). [" See p. 249. 


is certainly very plausible, and opens out liints of exceedingly 
fruitful research on lines as yet unworked. 

,,„ , ^. „„ The long debated question of "ha eV- 

"Ecbatic" I'm. „ ' " V. A A ^-fi ^ k .1, 

paTLKov may be regarded as settled by the 

new light which has come in since H. A. W. Meyer waged heroic 
warfare against the idea that tva could ever denote anything 
but purpose. All motive for straining the obvious meaning 
of words is taken away when we see that in the latest stage 
of Greek language-history the infinitive has yielded all its 
functions to the locution thus jealously kept apart from it. 
That iva normally meant " in order that " is beyond ques- 
tion. It is perpetually used in the full final sense in the 
papyri, having gained greatly on the Attic ottci)?. But it 
has come to be the ordinary construction in many phrases 
where a simple infinitive was used in earlier Greek, just as 
in Latin ut clauses, or in English those with that, usurp the 
prerogative of the verbal noun. " And this is life eternal, 
that they should know thee " (Jn 1 7^), in English as in 
the Greek, exhibits a form which under other circum- 
stances would make a final clause. Are we to insist on 
recognising the ghost of a purpose clause here ?*^ Westcott 
says that iva here " expresses an aim, an end, and not only 
a fact." The tva clause then, as compared with (to) yLvco- 
(TKeiv, adds the idea of effoo^t or aim at acquiring knowledge of 
God. I will not deny it, having indeed committed myself 
to the assumption as sufficiently established to be set down 
in an elementary grammar.^ But I have to confess myself 
troubled with unsettling doubts ; and I should be sorry now 
to commend that ha as strong enough to carry one of the 
heads of an expository sermon ! 

Let us examine the grounds of this scepticism a little 
more closely. In Kiilker's often quoted monograph on the 
language of Polybius, pp. 290 ff., we have a careful presenta- 
tion of iva as it appears in the earliest of the Koivrj writers, 
who came much nearer to the dialect of common life than 
the Atticists who followed him. We see at once that "va 
has made great strides since the Attic golden age. It has 
invaded the territory of ottco?, as with (ppovri^eLv and airov- 

1 Introd."^ 217. ['' Sec ]>. -249. 


Bd^etv, to mention only two verbs found in the NT. The 
former occurs only in Tit 3^ ; the latter eleven times. And 
instead of Attic ottco?, or Polybian tva, behold the infinitive 
in every occurrence of the two ! Under Kiilker's next head 
Polybius is brought . into an equally significant agreement 
with the NT. He shows how the historian favours iva after 
words of commanding, etc., such as Siaaacbelv, aneiaOai, 
ypiicfieiv, TrapayyeWetv, and the like. One ex. should be 
quoted : avveTd^aro irpo'; re Tavplcova TrapaaKevd^eiv tTTTret? 
TrevrrjKOVTa Kol 7re^ov<; irevraKoa-lov^;, Koi 7rpo<; Meaarjvlov;, 
Iva Tov<i i(Tov<; T0VT0t<i (TTTret? koX ire^ov'; i^airoarebXwcn. 
The equivalence of infin. and "iva c. subj. here is very plain. 
In the later Koivrj of the NT, which is less affected by 
literary standards than Polybius is, we are not surprised to 
find 'Iva used more freely still ; and the resultant idiom in 
MGr takes away the last excuse for doubting our natural 
conclusions. There is an eminently sensible note in SH on 
Eom 11 ^\ in which the laxer use of Xva is defended by the 
demands of exegesis, without reference to the linguistic 
evidence. The editors also (p. 143) cite Chrysostom on 
5^*^ : ro he Xva ivravOa ovk alrioXoyta^ irdXiv dXX' eKl3acre(D<i 
i(TTiv. It will be seen that what is said of the weakening 
of final force in iva applies also to other final constructions, 
such as Tov c. infin. And on the other side we note that 
wcrre in passages like Mt 27^ has lost its consecutive force 
and expresses a purpose." It is indeed a repetition after 
many centuries of a development which took place in the 
simple infinitive before our contemporary records begin. In 
the time when the dative So/xevat and the locative Sofiev 
were still distinct living cases of a verbal noun, we may 
assume that the former was much in use to express designed 
result : the disappearance of distinction between the two 
cases, and the extension of the new " infinitive mood " over 
many various uses, involved a process essentially like the 
vanishing of the exclusively final force in the normally final 
constructions of Greek, Latin, and English. The burden of 
making purpose clear is in all these cases thrown on the 
context; and it cannot be said that any difficulty results, 
except in a minimum of places. And even in these the diffi- 
culty is probably due only to the fact that we necessarily 

« See p. 249. 


read an ancient language as foreigners : no ditiiculty ever 
arises in analogous phrases in our own tongue. 

The suggestion of Latin influence in this 
development has not unnaturally been made 
by some very good authorities ; ^ but the usage was deeply 
rooted in the vernacular, in fields which Latin cannot have 
touched to the extent which so far-reaching a change 
involves. A few exx. from papyri may be cited : — OP 744 
(I/b.C.) epwTOi ae ha fir] ufycovidarj^. NP 7 (I/a.D.) eypayjra 
'iva (joi cf)v\axO(!5(To (cf BU 19 (ii/A.D.)). BU 531 (ii/A.D.) 
irapaKoXo) ae 'iva KaTda'xrj<i. 625 (ii/iii A.D.) eS/]\(i)ara Aoy- 
ryLvq) eiva ervfxdar}. OP 121 (iii/A.D.) etTrd crot eXva Bcoawaiv. 
BM 21 (ii/B.C.) ri^icoad ae oVft)? ctTToBoOf} : d^to) c. infin. 
occurs in the same papyrus. Par P 51 (ii/B.c.) Xe7&) . . . 
'iva irpoaKvvtiar)'? avTov. In such clauses, which remind us 
immediately of Mt 4^ 16^'^ Mk 5i« 3» etc., the naturalness 
of the development is obvious from the simple fact that the 
purpose clause with ha is merely a use of the jussive sub- 
junctive (above, pp. 177 f.), which makes its appearance after 
a verb of commanding or wishing entirely reasonable. The 
infinitive construction was not superseded : cf AP 135 (ii/A.D.) 
iproTM ae /ir; d/iie\etv fiov. We need add nothing to Winer's 
remarks (WM 422 f.) on Oekw and irotw c. ha. 1 Co 14^ 
is a particularly good ex. under this head, in that Oekw 
has both constructions: we may trace a greater urgency 
in that with ha, as the meaning demands. From such 
sentences, in which the object clause, from the nature of 
the governing verb, had a jussive sense in it which made 
the subjunctive natural, there was an easy transition to 
object clauses in which the jussive idea was absent. The 
careful study of typical sentences like Mt 10"^ 8^ (contrast 
311) 18«, Jn 127 (contr. Lk 15i») 4^* 15S- 1^ Lk 1*3 (for which 
Winer quotes a close parallel from Epictetus), will show 
anyone who is free from predisposition that ha can lose the 
last shred of purposive meaning.^ If the recognition of a 
purpose conception will suit the context better than the denial 

^ So Gbtzeler Dc Folyhi elocMtionc 17 iT. for irpoffixeiv 'i-va and irapaKoKetv 'iva 
(XT) : also Kalker op. cit., and Viereck SG 67. Against these see Radcrmacher 
RhM Ivi. 203 and Thumb Hcllcn. 159. " See further pp. 240 f. 


of it, we remain entirely free to assume it ; but the day is 
past for such strictness as great commentators like Meyer 
and Westcott were driven to by the supposed demands of 
grammar. The grammarian is left to investigate the extent 
to which the Iva construction ousted the infinitive after 
particular expressions, to observe the relative frequency of 
these usages in diflerent authors, and to test the reality of 
Thumb's proposed test (above, p. 205) for the geographical 
distribution of what may be to some extent a dialectic 

„ The consecutive infin. with wcrre has 

Consequence. , t -, i-, ■, ^ , . . 

been already alluded to as admittmg some- 
thing very much like a purely final meaning. The total 
occurrences of ooare in the NT amount to 88, in 51 of which 
it takes the infin. A considerable number of the rest, 
however, are not by any means exx. of what we should call 
Mare consecutive with the indicative : the conjunction be- 
comes (as in classical Greek) little more than " and so " or 
" therefore," and is accordingly found with subj. or imper. 
several times. Of the strict consecutive wo-re c. indie, there 
are very few exx. Gal 2^^ and Jn 3^*^ are about the clearest, 
but the line is not easy to draw. The indicative puts the 
result merely as a new fact, co-ordinate with that of the 
main verb ; the infinitive subordinates the result clause so 
much as to lay all the stress on the dependence of the result 
upon its cause. Blass's summary treatment of this construc- 
tion (p. 224) is characteristic of a method of textual criticism 
which too often robs us of any confidence in our documents 
and any certain basis for our grammar. " In Gal 2^^ there is at 
any rate a v.l. with the infin." — we find in Ti " a^*^*" a-uwira'^dr)- 
vai " — , " while in Jn 3^^ the correct reading in place of ware 
is oTt, which is doubly attested by Chrys. (in many passages) 
and Nonnus."* Those of us who are not impressed by such 
evidence might plead that the text as it stands in both places 
entirely fits the classical usage. It is just " the importance 
attaching to the result " — to quote one of Blass's criteria 
which he says would have demanded the indie, in Ac 15^'' in 
a classical writer — which accounts for the use of the indica- 
tive: in Jn 3^^ "had the other construction — wo-re Sovvat, 
so much as to give — been used, some stress would have been 

14 « See p. 249. 


taken off the fact of the gift and laid on the connexion 
between tlie love and the gift." ^ Even if the indicative 
construction was obsolete in the vernacular — which the 
evidence hardly suffices to prove — , it was easy to bring in the 
indicative for a special purpose, as it differed so little from 
the independent oi(jTe = and so. The infinitives without 
uKTTe in consecutive sense were explained above (p. 204), 
upon Heb 6^°. So in OP 526 (ii/A.D.), ovk Tjfirjv a'iradr]<i 
aK6y(o<i ae airoXeimv, " so unfeeling as to leave you," etc. 
Sometimes we meet with rather strained examples, as those in 
the Lucan hymns, 154-72 especially. The substitution of iva 
c. subj. for the infin. occasionally makes iva consecutive, just 
as we saw that coo-re could be final : so 1 Jn 1^, Ecv 9-'', 
Jn 9^ — where Blass's "better reading" otc lias no authority 
earlier than his own, unless Ti needs to be supplemented. 
Blass quotes a good ex. from Arrian, ovtw /u,(opo<i rjv Xva fir) 
ISrj. We shoiild not however follow him in making iva con- 
secutive in Lk 9*^ for the thought of a purpose of Providence 
seems demanded hj TrapaKeKoXv/M/xevov. 1 Th 5* we can 
concede, but 2 Co l^^^ is better treated as final: Paul is 
disclaiming the mundane virtue of unsettled convictions, 
which aims at saying yes and no in one breath. See p. 249. 

The infinitive when used as subject or 
innmtiye as object of a verb has travelled somewhat 
obiect further away from its original syntax. We 

may see the original idea if we resolve 
humanitm est errarc into " there is something human in 
erring." But the locative had ceased to be felt when the 
construction acquired its commanding prevalence, and the 
indeclinable verbal noun could become nom. or ace. without 
difficulty. The iva alternative appears here as it does in the 
purpose and consequence clauses, and (though this perhaps 
was mere coincidence) in the imperative use (pp. 176 and 
178 f.). Thus we have Mt 5"^ al av/xcfiepei, Mt 10^^ ^pKerSv, 
Jn 18^'^ avvr]deia iariv, 1 Co 4"^ ei? eXd-^irrrov iariv, Jn 4'^* 
e/jbbv ^pcofid ia-Tiv, all with iva in a subject clause. See Blass's 
full list, p. 228, and note his citation from "Barnabas" 5^^, 
eSei iva TrdOj] : still more marked are such exx. (p. 229) as 

^ I quote from luy Introduction 218, written before Blass's book. 


Lk 1^^ 1 Jn 53, Jn IS^^, etc. The prevalence of tlie 'iva in 
Jn has its bearing on Prof. Thumb's criteria described above 
(pp. 40 f. and 205); for if the fondness of Jn for e'/xo? is a 
characteristic of Asia Minor, that for iva goes the other way. 
It would be worth while for some patient scholar to take up 
this point exhaustively, examining the vernacular documents 
among the papyri and inscriptions and in the NT, with care- 
ful discrimination of date and locality where ascertainable. 
Even the Atticists will yield unwilling testimony here ; for a 
" wrong " use of Iva, if normal in the writer's daily speech, 
could hardly be kept out of his literary style — there was a 
very manifest dearth of trained composition lecturers to correct 
the prose of these painful litterateurs of the olden time ! 
Schmid, Atticisuncs iy. 81, shows how this " Infinitivsurrogat " 
made its way from Aristotle onwards. Only by such an inquiry 
could we make sure that the dialectic distriljution of these 
alternative constructions was a real fact in the ao-e of the 
NT. Tentatively I should suggest — for time for such an 
investigation lies wholly below my own horizon — that the 
preference was not yet decisively fixed on geographical lines, 
so that individuals had still their choice open. The strong 
volitive flavour which clung to tva would perhaps commend 
it as a mannerism to a writer of John's temperament ; but one 
would be sorry to indulge in exegetical subtleties when he 
substitutes it for the infinitive which other writers prefer. 

We might dwell on the relation of 

^^d "l^fi^v*^^^ the accus. c. infin. (after verbs of saying, 

and substitutes, believing, and the like) to the periphrasis 

with on which has superseded it in nearly 

all the NT writers. But no real question as to difference 

of meaning arises here ; and it will suffice to cite Blass's 

summary (pp. 230 ff.) and refer to him for details. He 

shows that " the use of the infinitive with words of believing 

is, with some doubtful exceptions, limited to Luke and Paul 

(Hebrews), being a ' remnant of the literary language ' 

(Viteau [i.] 52)." So with other verbs akin to these: Luke 

is indeed " the only writer who uses [the ace. and infinitive] 

at any length, and even he very quickly passes over into the 

direct form." The use of &)? instead of on is limited, and 

tends to be encroached upon by ttw?: cf Hatzidakis 19, who 


ought not however to have cited Ac 4-^ iu this connexion. 

The combination w? on in 2 Co 5^^ 1V\ 2 Th 2^ is taken 

by Blass (Gr} 321 f.) as equivalent to Attic w? c. gen. abs., 

the Vulgate quasi representing it correctly. It must be 

noted that in the vernacular at a rather later stage it meant 

merely " that " : thus CPR 1 9 (Iv/a.D.) vrpcorjv I3i/3\ia i-rrt- 

SeBcoKa rfj off eirLfJieKeia &)<? on e^ovKi^Oriv riva virdp'^ovrd 

fxov dirohoadai, Wessely notes there, " w? on seem to be 

combined where the single word would be adequate." He 

quotes another papyrus, co? on '^peoarelrac ef ainov o Kvpa 

'lavs';. Two Attic inscriptions of I/b.c. show co? on c. superl. 

in the sense of w? or otl alone: see Eoberts-Gardner 179. 

Winer (p. 771) cites Xenophon, Hellcn. in. ii. 14, eltrmv 

ft)? oTt oKvoiT], and Lightfoot (on 2 Th 2^) and Plummer 

repeat the reference ; but the editors have agreed to eject 

oTt from the text at that place. Its isolation in earlier 

Greek seems adequate reason for flouting the MSS here. 

Winer's citation from the Argument to tlie Jyusiris of Isocrates, 

Kari]'yopovv avTou co? on Kaiva SaLfxovia elac^epei, will hardly 

dispose of Blass's " unclassical " (as Plummer supposes), since 

the argument is obviously late.^ We may follow Lightfoot 

and Blass without much hesitation. 

. . „ In classical Greek, as any fifth-form boy 

Nominative for » ^ ^ i • -i ^^i  ^-  \ 

Accusative loi'gets at his peril, the nominative is used 

regularly instead of the accusative as subject 
to the infinitive when the subject of the main verb is the 
same : e^rj ovk awro? aXXa KXewva arpaTTjyetv. This rule 
is by no means obsolete in NT Greek, as passages like 2 Co 
10^ Eom 9^, Jn 7* (WH text), serve to show; but the ten- 
dency towards uniformity has produced a number of violations 
of it. Heb 7^'^ has a superfluous avrov, and so has Lk 2* : 
Mt 26^^ inserts ixe, Phil 3^^ e/xavTov, and so on. Blass, 
p. 238 f., gives instances, and remarks that translations 
from Latin (Viereck, SG 68) exhibit this feature." Kalker 
(p. 280) anticipates Viereck in regarding this as a case of 
jrroptcr hoc as well as 2^ost hoc. But the development of 

^ Dr J. E. Sandys {Aristotle's Constitution of Athens, p. xxviii) makes the 
author of the virbOecns to the Arco/icgiticus "a Christian writer of perliaps the 
sixth century." He kindly informs me that we may assume the same age for 
that to the Busiris. [* See p. 249. 


Greek in regions untouched by Latin shows that no outside 
influence was needed to account for this levelling, which 
was perfectly natural. 

The accus. c. inf. and the on construction 
Construction ^^^^ been mixed in Ac 27^^ by an inadvert- 
ence to which the best Attic writers were 
liable. See the parallels quoted by Winer (p. 426), and add 
from humbler Greek OP 237 (ii/A.D.) BtjXcov otl el ra d\7]di} 
(fiaveLi] /xrjSe Kplcrew^ heladai to Trpdyfxa. Also see Wellh. 23. 

We will proceed to speak of the most 
Infinitive characteristic feature of the Greek infinitive 
in post-Homeric language. " By the sub- 
stantial loss of its dative force," says Gildersleeve (AJP iii. 
195), " tlie infinitive became verbalised ; by the assumption of 
the article it was substantivised again with a decided increment 
of its power." Goodwin, who cites this dictum {MT 315), 
develops the description of the articular infinitive, with 
"its wonderful capacity for carrying dependent clauses and 
adjuncts of every kind," as " a new power in the language, of 
which the older simple infinitive gave hardly an intimation." 
The steady growth of the articular infinitive throughout the 
period of classical prose was not much reduced in the 
Hellenistic vernacular. This is well seen by comparing the 
NT statistics with those for classical authors cited from Gilder- 
sleeve on the same page of Goodwin's 3IT. The highest 
frequency is found in Demosthenes, who shows an average of 
1-25 per Teubner page, while he and his fellow orators 
developed the powers of the construction for taking dependent 
clauses to an extent unknown in the earlier period. In the 
NT, if my calculation is right, there is an average of '68 per 
Teubner page — not much less than that which Birklein gives 
for Plato. The fragmentary and miscellaneous character of 
the papyri make it impossible to apply this kind of test, but 
no reader can fail to observe how perpetual the construction 
is. I have noted 41 exx. in vol. i of BU (361 papyri), which 
will serve to illustrate the statement. An interesting line 
of inquiry, which we may not at present pursue very far, 
concerns the appearance of the articular infinitive in the 
dialects. Since it is manifestly developed to a high degree 
in the Attic orators, we should natu)'ally attribute its fre- 


quency in the Hellenistic vernaculur to Attic elements in 
the Koiv7] ; and this will be rather a strong point to make 
against Kretschmer's view (p. 33), that Attic contributed 
no more than other dialects to the resultant language. To 
test this adequately, we ought to go through the whole 
Sammhing of Greek dialect -inscriptions. I have had to 
content myself with a search through Cauer's representative 
Delectus, which contains 557 inscriptions of all dialects except 
Attic. It will be worth while to set down the scanty 
results. First comes a Laconian inscr. of ii/B.c, 32 ( = Michel 
182) tVl TO /caA-w? . . , Bie^ayvrjKevac. Then the Messenian 
47 ( = M. G94), dated 91 B.C., which has tt/jo tov c. inf. twice, 
the second time with a subject in accusative. Four Cretan exx. 
follow, all from ii/B.c, and all in the same formula, irepl tw 
(once tov) yevia-dat with accus. subject (Nos. 122—5 = M. 55, 
56, 54, 60). The Gortyn Code (Michel 1333, v/b.c.) has no 
ex., for all its length. Then 148 ( = M. 1001, the Will of 
Epikteta), dated cir. 200 B.C., in which we find ttjoo tov tclv 
avvohov rjfieu. No. 157 (M. 417), from Calymnus, dated 
end of Iv/b.c, is with one exception the oldest ex. we have : at 
TrapajevofxevoL rraaav airov^av erroLy^cravTO tov {touJ- 8ia\v6iv- 
Ta<i Tov<i TToXtVa? ra ttot avTov<i TroXtTeveadai, //.er' ofiovoM^;. 
No. 171, from Carpathus, Michel (436) assigns to ii/B.c. : it 
has Trpo tov fiiaOcoOijfieiv. No. 179 (not in M.), from Priene, 
apparently iii/B.c, has [rrrepi t'Iov irapopt^eaOai, Ta<y ■^(opav. 
The Delphian inscr, no. 220 has irpo tov Trapa/meivai. Elis 
contributes one ex., no. 264 ( = M. 197), dated by Michel in 
the middle of Iv/b.c, and so the oldest quoted : irepl Se tw 
aTToaToXafxev . . . to . . . yjrdcfjLafjia. Finally Lesbos gives 
us (no. 431 = M. 357), from ii/B.c, eVt Twt irpay/xaTevdyvai. 
I have looked through Larfeld's special collection of Boeotian 
inscriptions, and find not a single example. Unless the 
selections examined are curiously unrepresentative in this 
one point, it would seem clear that the articular infinitive 
only invaded the Greek dialects when the KoLvrj was already 
arising, and that its invasion was extremely limited in extent. 
To judge from the silence of Meisterhans, the Attic popular 
speech was little affected by it. It would seem to have been 
mainly a literary use, starting in Pindar, Herodotus, and the 
tragedians, and matured by Attic rhetoric. The statistics of 


Birklein (in Schanz Bcitr., Heft 7) show bow it extends during 
the lives of the great writers, thougli evidently a matter of 
personal taste. Thus Sophocles has "94 examples per 100 
lines, Aeschylus "63, and Euripides only •37. Aristoplianes 
has "42 ; but if we left out bis lyrics, the frequency would be 
about the same as in Euripides. This is eloquent testimony 
for the narrowness of its use in colloquial speech of the Attic 
golden age ; and the fact is significant that it does not appear 
in the early Acharnians at all, but as many as 17 times in 
the Plutus, the last product of the poet's genius. Turning to 
prose, we find Herodotus showing only "0 7 examples per Teubner 
page, and only one-fifth of his occurrences have a preposition. 
Thucydides extends the use greatly, his total amounting to 298, 
or more than "5 a page : in the speeches be has twice as many 
as this. The figures for the orators have already been alluded 
to. The conclusion of the whole matter — subject to correction 
from the more thorough investigation which is needed for 
safety — seems to be that the articular infinitive is almost 
entirely a development of Attic literature, especially oratory, 
from which it passed into the daily speech of the least 
cultured people in the later Hellenist world. If this is true, 
it is enough by itself to show how commanding was the part 
taken by Attic, and that the literary Attic, in the evolution 
of the Kotvr]. 

The application of the articular infin. in NT Greek does 
not in principle go beyond what is found in Attic writers. 
We have already dealt with the imputation of Hebraism which 
the frequency of iv tcS c. inf. has raised. It is used 6 times 
in Thucydides, 26 times in Plato, and 16 in Xeuophon ; and 
the fact that it exactly translates the Hebrew infin. with 3 
does not make it any worse Greek, though this naturally in- 
creases its frequency. Only one classical development failed 
to maintain itself, viz. the rare employment of the infin. as a 
full noun, capable of a dependent genitive : thus in Demos- 
thenes, TO 7' ev ^poveiv avrSiv, " their good sense " ; or in Plato, 
Sia Trarro? tov elvai. Heb 2^^ hia ttuvto^ tov ^>> is an exact 
parallel to this last, but it stands alone in NT Greek, though 
Ignatius, as Gildersleeve notes, has ro uSiaKptTov ri/xa)v ^?>. 
The fact that ^P/v was by this time an entirely isolated 
infinitive form may account for its peculiar treatment. A 


similar cause may possibly contribute to the common verna- 
cular (not NT) phrase ek irelv,^ which we compared above 
(p. 81) to the Herodotean uvtI c. anarthrous infin. The 
prepositions which Birklein (p. 104) notes as never used 
with the infin. retain this disqualification in the NT: they 
are, as he notes, either purely poetical or used in personal 
constructions. It may be worth while to give a table of 
relative frequency for the occurrences of the articular infini- 
tive in NT books. Jas has (7=) 1'08 per WH page; 
Heb (23 = ) 1-09; Lk (71=) nearly -99; Paul (106 = ) 
•89 (in Pastorals not at all) ; Ac (49 = ) '7 (-73 in cc. 1-12, 
•68incc. 13-28); 1 Pet (4 = ) '59; Mt (24 = ) '35; Mk 
(13=) -32; Jn (4 = ) '076; Eev (1=) -027. [Mk] le^^" 
has one ex., which makes this writer's figure stand at 
1 -43 : the other NT books have none. It will be found 
that Mt and Mk are about level with the Kosetta Stone.^ 

. The general blurring of the expressions 

Tou c. mf. , . , • J. J £ 

which were once appropriated tor purpose, 

has infected two varieties of the articular infinitive. That 

with Tov started as a pure adnominal genitive, and still 

remains such in many places, as 1 Co 16*, u^lov tov 

•jropeveadat. But though the rov may be forced into one 

of the ordinary genitive categories in a fair proportion of 

its occurrences, the correspondence seems generally to be 

accidental : the extension which began in the classical period 

makes in later Greek a locution retaining its genitive force 

almost as little as the genitive absolute. The normal use of 

TOV c. inf. is telic. With this force it was specially developed 

by Thucydides, and in the NT this remains its principal 

use. We will analyse the exx. given in the concordance, 

omitting those in which rov is governed by a preposition, 

and those which are due to the LXX. Mt has 6 exx. : 

in one of them, 21^^ tov TrtaTeva-ac gives rather the content 

than the purpose of fiere/xeXyjOrjTe. Luke supplies two-thirds 

of the total for the NT. In Lk we have 23 exx., of which 

5 may be due to dependence on a noun, and about one-half 

1 But not to els fta^ai, OP 736 (cir. A.D. 1). Winer (413) cites two exx. 
from Theodoret. See Kiihner^ § 479. 2. Add an ex. with axpL from Plutarch 
p. 256 D. An inscription of iii/B.c. {OGIS 41, Michel 370) has diroaToXeis . . . 
^TTt ras TrapajSoXas rQf SikQv 'Ka.jj.^dveiv : Dittenberger emends. " See p. 241. 


seem clearly final; in Ac there are 21, with 2 adnominal, 
and less than half final. Paul shows l.". (only in liom, Gal, 
1 and 2 Co, Phil), but there is not one in which purpose is 
unmistakable. In Heb there is one adnominal, one (11*^) 
final or quasi- final. Jas 5^^ (object clause), 1 Pet 4^^ 
(adnominal), and the peculiar ^ Eev 12^ supply the remainder. 
Before turning to grammatical detail, let us parenthetically 
commend the statistics just given to the ingenious analysts 
who reject the unity of the Lucan books. The uniformity 
of use is very marked throughout Lk and Ac: cf Ac 27^ 
(" We "-document) with I520 20^, Lk 21^2 with Ac Q^\ Ac 2 0^7 
(" We "-document) with 14^^. Note also the uniform pro- 
portion of final Tov, and tlie equality of total occurrences. 
When we observe that only Paul makes any marked use of 
TOV c. inf., outside Lk and Ac (the two writers together 
accounting for five-sixths of the NT total), and that his use 
differs notably in the absence of the tehc force, we can 
hardly deny force to the facts as a contribution to the 
evidence on the Lucan question. In classifying the uses of 
this TOV, we note how closely it runs parallel with im. Thus 
Lk 17^ avevSeKTov eaTiv rod . . . /i?) e\6elv, and Ac 10^^ 
e^evero tov elaeXOelv (cf 3^-), where the tov clause represents 
a pure noun sentence, in which to would have been more 
correct, may be paralleled at once by irodev ixot tovto Xva 
eXdy; in Lk 1*^. After verbs of commanding we may have 
TOV or iva. We find the simple infin. used side by side with 
it in Lk l'^''^- (purpose) and 1'^^. It is not worth while to 
labour any proof that purpose is not to be pressed into 
any example of tov where the context does not demand 
it ; but we must justify our assertion about Paul. It is 
not meant that there are no possible or even plausible 
cases of final tov, but only that when Paul wishes to express 
purpose he uses other means. In the majority of cases tov 
c. inf. is epexegetic (Eom 1-^ 7^ 8'^, 1 Co 10^^), adnominal 
(Ptoni 1523, 1 Co 910 16^ 2 Co 8^\ Phil S^i), or in a regular 
ablative construction (Ptom 15'"^, 2 Co 1^). The rendering 

^ WH make this a quotation from Dan lO'''--": the former verse names 
Michael, who in the latter says eVioTp^/'w rod TroXefj-ijaai /xera kt\ (Theodotion). 
See below. 


" so as to " will generally express it. The nearest to pure final 
force are Eom 6^ and Phil ?^'^ ; but in both it would be 
quite as natural to recognise result as purpose — the main 
purpose is expressed by a clause with I'va in each case, and 
the rov c. iufin. comes in to expound what is involved in 
the purpose stated. An extreme case of explanatory infin. 
is that in Eev 12'^, where 7roXe/Ao<? is explained by rov 
7ro\efi7]aai with subject in the nominative. The construction 
is loose even for the author of Eev, but the meaning is clear : 
we might illustrate the apposition by Vergil's " et certa- 
men erat, Corydon cum Thyrside, magnum ; " or more closely 
still — if we may pursue our former plan of selecting English 
sentences of similar grammar and widely different sense — 
by such a construction as " There will be a cricket match, 
the champions to 'play the rest." 

Two other modes of expressing purpose 
ripos TO and j^rj^yg been, to a more limited extent, infected 
by the same general tendency. JTpo? to 
c. infin. occurs 5 times in Mt and once in Mk, with clearly 
final force, except perhaps in Mt 5-^, where it might rather 
seem to explain ^Xiiroiv than to state purpose. Lk 18^ 
and Ac 3^^ stand alone in Luke, and the former is hardly 
final : we go back to a more neutral force of Trpo? — " with 
reference to the duty " (Winer). Paul has it 4 times, 
and always to express the " subjective purpose " in the 
agent's mind, as W. F. Moulton observes (WM 414 n., after 
Meyer and Alford). This then is a locution in which the 
final sense has been very little invaded. Ek to c. infin. 
is almost exclusively Pauline. It occurs thrice in Mt, in 
very similar phrases, all final ; Mk, Lk and Ac have it once 
each, with final force fairly certain. Jas and 1 Pet have 
two exx. each, also final ; and the same may probably be 
said of the 8 exx. in Heb. The remaining 44 exx. are evenly 
distributed in Paul, esp. Eom, Th, and Co — none in Col, 
Philem and the Pastorals. Westcott on Heb 5^ distinguishes 
between 'tva and et? to, which he notes as occurring in 
close connexion in a considerable number of passages : " iW 
appears to mark in each case the direct and immediate 
end, while et? to indicates the more remote result aimed 
at or reached." This seems to be true of both rov and 


ek TO. Since we have seen that 'lua itself has lar^rely lost 
its appropriation to telic force, it would naturally follow 
that el<i TO would lose it more easily : on tlie whole, 
however, this is hardly the case. On Heb 11^, Moulton 
and Westcott, independently, insist on the perseverance of 
the final meaning, in view of the writer's usage elsewhere. 
The eh to r-^eyovevat (mark the perfect) will in this case 
depend on KaTijpTicrOac, and describe a contemplated effect 
of the/«^ in Gen 1. Paul's usage is not so uniform. It is 
difficult to dispute Burton's assertion (MT | 411) that in 
Rom 1 2^ 2 Co 8«, Gal 3" (not, I think,i in 1 Th 2i«) ek to 
"expresses tendency, measure of effect, or result, conceived 
or actual." Add (with WM 414 n.) exx. of eZ? to expressing 
the content of a command or entreaty (as 1 Th 2^-), or 
acting for the epexegetic inf. (1 Th 4^). Purpose is so 
remote here as to be practically evanescent. We must 
however agree with SH in rejecting Burton's reasoning as 
to Eom 1-'' ; for this belongs to the category of passages 
dealing with Divine action, in which contemplated and actual 
results, final and consecutive clauses, necessarily lose their 
differentia. It has been often asserted — cf especially a 
paper by Mr A. Carr on " The Exclusion of Chance from the 
Bible," in Expos, v. viii. 181 ff. — that Hebrew teleology is 
responsible for the blurring of the distinction between pur- 
pose and consequence : it is a " subtle influence of Hebrew 
thought on the grammar of Hellenistic Greek." This might 
be allowed — as a Hebraism of thought, not language — in 
passages like that last mentioned, where the action of God 
is described. But the idea that " Hebrew teleology " can 
have much to do with these phenomena as a whole is put 
out of court by the appearance of the same things in lan- 
guage which Semitic influences could not have touched. We 
have already shown this for 'iva. A few exx. 
Evidence of the ^^ ^-^^^1 ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ vernacular 

Papyri, etc. .f r U t.\ ' ^ - 

witnesses: — JjU boo (i/A.D.) afieXecv tov 

ypu(f)etv. BU 830 (I/a.D.) ■)(^pr} ovv eroi/xdaeiv Koi irpoaipetu, 

Xv e;^t TOV -n-wkelv: cf Mt 18^^ Jn 5^, for parallel construc- 

^ See Findlay CGT in loc, where strong reasons are given for accepting 
EUicott's interjiretation, seeing here the purpose of God. 


tions with e^&). BU 1031 (ii/A.D.) (ppovrjaop rod nroirjaai. 
JHS, 1902, 369 (Lycaonian inscr., iii/A.D. or earlier) tu> 
Sc'^oToiJ,t]aavTi fie rod to XoeTrov ^t]v eh (cause). NP 16 
(iii/A.D.) KwXvovTe'i rov fir] aireipeiv : cf Lk 4*^, Ac 1 4^^, etc. 
BU 36 (ii/iii A.d.) tov ^r]v /xeTaaTrja-ai : cf 2 Co 1^. BU 
164 (ii/iii A.d.) TrapaKoXa) ere . . . ireccrat avrov tov eXdelu. 
BM 23 (ii/B.C.) irpoaheofxevov /jlov tov TreptTroitjaai. BU 595 
(i/A.D.) TOV ae fjui^i evpeOrjvai, apparently meaning " because 
of your not being found," as if tw : ^ the document is illiterate 
and naturally ejects the dative. OP 86 (Iv/a.d.) e'^o? eaTlv 
TOV TTapaa-'^edrjvai. OP 275 (I/a.D.) tov airoairaOrivai 
eTTiTeLfiov. CPIt 156 i^ovalav , . . tov . . . deaOai : cf 
1 Co 9*^. BU 46 (ii/A.D.) evKai,pia<; . . . tov evpelv : cf 
Lk 22*^. BU 625 (ii/iii a.d.) irdv irolrja-ov tov ae aireveyKe : 
so 845 (ii/A.D.). The usage is not common in the papyri. 
Winer's plentiful testimony from LXX, Apocrypha, and 
Byzantine writers (WM 411) illustrates what the NT 
statistics suggest, that it belongs to the higher stratum of 
education in the main. For et? to we may quote the re- 
current formula et? to iv firjhevl fie/ju^dPjvai, which is decidedly 
telic: as PFi 2 (iii/A.D.) quater, OP 82 (iii/A.D.). Miscel- 
laneous exx. may be seen in OP 69 (ii/A.D.), BU 18 (ii/A.D.), 
195 (ii/A.D.), 243 (ii/A.D.), 321 (iii/A.D.), 457 (ii/A.D.), 651 
(ii/A.D.), 731 (ii/A.D.), and 747 (ii/A.D.). Like the rather 
commoner Trpo? to, it seems to carry the thought of a remoter 
purpose, the tendency towards an end. This is well shown by 
the cases in which the main purpose is represented by iva or 
OTTO)?, and an ultimate object is tacked on with the articular 
infinitive. Thus BU 226 (I/a.D.) otto)? elSfj irapeaeaTai. 
( = -6ai) avTov . . . OTUV ktX . . . Trpo? to tv')(Iv /xe tt}? utto 
(TOV ^orjOei'm. OP 237 (ii/A.D.) otto)? (f)povTi(Tr]<i uKoXovda 
irpa^ai . . . 'irpo<i to firj irepl twv avTwv nraXiv avTov 
evTVj^dvetv. ih. \^(,va\ h' ovv . . . 8ia/xevrj . . . i] ■^pT]aei<i 
TT/JO? TO fir) irdXiv diroypa^ri'; herfOrjvaL. This kind of final 
force is just what we have seen in nearly all the NT exx. ; 
nor do those in which the purpose is least evident go beyond 
what we see in these other illustrations. 

Before dealing with the Participle proper, we may 

. . ^ ___ . - 

^ Cf 2 Co 2^^ ; l^Vh (ii/B.O.) ^XXws ^k tQ fxi^Oiv e'xetv Tr\i)v rod JlroXefxaiov, 


briefly touch on another category closely connected with it. 

Brugmann has shown {Idg. Forsch. v. 80 ff") that the 

Greek participle, formed with the sufiixes 

The Participle _^^^ -mcno-, and -loos- (-^ls-), represents the 
and the Verbal ..^, . ^. . , \  ■, • ,. , , 

Adjectives proethnic participle, which was intimately 

connected with the tense system ; while 

there are primitive verbal adjectives, notably that in -to-, 

which in other languages — Latin and English arc obvious 

examples — have become associated more intimately with the 

verb. The -ro'i form in Greek has never come into the 

verb system ; and its freedom from tense connexions may 

be seen from the single fact that " amatus est " and " he is 

\o\ed " represent different tenses, while " scri])tv.m est " and 

" it is writtc/i " agree.^ Even in Latin, a word like iacitus 

illustrates the absence of both tense and voice from the 

adjective in its primary use. Brugmann's paper mainly 

concerns Latin and the Italic dialects, and we shall only 

pursue the subject just as far as the interpretation of the 

Greek -to? calls us. The absence of voice has just been 

remarked on. This is well shown by the ambiguity of aSvva- 

Tov in lioni 8^: is it "incapable," as in Ac 14^ Eom 15\ 

or " impossible," as in the other NT occurrences ? Grammar 

cannot tell us : it is a purely lexical problem. As to 

absence of tense, we may note that both in Greek and 

English this adjective is wholly independent of time and of 

" Aktionsart." Both dyair'nTO'i and beloved may answer 

indifferently to a<ya'7rcofxevo<i, '^yaTTTjfMevo'?, and ajair'qdel';. 

This fact has some exegetical importance. Thus in Mt 25^^ 

the timeless adjective " cursed " would answer to the Greek 

KaTaparoL. The perfect Kari^pa/jbivot has the full perfect 

force, "having become the subjects of a curse"; and this 

makes the predicate translation (RVmg "under a curse") 

decidedly more probable. That our -d (-n) participle has no 

tense force in itself, and that consequently we have no exact 

representative of either present, aorist or perfect participle 

passive in Greek, is a point that will often need to be borne 

in mind. The very word just used, ho7me, translates the 

1 The verbal adjective in -no- stands parallel with that in -to- from primitive 


present alpofievov in Mk 2^, while its punctiliar equivalent 
hrought represents (RVmg) the aorist eve-^Oeiaav in 2 Pet 1^^ 
and the similar taken aioay stands for rjpixevov in Jn 20^; 
and yet all these are called " past participle " in English 
grammars. Having cleared the way for a lexical treatment 
of the verbals in -t6<;, by leaving usage in each case to decide 
whether an intransitive, an active, or a passive meaning is to 
be assigned to each word, we may give two or three examples 
which will lead to a new point. HvveT6<; is a good example 
of an ambiguous word : it is always active, " intelligent," in 
NT, but in earlier writers it is also passive. LS cite 
Euripides IT 1092 6v^vveT0<; ^vverolac ^od as combining 
the two. ''Ao-vveTO'; in Eom 1^^ is also active, but the next 
word a(7vv06To<i, combined with it by paronomasia, gets its 
meaning from the middle o-vvOeaOai, " not covenanting." An 
example of the passive, and at the same time of the free use 
of these adjectives in composition, is OeoStSaKTo^; " God- 
tauglit." Intransitive verbs naturally cannot show passive 
meaning. Thus ^6aT6<i fervidus, from ^e{a)ai " to boil." But 
when we examine 6vr]T6<i, we see it does not mean " dying " 
but " mortal " ; iraOrjTO'i is probably not " suffering " but 
"capable of suffering," ^^aT^z'&ife So often with transitive 
verbs. " The ' invincible ' Armada " would be rendered o 
ariTrriTo<i Br] o-ToXo? : invictus would be similarly used in 
Latin, and " unconquered " can be read in that sense in 
English. A considerable number of these adjectives answer 
thus to Latin words in -Mlis, as will be seen from the lexicon : 
we need cite no more here. It will be enough merely to 
mention the gerundive in -reo?, as it is only found in Lk 5^^ 
/3\'t]Teov "one must put." It is not unknown in tlie papyri, 
but can hardly have belonged to the genuine popular speech. 

A considerable proportion of what we 

Indicative ^^^^® ^° ^^^ about the Participle has been 
anticipated. One Hellenistic use, already 
adumbrated in the discussion of the Imperative (pp. 180 ff.), 
may be finished off at this point, before we go on to describe 
subordinate participial clauses. That the participle can be 
used for indicative or imperative seems to be fairly estab- 
lished now by the papyri. Let us present our evidence 
before applying it to the NT exx., which we have already 


given so far as the imperative is concerned. For indicative 
the following may be cited: — Tb P 14 (ii/r..c.) tw/- ovv 
a-TjfiaLVOfjbevcoL 'Hpan iraprj'yyeXKOTe^: evooircov, " I gave notice 
in person" (no verb follows). Tb P 42 (ih.) j^St/CT/z^eVo? (no 
verb follows). AP 78 (ii/A.D.) ^(.av irda'^cov e/facrroTe, etc. 
(no verl)). Tb P 58 (ii/p..c.) 'ypd-\lra<i oTrft)? ei'S^?, kuI <tu 
dvaycovlaro'; taOet. NP 49 (iii/A.D.) ort ". . . e^ayp7]aavTe^ 
. . . Kol . . . a(f>eTepiaavre<;, koX dirdvTrjKa avToi<;. . . ." On 
GH 26 (ii/B.c), <7Vve7nKe\€vova7]<i t^9 tovtcov fir}Tpo<i 0pf]pi<; 
T/79 TIa(bTo<i crvu€vSoKovvT€<i Twv irpoyeypadix/jiivcov), the edd. 
remark : " The construction is hopeless ; one of the participles 
crvveTTiK. or avvevS. must be emended to the indicative, and 
the cases altered accordingly." The writer of the papyrus 
uses his cases in a way which would have convicted him of 
Semitic birth before any jury of NT grammarians not very 
long ago ; but if awevSoKovfjLev is meant by the crvvev- 
SoKovvre'i, we may perhaps translate without emendation, 
taking tmv it. as partitive gen. like Ac 21^^ {s2qn\, p. 73). 
In Par P 63 (ii/B.c.) evrev^iv rj/xlv irpocfiepo/uLevoi comes in so 
long a sentence that the absence of finite verb may be mere 
anacoluthon. OP 725 (ii/A.D.) Be 'H. evSoKcov TouTOi<i irdai 
Kol eKheihd^eiv, " H. agrees to all this, and to teach," etc. In 
CPE, 4 (I/a.d.), Kal fjirjheva KcoXvovTa, for KtoXveiv, seems to be 
the same thing in oo^at. ohl., but more clearly due to anaco- 
luthon. Por the imperative there is the formula seen in 
G 35 (i/B.C.) iavrcov 8e einp,e\6ixevoL "v vyiaivrjTe (1st person 
plural precedes): so Par P 63, G 30, Path P 1, Tb P 12 
(all Ptolemaic), etc. FP 112 (I/a.d., translated above, 
p. 178) kirkypv {= -cov) Zw'ikwi Kal elva avrov /j-t] SucrwTTjjcri;?, 
Tb P 50 (I/b.C.) eV oh idv irpoaBajade fxov i'lmda-crovrh fioc 
irpoOvfiorepov — following a gen. al)S. (This is a letter from 
" an official of some importance " (G. & H.), who bears the 
Greek name Posidonius. We may observe that the parti- 
cipial use we are discussing is in the papyri not at all a 
mark of inferior education.) It will be seen that the use, 
though fairly certain, was not in the vernacular very common. 
It may be recalled that in a prehistoric stage Latin used tlie 
participle for an indicative, where the 2nd plur. middle for 
some reason became unpopular ; and scquiminl = eiro/xevoi not 
only established itself in the present, but even produced 


analogy-formations in future and imperfect, and in the subjunc- 
tive.^ Cf the constant ellipsis of est in perfect indie, passive. If 
further analogies may be permitted, we miglit refer to the plaus- 
ible connexion claimed between the 3rd plural indicative and 
the participle in all languages of our family : hheronti {fervid, 
^epovai, Gothic hairand, etc.), and hheront- (fc^'cns, (fiepwv, 
hairanch). These analogies are only adduced to show that the 
use of tlie participle always lay ready to hand, with or without 
the auxiliary verb, and was a natural resource whenever the 
ordinary indicative (or, less often, imperative) was for any 
cause set aside. In D we find this use apparently arising 
from the literal translation of Aramaic: see Wellh. 21. 
We may proceed to give some NT passages in which the 
participle appears to stand for an indicative : those where 
the imperative is needed were given on pp. 180 ff. As before, 
we shall begin with those from Winer's list (p. 441 f.) in which 
we may now reject his alternative construction. Kom 5^^ 
Kav)((jiJixevoi is most naturally taken this way : Winer's explana- 
tion seems forced. L and the rest correctly glossed the true 
reading with their Kav)((M[xe6a. In Heb 7"^ we might have to 
take refuge in explaining ipfirjvevo/jievo^ as an indicative, if we 
felt ourselves tied to 09 a-vvavTr]aa<i in v.^ which is read by 
XABC^DEK 17. But it seems clear that we may here 
accept the conjecture of C*LP and the later MSS, the 
doubled sigma being a primitive error parallel with those in 
1135 ryvvaiKa<i (i^AD and the new Oxyrhynchus papyrus) and 
11^ auTov Tm 060) (where Hort's avTcp rov ©eov is now found 
in the papyrus, as well as in Clement) : this is an excellent 
witness to the scrupulous accuracy of the /S-text in preserving 
even errors in its ancient source. In Heb 8^^ 10^^ SiSoix; 
is parallel to eTnypd'xJrco, if the order of thought is to be 
maintained : the LXX had Si8ov<i Scoaco, but AQ and Heb 
omit Sft)cro) (because there was only the simple Qal in the 
Hebrew ?), leaving BlSov<; to do the work of an indicative. 
Winer (p. 717) would make e7riypd\lfco a substitute for parti- 
ciple, as in Col l-*", 1 Co 7^^ etc. In Ac 24^ evp6vTe<; arrives 
at the goal by the way of anacoluthon — Luke cruelly reports 

^ Scquiminl imperative has a different history: ef the old infinitive eir^/Mevai, 
Skt. sacamane. See p. 241. 


the orator verbatim. In 2 Co V' OXi/So/xevoi is most simply 
taken in this way : perhaps 7rap€KX)'j67]H€v was in mind for 
the main verb. 'ATrayyeXkwv in the a-text (HLP and cur- 
sives) of Ac 26-*^ woukl be explained thus, though the influence 
of iyevofji'tjv is still consciously present : were this a marked 
irregularity, the Syrian revisers would hardly have admitted 
it. In Eom 12*^ exovre^ is I think for e^ofiev : see above, 
p. 183. In Eev 10^ ^X^^ is ^or el'^ev : Winer allows that 
" i(TTL [rather ^v] may be supplied." So 21^^- ^^ A different 
class of participle altogether is that coming under the head 
of " hanging non)inative," which our own nominative absolute 
translates so exactly that we forget the genitive presumed in 
the Greek. Heb 10^ will be a case in point if the text is 
sound — Westcott and Peake acce])t hvvarai, which is strongly 
supported by the combination DH boh vg : the EV (so W. F. 
Moulton, Comvi. in loc.) follows the construction expressly 
vouched for by Theophylact, reading ej^wy as an " absolute 
clause." In Phil 1^*^ e')(ovTe<i similarly takes the place of a gen. 
abs. (or dat. agreeing with viiiv) — the construction is taken up 
as if ekd^ere had preceded.^ The idiom in fact is due merely 
to anacoluthon : see other exx. in WM 716 and Jannaris 
HG 500. Answering Viteau, who as usual sees Hebraism 
here. Thumb observes {Hdlenismus 131) that the usage is 
found in classical Greek, and in Hellenistic both in and 
outside Biblical Greek, " and is the precursor of the process 
which ends in MGr with the disappearance of the old 
participial constructions, only an absolute form in -ovra^ 
being left." This construction is identical, to be sure, with 
the nom. 'pendens unaccompanied by the participle : it is as 
common in English as in Greek, and just as " Hebraistic " in 
the one as in the other. 

We saw when we first introduced the 
with ' participial substitute for indicative or impera- 

tive (p. 182), that its rationale was practically 
the suppression of the substantive verb. Our next subject 
will therefore naturally be the use of the participle in peri- 

^ Liglitfoot rejects the alternative punctuation (WH) which wouhl treat 
Tjrts . . . Trao-xe'" as a parenthesis. So Kennedy {EOT in loc.) — riglitly, it 
seems to me. 



phrastic tenses. Since the question of Semitism is rather 
acute here, we will deal with it first. Blass (pp. 202 ff.) 
discovers the influence of Aramaic especially in the peri- 
phrastic imperfect: in the case of Mt, Mk, Lk and Ac 1—12 
" this is no doubt due to their being direct translations from 
Aramaic originals " — " based on direct translations," would be 
a better way to put it. Schmid (Attic, iii. 113 f.) has a 
valuable note, in which, after sketching the extent of this 
periphrasis in classical Greek and literary Koivrj, he remarks 
that in Par P he can only find it in future-perfects, and 
twice in optative with aor. participle. Comparing this scanty 
result witli " the extraordinary abundance of the participial 
periphrasis in NT . . ., one cannot avoid separating the NT 
use from that of the Koivrj, and deriving it from the Heb. and 
Syr. application of the participle." We can of course have no 
objection to this, within limits. In translated Greek, as we 
have seen again and again, we expect to find over-literal 
renderings, — still more to find an overdoing of correct 
idioms which answer exactly to locutions characteristic of the 
language rendered. The latter is the case here. No one 
denies that periphrasis is thoroughly Greek : see the page 
and a half of classical exx. in Kiihner-Gerth i. 38 ff. It is 
only that where Aramaic sources underlie the Greek, there 
is inordinate frequency of a use whicli Hellenistic has not 
conspicuously developed. Of Wellh. 25. The exx. in 
Jn (see Blass 203 n.) and Paul we may treat on purely 
Greek lines. By way of further limiting the usage, we 
observe that the imperfect is the only tense in which corre- 
spondence with Aramaic is close enough to justify much of a 
case for dependence. No less an authority than Wellhausen 
warns us not to carry the thesis into the imperative : " "laOi 
in imperative before participle or adjective often occurs 
(Mk b^\ Lk le^O, and in consideration of Prov 3^ LXX is 
not to be treated as an Aramaism " {Co7mn. on Mt 5^^). Then 
we note the papyrus usage. "E'x^cov earl and Seov eari (with 
other impersonal verbs) are both classical and vernacular. 
The future eaofxaL c. perf. part, is well kept up in the papyri, 
and so is the periphrastic pluperfect: thus, OP 285 (I/a.d.) 
ov T^fiTjv evS€Sv/jLevo<{ 'y^LTWva, Par P 8 (ii/B.C.) wv rjiMrjv hi avTOJV 
Trapafxe/uberprjKVLa. There can be no thought of Aramaisms 


here. But BIT 183 (I/a.d.), 6</)' ov xpovov ^waa y, is rather 
Imiited ilhistratiou for the present participle in this usage. 
Winer however cites Lucian, observing that its common appear- 
ance in the LXX " was but seldom suggested by the Hebrew." 
Aa to classical Greek, note Dr W. G. Kutherford's suggestive 
little paper, OR xvii. 249, in which he shows that the idiom 
imparts a special emphasis. So in Thuc. iv. 54 ?]aav Be xii/es 
Kal ryevo/xeuoL Ta> NcKia \6<yot, "some proposals were even 
actually made to N." Antiphon (Fr. M. 3. G7) r)v o ryp2(}io<i 
evTavda peirayv, " the puzzle did indeed mean as much." 
Aristoph. Acli. 484 earrjKaq; ouk el Karainwv EvpiTriBrjp ; 
" afraid to go ! not effectually saturated with Euripides ! " May 
we not apply this in the originally Greek parts of NT — e.g. 
Gal 1"^-, " I was entirely unknown . . . only they had been 
hearing . . ." ? Paul has only one other ex, in imperfect, 
Phil 2-^, where eiTLirodwv and uBtj/jlovoiv seem decidedly adjec- 
tival, and not at all improved by reading them as imperfect. 
(No one would cite 2 Co 5^*^.) Blass well remarks that in 
Jn "in most passages ^v has a certain independence of its 
own"; and he further notes that in Ac 13-28, where 
Aramaic sources are almost entirely absent, the Semitisms 
fail, except in 22^^, in a speech delivered in Aramaic. The 
total nmiiber of exx. of pres. partic. with imperf. of elvai is 
for Mt 3 (only 1-^ possibly Aramaising), Mk 16, Lk 30, 
Ac (1-12) 17, (13-28) 7, Jn 10, Paul 3, 1 Pet U Large 
deductions would have to be made from these figures, on any 
theory, to get the maximum of exx. for the supposed literal 
translation of an Aramaic periphrastic imperfect. Even in 
Mk and Luke the yv is generally very distinct from the 
participle ; and whatever was the Aramaic original, we may 
be quite sure that such expressions as we find in Mk 10-'- or 
Lk 4^^ owe nothing to it in this way. See p. 2 4 'J. 

The participle as a whole has diverged so little from 
earlier usage that we have not very much more to say. 
The tenses need no further discussion in this volume ; and 
for our present purpose little need bo added to what was 
said about the articular participle on pp. 120 f. An 

' I count eoTois as a present, but omit ^^6;^ ■Tjv. Jn 1" is ineliuleil, but not 
Lk 3--\ 


idiomatic use of o &v may be noted in Ac 13^ Kara ri]i> 
ouaav eKKKrja-lav, "the local church," 14^^ D rov 6vro<; Aio^ 

Upoirokeoi^ (or tt/oo iroXew^)} Gf Ramsay's 
Particiule remark {Ch. in Rom. Emp. 52, quoting J. A. 

Eobinson), that in Ac o &v " introduces some 
technical phrase, or some term which it marks out as having 
a technical sense (cf 5^'' 13^ 28^'^), and is almost equivalent 
to ToO ovo/xa^o/xevov" Dean Eobinson has not mentioned 
this in his note on Eph 1^, though an ingenious person 
might apply it there to the text with ev 'Ecfyeacp absent ; but 
the usual view needs no defence against such an alternative. 
With at ovaai in Rom 13^ we may compare Par P 5 (ii/fi.c.) 
e(^ lepiojv Kal lepeiwv twv ovrav koX ovawv. On the crucial 
passage Rom 9^ see SH p. 235 f., with whom I agree, though 
the argument that " He who is God over all," would have 
to be 6 eVt TT. 6. might perhaps be met by applying the 
idiom noted above for Ac, with a different nuance, ©eo^i 
may still be subject, not predicate, without making wv 
otiose : the consciousness of Ex 3^^ might fairly account 
for its insertion. It is exegesis rather than grammar which 
makes the reference to Christ probable. One other Pauline 
passage claims a brief note, Gol 2^, where the natural o? 
a-vXajcoy/ja-ei is replaced by o avXaycoyMv, to give " direct- 
ness and individuality to the reference " (Lightfoot). Rela- 
tive clauses are frequently ousted by the articular participle, 
which (as Blass observes) had become synonymous therewith. 
There is a marked diminution in the use of the parti- 
ciple with verbs like Tvy^dvco, dp'^o/xai, XavOdvw, ^a'lvopbat, 

etc. But this was, partly at any rate, mere 
Participle as • i - n ' i. • t ^ 

Complement. 'Occident, for Tvyxav(o c. part, is exceedingly 

common in the papyri : " I happen to be " 

is a phrase NT writers would instinctively avoid. KaXw? 

7rot?;cret9 c. aor. part, (once or twice infin., but the participle 

is overwhelmingly predominant) is the normal way of saying 

" please " in the papyri, and is classical. So 3 Jn '^, and 

in the past Ac 10^3, Phil 4^4 : cf 2 Pet l^^. I cannot agree 

with Blass's " incorrectly ev Trpdaa-ecv in Ac 15'^^" (p. 245) — 

^ Cf such phrases as rod ovtos /j.-qvos xo'^f, NP 49 (iii/A.D.), "the current 

': I 


except in the query he attaches to the remark. Surely this 
is an ordinary conditional sentence, " If you keep yourselves 
free from these things, you will prosper " ? Ev irom^aere, from 
vernacular usage, would suggest " you will oblige us " ; but 
Blass can hardly mean this. With verbs like oTBa, o/xoXoyo), 
fxavOavo), the participle is being encroached upon : it a])pears 
regularly in 2 Co 12^, 1 Jn 4^ (not B), 2 Jn^ Lk 8^«, 
Ac 24^*^, but is generally replaced by ace. and inf. or a on 
clause. So Par P 44 (ii/B.C.) <yivwaKe fxe TreiropevaOai, and 
the recurrent fyLvooa-Ketv ere deXco 6tl : for the participle 
we can quote BU 151 (Christian period — cctOl), TP 1 (ii/B.c. 
— 6/A0X0709), NP 1 (ii/A.D. — el /judOoifii, the optative of which 
suggests culture). Of course Phil 4^^, efxaOov . . . elvai " I 
have learned how to be," is classically correct : 1 Tim S^^ is 
in any case no ex. of fiavOdvco c. part., for this could only mean 
"learn that they are going about." (The EV rendering is 
supported by Winer with Plato Euthyd. 276b 01 dfia6el<i apa 
aocfiol fxavdavovat,, and the parallel phrase hihuaKeiv tlvcl 
ao(ji6v : Field adds from Chrysostom el mrpo? fxeWeL<; 
liavOdveLv, with other parallels. The construction — /xavOcivo) 
as passive of hihaaKw — is not unnatural in itself. Despite 
Weiss, the absolute fxavO. seems intolerable, and there is no 
real alternative, unless with Blass we boldly insert elvai.) 

We come then to the manifold uses of 
Participial ^^^^ participle as forming an additional clause 

in the sentence. This is one of the great 
resources of Greek, in which the poverty of Latin shows 
markedly by contrast. Our own language comes much 
nearer, but even with the help of auxiliaries we cannot 
match the wealth of Greek : thus, we cannot by our participle 
distinguish \e\vK(a^ and Xuo-a?. The elasticity of Greek 
however has its disadvantages, such as the possibility of 
supplying in translation particles as widely apart as hecanse 
and aWwufjh. But it seldom happens that serious ambiguity 
arises from this absence of strict logical differentiation. 

W^e need spend little space in classifying participial 
usages. We have already seen (pp. 170 f.) that one important 
criterion has disappeared in Hellenistic, by the encroachments 

of fir) over the whole field, when in classical 
In Conditional, ^^^^^^ .^ ^^^ essentially conditional. We 


return to this point presently. The participle in conditional 
clauses is still found very freely. It stands for idv c. 
aor. subj. in Lk 9^^ compared with Mt IG-*^; for et c. pres. 
indie, in 1 Co 11-^. There seem to be no exx. of its sub- 
stitution for et c. opt., or el c. indie, irreal. ; but this is an 
accident, due to the relatively small number of sentences of 

^ . .. „ the kind. Another class is called by Blass 
"Conjunctive, ^^ . ,. „ ^ r,,- -i^^ ■> - ^ ' 

'conjunctive : 1 iim l^** ayvocov Giroirjaa 

(cf Ac 3") is his ex. In Mt G^^ we have a choice — " Who 

can by worrying," or " even if he does worry, add a span to his 

. life ? " Concessive clauses are often expressed 

' with the participle alone : Eom 1^^ " though 

they know," Jas 3* " big though they are," 1 Co 9^0 " free 

though I am," Jude^ (not causal, as Winer), etc. Where 

ambiguity is possible, we sometimes find the meaning fixed by 

Kalirep, as Thil 3-*, 2 Pet 1^^ and Heb ter ; once by KauTot, 

Heb 4^ Kal ravra Heb 11^^ or Kai 76 Ac 17^^ — note 

the ov there surviving, with characteristic 

' emphasis. The opposite causal sense is ex- 
ceedingly common : so Ac 42\ Heb 6^ (unless temporal), Jas 
2^, Mt l^**, etc. Purpose is less often expressed by the parti- 
ciple, as the future was decaying : ^ we have 
' however Mt 27^^, and two or three in Luke. 

The present sometimes fulfils this function, as in Ac 15^^. 
Finally come the temjwral clauses, or those which describe 
Temijoral and ^^^^ attendant circumstances of an action : e.g. 
Attendant Mt 13^ ware avrov eh ttXoIov e/jL^dvra Kad- 
Circumstances fjadai, " when he had entered, he sat down." ^ 
Clauses. -^^ should not usually put a temporal 
clause to represent these, as it would overdo the emphasis : 
in comparatively few cases, like Ac 17^ and similar narra- 
tive passages, we might replace with iiret or ore. Our 
Enghsh participle is generally the best representative, unless 
we change it to the indicative witli and : Latin, unless the 
ablative absolute can be used, necessarily has recourse to 
cum c. subj., its normal method of expressing attendant 
circumstances. The pleonastic participles Xa^cov, dvaard^, 

1 It was not however by any means dead : ci' the string of tinal fut. jiarti- 
ciplfs in OP 727 (ii/A.D.) ;" BU 98 (iii/A.D.) etc. "' See p. 241 . 


iropev6e'i<;, aveXdcov, largely occurring in translated passages, 
have been already referred to (p. 14). One interesting 
Aramaism may be noted here from Wellhausen (p. 22). He 
asserts that in Mk 2'^ \aXel l3Xaa^7]fiel (without stop) liter- 
ally translates two Aramaic participles, the second of wiiich 
should in Greek appear as a participle. In Lk 22''^ we find 
^\aa-(f)r]fiovvTe<; eXeyov correctly. But it must be noted that 
with the EV punctuation Mk I.e. is perfectly good Greek, so 
that we have no breach of principle if we do allow this 
account of the passage. 

The large use of participles in narrative, both in gramma- 
tical connexion with the sentence and in the gen. abs. con- 
struction (p. 74), is more a matter of style than of grammar, 
and calls for no special examination here. 

We may close our discussion with some 
.   , notes on the places in which the ordinary 

rule, that /x.^ goes with the participle, is set 
aside. The number of passages is not large, and they may 
well be brought together.^ Mt (2 2^1) and Jn (lO^^^ have one 
each; Luke (Lk 6^^^ Ac 7^ 262^ 28^'^-'^) five; and there are 
two each in Heb (ll^-^s) and 1 Pet (1^ 2^^ — a quotation). 
Paul has eight passages (Horn 9^^ and Gal 4:'^'^ his — quoted ; 
1 Co y26, 2 Co 4s- 9 qnatcr, Gal 4^, Phil 3^, Col 2^^, 1 Th 2^). 
Before discussing them, let us put down some papyrus exx. 
for ov. OP 471 (ii/A.D.) rov qvk eV XeuKai^ iaOPjaiv iv 
Oearpcp Kadicravra: cf Mt I.e. OP 491 (ii/A.D.) iav TeXevTi]a(o 
ovSeTTO) ireTrXr^pwKorcov (when they are not yet 25). AP 78 
(ii/A.D.) ov Svvafjievo'i ijKaprepeiv €7nSi8cofj.t : contrast 1 Th 3^. 
OP 726 (ii/A.D.) ov hvvdixevo<i Si' aadeveiav irXevaat since he 
cannot): so 727 (ii/A.D.). Tb P 41 (ii/B.C.) ov ajo'^aaa- 
fjbevo'i ( = -ov) cdv e')(op.ev . . . Trlarecov (in a long gen. abs. 
succession): so Par P 40 ovre rod lepov aroj(aadp.evoi ovre 
rov Kokcos €^oi>ro<;. Par P l.'> (ii/B.C.) Kparovaiv ovk dva-nkpi,- 
■\lravT6<i rrjv ^epvrjv. Tb P 34 (ii/B.C.) fxr] TrapapoxXeida) (sic) 
vtt' ovSepu^. BU 361 (ii/A.D.) X^P^^ ^^'^ ^'X^^' ^^'^ etriord- 
fxevo^ TL eKelvo<; dTre/cpeLvaro. See also Par P 14, OP 286 
(i/A.D.), TP 1 (ii/B.c), 3 and 8 (ii/B.c). In many of these 

^ I omit ouic i^bv, used for iudic, and the common veruaeiikr phrase ol'-x o 



exx. we can distinctly recognise, it seems, the lingering con- 
sciousness that the proper negative for a statement of a 
downright fact is oi). The same feeling may have made ov 
rise to the lips when an emphatic phrase was wanted, as in 
the illiterate Tb P 34 above. The closeness of the participle 
to the indicative in the kinds of sentence found in this list 
makes the survival of ov natural. Much the same principles 
may be applied to the NT, though in Luke, Paul and Heb 
we have also to reckon with the literary consciousness of an 
educated man, which left some of the old idioms even where 
[x-)] had generally swept them away. In two passages we 
have ov and fm] in close contact. Mt 22^^ (see parallel 
above) is followed in the king's question by ttw? elarfkOe^i 
oihe (xrj 6-^(ov . . . ; The distinction is very natural : the 
first is a plain fact, the second an application of it. The 
emphasis would have been lost by substituting fiy^. In 
Pallis's MGr version of the Gospels the two phrases are alike 
translated with hev and indie. (The completeness of MGr 
levelling is well illustrated by his version of Lk and Jn 
The former becomes koL . . . hev c. indie. ; the latter is 
Koi ^oaKo<i /jbi]v ovra-i, followed by ttov 8ev elvat ra irpojBara 
SiKa Tov, " whose own the sheep are not." Outside the 
indicative Sez/ is not found.) 1 Pet 1^ is best left to Hort : 
" The change of negative participles ... is not capricious. 
The first is a direct statement of historical fact ; the second 
is introduced as it were hypothetically, merely to bring out 
the full force of iriaTevovTe';." Though Blass thinks it arti- 
ficial to distinguish, it is hard to believe that any but a slovenly 
writer would have brought in so rapid a change without any 
reason. The principles already sketched may be applied to 
the remaining passages without difficulty, in so far as they 
are original Greek. In the quotations from the LXX we 
have, as Blass notes, merely the fact that i6 c. partic. was 
regularly translated with ov. The passages in question 
would also come very obviously under the rule which admits 
ov when negativing a single word and not a sentence. 


p. 2.— Tl.imil) points out [Ildlen. 125) tliat Josephus liiis only been con- 
victed of one Hebraism, the use of irpoaTideaOai c. inf. = " to <'o on to do" 
{) n^pn, i.e. " to do again "). (For this, cf Wellh. 28.) He refers to Selnnidt 
Jos. 514-7, and Deissmann BS 67 n. That the solitary Hebraism in the Pales- 
tinian writer should be a lexieal one, not a grammatical, is suggestive. 

P- 7.— In the Expositor for September 1905, Prof. Ramsay says that tlie 
earlier tombs at Lystra show Latin inscriptions, while at Iconium Greek is 
normal. This may involve our substituting Latin as the language of Paul's 
preaching at Lystra : such a conclusion would not in itself be at all surprising. 

P. 8. — "Even a Palestinian like Justin knew no Hebrew," says Dalinan 
 {Words 44) in arguing against Resch's theory of a primitive Hebrew Gospel. 

P. 10.— Lightfoot (on Gal 4«) prefers to regard 'A/3j3d 6 iraTi^p in Mk 14'^'' as 
spoken l)y our Lord in this form. He cites from Schottgeu the ad-lrcss n'3 no, 
in which the second clement {Kvpie) emphasises the first by repetition ; and he 
compares Rev 9" 12^ 20". Thus understood, the phrase would be a most emphatic 
'•'testimony to that fusion of Jew and Greek which prepared the way for the 
preaching of the Gospel to the heathen." Rut Lightfoot's first alternative 
(practically that of the text) seems on the whole more probable. 

P. 16. — In Ac 2^ D, Blass pi;ts a full stop at the end of the verse. But we 
might translate without the stop: — "It came to pass during those days of 
fulfilment of the day of Pentecost, while they were all gathered together, that 
lo ! there M'as . . ." This is the {h) form, with /cat loov, so that it comes 
near {a). This punctuation helps us to give adequate force to the durative in fin. 
av/\T]povadai. On this view D gives us one ex. of the (a) form, and one of 
the (b), to reinforce the more or less doubtful ex. of {b) in the ordinary text of 
Ac 5''. Tliose who accept Blass's theory of Luke's two editions might say that 
the author had not quite given up the («) and (b) constructions when he wrote 
his first draft of Ac : before sending the revised edition to Thcophilus, he 
corrected what remained of these (like a modern writer going over his jiroofs to 
expunge "split infinitives"), but overlooked 5''. I am not commending that 
view here ; but I may suggest a systematic study of the r/rammar of the D 
text in Luke as a })robably fruitful field for those who would contribute to the 
greatest of all textual problems in tlic NT. 

P. 23. — We might have expected to find a specimen of Cretan in Tit 1^^ ; 
but if Ejiimenides the Cretan was really the autlior of this unflattering descrip- 
tion of his countrymen, he waited till he came to Athens, where (among other 
advantages for this composition) he could write aei and disyllabic dpyal. Plato 
makes him reach Athens just before the Persian "War. 

P. 30. — It may be worth Avhile to add a note illustrating the early date at 
which some characteristic MGr elements began to ajipear in the vernacular. 


On a Galatian tombstone of \i/A.-D.{BC'II 1903, 335) the word di'dTraiwts is 
written av<^dTr'^a^is, showing the fully developed result of the pronunciation of 
an as av : of MGr iiraxpa from 7rai;w. liamsay (C. and B. ii. 537) notes Karea- 
(TKi^aaa (BCH 1888, 202), which is an ex. of the same phenomenon. He also 
gives a Christian inscription of iii/A.D. from Phrygia, containing the 3 pi. 
eiriT-qSevaovv, and "an anticijiation of the modern periphrastic future" in 
^ov\-i]6rj dvol^i, noted by Mordtmann. "We may add the gen. eaov from ii/A.D., 
as OP 528. But Thumb (in BZ ix. 234) cites a yet earlier ex., exoi'ires for noni. 
or ace. pi. fem., from an inscription of I/a.d. 

P. 43. — S. Langdon (^ JP xxiv. 447 ff.) examines the history of Mv for dv, 
and agrees with Winei', who thinks it a peculiarity of the popular language 
(\VM 390). Mr Langdon attributes it to "the elTort to emphasise the abstract 
conditional aspect of the relative clause. This would of course occur nuich 
more frequently with relatives without antecedent than when they were defmed 
by an antecedent. . . . This popular idiom met the necessity which the LXX 
translators felt in their effort to distinguish between the complete and in- 
complete relative clauses when translating from Hebrew. ... In the NT 
the rule of using idu in sentences without antecedent is invariably followed, 
almost invariably in the OT and in Christian Greek writers." Mr Langdon's 
trust in his one or two exx. from classical MSS can hardly be sliared ; and 
before we can feel sure that the LXX translators themselves used this edv, and 
meant anything by the distinction, we should at least have examined the early 
papyri very carefully. Tlie earliest exx. quotable, so far as I know, are BM 
220 his (133 B.C.) and G 18 (132 B.C.): Tb P 12 bis, 105, 107, are also from 
ii/B.c. A suggestive ex. is Tb P 59 (99 B.C.), where the sentence is translatable 
with either interpretation of edv. It may be noted that the rarity of antecedent 
in these relative sentences makes it easy to misinterpret statistics. 

P. 44. — 'EipiopKelv, banned by WH as "Western," occurs frequently in 
inscriptions and pajiyri. See Schwyzer Ferg. 118 for exx. and an explanation 

P. 55. — A more peculiar jiroduct is [einKaJXeo/jLe { — -ai) in Audollent no. 
189 (Rome), to wdiich Prof. Thumb calls my attention. So KoXeu ib. no. 15 
(Syria, iii/A.D.). That these are genuine survivals of uncontracted forms (e.y. 
from Epic dialect) is very improbable. 

P. 58. — "Pindaric Construction," wIku the verb follows, is hardly ana- 
colnthic : it is due to a mental grouping of the compound subject into one entity 
— "flesh and blood " = " humanity," "heaven and earth "=" the universe." 
A papyrus ex. may be cited : BU 225 (ii/A.D.) virdpxi- Si avry iv Ty kw/ oIkLm 
8uo Kai kt\. So also 537. 

P. 60. — Meisterhans^ 203 (§ 84) cites a number of exx. from Attic inscrip- 
tions of v/ and iv/i!.c., where in a continued enumeration there is a relapse 
into the nominative. Gildersleeve adds CIA i. 170-173 (v/b.c. = Roberts- 
Gardner no. 97) rdoe Trapeooaav . . . arecpavos . . . (pLaXai etc. 

P. 63. — To discuss this large ipiestiou for individual exx. would take us too 
long. Blass in § 39. 3 states the case fairly : he notes that the luisuse of ets 
was still a provincialism, which in respect of the local signification of ets and 
ev is not present in the Epistles nor (strangely enough) in Rev, though found in 
all the narrative writers of the NT. Hatzidakis 210 f. illustrates both the use 
of ets for iv and that of iv for ets : for the latter, add the early Par P 10 
dvaKex^py)K€v iv 'AXe^avdpeia. (He should not have cited 2 Tim 1'^, where ets is 
perfectly normal.) We need not accept all Blass's exx. : thus Jn 17^^ is 
surely "perfected into one." But it must be confessed that our evidence now 


makes it impossible to see iu Jn l^^ (6 a-c ds to;/ kuXvov) " the combination . . 
of rest and motion, of a continuous relation with a realisation of it " (Wcstcott). 
Without further remark wo will reserve discussion till the time comes for 
treating the prepositions systematically, only noting that in D there arc 
suggestive substitutions of iv for els in Ac 7^- 8-^ (the latter however probably 
involving an entirely different sense— see p. 71), and eis for eV in Ac ll'-'^ (ecrric 
et's Tdpo-oc). On this cf Wellh. 12. 

P. 65.— D often, as Wellhausen notes (p. 13), shows ace. with aKovuf, 
KaTT/jyopeTv, and Kparelv, where the other texts have gen. 

P. 67.— Both in Ac 16^4 and in 18», D alters the dat. to tVi (ets) c. ace. ; 
but in the latter a clause is added containing iriixTeieiv tui de<^. 

P. 69.— It should have been noted on p. 49 that Blass's objection to recog- 
nising the noun 'EXanbv, in Ac 1^^ and Josephus, rests upon the fact that assimi- 
lation of case is generally practised, and that in rb 6pos rCbv ekaiQiv the genitive 
is unmistakable. But the nom., though rare, has parallels: see Deissmann 
BS 210. Blass rightly, I think, regards Jn \Z^'^ as a vocative, and not as 
equivalent to (pwvelri fie rbv diSciffKaXov ; but Winer's 1 Sam 9" is a clear ex. to 
put by liev 9" and Blass's own Mk 3^" (as foimd iu A and the Latt.). It is note- 
worthy that both Luke and Josephus {Ant. xx. 8. 6 irpbs opos rb irpoa-ayopevo- 
fievov 'EXatw;/, Bell. Jud. ii. 13. 5 ets rb 'EXotwc KaXoifxevov 6pos) not only use 
the unambiguous genitive -Qvos {Ant. vii. 9. 2 8ia rod 'EXaidvos opovs) but also 
put the anarthrous eXaiuv in combination with the word called. This seems to 
show that the name was not yet fixed in the Greek speech of Jerusalem 
residents, and that the halfv/ay-house to the full proper name wanted some 
apology. To opos tuiv iXaiQiv will thus be a translation of tlie native name. 
The new name for the hill would si)ring from two sources, the vernacular word 
for olivcyard, and the impulse to decline the stereotyped iXaiQv. An exact 
parallel for the latter was quoted in Expos, vi. vii. 111. In the Ptolemaic 
papyri Tb P 62, 64, 82, 98 the noun i^loov is found, which the editors connect 
closely with i^iwv {Tpo<prjs) " for the feeding of ibises," the word being treated 
as nom. sing, instead of gen. pi. : they observe tiiat "the declension of the 
village called 'JjSiwv ]irobably contributed to the use of this curious form." 
In both words then we see a gen. pi. made into a new nominative which 
coincides with a noun of slightly different meaning already existing. 

P. 70. — Prof. Thumb tells me that the construction (parenthetic nomina- 
tive) survives in MGr : thus {dir') tSw /cat TreVre /idpes [noni.]r= " heute vor 5 
Tagen." E. W. Hopkins (^J'P xxiv. 1) cites a rare use from Skt. : "a year 
(nom.) almost, I have not gone out from the hermitage." Contra, Wellh. 29. 

lb. — EiV-oj'es perhaps should be translated : it is the name given in one of 
the latest issued papyri in BU iv. to the personal descriptions which accompany 
an lOU, receipt, bill of sale, census paper, etc. 

Ih. — The vocative t] ttols, as Dr Ecndel Harris reminds me, literally trans- 
lates the Aramaic absolute an-b-q (as Dalman gives it, Gramm. 118 n). I should 
have remarked tliat the irsage is commonest where there is translation from 
Semitic. The author of Heb does not use it except in OT citations, nor does 
Luke in Ac 13-28 (though we may note that in the three citations involved 
there is no article in the Hebrew). It is only another instance of over-use of an 
idiom through its coincidence with a native usage. 

P. 74. — See KtUmer-Gerth 401 n.-''- ", for these genitives after a negative 
adjective. Typical exx. are Tb P 105 (ii/B.C.) al, aKivSwos iravrbs Ktvdvvov, 
awTToXoyov irdaris <pdopa,s, and dvvirevOvvoL wavrbs eirirlfiov. Tb P 124 (ii/B.O.) 
doiardaTovs ovras irdcnis ahlas. BU 970 (ii/A.D.) Tr?s els diravras evepyealas . . . 


dj3ori0riTos. They illustrate avofxos Oeou iu 1 Co 9'-' = dvev vo/wu 6eov, which 
differs only in that the genitive is subjective, while the rest are cither objective 
genitives or jtuve ablatives. 

lb. — One or two parallels may be added for the free use of the gen. abs. 
For the sulistitution of gen. for the case in construction, cf Tb P 41 (ii/B.c), 
iKavCiv Tj/j-Qv vwhtrTWi exovruv afa/ce%ajpT7^a/ie;' ; BU 1040 (ii/A.D. ) xat'pw 6'ri ^oi 
ravra eiroiriaas, ifjLov /j.eTa/j.e\o/j.^vov irepl fxrjoevbs. Other exx. will be seen in 
OR XV. 437. For gen. alis. without expressed subjects, cf BU 925 (iii/A.D. ?) 
dvayvwo-OevTUV, 970 (ii/A.D.) orfKudevros di' fjs Trpoeidr] /xol da(pa\eias, etc. 

P. 78. — Elative comparatives may be seen in D in Ac 4^", (paveporepov (sic) 
iffTiv, and 10^8 ^eXriov e<piffTacr6e {= ejr. — cf p. 44, and WH ^^?i7. 144). It 
substitutes irXelaroL for irXeiovs in 19^", and adds an elative ribiara in 13*. On 
10^8 Blass compai'cs 24- 25^o in the ordinary text, and 2 Tim l^*, Jn 13"^. As to 
Xeipwv, we should add that xetpta-r?;!' is found in Tb P 72 (ii/B.c). 

P. 79. — Before leaving the subject of comparison, we ought to remark on 
curious forms which have been brought into existence by the weakening of the 
old formations, or their detachment from the categories of comparative and 
suiierlative. Beside the regular form eXdx'O'Tos, which is predominantly super- 
lative in Mt, but elative in Lk {ter, and 12"^ doubtful) and Jas, Paul uses eXa- 
Xi-<rT6r€pos in Eph 3^, whether as comparative or true superlative the sentence 
leaves uncertain. He uses eXaxttrros as superl. in 1 Co 15^, and as elative in 4^^ 
6^. The double comparative /xei^'orepos occurs in 3 Jn * : cf our les^icr, which is 
equally due to the absence of clear comparative form iu a word whose meaning 
is clear. See Jannaris HG 147 for a list of these forms : add /xei^orepos, Archiv 
iii. 173 (iv/A.D.) al, /.(.eyKXTOTaros BM 130 (i/ii A.D.), irpea^vrepuTepa BM 177 
(i/A.D.), Trpwrtcrra BU G65 (i/A.T).). Exx. are found even in older Greek. 

On the Aramaising use of positive c. ij or irapa, for compar., see Wcllli. 28. 

P. 81. — AVellhauscn (p. 26) finds in the Synoptists some traces of insertion 
of the article through literal translation of Semitic idiom : here again D is con- 
spicuous. Thus Mt 10-^ Tov da-a-apLov. Note also his exx. of Semitism arising 
from the rule which drops the article with a noun in construct state preceding 
a definite noun : so ]\It 12*- "the (|)ueen of the South." 

P. 82. — Westcott translates iv avvaywyyj (Jn Q^^ IS^'') " in time of solemn 
assembly." Our own use of "in church," "in or out of school," etc., is enough 
to illustrate this phrase, which nuist be explained on the lines described in the 
text above : Westcott seems to be somewhat overpressing it. 

P. 84. — On the presence or absence of the article when a prepositional clause 
has to be added as an epithet, cf J. A. Roliinson, E^ 149. For its presence 
may be cited such passages as Eph 1^^, for its omission, Eph 2^^ 4\ Phil 1*, 
Col. l^- 8. 

It is oidy very seldom that we find in Greek of tlic NT tjqies the complex 
arrangement by which the classical language will wrap up a wliolc series of ad- 
juncts between the article and its noun. 1 Pet S'' will serve as an exceptionally 
good example. The simplicity of NT style naturally causes less involved forms 
to be generally preferred. 

One more paralipomenon under the Article may be brought in. In G. A. 
Cooke's North Semitic Inscriptions, no. 110 (ii/A.D.), there is a bilingual 
inscription, Palniyrene-Araniaic and Greek, containing within its compass a 
good parallel to the genealogy in Lk 3-'^"'"^ : AatXa/;' Alpdvov tov MoKifiov tov 
Aipdvou Tou MaOOd (Wadd. 2586). There are one or two other specimens : in 
113 the article is dropped for the last two steps, as iu the first step in 110. 

P. 85. — In Mt 6" note that D reads dXeifov, rejecting the middle in view of 


tlie presence of a-ov. In Ac 5- ^Bero and ^^ crvyKaXea-dnevoi, D makes the 
opposite change, which in the former case, at any rate, is no improvement. 

P. 88.— Cf Wellh. 30: " I'Sios in Mt and Lk is sometimes 3rd pers. 

P. 89. — Prof. Thumb notes how accent may dinVrentiate words capable of 
full or attenuated meaning : "God is," but " God is Abnir/My." 

P. 94. — To the exx. cited from Blass (top of p. 95) add from Hawkins Jn 1-^ 
(taken like Lk Z^*^ from the original source in Mk I''), Ac Vo^~ (LXX), Rev 3^ 
72.9 138. 12 208, ajid 1 Pet 2-^ (Ti with n"" LP, against ABCK). The idiom is in 
one place translation Greek, and in the rest a sign of inferior Greek culture, 
which makes it the more striking that Lk and Jn (not Mt) faithfully coj^y their 
source. Since tlie Greek of 1 Pet is remarkably good, it does not seem likely 
that ov ry nutXajTri avrov is due to the autograph : the LXX airov may well 
have been added by a glossator who did not notice that the ov made it needless. 
This consideration may fairly be set against the a yriori argument of Ti in 
favour of the reading of N. >Sce p. 249. 

P. 96. — Of Josephus Ant. i. 1. 1, ai/rvj fikv o.v e'ir] Trpwri] rifj-ipa, Mwvarj's 5' 
avTTiv filav elwe (quoted by Schmidt). Note in Gen 8^^ the variation /ii-qvbsTov 
TTpdiTov, fiia Tou /j.rjvds, which had adequate motive in the different words of the 
Hebrew. Prof. Thumb has traced the history of the Greek names for the days 
of the week in ZcitscliTift fur deulscha Wortforschund i. 1G3-173 (1901). 

P. 102. — The importance of Heb 13-^ in critical questions justifies our adding 
one more note on airo. In Thcol. Hundscliaw v. 64 Deissmann writes two 
" marginalia " i;pon Harnack's famous article in ZNTIV i. 16 ff. He notes the 
masculine Sirjyovfievop in ll-^- — not, I presume, as a difficulty likely to give 
Harnack much trouble; and observes that ol dirb 'IraXi'as "can, according 
to the late Greek use of airo, describe very easily the greetings of the brethren 
to be found in Italy." He refers to the article by E. Brose in Theol. Stud, und 
Krit., 1898, pp. 351-360, on d7r6 in 1 Co 11-^. Brose examines dirb, trapd, viro, 
and iK, showing that in daily speech these prepositions were used without exact- 
ness of distinction. The argument is designed to show that dirb tov Kvplov in 
1 Co I.e. does not mean by tradition, but by revelation from the Lord. Deiss- 
mann observes that Brose could have made his treatment of dirb still more 
illuminating, if he had gone outside the NT : he refers to a "stop-gap" of his 
own in Hermes xxxiii. 344,- which touches on the passage from Heb. 

P. 105— On vwip we may cite a good parallel for Rom 12^, TP 8 (ii/B.c.) 
VTT^p tavrbv <ppovQv. 

P. 112. — A very good ex. in Greek is 2 Co 4^, where perfective e^ shows the 
dwopia in its final result of despair. 

P. 116. — In the Dream of Nectonebus, the last Egyptian king of the old 
dynasties (LPw, ii/B.c), there occurs the phrase dLaTerqpTjKa tt)v x'^P"-" dfiifjurrus, 
which gives a striking parallel to 2 Tim 47. The perfective in the king's 
words emphasises the fact that the country is safe, the watchful care has been 
successful ; the simplex in Paul lays the stress on the speaker's own action, " I 
have guarded my trust." 

P, 118. — Hawkins, US 142, gives the number of compound verbs for the 
several parts of the NT. His figures work out thus :— Heb has 7*8 per WH 
page, Ac 6-4, Lk 6-0, Mk 57, Paul 3-8, Mt 3-6, Cath. Epp. and Rev 3-1, 
and Jn 2"1. The high figure of Mk in this table is rather surprising. That 
Heb and Luke (whose unity comes out by this, as by so many other tests) .should 
be at the top, is what we might expert. 

P. 126. — Since writing this, I have noticed Prof. Ram.say's suggestive 


language on the early Christians of the average tj-pc in C. and B. ii. 485 : see 
also his Paul 208 f. 

Pp. 126 and 129. — On the biblical use of present ami aovist imperative, cf 
F. W. Mozley in JTS iv. 279 tf. Prof. Thumb notes that Mozley independently 
confirms his judgement on the aoristic ■n-pocxi<f}epev in Heb 11^'', by the observa- 
tion that (pipe and are aoristic in meaning. Were the author Mark or the 
John of Rev, and the context less clamant for an imperfect, I should readily 

P. 132.— See now D. Smith, In the Days of His Flesh, p. 208. 

Ih. — In OGIS 219 (iii/B.c.) there is an ex. of coincident affwaaiixevoi which 
maj^ be worth quoting : — iXiadaL de Kal irpeajSevras . . . [olVtces] aa-iraaajxevoi 
auTov rrapa t[ov orjfiov irpwTOv fx^v KeKevaovaLv i']7taii'etf . . . [eTretra S' airayye- 
'Kodtnv aiirCoi tii]v ri]ix'r]v. The "salutation" seems to consist in the double 
message : it is difficult anyhow to make it precede the wish for good health. 

P. 143. — In Mt 2.^-"* we find 6 ei\ri(p<hs in a phrase otherwise parallel with 
v.-", 6 \a^wv. The intervening space supplies an excuse for the change which 
takes it out of the category described in the paragraph above. Both tenses 
were entirely justifiable, and the rather more emphatic perfect suits the situation 
of v.-^ better. 

P. 145. — I must make it clear that in this tentative account of ^trxTj/v-a — which 
is propounded with great hesit;ition, and with a full appreciation of its diffi- 
culties — there is no suggestion that the aoristic meaning proposed was more 
than an idiosyncrasy of individual writers, or (better) of certain localities. The 
pure perfect force is found long after Paul's day : thus in the formula of an 
lOU, dfj.o\oyu> iaxV'^^'"'-'- TajOot aov dia x^'pos i^ oIkov -x^prjcnv '^vtokov (])U 1015 — 
early iii/A.D.), "to have received and still possess." But in AP 30 (ii/B.c), 
TTpocre/xapTvpovi' tov M. Karecrxv^^'''^'- '''^v OLKiav irpb rod nokiixov, the aoristic 
possessed seems to be recognisable, in an early illiterate document. 

P. 146. — Ol/xai dk kSlv Aa/uLTTiSu), tt]v AeurvxiSov fih dvyaripa, 'Apxi-ddfioii oe 
yvvaiKa, "AyLdos 8k /xrjTipa, ot Travres ^airiKecs yeyovaai, Oavfidaai &v kt\. It is 
hard to see why this should be cited as aoristic : Agis was on the throne at the 
supposed time of the dialogue. 

P. 148. — In connexion with this paragraph should be mentioned the birth 
of the new present ottjkw (MGr ar^Kw) from the jierfect 'iarriKa., with the same 

P. 152. — On this view of the prehistoric relations of act. and mid., cf Hirt, 
Tndog. Forsch. xvii. 70. The theory had been restated in terms of the 
new school of philology, in OsthofF and Brugmann's pioneer Morphologische 
UntersucMmgen iv. 282 n. (1881). There H. Osthoff conjectures that "Skt. 
dv6s-ti and dvis-te depend on one and the same proethnic basis-form [dueistai], 
which was difl'erentiated by the accent, according as one wished to say 
'hdtes for himself or 'hates for himself.'" I had overlooked this passage, 
and am all the more confirmed by it in the theory which I had independently 
developed as to the relationship of the voices in the element they severally 

On the late Greek developments of the voices the student should carefully 
observe the rich material in Hatzidakis 193 ff. 

P. 156. — The proverb in 2 Pet 2^- is acutely treated by Dr Rendel Harris, 
as I ought to have remembered, in The Story of Ahikar, p. Ixvii. He cites as 
the probable original words appearing in some texts of Ahikar : "My son, thou 
hast behaved like the swine which ^ven.t to the hath with people of quality, and 
when he came out, saw a stinking drain, and went and rolled himself in it." 


If, as seems extremely likely, tliis is the source of the irapotfila to wliicli 
2 Pet refers, of course Xovaa/x^vr] is used in its correct sense, and tlie possiliility 
of a Cireek iambic verse being the medium of its transmission is all that remains 
of my note on the passage. I leave it unaltered in view of the measure of un- 
certainty attaching in Dr Harris's judgement to the account he jiroposes. 

P. 166. — Mr P. Giles, in a letter endorsing and improving my Scotch trans- 
lation of Homer 11. i. 137, says, "I agree that dv is very like jist, and if you 
had added like at the end you would have got your sulyunctivc also. This like 
does for many dialects what the subjunctive did for Greek, putting a state- 
ment in a polite, inoffensive way asserting only verisimilitude." It is found 

P. 168. — Add to this list the curious anti-Christian inscription in Ramsay, 
C. and B. ii. 477 (uo. 343) oSros 6 ^ios /xol yeyovev (aoristic !) orai' t^wv eyd). 

P. 169. — Since writing the paragraph on el ix-qn dv, I have observed several 
other exx. of ei . . . dv in illiterate Greek of a century or two later than the 
NT. An inscription from Cyzicus, lately ]iublished by ^Ir F. W. Ilasluck 
in JUS XXV. 63, has t tls 5' av ToKix-qcn, /uiTtXdri avrov 6 Geds. (The second 
subjunctive here is the itacistic equivalent of the optative which would have 
been used in earlier Greek: cf p. 199u.). In Ramsay's C. and B. vol. ii. I 
note the following : — No. 210 (p. 380) ei de tls dv (pavelr) . . . ^arai . , ., 
where the optative shows the writer a bit of an Atticist, but not very successful. 
No. 377 (p. 530) KareaKevaaev to ijpi^ov eavrr) Kal tu> dvopl avT?is iivrvxr) Kai el 
Tivi dv j"w(ra cruyx^pi^eret' el 8e /xera ttjv TeXevTrjv /xou idv ris eTnxi-pricrei kt\. No. 
273 (p. 394) el dk [eVepos] dv ewLxeipTjlaei, drj]aei kt\. I have not had time to 
search throughout, but I suspect there are many other exx. 

P. 170. — On /XT? in questions see J. E. Harry, Gildersleeve Studies, 430. 
He shows it was absent from orators and historians, and from the later writers 
Aristotle, Polybiiis, and Diodorus. Plato uses it 24 times ; but the 69 occur- 
rences in NT outnumber those in all the prose and poetry of ten previous 
centuries. The inference is that it was a feature of everyday language. In 
nearly half the exx. the verb is he, can, or have ; three-fourths of the total comes 
from Jn and Paul (only Rom and Co). 

P. 171. — For ^ktos el firj see Deissmann, BS 118. Cf also Ramsay, 0. and B, 
ii. 391 (no. 254) xwpis el firi tl TrdOrj. 

lb. — On the encroachments of /xiy, especially as to oti /xri and /n-n c. inf. after 
verba dicendi et cogitandi, see E. L. Green in Gildersleeve Studies, 471 ff. Green 
shows how ixri intrudes increasingly in the Kolvt) literature. Considering tlie 
extent of this intrusion in the time of the NT, there are fewer exx. of hi) 
wrongly used than would be expected, except that fxr} holds almost undLsj^uted 
sway over the participle. There are 6 exx. of ix-fj c. inf. after a verli of saying 
or denying [Lk 22^^ must however be struck otl (WH, following XBLT)] ; 

2 with verbs of thinking (2 Co ll^ Ac 25"'^) ; one case of causal &ti ix-q, Jn 3"* ; 

3 of 1X7) after relatives. (In excluding Col 2^* because an imper. precedes, Green 
ignores a yet more decisive reason — that ixi] is indisputably spurious.) The 
participle with n-q in orat. obi. occurs only in Ac 23-^ 28" ; in causal, concessive, 
and temporal clauses it abounds. The comparison of Plutarch with the NT 
shows a great advance in the use of 6Vi yttr?. The whole paper deserves study. 

A few papyrus passages may be cited in illustration of the subjects of Green's 
paper. For ij.t] in relative clauses :—BU 114 (ii/A.D.) irpooTKa i]v diroSidwKev 
avTu, /JL-fiTe 86vaTaL Xajie'iv, CPR 19 (iv/A.D.) evTd^as . . . d /j.t] avve<pil,vr]<Ta. For 
verba die. et cor/. :— MP 25 (iii/B.c.) /xry 64>ei\eLv 6/x6ffas /xoi, BM 401 (ii/fi.c.) 
KaTeyvwKws (xt) Swacr^ai, OP 206 (i/A.D.) o/xoXoyel p.}] cvKaXelv (classical, as ofi. = 


midcrtaJces), OP 237 (ii/A.P.) dTreKpeb'aTo /j.^ c inf., and several cases with 
S-nXovu (liU 5, 11, etc.). For eVet /.L-i] cf BU 530 (i/A.D.) fiit-Lcperai ae fVt ^ii; 
dvTeypa^pai avrrj (the charge, like the ex. in Jn /.c). 

On ei ov Blass notes {Hermes xxiv. 312) its identity with ci^l fn) in the 
illiterate OP 119 (see p. 28). 

A note may be added on /xt] '6ti ; for though the NT only uses ovx on, the 
syntax is identical with that in f/.'fiTi-ye, 1 Co 6" ("not to speak of mere affairs 
of daily life"). It occurs in BM 42 (ii/B.c.) ixt) 6ti ye roaovrov xpovov ewiyeyo- 
vdros, "not to speak of so much time having gone by." 

P. I77._ln Mt 6^" D reads /xtj eyjaavplaerai (= - e), which may just possibly 
be added to the list. But it is more likely to be a mere mistake. An earlier 
ex. oi ix7)C. fut. than those cited in the text is Par P 15 (ii/ii.c.) /ii; yovv /cai 
Kparrjo-eii — but this may be aor. subj. 

p. 181. — Essentially the same principle must be traced in tXetos trot (Mt 16'--), 
" [God be] merciful to thee." The iuterjectional adjective and participle are on 
the same footing, and must be explained in the same way. In CE xv. 436 are 
quoted inscriptioual parallels for this phrase (Gen 4323, 2 Sam 20"-», 1 Chr IV^) : 
— Letronne 221 (iv/A.D.) I'Aews rj/j.'ii' IlXdrwv Kal ivravda, and without subject 
557 I'Xecij crot, 'Epp-eias . . . Kal 'EpaKXeios d8e\(p6s. Letronne also cpiotes 
another inscription (ii. 286) i'Xews trot dXvirl {leg. 'AXvin), "[Sarapis] help thee, 
Alypius," as I read it. With the development of a deprecatory force in such 
phrases we may compare that in our vernacular expression, " Mercy on us ! " 

p. 182.— Dr Rendel Harris thinks the may be only translation Greek. 
The suggested allusion to Paul is in any case only propounded tentatively. 
It is curious that dp^afxevo? gives us trouble elsewhere in Luke. Ac lO'^' is fairly 
hopeless as it stands, and Blass thinks apt- dirb t. T. interpolated from Lk 23^. 
It is conceivable that dp^d/xevos yap in AD vg may preserve the relics of a better 
text, in which a new sentence beginning there was continued with 'Irjcrous 6 d-rrb 
N., 6p (D) ^xP'o-f" • • •» 0^™^ (^)- "^^'^ change needed to make the D reading 
grammatical is but small. (See now Wellli. 12.) 

P. 185. — The practically complete equivalence of subjunctive and future is 
quite ns evident in Phrygian inscriptions as in the Alexandrian Greek Bible or 
late Egyptian papyri. Thus we have in JHS xxiii. 85 et 8^ tls dvv^as 'irepov 
^d\ri ; and in Eamsay C. and B. ii. 392 (no. 260) el' riva. dWov povX-ndrj, 559 
(no. 445, iii/A.D.) el' tis 5^ erepos (Triaev^vKei (so nos. 448, 449). In nos. 317, 
391, 395, 399 al (pp. 472, 535-8) we have ov TeOfi for the 01) Te^vjo-erat found 
elsewhere. The progressive disappearance of the Future prepares us for MGr, 
where the tense is a periphrastic one. For the papyri, cf BU 303 (vi/A.D.) 
Trapdax^ "I will furnish," AP 144 (v/a.d.) ^Xdu "I will come." Innumerable 
exx. of verbs in -aei and the like, after 6s dv and other forms requiring sub- 
junctives, could be cited from various sources ; but these being itacistic prove 

less — see p. 35. 

p, 194. —Prof. Thumb tells me that MGr /xi] yivoLTo seems to him a phrase 
of learned origin. (I notice that Pallis retains it in Lk 20i6.) See p. 249. 

P. 199 n. 2.— Prof. Thumb observes that he does not believe in itacism as 
contributory to the obsolescence of the optative, "since the coincidence of m 
and V took place very late." It has been made clear in the text that the 
optative was doomed from the very birth of the Koivv, while ot (and v) did not 
become simple i for several centuries. 

P. 208.— By way of adding to our illustrations from the Bezan text of Ac, 
wemay notethatin 12"D substitutes I'm o-t7[ . . . ]<nv for 0-1751', and in le^*^ 
IVa i^iXOy^ for (^e\Oc?v, both after words of commanding. In 17==^ however the 


omission of ev fi fieWei aJds to the tale of quasi-final infinitives. Were this 
tendency to use it>a more marked, it might help us to fix the 2)rovcnance of D, by 
the use of Thumb's canon (p. 205). 

P. 216. — Some further exx. are noted by Votaw (p. 18) from the LXX. 
He gives on p. 19 the totals for the articular infin. in OT, Apocryplia, and XT : 
there are 1161 occurrences with a preposition, and 1614 without. Tlie anar- 
throus infin. occurs 6190 times in all. In the statistics of the articular infiii. 
I have checked my count (based on MG) by Votaw's : they differ slightly where 
I have omitted passages which WH enclose in double brackets, and also 
through my not counting twice the places where two infinitives stand under the 
government of a single article. Votaw's total for Heb has a slight error. 

P. 224. — To the footnote it should be added that Hirt and Sommer make 
sequimmi imperative the original form, supposing it simply transferred to the 
indicative at a later stage (Indog. Forscli. xvii. 64). 

P. 230. — The phrase in Mt 13^ is quoted here purely as it stands in Greek ; 
exx. of this participle could be cited from almost any page of narrative in the 
NT or other Greek writing. It happens however, as Dr Rendel Harris tells 
me, that my example is a translation of a phrase meaning simply "he went on 
board a boat." He observes, '"To go up and sit in a ship' is a pure Syriac 
expression. Sometimes you get 'sit in the sea' for 'embark'" (Mk 4^, the 
original here). This superfluous Kadrjadai is rather like the pleonasms quoted 
from Dalman on pp. 14 ff. Of course the recognition of this as translation Greek 
does not affect the grammatical category in which we place ^/x^dcra. 

Since I have not given a chapter to Conjunctions, I may put at the end 
of these addenda a note upon a use of a'XAd which has excited much discussion. 
In Mt 20-^ some have translated dXXd " except," as if=et /xri or TrX^y. Against 
this both Winer and his editor (p. 566) speak very decisively : thus, the latter 
says, " Even in Mk 4"- a'XXct is simply Swi (but rather), not save, cxcejit." I have 
a draft letter of his to a I'ellow-Eeviser (dated 1S71), in which he argues at length 
against the lax use of dWd, which in Mt I.e. " would be equivalent to supplying 
efj.ov iffTt. Zovvai in the second clause." Blass does not allude to the latter 
passage, but on Mk I.e. (p. 269) he says dXX' = et /xij " save that." It is certainly 
difficult here to separate the dWd from the iav fir) which stands in the parallel 
clause. I am very unwilling to challenge an opinion held so sti'ongly after 
careful study; but the discovery of Tb P 104 (i/B.c.) makes me ready to 
believe that the note in WM might have been altered under stress of new 
evidence. Kat fxrj e^^orw ^CKlffKui. yvvalKa dW-qv ivayayeaSai dXXd 'AwoWuviav 
must call for a sense of dWd very near to el firj. That supplements may be 
contrived we may allow, though they are often far from simple ; but is there 
adequate motive for straining the natural meaning of the phrase ? In Gen 21-'^ 
ov5e iy(h rJKovaa dXXd <ji)iJ.€pov, the dWd actually translates 'n^3, except. In Mt 
I.e., it may well be that the AV or RV supplement is correct. But I cannot feel 
at all sure of this ; and it seems moreover that the meaning need not be affected 
by reading dWd &s = d ixr). In Jn IS'*, Lk 4-'^^-, Ac 27", Eev 21", etc., we are 
familiar with the brachy logy which makes et fi-q and the likQ — hut only: why 
not apply this to dWd ? This would mean that only the thought of Sovvai was 
carried on, and not that of ip-bv as well. (Cf now Wellh. 24 in support of my 

The study of Wellhausen's illuminating forty pages increases my regret that 
I can only refer to them generally in notes inserted at the last revision. My 
argument in chapter i. is not afiected by AVellhausen's exposition ; but had his 


book come into my Lands earlier, I should have taken care to emphasise more 
clearly what is said above concerning "translation Greek," and the tendency 
to over-use a correct vernacular idiom where it exactly or nearly translates an 
Aramaic original. Wellhauseu rightly warns us against denying Aramaism 
because we can scrape together one or two parallels from holes and corners of 
Greek writing. That was the error of the old Purists, and we must be on our 
guard. But if we neo-Hellenists need to be careful, Wellhausen's criticisms of 
Dalman show that the neo-Semitists want watching as well. It is necessary in 
studying Wellhauseu to remember that he only professes to speak from the 
Semitist's sside : his ^payye\ovv {bis) on p. 10 and eavros and oWtjXoc on p. 30 
illustrate his limitation — ncii omnia possumus oinncs ! Space forbids oui' 
mentioning more than one further feature of his work, the great importance of 
his treatment of the Eezan text. 'He shows that D in a large number of places 
stands distinctly nearer the Aramaic which underlies the Synoptic records. If 
this is proved, we have manifestly taken a large step towards the solution of our 
<^reat textual question. Let me finally quote his dictum that Mk is tolerably 
free from Hebraisms, i.e. pieces of translation Greek due to the LXX : Mk is 
however richest in Aramaisms, which Mt and Lk have largely pruned away 
Of course Wellhausen's argument has no bearing on free Greek in the NT. 



p. 3. — To anticipate a possible objection, I may say that the evidence for 
large Jewish settlements in Egypt from an eaily date is indisputable : see 
for example Mahatfy's and Th. Reinach's contributions to Melanges Nicole 
(pp. 619 ff., 451 ff.). Mahaffy speaks of Aramaic trade documents in Upper 
Egypt from the time of Xerxes down. So far, however, no "Hebraist" has 
tried to use this fact to discount the deductions of Deissmann from the papyri ; 
ixud I need not meet the argument before it arises. 

76. —The Rev. J. Pulliblank sends me an interesting extract from his notes 
of Bishop Lightfoofs lectures in 1863. Speaking of some NT word which had 
its only classical authority in Herodotus, he said, "You are not to suppose 
that the word had fallen out of use in the interval, only that it had not been 
used in the books which remain to us : probably it had been part of the common 
speech all along. I will go further, and say that if we could only recover letters 
that ordinary people wrote to each other without any thought of being literary, 
vre should have the greatest possible help for the understanding of the language 
of the NT generally." 

P. 5, — A ^-ery striking testimony may be cited from Cicero, Pro ArcJthi, 
23 : — Nam si quis minorem gloriae fructum putat ex Graecis versibus percijii 
quam ex Latinis, vehementer errat, propterea quod Graeca leguntur in omnibus 
fere gentibus, Latina suis finibus, exiguis sane, continentur. 

P. 14.- — To the exx. of ei's airavrTjaip c. gen. may be added two (one of them 
els avvavT.) from the PeLigia stories {Leijcndcn cler hi. Pelagia, ed. Usener), 
pp. 19, 22. The documents are written in excellent vernacular, which does not 
seem open to the charge of being merely modelled on the biblical Greek. 


P. in. — Dr Marcus Dods finds a weak spot in my ])arallcl, in tliat Greek 
was generally "not the vernacular, but a second languaf^e acquired for com- 
mercial or social purposes. The real parallel would therefore be the English- 
speaking Hindu, or semi- Americanised German or Pole, or the jiidgin-English- 
speaking Chinaman, or bilingual Highlander or Welshman." But I think my 
statement in the text will staud. The Hindu and the "Welshman, " [/ranted a 
tolerable 'primary education" in English, will not show much difference in their 
written dialect. 

P. 22. — A reviewer in the Athenaeum, to whom I am greatly indebted, 
criticises my attitude towards the translation of Pallis. (So far from "strongly 
objecting," Mr Pallis prefers to be so styled, and not as Palli.) I cannot go 
into detail, but I would make two or three notes. (1) The Reviewer expresses 
the "shock" which even a foreigner experiences in finding Christ's speeches 
" abounding in Turkish words." Mr Pallis gives me a list of all the foreign 
words in his version of Mt, some two dozen in all, and not a quarter of them 
Turkish. This accusation of bringing in foreign words has been freely made by 
many on mere hearsay. (2) A lover of Hellenism can feel nothing but sympathy 
for the modern Greeks' national pride in their language. But whether Greek 
artisans can repeat the NT Greek by heart or no, it is abundantly jiroved that 
they cannot understand it ; and that is sufficient justification for a pojiular 
version. (3) The general question of the Purist movement tempts discussion ; 
but it has only one side which is relevant for this book. If the movement onh' 
concerned the abolition oi foreign ivords, the NT grammarian could quote Purist 
as readily as pojnilar Greek. But the Kadapevovaa is an artificial language in its 
grammar, and it is therefore obviously useless when we are seeking scientific 
€vidence bearing on ancient Hellenistic. The strongest sympathiser with 
Purism as a national movement would have to admit that for such purjjoses 
as ours the faintest suspicion of artificiality makes MGr valueless : nothing Imt 
the unschooled speech of the people can help us here. 

P. 23. — On the use of the term Kotv-rj Prof. Thumb observes that the 
grammarians were far from consistent with themselves. A definition like kolvt) 
oidXeKTos y irdvTes xpwyite^a is not far from our present use ; and even if the term 
be historically incorrect it is a pity to banish from science so wfeU-established and 
pregnant a word {Ncue JahrbiicJier f. d. Mass. Altertum, 1906, p. 262). 

P. 32. — Dr W. H. D. Rouse, who has an exceptionally intimate first-hand 
knowledge of modern Greece, especially in the more out-of-the-way parts, tells me 
he thinks it too sweeping an assertion to say that the old dialects died out com- 
pletely, except for vvliat they contributed to the Koivi}. He has heard the broad a 
in Calynmos, and ^-ai woKa in Cos. In the lecture just quoted {Neuc Jahrh. 1906, 
p. 256), Prof. Thumb gives some interesting survivals of old dialectic forms in 
Cyprus, which he has noticed in the curse-tablets of Audollent. "We have in 
fact to remember that the dialects existing within the Koivr, were partly or even 
mainly characterised by the survivals from the old local dialect which the 
levelling process failed to destroy. 

P. 34.— A good illustration of my point that dialectic differences very largely 
lay in pronunciation is found in Dr Rouse's remark that " a [modern] Athenian, 
a Lesbian and an Astypaliote all will wiite Kal, while they pronounce it respect- 
ively kye, ce, tsd." 

P. 36.— The case of reaaapes ace. ought not to be left without remarking 
that this is isolated, as the only early cardinal wliieh ever had a separate ace. 
form. In the first 900 of Wilckeu's ostraka I find 42 exx. of the indeclinable, 
and 29 of Tiaaapas, which shows how this form predominated in business 


language before 200 a.d. I might add here (with reference to p. 46) that 
in the same documents I find recrcrepas and TeaaepaKovra only once each 

(both ii/A.D.). 

Ih. — A " probably Ptolemaic " ostrakon in Melanges Nitole, p. 185 (E. J. 
Goodspeed), has (pCKavdpoTrla and Socrts to illustrate further the early confusion 
of o and w : Kara firivav (see p. 49) and ^TjSeci Sol's (p. 55 u.^) evidence the -^^Titer's 
scanty culture. Earlier still is XoyevdovTiov HbP (249 B.C.). 

P. 38.— The point about Kdpij needs perhaps to be stated less concisely. 
Brugmann makes it probable that in early Attic, as in its sister dialect Ionic, a 
became ?? universally, but that in Attic iv and ptj {vyirj, irprjrTw) broadened into 
lE, pa, whenever the tj did not arise from a pre-Greek e. But this specially 
Attic power of p became obsolete while KdpFv was still j)ronounced with 

P. 41.— Thumb {op. cit. 260) holds out hopes that we may get some not 
inconsiderable help in dating and localising textual types from such peculiarities 
as the confusion of tenuis, aspirata and media in Egypt and Further Asia, and 
that of c and i sounds in Asia Minor and Syria. 

P. 44.— Among the irregular aspirations might have been given oiix 
'Ioi;5au-cDs (Gal 2^^ N"ACP 17 37). Here the oi'xt of BD* al probably helps 
us ; a repetition of the t after oi'/c would lead to the correction ovx^- and this to 
ovx by the dropping of the same letter. This seems simpler than Lightfoot's 
explanation from the Hebrew initial "n\ 

P. 48. — Usener, Pelagia, p. 50, quotes t] 'lepoadXv/xa from two MSS of 
xi/A.D. In the same book we find the vocative livpi twice (p. 14— see Usener's 
note, p. 34). An additional early ex. of this shortening of-:o-nouns may be 
found in a Ptolemaic ostrakon in Melanges Nicole, p. 184, avvtf/iXeiv {i.e. -lov). 
(The document has the word Kpa^aros, so spelt.) 

p. 49.— The NT forms avyyevis and ffvyyevevai (WH App 158) are both 
cited by Thumb from Asia Minor {JUS xxii. 358 and BCH xxiv. 339). 
^vyyevea-L occurs Tb P 61 (ii/fi.C.) al. So we have double forms, eadricriv OP 4G6 
and iad-qaeffL (as NT) BU 16, both ii/A.D. 

P. 50.— Mr R. R. Ottley notes a probable ex. oi irX-qpiqs indecl. in Is 63^ B. 
P. 59. — An apparent false concord in B, irepl irdvTwv wv eUev 8vvd/j.€wv 
(Lk 19'^'), is corrected by Prof. Burkitt from the Old Syriac, which shows 
that dwd/xeuv is a mere gloss. B accordingly shows the tirst stage of corrup- 
tion, while D {yeLvop.ivwv) shows an independent gloss, aud the other MSS 
present a completely regularised text. (The textual phenomena here are most 
instructive : cf what is quoted from Wellhausen about B and D, p. 242.) Note 
that in MGr iracra survived iras, as Trdaa 'iva's " every one." 

Ih. — For indeclinable rt Dr Rouse reminds me of the MGr k&tl, as kUti 
riavxi-a, " a little rest. " 

p, 60.— Mr Ottley calls my attention to Is 37■^^ where it is very hard to 
resist the impression that an accusative stands for a genitive in apposition to 
an indeclinable. 

/6.— A better account of i] deb's in Ac 19^' is given by G. Thieme, Die 
Inschriftcn von Magnesia am Maeander und das N'T (Gcittingen, 1905), pp. 10 f. 
He notes that the classical t] debs often appears in Magnesian inscriptions to 
describe the great goddess of the city, while other people's goddesses were deal, 
the usual \\oiv-q term. The town clerk is accordingly using the technical 
term, as we might expect. Plentiful quotations are given by Nachmauson, 
p. 126. We may therefore keep Blass's comment on Luke's accuracy, but 
apply it in a ditfejent way. 


P. 63. — It might be added tliat liefore iv disappeared it was often used for 
els, just as els M'as for eV. Thus in the two Pelagia stories we iind avrfKdoixev ev 
r<^ KeWiifj (i. 4), dwriXdafiev iv t^ fieydXri €KK\r]aiqL (i. 5), ^01/70;' eV toIs 6pe(Xi 
(ii. 1). Some further quotations for late uses of ii> will be found in Kuhring's 
useful Program on the prepositions in tlie papyii (Bonn, 1906), pp. 43 f. 

lb.— On wpav (Jn 4'", Ac lO^^rtZ) see E. A. Abbott, Johaimim Grammar 75, 
who suggests that the cliange from vernacular ace. to dat., Jn i-'-'-, is brought 
in to denote exact time. 

P. 64.— For xpSo-^at c. ace. add Wis T'"" (B-so the Revisers). The Purist 
Kontos {rXucTffiKai TlapaTtjpT^aeis, Athens, 1882, p. 420) complains of writers 
who used KaraxpaadaL (and even eireadaL !) with gen. As early as ii/A.i>. we 
find a chiliarcli of a Thracian cohort writing 'ilplo^vos {i.e. -i) xai'/>etv (Wilcken 
Osfr. ii. 927) : so crvv M^]vo(pL\ov ib. 240 (same date). 

P. 66. — On the construction of aKovij, ydiop-ai, and irpoaKwd, see Abbott, 
Joh. Gram. 76-78. 

P. 67. — "With Deissmann's translation of Mk 1'" we may compare ev vbixif, 
Gal 3-' B, "righteousness would lie in the sphere of law." 

P. 70. — Dr Rouse compares with this nominative in time-expressions 
Aeschines' vvS, iv fiicriji Kal 9]\dev. 

P. 71. — On the threefold Tran'jp in Jn 17, see Abbott, o^). clt. 96 f. 

P. 72. — A full study of prepositions replacing the simple gen. may be found 
in Kuhring, Praepos. 11 ff., 20. Dr Rouse notes that diro is regularly used 
in partitive sense now : ScDtre p.ov dirb tovto, " give me some of that." 

P. 75. — For ipxo/ aoi I should have quoted the well-known line of Aeschy- 
lus {PV 358), dXX' 9j\6€v avrf Zijvos dypvirvov /3e\of. 

P. 76. — Reference should have been made to Eph 5^, 'iffre yivucrKovTes, where 
Deau Robinson assumes Hebraism, comparing 1 Sam 20''', yivuaKuv oldev, Jer 42 
(49)--, LffTe (imper.) yLvwaKovres otl (Symmachus). So RV. If this be so, we 
can only suppose Paul definitely citing OT language, just as a preacher using 
the archaic phrase "Know of a surety" would be immediately recognised as 
quoting. (It may be noted that if to-rf is indie, it is a purely literary word, 
such as Paul is not very likely to have used : it would be less improbable in 
Heb 12". But in these places and Jas l^'-* the imper. seems better, somewliat in 
the sense of the common classical ev Lad' on, "you may be sure" : see LS s.v. 
olda 7. ) It is, however, at least as probable that we are to sejiarate the verbs 
and read "For you must be assured of this (the following), recognising for 
yourselves that ..." So E. Haupt, Salmond, and T. K. Al)bott. 

P. 79. — Dr E. A. Abbott {Joh. Gra.iii. 510) makes it seem probable that the 
Lej'den papyrus is quoting from Jn 1^®. He would translate wpwrbs ij-ov "my 
Chief." See pp. 11-14 for his exposition, which brings in several harmonics 
beside the main note. I am not yet disposed to give up the view defended 
in the text. If Dr Abbott takes away one parallel, he gives me two new ones 
instead, in the quotations from scholiasts on Euripides ; and his exegesis seems 
open to the charge of over-subtlety. Jloreover, the Aelian passage, oi irpQroi 
ixov TttOra dvLxvevaavres {N.A. viii. 12), is clo.-ely parallel for Jn 15'^; and tlie 
doubts as to the reading expressed by the Thesaurus editor liere and in Plutarch, 
Cato Minor § 18 {ovre TrpcJros tls dvifir) . . . KaraJfos oiire vffrepos dvrfKde), only 
mean that a modern scholar thought Trpcoros incorrect, which is undeniable. 
I am tempted to claim that Dr Abbott has proved my point for me. 

P. 80. — I must confess to a ratlier serious oversight in omitting to discuss 
the "Hebraistic" use of ttSs with negative in the sense of oi;5ets. In OR 
XV. 442, xviii. 155, I quote a number of exx. of ttSs with prepositions and 


adjectives of negative meaning : thus dvev or X'^P'^ Trdarjs virepdea-eus, a recurrent 
formula, dvvTrevdwoi. Travrbs e'Trirt^ou Tb P 105 (ii/i!.C.), St^a irdcrris t^ovaias 
Plutarch Cons, ad Uxor. 1 (cf Heb 7'). Closely allied to this is the Koivr] use of 
Tts with negative, as /Mijdefiids KpaTriaews li-qSe Kvpieias rivb^ eyyaiov Trepiyivofievris 
auTuiL TP 1 (ii/B.c), which has analogues in MGr (Jannaris JIG § 1449 c). 
This was accordingly claimed as "a very slight extension of a vernacular 
usage under the encouragement of a similar idiom in Hebrew." It is found 
not only in presumed translation, as Mk 13-", but in Paul, as Eph 5^'. 

lb. — ilr J. B. Shipley sends me an ingenious suggestion that eirrd arose 
from a gloss, l^Kevd = U2V = €TrTd. 

lb. — In Gal l*'^* Ramsay maintains against Lightfoot that erepos when 
definitely contrasted with ctXXo? denotes specific difference against genetic, 
"another of the same kind," against "another of a different kind." Space 
precludes examination of his classical exx. ; but it must not be too hastily 
assumed that Lightfoot is wrong. 

P. 86. — Karl Dick's " particularly good ex." of the plural for sing, appeals 
less convincing on re-reading : the plural seems to refer distinctly to the writer 
and his comrades. Hibeh P. 44 bpwvTes . . . uiifirjv is an early ex. 

P. 87. — The reciprocal e^s rbv '4va. (1 Th 5^') may be noted, with the MGr 
6 eVas tov 6.\\ov. (Dr Rouse tells me the Purists say ^(r<pa^e b f/.€v rbv 8e ! !) 

lb.— On "exhausted i'otos" .see now Kuhring, Pracp. 13. 

P. 89. — Dr Marcus Dods criticises my treatment of iv ti^ iSlcfi vo't, remark- 
ing that the danger was of a man's being "assured by some other person's 
convictions." That is, of course, quite true, but I think my statement holds 
that the phrase simjily lays stress on the personal jjronoun — "let each man be 
fully assured /or himself." 

P. 96. — Note that 8u}5eKa greatly predominates over SeKo. dvo in ostraka. 

P. 99. — For evuTTLou now add Hibeh P. 30 (before 271 B.C.). 

P. 102. — In Kuhring's account of otto {Prae}). 35 ff., 52 tf.) there is striking 
evidence of the encroachments of this preposition. The regular conmiercial 
ecrxov dvb (not ira.pd) croO may save us from over-refining in 1 Co 11-''. The 
note as to the perplexing rarity in the papyri of dirb with the agent after passive 
verbs will prevent us from assuming it too readily in the NT, though its occa- 
sional presence is undoubted. For oval . . . dirb tQu cKavodXwv (Mt 18'^) I 
may quote excellent parallels from Pelagia, w /St'a dwb rod . . . Xripov tovtov 
(Usener, pp. 11 bis, 27), and w dwb tQv XpLartavQv (p. 28) : the difference in the 
interjection shows that this was not imitation. Usener (p. 44) notes w ^ia 
"Murder!" as a vernacular phrase. 'Ek of material (as Mt 27"") Kuhring 
only finds once, AP 99 (ii/A.D.) : add Mtl. Nicole, p. 281, irepiTpaxv^iStov iK 
Kadopfj.iu}u XidivQv, "a necklace made of strings of stones" (iii/n.c). As to the 
survival of e'/c to-day authorities differ : the Athenaeum reviewer cites among 
others Psichari, who says of e/c tov, " C'est bel et bien une forme vivante." 

P. 103. — Tliere seem to be places where eij actually supplies for the posses- 
sive genitive, as Deissmanu BtS 117 f. shows it does for tlie dative : TbP 16 ov ' 
\-f]yovT€i TrjL (for ttJs !) [eis] aiVoi)? avdaSia, "not desisting fi'om their violent 
liehaviour" (ii/B.c); x'^P'' '''°^ ^'^ avrrji/ oikov ( = oi') Par P 5, "her house" 
{lb.). It is tempting to seek help here for 1 Pet 1^', but the illiteracy of the 
documents must be remembered. 

P. 106. — One more quotation should be made from Kuhring, whose jtamphlet 
nuist be constantly in our hands as we study the NT prepositions. He seems 
to demolish even the solitary Hebraism I had left to fxtrd, that in Lk V'^. 
AP 135 (ii/A.D.) has tL 8e 7]inui> <xvv^(37] /xerd tCv dpxovruv ; " What l:)efell us 


in comiQxioji with the magistrates?" (G. and H.). So also BU 798 (Byz. ). 
Koutos (IIapaT?7p7)crets 409 ft'.) fiercely attacks troXe/jLuJ fxerd rivo^, " fight 2cith," 
i.e. "against " ; but he is at least eighteen centuries late. 

lb. — One force of Trapd in composition is noted by Tliumh {JVeiie Jalirb. '06, 
p. 249), with reference to irapTjXdev in Mt 14^^. He parallels Wellhauscn's 
" vorgeriickt" (our "advanced") by citing MGr TrapaTrdyw, " far over," ira.paK6.Tui, 
" far under," wapa/mecra, "far in." Another force is exemplilled in TrapawiirTu, 
which AVilcken {Odraka, i. 78 f. ) illustrates as a commercial word, giving Momm- 
sen's "ungiiltig werden, etwa wegen eines Formfehlers." He compares Xen. 
Hell. i. 6. 4, where it is co-ordinated with dyvodv, and Polybius, xviii. 36. 6, 
irapaTriTTTtiv rrji dXrideias. 

P. 110. — To the weighty authorities for ^x^Mf iii Rom 5' is now added 
Prof. H. A. A. Kennedy : see ExpT for July 1906, p. 451. 

P. 112. — Usener (Pclagia, 49) remarks on dire pxopiaL that in later Greek it 
is transferred to the thought of the goal. Thus dwrjXda/jieu iv Trj /xe^dXij 
cKK\7](rla = " we arrived at the great church." 'AcpiKvovfjiai was much earlier in 
showing this result of perfective d7r6. 

P. 115.— In JVcue Jahrb. 1906, pp. 254 ff.. Prof. Thumb justifies his view 
that Miss Purdie's general position is right, though pure Koivri texts like the 
NT and the papyri would have served better than a writer like Polyln'us, 
belonging to a transition period of the language. He points out that by this 
development of the prepositions Hellenistic gains the means of expressing 
aoristic Akttonsart in present time. Tlius "dTrexoucrt (Mt 6'-- ""• '") is in its 
AktioHsart identical with IXajSov or ^axov, that is, it is an aorist-present, which 
denotes the present answering to Xa^elv or crxeti'." The recognition of punctiliar 
force in this commercial word (see Deissmann BS 229) makes it very vivid in 
Mt I.e. : the hypocrites have as it were their money down, as soon as their 
trumpet has sounded. 

P. 122. — Mr H. D. Naylor sends me some additional notes as to the ^^7 
TTot'et canon. Some of his classical exx. against Dr Headlam are very good : 
note Aristoph. Av. 1534, where the conative present seems clear, and Ban. 
618-622. Mr Naylor remarks, " I venture to hold the view that the distinction 
is a growth. It was beginning in classical times ; it was nearly crystallised in 
NT Greek ; and it is completely so in the modern language." In other words, 
usage progressively restricted the various possible forces of Troi'et in this locution, 
till onlyjono was left. MuUach treated the matter well (pp. 345 f.), as the 
Athenaeum reviewer notes. 

P. 129.— The present of this conative rivdyKaiOv is well seen in Gal 6'-. 
With reference to Thumb's argument on Trpoa4>epoj, I find it easier to deny 
him Heb 11^^ as I can give him a good ex. in a less literary writer : wpdadtepe 
TO 8upov in Mt 5-* is very probably aorist in action, 

Jb.— The differentia of the aorist may be effectively brought in to decide 
the famous difficulty in 1 Co 7-'. If Paul meant "go on in your slavery,'' he 
must have said xf"^ • the aorist XPV<^<^'- can only be "seize the opportunity." 

p. 134.— For Jn 15*^ we might add a Hellenistic parallel : Epictetus iv. 1. 39, 
av ixh c7TpaTev(Tu/jLai, d-n-qXXdyvf irdvTwv twv KaKuiv, 1 Co 7'-'^ and Gal y-* may be 

P. 135.— An idiomatic old aorist belonging to this category still survives : a 
traveller in Cos " had a pleasant shock, on calling for a cup of coffee, to hear 
the waiter cry "E<pda(Ta." 

P. 141.— In a discussion of aorist and perfect {Am. Journ. Thcol. x. 102 f.), 
in which Latinism is regarded as contributory to the fusion, E. J. Goodspeed 


remarks on the curious development in the formulae with the verb 5ia.ypd(poj, 
"pay," in recei[its. The Ptolemaic documents have diayeypa^ev, the early 
Eoinan 8iayeypd<pTjKev. Then in twelve years, towards the end of i/A.D., the 
aorist suddenly and completely ousts the perfect, having previously only 
appeared once, cir. 40 a.d., and the change occurs simultaneously in Ele- 
phantine and Thebes. It affects no other words : fj.€/j.€Tp7]-/xai and -Kev continue 

P. 142. — Mr Ottley has noted no case of aoristic perfect in Isaiah except in 
the category of aorist and perfect standing together, joined by /cat. 

lb. — Pauline exx, of the perfect for what "stands written" may be seen 
in Gal S^* i-\ 

P. 145. — Second thoughts as to ea-xVK^f^^" in Rom 5- make me very doubtful 
whether my view of the perfect Avill stand for that passage. "Eaxo/J-ei', "we 
received," or ecrxv'^c-P-^'', " "^^'e have received," will suit ; but there seems to be 
no point in the constative "we possessed." If therefore my suggestion is to 
hold, it becomes a mannerism which Paul dropped between the writing of 
" 3 Corinthians " and Romans. On the other hand, another papyi'us can 
be quoted where "possessed" suits the sense well, and the perfect stands in 
close connexion with the aorist : BU 297 (end of ii/A.D.), toIs biKaiav airiav 
e(TX''?'C(5<ri Kol dvev tlvos dfKpicrpTjTriffeus ev rrj vofxrj yevofieuovs (= -ots). 

P. 159.— On the verb irap€x<^ = Y>^y, Wilcken observes {Ostraka, i. 107) that 
even in RL (iii/B.c.) the word occurs often both in act. and in mid. apparently 
without distinction. These sporadic exx. of irregular middles occur in the 
earliest period of the Koivq, but they do not invalidate the general rule. 

P. 168. — The papyrus exx. of oTav = ivhen make it an open question whether 
in Mk 11^^ we are not to translate "when evening fell," that is the evening 
before the irpuit of v."". In such a writer as Mk this is at least possible, and 
the other rendering produces an awkward sequence. The impf. i^ewopevovTo 
may be pictorial quite as well as iterative. (Note iav 9ja6a HbP 78.) 

P. 177. — Prof. W. Rhys Roberts suggests to me another ex. of firi c. fut. in 
Eurip. 3led. 822, Xe'^ets 5e jxr^Uv . . ., where the change to Xe^^s (especially in 
that order) has always seemed to him arbitrary. " Probably there are other 
similar cases in which the MS reading should be carefully weighed." 

P. 179. — Add for imperatival tva c. subj. (or fut.) 1 Co 7"^, and Epictetus 
iv. 1. 41, tVa fii] /j-upos rj, d\X tVa pLddy, " let him not be a fool, but learn. ..." 
Dr J. 0. F. Murray suggests to me that this IVa may be recognised in Rev 14'^. 
Since the jussive Ilequiescant falls from Divine lips, it has no bearing on con- 
troverted questions. Its superior fitness in tlie grammatical structure of the 
verse is undeniable. In 1 Co 14'' we have a good ex. of 6e\w tva and di\ii3 e. inf. 
side by side with no real dilference. 

lb. — Prof. Burkitt {Erang. da-Mepharr. ii. 252 f.) reads in Mt 23-^ ravra 
oe TTotTjo-at KdKe'iva. fj-r] atpelvai, after the Lewis, supposing the MSS readings to 
be corrections. In 2 Co 12^ he would follow n in reading Kavxdadai — ov av/xcpepov 
fj.€v — de k.t.X., which is presumably " Now to boast ! — it is not ex- 
pedient, but I shall be coming," etc. There seems no special difficulty about 
infin. for imper. here, and Aramaism is entirely out of court. If Prof. Burkitt's 
reading be accepted in Mt I.e., it is " translation Greek " no doubt, but perfectly 

P. 185. — The use of a"? in warning retains still the consciousness of its 
paratactic origin. Dr Rouse quotes < /utittcos diriOave (cf Gal 4^', 2 Co 
11^) with the independent ^^ttws in questions expressing surprise or indignation 
(yUTJTTws elixai \6p8os ; "do you suppose I'm a millionaire ? ") (MuUach, pp. 395 f.). 


lb. — In Gal 6^" WH read coy Kaipou ^x^Mf (»<B*17). As we have seen on 
Kom 5\ the MSS can hardly perhaps be regarded as decisive between o and w ; 
but the subj. is justifiable with the sense " as long as we have opportunity, let 
us continue to work." (Qs in MGr takes the meaning of ?ws as well as its own.) 
In classical Greek this futuristic subj. would demand Av, but words meaning 
until constantly drop it in Hellenistic. 

P. 188. — Dr Giles tells me that Gildersleeve's suggestion of an independent 
ov in ov ix-q was anticipated in the Middle Ages : in one if not both of the best 
MSS of Aristophanes it is regularly punctuated oii- firi. . . . 

P. 205. — Dr Rouse has noticed the old intin. in Cos, as ^x'"' 'Se'iv, "I have 
seen." Prof. Thumb {JVeue Jahrb. '06, p. 259) observes that the infin. of 
purpose is commoner in Homer than in Attic : the preference accordingly has 
lingered in Asiatic and island Greek for three thousand years. 

P. 206. — Dr E. A. Abbott reinforces the depleted ranks of scholars who 
would press the telle force of IVa in Jn. "We might cite such passages as 
15'* as affording scope for exegetical ingenuity on these lines. If we had no 
evidence from Hellenistic and MGr as to the loss of this force in 'iva, we might 
accept such subtleties of interpretation as at least not out of character with so 
allusive a writer. But with our present knowledge we should need much 
.stronger evidence than is offered to prove that Jn differed so greatly from 
his contemporaries. 

P. 207.— Prof. Burkitt notes {Ev. da-ilejjJi. ii. 183) tliat Tatian took diare 
as consecutive in Lk 4-^, " so that they cast him down." 

P. 209. ^The consecutive on which Blass would read in Jn 3'® does appear 
in later Greek, e.g. Pclagia, 20, tL didoLs rots d/xvots crov, on ^utjv aluvwv exovdiv; 
See E. A. Abbott, Joh. Gr. p. 534. 

P. 210. — The consecutive use of iVa was recognised by Lightfoot in Gal 5^'', 
1 Th 5* : see his notes, and cf what he says on eh to c. inf. in 1 Th 2'^. 

P. 212. — For classical exx. of ace. and infin. where nom. would have been 
regular, cf Aeschylus PV 268 f. and the note of Sikes and Wynne- Willson ; also 
Adam's note on Plato Apol. 36 B. 

P. 227. — The periphrastic imperf. occurs several times in Pelagia, as p. 14, 
fifi-qv dTrepxofievos ; 18, 9jv aKoixraaa : note also p. 26, ^ao yivdxxKOJU, like icrdt. evvowv 
in Mt 5-3. Cf Usener's note p. 50. That this is pure vernacular, untainted by 
Hebraism, is beyond question. Dr Rouse observes that it is used now in 
Zaconian, as (popovvrep ?fjLe = €<popoviJ.€i>, opovfievep ^fii = 6puifj.aL. 

P. 237.— A further addition to the list on p. 95 is given by Prof, Burkitt in 
Mt lO'i D and 28, i] w6\ls ets riv av elcre\dT]Te ets avTyif {Ev. da-Mcj)h. ii. 75). 
This goes naturally witli the passages supporting Wellhausen's thesis (above, 
p. 242). 

p. 240.— If /J.V yefoiTo is "a phrase of learned origin," it is presumably 
parallel with some other survivals in idiomatic phrases, for which Dr Rouse 
instances /J-erci x^ipSs, ciTro ^poxv^, reXos wAvtwv, tw ovtl, wavTa-jracrt. Dr Rouse 
himself has never heard fiv yivoLTo, for which the people say 6 deos va. (pvXdiv. 


{a) New Testament. 

Matthew ( 

Matthew — continued \ 




PAOF, 1 


I. iS . 

. 74 

6. 17 . 

85, 236 

12. 28 . 

, 140 

I. 19 . 

. 230 

6. 19 . 

58, 240 

12. 42 . 

. 236 

I. 20 . 

. 124 

6.27 . 

. 230 

13. 2 . 

230, 241 

I. 21 . 


6. 28 . 

. 117 

13. 5-8 

• Vt 

I. 22 . 

. 106 

7. I 

. 191 

13. 14 . 


2. I . 

. 48 

7. 4 

. 175, 176 

13- 15 . 

. 140 

2. 2 . 

138, 204 

7. 9 . 

. 193 

13. 17 . 

. 139' 

2. 3 . 

. 48 

7- 13 • 

. 174 

13. 24 . 

. 140 

2. 4 . 

. 120 

7. 16 . 

. 59 

13. 28 . 

. 140' 

2. 10 . 

. 117 

7. 22 . 

. 138 

13- 30 • 

. 97 

2. 15 . 

. 138 

7- 23 . 

. 174 

13- 32 . 

. 53^ 

2. 20 . 


8. I . 

. 74 

13. 44 . 

. 139 

2. 23 . 

. 17 

8. 8 . 

. 208 

13. 46 . 14 

2, 143, 145 

3- 4 • 

91, 102 

8. 10 . 

. 140 

14. 2 . 

. 140 

3- 7 • 

116, 138 

8. 19 . 

. 97 

14. 15 . 

140, 247 

3- 9 • 

15, 124 

8.25 . 

. 114 

14. 19 • 

. 107 

3. II . 

. 208 

8. 32 . 

. 172 

15. 5 . 

. 177 

3. 14 . 

. 129 

8. 34 . 


15. 6 . . 

. 140 

3- 17 • 

. 104 

9. I 


15. 13 . 

. 139 

4- 3 

. 208 


. 58 

15. 24 . 

. 138 

5. 12 . 

129, 174 

9. 10 

16, 17 

15- 32 . 

. 70- 

5- 17 • 

. 138 

9. 18 

74, 140 

16. 7 . 

. 139 

5.18 . 

58, 191 

9- 34 

. 104 

16. 17 . 

. 140' 

c. 21, etc. \[ 

38, 140, 186 

10. 5 

. 138 

16. 20 . 

. 208 

5-25 . 
5. 26 . 

. 174, 226 

10. 8 

. 139 

16. 22 . li 

)0, 191, 240 

. 191 

10. 9 

. 125 

16. 26 . 

. 230 

5- 27 . 

. 138 

10. 10 

. 38 

17. 9 . 

. 125 

5. 28 . < 

35, 140, 218 

10. 19 

. 93 

17. 12 . 

. 138, 140' 

5. 29 . 

. 210 

10. 25 

. 140, 208, 210 

17. 14 . 

. 74 

5- 31 • 

. 138, 186 

10. 26 

. 191 

18. I . 

. 78 

5- 00 • 

5- 34, 36 

. 138 

10. 28 

. 102 

18. 6 . 

. 208. 

. 126 

10. 29 

. 236 

18. II . 

. 137 

5-38 . 

. 138 

10. 32 

. 104 

18. 13 . 

. 17 

5- 39 • 

79, 174 

10.34 f. 

. 138 

18. 15 . 

. 140- 

5. 40 . 


10. 42 

. 188 

18. 22 . 

. 98 

S- 42 . 

. 129, 174 

II. I 

. 17 

18. 23 . 

. 140, 160' 

5- 43 • 

. 138 

II- 3 

. 185 

18. 25 . 

. 219 

5- 47 • 

. 186 

II. 6 

- 104 

19. 6 . 

. 140' 

6. 2 . 

. 159, 186 

II. 17 

. 139 

19. 12 . 

. 139 

6. 3 . 

. 174 

II. 20 

. 79 

19. 27 . 

. UO 

6. II . 

. 129, 174 

II. 25 

91, 130, 139 

19. 29 . 

. 140 

6. 12 , 

. 137, 140 

II. 27 

. 140 

20. 7 . 

. 140 

6. 13 , 

. 125 

12. 3, e 

tc. . . 140 

20. 12 . 

. 140 

6. 16 . 

. 186 

12. 7 

. 148 

1 20. 20, 22 

. 160 





Matthew — eontinved 


. 45 
. 241 
. 105 

138, 140 
. 179 
. 139 
. 210 
138, 139, 140 
. 131 
. 140 

231, 232 

. 104 

140, 185, 248 

. 201 

116, 185 
. 191 
. 174 
. 124 
. 150 
. 190 
. 201 
. 140 
. 142 
14, 146 
184, 189, 192 
. 116 
. 160 
. 140 
. 238 
. 140 
. 238 
. 138 
. 138 
. 221 
. 120 
. 157 

116, 140 
. 140 
. 200 
. 140 
. 212 

190, 191 
. 93 
. 157 































-> -> 










20, 24 
22 . 
24, 25 
24, 20 














Matthew — continued 


27. 44, 

27. 46 

j 27. 49 

' 27. 62 

I 28. I 
I 28. 7 

28. 15 

I 28. 18 

I 28. 20 

. 50 

86, 140 

. 140 

. 207 

140, 177 

. 155 


. 140 

. 183 

77, 102 

. 140 


. 14 

. 157 

. 127 

r- 7 
I. II 

I- 15 
I. 17 
I. 25 
I. 36 

1. 44 

2. I 


I 2. 

I ^' 
I ^" 











3. 21 

3. 26 

4. I 

4. 22 
4. 26 
4. 28 
4- 32 

4- 39 

4. 41 

5. 10 
I 5- 13 

5- 15 
5- 19 
5- 23 
5- 34 
5- 36 

6. 14, 24 
6. 17 f. . 
6. 22-25 
6. 25 
6. 26 
6. 38 
6. 39 f. 

6. 56 

7. 12 
7. 25 
7. 26 

7. 28 

8. 2 

38 I 8, 

. 140 
175, 230 
. 91 
72, 73 
. 140 
. 139 
. 140 
. 139 

95, 237 

. 134 

67, 245 

. 45 

. 176 

. 116 

. 124 

. 82 

. 222 

. 119 

. 231 


16, 17, 159 

. 208 

. 168 

69, 235 

106, 134 
. 187 
. 241 
. 79 
. 103 

191, 241 
. 185 
46, 50 
. 53 
. 176 
. 58 
. 20s 
. 172 
. 145 
. 143 
. 179 

174, 226 
. 124 
. 127 
. 94 
. 160 
. 179 
. 51 
. 170 
97, 107 

167, 168 
. 191 
13, 94, 95 
. 75 
. 139 
. 70 
. 53 

8. 14 
8. 19 
8. 24 
8. 26 


Mark — continui'd 


. 52 

. 170 

. 50 

. 94 

, 125 




9- 39 

9. 41 
o. 7 
o. 13 
o. 20 
o. 29 
o. 32 
o. 35. 

o- 35 
o. 45 

0. 51 

1. II 
I. 14 
I. 16 
I. 19 

1. 25 

2. II 
2. 14 
2. 23 
2. 40 




3- 13 







4. 10 
4. 14 
4. 18 
4. 19 
4. 21 
4. 28 
4- 3^5 
4- 31 
4- 2>2 
4- 36 
4. 42 

4- 47 







. 186 
. 125 
. 129 

125, 174 

100, 188 
. 91 
. 59 
. 159 
. 191 
. 227 
. 160 
. 179 
. 105 
. 179 
. 72 

165, 179 
. 176 

168, 248 
. 168 
. 59 
. 185 
. 145 
. 50 
. 74 

189, 191 
. 175 
. 91 
. 150 
. 95 
. 150 

190, 191 
55, 176 

. 175 
. 176 
. 97 
. 151 
. Ill 
. 105 

171, 200 
. 149 
. 151 

190, 191 
. 169 
93, 233 
. 178 
. 175 
. 157 
. 38 
. 131 
. 159 
. 86 
. 20 
. 71 
. 12 



Make — continued 


• 175 
. 51 
135, 137, 163 
. 216 
. 191 

15. 36 . 

15. 42 . 

16. 6 . 
[16.] 9-20 
[16.] 18 

I- 7 

I- 15 
I. 18 
I. 20 
I. 28 
I. 54, / 

I- 59 
I. 62 

I. 76 f- 

1. 79 

2. I 

2. I, 3 
2. 4 
2. 5 
2. 26 
2. 36 
2. 39 

2. 49 

3- IS 

3. 16 

3- 23 

3- 23 ft- 

4. 10 
4. 18 

4- 25 
4. 26 f. 

4- 33 

4. 42 

5- 19 
5- 23 
6. I 

6. II 
6. 13 
6. 23 
6. 29 
6. 30 
6. 37 
6. 41 

6. 42 

7- 13 

7. 16 
7. 19 f. 
7- 32 



75, 103 
177, 191 
. 75 
. 92 
. 183 
. 195 
208, 211, 217 
. 210 
106, 246 
. 129 
. 198 
. 217 
. 217 
. 47 
. 162 
91, 212 
. 162 
. 169 
. 130 
. 103 
194, 199 
95, 237 
129, 174 
79, 125, 174 
119, 129, 174 
175, 231, 232 

8. 6-8 
8. 27 
8. 29 

8. 42 

8. 46 

8. 52 

8. 54 
9- 3 
9- 13 
9- 25 

9. 28 

9- 31 
9- 36 

9- 45 
9. 46 

9- 54 
o. I 
o. 4 
o. 7 
o. 18 
o. 20 

O. 21 

o. 36 

0. 42 

I- 3 

1. 4 

I. 7 
I- 35 
I. 41 f. 

1. 46 

2. I 
2. 2 
2. 4 
2. 8 
2. 12 
2. 15 
2. 20 
2. 24. 
2. 26 
2. 32 

2. 35 
2. 36 

2. 39 
2. 58 


3. 16 
3- 24 
3- 27 
3- 34 

3- 35 

4- 7 

4. 12 
4. 18 
4. 20 
4. 28 

129, 17 




. 79 
113, 148 
, 54 
. 114 
. 102 
. 229 
121, 125 
. '125 
. 70 
. 179 
171, 187 
87, 230 
. 70 
53, 171 
52, 144 
91, 125 
3, 174 

Luke — continued 


. 60 








15. 14 
15- 17 
15- 19 

15. 26 

15- 32 

16. 17 

16. 22 

17. I 

17- 23 

18. I 
18. 2 
18. 7 
18. 10 
18. 16 
18. 36 

18. 41 

19. 2 

19- 13 
19. 17 

19. 29 

20. 23 
20. 16 

20. 36 

21. 6 
21. 8 
21. 22 
21. 33 

21. 37 

22. 6 
22. 23 
22. 34 
22. 44 
22. 49 
22. 65 

22. 70 
23- 3 

23- 5 

23. 28 

24. 22 

24- 34 
24. 47, 49 
27. 49 . 

. 114 

. 208 
. 198 
. 135 
. 191 
. 16 
. 217 
. 93 
. 59 
. 218 
. 65 
. 159 
. 205 
. 124 
. 198 
. 185 
. 86 
35, 118 

174, 226 
. 69 
. 117 

194, 240 

. 114 

69, 191 

. 125 

. 217 

190, 191 
. 69 
. 220 
. 199 
. 239 
. 51 
11, 185 
. 231 
. 86 
. 86 
45, 240 
. 125 
. 51 
. 135 
. 182 
. 175 


I. 5 . 
I. 6 . 

I. 9 . 

I. II . 

I. 12 

I. 14 

I. 15 
I. 16 

I. 18 

I. 27 

I. 41 

' 2. 16 

i 3-7 






50, 82, 83 

), 147, 245 

. 100 

144, 235 

208, 237 

. 90 

. 186 


124, 126 



John — continued 

John — continued 

Acts — continued 




3-i6 . 

. 209 

15- 6 . 59, 134, 247 

5- 2 

. 237 

3-18 . 

. 171, 2.39 

15. 8, 13 . . 208 

5- 7 

16, 70, 233 

3- 19 • 

. 140 

15- 13 . 

. 211 

5- 14 

67, 68 

3- 32 • 

. 143 

15. 16 


5- 15 

. 35 

4. 10 . 

. 201 

15. 18 


■9, 245 

5- 17 

. 228 

4. 18 . 

. 145 

15. 22, 


. 52 


. 237 

4-23 • 


IS- 27 

. 119 

5- 24 

. 198 

4. 29 . 

. 170, 193 

16. 17 

. 102 

5- 39 

. 193 

4- 34 • 

. 208, 210 

16. 23 

. 66 


. 50 

4- 35 • 

. 12 

17- 3 

! 11 

3, 206 


. 50 

4- 52 • 


17. 23 

. 234 

7- 5 

. 231, 232 

5- 7 • 

. 219 

17. 24 

. 179 

7- II 

. 107 

5- 13 • 

. 210 

17. 25 

. 113 

7. 12 

. 235 

5. 14 . 

. 125 

18. 20 

. 236 

7. 14 

. 103 

5- 18 . 

. 90 


. 87 

7. 20 

. 104 

5- 24 • 

. 67 


. 86 

7. 26 

. 129 

5.36 • 



. 210 

7- 31 

. 117 

5- 37 • 

. 144 

19- 3 

. 70 

7- 35 

. 144 

5-38 • 

. 67 

19. II 

. 148 


. 133 

6. 10 . 

63, 75 

19. 21 

. 125 

7- 40 

. 69 

6.25 . 

. 146 

19. 24 

. 157 

7. 60 

, 125 

6.57 • 

. 105 

19. 25 

. 106 

8. 16 

.  . 107 

6. 59 • 

. 236 

20. I 


8. 20 

. 195 

6. 68 . 

. 83 

20. 2 

. 59 


71, 235 

■7.4 . 

. 212 

20. 17, 


, 125 


. 198 

[8.9] • 

. 105 

20. 19 


9- 7 

. 66 

[8. II] . 

. 189 

20. 25 


9, 191 

9- 15 

. 217 

8.31 • 

. 67 

21. 3 

. 204 

9- 34 

. 119 

8. 32, 33 

. 149 

21. 5 

. 170 


. 125 

8.33 • 

. 144 

21. 8 


10. 15 

. 125 

8.38 . 

. 85 

21. 10 

. 135 

10. 17 

. 198 

8. 59 . 

. 156, 161 

21. 23 


10. 25 

. 16, 217 

9. 2 . 

. 210 

21. 24 


10. 28 

. 236 

9. 17 • 

. 94 

21. 25 

. 205 

lo- 33 

. 131, 228 

10. 5 . 

. 190 

10. 37 

. 240 

10. 12 . 

. 231, 232 

II. 25 

. 235 

10. 29 . 

. 50 


II. 28 

60, 92 

10. 37 . 

. 125 

12. 6 

. 114 

II. 2 . 

. 132 

I. I . . .79 

12. 17 

. 240 

II. 17 • 

. 36 

I- 5 


12. 25 

. 133 

II. iS . 

. 102 

I. 12 

49, 6 

9, 235 

13- I 

. 228 

II. 21, 32 

. 201 

I- 15 


13-8 . 

. 236 

II. 28 . 

. 131 

I. 25 


13- 9 • 

. 83 

II. 42 . 

. 135 

2. I 


13. 10 . 

. 177 

II- 55 • 

. 12 

2. 8 


13. 22 

. 71 

II. 56 . 

. 191 

2. 17, 2 



13- 25 

. 93 

12. I . 

100, 101 

2. 45 . 


14. 6, 8 

. 48 

12. 7 . 

. 175 

2. 47 • 


14. 8 

. 221 

12. 9 . 

. 84 

3. 8 . 


14. 13 . 

. 228 

12. 13 . 


3- 12 . 


14. 14 . 

. 157 

12. 19 . 

. 135 

3- 17 . 


14. 18 . 

. 217, 220 

12. 35 . 

. 158 

3- 19 • 


15. 17 . 

. 237 

12,40 . 

. 117 

3- 23 . 


15. 20 . 

. 217 

13- I • 

90, 135 

4. 5 


IS- 23 . 

. 179 

13. 8 . 

177, 191 

4- 13 • 


15- 27 • 

. 230 

13- 13 • 

. 235 

4. 16 . 


IS- 29 - 

171, 176, 228 

13. 27 . 

. 236 

4. 21 . 


2, 230 

IS- 37 f- 

. 130 

13- 31 • 

. 135 

4. 23 . 


15- 39 - 

. 209 

14. 31 . 

. 177 

4- 35 • 


16. 6 . 

. 133, 134 

15. 4 . 

103, 241 

4. 36 . 


16. 13 . 




Acts — 

i6. i8 
i6. 28 

16. 34 

16. 36 

ty. I 

17. 9 
17. iS 
17. 26 

17. 27 

17. 28 

17- 31 

18. 8 

18. 9 

19. 14 

19- 15 
19. 16 
19. 26 
19. 27 
19. 28 

19. 32 

20. 3 
20. 10 
20. 16 
20. 18 
20. 22 
20. 27 
20. 28 

20. 29 

21. 14 
21. 16 
21. 22 
21. 28 
21. 31 

21. 33 

21. 40 

22. 2 
22. 5 
22. 9 
22. 16 
22. 17 
22. 19 

22. 24 

23. 21 
23. 26 
23. 27 

23. 29 
23- 30 

23- 35 

24. 2 

24- 5 
24. 10 
24. 19 
24. 22 
24. 23 

24. 24 

25- 9 

25. 10 

25- 13 
25. 16 



119, 240 
. 125 

67, 235 
. 230 
. 20 
. 198 
. 133 
. 230 
. 240 

67, 235 
. 125 

80, 246 
. 131 
. 80 
. 73 
. 60 
. 50 
. 236 
. 217 
17, 63, 196 
. 56 
. 151 
. 217 
. 90 
. 26 
. 134 

73, 223 
. 52 
. 143 
. 74 

198, 199 



. 149 

. 66 

. 163 

. 74 


. 133 


. 125 

. 179 

. 117 

. 239 

74, 176 
. 133 
. 106 
. 224 
. 229 
. 196 

133 236 
. 90 
88, 90 
. 131 
. 236 

132, 133 
. 169 



















17, 19 



. 239 

. 148 

, . 78 

. 70 

. 128 

. 225 

231, 232 

. 198 

69, 217 

. 213 

. 194 

. 241 

. 36 

. 106 























35, 110, 247, 

8. 12 
8. 15 
8. 18 
8. 20 

8. 28 
9- 3 
9- 5 

9. 25 

9. 26 

10. 3 
10. 6 

10. 14 

11. 4 

11. 18, 

12. 3 
12. 5 










. 207 

. 125 

219, 237 

105, 183 

EoMANS — continued 

6 . 



16 f. 





5> I 





14, 15, 16, 19. ]80 
179, 180 

. 182 
. 228 
. 87 
182, 183 
. 89 



1 Corinthians 

1. 18 . 



3-8 . 



3- 19 • 


4- 3 



4.8 . 



4. 21 . 



6. 2 . 

. 103, 


6.3 . 



6.5 . 

, , 


6. 7 . 



6. II . 



7. 2 . 



7- 5 • 



7- 15 . 

» , 


7. 27 . 



7- 31 • 



7- 37 • 



8. 6 . 



8. 13 . 


9.6 . 



9. 10 . 



9. 19 . 



9. 21 . 



9. 26 . 


10. 2 . 


10. 13 . 



10. 29 . 



II. 23 . 



II. 29 . 



II. 34 . 



12. 2 . 



13. 12 . 



13- 13 • 


14. 5 . It 

7, 208, 


14. 8 . 




1 uopaxTHi^ 

I.NS — conM. 








14. 10 . 

. I'JG 

I. 5 . . . 183 

2. 23 . . . ICT 

14. II . 

103, 104 

I. 6f. 

80, 246 

2. 26 


14. 27 . 


I- 7 

. 171 

2. 30 


14- 39 • 

. 125 

I. 22 f. 

. 227 

3- 3 

. 231 

15. 2 . 

. 171 

2. 2 

. 193, 201 

3- 4 

. 230 

15- 4 . 

137, 141 

2. 10 

. 179 

3- 5 

10, 102 

15.6 . 

. 136 

2. 13 

. 209 

3- 7 

. 148 

IS- 9 • 

79, 236 

3- 2 

. 117 

3. 10 

. 218 

15. 22 . 

. 114 

3- 17 

. 219 

3- II f. 

. 187, 194 

15. 28 . 

149,. 163 

3- 23 

. 114 

3- 13 

. 212 

15. 29 . 



10, 2.33 

3- 16 

. 179, 204 

IS- 31, 32 

. 114 


. 231 

3- 19 

. 50 

IS- 32 . 

. 120 

4. II 

. 193, 248 

3- 21 

. 217 

IS- 33 • 


4- 13 

. 106 

4. II 

. 229 

IS- 37 . 

151, 196 

4. 27 

. 127, 231 

4. 14 

. 228 

IS- 50 . 

. 58 

4- 30 

. 177 

16. 2 . 


5- I 

61, 125 

16.3 . 

. 58 

S- 12 

. 163, 201 


16. 4 . 

216, 217 

5- 14 

. 87 

16. 5 . 

. 120 

5- 15 

. 124 

I. 4, 8 . . 84, 236 

16. 6 . 

. 74 

5. 16 

118, 130, 191 

I. 26 

. 224 

16. II . 

. 178 

5. 26 

. 177 

2. I 

. 52 

6. 5 

. 90 

2. 2 

. 182 



2. 8 
2. 19 

. 178, 193, 228 
. 231 

I. 4 • 

. 93 


2. 21 

. 124 

I. 8 . 

217, 220 

3- 9 

. 126 

I. 9 . 

. 145 

I. I . . .228 


. 181, 182 

I. 17 . 

. 210 

I. 6 

. 93 

3- 17 

. 181, 183 

2. 7 . 

. 193 

I. 10 

. 107 

3- 18 

. 163 

2. 13 . 

145, 220 

I- 13 

67, 68 


. 183 

4. 8 . . 

. 237 

I. 15 

84, 236 

4. 15 

. 48 

4- 8, 9 • - 

. 231 

I. 16 

. 159 

S- 3 • 

. 115 

I- 17 

55, 196 

5. 4 • 

. 107 

2. II 

84, 236 

1 Thessalonians 

5. 19 . 

6. 9 . . 

7-5 .14 
8. 6 . 

212, 227 

. 114 

5, 182, 225 

. 219 

2. 15 
2. 18 
3- 4 

. 127 
. 103 
. 239 
. 117 

2. 4 
2. 12 
2. 16 

3- I 

3- 2 

3- S 

3- II 
4. 9 
4. 14 

4- 15 

4- 17 

5- 3 • 
5-4 • 

. 231 
, 219 
. 219 
. 231 
. 68 

193, 201 
. 168 
. 179 
. 219 

149, 162 

. 191 


. 191 

. 210 

8. 7 . . 
8. II . 
8. iS . 
8. 23 . . 
8. 24 . . 
9- II . 

9- II. 13 

10. 2 . 

. 179 
. 217 
. 68 
. 105 
. 181 
. 182 
. 181 
. 212 

3- 16 . 

3- 17 
4. I 

4- 2, 3 . 

4. 2f. 

4. 26 

4. 28 . 

. 236 
. 55 
. 182 
84, 93, 236 
. 181 
. 182 
. 125 
. 127 

10. 9 . 

. 167 

5. 18 . 

. 126 

10. 14 . 

11. I . 

. 68 
. 200 i 

5. 22 . 

5- 33 • 

. 181 
. 179 

II. 2 . 

. 160 i 

6. 13 . 

. 115 

II. 5 . 

. 239 : 

6. 22 . 

. 135 

2 Thessaloxiax.s 

II. 16 . 

. 178 

II. 21 . 

. 212 

I. 8 . . 9 

II. 25 . 14 

4, 145, 148 


2. 2 

. 212 

12. 2 . 

101, 229 

2. 3 . 

. 178 

12. 9 . 

. 130 

I. 5 . . 84, 236 

2. 17 . 

. 179 

12. 17 . 

. 144 

I. 30 . . . 225 

3- S • 

. 179 

12. 19 . 

. 119 

2. I . . .59 

3-6 . 

. 52 

13- 5 • 

. 171 

2. 12 . 

. 174 1 

3- 13 • 

. 124 






I- 13 

. 230 

2. 6 

. 105 

4. 14 

. 125 

4- 15 

. 184 

5- I 

124, 125 

5- 13 

. 229 

5. 22 

. 125 

5- 23 

. 125 


. 171 



I. 8 

. 124, 125 

I. II 

. 234 

I. 12 

. 204 

I. 16, I 


. 195 

I. 18 

. 78, 236 

2. 19 

. 113 

2. 25 

! £ 

5, 193, 194 





12 . . i 




13 • 

8 . 



1. I 

2. 10 

2. 15 

3- 5 


88, 233 





8, 15 



4- 3 
4. 7 

5- I 
5- 7 
6. 4f. 
6. 6 

6. 10 

7- I 

7. 2 

7- 5 

7- 9 
7. 13 
7. 24 

74, 17 

8, 193 




204, 210 





7. 27 

8. 6 

8. 10 

9. 12 

9. 18 

10. I 
10. 14 
10. 16 
10. 17 
10. 28 

10. 35 

11. I 

"• 3 
II. 4 
II. 5 
II. 12 
II. 15 
II. 17 
II. 21 
II. 28 

11. 32 
II- 33 
II- 34 
II- 35 

12. 7 
12. 15 

12. 2t 

13- 5 
13. 6 

13- 9 

13- 24 


— continved 

1 Peter— 




. 90 

2. IS . 


. 56 

2. 18 


. 74 

2. 24 


, 107, 224 

3- I. 7 


51, 132 

3- I, 7, 

9> 15 


5 '. 


. 143 

3- 3 


58, 225 

3- 7 


. 127 



. 107, 224 

3- 14 


. 190 

3- 17 . 


. 114 

4- 3 


. 124 

4- 7 


. 231 

4. 8ff, 


. 219 

4. II 


, 224 

4. 12 


. 217 

4. 17 


. 230 

4. 18 


. 204 

5- 7 


142, 143, 238 

. 114 

. 144 

2 Peter 

. 237 

. 116 

I. I 

, , 



. 116 

I. 9 

, , 



. 224, 231 

I. 10 




. 82 

I. 12 




. 178 

I. 18 



. 124, 200 

I. 19 

' 47, 



. 182 

2- 5 



. 150 

2. 14 

, , 

47, 74 

. 125 

2. 22 

. 155, 


, 238 

. 237 






1 John 

I. 1 





I. II . 

, . 




1. 13 . 





1. 24 . 

135, 139, 




2. I 

, , 




2. 25 . 

, , 




3- 4 • 





3- 13 • 

• • 




4. 2f. 





5. 16 

• • 




5- 17 

• • 

1 Peter 




I. 2 



I. 8 

'. 231, 



I. 10 f. 




I. 14 



I. 18 

1 • • 


I. 24 

i • • 


2. 10 

• • 



2. II 

. . 91, 



2. 12 

. 181 




. 143 
. 210 

148, 201 
. 69 
. 125 
. 229 
. 171 
. 68 
. 211 
. 171 

160, 168 

2 John 

. 229 

50, 116 

. 125 

3 John 

. 236 
. 116 

. 228 





I. 4 

I- 5 

I. i6 

1. 20 

2. 2 

3) 5 

5. i6 

3- 2 

3- 3 

3- 5 

3- 15 


6a, 143 




3- 16 . 


4- 4 . 

4- 9 . 

5- 5 . 

5- 7 . 

6. 6 . 

7. I . 


7. 2 , 

9, 12 

7- 3 • 


7- 9 . 


7- 14 . 


8. I 


8.4 . 


8. 5 . 


9.6 . 


9. II . 


9. 12 . 


9. 14 . 


9. 20 , 


10. 2 . 

, 145 

10. 4 . 


10. 10 . 


11. 5 . 


II. 17 . 

— continued 



. 114 

II. 18 . 

. 36 

12. 4 

. 168 

12. 6 

. 125 

12. 7 


. 143, 145 

12. 9 

. 125 

13. 8, I 

. 36 

14. 4 

. 237 

14. 8 

. 125 

14. 13 

. 237 

14. 20 

. 145 

17. 3 

. 168 

18. 2 

. 75 

18. 14 

. 143, 145 

18. 22 

. 190 

19- 3 

6y, 233, 235 

19. 10 

. 58 

20. 2 

. 36 

20. 4 

. 210 

20. 8 

. 225 

21. 12, 

14 . 

. 125 

21. 13 

. Ill, 115 

21. 21 

. 187 

21. 27 

. 52, 145 

22. 9 





. 118 

. 114 








. 102 

. 65 

134, 135 

190, 192 












(&) Old Testament. 

N.B. — The numbering of the chapters is according to the English Bihle ; where 
the LXX differs, the numbers are added in brackets. So with titles of 




Gen. I. 10 . 

. 46 

1 Sam. (1 K.)i. II 


Ca. 8. I 

. 194 

,, 3- 10 . 

. 161 

„ 9- 9 • 

. 235 

Isai. 5. 27 . 

. 189 

,, 4. 24 . 

. 98 

.. 13- 15 

. 14 

,, 14- 31 • 

. 176 

,, 6. 17 . 

. 49 

2 Sam. (2K.) 18. 3 

3 194 

,, 28. 16 . 

. QB 

„ 8. 13 . 

. 237 

„ 20. 20 

. 240 

,- 33- 24 • 

. 185 

,, 21. 26 . 

. 241 

,, 21. 24 

. 50 

>, 53- 5 • 

. 143 

„ 24. II . 

. 162 

1 Chr. II. 19 

. 240 

Jer. 9. 2 


„ 43. 16 . 

. 63 

Job 22. 3 

, 168 

» 31 (38). V:, 


M 43- 23 . 

. 240 

,, 24. 12 . 

. 88 

Ezek. 26. 13. 


„ 45- 8 . 


,, 30. 20 . 


Dan. 10. 13, 20 


Ex. I. 16 


., 31- 31 • 


Hos. II. I . 


„ 3- 14 • 


M 3'- 35 • 


,, 32. I 


Ps. 6. 9 


Num. u. 29 


,, 32(30- 3 



Deut. 23. I . 


,, 120 (119). 3 


„ 28. 24ff. 


„ 141 (140). I . 


Esth. 13. 3 . 


Jos. I. II 


Prov. 3. 5 . 


,, 14- 3 • 


.. 17- 13 • 


,, 9. 12 . 

88, 89 

2 Mac. 3. 16 . 


Judg. 9. 29 . 


,, 22. 7 . 


,, 9. 24 . 


.. 9- 53 • 


„ 27.15. 


„ 12. 4 . 


Ruth 1.9 


Eccles. 2. 16. 


4 Mac. 5.13. 





(c) Insckiptions. 


Archivfiir Pcq^ymsforschung, eel. U. Wilcken. 


, 14 



111. 129 . 


DcJJxionitiii Tabcllae, ed. Audollent (Paris, 1904). 
no. 15 . . . 234 I no. 92 . . . 195 | no. 1S9. 


Bulletin de Corresjwndance ffellenique. 
1888, p. 202 . . 234 I 1902, p. 217 . . 196 I 1903, p. 335 . 




De/c'/.us infii'riptionuw, Graccarum, ipropUr dialedum memorabilium^, ed. 
P. Cauer (Leipzig, 1883). 

no. 32 . 

. 214 

no. 157. 


. 214 

no. 220. 

. 214 

47 • 

. 214 



. 214 


. 178, 214 

122-5 . 

. 214 



. 214 


. 214 


. 214 


North Semitic Inscriptions, by G. A. Cooke (Oxford, 1903). 
no. no. . . 236 | no. 113. . .236 


Inscrlptioncs Maris Aerjaci, ed. von Giirtringen and Paton. 
ill. 174. . . 167 I iii. 325 • • • 100 | iii. 1119 


Journal of Hellenic Studies (Hellenic Society). 

XIX. 92 . 
xix. 299 


xxii. 369 
xxiii. 85 

7, 220 
. 240 

XXV. 63 , 




llecucil dcs inscriiMons fjrecqncs et laiines dc I'E'jypte, ed. Letronne (1842). 

no. 117. . 159 no. 198. . . 102 no. 557 . . . 240 

149. . . 60 221. . . 240 vol. ii. p. 286 . 240 

190. . . 102 


Die JnschriJ'tcH von Magnesia am Macandcr, ed. 0. Kern (Berlin, 1900). 
no. 47 . . . 52 I no. 114. . . 64 | no. 215. . . 198 


Becueil d'inscri]ytions grecques. ed. C. Miehcl (Brussels, 1900). 

no. 32 







no. 357- 

. 214 



. 216 



. 214 



. 214 



. 38 


no. 694. 40, 101, 214 

looi . 101, 214 

1333 . • 214 

1409 . . 5.^» 

141 1 . . 55 




OriciUis Graeci Inscvipiiones Selcdac, cd. Dittenberger (Leipzig, 1903-5). 


no. 17 


. 56 . . 

. 73 

no. 219. 

. 238 

87 . 


3S3. . 

. 21 

90 (Ku.'jcLUy 

. 102, 


. 101 

167, 216 

Ramsay, C. and B. 

Cities and Bishoprics of rhrijr/in, by W. M. Ramsay, 2 vols. (Oxfdrd, 1895. 

ii. 380 . 

. 239 

ii. 472 . 

. 240 

ii- 535-8 

. 240 

391 . 

. 239 

477 • 

. 239 

537 . 

. 234 

392 . 

. 240 

485 • 

. 238 

559 f. 

. 240 


. 239 

530 . 

. 239 

565 • . 

. 56 


Introdudion to Greek Epigraphif, vol. ii., The Inscriptions of Attica; ed. 
E. S. Roberts and E. A. (Gardner (Cambridge, 1905). 

. 212 I p. 25S (no. 97) . 234 

p. 179 

Viereck SG 

Sermo Gracms quo Senafus Poj/uliosquc Eomaiius 
Viereck (Gottingen, 1888). 

pp. 12, 13, 21 . 101 

usi sunt, by P. 

(d) Papyki. 

Archiv (see under (c) above) 

iii. 60 . . . 17 I iii. 173 



British Mtcscum Papyri, ed. F. G. Kenyon (London, 1893, 1898). 
Vol. i. nos. 1-138. 

no. 18 . . .52 

20 . . . 167 

21 . . 11>6, 208 

no. 23 

Vol. ii. nos. 139 (T. 

no. 177. . . 236 
220. , . 234 
233. . . 169 

no. 239 






no. 42 . 

no. 401 . 


GriccMiichc Urkmiden, from the Berlin Museum. 
Vol. i. nos. 1-361 (1895). 
no. 18 . 
27 . 

31 • 

36 - 

46 . 

48 . 

69 . 

98 . 


no. 114 

























no. 225 . 

. 234 


. 220 


. 220 

297 . 

. 248 


. 240 


. 220 


59, 169, 187 


. 231 



BU — contimied. 

Vol. ii. nos. 362-696 (1898) 

no. 362. 


Vol. iii. iios. G97-1012 (1903). 

no. 731 • 





no. 457. 





















no. 607 . 

36, 168 


. 96 


177, 208, 220 


. 159 


. 220 


. 219, 236 


1-12, 177 
. 93 

no. 830 . 



Vol. iv. nos. 1013 ff. (in progress) 
no. 1040 

no. 1013 












no. 948 . 


970 103,159,235,236 
997. . . 60 
99S. , . 107 
1002 . . 60 

no. 1052 



Ch P 

Greek Pajtyri from the Cairo Muscutn, ed. E. J. Goodspecd (Chicago, 1902). 
no. 3 . . . 162 I no. 15 . . . 101 


Cor2ms Fapyrorum Raineri, ed. C. Wessely (Vienna, 1895). 

• 4 . 


. 223 

no. 25 . 


. 169 

no. 1 56 . 


. 220 

19 . 


212, 239 

28 . 


. 127 



. 169 

24 . 


127, 169 

Papyrus of the astronomer Eudoxus, cd. Blass .... 


Florence Papyri, ed. Vitelli (Lincei Acadomj' : fasc. i. , Milan, 1905). 
no. 2 . . . 220 I no. 5 . . . 106 1 no. 24 . 


Heidelberg Papyri (mainly LXX), ed. G. A. Deissmann (1905). 
no. 6 . . . 196 


Papyri from Karanis, cd. E. J. Goodspeed (Chicago, 1900). 
no. 37 . . . 60 I no. 46 . . .72 




Papyri Gracci Musei antlquarii ptoblici Lugduv.i - Batavi, ed. C. Leemans 


195, 220 
. 50 




60, 237 



79, 195, 197, 245 




Papyri from Magdola, in 5C//1902 ff., ed. Lefebvre. 

no. i6 . 


. 105 I no. 20 . 


105 1 no. 25 


100, 239 

Mithras Liturgy 

Mtie Mithrasliturgie, by A. Dieterich (Leipzig, 1903). 
p. 12 . . . 54 I p. 17 . . .40 


Geneva Papyri, ed. J. Nicole, 2 vols. (1896, 1900). 

no. I 


. 229 

no. 19 . 


. 142 

no. S3 

7 . 


. 208 

47 • 


. 101 


16 . 


. 220 

49 • 


. 228 


17 . 


. 193 

SI • 


. 188 



Par P 

Paris Papyri, in liotices et Extraits, xviii. part 2, ed. Brnuet de Presle (1865). 

no. 5 

. 228 

no. 26 

GO, 167, 168 

no. 46 

. 167 


. 226 


. 62 


. 6, 53 


. 234 


. 72 


17, 103, 193, 


. 231 


. 107 



. 231 




85, 121, 208 


59, 73, 240 


.36, 231 


. 46, 84, 93 


12, 168 


. 179 


46, 168 


60, 62, 110 


. 229 


. 14, 61, 198, 223 


Papyri from Pathyris, in Areldv ii. 514 ff., ed. de Eicci. 
no. I . . . 223 


Flinders Petrie Papyri, ed. J. P. Mahaffy (in Proe. Koyal Irish Academy, 
Cunningham Memoirs, viii., 1891). 

no. 13 . . . 168 


Turin Papyri, ed. Peyron (1826). 

no. I . 75, 103, 197, no. 3 . 

229, 231, 246 5 . . 

231 I no. 8 

231, 237 

The following collections are (with one exception) from the publications of 
the Egypt Exploration Fund ; the papyri were discovered and mainly edited 
by B. P. Greufell and A. S. Hunt :— 


Revenue Laws of Ptolemy PhiladeJ/Jius (Oxford, 1896). 
col. 29 , . . 93 I col. 38 . . . 103 

An Alexandrian Erotic Fragment, and other GreeJc Papyri, cliiefly Ptolemaic 
no. 18 . . . 234 I no. 30 . . . 223 | no. 35 . . . 223 




Greek Papyri, 

series II. (1897). 



no. 15 . 


no. 36 . 

. 106, 159 

26 . 

91, 223 

3S . 

. 1G9 

no. 46 


Oxyrhynclnis Papyri. 

Vol. i. nns. 1-207 (1898). 
no. 6 . . .70 no. 67 

34 . . . 169 69 

41 . . . 106 

60 . . . 199 


Vol. ii. nos. 208-400 (1899). 

no. 237 . 

261 . 

168, 197, 213, 

220, 240 

. 195 

. 106 

no. 265 . 


Vol. iii. nos. 401-653 (1903). 

no. 413. 



no. 654 . 





. 175 
. 231 
63, 141 
. 146 
. 142 

no. 486 . 




. 99 

. 104 

. 231 

. 101 

159, 187 

no. 99 . 

121 . 

no. 2S6 . 
292 . 





iv. nos. 654-839 (1904). 
. 130 no. 717 
99 724 

. 105 725 

. 195 726 

78 727 

Fay^m Towns and tJicir Pajiyri (1900). 




. 160 
. 162 

178, 223 

no. 118. 
121 . 



Ainlierst Papyri, part ii (1901). 



30 . 

97, 238 


• 93 

1^ . 

. 223, 231 


86 . 

. 179 




s Papyri (Unive 



6 . 

. 123, 169 



12 . 

103, 223, 234 


13 • 

. 131 


14 . 

99, 223 


24 . 

. 79 


26 . 

. 86 


27 . 

103 Us 


28 . 

. 169 


33 • 

. 78 


34 . 

231, 232 






. 121 

no. 736 . 

. 103 


. 223 


. 106, 231 


. 230, 231 



. 169 

. 160 

28, 64, 240 

97, 208 

. 231 

54, 79 

12.3, 156 

. 85 

. 103 

195, 200, 210 


99, 142, 234 

132, 200 

170, 216 
. 170 

123, 208 
. 91 
. 64 

no. 124. 


. 73 



. 168 



. 169 

no. 135 17,77,208, 246f. 
144- • . 240 

rt i. (1902). 




no. 64 


























79, 234 






















(e) Greek Literature. 
i. Classical. 

Homer (? x'/viii t..c.) 


Iliad i. I . . 172 
i. 137 . 166, 239 

Iliad vi. 284 . 
vi. 459 



Pindar (v/b.c.) 
Pyth. iv. 189 


Oedipus Tyranmis 
236 . 

533 • 
706 . 
1141 . 

Ion 771 

Iphig. I'll Taur. 
1092 . 

Ranae. 521 


Herodotus (v/i;.c.) 

81 I vi. 46 

Antiphon (v/i;.c.) 
Frag. M. 3. 67 . 227 

Thucydides (v/b.c.) 
iv. 54 . . 227 

[Xenophon] (v/b.c.) 
De liepubl. Athen. 
II. 3 . . 31 

Xenophon (iv/B.c.) 
Hellenica i. vi. 4 247 | m. ii. 14 

Plato (iv/B.c.) 

Alclbiades 124A 146, ; Apologia, 28c 

238 ! 39A . 
Ai)ologia, i8b . 202 1 Crito e^2\ 
20E . . 12"J I 44 A . 
21 A . . 122 I EiUhydeinus zjGb 

Demosthenes (iv/B.c.) 
Aristoeratcs 659 177 | Mcidias 525 . 

[Demosthenes] (?) 
Aristoyciton 597 76 

Aristotle (iv/B.c.) 

Foctics 19 . . 172 





Aeschylus (v/n.c.) 

Prom. Vinci. ^i^TU 76 | Prom. Vind. %Gi. 134 

Sophocles (v/b.c.) 

Antigone 114 . 74 

542 . . 93 

789 . . 202 
Oedipus Colmieus 

155 • • 179 

Euripides (v/b.c.) 

Alcestis 386 . 134 

Baccliac 1065 . 115 

Hecuba 1163 . 113 

Aristophanes (v/i!.c.) 
Acharn. 484 . 227 
Pax 291 . . 161 

Hippocrates (v/b.c.) 
Epidein. vii. 51 . 101 





Iliad xxii. 349 
Odyssey i. 337 

Persac 981 

Oedipus Tyrannus 

Pliilodetes 300 
-£>«, fra>,'. 201 (Diii- 

doii) .' 

Iphig. in Taiir. 1359 
Medea. 213 f. . 
1320 . 

Thesmophor. iioS . 
^rt's 1534 . 











. 142 
. 192 

Euthyphro 14E 
Tlieaetetus 144B 



. 71 
. 141 
. 229 

Protayurus 3 1 2A 
Republic i. 337 B 




ii. Hellenistic. 
[For the main writers in this section see also Index III.] 
Polybius (ii/B.c.) 

SO. 7. 


85 I 516. 30 

Cicero (i/B.c.) 
Ad Atticum vi. 5 
(a Greek sen- 
tence) . .178f. 

Dionysius Halicarnassensis (i/B.c.) 
X. 10. . .65 

Philo Judaeus (i/A.c.) 
De Posteritate 
Caini, § 145 . 100 

Flavius Josephus (i/A.D.) 
Antiqu. i. I. I . 237 
vii. 9. 2 . . 235 

Dionysius Thrax (i/A.D.) 

A'lifiq. XX. S. 6 
Bell. ii. 13. 5 

Plutarch (I/a.d.) 
p. 256D . . 216 ! p. 6o8b. 

[Barnabas] (i/A.D.) 

ii. 28. . . 74 I V. 13 . 

Clement of Rome (I/a.d.) 

ad Cor. 17. . 2,9, \ ad Cor. 21 

Justin Martyr (ii/A.D.) 
Apology i. 22, 32, 
44, 60, 62, ii. 2 143 

Arrian (ii/A.D.) 

Epicteius ii. 2. 16 210 

Lucian (ii/A.D.) 
Dialogi Marini, 
iv. 3 . 7C, 87 

Ascensio Isaiae (ii/A.D.) 
12 . . .59 

Piscator 6 

Aquila (ii/A.D.) 
Gen. i. i . 


Clement of Alexandria (ii/A.D.) 
Paedagogus iii. i 193 

[Clement] (iii/A.i.. ?) 

Homilies iii. 69 . 177 | Homilies xv. 8 

John Chrysostom (iv/A.D.) 
ix. 259B . . 229 

Isocrates (Argument to — vi/A.D.) 
Busiris . .212 


207 I 1004 


. 247 


Contra Apionein 
4. 21. 

246 I p. 767 








in I'leusclien's Antilegomena (oil. 1) 



Ehionite Gospel, 
no. 2b (p. 9) . 17 

Gosp. ace. to He- 
brews, no. 4 
(p. 4) • • 17 

in Tischendorf's Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha 

Acts of Philip 36 
(p. 92) . . 97 


Gospel of Fe.ler 35 
(p. 16) . . 97 

iii. Modern. 


Sonys of Modern Greece, by G. F. Abbott (Cambridge, 1900) 

p. 22, 




p. 70 . 










1S4 . 





200 . 

Pallis (see 


30 ni.) 

title . 



Mt 22" 





Lk6^- . 





Jn iQi-' . 





Pro ArcJiia 23 . 242 


-Eclogues vii. 16 . 218 


IX. I . . .58 


iii. 60 f. . . 5 

if) Latin. 


a for an 47 

d^j3d 10, 233 

alre'iv uses of act. and mid. 160 

aKaraTraaTOS 47, 74 

aKoveLf : c. dKoy 14, 75 — c. ace. and 
gen. GO, 245 

dXXd 241 

df^(pl disappearance of, 100 

diJ.(p6Tef)os supplants d/j.<pu 57 — of more 
tlian two 80 

df : for edv 43, 167, 240— history 165 f. 
—statistics for NT and LXX 166 f. 
— iterative 167 — ws dv 167 — weaken- 
ing in conditions 167, 198, 200— 
orav etc. c. indie. 168 — dropped from 
compounds 168 f. — el (x-qTi. dv 169, 239 
 — dropped with ^Sei et sim. 200 — 
denoting unrealised condition 200 f. 

•av : in 2nd aor. 51 — in impf. and perf. 

-civ in inf. 53 

dvd 100, 105— dca fiiffov 99, 100 

avdOep-a 46 

dvTL 100— c. inf. 81 

\vrlvas flexion of, 12 

uireKareaTdd-qv double augm. 51 

d.TreXTTtj'eic C. acc. 65 

dirdyxeffda-i. reflexive use of raid. 155 

awS : c. nom. (6 up) 9, 12 — in composi- 
tion 65, 112— with adverbs 99— 
enlargement of use 102, 237, 246 

dvoypd(peadai. mid. or pass. 162 

diroKpLveadaL : aorist 39,161 — aTroKptOeh 
etire etc. Hebraic 14 — coincident or 
antecedent partic. 131 

dwoarepelffdai. mid. or pass. 162 

dpTrdi'eiv perfective of, 113 

-dpxv^ and -apxos nouns in, 48 

dpxecrdai suiierfluous, from Aramaic 
14, 15 

-atrai in 2 sg. pres. mid. 53 f. 

dcTTracrd/xeyos action of 132, 238 

avTbs : replacing iKetvos 86 — with 
article, weakening of, 91 - - avTov 
gen. of place 73 

Hes 175 f. 

d(p(u)VTaL 38 — relation to dcpievTai 119 

BdaX gender of, 59 

fidWeiv et sim. diiferentiation of tense.s 
109 — €j3\'/]d7] as timeless aor. 134 

yeveadai c. gen. and acc. 66, 245 
yiveaOai: Hebraism 14, 16 f.^e^eVero 
with indicative 16 f. — with /cai and 
indicative 16f. — with inlinitive 16 f. 
— orthography 47 — part, yevd/xevos 
51 — with eis 71 — original action of 
present 109 — yiperaL with futural 
sense 120 — 7^70j'a aoristic ? 145 f., 
238, 259—iJ.r]y€POLTo 194, 240, 249 " 
yLPwcTKeip : orthograjiliy 47 — action ol 
tenses 113, 148 — ypoT 55, 196 — ypurj 

did 104-106 — in composition 112 f. 
dLdopai : forms after -co and -6co verbs 55 

^50155, 196— 5w77 55, 193 f., 196 
oi'/o 57, 96, 97 

edp: for dp 42 f., 49, 166, 186, 234— 
c. indie. 168 — replaced hy ei . . . dp 
in illiterate Greek 169, 239 — relations 
with ei 187, 240 — replaced by parti- 
cipial clause 229 f. 

eavTovs reciprocal 87, 246 — eavrov and 
i5(.os 87-89 — eavTc^ e. act. instead of 
mid. 157 

iyelpeip with ei's 71 f. — ditt'erentiation of 
perfect and aorist 137, 141 — voices 

^Siero 54 

ei: subj. with et /tT^ri dv 169, 239— 
relation to edp 187, 240 — c. subj. 
187, 239 — ex}ir. a wish 196 — c. oi)t, 
196— et ov c. ind. 200, 240 

et IMTjP 46 

etSo:' 111, 116 f., 138 — ioov 11, loop 47. 
See opdp 

ei/xi: iiexion of, 55 f. — imperative 180, 
226— in periphrasis 225-227 

elfxi 120 

■eLP in pluperfect 53 

eXirov 111 — eiTTovcra and etVacra 131 

et's : with dTrdvT7](np 14 — encroaches on 




iv 62 f., 66, 234 f.—forminj^ predicate 
71f.— c. inf. 81— etsT6e. inf. 218-220 

els : as ordinal 95 f., 237 — as indef. art. 
96 f. — 6 its 97 — Kara and ava. eh 10.") 

e\- 99, 102, 237 — foi-ming perfective 237 

eXaahv 49, 69, 235 

'i\eos GO 

iix6s for /iou 40, 211 

iv : instrumental 12, 61, 104 — 
witli T(p and inf. 14, 215 — of time 
16 — statistics 62 — relations with ei's 
62, 60, 67, 23-1 f. — in anartlirous pre- 
positional phrases 82, 236 — miscel- 
laneous uses 103 f. 

eveopeveiv c. ace. and dat. 64 

evepyetv : c. ace. 65 — voices 156 

hoxos c. gen. 39 

iirl: with three cases 63, 107 — -with 
adverbs 99 — perfective 113 

CTTL^oKibv 131 

eirLyLVibaKeLV 113 

(■mdu/xeip c. ace. and gen. 65 

e^ov ace. abs. 74 

?^w contr. with <xxn'^^ 150 

epavvdv 46 

ipydi'ea-OaL and its perfective 113 

,-es ace. in, 36, 37 

-es in perf. and 1st aor. 52 

-etrat in fut. mid. 54 

eadieiv : why defective 111— its perfec- 
tive with Kara 111, 116 

€T€pos for aXXos 79 f. , 24G 

€vooKe7v c. ace. 64 — evdoKijcra 134 

eiio8u)TaL 54 

^X"'', o-xeiv : action of, 110, 145 — 
'icTXni^"- aoristio? 145, 248 — future 150 

t'ws with oTov 91 — c. subj. without av 
168 f. 

F23, 38, 44, 47, 111, 244 

TijJivpva 45 

liKiKOS 93 

^ 53 

rifiets for iydi 86, 246 

^ fiijv 46 

■?IIJL-r)v 56 

^{v) subj. 49, 163 

7)voly7)v 56 

■^Tw 56 

7IX0S 60 

davfidaai act. and pass, signification 

diXeiv : foil, by subj. 185 

Oeos and ded 60, 244 

-07]^ aor. forms in, 161 

dviQaKeiv and its perfective 112 — ^sim- 
plex obsolete except in perfect 114 — 
action of present and aorist stem 114 

6vydr7]p as voc. 71 

■I irrational final 49 

fSios relation to eavrod 87-90, 237, 
246—6 iSios 90 f. 

lSou " Hebraic" use of, 11 

'lepocriXu/ia fern, and neut. 48, 244 

'I?;croCs flexion of, 49 

Uavos in Latinisms 20 

'iva : c. fut. 35 — enlarged sphere 
Western Greek 41, 205, 211- 
subj. for imperative 176, 
c. opt. in ' wish ' clause 





178 f. — 

196— re- 

240 f. — 

lations with infin 

ecbatic use 206-209— after iroiQ auc 

d^Xco 208, 248— consecutive 210 

■Ka aoristic perfects in, 145, 238, 248 

Kadap6s foil, by d7r6 102 

Kai ill place of liypotaxis 12 

Kard 44, 104 f. — combinations with, 

99 — in comi)ositioii 111 ff. 
KaTokafj-^dveLv act. and mid. 158 
/cXeis acc. of, 49 

Kpareiv c. acc. and gen. 65, 235 
KpaTidTos as a title 78 

Xruxil/ofiai 56 

\l/j.6s doubtful gender CO 
XoLTTov gen. of time 73 
XoiW^at 155 f., 238 
Avarpa dec], of, 48 

ixavddveiv c. part, or inf. 229 

p.ei^ijiv : flexion of, 49, 50 — used as 
su])erlative 78 

ij-urd 104-106— in translation 106, 246 
— alleged Semitism with TroXe/xeTv 106 

/xi) : use of ov /x-q 35, 187-192 — in pres. 
and aor. prohibitions 122-126, 173, 
188 — el firiTt dv 169, 239 — oii normal 
c. indie, ix-fj with the moods 170, 
239 — uses with indie. 170 f. — -in 
questions 170, 239— eZ jxt) 171, 187, 
239 — in relative sentences 171, 239 f. 
— 6rt fi-q 171, 239 — not used with 
aor. imper. 2nd pers. 173 — but with 
3rd pers. 174— with future 177, 240 
— in warning 178, 184 — 'Iva firj in 
command 178 f. — c. partic. impera- 
tival 180 — in cautious assertion 192- 
19i—fi7]yeyoiTo 194,240, 249— c. opt. 
196 — c. indie, irrcal, 200 — c. partic. 
in close connexion with ov 232 — 
c. iiiiin. after verba cog. et die. 239 
— c. jiartic. in oj-at. oil. 239 — ^Trei 
fi-q 240^jU7j OTL ye, /.n'jTLye 240 

-fj.1 verbs in, invaded by 

w forms 55, 

-V : irrational final 49 — added to 3rd 

decl. acc. sing. 49 
i'oOs flexion in 3rd decl. 48 
NlJfKpnv 48 



oToa : flexion of, 55, '245 — relation to 
eWop 109 — c. partie. or inf. 229 

-ow in iulin. 53 

010? double use of, 93 

oWvadai aor. and perf 147 

6/j.o\oyeif : with iv 104 — with part, or 
ace. and inf. 229. 

ovaifirjv 195 

oTToros double use of, 93 

oTTov with av 168 

dpav: why defective n Of — action of aor. 
117 — in warnings 178 

-oo-a;' in imperf. and 2nd aor. 52 

OS : used for ocrns 92 — attraction 93 
— replaced by ris 93 — reinforced with 
demonstrative 94 f , 237 

oaris limited use of, 91, 92 — ews otov 

otTos double use of, 93 

orac : c. indie. 168, 239 — c. aor. and 
pres. subj. 186 

Stl : used for ri 94 — c. finite verb re- 
placing ace. and inf. 211 

Oil : use of ov fjLT] 39, 187-192 — relation 
to fXT] 169-171 — with fut. in pro- 
hibitions 177 — c. partie. 231 f. — el 
oil and Av firj in illiterate Kotc^ 240 

-ovdde and -ovre subj. 54 

S^eXoj' 200 f. 

^i with gen. 72, 73 

irapd 106, 247 

irarrip : as voc. 71 — anarthrous use 82 f. 

ireideiv : differentiation of tenses 147 — 

act. and mid. 158 
Treiu 45 
wepl 104 f. 

■wurreveiv constructions with, 67 f., 235 
TrXetco {et Sim.) as iudecl. 50 
TrX'/jpT]! indecl. 50, 244 
ttXovtos 60 

TTotas gen. of place 73 
iroielv with noun, instead of middle, 

159 — KoKQs TToieTc with aor. part 228 


iroXffj.e'lp : cases 64— with ^uerd 106, 247 

iroTairds 95 

iroO gen. of place 73 

■n-pb 100, 109 

7rp6 100, 101 

irp6s statistics 63, 106 — TrpSs t6 c. inf. 

irpoaix^'-'' c- dat. 157 
irpoaKvvelv c. dat. and ace. 64, 66, 245 
irpoa(pu3V€iv c. ace. and dat. 65 
irpoawTTOf in "Hebraic" locution 14, 


TTpCiTos c. gen. 79 — as ordinal partlj 
replaced by eh 95 f., 237 

-pa nouns in, 38, 48 

-aav 3rd pi. in, 33, 37 

-aduaav in imper. 53 

ffrd/xa in "Hebraic" locutions 99 

avv : relation to fxerd 106 — perfective 

113, 148 
crwepyeXv c. acc. 65 
avveros 222 
avvirapaKap.^dveiv differentiation of 

tenses 130, 133 
aoi^'ecrdai tenses 127 
auTTjp 84 

reXetv tenses 130 

Teaaapes : acc. 33, 36, 55 — orthogi'aphy 

45 f. 
TeaaapaKovTa 45 f. 
rripelv and perfective 113 
TiKTeiv differentiation offenses 126 
Ti's used as relative 93 
TLs supplanted by eh 97 f. 
-Tos verbal adj. in, 221 f. 
Tov c. inf. 216-220 
rvyx^veiv c. partie. 228 — rvx^v acc. 

abs. 74 
-Twaav in imper. 53 

-via flexion of partie. in, 38, 48 

virep 104 f., 237 

vird c. dat. 63, 105— with adverb 99— 
replaced by diro for agent 102 — 
statistics 104 f. — compared with Sid 
106 — after dirodv-QaKeiv 156 

vTTOTdaaeffdai mid. or pass. 16f 

(payeiv. See iadieiv 

(pipu: why defective 110 — aoristic use 

of present stem ] 29, 238, 247 
(pevyeiy differentiation of tenses 112, 

115 f. 

xdpis acc. of, 49 

Xeip in "Hebraic" locutions 99 

Xelpav et sim. 49 

Xpo.<r6ai cases with, 64, 245 

tD use in classical and Hellenistic Greel 

wpav for point of time 63, 24r> 
u)s with dv \Q7 — with on 212 
uiffTf change of signification 207 — con- 
secutive 209 f. 



Modern Greek. 

au if . . 

(XTTo c. ac(;. 


ds — d<p€S 

-as, gen. dSos, nuuus iu 

avT6s, Pontic dros 

dx (Epirot) = e^ . 


j3pnKa = €vpriKa . 

yevafievos . 

yid vd in order that 

S4v = ovo(u . 
devofTas indecl. jnes. 
Stct c, ace. . 

eftdara^a . 


eiTTOufie 1. pi. siibj. of 

^Xeye and etTre . 

eVas = els . 

eTraipa — eiravcra . 


earddriKa, €aTTj6r]Ka 

ecru = cnj 


f (/)epa aor. o( <f)tpvii}=<pcpij 

(i)(piTO = e<pi' tTOS 

par tic 





2, 245 

5, 176 

47, 91 



0, 232 






0d, devd auxil. formiug future 179, 185 

Kadeis, Ka9evas each , 
/cat, Ki 

Kdfj.i'u (aor. ^Kafia) make 
Kav .... 

/ji,e = fi€Td . 
/Jiipa = Tjfjiipa 
IJ-^iv) c. .snbj. 
fi7] yevoiro . 



















157, 159, 176, 205 

idios . 

-IS, -IV uouus in 

. . 91 

48 f., 244 

6pvix='6pvLs (Pol tic) . 
-ovs gen. -ovhos, noun.s in 
6x(Epirot) = £| . 

TratSid (pi. of iraiSl child) 

' Trrjs = elTTrjS 

iroios interrogative 

TToXefiQ fie . 

TTov relative (indecliualjlu) 

adv ( = tbs dv) ichen, as 

ffapdvTa {(jepdvTa) forty 

areKW — ari^KU} 

(TTrivix} = IffTavw . 

(7Tb{v) dat. of 6 ( = cts Tov) 


TeTpddrj JFcd'iiesday 



xvvvui (Cypriote) 







. 46 

162, 238 

55, 162 

. 63 

. 17 

. 96 

. 129 

. 161 
. 45 


X — see Sinaificvs 

A — see Alcxandrimis 

Ablative case : lost in prehistoric Greek 
61 — as a part of the genitive 72 — 
alleged Latinisms 101 f. 

Ablaut 152 

Absolute : genitive 12, 74, 236 — accu- 
sative 74 

Accent (stress) : differentiating voices 
152, 238— distinguishing words 237 

Accusative : and iuhnitive 16 f., 211 f., 
229— pi. in -es 36— sg. in -v 49— 3rd 
decl. and mixed 49 — terminal 61 — 
with prepositions, compared with dat. 
and gen. 62 — with ds, encroaching 
on ev c. dat. 62 f., 234 f. — with other 
preps, supplanting dat. 63 — for point 
of time 63 — specification 63 — en- 
croaching on other cases as object 
case with verbs — on dat. 64, 65 — on 
gen. 64 f., 235 — with verbs formerly 
intransitive 65 — internal or adverbial 
65, 93 — how far the old distinctions 
of cases still hold here 66 — constr. 
of TrtcTTeiyw 67 f., 235 — with et's re- 
yilacing a predicate 71 f. — absolute 
74 — substituted for nominative c. 
inf. 212 — mixed with otl construc- 
tion 213 

Achaian-Dorian Koivri 37 

Action-form, verbal 108-118, 221 al— 
see Aorist, Perfect, Present, Future ; 
Linear, Punctiliar, Perfective, Con- 
stative, Iterative, Ingressice, Effective. 

Active Voice 152 if. — see Middle 

Acts : relations of hrst and second part 
11, 216, 235— imity with Lk 14, 217 
— the " We "-document 217 — see 

Adjectives: pronominal 40, 79 f., 87- 
91— indcclinahlcs 50— " Duality" 
77 f. — comparison 78 f. — ])osition, 
with article and noun 84 — intcrjec- 
tional 181 f., 240— verbal 221 f. 

Adverbs : prepositions Kard and dva 
tised as 105 — in composition 112 

Aelian 25, 79 

Aeolic 37, 38, 44, 2\i—c{ Lesbian 


Aeschylus 215 — see Index I {e), p. 263 

Agent : a.-rr6 for litto expressing iU2, 246 

Agent-nouns 127 

Agrapha 130, 171, 191 

Ahikar, Story of 238 f. 

A I't ionsart — see A ctio nform 

Alkman 24 

Alexander the Great 7, 30 ^ 

Alexandrian Greek 40, 52 

a-text 42, 53, 175, 176, 190, 225 

Alexandrinus, Codex 36, 47, 54, 76, 
191, 194, 240 al 

American RV 180 

Ammonius 160 

Anabasis, effect of the expedition on 
Greek dialects 31 

Anacoluthon 58, 69, 95, ISO, 223, 224, 
225, 234 

Analogy-formations 37, 38, 44, 48, 49, 
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 

Anaplioric article 83 

Anarthrous : infinitive with preposi- 
tions 81, 216— prepositional phrases 

81 f., 236— nouns in "headings" 82 
— use of norms with qualitative force 

82 f. — proper names 83 — adjective 
clauses 83 f., 236 — infin., statistics 

Aorist: subjunctive c. oi' /x?? 35, 190 — 
endings 51 f. — action-form 109-111, 
113, 115-118, 129 f., 132, 238— 
subjunctive, closely connected with 
f'ut. iudic. 120, 149, 240— indicative, 
compared witli imperfect 128 f. — 
participle 130-134, 238 — timeless 
uses 134 — as past indefinite 134 f., 
135-140^expressing immediate past 
134 f., 139, 140— epistolary 135— 
gnomic 135 — English rendering 135- 
140 — compared with perfect 141-146 
— passive and middle 161 f. — subjunc- 
tive after compounds of ai^ 166, 18t) 
• — no longer used with av iterative 
167- — imperative, tone of 173, 189 — 
3rd person in proliibition 174 f — con- 
trasted with imperatival pres. partic. 
180 — in unrealised condition, wish, 
or purpose 200 f. 



Aoristic: presents 119, 247 — i/jc'pw 129, 
2;J8, 247— perfects 141-146, 238, 248 

Apocalypse : grammatical level 9 — use 
of cases and neglect of concord 9, 60 
— bearing of gransmar here on criti- 
cism 9 f . — use of idov 11 — possible 
ace. pi. in -es 36, and sg. 3rd decl. 
in -av 49 — person - endings 52 — 
nominative 69 — prohibitions 124 — 
aoristic pei'fects 145 — ov /jltj 191, 192 
— rod c. inf. 217, 218 — does not 
confuse els and ev in local sense 234 
— small use of compound verbs 237 

Apocrypha, RV of 198 

Apotheosis 84 

Appian : dative 63 — ^optative 197 

Aipiila 13 — see Index I (e), p. 264 

Aramaic: influences on Greek in NT 
3, 13, 14, 15, 18, 75, 95, 103, 104, 
124, 174, 189, 224, 226 f., 230 f., 
235, 236, 240, 242 — periphrastic 
imperfect 14, 226 f. — speech of Paul 
7 — of Jesus 8 — of John 9 — diction 
in Luke 14-18 — ordinals 96 — tenses 
139 — participle 182 — periphrastic 
imperative 226 f. — see under Hebra- 
ism and Over-use 

Arcadian 38 

Archimedes 51 

Aristophanes 215 — see Index I (e), 

p. 268 

Arrian, optative in 197 — see Index I 
{c), p. 264 

Article: use by foreigners 21, 236 
• — general "correctness" of NT 
Greek 81 — as relative and as de- 
monstrative 81 — dropped between 
preposition and infin. 81, 216 — 
these three Ionic uses absent from 
NT 81— alleged Hebraisms 81 f., 
236 — correlation 81 f. — anarthrous 
prepositional phrases 82, 236 — • 
dropi)ed in sentences having the 
nature of headings 82 — words spe- 
cially aflectiug anarthrous form 82 
— qualitative force of anarthrous 
words 82 f. — with proper names 83 — 
used with the parent's name in gen. 
83, 236 — with names of slaves and 
animals 83 —6 /cat IlaOXos 83 — col- 
loquial style drops art. before ad- 
jective adjuncts 83 f., 236 — mis- 
placement of adjective 84 — tov deoD 
Kal ffuTTJpos 7]iJ.Q>v, papyrus parallels 
84 — complex adjectival clause be- 
tween art. and noun 236 

Articular Infinitive : ev ti^ in transla- 
tion 14, 215— bearing on history of 
the Kotj'T? 34, 213-215— rare anar- 
throus use with prei)Ositions 81, 21() 
— appropriate to rhetoric 189, 213, 
215 — statistics for classical and later 

Greek 213, 215— for NT 213, 216- 
for Greek Hible 241 — citations from 
dialect inscriptions 214 — essentially 
literary, specially Attic 214 f. — uso 
with dependent gen., as if a full 
noun 215 — tov c. inf., without pre- 
position, its original adnoniinal use 
216 — telic force in Tliucydides and 
in NT 216 — usage of the several NT 
writers in this respect 217 — Paul's 
tendency to drop telic force 217 — 
parallelism with 'Iva. 217 — explana- 
tory infin. 218 — Tvpbs rb and ets t6, 
how far remaining telic 218 f. — 
papyrus citations for tov, eis to, 
TTpbs TO c. inf. 219 f. — belongs mainly 
to higher educational stratum 220. 

Articular Nominative in address 70, 

Articular Participle 126f., 228 

Asia Minor : characteristics of Greek 
38, 40 f., 205, 211 

Aspiration 44, 234, 236, 244 

Assimilation of Cases : alter verbs of 
naming 69, 235 — omitted with gen. 
abs. 74, 236 

Asyndeton 181 

Attendant Circumstances, participle of 

Attic: literary su}iremacy 24 — its 
earliest use in prose 25 — grammar of 
inscriptions 29 — Xenophon 31 — lan- 
guage of the lower classes in Athens 
31 — the basis of literary Koivr} 32— 
how much did it contribute to the 
vernacular Koiv-q ? 33 f., 214 f. — iiom. 
pi. used as accus. 37 — KeKTw/j.aL ami 
/j-efivuifiai 54 — KttTe'xea 55 — revival of 
the dual 57 — parenthetic nominative 
70 — use of vocative, divergent from 
Hellenistic 71 — historic present 121 
— the Orators, forms of prohibition 
124, use of imperative 172 — alleged 
ex. of aoristic perfect 146, 238 — 
linear and punctiliar futures 150 — 
active verbs with future middle 
154 f. — a.TreKpivd/xTjv 161 — optative in 
conditional sentences 196 f. — imper- 
fect in untulfilled condition 201 — 
oTTws and iva 206 — ws on 212 — 
articular infin. mainly due to Orators 
213-215 — nom. for ace. in long 
enumerations 234— see under the 
Attic writers' names and in Index I 

(d r- 2.^6 

Atticism 5, 22, 24 f., 26, 170, 197, 206, 

211, 239 
Attraction of Relative 92 f. 
.\ngmpnt 51, 128, 129 
Authorised Version 93, 98, 112, 128 f,, 

136-140, 189 
Auxiliary a^es 175 f. 



B — see Vaticanus 

/3-text 42, 53, 224 — see mider Sinaiti- 
cns and Valicaiius 

Bczae, Codex 16, 38, 42, 50, 55, 56, 58, 
69, 73, 80, 94, 96, 107, 114, 124, 
131, 161, 171, 228, 233, 235, 236, 
240, 241, 242 a^— see under d-text 

Biblical Greek, 2-5, 18, 99 

Bilingualism : in Rome 5 — illustrated 
from Wales 6f., lOf.— in Egypt 6— 
in Lystra 7, 233 — in Palestine 7f., 

Brcotian 33, 34, 55, 214 

Bohairic 225 

Bracliylogy, witli dWd 241 

Broken continuity, perfect of 144, 145, 

Byzantine period 88, 96, 168, 197 

Cappadocian — see Pontic 

Cardinals : encroachment on ordinals 
95 f., 237 — simplification of the 
" teens " 96 — uses of ets 96 f. — repeti- 
tion for distributive 97 

Cases : in Rev 9 — history 60-76, 234- 
236— with prepositions 100-107, 237 
— see under the several Cases. 

Catholic Epistles, use of compound 
verbs 237 — see under First JS]). of 
Peter, James, Second JSj). of Peter 

Causal Participle 230 

Cautious assertion 188, 192 f. 

Chance in the Bible 219 

Christians, ethics of average early 126, 

Chrysostom, on ecbatic iVa 207 — see 
Index I (e), p. 264 

Clement of Rome 95 — see Index I (c), 
p. 264 

Colloquial — see under Vernacular 

Common Greek: takes place of "He- 
braic " in definition of NT Greek 1 — 
a universal language 5f., 19 — ma- 
terials for study 22 f. — literary lioivrj 
(q.v.) — papyri, inscriptions, MGr 
27-30 — unification of earlier Greek 
dialects 30 — foreshadowings of this 
during v/iv e.g. 21 — completed in 
time of Alexander 31 f. — decay of the 
old dialects 32 — their relative con- 
tributions to the resultant Koivi^ 32- 
34, 36 f., 214 f.— pronunciation 34 f. 
how far was KoLvq homogeneous ? 
19, 38-41— dialects in {q.v.) 

Comparison of adjectives and adverbs 
77-79, 236 

Complementary Infinitive 204 

Compound Prepositions 99 

Compound Verbs : cases with 65 — per- 
fective action 111-118, 237 — repeated 
without preposition 111, 115 — 
statistics 237 

Conative action 125, 127, 128 f, 147, 
173 f., 186, 247 

Concessive Participle 230 

Concord 9, 28, 59 f., 182, 244 

Conditional Sentences : pluperfect in 
148— apodosis with dV 166 f., 196, 
197-199, 200 L~idv c. indie. 168, 
187 — el fxrjTL dv 169 — el /jlt) in unful- 
filled condition, ei oi in simple 171, 
200, 240 — futuristic subj. with edv 
185 — its future-perfect sense in aor. 
186 — lessened difference between el 
and idv 187, 240 — these almost ex- 
clusively confined to their proper 
moods 187 — el c. deliberative subj. 
187 — differentia of el and idv in 
future conditions 187 — use of opta- 
tive 195, 196, 197f.— unfulfilled 
conditions 199-201 — participle in 
protasis 229 f. 

Conjugation-stems 109 f, 120 

Conjunctions : with df [edv) 166, 234 — 
d\\d ' ' except " 241 

Conjunctive participle 230 

Consecutive clauses : infinitive alone 
204, 210— wo-re with indie. a,nd with 
infin. 209 f. — expressed by 'Iva. 210 — 
by Tov c. infin. 218 

Constative action 109, 111, 113, 115- 
118, 130, 133, 145, 174 

Construct state (Semitic) 236 

Contingent dv 166, 198, 200 

Contract Verbs, 37, 52-54, 55, 234 

Contraction of i sounds 45, 55 

Correlation of Article 81 f. 

Cretan 214, 233— see Gortyn 

Criticism, contributions of grammar to 
9f., 40 f. 

Culture — see Education 

D — see Bezae 

Dative : lost in MGr 60, 63— obso- 
lescent in Y^oivii 62 — decays through 
a period of over-iise, esp. with ec 62 
— statistics with prepositions 62 f — 
confusion of ets and ev 63, 66, 234 f. 
— decay of dative uses with ijitb and 
Trpos 63 — with e-Ki, distinct meaning 
lost 63, 107 — accus. begins to express 
point of time 63 — reaction, as in ex- 
tension of dative (instrumental) of 
reference 63, 75, and in some transi- 
tive verbs taking dative 64 — verbs 
beginning to take accus. or gen. 
instead of dat. 64 — illiterate uses of 
gen. and ace, for dat. 64 — some im- 
probable citations from early in- 
scrijitions 64 — with irpoaKwetv 64, 
66 — with some compound verbs 65 
— with ■KitjTeveiv 67 f. — incominodi 
75 — syncretism with locative 75, 
104 — with instrumental 75 — exten- 



sion of time and point of time tlins 
both given by dative 75 — sociativc 
instrumental 75— instrumental userl 
in translating Hebrew infin. abs. 75 
— this and use of participle com- 
jiarcil with classical uses and with 
LXX 76 — various uses of iv 103 f. — 
dat. of person judging 104 — common 
uses of dat. and loc. in Greek and 
Sanskrit 104— ei* added even to in- 
strumental dative 104 — o/xoXoyeTv iv 
104 — (xeTa, irepi, vvo no longer c. 
dat. 105 — one or two exceptions with 
viro 105 — irpos c. dat. common in 
LXX, rare in NT 106— fV/ inditter- 
ently with the three cases 107 — 
i<p' ifi 107 — dative of reflexive ap- 
proximates to force of the Middle 
157 — xP^"'^^'- with instrumental 158 
— dat; or loc. of a verbal noun makes 
the Infinitive ;i02-204 — articular 
infin. (7.-!'.) 

Days of week and month 96, 101, 237 

De-aspiration — see Psilosis 

Defective Verbs 110 f. 

Definite nouns, in Semitic 236 

Definition, gen. of 73 f. 

Deliberative Subjunctive 171, 185, 187, 

5-text 14, 44, 45, 53, 181, 233, 234— 
see under Bczac 

Delphian, 36, 37, 52, 55, 214 

Demonstrative : article as 81 — auros 
and ckeTi-'O'; 91 

Demosthenes 213 — see Index I (c), p. 

Denial and Prohibition, with ou /xi] 
187 f. 

Deponents 153 f., 161 f. 

Dialects in ancient Hellas 23 f , 30-34, 
36-38, 213f. — see under Atfic, 
Ionic, etc. 

Dialects in Kolvi) 5f., 19, 28 f, 38-41, 
47, 91, 94, 205, 209, 211, 241,243,249 

Digamma 23, 38, 44, 47, 111, 244 

Diodorus, optative in 197 

Di]ib thongs: pronunciation 33, 34 f. — 
augment 51 

Dissimilation 45 

Distributive numerals 97 

Doric 33, 45, 48, 51, 101, 214 

Double comparative and superlative 

Dual 57 f., 77 f. 

Duality 77-80, 100 
Durative action — see Linear 
Dynamic Middle 158 

Ecbatic ipa 206-209 

Education, varieties of : in NT writers 
8f., 28, 44, 50, 52, 60— in papyri, 
etc. 4, 6 f., 9, 28, 44, 47, 49, 50, 51, 


52— see under lUUeracy ; also under 
Apocalypse, Mark, Lvlcr, Paul, 
IIcbrcvK, etc. 

Eflective action 109, 113, 130, 149 

Egypt, bilingualism in, 6, 242 

Elativc 78, 79, 236 

Elis, dialect of 178, 214 

Elision 45 

Ellipsis 178, 180, 181, 183, 190 

Emphasis: in pronouns 85 f.— im- 
perfect and aorist differing in 128 
— possible cause of original voice- 
differentiation 152, 238— on subject, 
l>rought out by English preterite 
140 — degree of, in ov ht) construc- 
tion 188-190— of 01'; c. partic. 232 
— differentiating words of full or 
attenuated meaning 237 

English, Hellenistic illustrated from 
19, 39, 58, 71, 77, 79, 82, 85, 89, 
92, 94, 96, 98, 99, 111, 112, 135- 
140, 144, 150 f., 171 f., 182, 184, 
185, 189, 195, 203, 206, 218, 221 f., 
229, 236, 243 

Epexegetic infinitive 217, 218, 219 

E[iimenides 233 

Epistolary aorist 135 — forniulaj 28, 176, 

Euripides 215— see Index I (c), p. 263 

"Exhausted" cavrou and Bios 87-90, 

Final clauses : weakened telle force of 
i'm 178, 205-210, 240 f., of rov c. 
infi)i. 207, 216-218, of eis roc. infin., 
in Paul 219 — originated in volitive, 
with parataxis 185 — final optative 
with 'iva 196 f — wcrre c. infin. used 
for purpose 207 — rov c. infin. 216- 
218 — Trpos TO and els to c. infin. 
218-220— use of participle 230 

Final i and v 49, 168, 187 

First Epistle of Peter : prohibitions 
124 — preference foraoiist imperative 
174 — for imperatival participles 181 
— o5 . . . avTov improljable in such 
good Greek 237 

Flucllen 10 f 

Fourth Book of Maccabees, Atticising 
in 166, 197 

Fourth Gos])el and Apocalypse 9 f. 

French idioms in English 13 

Frequency, relative, of prepositions 
62 f., 98, 100, 102, 105, 106 f. 

Frequentative verb, 114 

Future : c. IVa 35 — c. ov firj 35, 190 
— c. i(p' (f 107 — ill Indo-Gerin:uiic 
verb 108 — compared with futural 
present 120 — history of its form 149 
 — links with subjunctive 149, 184, 
187, 240 — action mixed 149 f. — 
English rendering 150 f. — volitive 



and futuristic uses 150 f. — its moods 
151 — Middle in active verbs 154 f. 
— Passive -with middle force 161 — 
used for imperative 176 f. — ditto 
with Sttws 177 — rarely with fi-q in 
prohibition 177 — in -warning with 
^l■^ 178 — c. d 187 — c. fji-q in cautious 
assertion 193 — optative 197 — infini- 
tive 204 f.— participle 230 

Future Conditions : with idv 185 — with 
d 187— "less vivid form" 196, 199 

Futuristic: future 150, 177 — subjunc- 
tive 184, 185, 186, 192, 240 

Gender 59 f. 

Genitive : absolute 12, 74, 236— verbs 
with 65, 235 — with dKoveiv and 761^- 
(oOaL 66 — syncretism with ablative 
72 — objective and subjective 72 — 
l>artitive 72 f., 102— with 6\pi 72, 73 
• — time and place 73 — definition 73 f. 
— Hebraism here 74 — after negative 
adjective 74, 235 f. — prepositions 
with 100-102, 104-107, 237 — of 
material 102 

German, illustrations from 94, 96 

Gerundive in -reos 222 

Gnomic aorist 135, 139 — present 135 — 
future 186 

Gortyn Code 214 — cf Cretan 

Gothic 78, 181, 224 

Grammar and literary criticism 9, 40 f., 
205, 211 

Grammatical and lexical Semitism 12 

Greece, physical conditions of 23 f. 

Headings, anarthrous 82 

Hebraism : flisplacement of, in theory 
of NT Greek 1-3— in Rev 9— use 
of iv 11 f., 61, 103 — cf Gallicisms in 
English I'd — iu t(2 c. inf. 14, 215 
— in Lk 14-18— tested by MGr 17, 
94 — ei's for predicate 72 — articular 
noni. in address 70, 235 — gen. of 
definition 73 f. — gen. abs. 74 — dat. 
or partic. for infin. abs. 75 f.— use of 
article 81, 236 — redundance of pro- 
nouns 85 — i'l'xv used for reflexive 
87, 105 — relative with superfluous 
demonstrative 94 f. — els as ordinal 
95 f. — and as indef. art. 96 f. — dis- 
tributives 97 — illustrated by AV 98 
— (vwTnov 99 — compound preposi- 
tions 99 — dvoKpidels er7rei'131 — active 
for middle 158 — infin. for imper. 180 
— Hebrew teleology and final clauses 
219 — nom. ^Kndcns c. partic. 225 — 
jieriphrastic tenses 226 f. — ''reedom 
of Mk from 242 — cf under Over-use 

Hebraist school of NT interpretation 
2 f., 12, 223, 242 

Hebrew : how far known in Palestine 

8, 233— NT (Delitzsch) 104, 163— 
tenses 108 

Hebrews, Epistle to : did author know 
Aramaic? 10— Greek style of 18, 20, 
118, 129, 232, 237 — grammatical 
points in 62, 129, 182, 211, 217, 
218 f., 231, 237 

Hebrews, Gospel of 17 — see Index 
1(e), p. 265 

Hellenistic 2 — see Common Cfreck 

Heracleon 104 

Herculaneum, papyri from, 27, 43 

Hermogenes 172 

Herodian : cases in 63 — optative 197 

Herodotus 51, 62, 81, 91, 101, 214, 215 
— see also Index I (e), p. 263 

Heteroclisis 48, 60 

Hiatus 92, 117 

Historic Present, 120 f., 139 

Homer : the Achseans of 24 — forms 
found in 55 — syntax 121, 135, 147, 
161— the Athenians' "Bible" 142— 
blamed by Protagoras for use of im- 
perative 172 — see Index I (c), p. 263 

Hypotaxis — see under Parataxis 

Ignatius 215 

Illiteracv 28, 36, 43, 49, 78, 87, 93, 
142, l'69, 189, 220, 237, 238, 239 

Imperative : endings 53 — of el/j-i 56, 
174 — present, compared with aor. 
subj. in prohibition 122-126 — tenses 
compared generally 129 f., 173 f., 
176, 189, 238— prehistoric use 164— 
formal history, 165, 171 f. — tone of 
172 f., 175 — prominence of in NT 
173 — aorist appropriate in prayer 
173 — in 3rd person 174 f. — expres- 
sions for 1st person 175 f. — auxiliary 
d<pes 175 f. — perfect 176 — substitutes 
for 176-182, 203, 223, 241, 248 

Imperfect 128 f. — in unreal indie. 200 f. 
— replaced by periphrasis 226 f. — see 
Present stem 

Impersonal plural 58 f. — verbs 74, 226 

Improper Prepositions 99 

Inceptive action of -IffKca suffix 120 

Ineom.modi, Dativus 75 

Indeclinable : Greek proper name not 
to be taken as 12 — 7r\i)pT]s, ij/jucrv and 
.comparatives in -w 50 

Indefinite Article 96 f. 

Indicative : alone may have inherent 
time-connotation 126, 128, 129 — 
imperfect 128 f. — aorist, used of im- 
mediate past 135, 140 — rendering of 
aorist in English 135-140 — yeyova 
not aoristic in NT 145 f. , 238 — pluper- 
fect 148 — future 149-151 — as modus 
irrealislGA, 199-201— with dv 166 f., 
200 f. — with oral', oirov &i>, Scroi dv, 
idv 168, 239— negatived by ov 170 f. 




—but /HT? not entirely expelled 170 f., 
239 f. — negatived questions 170 — 
future used for coniniand 176 f., 240 
— future with ov fi-q 190 — c. fi-q in 
cautious assertions 192 f. — imperfect 
for present time in unfulfilled con- 
dition, wish, and purpose 200 f. — 
replaced by participle 222-224 — peri- 
phrasis 225-227 

Indirect Questions 196, 198 f. 

Indo - Germanic : dual in 57 f. — 
numerals 58 — cases 61, 72, 75 — verb 
system 1 08 f. — Aktionsart 109 f. — j ler- 
fectivising by means of composition 
111 f. — aorist-jnesent in 119 — aug- 
ment and the final -i in primary 
tenses 128 — was there a future in ? 
149 — future participle 151 — voice, its 
rationale ni 152, 238 — no separate 
passive 152 — verbs with no middle 
153 — strong perfect without voice 
distinction 154 — passive use of 
middle already developing in 156 — • 
Greek weak aorist passive develo])ed 
from niidille person-ending -ilil's 161 
— differentia of the imperative 164, 
171 f. — glottogonic theories of sub- 
junctive and optative 164 — the 
injunctive 165 — the two negatives 
169 — jussive subjunctive in posi- 
tive commands 177 f- — origins of the 
infinitive 202 f.- — its deficiency in 
voice 203, and tense 204 — verbal 
adjectives and participles 221 f. — 
closeness of 3 pi. act. in -ont(i) to the 
participle 224 

Infinitive : c. eV ry 14, 215 — forms in 
contract verbs 53 — future 151, 204 f. 
—for imperative 172, 179 f., 203— 
articular (q.v.) 189, 213-220, 240— 
verb and noun 202 — its origins 202- 
204 — comparisons with Sanskrit, 
Latin, English— 202-204, 207, 210— 
development of voice 203, and of tense 
204— case-uses traced 203 f., 207, 
210 — anarthrous expressing purpose 
204, 205, 207, 217, 240f.— conse- 
i|uence 204, 210 — complementary 
204 — limitative 204 — relations with 
iVtt c. subj. 205-209, 210 f., 240 f.— 
with wore final 207, 210 — alleged 
Latinism 208— consecutive Avith ware 
209 f. — relations with wore c. indie. 
209 f., and with consecutive iVa 210 
— subject and object 210 f. — accus. 
and infin. compared with otl clause 
211 — accus. tending to replace regular 
nom. 212— not Latinism 212 f. — 
mixture of ace. c. inf. and 8ti con- 
struction 213— statistics 241 

Ingressive action 109, 116, 117, 118, 
130, 131, 145, 149, 174 

Injunctive mood 165 

Inscriptions : Koun) 6, 23, 28 f.— classi- 
cal, 23, 214— see Index I (<•), pp. 
258 f. 

Instrumental case 61, 75, 104, 158 — 
use of eV 12, 61 f., 75, 104 

Interjectional character of voc. and 
imper. 171 f. — of infin. in imperatival 
sense 179, 203— of partic. or adj. 
used imperativaliy 180 f., 240 — pre- 
positional clauses 183 f. 

Internal accusative 65, 93 

Interrogative : confused with relative 
93 f. — TTOios and rts, woTairos 95 — 
command 184 

Intransitive : verbs becoming transitive 
65, 162 — use of strong perfect 147, 
154 — tendency of strong aorist 155 

Ionic 33, 37 f., 43, 44, 48, 51, 55, 57, 
81, 101, 195, 205 

Ireland, bilingualism in 7 

Irrational final i and v 49, 168, 187 

Isolation of Biblical Greek 2, .3 

Itacism 34 f., 47, 199, 239, 240 

Iterative action 109, 114, 125, 127. 
128, 129, 173, 180, 186, 248— of 
&v 166, 167, 168 

James : ISov in 11 — prohibitions 126 — 

use of Middle 160 
Jerome 181 
Jewish Greek 2 f., 19 — see Hebraism 

and Aramaic 
John : Greek of Gospel and Apocalypse 

9 — place of writing 40 f., 211 — use 

of historic present 121 — prohibitions 

124, 125, l2Q—ixri in questions 170, 

239— periiJirastic tenses 226, 227— 

compound verbs 237 
Josephus 2, 23, 25, 62, 89, 121. 146, 

189, 197, 233, 235— see Index I (c), 

p. 264 
Jus.sive subjunctive 178, 208 — see 

Justin Martyr 8, 143, 233 — see Index 

I (e), p. 264 

Kadapevov(7a 26, 30 — cf Allicism, 

Literary \\oivq 
Klepht ballads— see Index I (e), p. 265 
Koivfj 23 — see Common Greek 

Laconian — see Sjjaria 

Late Greek 1 

Latin : Bible 5, 72, 106, 129, 132, 240 
—Paul speaking 21, 233— ca.scs 61 — 
use of vc for / 87 — jiarallds with 
Greek, etc. 112, 158— the Middle 153 
— subj. and indie, in cause-clauses 
171— jussive subj. 177— prohibition 
178 — quin redeamus? 184— optative 
in indirect (question 199 — verbal 



nouns 202— infinitive 204 — ut clauses 
206 — their weakened linal force 207 f. 
— verbal adj. turned into participle 
221 — participle and adj. in -hilis 222 
— parallels to use of participle for 
indie, or imper. 223 f., 241 — poverty 
in participles 229 f. 

Latiuisms 18, 20 f., 71, 75, 100-102, 
142, 208, 212 f. , 247 

Lesbian — see Aeolic 

Lewis Syriac 53, 65, 72, 248 

Lexical notes : els awavT7)(nv 14 — vavs 
25 f. — d(pi^is 26 — epwTCLV 66 — crKvWeiv 
89 — epdoTTLOv 99 — evKpavi-is, ewKpdveta 
102 — {TTC^aXwi' 131 — dTTOKbipovraL 
163, 201 — wpoacpdyiov 170 — Traidla 
170 — irpoaTideaOaL 232 — elKoves 235 

Lexical : studies of Deissmann 4 — 
Hebraisms 11, 12, 46, 233 

Li^nitative infinitive 204 

Linear action 109, 110, 111, 114, 117, 
119, 120, 125, 126, 127, 128, 147, 
149 f., 173, 174, 175, 180, 183, 186, 

Literary element in NT 20, 25 f., 26, 
55, 106, 147 f., 204, 211— see under 
Hchreivs, Paid, Ltike 

Literary lioivr) 2f., 21, 22 f., 24-26, 
62 f., 64, 88, 118, 194, 197, 211— its 
analogue in MGr 21, 26, 30 — element 
in inscriptions 29 — see Atticism 

Lithuanian : alleged Latinising gen. 
found in 101 — future in -siu 149 

Local cases 60 f. 

Localising of textual types 41 

Locative 61, 75, 104, 202 f. 

Lorjia 15, 104, 124, 126, 189, 191 

Lord's Prayer 10, 173 

Lost cases 61 

Lucian 25, 170, 197, 227 — see Index 
I {e), p. 264 

Luke : did he know Aramaic ? 10, 15, 
104— style 11, 18, 20, 232— Hebraism 
in 13-18 — unity of Lucan writings 

14, 217 — preserving words of source 

15, 18, 106, 237, contra 159, 242— 
construction of eytvero for 'nn 16 f., 
70, 233— was "Hebrew's Gospel " a 
source ? 26 — misusing a literary word ? 
26 — recalling Homer? 26 — use of Co 
71 — projected third treatise ? 79 — use 
of " diml " words 79 f.— oWts 91 f.— 
generalising 119 — historic present 
121 — prohibitions 124 — iterative dv 
167 f.— optative 165, 195, 198 f.— 
"correct" use of wp'iv 169, 199— 
preference for pres. imper. com- 
pared with Mt 174 — dp^dfxevoL 182, 
240 — ov fx7] 190 f. — hymns in, their 
use of infin. 210 — ace. c. inf. 211 — 
ToO c. inf. 216 f. — literary survival 
of ov c. par tic. 232 — his two editions 

233— eXatwi- 69, 235— artic. nom. of 
address 235 — eXaxiffros 236 — com- 
pound verbs 237' — sec Ads 

LXX — see Septuagint 

Lycaonian 7f., 233 

Lystra — see Lycaonian 

Magnesia 29, 38, 43 

Manuscripts of NT, orthogi-aphy tested 

Marcion 114 

Mark : uncultured Greek 50, 53, 71 — 
dative 62 — eis and ev 62 — the Middle 
159 — oral', etc. c. indie. 168 — siibj. in 
comparisons 185 — fut. c. ov f.i.rj 190, 
191 — optative 195 — compound verbs 
237 — rich in Aramaism 242 

Matthew : improves Greek of his source 
15, 124, 159, 200, 237, 2i2~Kalldov 
17 — historic present 121 — prohi])i- 
tionsl24 — aorist in 137-140 — aoristic 
yiyova 146 — preference for aor. 
imper. in Sermon on the Mount 174 
—ov fiT) 190, 191— Toi; c. inf. 216— 
superlative eXdxio-Tos 236 — compound 
verbs 237 

Middle: of elfxi 36 f., 55 f. — with and 
without expressed personal pronoun 
(gen. or dat.) 85, 157, 236f.— iirimi- 
tive differentia 152, 238 — in Sanskrit, 
Latin, and Keltic 153 — " Deponents" 
153 — links with the strong perfect 
154, and with future 154 f. — how far 
reflexive 155 f., 238 — evolution of a 
passive 156 — compared with English 
verbs that are both transitive and 
intransitive 156 f. — paraphrased by 
reflexive in dative case 157 — typical 
exx. 157 — reciprocal 157 — dynamic 
158 — mental action 158 — differences 
between Attic and Hellenistic 158 f. 
— "incorrect" uses in NT and 
papyri 159 f. — Paul not implicated 
160 — airelu and alreicrdai 160 f. — 
middle and passive aorists 161 f. — 
verbs in which active became obsolete, 
or was recoined out of a deponent 
162 — common ground between middle 
and passive 162 f. 

Misplacement of article 84 

Misuse of old literary words 26 

Mixed declension 49 

Modern Greek : Kal in place of hypo- 
taxis 12 — used as a criterion against 
Semitism 17, 94 — the study com- 
paratively recent 22, 29 — dialects in 
23 (see Pontic and Zaconian) — the 
written language (see Atticism and 
KaOapevovaa) — use of the modern 
vernacular in NT study 29 f.— • 
versions of NT 30 (see Index I (e), 
p. 265) — Ionic forms in 38 — parti- 



eiple now indeclinable 60, 225 — 
gender c^banges 60 — tlio dative obso- 
lete 60, 63 — -vocative 71 — article as 
a relative 81 — redundant personal 
or demonstrative pronoun 85, 94 — 
relative 94 — interrogative 94, 95 — 
cardinals as ordinals 96 — indelinite 
article 96 — distributives 97 — sup- 
ports Purdie's thesis on the consta- 
tive 115 — present tense for our 
perfect, with words of duration 119 
— historic present alternating with 
aorist 121, 139 — pres. and aor. subj. 
in prohibition 122 — imper. in pro- 
hibition 122, 164 — iniperf. and aor. 
compared 128 f. — idiom of t^iarri 
134 — gnomic aorist 135 — the perfect 
obsolete 141 f. — use of Middle 156, 
157— new active verbs 162 — subj. for 
relics of <iv 167 — negatives 169, 170, 
232 — auxiliaries forming imperative 
175 f., 178, and future 179, 185 — sole 
survival of optative 194, of learned 
origin 240 — infinitive obsolete, ex- 
cept in Pontic {q-v.) 205 — early date 
of its characteristics illustrated 233 f. 
— periphrastic future 234, 240 — tlie 
parenthetic nominative 235 — see 
Index I {e\ p. 265, and II, p. 269 

Modus irrealis 164, 199-201 

Moeris 46, 55 

Month, numerals for days of 96 

Moods : common subjective element 
164 — other common ground 165 — ai' 
in connexion with 165-169 — nega- 
tives ((/.I'.) 169-171 al — see under 
Imperative, Iiijunctive, Optatirc, Sub- 
junctive, and Modus irrealis 

Mystical ev of Paul 68, 103 

Narrative, tenses in 135 

Nasal in word-endings 45, 49 

Negative adjective c. gen. 74, 235 

Negatives : in Atticists 25 — in NT and 
papyri 39, 169-171, 177, 184, 185, 
187-194, 200, 229, 231 f., 239, 240 

Neuter plurals 57 f. 

" Neutral " text — see ^-text 

New Testament, how far its diction 
peculiar 19 f., 67 f. 

Nominative : as receiver of unappro- 
priated uses 69 — name-case unassi- 
niilated 69, 235 — nominativuspendens 
69, 225 — parenthetic in time expres- 
sions and eiK6ves 70, 235 — articular 
in address 70 f., 235 — replaced as 
predicate by els c. ace. 71 f. — per- 
sonal pronouns not always emphatic 
85 f. — for accus. as subject to inlin. 
212 f. 

Nonthematic present stems 38, 55 

North- West Greek 33, 36 f., 55 

Nouns : in -pa and -via 38, 48— hetero 
clisis 48, 60 — contracted 48 — in -oiii 
))assing into 3id decl. 48 — in -is, -iv, 
from -tos and -lou 48 f. — mixeil de- 
clension 49 — accusatives with added 
-V 49 — number 57-59 — gender 59 f. 
— breach of concord 59 f. — case 60- 
76, 234-236 

Number: disappearance of dual 57 f., 
77 f. — neuter plural, history and 
syntax of 57 f. — "Pindaric" con- 
struction 58, 234— impersonal plural 
58 f., 163— TjME's for £7(6 86 f. , 246 

Numerals: efs as an ordinal 95 f., 237 
— ordinals in ]\lGr 96 — simplified 
"teens" 96 — eis as indefinite article 

96 f. — 6 eh 97 — repeated to form 
distributives 97 — 07000J' NiDc in AV 

97 f. — ejidofM-qKovTCLKis ewTd 98 

Object clauses 210-213 

Objective Genitive 72, 236 

'OfxiXovixivq 26 

Omission oi ixv 194, 198, 200 f. 

0])tative : in Lucian 25 — oi^rj 55, 
193 f. — future 151, 197 — origin 
164 f.— with av 166, 198— after irplv 
169, 199 — in command 179 — in 
LXX 194 — compared with subj., and 
with future 194 — optative proper 
194-197 — compared with English 
survivals 195 — in hypothesis 196 — 
differentia of optative conditional 
sentences 196, 198, 199— in final 
clauses 196 f. — Atticisers ignorant of 
sequence 197 — misuses in Byzantine 
Greek 197 — potential optative 197- 
199 — attended liy ov and dV 197 — a 
literary use, but not yet artificial 
197 — omission of dV 198 — in indirect 
questions, contrasted with Latin 
198 f. — Luke observes sequence 199 
— itacisni in late period hastens decay 
199, 239, 240 

Oratio olliqua 142, 144, 151, 196, 223, 

Ordinals: use of els 95 f., 237— sun- 
plified "teens" 96 

Origen 139, 169 

Orthography : Attic basis 34— a test of 
provenance of MSS 41 — correspond- 
ence of NT and papyri 42-56 

Over-use of vernacular locutions agree- 
ing with Semitic 11, 14, 39, 61, 72, 
74, 95, 99, 215, 226, 235, 242 

Oxyrhynchus i/0(/ia 3, 51, 130, 191 f. 
—MS of Heb 190, 224 

Pagan phraseology 84, 102 

Papyri : non-literary, their importance 
brought out by Deissmann 3f. — 
education of writers 4 al (see Edu- 



cation and Illiteracy) — compareil 
with inscriptions 6, 28 — reniarkaljle 
antieijiation by Brunot de Fiesle 6 1'. 
— their character and use 27 i'. — ex- 
ceptions to their general agreement 
with NT 39, 46, 53— see Index I 
{d), pp. 252-255 

Parataxis 12, 178, 185, 193 

Parenthetic nom. in tiine-exyn'essions 
69, 235, 245^in descriptions 69 

Participle : pleonastic by Seniitism 14, 
230, 241— negatives with 25, 229, 
231 f., 239 — tendency towards in- 
decl. 60 — in gen. abs. 74 — trans- 
lating Hebrew inf. abs. 76 — present 
with article 126 f., 228 — aorist of 
coincident or identical action 130- 
134, 238 — that of subsequent action 
denied 132-134— with Hv 167— for 
imperative 180-183, 223, 240— for 
optative 182 — overdone by Josephus 
189— for indie. 222-225, 241— in 
periphrastic tenses 226 f. — comple- 
mentary 228 f. — contrasted with 
par tic. in Latin and English 229 — 
conditional 229 f. — conjunctive, con- 
cessive, causal, final, temi)oral, and 
attendant circumstances 230 — alleged 
Aramaism 231 

Partitive Genitive : largely replaced by 
airo or (k c. abl. 72, 102 — possibly 
with dxp^ 72 — as subject of a sentence 
73, 223 

Passive : no separate forms in Indo- 
(Jermanic 108, 152, 156 — invades 
middle in Greek, Latin and else- 
where 153 — evolved from intransitive 
156 — only partially differentiated in 
aorist and future 161 f. — common 
ground with middle 162 f. — replaced 
largely in Aramaic by impersonal 
])lural 163 — not definitely attached 
to the verbal adjective 221 f. 

Past time 108, 119, 128, 129 

Paul: spoke Greek 7, 19, Latin? 21, 
233, Aramaic 7, 10 — limited literary 
phraseology 20 — his iv Xpia-Tui 68, 
103 — use of we for I 86 f. — use of 
between 99 — prohibitions 124-126 — 
perfect 145, 238— middle 160— 
iterative dV 167, 168 — prefers present 
imperative 174 — imperatival par- 
ticiple 181 — oil jjirj 190 — optative 195 
— ace. et inf. — 211 — rod c. inf. 217 
• — Trpos t6 and eh t6 c. inf. 218 f. — 
periphrastic tenses 226, 227 — ov c. 
jiartic. 232 — iXaxicrros and ^Xa- 
Xicrrorepos 236 — compound verbs 
237 — fJ-T] in questions 239 — /jLrjTiye 

Perfect: action 109, 111— in English, 
its double force 136 

Perfect : for event on permanent re- 
cord 129, 142, 143 f.— vivid use for 
event yet future 134 — comjiared 
with aorist 140 f. — increasing use in 
vernacular 141 — may be used with 
a point of time 141, 146 — decayed 
in mediiEval Greek 141 f. — obsolete 
inMGr 141 f. — Latin not responsible 
142 — characteristic use in Heb 142, 
143 f. — combined with aorist 142 f., 
238 — genuinely aoristic uses possible 
in Rev 143, 145 — broken continuity 
144, 145 — ^crxv^o. 145, 238 — iriirpaKa 
145 — yeyopa 145 f., 239 — with pre- 
sent meaning 147, 176, 238 — k^- 
Kpaya 147 — rjyy]ixai. literary in Ac 148 
— strong perfect normally intransi- 
tive 154 — oiiginally voiceless 154 — 
imperative 176 — periphrastic forms 
176, 226 

Perfective verbs 111-118, 128, 237, 247 

Pergamum 29, 38 

Periphrasis 226 f., 249 — see under 
Participle, and the several tenses 

Person-endings 51-54, 152, 154 

Personal Pronouns : alleged Semitism 

84 f, 94 f. — emphasis in nominative 

85 f. — rjtieh for 6701 86 f. 
Perspective, action in — see Constat ire 
Philo 2, 96— see Index I (e), p. 264 
Phrygian Greek 56 — see Index I (c), 

p. 259 
Phrynichus 39, 194 
Pictorial imperfect 128 
Pindar 214— see Index I (e), p. 263 
Pindaric construction 58, 234 
Place, genitive of 73 
Plato 62, 213, 215— see Index I (e), p. 

Pleonasm 14-16, 85, 94f., 230, 237, 241 
Pluperfect : endings 53 — action 113, 

148 — in conditional sentences, 201 
Plural — see Ntimher 
Plutarch : optative 197 — ort /at; 239 — 

see Index I (c), ]>. 264 
Polybins 14, 21, 23, 25, 30, 39, 62, 85, 

92, 115-118, 197, 206 f., 247— see 

Index I (e), p. 264. 
Pontic dialect of MGr 40, 45, 47, 94, 

180, 205 
Point action — see Punctiliar 
Popular etymology 96 
Position of article 83 f. 
Potential 165, 197-199 
Prayer : the Lord's 10, 173 — absence 

of cD in 71 — Jn 17, use of aorist in 

137 — aorist imper. appropriate to 173 

— optative in 195 
Predicate, with eis 71 
Prepositional clause, anarthrous and 

articular, 81 f., 236 
Prepositions : added to local cases in 



Greek 61 — exiendorl use in Helle- 
nistic, not due to Seiuitisni Gl 1'. — • 
statisti(^s for classical aud post- 
classical historians 62 f., and for 
NT 62 f., 98 — in composition with 
verbs 65, 111-118, 128, 237— re- 
placing partitivegen. 72 — "Hebraic" 
phrases 81 f. — dropping of article 
lietween prep, aud infin. 81, 216 — 
tendency to drop article after 82, 
236 — combinations with adverbs 
99 — Semitism 99 f. — with one 
case 100-104 — alleged Latinisms 
100-102 — over-use paving the 
way for extinction 103 f. — with 
two cases 104-106 — statistics 105 — 
with three cases 106 f. — adverbs in 
essence 112 — dropped when com- 
pound is repeated soon after 115 — 
compounds tend to be used instead 
of punetiliar simplex 115-118 — 
Polybius using conijiounds to avoid 
hiatus 117 — NT writers use them 
less than the litUratcurs 118 — with 
articular infiuitive 216, 218-220, 241 
— see Index II under the several 

Present stem : twenty-three Greek 
varieties of 109 — its linear action 
109, 110, 111, 114, 117, 119, 120, 
125, 126, 127, 128, 147, 149, 173, 
174, 175, 180, 183, 186— iterative 
action 109, 114, 119, 125, 127, 128, 
129, 173, 180, 186, 233— verbs de- 
fective in 110 f. — in perfectivised 
verbs 113 f. — punetiliar action 119 f., 
238 — contrasted with aorist in pro- 
hibitions 122-126 — conative action 
125, 127, 128 f., 147, 173 f., 186— 
timeless articular particii^le 126 f. — 
statistics with av 166 — imperative, 
compared with aorist 173 f., 238 — 
quasi-iugressive in dTrox^petre 174 
— subjunctive in warning clauses 
178 — subjunctive with compounds 
of av, compared with aorist 186 — 
participle in periphrasis 227 — special 
uses of 6 &v 228 — see Imperfect and 
Present tense 

Present tense : for future time 114, 
120, 167 — with irakai, etc., rendered 
by our perfect 119 — for past time 
(historic present) 120-122, 139— see 
Present stem 

Prohibition : distinction of present 
and aorist in 122-126 — not originally 
expressed by imperative, nor now in 
MGr 164 — use of injunctive 165 — 
negative in 169, 187 f., 192 — in same 
category as commands 173 — ov /j-r) 
187 f. — must be treated here with 
denial 187 f. 

Pronouns : possessive 40 — duality 77, 
79 f.— personal 84-87— rellexives 8? 
— unempliatic tavroO and i'oioj 87-90, 
237 — lOlos 90 f — aiVos o and d 
auTos 91 — relatives 91-95 — inter- 
rogatives 93 f., 95 

Pronunciation 28, 33-36, 240, 243, 244 
— see Itacism 

Proper names and Article 83, 230 

Prophecy, use oH shall in 150 f. 

Protagoras 172 

Psilosis 33, 38, 44 

Punetiliar action 109-111, 116, 117 
118, 119, 120, 126, 129-131, 135, 
145, 149, 173, 174, 180, 222, 247 

Purist school of NT granuuarians 3, 

Purists in MGr 26, 30, 2'i3—c{ Atticism 

Purpose — see Final clauses 

"Q" — see Logia 

Qualitative use of anarthrous noun 

82 f. 
Quantity, levelling of 34 
Questions : with p.7)TL 170 — with ov 

170, 177— with fxri 170, 192 f, 239— 

indirect, in optative 196 
Quotations from classical Greek 45, 

81, 156, 233, 238 f. 
Quotations from OT 11, 16, 52, 124, 

174, 188, 190, 192, 224, 235— see 

Index I {h), p. 257 

Reciprocal Middle 157 

Pueciprocal Pronoun, cavrov's used for 87 

Reduplication 109, 142, 145 

Reference, dative of 63, 75 

Reflexive Middle 155-157, 163 

Reflexives : no distinction for persons 
in plui'al 87 — this confusion illiterate 
in singular 87 — used for dXXr/Xoi's 87 
— replaced by Semitic use of ^I'X'; 
87 — unemphatic iavrov 87-90 

Relative time 148 

Relatives : pleonastic demonstrative 
with 85, 94 f., 237— Soris 91-93— 
attraction 92 f. — confused with inter- 
rogatives 93 f. — with 8.i> {iav) 1 66, 
234— relative sentences, fi-q in 171, 
239 — relative clauses replaced by 
articular particijile 228 

Religion : technical language 18 — con- 
servative phraseology 20 

Repetition, making distributives and 
elatives 97 

Reported speech — see Oratio ohliqua 

Result clauses — see Consecutive 

Resurrection, voice of the verbs applied 
to 163 

Revelation — see Ajiocttlypse 

Revised Version of NT : quoted or 
discussed 20, 50, 69, 72, 75, 90, 91, 



116, 117, 128, 129, 132, 136-140, 
148, 163, 175, 184, 189, 225, 229, 
231, 241— niaigin 65, 66, 75, 7S, 
98, 137, 148, 163, 221, 222— the 
First Revision 83, 156, ISO 

Rlietoric, rules ibr coiniuaud in 172 

Rome, Greek used at 5, 242 

Sahidic 80 

Sanskrit : survival of Indo-Germanic 

cases 61 — locative of indirect object 
104 — aoristof "thing just happened" 
135 — future in -sydiid 149 — gram- 
marians' names for active and middle 
153 — 2 sing. mid. secondary suHix 
-thus compared with Greek weak 
aorist passive 161 — survival of the 
injunctive 165 — -imperative suffix 
-tat 172 — Vedic subjunctive makes 
in Epic a 1st person imperative 175 
— Vedic iniinitives 203 — classical 
ditto 204 — infinitive parallel with 
sequimini 224 — parenthetic nomina- 
tive in time-expression 235 — active 
and middle forms dillerentiated by 
Allan/ 238 
Scotch parallel to dp 166, 239 
Second Epistle of Peter 78, 98, 171, 

238 f. 
Semitisra — see Aramaic and Hebraism 
Septuagint : "translation Greek" of 
2f., 13 — Justin Martyr's dependence 
on 8, 233 — els dTravTrjcnv in 14 — 
constructions of iyevero — ^'n'^ 16 f. — 
extent of Luke's imitation 18 — 
Hebraisms from this source to be 
carefully distinguished from Arama- 
isms 18 — 3rd pi. forms in -aav 33 — 
indecl. irX-iipijs 50 — gender of BdaX 
59 — avT'ij for nil 59 — TnareveLv 67 f. — 
parenthetic nominative 70 — violent 
use of gen. abs. 74 — renderings of 
the Hebrew inlin. abs. 75 f. — "ex- 
hausted" iSiosand iavrov 88 — redun- 
dant demonstrative after relative 95, 
237 — "seventy-seven times" 98 — 
uses of iv 103 — statistics for -rrpds c. 
dat. and gen. 106 — historic present 
121 — diroKpideis elirev 131 — senii- 
aoristic perfect 142 — aorist and per- 
fect together 143 — K^Kpaya and Kpd'^w 
147 — KOLfidf active 162 — a7ro^'e^'o/x- 
fiefos 163 — statistics for dv 166 — 
perf. imper. 176 — subj. used for 
future 185 — oi) fxrj 188, 191 f. — owtj 
optative 194 — ei c. opt. 196 — opta- 
tive disajjpearing in final clauses 197 
—potential opt. 197 f.— o^eXo)/ 201 
— articular inlin. 220, 241 — participle 
for indicative 224 — partic. c. el/xi, 
disproving Aramaism 226 — N7 c, 
partic. translated with ov 232 — edu 

for aV234 — articular nom. in address 
235 — iJ-ia for TrpuiTrj 237 — statistics 
for iufin. 241 — Mk little influenced 
by 242 — see under Quotations, and 
Index I (6), p. 250 

Sefjuence, rules of : Luke observes with 
irpiv 169, 199 — breach of 197 — in 
indirect question 199 

Sermon on the Mount, respective pro- 
portions of aorist and present imper. 
in Mt and Lk 174 

Sextus Empiricus 52 

!ihall and Will 150 f. 

Simple conditions 171 

Sinaiticus, Codex 34, 35, 38, 42, 45, 
47, 52, 53, 55, 65, 90, 133, 181, 
190 aZ 

Slavonic : perfective compounds 111 — 
future from that in -aijG (obsolete) 
149 — cf Lithuanian 

Sophocles 215 — see Index I (e), p. 268 

Sources for study of ILoivr) 22 f., 27-30 

Sparta 24, 32 

Spoken Greek — see Vernacular 

Style, in Luke and Heb [q.v.) 18 

Subjective genitive 72, 236 — moods 
164 — negative 169 f. 

Subjunctive : itacistic confusions with 
indicative 35 — forms in contract verlis 
54— SwT? 55, 193 f., 196— origin 164 
— relation to injunctive 165 — alter 
compounds of dv 166, 186, 239, 240 
— alter trplv (?)) dv 169— after ei fiyri 
6.V 169, 239— negatives 170, 184 f., 
187 f., 190, 192— 1st person volitive 
used to supplement imperative 175, 
177 — ditto in 2ud and 3rd person 
177 f. — volitive in positive commands 
177 f. — c. 'iva as an imperative 177 f. 
— its tone in command 178 — with fxi) 
in warning 178, 184 — present allowed 
here 178 — classified 184 — volitive 
184 f.— deliberative 184, 185— futur- 
istic 184, 185, 186, 192, 240— future 
indie, trespasses on all three 184 f., 
240 — volitive clauses of purpose 185 
(see Final) — futuristic with idv and 
oTav {q.v. in Index II), etc. 185 — in 
comparisons 185 f. — tenses of 186 — 
with ei 187, 239 — has excluded 
optative from final clauses 196 f. — 
c. Lva has become e(|uivalent of iufin. 
205 (see 'iva in Index II) 

Subsequent action, alleged aoi'. partic. 
of 132-134 

Suffixes — see severally in Index II 

Superfluous words — see Pleonasm 

Superlative 78 f., 236 

Syncretism of cases 61, 72, 104 — of 
tenses in English 135 

Synoptic question, grammatical points 
'in 15-18, 71, 95, 103, 104, 105, 124, 



174, 175, 189-192, 224, 226 f., 231, 

236, 241, 242 — see under Matthew, 

Mark, LvJcc 
Syntax : alleged Semitisms in 12 f. — 

Latinisms 21 
Syriae 104, 241, 244— see Lewis, and cl' 

Syrian Recension 42, 53 — see a-text 

Teleology 219 

Telic — see Final clauses 

Temporal Participle 230 

Tenses : connexion with time nn- 
original 108 f., 119— with dV 166, 
186 — in conditional sentences 166, 
201 — in infinitive 204 — in verbal ad- 
jective 221 — see under the several 

Tcrtullian 69 

Textual Criticism : pronunciation bear- 
ing on 34-36 — a, ft and 5 text {q. r. ) — 
see also under Alcxandrinus, L'ezac, 
Siimiticus, Vaticamis, etc. 

"Textus Receptus" — see a-text 

Thematic vowel 171 

Thucvdides 25, 62, 215, 216— see 
Index I (c), p. 263 

Time : cases expressing 63, 70, 72, 
73, 75 — connexion with tense un- 
original 108 f., 119— expressed by 
augment, and possibl}' by suffix -i 
128 — the perfect accompanied by 
mark of 141 

Timelessness : participles 126 f., 131 — 
■jicrfect and aorist 134 

Traditional spelling 35 f. 

"Translation Greek" 4, 13, 39, 59, 76, 
102, 104, 105, 106, 188 f., 237, 240, 
242, 248 — ^ee HeJ^raism ?in(\ Arn,m<n,- 

Translations of NT : Latin, Syiiac, 
Sahidic, Bohairic, Gothic (q.v.)— 
Hebrew (Delitzsch) 104, 163— MGr 
(rallis and B.F.B.S.) 22, 30— see 
Index I (c), p. 265 

Uncontracted vowels 38, 48, 54f., 234 
Unenipliatic pronouns 85 — eavrou and 

ioios 87-90 
UnfuUilled condition 171, 196, 199- 

201— wish 200— purpose 201 
Unification of Greek dialects 30 
Uniformity of KoiciJ 5f., 19, 38-41 

Universal Language, Greek as a 5 f., 
19, 28 f., 31 

Vase-inscrijitions, Attic 31, 33 

Vaticanus, Codex 34, 35, 38, 42, 47, 
52, 53, 54, 80, 90, 97, 131, 133, 159, 
169, 181, 190, 244 a^- see ft-tcxl 

Verba direncli et coqilandi 239 

Verbal adjectives 221 f. 

Verbs : forms 38, 51-56 — in fit (sea 
Nonthematic) — number 58 f. — transi- 
tive and intransitive 64, 65 (7.?'.) — 
cases governed by 64-68 — Aktionsarl 
108-118, 221 al (see Adion-forin)— 
defectives 110 f. — compounds (q.v.) 
— tenses 119-151 (see under the 
several tenses) — voice (q.v.) 152-163 
— moods iq.v.) 164-201 — intinitive 
and participle (q.v.) 202-232 

Vernacular Greek 1, 4 f., 22-41, 83, 85, 
188, 234, 239 al 

Vocative : not strictly a case 60 — rela- 
tions with articular nominative of 
address 70 f., 235 — few forms sur- 
viving 71 — anarthrous nominative 
tends to supplant it 71 — progressive 
omission of & 71 — like imperative, is 
an interjection 171 

Voice 152-163, 221, 2Z8L—iiee Middle, 
Passive, Active 

Volitive future 150, 151, 177— subjunc- 
tive 175, 177 f., 184 f. — see under 
Future and Sv.hjunctivc 

Vulgate — see Latin 

Wales, bilingualism in 7 f., 10 f. 

" We "-document 217 — see Acts 

Week, days of 96, 237 

" Western " Text — see o-tcxt 

Wish : optative in 195 — unrealised 

200 f. — ditto in future with 6<f>e\ov 

World-language —see Universal 
Wulfila — see Gothic 

Xcnophon : fore-runner of Hellenism 
31 — grammar of 62 — see Index I 
(0), p. 263 

Xenophon, pseudo- 25 — see Index I 
(c), p. 263 

Zaconian, 32, 249 

adde:^da to indices 


{a) New Testament. 







5. 24 . 


5. 2 



2. 18 



5. 25 . 


14- 5 • 



6. 2, 5, 16 . 


1 Thessalonians 

7. 29 . 


1 C 


10. II . 


2. 16 

• • . 


18. 7 . 


7. 21 . 



5- 4 

* • • 


27. 29 . 


7. 28 . 
7. 29 . 



5- II 

• •  


13. 20 . 




2 Timothy 

II- 3 



4- 7 

 • • 



12. I 



4. 29 . 

. 249 


19- 37 • 

. 244 


7- 7 

• • • 



2. 14 



11. 17 

12. 17 


3. 16 . 


3- 21 


4. 52 f. . 

. 245 

4- 23 


Omit [8. II] . 

. 189 

5- 4 



IS- 13 • 

. 249 

5- 17 


I. 19 


17. 21, 24 f. 

. 245 

6. 10 


5- 12 


18. II . 

. 189 

6. 12 



1 Petbk 

10. 30 . 

, 245 



I. II 

• • • 


19. 27, 37 . 6 

0, 244 

5- 5 

. 24 

5, 246 

3- I 



1 Sam. (1 K.)20. 3 245 

Job 21. 24 


(?>) Old Testament. 


Lsai. 37. 38 . . 244 I Jer. 42 (49). 22 .245 

„ 63. 2 . . 244 i 


Wis. 7. 14 . . . 245 



{d) Papyri and Ostkaka. 







no. 5 • 
II . 
i6 . 

. 240 
. 240 
. 244 
. 240 
. 247 

no. 5 
RL . 

. 246 

. 248 

no. 466 


no. 16 . 
61 . 

. 244 

. 246 

. 244 


no. 99 . 


. 246 1 no. 135 . 

. 246 f. 




(all iii/B.c.) (1906). 

no. 30 . 

44 • 


. 246 
. 246 

no. 77 . 

. 244 

no. 78 . 

. 248 

Ostraka (ed. Wilcken). 
nos. 1-900 . 243 f., 246 | no. 240. 

245 I no. 927 


Melanges Nicole (Studies, largely papyrologica], in lionour of Trot'. Jule.s 
Nicole, Geneva, 1905). 
p. 184 . . . 244 1 p. 185 . . . 244 I p. 281 . 

JHS xxii. 358. . . .244 1 BCH xxiv. 339 


(e) Geeek Literatuee. 

i. Classical. 


Prom. Vithd. 268 f. 
358 . 


Ordipns Tijrannus xo68 


Medea 822 . . 


A2J0I. 36 B . . 

ii. Hellenistic. 



. 249 
. 245 

Flavius Josephus 

Antiqu. xiv. 317 . , 


. 101 

. 93 

Ignatius (ii/A.D.) 
Epli. iii. and xi. 

. 215 


. 248 


Epictctus iv. I. 39 . 
iv. I. 41 . 

. 247 

. 248 


. 249 


N.A. viii. 12 

79, 245 


Leqcnde der hi. Pelaqia, 
IFsener . 242,244, 


245, 246, 
247, 249 


aXXos and ^repos 80, 246 

(iv dropped witli ews, etc. 249 

dvepxo/JML 247 

dTre'xo) 247 

dwo in composition 247 

a<j)iKPei<r0ai 247 

diaypa.(po} tenses of 247 

dois, 5oi 244 

duideKa and SeKa 8vo 96, 246 

edv c. indie. 248 

els : with aTravT-qaiv 242 — supplies peri- 
phrasis for gen. 246 
eh in reciprocal 246 

iK in MGr 246 

€v relations \vitli et's 63, 245 

iuwTTLov 99, 246 

tpxofiai witli datious incommodl 75, 

eaOrjs, eaOrjcns 244 

de'Keiv construction 248 

iVa c. subj. for irajjcr. 248 — relations 

Avith intiu. 248 — ccbatic 249 
i(TT€ iniper. or indie. 245 

KopTj 38, 244 
Kpdjiaros 244 



/xerci " Seinitism " with wotdu 106, 
246 f. 

/MT^TTOIS 248 

oTTws 177, 178, 206 f. 
oral' = when 168, 248 
oTi for djare 209, 249 
oi) /MT] 249 
o[/at d7r6 246 

irapexii'V voices of, 248 

TTtts " Hehraistic " with negative, 245 f 
TraT-qp voc, 245 
TTfiLjTos c. gen. 245 

SKeuas 246 

avyyci'fvcTi, crvyyevis 244 

reaaapes ace. 213 
Ttaaepas, Ttaffepd.Koi'Ta 244 

tbs for ews 249 
wo-Te 249 

Modern Gkeek. 

'oeiv^^iSitv (Cos) 

/can . 


. 249 

102, 246 
. 247 

. 244 

Trapa compounded 

iraffo. . 






Aeschines 245 

Aoriht : action-form 247 — expressing 

ivimcdiatr. past 247 — compared with 

perfect 247 f. 
Aramaic : in Egypt 242 — infin. for 

imper. 248 
Attic : treatment of a 244 

Bezae, Codex 244, 249 
Bilingualisni 243 

Dative, illiterate use of gen. for, 245 

Education, varieties of 244 
" Exhausted " lBlos 246 

Final cLauses : weakened iva 249 

Genitive : with clkovhv and yewaOai 245 
— partitive 245 — et's supplying ior 
possessive 246 

Hebraism : 'iare yLvwcrKovres 245 — use 
of TTas with negative 245 f. 

Imperfect 248 

Infinitive : for imperative 248 — pur- 
pose (anarthrous) 249 — relations with 
IVa 248— in MGr 249 

John : use of IVa 206, 249 

Ka^a/3ei;ou<ra 243, 245, 246 

KoivT] 243 

Lexical notes : ets airdvTTia-w 242 

Literary element in NT 245 

Luke : accurate use of ^ deos 60, 244 

Middle : " incorrect" uses 248 
Modern Greek : versions of NT 243— 
Tvaaa 244 — ttTro 245 — tls 246 — sur- 
vivals 249 

Ostraka243ff., 283 

Partitive gen. , replaced by atro 245 
Paul : literary use of Icrre ? 245 — use of 

l)erfect 248— Hebraism in ? 245 
Perfect : in relf. to Scripture, Paul 
248 — combined with aorist — ^crxvi"^ 
Prepositions, replacing partitive 24."^ 
Present stem : punetiliar 24-7 — im- 
perative compared with aorist 247 

Revised Version 245 

Subjunctive, futuristic 249 
Symmachus 245. 

Textual Criticism : pronunciation bear- 
ing on, 244 — relations of B and D 
244, 249 

Time, cases expressing 245 


Publications of 

T. & T. CLARK, 


Abbott (T. K., B.D., D.Lit.) — EphESIANS and ColOSSIANS. {Inter- 
national Critical Commentary.) Post 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Adams (Prof. John. B.Sc.) — Primer on Teaching, with special 

reference to Sunday School Work. 6d. 

Adamson (Kev. R. M., M.A.) — The Christian Doctrine of Lord's 

Supper. Im|)erial 16nio (8 x 6), 4s. 6d. net. 
Adamson (T., D.D.) — The Spirit of Power. 2nd Ed., fcap. 8vo, Is. 
Ahlfeld (Dr.), etc. — The Voice from the Cross. Cr. 8vo, price 6s. 
Aitken(Eev. James, M.A.) — The Book of Job. With Introduction 

and Notes. Crown Svo, Is. 6d. 

Alcock (Deborah) — The Seven Churches of Asia. Is. 

Alexander (Prof. W. Lindsay) — BiblicalTheology. Two vols. Svo, 21s. 

Allen (Prof. A. V. G., D.D.) — Christian Institutions. {International 
Theological Library.) Post Svo, 12s. 

Ancient Faith in Modern Light, The. Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Andrews (S. J.) — The Life of Our Lord. Large post Svo, 9s. 

Ante-Nicene Christian Library — A Collection of all the Works 
OF THE Fathers of the Christian Church prior to the Council of 
Nic^A. Twenty-four vols. Svo, Subscription price, £6, 6s. Selection 
of Four Volumes at Subscription price of 21s. Additional Volume, 
containing MSS. discovered since the completion of the Series, 12s. 6d. net. 

Augustine's Works — Edited by Marcus Dods, D.D. Fifteen vols. 
Svo, Subscription price, £3, 19s. net. Selection of Four Volumes at Sub- 
scription pi'ice of 21s. 

Balfour (R. G., D.D.) — Central Truths and Side Issues. 3s. 6d. 
Ball (W. E., LL.D.) — St. Paul and the Eoman Law. Post Svo, 4s. 6d. 
Ballard (Frank, M.A., B.Sc.) — The Miracles of Unbelief. Sixth 

Edition. Post Svo, 2s. 6d. net. 
Bannerman (Prof.) — The Church of Christ. Two vols. Svo, 21s. 
Bannerman (D. D., D.D.) — The Doctrine of the Church. Svo, 12s. 
Bartlet (Prof. J. Vernon, M.A.) — The Apostolic Age : Its Life, 

Doctrine, Worship, and Polity. {Eras of Church History. ) Crown Svo, 6s. 
Baumgarten (Professor) — Apostolic History. Three vols. Svo, 

ISs. net. 

Bayne (P., LL.D.) — The Free Church of Scotland. Post Svo, 3s. 6d. 
Beck (Dr.) — Outlines of Biblical Psychology. Crown Svo, 4s. 

Pastoral Theology of the New Testament. Crown Svo, 6s. 

Bengel — Gnomon of the New Testament. With Original Notes, 

Explanatory and Illustrative. Five vols. Svo, Subscription price, 31s. 6d. 
Cheaper Edition, the five volumes hound in three, 24s. 

Besser's Christ the Life of the World. Price 6s. 

Beveridge (Rev. John, B.D.) — The Covenanters. {Neio Bihle Class 

Primer.) Paper covers, 6d. ; cloth covers, Sd. 

Beveridge (Rev. W., M.A.)— A Short History of the Westminster 

Assembly. Crown Svo, 2s. 6d. net. 

Beyschlag (W., D.D.) — New Testament Theology. Two vols. 

demy Svo, Second Edition, ISs. net. 
Bible Class Handbooks. Crown Svo. Forty-seven Volumes, Is. 3d. to 
3s. each. Edited by Prof. Marcus Dods, D.D., and Alex. Whyte, D.D. 

Detailed List free on application. 

** Detailed Catalogue free on ajjplicciJiov. 

T. and T. Clark's Publications. 

Bible Class Primers. Forty-four now issued in the Series. Edited by 

Princ. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D. Paper covers, 6d. each; free by post, 7d. 

In cloth, 8d. ; free by post, 9d. Detailed List free on application. 
Bible Dictionary. Edited by J as. Hastings, D.D. Special Prospectus on 

application. In Five Volumes, imperial 8vo, price per Volume, in cloth, 28s. ; 

in half-morocco, 34s. Sets can also be had in various styles of leather bindings. 
Bigg (Prof. C, D.D.) — St. Peter and St. Jude. {International 

Critical Commentary.) Post 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Blaikie (Prof. W. G-., D.D.) — The Preachers of Scotland from the 

6th to the 19th Centuky. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. 
Blake (Buchanan, B.D.) — How to Read the Prophets. Part I.— The 

Pre-Exiliau Minor Prophets (with Joel). Second Edition, 4s. Part II. — Isaiah 
(ch. i.-xxxix.). Third Edition, 2s. 6d. Part III. — Jeremiah, 4s. Part IV. — 
Ezekiel, 4s. Part V. — Isaiah (ch. xl.-lxvi.), and the Post-Exilian Prophets. 
The Series being now complete, Messrs. Clark offer the Set of Five Volumes for 15s. 

Joseph and Moses : Founders of Israel. Crown 8vo, 4s. 

Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. 2 vols. 8vo, I2s. net. 
Briggs (Prof. 0. A., D.D.) — General Introduction to the Study 

OF Holy Scriptuiie {Replacing the Author's 'Biblical Study,' entirely 
re-written and greatly enlarged). 8vo, 12s. net. 

The Messiah of the Apostles. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

The Messiah of the Gospels. Post 8vo, 6s. 6d. 

The Bible, the Church, and the Reason. Post 8vo, 6s. 6d. 

Brockelmann (C.) — Lexicon Syriacum. With a Preface by Professor 

T. NoLDEKE. Crown 4to, 30s. net. 

Brown (Prof. W. Adams) — The Essence of Christianity. Post 

8vo, 6s. net. 

Bruce (Prof. A. B., D.D.) — The Training of the Twelve ; exhibiting 

the Twelve Disciples under Discipline for the Apostleship. 6th Ed., 10s. 6d. 

The Humiliation of Christ. 5th Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

The Kingdom of God ; or, Christ's Teaching according to the 

Synoptical Gospels. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Apologetics ; or, Christianity Defensively Stated. 

{International Theological Library.) Third Edition, post 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

— St. Paul's Conception of Christianity. Post Svo, 7s. 6d. 
The Epistle to the Hebrews : The First Apology for 

Christianity. Second Edition, post 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Bruce (Rev. R., D.D., Hon. Canon of Durham Cathedral.) — Apostolic 

Order and Unity. Crown Svo, 2s. 6d. net. 
Bruce (W. S., D.D.)— The Ethics of the Old Testament. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 

The Formation of Chrlstian Character. Crown 8vo, 5s. 

Buhl (Prof. F.) — Canon and Text of the Old Testament. Svo, 7s. 6d. 
Bungener^Felix) — Rome and theCouncil in 19™Century. Cr.8vo,5s. 
Burton (Prof. E.) — Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New 

Testament Greek. Post 8vo, 5s. 6d. net. 
Caldecott and H. R. Mackintosh (Profs.) — Selections from the 

Literature of Theism. 7s. 6d. net. 
Oalvin'slNSTiTUTESOFCHRiSTiAN Religion. (Translation.)2vols.8vo,l 4s. 

Commentaries. Forty-five Vols. Price on uppJication. 

Calvini Tnstitutio Christianae Religionis. Curavit A. Tholuck. 

Two vols. Svo, Suhscription ]jrice, 14s. 

Candlish (Prof. J. S., D.D.) — The Kingdom of God, Biblically and 


The Christian Salvation. Lectures on the Work of Christ. 

Svo, 7s. 6d. 

T. and T. Clark' s Publications. 

Caspar! (C. E.) — Introduction to the Life of Christ. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 
Gaspers (A.) —The Footsteps of Christ. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. 
Cassel (Prof. ) — Commentary on Esther. 8vo, 6s. net. 
Cave (Principal A., D.D.) — The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice 

AND Atonement. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

An Introduction to Theology. Second Edition, 8vo, 12s. 

Chapman (Principal C, LL.D.) — Pre-Organic Evolution and the 

Biblical Idea of God. Crown 8vo, 6s. 
Christlieb (Prof. T., D.D.) — Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. 

8vo, 6s. net. 

Homiletic : Lectures on Preaching. 7s. 6(i. 

Clark (Professor W. R., LL.D., D.C.L.) — The Anglican Reforma- 
tion. {Eras of Church History. ) 6s. 

The Paraclete. The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit. 

Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. 

Pascal and the Port Royalists. Crown Svo, 3s. 

Witnesses to Christ. A Contribution to Christian Apolo- 

getics. Crown 8vo, 4s. 
Clarke (Professor W. N., D.D.) — An Outline of Christian 

Theology. Thirteenth Edition, post Svo, 7s. 6d. 

The Use of the Scriptures in Theology. Post Svo, 4s. 

What shall we think of Christianity ? Cr. Svo, 2s. 6d. 

Can I believe in God the Father ? Crown Svo, 3s. 

Concordance to the Greek Testament — Moulton (W. F., D.D.) and 

Geden (A. S., M.A.). Second Edition, crown 4to, 26s. net. 

Cooper and Maclean. — The Testament of our Lord. With Intro- 
duction and Notes by Prof. Cooper, D.D., and Bishop Maclean. Svo, 9s. 

Crawford (J. H., M. A.) — The Brotherhood of Mankind. Post 8vo, os. 

Cremer (Professor) — Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testa- 
ment Greek. Third Edition, with Supplement, demy 4to, 38s. 

Crippen (Eev. T. G.) — A Popular Introduction to the History 

OF Christian Doctrine. 8vo, 9s. 
Cunningham (Principal) — Historical Theology. Two vols. Svo, 21s. 
Curtiss (Dr. S. I.) — The Levitical Priests. Crown Svo, 5s. 

Franz Delitzsch : A Memorial Tribute. Portrait. Cr. Svo, 3s. 

Dahle (Bishop) — Life after Death, Demy Svo, lOs. 6d. 

Dahnan (Prof. G.)— The Words of Jesus. Demy Svo, 7s. fid. net. 

Davidson (Prof. A.B., D.D., LL.D.)— An Introductory Hebrew 

Grammar. With Progressive Exercises in Reading and AVriting. 17th 
Edition, 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

A Syntax of the Hebrew Language. 3rd Ed., Svo, 7s. 6d. 

Old Testament Prophecy. Edited by Prof. J. A. Pater- 
son, D.D. Demy 8vo, 10s. 6d. net. 

The Theology of the Old Testament. {International 

Theological Library.) Edited by Principal S almond, D.D. 12s. 

The Called of God. With Biographical Introduction by 

A. Taylor Innes, M.A., Advocate, and Portraits. Post Svo, Second 
Edition, 6s. 

Waiting upon God. A Further and Final Selection of 

Sermons. Post 8vo, 6s. 

The Epistle to the Hebrews. Crown Svo, 2s. fid. 

Davidson, Dr. Samuel. Autobiography and Diary. Edited by his 

DAuaHTEK. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Davies (Principal D. C.)— The Atonement and Intercession of 

Christ. Crown Svo, 4s. 

T. and T. Clark's Publications. 

Deane (Wm., M.A.) — Pseudepigrapha : The Books which influenced 

our Lord and the Apostles. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. 
Deissmann (Dr. Gr. A.) — Bible Studies. Second Edition, 8vo, 9s. 
Delitzsch (Prof. )— System of Biblical Psychology, 8vo, 6s. net; 

New Commentary on Genesis, 2 vols. 8vo, 12s. net ; Psalms, 3 vols., 18s. 

net; Pkovekbs, 2 vols., 12s. net; Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes, 

6s. net; Isaiah, Fourth Edition, rewritten, 2 vols., 12s. net; Hebrews, 

2 vols., 12s. net. 
*^* Any Four Volumes may be had at original Subscription price of 21s. net. 

Deussen (Prof. P.)— The Philosophy of the Upanishads. The 

Religion and Philosophy of India. 8vo. 
Dictionary of the Bible, A. {Seepage 2.) 
Dods (Prof. Marcus)— The Bible: Its Origin and Nature. Crown 

8vo, 4s. tid. net. 

Dods (Marcus, M.A.) — Forerunners of Dante. Crown 8vo, 4s. net. 
Doedes— Manual of New Testament Hermeneuticn. Cr. 8vo, 3s. 
Dollinger (Dr.) — Hippo lytus and Callistus. 8vo, 6s. net. 

Declarations and Letters on the Vatican Decrees, 

1869-1887. Authorised Translation. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. 

Dorner (Professor) — History of the Development of the Doctrine 

of the Person of Christ. Five vols. Subscription price, 26s. 3d. net. 

System of Christian Doctrine. Subscription price, 2 Is. net. 

System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 14s. 

Driver (Prof. S. R., D.D.)— An Introduction to the Literature 

OF rHB Old Testament. [International Theological Library.) 7th 
Edition, post 8vo, 12s. 

Deuteronomy : A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. 

[International Critical Commentary.) Third Edition, post 8vo, 12s. 

Drummond (R. J., D.D.)— The Pelation of the Apostolic 

Teaching to the Teaching of Christ. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Du Bose (Prof. W. P., D.D.)— The Ecumenical Councils. {Eras 

of Church History. ) 6s. 

Duff (Prof. David, D.D.)— The Early Church. 8vo, 12s. 
Dyke (Paul Van) — The Age of the Renascence. With an Intro- 
duction by Henry Van Dyke. [Eras of Church History.) 6s. 
Eadie (Professor)— Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles to the 

Ephesians, Philifpians, Colossians. New and Revised Editions, Edited 
by Rev. Wm. Young, M.A. Three vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. each ; or set, 18s. net. 
Ebrard (Dr. J. H. A.) — The Gospel FIistory. 8vo, 6s. net. 

Apologetics. Three vols. 8vo, 18s. net. 

Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. 8vo, 6s. net. 

Edgar (R. M'C, D.D.)— The Gospel of a Risen Saviour. 7s. 6d. 
Elliott— On the Inspiration of the Holy Scripturfs. 8vo, 6s. 
Eras of the Christian Church — Noio complete in Ten Vohimes — 

Dd Bose (Prof. W. P., D.D.)— The Ecumenical Councils. 6s. 

Waterman (L., D.D.)— The Post-Apostolic Age. 6s. 

Dyke (Paul Van)— The Age of the Renascence. 6s. 

Locke (Clinton, D.D.)— The Age of the Great Western Schism. 6s. 

Ludlow (J. M., D.D.)— The Age of the Crusades. 6s, 

Vincent (Prof. M. R., D.D.)— The Age of Hildebrand. 6s. 

Clark (Prof. W. R., LL.D., D.C.L.)— The Anglican Reformation. 6s. 

Wells (Prof. C. L. )— The Age of Charlemagne. 6s. 

Bartlet (Prof. .1. Vernon, M.A.)— Tlie Apostolic Age. 6s. 

Walker (Prof. W., Ph.D., D.D.)— The Protestant Reformation. 6s. 

Emesti — BiblicalInterpretation of New Testament. Two vols., 8s. 
Ewald (Heinrich) — Hebrew Syntax. 8vo, 8s. 6d. 

T. and T. Clark's Publications. 

Ewald (Heinrich) — Revelation : Its Nature and Record. 8vo, 6s. net. 

Old and New Testament Theology. Svo, 6s. net. 

Expository Times. Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Monthly, 6d. 
Fairbairn (Prin.) — The Revelation of Law in Scripture, 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Ezekiel and the Book of his Prophecy. Fourth Edition 

8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Prophecy. Second Edition, Svo, 10s. 6ii. 

Pastoral Theology. Crown Svo, 6s. 

Fairweather (Rev. W., M.A.) — Origen and Greek Patristic 

Theology. 3s. 
Falconer (J. W., B.D.) — From Apostle to Priest. A Study of 

Early Church Organisation. Oi'own Svo, 4s. 6d. 

Ferries (Rev. George, D.D.) — The Growth of Christian Faith. 

Svo, 7s. 6d. net. 

Fisher (Prof. G. P., D.D., LL.D.)— History of Christian Doctrine. 

{International Theological Library.) Second Edition, post Svo, 12s. 

Forbes (J. T., M.A.) — Socrates. {In the Series of the World's 
Epoch- Markers.) Crown Svo, 3s. 

Foreign Theological Library — Four Volumes for One Guinea. De- 
tailed List on aijplication. 

Forrest (D. W., D.D.)— The Christ of History and of Ex- 
perience. Fourth Edition, post Svo, 6s. 
Frank (Prof. F. H.)— Systkm of Christian Certainty. Svo, 6s. net. 
Funcke (Otto) — The World of Faith and the Everyday World, 

as displayed in the Footsteps of Abraham. Post Svo, 7s. 6d. 

Garvie (Prof. A. E., D.D.)— The Ritschlian Theology. 2nd Ed., Svo, 9s. 
Gebhardt (H.) — The Doctrine of the Apocalypse. Svo, 6s. net. 
Geere (H. Valentine)— By Nile and Euphrates. A Record of 

Discovery and Adventure. Deiuy Svo, price Ss. 6d. net. 

Gerlach — Commentary on the Pentateuch. Svo, 6s. net. 
Gieseler (Dr. J. C. L.)— Ecclesiastical History. Four vols. Svo, 21s. 
Given (Rev. Prof. J. J.)— The Truth of Scripture in connection 

WITH Revelation, Inspiration, anh the Canon. Svo, 6s. 
Gladden (Washington, D.D., LL.D.) The Christian Pastor and 

the Working Church. {Liternational Theol. Library.) Post Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Glasgow (Prof.) — Apocalypse Translated and Expounded. 

Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Gloag (Paton J., D.D,)— The Messianic Prophecies. Cr. Svo, 7s. 6d. 

Introduction to the Catholic Epistles. Svo, 10.s. 6d. 

Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. Svo, 7s. 6d. 

Exegetical Studies. Crowu Svo, .5s. 

The Primeval World. Crown Svo, 3s. 

Godet (Prof. F.)— An Introduction to the New Testament— 

I. The Epistles of St. Paul. Svo, 12s. 6d. net. 
II. The Gospel Collection, and St. Matthew's Gospel. Svo, 6s. net. 

Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. 2 vols. Svo, i2s. net. 

Commentary on St. John's Gospel. 3 vols. Svo, iss net. 

Commentary on Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. Svo, 12s. net. 

Commentary on 1st Epistle to Corinthians. 2 vols. Svo, 

1 2s net. 

*^* Any Four Volumes at the original Subscription price of 21s. net. 

* Defence of The Christian Faith. Crown Svo, 4s. 

Goebel (Siegfried)— The Parables of Jesus. Svo, 6s. net. 

T. and T. Clark's Publications. 

Gotthold's Emblems ; or, Invisible Things Understood by Things 


Gould (Prof. E. P., D.D.) — St. Mark. {International Critical 

Co7n7nentary.) Post 8vo, 10s. 6d. 
Gray (Prof. G. Buchanan, D.D.) — Numbers. {International Critical 

Commentary.) Post 8vo, 12s. 

Grimm's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Trans- 
lated, Revised, and Enlarged by Joseph H. Thayer, D.D. Demy 4to, 36s. 
Guyot (Arnold, LL.D.) — Creation; or, The Biblical Cosmogony in the 

Light of Modern Science. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo, 5s. 6d. 

Hagenbach (Dr. K. R.) — History of Doctrines. 3 vols. 8vo, 18s. net. 

• History of the Reformation. 2 vols. 8vo, 12s. net. 

Halcombe (Rev. J. J., M. A.)— What Think We of the Gospels 1 3s. 6d. 
Hall (Newman, D.D.) — Divine Brotherhood. 3rd Ed., cr. 8vo, 4s. 
Hamilton (T., D.D.) — Beyond the Stars; or, Heaven, its Inhabitants, 
Occupations, and Life. Third Edition, crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. 

Harless (Dr. C. A.) — System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 6s. net. 
Harper (Pres. W. R., Ph.D.) — Amos and Hosea. {International 
Critical Commentary.) Post 8vo, 12s. 

Harris (S., D.D.) — God the Creator and Lord of All. Two 

vols, post 8vo, 16s. 

Hastie (The late Prof.) — Theology of the Reformed Church in 

ITS Fundamental Principles {Croall Lectures). Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. net. 

Outlines of Pastoral Theology. For Young Ministers 

antl Students. Is. 6d. net. 

Haupt (Erich) — The First Epistle of St. John. 8vo, 6s. net. 
Havemiek (H. A. Ch.) — Introduction to Old Testament. 6s. net. 
Heard (Rev. J. B., M. A.) — The Tripartite Nature of Man. Cr.-Svo, 6s. 

Old AND New Theology. A Constructive Critique. Cr. 8vo, 6s. 

Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology contrasted. 

The Hulsean Lectures, 1892-93. Crown 8vo, 6s. 

Hefele (Bishop) — A History of the Councils of the Church. 

Vol. L.toA.D. 325. Vol. II., a.d. 326 to 429. Vol. III., a.d. 431 to the close 
of the Council of Chalcedon, 451. Vol. IV., a.d. 451 to 680. Vol. V., a.d. 
626 to 787. 8vo, 12s. each. 

Henderson (Rev. H, F., M.A.)— The Religious Controversies of 

Scotland. Post 8vo, 4s. 6d. net. 
Hengstenberg (Professor) — Commentary on Psalms, 3 vols. 8vo, 
18s. net; Ecclesiastes, etc., 8vo, 6s. net; Ezekiel, 8vo, 6s. net; The 
Genuineness of Daniel, etc., 8vo, 6s. net ; History of the Kingdom 
OF God, 2 vols. 8vo, 12s. net ; Christologt of the Old Testament, 4 
vols., 21s. net; St. John's Gospel, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. 
* ^* Any Four Volumes at the original Subscription price of 21s. net. 

Herkless (Prof. J., D.D.) — Francis and Dominic. Crown 8vo, 3s. 

Herzog — Encyclopedia of Living Divines, etc., of all De- 
nominations in Europe and America. {Supplement to Herzog' s Encyclo- 
pcedia.) Imp. 8vo, 8s. 

Hill (Rev. J. Hamlyn, D.D.) — St. Ephraem the Syrian. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 
Hilprecht (Prof. H. V.) — Explorations in Bible Lands. Large 

Svo, 12s. 6d. net. 

Hodgson (Principal J. M., M.A., D.Sc, D.D.) — Theologia Pectoris : 

Outlines of Religious Faith and Doctrine. Crown Svo, 3s. 6d. 

Holborn (Alfred, M.A.) — The Pentateuch in the Light of To-day. 

A Simple Introduction to the Pentateuch on the Lines of the Higher 
Criticism. Second Edition, crown 8vo, 2s, net. 

T. and T. Clark's Publications. 7 

Hudson (Prof. W. H.)— Kousseau, and Naturalism in Life and 

Thought. Crown 8vo, 3s. 
Inge (W. R., D.D.)— Faith and Knowledge. Post 8vo, 4s. 6d. net. 
Innes (A. D., M.A.)— Cranmer and the English Eeformation. 

Crown Svo, 3s. 

Innes (A. Taylor)— The Trial of Jesus Christ. In its Legal 

Aspect. Second Edition, post Svo, 2s. 6d. 
International Critical Commentary. 

Gray (Prof. G. Buchanan, D.D.) — Numbers. 12s. 
Driver (Prof. S. R., D.D. )— Deuteronomy. 12s. 
Moore (Prof. G. F., D.D.)— Judges. 12s. 
Smith (Prof. H. P., D.D.)— Samuel. 12s. 
Toy (Prof. C. H., D.D.)— Proverbs. 12s. 
Harper (Pres. W. R.) — Amos and Hosea. 12s. 
Gould (Prof. E. P., D.D.)— St. Mark. 10s. 6d. 
Plummer (Alfred, D.D.) — St. Luke. 12s. 

Sanday (Prof. W., D.D.) and Headlam (Prin. A. C, D.D.)— Romans. 12s. 
Abbott (Prof. T. K., B.D., D.Lit.) — Ephesians and Colossians. 10s. 6d. 
Vincent (Prof. M. R., D.D.) — Phil ippians and Philemon. 8s. 6d. 
Bigg (Prof. C, D.D.)— St. Peter and St. Jude. 10s. 6d. 
For List offuhire Volumes see p. 1 5. 

International Theological Library, 

Davidson (Prof. A. B.)— Theology of the Old Testament. 12s. 

Driver (Prof. S. R., D.D.) — An Introduction to the Literature of the Old 

Testament. 12s. 
Smith (Prof. H. P.)— Old Testament History. 12s. 
Smyth (Newman, D.D.)— Christian Ethics. 10s. 6d. 
Bruce (Prof. A. B., D.D.)— Apologetics. 10s. 6d. 

Fisher (Prof. G. P., D.D., LL.D.)— History of Christian Doctrine. 12s. 
Allen (Prof. A. V. G., D.D.) — Christian Institutions. 12s. 
McGiFFERT (Prof. A. C, Ph.D.)— The Apostolic Age. 12s. 
Gladden (Washington, D.D. )— The Christian Pastor. 10s. 6d. 
Stevens (Prof. G. B., D.D.)— The Theology of the New Testament. 123. 

The Christian Doctrine of Salvation. 12s. 

Rainy (Prin. R.) — The Ancient Catholic Church. 12s. 
For List of future Volumes sec p. 14. 

Iverach (Princ. James, D.D.) — Descartes, Spinoza, and the New 

Philosophy. Crown Svo, 3s. 
Janet (Paul) — Final Causes. Second Edition, demy Svo, 12s. 

The Theory of Morals. Demy Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Johns (C. H. W., M.A.) — The Oldest Code of Laws in the World. 

The Code of Laws promulgated by Hammurabi, King of Babylon, B.C. 2285- 
2242. Crown Svo, Is. 6d. net. 

Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts, and Letters. 

Demy Svo, 12s. net. 

Johnstone (P. De Lacy, M.A.) — Muhammad and his Power. 3s. 
Johnstone (Prof. R., D.D.)— Commentary on 1st Peter. Svo, 10s. 6d. 
Jones (E. E. C.) — Elements of Logic. Svo, 7s. 6d. 
Jordan (Rev. Louis H., B.D.) — Comparative Religion : Its Genesis 

and Growth. Introduction by Principal Fairbairn, D.D. Svo, 12s. net. 

Kaftan (Prof. J., D.D.)— The Truth of the Christian Religion. 

Authorised Translation. 2 vols. Svo, 16s. net. 
Kant — The Metaphysic of Ethics. Crown Svo, 6s. 

Philosophy of Law. Trans, by W. Hastie, D.D. Cr. Svo, 58. 

Principles of Politics, etc Crown Svo, 2s. 6d. 

Kennedy (James, D.D.)— The Note-Line in the Hebrew Scriptures. 

4s. 6d. net. 

8 T. and T. Clark' s Publications. 

Keil (Prof.) — Pentateuch, 3 vols. 8vo, 18s. net; Joshua, Judges, 

AND EuTH, 8vo, 6s. net ; Samuel, 8vo, 6s. net ; Kings, 8vo, 6s. net ; 

Chronicles, Svo, 6s. net ; Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 8vo, 6s. net ; 

Jeremiah, 2 vols. 8vo, 12s. net; Ezekiel, 2 vols. 8vo, 12s. net; Daniel, 

Svo, 6s. net ; Minor Prophets, 2 vols. Svo, 12s. net ; Introduction to 

the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, 2 vols. Svo, 12s. 

net ; Handbook of Biblical Archeology, 2 vols. Svo, 12s. net. 

*^f* Any Four Volumes at the original Subscription price of 21s. net. 
Keymer (Rev. N., M.A.) — Notes on Genesis. Crown Svo, Is. 6d. 
Kidd (James, D.D.) — Morality and Religion. Svo, 10s. 6d. 
Killen (Prof.) — The Framework of the Church. Svo, 9s. 

The Old Catholic Church. Svo, 9s. 

The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious. Cr. Svo, 2s. 6d. 

Kilpatrick (Prof. T. B., D.D.)— Christian Character. 2s. 6d. 
Konig (Dr. Ed.) — The Exiles' Book of Consolation (Deutero-Isaiah). 

Crown Svo, 3s. 6d. 

Konig (Dr. F. E. )— The Religious History of Israel. Cr. Svo, 3s. 6d. 
Krause (F. C. F.) — The Ideal of Humanity. Crown Svo, 3s. 
Krummacher (Dr. F. W.) — The Suffering Saviour. Cr. Svo, 6s. 

David, the King of Israel. Second Edition, cr. Svo, 6s. 

Autobiography. Crown Svo, 6s. 

Kurtz (Prof. )— Handbook of Church History (from 1517). 8vo,7s. 6d. 

History of the Old Covenant, Three vols. Svo, 18s. net. 

Ladd (Prof. G. T.) — The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture. Two 

vols. Svo, 1600 pp., 24s. 

Laidlaw (Prof. J., D.D.) — The Bible Doctrine of Man. PostSvo, 7s. 6d. 
Lambert (Rev. J. C, B.D.) — The Sacraments in the New 

Testament. Demy Svo, price 10s. 6d. 
Lane (Laura M.) — Life of Alexander Vinet. Crown Svo, 7s. 6d. 
Lange (J. P., D.D.) — The Life of our Lord Jesus Christ. Edited 

by Marcus Dods, D.D. 2ud Edition, in 4 vols. Svo, price 2Ss. net. 

Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments. Edited 

by Philip Schaff, D.D. Old Testament, 14 vols. ; New Testament, 10 
vols. ; Apocrypha, 1 vol. Subscription price, net, 15s. each. 
St. Matthew and St. Mark, 3 vols. Svo, ISs. net; St. Luke, 

2 vols. Svo, 12s. net; St. John, 2 vols. Svo, 12s. net. 
'^* Any Four Volumes at the original Subscription price of 21s. net. 

Le Camus (E., Bishop of La Rochelle) — The Children of Nazareth. 

Fcap. 4to. 4s. 

Lechler (Prof. G. V., D.D.) — The Apostolic and Post- Apostolic 

Times. Their Diversity and Unity in Life and Doctrine. 2 vols. cr. Svo, 16s. 

Lehmann (Pastor) — Scenes from the Life of Jesus. Cr. Svo, 3s. 6d. 
Lewis (Tayler, LL.D.) — The Six Days of Creation. Cr. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 
Lidgett (Rev. J. Scott) — The Fatherhood of God in Christian 

Truth and Life. Svo, Ss. net. 
Lilley (J. P., D.D.) — The Lord's Supper: Its Origin, Nature, and 
Use. Crown Svo, 5s. 

The Pastoral Epistles. 2s. 6d. 

Principles of Protestantism. 2s. 6d. 

LilUe (Arthur) — Buddha and Buddhism. Crown Svo, 3s. 
Lindsay (Prin. T. M., D.D.)— Luther and the German Eeforma- 

TiON. Crown 8vo, 3s. 

Lisco (F. G.) — Parables of Jesus Explained. Fcap. Svo, 5s. 
Locke (Clinton, D.D.) — The Age of the Great Western Schism. 

{Eras of Church History. ) 6s. 

T. and T. Clark's Publications. 9 

Lotze (Hermann) — Microgosmus : An Essay concerning Man and his 

relation to the World. Cheaper Edition, 2 vols. 8vo (1450 pp.), 24s. 

Ludlow (J. M., D.D.)— The Age of the Crusades. {Eras of 

Church History.) 6s. 

Luthardt, Kaluiis. and Bruckner — The Church. Crown 8vo, 5s. 
Luthardt(Prof.) — St. John the Author of theFourth Gospel. 7s.6d. 

Commentary on St. John's Gospel. 3 vols. 8vo, 18s. net. 

History of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 6s. net. 

Apologetic Lectures on the Fundamental (7 Ed.), Saving 

(5 Ed.), Moral Truths of Christianity (4 Ed.). 3 vols. cr. 8vo, 6s. each. 
Macdonald — Introduction to Pentateuch. Two vols. 8vo, 12s. net. 

Creation and the Fall. 8vo, 6s. net. 

Macgregor (Rev. Jas., D.D.) — The Apology of the Christian 
Religion. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

The Revelation and the Record : Essays on Matters of 

Previous Question in the Proof of Christianity. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Studies in the History of New Testament Apologetics. 

Svo, 7s. 6d. 

Macgregor (Rev. G. H. C, M.A.)— So Great Salvation. Cr. 32mo, Is. 
Macpherson (Rev. John, M.A.) — Commentary on the Epistle to 

THE Ephesians. 8vo, lOs. 6d. 

Christian Dogmatics. Post 8vo, 9s. 

McCosh (James), Life of. 8vo, 9s. 

McGiffert (Prof. A. C, Ph.D.) — History of Christianity in the 

Apcstolic Age. {International Theological Lihrary.) Post Svo, 12s. 

The Apostles' Creed. Post Svo, 4s. net. 

M'Hardy (G-., D.D.)— Savonarola. Crown Svo, 3s. 

M'Intosh (Rev. Hugh, M.A.) — Is Christ Infallible and the 

Bible True ? Third Edition, post Svo, 6s. net. 
Mackintosh (Prof. R., D.D.) — Hegel and Hegelianism. Crown 8vo, 3s. 
M'Realsham (E. D.) — Romans Dissected. A Critical Analysis of the 

Epistle to the Eomans. Crown Svo, 2s. 

Mair (A., D.D.) — Studies in the Christian Evidences. Third 

Edition, Revised and Enlarged, crown Svo, 6s. 

Martensen (Bishop) — Christian Dogmatics. Svo, 6s. net. 

Christian Ethics. (General — Indfvidual — Social.) 

Three vols. Svo, 6s. net each. 

Matheson (Geo., D.D.)— Growth of the Spirit of Christianity, from 

the First Century to the Dawn of the Lutheran Era. Two vols. Svo, 21s. 

Meyer (Dr.) — Critical and Exegetical Commentaries on the 

New Testament. Twenty vols. Svo. Stibscription j)rice, £5, 5s. _ net ; 

selection of Four Volumes at Subscription price of 2\s. ; Xon- Subscription 

price, 10s. 6d. each volume. 

St. Matthew, 2 vols. ; Mark and Luke, 2 vols. ; St. John, 2 vols. ; 

Acts, 2 vols. ; Romans, 2 vols. ; Corinthians, 2 vols. ; Galatians, one vol. ; 

Ephesians and Philemon, one vol. ; Philippians and Colossians, one vol. ; 

Thessalonians {Dr. Lilnemann), one vol. ; The Pastoral Epistles {Dr. 

Huther), one vol. ; Hebrews {Dr. Lilnemann), one vol. ; St. James and St. 

John's Epistles {Huther), one vol. ; Peter and Jude {Dr. Huther), one vol. 
Michie (Charles, M.A.)— Bible Words and Phrases. ISmo, Is. 
Milligan (George, D.D.)— The Theology of the Epistle to the 

Hebrews. Post Svo, 6s. 

Milligan (Prof W., D.D.)— The Resurrection of the Dead. 

Second Edition, crown Svo, 4s. 6d. 
MiUigan (Prof. W., D.D.) and Moulton (W. F., D.D.) — Com- 
mentary ON THE Gospel of St. John. Imp. Svo, 9s. 

lO T. and T. Clark s Publicatio7is. 

Moffatt (James, D.D.) — The Historical New Testament. Second 

Edition, demy 8vo, 16s. 
Moore (Prof. G. F., D.D.) — Judges. {International Critical Com- 
Tnentary.) Second Edition, post 8vo, 12s. 

Morgan (J., D.D.) — Scripture Testimony to the Holy Spirit. 7s. 6d. 

Exposition of the FirstEpistle of John. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Moulton (James H., D.Litt.) — A Grammar of New Testament 

Greek. Parti. The Prolegomena. Part II. {In the Press.) 

Moulton (W. F., D.D.) and Geden (A. S., M.A.) — A Concordance 

TO THE Greek Testament. Crown 4to, 20s. net, and 31s. 6d. net. 

Muir (Sir W.) — Mohammedan Controversy, Etc. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Indian Mutiny. Two vols. 36s. net. 

Muirhead (Dr. Lewis A.) — The Times of Christ. New Edition. 

With Map. 2s. 

MiQler (Dr. Julius) — The Christian Doctrine of Sin. 2 vols., I2s. net. 
Murphy (Professor) — Commentary on the Psalms. 8vo, 6s. net. 

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus. 9s. 

Naville (Ernest) — The Problem of Evil. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. 

The Christ. Translated by Rev. T. J . Despres. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d. 

Modern Physics. Crown 8vo, 5s. 

Neander (Dr.) — Church History. Eight vols. 8vo, £2, 2s. net. 
Nicoll (W. Robertson, M.A., LL.D.)— The Incarnate Saviour. 

Cheap Edition, price 3s. 6d. 

Novalis — Hymns and Thoughts on Religion. Crown 8vo, 4s. 
Oeliler (Prof.) — Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols., 12s. net. 
Olshausen (Dr. H.) — Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and 

Acts. Four vols., 21s. net. Crown 8vo Edition, 4 vols., 24s. 

Romans, one vol. 8vo, 6s. net ; Corinthians, one vol. 8vo, 

6s. net ; Philippians, Titus, and First Timothy, one vol. 8vo, 6s. net. 
Oosterzee (Dr. Van) — The Year of Salvation. Two vols., 6s. each. 

Moses : A Biblical Study. Crown 8vo, 6s. 

Orelli (Dr. C. von)— Old Testament Prophecy ; Commentary on 

Isaiah ; Jeremiah ; The Twelve Minor Prophets. 4 vols. Subscription 
price, 21s. net ; separate vols., 6s. net, each. 

Orr (Prof. James, D.D.) — David Hume. Crown 8vo, 3s. 
Owen (Dr. John) — Works. Best and only Complete Edition. Edited 
by Rev. Dr. Goold. Twenty-four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £4, 4s. 
The 'Hebrews' may be had separately, in seven vols., £l, 6s. net. 

Palestine, Map of. Edited by J. G. Bartholomew, F.R.G.S., and 

Prof. G. A. Smith, M.D., D.D. With complete Index. Scale— 4 Miles to 
an Inch. In cloth, 10s. 6d. ; mounted on rollers, varnished, 15s. 

Patrick (Rev. Principal W., D.D.) — James the Brother of our 

Lord. Post 8vo. 

Philippi (F. A.) — Commentary on the Romans. Two vols. 8vo, I2s. net. 

Piper — Lives of Leaders of Church Universal. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 

Popular Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Philip 
ScHAFF, D.D. With Illustrations and Maps. Vol. I. — The Synoptical 
Gospels. Vol. II. — St. John's Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles. 
Vol. III. — Romans to Philemon. Vol. IV. — Hebrews to Revelation. 
In four vols, imperial 8vo, 12s. 6d. each. 

Plummer (Alfred, D.D.) — St. Luke. (International Critical Com- 
mentary.) Fourth Edition, post 8vo, 12s. 

English Church History, 1509-1575. Crown 8vo, 3s. net. 

English Church History, 1575-1649. Crown Svo, 3s. net. 

Pressens6 (Edward de) — The Redeemer : Discourses. Crown 8vo, 6s. 

T, and T. Clark's Publications. 1 1 

Profeit (Rev. W., M.A.)— The Creation of Matter; or, Material 

Elements, Evolution, and Creation. Crown 8vo, 2s. net. 

Punjer (Bemhard) — History of the Christian Philosophy of 

Religion from the Reformation to Kant. 8vo, 16s. 
Purves (E,ev. Dr. D.) — The Life Everlasting, Crown 8vo, 4s. net. 
Rabiger (Prof.) — ENCYCLOPiEDiA of Theology. Two vols. 8vo, I2s. net. 
Rainy (Principal) — Delivery and Development of Christian 

UOUTRINE. 8vo, lOs. 6d. 

The Ancient Catholic Church. {International Theo- 
logical Library.) Post 8vo, 12s. 
Rashdall (Rev. H., D.C. L.) — Christus in Ecclesia. Post Svo, 4s. 6d. net. 
Reusch (Prof.) — Nature and the Bible : Lectures on the Mosaic 

History of Creation in relation to Natural Science. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 

Reuss (Professor) — History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New 

Testament. 640 pp. Svo, 15s. 

Riehm (Dr. E.) — Messianic Prophecy. New Edition. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Ritchie (Prof. D. G., M.A.)— Plato. Crown Svo, 3s. 

Ritsclil (Albrecht, D.D.) — The Christian Doctrine of Justifi- 
cation AND Reconciliation. Second Edition, 8vo, 14s. 

Ritter ( Carl) — Comparative Geography of Palestine. 4 vols. 8vo, 2is. 

Robinson (Rev. S., D.D.) — Discourses on Redemption. Svo, 7s. 6d. 

Robinson (E., D.D.) — Greek and Eng. Lexicon of the N.Test. 8vo,9s. 

Rooke (T. G., B.A.) — Inspfration, and other Lectures. Svu, 7s. 6d. 

Ross (C.) — Our Father's Kingdom. Crown Svo, 2s. 6d. 

Ross (D.M., D.D.) — The Teaching OF Jesus. (Bible-Class Handhools.) 2s. 

Rothe (Prof. ) — Sermons for the Christian Year. Cr. Svo, 4s. 6d. 

Saisset — Manual of Modern Pantheism. Two vols. Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Salmond (Pi-inc. S. D. F., D.D.) — The Christian Doctrine of 
Immortality. Fifth Edition, post Svo, 9s. 

Sanday(Prof. W..D.D.)andHeadlam (Principal A. C, D.D.)— Romans. 

(International Critical Commentary.) Third Edition, post Svo, 12s. 

Sanday (Prof. W. ) — Outlines of the Life of Chrint. Post 8vo, 5s. net. 
Sartorius (Dr. E.) — Doctrine of Divine Love. 8vo, 6s. net. 
Sayce (Prof. A. H., LL.D.)--The Religions of Ancient Egypt and 

Babylonia. Post Svo, 8s. net. 
Schaff (Professor)— History of the Christian Church. (New 

Edition, thoroughly Revised and Enlarged.) Six 'Divisions,' in 2 vols, 
each, extra Svo. 
1. Apostolic Christianity, a.d. 1-100, 2 vols. 21s. 2. Ante-Nicene, 
A.D. 100-325, 2 vols., 21s. 3. Nicene and, a.d. 325-600, 
2 vols., 21s. 4. MEDiJiVAL, A.D. 590-1073, 2 vols., 21s. {Completion of 
this Period, 1073-1517, in preparation). 5. The Swiss Reformation, 
2 vols., extra deiny Svo, 21s 6. The German Reformation, 2 vols., extra 
demy Svo, 21s. 

Sclileiermacher's Christmas Eve. Crown Svo, 2s. 

Schubert (Prof. H. Von., D.D.)— The Gospel of St. Peter. Synoptical 

Tables. With Translation and Critical Ai>paratus. Svo, Is. 6(1. net. 

Schultz (Hermann) — Old Testament Theology. Two vols. 1 8s. net. 
Schiirer (Prof.) — History of the Jewish People. Five vols. Sub- 
scription price, 26s. 3d. net. 

*^* Index. In separate Volume. 2s. 6d. net. 

Schwartzkopff (Dr. P.)— The Prophecies of Jesus Christ. Cr. 8vo, 5s. 

Scott (Jas., M.A., D.D.)— Principles of New Testament Quotation 

Established and Applied to Biblical Criticism. Cr. 8vo, 2nd Edit., 4s. 

Sell(K.,D.D.)— The Church in the Mirror of History. Cr.Svo, 3s. 6d. 

12 T. and T. Clark's Publications. 

Shaw (R. D., D.D.) — The Pauline Epistles: Introductory and 

Expository Studies. 8vo, 8s. uet. 

Shedd — Sermons to the Spiritual Man. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Dogmatic Theology. Three vols. ex. 8vo, .37s. 6d. 

Sime (James, M.A.) — William Herschel and his Work. Cr. 8vo, 3s. 

Simon (Prof.) — Reconciliation by Incarnation. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Skene-BickeU — The Lord's Supper & The Passover Ritual. Bvo, 5s. 

Smeaton (Oliphant, M.A.) — The Medici and the Italian Renais- 
sance. 3s. 

Smith (Prof. H. P., D.D.) — I. and II. Samuel. {International Critical 
Commentary. ) Post 8vo, 1 2s. 

Old Testament History, {international Theological Lihranj.) 12s. 

Smith(Professor Thos., D.D.) — Mediaeval Missions. (Jr. 8vo, 4s. 6d. 

Euclid : His Life and System. Crown 8vo, 3s. 

Smyth (John, M.A., D.Ph.)— Truth and Reality. Crown 8vo, 4s. 
Smyth (Newman, D.D.) — Christian Ethics. {International Tlieo- 
logical Library.) Third Edition, post 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Snell (F. J., M.A.) — Wesley and Methodism. Crown 8vo, 3s. 
Somerville (Rev. D., D.D.)— St. Paul's Conception of Christ. 9s. 
Stahlin (Leonh.) — I-Lant, Lotze, and Ritschl. 8vo, 9s. 
Stalker (Prof. Jas., D.D.)— Life of Christ. Large Type Edition, 
crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. 

Life of St. Paul. Large Type Edition, crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. 

Stanton (V. H., D.D.) — The Jewish and The Christian Messiah. 

a Study in the Earliest History of Christianity. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Stead (F. H.) — The Kingdom of God. Is. 6d. 

Steinmeyer (Dr. F. L.) — The Miracles of Our Lord. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

The P.A.SSION and Resurrection of Ocjr Lord. 8vo, 6s. net. 

Stevens (Prof. G. B., D.D.)— The Theology of the New Testament. 

[International Theological Library.) Post 8vo, 12s. 

The Christian Doctrine of Salvation. {International 

Theological Library.) Post 8vo, 12s. 

Stevenson (Mrs.) — The Symbolic Parables. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. 
Steward (Rev. G.) — Mediatorial Sovereignty. Two vols. 8vo. 21s. 

The Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 8vo, 10s. fid. 

Stier (Dr. Rudolph) — On the Words of the Lord Jesus. Eight 

vols. 8vo, Subscription price of £2, 2s. Separate volumes, price 6s. net. 

The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on 

THE Epistle of St. James. Svo, 6s. net. 

The Words of the Apostles Expounded. 8vo, 63. net. 

Stirling (Dr. J. Hutchison)— Philosophy and Theology. Post Bvo, 9s. 

Darwinianism : Workmen and Work. Post Svo, 10s. 6d. 

What is Thought? 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Strachan (Rev. J., M.A.), Hebrew Ideals ; from the Story of the 

Patriarchs. Part I. Crown Svo, 2s. Part II. {In the Press.) 

Tholuck (Prof.) — The Epistle to the Romans. Two vols. fcap. 8vo, 8s. 
Thomson fJ. E. H., D.D.)— Books which Influenced Our Lord 

AND His Apostles. 8vo, 10s. Cd. 

Thomson (Rev. E. A.) — Memorials of a Ministry. Crown Svo, 5s. 

Tophel CPastor G.)— The Work of the Holy Spirit. Cr. 8vo, 2s. 6d. 

Toy (Prof. G. H., D.D.)— Proverbs. {Internafional Critical Com- 
mentary.) Post Svo, 12s. 

T. and T. Clark's Publications. 13 

Troup (Rev. G. Elmslie, M.A.) — Words to Young Christians : 

Being Addresses to Young Communicants. On antique laid paper, chaste 
binding, fcap. 8vo, 4s. 6d. 

Uhlhom(G.) — Christian Charity in the AncientChurch. Cr.8vo,68. 
UUmann (Dr. Carl) — The Sinlessness of Jesus. Crown Svo, 5s. 
Urwick (W., M.A.) — The Servant of Jehovah : A Commeutar}' 

upon Isaiah lii. 13-liii. 12; with Dissertations upon Isaiah xl.-lxvi. Svo, 3s. 
Vinet (Life and Writings of). By L. M. Lane. Crown Svo, 7s. 6d. 
Vincent (Prof. M. R., D.D.) — The Age of Hildebrand {Eras oj 

Church History.) 6s. 

Philippians and Philemon. {International Critical Com- 

7nentary.) Second Edition, post Svo, 8s. 6d. 

Walker (James, of Carnwath) — Essays, Papers, and Sermons. 

Post &V0, 6s. 

Walker (J., D.D.) — Theology and Theologians of Scotland. 

New Edition, crown Svo, 3s. 6d. 

Walker (Prof. W., D.D.) — The Protestant Reformation. {Eras 

of Church History. ) 6s. 

Walker(Rev.W.L.) — The Spirit and the Incarnation. 2ndEd.,8vo,9s. 

The Cross and the Kingdom. 8vo, 9s. 

Warfield (B. B., D.D.)— The Right of Systematic Theology. 

Crown Svo, 2s. 

Waterman (L., D.D.) — The Post- Apostolic Age. {Eras of Church 

History. ) 6s. 

Watt (W. A., M.A., D.Ph.) — The Theory of Contract in its Social 

Light. Svo, 3s. 

A Study of Social Morality. Post Svo, 6s. 

Watts (Professor) — The Newer Criticism and the Analogy of 

THE Faith. Third Edition, crown Svo, 5s. 

The Reign of Causality : A Vindication of the Scientific 

Principle of Telic Causal Efficiency. Crown Svo, 6s. 

The New Apologetic. Crown 8vo, 6s. 

Weir (J. F., M.A.) — The Way : The Nature and Means of Revela- 
tion. Ex. crown Svo, 6s. 6d. 

Weiss (Prof. )— Biblical Theology of New Testament. 2 vols., 12s. net. 

Life of Christ. Three vols. Svo, 18s. net. 

Welch (Rev. A. C, B.D.) — Anselm and his Work. 3s. 

Wells (Prof. C. L.)— The Age of Charlemagne. {Eras of the 

Christian Church.) 6s. 

Wendt (H. H., D.D.)— The Teaching of Jesus. Two vols. Svo, 21s. 

The Gospel according to St. John. Svo, 7s. 6d. 

Wenley (R. M.)— Contemporary Theology and Theism. Cr. Svo, 4$. 6d. 

White (Rev. M. )— Symbolical Numbers of Scripture. Cr. Svo, 4s. 

Williams (E. F., D.D.)— Christian Life in Germany. Crown Svo. 5s. 

Winer (Dr. G. B.)— A Treatise' on the Grammar of New Testa- 
ment Greek, regarded as the Basis of New Testament Exegesis. Third 
Edition, edited by W. F. Moulton, D.D. Ninth English Edition, Svo, 15s. 

Witherow(Prof . T. ,D. D. )— The Form of the Christian Temple. Svo, lo/e. 
Woods (F. H., B.'d.)— The Hope of Israel. Crown Svo, 3s. 6d. 
Workman (Prof. G. C.)— The Text of Jeremiah; or, A Critical Investi- 

c^ation of the Greek and Hebrew, etc. Post Svo, 9s. 
Wright (C. H., D.D.)— Biblical Essays. Crown Svo, 5s. 
Zahn (Prof. Theodor)— Bread and Salt from the Word of God. 

Sermons. Post Svo, 4s. 6d. net. 


T. and T. Clark's Publications. 


This Library is designed to cover the whole field of Christian Theology. Each volume 
is to he complete in itself, while, at the same time, it will form part of a carefully planned 
whole. It is intended to form a Series of Text-Books for Students of Theology. The 
Authors loill he scholars of recognised reputation in the several hranches of study assigned 
to them. They will he associated with each other and zvith the Editors in the effort to 
provide a series of volumes which may adequately represent the present condition of 

Twelve Volumes of the Series abe now ready, viz. : — 

An Introduction to the Lltera- ~~" ~~ 

ture of the Old Testament. 

Christian Ethics. 


History of Christian Doctrine. 

A History of Christianity in the 
Apostolic Age. 

Christian Institutions. 

The Christian Pastor. 

The Theology of the New Testa- 
The Ancient Catholic Church. 

Old Testament History. 

The Theology of the Old Testa- 
Doctrine of Salvation. 

S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt, Regius Professor of Hebrew, 
and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. 

[Seventh Edition. 12s. 

Newman Smyth, D.D., Pastor of the First Congregational 
Church, New Haven, Conn. [Third Edition. 10s. 6d. 

The late A. B. Bruce, D.D., Professor of New Testament 
Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow. 

[Third Edition. 10s. 6d. 

G. P. Fisher, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical 
History, Yale University. Second Edition. [12s. 

Arthur Cushman McQiffert, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of 
Church History, Union Theological Seminary, New York. 


A. V. G. Allen, D.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical Historv, 
Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, Mass. [12s. 

Washington Gladdf.n, D.D., LL.D., Pastor of Congrega- 
tional Church, Columbus, Ohio. [lOs. 6d. 

George B. Stevens, D. D., LL.D., Professor of Systematic 
Theology in Yale University, U.S.A. [12s. 

Robert Rainy, D.D., Principal of the New College, Edin- 
burgh, [iss. 

H. P. Smith, D.D., Professor of Biblical History, Amherst 
College, U.S.A. [I2.a. 

The late A. B. Davidson, D.D., LL.D. Edited by the late 
Principal Salmond, D. D. [12s. 

George B. Stevens, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Systematic 
Theology, Yale University. [i2s. 

Volumes in Preparation : — 

The Reformation. 

T. M. Lindsay, D.D., Principal of the United Free College, 

James Moffatt, D.D., United Free Church, Dundonald, 

Francis Brown, D.D., D.Llt., Professor of Hebrew, Union 

Theological Seminar>', New York. 
Charles Bigo, D.D., Regius Professor of Church History, 
and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. 
Canon and Text of the New Caspar Reni5 Gregory, D.D., LL.D., Professor in the Uni- 

Testament. versity of Leipzig. 

Contemporary History of the Frank C. Porter, Ph.D., Yale University, New Haven, 

Robert Flint, D.D., LL.D., Emeritus Professor of Divinity, 

University of Edinburgh. 
E. W. Watson, M.A., Professor of Church History, King's 

College, London. 
W. T. Davison, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology, 
Richmond, Surrey. 
The Greek and Oriental W. F. Adeney, D.D., Principal of Lancashire College, Man- 

The Literature of the New 

Contemporary History of the 

Old Testament. 
The Early Latin Church. 

New Testament. 
Philosophy of Religion. 

Later Latin Church. 

The Christian Preacher 

Biblical Archaeology 

G. Buchanan Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield 

College, Oxford. 
George F. Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor in Harvard 

William N. Clarke, D.D., Profes.sor of Systematic Theo- 

logy, Hamilton Theological Seminary, N.Y. 
H. R. Mackintosh, D.Phil., Professor of Systematic Theo- 
logy, The New College, Edinburgh. 
William P. Patbrson, D.D., Professor of Divinity, Uni- 
versity of Edinburgh. 
Canon and Text of the Old F. C. Burkitt, M.A., University Lecturer on Palaography, 

Testament. Trinity College, Cambridge. 

The Life of Christ. William Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of 

Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. 
Christian Symbolics. C. A. Briogs, D.D., D.Lit., Professor of Theological Ency- 

clopfedia, Union Seminary, New York. 
Rabbinical Literature. S. Schrchter, M.A., President of the Jewish Theological 

Seminary, N.Y. 

The History of Religions. 
Doctrine of God. 
Doctrine of Christ. 
Doctrine of Man. 

T. and T. C/ark's Publications. 




Numbers (Dr. Gray), Deuteronomy (Dr. Driver), Judges (Dr. Moore), I. and II. Samuel (Dr. 
H. P. Smith), Proverbs (Dr. Toy), Amos and Hosea (Dr. Ilarpir), 8. Mark (Dr. Gould), 
S. Luke (Dr. Plunimer), Romans (Dr. Saiiday), Ephesians and Colossians (Dr. Abbott), 
Phillpplans and Philemon (Dr. Vincent), S. Peter and S. Jude (Dr. Big^). 

The following other Volumes are in course of preparation : — 







Ezra and Nehemiah. 



Song of Songs and 




Minor Prophets. 

Synopsis of the 

Four Gospels. 






The Pastoral Epistles, 



The Johannine 



John Skinner, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis, 

Westminster College, Cambridge. 
A. R. S. Kennedy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, University of Edinburgh. 
J. F. Stennino, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford ; and the late 

H. A. White, M.A., Fellow of New College, Oxford. 
George Adam Smith, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, United Free 

Church College, Glasgow. 
C. P. Fagnani, D.D., Associate Professor of Hebrew, Union Tlieological 

Seminary, New York. 
Francis Brown, D.D., Litt.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew and Cognate 

Languages, Union Tlieological Seminary, New York. 
Edward L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Y^ale University, New 

Haven, Conn. 
L. W. Batten, D.D., late Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, 

L. B. Paton, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hartford Theological Seminary. 
Charles A. Briogs, D.D., Professor of Theological Encylopaedics and 

Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. 
G. A. Barton, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Literature, Brvn Mauer 

College, Pa., U.S.A. 
C. A. Briogs, D.D., Union Theological Seminary, New York. 

S. R. Driver, D.D., and G. Buchanan Gray, D.D., Oxford. 

A. F. KiRKPATRicK, D.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, and 

Master of Selwyn College, Cambridge. 
G. a. Cooke, M.A., Fellow of Magdalen College, and C. F. Burnky, 

Litt.D., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. John's College, Oxford. 
John P. Peters, D.D., late Professor of Hebrew, P. B. Divinity School, 

Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael's Church, New York. 
W. R. Harper, LL.D., President of the University of Chicago. 

[Amos and Hosea ready, 12s. 


W. Sanpay, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, and 
Canon of Christ Church, Oxford ; and W. C. Allen, M.A., Exeter 
College, Oxford. 

Willoughby C. Allen, M.A., Chaplain, Fellow, and Lecturer in Theo- 
logy and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. 

Alfred Plummbr, D.D., late Master of University College, Durham. 

[Eeadj/, 12s. 

C. H. Turner, M A., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford ; and H. N. 
Bate, M. A., late Fellow and Dean of Divinity in Magdalen College, 
Oxford, now Vicar of St. Stephen's, Hampstead, and Examining 
Chaplain to the Bishop of London. 

The Right Rev. Arch. Robertson, D.D.. Lord of Exeter; and 
R. J. Knowlino, D.D., Professor of Theology, Durham. 

Ernest D. Burton, A.B., Professor of New Testament Literature, 
University of Chicago. 

James E. Frame, M.A., Professor of Biblical Theology Union, Theo- 
logical Seminary, New York. 

Walter Lock, D.D., Dean Ireland's Professor of Exegesis. Oxford. 

A. Nairne, M.A., Professor of Hebrew, King'.s College, London. 

James H. Ropes, D.D., Bussey Professor of New Testament Criticism in 
Harvard University. 

A. E. Brooke, Fellow of, and Divinity Lecturer in King's College, 

Robert H. Charles, D.D., Professor of Biblical Greek in the University 
of Dublin. 

Other engagements will be announced shortly. 


T. and T. Clark s Publications. 

^be Moiib'8 Epocb-HDakers. 

Edited by Oliphant Smeaton, M.A. 
NEW SERIES. In Neat Crown 8vo Volumes. Price 3s. each. 

' Au excellent series of biogi'aphical studies.' — Athenazum. 

' We advise our readers to keep a watch on this most able series. It promises 
to be a distinct success. The volumes before us are the most satisfactory books 
of the sort we have ever read.' — Methodist Times. 

The following Volumes 
Buddha and Buddhism. By Arthuk 


Luther and the German Reformation. 

By Principal T. M. Lindsay, D.D. 

Wesley and Methodism. By F. J. 
Snell, M.A. 

Cranmer and the English Reforma- 
tion. By A. D. Innes, M.A. 

William Herschel and his Work. 
By James Sime, M.A. 

Francis and Dominic. By Professor 
J. Herkless, D.D. 

Savonarola. By G. M'Hakdy, D.D. 
Anselm and his Work. By Rev. A. 

C. Welch, B.D. 
Origen and Greek Patristic Theology. 

By Rev. W. Fairweathek, M.A. 

Muhammad and his Power. By P. 
De Lacy Johnstone, M.A. (Oxon.). 

The Medici and the Italian Renais- 
sance. By Oliphant Smeaton, 
M.A., Edinburgh. 

Plato. By Professor D. G. Ritchie, 
M.A., LL.D., University of St. 

have now been issued; — 

Pascal and the Port Royalists. By 

Professor W. Clark, LL.D., D.C.L., 
Trinity College, Toronto. 

Euclid. By Emeritus Professor Thomas 
Smith, D.D., LL.D. 

Hegel and Hegelianism. By Pro- 
fessor R. Mackintosh, D.D., Lanca- 
shire Independent College, Man- 

Hume and his Influence on Philo- 
sophy and Theology. By Professor 
J. Orr, D.D., Glasgow. 

Rousseau and Naturalism in Life 
and Thought. By Professor W. H. 
Hudson, M.A. 

Descartes, Spinoza, and the New 
Philosophy. By Principal J. Iverach, 
D.D., Aberdeen. 

Socrates. By Rev. J. T. Forbes, 
M.A., Glasgow. 

The following have also been arranged for: 

Marcus Aurelius and the Later Stoics. 

By F. W. Bussell, D.D., Vice- 
Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford. 

[hi the Press. 

Augustine and Latin Patristic Theo- 
logy. By Professor B. B. Warfield, 
D.D. , Princeton. 

Scotus Erigena and his Epoch. By 

Professor R. Latta, Ph.D., D.Sc, 
University of Aberdeen. 

Wyclif and the Lollards. By Rev. 
J. C. Carrick, B.D. 

The Two Bacons and Experimental 
Science. ByRev.W. J. Coitper, M.A. 

Lessing and the New Humanism. 

By Rev. A. P. Davidson, M.A. 

Kant and his Philosophical Revolu- 
tion. By Professor R. M. Wenley, 
D.Sc, Ph.D., University of Michi- 

Schleiermacher and the Rejuven- 
escence of Theology. By Professor 
A. Martin, D.D., New College, 

Newman and his Influence. By 

C. Sarolea, Ph.D.,Litt. Doc, Uni- 
versity of Edinburgh. 



Moulton, James Hope 

A grammar of New Teste,, 
raent Greek. 2d ed.