(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
See other formats

Full text of "A treatise on the grammar of New Testament Greek : regarded as a sure basis for New Testament exegesis"






Santa Monica Public Library 

>: /^A^ 


^^f ^ /'a.oT^t/- 

^'Ac'^ ne^T^^ 


UN llIK 











ox THE 







S^ranslakb from il^t Airman, bit^ l^arge ^bbitions anb ^ixil |itbias. 












-t /TV A i-^r^ ..■s rf-v 


I HAD hoped that I might be able to show my gratitude for 
the unexpected kindness of the welcome accorded to this 
work, by seeking to render it much more worthy of the 
acceptance of students ; but the extreme pressure of other 
duties has compelled me to relinquish this hope for the pre- 
sent. It will be found that this edition is in the main a 
reprint of the first. The chief point of difference is the intro- 
duction into the text of all the new matter left by Winer for 
the seventh edition of the original work. A few paragi'aphs 
which I had previously abridged (see below, p. xiii.) are now 
given in full. Whilst, however, but few substantial changes 
have been made, both text and notes have been carefully 
revised. In the notes on Part II. (the Accidence) many 
slight alterations have been found necessary in order to bring 
the statements into accord with the best critical texts of the 
New Testament, Here, especially, I have to express my very 
great obligations to Professor Westcott and Dr. Ilort for theii 
kindness in allowing me the. free use of their (in my judgment 
invaluable) edition of the text — soon, I trust, to be given to 
the world. 

The very frequent references to Alexander Euttmann's 
Grammar of the New Testament Greek are in this edition 
adapted to the excellent translation by Professor Thayer, 


whose careful edition of Winer's Grammar has also been of 
much service. 

As great care has been taken to avoid, as far as possible, 
any interference with the paging of the book, almost all 
references to the former edition will still be found correct. 

Cambridge, 215/ October 1S76. 


The merits of Winer's Grwmmatih des neutestamientlichen 
Sprachidionhs are =!0 well known and so freely acknowledged, 
that it would be unbecoming in me to detain- tlie reader by 
any lengthened remarks on the work, or on the subject of 
which it so fully treats, I shall therefore confine myself to 
a brief statement of the objects which have been kept in view 
in the present translation, and of the way in which I have 
sought to attain them. 

When I was requested by Messrs, Clark to undertake tliis 
work, the translation published by them in 1859 was placed at 
my disposal. I have without hesitation availed myself of the 
liberty thus accorded, as the existence of common matter in 
the two editions will show ; but the present is, in the most 
literal sense, a new translation, in the execution of which all 
accessible sources of help have been freely resorted to. Besides 
the edition just specified, the American translation by Messrs. 
Agnew and Ebbeke (Philadelphia, 1840) has sometimes been of 
service. Perhaps an apology is necessary for what will seem to 
some an excessive adherence to German structure and phraseo- 
logy in certain paragraphs. If I have erred in this respect, it 
has been from a conviction that the nature of the book required 
unusual literalness of rendering, and that in some instances it 
was almost impossible to depart from the original form and at 
the same time preserve the meaning with technical exactness. 

In deference to a strongly expressed opinion on the part 
of some whose judgment deserved respect, I have in a few 
instances ventured on a slight abridgment of the original, and 
have omitted a few references of little or no importance. At 
the foot of the page will be found a detailed statement of all 
the omissions I have made.* 

1 Winer's account of the New Testament Grammars of Pasor aud Haab, and 
his relation of the disputes between the Purists and the Hebraists, I have con- 
densed about one-half. I have not thought it necessary to retain all the 
references to certain authors who engaged in the Purist controversy, viz. , Georgi 
{Vijidicice and Hierocriticus Sace?-}, Schwarz {Comrnentp,ru and ad (Jlaarhun), 


All references to passages in the Old and JS'ew Testaments 
have boen carefully verified. In each case, whether the passage 
is quoted at length, or merely indicated by chapter and verse, 
I have examined the reading. Variations which do not touch 
the question under consideration I have not thouglit it neces- 
sary to notice; but I trust that all instances in which a 
difference of reading ahects the appositeness of the quotation 
are pointed out in my notes. Much labour would have been 
.saved had it been possible to follow Winer's example, and abide 
(in the mam) by the text of some particular edition of the Greek 
Testament As this could not be done, the only alternative 
was to follow the readmg which appeared to be most generally 
received hy recent editors, referring expressly to contiicting 
opinions only in cases of special diiliculty or importance, f 
liave given most weight to Tischendorf, a^ Winer had done, 
and, wherever it was possible, have quoted from his eighth 
edition, now in course of publication. Before the completion 
of the Gospels in this edition, my references were made to 
his Si/nopsi$ Evamjelica (ed. 2, 1864), which gave the only 
indication of his judgment as modified by the Codex Sinaiticus. 
U this MS, has in other parts of the New Testament confirmed 
the reading of his seventh edition (1859), I have sometimes 
ventured to quote this reading as Tischendorf 's, without further 
qualification: otherwise, the edition is expressly stated, A 
considerable portion of this book was already in type when 
the fourth and fifth parts of his eighth edition and the fourth 
part of Tregelles' Greek Testament appeared. I need hardly 
say that Scrivener s collations of the texts of Lachmann and 
Tischendorf and of the Codex Sinaiticus have proved of essen- 
tial service in this portion of my work.^ In quotations from 
the Septuagint I have used Tischendorfs text (ed. 3, 1860) as 
the standard of comparison ; when the readings of the leading 
Mss. differ in such a way as to affect the quotation, I have 
noted the variation, I may add, that in the numbering of 
the Psalms the Septuagint is followed throughout, unless the 
Hebrew text is under notice . Winer's practice was not uni- 
form. In instances such as that just specified, and in many 
othors Avhere a correction was obviously needed, I have altered 
Winer's figures without calling attention to the change. 

1 L has not been in my power to carry the work of verifica- 
tion as far as 1 could have wished. A marked characteristic 
of Winer's Grammar is the number of its references to com- 
I'Hliiirct, Pforhuii, Solaims, Fischer {ad I.eusden. Dial), or taPasor's Orammar. 
In oiie pluLC (p. 123, note 3) a note is abridged, and the titles of works quoted are 
sli-jlitly ciirtaih'd. With these exceptions, the whole of the original is reproduced. 
MVhen the 'received text' which Winer quotes diHers from the text of 
Stephens. I have referred to it as ' Elz. ;' otherwise, as ' Htc' 


mentaries on classical writers. To many of the works cited 
I could not obtain access ; and I confess that, judging from 
those quotations which I was able to verify, I cannot feel that 
I should have conferred much benefit on the student if I had 
succeeded in examining the whole : in most instances I have 
removed such references from the text into the notes, for the 
convenience of tlie reader. On the other hand, it has been my 
aim to secure all possible accuracy and completeness where 
standard grammatical authorities are cited. Every reference 
to the Greek Grammars of Buttmann (Jusf. Sprachlehrr), 
Bernhardy, Matthiae, and Madvig, Zumpt's Latin Grammar, 
Hermann's edition of Viger, Lobeck on Phrynichus, Lobeck's 
Paralipomena, and Klotz's Commentary on Devarins, has been 
carefully examined. The references to Host's Grammatik aiid 
to K. W. Kriiger's Sprachlchrc have been altered so as to suit 
the most recent editions. In the case of Madvig, Matthiae, and 
Zumpt, it seemed best to substitute sections for pages, that the 
reference might hold good both for the original works and for 
the English translations. In the sections on irregular and 
defective verbs, I have usually given references to Fishlake's 
translation of Buttmann, in the place of tliose which Winer 
gives to the original work : where the matter was not the 
same (i.e., where Lobeck's observations were important), I have 
given both. 

In the additions T have made to the German work — which, 
independently of Indices, etc., constitute about one-sixth 
of this book — my main objects have been the following : — 
(1.) To supplement the author's, statements, and bring them 
into accordance with the present state of our knowledge. 
(2.) To show under the diflerent heads of the subject how 
much may be regarded as settled, and how much is still dis- 
puted border-land. (3.) By means of continuous references to 
English writers on Greek grammar and on New Testament 
Greek, to place the English reader in the position occupied by 
one who uses the original (4.) To call further attention to 
the many striking coincidences between Modern Greek and 
the language in which the New Testament is written. No 
one can feel more keenly than myself that I have not fully 
succeeded in my endeavours ; but 1 have spared no pains or 
effort to attain success, so far as it lay within my reacK 

To assert that the original work is in many particulars 
below the standard of our present knowledge, is no more 
than to say that the last ten or tweiity years, distinguished 
as they have been by so much zealous and accurate study of 
the Greek Testament, have not passed without yielding some 
fruit The German scholars to whom we owe so heavy a 


debt of gratitude for th^it persistent and successful effort to 
obtain for New Testament Greek the scientific treatment which 
was its due, have left worthy successors both in their own 
country and in England. Of my deep obligations to some of 
our English scholars I shall subsequently speak in detail. 

The "edition of this Grammar which appeared in Germany 
in 1867, under the editorship of Dr. G. Lunemann of GtJttin- 
aen, differs very shghtly from the sixth edition, which is the 
basis of the present translation. The very scanty additions 
relate entirely to points of detail. As I was not at liberty 
to make use of these additions, I have carefiilly abstained 
from seeking any assistance from them: in many instances, 
however, they were already included in the matter I had 
myself supplied 1 canndt part from this edition without 
expressing my surprise that a scholar of Dr, Liinemann's 
reputation should have left so many mistakes in the text, 
and should have contributed so little to the improvement of 
the great work with the care of which he had been entrusted. 

By far the most important work on the grammar of New 
Testament Greek which has appeared during the last fourteen 
years is the GrammaMk des nmtestamentlichen Sprachgehrauchs 
by Alexander Buttmann (Berlin, 1859). The form which the 
author has chosen for his work is that of an appendix to 
his father's (Philip Buttmann's) Griechische Grammatik. The 
theoretical advantages of this plan cannot be doubted, as the 
crammarian is no longer required to concern himself with the 
usages of ordinary Greek, but is at liberty to confine his atten- 
tion to what is peculiar in Hellenistic usage On the other 
hand, the inconveniences which beset the practical use of the 
book, in the case of those who are unfamiliar with the particular 
Grammar chosen as the standard, are sufficiently great to detract 
seriously from the usefulness of a most valuable work. As 
this peculiarity of plan seemed to render it unlikely that A. 
})uttraann's Grammar would be translated, I have been the 
more anxious to place the most important of its contents 
within the reach of the Engbsh reader. There is a difference 
between the general tendencies shown by the writers of the 
two Grammars, which makes it especially useful to compare 
their treatment of the same subject. Winer, never perhaps 
entirely free from the influence of the period in which he 
began to write, when it was above all things necessary to 
convince the world that New Testament Greek had a right 
to claim scientific investigation, seems inclined at times to 
extenuate the difference between New Testament usage and 
that of classical writers His successor, coming forward when, 
on the main question, the victory is already won, is able to 


concede much that once it seemed important to dispute ; and 
indeed, unless I am mistaken, frequently goes to an extreme 
in this kind of {^ener. jsity. For this and other reasons, I have 
sometimes exhiloited in detail Buttmann's general treatment of 
an important point, believing that a comparison of the two 
writers would do more than anything else to illustrate the real 
character of the question. My notes will show that I have 
made great use of A. . Buttmann's work ; but I have frequently 
received suggestions wliere I have not had to acknowledge 
direct assistance. I am bound, however, in justice to myself, 
to say that, unless the writer's words are distinctly quoted, the 
statement made in my note rests ou my owu responsibility, 
Buttmann's observations having merely served as the basis of 
my own investigation. 

I wish I could join in the commendation which has been 
bestowed on Schirlitz's Gruvdzugc der ncutcst. G-rdcitdt (Giessen, 
1861) ; but I would gladly save others the disappointment 
which the study of this work caused myself. To represent it 
as an independent work is really to do it the greatest injustice, 
For the most part, Schirlitz servilely follows Winer — in many 
instances copying the very order of his examples and remarks, 
and sometimes even reproducing obvious mistakes. There is 
very little evidence of independent Judgment or research. The 
general arrangement of the book, however, is clear and useful : 
unfortunately, the advantage which is gained by presenting 
received results, disentangled from the arguments by which 
they have been sustained, is to a great extent sacrificed by 
the introduction of irrelevant matter (e.g., on the meanings of 
Hebrew proper names, etc.) belonging to the lexicon, and r\ot 
tp a treatise on grammar. I have further consulted Beelen's 
Latin version of the 5th edition of Winer's Grammar (Louvain, 
1857), but not with much advantage. My obligations to K. 
H. A. Lipsius' Gramrnat. Uiitersiichungeii (Leipsic, 1863) are 
acknowh'dged in the following pages. 

Of German commentators, Meyer has justly received the 
largest share of my attention ; partly on account of the general 
merits of his masterly Commentary, and partly because his 
successive editions take up and discuss every fresh contribution 
to the grammatical study of the language of the New Testa- 
■ment. I have, of course, made but few refei-ences to the 
writers already laid under contribution by Winer himself, as 
De Wette and others : where, however, new editions have 
been issued, I. have often availed myself of their assistance. 
In cases where Winer quotes from a German work, or from a 
book which is not readily accessible, I have frequently sought 
to help the reader by supplying the pith of the quotation, 



especially where Winer has chosen this mode of indicating his 
own opinion of a passage. My aim has been to make myself 
acquainted with everytliing of importance which has lately 
appeared in Germany in connexion with the subject of this 
book ; and I trust the reader will not discover any omissions of 
a serious character. 

To English works I have referred much more freely, as it has 
been a leading object with me to provide English readers with 
all the helps supplied by Winer to his countrymen. Whilst 
occasional references are made to a number of Grammars, 
Jelfs and Donaldson's are quoted systematically, as our leading 
English authorities. I may here observe that, with the ex- 
ception of an occasional citation of Liddell and Scott or Rost 
and Palm in the place of Passow, these references to Jelf 
and Donaldson are the only additions of my own which are 
incorporated with the text. My regular practice has been to 
distinguish added matter by square brackets, — thus [ ] ; but 
in the instances just specified the convenience of the reader 
seemed best served by a departure from strict uniformity. It is 
not necessary for me here to mention ail the works of English 
scholars which are quoted in my notes. I have attached 
most importance to references to works of a distinctively 
grammatical character ; but have striven to show my high sense 
of the value which belongs to many recent English editions of 
classical authors, by Irequentiy directing the reader to their 
pages. I fear it will be held that I ought either to have done 
more, or not to have made the attempt; I could not, however, 
refrain from giving this kind of practical expression to the 
interest with which I have studied the notes of Shilleto, Paley 
J ebb, RiddeU, Sandys, and others. 

Every page of this book will show how greatly I am indebted 
to our foremost English writers on New Testament Greek. The 
excellent treatises expressly devoted to the subject by Mr. 
Green and Mr. Webster I have used extensively ; the latter, 
from the nature of its plan, is less frequently quoted than the 
former. I have very rarely neglected an opportunity of making 
use of the Commentaries of Professor Lightfoot and Dean 
Alford ; and most gratefully do I acknowledge the assistance I 
have received from them throughout ray work. My hearty 
thanks are due to the Rev, Dr. Dickson, Professor of Biblical 
Criticism in the University of Glasgow, and to the Rev. B. 
Hellier of Headingley, for the kind interest they have dis- 
played in my undertaking, and for some useful suggestions. I 
have left until the last the name which is, and must remain, 
the first in my thoughts, whether they are resting on the 
present work or on my Greek Testament studies in general. 


The measure of my obligation to the Bishop of Gloucester and 
Bristol, who has generously permitted me to associate his name 
■with this book, it is altogether out of my power to express. I 
feel sensitively that whatever I have done is unworthy of such 
an association ; but if this book succeed in accomplishing 
anything for the accurate study of the Greek Testament, it 
will be through what I have learned from Bishop Ellicott's wise 
counsels, and from his noble Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles. 

I trust that the plan upon which I have made use of the 
various authorities now specified will commend itself to the 
judgment of my readers. I may perhaps anticipate an objec- 
tion which may be raised, to the effect that the quotation of 
many opinions upon any subject tends to produce confusion, 
whereas the usefulness of a Grammar depends much on the 
directness and uniformity of its teaching. I am so far alive to 
the force of this objection, that I am inclined to think au 
amount of dogmatism and indifference to the views of others 
may for a time increase the teacher's power, and thus prove 
beneficial to the student. But, to say nothing of the effect 
which may be produced by the discovery that the teacher had 
spoken with equal confidence of the certain and of the question- 
able, the decisive tone of an independent work would have 
been strangely out of place if here assumed by me. My desire 
is to show where those scholars who best represent the present 
state of knowledge and opinion are in accord, and what points 
are still under discussion. I should be sorry to lie under the 
imputation of indefiniteness of opinion, when I have felt 
compelled to present conflicting views. I am convinced that 
clearly to state the amount of divergence which exists is to 
do something towards the removal of it. I have tried to bear 
in mind that this book may fall into the hands of different 
classes of readers, and have sometimes ventured to add an 
explanation which to many will seem superfluous, for the sake 
of inexperienced students. Where the author makes a state- 
ment which appears to me erroneous, in regard to matters of 
greater importance than details of language, I have usually 
appended a reference to some standard work containing an 
adequate answer or correction. 

The only other subject requiring comment in connexion 
with the notes to this edition is the prominence which I 
have given to Modern Greek. I am persuaded that English 
scholars will not consider that I have gone too far in calling 
attention to its peculiarities in a work on New Testament 
Greek :^ if I were commencing my task anew, I should attempt 

■ See an interesting article in the current number of the Journal of Philology 
(yol. ii. pp. 161-196). 


to do much more in this way than I have done. The Grammars 
referred to are those of Mullach {Grammatik dcr gricchisclien 
Vulgarsprache in historischer Entwicklung : Berlin, 1856), J. 
Donaldson (Edinburgh, 1853), Sophocles (Boston, 1860), and 
occasionally LUdemann's Lekrhuch (Leipsic, 1826). 

Much labour has been spent upon the Indices. To the 
three contained in the German work (each of which is more 
than doubled in size) I have added a fourth, containing the 
principal passages from the Old Testament noticed in the book. 
The fulness of the Index of Subjects will, it is hoped, supply 
the want of more frequent references between the various 
parts of the work. . . A Table of Authors cited, with dates, 
seemed especially desirable in a work like the present, which 
contains quotations from so wide a range of writers, flourishing 
at periods 2000 years apart. I have taken pains to secure 
accuracy in the dates. As a general rule, I have chosen for the 
' floruit ' of an author a point about mid-way between his 
entrance on manhood and the close of his life. I am here 
most largely indebted to Mliller and Donaldson's History of 
the Literature of Greece, Dr. Smith's Dictionary of Biography, 
and Engelmann's BiUiotheca Scriptorum Classicorum. The 
notices contained in Liddell and Scott's Lexicon have been 
compared throughout : I must, however, confess myself unable 
to understand on what principle some of the dates are assigned. 

Through various circumstances, I have been placed at a 
disadvantage in the correction of the proofs, and must beg the 
indulgence of the reader for the mistakes which will be found. 
Most of these, I trust, are noticed in the table of Errata; but 
it did not seem necessary to swell that list by including those 
errors (e.g., in the division of words) which are merely blemishes, 
and cannot lead any one astray. 

I have extended these introductory remarks beyond the 
limit I had assigned myself. I will only add the expression 
of my earnest prayer, that He who can use for His glory the 
feeblest work of man may grant that mine may be instru- 
mental in leading some to a fuller knowledge of His inspired 



Richmond, January 7, 1870. 


When this Grammar first appeared, in 1822, the object pro- 
posed was, to check the unbgunded arbitrariness with which the 
language of the New Testament had so long been handled in 
Commentaries and exegctical prelections, and, so far as the 
case admitted, to apply the results of the rational philology, as 
obtained and diffused by Hermann and his school, to the Greek 
of the Xew Testament. It was in truth needful that some 
voice should be raised which miglit call to account the deep- 
rooted empiricism of the expositors, and might strive to rescue 
the Kew Testament writers from the bondage of a perverted 
philology, wliich, while it styled itself sacred, showed not the 
slightest respect for the sacred authors and their well-considered 

The fundamental error — 'the irpwrov ^/revStj? — of this biblical 
philology, and consequently of the exegesis which was based 
upon it, really consisted in this, that neither the Hebrew 
language nor the Greek of the Xew Testament was regarded 
as a living idiom (Hermann, Eurip. Med. p. 401), designed for 
a medium of human intercourse. Had they been so regarded, 
— had scholars always asked themselves whether the deviations 
from the established laws of language, Avhich were assumed to 
exist in the Bible to so enormous an extent, were compatible 
with the destination of a human language for the practical 
uses of life, they would not have so arbitrarily considered 
everything allowable, and taken pleasure in ascribing to the 
apostles in nearly every verse an enallage, or use of the wrong 
form, in the place of the right. If we read certain Commentaries 
still current of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries — for 
the older works of the period of the Reformation are almost 
entirely free from such perverseness — we must conclude that 


the peculiar characteristic of the New Testament language is an 
utter want of definiteness and regularity. For the expositors 
are continually pointing out instances of the use of a wrong 
tense, or a wrong case, or the comparative instead of the posi- 
tive, — of o for Tt<f, hut instead of for, therefore for because, on 
the other side for on this side, the relative for the sign of the 
apodosis (Isa. viii. 20^). Amidst such erudition on the part 
of the interpreter, the reader becomes almost indignant at the 
unskilfulness of the sacred writers, who knew so little how to 
deal with words. One cannot conceive how such men could 
make themselves even generally intelligible in their oral dis- 
courses, in which this lawlessness -of language must certainly 
have appeared in still stronger relief. Still more difficult is 
it to understand how they won over to Christianity a large 
number of educated men. Whilst, however, this play with 
pro and idem quod has a laughable, it has also a serious aspect. 
Does not Scripture — as a great philologer remarked long ago — 
thus become like a waxen nose, which a man may twist any 
way he pleases, in proportion to the scantiness of his knowledge 
of language ? Would it have been impossible, or even difficult, 
for such a man as Storr, for example, had the task been assigned 
to him, to find in the words of the apostles any meaning 
which he pleased ? And is such a view of the New Testament 
language compatible with the dignity of sacred writers ? ^ 

We should regard as simply devoid of understanding any 
man who, in the ordinary intercourse of life, could so pervert 
language as to say, ' I shall come to you to-day,' instead of ' I 
have come,' etc. ; ' No prophet has arisen out of Galilee,' for 
' No prophet shall arise out of Galilee ' (John vii. 52) ; 'I call 
you no longer servants,' for ' I called you not merely servants ' 
(John XV. 15); Tor Jesus himself testified that a prophet 
hath no honour in his own country, for ' Although Jesus him- 
self testified,' etc. (John iv. 44) ; ' I saw the forest with mag- 

' [In this verse some regard "HJ'K as introducing the apodosis, and therefore 

leave it untranslated (in English): thus Hendei-son (after Gesenius), 'There 
shall be no dawn to them.' Winer, with Ewald, renders the verse : Ad legem 
revertamur, ita profecto dicent, quibus non fulget aurora {Simonis, s.v.).] 

^ Hermann, ad Vig. p. 786 : Diligenter caveant tirones, ne putent, viros 
spiritu saneto afflatos sprevisse semionem mortaliura, sed meminerint potius, 
illam interpretandi rationera, qua nonnulli theologorum utuntur, nihil ease nisi 


nificent foliage,' instead of 'I saw a forest,' etc. (John v. 1) ; ^ 
' Send me the book, and I will read it/ for ' You will send me 
the book,' etc. ; ' To whom it was revealed that . . .,' for ' To 
whom this was revealed, yet so that , . .' (1 Pet. i. 12);^ 
'Christ died, he has therefore risen again,' for '.but has risen 
again ; ' ' He is not more learned,' for ' He is not learned ; ' ' He 
rejoiced that he shovdd see, . . . and he saw, and rejoiced,' for 
' He would liave rejoiced if he had seen, . . . even over that 
which he saw he rejoiced ' (John viii. 56) ; ' He began to wash,' 
for ' He washed ' (John xiii. 5) ; and the like. If all the 
examples of quid pro quo which during the past decennia a 
number of interpreters have put into the mouths of the apostles 
were collected together, t)ie world would justly be astounded. 
When I, at that time a young academic teacher, undertook 
to combat this unscientific procedure, I did not conceal from 
myself that there were men far better qualified for such a 
work ; and indeed what I. accomplished in the earlier editions 
of this Grammar was but iinperfect. My attempt, however, 
met with friendly recognition from some men of eminence ; 
first, from Vater and D. Schulz. Others pointed out, some- 
times certainly with harshness, the imperfections of the book ; 
and to these critics I owe much, not only in this work, but 
in all. my exegetical labours. I enlarged the grammatical 
material by Excursuses, which followed the second edition in 
1828. Extensive study of the writings of the Greek prose 
authors and of the Hellenistic Jews enabled me to make the 
third edition much more copious, and also more accurate. I 
have subsequently laboured incessantly in the improvement of 
the book ; and I have been gladdened by the aid which philo- 
logical and exegetical works have afforded in rich abundance 
for this purpose. Meanwhile the rational method of inves- 
tigating the New Testament language has daily gained new 
friends ; and the use made of this Grammar by commentators, 
has become more and more apparent : even classical philologers 
have begun to notice the book. At the same time, I have 
always been far from thinking accurate grammatical explana- 
tion to be the only proper exposition of the New Testament ; 

^ Kiibnol's reasoning, Matt. p. 120 sq., shows {instar omnium) how completely 
the commentators of the old school were destitute of critical perception. 
* On this passage see my Erlanger Pfingstprogr. (1830). 


and I have borne in silence the charge which some have 
brought against me, of being even an opponent of Vv-hat is now 
called theological exposition. 

The present edition, the sixth, will show on every page that 
I have striven to come nearer to the truth, I deeply lament, 
however, that in the very midst of my labours a nervous 
afiection of the eves brou<i;ht me to the verge of total blindness. 
Hence I have been compelled to employ the eyes and hand.s of 
others in the completion of this edition ; and I avail myself 
of this opportunity to express publicly my sincere thanks to 
all my young friends who have unremittingly assisted me : for 
it is only through their aid that I have been enabled to bring 
the work to a conclusion, which I had often despaired of being 
able to reach. 

The change in the arrangement of the matter in Part III. 
will, I think, be approved of. In other respects, it has been 
my principal aim to treat every point with greater complete- 
ness and yet in smaller space than formerly : accordingly, the 
text of this Grammar now occupies about eight sheets fewer 
than in my last edition. With tliis view I have made use of 
abbreviations in the biblical and Greek quotations, as far as 
I possibly could.^ I hope, however, that both these and the 
names of modern authors' will evervwhere be intelligible. All 
the quotations have been verified anew ; and, so far as I know, 
every scientific work that has appeared since 1844 has been 
turned to account, or at all events noticed 

In regard to the text of .the New Testament, I have uniformly 
(except when dealing with a question of various readings) 
quoted from Dr. Tischendorfs second Leipsic edition [1849], 
which probably now has the widest circulation. 

May the work with these improvements — certainly the last 
it will receive from my hands — accomplish what in its sphere 
it can accomplish for the knowledge of Biblical truth ! 
Lei PS 10, October 1855. 

' The Greek writers are only quoted by the pa,2;e when the division into 
chapters has not obtained currency : Plato, as edited by Stephanus ; Stiabo and 
Athenaeus, by Casaubon ; Demosthenes and I.socratts, by If. Wolf; Dionys. 
Hal. by Reiske ; Dio Cassius by Keinianis ; Dio Chrysost. by Morell. 

^ It may be observed that, instead of Kuinod, the Latinised form of the 
name, Kiihnol (as the family name was written in Gi iman) is used thrcughoitt, 
except in Latin citations. 


On the Object, Treatment, and History of N. T. Grammar 





.Sect. i. Various Opinions respecting the Character of tlie N. T. Diction . 12 

ii. BasiaoltheN, T. Diction ........ '20 

iii. Hftbvevv Aramaic Colouring of th« N, T. Diction .... 28 

iv. Grammatica] Character of the N. T. Diction , . . .37 



Sect. V. Orthography and Orthographical Principles 

vi. Accentuation ....... 

vii. Punctuation ....... 

viii. Unusual Forms in the First and Second Declensions 

ix. Unusual Forips in the Third Declension 

x- Declension of Foreign Words : Indeclinable Nouns 

xi. Declension and Comparison of Adjectives . 

xii. Augment and Reduplication of Regular Verbs 

3iii. Unusual Forms in Tenses and Persons of Regular Verbs 

xiv. Unusual Inflexions of Verbs in fti and Irregular Verbs 

XV. Defective Verbs ........ 

xvi. Formation ol Derivative and Compound "Words . 











Chap. I. The Article 129 

Sect. xvii. The Article as a Pronoun , . . . . .129 

xviii. Tlie Article before Nouns ...... 131 

xix. Omission of the Article before Nouns .... 14:7 

XX. The Article with Attnbutives ..... 163 

Chap. II. Pronouns 

Sect. xxi. The Pronouns in general 

xxii. Personal and Possessive Pronouns 
xxiii. Demonstrative Pronouns • . 
xxiv. Relative Pronouns 
XXV. The Interrogative and Indefinite Pronoun <ri; 
xxvi. Hebraistic modes of expressing certain Pronouns 


Chap. III. The Noun 

Sect, xxvii. Number and Gender of Nouns 




The Cases in general 

The Nominative and Vocative 

The Genitive ..... 

The Dative 

The Accusative .... 
xxxiii. Verbs (neuter) connected by means 

with a Dependent Noun . 
xxxiv. Adjectives ..... 
XXXV. The Comparative Degree 
xxxvi. The Superlative Degree 
xxxvii. Tlie Numerals .... 

of a 




Chap. IV. The Verb 

Sect, xxxviii. The Active and Middle Voices 

xxxix. The Passive Voice .... 

xl. The Tenses 

xli. The Indicative, Conjunctive, .Optative Moods 
xlii. The Conjunction «» with the Three Moods 
xliii. The Imperative Mood .... 
xliv. The Infinitive Mood .... 
xlv. The Participle , . . . . 




Chap. V. The Particles .447 

Sect. xlvi. The Particles in general ...... 447 

xlvii. The Prepositions in general, and those which govern 

the Genitive in particular ...... 449 

xlviii. Prepositions governing the Dative .... 480 

xlix. Prepositions with the Accusative ..... 494 

1. Interchange, Accumulation, and Repetition of Preposi- 
tions .... . . . . .^ilO 

li. Use of Prepositions to form Periphrases . . 526 

lii. Construction of Verbs compounded with Prepositions . 529 

liii. The Conjunctions . . . . . . 541 

liv. The Adverbs ........ 579 

Iv. The Negative Particles 593 

Ivi. Construction of the Negative Particles .... 627 

Ivii. The Interrogative Particles ...... 638 


Sect. Iviii. The Sentence and its Elements in general . . . 644 
lix. Enlargement of the Simple Sentence in the Subject and 

Predicate : Attributives : Apposition . . . 657 

Ix. Connexion of Sentences with one another : Periods . 673 
IxL Position of Words and Clauses, especially when irregu- 
larly arranged (Hyperbaton) ..... 684 

Ixii. Interrupted Structure of Sentences : Parenthesis . . 702 
Ixiii. Sentences in which the Construction is broken off or 

changed : Anacoluthon : Oratio variata . . . 709 
Ixiv. Incomplete Structure : Ellipsis : Aposiopesis . . 726 

Ixv. Redundant Structure : Pleonasm (Redundance), Difl'use- 

ness . . . . . ■ . . . . . 752 

Ixvi. Condensation and Resolution of Sentences (Brevilo- 

quence, Constructio praegnans, Attraction, etc.), . 773 
Ixvii. Abnormal Relation of Particular Words in the Sentence 

(Hypallage) ........ 786 

Ixviii. Regard to Sound in the Structure of Sentences : 
Paronomasia and Play upon Words (Annominatio) ; 
Parallelism : Verse ....... 793 


I. Passages of the New Testament 801 

II. Passages of the Old Testament and Apocrypha . . . . 818 

III. Subjects ■ 820 

IV. Greek Words and Forms . .830 



Acliilles Tatius , 
iEliaii .... 
./Elian, the tactician . 
iEneas of Gaza . 
./Eachines, the philo.sopher ' 390 
.^schines, the orator . . 340 
.(Eschvlus .... 481) 
^sop'2 . . . .600 
Agathias .... 
Alciphron . . . 
Alexander Numenius (p. 749) 
Ammonius, the grammarian 
Anacreun ^ . . 520 

Anilocides . .410 

Anna Comiuiia . 
Anonymi Chronologica * (p. 
698) . . . 

Antipater of Sidon (p. 733) lOr, 
Antiphon . . . ioo 

Antoninus Liberali.s . 
Antdiiinus, Marc. Aureliiis 

ApoUodonis of Athens . 140 
Apollonius Dyscolus . 
Apollonius Rhodius . . 200 
Appian .... 

Aratiis 270 


Aristarchus, the grammarian 170 
Aristeas * . . . . 270 
Aristides, the rhetorician . 
Ari.stophanes . , .410 

Aristotle .... 345 
Arrian .... 
Artemidorus Duldianus 
Athenseus .... 



200 ? 









Babrius .• . . .40? 
Barnabas, Epistle of, written 

about ... 100 

Basilica, completed about . 900 

Gallimachus . . . 270 

Cananus, John . . . 1430 

Cantacuzenus, John V. . 1355 
Cebes . . . .400 

Cedrenus, George . . 1060 

Gharax, John ... ? 

Chariton .... 500 ? 

Chry.sostom, John . . 390 

(.'iiinamus, John . . 1160 

Clement of Alexandria . 195 
Clement of Rome, Epitfth 

of, written about . . 95 

Cleomedes ... 200? 

Codinus, George . . 1440 

Constantino atanasses . llfiO 

Constautine Porphyrogenitus 940 

Demetrius Ixion 


Dexippus, the historian 



Diodorus Siculus 

Diogenes Laertius 

Dion Cassius 

Dion Chrysostom 

Dionysius of Halicarnassus 

Dionysius Periegetes . 


Ducas, Michael . . ■ 










300 ? 
100 f 

' The dialogues anil letters ascribed to tliis pliilosopher, togetlier with the otliei ' Kpj^t. 
Socratis et Sociiitii'ormn,' .ire siJUiious. 

2 The coUectiou of prose fables beai iiig jEsop's name is of very recent date. See Smith, DUt. 
of Ptiogr. i. 47 sq. 

^ Almost all tliat has come down to us under Anacreon's name is spurious. See Miiller, hit, 
o/G^-eece, i. 245-249. 

■t Probably written by Qeor<;ius ITaniartolus. See Diet, of Biogr. ii. 908. 

5 The letter which bears the name of Aiisteas is spurious, but of early date,— not later than 
the fir.st century b.o. 



Ephraera the Syrian 



Epiphanius, Bishop of Cy 

Epiphanius, the monk 
Etymologicum Maijnum 
Eunapius . 
Euripides . 
Eusebins of Cssarea . 
Eitstathius, the erotic writer 
Eustathius, the giammarian 
Eustratius, the philosopher 


Geoponica compile'l 
George Acropolita 
George Clicerobosciis 
George Pachymeres 
George Phranzes 
George the Pisidian 
George the Synce'lus 
Glycas, Michael 
Gorgias of Leontiiii 
Gregory of Corinth (Tardus) 
Gregory of Nazianzus 
Gregory of Nyssa 



Herodian, the gramriarian 

Heroflian, the historian 



Hierocles (Neo-Platonist) 

Himerius . 





Ignatius, Epistles of, written 

Irenffius (Pacatus), the 

grammarian . 
Isocrates . 

Jospphus . 
Julian (Emperor) 
Justin Martyr ' . 

Leo Diaconus . 

Leo, the grammarian 

Leo VI. (the philosopher o 

Libanius . 





























Longinus . 




Lycorgus, the orator . 


Macarius the EgyptiaTi 


Malalas, John . 

Malchus . 

Manetho (author of 'atoti 

Marinus, the philosopher 
Maximus of lyre 
Meleager . 
Menander . 

Menander, the historian 
Moschopuli, the (uncle and 

Moschus . 

Nicander . 

Nicephorus Blemraidas 
NIcephorus Biyennius 
Nicephorus Gregoras . 
Nicephorus of Constanti 

nople (Patr.) . 
Nicephorus ii. (Emperor) 

see p. 38 
Nicetas Choniates 
Nicetas Eugenianus . 



Ulyrapiodorus (Neo-Platon 

Orphic Poems (earliest) 

Paeanius . 
Pausanias . 
Petrus Patricius 
Phalaris, Epistles of 
Philo the Jew . 
Philostratus, Flavins' 
Philostratus, Flavins, ' of 

Lemnos . 

Plutarch . 
























950 1 










• The date of his undisputed works is about 146 a.d. 

* Author of Vd. ApoUotiii. VU. sophUtarum, Imagines, Heroica, etc. 
' Author of another (smaller) work called ImagiTies. 




A. D. 





Teles .... 



Polybius . 




Porphyry . 




PriscuB Panites 


Theodoret .... 




Theodorus Gaza (p. 29) 


Procopius . 


Theodosius Diaconus. 


Psellus, Michael (the his 

Theodosius, the grammarian 


torian) . . 


Tbeognis .... 


Ptolemy . . 


Theophane.s continuatus* . 
Theophanes Isaurus . 


Rosetta hiscription . 


Theophrastus . 
Theophylact (Abp. of Bul- 


Scymnus of C'hios^ 


garia)' . 


Sextus Eiripiricus 


Thomas Magister 


Sibylline Oracles (earliest) 

' 150 





Tiberius (p. 749) 


Sophocles . 


Htephanus of Byziintiimi 




Stobseus , 


Xenophon of Ephesns 






Zonaras .... 


Syiiesius . 


Zosiiuus .... 


The Septuagint version may be a.scribed to the period 280-160 B.C. Most of 
the Greek books which arc usually inclmled iiudci- I be naiue ' Apocrypha ' 
belong (in their Greek dress) to the next hundred years ; the Prayer of 
Manass«s and the third Book of Maccahefs fand possibly other books) are 
later. The Psalms of Solomon may belong to the second century b.o., but 
the Greek translation was probably made at a much later date. The versions 
of Aquila. Symmachus, and Theodotiou v/ere executed in the second cr-ntury 
A.I). To the same century are referred the Testaments of the Twelve 
Patriarchs feariy), the Protevangel of James (150 ?), the Gospel of Nico- 
demus (first part — the 'Acts of Pilate'), the Acts of Paul and Thecla, the 
Acts of 'J'homas. 


Kriiger, SpracUehrc : ed. 4, 1861-&2. 
Matthise, SprachUhre : ed. 3, 1835. 
Rost, Grammatik : ed. 7, 1856. 
Buttmann, Or. Grammatik: ed. 21, 

Ewald, Lehrhuch: ed. 7, 1863. 
Jelf, Grammar: ed. 3, 1861. 
Veitch, Greek Verba: ed. S, 1871. 
Green, Gram, of tlie N. T. : ed. 2, 

Tn the case of works not specified here or in the Preface, the references are 
usually made to the last edition. 

'Lob.' denotes Lobeck on Phrynichus ; ' Jrr. K.,' Fish lake's translation of 
Buttmann 's Cafnlogue of Irregular Verbs (ed. 3, 18G6). 

The notes appended by the former translator, Professor Masson, have the 
signature '£. M.' 

1 Author of a Periegesis, which is lost. The extant poem bearing the same name is of later 

2 See Diet, of Biogr ii. 757. 


Page 274, line 18, after ii. 15, ifiaert [or rather, JuJe H.] 

Page 336, line 2, for v. 4 rewl x. 4. 

Page 588, line 10, /or former reorf latter. 

Page 592, line 23, for SV»t» read vaZ. 

N.B. — Where peculiarities in the form of words are in question (and therefore 
in a large number of the quotations contained in §§ v.-xvi. of this book), 
the references to the text of Westcott and Hortniustbe taken in connexion 
with pages 141-173 of their Appendix, where many nlternailve readings are 
given. When this Appendix -w as published (Sept. 1S81), the greater part 
of the present volume vv;is aheady in type. 




§ 1. The peculiar language of the N. T., like every other 
language, presents two distinct aspects for scientific investiga- 
tion. We may examine the several words in themselves as to 
their origin and significations — the material element; or we may 
consider these words as they are employed according to certain 
laws to form clauses and periods — the formal element. The 
former is the province of lexicography ; the latter of grammar,* 
— which must be carefully distinguished from the laws of style 
(or rhetoric) of the N. T. 

N. T. lexicography, of which the examination of synonyms is a 
Tery important part, though its importance has only of late been duly 
recognised, has hitherto been treated in a merely practical manner. 
A theoiij miglit however be constructed, for which the recently intro- 
duced term lexicology would be a convenient name. No such theory 
has as yet been fully developed for the N. T. ; but this is the less 
surprising when we consider that the same want exists in connexion 
with the classical languages, and that our exegetical theology is still 
without a theory of Biblical criticism, higher and lower. Practical 
lexicojrraphy has however suffered materially from this deficiency, as 
might be easily shown by an examination of the lexicographical works 
on the N. T., even the most recent. ^ 

A treatise on the laws of style or (to use the name adopted by 
Glass and by Bauer, the author of Rhetorica Paulina) the Rhetoric of 
the N. T. should investigate the peculiar features of the N. T. lan- 
guage as shown in free, original composition, conditioned merely by 
the character and aim of the writing, — first generally, and then with 
reference to the peculiarities of the genera dicendi and of the several 

^ On the separation of lexicography from grammar see an article by Pott, in 
the Kieler allgem. Moaatssckr. July, 1851. 

* For some remarks on the theory of lexicography see Schleiermaoher, ffer- 
meneutik, pp. 49, 84. A contribution towards a comparative lexicography is 
furui3hed by Zeller, in his TheoL Jahrb. II. 443 sqi^, 



writers : compare Hand, Lfhrh. des led. Styls, p. 25 sq. Much yet 
remains to be done in this department, especially as regards the 
theor}' of the rhetorical figures, which have at all times been used 
most mischievously in N. T. interpretation. The preparatory labours 
of Bauer and D. Schulze ^ are of some use, and Wilke's compilation 
(N. T. Pihetorik : Dresden, 1843) is worthy of attention: Schleier- 
macher too gave excellent hints in his Herweneutik. Biblical rhetoric 
would most appropriately include the treatment of the modes of 
reasoning employed in the discourses of Jesus and in the apostolic 
Epistles. By this arrangement, which agrees in principle with that 
adopted by the ancient rhetoricians, we should avoid the excessive 
subdivision of N. T. exegetics, and the separation of kindred subjects, 
which throw light on one another when studied in connexion.^ 

It may be incidentally remarked that our Encyclopaedias still leave 
very much to be desired in their delineation of exegetical theology 
so called ; and that in practice the hermeneutics are not properly 
distinguished from what we may call the philolog)/^ of the N. T., — 
denoting by this name the whole of that province of exegetical 
theology which has just been sketched in outline. 

§ 2. As the language in which the K T. is written is a 
variety of Greek, the proper object of a N. T. grammar would 
be fully accomplished by a systematic grammatical comparison of 
the N. T. language with the written Greek of the same age and 
of the same description. As however this later Greek itself has 
not yet been fully examined as a whole, and as N. T. Greek dis- 
plays in general the influence of a foreign tongue (the Hebrew- 
Ararnoean), N. T. grammar must take a proportionately wider 
range, and investigate scientifically the laws according to which 
the Jewish writers of the X. T. wrote the Greek of their time. 

Let us suppose, for instance, that a grammar of the Egyptian or 
Alexandrian dialect of Greek is required, that is, a grammar of the 
language used by the Greek-speaking inhabitants of Alexandria, 
gathered from all parts of the world. It will be necessary to collect 
together all the peculiarities which make this a distinct dialect: but a 

' K. L. Bauer, Rhetorica Paulina (Hal. 1782), and Philologia ThucydideO' 
Paulina {\la\. 1773): under tliis head come also H. G. Tzschirner's Observa- 
fioni's Pouli ap. epistolarum scriptoris Ingenium conccrnentes (Viteb. 1800).-— 
J. D. S(;hulzc, D(r ncliriftsL Werth und Character des Johannes (Weisscnf. 
1803); and two similar treatises by the same author, on Peter, Jttde, ar.d James 
( VVcifiseiif. 1802), and on Mark (in Keil and Tzschirner's Analect. Vol. II. and 
Vol. 111.). 

* Compare also Gersdoif, Beitrilffe zur Sprachcharakterist. d. '^. T'. p. 7 ; 
Keil, Lehrh. der H<rmcneutik, p. 28 ; C. J. Kellniann, Diss, de usu Rhetorices 
hermenr.utiro (Gryph. 1766). 

' 1 should prefer this old and intelligible appellation, " Philologia sacra N.T." 
(compare J. Ch. Beck, Conitjyect. system, philol. sacroe: Bas. 1760, 12 sec- 
tion. \ to that which Schleiermacher proposes in accordance with ancient usage, 
" Grammar : " see Liicke on his Hermeneutik, p. 10. 


mere acciiraulation of disjointed details will not be sufficient ; we 
must search for the leading characteristics, and we must show, in 
every section of the grammar, liow the general tendency of the 
dialect has affected the ordinary rules of Greek, by overlooking 
niceties, misusing analogies, etc. The grammar of the dialect will 
then be complete. Since the language of the N. T. is a variety 
of later Greek, a special N. T. grammar could only portray it as 
a species of a species, and would thus presuppose a grammar of 
the ordinary later Greek. But it is hardly possible even to form 
a conception of N. T. grammar so resti'icted, still less could such 
a conception be Avorked out with advantage. For in the first place, 
the grammar of later Greek, especially in its oral and popular form, 
has not as yet been scientifically investigated,' and hence the founda- 
tion which theory points out for a special N. T. grammar does not 
actually exist. Moreover, the N. T. language in itself is said 
also to exhibit the influence of a non-cognate tongue (the Hebrew- 
Aramaean) upon the Greek. 

For these reasons the boundaries of X. T. grammar must be 
extended in two directions. It must first — since the reader brings 
with him the ordinary grammar of the written language — investigate 
the peculiarities of the later Greek in the N. T., according to the 
principles mentioned above; and secondly, it must point out the 
modifications which were introduced by the influence of the Hebrew- 
Aramaean on the Greek, the details being classified as before. It is 
not possible, however, to make a rigorous distinction between these 
two elements ; for in the mind of the N. T. writers the mixture of 
the (later) Greek with the national (Jewish) had given rise to a 
single syntax, which must be recognised and exhibited in its unity.^ 
This treatment of N. T. grammar will be changed in one respect 
only, when v/e are furnished with an independent grammar of later 
Greek. Then the N. T. grammarian will not, as now, be compelled 
to illustrate and prove by examples the peculiarities of the later 
language ; a simple reference to these will suffice. On the other 
hand, the polemic element in grammars of the N. T., which combats 

' Valuable material for this purpose, though rather of a lexical than of a 
grammatical character, will be found in Lobeck's notes on Phrynichi Eclogce 
(Lips. 1820). Irmisch {on Herodian) and Fischer (Z>e vitiis Lexicor. N. T.) had 
previously collpcttd much that is serviceable. Abundant material for philological 
observations on "Grjecitas fatiscens " has more recently been furnished by the 
corrected texts of the Byzantine writers and the Indices appended to most of 
them in the Bonn edition, though these Indices are very unequal in their merit; 
by Boissonade's notes in the Anecdota Graeca (Paris, 1829, &c., 5 vols.), and in 
his editions of Marinus, Philostratus, Nicetas Eugenianus, Babrius, al. ; and lastly 
by MuUach's edition of Hierocles (Berlin, 1853). Lobeck also constantly pays 
due attention to the later Greek element in his ParaUpomena Grammaticce Gr. 
(Lips. 1837, 2 parts); Patholngim strmonis Gr. Prokg. (Lips. 1843), and Pathol. 
Grceci serm. Elementa (Konigsb. 1853, I.); 'PnuxTixiv mve verbor. Gr. et nomi' 
num verball. Technologia (Konigsb. 1846). [The 2nd volume of Lobeck's Pathol. 
Elementa appeared in 1862. In 1856 Mullach j>ublished a GruMmatik der 
grieckischtn Vulgarsprache (Berlin).] 

* Schleiennacher's remarks on the lexical treatment of Hebraisms (//erm^n, 
p. 65) are worthy of attention. 


inveterate and stubborn prejudices or errors revived anew, may 
gradually disappear : at present it is still necessary to vindicate the 
true character of the N. T, diction on this negative side also. For 
even very recently we have seen in the works of well-known com- 
mentators — as Kiihnol, Flatt, Klausen in his commentary on the 
Gospels — how deeply rooted was the old grammatical empiricism 
by which ultra Fischerum (or ultra Storrium) sapere was held in 

The notion of special grammars for the writings of different authors, 
as John or Paul, cannot be entertained. - What is distinctive in the 
diction of particular writers, especially of those just named, has 
seldom any connexion with grammar. It consists almost entirely in 
a preference for certain words and phrases, or belongs to the rhetori- 
cal element, as indeed Blackwall's observations ^ show. Tlie same 
may be said of most of the peculiarities in the arrangement of words. 
Honce Schulze and Schulz ^ have, on the whole, formed a more cor- 
rect estimate of such specialities than Gersdorf, whose well-known 
work contributes even to verbal criticism no large store of cer/«w 
results, and must have almost proved its own refutation, if it had been 
continued on its own principles. 

§ 3. Although the study of the language of the N. T. is 
the fundamental condition of all true exegesis, Biblical philolo- 
gers have until lately almost excluded N. T. grammar from the 
range of their scientific inquiries. The lexicography of the N. T. 
was the subject of repeated investigation ; but the grammar was 
at most noticed only so far as it stood connected with the doc- 
trine of the Hebraisms of the N. T.'^ Gasp. Wyss (1650) and 
G. Pasor (1655) alone apprehended more completely the idea of 
N, T. grammar, but they were unable to obtain for it recogni- 
tion as a distinct branch of exegetical. study. After them, 160 
yeats later, Haab was the first who handled the subject in a 
special treatise ; but, apart from the fact that he confined his 
attention to the Hebraistic element, his somewhat uncritical 

' Sacred Cla-t^ks, I. p. 385 sqq. (London, 1727). 

- His remarks on N. T. diction are contained in his dissertations on the 
Parahle of the .Stewanl (Bresl. 1821) and on the Lord's Supper (Leips. 1824, 
second iinprovtid ed. 1831), and in vaiious reviews in Wachler's Theol. Annalen. 
Both dissertations are of an exegetiivtl character, and hence the remarks (which 
are usually acute) are out of place, since they throw but little light on. the 
exegesis. Textual criticism ntight turn his observations to good ueeount, had 
but the distinguished writer been pleased to give them to us in a complete form. 
Compare also Srhleiermacher, Mermen, p. 129. 

* An lionourable exception among the earlier commentators is the row nearly 
forgotten G. F. Heupel, who, in his copious and almost purely philological coin- 
mentaiy on the Gospel of Mark (Strassburg, 1716), makes many good gram- 
ronticai ob^'.ervations. The Greek scholarship of J. F. Hombergk in hia Parerga 
Sacra (Amstel. 1719), ard of IL Heisen in his Novce Ih/pot/uKf^ InlerpretandiB 
/elicias Ep. Jacohl ^Biem. 1739), is more lexical than grammatical. 


work was fitted rather to retard than to promote the progress 
of the science. 

The first who in some degree collected and explained the gram- 
matical peoidiarities of the N. T. diction was the well-known Sal. 
Glass (f 1656), the 3rd and 4th books of whose Philologia Sacra 
are entitled Grammaiica sacra and Gramm. sacrce Appendix.^ As 
however he makes Hebrew his point of departure throughout, and 
touches the N. T. language oiily so far as it agrees with Hebrew, his 
work — to say nothing of its incompleteness — can be mentioned in 
the history of N. T. grammar only as a feeble attempt. < -ii the other 
hand, the historian must revive the memory of the two above-named 
writers, whose names are almost unknown, as indeed their works on 
this subject are forgotten. The first, Casp. Wyss, Professor of Greek 
in the Gymnasium of Ziirich (| 1659), published his Dlalectologia 
Sacra'^ in 1650. In this work all the peculiarities of tlie N. T, 
diction, grammatically considered, are classified under the heads, 
Diahctus Attica, lonica, Doric'a, yEolica, Bceoika, Fo'etica, 'Fjj3pai^ovcra, 
— certainly a most inconvenient arrangement, since kindred subjects 
are thus separated, and in many cases are noticed in four diff"erent 
parts of the work. The author too was not in advance of his age in 
acquaintance with the Greek dialects, as is proved by the very men- 
tion of a special diakctus poetica, and as an examination of what he 
calls Attic will show still more clearly. As a collection of examples, 
however, in many sections absolutely complete, the work is merito- 
rious ; and the writer's moderation in regard to the grammatical 
Hebraisms of the N. T. deserved the imitation of his contemporaries. 

George Pasor, Professor of Greek at Franeker (f 1637), is well 
known as the author of a small N. T. Lexicon, which has been fre- 
quently republished, last of all by J. F. Fischer. He left amongst his 
papers a ^J. T, Grammar, which was published, with some additions 
and corrections of his own, by his son Matthias Pasor, Prof, of Theo- 
logy at Groningen (| 1658), under the title, G. Pasoris Grammaiica 
Grceca sacra N. T. in ires lihros distrihuta (Groning. 1655, pp. 787). 
This work is now a literary rarity,^ though far better fitted than the 
lexicon to preserve the author's name in the memory of posterity. 
As the title indicates, the volume is divided into three books, of 
which the first contains the Accidence, the second (pp. 244-530) 
the Syntax, and the third seven appendices, — de nominibus N. T., de 
verbis N. T., de verbis anomalis, de dialectis N. T., de acce-niibus, de 

^ In Dathe's edition this Grammafka sacra constitutes the first book. 

* Dialectoloyia sacra, in qua quicquid per universum iST. F. contex/um in 
apostolica et voce et phrasi a comvmni C4racor. lingua eoqne grammatica ana- 
logia discrepat, mtfkodo congrua disponiiur, accurate de.findur et omnium sucri 
contexlus exernplorum inductione illustratar. Tigur. 1650, pp. 324 (without 
the Appendix). 

* Even Foppen {Bibliotheca belgica, Tom. I. p. 342), who enumerates Pasor's 
other writings, does not mention this work. Its great rarity is attested by 
Saltheu, Cat. biblioth. llhr. rar. (Eegiom. 1751), p. 470 ; and by D. Gerdesius, 
Floriltg. hist. crit. libr. var. (Groning. 1763), p. 272. 


praxl grammatkcr, de numeris s. ariihviefica Gra'ca. The most y.-iluable 
parts of the work are the second book and the fourth appendix ;^ for 
in the first book and in most of the appendices the writer treats of 
well-known subjects belonging to general Greek grammar, and, for 
example, most needlessly gives full paradigms of Greek nouns and 
verbs. The Syntax is accurate and exhaustive. The author points 
out what is Hebraistic, but does not often adduce ]>avallels from 
Greek authors. This useful book suffers from the want of a com- 
plete index. 

In the interval between Pasor and llaab N. T. grammar received 
only incidental notice, in works on the style of the N. T., as in those 
of Leusden (De diahdis N. T.) and Oiearius (De stylo N. T., pp. 
257-271). These writers, however, limited their attention almo.st 
entirely to Hebraisms ; and by including amongst these mnch that 
is pure Greek they threw back into confusion the whole question of 
the grammatical structure of the N. T. Georgi was the fir8t to sliow 
that many constructions usually regarded as Hebraisms belonged to 
genuine Greek usage, but he also sometimes falls into extremes. His 
Aviitings passed into almost total neglect. Meanwhile Fischer gave 
currency anew to the works of Vorst and Leusden, and during many 
years Storr's well-known bo.ok^ was able to exercise without 
restraint its pernicious influence on the exegesis of the N. T. 

From the school of Storr now came forward Ph. H. Haab. Rentpr 
of Schweigern in the kingdom of Wurtemberg (-j- 1833), with his 
" Hebrew-Greek Grammar for the N. T., v.dth a preface by F. G. vou 
Siiskind " (Tubing. 1815). Disregarding the genuine Greek element 
in the diction of the N. T., he confined his attention to the gram- 
matical Hebraisms, and in the arrangement of his materials followed 
the works of Storr and Weckherlin.'^ If we are to bt^lieve a reviewer 
in Eengel's Archiv (vol. i. p. 406 sqq.), " the diligence, judgment, 
accuracy, nice and comprehensive philological knowledge, with which 
the author has accomplished his task, must secure for his work the 
approval of all friends of the thorough exegesis of the N. T," A 
different and almost directly opposite verdict is given by two 
.scholars'* who must in this field be regarded as thoroughly competent 
(and impartial) judges ; and after long and manifold use of the book 
we an; coinpelled to agree with these critics in all points. The great 
defect of the work consists in this, — that the author has not rightly 
understood the difference between the pure Greek and the Hebraistic 

^ This appendix hnd .already been added by Tasor himself to the fnst edition 
of his Syllabus Orceco-Laiinut omnium N. T. vocum (Am.stel. 1632), under the 
title, Jdca {ai/llahioi hrcvw) Gnrca/niin jS\ T. dialectorum. At the close he 
promises the above i^ojiiplete OramnuUica X. T. 

' Olh<:i;ri'aU. oil analog, et sj/niaxin Ih'br. (Stutt. 1779). Some acute gram- 
nuitical observations, especially on cnatlage tcmporum, jHirticnlorum, <ic., are 
to be found in J. G. Straubc,' Diss, de emphasi Or. limjiup X. T., in Van den 
Ilonert's Syntajwa, p. 70 s<(q. 

' Weckberlin, llchr. Granutiat. (2 parts). 

* .See the reviews in the Xeu. theol. Anna!. ISlfi, IT. pp. 850-879, and (by 
d'j Wettc ?) the A. L. Z. 1816, N. 39-41, pp. 305-32G. 


elements in the language of the N. T. ; has accordingly adduced as 
Hebraistic very much which either is the common property of all 
cultivated languages, or, at all events, occurs in Greek as frequently 
as in Hebrew ; and, out of love to Storr's observations, has altogether 
misinterpreted a multitude of passages in the N. T. (for examples see 
below) hy/mcing Hebraisms upon them. Besides all this, everything 
is in confusion, the arrangement of materials is most arbitrary, and 
the book opens with a section on Tropes ! — a subject Avhich does not 
belong to grammar at nil. Hence we cannot regard as too severe the 
words with which the second of the reviewers above mentioned con- 
cludes : " Seldom have we seen a book which has been so complete 
a failure, and against the use of which it has been necessary to give 
so emphatic a warning." 

§ 4. The remarks .scattered through commentaries on the 
N. T., books of observations, and exegetical monographs, though 
sometimes displaying very respectable learning, yet when all 
taken together presented no complete treatment of the grammar. 
But even their incompleteness does less to render these collec- 
tions useless, than the uncritical empiricism which ruled Greek 
philology until the commencement of this century, and Hebrew 
much later still ; as indeed this same empiricism has impressed 
on N. T. exegesis also the character of uncertainty and arbitrari- 
ness. The rational method of treatment, which seeks for the 
explanation of all the phenomena of languages, even of their ano- 
malies, in the modes of thought which characterise nations and 
individual writers, has completely transformed thestudyof Greek. 
The same method must be applied to the language of the N. T. : 
then, and not till then, N. T. grammar receives a scientific 
character, and is elevated into a sure instrument for exegesis. 

The main features of this empirical philology, so far as grammar 
is concerned, are the following : 

(a) The grammatical structure of the language was apprehended 
only in rudest outline, and hence the mutual relation of allied forms, 
in which the genius of the Greek language is peculiarly siiown, — as 
of the aorist and perfect, the conjunctive and optative, the two 
negatives ov and fir/, — was left almost entirely undefined. 

{b) Those forms whose true signification was generally recognised 
were confounded together by an unlimited enallage, in virtue of 
which one tense or case or particle might stand for another, even 
for one of a directly opposite meaning, e.g. preterite for future, utto 
for irpos, etc. 

(c) A host of ellipses were devised, and in the simplest sentences 
there was always something to be supplied. 

The commentators applied these principles — which still appear in 
Fischer's copious Animadv. ad Welkri Gramrn. G-r. (Lips. 1798 sqq. 


3 spec.)— to the interpretation of the N. T. Nay they considered 
themselves justified in using still greater freedom than classical philo- 
logers, because (as they held) the Hebrew language, on the model of 
which the Greek of the N. T. was framed, had as its distinguishing 
characteristic the absence of all definiteness in forms and regularity 
of syntax, so that Hebrew syntax was treated, not as a connected 
whole, but only under enallage and solecism. i The ordinary com- 
mentaries on the N. T. exhibit in profusion the natural results 
of such principles, and Storr ^ earned the distinction of reducing 
this whole /arra^o of crude empirical canons of language into a kind 
of system. Apart from all other considerations, such canons of lan- 
guage necessarily gave unlimited scope for arbitrary interpretation, 
and it was easy to extract from the words of the sacred writers 
meanings directly contrary to each other. ^ 

It was in Greek philology that the reformation commenced. A 
pupil of Reitz, Gottfr. Hermann, by his work De eniendanda raiione 
grammaticce Grcecce (1801), gave the first powerful impulse to the 
rational* investigation of this noble language. In the course of more 
than forty years this method has penetrated so deep, and has pro- 
duced such solid results, that the face of Greek grammar is entirely 
changed. It has recently been combined with historical investiga- 
tion,^ and not without success. The principles of this method, which 
entitle it to the name of rational, are the following : 

(a) The fundamental meaning of every grammatical form (case, 
tensi-, mood), or the idea which underlay this form in the mind of the 

^ The attempts made by better scholars to combat this empiricism were 
only partial and isolated. The Wittenberg Professors Balth. Stolberg (in his 
Tractat. de solascitim. et barhariam. Or. N. F. dictionifalso tribuiis : Vit. 1681 
and 1685) and Fr. Woken (in his Pietas critica in hypallagasbibl. : Viteb. 1718, 
and esijecially in his Enallngce e N. T. Gr. textus prcecipuis el plurimia lo Is 
exterminatoi : Viteb. 1730) exposed many blunders of the commentators, aiid 
on the whole very intelligently. J. C. Schwarz also shows creditable learnin^-C 
and acumen in his Lib. de opinatis dincipulor. Chr. soloirisviis (Cob. 1730). 
Such voices were however not listened to, or were drowned by a contorte! 
artificioiie ! 

* How complete a contrast is presented by his acute countryman Alb. Bengel, 
in his Gnomon ! Though he often falls into over-refined explanations, and 
attributes to the Apostles his own dialectic modes of thought, yet he left to 
posterity a model of careful and spirited e.\position. He notices points of 
grammar, — compare e.g. A. iii. 19, xxvi. 2, 1 C. xii. 15, Mt. xviii. 17, H. vi. 4 : 
in the lexical department he pays especial attention to the examination of 

* "Sunt," says Tittmann {Synon. N. T. I. p. 20*;}, "qui grammaticarum 
legum observationem in N. T. intcrj>retatione pnruni curent et, si scriptoris 
cujusdam verba grammatice i. e. ex legibus linguaj explicatasententiam . . . ab 
ipsorum opinione alienam prodarit, nullam illarum legura ratiouem habeant, 
sed propria verboruin vi neglecta scriptorcm dixisse contendant, qucr t'aHbun 
verbis nemo nayia meute pra,ditus dicere unqtiam potuit." Hermann's sarcasm 
( Vig. 788) was quite just. 

*r prefer "rational" to "philosophical," because the latter word may 
easilj' bft niiKUuderstood. All philological inquiry that is merely empirical is 
irrational : it deals with language as something merely external, arid not as 
bearing the imj)ress of thought. Compare Tittmann, Syn. p. 205 sq. 

* G. Boinhardy, WissaischaftUche Syntax dcr gr. jSjjrache (Berlin, 1820). 


Greek nation, is exactly seized, and all the various uses of the form 
are deduced from this primary signification : by this means number- 
less ellipses have been demolished, and enullage has been confined 
within its natural (i.e., narrow) limits. 

(b) When the established laws of the language are violated, either 
in expressions of general currency, or in the usage of individual 
writers, the grammarian is at pains to show how the irregularity 
originated in the mind of the speaker or writer, — by aiiacoluthon, 
confusio duanun structurarum, attraction, constructio ad eeusum, 
brachylogy, etc. 

Thf^ language is thus presented as bearing the direct impress of 
Greek thought, and appears as a living idiom. The gramraariau is 
not content with merely notioing the phenomena : he traced each 
form and turn of speech back into the thought of the speaker, and 
endeavours to lay hold of it as it comes into existence withiu the 
speaker's mind. Tims everything which is impossible in thoaght is 
rejected as impossible in language; as, for instance, that a writer 
could use the future tense when he wished to reler to the punt } could 
say to for /row; could call a man tciser when he wished to call him 
wise; could indicate a cause by consegtinitly ; could say, / saw ike 
man, when he wished to express, / saw a man. For a long time, 
however, these elucidations of Greek grammar (and lexicography) 
remained altogether unnoticed by Biblical scholars. They adhered to 
the old Viger and to Storr, and thus separated themselves entirely 
from classical philologers, in the belief— which however no recent 
writer has distinctly expressed— that the N. T. Greek, as being 
Hebraistic, could not be subjected to such philosophical investigation. 
They would not see that Hebrew itself, like every other human 
language, both admits and requires rational treatment. Through 
Ewald's reiterated eflforts this fact has now been made patent to all. 
All are convinced that, even in the Hebrew language, tlie ultimate 
explanation of phenomena must be sought in the national modes of 
thought, and that a nation characterised by simplicity could least of 
all be cap.able of transgressing the laws of all human language.^ It 
is not now considered sufficient to assign to a preposition, for 
instance, the most different meanings, just as a siipurfioially examined 

^ Rational investigation must be founded on historical. The whole field 
of the language must be historically surveyed, before we can discover the causes 
of the individual phenomena. The simpler the Hebrew language is, the easier 
is this process of discovery, for a simple language presupposes simple modes 
of thought. In the rational investigation of Hebrew the problem assigned us 
is, to reproduce the course of the Hebrew's thought ; to conceive in our minds 
everj^ tiansition from one meaning of a word to another, every construction 
and idiom of the language, as he conceived it ; and thus discover how each of 
these grew up in his mind, for the spoken words are but the impress of the 
thouglit, — as indeed in this very language thbiklng is regarded as an iiwinrd 
speaking [e.g.. Gen. xvii. 17, Ps. x. 6]. To think of oAnslructing a ^anoj-j the 
laws of a langiiagu is absurd. It ma}' te readily admitted that this rational 
system of investigation may be misused by individuals, as even the Greek 
philologers sometimes deal in subtleties ; but to persovere in insipid empiricism 
from the apprehension of such danger is disgraceful. 


context may require : pains are taken to trace the transition from 
the fundamental signification of every particle to each of its secondary 
meanings, and the admission of meanings without such a process of 
derivation is regarded as an unscientific assumption. Nor is any one 
satisfied now wnth vaguely remarking that non omnis (by which no 
man of sense could mean anything but not every one) was used by 
the Hebrews as equivalent to omnis non, that is, nullus ; he rather 
indicates in every instance the exact point on which the eye should 
be fixed. 

Hence the object which grammar must in any case strive after is 
the rational treatment of the N. T. language : thus, and thus only, 
grammar obtains for itself a scientific basis, and in turn furnishes the 
same for exegesis. The materials offered by Greek philology must 
be carefully used ; but in using them we must by all means keep in 
mind that wo cannot regard as established all the nice distinctions 
which scholars have laid down (so as, for instance, even to correct the 
text in accordance with them), and also that classical philology itself 
ia progressive : indeed it has already been found necessary to modify 
many theories (e.g. the doctrine of d with the conjunctive), au«l 
other points are still under discussion even amongst the best scholars 
— some of the constructions of av, for example. 

Since 1824, N. T. grammar has received very valuable contri- 
butions from Fritzsche, in particular, in his Dissertt. in 2. Epist. ad 
Coi: (Lips. 1824), his Commentaries on Matthew and Mark, his (Jon- 
jectan. in iV. T. (Lips. 1825, 2 &pec.), and especially in his Commen- 
tar;/ on the Ep. to the Ilomans (Hal. 183G). Here should also be 
mentioned the treatises by Gieseler and Bornemann in Kosenm tiller's 
Excgct. Repert. (2nd vol.), Bornemann's Hdiolia in Lucm Evamj. 
(Lips. 1830), and in part his edition of the Acts of the Apostles.^ 
Lastly, many grammatical problems have been discussed in the 
controversial correspondence between Fritzsche and Tholuck.'"^ The 
philological investigation of the N. T. language has exerted more or 
less influence on all the numerous N. T. commentaries which have 
recently appeared,^ whether emanating from the critical, the evan- 
gelical, or the philosophical school ; though only a few of the writers 
(as Van Hengel Liicke, Bleek, Meyer) have given full attention to 
the grammatical element, or treated it with independent judgment. 

^ Acta Apost. ad Cod. Cantabrig. Jidem rec. tt interpret, est (Grosseiiliain, 
184><, ].). 

'^ Fiitzschi;, rd>er die Verdienste D. Tholiu\h<> urn die Schrifterkliirv rnj 
(H.illc, 1831), 'n\o\wk, Beitragezur Spracherkldr ling des N. T. (Halle, 1832). 
Fritzsche, Pruliminariea zur Abhitle und Ehrenerkldruiuj, die icfi gem dem D. 
Tholuck tjewahren mOchte (Halle, 1832). 'I'liohick, J^'och ein ernstes Wort an 
D. Fritzsche (Halle, 1832). In his Cornmeatanj on the Ep. to the Hebrews 
(Uamb. 1836, 1840, 1850), Tholuck laid more stress on iiliilological investigation. 
The severe censure passed in an anonymous work, JJeitrdge zur Erkldruug den 
Br. an die Hebr. (Leipz. 1840), has h;ss reference to grammar than to Tholuck 's 
treatmen-t of the subject matter of tbo Epistle. 

^ Even on the commentaries of the excellent Ikunigarten-Crusius, the weakest 
side of which is certainly tu>- puilological. 


A sensible estimate of the better philological principles in their appli- 
cation to the N. T. has been given by A. G. Holemauu, in his 
Comment da intcrprdatione sacra cum inofarai feJlciter ccnjungcnda 
(Lips. 1832). 

N. T. grammar has recently niaJe its way from Germariy to Eng- 
land and North America, partly in a translation of the 4th edition of 
the present work* (London, 1840), partly in a distinct (indepen- 
dent?) treatise by W. TroUope {Greek Grammar of the Ntw Testameid ■ 
London, 1842). An earlier work on this subject by Moses Stuart 
{Grammar of the Neiv Testament Dialect: Andover, 1841), I have not 
yet seen. 2 

The special grammatical charact3ristics of particular writers have 
begun to form a subject of inquiry (yet see above, p. 4) : G. P. C. 
Kaiser, Diss, de speciali Joa. J p. grammatica culpa, ncgligentifv libe- 
randa (Erlang. 1824, IL). and De sjjeciali I'etri Ap. gr. culpa, dx. 
(Erlang. 1843). 

1 [TranskU-il by Agnew ami Ebbeke (I'Iula(leli>hia, 1810). An earlier 
edition of Winer's ('rnmimur had been transliiteil in liS2.v by M. Stuart and 
Robinson. In 1834 Prot. Huiart published a N. T. Grammar, part of which 
appeared in the Biblical Vahinet, vol. x.] 

* [To this list the following works may be added : A. Buttinann, Gram- 
matik des ncutest. Spraclujcbruurlis : iin An!<cUIasi>e. an Ph. Buttutann'ti (jrlech. 
Grammatik [Yii^rliw^ 1859); Scliiilitz, Gruiidziu/e der ncufest. Grdciidt {G'nissnn, 
1861) ; K. H. A. Lipsius, Grammatitiche UntersuchurKjen iihfr die bibli.schf Grd- 
citdt ; Ueber die Le.se'zeichen (Leipzig, 1863) ; T. S. Gieen, T/rati.sc on the Gram- 
viarofthcN. T. (Bagster, 1842; 2d edition, ccnsiderably alter.d, 18(52); W. 
Webster, Syntax and Synonyms of the Greek TeM. (Rivingtons, 1804). In the 
later (the 3d and 4th) ed' ions of Jelf's Greek Grammar ton.sidenible attention 
is given to the constructions of the Greek Testament. The Grammars of Winer 
and A. Biittmann have recently found a very able and careful trnnslator in Pro- 
fessor Thayer, of Andover, Massachusetts. Another useful work, of a more 
elementary character, is Dr. S. G. Green's Jlandbvok to the Grammar, o/ 
the JV. T. (1870, Rel. Tr. Society).] 



Section L 

various opinions respecting the character of the 

n. t. diction. 

1. Though the character of the N. T. diction is in itself 
tolerably distinct, erro .eous or at any rate incomplete and one- 
sided opinions respecting it were for a long time entertained by 
Biblical philologers. These opinions arose in part from want of 
acquaintance with thelateiGreek dialectology, but also from dog- 
matic considerations, through which, as is always the case, even 
clear intellects became incapable of discerning the line of exact 
exegesis^/^Trom the beginning of the 1 7th century the attempt 
j-^ad been repeatedly made by certain scholars (the Purists) to 
/ claim clabsic purity and elegance in every respect for the N. T. 
style ; whilst by others (the Hebraists) the Hebrew colouring 
was not only recognised, but in some instances greatly exag- 
gerated. The views of the Hebraists held the ascendancy about 
the close of the 1 7th century, though without having entirely 
superseded those of their rivals, some of whom were men of 
considerable learning. Half a century later the Purist party 
entirely died out, and the principles of the Hebraists, a little 
softened here and there, obtained general acceptance. It is only 
very lately that scholars have begun to see that these principles 
also are one-sided, and have rightly inclined towards the middle 
path, which had been generally indicated long before by Beza 
and H. Stephens, 

The history of the various theories which were successively main- 
tained, not without vehemence and considerable party bias, is given 
in brief by Moras, Acroas. acad. sv]). ILnneveut. K, T. (ed. Eichstadt) 
yol. I. p. 216 sqq. ; by Meyer, Gesch. der SSdiriJterUdr. III. 342 sqq. 


(comp. Eichstirdt. Pr. f^enfevftar. de dicUone scripfor. N. T. hrevis Cen- 
tura: Jen. 184-3) ; and, with some important inaccuracies, by G. J. 
Planck, in his EinUit. in d. theol. IFmtnscJwfi, IL 43 sqq. : ^ compare 
Stange, Theol. Symmikta, II. 29.5 scjq. On the literature connected 
with this subject see Walch, Blhlioth. Theol IV. 276 sqq.- The 
following outline of the controversy, in which the statements of the 
above-named writers are here and there corrected, will be sufficient 
for our purpose. 

Erasmus had spoken of an " apostolorum sermo non solum impo- 
litus et inconditus verum etiam imperfectus et perturbatus, aliquoties 
plane solcBcissans." In reply to this, Beza, in a Digressio de dono 
Unguarum etapostol. sermone (on Acts x. 46), pointed out the simplicity 
and force of N. T. diction, and in particular placed the Hebraisms 
(which, as is well known, he was far from denying) in a very favoifr 
able light, as "ejusmodi, ut nullo alio i<l'omate tarn feliciter exprimi 
possint, imo interdum ne exprimi quidem," — indeed as " gemmae 
quibus (apostoli) scriptasua exornarint." After Beza, H. Stephens, 
in the Prefxce to his edition of the N. T. (1576), entered the lists 
against those "qui in his scriptis inculta omnia et horrida esse 
putant ; " and took pains to show by examples the extent to which 
the niceties of Greek are observed in the N. T., and how the very 
Hebraisms give inimitable force and emphasis to its style. These 
niceties of style are, it is true, rather rhetorical than linguistic, and 
the Hebraisms are rated too high ; but the views of these two ex- 
cellent Greek scholars are evidently less extreme than is commonly 
supposed, and are on the whole nearer the truth than those of many 
later commentators. 

Both Drusius and Glass acknowledged the existence of Hebraisms 
in the N. T., and gave illustrations of them without exciting opposi- 
tion The first advocate of extreme views was Seb. Pfochen. In 
his Diatribe deUnguce Gi-cecce N. T.puritate (Amst. 1629 : ed. 2, 1633), 
after having in the Preface defined the question under discussion to 
be, " an sty 'us N. T. sit vere Graecus nee ab aliorum Grsecorum stylo 
alienior talisque, qui ab Homero, Demosthene aUisquo Graicis intel- 
ligi potuisset," he endeavours to show by many examples (§ i^l-129), 
" Gra^cos autores profanos eisdem phrasibus et verbis loquutos esse, 
quibus scriptores N. T." (§ 29). This juvenile production however 
— the principles of which were accepted by P^rasmus Schmid, as his 
OpwpostlLumvm (1658) shows — seems to have excited little attention 
at the time with its rigid Purism. The first who gave occasion 
(though indirectly) for controversy on the diction of the N. T. was 
the Hamburg Rector Joachim Jauge (1637, 1639) ; though his real 

' [This portion of Planck's work is translated in the Biblical Cabinet, vol. vii. 
pp. 67-71. The controversy is briefly sketched by Tregelles, in his edition of 
Homo's Introduction, vol. iv. p. 21 scj.] 

* See also Luumgarten, Polemik; iii. 176 sqq. The opinions of the Fathers 
(especially the Apologists) on the style of the N. T. are given by J. Lami, De 
erudit. Apostolor. p. 138 sq«i. They regard the subject more from a rhetorical 
than from a gr;inuaatical point of view. Theodoret {Or. affect, cur.) trium- 
phantly contrasts the aoXoixifffio'i aknuTiKo'i with the luXXoynrfu)) xmKei 


opinions as to the Hellenism (not barbarism) of the N. T. style ^ 
were admitted by his opponent, the Hamburg Pastor Jac. Grosse 
(1640), not indeed to be correct, but at all events to be free from 
insidious intent."^ Tlie latter writer, however, brought upon himself 
the censure of Dan. Wulfer (1640), who, in his Imiocentia Helle- 
nistarum vindicata (without date or place), complained of the want of 
clearness in Grosse's strictures.^ Grosse had now to defend himself, 
not only against Wulfer, whom he proved to have misunderstood 
his meaning, but also (1641) against the Jena theologian Joh. 
Musaeus (1641, 1642), Avho found fault with Grosse's inconsistencies 
and unsettled views, but wrote mainly in the interests of dogma (on 
verbal inspiration). Hence by degrees Grosse gave to the world 
five small treatises (1641, 1642), in defence, not of the classic 
elegance, but of the purity and dignity of the N. T. language. 

Without entering into these disputes, which passed into hateful 
personalities, and which Avere almost entirely useless to science, Dan, 
Heinsius (1643) declared himself on the side of the Hellenism of the 
N. T. language ; and Thomas Gataker {De Novl InstrumenH stylo dis- 
sert., 1648) wrote expressly — with learning, but not without exagge- 
ration — against the Purism of Pfochen. Joh. Vorstalso now published 
(1658, 1665) the well-arranged collection of N. T, Hebraisms which 
for some time he had had in preparation : this work soon after fell 
underthecensureof Hop. Vitringa, asbeing one-sided in ahigh degree.* 

' In a German luemorial to the department of ecclesiastical affairs (1637) 
Jiinge himself thns explains his true views : I have indeed said, and I still say, 
that there exists in the N. T. wha,t is not really Greek. . . . The question an 
N. T. srateat barbarismis is so offensive a question, that no Christian man 
raised it before ; . . . that barharous fornuilas are to be found in the N. T. I 
have never been willing to allow, especially because the Greeks themselves* 
recognise a barbarism as a rnt'mm. [Limemanu refers to J. Junghts " Ueher die 
O nglnalsprarhc des N. T." vom Jahre 1637 : anfijefunden, zuerd herausijeyeben 
und einr/eleitet von Joh. Geffeken (Harab. 1863).] 

* His two main theses are the following: "Quod quamvis evangelistfe et 
apostoli in N. T. non adeo ornato et nitido, tumido et affectato(!) dicendi 
genere usi sint . . . im])inin tamen, imo blasphemum sit, si quis inde S. litera- 
rumstudiosus Grrecum stylum . . . sugillare, vilipendere et juventutisuspectura 
facere ipsique vitia et notam soloecismorum et barbarismorum attricare con- 
tendat. . . . Quod nee patres, qui sohecismorum et barbarismorum meminerunt 
et apostolos idiotas fuiase scripsenuit, nee illi autores, qui stylum N. T. Helle- 
nisticum esse statuerunt, nee isti, qui in N. T. Ebraismos et Chaldaismos esse 
observanint, stylum s. apostolorum contemserint, sugillarint eumque impuritatis 
alien jus accusarint cet." 

^Grosse's work was strictly directed against a possible inference from the 
position that the Greek of the'N. T. is not such as native Greek authors use, and 
in the main concerns adversaries that (at all events in Hamburo;) had then no 
existence. Besides, lie keeps throughout mainly on the negative •side ; as is 
shown, for example, by the resume (p. 40 of Grosse's TriaA) : Etiamsi Graecus 
.etylus apostolorum non sit tam ornatus et affectatus, ut fuitillequi fuit florente 
Gn-^icia, non Atticus ut Athenis, non Doricus ut Corintht, non lonicns utEphesi, 
non ^EoIiCus ut Troade, fuit tamen vere Gnccus ab oniui sohecisniorum et bar- 
barismortim labe immunis. 

* In the preface Vorst expresses his conviction, *' sacros codices N. T. talibus 
ct vocaV)ulis et phrasibus, quaj Hebra^am linguam sapiant, ficafere plane." Com- 
pare also his Cuyitata de stylo JV. T., prefixed to Fischer's edition of his work oa 


J. H. Bocler (1641) and J. Olecarius (1668) ^ took a middle course, 
discriminating with greater cdre between the Hebrew and the Greek 
elements of the N. T. style ; and with them J. Leusden agreed in 
the main, though he is inferior to Olearius in discretion. 

By most, however, it was now regarded as a settled point that the 
Hebraisms must be allowed to be a very prominent element in the 
language of the N. T., and that they give to the style a colouring, not 
indeed barbarous, but widely removed from the standard of Greek 
purity.^ This is the result arrived at by Mos. Solanus in a long- 
deferred but very judicious reply to Pfochen. Even J. Heinr. 
Michgielis (1707) and Ant. Blackwall (1727) did not venture to deny 
the Hebraisms : they endeavoured to prove that the diction of the 
N. T. writers, although not free from Hebraisms, still has all the 
qualities of an elegant style, and is in this respect not inferior to 
classic purity. The latter scholar commences his work(whichabounds 
in good observations) with these words : "We are so far from denying 
that there are Hebraisms in the N. T., that we esteem it a great advan- 
tage and beauty to that sacred book that it abounds with them." Their 
writings, however, had as little effect on the now established opinion 
as those of the learned Ch, Siegm. Georgi, who in his Vlndicice N. T. 
oh Ebraismis (17^2) returned to the more rigid Purism, and defended 
his positions in his Hierocriticus sacer (1 733). He was followed, with 
no greater success, by J. Conr. Schwarz, the chief aim of whose 
Commentarii crit. ct philol. lingua: Gr. N. T. (Lips. 1736) was to prove 
that even those expressions which had been considered Hebraisms 
are pure Greek.^ The last who joined these writers in combating 
the abuse of Hebraisms were Pil. Palairet (Obscrvatt. philol. crit. in 
N. T. : Lugd. Bat. 1 752) * and H. W. van Marie {Florileg. observ. in 
epp. apostol. : Lugd. Bat. 1758). Through the influence of the school 
of Ernesti a more correct estimate of the language of the N. T. 
became generally diffused over Germany : ^ compare Ernesti, Instit. 
Interp. I. 2, cap. 3. [Bihl. Cab. I. p. 103 sqq.] 

^ The Stricturce in Pfochen. diatrib. by J. Cotcejus were drawn up merely for 
private use, and wore first published in Rhenferd's Sammlung. 

* See also Werenfels, Opusc. I. p. 311 sqq. — Hemsterhuis on Lucian, Dial. 
Mar. 4. 3 : " Eorum, qui orationem N. F. Graecam esse castigatissimam con- 
tendunt, opinio pPHjuani mihi semper ridicula fuit visa." Blth. Stolberg also 
{De solcecismis tt hnrbarlsmig N. T. : Viteb. 1681 and 1685) wished merely to 
vindicate the N. T. from blemishes unjustly ascribed to it ; but in doing this he 
explained away many real Hebraisms. 

3 Conscious of certain victory Schwarz speaks thus in his preface (p. 8) : 
" Olim Hebraismi, Syrismi, Chaldaismi, Eabinismi (sic!), Latinismi cet. cele- 
brabantur nomina, ut vel scriptores sacvi suam Graecae dictionis ignorantiam 
prodere aut in Gneco sermone tot linguarum notitiam osteutasse viderentur vel 
saltern interpretes iUorum literatissimi et singularum locutionum perspicacissimi 
judicarentur. Sed conata lusc ineptiarum et vanltatis ita sunt efiam a nob'is con- 
victa, ut si qui cet." A satire on the Purists may be seen in Somnium in quo 
prceter cetera genins sec. vapulat (Alteburg, 1761), p. 97 sqq. 

* Supplements by Palairet himself are to be found in the Biblioth. Brem. nova 
CI. 3, 4. In the main, however, Palairet quotes parallels almost excln.sively for 
meanings and phrases which no man of judgment will regard as Hebraisms. 

* Emesti's judgment on the diction of the N. T. {Diss, de difficult, interpret, 
grammat. N. T. § 12) may here be recalled to mind : *' Genus orationis in libris 


Most of the (older) controversial works on this subject (those 
mentioned above and others besides) are collected in J. Rhenferd's 
Dissertalt. philolog.-theolog. de stylo N. T. syntagma (Leov. 1702), and 
in what may be considered a supplement to this work, Taco Hajo 
van den Honert, Syntagma dlssertatt. de stylo N. T. Grxco (Amst. 

1703).! , . , , 

We will endeavour briefly to describe the mode in which the 
Purists sought to establish their theory."^ 

Their efforts were mainly directed towards collecting from native 
Greek authors passages in which occur the identical words and 
phrases which in the N. T. are explained as Hebraisms. In general, 
no distinction was made between the rhetorical element and what 
properly belongs to language ; but besides this the Purists over- 
looked the following facts : 

(a) That many expressions and phrases (especially such as are 
fio-urative) are from their simplicity and naturalness the common 
property of all or of many languages, and therefore can no more be 
called Oraecisms than Hebraisms.^ 

(b) That a distinction must be made betAveen the diction of poetry 
and that of prose, and also between the figures which particular 
writers may now and tlien use to gi^'e elevation to their style (as 
luviina (yrationis) and those which have become an integral part of 
the language. If expressions used by Pindar, TEschylus, Euripides, 
&c., occur in the plain prose of the N. T./ or if these expressions or 
rare Greek figures are here in regular and ordinary use, this furnishes 
no proof at all of the classical purity of N. T. Greek. 

(c) That when the N. T. writers use a form of speech which is 

N. T. esse e pure Greecis et Ebrairam maxuue consuetiidineni refeientibus verbis 
Ibrmulisque dicendi mixtum et temperatuia, id quidem adeo evidens est iis, qui 
satis Grtece sciunt, ut plane viisericordia di^ni nint, qui omnia bene (Jraca esse 

^ The essays of Wu'fer, Grosso, and Mus;t>us, though of little unportance m 
comparison with their size, should have been inserted in these collections ; and 
the editors wore wrong in admitting only one of Junge's treatises, tha Sfntentice 
doct. vir. de nt.ylo N. T. Compare further Blessig, PrcB^idia interprd. N. T. ex 
aiicforlhwi Clra'C. (Argent. 1778), und Mittenzwey, Locorum quoruvdam e Jlut- 


N. -. 

Tlfol. 1. 2.'^3sqq.), 1 have not seen. 

- Some of the points are noticed by Mittenzwey in the essay mentioned in the 

last note. . 

3 Hebrew, and therefore Hebraic Greek, possesses the qualities of simplicity 
and vividness in common with the language of Homer ; but the particular 
expressions cannot be called Hebraisms in the one case or Graecisms in the other. 
Laiicuages in general have many jioints of contact, especially its popularly 
spoken, for the popular language is always simple and graphic : in the scientific 
diction, framed by scholars, tliere is more divergencie. Jlence, for instance, 
most of the so-called Germanisms in L>atin belong to the style of comedies, 

letters, etc. , r^ , . 

* Seo on the other hand Krebs, Ohsnrv. Pr<zf. p. 3. Leusden (//e Dtale.ctis, 
p. 37) says most absurdly, *' Nos non fudt caruiina istorum horninum (tragicor.) 
innnmeris Hebraismis esse contaminata. ' Fischer accordingly finds Hebraisms 
in the poems of Homer {ad Leusd. p. 114). 


common to both languages, their education renders it, in general, 
more probable that the phrase was immediately derived from the 
Hebre\v,and not borroAved from the refined written language of Greece. 

(d) These uncritical collectors, moreover, raked together very 
many passages from Greek authors which contain (a) the same word, 
indeed, but in a different sense ; or (/3) phrases which are merely 
similar, not exactly parallel. 

(e) They even used the Byzantine writers without scruple, though 
many constituents of the Hebraistic diction of the N. T. may have 
foimd their way into the language of these writers through the 
medium of the church, — a supposition which in particular instances 
may be shown to be even probable, comp. Niebuhr, Index to Agathias, 
B. V. ^r]fiLov(r6aL, — and though these writers at all events cannot be 
adduced as evidence for ancient Greek purity of expression. 

(/) Lastly, they passed over many phrases altogether in silence, 
and were compelled to pass them over, because they are undeniably 

Their evidence, therefore, was either incomplete or beside the 
mark. Most of the Purist writers, too, restricted thrmselves by 
preference to 'the lexical element; Georgi alone took up the gram- 
matical, and treated it with a copiousness founded on extensive 

A few remarkable examples shall be given in proof of the above 
assertions. 2 

(a) On Mt. V. 6, ■rr€tvu)VT€<; koL Sii^wvtc? t^v SiKaiocrvvrjv, passages 
are adduced from Xenophon, ./Eschines, Lucian, Artemidorus, to 
prove that ^nfnju in this (figurative) sense is pure Greek. But as 
the same figure is found (in Latin and) in almost all languages, 
it is no more a Grsecism tljan a Hebraism. The same may be 
said of €(t6Ulv (KaTecrOUtv) figur. consume: this cannot be proved 
from Jliad 23. 182 to be a Gra^cism, or from Dt. xxxii. 22, &c., to be 
a Hebraism, but is common to all languages. For the same reason 
we could wqU spare the parallels to -ycvta generation, ie. the men of 
a particular generation (Georgi, Vind. p. 39), to _;^etp power, to 6 Kvpw; 
T^s oiVtas, and the like. But it is really laughable to be referred 

on Mt. X, 27, Krjpv^are cttl twv Stu/xarwv, to >4isop L39. 1, epi^os ctti 

Ttj/o? 8wfMiTo<; ecTToW. Such superfluous and indeed absurd observa- 
tions abound in Tfochen's work. 

(b) That KOLfjLaa-OaL signifies mori is proved from Iliad IL 241, 
KOLfjLrja-aTo x^aXKiov virvov (Georgi, Vind. p. 122 sqq.), and from Soph. 
Eleclr. 510 ; that crirep/ia is used by the Greeks also in the sense of 
jiroles is shown by passages mainly taken from the poets, as K)urip. 
Iph. Aul. 524, IpK Taur. 987, Hec. 254, and Soph. Medr. 150S 
(Georgi p. 87 sqq.) ; that rroifxaCvuv means regere is proved from 
Anacr. 57. 8 ; that iZuv or Ocoipelv Odvarov is good Greek, from Soph. 

^ This applies also to J. E. Ostermann, wliose Positioner pkilologicce Grcecum 
-AT. T. contexlum concementes are reprinted in Crenii Exercitatt. fasc. I.I. p. 485 

" Coinparc aLso Mori Acroaa. I. c. p. 222 sqq; 



Eledr. 205 (Schwarz, Comiu. p. 410), or from BepKea6ai. KTvirovy 
cTKOTov, in the tragedians. For Trorijptov -jrivuv in a figurative sense 
(Mt. XX. 22), Schwarz quotes .^schyl. Again. 1397. The use of 
TTiTj-reiv in the sense of irritum esse, which is one of the regular mean- 
ings of the corresponding Hebrew word, Schwarz defends by the 
figurative phrase in Plat. Phileb. 22 e, Sokei rj^ovrj croi imfTtoKivai 
KoBairepti TrXrjyeicra vtto tu)V vvv 8r] Aoyajv. 

(c) We may safely regard the phrase yivuxTKciv SivSpa — though 
not unknown to the Greeks, see Jacobs cvd Philostrat. Imagg. p. 583 
— as immediately derived by the N. T. writers from the very com- 
mon E'''K vy •• in the N. T., therefore, it is a Hebraism. Similarly, 
a-ir\uy)(ya compassion, ^rjpd land as opposed to water (Fischer ad 

■ Leusd. Dial. 31), x^i^o? shore, crro/xa as used of tiie sword, edge,^ 

■7ra^vv£iv to he stupid, foolish, Ki'pio? KvpioiV, «isep^ecr^at cts tov Kocrfjuov, 

were probably formed in the first instance on the model of Hebrew 
words and phrases, and cannot be proved to be genuine Greek 
by parallels from Herodotus, ^lian, Xenophon, Diodorus Siculus. 
Philostratus, and others. 

(d) (a) That iv is used by Greek writers to denote the instru- 
ment (which within certain limits is true), Pfochen proves from such 
passages as ttAcwv iv rats vavn-L (Xen.), ^\6e . . iv vrfi fiiXoLvri 
(Hesiod) ! That good Greek authors use prfpa. for res is shown 
from Plat. Legg. 79 i C, tovtov tov re pr)p.a.ro<; Koi TOV Soy/xttTos ov< 
tivai ^rj/xiav pd'Coi, where prjixa may be rendered exp>ression. asser- 
tion. Xoprd^eiv Jill, feed (of men), is supported by Plat. Hep. 2. 
372, where the word is used of swine. ^ That t,rjTfiv ipvx^v nvos is 
good Greek is shown from Eur. Ion 1112, Thuc. 6. 27, al., where 
t,ijTilv is used alone, in the sense of insidiari, or rather search for (in 
order to kill) ! That ncji€i\tip.a signifies dii in pure Greek, Schwarz 
professes to prove from Plat. Crati/l. 400 c, where however 6<f)€i\6- 
fieva means dehita, as elsewhere. In the same way, most of the 
passages adduced by Georgi (Hierocr. p. 36 sq., 186 sq.), to prove 
that €is and iv are interchanged in the best Greek authors, as in 
the N. T., are altogether inappropriate. Compare also Krebs, Obs. 

(/3) To prove that elpia-Ketv x«P"' (eXcos) irapd rivt is not a Hebraism, 
Georgi (Vind. p. 116) quotes evpla-Kcadai Tr]v dpijvyjv, r»/i/ Swptdv, from 
Demosthenes ; as if the Hebraism did not rather consist in the whole 
phrase (for the use of find for attain is certainly no Hebraism), and 
as if the difference in the voice of the verb were of no consequence 
whatever. For -n-orripiov sors Palairet quotes such phrases as 
Kparrjp a'/AaTo? (Aristoph. Acliam.) ', for TTtTTTeiv irritum esse Schwarz 
brings forward Plat. Kuthyphr. 14 d, ov x°-F^'- ""to-tiTat o, ti av ct7r6ts' 
The familiar merismus d-rro p.iKpov Icos /xcyaXov is claimed as pure 
Greek - on the authority of passages in which ovt€ p-^ya ovre ap-iKpov 
occurs. But it is not the merismus in itself that is Hebraistic, but 

' Compare however Boissonade, Nic. p. 282. 

* Georgi, I'ind. p. 810 sqq., Schwarz, Comment, p. 917. Compare Schiefer, 
Julian, \). xxL 


only- the precise phrase utto fi. ew? /icy., which is not foand earlier 
than Theophan. cont. p. G15 (Beklc). Kap-n-os rrj^ KotXta?, 6rr4>oo<;, is 
supported (Georgi, Find. p. 304) by passages in which Kaprro? is 
used by itself of human offspring. That Svo 8vo, two and two, is 
pure Greek, does not follow from TrXiov irXiov, more and more 
(Aristoph. Nub.) : instances must be produced in which the repeated 
cardinal stands for dva SJo, dva rpm, k.t.X. (§ 37. 3). That n^tVat 
«15 Ta WTtt is pure Greek, is not proved by oa-cra S' dnovaas eL^e9efj.r]v 
(Callim.) : the latter phrase is of an entirely different character. 
These examples might be multiplied indefinitely, Georgi's defence 
(Find. p. 25) of the use of 6 aSeA^os for alter from Arrian and 
Epictetus is especially ridiculous. 

(e) Schwarz (p. 1245) quotes Nicetas, to prove that a-rr}pi^(tv to 
yrp6<;u>irov and iv(i}TL^€<T0aL are pure Greek; and Palairet justilies 
the use of rj ^yfyi for continens from Jo. Cinnam. Hist. 4. p. 183. 
Still more singular is Pfochen's reference to Lucian, Mort. Peregr. 
c. 13, as justifying the use of koivo? with the meaning immundus : 
Lucian is scoHingly using a Jewish (Christian) expression. 

(/) Of the many words and phrases which these writers have 
entirely passed over in silence, we will only mention iTp6%u>TTov 
Aa/xySavc/c, (rap^ kox uT/ia, vlos etpvvrp, e^epp^ecr^ai e^ oo-^uo? Tivos, 
noif7v eXeos (x^piv) p-erd rti-o?, aTroKpivicrOai when no proper question 
precedes, e^opoXoyetcrBuL OeiZ yive Ihaaks to God. There are many 
others : see below § 3. 

After Salmasius, whose work Be Lingua Hellenistica had been 
entirely forgotten by later scholars, Sturz' first led the way to an 
accurate estimate of the N. T. language, especially in regard to its 
Greek biisis. Hence Keil (Lchrb. der Hermen. p. 11 sq.), Bertholdt 
{Einl. in d. Bib. 1 Th. p. 155 sq.), Eichhorn {Einl. ins N. T. IV, p. 96 
sqq.^, and Schott {higoge in K T. p. 497 sqq.), have treated this 
subject more satisfactorily than many earlier writers, though by no 
means exhaustively or with the necessary scientific precision. In 
both respects H. Planck has surpassed his predecessors, in his De 
wra natura atque indole orationis Grcecve N. T. Commentat. (Gott. 
1810) : 2 avoiding a fundamental error into which Sturz had fallen, 
he was the first who clearly, and in the main accurately, unfolded the 
character of the N. T. diction. * 

1 F. W. Sturz, De Dialecto A/eranurina (Lips. 1784, Ger. 17SS-1793 ; 2nd 
edition, enlarged, Lips. 1809). Valuable remarks on this work may be found in 
the fleidelh. Jahrh. 1810, Heft xviii. p. 266 sqq. [Sturz 'a treati.se may also be 
foniid in Valpy's edition of Steph. Thesaurus, vol. L p. cliii. sqq.] 

^ This treatise is included in Rosenmiillcr's €onimtntat tones Theoloijica;, I. i. 
p. 112 sqq. [It is trau.slated in the Liiiitkal Cabinet, vol. I. pp. 91-188.] 

2 Compare also his Pr. Obsematt. <iwB(lnm ad hist, verhi Or. N. T. (Gott. 
1821, and in Koseumiiller's Comin. Theol. I. i. p. 193 sqq.) See further (De 
Wctte in) the A. Lit. Z. 1816. No. xxi.x. p. 306. 

20 B49ia OF THE N. T. DICTION. [PART I. 

Section II. 


In the age of Alexander the Great and his successors the 
Greek language underwent an internal change of a twofold kind. 
On the one hand, a literary prose language was formed, having 
the Attic dialect as its basis, but distinguished from it by the 
admission of a common Greek element, and even by many pro- 
vincialisms: this is known as r) koivt] or iWrjviKrf Bcd\€Kro<i. On 
the other hand, there arose a language of common life, a popu- 
lar spoken language, in which the peculiarities of the various 
dialects, which had hitherto been confined to particular sections 
of the Greek nation, were fused together, the Macedonian ele- 
ment being most prominent.^ This spoken Greek — which again 
varied to some extent in the different provinces of Asia and Ainca 
that were subject to the Macedonian rule — is the true basis of 
the language of the LXX and the Apocryi)ha, and also of the 
N. T. language. Its characteristics, amongst which must also 
be included a neglect of nice distinctions uud a continued effort 
after perspicuity and coi venience of expression, may fitly be 
divided into Lexical and Grammatical. 

The older works on the Greek dialects are now nearly usele.sa, 
especially as regards the Kotv^ SioXcktos. The subject is best treated 
in brief by Matthiae, Au.'if. Grumm. §§ 1-8, and (still more thoroughly) 
by Buttmann, Jiisf. Sprachl I. 1-8 ; also, though not with perfect 
accuracy, by H. Planck, /. c. pp. 13-23 [Bib. Cub. I. 113 sqq.]. Com- 
pare also Tittmann, Syn. I. 262 sii., and Bernhardy p. 28 sqq. (Don. 
pp. 1-4.) 2 

The Jews of Egypt and Syria3--of these alone we are now speaking 

^ Stuiz, p. 26 sqq. But the snbject deserves a new and thorough investi- 
gation : it ran scarcely be disposed of by such dicta as that quoted by Thiersch, 
JJe Pevt. Al. p. 74. 

2 [The peculiarities of the Ore^k spoken in different conntries and at 
difl'erent periods are carefully reviewed by MuUach, Grkch. Vulgai-sprache, 
pp. 1-107.] 

^ It is not possible to point out with exactness what belonged to the language 
of Alexandria, and what was or became peculiar to the Greek dialect of Syria 
(and Palestine) ; and the in([uiry is not ot great iippDrtance, even for the N. T. 
Kichliorn's attempt (Einl. ins N. T. IV. VH aqq.) was a failure, and could not 
be otherwise, as it was conducted with little critical accuracy. TEhp(^a.fiiffTt7t, a 
word used by Demosthenes and by many writers from the time of Polybius, is 
said by Eichhorn to have been a late addition to the Alexandrian dialect ; and 
ity'Xti*, hospitio excipere, which is found in Xenophon and even in Homer, is 
pronounced Alexandrian ! To what extent Greek was spoken by the Jews of 
Syria (and Palestine), we need not here inquire. On this .see Paulus, De Judam 
Paltist. Jesu et apost. tempore non Aram, dialecto sed Grceca quoqve lorntis 
(Jen. 1803) ; Hug, Introd. II. § 10 ; Winer, BWB. II. p. 502 ; Schleiermacher, 


— learned Greek in the first instance by intercourse with those who 
spoke Greek, not from books ; ^ hence we need not wonder that in 
writing they usually retained the peculiarities of the popular spoken 
language. To this class belonged the LXX, the N. T. writers, and 
the authors of the Palestinian apocryphal books. It is only in the 
writings of a IV- w learned Jews who prized and studied Grecian litera- 
tui'e, such as Philo and Josephus,^ tliat we find a nearer approach to 
ordinary written Greek. We have but an imperfect knowledge of this 
spoken language,* but a comparison qf Hellenistic Greek (apart from 
its Hebraic element) with the later written Greek enables us to infer 
that the spoken language had diverged still more widely tlian the 
written from ancient elegance, admitting new and provincial words 
and forms in greater number, neglecting more decidedly nice dis- 
tinctions in construction and expression, misusing grammatical com- 
binations through forgetfulness of their origin and principle, and 
extending farther many corruptions which were already appearing in 
the literary language. Its main characteristic, however, continued to 
be an intermixture of the previously distinct dialects (Lob. Path. 1. 0), 
of auch a kind that the Greek spoken in each province had as its basis 
the dialect formerly current there : thus Atticisms and Dorisms pre- 
duniinated in Alexandrian Greek. From the dialect spoken in Egypt, 
especially in Alexandria (dialcctus Alcxandrina)* Hellenistic Greek 
was immediately derived. 

Harm. p. 61 .vj. [See also Diodati, Dt Christo Grace loquente. (Naples, 1767 ; 
ifpiintod 184;5, with a preface by Dr. Dobbin) ; Davidsoa, Jntrod. to N. T. 
(1818) I. 157-41; (ireswell, DisserlalioiiH, I. 136 sqq. ^2rid ed. ) ; Grinfield, 
Apology for the LXX, pp. 77, 184 ; Smith, Diet, of Bible, ii. 531 ; Koberts, 
-DuscusaionH on the. Gospels, pp. 1-316. The .subject is most fully examined 
by Dr. Koberts, wliose conclusion is that Greek was "the common language of 
public int«ii'Course " at tliis time. See further Schurer, Lehrh. d. neut. Zt.lt- 
(je,schichte, p. 376 .s<j. ; and comp. Westcott, St. John, p. Iviii.] 

^ Tiiat the reading of the LXX contributed to the formation of their Greek 
style makes no rwsential difference here, as we are now referring immediately to 
the national Greek element. It ia now generally acknowledged that even the 
apostle Paul cannot be supposed to have received a learned Greek edncation 
(amongst others see Plochen, p. 178). He certainly displays greater facility in 
writing Greek than the I'alestinian apostles, but this he might easily acquire in 
Asia Minor and through his extensive intercourse with native Greeks, some of 
whom were persons of learning and distinction. Kbster {^Stiid. u. Krit. 1854, 2), 
to prove that Paul formed his style on the model of Demosthenes, collects from 
this orator a number of parallel words and phrases ; nearly all of these, however, 
Paul might acquire from the spoken language of educated Greeks, and otliers 
are not really parallel. In the case of men who moved .so much among Greeks, 
copiousness and ease of style furnish no proof of acquaintance with Greek 

^ A comparison of the earlier books of the Antiquities of Jo.sephus with th'; 
corresponding portions of tlie LXX will clearly show that his style cannot be 
placed on the same level with that of the LXX, or even of the N. T., and wiil 
exhibit the ditlerence between the Jewish and the Greek style of narration. 
Compare further Schleiermacher, Herm. p. 63. 

^ llence it will never be possible to supply the want of which Schleiermacher 
complains {Htnn. p. 59), and give a "complete view of the language of common 

* On this subject {•rifi rUs ' AXilav'Bpiut lutXiKTov) the grammarians IreuiBua 
(Pacatus) and Demetrius Ixion wrote special treatises, which are now lest ; 


We proceed to trace in detail the later elements found in Hellenistic 
Greek, noticingfirst the lexical peculiarities, and then the grammatical, 
which are less conspicuous. This inquiry must be founded on the 
researches of Sturz, Planck, Lobeck, Boissunade, and others ; ^ and 
to their works the reader is referred for citations — mainly from the 
writers of the kolv^, Polybius, Plutarch, Strabo, ^lian, Arteraidorus, 
Appian, Heliodorus, Sextus Empiricus, Arrian, &c.'^ — in proof of 
the various particulars. We mark with an asteiisk whatever appears 
to belong exclusively to the popular spoken language, and does not 
occur in any profane author.' 


(a) The later dialect comprehended words and forms from all the 
dialects without distinction.* 

(1) Attic : voAos (ucAos, Lob. p. 309), 6 (rK6TO<; (to <r.), dcros (accTos, 
Herm. Free/, ad Soph. Aj. p. 19), <i>LaXrj {^UX-q), 6Xri6av (Lob. p. 
151),^ yrpvfjiva (Trpvfx.vrj, Lob. p. 331), tAews (uVaos). 

(■J) Doric : Trta^w (Trte'^w; K\i^avo<i (/<pi/Savos, Lob. p. 179), rj \ifio<i 
(6 A.), TToia grass (for ttolj] or -n-oa) ; also probably /Se/x/J/oai^as, quoted 

see Sturz, p. 24, and comp. p. 19 sij. The well-known Kosctta insciiption is a 
specimen of this dialect : other extant monnments will be found in A. Peyron'a 
Papyri Grceci reg. Taiirin. Musei ^gyptii ed. et illustrati (Turin, 1827, 2 vols. 
4to. ), and his lllustrazione di due papiri greco-egizi delV imper. mutseo di Vienna 
(in the Memorie dell' academ. di Torino, Tom. 33, p. 151 sqq., of the historical 
class); Description of the Grenk papyri in the British Museum (London, 1839, 
Part i. ) ; J. A. Letronne, Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines de I'Egypte 
d-c. (Paris, 1842, 184S, 2 torn.) [See also Mullach, Vulgarsp. p. 15 sqq.] 

' hut see al.so Olearius, De Stylo N. T. p. 279 sqq. 

' Tlie Fathers and the books of Roman law have hitherto been almost entirely 
neglected in the investigation of later Greek ; to the latter frequent reference 
will be made in the course of this work. [See Mullach, p. 31 sqq., 51.] How 
far the N. T. diction through the medium of the Church aflected the Later 
Byzantine Greek, is reserved for speciiil inquiry. The spurious apocryphal 
books of the 0. T. {Libri Pseudepigraphi) and the apocryphal books of the 
N. T. are now accessible in a more complete form and with a better text (the 
latter books through the labours of Tischendorf), and may be used for points of 
detail : tlie style of these productions as a whole (though in this respect they 
differ among themselves) is so wretched, that the N. T. diction appears classic 
Greek in comparison. Compare Tisch. De evangclior. apocryph. origine et usv, in 
the Verhandelingen uitgeven door het Hangsche Genootschap, dec. (Pt. 12. 1851). 

' The Greek grammarians, particularly Thomas Magister (latest edition, 
Kitschl's : Halle, 1832), specify as common Greek much that is found even in 
Attic writers : see e.g. h/iixios in Thom. M. p. 437, ifiwu/nx, ib. p. 363. Indeed 
they ;ire not free from even gross mistakes ; comp. Oudendorp ad Thorn. M. 
p. 90;". Much however that made its way into the written language aftrr 
Alexander f lie Great may probably have existed in the spoken language at an 
earlier date ; this was perhaps the case with <rT/)»)w«», which we meet with first 
in the poets of the new comedy. — The N. T. MTiters sometimes use words and 
forms which are preferred by the Atticists, instead of those which they assign 
to common Greek : as ^cf^'^^'^if, '^^- M. p. 921,— « (not «') XaTxccy^, ib. p. 504. 

* [In this section, (a), I have added in each case the other form of the word : 
thrs Lobeck speaks of SaXos oh the Attic form, not UtktK.] 

■' ['ax»;Vh» is rejected by the Atticists, and Lobeck I.e. agrees with them in the 
main ; ccxiu is the regular Attic form, — "the later writers used in the present 
*A7)/a;, wliich liowcver was still an ancient form." Irr. V. s. v.] 


by Zonaras from 2 Tim. iv. 13, where, however, all our MSS. have 
f^€n/3., see Sturz, Zonarce glossce sacrce II. p. 16 (Grimmee, 1820). 

(3) Ionic : yoyyvtai (Lob. p. 358), prj(TCT(ii {p-qyvviii), Trptjvrj'i (-Trpavrys, 

— yet TTprjvrj^ is found in Aristotle, Lob. p. 431), f^aOp-o^ (fiacrp.6<;, 
Lob. p. 324), o-KopTTi'^etv (Lob. p. 218), Sipa-qv, Buttm. I. 84 (Jelf 33), 
comp. Fritz. Rom. L 78. ^ To Ionic and Doric Greek belong 
il\taa-€tv (Rev. vi. 14 V. I., comp. Matth. 12. 4), <f>v(o in an intransi- 
tive sense, H. xii. 15, comp. Babr. 64.^ 

The^ grammarians note as Macedonian Trapep.J3o\i] camp (Lob. p. 
377, comp. Sohwarz, Solmc Ap. 66), pvp.rj street ; as of Cyrensean 
origin,' (iowos hill (Lob. p. 355) j^ aS Syracusan, the imperative 
tlirov (Fritz. Mark, p. 515). 

{b) Words which existed in the older language now received new 
meanings ; as -n-opaKakdv and ipwrdv * intreat, -Kai^cvuv chastise,^ 

ibX^dpiQrriiv thank (Lob. p. 18), dj/aKXtvetv [dva>cXtv€cr^at], avaTTLivrsiv, 

avaiceicrOtu recHnc at table (Lob, p. 216), aTroKpi6rjvai answer (Lob. p. 
108), dvrtAeyetv oppose,^ airoTdcra-ea-OaL valere juhere, reimntiare (Lob. 
p. 23"), <TvyKpiv€iv compare (Lob. p. 278), Saijuiov, haip^viov evil spirit,^ 
<^^\ov {living) tree (Lidd. and l^cott s. v.), StaTrovcicr^at cegre /erre* 
arkyuv hold off, endure,^ aefidt^a-Oai reverence ( = a-efSicrOaL, Fritz. 
Rom, I. 74), a-vvi(x-rqiu prove, establish (Fritz. Rom. I. 159), 
Xp-qp-aTlC^Lv be called (Fritz. Rom. II. 9), <p9d.vtLv come, arrive 
(Fritz. Rom. II. 356), KC(^aAt's volume, roll (Bleek on H. x. 7), 
iv(Txrip.u)v one of noble station (Loh. p. 333), \f/(j)p.L^€iv and xopTci^eti' 
feed, nourish,*^ oi//ojvtov ^ay (Stupz p. 187), o^dptov fish, ipevyea-Oat 
eloqui (Lob. p. 63), eVio-TeAAtii/ write a letter (cVio-toAij), ■trtpia-iTaa-OaL 
necfutiis distrahi (Lob. p. 415), Trrai/xa corpse^ (Lob. p. 375), yf.vvrjpM.ra 

* [Tischendorf now receives the Ionic iirn in Mk. iv. 28, and in L. xiii. 34 the 
Doric opv,\ : in Eev. iii. 16 S has x,^npis.'\ 

* [On the jEolic xtUvu {x''"^!") see below, § 15 (Jelf 10. 6).] 

^ On this word sec Donaldson, New C'r. p. 701 ; Blakesley, Herod, i. 5.56 sqq.] 
•* [On this word and tlie next see Ellicott's notes on E. vi. 4, Col. i. 12.] 

* [So Fritzsche {Rom. II. 428), "Valere serioribus Greecis ivT/Xeys/v non solum 
repugnare verbis .sed etiam reniti re etfactis frustra neges : " see also Alf. on H. 
xii. 3. Meyer (on Rom. x. 21) maintains that this verb always denotes opposi- 
tion in words. ] 

* That is, as its inherent signification, for the word is used in reference to an 
evil demon as early as Homer {Iliad 8. 166) : of the same kind is also Dinarch. 
adv. Demosth. § 30. p 155 (Bekker), a passage quoted by recent writers. Even 
the Byzantines, to speak with exactness, add xaxas to ialftuv (Agath. 114. 4). 

^ [On this word see Alford on 1 C. ix. 12 ; on ffviiffrvfti, EUic. on G. ii. 18 ; on 
(pfdmiv, EUic. on Ph. iii. 16 ; on KKpaxU, Alibrd on H. x. 7.] 

* This extension <jf meaning might in itself be considered a Hebraism. It 

had become customary to use ^ufiiZ,iiv as entirely equivalent to p^3Xn (comp. 

Grimm on Wis. xvi. 20), like x'>P'^'^%^''», wliich in Greek authors is not applied to 
persons, (Against Pfochen see Solanus in Rhenferd, p. 297.) It is uncertain 
whether 'iixahvn for Si/Sjxa belongs to the later spoken language, or whether it was 
coined by the LXX : the former supposition seems to me more probable, since 
"b'.^aix.a. is nearer thau 'hiKohd to the Hebrew niK^y DTlti' [See Lightfoot's note 
on G. i. 18, quoted below, § 37.] " '• ■■ " = 

* [Without any dependent genitive, as in Mt. xxiv. 28 ; see Lidd. and Scott 
8. v., and comp. Paley, iEsch. Suppl. 647 (662). j 


frnges (Lob. p. 286), o-xoXt; school (Lob. p. 401), ^upco? Zar^'e (door- 
shaped) shield (Lob. p. 366), Zoip.a roof, \oL/3rj sacrifice (Babr. 23. 5),^ 
pvjxrj street (Lob. j), 404), irapprfa-La assurance, confidence, AoAtd speech 
{dialect), Xa/A7ras lamp,^ KaTaa-ToX-rj long robe,* ^ vvvi now (in Attic, at 
this very moment, see Fritz. Bo7n. I. 182), cTTom.vo<: not, as in classical 
Greek, a vessel for holding liquids merely (Babr. 108. 18). A special 
peculiarity is the use of neuter verbs in a transitive * or causative 
sense, as ixaO-qxtvuv (Mt. xxviii. 19), OpiafjifSevuv (2 C ii. 14?— see 
however Meyer in loc.)." The LXX so use even ^rjv, ySacrtXeveiv, and 
many other verbs (oomp. particularly Ps. xl. 3, cxviii. 50, cxxxvii. 7, 
al.), com p. § 32. 1 : see Lydius, de Be Mil. 6. 3, and especially Lob. 
Soph. Aj. p. 382. Me'^vo-os, used by earlier writers of women only, 
was now applied to both sexes (Lob. p. 151, Sohaefer, Ind. ad /Esop. 
p. 144). 

(c) Certain words and forms which in ancient Greek were rare, 
or were used only in poetry and in the higher style of composition, 
now came into ordinary use, and were indeed preferred, even in prose ; 
as avOevTeiv to have authority' over (Lob. p. 120), fieo-ovvKTiov (Th. M. 
p. 609, Lob. p. 53), dAaAr?ros(?), Oeoa-Tvyr'i^ (Pollux I 21), eaO-qaK; 
(Th. M. p. 370), oXiKTfjtp {a\iKTpv(Lv, Lob. p. 229), jBpix^iv irrigare 
(Lob. p. 291), ta-dio (for ia-OM, Irr. V. s. v.). To this head Eichhorn 
{Einl. ins N. T. IV. 127) refers Oia-Oai n eV ttj KapSia, on the ground 
that this phrase, which belongs to the stately language of the poets 
(especially the tragedians), is used by the N. T. writers in the 
plainest prose. But the Homeric iv ^ptcrt 6t.<rdai is only a similar, 
not an identical phrase. That which the same writer quotes as a 
stately formula, a-wTrjpelv eV rfj KapSia, never occurs without emphania 
in the N. T. Kopda-iov, on the other hand, is an example of a word 
which passed from the language of ordinary life into the written 
language (compare the German Mddel), losing its accessory meaning 
(Lob. p. 74).6 

{d) Many words -which had long been in use received a new 
form or pronunciation, by which the older was in most caaes super- 
seded : as fxeTOLKiaia (/utcrotKta), iKccria (iKcreta, Lolo. p. 50i), uva- 
OefjLa {avd6r]fia),^ dvaore/Aa, yevecria (yeveOXia, Lob. p. 104), yXojtr- 

^ [With the reading apva >.o//3>)v ?ra^a!y;^sr» ; but Laohiiiiinn reads Xoitov. 
The word does uot occur iu the Greek Bible. ] 

^ [This ineauing is given in Stepli.. Thesauf. (ed. Hase) and in Rost and 
Palm's Lex., but Mt. xxv is the only cxamjjle quoted. In the LXX Xa^wa's 
is the regular equivalent of n^Q^ torch ; Quce, in Dan. v. 5 (Theodot.), it stands 

for Xntjn33 candelabrum. In Mt. xxv, Trench (Syn. s. v.), Olshausen, Jahn 

(Arch. B. § 40), and others suppose that a kind of torch is referred to : A. xx. 
8 is siuiiliir. ] 

^ [See Ellic. on 1 Tim. ii. 9.] 

* Transitive verbs can be handled in construction more conveniently than 
intransitive. In later Greek we find even TpasTcirTiDf nvd {Acta Apocr. p. 172), 
and in German "etwas widersprechen " is becoming more and more common. 
In mercantile language we l)ear "das Riibol ist yefragt." 

■^ [Meyer renders this, " Who ever triumphs over us : " see Alf. in 100."^ 

' [It was formerly used only "in familiari sermone de puellis inferioris sor- 
tis, cuui eiri/./ff^f quodam :" Lob. I. <:.] 

■ See Schsefer, Flutarch V. p. 11, [and Ellicott and Lightfoot on G. i. S]. 


aoKOfxov (yXwo'cro/co/x.etov, Lob, p. 98), ocTraAai (TrcLAai, Lob. p. 45), 
e)(6i<i (x^^'s)> t^ciTTiva [i^airtyrj';), olttjixu (aiTT^cris),' \j/€vcrfjia (i/'€B8l»'5, 
Sallier ad T/l. M. p. 927), aTidvTrjai<; {airavT-qfJia), ^y?/(rts {rjy^fjLOvla), 
Xvxyta [Xvxvtov, Lob. p. 314), vikos {vtK-q, Lob. p. G47), oIkoSo/jl^ 
{oiKo^oix.rjcTL'i^'^ Lob. p. 490), 6v€i8icr/xos (Lob. p. 512, oveihwi, ovei^iarfxa 
Her. 2. 133), oTrraala (oi^ts), 17 opKoyfioaui (to. opKwfiuaia), fxtoOairoooaLa 
(fiicrOoSocrLa), (rvyKvpla (^(TvyKvprjcn<;), a-Troaraata (aTrdo-Tacris, Lob. J). 
528), vov6e(ria {yovdf.T-q(TL<i, Lob. p. 512), d7rapTtcr//,os (aTrapTio-ts), 
/MeXiao-io^ (yu-cXiVcreios), TroraTros (TroSuTros, Lob, p. 56j, fjaa-iXicrtra 
(f3a<T iXeia)/' ^ot^^ttAis (jUoi;)(as, Lob. p. 452), fjiov6<f)6a\p.o^ (erf/uo- 
<pdaXpo<;, TiOb. J). 13G), KajLfxviiv {KO.Tap.vetv , Sturz p.' 173), ot/^i/xos" 
(oi^tos, Lob. p. 52), 6 TrXijatov (6 TTeAas), 7rposr)A.uTos (Ittt^Avs, \ alcK. 
«c? Ammon. p. 32), ffiva-Lova-Oai (<f>v(rav) be pvffed up (used figur. 
Babr. 114), drcvi^cii/ since Polybius for dTevt^eo-6'ai (Rost and Palm 
s. v.), iK)(vveLv (iK)(€eLv, Lob. p. 72G), rrr/jKoj (from l(Try]Ka stand, 
Buttm. II. 3G), d/ayo's as an adj. of three terminations (Lob. p. 105), 
TTct^os, vocraoi and voacnu. (veo(raroL veoaatd, Th. M. p. 626, Lob. 
]). 20G), ireTa.op.aL (TriroiJiaL, Lob. p. 581), dTTcXTTi^en' (d7royivco(TK€iv), 
e^v7ri't'^€t»' (d(/)i;7n/i^eti/, Lob. p. 224), pavTi^fLV (paiueiv), heKarovv 
(8eKaT€veLv), dporpiav {apovv, Lob. p. 254), ^t/3Aapt8iov * (/?t^At8iov, 
fSi^XiBdpLou), xj/L^^LOV (xj/ii), rap.€Lov (ra/xietov, Lob, p. 493), Kara- 
TovTc^eiv (xttrtXTrovTOW, Lob. p. 361), irapaffipovia (Trapn<f)po(rvv7]),* 
TTTvov {iTTeox', Lob. p. 321), ^LOvpicrTrfs {ij/Ldvpwi, Til. M. p. 927), 
hiTapLov, and most of the diminutives in apiov, as TraiSdpiov, ovdpuw 
(Fritz. Mark, p. 638). 'AKp6/3v<xTo% and aKpo^varia are purely Alex- 
andrian, liaving been first used by the LXX (Fritz, lioin. I. 136). 

For verbs in px we find forms in to pure, as opLvvm for op.vvp.t (Tli. 
M. p. 648). Compare also ^vpoM for ^vpe^a (Th. M. p. 642, Pliot. 
Lex. p. 313, Lob. p. 205, and ad Soph. Aj. p. 181), the present 

(iapiu) for papvvd) (Til. M. p. 141), crapoCv for craipeiv (Lob. p. 83), 
XoA.ai/ (xoXovaOai), i^uv etvai for e^eii/ai (Foertscli, De locis Lvsice, 
p. 60). Verbs used in the older written language as middle or de- 
ponent now receive active forms ; as Kftpvaa-auv A. iv. 25 (from Pf<. 
ii. 1), dyaXXiav L. i. 47, eiayycXi^eLV [Rev. X. 7, 1 Sam. xxxi. 9], 
Lob. p. 268. Compound verbs, where the meaning itself was not 
extended by the prepo.sition, were preferred to the less graphic and 
less sonorous simple verbs ; ■* and, as sometimes even compound 

' [See Ellicott on Ph. iv. 6. J 

- [And oixeihofj.niu.ee, Lob. (. c. ; see Ellic. on E. ii. 21.] 

^ &'iu\i\d\-\y i'ifiiT(rtt.(Papyr. Taur. 9. \i)iionihpivs: compare further Sturz p. 173. 

* That, conversely, simple verbs were sometimes used instead of compound 
by later writers, Tisehendorf {Stud. u. Krit. 1842, p. ^>^f>) .seeks to prove from 
tlie phrase ^ouXrir Tifiyai, arguing that a classical author would have said /3. 
•rportfivai. But the two expressions prob.ably have clilfercnt meanings : see 
Kapliel on A. xxvii. 12. More probable examples would be two verbs quoted 
below under (e), lu-yfixTtZu* and haTflZ^nM — for whicli the written language 

has ■rafKhiiyf^i.xTiZ^iiv and ixhuTpi^iiv, — and raprapouv for Kararccprapovv. Simi- 
larly the Prussian law style uses Fuhrung for Aufiuhrung. [See Ti.s<;h. Prol(<). 
N.' T. p. 59 (ed. 7), where .several additional examples are given. The following 
are from the N. T. : ipuTciv Mk. viii. 5, xpu-^Tny Mt. xi. 25, apvvirairiai L. ix. 2'i, 
aipoiXi'f L. xxiv. 33, for which the more familiar I'Tiparav, a'jroKpv-rrnv, 
tt.-7ra.}Mr,<raa6u.i, rma.ipo'tZ,iiy, have been substituted in many M8S. J 


verbs did not appear sufficiently expressive, many double compounds 
were formed.^ For several nouns, mostly denoting parts of the 
human body, diminutive forms, losing their special meaning, came 
into common use in colloquial language ; as dtrlov (comp. Fischer, 
Proluss. p. 10, Lob. p. 211), 4>opTiov.^ Lastly, many substantives 
received a change in gender, wliich was sometimes accompanied by 
a change of termination : see § 8. liem. and § 9. Rem. 2. 
^ (c) Entirely new words and expressions ^ were framed, espe- 
cially by composition, — mainly in order to meet new wants : as 
OiWoTpLoeiria-KOTros,* dv6p(DTrdpe(TKO<; (Lob. p. 621), oX.OKXrjpo'S, dyevca- 
Aoyr^roSj* alfjiaT€K)(vaia* hiKaioKpiala, a-LTOfxerpLov, vvxOijpLipov (Sturz 
p. 186), TrXr}po<l)opia (Theophan. p. 132), KaAoTroictc (Lob. p. 199), 
al)(/j.aX<t)Ti^eiv and al^fj.aXu)Tev€iv (for alxp-dXiDTOv vouu', Th. M p. 23, 
Lob. p. 442), fiea-LTiveiv, yvfXvrjTeveiv, ayaOoTroulv (ayaOoepyeiv) for 
dya6bv ttouIv (Lob. p. 675), dyaAAiacrtc, opo6c(rta, ai'TiXvTpuv,* ck- 
fj.VKTr]pi(€iv* dX€KTopo(f>iovia (Lob. p. 229), aTTOKC^aA/^cii/ (Lob. p. 341), 
avTaTTOKpivea-OaL (^sop. 272, ed. De Fur.), i^nvOerciv (Lob, p. 182, 
fSchsef. Ind. ad yEsop. p. 135), eKKa/ccIv,** euSo/cta (Sturz p. 1G8, 

rritz. Rom. II. 370), OfiOid^etv* dyaOovpy^v, nyaOoicrvvTj, ^laaKoprrL- 
t,uv (Lob. p. 218), (Trprji'idv {rpvcfidv. Lob. p. 381), lyKpaTivofxai* 
(Lob. p. 442), oiKoSeo-TTOTT/^and oiKoSto-TroTctf/ (Lob. p. 373), XiOoftvXav, 
irpos^aytov {oxpov, Sturz p. 191), Xoyia, Kpdftftaro<; ((TKiuTTOvi, Lob. 
p. 63, Sturz p. 175), -ireiroidrjcrL^ (Lob, p. 295), cnrlXo'i (kyjXU, Lob. 
p. 28), fidfifjir} (TrjO-q, Lob. p. 133), pa(/)ts {fieXovij. Lob. p. 90), 
ay/3teAato9 (kotivos, JVlojris p. 68), dyvoTr}?* dyiorr]';,* iirevSvTrj^, 
(KTevux; and iKTevcia (Lob. p. 311), aTrapu^aros (Lob. p. 313). 

Under the last two heads, (d) and (e), certain classes of words 
deserve special mention. Later Greek was particularly rich in 

(1) Substantives in /ma, as KaToXvfxa, duraTroSofxa, KaTopOuifxa, 
pdiria-fia, yewrj/xa, eKxpay/xa (Lob. p. 209), •jSdTTTicrp.a,* ej/ToA/ia, [e- 

po(TvXr]fji.a :* see P^asor, Gram., pp. 571-574. 

(2) Substantives compounded with a-vv. as o-vfi/xaSrjT-q'i, a-vfnro- 
At'rr?? (Lob. p. 471).^ 

(3) Adjectives in tvo<;, as opOpivos (Sturz p. 186), TrpwiVos, KaO-qixtpL- 
v'<<:, ocTTpa/civo?, 8epii.dTivo<i (Lob. p. 51). 

(4) Verbs m oco, i^w, o^w, as duaKaivow, Ewapt'io), a(f)VTrv6to. SoAiooJ, 
igovSep oui,* or 6 euoo), opOpi^o)^* 8eiy//art^oj,* 6eaT[iL,(i)^ (f)vXaKiX<»* uiarLi'o), 

oKovTi^w, TTiXfKi^oj (Lob. p. 341), alptTito} (Babr. 61, Boissou. Anecd, 
II. 31 8), a-ivLo^o). 

^ Siebelis, Pr. de verb, compofi. qtwe quabuor purtH>. constant [Q\x<i\^^. 1832). 

' Also abbreviated forms of proper n-auies. which no doubt were pre- 
viously used in the popular language, were admitted into the written ; as 
'.\Xf|aj, ItccmIo. (for 'iffTa^'ia), iic. The derivatives of lixf^'^'^* were but slightly 
altered, as truvia^ivi, ^itoiaxtv;, for TailDxivs, &(;. (Lob. p. 307). 

* Many such words have been collected from the Fathers by Suicer, Sacra- 
Ohaen-att. p. 311 sqq. (Tigur. 11565). 

* in the written language iyKaxii* alone was used ; see Winer, Gal. p. .131, 
and Meyer on 2 C. iv. 1. ['E»*. occurs six times in Rec. but Ijfichm , Tisch. , 
Ellic, Westcott and Hort read iyx. (t»«. ) in every case. The Fathers use 
lyKKKuv. See Ellic. and Lightf. on G. vi. 9, Alf. on 2 C. iv. 1.] 

' [Sec EUicott on E. ii. 19 On Kti6u;, luentioncd below, see tllicott on G. iii 6 ] 


To these may be added the two presents formed from perfects, 
(TTTjKio (see above), y//i/yopw (Lob. p. 118). Compare also such ad- 
Veibs as Trai-rort (ciunayTos, e/cao-Tore, Sturz p. 187), vaiSioOev (eK 
TraioLov, Lob. p. 93), KaOws (Sturz p. 74), iravoLKL (iravoiKia., TravoiKrjcria, 

Lob. p. 515).^ 'Ecr^arws f^^Lv is a later phrase for xaKciJ?, iTovqpw<i 
ix^iv ^Lob. p. 389), and /coAoTrottli' (see above) was used for the older 
phrase^ KoAws ttouIv. 

That this list contains many words which were coined by the 
Greek-speaking Jews or tlie N. T. writers themselves — especially 
Paul, Luke, and the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews, comp. Origen, 
Oral. § 27 — according to the prevailing analogy of the time, will not 
be denied : compare particularly opOpi^uv (cpp'ri), kiOo/SoXeiv, al/jLareK- 
^vcria, crK\'i]pOKap8ia, (rKhr]poTpd)^rjXo<;, dyaOoepyav, 6p6oiroS(iV, 6p6o- 
TOfXiiv, ixo(ry(mroieiy, /jLeyoiKuxrvvrj, TaTreivocfipoaiJvrj, TrapaySaxT^s, Trarpi- 
OLpXV^i ayeftaAdyr/TOS, vttottoSiov (Sturz p. 1^9), )(^pvaoOaKTv\LO<;. And 

yet we cannot consider this point decided by the fact that no trace of 
these words has been found in the extant works of the Greek authors 
of the first centuries after Christ. Some of these works have not 
been examined : ^ besides, manj' words of the kind might be already 
current in ihe OT"dinary spoken language. Those words, however, 
which denote Jewish institutions, or which designate Gentile 
worshi]), etc., as idolatrous, naturally originated amongst the Greek- 
speaking Jews themselves: e.g. aKrjvoiniyia, €iS(x)X66vTOV, eiioiXoXarpeLa. 
Lastly, many words received among the Jews a ijiore specific mean- 
ing connected with Jewish u.sages and modes of thought ; as cV»- 
(TTpi(^icrdaL and iTTia-rpoff)-^, used absolutely, h'' converted, o/nversion, 
irposTJ\vT05, irfvrtjKnixTrj Pentecost, Koa-p.o'i (in a figurative sense), 
t^vXaKTYjpiov , iiriyafLJSpeviLv of the levirate marriage. On the pecu- 
liarly Christian words and forms, e.g. ySaimo-jtAa, see p. 36. 


These are in great measure limited to certain inflexions of nouns 
and verbs, v/hich either were entirely unknown at an earlier period, 
or were not used in certain words, or at all events were foreign to 
written Attic, — for the mixture of the previous!}' distinct dialects is 
seen in the inflexions as well as in the vocabulary of later Greek, 
The use of the dual became rare. 

There are few peculiarities of syntax. Certain verbs are construed 
with cases different from those which they govern in classical Greek 

^ That this popular Greek should have adopted with slight alterations 
certain foreign words (appellatives) belonging to the other languages spoken 
in the diti'erent provinces, is very natural, but our present general inquiry is 
not further concerned with the fact. On the Egyptian words found in the LXX 
and elsevvheie, see Sturz p. 84 sqq. Latin and Persian words have also been 
{lointed out in the N. T. : comp. Olear. de stylo N. T. p. 366 sqq. ; Georgi, 
Hierocr. I. 247 sqq. and II. (de Latinisviis aV. T.) ; Dresig, de N. T. Gr. Lati- 
nismis merito tt /aleo sii^pectis (Lips. 1726) ; Schleiermacher, Herm. p. 62 sq. 

* Most words of this kiiid appear later in the Byzantine writers, who abound 
in double compounds and lengthened forms of words. They especially delighted 
to revive in this way words which had been, as it were, worn out by use. 


(§ 31. 1, 32. 4) ;i conjunctions which were formerly joined with the 
optative or conjunctive only are now found with the indicative ; the 
use of the optative perceptibly declines, especially in the aratio obliqiui, 
the future part ciple after verbs oi go'iTig, sending, etc., gives place to 
the present participle or to the infinitive; active verbs with saurcV 
come into use instead of middle verbs, v\7here no special emphasis Is 
intended ; and there is a general tendencv to use the more expressive 
forms of speech without their peculiar force, and at the same time to 
strive after additional emphasis even in grammatical forms, — comp. 
/i€t^oT€/3os, ti/ain the place of the infinitive, &c. The later inflexions 
^vill be most appropriately noticed in .5 4. 

We cannot doubt that the late popular dialect had special pecu- 
liarities in diflferent provinces. Critics have accordingly professed 
to find Cilicisms in Paul's A\Titings, see Hieron. <id Algasiam Quocst. 
10, Tom. IV. p. 204 (ed. Martianay) ; but the four examples which 
this Father adduces are not conclusive,- and, as we know nothing of 
Cilician provincialisms from any other source, ^ the inquiry should 
rather be abandoned than be founded on mere hypotheses. Comp. 
Stolberg, De Cilicismis a Paulo umrpaiis, in his Tr. de Soloec. N. T. 
p. 91 sqq. 

Section III. 


The popular dialect of Greek was not spoken and written by 
the Jews without foreign admixture. The general charac- 
teristics of their mother-tongue — vividness and circumstantiality 
combined with great sameness of expression — -were transferred 
I'rom it to their Greek style, which also contains particular 
phrases and constructions derived from the same source. Both 
peculiarities, the general Hebraistic impress and the introduction 
of " Hebraisms," are more apparent in their direct translation 
from the Hebrew than in their original composition in Greek.* 

The Hebraisms (and Aramaisms) are more frequently lexical 
than grammatical. The former consist partly of words used in 
an extended signification, partly of whole phrases imitated from 
the Hebrew, and partly of words newly framed in accordance 

^ Compare Boissonade, Amcd. III. 136, 154. 

- Michaelis, Introduction I. 149 (Marsh's Transl.). 

* Compare however Sturz p. 62, [who assigns a Cilician origin to sxich 
forms as i'Xa/Sa, 'iipaya (see § 13. 1), and to the word viv'an, Li:v. xix. 27. The 
Cilicisms of which Jerome sjuaks are xaTavccpKZy ntif, *«Ta/3^a/3ji/'i(» nta, 
it6fci-rnt>v xiyu, and the use of ««L« in 1 C. iv. 3. See Schirlitz, Gruiidz. p. 26 ; 
Mulhich, Vnl;/. p. 17]. 

■* Herein lies an argument, hitherto little noticed, against regarding the N. T. 
text as a translation from the Aiamaic, — a translation, too, for the most part 
unskilfully executed. 


with Hebrew analogy, to correspond with Hebrew words simi- 
larly formed. Thus arose a Jewish Greek, which was in paet 
unintelligible to native Greeks/ and which they sometimes 
treated with contempt. 

AH the nations which after Alexander's death were subject to tlie 
Crinco-Macodonian rule, and gradually accustomed themselves to tJie 
Greek language of their conquprors even in the ordiaary intercoursH 
of life,— and especially the Syrians and Hebrews, — spoke Greek. less 
purely than native Greeks, imparting to it more or less the impress 
of their mother-tongue : see Salraas. De ling. Hell. p. 121, and com- 
pare Joseph. Ant. 20. 9.^ As the Greek-speaking Jews are usually 
denominated Hellenists, this oriental dialect of Greek, known by us 
only from the writings of Jews, is not unsuitably called Hdlenidic ; 
sec Buttm. I. G.^ By this name therefore, —first introduced by Sca- 
liger (Animadv. in Eus. p. 134), not by Drusius (ad Act. vi. 6) — the 
language of the LXX and N. T. (with the lAbri Pseudepigraphi and 
the apocryphal book?; of the N. T.) is specially designated. 

The Hebraisms of the N. T. (for it is to these, and not to the oriental 
tone which is manifest in the structure of sentences and the arrange- 

' Though L. de Dieu's opinion (Prcef. ad Grammat. Orient.), " facilius Eiiro- 

Kaeis foret Platonis Ari.stntelisqiie elegantiam iniitari, quam Platoui Aristotelive 
[. T. nobis interpretari," is ilecidedly an exaggeration. The abovt-inijiitionod 
circumstances, however, serve to explain in general the liberty whieh learneil 
Greek transcribers or possessors of MSS. often allowed, themselves to inako cor- 
rections for the sake of briuf^ing the diction nearer to Grecian elegance: see 
Hug, [ntrod. I. § 2 J. II. [Tregelles, Home IV. p. 54.] 

* It is well known that Greek subsequently became Latinhpd to a certain 
extent, when the Romans began to write in that language. The Latin colour- 
ing, however, is not very marked before the time of the Byzantine writers, 
even in translations of Latin authors, — such as that of Eutropius by Pifianius, 
of Cicero's Cato Maj. and Somn. Sclj>. by Theodorus (edited by Gotz : Niirnb. 
1801), —partly because Greek and Latin are much more nearly allied in stnioture 
than Hebrew and Greek and partly because these writers had studied Greek. 
[Spe<;imens of Latinising are given by Mullach, p. 51 sq.] 

3 This designation is entirely appropriate, and shotild be resumed as a 

technical term, for ixXtttivTr,; in the N. T. (A. vi. 1) denotes a Greek-.speaking 

Jew. (Examples, of tx? fin'^jiii rather than of i>.\nvnrT7i}, may be found in 

Wetstein IJ. 400, Lob. p. 379 sq.) The opinion of Salmasius, that in the N. T. 

a Hellenist means a proselyte to Judaism out of the Greek nation, is a hasty 

inference from 'A. vi. 5, and ICichstadt (u,i Mori Acrom. Herni. 1. 227) should 

not have adopted it. The controversy between D. Heinsius {Exercit. de ling. 

HelleniM. : Leyden, 1643) and Salmasius (IfrflenisUca, and Funus ling. Hell.., 

and OssUffjium limj. Hell. : Leyden, 1643) on the name dialectus Hellenistica, 

related even more to the word dialertuH than to Hellenistica : for the former 

word Salmasius (de HelleniM. p. 2.50) wislied to substitute character or 8tylv.s 

uUoticm. Compare also Tittm. Syn. I. 259 sij. Yet dialect {ha-XiKj-t! totik^) 

is not inadmissible as a name for the Greek spoken by the Hellenistic Jews, 

especially if the \vide meaning of the verb liaxiytirieu {e.fj. Strabo 8. 514) be 

taken into consideration. Other writings on this title {dial. Hellen.) may be 

seen in VfaXoh, Bihlioth. Theol. IV. 278 sq.. Fabric. Biblioth. Or. IV. 893 sq. 

(ed. Harles). Thiersch and Rost have begun to call the language of the Greek 

Rible the "ecclesiastical dialect," but this name is too narrow for the Jewish 

Greek of which we are speaking : the word dialect, too, is not suitable. [See 

Mullach, p. 14 ; Roberts, Discussions on the Gospels, pp. 156-176.] 


ment of words, that attention }ias ixsaally been directed) have been 
frequently and copiously coTleoted, especially by Vorst, Leusden, and 
Olearius ; ^ but no one has executed the work with sufficient critical 
precision. 2 Almost all writers on the subject are more or less charge- 
able with the following faults : — 

(a) Too little attention is paid to the Aramaic element in N. T. 
diction.^ It is well known that the language ordinarily spoken by 
the Jews of Palestine in the timeof Jesus was not the ancient Hebrew, 
but the Syro-chaldaic ; and hence Jewish Greek would necessarily 
receive from this dialect many of the most common expressions of 
ordinary life.* Olearius, however, of the older writers, has a special 
section de Chaldceo-Syriasmis N. T. (p. 345 sqq.) ; corap, also Georgi, 
Hierocr. I. 187 sqq. More recently much relating to this subject has 
been collected by Boysen, Agrell, and Hartmann.^ Some earlier 
writers had occasionally directed attention to Aramaisms : sfo 
Michaelis, Introd. 1. 135 sqq, (Trans!), Fischer, ad Leiisd. p. 140, 
Bertholdt, Einleii. Part I. p. 158.— Under this head come also the 
(few) Rabbinisms ^— rmostly school-terms, such as may have been 
current amongst Jewish doctors as early as the time of Jesus. For 
illustrating these very much material may still be extracted from 
Schoettgen's IIorcB Hebraicce. 

(b) The diflFerence between the styles of different authors was 
almost entirely lost sight of. To judge from the collections of these 
writers, every part of the N. T. would seem to be equally pervaded 

* Leusden, Phllol. Hebr., from which the Dissertat. de dialectis N. T. sing, 
dc ejus Ilebr. was reprinteil in a separate form by .1. F. Fischer (Lip.s. 1754, 
1792). Olearius, Z)e s^/yto iV. jT. p. 2:52 sqq. Coniparealso Hartunann, Linguist, 
Einl. in das Stud, des A. T. p. 382 sqq. Anm. 

'■^ A complete work on this subject, executed with critical accuracy and 
on rational principles, is therefore greatly needed. Meanwhile, our thajiks are 
due for the commencement recently made by?). E. F. Bockel, De Hcbraisttiis 
N. r. Spec. I. (Lips. 1840). 

•' Many of the peculiarities adduced by the Hebraists might be either 
Hebi'aisms or Aramaisms : e.g. iJ; as indef. iirticle, the frequent use of tiva.t ivith 
the partic. in the place of a finite verb. It is better, however, to regard these 
and similar expressions as Aramaisms, since they occur much more frequently 
ajid regularly in Aramaic, and in Hebrew are almost confined to those later 
writings whose style approaclics the Aramaic. The N. T. alone is directly 
referred to in what has Just been said, for there are but few Aramaisms in the 
LXX ; comp. Olear. p. 308, Gesenius, Isaiah I. 63. 

* To such ex[>ressions the Aramaic element in N. T. Greek is substantially 
confined. The religious expressions w?ere derived from the ancient Hebrew, the 
sacred language, either directly or (in the case of most of the Jews out of 
Palestine) through the medium of the LXX. To the former category belongs 

also the use of SataTo; * for pestilence^ Rev. vi. 8, xviii. 8 (j^niD V n^n ):corop. 
Ewald, Covun. in Apoc. p. 122 [p. 139]. ' '" 

'•' Boysen, Krit. Eilduterungm des Grundiextes d, N. T. atts der sf/r. Ueber- 
seUung (Qucdlinb. 1761) : Agrell, Oratio de diet. N. T. (Wexion. 1798), and 
Odcla S^r. pp. 53-58 (Lund. 1816) ; Hartmanh, I.e. p. 382 sqq. 

* Sue bleaiius, I.e. p. 360 sqq. ; Georgi, I.e. p. 221 sqq. 

" To fn»aTixet, in popular living Greek, is the ordinary term for the plague. 
E. M. 


by Hebraisms. Such uniformity is far from existing in fact ; and in 
tbis inquiry Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, James, and the author of 
the Ep, to the Hebrews, cannot possibly be considered together.^ 
Another question left unnoticed is the relation between the diction 
of the N. T. and that of the LXX. With all their similarity they 
have also many points of difference ; and, in general, the language 
of the N. T. is less Hebraistic than that of the LXX, which was a 
direct, and, in part, a literal translation from the Hebrew. 

(c) They included in their lists of Hebraisms much that was not 
foreign to Greek prose, or is the common property of many lan- 
guages ; and, in general, had nd clear definition of " Hebraism " to 
start from. 2 In fact, this word was used in three senses, to denote — 

(1) Words, phrases, and constructions, which are peculiar to 
Hebrew or Aramaic, nothing corresponding to them being found in 
Greek prose ; as a-TrXayxyt^eadaL, 6<f)iiXi^fj.aTa a^ievai, 7rp6s<t>Trov Aa/i- 
pdvfLV, otKoSofiiiv (in a figurative sense), TrXarvveiv rr/v KapSiav, 
Trop€V€(r6aL ottiVw, ov . . . ttSs (for ovSet's), iiofj-oXoyetcrOaL tivl and iy 
TlVl, &C. 

(2) Words, phrases, and constructions, which are occasionally 
met with in Greek writers, but which were in the first instance sug- 
gested to the N. T. writers by their native language : as a-Trepfia for 
proles (Schwarz, Comm. p. 1235), Hebr. y")T ; dvdyKr] distress (comp. 
Diod. Sic. 4. 43, Schwarz I.e. p. 81), Hobr. pivo, ni^^^Tp, nif^ mV; ipdyrdv 
request, as ^Xti' denotes both request and interrogate, comp. the Latin 
rogare (Babr. 97. 3, Apollon. Synt. p. 289) ; ctV dTrdvTrja-Lv (Diod. Sic. 
8. 59, Polyb. 5. 26. 8), comp. nsnpfj ; vepara t^s y^s (Thuc. L 69, 
Xen. A(/cs. 9, 4, Dio Chr. 62. 587), comp. yyi '<ddx ; x^^os for litttis 
(Her. 1. 191, Strabo, al.), comp. nstj' ; o-ro/xa of a sword (ns), comp., 
besides the poets, Philostr. Rer. 19. 4. So also the phfase h/Svaaa-Oai 
"XpuTTov — Dion. H. has TapKvvLov ivSva: — is formed on the model of 
piy IJ'3^, or the like. Gomp. above, p. 17. 

(3) Words, phrases, and constructions, which are equally common 
in Greek and in Hebrew, so that we may doubt whether they were 
used by the Jews as part of the popular Greek which they adopted, 
or because the corresponding words, &c., in their native language 
■yvere so familiar ; as <j>vXd(r(Teiu v6[j.ov, alp.a ccedes, dv-qp with appella- 
tives (dvip ^ovevs), Trats slave, p.€yaXvveLv pi'aise, Slwkuv strive after 
(a virtue).^ 

(4) Lastly, it must be owned that Hebraisms (Aramaisms) were 

"• The style even of the same writer is not always uniform. Tims Luke in his 
Gospel, where he was dependent on the Go.spel paradosis, has more Hebraisms 
than in the Acts ; and the falling off in the diction after the preface to his 
Gospel was long ago pointed out. The hymns and discourses also are more 
Hebraistic than the narrative portions : comp. e.tj. L. i. 13-20, 42-55, 68-79. 
The relation in which Luke stands to Matthew and Mark, as regards language 
and style, has not vet been clearly shown. 

2 See Tittmann, Syn. I. p. 269 sqq. ; DeWette, A. L. Z. 1816, No. 39, p. 306. 

' Many of the grammatical pTi(snomena adduced in Haab's grammar are of 
this kind. 


introduced into very many passages by the commentators themselves. 
Thus E. V. 26, tV pmian tva, nt^'S "i^'H'^V, see Koppe ; Mt. xxv. 23, 
Xapa eonrnvluin, after the Aram, nnn (see Fisch. ad Leusd. Dial. 
p. 52), or the Hebr. nnjpt:^ Esth. ix. 17, al. (Eichhorn, Einl. ins N. 
T. I. 528) ; Mt. vi. 1, Waioa-vvr} abns, after the Chald. nj?"!^ ; Mt. 

xxi. 13, Xrja-Tai traders (Fisch. I.e. p. 48). Connected with this was 
considerable misuse of the LXX ; e.g. L. xi. 22, <TKv\a supellex, 
comp. Esth. iii. 13 ; Acts ii. 24, wSTvcs vincula, comp. Ps. xvii. 6.^ 
Tlepav has even been rendered on this side of, like "iny (1) ! Compare 
further Fritz. Bom.. I. 367 2 

From what has been said it will be clear that the Hebraisms of the 
N. T. may be divided into two classes — ferfed and imperfect. By 
perfect Hebraisms we understand those uses of words, those phrases 
and constructions, which belong exclusively to the Hebrew (Aramaic) 
language, and which therefore Hellenistic Greek (i.e., the language of 
the N. T.) has directly received from this source.^ Imperfect He- 
braisms are thoae uses of words, those phrases and constructions, 
which are also found in Greek prose, but which we may with very 
great probability suppose the N. T. Avriters to have immediately 
derived from the Hebrew or Aramaic— partly because these writers 
were most familiar with their mother-tongue, and partly because the 
phraseology in question was of more frequent occurrence in Hebrew 
than in Greek. This distinction has been noticed by De Wette, who 
says {I.e. p. 319) : "Whether a phrase is absolutely un-Greek, or 
whether there exists m Greek a point of connexion to which the 
phrase can attach itself, makes an essential difference." 

We must however carry the investigation farther 1)ack, and consider 
especially the genesis of the so-called Hebraisms. The language of 
the LXX* cannot be made the basis of this inquiry : as a translation, 
it affords no certain evidence respecting the Greek which was freely 
spoken and written by Jews, and which had been acquired by them 
from oral intercourse. Nor can we in the first instance deal with 
the doctrinal parts of theN. T., because the religious phraseology of the 
Jews in Greek naturally attached itself very closely to the Hebrew, 
and found a model already existing in the LXX. If we wish to ascer- 

^ [Since ppjj^ {spoils) is translated by i'jrapxovra. in Esth. iii. 13, it was said that 

T T 

fKuXec, L. xi. 22, is used hnjoods " per Hebraismum ; " and similarly that u^Ins 
iai., A. ii. 24, means cords of deatlt, because in Ps. xviii. (xvii.) 5 T\V2 v3n 

(which hus this meaning) is rendered ui7ns iav. in the LXX.] 

^ In the title of Kaiser's Dlts, de. ling. Aram. ii..vi, &c. (Norimb. 1831), the 
word ahusu would be more in accordance witli truth than iihu. 

^ Such Hebraisms are thus dotined by Hlessig in the work cited above [p. 16, 
note '] : " Hebraismus est solius llebrsei sermonis propria loquendi ratio, cujns- 
modi in Grrecam vcl aliam linguain sinebarbarismisaspicionetransferre non licet." 
* The most important work that hg^ yet appeared on the linguistic ele- 
ment of the LXX is H. W. Jos. Thiersch, De Pentateuchi versione Alex, lihri 3 
(Erlang. 1840), from which, in the later editions of this grammar, many welcome 
illustrations have been received. But a complete examination of the la.tguage 
of the LXX is still very much needed. 


tain as exactly as possible the influence which the mother-tongue 
exerted on the Greek spoken by Jews, we must examine especially 
the narrative style of the Apocrypha, the Gospels,, and the Acts of the 
Apostles. In the first place, it is clear that it was the general character 
of Hebrew or Aramaic composition that was most naturally and 
unconsciously impressed — by original writers almost as much as by 
translators — on their Greek style. No one esgapes without difficulty 
from this general influence, which is, as it were, born with him ; only 
reflexion and practice can set him free from it. This general character 
consists : — 

(1) In vividness — hence the use of a preposition instead of the 
simple case, the latter construction being rather the result of abstrac- 
tion — and consequently circumstantiality of expression ; e.g. </>€T;y6rv 

airo TrposioTTOv tivos, iypa<p7] du'i ^^ctpo? tivos, iravres 'ITTo fiiKpov Jw? 
/xeyoAov, koI tdrai , . . kol iK^iui, aud the like ; the accumulation of 
personal and demonstrative pronouns, especially after the relative, 
the narrative formula koj. eyiv^ro, <fcc. 

(2) In the simplicity and indeed monotony with which the Hebrew 
constructs sentences and joins sentence to sentence, preferring 
co-ordination to subordination : hence the very limited use of con- 
junctions (in which classical Greek is so rich), the uniformity in the 
use of the tenses, the want of the periodic compactness which results 
from the fusion of several sentences into one principal sentence, and 
along with this the sparing use of participial constructions, so nume- 
rous and diversified in classical Greek. In historical narrative there 
is this marked peculiarity, that words spoken by another are almost 
always quoted in the direct form, as uttered by him ; whereas it is the 
indirect introduction of the speaker that gives so distinctive a colour- 
ing to the narrative style of classical authors, and that leads to the 
frequent and varied use of the optative, a mood which is almost un- 
known in Hellenistic Greek, 

From this general Hebrew iiifluence Jewish Greek necessarily 
received a strongly marked character. Many special peculiarities, 
howeA'^er, were derived from the same source, and it is to these that 
the name of Hebraisms is usually given. 

To begin with the simplest kind : — 

{a) The Greek word which expressed the primary meaning of a 
Hebrew word often received in addition its secondary meanings 
also ; compare epwraf, 7J«t^^ interrogate and request. Hence it would 

not be strange if the Jews had used BiKaioa-vvrj in the sense of abns, 
like npli*. More certain examples are, 6(f>tiXr)ixa peccatum, from 
the Aram. 2in ; vv{ji(^rf (bride, also) daughter-in-law, Mt. x. 35, as 
n'jQ has both these meanings (Gen. xxxviii. 11, LXX); els for primus 
in certain cases, like "inx ; i^ofxoXoyiLo-daCTiyL to praise (giving thanks), 
like ^ nnin (Ps. cv. 47, cxxi. 4, al., LXX); ivXoyeZv bless, i.e. make 
happy, like ?j"i3 ; ktio-is that which is created, creature, compare the 
Chaldee nna ; 8o^a in the sense of hightness, splendour, like *7i33 ; 
8wa/xeis miracles, ni"i^33. The transference of a figurative sense is 
most frequent ; as -n-oT^piov sors,portio, Mt. xx. 22 (Dia); a-KovZaXov 



stumbling block, in a moral sense (i'iK'sp) ; yXwao-a for nation (j\'^7) ; 
XetAos for language (nob*); ivdi-mov tov Oeov (nin^ ''JD^) according to God's 
judgment ; KapBia evOeia (pif'') ; TrcpL-rraTelv walk, of a course of life ; 
68os (^"I'n), comp. Schsefer, Trod ac? j^sop. p. 148 ; dva^ejaa, not 
merely what is consecrated to God, but (like the Hebrew D^n) what is 
devoted to destruction, Eom. ix. 3, Dt. vii. 26. Jos. vi. 17, al. ; 
\v€iv, Mt. xvi. 19, declare lawful, from the Rabbinical -|"'rin, 

(b) Certain very common vernacular phrases are literally translated 
into Greek : as Trpo'swTroi' XafiftdvcLv from D"'J3 t^b'J ; CoTiiv ^Iroxw ^^^^^ 
C'SJ C'l^a- TTOieli' eXcos (xapti') /tAcra Tivos from DJ? SdH Plb^J?; dvotyetVTOvs 
64>6a\fJLOv<i or TO o-To'/xa Ttvo? (ni53) ; yevecrOai Oavdrov, iiPi^p Dyn (Talm.); 
apTov ffiayelv coenare, avh ^SX; at/xa c/cxe'tif, D^ "ij?^, kill/ dviCTrjfii 
a-rrepfjia tivc from h JTlT 2^7} : i^tos Oavdrov from DID-JS (ot rtot tou 
vvp.cfiwvo's) ; KapTTos oo-^vos from D^V^n na ; >cap7ros KoiXtas from Jtsa ""IS; 
eiipx£(TOaL Ik Tr]<; 6(r<f>vos rivds from 'd ''V^n'O NV^ ; e/c KOtAtas p.-qTp6<; from 
ias p2D-^ 6(^ctA77/Aa ct^teVat from xniH p^C' (Talm.) ; also a-Trjpi^civ 
TTposw-n-ov avTOV from V3S D'^bn • Tracra (rap^ from ~IK^II~73. 

(c) Reflexion and contrivance are more apparent in the formation 
of Greek derivatives, that vernacular words which belong to the same 
root may be similarly expressed in Greek : as oXoKavTw/xa (from 
oXoKavTOVv, Lob. p. 524) for npy ; o-TrAayxviCeo"^^' from o-TrAdyxva, as 
Dm is connected with D^Oni • aKavSaXi^etv, crKavSaXt^ecrdat, like b^'^i, 
^'•K'an ; lyKaiv[t,f.iV from iyKaivta, as "^^n is connected with n3j3n ; 
avaOefjMTileiv like D"'nnn ; opOptt^iv like D-SK'n ; and perhaps ivtDTL^e- 
tr6aL like pTKH, comp. Fisch. ad Leus. Dia/. p. 27. This is carried 
still farther in TrposcoTroAiyTTTetv, for which the Hebrew itself has no 
single corresponding word. 

All this easily accounts for the Hebrew- Aramaic colouring which is 
so distinctly apparent in the style of the N. T. writers, who were not 
(like Philo and Josephus^) acquainted with Greek literature, and who 
did not strive after a correct Greek style. The whole cast of their 
composition, and in particular the want of connexion (especially in 
narrative), could not but offend a cnltivated Greek ear; and many 
expressions — such as dcfuivai oxfatXrjfjiaTa,^ irpo-io-xov Xafifidvetv, Aoyt- 

^ A similar Graecism in Latin is " a teneris unguiculis" (Cic. Fam. 1. 6. 3), 
wliich the Romans certainly understood, as KapTos x^'^'^'^h ^o^ instance, would 
undoubtedly be understood by the Greeks, though it might seem a somewhat 
strange expression ; comp. xaprros (ppitajr, Pind. Nem. 10. 22. Still less diffi- 
culty would be occasioned by xapvot xoixieti, since fruit was used absolutely 
for offspring by the Greeks (Aristot. Polit. 7. 16, Eurip. Bacch. 1305) and 
others, where the meaning was made clear by the context : comp. Ruhnk. ad 
Horn, in Cerer. 23. [In Eurip. Bacch. 1305 (1307) the word in 'ipvn : this 
word and ^aXej are not unfrequently used in this sense. On Kxp-rot, see Her- 
mann and Paley on Eurip. Ion 475 {Kap-jriiTp'o<poi).'\ . 

* Though even Josephiis, when narrating O. T. history after the LXX, is 
not altogether free from Hebraisms: see Scharfenberg, De Josephi et LXX. 
consensu, in Pott, Sylloge vii. p. 306 sqq. 
'In the sense of remitting sina, i.e. so far as tupu^-v/^irtt is concerned ; 


^icrdai €is 8iKaLO(rvvr]v, &c. — would convey to a native Greek either an 
erroneous meaning or no meaning at all.^ At the same time, it 
is easy to explain the fact that such Hebraistic expressions are 
less numerous in the free composition of the N. T. than in the trans- 
lation of the 0. T., and that, in the N. T. itself, those writers whose 
education was Hellenistic — Paul, Luke (especially in the second part 
of the Acts), John, and the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews^ — use 
fewer Hebraisms than those who properly belonged to Palestine 
(Matthew, Peter).' It is also obvious that the Hebraisms which 
we find in the language of the Apostles were not all unconsciously 
adopted.* The religious ex|)ressions — and these constitute by far the 
greatest portion of the N. T. Hebraisms — were necessarily retained, 
because these were, so to speak, completely imbued with the religious 
ideas themselves, and because it was designed that Christianity 
should in the first instance link itself to Judaism.^ Indeed there 
were no terms in the Greek language, as it then existed, by which the 
deep religious phenomena which apostolic Christianity made known 
could be expressed. '^ But when it is maintained^ that the N. T. 
writers always thought in Hebrew or Aramaic what they afterwards 
wrote in Greek, this is an exaggeration. Such a habit belongs to 
beginners only. We ourselves, when we have had some practice in 
writing Latin, gradually (though never entirely) free ourselves from 
the habit of first thiinkiag in our own language. Persons who, though 
not scientifically trained in Greek, yet constantly heard Greek spoken 
and very often — indeed regularly — spoke it themselves, could not but 
acquire in a short time a stock of words and phrases and a power of 
handling the language which would enable them, when writing, to 
command Greek expressions at once, without first thinking of verna- 

for aip<£»a/ remit, even in reference to offences, occurs Her. 6. 30, in the phrase 
i.(piitai ct'iTiat, and iptiXn/iara ifiivai debita remiUere (to remit what is due) 
is quite a common expression. In later Greek we find dipiivai t/w ttjv dlixiect, 
Plutarch, Pomp. 34, see Coraes and Schaef. in loc. A native Greek would also 
understand iCpitrxuv ;^a/wv, though it would sound strange to him in consequence 
of the use of the active for the middle ilp'trKifficti. 

1 Comp. Gatak. De stylo N. T. cap. 5. 

2 Comp. Tholuck, CommerUar, cap. 1. § 2. p. 25 sqq. 

3 The Grecian training of particulfir writers shows itself especially in the 
appropriate use of verba composita and decom,posita. 

* Van den Honert, Spnt. p. 103. 

^ Comp. Beza ad Act. x. 46. Rambach is not altogether wrong in saying 
(Inst. Herm. 1. 2. 2), "Lingua N. T. passim ad Kbraei sermouis indolem con- 
formata est, ut hoc modo concentus scripturae utriusque Test, non in rebus solum 
sed ipsis etiam in verbis clarius observaretur : " comp. Pfaff, Nott. ad Matth. 
p. 34 ; Olear. p. 341 sqq. ; Tittm. Syn. I. p. 201 sq.— Compare further J. W. Schro- 
der, De causis quare dictio pure OroEca in N. T. plerumqtie prcetermissa sit 
(Marb. 1768) ; also Van Hengel, Comm. in Ep. ad Phillpp. p. 19. 

* Some good remarks on this point are to be found in Hvalstroem, Spec, 
de usu Grcecitatis Alex, in N. T. p. 6 sq. (Upsal. 1794). Van den Honert even 
went so far as to assert, " Vel ipse Demosthenes, si eandem rem, quam nobis 
tradidenmt apostoli, debita perspicuitate et efficacia perscribere voluisset, 
Hebraismorum usum evitare non potuisset." 

7 By Eichhorn and Bretschneider (PrcBf. ad Lex. N. T. II. 12, ed. 2) ; but 
the latter has retracted this opinion, at any rate so far as regards Paul {Grundl. 
des ev. Pietism, p. 179). 


cular words and phrases to be afterwards translated into Greek.^ 
The parallel drawn between the N. T. writers and our beginners in 
Latin composition, or the (uneducated) German-speaking Jews, is 
both unworthy and incorrect : comp. Schleierm. Herrn. pp. 54, 59, 
257. It is also forgotten that the Apostles found a Jewish Greek 
idiom already in existence, and that therefore they did not them- 
selves construct most of their expressions by first thinking them out 
in Hebrew. 

Many Greek words are used by the N. T. writers in a special 
relation to the Christian system of religion (and even in direct 
contrast to Judaism), as religious technical terms. These appear to 
constitute a third element'of the N. T. diction— the peculiarly 
Christian.^ Compare especially the words (.pya (ipyd^ecrGai, Kom. iv. 
4), ■JTLo-Ti.';, iriarTeveiv ek Xpio-toV, or Tnareikiv absolutely, o/xoAoyia, 
BtKatoarvvT} and SiKaLovcrOat, cVAeyecr^at, oi KXrjTOi, oi tKAcKTOt, ol ayiot 
(for Christians), ol ttio-tol and ol ajria-Toi, oIkoSo/jl-^ and oiKoSofi^iv in 
a figurative sense, aTrocrroXos, cvayycAt^eo-^at and KrjpvTTetv used 
absolutely of Christian preaching, the appropriation of the form 
pdirTia-fia to baptism, perhaps kASj/ (tov) o-prov for the holy repasts (the 
Agape with the Lord's supper), 6 K6o-fxo<;, rj a-dp^, 6 aapKiKck in the 
familiar theological sense, and others Most of these expressions and 
phrases, however, are found in the O. T. and in Rabbinical writings ;* 
hence it will always be hard to prove anything to be absolutely 
peculiar to the Apostles, — brought into use by them. This apostolic 
element, therefore, mainly consists in the meaning and the applica- 
tion given to words ami phrases, and the subject scarcely lies within 
the limits of philological inquiry : compare, however, Schleierm. 
Herm. pp. 56, C>7 sq., 138 sq. In the region of history, Troo-xav sriffer 
and TrapaSiBocrOaL be delivered up (used absolutely) became established 
as technical expressions for the closing scenes of the life of Jesus on 

Grammatical Hebraisms will be discussed in the next section. 

^ How easily tlo even we, who never hear Latin spoken by native Romans, 
attain the faculty of at once conceiving in Latin " dixit verum esse," or "quain 
virtutem denionstravit aliis pracstare," and the like, without first mentally con- 
struing dlcit quod verum sit, or de qua virtute devi., quod en etc. Thinking 
in conformity with the genius of the mother-tongue shows itself particularly in 
phrases and figures which have become habitual, and which are unconsciously 
introduced into the foreign language. It was so with the Apostles, who 
regularly use, along with many Hebraistic expressions, numerous Greek idioms 
which are entirely foreign to the genius of Hebrew. 

2 See Olearius, De stylo N. T. p. 380 sqq. (ed. Schwarz}, Eckard, Technka 
Sacra (Quedlinb. 1716). 

3 To attempt to explain such expressions of the apostolical terminology by 
quotations from Greek authors (comp. Krebs, Observ. PrcBf. p. 4) is highly 
absurd. But, on the other hand, it is necessary to distinguish between the 
language of the Apostles, which fitill moved rather in th(! spjiere of 0. T. expres- 
sions, and the terminology of the Greek Church, which continually became more 
and more special in its meaning. 

* [On the Christian element see Westcott in Smith's Diet, of Bible, ii. 
p. 533 ; Fa.irbairn, Mermen. Manual, pp. 39 -AT) ; Schirlitz, Orxmdzii.ge, pp. 36-42; 
Webster, Syntax, p. 6 sq. ; also Crcnier, JSiblisdi-tfieolog. WOrterbiich der 


Section IV. 


In examining the grammatical characteristics of the N. T. 
diction, the two elements of IST. T. Greek must be carefully dis- 
tinguished. In grammar, as in vocabulary, the peculiarities of 
tlie later common Greek are the basis ; these however consist 
rather in certain forms of inflexion than in syntactical construcr 
tions. Mingled with these we find, but in very small proportion, 
Hebraistic expressions and constructions in connexion with all 
the parts of speech ; tlie main peculiarity being a predilection 
for prepositions, where the Greeks would have used cases alone. 
On the whole, K T. Greek obeys the ordinary laws of Greek 
grammar. Many peculiarly Greek idioms are familiarly used 
by the K T. writers (e.g. the attraction of the relative and of 
prepositions), and several distinctions whicli are entirely alien to 
Hebrew — as that l)et\v'een the negatives ov and firj, etc. — are 
strictly observed, though by mere instinct. 

'The grammatical structure of a language is much less affected by 
time than the use and meaning of its words. This may be verified 
in the case of almost every language whose development we can 
trace historically ; compare, for instance, the German of Luther's 
translation with that spoken at the present day.^ Greek is no excep- 
tion to this rule : the later common language is distinguished by few 
grammatical peculiarities, and these belong almost entirely to the 
accidence. We find in it especially a number of inflexions of nouns 
and verbs, which either did not exist at all in the earlier language, 
beingformed later by shorteningor lengthening the original inflexions, 
or which formerly belonged to particular dialects. The following are 
examples of the latter class : — 

(a) Attic inflexions : -t^eWt, ri/3ov\i]6r]v, i]aeXX.€, /Sov'Aci- (fiovXy), 


(b) Doric: -^ Ai/xos (for 6 X.), -^to) (Icttw), dc^eWrat (dt^eivrai). 

(c) -^olic : the 1 aor. opt. in eta, — which however was early 
admitted into Attic. 

(tZ) Ionic : yi^pei, (nr^ipr]<i, eiTra (1 aor.). 

As forms entirely unknown in earlier Greek must be mentioned 
— such a dative as vot, the imperative KaOov, perfects like lyvwKav 

neutesL Gracitat (2d ed. 1872,— translated by Urwick, 1878). Liineinann refers 
to Zezschwitz, Profangrdcitdt u. hihlisch. SprachgeiM : eine Vorl. iib. d. bibl. 
Umhildvng helltn. Btgriffe, hes. der psyckol. (Leipz. 1859).] 

1 [On the relation of the English of our Auth. Ver. to that now spoken, see 
Max Mailer, Lectures on Language, p. 35 sq. (1st series) ; Marsh, Lectures on 
the Eng. Lang. p. 443 sqq. (ed. Smith).] 


(for cyi'w/cao-i), second aorists and imperfects like KarcXiVoo-ar, tSo- 
Xioia-av, second aorists like etSa/xev, l^uyav, the future conjunctives 
(§ xiii. 1. e), the imperfect ^fjieda. To this head specially belong 
many tense-forms which are regular in themselves, but for which 
the older language used others ; as r/fidpT-qara for rjixapTov, av^m for 
av^avo), Tf^a from ^kw, <^ayo/i,at for eSo/xai : indeed the new tense- and 
mood-forms received by verbs from which earlier Greek, for the 
sake of euphony,- used but few forms, constitute a special feature of 
the later language. It should be added that several nouns received 
a new gender, as 7) ySaro? (for 6 p.), and some in consequence a 
twofold declension, e.g. ttAovtos, eXcos : see § 9. Rem. 2. 

The peculiarities of syntax in later Greek are less numerous, and 
consist mainly in a negligent use of the moods with particles. The 
following examples may be quoted from the N. T. : orav with a past 
tense of the indicative, d with the conjunctive, Iva with the present 
indicative, the construction of such verbs as ytvecrOat, KaraBiKd^eiv, 
with an accusative, of TrposKwav and 7rpos<jfca)iav with a dative ot 
the person (Lob. p. 463, Matth. 402. c), the weakening of Tm in 
such phrases as OeXio Iva, a^tos tva, etc., the extension of the genitive 
of the infinitive (tov ttouIv) beyond its original and natural limits, 
the use of the conjunctive for the optative in narration after past 
tenses, and the consequent infrequency o| the optative mood, which 
has entirely disappeared in modern Greek. Me'AAciv, OiXeiv, etc., 
are more frequently followed by the aorist infinitive (Lob. p. 747). 
Neglect of declension is only beginning to show itself; thus we find 
fi€Ta TOV Ev and the like (but as the result of design), see § 10. Rem. 
Later still we find particular instances of entire misconception of 
the meaning of cases and tenses : thus crvv takes the genitive in 
Niceph. Tad. (Hase ad Leon. Dmc. p. 38), oltto the accusative in Leo 
Gram. p. 232, and then in mt)dern Greek ; the aorist and present 
participles are interchanged in Leo Diac. and others. The dual (of 
nouns) is gradually superseded by the plural. 

The grammatical character of the N. T. language has a very slight 
Hebraic colouring. It is true that in grammatical structure Hebrew 
(Aramaic) differs essentially from Greek ; but this would rather tend 
to prevent the Greek-speaking Jews from intermingling with their 
Greek the constructions of their native language : a German would be 
in much greater danger of introducing German constructions into 
Latin or French. Besides, it is always easier to master the gram- 
matical laws of a foreign language than to obtain a perfect command 
of its vocabulary and to acquire the general national complexion 
of the foreign idiom : comp. Schleierm. Herm. p. 73. The rules of 
syntax are but few in comparison with the multitude of words and 
phrases ; these rules too — especially those fundamental laws on the 
observance of which depends correctness of style, not elegance 
merely — are much more frequently brought before the mind, parti- 
cularly in speaking. Hence it was not difliicult for the Jews to 
acquire such a knowledge of the grammatical framework of the Greek 
of their time (in which, indeed, some of the niceties of Attic Greek 


were unknown) as was quite sufficient for their simple style of 
composition. Even the LXX in most cases correctly represent a 
Hebrew construction by its counterpart in Greek.^ Only certain 
expressions of frequent occurrence are either (when the laws of Greek 
syntax do not forbid) rendered literally, e.g. the expression of a wish 
by means of a question, 2 S. xv. 4 ns /xe Karao-T-qo-ei KpiTrjv ; xxiii. 15, 
Num. xi. 29, Dt. v. 26, xxviii. 67, Cant. viii. 1 ;2 — or translated, 
if possible, in a way which is at least in harmony with Greek 
analogy, as Oavdrui airoOavela-Oi. Gen. iii. 4 ({^ncn T\\0\ Dt. xx. 17, 

1 S. xiv. 39, Is. XXX. 19 ; — or even translated by a construction in 
actual use in Greek (see however § 45), as Jud. xv. 2 fiia-wv i(ucrq- 
o-as, for nwJJ' Kbb, Gen. xliii. 2, Ex. xxii. 17, xxiii. 26, 1 S. ii. 25, 

al. ; compare also the infinitive with tov} Hebrew constructions 
which are altogether opposed to the genius of the Greek language 
are, as a rule, not retained in the LXX. Thus the feminine for the 
neuter is found in but few passages, where the translators have not 
suflBciently examined the original, or have anxiously sought for a 
literal rendering (e.g. Ps. cxviii. 50, cxvii. 23) ;^ and it is not pro- 
bable that they consciously used the feminine to represent the 
neuter. In other passages it is clear that they understood the 
Hebrew feminine to relate to some feminine noun or pronoun indi- 
cated in the context, as in Jud. xix. 30 : in Neh. xiii. 14, however, 
€v TavT-Tj is probably equivalent to the classical twut-q, in this respect, 
hoc in genere (Xen. Cyr. 8. 8. 5), or therefwe, — comp. ravrri on 
proplerea quod, Xen. An. 2. 6. 7 : see also 1 S. xi. 2. The combina- 
tion of the Hebrew verb with prepositions is the construction most 
frequently imitated : as ^eihio-dai Ittl tivl Dt. vii. 16, or i-n-t nva Ez. 
vii. 4 \_Alex.^, olKoSofxelv ev Tivt Neh. iv. 10 (2 i^^^), cTrepwrav ev KvpLio 

(nin"'2 hi^f) 1 S. x. 22, evSoKeh Iv TLVL (3 *^sn, Fritz. Rom. II, 371). 
These imitations certainly sound harsh in Greek, but in each case some 
possible point of contact might be found in a language so flexible.' 

^ Various Greek idioms had become quite habitual to them, such as the 
use of the article with attributive words and phrases after a substantive (» tcCpni 
i it olfavu, and the like), the attraction of the relative, etc. : the negatives also 
are alinost always correctly distinguished. The better translators furnish 
examples of the more extended, use of the Greek cases, as Gen. xxvi. 10, niKpov 
ixoifiriiti was within a little of kc. 

* Comp. Rom. vii. 24, and Fritz, in loc, who adduces similar examples 
from Greek poets. The formula with ■rus («») and the optat. or conj. is dis- 
cussed by Schsefer, -ad Soph. (Ed. Col. p. 523, and Melet. p. 100. 

* Hemsterhuis says (I.ucian, Dial. Mar. 4. 3) : " saepenumero contingit, ut 
locutio qusedam native Grseca a LXX interpretibus et N. T. scriptoribus mutata 
paululum potestate ad Hebrseam apte exprimendam adhibeatur." 

* The translator of the Psalms is, in general, one of the most careless ; 
that of Nehemiah is little better. — Aquila, who translated syllable for syllable 
(and e.g. absurdly rendered nX) the sign of the accijsative, by iru*), cannot at all 

be taken into consideration in any inquiry into the grammatical character of 
Hellenistic Greek. He violates the rules of grammar without hesitation for the 
.sake of a literal rendering ; as Gen. i. 5 £«aX£o-Ev « has tu (pwr) iifiipa. And 
yet he always uses the article correctly, and even employs the attraction of the 
relative, — so deeply were both rooted in the Greek language. 
' As in German, "bauen an etwas," "fragen bei," etc. 


But even if the LXX presented more instances of servile imitation 
of Hebrew constructions, this would not come into consideration in 
our inquiry respecting the N. T. As we have already said, the style 
of these translators, Avho usually followed the words of the original 
with studious exactness, and in some cases did not even understand 
their meaning, does not furnish the type of that style which Jews 
would use in conversation or free composition. In point of granunar, 
so far as the particular rules of the language are concerned, the 
N, T. is altogether written in Greek ; and the few real grammatical 
Hebraisms which it contains become hardly discernible. Amongst 
these we may with more or less certainty ' include, in general, the 
use of prepositions in ])hrases in which a classical writer would have 
been content with the simple case, as avoKp-vTmLv n ciTrd nvos, 
iadieiv airo rm' i/^i^^tcov, d^aios airo rov aLfjLaTO<;, koivwvos ci/ rivt, 
dpecTKetj/ and 7rposKin/€u/ evMTnov titos, euBoK^lv and OeXeiv ev rivt. 
Many examples of this kind, however, belong to the simplicity of the 
ancient style, and hence are also found in classic writers, especially 
the poets ; they are therefore not really discordant with the genius of 
the Greek language (e.g. vaveLv airo rtvos). More special and certain 
examples of grammatical Hebraism are the following : — 

{a) The verbal translation of Hubrew constructions which are 
opposed to the spirit of the Greek language ; as ofjLoXoyelv h> tui, 

yS/VeTTCti' airo slbi cavere a, irpo<i€6iTO 7ri[x\l/at., the formula d ^oOrjcrerai 

to express a negative oath. 

(/;) The repetition of a word for the purpose of indicating distri- 
bution, as Si'o Si'o, hinl, instead of uva Si'o. 

{c) The imitation of the Hebrew infinitive absolute (see above). 

{d) The use of the genitive of a noun expressing quality in the 
place of an adjective : — and probably also the remarkably frequent 
use of the infinitive with prepositions (and a subject in the accusa- 
tive) in narration. ' 

The constructions included under (a) and (Ji) may be considered 
jnire Hebraisms. 

When, however, we consider that by far the largest number of 
constructions in the N. T. are pure Greek, and that the N. T. writers 
have even appropriated peculiarities of Greek syntax ^ which are 
altogether alien to the genius of their native language — as the dis- 
tinction of the different past tenses, the construction of verbs with dv, 
the attraction of the relative, such constructions as oiKovofjLLav imri- 
(TTevfji-ai, the use of a singular verb with neuter plurals, etc.-=— we 

* As imaginary Hebraisms may be mentioned — the supposed plu7: excel- 
leMicp., the 3 e.-isenfup, the combinations which have been wrongly taken as 
periphrases for tlu; superlative (e.g. inUkTiyl TaZ hoZ), the use of the feminine 
for tlie neuter, and the pretended hypallage to. l>r,ua.Ta rtjs Z,uris ravrv; for tccutx 
ra pr/j.. r. tu^s. [See § 27. 3, § 29." Rem., g 36. 2 and 3, § 34. 3. Rem. 1, § 34. 
3. b.] 

* The more minute niceties of written Attic, it is true, are not found in 
the N. T. , partly because they were unknown in the popular spoken langunge, 
whii-h the N. T. writers always heard, partly because there was no place for 
tliL-se niceties in the siuiple style in which the N. T, is written. 


shall not be inclined to join in the outcry respecting the innumerable 
grammatical Hebraisms of the N. T. We may naturally expect to 
find the diction of the N. T. much less Hebraistic grammatically than 
that of the LXX and the Palestinian Apocrypha. That this really is 
the case will clearly appear, if we mark in the LXX the constructions 
which have just been mentioned as Hebraistic, remembering at the 
same time that many HebreAV idioms retained in the LXX do not 
occur at all in the N. T., and others — as the expression of a wish by 
a question — only in isolated instances, in impassioned language, 
.Such a periphrasis for the future as ca-o/xtti Stoovai, Tob. v. 14, is 
nowhere found in the N. T., nor is a siibstantive ever doubled to 
indicate each, every, as in Num. ix. 10, 2 K. xvii. 29, 1 Chr. ix. 27. ^ 

Of the peculiarities of particular N. T. writers very few are purely 
grammatical; the Apocalypse alone requires special (though not 
exceptional) notice in a N. T. Granmiar. 

It is evident that in the whole investigation of the grammatical 
character of the N. T. language differences of reading must be care- 
fully considered. Conversely, a thorough knowledge of the various 
lexical peculiarities of individual writers is an indispensable requisite 
for successful textual criticism. ■•^■ 

^ Yet in the better translated portions of the 0. T. and in the Palestinian 
Apocrj'pha we sometimes find Greek constructions where a N. T. writer would 
use a Hebraism : tlius in 3 (1) Esiir. vi. 10, Tob. iii. 8, the genitive is used with 
strict Grecian propriety. See farther Thiersch, Dc Pent. Alex. p. 95 .sq. 

^ [On the general character of N. T. Greek, see Ellicott, Aids to Faith, 
p. 457 sqq. ^ Westcott in Smith's Did. of Bible, [I. p. 531 sqq., and Introd. to 
Gospels, pp. 38-40 ; J. Donaldson in Kitto's Vi/clopcedia, II. p. 170 sq. (ed. 3); 
Scrivener, Criticism of N. T. c. viii. ; Green, Gram. c. i. ; Davidson, Bibl. Crit. 
p. 447 sq<p ; Webster, ,S>/nt. c. 1 ; Tregelles in Home's Introd. IV. pp. 8-23 : 
Fairbairn, 7/<u-wi. Man. ]>p. 12-45; Bieek, Introd. to N. T. I. pp. 58-83 (Trans!.). 
To the Gcnnan references may be added, A. Buttmann, Gr. p. xi, 1 sq. ; 
Schirlitz, Grundz. Part I. The differences of opinion chiefly relate to the rela- 
tive importance of the various elements which enter into the composition of 
N. T. Greek. Amongst the questions raised are the following : how much 
stress should be laid on the direct influence of the LXX (comp. Westcott in 
Diet, of B., I. c), — whether some of the peculiarities commonly called Hebra- 
istic should not rather be considered characteristics of the ordinary spoken 
language (see especially J. Donaldson I. c. ), — M'hether we may admit that the 
N. T. «y»tax betrays' the influence of the Latin (A. Buttm. I. c.). ilany of the 
coincidences between Moderu Greek and the Greek of the N. T. will be referred 
to in the following pages.] 

PART 11. 


Section V. 


1. The best MSS. of the N. T., like those of Greek authors 
generally,^ exhibit extraordinary variations of orthography, 
especially in particular words and forms ; and there are not 
always clear grounds for deciding which mode of spelling is 
correct. Editors of the text have to adopt some definite rule, 
and consistently adhere to it. On several points, however, 
though the work of collation has of late been executed with 
greater diplomatic exactness, a still more careful investigation 
of the MS. evidence is yet to be desired. To proceed to 
details : — 

(a) The use of the apostrophe to prevent hiatus is, in general, 
nmch less frequent in the MSS. of the N. T. and of the LXX 
than in the texts of native Greek authors (especially the 
orators'^). " Ay^a, apa, apa, ye, ifxe, ere, iva, mre, are never 
elided ; Be (before av) ^ and ovhe very seldom : Mt. xxiii. 16, 18, 
xxiv. 21,Eom. ix. 7,lC.xiv. 21, H. viii. 4, L. x. 10, 2 C.iii. 16, 
xi. 21, Ph. ii. 18, 1 Jo. ii. 5, iii. 17. Only the prepositions airo, 
Btd, eVt, irapd, /xerd, and the conjunction dWd, regularly suffer 
elision; the prepositions especially before pronouns and in 
phrases of frequent occurrence, such as qir dpyfi'i, — dvrl only in 
dv6' wv. Even here however MSS. vary, sometimes even the 
best, especially in regard to dWd. Thus we find in A and 

• See Poppo, Thxic. I. p. 214, Matth. 42. 

* Comp. Beiiseler, De hiatu in Script. Or. (Pt. I. : Friberg, 1841) ; De hiatii 
in Demosth. (ib. 1847). 

3 [At is always elided before av in the N. T., and not, I believe, before any 
other word ; for in Ph. ii. 18 we should probably read to l\ aura.] 


several other MSS., aX\a aX7}$eia<i A. xxvi. 25, aX,\a aTraxravTo 
A. vii. 3 9, aWa oySoov 2 P. ii. 5 ; also, in the best MSS., dWa v/u,d<i 
2 C. xii. 14, aWa vlof G. iv. 7. MS. authority is also in favour 
oi fi€Ta dv8p6<; L. ii. 36, fxera ec/coa-i xiv. 31, fierd diricnov 2 C. 
vi. 15, diro dvarokSiv Rev. xxi. 13, dnro dadev€ia<i H. xi. 34, 
diro ^ASd/j, Jude 14, 8ta etSov^; 2 C. v. 7. Compare also A. ix. 6, 
X. 20, xvi. 37, 2 C. iv. 2, v. 12, L. xi. 17 (eVi oIkov), Mt. xxi. 5 
(iirl ovov), etc. In L. iii. 2 eVt dp'^iepe(o<i, Mt. xxiv. 7 iirl 
€6vo<?, 1 C. vi. 1 1 dWd d'jreXovaacrde, dWd iBiKai(t)67]T€, the 
weight of authority is against the elision : in Eoin. vii. 13 aXV 
and dWd have equal support.^ As the Ionic dialect is distin- 
guished by indifference to hiatus, this peculiarity of N. T. Greek 
was formerly considered an lonism : in Attic prose however 
elision is sometimes neglected, though all the instances which 
Georgi (Hierocr. I. 143) produces from Plato may not be trust- 
worthy. See Buttm. I. 123 sqq. (Jelf 16 sq.).^ It is possible 
that the variations may have been guided by some principle : 
Sinteuis, for example, has reduced Phitarch's practice to rules 
(Plut. Vit. IV. 321 sqq.). So in the N. T. we might occasionally 
account for the absence of elision by reference to the writer's 
meaning ; not imagining however that the Apostles would 
bestow attention on such matters as these, but regarding the 
choice as the result of a natural instinct. But the risk of trifling 
would here be very great (Bengel on 1 C. vi. 11). 

In the poetical quotation from Menander, ] C. xv. 33, even 
Xachmann reads XPW^' 6/xiXiat Kanai (comp. Georgi, Hier. I. 186), 
although the best MSS. of the N. T. have the uneHded form xpWTdy 
which Tischendorf has received.^ 

(h) In regard to the final ? of oi;t<w9, fJ^^XP'-'^' ^"^ ^^® so-called 
V i<f)eXKU(rriK6v,* the editors have for the most part followed the 
ordinary rule, which, however has been limited by recent gram- 
marians : see Buttm. I. 92 sqq. (Jelf 20). A more prudent 
course is to follow the best MSS. in each case: accordingly recent 

^ Comp. also Sturz p. 125. 

* See also Heupel, Marc. p. 33 ; Benseler's excursus to his ed. of Isocr. Areop. 
p. 385 sqq. ; Jacobs, ProB/. ad M\. Anim. p. 29 sq. ; Poppo, Tliuc. III. ii, 
p. 358. 

3 [Lachm. reads x?*!"^, not xf'*'<'^ [Rec.) : see Jelf 63. 2.] 

* See Voemel, De * et $ adductis Uteris (Frankf. on M. 1853) ; Haake, 
Beitrdgez. griech. Grammat. 1 Heft. [Lobeck, Path. Elcm. II. pp. 158-218; 
Kiihner I. 227-232 ; G. Meyer, Gnech. Gram. pp. 259-264.] 


editors of the K T., following tlie uncial MSS./ uniformly 
i-eceive oi5t<u9 and the v hi^^XKva-TLKov? Classical philologers 
have endeavoured to discover some fixed principle which might 
determine the preference of one or the other form in Greek 
prose/ and it is not in itself improbable that the more careful 
writers would be guided by euphony (Franke in Jaim's Jahrh. 
1842, p. 247) and other consideration?* though ancient gram- 
marians afifirm (Bekk. Anecd. III. p. 1400) that even in Attic 
Greek the v was inserted before both consonants and vowels 
without distinction (Jacobs, Prccf. ad JEi. Anim. p. 23 sq.), and 
the MS. evidence contirms this assertion.* On /^expi' and 
P'^XP'''*' ^XP'' ^"^ ^XP^^> ^"^ particular, see Jacobs, Achill. Tat. 
p. 479. According to the grammarians f^^XP'' ^^^^ ^XP'' ^^^ ^^^^ 

1 Tisch. Prcef. ad N^. T. p. 23 (eJ. 2) : [p. 53, ed. 7.] 

^ [Of recent editors Tregelles and Alford adhere to the principle of writing 
cItk; before consonants : Tregelles invariably, Alford except in Mt. vii. 17. 
Lachmann followed the evidence presented in each passage, but was often led 
astray bv imperfect collations : he admitted outu in A. xxiii. 11, Ph. iii. 17, 
H. xii. 21, Kev. xvi. 18, Rom. i. 15, vi. 19, 1 C. vii. 40. Tischendorf in ed. 7 
admitted outu once only (Rev. xvi. 18), but in ed. 8 agrees with Lachmann in 
the first four of the passages quoted above. Westcott and Hort omit the ; ten 
times ; viz. in Mt. iii. 15, vii. 17, Mk. ii. 7, A. xiii. 47, xxiii. H, Rom. i. 15, 
vi. 19, Ph. iii. 17, II. xii. 21, Rev. xvi. 18. In A. xxiii. 11 and in Ph. iv. 1 
this word is followed by <r : in Ph. iv. 1, however, all recent editors (apparently) 
read e'vra;. — The v 'i(ptX«vffTHiev is naturally dealt with upon the same principles. 
Again we find veiy great uniformity in the texts of Tregelles and Alford, who 
almost invariably insert the ». The few exceptions I have noted are nearly all 
found in plural datives. Thus luiri is received by Tregelles in Mt. vi. 24 and 
L. xvi. 13, by Alford in L. xvi. 13 and A. xxi. 33 ; other examples inAlford's 
text will be found in A. xvii. 25, xxi. 33, Rom. ii. 8. Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
Westcott and Hort omit the n somewhat more freely, following the evidence in 
each case. Thus Lachmann reads vtart five times and iu»-/ four ; Tisch. (ed. 8), 
vcctrt fiVH times and Iviri three. In the text of Westcott and Hort crSff/v occurs 
before a consonant forty times, Tan fourteen ; Ji/ir/v and ^uai each three times. 
See also Mt. vii. 15, xx. 12, A. ii. 22, x. 41, xxi. 33, Rom. ii. 8, 2 Tim. iv. 8, 
where the » is omitted in the dative plural by one or more of these editors. In 
verbs the omission is apparently very rare. In Lachmann's text examples 
will be found in L. i. 3, 9, A. ii. 6, vii. 25 ; in Tischendorf's, in L. i. 3, 9, Jo. 
X. 14. Westcott and Hort omit v in these passages except A. vii. 25, and read 
uTixuvrt, i<TTi, in Mt. vi. .5, 25 : in their text of I^omans, if I mistake not, there 
arc in all not more than eight instances of omission, — five in the dative plural, 
three in verbal inflexions (xartx^/vt, Wtfiivuiri, llaTar'Zcri). In many instances, 
however, the alternative reading is given in their Appendix. See Scrivener, 
Crilicma, p. 486 sq^i., Cod. Shi. p. liv, A. Buttm. Gr. p. 9.] 

' Bornem. Dc (jem. Cyr. reo. p. 89 (with whom Poppo agrees, Jnd. to Cyr.) ; 
Frotscher, Xen. IJitr. p. 9 ; Bremi, JEscli. Cles. 3, 4 j Schajf. Dtm. I. 207 ; 
Miitzner, Antiph. p. 192. 

■* We are not here concerned with the much-disputed questions, whether ourui 
(.Sch«'f. Pint. V. 219) or ouru (Buttm. II. 264) was the original form, and 
whttther v i(pi\K. really belongs to the forms to which it is attached : see Rost, 
p. 47; Kriiger, p. 31*. [Don. })p. 53, 80, 193; Lobeck v.s. p. 203; Curtius, 
Gramh. p. 54, Grcel: Verb, p. 41 (Trans.).] 

^ Comp. also Bachmann, Lycopln: I. 15C ; Benseler, Isocr. Areop. p. 185^ 


Attic forms, even when a vowel follows (Th. M. p. 135, Phryn. 
p. 14, comp. Bornem. Xen. Cyr. 8. 6. 20); and though good 
]\1SS. of Attic authors are not unfrequently on the other side, 
this rule has been followed by modern editors. Comp. Stallb. 
Plat. Phmd. p. 183. ^ymyos. p. 128, Schref Plid. V. p. 208, 
and see on the whole YAoiz, Bevar. p. 231. In the N. T. the 
best MSS. have i^'^xpi' invariably : axpt before consonants and 
sometimes before vowels, A. xi. 5, xxviii. 15 ; but a%pt«? ov is 
best supported in Rom. xi. 25, 1 C. xi. 26, xv. 25, al. (also 
in A. vii. 18).* 

The MSS. vary also between t'Kom and ci/cocrir, but tlie best are 
said to omit the v, see Tisch. Praef. ad N. T. p. 23, [Proleg. p. 54, 
ed. 7] ; the matter is but seldom noticed in the apparatus. In 
A. XX. 15 most authorities have dvTiKpu?, not avTLKpv; on this see 
Lob. p. 444, Buttm. II. p. 366. 

(c) In compounds whose first part ends in 9, Knapp — after 
Wolf {Lit. Analect. I. 460 sqq., comp. Krtig. p. 11) — intro- 
duced the practice of writing 9 instead of or, as u)<;7rep, 09x49, 
Su9/co\o9, eUc^yepetv : he has been followed by Schulz and 
Fritzsche. Matthife's objections (§ 1. Rem. 5), however, 
deserve all attention ; and no value should be attached to this 
orthographical rule, especially as it has no historical basis. 
Schneider in Plato and Lachmann in the N". T. write Mcrvep, 
da-uKoveiv, &c. ; Hermann prefers 9. That 9 would be inad- 
missible in such words as irpea^vrepo^i, /SXaa^rj/xecv, reXecr- 
^opelv, is obvious.^ 

(d) Of more importance than all this is 'the peculiar spell- 

ino- of certain words and classes of words, which is found in 

the MSS. of the IST. T., and has been received into the text 

by Lachmann and Tischendorf in almost every case. This 

includes peculiarities of the Alexandrian orthography and 


1. For ei'CKa we sometimes find in the MSS. (and in Rec.) the 
properly Ionic form (.IveKa or ^tveKcv (Wolf, Dem. Lejpt. p. 388, Georgi, 
Rier. I. 182), as L. iv. 18, 2 C. iii. 10, vii. 12 ; and elsewhere lviK€v, 
as Mt. xix. 29, Rom. viii. 36. The authority of good MSS. must 

^ [Before a vowel (iiXf occurs in L. xvi. 16 (Tisch., al.), fiixpn in Mk. xiii. 30, 
11. xii. 4 (G. iv. 19) : before a cons. ftixP' is always used. In TLsch_. (ed. 8) Hxpt 
occurs fourteen times before a vowel, axp'i twice only : axp'i «« is much less 
common than axP' ""• On these words see Lob. Path. El. II. 210.] 

2 [In ed. 8, Tisch. WTites »• even at the end of a word. See further Lip.sius, 
Grammat. Untersiichungen iiber die bibl. Qrcicitat, j). 122 (Leipz. 1863).] 


alone decide here, comp. Poppo, Cyrop. p. xxxix and Index s. v. "with 
Buttra. II. 369 ; for the N. T., at any rate, no rule can be laid down 
for the distinctive use ^ of the two forms. ^ 

2. For kvvevrjKovTa, Mt. xviii. 12, 13, L. xv. 4, 7, we should 
rather write IvfvrjKovra, in accordance with good MSS. of Greek 
authors and of the N. T. (e.g. D) and with the Etym. Magn. : see 
Buttm. I. 277, Bornem. Xen. Anab. p. 47 (Don. p. 144). "Eraros 
also — a form very common in Greek prose,^ and also found in the 
Rosetta inscription (line 4) — is supported by good MSS. in Mt. xx. 5, 
xxvii. 45, L. xxiii. 44, A. x. 30, al. : compare also Rinck, Lucub. 
p. 33. "Evaros was preferred by as early a critic as Bengel {Appar. 
ad Mt. XX. 5). 4 

3. The Ionic forms (Matth. 10. 1) Ti(ra-€pe<;, Teo-crepaKovTa, are some- 
times found in good MSS., especially A and C (e.g. in A. iv. 22, 
vii. 42, xiii. 18, Rev. xi. 2, xiii. 5, xiv. 1, xxi. 17), and have been 
received into the text by Lachmann and Tischendorf. The same' 
forms often occur in MSS. of the LXX (Stui-z p. 118). In 
these documents, however, a and e are frequently interchanged ; 
and such readings as eKaOepia-Oij Mt. viii. 3, iKaOepia-diqa-av L. xvii. 14, 
KeKadepia-fXivovi H. X. 2 (A), will hardly be preferred by any 

4. BaXavTiov. In all the places in which this word occurs (L. x. 
4, xii. 33, xxii, 35, 36) good MSS. have /SaXXavrioi/, and this form 
is received by Lachm. and Tischendorf. In MSS. of classical authors 
also we find the doubled A, both in ^aXXavriov itself (Bornena. Xen. 
Conv. p. 100) and in its derivatives, and Bekker has received it 
in Plato ; see however Dindorf, Aristoph. Ban. 772, Schneider, Plat. 
Civ. I. p. 75, III. p. 38. — Kpal3j3aTos is but seldom written with a 
single /3, and then usually Kpa./3aTTo<;.^ 

5. On vTroTTtd^u} (uTroTric'^w), a various reading for vTrtoTria^o) (from 
vTrttiTTLov), L. xviii. 5, 1 C. ix. 27, see Lob. p. 461. It is probably 
no more than an error of transcription ; for the more characteristic 
vTTWTria^w certainly proceeds from Paul, and has long stood in the 
text. — Whether we should write dvcoyaiov or avdyaLov can hardly be 
decided, the authorities for each being nearly equal : the former is 

• Weber, Deinosth. p. 403 sq. On this see also Bremi, Hxc. vi. cut Lysiam, p. 
443 sqq. (Jelf 10. Obs. 2.) 

2 ["Eyi*a is found three times in Rec, twice in Tisehendorfs 7th edition, five 
times in his 8th : for s'/vsxi* see L. iv. 18, 2 C. iii. 10, L. xviii. 29, A. xxviii. 20. 
Elsewhere 'iviKiv is the form used, before both vowels and consonants : i'Iviko. is 
not mentioned in Tisehendorfs apparatus. ] 

3 See Schffif. Melet. p. 32 ; Schol. ad Apoll. Argon. 2. 788. 

* [Of both these forms Tisch. {Proleg. p. 49, ed. 7) says, " plenissimam ubique 
auctoritatem habent : " i»6v>j*a»Ta indeed has the support of all the uncial MSS.] 

6 [Tisch, in ed. 7 received 'tKxhp. in Mt. viii. 3, Mk. i. 42, L. iv. 27, A. x. 15 ; 
in the first two passages he retains this reading in ed. 8. See his notes on L. iv. 
27, A. X. 15. K never has this form ; B in these two places only. — Tisch. receives 
TitrrtpaK. (on very strong authority) and Tirirtpa. throughout, but never riirfipts 
or Ti(r(ripa.(. In ed. 7 he admitted the latter form in Rev. iv. 4, vii. 1.] 

\ [In the N. T. *pa/3«TT»y is now generally received. J 


derived from the adverb avco, the latter from avd (Fritz. Mark, p. 
611) j see also Lob. p. 297.^ 

6. UavoiKi, A. xvi. 34 (comp. Plat. Erycc. 392 c, Msch. Dial. 2, 1, 
Joseph. Ant. 4. 4. 4, 3 Mace. iii. 27), is the only word in the N. T, 
connected with the well-known dispute respecting the adverbial 
ending i or ei : see Herm. Soph. Aj. p. 183, Sturz, Opiisc. p. 229' 
sqq. Perhaps Blomfield (Glossar. in -^sch. From. p. 131 eq.) is 
right in adopting i for such adverbs, when derived jfrom nouns in 
OS, — hence vavoiKL (properly iravoiKoi, which is the reading of some 
MSS. in this passage).^ Yet the MSS. are almost always in favour 
of €1 ; see Poppo, Thuc. II. i. 1540, Lob. p.. 515. 

7. Should we write AautS or AayffiSI See Gersdorf, Sprachch. 
p. 44, who leaves the question Undecided, but is in favour of Aa^i8. 
The abbreviation AaS is the most common form in the MSS. : where 
however the word is written in full, the eldest and best MSS. have 
AartS (AaveiS), and this orthography — which was long ago preferred 
by Montfaucon {Palceogr. Gr. 5. 1) — -has been received by Knapp, 
Schulz, Fritzsche, and Tischendorf. Lachm. always writes Aav«'8. 
Compare further Bleek on H. iv. 7.^ 

8. The name Moses is written Miovarjs in the best MSS. of the 
N. T., as in the LXX. and Josephus ; and this form has been adopted 
•by Knapp, Schulz, Lachm.,'* and Tischendorf. Still it may be a 
question whether this properly Coptic form, which is naturally found 
in the LXX, should not in the N. T. give place to Mwcr^s (Scholz), 
which comes nearer to the Hebrew and was at all events the more 
usual form, which also passed over to the Greeks (Strabo 16. 760 
sq.) and Romans. On the diaeresis in Monxrrj'i, which Lachm. omitfe, 
see Fritz. Rom. II. 313. 

9. As to KoAooro-at and KoXaao-at see the commentators on Col. i. 1. 
The first of these forms is found not only on the coins of this town 
(Eckhel, Dodr. numor. veif. I. iii. 147), but also in the best MSS. of 
classical authors (comp. Xen. Anah. 1. 2. 6) ; hence Valckenaer (on 
Her. 7. 30) declared himself in favour of it. In the N. T., however, 
KoAaoro-at is better attested, and is received by Lachm. and Tisch. : 
it probably represents the popular pronunciation.^ 

^ [The evidence which is now before us is strongly in favour of xviyaiot, which 
is received by most recent editors. Comp. Mullach, Vulg. p. 21.] 

* [Compare Kiihner, I. 726 (Jelf 342. 2). In A', xvi. Lachm. and Treg. write 
.*( ; Tisch., Westc. and Hort, -xs/.] 

3 [For a full statement of the MS. evidence see Tisch. on Mt. i. 1 (ed. 8). 
Aat/siS is adopted by Tisch., Tregelles,- ilford, Westcott and Hort; see Alford, 
Vol. I. Proleg. p. 95.] 

* [Except in Rom. ix. 15. Most of the best MSS. have i^iuffn; occasionally, 
but the fonn with v (or v) seems now generally received. Fritz, writes ca'u be- 
cause the Coptic original is a trisyllable, and tuItp, iavrov, &c. , are not really 
parallel : Tisch, {Proleg. p. 62, ed. 7) quotes MS. authority on the same side. 
See also Lipsius, p. 1 40. ] 

* [We now know that in Col. i. 2 B has KoXe(r(recT! a prima manu, so that S 
and B agree in this form here. In the title and subscription there is consider- 
able authority for KaXainraiTs. See Tischendorf s note, and especially Liglitloot 
on Colossians, pp. 16-18.] 


10. For evi'cos, A. ix. 7, it is better to write iveos (comp. avew?), 
according to the best MSS, 

11. The nn-Attic form ovOet?, ovOiv, is found in the N. T. in a 
few good MSS. only, L. xxiii. 14, 1 C. xiii. 2, 3, 2 C. xi. 8, A. xv. 9, 
xix. 27 ; firjOiuA. xxiii. 14, xxvii. 33 : see Lob. p. 181 [and Path. El. 
IL 344]. lb is also found in the LXX (Bornem. Act. p. 115), and 
on Greek papyrus rolls. 

12. 'WvOr], 1 C. V. 7 {Elz.), for which all the better MSS. have 
Irvd-q (Buttm. L 78, Jelf 31), is unusual, but rests on an unexcep- 
tionable retention of the radical ^' where there is no reduplication, 
like XiOoiOrivaL, KaOopOTjvai [1 KaOapOrjvaL] ; though both Oveiv and 
delvai, the only verbal stems that begin Avith 6 and form a 1 aor., 
change the radical $ into r in this tense (Lob. Parol, p. 45). The 
partic. 0v9€L<s, formed on the same analogy, occurs Dio Cass. 45. 17 ; 
in ^sch. Choeph. 242 the editions have rv^ct?. It is not unlikely 
that €$vOr] was written by Paul, and displaced by the tran- 

13. For ;)^eoj^€iXcT7j?, L. vii. 41, xvi. 5, the best MSS. have 
Xpeo</)ciAeT»;9, a form which Zonaras rejects, and which is found only 
once in MSS. of Greek authors : see Lob. p. 691. 

14. The aspirate for the tenu:s in i.<f>i8e A. iv. 29, and d.rf)tSu> 
Ph. ii. 23, is received by Lachm. on MS. authority. Other examples 
of a similar kind are icft' cXttlSl 1 C. ix. 10, d<fitXvLtovTe% L, vi. 35, 
oi^ oif/eaOe L. xvii. 22, ov)( 'lovSaiKw? G. ii. 14, oij^ oAtyo? A. xii. 
18, al. : comp. Bornem. Act. p. 24. Analogous forms are found in 
the LXX (Sturz, p. 127) and in Greek inscriptions (Bockh, Inscript. 
I. 301, II. 774), and are explained by the fact that many of these 
words (as cAttis, iSeiv) had been pronounced with the digamma.^ 

15. Ilpai;? and TrpavTrj's are the besi attested forms in the N. T., 
though Photius (Lexic. p. 386, Lips.) gives the preference to Trpaos : 
see however Lob. p. 403 sq.^ 

16. 'Ex^es (not x^^'?. Lob. Path. I. 47) was introduced into the 
text by Lachm. from the best MSS.^ 

^ [Amongst other instances may be mentioned iip' Ix-rlh Rom. viii. 20, A. ii. 
26, iips7?iy L. i. 25, ovx 'Soi' A. ii. 7. In some instances (as Ph. ii. 23, G. ii. 14, 
A. ii. 7, 26, Rom. viii. 20) the aspirate is well supported : it is received more or 
less frequently by Lachm., Meyer, Alt"., Ellic, Westcott and Hort, and Tisch. 
(esp. in ed. 7). Conversely, oiix is found before an aspirate in Jo. viii. 44, aux 
iffTfiiciv (Tisch., but see below, p. 106) ; so also L. xxiv. 3, A. iii. 6, in K and C. 
Similar examples are found in the MSS. of the LXX, as ovx. vTapxn Job xxxviii. 
26, Kaf o(p^aXf/,otJs Ez. XX. 14. (In Mt. v. 33, x has ifwpxrKrin , and Mullach, 
Vulg. p. 22, quotes l(piopxoiJvTi from Marm. Oxon. II. 1. 69. 78 : 8 x^/j also occurs 
in inscriptions.) Seo Tisch. Prolog, p. 52 (ed. 7), N. T. Vatic, p. xxviii, and 
Proleg. ad LXX. p. 33 ; A. Buttm. Gr. p. 7 ; Mullach, Vulg. pp. 22, 146 ; 
Don. p. 17 ; Scrivener, CoU. of Cod. Sin. p. Iv ; Lightfoot on G. ii. 14, and 
Ph, ii. 20 ; and compare Scrivener, Criticism, p. 491, where it is maintained 
that such fonns are mere mistakes of the scribe.] 

" [Tisch. has -xfai;, Tpxurn;, in every case ; Lachm. ■rpairyi; twice, G. vi. 1, E. 
iv. 2 : sec Tisch. Prohg. p. 50 fed. 7), Lipsius p. 7, A. Buttm. p. 26.] 

' [ct. The Attic tt for <ro- is found in but few words. Kptirruv is much more 
common than Kpufmv. "HrTaiv occurs twice in Rec, but the true reading is 


2. Whether such words as Slo. ti, iva tl, Bed ye, dWd ye, air 
apTc, TovT ecTi should he written as two words or one, can 
scarcely be decided on any general principle ; and the remark- 
able variations in the better MSS. make the question of less 
importance. In most instances Knapp has preferred to unite 
the words ; and certainly in expressions of frequent occurrence 
two small words do naturally coalesce in pronunciation, as is 
shown by the erases, hio, hiori,, Kadd, ojcne, — also by /xrjKerc, etc. 
Schulz maintains the opposite view : but would he write et ye, 
Toc vvv, ovK ezi, etc. ? How much the MSS., on the average, are 
in favour of uniting the words, may be seen from Poppo, Thuc. 
I. p. 455. Schulz himself writes StcfTrai^ro? in Mk. v. 5, L. 
xxiv. 53 ; and Schneider in Plato almost always joins the words. 

vrrat ; of Ixirraif both forms are used. The derivatives from these last have 
TT, except in 2 C. xii. 13 {iiT<ru^»ri). 

b. ff, ff. Both eLypytv and Uprrn occur in Rec. , and in Rom. i. 27 Tisch. now 
reads affn* three times ; but cifxrnv is probably the true reading throughout the 
N. T. BaffiTy occurs frequently, and idpru also (in the Gospels and Acts) ; 
•ruf'fii. Rev. vi. 4 ; di.fffoi, A. xxviii. 15. 

c. For H-oLTioum recent editors write Mx^6a7at (comp. Jelf 22. 3), see Mt. i. 15, 
L. iii. 24, 29, A. i. 23, 26. Compare Scrivener, Critic, p. 488 sq. 

d. 'ludvvtis is most frequently written by Tregelles and by Westcott and Hort 
with a single » (comp. Scdvener, I.e.) : on yivtifia, which is very well supported 
iu Mt. xxvi. 29, Mk. xiv. 25, L. (xii. 18) xxii. 18, 2 C. ix. 10, see Tisch. Froleg. 
p. 48 (ed. 7). 

8. The MSS. frequently vary between ix and ua in the terminations of nouns. 
Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort write- jUE^uS/a, a.Xa.'^ovia, i/,a.y't(x,, Kufi'ia, dpt<rx.'tti, 
'ArraX/a, ViaKrafla, etc. ; and the latter editors uniformly adopt the forms d-rufice, 
ififta, tiipiKia, iTtiixla, ii^uXaXarpia. A similar Variation is found in other word.? 
(as iaviZo), layiiTT^i), especially in proper names and foreign words ; sometimes it 
is -sery difficult to decide between < and td. See Tisch. Proleg. /p. 51 (ed. 7), 
Alford I. Proleg. p. 96 sq. 

/. The breathings are often interchanged in proper names and foreign words ; 
thus Tisch. writes 'u.aa.'tas, 'fio-Mt, hxii, 'Ep/zoyivns, uravvx, etc. : — cixviTis is in the 
N. T. written with the aspirate, aXoai- without. See Lipsius, Gr. Unt. p. ISsqq. 

g. Miscellaneous examples : a.id'mpoi L. xiv. 13, 21, dy^piout^oxn.. iii. 12, Z,p>invca 
1 Th. V. 19 (Tisch. ed. 7, comp. Shilleto, Dem. Fals. Leg. p. 130), (ra*«^a^£a and 
-fjLupia, L. xix. 4 (see Tisch. in loc), vnipdxioi (not -Xids), im^ds Mk. xi. 8. On 
»«a(raj L. ii. 24, veriricv Mt. xxiii. 37, h voiraid L. xiii. 34, see Sturz p. 183, Lidd. 
and Scott s.vv. For a-yrvpU the collateral form aifvpU is a constant v. I. in one or 
more of the most ancient MSS. ; it is received by Lachm. in Mt. xvi. 10, Mk. 
viiL 8, and always by Westcott and '' ort. There is good authority for ipavida 

Jo. V. 39, al., -rp'o'ifj.o; Ja. v. 7, ft.a.iTdafji,a.t Rev. xvi. 10, 'S.to'ix.'o; a. Xvii. 18, Tarpo- 

and (/.vrpoXuas 1 Tim. i. 9, ffipix.iv Rev. x-^nii. 12 ; Lachmann reads pdxKOf in 
Mk. ii. 21. On Xiyiu^, Xtyiuv, see Tisch. Proleg. p. 50 (ed. 7) and note on Mt. 
xxvi. 53 (ed. 8), AU'ord I.e. p. 96; ou uXni;, aXuTt, Tisch. Proleg. I.e., note 
on Mk. i. 16 (ed. 8), Alford I.e. p. 94 : Tisch. reads Xiyivv and kXnTi in ed. 8. 
For an example of the extreme fluctuation of the MSS. in certain proper 
names see the note on "Nazareth" in Alford I.e. p. 97, Scrivener, Critic. 
p. 488. It should be added tliat editors frequently differ in regard to the use 
of the diaeresis, especially in proper names : thus we find Tdio; and Ya.ios, 
Kaidtpas and Kaidfcis, Otc] 


Many inconveniences, however, might arise from adopting 
either mode exclusively; and as the oldest and best N". T. MSS. 
are written continuously, and therefore give us no help here, the 
most prudent plan would be regularly to unite the words in 
the N". T. text in the following cases : — 

(a) Where the language supplies an obvious analogy ; thus 
ovKerc as in}KerL, roir/dp as Toivvv, o'^Ti'i compare orov. 

(b) Where one of the words is not in use uncombined (in 
prose) ; hence etTrep, KaiTrep. 

(c) Where an enclitic follows a word of one or two syllables, 
in combination with which it usually expresses a single notion, 
as €tT€, etiye, apa/ye; but not Siajye rrjv avaiZeuLv, L. xi. 8 
(Lachm. hid ye). 

(d) Where the two modes of writing are used to express two 
different meanings : thus o^n^ovv quicumque, but o? rL<i ovv Mt. 
xviii. 4, quisquis igitur (Buttm. I. 308) ; i^avTr]<i the adverb, and 
i^ avTtjq ; — not to mention ovBel<; and oiiB' eh. In the MSS., 
however, the ovv (M orri^oCv, etc.) usually stands alone, and the 
writers themselves sometimes separate it by a conjunction from 
the word to which it belongs : see Jacobs, Prcef. ad ^lian. Anim. 
p. 25. In detail much must be left to the editor's judgment; 
but there can hardly be any sufficient reason for writing Slu- 
'rravr6<i or vTrepeyco (2 C. xi. 23, Lachm.), and the like. Still we 
must bear in mind that in the Greek of the N. T., so closely 
related to the ordinary spoken language, orthographical com- 
binations would be especially natural^ 

The neuter of the pronoun osn? was formerly written o,tl (with 
the hypodiastole) in editions of the N. T., as L. x. 35, Jo. ii. 5, 
xiv. 13, 1 C. xvi. 2, al. Lachmaan, after Bekker, introduced o ri 
(as OS Tts, ij Tis).2 Others, as Schneider (Plat. Civ. I. Prcef. 
p. 48 sq.),^ even think it unnecessary to separate the words. Much 
may be said in favour of writing the pronoun on as one word ; inter 
alia, that then the reader is not influenced in favour of a particular 
interpretation of the text. It has indeed been doubted in many 
passages of the N. T., e.g. in Jo. viiL 25, A. ix. 27, 2 C. iii. 14, whether 
this word should be regarded as the pronoun or as the conjunction. 
Wlien however this question has been once decided, it is safest to 

1 [See Lipsius, Gfr. Unt. pp. 124-134, where this subject is more minutely 
examined : see also Lob. p. 48. ] 

* [Lachinaun writes oVt/;, ?t/( and follows Bekkor in » r/ only,] 
» Comp. Jen. Lit. Z. 1809. IV, 174. 


write o n (with a space between) or o,ti (with the hypodiastole) in 
the case of the pronoun.^ 

3. Crasis ^ is on the whole rare, and is confined to certain 
expressions of frequent occurrence : in these, however, it is 
found almost without variation.' It is most common in Kayo), 
Kav, KUKel, KcLKeldev, KaKeluo'i : we fi.ad also Kufxoi, L. i. 3, 
A. viii. 19, 1 C. iii. 1 [/ca7w], xv. 8 ; Kufii, Jo. vii. 28, 1 C. 
xvi. 4 ; Tovvavrlov, 2 C. ii. 7, G. ii. 7, 1 P. iii 9 ; and once 
rovvofia, Mt. xxvii. 57. On the other hand, we always find 
ra avTo, in good MSS. : see L. vi. 23, xvii. 30, 1 Th. ii. 14.^ 
Tovrea-Tc, KaOd, Kaddvep, and the like, are only improperly 
termed examples of crasis. 

Contraction is but seldom neglected in the ordinary cases ; 
see §§ 8 and 9 on oarea, ^etXewi/, voi, and the like. In L. viii. 38 
the best MSS. have iheero, a form often found in Xenophon : 
see Irr. V. s. v.. Lob. p. 220 (Jelf 239. 3).* The verb Kaii- 
fbr'jeiv exhibits a contraction of a peculiar kind : comp. Lob. 
p. 340. 

There is good authority for koX eVet, Mt. v. 2-3, xxviii. 10, Mk. 
i. "35, 38 ; koL iKtWtv Mk. x. I ; koX lKeivoL<i Mt. xx, 4 ; [koX iyto 
L. xvi. 9], etc, 

4. In, the earlier ed'tions of the N. T. the i subscript was 
too frequently introduced : * this abuse was first censured by 
Knapp. The c must certainly be rejected — 

(a) In a crasis with Kai, when the first syllable of the second 
word does not contain i (as Kara from kuI elra) ; thus Kayco, 
KcLfioi, K^Kelvo^, Kav, KUKel, KctKelOev, etc.: see Herm. Vig. p. 526, 
Buttm. 1. 114 (Jelf 13). The i subscript is however defended 
by Thiersch {Gr. § 38 Anm. 1), and Poppo has retained it in 
Thucjdides after the best MSS. {Thuc. II. i. p. 149). 

' [See Lipsius p. 118 sq.] 

* Ahrena, De Orasi et Aphcered (Stollberg, 1845). 

' [In these passages some of the oldest MSS. have Taura., which may be rctlni. 
Lachm. reads nrvrd in L. xvii. 30 and (m marg.) L. vi. 23, but the accentuated 
MSS. are against this. ] 

* Oorapare Fritzl De Conf. crit. p. 32. [Uncontracted forhis from' Sto^a/ are 
frequently found in the MSS- of Xenophon, but in most instances they haV« 
been altered by the editors : see Veitch, Gfr. Verbs, p. 159. In regard to 
L. viii. it should rather be said that some of the best MSS. have iiiin. A 
similar example is Ix^Urt, Rev. xvi. 1.] 

* [On the practice of Biblical MSS. in regard to / subscript and ascript see 
Lipsius p. 3, Scrivener, Critic, pp. 41 sq., 160.] 


(b) In the 2 perf. {? 1 perf.] aad 1 aor. act. of the verb atpoy 
and its compounds : thus rjpicev Col. ii. 14, apai, Mt. xxiv. 17, 
apov Mt. ix. 6, r)pav Mt. xiv. 12, apa<i 1 C. vi. 15, etc.: see 
Buttm. I. 413, 439, and Poppo, Time. II. i. p. 150. 

(c) In the infinitives ^r^v, ht^rjv, Tretvrjv, ')(^prja6at,} — properly 
Doric, but also commonly used in Attic (Matth. 48. Eem. 2). 
Some ancient grammarians ^ (later than the commencement of 
our era) affirm that the same rule should be followed in the infin, 
of contracted verbs in aay, as a^airav, opav, Tifidv ; probably 
because these forms are immediately derived from (the Doric) 
TCfMaev, K.T.X., as /xtadovv from p^iaOoev: see Wolf in the Lit. 
Analekt. I. 419 sqq. (Don. p. 256, Jelf 239). Bengel inclined 
towards this orthography, and it has been defended and adopted 
by several scholars.^ Buttmann (I. 490) and Matth. (197. 
b. 5) speak doubtfully ; and many editors — e.g. Lobeck, see his 
Technol. p. 188 — retain the t. It has however been removed 
from the N". T. by Schulz, Lachm., and Tisch. ; comp. E. v. 28, 
Eom. xiii. 8, Mk. viii. 32, Jo. xvi. 19.^ 

{d) There is nothing decisive in favour of 7rpao<i (Lob. Phryn. 
p. 403, Pathol. I. 442) ; yet see Buttm. I. 255. iT/jcut' also, from 
irpo, should not have i subscript : see on this word generally 
Buttmann, Plat. Crito, p. 43, Lexil. 17. 2. 

(e) On iravrr], A. xxiv. 3, sea Buttm. II. 360 : the t, which is 
rightly found in dWy, ravTrj, which are real datives, should be 
omitted in TravTrj, which has no corresponding nominative. The 
ancient grammarians, however, are of a different opinion (Lob. 
Paral. p. 56 sq.), and Lacbmann writes iravrrj. Kpv(f>}] (E. v. 
12), Dor. Kpv(^a — comp. Xen. Conv. 5. 8, — and elKrj (Buttm. 
II. 342) are now the received forms in the N, T. ; comp. 
Poppo, Thuc. II. i. 150. Lachmann still writes \ddpa, thoiigh 
XciOpa is probably more correct.^ 

' [The last of these lias surely no place here.] 

* Comp. Vig. p. 220 ; see also Gregor. Choerobosc. Dictata (ed. Gaisford), 
vol. ii. p. 721. See on the other side Herm. Vig. p. 748. 

^ Reiz, Lucian iv. p. 393 sq. (ed. Bip. ) ; Elnisley, Eurip. Med. v. 69, and, 
PriKf. ad Soph. CEdip. Ji. p. 9 sq. ; EUendt, Arrian Al. i. p. 14 sq. 

* [A. Buttm. remarks (p. 44) that such forms as xaTaa-xjivsrc, Mt. xiii. 32, may 
lead us to prefer kyoL-Trat, etc., in the N. T. See also Lipsius p. 6.] 

* Schneider, Plat. (jiv. I. p. 61 Prce.f. ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 3 sq. 
[Lachmann and Westcott and Hort insert / in jipvipii, ilxri, -ra.tTo.x,^, as well as in 
5ra»T», X(k6p% (comp. Don. pp. 25, 149, Cobet, N. T. Vatic, p. xii) ; Tregelles 
rejects the < in xpv^n, tlxH, Xa^fa ; Tisch. and Alford in all these words. No 


(/) In Mt. xxvii. 4, 24, Lachm. and subsequent editors 
have written ddu>ov {aOooiov, Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 1267)/ but 
contrary to all grammatical traditions : Lob. Path. I. 440," 
[and.II. 377]. 

After the example of Bekker and others, Lachmann in his larger 
edition dropped the breathings over pp, as useless ; but he has no 
followers.^ That the Romans heard an aspiration with p in the 
middle (as at the beginning) of words, is shown by the orthography 
of Fyrrhiis, Tyrrkenus, etc. (Buttm. I. 28). Still less can the initial 
p be written without the aspirate, as is done by many : see Kost, 
ar. p. 13. (Don. p. 16.) 

The Alexandrians had, as is generally admitted (Sturz p. 116 sqq.), 
a special orthography of their own. They not only interchanged 
letters — as at and «, e and rj, i and et (comp. etSea Mt. xxviii. 3),* 
y and K, — but even added superfluous letters, to strengthen the 
forms of words, as iK^^Ois, (iacrtXiav, vvktov, <^6a.vvuv, iK)(yvv6/Jievov, 
Icro-Tretpe, ava/^aivvov, ■^X.Xaro (A. xiv. 10, vii. 26, Comp. Poppo, jfVtWC. 
I. 210) ; and rejected others that were really necessary (when a con- 
sonant was doubled), as 8v(re/3i^<;, craySao-t, uvTctAay/xtt, <fivX.a, ipvcraro, 
apa(f)0'i (Jo. xix. 23). They also disregarded the expedients by which 
the Greeks avoided a harsh concurrence of many or dissimilar con- 
sonants (Buttm. I. 75 sqq., Jelf 22) ; thus Xyp-^j/ofxai, avaXrjjxc^Ous, 
{Il'T. V. p. 162), Trpo<;oJTroXr)iJUJ/La, dTreKrdvKaai, €V)((jipiov, (TuvKaAv/x/xa, 
(TwprjTitv [1 (rvvt,r)T£Lv], avvTrvtyeLv, (rvvfJLa6T]Tr)<;, irivTru.^ These peculi- 
arities are found more or less uniformly both in good MSS. of the 
LXX. and N. T. (Tisch. Frcef. ad N. T. p. 20 sq., ed. 2) which are 
said to have been written in Egypt — as A, B, C (ed. Tisch. p. 21), D 

editor (I believe) omits * in ^rs^-J?, Sx^aa-Za, Ilia. Jelf (324. 2) writes all these 
adverb.s without i subscript, and Kost (]>. 318) inclines to the same side : see 
also Klihner, I. 728 (ed. 2).] 

' Corap. also Weber, Dew,, p. 231, [who defends aluoi ; Paley, Eurip. Med. 
1300 ; Lipsius p. 8 sq. Treg. wiites aiZo;.'\ 

^ There will be no disposition to introduce the forms uov (Wessel on Her. 2. 
68) and ^fav (recently received by Jacobs in ^1. Anim. on the authority of a 
good MS.)— still less a-^'^s/v — into the N. T. text. Comp. Lob. Path. I. p. 442, 
[and II. p. 378, No editor (apparently) receives r4'C,iiv ; but Lachm. and Cobet 
write ^oTan, u'ov, and Tisch. <Jo». See Lipsius p. 8 sq., Cobet, N. T. Vatic, p. xii, 
and A. Buttmann's review of the last-named work in Stud. u. Kr'il. 1S62 (1. 
Heft, p. 154) : on ir^Zifa. (Lachm. and others), see A. Buttm. Gr. p. 11, and 
Cobet I.e. Lachm. and Tisch. write T^^as : Winer and others, Tpuas. West, 
and Hort insert the / in all these words, except ffa^civ. ] 

•' [Tisch. writes pfi in the N. T. : he says, ' ' pp prorsus invita odd. auctoritate 
edi consiievit " {Prole<j. p. 276, ed. 7). See also Lipsius, p. 7, Jelf 7, Cobet, 
N. T. Vatic, p. xcvi.] 

* [Ei'Sia is received by Tisch., Treg., Westcott and Hort : see Tisch. Proleg. 
(p. 49, ed. 7). "Apaipo; also, Jo. xix. 23, is found in almost all the ancient MSS.] 

■"' [Conversely, such forms as f/i^so-*, lyKava. (iv f-'ury, U KavS), are found in 
some of the oldest MSS. (Tisch. Proleg. p. 48, ed. 7) and in inscriptions (Don. 
p. 68).] 


of Gospels, D of Paul's Epistles (Tisch. Proleg. ad Cod. CUir-om. p. 18), 
K of Gospels,^ — and in Coptic and Graeco-Coptic documents (Hug,. 
Introd. § 50), We cannot therefore, with Planck,^ reject them at 
once as due to the caprice of copyists, especially as analogies may 
often be adduced from the older dialects. At the same time, many 
are not specially Alexandrian, as they occur in MSS. of Gr^ek authors 
and in inscriptions which cannot be proved to be of Egyptian origin 
{e.g. et for i, cy for ck, — with Xtj/iiJ/oixat compare the Ionic Xdful/ofiai,, 
Matth. 242) ; and, on the other hand, many Egyptian documents are 
tolerably free from the peculiarities in question. 

These forms have been introduced into the text by Lachm. and 
Tischendorf, on the concurrent testimony of good (but usually few) 
MSS., in Mt. XX. 10, xxi. 22, Mk. xii 40, L. xx. 47, A. i. 2, 8, 11, 
38,3 ja. i. 7, Mk. i. 27, 2 C. vii. 3, Ph. ii. 25, al. ; sometimes without 
citation of authorities, Mt. xix. 29, Jo. xvi. 14, 1 C. iii. 14, Ph. iii. 12, 
Rom. vi. 8, al. Without more decisive reasons, hoAvever, than those 
assigned by Tischendorf'* {Prcef. adN. 7'. p. 19), we surely ought not 
to attribute to Palestinian writers — especially John, Paul, and James 
— all the peculiarities of the Alexandrian dialect, and particularly of 
the Alexandrian orthography ; and it is not probable that the N, T. 
writers would follow this orthography in comparatively few in- 
stances only.'' Co4ex B, too, is not yet thoroughly collated in 
this respect. Tischendorf has introduced these forms less frequently 
than the words of his preface (p, 21) would have led us to 

Hence before this orthography is introduced into the N. T. text- 
— if the MSS. are to be followed in such points even in editions of 

^ See Hug, Introd. 1. § 50 sqq. ; Soholz, Gurce Cr'd. In hist. text. Evangg. 
pp. 40, 61. ■ ' 

* De orationis N. T. indole, p. 25, note. [Bibl. Cad. voL ii. p. 129.] 
^ [This is uo doubt intended for A. ii, 38. J 

* [It will be remembered that Winer is speaking in thia paragraj>h of Tischen- 
dorPs atcanrf edition (1849). — Happily we now possess a trustworthy edition of 
Cod. B. Many details respecting its pecnliarities of orthography (so far as these 
were known from Mai's edition) will be found in the preface to Kuenen and 
Cobet's N. T. Vaticanum. ] 

* In several words, as <rvXXaiu(ia,»iiv, cuXXaXtiv, <ru/ifi/>uXi<it, irv/iTi'Truv, we find 
no example of this orthography ; in others, as <niX>.iytn, o-uyxaXu*, ffutr-ravpov», 
lyxaXiTy, it is noted only in isolated instances. [lufcTitrrtit occurs in the N, T, 
once only, in the form <rvr'frifi* , and of the first tlu-ee words the irregular 
forms are sometimes found, see Tisch. Prolog, p. 47 (ed, 7). There are some 
interesting observations on this subjiict in the above-mentioned article in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1862 (p. 17.9 sqq.). The writer (A. Buttmann) maintains (1) that 
i» is almost always assimilated before labials, comparatively seldom before 
gutturals : — (2) that these compounds in which the writer appears to have 
simply annexed the prejms. to auother word in adverbial fashion, each part of 
the compound preserving its proper jiieaning, do not assimilate the » ; whilst in 
those compounds which were in regular and current use, and in which tlie two 
parts are fused together so as to express a single new idea, assimilation does 
take plaoc. Com pare /rvyxXripotofio;, autf/.a.pTUf,uf, and similar "words, with 
evfupifti, cvfjt.(itt,xxin, eLc. The subject however still needs careful investi- 


the N. T. designed for common use — the whole subject must receive 
a new and complete examination. One question to be considered 
will be, whether these peculiarities of spelling, which have been 
supposed to represent the true popular pronunciation, do not rather 
belong to a systerd of orthography adopted by the learned, somewhat 
as we find in Roman inscriptions on stone ^ the etymological spelling 
adferre, inlatus, etc.^ 

Section VI, 


1 . The accentuation of the N. T, text is to be regulated not 
so much by the authority of the oldest accentuated MSS. as 
by the regular tradition of the grammarians. Many points, 
however, have been left in doubt, and in the careful investiga- 
tions of later scholars a tendency to excessive refinement is 
sometimes observable. We may notice specially the following 
points : — 

(a) According to the ancient grammarians (Moeris p. 193) 
the should be written tSe in Attic Greek only, l'8e in other 
(later) Greek ; the same distinction being made as between Xa/3e 

^ Schneider, Lat. Gr. I. ii. p. 530 sq., 543 sq., 566 sq., al. 

* [It is now admitted by most that we must, in general, follow the most 
ancient MSS. in regard to peculiarities both of inflexion and of orthography. 
" For a long time it has been most strangely assumed that the linguistic forms 

E reserved in the oldest MSS. are Alexandnne and not in the widest sense Jlel- 
nistic. ... In the case of St. Paul, no less than in the case of Herodotus, 
the evidence of the earliest witnesses must be decisive as to dialectic forms. 
Egyptian scribes preserved the characteristics of other books, and there is no 
reason to suppose that they altered those of the N. T.'^ (Westcott in Smith's 
Diet, of the Bible, II. p. 531.) The following quotation refers directly to in- 
flexions, but is equally applicable to orthography : " Our practical inference from 
the whole discussion will be, not that Alexandrian inflexions should be inva- 
riably or even usually received into the text, as some recent editors have been 
inclined to do, but that they should be judged separately in every case on their 
merits and the support adduced on their behalf; and be held entitled to no 
other indulgence than that a lower degree of evidence wiU suffice for them than 
when the sense is affected, inasmuch as idiosyncrasies in spelling are of all 
others the most liable to be gradually and progressively modernised even by 
faithful and painstaking transcribers." (Scrivener, Critic, p. 490.) See Tisch. 
Proleg. p. 43 sqq. (ed. 7) ; Alford, vol. I. Proleg. p. 94 sqq. ; Tregelles, Printed 
Text, p. 17-8 ;and (against Kuenen and Cobet, who without hesitation substitute 
the ordinary forms of words) A. Buttm. in Stud, u, Krit. l.c, Comp. also Mullach, 
Vulg. p. 21 ; Lightfoot, Clement, p, 26. On the other hand, many peculiarities 
called Alexandrian by Sturz and others are no .doubt mere errors in spelling : 
see Scrivener, Critic. /p. 10.] 


and Xa'^6 : see Weber, Demosth. p. 173, and comp. Buttm. I. 
448. This rule has been followed by Griesbach (except in G. 
V. 2), and by Lachmann[, Tischendorf, and others] in every case, 
Bornemann suggested ^ that the word should be written IBe 
when it is used as a true imperative and followed by an accusa- 
tive (as in Eom. xi. 2 2), iBe when it is a mere exclamation. But 
it is preferable to follow the ancient grammarians. 

(6) Numerals compounded with eVo?, according to some 
ancient grammarians (Th. M. p. 859, Moschopul. w? Scheit), arc 
paroxytone when they are predicated of time, and oxytone in all 
other cases. According to this we should have reaaapaKopra- 
€T7]f '^povo^ in A. vii. 23,r.eaaapaKovTaeT7] xpovov in A. xiii. 18; 
but in Eom. iv. 1 9, iKarovTaer/j'i.'^ In the MSS., however, this 
distinction is not observed, and the rule is altogether doubtful 
(see I.ob. p. 406) : Ammonius (p. 136) exactly reverses it, see 
Bremi on ^schin. Ctesiph. 369 (ed. Goth.).^ 

(c) Krjpv^ and <f)OLvi^ are by some written Krjpv^ and (f}o2vL^,'* 
on the ground that, according to some ancient grammarians, the 
V and t in the nomin. sing, were pronounced short (Bekker, 
Anecd. III. 1429). This rule is rejected by Hermann (Soph. 
(Ed. E. p. 145), as contrary to all analogy. It is a question, 
however, M'hether we should not for later Greek follow the 
grammai;ians, and write Kripv^, j>o2vl^ (see Buttm. I. 167) : 
this Lachmann has done/ 

{d) For TTow, which is found in most of the older editions 
of the N. T., Knapp introduced ttoi;?, because the penult, of 
the genitive ttoSo? is short: 8ee Lob. Phryn. p. 765, Paral. 
p. 93. 

{e) Griesbach and others wrongly write XatXa^lr : it must be 
\aTkay\r, since the a is short. Similarly, OXl^a is adopted by 
Schulz (though not invariably) and by Lachmann, because the 
vowel in the first syllable is long by nature and not by position, 
just as in X^i/rt? .- so also KXip,a, Kplfxa, -^pLa/xa, fiiy/j,a, ■^v')(^o<i 
(comp. Reisig, De consir. antisir. p. 20, Lob. Paral. p. 418), 

^ Rosenniiiller, Exeg. Repert. II. 267. 

* Comp. Jacobs, Anthol. III. pp. 251, 253. 

' [Tischendorf accentuates on the penult, in every instance ; Tregelles and 
Westcott and Hort on the hist syllable.] 

* See SchiBfer, Gnom. p. 215 sq., and on Soph. Philoct. 562 : comp. EUendt, 
Lfx. Soph. I. 956 sq. 

'[Tisch. now writes *r>o? (following M.S. authority), see his note on 1 Tim. 
ii. 7 (ed. 7) ; also ,p«,»/|, JPs. xci. 13. See Lidd. aud Scott, s. vv.j 


<xTv\o<; (Lidd. and Scott s. v.), (pt-v|rt? and) pl^jrav L. iv. 35. It is 
however rightly remarked by Fritzsehe (Bom. I. 107) that, as 
we know from ancient grammarians ^ that a penultimate which 
was long in Attic was often shortened in later Greek, it is not 
so certain that we are justified in introducing the Attic accentu- 
ation into the N.T.^ No editor has changed the regular OprjCKo^ 
into dpr](TKo^, though the latter is found in some IMSS. ; see 
Bengel, Apif>ar. Crit. Ja. i. 26.^ 

(/) As the termination ai is considered short in reference to 
accentuation (Buttm. I. 54, Jelf 46), we must write 6vfMtdaac 
L. i. 9, and KrjpO^at L. iv. 19, A. x. 42, for Ovfiidcrai and Kr/pv^ai, 
as the words are still written by Knapp : comp. Poppo, Thiic. 
II. i. 151, Bornem. Schol. p. 4. 'Ea-rdvai, A. xii. 14 (Griesb., 
Knapp), is wrong, as the a is short. In IMk. v, 4 avvTerpl^Oai, 
is already placed in the text. 

{g) In' older editions (and in Knapp's) ipiOeia is written 
eplOeia : as the word is derived from epiOevecv, it is necessarily 
paroxytone (Buttm. I. 141, II. 401, Jelf 55). But for the same 
reason we must write dpeaKeia : as the word is derived from 
dpecr/ceveiv, not from dpecrKeiv, dpeaKeia (Lachmann, and with 
him Tischendorf [in earlier editions]) is incorrect. 

(h) KTiarf), 1 P. iv. 19 (Knapp, Griesb.), has already been 
changed by Lachmann into KTiarri, in accordance with the very 

VLob. Phryv. p. 107 : comp. Diudorf, Pro'f. ad Aristoph. Acliarn. p. 15. 

" [Lipsius {Gr. Unt. pp. Sl-46) examines most of these words and many- 
others of a similar kind which occur in the LXX, dividing thein into two classes, 
as the «, /, or v, is or is not long by position. He shows that in the N. T. Sxl^n, 
l^'iyfjca, ;^;^/a-,aa, Krtpv^ai, are to be preferred. *' Lobeck (Paral. p. 400 sqq. ) proves 
that it is not always safe to infer the quantity of derivatives from that of the 
root, and collects passages from the old grammarians which teach that 
the doubtful vowels were shortened before double consonants, especially 
before (r<r, ^, |, \p. It is also very conceivable that the pronunciation would 
vary at different periods, and that the natural quantity of the vowels might 
possibly be retained in older Attic, whilst in later Gree}i the tendency might be 
towards shortening the doubtful vowels where they were long by position." 
Lipsius also receives (for the N. T. ) xp/f^a, Xnov, otIxo;, vrixo;. Tisch. writes 

i\l-4'iS, xplfio., Xiyo*, iXxuffai (Jo. Xxi. 6), fi7yjU,a, ;^;^iV^a, (TtTXhs, (TrZXm, xnpv^ai, 

'4'"X'ft usually following ilS. authority specilied in his notes (in ed. 7). In 
all these words, and also in irvvTiTplipiai (Mk. v. 4), Westcott and Hort reject the 
circumflex accent. For a good defence of x^/^sta (in later Greek) see Cobet, N. T. 
Vatic, p. xlix. sqq. , see also Vaughan on Rom. ii. 2 ; on <ririXc;, see Eilicott on 
E. v. 27 ; on crixo;, Lightfoot on G. ii. 9. The quantity of the v in kC'htu is 
disputed, Buttmann giving Z {Irr. V. s. v.), Lobeck (Paral. p. 414) iJ ; but 
->ra.(a.Ku-^a.i, uvaKv-^ai, are generally received in the N. T. Treg. writes vxdxa. 
L. xi. 22, and <rt/>T^/,3oy L. ix. 39 ; some editors still write xpcc^ov G. iv. 6.] 

' [Tischendorf writes ^puirxe; (see his note, ed. 7) ; also Westcott and 
Hort. J 


clear analogy presented by yv(oaTT)<i, K\dcrTr]<i, k.tX. Schott 
and Wahl retain KTia-rfj, though the. true accentuation was 
long ago advocated by Bengel (Appar. p. -442). 

(i) On fiiadwro^ see Schsef. Demosth. II. 88. ^d>yo<;, Mt. xi. 
19, L. vii. 34, is paroxytone in the K T., — and not in the >I. T. 
only, see Lob. Phryn. p. 434. Analogy would lead us to expect 
<f>ar/6(;: see Lob. Paral. p. 135, where Fritzsche's opinion^ 
{Mark p. 790) is rejected. 

{k) That the 1 aor. imper. of direiv (A. xxviiL 26) should be 
written elirov, not eiirov, is maintained by Lobeck {Phryn. p. 
348) and Buttmann {Exc. 1. ad. Plat. Menon)\ but the counter- 
arguments of Wex {Jahrb. fiir Philol. VL 169) deserve 
consideration. The accentuation el-rrov can only be claimed 
for Attic Greek : in favour of elirov in the Greek Bible we 
have the express testimony of Charax (see Buttmann ?.c.), 
who calls this accentuation Syracusan.^ Recent editors have 
adopted elirov: see further Bornem. Act. p. 234 sq. 

(/) Personal names which were- originally oxy tone adjectives 
or appellatives throw back the accent, for the sake of distinction. 
Thus Tiy)(tico^ not Tv^lk6<;, ^EiraiveTO'i not ^EiraLverot; (Lob. Pa- 
ral. p. 481), ^i\r]To<; not ^Ckqro^ (see Bengel, App. Crit. 2 Tim. 
ii. l7)/Epa(rTo<i not ^Epacrro';, B\daTO<i not B\acr6<;, Kdpiro'i 
not Kapiro'i, S(oa6ivr]<i (like ArjfjLoaOevrjq), and AioTp€(fyr)<; 
3 Jo. 9. Similarly Tlfjuov instead of Tifj,6!)v, 'Opr)cri(f>opo<i for 
'Ov7]ai(f)6po<;, EvfjLevr}<i for Evfievri<;. 'Tfievaio^i, however, re- 
mains unaltered, as in general it is not customary to throw the 
accent forward in proper names ; hence also the proparoxy tones 
— as Tp6<f)i,fio<i, 'AatryKptTO'i — retain their accent* (Lob. Lc). 
Yet the forms first mentioned are sometimes found in old 
grammarians and in good MSS. (comp. Tisch. Proleg. God. 
Clarom. p. 22) with their original accent: comp. also ^Ckrjro^, 
Euseb. HiM. Ecd. 6. 21. 2. The name Xpi,<n6<i has never been 

^ [That the adjective is (pctyit, the substantive (piyat. See Lipsius I.e. p. 28,] 

• [Charax informs us that nV«» was a Syracusan form of the second aorist 
imperative, and so Winer considers it (p. 103). See Fritz. Mark p. 517, A. 
Buttm. Or. p. 57: comp. Curtius, Or. Verb, pp. 303, 450 (Trans.). Tisch. 
receives iiV« in Mt. xviii. 17, xxii. 17, Mk. xiii. 4, L. x. 40, xx. 2, xxii. 67. 
Jo. x. 24, A. xxviii. 26. See also Mt. iv. 3, xxiv. 3.] 

3 So also geographical names ; see Nobbe, Sch. Ptol. II. 17 sq. (Lips. 1342). 

* ["In this case proper names sometimes become oxytone, as Suvrvxp Ph. 
iv. 2 (Ti.ich.) :" Lipsius p. 31. Liinemaun adds nifpof, 'Ef/Aeyi>rn, to. the former 
list i FJruxit to this.] 


brouglit under the rule.^ See in general Keiz, De inclin. ace. p. 
116, Schaefer, Dion. H. p. 265, Funkhanel, Demosth. Androt. 
p. ] 08 sq., and especially Lebrs, De Aristarchi studiis Homer, p. 
276 sqq. 

On a similar piinciple the adverbs €Ve'Aceti'a,emTaSe,i'7re/3e/ceti/a 
(from iir ixeiva, etc.), have undergone a change of accent. 

(m) Indeclinable oriental names have the accent, as a rule, 
on the last syllable ; compare however 'Iov8a, Od/xap, Zopo^d- 
/5eX, 'IcodOafi, 'EXed^ap, and the segholate forms 'EXU^ep L. 
iii. 29, 'Ieta/9e\ Eev. ii. 20 (according to good MSS.j, Ma^ou- 
adXa L. iii. 37. This accent is usually the acute, even when the 
vowel is long : as 'laaaK, 'lapaijX, 'laKw^, TevvT^odp, BrjOcaCBd, 
BrjOeaSd, 'Ep,fuiov<i, Kaj)apvaovfi. On the other hand, the MSS. 
have Kavd, Fedarjfjbaprj (though TedqrjpLavel, which Lachm. and 
Tisch. prefer, has more authority, see Fritz. Mark p. 626), also 
Br}6<f>ay7J: comp. also Ncvevf}.^ Words which in the Greek 
Bible are indeclinable and oxytone have their accent drawn 
back in Josephus, who usually prefers inflected forms : e.g. 
'A^la, in the N. T. 'A^td.^ The oldest MSS. are said to have 
TltXaTOf, not iltXarov, as the word is written by most editors 
and by Lachmaun * (also by Cardwell in his edition of Joseph. 
Bell. Jud.): see Tisch. Proleg. p. 36 (ed. 2). Yet even recent 
editors write, on MS. authority, KopioXdvo<i, Plutarch, Coriol. c. 
11, Dion. H. 6. p. 414 (ed. Sylb.); KiKiwdro^, Dion. H. 10. p. 
650; TopKovdro^, Plut. Fab. Max. c. 9, Dio C. 34. c. 34; 
Kohpdro<i (Quadratus), Joseph. Ant. 20. 6 ; 'OvopdTO'i, etc. 
As to TtT09 and Tlro'i see Sintenis, Plut. Vit. II. 190 : on 
^rjXi^ (not ^rjXi^ see Bornem. Act. p. 198.* 

The accentuation o/xoio?, ifjTJfio^, ctoi/lios, /xwpos (Boisson. Anecd. 
V. 94), which according to the grammarians (Greg. Cor. pp. 12, 

' [This rule is usually followed. Lachm. and Tischendorf however write 
Tvxitis (A. XX. 4, al.), *«x»it« (2 Tiiri. ii. 17); Tischendorf, ''Eiramrit (Rom. 
xvi. 5), ^orpiipvs (3 Jo. 9). The MS. authority for the change is given by 
Tisch. U. cc. and by Lipsius p. 30. See also Tisch. Proleg. p. 61 (ed. 7).] 

* [Tisch. reads MaiougaXa.*, Tiiir>i/^a>ii', Btjffayn : Hivtvv (L. xi. 32) is no 
longer in his text. ] 

" [Josephus in Ant. 6. 3. 2 has *A/3/« (indecl.) as the name of Samuel's 
son ; but for 'Afitd, Mt. L 7, he has 'A/3/«s, genit. 'A/3/«.] 

* [In his smaller edition: in the larger he uniformly writes UiXaros. Tischen- 
dorf in ed. 7 has njASr«< (see note on Mt. xxvii. 13) ; in ed. 8, nukaras.] 

' [On T/V«; see Lipsiua p. 42 : on *«Xi| see Tisch. on A. xxiv. 3, Lipsius p. 37 ; 
Laohm. writes *r,>tt With Tira comp. A/vof, which Tisoh. and others read in 
2 Tim. iv. 21, for a7,o, (R.c , Alf.).] 


20 sqq.) belongs to Tonic and early Attic Greek, and which e.g. 
Bekker follows, is certainly not to be introduced even into Attic 
prose,! still less into the K. T. On the other hand, we must 
invariably write tcros; comp. Borncm. Luc. p. 4, Fritz. Mark p. 649. 
The N. T. MSS. have uniformly tcrw for tto-o), though they have 
always ek, never «? ; vice versa, Thucydides, who mostly uses k, has 
etcrco 1. 134; see Poppo, I. 212. Kecent editors reject Icrto in Attic 
prose.' As to uTroKvet or aTroKvei in Ja. i. 15, see below, § 15. 

On the accentuation of the diminutive tckvioi/ as a paroxytone 
see Buttm. II. 441 (Jelf 56) ; comp. tcxviov Athen. 2. 55, though 
recent editors prefer T€xyiov both here and in Plat. Bep. 6. 495 d : 
of TeKviov, TEKVia is the only part that occurs in the N. T.^ ITot^viov 
(contracted from ■Koi}x.iviov) should certamly be preferred to ttoiia-vlov. 
On a^poTri<;, ^paSvT-q<;, as oxytones, see Buttm. 11. 417 : this, accord- 
ing to the grammarians, is Ihe old accentuation, an exception to the 
rule. Lachmann however writes aSpor-ijri 2 C. viii. 20, but ftpaBvrrJTa 
2 P. iii. 9.* In later Greek these words seem to have been paroxy- 
tone, according to rule ; see Reiz, De incl. ace. p. 109.^ 

On ovKovv and ovkovv, apa and apa, see §§ 57 and 61. 

2. It is well known that many words were distinguished 
from one another solely by difference of accent : thus et/xt sum 
and €LfXL CO (ixupiot ten thousand and fivptot inmanerable, Buttm. 
I. 278). In such cases the accentuated MSS. and even the 
editors of the N. T. sometimes waver between the two modes of 
accentuation. Thus for fievet, 1 C. iii. 14, the future fievei is 
read by Chrys., Theod., the Vulgate, etc., and this reading has 
been received into the text by Knapp and Lachmann ; comp. 
1 C. v. 13, H. i. 11. For rivk, H. iii. 16, several authorities 
have Tiye?, and recent critics have almost unanimously accepted 
this reading. In 1 C. xv. 8 Knapp needlessly changed the article 
raJ into Tw ( = Tivi), which is the reading of some MSS.: there 
is however but little authority for tw, and it is certainly a cor- 

' Poppo, Thuc. I. 213, II. i. 150, Buttm. I. 5S. 

- Scluicider, Pint. Civ. I. Praf. p. 53 : as to the poets, see Elmsley, Eunp. 
Med. p. 84 sq. (Lips.). 

^ See Jansoii, in Jahns Archiv VII. 487 ; and on -rcifivlov ib. p. 507. 

* [Similarly Tischendorf, Alford, and others.] 

* [The following words also are variously accentuated by the N. T. editors : 
a A. xxvii. 41, see above (p. 50); Ki'a 1 Tim. ii. 13 Lach., Tisch., Eja Ellic., 


Alt. ; in Mt. xiii. 30 Tisch. has the less usuul 2£<r^-/j (for Sso-jctJi), see Lob. Paral. 
p. 396; ' KXi'iutlifi^oi A. xxvii. 6 Tisch. (following,' M>S. authority), for -reaj; 
a«S£»T«5 1 Tim. ii. 3 Tisch., ah, k-n-oliKrhi Ellic, Alf. ; in L. viii. 26 the 
accentuated MSS. are divided between avT/'ri^« (Lach., Trep;.) and uyTivif^a. 
(Tisch., Westc), see Lob. Path. 11. 206; oiu Mk. xv. 29 Tisch., for oU ; 
ffufTii A. xxvii. 17 Lachni., for cufn;. Griesbach and others have (lafyafi-rai 
Kev. xxi. 21, for -Irui ; Itr^Zn E. vi. 14 (o<r.fwv).] 


rection introduced by those who took offence at the use of the 
article. There is as little reason for reading ev rw Trpdyfiarc in 
I Til. iv, 6. In 1 C. X. 19 several recent editors (Knapp and 
Meyer) read, otc el8co\6duTov rl ia-riv, rj on etBcoXov rt ia-riv; on 
the ground that rt is here emphatic (the opposite of ovhev), and 
that an ambiguity is occasioned by the other reading, elhwXoOvTov 
Ti eariv (Lachm.), since this might be rendered, " that' any 
offering to an idol exists," — that there is such a thing as an 
offering to an idol. But even if we grant that Meyer's is 
certainly the true interpretation, the ordinary accentuation need 
not be changed ; for with it we may translate, " that an offer- 
ing to an idol is anything,"^ — in reality, and not in appearance 
merely.^ In Jo. vii. 34, 36, critics are still divided between 
oirov elfjbl ijco,, and uttov elfii, iyd) (the reading of several 
Fathers and versions) ; and in A. xix. 38 almost all recent 
editions have dyopaiot (an adjective, in the sense judicial) 
instead of dyopalot,. In regard to the former passage, John's 
ordinary usage (comp. xii. 26, xiv, 3, xvii. 24) is sufficient 
proof that €tfii is to be preferred:' in the latter dyopatoi 
is probably correct, if we follow Suidas, and in Ammon. p. 4 
read (with Kulencamp), dyopawi fiev yap iartv rj rip-epa' 
dyopalot 8e 6 'Epfjirj^ 6 eVl t^9 dyopd<i. Comp. Lob. Faral. 
p. 340.' 

In Eom. i. 30 some write 6eo(nvyeL<i, maintaining that the 
word is here used in an active sense, and thar OeocrTvyei^i is 
passive, Deo exosi. But the analogy of su^^h adjectives as 
/jLTjrpoKTovoi; and p,riTpoKT6vo<i (Buttm. II. 482,.Jelf 50) proves 
nothing for adjectives in t;? ; and Suidas says expressly that 
6eoarvyel<i means both ol viro deov p^taov/xevoi and ol deov 
fj.iaovvTe<i, though he distinguishes between d€OfMiai]<i and 
0€ofjLL(n]<; in signification. Hence deo(7rvyd<i, which alone is 
according to analogy (compound adjectives in 779 being oxytone), 
is the only correct form. As regards the sense, it would seem 
that the active meaning which Suidas gives to the word was 

1 [That is, the same meaninp: may be obtained from I'iluX'oiur'at t< iitti* 
through the emphasis laid on iVriv, as from ilduX. t'i ia-riv through the em- 
phasis ou t/ : "is anything at all" is practically equivalent to "is (really) 

'^ See Liicke in loc, after Knapp, Comm. Isagog. p. 32 sq. 

' [Tisch. in loc. (ed. 8) remarks that the MSS. do not support the distinction, 
and reads Icyofatin : so Westcott and Hort. See Lij)sius, p. .26.] 


not derived by him from Greek usage, but was assumed for 
this very passage. The word, it is true, does not often occur, 
but no instance has been found in which a Greek author has 
certainly used it in an active sense: see Fritz, in loc. There 
is however good ground for the distinction between rpoxo'i 
wheel, Ja. iii. 6 (in the text and the accentuated MSS.), and 
rpoxo^ course, the reading adopted by Grotius, Hottinger, 
Schulthess, and others; see 8ch«ef. Soph. II. 307. The figure 
rpoyh^ 7ei'6<re&)9 (in conjunction with <f)\oyi^ov(ra) is neither 
incorrect nor, in James, particularly strange ; hence no change 
of accent is required. 

The alterations of accent which have been proposed in other 
passages — as ofjiios for o/liu>? in 1 C. xiv. 7j ■ttpuitotoko's for irpuiTOTOKo^ 
in Col. L 15 (see Meyer), and even «^a»ra>v for f^wrwv in Ja. i. 17 
(■n-aTTjp Twv «^.)— originated either in dogmatic prepossessions or in 
ignorance of the language. The last is altogether absurd. 

3, It is still a disputed question whether in prose (for to 
poetry peculiar considerations apply, coniip. e.g. EUendt, Lex. 
Soph. T. 476) the pronoun should be joined as an enclitic to a 
preposition, where no emphasis is intended ; that is, whether we 
should write Trapd aov, ev fiot, eU fie, rather than Trapa aov, 
€P ip,ot, K.rX. In. the editions 9f the N, T, (Lachmann's in- 
cluded), as. in those of Greek authors in general, we regularly 
find TT/ao? fie, Trp6<i tre, but ev aoi, ev ifioc, eVi ere, eh cue, eir 
ifie, etc. It is only in the case of tt/jo? fie, <re, that variants are 
noted-, the orthdtoned pronouns being sometimes found (L. i. 43, 
A. xxil 8, 13, xxiii. 22, xxiv. 19) in B and other MSS., mostly 
at the end of a sentence or clause : see'Bornem. on A. xxiv. 19, 
Partly on the authority of ancient grammarians, and partly for 
the reason assigned by Hermann {De em. gr. Grcee. p. 75 sq.), 
that in such combinations the pronoun is the principal word, one 
must be disposed to decide generally in favour of retaining the 
accent of the pronoun: irp6<i fie, hdwever, is defended by a portion 
of the grammarians, and is often found in MSS. See Buttm. I 
285 sq., i&Qohs, Anth. Pal. I. Proef. p. 32, Matth. Eurip. Or. 
384 and Sprachl. 29, Kriig. p. 82, also Ellendt, Arrian I. 199. 
Yet Eeisig (Conj. in Aristoph. p. 56) and Bornemann (Xen. 
Conv. p. 163) maintain the other view; and it must be confessed 
that — besides the case of tt^o? fie — the enclitic forms are often 
found in good MSS. of Greek authors. The accent must of 


course be retained when the pronoun is emphatic : thus Knapp 
and Schulz correctly write rC irpo'^ ae in Jo. xxi. 22.^ 

As regards the inclination of the accent, the ordinary rules of 
the grammarians are in general observed in editions of the N. T. 
Hence even Fritzsche stili writes 6 Trats /jlov Mt. viiL 6, i$ vfiiav 
Tives Jo. vi. 64, inro tiviov L. ix. 7 ; not ttoT*; fxov, c^ vfiStv Tives, 
iirb TivG>v, which are defended by Hermann {De eimnd. gr. Gr. I. 
71, 73). Lachraann^ introduced the accent in the last two cases, 
and also wrote ttoO Io-tiv Mt. ii. 2, jlict avTiov Io-tlv Mk. ii. 19, but 
left TToZs fwv unchanged : he has been followed by Tisch. (ed. 2). 
Compare however the cautious opinion of Buttmann (1. 65 sq.)-* 

Section VII. 


1. In the editions of the N. T. down to that of Griesbach inclu- 
sive, the punctuation was not only wanting in consistency, but 
was also excessive. To make the meaning clearer editors intro- 
duced a profusion of stops, espetially commas ; and in doing 
this often intruded on the text their own interpretation of it." 
Knapp was the first who bestowed closer attention on the 
subject, and attempted to reduce it to fixed principles. Schulz, 
Lacbmann, and Tischendorf (who usually agiees with Lach- 
mann), have followed in the same track,® but with stiU greater 
reserve : no one of these^ however, has given a general exposi- 
tion of his principles.^ 

* [Most editors 6i thd N. T. write -rfit fit, fi, in ordinary cases. In Tischen- 
dorPs 7 th ed. we find regularly -rfif fci, ri ; but in ed. 8 he retains the accent ttf 
the pronoun (in this case) only when the pronoun is emphatic (aa Mt. iii. 14). 
See further Lipsius pp. 5^-67, Jelf 64, Don. p. 44.] 

* Yet Lachm. writes Wl thui A., xxvii. 44, iay t<»«» Jo. xx. 23. 

3 [This sulyect is examined by Lipsius in detail, as regards the asage of 
the TiXX and the N. T. -The principal departure from the ordinary rules is in 
the case of two enclitics, the first of which has one syllable, the second two ; 
here, in editions of the LXX and the N. T., the second enclitic almost always 
retains its accent, as iirx^fonpis fuu ivrlt. Tischendorf usually follows this role. 
He also writes '(on MS.* authority) ij-4'»Ta fitv ris, not n-^. f*»u •nt, and (once, 
Mk. xiv. 14) *aZ 'nrrit. See his Proleg. p. 62 (ed. 7). Lipsius pp. 49-59, Jelf 
64, Don. p. 43 sq. On ^' interpunctio cum enclisi conjuncta,' see Lobeck, 
Path. II. 321-332, Lipsius p. 55 sq.] 

* Corap. especially Poppo in the Ally. LU. Zeit. 1826, I. 506 sqq., and, 
Matth. 59. 

' Oomp. also Buttm. I. 68, Schleierm. Hermen. p. 76. 

8 Among editors oY Greek authors, I. Bekker has. begun to punctuate with 
greater moderation and consistency, W. Dindorf with still more reserve : both 
however seem to carry the exclusion of th,e comma foo far. 

' Riiick has proposed {Stvd. u. Krit. 1842, p. 554 sq.) that in punctuation 


There is a scientific necessity for punctuation, since any 
representation of oral discourse would manifestly be incomplete 
without it. It was however originally devised for a practical 
purpose — to aid the reader, especially in reading aloud, by 
marking the various pauses for the voice. And such its main 
object must still be, — ^to enable the reader to perceive at once 
what words are to be connected together, and, so far, to guide 
him to the correct perception of the meaning.^ Punctuation 
must therefore be founded on an examination of the logical, or 
rather (since the thought is already clothed in language) of 
the grammatical and rhetoricar relations of the words to one 
another. Hence it would be asking too much to require that 
an editor should in no degree whatever indicate his own inter- 
pretation of the passage by the punctuation, since he has to 
insert not merely commas but also the colon and the note of 

With respect to the proper use of the colon or of the full stop 
in the N. T. text there can scarcely be any doubt. Lachmann 
and Tischendorf ^ indeed have dropped the colon before a direct 
quotation, preferring to indicate the commencement of the 
quotation by a capital letter; but we can see no sufficient 
reason for this innovation. 

There is much less uniformity in the use of the comma. So 
much as this is clear — that only a sentence which is itself gram- 
matically complete,^ and which also stands in close connexion 
with another sentence, should be marked off by a comma ; and 
that the comma was, strictly speaking, invented for this pur- 
pose. But a grammatically complete sentence comprehends not 
merely subject, predicate, and copula (each of wliich three ele- 
ments may be either expressed or understood), but also all qua- 
lifying words which are introduced into the sentence to define 

we should return to the principles of the ancient Greek grammarians (Villoison, 
Ariecd. II. 138 sqq.). This however would be hardly practicable. 

^ Buttmann, loc. cit. 

* [In his 8th ed. Tisch. has returned to the old practice.] 

' The grammatical sentence will, as a rule, coincide with the logical, but 
not always. In L. xii. 17, Jo. vi. 29 (see p. 65), for example, there are logi- 
cally two sentences, but by means of the relative the second is incorporated in 
the first, so that the two form grammatically one whole. This is the case in 
every instance of breviloquence, where two sentences are contracted into one. 
Also in 1 Tim. vi. 3, i" tj; trtpoOiiarxaXir xa) firi -rfogip^irai vyiainouri Xiysn, 
we have two logical propositions, but in this construction the two form one 
grammatical sentence : see below, p. 6(5, 


these main elements more precisely, and without wliich the sense 
would be imperfect, Hence Griesbach, for instance, was wrong 
in separating the verb from its subject by a comma whenever the 
subject was accompanied by a participle, or consisted of a par- 
ticiple with its adjuncts; as in Mk vii. 8,x. 49, Eom. viii. 5, 
1 Jo! ii. 4, iii. 1 5. The comma is also wrongly inserted in 
1 Th. iv. 9, Trepl Se jrjs <f)i\ahe\(f)ia'?, ov ■^(peiav e^t^re ypdipeiv 
vfiiv' Mt. vi. IG, ixT) <ylv€ade, coSTrep oi viroKpnai (for p,ri <y[v. 
by itself gives no sense at all), Mt. v. 32, 69 av uiroXvo-rj ttjv 
yvvaifca ainov, TrapeKTo^ \6jov 7rnpveia<; (the last words contain 
the most essentia] part of the statement), Mt. xxii. 3, KaX 
aireareCke rov<; Bov\ov<: avrov, KaKecrai tou9 KeKk'qixkvou^' 1 Th. 
iii. 9, TtVor f^/ap €v-^apLariai> Supd/j.efla tw $€U) uvra'TroBovvai irepl 
vfidp, iirX Trdatj rrj X^P?" ^ C. vii. 1 , KaXov dvOpoiiru), yvvaiKO^ 
fiT) uTrreadai' A. v. 2 [?J,/cat €vda(ptcraTO drrb tt}? TLfxriq^a-vveibvlij^ 
Kal T?}? 'yvvaiKO'i. But the notion of a complete sentence is still 
more comprehensive. Even a relative clause must be con- 
sidered a part of the precedinr,^ sentence, vdien the rehitive 
(whether pronoun or adverb) includes the demonstrative, as 
Jo. vi. 29, iW 7n(TTevar]T€ eh au drrecrreLKev eKelvo<i' Mt. xxiv. 
44, fi ov 8oKecT6 wpa 6 viw^ rod duOpcoTrov ep^^rai' L. xii. 17, 
on ovK Ip^tu TToO avvd^oi Tov<i KapiTovs p-ov ; or when there is an 
attraction of the relative, as L. ii. 20, eVt iracnv oh qKovaav ; ^ 
or when the relative clause is so necessary a complement to the 
antecedent that the sense is not complete unless both are taken 
together, as L. xii. 8, Tra? 09 av 6p,o\oyi](Tr]- Mt. xiii. 44, iravra 
oaa e%et ; or when the preposition is not repeated before the 
relative, as A. xiiL 39, airo Trdvrcov wv ovk ■^Svv^Orjre k.t.X., 
L. i. 25.''' Also when the subject, the predicate, or the copula 
of a sentence is composed of several words joined by Kai 
(or ovSe), we must take all these words together, and regard 
them as one whole grammatically, though, logically considered, 
there are really several sentences : Mk. xiv. 22, \aj3div 6 ^Irja-oD^ 
aprov €vKoyrj(Ta<i eKkaae koI eBcoKev avroh' Jo. vi. 24, Irjaov'i 
OVK 'icTTLv iKei ovBe ol pbaOrjTai avrou' Mt. xiii. 6, -qXiov dvarei- 
\avro<; iKavpartcrdr] koI Bia to /x^ ^X^^^ pi^av i^rjpdvdr) (so 
Lachm. correctly), 1 Tim. vi. 3, Mt. vi. 26. — (The case is 

' Compare Schsef. Demosth. II. 657. 

* It would b(i going too far to omit the comma before every relative sentence, 
as is (lone by Bekker, for instance, in his edition of Plato, 



different in Mk. xiv. 2 7, Trard^o) tov Troifiii'a, KaX SiaaKopvia-d^- 
aerai ra irpo^ara' Mt. vii. 7, aireire, kol Bodrja-erac vfuv : 
here two complete sentences are connected by Kai, and thei'e- 
fore the comma cannot be omitted. When ri separates two 
sentences, the comma is always required before it.) 

The comma must also be omitted between such sentences as 
(TV fiovo^ irapoiKet'; 'lepovcr. koI ovk €yvo)<i k.t.X, (L. xxiv. 18), 
because they are so closely connected that they nmst be read 
without a pause, and only when thus joined together convey the 
proper sense. In Mk. xv. 25 also we must write ■^v wpa rpirr] 
KoX icnavpcoaav avrov, and in Mt. viii. 8, ovk elpX licavo<i iva 
fxov vTTo rr)v aTkyrjv el'^ekdriq, without any break. Lastly, the 
comma may be omitted before dWd when the following sen- 
tence is incomplete, and therefore has its roots, so to speak, in 
what has gone before : thus Roui. viii. 9, u/t6t9 Se ovk eVre eV 
aapKL aXX' iv irvevfiaTC and in ver. 4, Toc<i firj Kara crdpKa 
TrepLTrarova-tu dWa Kara irvev^a (here Fritzsche retains the 

2. On the other hand, we must not brmg too much into a 
sentence grammatically complete, and thus omit commas when 
they are really necessary. 

(a) The vocative is never a constituent part of the sentence 
•with which it is connected, but it is to be regarded as a sort of 
announcement of it ; especially when the verb of the sentence is 
in the 1st or 3rd person. Hence the comma is required in Jo. 
ix. 2, pa^^l, Tt'f T^fiaprev Mk. xiv. 36, djS^d 6 TraTrjp, Travra 
Bvvard aof 2 P. iii. 1, L. xv. 18, xviii. 11, al. 

{b) A comma is correctly inserted after a word which is the 
subject both of a sentence immediately following it and begin- 
ning with a conjunction, and also of the principal sentence ; 
as Jo. vii 31, o Xpi<7T6<;, orav e\6y, , . . irotijaei. Lach- 
mann's practice is different. 

(c) If a grammatically complete sentence is followed by a 
supplementary statement, which might properly form a sentence 
of itself, the two must be separated by a comma : thus Rom. 
xii. 1 , TTapaKaXo) vfid<; irapaarrjcrai to, (Tcofiara v. 0. ^. . . , rw 
Beu), T7JV XoyiKTjv Xarpetav (that is, ?7Tt9 ia-rlv rj \oy. Xar.), 1 Tim. 
ii. 6,0 Bov^ iavTov dvTiXvrpov virkp irduTcov, to fxaprvptov Katpoi<i 
tStofc?. So also in the case of participles, &c. : Col. ii. 2, iva 
TrapuKX. al xapBiai avrSiv, av[Ji^L(3a(x$ivTe<i iv dydiry Jo. ix. 1 3^ 


a<yovcnv avrov irpo<i rov<; (f)apia-aiov<;, top irore rv^\6v' Koni. 
viii. 4, 'iva ro hiKaiayfxa rov vofMou irX'qpcoOfj iv rjijuv, rot<i /xr) 
Kara crdpKa TrepLiraTovcnv' ver. 20, E. i. 12. 

(d) If a twofold construction is used in what is (logically) a 
single sentence, — as when an anacoluthon occnrs, — the parts 
must be separated by a comma in writing, and in reading by a 
pause ; as in Jo. xv. 2, ttciv Kkrj/jba ev ifu-ol fMt) (f)epov Kapirov, 
aipei avro. By the addition of avro the words Tray k\. . . . 
Kapirov hecome a casus pendens, wbich is merely placed in front 
of the sentence ; and hence no one would read the words with- 
out a pause. Similarly in Eev. iii 12, 6 vikmv, 'jrocijcrco avrov 
crrvkov K.r.X., H. ix. 23,^ avdyKTj ra uev uTroBelyfjuara rcou ev 
roi<; ovpavoU, rovrofi Kadapi^eadat. It is obvious that, when 
complete sentences are introduced, they must be marked off by 
commas from the principal sentence, as L. ix. 28, A. v. 7, al. 
[see § 62. 2.] 

(«) If in a sentence several words which stand in the same 
relation are joined to one another da-vvBerax; (without Ka{), or 
merely enumerated in succession, they must be separated from 
one another by commas : 1 P. v. 1 0, avro<i Karapricrec, a-rrjpL^et,, 
adevcoaei, OepbeXLaxrei' L. xiii. 1 4, diroKptdel'i he 6 ap^tcrf yaYtu^o?, 
ayavaKrwv on . . . o ^Ir)aov<;, eXeye. 

If the use of the comma in all these cases is correct, one might 
wish that we had a subordinate stop — a half comma— that those 
words in a continuous grammatical sentence which a reader is in 
danger of connecting together, though they certainly do not form (so 
to speak) one grammatical group, might be exhibited to the eye as 
unconnected. Thus in L. xvi, lO, o tticttos iv IXa-^ia-ria koI ev 7roAA<3 
irio-Tos ecTTt, any reader may go wrong, because xat naturally leads 
him to expect a second word parallel to ttiotos ev (Xa-^^ia-Tia. The 
same may be said of the following passages : Rom. iv. 14, f.1 yap 
ol €K vofxov K\r)pov6fj.oi' Ja. V. 12, ^ro) Bk vfxCjv ro vat vol koL to ov 
ov' 1 C. XV. 47, 6 TrpwTOS av6po}Tro<s c/c y^s xo'lko^' H. V. 12, o^ct- 
Aovres ttvai SiSacrxaXot 8ia rov )(p6vov irdXiv )(p€tav e)^eT€ rov SiSd- 
(TKCLv v/iSs' Jo. V. 5, rjv Tis avdpuiTTO'i exei TpidKovra koI o/cro) irrf 
€p(wv ev rfj a.cr6ev€La' liom, iii. 9 , tl ovv ; 7rpo€;^o/u,e^a ; ov ttoivtcos 
(ov, TravTw?). A half comma would make all clear. As however 
no such stop exists, we might employ in its stead an ordinary comma, 
just as it is used in writing and print to distinguish o,Tt from 
on. But recent editors use no stop at all in such cases, and this 
is perhaps the most prudent course.^ 

' [This is probably misplaced, and should come in below, with Rom. iv. 14, etc. ] 
^ [Lipsius (pp. 83-108) gives a detailed analysis of Lachmann's system of 


3. It is in many respects desirable that an editor's view of 
a passage should not be introduced into the text by means of 
punctuation. This is easily avoided in cases where it is not 
necessary to punctuate at all, as in Rom, i. 1 7, vii. 21, Mfc. xi. 11. 
There are passages, however, where a stop — full stop, colon, 
comma, or note of interrogation — is absolutely necessary, and 
yet cannot be introduced without the adoption of some parti- 
cular interpretation. In Jo. vii. 21, 22, for instance, every 
editor must decide whether he will write, '''.Ei' epyov eiroirjaa kuX 
Trdvre'i dav/xd^ere' Sia tovto MQ)<Trj<; BeScoKev vfitu TreptTOfjbtjv 
K.r.X. (with Chrysostom, Cyril, Euthymius Zigabenus, al.), or 
'^Ev ep'yov . . . davfid^ere Scd rovro. Mayai}^ k.t.X., with Theo- 
phylact and nearly all modern editors and commentators. The 
former punctuation might still be defended (not indeed on 
the ground that, as Schulz has shown, Sia tovto in John 
usually begins, but never ends a sentence, — but) if the con- 
nexion were understood thus : " I have done one work and ye 
all wonder : therefore (be it known to you) Moses has given 
you etc." That is : "I will put an end to your wonder : you 
yourselves perform circumcision on the Sabbath according to 
the law of Moses. If then this ceremony, which immediately 
affects only one part of the body, is not a violation of the 
Sabbath, surely the work of healing, which extends to the whole 
man, is also allowed." I confess, however, that (as also Liicke 
has shown) the explanation of the passage is far simpler if the 
ordinary punctuation is retained.^ Heb. xi. 1 might be punctu- 
ated, eVrt 8e irlari^i, eXTrt^o/xevcov vTroa-raat^ k.t.X. : the emphasis 
would thus fall on eaTi, and the existence of Tr/crri? of such a 
kind as the words in apposition describe would be indicated as 
an historical fact. I now think, however, that it is more appro- 
priate to omit the comma, so that the words contain a definition 
of faith, — the accuracy of which definition is illustrated by the 

punctuation, marking instances in which Tischendorrs practice is different. In 
his 7th ed. Tisch. punctuates more sparingly than before : "quod raritati stu- 
debamus, id earn commendationem habet, quod quo antiquiores cdd. sunt, eo 
rarior interpunctio est." {Proleg. p. 62.) On the traces ot" punctuation in the 
older MSS,, see Lipsius pp. 67-76.] 

' [Of recent commentators, Luthardt, Meyer, and Alford join S/i ToZra to ver. 
22, but do not assume an ellipsis. On the other side, the English reader may be 
referred to Stier, Words of the Lord Jesus, V. 259 ; Olshausen, Comm. III. 480, 
and the notes of Tholuck, Hcngstenberg, and Wordsworth. Tisch. (ed. 8) omits 
S(a ravro, ou Very slender authority, Westcott and Hort join the words to ver. 
22. See Westcott's note in loc] 


historical examples that follow : see Bleek in loc. In punctu- 
ating Jo. xiv. 30, 31, commentators vary between iv i/xol ovk 
€■^^€1 oiihev, aX>C "va . . . ttoiw. iyelpeade K.rX., and ovhev cOOC 
'Iva . . . TToico, eyeipeade k.t.X. It is impossible to avoid varia- 
tions of this kind, if the N. T. text is punctuated at all. Compare 
further Eom. iii. 9, v. 16, vi. 21, viii. 33, ix. 5,xi. 31, 1 C.i. 13, 
vi. 4, xvi. 3, A. V. 35 (.see Kiihnol), H. iii. 2, Ja. ii. 1, 4, 18, 
V. 3, 4. 

The same reluctance to engage the reader in favour of any par- 
ticular interpretation of the text is probably the main cause which 
has led to the entire disuse of the parenthesis (once so much abused) 
on the part of some recent editors, e.g. Tis^hendorf. It was retained 
by Lachmann. See below, § 62. 

Section VIII. 


1. Masculine proper names in a? of the 1st decl. — mostly 
oriental, but formed in accordance with a familiar Greek ana- 
logy — always make the genit. .sing, in a: 'Icoavva L. iii. 27, 
*Io)vd Mt. xii. 39, Jo. i. 43, ah, KXwira Jo. xix. 25, XTe(^ava 1 
C. i. 16, xvi. 15, SK€va A. xix. 14, Krjcpa 1 C. i. 12, Xarava 
Mk. i. 13, 2 Th, ii, 9, ^Eiracjipa Col. i. 7 : ^ [comp. fiaixoiva L. 
xvi. 9]. 

Those also which end in unaccented a<? make the genitive in 
a ; OS Kald(j)a Jo. xviii. 13, "Avva L. iii. 2, ^Apira 2 C. xi, 32 
(Joseph. Ant. 17. 3. 2, 18. 5. 1), Bapvd^a G. ii. 1, CoL iv. 10, 
^AypiTrTra^ A. xxv. 23, comp. Joseph. Ant. 16. 2. 3, 16. 6. 7, 
20. 7. 1, al. (XiXa Joseph. Vit. 17, MarOeLa Act. A])Ocr. p. 133), 
^lovha often. — The same forms are not unfrequently used by 
Attic writers in proper names ; as MaaKa Xen. An. 1. 5. 4, 
Tw^pva Xen. Cyr. 5, 2. 14, KofMara Theocr. 5. 150, ah: comp. 
Krug. p. 42 ' (Jelf 79, Don. p. 89), and on Boppa (L. xiii. 29, 
Rev. xxi. 13), in particular, Buttm. 1. 147, 199, Bekker, ^?iecc?. 
III. 1186. 

^ So BoftS, in Act. Thorn., Aovna Euseb. H. E. 3. 24, 'E^^S ib. 3. 3. 

^ On the other hand, we find ' KyplT-^ou occasionally in Josephus {Ant. 18. 7. 
1 and 2, 18. 8. 8, al.) and Euseb. H. E. 2. 19. In the same way the MSS. of 
Xenophon varj' between Fujipuou and TM^pva.. 

^ Georgi, Hkr. I. 156, Ellendt on Arrian, Al. I. S3, V. Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 


The genitive of nouns in a? pure ends in ov in the N. T., as 
usually in Attic writers (e.g. Alvelas;) ;^ as ^AvSpea-i Mk. i. 29, 
Jo. i. 45 (Joseph.^71^. 12. 2. 3,Ad.Apocr. pp. 158, 159), "HXlas 
L. i. 17 [?], iv. 25, 'Haata'; Mt. iii. 3, xiii. 14, A. xxviii. 25,al., 
'l€pe/iila<; Mt. ii. 17, xxvii. 9, Za^apia<i Mt. xxiii. 35, L. i. 40, al., 
AvcravLa<i L. iii, 1, Bapa^i'a<i Mt. xxiii. 35. Similarly ^Ovl-a'i 
-ov (so always in Josephus), Tco^l-a^; -ov, Geo. Syncell. Chro- 
nofjr. p. 164, though the usual genitive is Tco/Sla^' 

Several names of places that might be declined as nouns of 
the 1st decl. are in the N. T. indeclinable : as Kam (dat. Jo. ii. 1, 

11, accus. Jo. iv. 46), BrjOa-a'iSd, BriO^ayri, VoXyoda, 'Fufxa.^ B-qOafiapa, 

Jo. i. 28, must not be classed with these, for Origen treats it as 
a neuter plural : in this passage recent editors read iv Brfiavia. 
Av88a is certainly inflected as a fern. sing, in A, ix. 38 (Ai'^Svjs) ; 
but in verses 32, 35, we find AvSSa as a neut. accus. in good 

The compounds in ap-^o-i^ usually exchange this ending for apx^'^ 
(of the 1st decl.) -in the N. T. and in later Greek :^ as Trarpm/ax^? 
H. vii. 4, plur. A. vii. 8, 9 (1 Chr. xxvii. 22); T€Tpdpxn<; Mt. xiv. 1, L. 
iii. 19, ix. 7 (Joseph. Ant. 18. 7. 1, Terpapxat Euseb. H. E. 1. 7. 4); 
TToAirapX^s A. xvii. 6 ; iOvdpxn's 2 C. xi. 32 (IMacc. xiv. 47, iOvdpxrj 
1 Mace, XV. 1, 2, iOvdpxqv Joseph. A7it. 17. 11. 4, lOvdpxa'i Eus. 
Const. 1. 8); from do-iap^i;?, ao-Mpx^v A. xix. 31 (atyidpxqv Euseb. 
H. E. 4. 15. 11, Asiarcha, Cod. Theodos. 15. 92) ; tKarovrapx^? ■^'^- ^• 
1, 22, xxi. 32, xxii. 26 (JosepL B. J. 3. 6. 2), kKaTovTdpxxj A. xxiv. 
23, xxvii. 31, Mt, viii. 13, — where however a few MSS. have 

^ Lobeck, Proleg. Pathol, p. 487 sqq. 

* See in general Georg. Chojrobosci Diet, in Theod. Can. (ed. Gaisf.), I. 42. 

' [Bniraidect may be the accus. of -Sa in Mk. vi. 45, viii. 2'2, but is vocative in 
Mt. xi. 21. In Mt. xxvii. 33 we find lU ToKyoffd, but in Mk. xv. 22 (probably) 

i'Ti VoXyoitiv.^ 

* See Winer, BWB. II. 30. ["At/'SSa is feminine in 1 Mace, and in Pliny: 
Josephus uses both modes of inflexion." RWB. I.e. In A. ix. 38 we must read 
Xvllai. — Compare Vof^opfuv Mt. x. 15 (Gen. xiii. 10), To/nippas 2 V. ii. 6 (Gen. 
xiv. 2); Avirrpav A. xiv. 6, al., A'jffTpoii A. xiv. 8, al. ; Svecrtipuy A. xvi. 14, 
^va.Tupa.v Rev. i. 11 (in good MSS.). — In the case of Uapia, '^apia.fi, the variation 
between the inflected and the non-iuflected forms is very perplexing.] 

* It is true the MSS. of the older Greek writers also vary between eepx'i. and 
«^;t:i5) '^ut recent critics give the preference to apxoi (comp. Bornem. Xen. Conv. 
I. 4, Popi)o, Xen. Cyr. 2. 1. 22, p. 109); this form also agrees best with the 
derivation of these words (from a.i>x<>t). Conip. Tovapxo; Ms.ch. ChoHjih. 662 ; 
but yv/uvaa-iapxis niust be retained in .^schin. 7'm. I. 23 (ed. Bremi). 

* That apxt^s was the usual termination in the apostolic age also seems a 
legitimate inference from the fact that the Romans, in translating these words 
into Latin, used this or a similar form, though it would have been as easy to 
use -archus. Thus we find Tetrarches, Hirt. Bell. Al. r. 67, Liv. Epit. 94, 
Horat. Senn. 1. 3. 12, Lucan 7. 227 ; Alaharches, Cic. Attic. 2. 17, Juvcn. Sat. 
1. 130 ; Topareha, Spartian. in Hadriai}. 13 ; Patrtarcha, Tertull. de Anlm. c. 7. 
.'55, al. : comp. Schajf. Demosth. II. 151. At a later period, we have the testi- 
mony of the Byzantine writers for the preponderance of this form. 


tKaToi'Tap;^w, as ill Joseph. B. J. 2. 4. 3 iKarovrapxav IS read besides 
eKaTovTdp)0i'. But £KaTovTajo;(os occuis almost without any variant in 
Mt. viii. 5, 8, L. vii. 6, A. xxii. 25 : iKarovTapxov, L. vii. 2, may come 
from iKaTovTo.px'']^ ; so also may the gen. plur. A. xxiii. 23, if we write 
€KaTovTapxC!)v for -dpxuiv.^ Lastly, for a-TpaTOTreSdpxrj A. xxviii. 16 
(Const. Man. 4412, a!.) the better MSS. have -apxw. The following 
additional instanceti of the form -a/sx'?? ^^Y be adduced from the 
Greek Bible and from writers of the first centuries after Christ : 
yevea-idpxTTi Wis. xiii. 3,^ KV7rpidpxy)s 2 Macc. xii. 2, Tcnrapx'*?? Gen. xli. 
34, Dan. iii. 2, 3, vi. 7, Euseb. H. E. 1. 13. 3, OLaa-dpxrj^ Lucian, 
Peregr. 11, jxepdpxr}'; Arrian, Tact. p. 30, <f}aXayydpxrj<i ih. p. 30, 
ilXapxys iL \). 50, i\€(f)ai'Tdpxr]'i 2 Macc. xiv. 12, 3 Macc. v. 4, 45, 
dXajf3dpxy]'i Joseph. j4nt. 19. 5. 1, yevdpxrj'i Lycophr. 1307, Jogeph. 
Jut 1. 13. 4, rakdpxn^ Arrian, Al. 2. 16. 11, Euseb. Cmist. 4. 63 
(thougii in 4. 51, 68, he uses Ta$iapxo<i, s^e Heinich. J7idex p. 585), 
iAapx/?s Anian, y}l. 1, 12. 11, 2. 7. 5, (TvpLdpxr}<: Act Apocr. p. 52, 
vop.dpx-q<i Fapyr. Taur. p. 24, y€LTovLdpxr]<i Boisson. Anecd. V. 73, 
To quote from the Byzantines all the examples of compounds in 
-apxv^ would be an endless work; they occur on almost every page. — 
Of some compounds -upxo<i is the only form which occurs in the N.T. : 
thus we find x'-^^'^PX^'^ i" ^'^ t'''® N- T- passages, 22 in number (on the 
other hand, x^Aiupx^^ Arrian, Al. 1. 22. 9, 7. 25. 11, see Ellendt, 
Arrian II. 267), and also in the LXX, Ex. xviii. 11,^ 25, Dt. i. 15, 
Num. i. 16, in which passages we also meet with 8tKd8apxo<; (StKa- 
Sdpxai Arrian, Tad. p. 98). In the Byzantines, KevTapxo<; Cedren. 1, 
705, 708, vuKTcVapxos Leo Diac. 6. 2, must be looked upon as isolated 
instances of this form. 

We meet with dialectic inflexions of nouns of the 1st decl., in 
<nrupiq<i the Ionic genit. of a-iriipa, A. xxi. 31, xxvii. 1, and — with 
some variation in the MSS. — A. x. 1 (comp. Arrian, Acies contra 
Alanos pp. 99, 100, 102) : good MSS. also have p.axa.ip-q% Rev. xiii. 14, 
H. xi. 34, 37, and p^x'^^PH I^ev. xiii. 10, L. xxii. 49, A. xii. 2 (comp. 
Ex. XV. 9). Compare also SaTr^etpr; A. v. 1 (SaTr^eipa Lachm.), and 
(rrvetSvtV ver. 2, in good MSS." See Matth. 68. 2.^ 

^ [In the received text -as occurs 15 times, -vs 5; in Tisch. (ed. 7), -o; 6 times 
and -»s 13 ; in ed. 8 Tis<5h. reads -«s in A. xxii. 25 only, l)ut in some passages 
there is little authority for the reading which he accepts. In the text of West- 
cott and Hort (who receive -es 4 times, -»,• 15), Matthew uses -as in nomin., -n 
in dative ; Luke (in Gospel and Acts) -*is only, except in accus. sing. (A. xxii, 
25). — For TiTfa.px*is we should probably read Tirfaaf^ns : so also rirfaapx.'''^^-^ 

^ [In ed. 7 Winer added xu/itapx*'!, Esth. ii. 3.] 

' [This should be xviii, 21 : tfsxaSa^;^!); occurs in some o/" these passages of the 
LXX, viz. Ex. xviii. 21, 25, Dt. i. 15.] 

•• [Tischendorf (ed. 8) receives the « in all these instances ; also -rXnfifiuptis L. 
vi. 48, TfJp^ts A. xxvii. 30. On the Ionic forms in the N. T. see Cobet, JV. T, 
Vatic, pp. xxxiii, Ixxiii sq., xc : A. Buttroann {Gr. p. 11) maintains that these 
should not be called lonisms, as we do not find the nomin. -/m in the N. T. With 
auniiulns Tisch. compares ifiP>ip>n><.v'tns 1 S. xxv. 20, x.uii>yi.ulns Ex. viii. 21, 24 : 
see his Proleg. p. 54 (ed. 7).] 

* [We have uipUs in Jo. xi, 1 : comp, 'A»»« 1 S. L 2, 5, A<;JW (Jelf 78. Obs.).] 


2. In the 2ud declension we find the following forms : — 

(a) ^AttoWco, accus. sing, of '^TroXXw? (A. xviii. 24) A. xix. 1, 
1 C. iv. 6 [?], instead of AiroXkcov, comp. Buttm. I. 155, 199 
(Jelf 86) : the genitive is ^AiroWoi, according to rule, 1 C. iii. 4, 
xvi. 12. In A. xxi. 1 we find in good MSS. ti]v Kw (1 Mace. 
XV. 23, Joseph. Ant. 14. 7. 2), see Buttm. I. 155. Kriig. p. 46 : 
the common reading rrjv Kflw is very weakly supported. For 
Kw<?, however, a collateral indeclinable form Kfo occurs in Strabo 
10. 489. Comxjare further Duker on Thuc. 8. 41. 

{h) Not as dative of vov-i, after the analogy of the 3rd decl , 
1 C. i. 10, xiv. 15, Eom. vii. 25 ; vo6<i as genitive, for vov, 1 C. 
xiv. 19. Tlie usual form of the dative in Greek writers is v6(o 
or VQi : w^ occurs only in Simplic. ad Aristot. I'hys. 31. 25, Philo 
1. 63 (Bckker, Anecd. III. p. 1196), the Byzantines, — e.g, 
Malalas, see the index in the Bonn ed., Theophan. 28, — and the 
Fathers: see Lob. p, 453, Boisson. Marin, p. 93 sq. . Similarly 
7rXoo9, A. xxviu 9, genit. for ttXoC, as in Arrian, Peripl. p. 176, 
Malalas 5. p. 94, Cinnarn. p. 86 ; comp. Lob. I.e. 

(c) The vocative 6e.i J\It. xxvii. 46, without variant (Jud. xxi. 
3. Wis. ix. i.Aci. Thorn. 25, 45, 67 r-Tcfj^iOce 1 Tim. i. 18, vi. 
20) : an instance of this form is hardly to be found in Greek 
writers, comp. Buttm. I. 151. Even in the LXX the voc. is 
usually 6£6<;} 

(f/) From oareov we find the uncontracted plural oaria L. 
xxiv. 39, and ocxrkwv Mt. xxiii. 27, H. xi. 22, al. The latter is 
not very uncommon in Greek prose, see Lucian, Necyojn. 15, 
Plat. Locr. 102 d. ; comp. also Eurip, OresL 404, Troad. 1177 : 
oa-rea is less common, but see Plat. Locr. 100 b., Aristot. Anim. 
3. 7, Menand. p. 196 (ed. Meineke).' 

The following instances of metaplasmus are found in the N. T. : 

(1) 'O Seor/xos has in the phiral ra Sea-fid, L. viii. 29, A, xvi. 26, 
XX. 23, and only once oi Sea-fioL, Ph. i. 13 j — in every instance without 
any variant. In Greek authors, too, Sea-fjLoC is more rare than ra 
Sio-fjd : see Thorn. M. p. 204, Buttm. I. 210 3 (Jelf 85). 

(2) From ad/^/SaTov we find ouly the gen. sing, and plur. and 

' [Kriigcr {p. 44) quotes ^le from (Enomaus in Euf9eb. Pranp. Ev. 5. 33, p. 228; 
al.«o T,/ji.o6ii Luc. Harm, 1, •Pikiht Inscripl. 317.5. 6, 'Auftht Aristoph. Acharn. 

- [In Rev. ii. 1 Ti-sch. read xp""'^"^ 'i 6<1- 7 ; and in Rev. ix. 20 K has ^iXKia, 
360 Ijob. p. 207 : XC'^^^ (for Xf""^") is strongly supported iu Rev, i. 13.] 
' Coinp. Ktihnul, Acl. p. 558. 


the dat. sing.^ [and accus. plur.] : the dative plural is o-a/3/3acrt (which 
occurs also in Meleag. 83, 4), formed according to Passovv from a 
sing. a-d^/SaT, -aT09. 

(3) 'O o-tTo?, plural (ctItol and) o-tra A. \'ii. 12 v. I, as often in 
Greek writers : a singular (tItov was never in use, see Schsef. Soph. 
Eledr. 1366. In A. vii., however, the bestMSS. have airia, which 
now stands in the text.^ 

In regard to gender : — 

CI) At/Aos is feminine (Dorice, Lob. p. 188) in L. xv. 14, A. xi. 28, 
on the testimony of a few good MSS. ; in L. iv. 25 there is very- 
little authority for the feminine. Comp. Malalas 3. p. 60, and see 
Bornem. on A. xi. 28.^ 

(2) In Mk. xii. 26 ySdros in masc, though not without v. I ; in 
L. XX. 37, A. vii. 35, feminine : see Fritz. Mark p. 532. See in 
general Lob. Paral. p. 174 sq., and comp. ) n-rjAos Const. Man. 2239, 
2764, al. 

(3) Instead of 6 vu)ro<s, the later form, some MSS. in Rom. xi. 10 
have TO vwrov,^ the form used by the older writers : see Fritz. 

V in Loc.^ 

Section IX. 


Peculiar forms deserving attention are, 

1. In the singular: — 

(fl) The genitive Tj/jLia-ov; Mk. vi. 23 (for the usua.1 form 
TffiLcreo'i) from the neuter -tjfitav, used as a substantive ; comp. 
Die Chr. 7. 99, Schwarz, Comm. p. 652, Buttm. L 191 (Jelf 

(b) The [onic dative y^pei (contracted from 'yrjpel) L. i. 36, 

^ In the LXX we find (besides eraf>^tirt) a dative plural from this form, aa.^- 
P>i-Tmif 1 Chr. xxiii 31, 2 Chr. ii. 4, viii. ];5, Ez. xlvi; 3, as in Joseph. Ant. 16. 
6. 4. In the N T. ca.f,Ca.Ti,r, is occasionrtily found amongst the various read- 
ings, as Mt. xii. 1, 12, in good MSS. [2a/3^a:T«/( does not seem to occur in tlie 
uncial MSS., except in Mt. xii. 1, 12, in B alone. With ira'/3/3a(r/ compare o»e/^a<7^(, 
TTfosuvaai (Jelf 117).] 

* [From (TTolitu, ffToilioi L. xxiv. 13, Rev. xxi. 16; irTaiia. Jo. vi. 19 (Tisch. 
ed. 8) is doubtful : see Kriig.'p. 58.] 

* [See also § 59. 4. h, on this word and on Anvo'j.] 

* [Frit?, quotes t« v. from some early editions of the N. T., but adds : "Cdd. 
Til vuTOM." Neither Griesb. nor Tischendorf cites ri v. from any MS.] 

' [For TO Xi^aiiairei, Eev. viii. 5 Rec., the true reading is t«» X. : for aa-fhioi. 
Rev. xxi. 20 Rec, we should read the usual form (rdfiioy. In Mk. xiv. 3 Rec. 
has TO a.xipia.aTff^i ; Lachm., Fritz., and Tisch. (ed. 8) -rh a. ; Treg., Westcottand 
Hort, T7\i u. ; in other places there is nothing to show the gender : the Attic 
form is <iAa/3a<rra«. In A. xxiii. 16 Rec. has to hilpov (2 Chr. xiii. 13, al.), but 
the true reading is rhv Ivi^pav (A. xxv. 3, Jos. viii. 7, al.) : to ivihuav .seems not 
to occur in Greek authors. In A. xxviii. 8 we must read ^ufivripi^v for (the 
Attic) ^uffivripia. : see Lob. p. 518.] 


where Rec^ has 7'/p« ; comp. ovhei from ovZo<i in Homer, The 
same form occurs Ps. xci. 15, Ecclus. viii. 6, Theoplian, p. 36, 
iu the Fathers — e.g. Theodoret, in Ps. cxix. I. 1393 (ed. Hal.), 
— Fabric. Pscudepigr. IT. 630, 747, Boisson. Anecd. III. 19. 

(c) The accusative v^vr) Jo. v. 11, 15, Tit. ii. 8 (Lev. xiii. 15). 
The Attic writers use another contraction v'^ia, but v'^trj occurs 
Plat. Pha:d. 89 d, and similar forms are found elsewhere (Matth. 
113. Rem. 1, Jelf 1:.9). 

(d) In A. xxvii. 40, A and several other MSS. haxe aprifiwia 
as the accusative oi apreficov (comp. jXyjxovc Hom. Cerer. 209) ; 
and Lachm. has received it into the text. Lobeck too (AJax 
p. 171) prefers it to the common form dprefxova: " appellativi 
declinatio sine dubio eadem quse proprii." See Anacr. Fragm, 
27, and Fischer in loc} 

2. In the plural : — ■ 

{a) The accus. in et? instead of ea? from nom. sing, in €v<; ; 
as yov€i<; Mt. x. 2 1 , L. ii. 27, <ypaixiiarel<i Mt. xxiii. 34, etc. The 
same form is also found in Attic writers, e.g. Xenophon (see 
Poppo, Cyroi?. p. 32 sq., Weber, Dcm. pp. 492, 513), though the 
Atticists reject it; see Matth. 83 a. Eem. 7 (Jelf 97).'^ 

Qj) Avcriv for hvolv, the dative of the numeral hvo, Mt. xxii. 
40, L. xvi. 13, A. xii. 6 (Th. M. p. 253), follows the analogy of 
the 3rd declension. It is found in Thuc. 8.101 {tvalv rjfiepai<i), 
in Platarch, Aristotle, Hippocrates, and others : see Lob. p. 2 10 
sq., Buttm. I. 276. In the genitive Bvo is always indeclinable 
(Mt. XX. 24, xxi. 31, Jo. i. 41, 1 Tim. v. 19, al.), as sometiraeg 
in Greek authors, e.g. Lucian, Dial. Mort. 4. 1, ^sop. 145.- 1 
(Matth. 138, Jelf 166). 

(c) The uncontracted forms opiwv. liev. vi. 15 (Ez. xi. 10, 
1 K. XX. 28, Is. xiii. 4, al.) and p^^etXecov H. xiii. 15 (Pr. xii. 14, 
xxxi. 31, Wis. i. 6, Ecclus. xxii. 27, al.), for the usual opwv, 
;!^fc- iXwy, the other cases being regular. Such genitives, however, 
are not uncommon in Greek prose, comp. Poppo, Xen. Gyr. 
p. 213, Georgi, Hier. I. 145, Jacobs, Achill. Tat. 2. 1 ; as to 
the poets, see Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. pp. x, xii. 

^ [From fftriKnuXaruf we find in Rec. tr-riKovXa-rufx Mk. vi. 27 : but -arapx is 
uow generally received. The same may be said of a^Ts^a»va.] 

- [Tbe other form is not found in the N. T. In the plural of Ix^ii, (ioZ;, and 
similar words, the contracted forms do not occur iu the N. T. (A. Buttm. 
p. 14).] 


(d) The contracted neuter plural tj/jlictt] (L. xix. 8), used as a 
subst., — compare Theophr. Ch. 11 : ■what has been said respect- 
ing rj/jiiaov^; applies here also. The ordinary form is yj/jiia-ea, 
which some MSS. have in this passage ; Tisch. reads ij/jLicreia 
with B, L; comp. Buttm, I. 248.^ See Fischer, Frol. p. 667, 
Buttm. I. 191. 

(e) The contracted genitive 7rrjj(biv Jo. xxi. 8, Eev. xxi. 17 
(for TrTj-^kwv, which A has in the former passage) : this is a later 
form (see Lob, p. 246), but it is found in Xen, An. 4. 7. 16, 
and frequently ia Plutarch.^ 

For the Attic kAcTv (Thorn. M. p. ."iSG, Lob, p. 460), the accus. 
of KXeL<i^ we find the more " common " form KAeiSa in L. xi. 52, and 
(in a few MSS.) Rev. iii. 7, xx, 1 ; in the LXX more frequently, 
Jud, iii, 25, Is. xxii. 22. ^ In the plural, KActSas is the better read- 
ing in Mt. xvi. 19, but kAcZs in Rev. i. 18. Of cpis also there are 
two plural forms, cpiScs 1 C. i. 11, and epet? (both nomin. and accus.) 
2 C. xii. 20 : in G. v. 20 we should probably read cpts.'* Kpc'a? 
has in the plural the usual contracted form Kpea (Buttm. I. 196), 
Rom. xiv. 21, 1 C. viii. 13 (Ex. xvi. 8, 12), as in Xun. Cyr. 1. 3. 6, 
2. 2. 2. On the other hand, Kcpas has Kcpara Rev. v. 6, xiii. 1, 11, 
xvii. 12 (Am. iii. 14), Kcpartov Rev. ix, 13, xiii. 1 (1 K. i. 50, ii. 29) ; 
and never the contracted nepa, Kepwv (Buttm. I.e., Bekker, Anccd. 
III. 1001). Lastly, Tf.pa% has always repura, Mt. xxiv. 24, A. ii. 43, 
V. 12, Jo. iv. 48, r(.pa.TMv Rom. xv. 19, instead of rlpa, rcpwi', 
which are considered the Attic forms (Mceris p. 339, Buttm. /.c, 
Jelf 103). 

Rem. 1. The nomin. sinfr. of toSTve? occurs in 1 Th. v. 3 (Is. 
xxxvii. 3) in the foim wUv (for wSt's) : comp. ScA^tV, which is not 

^ [Tischendorf, Tregelles, Meyer, and Alford read r,fit<riia. ; Westcott and Hort, 
r.fi'iina. Compare o^ua Hes. »bf. 348 (and Gottliug in loc), 6r,}^ua, Arat. 1068, for 
c^ia, irX'.a. TiscLcndoif (ed. 7) quotes rfiimee. Ironi Antoninus Liberalis c. 2. 
p. 16, and Cleonied. Theor. Cycl. 1. 5. p. 23. A. Buttm. inclines to iif/,tffti : see 
Gr. p. 14, Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 194.] 

^ [There is good authority for (iaiia; L. xxiv. 1, -rrfaius 1 P. iii. 4, instead of 
(Litiioi, vrpaias (Lob. p. 247). Of comparatives in *» both the contracted and the 
uncontracted forms are found in the N. T. ; from ris, tis^ cans, only the uncon- 
tracted, with the single exception of oVoi/ in the formula 'ius omv (A. Buttm. 
pp. 26, 31). In Rev. xx. 8 K has for Tso-ira^fl-i the poetical form Tirpairt, wliich is 
also a v.l. in A. x. 11, xi. 5.] 

' [From x*^?'^ ^'6 fi"J the accus. ;^«^<Ta, A. xxiv. 27, Jude 4, as in Eur. Hel. 
1378, Xen. Hell. 3, 5. 16, al.] 

* [Tisch. (ed, 7) received the nomin. 'ipm in 2 C. I.e., 1 Tim. vi. 4, but now reads 
ifn in both places : in Tit. iii. 9 authorities are divided between 'ipn; (Lachm., 
Treg.) and 'ipn (Tisch.). Similar to this is vm-rui, accus. plur. of y^oTis, Mt. xv. 
3?, Mk. viii. 3 (Lob. p. 326). Tisch. now (ed. 8) reads vr^r/f in Mk. viii. : Fritz. 
{Mark, Exc. 3, p. 796 sq.) examines the readings, and decides in favour of this 
Ionic form in both passages. Phrynichus (App. p. 52) says : viims »aj to ■jrXn- 
SvvTtKov nj'iTTiS'j Ko.) trtiTTii : Lobcck (Phryn. p. 326) adds "leg. n)<rT£i;." See also 
Tisch. on Mk. viii. 3 (ed. 8), and Wetstein in loc.} 


uncommon in later writers ; also kAciSiV, Constant. Porphyr. 14. 208. 
See Buttm. I. 162 (J elf 104. 19). 

Rem. 2. nXovTo?, which is usually masc, often appears in good 
MSS. as a neuter noun ; see K ii. 7, iii. 8, 16, Ph. iv. 19, Col. ii. 2 
{Act. Apocr. p. 76). 1 This peculiarity is probably to be referred 
to the popular language, as indeed 6 and to ttA. are used pro- 
miscuously in modern Greek ; see Coray, Elut. Vit. II. p. 58, hocr. 
II. 103, 106. We find also t^ ^^Aos 2 C. ix. 2 (in B), Ph. iii. 6 (in 
A, B),2 see Clem, Ep. p. 17 (Ittig) : perhaps also to ^xo? L. xxi. 25, 
if T/Xous (which is the reading of good MSS.) is accentuated rfxovs, 
as by Lachm. and others; comp. Malal. pp. 121, 436.^ In later 
writers, comp. to kAcxSo? Theophan. contin. p. 222 (ed. Bekker) : see 
in general Benseler, Isocr. Areop. p. 106. Conversely, later writers 
use 6 SctTTi/os (L. xiv. 16 in B, D)* and 6 Telxos (Ducas p. 266, ed. 
Bonn, Act. Apocr. p. 84). The heteroclite <tk6to% (Poppo, Thuc. I. 
225) is once masc. in the N. T., H. xii. 18 (where however o-ko'to) 
is uncertain) ; 5 elsewhere it is always neuter {a-KOTi vs, -t€i), without 
any difference of reading. "EAeo? is sometimes masc. in the LXX, 
as also in Philo I. 284, but is usually neuter in the MSS, of the 
K T. ; the masc. form being noted as a variant in Mt. ix. 13, xii. 7, 
xxiii. 23, Tit. iii. 5, H. iv. 16,^ only. In A. iii. 10 C has ^a/*;8oo 
as genitive of ^a/^/Jo?. 

Rem. 3. In the MSS. of the N. T. we find several examples of 
the V appended to the accus. sing, in a or t} (iXiriSav, <rvyycvr}v) ; '' 
as aaripav Mt, ii. 10 (C), x^pa" Jo. XX. 25 (A), apaivav Rev. xii. 
13 (A), dKovav xiii. 14 (A), firivav xxii. 2 (A), Atav A. xiv. 12 (in 
several MSS.), o-uyycv^v Rom. xvi. 11 (A), 6.(T<f>aX^v H. vi. 19 (A, 
C, D), TToSrjpriv Rev. i. 13 (A). Such forms are met with in the 
Byzantine writers (see the index to Leo Gramm. p. 532, Boisson. 
Anccd. V. 102), and in the apocryphal writers (Tisch. de Ev. Apocr. 
p. 137) : in the Apocalypse Lachm. has admitted the above-men- 
tioned forms into the text.^ This subjoined v is probably to be 
considered, not (as by Ross) as an original ending propagated in 
the popular spoken language, but as an arbitrary extension of the 
familiar accusative ending (Matth. 73. 2) beyond its proper limits 

^ [The ojenitive is always -jet^tiTou; the dative does not occur in the N, T. St, 
Paul uses both forms ; the othor N. T. writers o ttx. only. Recent editors read 
TO fX. in all tiie above passages, and in 2 0. viii. 2, E. i. 7, Col. i. 27 : see 
EllicottonE. i. 7, A. Ruttm. p. 22.J 

^ [T-i ^. is probal)ly the true reading in both passages.] 

' L'o iix."^ occurs H. xii. 19.] 

* On this word see Hase, Lto Diac. p. 239 ; Schaef. Ind. Msop. pp. 128, 163; 
IJoissou. llcrod, Epim. p. 22, Anecd. I. ^>\. [It is a v.l. in Rev. xix. 9, 17.J 

* [In this passage ^oi^* is now generally received for trKirtu.] 

* f'o ixto; is a variant in one or two other passages, but ta ik. is now generally 
received in all instances.] 

' Comp. Sturz, .Dial. Al. p. 127 ; Lob. Pared, p. 142. 

" f lixcept in Rev, i. 13 (^■roit^pyiv). In his larger edition Lachm. reads iiripaXo'v 
in H. vi. 1 9, receiving the ►, but regarding the word as inflected according to the 
1st deal. (ineta2Jla.imus) : see A. Buttm. p. 14 (Thayer's note).] 


(Lobeck I.e.). In adjectives of two terminations in rj? this form of 
the accus. is said to be ^olic (Matth. 113. Eem. 2) : ^ see further 
Bornem. on A. xiv. 12.2 

Section X, 


1, A simple mode of declining certain Graecised oriental 
names was introduced by the LXX and the N. T. writers. In 
this, the genitive, dative, and vocative have usually one common 
form, and the accusative ends in v. Thus ^Irjaov^;, genitive 
'Irjaov Mt. xxvi. 69 ; dative 'Irjaov Mt. xxvi. 17;^ vocative 
^Irjaov Mk. i 24; accusative 'Irjaovv Mt. xxvi. 4, A. xx. 21 : 
— AevL or A€vt<; (L. v. 29), accusative Aeviv Mk, ii. 14: — 
'Ia)cT?79, genitive 'Iwcr?} Mt. xxvii. 50, L. iii. 29, al., — but in 
Mark B, D, L have always 'I&)o-7}to9 : * see Buttm. I. 199. 
The inflexion of the Egyptian word ©afiov<i (Plat. Phmir. 
274 d) presents a parallel to that of 'Irjcrov<i (Matth. 70. 9). 

The word Mcoctt}? iM(iiv<xri<;) is declined in two ways in the 
N. T. The genitive is invariably Mwaiwi, as in the Greek 
Fathers and the Byzantine writers ; comp. Diod. Sic. Ed. 34. 
p. 194 (Lips.). In the dative even good MSS. vary between 
M&)cret (which is also found in Eusebius and Theophanes) and 
Ma}<jfi ; comp. Mt. xvii. 4, Mk. ix. 5, L. ix. 33, Jo. v. 46, ix. 29, 
A. vii. 44, Eom. ix. 15,2 Tim. iii. 8.^ The accusative is Mwa-rjv 
A. vi. 11, vii. 35, 1 C. x. 2, H. iii. 3 (Diod. Sic. 1. 94) ; but in L. 

^ [Such forms as ilffi^nv, W^jvjjv (with accent thrown back), for iltnUn, 
lutftivv, are said to be ^Eolic (Matth. 113. Kern. 2 ; Bekker, Anecd. p. 1233).] 

'■' [In ed. 7 Tisch. received the final » in the passages quoted above frora the 
Apocalypse, and in a<r(paXjiv H. vi. 19, A/an A. xiv. 12 : see Proleg. p. 55. In 
e(£ 8 he rejects the » throughout, see his note on H. vi. 19. Similar forms are 
frequently found in K, but not in any of these instances ; see Scrivener, Colla- 
tion p. liv. See further A. Buttm. Or. p. 14 ; also Mullach, Vulg. pp. 22, 162, 
where are given examples from inscriptions and analogies in modem Greek.] 

2 Besides these forms, the MSS. of the LXX have often 'l»<rar for the dative 
(Dt. iii. 21, 28, xxxi. 23), and even for the genitive (Ex. xvii. 14). 

* [D has 'laKuPmu in Mk. xv. 47. Recent editors read 'Uirov in L. iii. 29.] 

* [Lachmann reads -s-ji in A. vii. 44, and in Rom. ix. 15 {-(rii marg.) : Ti- 
schendorf (ed. 7) in Mk. ix. 4, 5, A. vii. 44. In Mk. ix. Tisch. now (ed. 8) reads 
Maiuo-j?: Acts vii. 44 is probably influenced by the usage of the LXX. — 'luaytnt 
is regularly inflected according to the 1st decl. ; but we find a dative -vn in L, 
viL 18, 22.] 


X vi. 2 9 (and here only) all the MSS. have Mcocrea, a form which 
occurs in Euseb. H. F. 1. 3, and often in Clem. Al., Georg. 
Syncell., Glycas, and others. All these forms, with the exception 
of Mwo-t'o)?, may clearly be derived from the nominative Meocrr)?; 
see the analogies in Biittm. I. 198, 210,^ 221 (Jelf IIG). Mco- 
a-ico<; has been referred to a form Mwcreu'?, which however does 
not occur, and is after all unnecessary, for thegenit. oVApt)^- is 
sometimes "Apea^ (EUendt, Lex. Soph. I. 2 2 4). No other forms 
are found in the N. T., but a genitive Mcocrr] occurs in the LXX 
and in Geo. Phranzes, and Mwaov Bauer, Glossar. Theodoret. 
p. 269 ; a vocative Mcocrrj in Ex. iii. 4. Mavaa-crfj [?-cro-/79] 
has in Mt. i. 10 the accusative Mavaaa-rj, with the various read- 
ing -aarjv. 

In the received text the name Solomon is declined like Hevo^Si/, . 
-uiVTO's ; thus accus. ^oXofx-QiVTa Mt. i. 6, genit. 'XoXofjMVTo<; Mt. xii. 42, 
L. xi. 31, Jo. X. 23, A. iii. 11, v. 12. The better MSS., however, have 
-u)va, -u>voi;^ see Wetst. I. 228. This latter inflexion, which is 
according to analogy, and is the received form in Josephus (ed. Ha- 
vercamp), should therefore be admitted into the text : -wv, -wvto^, 
would imply derivation from a participle (Buttm. I. 169, Lob. Paralip. 
p. 347). The nominative must then, in accordance with the best 
authorities,* be written SoAoyLtcov,"^ like 'RaftvXuiv, &c., — not SoXo/awi', 
as by Lachmann and others : lIoo-ciSwj/ (-wvos) is not analogous, 
since it is a contraction of IToo-etSawv. In the LXX this name 
is indeclinable : 5 see 1 K. iv. 7, 29 (25), v. 12, 15, 16, vi. 18 
[1 V. 18], al. 

2. Many Hebrew proper names which might have been in- 
flected according to the 3rd decl. are treated as indeclinable in 
the LXX and the N". T. ;^ as '.4a/j(wi', genitive H. vii. 11, ix. 4, 
dative Ex. vii. 9, A. vii. 40, accusative Ex. vii. 8. Compare in 
particular Mt. i. and L. iii. 23 sqq. : also ^v/jL6'j}v L. iii. 30, SaX- 

1 [These two reff. are incorrect : perhaps Matth. pp. 198, 220 (§ 70, 78 a), 
Bnttra. I. 221.] 

2 [That is, uHually : -uvrm is well supported in A. iii. 11, v. 12.] 

3 Comp. also P.ippelb. Cod. Diez. p. 9. [The accentuated MSS. are strongly 
in favour of "S.eXa/j.u*, see Tisch. on Mt. vi. 29. Tisch., Treg., \yestc. and Hort, 
write SaXo^aiv ; except in A. vii. 47, ^oXofiZv, or (Tisch.) ^xkaftuv.] 

* In Glycas, Bekker still (in the new edition) writes loXofiZyros, -uvto. ; but in 
the noinin. loXofioiv. 

* [Not always ; e.g. Prov. xxv. 1, "S.xXtafiutroi {laXofiutm; Alex.).'\ 

^ [Sometimes we find two forms, one declined, the other not ; as Maplx, Mapidfi; 
similarly, SarS* 2 C. xii. 7 (Rec, Meyer), 2ara>a; L. xiii. 16, al. (Fcclus. xxi. 
27, — not found in the LXX).] 


^i(iiv L. iii. 32, KeSpcov Jo. xviii. 1 v. I. Similarly 'lepc'^to} genit. 
Dt. xxxii. 49, Mt. xx. 29, H. xi. 30, accus. L. x. 30, xviii. 35 
(Glyc, p. 304);" 'lepovaaXrjjj,, — for which however the Graecised 
form 'lepoaokvjxa should probably be preferred (on the authority 
of the MSS.) in Matthew, Mark, and John.^ ' lepoaoXvfia is 
usually inflected as a neuter plural, as Mt. iv. 25, Mk. iii. 8, L, 
xxiii. 7, Jo. ii. 2 3 ; it is feminine in Mt. ii. 3 (iii. 5 ?) only.* In 
the LXX we find ' lepovaaXtj/j, always ; Josephus has 'lepoao- 
\vfia. Similarly, to frdcrxa L. ii. 41, Jo. ii. 23, as in the LXX :* 
(to) <TLK€pa L. i. 15, and in the LXX, Lev. x. 9, Num. vi 3, Is. 
xxiv. 9, aL, : Eusebius (Prcep. Ev. 6. 10) has a genitive crU€po<i.^ 
The Hebrew plural termination occurs only in Xepov^i^ H. ix. 
5 ; but this word is construed like a neuter plural (as if irvev- 
fiuTa), as in the LXX (Gen. iii. 24, 1 K. viii. 7, Ez. x. 3, al.).^ 

In Eev. i. 4, dTro 6 wv »<at 6 rjv Kol 6 ipxoiJi€vo<;, a whole phrase 
(forming, as it were, a Greek equivalent for nin^) is treated as an 
indeclinable noun, — probably by design, as expressing the name of 
the Unchangeable One. This resembles the use of cv, /j-rjOev, and 
similar words, in Greek philosoplucal writings, even as early as 
Aristotle; e.g. Aristot. Folit. 5. 3, Procl. Theol. Plat. 2 (ed. Hoeschel), 
juera rod Iv, x^P'-'^ '''^'^ ^^ (Stollberg, de Sol. N. r. p. 14 sqq.) ; but 

' [Usually written 'lif'x^ {-^'X^ Tisch.) ; so Winer in his RWB.] 
- Elsewhere we find two modes of declining this word : (a) Genit. 'Iipix'ij 
3 (1) Esdr. V. 22, dat. 'Upi^^ Frocop. de JidiJ. 5. 9, Tlieodoret V. p. 81 (Hal.), 
or 'Ufixo'' Joseph. Bell. Jud. 1. 21. 4, Suid. s. v. 'r2;/ys»>is : — (//) From 'UpinaZ; 
(Ptol. 5. 16. 7), genit. 'ItpixoZvTBi Strabo 16. 763, accus. 'lipixoZvra 16. 760, and 
usually in Josephus. 

^ [In Mt. xxiii. 37 all the MSS. have 'UpovraXii/i ; tliis is the only form of 
the word used in the Apocalypse. In St. Luke's Gospel 'lipoiroXv/ia occurs only 
3 or 4 times, 'itpouirxXi^fz. nearly 30 times ; see the Preface to this Gospel in Bp. 
Wordsworth's Greek Testament. In the Acts (setting aside xv. 4 as somewhat 
doubtful) the inflected form occurs 24 times, the indeclinable 36. St. Paul has 
'UpovvaXrif/., except in Gal. i. 17, 18, ii. 1 (see Lightfooton Gal. iv. 26) ; thesame 
form is used in Heb. xii. 22. ] 

* [A. Buttmann (p. 18) maintains that the word is here treated as indeclinable, 
and supposes an ellipsis of h toXis.] 

* So also in the Fathers ; see Suicer, Thes. II. 607 sqq. Epiphanius (Hcer. II. 
19) inflects even the plural tx •yriaxa. 

* Most of these are declined in Josephus, who, in conformity with the genius 
of the Greek language, gives Greek terminations and inflexions to almost all 
])ersonal names, as "ASa^a;, 'la-^aSXoj, N»;^(J5, 'Ivaxm, al. The instances of un- 
declined foreign names which Georgi {Hkrocr. I. 138) produces from Plato and 
Pausanias are not all in point, and can prove nothing against the tendency to 
inflexion. Even Ptolemy has some indeclinable names of places, by the side of 
a multitude of inflected names : see Nobbe, Sched. Ptol. I. 23 sq. (Lips. 1841). 
[In A. xvi. 11 the best MSS. have s.'s Nsav uiXn (Rec. Nsa^aXo), see Cobet, 
N. T. Vatic, p. xiii, Lob. p. 604 : in Col. iv. 13 we should read 'lipi HoAi/.] 

'[The LXX have sometimes »/' Xipovlilfi (-/^s/v), Ex. xxv. 19, al.' ; Josephus, 
«J and al Xipot/[iu< ; Philo always ra Xipav^lfi : see Delitzsch on H. ix. 5. In this 
passage Lachra. and Tisch. read Xipou^ilv.'\ 


always « tov evos, Iv tuJ cvt, in the writings of Proclus edited by 
Creuzer. Compare also tov 6 huva Schsef. ^e??i. III. 282. 

Section XT. 


1. Adjectives of three terminations, particularly those in toy, 
/u,to9, 6to9, aLo<i, are not nnfrequently used as if they had only two, 
especially by Attic writers (Matth. 117, Jelf 1 2 7).^ Thus in the 
N. T. we find a-Tparta ovpdvLo<i L. ii. 13, A. xxvi. 19, Koafiios 
1 Tim. ii. 9 : in Eev. iv. 3 also 6/j,oio<i is the best attested reading, 
though ipi,<; is feminine.'^ But in 1 Tim. ii. 8, i7raipovTa<i 6aiov<; 
)(elpa,<i (where some MSS. have oata^), oaiov; may be joined with 
iiralpovra^ ; though Fritzsche is wrong in maintaining that this 
7nust be the construction {Rom. III. 161). Compare also Tit. 
iii, 9, where fidracoL is used in reference to feminine nouns; 
and Ja. i. 26, fzaraLOs- r) OprfaKela. 

In later writers we find instances of the converse, a feminine 

form being given to adjectives which in classical Greek have 

only two terminations, e.g. dpy6<; ; see Lob. p. 105, and Paral. 

p. 455 sqq., comp. Ellendt, Arr. Al. I 242.^ In this adjective, 

however, the feminine form occurs even in a citation from Epi- 

menides. Tit. i. 12. From av^'yevrj'i, -e<?, is formed a peculiar 

feminine, avyyevi'i (as a substantive) L. i. 36 ; this is received 

by Lachm. on the authority of good MSS. (Lob. p. 451) ; comp. 

Malal. pp. 95, 96. 

Atwvtos is usually in the N. T. an adj. of two terminations, but 
atwvuxv occurs 2 Th. ii. 16, H. ix. 12, — in the latter passage without 
any variant ; the same form is given by a single MS. in 2 P. i. 11, 
and also in A. xiir. 48 : comp. Num. xxv. 13, Plat. Tim. 38 b. 
Be/3aia, Rum. iv. 16, al., which the fastidious Thorn. M. condemns 
(p. 149), is used by Isocrates, Demosthenes (Weber, Dem. p. 133), 
Xenophon, al, : comp. Duker on Time. 2. 43. *E/37;/aos, which varies 
even in Attic wiiters,* has always two terminations in the N. T; 
As to a<r(^aXr)v H. vi. 19, i.e. dcr^oA^v, see § 9. Rem, 3. 

In the N. T. Lexicons ^ yvi^aio^ is given as an adjective of 

two terminations (Ph. iv. 3 ?), but without sufficient reason, 

as no example of yvy'jaLo^ as a feminine form can be quoted. 

' See Elmsley, Eurip. Heracl. p. 77 (Lips.) ; Monk, Eurip. HipjjoL p. 56, and 
Eurip. Ale. 126, 548, 1043. 

* See Winer, Exegel. Stud. I, 152 : [as to 1 Tiin. ii, 8 see Ellicott in loc] 
3 [See also Mullach, Vuly. p. 156.] 

* Comp. Ellendt, Arr. AL I. 2^32, ilatth. 118. Rem, 1. ["Ewi^aj varies in the 
N. T., as in classical Greek.] 

* [Luneinann rightly adds, except Grimm's.] 


2. Oil the comj)arison of adjectives we have only to observe 
that — 

(a) The neuter comparative of ra^^'^ is rd'^iov (Jo. xx. 4, 
I Tim. iii. 14, H. xiii. 10, 23, al, 1 Mace. ii. 40, Wis. xiii. 9), 
for wliich Oaaaov, in Attic Oarrov, was commonly used. Td- 
Xiov IS regularly used by Diod. Sic, Dion. H., Plutarch, al; see 
Lob. p. 77, Meineke, Menand. p. 144.^ 

(6) In 3 Jo. 4 we find the double comparative /iei^orepo?, and 
in E. iii. 8 eXa^ttrTorepo?, a comparative of a superlative ; comp. 
eAa;^tcrT0TaT09, Sext.Emp. 9. 40 6, and in Latin miniriiissimus,i)es- 
simissimus. Such forms belong mainly to poetry (Apoll. Ehod. 
2. 368 fieiorepoq), or to the later language, which sought in this 
way to add fresh strengtli to the comparative, which had lost 
some of its significance : comp. KpenTojepo'i Ducas 27, 29, 37, 
/jiei^ovoTepo'i ih. c. 27 and Malal. 18. p. 490,/Ltei^oTe/3O9 Constant. 
I'orph. III. 257, irXeiorepo'i Theophan. p. 567, Some isolated 
examples of a similar kind are found in earlier writers (see 
Wetst. II. 247); these are not, however, introduced as words ac- 
tually current, but are extemporised by the writers themselves, 
as io-)(aTOiTepo<i Aristot. Metaph. 10. 4 : see Buttm. I. 274, Lob. 
p. 136 (Jelf 140). Compare in German nrulirere from mehr. 

(c) The comparatives Karcorepo'i (E. iv. 9), ai/oirepo? (L. xiv. 
10), io(OT€po<i (A, xvi. 24), from the adverbs /cartu, dvco, eaco, are 
groundlessly questioned by Buttmann (I. 271). They are cer- 
tainly found in the K T. and in the LXX ; and not only occur 
frequently in later Greek (as Leo Diac. 10. 1), but are even 
used by Attic writers (Matth. 132). 

On the comparative form of other adverbs derived from ad- 
jectives, as TrepLacroTepoa^ (2 C. i. 12, G. i. 14, Ph. ii. 28, al), &, 
form not unknown to classical writers, see Buttm, II. 345, Elms- 
ley, Eurip. Ilaricl. p. 100 (Lips.). 

The positive -^p^/jio^, 1 Tim. ii. 2, is not found in the older Greek 
writers, see Buttm. L 27.1, II 343 : Lobeck {Path. I. 158) has 
pointed it oat in an inscription {Inscript. Olbiopol. 2059, 24). 

^ [Froip. hTTkous we find the peculiar compar. ^i-jrxirtpoi Mt. xxiii. 15 (Appiaii, 
Pnj'f. Hist. Bom. 10), as if from S;tX« (which occurs in Anthol. Pal. 10. 101):. 
see A. Buttm. p. 27, Lob. p. 234. The compar. of a.ya(oi in the N". T. is Kfujinruiy, 
superl. Kfi.Ti<froi ; As^-^'ov occurs once as an adverb, 2 Tun. i. 18 : x^'f""^ i'^ the 
usual compar. of k«.x,'os (A. Buttm. I.e.). nxiuv occurs much less frequently than 



Section XII. 


1. The temporal instead of the syllabic augment occurs 

(a) In the imperfect ^/teXXc, Jo. iv. 47, xi. 51, xii. 33, xviii. 
32, L. X. 1, A. xvi. 27, xxvii. 33, Eev. x. 4, with decided pre- 
ponderance of authority: iu L. ix. 31, Jo. vi. 71, H. xi. 8, e.jxeWe 
is better attested.^ See in general Bockh, Plat. Men. p. 148 sq. 

(&) In the imperfect '^Bvputo Mt. xxvi. 9, Mk. vi. 5, 19, xiv. 5, 
Jo. ix. 33, xi. 37, L. viii. 19, xix. 3, with preponderant authority; 
whilst there is good evidence for eZvvaro in L. i. 22, A. xxvi. 32, 
Eev. xiv. 3, and ehvvaade 1 C. iii. 2. The aor. rjhvvrjO'qv is fully 
established Mt. xvii. 16, 19, Mk. ix. 28, L. ix. 40, 1 C. iii. I.''' 
On these common Attic forms see Buttm. I. 3 1 7 ^ ( Jelf 1 7 1), and 
comp. Bornem. Act. p. 278 [Veitch, Gh. Verbs, s. vv,]. 

(c) But neither ■^^ovX6fi7]v, A. xv. 3 7, xxviii. 1 8, nor rj^ovXri' 
0r]v, 2 Jo. 12 (Matth. 162, Jelf 17 1) is sufficiently attested : see 
Bornem. Act. p. 233. 

2. The syllabic augment in a verb beginning with a vowel 
occurs Jo. xix. 32, 33, in xarea^av, 1 aor. indie, of Kardyvv/ii. 
(comp. Thom. M. p. 498), and even in the other moods, as Karea- 
ycoai^Jo. xix. 31 (Buttm. II. 07, Jelf 173. 8): comp. Thuc. 3.8,9, 
Aristot. Anim. 9. 43, Plat. Cratyl 389 b, c.^ It is also inserted 
in the fut. Kared^co Mt. xii. 20 (from the LXX),^to distinguish 
this from the future of Kardyco. But from coveofiat, in which 
verb the syllabic augment is most commonly used in classical 

* [Jo. xi. 51, Rev. x. 4, are somewhat doubtful ; in H. xi. 8 we should probably 
read r,/jt.iXXt\i. For ^^. see also L. vii. 2, xix. 4, A. xii. 6 ; for 'i/u.., Jo. vi. 6, vii. 
39, A. xxi. 27, Rev. iii. 2.] 

'^ [On the evidence now before us, we should probably read fiiw. seven times 
only, Mk. iv. 33, vi. 19, xiv. 5, L. viii. 19, xix. 3, Jo. ix. 33, xii. 39 ; and iSwv. 
(which occurs in Hec. twice only) twelve times. In the aorist we must read 
riluv^^w (except in Mk. vii. 24, iiivvdadn), but jSu». is often a variant. Froni 
(iouXoiiai the forms- with » are nowhere sufficiently attested.] 

3 Anso Georgi, Hi^rocr. I. 32 ; Jacbbs, Achill. T. p. 554 ; Elleadt, Arr. Al. II. 
208 ; Boisson. JUn. Oaz. p. 173, and Anec(,l. V. 19. 

* [Veitch quotes xa.r-ia.yri, -ia.yuvi, -tayi'n, from Hippocr. 4. 220, 128, 172. On 
this word see Cobet, N. T. Vatic, p. Ixxix.] 

' In Cinnam. p. 190 we find an unusual form of the perfect, «aTi4yi»«. 
6 [This fut. does not occur in the LXX {naralu Hab. iii. 12) ; in Is. xlii. 3 
the word is vuvrfi-^'U. KaTid^a occurs Ps. xlvii. 8 Syram.] 


Greek, we find wvrjad/XTji/ A. vii. 1 6 (as in Greek authors occa- 
sionally, Lob. p. 139): also wo-a, axxafirju A. vii. 27, 39, 45, 
for eaxra, ioya-d/jLrjv (§ 15), For similar instances see Poppo, 
Tkuc. III. ii. p. 407, the Index to Leo Gr. p. 533. [Veitch, 
Gr. V. s. vv.] 

3. In verbs be2;inninor with ev we find 

(a) Without augment: euhoKrjaa usually, rjuB. being favoured 
by the MSS. in Mt. xvii. 5, 1 C. x. 5, Col. i. 19, H. x, 6, 8, 
only ; — evXayrja-a more frequently than rjvX. (which is found 
Mt. xiv. 19, L. xxiv. 30, H. xi. 20, 21), and the perf. euXoyrj^ev 
H. vii. 6 ; — ev^oirro A. xxvii. 29 ; — evx^apicrrrjae A. xxvii. 35; — 
evTTopetro A. xi. 2 9 ; — and decidedly evpla-Ketv ^ (except rjvpiaKov 
Mk. xiv. 55, in good MSS.; comp. further A. vii. 46, L. 
xix. 48). 

(b) With augment: rfv^ofirju Eom. ix. 3 (the best reading), 
eu-x^ofxrju occurs Xen. Atiah. 4. 8. 25, Ci/r. 3. 2. 15, but not 
without variants; — TjvyapicrTrjcrav Rom.i. 2 1 ; — rjvcpoprjaev L. xii. 
1 6 (doubtful) ; — TjvKaipovv Mk. vi. 3 1 (but doubtful in A. xvii. 
21); — TjvcjypdvdT) A. ii. 2G (from the LXX). See in general 
Buttm. I. 321, Poppo, Thuc. I. 227, also Lehm. Lucian II. 456 
(Jelf 173, Don. p. 196). EvayyeXt^. has the augment after eu- 
(without any variant), A. viii, 35, 40, xvii. 18, 1 C. xv. 1, G. iv. 
13, Rev. X. 7, al. (see Lob. p. 269), — even irpoevrjyyeXiaaro G. 
iii. 8 ; so also evapearecv H. xi. 5, though A and several other 
MSS. have evapearrjKevai, without augment. JJpo<iev-)(ecr6aL 
almost always has the augment without any variant, as 
nrpo'irjv^aTo Mt. xxvi. 44, A. viii. 15, Trpo^rjv'^^eTo Mk. i. 35, 
L. xxii. 41, al.^ 

4. OUoBo/j.eii', the only verb beginning with ol which occurs 

^ Comp. Lob. p. 140, and Ajax p. 123 ; Herm. Eur. Bacch., p. 11 ; Boisson. 
Philostr. Epp. p, 75. Even in Attic Greek the angm. is defended by Elmsley, 
Eur. Med. 191, and it occurs frequently in the apocryphal writers (Ev. Nic. c. 
20) and in the Fathers. [See Veitch, Or. V. s. v.; compare Don. p. 196.] 
, ^ [The aor. of '£ySoxsa> occurs* 16 times : Rec: has tlVox.. once only, Lachm. 12 
times, Treg. 8, Tisch. 9, Westc. and Hort TO. This diversity shows the difficulty 
of decision. The imperfect also is doubtful (1 Th. ii. 8). In iiXeyiu the augment 
should probably be rejected throughout. In Rom. ii^. 3 we must read nvx<>f^*i>', 
but A. xxvii. 29 is doubtful. 'Elipipninv is the true reading in L. xii. 16 ; ihxti- 
(0U1 in Mk. vi. 31, but r,vK. in A. xvii. 21. In A. vii. 41 we have iii(pfa.lio'»ro ; in 
A. xvi. 11, Mt. xix. 12, tv^'j^'po/xio) and ivvavx'Z'^ reject the augment. From 
x.a.6ivia we have only ixa^sutfov in the N. T. hJ/jov and nv^iinyi are not unfre- 
quently v. 11.^ but the evidence is against the augm. in this verb, except in 
TiupiifKov, tiupnT-Ko/Lifiv. Ilpas'-^'Z'."''" ftlwajs has the augment, but -lu- is often a 
variant. See Veitch, GV. F. s. vv.] 


in past tenses/ has the regular augment, not indeed without 
V. II. but on greatly preponderating authority ; as wKohofirjcre 
Mt. vii. 24, xxi. 33, mKoBofirjTo L. iv. 29, wkoSo/xow L. xvii. 28, 
ipKohoixTjOr) Jo. ii. 20 : only in A. vii. 47 have good MSS. 
oiKoSc/ji7]cr€, on which later form see Lob. p. 153 (J elf 173. 6). 

5. In the verb Trpocj^rjTeveiv the augment is usually inserted 
after the preposition (Buttui. 1.335, Don. p. 199),and in Jude 14 
the best reading is Trpoecprjreva-e ; but in all other passages in the 
N. T. the better MSS. have eirpo^.: thus i7rpo<^r]revaav'Mt. xi. 
13, inrpoiprjrevaafiev Mt. vii. 22, i-Trpo^rjrevcre Mt. xv. 7> Mk. 
vii. 6, L. i. 67, Jo. xi. 51, iirpocpi^revou A. xix. 6 (corap, Num. xi. 
25, 26, Ecclus, xlviii. 13). Schulz (on Mt. vii. 22) urged that 
this form should be received into the text in every case, and this 
has been done by Lachm. and Tisch, In later writers the augm. 
is often put before the prepos., as irrrpo^O-qKei', eavpu^ovXevov (see 
the Index to Ducas, to Jo. Cananus, al., in the Bonn ed.), 
iKarrj-^ovv Epiphan. Mon. 3 3. 1 6 :^ in Trpocprjreveiv, however, this 
is less strange, since there is no simple verb <pi]reveiv? 

6. The augment of the form elXri^a (for the unused XeKrj^a, 
Buttm. I. 316) is extended to tlie 1 aor. KareiX-T^c^^?;!/, which is 
found Jo. viii. 4 (though not without a v. I.) instead of KareX. ; 
see Maittaire, Dialectt. p. 58 (ed. Sturz). Traces of this form 
already existed in Ionic Greek.* 

7. A double augment is found in 

{a) a'TTeKarecTTaOr] Mt. xii. 13, Mk. iii. 5, L. vi. 1 0, now rightly 
admitted into the text : comp. arTreKaria-rrjcre Lucian, Philopatr. 
e. 27, aireKarecnrja-av Ducas 29, aireKarearr]^ Theophan. p. 3 74, 
dvT€Kar6aT7]v Cinnam. p. ,259 : see Dindorf, Diod. S. p. 539, 
and Schaef. FkUarch, V. p. 198.^ 

' [The only simple verb, — there are several compounds : Tisoh. now receives 
eix. in Jo. ii. 20, i'miKoio/j.vir'.v 1 C iii. 14 (Treg., Alf. ), oiKo'Suf/.v/rfai L. vi. 48 (see 
A. Buttm. in Stiid. u. Krit. 18(52, p. 164) : Treg. reads oJx. in A. vii. 47. In tliese 
four places oIk. is received by Westc. and Hort. See Tisch. on A. vii. 47, and 
Prok't/. p. .55 (ed. 7). Comp. eixo^ofiva-av Ruth iv. 11 {Alex.}, oixT-tipvinv Ps. cii. 
13, al'.] 

* Epiphanii Mon. edita et Ined'da, cura A. Dressel (Par. 1843). 

3 [Lachm. reads -rpoK!). in Jude 14 only; Tisch., Treg., Westcott and Hort, 
iTfof. always. Tlie LXX use both forms.] 

* [Comp. tlp:n^r,v, Ionic for ippriCvv. But here KamX. has little support.] 

* [This is probably the true reading in Mk. viii. 25 (Ex. iv. 7). J 

* Comp. also i<rfoi(pri<rivi>v Leo Granim. pp. 33, S.*}, 36, sKaTtirxiuafKv Canan. 
462, lauMifjia.pTupivv ib. 478, i\<pupiirra.i Theophan. 112, \-yrpo\rci.\a. Thcodor. Oramm. 
40. 8. As to the Attic writers see V. Fiitzsche, Aristoph. I. 55. [Comp. iTpoti' 
fiivirct Jud. iL 14, al. See also Mullacli p. 246.] 


(b) In avLw^ev Jo. ix. 14, 30, di^ew;^^?/ L. i. 64 {Trr. V. s. v. 
oX'ya)) ; once even in the infin. aor. avewxdrjvaL L. iii. 21. Y\ow\ 
this verb however several other forms are found in good jV[8S. : 
i]voi^6v Ilev. xii. 16, al., rjvot'x^drja-av liev. xx. 12,t)voiyr)i> A. xii. 
1 0, Kev. xi. 1 9, xv. 5j — as in the LXX and later writers (Irr. Fl 
/. c, Lob. p. 157); and with a threefold augment, rjveM^^^dija-av 
Mt. ix. 30, Jo. ix. 10, A. xvi. 26, Eev. xx. 12 v. I (Gen. vii. 11, 
Dan. vii. li)),rjve(c'yfievov A. ix. 8, Eev. xix. 11 (Nicet. Eugen. 
2. 84, 128, V. i:),rjve(p^e Jo. ix. 14 v. I. (Gen. viii. 6, 3 Mace. 
vi. 18): comp. T\i\\o, Apocr. I. 669.^ [Jelf l73, 297,Veitch, 
Gr. Verbs, pp. 66, 67.] 

(c) In ■qvei'xeade 2 C. xi. 1 {Elz), xi. 4 {Rec.) — compare 
Thuc. 5. 45, Herodian 8. 5. 9, — and r)ve(y^6fir}v A. xviii. 14, 
for avecry^. (comp. Her. 7. 159, Thuc. 3. 28): this is in exact 
conformity with classical usage, to which the forms with the 
single augment are almost unknown, see Irr. V. s. v. [Jelf 
181, comp. Veitch, Gr. Verbs, s. v.] In 2 C. xi. 1, 4, however, 
the best MSS. have aveix^aOe!^ 

8. From epyd^o/xat we sometimes find in the MSS. ^/ry., in- 
stead of elpy., as in Mt. xxv. 16, xxvi. 1 0, Mk. xiv. 6, L. xix. 1 6, 
A. xviii. 3 (Ex. xxxvi. 4) : this form occurs in a good MS. 
of Demosthenes (Schaef. Appar. V. 553), comp. Sturz p. 125.'^ 
Conversely, in L. xvi. 20 good MSS. have eikKa3fievo<; (Lach., 
Tisch.) from k\Kovv : comp. also Clem. Al. p. 348 (Sylb.). 

9. The augment is usually omitted in the pluperfect, as he- 
hooKet, Mk. xiv. 44, xv. 10, Jo. xi. 57, ireTrof^Keia-av Mk. xv. 7, 
(iK^€^\r]K€i xvi. 9); TeOe/xeXieoTO L. vi. 48, fiefieviJKeicrav 1 Jo. ii. 
19,7r€pi7re'7raTi]K€iA.xiv. 8 (see Yalcken.in loc.),7re7ri(TrevK€La-au 
xiv. 23 ; and in the N. T. these forms should probably be pre- 
ferred throuohout.* In this tense the augment is often omitted 
by Ionic (Her. 1. 122, 3. 42, 9. 22) and Attic prose writers (e.g. 

'^ [Some of these examples are doubtful, but all the forms given above are 
very well attested in some part of the N. T. : the following forms of this verb 
are also found, imi^u Mt. xiii. 35 (LXX), avtwya 1 C. xvi. 9, dvcMyfiivm A. x. 11, 
'^invmyfiivof A. vii. 56 (avx^'^^zVa/ta/ L. xi. 10), avaiyjifl-a^ai Mt. vii. 7.— Ajaxavfw has 
alway.s S<»jxen)t;» in the N. T.] 

* [In 2 C. xi. 4 we must read either dnixif^t or a*ixt<r^t ; in A. xviii. 14, 

(ivs»';^OjMJI». J 

3 [This form is a variant wherever the imperf. or aor. (middle or passive) 
occurs, and is received more or less frequently by Lachm., Tisch., Alf., Treg., 
Westcott and Hort. Veitch {Gr. V. s.v.) quotes such forms from inscriptions. 
Comp. Mullach, Vulg. p. 27.] 

* [Sometimes (as L. xvi. 20, Jo. ix. 22) no MS. omits the angmeut.] 


Plato), especially when the augmented form would offend the 
ear (Buttm. I. 318) ; hence in compounds particularly (comp. A, 
xiv. 8).^ Compare Thuc. 8. 92, Xen. Cyr. 3. 2. 24 ; and as to 
later writers see especially the Index to Joa. Cinnam. in the 
Bonned. (Jelf 171).' 

1 0. Mv7](TTev€cr6ai receives the reduplication (after the ana- 
logy of /ie/jivr}fj,ai, Buttm. I. 315) in L. i. 27, ii. 5, /lefivrjarev- 
fievr); but some good MSS. read efjivrjaT. [Lach., Tisch., and 
others] : comp. Dt. xx. 7,xxii. 23 sqq. On pepavrcafievoi H. 
X. 22, see § 13. 1. h. 

In 2 Tim. i. 16, the aor. of the compound iTrai<rxyvoiiai is in 
the best MSS. eTraurxvvOr}, without the temporal augment, and recent 
editors have received this form into the text : similarly avopOtiiOr] 
L. xiii. 13.3 

Section XIII. 



1. (a) Tenses which in other respects are formed entirely 
after the analogv of the 2 aor. have in the LXX the termination 
(of the 1 aor.) a, etc. : * thus ecBafxev 1 S. x. 1 4, elSav and ecpvyav 
2 S. X. 14, evpav xvii. 20, i(f>dyafi€v xix. 42, eXddrco Esth. v. 4 
(Pr. ix. 5, Am. vi. 2, 2 Chr. xxix. 17), etc. In -the N. T. recent 
editors have placed these forms in the text, following the best 
MSS.:^ riXOare, e^-qkOare Mt. xxv. 36, xxvi. 55, TrapeXedrto Mt. 
xxvi. 39, eiXaro 2 Th. ii.l3, i^elXaro A. vii. 10,xii. ll,aretXaTO 
vii. 21, e^eiriaaTe G. v. 4, eirecrav Eev. vii. 11 (H. iii. 17, Jo. 

' See Georgi, Hi^rocr. I. 179 ; Poppo, Thuc. I. 228 ; Boniem. Xen. Anah. p. 
272 ; Jacob, Luc. Tox. p. 68 ; Ellendt, Arr. Al. 1. pp. 265, 284 ; [Shilleto, 
Dem. F. Leg. p. 38. Compare Don. p. 201]. 

"^ [Mt. vii, 25 is more certain than L. vi. 48 ; in A. xiv. 8 the aorist la the 
best reading. Comp. l>ihuKin 2 S. xviii. 11, icr//J£/3»)x£/ Num. xxii. 22, and see 
Tisch. Prohg. p. 56 (ed. 7).] 

^ [Similar examples are -irpaefufinv A. ii 25 (from LXX), Inpftnnvi* or -vivnt 
L. xxiv. 27, and (with less authority) pfioiu6niJi.t* Rom. ix. 29, 'iitytifiro Jo. vi. 18, 
inpofioiuf/.'iMos H. vii. 3 ; see also 2 Chr. xxxv. 10, and Is. i. 9 in Alex.'\ 

* Sec Sturz p. 61 ; Valcken. Herod, p. 649, 91 ; D'Orville, Charit. p. 402 ; 
Wolf, Demosth. Lept. p. 216. 

* On the MSS. which have this fonri see Hng, Introd. § 50 sqq. ; Scholz, Curm 
Crit. p. 40 ; Rinck, Lucubratt. p. 37 ; Tisch. Prolegg. ad Cod. Ephraemi p. 21. 
[Scrivener, Critic, p. 489, Cod. kin. p. liv.j 


xviii. 6), averreaav Jo. vi. 10, cvpdfievo^ H. ix. 12,Epipli. Opjp. 
I. 619, Theodoret, Ojop. II. 837 (Hal). Comp. A. ii. 23,xvii. 
6 [?], xii. 7, xvi. 37, xxii. 7, xxviii. 16, Mt. vii. 13, 25, xi. 7, 8, 
xvii. 6, xxii. 22, L. ii. 16, xi. 52, xxii. 52, Kom. xv. 3, 1 C. x. 8, 
2 C. vi. 17, 1 Jo. ii. 19, Eev. v. 8, 14, vi. 13. 

These is indeed no consistency in the MSS., as regards either 
writers or words ; ^ and in many passages, where such forms 
have the support of but few MSS., they may be due to tran- 
scribers,^ particularly if similar inflexions in a precede or follow: 
see Elmsley, Eur. 31ed^^p. 232 (Lips.), Eritz. Marh,^. 638 sqq. 
It is in the plural and in the Istpers. sing, of the indie, that we 
usually meet with these forms; in the 2d cing. indie, the imper.,^ 
and the participle, they occur very rarely. On the instances of 
such aorists in Greek authors (e.g. Orpheus) see Buttra. I. 404. 
In Eurip. Troad. 293, Seidler has changed irpo^kirecra into -arov ; 
and in Alcest. 4t77 (Trecrete), irkcTov is certainly the true reading, 
see Herm. in loc} On the other hand, we find eireaav Theophan. 
p. 283,/caTe7r€(ra,uei' Achill. Tat. 3. 17 ,'irepi€7re<Tafi€v c. 19; and 
in Eustath. Amo?'. Isvi. I. p. 4 we should read e/cTrecrete on the 
authority of good MSS., see Jacobs p. 664. Compare further 
Lob. p. 183, Matth. 193. Kern. 5. In the Byzantine writers 
there are undeniably various examples of such forms; as rfkdav 
Malal. 18. p. 465, 12. p. v595, avfi^^Bav 15. p. 389, n'opafiev 18. 
p. 449, cLTreXdaTe Ducas 24, i^eXOare Leo Gr. p. 343, iirei^eX- 
6aT€ p. 337 : comp. iu general the Index to Ducas p. 639, 
and to Theophan. p. 682 sq, (Bonn ed.).^ 

^ They are mostly verb.s wbicli have Eot a 1 aorist in use, 

2 'Aici'Ttffai, which is found in good MSS. in L.-xiv..lO, xyii. 7, would neces- 
sarily be the imper. of a similarly forftied aor. middle ajivncaftuv. Ah, however, 
this tense nowhere occur.s (thougii a trace of it appears in the v. I. Ur{<ra;/i8«<j 
Polyb. 6. 37. 4), dya-x-teat miist probably be considered an error of transcription 
for ii'd'Tiiri, as t and at are often interchanged •, indeed the best MSS. have 
-■rt^t, and this has recently been received into the text. Comp. also Riiick, 
Lucubr. p. 330, [Tisch, on L. xiv. 10, and Proleg. p. 58]. Besides, the 2 aor. 
active is the only tense of i.m-rl'urjuXlisX occury in. the N. T., Mt. xv. 35, Mk. vi. 
40, L. xi. 37, xxii. 14. Jo. vi. 10, al. [The forms in a stre now received in Mb. yi, 
Jo. vi.] Fritzsche {Mark, p. 641) considers kyivarai to be the 2d sing..fiit. (like 
vitirxi) ; but the future would be unsuitable, especially as in L. xvii. 7 impera- 
tives immediately follow. 

* [In the 2d singular ; but the 3d sing, and 2d plur. are not rare.] 

* But tifuay is distinctly found iu a Greek inscription, Bbckh II. 220. [Iu 
Eur. Ale. 477, iVso-a is received by Buttm. (Ii. 278) aad by Mullach {Vulg. p. 
226). Comp., however, Yeitch, Gr. V. s.v. iri^Tca.) 

* [The forms in a are well attested in almost all the examples givfjn above from 
the N. T. : in H. iii. 17, however, 'i^iirsv seems certainly the best reading. K: 



(h) Augmented tenses of yeibs beginnijig \vit,h p art> found 
in the best MSS. -with a. single p (conip. § 5) : as (pa^^icrOqv 
2 Cxi. 25, epavritre 11. ix. 19 (ipavrtap^ivvt x. 22), epd-Kurav 
Mt. xxvi. G7, epvaaro 2 Tim. iii. 11 (in A, D), cpvaOr] iy. 17 
(A, C) : comp. 2 K xxiii. 18, Ex. v. 23, vii. 10, Lev. xiv. 7, 51, 
Num. viii. 7. Such forms are recognised in poetry (Buttm. I. 
84, Mattb, 40, Jelf 176. 1), but also occur frequently in tlie 
MSS. of prose writers ; see Bast, Conim. Crit. p. 788. In H. 
x. 22 the reduplicated perfect pepavTio-fiivoi is found in A. 
and C, compare pepvTray/xeva Hom. Odyss. 6. 69 ; some examples 
of a similar kind are met with in late writers (Lob. Paral. 
p, 13). In Mt. ix. 36 also Lachm. reads pepcp^evoi [rather 
pepi^/M.'\ on the authority of D.^ 

(e) The futures of verbs in tfw are sometimes found (with but 
slight variation in the MSS.) in the contracted form; as fMCToiKiM 
A. vii. 43, d(f)opi6l Mt. xxv. 32, a(f)opiovaL Mt. xiii. 49,'yuu}piou(rL 
Col. iv. 9,Ka0apL€l H. ix. 1*4, BtaKadaptei Mt. iii. 12, iXirtovo-t, 
Mt. xii. 21, /.laKapiovat L. i. 48, etc. This is an Atticism, though 
such forms are also found in Ionic Greek ; comp. Georgi, Hier. 
L 29, Fischer, JVeller 11. 355,Matth. 181. 2 (Jelf 203, Don. p. 
182). From ^aTrri^co we find only the common form ^a-mia-ei 
Mt. iii. 11: on anqpi^w see § 15. In the LXX verbs in al^co also 
form the future in the same way; as epydrat Lev. xxv. 40, dpira 
xix. 13, etc. Some have considered yewCrai Mt. ii. 4, Oetopelre 
Jo. xvi. ] 7 (since oyfreaOe follows), iroic!) j\It. xxvi. 18, as similar 
Attic futures, from contracted verbs ; but these are all present 

forms are iVsa-a Rt;v. i. 17, xix. 10, al., ■.!?« (or I'Sa) Rev. xvii. 6 (iVEo-aj 2 S, iii. 
^4), a.-jrr,x(a. Rev. X. 9 ; and the iiiipeilect.s tlrt^av JFk. viii. 7 (Rev. ix. 8), -Trafux^a* 
A. xxviii. 2, Tpostlxa-^ A. viii. 10 in X- These fonns are said to Lave been 
originally Cilician. See Jflf 192, Mullacli p. 17 sq., 226, A. Bnttin. p. 39 sq.] 

' [Augmented IVrisea. X lia.s the single ^ in thft passages quoted in the text 
(except 2 Tim. iii. 11). In 2 C. xi. 25, Ii. ix. 19, 21, Mt. xxvi. 67, ipx. i.s uo 
dnubt coiTeet : piTru occur.s twice (Mt. xv. 30, A. xxvii. 19), and pvofim five 
tiine.s (2 C. i. 10, Col. i. 13, 2 Tim. iii. 11, iv. 17, 2 P. ii. 7) with the augment, and 
in each case we should probably reject the double j>. From pr,tffu (and com- 
]>ound.s) we find both forms : ipp. Mt. xxvi. 65, L. ix. 42, ip. L. v. 6, vi. 48, .49. 
Simiiaily after ;i ]irepositi()u, j^-p/rlavT-s,- L. xix. 35 (1 T. v. 7, A. xxvii. 43), 
iTnpccfuuy,iv H. ii. I, iiKpr,<r<ru-j \j. viii. 29 (A. xvi. 22, but liccp'p. A. xiv. 14, — Mk. 
xiv. (,:) IS mori' duubtful), 'fziptk^zTu ]Mk. ii. 21. 

JiedupUcated Tenses. The ordiiiaiy form Ip'p. i.s found in L. xvii. 2 ('ippirrai), 
also in E. iii. 17, Ool. ii. 7, A. xv. 29. In Mt. ix. 36 we should read s pifi/u-'aioi. 
In 11. X. 22 the reduplication must certainly be roceivod, whether we write pip. 
(TLsch.), or p'.p. (Laclmi., Treg., Wcstc. and llort), or psp. (Lobex;k, Parul. p. 14). 
In Rev. xix. 13 N has ■^npipitcr.y.f/.iyiv, and (by a latei- hand) ■^ripipipavTKrf^itot ^Don. 
|«p. 16, 19Z, Jell 176).] 


tenses, see § 40. 2, and conip. Fritz, on Mt. //. cc, Matth. 181. 
2 a (Jelf 203).^ 

{(l) Of verbs in aivco, XevKaivw has in the aor. the Attic form 
(Buttm. I. 439) 'KevKuvai Mk. ix. 3 ; in G. iii. 1 several MSS. 
have i/3dcrKr]va, from ^a<rfcaiv(o, — also a correct form. ^7]jjLaiv(o, 
however, has icnj/xava, A. xi. 28, Eev. i. 1 ; see below, § 15. 
Tlie a is also retained in the aor. of /MQipaivoi 1 C. i. 20, and 
^rjpaivo) Ja. i. 11, as it regularly is in verbs in -palvco : on 
<f)dvac see § 15. (Jelf 222.)^ 

('') In particular passages future conjunctives are noted, as 
found in a greater or smaller number of MSS. : thus 1 C. xiii. 3 
KavdrjuwixaL (received into the text by Griesbach), 1 P. iii. 1 
KephrjOijaaivrai, 1 Tim. vi. 8 ap/cecrBr/awfieOa, — in the last two 
passages without much authority. In the better class of writers 
such forms are probably due to the transcribers (Lob. p. 721),^ 
but in later authors, especially the Scholiasts (as on Thuc. 3. 11 
and 54), they cannot be set aside. In tlic N". T., however, there 
is very little in favour of these conjunctives. We hnd as isolated 
instances evpqa-tj'i Kev. xyiii.,14, evptjcrtjomi/ i.\. 6 (yet an aor. 
evpiicrat is sometimes met with. Lob. j). 721), 'yvcocrwi/raL 
A. xxi. 24 (yet compare Tiob. p. 735) : oyjn^ade, L. xiii. 28, 
and Scoarj, Jo. xvii. 2, are unquestionably aorists.* [See § 15.] 

2. Peculiar person-endings : — 

(a) The 2 pers. sing, of the pies, and fut. passive and middle 
in et instead of r;; as PovXci L. xxii. 42, irape^ei vii. 4 v. I., 
o-yjrec Mt. xxvii. 4 and Jo. xi. 40 v. I. : comp. also A. xvi. 31, 
xxiv. 8 V. II. In the two verbs oTrreadai and ^ovkeaOat this 

^ [A. Butttn. (p. .37) gives a list of verba wliichhave this future in the N. T. : 

XpoviXu, and sonietimea xa/ei'^^Bfia,. To these will be added y)iufiZ,u, if we read 
yiufiovtriv in Col. iv. 9 ; the usual future is yvufltru. The fut. of ;^^i)v/?a>, how- 
ever, is probably xf^''^'^ (H x. 37). On irr^piX,u, <raX-jr'iZ,u, see § 15. Contracted 
futures are very common in the LXX. On yuyaTcti and other presents which 
have been taken for futures, see A. Buttm. p. 3^.] 

^ [In G. iii. 1 all the uncial MSS. have liSa»-*av«. Add vot/A.a.yoiri 1 P. v. 2 
{ixKuiup,^ 2 Tim. ii. 21). See Lob, p. 25 : Veitch, Gr. V. pp. 305, 519.] 

^ See Abresch in Ohsarvatt. Misc. 111. p. 13; and as to the later writers 
Niebuhr, Ind. ad Agath. p. 413, and the Index to Theophan. p. (>82. 

* [In 1 C. xiii. 3 the oldest ilSS. have xaux'ho'oua.i ; Tisch. and Meyer kolv^y,- 
itofiai: Alford and Treg. {Printed Text p. 191) with Htc. Kav^ritruum., : comp. 
Scriv. Introd. p. 547. In 1 P. iii. 1, 1 Tim. vi. 8, A. xxi. 24, Eev. xviii. 14 the 
fut indie, is certainly the true reading ; in Rev. ix. 6 the oldest MSS. liavo either 
fut. indie, or 2 aor. subj. : even in Jo. xvii," "2 we should ]>robably read the lut. 
indie. See below, p. 95 : A. Buttm. p. 36 ; Lightfoot, Clem. 7?. pp. 188, ir>0.] 


is the form always used by Attic writers (Buttro. I. 348, 
Jelf 196); in others it is of rare occurrence and is almost 
confined to the poets : ^ even in Attic prose, however, it is 
found in good MSS., see Buttmaun I. c, but compare Schneidei*, 
Plat. Civ. I. 49 sqq. Frce/.^ 

(b) The original uncontracted form of the 2 pers.' sing, is 
retained in Bvuacrai (Mt. v. 36, viii. 2, Mk. i. 40), as usually in 
classical Greek (Buttm. 1. 502): Bwrj—Mk. ix. 22, Rev. ii. 2, 
and L. xvi. 2 v. I? — was used by poets alone of earlier writers, 
but is found in later prose, as Polyb, 7. 11. 5, ^lian 13. 32 ; 
see Lob. p. 359. In the N. T. this ending appears also in con- 
tracted verbs; as ohvvaaai L. xvi. 25 (^schyl. Choeph. 354*), 
Kav')(aaai Eom. ii. 17, 1 C. iv. 7, and KaraKav')(a(Tai Rom. 
xi. 18: comp. Georgi, Hier. I. 184, Buttm. I. 347, Boisson. 
Anted. IV. 479 (Jelf 196). See § 15, s. v. trlvio. 

(c) In the 3 pers. plur. of the perfect, av (from the old ending 
avrC) instead of aai\ as 6'yvwKav Jo. xvii. 7, rertjprjKav xvii. 6, 
el'prjKav Rev. xix. 3, eiopaKav (in very good MSS.) L. ix. 36, Col. 
ii. 1, — similarly Rev. xxi. 6, Ja. v. 4 : so also in the LXX, as 
Dt. xi. 7, Judith vii. 1 {Ad. Apocr. p. 235). This form belongs 
to the Alexandrian dialect (comp. Sext. Empir. 1. 10. p. 261, 
and the Papyri Taurin. p. 24, K€KvpUvKav), but occurs also in 
Lycophrou (252, TrejyptKav), in inscriptions, and often in the 
Byzantine writers (comp. Index to Ducas p. 639, to Codiuus, 
and to Leo Graram.) : see Buttm. 1. 345 (Jelf 191, Don. p. 253). 
Tisch. has received it in aU the above N. T. passages :^ in Rev. 
ii. 3, however, he has rejected /ce/coTTiWe? (Ex. v. 22 Alex.), the 
reading of A and C. 

{d) The originally ^olic termination eta (eta?, ete) instead of 
atpbt, in the 1 aor. opt. ; as ■y^rfka^rjaetav A. xvii. 27, 'jrocija-eiav 

1 Comp. Valcken. Eur. Pkoen. p. 216 sq. (261) ; Fischer, Wellerl. 119, II. 399; 
Georgi, Hier. I. 34 ; Schwarz, ad Olear. p. 225. 

* [L. xx.ii. 42 is the only passage in which this form is well supported.] 

' Uu this fonn, for which some would substitute Si/'vn:, .see Porson, Eur. *ifec. 
257 ; Schajf. and Harm. Soph. Phil. 787 ; Oudend. ad 'Thorn. 31. p. 252 ; Lob. 
p. 359. [ Veitch, G7: V. s. v, SJva/ta/. lu all these passages, and in Mk. ix. 23, 
dvvn is probably the true reading.] 

* [\iiuvx(rai here is regarded as corrupt : Miiller conjectured aL ^vvae-oci, Herm. 
ivvarai. This form is in I'egular use in modern Greek : Mullach p. 229.] 

* [In editions 7 and 8 he rightly retains these Readings : A. xvi. 36, Rom. 
xvi. 7 may be added. He also receives the ending a for as in the 2 pers. sing. 
in Rev. ii. 3, ii. 4 (ajtyiKii), and in the latter passage he has the support of 6< ; 
in Jo. xvii. 7, 8, B has 'i'Saxtf.] 


L. vi. 11.^ This form was very frequently used (in the 2 and 3 
pars. sing, and 3 pers. plur.) in Attic Greek, as Thuc. 6. 19, 
8. 6, Aristoph. Plut. 95, Plat. Rep. I. 337 c, Gorg. 500 c, Xen. 
An. 7. 7. 30, al. (Georgi, Hier. I. 150 sq., Buttm. I. 354 sq., 
Jelf 194), and still more frequently by later writers: see 
Ellendt, Arr. Al. I. 353. 

(e) The 3 pers. plur. of the imperative in Twcav occurs re- 
peatedly in the N. T. ; as <yafXT]adTwcrav 1 C. vii. 9, '^aixeiTwaav 
vii. 36, fiavOavkrwaav 1 Tim. v. 4 (Tit. iii. 14) ; comp. A. xxiv. 
20, XXV. 5.^ Elmsley's opinion,' that this form was not in use 
before the time of Aristotle, is sufficiently refuted by Matth. 
(198) and Bornemann (Xen. An. p. 38). 

(/) The 3 pers. plur. of the historical tenses often ends in oaav 
in good MSS. (Buttm. I. 346) ; as eXyouav (for dxov) Jo. xv. 22, 
24, ihlSoaav'^ (for iBiBouv) xix. 3, irapeXd^oaav 2 Th. iii. 6, and 
in Eom. iii. 13 (from LXX) iSoXiovaav. This termination is 
very common in the LXX and the Byzantine writers; as rfKdoaav 
Ex. XV. 27, icfxiyoa-av Jos. v. 11, KareXLiroaav Ex. xvi. 24, ixpi- 
voaav xviii. 26, eiSocrav Niceph. Greg. 6. 5. p. 113, KarrjXdoaav 
Nicet. Chon: 21. 7. p. 402, fierijXOoaav Niceph. Bryenn. p. 165, 
Brunck, Analed. II. 47 : comp. also 1 Mace. vi. 31, Cant. iii. 3, 
V. 7, vi. 8, Jos. ii. 1, iii. 14, v. 11, vi. 14, viii. 19, Jud. xix. 11, 
i. 6, Euth i. 4, Lam. ii. 14, Ez. xxii. 11, Ex. xxxiii. 8, al. : see 
Fischer, Weller II. 336 sq., Georgi, ffier. I. 165 sq.. Lob. Phryn. 
p. 349, Pathol. I. 485, Sturz p. 58 sqq. In the N. T., however, 
with the exception of Eom. /. c, this form is found in a few MSS. 
only, and it may perhaps have originated with the Alexandrian 
transcribers in every case.^ 

3. From contracted verbs: — 

(a) The future iK^eoy A. ii. 17, 18 (from LXX), following the 
analogy of liquid verbs (Buttm. I. 469) ; comp. Ez. vii. 8, xxi. 31, 
Jer. xiv. 16, Hos. v. 10, Zech. xii. 10. If accentuated eVp^^ew, it 
would be, according to Elmsley, the Attic future : for eK'^eo) is 

' [In L. vi. 11, recent editors read -an*.] 

" [1 believe the form in -vray h not given by Tisch., even as a v. I. Similarly, 
in the passive we find -sSusai (not -<riut), as Ja. v. 14, L. xxi. 21.] 
^ Elmsley, Eurip. Iph. Taur. p. 232 (ed. Lips.). 

* [In this verb, however, this is the regular form.] 

* [This ending is received by Tisch., Alford, and others, in all these passages. 
Sae Mullach p. 16, who quotes irxo'av from Scymnus Chius, and the ,irr.'lar 
forms a<pl\i(Tav, ixafifiatiirat, found in papyri in the Brit. Museum. Such forma 
as QeXioufay (in contr. verbs) are of regular occurrence in modern Greek.] 


both pres. and fut. (Duttm. 11. 325, Jelf 245). In the LXX, 
however, other persons occur, and these are circumflexed ; as 
eK^eelf, eK^eelre, Ex. iv. 9, xxix. 12, xxx. 18, Dt. xii. 16. 

(h) From the two verbs Biylrda, ireivdco, the forms in use in 
written (Attic) Greek were Bcylryv, jreiuriv, in the inHniti"ve, and 
Sti/rr;?, Sti/r^J, K.T.\.,in the indicative (Biittm. T. 487, Jelf 239). 
In the N. T. we find instead Styjrdv, Sf\^a, Horn. xii. 20, Jo. 
vii. 37 ; ireivdv Ph. iv. 12, ireiva Eom. xii. 20, 1 C. xi. 2 1 : these 
forms in a are first found in Aristotle {Anim. 9. 21, comp, 
Sallier ad Thorn. If. p. 699, Lob. p. 61). According to the same 
analogy we find the fut. Treipdaoj (for Treivijo-cci) Rev. vii. 16, 
Jo. vi. 35 V. I. (Is. v. 27, Ps. xlix, 12), and 1 aor. eVeiWo-a 
Mk. ii. 25, xi. 12, Mt. xii. 1, 3, xxv. 35, L. iv. 2, al : both 
these forms are peculiarities of later Greek, sec Lob. p. 204.^ 

(c) Of the verbs in eco which retain e in the future, etc. 
(Lob. Paral. p. 435, Jelf 233), Kokeco and reXew occur in the 
IST. T. : tlius we find KaXeaco, reX/o-w (Buttni. I. 386).''' We 
find also (f)opla(o and e(j)6p€(ra 1 C. xv. 49 (Ecclus. xi. 5, 
PaIo?.ph. 52. 4): in Greek writers ^oprjaco is the ordinary form 
(so €v(p6p7}(rev L. xii. 1 6), but (popeaac is foimd as early as 
Isaeus : see Irr. V. s. v. (f)ep(o. On • dirdXeaai, tTraiveaoi, see 
below [§ 15].^ 

^ [In the fut. and aor. 'di-'^iui is regular ; or^dim) very seldom occurs as a 
variant. In Ps. xlix. 12 Tuvdiru is aor. subj. Sec Veitch, Gr. V. s. vv.] 

" [These are not the only verbs of this class in the N. T., for tenses wtli c 
occur from apxiu (Icrapxia)), ifiiai : of the verbs which have s move partially 
(Jelf 233. 2. c), 'cranial, up- and a«Ki/ia/, ^ia, are foiind in the N. T. : we might 
add K'>pivyufti, a-fi'ivii'jfii, {a/xpi'cvvvf/.i). On (fiopiu see Veitch, Gr. V' s. v. J 

■* [Tlie present inlin. of verbs in iai sometimes ends in »rv in good MSS. Tisch. 
receives this form in ilt. xiii. 32, II. vii. 5 : Westcottand Ilort read -o/» in these 
passages, and in Mk. iv. 32, 1 P. ii. 15. On the occasional neglect of contrac- 
tion see § 6. 3.] 


Section XIV. 


1. Verbs in fii : — 

(a) Pluperf. active eaTrmeaav Rev. vii. 1 1 v. I., for earrJKet- 
aav} comp. ^vvear/jKecrav Time. 1. 15, i(pe(rTt]Keaav Xen. An. 1. 
4. 4, ewKecrav Heliod. 4. 16, and see especially Jacobs, Achill. 
Tat. pp. 400, 622, Ellendt, Arr. Al. II. 77. 

(b) The 3 pers. plur. present ndeaai (for TiddaC) Mt. v. 15, 
'jreptTideaa-L Mk. xv. 17, iirirideaat Mt. xxiii. 4. This is the 
better and more usual form, comp. Thuc. 2. 34, Aristot. Mdaph. 
11. 1, Theophr. Plant. 2. 6 : see Georgi, Hierocr. I. 145 sq., 
where many examples are given, and Matth. 210, Schneider, 
Plat. Civ. XL 250 (Jelf 274). Similarly, StSoaci Ptev. xvii. 13, 
in the best MSS. ; comp. Her. 1. 93, Thuc. 1. 42. The con- 
tracted forms TiOetat and (more especially) BiBovai belong to 
later Greek : see Lob. p. 244. 

(c) The 3 pers. plur. imperf. of (a compound of) SiScofjit is 
iBiSovv, instead of ehihoaav, A. iv. 33, xxvii. 1, after the analogy 
of contracted verbs;" compare Hes. ep'y. 123. In the singular 
ehihovv is more common (Buttm. I. 509, Jelf 276). 

{d) On the perf. infin. active earavat 1 C. x. 1 2 (a shortened 
form for earr^Kevai, but very common, and perhaps the only form 
in use), see Irr. V. s. v. ; comp. Georgi, Hier. 1. 1 8 2 sq. (Jelf 3 9).^ 

(«) The imperative pres. passive Trepuaraa-o is found in several 
MSS. in 2 Tim. ii. 16, Tit. iii. 9 ; dcfiiaraao 1 Tim. vi. 5 v. I. ; 
irepita-ra), k.t.X., were more usual, see Thom. M. p. 75, Matth. 

(/) There is weighty authority for some forms from a present 
lardo) (Her. 4. 103, as d(f)iaTd(o Joa. Cinnam. p. 121, icpca-rdto 
p. 65, KaOia-rda) p. 104) ; as ia-Toy^iev Eomi iii 31, crvvto-ToJvTe'i 

' [No uncial MS. reads -i<rav in Rev. vii. 11. This person "always ends in 
uirav, as tri^oi»xiiaav Mk. XV. 7, al., even where in Attic Greek ta-av alone 
was in use, e.g. pmrccv. We find, however, ut- t%r,t<ra.v A. xvii. 15, al." A. 
Buttmann p. 43.] 

* [Similarlj' ir',Souy A. iii. 2, iv. 35, and perhaps Mk. vi. 56 (but Wirihirai 
k. viii. 17) : this is confined to very late Greek (Veitch, Gr. V, p. 562).] 

' [Veitch remarks that the longer form in the simple verb seems late {M\. 
Var. Hist. 3. 18), but quotes a<pi<rT7ix.ivai from Demosthenes. The l^ter perfect 
XtTTOLKo, occiu-s A. viii. 11 in the infin. \\iiTra.yA\at (Jelf 278. 5, Veitch p. 300}.] 

* [Tiach, does not give iVrw as a variant anywhere.] 


2 C. vi. 4, X. 18 (Niceph. Bryenn. p. 41, comp. KaOiaraw Agath, 
316. 2), airoKadtara Mk. ix. 12 (Dan. ii. 21, 2 S. xviii. 12 [in 
some MSS.], Fabric. Pseud. II. 610, ^vviara Plat. Tim. 33a): 
see Chain. Ch'oeci (ed. Dindorf) I. 251, D'Orvillc, Char it. p. 642, 
Matth. 210 (Jelf 276). Similarly efi-mTrXcov (from e>7ri7rX.aw) A. 
xiv. 17 ; comp. efiirnrpoiv Leo Diac. 2. 1.^ [See Veitch p. 299.] 
{g) The opt. pres. hcoi) for 80/77, Rom. xv. 5, 2 Tim. i. 16, 18 
(ii. 7), E. i. 17, iii. 16,' Jo. xv. 16 ; airo^r) 2 Tim. iv. 14 ;' see 
Gen. xxvii. 28, xxviii. 4, Num. v. 21, xi. 29, al., Themist. Or. 8. 
p. 174 d, Philostr. Apoll. 1. 34, Dio Chr. 20. 267,Aristeas p. 120 
(Haverc), al. This is a later form, rejected by the old gram- 
marians (Phryn. p. 345, Moeris p. 117). In Plat. Gorg. 481 a, 
Lysias, c. Andoc. p. 215, t. iv, recent editors have restored htp; 
and in Xen. Cyr. 3. 1. 35, Schneider changed 80)77? into 80/779: 
comp. Lob. p. 346, Sturz p. 52, Buttm. in Mus. Antiq. Stud. 

I. 238.' 

{h) The 2 aor. imper. "of ^alvco occurs in a contracted form ; 
avd^a Eev. iv. 1, KardjSa Mk. xv. 30 v.L; comp. Eurip. El. 113, 
Aristoph. Ach. 262, Vesp. 979, and see Georgi, Eier. I. 153, Irr. 
V. s. V. The longer form is also found, as Kard^rjOi Mt. xivii. 
40, Jo. iv. 49, fjL€Td^'r]0t vii. 3 : comp. Th. IVI: p. 495 and Guden- 
dorp in loc. Quite analogous is dvaaja A. xii. 7, E. v. 14, comp. 
Theocrit. 24. 36, Menand. p. 48 (Mein.), ^.?op. 62 (De Furia),— 
also diTocxra Frotev. Jac. 2, irapda-ra Act. Apocr. 5 1 : on the other 
hand,a2/ao-T77^tA.ix.6,34,eV/o-T77^t 2Tim.iv.2.' (Jelf 302,274.) 

(i) The K T. MSS. vary as to the form of the neuter perf. 
partic. of Xcrr^fit, but karo'i {e<jTrjK6<i) is the reading of the better 
MSS. in both Mt. xxiv. 15 and Mk. xiii. 14 : this is the form 
found in the oldest and best MSS. of Greek authors {Irr. V. s.v., 

• fin Rec. the form in -a.a occurs in Mk. ix. 12, A. viii. 9, xvii. 15, Eom. iii. 
31, 2 C. iv. 2, vi. 4, x. 18 ; -av« in A. i. 6, Rom. vi. 13, 16, 2 C. iii. 1, v. 12, 
X. 'l2 1 C. xiii. 2. Lachm., Treg., and Tisch. read -avu in all these places, 
except 2 C. iv. 2, vi. 4 (trvnrTtkvTn), 1 C. xiii. 2 (/iiiirTavai), 2 Cor. iii. 1 (Tisch. 
(fi/wiTTavE/v, Lachm. and Treg. <rvn<rTav) -. they also read (runtrra.vu in G. ii. 18. In 
all these lifteen passages Westcott and Hort adopt -avai.] 

2 [We should read iuiru in 2 Tim. ii. 7, iv. 14, S^ in E. iii. 16, Jo. xv. 16. 
In Rom. XV. 5, 2 Tim. i. 16, 18, we must certainly read the optative Q>4n)- In 
E i 17 2 Tim. ii. 25, Laclim. writes SaJ^, (for S*'"). as a subjunctive; so also 
Tisch. (ed. 7) in Jo. xv. 16. Sec Yvltz.' Rom. III. 230, A. Buttm. p. 46, in 
favour of 8*»i in these passages ; on the other side, Meyer on E. i. 17, and below 
§ 41. b. 1. On these forms see Veitch p. 168, Jelf 274.] 

* This form in the N. T. is the more peculiar, since, wherever it occurs, 
ordinary N. T. u.sage would require the conjunctive. 

•♦ [Mtra/Sa Mt. xvii. 20 ; xxTadxTu Mk. xiii. 16, al., ivdjixTi Rev. xi. 12,] 


Don. p. 124) and it is adopted by Bekker in Plato throughout. 
The uncontracted forms of this participle also occur not unfre- 
quently in good MSS. of the N. T.; as iarrjKoTtov Mt. xxvii. 47, 
Mk. ix, 1, XL 5, karrjKm Jo. iii. 29, vi. 22, TrapecrrrjKoacv Mk. 
xiv. 6 9 : these forms have been for the most part received into 
the text.^ 

The conjunctive S0J077 is fairly .supported in Jo. xvii. 2, Rev. viii. 3, 
(8wo-u)o-iv xiii. 1 6). This according to some is a Doric form ; it is 
found in Theoor. 27. 21, but has long been replaced there by the 
correction Bwa-eu^ la later Greek, however, this form occurs fre- 
quently (Lob. p. 721, comp. Thilo, Apocr. I. 871, Index to Theo- 
phanes), and may probably have been one of the corrupt forms of 
the popular spoken language.^ [Veitch, Gr, V. p. 169.] 

2, From et/it we find 

(a) The imperat. r/ro) for ea-roi (the usual form in the N. T., 
as elsewhere) 1 C. xvi. 22, Ja. v. 12, Ps. ciii. 31, 1 Mace. x. 31, 
comp, Clem. Al. Strom. 6. 275, Acta Thorn. 3, 7 ; once only in 
Plato {Rep. 2.361 d), see Schneider in loc, — also Irr. V. s. v. eifii 
(Jelf 286, Don. p. 229). According to Heraclides (in Eustath. 
p. 1411.22) this is a Doric inflexion. The other imperative form 
laOi occurs Mt. ii. 13, v. 25, Mk. v. 34, L. xix. 17, 1 Tim. iv. 15 
(Buttm. I. 527).^^ 

Q)) "H/uTjv, 1 pers. sing, imperf. middle {Irr. V. I. c, Jelf 286), 
is rejected by the Atticists, and is common in later writers only 
(who use it especially in conjunction with civ); see Lob. p. 152, 
Schief. Long. 423, Valcken. m iV. r. L 478. In the N. T. it is 
the usual form ; see Mt. xxv. 35, Jo. xi. 15, A. x. 30, xi. 5, 17, 
1 C. xiii, 11, al., and comp. Thilo, Acta Thorn, p. 3: with av it 

^ {^Etrrif IS Well attested in Mt. I.e., Rev. xiv. 1, tut iimus has not much 
authority anjrwhere : iu Mk. xiii. 14 we should probably read 'nrrtucora, and 
itrrnxof is generally received in Rev. v. 6 (-»ms H). The uncontracted forms of 
this partic. (in the simple verb and its compounds) occur frequently, though 
much les-s frequently than the contracted: in Mk. xiv. 69 vafurTunv is the best 

^ [Tisch. still (but see § 13. 1. e) reads ^u<n^ in Jo. xvii. 2, but 'huircvint in 
Rev. iv. 9 : in Rev. viii. 3, xiii. 16, we should probably*read luiru and luffn.] 

^ [In this verb some other peculiar forms deserve notice : the neuter partic. 
axoS/Soun Rev. xxii. 2 (Lachm., Westc. and Hort) ; pres. indie. SiSal Rev. iii. 9 ; 
suLj. pres. and aor. (3 sing.) ^I'SoT, oi7, 1 C. xv. 24, Mk. iv. 29, al. (1 Mace. xi. 40, 
see belowj p. 360) : all these forms follow the present tense of contracted verbs. 
In A. iv. 35, 1 C. xi. 23, jJ/StTa (for -ora, in a compound) is strongly supported, 
and there fs good" authority for i^ihro Mk. xii. 1, Mt. xxi. 33, al. In Mt. xxi. 
41 Bee. has the peculiar future IxioffiTai, but with no uncial MS.] 

* [So slso'irrufa, L. xii. 35, 1 Tim. iii. 12.] 


is found in G. i. 1 only. The plural ijfieOa is found twice in Mt. 
xxiii. 30 in very good MSS., and was received into the text by 
Griesb.; in A. xxvii. 37 also Lachm. received it on tlie authority 
of A atid B, but in G. iv. 3, E. ii. 3, it has not much support.^ 
This form occurs in no good writer; see, however, Epiphan. 0pp. 
II. 333, Malal. 16. p. 404. 

(c) For 7)ada, Mk. xiv. 67, MSS. of little weight liave ^9,^ a 
form which in Attic Greek is unusual and indeed almost doubtful 
(Buttm. I. 528, Jelf 286). As to later usage see Lob. p. 149 
[and PaihoL II. 267]. 

Eem. 'Evt— G. iii. 28, Col. iii. 11, Ja. i. 17 (and in 1 C. vi. 5 
doubtfuP), comp. Ecclus. xxxvii. 2 — is usually considered a con- 
traction for cveo-rt : this is the opinion of old grammarians (corap. 
Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 482), and it is defended by Fritzsche (Mark 
p. 642). Buttmann's view however is preferable (II. 375), that 
evL is the preposition (iv, h/l) with the accent thrown back, used 
without ctvai, in the same way as eVt, Trapa, etc. The contraction of 
(.vcrrri into ei'i would be very harsh and also without example ; Avhilst 
iJuttmann's view is supported by the analogy of eTri and Trapa, the 
latter of which can hardly be considered a contraction of Trapeo-r/ : see 
Kriiger p. 25 (Jelf 63, 341). *Ei'i is very common in Attic Greek, 
both poetry and prose (Georgi, Hier. I. 152, Schwarz, Comm. 48G) : 
the poets use it for evctcri, as tin for Ittcio-i II. 20. 248, Odyss. 9. 126; 
and irdpa is even joined Avith the 1 personal pronotm.* 

3. The following forms are connected with the primitive 
verb 'irjixL : — 

(a) acpicovTat Mt. ix. 2, 5, Mk. ii< 5, L. v. 20, 23, vii. 47, 1 Jo. 
ii. 12 [Mk. ii. 9 Bee, L. vii. 48, and perhaps Jo. xx. 23].' The 
ancient grammarians do not agree in their explanation of this 
word. Some,as Eustathius (Iliad 6. 5 9 0), consider it equivalent to 
d^Mvrac, as a<f)€7} is used by Homer for d(f>f}. Others, e. g. Hero- 
dian, the Etym. Mag., and Suidas, more correctly take it as the 
perfect indie, (for a<^eivTat). According to the Etym. Mag. it is 

^ [In all these passages X has iii/.iea, : tlie other form nutv is also found (Rom. 
vii, 5, al.). On ?^>iv see Veitch p. 199.] 

^ [^Hs occurs several times, as Mt. xxv. 21, 23, al., sometimes without any 
V. I. ; rtrSa, Mt. xxvi. 69, Mk. xiv. 67. The "MSS. of little weight " are some o'f 
the most important of the cursive MSS.] 

^ [Now generally received. See Ellicott and Lightfoot on G. iii. 28.] 

* Tlie Etym. Maij. (p. 357) regards tvi, not as a contraction for imrn, but as 
used elliptically, the proper person of tTvai being supplied. — Whether iv is ever 
used for 'in is doubtful (Ilerm. Soph. Trnch. 1020). 

* [111 Matthew and Mark a:fi!iyrcci is probably the true reading.] 


an Attic form, Init Suidas i:=? certainly right in ascribing it ta 
the Doric dialect : ^ this perfect passive follows the analogy of 
tlie perf act. a^eaiKa. Conip. Fischer, (Zt; Vitiis Lex. p. 646 sqi^., 
Irr. V. p. 145 (Jelf 284). 

(V) "Hcpie, :Mk. i. 34, xi. 16 (Philo, Lg. ad Cajam \\ 1021), 
is the inipT?rfect (for a<f)i€i), formed from a present a6i(o (Eccl. 
ii. 18, acpiofiev Mt. vi. 12 2;. /.) ; comp. ^vviov for ^vvUaav II. 1. 
273, Irr. V. p. 147. In rjc^ie the angment is prefixed to the 
prepos., as in other forms of this verb, e.g. i](f)€idT] Plutarch, 
Sulla 28. See Fischer, JH//. II. 480.* 

(c) Most MSS. have d(f>eOTjcrav in Kom. iv. 7 ^ (from Ps. xxxi. 
1) as 1 aor. pass, of ucfinjfii: in some jMSS. however (of N. T. 
and LXX) we find the augmented form a(f)ei07]aav, which is 
most commonly used by Greek authors (Irr.- V. p. 146). 

'A<;/)£u (from a root a<^Lo) is now received into the text in Rev. 
ii. 20 (Ex. xxxii. 32). on the autliority of good MSS. ; comp. Tt^eK 
for Tt'^/;s (Buttm. I. 50G, J<-lf 27li).^ 

From a-vvLi]fiL we have a-wiova-i. Mt. xiii. 13 {3 pers. phir.), 2 C. 
X. 12 (3 plur. or dative partic). and the partio. crvvtcuv Mt. xin. 
2.'> V. I. (Kom. iii. 11, from LXX. fmrtwr). instead of o-vrut? which 
Lachra. and Tisoh. havo received into the text [in Mt. xiii. 23]. The 
first form (,rvyu>vcn) belongs to a root o-uvtco), from which we also 
find an intin. o-riicuin Theogn. 565 : the participle, which is particu- 
larly common in the LXX (1 Chr. xxv. 7, 2 Chr. xxxiv. 12, Ps. xl. 2, 
Jer. XX. 12). is perhaps mori' correctly written ctl'vlidv, from crvi'iu) ; 
see above [on rifpie]. and P>attm. I. 523. Lachmann accordingly 
writes crwiova-i in Mt. xiii. 13: see on the whole Fritz. Bom. L 
1 74 sq.» 

^ ["A Dorism not confiued to the X. T. but somewhat widely ditlused, mid 
received even bv Attic writers : see Ahivns, Dial. Dor. p. 344 ; Bredow, Di>il. 
Herod . p. 39.'..'"' A. liuttm. p. 49. Veitch (p. 293) tiuotes a>:i<rfa.i from Tah. 
Heracl. 1. 105. See also t'ob.'t, X. T. Vatic, p. Ixxiv.] 

"^ [The root -iM is implied by the forms Hfm, if.afttt (h. xi. 4), afUvn (Rev. 
xi. 9), isp-oyrctt (Jo. XX. 23, Westcott and Hort, and elsewhere as a v. I.), 
Untler this he^xd will come ruv/oi-ir/ (Mt. xiii. 13^, ri/v;'«» (Rom. iii. 11) if thus 
aeceiituatod, as by Lachni., Treg. , "Wcstc. and Hort : also, according to the last- 
named editors, <ruylun (Mk. iv. 12, L. viii. 10). In 2 C. x. 12 we shouhl read 
ffwiaffi, in Alt. xiii. 23 fwnl; : in Mk. iv., L. viii., most editors read iruviuiji, the 
ordinary form. Tisch. treats .several of these words as belonging to a root -/i« : 
y«n*» (Rem. iii. 11, and in LXX), runevri (Mt. xiii. 13), rvtiuf -i? -i7t (Job xv. 
9, Pr. xxi. 12. Jer. ix. 24, al.), afi,£ -*» (Eccl. ii. IS, v. 11). See Veitch pp. 104. 
291, 304, Jelf 2S3sq.] 

' [No uncial MS. inserts the augment here, or in iA^v, A. xvi. 26.] 

* [In Hor. 2. 1(15 most MSS. have itiotrxi, and apiavra., is sometimes a »*./. 
in good MSS. of the N. T. : in Mk. viii. 17, B has cviun. Alullach ( Vuhj. pp. 24, 
38, 50) quotes the pres. i^* from a Nubi.iu inscription of the 3d or 4th century 
(Corp. Jn.icr. 111. p. 4S6), and from a MS. of the 7th century.] 

* [In modern Greek, verbs iu u take the place of those in ^ ; thus liiuftt, 


4. The imper, of KdOrjfxat is (not KaOrjao, hut) kclOov in Mt. 
xxii, 44, L. XX. 42, A. ii. 34, Ja. ii. 3 (1 S. i. 23, xxii. 5, 2 K. 
ii. 2, 6, al.) : only in Mk. xii. 36 Tisch. has received KaOiaov on 
the authority of B, Kddov never occurs in the earlier Greek 
authors, and is therefore reckoned a corrupt form by Moeris 
(p. 234) and Thorn. Mag. (p. 485).^ Similarly KaQy for KdOrj- 
aai A. xxiii. 3 ; see Lob. p. 395, Greg. Cor. p. 411 (ed. Schaif.). 
[Lob. Fathol.'ll. 129, Jelf 301.] 

Section XV. 


We find in the N. T. several verbal forms, framed indeed 
according to rule, but rejected as unclassical by the ancient 
grammarians because they do not occur in Greek authors, or 
occur only in the later. In particular, we often meet with the 
active form of the future in verbs which in better writers have 
the middle form instead, see Buttm. II. 84 sq., Monk, Eur. Ale. 
159, 645 : ^ this point, however, needs closer examination. The 
following list contains all the forms which have been declared 
unclassical. Those in regard to which the- grammarians, espe- 
cially Thomas Magister and Moeris, have manifestly been too 
fastidious, are marked with an asterisk.^ 

diyyeXkco. The 2 aor. active and passive are rare in the better 
writers, and in many places doubtful (Buttm. II. 94 sq., /rr. V. 
s. V.) ; yet see Schaef. Demosth. III. 175, Schoem. Isceus p. 39. 
In the K T. we find dvrjyyeXr] 1 P. i. 12 and Rom. xv. 21 
(from LXX), BcayyeXfj Rom. ix. 17 (from LXX), KaTrjyyeXTj 
A. xvii, 13, [See Veitch, Gr. V, p. 5.] 

a.(pi*ifj.i, are replaced by ^fSa/, iiplvnt, and similarly KiiufAai by xHof^at (MuUach 
p. 261). Compare also grivu with Irrdvu ((Vrn^wi).] 

' [Veitch (p. 307) quotes xaiou from coraic writers (Meineke, Fragm. Com. 2. 
1190, 3. 167, al. ) and late prose. In L. xxii. 30 there is considerable authority 
for a future Ka.6r,<ri<rh (1 S. v 7, al.), which is quoted by the same writer from 
Eur. Frag. 77.] 

2 [Compare the lists in Jelf 321, Don. p. 270 sq. This reference is not 
repeated in each case. See also Veitch, Grceic Verbs, s. vv.] 

^ [V/iner incloses these words within brackets : the asterisk is here used 
instead, to avoid ambiguity. As xpifiaftai and iXida: were manifestly placed 
within brackets for a diflerent reason,- the asterliik is not inserted before these 
verbs : possibly it should be omitted before fuaUu alao.] 


ayvu/jLc. On the fut; Kared^u Mt, xii. 20, aor. Karea^a, see 
§ 12. 2. 

'^ayw. On the 1 aor. rf^a, which occurs 2 P. ii. 5 in the 
compound iird^a'i, see Irr. V. p. 9, Lob. pp. 287, 735 [Veitch, 
Gr, F. p. 13 sq.]. In compounds this tense is not rare (2 S. 
xxii. 3 5, 1 Mace. ii. 6 7, Index to Malal. s. v. ayw, Schsef. Index 
ad JEsop. p. 135), even in good prose writers, Her. 1. 190, 
5. 34, Xen. Hell. 2. 2. 20, Thuc. 2. 97, 8. 25. 

'^aipew. The fut. ekca (Eev. xxii. 19, in the compound 
d(f>e\(a^), is rare, see Buttm. II. 100; it is found however in 
Agath 269. 5, and frequently in the LXX, as Ex. v. 8, Num. 
xi. 17, Dt. xii. 32, Job xxxvi. 7; conip. also Menand. Byz. 
p. 316. Against Reisig,^ who claims this form for Aristophanes 
and Sophocles, see Herm. (Ed. Col. 1454, and Eurip, Rel. 
p. 127. 

'''cLKovay. Fut. aKovaco (for uKovaofiai) Mt. xii. 19, xiii. 14, 
Rom. X. 14 [Bee], Jo. xvL 13 :• aKovcro/xai, however, is the more 
common future in the N. T., especially in Luke, see A. iii. 22 
(vii. 37), xvii. 32, xxv. 22, xxviii. 28 (Jo. v. 28). 'AKovaco 
occurs not only in poets (Jacobs, Anthol. Gr. III. 134, Orac. 
Sibyll. 8. 206, 345), but occasionally also in prose authors of 
the KOLvri, as Dion. H. 980. 4 (Reiske).^ In the LXX comp. 
Is. vi. 9, 2 S. xiv. 16. 

dXkofjuic varies in the aorist between rjkd^'qv and rjXofirjv 
{Irr. V. s. v.). In A. xiv. 10 both these forms are found in the 
MSS. (and even with \ doubled), but rjKaro has most authority.* 

dfjLaprdvoy, d/^capreco. The 1 aor. r/fidpT-qa-a for 2 aor. rjfMap- 
jov, Eom. V. 14, 16, Mt. xviii 15, L. xviL 4, Rom. vi. 15 (IS. 
xix. 4, Lam. iii. 41),^ Th. M. p. 420, Lob. p. 732 ; see however 
Diod. S. 2. 14 dfiapT7]aa^, Agath. 167. 18.** The fut. active 
also, dfMaprijao) (Mt. xviii. 21, Ecclus. \ii. 36, xxiv. 22, Dio C. 

1 [L. xii. 18 Kcchk^, 2 Til. ii. S iy.Kir; see Dion. H. Ant. 9. 26, Diod. S. 2. 25 
(Veitch s. v.). On avaXoT, the reading of K in ^ Th. ii. 8, see Veitch, p. 61.] 

* Comm. Crit. in Soph. (Ed. Col. p. 365. 

3 Comp. Scfiaef. Dem. ] I. 232, Wurm, Dhiarch. p. 153, Bachmann, Lye. I. 92. 
[Mt. xii. 19, xiii. 14, A. iii. 22, xxviii. 26, are from the Old Testament. The 
best texts have -fa, in John (v. 25, 28, x. V6), -y»^a; in Acts (xvii. 32, xxi. 22, 
xxv. 22, xxviii. 28.] 

* [In A. xix. 16 the best texts have i^aXo/uiiios.] 

* Still the 2 aor. niu^proo prclomiuatea in the LXX : see especially 1 K. viii. 

4/, fiaaprsfA-v, tiviiju-nra/iciVj r,oix,7!C'au.:\-. 

' ["la the N. T. we find witiiout exception the second aorist in the indie, 
theyim aorist partic. j in the coiij, both forms occur;" A. Buttm. p. 54.] 


59. 20), is not very common: compare Monk, Eur. Air. 159, 
Poppo, Thuc. III. iv. 361.1 

*dve-^ofj,ai. Fut. dve^ofxat Mt. xvii. 17, Mk. ix. 19, L. ix. 41, 
2 Tim. iv. 3, — for which Moeris from pure caprice would have 
dvaa')(riaofiaL : dve^ofiai occurs very frequently, com|>. e.g. Soph, 
Uledr. 1017, Xen. Ci/r. 5. 1. 26, Plat. Fha:dr. 239 a. 

dvoiyco. 1 aor. rjvoi^a Jo. ix. 17 [i?er.], 21, al., for dverp^a 
(but comp. Xen. Hdl. 1. 5. 13) : 2 aor. pass, rjvoi'yqv Rev. xv. 5. 
See § 12. 7. 

diravrdu). Put. diravn^aii) (for d'7ravrr](T0fj.ai) Mk. xiv. 13 
(Diod. S. 18. 15) : see Irr. F". p. 33, Matth. Eur. Siipp. 774. 

diroKreiVQ). The 1 aor. direicrdvOr}, diroKravOrivat, Rev. ii. 13, 
ix. 18, 20, xi. 13, xiii. 10, xix. 21, Mt. xvi. 21, L. ix. 22, al.; 
comp. 1 Mace. ii. 9, 2 Mace. iv. 36. This form occurs indeed 
in Homer,^ but belongs peculiarly to later prose, as Pio 0. 65. 
c. 4, Menander, Hist. pp. 284, 304 (ed. Bonn) ; see Buttm. II. 
227, Lob. pp. 36, 757.^ The un- Attic perf aTreKra^Ka occurs 
2 S. iv. 11 {Irr. F. p. 200). 

aTToWv/jLi: Put. diroXeato Mt. xxi. 41, Mk. viii. 35, Jo. vi. 39, 
xii. 25 [i^ec] ; comp. Lucian, Asin. 33, Long. Pastor. 3. 17 
(Buttm. IL 254, Irr. V. p. 238) ; but see Lob. p. 746. In 1 C. 
i. 19 we find the ordinary form dirokoi.^ 

1 ['A^ipisvvu^/. In L. xii. 28 good MSS. have a.y.(piiZ,u (Plut. C. Gracch. 2) 
for -ivvvm. Lachmann, Westcott and Hort read auipidl^ii with B ; comp. i-rvfcfiaXs 
riut. Alor. 340, Job xxix. 14, xl. 5 : see A. Buttm. p. 49, Veitch p. 58.] 

^ [Not in Homer, see Lobeck on Buttmann I. c, Lidd. and Scott .s. v. : see 
also Vfitch, Gr. Verbs, i)p. 79, 349. In 2 Mace. l. c. we find the perfect, 

' In Kev. vi. 11 we find a.^oKTiv^iaSai {v. I. aTaxTsntr^xi), and in 2 C. iii. 6 
(Rev. xiii. 10) aToxriwu {v. I. i-raKTmi). Tiiis form is considered ^Eolic, since 
the Jilolians were accustomed to change e/ into 6 before X, ft, v, p, tr, doubling 
the following consonant, e.g. KTcttu for KTilto), tr'^ippu for ff-rnpu ; .see Koen, 
Gregor. Cor. pp. 587, 597 (ed. Scha-f. ), Matth. 14. 6, and comp. Dindorf, Pnef. 
ad Ariftoph. XII. p. 14. In Tob. i. 18 and Wis. xvi. 14 also we find this form 
amongst the variants. We must not (with Wahl) assume the existence of a 
present a.^roKrita for Mt. x. 28, L. xii. 4, xiii. 34 : aVaxTsvovTa/v (if we do not 
regard it as an aorist partic, see Fritz. Matt. p. 383) may be a corruption of 
a-rcxrtvvcuTiuv, which is the reading of a few good MSS., and which is received 
by Lacbm. and in part by Tisch. See further Borliem. Liic. p. 81. [The 
form -iviiM is received by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Alford, in Mt. x. 28, Mk. xii. 5, 
}j. xii. 4, 2 0. iii. 6, Kev. vi. 11 (except 2 C. iii. 6, Lachm.). In Rev. vi. 11 
AVe.stcott and Hort receive -twu, but in Mk. xii. 5 they have the strange form 
i-rexTinvvTii. None of the.se editors receive -/y«. In 2 C. iii. 6, Rev. xiii. 10, 
Lachm. adopts ("de conjectura," Tiscli. II. cc.) ivoxranu, on which see A. 
Buttm. p. 61.] 

' [1 (". i. 19 is from the LXX. In Jo. vi. 39 a^roxUeo is 1 aor. subj., but this 
future often occurs in the N. T. Tlie fut. mid<l. is always araXai//*ac<.] 


dpTrd^co. Aor. rjpTrdyrjv 2 C. xii. 2, 4, for -^pTrdadrjv (Rev. 
xii. 5), Th. M. p. 424, Moer. p. 50, Buttin. I. 372 (Jelf 212. 
6) : fut. dpiray^aofiai 1 Th. iv. 17. (Also dpTrdcrco, for dpird- 
(To/xai, Jo. X, 28 : this is said to be a rare form, but it occurs 
as early as Xen. 3Iag. Eq. 4. 17.) 

*av^dvco. The primitive form av^co, E. ii. 21, Col. ii. 19, 
is often found in Plato and Xenophon (Matth. 224). 

^apeo). From this root we find not only ^e^aprj/jbivo'i (Mt. 
xxvi. 43, L. ix. 32), but also, contrary to Attic prose usage 
(/?T. V. p. 51), ^apovfievoL 2 C. v. 4 (Mk. xiv. 40), /Sapet'cr^o) 
] Tim. v, IG, and the aor. i^api'^O'qv L. xxi. 34, 2 C. I 8 : 
lor the last tense, e^apvvO'qv (L. xxi. 34 v. I.) was used in the 
written language.^ 

,6ao-Kaiv<i). The 1 aor. (G. iii. 1) is i^uaKave in Bee, but 
in many [cursive] MSS". i^daK-qve (without i subscript), comp. 
Buttm. I. 438 : the latter occurs in Dio C. 44. 39, Herodian 
2. 4. 11, and in later writers. 

/SfoG). 1 aor. inlin. ^icbaat 1 V. iv. 2, for which the 2 aor. 
^Kovat is more usual in Attic Greek (Buttm. II. 129 sq., Ii-r. 
V. s. v.) ; ^loxxai occurs however Aristot. Nic. 9. 8, Plutarch, 
0pp. II. 367 sq., and oftener in compoimds (Steph. Thea. II. 
260, ed. Hase). The other forms of the 1 aor. are more 
common, especially the partic. /3t&;cra<?. 

^Xacndvto. Aor. i^XdaTrjaa for e^Xacnov Mt. xiii. 26, Ja. 
v. 18 i^Gen. i. 11, Num. xvii. 8, al., Ada Apocr. ^. 172); 
comp. Buttm. II. 131 (Jelf 255). From the time of Aristotle 
the 1 aor. is not uncommon in the written language (Steph. 
Th:s. II. 273).^ 

*yafie(o. Aor. i<ydfX7]a-a Mk. vi. 17, Mt. xxii. 25 [Bee.'], 1 C. 
vii. 9, instead of the older form e'yrjfia (from jafxco) L. xiv. 
20, 1 C. vii. 28 (see Georgi, Hier. I. 29, Lob. p. 742): yet 
iydfirjaa is found (if not in Xen. Cyr. 8. 4. 20) in Lucian, 
Dial. Deor. 5. 4, Apollodor. 3. 15. 3. Better attested is 
€<yafxri6T}v Mk. x. 12 (where however the reading is doubtful), 
1 C. vii 39 (Lob. p. 742). 

' [In Mk. xiv. 40 recent editors receive x.a,Ta^a.evvi/j,itot, the only iustance in 
the N. T. of this form of the present. ] 

^["Conj. pres. ^>.a.rTa., Mk. iv. 27, from a cognate fonn fiXarrau, another 
example of which is hardly to be found ; comp. Schol. find. Py. (d-XXu xui 
p,-^.a.<rrZ : " A. Buttm. p. 48. Veitch quotes ShXatrruvra. from Hermas, Fast. p. 57 
(p. S3' id. II]]gtnf ).] 


ryeXaco. Fut. yeXdao) (for ^eKdaofiai) L. vi. 21; see Buttm. 
II. 85, Irr. V. s. v. 

ryiyvofiai. Aor. pass. ijevnBrjv^ used for iyevofirjv, A. iv. 4, 
Col. iv. 11, 1 Th. ii. 14, al.; comp. Th. M. p. 189. This form, 
originally Doric, is often found in writers of the Kotvn (Lob. 
p. 109, Irr. V. p. 64).=^ 

Si8&)/it. The 1 aor. ehwKa is avoided by Attic M'riters in 
the 1 and 2 pers. plur., the 2 aor. being used instead (Buttm. 

I. 509, Jelf 277. 2). In the N. T., however, we find iSa>KafM€v 
1 Th. iv. 2, iBcoKare Mt. xxv. 35, G. iv. 15, al., as in Demos- 
thenes. On Bcoo-r) see § 14. 1. Eem.^ 

*Bia)Kco, Fut. Btco^oi (for Bi(il)^o/xai) Mt. xxiii. 34, L. xxi. 
12 {Irr. V. p. 89) : comp. however Dem. Nausim. 633 c, 
Xen. An. 1. 4. 8 (and Kriig. in loc), Cyr. G. o. 13. 

Zvvaixat. It is only necessary to remark that, beside eSu- 
vr)B7]v, the Ionic form rjhwdadr^v (with augment t]) is given 
amongst the variants in Mt. xvii. 16, as found in B ; see Buttm. 

II. 155.* 

hv(o, hvvio. In Mk. i. 32 some good MSS. have the 1 aor. 
etvca, which in earlier Greek has only a causative signification 
{Irr. V. p. 92).^ Another form of the 1 aor. is found L. iv. 40 
{ZvvavTo<i) in some inferior authorities : this also occurs in ^^1. 
4. 1, Pausan. 2, II. 7.^ 

el'So) Tcnow. Perf. olZafiev (for 'la^iev) Mk. xi. 33, Jo. iii. 2, 
1 C. viii. 1, al. (Poppo, Xen. An. 2. 4. 6) ; oUare (to-xe) Mk. x. 

1 [It has sometimes been maintained that lyt^y.Sni has a passive mecmvng ; 
against this see Meyer on 1 C. i. 30, Ellicott on Col. iy. 11.— In the N. T., as 
might be expected, y'tva/iat is always found, not ylyv. ; similarly yivuaKu.'] 

'^ [From 'tyMay, 2 aor. of ytvu/ntu, we find yial Mk. T. 43, ix. 30, L. xix. 15, in 
the best texts (Hei-m. Mand. 4, in K) ; tins is variously regarded as subj. (A. 
Buttm. p. 46), or optative (Tisch. Proleg. p. 57, ed. 7) : comp. S«r, p. 95, and see 
below, p. 360. — Alalia/ has the peculiar imi>erfcct ihnlTt, L. viii. 38 in Lachmann's 
text ; on this form (which is not well attested) see A. Buttm. p. 55.] _ ^ 

'3 [A. Buttm. remarks (p. 46) that the 2 aor. is only found once in the inclic. 
(L. i. 2), but that the other moods are regularly formed from the 2 aor. Veitch 
quotes i^JjK«.fi.iy trora Eur. Cycl. 296, Xen. An. 3. 2. 5, Hell. 6. 3. 6, al.] 

* [Buttm. /. c. remarks that this form (with the augm. ji) is confined to Hel- 
lenistic Greek : Tisch. now receives this form in Mk. vii. 24 (.Jos. xv. 63). It is 
a v.l. in Her. 7. 106 (Veitch s. v.).] 

'[B has ■rupuiihCniia.)^ in Judo 4. The present form WbidurKu, Mk. xr. 17, 
L. xvi. 19 (L. viii. 27, Lachm.), 2 S. xiii. 18, al., is unknown in earlier Greek : 
see Fritz. Mark, p. 681.] 

6 ['ErfsXw : in the X. T. we have always aVa->., yJ'iXti<ra, but in the present 
fiixu. (A. Buttm. p. 1/7.)] 


38, xiii. 33, 1 C. ix. 13, Ph. iv. 15 ; olZaaiv (I'aaa-L) L. xi. 44, 
Jo. X. 5 ; see Buttm. I. 546 (J elf 314) : comp. however 
Aristoph. Av. 599, Xen. CEc. 20. 14. The 2 pers. sing. ol^a<i 
(for olada) 1 C. vii. 16, Jo. xxi. 15, is rather Ionic and Doric, 
yet it occurs Her. 4. 157, Xen. Mem. 4. 6, 6, Eurip. J^^c. 790, 
and frequently in later Greek (Lob. p. 236). The 3 pers. 
plur. pluperf. is ySeiaav Mk, i. 34, Jxd. ii. 9, xxi. 4, al., for 
rjBeaav (Buttm. I.' 547).^ [Veitch, Gr. V. s. v.] 

elirelv (2 aor. etTrov). The 1 aor. etvra occurs in the N. T. in 
the 2 pers. sing., Mt. xxvi. 25, Mk. xii. 32, and frequently. This 
person is also found in Attic writers, as Xen. dJc. 19. 14, Soph. 
(Ed. Col. 1509 (along with et7re9, which is often used by Plato), 
but is originally Ionic ; see Greg. Cor. p. 481 (ed. Schtef.), Schae- 
fer, Dion. H. p. 436 sq. The imperative etiraTe Mt. x. 27, xxi. 
5, Col. iv. 17, elirdrcoa-av A. xxiv. 20, is also very common in 
Attic Greek (Plat. Lack. 187 d, Xen. Cyr. 3. 2. 28). Besides 
these forms, we find the following in good MSS. : 3 pers. plur. 
indie, elirav Mt. xii. 2, xvii 24', Mk. xi. 6, xiL 7, 16, L. v. 33, 
xix, 39, XX. 2, A. i. 11, 24, vi. 2, xxviii 21, ah (Diod. S. 16. 
44, Xen. Hell. 3. 5. 24, aL, v. I.) ; partic, et'jra<; (which is mainly 
Ionic) A- vii. 37, xxii. 24 ; and even the rarer 1 pers. elTra H. 
iii. 10 [Lachm.], A. xxvi. 15, for which elirov is generally used 
in the N. T. : see Sturz p. 61.^ Eecent editors have accepted 
these forms wherever they are attested by several MSS. In 
compounds we find aTreiTrdfirjv 2 C. iv. 2 (Her. 6, 100), and 
irpoeliraiMev 1 Th. iv. 6.^ Eittov — not ecirov, see § 6. 1. Jc. — 
which occurs in good MSS. A. xxviii, 26, is to be regarded as a 
2 aor. imper, ; the same form now stands in the text in Mk. xiii. 

4, L. X. 40, whilst in other passages etVe has more authority.* 
The 1 aor. pass, of this verh, ippijdrjv {ivova peo), Irr. V. p. 112) 
is sometimes written ippeOrjv in N. T. MSS., e.g. Mt. v. 21, 31, 
33 ;^ this form is often found in the MSS. of the later (non- Attic) 

1 [We find tfan in A. xxvi, 4, "irrj (indie, or imper.) E, v. 5, al. ; the 2 pers. 
sing, pluperf. is always r,lii;. For sT5«v, Tisch. sometimes reads tiev (Rev. vii. 1, 
al.), iTi^i (Rev. xvii. G).] 

2 eTtk* also occurs in the -well known Rosetta inscription, at the end of line 8. 
^ Comp. uTa/jLiy 1, Turin. Papyr. p. 10. [On slVa^iv and u-raraxrai, see Veitch, 

5. v.] 

* [In most of the instances cited these forms are now generally received, and 
also in other passages, as i^-ra. Mk. ix. 18, jiV«» \j. xs.. 2, al. (.see above, p. 58).] 

* [Recent editors agree in reading ipfynv in Rom. ix, 12, 26, G. iii. 16, Rev. 
vi. 11, ix. 4 : in Mt. v. (six times) Lachm. and Treg, read s//«V>!», but Meyer, 


writers, and here and there in Attic (Lob. p. 447), — but not in 
Plato, see Schneider, Plat. Civ. II. 5 sq. [Veitch, Gr. V. 
p. 509.] 

iKx^w: later form eKxvvco^ (Lob. p. 726). The future is 
€KX€(o for eKxevao) (Buttm. I. 396, Irr. F. p. 336) : see 
§ 13. 3. 

(iXedco for iXeeco occurs in certain good MSS. in several 
passages of the N. T., as i\e(ovTo<i, e'Xea Eom. ix. 16, 18, iXedre 
Jude 23 : also in Clem. Al. p. 54 (Sylb.) the Florentine edition 
has iXea. Compare further the Mi/m. Mag. 327. 30.^ A simi- 
lar form is eWo^av Eom. v. 13, Phil. 18, which also is found 
in good MSS.: in Phil. 18 Lachmann has received it into the 
text, and after him Tischendorf. Fritzsche, Eom. 1. 311, de- 
clares all these forms mistakes of transcription.^) 

eX/ceo. From this root we find a present and imperf., Ja. ii. 6, 
A. xxi. 30, as in Greek authors regularly ; but instead of the fut. 
eX^ct) (Matth. 233), the less usual €\Kva-(o from the other form 
cXkiico, Jo. xii. 32 ; comp. Job xxxix. 10. 

''" €7raLvea>. Fut. eTratveaco 1 C. xi. 22, for tiraiviaofiai 
(Buttm. L 388); comp. however Xen. ^w. 5. 5. 8,Himer. 20 : 
in this verb indeed the fut. active is not uncommon. See 
Brunck, Gnom. pp. 10, 64, Schsef. Bern. II. 465, Stallb. Plat. 
Symp. p. 1 3 9. [Veitch, Gr. F. p. 2 2 6 : comp. Shilleto, Dem. F. 
Z. p. 31.] 

''^iiTLopKew. Fut. eiTLopKrjaco for eTriopKrjcrofiai Mt. v. 33 : see 
Buttm. IL 85. 

^PX'^H'^^- The fut. ikevaojxat, both in the simple verb and 
in its compounds, is of frequent occurrence in the N. T. ; it is 

Tisch., Westcott and Hort adopt Vf'fiinv, which N and B have in eyery instance 
(except Mt. v. 21 in B). The partic. is uniformly f.nhU, without a variant.] 

^ [The best MSS. double the v in the present, as iKxuyyopuviv Mt. xxiii. '6b, al., 
and this form is now generally received : comp. a-roKriitvu above. 1 

L J^t.iu Kara, fA.lv rov; Attikcvs ■^rfwryii rvl,vyias tui •xifta^uf/.fviDi, sXee/;, . . . 

2 ['EXia'a is very strongly supported in Eom. ix. 16, but not in ver. 18. In 
ed. 7, Tisch. received -«« in both verses ; Lachm., Treg., Alford (doubtfully), 
Tisch. (ed. 8), Westcott and Hort, read ixttrin ver. 18. Fritzsche and Meyer 
retain -iu in both verses, urging that diflerent forms would not be used in tlie 
same passage : see, however, page 107, note ^ In favour of IWoyav (Phil. 18, 
and probably Rom. v. 13) see Meyer and Ellicott on Phil. 18. Some instances 
of the substitution of -to. for,-a'/u are found in good MSS. Tisch. and others 
receive r^fUTov, Mt. xv. 23 (Mli. iv. 10) ; and the participle of »-*£a. in Kev. ii. 
17 (see also ii. 7, xv. 2). Compare Mullach, Vulg. p. 252, and (A. Buttm. in) 
Htud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 188.] 


principally met with in later prose (Arr. Al. 6. 12, Philostr. 
ApolL 4. 4, Dio Chr. 33. 410, Max. Tyr. 24. p. 295), elfit being 
used instead in Attic Greek (Pliryn. p. 37, Th. M. pp. 88, 336). 
In earlier writers, however, iXevao^ai is not at all uncommon, 
as Her. 1. 142, 5. 125, Lys. Danlan. 12 (p. 233, Bremi). See 
in general Lob. p. 37 sq., Sclisef. Soph. II. 323, and comp. 
Elmsl. Eur. Heracl. 210. For rjpxofi-nv'^ (Mk. i. 45, ii. 13, Jo, 
iv. 30, vi. 17, al.), Attic writers commonly use the iniperf, of 
e7/At {Irr. F. p. 134) — but see Bornem. Luc. p. 106, and comp. 
Thuc. 4. 120, 121, Xen. An. 4. 6. 22 ; and for epxov, epxecrOe, 
Jo. i. 47, the imper. of e7/j,t (lOi, ire). The partic. cpx<JH'^vo<; 
also is said to be rare in the earlier Attic writers {Trr. V. I. c), 
yet it occurs in Plat. Crit. c. 15.' 

icrd'm. From the poetical form eaOco {In: V. p. 13G) we 
find eadwv amongst the v. II. in Mk. i. 6, L. vii. 33, 34, x. 7," 
XX. 47, xxii. 30 [eo-^T^re] ; and Tisch. has received it into the 
text on the' authority of (a few) good MSS. : see his Prccf. 
p. 21 (ed. 2).^ In the LXX comp. Lev. xvii. 10, xix. 26, 
Ecclus. XX. IG. 

evpia-Kco. Aorist middle evpufirjv, for €vp6/j,r]v, II. ix. 12 
(Pausan. 7. 11. 1, 8, 30. 4, al., comp. Lob. p. 139 sq.) : see 
§ 13. 1. A 1 aor. evprjaa seems implied in the conjunctives ev- 
pvcrrj<; Eev. xviii. 14, evp/jcrwaLv ix. 6 (as at least several MSS. 
read), unless we consider these to be future conjunctives (§ 13. 
1). Lobeck however (p. 721) quotes a participle evp/jaavTO';.* 

^do). Future ^r]a-a) Rom. vi. 2, 2 C. xiii. 4, Jo. vi. 51, 57, 
58 (av^rjao) Horn. vi. 8, 2 Tim. ii. 11): ^ijaofiai Mt. iv. 4, Mk; 
V. 23,^ Jo. vi. 51, xi. 25, al.: 1 aor. e^ijaa Ptcv. ii. 8, L. xv. 24, 

^ [On rifi;^oftnv see Don. Neiv Crnt. p. 651, but compare Veitch .s. v. ET^k/ is 
not found in the N. T., and occurs once only in the LXX, "h Pr. vi 6 ; the 
compounds are sometimes found, clii.-ily in Acts (A. Buttm. p. 50).] 

* ''Hxh for iXr,\vei, G. iv. 4, Jo. xix. 39, al., is too hastily rejected by Thorn. 
Mag. (p. 418); see Sallier iti loc. [Tlie note of Thorn. Mag. which Winer thinks 
it worth while to notice is : »/.^i kchov, iKnkvh Ti 'att^xo'v.) 

3 ["Efffu (found chiefly in B and D) is received by Tisch., Treg., Westc. and 
Hort, in Mk. i. 6, L. x. 7, xxii. 30 : and bv Westc. and Hort in L. vii. 33 
(Treg.), 34, Mk. xii. 40 (Treg.). See Ti-ch. Frol. p. 49 (ed. 7).] 

* [Veitch quotes this aoiist from Maneth. 5. 137, Schol. yEsch. Prom. y9.] 

* [Here we must read the aor. subj. : in Jo. vi. 51, quoted by Winer twicr, 
Z,n(ni is probably the true reading. The fut. of Z,ccu) (avZ,d.u>) <iccurs 22 times, •! 
times in quotations from the LXX (^nrirai). In 11 of the lenuiiniug 16 places 
we must read '^nfm (5 timesi in John, 6 times in the Epistles) ; X,^ao/j.ai occurs in 
Mt. ix. 18, X. 28, Jo. xi. 25, Kom, Wii. 13, x. 5. On 'H^nrt (and on 'i^r.v, the 
reading of B in Rom. vii. 9) see Veitch p. 260.] 


Eom. vii. 9, al., and often in the LXX. The futures are in the 
main later forms, which occur but seldom in the earlier writers 
(Buttm. II, 192); the aorist is confined to later Greek. Earlier 
writers used in the fut. and aor. the corresponding tenses of 

ijKO). From the 1 aor. ■^^a, a later form (Irr. V. p. 153, Lob. 
p. V44), we find the conjvmct tj^wo-l in Rev. iii. 9, where how- 
ever better MSS. have the fut. rj^ovat. From the perf. rjKa (Dt 
xxxii. 17, Phot. Bihlioth. 222, Malal. p. 136 sq., Leo Gramm. 
p. 98, al.. Lob. p. 744) we find ^/cacrt Mk. viii. 3, but on doubtful 
authority: Lachm.^ however receives it.^ 

QaXkdi. The 2 aor. az/e^aXere^ Ph. iv. 10, — a form never 
found in Greek prose, and seldom in poetry {Irr, F". 
p. 154).^^ 

'iarriixL The present lardvco, which occurs Rom. iii. 31, and 
in compounds, e.g. o-vvtardvco, 2 C. iii. 1 (iv. 2), v. 12, vi. 4, x. 
12, 18, G. ii. 18, is found in Attic writers (Matth. 210), but 
more frequently in later Greek (as icjiLardveiv Cinnam. 214, 
256).^ On the later form lardco see § 14 1./.^ 

KaruKaico. Fut. KaTaKarjaoiJLai 1 C. iii. 15, 2 P. iii. 10 (from 
aor. KareKdijv,^ Jler. 1. 51, 4. 79): the Attic future is KaraKav- 
0i]a-o/xaL, Rev. xviii. 8. See Thom. M. p. 511, Buttm. II. 211 
[Veitch, Gr. V. s. v.], 

KardXeiTTw. 1 aor. KareXeL-^a A. vi. 2 (Lob. p. 714). 

' [Meyer, Treg. , and TiscTi. read rf^ao*'. In L. xiii. 3,5 Ihc. has ^'|»;, but the 
best MSS. either omit the word or read ii'^ti. The subj. «^<u occurs Rev. ii, 25.] 

^ ['HrTanfixi : in 2 C. xii. 13 recent editors receive virtruivTs. (for iiTrninri), as 
if from the Ionic i^fooftai, th6 augment being added as in zhwiia^m : see Oobet, 
^V, T. Vat. p, xc] 

^ [A. Buttmann (p. 59) quotes this aor. from Ps. xxvii. 7, Wis. iv. 4, Ecclus. 
xlvi. 12. Hermann reads (aXonv in ^sch. Suppk 673, but see Paley in he. 
Compare Lob, Paral, p, 557, and Lidd, and Scott s. v.] 

* [evjiVxw : the syncopated forms are not found in the N, T. In A. xir. 19, 
<r'Jvnxivai now stands in the place of nhdvai Bee. — From ixdexof^xi, the late 
aorist Ixaainv occurs L, xviii. 13 : this aorist is used in modern Greek, see 
Mullacli, Vuhj. p, 288. Veitch quotes tlie compound ViiXaafiv from Plat. Legg, 
p. 862,] 

^ [On /Vt«ku (a doubtful form in classic ^vTiters, Veitch s, v.) and /Vraa see 
above, p. 94. Of (ttyiku we find the present (indie, imper,, and subj.), and 
probably, if the reading olx iirrr,Ki is conect iu Jo. viii. 44, the imperfect. See 
Mulhich, Vulg. p. 299. In Mk. ix. 12 Westc. and Hort read acroxaT/errav:/. ] 

' [KufiZ,f)fi«t : the 1 aor. partic. is well supported in L. x, 39. On this late 
aorist see Lob. p, 269, Veitch s, v. ; and comp. Mullach pp, 25, 289,] 

' [Tliis nor. occurs Rev. viii. 7: xaTaxetri<rnftai, Is. xlvii. 14 Al.'\ 

8 [In this verb the 1 aor. is frequently used in modern Greek (Mullach 
p. 258) : the 2 aor. is used in the N. T,, except in A. vL 2.] 


Kepdvvvfii. Perf. passive KeKepao-fiat Eev, xiv. 10, for the 
more usual KeKpa/xai {Irr. F". p. 183) : analogous to this is the 
partic. (TvyKeKepaarfievov^ H. iv. 2, in very good MSS, 

Kephalvo). Aor. iKepSrjaa Mt. xxv. 20, xviii. 15, KepBr/o-ai 
A. xxvii. 21, K€pSi]aa<; L. ix. 25, KepBrjcro) conjunct. 1 C. ix. 19, 
20, Mt. xvi. 26, and frequently; these forins belong to Ionic 
prose (Irr. V. p. 184, Lob. p. 740). In Attic Greek the verb is 
inflected regularly; com p. 1 C. ix. 21.-^ 

KXalfi). Fut. Kkavaco (properly Doric), for Kkavaofxai, L. vi, 
25, Jo. xvi. 20, Eev. xviii. 9; comp. Eabr. 98. 9, Buttra. II. 85, 
Irr. r. p. 189 [Veitch, Gr. V. s. v.]. The LXX have always 
KXavcroixai [Eev. xviii. 9, Rec, Tisch.]. 

KkiTrrco. Fut. KXeyp-co, for Kke-^ofxai^ Mt. xix. 18, Eom. 
xiii. 9 (Buttm, II. 85, 221) : it occurs m Lucian, Dial. Deor. 
7. 4, — never in the LXX. 

Kpd^co. Fut. Kpd^w L. xix. 40, according to good autho- 
rities, for Ke/cpd^ofiai (which is always used in the LXX) ; aor. 
€Kpa^a for eKpayov, Mt. viii. 29, xx. 30, al. (Buttm. IL 223).^ 
[Veitch, Gr. V. s. v.] 

(Kpifiafiai. The form i^eKpefiero L. xix. 48, in B,* is not 
even mentioned by Griesbach and Schulz, and undoubtedly is an 
error of transcription. Lachmann also has left it unnoticed.) 

Kpv-nTd). The 2 aor. act, eKpv^ov, L. i. 24 (I'hot. Bihlioth. 
L 143, Bekk); see Irr. F. p. 198 [Yeitch, Gr. V. s. v.]. 

Kvca (to le pregnant). The fut. and aor. are regularly KV'))(Toy, 
iKvrjaa [Irr. F. p. 204) ; so d'jT€Kvr]a-e, Ja. i. 18. In the present 
ATue'co also occurs, and not merely (as Eustathius asserts, p. 1548. 
20) in the sense Iriny forth: see Lob. Ajax p. 182 sq., Paral. 
p. 556, Hence in Ja, i. 15 we may as correctly write diroKvel 
as -Kvei, but it is not necessary to prefer the former on account 

^ [Here xip^dva is generally received (but T^Titten as fut. indie, xipiuiu, by 
Griesb. and by Westc. and Hort), though Kifir.au precedes and follows. Comp. 
1 C. vii. 28, where yaft^ffru and yx/Ji.^ are found in the same verse ; Koni. ix. 10, 
18, where the best MS.S.' have iXiuvTef and \Xii7; L. vii. 33, 34, in the texts of 
Lachm. and Tregelles. See Lobeck's essay De orthographicB Grceca inconntantia 
{Path. II. 341-355).] 

- [So Buttmnnn, Lobeck, Jelf, and others. Veitch reverses the statement : 
"fut. xxi-^u Arist. Eccl. 667, Xen. Mag. Eq. 4. 17, Luc, and rare zAi\^a^a< Xen. 
Cyr. 7. 4. 13." ¥.x'i^u, not xxi^^sfinti, is the form used in the LXX.] 

\[Also ixix.pir.'ia A. xxiv. 21, as in the LXX frequently.] 

* [Also in K ; now received by Tisch., Vrestcott and Hort. Compare p. 95, 


of the form of the aorist in ver. 18. N. T. lexicons have /cue'o) 

\daKQ}. To this belongs the aor. iXuKi^aa A. i. 18, usually 
referred to the Doric present XaKeo) ; Buttmaiin however {Ir?-, 
V. p. 208) maintains that it is immediately derived from the 
2 aor. XaKelv, which is in general use in Attic Greek. 

''^' fjLtaivw : in Tit. i. 1 5 good MSS. have the perf. partic. yu.e- 
jiiafifjihoc, instead of the usual fie/maa-fMepov ; comp. Lob. p. 35. 
[Veitch, Gr. V. s. v.] 

VLTTTOi} Jo. xiii. 6, 14, vCirrofiai Mt. xv. 2. Instead of this 
present earlier writers use i^t^oo; see Buttm. II. 249, Lob. p. 241. 

ocKTeipay. Fut. olKreiprjcrci) Rom. ix. 15 (as if from oiKretpeco), 
instead of olKrepo): comp. Ps. ci. 15, Jer. xxi. 7, Mic. vii. 19, 
al. This fut. also occurs in the Byzantine writers, see Lob. 
p. 741. 

ofjLvvoi for Qfivvfit (Buttm. II. 255) Mt. xxiii. 20, 21, 22, 
XX vi. 74, H. vi. 16, Ja. v. 12: in Mk. xiv. 7 1 , however, the better 
MSS. have ofjivvpat for ofj^vveiv, and this was received into the 
text by Griesbach.^ 

'"opdfo. Imperf. middle MpMfMijv A. ii. 25 (from Ps. xv. 8), 
for whicli ecopcofjLTjv was used in Attic Greek (Buttm. I. 325). 
From oTTTeadat we find in L. xiii. 28 (though not without 
variant) the 1 aor. conj. oyjnjade, which occurs in Libanius and 
the Byzantines: see Lob. p. 734.^ 

7rai^(o. Aor. iveirai^a Mt. xx. 19, xxvii. 31 (Pr. xxiii. 35), 
for which in Attic Greek eiraia-a was used [Irr. V. p. 251). But 
we find eirai^a, irai^at, in Lucian, Dial. Deor. 6. 4, and Encom. 
Demmth. 15 ; comp. V. Yvitz^chQ, Aristoph. I. 378, Lob. p. 240, 
The fut. irai^oi^ occurs Anacr. 24. 8.* 

^ [Compare "itixvi-us, -£<», -ovrts (Jo. ii. 18, Mt. xvi. 21, Rev. xxii. 8). See 
A. Buttm. p. 45, and Mullach p. 294, and Veitch on the particular verbs. The 
proper inflexions of" verbs in vfjn are by no means rare in the N. T.} 

* [In A. ii. 25 xfoofojfin* is strongly supported (§ 12. 10). In the perf. lifaxa. 
is often a variant : see especially 1 C. ix. 1, Col. ii. 1, 18. "O^nrii is received 
by most in L. xiii. 28 : comp. Wo-^'xra, Pindar, Fr. 58. 8, and i-rio\f,avrai, Flat. 
Lep. 947 c. See Veitch.] 

•* [See ]\lk. X. 34 (Is. xxxiii. 4) : -rai^a/u.ai is the usual fut. in the Alex, dialect, 
as in later writers generally. In the N. T. the other tenses are similarly formed, 
as 'i-rin\rt, i-xaiy^in^ : see h. Buttm. p. 64, Veitch p. 450.] 

'' [Uaia : the fut. ivicra^irofiai (see above, Karaxaiai) occurs Rcv. xiv. 13, L. X. 6. 
Comj). also 'crxnr, Bekk. An. p. 1324 : see Veitch. These forms (or else the 
gi'jss of Hesychius, a/LCTa^oyrar avaTavavrai, pointing to a root -raZ-) might lead 
us lo regard iKxra'^eLg-rcus, 2 p. ii. 14 (Lachm., Westc. and Ilort) as a by-form 


TreTOfiai. The partlc. Treroofievov (for Trerofievov), which occurs 
Rev. xiv. 6 [and viii. 13] in B, is from irerdofiai, which is 
used only by Ionic (e.g. Her. 3. Ill) and later writers (e.g. 
Lucian, Dial. Mort. 15. 3, v. I.) ; see Buttm. II. 271, Irr. V. 
p. 262. [Veitch, Gr. V. p. 467.] The pres. ireTa/xaL, found 
as early as Pindar, is given by Wetstein and IVIatthai amongst 
the variants in Eev. xii. 14 [see also Eev. xiv. .6]} 

TTtW. From the fut. Trio/Mac the fuU form irUaai (Buttm. 
I. 347) occurs in L xvii 8, and in the same verse Vve have 
(pdyea-ac, from ^dyofiai; both are found in Ez. xii. 18, Ruth 
ii. 9, 14. On the infin. ttXu Jo. iv. 9, received by Lachm. and 
Tisch. on the authority of good MSS., see Fritz. De crit. conf. 
p. 2 7 sq. TIeiv only — not irlv — occurs in later Greek ; and 
this "form (which is found in some MSS.) might perhaps be 
received here, if A had not distinctly irUiv in ver. 7 and 1 0, 
thus showing irlv in ver. 9 to be an error of transcription." 

'7rl'7rT(o. Aor. eireaa: see § 13. 1. 

pew. Fut. peva-oa Jo. vii. 38, for pevaofiai ; in Attic Greek 

fwija-n/xai is the usual form (Lob. p. 739, /n\ V. p. 281). The 

i aor. also (Cant. iv. 1 6 pevadrcoaav) is confined to later Greek ; 

comp. Lob. p. 739.'^ The 2 aor. eppvrjv, which was in regular 

use, occurs in the compound Trapapvwixev H. ii. 1. 

<Ta\7ri^(o. Fut. cra\7ricr<i) for aaXirly^eo, 1 C, XV. 52, comp. 
also Mrclian. Veil. p. 201 (Num. x. 3 ; the 1 aor. ea-dXiriaa also 
— for eaaXrmy^a Xen. An. 1. 2. 17 — is connnon in the LXX), 
See Phryn. p. 191, Th. M. p. 789.* 

a-rjfjLaivo). 1 aor. icrtj/jLava A. xi. 28, xxv. 27 (Jud. vii. 21, 
Esth. ii. 22, Plutarch, Aridicl. 19, Menand. By z. Hist. p. 308, 

of ixarcfroLuvrtiui. But the word (which is not found elsewhere) may also he 
derived from the root of -riraffim, rario/xat, and rendered insatiable : compare 
Athen. i. 43, p. 24. The most obvious derivation — from Ka.TOLsra.affu {(rTsfatai} 
Kxra'Taams, Arist. Eq. 502) — is excluded by the uiisuitableness of the meaning, 
unsprinkled. The references to Athenseus and Hesychius I owe to the kindness 
of Ur. Hort. See A. Buttm. p. 65.] 

' [Hi/^a; : perf. partic. "riTniTfjLivo; L. vi. 38 ; elsewhere ■rid.Z,u (with 1 aor. 
l-r'ta-ffa, not -!«)• See A. Buttm. p; QQ, Mullach p. 296. ] 

* [Tisch. now writes tiTv, and receives this form in the pas.sages quoted 
above, and in 1 C. ix. 4, x. 7, Rev. xvi. 6 : so (more or less frequently) Alford, 
Treg., Westc. and Hort. See also A. xxiii. 12, 21 (B), Rom. xiv. 21 (D), 
1 P. V. 8 (X). A. Buttm. (p. 66) regards this iniin. as contracted from a form 
Tivai (as ^u» from <puvai), not from TnTf. See Tisch. on Jo. iv. 7.] 

' [See however Veitch s. v., where this aorist is quoted from Arist. Eq. 526, al.] 

* [^aXTiu is the form in Num. x. 3 : iraXvira. occurs Mt. vi. 2, Rev. ix. 1, 
al. L'ouip. ffaX-jriffrris Rev. xviii. 22 (Polyb. 1. 45. 13 in some MSS.).] 


309, 358, Act. Thorn, p. 32), 'which occurs indeed in Xen. 
ffell. 2. 1. 28, but for which iarjfjbrjva was more commonly 
used by earlier Attic writers: see Biittm. I. 438, Lob. p. 24, 
and below s. v. (f).aLvco. [See § 13. 1. d.] 

a-KeTTTOfxai. The present (H. ii. 6, Ja. i. 27, comp. Ps. viii, 
5,. 1 S. xi. 8, XV. 4, aL) and the imperfect are seldom found in 
Attic writers (Buttra. II. 291, Irr. V. p. 288). 

*(r7rovBd^co. Fut. (nrouBdaa) for the usual cnrovBdcrofjLai, 
2 P. i. 15 (Buttm. II. 85). 

aTrjpll^o). The aor. imper. is in good MSS. a-rjjpiaov, L. 
xxii. 3 2, Eev. iii. 2 ; and in 2 Th. iii. 3, B has the fut. o-rypc- 
a-ec: the Greeks preferred crrr^pi^ov, aTTjpi^ec (Buttm. I. 372).^ 
Comp. in the LXX a-rr)pia-ov Jud. xix. 5, Ez. xx. 46, and 
often ; ianjpKra 1 Mace. xiv. 1 4, al. [also (xr-qpccreL Jerem. 
xvii. 5]. 

Tvjx^^^' The perf. Terev^e (properly Ionic, then Attic, 
Buttm. II. 301) ^ is found in the received text of H. viji. 6 : 
other MSS. however have the usual Attic perfect reTv^v/^^, and 
A, D, etc., rervxe.^ On the last see Lob. p. 395. 

^a'yetv. Fut. ^dyojiai Ja. v. 3, Eev. xvii. 16 [L. xiv. 15, 
Jo. ii. 17], Gen. xxvii. 25, Ex. xii. 8 (and often), whence the 
2 pers. (fxiyeaac L. xvii. 8. For this Greek authors use eBo/iai, 
the fut. of eSw {Irr, V. p. 136). 

<f)acv(o. 1 aor, infin. e'm<^avai (for €7ri^rjvai) L. i. 79,'* con- 
trary to the usage of the better writers. In later Greek however 
similar forms occur ; see Lob. p. 26, Thilo, Acta Thorn, p, 49 sq^. 
(.^lian, Anim. 2. 11 and E2nl. p. 396, ed. Jac.) 

cf>avaKco. From this we have the fut. iTriipavaet E. v, 14; 
comp. Gen. xliv. 3, Jud. xvi. 2, 1 S. xiv. 36, Judith xiv. 2. Tiiis 
form does not occur in Greek writers, but is support<;d by the 
analogy of the subst. virocpavcri^; ; see Irr. V. p. 318. 

*(})€pco. Aor. partic. ive'yKa<i A. v. 2, xiv. 13, ev€yKavre<i L. 

' [In the N. T. also the forms from the » characteristic are more common.] 

* [Rnttniann's words are : " rinv^f^ec was the true Ionic perfect, which in a 
later period became frequent in the non- Attic writers. " {Irr. F. p. 238.) Com- 
pare Veitch p. 578. ] 

* [Tstux' (which is also the reading of K) is now generally received. I'his 
form was not known to the ancient grammarians, but is often found in MSS. 
of later authors : see Tisch. on H. viii. 6 (where no uncial MS. has rirv;y;tixi), 
Yeitch p. 578, and especially Lobeck l. c] 

* [In Rev. viii. 12, xviii. 23, Tisch. and Westcott and Hort x-ead (fdv^. instead 

of <pa,i))if, (fa*^, of ReC, j and in A. XXi. 3, ava^a'KaiiTtf.] 


XV. 23 v.l. for eveyKoiv {Irr. V. p. 319) : but see Xen. Merri: 1. 
2. 53, Demosth. Timoth. 703 c, Isocr. Paneg. 40. The indie. 
^ve^Ka is frequently used by Attic writers, as also the impera- 
tive forms with a (Jo. xxi. lOy 

*(jiddv(i). According to several Atticists, the 2 aor. e(^6riv 
is to be preferred to the 1 aor. 'i^daaa, which, however, 
often occurs even in Attic writers {Irr. V. p. 324), and is 
invariably used in the K T., as Mt. xii. 28, Eom, ix. 31, 2 C. 
X. 14, Ph. iii. 16, 1 Th. ii. 16. In the last passage several 
MSS. have the perf €J>6aK€. 

<f)ua}, 2 aor. passive i<f>vr]v, ^ue/?, L. viii. 6, 7, 8, — very 
common from the time of Hippocrates : for this Attic writers 
use the 2 aor. active €(f>vv, (f)v<i (Buttm. II. 321). In Mt. 
xxiv. 32, Mk. xiii. 28, very good MSS. have iK(j>vfi (conj. aor. 
passive) for eKcpvr/, and this may be the preferable reading ; 
see Fritz. Mark, p. 578 sq.^ 

'^aipo). Fut. '^apijaofiai for '^acpija-co, L. i. 14, Jo. xvi. 20,22, 
Ph. 118 (Hab. i. 16, Zach. x. 7, Ps. xcv. 12, and often) ; see 
Moer. p. 120, Th. M. p. 910, Lob. 740,' Buttm. II. 322: it 
also occurs in Diod. Uxc. Vat. p. 95. 

''^■^apl^o/jLac. Fut. '^aplcrofxai, Horn. viii. 32, is the non- Attic 
form for ')(apLovfxaL. 

wdeco. Aor. cnrwaaTo^ A. vii. 27, 39 (Mic. iv. 6, Lam. ii. 7, 
and often, — Dion. H. II. 759), for which the better writers used 
iuxraro with the syllabic augment (Th. M. p. 403, Pol. 2. 69. 9, 
15. .31. 12). 1 aor. pass. d7ro>aOrjv Ps. Ixxxvii. 6,comp. Xen. 
Hell. 4. 3. 12, Dio C. 37. 47. Also aor. act. t^wo-ej/ ^ A. vii. 45, 
for which some MSS. have i^ecoaev (Eilendt, Arr. AL I. 181). 
Strictly speaking, the rule for the use of the syllabic augment 

^ ["The partic. heyKuv is in the N. T. entire!}' displaced by h/yxat, whilst 
conversely, tyiyxuv has taken the place of Ulyuai, which occurs once only." 
A. Buttm. p. 68. Ti.sch. reads lysyKii (not on in 1 P. ii. 5, but also) in 
L. xxii. 42. On these aorists see especially Veitch. Or. V. pp. 592-4.] 

2 [The accentuated MSS. are divided between tKifv^ (Lachm., Treg., Alf., 
Fritz., A. Buttm.) and ix(p6n (Tisch., Meyer, "Westc. and Hort) : the latter may 
be either 2 aor. act. intransitive, or (Meyer) present and transitive.] 

^ [Lob. D. 740 refers to ix«-''P^:<'a solely. In Eev. xi. 10, Rec. has the fut, 
Xa.pDvtri)i ; tilis seeras the only example of this form found in any writer.] 

* From the fut. u(ru (from uij). The aorist form from the other future 
ai^iru occurs ouly in later authors ; e.g. partic. i\s ufirfem Cinnam. p. 193. 
[SeeYeitch, Gr. F. p. 614.] 

* [Accentuated i'^aa-jv by Tischendorf and Meyer. ] 


in this verb applies to Attic writers only : see Poppo, Thuc. 
III. ii. 407. 

'''u)veofiai. 1 aor. oovrjadfirjv A. vii. 1 6, as frequently in Nvriters 
oi the Koivrj, e.g. Plntarch, Pausanias (Lob. p. 139). Attte 
V riters prefer eTrpid/xr]v. 

Eem. The later verbal forms are not always found in the N. T. 
where they might be expected. We have, for instance, rrto/uiai (not 
Tnovfxai) as the 2 fut. of ttiVo), Rev. xiv. 10, see Buttm. I. 395 ; aor. 
Kotvwo-ai^ Mk. vii. 15, 18, Moeris p. 434 (<'d. Piers.), Locella, Xe7i. 
Ephes. p. 254 ; fut. <^£i;^oyu,at, ^avyutacro/xai, not ^ev'fo), Oavfid(ro} (Buttm. 
II. 85). In H. iv. 15, wefind amongst the various readings Trcrretpafxevov 
from the older TTupdo} (instead of Tre-n-eLpaix/xevov from Tretpd^wi), and 
Tisch. has received this into the text.- 

That the same forms are sometimes produced from different verbs 
by inflexion is well known : we shall only specify i$ev€va-e Jo. v. 13, 
which (grammatically) may belong equally well to c/cveo (Irr. V. 
p. 230) and to eKvevw. 

Section XVI. 


The N.T. contains anumber of words not used by Greek authors, 
which were either derived from the popular spoken language, or 
were newly coined : we find most examples of the latter class in 
the writings of Paul. The more numerous such words are, the 
more necessary is it to compare the established laws of derivation 
in Greek with these formationspeculiarto the N.T. In connexion 
with this it will be useful to notice the analogies which, though 
not unknown to ordinary Greek, yet appear more prominently 
in the N. T. language. The following observations are based 

1 [For which later writers use(' KoiruKrittriat (Moeris l.c.).'\ 

* [Most editors (including Tifch. in ed. 8) read iri')riipitirftivi»i, since (1) this 
has more external support, and (2) the ordinary meaning of -ri'Ttipaiz., 
"experienced," is unsuitable here. Winer (apparently) and Tisch. (in ed. 7) 
considered the two equivalent in meaning ; and Tisch. argued that there could 
be no motive lor altering ■n-rnfairfi.. (comp. H. ii. 18), but the ambiguous 
rriTUfafA. would naturally be changed into the more familiar word. See 
Delitzsch. 1 

3 See Ph. Cattieri Gazophylacmm Orcecor. (1651, 1708), ed. F. L. Abresoh 
(Utr. 1757, Leyd. 1809) ; but especially Buttmann, Ausf. Or. II. 382 sqq. (with 
Lobeck's additions), Lobeck, Faren/a to Phrynichu^, and Lobeck's other works 
quoted above p. 3. Amongst commentaries, Selecta e scholis Valchenarii 
chiefly refers to this subject. Examples of the later formations are to be found 
in the Byzantine writers especially. 


on Buttmann, M'hose lucid treatment of the subject {Ausfuhrl. 
Sprachl. § 1 1 8 sqq.) embraces all points of importance. Comp. 
Kriiger § 41 sq.^ 

1. VERBS. 

The derivative verbs in oa> and t^&> (mostly but not entirely 
from nouns) are peculiarly frequent. In some instances verbs 
in oco superseded others in even or tfo> ; as heicarow {BeKarevio 
Xen. An. 5. 3. 9, al.), i^ovBevoo) ' (i^ouBevl^o) in Plutarch), 
crap6(o (for craipco, Lob. p. 89), Kec^akaiooi ^ (^KecpaXi^o), Lob. 
p. 95), BvvafioQ) and ivBvvafioco (Lob. p. 605 note), a(f>v7rv6<o 
{d(f)V'7rvi^(o, Lob. p. 224), avaKauvoco (^avaKaivl^co, Isocr. Arcop. 
c. 3) ; also /zecrro'tu, hoXioro. From Se/carow comes airoheKaToo) ; 
with a^uTTi/ow comp. Kadvirvoco Xen. Mem. 2. 1. 30. We find 
also Kparaioto for Kparvvto, aOevooi for aOeveco, avacnaTovv for 
uvdaraTov iroielv ; but ')(apLT6(o is formed from '^dpi'i, Bvvap^oco 
from Bvvafii<i (Lob. p. 605). 

Verbs in i^co come from a great variety of roots ; as opOpi^w 
from 6p6po<i, ai-^aXwTi^co from al-^dXo)ro<i, BeiyfiaTL^co from 
Bely/ji,a, TreXe/ti^co from TreXe/cy?, /jbUKTripi^o) from p^vKT-qp, apvpvi- 
^co, dvep,L^(o, (^vXaKL^co, IpaTL^oi, dvad£p,ari^a) (found also in 
the Byz. writers), dearpl^o) (Cinnam. p. 213), (T7rXay')(vi^op,ai,, 
alpeTi^ci), avpp,op(})i^(i) (Ph. iiL 10, in good MSS.). XKopirL^co 
(BLaaKopTTi^o)) has no evident root in the Oreek written lan- 
guage ; it was however a provincial, perhaps a Macedonian 
word (Lob. p. 218). — On verbs in l^(o from names of nations 
and persons, see Buttm. IL 385 (Jelf 330. Obs. 3) ; we have 

1 [See also Jelf 329-347, Donalds. Gr. pp. 310-840, New Crat. pp. 449 sqq., 
524 sqq., 664 sqq.,. Webster, Syntax of the N. '1 . c. ii.] 

2 On tills word see Lob. p. 182, [There are four forms of tbisword, i^ov-hviu, 
'"iivsu, -liviu, -6iviai : the last is quoted by Lobeck from Eustratius (also ilov- 
eivufia from Const. Porph.), and is received by Tisch. (ed. 8) in Mk. ix. 12 ; in 
this passage indeed each of the four forms is found in one or more of our best 
MSS. ''S.ovhviu occurs frequently in the LXX and in the N. T. ; -S2v/<u Mk. ix. 
12 (Lachm., Treg., Westc. and Hort), 2 C. x. 10 (Lach.), Ez. xxi. 10; -Ssva^ 
Mk. Lx. 12 Rec, Jud. ix. 38, al.] 

2 \Ki(pa.Xtt,i'ou occurs once in the N. T. in the ordinary texts of Mk. xii. 4, but its 
proper meaning is altogether unsuitable in this passage. Tisch. (ed. 8) and 
Westcott and Hort adopt the very probable reading (of NBL) ««8?aX('a«ra» ; 
xk^clXiou stands to xi<paXioy iu the same relation &s KKpaKxiia to Ki^aXaiev.l 

8 • 


only to mention lovSat^co, with which compare the later word 
havlhl^o, Leo Gramm. p. 447. 

There are also verbs in a^a that seldom or never occur else- 
where, as vrjTna^co, aivia^co (arjOai) ; also in evco, as fMecriTevfo, 
fxajevo), iyKparevofiai, al'^^fiaXwreva) (Lob. p. 442), irayiBeixo, 
r/vfivijTevco} The last is from ^yvfiv-qTr}^, which (according to 
Buttm. IL 431) can only be vindicated as a collateral form of 
'yvfjLV}]<i. From 'yvfiv6<; we should expect yvfivirT)';, and thus we 
find ryv/jLVLTevco in 1 C. iv, 11, in the best MSS.:^ we must not 
therefore, with Pritzsche (Conform. Grit. p. 21) and Meyer, 
regard this as a mistake in transcription.^ 

Amongst verbs in vvm which signify a moMng to he what the 
(concrete) root denotes (as IXapvveiv = iXapov iroielv, Buttm. 
II. 3^7, Jelf 330. 2), a-Kkrjpvvo) deserves mention ; it is a colla- 
teral form of (TKkrjpow, which does not occur in the N. T.'* 

Verbs in atvco — XevKaivw, ^rjpalvo), ev^paivw (Buttm. II 
65 sq., Lob. Prol. Path. p. 37) — require no special lemark.^ 

The formation of verbs in 6(o from primitives in ew, though 
not unknown to Attic writers (Buttm. II. 61, Lob. p. 151), may 
have been more frequently practised in later Greek; at all events 
vrjOw, Kvri6ci),aXrj6(j} [p. 22], are not used by the older writers. 
See however Lob. p. 254. 

Verbs in crK(o^ with the exception of evpia-Kco and BiBd<rKco, 
are rare in the N". T., as elsewhere (Buttm. IL 59 sq., Jelf 
330. 1). We find yrjpda-KCD as an inchoative (Buttm. II. 393) : 
jjiedvaKO), causative of fi^dvoa, occurs in the passive only ; 70- 

* [To these should be added ^jjXeuw, -wliich is well supported in Kev. iii. 19, 
and pu'rapivDiiiti Rev. xxii. 11 (Tisch. ed. 7) : the la.tter verb is not. found else- 
whe)e, and the former is very rare, see Lidd. and Scott s. v.] 

* [The best texts now have yvfinnvu ; see Alf. in loc.'\ 

3 Comp. Lob. Ajax, p. 387. For oXo6piua>, H. xi. 28, some good MSS. have , 
Ixiipivu (from eXidpos) ; Lachm. and mth him, Tisch. have received this form 
into the text. I am not aware that the latter form of this Alexandrian word 
has been preserved elsewhere. [Recent editors receive i^oXiipiiu in A. iii. 23, 
with most of the uncial MSS. We find the same form in the Alex. MS. of the 
LXX (both in the simple verb and in the compound), as Ex. xii. 23, Jos. xxiii. 
4, 5, al. In H. xi. Tisch. now reads ixoipivuv.l 

* ['SxKnpim is very rare : ffKXnpvvo) is not uncommon in the LXX and in 
medical writers (Hippocr., al.).] 

* [To these verbs derived from adj. or subst. should be added ivitpasutrlu G. 
vi. 12 ("not used by any earlier writer: " EUic), aKcufiaiFh. iv. 10 (Diod. S. 
HJxc. Vat. p. 30).] 

^ [On verbs in <rxu, see Don. New Cr. p. 615 ; Curtius, Eluddaliona, p. 141 
sqq., Greek Verb, chapters x. and xxii.] 


fitcTKO), equivalent in meaning to yajxl^o), is sufficiently attested 
in L. XX. 34 only.^ 

rprjyopeo} (from tlie perfect iypyyopa) and its cognate eypy- 
yoptw are altogether singular in formation (Lob, p. 119, Euttm 
II. 158) ; but with this formation from a reduplicated perfect ' 
we may compare eVt/ce;^et/>ef« Papyri Taurvti. 7. line 7. 

To derivative verbs in cuw belongs also Trapa/SoXevfa-Oat Ph. ii. 
30, which Griesb., Lachm., al., have received into the text, in 
accordance with the weightiest critical authorities. From Tiapd- 
^oAo9 a verb Trapa^oX^Za-Oai might certainly have been formed 
directly ; but the ending cuco is chosen to express the meaning Tra- 
pd^oXov elvai, as in later Greek eTrtcr/coTrevcti/ is used for iTria-Koirov 
ctmt (Lob. p. 591), and, to give a still closer parallel, as we find 
irep-TrepevecrOaL from Tre'pTrtpos. It would not be riglit to make the 
admission of Trapa^oXeveadat depend on the assumption that there 
existed a verb ftoXevearOai, which certainly is not to be found in 
anv Greek writer.^ 


a. From Vcrhs.^ Of nouns in /io<; (Buttra. II. 398) from 
verbs in a^w, we have to mention dyiaajj,6<{, which does not 
occur in Greek authors, as also jreipaafio^ from ireipd^o), ivra- 
(f)t,aafjL6^ from ivracpid^o).^ From verbs in i^co we find fiaKa- 
pt<Tfio<;, 6veiBc(T/jL6<i (Lob. p. 512), ^aaavicrfio^, irapopyLaixo'i, 
pavTi(Tfi6^ (pavTLJ^eiv), aa^^aTt,(r/x6<i (o-a^jSaTt^^tv), aa>(j>povLcr/j,6'?, 

The most numerous formations, however, are those in fia 
(Lob. Paral. p. 391 sqq.) and (tl<s, the former in great part 
peculiar to the N. T,, but always framed in accordance with 
analogy ; as ^dima-fia, paTna-fia (from ^airri^ew, etc.), yfreOafia 
(from -^jrevSeaOat), lepdrevfia, KardXvfia (KaraXveiv), also efe-- 
pafia (Lob. p. 64), dademjfia, avrXruxa, dvrdXXayfxa, diro- 

^ [Tiiis is the judgment of the best editors : yxfiiZci, however, occurs not un- 
frequently. See Tisch. on Mt. xxii. 30. ] 

^ Dbderlein, Ueber die Redupl. in der griech. und lat. Worthildunj, in his 
Beden und Aufsdtzen II. No. 2. 

3 [MuUach (p. 258) mentions that in modern Greek verbs in ia> have some- 
times collateral forms in iva>, as uipiXiiai by the side of uinxiu ; and compares 

* Compare G. Curtius, De rt-omin. Gr. formatione linguar, cognat. ratione 
habita: Berlin 1842 (Zeitschr. fiir Alterth. 1846, No. 68 sq.). 

"^ Comp. Lobeck, Paral. p. 397 sqq., and especially Technol. lib. 8, p. 253 sqq. 

' [On the rare noun apTxy/ios see Ellicott and Lightfoot on Ph. ii. 6, Donalds. 
New Crat. p. 451.] 



&Kiao-jJ,a, 7rpo<;KOfjbfia, airavyaa/iia, rjTTijfia, acTtifia, Karop- 
6(op,a, o-repeco/xa (from contracted verbs, like (j>p6v7)/jLa, etc.).^ 
These nouns mostly denote a product or state ; only avTXrj/xa 
denotes an instrument (a meaning which nouns in ^09 often 
have) ; and KaraXvfjca, the place of KaraXveiv (Eustath, Odyss. 
p. 146. 33). 

The nouns in cn<i, which are particularly numerous in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, are nearly all to be found in Greek 
authors ; only 6eX'r]a-L<;, KaraTravcri^;, 'rrp6'i'^vcn<;,^ d7roXvrpa>(n<i, 
BiKaico(Tt^, ireiTol6r)ai<i (Lob. p. 295), /3i&)crt9 {eTnTroOrjai'i), re- 
quire mention. On irapaaKevr], formed from the root of a verb 
in a^co, see Buttm. II. 404 ; on oikoSofi^, Lob. p. 490 : and on 
the very common word BiadijKT] (from 1 aor. of TiOevat), Buttm. 
IL 401, Lob. Paral p. 374. 

To the abstract nouns belong also some in }iovri ; of these 
we find in the IST. T. ifK'qapLovr} (Buttm. II. 405). ^ETTcXTjcr/jiovT], 
however, is immediately derived from iin\i]<7^oiv ; TreLcrfiovij 
(found also in Pachym. II. 100, 120) is formed from irela-fia, 
though it may be directly reierred to ireiOco, as TrXrjanovij to 
'rrXrjOw? Among abstract nouns from verbs in evoi should be 
mentioned ipiOela} 

The concrete nouns have little that is peculiar. From verbs 
in a^co, t^co, v^(o, we find in the IST. T. the paroxytone KTLo-T7)<i„ 
and the oxytone ^ /3Lao-T7]<;, /3a7rTL<TTi]<i, fieptcrri]'?, evayyeXicrrTj'ii 
yoyyvcTT-^f, and eW7]Viarri<=;^ — all seldom or never found else- 

^ [In A. XXV. 7 a'lr'iiafia. (for a/V/a/ia) is very strongly supported : this word 
" is not found elsewhere, but Eustaihius (p. 1422. 21) uses alrloiffts for ctWutan " 
(Meyer inloc). — On the tendenoj' of some, nouns in fia to assume an active or 
abstract meaning, see Elb'c. on Ph. iv. 6, Col. ii. 5.] 

* The form x"'^"^ seems to be used only when the first part of the compound 
is an appellative : the N. T. word a.tfj.aTiKxvaia, (Leo Gr. p. 287) may be com- 
pared with a.'ifjt.a.Tox,'J<r'i«' (Theophan. p. 510), <puTox^<r''<^, and pmyx'"'''*- 

^ [On ■riiirf/.ov^ see Ellic. on G. v. 8 ; and on the termination, Hew Crat. p. 


* The connexion of ipthla with tpif is not precluded by the mere presence of 
the i, for this letter is found in this family of words in ipihiv, ip'JiZii* ; but 
the whole form of the word shows that it can only be referred to Ipihuu. That 
moreover the N. T. word \fihiit. is no other than the ipih'ia. {labour for hire) 
which was already in use among the Greeks, is convincingly shown by Fritzsche 
{Rom. I. 143 sqq.). Amongst earlier writers, see Stolberg, De Soloec. N. T. p. 
136 sqq. [See also EUicott and Lightfoot on G. v. 20 ; Alford on Rom. ii. 8.] 

* On the accentuation see Buttm. II. 408 (Jelf 59, Don. p. 315). 

* *EA.X>i»i^£/v has the general meaning to deport oneself as a Greek (Diog. L. I. 
102). It is most frequently applied to speaking Greek, and especially to the 
use of the Greek language by foreigners (Strabo 14. 662) ; and in this case it is 


where : only in the case of KoXKvl3caTri<; (which however is not 
peculiar to the K T.) there exists no intermediate verb koWv- 
iSi'^etv} From TeXeiovv we have re\€L(or7]<;, comp. ^tjXcot?;? and 
XvTpcoTijii: from irpo^Kvvelv, irpo<iKvvriTri<i (Constant. Man. 4670) : 
un invevhvTTj^ see Buttm. II. 411 (Jelf 331). The older writers 
preferred Bcwkttjp to BLa)KTT]<; ; similarly SoTi'jp has the collateral 
form 86r7]q.^ 

Kardw^i,^, Kom. xi. 8 (from the LXX), if derived from 
Karavvard^oi (as it was at one time supposed to be), would be 
a very strange formation. It is however clear from Dan. x. 9 
(Theodot.) that this noun was regarded as cognate with Kara- 
vvaaeiv ; and thus it might denote stupefaction (p^V?.^ Ps. Ix. 5), 
and thence torpor : ^ see Fritz. Horn. II. 558 sqq. 

Tap,€iov (for ra/xielov, from Ta/xievco) is the reading of all good 
MSS. in L. xii. 24, and of many MSS. in Mt. vi. 6^ (see Lob. p. 
49 3, Par«^. p. 2 8): similarly we find the com])Oun(x 'yXoxra-oKOfiov 
for yXoia-aoKo/juelov or 'yXMaaoKop^Lov (from Kofiico), without any 
variant (see Lob. p. 98 sq.). In each case the abbreviated form 
was the result of a careless pronunciation of the word. 

,8. From Adjectives. Under this head come 

(1) Some abstract nouns in tt;?, orr]<i ; as a7ioT7;?, dyv6Tr]<i, 
dBe\(f)6Tr](i (Leo Gramm. p. 464), dSpoTr]^;, aTrXorrj^, iKavorrj'^, 
dcpeX.oTTj'i (dcf)e\€ia in earlier writers), a-Kk'qpoTr}^;, Ti/jii6r7}<i, re- 
XeioTTjsi, fiaTaLotr}<i, jv/j,i>6rrj<;, /j,eyak€toTr]<;, KvpLort)'^, at'trp^oT?^?, 
iTLOTT)'^ (dyadoTrjf;, LXX), see Lob. p. 350 sqq.: dKaddpTr}^, Eev. 
xvii. 4, is not well attested. 

often used without implying disparagement, e.g. in Xen. Anab. 7. 3. 25, Strabo 
2. 98: De Wette's assertion {Bibel p. 17, — reprinted from the flail. Encycl.) 
is incorrect. Hence the substantive \x\rni<rTrii (whicli never occurs in Greek 
authors) very naturally signifies one who speaks Greek, though not a Greek by 
birth, e.g. a Greek-speaking Jew. That in Christian Greek phraseology j;.x»)v/^ei» 
also meant to be a heathen (as in Malal. p. 449) has no further connexion with 
our subject. [See page 29, note *. ] 

* [This verb occurs SchoL Aristoph. Ran. 507 ; and in Schol. Aristoph. Pax 
1196 we should probably read x£«(jXXi//3;o-/iiK>/. ] 

- [In Rev. xii. 10 recent editors receive from A the strange form tcarriyiup, 
for KoiTKyopof, "This form of the word is Hebraic =")"i;''t3p. A complete parallel 
is presented by the Rabbinical designation of Michael, the Tii^JD; ° (ruvnyup, i.e. 
(Tvtriyopos (comp. Schottg.). Similarly in later Greek S(a«wv for Sjaxovaj ; comp. 
Wetstein." Dlisterd. m /oc] 

* [The Hebrew noun (riDTin) which the LXX render by xardwln in Is. xxix. 

T ■•• : - 

10 (from- whicli Rom. xi. 8 is freely quoted) is derived from the verb (D'H'lj) 

which Theodotion fenders by xnTavvinrai in Dan. x. 9.] 

* [Tx/iiTav is certainly the true reading in Mt. xxiv. 26, L. xii. 3, 24, and most 
probably in Mt. vi. 6.] 


(2) Those in arvvr}, denoting non-material qualities : as iXerj- 
fioavvT] and da'^Tj/jLoavvi] (from iXerjfKov and ao-'^rjfxojv, comp. 
(Tux^poavvrj from aoxfypcov) ; or dyicoavvr], ayaOaxrvvr}, lepcoavvrj, 
fieyaXcoavvTj, with (o, since derived from adjectives with short 
penultimate;^ — all later forms, found only in Hellenistic writers: 
see in general Lob. Frol. Path. p. 235 sqq. 

Amongst nouns in m also, derived from adjectives in 09, po<i 
(Buttm. II. 415), there are. several later formations (Lob. p. 
343), e.g. iXacppia, like alc^pla (Eustathius) from o,la'^p6<;. In 
2 P. ii, 1 6 we find Trapacppovia from trapdi^poip (Lob. Proleg. 
Path. p. 238), like euSaL/jLoiaa from evSac/j^cov ; but some 
[cursive] MSS. have the more usual 'irapa<j>poavvr}? 

Lastly, the neuter of many adjectives in to? is used as a sub- 
stantive ; as vTTo^vyiov, fieOopiov, virok-qvcov, c<pdyLov (7rpo<}- 
(pdyiov), etc. : see Fritz. Prdlim. p. 42. 

7. From other substantives (Buttm. II. 420 sqq., Jelf 335, 
Don. p. 319). Elh(o\elov^ (elScoXov), iXaicov (iXata), fivXcov Mt. 
xxiv. 41 V. I. (/tyXo9, /auXi?), Buttm. II. 422 sq.; and the femin. 
^aalXia-aa (Buttm. II. 42 7). ''A^ehpdov, which is peculiar to the 
N. T., comes from ehpa. The gentile femin. from ^olvi^ is ^oi- 
vtcrcra; hence we find Svpo(f)oivi(Taa Mk. vii. 26, as Kikia-tra 
from KlXi^ (Buttm. II. .427). Perhaps however a femin. was 
also formed from ^olvUt}, the name of the country, for very 
many good MSS. have in this place XvpojjoLviKta-aa (comp. Fritz. 
in loc.):^ this might be immediately derived from a simpler form 
^oivLKi<i, as we find ^aaiXiao-a by the side of f3aai\L<;, and as 
(in Latin at all events) Scythissa was used for HkvOi^;, or as in 
later Greek (pvKdKiaaa is found by the side of (jiv\aKi<i : see in 
general Lob. Pro^. Path. p. 413 sq. 

To the later and Latinising formation belong, of gentile nouns 

^ Mym. Mag. p. 275. 44. Yet we find /^iyaXo(ruv>] in Glycas (p. 11), even 
in the later edition. That nearly all the nouns in u/rvvv belong to the later 
language, is shown by Buttm. (II. 420). On the termination <rt/vw in general, 
see Aufreeht in the Berl. Zeitschr. fur vergleich. Spracfiforsch. 6. Heft. [Liine- 
nianu adds a reference to G. Biihler, Das griech. Secund&rsufflx rvs : ein 
Beitragz. Lehre v. d. W ortbildung (G'Ott. 1858).] 

* Of substantives derived from adjectives in »,-, some, as is well known, end 
in la. instead of na (Buttm. II. 416, Jelf 334. Obs. 1). In others the spelling 
varies between <« and £/«, e.g. xaxo-prafficc {com-p. Poppo, Thuc. II. i. 154, Ellendt, 
PrfEf. ad Arrian. p. 30 sqq., Weber, Demosth. p. 511), the form tia however 
being best attested in this word. [See also p. 49. ] 

2 [Written with -/- (not -£^-) by Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort.] 

* [So Lachm., Tisch., Westo. and Hort; Tregelles, 2v/i« *«<>-;*/><?«.] 


and patronymics, 'Hpa)Siav6<;, Mt. xxii. 16, and Xpicrnavo^, A. 
xi. 26, aL: comp. Kaia-apiavo^ Ait. Epict. 1. 19. 19, 3. 24. 117. 
In the earlier language the termination avo<i was used only in 
forming gentile names for cities and countries out of Greece 
(Buttm. II. 429, Jelf 338. «7). 

Among diminutives deserves to be mentioned ^L^Xapi^Lov, 
formed immediately from ^ifiXdpiov (which is mentioned by 
Pollux), and used instead of the older forms ^i^XiStov and 
^i^XtBdpcov (like IfxaTiBdpiov from l^arlhiov) ; see Lob. Pathol. 
I. 281. FvpaiKapiov follows the ordinary analogy, bilt seems to 
have been of rare occurrence in Greek authors : the same may 
be said of wTapiov (Mk. xiv. 47, Jo. xviii. 10), /cXivdpiov, irai- 
Bdpcov. Amongst diminutives in lov, yjn^lov is decidedly a later 

The subataatives in Tjptov are properly neuter adjectives (Buttm. II. 
412 sq.), as IXaa-Trjpiov, dvp-uxTripiov^ <j>v\aKnqpiov. Thig termination 
became more common in the later language : e. g, avaKoXvTrTrjpiov 
Niceph. Gregor. p. 667, Serfnjpiov Cedrea II. 377, Bavarrjpiov ib. I. 
679, lajxaTrjpLov ih. I. 190, al. 4>i'A.aKT7;pios, formed immediately from 
4>vXa.KTy]p, has like it an active meaning, guarding, p-ofecling. 'lAa- 
aT7]pLov is [)roperly something that propitiates, but can be specially 
applied to the place where the propitiation is accomplished (as 
(fivXdKTi'jpLov denotes a guardhouse, outpod), and hence to the covering 
of the ark of the covenant. For Rom. iii. '25 the signification 
propitiatory offerivg (Index to Theophan. cont.) is equally suitable : 
Philippi has lately denied this, but without sufficient reason. Zeu- 
KTi/pt'a is a femin. subst. of the same kind ; comp. a-rvTrrrjpia. SwTTypia 
is immediately connected with ctwtt^p ; besides this, crurr-qpLov also 
occurs as a substantive. 'Y-Trepwov, i.e. virep<J)'i.ov, is in like manner to 
be regarded as the neuter of {i7r€puJto?,A\ hich is formed from the prepos. 
vntp, as -arpwos from TTaTTjp, for there is no intermediate adjective 


a. From Verbs. To adjeotives^immediately derived from a 
verbal root belongs irei&o'i, which is fidly estabhshed in 1 C. ii. 
4 : compare e3o9 from eBw, ^oaKo^i from fBoaKo), (f)6LBo^ from 

^ On diniinntives in tov see Fritz. PrtiUni. p. 43, aud Janson, De vocibua in 
ici triayUabis, in Jahn's Archiv VII. 485 sqq. 

2 [fn L. xxi. 11 we should probably read <pi^rjp,», for (pir^iTpet : compare 
xipnSfor, Kaxr.Sfoy. See Lobeck in Buttm. II. 413. Here m&y also be mentioned 
the form avyyiMiii {vvyyuiiai, Mk. vi. 4 and perhaps L. 11. 44) : see A, Buttm. 
p. 25.] 


[^€lSq}) (f)€LBofJuii, and see Lob. p. 434. These derivatives are as 
a rule oxytone; (f)d<yo'i alone is also written as a paroxytone by 
the grammarians (Lob. Paral. p. 135), and this accentuation is 
followed in the N. T, Among those in cSk6<;, dfjbapTa)k6<i is most 
common (i^uttm. II. 448) ; etBwXov, which is the neuter of eiB(i)\o<; 
(Lob. Path. p. 134), belongs to the same class. 

Verbals in to? ^ sometimes correspond to the Latin participle 
in tus, as yvcocrrS^ notus, <7tTei;T09 saginoius, d'rralBevTO'; (inept), 
compare deoTrveua-TOf; inspiratus ;^ sometimes to adjectives in 
bilis, as oparo^, Bv';^dcrrdKTO<i, are/cros', a.Karda'^^eTO'i, aKarairav- 
O-T09, dveKBcT]'y7]T0<i, dveKkdXrjro'i. Some verbals have an active 
meaning (Fritz. Rom. 11. 185), as aTrraicrTo^ not stumbling, i.e. 
oiot iinning ; d\d\rjro<} however (Eom. viii. 26) certainly does 
not belong to this class. ^ Aireipaaro^i, Ja. i. 13, like the classical 
d-TreipaTOf;, is either untried, untempted, or — what amounts to the 
same in this passage- — incapaUe of being tried {see p. 242]. 
Only TraOrjTOfi has the meaning one who is to suffer, A. xxvi. 
23; comp. ^ev/cro?, jrpaKTo^, Aristot. De Anima 3. 9, p. 64 
(Sylb.), Cattier, Gazophyl. p. 34. The verbal 'Kpo<;rj\vTo<i is 
immediately connected with such forms as eTrrjXv^, fierTjXvi, and 
is an extended formation of which we find no examples in Greek 

0. From Adjectives. Among adjectives derived from other 
adjectives (or from participles) a few deserve special notice : e.g. 
irepLovaia and i7nova-io<;, like eKova-ia, iO€\ovcrio<;, (Lob. p. 4 
sq.), which are formed from eKwv and iOeXcov in the same way as 
the feminines eKovaa, ediXovaa. ^Eiriovaiof; however has pro- 
bably a direct connexion with the feminine (^) iiriovaa, scil. 
tjfiepa, so that apra iiriovaio^ is bread for the following day : 
compare Stolberg, Diss, de pane iirtovaioi [De Solcecismis N. T. 
p. 220 sqq.), Valcken. Meet. L 190, and Fritz. Matt. p. 207 sq., 
where also the derivation of the word from ovaia (which would 
be grammatically possible, comp. evovaLo<i) is controverted.^ 

1 See Bnttm. J. 443 sqq., Lob. Paral. p. 478 sqq., Moiszisstzig, De Adj. Qrcpc. 
Verbal. (Conitz 1844). [Don. p. 191 ; Curtius, Gr. Verb, p. 515. On the 
accentuation of compound verbals, see Lob. Paral. pp. 473-498, A. Buttm. 
Gr. p. 42.] 

^ The pa.<:sive interjiretation of this word in 2 Tim. iii. 16 can admit of no 
donbt, and is also supported by the analogy of 'ifi-rvivrroi ; though several deri- 
vatives of this kind have an active meaning, as lUTytua-nss, aTotvirro}. 

^ [This word is most fully exainined by Tholiick iSerm. on the Mmmt, pp. 341- 
?48), Lightlout {Iiccl^wn,'\)iK ] 94-234"), M'ClcUan, ]S\w Ttit,. pp. 632-047. 


The meaning of 7repiovaio<i in the Bible is not simply propnus, 
as opposed to what belongs to another, any more than irepiov- 
<na(Tyi6<i in the LXX means simply property. 

Hlo-tlko^ (Mk; xiv. 3, Jo. xii. 3), from TnaTo^, is explained by 
several ancient commentators as meaning genuine. In earlier 
writers the word signifies convincing, probably also persuasive, 
Plat. Gorg. 455 a, Diog. L. 4. 37, Dion. H. V. 631, Sext. Emp. 
Math, 2. 71, Theophrast. Metapk. 253 (Sylb.) ; in nearly all the 
passages, however, some MSS. have TrecariKo^i, and this form has 
usually been preferred by the critics, see Bekker and Stallb. on 
Plat. I. c, and compare Lob. Ajajc, v. 151. In later Greek it sig- 
nifies /a iY/i/nZ, trustivorthy, of persons; see Lacke, Joh. II. 496, 
Index to Cedreniis p. 950. A transition to the meaning ^mwm^;, 
as a material predicate, would not be impossible, particularly as 
technical expressions (and such vdpBo^ ttco-tiki] may very well 
have been), and mercantile terms especially, are often strange.^ 
Others, after Casaubon, take iriariKcxi for drinkable (Fritz. 
Mark, p. 598 sqq.), from TriiridKai or the, root Trtw, like Trto-To? 
drinkable (^schyl. From.. 480), iricnrip, iriarpa, vria-rpov, and 
other words quoted by the old lexicographers. That the ancients 
did sometimes drink the nard oil we know from Athenseus (15. 
689). But I cannot clearly see why both evangelists applied 
this particular epithet : if the thin liquid nard-ointnient which 
they used for pouring out {Kara')(e€iv, Mk. I. c.) did not differ 
from that which was drinkable, it would be just as superfluous 

Liinemann refers to articles by Leo Meyer ^in Kuhn's Zeitschr. 1858, VII. 424 sq., 
428), who maintains that the word is formed by the suffix la from Wi and «t, 
and denotes "that which is i^r.'," so that apTog s. signifies " the, bread which is 
serviceable or necessary for the support of life, — which answers to our neces- 
sities." Lightfoot's objection to all derivations from Jvai (or ohaia.) — that the 
word would then be Wouaioi, not l-rtcvaios, the i never being retained unless the 
second word was orujtnally written with the digamma (as in Wiopico;, innKi);, 
etc.) — appears decisive. His conclusion is that the phrase means fyread for the 
coming day. M'Clellan refers the word to a (viuv (soil. XP'""'^> '^'"^^)> "bread 
for the future world." In a second Appendix Bp. Lightfoot discusses 

1 They have this especial peculiarity, that words usualh', applied to persons 
only are transferred to articles of merchandise : compare the German flau, 
properly weak, feeble [but used for dull, heavy, in respect of sale], and such 
notices as "Sugar inactive, wheat unasked." Lobeck [Paral. p. 31) defends 
Scaliger's view, that -rtaTiKoi is derived from •jTriairu (Fritz. Mark, p. 595), since 
euphony leads to the omission of t after •r and in some other cases : comp. 
TTifvil, -jripvil, but especially vrlrvpev and the Latin pisso. Meyer still 
adheres to the rendering genuine. [For other explanations see Alford on Mk. 
xiv. 3. J 


to add the epithet Tna-TiKi] as to speak of Jluid nard. The 
vapho<i \eirriq of Dioscorides is properly only fluid nard, as 
opposed to the thick, viscid kind. In John's narrative, too, 
the mention of drinkable nard does not harmonise well with 
the manipulation indicated by a\.€L(f)€Lv. Lastly, Fritzsche's 
rendering of ttktt. by " qui facile bibi potest, luhenter bibitur " 
(p. 601) is not sufficiently supported; not to ijiention that 
it cannot be certainly shown that TrcaTiKo^ anywhere has the 
meaning drinkable. Indeed Tna-rcfi itself was probably not 
much used — in ^schylus /. c. there is a play on words [ov 
'^ta-Tov ovre Tnarov] — being superseded by the unambiguous 
TTOTo?, 7roac/.co^. 

7. From Substantives. To adjectives derived from substantives 
belong amongst others adpKLvo<i and aapKiKo^. The former 
signifies y?ts%, i.e. made of fiesh (2 C. iii. 3), as proparoxytone 
adjectives in ti/p? almost without exception, denote the material 
of which a thing is made, e.g. XiOtva of stone (2 C. iii. 3), ^v\tvo<i 
toooden, TrrjXivo'i of clay, aKavOn'o^, ^vaaiva, etc. (Buttm, II. 
448) : the latter is fleshly. Tb^re is however preponderant or 
considerable authority for adpKivo^ in Rom, vii. 14, 1 G. iii. 1 
(2 C. i. 12), H. vii 16, where a-apKiKo^ might have been ex- 
pected ; and even Lachmann has received it into the text.^ But 
how easily might aapKtKo-i, a word found in the N. T. only,^ be 
confounded in the MSS. with the familiar word adpKivo<; (Fritz. 
JRom. II. 46 sq.). If Paul wrote adpKLvo<i, he must have intended 
some such special emphasis as Meyer attributes to the word in 
1 C. iii. 1.^ But in the doctrinal system of Paul we find no 
support for any description of the natural man which the merely 
material word adpKivo<; would be sufficient to convey ; whilst 
aapKLKo^i, in antithesis to irvevfiariKO'i, is all that is required even 
in these passages. Besides, 1 C. iii. 3, taken in connexion with 
ver. 2, shows that Paul used the same designation in both verses.* 

1 [Not ill 2 C. i. 12 : in the other passages recent editors read (r^pxivas. On 
adj. in /vaj see Donalds. Hew Crat. p. 458, Trench, Syn. s. v. o-a^xd-as.] 

'^ [It occurs in Anth. Pal. 1. 107, Ps.-Arist. Hist. An. 10. 2. 7, and is a v. I. 
in 2 Chr. xxxii. 8.] 

•^ [Meyer's view is ;that, to designate more emphatically the unspiritual nature 
of the Corinthians, Paul calls them men of the flesh — " men who had experienced 
so little of the Holy Spirit's operation, that the <ra^| appeared to constitute 
their whole being : " comp. Trench I. c] 

* [That is, in verses 1, 3 : rxfxixol is undoubted in ver. 3. See AKord in loc] 


SucL. an expression as ivroXyj aapKivT], H. vii. ] fi, is hardly to 
be tolerated.^ 

Among the oxytone adjectives in ii/o? which express notions of 
time (Buttm. II. 448, Jelf 338), Ka6T]fj,epcv6<;, 6pdpivl<i, Trpmvof, 
are later forms, for which earlier writers used Ka6r)p,epLo^, k.t.X. ; 
raxtvo^ belongs to the same class. Some adjectives derived 
from substantives end in €iv6<i, as (rKorecv6<i, ^Q>Teiv6<i ; eA-eetw? 
however — a form not uncommon in Attic Greek (V. Fritzsche, 
Arist&ph. I. 456) — comes from the verb eXeew, as iro6eiv6<i from 
rrroOew (Buttm. II. 448). KepapiK6<; (Kepd/xeio^, Kepdpao^:) must 
also be reckoned with later adjectival formations. 

Among adverbs derived from verbs, (f)€iBo/jievco^ seems to be 
peculiar to the K T,^ 


4. a. Substantives and Adjectives. The compound nouns 
whose first part also is a noun are numerous in the N. T. 
Although many of these words are not to be found in Greek 
authors, yet there is nothing in their formation which is contrary 
to analogy. Compare in particular SiKacoKpiaia (Leo Gr. p. 163), 
atparefc^vaca, raTreivocfipcov — like eva(:^o<^pwv, Kparaiocppcov 
Constant. Porphyr. II. 33„ and in later writers even lov8ai6(ppcov, 
^Wrjvoipprov Cedren. I. 660, Theophan. I. 149 — and TaiT€ivo<^po- 
(TvvTj (comp. fiaraioippoa-vvr) Constant. Man. 657), crKXrjpoKapSia, 
a-KX7]poTpd^7]\o<; (from which we find aKkripoTpa^riXia and o-kXt]- 
porpa^rjXcdv in Const. Man.), uKpo^vaTia!^ aKpoyoovLalo'i, dX- 

' In general, we might perhaps assume that the later popular language con- 
founded the forms, and used adpxivos also in the sense of rapaiKos, especially as 
adjectives in tvo; do not always denote substance or material (comp. a>^pu'rin>s) ; 
see Fritz. Bom. II. 47, Tholuck, Hehr. p. 301 sq. Somewhat similar in German 
is the use of das Iiiwendige (of a man) for das Inntre : the former had at 
one time a more limited meaning. Since, however, aripxiKo; had beyond doubt 
already established itself for the language of the N. T., there is no ground 
for such an assumption in this case. [Comp. Delitzsch on H. vii. 16 ; also 
Tiseh. on 1 C. iii. 1, who maintains that the two words are synonymous in the 
N. T.] 

2 [It also occurs in Plutarch {Alex. 25). For xipafA-ixo; see Plato, Polit. 288 a.] 

3 That is, if (with the Etym. Ha(\. ) we derive this word from p^X^u, P>vuj. This 
derivation has been recently controverted by Fritzsche {Rom. I. 136), on the 
ground that fivu does not seem to have the meaning tegere (as this etymology 
assumes), and that the word, so derived, would contain no reference to any part 
of the body in particular, and would therefore be unintelligible from its vague- 


Xorpio€7ri(TK07ro^ ^ (comp. aXkoTpioTrpwy/jbocrvvri Plat. Hej). 4. 
444 b), avOpwrrdpeaKo^; (Lob. p. 621), irorafio^op'qro'i (comp. 
vSaTO(j)6p7]To<; Const. Man. 409), KapBioyvcocrTr)'; (KapSi67r\r)KTo<i 
Theophan. I. 736, KapBioKoka.Trrrj'i Leo Gr. 441), ctt/to^/jcoto?, 
6(f)6a\fxoBovXeLa, elBoiXoXdrpT)^,^ elBoikoOvrov (Cedren. I. 286, 
comp. the abstract elScoXoOvaia Theophan. 415), Bea/xo(f)v\a^ 
(vQiro(f)v\a^ Theoplian. I. 608), opKWfioaia (comp. dirwixoala, 
KaTWjxoaia), iraTpoirapdhoTO'i (^eoTrapaSoTo? Theophan. I. 627), 
lcrdfyy€ko<; (Theoph. I. 16), evTrepicrraro'?, ttoXvitolkiXo^, the 
adverb rn-afxirKr^dei (the adjective TrafiTrXrid/]^ is found in good 
writers), elXcKpcv^^;, etXiKplveui (F nhr, Dicccarch. p. 198). The 
nearest approach to the compound SeurepoTrpwro?, L. vi. 1 (?), 
is found in SevrepoSeKarT] (Hieron. inUzech. c. 45) ; as the one 
means second-tenth, the other means second-first.^ ^(cB€Kd^vXo<;, 
the neuter of which is used as a substantive in A. xxvi. 7, is 
supported by rerpdi^vXa^ (Her. 5. 66).. — The- first part of the 
compound is more rarely a verb, as in iOeXodpTjcrKeia self-imposed 
worship : compare eOeXoBovXia, 

The adjectives whose first part is a privative exhibit nothing 
anomalous, though many of them may not have been used in the 
written language (a/ierajyoT^To?, dve^epevvnjrG'?, dve^i'^viaaTo^). 
The only peculiar word is dveX€o<;, which Lachm. has received 
in Ja. ii. 1 3 on good authority, in the place of dviXeco'i ; Greek 
writers used dvr]Xe^<;, or at any rate dveXei]<i (Lob. p. 710). 
^AviXeo'i would be formed on the analogy of aveXir >,<;,[ S.'iraL<;, 
and may have been chosen for its resemblance in sound to eXeo? 
in the same clause. Buttmann (II. 467) maintains that the 
initial a of drevl^eiv (from the adj. dT€V')]<;) is the so-called " a in- 

ness. The former argument seems to me to have more force than the latter. I 
am inclined however to think that axpofiva-ria is not an unintentional corruption 
of kKfovotrfiot, but a euphemistic alteration of this word, made designedly in 
such a way that the latter part would convey the meaning refertus, turgena 
(fitju). It is in the nature of euphemistic expressions to be vague and general : 
those among whom they are current easily come to au understanding about 
their meaning. 

* [Recent editors receive the more correct form ixXorpitvifxn'ros. ] 

* Comp. avi'pai'TiiXdTpvs Ephraem. p. 743, irvptroXciTpni Pachym. 134, Geo. Pisid. 
Heracl. 1. 14. 182, •^iuioxdrpr,; Theodos. Acroas. 2. 73 ; also ;t/>«rTaA.<i!T/»)f, a 
common word in the 13yzantine writers. 

^ [On this word see Tischendorf's long note (ed. 8), and comp. Tregelles and 
Alford in loc, Wicseler, iSyn. pp. 203-215, Ellicott, Hist. L. p. 174, Scrivener, 
Critic, p. 515, M'Clellan, Nev: Test. p. 690 sq. The word is retajned by Tisch., 
bracketed by Lachm. and Alford, banished to the margin by Tregelles and by 
"Westcott and Hort. — On thxafp^a-xtia. see Expositor, xii. 2&5-297.] 


tensive ; " but it is better (with Lob. Path. I. 35) to take it for 
a formativum} See further Doderlein, De a intensivo sermonis 
Gra;ci{Y.x\. ISSO).^ 

5. Verbs. "When the last part of the compound is a verb 
(that is, in verla coniposita), the verbal root is retained un- 
altered, as a rule, only when the first part is one of the so-called 
old prepositions (Scaliger in Lob. Phryn, p. 266, Buttrn. II. 
469 sq.). In other cases the verb properly takes its termination 
from a noun derived from the root ; as ahwareiv, ofxoXoyeladai, 
vovOeTelv, evepyereiv, Tpoirocpopetv,^ opdoro/xelv (comp. 6p6o- 
rofila Theophan. contin. p. 812), a^^aOoep'^/dv and ayadovp- 
ydv^ fjieTpioiraOeiv, etc. 

It cannot however be denied that there are some isolated ex- 
ceptions to this rule ; Scaliger himself had discovered Zv^dvr'jcrKw 
in Euripides, comp. Buttm. IL 472. Hence we must also derive 
€v8oK€iv from toKelv directly, and not (as Passow maintained) 
through an intermediate noun S6ko<;, see Fritz. Bom. II. 370 : 
the word originated in a mere union of ev and BoKelu in pronun- 
ciation, comp. Buttm. IL 470. The same appbes to KupaBoKetP, 
which must not be referred to SoKeva (Fritzschior.. Opusc, 
p. 151) ; a noun Kapahoico^ does not exist.* 

'OfjietpeaOai also (the reading of the better MSS, in 1 Th. 
il 8, for ifjt,6ipe(76aL) would be admissible, even if derived from 
ofjiov, 6/jb6<i, and etpetu (Fritz. Mark, p. 792). We do not indeed 
meet with any otlier verb thus compounded with ofjMv, for 6fia~ 
Bid) comes from o/j.a8o<;, and o/xoBpofjielu, 6/jboBo^eiv, ofiewerelv, 
6/j,r)p€V€iv, 6/j,o!^vyeiv, opuXelv, and even Ofiovoeiv (Buttm. IL 

1 [In favour of Buttmann's view see Don. Gr. p. 334, iVVw Cr. p. 348 sq. 
Lobeck's words are : a ;i;a'vu(, nivu, <rȣXXw, evrif;^^u, adjectiva in ns exeuntia fingi 
non potuerunt nisi accedente vel pj-aspositione (iiz^avti;, Iktivks, '>rtpiir7rifp(^yii), vel 
alia parte orationis (craXt;;^a:»»9f, tunv^s), quarum ubi nulla couveniebat, decuisum 
est ad prfepositionem loquelareni d, quae, quia per se nihil signifieat, ideo ad 
formandum aptissima est. Curtius {Gr. Etym. pp. 195, 217) takes aTsm'f, 
i(r-rtpx,'^s, as standing for a»-Ti»>if, a.v-ifrifx,U. In Curtius, Studien, vol. viii, will 
be found a full investigation of the subject by Clemm, who arranges all examples 
of prefixed a. under the four head-s, a. protheticum, copulativum, privatlvum, 
prcBposUionale, agi'eeing with Curtius in connecting the two words (and also 
a<r£Xy»i,-, axpayyii) with the prepos. «»a. ] 

* [In Rev. viii. 1, we should probably read fifiiapav for i^/<i'/!/ij». ] 

' [For which several editors read rptxpap^apilv, A. xiii. 18 (Dt. i. 31).] 

* On these forms see Buttm. II. 457. Against elxovpyilt and aUatipyo; (Tit. ii. 
5 V. L), comp. Fritz. De Grit. Gonf. p. 29. [In Tit. I. c. oUovpyos is strongly 
supported, and is received by recent editors. ] 

* [See JeK 346, Don. p. 339 sq., New Cr. p. 666 sq., Curt. Elucid. pp. 167 sqq.] 


473), are in like maimer directly derived from nouns. A diffi- 
culty would also be presented by the genitive which is here go- 
verned by the verb ; compare Matth. 405. The first objection, 
however, should perhaps not be pressed in regard to a word 
borrowed from the popular spoken language. Tf fMeipeaOac — 
which is found in Nicand. Ther. 400, for ifj,€ipeadat — were the 
original form, fieipiadat and o/j^elpeadai might exist together 
as collateral forms, as easily as BvpecrOai and oBvpeo-Oai : in- 
deed o/xeipea-Oai, may perhaps be the true reading here (Lob. 
Path. I. 72).^ 

A compound peculiar to Hellenistic Greek is nTpo'^coirokr)- 
irreiv, — 7rpo<;a}7ro\i]TrTr]^, 'Kpo'iaj'n-oKrj'^ia (Theodos. Acroas. 1 , 
32), a'irpo<i(07ro\r)'rrT(o<i {Ada Apocr. p. 86). A corresponding- 
verb is dKaraXriTTTelv, Sext. Emp. I. 201 ; with the concrete de- 
rivative compare BcopoXTJirrrjii and ipyoXijirrrj^j (LXX) ; and with 
the abstract irpo^wiroXri-^la compare €p(OTo\7]ylria, Ephraem. 
pp, 3104, 7890, Nicet.Eugen. 4. 251. Several nouns like tt/jo?- 
(0'7rd\r]7rTr}<i, 6avaTr)<^6po^^ in which the second part is derived 
from a verb, whilst the first denotes the object, etc. (Buttm. II. 
478), are peculiar to the N. T. ; as Se^to\a/3o9, one lolio takes a 
place at the right of any one, hence o.n attendant. From these 
compounds are again derived, not only abstract nouns — to which 
class (TKH]vo'K'r]<^la belongs, formed as if from a-Krjvoin^'yo'^, accord- 
ing to a common analogy, like Kkivoir'qyia, — but also verbs, as 
Xi6oj3o\e2v from Xt^o/3oXo9 (comp. dvOolBoketv, Orjpo^okelv, rjkio- 
/36\€i(r6ai, etc.), opOoirohetv from opOoTrovi, he^tdka^elv (Leo 
Gr. p. 175) : see Buttm. IL 479. 

In verba decomposita that preposition by means of which the 
compound became a double compound naturally stands first, as in 
a.Tr€K8e)(^e(r6aL, crvvavTLXap.j3dvecr0ai. AiaTraparpi^T/, 1 Tim. vi. 5, WOuld 
be at variance with this rule if it signified misplaced diligence or 

^ [ The form witli e is now generally received here, and is the reading of good 
MSS. in Job iii. 21. EUicott considers it a late form of ifnipa/xui : " as it seems 
probable that fiufofiai is not an independent verb, but only an apocopated form of 
ifiiifiofiixi 'metri causa,' it seems safer to consider o/^i'pofiai a corrupted and perhaps 
strengthened form of the more usual verb." Similarly Jowett in toe, who adds 
that the pseudo-form was supported perhaps by an imaginary derivation from 
o/tou and i7puv. Compare however Lobeck I. c. : " vocales autem longas deteri 
tam contra naturam est, ut psene credam primitivum fuisse afiupa amo vel hfiupa 
quod codd. optimi N. T. prsebent." Westcott and Hort agree with Lobeck in 
writing hit,., not »V0 

^ A similar compound is alii'inf : from alros, «?«», nhia6a.i (Buttm. II. 458). 


useless disputing. The only meaning whicli hiairapaTp. can hav^j 
is continued (endless) enmities, collisions ; the* other signification 
would require TrnpaStarpt^j;. As however most of the MSS. are 
in favour of SuxTraparp., which Lachmann has received into the 
text, it has been supposed — even by Fritzsche {Mark, p. 796^) — 
that in this particular instance the prepositions are transposed. But 
hiairapaTpiPi], in the sense given above, is not unsuitable in this 
passage. The other compounds with Siairapa, viz. StaTrapaKVTrrc- 
a-OaL 1 K. vi. 4, and hLairapaT-qp^lv ^ 2 S. iii. 30, are in accordance 
with the rule as regards their meaning : the former word however 
is doubtful, see Schleusnesr, Thes. Phil. s. v. 

HapaKaTadrjKTj is equivalent in meaning to Trapa$r]Kr], see Lennep, 
Phalar. Ep. p. 198 (Lips.), Lob. p. 312 ; the latter is better 
supported in the N. T. The MSS. similarly vary between the 
two words in Thuc. 2. 72 (sfee the commentators), and also in 
Plutarch, Ser: Find, (see Wyttenb. IL 530) : comp. also Heinichen, 
Ind. ad Euseh. III. 529. 

In Biblical Greek we meet with many compounds and double 
compounds which do not occur in Greek authors. ^ In particular, 
we find the simple verbs of earlier writers strengthened through 
the addition of prepositions, which, so to speak, exhibit to the 
eye the mode of the action j as indeed a love for what is vivid 
and expressive is a general characteristic of the later language. 
Thus we have KaTaXi6a.i^f.iv, to stone doivn; i^opKL^cLv, as if to ex- 
tract an oath from a man, put on oath ; iiao-Tpdirreiv, to flash 
forth; cKya/xi^civ, to give away in marriage {out of the family), 
elocare ; Suyeipctv, iiavareXXeiv, i$op.oXoyeiv, and many others. See 
my 5 Progr. de Verbor. cam Prepos. coiJipositor. in N. T, usu (Lips. 

In the same way, and for the same reason, compound and 
doubly compound adverbs (and prepositions) came into use in later 
Greek, as i-iravto, KaTcvwTrtor, Karo'avTt. In the Byzantine writers 
■such formations are carried to a still greater extent than in the 
Bible ; compare for instance KarcTrdvo) in Constantine Porphyro- 

Rem. 1. Personal names, particularly such as are compound, 
are frequently found in the N. T. in the contracted forms, which 
especially belong to the popular spoken language, and these abbre- 
viations are sometimes very bold (Lob. p. 434, comp. Schmid on 
Horat. Epp. 1. 7. 55) ; as 'AttoAAws foi 'AttoAAwvios, 'Apre/Aas for 
'Apre/tiSwpos (^Tit. iii 12), Nv/a^Ss for Nu^t^oSwpos (CoL iv. 15),* 

^ [All uncial MSS. have lia-raparpilixi. No one now will agree with Fritzsche • 
I. c. : " patet igitur voc. hxTpi^ai miris modis praepositione vrapa- esse diremtum, 
quum exspectes •rapa'iiaTpifiai."^ 

* [To these Ellicott adds liarrxpdyu Greg. Nyss. II. 177, 'iia.-raparvpu Schol. 
Lucian II. 796 (Hemst. ). The Lexicons give also compounds of lia-rxf» vnXh 
aiuvau, Xa/ijiecnu, ^e^v, i^vfu (?), but all from late writers.] 

2 [Comp. Ellicott's notes on Ph. iii. 11, E. i. 21.] 

* Keil [Philologus II. 468) believes he has found this name in an inscription 


Zr]va<i for Zrjv6So)po<; (Tit. iii. 13), Hapfxcvag for IIapfjievi8r]<; (A. 
vi. 5), At^/xSs probably for Arj/jLea?, ArjfjieTpLo?, or ATQ/xapxo<s (Col. 
iv. 14, 2 Tim. iv. 10), probably also 'OAv/attSs for 'OAv/attioSw/jos 
(Rom. xvi, 15), 'E7ra</»pas for 'E7ra<^po8iros (Col. i. 7, iv. 12), and 
'Ep/Atts for 'EpfjLoScjpo's (Rom. xvi. 14), ®ev8a<; for ©evSwpos (i.e. 
©£oSa)/3os), and AoukSs for Lucanus. In Greek writers, compare 
'AAe^as for 'AAe^avSpos (Jos. Bell. J. 6, 1. 8), Mr/vas for M>jvoowpo5, 
JlvOa^ for nu^oSwpo?, MerpSs (Euseb. H. E. 6. 41).i 

Many names in as not circumflexed are abbreviated forms ; as 
'A/x7rAtas for Ampliatus (Rom. xvi. 8),^ AvrtTras for AvrtVarpos 
(Rev. ii. 13), KAeoTras for KAcoTrarpos (L. xxiv. 18), and perhaps 
^t'Aas for SiAouai/o?, see Heumann, Pcecile III. 314. If 'Xw-n-arpo'; 
(A. XX. 4) is for Xioa-LTrarpos, which is found in some MSS., the 
contraction is nearer the commencement of the word, but is 
also very bold : SwTrarpos may however be an uncontracted 
name. On the other hand, those proper names which are com- 
pounds of Aao?, and which by the Dorians (Matth. 49) — and 
probably by others also — were contracted into Xa?, appear in 
the N. T. in their uncontracted form, as JS^iKoAaos, 'Apx^'Aao?. 
That at an earlier period also the Greeks contracted personal 
names on euphonic grounds is shown by examples in K. Keil's 
Spec. Onomatolog. Gr. p. 52 sqq. (Lips. 1840). In German 
there are numerous examples of similar abbreviations and con- 
tractions, sometimes very harsh ; as Klaus from Nikolaus, Kathe 
(Kathi) from Katharina. Several of these have become indepen- 
dent names, occurring even in the written language ; as Fritz 
(Friedrich), Heinz (Heinrich), Hans, Max : comp. Lobeck, Prolegg. 
Path. p. 504 sqcj.^ 

Rem. 2. The Latin words taken np into the Greek of the N. T. 
. — almost without exception substantives,'' denoting Roman judicial 
institutions, coins, articles of clothing — have nothingpeculiar in their 
form. Latin verbs ia a Greek dress first appear at a later period, 
in the Greek of the Lihri Pseudepigraphi, the Byzantine writers, 
etc. See Thilo, Ada App. Petri d Pauli I. 10 sq. (Hal. 1837). 

in Bbckli. [Lachm. writes Nu^^«y as the name of a woman (reading alrl^i for 
avreu) : SO Westcott and Hort. See Liglitfoot's note.] 
' [See Mullacli, Vulg. pp. 22, 165.] 

* [In this passage ' Af^-zXia-ms (Tisch.,- ' AfcxxiarDc) is well supported.] 

^ On Greek personal names in general, see Sturz, Progr. de Nominib. Grcecor. 
(included in his Opuscula : Lips. 1825), W. Pape, Worierb, der griech. Eigen- 
namen (Brschw. 1842), {Hall. L. Z. 1843, No. 106-108), and Keil, Beitragt zur 
Onomatologie, in Sclineidewin, Fhilologus Vol. 2 and 3. 

* [The only exception appears to be (ppayiXXou. The remark here made as to 
t}\& m failing of these substantives is hardly correct ; see an article by Prof. 
Potwin in Bibliotheca Sacra 1875, pp. 703-714 (also 1880, p. 503). See further 
MuUach, Vulg. pp. 52, 54.] 




Section XVII. 


1. The Article 6, rj, to, was originally a demonstrative 
pronoun, and in epic poetry (to which belongs the quotation 
from Aratus in A. xvii 28, rov jap yevo<; eafjuev) it is regularly 
used as such. Compare Soph. (Ed. R. 1082, tt}? jap -rre^vKa 
fjL7]Tp6<; (Matth. 28G) : for prose compare Athen. 2. p. 37. (Jelf 
444, Don. p. 345.) This use of the article is not usual in prose, 
except — 

' A. Kluit, . Vindicice -Artie, in N. T. (Traj. et Alcmar. 1768-1771 ; the 
book itself is written in Dutch) ; G. Middleton, The Doctrine of the Greek Ar- 
ticle applied to the criticism and the illustration of the N. T. (London 1808). 
Compare Schulthess in the Theol. Atinal. 1808, p. 56 sqq. ; E. Valpy, A short 
treatise on the doctrine of the Greek Article, according to Middleton; He, briefly 
and compendiously explained as applicable to the criticism of the N. T., — prefixed 
to his Greek Testament icith English notes (3 vols. : ed. 3, Lond. 1834). Emmer- 
ling's Einige Bemerk. ilber den Artikel im N. T. (in Keil and Tzschirner'a 
Analekt. I. ii. 147 sqq.) are of no importance. On the other hand, Bengel has 
some brief but striking remarks on the subject in his note on Mt. xviii. 17. fSee 
also A. Buttmann, Gr. pp. 85-103, Webster, Syntax, pp. 26-44, and especially 
Green, Gr. pp. 5-82, where the subject is v^ry carefully treated. The references 
to Middleton in the following pages are made to the edition by Rose (Cambridge, 


(a) In the very common formulas o fikv . . . 6 Be, ol fiev 
, ... 01 Se/ — sometimes standing in relation to a subject pre- 
viously mentioned, the one . ... the other, as in A. xiv. 4, xvii. 
32, xxviii. 24, G. iv. 23 [?], H. vii. 20, 21 (Schsef. Dion. 421) ; 
sometimes simply partitive, without any such reference, as in 
E. iv. 11, eBco/cev Toix; ixev airoar6\ov<i, rov^ Be irpo(^r)Ta<;, tov^ Be 
K.T.\., so7ne .... others. 

(h) In the course of a narration, when the simple o Be {ol 
Be) is used for hut he, etc., in opposition to some other subject ; 
as o Be e<fnj Mt. xiii. 29, ol Be uKovaavre^ eiropevOrjaav ii. 9, ii. 
14, ix. 31, L. iii. 13, viii. 21, xx. 12, Jo. i. 39, ix. 38, A. i. 6,' 
ix. 40, al: Xen. An. 2. 3. 2, ^sch. Dial. 3. 15, 17, Philostr. 
Ap. 1. 21. 5, Diod. S. Exc. Vat. pp. 26, 29, al. 

For ol fxev . . . . Ol 8e are used also ot /xcv .... aXXot 8c Jo. 
vii. 12, ol /xkv . . . aXXoL Sk . . , cTcpot Se Mt. xvi. 14 (Plat. Legg. 
2. 658 b, .^1. 2. 34, Pala^ph. 6. 5), rtvt? . . . . ol Be A. xvii. 18, 
compare Plat. Legg. 1. G27 a, and Ast m loc. In Greek authors we 
find still greater variety in expressions of this kind (Matth. 288. 
Rem. 6, Jelf 764). The relative is sometimes used instead of the 
article in such opposed clauses : as 1 C. xi. 21, os fj-ev ttuvo, os 8e 
fX€$v€i- Mt. xxi. 35, ov /xev eScipav, ov Be aTreKTeivav k.t.A., A. xxvii. 
44, Rom. ix. 21, Mk. xii. 5; compare Polyb. 1. 7. 3, 3. 76. 4, 
Thuc. 3. 66, and see Georgi, Eier. I. 109 sqq., Herm. Vig. p. 706. 
Once, OS /A£v . . . oAXos Be, 1 C. xii. 8 (Xen. A71. 3. 1. 35) ; o fieu 
(neuter) . . . /cat erepov, L. viii. 5 sqq. : ^ in 1 C. xii. 28 there is 
(evidently an anacoluthon. See, in general, Bernh. p. 306 sq. (Jelf 
816. 3. b). 

In Rom. xiv. 2 o 8e does not stand in relation to os fjiev ; 6 is simply 
the article, and belongs to aaOevCjv. 

2. In Mt. xxvi. 67, xxviii. 17, we find the partitive ol Be 
without a preceding ol fiiv, so that only the second member of 
the partition is expressed. The former passage, iveTTTva-av ek 
TO 7rp6<;a)7rov avrov koL eKo\dj)i<Tav avTov, ol Be eppdina-av, 
would be more regular if ol fiev were inserted before eKoXd^t- 
aav. When however Matthew wrote this word, a second mem- 
ber of the sentence was not as yet definitely before his mind ; 
but when he adds ol Be ipp. it becomes evident that the €/co\d(f>. 

' On the accentuation see Herm. Vig. p. 700, and on the Other side Kriiger p. 

97. [Jelf 444. Obs. 6, Lidd. and Scott s. v.] 

2 [A mistake : perhape Jo. xxi. 6. In Jo. v. 11 we find Ss H without S; /ti*.] 
' [Als^ ' f^'"- • • ""^ '^^^*' ^^^- i^- ^> ^- ^- Biittmann (p. 102) remarks that 

0, h, »;, at, are the only forms of the article which are used with fiio and ii in 

the N. T., if we except E. iv. 11. j 


applied to a part only of the mockers. Compare Xen. Hell. 1. 
2. 14, ol al^QjLoXcJTOL . . . wr^ovro e? AeKe\ei,av, ol 8' e? Mejapa' 
Cyr. 3. 2. 12; and see Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 292, Bremi, Demosth. 
p. 273 (Jelf 767. 2). Similarly, in Mt. xxviii. 17 we have first 
the general statement, ol evoeKa fxaOrjral .... lB6vT€<i avrov 
'rrpo'ieKvvT](Tav : that this, however, refers only to the greater 
part, is clear from the words which follow, ol he eZlcrTaaav} 

In L. ix. 19, ol 8e would regularly refer to the ixaO-qrai 
mentioned in the preceding verse, and would indicate that all 
returned the answer which follows; but from aXkot he . . , aX- 
\oi Be, it is clear that it was given by a part only. The cor- 
responding verse in Matthew (xvi, 14) is expressed with more 
exactness : ol Be elTTov' ol fiev ^loydvvrju .... aXXoc Be . . , , 
erepot oe. 

Section XVIII. 


1. When 6, rj, to, stands before a noun as a true article, 
it indicates that the object is conceived as definite,^ either from 
its nature, or from tlie context, or by reference to a circle of 
ideas which is assumed to be familiar to the reader's mind : 
Mk. i. 32, ore eBv 6 't]Xio<;' Jo. i. 52, o^ecrde top ovpavov aveat- 
<y6ra' 1 C. xv. 8, w'iTrepeL tm eKTpcofxari M(pd'r] Ka/xol (he is the 
only abortion among the apostles) ; A. xxvii. 38, iK^aWo/xevoi, 
rov alrov eU rrjv OaXacraav, the. wheat (the ship's store of pro- 
visions) ; L. iv. 20, TTTv^a^ to ^tpXlov (which had been handed 
to him, ver. 1 7) aTroBov<i tm vrrripeTri, the synagoyue-atiendant ; 
Jo. xiii. 5, fidXXei vBcop . eh top vnrTrjpa, the hasin (which, as 
usual, was standing by), comp. Mt. xxvi. 26 sq. ;* Jo. vi. 3, 

^ [So Bengel (as an alternative) and Meyer : Alford, EUicott {Hist. Led. 
p. 411), Ebrard {Goftpel Hist. ^. 462, Trans'.), '&iiev {Words of the Lord Jesus, 
VIII. 278, Traus.), object to this interpretation, though not on graramatical 
grounds. ] 

2 Compare Epiphan. Hcer. 1. 9. 4. — Herm. Proef. ad Eurip. Iphlq. Aul. 
p. 15: "Articulus quouiain origine jironomen domonstrativum est, detinit infi- 
uita idque duobus niodis, aut designando certo de niultis aut quae multa sunt, 
cunctis in unum colligenJis." 

^ [See Jelf 446 sq. , Don. p. 350, Middleton p. 32 sqq., Madvig 8 : for the N. T. 
see esi>ecially Green, Gr. ch. II., sections 1 and 2.] 

* [The article should probably be rejected in these two verses : comp. L. xxiv. 
30, 1 0. xi. 25.] 


dvTJXOei/ ei<? to opo^, into the- m,ouniain (which was situated 
on the farther shore, ver. 1); 1 C. v. 0, eypayfra iv ttj eincrToX^ 
(which Paul had written to the Corinthians before this present 
epistle); A. ix. 2, yrrjaaro i'maTo\l<i eh Aajxaa-Kov 7rp6<i Ta<; 
orvpayct)'yd<;, to the synagogues (which were in Damascus) ; 
ReVi XX. 4 [i?ec.], e^aalXevcrav fiera Xpiarov ra -^iXta errj, 
the thousand years (the known duration of. Messiah's* kingdom) ; 
Ja. ii. 25, 'Paa/3 rj Tropvr] virohe^afxevrj tou? ayyiXov^, the spies 
(familiarly known from the history of Eahab) ; H. ix. 19, 
\aj3oi3v TO alfia tmv fiocr'^wv koX tcov Tpdycov, with aHusion 
to Ex. xxiv. 8. So in 1 C. vii. 3, tt} ywai/ci a dvrjp ttjv 
6(f)€t\r]v aTToStSoTft), the debt (of marriage) ; vii, 29, o Kaipof; 
avpeaTaX/xevo'i ea-.Tiv, comp. ver. 26, Std ttjv evea-Tdauv dvdyKrjv^ 

The article thus refers to well-known facts, arrangements, 
or doctrines (A. v. 37, xxi. 38, H. xi. 28, 1 C. x. 1, 10, 2 Th. ii. 
3, Jo. i. 21, ii. 14, xviii. 3, Mt. viii. 4, 1 2); or to something pre- 
viously mentioned, Mt. ii. 7 (ver. 1), L. ix. 16 (ver. 13), A. ix. 
17^ (ver. 11), Jo. iv. 43 (ver. 40), A. xi. 13 (x. 3, 22), Ja. ii. 3 
(ver. 2), Jo. xii. 12 (ver. 1), xx. 1 (xix. 41), H. v. 4 (ver. 1), 
Eev. XV. 6 (ver. 1). Thus o ep-^^o/xevo^; signifies the Messiah, 
7j KpLai<; the Qfessianic) universal judfiment, t) ypa(^ri the Scrip- 
tures, r) (ro)T7)p[a the salvation of Christ, 6 Trecpd^wv the tempter 
(Satan), etc. So also of geographical designations : rj ep-i]/j,o<i, 
the wilderness par excellence, "•31'?'^, — i. e., according to the 
context, either the Arabian wilderness (of Mount Sinai), Jo. 
iii. 14, vi. 31, A. vii. .30, or the wilderness of Judah (Mt. 
iv. 1, xi. 7). 

Another case deserving mention is the use of a singular 
nt)un with the article to denote, in the individual which it par- 
ticularises, the whole class,^ — as we ourselves say. The soldier 
must be trained to arms: 2 C. xii. 12, ra arj/jieia tov dTrpaToXov 
Mt. xii. 35, dyaBo^ dvdpwrro'i .... iic^dXXec dyadd' xx. 11, 
xviii. 17, L. X. 7, G. iv. 1, Ja. v. 6. Akin to this is the use of 
the singular in parables and allegories: Jo. x. 11, 6 iroifjbrjv 6 
KaXo^ TTjv 'ylrv^Tjv avrov TiOrjacv (it is the ideal Good Shepherd 
that is spoken of), Mt. xiii. 3, e^rjXOev 6 crTreipcov tov (xireipetv, 
where Luther incorrectly has a sower. See Kriiger p. 103 sq. 

^ [Corrected (for ix. 7) froi ed. 5, where the words of the .verse are quoted.] 
* [Jelf 446. /3, Green p. 2], where the very common use of the plural to 
denote a class is also noticed. ] 


Rem. According to Kiihnol, the article sometimes includes the 
pronoun this ;'^ e.g. in Mt. i. 25 [Rec.'\, rov vlov for tovtov t6v vlov 

Jo. vii. 17, yvMcrerai -n-cpl Trj<; Sioa)(rj<;- ver. 40, eK toO 6)(Xov A. 
XXVI. 10, TTjv Trapa twi/ apx^epewv i^ovcriav Aa/3(jjv Mk. xiii. 20, A. 

ix. 2. In all these instances, however, the definite article is quite 
sufficient. Heumann has been still more liberal in this doctrine of 
the article, and he has been followed by 8chulthess (iV. Krit. Jimrn. 
I. 285) : both Schulthess and Kiihnol refer most incorrectly to Matth. 
§ 286, where such a use of the article (which indeed is hardly to 
be found in prose, except Ionic) is not the subject of discussion. 

As to Col. iv. 16, OTav avayvojaOyj Trap' ifjuv i) CTricrroAiy, we too say 

when the letter is read, and nothing more than the article was required, 
since no other epistle than the present could be thought of : some 
authorities annex avrrj, but the ancient versions must not be reckoned 
with these.2 In 1 Tim, i. 15 the demonstrative pronoun is not 
required even in Grerraan [or English], any more than in vi. 13 
[1 14]. In 2 C. V. 4 TO) is not put SeiKriK-'os for tov'tw ; the article 
simply points to the o-k^ios spoken of in ver. 1. In Col. iii. 8 to. 
irdvTa is not ^^ these, all of them" (intensive), but the lohole, viz. 
the sins which are (a second time) specified in the words which im- 
mediately follow. In Kom. v. 5, too, h (cAttis) is simply the article; 
see Fritz, in loc. Least of all can 6 Koa/j.o'i be taken for ovro'i 6 
Koa-fxo'i : it is the world as opposed to heaven, the kingdom of heaven, 
not this world as opposed to another koct/xo?. The passages in Greek 
authors which might be claimed as instances of this idiom (Diog. L. 
1. 72, 86) are to be judged of in the same way. Indeed one cauuot 
see what could induce the apostles to avoid expressing the demon- 
istrative pronoun in certain passages, in which it was present to 
their thought, and to substitute for it the article, which in any case 
has much less force : mere instinct would revolt at this. Besides, 
expressiveness of language is a characteristic of N. T. Greek, and 
of later Greek in general. 

In Greek authors, especially the Ionic and Doric,^ and after- 
wards in the Byzantine writers (Malal. pp. 95, 102), the article is 
sometimes used for the relative. In the N. T., 2aSAos 6 koL Ilav- 
Ao? (A. xiii. 9) has been regarded as an example of this usage (see 
Schleusner s. v. 6), but wrongly : o koX IT. is here equivalent to o 
Kol KaXovfjievo<s IlauAo? (Schaefer, L. Bos. p. 213), and the article 
retains its ordinary meaning, just as in SavAos 6 Taparev^. Comp. 
tlie similar phrase XIi/cos 6 kui Zci's, Malal. p. 19 sq, (ed. Bonn), 
Jlcf. Thorn, p. 34. One example however may be quoted from 
Hellenistic writers, viz. Psalt. Sal. 17. 12, ev tois Kpifxacri, ra 

'^ Compare Siebelis, Paumn. I. 50, Boisson. Babr. p. 207. Compare the 
German das when emphasised. 

2 ["The genius of the language into which the translation is made may 
require the introduction of connecting particles or words of reference, as can- 
be seen from the italicised words iu the Authorised Version." Westcott in 
Sniithis Diet, of Bible, II. 628.] 

3 MattL. 292 : comp. Ellendt, ie.r. Soph. II. 204 (Jelf 445). 


7roi€6 cTTi Tr]v yrjv, if the reading is correct.^ In Wisd. xi. 15, 
where ov (Alex.) is probably a correction, t6v must be regarded as 
the article. 

2. So far, Greek usage agrees with that of all languages 
which possess an article. In the following cases, in which the 
definite article would not be employed in German [or English], 
the use of the Greek article is idiomatic : — 

(a) Rev. iv. 7, to ^coov eyov to irpo^icoTrov co? avOpcoirov (Xen. 
Cyr. 5. 1. 2, ofxo'av Tal<; SovXaa el^e rr]v iadfjra' Theophr. 
Ch. 12 (19), Tov<; ovvxct-<i /jL€<ydXov<i ex^^v Polyan. 8. 10. 1, al.) ; 
A. xxvi. 24 [^ec], fieydXr] rr} (fxovfj ecfirj- xiv. 10 [i^cc], 1 C. xi. 
5 (Aristot. Anim. 2. 8, 10, Lucian, Catapl. 11, Diod. S. 1. 70, 
83, Pol. 15. 29. 11, Philostr. Ap. 4. 44). We say, Re had eyes 
as. He spoke with a loud voice, etc. By the use of the article 
here something which belongs to the individual is pointed out 
as possessed of a certain quality.^ This is shown still more 
clearly by H. vii. 24, dvapd^arov ep^et rr^v lepooavvijv, He hath 
the piricsthood as unchangeaUe (predicate), Mk. viii. 17, IP. 
ii. 12, iv. 8, E. i. 18 ; and by Mt. iii. 4, el^e to evSvfia avTov 
airo Tpc^Mv KajjirfKov Eev. ii. 18 (which differ from the previous 
examples through the addition of the pronoun). With the 
former examples compare further Thuc. 1. 10, 23, Plat. Phoedr. 
242 b, Lucian, Dial. Deor. 8. 1, Fugit. 10, Eun. 11, Diod. S. 

1. 52, 2. 19, 3. 34, ^1. Anim. 13. 15, Pol. 3. 4. 1, 8. 10. 1 ; 
and see Lob. p. 265, Krlig. Dion. II. 126. (The article is 
sometimes omitted, e.g. in 2 P. ii. 14: comp. Aristot. Anim. 

2. 8, 10, with 2. 11.) 

Q)) 1 C. iv, 5, Tore o eTTaivo<i r^evrjo-eraL eKaaTO), the praise 
(that is due to him) ; Eom. xi. 36, avTw r) Bo^a et? t. alwva^' 
xvi. 27, E. iii. 21, G. i. 5, 1 P. iv. 11, Eev. v. 13 ; Eev. iv. 11, 
a^t09 et Xa^elv ttjv Bo^av k. ttjv ti/x^v' Ja. ii. 14 [iJec], tl to 
ocf>€\o(; eav TriaTiv Xeyr] Ti? e^eiv, the advantage (to be expected), 
1 G. XV. 32 ; 1 C. ix. 18, ti^ fioi iaTiv 6 fxia66<; (Ellendt, Lex. 
Soph. II. 212). In all these cases the article denotes that 

* [The Vienna MS. reads o7; Ton?.] • 

^ [" Something is assumed as belonging to the subject, and a quality is then 
predicated of that something." Clyde, Syntax p. 22. We must use the personal 
pronoun, or change the construction of the sentence : e.g. in H. vii. 24, He hath 
Jfis jyriesHiood unchangeable, or The priesthood which lie hath is unchauyeable. 
See Don. p. 528, Green, Gr. p. 50 sq.] 


which is due, requisite (Krlig. p. 98, Jelf 477. 1). And thus 
the article is often found where we should use a personal 
pronoun ; as Eom. iv. 4, Ta> ipja^ofievo) 6 fiiaOo^ ov Xoyi^erav 
his reiuard, ix. 2 2, L. xviii. 1 5 ; compare Fritzsche, Aristot. 
Amic. pp. 46, 99. 

No example occurs of the use of the article in appellations 
(Matth. 268, Rost p. 428, Scha?f. Dcm. IV. 365) ; for in Rev. vi. 8, 
ovofia avTi2 6 Odvaros' viii. 11, to ovo/jia tov do-Tcpos Acycrat o 
ai/'iv^os" ^ xix. 13, KCuX-qraL to ovo/xa avrov 6 Xoyos tov deov, a name 
is in each case mentioned which belongs individually and exclusively 
to the object spoken of. 

3. Adjectives and participles when used as substantives 
are, like substantives, made definite by the article : 1 C. i. 27, 
ol a-o<f)OL' E. vi. 16, ^eXrj rov Trovtjpov' G. L 23, o Bkokcov vfjua^' 
Tit. iii. 8, oi TreiricrTevKore'i rw deip- 1 C. ix. 13, ol ra iepa ipya- 
^ofievor Mt. x. 20, 2 C. ii. 2, x. 16, 1 C. xiv. 16, H. xii. 27. 
Instead of a noun we may have an indeclinable word, as an 
infinitive or an adverb (2 C. i. 17), or a phrase, as Rom, iv. 14, 
ol i/c vopLov H. xiii. 24, ol dnro rrj'i 'Ira\La<; (Diod. S. 1. 83), A. 
xiii. 13, ol Trepl UavKov Ph. i. 27, ra irepl vp,(av k.tX., 1 C. xiii. 
1 (Kriig. p. 1 6 sq., Jelf 436,457). Even a complete sentence 
may have the article {to) prefixed to it; e.g. A. xxii. 30, yvwvai 
TO TL KaTTjyopeiTai (iv. 21, 1 Th. iv. 1, L. xxii. 2, 23, 37), Mk. ix. 
23, eiirev avrw to' el Bvvtj; G. v. 14, 6 Tra? v6fxo<; iv kvt Xoyeo ire- 
ttXij pojTat, iv TO)' ayainqaei'^ tov ttXtjctlov crov, Rom. viii. 26, 
xiii. 9, L. i. 62 :^ these sentences are for the most part quotations 
or interrogations, which are in this way rendered more pro- 
minent. Compare Plat. Gorg. 461 e, Fhced. 62 b, Hep. 1. 352 d, 
Demosth. Con. 728 c, Lucian, ^Zea;. 20, Matth. 280, Stallb. Plat. 
EutMjph. p. 5 5 , and Men, 2 5. When a mere adverb or a genitive 
thus receives the article (especially the neuter to), it becomes 
a virtual substantive :^ L. xvi. 26 \Iiec.\ ol eKcldev Jo. viii. 23, 
TO, KCLTco, TO, uvco' Jo. xxl. 2, ol TOV Ze^eBaioV L. xx, 25, tu 
Kal<Tapo<i- Ja. iv. 14, to tt}? avptov 2 P. ii. 22, to t^9 dX'r]6ov<; 
'jrapoifxia<;' 1 C. vii. 33, to. tov KocrpLov 2 P. i. 3, 2 C. x. 16, 
Ph. i. 5, Jo. xviii. 6, al. (Krlig. pp. 32, 107 sq.). We are often 
obliged to use a periphrasis, the import of the, true proverb, what 

^ [The article is somewhat doubtful iu Eev. vi. 8.] 

* [Liinemann adds Mt. xix. 18. The use of t« with indirect questions is most 
common in St. Luke (A. Buttm. p. 96).] 

3 Elleudt, Arr. Al. I. 84, Weber, Dem. i>. 237. 


is due to Cccsar} In 1 P. iv. 14, Hufcher (in ed. 1) wrongly 
takes TO t^? Bo^t]^ as a mere periphrasis for 17 So^a : such a 
use of the neuter article is not found in the N. T. 

The neuter t6 is sometimes prefixed to nouns in order to designate 
them materially, as sounds or combinations of sounds : G. iv. 25, to 
yap^Ayap k.t.X., the word Hagar.^ 

The substantivised participle with the article Occurs in several 
combinations in which our idiom will not allow the article ; viz. as 
a definite predicate of an indefinite subject, e.g. G. i. 7, rtve's da-iv 
ot rapacrcrovTe? v/u,as* Col. ii. 8, firf ns vjxa.<i ccrrai 6 (ruAaywytav and 
also Jo. V. 32, L. xviii. 9, — or as a definite subject where logically 
an indefinite might have been expected, e.g. Rom. iii. 11, ovk Io-tw 
6 (TvvtQ)v (Jo. V. 45), 2 C xi. 4, el 6 ipxofJievo<; aWov 'Iv/croCv Kr^pva- 
aet. In all these cases, however, the quality is conceived as a 
definite concrete, only the person who really acts as this concrete 
remains undefined. The Tapacro-oi/rts v/xas actually exist, but they 
are not particularised : ^ if he that cometh (the preacher appearing 
among you, who will certainly come, — person and name are of no 
consequence), etc. ; the man of understanding does not exist, etc. 
The following examples are similar : Lucian, Abdic. 3, ^a-dv nva 
ol fiavia^ ap^rjv tovt ttvat vo/jll^ovtc;' Lysias, £on, uiTlstoph. f<, 
ctort Ttvcs ot TrposavaAicTKOVTes" Dio' Chr. 38. 482, rjh-q rtve's cicru' oi 
KOI TovTo SeSotKores-* and the common phrase da-lv ol A.€yocrcs 
(Matth. 268 init., Jelf 817, Ohs. 3); also Xen. An. 2. 4. 5, u >}y,/- 
. o'o/tevo? ovhe\<; ecTTar Thuc. 3. 83, ovk ^v 6 SloXvo-wV Porphyr. 
Abst, 4. 18, ovSeU ecTTLv 6 KoXda-wv Gen. xl. 8, xli. 8, Dt. xxii. 27, 
1 S. xiv. 39 : see Bernh. p. 318 sq. (Jelf 451. 2).^ In A. ii. 47, 6 
Krptos 7rpo<i€TL$eL tows (xuit,opiivov'i ry iKKX-qcria means. He added to 
the church those who became saved (through becoming believers) ; 
He increased the church by the addition of those in the case of 
whom the preaching proved eff"ectual : comp. Kriig. p. 103 sq. 

Between -n-okkoi and ol ttoXXoi, used as a substantive, the usual 
distinction is observed. Oi ttoXXol, which is very rare in tlie 
N. T., means the well-known many (2 C. ii. 17) in marked contrast 

^ We might however say in German das droben, das des morgenden Tags 
{the morrotv's= what will happen on tlie morrow), die des Zebeddus (those who 
belong to Zebedee, e.g. his sons) : .see § 30. S. 

* [" To denotes that ' Hagar' is regarded not as a person, but as an object of 
thongiit or of speech. It need not necessarily mean ' t\\e tvord Hagar;' com- 
pare for instance E. iv. 9, to Ss ay£/3» t/ Io-t/v ; where to is the statement, for the 
preceding word was not av£|S», but avafids." Lightfoot, Gal. p. 193 (ed. 6).] 

^ Compare in Latin sunt qui existhnnnt, as di.^tinguished from sunt qui cxisti- 
ment: see Zumpt § 563. [Don. Lat. Gr. p. 3.")3, Madvig, Lat. Gr. § 365.] 

* [Also Demosth. De Cor. p. 330, ri<rav tivh ol Imirufiovri;' Xen. De l^c Eq. 
9. 2, riKKTr civ opyit./)! ti; i ^jjti x'tyuv k.t.X. (where some omit o) : these examples 
are given by Bernhardv, I.e.] 

* !Herm. Soph. (L\LJi. 107, Doederl. Soph. (Ed. C. p. 296, Dissen, Dlth. Cor. 
p. 238. 



with a unity (Rom. xii. 5, ol -rroWol ev o-w/xd ia-fiev 1 C. x. 17) or 
with a particular individual (Rom. v. 15, 19), or, without such con- 
trast, the rindtitude, the great mass, vulgus (with the exceptiou of a 
few individuals), Mt. xxiv. 12 : compare Schsef. Meht. pp. 3, 65. 

4. A noun defined by ovto^, e'/ceti/o?, as attributives,^ always 
takes the article, as denoting a particular individual singled out 
from a class ; in this respect the Greek idiom differs from our 
own : L. ii. 25 6 avdpa>7ro<i ovto<;, L. xiv. 30 ovTo<i 6 av6pco7ro^, 
Mt. xiii. 44 ^ tov aypov eKeivov, Mt. vii. 22 iv iKeivrj ry rj/xepa, 
Mt. xxiv. 48 o KUKo^ SovXo'i eVet^-o?. In L. vii. 44, too, the 
correct reading is ySXeTret? ravrijv rrjv yvvalKa, though — accord- 
ing to Wolf, Dem. ZejJt. p. 263, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 243, 
Kriig. p. 126 (Jelf 655. 4) — there would be no reason for re- 
jecting rauT7]v 'yvvaiKa, since the womm was present. Kanies 
of persons also with which ovto<; is joined usually take the 
article : see H. vii. 1, A. i. 11, ii. 32, xix. 26 (vii. 40). 

The noun with which Tra? is joined may either have the article 
or not. Haaa 77oXi<? is every city, nracra r) 'rr6\c<i the whole city 
(Mt. viii. 34), compare Rom. iii. 19, iva irdv aropa (f^payfj koL 
vTToSiKO^ 'yeurjrai 7ra? 6 /cocr/u.09 : Trdcrac yeveaC all generations, 
whatever their number, Trdcrat al 'yeveaC (Mt. i. l7) all the 
generations, — those which (either from the context or in some 
other way) are familiar as a definite number. Compare for the 
singular Mt iii. 10, vi. 29. xiii. 47, Jo. ii. 10, L. vii. 29, Mk. v. 
33, Ph. i. 3 ; for the plural, Mt. ii. 4,iv. 24, L. xiii. 27, A. xxii. 
15, G. vi. 6, 2 P. iii. 16 (where there is not much authority for 
the article). This rule is not violated^ in Mt ii. 3, irdcra 'lepo- 
(Tokvfia all Jerusalem, iox Jerusalem is a proper name (see below, 
no. 5); or in A.ii. 36, 7ra<? oIko<; 'lapai^X the whole house of Israel, 
for this too is treated as a proper name (1 S. vii. 2 sq., Neli. 
iv. 16, Judith viii. 6). E. iii. 15, irda-a Trarpid, is obviously 

^ It is otherwise -when these pronouns are predicates, as in Rom. ix. 8, 

TOLura TiKva tov (loZ' L. i. 36, ourii; finv 'Ikto; iiTtiv' Jo. IV. 18, tovto aXr,eii 

tlftiKui- Jo. ii. 11, al. ; compare Fritz. Mutt. p. 663, Schsef. Plut. IV. 377 (Don. 
p. 352). 

2 [Corrected for L. iL 35, xiv. 13, Mt. xiii. 14.] 

^ Such nouns as those specified in § 19. 1 may dispense with the article even 
with ■ras all, -whole, as -riiroc yn ; comp. Pojipo, Thuc. III. ii. p. 224. In the 
N. T. this particular word always has the article, as Mt. xxviL 45, \^\ -rarav 
irn» yvv Rom. x. 18, al. Most of the passages quoted by Thiersch {de Pentai. 
Alex. p. 121) to prove that the LXX omit the article with tui (all) are quite 


every race ; Col. iv. 1 2, eV TravTi OeXrjfiari, rov 6eov, in every 
will of God, in everything that God wills ; 1 P. i. 15,ei/ irdcrr) 
dvaa-Tpo<pfj, in omni vitce modo. Still less can Ja. i. 2 Trdaav 
X^pdv rj'yricraade, E. i. 8 €V Trdar) aocfyia (2 C. xii. 12, A. xxiii. 
1), in the sense of all (full) joy, in all (full) ivisdom, be con- 
sidered exceptions ; the nouns here are abstracts denoting a 
whole, and hence the meaning is the same whether we say 
every wisdom or all wisdom (Kriig. p. 124). In E. ii. 21, how- 
ever, the weight of authority is in favour of iraaa oIkoBo/j,7), 
though, as the subject is the church of Christ as a whole, the 
whole luilding is the correct translation : ^ yet the article is ac- 
tually found in A and C, and it might easily be left out through 

Ila? with the participle — which is not in itself equivalent to a noun 
— deserves special notice. ITas o/jyiCo/ievos means every one heing angr;/ 
(if, or when he is angry, in being angry), comp. 1 C. xi. 4 ; but ttSs 6 
opyi^ofx., Mt. V. 22, is every angry man, =Tras osrt? opyi^crat. Com- 
pare L. vi. 47, xi. 10, Jo. iii. 20, xv. 2, 1 C. ix. 25, 1 Th. i. 7, al. 
(Kriig. p. 103). The same remarks apply to the two readings in L. 
XI. 4, iravTi o^etAovTt, Travrt rw o0. ; see Meyer. ''^ 

TotovTos^ is joined to an anarthrous noun in the sense of any such, 
of such a kind; Mt. ix. 8 l^ovcrCa TOiav-rq, Mk. iv. 33 ToiaDrai Trapa- 
^oXat, A. xvi. 24 TrapayyeAta Toiaurr?, 2 C. iii. 12. But it a particular 
object is pointed out as such or of such a sort, the noun naturally 
takes the article : Mk. ix. 37 cVtwv toiov'twv TratStW (in allusion to the 
TratStov mentioned in ver. 36, which as it were represented the world 
of children), Jo. iv. 23, 2 C. xii. 3 (comp. ver. 2), 2 C. xi. 13 (Schsef. 
Demosth. III. ^36, Schneider, Plat. Civ. II. p. 1). 

"EKao-To?, which is seldom used as an adjective in the N. T., is 
always joined to an anarthrous noun ;* as L. vi. 44 iKaa-rov hivopov, 
Jo. xix. 23 cxao-TO) (TTpaTL<j)-rr], H. iii. 13 Ka6' iKao-Trjv ijp.epav (Bornem. 

^ [See EUicott in he. As however this rendering is altogether opposed to the 
usage of the N. T., it is surely preferable to regard St. Paul as speaking of the 
many o'lKaioftai which together make up the temple : Vaughan quotes Mt. xxiv. 
1, Mk. xiii. 1, 2, as aptly illustrating this meaning of tlic word. On itacism see 
Scrivener, Crli. p. 10.] 

J [On -ris see .lelf 454. 1, Don. p. 354, Green p. 54 sq., Middleton p. 102 sqq. 
nit rarely comes between the art. and the noun, as in A. xx. 18, G. v. 14, 1 
Tim. i. 16 (a^ccs) ; plural A. xix. 7, xxvii. 37: see Green p. 55, Jelf I. c. On the 
meaning of irS? when used with abstracts, see Ellicott on E. i. 8 ; comp. Shilleto, 
Dem. >afe. Leg. pp. 49, 100.] 

^["The article with reioums denotes a known person or thing, or the whole 
class of such, but not an undefined individual out of the class ; as in that case 
raiaurcs is anartluous : see Kiihner on Xenoph. Mem. I. 5. 2, and Kriiger, Sprachl. 
§ 50. 4. 6." Ellicott (on G. v. 21). Compare Buttm. Griech. Gr. p. 337, Jelf 
4.53. A.] 

* Orelli, Isocr. Ardid. p. 255 (9). 


Xen. ^n. p. 69). In Greek authors the article is not uncommon ; see 
Stallb. Plat. Fhileb. p. 93, Hipp. Maj. 164 (Jelf 454. 2, Don. p. 354). 
To avTO TnevfJLa is the same 6pirit ; airo TO TTvevfjia, He Himself (of 
Himself) the Spirit (Krlig. p. 125). For the former, comp. Rom. ix. 
21, Ph. i. 30, L. vi. 38 [Jlec], xxiii. 40, 2 0. iv. 13 ; for the latter, 
Rom. viii. 26, 1 C. xv. 28, 2 C. xi. 14, Jo. xvi. 27. In both cases 
the article is always inserted in the N. T. with appellatives.^ In 
Greek authors it is sometimes omitted ; in the former case chiefly 
in epic poetry (Herm. Opusc. I. 332 sqq.) and later prose (Index to 
Agath. p. 411, Bonn ed.) ; in the latter, in the better prose writers 

5. Proper names, as they already denote definite individuals, 
do not need the article, but they frequently receive it as the 
existing symbol of definiteness. First, in regard to geographical 
names : ^ — 

(a) The names of countries (and rivers) take the article more 
frequently than those of cities : comp. in German die Schweiz, 
die Lausitz, die Lomhardei, das Elsass, das Tyrol, etc. [in 
English, the Tyrol, the Morea]. The article is never or very 
seldom omitted with ^lovhala, ^A')(ata, ^lopZdvrj'^, 'IraXia, Ta- 
'KtX.aia, Mvaia, ^Aaia (A. ii. 9, yet see vi. 9, 1 P. i, 1), Hafidpeia 
(L. xvii. 11), Svpia (A. xxi. 3), Kp^rrj (yet see Tit. i. 5). 
Acyvirro^ never takes the article ;* in regard to ManeSovia the 
usage varies. 

(h) "With names of cities the omission of the article is most 
common when a preposition precedes (Locella, Xeti. Fph.'p'p. 223, 
242), especially tV, ek, or e'/c ; see the Concordance under the 
words AajMacrKO'i, 'lepovaaXrifM, 'lepoaokvp-a, Tdpao^, "E(f)€(ro^, 
'AvTio'^eca, Kairepvaovp.: only Tupo?^ and'Pw/i?; vary strangely. 

(c) Sometimes a geographical name, when it first occurs in 
the narration, is without the article, but takes it on renewed 
mention. Thus we find ecu? 'AOtjvmv in A. xviL 15, on the first 
mention of the city, but in ver. 16 and in xviii. 1 the article is 

' Hence L. xx. 42, xxiv. 15 [where the article is omitted with proper names], 
are not exceptional instances : see Bornem. Schol. p. 158. In Mt. xii. 50 it is 
quite unnecessary (with Fritzsche) to take ecvTis for i avri{. 

^ Kriig. Dion. Id. 454 sq., Bornem. Xen. An. p. 61, Poppo, Ind. ad Cyr. s. v. 

3 [Jelf 450. 2, Don. p. 347, Green p. 29, Middleton p. 82. In the N. T. names 
of rivers always have the article, except perhaps in Rev. xvi. 12.] 

* [Lachmann, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, accept the article in A. vii. 36.] 

* [rCpos never has the article in the N. T. In the 7th edition Winer substi- 
tutes for Tvfos Kaiira.fi:x and Tpudi. ] 


inserted ; et9 Bepoiav A, xvii. 10, but Iv ry B. ver. 13 ; Bia/Saf 
eh MaKehoviav A. xvi. 9, and then t) MaK. six times, the article 
being omitted in xx. 3 only ;^ rfKdojxev eh MlXtjtov A. xx. 15, 
diro T% Ml\. ver. 17. 

'IcpovcroAry/i has the article only four times, G. iv. 25, 26, Rev. iii, 
12 (in which passages it is accompanied by an attributive), and A. v. 
28 (rrjv 1., — contrast with this L. xxiv. 18, A. i. 19, al.). With 'lepo- 
(ToXvfia the article is used by John only, — in v. 2, x. 22, xi. 18 [and 
ii. 23] ; in each instance the word is in an oblique case. 

6. 'the use of the article with names of persons can hardly be 
reduced to any rule ; see Bernh. p. 317, Madv. 13 (Don. p. 347, 
Jelf 450. 1) : a comparison of passages will readily show that 
the practice of the writers in this respect is very irregular.^ 
The rule ^ that a proper name has not the article when first 
introduced, but receives it oti repeated mention, will not go far 
in explaining the actual usage : comp. Matt, xxvii. 24, 58, with 
ver. 62 ; Mk. xv. 1, 14, 15, with ver. 43 ; L. xxiii. 1 sqq. with 
verses 6 and 13 ; Jo. xviii. 2 with ver. 5; A. vi. 5 with ver. 8 sq.; 
viii. 1 with ver. 3 and ix. 8; viii. 5 with verses 6, 12.'* The same 
may be said of the remark of Thilo (Apocr. I. 163 sq.), that 
proper names are usually without the article in the nominative, 
but often take it in oblique casea.^ Hence the authority of the 
best MSS. must in the main decide whether the article shall be 
inserted or not.^ Proper names which are rendered definite by 

^ [Tlie best texts omit the article in A. xvi. 10, 12, xx. 1.] 

^ It is well known that in German the use of the article with names of persons 
is peculiar to certain provinces; Dei- Lehmann, which is the regular form in the 
youth of Germany, would in the North be considered incorrect. 

? Jlerm. Prcrf. ad /ph. Aid. p. 16, Fritz. Matt. p. 797, Weber, Dem. p. 414. 

* A person mentioned for the first time may take the article as being well known 
to the reader, or as being in some other way suflicientlj'^ particularised. [A 
combination of these rules (Middleton p. 80) will perhaps explain most cases. 
We mary at least say (with A. Buttmann, p. 86) that when a writer wishes 
simply to name a person he may omit the article ; but he may use it to imlieate 
notoriety or previous mention, or for tlie sake of perspicuity, e. g. to point out 
tlie case of an indeclinable noun : see further Green p. 29. In the exaui{)le3 
which follow Winer sometimes quotes readings which are now doubtful, but the 
fluctuation is quite sufficient to establish the truth of his remarks. ] 

^ Compare especially the want of uniformity in the use of the article with 
riuvXof and wirpo; in the Acts of the Apostles. n/XaVa; always has the article in 
John [except (probably) in xviii. 31], and almost always in Matthew and Mark ; 
but in the Ai^ts never. Tiro; never takes the article. 

*• That in the superscriptions of letters the names of persons are without the 
article, may be seen from the (iollections of Greek letters, from Diog. L. (e.g., 3. 
22, S. 49, 80, 9. 13), from Plutarch, Apophth. Lac. p. 191, from Lucian, Parasit. 
2, al. Compare 2 Jo. 1. To this rule we should probably refer the superscript 


explanatory appositions-, denoting kindred or office, do not usually 
take the article, since it is only by means of the apposition that 
they are made definite : the practice of Greek authors agrees 
with this (EUendt, Arr. Al. I. 154, — see however Schoem. Tsceus 
p. 417 sq., Diod. S. Fxc. Vat. p. 37). Thus we find ^Id/cco^ov rov 
ahe\(^ov rov Kvpiov Gr. i. 19, louBwi o ^IcrKapicoT7j<i Mt. x. 4, ii. 1, 
3, iv. 21, xiv. 1, Mk. x. 47, xvi. 1, Jo. xviii. 2, 1 Th. iii. 2, Eom. 
xvi. 8 sqq., A. i. 13, xii. 1, xviii. 8, 17: so also Pausan. 2. 1, 1, 
3. 9. 1, 7. 18. 6, ^schin. Tim. 179 c, Diog. L. 4. 32, 7. 10, 13, 
8 58, 63,Demosth. Theocr. 511 c,Apatur. 581 h,Fhorm.605 b, 
al, Cono7i. 728 b, Xen. Cyr. 1. 3. S, 2. 1. 5, Diod. S. Uxc. Vat. 
pp. 20, 22, 39, 41, 42,51, 69,95, al. When however the personal 
name is indeclinable, and its case is not at once made evident, 
by a preposition or by an appositional phrase (as in Mk. xi. 10, 
L. i. 32, Ja iv. 5, A. ii. 29, vii. 14, xiii. 22, Rom. iv. 1, H. iv. 7), 
the insertion of the article was more necessary, for the sake of 
perspicuity: Mt. i. 18, xxii. 42, Mk. xv. 45, L. ii. 16, A. vii. 8, 
Rom. ix. 13, xi. 25, G. iii. 8, H. xi. 17, al. (Hence in Rom. x. 
19 ^ Paul would certainly have written firj rov 'la-'parjX ovk 
eyi^ct) ; had he intended 'Icrpa-qX to be the object of eyvco : comp. 
1 C. X. 18, L. xxiv. 21.) In the genealogical tables of Mt. i. and 
L. iii. this principle is observed throughout, and even extended 
to the declinable names. It should be observed that the MSS. 
frequently vary in regard to the use of the article with proper 

We may remark in passing that the proper name 'Iov8a, where it is 
to be characterised as the name of a territory, never occurs in the 
LXX in the form rj 'louSa, r^s 'I., k.t.X. : we always find either 17 yrj 
'lovSa (IK. xii. 32, 2 K. xxiv. 2), or the inflected form rj 'Iou(5aia 
(2 Chr. xvii. 19), Hence the conjecture of ttJs 'lovBa in Mt. ii. 6 is 
destitute of probability even on philological grounds. 

7. The substantive with the article may as correctly form the 
predicate as the subject of a sentence (though from the nature 
of the case it will more frequently be the subject), since the 
predicate may be conceived as a definite individual. In the 
N. T. the predicate has the article much more frequently than 

tion 1 P. i. 1, u'iTfaf .... ixXncTa~( •Trafi.'Teiinfj.'iii' and also Rev. i. 4. Even 
those predicates which are characteristic of the subject dispense with the article 
in addresses, Diog. L. 7. 7, 8. 

1 Fritzsche in loc. has adduced dissimilar passages ; and for G. vi. 6 he must 
have meant vi. 16. 


is commonly supposed^ (Kriig. p. 106): Mk. vi. 3, ov^ ovr6<i 
icrriv 6 reKTwv, is not this the (well-known) carpenter ? vii. 1 5, 
iK€ivd icTTi TO, KOLvovvra rov avOpwirov, those are the things that 
defile the man ; xii. 7, ovro'i iariv 6 KXrjpovofio^' xiii. 11, ov yap 
iare u/iei? ol XaXovvre'i' Mt. xxvi. 26, 28, rovTo ean ro aco/xd 
fiov, TovTO eaTL TO alfjud fjiov Jo. iv. 42, ovt6<; tariv o acor-qp 
rov Koo-fxov 1 C. X. 4, ?} Se Trerpa yv 6 XpicrT6<i' xi. 3, iravro'; 
dvBpo<i r] Ke(f)a\r} 6 XpLO'TO'i iarf xv. 56, ?; hvvaiJiL<i tj}'? dfjuapTLa^ 
6 vofio^' 2 C. iii. 17,0 Kvpto<; to rrvevfMa eaTiV 1 Jo. iii. 4, rj 
d^aprla iarlv r] dvoixia' Ph. ii. 13, o 6e6<i e<TTiv 6 evepytov 
E. ii. 14, avro<i <ydp iaTiv y etpijvr) rj/jichv. Compare also Mt. 
V. 13, vi. 22, xvi. 16, Mk. viii. 29, ix. 7, xv. 2, Jo. i. 4, 8, 50, iii 
10, iv. 29,2 V. 35^ 39 ,^- ^^^ 50, 51, 63,.ix. 8, 19, 20, x. 7, xi.25, 
xiv. 21, A. iv. 11, vii. 32, viii. 10, ix. 21, xxi. 28, 38, Vh. iii. 3, 
19, E. i. 23, 1 C. xi. 3, 2 C. iii. 2, 1 Jo. iv. 15, v. 6, Jude 19, 
llev. i. 17, iii. 17, iv. 5, xvii. 18, xviii. 23, xix, 10, xx. 14. In 
the following passages the MSS. vary more or less: Eev. v. 6, 8, 
A. iii. 25, 1 Jo. ii. 22, 1 C. xv. 28, Jo. i. 21. In one instance 
two substantives, one of which has the article and the other not, 
are combined in the predicate: Jo. viii. 44, otl ^^evaTrjf; earl koI 
6 TraTTjp avTov {y^ev8ov<;), he is a liar and the father of it. In 
Greek authors also the predicate frequently has the article : 
compare Xen. Mem. 3. 10. 1, Plat. Phcedr. 64 c, Gorg. 483 b, 
Lucian, Dial. 31. 17. 1, and see Schasf. Demosth. III. 280, IV, 
35, Matth. 264. Eem. 

Hence the rule often laid down, that the subject of a sentence may 
be known from its having the article, is incorrect ; as was already 
perceived by Glass and Rambach {Instil. Hermen. p. 44G).^ 

' [These exceptions may be classified and explained without giving up the 
general rule that the article usually distinguishes the subject from the predicate 
^Don. p. 346, Jelf 460). When the predicate receives the article, it is usually in 
reference to a previous mention of the word, or because the proposition is such 
that the subject and predicate are convertible (Middl. p. 54, Don. New C'rat. p. 
522). Compare Green's remarks (p. 35 sq.), which perhaps will explain most 
of the examples : " When the article is inserted after a verb of existence, the real 
predicate of the sentence is a simple identity, the identity of the subject with 
something else, the idea of which is a familiar one. But when the word or 
combination of words following the verb of existence is anarthrous, then the 
circumstances or attributes signified by it form the predicate, instead of a 
mere identity." See Don. p. 348 sq., Ellicott on 1 Th. iv. 3 and 1 Tim. vi. 10. 
1 jinemann refers to Dornseiffen, De articulo apud Grcecos ejusque usu in pnx- 
dicato (Amstel. 1856), as affording a copious collection of examples, without 
any real enlargement of tlie theory. ] 

^ Probably also Jo. iv. 37 ; see Meyer. [The article before iKrthyos is probably 
spurious. ] 

^ Compare also Jen. Lit. Z. ] 834 : No. 207. 


8. In the language of living intercourse it is utterly impos- 
sible that the article should be omitted where it is absolutely 
necessary (compare on the other hand § 19), or inserted where 
it is not required : ' opot can never be the mountain, nor can 
TO 6po<; ever mean a mountain.^ The very many passages of 
the N. T. in which older commentators — professedly following 
the analogy of the Hebrew article (Gesen. Zg. p. 655)^ — sup- 
posed 6, rj, TO, to stand for the indefinite article/ will be easily 
disposed of by the careful reader. 1 Th. iv. 6, TrXeoveKreiv iv tc3 
TTpdjfMiTi, means to overreach in business (in business affairs) : ^ 
Jo. ii. 25, ijivoxxKev rl rjv iv tco ap6pct)7rq), in the man with whom 
he (on each occasion) had to do, — in every man (Kriig. p. 98) ; 
compare Diog. L. 6. 64, tt^oi? tov crvvL<ndvra rov TraiSa Koi 
Xiyovra w? €V(f)ve(7Tar6<i ian . , . etire k.t.X., to him who recom- 
mended the hoy, i.e. to every one who did this. In Jo. iii. 10, 
av el 6 BiBda-KaXof^ tov ^laparjX, Nicodemus is regarded as the 
teacher of Israel Kar i^ox^v, as the man in whom all erudition 
was concentrated, in order that more force may be given to the 
contrast expressed in koI ravra ov yivcoaK6i<;; compare Plat. CHt. 
51a, Kal aij <^?;cret? ravra iroioiv BcKaia rrpdrreiv o rrj dXijOeia 
t^9 dperrj^ €7nfi€\6/j.evo<; (Stallb. Plat. Euth. p. 1 2, Valcken. Eur. 
Fhcen. p. 552, Kriig. p. 101, Jelf 447). In H. v. 11, 6 X0709 
is the (our) discourse, that which we have to say : comp. Plat. 
Phcedr. 270 a. 

On the other hand, there are cases in which the article may 
be either inserted or omitted with equal objective correctness ® 

1 Sturz, in his Lexic. Xenopk. III. 232, even quotes passages from Xenophou 
as containing examples of the use of a for tU. To all this applies what Schsefer 
(ad Plutarch. ) somewhere says : Tanta non fuit vis barbara; linguae, ut Graecae 
ipsa fundamenta conveUere posset. 

2 Kuinoel on Mt. v. 1, Jo. xix. 32, iii. 10. 

* [In his Lehrgeb. I. c. Gesenius thus explained several passages in the O. T. 
(as 1 S. xvii. 34, Gen. xiv. 13, al.), but he afterwards entirely retracted this 
opinion; see his Thesaur. p. 361, Hebr. Gramm. p. 185 (Bagst. ): see also Ewald, 
Aiii^f. Lehrb. p. 686, Kalisch, Hebr. Gr. I. 238 sq.] 

* This frivolous principle is not justified by reference to commentators who 
in particular passages have attributed a, false emphasis to the article (Glass 138 
sqq.), or have pressed it unduly. Bohmer has discovered an extraordinary mode 
of mediating between the old view and the new {Introd. in Up. ad Coloss. p. 

^ [See Ellicott, Alford, and Jowett in loc, who agree in the rendering, "in 
the matter" (of which we are speaking) : see also Green p. 26 sq.] 

" Thus it is easy to explain how one language even regularly employs the 
article in certain cases {auras o av^puTas, rovs iplxav; •jroiuaia.i), in which another 
does not {tlus man, Gotter glauben). Compare Siutenis, Plut. Themist. p. 190 : 


(Fortsch, ad Lys. p. 49 sq.). In Ja. ii. 26, to aoifia x(oph -Jrvev ■ 
fjbUTO'i veKpov means the lody vnthout spirit; %«pt9 tov ttv. would 
be, without the spirit belonging to this particular body. In L. 
xii. 54, <^ood MSS. have orav cSrjre ve<p€Xr]v avaTeWovcrav 0.770 
SvafMMU, whereas the received text has ttjv ve(f>. Both expres- 
sions are correct : with the article the words mean when ye see 
the dovd (which appears in the sky) rising from the west, — wl^en 
the course of the cloud is from the west. In Col. i. 1 6, iv avrm 
eKTia-Or] ra Trdvra, the meaning of ra Trdvra is the (existing) all, 
the totality of creation, the universe: irdvTa would mean all 
things, whatever exists. The article but slightly affects the sense, 
yet the two expressions are differently conceived : comp. Col. 
iii. 8, where the two are combined. In Mt. xxvi. 26 [Bee.'] we 
have Xa^cbv 6 'Irjaov^ rov aprov (which lay before him); but in 
Mk. xiv. 22, L. xxii. 19, 1 C. xi. 23, the best MSS. have dprov, 
Iread, or a loaf. Compare further :Mt. xii. 1 with Mk. ii. 23 and 
L. vi.'l ; Mt. xix. 3 with Mk. x. 2 ; L. ix. 28 with Mk. ix. 2. So 
also in parallel members : L. xviii. 2, rov 6eov fir) (f)ol3ovfievo^ 
KaX dvdpooTTov JjLt] evrpeTTOfxevor xviii. 27, rd d^vvara irapa 
dvOpoiiroi^; Sward eart, irapd tm Oew' xvii. 34, ecrovrai Svo eirX 
Kkivr}^ fiidr €49^ irapa\T)j>6r]a-ejaL Kal 6 eVepo? dcfyeOijaerai (one 
. . . the other; contrast Mt. vi. 24, xxiv. 40 sq.); 1 Jo. iii. 18, firj 
dya-n-Mfjiev Xojtp fi^^e rfj <y\w<jo-r) (according to the best MSS.; 
comp. Soph. CEJd. Col. 786, Xoyco fxev eaOXd, rolai S' epyoLo-iv 
KaKd) ; 2 Tim. i. 10, 1 C. ii. 14, 15, Eom. ii, 29, iii. 27, 30, 
H. ix. 4,xi. 38, Jude 16, 19, Jo. xii. 5, 6, Ja. ii. 17, 20, 26, Eev. 
XX. 1.^ Compare Plat. Bep.l. 332 c and d, Xen. An. 3. 4. 7, 
Galen. Temper. 1. 4, Diog. L. 6. 6, Lucian, Eunuch. 6, Porphyr. 
Abstin. 1.14. (The antithesis iv ovpavco Kal eVl •rrj<; jPj'i is not 
fully established in any passage, see Mt. xxviii. 18, 1 C. viii. 5 f 
in E. iii. 15 the article is omitted in both members, without a^py 

There is however a clear necessity for the respective omission 

. . , ■ . ■- - — t — -■ ■ - 

"Multa, quae nos indefinite cogitata pronuntiamns, definite proferre soliti sunt 
Grseci, ejus, de quo sermo esset, notitiam animo informatam praesunientes." 
Kiihnbl misuses such remarks (ad Matt. p. 123). 

1 This lends support to my exposition of G. iii. 20, to which it has always been 
objected that I have taken tJs for « iTs. [The reading is doubtful in L. xvii.' 34.] 

» See Porson, Eurip. Fhoen. p. 42 (ed. Lips.), Ellendt, Arr. Al. I. 58, Lex. 
Soph. II. 247. ... 

'' [In Mt. xviii. 18, Tisch. (ed. 8) and others read t^J r>is y. and h olp. in con-' 
trasted clauses. In xxviii. 18 the reading fs uncertain.] 


or insertion of the article in L. ix. 13, ovk ela-lv r^fxlv irXctov 17 Trevre 
apToi Kat l)(Ov€'i 8vo* and ver. 16, \a8u)V tovs tt. aprov; /cai tovS 
0. l)(dva^. Also in Rom. v. 7, fj-pXis virip S'.Kaiov Tis airoOave^Tat, virkp 
yap Tov ayadov Ta^o. rts /cat ToX/Aa d-jro^avetv, for a righteous man (one 
who is upright, without reproach), for Me kind man (i.e., for the 
man who has shown himself such to him, — for his benefactor) ; 
Riickert has unquestionably misunderstood the passage. In Col. 
iil 5 we find four nouns in apposition without the article, and then 
a fifth, TrAcovc^m, marked by the article as a notorious immorality, 
especially to be avoided, ^ further characterised by the Apostle in 
the words which follow, — for I cannot regard 17x65 K.t.A. as referring 
to all the preceding nouns. In 2 C. xi. 18 there is no doubt yhat 
Paul designedly wrote (/cav;^a>vTat) Kara, rrjv crdpKa, as differing from 
Kara ardpKa (a kind of adverb), though all recent commentators con- 
sider the two expressions identical in meaning. See also. Jo. xviii. 20, 
Rev. iii. 17 ; also Rom. viii. 23, where a noun which has the article 
stands in apposition to an anarthrous noun, vloOea-iav d7rc*c8e;^o/i,ei'oi, 
Ti}v aTToXvTpwcrtv TOV trwytiaTo?, tvait'mg foT adoption (namely) the 
redemption of the body. 

9. The indefinite article (for which, where it seemed necessary 
to express it, the Greeks used rt?) is in particular instances 
expressed by the (weakened) numeral eU : this usage is found 
mainly in later Greek.^ In the N. T., see Mt. viii. 1 9, 7rpG<ie\0<ov 
eU ypafifiarevf;' Rev. viii, 13, rjKova-a kvo<i derou. In Jo. vL 9 
€v is probably not genuine (comp. Mt. ix. 18); and in Mt. xxi. 19 
fiiav a-vKTJv perhaps signifies one fi^j-tree, standing by itself. ^X<i 
rCiv irape(nr)K6ra>v, Mk. xiv. 47, is like the Latin wmts adstaritium: 
compare Mt. xviii. 28, Mk. xiii. 1, L. xv. 26 (Herod. 7. 5. 10, 
Plutarch, Arat. 5, Cleom. 7, ^^schin. Dial. 2. 2,^ Schoem. Iscem 
p. 249). The numeral retains its proper meaning in Ja. iv. 13 
\^Rec.\ iviavrov eva ; and still more distinctly in 2 C. xi. 2, 
Mt. xviii. 14, Jo. vii. 21. See, in general, Boisson. Eunap. 345. 
Ast, Plat. Legg, 219, Jacobs, AcMll. Tat. p. 398, Schaef. Long. 

^ Weber, Dem. p. 327. Another case, in which, of several connected nouns 
the last only has the article, for the sake of emphasis, is discupscd by Jacobitz, 
Luc. Pise. p. 209 (ed. min.). 

* So also sometimes the Hebrew ^riK. see Gesen, Lg. p. 655, [ZTefe. Lex. s. v., 

Ewald, Ausf. L. p. 693]. The use of ifj in this .sense arises from that love 
of expressiveness which has already been noticed as a peculiarity of later 

^ Ttt Tu* -rxD. might indeed have been used instead (compare L. \'ii. 36, xi. 1, 
al.), a's in Latin STwrum aliquis, etc. Both expressions are logically correct, but 
they are not identical, dnus adstantium, really suggests a numerical unity, — 
one out of several. [Meyer (on Mt. viii. 19) denies that ui is ever used in the 
N. T. in the sense of t',; -. on the other .side see A. Buttm. p. 85.] 



390.^ — An antithesis is probably designed in Mt. xviii. 24, 
ei9 ocpetXeTtjf; fivpicov raXdvTwv. In et9 Tt? also, umis cdiquis 
(Mk. xiv. 51 V. L, and, in a partitive sense, Mk, xiv. 47,^ L. 
xxii. 50, Jo. xi. 49), rk does not destroy the arithmetical force 
of eU.^ 

Rem. 1. In some few instances the use or omission of the article is 
also a mark of the distinctive style of thp writer. Thus Gersdorf has 
fchown {Sprachchar. pp. 39, 272 sqq.,) that the four evangelists almost 
ahrays write 6 Xptcrrds — the expected Messiah, like 6 ipxo/j^evos, — while 
Paul and Peter write Xptoros, when this appellation had become more 
of a proper name. In the Epistles of Paul and Peter, however, those 
cases are to be excepted in which Xpio-ros is dependent on a preceding 
noun [which has the article],* as to tuayyeAioi/ rov Xpurrov, rj v-KOjxovr} 
rov XpicTTov, Tw ai/xart rov Xpi.TTov, for in these Xpio-ros always receives 
the article : see Rom. vii. 4. xv, 19, xvi, 16, 1 C. i. 6, 17, vi. 15, x. . 
16, 2 C. iv. 4, ix. 13, xii. 9, G. i. 7, E. ii. 13, 2 Th. id. 5, al. But 
besides these instances, the article is not unfrequently used by Paul 
with this word, not only after prepositions, but even in the nomina- 
tive, e.g. Rom. XV. 3, 7, 1 C. i. 13, x. 4, xi. 3, al. There is no less 
variation in the Epistle to the Hebrews : see Bleek on H. v. 5. 

Rem. 2. MSS. vary extremely in regard to the article, especially 
where its insertion or omission is a matter of little consequence ; and 
critics must be guided more by the value of the MSS. than by any 
supposed peculiarity of a writer's style. Compare Mt. Xii. 1, o-raxvas • 
Mk. vi. 17, £r (f>vXaKfj (better attested than ev rfj cf>.), vii. 37, oAaAous- 
X. 2, ^api(ra7oL' x. 46. mos* xi. 4, -ttwXov' xii. 33, Ovaiwv xiv. 33. 

' Bretsf'hneider makes an unfortunate attempt to bring under this head 1 Tim. 
ili. 2, 12. Tit. i. 6, /i/as yuvaiKos dvYip- translating, He rmcst be the husband of a 
wife, !.c. he must be married. But, not to mention that 1 Tim. iii. 4 sq. would 
not assign a sufficient reason for an injunction that only married men should be 
admitted to the office of sTifKe'ro;, no careful writer could use ih for the 
indefinite article where his doing so would give rise to any ambiguity, for we 
speak and write that we may be understood by others. It is true that in the 
expression " there came a man " numerical uuity is implied, and homo aliquis 
suirgests to every one hoino unns; but fi'txv yuvalxa. 'ixfi" cannot be used for 
y-jvaTtKo. 'ix^'*, as it is possible for a man to have several wives (at the same time 
or successively), and hence the expression necessarily conveys the notion of 
nuiiiprical unity. Besides, one who wished to say a bishop must be married, 
would hardly say, a bishop must be husband of a wife. 

- [Quoted above without rU, which is omitted by some recent editors.] 

3 Heindorf, Plat. Soph, 42, Ast I. c, and on Plat. Po?j<. 532, Boisson.- Marin. 
p. 15. 

* [I have inserted these words from the 5th edition of the German work ; in 
the. (jth and 7th they are omitted, no doubt by accident. In a single Epistle for 
instance, 2 Corinthians, we find ten examples of toZ Xpia-roiJ after a noun with 
the article, and ;iearly as many of 'Xpurrov after an anarthrous noun. Such 
instances as Kt(paXri roZ Xp. 1 C. xi. 3 (Col. i. 7), or to 'ipyoi Xpirrou Ph. ii. 30 
Laclim. (1 P. i. 11), are very rare. The copious tables given by Rose in his 
edition of Middleton (pp. 486-496) cannot be fully relied on, as in mauy in- 
stances doubtful readings are followed. ] 


'la.K(i)^Qv xiv. 60, €15 ixiaov L. ii. 12, cv cfxirvr)' iv. 9, 6 vto?- iv. 29, 
€ojs 6(^pvo<; rov opovs' vi. 35, vyicrrov Jo. V. 1, Rom, x. 15, xj. 19, 
G. iv. 24, 2 P. iL 8, al. 

Rem. 3. It is sini>ular that commentators (with the exception 
indeed of Bengel), when, contrary to their usual practice, they have 
noticed the article in any passage, have in most instances explained 
it wrongly. Thu£ Kiihnol, after Krause (a very poor authority), sup- 
poses that the use of the article with. cKKXrjcriq. in A. vii. 38 requires us 
to understand this word as meaning certa populi concio. The context 
may indeed render this probable, but in point of mere grammar it is 
just as correct to render rj ckkA, (with Grotius and others) the con- 
gregation, p^-)^"^ bi}p, and this would be as regular an example as any 
other of the use of the article. Nor are Kuhnol's remarks on A. viii. 
26 more than half true. Luke must have written 17 epr)ixo<; (oSos), if 
he had wished to distinguish one particular road, well known to his 
readers, from the other road : if however he meant to say, this (road) 
is (now) desert, unfrequented, lies. waste, the article would be as inad- 
missible in Greek as in our own language. In 2 Th. iii. 14 also (hui 
TT/s eVto-ToA^s) the commentators have noticed the article, and have 
maintained that its presence makes it impossible to join this clause 
■with the following verb a-rjfxeLovaOe. This may perhaps afford an ex- 
planation of the omission of the article in two MSS. But Paul might 
very well say Sia r>}s eVto-roXys- o-rjpiLova-de, if he at that time assumed 
an answer on the part of the Thessalonians : " Note him to me. in 
^Ae letter,"— that which I hope to receive from you, or which you 
have then to send to me. See however Liinemann.i 

Rem. 4. The article properly stands immediately before the noun 
to which it belongs. Those conjunctions however which cannot stand 
first in a sentence are regularly placed between the article and the 
noun : Mt. xi. 30, 6 yap t,vy6^ p.ov iii. 4, -q 8e rpocfyq- Jo. vi. 14, 01 
ovv dvOpoiTTOL, etc. This is a well-known rule, which needs no further 
illustration by examples. See Rost p. 427, and compare Herm. 
Soph. Antig. p. 146. 

Section XIX. 


1. Appellatives which, as denoting definite objects, should 
naturally have the article, are in certain cases used without it, 
not only in the N. T., but also iu the best Greek writers : see 
Schsefer, Ifelet. p. 4. Such an omissioti, however, takes place 

^ (Most commentators connect these words with >.'.yM : see Ellicott and 
iwett. l 



only when it occasions no ambiguity, and does not leave the 
reader in doubt whethiei' lie is to regard the word as definite 
or indefinite. Hence 

(a) The article is omitted before words which denote objects 
of which there is but one in existence, and which therefore are 
nearly equivalent to proper names.^ Thus ^\io^ is almost as 
common as o ^Xto9, and yrj is not unfrequently used for 17 7^, 
in the sense of the earth (Poppo, Thuc. III. iii. 46). Hence 
also abstract nouns denoting virtues, vices, etc.,^ as aperiq, 
(xa^poa-vvTj, xaKia, and the names of the members of the animal 
body/ very often dispense with the article. The same may be 
said of a number of other appellatives — as rroXiq, aa-Tv, aypo'j, 
heiTTvov^ and even irarrjp, firjrrip, aSeX^o?,* — when the context 
leaves no room for doubt as to the particular town, field, etc., 
intended. This omission, however, is more frequent in poetry 
than in prose (Scha^fer, Deinosth. I. 329), and is again more 
common in Greek prose generally than in the N. T.^ 

Of anarthrous abstracts ® in the N. T., 1 Tim. vi. 11, Rom. i. 

' [.Telf 447. 2, Don. p. 348, Green p. 42 sq.] 

2 To which must be added the names of sciences and arts (as i-rrnxv, see 
Jacob on Lucian, Toxar. p. 98), of magistracies and offices of state (Scha-f 
DemoAth. II. 112, Held, Pint. Mm. P. p. 138), of seasons of the year, of corpo- 
rations (Held I. c. p. 238), with many other names (Schoem. Isceus, p. 303, and 
on Plutarch, Cleom. p. 199). See also Kriig. p. 101 sq. As to abstract nouns, 
see Schsef. Demosth. I. 329, Bornem. Xen. Conv. p. 52, Kriig. p. 101. 

» Held, Plut. Jim. P. p. 248. On fix.,;, ikvTv, see Schaf. Plviarch, p. 416, 
Poppo, Thuc. III. i. Ill, Weber, Dem. p. 235.; on oiyfii, Schaef. Soph. (Ed. R. 
630 ; and on Str^vov, Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 490, Bornem. Xen. Cmv. p. 57. 

* Schsef. Melet. p. 4, Demosth. 1. 328, Eur. Hec. p. 121, Plutarch I. c, Stallb. 
Plat. Crit. p 134. 

* Thus in Greek authors we usually find yitu by nation, vX^hi, etc. ; in the 
K. T. always r* yyn, A. iv. 36, xviii. 2, 24 : also r* ^Xii^u, H. xi. 12. In Greek 
authors the omission of the article with the nominative case of the noun is not 
uncommon, e.g. i}x„s l^vtra, Xen. An. 1. 10. 15, Lucian, Scyth. 4: with this 
contrast Mk. i. 32, on 'ilu i JlXiar L. iy. 40, SuvavTof toZ iixiov E. iv. 26, o Hxto? 
(/.h iriiuiru. "XiXrun also and other similar words always have the article in the 
N. T. , when they are in the nominative case. 

" Harless {Ephea. p. 320) maintains that the article is not omitted with 
abstracts unless they denote virtues, vices, etc., as properties of a subject : but 
this aaseition has not been proved, and cannot be proved on rational principles. 
Compare also Kriiger in Jahn's Jahrb. 1838. I. 47. [Middleton (p. 91) saj's that 
the article is usually omitted with an abstract noun, except in the following 
cases : (1) When the noun is used in its most abstract sense (see Ellicott on 
Phil. 9, E. iv. 14); (2) When the attribute, etc., is personified (Rom, vi. 12); 
(3) When the article is employed in the sense of a possessive pronoun (G. v. 
13) ; (4) Where there is reference of any kind (E. ii. 8, comp. ver. 5). Of 
special omissions of the article with these nouns, that with the adverbial dative 
(E. ii. 5) is the mo.st important. See further Green p. 16 sq., Jelf 448, Ellicott 
on G. ii. 5, Ph. ii. 3.] 


29, and Col. iii. 8 will serve as general examples. Passing to 
particular words, we have SiKacoavi^, Mt. v. 10, A. x. 35, Kom. 
viiL 1 0, H. xi. 33, al,; uyaTrr}, (Jr. v. 6, 2 C. ii. 8 ; iriari^, A. vi. 5, 
Rom. i. 5, iii. 28, 2 C. v. 7, 1 Th. v. 8, al. ; KaKta, 1 C. v. 8, Tit. 
iii. 3, Ja. i. 2 1 ; irXeove^ia, 1 Th. ii. 5, 2 P. ii. 3 ; a^aprla, G. 
ii. 17, 1 P. iv. 1, Rom. iii. 9,vi. 14, al.; <ro)T7;/jta, Rom. x. 10, 
2 Tim. iii. 15, H. i. 14, vi. 9. To these should be added a^aOov 
Rom. viii. 28 (comp. Fritz, in loc), 'irovripov 1 Th. v. 22, koXov 
re KoX KaKov H. v, 14. The article is also frequently omitted 
in the N. T. with the concretes r)\io<i, 7^ {Earth), 0€6<i, 7r/309&)- 
TTov, pofio<;, etc., and also with a number of other words, at all 
events when, in combination with prepositions, etc., they form 
certain phrases of very frequent occyirrence.^ We subjoin a 
list of anarthrous concretes in the N. T., following the best 
attested readings. 

^A.105 (Held, Plut. Timol p. 467), e. g. Mt. xiii, 6, rjkiov dmretAavTos 
(Polyaen. 6. 5, Lucian, Fer. Hist. 2. 12, ^lian 4. 1) : especially when 
it is joined in the genitive to another noun, and a single notion is 
expressed by the combination, as avarokr] rjkiov sunrise, Rev. vii. 2, 
xvi. 12 (Her. 4. 8), </>5s rjXtu'' r,unliffht, Rev, xxil 5 v. I. (Plat. Eep, 5. 
473 e), 86ia rjXiov sun-glari/, 1 C. xv. 41 ; or where the sun is men- 
tioned in an enumeration '^ (in connexion with moon and stars), L. 
XXI. 25, Icrrat (rrj/xeia iv rjXio} Koi a-eXqvr) kol a(rTpnL<;., in SUn, moon, and 
stars, A. xxvii. 20 (^sch. jDial. 3. 17,' Plat. Cnd. 397 d). 

y^ (Earth), 2 P. iii. 5, 10, A. xvii. 24 ; i-n^l 7179, L. ii. 14, 1 C. viii. 
5, E. iii. 15, (H. viii. 4) ; dir' oKpov yijs, Mk. xiii. 27.^ In this signi- 
fication, however, yrj usually has the article : when used for country 
it is anarthrous, as a rule, if the name of the country follows : e. g. 
Mt. xi. 24, yrf "^o^ofJMiV A. vii. 29, ev yfi Ma8td/A- vii. 36, ev yrj Aiyvirrov' 
xiii. 19, iv y^ Xai/adv, al. ; but in Mi xiv. 34, cis -njv yrjv T€vvr}(Tap€T.* 
See below, (b). Van Hengel's observations (1 Cor. zv. p. 199) are not 
to the point. 

oupavos (ovpavoi) is seldom anarthrous.' In the Gospels the article 

^ Kluit II. 377, Heindorf, Plat. Gorg. p. 265. 

^[This is an example of irregularity noticed by Bp. Middleton (p. 99),— that 
nouns coupled together by conjunctions very frequently reject the article 
though they would require it if they stood, singly : he refers to this under the 
name of omission " in Enumeration," and gives Mt. vi. 19, x, 28, 1 C. iv. 9, al., 
as examples. See also Kriig. p. 100, Jelf 447. 2. b. Green p. 45.] 

'^ Compare Jacobs, Philostr. Imag. p. 266, Ellendt on Arrian, Al. I. 91, Stallb. 
Plat. Gory. p. 257. 

* [In A. vii. 36 we should probably read iv rri Alyi<rr(u, and in Mt. xiv, 34 
WuTTi* ynv us TiiiMtjirapiT. Lunem. adds Mt. iv. 15.] 

' Compare Jacobs in the Schulzeit. 1831. No. 119, and Schoem. Plut. Agis 
p. 135. 


is omitted only in the jihrases iv oipavw, iv ovpavoi^, ii oipanov, i$ 
ovpavov,^ and in these by no means invariably (comp. Mt. yi. 1, 9, 
xvi. 19, Mk. xii. 25,' L. vi. 23); John also always writes ck rov oipa- 
vov, except in i. 32 [and vi, o8j. By Paul the article is omitted, 
as a rule, in such phrases as avr' ovpavov, i$ ovpavov ;- and in 2 C. 
xii. 2 we find €m<; rpirov ovpavov (Lucian, Philopatr. 12), see below, {h). 
Peter omits the article even with the nominative ovpavoL 2 P^ iii. 
5, 12. In the Apocalypse the article is always inserted.^' 

OdXaa-aa : e. g. A. X. 6, 32, Trapa &d\a<r(raV L. xxi. 25 [Bcc], 
rjxov(Tr)^ OaXda-ar]^ /cat adXov ; comp. Demosth. AnstocT. 450 c, Diod. 
S. 1. 32, Dio Chr. 35. 436, 37. 455, Xen. Epb .5. 10, Arriau, Al. 2. 
1, 2, .3, Held in Ad. Philol. Mmac. II. 182 sqq. In A, vii 36 we 
even find iv ipv6pa OaXdo-a-rj (but in H. xi. 29, rrjv ip. $d\.) As a rule, 
however, OdXaao-a has the article, especially wjien oppo-i'd to ij yf;.* 

fxc(rr)p.f3pLa, in the phrases Kara fxca-rj/x^ptav southwards, A. viii. 26, 
and Trepl ix€(r7]p.(3pLav, xxii. 6 : compare Xen. An. 1. 7. 6, Trpo? fxea-T^fi- 
Ppiav- Plat. Fhcedr. 259 a, eV //ecrT//A/3pta. The article is also omitted 
with the other words which denote the cardinal j>oints, e. g. Rev. xxi 
13, diro dyoToXCiV, dirb jSoppa, aTrb vorov, d-rro SvafiMV ; .similarly frp(i<s 
v6tov Strabo 16. 719, irpos icrrripav Diod. S. 3. 28, 7r/)os apKTov Sti^abo 
15. 71,5, 719, 16. 749, 7r/>o? v6rov Plat. Crit 112 c. (Compare Mt. 
xii. 42, l^aa-iXia-a-a voroi;; here however kotos is a kind of proper name.) 
The same may be said of the words which denote the divisions of the 
day : see L. xxiv. 29, A. xxviii. 23 (Kriig, p. 99). 

dyopd . ^ Mk. vii. 4, Koi d-rr dyopas, idv /ir] fiaTTTLoroyvTai, ovk iaOiovai.^ 
This word is often anarthrous in Greek authors (Her. 7. 223, 3. 104, 
Lys. Agar. 2, Dion. H. IV. 2117. 6, 2230. 2, Theophr. Ch. 19, Plat. 
Gorg. 447 a,. Lucian, adv. Lid. 4, Eunuch. 1), especially in the phrase 
TrX-qOova-q--; dyopd^, Her. 4. 181, Xen. ilfm. 1. 1. 10, ^n. 1. 8. 1, ^lian 
12. 30, Diod. S. 13. 48, al. 

aypos : Mk. XV. 21, ipxo/ievov Att' dypov (L. xxiii. 26), L, XV. 25, ^v 
o vios iv dypuK Here however there is no reference to any particular 
Held (aTTo Tov dypov) ; the expression is general, fr&m the country (as 
opposed to the town, etc.). Similarly, ets aypw Mk. xvi. 12, Jud. ix. 
27, i$ dypoZ Gen. XXX. 16, 1 S. xi. 5, al., Plat. Theivt. 143 a, Legg. 8. 
844 c. 

Oeo-i is frequently anarthrous,'' — most frequently by far in the 

' [Add 1<> these u-r' e-jp. L. xvii. 29, xxi. 11, u«r' ovpativ L. xvii. 24, "ai ;',. 
Mt. xi. 23, L. X. 15, 'lui xxpou nip. Mk. xiii. 27; a.-r axpu* oip. Mt. xxiv. 31.] 

* 'Ek tov avp. (Van Hengel, 1 Cor. xv. p. 199) is not used by Paul, [After t» 
the articl(^ is as frequently inserted as omitted,] 

' [Rec, wrou,i;cly omits the article in vi. 14 : xxi. 1 is of course no exception.] 

* [The two words-have a common article in Rev. xiv. 7.] 

^ Compare Bremi, Lys. p. 9,Sintenis, Plut. PericL p. 80. 

* [Tlii.s and L. vii. 3'j are the only certain examples oi nyopd anarthrous.] 
^Compare Herm. Arist. Nnb. 816, Borneni. Xen. Conv,i p. 142, Jacob on 

Lucian, Tuxar. n. 121. 


Epistles.i In the following cases especially the article is omitted 
witli this word : — 

(1) WliPii the genitive Oeov is dependent on another (anarthrous) 
noun : L. iii. 2, Rom. iii. 5, viii. 9, xv. 7, 8, 32 [Eec.']. 1 C. iii. 16, 
xi. 7, 2 C. i. 12, viii. 5, E. v. 5, 1 Th. ii. 13.2 

(2) In the phrases Oeos ^a-njp, 1 C. i. 3, 2 C. i. 2, G. i. 1, Ph. i. 2, 
ii. 11, 1 P. i. 2 ; vlul or TtKva Oeov, Mt. v. 9, Rom. viii. 14, 16, G. iii. 
26, Ph. ii. 15, 1 Jo. iii. 1, 2 (where these governing nouns also are 
without the article ^). 

(3) With prepositions : as aTro 6eov, Jo. iii. 2, xvi. 30, Rom. xiii. 1 
[Rec], 1 C. i. 30, vi. 19 ; cV 6e<2, Jo. iii. 21, Rom. ii. 17 ; ck 6eov, A. 
y. 39, 2 C. V. 1, Ph. iii. 9 ; Kark 6^6v, Rom. viii. 27 ; Trapa ^ew, 2 Th. 
i. 6, 1 P. ii. 4. Similarly with an adjective in 1 Th. i. 9, df.Q t,uiVTL 
KoX aX-qdivw. — In Jo. i. 1 (^€os rjv 6 Aoyos), the article could not have 
been omitted if John had wislied to designate the Adyos as 6 deos, 
because in such a connexion ^eds without the article would, be 
ambiguous. It is clear, however, both from the distinct antithesis 
Trpos Tov 6e6v, ver. 1, 2, and from the whole description (Churaderi- 
sirung) of the A.dyo5, that John wrote ^cds designedly.* Similarly, 
in 1 P. iv. 19 we find Trtorros ktio-tt;? without the article. 

Trvf.vfj.a ayiov (rarely TTvevfxa $€ov), A. viii. 15, 17, R;om. viii. 9, 14, 
H, vi. 4, 2 P. i. 21,1 C. xii. 3 ; rrvevfUL Ph. ii. 1 ; also eV irvev/xart 
E. ii. 22, vL 18, Col. i. 8 ; iv TrvevfiaTi ayto) Jude 20. (The baptismal 
formula, els to 6vofj.a tov Trarpos k. tov viov k. tov oyLov TrvevfjLUTO';, is 
thus quoted in Acta Barn. p. 74, eh ovo^ta Trarpos k. vlov k. ayiov 


iran^p : H. xii. 7, i;t09 oy ov TratOcijet TcaTrjp' Jo. i. 14, /xovoycvovs 
■n-apa —aTpos ; ** also in the phrase 6e6<; iraT-qp (rjp.wv). With P-tJttjp 

' [That is,^ the article is much more frequently omitted in the Epistles than 
elsewhere in the N. T. : even in the Epistles the instances in which the article 
is used with this word are twice as numerous as those in which it is omitted.] 

^ [E. V. 5 is remarkable on other grounds (toZ x^. xal hoZ), but has no place 
here since the governing noun has the article. In Rom. xv. 7 t«u ^. is the best 
readijig : in 2 C. i. 12 6iau is used both with and without the article after an 
anarthrous noun. In 1 Th. i. 9, 1 P. iv. 19 (quoted below), the renderings a 
living and trne God, a faithful Creator, are clearly to be preferred.] 

^ [So that this case coincides with that first mentioned. ] 

* [" Even u'^iirroi, which, when it is used for God, ought as an adjective to 
have the article, is anarthrous in L. i. 32, 35, 76, vi. 35." (A. Buttm. p. 89.)] 

' [Middleton's canon is, that the article is never omitted when the Person of 
the Holy Spirit is signified, "except indeed in cases where other terms, con- 
fessedly the most definite, lose the article " — i.e., according to his theory, after 
a preposition or an anarthrous noun. Similarly Westcott (on Jo. Wi. 39) : 
".When the term occurs in this form " (i.e., without the article), " it marks an 
operation, or manifestation, or gift of the Spirit, and not the personal Spirit." 
See also Vaughan's note on Rom. v. 5. In favour of Winer's view .see Fritzsche 
and Meyer on Rom. viii. 4, EUicott on G. v, 5, Alford on Mt. i. 18, G. v. 16.] 

' [If St. John's usage be examined, it will appear very doubtful whether we 
have a right to take vaTpis as simply e.quivalent to raZ -raTfU in this passage. 
The true rendering must surely be : " as of an only son from a father." See 
"Westcott in loo. ] 

152 OMISSION OF TH:E article before MOUNS. [part III. 

the article is omitted only in the phrase €k KoiXias /i-Tjf/oos (Mt. 
xix. 12).i 

av-^p {htisband) : 1 Tim. ii. 12, yvvaiKl StSao-xeiv ovk cViTpeTra), 
ovhl av6evT€7v dvSp6<i' K V. 23 ; contrast 1 C, xi. 3. L. xvi. 18, 

ttSs o aTToXviov rrjv yuvaiKa auTov , . . ttus 6 d7r0A.eAvjU.ev 17V airo 
dvSpos yafXMv, does not nece.ssarily come under this head, tliough 
yvvri has the article in the first clause ; for the last words should be 
translated, /i<; who marries a woman dismmed by a man. In A. i. 14, 
however, we might have expected the article before yvvai^l (see De 
Wette 171 he.) ; not so much in A. xxi. 5 ; but compare what is said 

TrposdDTTOv '. L. V. 12, 7r€cru)V CTTi TrposcoTTOv' xvii. IG, 1 C. XIV. 25 ; 
com p. Ecclus. 1. 17, Tob. xii. 16, Heliod. 7. 8, ptTrret iavroy eVl 
TrposwTTOj/- Achill,* Tat. 3. 1, Eustath. Amor. Ismen. 7. p. 286 (He- 
liod. 1. 16) ; Kara 7r/)dsa)7roa', A. XXV. IC, 2 C. X. 7 (Ex. XxviU. 27, 
xxxix. 13, al.). 

Se^ia, apL<7Tf.pa, and similar words, in the phrases Ik Se^iwv, 
Mt. xxvii. 38. xxv. 41,2 j^ xxiii. 33; e^ evwvv/xwv, Mat xx. 21, 
XXV. 33, Mk. X. 37 (Krug. p. 100). 

eKKKrjaia. : 3 Jo. 6, dl ipaprvprj<rAv o"ou rfj ayaTrrj evwTriov e/CKAr/trias' 
1 C. xiv. 4 (iv e'lc/cAgcria, 1 C. xiv. 19, 35 ?). 

6dvaTo<;: Mt. xxvi. 38, €W9 Oavdrov (Ecclus. xxxvii. 2, 11. C) ; 
Ph. ii. 8. 30, fjL^xpi Oavdrov (Plat. Re,p. 2. 361 c, Athen. 1. 170); 
Ja. V. 20, Ik Oavdrov (Job v. 20, Pr. x. 2, PJat. Garff. 511 c) ; L. 
ii. 26, fii] iSeiv Odvarov ; liom. vii. 1 3, Karepya^op,ivT] Odvarov ; 
Rom. i. 32, a^toi Oavdrov; 2 C. iv. 11, ets Odvarov irapaBi^ofifOa, 
etc.: comp. Himer. 21, furd Odvarov Dion. H. IV. 2112, 2242, 
and also Grimm on JFisdom, p. 26. 

6vpa, in the plural, kiri Ovpais ad Jore.% Mt. xxiv. 33, Mk. xiii, 
29 ; compare Plutarch, Themist. 29, Athen. 10. 441, Aristid. Orat. 
II. 43 : but in the singular iirl rfj Ovpa A', v. 9.^ See Sintenis, Plut. 
Them. p. 181. 

vofxoi, of the Mosaic law .• Eom. ii. 12, 23, iii, 31, iv. 13, 14, 
15, V. 13, 20, vii. 1, x. 4, xiii. 8, 1 C. ix. 20, G. ii. 21, iii. 11, 
18, 21, iv. 5, Ph. iii. 6, H. vii. 12, al. The genitive is always 
anarthrous when the governing noun has no article, as in epya v6- 
fiov, etc. In the Gospels this word always has the article, except 
in L. ii. 23, 24 IBec], where however a defining genitive follows. 
As to the Apocrypha see Wahl, Clav. p. 343. Compare furthi-r 
Bomem. Ada p. 201.^ 

1 [See Mt. xix. 29 (xv. 4), Luke xii. 53, al.] 

* Tliis should be xxv. 34 : xxv. 41 is an example of eS liiiuvvfiuf. ] 

^ The article should probably be omitted with the siiigular in Mk. xi. 4.] 

* [There is still difference of opinion on the proper interpretation of voftcs 
without the article. De Wette, Fritzsche, Meyer, Alford (see their notes on 
Rom. ii. 12), EUicott (on G. ii. Id, al.), Jowett (on Rom. i. 2), and others agree 
with Wiuer. On the other side (i.e. against tlit- vieAv that *«/*«< without the 


pf//xa, of the wwd of God: followed by 6iov, Rom. x. 17 [Rec], E. 
vi. 17, H. vi. 5; without 6eov,K v. 2G. 

vtKpoL (the dead) is always anarthrous (except in E. v. 14) in 
the phrases iyeipeLv, iy€Lpea6ai, avcurTrjvai Ik "CKpoiv, Mt. xvil. 9, 
Mk. vl U, 16 [Uec.\ ix. 9, 10, xii 25, L. ix. 7, xvi. 31, xxiv. 46, 
Jo. ii. 22, xii. 1, 9, 17, xx. 9, xxi. 14, A. iiL 15, iv. 2, x. 41, 
xiii. 30, xxvi. 23, Rom. iv. 24, 1 C. xv. 20, al. ; so also in avd- 
o-Too-i? v€»cpa>v (both wor<ls without the article), A. xvii. 32, xxiv. 

21, Rom. i. 4, 1 C. XV. 12, 13, 21, 42,i al. : in Col. ii.- 12 and 
1 Th. i. 10 only is a variant noted.^ On the other hand, we almost 
always find eyctpeo-^ai, dvatrr^vai aTro tQsv v€Kp!l>v, Mt. xiv. 2, XXvii. 
64, xxviii. 7. Elsewhere vacpoC denotes dead ■persons (L. vii. 22, 
1 C. XV. 15, 29, 32, also 1 P. iv. 6, al.), but ol veKpoi the dead, 
as a definitely conceived whole (Jo. v. 21, 1 C. xv. 52, 2 C. i. 9, 
CoL i. 18).^ Greek authors, too, regularly omit the article with 
this word.^ 

/icVov, in the phrases (la-njo-tv) iv picric Jo. viii. 3 (Schoem. Plut. 
Agis p. 126), ci? pi.i<rov Mk. xiv. 60 (but eis to p.iarov Jo. xx. 19, 26, 
L. iv. 35, vi. 8), Ik pea-ov 2 Th. ii. 7 : the omission of the article 
i« still more common when a defining genitive follows, as Mk. vi. 47, 
iv p-iaio rrj<i 6aXd(T(rrj^' L. viii. 7, cv p-iat^ rOiv aKavOwV A. XXVll. 
27, Kara peaov riys vvktos (Theophr. Ch. 26). See Wahl, Clav. 
Apocr. p. 326. 

Ko'o/Aos is always anarthrous in the phrases aTro KaTa/3o\rj<; Koap-ov 

L, xi. 50, H. iv. 3, trpo Kara/S. koV. J. Xvii. 24, 1 P. i. 20, aTro 

KTiareuK Kocr. Rom. i. 20, air apxr)<: Koa: Mt. xxiv. 21 : in the Epistles 
we find also cV koV/aw, Rom. v. 13, 1 C. viiL 4, xiv. 10, Ph. ii. 
15, 1 Tim. iii. 16, 1 P. v. 9 [Rec.]. The nominative is but seldom 
found without the article, as in G. vi. 14 ipuol K6a-p.o<: ccrravpcorai : 
in Rom. iv. 13 the reading of the .best MSS. is Kk-qpovop-ov dvai 

KTLo-L^, creation (i. e. what has been created, the world), in the 
phrase cltt' apxn<; kVutccos, Mk. x. 6, xiii. 19, 2 P. iii. 4. But there 
is always a distinction in meaning between 7ra<ra ktio-is 1 P. ii. 1 3, 
CoL i. 15 (see Meyer), and TrScra rj ktlo-is Mk, xvi 15, Rom. viii. 

22, Col. i. 23 [Rec.y 

article is used for the Mosaic law), see Middleton p. 303 sq., Lightfoot on G. ii. 
19, iv. 5, Ph. iii 5, Hev. of N. T. p. 99, Vaughan on Rom. ii. 13; and Dr. 
Gitford's full discussion in Speaker's Coram. Vol. 111. pp. 41-48.] 

* [In ver. 42 both words have the article: J 

'^ ['e* tuv v. is a variant in sonae other passages, but is strongly supported in 
1 Th. i. 10, and well in CoL ii. 12.] 

3 The distinction made by Van Hengel {on \ Cor. xv. p. 135) between vtKfoi 
and 01 V. has no foundation either in principle or in usage. 

* ["This remark needs considerable limitation : e.g., in Thucydides the article 
is much more frequently inserted than omitted.'' A. Buttm. p. 89.] 

* [See EUicott and Lightfoot on Col. i. 15.] 


fclpa : as i Jo. ii. IS, ca-xa-Trj wpa iaTL ; especially with numerals, 
as ^v ojf)a Tfuri] Mk. XV. 25, Jo. xix. 14, vrcpt TpiTi]v u)pav Mt. XX, 
3, A. X. 9, £o>? (Spa? ivvaTr/s Mk. XV. 33, ciTro €kt7]^ wpas Mt. xxvii. 
45, etc. ; compare Diod. S. 4. 15, Held, Plut. ^m. P. p. 229. 
(So also in a different sense, wpa x^/^ep^os .^lian 7. 13, w/aa 
Xovrpov Polysen. 6. 7.) The article is however omitted with other 
words when they have an ordinal numeral joined with them ; as 
TTpdiTTi (jivXaK-q Heliod. 1. 6, Polysen. 2. 35 (com-p. Ellendt, Arr. Al. I- 
152), and otto Trpuyrrj^ rjfj.ipa'i Ph. i. 5 [it^t'.J. 

Katpos : in the phrases Trpo Kaipov hefwe the time, Mt. viii. 29, 
1 C. iv. 5, Kara Kaipov Eom. V. 6 (Lucian, Philops. 21), and cV 
KaipQ L. XX. 101 (Xen. Cyr. 8. 5. 5, Polyb. 2. 45, 9. 12, al.); 
also eV KaipQ icrxo-rtji 1 P. i. 5, like Iv i.dxa.Tai'i rj/xepuLS 2 Tim. iii. 1, 
Ja. V. 3. 

dpxrj : - especially in the common phrases oltt a/ax?}? Mt. xix. 8, 
A. xxvi. 4, 2 Th. ii. 13, 1 Jo. i. I, ii. 7, ah (Her. 2. 113, Xen. Cyr 
5. 4. 12, .^lidn 2. 4), H dpxvs Jo. vi. 64, xvi. 4 (Theophr. Ch. 28, 
Lucian, Dial. Mart. 19. 2, Merc. Cond, I), and Iv dpxa Jo. i. 2, A. 
xi. 15 (Plat. Fhcedr. 245 d, Lucian, Gall. 7). The same is of regular 
occurrence in the LXX. 

KvpLo<; — which in the Gospels is commonly used for God (the Lord 
of the 0. T."^), but which in the Epistles (especially those of Paul) 
most frequently denotes Christ, tliu Lard (Ph. ii. 11, comp. 1 C. 
XV. 24 sqq.f Krehl, N. T. Warterb. p. 360), in accordance with 
the progress of Christian phraseology — is, like Oeos, often used 
without the article. This is the case particularly where Kvpio-s is 
governed by a preposition (especially in frequently recurring phrases, 
such as iv KvpLo)), or when it is in the genitive case (1 C. vii. 22, 
25, X. 21, xvi. 10, 2 C. iii. 18, xii, 1), or when it precedes 'Irja-ov's 
Xpio-Tos, as in Rom. i. 7, 1 C. i. 3, G. i. 3, E. vi. 23, Ph. ii. 11,* 
iii. 20 : the word had already become almost a proper name. It has 
been erroneously maintained ^ that the meaning of Kuptos depends 
on the insertion or omission of the article : it was to Christ, the 
Lord, whom all knew as Lord, and who so often received this ap- 
pellation, that the Apostles could most easily give the name Kvptos, 
just as (9€os is nowhere more frequently anarthrous than in the 
Bible.6 Still the use of the article with Ku'ptos is more common 
than its omission^ even in Paul. 

Sid/SoAos {the devil) usually has the article : 1 P. v. 8, 

o ai'Ti- 

' [The best reading is Kaipx, without U. ] 

* Schor;f. Demosth. III. 240. 

'■ Compare Thilo, Apocr. I. 169. 

* [Ph. ii. 11 has no place in this list : xipio; is the predicate.] 

* By Gabler in his JVeuest. Theol. Jouni. IV. pp. 11-24. 

'^ Compare my Profjr. de sensu vocum kCoio; et o xupia; in Actis ef Episl. 
Apostolor. (Erlang. 1828). 


SiKos vfiCyv Sta/SoAos (where this word is in apposition), and A. xiii. 
10, Die Sia^oAou/ are the only exceptions. ^ 

Tiiat in titles and superscriptions' appellatives (especially when in 
the nominative case) dispense iivith the article, may be easily ex- 
plained : compare Mt. L 1, f3ift\n<i yevecrew; 'lr)(rov XpKTTo'' Mk. i. 1, 
^PXV '''^^ evayycXiov' Rev. i. 1, dvoKakvif/iq Irjcrov Xptcrrov. 

2. (b) The aiticle i.s often omitted with a noun that is fol- 
lowed by a genitive which indicates the singly existing object as 
belonging^ to this individual* Thus'^ Mt. xvii. 6, eireaov eVt 
nrpo'ioi'jTov avTcov comp. xxvi. 39 (Is. xlix. 23, eVt 7rp6<i(07roi> 
tt}? 7%; contrast Mt. xxvi. G7, et? to rrp6<;Q)TT0v avrov' Rev 
vii. 11), "L. i. 51, iv ^pa')(^iovt avrov' Rom. i. 1, et? evayyeXiov 
0€ov (where Riickert still raises needless difficulties), E. i, 20, 
iv Se^ia avrov fH. i, 3, Mt. xx. 21), L. xix. 42, eKpv/Br} otto 
O(f)0a\fj,a)p aov 1 C. ii. 16, rt? yap eyvw vovv Kvplov /' 1 P. iii. 

[Compare Rev. xii. 9, o xixXnufitirot iix(iiX<i( >ca) i ffarava.; ' a.nd xx. 2, 5'$ l/rn 
'iiix/ioXoi xai (raTnixt (the most probable reading). 'S.a.Tot.-.as always has the 
article, except in Mk. iii. 23, L. xxii. -3.] 

■-* "Kyy'.Xof does not belong to this cla.ss of word.s. When it is used without 
the article, the singular always signifies an angel (one of the 7i«iny\ and the 
plural ayytXii, angels, e.g. in 1 Tim. iii. 16, G. iii. 19, al. : on the other hand, ol 
iyyiysi denotes the angels, as an order of beings. Hence 1 C- vi. 3, JV/ iyyikoui 
Kfifoufitv, must be rendered, that we shall judge angels, — not the angelsi the 
whole community of angels, but all angels for whom the xpins is reserved. On 
v'lohirix Horn. viii. 23, see Fritz, against Riickert. That, the word in apposition 
sometimes has the article, when the principal noun is anarthrous, has beei- 
remarked by Gee! (Dio Chr. Ohjmp. p. 70). 

' Thus in Jo. v. 1, lepTh tuv 'UvIxiui could not be rendered the feast of the 
Jeim (the Passover) : there is however much authority for the article, and Tisch. 
has received it into the text. [Tisch. received h in his 2d edition, and again in 
ed. 8. By most editors (and by Tisch. in ed. 7) the article is rejected : see Alf. 
in he, Ellicott, Hist. L. p. 136.] 

* Schaef. Soph. dkl. C. 1468, Bomem. Xen. Cyr. p. 219, Schoem. Isceus p. 
421, and Plut. Ayia^. 105, Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 277, Herm. Luc. Conscr. 
Hist. p. 290. — In Hebrew, as is well known, the governing noun has no article 
in this construction. On this Hengstenberg (Christol. II. 565) founded a new 
discover}^ which Liicke (on Jo. v. 1) has estimated as it deserves. [In his 2d 
edition Hengst. omitted the observations to which Winer here refers.] 

® [Take Ja. i. 26, Kapilay sayou, as an example. Kaplia, denotes an object 
Avhich exists .singly in the case of any particular individual : the genitive Ittvrav 
})oint.3 out this individual ; hence xa^'ia ixureu is (Wine- maintains) as defi- 
nite as a proper name, and may therefore dispense with the article.] 

® [The above rule is more questionable than any other given by Winer ; 
certainly none of his rules differ so widely as this from those which apply to 
classical Greek. In some of the examples which he quotes from the N. T. (as 
L. xix. 13, 1 Th. V. 8, al.) most will admit that the governing noun is really 
indefinite in meaning. If we analyse the remainder (to which LUnemann adds 
Mt. xvi. 18, TJia; a'Soi/) We shall find that they are represeutfd by the following 

t\'pes : (1) uTi "Trposa-rou rnu xvpiiv (2 Th. i. 9); (2) if-Tiv a.'Ta.p^r, tt^s ' Ay^alxf 

(1 0. xvi. 15) ; {i) voZ, xvfnu (1 V. ii. 16) ; (4) xxfVixi XauroZ (Ja. i. 26). The 


12, 20, Ja. i. 26, Mk. viii. 3, xiii. 27, Eom. i. 20, ii. 5, L. i. 5, ii. 
4, 11,- xiii. 19, xix. 13, H. xii. 2, 1 C. x. 21, xii. 27, xvL 15, Ph. 
ii. 16, iv. 3, E. i. 4, 6, 12, iv. 30, 1 Th. v. 8, 2 Th. i. 9, 2 Th. ii. 
2,^ 2 P. ii. 6, iii. 10, Jiide 6 (A. viii. 5), al. This is a very com- 
mon usage in the LXX: 1 S. i. 3, 7, iv. 6, v. 2, Ex. iii. 11, ix. 
22, xvii. 1, Cant. v. 1, viii. 2, Judith ii. 7, 14> iii 3, 9, iv^. 11, v. 
8, vi. 20, 1 Mace. ii. 50, v. 66, 3 (1) Esdr. i. 26. But in 1 C. iv. 
1 4, (U9 TeKva ixov ayaTrtjTa, the article was necessarily omitted, 
since the Corinthians were not the only beloved children of Paul : 
in L. XV. 29, ovf^iirore ivroXrjv aov iraprfkOov, the meaning is a 
Command of thine ; and A. i. 8, XijyfreaOe Bvva/juip i7rek66vTO<; rov 
dyiov 7rv€VfjLaT0<;. must be rendered, Ye shall receive power when 
the Holy Ghost shall have come down? 

The article is also sometimes omitted when a noun is defined 
bya numeral: A. xii. 10,Ste\^oi'Te<? 7rpd)TT}V(f>vXaKr}v kuX Zevrkpav 
Mk. XV. 25, TjV &pa rpiTr} koX earavpoxrav avrov ?cv. 33, ea)? 
wpa<i evvdrrj^' L. iii. 1, ev eret TrevreKaiZeKdroa Trj<i ri'y€p,ovla<i 
K.T.X., 2 C. xii. 2, E. vi. 2 (Ph. i. 5 v.l.). From Greek authors 
compare Lysias 7. 10, rp^rcp eret' Plat. Min. 319 c, Hipp. Maj. 
286 b, Antiph. 6. 42, Andoc. '4. 17, Diog. L. 7. 135, 138, 
141 sqq. (contrast 7. 150, 151, 153). See above 1. (a), under 

first of these seems merely an extension of a common usage berond its ordinary 
limits. The article is' naturally omitted in an adverbial phrase, such as -Tfo 
tiftiuiro'v : the peculiarity in these examples is, as A. Buttmann well remarks 
(p. 90), that the article is not inserted when a defining genitive limits the 
general phrase to a particular case. This extension was the more natural as 
the phrase is often a literal translation of a Hebrew combination which almost 
plays the part of an ordinary preposition. As to (2), where the article is omitted 
afjer lari (Madvig 10. Rem. 2), see above, page 142. In such examples as (3) 
we may often trace the influence of the principle of ' ' correlation " (see. below, 
§ 20. 4, note). In (4), however, we must recognise a peculiarity of the N. T. 
language — the occasional omission of the article with nouns definite in sense 
when they are accompanied by the genitive of a personal pronoun {see A. Buttm. 
p. 119). Madvig's rule {loc. ciL), "The governing noun is sometimes anarthrous 
when the writer wishes to express a notion that in itself is definite, in a general 
manner," will not apply to many of these examples; and it may perhaps be 
doubted whether the examples he gives (e. g. pTa -rXriiovs ruv tiiy, Thuc. 8. 105) 
and most of those quoted by Winfr from classical Greek are not best explained 
by reference to the nature and meaning of the particular words (as -rXiihs, 
fiiyiSoi) by which the genitive is governed : comp. Kriiger p. 100.] 

' [This passage has no place here : in his 4th and 5th editions "Winer has 
"2 Th. ii. 2, £» iiii'ipct rov XpiTTou." These words however are not found in 
this verse (» fifiipa toZ xvpiov), nor. does the article appear to bo ever omitted 
wifh Tin'iptt in this and similar plirases, unless the following word {XjurTov,. 
xvpiav) is also anarthrous.] 

■•* Gersdorf (p. 316 sqq-) has not properly distinguished the cases. In L. 
xxiii. 46, tti x*'P"'f "■*" "^apoe.riftfi.ai to thu/^.o. fnov, the article is both inserted 
and omitted in the same clause : similady in other passages. 


wpa} — This usage enables us to justify Mt. xii. 24, eV Tt3 
BeeX^e^ovX, ap'^ovTi twv Saifiovlayv (the reading of all the 
MSS.) : Fritzsche, who usually finds a diflficidty in such 
omissions of the article, substitutes iv B. ru> ap^. r. h., with- 
out any support from the MSS. {MaM. p. 774).''' 

In Greek authors such an omission of the article is by no means 
rare, especially if the noun is preceded by a preposition : compare 
Xen Cyr. 6. 1. 13, Trcpi KaToAuoreajs. t^s (TTpaTiav Apol. Socr. 30, 
ev KaToXxxrei tov ^iov Mem. 1. 5. 2, cVi tcAcwtt] tov (3tov 4. 3. 16, 
Plat. Phcedr. 237. c. Lys. Agorat. 2, €7rt KaroAwet toG S17/U.0W 
TOV v//,eT£/JOD- and farther on, Trarpt'^a (r^erepav avruiv /caraAtTrovTCS' 
Lucian, Scyth. 4, yStov airwi'- Dio. Cbr. 38. 471, vTrcp ycveo-cw? 
avTrj<i' Strabo 15. 719, vtto fiyKOv; twv oSaiv (17. 808), Thuc. 2. 
38, 8ia /xeyc^os t^s TroAew?- 7. 72. In German also the article 
is commonly omitted in such cases, if a preposition precedes : e.g. 
iiber Auflbsung des lidihsels, Starke des Kdrpers, etc. In Greek 
authors, however, the genitive also frequently loses the article, or 
the genitive with the article precedes the governing noun, as twv 
XwpiW xo^eTTOTT^s : see Xen. Cyr. S. 6. 16, Mem, 1. 4. 12, Thuc. 1.1, 
6. 34, 8. 68.3 

3. (c) When the conjunction kui' joins together two or more 
nouns ^ (denoting different o-bjects *) which agree in case and 
number but differ in gender, the article is, as a rule, repeated 
with each substantive. This rule holds good not merely when 
the nouns denote persons (as in A. xiii, 50, rcfi cre^ofievwi 
ryvvaiKWi . . . Kal TOW 7rpG)T0U9T% TToXeft)?' L. xiv. 26, E. vi. 2, 
A. xxvi. 30), but also when they signify objects without life ; as 
Col. iv. 1, TO BiKaiov Ka\ ttjv laoTTjTa rolf Bov\oi<; irape'^eaOe' 
Kom. viii. 2, utto tov vofiov r^? a/xapTia<i Kal tov OavaTov' Mt. 
xxii. 4, L. X. 21, Rom. xvi. 17, Ph. iv. 7, 1 C. ii. 4, E. ii. 1, Rev. 

' [Krtig. p. 100, Middleton p. 100, Green p. 42, Ellicott on E. vi. 2, Shilleto, 
Dem. F. L. p. 38. The article is sometime.s omitted with superlative expres- 
sions, as in 1 P. i. 5 (Kriig. p. 92, Middleton p. 101).] 

- [Meyer renders, " by Beelzebul, as ruler over the devils."] 

^ Compare Kriig. Dion. H. p. 168. Jacobs,- Athen. p. 18 sq., Poppo, Thuc, 
III. i. 130. 

* Beuseler (Isoer. Areop. p. 290 sqq.) has collected much from Isocrates on 
the repetition and non-repetition of the article with nouns (substantive.s, adjec- 
tives, participle.s, — also infinitives) which are thus connected by conjunctions, 
but does not succeed in presenting the subject very clearly. Compare also 
Tholuck, Literar. Anzeig. 1837. No. 5. [Middleton pp. 56-70, Green pp. 
67-75, A. Buttmann p. 97 sqq., Webster, Gr. p. 36, Jelf 459. 9.] 

^ For if the connected nouns are, for instance, only predicates of one and the 
same person, as in Col. iii. 17 [Rec.\ tIj hu xni ■z'arp'r 2 P. i. 11, tov xvpUu 
iifiuv «ai irury.fos 'l. X/j., E. vi. 21, Mk. vi. 3, A. iii. 14, the article cannot be 
repeated. [So even with uxxd, 2 Th. ii. 12 (A. Buttm. p. 99) ; and with oi 
L. xii. 48.] . 


i. 2, xiv. 7, H. in. 6. Compare Xen. Cyr. 2. 2. 9, crvv rS OaypaKi 
K. rfj KOirihi- Plut, Virt. Mul. p. 210, hih, rov avtpa k. ttjv ape- 
T?7i/' Dion. H. IV, 2245, 4, eVt rov tokov kuI rrj^ \o'^eia<i' 2117 
17, ra'i -ylrvxa^i Kat ra o-rrXa' 2089. 14, Diod, S. 1. 50, 51, 86. 
Philostr. Her. 3. 2, Diog. L. 3. 18, 5. 51, Herod. 2. 10. 15 
Strabo 3. 163, 15, 712, Plut. And. FoU. 9. init., Thani^it. 8 
Isocr. Areop. p. 334, Plat. Charon, p. 160 b, Sext. Era p. ado 
Math. 2. 58. 

In these combinations the repetition of the article appe;ired 
grammatically necessary, but at the same time the nouns joined 
for the most part express notions which must be apprehended 
separately ; see below, no. 4. When however the notions are not 
to be sharply distinguished, or when there is joined to the first 
noun an adjective which belongs to the second also, the article 
is not repeated (although the nouns differ in gender), the single 
article belonging to all the nouns in common: Col, ii. 22, ra 
ivTaKfiara Kal SiSacrKoXia'i riav avOpdiTToov' L. xiv. 23, e^eXOe 
et's- Ta9 oSoii'i Kal ^payfiou<;' i. 6, iv 7racrat9 ra2<i ivroXal^ Kal 
BLKaico/u.aai rov Kvpiov Mk. xii. 3 3, Eev. v. 1 2, Similar examples 
are furnished in much greater numbers by Greek authors — 
both poets (Herm. Eur Hec. p. 76) and prose-writers — with- 
out anxious regard to the meaning of the words ; e.g. Plat, 
Rep. 9, 586 d, ry e7n(}-ri)fjirj Kal Xoyo)' Ltgg. 6, 784, 6 rraxppovcov 
Kal ato^povovcra 6, 510 c, Apol. 18 a, Crat. 405 d, Aristot. 
AnaL Post. 1. 26, Thuc, 1. 54, Lycurg. 30, Lucian, Parasit. 13; 
Herod. 8. 6. 11, M\. Anim. 5. 26.^ When the nouns are 
separated by rf, the article is invariably repeated: Mt. xv. 5, 
Tft> irarpl rj rfj firjrpr Mk, iv. 21, vrro rov fiohiov ?) viro rr)v 
kXlvtjv Eev. xiii. 17, 

When the connected nouns do not agree in number, the repetition 
of the article was natural, and in point of grammar is almost indis- 
pensable : as Col. ii. 13, ev rots 7ra^a7rTto/ia(ri Kal ttJ aKpofSva-Tia.' 
E. ii. 3, Ta OeXyj/jiara Trj<; crapKOS Kal twv SiavoiQyv 1 Tim. V, 23, Tit. 
ii. 12, A. XV. 4, 20,2 xxviii. 17,, Mt. v. 17, Rev. ii. 19. Com- 
pare Plat. Crito 47 C, rrjv So^av Kal TOU9 eVatvovs* Dion. H. IV. 
2238. 1 , vv6 TTj^ TrapOevov Kal rwv trepl airrjv yvvaiKCJv ; on tlie 
other hand, Xen. An. 2. 1. 7, tTno-TTq/JUuv twV irepl ra? rafeis Ti 
Kal OTrAoyu.a^iav Agath, 14, 12, ras Sijva/xcts Kal iroXefJiov. — 1 C. iv. 9, 

~ -^ ■— — ■ ■■ ■ ' ' ■■■■ -— I ■ y . -.-..■■■ — ._■■ - I ■■ — — —■-—.. - ■■ ■ ■ , 

1 Compare also Kriig. Dion. p. 140, and Xen. Anab. p. 92, Bornem. Cyr. 
p. 668. 

- fTho article before "t^.ktoZ should probably be omitted.] 


Oiarpov iyev-^Orjfxev t(3 Kooryttu) kol dyyeAois kul avOpwTroi?, does not 
come under this head : the two anarthrous nouns specialise t<3 
Koa-fnp, the world, as well angels as men. 

4. (d) If the nouns connected by kul agree in gender, tlie 
article is not repeated, 

(1) If the nouns are regarded only as parts of one whole, or 
members of one community :^ Mk. xv. 1, crv/x^ov\iov iroirjaavre'} 
oi ap^cepeU [lera raw Trpecr^vrepav Kol ypa/x/jLarewv (where the 
elders and scribes, as distinguished from the chief priests, are 
indicated as a single class of individuals), L. xiv. 3, 21, Col. ii. 8, 
19,=* E. ii. 20, V. 5, Ph. i. 7, ii. 17, A. xxiii. 7, 2 P. i. 10 ; Xen. 
An. 2. 2. 5, 3. 1. 29, Plat. Phil. 28 e, Dion. H. IV. 2235. 5, 
Plut. Aiod. Poet. 1. in., 12. in. 

(2) When a genitive or some other attributive belonging to 
both nouns is inserted between the first nonn and its article : 
1 Th. ii. 12, €t9 rr]v eavrov ^aaiXelav kol ho^av iii. 7, tifl 
Trdcrrj ttj OXls^ei koI dvciyKr) rjfiwv Rom. i. 20, 77, re diBio<> avrov 
Svva/xi,<i K. 0€i6Tr)<i' Ph. i. 25, E. iii. 5. Compare Dion. H. IV 
2246. 9, ra? avTMv yvvalKa<; kol dvyaT€pa<i' 2089. 4, Diod. S. 
1. 86, TT)v irpoet,prip,ev7]v eTTt/xeXecav koI rcfxi'jv 2. 18, ^1. Anhn. 
7. 29, Aristot Eth. Nicom. 4. 1. 9, 7 7 1.^ So also when the 
common genitive follows the second noun, as in PJi. i. 20, 
Kaja Tr]v aTTOKapaSoKiav Kal e'ATrtSa /xov i. 7, iv rfi airoXoyia 
K. ^e^aicoaei rov evayyeXioV 1 P ii. 25 : on Ph. i. 19 see 
Meyer.* Compare Benseler p 293 sq. 

Under (1) it should be noted, that in a series of nouns which 
belong to one category the first only has the article : as A. xxi. 25 
(f)vXd(r(TC(TOaL avrous .... to '^ al/xa kol ttvlktov koX Tropvetav E. 
iii. 18, Tt TO TrAaTos K. fxrJKO? K. pdBo<i K. vi/'og' Jo. V. 3, 1 C v. 10 ; 

^ Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 253, Held, Plut. Timol. p. 455. 

* [The nouns here differ in gender, though thv same f'onn of the article suits 

' In this case we find the article omitted even when the nouns differ in 
gender: Lysias, in Andoc. 17, Tipi ra, i^Xorpia Upa ku, Upras hri^'.'. Compare 
above, 3. 

* [In the edition referred to (the 1st) Meyer regards Iftuv as connected with 
both SsjjVsws and Wix,i>pr)yiiii : in ed. 5 Winer had taken the satiie view. In 
Meyer's later editions (1859, 1865) the absence of the article is differently 
explained, viz. as arising from the manner in wiiich Wixap. is conceived, — 
"supply, not the supply." Winer gives another explanation below— see 5 {b), 
and with this Ellicott agi-ees. Ali'ord and A. Buttmann join Ivix,"?- with v/iui.~\ 

* [This article should be omitti'd, but the passage still illustrates the rule, 
Jo. V. 3, however, is of a different kind. 1 


compare Her. 4. 71, OairTovtrt /col tov oivoxoov k. fid.y€ip6v K. hnroKOfiov 
K. SiijKovov K. ayyeXirj(f>6pav k.t.X., Plat. Euihyph. p. 7 c. For examples 
of proper names thus connected, see A. i. 13, xv. 23. 

5. On the other hand, it is usual to repeat the article 
(a) Where each of the nouns is to be regarded as having an 
independent existence :^ 1 C. iii. 8, o ^vrevwv koI 6 ttoti^cov ev 
el<Tiv A. xxvi. 30, dvia-Trj 6 ^aatXeix; koI 6 ^je/Licov k.t.X., Mk. 
ii. 16 l^Rec'j, ol 'ypafifiarei'; koI ol ^apia-aiot (the two distinct 
classes of Christ's adversaries united together for one object), 
Jo. xix. 6, oi dp^iepei<i koI oi pTTTjperat (the chief priests and the 
attendants belonging to them, — with their attendants), ii. 14, xi. 
47, Mk.ii 18,vi. 21,xi. 9, 18, 27, xii. ia,xiii. 17, xiv. 43, L. i. 
58, viii. 24, xi. 39, 42, xii. 11, xv. 6, 9,^ xx. 20, xxi. 23, xxiii. 4, 
A. iv. 23, vi. 4, 13, xiii. 43, xv. 6, xxiii. 14, xxv. 15, Eom. vi. 19, 
E. iii. 10, 12 [Bee], 2 C. xiii. 2, Ph. iv. 6, 1 Tim. iv. 6, Ja. iii. 
11, 1 Jo. ii. 22, 24, iv. 6, v. 6, Rev. vi. 15, vii. 12, xiii. 10, 16, 
xxii. 1. Compare Xen. Athen. 1. 4, Lys. Agorat. 2, adv. Nicom. 
3, Isocr. Areop. p. 352, Permut. 736, Diod. S. 1. 30 {hia ttjv 
dvvhpiav Kul TTJV aTrdviv t% dTrdaij^ Tpo<f>r}<;), 3. 48, 5. 29.,. 
17. 52, Plut. Virt. Mill. p. 214 (eTre/xi/re r?;!/ 'yvvaiKU kuI tt)v 
Ovyaripa), JEl. Anim. 7. 29, Diog. L. 5. 52,^ Weber, Demostk. 
p. 395. 

This rule holds particularly when the two nouns are connected 
by T€ . . . Kai, or kuI . . . kuI, and in this way are still more 
prominently exhibited as independent :* see L. xxiii. 12,sA. v. 24, 
xvii. 10, 14, xviii. 5, Ph. iii. 10 [Bee], H. ix. 2, and compare ^1. 
Anim. 7. 29, Theophr. Char. 25 (16), Thuc. 5. 72, Xer rfyr. 7. 5. 
41, Mem. 1.1.4, Aristot. Pol. 3. 5, Isocr. Demon, pp. 1, 1 2, Permut. 
738, Diod. S. 1. 69, 4. 46, Lucian, Fiig. 4, Arrian, Ind. 34. 5, al. 
Even in this case, however, the article is sometimes omitted in 
(good MSS. of) Greek authors, where there is no proper anti- 

1 Schaef. Dem. V. 501, Weber, Dem. p. 268. 
^ [Recent editors read tat (pi\as xai yuTova.; ; contrast ver. 6.] 
' We find the article both inserted and omitted before nouns of the same 
gender in Arrian, Epict. 1. 18. 6, -Thy o^i* rrm iitcxptriKriv tuv Xiuxai* x-ai 
fitxdvuv .... Tuy ayaSaiv Koi Twy KKxur. The case Is ?oniewhat different in 

A. VI. 9, rivif T»» ix rris rvyaywynt tUs i.iyof/.iytis Ajfiiprlytuv xeu Kvptiy. xai 
'A>i|avS^., xa'i Tuy aTo KiXixiai xai 'Arias : here two parties are intended, each 
pos.ses8ing a common synagogue ; Kvpny. and 'AAsg. combineil with A'lfitpr. con- 
stitute tli£ first, the .Jews of Cilicia and Asia the second. [See Meyer, -who 
suppo.ses that Jtve synagogues were referred to. See also Alford in loc. for a 
good explanation of the second Tuy.] 
* Sch&f. Deraosth. III. 255, iV. (58. 


thesis : ' compare Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 19, ra re "keyofieva Ka\ Trpar- 
rofiF.va (where there immediately follows, as an antithesis to 
these two participles, kuI ra criyfj ^ovXevofieva), Thuc. 5, 37, 
Plat. Rep. 6. 510 c, Fhaxl. 78 b, Dion. H. IV. 2242. 2, Diod. S. 

1. 50, 2. 30, Arrian, Ind. 5. 1, Dio Chr. 7. 1 19, Marc. Ant. 5. 1 ; 
see also Matth, 268. Rem. 1. 

A disjunctive particle obviously requires the repetition of the 
article: L. xi. 51, /xerafu toO OvatacrTypiov koX rov oI'kov Mt. 
xxiii. SC)j 1 C. xiv. 7, ttw? yvu>a6i]c-€rai to avXovixevov rj to 
KcOapi^op^vop ; Mt. X. 14, xvii. 25, xxiii. 17, 19, Mk. xiii. 32, 
\i. xiii. 15, xxii. 27, Jo. iii. 19, A. xxviii. 17, Rom. iv. 0, 1 C. 
xiv. 5. Compare Isocr. Permut. p. 746. 

(Jj) When the first noun is followed by a genitive, and the 
second is thus annexed to a completed group of words ; as in 
1 C. i. 28, ra dyevfj rod Koafiov koI ra e^ov0eifT]fji,iva' v. 10. If 
each of the nouns has its own genitive, they are already suffi- 
ciently disjoined, and therefore the repetition of the article is not 
necessary : Ph. i. 19, Bia rrj<i v/ulmv Se?;crea)9 Kal eTri'^oprjyia'i rov 
rrv€Vfiaro<; k.t.X." 

Rem. 1. We find various reading-s in very many passages : e. g. Mt. 
xxvii. 3, Mk. viii. 31. x. 33, xi. 15, L. xxii. 4, A. xvi. 19, Rom. iv. 

2, 11, 19, 1 C. xi. 27^ 1 Th. i. 8. 

It may not unfrequently lie a matter of indifference what particular 

' Set Poppo, Thuc. I. 196 »[., III. i. 396, Geel on Dio Chr. 01. p. 295. 
^ [It will be useiii) to compare with the last two sections A. Buttmann's care- 
i\\\ cla-ssification of examples (pp. l,'7-iOl). 

1. When the nonns (which agree in gender and number) have no attributives, 
the article i.s 

(rt) not repeated, when the nouns rnay be regarded as parts of one whole, as 
expressing ideas which are kindrt^d or necessarily connected, or which supple- 
ment one another j 

(6) repeated, when they represent contrasted or independent notions. 

There are, however, many exceptions to (a), as the writer without any risk of 
amhignitv may name the parts for themselves, as parts: conip. Mt. xx. 18 with 
xxi. 15, A. xiii. 4'.', with xv. 22. 

2. (a) If aiij' one of the nouns has an attributive which belongs to all, the 
article is not repeated. 

(b) if the attributive belonf(s to this noun only, the article is repeated ; 

(c) if each noun has its own attributive, the case is substantially the same as 
(1), and the same i-ules apply. 

As examples of 2. (n) lie gives Rom. i. 20. Ph. i. 20 : as exceptions, F<. iii. 
10, 1 ('. xi. 27, A. XXV. 15, Rev. xiii. 10. For 2. (h) see Mk. vi. 21, 1 C. v. 
10, 1 Tim. iv. 6 : Col. ii. 8 is an excei>tiou. For 2. (c) he t^uotes 1 Th. iii. 11, 
—also 2 Th. i. 12, Tit. ii. 13, 2 C. i. 3. 

In applying these rules we must alwav.s bear in inind that regard for per- 
sipicuity will often influence the writer's cfioice ; and also that the i-epetition of 
the article gives emphasis and weight (Green p. 74, Fllicott on E. iii. 10, Tit. 
iii. 4).] 



view shall be taken of tlie mutual relation of the connected nouns, so 
that the choice is left entirely to the writer's preference : in 1 Th, i. 

7, for instance, we read iv tt} MaKcSov. /cat ir rfj 'Axata ; but in ver 

8, »cai 'Axa/a. Hence tliere are passages in which the reader would 
not feel the want of the article if it Aveie omitted (e. g. 1 Tim. v. 5^), 
and others in which it might perhaps have been inserted, a?- E. ii. 20 
(see Meyer in he. ). See, in general, Engelhardt on Plat. Menex. p. 
253, Poppo, Thvc. III. i. 395. 

In Tit. ii. 13, cVicjixivcta t^s 80^5 rov fJnyaXov Oeov koi (roj-njpo^ y/uiCov 
'hja-ov Xpiarov, considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine 
lead me to believe that o-ojr^pos is not a second predicate, co-ordinate 
Avith deov, — Christ being first called o /xeya? deos, and then o-wTT/p. 
The article is omitted before crwnjpo<;, because this word is defined by 
the genitive -fjixtLv, and because the apposition precedes the proper 
name : of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.^ Similarly 
in 2 P. i. 1, where there is not even a pronoun Avith crwr^pos. So 
also in Jude 4 we might suppose two different subjects to be referred 
to, for KvpLos, being defined by ^fjiC>v, does not need the article : Kvp. 
rjfJLuyv 'It/ct. Xp. is equivalent to 'I-qcx. Xp. os ia-n /ci'pios -qfJiwv. (In 
2 Th. i. 12 we have simply an instance of Kuptos for u Kupio?.^) 

' As the words stand, ^pcsiA,'nti TaT; iir.tmn x.xi to-T; Trposiu^a.';, prayer is sub- 
divided into its two kinds il' the artid'i were not repeated, prayer and intcr- 
cessiou ■would be taken together as forming one wliole. 

^ In the above remarks it was not my intention to deny that, in point of 
grainmur, <ruTr,f>: hf^t^v may be regarded as a seco)id predicate, jointly depend- 
ing on the article tov ; bur tlie dogmatic eonviction deiived from Paul's writings 
that this apostle cannot have called Christ tht great God induced me to show 
that there is no grammatical obstacle to our taking the clause xu) trmi. . . . 
Xfia-ToZ by itself, as referring to a second subject. As the anonymous Avriter in 
Tholuck's Lit. Anz. (1837, No.' 5) has not proved that my explanation of this 
passage would require a second article before ruT^poi (the parallels adduced 
are moreover dissimilar, .see Fritz. Rom. II. 268), and still Jess that to call Christ 

//.iya; hi( would harmonise with Paul's view of the relation of Christ to God, 

1 adhere to the opinion expressed above. Any unprejudiced mi^rd will at once 
perceive that such examples as are adduced in § 19. 2 prove that the article was 
not required with eartipos, and the question whether a-ior-^.p is elsewhere applied 
to God is nothing to the purpose. It is suftlcieut that awrrip hff-a't, our Saviour, 
is a perfectly definite predicate,— as truly so as " his /arc .• " -rpitafrtv indeed is 
applied to many more individuals than a-urifip is! The words on p. 38, "If 
truTr,p hfiuv were used in the N. T. of one delinite individual only, etc.," contain 
an arbitrary assumption. Matthies has contributed nothing decisive towards 
the. settlement of the disjmte. [This pas.sage is very carefully examined by 
EllJcott and Alford in he. ; and though these writers come to diffierent con- 
clusions (the latter agreeing with Winer, the Ibrmer rendering the words, " of 
our great <iod and Saviour .Jesus Christ '"), they arq entirely agreed a.s to the 
admib'sibility of both renderings in poiiit of (jrammar. See also Green, Gr, p. 
75, Scholelield, HinU, Middleton p. 393 sq.] 

* ["Granville Sharp's first rule," so often referred'to in diiscussions on these 
texts, is as follows : " When the coj)ulative xai connects two nouns of the same 
case (viz. nouns — either substantive, or adjective, or participles — of personal 
description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, pro- 
perties or qualities good or ilb. if the article 0, or siuy of its cases, precedes the 
first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun 


Rem. 2. We 6nd a singular omission of the article in L. x. 29, rt's 
io 7t fiov 7r\r)(xiov ; and vcr. 36, rt's rovTiav . . . TrXrjo-tov 8o/cei aoi 
ytyovivai rnv i/Lir. ; here o ttXtjo-iov might have been expected (see 
Maryland, Eur. Suppl. 110), since irkrjo-Loy is also an adverb. Do- 
derlein (Synori.. I. .59) has adduced a similar example, .^Eschyl. Fnrm. 
938, i.fxoi B' iXaaarov Zrjvbt rj /xr]8kv /icXct, where fjLr]8iv appears to siand 
for Tov /ivyoeV. In the above passages, however, it would be admissible 
to take ttXyjctlov as an adverb, who (is) stands near me ? See Bornem. 
in loc. 

Section XX. 


1. When attT-ibutives - consisting of adjectives.genilive cases, 
or prepositional clauses ^ — are joined to a noun which has the 
article^ they are placed either — ^ 

(a) Between the aiticle and the noun ; as o dyadix; dvOpwrro'; 
Mt. xii. 3 5, TO 4/jLov 6vo/j.a Mt. xviii. 20 to ayiov irvevfia. r) tov 
Oeou ftaKpodvfMia 1 P iii. 20, rj avro K\r)cn<i Ph. iii. 1 4, ?; ei- (bo^w 
dyvtf dvaarpo<j)ri 1 P iii, 2, rj ■nap' ip,ov SiaBrJKr} Rom. Xi. 27, rj 
Kar eKKoyrjv TTpoOeais Rom. ix. 11, rh Katvov avrov p.i/r)fietou 
Mt. xxvii, GO ; compare 2 P. ii, 7, H. v. 14, vi. 7: — or 

(b) After the noun — with or without a second article ac 
cording to the nature of the attributive, 

(a) If the attributive consists of an adjective " or a preposi- 
tional clause, the article is, as a rule, repeated. 

or participle, the latter alway.s relates to the same person that is expresscid or 
described by the first noan or participle , i e. it denotes a further description of 
the first-named ])erson." Remarhs on the v^es of the definitive article in the 
Oreektcxt of the N. T., p. 8 (2d e<i 1802). He adduces the following examples; 
A. XX 28 (with the reading »i,^. ««; rfsaS), E. v. 5, 2 Th. i. 12, 1 Tim. v. 21 Rei., 
2 Tim. iv 1 {Rec, but KUf. instead of ^oiJ*.), Tit. ii. 13, 2 P. i. 1, Jude 4 Rec. 
"The rule is sound in principle, but, in the case of propernamcs or quasi- proper 
names, cannot safely be pressed :" Ellicott in Aids to Faith, p. 462. See also 
Ellicott in locc, Middleton p. 60 .sqq. , Green, Gr. p. 73 sqq.] 

' Genitives of personal pronouns are joined to the noun without a .second 
article, as i Ta's /^au : they Vjlend, so to speak, with the substantive. 

' Of course this only applies to adjectives which are used as attributives of 

substantives. In L. Xxiii. 45, iff^ia-in n rcTccriTaVfiia, rod vaay f/AuDi, the adjec* 
tive (jLitf belongvS to the verb, . . . wan rerU in tht. mi/Idle : n fj-ivot ««TaTir. 
would have a different meaning. The other adjectives of this kind, definin 


(y8) If however the attributive is the genitive case of a noun, 
the re^Detition of the article is usually restricted to the following 
cases : — 

(aa) When the writer desires to give the adjunct more em- 
phasis or prominence (as in 1 C. i. 18, o X070V 6 tov aravpov' 
Tit. ii. 10, rr)v hihacrKoXLav rrjv rov acorr^po^ t^/mmw see Schsef. 
Mdet. pp. 8, 72 sq., Matth. 278. Eem. 1) ; ^ and especially when 
a relation of kindred or affinity is appended for the sake of 
distinction, as in Jo. xix. 25, Mapia r) rov KXcoTra." A. xiii. 22, 
Ja^lS 6 rov 'leaaai- Mt. iv. 21, x. 2, Mk. iii. 17. 

(yQyS) When the noun already has its own (personal) genitive, 
as in Mt. xxvi. 28, to alfjid fiov ro t?}? KaLvi]<i Sta07]K7]<; ; in this 
passage, however, the article is not firmly established.^ 

(c) Such attributives — especially if adjectives — are some- 
times, though rarely, placed before the noun and its aitii'le : as 
A. xxvi. 24, fieyakj] ttj (fxovf) €(j)7] (see above, p. 134), Mt, iv. 
23, Trepirjiyev ev okr) rrj raXiXaia. 

In case (a), more than one attributive maybe inserted between 
the article and the noun, as o a'y/.o? Kal ajX(iip.o<i av0p(O7ro<;: as a 
rule, the article is not repeated. When however tlie attributives 

place or number — iir;^asT»;, oX«;, fiifos, h\iyoi — appear in the sentence without an 
article whenever they, are not true epithets ; and are placed eitlier 

(a) After their noun, as in Mt. xvi 26, lav tov Kinrfj.ov okov jctpl^iryi, if he 
should gain the whole world (the worjd wholly) ; Mt. x. 30, a,'i rptxH r. xiipa.\Y,i 
Tarai rtju^f/v/tiyas ilait (ix. 35, Jo. V. 22, Rev. vi. 12, Plat. Epin. 983 a), Mt. xii. 

4, evK l^ov nv tpa,yi7v , . . ii fart Toii nfivirit /u-ovai; : — or 

(b) Before it, as in Mt. iv. 23, H. ix. 7, /^ivos « apxiep'.^s Jo. vi. 22. — See 
Gersdorf p. 371 sqq., though his collection of examples is for the most part 
uncritical. Comp. Jacob on Lucian, Al. p. 51, Kriig. p. 123, Host p. 425 (Don. 
p. 462, Jelf 459). 

' Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 55, Madvig 9. This construction however gradually 
lo.st its force, an'd with many writer.s, — Demosthenes, Isocrates, Xenophon 
Ephes. , in particular, — it is almost a rule to insert the article before such a 
genitive, even when no emphasis is intended. Tlie orators may have had 
reasons for doing this in nf token discourses. Compare Siebelis, Paunan. I. 17. 

^ The proper meaning of this phrase is : among the women whose name is 
Mary the (particular Mary) of Clopas,— the wife of C'lopas.— The article is not 
introduced if the writer, in appending the genitive, does not aim at any precise 
distinction : L. vi. 16, 'lai^Sav 'laKufiou- A. i. 13, 'laKufio; 'AXipaiov ju.st as in 

Her. 1. 59, Avxevpyoi ' ApiirroXa.i'Siai' and DioU. H. Comp. 1, Aievuirioii ' AXi^iiv^pou 

(though in both places Scluefer would in.sert the article); or in Aristot. Folit. 
2. 6, Wva^ttfioi T.vpvipuitrof and Tliuc. 1. 24, 'Pd>ioi 'F.pxroxktiisu (Poppo, Thuc. 
I. 195), Thilo, Act. Thorn, p. 3 : comp. Herm. Vig. p. 701. In L. xxiv. 10, 
however, we must certainly read Mxpia. v 'iKKur^ov, with the best ilSS. See 
further Fritz. Mark, p. 696 Sep Such a collocation of words as tv-js iopuvLui 
N/6/;^? (Pausan. 2. 22. 6) is not found in the N. T. 
* [It is omitted by recent editors.] 


consist of genitives or prepositional adjuncts, the article may be 
repeated ; as in L. i. 70, 8ia aTOfiaTOi; roiv a<yi(iiv twv air aicovof 
7rpo(^7]rS}v' 1 P. iv. 14, to tjJ? §0^779 koI to tov deou Ttvevfj-a, 
that is, the Spirit of (jlory and (therefore) the Spirit of God, — 
the Spirit of glory, who is no other than the Spirit of God 
Himself. Of a similar kind are Thuc. 1. 126, ev rfj tov Jio<? 
rf/ fieyicTTT} ioprfj- Plat. Hep. 8. 565 d, Trepl rb iv ApKahia 
TO TOV Acb<; lepov f except that in these examples kul is wanting 
(Jelf 459. 5). — In case (b) also there is nothing to prevent an 
accumulation of adjuncts : sec H. xi. 12, ?7 aijL/jLo<i rj irapa to 
■^elXos T^V 6aXnacrq<;, 77 avapi0p.r}TO<i' Eev. ii. 12, Tr]v pofttpcUav 
TTjv Blarro/jiov Trjv o^flav (Kriig. p. 119) : when however the 
attributives are not connected by /cat (§ 19. 4), the article must 
be repeated.''' 

The first of the cases mentioned under {b), — that of adjectives 
and prepositional clauses placed after the noun which they 
qualify, — requires further explanation and illustration by ex- 

a. Adjectives and possessive pronouns (with the article) fol- 
lowing their noun : — 

(1) For the simple case see Jo. x. 11, ttoi/jltjv 6 KaXo^i' A. 
xii. 10, eVl TT)v itvXt]v ttjv crthTjpav' Jo. vii. 6, o Kaipb^ 6 e'/zo?" 
i. 9, iv. 11, XV. 1, L. ii. 17, iii. 22, viii. 8, A. xix. 16, E. vi. 13, 
Col. i. 21, 2 Tim. iv. 7 [^t'r.], 1 C. vii. 14, xii. 2, 31, 1 Jo. i. 3, 
Ja, i, 9, iii. 7. In some of these instances the writer appends 
the adjective for the sake of adding some closer specification 
(comp. especially Ja. iii. 7) ; in others, that he may give to the 
adjective more emphatic prominence (Bornemann, Luc. p. xxxvi, 
Madvig 9 % 

(2) We also find this arrangement chosen when the noun is 
already qualified by a genitive or some other attributive : Mt. 
iii. 17, o 11/09 /xoy 6 ar^airr\T6^' 2 C. vi. 7, 3ta Ttav ottXcov Ti]<i 
8iKaiocrvvr)<; tmv Be^Lcbv Kal ctpiaTepcoV Jo. vi. 13, toov irevTe 
apTwv To)v KptdivoiV Mt. vi. 6, L. vii. 47, Tit. ii. 11 [jRt;^.], H. 
xiii. 20, al. The N. T. writers usually avoid such a combination 

^ [The second article is omitted in the best texts. (Jelf 459. 5).] 

^ A rare reiteration of the article, in full accordance with the above rules, i.s 

found in Rev. XXi. 9, -/;/.^c» iU Ik ruv s^ra ayyiXaiy tu'j ij^^iurav Tas s^TTa fiaya,; 

^ [Jcdf 458. 2, Green p. 33.] 


as Tov /Movoy. Oeov vlov, as more intricate ; compare Jo. iii. 1 6 
[i?ec.], 1 Jo. iv. 9. 

In 1 Jo. V. 20 Rcc., v ^(orj alcavios, the adjective is appended 
without a second article ; but the better MSS. omit the article 
before i^wrj. No exception could however be taken to the common 
reading in itself, for the later writers begin to omit the article in 
such cases (Bernh. p. 323)/ though the examples adduced from 
Long. Past. 1. 16, Heliod. 7. 5, Diod. S. 5. 40, are not exactly 
parallel with the passage of which we are speaking. Besides, 
l;wr] alcovio^ had already come to be regarded as a single notion : 
comp. Jo. iv. 36. In L. xii. 12, Griesbach and Schott read to 
yap TTvev/xa ayiov ; but Knapp and all recent editors, to yap 
ayiov TTvev/xa, without noting any variant. In 1 C. x, 3 [Bee.'], 
TO ^pM/xa TTvevfiariKcv, and G. i. 4,^ o alcov 7rovrjp6<i, we must 
look upon the adjective and substantive as coalescing to express 
one main idea, and avro and evea-T. are (as often) inserted as 
opithets between the article and the noun : compare 1 P. i. 1 8.' 
See also H. ix. 1, to aycov Koa/jLiKov} With Jo. v. 36, iyoi 
ex(o rr)v fiaprvpiav /xei^o) tov 'Ifodvvov, — in which fiei^co is the 
predicate, " the testimony which I have is greater than, etc." 
(Host p. 425, Don. p. 528 sq.),— may be compared Isocr. Philipp. 
c. 56, TO crw/xa Ov-qTov airavTe'i e'xpfiev. See further Schait. 
Plut. V. 30. 

b. The following are examples of attributive prepositional 

^ The earlier -writers did the same in certain cases, according to good MSS, : 
cornitare Schneider, Plat. Civ. II. 319, and Kriiger in /o/t?i.s JaAri. 1838. I. 61. 

* [In 1 C. X. 3, -TMiu/Jt.a.TiKiv should probably precede iipafta.: in G. i. 4, Lachm., 
Alford, Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort. read ix. tov aluvof tov UiaTUTOi 'rowpov.'] 

•' [1 C. X. 3 Jiec, G. i. 4 liec, 1 P. i. 18, fall directly under a rule thus given 
by Kriiger (p. 121) . "When an attributive is inserted between the article and the 
noun, a second attributive sometimes follows the noun without a second article :" 
similarly Madvig 10. Rem. 6, A. Buttm. p. 91, Jeir459. 3, Green p. 59 (who adds 
E. ii. 11, Koni. ix. 5, A. xiii. 32): see i^lso Rost p. 426, Riddcll, Plat. Apol. p. 
128. Donaldson (p. 369 sijq.) seems to regard such examples as instanttes of 
apposition : see also EUicott on G. i. 4.] 

' [This is a ditferent case, since there is only one attributive. As the 
ordinaiy rule is so carefully observed by the N. T. writers.— St. John, for in- 
stance, uses ?«>) al^yios (in this order and without article) 20 times, but when- 
ever the article comes in we find either r, al %. (Jo. xvii. 3), or ri ?. ^ «'. (1 Jo. 
i. 2, ii. 25), see A. P.uttm. p. 91— it is far preferable to consider Korf^iKo, as an 
apposition, or even as a substantive (Middl. p. 414, Green p. 53), than to render, 
"/./^e worldlii sanctuary." The word, however, is best taken as predicative 
(comp. Delitxsch in lor.). In Jo. xii. 9 Tisch. and Westcott and Hort read 
i HxMi -roXvi : this is a simpler case, since the two words easily coalesce to 
express one idea ] 


clauses with the article: 1 Th. i. 8, r) ttlctti^; vficov rj tt/jo? rw Qeov 
2 C. viii. 4, T^9 hiaKovla<i Trj<i eh tou<? dyiovi' Ja. i. 1, rat? ^uXaZ? 
rah iv rfj htatX'iTopa- A. xv 23, roi? Kara rrjv ^Avriox^tav .... 
aSe\^ot?, ToU €^ e$po)v' xxiv. 5, 7rdcn Toi<i lovBaioif; rot? Acara 
T^i^ oLKov/xev'<]V iii. 16, iv. 2, viii. 1, xi. 22 [i^ec], xxvi. 4, 12, 
22.^ xxvii. 5, Mk. iv. 31, xiii. 25. Jo. i, 46, L. xx. 35, Rom. iv. 11, 
vii. 5,10,viii. 39,x. 5,xiv.l9,xv. 26,31,xvi. 1, 1 C. ii. 11 sq., 
iv. 17, xvi. 1, 2 C. ii. 6, vii. 12, ix. 1, xi. 3, Ph. i. 11., iii. 9, 1 Th 
ii. I, iv. 10, 1 Tim. i. 14, 2 Tim. ii. 1, E. L 15, Eev. xiv. 17> xvi. 
12, xix. 14, XX. 13. (There are variants in A. xx. 21, K v. 7; 
Jo. xix. 38, Rom. x. 1.) Every page of Greek prose furnishes 
illustrations of this usage : examples from Arrian are given by 
Ellendt (Arr. AL I. 62). This mode of attaching such attribu- 
tives to the substantive (by which, strictly speaking, that which 
defines the noun is brought in afterwards as a supplement) is, 
from its greater simplicity, much more common in the N.T, than 
the insertion of the prepositional clause between the article and 
the noun. — That the LX.X regularly insert the article in this 
case, a very slight examination will show. 

c. Participles, as attributives, do not here stand on exactly the 
same footing as adjectives, inasmuch as they have not entirely 
laid aside the notion of time. They receive the article only 
where reference is made to some relation which is already 
kiiown, o}' which is especially worthy of remark (is qui, quippe 
qui), and where consequently the participial notion is to. be 
brought into greater prominence:^ 1 P. v. 10, o 6e6<i . . . , o 
/caXtVa? r)fj,d'; et? ttjv alcoviov avrov So^av .... oXtyov iraOov- 
ra-i, avTcf Karapriaat, God .... He ivho called us unto His 
eternal ylory, after we should havf suffered a while, etc. ; E. i. 1 2, 
6t<? TO elvat rjfid<; 6i<? eiraivov .... Tot's'^ TrporfKiriKora^ iv toS 
X'p., we, those who (quippe qui) have hoped (as those who have 
hoped); compare ver. 19, H. iv. 3, vi. 18, Rom. viii. 4, 1 C. viii. 
10, Jo. i. 12, 1 Jo. V. 13, 1 Th. i. 10, iv. 5, 1 P. i. 3, iii. 5, Ja. iii. 
6, A. xxi. 38. Compare Dion. H. III. 1922, Polyb. 3, 45. 2, 3. 
48. 6, I-ucian Dial M. 11. 1, al. 

^ [la A. x.xvi. 4 the article is not certain ; in ver. 12 v,e must omit -rafd ; 
ver. 4 is quoted befiow as an example of the omUsion of the article. In ver. 22 
the main noun is anarthrous.] 

- [Compare EUicott on E. i. 12, 2 Tim. i. 10, Don, Gr. p. 532, New Crat. p. 
521, Jeif 151, 695 sqq. ; and see below, § 45. 2. J 


On the other hand, the participle is Vvithout the article in A. 
xxiii. 2 7, TOP iivtoa rovrov ovWvfpOevra viro tmv 'lovhalwv, h-unc 
virum comprehenmm, who has been apprehended; after he had 
been apprehended ; 2 C. xi. 9, varep'qixd fxov Trpo^aveirXripoiaav 
ol aheX^ol i\66vTe<; uiro MaKehovla^, tJi£ brethren when they had 
come; A. iii. 26, dvaaT'qaa'i 6 Oeo^ rov iralSa avrov direcrreLXev 
avr6v k.tX., God, raining iq^ ^ his So/i, sent him, etc. (contrast 
H. xiii. 20) ; Kora. ii. 27, Kpivel rj U <^uo-eco? uKpo^varia rov 
vofiov TcXova-a ai k.tX., if it fulfil, ov ly fLdJilling : compare 
L. xvj. 1 4, Jo. iv. 6, 39, 45, 1 C. i. 7, xiv. 7, 2 C. iii. 2, H. x. 2, 
xii. 23, 1 P. i. 12 (Fritz. Matt. p. 432, Stailb. Plat. Ajwl. p. 14). 
So also in A. xxi. 8, ek tov oUov ^CkiiriTov rov eva'yyeXKxrov, 
6Vto9 ck tmv kind, the correct translation is q^d erat, — as one of 
the seven; rov ovra, the reading of several [cursive] MSS., 
gives a false emphasis to the clause : Rom. xvi. 1 is a simikr 
instance. Compare Demosth. Con. 728 c, Ev^iVeov rovrovl 6v6' 
Tj/jilv avyyevT]- Diod. S. 17. 38, 6 7rai9 mv e^ iro)V 3. 23, rov 
TTiirrovTa Kapirov ovra koKoV Philostr. Apoll. 7. 16, iv ttj vr)a<ii 
dvvSpcp ova-T) Trporepov Thuc. 4. 3, 8. 90, Demosth. Poli/d. 710 b, 
Isocr. ^m^?'. 870, Lucian, Hernioi. 81, Dial. M. 10. 9, Alciphr. 
3. 18, Strabo 3. 164, Long. 2. 2, Philostr. Her. 3. 4, Sophist. 1. 
23. 1. 

In E. vi. 16, TO. l3iX.r] ra TTCTrvpw/xcVa, the second ra is of doubtful 
authority : if we omit it (with Lachni.) the words must be rendered, 
the darts, token or though they are fiery (quencli Satan's darts burning). 
lu 2 Jo. 7 e/3xo>evov belongs to the predicate. In G. iii. 1, 'Jrja-oyi 
Xp. 7rpo€ypa.cl>r] iv vplv ea-Tavpwfj.evo';, we must translate, Jesus Christ 
as cruciju'd, compare 1 C. i. 23 ; it is otherwise in Mt. xxviii. 5. 

The passage first quoted, 1 P. v. 10, 6 6^eo5, 6 /caAeo-a? ■fip.a.'i ... . 
oXivov iraOovra';- is an instructive illustration of the use of the participle 
with and without the article. Sometimes the insertion or omission of 
the article with the participle depends entirely on the aspect under 
which the writer chooses to regard the subject. Thus in Hom. viii. 1, 

Tots ej' Xfi. 'IrycroD, /xi] Kara adoKa inpLTraTovcnv k.t.X. (with a comma 

after 'hjo-ui), would be, to those who are in- Christ, since they walk not 
according to tbejiesh: roTs /u-^ k. <r. irep. would give greater prominence 
to the apposition,— ^0 those who are in Christ, as vini who etc., to 
Ihem, who etc. : compare Malth. 271. Bem. But the whole clause /x.) 
.... -vevjj.a is certainly not genuine. 

^ [This English expression is ambiguous. The word used by Winer does 
not nu;iiifv " vn'ising from the. dead :" he takes avatrriic-ai in the same sense as 
acMffTnirii, ver. 22.] 


When a participle witli the article is placed in apposition to a 
noun, or used as a vocative (as if in apposition to crv), it sometimes 
expresses derision or indignation, or gives prominence to some pro- 
perty which is pointed at with derision or indignation. Commentators 
on Greek authors have often attributed a derisive force to the article 
itself/ but this force lies only in the thoiKjht and the special pro- 
minence with which it is expressed ; irt speaking, it would also be 
indicated by the voice. From the N. T. may be adducefl Eom. ii. 1, 
TO yap avTo. Trpdcraei': o KptvoiV IVIt. xxvii. 40, 6 KaraXvinv rov 
vaoT' . . . KcxTafSyjOi aiTO rov aravpuv. See Herm. Eur. Ale. 708, 
Matth. 276. 

2. To the general rule explained above [p. 167. b.] there are 
certain undoubted, indeed almost established exceptions. In 
these a prepositional clause which with the noun it qualifies 
expresses in the main one idea is to be connected with this noun 
by the voice alone, the grammatical sign of union (the article) 
being absent : " Col. i. 8, 8)]Xcoaa<i rj/ulu Trjv vfiwv dyaTrrjv ev 
TTvev/iart, your love in the S'pirit (see Huther) ; 1 C. x. 18, 
jSXeireTe rov ^lapaifK Kara acipKU (the opposite of ^lap. Kara 
TTvev/jca) ; 2 C. vii. 7, top vfioiv l^rjXov virep ifiov' E. ii. 11. 
These exceptions are found chieliy — 

(a) In the oft-recurring apostolic (Pauline) phrases ev XpLaro) 
^Irjaov, iv Kvplw, Kara crdpKa : as Col. i. 4 [i2ec.], aKovaavre^ rrji> 
iria-rtv vulwv iv Xp. J. Kal rrjv dydmjv rr]v ei? 7rdvra<i rov'i 
dylovi' E. i. 15, dKovaa<i rrjv Ka6' vfxa.<; TTLariv iv rw KupUo 'J. 
Kal rrjv dyaTTTjv ttjv et9 7rdvra<; rov^ dyiov<;' IiOni. ix. 3, rojv 
airyyevoiv fxov Kara adpKa' 1 Th. iv. 16, ol vcKpol iv Xpiaro) 
dvaarrjaovrai rrpcorov, the- dead in Christ (1 C. xv. 18), the anti- 
thesis to which is rjfiel^ ol ^wrre? (ver. 17), for these are ^(wi^re? 
€v Xpicrrw (of the resurrection of those who are not Christians 
Paul has here no occasion to speak) ; Ph. iii. 14, E. iv. 1 (here 
iv Kvpiw would have been placed after u/iav if Paul had intended 
that it should be joined with irapaKaXSi, and moreover it is 
Bia-fiLOf; iv Kvpiw which gives the true emphasis to the exhorta- 
tion which follows), ii. 21, vi. 21. Not unlike these examples 

' " Articulus irrisjoiii inservit," Valcken. Eur. Phcxn. 1637 : Markland, Eur. 
Sup)>l. 110, Stallb. Plat. Euthyj^hr. p. 12, Apol. p. 70. 

*• [Several of the instances quoted in this section are examples of the rule 
given on p. 166, note 3, the prepositional clause being connected with a noun 
wliich already has an attrilmtive (prefixed or subjoined) : comp. Thuc. 1. IS, 
ftiTo. T-nv rav rupavyuf KtcraXufftn Ik Tni 'KXXaSoj. See Krug. p. 121, A. Buttin. 
p. 91. j 


are 1 Th. i. 1, 2 Th. i. 1, rfj cKKXyjcr QeacraXov. iv 6ia> irarpl 
Kal Kvplu> K.rX.: in 1 Tim. vi. 17, also, the words to?? rrXovciois 
€v Tu> vvv alSivu must be connected together.* Compare further 
A. xxvi. 4, Rom. xvi. 3, 8, 10, E. ii. 15, Ph. i. 1. 

{h) When the verb from which the substantive is derived is 
construed with a particular preposition, (.t when the appended 
clause forms the natural complement to the meaning of the sub 
stantive^ (Held, Plut. Timol. p. 419, Kriig. p. 121J ■ E. iil A, 
hvvaaQe vofjaai T7]v avveaiv pov iv rio fMvaTrjpiO) (Jos. i. 7, 2 Ohr 
xxxiv. 12, 1 Esdr.-i. 31), compare Dan. i. 4, avvuvre'i tv Truar) 
(Tocpla; Rom. vi. 4, <jvverd<lyt)fjiti> cuvT'p hca lod /3a7rrLcrfjiaro^ ei9 
rov Odvarov (ver. 3, ijSaiTricFOrifjtev els tou davarov avTov) ; 
Ph. i. 26, hca Tri<; efirj^ irapova la^ ttuXov irpos vfxd<i'^ 2 C. ix. 13, 
ciTrXoTTyTt TTj^i KOLV(ovia<; els avrovs Kal els Travras' Col. i. 12 
(Job XXX. 19), comp. Bahr in toe. ; E. iii. 13, ev rats dXl-^eai 
uoif virep vfjLfy)v (compare ver, 1); 2 0. i. 6 [7j Col. i. 24. So also 
Polyb. 3. 48. 11, rr]v rwv o^oiv dXXorptorrjra Trpos ' Poi/jbaious' 
Diod. S. 17. 10, rfjs ^AXe^di/Spou Trapouaias eVl Tas ©tjlSas 
Her. 5. 108, 17 d^yeXia irepl tom' XaphUov Thuc. 5. 20, 7; es^oXrj 
is TTjv ^Attikijv' 2. 52, 77 airyKOjXi^r) ck tmv d<ypo)V is to darv 
1. 18, Plutarch, Coriol. 24, -»? ro^v TraTptiriow BvsfMei'eia Trpos tov 
hrjfxov Poirip. 58, al irapaKXrjaeiS v'rrep Haiaapos. In the LXX 
compare Ex. xvi. 7, toi' yoyyva/jbov vp,oiv irrl tm Oew, which 
Thiersch considered prene vitiosum ! 

The case (a) is probably to be referred to the spoken language, 
which, possessing the living, medium of the voice, would hardly 
insert the article ineverycase; whilst the written language, in the 
interests of pi-ecision, could less easily dispense with it. Yet even 
for this case some parallel examples might be quoted from Creek 
writers: compare Polyb. 5. 64. 6, 5ta r-qv -rov Trarpos^o^av iv 

1 In the 0. T. quotation which occurs in Rom. i, 17 and G. iii. 11, Paul 
probably connected Ix <7rl<rrim with o linaia;. lu the tir.st passage he adduces 
the words of the prophet to establish the proposition 'hixainrjvfi hoZ Ik Tifria; 

x.T.A.., not v ^luii Ix dixaioirdvrs; : compare Rom. X. 6, h Ix ■Tiff'TibJi iixaioiruyti. lu 

M. X. 38, however, U vl<mui certainly belongs to Z'^.riTa.i ; sec Bleek. [In 
livour of connecting Ix ir. with Z.r,aiTai in Rom. i. 17, Gal. iii. 11 (Ewald, De 
VVette, al.) see the notes of Wieseler and Ellu;ott on the latte.r passage ; see also 
Dclitz.sch oil Habakkuk p. 50 sqq.J 

* ["Liegt in der Tendenz des Subst." --Sec F.llicott on E, i. 15. J 
' Hence in Rom. v. 2 tlie absence of the article Ix^fore tU t>?v z"-!"^ Ta.6rr.v 
would be no obstacle to our connecting this clause wdth rn tiVts( (which words, 
however, are omitted by Lachra. and Tisch. ) ; but there are other difficulties. 
[Tii^ch. retains the words in his last edition.] 


T^9 dOXTJaeax;' Sext. Emp. Hypol. 3. 26, i^7)Tovfiev irepl rov roirov 
Trp6<i cLKpi^eiav (for rov irpo'i aKp., as is clear from what pre- 
cedes), Thuc. 6. 55, d)9 o T€ ^oofi6<i o-r^/iaivei koL tj arrjkr) -rrepl 
rrj'; rcov rvpdvvcov dBiKia<i (where Bekker from conjecture inserts 
V before Trepi) : compare Kriig. Dion.^. 153, Poppo, TJmc.Hl. 
i. 234. 

We must however be cautious in dealing with particular 
passages : ^ several which might at first seem to come under 
this head, a closer examination will show to he of a different 
kind; oomp. Ellendt, Arr. Al. I. 315. 

(a) Sometimes there may have been a slight transposition of 
tlie words. Thus in 1 Tim. i. 2, TifioOew yvrjaio) reKV(p cv vicrTei, 
tlie words ev Tricrr€t,xf construed in sense with yvrjcrio), will give 
the meaning genui7ic in faith: compare Xen. An. 4. 3. 23, .vara 
ra<i Trpo^TjKovcra^ 6'^da<i tVl rov rrorafxov, that is, Kara rd^ iirl 
T. TT. 7rpo<;7]K. 6j(6a<;. But it is preferable on several grounds to 
consider iv Trlaret here as an adjunct to the compound idea 
genuine son. In 1 P. i. 2, however, the qualifying clauses Kara 
rrpo'yvaxTtv Beou .... el<; xnraKoi^v Kal painia/xuv K.r.\. are 
probably to be joined with eVXe/cTot? in ver. 1. 

(b) In other instances the prepositional clause really qualifies 
the verb: Col. i. 6, d<f) r]<t rjixepa^; rjKovaare Kal eireyvcore rrjv 
■^apiv rov deov iv dXrjdeia (see Biihr and Meyer in loc.) ; Rom. 
iii. 2b, bv TrpoiOero a 6e6<; iXaari^piov Sid 7ri(Tr€a)<; iv t&> avrov 
aifiarc (see Fritz, and l)e Wette in loc.) ; Eom. viii. 2, o vofio^ 
rov TTvevp.aro^ t^9 f<w?}9 iv Xpicrro) 'J. rfkevOepwae fie diro rov 
uofMov T?79 nf.iapria<; Kal rov Oavdrov, where it is evident from the 
antithesis vop,. rov 6av. (to which v6fjLo<i t?}? foj^v accurately 
correspondsj, and also from ver. 3, that cv Xp. must be con- 
nected with rfXevO. (so Koppe).; Ph. i. 14, rov^ irXeiova'^ rcov 
aheKxfiow iv Kvpi'o) neTroiOoras roi-i Seo-yu-otf fxov (compare a 

'^ Harlbss (on E. i. 15) and Meyer (on Rom. iii. 25, al.) have expressed their 
concurreni'e with the view maintained above. Fritzsche, too, who in his Letter 
to Thiiluck (j). 35) had declared that .such a combination a.s ?;« t?s Tia-nui Iv 
rw dirou alfiXTi would be a solecism, has since expres.sed his change of view 
(Rom. 1. 195, 3(;5) : in his note on Kom. vi. 4 also he maintains that the only 
admissible construction of the words is that which joins iU -«v ia^iarov with 
*ia, T',u (IxTTia-fiaros, — a Combination which he had previously {Lett^'V, p. 32) 
pronounced grammatically incorrect. [Fritzsch*". himself does not connect iv rw 
aur. a'i/i. with ■jrifrius in Kom. iii. 25 ; he acknowledges, hov/ever, that .such a 
connexion is grammatically admissible.] 


similar construction in G. v. 10, 'TrsTroiOa et? v/jLa<: iv Kvplor 
and in 2 Th. iii. 4), as it is only when joined to nre'rroLOora^ that 
iv Kvpiw has real significance ; Ja. iii. 13, Set^aTco Ik rrj'^ koXtj^ 
dvaarpoi^rj'i ra epya avTov ev irpavTTjri, ao<f)La<i, where the added 
clause iv Trpavr. cro^. is an explanatory adjunct to e'/c t?}? /caX. 
dvacrrpo(p)]<;. Compare also Eom. v. 8, 1 C. ii. 7, ix. 18, Ph. iii. 
9,^ iv. 19, 21, Col. i. 9,E.ii. 7, iii. 12, 1 Th. ii. 16, Phil. 20, H. 
xiii. 20, Jo. XV. 11 (see Liicke in he.)., 1 Jo. iv, 17, Jude 21. 
So also A. xxii. 18 [itcc], ov irapaoe^ovrai crov ttjv /uapTvpiav 
'Tvepl ifjLov, may be rendered, thy testimony tliey will not receive 
concerning me, i.e. in reference to me they will not receive any 
testimony from thee : r-qv fiapr. rrjv irepl ifiov would be, the 
testimo7iy vjhich thou wilt hear or hast home concerning me. In 
E. V. 26, iv pjjfMaTt does not belong to rS Xovrpaj rev vSaro<i: 
the verse should probably be divided thus, — iva avTTjv dyida-j}, 
Kadapiaa^ rw \. r. vS., iv ptj/jLari. The Kadapi^eiv precedes 
the dytd^ecv, and denotes something negative, as dyid^eLv some- 
thing positive : see Kiickert and Meyer in loc.^ In H. x. 1 
it was not necessary to write hid t^? 7rpo<i^opd<i rev a-oofiaTCi 
. . . . T?}? i(fid7ra^: the last word relates just as well to 
r/ytaa-jubevoi, see Bieek in loc. On E. ii. 15, Col. ii. 14, see 
§ 31. Eem. 1. 

In E. vi. 5, for rots Kvploi^ Kara aapKa, Lachm. has received tois 
Kara (rdpKa Kvpioi^, on the authority of good MSS. 

3. (a) An appellative in apposition to a proper name usually 
has the article: A. xxv. 13, ^AypLTrira'i 6 ^aai\ev<i- L. ix. 19, 
'Iwdvvrjv rov ^aTTTca-Tijv' A. xii. 1, xiii. 8, xxiii. 24, xxvi. 9, 2 C. 
xi. 32, Mt. x.xvii. 2, al. In all these instances the appellative 
denotes a rank, office, or the like, which is already well known ; 
and it is only by means of the apposition that the proper name, 
which may be common to many persons, becomes definite. 
" Agrippa the king," is properly, " that Agrippa, out of all those 
Avho bear the name Agrippa, who is king:" compare § 18. 6. 

(6) But the apposition has no article in A. x. 32, ^ip^cov 
^vpaev<i, Simon a tanner (a certain Simon, who was a tanner) ; 
L. ii. 36, "Avva 7rpo(f}P)Ti<;, Anna, a 'prophetess ; viii. 3, 'Iwdvva, 

^ [So Meyer : on the other side see Alford and Ellicolt in loc.^ 
* [EUicott, Alford, and Eadie join Iv pYiiAa.T, and Ka6a,flifx!.'\ 


'yvvT) Xov^a, iiriTpo'Trov 'HpcoBov A. XX. 4, Taio<; Aep^aco^, 
Gains of Dei-be (not the well-known mhabitant of Derlje),yi. 22. 
In all tliese instances the writer simply annexes an appositional 
predicate, without any special design to distinguish the subject 
from others of the same name. 

In L iii. 1 also, iv eVet irevreKaL^eKajcp T>]<i r/yefiovcas Ti- 
(iepiov Kaiaapo<f, the proper translation is, of Tiberius as em~ 
peror} A. vii. 10, evavriov ^apaco /3aari\i(o<i AlyvTrrov is not, 
befo7r, Pharaoh, the well-known Jcin'j, or the then Hn// of 
Egypt ; but before Tha/raoh, Miuj of Egypt, i. e. before Pha- 
raohj who was king of Egypt. Compare Plutarch, Parallel. 15, 
Bp€i/vo'i TaXaronj fjaaCKev'i' c. 30, ' AreTro/iapof; rdWwv (BaaL- 
Xey?' etc., etc. 

The general rule must also determine the use of the article 
with other words in apposition, and it is strange that any one 
should assert absolutely that a word in apposition never has the 
article. A Greek would use no article in expressing your father, 
an unlearned man ; wliiist in year father the general, the article 
would be quite in place. This applies to Jo. viii, 44, gram- 
matically considered.^ 

In general, we may consider tliat the article is more fre- 
quently present than absent before the word in apposition (Post 
p. 430, Jelf 450). In accordance with the principles explained 
in § 19, the article may at times be omitted, even when the pre- 
dicate is characteristic, distinguishing the individual from others: 
llom. i. 7, afro 6eov irarpoii vfjbOdV 1 Tim. i. 1, Kar iiTLTa'yrjv 
0€ov <jWT?}po^ t)/jLO)v' 1 P. V. 8, dvTi8iK0<; v/uLMV Bid^oXos. 
So also when the appellative predicate precedes the proper 
name, as Kupiw; 'Ii^aov^ Xpia-T6<i (2 C. i. 2, G. i. 3, Ph. iii. 20, 
al.) ; tliougli in this case the article is commonly inserted, as 
1 0. xi. 23, o Kvpic^ 'Irjcrov^' 2 Tim. i. 10, rov acojrjpo<i r)p,o)i' 
Xpicrrov- Tit. iii. 4, 1 Th. iii 11, Phil, o, ah 

4. An epithet joined to an anarthrous noun (appellative), is 
itself anarthrous, as a rule* Mt. vii. 11, SofiuTa d'yadd' Jo, 

' Gersdoif (p. 167) is wrong. [Ger.^dort' appears to regard the presence or 
absence of the article before the word in apposition as a mere characteristic of 
style, not att'ecting the sense in any degree.] 

^ [It had been maintained (by Hilgenfeld) that roZ 'dia^ok^iu here is not in 
apposition to •rarfos, but is dependent upon it.] 


ix. 1, elBeu dvOptoTTov rvcp^bu e« y€V€Tri<;' 1 Tim. iv. 3^ a 6 8c6s 
eKritrev ah fJ^eTaXrj-sjnv fiera eir^apicrrLa^' i. 5, dyaTTTj >Ik Ka 
Oapa^ Kaphla^- Tit. i. 6, rtKva ep^toy iria-rd, /mi} tv KarfjyopLa 
d(royTia<fr} dvvrroraKra' liom. xiv. 17, BiKatoavi^ koI e.ip-i]vi) kui 
'XP^pa. iv TTveufMarc dyi<p. Compare Plal. Rep. 2. 378 d,''Hpas 
ck SeTfioii^t iiTTO viio<{ Koi 'Hc^aCarov pCyjrei^; otto it a- 
Tpos, fieWovTO'i TTJ fiTjrpl rvTTTouivr) dfivvew, kui Oeo/iu 
X^^-^i oa-a<; "0[xTjpo<i ireiroi'qKev, ov TrapaBeKTeov ti<; rrjv iroXu) 
Theophr Ch. 29, kern Bk ri KaKoXoyta dyojv t;'}9 "^oyrj^ eh to 
X^tpotf iv X6yoL<i- -^lian, Anim. 11. 15, eoiKa Xi^eiv eXi<^cii>- 
ros 6pyr)v eh ydfxov dStKovfiivov} Compare Stallb. Plal. Rep 
I. 91, 110, 152, Kriig. p. 118. 

Not unfiequently however such attributives have the ar- 
ticle though the noun is anarthrous ; and that not merely 
when the noun belongs to the class noticed in § 19. 1 (e. g. 
1 P. L 21), but plso in other cases, — though never without 
sufficient reason. Thus 1 P. i. 7, to SoKip,iop vp,oiv Tf]<; mri- 
o-rect)? 7i'oXvri/j.6Tepou ^ P ^ ^ ^^ ^> "t o v d ir oXXv p.i v ov, 
must be resolved into, is more precious than gold, which is 
perishable ; A. xjcvi. 18, Triaret rfj eh i/xe, through faith^ 
namely that iii me; 2 Tim. i. 13, iv dydnrj rfj iv Xpiarat 'Irjaov 
Tit. iii. b,ovK i^ epycov twv iv BiKaLocrvvT]- Rom. iL 14, eOvn 
rd fir} vljjbov exot^ra. gentiles, those that have not the law, 
see Fritz, in ioc. (contrast 1 Th. iv. 5) ; Rom. ix. 30, G. iii. 21 
(comp Liban Oratt. }.. 201 h), H. vi. 7. Ph. iii. 9. In such 
cases the noun (strictly speaking) is first conceived indefinitely," 
and is then more closely defined by the attributive, whose, 
import receives special prominence in this construction.^ See 
also A. X. 41, xix. 11, 17, xxvi. 22, Ph. i. 11, iii. G, 1 Tim. 

' So KXiirrm U hukt'i might signify a nocturnal thief ; but in 1 Th. v. 2 after 
is MX. (> ». wo mast supply 'p;^'''''" '"'"on- what follows, that the day of the Lord, 
as a thief {coaiiith) in the niijhl, no comcth Even adverbs are joined (i. e. pvu- 
fixed) without the article to Riich anari.hron.s nouns ; as fiiXa ;f k/<«., Xen. HeU, 
6. 4. li^ a Revere tointcr S.ie Krug. in Jahns ./ohrb. 183S, I. 57. 

* This appears most plainly in such sentences as Mk. xv. 41, £xxa. TaXXai a! 

^ [''The anarthrous position of the noun may be regarded as empJoyod to 
give a prominence to the peculiar meaning of the word without the interferenee 
of any other idea, while the words to which the article is prefixed limit by tlieir 
fuJler and more precise de.scrii)tion the general notion ot the anarthrous noun 
and thereby introduce the determinate idea intended." (Green p. 34.) .Setr also 
Ellicott on G. iii. 21, 1 Tim. iii. 13.j 


i. 4, iii. 13, iv. 8, 2 Tim. i. 14, ii. lO," H. ix. 2, 2 Jo. 7, 
Jude 4, Ja. i. 25, iv. 14 [Reel, 1 P. v. 1. Compare Her. 
2. 114, €9 yrji/ rr^v crrfv Xen. Merti. 2. 1. 32, apOpatirots to?? 
a<ya9oL<i {men, that is to say, the good), Hiero 3. 8, vtto 
ryvvacKcoi' rcZv eavrwv Mem. 1. 7. 5, 4. 5. 11, Dion H..IY. 
2219 4, ewoia rf} tt/jo? auroi/" 2221. 5,- oifKia/xos o to?'; 
TT/Xt/coimHs" TTpefToyv -r^^lian, Anini. 3. 23, ouSe eTrl KSphei tq) 
fjieyiarqi 7 27, Her. 5. 18, 6. 104, Plat. %>. 8. 545 a, Z?^^. 
8. 849 b, Demosth. Mcer. 517 b, Theophr. Ch. 15, Schneid 
Isocr. Paneg. c. 24, Arr. /?i£?. 34. 1, Xen. Ephes. 2. 5, 4. 3, 
Heliod. 7. 2, 8. 5, Strabo 7. 302, Luciau, Asin. 25, 44, /S'c^/^/t. 
1, Philostr. Apol. 7. 30 ' (Madvig 9). 

Ill Ph. ii. 9 Reo. we read, ovo/xa to virlp ivav ovofta, a name, 
'ichich is ah/ije every name: good MSS. however have to ovo/xa, iJie 
name (which he now possesses), which etc., — the (well known) dig- 
nity, which etc. 2 

* Compare Held, Pint. Timol. p 400, Hermann on Luc. Conscr. Hist p. 106, 
Ellendt. Lex. Soph. II. 241, Sdioem. Plut. Cleom. p. 22(5. 

'■^ [On mcst of the points discussed in tbLs ami the preceding sections the best 
writers on the N T. are iu the main agreed Tlie chief differences of opinion 
relate to the extent to which the following principles are to bi; carried, 

(1) The laws of "correlation " (Aliddleton pp. 36, 48 sq.) :— 

(a) "As a eeiicral rule, if a noun in the genitive is dependent on another 
• noun, and if the main noun lias the article, the genitive has it like- 
wise " (Don. p. 351); see liernhardy p. 321; Ellicott on Col. ii 22. 
Alford on .Jo, iii. 10. 

(p) If the governed noun is anarthrous, the governing noun is not unfre 
(^uently anarthrous also, and vice versd ; see Bemhardy I. c, Ellicott on, 
E. iv. 12, V. 8, and comp. Green p. 4G. Winer mentions some jiarticular 
examples which illustrate both parts of this rule (for a, see p. 146, Rern. 
1 ; for iS, his observations on vlfxn; Hnd doi, — compare also p. 1,57) ; but 
lays down no general ruhs ot this kind. 

(2) The omission of the article after a )>reposition. Middleton carries this 
principle nmch farther than Winer (see above pp. 157, 149), and indeed to 
a perilous extent, maintaining that the ab.<!ence of the article " with nouns 
governed by prepositions " affords no presumption that the nouns are used 
indefinitely (p. 9U) : see Alford on H. i. 1, 1 0. xiv. 19, Ellicott on ] Tim. iii. 
7, Kriig. p- 100. 

(3) The omission of the article vith nouns which are made definite by a 
dependent genitive : on this see p. 155, note 6. See further Ellicott, Aids to 
Faith, p. 461 sq.J 



Section XXI. 


1. In the use of the pronouns the language of the N. T. 
agrees in most respects with the older Greek prose, and with 
Greek usage in general. The only peculiarities are 

(1) The more frequent use of personal and demonstrative 
pronouns, for the sake of greater clearness (or emphasis), — see 
§ 22 sq. : 

(2) Tlie comparative neglect of several forms, which belonged 
rather to the luxuries of the language, or of whicli an Oriental 
would not feel the need, as the correlatives, ot;Ti<i, 67r6cro<^, 
oTTolo^, irrfkUof; [? ottt^Xi/co?], in the indirect construction ; in- 
deed these forms are used in the N. T. even less frequently than 
by the later Greeks. On the other hand, those modes of 
expression by which the Greeks consolidated their sentences 
(attraction) had become very familiar to the N. T. writers (§ 24). 
The assertion that avr6<i is used in the N. T. for the unemphatic 
he, is incorrect; and the Hebraistic separation of ovBel^ into 
ov . . . . 7ra9 is almost confined to sententious propositions or 

2. The gender of pronouns, — personal, demonstrative, and 
relative, — is not unfrequently different from that of the noun to 
which they refer, the meaning of the noun being considered 
rather than its grammatical gender {constructio ad sensuni). 
This construction is most common when an animate object is 
denoted by a neuter substantive or a feminine abstract, in 
which case the masculine or feminine pronoun is used, ac- 
cording to the sex of the object: Mt. xxviii. 19, fiaOrjTevcrare 
ircivra to, edvr], ^aitTL^ovTef; avrov^, Rev. xix. 15 (compare 
Ex. xxiii. 27, Dt. iv. 27, xviii. 14, al.), Rom. ii. 14, A. xv. 
17, xxvi. 17, G. iv. 19, reKvia fiov, ou? TrdXtv wSlvm'^ 
2 Jo. 1, Rev. iii. 4 (like Eur. Suppl. 12, ewTa ^ewatwv 
reKvcov, ov<i' Aristoph. Plut. 292), Jo. vi. 9, ea-mraihapiov ev 


' [In A. xxiv. 1%, ii" we retain the more difficult reading Iv ols, we should 
,ve an example of a constr. ad sejisuni of a somewhat different kind : compare 
k. iii. 28, ^^a(r<pnf/.iai orx av \iXa<rl^r,fi.r,<iuaiy, Dt. iv. 2, V. 28 (Tisch. Fvol. p. 68).] 


o)8e, o? e%ei (as most of the better MSS. read, for 6 of Bee), 
Mk. V. 41 (Esth. ii. 9), Col. ii. 15, ra^: ap-x^a^; k. t. e^ova-la-i . . . 
6pia/jL^€V(Ta'i avTov<i' Col. ii. 19, tt]v Ke<^a\rjv (X.pLcrr6v), e'f ov 
Trav TO ao)fia k.t.X. Jo. xv. 26, however, is not an example of 
this kind, as rrrveufMa is only an apposition. For examples from 
Greek authors see Matth. 434, Wurm, Dinarch. 81 sq., Ellendt, 
Lex. Soph. II. 368 (Jelf 379, 819, Don. p. 362): comp. Draken- 
borch on Liv. 29. 12. In Rev. iii. 4, xiii, 14,al.,the readings vary. 

Under this head comes also Rev. xvii. 16, koX to. Se/ca Kepara a 
tt^cs Koi TO d-qpiov, ovToi fxia-rjcrovarL ; where, in accordance with the 
prophetic symbolism, Kcpara and Orjpiov are to be understood as signi- 
fying persons. 

3. On the same principle we find the plural of these pro- 
nouns used in relation to a singular noun, if this noun has a 
collective signification or is an abstract used for a concrete : 
Mt. i. 21, rov \aov .... avrwv xiv. 14, Ph. ii. 15, yeued, iv 
oi?" 3 Jo. 9, 77 iKKkrj<TLa . . . . avT(t)V E. v, 12, aKoro^i (Jctko- 
T(cr/xeVot) .... vTT avrwv Mk. vi. 45 sq., .... rov 6-^ov, 
Koi d7roTa^dfjL€vo<i avTot<;' Jo. xv. 6 (see Llicke in loc), L. vi. 
17 (comp. § 2 2.. 3): A. xxii. 5 does not come in here. Compare 
Soph. Track. 545, Time. 6. 91, 1. 136, Plat. Tim. 24 b, Phwdr. 
260 a, Xen. Cyr. 6. 3. 4, Diod. S. 18. 6 : in the LXX this is 
very common, see Is. Ixv. 1, Ex. xxxii. 11, 33, Dt. xxi. 8, 1 S. 
xiv. 34; comp. Judith ii. 3, iv. 8, Ecclus. xvi. 8, Wis.^ v. 3, 7." 
Some have supposed that Ph. iii. 20, eV oupavoi<i e^ ov, is an 
example of the inverse construction, the use of a singular pro- 
noun in reference to a plural noun (Bernh. p. 295); but e| ov 
had in usage become a mere adverb, exactly equivalent to unde. 
On the other hand, in 2 Jo. 7, ouro? i<TTiv 6 7r\dvo<i k.t.X., 
there is a transition from the plural firj 6fio\oyovvT€<; k.t.X. to 
the collective singular. 

Different from these examples are A. xv. 36, Kara iraa-av ttoXlv, ev 
al? (where TrSo-a ttoAis, in itself, — without considering the inhabi- 
tants, — implies a plurality, TrScrat iroA-tis ; comp. Poppo, T/mc. I. 92), 
and 2 P. iii. 1, ravTrju ^8r} hixrrepav vfjuv ypa.<f>u> cttiotoAt/v, ev al? 
K.T.X., where Svo is implied in Bevripav. I do not know any exact 
parallel to this, but we may compare with it the converse Travres o^tk, 
which is not at all uncommon (Rost p. 460. Jelf 819. 2. /i, Don. p. 

^ [A mistake. We may substitute Judith v. 3, 7, or Wis. xvi. 3, 20.] 
* Some commentators (e.g. Reiche) thus explain Kom. vi. 21, tIvx zap-rav si- 
P(^ir; roTi if o'l; (i.e. Kctfroli) yur tvcniri^uyi<rh ; See llOWever § 23. 2. 



Kem. 1. According to some commentators (e.g. Kiihnol) the pro- 
noun occasionally refers to a noun which is not expressed until after- 
wards ; e.g. Mt. xvii. 18, €7reTt)u.r/o-ej/ airw (namely t(5 Satynovia)), A. 
xii. 21, iSrjfxr]y6p€i Trpos aurous (compare ver. 22, 6 S^^ao?).^ But neither 
of these passages proves anything in regard to N. T. usage. In the 
first, auTcp refers to the demoniac himself, for in the Gospels, as is 
well known, the person possessed and the possessing demon are often 
interchanged ; and the fact that Mark (ix. 25) ha^ eVer. tw ttv. tw 
aKaOdpT(o is of no weight against this. In the other passage, avTov<i 
refers to the Tyrian and Sidonian ambassadors mentioned in ver. 20, 
as Kiihnol himself has admitted (comp. Georgi, Viiul. p. 208 sq.): 
the verb SrjfjbrjyopeLv does not stand in the way of this explanation, 
foj the king's answer was given in a full assembly of the people. 

Rem. 2. The neuter of the interrogative pronoun tis and of the 
demonstrative ovtos (avros) are often used adverbially to denote why 
(wherefore) and therefore. There is a similar use of the interrogative 
pronoun in Latin and German, quid cunctaris 2 toas zogerst du ? As 
originally conceived, these words were true accusatives : see' Herm. 
Vig. p. 882, Bernh. p. 130 (Jelf 580. Ohs. 5). For the strengthened 
demonstrative avTo tovto compare 2 P. i. 5, /cat avro tovto cnrovSrjv 
Trarrav TrapeaeviyKavre^ (Xen. An. 1. 9. 21, Plat. Protag. 310 e, avrk 
Tavra vvv rjKUi irapa ere) : see Matth. 470. 8, Ast,'Plat. Legg. pp. 163, 
169, 214. "-^ G. ii. 10 does not come in here; see § 22. 4. For 
examples of rt, classified according to the very varied relations ex- 
pressed, see "Wahl, Clav. 483. Greek writers also use o and a for Si' 
o and St' a (Matth. 477. e) ; but Meyer is wrong in introducing this 
mainly poetic use of a into A. xxvi. 16 (see § 39. Rem. 1) : in G. ii. 
10 Meyer himself rejects on this very ground Schott's proposal to 
take o for 8t' o. 

The demonstrative is also used adverbially in the distributive 
formula tovto fxiv . . . ToOro Sc, partly . . . partlij (H. x. 33, Her. 
1. 30, 3. 132, Lucian, Nigr. 16) ; compare Wetstein II. 423, Matth. 
288. Rem. 2 (Jelf 579. 6).— On 1 C. vi. 11, Ta^Ta Ttvcs ^n, where 
there is a mixture of two constructions, see § 23. 5.^ 

Section XXII. 


i. The personal pronouns are used much more frequently in 
the N. T. than in ordinary Greek.'* This peculiarity, which has 

^ Fritz. Covj. I. p. 18 sq. — See Gesen. Lehrg. p. 740, Borhem. Xen. Conv. 
p. 210. 

2 [See Alford in loc, Ellicott on E. vi. 22, Jelf I.e., Riddell, Plat. Apol. p. 119 

' [Liinemann here adds a note on the use of tI in an exclamation (hoio), in 
Mt. vii. 14 (Lachm.), L. xii. 49, 2 S. vi. 20 : on these passages, however, see 
p. 562.] 

* We find however a complete parallel in the Homeric use of the posses.sive 


its origin in Hebrew circumstantiality of expression, appears 
particularly in the u.se 

(a) Of avTov, aov, etc., with substantives (especially in con- 
nexion with the middle voice, § 38. 2): Jo. ii. 12, L. vi. 2 0, vii. 
50, xi. 34, xxiv. 50, Mt. vi. 17, xv. 2, Mk. xii. 30, 1 P. iii. 11/ 
Rom. ix. 17, xvi. 7, A. xxv. 21, al.; compare 1 Mace. i. 6, Jos. 
xxiii. 2, xxiv. 1, Neh. ix. 34. 

(h) Of the accusative of the subject, in combination with the 
infinitive: L. x. .35, iyoi iv rw erravepj^eaOai [xe aTroScoa-co' Jo. ii. 
24, H. vii. 24, A. i. 3. 

(c) Of the oblique cases of pronouns with both participle and 
principal verb : Mk. x. 16, evayKa\tadfjLevo^ avra KarevXcr/ec 
TideU Ta<i %et/3a? evr" avTci' ix. 28, A. vii 21, L. xvi. 2, 2 P. iii, 
16 (compare below, no. 4). So especially in the Apocalypse. 

In Mt. xxii. 37, Piev. ix. 21, the repetition of the pronoun is 
probably to be ascribed to rhythm. 

Along with this general tendency towards the accumulation 
of pronouns, we meet with some instances (though but few) 
in which a pronoun is not inserted where it might have been 
expected : A. xiii. 3, Kal eVi^eVre? ra<i ■)(eipa<i auroU direXuaau 
(avTov^), Mk. vi.-5, E. v. 11, Ph. i. 6, 2 Thess. iii. 12, H. iv. 15, 
xiii. 17, 1 Tim. vi. 2, Jo. x. 29, L.xiv.4; compare Demosth.C'b?w?t 
728 b, e/x-ot 7repi7rea6vTe<i .... e^ehvcrav? In Mt. xxi. 7, how- 
ever, the better reading is eTreKaOicrev, and in 1 C. x. 9 ireipd^eiv 
may be taken absolutely: in 2 Tim. ii. 11, a-vv avra would be 
heavy in a sententious saying. In 1 P. ii. 1 1 vfid^ (found in 
some MSS. after TrapaKaXcb, in others after dTre^ecrdai,) is cer- 
tainly not genuine. In acclamations, such as Mt. xxvii. 22, 
(TTavpwOrjTco, the omission of the pronoun is very natural (here 
a German would nse the infinitive without a pronoun, hreu- 
zigen!); yet in the parallel passage, Mk. xv. 13, we find 

pronoun »;. In later (and sometimes in older) prose hIt'o; also is thus used 
ahundanter : see Schaif. Ind. j£sop. p. 121, Schoem. Iscbu^ p- ^^-■ 

^ [Tliis should be 1 P. iii. 10 ; but tlid j)ronouns have not much authority. In 
Mt. XV. 2 also the reading is doubtful. The same redundancy is common in 
modem Greek : according to MuUaeh ( Vufg. p. 315) this is to be ascribed to 
the influence of the LXX and X. T. But is it not natural to suppose that the 
free use of these pronouns would be a chaiucteristic of the colloquial language 
of all periods ?] 

* In Latin compare Sallust, Jug. 54. 1, universes in concione landat. atqxie 
agit gratias (iis) ; Cic. Orat. 1. 15, si modo erunt ad eum delata et tradita (ei) ; 
Liv. 1. 11, 20. Compare Kritz on the first passage. 


a-ravpwcTov avrov. The omission of the pronoun is carried 

much farther iu Greek authors.^ 

In E. iii. 18, ri ro irXdro^ k.t.X., we can hardly help out the mean- 
ing by supposing an ellipsis of avr^s (dyaTn^s) : see Meyer. Some 
(e.g. Kiihnol) have maintained that avrov? is redundant in Mt. xxi. 
41, KUKoiis KttKai? aTToAecrei avTovs, — but altogether without reason. 
Without avrovs the words would be quite general ; it is the pronoun 
that connects them with the case in question, with the yewpyoi 
mentioned in the parable. 

2. Instead of personal pronouns the nouns themselves are 
sometimes used. In some cases this arises from a certain inad- 
vertency on the writer's part ; in qthers, where there are several 
nouns to which the pronoun might possibly be referred, or 
where the noun stands at some distance, the design is to save 
the reader from uncertainty as to the meaning : see Jo. iii. 23 
sq., X. 41, L. iii. 19, E. iv. 12, and compare 1 K. ix. 1, xii. 1, 
Xen. Eph. 2. 13, Thuc. 6. 105, Diod. S. IJxc. T. p. 29 (Ellendt, 
jLrrian I. 55). 

In. Jo. iv. 1 , however, 'l7)(xov<; is repeated because the apostle 
wishes to quote the very words which the Pharisees had heard: 
compare 1 C. xi. 23. Those passages also in the discourses of 
Jesus in which the name of the person or office is repeated for 
the sake of emphasis, must not be referred to this head: Mk. ix. 
41, €v ovofxan oti K-picrrov icrre L. xii. 8, 7ra? &? hv ofioXoyTjcrp 
€f ifiol . . . Kal 6 vt09 Tov avOpoiirov o/u-oXoyrjcreL iv avrui' Jo. 
vi. 40, 1 C. i, 8, 21, 1 Jo. v. 6, Col. ii. 11, etc., etc.: compare 
Plat. Euthyjohr. p. 5 e, iEschyl. Prom. Vinct. 312, Cic. Fani. 
2. 4. In all these instances the pronoun would be out of place, 
and would mar the rhetorical effect. Least of all can the well- 
known appellation o v/o? rov dvOpdoTrov, under which Jesus in 
the Synoptic Gospels speaks of himself, as of a third person, be 
regarded as standing for iyd). Elsewhere we find the noun 
repeated for the sake of an emphatic antithesis: Jo. ix. 5, orav 
iv Tft) Kocrubw S), (f)(o<; €i/u tov Kocp^ov xii. 47, ov/c rfKdov Xva Kpivco 
rov Koapov dXX Xva crcocrco tov Kocrpov (Xen. An. 3. 2. 23, o? 
/3acrt\e<y<> aKovTo<i iv ry /3a<7tX€a)9 X^P^ .... oiKOvo'i), Arrian, 
AL 2. 18. 2, Kriig. p. 134 (Liv. 1. 10.' 1, 6. 2. 9, 38. 56. 3). 
Accordingly, no one will iind an unmeaning repetition of the 
noun in Rom. v. 12, Bi €v6<i dv6p. rj dpapria et? tov Koap,. 

^ See Jacobs, Anth. Pal. III. 294, Breini, Lys. p. 50. Schsef. Demosth. IV. 78, 
157, 2o2, V. 556, 567. 


6i<?>}A.^e, Kol Bia T?59 a/jLapTLa<; 6 ddvaro^ ; or in Jo. x. 29, 
7raT)]p fxov, 09 8e8o)K€ ^ot, fxel^oiv TrdvTcov iari koX ovBel^ 
Cvvarai dpTrd^eiv eic t^? ■^ecpo'i rov TTarpo'i jxov : compare also 
A. iii. 16. vSee ^ Qb. 

In A. X. 7 the better MSS. have the personal pronoun (see Kiihtiol 
in loc), and tw KopvrjXti^ is evidently a gloss. The passages which 
Bomemann (Xen. An. p. 190) quotes from Greek authors are not 
all of the same description, nor is the reading certain in every case. 

It is not altogether correct to say ^ that the use of the noun in the 
place of aiT6<: or cKecvos is a special peculiarity of Mark'.s style. In 
Mk. ii. 18 the nouns could not be dispensed with, for the writer 
could not put into the mouth of the inquirers an cxetvoi which would 
point back to his oiim words. In vi. 41, and also in xiv. 67, the 
pronoun would have been very inconvenient. In ii. 27 the nouns are 
used for the sake of antithesis : i. 34, iii. '24, v. 9, x. 46, are instances 
of circumstantiality in expression (so common in Caesar), and not pro- 
perly of the substitution of nouns for pronouns ; comp. EUendt loc. cit. 

3. Through some negligence on the part of the writer, tlie 
pronoun avTO'i'^ is not unfreqnently used when the sentences im- 
mediately preceding contain no noun to which it can be directly 
referred. Such cases may be arranged in four classes : — 

(1) Most frequently the plural of this pronoun is used in 
reference to a collective noun, — particularly the name of a 
place or country (compare § 21. 3), in which the notion of the 
inhabitants is implied: Mt. iv. 23, eV ral^ avva'yccyal'i avrOiVj 
i.e. TaXCKamv (implied iu oXrjv rrjv TdXikaiav), ix. 35 (L. iv. 
15), Mt. xi. 1, 1 Th. i. 9 (compare ver. 8), A. viii. 5, xx. 2 ; 2 0. 
ii. 12, 13, iX6a)v €t9 rrjv TpcodBa . , . dTroTa^dfievo'i avroTs' 
V. 19, ^€09 rjv iv Xpicrrw Kocrp.ov KaraWucratov eavrw, firj Xoyi- 
^6/j.€vo<i avToh rd TrapaTnuifiara' Jo. xvii. 2. This usage is sufli- 
ciently common in Greek writers; compare Thuc. 1. 27, 136, 
Lucian, Tim. 9. Dial. Mort. 12. 4, Dion. H. IV. 2117, Jacob, 
Luc. Toxar. p. 59.^ — Akin to this case is the following: — 

(2) Avro<i refers to an abstract noun which must be supplied 
from a preceding concrete, or vice versd : Jo. viii. 44, ■>^eva-Trj<} 
earl Kol 6 TTUTrjp avrov (ylrev8ov<i) , see Liicke m ice.;* Rom. 

^ Schulze in Keils Analect. II. ii. 112. 

* On the whole subject compare Hermann, Diss, de pronom. auro;, m the Acta 
Seminar, philol. Lips. Vol. I. 42 sqq.. and in his 0^«sc. I. 308 ;q<i. [A. Buttm. 
Gr. p. 106.] 

^ It is a simpler case when aixrif in the plural refers to an abstiact noun 
which in itself merely signifies a community of men, e.g. i> vXr.iria : on this .see 
§ 21. 3. On Col. iv. 15, with the reading ecuri/v, see ;Me3'e). [See also Alford, 
who adopts this reading on good authority, aud Lightfoot, -ol. pp. 309, 322.] 

* The other explanation, father of the liar, appears to te neither simpler in 


ii. 2 6, iav rj aKpo^varia ra BiKaiw/MiTa rov vo/jLOV ^vkdaar), ov^l 
1] aKp. avTOv (of such an aKpo^vcxTOS:) eh TrepirofiTjv Xoyia-dtjae- 
rai ; coinp. Theodoret I. 914, tovto rr)<i aiToaTo\LKr)<i '^dpcTO'i 
iBiov avroc<i yap (d7roaT6Xoi<i) k.t.X} In L. xxiii. 51, avrdv 
refers to the Sanhedrin, suggested by the predicate ^ov\€vri]<;, 
ver. 50 : compare Jon. i. 8, evpe irkolov (Bahi^ov ek Qapak . . . 
Kal dvefirj et? avro rov irXevcrai fxer avTcov k.t.X., — see above, 
no. 2 [21. 2] ; Sallust, Cat. 17. 7, simul confisum, si conjuratio 
vahiisset, facile apud illos (i.e. conjuratos) principem se fore. 
Similar to this would be Mt. viii. 4, et<? fiapTvpiov avrolf (Mk. i. 
44, L. V. 14), if the pronoun related to lepei in the preceding 
clause, the plural lepevai being supplied with avroU. But if 
the man who has been healed has already received from the 
priests permission to bring the prescribed purification-offering, 
the priest needs no further fiaprvpLov that he is clean : see 
below, no. 4. 

(3) AvTofi has a reference which is at least suggested by 
some previous word, or by the verb of the sentence itself : 1 P. 
iii. 14, TOP Be <p6^ov avroiv pLtj (po^rjdrJTe' i.e. rwv kukovvtcov 
vfxd<i, or of those from whom ye are to suffer (Trda-'^eiv)^ see 
Herm. Vig. p. 714;^ E. v. 12, rd Kpv^rj yivofxeva vir avrwv, 
that is, Twv rd epya rov <jkotov<; ttoiovvtcov (ver. 1 1) ;* A. x. 10. 
Compare Aristoph. Fhit. 566, Thuc. 1.22. 1, and Poppo in loc, 
Heinichen, Ind. ad Euscb. III. 539. On A. xii. 21 see § 21. 
Eem. 1. 

(4) Ai)T6<i has no reference grammatically indicated in the 
previous coiitext, but must be understood of a subject which is 
supposed to be familiar : L. i. 17, avro^ irpoeXevae'rat avrov, i.e. 

poiut of grammar nor preferable in sense ; indeed father of falsehood is a fuller 
conception for John, who loves what is abstract. [See Briickner in loc, who 
reviews the various explanations, and decides in favour of referring au-reiJ — not 
to an abstract implied in ^iCaTr,; ("Winer, De Wette), but — to -v/^ESdoj in the pre- 
ceding clause. See however p. 736, note *. ] 

^ For a similar example with a relative see Testam. Pair. ]>. 608, a.-riKaXo^'a. 

Tn y-UittviTioi hrnrovi, eJ; (Xavavaioi;) I'lTTiy o (•£»; fit) a-TOKaXC^ai. Comjiarc 

also the passage cited from an old poet by Cicero (Ora^ 2. 46. 193): neque 
paUrnvm adspectum es veritus, qvan (jtatrem) letate exacta indigeiu Liberum 
lacerasti ; and Gell. 2. 30. 6. 

■-' (That is, the subject of o-ItZv must be supplied either fiom o KaKuiraiv in 
ver. 13, or 5ra(r;^«cr'. in ver. 14.] 

' Othenvise in I'^piphan. II. 368 a : tt^a.i ft-ai, •zdnp, o-ru; iyia'ivu' . . . Tiimui, 
•Tix.\:i>}i, Tcf iaraufbjfi'i-t-u, xai i^n; rauTnti [i/yiiKv). 

* [Winer gives a somewhat diliVrent explanation on p. 177 : Meyer and 
Ellicott refer the pronoun to tovs uloli tS; a,T. in ver. 6.] 


before the Messiah ^ (see Kiihnol in loc), avT6<i being used as 
ill auT09 €(f)a, in reference to one who is recognised within a 
certain circle as head or leader: in 1 Jo. ii. 12, 2 Jo. 6, 2 P. iii. 
4, the pronoun is thus used of Christ. In L. v. 1 7, ek to Ida-dac 
avTov^, the pronoun expresses the general notion, the sick, those 
who required healiiig (amongst the persons present in the syna- 
gogue) : the pronoun cannot refer back to ver. 15, though even 
Bengel so explains it. On the other hand, in A. iv. 5 avrcou 
refers to the Jews, among whom the events recorded occurred ; 
their priests, «tc., are however mentioned in ver. 1, and Xao^ 
is used more than once in ver. 1 sq. of the Jewish people. In 
Mt. xii. 9 the pronoun refers to those amongst whom Jesus then 
was, the Galileans. In H. iv. 8, viii. 8,xi. 28, it refers to the 
Israelites, suggested to the reader's mind by the circumstances 
just spoken of. The above-mentioned e/? fiaprvpiov avroh, Mt. 
viii. 4, comes in here : those meant by avTOL<i are the Jews (the 
Jewish public), — the circle in which the injunctions of Moses (o 
Trpo^ira^e Mcovarjf;) are bindiug. In Jo. xx. 15, aurov supposes 
that the inquirer must know who is spoken of, inasmuch as he 
has taken Him away ; or else Mary, herself engrossed with the 
thought of the Lord, attributes her own ideas to the person 
whom Bhe is addressing.' 

In L. xviii. 34 airoi points back to tovs SwScku and avrovs in ver. 
31 (the intervening words are a saying of Jesus) ; in H. iv. 13 airov 
refers to tov deov in ver. 12 ; and in L. xxi. 21 avTrj<: refers to 'Upov- 
crakrjiJL, ver. 20. In 2 C. vi. 17, €k fUaov avrwv, in a somewhat trans- 
formed quotation from the O. T., relates to a-maTOL, ver. 14 ; and in 
Rom. X. 18 avTuiv suggests to every reader the preachers mentioned 
in concreto in ver. 15. On A. xxvii. 14, where some refer airjjs to 
the ship, see Kiihnol. ^ In L. ii. 22, by avrwv we are to understand 
mother and child (Mary and JesusV The commentators on H. xii. 
17 are in doubt whether aurrjv refers to /xcravotav or to evXoytav ; but 
the correlation of evpia-Kuv and eVC^retv of itself renders the former 
the more probable reference. In Mt. iii. 16 avr<5 and eV airov 
unquestionably relate to Jesus. 

A slight negligence of another kind appears in Mt. xii. 15, xix. 2, 
■^KoXovOrjaav avr<3 6)(\ol ttoXXol koI iOepd-n-ivaev avroi's Trai/ras. Here 

' [Against this, see Meyer and Alford in loc. In L. v. 17 airov is probably 
the true reading.] 

* Compare also Poppo, Xen. Cyr. 3. 1. 31, 5. 4. 42, Thuc. III. i. 184, Lehmann, 
Luciaii II. 325, IV. 429, Stallb. Plat. BejJ. II. 286 ; and on the whole subject 
see Van Hengel, Annotat. p. 195 sqq. 

•* [Meyer, Alford, and others with good reason refer airtis to Kpwr,v, ver. 13.] 


the pronoun grammatically refers to oxXol, but this reference is of 
course loose in point of logic, — he healed them (i.e. the sick who were 
in the crowds) in a body: in xiv. 14, i6ep. tovs dppdja-Tovs avruiv. 
Compare also L. v. 17. 

Accordingto some commentators thedemonstrativeovTosis similarly 
construed ad sensum in 2 C. v. 2, tovto} being supposed to agree vnth 
aw/xaTL implied in >) cTr/yeios rjfjiiav oiKta tou (tktjvovs ; but it is much 
simpler to supply aK-qvei (ver. 4). That however the Greeks did use 
the demonstrative as well as avros with some looseness of reference is 
well known; compare Matzner, Antiph. p. 200 : A. x. 10 would be 
an instance of this, if the reading c/cetvwv for avraiv were correct. 

4. {a) When the principal noun is followed by several other 
words, we often find ayro? and the other personal pronouns in- 
troduced into the same sentence, for the sake of perspicuity : 
Mk. V. 2, i^eXdovTi avTa> eK rov ttXolov evOeco'i aTrrjvrrjcrev avrat' 
ix. 28, Mt. iv. 16, v. 40, viii. 1, xxvi. 71, A. vii. 21,^ Ja. iv. 17, 
E.ev. vi. 4 ; Col. ii. 13, koI vfid<i v€Kpoi><; ouTUf iv rol<i irapa'rrrdi- 
fxacriv KOI rfj aicpo^varia rrj^i aapKO'i vp^oiv avve^o}07roLT](xeu vfid<s 
K.T.X. ; Ph. i. 7. In most of these instances a participial clause 
having the force of a sentence proper has preceded : in this case 
Greek authors often add the pronoun, as Paus. 8. 38. 5, Herod. 
3. 10. 6. Compare further Plat. A2J0I. 40 d, Symp. c. 21, Xen. 
Cyr. 1. 3. 15, (Ec. 10. 4, Paus. 2. 3. 8, Arrian, Epict. 3. 1, Cic. 
Catil. 2. 12. 27, Liv. 1. 2, Sail. Catil 40. 1, Herm. Soph. Trach. 
p. 54, Schwarz, Comment, p. 2 1 1? In Jo. xviii. 1 1, to iror^piov 
o BeBtoKev fiot, 6 varijp, ov firj ttico avro ; the pronoun is used 
for emphasis : so also in Mt. vi. 4, 1 P. v. 10 (A. ii. 23), Kev. 
xxi. 6. — After a case absolute the pronoun is almost necessarily 
added, in the case required by the verb: Rev. iii. 12, o vlkuhv, 
TTOirjao) avTov Jo. xv. 2, Mt. xii. 36, A. vii. 40 ; compare Plat. 
Thecet. 173 d, ^1. Anim. 5. 34, 1. 48, al. 

(b) A redundancy of this kind is still more common in rela- 
tive sentences: Mk. vii. 25, <yvvri, ri<i et^^e to dvydrpiov avTr]<i 
TTvevfjua aKuOapTov i. 7, Kev. vii. 2, ol? iBodr) avTOL<i aBiKrjaat 
rrjv yrjv k.t.X, iii. 8, vii. 9, xiii. 8, xx. 8 ; similarly in Mk. xiii. 
19, 6\lylrc<;, o'Ca ov yeyove roiavrr] ott' apj^rf^ /cr/creeo?. So also 
with a relative adverb : Pev. xii. 6, 14, oirov e^ec €Kel tottov 


^ [Therp is considerable authority for the genitive absolute in Mk. v. 2, ix. 28, 
A. vii. 21 ; and for the omission of aiiris in Mt. vi. 4, Rev. xxi. 6.] 
2 [Conip. Jelf 658. 2, 699. Obs. 3, Green p. 118 sq.] 


Such instances of pleonasm occur much more frequently in 
the LXX, in accordance with the Hebrew idiom :^ Ex. iv. 17, 
Lev. xi. 32, 34, xiii. 52, xv. 4, 9, 17, 20, 24, 26, xvi. 9, 32, 
xviii. 5, Num. xvii. 5, Dt. xi. 25,Jos. iii. 4, xxii. 19, Jud. xviii. 
5, 6, Ruth i. 7, iii. 2, 4, 1 K xi. 34, xiii. 10, 25, 31, 2 K. xix. 4, 
Bar. ii. 4, iii. 8, Xeh. viii. 12, ix. 19, Ts. i. 21, Joel iii. 7, Ps. 
xxxix. 5, Judith v. 19, vii. 10, x. 2, xvi. 3, 3 (1) Esdr. iii. 5, 
iv. 54, vi. 32, al, : see Thiersch, Be Pentat. Alex. p. 126 sq. 
In Greek prose, however, avro^ '^ and the demonstrative pro- 
nouns are sometimes superadded in a relative sentence, as Xen. 
Ci/r. 1. 4. 19, Diod. S. 1. 97, 17. 35, Paus. 2. 4. 7, Soph. 
Pkiloct. 316 (compare in Latin, Cic. Fam.. 4. 3, Acad. 2. 25, 
PMlijyp. 2. 8) ; but the demonstrative is probably very seldom 
found so near the relative ^ as in most of the examples quoted 
above, — almost all of which are found in passages which are 
Hebraistic in style.* 

In A. iii. 13 [^Rec] the relative construction is dropped in the 
second sentence (see below p. 186) : in Rom. vii. 21 the first and 
second e/xoi seem to me to belong to different sentences, see § 61. 5. 
Those passages also are of a different kind in which the personal 
pronoun is accompanied by some other word, by means of which the 
relative is more closely defined and explained : G. iii. 1 , oh kut o- 
<^^aA/Aoi'9'Ir/(rovsXp. ■irpof.ypd<f>-q iv vfXLV {in tmhnis vestris) eWavpoj/AeVos 
(Lev. XV. 16, xxi. 20, xxii. 4, Ruth ii. 2) ; Rev. xvii. 9, ottov rj ywij 
Ka.Or]Tat tV avTwv xiii. 12 ; compare Gen. xxiv. .3, 37, Jud. vi. 10, Ex. 
xxxvi. 1, Lev. xvi. 32, Judith ix. 2. Likewise in G. ii. 10, o koI 
tcnrovSacra avro tovto iroLya-ui, the emphasis which is given by the 
annexed avro, strengthened by tovto, is unmistakeable ^ (Bornem. 
Luc. p. liv). 

1 P. ii. 24, OS Ttts d/xapTia^ r^p-wv avTX><; dv7jveyK€v k.t.X., certainly 
cannot be brought in here : it is obvious that avros must be taken by 
itself, and that it brings out more forcibly the antithesis with afiapr. 
rjp.Q}v. In Mt. iii. 1 2, ov to tttvov eV TTJ x€tpi avrov, the relative serves 
instead of tovtov to connect this sentence with the preceding one, and 
the two pronouns are to be taken separately, — as if the words ran, 
Be Ims his winmnving shovel in his hand. In E. ii. 10, however, ofs 

1 See Gesen. Lg. p. 734. [Gesen. Hebr. Gr. p. 200 (Bagst.), Kalisch, Hebr. 
Gr. I. 226.] 

2 Gottling, CalUm. p. 19 sq., Ast, Plat. Folit. p. 550. 

3 In Avistoph. Av. 1238, the Cod. l?av. has oTs ^vtU* auTeTs, for the ordinary 
reading eJs Suriev aurovs. On another accumulation of the pronoun see § 23. 3. 

* See also Herm. Soph. Pkiloct. p. 58, Ve. Fritzsche, Quoest. Lucian p. 109 sq. 
Jelf 833. Obs. 2, Green p. 121.] 

* [" Which, namely this very thing : " EUicott in loc.} 


TTporjTOLfjiarrev is for a TrporjTOtfiacTiv, by attractioii. Lastly, iv Kvpiu} 
in E. ii. 21 pj-obably belongs to cts vaw ayiov. 

We sometimes find airos repeated within a brief space, tiiough 
different objects are referred to : Mk. viii. 22, (jjepovcnv airS (Xptcrrw) 
TvcfiXov K. TrapaKoXoxxTiv avrov (Xpicrrov), tva avrov {rixjikov) ail/rjrai 
Mk. ix. 27, 28 : so also ovto's in Jo. xi, 37. Compare § 67. 

After a relative sentence, "where we might expect a repetition of os 
or a cor. inuance of the relative construction, Greek writers not uu- 
frequently, indeed almost regularly (Bernh. p. 304, Jelf 833. 2), 
change the structure of the sentence and substitute koI avrds (outos).^ 
From the N. T. may be quoted 2 P. ii. 3, ol's to Kptfj.a tK-n-aXat ovk 
apyel, kqI y aTrcaAeta avrwv uv vv<XTd^€i' A. iii. 13 [/tt^c], 1 C. viii. 6 : 
it is less correct to bring in here Rev. xvii. 2, yae^' rj^ iTropvevcrav 
. . . Koi ifxe0v(T6'i](rav €k tov olvov r^s Tropv£ia<i avn}?, for the relative 
construction was here necessarily avoided on account of the nouns 
to be connected with the i)ronoun. In Hebrew, owing to the sim- 
plicity of its structure, the continuation of the construction without 
the relative is very common ; but we must not, by supplying '^t'^«; with 

the subsequent clause, give to the sentence a turn which is foreign 
to the character of the language.— -To require the relative instead of 
avTO'i or ovTos in such passages as Jo. i. 6, A. x. 36, L. ii. 36, xix. 2, 
is to misapprehend the simplicity of the N. T. diction, especially as 
similar examples are not imfreouently to be found in Greek authors 
(^Elian 12. 18, Strabo 8. 371, Philostr. Soph. 1. 25) ; comp. Kypke I. 
347. In 1 C vii. 13, however, for ^n? e;^€t av8pa aina-Tov Ktti avros^ 
crvvcvZoKei K.T.X., Paul might also have written os o-vvevSoKei. 

In the N. T., as elsewhere, 6 avros the same is followed by a dative 
ol' the person^ in the sense of the same vAtJo, as in 1 C. xi. -5 : compare 
Her. 4. 119, Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 13, 2. 1. 5, Cyr. 3. 3. 35, 7. 1. 2, Isocr. 
Paneg. c. 23, Plat. Meuex. 244 d, Dio C. 332. 97. 

Rem. In clas.sical Greek, as is well known, the nominative of 
Quros is not used for the unemphatic he (Kriig. pp. 128, 135). Nor 
can any decisive instance of such a usage be adduced from the N. T.'^ 
(compare Fritz. Matt. p. 47) : even in Luke, who uses avro's most 

' See Herrii. V'kj. }>. 707, Ast, Plat. Lecjg. p. 449, Boissoii. iV/c. p. 32, Bornein. 
Xen. Conv. p. 19G, .Stallh. Plat. Protag." p. 68, J^ep. I. 197, Foertsch, Obs. in 
Lyxiam, p. 67, Weber, Dem. p. 355; Teipel, Srripiorfs OraiC., Germ., Lat. a 
relathm verbor. condrtut. Hitpe veque injuria stnipcr di!>ces>iisse (Coesfeld 1841): 
compare Grotefeml, Lat. Oram. § 143. 5, Kritz, SaUunt II. 540. 

- [Here the true reading is ccitaiiily <«i o'uti; : hence Ave must read xa.) aurri 
in the preceding ver.'ie.] 

^ According to Thiersch (De Pentat. Vers. Alex. p. 98), the LXX use the 
masc. avTo; for the sinij)le pronoun (he), but not ui^n or a.vro, the demonstrative 
being regularly used instead of these. As regards the Apocrypha, Wahl denies 
this u.sage altogether {Clav. p. 80). [In the Is". T. passages editors are divided 
between avr>i and auTv (as in L. ii. 37, vii. 12) : L. xi. 14 niiglit be an example 
of ai/ro so used, if the words xxi auro ^v were genuine. See A. Buttm. p. 109, — 
also Mullach, Vul^j. p. 192 sq.] 


frequently (compare especially L. v. 16, 17, xix. 2), it never occurs 
without a certain degree of emphasis. It denotes 

a. Self, in antitheses of various kinds, and for all three persons : 
Mk. ii. 25, iireCvaa-ev avros Koi ol /xer avruv' A. xviii. 19, CKeivovs 
KareXiTrev avro? Si dcreXOiLv k.t.A., L. v. 37, X. 1, xviii. 39, 1 C. iii. 
15, Mk. i. 8, Jo. iv, 2, vi. 6, ix. 21, L. vi. 42, Trois SiVaorat Ae'ycii/ . . . 
avros Tr]v iv tw 6(f)$aXfxw (tov Sokov ov fSXeTrutv' H. xi. 11, TricrTCt koi 
avTTj Sappa Svvafj.iv cis KarafSoXrjv o-7rep/x,aTos tXa/Sev, even Sarah her- 
self (who had been unbelieving), Jo. xvi. 27. avros o Trarr/p <^iXiivfxa.<;, 
He himself, of himself (without entreaty on my part, ver. 26), Kom. 
viii, 23. Avros is thus used by the disciples in speaking of Christ 
(compare the familiar avros €</>a), Mk. iv. 38, L. v. 16, ix. 51 (xxiv. 
15), xxiv. 36 ; compare Fischer, Lid. TJieophan, s. v. avros. See the 

b. He, with emphasis, — he and no other: Mt. i. 21, KaAccrcts to 
ovofjia avTov 'Irjaovv' avros yap oruicrei tov Aaov' xii. 50, Col. i. 17. 
Avros does not stand for the unemphatic Ae in L. i. 22 {he himself, as 
contrasted with the others : iTreyvwa-ar), ii. 28 (he, Simeon, as con- 
trasted with the parents of Jesus, ver. 27), iv. 15, vii. 5 {he by him- 
self, at his own exi^ense), A. xiv. 12 {he, Paul, as the principal person, 
ver. ll),i Mk. vii. 36 [Jiec.].- (On th<> antithesis avrol . . . cv tav- 
Tois, Rom. A'iii. 23, see Fritz, in loc.) 

5. The reflexive pronoun eavrov, which, as compounded of 
e and auro?, naturally belongs to the third person, is regularly 
so used in the N. T., — not unfrequently in antithesis and with 
emphasis (1 C. x. 29, xiv. 4, E. v. 28, al.). Where however 
no ambiguity is to be apprehended, it is used for the other 
persons : — 

a. In the plural. For the 1st person : Rom. viii. 23 (vfieW) 
avrol iv eavrol'i a-Tevd^o/j,ev 1 C. xi. 31, 2 C. 1. 9, x. 12, A. 
xxiii. 14, al. For the 2d person : Jo. xii. 8, toi/? irrw)(ov'^ 
7rdvroT€ ep^ere fieO^ eavrwv Ph. ii. 12, rrjv eavToiiv crwTTjpiav 

' [Lunemann adds 1 Th. iii. 11, iv. 16, v. 23, 2 Tli. ii. 16, iii. 16 ; but these 
should rather come under (a). ] 

* [The same view of the N. T. use of the nominative of avTos is taken by 
Fritzsche, Meyer, Liinemann, and others. On the other .side see A. Buttnianu 
(G'r. p. 106 sqq.), who maintains, (l)that, even if AViner's assertions are correct, 
they do not prove that N. T. usage agi-ees in this point with that of the classic 
writers : (2) that there are not a few passages in which avTH is used though 
there is neither emphasis nor contrast. Compare also Ellicott on Col. i. 17 : 
" Though auTOi appears both in this and the great majority of passages in the 
N. T. to have its ])roper classical force ('ut lem abaliis rebus discernendana esse 
indicet,' Hermann, Dissert. aLris, 1), the use of the corresponding Aramaic pro- 
noun should make us cautious in pressing it in every case." Similarly Gi'een, 
Gr. p. 117. On the classical usage see Don. pp. 37.5, 4C2, and Jelf 6.54. 1, 656 ; 
and as to modern Greek (in which the uomin. of airs; is used for he) see MuUacli 
1>. 317.] 


Karepyd^6cr6e' Mt. iii. 9, xxiii. 31, A. xiii. 46, H. iii. 13, x. 
25, al. (Jelf 654. 2. b.) 

h. In the singular, — though far less frequently (Bernh. p. 
272). For the 2d person : Jo. xviii. 34, a^' iavrov <rv tovto 
\eyeL<}, where aeavrov in B and other MSS. is certainly a cor- 
rection : in Rom. xiii. 9, Mt. xxii. 39 (from the LXX), and G. 
V. 14, aeavrov is the better reading. 

This usage is also found in Greek writers : ^ for (b) compare 
Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 9, Ci/r. 1. 6. 44, Aristot. Mconu 2. 9, 9. 9, 
^lian 1. 21, Arrian, Hpict. 4. 3. 11.^ On iaurcovioY aWrjXdyv 
see the lexicons: compare Doderlein, Spion. III. 270 (Jelf 
654. 3). 

AvTov is frequently used by (Attic) Greek writers as a reflexive : * 
the MSS. however often vary between avrov and avrov.* To decide 
between the two on internal grounds is the more difficult because the 
Greeks use the reflexive pronoun even when the principal subject is 
remote,^ and because in many cases it depended entirely on the 
writer's preference whether the reflexive pronoun should be used or 
not.^ In the N. T. also — where from the time of Griesbach avrov has 

^ See Locella, Xen. Eph. 164, Bremi, iEschin. Oratt. I. 66, Herm. Soyjh. 
Track. 451, Boisson. Philostr. I/er. p. 326, Jacobs, AchUL 7\vt. p. 932, Held, 
Plut. jEm. Paul. p. 130. Compare however the assertion of an ancient gram- 
marian, Apollonius, in Wolf and Buttmann's jlfws. Atitiq. Studior. I. 360, and 
Eustath. ad Odyss. i, p. 240. 

^ [In Jo. xviii. 34, Lachraann, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, read 
(Ttaurou, with the best MSS. : Rom. xiii. 9, Mt. xxii. 39, G. v. 14, are aW from the 
LXX (Lev. xix. 18, also quoted in Mt. xix. 19, Mk. xii. 31, L. x. 27, Ja, ii. 8), and 
here also the best MSS. have a-sai/rov. *' It is worthy of notice that, in those 
passages of the classics in which the .singular oHocvtov is thus used, there is almost 
alwa}'S considerable uncertainty of reading: this is not the case with the ex- 
amples of the plural. And since it is often in the inferior and later MSS. that 
we find these examples, we may at any rate assume it as certain that this usage 
was in later times tolerably general (indeed almost universal in the case of the 
plui'al), and was therefore tJtry familiar to the transcribers. Hence the common 
assumption that through ignorance of this idiom the transcribers altered the 3d 
person into the 1st or 2d, must be given up in regard to the passages in the 
N. T., and to many of tho-se in earlier writers." A. Buttm. Or. p. 114. In 
modern Greek inureZ is used for all three persons ; the popular language ex- 
presses ifiavTou by rou ia.urovft.ou : see MuUach, Vulg. pp. -07, 320 sq., J. Donald- 
son, Gr. p. 17. See further Lightfoot on G. v. 14, Jelf 654. 2. 6, Jebb, Sopli. 
Electra, p. 30.] 

^ Arndt, De pronom. ^■^flex. ap. Graec. (Neobrandenb. 1836). 

* In later writers (as iEsop, the Scholiasts, al.) abroZ secis to predominate ; 
see Schsef. Ind. ad JEsop. p. 124, and comp. Thilo, Apoci. I. 163. 

•'' Compare however Held, Plut. Timol. p. 373. 

•"' See Buttm. Demosth. Midias, Exc. x. p. 140 sqq., F. Hermann, Comm. Crit. 
ad Plutarch, .•^uperst. p. 37 sq., Benseler, Isocr. Areopag. p. 220. — Bremi (in the 
Jahrh. der Philol. IX. p. 171) says : "On the use of avrou and avmu certain 


been frequently introduced — careful editors have often been in doubt 
which of these two pronouns to prefer. In- some passages either 
would be appropriate. In Mt. iii. 16, for instance, eTSc to Trvfv/xa tov 
$€ov . . . ipxofjievov i-TT avTov M^ould be said from the narrator's point 
of view, whilst e^' airov would refer directly to the subject of the 
verb €iSe, namely Jesus (Kriig. p. 130). In general, it is improbable 
that the N. T. writers, whose style of narration is so simple (who, to 
quote a similar case, drop the relative const^ uction, instead of carrying 
it on to a second clause, see p. 186), would use the reflexive pronoun 
when the subject is remote, i.e. when the subject and pronoun are not 
in tl;e same clause. Accordingly, in Mt. ?.c.,^ E. i. 17, we should un- 
hesitatingly write avTov, avTov ; but in A. xii. 11, H. v. 7, Kom. xiv. 
14, avTov : see Fritz. Mail. Exc. 5, p. 858 sqq. — where also Matthise's 
view (Eur. Iphig. Avl. 800, and Gr. 148. Rem. 3) is examined, — and 
Poppo, Thiic. III. i. 159 sq. On the other hand, the fact noticed by 
Bengel {Appar. ad Mt. i. 21) deserves attention — that in the MSS. of 
the N. T. the prepositions airo, ,e7rt, vivo, Kara, //.era, are never written 
a.(f>, i(f>\ etc., when they come before avrov; from which we might 
conclude with Bleek {Hebr. II. 69) that the N. T. writers were not 
acquainted with the form avToO, but always used iavrov instead where 
the reflexive pronoun was needed. And as those uncial MSS. of the 
K. T. and the LXX which possess diacritical marks have for the most 
l)art avrov exclusively,'^ — though, it is true, these MSS. are not older 
than the eighth century, and the ''fere constanter" leaves us to w^sh 
for a more accurate collation, — recent editors almost always write 
ovrov. In most of the passages there is no need whatever of a re- 
flexive pronoun ; but it is difficult to believe that in Rom. iii. 25 Paul 
wrote €1? evSei^LV Trj<; SiKaioa~vv7]'i avrov (over against €v alfxari avrov), or 
that John wrote avro? irepl avrov in ix. 21 : compare also E. i, 9, 
Rom. xiv. 14, L. xix. 15, xiii. 34, Mk. viii. 35, Rev. xi. 7, xiii. 2. 
For these reasons, the decision between avrov and avrov in the 
N. T. must (as in classical Greek) be left to the cauiims judgment of 

rules may be easily and safely laid down, but there are cases in which the 
decision between the two words will always remain doubtful, and it is much 
more difficult to hit the mark in Greek than in Latin .... When in the mind 
of the writer the reference to the subject predominates, the reflexive is used ; 
when the subject is viewed as more remote, the 3d personal pronoun. In Greek 
one must give oneself up to his own personal feeling, — to the mood of the 
moment, it you will." On reciprocation in general, see some good observations 
by Holimann in the Jahrb. der Philol. VIL p. 38 sqcj. [Jelf 653, Frost, Thuqid. 
pp. 269, 296, 317.] 

> [Even if the question were not decided here by the preceding st (not tip). 
To the prepositions mentioned below Liinemann adds avri.] 

» Tischend. PrcFf. A'. T. p. 26 sq., [p. 58, ed. 7]. . 

" [A. Buttmann (Gr. p. Ill) urges the following additional reasons in favour 
of the opinion that ia.uToZ is almost always the form used by the N. T. writers 
when they wish to employ the refle.Kive pron. of the 3d pers., and that therefore 
awraZ must ill most cases be written without the aspirate. (1) In the 2d person 
we always find <na.vT'.v, not <ro,vToZ. (2) The ordinary rule for the pomtion of 


6. The personal pronouns i'yoii, av, rifiet^;, etc., cannot he dis- 
pensed with in the oblique cases ; but in the nominative they 
are regularly omitted, unless there belongs to them (usually in 
consequence of antithesis) some emphasis, manifest or latent : 
I'h. iv. 11, e7a> e/xadov ev oh ^tfu avrapKr]^ elvac' Jo. ii. 10, 
7ra<? av6po)7ro<; . . . . av rer^prjKa'i k.t.X., Rom. vii. l7, L. xi. 19, 
A. X. 15, Mk. xiv. 29, Jo. xviii. 38 sq., G. ii. 9 ; A. xi. 14, 
awdrjcrr) crv Kol 6 oIko^; aov Jo. x. 30, A. xv. 10, 1 C. vii. 12, 
L. i. 18 ; Mt. vi. 12, a<^e9 rj^lv to, 6<^ei\rifiaTa rjfitov (Uf, /cat 
rjnec<; a<f)'^fca/j,€v k.t.\.; Jo. iv. 10, av av i7T7/(Ta9 avrov (whereas 
/ asked of thee, ver. 7, 9), Mk. vi. 37, Sore avToi<i v/xel'i (fyayetu 
(i/c, since they themselves have no provisions with them, ver. 36), 
Jo. vi. 30, xxi. 22, Mk. xiii. 9, 23, 1 C. ii. 3 sq., Mt. xvii. 19, 
2 Tim. iv. 6. So where the person is characterised by a v.'ord 
in apposition, as in Jo. iv, 9, ttco? crv ^IovBaLo<; oiv k.t.X., Rom. 
xiv. 4, av TL<; el 6 Kplvtov aXkorpiov oLKerrjv' Jo. x. 33, A. i. 24, 
iv. 24, L. i. 76, E. iv. 1 : or where there is reference to some 
description contained in the previous context, as in Jo. v. 44 
(ver. 42, 43), Rom. ii. 3 ; or where it is supposed that such a 
description will suggest itself, as in Jo. i. 30, L. ix. 9 (I, who as 
king cannot be mistaken as to wliat has taken place), E. v. 32 
(I, as apostle), Jo. ix. 24, G. vi. 8,^ 1 C. xi. 23. In an address 
av is found particularly when one out of many is indicated (Jo. 
i. 43, Ja. ii. 3), or where the person addressed is made promi- 
nent by an attributive, as in 2 Tim. iii. 1 [ii. 1 ?], Mt. xi. 23. 

In no instance do we find these pronouns expressed where 
no emphasis rests upon them, and where consequently they 
might have been omitted^ (Bornem. Xen. Conv. 187). If, for 
instance, we find in E. v. 32, iyo) Be Xeyco et? Xpiarov, but 

auTou and lauTev, in a possessive sense (» laurou var^p, « ^etrhp auToZ, see Jelf 
C52. 3), is commonly observed in fhe N. T. (3) The 1st and 2d persona] pro- 
nouns are very frequently used in the N. T. instead of the reflexive, unless the 
pi'onoun is immediately dependent on the verb. On the principle of the ex- 
ception just named, Buttmann would write auT. in Jo. ii. 24, xix. 17, A. xiv. 17, 
Kev. viii. 6, xviii. 7 ; unless indeed the full form \avr. be received. See Ellicott 
on E. i. 9. — Winer often writes u-'iroZ where all recent editors have ccurou.] 

' [A mistake, probably for G. vi. 17 (a passage quoted in ed. 5, as illustrating 
the use of the pronoim without direct antithesis), or for 1 C. vi. 8. A few lines 
above I have written 2 Tim. for 1 Tim. (iv. 6), on the authority of ed. 5.] 

^ [See Green, Gr. pp. 113-116. The opposite view, that the nominative of the 
pronoun is often expressed in the N. T. where no particular emphasis is intended, 
is maintained by A. Buttmann (p. 132). In modern Greek the classical usage 
is observed (MuUach p. 311),] 


simply Xeyco Be in 1 C. i. 12, Horn. xv. 8, there is an emphasis 
designed in the first passage and none in the others. In regard 
to the omission or insertion, and also the position, of these pro- 
nouns, the MSS. vary very greatly : the decision must not be 
made to depend on any fancied peculiarity of a writer's style 
(Gersdorf p. 472 sq.), but on the nature of the sentence. 

The personal pronoun is inserted and omitted in two consecutive 
sentences in L. x. 2.3 sq., ol ySAeVoires a /SXe-ere .... TToAAoi Trpo- 
(jirfraL .... rjOeXrjo-av iSciv, a r/xets /SAtVerc. But it IS Only in the 

latter case that there is any real antithesis (v/ieis in contrast with 
vpocfiyJTat, /SacrtA-cis, etc.) : in ver, 23, the 6<f>0aXfj.uL /SAcVoi/tcs a /SActtctc 
are, properly speaking, none other than those of whom the /SAeVere 
is predicated. Compare 2 C. xi. 29, t6s do-Oevet koL ovk aa-OevCj ; rt's 
cTKavSoAt^erai koI ovk iyco Trvpovfxai : ^ here we must not overlook the 
fact that in the second member 7rvpovfj.ai (which the apostle attributes 
to himself) is a stronger word than aKav^aXtCeaOai. In 1 C. xiii. 12, 
TOTc iinyvuxTOfjiaL Ka^w? kol iv^yvuicrO-qv, some authorities add c'yw to the 
latter ver?j, but improperly, since the contrast is expressed by the 
voice of the verb. 

It may be remarked in passing that, in some books of the O. T., 
the expressive "ais with a verb is rendered in the LXX by e'yw 
eijui, accompanied by the 1st person of the verb; e.g. Jud. xi. 27, 
TIXtDn N^ '3:N1, »cai vvv iyu) el/xL oi^ rijjMpTOV '. compare V. -3, vi. 18, 

1 K.h. 2. " 

On avTo? eyw (in A. X. 26, e'yw avrds) see Fritz. Rom. II. T-^. 

7. The possessive pronouns are sometimes to be taken object- 
ively : L. xxii. 19, ?; eV^ dvdfiv7]crt<i, memoria riei (1 C. xi. 
24), Eom. xi. 31, tw v^erepw iXeet' xv. 4, 1 C. xv. 31, xvi. 17 ; 
but not Jo. XV. lO.'^ So also in Greek writers, especially in 
poetry: Xen. Cyr. 3. 1. 28, evvoia koI ^Ckia rfj i/jifj- Thuc. 
1. 77, TO rjfierepov Beor 6. 89. Plat. Go'/y. 486 a, Antiphon 6. 
41, al.^ As to Latin, compare Kritz on Sallust, Cat. p. 243. 

The N. T. writers occasionally employ 1lBio<; instead of a per- 
sonal pronoun, by the same kind of misuse as when in later 
l.Sitm proprius takes the place o^suus or ejus (compare also niKeco<i 
in the Byzantine writers^). Thus in Mt. xxii. 5 we have 

J ["Who is made to stumble without my heing the one who burns? Of the 
offence which another takes, I have the pain." Mever. ] 

2 [This shov.l>l be xv. 9 (or 11).] 

3 [Jelf 652. Ob$. 6 : for the N. T. .see Green, Gr. p. 124, where the limited use 
of possessive pronouns in the N. T. is also noticed.] 

* See for example the Indices to Agathias, Petr. Patrii.ius, Prisons, Dexippus, 
Glycas, and Theophanes, in the Bonn edition. [MuUach, Vitl[/. p. 53.] 


a7rrj\6€v et<; rov iStov aypov, though there is no emphasis, i.e., 
no contrast with koiv6<; or dWorpcof; ; the parallel words in the 
second member are eVt r. ifnropiap avrov' Mt. xxv. 14, eKoXeae 
roi/q tS/of? Bov\ov<;' Tit. ii. 9, Jo. i. 42. Similarly, oi lBiol av- 
3/36? is used for husbands in E. v. 22, Tit. ii. 5, 1 P. iii. 1,5; 
where ol dvBp€<f, with or without a personal pronoun, would 
have been sufficient (comp. 1 C. vii. 2).^ But this usage is on 
the whole rare. Greek -writers probably furnish no similar 
example, — for the instances quoted by Schwarz and Weiske ' 
are all unsatisfactory, or at most only apparently similar : the 
same may be said of Diod. S. 6. 40. Conversely, a-<^eTepo<; is 
occasionally taken for lhLo<i, see Wessel. Diod. >S'. II. 9. By the 
Fathers, however, l'3to? is certainly sometimes used for a per- 
sonal pronoun; compare Epiphan. 0pp. II. 622 a. 

In by far the greater number of passages there is an anti- 
thesis, open or latent: Jo. x. 3, v. 18, Mt. xxv. 15, A. ii. 6, 
Eom. viii. 32, xi. 24, xiv. 4, 5, 1 Th. ii. 14, H. ix. 12, xiii. 12, 
also Mt. ix. 1. The parallel clauses in 1 C. vii. 2, eKaaro^; rrjv 
eavTov yvvatKa i-^eTco, kol eKaarr] rov iStov avhpa e)(€rco, we 
may render. Let every man have his wife, and let every woman 
have her oivn husbaiid: Isocr. Demon, p. 18, aKo-wei irpMrov, ttw? 
vTTep Tcov avTov Stu)K7]cr6v' 6 yap KaKOi<i Siavorjdel^ virep roov 
IBicov K.T.X. In H. vii, 27, Bohme, Kiihnol, and others wrongly 
take iBio<i for the mere possessive pronoun ; to the tSiat ap,aprtai. 
are expressly opposed al rov \aov (as aWorpcac) : comp. also 
iv. 10, When t'Siof has a personal pronoun joined with it, as 
in Tit. i. 12, tBwi avrwv 'rrpoj>riT'q<i (Wis. xix. 12), the pro- 
noun merely expresses the notion of belonging to (their poet\ 
whilst rSio? gives the antithesis their own poet, — not a foreigner. 
For similar instances see JEschin. Ctesiph. 294 c, Xen. Hell. 
1. 4. 13, Plat. Menex. 247 b : see Lob. p. 441, Wurm, Dinarch. 
p. 70, 

^ Meyer introduces into these passages an emphasis, which either is altogether 
remote (Mt. xxv. 14), or would have been fully expressed by the pronoun. This 
very use of "S/o; for the sake of emphasis, where there is no trace of an anti- 
thesis, is unknown to Greek writers. [See Ellicott on E. iv. 28, v. 22. It may 
be mentioned that in modem Greek o 'l^ios is equivalent to o xuris, and also to 
aiiTof ; and that the ordinary possessive pronouns are formed by joining ^«u etc. 
to I'Sixi;, which is by some derived from i'S/o; (Mullach, Vulg. p. 188 sq., 313, J 
Donalds. Gr. p. 18 sq.).] 

2 Schwarz, Comment, p. 687, Weiske, De Pleon. p. 62. 


Kara joined with the accusative of a personal pronoun has been 
regarded as forming a periphrasis for a possessive pronoun : E. i. 15, 
r) Ka$' vfjia<: iriaTi<;, your faith, A. xvii. 28, oi Ka6' vfxa<; TTOirjrai' 
xviii. 15, vofjios b Ktt^* v/nas" xxvi. 3, al. This view is con'ect on 
the whole, but the possessive meaning follows very simply from the 
signification of Kara.. 'H Kad' v/xa.<; TTto-ris is strictly fides qiue ad vos 
pert'inet, apud vos {in vohis) est: comp. ^lian 2. 12, 17 /car avrov 
apeTT]- Dion. H- I. 235, 01 Ka6' r}fia.<i )(p6voi. Compare § 30. 3. 
Kem. 5. 

Rem. 1. The genitive of the personal pronouns, especially fjLov 
and crov (more rarely vfj.uiv, rjyiwv, avrov), is very frequently ^ placed 
before the governing noun (and its article), though no special emphasis 
is laid on the pronoun : Mt. ii. 2, vii. 24, viii. 8, xvi. 18, xvii. 15, 
xxiii. 8, Mk. v. 30, ix. 24, Kom. xiv. IG, Ph. ii. 2, iv. 14, Col. ii. 5, 
iv. 18, 1 C. viii. 12, 1 Th. ii. IG, iii. 10, 13, 2 Th. ii. 17, iii. 5, 

1 Tim. iv. 15, 2 Tim. i. 4, Phil. 5, L. vi. 47, xii. 18, xv. 30, xvi. 6, 
xix. 35, al.; Jo. ii. 23, iii. 19, 21, 33, iv. 47, ix. 11, 21, 26, xi. 32, 
xii. 40, xiii. 1, al. ; 1 Jo. iii. 20, Rev. iii. 1, 2, 8, 15, x. 9, xiv. 18, 
xviii. 5, al. So also when the noun has a preposition : Jo. xi. 32, 
iTreo-tv avTov cts tov% TroSas. In many passages of this kind, however, 
variants are noted. See on the whole Gersdorf p. 45G sqq. 

The genitive is designedly placed before the noun 

(a) In E. ii. 10, avrov yap itr/xev TroiTjfxa (more emphatic than la-p.h' 
yap TT. avrov), L. xii. 30, xxii. 53. 

(h) In 1 C. ix. 11, /Acya, il i^/Acts v/jlwv to. aapKiKa Oiptcofxev, on 
account of the antithesis ; Ph. iii. 20. 

(c) In Jo. xi. 48, rjfj.u)v /cat Tov Tovov Kai to f.6vo<i, where the 
genitive belongs to two nouns ;2 A. xxi. 11, L. xii. 35, Rev. ii. 19, 

2 C. viu. 4,3 2 Tim. iii. 10, Tit. i. 15, 1 Th. i. 3, ii. 19 (Diod. S. 
11. 16). 

The form c/xov, dependent on a noun and placed after it, appears 
only in sucli combinations as Trto-Tfoj? v/xwi/ t€ /cai c/aov Rom. i. 12, 
fi-qripa avrov Koi ifiov Rom. xvi. 13. 

The insertion of the personal pronoun between the article and the 
noun (as in 2 C. xii. 19, xm-ep r^s vfj.u>v oikoSo/x-^s" xiii. 9, i. 6) occurs 
on the whole but rarely.^ Compare, in general, Kriiger on Xen. 
Anab. 5. 6. 16. When an attributive precedes the noun, the prefixed 

'- The usual order in the N. T., as elsewhere, is Tarnf fiou, ul'os /xou 
ayarriTOi. The genitive of alTos also is, as a rule, placed after the noun : ste 
however Rost p. 453 (Jelf 652. 3). 

* Where this order was not adopted, the pronoun wax necessarily repeated foi 
the sake of perspicuity : A. iv. 28, oax h ^^'P "'"' *«' ^ /3«t<A>j <riv -rpotupuri k.t.x., 
Mt. xii. 47 ; also (from the LXX) L. xviii. 20, A. ii. 17. [The second a-av is 
probably not genuine in A. iv. and L. xviiL] 

* [This is not an example : see § SO. 7. a.] 

* [A. Buttmann adds: "In Paul only, and with no other pronoun than 

Vftur, J 



genitive of the personal pronoun has its place between the attributive 
and the noun: 2 C. v. 1, 17 cTrtyetos rj/xwy oiKta* 2 C iv. IG, 6 l^oj 

rjfXMV avOpui'nro'i. 

Rem. 2. In both Greek and Hebrew we sometimes find an appa- 
rently pleonastic use of the dative of the personal pronouns in easy 
and familiar language {dativus efhicus ^). Of this usage, which cer- 
tainly might have been expected to occur in the N. T., Mt. xxi. 5 
(a quotation from the 0. T.), and also Mt. xxi. 2, Rev. ii. 5, 16, H. 
X. 34, have been considered examples. In Mt. xxi. 2, however, 
dyayere /xol means bring it [them\ to me, and dydyere by itself would 
have been incomplete. In Rev. ii. epxa/xat crot raxv is / will corns 
upon thee (eTrl ere, iii. 3) quickly, — for punishment; compare ver. 14, 
e;(co Kara crov oAi'ya, and ver. 16, /j.eTav6r](Tov.^ In the last passage, 
ex^iv eauTots virap^iv means repositam or destinatam sibi habere, — for 
themselves, as belonging to themselves. In Mt. xxi. 5 also a-oC is not 
without force. 

Rem. 3. It is usual to take 17 4'^xv /'•o^) ^^^j ^tc, as periphrases 
for personal pronouns (Weiske, Ficon, p. 72 sq.), — both in quotations 
from the O. T. (e.g. Mt. xii. 18, A. ii. 27, H. x. 38), and in the N. T. 
language proper ; and this usage is regarded as being in the first 
instance a Hebraism. ^ In no passage of the N. T., however, is (/a>;(7; 
entirely without meaning, any more than L''B3 in the O. T., — see my 

edition of Simonis. It signifies the soul (tlie spiritual principle on 
which the influence of Christianity is exerted, 1 P. i. 9) in such 
expressions as iKSairavrjOrjaofJiat virep rwv if/vx(iiv vfjiwv 2 C xii. 15, 
i-n-ia-KOTTo^ twv x^vx^v vfxwv 1 P. ii. 25, H. xiiL 17; — or the heart (the 
seat of the feelings and desires), as Rev. xviii. 14, iTTLOvfiLai r^s ^vxr}<: 
crov' Mt. xxvi. 38, TreptAuTTOS itrTiv r} vj/vxi] p-oV A. ii. 43, eytvcro Trda-rj 
4'^XV i^o/Sos. Nor is kI/'"XV redundant in Rom. ii. 9 ; it denotes that in 
man which /i?t^/s the ^Att^ts and the a-rfvoxoipM, even though these may 
affect the body. In Rom. xiii. 1, Trdcra if^vxrj e^oi;o-tais virepexovcrai^ 
wTTorao-creo-^w, the simple TrScra ^Irvxrj (compare 1 p. iii. 20) may be 
every sold, i.e. every one; but even in estimates of population "so 
many souls" (in Latin capita) is not precisely identical with "so 
many men." Compare also A. iii. 23 (from the LXX). Hence the 
use of ij/vxi] must in every instance be referred to vividness or to 
circumstantiality of language, which is altogether ditferent from 
pleonasm. It is not at all uncommon to find this use of the word 

^ Buttm. Gr. 120. 2, and on Dem. Midias p. 9 ; Jacob, Luc. Toxar. p. 138. 
In German the dative is used in exactly the same way, as das war dir tichonf 
[See Donahls. p. 495 sq., Jelf 600. 2 ; and as to English, Latham, EtKj. Lang. 
II. 341, Craik, Enijl. of Shakesp. p. 113 (ed. 3), Clyrle, Greek Synt. p. 38, Farrar, 
Gr. Synt. p. 74.] 

^ On the similar phrase ^kcd <roi (e.g. Luc. P/.sc. 16, n%M uf^v ixSiKairaffa rh* 
liK^v) see Hermann, Luc. Conscr. Hist. p. 179. It is a kind of dativvs incom- 
modi (§ 31. 4. b) : comp. 1 K. xv. 20 (LXX). [In H. x. 34 the best texts have 


3 Gesen. Lg. p. 752 sq., [Hebr. Gr. p. 202 (Bagst.), Kalisch, Hebr. Gr. I. 
221], Vorst, Hebr. p. 121 sq., Riickert on Rom. xiii. ]. 


in Greek writers (compare Xen. Cyr. 5. 1. 27, ^Elian 1. 32), especially 
the poets, e.g. Soph. Philod. 714, CEd. Col. 499, 1207 -.^ it is no 
Hebraism, but an example of antique vividness of expression. See 
further Georgi, Viivl. p. 274, Schwarz ad Olear. p. 28, Comment, p. 

Section XXIII. 


1. The pronoun o5to? sometimes refers, not to the noun 
which stands nearest to it, but to one more remote, which is to 
be regarded as the principal subject, and which therefore was to 
the writer the nearest jJ-^l/chologically, — was more vividly present 
to his mind than any other : ^ A. i"^. 11. our6<i (^Irjaov^ Xpi(TT6<i 
in ver. 10, though o 6e6<i is the nearest noun) iariv 6 \lOo<;. So 
in 1 Jo. v. 20, ovTo^ eariv 6 a\ri9Lvo<i Oeo^;, the pronoun refers to 
o ^eo9 — not Xptaro'i (which immediately precedes), as the older 
theologians maintained on dogmatic grounds ; for, in the first 
place, a\'t]6t,vo<i de6<i is a Constant and exclusive epithet of the 
Father ; and, secondly, there follows a warning against idolatry, 
and a\7jdiv6<i 6e6<i is always contrasted with el,Zw\a.* 

A. viii. 26, avrr) earlv ep7)fio<i, is doubtful, some supplying the 
nearest subject Tdi^a, others 6h6<i. See Kiihnol in loc, and my 

^ In these passages it is not hard to discover the notion which is expressed 
by the Latin anima, and I do not know why Ellendt (Lex. Soph. II. 079) takes 
■4'tjxri as a mere circumlocution. The passages of Plato quoted by Ast (Lex. 
Plat. III. 575) would really lose their distinctive colouring, if the canon "ora- 
tionem anipliticat" were applied to them. 

^ Mt. vi. 25, where •^"jx'' is contiasted with the rufix, can present no difficulty 
to any one who is familiar with the anthropological notions of the Jews. — Nor 
is Kafiioc. a mere circumlocution in A. xiv. 17, iin.TiTXuy TpvpH; ko.] tufpoiruvn; tu,s 
xufita; Ufiuv' or in Ja. V. 5, ypiypart ra; KapVia.; u/^ut ; for, if SO, it must bo 
possible to saj' lie struck hbs heart, instead of he struck him, etc. In these 

verses, however, Kapilx is probably not used (as 3*5 sometimes is) in a merely 

material sense, in' accordance with the physiological notions of antiquity, — to 
xlreiKjthen the heart, i. e. in the- first instance the stomach and by means of this 
the heart (even in Greek the meaning stomach is not entirely effaced in «a^S/a) ; 
but the idea of enjoyment is included. See Baumgarten on the last passage. 

3 SchiBf. Bern. V. 322, Stallb. Plat. Pha;dr. pp. 28, 157, Foertsch, Obs. in 
Lysiam p. 74. ( Jelf 655. Obs. 1.) 

* [So Alford (who also urges the parallelism with Jo. xvii. 3), Liicke (Bibl. 
Cat. vol. XV. p. 288 si^q.), Haupt in loc. : on the other side see Ebrard, Comment. 
p. 345 sq<|. (Clark), amd Wordsworth in loc] 


B WB. I. 395: I decidedly prefer 6Z6<;} There is less diffi- 
culty in A. vii. 19, 2 Jo. 7. For examples from Greek prose 
writers see Ast, Plat. Polit. 417, Leg-g. p. 77. 

Conversely, in A. iii. 1 3 €K€tvo<; is to be referred to the nearest 
subject (Kriig. p. 138,^ Jelf 655. 7): so also in Jo. vii. 45, 
where eKelvot refers to the members of the Sanhedrin, apxi€pet<i 
Ka\ (f>apL<ruiov<}, regarded (as the single article shows) as forming 
one body. For an example of ovto? and e/ceti/o? so combined 
that the former belongs to the more distant and the latter to 
the nearer subject, see Plutarch, Vit. Demosth. 3 ; and for 
examples of iKelvo<i where there is only one subject, and where 
we might have expected ovrc<i or simply auT09, see 2 C. viii. 9, 
Tit. iii. 7." 

In Ph. i. 18, KoX iv TouTcj) xa'pw, the demonstrative simply refers to 
the main thought Xpto-ros KarayycAAerat : in 2 P. i. 4, Bia. tovt<ji>v refers 
to lirayyiXfJiaTa. 

The relative also is supposed sometimes to refer to a remote subject 
(compare Bernh. p. 297).^ Thus in 1 C. i. 8 (see Pott in loc.) it has 
been maintained that os relates to ^cos in ver. 4, as the principal 
subject, though 'l-qa; Xpto-T. immediately precedes. This however is 
not necessary, either on account of tov Kvpcov rj/xwv ^Irja-cv Xp. at the 
end of this vei^se (compare Col. ii. 11, E. iv. 12), or on account of 
TTio-To? 6 Oca's which immediately follows ; for that which is here 
ascribed to God, the calling ci? kolvwvmv 'I. Xp., is at the same time 
a calling to the ^cfSaicva-dai through Christ, which (/8c/3aiovo-^ai) in- 
deed can only be effected in the fellowship of Christ. This canon 
has been applied to H. ix. 4 (see Kiihnol in loc), to evade antiquarian 
diflSculties, and to Rom. v. 12 (c^' w) on dogmatic grounds; in both 
instances quite erroneously. There is no difficulty in H. v. 7 and 
2 Th. ii, 9, In 3 P, iii. 12 8i' ^v may very well be referred to the 
nearest word 17/xcpas ; in 1 P. iv, 1 1 <S points back to the principal 
subject 6 6i6^. Of H, iii, 6 (ov o?kos) recent expositors have taken 
the correct view,^ 

2, Where no special emphasis is intended, the demonstrative 
pronoun which precedes a relative sentence is usually included 

^ [See Meyer and Alford in loc. Smith, Diet. ofB. I. 657, Kitto, Cyd. II, 77, 
Greswell, Diss. I. 177 sqq., Robinson, Bihl. Res. II. 514, in support of this view.] 

' Brenii, Lys. p. 154, Schoem. Plut. Acjis p. 73, Foertsch I. c. 

^ [On the question whether avris and IxiTvo; can be used in the same passage 
•with reference to the same subject, see. Ellicott and Alford on 2 Tim. ii. 26, 
Riddell, Plat. Apol. p. 135.] 

« GoUer, Thuc. II. 21, Siebelis, Pausan. III. 52, Schoem. Isceus p. 242 sq., 
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 369 ; and as to Latin, Kritz^ Sallust II. 115.- 

^ [Of recent writers, Bleek, De Wette, Ebrard refer avrnd and oS to Xpurris ; 
LUnemann, Delitzsch, Alford, Kurtz, Hofniann, and others, to God.] 


in the relative pronoun (Kriig. p. 145 sq., Jelf 817): — not 

(a) Where, in accordance with the laws of government or of 
attraction, the demonstrative would have been in the same case 
as the relative ; as 

(a) A. i. 24, dvdSei^ov ov i^eXe^co (for rovrov 6v), Eom. viii. 
29, Jo. xviii. 26, auyy6vr]<; oou ov direKo-^ev Uirpot to cotlov' 

1 C. vii. 39, 2 C. xi. 12, Ph. iv. 11 ; 

{13) A. viii. 24, oTra)? fir]hev i'rrekOrj iir e'/ie wv eiprjKare (for 
TovTcov a elp.), xxi. 19, xxii. 15, xxvi. 16, 22, L. ix. 36, Eom. 
XV. 18, E. iii. 20, 1 C. [2 C] xii. 17 ; compare Is. ii. 8, Wis. 
xii. 14, Tob. i. 8, xii. 2, 6, Plat. Gor^. 45 T e, Phced. 94 c, Isocr. 
Fhil. p. 226,Z>e Pace 388, Pint. Virt. Mid. p. 202, Xen. ^?r. 1. 
9. 25, Deraosth. Ep. 5. m., Olynth. I. p. 2, al., and Ellendt, Lex. 
Soph. II. 368 :— but also 

(h) Where the case of the demonstrative would have been 
different, as in Jo. xiii. 29, tv^opaaov mv y^peiav e-^o^ev (for ravra 
bjv), Eom. vi. 16, Mt. xix. 11, A. viii. 19, xiii. 37, 1 C. xv. 36, 

2 P. i. 9 ; compare Xen. Ci/r. 6. 2, 1, d'rrr)<y'yeCka<i wv iSeov 
Eurip. Med. 735, i/x/jLeveiv a aov kXvo) (i.e. tovtoi'; a, see 
Elmsley in loc.), Lysias p. 152 (Steph.), fit] Ko.ra'yi'yvojcrKeTe 
aScKiav Tov . . . Ba7rav(ovTo<i aXV ocroi . . . eWiafievoi etcnv 
dvaXL(TK€Lv (for rovTcov oaoi) : see Stallb. Plat. Hep.. I. 139, 
and compare Kritz, Sallust II. 301. In this case even the 
preposition on which the case of the demonstrative depends is 
omitted : Eom. x. 1 4, 7rco9 TriaTevaovaLv ov ovk ijKovcraV that 
is, et9 rouTov ov k.t.X.^ 

If a preposition precedes a relative before which the demon- 
strative is suppressed, this preposition logically belongs either 

a. To the relative clause : Eom. x. 14, ttw? iTriKoXeaovrai ed 
ov OVK iiTLcyrevaav vi. 21, riva Kapirov ec'^ere rare (that is, rov- 
rcov) e^' oU vvv iiraKT^vveaOe^ xiv. 21, Jo. xix. 37 (from the 

^ Similar to this would be 1 Tim. ii. 10, aA.X' o vpiorn ywai^n Wa.yyiX^.ofi'iva.n 

hcffi^stav, if (with Matthies) we resolved o -rpiTu into !» toutm « ■jrpi-m. But it 
is simpler and easier to join 2/ 'ipya>> with ner/uiTv, ver. 9. The former meaning 
would have been more distinctly expressed by iv Z TfiTu. 

^ Reiche evidently goes too far when he says that, in all other examples, it is 
only the demonstrative which would have been governed by the rerft that is 
omitted, and never one governed by a noun (compare Jo. xviii. 26, L. xxiii. 41) : 
even if the remark were true, it would not set aside the above explanation, see 
Tritzsche. — Perhaps also we miglit give to if Jj the meaning which is discussed 


LXX), L. V. 25, 2 P. ii. 12;' Soph, riiil. 957, Aristot. Rhd. 
2. .1. 7, Demon, p. 2 : — or 

h. To the -demonstrative understood: Jo. vi. 29, Xva TncrTev- 
(Ti]Te et9 ov aTria-retkev e/ceti^o?" xvii. 9, Rom. xiv. 22, 2 C. v. 10, 
xii. 6, G. i. 8 sq., H. v. 8 (Num. vi. 21). In H. ii. 18 also, eV to 
ireirovOev avTO<; ireipaadeC'i, Bvvarai toI<; Treipa^Ofieuoif I3orj07]crai,, 
should probably be resolved into ev tovtw o TreirovOei' .... 
Bvvarat . . . ^orjOfjaaL. Compare Xen. Mevi. 2. 6. 34, €77/- 
ryveTat evvoia 7rpo<i 01)9 av vTroXd^o) €iJVolK(b<; e^eiv tt/do? i/xe. 
Anah. 1. 9. 25, Hell. 4. 8. 33, Demosth. Con. p. 729 a, Oli/nth. I. 
p. 2, Ei). 4. p. 118 b, Plat. Rep. 2. 375 d, Fhccd. Gl c, Arrian, 
Alex. 6, 4. 3, Diog. L. 9. 67, 6. 74: — or 

c. To both clauses : 2 C. ii. 3, 'iva fjurj Xinrrjv e-^w a<f oiv eSei 
fx€ '^aLp€iV 1 C. vii. 39, X. 30, Jo. xi. G, Horn. xvi. 2 ; compare 
Isocr. Evag. p. 470, ifkeiovi iv rovroa Toi<i tottoi'; Biarpl^eiv, 
rj Trap* oU irporepov elwOofe^ rjaav (Cic. Af/rar. 2. 27). 
1 C. vii. 1 and Ph. iv. 1 1 may be thus explained.^ 

In the same way, relative adverbs include the demonstrative :. 
Jo, xi. 32, rjXOev ottov rjv 6 ^Irjaovf (i.e. eKelae ottov), vi. 62, 
Mk. V. 40, el'iTTopeverat ottov ■^v to iraihiov (compare Buttm. 
Fhiloct. p. 107), 1 C. xvi. 6,Mt. xxv. 24, awdycov 06 ev ov hieaKop- 
TTia-a'i (for eKeWev ottov) ; compra'e Thuc. 1. 89. Still freer is 
the construction in Jo. xx. 19, ruiv dvpSsv KeKkeio-fxevwv ottov 
Tjaav oi fxadrjrai k.t.X. — That in condensed sentences of this kind 
(in which the Greek did not really supply a demonstrative in 
thought, see Krlig. p. 145) no comma should be inserted before 
the relative, has been already remarked : such punctuation 
would make Jo. vi. 29 quite meaningless. 

3. In emphatic passages the demonstrative may be frequently 
repeated in connected sentences: A. vii. 35 sqq., tovtov tov 
Mcoiicrrjv . . . . tovtov 6 6eb<i (iTTeaTakKev . . . . ovTO<i e^tj'yayev 
.... ovTO<i CGTLV Mo)vaf]<; o etVa? .... ovTa tGTiv 
jev6/ji6vo<i iv Tji eKKkrjcria k.t.X. ; and in a different spirit Jo. vi. 

by Weber, Dem. p. 492 [viz. as representing W) rouTei;, itp' oTs, in the tluntjs in 
which (Dem. Aristocr. p. <584, Phil. 3. p. 119, al.).] 

1 'AyifotTv ev, Porjihyr. Abst. 2. 53. Some would bring in liere Rom. vii. 6, 
supplying Ikiiiim {'Ofnu) before iv J ; but i' ^ points back to a-Ta toZ vifjcov, and 
tt.Toia,v. is annexed absolutely to xaTnpy. , as a designation of manner : see riiilippi. 

^ [See Ji'lf 822. Oha. 3 sq., Don. [>. 363 ; and on the attraction of adverbs Jelf 
i-l-l. Ob>>. 10.] 


42 [jB^c], ov^ o5to9 iartv 'It^ctou? o vc6<; ^laxrrjcj) .... ttw? 
o3y A-eyet outo9 ac.t.X.' Amongst other passages, Bornemauu 
quotes as parallel Xen. Mem. 4. 2. 28, koI o'l re a7roTuy^dvovT€<i 
TMV TtpayfiaTOiv iiridv/xouai tovtov<; virep avriav ^ovkeveaOai, 
Koi irpoiaracrOal re kavroiv rourovi, koI to,'? iXiriBa'i tmv 
ayaOoiv ev tovtol<; e^ouai, koi hca irdvra ravra iravrcov fidXi- 
crra tovtov<; djaTTwcnv. In Latin, compare Cic. Vcrr. 3. 9. 
23 : hunc in omnibus stupris, hunc in fenorum expilationibus, 
hunc in impuris conviviis principem adhibebat (Verres). With 
a relative adjective this anaphora occurs in Ph. iv. 8, ocra 
iaTcv d\r]0t], oaa ae\hva, oaa hiKaia, oca d<yvd, ocra irpo^- 
(pCkri, oaa €V(f)T) fia. Compare further § 65. 5. 

4. x^nother use of these pronouns is far more common. 
When the subject of a sentence or the predicate placed early in 
the sentence consists of several words, we find ovro'i or eKelvo'i 
introduced immediately before (more rarely after) the verb, that 
the subject or predicate may stand out more clearly or with 
greater prominence: Mt. xxiv. 13, 6 vrrojxeiva'i ek reXo?, ovto'? 
cr(odi](r€Tac' Jo. i. 18, 6 fM0V0'yevr)<; vib<; o wv et? tov koXttov tou 
irarpo'i, eKelvo^ i^rjyyjcraro' Mk. vii. 15, ra iKiropeuo/xeva o-tt' 
avTov, eKelvd ecrri rd Koivovvra tov dvOpcoirov vii. 20, xii. 40, 
1 C. vi. 4, Toi/9 e^ovdev7}fju^vov<i ev rfi iKKkrjcria, tovtov^ Kadi^ere' 
Eom. vii. 10, 15 sq., 19 sq., ix. 6, 8, xiv. 14, Jo. v. 11, xii. 48, 
Ph. i. 22, al. Compare Thuc. 4. 69, Xen. Conv. 8. 33, Ages. 4. 
4, Plat. Protaff. p. 339 d, Isocr. Ucar/. c. 23, Paus. 1. 24. 5, 
Lucian, Fug. 3, .^1. 12. 19, al.- Of the use of Se to add 
strength to this emphasis ^ no example is found in the N. T. ; 
nor is there any trace herd of the anacoluthon which is not 
uncommon in Greek writers in such cases,* — unless we bring 
under this head the attraction in 1 P. ii. 7. 

Still more frequently are these pronouns so used after an 
antecedent clause beginning with a conjunction or a relative : 

' See Bomemann, Blbl. Stud, der sdch-s. Geistl. I. 66 sq. 

* See Schsef. Melet. p. 84, Jacob, Luc. Toxar. pp. 78, 144, and Luc. Alex. p. 7, 
Siebelis, Pausan. 1. 63, Weber, Dem. p. 158. As to Latin see Kritz, Sallu.^t I. 
171. [Jell' 6-^8. 1. On the frequency with which St. John thus uses lKi7yo; see 
Alford on Jo. vii. 29 : in classical Greek auT-j; is more common.] 

^ Buttm. Demosth. Mid. p. 152, Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 252, [Jelf 770, 
I. a ; compare Don. p. 577. Some regard 2 P. ii. 20 as an example of this 
kind, but see Alford in loc : Se is similarly used in A. xi. 17 Bee, see § 53. 

7; ft]. 

■* Schwarz, De discipular. Ckr. so'.oecisin. p. 77. 


Jo. ix. 31, edv Tt<? 6eoae^T]<; f) koI to OeXrj/xa avrov 'rrotfj rovrov 
dKovei- Ja. i. 23, Mt. v. 19,xii. 50, Ph. iii. 7, iv. 9, 2 firn.-ii. 2. 

We have a remarkable repetition of the demonstrative in L. xix 2, 
Kttt avTos ^v dpxi-TeX<i)vr]<; kol oStos yjv TrXovonos ', the meaning IS, 
He Idas a chief publican and indeed (as such) a rich man, — isque 
dives fuit (Matth. 470. 6, Jelf 655. 6. Obs. 2). Lachmann reads 
(with B) Koi auros (^v) TrXovcrLo<i ; but this reading has less to recom- 
mend it.^ Compare Xen. Cyr. 8. 3. 48. 

It is a different case when in a lengthened sentence the substantive 
is taken up again by a pronoun, for the sake of clearness : 2 C. xii. 2, 
oitSa avOpuiTTOv iv XptcrTO) . • . 7rp6 irwv SeKaTCcrcrdpoyv . . . ctrc ev 
ario/xaTL . . . aprrayevra tov tolovtov K.r.X. (Plat. Hep. 3. 398, Xen. 
Cyr. 1. 3. 15), 1 C. v. 3, 5, A. i. 21 sq. : compare § 22. 4. 

5. Before oti, wa, and similar particles, a demonstrative pro- 
noun is often inserted (particularly in Paul and John) when 
the clause which follows is to receive special prominence. See 

1 Tim, L 9, €tSa>9 TovTO, on k.tX., A. xxiv. 14, ojxoXo'ySi rovro aoi, 
OTi k.tX, Rom. vi. 6,' 1 C. i. 12, xv. 50, 2 C. v. 15, x. .7, 11, 

2 Th. iii. 10, Ph. i. 6, 25, Jo. xvii. 3, 2 P. i. 20, 1 Jo. i. 5, iii 
11, 23, iv. 9, 10, v. 3, 11, 14, 2 Jo. G ; compare Plat. Soph. 
234 b. So 6t<? TOVTO before iva, A. ix. 21, Eom. xiv. 9, 2 C. ii, 
9, E. vi. 22, IP. iii. 9, 1 Jo. iii. 8 ; iv tovtw oti, 1 Jo. iv. 1 3 ; 
€v TouTft) iva, Jo. XV. 8,^ 1 Jo. iv. 17 (see Llicke in loc.) ; iv 
TovT(p edv, 1 Jo. ii. 3 ; iv tovtcc' 6t(w._ 1 Jo. v. 2. Compare 
EUendt, Lex. Soph. II. 461, Franke, Deim&th. p. 40 (Jelf 657). 

The demonstrative is also introduced for the sake of emphasis 
when an infinitive ^ or a noun follows as predicate. 2 C. ii. 1, 
eKpiva ifxavTO) tovto, to firj TrdXtv iv XvTrrj 7rpo<; vfia^ iXOelv 
vii. 11, avTo TOVTO to kutci, Oeov XvmjOrjvac 1 C. vii. 37, 
E. iv. 17, Ja, i. 27: compare Xen. Hell. 4. 1. 2, Ages. 1. 8, 
Plat. Hipp. Maj. 302 a, Gorg. 491 d, Isocr. Evag. c. 3, Por- 
phyr. Abstin. 1. 13, Dion. H. VI. 667, t£e Th^ic. 40. 3, Epict. 
Enchir. 31. 1, 4, Stallb. Plat. Bep. II. 261. 2 C. xiii. 9, tovto 
Kol €u^o/jt,e6a, Trjv v/jlcov KaTapTiacv 1 Jo. iii. 24, v. 4 : compare 
Achill. Tat. 7. 2, (pdpfiaKov avToJ tovto Tij<i . . . Xv7n]<i 77 Trpo? 

^ [Recent editors either read auri; or omit the pronoun.] 

'^ In Rom. ii. 3 an extended vocative is inserted between touto and the clause 
beginning with oti. 

^ [Here the connexion of l» tovtm with "va may well be doubted. " The 
pronoun looks back, whUe at the same time the thought already indicated is 
developed in the words which follow : " Westcott in loc] 

* Matth. Eurip. Phcxn: 520, Sprachl. 472. 2. 


aWop 6t<r TO iraOeiv Koivcovia- Plat. Bej). 3. 407 a, Lucian, 
Navig. 3, Eurip. SuppL 510, and also Jacob, Luc. Toxai\ i^. 
136, Ast, Plat. Folit. p. 4G6. Even ei9 tovto is so used in A. 
xxvi. 16, elf TOVTO japaxpdijp aoi irpo-x^eiptaaadai ae v7r7)peT7]v 
Koi fjbdpTvpa k.tX. ; ovtco^ in 1 P. ii. 15 (1 Civ. 1); and 
ivTevOev in Ja. iv. 1. 

Lastly, the demonstrative is thus placed before a participial 
clause in Mk. xii. 24, ov Sia tovto irXavdade, fir] elh6Te<i Ta<i 
^pa^a'i K.tX., on account of this . . . because i/e knovj not, etc. : 
comp. Antiphon 6. 46, ovk aTre^/pdcfioi^jo tovtov avTov eucKU, ov^ 
rjyovfievoi fjue dnoKTelvai, k.t.X.^ (J elf 657.) 

The use of the demonstrative pronoun in such phrases as ov fxcTa 
TToAAas rauVas r/fxe/ja';, after (in) a few days (A. i. 5), presents no 
difficulty. It is not based (as is still maintained by Kiihnol) upon a 
transposition of ttoXv-s, but is to be explained in the same way as the 
Latin phrase " ante hos quinque dies : " in Greek compare Achill. 
lat. 7. 14, J)S oKiyoiV irpo Tovrutv r]fjiepu)v' Heliod. 2. 22, 97, ov TTpo 
TToWwv TwvSe rj/xepCjv. Aurat rjp.i.paL are these days just now past, and 
" ante hos quinque dies " properly means befoi'e the five days ftst past 
— reckoned back from the present time. Thus the pronoun connects 
the note of time with the present.^ 

The demonstrative in Ja. iv. 1 3, Tropcvcrw/At^a ets rrjvSc t^^v ttoAiv, 
into this and that toicm, the commentators and lexicographers are 
able to illustrate only by reference to the familiar expression 6 Setva ; 
but oSc is used by Greek writers in exactly the same way, e. g. 
Plutarch, Symp. 1. 6. 1, tt/vSc t^v rjfxepav, this and thai day.-^ 

The plural of the demonstrative pronoun, ravra, is not unfrequently 
used in Greek in reference to a single object, and thus, strictly 
speaking, stands for tuvto : Plat. Jpol. 19 d, Fha^dr. 70 d, Xen. Cyr! 
5. 3. 19.'* We find examples of this in 3 Jo. 4 (where some MSS. 
have the correction ravry^s, — see Liicke m loc.) and Jo. i. 51 ; but 
certainly not in Jo. xix. 36, see Van Hengel, Annotai. p. 85 sq. In 
L. xii. 4 /tera Tavra is afterwards, this formula having become simply 

' See Maetzner, Antiph. p. 219, Schoem. laoeus p. 370. 

^ [On the position of el see Jelf 738. 2. Ohs. '6 {not after many, but after few : 
Meyer) ; and on that of ravrxs, Jelf 453. Obs. 2, Don. p. 352.] 

^ fit is not easy to see why Tritli should not have its full force "as implying 
an object in immeuiate prospect ; tve will travel to this city here " (Green p. 125) : 
see also Alford in loc, A. Buttm. p. 103, and compare Grant, Aristot. Ethics, I. 
372. The passage from Plutarch admits of a similar explanation.] 

* See Schsef. Dion. p. 80 ; comp. also Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 524, Stallb. Plat. 
Apol. p. 19 d, Maetzner, Antiphon p. 153. Fritzsche (Qucest. Lucian. p. 126) 
thus qualifies this observation : plui'. poni de una re tautummodo sic, si neque 
uUa ^mergat ambiguitas et aut universe, non definite quis loquatur, aut una res 
plurium vi sit praedita. [See Riddell, Plat. Apol. p. 131 sq., Jelf 381. Obs. 1] 


adverbial. Nearly the same is to be said of the familiar phrase xai 
Tttura idque, H. xi. 12. On 1 C. ix. 15 ^ see Meyer. '^^ 

In 1 C. vi. 11, KoX TavTo, Ttv€s rjTi, ravra may be used with an 
implication of contempt, of such a sort, talis farina'- homines (Bernh. 
p. 281, Stallb. Plat. Rival, p. 274). Yet this was perhaps remote 
from the Apostle's thought, and ravra is often used with reference 
to a series of predicates, of such a description, ex hoc genere fuistis. 
Kypke and Pott in loc. have confounded usages which are quite dis- 

In 1 Jo. V. 20 Liicke ^ thinks there is a prozeugma of the demon- 
strati v^e pronoun, ovros Ifrnv 6 aXi]0Lv6<; Beos, koL (avTrj) ^wi] aiwvto? : 
this is not impossible in itself, but, as I think, it is unnecessary. 

Rent As regards the position of ovtos and cKetvos, it should be 
remarked that the former, from the nature of the case, usually stands 
hefore, the latter after the noun, — oilros o av$pwn-o<;, 6 avOpoinos ckcivo?. 
W e find however the opposite oi'der : in the case of ovros (Mt. xxviii. 
15 6 Adyos ouro?, L. i. 29, al.) without any substantial differeiice of 
meaning; in the case of c*cetvo? (L. xii. 47, H. iv, 11) especially in 
the connective formulas iv 6KciVat§ rais rjp.ipai's, iv iKUvq rfj rjfjicpa. 
or wp^, iv iKuvta tQ KatpuJ (Gersdorf p. 4.33). But it must not be 
supposed that any writer has so bound himself to one particular 
arrangement that we are justified in altering the other when it is 
supported by good MSS. or by the sense of the passage.* 

Section XXIV. 


1. According to the law of attraction/ the relative pronoun 
09 (never o<?Tf<? ^ in the IST. T.), when required by the governing 

^ [Meyer refers Tovruv to the ilovrla, the plural having reference to the various, 
forms of this power : so ;il.so Alf'ord. ] 

2 In the same way, i(p' eJ; and avU' Zv are used in Greek where the singular 
would be sufficient (Fritz. Rom. 1. 299). 

^ Compare also Studkn und Krilik. II. p. 147 sqq. 

* [The demonstrative pronouns in -S= are very seldom used in the N. T. In 
the best texts oli occurs 10 times (7 times in Rev. ii. and iii.), and raiii^i once : 
in most instances oh has its usual reference to v^'Xi^i follows (Jelf 655. 6).] 

* See Herm. Vig. p. 891 sqq., Bernh. p. 299 sqq. Compare also G. T. A. 
Kriiger's thorough examination of the subject (with immediate reference to 
Latin) in his Uvtfrsuch. a. d. Gebkte de.r IcU. Sprachlelire (3 Hefte : Braunschw. 
1S-27V K. W. Kiiiger prefers the term assimilation {Sprachl. p. 141). [Jelf 
822,T>ou. p. 362, Green p. 120 sqq.] 

^"Osri; occurs in the N. T. in no other case than the nominative, [the neuter 
accusative, aiid the contracted genitive, — the last only in im; omu (p. 75).] 


verb to stand in the accusative, is so attracted by tlie oblique 
case (the genitive or dative) of the preceding noun with which 
it is logically connected (as secondary clause with principal) 
that it itself assumes this case. This peculiarity, which gives 
to the sentences a closer internal connexion and a certain 
roundness, was quite familiar to the LXX, and is of regular 
occurrence in the N. T. (though variants are sometimes found) : 
L. ii. 20, eVt -jraa-iv oh rjKovaav Jo. ii. 22 (iv. 50), e-niarevaav 
Tft> \6'^(o c5 el-jrev A. iii. 21, 25, vii. 17, x. 39,xvii. 31, xx. 38, 
xxii. 10, Ja. ii. 5, 1 P. iv. 11, Jo. vii. 31, 39, xv. 20, xvii. 5, 
Mk. vii. 13, L. v. 9, xix. 37, Mt. xviii. 19, 1 C. vi. 19, 2 C. x. 
13,xii. 21, 2 Th. i. 4, Tit. iii. G, H. vi. 10 (ix. 20), x. 1,^E. i. 
8, ii. 10, Eev. xviii. G, al. Here the comma before the relative 
is in every case to be struck out ; see § 7. 1. Jude 15, Trepi 
Trdvrwv io)v epyrop dae^eia^ avroiv o)v r}(Te/377craj', deserves special 
notice : see § 32. 1. 

There are passages however in which this usage is neglected, 
as H. viii. 2, t^9 aKr^vi)^ rrj<{ aXrjOivrj^, rjv etrrj^ev o Kvpio<;' and 
according to good MSS. Mk. xiii. 9, Jo. vii. 39, iv. 50, Tit. iii. 
5 : ^ compare also the variants in Jo. xvii. 11, H. vi. 10, A. 
vii. IG, Kev. i. 20. Similar instances are frequently met with 
in the LXX and the Apocrypha : ^ for examples from Greek 
writers see Bornem. Xen. .^?t. p. 30, Weber, Dc?/?. p. 543,Krug. 
p. 142 (Jelf 822. Ohs. 9). 

Some passages appear to go beyond the rule as laid dowi- :ibove : 
thus in E. i. 6, rijs x^-P'-'^^'^ 1'^ ex°-f'^'^^'^^'' i^-^- *'' v)^ ^'^- ^' "^^'^ k\-<](t€o}^ 

Tj'; iKXjjOrjTe' 2 C. i. 4, 8ta t>}? 7ra/jaKA»ycrews 175 TrapaKaXuvfj-eOa,* the 

genitive ^s seems to stand for the dative ^. But all these passages 
may be explained by reference to the well-known phrases kXtjo-lv 
Kokeiv, 7rapa.K\r}cnv irapaKoXcLV, X'^P^^ x^'-P'-''''^^^^ aydTrrjv dyaTrav (§ 32. -), 
and to the equally familiar coii^^truction of the passive.^ In A. xxiv. 
21 also, <^ojv^s -^s iKpa$a eoToW k.t.X., 7;s probably is not put for r/ 
{(f>u,vy KpdCeiv, Mt. xxvii. 50, Mk. i. '26, liev. vi. 10, al.) :" </)ojv7/ is 

1 [Jo. ii. 22, iv. f.O, H. x. 1, are doubtful.] 

'•^ [Mk. xiii. 9 should be xiii. 19 (a.s in ed. 6) : en Tit. iii. 5 see Ellicott.] 

3 Wahl, Clav. p. 360. 

* Here however we mifjht <with Wahl) consider the genitive to be governed 
by the omitted preposition S/a : see § 50. 7 (Jelf 650. 3). 

* See Gieseler in Rosenni. RepeHor. II. 124: Aristoph. Pint. 1044, r«>.«;v' 
iyio T^; 'Cfipico; h vSip',Z,oft.ci,i, is probably to be explained in the same way. 

* Compare Boisson. Nicet. p. o-J. 


used in the sense of cry, exclamation (loud utterance), so that the 
construction resolves itself into ^twvrjv Kpd^civ (Rev. vi. 10 v. l), — an 
unusual, but not an inadmissible expression : compare Is. vi. 4, 
(f>wvri<; lys iKCKpayov. — In E. i. 8, -^s cTTcptVcrcvcrcv, the verb is to be 
taken transitively, as is shown by yi^wpto-a?, ver. 9. 

That however attraction may affect the dative of the relative, so as 
to change it into a genitive, is shown by G. Krtiger I.e. p. 274 sq. : ^ 
thus in 1 Tim. iv. 6, A has r^s /coA^s SiSaa-KaXias ry? 7rapyjKoXov6r}Ka<;. 
In Kom. iv. 17 also many commentators (and recently Fritzsche) 
resolve KarivavTL ov cTTtcTTEvcrev Oeov into KarevavTi d^ov (5 eTri'cTTeuorev,^ 
but this explanation is not necessary : see below, no. 2.^ On the 
other hand, Mt. xxiv. 38, ■^a-av . . . ya/Aov;/T€S /cat eKyayu.t^oiTS^ "X/^' 
^s ri/jiepa<s d<irjX6€ Nwc cts r^v kl^wtov, is probably a condensation of 
dxpi T^s Tjfji. rj et^XOev : similarly in L. i. 20, A. i. 2, 22.* We find 
the same attraction of the dative of the relative (without a conden- 
sation of the two clauses into one) in Lev. xxiii. 15, dTro ryjs rjixipas 
rj^ av TTposeeyKTjTe" Bar. i. 19 : the phrase ^s i^^cpas, it is true, is 
also used (on which day), but in the LXX the dative of time pre- 

2. We sometimes meet with instances of an inverse attrac- 
tion, the nouu to which the relative refers being attracted into 
the construction of the relative clause, and assuming the case in 
"which the governing verb requires the relative to stand (Jelf 
824, Don. p. 364). When this occurs, either 

a. The noun precedes the relative clause: 1 C. x. 16, rov 
aprov ov Kkwfiev, ovj^l Koivcovla rod crcofxaro'i ; Mt. xxi. 42 (from 
the LXX), \i6ov ov airehoKi^acrav ol olKoSo/jLovvTe<;, ovra iye- 
vrjOr} (1 P. ii. 7) ;^ L. xii. 48, iravrl u> iSoOr} iroXv, iroXv ^tjtt)- 

1 Comp. Heinichen, Euseb. II. 98 sq. [Jelf 822. Obs. 8, Madvig 103, Kriig. 
p. 142.] 

2 [So also Tholuck, A. Buttm. (p. 287), Jowett, Yaughan, Webster and 
Wilkinson. Meyer and Allord agree with Winer : see also Ellicott on E. i. 8. 
On A. xxvi. 16 see § 39. 3. Eeni. 1. In 2 Th. i. 4, aJs aiix^ah, some consider 
at; to stand for J», as in the N. T. avix^uiau governs the genitive in every other 
instance. Such an attraction as this, however, would be unexampled : see Jelf 
822. Ohs. 8, and Ellicott in loc. — From the LXX, Thiersch quotes Gen; xxiv. 7 
as an example of ri? for j? {De Pent. Al. p. 105}.] 

^ Compare Schmid in 'the Tubing. Zeitschr. /. Theol. 1831. II. 137 sqq. 

■* [" Axf ris rtft. (comp. It^pis ov, 'ia/g ov, las oTou) occurs Mt. xxiv. 38, li. i. 20, 
xvii. 27, A. i. 2 : aif'rT; fi/x. (comp. i(p' ov). Col. i. 6, 9 ; a.(p' ?is (scil. h/^tpas ov 
upas, see § 64. 5), L. vii. 45, 2 P. iii. 4 ; in A. xxiv: 11, ri//.ipas may be supplied 
from the preceding vfiipai. In A. xx. 18, a<f>' n; is most simply explained in the 
same way ; Jelf (822. Obs. 5) considers this an example of the repetition of the 
prepos. which belongs to the antecedent (Thuc. 3. 64). With these examples 

compare Dem. De Cor. 233. 27, olx a^' «; ufioa-oiTi iiftipa;, aXX' a.<p' %? h>^9r'i(ra'rt 

X.T.K., Xen. An. 5. 10. 12, «^£/>a ?xr>» a<p' ris 'fpi^t. In A. i. 22, ius ^ni hii. f,s, 
Meyer explains ris as a genitive of time. See Madvig I. c] 
^ [In 1 F. ii. 7, x/^oj is probably the true reading.] 


drjaerai irap* avrov: probably also L. i. 72, 73, fjivrjaOfjvac Bca- 
drjKT}^ dyLa<i avTov, 6p/cov ov (OfjLoae irpot; ^A^paa/u,' but pro- 
bably not A. X. 36, see below § 62. 3.^ — Or 

5, In position, as in construction, the noun is completely 
incorporated with the relative clause : Mk. vi. 16, op iyco direxe- 
^aXiaa 'lajdwiju, ovro^ icnc' Phil. 10, L. xix. 37. Rom. vi. 17, 
vTTTiKovcraTe et? bv irapehoOrire tvttov hihajfryi, is an example of 
this kind, — whether it be resolved into eh top tvttov 8i8a-^P]<i ov 
TrapeSoBrjTe, an accusative with a passive, for S? TrapeSodr} vfiip 
(for a similar attraction, by which the accusative of the more 
remote object is affected, see Demosth. Mid. 385 c, Bikt]p d/xa 
^ovKofxevoL \a^6tv, (ov eVi tmp dXKoip iredeavro dpaavv ovra' 
where mp is for a, i.e. eV oh, as a complement of dpaavp opra, — 
and Dion. Hal. 9. 565, dyapdKTqcn,<; vp.oiP irepl mp v^pl^eade vtto 
Toiv TToXe/Aiwy Demosth. Ep. 4. p. 118 b) ; — or more simply (as 
by Bornemann, Eilckert, Fritzsche, al.) into virrjKovaare {ru>) 
TV7r(pStoa^t]<i et? op irapehoBrjTe, since the construction viraKoveip 
TLvP is the only one that is suitable here. Even A. xxi. 16, 
dyopTe<; irap a> ^6vi(r0d)fiep Mvdcrcopi, is explained by some as 
an example of attraction, — d'yoPT6<i irapd Mpdacopa .... Trap' 
w ^eviaOwfiep \ but see § 31. 5. On 2 C. x. 13 see § 59. 7. 

Examples parallel to (a) : Hippocr. Morh. 4. 11, Td<i Trr]yd<; 
a? oopofiaaa, avrat tw o-dofMUTc k.t.X., Lysias, Bon. Arist. p. 649, 
JElian, Anim. 3. 13,' Her. 2. 1.06, Soph. Ul. 653, Track. 283, 
Eurip. Bacch. 443 sqq., Aristoph. Flut. 200, Alciphr. 3. 59 : 
the well-known passage in the jEneid (1. 577), urbeni quam 
statuo vestra est; Tereut. Eunuch. 4. 3. 11, Sen. Ep, 53. See 
Wetstein I. 468. From the LXX may be quoted Gen. xxxi. 
16, rrjv So^ap Tjp d(f)€i\€ro 6 deo'i .... i^fxip e<Traf and Num. 
xix. 22 : from the Acta Petri et Pauli (Thilo, Cod..Ap. 1. 7), 
dpKel rjixlp TTjp OXl-^iP rjp €')(^ofX€P Trapd Uerpov. (Jelf 824. I.) 

To (b) : Xen. An. 1. 9. 19, el' rtva opurr} KaraaKevd^opra rj^ 
dp'^oc %&>/3a9 {'xoipap r}<; dp^ot), Soph. (^d. Col. 907, El. 1029, 
Eurip. Orest. 63, Electr. 860, Rec. 986, Plat. Tim. 49 e, De- 
mosth. Ep. 4. p. 118 c, Plut. Coriol. 9 {Evang. Apocr. p. 414, 

• Comp, Gieseler I. c. p. 126, Kiiig. 224 sq. 

* On v-ruKoviiv us, especially in Josephus, see Kypke, Obnervqtt. II. 167, 
though exception may be taken to some of his examples. 


Ada Apocr.'^. 69): compare Liv. 9. 2, Terent. Aiidr. prol. 3 
(Jelf 824. II.). — On the whole subject see Matth. 474, Lob. 
AJax p. 354, 

To (h) would also belong Eom. iv. 17, /careVavri ov iirLo-Tcvo-e 
6€ov, "if resolved into KareVai/n Oeov, <3 eVtcrrei^o-e. On this sup- 
position, the law of attraction (so familiar had the construction 
become) is here extended so as to include the dative. Instances of 
this kind certainly do occur here and there (Kriig. 247 sq., Jelf 822. 
Obs. 8), e.g. Xen. Cy?: 5. 4.. 39, rjyero rwv iavrov Twv Tc 7rt<rraii', ols 
rjSeTO Koi S>v (i.e. tovtoh' ot?) rjir^crreL iroWovs : see Fritz. lioni. 

I. 237. Still, KarivavTi O^ov, KarevavTL ov iTTicTTevcre (see above, 1) 
is a simpler resoluti<ja of the words. The explanation proposed 
by Bretschneider (Lex. Man. p. 220) is farfetched in more respects 
than one. 

In the following examples the antecedent is merely incorporated 
with the relative clause, without change of case : Mt. xxiv. 44, rj 
uypa ov SoKciTe, 6 rtos rov dvOpwirov €p)^€Tai (Gen. ii. 17, Ex. X. 28, 
xxxii. 34, Num. vi. 13, xxx. 6), Mt. vii. 2, iv w yuerpw fjL^Tps'iTe, 
l-i€Tpr]Or]creTaL vplv' Jo. xi. 6. Mk. XV. 12 (H. xiii. 11), L. i. 4; also 
Rom. iv. 17, see above. When the clause containing the relative 
and the noun stands first, Greek writers usually insert in the prin- 
cipal clause a demonstrative corresponding to the noun, and also keep 
relative and noun apart by placing some Avord between them (Kriig. 
p. 144, Jelf 824. II.). 

The following are examples of attraction, with omission of the 
attracting word (demonstrative) : — 

a. Where a preposition is present : H. v. 8, €fxa6cv dc/>' wv tiraOe, 
i.e. d-Ko TovTiov a (wv) eiraOe- Rom. X. 14, Jo. vi. 29, xvii. 9, 1 C. 
vii. 1 ; Demosth. Euerg. 684 b, dyavanTrja-arra i(fi ols e'yw iireTTOvOeiv' 
Plat. Cratyl. 386 a, Xen. An. 1. 9. 25, Arrian, Al. 4. 10. 3, Lysias 

II. 242 (ed. Auger.): see § 23. 2. 

b. Without a preposition : Rom. xv. 18, ov toX/xtjo-o} XaXciv tl Stv 
OV /careipyao-aTo k.t.X., A. viii. 24, xxvi. 16 ; Soph. Fhil. 1227, QJd. li. 
855. On this, and on attraction with a local adverb (G. Kriig. 302 
sqq.), see § 23. 2. 

3. The noun which forms the predicate in a relative sentence, 
annexed for the purpose of explanation (09 — earl), sometimes 
gives its own gender and number to the relative, by a kind of 
attraction (Herm. Vi(/. p. 708, Jelf 821. 3, Don. p. 362) : Mk. 
XV. 16, T-^? avXrj<i, 6 icTTt "TTfjaiTcopcov G. iii. 16, tcw airipfiari 
aov, 09 ecTTi XptcTTO^' 1 Tim. iii. 15, eV oi/C(p 6eov, ijri.<; iarlv 
iKKXrjala 6eov' E. vi. 17, i. 14, Ph. i. 28, E. iii. 13, firj eKKu/ceip 
iv rai? dXlylrecrt jxov virep vjjuwv, i]Ti<; earl 86^a vfjuoip (for 6) ; 
also 1 C. iii. 17, where Meyer needlessly finds a difficulty in 


otTiv€<i. Compare also the variants in Eev. iv. 5, v. 6, b. On the 
other hand, see E. i. 23, rfj tKKkrjala, 7/Ti9 eVrt to acojxa avrov' 
1 C. iv. 1 7, Col. i. 24, ii. 1 7. Some have wrongly referred to this 
head Col. iii. 5, ^Ti9 eorlu elSwXoXarpeLa, taking t]ti<; for ariva 
(fieXr)) ; the relative refers to TrXeove^la alone, see Huther in loc. 
In Col. iii. 14, o seems the best reading, — a pure neuter, used 
without reference to the gender of the preceding or of the 
following noun : '^ on E. v. 5 see Eera. 1. In Mt. xxvii, 33 and 
similar passages o is qvod (soil, vocahulum). The commentators 
on H. ix. 9 are not agreed, but most now refer i]Ti<i to 77 irpooTr) 
<TK7)V7j in ver. 8, so that the passage does not fall under this 
rule. There is greater difference of opinion in regard to Col. 
i. 27, but it is better to connect 09 with o 7r\ovTo<;, as the 
principal word, than with fxvarrjpiov} 

It would seem that the relative usually takes the gender of 
the noun which follows 

(1) Where this is regarded as the principal noun ; as when 
the relative clause gives the proper names of things which in 
the principal clause were mentioned in general terms (Mk. xv. 
16,1 Tim. iii. 1 5 ; compare Pausan. 2. 1 3. 4, Cic. 'pro Scst. 42.91, 
domicilia eonjuncta quas urbes dicimus) — especially in the case 
of personal names (G. iii. 16, — compare Cic. Legg. 1. 7. 22, 
animal, quern vocamus hominem). 

(2) Where the relative should strictly have been a neuter, 
used absolutely, as in E. iii. 13. 

On the other hand, the relative retains the gender of the 
noun in the principal clause when the relative sentence serves 
to expand and illustrate the principal subject, containing some 
predicate of it (E. i. 23, 1 C. iv. 17)."'' — See on the whole G. 
Kriig. I.e. 90 sqq. ;* and as to Latin, Zumpt, Gramm. § 372, 
Kritz, Sallust I. 292, [Madvig, Lat Gr. § 316.] 

4. The relative pronoun appears to stand for the interroga- 
tive in a direct^ question in Mt. xxvi. 50, eralpe, e<f (that 

» [See Ellicott in loc, Jelf 820. 1.] • 

* [The most recent editors read ri -rXoZro;, so that, whether we take this word 
(Meyr) or fivtrrr.piev (Ellicott) as the antecedent, the gender would result from 
attraction. The best texts, however, have instead of oV. ] 

•'' romp. Bremi on Nep. Thrasyb. 2. 

* [See Ellicott on E. i. 14, Madvig 98.] 

* "Os occurs in an indirect question in Soph. (Ed. R. 1068 ; see Ellendt, Lex. 
Soph. II. 872. Compare also Passow s. v. [For examples of o? after verbs of 


is, eVt Tt, Aristoph. Lj/sistr. 1101) Trdpec. This misuse of the 
relative belongs to declining Greek (Schsef. Bern. V. 285), and 
similar examples with other relative pronouns are given by 
Lobeck {Phryn. p. 57), — see also Plat. Alcib. I. p, 110 c: 
there is however nothing very strange in such a usage if we 
consider how closely qui and quis arp connected in meaning. 
It is not known in good prose. In Plat. Men. 74 d, ri has 
been substituted, apparently without MS. authority : on Plat. 
Rep. 8. 559 a see Stallbaum. But it is not necessary on this 
account to assume an aposiopesis in Mt. xxvi, 50 (Meyer),^ or 
with Fritzsche to regard the sentence as an exclamation, " Vetus 
sodalis, ad qualem rem perpetrandam ades ! " By the question 
itself Jesus could fully set before the mind of Judas the 
wickedness of his purpose. 

There would be less difficulty in supposing (with Lachmann) 
that o,Tt" stands for ri, i.e. Bta ri, in Mk. ix. 11, Xeyovra' 6,rL 
Xeyouatv ol ypafx/naret^ k.t.X. ; as in Heliod. 4. 16, 7. 14 (quoted 
by Lobeck, I. c), 09x^9 appears in a direct question. In the 
N. T. however 6,r(, is never used as an interrogative pronoun 
(certainly not in Jo. viii. 25, see § 54. 1), even in an indirect 
question [§ 25. 1] ; and as another otl immediately follows, the 
first may be an error of transcription for ri : see Fritzsche.^ 

knowing, declaring, etc., see Mt. vi. 8, Mk. v. S3, Jo. xviii. 21, A. xxii. 24, L. vi. 
3 {aiiyvuTi o- compare Mt. xii. 3, iviyv. t/), Mt. xi. 4, L. viii. 47 (Her. 4. 131, 
Plat. Men. 80 c. Her. 6. 124, Time. 1. 136, 137). With L. viii. 47, S/ «v a/r/av 
n\Par(> ahrou afnyyiiXiv, compare especially Plat. Tim. 67, S/ «',- alria,; to. vipi 
ocvra. ^vfi^ctU'.i 'xa.iyiii.a.Ta., Xikt'iov. See Madvig 198 b, Jelf 877. 06s. 3 sq., A. 
Buttm. p. 250.] 

^ [Similarly Alford, Lightfoot, and others : against Fritz., Meyer urges that 
an exclamation would naturally have been expressed in an interrogative form. 
A. Buttm. (p. 253) agrees with Fritz. : comp. Vulg. (Cod. Amiat.), " ad quod 
venisti ? " (Cfcm. ; "ad quid venisti ? "). Most of those who read oti in Mt. 
vii, 14 (on t/ see § 53. 8. c) take the word in the sense of because : A. Buttm. is 
inclined to regard the clause as an exclamation, but it is doubtful whether he is 
justified in quoting Jer. ii. 36 (where oV< corresponds to the Hebrew no) as a 

parallel case.] 

* ["On (a,T/) is received by almost all editors in Mk. ix. 11, 28 : it is 
taken in the sense of why ? by Meyer, De Wette, A. Buttm., Alford, Webster 
and Wilk.,— either as being the pronoun S',t/ used for t! (Meyer, A. Buttm., 
Alf.), or through an ellipsis (as in ti on, De W., Jelf 905 8. k). In Mk. ii. 
16, en (o',Ti) is received by Tisch., Treg., A. Buttm., who also regard the 
word as interrogative. Tisch. quotes Bamab. Up. 10. 1, on Se Muucr»s upnKi* ; 
(Hilgenf. upriKiv-), rendered in the Vet. interp., " Quare autem Moyses dicit?" 
See also Barnab. Ep. 7. 9, 8. 5. In 1 Chr. xvii. 6 (cited by A. Buttm. 
p, 254) we find on corresponding with nD? ii^ the Hebrew : comp. Jer. ii. 36. 

T T 

Lachniann {Fraef. p. 43) compares this use of 'i,n with the introduction of a 
direct question by t\ (§ 57. 2). See Tisch. on Mk. ii. 16, Meyer on Mk. ix. 11, 


If on were the true reading, it might rather be taken as ore 
because: see § 53. 8, 10. 

Rem. 1. It is pecuHar to Paul to connect sometimes two, three, or 
more sentences by the repetiuion of the relative pronoun, even when 
it refers to different subjects: Col. i. 24 sq., 28, 29, E. iii. 11, 12, 
1 C. ii. 7 ; compare 1 P. ii. 22. — In other passages the singular 
relative has been supposed, to refer to a series of nouns, and to ha^ <•, 
as it were, a collective force : e.g. E. v. 5, on ttSs Tropvos 77 oKaOapro^ 
rj TrXfoveKTTj'i, os eo-rii/ clSoiXoXdrpr}^ k.t.X.^ But this is arbitrary, 
and would presuppose a similar forced explanation of Col. iii. 5 (see 
above, p. 207). 

Rem. 2. The relative clause beginning with os or osrts commonly 
follows the clause containing the noun, Vjut takes the first place if it 
is to be brought into prominence (Kriig. p. 144) : 1 C. xiv. 37, 
a ypa(f>(o v/juv oti Kvpiov Icttlv H. xii. 6, ov dyaTra Kvpto<; TratSevet' 
Rom. vi. 2, oiTtve? air (6 6.vop.€v rfj ajxapTia, ttws In t,rj(Top.ev ev avr'ri ; 
Mk. viii. 34, al. With a demonstrative in the second clause: Ph. iii. 
7, anva rjv /xot KepBr], Tavra riyrip.ai k.t.X., Ja. ii. 10,^ Jo. xxi. 25, 
xi. 45, Mt. V. 39, L. ix. 50, A. xxv. 1«, 1 C. iv. 2, H. xiii. 11 (Jelf 
817. Obs. 10). 

Rem, 3. The neuter 6 is prefixed to a wliole sentence in the sense 
of as concerns, as regards, etc. (as qnod in Latin) : Rom. ^i. 1 0, 
o 8c ^Tj, ^fj T<Z $€12' G. ii. 20, o Sk vw ^w iv (TapKL, iy tticttci ^a> k.t.X. ; 
compare Matth. 478 (Jell 579. 6). In both these passages, however, 
o may be taken as the object, quod vivit, — vita quam vivit. See Fritz. 
Bern. I. 393. (Jelf 905. 7.) 

Rem. 4. That os is used in prose for the demonstrative (i. e. in 
other cases than those which are familiar to all, Matth. 288 sq.) was 
believed by many commentators during the reign of empiricism. 
Now every beginner knows how to take the passages which were so 

explained ; e.^. 2 C. IV. 6, 6 6eo<; o elirMV Ik o-kotous ^wS Xa^ai//ai, OS 

^Xafxij/ev iv rais Kap8iacs k.t.X. In 1 C. ii. 9, Rom. xvL 27, there is an 

A. Buttm. I. c, priTOm's Clavis s. v. As regards these three passages of St. 
Mark, however, it seerns probable that er/ should rather be taken as the con- 
jmiction, introducing an assertion or exclamation (so Alford in ii. 16) : see 
§ 53. 10. 5.] 

- Compare Fritzsche, De Conformat. Crit. p. 46. 

2 [In Ja. ii. 10, L. ix. 50, there is no demonstrative : indeed none of the 
following examples, except Mt. v. 39, H. xiii. 11, are really in point.] 

3 [On the distinction between 0; and the indefinite relative osn;, see Krii- 
ger p. 139 (who calls « objective, «VTi; qualitative and generic), Jelf 816, 
Madvig 105, Clyde, -^yniaa; p. 58; for the N. T., A. Euttm. p. 115, Green 
p. 122 sq., Webster, Gr. p. 55, Lightfoot, Gal. pp. 177 sq., 207, and especially 
Ellicott on G. iv. 24. "OfT/f properly indicates th^ cla.<is or kind to which an 
object belongs, and hence its most common meaning is mhoever ; elsewhere it 
may usually be rendered, a man who (a thing ivhich), a class of men u-ho, such 
as, ofmch a kind as (Mk. xii. 18, Col. ii. 23, Ph. ii. 20, L. xxiii. 19). Hence 
hrii often brings in an explanation or the statement of a cause (^sch. Prom. 



Section XXV. 


1. The use of the interrogative pronoun rt?, ri, is in the 
N. T. extended somewhat beyond its ordinary limits. Not only 
is Tt? of very common occurrence in the indirect question and 
after verbs of hioiving, iyiquiring, etc. (whilst o<irL^, o,Ti, is 
never so used in the N. T.), but— especially in the neuter (rt)— 
it is sometimes found where a Greek writer would certainly have 
employed 6,ri,, so that the interrogative is weakened into our 
wJuit. For examples of the former kind see Mt. xx. 22, L. xxiii. 
34 (Mk. xiv. 36), Jo. x. 6, A. xxi. 33, Rom. viii. 26, Col. i. 27, 
al.: compare Xen. Ci/r. 1. 1.6, 1.3.17, Mem. 1. 6. 4, al.^ (Jelf 
877. Ohs. 2). Of the latter kind are Mt. x. 19, Bod/jcreTaL v/xtp 
. . . Tt \a\7]<TeT€, quod dicatis, and L. xvii. 8, erolfiaaov, ji 
BeiTTv/jaay, para, quod comedam (not g^idd comedarii, which would 
hardly be allowable in Latin in this connexion) : compare Bernh. 
p. 443. Only once do we find 6,tl, — in A. ix. Q>? The trans- 
ition to this use of tI is formed by such a construction as tL (f>d- 
yaaiv ovk exovaL, Mk. vi. 36 (Mt. xv. 32), for which 6,tl (fxi^co- 
a-tv OVK exovac might be substituted with but slight change of 
meaning ; just as in Latin both " non habent qiiid comedant " 
and " non habent quod comedant " are correct (Eamshorn, Zat. 
Gnwim. 368).^ In the latter formula, e'xety and habere simply 

V. 38, oiTis ^poSiuKiv), as in Col. iii. 5, " covetousness, a thiug which is 
idolatry " = "seeing it is idolatry,"— the reader at once perceiving that St. Paul 
introduces this statement of the quality of « -rXian^lx, that he may enforce 
his exhortation. See also Jo. viii. 53, H. x. 35, E. iii. 13, Ph. iv. 3. On the use 
of osT,; to denote "that which is to be regarded as the especial attribute of tlie 
individual" (1 C. v. 1, L. ii. 4), see Jelf 816. 6. The two pronouns were con- 
founded in late Greek (see Lidd. and Sc. s. v., Ellic. I.e.) : but in the N. T. 
the distinctive use of each is almost always, if not always, maintained. See 
Fritz. Opusc. p. 182, Grimm's Clavis s. v., A. Biittm. I.e. In modern Greek 
csr,; (which is commonly used in the nominative only) almost always has^ the 
meaning qui; as is extremely rare in the popular language : see MuUach, Vulij. 
p. 201.— "0<r«s, o7o;, 'oToloi, nx'iKoi, occur in the N. T. as indirect interroga- 
tives (see 2 Tim. i. 18, 1 Th. i. 5, 1 C. iii. 13, Col. ii. 1), and also— with the 
exception of ^x/xo;— as relatives. In H. i. 4, vii. 20 sqq., x. 25, Rev. xviu. 7, 
ovoi is accompanied by its correlative toitoutos : oi«j follows Ta/ouro; in_ 1 C. 
XV. 48, ah (TTiXixoyris, Rev. xvi. 18?): oiraloi follows rotouTos in A. xxvi. 29. 
—It may be mentioned here that of the neuter of Toirovros, toiouto;, both 
forms occur in the N. T., according to the best MSS.] 

1 Herm. ^nchyl p. 461, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II, t523. 

■^ ["o,T( is received here by the best editors.] 

'■' LZuuipt § 562, Madvig, Lat. Gr. § 363.J 


express the notion of having or possessing, — "■ tliat which they 
might eat, they have not : " in the former, the notion of an 
inquiry is also conveyed (and hence haheo quid must sometimes 
be rendered Iknoio what), — " inquiring what they are to eat, they 
have not (anything to eat)." Similar examples are Xen. Cyr. 
6. 1. 48, ovK tx<o TV tieii^ov Hell. 1. 6. 5, Soph. (lid. Col. 317, 
ovK e%&> ri (f)(o : see on the whole Heindorf, Cic. JVat. D. 
p. 347. 

The relative and interrogative are combined in 1 Tim. i. 7, 
//,/; voovvre^ fMijre a Xeyovcri firjre Trepl rlvoiv hca^e^atovvraL, non 
intdligentes nee quod dicunt nee quid asserant. Similarly in 
Greek writers we find tl and 6,Ti in. parallel clauses : compare 
Stallb. Plat. Rep. I. 248, II. 261, Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 641.' 

Schleusner, Haab (p. 82 sq.), and others refer to this head many 
examples which are of an entirely different kind : — 

(a) In some of these t/s retains its meaning as an interrogative 
pronoun, and nmst be rendered in Latin by quis or quid .• Mt. vii. 9, 
Ti's tcnai \l(TTLv\ ii v/awv a.i'Opayiro's k.t.X., quls erit ifltei' Vos hoiHO, etc. j 
compare Mt. xii. 11, L. xiv. 5, xi. 5 sq. 

{b) In otliers tl<; is not an interrogative at all, but the pronoim 
aliquis: 1 i'. vii. 18, Trtptrer/xTj/xc'i os rts iKXr'jOr], fii] iTTLcnrda-Ooj, some one 
who is eircunicised is called (1 suppose the case), /el him vol become 
imcircumcised : Ja. v. 13, KUKOTraOa. ri%, ■7rpo^ev)((.cr0w (.K'lf 860. 8), 
It is not correct to say that here rts stands for ei ns, see § G4. 5. 
Rem., [and § 60. 4]. Ja. iii. 13 should be thus punctuated (as by 
Pott, Schott, al.) : rts (to(}>o^ . . . ev v/juv ; Sci^aro) k.t.X. Ill A. xni. 
25 also we might write nVa /tf v-rrovoetre elycu ] ovk elfxl e'yco" though I 

do not consider the ordinary view (that riva is for ovriva) inadmis- 
sible t^ compare Soph. IJl. 1167, Callim. Ejngr. 30. 2. 

Tt"j is sometimes used where only tAvo persons or things are spoken 
of, in the place of the more precise Trdrepo? (which never occurs as an 
adjective in the N. T.) : Mt. ix. 5, t/ yap ia-Tiv ivK07n!jTep<w ; xxi. 31, 
Tis eK Twv Svo iTrnirjfTe ; 1j. vii. 42, xxii. 27, Ph. i. 22. Similar ex- 
amples are to be found in Greek writers,^ who are not so accurate in 

' [On tlie passages in which ris has been supposed to stand for the relative 
))ronoun in the ^i. T., see A. Buttmann p. 251 sq. : sec also Jell" 877, and Rest 
and Falin, Lex. s. v. Compare Deniosth. Dioni/s. p. 1290, UXjyo^svo; rivuv n'l 
Tt/io.) iTiriTccvTa' Fals. LciJ. p. 133 sq., t'i nraf v/jlIv i\pnip'(rra.i, tout i'riTr,fovy 


" [De "VVette and Meyer treat the first clause as a question : Ewald and 
A. Buttmann regard r'r^a. ("or t/) as used for the relative, and Meyer allows that 
this is grammatically admissible. Compare Ecclus. vi. 34, Ps. xxxix. 6, Lt'v. 
xxi. 17, Dt. xxix. 18 (Tisch. X. T. p. lix, ed. 7 ; Field, LXX \>. xxv). See 
Jftbb, Soph. Eh-cir. pp. 32, 116.] 

" Stallb. Phlltb. p. 16S (Jelf 874. Obs. 4). 


the distinctive use of t/? and irorepo? as the Romans are in regard to 
their quis and titer, — though even in Latin the distinction is not 
always observed.^ 

It is a mistake to say that the singular of the interrogative is used 
for the plural in such expressions as n' etrj ravra L. -xv. 26, Jo. vi. 9, 
A. xvii. 20. Here the various objects referred to (Tavra) are included 
under one general expression (ti), what (of what kind) are these things 
(hence also quid sibi volunt) ; whereas in nVa la-TL k.t.A. (compare H. 
V. 12) there is definite reference to the plurality, qum (qualia) sunt. 
compare Plat. Thecet. 154 e, 195 c.^ 

The interrogative ti sometimes stands at the end of the sentence, 
as in Jo. xxi. 21, oStos 81 tL; in the orators ttujs is often so placed 
(Weber, Dem. p. 180 sq., Jelf 872). 

Both in the N. T, and in the LXX we meet with tva tl, for what 
purpose, wherefore, as a formula of interrogation : Mt. ix. 4, ha ri 
v/jLCis ivdvfxeio-Oe ■jrovrjpd ; xxvii. 46, L. xiii, 7, al. This expression is 
elliptical, like the Latin ut quid, and stands for ivd ri yevrjraL (or 
yevotTo, after a past tense) ; See Herm. Vig. p. 849, Lob. Ajaz p. 107 
(Jelf 882) : it is not uncommon in Greek writers, particularly the 
later; see Plat. Apol. 26 d, Aristoph. Ecdes. 718, Arrian, Epict. 1. 
24, al., and compare Ruth i, 11, 21, Ecclus. xiv. 3, 1 Mace, ii. 7. 

2. The indefinite pronoun rt?, ri, is joined 

(a) To abstract nouns, for the purpose (inter alia) of soften- 
ing their meaning in some degree; as in Xen. Cyr. 8. 1. 16, 
rovTovi 7]<yetT0 rj aKpareia rivl rj ahiKia rj afieXeia cnr^Lvai, from, 
a certain (a kind of) weakness or injustice, etc., Plut. C'oriol. 14, 
Hence we meet with it when a writer is using a figure which is 
uncommon or too bold; as in Ja. i. 18, aTrap^i] rt? qucedam 
(qusisi) primitice (Buttm. I. 579, Schoem. Plut. Agis p. 73). 

(&) To numerals, when the number is to be taken approxi- 
mately and not exactly: A. xxiii. 23, Bvo Tivd<i about two, xix. 14; 
see Schfef. Dem. Ill 269, Matth. 487. 4 (Jelf 659, Don. p. 380). 

(c) To adjectives of quality and quantity, with rhetorical 
emphasis : H. x. 2 7, f^o^epd ri^ iKhUr)a-L<i terrihilis qucedamf 

^ [T/f is sometimes used in the sense of <rar»y both in the N. T. (as L. 
iv. 36) and in classical Greek : see Herm. Vig. p. 731, Shilleto, Dem. Fals. 
Leg. p. 14. It was at one time supposed that -yrolo! frequently stands for t/s 
in the N. T., but in most of the passages quoted in proof of this (e. g. Rom. 
iii. 27, A. iv. 7), if not in all, the qualitative force of -mlos may be traced with 
more or less distinctness. In modei-n Greek -roTos is frequently used in the 
same sense as tU : see Mullach, Vulg. pp. 58, 209.] 

2 Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. p. 101, "Weber, Dem. p. 192. 

^ Klotz, Cic. Led. p. 142, ^"auck in Jahns Jahrb. vol. 52. p. 183 sq. 


a right terrible {very terrible) 2ynnishment ; ^ compare Lucian, 
Philop. 8, (f)o^€p6v Tt deafia- Diod. S. 5. 39, iwL'irovo'i rt? ^/o?- 
yEscliin. Dial. 3. 17, Xen. Cyr. 1. 6. 14, 6. 4. 7,Heliod. 2. 23. 
y9, Lucian, Dial M. 5. 1, Plutarch, Phoc. c. 13.^ Sd of per- 
sons in A. viii. 9, ti€^a<; Tt<; a very great man (Xen. Eph. 3. 2, 
Athen. 4. 21, al.).^ Compare A. v. S6,\ey(ov€lvaLTLva eavrov 
that he is some one (of consequence, — really something) : see 
Bernh. p. 440, Krug. p. 1 5 1, Jelf I. c. Obs. 1. In Latin quidam 
is similarly used, and also — where there is no substantive or 
adjective to be strengthened — aliquis, e. g. " aliquem esse," Cic. 
Att. 3. 15. 

Ha? Ti? does not occur in the N. T. ; some woiJd introduce 
it in 1 C. ix. 2 2 (for irdvTtn'i rivd^) * on the testimony of a few 
authorities, but without necessity, and even without any critical 
probabiliiy. Eh ri^, unus aliquis, may be emphatic in Jo. 
xi. 49, 

The neuter n, aliquid, may be used with emphasis in Mt. xx. 20, 
for aliquid magni (see Fritz, in loc), but this is not probable. The 
pronoun must however be so taken in the formula elvai n, G. ii. 6, 
vi. 3, al., as in the famihar Latin phrase aliquid esse. In every case 
it is the connexion that gives the emphasis- (compare Herm. Fig. 
p. 731), and hence the subject belongs to the province of rhetoric: 
Tt Ae'yftv, Ti 7rpdfsa-f.Lv, are particularly common in Greek writers. 

Kem. Tt9 may stand either before or after its substantive, as rts 
aviqp A. iii. 2, avTjp Tts A. V. 1, X. 1 : the latter is the more asual 
position in the N. T. It has been doubted (Matth. 487. 6, Jelf 660) 
whether tis can be the first word of a sentence ; Hermann however 
{Emend. Rat. p. 95) sees nothing objectionable in this position of 
the pronoun. In the N. T. comjiare 1 Tim. v. 24, tlvwv av6pu)Tru)v 
at afiapTLai irpoSrjXoL itaiv .. Ttcriv Se k.t.X., A. xvii. 18, xix. 31. 

The abbreviated forms rov, tw (Buttm. I. 301, Jelf 156) are not 
found in the N. T. : they have been introduced by some into 1 C. 
XV. 8, 1 Th. iv. 6, but wrongly. 

1 [" Bernhardy's account of this usage {Syntax -p. 442) seems to be the 
true one, that it has the power of a doubled adjectival sense, and generalises 
the quantity predicated, indicating some one of that kind, it maybe anyone. . . 
The iiidefiniteness makes the declaration more awful." Alford on H. x. 27. 
See also Delitzsch in loc, Jelf/. c. — The word Ix^iKn^,; above should be Ix.'Sox'i: 
it is curious that this mistake should have escaped correction in all the German 

- Compare Boisson. Nket. p. 268. 

^ In these cases tis is our [indefinite article] ein emphasised ; as we can say 
in German, das war eine Freude, tJtat was a joy (a great joy), das ist ein Mann, 
that is a man (a strong, able man). 

* See Boisson. Eunajx p. 127, 


Section XXVI. 


1. In accordance with the Hebrew idiom,^ the X. T. writers 
sometimes use ov (fxrj) . . . ira? in the place of ouSet?, yuT^Sei?, 
always however placing the negative in direct connexion with 
the verb of the sentence: Mt. xxiv. 22, ovk av icwOrj iraaa 
adp^' Eoni. iii. 20, e^ epycov vofiov ov BiKaiooOijo-eTai iraaa <jap^' 
L. i. 37, OVK aBvvaTTjaet irapa rod 6eou ttolv p^fia' 1 C. i. 29, 
OTTtw? fiT) Kavyy'jarjTai iraaa adp^ /c.t.X. ; compare also Rev. xxi. 
27, ov fir] ehekOrj et? avrr/v irdv kolvoV A. x. 14, ovheirore 
€<f)a<yoi> irdv kolvov Eev. ix. 4 (Jud. xiii. 4, Sus. 27). 

On the other hand, when ov {jii]) and 7ra9 are joined together, 
without an intervening word, the meaning is not every (like 
71071 ortinis) : 1 C. xv. 39, ov irdaa adp^ t] avrrj adp^' Mt. vii. 
21, ov Trd'i 6 Xiywp' Kvpie, Kvpie, el^sekevaerai et? tjjv ^aa. . , . 
dW* 6 'TTotwv K.T.X., Not every one who (willingly) calh me Lord, 
hut (amongst those who do this) only he who does the will, etc.,^ — 
it is not the (mere) saying " Lord " that gives an entrance into 
the kingdom of heaven, but, etc. • A. x. 4 1 is similar. So also 
ov 'n-dvT€<; is nonomnes: Mt. xix. 11, Eom. ix. 6, x. 16. 

This distinction has its foundation in the nature of the case. 
In ov . . . 7ra9, ov negatives the notion of the verb, — a negative 
assertion being made in reference to ird^ : thus in Eom. iii. 20, 
every onan shall not-be-justified, the "not-being-justified" is 
asserted of every man, and hence the meaning is, no 7nan shall 
he justified^ In ov Tra?, it is Tra? that is negatived.-^On the 
whole, however, the fonnula ov . , . 7rd<; occurs but rarely : in 

' Leusden, BlaH. p. 107, Vorst, Bfbr. p. 529 sq., Gesen. Lg. 831 [Gesen. 
Hehr. Gt. p. 236 (Bagst.), Kalisch, Hebr. Gr. I. 236. For the N. T., see Green, 
Gr. ]>. 190, Jelf 905. Oh^. 9.] 

- ] cnnnot agree with Fritzsche (see also Prdl'tm. p. 72 sq.) in joining eh with 
the verb and rendering the words "no Lord-saver." The "saying Lord, Lord," 
is by no means excluded by the second member of the verse faXX' i -rotut) ; 
indeed 'jronlv to ('o.nfjLa toZ varfii ft-ov involves the acknowledgment of 
Jesus as the Lord. 

^ Gesenins I. c. merely mentions this peculiarity of the Hebrew language, 
without making any effort to explain it : P^wald, on the other hand (p. 657) 
[Lehrb. p. 7nO : ed. 7], has at least indicated the correct explanation. See Dni- 
sius on (i. ii. 16. and Beza on Mt. xxiv. 22, Kom. iii. 20. I have never been 
able to see what Gesenins means hv his distinction between el to.; and //r Ta;. 


the examples quoted above (which are for the most part sen- 
tences of a proverbial character) it seems to have been used 
designedly, as being more expressive. The N. T. use of this 
construction is almost confined to those passages in which the 
O. T. phrase '^V'T^t is introduced : in the LXX, as a trans- 
lation, the idiom is of frequent occurrence.^ All Georgi's quo- 
tations ( Viiid. p. 3 1 7) to prove that this construction is pure 
Greek, are beside the mark : in every instance Tra? belongs to 
the noun, signifying either whole (as in fj,r}8e rov a-rravTa xpovov), 
or full, complete (as in iracra avd'yKrf)? 

This Hebraism should in strictness be limited to the expression 
OX) (firj) . . . Tra? ; for in sentences with Tra? . . . ov (fj^r/)^ there 
is usually nothing that is alien to Greek usage,* or else the 
writer's reason for choosing this particular mode of expression 
is evident of itself 1 Jo. ii. 21, ttuv '^evSo<; eK t^9 oX'qdeia^ 
ovK eariv, all fnlschood {cverij lie) is not of the truth, is a 
sentence which any Greek might have written: Jo. iii. 16, 
iva 7ra<; 6 iria-Teucov etV avrbv fMt} diroXTjTai,, a\X e-xj) k.tX. (v. l.)^ 
that every believer in Him may not perish, hut, etc. In E. v. 5, 
7ra9 vopvo'i rj aKdOapTo^; rf TfKeoveicrr)^ . . . ovk e^et KXrjpovofxiav 
ev TTJ ^aaCkeia rov Xptarov, the apostle may have had an 

^ For instance, Ex. xii. 16, 44, xx. 10, Dt. v. 14, xx. 16, Jnd. xiii. 4, 2 S. 
XV. 11, Fs. xxxiii. 11, cxlii. 2, Ex. xxxi. 14 (Tob. iv. 7, 19, xii. 11). Yet they 
just as frequently use tli'' classical ai . . . evliis or oi/liv (see Ex. x. 15, Dt. 
viii. 9, .Jos. X. 8, Pr. vi. 35, xii. 21), or even the simple oulti; (Jos. xxiii. 9). 

* If Schleusner means to prove from Cic. Bosc. Amer. 27, and ad Famil. 
2. 12, that " non omnis " is used for " nullus," he cannot have looked at these 

^ That is, in the singular ; when tS; is plural (e. g. all men love not death), 
that is the ordinary mode of expression in Greek. Of this kind is the passage 
quoted by Weiske (Pleon. p. 58) in illustration of this Hebraism, Plat. Phced. 

91 e, 'jroTip^v, i^n, vxura; Tohi 'iuTfiffiit Xiyivi tivx xToVipf^KrSi, » robs u'ty, rou; 

V au ; "is it all . . . that you do not receive, or do you receive part and 
reject part?" In what other way could this have been (simply) expressed? 
In the LXX compare Num. xiv. 23, .Jos. xi. 13, Ez. xxxi. 14, Dan. xi. 37. 

* If a writer joins the negative to the verb at the beginning of the sen- 
tence (oh "iiKeciuiritrtTai), it may be supposed that he has the subject already 
before his mind (-ra.-,), and therefore might say ovo-U. If however he begins 
with -ras, either he has not yet decided whether he will use an affirmative or 
a negative verb, or else it seems to him more appropriate to make a negative 
assertion in reference to every one {tx; » vnrrsuaDi . . . ait /ah a-ri'/^yirai), 
than to make au affirmative assertion in reference to no one. Such an assur- 
ance as " no believer shall perish " would seem to presuppose that there existed 
some apprehension which it was the object of the assurance to remove. 

= [This is a v. I. in ver. 15, but in ver. 16 there is no doubt about the 
reading. ] 


affirmative predicate before his mind when he began the sen- 
tence (Ez. xliv. 9). Only in E. iv. 29, Eev. xviii. 22, and 
perhaps in Rev. xxii. 3, ovSiv would have been more pleasing 
to a Grecian ear. 

In Mt. X. 29 (L. xii. 6), we find iv ii airwv oi irea-fxTai, iyel) unum 
non, ne unum qiiidem (in contrast with 8vo, " two for an assarion, 
and not even one, etc.") ; similarly in Mt. v. 18. Such expressions 
(with a negative) are also found in Greek writers : Dion, H. Camp. 
18 (V. 122), fxiav ovK av evpoi Tts o-eA.i8a' Antiqq. II. 980. 10, /At'a re 
ov xaTcActVeTo (according to Schaefer's emendation), Plutarch, Gracch. 
9 : ^ in Hebrew compare Ex. x. 19, Is. xxxiv. 16. This construction 
cannot be called either a Graecism or a Hebraism ; in every cas'e 
the writer aims at greater emphasis than would be conveyed by 
ovSet's, — which properly expresses the same thing, but had become 
weakened by usage. ^ 

L. i. 37, OVK d8i;vaT>?o-ei Trapa [tw] OciS ttolv p^fjt.a ^ — nothing^ no thing 
(compare "in'n, and in Greek tTros) — is probably taken from Gen. 
xviii. 14 (LXX). Mt. xv. 23, ovk a-n-^KpiO-q air^ Xoyov, is simply. 
He answered her not a word : there Avas no need of tva here, — we 
also say "a word," not ''one word." ^ The Greeks could use the 
same expression, and its occurrence in 1 K. xviii. 21 does not make 
it a Hebraism. 

2i The one, the other, is sometimes expressed by the repetition 
of eU : — 

(a) In antithetical clauses, etv . . . kol eh : Mt. xx. 21, xxiv. 
40, xxvii. 38, xvii. 4,Mk. x. 37, Jo. xx. 12,G.iv. 22, — but in 
L. xvii. 34, 6 eh . . , [kuI] 6 erepo^J" compare xvi. 13, xviii. 10, 
^sop 119 (De Fur.): so in Hebrew nriK, Ex. xvii. 12, Lev. xii. 8, 

' See Schael'er on Plutarch I. c, and on Dionys. Compos, p. 247, Erfurdt, 
Soph. Antig. p. 121. [Jelf 738. 06s. 3.] 

^ Hence also the combination . evil ilj nemo quitsquam, nemo units, Mt. 
xxvii. 14, ovTi 'it ptifia ne unum quidern, Jo. i. 3, Rom. iii. 10, 1 C. vi. 5 [Bee] : 
see Herm. Vi(j. p. 4C7, Weber, Dem. p. 501 (Xeu. Cyr. 2. 3. 9, 4. 1. 14). 
This is frequently found in the LXX (especially as a rendering of inS K^)> as 

T V 

Ex. xiv. 28, Num. xxxi. 49. Compare also au . , . ^ori, 2 P. i. 21. 

^ [This passage is quoted above with the reading ^a.pa toZ doZ, which is 
received by recent editors. In favour of taking frtiJ.a. as word (not thing), see 
Meyer and Alford in loc, Ellic. Hist. L. p. 49.] 

* No one who has learnt to make distinctions in language will require ?»« 
here, on the ground that il; is expressed elsewhere (Mt. xxi. 24, Ifoirruru v/Aa; 

xayai Xiyay iva). 

* [Besides these two forms of expression, we find the following in the N. T. : 
ih . . . KOii 'inpo; (Mt. vi. 24, L. xvi. 13), o iTs . . . i ?£ 'ir. (L. vii. 41, A. 
xxiii. 6), iJ; ... oil IT. (L. xvii. 35, Tisch. ed. 7), i tTt . . . i aXXos (Rev. 
xvii. 10). In L. xvii. 34, xviii. 10 (quoted above), it is doubtful whether we 
should read i^s or o iT;. In G. iv. 24 we find fiia. /^U, not followed by a second 
clause. In Mk. ix. 5, Mt. xvii. 4, L. ix. 33, there are three members {i7s . . . 
>ca,'i iU . . . ««• ui). See A. jButtm. p. 102. J 


XV. 15, 1 S. X. 3, al. The Greek said eh fiev . . . eh Be, or eh 
fiev . . . 6 he;^ for the examples which Georgi and Schwarz "^ 
liave quoted as parallel to the N. T. formula are rather 
enumerations proper, reckonings of a sum total (e.g. eirjlit in 
till, o'ue .... one .... one .... etc.). 

{h) With a reciprocal meaning : 1 Th. v. 11, oiKoBofxetTe eh 
rov eva- 1 C. iv. 6. This would rather be an Aramaisin ^ (hence 


the Peshito repeats ,_k» to express aXKr]\., e.g. in Mt. xxiv. 1 0, 
Jo. xiii. 35), but is not in discordance with Greek syntax ; see 
Her. 4. 50, ev 7rp6<; ev (xvn^uXKeiV Lucian, Conscr. Hist. 2, 
ft)? ovv ev, (f)a(Tiv, evl iraoa^akelv Asin. 54. Compare also the 
phrase ev av6' evo^ (Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 339, Bernhardy, Dionys. 
Perieg. p. 853), and Kypke II. 339. 

Mt. xii. 26, o o-aravas rov (raravav e/c/JoAAei, IS rendered by some 
(on the principle of cuneus cuneum trudit), " the one Satan casts out 
the other Satan ; " but the true translation is, Satan uists out Satan. 
Compare, on the other hand, L. xi. 17. 

The Hebrew idiom, the man . ... to his friend, or brother, is 
retained by the LXX (Gen. xi. 3, xiii. 11, Jud. vi 29, Ruth iii. 14,. 
Jer. ix. 20, al), but does not occur in the N. T. : compare however 
H. viii. 11 (a quotation from the LXX), oi fxr] 8t8a^a>o-tv eKaaros tov 
TrX-qcriov (or better iroXi-rqv) avTOV koX CKacTTOS tov dScAc^ov avTov. 

On a Hebraistic mode of expressing every, by repeating the noun, 
e.g. rjjx^pa Koi yjfjitpa, see § 54. 1. 


Section XXVII. 


1. The singular of a masculine noun, with the article, is-not 
nnfrequently used in a collective sense to denote the whole 
class : Ja. ii. 6, r/TifidaaTe rov irTwyov (in 1 C. xi. 22 we find 
the plural), Ja. v-. 6, Eom. xiv. 1, 1 P. iv. 18, Mt. xii. 35. This 
usage is especially common in the case of national names, as 

1 See Fischer ad Leusden. Diall. p. 35, Matth. 288. Rem. 6. 

2 Georgi, Vind. p. 159 sq., Schwarz, Comment, p. 421. 

» Hoffmann, Gramm. Syr. p. 330. [Cowper, Syr. Or. p. 112.] 


6 ^IovBaco<; Rom. iii. 1 ; so Romanus often stands for Bomani 
(Markland, Eur. Suppl. 659). This quality is brought out 
more purely and sharply by the singular than by the plural, 
which points to the multitude of the individuals [§ 18. 1]. 
Akin to this is the use of the singular in reference to a plurality 
of objects, to denote something which belongs to each of the 
objects : 1 C. vi. 19, otl to aoifxa vfioiv vao<; r. ay. Tri/evfiaro'i 
(the reading of the best MSS.) ; Mk. viii. 17, Treircopwfxevrjv 
€)(eTe rrjv KapBlav (Ja. iii. 14, L. i. 66, 2 P. ii. 14, al.) ; Mt. 
xvii. 6, eireaav iirl irpo'^wjrov avrcov (Jj ii. 31, 2 C iii. 18, 
viii. 24) i^ Rev. vi. 11, iS607} avroi^ aTo\rj XevK-q (L. xxiv. 4, 
A. i. 10?); E. vi. 14, "Trepi^cocrd/jLevoL t?]v 6a ^vv vjjlmu k.t.X. 
(Jelf 354). This distributive singular, as it may be called, is 
common in Greek writers: Xen. An. 4t. 7. 16, et%oi/ KV7)/ju8a<i 
Kal KpdvT) KoX fjuw^^^aipLov . . . . Bopv K.r.X., Cyr. 4. 3. 11, 
Eurip. Cycl 225, Thuc. 3. 22, 4. 4, 6. 58, Pol. 3. 49. 12, ^1. 
Anim. 5. 4; compare Cic. Bah. 4. 11, Sen. Ep. SV. In the 
LXX compare Gen. xlviii. 12, Lev. x. 6, Jud. xiii. 20, Lam. 
ii. 10, 2 Chr. xxix. 6 : see also Testam. Pair. p. 565.^ In the 
N. T., as elsewhere, the plural is the form ordinarily used (so 
also in L. xxiv. 5, A. i. 10^). See, in general, Elmsley on 
Eur. Med. 264, Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 158. 

The collective use of the singular must not be extended beyond 
its natural limits. In 1 C vi. 5, SiaKplvai ava ixiaov tou dScA</)o{i, 
Tov dS. does not stand for t^5 dSeA^oTiiTo? : nor would anything be 
gained by such a supposition, for dva /aectov between should be fol- 
lowed by the mention of particular individuals, not of a collective 
whole. (Mt. xiii. 25 is a different case.) We should have dva /xcVov 
dScAt^oG Koi aStX(f>ov (Gen. xxiii. 15), or toiv a8eX.<jiu)v airov (see 
Grotius, — compare Pol. 10. 48. 1), or else the structure is faulty 
through excessive conciseness. Even in Meyer's explanation it 
is implied that the expression is incorrect, as it is also without 

2. Conversely, the plural of the class (masculine or femi- 
nine) is used where the writer wishes to express himself gene- 

^ 1 cannot bring in here iiro or -rfo rrpisu'rou a.hruv or vfiZv, xxtoc -prp. ■ravrav, 
etc. (L. ii. 31, A. vii. 4.5, Ex. xxxiv. 11, Dt. iii. 18, vii. 19, viii. 20, al.), as 
these phrases had already become mere adverbs. 

" In 1 Th. i. 7, msti yaiirlat h(jLa,% rv-rov 'Xa.cn roli -riffTiioufiv, the singular 
is quite regular, becau.se Paul is thinking of the church as a whole. 1 C. x. 6, 
11 [Rec], 1 P. V. 3, are of a different kind ; here the singular would be inap- 

^ [In these two passages Rec. has the singular, the best MSS. the plural.] 


rally, though the predicate directly refers to one individual 
only : Mt. ii. 20, redvrjKaa-iv ol ^rirovvTe<i rrjv ■^v^^rjv tov TraiBiov, 
though Herod the Great alone is meant (ver. 1 9) ; comp. Ex. iv. 
19, and see -^Eschyl. From. 67, Eurip. Hec. 403, ^schin. adv. 
Timarch. 21, and Brenii in loc} On the other hand, in Mt. 
ix. 8, eho^aaav tov 6 gov tov Bovtu i^ovcrtav TocavTtjv Tot? 
avOpoiiTOL^, the reference is certainly not to Chriat alone ; the 
words must betaken quite generally, as in H. ix. 23. In Mt. 
xxvii. 44, ol XijaTaL, \ve must recognise a different tradition 
, fi-om that followed in L. xxiii. 39.^ In 1 C. xv. 29, vTrcp t&v 
veKpcov can hardly refer to (the dead) Christ, — in that case we 
should have had eh tov^ v€Kpov<i, — but must be understood of 
(unbaptised) dead men. 

In A. xiii. 40, to elpiifxevov cv toi? vpo(f>yrai.<; (Jo. vi. 45), we 
havo merely a general furm of quotation (A. vii. 42, iu (SljSXiw ruiv 
TTpo^firiTMv), just as we ourselves say " in Paul's Epistles," etc., when 
we either do not wish or are not able to give the exact reference. 
Mt. xxiv. 26, iv Tot? T(i/Actot? (opposed to iv rfj ipr,p(^) is essentially 
of the same kind : compare Liv. 1. 3, Silvius casu qiiodam in sUvis 

In Mt. xxi. 7, eVavw airStv probably refers to the Ipdrta ; but 
there would be nothing absurd in the words even if they refeired 
to the two animals, any more than in eTnyScyST^Kw? ivl ovov koI ttCjXov, 
ver. 5. We ourselves say loosely, " he sprang from the horses," 
although only one of the team, the saddle-horse, is meant. 

It is quite erroneous to suppose that in 1 C. xvL 3 the plural 
iiTLarToXal is used for the singular (Heumann in loc). Though 
i-ma-ToXaL may be used of a single letter,^ yet in this passage the 
words 8l tTTto-T, must certainly be joined with Trepyj/oi, and it is in 
itself not at all improbable that Paul might send several letters to 
different persons. 

3. Not a few nouns which in German [and English] are 
used in the singular are either always or usually plural in the 
N. T. These nouns denote objects which — from a general, or a 
Grecian, or a Biblical point of view — pre.sent to the senses or to 
the mind something plural or comprehensive (Kriig. p. 12, Jelf 
356, Don. p. 367). Thus we find aldves H. i. 2, the world 

1 IV.r.son, Eur. Phoen 36, Reisig, Conject. in Arisfoph. p. 58, and 
C. L. Roth, Grammat. Qucesf. e O. TacUo (Noriml). Iri29), § 1. [Green, Gr. 
p. 83 sq.] 

2 [On tlie other side, see Smith, Diet, of Bib! c III. 1488 ; Lange, Life of 
Christ IV. 397 (Transl.) ; Farrar, Life of Chrid, p. 410 sq., and note on L. xxiii. 
S9. Compare Green p. 84.] 

■■' Schaif. Plutarch V. 446, Poppo on Time. 1. 132. 


(D^pp^y) ; ovpavoC ccdi} compare 2 C. xii. 2 ; ta aryia the sanc- 
tuary, H. viii. 2, ix. 8, 12, al. ; dvaroXal, Svafial, the regions 
of the East, West, Mt. viii. 1 1, xxiv. 27 (Plat. Def. 411b, Epin. 
990 a, Diod. S. 2. 43, Dio C. 987. 32, Lucian, Ptfr(?^r. 39); 
Ta Be^id, dpicrrepd, ev(ovv/j,a, the right, left side (frequently) ; 
Bvpai fores, folding doors (so also irvXat in Greek writers), 
A. V. 19, Jo. XX. 19, — but not A. xvi. 26 sq., Mt. xxiv. 33, for 
here Bvpau is a real plural ; koXttol hosom, L. xvi. 2 3 {koX'tto'; in 
ver. 22), compare Paus. 6. 1. 2, ^1. 13. 31 ; rd l/xdrLa of the 
(single) upper-garment, Jo. xix. 23, xviii. 4, A. x. 6 ; ^ the names 
of the festivals i<yKaivia, yevea-ia, d^v/xa {Ilavadrjvaia, Satur- 
nalia^) ; 7a/iot nuptials, Mt. xxii. 2, L. xii. 36 (compare Tob. 
xi. 20*); oyfroovia wages, Rom. vi. 23 (Fritz. JRom. I. 428), 
and dpjvpia pieces of money, shekels, Mt. xxvi. 15, xxviii. 12. 
When the names of countries or cities are plural, the cause 
must be sought in the (original) plurality of the provinces 
{Gallice) or of the distinct parts of the city, as ^Adrjvai, Tldrapa, 
^IXiTTTToi, and probably rd 'lepocroXv/ia.^ Lastly, the plural 
of those nouns which denote a feeling, a disposition, or a state, 
expresses the forms or acts in which these are manifested : 1 P. 
ii. 1, dirodepLGvoi irdcrav KaKiav . . . k. vTroKpLcret^ k. ^Oovovi 
K. 7rdaa<i KaraXaXtd<i' 2 C. xii. 20, epi?, ^rjXo^, Ov/J-oi, ipidelai, 
KaraXaXial, ■\ln6vpiafx,0L, <f)v(ncoa€t<i, dKaTaaraalat' 2 C. xi. 23, 
eV 6avdroL<i TroWa/ct?' E. vi. 11, G. v. 20, 1 P. iv. 3, Ja: ii. 1 
(2 C. ix. 6), Jude 13, 1 C. \di. 2.^ Thus the plural oUripfioi, 
^''^Dp., is more common than the singular, which is found once 
only (Col. iii. 12 v. Ij): E. ii. 3, deX^p,ara Tri<i crapKot;, also 
comes in here.^ 

The plural of alfia Mood occurs Jo. i. 13 (with reference to natural 
generation) : the only direct parallel to this is found in a poetical 

1 Schneider, Lat. Gr. II. 476. 

2 [These two references are wrong. In ed. 5, AViner gives Mt. xxvii. 31, 
Mk. V. '60, Jo. xiii. 4, 12, A. xviii. 6 : hence we should probably read here Jo. 
xix. 23, xiii. 4, A. xviii. 6.] 

3 Poppo, Thuc. III. iv. 20. 

* [A mistake, probably for viii. 20, or xi. 18.] 

* Comp. Nobbe, Schedce Ptolem. I. 22. [See also Smith, Diet, of Bible 
I. 982.] 

^ Fritz. Rom. III. 6, Krltz, Salhist I. 76. 

' [Here the plural has the support of one oiily (K) of the uncial MSS.] 

* On the whole subject see Jacobs, Act. Fhilol. Monac. I. 154 sq., Schoem. 
riut. Agis p. 75 sq., Stallb. Plat. Rep. II. 368, Heinichen, Euseb. III. 18 sq., 
Beruh. p. 62 sq. (Jelf 355, Don. p. 367). 


passage, Eur. Ion 693, but the plural in itself presents no more 
difficulty in the case of alfia than in that of other fluids, as ra vSara 
and Ttt yoAa/cra, Plat. Legg. 10. 887 d (Jelf 355). In Eev. xviii. 24 
al^ara is a real plural. The plural is not used for the singular in 
al ypa<f)ai, ra Upa ypd/xfjiaTa ; or in al SiaOrJKat Rom. ix. 4, E. ii 12, 
the covenants •which God repeatedly made in the patriarchal age, 
with Abraham, with Jacob, through Moses (compare "Wis. xii. 21, 
2 Mace. viii. 15). 'ETrayycAtat, H' vii. 6, must be similarly explained. 
Neither in these words, nor in Jo. ix. 3, 2 C. xii. 1, 7, nor in H. 
ix. 23 (where the language is general), can we assume the existence 
of a Hebraistic pluralis majestatis. 

Ta crd^/3aTa, where the weekly day of rest is meant (Mt xii. 1, 
L. iv. 16, al.), either is a transcript of the Aramaic snac', or is 
formed according to the analogy of names of festivals. With more 
reason might dyca dyioiv, used in H. ix. 3 for the most holy place 
of the temple of Jerusalem, be regarded as a pluralis excellentice ; 
unless indeed (vrith. Erasmus and others) we prefer the accentuation 
dyta dytwv (compare SfiAaia SetAaicuv, Soph. £1. 849). But though 
in the Pentateuch this part of the Israelitish sanctuary is called to 
dytov Twv ctyuov (Ex. xxvi. 33, Num. iv. 4, compare Joseph. ArM. 
3. 6. 4), yet in 1 K. viii. 6 this very (pl'i.ral) form rd dyta twi/ dytW 
is used in the same sense. ^ We may compare the Latin penetralia, 
adyta (Virg. ^n. 2. 297). 

As to Ph. ii. 6, TO ilvai ta-a $e(2, where ta-a is used adverbial!}-, 
compare the classical usage of the word, //. 5. 71, Odyss. 1. 432, 
15. 520, Soph. (Ed. R. 1179, Thuc. 3. 14, Philostr. Ap. 8. 26, al. ; 
and see Reisig, (Ed. Col, 526 (Jelf 382. 1). 

4. The dual of the noun is not found in the N. T. '^ (except in 
the numeral ^vo), the plural being used in its place, — even with 
8^0, see Mt. iv. 18, xviii. 9, xxvi. 37, Jo. iv. 20 [40 ?], A. xii. 6, 
aL Indeed in later Greek generally the dual form is rare. In 
liev. xiL 14, rpe^erai Kaipov Kal Kaipov<; Kal TjfMia-v Kat.pov,th.e 
plural by itself denotes two years : this is an imitation of the 
Chaldee r?"7V in the Greek versions of Dan. vii. 25.^ Standing 
thus between a year and half a year, the plural was allow- 
ably made to signify two years. The use of ')(p6vo^, ^ovoi, 
in the sense of year, years, becomes more and more common 

1 [Not in thi.s passage only : see Num. iv. 19, 2 Chr. iv. 22, v. 7 (quoted by 
Bleek. in loc. ). ] 

* [It is not found in the LXX, or in modern Greek : see MuUach, Vulg. p. 
149 sq.] 

* It should be noticed that the Chaldee has (as a rule) no dual : see my 
Chaldee Grammar p. 77. ["As a rule "—because '| the few dual forms are 
borrowed from the Hebrew, and are found only in Biblical Chaldee."] 


in later Greek: see also Evang. Aiwcr. pp. 60, Gl, Epiphaii. 
Mon. 29. 28. 

Boniemann discovers a trace of the dual in A. xv. 1 2, in a reading 
i^rj-yov/^ui-oy (with v added above the line) found in a single MS., — 
from which Tischendorf quotes the reading i^qyoviievoi, — and is ready 
to greet this number Iceto animo ! 

5. The neuter singular or plural is sometimes found where 
persons are referred to, the writer wishing to make his state- 
ment altogether general (Jelf 436. 2) : 2 Th. ii. ^,to Ka-rk-^ov 
oUBare (in ver. 7, 6 Kare')(wv) ; H. vii. 7, to eXarrov vtto rov 
Kpelrrovo^ evXayelrat (Theodor. m loc.) ; .L. i. 35, 1 C. i. 27, 28, 
ra ficopa rov Kocr/xov . . . ra aaOevrj ra i^ovSevrjfjbeva (in ver. 26 
ol a-o<poi); Jo. vi. 37, 1 Jo. v. 4 (compare ver. 1) : so also in 1 C. 
xi. 5, but not in Col. i. 20, H. vii. 19, Jo. iii. 6, see the more 
recent commentators. In Rom. xi. 32 tou9 Trai/ra? is the estab- 
lished reading. Similarly in Tlnic. 3. 1 I, ra Kparia-ra iirl rov<i 
VTroBeearepov^i ^vveirt^yov Xen. An. 7. 3. 11, tu fieu (ftevyovra 
KOL (iTroBiSpda-Kovra rifiei^ iKavol iaofMeOa BiuiKeLv Kal fiaareveiv, 
rjv Be T/-? dvdLcrrijrai k.t.X} 

6. The neuter seems to be used for the feminine in ML xii. 
28, TTola icrrlv evToXr} 7rpa>Tr} ttuvtcov (for iracroiv, which is a 
correction). Here however nrdvr oyv stands without any generic 
relation to the noun which precedes, for the general expression 
omnium {rcrnm) : '^ corap. Liician, Piscat. 13, ixla iravrcov rjye 
dXijOij'i ^iXoao(fjLa (according to the common text ; al. irdvTw'i), 
Thuc. 4. 52, Td<i re aXXa^; 7roA.et9 koI irduratv fidXicrra ttjv 
"AvTuvBpov : see D'Orville, Charit. p. 549 sq., Porson, Eur. 
Pluj&n. 121, Fritz, on Mk. /. c. "VVe cannot however say (wi-th 
1^'Orville /. c. p. 292 sq.) that in A. ix. 37, XovcravTe^ aur'qv 
eOrjKav, the masculine XovaavTe<i is used for Xovcraaat, because 
the women attended to tJie washing of the corpse. Tlie 
writer's language is quite general ^ and impersonal: they vjashed 
and laid. If Luke had wished to notice the custom with his- 
torical precision, he must have express;3d himself more circum- 
stantially. Con) pare Xen. Mem. 2. 7. 2, avveXrjXvOaaiv . . . 

^ Poppo, Thvc. I. 104, Seiiller, Eur. Troad. y. 01, Kritz, Sail. II. 69. 

*[A. Butlm. ]t. 374, Uieeii p. 109: A. Buttiiiaiiii compares Iv roTs, whicli is 
joined to a siiporlittive without clianci' oi" gender ^Don. p. 396), as iv to7; TkiTtrTui 
Thuc. 3. 17. See further Aiford on Mk. i. c] 

•■' Herm. Soph. Trwhln. p. 39 (Jelf 379. Oh.<. 1). 


uSeX<pai Te Kai u8e\<f}t,Sal Kal aveyjnal Toa'avrat, M<iT elvai iv ry 
ol/cia recaapa kci i^€Ka tov<; iXevdepovi, fourteen free perso7is, 
wliere the iTiasculiiie is used, although, as it appears, these free 
persons are women : Suet.iV^^T. 33, acceptum a quadam Locusta, 
veneriariorum inclita. (In L. xxii. 58 and Mt. xxvi. 7 1 we have 
two different accounts ; see Meyer.^) 

The masculine does not stand for tlie feminine in Gen. xxiii. 3, 
aviaTTj A/3paa/x utto tov i'€Kpov uvtov' or in ver. 4, Odif/o} tov v eKpov 
fxov (ver. 16), though Sarah is meant; or in Snsan. 61, eVouycrav 
ovrois ov TpoTTOv lirovrjpixfTavTo tw TrA^yo-iov, though Susanna is meant. 
With Gen. xxiii.-' compare Soph. A/dig. 830, </)(///x€Va» (vulg. KftOLn^va) 
Tois l(TobiOL<i lyKXrjpa Xu^^uv fityoi : for a cooyst the Greeks ahvays use 
o v€Kp6<i, never the feminine. See further Ilerm. Soph. Antlg. pp. 
114,176. (Jelf 390. 1. c.) 

Kem. 1. In Eom. xi. 4, a quotation from the 0. T. (1 K. xix. 
18), we meet with tlie feminine 17 BaaA (Hos. ii. 8, Zeph. i. 4). It 
is not probable that this form was chosen for the sake of expressing 
contempt, in the same way as the feminine forms of the names of 
idols are said to be used in Arabic and by Kabbinical writers (?).3 
In this particular pi ssage the LXX has tw BauA, but Paul, who is 
quoting from memoiy, might easily write 17 BuoA, a form which he 
had found in some passages of the LXX (though the MSS. vaiy 
now) : Iviickert is in perplexity, as he often is. It was after all a 
matter of indifference whether the male or the female Baal should 
be mentioned. — The feminine p,ot.xaX&€%, Ja. iv. 4, in the midst of a 
general address, is explained by Tlieile by reference to 0. T. usage : 
against this see De Wette. Theie is no decisive external evidence 
for the omission of /xoixoi Kai ; and to refuse to admit an error of 
transcription, even when similar words come together, is to carry 
reverence for the (remaining) ])rincipal MSS. too far.* 

Rem. 2. When a noun of any gender is taken in a material sense, 
as a lomd, it is joined Avith the neuter article : as G. iv. 25, t6"A-/u/j, 
the (word) Hagar.^ The feminine may seem to be used for the 
neuter in -r) ohai. Rev. ix. 12, xi. 14 ; but the writer probably had 
some such word as 6X1x111% or TaXantiapia before his mind. 

Rem. 3. On the adverbial use of the fenunine adjective (as in 
i8ta, KaT Ihiav, etc.), see i:? 54. 

' [See howcvc-r Alford on Mt. xxvi. 69 ; l»ut especially Wcstcott, St. John py>. 
263 -'266.] 

- We ourselves say, Er Icprvb ncinen Todijn. [Tlml is, Il't biirifd bis dead, 
— the last word beir.g uiiusculiiie.1 

^ See Gesenius in Rosenm. Repertor. I. ]39, Tlioluck on Eom. L c. ; ami 
on the other side Fritz. Rvm. II. 442. 

■• [K agrees with A and B in omitting /ufl.A;^' »«'. ""fi ^'^^^ testimony of 
these MSS. is rightly followed by recent editors. See Alford's note for a good 
defence of Theile's view.] 

nSee above §18. 3.] 


Section XXVIII. 


1. It was not difficult for foreigners to understand the ge- 
neral import of the Greek cases. Even in the language of the 
Jews the ordinary case-relations are exhibited clearly enough, 
though they are not marked by special terminations ; and, in 
particular, the Aramaic approaches the Western languages in 
the mode of expressing the genitive. To learn to feel, as a 
Greek would feel, the force of the oblique cases in all their 
varied applications, remote as some of these applications were, 
was a matter of great difficulty ; and in this particular Greek 
usage did not accord with the vivid and expressive style of the 
Oriental tongues. Hence we find that the K T. writers, in 
accordance with the Oriental idiom, and partly in direct imitatiou 
of it, not unfrequently use a preposition where a Greek writer, 
even in prose, would have used the case alone. Thus we have 
hihovac eK, eaOiuv cltto, ^lerex'^iv ck, in the place of BcBoi^ac,, 
iadtetv, fxere'xetv riv6<i (comp. § 30) ; iroXefielv fierd TLvo<i, instead 
of Tivi; KaTTjyopelv and eyKaXetv Kardnvo^ (L. xxiii. 14,Eom, 
viii. 3 3), for tlvl ; ^ iyeipeiv nvd ek ^aaiXea, A. xiii. 2 2 (§ 3 2) ; 
^a<ri\eveiv eiri nvc or Tivd (?V 'H^?), for Ttj/09 ; dOcoo^; with utto, 
in the place of the simple genitive.^ In the LXX compare 
(fyelBeaOuL eVi Tivi, or Tivo<;, or inrep Tivo<i (pV D^n). 

This use of prepositions in the place of cases is, however, a general 
feature of (antique) simplicity, and is therefore found not only in 
the earlier Greek poets (as Homer), but also in the prose writers (as 
Lucian).* Hence also for several expressions of this kind parallels 
may be produced even from good writers, — e. g. for Travciv airo, com- 
pare Matth. 355. Rem. 1.^ 

1 Hermann, De Emend. Rat. I. 137 sqq., Bernhardy p. 74 sqq. There is a 
monograph on the subject by J. A. Hartnnp, Ueber die Casus, ihre Bildung und 
Bedeutung in der griech. u. lat. Sprache (Erlang. 1831) : and another by Rumpel, 
Ueber die Camslehre in Beziehung auf die griech. Sprache (Halle 1845). 
[Donalds. New Crat. p. 428 sqq., Oramm. p. 464 .sqq., Clyde, Oreek Synt. pp. 
23 -sqq., 38 : compare Jelf 471 sqq.] 

^ Somewhat as the Byzantines say ayavccKruv or ifyiZ'-'S'^t Kara r/vaj, or like 
ipylXirSti vfo; rivm Dio. Chr. 38. 4/0. 

3 Krebs, Obs. e Josepho p. 73 sq. [Liinemann adds (tvilaUi Iv, Ph. iv. 12.] 

* See Jacob, QucBst. Lucian. p. 11 sq. 

^ [This excessive use of prepositions may have been then, as now, a character- 
istic of the popular spoken language ; see J. Donaldson in Kitto, Cycl. II. 171. 
For many examples of this kind in modem Greek see MuUach, Vulg. p. 323 
sqq., Sophocles, Gramm. p. 152 sqq.] 


2. There is in reality no such thing as the use of one case 
in the place of another {enallage casuuvi) ; but sometimes two 
cases may be used in the same connexion with equal correctness, 
if the relation is such that it can be viewed in two different 
ways. Thus we may have 'Aao-vpLo^ ru> yevei and 'Aaavpic^ 
TO 7e«'0?, irpo'iKvvelv rwi. to show reverence to, and irpo'iKvveiv 
Tivd to Tf.Oi'.rence, KaXm iroieiv nvd and rtvC (Thilo, Act. Thorn. 
38), €voxo<: rii/i and riva (Fritz. Matt. p. 223)/ oixoU)^ tivo^ 
and Tivi, TTK-qpovadai two'; {from or of something) and rtw 
{with, hy mecms of). So also (MtfivrjaKeadal ri and tw/o? (like 
recordari rei and rem); in the former case {jiifiv. n, to 
remember a thing) I regard the remembrance as directed, 
(transitively) on the object ; in the latter (fjkifMv. rtvo^;, to 
bethink oneself of a thing, meminisse rei) the remembrance is 
regarded as proceeding from the object (Jelf 473). Hence 
we cannot say that the dative or accusative is ever used for 
the genitive or vice versd : logically, both cases are equally 
correct, and we have only to observe which of the construc- 
tions was more commonly used in the language, or whether 
any one of them may have especially belonged to the later 
language (or to some particular writer), as evayyeXi^ecrOai 
Tiva, TTpo'iKVveiv rivC. 

Perhaps the most absurd instance of this kind of enallage would be 
2 C. vi. 4, o"wvtcrTaivT€s lavTOvs ws O^ov Sia/covoi, if StaKovot stood for 
StuKovovs. Here either the nominative or the accusative might be 
used, but thfly wovdd express different relations. / recommend myself 
as a teacher (nominative) means, " I, in the office of teacher under- 
taken by me, recommend myself : " I recommend myself as a teacher 
(objective) is, " I recommend myself as one who wishes or who is 
able to be a teacher." 

3. Every case, as such, stands according to its nature in 
a necessary connexion with the construction of the sentence to 
which it belongs. The nominative and accusative cases, denot- 
ing respectively the subject and the object, have the most direct 
connexion with the sentence ; the genitive and dative express 
secondary relations. There are however casus absoluti, i. e 
cases which are not interwoven with the grammatical texture of 
the sentence, — which, so to speak, hover near the grammatical 

^ The distinction which SchiP.fer makes between these two constructions 
{Dem. V. 323) receives no confirmation irom the N. T. Compare further Mattii. 
370. Rem. 4. 



sentence, and are only connected logically with the proposition 
it expresses. . Of these the most frequent and the most decided 
examples are the uominaiiol ahsoluii (Bengel on Mt. xii. 36). 
Eeal accusdtivi absohoH (§ 63. I. 2. d) ^ are more rare; for 
what is called an accusative absolute is often dependent, though 
loosely, on the eoustiiietion of the sentence. The genitivi and 
dativi absohiti are more regular members, of the sentence, as 
a consideration of the meaning of these cases will show.^ 
The whole subject of the nominative absolute, however, must 
be treated in connexion with the structure of sentences [see 

Section XXIX. 


1. A noun considered directly and purely in itself is repre- 
sented by the nominative, either as subject or as predicate, 
according to the structure of the sentence : Jo. i, 1, iv apxf} 
yp o Xoyo'i' E. ii. 14, avTO<; ccttlv y elp'>]vr) yfjuiov. 

Sometimes, however, we meet with a nominative which is 
not comprised in the structure of the sentence to which it 
belongs ; but either 

(a) Stands at the head of a sentence, as a kind of thema 
(nominativus absolutus), as in A. vii. 40, o Mcovarrjf; ovro<i . . , 
ovK othafxev ri 'ye'yov<iv avroj (see § 28. 3) :^ — or 

(b) Is simply inserted in the sentence as a name (nominativus 
tituli), as if a mere (indeclinable) sound : Jo. xviii. 10, rjv 6i>o/xa 
Tco Sov\a> Md\)(p'i' Kev. vi. 8, viii. 1 1, xix. 13 {DQiwo^ih. Macart . 
669 b), L. xix. 29, tt^o? to 6po<; to KaXovixevov ^EXaitiop :'^ 

^ Compare Fritz. Iio?n. III. 11 sq. 

2 See on the whole A. de Wannowski, Syntaxeos anomalce Grcecxs pars 
de construcUone, qua (licit ui\ ahsoluta etc. (Lips. 1835) ; F. W. Hoffmann, Ob- 
servata et monita de casihiis absol. apud Gra'cos et Lat. ita positis ut videantur 
non posse locum kabem (QnAv^s. 1836), — the author treats only of the genitive 
and dative absolute ; also J. Geislor, De Grcfcurum nominutlvis absol. (Vratisl. 
1845) ; and E. Wentzel, De <jenUiois et daf. absol. (Vratisl. 1828). [See Jelf 
477, 695, 699 sq., Clyde, Greek. Syiit. p. 144 s«i(i.] 

' [See §63, 1. 2. d, Jelf 477.] 

* In all the earlier editions and in Laehmann's we find iXaiut. I cannot 
agree with Fritzsche \Mark, ji. 794 sq.] in pronouncing this accentuation de- 
cidedly incorrect. By Luke, who designed his Gospel for foreign readers, the 
Mount of Olives, .suflieiently wcW known in Palestine, might very well be men- 
tioned for the first time as the so called Mount of Olives, just as in A. i. 12 : 
the phrase vph to opo: to Xsy. Ixaiuv when resolved becomes to Xiy. cfo; iXcHuv, 


compare 1 S. ix. 9, tov irpo^y'jrriv eKuXei 6 Xao<; e^irpoadev 6 
^Xiircov Malal. 18. 482, 10. 247; see Lob. p. 517.' Con- 
trast A. i. 12, diro 6pou<i rov KaXovfiepou 'EXaiayvo^. (J elf 475. 
Obs. 1.) 

Usually however, when the construction requires an oblique case, 
the writer expresses the name in this case (simply interposing 6v6- 
fiari), and thus brings the name into the regular construction of the 
sentence. See A. xxvii. 1, kKarovTapxd ovoixan 'lovXiv^- ix. 11, 12, 
tti'Spa 'Avavt'av ovojxaTi cistA^ovra (xviii, 2, Mt. xxvii. 32, L. V. 27), A. 
xviii. 7, oiKt'a Ttvo? ovofxaTL 'loucrrov ; also Mt. i. 21, 25, KoAfVei? to 
ovojxa avTov 'hja-ovf, L. i. 13 (in apposition to ovo/jlo) ; and even Mk. 
iii. 16, eTredrjKev ovofxa tS 2i/Aa)vi IleVpov. — In Plut. Cwiol. 11, different 
modes of expression are combined. 

In Eev. i. 4, the nominative 6 wv k. 6 -^v «. o cpxoVfi'os (nin'', the 

UncMngeahle Om !), is designedly treated as an indeclinable noun ; 
see § 10. 

2. The nominative (with the article) is sometimes used in an 
address, particularly in calling or commanding, thus taking 
the place of the vocative, the case framed for such purposes.^ 
Examples of this usage, which really coincides with that men- 
tioned in 1 (a), are found in the N. T.: Mt. xi. 26, vai, 6 irarrjp 
(e^o/jLoXo'yoifp.aL aoi, ver, 25), on ouroyf; iyivero' H. i. 8, x. 7 (in 
the LXX compare Ps. xlii. 2, xxi. 2); especially with an impera- 
tive, L. viii, 54, t; Trat? eyeipe' Mt. xxvii. 29, %ai/3e 6 ^aaiXevf; 
T. TouS., Jo. xix. 3, Mk. v. 41, ix. 25, E. vi. 1, Col. iii. 18, Eev. 
vi. 1 0. This mode of expression may have originally been some- 

ad montem qui clicit-ur olivarum, and hence the article wonld very naturally be 
omitted with iXaiuv. Perhaps, however, the translator of the Peshito Syriac 

read '^Xaiuy : in this passage his reading is |Zul ^ » '"'^ j^^ZiiDj pQ-^, as 
in A. i. 12 ; but in Mt. xxi. 1, xxi v. 3, al., for epo^ tZi IXaiiLv, he has simply 
|Aj1) 1'^-^- [What is here said of L. xix. 29 is also true of L. xxi. 37 : the 
latter verse is thus quoted by Tertullian {adv. Marc. 4. 39), "Sed enira per 
diem in templo docebat ; ad noctem vero in elceonem secedebat. " The argument 
from the Syriac Version is somewhat weakened by the fact that the translator 
introduces ^ » *~^ ("mens loci olivarum," instead of " mons olivarum ") not only 
in L. xix. 29, xxi. 37, A. i. 12, but also in L. xix. 37, xxii. 39 (t. 'dp. tZ* 
iXaion). Lachmanu is wrongly quoted above in favour of iXatZv : in both 
editions he reads -ui, which form most editors (but not Westcott and Hort) 
now receive in the two passages referred to. With A. i. 12 compare Joseph. 
Ant. 7. 9. 2 ; with L. xix. 29, Ant. 20. 8. 6, Bell. Jad. 2. 13. 5 (Grimm, Clavis 
s. v.). — A striking example of the nominat. titidi is found in Jo. xiii. 13 ; see 
also Rev. ix. 11.] 

^ So even t^v av^puTOTOKo; <(iu*ny, Theodoret IV. 1304 ; t^» (iii 
vpoinyop'tav. III. 241, lY. 454. In such cases the Romans always use the 
genitive, — a fact which is usually overlooked by modern writers of Latin. 

2 Fischer, Wtlkr III. 1. 319 sq. ; Markland, Eur. Jph. Aid. 446. [Jelf 
76. 6, Green pp. 9, 85.] 


what rough and harsh (Bernh. p. 67), and may even retain this 
character wherever it is used by the Greek prose writers ; but 
in later Greek it is found where there is no special emphasis, 
even in very gentle address (L. xii. 32, firj (po^ov, to fxiKphv 
irocuviov viii. 54, Bar. iv. 5), and in prayers (L. xviii. 11, H. 
X. 7). Jo. XX. 28, however, though directed to Jesus {(direv 
avTw), is yet rather an exclamation than an address : ^ such 
nominatives appear early and very distinctly in Greek writers 
(Bernh, I.e., Krlig. p. 14, Jelf 476. Ohs.). Similarly in L. xii, 
20 (with the reading a^pwv, — also 1 C. xv. 3 6, where there is not 
much authority for d(ppov}; in Ph. iii. 18, 19, ttoWoI yap irept,- 
iraTovaiv, ovs TroWa/ct? eXeyou . . . tou9 i'^Opov'i rov aravpov 
Tov Xpcarov, mv to t€Xo<; airwiXua . . . oi ra i-rriyeca (f)po- 
vovvTe<;;'^ and perhaps in Mk. xii. 38-40, ^eirere diro Todv 
ypafijxarecov, twv OeXouroov . , , KaX dairacr/xovs , . , Kal irpa- 
TOKadeBpia'i . . . oi KareaO iovres rd.'i oiKia^' . . . . ovrot 
Xtj-ij/'ovtai Trepio-arorepov Kpifxa' though here ol KaTcaOiov- 
Te? might be joined with ovtol XijyjrovTai.^ In Eev, xviii. 20 
the vocative and the nominative are found in connexion. 

3. The vocative however is used by the N. T. writers in 
addresses much more frequently than the nominative. It is 
sometimes accompanied by w, but more commonly stands alone. 
'i2 occurs only in addresses (A. i. 1, xxvii. 21, xviii. 14, 1 Tim. 
vi 1 i), mostly in connexion with an adjuration or an expression 
of blame* (Rom. ii. 1, 3, ix. 20, 1 Tim. vi. 20, Ja. ii, 20, G, 
iii. 1), or in exclamations, as L. xxiv. 25, A. xiii. 10. A simpfe 
call or summons is expressed by the vocative without w: L. xiii, 
12, xxii. 57, [Acts] xxvii. 10, Mt. ix. 22, Jo. iv. 21, xix. 26, A, 
xiii. 15, xxvii 25, Even at the beginning of a speech, where 

' On this verse see Alford and Westcott : see also Green p. 86.] 

* [Compare EUicott in loc, who explains this "as an emphatic return to the 
primary construction of the sentence ((raXXaJ yap -rs/w*.):" see further Alford 
in loc.^ and below § 63 I. 2. In Mk. xii. 40 Bengel, Meyer, Lachm., Tisch., 
Treg., Westcott and Hort, join el nartrfioyns with tSrai : the other connexion 
is defended by Alford and A. Buttmann (p. 79).] 

* Hermann says (Prcef. ad Eurip. Androm. p. 15 sq,) : mihi quidem ubiqud 
nominativus, quern pro vocativo positum volunt, nou vocantis sed declarautis 
esse videtnr : o tu, qui es talis. This would apply to some of the above pas- 
sages, but not to all, and the remark is probably intended to refer directly to 
the poets only. 

* Lob. AJcuc 451 sq. : see Fritzsche, Arlsloph. I. 4. 


the Greeks reguLarly prefix co, the vocative commonly stands by 
itself in the N. T. : as A. i. 16, ii. 14, iii. 12, xiii. 16, xv. 13. 
(See however Franke, Demosth. p. 193.) ^ 

An adjective joined to a vocative stands in the same case, as Ja. 
ii. '20, w avOpuiire. Kcvi- Jo. xvii. 11, Mt. xviii. 32.- On words in 
apposition to a vocative see § 59. 8 (Jelf 476. c, d).^ 

licui. It has been su])posed, but erroneously, that the N. T. 
writers sometimes use Hebraistic periphrases for tlie nominative 
case luxmely, 

0.. Eis with the accusative, in the phrase cTvai or yivea-Oai e's 
Ti (Leusden, Diall. p. 132). By far the greater number of tlie 
examples adduced occur in quotations from the 0. T., or in O. T, 
expressions which had become established formulas (Mt. xix. 5, 1 C. 
vi. 16, E. V. 31, H. viii. 10, al.). Two facts, moreover, have been 
overlooked. In the first place, yivca-Oai et? n, fieri i.e. abire (mutari) 
in allq. (A. v. 36, Jo. xvi. 20, Rev. viii. 11) is a correct expression 
in Greek ^ (as in German), and is used, at all events by later writers, 
even in reference to persons (Geo. Pachymer. I. 345, d<; <jvixiJiu.)^ov<i 
avrots ytvovrai). Again, in the Hebrew phrase rendered by ci^ai cw 
Tt, the pre[)Osition b is not really an indication of the nominative, but 

answers to our to or for {to serve for, turn to) : see H. viii. 10, 1 C. 
xiv. 22, and comjDare Wi^. ii. 14, Acta Apocr. 169. In 1 C. iv. 3, 
c/xoi CIS tAaxurrdv cVtiv means, to me, for me, it belongs to the least, 
tJie most insignificant thing (with such a thing I associate it) : A, xix 
27, €t? oihiv XoyiaOiivaL, is similar, to he reckoned for nothing (Wis. ix. 
6 ^). In L. il 34, Kelrat CIS TTTwa-iv, the preposition is similarly used 
to express destination, and there is no departure from Greek analogy, 
see Ph. i. 17 (16), 1 Th. iii. .3: compare JEsop 24. 2, eU fieC^ovd 
a-oi ux^ikiLav l(To^a.c and the Latin auxilio esseJ^ See further § 32, 
4. b, 

' On Z befoi-s tlio vocative see, in general, Doberenz, Prog, Hildhurgh. 
(1844). [" Not only i.s * rarely joined to the vocative in the N. T. (only 16 
times in all), but in most of these instances it is more than a mere sign of 
the vocative, inasmuch as the expression has an emphatic character, and is 
therefore rather an exclamation, than a simple address." A. Buttm. p. 140. 
The same VTitoi rclers to this peculiarity as a result of Latin influence {Index, 
3. V. Lati7ikme/i). Jelf 479. 2.] 

^ But compare .Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 466. 

' [" The interjections tiou and (esjiccially in John) even 7Si, answering 
to the Latin ecc and en, are joined with a nominative. The freqiient occur- 
rence of these words in narration and in argument must not be attributed 
to the influence of the 0. T. alone, but was a feature of the popular language ; 
hence they become more and more common at a later period." A. Buttm. 
p. 139.] 

* Georgi, Vhid. 337, Schwarz. Coram. 285. [Liddell and Scott, s. v. lylyyafMu : 
compare Jelf 62-^. 3. c. ] 

* Xen. Cyr. 3. 1. 33, xp^'f^"''^'' "'« 'fy^f" >.oyiZ,iff6a.i, is of a different kind 
(Jelf 625. 3. c). 

6 Zurapt, Gr. § 664. Note 1. fMadvig, Lat. Or. 249, Roby, Lat. Gr. II. 


b. 'El' with the dative, as an imitation of the Hebrew Beth 
essentia;,^ in the following passages : Mk. v. 25, ywrj rt? ovra cv pvcru 
ai/iaro5; Rev. i. 10, iycvoixrjv cv Trvci'/iari ev rfj KvpiaKTJ yjlJ-ipa. (Glass 
I. 31); E. V. 9, 6 KapTTos Tov <^a)Tos ev Trda-r] dyaOoycrvvri (Hartmann, 
Linguist. Einl. 384) ; and Jo. ix. 30, Iv rovria Oavf^aa-rov Io-tl 
(Schleusner, s. v. cv). But in Mk, v. etvai iv pva-ei is to be in the 
condiium or stat^ of an issue ; in Rev. i. ytveo-^at iv Tnevixari. means 
in the spirit^ to be present somewhere ; in E. v. etvai ev is equivalent 
to contineoi, posiium esse in (see the commentators) ; and Jo. ix. 
may be very appropriately rendered, herein is this marvellous, etc. 
Gesenius has attributed the same construction to Latin and Greek 
writers, but without reason ; c'vat cv crot^ois, in magnis viris (haben- 
dum) esse, cannot be brought in here, for this combination is perfectly 
natural, and must be rendered to belong to the number of. If iv a-o(^(S 
or in sapienti vivo were used for aotfios or sapiens, then and then only 
could cV or in be said to represent a Beth cssentice. But no rational 
being could use words thus, and indeed the whole doctrine of the 
Hebrew Beth essentlce is a mere figment, an invention of empirical 
grammarians :^ see my edition of Simonis p. 109, and Fritz. Mark, 
p. 291 sq.* 

Section XXX. 


1. The genitive is unquestionably the whence-case, the case 
0^ proceeding /ram or o-ut of:^ it is most clearly recognised as 
such when joined with words which denote an activity, conse- 
quently with verbs. Its most common and familiar application 
in prose, however, is in connecting two substantives, where 
(with a gradually increased latitude of meaning) it denotes any 

' Gesen. Lgb. p. 838, Knobel on Is. xxviii. 16. [Gesen. Hebr. Gr. p. 241, 
Thesmir. p. 174, Kaliscli, Hebr. Gr. II. 296.] 

'^ [Or in ihe Spirit. Winer connects iyi.fiu.yiv with sv t? Kvpitx^ ^z*'/"?, pro- 
bably in the sense, ' ' Diem judicii vidi in spiritu. " Against this, see Diisterdieck 
and Alford in loc] 

* With the entirely misunderstood XIH J^"13, Ex. xxxii. 22, compare Ml. 

T ; 

10. 11, tcvo^aviTv IV xaku 'nrriv: should this too be taken for xaXov ta-Tir'? 
[Winer renders Ex. I. c, "in malo (in wickedness) est, h. e. mulus est ;" similarly 

* Haab's other examples (p. 337 sq.) are so manifestly untenable that we 
cannot give them a moment's notice. 

* <Jonipare Hartung, Co^sus p. 12. [Don. p. 464, Clyde, Gr. Synt. pp. 30 sq. 
On the name of this case see Max Miiller, Lectures on Language, I. 105 sq.] 


kind of depeyidence on or helolir/ing to} as in o Kvpio<; rou 
Koa/xov, 'lovSwi 'laKco^ov: here a pronoun or the article may 
take the place of the governing noun, compare § 18. 3. This 
use of the genitive, associated even in plain prose with a 
great variety of meanings/ we shall consider first. Besides 
the ordinary cases — amongst which the genitive of quality 
(Kom. XV. 6, 13, al.) and the partitive genitive (Eom. xvi. 5, 
1 C. xvi. 15) should be specially mentioned^ — we have to 

a. The genitive of the object, after substantives which denote 
an internal or external activity, — a feeling, expression, action 
(Krug. p. 36, Don. p. 482, Jelf 542. ii.): Mt. xiii. 1 8, 7rapaj3o\r} 
rov a-7retpovro<i the sower-parable, i.e. the parable about the 
sower; 1 C. i. 6, fiapTvpiov rov Kpicrrov, witness concerning 
Christ (ii. 1, compare xv. !•">) ; viii. 7, r} avv€iBi]a-is rov elSooXov, 
their consciousness of the idol ; i. 18, o X6jo<; 6 tov oravpov; 
Mt. xxiv. 6, uKoal iroXepwv wnr-rumo^:rs {vvimo\\v5 about wars), 
compare Mattli. 342. 1 ; A. iv. 9, evepyeaia avOpcoirou, towards 
or to a man (Thuc. 1. 129, 7. 57, Plat. Legg. 8. 850 b) ; Jo. vii. 
13, XX. 19, (fio/Sa 'lovZaiuiv, fear of the Jews (Eur. Andr. 
1059) ; xvii. 2, e^ovala Trdarj^; aapKos, over all flesh (Mt. x. 1, 
1 C. ix. 12); 2 P. ii. 13, 15, /ito-^6? ahiKia<;, reward for un- 
righteousness ; Rom. x. 2, ^rfko<; deov, zeal for God (Jo. ii. 
17, 1 Mace. ii. 58, — otherwise in 2 C. xi. 2); H. ix. 15, 
d7ro\vTpo)cri<; tcov irapa^daecov, sin-redemption, i.e. redemption 
from, sins (Plat. Rep. 1. 329 c). Compare also Mt. xiv. 1 
(Joseph. Antt. 8. 6. 5), L. vi. 12 (Eurip. Troad. 895), E. ii. 
20 [?], Rom. XV. 8, 2 P. i. 9, Ja. ii. 4," 1 C. xv. 15, H. 
x. 24.'^ 

^ If we consider the genitive with reference to its abstract meanin;^ rather 
than to its origin, its nature may be thus defined (Herm. Opusc. I. 175, and 
Vig. p. 877) : " Genitivi proprium est id indicare, cujus quid aliquo quocumque 
mode accidens est ; " compare De Emend. Bat. p. 1-39. Similarly Madvig, § 46. 
See further Schneider on fesar. Bell. Gall. 1. 21. 2. [Eost's definition resembles 
Hermann's : Jelf regards the genitive as the case which expresses " the ante- 
ctdent notion'" (471, 460).] 

- Schsefer, Eurip. Or. 48. 

3 [On the genitive of quality see Don. p. 482, .Telf 435 ; on ih^ partitive geni- 
tive, Don. p. 470 sq., .Jelf 583 and 542. vi. : on the objective genitive in the 
N. T. , Green, Gr. p. 87 sq., Webster, Syntax-^. 72.] 

* [This passage is also noticed below, p. 23.3. In ed. 5 Winer maintained 
the simpler view that ^laX. is a genitive of quality ("ill-bethinking judges," 
Green p. 91) ; .see Alford, Webster and Wilk. , in loc] 

^ For examples from Greek authors see Markland, Eur. Suppl. 838, D"Orville, 


The following phrases are of frequent recurrence in the N T. : 
ayairt} rov Oeov or Xpcarov, love to God, to Christ, Jo. v 42, 

1 Jo. ii. 5, 15, iii. 17, 2 Th. iii. 5 (but not Rom. v. 5, viii. 35, 

2 C. V. 14, E. iii, 19 ^) ; <^o/3o9 Beov or Kvplov, A. ix. 31^ Rom. 
iii. 18, 2 C. V. 11, vii. 1 , E. v. 2 1 ; 'jricms rov deou, XpLarov, 
or 'I'qaov, Mk. xi. 22, Rom. iii. 22, G. ii. 16, iii. 22, E. iii. 12, 
Ph. iii. 9, Ja. ii. 1, Rev. xiv. 12 (TrtcrTt? aXrfdeias, 2 Th. ii. 13) ; 
xmaKorj rov Xpiarov or t^9 7r/<TTea>9 /c.r.X., 2 C. x. 5, Rom. i. 5 
xvi. 26, 1 P. i. 22 (2 C. ix. 13). But tcKaioa-vvr) Oeov in the 
dogmatic language of Paul (Rom. i. 17, iii. 21 sq., x. 3, al.) is, 
in accordance with his doctrine of 0€o<; 6 hiKaimv (compare iii. 
30, iv. 5), GocVs righteousness, i.e. righteousness which God 
bestows (on man) ; and, the meaning once fixed, hiKaioavvq deov 
could even be used (in 2 C. v. 21) as a predicate of the believers 
themselves. Others, with Luther, understand the phrase to 
mean righteousness which avails before God (quae Deo satis- 
facit, Fritz. Bom. I. 47), Bmaioavvr] Trapa tm Oew. The possi- 
bility of this interpretation is implied in BUaio<i irapa rcy Oea,, 
Rom. ii. 13 (set over against BiKaiovadat), and still more 
directly in SiKaiovadac irapa tw 6ew G. iii. 11, or ivQ)7nov rov 
Beov Rom. iii. 20. From the nature of the BiKaiovcrOai. both 
expressions are correct ; but BlkuwI 6 ^eo? tov avOpioTrov is the 
more stringent of the two, and in Rom. x. 3 we obtain a better 
antithesis if Bck. 6eov is righteousness which God grants : com- 
pare also Ph. iii. 9, »; e/c ^eoO ZiKaioavvq? 

From what has just been said it will be clear that in many pas- 
sages the decision between the subjective and the objective g<}nitive 
belongs to exegesis, not to grammar : the question eepecially requires 
a cautious use of parallel passages. In Ph. iv. 7, ctpiyVi; 6(.ov can 
probably have no other meaning than peace (peace of soul) luliicJi Cod 
gives, as the wish whi*;h the apostles express for tlieir readers is tllat 
they may have dfi-qvi v otto O^ov : this parallelism is more decisive 
here than that of Rom. v- 1, dprjvqv cxo/iev Trpos rov 6i.6v, which would 
lead us to render elpr'prj Otov peace with Gou. In Col. iii. 15 also 
(elp-qvyj XpioTTov) I consider the genitive to be subjective ; compare 
Jo. xiv. 27. That in Pom. iv. 13 SiKatoo-wr; TrtVrtws {one notion, — 

Char. p. 498, Schasf. *Sop/t. (I. 300, Stallb. Plat. Bep. II. 201, Apol. p. 29, 
Poppo, Thuc. III. i. 521. 

* [See Alford's note on 2 C. v. 14. On the nature of the genitive after 
wi<m(, see Ellicott and Light.bot on Col. ii. 12.] 

* [See AH'oixi and Vaughan on Rom. i. 17.] 


failh-rir/Memsn<'S.s) mea.ns rig/ileousneis ivhich faith brings, is manifest 
from the expression more frequently used, r] htKaiocrvvq y Ik Trioreco? 

(Rom. ix. 30, X. 6). In E. iv li< (dTr/jAAor/otof/xeVot) rfys ^wi)? Tov 6eoi, 

is God's life: the Jife of Chn.stian believers i,s so called, as being a 
life imparted hy God, excited within the soul by Him. 

In the phrase eiayycXiov tov XpLCTTov it may appear doubtful 
whether the genitive should be considered subjective (the Gospel 
preached by Christ) or objective (the Gospel concerning Christ). I 
prefer the latter, because we find in some passages (e. g. Kom. i. 3 ^) 
the complete expression euayy£'A.tov tov deov Trept tov vlov avTOv, ol 
which this may be merely an abridgment : compare aho f^vxyyiXiov 
Trj<i ^apiTos TOV 6eov A. XX. 24, and evayyeXtov t^5 ySacrtXetas tov Beov 

Mt. iv. 23, ix. 35. Meyer (on Mk. i. 1) regards the genitive in this 
phrase as sometimes subjective, sometimes objective. ^ In Col. ii. 18 
also it is a matter of dispute amongst the commentators whether 
(Oprj<TKua) dyye'Acov is a genitive of the subject or of the object. The 
latter view is preferable, reverenc& of angds, angel-v)orship : compare 
Euseb. H. ?J. G. 41 v. I., (9pr;cr/<€ta tC>v Sat/xovajV Philo II. 259, Opriv 
Oiwv, (yj tov Oeov XaTpn'a, I.'iat. Jipol. 23. C). In 1 Tim. iv. 1 Satyxoi/iojc 

is certainly a subjective genitive : in H. vi. 2 however, /JaTrrwr/xwi' 
SiSa;(^s, if the latter be regarded as the principal noun (see below, 
3. Rem. 4), /3a7rrio-yu,wi/ can only be the object of the StSa;^');. In Rom. 
viii. 23 it seems better, according to the mode in which Paul prescmts 
the subject, to regard dTroAvrpwo-ts tov crw)u.aTo$ as liberation of the body 
(namely from the SovXela t^s <}>6opa<; spoken of in ver. 21), than as 
liberation from the body. Likewise in H. i. 3, 2 P. i. 9, KaSapi.a fxo<i 
rdv afjiopTLUiv might signify 2mrificatio7i of sins (removal of sins, com- 
pare Dt, xix. 13), as the Greeks could say KaOapi^ovrai al d/xapTtai 
(comp. KdOaLpeiv alp.a to remove through cleansing, Iliad 16. 6G7) ; but 
it is simpler to take tCjv d/x. as a genitive of blie object.^ Rom, ii. 7, 
vTTOjxovT] epyov ayadov, and 1 Th. i. 3, virojxovr] t^s iXirihos, mean very 
simply, canstancy or steadiness of good work, of hope. Ja. ii. 4 is 
probably an indignant question : then . . , would ye not become judges 
of evil tJiougMs (your own) ? 

^ [This is the only passage in which thjs expression occurs, and here it is 
probable that -nfi t. ul. ai. belongs to the verb TpoiT. in ver. 2 : so Meyer, 
Fritz., Aliord, al.] 

' [" When the genitive with lUyyiXio^ does not denote a. person, fhis genitive 
is always that of the object ; in liayy. (ioZ, ilayy. u.ov, the genitive expresses 
the subject. In ilayy. Xp,<mV the gnuitive may be either subjective (genillvun 
auciorui) or objective ; the context alone can decide." (Meyer I.e.) I cannot 
however find any passage in which Meyer does not regard this phrase as meaning 
"ttie gospel concerning Christ" (genit. obj.).'\ 

*[ln H. i. 3 the renderini^ '''purification of sins" (where the genitive is 
sorely objective) is adopted by Bleek, Delitzsch, Alford, and was preferred by 
Winer in ed. 5 : compare Mt. viii. 3. Liinemann (cd. 3) and Kurtz render the 
words " purification from sins," comparing the use of xeJafos with a genitive 
(Don. p. 468, Jelf 529).] 


2. h. But the genitive is also used to express more remote 
relations of dependence/ and in this way are formed, by a kind 
of breviloquence, various composite terms (such as Uood-of-the- 
cross, repentance-baptism, damaye-law), the resolution of which 
will vary according to the nature of the component notions. 
We notice 

a. The genitive which expresses relations merely external 
(relations of place or of time) : Mt. x. 5, 0S09 eOvdv Gentiles 
road, i. e. road to the Gentiles (H. ix. 8, compare Gen. iii. 24, 
77 oho<^ T. ^vKov Trj<i ^Q)r]s' Jcr. ii. 18, Judith v. 14) ; ^ Jo. x. 7, 
Ovpa Touv Trpo^drfov, door to the sheep (Meyer) ; Mt. i. 11, 12, 
fxerotKeata Ba/3v\d)vos, removal to Bahylon (Orph. 200, eVl 
ttXoov ^A^eivoio, ad expcditionem in Axinum ; 144, v6aro<; at- 
Koio, dommn reditus ; Eurip. Tph. Tl 1066 ^) ; Jo. vii. 35, ■^ hia- 
cnropa, ru)v 'EWr^vcov, the dispersion (the dispersed) among the 
Greeks ; Mk. viii. 27, Koyfiai Kataapeia^ t^«? ^iX'iTnrov, villages 
around Coesarca Fhilippi, villages which are situated on its 
territory ^ (Is. xvii. 2 ^) ; Col. i. 20, alfxa tov aravpov, blood of 
the cross, i. e, blood shed on the cross ; 1 P. i. 2, pavTL(Tixo<i 
aifiaTd, sprinkling (purifying) with blood ; 2 C. xi. 26, Kwhvvoi 
Trora-fjiwv, perils on rivers (soon followed by kivB. iv iroXei,, iv 
OaXdaarj, K.r.X.), compare Heliod. 2. 4. 65 Kivhwoi OaXaaawv. 

Designations of time : Eom. ii. 5 (Zeph. ii. 2) r)/jiipa 0/97^9, 
dag of wrath, i. e. day on which the wrath (of God) will manifest 
itself in punishment: Jude 6,KpLa-i<; fi€ya\.7)<i i]/jLepa<i, judgment 
on the great, day ; L. ii. 44, oSo<; ■r]fu.epa<i, a dagsjovrneg (dis- 
tance traversed in a day, compare Her. 4. 101,Ptol. 1. 11. 4) ; 
H. vi. 1, o rij(: dp'^i}'? rov Xpicrrov \6yo^, the elementary in- 

1 Compare Jacob, Luc. Alex. p. 108 sq., Stallb. Plat. Tim. p. 241 .sq., Bernh. 
p. 160 sqq. 

^ In Mt. iv. 15, however, oTos faXatrtrrn certainly means way by the sea (of 
Tiberias). [See below, p. 289.] 

^ Compare Schajf. i\fekt. p. 90, Seidler, Eur. Eleclr. 161, Spohn, Isocr. Panerj. 
p. 2, Buttm. Soph. Philoct. p. 67. The genitive has the opposite meaning )n 
Plat. ApoL 40 c, ft.t.T(ilx.ri<Tii t^s •^ox'"-^ '''"'' to^du Tst) ivSkf^i [away Jrom this 

* This reduces itself finally to the common topographical genitive (Kriig. p. 
32 sq.), — which is simply a genitive of belonging to: Jo. ii. 1, KavS TJiis Ta- 
XiXaiar A. xxii. 3, Tap<ro; tUs KiXixia;' xiii. 13, 14 [Rec], xxvii. 5, L. iv. 26 : 
compare Xen. Hell. 1. 2. 12, Diod. S. 16. 92, 17. 63, Diog. L. 8. 3, Arrian, Al. 
2. 4. 1 ; and see Ellendt, Arr. Al. I. 151, Ramshorn, Laf. Gr. i. 167. (Don. 
p. 482, Jelf 542. vi.) 

^ [This reference is incorrect : probably, Jos. xvii. 11.] 


struction of Christ ; so also reK^iqpia rj/xepwv reacrapaKovTa, A. 
i. 3, according to the reading of T)} 

An external relation (of place) is also indicated in aXd^aarpov 
fivpov ]\lk. xiv. 3, and KepafiLov vBaro^ ver. 13 ; compare 1 S. 
X. 3, ayyeta aprcov, aaKo<; ol'vov Soph. £1. 758, -^aXKo^: 
airoBov' ^ Dion. 11. IV. 2028, aa-(j)dXTov koI Triaar)'; dyyela' 
Theophr. Ch. 17, Diog. L. 6. 9, 7. 3, Lucian, Asin. 37, Fugit. 
31, Diod. S. Vatic. 32. 1. To the same class belongs Jo. xxi. 8, 
TO Blktvov tcov l-)^OvQ>v (in ver. 11, fiea-rov l')(6vo)v), and even 
dyeXn) -^oipcof Mt. viii. 30, and eKarov fidrot iXaiov L. xvi. 6. 
On this genitive of content, see Kilig. p. 37 sq. (Don. p. 468, 
Jelf 542. vii.) 

In no passage of the N, T. is avda-racn^ veKpCov equivalent to avda-r. 
iK v(Kpu)v : even in Roin. i. 4 it signifies the resurrectio7i of the dead 
absolutely and generically, though this resurrection is actually 
realised in one individual only. Philippi's dogmatic inference from 
this expression is mere trifling. 

/8. The genitive is used^ especially by John and Paul, to ex- 
press an inner reference of a remoter kind : Jo. v. 29, avda-raaif; 
fo)?}?, Kpia€(o<;, resurrection of life, resurrection of judgment, 
i. e. resurrection to life, to judgment (genitive of destination, 
Theodor. IV. 1140, Upwavvrj^ ^(eipoTovia to the priesthood; 
compare Koni. viii. 36, from the LXX, irpo^ara a^ayrj^;) ; 
Kom. V. 18, BiKaicoaL'i ^a)rj<;, Justification to life; Mk. i. 4, ^d- 
TTTia-fia pLeravoia<i, repcntance-haplism, i. e. baptism which binds 
to repentance ; Rom. vii. 2, vojjlo^ tov dijBp6<;, the law of the 
husband, i. e. the law which determines the relation to the hus- 
band (compare Dem. 3[id. 390 a, o t?/<? pXafir)^ v6fjLo<i, the law 
of damage, and majiy examples in the LXX, as Lev. xiv. 2, 6 
v6p.o^ ToJ) XeTrpov vii. 1, xv. 32, Num. vi. 13, 21, see Fritz. 
Ham. II. 9) ; vi. 6, aw/jia t>}<? dp.apTia<;, sin-hody, i. e. body which 
belongs to sin, in which sin has being and dominion (in which 
sin carries itself into effect), almost like aoopa tt}^ a-apK6<i, Col. 
i. 22, body in which fleshliness has its being and its hold; Eom. 
vii. 24, awfia tov Oavdrov tovtov, hody of this death, i. e. which 
(in the way described in ver. 7 sqq.) leads to death, ver. 5, 10, 
13. See further Tit. iii. 5. 

' Others with less probability take the words hf^tfuv rtrrap. by them- 
selves, throughout forty dayn (Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 640 sq.) ; but see below, 
no. 11. 

- See Schaefer on Long. Past. p. 386. 


In L. xi. 29, to (rrjixiiov Iwi/a is nothing else than the sign which 
was once exhibited in Jonah (which is now to be repeated in the 
person of Christ). Jude 1 1 must be similarly explained. In Jo. xix. 
14, however, Trapacr/cewy tov irdaxa does not mean "preparation-day 
for the passover," but quite simply " the preparation-day ' of the 
passover " (that which belongs to the paschal feast). In H. iii. 13, 
airdrri t^s d^aaprtas, the genitive IS subjective and d/^aprta is person! 
fied (Rom. vii. 1 ] , al.). But in 2 Th. ii. 10 dndTT) 1-75 dSiKi'as is deceit 
which leads to unrighteousness. On E. iv. 18 see Mever ; on Ja. i, 17, 
DeWette.2 . > , 

In E. lii. 1, 2 Tim. i. 8, Phil. i. 9, Seo-p-ios Xpfo-ToC is a 2')nsoner of 
Christ, i. e. one whom Christ (the cause of Christ) has brought into 
captivity and retains in it ; 3 compare Wis. xvii. 2. In Ja. ii. 5, oi 
-TTTdixol TOV Kocr/xov (if thc reading is correct) signifies the poor of the 
world, i. e. those who in their position towards the koo-/aos are poor, 
hence ^oor in earthly goods (though it does not follow from this that 
Koa-fio^ itself denotes earthly goods). In Jo. vi. 45, StSaKToi tov 6eov 
means God's instructed ones, i.e. instructed by God, like 01 tvKoyrjfxivoi 
TOV TraTpo? Mt. XXV. 34, the Father's blessed ones, i.e. those blessed by 
the Father (Jelf 483. Ohs. 3). In E. vi. 4, 11, 13, Kvpiov and O^ov 
are genitivi audoris, as also toV ypa^Hiv Eom. xv. 4. Likewise in Ph. 
1. 8, eV o-;rAay_<(vots XpicrTov 'I., the genitive is to be taken as sub- 

'[I venture to substitute "Riist-tag" day of preparation, for "Euhetag" 
day of rest, as this latter word— though found in four editions of the German 
work— must sur.'ly be a misprint. In his JiWB. (II. 341), Winer renders 
rapa:/x.iuh TOV ■jrdr:^a. " Kusttag auf Ostern," preparation-day for the passover 
(" 14th of Nisan"), and on p. 205 of the same work says that this is the only 
meaning which the words could of themselves convey to a Greek reader . 
similarly in his tract on the 2£/Vv»v of Jo. xiii. (p. 12). The object of the 
remarks in the text seems to be to show that, whilst this is the meaning, roZ 
9a.iT^a. is simply a possessive genitive.] 

*f " Lt seems now generally agreed that by ra. ifura. here is meant the heavenly 
bodies, and by Tarripthe creator, originator : " Alford in loc] 

As in Phil. 13 lit/^oi toZ liayyiX'iou means bonds which the Gospel has 
brought. Without reference to this parallel passage, ViCf^.os Xp, might be 
rendered a prisoner who belongs to Christ. Others render, a prisoner for Christ's 
sake: this mode of resolving the genitive (Matth. 371 c, Krug. p. 37, Jelf 481) 
has been applied to many N, T. passages, but in every case incorrectly. In 
H. xiii 13, TOV Ivtihffiiv Xpurmv (fifovrn means, bearing the reproach which 
Christ bore (and still beai^). So also in 2 C. i. 5, -irifirinii, t« Ta(r,/jt.aTa ni 
Xf. lis r.fiis, the S'ufferings which Christ had to endure, namelv, from the 
enemies of the Divijie truth, abundantly come (anew) on vs j for the sulfeiings 
which believers endure (for the sake of the Divine trath) are essentially one 
with the sutlerings of Christ, and but a conttniiatidn of them : compare Ph 
lii. 10. Col. i, 24, al i>,i4its t»u XfurTov, and 2 C. iv. 10, are probably to 
be explained in the same way. On the former passage, which has been very 
variously explained, see Liicke, Progr. in loc. Col. i. 24 (Gbtting. 1833) p. 12 sq., 
also Huthtr and IVteyer in loc. [Liicke takes Xpta-'rod here as genii, auctoris ; 
Meyer and Liglitfoot consider the genitive possessive, in the sense explained 
above. Ellicott and Alford agree with De Wette and Olshausen in explaining 
ilw. ajliclion^ of Christ to mean, the afflictions which he endures in His 
Church. ] 


jective, though opinions may differ as to the more precise nature of 
the relation. Compare also E. vi. 4, and Meyer in loc} In 1 P. iii. 
21 the coiTect explanation does not depend so much on the genitive 
(Tui/ctSy/crews dya^s as on the meaning of iirepwrtj/jia : ^ the rendering 
sponsio may suit the context very well, but neither De Wette nor 
Huther has shown that it is philologically admissible. On H. ix. 11 
see Bleek.^ In 1 C. i. 27 tov Koa-fi-ov is a subjective genitive : see 
Meyer. In 1 C. x. 16 to ttottiplov t. €v\oyi'.a<i very simply means cup 
of the, blessing, i.e. over which the blessing is pronounced , and in 
ver. 21 TTOTTipLov Kvpi'ov IS cv}) of the Lord, where the more exact 
reference of the genitive is supplied by ver. 16, as in Col. it 11 
(Xpio-ToO) by ver. 14.* On Col. i. 14 Meyer's decision is correct. In 
A. xxii. 3 vofiov depends on Kara olk pifi f.iav. 

In H. iii. 3, some join the _s;enitive oIkov to tl/xt^v, greater honour of 
the house (i.e. in the house): this rs not in itself impossible, but for 
this Epistle it is harsh, and it is certainly opposed to the writer's aim ; 
see Bieek in loc. 

On the genitive of apposition, as iroA-cis Sof^o/xwv Kal Fo/xoppa? 2 P. 
ii. 6 (urbs liomce), a-rjfjutov irepirop.rj^ Rom. iv. 11, see § 59. 8 (Jelf 
435. d). 

3. For a long time it was usual to regard the genitive of 
kindred (Mapia ^laKco^ov, 'lovSa^ 'Iukco^ov, AavlS o tov ^letr- 
aai) as involving an ellipsis., As however the genitive is the 
case of dependence, and as every relationship is a kind of de- 
pendence, there is no essential notion wanting (Herm. Ellijps. 
p. 120): only it is left to the reader to define more exactly, in 
accordance with the actual fact, that which the genitive ex- 
presses quite generally (Plat. Bep. 3, 408 b). This genitive is 
most commonly to be understood of son or daughter, as in Mt. 
iv. 21, Jo. vi. 71, xxi. 2, 15, A. xiii. 22. In L.xxiv. 10, Mk. xv. 
47, xvi. 1, fivTTjp must be supplied, — compare Mt. xxvii. 56, 
Mk. XV. 40 (^lian 16. 30, '0Xvfi7ri.a<; tJ ^AXe^dvBpov, sc. MT-qp) 
IlaTrjp, in A. vil 16 \_Rec\ 'Ep,p,cop tov Xv^ep. (compare Gen. 
xxxiii. 19): similarly Steph. Byz. (s. v. AalhaXa), r) 7ro\t? (xtto 
AaihaXov TOV 'iKapov. Twrj, in Mt. i. 6, etc Tf]<; tov Ovpiov, 

' [Meyer regards the genitive in Ph. i. 8 as possessive; in E. vi. 4 [-raiiua. 
Kcu ^tuhf'.tt. xvpifu), AsgeniL subjecti: see Ellic. IL cc, who takes the same view 
of each passage. ] 

* [Wirier ronders this (in ed. 5) "the inquiiy of a good conscience after 
God : " comp. below, 3. Rem. 5. See Alford in loc] 

3 [Bleek takes t. /hXX. ay. as a genitive oi reference or dependence ; Delitzsch, 
Ilofm.. Alf. , as gaiitivus objecti.] 

* [This reference and the next seem incorrect : perhaps we should read 
ver. 12, and Col. iii. 14.] 


and in Jo. xix, 25 :^ compare Aristoph. EccL 46, Plin, Epp. 2. 
20, Veraida Pisoiiis. 'A8e\(f)6<i is perhaps to be supplied in 
L. vi, 16, A. i. 13, 'Iovha<i 'laKoojSov, if the same apostle is 
mentioned in Jude 1: compare Alciphr. 2. 2, Tip^oKparij^ 6 
MijTpoSoopov, scil. a8e\(f>6'i. Such a designation raiglit arise 
in the apostolic circle from the circumstance that James, the 
brother of Judas, was better known or of higher position than 
the father of Judas.'"' 

Accordingly ot XAo?;?, 1 C. i. 11, are those who are connected taith 
Chloe, like oi 'ApLo-To^ovXov, oi NapKi'o-frou, Itom. xvi. 10, a more 
definite explanation the history alone could supply. Perhaps, with 
most interpreters, we should understand the households of these 
persons : others suppose the slaves to be referred to. To the original 
readers of the Epistles the expression was clear. See further Valcken, 
I. c. (Don. pp. 356, 468, Jelf 436). 

Rem. 1. Not unfrequently, especially in Paul's style, three geni- 
tives ai"e found connected together, one governed grammatically by 
another. In this case one of the substantives often represents an 
adjectival notion : 2 C. iv. 4, tov (^uiTLcrixov tov evayyeXiov T>ys Sd^7/5 
Tov XpicTTOv' E. i. 6, ets eiraLVov 8u^rj<; r^s ^^ufitTO'i avrov' iv. 13, ets 
/xiTpov T^AiKtas TOV TrAr^pw/AttTos TOV XptoTov (where the last two geni- 
tives are connected together), i. 19, Rom. ii. 4, Col. i. 20, ii. 12, 
18, 1 Th. i. 3, 2 Th. i. 9, Rev. xviii. 3, xxi. 6, H. v. 12, 2 P. iii. 
2.3 In Rev. xiv. 10 (xix. 15), otvoi tov Bvjxov must be closely joined 
together, — ivrath-wine, wine of burning, according to an 0. T. figure. 
Four genitives are thus connected in Rev. xiv. 8, ck toi) oli/ov tov 
Ovfjiov r>7s TTopvctas awr^s" xvi. 19, xix. 15 (Judith ix. 8, x. 3, xiii. IS, 
Wis. xiii. 5, al.). But in 2 C. iii. 6, StaKovo^? KatrJ}? Sta^r/K-r/s ov ypdfx- 
fjLaTo<s oAAa TTi/cup-aTos, the last two genitives depend on SiaKovous, as 
the following verse shows. Similarly in Rom. xi. 33 all three geni- 
tives depend on ^a^os. 

Rem. 2. Sometimes, especially in Paul's Epistles, the genitive, 
when placed after the governing noun, is separated from it by some 
other word : Ph. li. 10, tVa ttSv yow Kafjuj/r] lirovpavtoiv koX ^-myuuiv 
Kol KaraxdovLdiv (explanatory genitives appended to ttolv yow), Rom. 
ix. 21, rj ovK €;^€t i^ovrrtav o Ktpa/Aeus tov tttjXuv ; 1 Tim. iii. 6, tva fxij 
€is Kpifxa e/xTTc'cTT/ ToC Si.a(S6\ov (probably for emphasis), 1 Th. ii. 13, 
1 0. viii. 7, H. viii. 5, Jo. xii. 1 1, 1 P. iii. 21 ; we find again a diflferent 
arrangement in Rev. vii. 17. On the other hand, in E. ii. 3, yjixev 

1 See Winer, HWB. II. 57 sq. [Smith, Dkt. of Bible II. 254. On this 
example and the next see Lightfoot on Galatiana, Dissert. 2.] 

- See on the whole Bos, EUips. (ed. Schaef.) s. vv., Boisson. Philostr. Her. 
p. 307. 

^ Comp. Kriiger, Xen. An. 2. 5. 38,, Bornem. Xen. Apol. p. ii, Boisson. 
Babr. p. 116. 


TiKva <f)V(TeL 6pyii<:, the words could scarcely be arranged differently 
Avithout laying undue emphasis on c^uo-et (?y/AO' <f>i<Te(. riKva opy^s).' 

Kem. 3. Sometimes, but not frequently, we find one noun con- 
nected with two genitives of dilJerent reference, — usually separated 
from each other in position; the chief case is when one genitive 
refers to a person, the other to a thing (Kriig. p. 40) : A. v. 32, 
TjfxeLt icTfiev avTov (XptoroO) /xaprvpe^ tu>v pyixdruiv tovtioV 2 C V. 1, 
7; cTTtyeios 7/jUaii' ULKia Tov aKyjuov;' Ph. ii. 30, to vjxwv vtJTipi)p.a ttj^ 
XtiTovpyia'i 2 P. ILL 2, tt/s tojv d7roo"ToA.wr ifxCji' tiToA^s tov Kvpuiv' 
H. xiiu 7.^ Compare Her. 6". 2, ryv 'Iwviav ttjv ip^eixovlrjv roC tt/sos 
Aapuov 7ro)\.ifxov' Thuc. 3. 12, ryv lKf.iV(jiv fXiXXqaiv tuiv ti? I'fp.a.'i 
^eii'w;'' G. 18, rj Nt»cto» tC}V Xoywr air pay p-oamnq' Plat. Legg. 3. 690 b, 
T7)i' TO? I'o/jtou tKOVTOiv ap')(r>v' Hep. 1. 329 b, rus twv oIk(iu>v irpo- 
TrqXaKLtrvs ret; yr/pois" Diog. L. 3. 37, and Plat. Apol. 40 C, p.eroiKT]aL^ 

TTj'; 4't'X'^i'i To*^ toVou Toii cVi^c'i Of (a Very harsh instance). See Beruh. 
p. 1G2, xMatth. 380. Kern. 1 (Jeif 466).=" 

We ma}'^ also bring in here 1 P. iii. 21, crapKo<i dn-d^fcrts pvirov, the 
Jlesh's putting away of filth (crhp^ aTroTiOiTai puirov), unless there is a 
trajection in these words. 

Two genitives are connected in a different way in Jo. vi. 1, rj 
Oakaa-aa r^? TaXiXaia^ t^9 Ti/Se/xaSos, the lake of (lalilee, of Tiberias. 
This lake is only once besides mentioned under the latter name (Jo. 
xxi. 1). It may be that John added the more definite to the general 
designation (compare Pausan, 5. 7. 3) for the sake of foreign readers, 
in order to give them more certain information of the locality. Eeza 
in loc. gives a different explanation. Kiihnol's suspicion that the 
words T77'> Tt/?. are a gloss is too hasty. Paulus understands the words 
to mean that Jesus crossed ovevfrom Tibrrias; but this is at variance, 
if not with CJreek prose usage, yet certainly with that of the N. T. 
writers (compare Bornem. Acta p. 149), who in such instances insert 
a preposition, as expressing the meaning more vividly than the simple 
case. The genitive Ti/3. cannot be made to depend on the uir6 iu 


Eem. 4. When the genitive stands before the governing noun, 

(a) Tt belongs equally to two nouns as in A. iii. 7 [lice'], airov at 
^a<jti5 Kul TO. a<f>vpd' Jo. xi. 48 : — or 

(b) It is emphatic : * 1 C. iii. 9, dcov yap iafxev a-vvepyoi, 6eov 
yewpytot', $iov OiKoSofxy iare' A. xiii. 23, tovtov (Aavld) 6 Oeo^ exTro 
Tou cr7rcpp.aT0<i .... rj^^aye. (ToiTrjpa 'h](T(wy' Ja. 1. 2G, «t Tt? .... 

TOVTOV p.dTaio<: rj OprjcTKeia' iii. 3, II. x. 3G, E. ii. 8. This em- 

' See on the whole Jacob, Luc. Tox. p. 46, Ellcndt, Arr. At. I. 241, Fritz. 
Bom. II. 331. 

^ [Liiuem. adds Mt. XXvi. 28, to aTf;id. //.au rr,S dia.Jr.x.ticI 

3 See Ast, I'lat. Folit. p. 329, and Lex/g. p. 84 sq., Ub. Ajax p. 219, Buttm. 
Drin. Mid. p. 17, and Soph. Phil. 7f>l, Fiitz. (JtuesL Luc. p. ill sq. (Kritz, 
Sallusl II. 170). 

* Stallb. Plat, rrotaj. p. 118, Madvig 10. 


phasis not unfrequently arises from an express antithesis : Ph. ii. 25, 
Tov arvcTTpaTnIynjv fiov, v/xotv 8e airoaroXov fiai Xeirovpybv t-^s ^j^peias 

IJ.OV Mt. i. 18, H. vii. 12, 1 P. iii. 21, E. il 10, vi. 9, G. iii. 15, 
iv. 28, 1 C. vi. 15, Rom. iii 29, xiii. 4. Most commonly, however, the 
genitive contains the principal notion : Rom. xi. IS, iBvCyv u.Troa-ToXo'i, 
apostle of Gentiles ; 1 Tim. vi. 17, trrl yrXovrnv a^korrp-i,, on riches, 
which yet are fleeting ; Tit, i. 7, H. vi. 16, 2 P. ii. 14. That this 
position of the genitive may belong to the pecnliarities of a writer's 
style (Gersdorf p. 296 sqq,) is not in itself impossible (since particular 
writers use even emphatic combinations with a weakened force), but 
at all events cannot be made probable. 8ee further Poppo, Th'i.ic. III. 
L 243. 

There Ls difficulty in H, vi. 2, ^aTtna-fjLwv 8i8ax^s (in dependence 
on Bifjilkiov), — for, though some commentators, and recently Ebrard,^ 
strangtly detach Sioapci^s from jBa-m., making it the governing noun 
for the four genitives, these two words, must certainly be taken 
together. The only question is, whether (with most recent writers) 
we shouM assume a trajectioo, and take ySaTrr. 8(8. as put for St8a;(i7« 
/SaiTTKTfjLiov. Such a trajection, however, would disturb the whole 
structure of the verse. If on the other hand we render /3a7mcr/xol 
8t8a;!^s bappisms of doctrine or instruction, as distinguished from the 
legal ■ baptisms (washings) of Judaism, we find a support for this 
designation, as characteristically Christian, in Mt, xxviii. 19, /Sairri- 
o-avT€s ^ avrovs .... 8t8acrKovT€s avrous : Ebrard's objection, that 
that which distinguishes Christian baptism from mere lustrations is 
not doctrine but forgiveness of sins and. the new birth, is of no weight 
whatever, for in Mt. xxviii. 19 nothing is said respecting forgiveness 
of sins. As regards the writer's use of the word /SaTmcr/xds here, and 
that in the plural, what Tholuck has already remarked may alao be 
employed in favour of the above explanation. 

Rem. 5. In Mk. iv. 19, ai irepl to. Xonra iinOvfjxai, Kiihnol and 
others regard Trepi with the accusative as a periphrasis for the 
genitive. But though Mark might very well have written at tu)v 
Xonrwv IttlO., the other form of expression not only is more definite 
but also preserves the proper meaning of Trept, cupiditates quae circa 
reliqua (reliquas res) versantur (Heliod. 1. 23, 45, iTnOv/xta Trepl -njv 
^aptKXciav' Aristot. Rhet. 2. 12, aX Trepl TO cw/xa i-TnOvfiiai), jusfe 
as fully as the meaning of Trept with the genitive is preserved in Jo. 
XV. 22. The instances in Greek authors in which Trepl with the accu- 
sative forms a periphrasis for the genitive of the object to which a 

^ [So also Delitzsch and Alfonl : Bleek considers fia-rr. and i^i^. as go- 
verned by Si^ct^Hs, but is undecided in regard to- the other genitives. Wiuer's 
objections are examined by Delitzsch (p. 214), who argues that teaching could 
not be assigned as the characteristic of Christian baptism, inaamuch as the 
Jewish baptism of proselytes was accompanied by instruction. Besides, the point 
of Mt. xxviii. 20 surely lies in Tdtrtt JVa IviTuXaftnn, not in lt^a<r». alone. ]^ 

* [Quoted above (§ 21, 2) with the reading (iccTTt^Dins, which is found in 
almost all the MSS.] 


certain property is ascribed (as Diod. Sic. 11. 89, r] irepl to Upw 
dp;^aiOT7;s' ib., to -rrepl Tovg KpaTrjpa<; tSiw/xa^), are of a somewhat 
different kind. We might rather say that vept with the jrenitive 
stands for the simple case in 1 C vii. 37, i^ovata -rrepl tov iSiov Oc- 
XrifiaTo<i, as the genitive might here liave been used alone ; but pmver 
in regard to his will is at all events the more definite and the fuller 
expression. A similar use of otto and Ik to form a periphrasis for 
the genitive is discovered by the commentators in A. xxiii. 21, 
T-^v ciTro trou iirayyiXiav and in 2 C. viii. 7, rfi l^ ifjLwv uydTnj ; but 
these strictly mean amor qui a vobis prqficiscitnr, promissi/) a te 
profecta : rrj vfxCjv dyaTrrj would be less precise, as this mi^jht also 
mean amor in vos.^ Similarly in Thuc. 2. 92, rj airo rwv WOrjvouwv 

^oiqOua' Dion. H. IV. 2235, iroXvv CK TUiV TTapovTioi' KLvrffrn.'; tXiov 

Plat. Bep. 2'. 363 a, ras Sltt av-r^s evSoKi/Ar/o-ei?- Dem. Fac. 24 b, 
Polyaen. 5. 11, Diod. S. 1. 8, 5. 39, J^cr. Vat. p. 117, Lucian, 
Conscr. Hist. 40 ^ (Jelf 483. Ohs. 4). Rom. xi. 27, r] vap' Ifiov 
huiOriK-q, requires the same explanation : compare Xen. Cyr. 5. 5. 
13, Isocr Demon, p. 18, Arr. Al. 5. 18. 10, and see Fritz, m loc, 
Schoera. Isceus p. 193. On Jo. i. 14 see Liicke. In no passage is 
there a meaningless periphrasis.* In 1 C. ii. 12, in parallelism with 
ov TO TTVED/Att ToD Koaftov i\ii(3op.€v, Paul designedly writes, dXXa 
TO TTvtvfia TO £K Ofov, uot TO TTvcS/xa deov, or TO Oeov. The assertion 
that iv with its case stands for the genitive^ (in 1 C. ii. 7, K ii. 21, 
Tit iii. 5, 2 P. ii. 7) is altogether futile, as any one who reads -with 
even moderate attention will perceive. Nor can we regard Kard 
with the accusative, in the examples commonly quoted, as a mere 
periphrasis for the genitive. In Rom. ix. 11,^ kut eKkoyrji' TrpoOea-i^ 
means the predestination accordiw/ to election, in consequence of an elec- 
tion ; xi. 21, o'l Kara (fujaiv KXaSoi are the branches according to nature, 
i.e. the natural branches ; similarly, H. xi. 7, 17 Kara Tricmv SiKaiocrvvr}. 
In H. ix. 19, also, Kara tov vo^ov, if joined with Trdarf; cvToXiy?, would 
not (as was clearly seen by Bleek) stand in the place of tov vo/aov. 
See however above, § 22. 7. More suitable examples may be found 
in Greek writers; as Diod. S. 1. 65, 17 KaTo. ttjv dpxV aTro^ccrt?, 
resignation of government (strictly, in respect of government), 4. 13, 
Exc. Vat. p. 103, Arr. Al. 1. 18. 12, Matth. 380. Rem. 5. On 
evayye'Atov Kara MaT^aioi', k.t.A., see Fritzsche." It is altogether 

^ Compare Schsef. Julian p. vi, and on Dion. Comp. p. 23. 

22 c. ix. 2, a \l Ifjiui 2;Sxo« r.p'diBK nh; ■n'Xuota.i, \s an instance of attraction. 
[This reading is doubtful : good M3S. omit t|. ] 

3 Compare Jacobs, Athm. 321 sq., Anth. Pal. I. 1, 159, Schsef. Soph. Aj. 
p. 228, EU6ndt,-Arr. Al. I. 329. 

* [A. Bnttmann (p. 156), acknowledging that Winer's view is critically exact, 
maintains that in many of these instances the term " periphrasis for the geni- 
tive " IS convenient and substantially correct. In the same way the partitive 
genitive is often supported by »* (Jo. vi. 60, al.) : compare Jelf 621. 3. i, and 
Mullach, Vulrj. p. 324.] 

^ See Koppe, Eph. p. 60. 

^ 'Compare examples in the Nova Biblioth. Luhec. II. 105 sq. [See Westcott, 
Introd. to Gospels, p. 210.] 



wrong to take to. tU Xpia-rov TraBrnxaTa, 1 P. i. 11, for Ttt XpiOTov 
■jradT^fuxTa (v. 1): they are (like Trcpi Tf}<i d<i v/xas xiipiTo<i, ver. 10) 
tlie offerings (destined, intended) /»r Christ. 

It is a different matter wlien a preposition with its case takes the 
place of a genitive in dependence on a noun through the preference 
of the ro9t-verb for this preposition, as KOLvojvta vp^v els. to evayycXiov 
Ph. J. 5; compare iv. 15. So probably eTrepw-n^pa ei« Oeov (after 
God) 1 P. iii. 21 ; compare 2 S. xi. 7, imptoTav fi's ^eow. 

4. The same type of immediate dependence is also presented 
when the genitive is joined with verbal adjectives and parti- 
ciples, whose meaning is not such that they (the root-verbs) 
would regularly govern the genitive (as in 2 P. ii. 14, ^earov^ 
fiofxaXiBor Mt. X, 10, a^io<i rrj<i Tfjo^f}<?' H. iii. 1, KXijaeco^s 
fiero^ct, etc., see no. 8 ; E. ii. 12, ^evoi tcop BiaOrjKcov ; etc.). 
Thus we have in 1 C.ii. 13, \6yoi BiBaKTol 7rv€VfiaTo<; dylov (see 
above, page 236) ; 2 P. ii. 14, icaphiav yeyvfivacrfievrjv TrXeove- 
^ia<;} Compare Iliad 5. 6, XeXovfievo'i coKedvoio' Soph. Aj. 807, 
ijnoTot '^TrarrjfievT)' ih, 1353, (^i\a>v viKa>fi€vo<i : with 1 C ii. 13 
in particular, compare Soph. £1 344 Kuvrf<i BiBaKra; and with 
2 P. ii. 1 4, Philostr. IIei\ 2. 1 5 0aXdTTTj<f ovTrco yeyvfivaarfiivoc' 
3. 1, Nearopa TroKefuov ttoWwv yeyvfivuafievov 10. 1, a-o<f>ia^ 
tjBt) yeyvfivaa-fievov y see Boisson Philostr. Her. \>. 451.^ In 
German [and English] we resolve the genitive in all these 
instances by means of a preposition, taught hy the Holy Spirit, 
talked in the Ocean, practised on sea, etc. And perliaps in the 
simple language of ancient times the genitive in combinations of 
this kind was conceived as the wAcwce-case : see Hartung, Casus, 
p. 17 (J elf 540. Ohs). The two following passages also may be 
easily explained on the same principle: H. iii. 1 2, KapBla irovqpa 
d'Triaria^, a heart evil in respect of unbelief, where it is aTrtcTta 
that proves the fromjpia; if the substantive were used, Trovrjpla 
d7n<xria<i, the genitive (of apposition) would present no difficulty 
whatever. A similar example is Wis. xviii. 3, -ijiXiov d^a^r) 
ff>i,\oTi^ov ^evLTeia<} irapia^e^: see Monk, Eur. Ale. 751, Matth. 
339, 345. 

The second passage is Ja. i. 13, where most commentators 
render direipaaTO'i Kaxaiv untcmpted — incapableof beingtempted 

1 [The reading of Rec, !r>.e»»s|/a/s, is found in no uncial MS.] 
* [Compare Jell" 483. Oba. 3, Green, Gr. p. 96 sq. 1 


— hy evil (compare Sopli. Ant. 847, aK\.avTo<i (f>c\(ov' ^schyl. 
Tkeb. 875, Kaicdov arpufMover and Schwenck, ^schyl. Eumen. 
96); but Schulthess, unversed in evil} The parallelism with 
Tretpa^et is unfavourable to the latter explanation. The active 
meaning given to the word in the ^thiopic version, not temptincj 
to evil, is inadmissible, but rather because it would render the 
following words Treipd^et Se avro^; ov^eva tautological (whereas 
the use of he shows that the apostle wished to make some 
new assertion, and not merely to repeat aireipaaro^), and also 
because aireipaa-TO'; does not occur in an active sense, than (as 
Schulthess thinks) because of the genitive KaKdv? The genitive 
is used, at all events by poets and by writers whose language 
has to some extent a poetic or rhetorical colouring, with great 
latitude of meaning : aTreipacrTo? KaKOiV, in the sense of not 
tcnt'pting in reference to evil, would be as correct an expression 
as Soph. Aj. 1405, XovrpMV oatcov iTriKaipof, co7ivenient foi' holy 
washings, or Her. 1. 196, TrapOevot yufxcof (apalai,, ripe for mar- 
riage. ' (Don. 478, Jelf 518. 4.) 

The Pauline expression kAt^toi 'Irja-ov Xpurrov, Rom. i. 6, cannot he 
brought under the above rule (as is still done by Thiersch) ; in 
accordance with the view of the kAt}o-is Avhich the apostles take in 
other places, the words must be rendered Christ's called ones, i.e. 
men cnlJed (by God), who arc Christ's, — who belong to Christ. On 
the other hand, we may bring in here nfLoios rti/os, Jo. viii. 55 (o/xotds 
Tivt being the regular construction),'' and also lyyvs with the genitive, 
Jo. xi. 18, Rom. x- 8, xiii. 11, H. vi. 8, viii. 13, al With iyyv^ thh 
is the ordinary construction, but eyyus nvt also occurs, see Uleek, 
Hebr. II. ii L'Oi), Matth. 339 (Jelf .592. 2). Even adjectives com- 
pounded Avith (Tvv sometimes take the genitive, as (rvfjLiJ.op<f>u<; t>}? 
eiKoj/os Rom. viii. 29 (Matth. 379. Rem. 2, Jelf 507). 

5. Most closely akin to the simple genitive of dependence 
with nouns, and in fact only a resolution of this genitive into a 
sentence, is the very common construction elvai or yiveadac 
Tivo^, which is used in Greek prose (Kriig. p. 34 sq., Madvig 54, 

' [So De W., Bruckner, Huthef, Alford (see hi.s note in loc.). A. Buttmann 
(p. 170) defends the rendering untempted by eri/.] 

* On rhe active and passive meaning of verbals see Wex Soph. Ant. I. 162 
(Jelf 3.^6. Ohs. 2, Don. p. 191.') 

» See Matth. 386 Rem 2, Schneider, Plat. Civ. II. 104, III. 46 (Jelf 507). 
On similis aUcv.j as and similar expressions, .see Zumpt, Lat. Gr. § 411. [Comp. 
Madvig, Lat Or. § 247. Obi. 2, Don. Lut. Gr. p. 287 In Jo. viii. 55, we 
should probably read i//*/V (Lachm., Treg., Westcott), not lft!Lv (Tisch., 


Ast, Lex. Plat. I. 621, Don. p. 473 sq.) with yet greater variety 
of meaning than in the N. T. This construction was formerly 
explained, as arising from the ellipsis either of a preposition or 
of a substantive. In the N. T. we may distinguish 

(a) The genitive of the whole, of the dans (plural), and of the 
sj^lure (singular); to which a man belongs: 1 Tim. i. 20, wv 
iarlv 'T/j,evaio<;, of whom is (to whom belongs) Ilymenmus ; 
2 Tim. i. 15, A. xxiii. 6 (1 Mace. ii. 18, Plat. Protag. 342 e, 
Xen. An.l. 2. 3) ; 1 Th. v. 5, 8, ovk iafxev vvkto^ ovBe ctkotov^ 

»7A4et9 i7/^e/3a9 6Vt69, helonging to the night, to the day ;^ 

A. ix. 2. (Jelf 533.) 

(h) The genitive of the rider, lord, possessor, etc. : Mt. xxii. 
28, Tivo<i r€)v eTrra earav ryvvrj ; 1 0. iii. 21, Travra v/xoov etniv 
(Xen. An. 2. 1. 4, Ptol. 1. 8. 1); vi. 19, ovk iare eavrwv, ye 
lelong not to yourselves ; 2 C iv. 7, Xva r} v7repj3o\r) ri}? Bvvd- 
fxeto'i -p Tov Oeov Kal fiij i^ rj/xcjv, that . . . may he God's and 
not from us ; x. 7, Xpccrrov eii>ai' Rom. viii. 9 (similarly in 
1 C. i. 12 of the heads of parties, iyo) el/xi TIavXov compare 
Diog. L. 6. 82). Akin to this are A. i. 7, ov^ v/jtcov iarl <yvSyvat 
K.T.X., it does not appertain to you, it is not in your povjer to 
know (Plat. Gorg. 500 a, Xen. (Ec. 1. 2), Mk. xii. 7, Vfi^v 
earai rj KXrjpovo/jiia (Mt. V. 3), 1 P. iii. 3 ; also H. v. 14, rekeiwv 
iarlv 77 aTepea rpo^'^, belongs to (is suitable for) those who are 
2)erfcct (JeU 518). 

(c) The genitive of a property ^ (expressed by the singular of 
an abstract noun) in which any one participates, as in 1 C. xiv. 
33, oifK ea-TLv aKaraaraaCa^; 6e6^' H. x. 39, rjfie2<i ovk iafiev 
vTroaToXrj^ .... aWa iriarectx; ■ k.t.X. (Plat. Apol. 28a): the 
application of this idiom is very varied. We also find the geni- 
tive of a concrete noun, as in A. ix. 2, rtm? t% oBov optw; ; ^ 
especially of the years of a person's age, Mk. v. 42, tjv ercov 
BcoBefca- L. ii. 42, iii. 23, A, iv. 22, Tob. xiv. 2, 11, Plat. Legg. 
4. 721 a. In these examples the subject is a person, in the fol- 
lowing a thing: H. xii. 11, rrdaa iratBeia ou BoKel x^'P^'^ elvai, 
is not (matter) of joy, something joyous, — though this might be 

1 [A. Buttmann (p. 163) adds the remark that the use of the genitive with sW/ 
to d&iioie Si permanent property or quality (as in H. xii. 11, x. 39, 2 P, i. 20) 
is almost unknown to Greek prose (Madvig 54. Rem. 1) :' compare below § 34. 
3. b. — He refers to this head the genitive ^tixi^* in Rev. xxi. 17 (as havin^ 
arisen out of ro nlp^^ot nv t: vn^alii) ; similarly ;^/X<a3»y in ver. 16'. ] 

^ [A. ix. 2 is also quoted above, under (a).] 


referred to (a) ; 2 P. i. 20, iracra TrpocftTirela fypa<p7)^ ISia^ i-rrc- 
Xvaews ov yiuerai. Wlieii persons are spoken of, Ihis construc- 
tion of €«//<,' is sometimes made more animated, after the oriental 
manner, by the insertion of uig<; or tckpov ; compare 1 Th. v. 5, 
y/t€i9 viol (pcoro'i eare fcai viol r}^epa<;} (Jelf 518.) 

The verb elvai is sometimes omitted, the same relations being 

expressed by the genitive ; as in Ph. iii. 5, iyoi (pukri'i 


6. The genitive appears in the N. T. with verbs (and adjec- 
tives) as a clearly conceived case of proceeding froin, motion 
whence, with a variety of application natural to this relation : 
Grreek prose liowever is still richer than the N. T. in such ap- 
plications, and in the N. T; the genitive is frequently supported 
by prepositions. Since separation from is closely related to 
proceeding from, and that which proceeds from and is separated 
from may in many cases be regarded as a part of the whole 
which remains behind, the genitive, as the case of proceeding 
from, is also tlie regular case oi separation and o\ po.rtition. We 
shall first consider the genitive of separation and removal, as the 
more limited. 

Words which express the notion of separation or removal are 
ordinarily construed by Greek writers with a simple genitive, 
even in prose ; as iXevdepovv rivo^ to free from somethijig, k(o- 
\veiv, VTro'^copelv, Traveiv, Siacfiipeii', varepetv Tiv6<i (see Matth. 
353 sqq., 366, Bernh. p. 179 sq., Don. p. 466, Jdf 530 .sq."-*), 
though it is not at all uncommon to find suitable prepositions 
used in such cases. Accordingly, in the K T. the simple genitive 
is found with fieraaradrjvai, L. xvi. 4 ; ^ daro^elv, 1 Tim. i. 6 ;^ 
iraveaOat,, 1 P. iv. 1 ; KcoXveiv, A. xxvii. 43 (compare Xen. Cgr. 
2. 4. 23, An. 1. 6. 2, Pol. 2. 52. 8, al.) ; Ziac^epeiv, Mt. x. 31, 
1 C. XV. 41, al. (Xen. Gyr. 8. 2. 21, compare Kriig. Dion. H. 
p. 462); aTroa-Tepeia-dat, 1 Tim. vi. 5;^ also varepeiv, to he 

' We also nse both modes of expression, thou art Death's, and thou art 
a child of Death : but it does not follow from this that there is an ellipsis in 
the former phrase (Kiihnol on H. x. 39). 

' [For verbs of mitsing {i.rToxi'iv) see Don. p. 466, Jelf 514 ; for 'Sia(pipiiy, 
Don. p. 476, Jelf 503 sq. ; Cimpuv, Don. p. 476, Jelf 506.] 

* [The best texts insert i» here. ] 

* [That is, if uv is governed by o.iTox.r.aa.tT'.i (Hather, Grimm, Alford), and 
not by tif.Tfa.'msa.y (Ellicott).] 

'•' In A. xix. 27 good MSS. have fiiWitv n x.a.) y.ataipuffSxi riiy /xiyx- 

Xtt'ormos oivrns, and Lachmann has received this reading; but I agree with 


behind, fall sliort of, 2 C. xi. 5, xii. 11 (see Bleek on H. iv. 1), 
and ^evot, rwv BiaOrjKwp, E. ii. 12, Yet the use of the preposition 
has the preponderance : — 

(a) With verbs of separating, freeing, and heing free (Matth. 
353 sq., Bernh. p. 181, Jelf 531. Obs. 3), invariably: ■^oipi^eiv 
ttTTo, Ptom. viii. 35, 1 0. vii. 10, H. vii. 26 (Plat. Phwd. 67 c,— 
contrast Polyb. 5. 111. 2); \veLv airo, L. xiii. 16, 1 C. vii. 27 ; 
ekevdepovv airo, Rom. vi. 18, 22, viii. 2, 21 (Thuc. 2. 71: found 
also with €K, Matth. 353. Rem.); pvecrOat cltto, Mt. vi. 13 (2 S. 
xix. 9, Ps. xvL 13 sq.), with e/c L. i. 74, Rom. vii. 24, al., Ex. 
vi. 6, Job xxxiii. 30,. Ps. Ixviii. 15 ; aco^eiv airo, Rom. v. 9 (Ps. 
Ixvnii. 15), and more frequently "Vvith e/c, Ja. v. 20, H. v. 7 (2 S. 
xxii. 3 sq., 1 K. xix. 17); Xvrpovv airo. Tit. ii. 14, Ps. cxviii. 
134 (Xvrpovv rtvo^, Fabric. Psetidepigraph. 1. 710); Kudapl- 
^eiv OTTO, 1 Jo. i. 7, 2 C. vii. 1, H. ix. 14,— and accordingly 
Kadapof; airo A. XX. 26, compare Tob. iii. 14, Demosth. Near. 
628 c (with €/c Appian, Sijr. 59), aO^o^; dirS (p '?:) Mt. xxvii. 
24, comp. Krebs, Observ. 73, Gen. xxiv. 41, Num. v. 19, 31 
(d6oi)6<i rcvi, Jos. ii. 17, 19 sq.): similarly Xoveiv drrro (a pregnant 
construction, by means of washing cleanse from), A. xvi. 33. 
Rev. i. 5.^ 

(b) Where the construction with the simple genitive is also 
used: Rev. xiv. 13, dya7ravecr6ai^ €k rciov kottcov 1 P. iii. 10, 
TTttfo-aTO) TT]v <y\oi<T<jav diro kukov (Esth. ix. 16, Soph. JEl. 987, 
Thuc 7. 73) : va-repetv diro, H. xii. 15, is probably a pregnant 

The notion of separation and removal is also the foundation of the 
Hellenistic construction KpvTrrtiv (tl) Atto tivo<;, L. xix 42 (for which 
the Greeks said KprnrTuv nvd n) ; this too is properly a pregnant 
construction. In the LXX compare Gen. iv. 14, xviii. 17, 1 S. iii. 
18, al. To the construction of verbs of remaining behind anything/ 
(vo-Tcpciv Tivo?) may be referred the genitive in 2 P. iii. 9, oi (SpaSvvu 
6 Kvptos T^s CTrayycAtas (ov fSpaSvs tori 7^9 cTrayycAtas) : compare 

Meyer, who considers this reading (which probably is due to an error of tran- 
scription, see Bengel) too weak for the character of the passage. [The genitive 
is received by recent editors. A. Jiuttmann (p. 158) considers the genitive 
partitive: Alford with bettor reason translates "deposed from her greatne.ss. " 
In 2 P. i. 4 a-re(piiiyiiv is followed by a genitive ; see Alford's note.] 

* [In llev. i. 5 >.t/VavT/ is strongly supported, and is received by Lachm., 
Tisch., Treg., Westoott and Hort With Kecfapo? a.vl> compare ar-nxai avo, Ja. i. 27 
(A. Buttm.); unless ivi here belongs to ■Tnpi7y (De W., Alford). — In modern 
Gieek VKvhs-oi llbfratimj, etc., are always followed by iTo (Mullach p. 324).] 

* \^ AMara.vi<r((n itscf/ is not joiped with a simple genitive in the N. T.j 


vcmpovv r^5 /3o»/^€ia?, Diod, S. 13. 110. Even as early as the 
Syriac version we find lirayy. joined with /?paSvV«. 

7. The simplest examples in prose of the genitive of pro- 
ceeding from and of derivation are presented by apxofiai rivof 
I begin from (with) something (Hartung p. 14), Bexofiai rivot 
I receive from some one (Herra. Vig. p. 877), Beofuti Tivo<i (geni- 
tive of person) I supplicate from some one (Matth. 355. Kem. 2), 
aKovco Tf 1/09 / hear frmn some one : then we find yevo/iai, etrOica 
Tiv6<i (e.g. dprov, /xeXtro?) / taste, eat of something, ovlvafuii 
rivos I derive advantage, enjoyment, from something ; and, lastly, 
SiBcofMt, XafM^dvQ) Tiv6<i, I give, take, of something (Herm. Opusc. 
I. 178). In all these instances the genitive denotes the object 
from which the hearing, eating, giving, proceeds, — from which 
is derived what is eaten, tasted, given, etc. In the last examples 
the genitive also denotes the mass, the whole, a part of which 
is enjoyed, tasted, given, etc., and therefore these genitives may 
also be regarded as partitive ; for where the reference is to the 
whole, or to the object absolutely, the accusative is used, as 
the case iof the simple object. In the language of the N, T., 
however, the genitive is supported by a preposition in many of 
these constructions. To come to particulars : — 

(a) Aeofiat takes without exception the genitive of the person 
(Mt. ix. 38, L. V. 12,viii. 28, A. viii. 22,aL),the thing requested 
being subjoined in the accusative, as in 2 C viii. 4, Beofievot 
t)/ia)v rrjv y^dptv k.t.X} (Don. p. 468, Jelf 529.) 

(6) Of the genitive with verbs of giving there is only one 
example, Eev. ii, 17, Bcdao) avTw rov fidvva ; where some MSS. 
have the correction Baxjca uvtm (payeiv tnro tov fidvva.^ On the 
other hand, in Kom. i. 1 1 and 1 Th. ii. 8 the apostle could not 
have written fxeraBiBovat ■^apiafxaro<i or evayyeXiov (Matth. 326. 
3); for in the first passage he means some particular charisma 
(in fact he says j^^dpcarfid ri) as a whole, and in the latter the 
gospel is referred to as something indivisible. Paul did not 
purpose to impart something from a spiritual gift, or something 
from the Gospel. (Don. p. 473, Jelf 535.) 

^ Weber, Dem. p. 163. [Once we find 3i.>^a/ -rplt t9» Kufm a-xttt «. t. >.. 
(A. viii. 24).] 

* This very passage clearly shows the distinction between the genitive and 
the accusative, as ««< luiau i^Hpet Xivkt.v immediately follows : compare Heliod. 

2. 23. 100, Wiffi^ivf i fiiv Tiu v»a,Te;, a Si »(c< aiiat. 


(c) Verbs oi enjoying or partaking : 7rpo'i\a/ii^dvea0aL rpo(f)7]<i 
A. xxvii. 36, fxcTaXa/x^dveiv Tpo^i]<; A. ii. 46, xxvii. 33 sq., yeve- 
crOai rov SeiTrpov L. xiv. 24 (figuratively in H. vi. 4 <yevea6at 
rr)<i Sfoped^i rfjq iirovpavLov, yeveaOat Oavdrov Mt. xvi. 28, L. ix. 
27, H. ii 9, al.) : also with the genitive of a person, Phil. 20, 
iyco cTov ovalfjurjv iv Kvpiw (so as early as Odyss. 19. 68), Bom, 
XV. 24, eav vfiwv .... ifjuTrXijaOa). But yevecrdac governs the 
accusative in Jo. ii. 9 iyevaaro ro vB(op, and in H. yi. 5,^ as it 
freq^ueutly does in Jewish Greek (Job xii. 11, Ecclus. xxxvi. 24, 
Tob. vii. 1 1), but probably never in Greek writers.^ Verbs of 
eating of, as also those of giving and taking of ov from, are in all 
other N. T. passages accompanied by prepositions :-— 

a. By d-TTo : L. xxiv. 42 [Rec.'\, iiriScoKav avrw . ; . aTro /ze- 
Xiaaiov KTjpiov, xx. 10 ; Mt. xv. 27, ra Kwdpia eaOUi d-jTO tcov 
-^iXifov TOiv iraihlcov, — compare |0 h'Z^, and ^ayelv d-rcG Fabric. 
x^seudep. I. 706; L. xxii. 18, ov fxr} tt/o) dirb rov yevvrip,aro<i rrj^ 
df^ireXov, Jer. Ii. (xxviii.) 7 ; A. ii. 1 7, cKxeco UTro rov rrvev^aro'i 
fiov (from the LXX) ; v. 2, Kal ivoacpiaaro diro rrj<i rLjjLrjf;- Jo. 
xxi. 10, iviyKare drro rwv 6-\{rapL0)V Mk. xii. 2, Lva .... Xd^ji 
arro rov Kaprrov rov d/j,7reXa)vo<;. 

b. By €k: 1 C. xi. 28, eV roD aprov iaeUrco- ix. 7 (2 S. xii. 
3, 2 K. iv. 40, Ecclus. xi. 19, Judith xii. 2): Jo. iv. 14, 09 av 
rrcj) e/c rov vSaror"^ v. 50, dpro^ .... ha rt? i^ avrov ^dyy 

Beugel (on H. vi. 4) seems to trifle, in making a distinction in this passage 
between yi6t<r6xi v\'itl) a genitive and with an accusative. ["The change of con- 
straction from the genitive to the accusative in the small compass of this passage 
cannot _be mere looseness of language. . . . This construction must be viewed 
as an indication of a change of meaning, resulting from the presence of an 
epithet, not as a mere epithet, but as entering into the predicate ; the action 
signified being now no longer the bare process of tasting, but of becoming 
cognisant by that means of a quality or condition of the object of taste. The 
epithet KaXoy must be regarded as belonging to Iwafius as well as /?/««. "—Green, 
wr. p. 94. Other explanations (less probable) will be found in the notes of 
Deiitzsch and Alford. Comp. Jo. iv. 23 (p. 263, note ^).] 

^ In the sense of eating up, conmming, (payitv and iriUiv of course take an 
accusative (Mt. xii. 4, Rev. x. 10) ; 1 C. ix. 7 [r«v >c<^p^iv] is a characteristic 
example. They also have the accusative when there is merely a general refer- 
aiice to the food which a nian (ordinarily) takes, on which he supports himSelf : 

Mk. 1. 6, riv 'luxvtus .... itr^iuv axfita,; xa.) (/.iXi uypiov' Rom. xiv. 21, Mt. XV. 2 

1 0. viii. 7, X. 3, 4 (Jo. vi. 58) ; compare Diog. I.. 6. 45. Probably in no 
instance would yfai^ n (compare also 2 Th. iii. 12; be entirely indefensible, and 

•* It is otlierwise in 1 C. x. 4, eV/vov U ■^ytu/^a.Tixrn uKoXov^cvo'n; viTfai : Flatt's 
explanation is a complete failure. 


1 Jo. iv. 13, e/c Toif Trvev/xaro^ avTou BiSojKev rjfuv. But H. 
xiii. 10, (fiayecv €K dvcnaaTqpCov, is not an example of this 
kind, as if the words were tantamount to <p(vye2p Ik dvaiaf, for 
SvaiaaTTjpiov means altar : it is only in sense that cat from the 
altar is equivalent to eat of ilie sacrifice (offered on the altar) 
TJ;iere is probably no example of iadUcv airo or cV to be found in 
Greek authors, but airoXavav airo rLvo<;, Plat. Rep. 3. 395 c, 10 
606 b, Apol. 31 b, is a- kindred expression. 

(d) Of verbs of perception, clkovw is construed with the geni- 
tive of the person (to hear frovi some one), to hear some one, as 
in Mt. xvii. 5, Mk. vii. 14, L. ii. 46, Jo. iii. 29, ix. 31, Rev. vi. 
1, 3, Eom. X. 1 4 ; ^ the object is expressed by the accusative, as 
in A. i. 4, r^v rjKovcrare jmov Lucian, Dial. Deor. 20. 13 (Don. 
p. 469 sq., Jelf 485 sqq.). Besides this construction, however, 
we also find uKoveiv tl utto, 1 Jo. i. 5 ; e/c, 2 C. xii. 6 (this 
occiiYs as early as Odt/ss. 15. 374) ; Trapd, A. x. 22 : here Greek 
authors would have been content with a simple genitive.^ A 
genitive of the thing is joined to uKoveiv in Jo. v. 25, H. iv. 7, 
UK. <f)o}uP)'i' L. XV. 25, ijKOvae avfirpcoifta^ kol ■^opcjv Mk. xiv. 
64, rjKovccrre Tpj-i ^Xa(j(f)Tifxia<;- 1 Mace. x. 74, Bar. iii. 4 
(Lucian, Bale. 2, Gall. 10, Xen. C]/r. 6. 2. 13, al.) ; an accusa- 
tive in L. V, 1, uKoveiv rhv \6yov toO deov' Jo. viii. 40, ttjv 
aXrjdeiav, rjv rjKovaa irapa t. 6eov k.t.X. In the latter examples 
the object is regarded as one coherent whole, and the hearing is 
an act of the intellect : in the former, the reference is in the first 
instance to the particular tones or words which are heard (with 
the physical ear) : Compare Kost p. 535.^ 

Th^ genitive after rvy^at'ctv (£7rtTt'y_)(ai/cti/) is perhaps, in its origin, 
to be explained by the above rule ; yet we also find it where the 

' By others (Riickert and Fritzsche) the personal genitive in oJ «i« vxou- 
rar is understood to mean of whom (de quo) they have not heard, as we find 
aKoiim rn'os in Iliad 24. 490. This does not seem to me probable (for the 
construction in this sense is confined to poetry), and still less is it necessary : 
we hear Christ when we hear the Gospel in which He speaks, and accordingly 
XpiaTOD axovui is in E. iv. 21 predicated of those who had not heard Christ in 
person. Philippi's note in loc. is superficial. 

2 [These prepositions are sometimes inserted in cla-ssical Greek (Don. p. 470, 
Jelf 485) : e. g., i^a, Thuc. 1. 125 ; vafi, Xen. An. 1. 2. 5 ; i«. Her. 3. 62.] 

^ [A, Buttmann (p. 167) considers Jo. xii. 47, A. xxii. 1, al., as examples. of 
another construction of a.Keva>, — with t-ux> genitives, of ])erson and thing. — -He 
remarks that all other verbs of this ela&s have in the N. T. an accusative of the 
object, and take 3-<x/>a or oL-ro before the genitive of the person. ] 


whole object is referred to. This verb always takes the genitive in 
the N. T.i (L. XX. 35, A. xxiv. 3, xxvii. 3, al.).: on the accusative 
see Herm. Vif/. p. 762, Benih. p. 176 (Jelf 512. Obs.). In the same 
way earlier wi'iters almost always construe KX-qpovofx-elv (inherit, also 
jiarticijKcfe in) with a genitive (Kypke 11. 381) ; in the later writers 
and in the N. T. it takes the accusative of the thing, e. g. in Mt. v. 4 
[v. 5 Rcc], xix. 29, G. v. 21 (Polyb. 15. 22. 3) : see Fischer, JFell. 
in. i. 368, Lob. p. 129, Matth. 329. 

A.ny)(di€iv has an accus. in A. i. 17, and in 2 P, i. 1, irroT'/xoi/ rjfuv 
Xc)^ov(r'. iTLcmv (where iruTTi<; is not the faith, in the ideal sense, in 
which every Christian participates through his personal conviction, 
but the subjective faith belonging to the Christians immediately 
addressed) ; see Matth. 328. Hem. In L. i. 9 this verb (in the sense 
of ohtdin hy lot) is joined with a genitive.'^ (Jelf 512.) 

8. In the foregoing examples we have already perceived the 
jiotion o^ proceeding from glide into that of participation in : 
this partitive signification of the genitive is still more distinctly 
apparent in such combinations as ficTe^etv rtro?, TrXripovv riv6<i, 
Oi-yydveiv riv6<; With the genitive are construed 

(a) Words that express the notion of sharing in, partici- 
pating in, wanting (wishing to participate), see Matth. 325 
(Don. p. 472, 468, Jelf 536, 529) -. Koivoyveiv, H. ii. 24 ; kolvco- 
v6^, 1 C. X. 18, 1 P. V. 1 ; avyKoivo)vo<:, Eom. xi. 17 ; fiere-^eiv, 1 
C. ix. 1 2, X. 2 1, H. V 1 3 ; fieTaXafi^dveiv, H. vi. 7, xii. 1 ; fierb- 
')(p<;, H. iii. 1 : also 'xprj^et.vf Mt. vi. 32,2 Ciii. l,al.; Trpo^helaBai, 
A.xvii. 25. But Koivcovelv is also found with a dative of the thing, 
and indeed this is the more comnion construction in the N. T. ; * 
1 Tim. V. 22, fiT] KOLvoovei afiapriaK dX\oTpiat<i Rom. xv. 27, 
1 P. iv. 13, 2 Jo. 11 (Wis. vi. 25). In a transitive sense it is 
joined with ei? in Ph. iv. lo , ovheixiu. fioi. evKXijaia iKoivfovrjfrei/ 
€69 Xoyov Bocrewf;: compare Plat. Jirp. 5. 453 b, hvvari] <j)v<Ti'i y 
drjXeia Ty Toi) dppevcs yevovs Koivtourja'ai, et? drrravTa to, epya' 
Act. Apocr. p. 91. The dative of the thing with KOLvwvdv and 
fieTe')(eiv is sometimes found in Greek writers (Thuc. 2. 16,De- 

* In good MSS. hrirvyx''^^'" ^^^ tlie accus. once, Rom. xi. 7 ; see Fritz, in loc, 
2 Compare Brunck, Soph. El. 364, Jacobs, Anth Pal \U 803. 

' lu L. xL 8 several MSS. have am*, xf»Zn* but we cannot (with Kiihubl) 
infer from this, any more than from the construction x^^'Z^'* '"' (Matth. 35.5. 
Rem. 2), that xP''Z"' takes an accusative, in the sense of desiring, craving. 
[Compare Green p. 96, and see below, § 32. 4.] 

* [On the constructions of xotva,fi7» in the N. T. see Ellicott's note on G. vi. 6 : 
he maintains that this verb is always intransitive in the N. T. Knvutis also 
takes a dative of the person (L. v. 10).] 


mosth. Cor. c. 18), see Poppo, Tliuc. III. ii. 77 : in the case of 
Koivowelv this construction is explained by the notion of asso- 
ciation which lies in the word. (1 Tim. v. 22 cannot he resolved 
into fitjhev <roc kol Tai<i dfx,apTiai<i aWorp. Kocvhv €arco.) Once 
we find fjL€T6x^i'V joined with eV : 1 G. x. 17, €«toO ei/09 dpTov 
p.er€-)(Ofiev : 1 know of no example of the kind in Greek writers. 
(b) Words of fulness, Jilling,^ emptiness, and deficiency 
(Matth. 351 sq., Don. p. 468, Jelf 539, 529) : Rom. xv. 13, 
6eo<i 7r\7]po)(7at, vfidf; Trdarj'i ')^apa<i koI evprjvrj's' L, i. 53, 
ireivMVTa'i ^veirXr^aev a.'yadSyV A. v. 28, ireTfKTjpoiKare ri]v 
' lepovaaXrjfji tj}? 8iBa^r)<i vjxcov (A. ii. 28, from the LXX), 
Jo. ii. 7, 'yefMiaare Ta<i vhpi.a'i vSaro<i (vi 13), Mt. xxii. 10, 
iTrXrjadrj 6 'ycipLOt; uvaKeip,iv<ov (A. xix. 29), Jo. i. 14, 77X77^77? 
'^dpiTO'i' 2 P. ii. 14, 6(f>da\/xol fxecTTol fiof)(akLho<i' L. xi. 39, 
TO e<T(t)0€v vficov yep-ec dpTrayi}'; Koi 'irovr}pia<i' Ja. i. 5, et Tt,^ 
vfioov XeiTrerat aro(f)ia<;.^ Pom. iii. 23, Traj/re? vaTepovurac rrj^j 
Bo^r)^ Tov deov (compare Lob. p. 237) ; see also A. xiv. 17, 
xxvii. 38, L. xv. 17, xxii. 35, Jo. xix. 29, Pom. xv. 14, 24, Pev. 
XV. 8. Only seldom are verbs of fulness joined with utto "^ 
(L. XV, 16, eTrediifxec <yep,Lcrai rrjv Koikiav avroii cltto twp Kepa- 
Tiayv xvi. 21), or with e'/c, as in Pev. viii. 5 (yefxi^eiv e/c), 
Pev. xix. 21 ('x^oprd^. e'/c, contrast -^opTa^eiv Tivo<i Lam. iii. 
15, 29), Pev. xvii. 2, 6 (fieOueiv, jxedva-KeaOai e/c), compare 
Lucian, Dial. J). 6. 3.* Altogether solecistic is <yepov rd 
6v6fiara,liev. xvii. 3 (compare ver. 4).'^ The use of the dative 
with TrXTjpovp, fieOvo-KeaOai, etc., rests on an essentially different 
view of the relation ; see § 31. 7. Tn 1 C. i. 7 vcnepeicdai iv 

^ To this head belongs also «rA.ai/V/s< with the genitive, Eur. Or. 394. In 
the N. T. the preposition 5» is always used : E. ii. 4, irXcvinos ty oAu (rich in 
compassion), Ja. ii. 5. Compare -rXovTiJy, 'rXfivriZ,ig6a,i :» nu, 1 Tim. vi. 18, 1 C. 
i. 5, al. 

- Matthise, Eurip. HippoL 52?,. 

^ [These verbs are followed by isra in modern Greek (Mullach, Vulff. 
p. 325).] 

* On TXti^univ cLTo, Atlien. 13. 569, see Schweighaus. Add. et Corrig. 

p. 478. — Mt. xxiii. 15, lo-uim yi/aevirir (the Clip and platter) i^ af^ay?; ««< 
oDcfecfiai , must probably be rendered, are filled from robbery ; they have con- 
tents which are derived from robbery. Luke however tran.sfers the fulness to 
the Pharisees themselves, and hence writes ro 'is-uhv i/ft-ut yifiu afrayra k.t.x. 
So also in Jo. xii. 3, « tWia. Wxri^tLSn ix TJjs itr/u,y:s rev f/.upi>v, we must not take 
\x TT,? etfjLTi; as .Standing for a genitive ; these words indicate that out of whirk 
the filling of the house arose, — it V)as filled (with fragrance) from (by) tlie 
odour of the ointment. 

' [Liinemann rightly points to TXnfiiZirieti xafxit (Ph. i. 11) as a similar con- 
struction. See below, p. 287.] 


fiijBevl ^apia-fiaTL, it is easy to perceive the writer's conception 
and meaning: compare Plat. Bej). 6. 484 d.^ 

(c) Verbs of touching (Matth. 330, Jelf 586 '^), inasmuch as 
the touching affects only depart of the object : Mk, v. 30, 7]-^aro 
Twv IfjLariwv (vi. 56, I4. xxii. 51, Jo. xx. 17, 2 0. vi. 17, al.), 
H. xii. 20, Kuv Orjpiov 6Lyr) rov 6pov9 (xL 28). The construc- 
tion ^diTTeiv i/SaT09, L. xvi. 24, comes under the same head.^ 

(fl) Verbs of taldng hold of, where the action is limited to 
apart of the whole object: Mt. xiv. 31, eKreiva^ rrjv X'^lpa- 
eireXd^ero avrov, compare Theophr. Ch. 4 (with the hand He 
could grasp the sinking man only by a part of the body, 4)09- 
sibly by the arm), L. ix, 47: — somewhat differently in*Mk* 
ix. 27 [RecJ], Kparrj<7a^ avrov rr](; ■^etpo'i' A. iii. 7, it tdcra<i avrov 
rrj<i B6^id<i %et/909 (by the ^an^), compare Plat. Farm. 126, Xen. 
An. 1. 6. 10. Hence these verbs are commonly used with the 
genitive of a limb, as in L. viii. 54, Kparr)aa<; rrj<; %et/309 avrr)<;' 
A. xxiii, 19 (Is. xli. 13, xlii. 6, Gen. xix. 16). On the other 
hand, icparuv,\aii^dveLv,OT iiriKafi^dveaOai Tii'a, always means 
to seize a man, i. e. his whole person, to apprehend : ^ Mt. xii. 11, 
xiv. 3, xviii. 28, A. ix. 27, xvi. 19. The same distinction is 
observed in the figurative use of these verbs : genitive, — H. 
ii. 16, L. i. 54, 1 Tim. vi. 2 (Xen Cyr. 2. 3. 6) ; accusative, — 
2 Th. ii. 15, Col. ii. 19, al. But Kparelv cling to, H. iv. 14, 
vi. 18, and i7rcXap,/3dvecrOai lag hold of , 1 Tim. vi 12, 19 (Ml, 
14. 27), are construed with a genitive : in each case, however, 
the reference is to a possession (opoXoyi'a, eX-TTi?) designed for 
many, which each man for his own part holds fast or attains. 
See on the whole Matth. 330 sq. 'Eirikap^dveadat, used in a 

^ [To this class belongs also -Trifiiraiviii abound in', L. xv. 17 : in its strictly 
comparative sense (Xen. An. 4. 8. 11) this word does not directly govern a casa 
in the N. T. Here may be mentioned the genitive with verbs which express 
a notion of comparison, — the genitive of relation (Don. p. 476, Jelf 505 sij.): 
{/■rcpJMx^X'.iv, K. iii. 19 ; v-ripi^^tiv, Ph. ii. 2 ; ffAirTa.aia.i, 1 Tim. iii. 4 ; i/a-Tipuv 
una ha<pipuv, which however Wiuer places in a different class. On the genitive 
after verbs compounded with rrpi, etc., see § 52. 2. 4. (A. Buttm. p. 168 sq.).] 

^ [Duii.aldson takes a different view of this genitive, see p. 483.] 

^.Bernbardy p. 168 (Jelf 540, Obs.). Compare ^ccttuv us liluf, Plat. Tim^ 
73 e, ^1. 14. 39. 

* [A. Buttmann (p. 160) maintains that i'riXafn.Pid.Mierfai never really governs 
an accusative. " In all the instances (either in the N. T. or in Greek authors) 
m which such an accusative seems to occur, i-3r4Xxftfixviir^ai stands connected* 
with another transitive verb, so that the accusative (by the cx^H-'^ "-"^^ *a/y«u) 
is jointly dependent on both predicates." Similarly Meyer (on A. ix. 27). 
Liinemann, in a note introduced in this place, takes the same view, and (juotes 
A. XV iii. 17 a.3 an additional example.] 


metaphysical sense, is followed by two genitives in L. xx. 20, 
iva eTTiXd^wvrai avrov Xoyov, tliat they might lay hold of him hy 
a ivord, and in ver. 26, i7ri\a/3ia6aL avrov prjfxaro^'. so in its 
proper sense Xen. An. 4, 7. 12. Lastly, we must bring in 
here the construction €')(ea-6ai rivof to cling to, hang on some- 
thing, pendere ex (see Bleek, Heir. II. ii. 220 sq., Matth. 330, 
Jelf 536, Don. p. 483), and avTexeaeaC tlvo<;. In the K T. 
these two verbs are so used only in the figurative sense : H. 
vi. 9, ra Kpeia-crova Koi i-^ofieva (TQ)rr}pia<;' Mt. yi. 24, rov 
evo^ avde^erat Kal rou krepov Karai^povrjcreL' 1 Th. v. 1 4, ame- 
p^ecr^e tmv acrdevwv Tit. L 9, avT€-)(Oixevo^ rov Kara rrjv BiBa^rjv 
iria-rov \6yov. Akin to these is avk")(eaQai rivo'^, to endure any- 
thing or any one, since it properly signifies to hold to something^ 
(Mt. xvii. 17, H. xiii. 22, E. iv. 2), compare Kypke II. 93 : so 
also evo')(o<; (eVe^j/o/^ew)?) rtro?, as in Mt xxvi. 66, evo-)(0<i Oavdrov, 
or 1 C. xi. 27, €vo')(Q<i rov crco/xaro^ koI rov a'tp,aro<i rov Kvpiov 
(Ja. ii. 10), for in all these instances there is denoted a heing 
hound to (something), — in the first example, to a punishment 
which must be suffered, — in the second, to a thing to which 
satisfaction must be given. See Fritz. Matt. p. 223, Bleek, 
Hehr. II. i, 340 sq. : compare § 31. 1. 

Rem. 1. The partitive genitive is sometimes governed by an 
adverb: H. ix. 7, aira^ tov eViaurov once in the year,^ L, xviii. 12, 
xvii. 4 (Ptol. Geogr. 8. 15. 19, 8. 29. 31, 8. 16. 4, aL) : compare 
Madv. 50 (Jelf 523). 

Rem. 2. The partitive genitive is not always under the government 
of another word : it sometimes appears as the subject of the sentence, 
as in Xen. An. 3. 5. 16, OTrore . . . crveicraLVTO KoX (.-miXLyvvardai (T<f>u)V 
Tf Trpos £KeiVovs koX eVttVwv Trpos avroi's, and of them (some) hold inter- 
course with the Persians, and (some) of the Persians tviih tliem ; Thuc. 
1. 115 (Theophan. I. 77). An example from the N. T. is A. xxi. 16, 
<Tvvr\KBov Koi twv fLaOrjrCjv crvv rjfiiv; compare Pseud-Arist. p. 120 
(Haverc), kv ots Kal ySacriXiKol ^o-av KoX TuiV TifJiu)fji€V(jiv ii-nro tov 
^ao-iA-ewv, As a rule, however, the genitive is accompanied by a 
preposition in such cases; e.g. Jo. xvi. 17,^ cIttov ck twv fxaOrjruiv 
avrov K.T.X. (Jelf 893. e). 

9. It is not difficult to recognise the genitive as the whence- 
case when it is joined with 

' [Compare Jelf I. p. 454, Note ; and on i^tx"'' "^^^^ § 501.] 

* [I.iinemann adds Mt. xxviii. 1, ov^s (ra^^iray.] 

3 [Compare also Rev. xi. 9, Jo. vii. 40 (Tisch., al.) : In several passages «» 
with its case occupies the place of the object, as 2 Jo. 4, Rev. ii. 10, Mt. xxiii. 
34, L. xxi. 16 ; compare also Rev. v, 9, if fifta; be omitted. A. Buttm. p. 168 sq., 
Schirlitz, Grundz. p. 250.] 


(a) Verbs of accusing and impeacliing (condemning), as the 
genitive of the thing (Matth. 369, Don. p. 479, Jelf 501) ; for 
the crime of which one is accused is that //om wJiich the kutt}- 
jopeip proceeds. See At xix. 40, KivSuvevo/xev iyKoXetadat, 
(TTacreax:' xxv. 11, ovSiv eartv tav ovtoi KaTrjyopovcri fxov L. 
xxiii. 1 4, ouBev evpov iv tu> avOpoaira) tovtm alrtov oiv KaTrjyopetTe 
KUT avToO. (On the other hand, we find Trepl rtj/o? de. aliqua 
re, A. xxiii. 29, xxiv. 13,^ compare Xen. IMl. 1. 7. 2 ; as also 
Kpivea-Oai irept t., A, xxiii. 6, xxiv. 21.) Yet it must not be 
concealed that the two verbs just mentioned have commonly a 
different construction in Greek authors, viz. KaTtjjopeii/ rivof re 
(of which construction Mk. xv. 3 cannot well be considered an 
example, compare Lucian, JSfecijom. 19), and iyKaXetu rivc rv 
(Matth. 370, Jelf 589, 3).'' 

[h) KaraKav-^aadai, to glory in a thing (derive glory /row 
a thing), Ja. ]i. 13. The combmation eTracvelv nvd riva (4 
Mace. i. 10, iv. 4, Poppo, T/mc. III. i. 661) does not occur in 
the N. T. ; for in L. xvi. 8 tt}? aoiKia<; must undoubtedly be 
joined with oiKovofio'^, and the object of iiratvelv is only ex- 
pressed in the clause on ^povip,o)<i iiroirjaev^^ In later writers 
fxi(T€iv also has the genitive of the thing, like iiraivelv ; see 
Liban. Omtt. p. 1 20 d, Cantacuz. I. 56 . (Don. p. 479, Jelf 495.) 

(c) Verbs of exhaling {smelling, breathing), Matth. 376 
(Don. p. 469, Jelf 484) ; for in 6'^ety Tiv6<i the genitive deuotas 
the material or the substance from lohich the ol^eiv emanates. 

* [The constructions of xamyop-Tt in the N. T ave as follows : — 

a. Genitive of person, the charge being either expressed by «^/ (A. xxiv. 13 
only), or left unexpressed ; this is the most common construction. 

b. v^ctTnyopilv ri*a, Kev. xii. 10 (probably). 

c. Two genitives apparently in A. xxiv. 8, xxv. 11 (compare Dem. Mid. 3, 

^afia.tci/,MV avTou Ko-Tnyopuv) ; but it is probable that »y stands for rovrav £ 
(by attraction), so that we have the regular construction xartiyepiTv ti t<»»; : 
hence we need not take foXXa and toV« in JMk. xv. 3, 4, as semi-adverbial accu- 
satives, but may consider them (Examples of the same kind. 

(/ Ka.Tnyop'-tii Tt xxTx Tivo;, L. xxiii. 14 [uv for Toi/ruv a.). In several pas- 
sages this verb is used absolutely. — Kara.fjt.apTvpi7v is followed by a genitive 
of the person, —with t/ (Mt. xxvi. 62, Mk, xiv. 60), -Trora. lit. xxvii. 13: 
r-aTayivojaKiDi by a genitive of the person only. (In part, from A. Buttmann 
p. 165. )J 

^ How xa-TfiyipiTv (properly, to affirm or maintain cifjaiusl some one) comes 
to have a genitive of the person (Mt. xii. 10, L. xxiii. 2, al.) is obvious; but 
xccTayiyurKu* Tivis ] ,Io. ill. 20, 21, is exactly similar (Matth. 378). For iyKa>.uv 
T/v/ (licclus. xlvi. 19) we find in Rom. viii. 33 lyxaki^v xara. Tim;, which is as 
easily explained as xarnyo^jrv us Tiva Maetzn. Antiph. 207. ['ZyxxXiTv t/h' 
occurs in the N. T. also, A. xix. 38, xxiii. 28.] 

" On this construction see (Sintenis, in ihe) Leipz. L. Z. 1833, I. 1135. 


The only N. T. example is one in which the verb is used figura- 
tively, vi/. A. ix. 1, €fjb7rv€(ov a7ret\^<? koI (f>6voO, hreatkim/ of 
threa/rnuKj and murder: compare Aristoph. Uq. 437, ovrot 
'^Stj /caKLa^ Kut avKO(fiovr/a<i irvel Ileliod. 1. 2, Ephraem. 2358. 
Different from this are <l)6vov irveovre'i Theocr. 22. 82, and 
Bvixov iicrrveoyv Eur. Bacck. 620 ; here the simple object is 
expressed (hreathiftg murder, courage), and the verbs are treated 
as transitive. (Jelf 640. Ohs.) 

10. There appears to be a somewhat wider departure from 
the nature of the genitive, when this case is used with 

{d) Verbs oi feeling, to denote the object towards which the 
feeling is directed; as o-TrXayxi'^^eaOai tivo<; Mt. xviii. 27 In 
German, however, we have the genitive con.struction (sich 
jemandes erharraen), and in Greek the object svas ceitainly 
regarded as exerting an influence on the person who feels, and 
consequently as the point y>o?u ivldcli the feeling proceeds, i.e. 
from which it is excited. Yet most of these ve.rbs Lake the 
accusative, the relation being difl'ercntly conceived : see § 32. 1, 
and Ilartung p. -20 (Jelf 488). 

{h) Verbs of longing and desiring (Matth. 350, Jelf 498^), 
With these verbs we commonly exj)reas the o1)ject towards or an 
which the desire is fixed. But in iiriOufxeiu rti/o?. as conceived 
by the Greeks (if we except those combinations in which the 
genitive may be considered partitive, as eiridufielv cro(f)ia'i, to 
desire of wisdom), the longing and the desire were regarded 
as proceeding from the object desired, the object sending forth 
from itself to the subject the incitement to desire. In the N. T. 
eTTidvfieiv always takes the genitive (a variant being noted in 
Mt. V. 28 only '"*), as A. xx. 33, apyvplov i) -^pvaiov'i) ip,aTiafjLov 
ovB6i>o<i eTredufiijaa (1 Tinr. iii. 1) : so also opiyecrOai,. I Tim. 
iii. 1, €1 Ti<; itria Koirrj'i op^yerai, koKov cpjov iiriSvp^el (Isocr. 
Demon, p. 24, 6pe'^6rjvaL rcou Kokuiv epycov Lucian, Tim. 70), 
H. xi, 16 ; and ifiei'peadai., 1 Th. ii. 8 [liec.]. In the LXX, also, 
and in the Apocrypha (Wis. vi. 12, 1 Mace, iv, 17, xi. 11, al.) 
t'TrtOvfj.elv Tiv6<i {opiyeaOat does not occur) is the usual con- 

^ [Compare Don. p. 484, ■where reasons are given for taking a tlilFerent view 
of the nature of this genitive. ] 

* [Htre al/'TKf is much better supported than avrr,i. Tisch. iu ed. 8 omits tho 
pronoun, which is placed within bracicets by Westcott and Hort.j 


struction ; but the verb is already beginning to take an accusa-^ 
tive, as a transitive verb, e.g. Ex. xx. 17, Dt. v. 21, vii. 25, Mic. 
it 2, Job xxxiii. 20, — compare Wis. xvi. 3, Ecclus. xvi. 1. Even 
in earlier Greek the verb eTniroOelv is always followed by an 
accusative (because the verb was in thought resolved into iroBeiv 
or iroOov ex^iv iirl ti, toioards something, compare Fritz, Rom. I. 
31), riat. Lcgg. 9. 855 e, Diod. S. 17. ,101 ; compare 2 C. ix. 
14, Ph. i. 8, IP. ii. 2 (Jelf I.e. Ohs. 2). Iletvrjv and Bi-^^v also, 
which in Greek writers are regularly followed by a genitive, 
take an accusative in the N. T. (in a figurative sense, with refer- 
ence to spiritual blessings); see Mt. v. 6, Trett/wi/Te? koI Sii/rwi/re? 
rrjv BiKacocrvuTjv^ and compare <^i\oaoj)iav 8tx/r. Epist. Socr. 25, 
53 (Allat.). The distinction between the two constructions is 
obvious : Biyfrrjv <^t\oa-o(^lm is to thirst toljuards philosophy , whilst 
in hi^r}v (pi,\oao(f)Lav philosophy is regarded as an indivisible 
whole, into the possession of which one desires to come. Most 
closely connected with these verbs are 

(c) Verbs of thinJcing of, rememhering (Matth. 347, Don. p. 
4G8, Jelf 515): L. xvii. '62, fivrffiovemTe rrj'^ yvvaiKO'; Acor i. 72, 
fivrjo-Orjvac BiaOrJKTjr A. xi. 16, l.C. xi. 2, L. xxii. 61, H. xiii. 3, 
Jude 17, 2 P. iii. 2. (On the other hand virofit^ivrjaiceLv Tiva 
nrepi TLva, 2 P. i. 12.) We also use the genitive in German to 
express thinking of a thing, for this operation is no other than 
grasping, taking hold of something with the memory. Ana- 
logous to this is to he forgetful of a thing: H. xii. 5, iK\i\7]a6e 
tt}? TrapaKkr^crea^' vi. 10, eTrikadecrOaL rov €p<yov vixasv xiii. 
2,16. Yet we often find the accusative with avaixifivrjcrKeadat, 
H. X. 32, 2 C. vii. 15, Mk. xiv. 72, and with fivv/ioveveLV, Mt. 
xvi. 9, 1 Th. ii. 9, Rev. xviii. 5 (Matth. /. c. Rem. 2, Jelf 515) ; 
but rather in the sense of having a thing present to the mind, 
holding in remembrance (Bernh. p. 1 7 7). 'ETTiXavBdveaOai also 
tat^es an accusative in Ph. iii. 14, as sometimes in the LXX (Dt. 
iv, 9, 2 K. xvii. 38, Is. bcv. 16, Wis. ii. 4, Ecclus. iii. 14 2) and 
even in Attic Greek (Matth. /. c., Jelf 5 1 5). This twofold con- 
struction rests on a difference in the view which is taken of the 

^ In the LXX this verh is found with a dative, Ex. xvii. 3, lli^rKn^y a Xaosr 
via.ri (towarrfa water). In Ps. Ixii. 2 also Vat. has lli^nvi era {hu, al. ft) h 

•[In Wis. ii. 4 and Ecclus. iii. 14 WiX. does not govern an accusative.] 


relation, a difference wliich also shows itself in Latin. Verbs of 
making mentimi of do not take a genitive in the N. T. : ^ we find 
instead fivrjfxoveveiv irepi, H. xi. 22 ; compare /j,tfj,ui]crK6(rdat 
nepcXen. Gyr. 1. 6. 12, Plut. Pondag. 9. 27, Tob. iv. 1, 

id) The transition is easy to verbs which signify to care 
for or to neglect anything (Matth. 348, Jelf 496) : L. x. 34. 
i7r€fi6\i]07] avTov (1 Tim. iii. 5), 1 C. ix. 9, /jurj rwv ^oiou /xeXec 
ra> Sea,; (A. xviii. 17,' Plut. Pmlag. 17. 22), Tit. iii. 8, "iva 
(^povTL^aKTL KoXwv epycov ^ 1 Tim. v. 8, twp ISuov x)V irpovoel' 
1 Tim. iv. 14, firj d/u-eXei rov iv a-ol ')^aptafia.ro<; (H. ii. 3), H. 
xii. 5, p; 6\ty(op€i iraiBcLaq /cvptov. To this head belongs also 
^el^eaOai* (Matth. 348, Jelf ^. c)'. A. xx. 29, fxr) <^etZ6pevoL rov 
irov/xviov, not sparing the flock ; 1 C. vii. 28, 2 P. ii. 4, al. But 
/AcXei is also used with irepC, Mt. xxii. 16, Jo. x. 13, xii. 6, al. 
(Her. 6. 101,Xen. Cyr. 4. 5. 17, Hiero 9. 10, al.. Wis. xii. 13, 
1 Mace. xiv. 43).* 

(e) Lastly, verbs of ruling (Matth. 359, Don. p. 476, Jelf 
505) take the genitive, as the simple case of dependence, — for 
the notion oi going before or leading (Hartung p. 14) reduces 
itself to this : Mk. x. 42, ol <ioKovvre<i ap-)(eLv rdv edpotv Kara- 
Kvpievovaiv avroiV Rom. xv. 12 (from the LXX). Compare 
also Kvpieveiv Rom. xiv. 9, 2 C. i. 24, avOevrelv 1 Tim.ii. 12, 
Karahwaarevetu Ja. ii. 6, avBvTrareuehv A. xviii. 12, etc. ; these 
verbs are merely derivatives from nouns, and the construction 
resolves itself into Kvpiov rivo^ elvat, avOvrrarov Ttvo<f elvai.^ 
Yet ^aaCKeveiv ni/o^ (Her. 1,206 and LXX) never occurs in the 
N. T. ; ' in its stead we find the Hebraistic expression (?y being 
used with verbs of ruling, Ps. xlvii. 9, Prov. xxviii. 15, Neh. v. 
1 5) ^aaiXeveiv iiri TLvo^i, Mt. ii 22, Kev. v. 10, or /3ao-. eVt riva, 
L. i. 33, xix. 14, 27, Rom. v. 14: compare Lob. p. 475. 

^ [This is a question of interpretation : some of the best commentators take 
ft.}ir,fioviuiiv in this sense in H. xi. 15, where the verb governs a genitive.] 

^ [If obliv be taken adverbially : but it is surely simpler to consider ovVt* the 
subject of sutXtv, and roCrav dependent on euiit (Jelf 496. Obs, 2). j 

^ [Similarly fitpiuvtiffti iain->i;, Mt. vi. 34.] 

* In Latin, parcere alicui. In the Greek (puiiirSai, if we may judge from the 
construction, there is rather the notion of restraining oneself/rom, aibi temperare 
a. In the LXX, however, this verb is also construed with the dative and with 

^ Compare Strange in Jahns Archiv IT. 400. 

* [In A. xviii. 12, just quoted, the preferable reading is io&wra.Tov Stroi.'] 
' [In Alt. ii. 22 we should probably read fia<riXiuii rSj 'lot/Saiaf.] 



Verbs of buying and selling take the genitive of the price (Bernh. 
p. 177 sq., Madv. 65, Don. p. 478, Jelf 519) : Mt. x. 29, o^t Svo 
(TTpovdio. aa-cTopiov TrtoXetraf XX^^- 9, rfivvaro tovto irpaOrjvat ttoXAov' 
XX. 13, Mk. xiv. 5, A. v. 8 (Plat. Apol 20 b), 1 C. vi, 20 (compare 
Eev. vi. 6), Bar. L 10, iiL 30 (but in Mt. xxvii. 7, rjyopaa-av e| avrCjv, 
SCil. dpyvpiuiv' A. i. 18), A. vii. 16, (ovT^o-aro ti/aj}? apyvpiov (with ck 
in PalsepL 46. 3, 4). Under this head comes also Jude 1 1, ttj TrXavr] 
rov BaXaoLfjL ixLcrOov i$€xvOr]a-av, for reward (Xen. Cyr. 3. 2. 7, Plat 
Jtiep. 9. 575 b). This construction with ck, and still more a con- 
sideration of the primary meaning of the genitive, might lead us to 
refer this genitive of price to the notion of proceeding from, since 
that which .is bought etc. for a price, proceeds for us, so to speak, 
out of the price (or equivalent) which is given for it. But it is 
probably nearer the truth to think of the genitive of exchange, and 
of such expressions as dXXdrra-eiv tl tlvos (Hartung p. 15, Matth. 364, 
Don. I. c, Jelf 520) ; for the object bougbt or sold is set over against 
so much money,^ and hence in Greek avrt is the preposition of price."^ 
The construction oAXao-o-etv, SioAAao-o-ciyTt'Ttvos, does not itself occur 
in the Greek Bible : in Rom. i. 23 we find instead the more vivid 
phrase dXXda-a-eiv Ti evTLVL, by which in Ps. cv. 20 the LXX render the 
Hebrew 3 I'lon. The nearest approach to this is found in dXXda-a-eiv 

ri Ttvi, which occurs Her. 7. 152 and often in the LXX (Ex. xiii. 13, 
Xiev. xxvii. 10, al.). Words of valuing, estimation, etc., belong to 
the same category as verbs of buying and selling, and, like them, 
govern the genitive, — to esteem worthy of a thing (Kriig, p. 53, Don. 
/. c, Jelf 521) : compare a^ios Mt. iii 8, x. 10, Rom, i 32 ; ditow 
2 TL i. 11, 1 Tim. v, 17, H. iii. 3, and frequently. 

11. The genitive of place and of time : as -^sch. Prom. 714 
Xaid'i ■)(ei,po<i cnBr)poTeKTove<; OLKovai XaX,i//3e?, on the left hand ^ 
(Her. 5. 77), Xen. Eph. 5. 13 iK€ivr)<i rri<; ^fjLepa<i, on that day, 
Philostr. Her. 9. 3 sq. ^€Lfioovo<; in wilder, Thuc. 3. 104 (Matth. 
377, Don. p. 471, Jelf 522 sq.). This genitive is not governed 
directly by any particular word, but its relation to the con- 
struction of the sentence is quite clear ; and there is in it no- 
thing alien to the primary meaning of the genitive case.^ The 
N. T. writers almost always insert a preposition : their use of 

^ [The German preposition gegen (over against) is used with verbs of bu}dng, 
etc., in the sense /or, in exchange /or, and thus closely resembles avr/.] 

^ A different view will be found in Herm. Optisc, I. 179. See on the -other 
hand Prufer, De Grceca et Lat, Declinatione 98 sq, [Liinemann adds : com- 
pare H. xii. 2, 16.] 

^ [In the phrases which are translated in this section Winer is able to imitate 
the Greek construction by using the German genitive : with rou Xm-rou he com- 
pares the German des weUern. — Compare Matzner, jEng. Lang. I, 389 sqq., 
Morris, Blst. Outl. pp. 193, 196.] 

* Herm. V^ig. p. 881. Hartung p. 32 sqij. 


the simple genitive of place or time (which is properly a parti- 
tive genitive) is almost confined to certain standing formulas : 
thus we often meet with vvkt6<; ly night, also /jbear]<i vvKTO'i Mt. 
XXV. 6,77/xe/3a9 kuI vvktos- L. xviii. 7, A. ix. 24 (Xen. An. 2. 6. 
7) ; %et/ia)i/09 Mt. xxiv. 20 i connected with aajB^drw) ; opdpov 
BaOio'i L. xxiv. 1 ; firj evpovTe^, Trala^ (ocov) el'ieveyKcocriv avTOV, 
L. V. 19, by what way, eKeivrj^ (bed ohov) L. xix. 4 ; toO Xolttov 
G. vi. 17 (Thuc. 4. 98). For this reason — because the use of 
the genitive of time is limited in the K. T.to simple and familiar 
formulas — we cannot render i]p,epo)v TeaaapaKovra in A. i. 3 
(with the reading of D) vnthin forty days (I\iatth. 377. 2. b) : 
see above 2. a. To express this meaning Luke would cer- 
tainly have used a preposition. 

Rev. xvi. 7, ■^xoucra Tov Ova-iaa-T-Qinov Aeyovros, must certainly not 
be brought in here (/ heard one spoik'mg from the altar, — compare 
Soph. El. 78, Bernh. p. 137).^ Iq accordance with analogous sen- 
tences in ver. 5 and vi. 3, 5, the words must be rendered, / heard the 
altar speak (see Bengel in loc.) ; and this prosopopoeia well suits the 
strangely mysterious character of these Adsions : see De Wette. The 
other reading, rjKova-a aXkov €k tov Bvcnaa-r. XeyovTo<;, is a palpable 
correction. On Ti/5epta8os, Jo. vi. 1, see above, page 239. 

Rem. The genitive absolute is of frequent occurrence in the 
historical style of the N, T. In its original application this is not 
an absolute case in the proper sense of the Avord, but depends on the 
use of the genitive for definitions of time (compare Hartuug p. 31 ^) : 
hence the corresponding absolute case in Latin is the ablative. It is 
however used with a more extended reference, especially to assign 
the cause and the condition, — both relations which are expressed by 
the genitive. The only point needing remark here is, that a genitive 
absolute is sometimes used where the nature of the following verb 
would lead us to expect a different oblique case : L. xvii. 12 [I{ec.\ 
€ise/D;^o/AeVou avrov . . . aTry'jVTrjaav avrw, XXU. 10, 53, XVllL 40, 
cyyicravTOS avrov iwrip^Trjcrev avrov Mk. XL 27, A- IV. 1, XXI. 17, 

2 C. xiL 21,^ Jo. iv. 51. Examples of this kind are also common 
in Greek authors, partly because when the sentence was commenced 
the principal verb was not yet determined on, partly because the 
more regular construction would in many cases render the expression 
clumsy: compare Her. 1. 41, Thuc. 1. 114, 3. 13, Xen. An. 2. 4. 

» Erfuidt, Soph. (EcL R. 142, Buttm. Philoct. 115. 

* [Compare Jelf 541, Don. p. 485.] 

'[With the reading ixSivras /jtav To.Tutusn fti: in the later MSS! the con- 
.structiou is made regular. So in Rev. xvii. 8, quoted below, Rec. has the more 
regular fixirovrn. for /Sxs^rovTtav (Tisch., al.). On this irregularity see Jelf 710, 
and especially A. Buttmann p. 314 sf^q.] 


24, Mem. 4. 8. 5, Pol. 4. 49. 1, Xen. Epli. 4. 5, Heliod. 2, 30. 113.1 
In 2 C iv. 18 also, for atwviov /^apos 86$r}^ Karepyd^eraL rjfitv, fXTj 
(TKOTTouvTiDv r)fjiit)v TO, yS AcTTo/x fva, Paul might have written yu,^ ctko- 
vooa-L TO. ySA.'; but the former construction brings out the participial 
member with more prominence and force : compare Xen. Cyr. 9. 1. 
37. , Lastly, we find exceptional instances of the use of a genitive 
absolute where the principal sentence has the same subject (in the 
nominative) as the subordinate sentence ; as Mt. i. IS, /iivr](rTev6eL(rrj<i 
r^s jJLTjTpbs avTov Mapta? tw 'Iwcrr^^, irplu r) crvpuXOetv airou?, cvpi&rj 
iv yaarpl cxovcra, where the writer probably had in his mind another 
mode of finishing the sentence. So perhaps in Rev, xvii. 8. Such 
instances as these are rare in Greek authors : see however Her. 5. 81, 
Plat. Bej). 8. 547 b, Pol. 31. 17. 1 ; and compare Poppo, Time. I. 
119 sq., Wannowski p. 61 sqq. In the LXX see Gen. xliv. 4, Ex. 
iv. 21, V. 20, xiv. 18 : compare Acta Apocr. pp. 68, 69, Epiphan. Vit. 
pp. 326, 340, 346 (in the 2d volume of Epiphan. 0pp. : ed. Colon.), 
and in- Latin, Suet. Tib. 31. In all these examples the genitive 
absolute is employed as a regularly established construction, the 
grammatical origin of which was no longer considered. ^ 

Section XXXI. 

the dative, 

In Greek the dative is a more comprehensive case than in 
Latin, representing, as it does, the Latin ablative as well as 
the Latin dative.^ In general, however, its connexion with the 
sentence is not so close and necessary as that of the accusative 
or even of the genitive t its office is merely to complete and' 

1 Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. II. 21, Schsef. Apollon. Rh. II. 171, and Demosth. 
II. 202, Poppo, Thuc. I. 2, 119, Siebelis, Pausan. II. 8, Hoffmann, Pr. de Casib. 
Absol p. I. Compare the Latin ablatives absolute in Cic. PhiU 11. lo, Fam. 
15. 4. 18, Cffisar, Bell. Gall. 5. 4, Cio. 1. 36, 2. 19, 3. 21. 

^ [Bp. Ellicott has some general remarks on the N. T. use of the genitive 
with the noun, in his Essay on " Scripture, and its interpretation " {Aids to 
Faith, p. 462 sq.). Besides the genitive of apposition or identity (§ 59. 8. a), 
of remoter reference (§ 30. 2), of quality (§ 34. 3. b), he specifies " a widely 
extended use "of this case "to denote the ideas of origination (Rom. iv. 13, 
hianiirvyfi rriffriai), and not unfrequently of definite agency (2 Th. ii. 13, 
uyiaffiits Tlnvficcro;)," — upon this see especially his note on 1 Th. i. 6 ; and a 
smaller class of examples "in which ideas, so to speak, of ethical substance or 
contents appear to predominate (E. i. 13, aXr,fiuai and a-wTnpixe)." See also 
Green, Gr. pp. 87-98, Webster, Synf. pp. 67-77, for notices, of many passages.] 

' Compare Herm. Emend. Rat. p. 140. [On the radical force of the dative 
see Don. p. 488, Jelf 471, 586, Clyde, Gr. Syni. p. 35. On the dative in the 
N. T. see Green pp. 98-102, Webster, Synt. pp. 76-79, Ellicott u.s.] 


extend, by indicating the object (in most cases the personal 
object) at which an action* is aimed, which an action concerns, 
but which is not directly affected by the action. Hence we often 
find this case in conjunction with the accusative of the object, 
as in 2 C. ix. 2, irpo6vfjAa rjv icavywyuai MuKeBocrcv A. xxii. 
25, TrpoireLvav avrov Toh ifMaaiv (see Klihnol),^ x.xiv. 5, Jo. 
vi. 13. In, a loose application the dative is used (of things) 
to denote whatever accompanies the action, as motive, power, 
circumstance (of time or place), etc. 

1. We -first consider the dative as the case of reference (of 
the more remote object, as it is usually expressed), both in its 
connexion with transitive verbs — as Zthovai (hwpelaOai) rt tivl, 
>ypd(f)€iv t/ Tivc (2 C. ii. 3), evajyeXi^eaOat tivl ti (L. ii. 10, 2 C. 
xi. 7), 6j>eL\eiv rtvi rt (Mt. xviii. 28, Rom. xiii. 8, compare Eom. 
i. 14, viii. 12, but contrast xv. 27), 6p,oio.vv rivd tlvl (Mt. vii. 24, 
xi. 16), KaraXkaaaeLv tlvcl tlvv (2 C v. 18), iyelpeiv dXiyjnv rol^ 
heapML^ (Ph. i. 17), all which instances are entirely free from 
difficulty; — and especially as joined with intransitive verbs and 
adjectives allied to these. The force of the dative is more or less 

(a) In ciKoXoi/Oelv rivi, ejjl^eiv, KoWaadat, cnoL-^elv (Rom. iv. 
12, al.), heheadai (Rom. yii. 2, 1 C. vii. 27), evTV'y)(av€Lv rtvi, 
etc.; also in €v')(eadal run, A. xxvi. 29. (Jelf 522 sq.) 

(6) In fxcpi/jtvav rivi^ (Mt. vi. 25), opyi^eadaL (Mt. v. 22), 
fi€Tpio7ra9€ii> rivL (H. v. 2), p^efi^eadai (H. viii. 8,* see Krlig, 
p. 25, Jelf 589), ^dovelv G. v. 26. (Jelf 596, 601.) 

(c) In iriareveLV rove, rreTroLOevai^ dTriareiv, aTreidelv, xma- 
Koveuv, v'jrrjKo6<i, ivavrlo<;, etc, (Jelf 593.) 

(d) In 7rpo<iKuv6lv ruvi, Xarpeveiv (not in Ph. iii. 3), BovKovp. 
(Jelf 596.) 

^ [Unless ToT; ifiatnv be taken as instrument, see Alford. Against Kiihnbl's 
rendering of TponUnv (tradere) see Bornem. Luc. p. 181 sq., Meyer in loc.'] 
^ [The references in the text to Jelf's Or. apply to most of the words in the 

various classes ; for tux.^(r6a.i, i/Ti>yx,ayin, see 589 ; havrioi, 601 ; l^lviXie-iat, 

607 ; xoivun7v, 588 ; c/xiki7y, 590. In Donaldson's classification, c, d, e (with 
ivx,--fSai, but not iyavTios), would comc under the "dative of the recipient" (pp. 
498-495); x.?^iiia.i, "instrumental dative" (p. 491^; most of the other words 
under the '" dative of coincidence or contingency " (p. 486. sqq.).] 

^ [Also /jLifiiiiYtcu TO. fTipl iifi'Zv, Ph. ii. 20 (1 C. vii. 32) ; fnpiuv^fn lavTns, 
Mt. vi. 34, like (ppcv-rlluv t,v'o;, § 30. 10. (A. Buttra. p. 186.)] 

* [Here avrov; is strongly supported ; some (e. g. Bleek, Kurtz) who read 
etlroli join it with Xiyn. — The dative is similarly used with £a-(T//iav, \yxtt.f.i.h, 
lfi.^p,[/.a(r(ai : A. Buttih. p. 177.] 

* [The dative with IX't/^e.v in Mt. xii. 21 either follows the analogy of these 
verbs (A. Buttm. p. 176), or belongs to No. 6 c (so Meyer).] 


(e) In ape<TK€iv rivi [evapea-retv, H. xi. 5], apKdv (]\It. xxv. 
9, 2 C. xii. 9), apKero^ and lKav6<i, Mt. vi. 34, 1 P. iv. 3, 
2 C. ii. 6. (Jelf 594, 596.) 

(/) Then in ^evi^eadai tlvl, 1 P. iv. 12 (Thuc. 4. 85), le 
astonished at a thing (the astonishment is directed towards the 
thing); airoXoyetadai (2 C xii. 19, A. xix. 33, compare 1 P. iii. 
15), and ScaXiyeadac nvi, A. xvii. 2, xviii. 19 ; BiaKareX-eyx^- 
aOai TLVL, A. xviii. 28 (SojfiarLi^eiv tlvl, compare Col. ii. 20) ; 
where the dative indicates tlie person to whom the conversation 
or defence is addressed. Likewise ofioXoyelv and i^ofioXoyel- 
adai TLVL (Ja. v. 16), even with the signification j9ra^se (^ •^1'^'^), 
L. X. 21, Eom. xiv. 11, H. xiii. 15 ; for every act of praise to 
God is a confession made to Him that we acknowledge Him as 
the High and Glorions One. (Jelf 589, 594.) 

Once, in Eev. xix. 5, the best MSS. have the construction 
alvelv Ttt't' (compare Ecclus. Ii. 12) : probably p nnin was before 
the writer's mind, — unless indeed alvelv is here construed ad 
sensum, as equivalent to elirelv acvea-iv. 

{y) In Kpiveadai (Mt. v. 40) and hLaKpivea-dat tlvl Jude 9 
(Jer, XV. 10), go to law, contend against or with. (Jelf 601.) 

(A) Somewhat differently in the verbs of equality or likeness ; 
as Mt. xxiii. 27, o/toia^ere Ta^oL<i K€KovLa/j,evoL<i' vi. 8, H. ii. 17, 
2 C. X. 12 ; compare ofiOLo^i, iao<; tlvl, Mt. xi. 16, Jo. ix. 9, 1 
Jo. iii. 2, A. xiv, 15, Mt. xx. 12, Ph. ii. 6 ^ (once 6ij.ol6<; tlvo^, 
Jo. viii. 55, — Matth. 386, comp. § 30. 4): also in verbs of 
jmrticirpating in, 1 Tim. v. 22, 1 P. iv. 13 (compare L. v. 10, 
Eom. XV. 27), though these verbs more commonly take the 
genitive (§ 30. 8) : similarly op,LKelv tlvl, A. xxiv. 26. (Jelf 594.) 

{%) In the verbs of using, as yjpr](jQaL, A. xxvii. 1 7, 1 C. ix. 
12, 15. Once however (in 1 C. vii. 31) this verb has an accu- 
sative in the best MSS.,^ as sometimes in the later writers, e.g. 
Malal. p. 5, Theophan. p. 314, Bockh, Corip. Inscri'pt. II. 405, 
(but not Xen. Ages. 11. 11), compare Born em. Ada p. 222: in 
A. xxvii. 17 there is little authority for the accusative. (Jelf 

^ Comp. Fritzsche, Ariat. Amic. p. 15 : [on Koiiuvut, Green, Gr. p. 102.] 
^ [A. Buttin. (p. 181 sq.) suggests that the accusative may have been occa- 
.sioned by the verb which immediately follows {Kara^puifmoi), xirfiov being 
regarded as in .some measure dependent on both verbs {i.xo kodioZ) : similarly 
Meyer. K«Ta;^;^Sff•^«/ takes au accusative in later writers. ] 



(A) In aT7]Keiv (ea-rrj/cevai) rivi, standfast to a thing (2 C.i. 24, 
G. V. 1 V. L), or to a person, Eom. xiv. A} (Jelf 590.^ 

Jlpo'iKvviiv (reverenre, irorship) is always foHowed by a dative in 
Matthew, Mark, and Paul" (for Mt. iv. lb is a quotation from Dt. vi. 
13) \ in the rest of the IST. T. we find sometimes the dative (Jo. ix. 
38, A. vii. 43, H. i. 6, Rev. iv. 10, vii. 11, xiii. 4, al.), sometimes 
the accusative (L. iv. 8, xxiv. 52, Jo. iv. 23, liev. ix. 20, xiv, 1 1 ) : 
similarly yovvn-^Tdv nvd in Mk. (i. 40) x. 17, Mt. xvii. 14 (and some- 
times XarpeveLv rivd : Matth. 392. Rem., Jelf 553. c). The construction 
of TTposKwciv with a dative is peculiar to later Greek (Lob. p. 463).* — 
Xaipdv, which by the Greeks is more frequently construed with the 
dative (Fritz. Bom. III. 78 sq.), as it is sometimes in the LXX (Pr. xvii. 
19, compare Bar. iv. 37), has never this construction in the K T., 
being usually accompanied by iirt over: on Rom. xii. 12 see below, 
no. 7 : in 1 C. xiii. 6 the dative depends on crvv. — The phrases 
a.Tro6av€cv rfj n/xapTia, tw vo/xw (Rom. vi. 2, G. ii. 19), 6ava- 
Toxxrdai Tw vop.io (Rom. vii. 4), v€Kpov cTvat t^ ap.. (vi. 11), opposed 
to Cw TivL (t(G Oe<l) Rom. vi. 10, compare 1 P. iv. 10°), signify 
to have died or to be dead to sin, to the lato (for sin, for the law) ; 
compare Rom. vii. 4, eh to yivia-dai vp.o.% Iripno- 1 P. ii. 24, d-rro- 
yevecrOaL rfj dpapTLo,. In the same way we find in Rom. vi. 20 
iXevOepoL rrj SiKaioavvT], in antithesis to 8ov\ova6ai ttj Sik. (ver. 18, 
compare ver. 19, 20): when ye v)ere servants of sin ye were free with 
reference to righteousness, to righteousness ye were in the relation 
of free men. (Jelf 599.) 

We must also recognise a dativus rei of direction in the phrase 
KaraKpiv^Lv tlvo. Oavdrw, Mt. XX. 18 (compare 2 P. ii. 6^), to sentence 
some one to death, i, e. to assign to death by a sentence. This con- 

1 [The reading of G. v. 1 i.s most fully discus.sed by I.iglitfoot (Gat p. 197), 
who — Avith most recent editors— ^rejects ^, and takes e-rvxin absolutely. If >) 
be retained, it is probably a dative of reference to (no. 6), see EUicott in loc. : 
similarly in 2 C. i. 24 (Meyer). In Rom. xiv. 4 the dative appears rather to 
come under no. 4. b. than to stand in close connexion with the verb. ] 

* [On the dative with compound verb.s, see § 52. ] 

^ [Excluding 0. T. quotations (with which A. vii. 43 may be reckoned, for the 
words -rpcsxi/viTv auToi;, though not found in Am. v. 26, seem to be a reminiscence 
of other familiar passages), we find 56 examples T)f this word in the N. T. In 
16 the word is used absolutely; in two (Jo. iv. 22) the omission of the demon- 
strative makes the construction doubtful. In the remaining pa.ssages, the dative 
(probably) occurs 28, the accusative 10 times. Hence in the N. T., as in the 
LXX, the dative construction is the more common. Uf>i>s kwiT* occurs most 
frequently in St. Matthew's Gospel and the Revelation. In the former book we find 
the dative only ; in the latter the dative seems to occur 13, the accusative 6 times. 
The remaining examples are Mk. xv. 19, Jo. iv. 21, 23, ix. 38, 1 C. xiv. 25 
(dative) ; Mk. 'v. 6, L. xxiv. 52, Jo. iv. 23, 24 (accusative). It seems almost 
impossible to believe that in a single verse (Jo. iv. 23) this word can have both 
constructions without any variation of meaning : at all events we may recognise 
that the accusative expresses a connexion between verb and object closer than 
that expressed by the dative construction. Compare p. 248, note ', p. 263, note ^.] 
•■* Compare Bos, Exercitatt. Philol. p. 1 sqq. , Kypke, Obs. I. 7 sq. 

* [Perhaps intended for 1 P. iv. 6 : the reference is wrong as it .stands, j 

* [That is "condemned them to overthrow " (Huther, Alford, al.).] 


struction is not found in Greek writers, -who use KaraKptveiv tlvu 
Oavdrov, or edvarov (Matth. 370. 'Rem, 3, Heupel, Mart 285), or 
KaraKp. TLvl Gdvarov, Her. 6. 85 (to adjudge death to).^ An analogous 
phrase is /caraSiKa^cti/ Tiva ^avctro) (Lob. p. 485). Compare also homo's 
ry Kpto-ct, Mt. V. 21, 22, subject to the judgment (§ 30. 8): compare 
Bleek, Hebr. II. i. 340. J J \>! i v 

2. Most closely connected with this is the dative which is 
dependent on elvat (vTrdp'^eiv) and ylveaOat, — not on any pre- 
dicate joined with these verbs ; for iarl or ylverai fioi <f)6^o<} 
can only mean, that the <f)6(3oi' nlvai or ^iveadai applies to or 
concerns me. 

(a") Without a predicate etvai rivi expresses belonging to 
(possession), 'yiveaOai nvL denotes becoming the property of: L. 
ii. 7, ovK Tjv avroh rono^;, they had not room ; A, viii. 21, x. 6, 
iii 6, xxi. 23, Mt. xviii. 12, L. i. 14, taToi x"-?"- o""*-' Mt. xvi. 
22, Qv fjJq earai aoi rouTo, tills luill not befall thee; A. xx. 3, 16, 
ii. 43, iyevero Trdcrr) ■^v)(^ <^6/3o<;, fear fell On; Horn. xi. 25. 
With an eUipsis, 1 C. vi. 13, v. 12, 2 C. vi. 14, Jo. ii. 4 (KrUg. 
p. 69, Jelf 597). 

(h) With a predicate (usually a substantive) ehal or rylveaOal 
Tivt, denotes what quality tlie thing spoken of has or receives 
for- some one, either objectively or subjectively (in his opinion): 
1 C. viii. 9, iJir}7ro}<i 7] e^ovaria .... irpo'iKOixiJLa lyevr^rai roif 
acru€V€.aiv' i. 18, o X^iyov 6 tgO aTavpov Tot<i fiev dTJoWv/xivoi'i 
/Mcopia iariv k.tX, ix. 2, xiv. 22, Eom. ii. 14, vii. 13, 1 G. iv. 3, 
ix. 3, Ph. i. 28 (Jelf 600, 602). But to express turn to, prove 
(Kriig. p. 69), the N. T. writers commonly use ehat, or jlveadai 
eh ri. 

3. Substantives derived from verbs which govern a dative 
are sometimes followed by this case, instead of the ordinary 
genitive : 2 C. ix. 12, evxapta-riai rw 6er^ (but not in ver. 11), 
somewhat like evxal roi<i eeol<i Flat Zegg. 7. 800 a^ (Jelf 588, 
597, Don. p. 49 5). Compare also to €lco66<{ avr^, L. iv. 1 6, A. 
xvii. 2 (Plat. Zegg. 658 e, ro yOa rjixlv), and ro evTrdpeSpov r^J 
KvpLa, 1 C. vii. 35.^ A different case from this is L. vii. 12, 
vcos iJ.ovo<yev-q<i rfi /xTjTpi, a son who for the mother was the only 

^ In the O. T. also this construction is unknown. One of the parallels cited 
by Bretschneider is Sus. 41, xaTixpitut avrhy aToectnl* ; in the other, ver. 48, 
the verb is used absolutely, xaTiKpivan ivyar.-ifo, 'irpariX. 

* See Wyttenb. Pint. Mor. I. 154 (Lips.) ; Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. iOl, Sep. 
I. 372 ; Ast, Plat. PoUt. 451 ; Bornem. Xen. Cyr. 374 ; Fritz. Mark p. 63. 
« [Also Jo, xii 13, 2 C. xi. 28 (probably).] 


smi (thus not stricbl}^ for the genitive: compare Tob- iii. 15, 
fioDoyevrj'i rip -Trarpl Jud. xi. 34) : this must not be confounded 
with the dative of relationship (compare L. v. 10, Rom. iv. 12).^ 
On Rom. iv. 12 see § 63. 11. 1. 

In Mt. xxvil. 7 also, r/yopaa-av tov aypov . . . . ek racjirjv rots 
iivois,for burial for strangers, the dative belongs to the substantive : 
comp Strabo 17. 807, -rrpos cTriSet^iv rots $evoLs.'^ But in 1 C. vii. 28 
the dative may be joined with the verb of the sentence. See how- 
ever Bernhardy p. 88. 

4. Without direct dependence on the notion of a verb or 
noun, the dative may indicate the reference which an action 
has to some one ; as in 2 C. ii. 13, ovk ea'^rjKa aveaiu tw Trvev- 
fxari fiov for my spirit (1 C. vii. 28), or in L. xviii. 31, iravra 
Ta yeypafxfxeva . . . ra> vim tov avOpwirov what luas written for 
Him (that it should be fulfilled in Him);^ Mt. xiii. 14, Jude 14 : 
compare also Mt. xiii. 52, Ph. i. 27, 1 Tim. i. 9, Rev. xxi. 2. 

Especially deserving of notice are 

(a) The dative of opinion or judgment (compare above, 
no. 2), as in Plat. Fkcvd. 101 d, ei aoc aXX.TJXoL'i ^vfxipoivel r) 
hia^wvd ; Soph. CEd. Col, 1446. So in the phrases acrTeto9 
rcjj Oecp A. vii. 20, and hvvara ray 6eu) 2 C. x. 4;* see also 
1 C. ix. 2. Compare Krug. p. 71 sq." (Don. p. 495, Jelf 600). 

(h) The dative of interest, — 2 C. v. 13, etre i^earrj/j-ev, dew' 
€iT€ aci)(f)povov/Mev, vfiiv (Rom. xiv. 6, 1 C. xiv. 22), — or more 
definitely, the daiivus commodi and incommodi : Jo. iii. 26, c5 av 
fjLe/jiaprvpr]Ka>i, for ivhom, in favour of whom (L. iv. 22, Rom. 
X. 2, 2 C. ii. 1, comp. Xen. Meyu. 1. 2. 21) ; on the other hand, 
Mt. xxiii. 31, fiaprvpeiTC eavrol<;, on vloi eeyre k.tX., against 
yourseloes (compare Ja. v. 3). Compare further H. vi. 6, Jude 1, 
Rom. xiii. 2 : *^ on Rev. viii. 3 see Ewald. In E. v. 19, however, 

' Buttm. Philoct. p. 102 sq., Boisson. Nic. p. 271, Ast, Plat. Polit. 451, 519, 
and Legg. p. 9. [Comp. Riddell, Plat. Apol. p. 126 sq. ] 
^ See Schoem. Isoeus p. 264, Kriig. p. 80. 

* [Jelf (583. 2) refers this to the construction of verbs •which denote that 
" something is allotted to any. one, awaits any one, etc." (Green p. 100): A. Butt- 
mann (p. 178) joins the dative with both verbs: "if the word belonged to 
ytypa-fjL. oulv, We should have had l-jrl tu vlii, as in Jo. xii. 16." Bleek, Meyer, 
and others agree with Winer. ] 

* We should liave a sinailar example in Ja. ii. 5, if (with Lachniann and 
Tischendorf) we read Toy? ^Ta^ovg toT Kocr//.ai. 

5 Compare Wyttenb. Phced. I. c, Erfu'rdt, Soph. (Ed. R. 615. 
« [Jelf 598, 601, Don. p. 494.] 


XaXovvTcs eavTOLS (aXX^^Xot?) '\^aXfiol<i k.tX., we liave a ?iiraple 
dative of direction, speakinij to one another etc, 

5, From these examples it is obvious that the dative is akin 
to the prepositions eU (Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 360 ^) and 
77/309 (compare Ast, Plat. Zegg. p. 558), just as the genitive to 
the prepositions e'/c and airo. Hence in many phrases ek or irpo'i 
with an accusative is used instead of the dative. Thus we find 
not only the familiar example XeyeLv tlvl and nrpo'^ rtva (the 
former is usually, almost constantly, preferred by Matthew and 
Mark ^), — compare Kpa^eiv tivi, Kev. vii. 2, xiv. 15, cfxovetv nvi, 
Eev. xiv. 18, — but also ev^eaOai deu) A. xxvi. 29 (Xen. Cyr. 5. 
2. 12, Deraosth. Conon 729 c, Plut.'CmoZ. 9, Xen. Eph. 4. 3), 
and ev^eadai. Trpo^; Oeov 2 C. xiii. 7 (Xen. Mem. 1. 3. 2), compare 
Ph. iv. 6 ; ^odv tivi L. xviii. 7, and ^oav 7rp6<i rcvaHos. vii. 14; 
\}revSe<70'ac rtvi^ A. v. 4, Ps. xvii. 45, Ixxvii. 36, Jer. v. 12 (not 
in Greek authors), and 'yjrevB. irpoq riva (to lie towards, belie, 
some one) Xen. An. 1. 3. 5 ; KaraWarreLv tivi and tt/jo? nva, 
Xen, Vedig. 6. 8, Joseph. Antt. 14. 11. 3 ;* evSoKelv eU rtva 
2 P. i. 17, and evh. nvi in Greek authors^ (Pol. 4. 22. 1, 
1 Mace, i, 43) ; iid-^&aOai nvi Xen. An. 4. 5. 12, Plat. ii't^;. 3. 
407 a, and tt/jo? rtm Jo. yi. 52, Iliad 17. 98, Plat. Lack. 191 d, 
Luc. Conv. 42, and often (also in the LXX) ;^ ojxCKelv tlvL and 
7r/309 Tti/a, L. xxiv. 14, Xen. Mem. 4. 3. 2. To the N. T. writers 
the prepositional construction was also naturally suggested by 
the more expressive and vivid phraseology of their mother 
tongue ; and hence we sometimes find et>? where Greek writers 
would have been content with the simple dativus commodi or 

* In modem Greek the accusative with «/j very commonly serves as a peri- 
phrasis for the dative, even in its simplest relations ; as >.iyu th t« (plKav ftav, 
dico amico me.o (towards my friend) : see Von Liidemann, Lehrh. p. 90. 
[Sophocles, Gr. p. 151, Mullach, Vulg. p. 332. The dative has in great measure 
disappeared from modern Greek: see Mullach pp. 151, 327 sq., Clyde, p. 30 sq.] 

* See Schulz, Parah. v. Verwalt. p. 38. [I have substituted "former" for 
" latter, " which is a manifest mistake. The use of Tpis with the accus. after 
xiyiiii and other verbs of speaking is very common in St. Luke and St. John : 
see Gersdorf pp. 180, 186, Davidson, Introd. p, 194.] 

^ [On -^eu^tir^eti riya {" actual deception by falsehood ") and ^. rm (" address 
directed to a person in terms of falsehood ") see Green, Gr. p. 100.] 

* Col. i. 20, a^oKaTucXX. us, would be on analogous exaraple, if this were not 
a pregnant construction, used designedly : see Meyer in loc. 

■' [And in 2 Thess. ii. 12, according to the best MSS.] 

' Thus besides -ra.fafia.Wuv rl nvi (Her. 4. 198) we also find -rttf. ti t^o? ti 
(Joseph. Ap. 2. 15). Different still is Mk. iv. 30, e» vaia. cra.fot.^oX^ •yra.^a.- 
fixXafiiy rrir /iafiXiixv rav tioZ (see Fritz.), but the readings vary. ['Ev t/w 
auTTjv -prafictlioX^ ffaifiiv is adopted by Fritz, and by recent editors.] 


incommodi : A. xxiv. 1 7, iX€r)ixoavva<; 'TVOLrjo-wv et? to e6vo<i ixov 
L. vii. 30, TT]V ^ov\r]v tov deov rjOerrjo-av et? kavrov^, to their 
own detriment (as indeed et9 also signifies contra^). On tlie 
other hand, KrjpvTretv or eva<yyeXc^. eh (Mk. xiii. 10, 1 P. i. 25, 
L. xxiv. 47, — Paus. 8. 5. 8) must be rendered proclaim or preach 
amongst them, since a plural noun always follows : in Mt. xx. 1, 
/jLicrOovadac et? rov a/xTreX-wva is not hire for but hire into the 
vineyard ; and there is the same pregnancy of expression in Mk. 
viii. 19,T. aprof? eKKaaa et? Tov<i irevraKL<;')(^Ckiov<;, have hrokcn 
(and divided) amongst etc. Similarly in Mt. v. 22, evo')(p^ ek rrjv 
yeevvav, liable (to come, to be cast) into the Gehenna : contrast 
TT] Kpiaet, TM (TvveBpiq)^ In Eom. viii. 1 8 also rrjv fxeXkovaav 
ho^av a7roKa\v<^6rjvai el<; rjfMd<i is an abbreviated expression (see 
Fritz, in loc^), like the Hebrew "^x n^33, i S. iii. 7. Lastly, we 
cannot say that a preposition is used instead of a dative in the 
phrase o)^eXi/xo9 Trpo? tl 1 Tim. iv. 8, 2 Tim. iii. 16 (w^eXt/io? 
619 Xen. (JEc. 5. 11, compare 'xprjo^tpba eh Wis. xiii. 11), or in 
ev6ero<; eUrt L. xiv. 35 (Dion. H. De Thuc. 55. 3, evdero^ irpo'; 
Pol. 26. 5. 6,Diod. S. 5. 37) ; the expressions useful, suitable to 
or for a thing, are perfectly correct, as the dative would be more 
fitly used in reference to the 2?^rson : compare however L. 
ix. 62 V. /.* 

The combination ■n-LcrTcvf.iv £ts or eVi rtva (A. ix. 42, xxii. 19) 
obviously means in Christian phraseology more thaft Trto-Tcvciv nvt 
(credere, confidere alicui), and must be taken as a pregnant ex- 
pression, — believing, to give ■ oneself up to some one^ vAth faith to 
declare adherence to some one, fide se ad aliquem apphcare.'^ Also 

' In L. viii. 43 R&. has lU larpoh; 'rpoiataXaiaaira. 'e'Xov tov pi'iov, but the beSt 

MSS. have laTpo?;, and this reading is to be preferred, as tl; larpous is an evident 
correction r this verb, indeed, is commonly construed with t!; in Greek writers 
(Xen. Cyr. 2. 4. 9, ^1. 14. 32). 

^ [A. Buttmann (p. 170) maintains that it is most natural to regard ih t»)» 
here as a periphrasis for the dative, the change from Tn Kflini, tu avn^fiw, to 
this construction being occasioned'by the transition from the abstract and quasi- 
abstract words {x.pi7ii, ffvvihpioy) to the more material yiifva.] 

^ [Fritzsche explains uTsxaXvTT'.rai ti; ifii thus : manifestatur res ad me (ita, 
ut ad me perferatur).] 

* [Here tSi. t? liairiXiia. is generally received. For u<pixifm with dat. pers. 
see Tit. iii. 8. Compare Clyde, Synt. p. 163.] 

'■ UiffTiviiv iv XpitTT^ would be explained in the same way, but the existence 
of this formula is not fully proved by G. iii. 26, E. i. 13 ; in Mk. i. 1.5, however, 
we find irirT. h tv liayyikiat, which is not essentially dKferent. — Such phrases 
as h Tfif ritee. ■Jr'nrrif do not prove the construction •ynrTivut -xp'os or u; nva to be 
pure Greek (Schwarz, Comment, p. 1102). [We should probably read b ayT* 
in Jo. iii, 15, but (with Meyer) connect the words with 'ix^, not -jnixrivuv. The 


TTopaStSovat CIS is not simply equivalent to TrapaoiSovai tivl, but has 
rather the meaning give mto tlie power of (Mt. x, 17) ; hence it is 
used with edvaTo^Mt. x. 21, 2 0. iv. 11, with 6Xl\j/i<; Mt. xxiv. 9, 
with aKaOaptria Rom. i. 24, etc. : compare Xen. Hell. 1. 7. 3. The 
combination in E. iv. 19, kavrovs TrapeScoKav Tjj ao'cA.y€t'a et? epyamav 
aKaOapaia<; Traa-q^ k.t.X..., needs no explanation. 

Rem. The preposition ixcto. also is akin to the dative. Thus for 
woAcyaeij/ Ttw we find in the N. T. TroXe/xelv //era rtvos, Rev. xii. 7, xiii, 
4 • also Kptvea-Oai ixird Ttvo?, 1 C. vi. 6 (7). With a different refer- 
ence, the dative is replaced 

(a) By evwTTiov Tivos : A. vi. 5, T^pea-ev ivinnov TravTos toS ttXtj^ow? 
(Gen, xxxiv. 18, xh. 37,^ 2 S. iii. 36, al.) ; compare 1 Jo. iii. 22, 
TT/josKDj/etv ivwiriov tov 6e.ov (L. iv. 7, Rev. XV. 4). This belongs to 
the Hebraic colouring of the language, as indeed the preposition 
iviUmov itself (""JSp^) may almost be said to do. 

(b) After TreTrotOa — by ev, Ph. iii. 3 ; by eVt'with the dative, IMk.. 
X. 24, 2 C. i. 9 ; or by eVi with the accusative, Mt. xxvii. 43, 1 Mace. 
X. 77 (Alex.). [See below, p. 292.J 

(c) After aKo\ov6(.Lv by oTrto-w, Mt. x. 38 ; see § 33, 

That the dative may stand for the local 7rp6<; or et? with an 
accusative, has been denied by Borneraann/ and after him by 
Meyer (on A. ii. 33). It is true that the examples which Fritz- 
sche (Conject. I. 42) has quoted from Greek poets do not prove 
the point (for prose), and also that the N. T. passages may be 
otherwise explained. In A. ii. 33 and v. 31 {y-^ovv) rfj Be^La 
may mean hyXHis) right hand ; and in Rev. ii. 16 <roi is simply 
a dativus incommodi. Even A, xxi. 1 6 might be rendered (as 
by Beza and Glass) adducentes secum, apud quern, hospitaremur 
Mnasoneniy — the word which should have been in the accus. 
case, as the object of ayovre^ (viz. Mvdaayva k.t.X.), being 
brought into the construction of the relative sentence (MvdawvL) : 
hut this explanation has but little probability.^ A better course 

constructions of this verb in the N. T. are fully examined by A. Buttniann 
(p. 173)^ and more succinctly by Bp. Ellicott (on 1 Tim. i. 16). j 

' [In Genesis II. cc. we have tr«vT/ov, not ivavisv.'] 

^ In Rosenm. Eepertor. II. 253, and in the iVew. krit, Joum. der theol. Literal 
VI. 146 sq. : compare also nd Anah. p. 23. 

^ Not exactly because the jjredicate a^a-lia [jia.(r,TY. is annexed (Bengels N. 
Archiv III. 175), for this description of Mnason is added in order to show that 
Paul mij(ht fully trust himself to him ; but rather because it is not very likely 
that those wlio accompanied Paul from Caesarea would have brought with them 
a' host for him, since there were in Jerusalem itself so many trustworthy Chris- 
tians. Hence we should have to assume, either that this Mnason was in Ceesarea 
by mere accidtint, or that he had a residence in both places at the same time. 
If we were to drop the &ecvm, which certainly is not necessarily implied in 
ayoira, it would simplify the matter (after their arrival in Jerusalem they 
brought Mnason forward), but then the words would not be suitably arranged. 


would be to adopt Bornemann's more recent suggestion {Luc. 
p. 177 sq.) and resolve the attraction thus : dyovref (^Jyua?) irapa 
Mvdacovd Tiva . . . Trap' w ^eiucrdcofiev ^ (for ajeiv irapd rhva 
compare Her. 1. 86, 3. 15). Even this however is not the sim- 
plest explanation. The construction d'yetv TLvi, lead to some one 
(but see the note below), may indeed be uncommon in Attic 
prose, but later prose writers use expressions which are entirely 
similar, as (jjoiTav run Philostr. Soph. 2. 1. 14," ijKeiv rtvl Plut. 
u^m. 16. 1, ei<i<pep6iv rivd nvi Malal. 10. p. 231 : with A. xxi. 
16, in particular, compare Xen. Eph. 3. 6. p. 63, nrorepov r]'y6iji,r]y 
'A^poKOfirj- Epiph. Vit. p. 340 d, -qyayev avTov ^AOavaaiw to* 
'Trd-mra? See also Bernh. p. 95, Held, Plut. Mm. P. p. 200. 
Hence we may without hesitation render v-^ovv ry Se^M, exalt 
to the right hand ; compare ver. 34, kuOov e'/c he^iwv fiov' see 
also Luc. Asin. 39. 

L. ii. 41, i-TTOpevovTO . . . fis 'lepovcraXrj/Ji rfj koprfi, must not he 
rendered (as by Luther) to the feast, but either on account of the feast 
(see below 6. c), or as a loose expression, at the feast.'^ With more 
reason might Mk. xiv. 53 crvv€px.°vTai avru? [convenerant eum), and 
Jo. xi. 33 Toii? o-wcA^ovra? o.vtq ^lovhaiow;, be brought in here (Eritz. 
Mark p. 648). In my opinion, however, the dative m both passages 
is really governed by avv ; the latter simply meaning who had come 
With her, the former, tJi/ey came with Him, namely, with Jesus (ver. 
54) ; see Baumg.-Crusius. (Jelf592.) 

Tho use of the dative with verbs of coming in a non-local and 
non-material sense (as in A. xxi. 31, avifirj t^acn<i toJ ;^iAiap;^a)), is 
also a different construction from that noticed above.^ To this 
unquestioned parallels occur frequently ,in Greek writers : e. g. 
Plut. Brut. 27, fiiXXovTL avraJ Sia/3aLveiv . . . rJK€v dyye\ia Trepl r^s 
H€Tal3oXrj<;' Pomp. 13, TO) '^vXS.a 7rpu)Trj fxev rjXOev ■ ayycXta ; compare 

also avdyav ri tivl, to hrivq somefhiny before some one (notify to), 
Malal. 3. p. 63, 10. p. 254 (Jelf 59.2). 

6. The dative is used with still greater latitude, in reference 

1 [So Meyer, De Wette, Alford, and others. The rarity of such (local) datives 
is not the only objection to Winer's view : the order of the words would surely 
have been diilerent, ayosin; Mv. t/v/ K., -rxf J ^sv. (A. Buttm. p. 284).] 

» Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. IV. 339. 

' In none of these instances, however, has aym Vjv/ (comp. ^r^aya-ys/v Tivi 
§ 52. 4) a purely local or material meaning : it is used rather in the sense of 
introducing, bringing into connexion with, into the society of some one. 
Similarly (poirav -nvi (to go to some one as teacher), different from ipDirav rpit 
rrtra Epict. Ench. 33. 13. [" In Plut. JEm. I. c. the dative depends on the whole 
expression vx$ f^nviiiii* :" A. Buttm. p. 179.] 

* We also should say in German : sie machten jahrlich zu Ostern eine Reise 
nach . . . um dem Gottesdienste beizuwohnen. 

5 Compare our " es kam ihni die Kunde, die Anzeige.'"' 


to things, to denote that in loJiich or in reference to which an 
action or a state exists. Hence it indicates 

(a) The sphere to which a general predicate is to be limited 
(compare Bernh. p. 84, Krtig. p. 86 ^) : 1 C. xiv. 20,/^^ TraiSia 
^ivecrde rat? (ppeaiv, dXXa rr} KaKia vrjind^ere, children 
in understanding, children as regards malice (Plat. Alcih. pr. 
122 c) ; Kom. iv. 20, iveSvva/juodr} tjj Trtaret, he grew strong in 
faith ; Ph. ii. 8, axvi^aTi evpedeU o)? dvOpaTTof iii. 5,^ Mt. v. 8, 
xi. 29, A. vii. 51, xiv, 8, xvi. 5, xviii. 2, xx. 22, Eev. iv. 3, 1 C. 
vii. 34, H. V. 11, xi. 12, xii. 3, 1 P. iii. 18, v. 9 (Pol. 20. 4. 7), 
G.L 22, Kom. xii. 10, 11, Col. ii. 5, E. iv. 18,23 (Matth. 400.7, 
Fritz. Rom. III. 6 8). A dative of this kind comes between two 
connected nouns in E. ii. 3, ^yctev reKva (f>vaet 6pyf]<i, natural 
children- of -wrath. 

(b) The norm or rule in accordance with which something 
takes place : A. xv. 1, idv fjurj TTeptri/xvijade rat edei Mwixreoi^; 
(but in xvii. 2 Kara to eloodo^;, and more frequently Kara edo<i) ; 
compare Xen. Cgr. 1. 2. 4, Sext. Emp. 2. 6, Strabo 15, 715, 
Tob. iii. 8 [3 ?], 2 Mace. vi. 1.^ 

(c) The occasion or cause (on account of) : Rom. xi. 20, rij 

aTriaria i^eK\do-07]<Tav, on account of unbelief (comipaYG ver. 30, 

rjXe/jOrjre rfj rovrcov aTretOeLa), G. vi. 12, Col, i. 21.'* Also the 

motive (from, in consequence of) : 1 C. viii. 7, ry crvvetSijaec rov 

elSdiXov «i)9 elhwXodvrov iadloua-L' 2 C, 1 15, Eom. iv. 20. See 

Diog. L. 2. 57, Heliod. 1. 12. 33, Paus, 3. 7. 3, Joseph. Antt. 17. 

6. 1 ^ (Matth. 398 sq., Bernh. p. 102 sq., Kriig. p. 84). 

More singular is the use of the dative in Rev. viii. 4, dvejSi^ 6 kottvo^ 
Twv OvfiLafjudToiv Tats Trposevxais tcov dyiW k.t.X., and many con- 
jectures have been made respecting it. The simplest translation is, 
the smoke of the (angels')^ incense ascended to the prayers, i. e., the 
ascending smoke had reference to the prayers, was designed to -ac- 
company them and render them more acceptable : on the idea see 

1 [" A local dative ethically used : " Ellic. on G. i. 22. See Don. p. 488, Jelf 
605. 4, Green p. 99.] 

^ [Reading of course ■npiro//.^. Liinemanu adds Mt. v. 3. ] 

^ [Jelf 603, Green p. 99 : the dative with -rofi-Jiadai (below, no. 9) should 
perhaps come in here. J 

* [So Meyer, taking ixh""^ passively, invisos Deo : if ix^po^t is active (Alford, 
Ellicott) T9) havoia. will be a dative of reference. ] 

* Compare Ast, Plat. PoiJ<. p. 392,Goeller, Thuc.p]p. 157, 184, al. (Don. p. 493). 

^ [Or rather "angel's." — Compare Green p. 102 : "The dative may be re- 
garded as dependent on an unexpressed, but implied, idea of bestowal, since the 
incense is to be viewed as the accompaniment which gave to the prayers a 
passport into the divine presence."] 


Ewald in !oc. That this is the meaning was felt by those who sup- 
plied o-w the rendering inter preces sanctorum is altogether untenable, 
— In 2 C vii. 1 J TO) TTpayixaTL would certainly be admissible, but for 
the language of the N. T. the construction would be harsh. There are 
good authorities in favour of prefixing ev ; and the omission of this 
word may have arisen either from the absorption of ev in the preceding 
word eii^at or from the reader's connecting TrpdyfxaTt with iy ttuvti. 

7. In the various usages noticed in no. 6 we can discein 
more or less clearly the dative of direction, that is (according to 
the Greek conception), the true dative. The case is however 
extended farther still in its application to Avhat is external, to 
what accompanies the action, and passes over entirely into the 
ablative, denoting 

{d) The mode and manner, as the casus modalis (Bernh. p 100 
sq., Don. p. 487, Jelf 603); 1 Cxi. o,'!rpo<iev)(^o/jbev7) aKuraKoXv- 
TTTft) rfj Ke(f)a\y with uncovered head, x. 30, Col. ii. 11, Ph. i. 18, 
2 P. ii. 4 (Jude 6) ; also Iiom. viii. 24, rfj iXTrlBi eacodrjfieu (and 
E. V. 19 ^) : — or the (material) mea'ns, instrument, as the casus 
instrumentalis (Mad v. 39., but comp. Kriig. p. 83 ^) ; 1 P. i. IS, 
ov (f>6apT0t<i, apyvpifp rj '^vaiw, iXvrpcodrjTe' G. ii. 13, w9Te 
. . . avvaTrrj'^dri avTcov rfj vtroKplaei, (2 P, iii. 17, compare 
Zosim. 5. 6), E. i. 13, Col. ii. 7, Ph. iii. 3, 1 0. ix. 7, t/? arpa- 
reverav Ihloa o-^wvLoa irore, hf means of his own expenditicre ; 
H. vi. 17, i/jLeatTevcrev opKOi' iii. 1,^ Rom. xy. 18 : — further A. 
i. 5, i/SaTTTLcrev vButl (xi. 16), Jo. xxi. 8, tc5 irXoiapio) ^Xdov 
Mk. vi. 32 * (though elsewhere we find ev irXoiw- Mt. xiv. 13, 
A.xxviii. ll,Diod. S. 19. 54)>A. xii. 2, Rom. i. 20, iii. 24, Tit. 
iii. 7, E. V. 19, al. H. xii. 18, opof; KCKavfievov irvpi, igni 
ardens, turning in fire, with fire (Ex. iiL 2, Dt. iv. 11, ix. 15, 
compare Lob. Paral. p. 523 sq.), may also be brought in here. 
In Rom. xii. 12 t^ iXTrlBi ■)(aipovre<i is through hope, in hope 
rejoicing : in regard to 2 C. ix. 1 4, Be'^aei, I now agree with 
Meyer.^ We frequently find iv or Scd (especially of persons) 

' [This passage is again quoted below. On a peculiar use of the modal dative 
in the LXX and N. T. see § 54. 3.] 

^ [Kniger prefers the term dynamic dative, since "it does not properly de- 
note the mere instrument or tool, though it is often improperly used of tiiis. " 
On the dativ. intitrum. see Don. p, 490, Jelf 607.] 

2 [This reference is wrong : perhaps i. 3.J , 

* [The reading is not certain : Lachm., Westc. and Hort insert iy.] 

* [In ed. 5 Winer had taken 5f.->w as dependent on -rioinnuouiru. (ver. 12), and 
consequently as parallel with the prepositional clause ota. tc. ihx,. : so AlfoiJ. 
Meyer takes xai avTut . . . iti-ttoS. as a genitive ab.solute, lur.im as a mortal 
dative ; Stanley takes a similar view.] 


in parallelism with the instrumental dative : see Rom. xv. 18, 
2 C. xi. 23, 26 sq. 

The ablative is also to be recognised in the construction fi^Ov- 
(TKecrdaL OLVio, E. V. 18 (Pr, iv. 17), and TtX-qpovaQal Ttj/t, Rom. i. 
29,1 2 C. vii. 4, Eurip. Here. Fur. 372 ; compare irX-qpy]'^ tivl Eurip. 
Bacch. 18 (though this word more frequently takes a genitive), and 
see Bernh. p. 168. In later Greek compare ■n-Xrja-dii'Te'i dyvota Malal. 
p. 54. (In E. iri. 19 eis with the accusative does not stand for an 
ablative : this preposition rather expresses, be filled up to the fulness 

8. All these relations however are not un frequently (in some 
cases, more frequently) expressed by means of prepositions, with 
or without a modification of the meaning. This remark applies 
to Greek prose generally, but is especially illustrated by N. T. 
Greek. Thus we find 

For (a), eV : 1 P. iv. 1 , iv aapKi ttuBcov ^ (in connexion with 
aapKi iraOdtv), Tit. i. 13, compare ii. 2 ; hia(^epei,if ev tlvl 1 C. 
XV. 41, Soph. CEd. Col. 1112, Dion. H. Ep. p. 225 (Kriig.). 

For (h), Kara : as almost always Kara to edos: eloiSo^, L. iv. 
16, A, xvii. 2. 

For (c), hid with the accusative : see § 49. c. 

For {d),Bid or fV. — also fxerd. Thus for ^airrL^eadat vSutl 
we commonly ^ find fia-nril^euBaL ev vButc (in water), Mt. iii. 11, 
Jo. i. 26, 31 (but also ev irvevfia-ri) ; for jSia, always fiera ^ia<i, 
A. V. .26, xxiv. 7 ; for TTLarec, sometimes Blu Triarewi, etc. But 
in E. ii. 8, Ty j^apiri eorre aetrwcr^evov tio, Trj'i nrlarerjo';, and in 
Rora. iii. 24, the dative expresses the motive, and Sid TrtVTew? 
the subjective means. In 2 P.. iii. 5 also we find a twofold ex- 
pression of the means, S<.a indicating what is external, the dative 
what is not material. For ttuvtI rpoiroi (Ph. i. 18) we find in 
2 Th. iii. 1 6 tV nrravrl rpoTTw. On the other hand, in 2 P. ii. 3 
the dative denotes the means, Ii/ the state (the disposition). 

When however the commentators on the N. T. explained ty as a 
simple nota dativi^ even in cases where a dative proper (not an abla- 
tive) is required, they took an exaggerated view which cannot in the 
least be justified by appealing to the Hebrew idiom. Most of the 
examples quoted owe all their plausibility to the circumstance that 
elsewhere the dative of the person is commonly found in similar 

• [See Green, Gr. p. 101.] 

^ \'Bv is omitted by the best editors on strong MS. authority.] 

2 [The two expressions are about equally frequent : in is inserted in t]\e pas* 

sage quoted in tne text and in Jo. L 33, Mk. i. 8 Rec, but omitted iu L. iii. 

"16, A. i. 5, xi. 16, Mk. i. 8 (Tisch. ed. 8, Westcott and Hort).] 

* Comp. Blom&eld, iEschyl. Agam. 1425, and Eurip. Med. p. 628, 


combinations (compare 1 C, xiv. II, iii. 1, i. 18); in reality, they are 
quite unsatisfactory. In A. iv, 12, heSofxevov eV avOpuiiroL<i is most 
certainly equivalent to given (set lorth) wmomjst men (compare 2 C. 
Vlll. 1^); G. i. 16, a-nOKokv^ai rov vuw a.vTOV iv ifxoi, is fo reveal 
ill me (cr T(3 Trveu/Aan ftoi)) ; 1 Jo iv 9, i(fiav€pa)dr} n aya-mi rov 
Beov iv -qfuvy the love of God wanifeHed itself on or in us, which 
undoubtedly is different from " manifested ijbself to us;" 1 C, xiv. 11, 
6 AoAwv ev i/xol i3dpftapo?, in my estimation, Tneo judicio ; ~ 1 C. iL 6, 
o-o(f>iav X.aXovp.ev iv rot? reXctots, is we set forth wisdom amongst — or with, 
before (coram, Plat. Symp. 175' e, as often in the orators, see § 48. a) 
— tlie perfect, that is, when we have to do with the perfect, compare 
■Judith VL 2. 2 C. iv. 3, iv rots aTroAAv/AeVois ig-rl KCKoAu/AfteVov, is in 
the main rightly explained by Baumgarten, — is hidden in (amongst, 
with) those who are lost. On 6"/xoAoyetv ev tlvl see § 33. 3. b. A. xiii. 
15 and Col. ii. 13 need no explanation; and E. ii. 5, vcxpovs tois 
TrapaTTT&i/xacri, is not grammatically parallel to the latter passage. 
In E. i. 20, ivTJpyrjacv iv XpuxTia is quite regular, (power) which He 
manifested on Christ (in raising Him from the dead). In Mt. xvii. 
12, irroirja-av iv avr<3 o(ra r)di\r)(Tav (in Mk. ix. 13, iTroLr}crav auraJ) 
means, they did, perpetrated, on him; compare Mk. xiv. 6, Jo. xiv. 
30, L. xxiii. 31, 1 C. ix. 15 (Gen. xl. U, Judith vii. 24). Equally 
correct is 2 C. x. 12, /xcr/aetv iavrovs iv tairrot?, measure tJiemselves 
on themselves, though Greek writers use the simple dative (Ajistot., 
Rhet. 2. 12, Herod. 1. 6. 2). 

9. Time, as the substratum connected with actions in general^ 
is expressed in the dative, in answer to the question vjhen. This 
temporal dative denotes 

a. A space of time: L. viii. 29, TvoX\ol<i '^(jovoi'i a-vvr}pTrdK€t 
avTov, Kithin (during) a long Hm£, A. viii. 11, xiii. 20, Rom. xvi. 
25, Jo. ii. 20 (not E. iii. 5^); compare Joseph. Antt. 1. 3. 5, to 
vhcop ■^fiepaa recraapaKovTa oXaa KorecpepeTo' Soph. Trach 599, 
fiaxpu) XP^^V -^^schin. E;p. 1. p. 121 c, Diod. S. 1'.'. 93. 

b. More frequently, a point of time at which something 
happens, — either with words which directly express the notion 
of time or of a division of time (accompanied by a numeral or 

' So in Diog. L. 1. 105, ri Irinv It' an^puTti; ayix,^o» te xai (pscZxov, where 
also the Latin translator has quidnam esset hominibus bonum, etc. Compare 
also Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 628, iavXtvirovirtv i» t»7; Ix^pals aiirZt- Anian, Epiot. 
1. 18. 8. [The "also" refers to the fact that in A. iv. 12 the Vulgate has 
"datum hominibus."] 

2 Comp. Jacobs, Athen. p. 183, Dbderlein, (Edip. Col p. 529, Wex, Soph, 
Antig. v. 549. 

' [Winer apparently agrees with Meyer (ed. 2, 3) in regarding irt/xr/s yfnali 
as an ordinary transmissive dative. De W., Ellicott, and Alford take ytni in 
its temporal sense, and the dative as a dative of time ; so also A. Buttmana aud 
Meyer in ed. 4. ] 



by a genitive, Kriig. p. 67), as L. xii. 20, Tavrj) rff vvktc Mk. 
vi. 21, 'Iipu>hrj<i rol<; yevea'ioi.'i avrov ZelTTvov iiroLrjae^ Mt. XX. 
19, rf/ rpiTrj tjfiepa avaa-Tij(T€Tat,' xxvi. 17, L. xiii, 10, A. vii. 8, 
xii. 21, xxi. 26, xxii. 13, xxvii. 23 ; — or with the name of a 
festival (Waiinowaki p 86), L. xiii. 14, roi aa^^drw idepdirevcre 
(xiv. 1), Mt. xii. 1, roi<i ad^jSaai, al. Compare Plat. Conv. 
1 74 a, Madvig 45. As a rule, however, iv is added to the dative 
in the latter case, as it frequently is in the former (especially 
with icT^aTT} rjfjbepa or rjpbepa t^<? Kpiaewi), even in Luke (iii. 1, 
i. 26), compare Kriig. \). 67 (Don. p. 487, Jelf 606). In Greek 
authors also tlie use of rfi eopry or jal<i kopral^; without ev is 
rare (Wannowski p. 88). 

The dative o^ place has not taken deep root in the N. T. Before 
names of towns tv is always inserted, as Iv 'P^firj, iv'Tvpw, A. xviL 6 
[]xvii. 16], xix. 1, Rom. i. 7, 2 Tim. i '17, iv. 20, al. '08os occa- 
sionally dispenses with the preposition, as in Ja. ii. 25, irepa 68«r 
iK/3(iXov(ra (where however a preposition was hardly needed), com- 
pare Xen. Cyr. 1. 2. 16 ; 66<S TropevecrOat 2 P. ii. 15, A. xiv. 16 (in a 
figurative sense), comp. Lucian, 2'im. 5, 68<2 fiahi'Cuv (Fritz. Eom. 
III. 140 sq.) ; arotyjiiv tois lxve(Ti Rom. iv, 12 ((3aivetv txi/cfrt Plut. 
Sol. 30). To this usage should also be referred the figurative phrases 
-TTopeveaOai t<3 <f>6{3io A. ix. 31, xiv. 16, Pr. xxviii. 26, 2 S, xv. 11,- 

1 Mace. vi. 23, Bar. i 18, ii. 10, iv. 13, Tob. i. 2, iv. 5 (also iropeu- 
ea-Oai cr 1 P. iv. 3, al.), and even irepnraTeiv rots eOeo-'. A. xxj. 21, 2 C. 
xii. 18, G. v, 16, Rom. xiii. 13. In Greek prose generally the use 
of the dativus loadls is very limited ; see Madviir 45, Poppo on Thuc. 
1. 143. (Jelf 605.) 

10. Sometimes, though rarely, the dative (of a person) ac- 
companies a passive verb (usually in the perfect tense), instead 
of i/TTo, irapd, etc., with the genitive: L. xxiiL 15, ovBev d^tov 
Bavdrov eVrt ireirpa'-fpbkvov ahrfo (Isocr. Paneg. c. 18). Yet 
there is some difference between these constructions: the dative 
does not indicate hy whom something is done, but to whom that 
which is done belongs (Mad v. 38. g, Kriig. p. 84'''). This con- 
struction is found with evpiaKeadai especially, as 2 C. xii. 20, 

2 P. iii. 14,^ Rom. x. 20 (from the LXX) : compare also L. 

* [liCmemann adds Mt. xiv. 6. On this see p. 276.] 

" [This is surely not an example. Many of these examples may well be 
referred to 6. b, above. For 2 Pet. ii. 15 above rt^nd Jude 11.] 
» Benseler, Isocr. Evag. p. 13 (Don. p. 492, Jell 611). 

* [In ed. 5 Winer, regarded the dative in these two passages as a dative of 
opinion or judgment (no. 4. a) : so Meyer in 2 C. i. c, and Alford, Huther, A. 
Buttmann, in 2 P. iii. 14. J 


/ 5 

xxiy. 35 (Ja. iii. 18), Ph. iv. 5 (A. xxiv. 14 [Mec.]), and 2 
P. ii. 19, where ro rt? i]TTT]TaL means, to ivhom any one -is 
inferior, succumbs (like r^TTaadal rivog in Greek writers). But 
in A. xvL 9 6j(f)6r] opafxa rm IlavXq) signifies became visible to 
him, as 6^6rjval nvt often means to appear to some one. In 
Ja. iii. 7, t>? (pvaet rfj avdpcoTrtvrj is rather through the nature 
of man, ingeniis homimim. In general, the dative of the tiling 
with passive verbs (as probably in Ebm. xii. 16, see Fritz, in 
Iog}) is less strange, as it coincides with the dative of the means. 
In H. iv. 2, Tot? aKovaa(nv probably indicates the persons in 
whose case the /x^ cvyKeK. rfj iria-rei existed. Lastly, in Mt. v. 
2 1 sqq. ipprjOr] rot? upy^aioif; signifies was said to the ancients : 
see Tholuck in loc? This dative (of the person) is similarly used 
in Greek prose, but is especially common after a participle : 
compare Dem. Olynth. 3. p. 12 c, Theocrin. 507 c, Coron. 324 a, 
Conon 731 b, Diog. L. 8. 6, Philostr. Her. 4. 2. 

Rem. 1. The dative in Col. ii. 14, c^oXeii/^as to Kaff rifxwv 
■)(^eLp6ypa<f>ov rots Soy/iatri, 13 worthy of notice. The explanation 
given by some of the commentators, o ?]f iv rots Soy/iao-i, quod con- 
stabat placitis (Mas.) — in accordance with E. ii. 15, tw vofxov tZv 
€VTo\u>v ev Soyfiacri Karapyja-as, — is correct indeed as regards the 
sense, but ungrammatical : to express this Paul mu.st have written 
)(CLp6ypa(f>ov TO iv Tois Soy/oacrt. To take E. ii. 15 first : Twi' ifToXwv 
iv ooyfiatri must certainly be regarded as expressing a single notion, 
the commandments in (particular) rfecree.s/^ compare § 20. 2. In Col. 
ii. 14 however, all things being considered, we cannot but join 
Boyfiacri closely with to Ka6' ^fx. x^^Pm the bond (in force) against us 
through the decrees ; and perhaps Paul chose this position for Boy/xaat 
in order to give the word prominence. Meyer's explanation, (hat 
which was tcritten tvith the cominundnnents (the dative being used as 
in the phrase ivriUen with letters), is the more harsh as x^poypcK^o" 
has so completely established itself in usage as an independent word 
that it is hardly capable of governing (like ytypap.p.ivov) such a dative 
as this. 

Rera. 2. Kiihnol's remark in his note on Mt. viii. 1, that datives 
absolute sometimes take the place of absolute genitives (e.g., Kara/BavTi 

* [Fritzsche takes t»7; Ta-rin'Tti as neuter, and renders par miseram rem.] 

* [Se»i AJi'ord i?i toe. for h clear summary of the arguments on this side.] 

3 [Th\3 is more fully exnioined in ed. 5. "If, in accordance with CTarama- 
tioiil rule, ir }iyftv(ri be connectwl with KaTapynro'.;, we must either understand 
'ityfttrTo. to mean Chr'iHt'ian doctrinea (which would stand in the same relation 
to ivToTkul as ^i<rri; to ipyj.) ; or we must translate (with Harless), He has 
ahnlinhed fJie Inw of the commxtndment<^ in decree.i (abolished it on the side of 
decrees). N. T. usage however does not support tlie former interpretation of 
^iyu.ara ; and on Harless's view I should expect Toi's liy/tafi, since a definite 
side of a definite law is spoken of." See EUicott and Lightfoot in toe] 


avTO) for KaTa/3dvTo<s avTov, and iXOovri avrw Mt. xxi. 23), expresses 
what was formerly the general belief of philologers as well as of 
N. T. commentators. 1 In reality, however, all such datives (at 
any rate in the better writers, Wannowski p. 91 sqq.) are as easily 
explained from the nature of this case as the genitive absolute 
from the nature of the genitive : ^ see Bernh. p. 82, Stallb. Plat, 
Protag. 60, Rost p. 721 (Jelf 699). Kiihnol's .remark cannot 
with even the least show of reason be applied to the passages 
he has quoted, for in them Kara/iavrt and IXOovtl are connected 
with the verb aKoXovOHv ; though it cannot be denied that Matthew 
might have written KaTaf3dvT0^ airov yKoXovOrjaav avrw' o^Xol -rroXXui, 
compare Mt. viii. 28, Mk. v. 2 v. l.'^ The only peculiarity of this 
construction is, that avT<^ is uniformly repeated, — because the dative 
participle and the governing verb are separated by several other 
words. In the examples cited by Kypke (I. 4.7) from Pausanias and 
Josephus, either there is simply a pronoun joined to the participle, 
or the pronoun comes in only in immediate connexion with the verb 
(Joseph. AntL 8. 13. 4); hence they prove nothing for the main 
point. Nor is there a. real dative aTjsolute in A. xxii. 6 or 17 : in 
the latter passage, just as in ver 6, /zot vTruirTpcij/avTi belongs to 
cyeVero, but a different construction (with the genitive absolute) 
then commences : pccidit mihi reverse, cum precabar in templo, etc. 
Compare Pans. 3. 10, 7, and 25. 3. 

Rem. 3. We find a double dative, one of the person, the other 
(a dative of explanation, of more exact definition) of the thing, in 
2 C. xii 7, ihodij jjoi a-KoXoijj rrj arapKi, there was given me a stake 
for the {in the) flesh -^ (Ex, iv. 9, Gen. xlvii. 24): compare the Ho- 
meric hi^ov ot T;vta x«/>'">'^ It is otherwise with the double datives 
in E. iii. 5, Rom. vii. 25, II. iv. 2, Rev. iv. 3 ; these need no remark. 

Rem. 4 TV e meet with a very singular dative in 2 C. vi. 14, 
ju,^ yivi-a-Oe. Ircpo^vyowres aTrt'cTTois : here some would even supply 
avv, whilst others seek for the same meaning in the dative itself. 
The dative may indeed be sometimes resolved by with (Reitz, Lucian 

1 Fischer, Well. III. a. p. 391, Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. II. 804, Heupel, Mark. 
p. 79. 

^ [With Mt. xiv. 6, yivKxlois ytvoftUois, compare the examples C[Uote(J by 
Kiihner II. .371 («d. 2) : see also Jelf 699, A. Buttm. p. 317.] 

^ [There is a great difference of opinion as to the reading in the four passages 
quoted in this paragraph. The MSS. are divided, and internal arguments may- 
be adduced 'on both sides, since both constructions are grammatically inexact (on 
the ledundancy of the pronoun see § 22. 4, and on the combination of genitive 
and dative § 30. Rem.), and yet the transcribers were certainly familiar with 
both. Tischendorf receives the dative in Mt. viii. 1, but the genitive in Mt. 
viii. 28, xxi. 23, Mk. v. 2. Westcott and Hort have the genitive in each ca.se. ] 

* [So Alford, referring to G. iv. 14 ; Meyer prefers to connect Tjf rapKi closely 
with fKoXe^', « thorn for dhe flesh. As regards the meaning of irx'oXo^, see 
Meyer and Alford in loc. in defence of "thorn," and on the other side Stanley 
p. 539 8(|. (ed. 3).] 

* Reisig, Soph. (Ed. Col. 266, Elmsley, Eur. Bacch. pp. 49, 80 (ed. Lips), 
Bomem., Xen. Conv. p. 214, Jacobs, AchilL Tat. p. 811, Ast, Plat, Legg. p. 278, 


VI. 599. Bip., Matth. 405, compare Polyaen. 8. 28), bub this is quite 
a different case. The apostle's language seems abbreviated, and the 
dative appears to be adapted rather to the thoughts than to the 
words. His meaning obviously is : fjurj yiV. €T€/)o^ir)/owT€s /cat ovVoj? 
ofto^vyovvTes (cru^iryovi'Tcs) aTrtcTToi?, do not lei paur selves be yoked in a 
.strange yoke, i.e., in the same yoke with unbelievers. 

Section XXXIl. 


1. The accusative appears in connexion with transitive verbs^ 
a,ctive, middle, and deponent, as the proper object-case : Koirreiv 
rr)v Ovpav, KOTTrecrdai rrju K€<f>dX,r]v, (pvXda-creiv rov Krjirov, 
<f)v\dcra-ea6ai. Ta<i ivTo\d<i. It must however be borne in 
mind — not only 

a. That in later, and particularly in Biblical Greek, several 
neuter verbs have acquired a transitive (causative) meaning, as 
fiaOrjTevetv tlvu (§ 38. 1) : — but also 

b. That, in general, certain classes of verbal notions which 
we consider either entirely or partially intransitive appeared 
to the Greeks as transitive. Under this head come 

(a) The verbs which denote emotions (Jelf 549 sq.) : eKedv, 
Mt. ix. 27, Mk. V. 1 9, Ph. ii 27, al. (Plat. Sijvip. 173 c, MX. 13. 
31) ; olKTeipetv, Eom. ix. 15, from the LXX (Soph. El. 1403, 
Xen. Cyr. 5. 4. 32, Lucian, Ahd. G, Tim. 99) ; eiraio-'xyveaOaC 
rtva and n, Mk. viii. 38, H. xi. 16, Eom. i. 16 (Plat. Soph, 
247 c, — compare ala'^vveaOat, Soph. CEd. R. 1079, Eurip. Ion 
1074), once eiraiax- eW, Eom. vi. 21 (compare Isocr. Permut. 
*11^). On the other hand, aTrXwyxyi^eadat takes eVt as a rule, 
only once governing the genitive, Mt. xviii. 27 (see § 33). 
^EvrpiirecrdaL nva, to he afraid of any one (Mt. xxi. 37, L. 
xviii. 2, H. xii. 9), is a later construction, not foimd before 
Plutarch : in earlier writers we find ivrpeTreaOai tlvc} 

(/9) The verbs of treating well or ill (harming, benefiting), 
speaking well or ill of any one (Jelf 583): dBiKecv, ^XdrrreLv, 
wcpeKelv, Xvfxaivecrdai, v^pi^eiv rivd (Xen. ITell. 2, 4. 17, Lucian, 
Fisc. 6) ; eTrrjped^eLv nvd (with dative of the person, Xen. Mern,. 

^ [A mere misprint for ti>os (ed. 5), see Jelf 510.] 


1. 2. 31) ; XoiZopeiv rivd, Jo. ix. 28 (Matth. 384. Rem. 2, Jelf 
566. 2) ; j^Xaa<j)r}fjLelv rivd, Mt. xxvii. 39, A. xix. 37, Ilev, xiii. 
6, al., but also ^Xacrcjyrjfielu ek riva L. xii. 1 (compare Demosth. 
Car. Nav. p. 715 c, iJiod. S. 2. 18, and in the LXX, Hist. 
Drac. 9, — so in Greek writers oveiBi^eiv eU rcva, v/Bpiteiv ek 
riva Liician, Tim. 31). and ^Xaa-^rnxelv ev rivi 2 P. ii 12 (in 
Greek writers also /3\. Trepi rivo'i, Lsocr Pe.rmut. 736); oveihi^av 
Tivd, Mt. V. 11 (and in the LXX, compare Rom. xv. 3)/ for 
which earlier writers used oveibt^eiv rivl ov ek riva: Ka/c(o<; 
epelv rivd, A. xxiii. 5 (Plat. Euthyd. 284 e, Diod. S. Vat p. 66) ; 
also Karapdadat riva, Mt. v. 44/ Ja. iii. 9 (Wisd. xii. 11, 
Ecclus. iv. 5, al., — KarapdaOai rtvi Xen. An. 7. 7. 48). All 
these constructions ultimately rest on the simple Xiyctv or elirelv 
rcvd, Jo. i. 15, viii. 27, Ph. iii. 18, al., Jud. vii. 4; compare 
Herm. Soph. QJd. C. 1404, Matth. 416. We find however 
Ka\co<i TToieip with the dative of the person, L. vi. 27, and 
similarly. eS iroielv, Mk. yd v. 7 : here the accusative is always 
preferred in Greek prose ;^ compare however Odyss. 14. 289, o? 
Bt} TToXKa KUK dvOponTTOLaiv e(op<yeL. Tloielv rivd ri, to dQ some- 
thing to some one, also occurs in the N, T., Mt. xxvii. 22, Mk. 
XV. 12 :^ compare Aristoph. N'uh. 258 sq. 

(7) 'Ofxvveiv Tivd, Ja. v. 1 2 (ovpavov), to swear hy ; compare 
Hos. iv. 15, Xen. Cyr, 5. 4. 31, Herod. 2. 10. 3 (Jelf 566. 2). 

The N. T. writers however do not uniformly adopt these con- 
cise constructions. As in ordinary Greek, several verbs vary 
between a transitive and a neuter meaning : KXaieiv rcvd Mt. ii. 
18 (from the LXX^), but eVt nva L. xix. 41, xxiii. 28 ; irevddv 
Tcvd 2 C. xii. 21, but eVt tivl Rev. xviii. 11 ;* KoirTeaBai riva 
L. viii, 52 (Eur. Troad. 628, 1 Mace. ii. 70), and eVt riva Rev. 

» Schsef. Plutarch V. 347. 

- [And also omllXnv mx, see examples in Liddell and Scott s. v. (but // 1, 
211 is very doubtful).] 

^ fThe clause is omitted in the best MSS. : this verb has an accusative in Mk. 
xi. 2], and probably in L. vi. 28, where Rec. has the dative. Wisd. xii. 11 is 
not an example in point.] 

* A. xvi. 28, /j^rhh ^pa^>ii <ria.uTM xxxov, is of a different kind : we often meet 
witli this and similar examples in Greek writers, as Lys. Accus. Ayor. 41, Xen. 
Ci/r. 5. 4. 11, 5. 5. 14, 8. 7. 24. 

^ Hee Biblioth. Br em. Nova I. 277. 

* [If we omit »'» A-sysrs : the received text leaves the construction doubtful.] 

' [The citation is from Jer. xxxi. (xxxviii. ) 15, butthisolau.se is altogether 
dilRient in the LXX text.] 

** [The most probable reading is iii' «y»r^.] 


i 7, xviii. 9 ; evSoKetv riva H. x. 6, 8, from the LXX ^ (Lev. 
x.-ifvi. 34, Ps. 1. 18), but usually evZ. ev rivi. ^Ofivveiv is com- 
n^only treated as a neuter verb, and construed with kuto. Tivot 
H. vi. 13, 16 (Amos viii. 14, ZepLi. 5, Is. xlv, 23'^), or with 
€v Tivc Mt. V. 34 sqq.,-' Rev. x. 6 (Jer. v. 2, 7, Ps. Ixii. 12). On 
the other hand, instead of ev^apurreiv (rivl) eVt tivl, we find 
(with the passive verb) the construction evy(ap. (rtvc) ti in 2! C. 
1. 11 ; and in 2 C. ix. 2, xi. 30, Kav^aadav takes an accusative 
of tlie thing. 

With Jude 15, rotv tpyiov dore^etas avruiv wv (a) ■^(re/Srja-aVy 
eompare Zeph. iii. 11, twv iTriTrjSevfxdTinv aov ojv ^a-i^rja-a^ £is ific : 
aa-e^eiv ti, Plat. Legg. 12. 941 a, is of a different kind (Matth. 
413. 11). 

'Ifpovpyuy, ipydCea-OaL, and ifjL-7rop€vicr6aL are real transitives ; and 
as the phrase Upovpyftv Ova-iav was in use (PaliBph. 5. 3, compare 
Acta Apocr. 1 13), Paul could figuratively say up. to cvayyeAtov (Roni. 
XV, IG). The accusative after ifiiropevcaOaL does not always denote 
the mercliandise ; we find also i/xTrop. nva, Ez. xxvii. 21, 2 P. ii. 3, 
— in the latter passage with the meaning trade in, (wish to) make a 
gain of a man. With Rev. xviii. 17, oo-ot r^v OaXaa-arav ipyd^ovTui, 
comp. Appian, Pun. 2, Boisson. Philostr. p. 452 : y^v ipya-tf Pans. 
6. 10. 1, is similar. 

Euayy€Xt^€o-^at (of Christian preaching) takes an accusative of the 
person ia the N. T., as a transitive verb, L. iil 18, A. viii. 25, xiv. 
21 ; compare eiayy. tlvo. ti A. xiii. 32. Yet tvayy. TLvi is also in 
use, see L. iv. 18, Rom. i. 15, G. iv. 13, 1 P. iv. 6. 

An accusative is also found with /Sao-KaiVeiv fasc'mare in G. iii. 1. 
With the meaning invidere this verb takes the dative (Philostr. Epp. 
13), see Lob. p. 463 : the ancient grammarians themselves, however, 
are not agreed on the distinction between these two constructions, 
see Wetstein II. 221 sq. 

liapaLvelv, which in Greek writers usually takes the dative of 
the person (yEsch. Vial. 2. 13, Pol. 5. 4. 7), is followed by an 
accusative in A. xxvii. 22. Vice versa, we find SiSdo-Kcii' Tivt in Rev. 
ii. 14 V. I., as in some later writers.* 

^Xda-a-eo-Oai (to beware of) governs an accusative in A. xxi. 25, 
2 Tim. iv. 15 (as frequently in Greek authors, Xen. 3Te7ti. 2. 2. 14, 
Lucian, Asia. 4, Diod. S. 20, 26), as if to observe some one for oneself. 
In L. xii. 15 it is joined with cltto ; this construction also is not 
unknown in classical Greek (Xen. Cm: 2. 3. 9). Similarly <j>ofici(rOai, 

1 [The LXX text (Ps. xxxix. 7) has not siSoxu. at all : H. x. 6, 8 are rather 
examples of liilaKiTt ti, but we probably have «iS. rtna. in Mt. xii. 18.] 
- Schaef. Long. p. 353. 
^ [In ver. 35, iuvuny n'j.] 
* See Schaef. Plutarch V. 22. 


to he afraid in reference to something, to fear something (for one- 
self), is usually found with an accusative, but sometimes with airo 
(sibi ab al. timere), as Mt. X. 28, fjurj (f>oj3eLcr6€ diro twv dTroKTevovrwv ^ 
TO <ru)/xa . . . i <fio/3rj0rp-e Se. fiaXXov tov 8vvdfji€vov k.t.X. The Greeks 
said cf)o/3ela-6ai vrro rtvos or rivt (yet compare <^oy3os diro tivos Xen. 
Cyr. 3. 3. 53, 6. 3. 27) : <l>o^€io-6ai, drro is an imitation of the Hebrew 
p (or ^:ap) NT, Jer. i. 8. The same analogy is followed by ySAeVetv 

diTo (a pregnant expression) Mk. viii. 15, xii. 38, and by irposix^Lv 
drro Mt. xvi. 6.^ But in Ph. iiL 2 /JAeTrerc t^v KaTaTO/xi^v is look at, 
observe the concision, and here beimre of is only a derived meaning : 
the use of ySAeVfiv n in such a sense (beware of) would receive no 
confirmation from (pyXda-a-eaOac n, since the middle voice is here 

$firy€iv governs the accusative, 1 C. vi. 18, 2 Tim. ii. 22, in a 
figurative sense (to flee i.e. to shun a vice) ; ^ but is once followed 
by OTTO, in 1 C. X, 14, (jievyire diro rijs ciScjAoAarpfias. This latter 
construction is otherwise very common in the N. T. (as in the LXX), 
and (fievyeiv diro to/o's means either to flee away from some one, in 
different senses (Jo. x. 5, Rev. ix; 6, Mk. xiv. 52, Ja. iv. 7), or — 
including the result of the fleeing — to escape frem some one (Mt. 
xxiii. 33). In Greek writers ^evyciv uTro is only used in a strictly 
local sense, as Xen. Cyr. 7. 2. 4, Mem. 2. 6. 31, Plat. Fh(jed. 62 d, 
Pol. 26. 5. 2. 

On xpw^°-^ Ti see § 31. 1. i.* 

The accusative of the place to which after verbs of motion 
was, after the full development of the prepositions, mostly con- 
fined to poetry: Matth. p. 747 [? § 409]. In the K T. the 
general character of the language would lead us to expect that 
a preposition would be always used in such cases. A. xxvii. 2, 
fjLeWovTt TrXeiv tov<; Kara rrjv ^Aaiav rorrov^ (where however 
some good MSS. prefix et?), is no exception : the words must be 
rendered, to sail hy the places along the coast of Asia ^ and in 
this signification the best authors use TrXelv as a pure verb 
transitive, with the accusative (sometimes the accus. of the 
coast-regions^). Compare Poppo on Thuc. 6. 36 (Jelf 559). 

2. A neuter verb which expresses a feeling or an action is 

J [On this form see above, p. 100.} 

* [(."onipare also a'tffxini(r6ai etTo, 1 Jo. ii. 28.] 

•* [.And once in the sense oi escaping, H. xi. 34. (A. Buttm. p. 146.)] 

* [" The LXX once use i(m/)i7* with the accusative, in the sense of the imper- 
sonal Js7 (Ps. xxii. 1, av^iv f/.i IffTifriiTii) , and some of the oldest MSS. have the 
same constructioii in Mk. x. 21, t'v en ia-Tipi7:" A. Buttm. p. 169.] 

* Wahl's parallels (Xen. BeU. 4. 8. 6, Pol. 3. 4. 10) only support the con- 
struction ttXuv rhy iixaeaat or rk -ynxiyn \ of this, however, 1 ilacc. xiii. 29 and. 
Ecclus. xliii. 24 will serve as examples. 


frequently followed by an accusative of its cognate noun (nomen 
conjugatum), or of the noun which is cognate to a verb of similar 
meaning ; such nouns being in fact arlready included in the v6rb, 
since they merely express its notion in a substantival form. This 
combination, however, is only used when the nation of the verb 
is to be extended,^ — either by an (objective ^) genitive, as in 
IP. iii. 14, Tov (f)6^ov avTCdv firj <po^r}6rjre (Is. viii. 12), Col. 
ii. 19, aii^eL rr]v av^yaiv rov Oeov (Plat. Legg. 10. 910 d, 
aae^ely dvSpcov aae^rjixa' 1 Mace. ii. 58, ^rjXaycrai t^rjkov voftov 
Judith ix. 4) ; — or by means of an adjective, Mt. ii. 10, exaprjaav 
X'^P^v fieyaXr^v ccpoSpa' Jo. vii. 24, tt]v SiKaiav Kpiaiv xpivere' 
' Tim. i. 18, Iva arparevg rrjv koXtjv crrpareiav (Plut. Pomp. 
41), Mk. iv. 41, i<^o^r)Owccv (f)6/3ov fxeyav 1 Tim. vi. 12, 2 Tim. 
iv. 7, Rev. xvii. 6, 1 P. iii. 6 (Gen. xxvii. 33, Zach. i. 15, Jon. 
i. 10, iv. 1, 6, Wisd. ix. 3^). This is very common in Greek 
writers ; see especially Lob. Pared, p. 501 sqq.* Compare Plat. 
Protag: 360 b, al<7')(pov^ ^o^ov^ ^o^ovvrav Xen. Mftn. 1. 5. 6, 
tovkeueiv SovXeLov ovSe/juds rjTTov ala-xp'i-v' Her. 5. 119 , fid)(r)v 
^l^f^X^cravTo laxvprjv (magnam pugnavimus pugnam. Tenant. 
Adelph. 5. 3. 57), Plat. Apol. 28 b, tolovtov iimrjhevixa eTnrTj- 
B€uaa<i' p. 36 c,ev€p'yerelv rrjp fieyiarrjv evepjeai'av Alciphr. 2. 
3, Setrat fiov rn-dcra'i Beijaet^' Lysias, 1. Theoiunest. 27, •rreWov'i 
8eKal dX\ov<i kiv8vvov<; /xed' vfMcov iKivBvv€V(r€(l*la.t. Conv. 208 c), 
Demosth. Neecr. 517 b, J?p. p. 121 b, Aristot. Polit. 3. 10, Bhet. 
2. 5. 4, Long. 4. 3, ..Eschin. Up. 1. 121 b, Lucian, Asm. 11, Phi- 
lostT. Apoll. 2.32: see also Georgi, Vind. 199 sq., Wetst. XL 321 
(Gesen. Lg. p. 810 ^). This construction is found with a passive 
verb in Rev. xvi. 9, iKavfiarrlaOrjaav el dvOpwrroi Kavp.a fxeya 
(Plat. Euthyd. 275 e, wcpeT^lrai ti)v fnybarTjv dxpeXeiav' 
Plutarch, Cces. 55, al). 

' Herm, Soph. PhiJ. 281, Earip. Androm. 220 sq., Kriig. p. l9.sq. [Don. p. 
^01 : lor the different kinds of such accusatives see Jelf 548, 2. See also 
Ridded, Plat. A/iol. p. 110 sq.] 

2 [Thi.s word obrctive is surely a misprint : at all events an objective genitive 
is of rare occurrence in this construction. See especially Lobeck, Paral. p. 513 
sq. ; " In provel-hio ." . . TasyraXau ipo/Gov ^e/SoiJ/ta/ miniine sign ificatur Tantalum 
ti meo, aed tiraeo id quod Tantalus pertimescere dicitur sive Tantalico quodam 
timore angor. "] 

'' [In this passage there is no qualifying adjective.] 

* See Fischer, V/ell III. i. 422 sq., Bernh. p. 106 sq., Ast, Plat. Polit. 316, 
Weber, Dem. p. 471, Matth. p. 744 sq. [?], § 40S, 421. Rem. 3. 

^ [Gesen. Heb. Gr. p. 221 (Bagst,).] 


So with a Telative pronoun : Jo. xvii. 26, tj ayair-q rjv ^yaTnjo-as 
/££• E. ii. 4, Mk. X. 38, to /SaTmo-^a o cycu fiairTL^OfiaL ^aTTTurO^vai.. 

It is a different case when the cognate noun denotes the 
objective result of the action, and consequently a concrete no- 
tion ; as Bia6r]Kr}v BiarldecrOai (Jud. ii. 2), ftaprvpiav fiapTvpeiv, 
tt'Xjovtov TrXovrelv (Dan. xi. 2), •y^rj^Lcrp.a '>^7}(^iXea6ai, ap^prd- 
veiv afiapTuiv (1 Jo. v, 16), for make a covmmnt, bear a testimony, 
etc. (Ewald, Gr. 595). Here the nouns do not absolutely need 
to be supported by adjectives, etc. (as alcrxpav apapriav ap,ap- 
TOLveiv Soph. Phil. 1249, Plat. Phoid. 113 e, Lucian, Tm. 112, 
Dio Clir. 32, 361) : compare E. iv. 8 (from the LXX), ??%/*«- 
\coT€vatiJ aixi^akfoo-iav Jud. v. 12, 2 Ohr. xxviii. 17, Deniosth. 
Stcph. 2; 621 b. Yet it is only in connexion with relative 
clauses that these expressions are usually foimd : Jo. v. 32, rj 
p,apTvpia, rjv p.ap'Tvpel irepl e/xov' 1 Jo. V. 10, H. viii. 10, avrr) 
■i) Bta07]Kv, rjv Bia67](TOfxai, (x. 16,-^but in viii. 9 hiaOi^icriv iroieiv), 
A. iii. 25, L. i. 73, 1 Jo. ii. 25, Mk. iii. 28 : compare Isocr. 
jEgin. 936, Lucian, Paras. 5. It cannot however be denied 
that such combinations in Hebrew and Greek have greater 
fulness and vividness than our general expressions make a, 
covenant, hear testimony. 

Lastly, we must entirely exclude the cases in which the sub- 
stantive denotes something objective and material which exists 
apart from the action of the verb, as ^vkdcraeiv <f)vKaKds: (the 
watches) Xen. An. 2. 6. 10, (popov (pepeiv Aristoph. Av. 191, 
Aristot. Pol. 2. 8, Lucian, Paras. 43. In the K T. compare L. 
ii. 8, (f)v\do-aopT€<i ^vkaKa<; t^9 vvktos' viii. 5, rov aireipa(, rov 
a-TTopov avTov' Mt. xiii. 30, hrjcare Bea-fia^ ^ rrpo't to KaraKaixrai, 
hind bundles ; Mt. vii. 24, oVt? ^KoB6/jLt]crev rrjv oUiav avrov' 
L. vi. 48 ; compare also 1 P. iv. 2 (akorjv dfccveiv Obad. 1). In 
.some of these instances no other form of expression was possible 
(compare also onroaroXovf: aTrocTTeXXetz^, legates legare Cic. Vatin. 
15. 'ypd/xfiara ypdcpav liem. Polycl. 710 b), and the connexion 
of the noun with the verb is merely etymological and- historical. 
On these constructions in general (which in Greek writers are 
much more diversified) see Wunder on Lobeck's edition of Soph. 
Ajax p. 37 sqq. 

Akin to this construction are Spsov o/xyvvat L. i. 73 ^ (De- 

> [The reading SrVar* ih I. {Rtc. Tisch. ed. 8) is strongly supported.] 
^ [Noticed in the preceding paragraph.] 


raosth. Apat 579 c), piow xp^^^^^ 1 P- i^"- 2 (^^i/ ^filov. Dio<!. H 
-£":?<;. Vat. p. 49) ; Sc'p^ii' (TrAr/yus) •n-oXAuq. »>Ai.yas, to which is further 
joined an accusative of the person (compare L. xii. 47) : see Wnnder 
/. c. p. 86. L. ii. 44, ij\6ov r/fxcpas 686y, they tvent a day's jmiruey, 
and A. viii. 39, eVopcvcro ttjv o8ov uvtov (compare oSw /SaSi^civ 
Plut. Coriol. 9, and in tiie LXX 1 S. vi. 9. Num. xxi. 33, Ex. xiii. 
17), scarcely need any remark ; yet see Wunder p. 41 sq. (Jelf 558). 
The dative-construction is analogous : i^mvciv (jxavrj fteyaXy A. 
xvi. 28, and jSoav or Kpa^ctv ^wifj /xcy. Mk. xv. 34, Mt. xxvii. 50, 
A. vii. 60, opKio o/j.vvvai A. iL 30, x^P?- x"'V^^*' 1 '^^- ^^*- ^ ^ (dyaA- 
XiacrOai X'^P^ dve/cAaAT^Ta) 1 P. i. 8), Kijpvcra-CLv <f>ij}vy ficydXy Rev. V. 2 
[AVc] ; also TTOt'w Oavdrw ^/icAAcv aTro^vvJo-Ketv Jo. xii. 33, xviii. 32. 
Compare Aristot. Pol. 3. 9, Plut. Coriol. 3 (Jon. i. 16, Act. A]). 4), 
Kriig. p. 18 (Bengel on Rev. xviii. 2) : compare § 54. 3. 

3. It has been maintained that in several places, in accord- 
ance with the Hebrew idiom, a- preposition, iv (3), takes the 
place of the accusative of the object ; but when the passages are 
more closely examined, we soon find that the preposition was 
admissible in its proper meaning. 

a. A. XV. 7, 6eo<; iv y/Miv e^eXe^aro Bia rov <rTOfxaTo^ fiov 
uKovaac to. gOvt] k.t.X., must not be compared with 2 ">nn. The 
meaning is, amongst us (the apostles) ; for, in the first place, 
the singular /toy is used by Peter immediately afterwards ; and, 
secondly, we must have regard to the mention of ra eOvrj (as 
the apostolic sphere of operation) : " God has made the choice 
amongst us, that the Gentiles should be instructed through 
me." See also Olshausen in loc. On the Hebrew 3 nna, some- 
times rendered in the LXX by eVXe'y. iv, 1 S. xvi. 9, 1 K. viii. 
16, 1 Chr. xxviii. 4, Neh. ix. 7 (which however Gesenius did not 
even feel it necessary to explain), see Ewald, Gr. 605.^ 

h. 'OfxoXoyeiv iv, Mt. x. 32, L. xii. 8, to 7nake a c&nfcssion on 
some one, i.e., with another turn of the phrase, respecting some 
07ie. Bengel gives a different explanation. The Hebrew ?y nnin^ 
Ps. xxxii. 5, has not quite the same meaning. 

^ [Here ? x'^'f'f^^* ™ay be for >!» x-t % attraction : see Ellic. and Alf. in loc."] 
* [Ewald compares this with the use of 3 after verbs of clinging to, taking 

hold oj, the fundamental notion being that of " immediate proximity " {Lehrh. 
p, 556 sq.) : Geseniiis's view(y/t€A'. s. v. 3) is substantially the same.] 

" [The German preposition here usfd (Uher) means both over and respecting. 
— Bengel says " 1», in : i.e. quum de me qureritur." Similarly Fritzsche : " tes- 
timonium edere in aliquo, i.e. in alicujus causa." Meyer's explanation resembles 
Winer's: compare Cremer. But see AVestcott, Canon p. 301 ; also Godet in 


4. Double AecKsatwe. 

a. Two accusatives, one of the person and the other of the 

thing (Matth. 417 sq., Jelf 582 sq., Don. p. 500), are fomid, as a 

rule, with verbs of dothing and unclotJdng, Jo. xix. 2, Mt." xxvii- 

28,' 31, Mkj XV. 17, Eev, xvii. 4 ; of {giving to eat and) givhuj 

to drink, Mk. ix. 41, 1 0. iii. 2 ; ^ of anointing, Eev. iii. 1 8 (H. 1. 

9) ; of loading, L. xi. 46 ; of adjuring (by), A. xix. 13, 1 Th. v, 

27 ; oi reminding of {avafXiiivrjCTKeiv), 1 C. iv. 17, Xen. Cyr. 3. 3. 

37, Her. 6. 140 (but ava^iv. -riva rivo^ Xen. Cyr. 6. 4. 13) ; of 

teaching, Jo. xiv. 26 ; of asking (either requesting or inquiring), 

Mt. vii. 9, Jo. xvi. 23, 1 P. iii. 15 {ahelv), Mt. xxi. 24 (Lob. Fa- 

ral. p. 522), Mk. iv. 10 (epwrat/). EvayyeXi^eaOai is only once 

construed with a double accusative, in A. xiii. 3 2 ; compare 

Heliod. 2. 10, Alciphr. 3. 12, Euseb. II. E. 3. 4 v. 1 For Kpi- 

trretv rivd ri (Matth. 421) Kpinrreiv rt, airo Tivo<i is always used 

or at all events implied ; see Col. i. 26, L. xviii. 34, xix. 42, 

After Bi8daK€iv the person taught is in one passage (Rev. ii. 14) 

expressed by ev tlvi (as if, to give instruction on some one *), but 

this reading is not well attested : other and better MSS, have 

eSiSaiTKe TM BaXaK, comp. Thilo, Apocr. I. 656 (? "'S'', Job xxi. 

22). Besides alreli> i-ivd ti we meet with alreiv n irapd or aTro 

Ttw?, A. iii. 2, ix. 2, Mt. xx. 20 (Xen. An. 1. 3. 16). Xpleiv 

rivd is joined with a dative of the material in A. x. 38, as dXei- 

^€tv uniformly is (Mk. yi. 13, Jo. xi. 2, al.). We also find inro* 

fiifjLvf](TK€iv riva Trepl Tivo<i, 2 P. i. 12; irept^dXkeaOat iv^ Eev. 

iii. 5, iv, 4 [Rec.'\; -^/xcjitea/j.evos ev, Mt. xi. 8, L. vii. 25 (with 

the dative in Plat. Protag. 321 a). For d^aipelcrdai rivd tl we 

find d<f)aip. ri dfro rtvo<i L. xvi. 3. 

We may perhaps explain H, ii. 17, iXda-KccrOai ra<s d/Aaprtas 
(compare Ecchia xxviii. 5, Dan. ix. 24 Theodot.), expiare peccata, on 

^ [Mt. xxviL 28 is very doubtful : in Rev. xvii. 4 Bee. has the dative, but 
apparently without any authority.] 

" To this class belongs also ■^uf/.iXM, Num. xL 4, Dt. viii. 16, Wis. xvi. 20 ; 
for this we find iI-k^/^uv Tiva rm Jambl. Pyth. 13. But in 1 C. xiii. 3 ^vftl^tiv 
^ctyra ra. uvra.f^tvrei ieto convert into food {us0 as food) all my goods. 

^ 2 Chr. xvii. 9 rnin^3 *1^7 is not a certain example of this construction in 

T -■ - 

Hebrew, as the meaning probably is teach in Judah. — In A. v^i. 22, iorathvh 
•jToLirri iro(('ia. does not stand for ^a.irxi trsipiav (compare Diod. S. 1. 91) ; the dative 
points .'ou-fi the means of the education, whilst i-rail. iroura* fftfia* would be 
Moctvs est (institutus ad) sapientiam. The true reading however is probably 
if V. ffoipiet : compare Plat. Crito 50 d. 

* [To this should probably be added ^tfitid^Xun mi ti, L. xix. 43 (/?ec., Treg., 
"Westcott) : A. Buttmann p. 149.] 


the supposition that the expression iXda-KecrOaL tdj/ 6e6v rak 6.^pTia<: 
had come into use : the verb is then used altogether in a passive 
sense, in 1 S. iii. 14, iiiXacrOrja-eTat aSiKta olkov 'HA,t. 

The accusative neuter of pronouns (tl, to airo, Trarra) and of ad- 
jectives (/i-eya, etc.), which is joined to many verbs along with ;in 
accus. or genitive of the person (as fikdimiv L. iv. 35, w^eAeri' 
G. V. 2, comp. Lucian, Tim. 119, oZlk^Iv A. xxv. 10, G. iv. 12, 
Phil. 18, fLv-qa-OrivaL 1 C. xi. 2), must be referred essentially to the 
same principle ; ^ only the construction with the double accusative 
has stopped short, so to speak, at the first stage.^ I should thus 
explain Mt. xxvii. 44. It is scarcely necessary to adduce examples 
of intransitive verbs which are joined with such an accusative (of 
the thing), and thus become to a limited extent transitives. See 
however 1 C. ix. 25 Treu/ra iyKpaTeveraL, xi 2,^ Ph. i. 6,* ii.i 18, 
2 C. vii. 14 (but compare above, no. 1), Mt. ix. 14, Rev. v. 4, al. 
Fritzsche thus explains Rom. vi. 10, o aTrWavev' anu G. ii. 20, S 
vvv l<jj iv (TapKL: see above § 24. Rem. 3. 

h. An accusative of subject and predicate (IMatth. 420, Don. 
p. 500, Jelf 375. 5): Jo. vi. 15 [i^ec], iva TroLrjaomiv avTov 
^aaiXea' L. -xix. 46, I'/xet? avrov (xHkov) iiroirjaare air/jXaidu 
Xt}(Tto)v' H. i. 2, ov eOrjKe K\y]pov6fMOV (i. 13), Ja. v. 10, vTroBeiy/jLa 
\d(3ere rr}? KaK07ra6eia<; .... rov<; 7rpo(f)i]Ta<;' H. xii. 9, rov^ 
rfj<i aapKO^ 7rarepa<i et'^ofxev 7rai^evTd<i' Ph. iii. 7, ravTa {Kephrf) 
rj'yrjixat ^rjixlaV 2 P. iii. 15, rrjv rov Kvpiov rj/xcov fiaKpoOvfiLuif 
acoTrjplav rjyetaOe' L. i. 59, eKoXovv avro .... Za-)(apiav' ver. 
53 (Pol. 15. 2. 4). This double accusative is especially found 
after verbs of making, naming (nominating), setting up, regarding 
as, etc. : Mt. iv. 19, xxii. 43, Jo. v. 11, x. 33, xix. 7, A. v. 31, 
vii. 10, XX. 28, L. xii. 14, xix. 46, Rom. iii. 25, vi. 11, viii. 29, 
1 C. iv. 9, ix. 5, 2 C. iii. 6, E. ii. 14, Ph. ii. 29, Tit. ii. 7, H. vii. 
28, xi. 26, Ja. ii. 5, Rev. xxL 5, 2 S. ii. 5, 13, iii. 15. 

The accusative of the predicate (of destination) is however 
sometimes annexed by means of the preposition eU : as A. xiii. 
22, rj^eipev avroh rov Aav):h ek ^acrtXea- vii. 21, avedpey^aro 

1 Matt. 415. Rem. 3, 421. Rem. 2, Rost pp. 492, 498 (Jelf 578. 06s. 2, 579. 6). 

* "We also say jem. etwas, viel, etc., fragen, but not jem. eine Nachricht 

3 [1 C. xi. 2 is quoted above, and is evidently retained here (from ed. 5) by 

* ["The accus. alro Touro is not governed by vi'rinius, but is appended to it 
as specially marking the ' content and compass of the action ' (Madvig, Synt. 
§ 27, a.); or, more exactly, ' the object in reference to which the action extends ' 
(Krug.§46 4. Isq.):" Ellicottm toe— On the "quantitative accus." see Riddell, 
Plat. Apol. p. 112 sq., Ellic. on Ph. iv. 13 (Jelf 578. Obs. 2).] 


avrov eavTTJ et? vlov for her son} xiii. 47 (compare also the 
passive Xoyt^ea-dai eU tv A. xix. 27, IJom. iL 26, ix. 8, § 29. 3. 
liem.); or by means of w?, 2 Th. iii. 15, koI firj m? ix^P^^ (jov- 
rov, ver. 14) rjyelcrde (3 ^^^<). This is a Hebraistic construction 
(Ewald, G?: 603), and is often used by the LXX in imitation of 
the Hebrew: Is. xlix. 6, 2 K. iv. 1, Judith iii. 8, v. 11, Gen. 
xii. 2, xliii. 17, 1 S. xv. 11, Esth. ii. 7, iv. 4.^ What has been 
qiiot<;d from the older Greek writers as parallel with the con- 
struct ion with et9 is of a different kind ; as for instance the €t? 
of destination, Her, 1. 34, Travre? roia-t ^P^^'^'^^'' ^''? 'TroXe/xov 
also Eurip. Troad. 1 20 1, o^ yap et? KoXko'i Ti/^ai Satficov BiBwcri' 
Alciphr. 3. 28. In later writers, however, we find real parallels : 
e.g. Niceph. Constant, p. 51 (ed. Bonn), o rij^ TroXeco^ a7ra<; 
?>f]fio<i .... di>aryop€vov<riv et? fiaaiKea ^Aprefxiov p. 18, ew 
yvvOLKa Blhtofjul aoi avrrjv Geo. Pachym. I. 349, tt/v eKelvov 
eicyovov Xa^ojv ch yvvaltca' Theophan, con tin, p. 223, Ks^pi'- 
TfjLivo<; et? ^aaiXea : see, in general, the indices to Pachymeres, 
Leo Grammaticus, and Tlieophanes, in the Bonn edition ; also 
Act(t Apocr. p.- 71. 

To the same mode of expression' might be referred II. xi. 8, 
XafifSdveiv et? KXrjpovofiCcw and perhaps A. vii. 53, eXd^ere tov 
vofjiov eh Biarayd'i dyyiXoiv, ye received the law for (i. e. as) 
ordinances of angels, see Bengel in loc. ; but it is easier to give 
eU the meaning which it bears in Mt. xii. 41. In Ph. iv. 16, 
the construction et? rrjv ;jj;peiW fioi eire^^are is evidently differ- 
ent from TTjv ;^/0€tai/ /zot eV., and hence has no place here. 

L. ix. 14, KaTOKXivare avTOvs KXicrias di/a Trevn^KOVTa (inrows 
by fifties), and Mk. vi. 39, iirera^ev avroZs dvaxXtvai Trdi/ras crvfi- 
TTwta o-v/ATTocrta (in separate table-companies), are substantially of 
the same kind as the abuve examples. These accusatives are most 
easily understood as predicative ; see § 59. 

5. Verbs which in the active voice govern an accusative of 
both person and thing, retain the latter in the passive : 2 Th. ii. 
15, 7rapah6(T€i<i a? ehihd'xO'rjTe' L.xvi. 19, iveBiSva-KCTO irop^vpav 
H. vi. 9. Compare Ph. iii. 8 ; also 1 C. xii. 13, omitting [the 
second] ei<i. So also in the constructions noticed above, no. 2 : 

' Compare Xen. An. 4. 5. 24, -ruXovi tU Sa^/*^v lix^iXu Tpefaftimui ; whereas 
Arrian {Al. 1. 26. 5) has, tovs 'l-rvov;, cv: lairaiv p>x(nXi7 trftipi*, see EUendt 
in Inc. 

^ [There is some mistake in the last reference. — All these passages illustrate 
the construction witli tit : the pleonastic use of us with these verbs need not be 
considered Hebraistic, see § 65. 1.] 


L. xli. 48, Sapr/rrerat oXiyai; (compare Bipeiu jiva TrXrjjd^) 
Mk. X. '.iS, TO /3dirTi,(Tfj,a o iyay ^SaTTTi'l^ofiai, ^aTniaOrjvac Rev. 
xvi. 9 (compare Lucian, Tox. 61, Dion. Hal. IV. 2162. 8). The 
acoiisative of the predicate passes into a nominative in H. v. 10, 
Trposa^yopf.vdelf; .... dp'^iepetx;- Mt. v. 9, avTol viol deov kXtj- 
drjcfovTac Ja. iv. 4, i')(0po<i deov KaOtcnaraL. 

Those verbs also wliich i)i the active voice govern a dative of 
the person with an accusative of the thing, retain the latter in 
the passive, being treated in the passive voice exactly like causa- 
tive verbs : G. ii. 7, TreTrio-revfiai to evayyeXiov (from TTiaTevo) 
rtvl Tt; m the passive, ircar€uop.ai rt), 1 C. ix. 17, Eom. iii. 2, 
1 Tim. i. 11,1 ggg Fischer, Well. 111. I. 437, Matth. 424. 2. 
TlepUeifiac follows the same analogy: A. xxviii. 20, ttjv aXvaiv 
ravTiju TrepUeifiai (from aXvai^ irepiKU-rai fioi), H. v. 2; see 
D'Orville, C/mrii. p. 240, Matth /. c. 

In this way tlie accusative came to be used with passive 
verbs, in general, to indicate the more remote object, and 
especially the ^)a?'< of the subject which is in the state or con- 
dition indicated by the verb : 1 Tim. vi. 5, 8ie(f)0app,€vot top vovv 
(as if from huK^delpntv nvl rbv vovv), 2 Tim. iii. 8, Jo. xi. 44, 
SeSefievo^ Tov<i TroSa? Koi raf '^etpa<i' I'll, ill, ireirXrjproftevoi, 
KapTTov 8iKaLoa-vvr]<i-^ 2 C iii. 1 8, t^i' avrtjv eiKova /lerapopcpov' 
fxtda-^ H. X. 22 .sf|. On tliis compare Vulcken. ad Jfn-od. 7. 39, 
llurtung. Casus Gl (Don. p. 500, Jelf 584). 

Whether Mt. xi. 5, tttw^oi cmyyeAt^oi'Tat, and II. iv. 2, ifr/xev 

ivrjyyeXuTfjiivoL (ver. 6) — compare '2 S. xviii. 31, Joel il 32 — fall 
under the above rule,* or whetlier they .should bo derived from 
evaYyeXt^ea-dat rivd ri, remains doubtfid ■. see however § 39. 1. 

G. The accusative employed to denote a material object 
mediately was gradually extended more and more, and thus 
there arose certain concise constructions of various kinds, which 

^ On the other hand, sec e.g. 1 C. xiv. -34, oLk WiTi.i.'nra.i alraTs XaXuv" 
A. xxvi. 1. 

^ [See EJlic. in loc. and on Col. i. 9. This con.struction of irXnfviiriai is fol- 
lowed by yifjuQ) in ]lev. xvii. 3, 4, y'i(t.i>f ra. hvifuzTa, TO. a.»ii.6a.fTa,. In modem 
Greek words of fuhiess may take an accus., see Mulkch p. 331. For 2 C. vi. 13 
.see below, ^66. 1 . h. — It will be observed that vXnfoZtxiai, like fnfiftvav, is found 
in the N. T. witlt all three ca.ses.] 

•* [" Mirafifip^ovii, though often construed with ii;, yet, as a verb of deueloj'ing 
into a certain form, has a right to take a simple accusative " (i. e. of the state 
info which) : "this accus. (of the thing) remaius unchanged when the verb is 
}>assive :" Meyer in lof. "The compounds of ^£t« which denote change gene- 
rally take an accus. of the new state or position : " Jelf (336. Obs.] 

* [That is, the rule that vutiCu tiA n may pass into itaniiral n.] 


we are compelled to resolve by prepositions, etc.: in these the 
N. T. participates to a moderate extent only. First of all, in 
definitions of time and space we ourselves can still apprehend 
the accusative as the case of the object : L. xxii. 41 , aTrecnraaBij 
air avTwv co<;el \i6ov ^oXrjv, he withdi'cw a ston$'^ cast (as if it 
were, by his withdrawing he accomplished the distance of a 
stone's cast) ; Jo. vi. 19, iXoKijKOTe^ u)<i errahLov^ eiKuai Trevre 
(Matth. 425. 1), 1 P. iv. 2, rov irrlXoi'irov iv aapKl ^twaai xpo- 
vov' Jo. ii. 12, eKel ejieivav ov iroKka.'i r^/xepar L. i. 75, ii. 41, 
XV, 29, XX. 9, Jo. i. 40, v. 5/ xi. 6, Mt. ix. 20, A. xiii. 21, H. 
xi. 23, iii. 17. (Mad v. 29 sq.) Thus in the K T., as elsewhere; 
the accusative is the ordinary designation of duration of time (in 
Jo. V. 5, however, ertj belongs to e^wx', see Meyer). Sometimes 
it denotes the (approximate) ^otW of tnne, as in Jo. iv. 52, e-^Oh 
wpav €/3B6/x7]v a<^rjKev avrov o rrvpero^' A. x, 3, Eev. iii. 3 ; but 
in this case irepi with the accus. is more frequently used. See 
Krug. p. 17 (.Don. p. 49S, Jelf 577 sq.). 

When the accusative, either a single word or a phrase, is 
annexed to other words to define them more exactly, as re- 
gards kind, number, degree, or sphere, the construction most 
nearly resembles the use of the accusative with passive verbs 
noticed above (no. 5) :^ Jo. vi. 10, averrea-av'ol ■avSpe<; rov dpiO- 
fiov <o<;el 'ir€VTaKi<ij(i\LOi (as regards number), — compare Isocr. 
Big. 842, Aristot. Pol. 2. 8, Ptol. 4. 6. 34 (many other examples 
are given by Lobeck, Phryn. p. 364 sq,. Parol, p. 528); Jude 
7j Tov o/xoiov TovToi<i TpoTTov iKiropvevauo-oii' Mt. xxiii. 37, 
ov rpoTTOv -opvi<i erma-vvd'yeL- 2 Tim. iii. 8 (Plat. Pe^). 7. 5 1 7 c, 
Plut. PJduc. 4. 4, 9. 18), A. xviii. 3, o-KrjvoTroLo'i rrjv re^v-qv 
(Lncian, Asm. 43, Agath. "2. 46, Acta Apocr. p. 61), This 
accusative however is very rare in the N". T.: even in A. xviii. 3 
the best MSS. have rfj re')(yr}, compare § 31. On the other hand, 
we meet with a number of purely adverbial adjectives, which 
possibly were in very common use in the colloquial language : 
as iiaKpdv to a distance, far, fidrtp; in cassum, axfitju (the mo- 
ment) now, Trjv dp-^Tjv (Jo. viii. 25), hoapedv, to Te\o<i (1 P. iii. 
8), comp. § 54. 1. See on the whole Herm. Vig. p. 882 sq. To 

^ [Jo. V. 5 is wrongly quoted here : the true construction is given in the next 
sentence to this. ] 

* As to Hebrew, comp. Ewald p. 591 sq. [Gesen. Or. p. 193 (Bagst.), 
Kalisch, Gr. I. 248 sq.J 


the same category belong also certain parenthetical phrases, as 
in Rom. xii. 18, el huvarov, to i^ vfiiov, fj-erd nrdvTwv avdp 
elprjvevovre'i- ix. 5 (i. 15^), H. ii. 17, v. 1, liom. xv. 17 (Matth. 
283, Madv. 31, Jelf 579, Dun. p. 502). 

How the accusative of quality coincitles with the dative has 
been already noticed. Thus tw apiBixia is sometimes found instead 
of Tov apidfjiov. Where in the N. T. the dative is used, wo coininoidy 
find the accusative in Greek writers : as to -yeVos {naiione) Xen. Cyr. 
4, 6. 2, Herod. 1. 8. 2, Diod. S. 1. 4, Arr. Jl. 1. 27. 8, and riZ ytVet 
Mk. vii. 2G, A. iv. 36 (Palaeph. 6. 2, 11. 2), iKXvea-Oai. t-^ ij/vxrj 
H. xii, 3. and ttjv i/'i'XV*' I^iod S. 20. 1 ; /3pa8er? ry Kaphas. L. xxiv. 
25, but fipa8v<; TOV vovy Dion. H. De Lys. p. 243 (Lips.). See Kriig. 
p. 18, Lob. I'aral p. 528 (Wetstein, N. T. I. 82G). In Deraosth, 
Ep. 4. p. 118 b, 6paav<s Tw ySt'o) stands by the side of py TroAtV?;? rr/v 
<j>v(rLv. For Towov TOV rpoTTov even Greek prose writers more fre- 
quently use Kara t. t. rpoTrov. 

We have a very singular ex,pression in Mt. iv. 15, 6oov da- 
Xd(Tcrr}<; (from Isaiah), usually rendered by the toaii. Such ])assages 
as 1 S, vi. 9, €6 6S6v vpiwv avr^'j TTopevo'CTai,- Num. xxi. 33, Kx. 
xiii. 17 (compare L. ii. 44) do not justify this use of an accusative 
.side by side with vocatives in an address, without any government 
(by a verb) : this would lie altogether beyond the limits of a prose 
style (Bernh. p. 114 sq.). Thiersch's remarks (p. 145 sq.) do not 
decide the point. Can it be that we ought to read ol 686v 6aX. 
(oiKowTcs), according to the LXX % ^ Meyer supplies tl^e (from 
ver. 16) as the governing verb, ))ut this is harsh.'* The toi)ogra- 
phical difficulties of the ordinary translation are not insuperable ; 

^ [This passage is taken differently below, § 154. 2. If it comes in liere, t* 
xttr Ifii is parenthetical, "as far as ! am conocrned, there is readiness" (Meyer, 
ed. 3). Ill § 34 Winer joins rt, with ^po^uf^ov, taking xar if^'t as an attributive: 
so Fritzsohe (propensio ad me attincns), Meyer (ed. 4), al. Bengel and others 
take T« Kier ifii as the subject, Tf,if. as the predicate ("my part is ready," 
Vaughan) : that the phrase tj xar' ifii is elsewhere used adverbially (Fritzsohe) 
is no sufficient objection to this. ] 

* Wunder on Lobeck, Ajax 41 sq. 

^ [It is hardly correct to speak of reading el «S. faX. "according to the 
LXX.' The Vat. and Sin. MSS. agree in ... . Nt^^. xai ol Xmrei el rn* 
■TxfiXiei {Vat. ->./«►) *«< T'%px> T. 'la^S. k. t. X. After Nsip^., Alex, inserts 
iiov ieiXtt.crcni ; and after TafiXttn, xaTeixeZfTif : in both these additions it has 
the support of one of the correctors of Sin., — the one whom Tisch. indicates by 
C (about the 7th century). In no reading therefore does «S»» taX. occur in 
connection with oL] 

* [Meyer took this view in his Lstand 2nd editions, but in edd. 3, 4, 5, he regards 
eS<» as an adverbial accus., "sea-wards:" similarly De W. , Bleek, A. Buttm., 
Grimm. In the LXX see especially ] K. viii. 4S, 2 Chr. vi. 38, Dt. xi. 30 
(quoted by Meyer and Thiersch), where e2«» is not under the govemment of a 
verb, but answers to the Hebrew 7j"n, used absolutely in the sense of vtrsus. 

Meyer and Bleek take rs^a» c. 'I. as an independent clause indicating a new 
region, Percea.] 



only iripav T. lopS. must not be regarded (as in Isaiah) as an inde- 
pendent member, for with such a clause Matthew has here no direct 

7. It has been maintained that in certain passages the accusa- 
tive is altogether absoluva ; but a closer exaii^j^nfrtion will show 
the gra^muiatical renson for this casse in tt>e stmcturo of the 
sentence. Thus Rom, viii. 3, to uBvvarov rev vo/jlov . . . . 6 
0609 Tov iavTOV vlov 7re/x,-\Jra<; .... KareKpLve rr]v afiaprtav, 
is really equivalent to to aBvvuTov tov vo/xov iiroh^aev o 6eo<i, 
Tre/i^^cs? .... Kot KaTUKpivcov k.tX. (and here ahvvaTov need 
not be taken in a passive sense). To ahvVaTov ray however be 
a nominative placed at the head of the sentence (compare Wis. 
xvi. 17).^ In A. xxvt. 3 the accusative yv<o(TTrjv SvTa is cer- 
tainly to be explained as an anacoluthon ; such instances are 
of frequent occurrence when a participle is annexed, see § 63. 
1. 2. a.^ In L. xxiv. 46 sq., eSei iraOelv tov Xpia-Tov . . . Kal 
KTipvyBrjvai irrl Tat ovo/iaTL avTov p^cTavoiav .... ap^dpuevov ^ 
(iTTo 'lepova-aXijpb, the accusative in itself (in the construction 
of the accusative with the infinitive) is grammatically clear : 
there is merely some looseness in the reference of dp^dfievov, 
heginwMfj (i.e., the Krjpvaawv lei/innwAj), — or it may be taken 
impersonally, in the sense of a hefjinnmy being made (compare 
Her. 3. 91): see also Kypke L .344 sq. In Rev. i. 20 the accu- 
satives depend on ypd-xkov (ver. 19), as has long been admitted. 
Lastly, in Rev. xxi. 17, eperpTjae to Tclxof t% TroXewc CKaTov 
T6(r<Tap. 'jrrj'^mv, pirpov dvdpoirrov k.tX., the last words are a 
loose apposition to the sentsnce epeTpTjcre to Tet;^09 k.t.X com- 
pare Matth. 410'(Jelf 580, Don. p. 502).* On an accusative in 
apposition to a whole sentence, as- in Rom. xii. 1, see § 59. 9, 

» [See § 63. 2. d; and on L. xxiv. 47, § 66. 3.] 

2 Schwarz (De Soloec, p. 94 sq. ) has not adduced any example that is exactly 
of the same kind. 

3 [Tregelles, Alford, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, read ipld/ts>ai : see 
§ 63. 2. a.} 

* Compare further Matthlw, Eur. Med. p. 501, Hartung p. 54, Wannowski, 
Syntax. Atwm. p. 128 sqq. 


Section XXXIII. 


A considerable number of verbs, especially such as denote an 
emotion or a tendency of the mind, are joined to their predicate 
by means of a preposition. In this point N. T usage sometimes 
agrees with that of classic writers, sometimes rather betrays a 
Hebrew-Oriental colouring. 

a. Verbs of rejoixing or fjrieving, which often take a simple 
dative in Greek authors (Fritz, Horn. III. 78 sq), are in the 
N. T. usually followed by etri with the dative:^ as %fl/))ft?^, Mt, 
xviii. 13, L. i. 14, A. xv. 31, 1 C. xiii. 6, Rev. xi. 10 (compare 
Xen. Cyr. 8. 4. 12, Diod. S. 19. 55;isocr. Permvt. 738, Arrian, 
Ind. 35. 8); ^vjjpiiLveaOat, Kev. xviii. 20 (Ecclus, xvi. 1, 1 Mace, 
xi. 44, Xen. Co7w, li 5): (TvXKvireta'Oat Mk. lih 5 TXsn Mem. 
3. 9. 8, compare ^otXeTrfT)? (pepetv itri rtw Xen. HdL'1. 4, 21). 
Sometime?! however these verbs take ev (.\inr^lv av, Jacobs, 
Achill. Tat p, 814) : as ;;^;a//jciz/. 1. x. 20, Ph. i. 1 3 (Oel. i. 24, 
compare Soph. Tnich. 1119); €u<fipaii/e<T0ac, A. 'Ah 41 ; o'yaX' 
"KiadSat, 1 P. i. 6 (but dyuXKeo-Oat, eVt Xen. Meyn. 2. 6. 35, 
3. 5. 16). 

Of the verbs which siguify io be angnj, dyavaKTuv is con- 
strued with nrept (to be angry on acGmnd of some orie), Mt. xx. 
24, Mk. X, 41 ; but 6p^it^€aBai (Hke ayavaKrelv ciri' Laoian, Ab' 
die 9, Aphfchon, Progynin. c 9, p. 267) with iirs ripi, Pev. xii, 
17, compare Joseph. £dL Jud. 3. 9, 8. In the LXX we even 
tinu opyl^earOai ev Ttv«, Jiid Li. 14> and in later Greek opyi^eoOai, 
Kara tiv6<;, as Malal. pp. 43, 1 02, 1 6 5,a]. The opposite, evhoKtiv 
like the Hebrew i- K??0 and atter ihe example of the LXX, is 
construed with kv {to have pleasure in), whether the reference is 
to persons (Mt. iii. 17, L. iii. 22, 1 C. x. 5}^ of to things, 2 C. 
xii. 10, 2 Th. ii. 12 (dkXeiv iv Col. is. IS, compare 1 S. xviii. 
22 ? ^): Greek writers would be content v/ith the simple dative. 

' Compare Wurm, Dinnrch. p. 40 sq. 

* [The objections to this interpretation are. (^^ that ihis harsh Hebraijnn :3 
not found elsewhere in the N. T. ; (2) that in the 0, T. this construction ocf;ui s 
only in connexion with a personal object (Ellicott, Mever, A. Buttm. p. 37<)J ; 
the latter objection is overstated, see . Bs. cxi. 1. cxlvi. 10. On t'\c othor 
explanations see Ellicott and Alford tn Ibc The former supplies HaTa;:ti9>'-ui'v 
after 6't\uv{so Meyer, A. Buttm,) , by Alford. Wordsworth, and others, **?.«» is 


^ApKelaOai, which usually takes a. dative (L. iii, 14, H. xiii. 5), 
is once construed with iirl (3 Jo. 10). 

1). Ver.|)S signifying to wonder, he amazed, are followed by ctti 
with the dative, as they very frequently are in Greek writers . 
davfid^etv, Mk. xii. 17, L. xx. 26 ; eKTrXrjcraecrdai,, Mt. xxii. 33, 
Mk. i. 22, xi. 18, L. iv. 32, A. xiii. 12 We lind also davfjud^eiv 
irepi rivo<i, L. ii. 18 (Isaeus 3. 28^), and 6avfj,d^ Scd rt, to 
wonder on account of something, Mk. vi 6, as in M\. 12. 6, 14. 
36, 6avfj,d^€t,v Tiva Sid n, Tn L. i. 21, however, davfjL. ev raJ 
'Xfioui^eiv may mean wink fie delayed , yet compare Ecclus. xi. 
21. On ^evL^eadai tlvl see above, § 31. 1./. 

G. Of verbs signifying to, pity, c'n\a'^^i^^(TOai is usually 
followed by eVt, either with the accusative (Mt. xv. 32, Mk, vi, 
34, viii. 2, ix. 22), or with the dative, L. vii. 13, Mt. xiv. 14 ; 
once only by trepl, Mt. ix. 3^. 'EXeeiadat [iXeelv] is treated as 
a transitive verb; see § 32r 1. 

d. Verbs of relying on, trusting, hoping, boasting, are construed 
with Ittl, ev, and et?. IleTtoiOa e-ni rivc, Mk. x. 24 L. xi. 22, 
2 C. i. 9 (Agath. 209. 5, 306. 20); ctti rt or rcva, Mt xxvii. 43, 
2 Th. iii. 4; ev nvi,, Ph. iii. 3."^ JJcarevecv eVi rivt, Rom. ix 
33, 1 P. ii. 6, from the LXX : on iria-reveiv eU or eVt rtva 
.believe on some one, see above, § 31. 5» 'E\7ri^eiv eiri with dative, 
Eom. XV. 12, Ph. iv. 10^ (Pol. 1. 82. 6), and with accusative 
] Tim. V. 5, 1 Mace, ii 61 ; et?, Jo v. 45, 2 C, i. 10. 1 P. lii. 5, 
Ecclus. ii. 9 (Herod. 7 10, I, Joseph- Bell. Jud. 6. 2. 1, 17 «9 
iLva eXiri^ Pint. Galba a 19), ev, 1 C. xv. 19 (Xen. Cyr. 1 4. 
25, Mem. 4. 2. 28, Pol. 1 59. 2 eXiriSa ex^w ev r.y Kay^a- 
aOai eirl rivt. Pom. v. 2 (Ps. xlviii. 7, Ecclus. xxx. 2, Diod. S. 
16 70, like crefivvveadat Diog. L. 2. 71, Isocr. Big. p. 840. and 
(pvcriovaOaL Diog. L. 6. 24); more frequently ev tivl, Rom. ii. 
17, 23, V. 3, 1 C. iii. 21, G. vi. 13 (Ps. cxlix. 5, Jer. ix, 23): but 

connected closely with xara/ipaliiuiru ("of purpose," Alford : "by the exercise 
of his mere will," WordswortJi). Lightfoot, whose explanation agrees with 
Winer's, quotes 7Vst. xii. Patr. Asher 1, sa» n '4'"Z'> ^^^V " ««^'?'] 
' f'ompare Sclloeniann, Isceus p. 244. 

2 [A Bultiiiaun:(p. 175) adds TtT. •/$, G. v. 10, considering u{ i5^as as express- 
ing the o^>tt- of thfj trust so Meyer, De Wette, Liinemann. Others, " with 
regard to you • " see Ellicott in loc There is the same uncertainty in 2 Th 
iii'. 4.] 

3 [This should be 1 Tim. iv. 10.] 

< [(hi the constructions of iX/riZ,u in the N. T. see Ellicott on 1 Tim. iv. 10. 
See also § 31. 1. c. note.] 


not Kara in 2 C. xi. 1 8 (see Meyer in loc), or virep in 2 C. vii. 
14, — comp. ix. 2. 

e. Of verbs which signify to sin, a/xaprdveiv is connected by 
ei? with the object sinned against, Mt. xviii. 21, L. xvii, 4, 1 C. 
vi. 18, al. ; compare Soph. CEd. C. 972, Her. 1. 138, tsocr. 
Panath. p. 644, Permnt. p. 7oO, .^fjin. pp. 920, 934, Marc. 
Anton. 7. 26, Wetstein I. 443 : this verb is also foHowed by 
'iTp6<; TLva Joseph, Antt. 14. 15. 2, irepL riva Isocr. Permute 
754 (a/ia/)T. Tti;t 1 S. xiv. 33, 1 K. viii. 31, 33, Jud. x. 10). 

/. The verbs apiaKecv please and ^avrjvai appear do not take 
the dative of the person to whom something gives pleasure or 
appears in a certain light, but are follo"wed by the Hellenistic 
preposition evcoinov. A. vi. 5, rjpecrev 6 'Koyo'i evuiTnov 7ravTo<i 
Tov rfrXrjOovi (Dt. i. 23), L. xxiv. 11, e<^dvrjaav epwirtov avrajv 
&>9el Xr}po<; ra pjjfxara. In the LXX dpeo-Keiv is also joined with 
evavriov Tiv6<i, Num. xxxvi. 6, Gen. xxxiv. 18, 1 Mace. vi. 60.^ 

ff. Of verbs of seeinf/,^\€'jreiv is often followed by et? {in- 
hieri), Jo. xiii. 22, A. iii. 4,- — a constraction which is not un- 
known to Greek writers, see Wahl, 

The use of the preposition /xcra or a-vv with verbs of foUoivinfj 
(compare comitari cum aliquo in Latin inscriptions), as in Eev. vi. 8, 
xiv. 13,^ is, strictly speaking, an instance of pleonasm. ^ KkoXovOuv 
oTTiVoj Tivos (^^nx), Mt. x. 38 (Is. xiv. 14), is Hebraistic. 

Substantives derived from such verbs as the above are in like 
manner joined with their object by means of a preposition : as 
7rtcrrt5 iv X^pLariS, G. iii. 26, E. i. 15, al. ; -n-apova-ia Trpos vyxas, Ph. 1. 
26 ; OXivj/€L<i vTTip v/jL(uv, E. iii. 13 • ^^Aos virep ip-ov, 2 C. vii. 7 : see 
Fritz. Bmn. I. 195, 365 sq. 

Section XXXIV. 


1 . Though the two lasses of nouns, substantives and adjectives, 
differ in the notions which they express, yet the latter (including 
participles) are also found within the circle of substantives. In 
this usage — w hich is much more varied in Greek than, for in- 

' [Also in Dt. i. 23 (quoted above), according to Vat. ] 

2 See Wntstein, N. T. I. 717, Lob. p. 354, Scliajf. Demosth. V. 590, TIerm. 
ZrMcian p. 178, Kriig. p. 74. (Jelf 593. 068. 2.) 

294 ADJLCTIVES. [part IIL 

stance, in Latin — the adjective may appear either with or with- 
out the article, and may have any gender, the latter being 
determined sometimes by an original ellipsis, sometimes by the 
power of the mascuL'ne and neuter genders to denote men and 
things (Krug. p. 2 sq., Jelf 4X6, Don. p. 388). Thus we find 
^ epiifj.o<i (yfj), rff iiriovtrrj (rj/Mepa), Storreres (ayaXfui) A. xix,. 
35, TO a-Tjpixov ({j<f>a(Tfjia 1) Rev. xviii. 12, o cro<j}6<;, 6 KkiirTav 
E. iv. 28, /SaaikiKoi, o ap'^mVy dWorpioi slrangers, KaKoiroioL 
evildoers, to uryadov {to irvev/jiarucov. ^v^ikov, 1 0. xv. 46 ?)^ 

On the adjectives wliich are made substantives through eihpsis 
see § 64. In the cla.ss of personal designations (fis aot^os, ot a ucjjoC) 
the following belong cbaracteristicailjto the N. T. : 6 TncrTo^ the be- 
liever, TTiaroi lelievO'S, aytot, ck/Wtoi, a/tapTo;Ao4 Rom. XV. 31, 
xyi. 2, 1 C. vi. 2, 2 C. vi. 15, 1 Tim. i. 15, v, 10, 2 Tim. ii. 10, H 
xii 3, Mt xxiv. 22. So even witli an adjective as an attributive, 
Roni. i. 7, 1 C. i. 2, K/Vy/Tot? dyt'ots; or with a genitive, as in Kom. 
viii'. 33 EKXtKToi 6fov. In all these instances the adjective indicates 
persons (men) to whom the particular quality is attached, though 
there is no necessity for supplying avBpi.moi (or dSe^c^oi). So also 
where 6 dA-./^ivo? is used for God (1 Jo. v. 20), or 6 ayio« tuv Oeov 
for Christ (L. iv. 34), or 6 Trovjjpds for the devil, there is no ellipsis 
of these substantives : the notion is grammatically complete, the Trv£, 
One, the Holtj One of God; and we must look elsewhere to learn 
what Persons are especially so named in the language of the Bible. 

2. Especially frequent and diversified are the substantivised 
neuters (Kriii?, p. 4) ; indeed many of these regularly fill the 
place of a substantive derivable from the same root, though 
.not always actually existent, Tliese refer not merely to material 
notions, as pAcov, ea-y^aTov, fjH/cpov, ^pa')(v, oXiyov, ^avepov, 
KpvTTTov, Gkarrov, apaev, K.r.\. (particularly with prepositions, 
as ti? TO fxka-ov Mk. iii. 3, Jo. xx. 1 9, fM€Ta ficKpov Mt. xxvi. 73, 
eV 6\iy<p A. xxvi, 29, eV t&j (pavepco Mt. vi. 4 [Jiec], eh (f)av€- 
pov Mk. iv. 22); — but also to the non-material and abstract, 
especially with an appended genitive, as Rom. ii. 4 76 ^prjaTou 
rod Oeov (rj ■^rjorTOTr}^)' H. vi. 17 to afjieTadeTov t^? 0ovXqr 
Horn, viii 3, ix. 22, 1 C. i. 25, 2 C. iv. 1? Ph. iii. 8 to inrepexop 
rr]<; fj/v(oa-€o><!' iv, 5, ro iTrteiK^ vfiMn. AVe find another con- 
struction in the place of the genitive in Rom. i. 15, to kut 
€/j,€ TrpoOvfiov (to TrpoBvfxov, the parpose, Eur. I^jh. Taar. 983 
[989]). The plurals of adjectives are as a rule concretes, and 
denote whole classes of things (or persons): to opaTo, kgX aopuTa 
Col. i. 1 6, hrovpdvLa and iTrlyeca- Jo iii. 1 2, Ph. ii. 1 0, Tct j3a- 


6ea Eev. ii. 24:,apxaici 2 C. v. 17. These are sometimes more 
exactly defined by the context : thus in Jo. iii, 1 2 eirovpapta 
means heavenly trvAlis ; in Ph. ii. 10, heavenly heiiigs ; in E. ii. 
6 and iii. 10, heavenly 'places (= ovpavoC, compare the variant 
in E. i. 20), etc. In Kom. i. 20, ra aopara tov 6eov, the plural 
has reference to the two attributes specified in the following 
words, viz. fj re dtBio^ Bvpa/xa koX decorri'i ; and Philippi has 
explained the word more correctly than Fritzsche. (On E. vi. 
12, Trvev/xariKa. tt}? Trovijpia^, see Rem. 3.) 

We must not bring in here 1 P. i. 7, to SoKifuov r?}? ttiWcws, 
for hoKijjLLov is a substantive proper (there is no adjective ^okl- 
/xto?).^ In Eom. L 19 also to yvworw tov Oeov is not simply 
equivalent to -f] yvoio-is t. 6. ; if it were so, it would be hard to atm 
why Paul did not use an expression so familiar to him as r} yi/wo-i?. 
The meaning is either ivhat is knoicn (to man) of God, or what maij 
he kwnmi of (or in) God.'^ I prefer the former as the more simple : 
Paul is speaking of the objective knowledge, of the sum of what is 
known of God (from what source, see ver. 20). This objective 
yvMcrrov becomes subjective, inasmuch as it cjiavepov icmv er auTots. 
Hence it is evident why Paul did not write rj yi/wo-t?. 

This mode of expression, which arises quite simply out of the 
nature of the neuter, is not unknown to Greek writers : the later 
prose authors in particular have adopted it from the technical lan- 
guage of philosophy. At the same time, the examples collected by 
Georgi (Hierocr.' I. 39) need very much sifting. As real parallels 
may be quoted Demosth. Phil. 1. p. 20 a, to twv Beuyv eiixivi-i' 
Fals. Leg. p. 213 a, to do-^oA-es avr^s" Time. 1, %d>, to Trio-TW t^s 
7roAtT€tas' 2. 71, to dcr^cve? r^s yvw/ATjs' Galen, Protrejit. 2, to rijs 
ri)(y'q<i acrrarov, and to t^? ^dcrctos cvjxiTaKvXKTToV Heliod. 2. ] 5. 83, 
to vTeppaWnv r^? Xvirq^- Plat. Phcedr. 240 a, Strabo 3. 168, Phi- 
lostr. Jp. 7. 12, Diod. S. 19. 55, Diog. L. 9. fi:i With the 
participle this coaetruction is especially common in Thucydides (and 
the Byj'.antines;." An abstract noun and a neuter adjective are 
combined in Plutarch. Agis 20, i) Trokky eixdfteta koI to irp^ov Kal 

3. On the other hand, the notion which should be expressed 
by an attributive * adjective is sometimes, by a change of con- 

^ Od this [lassage, and on .Fa. i. 3, see Fritz. Prdlim. p. 44. 

^ For t\ii- latter meaning of yvurro;, called in que.stion by Tholuck, see Soph. 
(Ed. R. 3«2 (Herm.), Plat. Rep. 7. TjI? b, Arrian, EpicL 2. 20. 4, and comp. 
Schultlie.v-j, Theol. Annal. 1829, p. &70. 

^ Cdiiip. Ellendt, Arr. Al. I. 25o, Niebuhr, hidex to Dexippus, Euaapins and 

* On the substitution of a sub.stantive for a predicative adjective, oa rhe- 
torical grounds (as in 2 (.'. iii. 9, ;< « S/ax-M'^e T»if xctTxxptets^i J«|a), 
see § 5S. 

296 ADJECTIVES. [part 111. 

struction, expressed by a substantive. Yet the N. T. is by no 
means poor in adjectives. It even contains no inconsiderable 
iniraber which were unknown to the (eailier) Greeks, — some of 
these coined by the Apostles themselves: as i'irtovaio'i,(TapKiK6<;, 
irvevfjuiTCKO';, irapel^aKro'^, Trvpivo^, aKaraKpiro'i, dKpo<yo)viaio<;, 
aveTraicT'^vvro';, avroKaTdKpcro<i, d')(€ipo'rroL'rjTO<;, ^potxyifio^, iin- 
TToOrjTo^, €mr€ptaTaTO<i, ladryje\o<;, /caTeiSwXo?, KvpcaK6<i, Tairet- 
vo^pwv^ etc. 

In this case — 

a. Sometimes the principal substantive stands in the geni- 
tive : 1 Tim. vi. 17, /u.^ rfKTriKevai €itI ttKovtov dBTjXoTTjrc, 
not to trust on uito^riainty of ricJies, i. e., on riches which are 
uncertain ; Rom. vi. 4, iva rifiecs iv KacvoTTjrc ^o)i]<i TrepiTrar^- 
acofiev vii. 6. This mode of expression, however, is not arbi- 
trary, but is chosen for the purpose of giving more prominence 
to the main idea, which, if expressed, by means of an adjective, 
would be thrown more into the background. Hence it belongs 
to rhetoric, not to grammar. Compare Zumjjt, Lat. Gr. § 672 ; 
and for examples from Greek authors see Held, Pint. Timul. 
p. 368. 

Strictly speaking, those passages only should be brought in 
here in which a substantive governing a genitive is connected with 
a verb which, from the nature of the case, suits the genitive rather 
than the governing noun, and consequently points out the genitive 
.as the principal word ; as in " ingemuit corvi stupor, " or 1 Tim. I.e., 
iXirc^eiv ctti ttXovtov aSrjXorrjTt. Such passages as Col. ii. 5, jSXeTrwv 

TO fTTCpCWyLia 7-^S TTiCTTeCOS* 2 C. Iv. 7 , tVtt Tj VTTepfSoXy] T^S 8vi'dfJi€M'i 

7} Tov Oeov' G. ii. 14, opOotro^ilv Trpoi; rrjv aXy'jBetav Tov evo.yyeXioV 

u. 5, also 2 Th. ii. 11, 7rt|U.7ret ivtpyfiav 7rAavr/s, must decidedly be 
excluded from this class.- In H. ix. 2, t) n-po^eo-ts tojv aprtov means 

^ [On e-apKiKoi see above, p. ] 22. Of the remaining words, ^fuiniJi.o! (Lev. 
xix. 23) occurs in ^jsch. Prorr . 479 ; Tr-jpivos (Ez. xxviii. 14, 16, Ecclus. xlviii. 9) 
imd ■rvivfiarixoi are used by Aristotle ; TapusaxToi (Prol. Sir. ^rap. vpiXoycs) 
by Strabo (17. p. 794) ; avi-irnla-xvvTes by Josephus (Antt. 18. 7. 1) ; TKTini- 
<PpMt> (Pr. xxix. 23) by Plutarcli (Afor. p. o36. e) ; uxpeyuvixToi occurs in Is. 
xxviii. 16. J 

* Fritzsche {Bom. I. 367 sq.)lias raided objoci ions ;.gainst tliis liistiniition ; ha 
seems however to have misunderstood it In the passages vi'luch belong to the 
■-econd class the language is merely logical ; in those of the hr.st class, rhetorical. 
When we say to live according to the truth of the (lonpel, wo use the proper 
and natural expression, — the triilh of the Gospel is the rule of the life. But 
when we say corvi stupor ingemuit, the language is figurative, just as in His 
blood called for vengeance. Cic Nat. D. 2. [tO. 127 [" multa> etiam (bestise) 
insectantes odoris intolerabili fo-ditate depelluTit "'j belongs to the second class, 
Hsidj'ado odore would be a less accurate expression. 


the laying out of the loaves ; and in 1 P. i. 2, as a glance at the con- 
text will show, dytao-/Lios Trve.vjxa.TO'; IS not synonymous witll wvtvfxa 
fxyiov. The phrase XafJi/Sdyeiv TYjV eVayyeXtav row irvevjxaros, A. ii, 3.3, 

G. iil 14, signifies to receive, attam, the promise of the Spirit ; this 
takes place when we receive the promised blessing itself (KOfii^ea-Oai 
TYfv hrayyeXiav), when promise passes into fulfilment. 

k Much more frequently, that substantive which expresses 
the notion of a (mostly non-material) quality stands in the 
genitive : L. iv. 2'Z,X6yoi t?}? ■^dpiTo<i' xvi. 8, olKov6/j.o<i tTj^ ahi- 
KLa<i' xviii. 6, Kpitr]<; t?}-; dScKia^' Col. 1. 13, ui09 rrj'i dyd'Tnj'i'^ 
Eev. xiii. 3, -^ irXTjyrj tov Bavdrov mortal wound, Rom. i. 26, 
irddr] drifiiai;' 2 P. ii. 10, Ja. i. 25, H. i. 3.^ Such expressions 
in prose follow the Hebrew idiom (which employs this con- 
struction not merely through poverty in adjectives,^ but also 
through the vividness of phraseology which belongs to oriental 
languages) ; in the more elevated style, however, there are 
examples in Greek authors."' In later writers phrases of this 
kind find their way into plain prose (Eustath. Gramm. p. 478). 

If the genitive of a personal pronoun is annexed, it is joined 
in translation with the notion expressed by the combination of the 
two substantives : H. i. 3 t<3 p-qfiart r^s Suva/^cws avrov, through 
His powerful word, Col. i. 13, Kev. iii. 10, xiii. 3. It is usual to 
go farther still, and maintain^ that, when two substantives .up so 
combined, as to form a single principal notion, the demonsirdiive 
pronoun, in accordance with the Hebrew idiom (?), agrees gramma- 
tically with the governed noun." Thus in A, v. 20, ra prjuara t^s 

^ [It may perhaps be doubted whether this pa.s.sage (with most of those in 
which the genitive has some qualifying word, — " tlie expression tlius losing 
its general character," A. Buttni.) should come in here : see Ellicott in loc. On 
H. i. 3 see Alford.] 

- But in 2 Th. i. 7, ayytXei "hvyufiiuf uvreZ means angels of His power', i.e., 
angels who serve His power. 

'^Ewald p. 572. [Lefirb. p. 533.] 

* See Erfurdt, Soph. <Ed. R. 826, compare Pfochen, Diatr. p. 29 ; but the 
examples cited by Georgi ( Vixd. p. 214 sq<|. ) are almost all useless. — The geni- 
tive of the material does not come in here : ylSov x-fi'^i, for example, was to the 
Greeks exactly equivalent to our ram, of stone, and the opinion that an adjective 
should have been used rests merely ou a comparison of Ihe Latin idiom. Like- 
wise 'o<r/j.h ivulias, Ph. iv. 18 (compare Aristot. li/iet, 1. 11. 9), is probablj' odour 
of fragrance, and is not really put for cir^-i .yuini. That 1 C. x. 16, ro rreTripim 
rr,t luXoyla;, and Rom. i. 4, wivfia ecyiMiruify,;, are not to be explained by the 
above rule, is now admitted by the best commentators. Still more nn.satis- 
factory examples are given by Glass, I. 26 sq. [The genitive in iiruii iia^'ia; is 
taken below (§ 65. 2) as a gsnitive of quality, not of material.] 

* See e.g. Vorst, Ilebralsrn. p. 570 sq., Storr, Observ. p. 234 sq. 

* In proof that this is a Hebraism, Ezr. ix. 14, n^XH ni^yir.n ""Sya. is quoted: 
but here it is not at all necessary to connect n?X 'W'th the second substantive. 

298 ADJECTIVES. [part III. 

^<inj<s ravrrp;, ravrt]? would stand for ravra, these words of life; 
xiii. 2(>, 6 Aoyos r^s anoTrjpta^ rairn;?, this doctrine of salvation; 
Kom. vii 24, €k toD (rto/xaros Tov OavaTov toutov, compare the 
Peshito IZoiDj Ijot 1h*-2) ^ 

But this canon (which even Beneel follows) is purely imaginary. 
In Rom. vii 24, Paul himself may nave joined tovtov with o-co/iaro?, 
hut if the pronoun is connected with Oavdrov it is not without 
meaning : the apostle had already spoken repeatedly of 6dvaTo<i 
(ver. 10 sqq.), and therefore could refer back to it : see De Wette 
in loc. In A- xiii. 20 also, as thi? o-on-^p 'Irja-ov^ had been mentioned 
in ver. 23, o Aoyos tjJs <rf,»Tvpias ravTy^-i is the ivovd of this sal- 
vation (effeoted through Christ), in A. v. 20 the pronoun tefers to 
the salvation which the a])ostles were at th.vfc veij time proclaiming. 
Even the Hebrew combinati(m, as tSM 'h;hv^ Is. ii 20, or "^jh;? |)oa> 
Ps. Ixxxijf, 21 — which is required by rule, but which is also iia.ich 
more natural, since the two words are -really one— is not thus 
literally rendered by the LXX (compare Is. /, c. ra /iSeAvy/^&ra 
dirrou ra apyvpa- I)t. i. 41, to. <jKfvrj ra vroAt/xtKa avro'v i's. Ixxxjx. 
/, c, iv iXiu'oi dyCio) ; and one really cannot see what could lead such 
writers as Luke and Paul to use so abnormal a construction in. 
sentences so simple.' 

Rem. 1. Some have found in L. xi. 33, ck Kpvmriv riOipn., an 
imitation of the Hebrew use^ of the feminine adjective to express 
the neuter. Absurd ! KpviTTri was already in use as a substantive, 
with the meaning covered place or way^ subterruv,ain receptacle, invii 
(Athen. 5. 205), and suits this pa^^age well. On the other hand, 
Mt. Xxi, 42 (Mk. xii. 11), Trapa Kvpiov iyivcTO avrr] (tovto), koI 
icrtl davfma-Tr] {davp.a(rT6v), is a quotation from Ps. cxvii. 23 : yet 
even the LXX may have used the feminine here in reference to 
Kcc^oAf/ ywvt'as (Wolf, Cur. ud Ii. I.). 

Rem. 2. We have also to mention another Hebraistic ^ usage, 
— a perijdirasis (as it is said) for certain concrete adjectives Avhen 
used as substantives, formed by means of vto's or t^kvov followed 
by a genitive of the abstract noun : riot d.7ru6ua<i E. ii. 2, i.e. dis- 
ohedient rnies, viol cfxoTo? L. xvi. 8, Jo. xii. 36, rcKva j^wtos E. v. 8, 
T€Kva opyrj^ E. ii. 3, riKva viroKorj^ 1 P. i. 14, TtKva Kardpas 2 P. 
ii. 14, 6 vtos Tijs aTTwAttas 2 Th. ii, 3. Every one must feel tlmt 
these combinations are not mere idle periphrases, but that they 
express the idea with more vividness and therefore with more force. 
This mode of expression is to be traced to the more lively imagi- 

^ Tlifl (.'xamples quoted from Greek authors by Georgi (Vind. p. 204 sciq.) 
unci Muntlie (Obs. Act. v. 20 ^ lose all plausibility when more closely exLmined 
(Fritz. Mnrk, Exc. 1. p. 771 sq.). 

. 2 (.Jest'n. Lchrri^h. p. 661, Vorst, Hebraism, p. 282 sq. [Gesen. Heb. Or. 
p. ISO (Bagst.i, kalisch, Heb. Or. I. 244.] 

8 \o\^t, Hebraism, p. 467 sqq. [Kalisch I. 262.] 


nation of the orientals, by which the most intimate connexion (de- 
rivation from and dependence on) — even when the reference is to 
what ib not material — is viewed under the image of the relation of 
son or child to parent (Ecclus. iv. 11). Hence children of disobe- 
dience are thoso who belong to a-TreiOeLa as a child to his mother, 
disol>edience having become tJieir nature, their predominjlnt dis- 
position : compare in Hebrew Dt, iii. 18, xxv. 2, 2 S. xii. 5. Va. 
Ixxxix. 23. 

(The expressions vratSts iarpwv, Svcrrrivwv^ — ^used especially by 
Lucian — grammatically rather resemble viol tC>v avOpdi-nfuv ; neiihc^r 
Schwarz nor Georgi lias been able to find in Greek prose an ejfample 
of TTats or rfKj'OK combined with an ahstrad noun, as in the above 
quotations. From ecclesiastical WTiters compare Epiphan. Ofp. I. 
380 b, ol viol rys aXT]6iyrj% ■numw's. In German [or English] we 
cannot really expect to find parallels, for such a jjhrase as " child 
of death " is derived from l^ibje language ; in the more elevated style, 
however, we sometimes meet with similar pj^irases, as for instance, 
" every man is a child of his agu,"- Of a difftjrent kind is 2 Th. 
li- 3, 6 av^pwTTOs Twi? u/xofrna';, — not equivalent te '> oiiapsuiXo^ — tlic 
man of sin, i.e., the man who pre-eminently belongs to sin, the 
representative of sin, in whom sin is personified.) 

Rem. 3. E. vi. 12, to. TrvevfLarud T7/S TTonrjpia^, is peculiar. 
The Greek idiom , with which this is compared by th e commenta- 
tors,^ TTopOevLKoi for irapBivot (Lobeck, Parnl p. 305 sq.), was in 
the better ages merely poetical,, and besides is not entirely analo- 
gous. In the Byzantines, however, we find e.g. tj i-rnnK-q for ij 
iVTros (Ducas p. 18). Ta haLpMvia also, vv'hich was originally an 
adjective, and which is used as a substantive in latei reek by the 
bide of 8aipLov€<;, presents on the whole a true analogy j a genitive in 
combination with this word, as to. 8aip.6via tov aepo^, would present 
no difficulty. In this passage thti abstract would be used designedly, 
in antithesis to Trpos alp.a Ka\ aapKu, — "not against material, but 
against spiritual opposing poweis, ye have to maintain your struggle." 
If however Trvevp-ariKd be not taken as equivalent to -rrvevp.ara, the 
only alternative will be to regard it as a collective plural, — similar 
in kind to to. Xrjo-rpiKo. Polyaen 5 14 (robber-hurdes, from to XijcrrpLKov 
robbery, Lob. Phryn. p. 242), and to translate, the spiritual com- 
munities of wickedness, the evil spirit-powers. See Meyer in loc. 

1 Schajf. Dion. 313. 

2 See on the whole Steiger on 1 P. i. 14, Gurlitt in Stud, u Kni. 1829, 
p. 728 sq. 

3 See Koppe ia loc, Fischer, Wdlcr III. i. 295. 


Section XXXV. 


1. The comparative degree is usvially expressed in the N. T. 
in exactly the same manner as in classical Greek, viz. by what 
is known as the comparative form of, the adjective, — the thing 
witli which the comparison is made being placed in the genitive, 
or (especially where it is a complete sentence) preceded by the 
connective ij.^ See Jo. iv. 12, fxrj av fiel^wv el rov irarpo<; 
Vfi^u ; I 51, xiii. 16, Mk. xii. 31, 1 C. i. 25, 1 Tim. v. 8, H. xi. 
26 ; Jo. iv. 1, 7rXeiova<; jja9r)ra<; iroiel r) 'I(odvvT]^' 1 C. xiv. 5, 
1 Jo. iv. 4; Eom. xiii. 11, iyyvTepov rjfxcbv r} acoTrjpia rj ore 
iTTLaTeuaafiev 2 P. ii. 21, 1 C. 'i\. 15 (Klotz, Devar. p. 583). 
After TrXeiwv and iXdrTOiv, r} is often emitted when a numeral 
follows (Matth. 455. IJem. 4, Jelf 780, Don.D. 393) : A. xxiv. 
11, ov 7rA.etov9 etVi /AOt rjfiepat SeKuhvo' iv 22, xxiii. 13, 
XXV. '^ (compare Tej. Ad. 2. 1. 46, plus quingen'os colaphos 
infregit mihi ).*• In L. ix. 1 3 ?; is inserted. 

It is sometimes doubtful whether a genitive that follows a com- 
parative contains the second member of the comparison, or is in- 
< impendent of the comparison. In H. iii. 3, -n-Xdova Tijj.rjv ^x^i tox 
oIkov k.tA. , we must probably consider o'lkov as dependent on 
irXuova ; h ut in 1 C. xiii. 1 3, fiei^iov rovroiv rj ayaTrr] may mean 
grfaier (t)ie greatest) of (among) these., see no. 3. Compare also 
1 C. xii. 23, L. vii. 42 (Lucian, Fnrj. 6). 

The comparative is sometimes strengthened by fxaXXov,^ as in 
'?. 0. vii. 13, Treptrro-oTcpo)? fxaXXov (Plat. Legg. 6. 781 a), Ph. i, 23, 
TToAA'p piAAoj/ Kpeiaa-ov {very far better), — so in reference to another 
comparative, ]Mk. vii. 36, oaov airois Sua-TeXXero, avrol fjioXXov 
jtepiatioTcpov €Krjpv<raov (see Fritz, in loc.^): also by m, H. vii. 15, 

1 Coinpare, in general, G. W. Nitzsch, De comparativis Grcecce linguce modis, 
in his edition, of Plato's Ion (Lips. 1822). 

^ In such cases the LXX.even use the genitive of the infinitive (Gen. iv. 13). 
■ •■* [Compare p. 744 sq. In most of the N. T. examples the comparative is 
followed by a n indeclinable word : A. Buttmann quotes Mt. xxvi. 53, where we 
should proliably read -rX'-iu ^uiixa. XiyiZvaf. Compare p. 313 (t^avw).] 

* See Lob. p. 410 .«q., Held, Pint. yEm. P. p. 261. 

2 'Ma'AXiv ie not joined to the superlative. In 2 C, xii. 9, T^^nrra tiiv ^«xx«v 

xav^^aoKat iV toT; affliniai; ftov, this word belongs to the whole claUKO 'JilnrTX 

Kavx.. K.r.x., rather therefore will I very cjlacUy fj/orij, i.e., rather than, repining 
at the uirfiviai (ver. 8 sq.), beseech God that I may be freed from them: 
>iO(o-Ta indicates the degree of the Kavx,a.<'6xi, f/aXXov marks the antithesis to 
what has gone before. 

* [Fritzsche renders this, quantum autem ipse Us imperabat (sell, ne portenti 


Tre/}tcro-ortpoi/ trt KaTd8rj\ov (still rtwe manifest), Ph. i. 9 ; and lastly 
by -iroXij, 2 C. viii. 22, ttoXv cnrovBatoTepov, All this is very common 
in Greek writers (Kriig. p. 91 sq.). On /xoAAov see Wyttenb Plut 
I. 238, Ast, Plat. Fhcedr. p. 395, Legg. p. 44, Bdisson. Aristcpn 
p. 430 sqq. (in Latin compare Cic Pis. 14,.milu .... quavis luga 
polius quam nlla provincia esset optatior) ; as to en, compare Flat, 
Pol 298 e, Xen. Mem. 1. 5. fi, Cjr. 5. 4. 20, An. 1, 9. 10; as to 
TToXv, Xen Mem. 2. 10. 2, Lucian, Tim. 50 : sometimes Irt and TroAr^ 
are combined, Xen. Mem. 2. 1. 27. C>ir. 1. 6. 17, ^h. 7; 5. In. 
(Don. p. 392, Jelf 784, 2.) 

So also when the comparative is followed by prepositions whicTi 
denote excess — as in L. xvi. 8, (fipovcfj-uiTepov iinrep rows v'lqvs tov cfxiyro^- 
H. iv. 12, Jud. xi. 25, xv. 2, xviii. 26 :" H. ix. 23, KpdTTom Ovcrtai'i 
Ttapa ravras- i. 4, iii. 3, xi. 4, xii. 24, L. iii. 13— the design is to 
obtain greater expressiveness. For Trapd. compare Thuc. 1 23, 
irvKvoTepov Trapu tu ck tov Trplv xpuvov fjivrj/xovevofjieva- Dio C. 38. 9 i .^ 
See Herm. P^. p. 862 (Don. p. 393, Jelf 637). 

2. Instead of the comparative form the positive is occasionally 
used : — 

«. With /jLoXkov, — sometimes because the comparative form 
appeared unpleasing, sometimes from the wish to write more 
expressively (Kriig. p. 91) : A. xx. 35, ^aKapiov ia-ri fxaXXou 
BtBovai T) \afi(3dv€LV 1 C. xii. 22, G. iv. 27' 

b. Followed by a preposition which conveys the notion o1 
excess, as in Philostr, Ap. 3, 19, Trap a 'ndvra<: 'Axatovi fieyw;. 

' So in L. xiii. 2, dfjbaprcjXol rrdpd ■7rdvTa<; Tov'i raXiXalov; 
(though it is true dfiapT(oX6<; has no comparative), H, iii. o." 
In the LXX irapd and virep are frequently thus used : Ex, 
xviii. 11, Num. xii. 3, Hag. ii. 9, Eccl. iv. 9, ix. 4, 1 S. i. 8. 

c. Followed by rj: Aristot. Frobl. 29. 6, irapaKaTaOijKijv 
alcrypov diTocrreprjaac fiiKpov ?) ttoXv Saveta-dfievov (Held, Plut. 
Timol. 317 sq.). This is rare on the whole, but the kindred 
expression ^ovXofiai or deXw yj (malle) had become a common 
formula ; see Her. 3. 40, Polyb. 13. 5. 3, Plut. Alex. 7, Sulla 3. 

famam disseminarent), magis impensius prtxdicabant, hoc est, magis impennius 
rein divulgabant, ad quern modum valde iis iviperabpt.] 

1 [This use of ^ra/ia. is common in modern Greek (Mullach, Vulfj. p. 333, 
J. Donalds. Gr. p. 34). — As to the meaning of the preposition, compare liiddell, 
Plat. Ap. p. 181.] 

* [Meyer, Ellicott, and Alford take ^eXXa. ^Sxx»» as " not simply equivalent 
to TXilovx », but implying that both should have many, but the desolate one 
mare than the other" (Ellicott in loc). In the other examples also /^aXXo, is 
rather connected with the sentence than directly ivith the adjective.] 

3 [In H. iii. 3 !raf« follows a comparative, not a positive.] 


The simplest explanation of this is, that (from its use with 
comparatives) ij had come to be regarded as a particle of pro- 
portion, which presupposed or in some measure brought with 
it a comparison:^ compare Plaut, Eud. 4, 4. 70, tacita bona 
est mulier semper quam loquens, and Tac. Ann. 3. 17. 

In the K T. we find — not only deXco ^ (1 C. xiv. 19) and 
XvcnreXel rj, satius est qiiam (L. xvii. 2, Tob. iii. 6), but also — 
an extension of this construction on other sides (as in Greek 
writers, see Lys. Affext Tyr, 1) : L. xv. 7 Xf'p^ ea-rat iirl hi 
&fjMpr<a\a) [leravoovvri, ^ itrX ivevTjKovra&wea hiKalot^, greater 
jny thun etc. Compare Num. xii. 6, la-xvec ovto<; fj -^fxel^. 
With an adjective there is only one example of this kind, but 
in both records : Mt. xviii. 8, Ka\6v aoi icrriv et^eXOetv et? rrjv 
^mrjp '^coXbv ^ KvWov, rj hvo '^(Hfia.^ . . . e^ovra ^XrfOrjvat k.t.X., 
Mk. ix. 43. 45. The LXX use this construction frequently, 
as Gen. xlix. 12, Hos. ii. 7, Jon. iv, 3, 8, Lam. iv. 9, Tob. 
xii. 8, Ecclus, xxii, 15; it was /laturally suggested to them 
by the Hebrew, in which the comparison is made to foll(>w the 
adjective by means of the ])rcposition ip. 

From Greek writers, compare with L. xvii. 2, i^rw aTapd^mq 
(TVfKpepet Tf TO rpv(J3av /c.t.A, ^sop, 121 (ed. 1)0 Furia), Tob. 
vi. 13; and as regards adjective and adverb, Thuc. C, 21, ala^(pov 
^ia(T0€vra'i atreXQelv rf varepov eTrifieraTrefjiTretTdaf Plut. Pelop. 4 
rovrov; tw 6p6(o<i'' koX SiKaiayi Trpo^^ayopsvaeif <TVvdp'X^ovra<; rj 
iK€luov<i- JEsop. 1 3 4 (De Fur.).' (Don p. 3 9 2, Jelf 779. Ohs. 3.) 

In L. xviii. 14, with the reading Karcft-q oSto5 SeStKaioj/LtcVos . . . 
17 ^Kcivo?, there would, in view of the above usage, be no difficulty 
whatever (compare Gen. xxxviii. 26, SeSiKaiWai (Mfuip rj eyii), 
except that a comparison is not very suitable here : all the better 
MSS. however have ^ yap,^ which is without example. Yet the. 
sentence might perhaps be thus resolved, on Hermann's theory (fol- 
lowed by Bomemann in loc.) : this man went justified ... or Wiis 
it then the other (who went etc.) ? The yap would be added, as it 
is added to other interrogative words (and also to ^, as Xen. Cyr. 

1 Tlie explanation given by Hermann ( Vig. p. 884) and Schsefer (hid. .^sop. 
p. 138) is more artificial, compare Held, Plut. Tim. p. 317 : the older gram- 
marians supplied fMiXXov with the positive. [Hermann, taking an forte as the 
proper meaning of j?, tlins renders Horn. 11. 1. 117, /S»yXs^' lyii Xaiv &'oot tfi/aviti, 
n &«»\Mixi, voio populum salvum esse : an perire volo .?] 

* See D'Orville, Charit. p. 538, Boissonade, Marin. Frocl. p. 78, Kypke I. 89, 
II. 228, and Nitzsch I. c. p. 71. [RiddeU, Plat, Apol.f. 183.], 

* See also Matthoei (small edition) in loc. 



.S. 3. 40, Soph. Eledr. 1212 sq.), to strengthen the question. Some 
MSS. hc^ve i^-rrep (which in Jo. xii. 43 is not different from ^) ; but 
it is more probable that this was on emendation of i) yap, than that 
•i; yap was derived from it, as the original reading, Lachmann, 
Tischend. (ed. 1), and Meyer read irap c«tvov/ which would present 
no difficulty of any kind ( justified past — passing over — the other). 

3.* The comparative contrasts an object with but one standard 
of comparison, whether this standard be a single individual, or a 
united whole: Jo. xiii. 16, ovk eart Bov\o<; /jLel^cov rov Kvpiov 
V. 20, fxei^ova rovrtov helmet avrw epya' x. 29. If the appended 
genitive denotes all things of the same class (Mk. iv. 31, fiiKpo- 
Te/309 trdvrwv rwv cnrepfjuaTcov ver. 32, L. xxi. 3, 1 C. xv. 19, 
E. iii. 8), we must naturally take it as not including the object 
compared, le.HS than all (other) seeds. In such a case the com- 
parative may also be rendered by a suiiorlative, the least of all 
seeds. This mode of expression is also found in Greek writers : 
Demosth. Fals. Leg. 246 b, nravrwv tmv aXXow X^'P^ iroXirrjv 
Athen. 3. 247, iravrwv KapirMv 0D(f)eXifiQ)Tepa' Dio (Jhr. 3. 39, 
aTrdvrojv TrtOavdnTepos:. See Jacobs, Anthol. III. 247. 

In 1 C. xiii. 1 3, /xet'^wj/ tovtwv t] ayairq, the comparative is not puL 
for the superlative. We must render, greater of (among) these k lovk : 
the comparative being chosen because love is contrasted with faith 
and hope as one category. 

4. The comparative is not' unfrequently used without any 
express mention of the standard of comparison ^ (Matth. 457 d, 
Kriig. p. 9 0). In most cases this may easily be perceived from 
the context, as in Jo. xix. 11, A. xviii. 20, 1 C. vii. 38 (compare 
ver. 36 sq.), xiL 31, H. ii. 1, vi. 16, ix. 11, Ja. iii. 1, 1 P. iii. 7 ; 
or the phrase is one in familiar use, as ol TrXeiova the 7)iajority 
(in an assemblage), A. xix. 32, xxvii 12, 1 C, ix. 19, al. Some- 
times, however, the attentive reader finds the meaning of the 
comparative less obvious, and here earlier exegesis considered 
the comparative to be used for the positive ^ or the superlative : 

^ [This reading, supported by the authority of N, B, D, L, is accepted by 
Bleek, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and others. ] 

2 Reiz, De Accent. Inclin. p. 54, Ast, Plat. P6lit. pp. 418, 638, Stallb. Phileb. 
p. 120, Rep. 1. 238. [Don. p. 392, Jelf 784, Webster, Syntax p. 58, Green, Or. 
p. 110.] 

^ In Greek authors also the comparative is not used for the positive in such 
sentences as Lucian, Ejpp, Sat. 3. 32, ro n^trrov *aJ ffujivoTiKUTipo^ xai iiri>ri/tl» 

».T.X., OV Bis ACCUS. 11, Of at fityaXe^ajvonpes avrut nv xa) fpatiripoi' Her. 

2. 46, al. (Heusing. Plut. Educ. p. 3). Compare also Heinichen, Eiiseb. Hifit, 
Ec. I. 210 sq., Herm. Luc. Conscrih. H'uit. p. 284. 


2 Tim. i. 18, ^eXnov av .jvvoiitJKeL^, thou knowest it better, i.e. 
better than T (Lucian, Pise. 20, afietvov crv olada ravra) ) A. 
XXV. 10, W9 ical crv KoXktov iirtyivaxTKetf;, better than thou 
wishest to appear to know (according to the supposition of ver. 9, 
that he is guilty); 2 C. viii. 17,, rrjv fiev TrapdKXrjcr'tv iU^aro, 
a-TTOvhaiojepo'^ hk inrdpx^'''y ^'^o'"^ zealous, i.e. than to have re- 
quired an exhortation ; vii..7, w^re n-e fxaXKov x^^V^cll more than 
for the (mere) arrival of Titus (ver. 6), compare ver. 13 ; A, 
xxvii. 1 3, acra-ov irapekeyovTo ryv Kpr}r7)v, 7iearcr than had before 
been possible (ver. 8) ; Ph. ii. 28, aTrovSaioTep(o<i t'rrep.-^^a avriv, 
i.e. than I should liave done, if you had not beeh made uneasy 
by the news of his illness (ver. 26) ; i 12, ra kut ifie fiakXop 
eh irpoK07rr]v rov evwyyeXlov €\y]\v0e>' more (rather) to the 
furtherance than, as was to be feared to the hindrance ; Jo. xiii. 
27, o iroiel'i iToiria-ov -rdxtov, 7nere (pvickly than thou appearest 
to intend to do, hasten the execution of the design, see Liicke 
in lac. Compare Senec. Agam,. 96G, dtius interea mihi edisseire, 
ubi sit gnatus ; also odUs,Nixg.J^jn. 8. 554. (in 1 Tim. iii. 14, 
eXiri^ayv iXOelv irpo'; ere rdxtov, most render rdxtov as a positive 
(Lachmann's reading, iv rdxei, is a con'ection) ; some as if it 
were &>? Ta^to-ra. The words mean : thu J lorite to thee, hoping 
(although 1 hope) to come to thee more quickli/, sooner, than 
thou wilt need these instructions. The reason why he writes, 
notwithstanding this hope, is given by the words ei-v 8e ^paSuvM 
k.tX ; compare ver. 15. H. xiii. 19 is, that I maij he restored 
to you sooner (than I should be without your prayers *) ; xiii. 
23, if he come sopner (than the date of my departure) ; Rom. 
XV. 15, roX/jLvpcrepov eypa-^a v/mv, more boldly (more freely), 
i.e. than was necessary considering your Christian excellence 
(ver. 14). On Mk. ix. 42 see Fritz, in loc : ^ A. xviii. 26 does 
not require explanation. In 1 C. vii. 38, the relation between 
the positive KoXm Trotet and the comparative Kpeiaaov Troiei is 
clear from ver. 3 6 sq. IIepi.(T(TOTep(t><i also, so common in Paul, 
is never used without a comparison. In 2 C. i. 12, ii. 4, vii. 13, 
xi. 23, Ph. i. 14, G. i. 14, H. ii. 1, vi. 17, this comparison is ob- 

1 Bolime, who in his translation give.'^ correctly the meaning of this passage, 
yet maintain.? in his commentary ; noii est comparat. stride irUeUigendus. 

^[KaXav IcrT^v ai-r^ fiixx^y. " scil.' quavi si vivtrct et discipulos suos cor- 
rumperet." (Fritzsche.)j 


vious at once. In 1 Th. ii. 17, TrefHO-aroTepa)'; etnrov^dcra/ieu to 
'Trp6<;(07rov v/xoov IBeiv k.tX., the explanation of the more abun- 
damtly^ is probably given by the preceding words airopi^avLo-Oev' 
T€9 a^' vfjbb)v TTpo'i Kaipov topa<;. The loss of their personal 
intercourse for a time (which Paul calls a state of orpTi.anhood) 
had made his longing greater than it would have been if he had 
never been thus united with them. In 2 P. i. 1 9 the meaning 
of /3e/3aioT€/3ov is a question for hermeneutics to determine ; the 
fluctuation of opinion in even the most recent commentaries 
shows how obscure the reference is. In 2 P. ii. 11, however, it 
can scarcely be doubted that after fxel^ovet; we must supply " than 
those ToiXfXTjral avdaBel^.'" On K iv, 9 see Meyer.^ 

A. xvii. 21, Ae'yciv Tt Kai aKoveiv Kaivorepov, is peculiarly charac- 
teristic. The comparative indicates that they wish to hear some- 
thing newer (than that which was just passing current a.s netii), and 
might seem to portray vividly the voracious appetite which the 
Athenians in particular had for news. The comparative however 
(usually veu)T€pov) was regularly used by the Greeks in the question 
vhat news ? They did not speak of wliat was " neAV " simply and ab- 
solutely (the positive), but contrasted it w ith what had been new up 
to the time of asking. See Her. 1, 27, Eurip. Oresf. 1327, Aristoph. 
Av. 254, Theophr. Ch. 8. 1, Lucian, As'i.n. 41, Diod. S. Ex^. Fat. 
p. 24, Plat. Frofag. 310 b, and Eulhyphr. c. 1 (see Stallbaum in 

In Mt. xviii. 1 (Mk. ix. 34, t. ix. 46, xxii. 24), twv aXKwv at 
once suggests itself as the complement, ; fieyaros would have implied 
three or four degrees of rank amongst the Twelve.^ So probably 
in Mt. xi. 11, 6 hi yiKponpo? iv rfj jSoffiXeia r. ovp., the meaning 
is, 6 /tiKp. (tojv^ (lAAoii/, — the comparative being chcjsen, it would 
seem, as cone'^punding to the preceding pe!.iC,wv : compare Diog. L. 
G. 5, ipuirrjOei'i tl fxtiKapLu^rcpov tV dvOpwiroLS, f-^rjy €VTv\ovvT<t 
dTToBavilv.'^ Others supply 'iwdvyov tov jSaimiTTOv after fjuKpore- 
pos : see on the whole Meyer m loe^ Likewise in A, xvii. 22, Kara. 
vdvTa u)? SeifrthaiixovefTrijiov; v/xa<i Oiiapui, it does not appear- 
that We can jom ws- to the ooniparative as an intensive particle ; we 
must translate, In all respects ("at every step," as it were) T look 
on you as more religiov,s men (than others are, scil. aXXwv). This 
was, as is well knoAvn, the character of the Athenians : see tlie com- 
mentators. The word Onapuv was designedly chosen, compare ver. 

* ["Because the time of separation was so short," Liinemana, Alfonl : be- 
cause "the separation was -wfiauiria el Ketfiia," Ellicott, al. ] 

* [Winer's view of this pa.ssage is given in § 59. 8. o.] 
' Ramshorn, Lat. Or. p 316. 

* Bauer, Glossar. Theodoret. 455, Boisson. Phllodr. 491. 



23 ; and Snopelu <I)9, though not a common expression, can hardly be 
considered strange. 

Rem. 1. It has been maintained that, when vpa/ro^ is used 
where two objects only are spoken of (as in Rev. xxL 1, ciSov ov- 

pavov Kaivov 6 yap TrpaJros ovpavos K.T.A., privs caelum, H. 

X. 9, iivaipti TO TTpMTOv, Lva TO 8cvT€pov (ttt^ctt;' Mt. xxi, 36; ciTre- 
fTTctXcv uAAous Sow'Aovs TrAetova? twv TrptoTwv A. i. 1, 1 C. xiv. 
30), it stands for the comparative jrpoTcpos. But this is only true 
from the standpoint of Latin usage ; for in Greek it is quite common 
to find Trpwros, Sevrepo?, not -Trporepo^, varcpo';, even where there 
is a distinct reference to two, and two only ; ^ as indeed in German 
[and English] former and latter belong rather to the written than 
to the spoken language. Even TrpwTos with a genitive — as in Jo. 
i, 15, 30, TrpwTo? /Jtov (compare ^lian, Anim. 8. 12), and (the adverb) 
XV. 18, TrpwTov v/Awv — is, strictly speaking, nob the same as prior 
me, prius vohis. The superlative simply includes the comparative, 
in accordance with Hermann's remark,*^ " Grsecos ibi superlativum 
pro comparative dicere, ubi haec duo simul indicare volunt, et maius 
quid esse alio et omnino maximum,"^ Compare also Fritz. Rom. 
II. 421, note. 

In L. ii. 2,* avrt] r} airoypa<j)rf npuyTrj iyevero rfyep-ovevovTOf; t^s Svptas 
Kvp-qviov, even, recent commentators, taking Trpwrrj for irporipa, have 
maintained that the genitives Yye^noveuovTos k.t.A. are dependent 
on this comparati'.e, it took place earlier than (before) Quiriniu& 
was governor. But this is quite erroneous. If such were Luke's 
meaning, his language would be not only ambiguous (for the closest 
and most natural rendering is, it took place as the first under the 
fiovernment of Qtdrinius), but also awkward, if not ungrammatical. 
lIuscLke ^ has not succeeded in finding an example which is really 
parallel : he merely illustrates the very familiar construction of TrpCJ- 
ro<j with the genitive of a noun. Tholuck's mistake^ in regarding 
Jer. xxix. 2 (LXX) as parallel is exposed by Fritzsche L c. 

Rem. 2. Such examples as the following, in which two com- 
paiatives stand in nmtual relation, need no comment : Rom. ix. 12, 
o fxei^<))v SovAfyVci t<3 eAao-o-ovi (from the LXX), compare 1 C xii. 22, 
2 C. xii. 1.5, Ph. i. 23 sq.; or with a word expressing proportion, H. i. 
4, TocrovTw KpeirTUtv y€v6fif.vo^ o(Tta 8ia<f>opwrcpov KfKXrjpov6/xrjK€v ovofia, 
(x. 25). Compare Xen. Cyr. 7, 5. 7, Mem. 1. 4. 10, Plat. ApoL 39 d. 
Of two comparatives connected by ■^ (Kriig. p. 90, Don. p. 390, 
Jelf 782) there is no example in the N. T. ; but we find positives 

' Compare Jacobs on jfllian, Avim. II. 36. 
2 On Kurip. Med. p. 343 (ed. Elmsley). 

^ [Meyer's view, "first in comparison with 7ne," is simpler, and suits Jo. xv. 
18 better.] 

* ['J'he true reading is probably a^rn a-roypafri (without !>).] 

* Udicr den zur Zeit der Oi^buri J. Chr. (jehalt^nen Ctnsua (Bresl. 1840). 

* (.rlauhwardiyk. der evang. Geschichte -p. 184. 


with fjLoWov similarly joined in 2 Tim. iii. i, <^tAr)Sovoi fxaXkov rf 

5. In comparative sentences we sometimes find a part com- 
pared, not with the corresponding part, but with the whole 
(Bernh. p. 432, Jelf 781 d): Jo. v. 36, /laprvpiav fjLgl^o) tov 
loidvvov, a tesl'miony greater tlmn John, i.e. than that of John ; 
as in Her. 2. 134, rrvpa/xiSa koI ovro<i aTreXeiirero 7roXX2)v eKafr- 
<T(o tov irarpofi, i. e. than that of his father, or in Lucian, Salt. 
IQ^Ta oi o/x/MUTcov (f)atv6fj,ei'a TTiaroTepa elvac rwv wt&h/ BoKel. 
There is here no proper ellipsis, as the older grammarians thought: 
for if the sentence had been conceived by the Greek as it is by 
us, he would have said t»'}<? roO 'Icodwov, T7]<i tov 7raTp6<;} 
We must rather recognise here a condensation of expression 
which was very familiar to the genius of the Greek language, 
and which is not only very common in connexion with compai-a- 
tives proper,^ but is also met with in other sentences of com- 
parison ; '^ see ^06. In Latin, compare Juven. 3, 74, sermo 
promptus et I.sa;o torrentior ; Cic. ad Brut 1. 12, Orat. 1. 44 : 
in Hebrew, Is ivi. 5 (1 Esd. iil 5). ML. v* 20, also, tav /u.r; jre- 
pi(Tcrevari vfiMV i) hiKaioavvrj irXecov tmv ypa/ji,uar€(ov /c.r.A-.^isvery 
naturally explained in the same way. Jesus could speak of a, 
hiicaioa-vvr} 'ypafip.areoiv, sincH theirconduct assumed for itself thi>s 
honourable title, and was by the people regarded and honoured 
as npi^. On the other hand, 1 C. i. 25, to fxwpov rov 6eov cro- 
fpcorepoi/ TMV dvOpcoirtov, means (without the usual — but forced — 
resolution *), the foolishness of God is wiser tlian men (are) ; 
i.e., what appears foolishness in God's arrangements is not only 
wisdom, but is even wiser than men, — outshines men in wisdom, 

' Only when several parallel sentences of this kind follow one another the 
article is omitted in the last : Plat. Oorg. 45.5 e, h tuy ^•fx.ijwv xararxiuii I* 

irjui'-f'py^v- Compar»i Si«helis, Pauian. IV. 291 

^ - Ikrm. Viq. y. IVi, Sch;jef. Melet. 127, Matth. 453. 

3 Fianke, Devui^tji. p. 90, Weber, Dem. p. 399, Fritz. Conjtctan. I. 1 sqq., 
and Marl: p. 1 47 

* Pott, Hcydenreicli, Flatt in loc 



Section XXXVI. 


1. We meet witli one instance (in elevated style) in which 
the positive, followed by a substantive denoting a class, takes 
the place of the superlative : L. i. 42, evXayrj/xevr] <rv ev yvvac- 
^Iv, blessed (art) tJiou among vjomeri. This is in the first in- 
stance a Hebrew construction,^ which properly means : among 
women it is thou (alone) whom we can call blessed, — the bless- 
ing which others receive cannot come into any account when 
placed beside thine : hence, with rhetorical emphasis, highly 
blessed. Similar instances are found in the Greek poets : ^ e.g. 
Eurip. Alcest. 473, w cjiiXa jvvaLKMi/ {oj (fyiXraTa), sec Monk in 
loc, Aristoph. Pum. 1081, w o-xerXi dvBpcop, and still more 
Pind. Kem. 3. 80 (140), alercx; w/cu? ip Treravoi^. Compare also 
Himer. 07'aL 15. 4, ol jewaioi tmv ttovcov, and Jacobs, ^1. 
Anim,. II. 400. 

The case is different in Mt, xxii. 36, troia ivroXrj /MeyaXr} 
ev ru> vofiw, which hind, of command is greaL in tlie lavj ? so 
that others appear insignificant in comparison, — hence not ex- 
actly the greatest : see Baumg.-Crusius in loc. In L. x. 42 also 
the positive is not put for the superlative ; rrfv dyaOrjv fiepiSa 
i^eXe^aro means, " she has chosen the good part," in reference 
to the kingdom of heaven, — that which alone really deserves the 
name of the good part : Fritzsche is wrong (Conj'ecL I. 1 9). Mt. 
V. 19, 09 S' av TToirjar) .... ovTO? fie.ya<; KXrjOijaerai, means 
shall be called great, a great one,— not exactly the greatest (as 
opposed to the eXdxiaro<i which precedes). Compare Herm. 
yEs-chi/l. p. 214. 

2. Of the well-known Hebrew mode of expressing the super- 
lative, D^^'-Ji^^ ^y, Dnai? 12^, we find only the following examples 
in the K T. : H. ix. 3, tf (Xeyo/jLevn) ayia dymv^ the most 
holi/ place (which however Jiardly comes in here, since it had 
already assumed the nature of a standing appellation) ; Eev. 

1 Gesen. Lehrg. p. 692. [Kalisch, fJebr. Gr. I. 268.] 

^ But the parallels quoted by Kiilmol are not satisfactory. 

•^ [In ed. 5 Winer writes ayia, as feminine (compare § 27. 3, where he speaks 
doubthiUy) : here, whilst joining this word with the feminine fi, he writes ay,a, 
as neuter plural.— The explanation of Soph. El. 849 given below seems very 
doubtful (see Jebb in loc.) : on the other examples from Sophocles see Campbell. 
Soph. 1.75.]. ^ ^ ' 


XLX. 16, 6a(Ti\ev<; i3a(ri\4(oi% KvpiO<; Kvp'uov, the hixjhest King, 
Lord: \ Tim vi. 15 Bat none of these expressions are pure 
Hebraisms : ve find a. similar repetition of the adjective (used 
substantival ly) in tlie Greek poeta, as Soph. Electr. 849, ^uXaia 
^tiKaiwv' (Eli. R. 466, apptjr ap'prjTCdif Phil. 65, CEA. 0. 
1 238, KaKu KOKuyv. See Bernhardy p. 154, Wex, Antig, I. o 1 6 
(Jelf 534. Ohs. 2), Such a phrase as ySao-iXeu? /3a<r/A,ea)z^ how- 
ever, is perfectly sim.p]e, and is more emphatic than o fj.tyLaTo<i 
^acTiXevs', compare vEschyl Swppl. 524, ava^ uvolktcov, and even 
as a technical expression, Theophan. contin. 127, 387, o ap'x^^v 
rwv apyovrvdv} For the similar phrase ol alwvi'i raiv aidvMu 
see the passages in the Concordance. 

3. What were formerly adduced as Hebraistic periphrases 
for the superlative '^ are for the most part either 

(a) Figurative expressions, which are found in all languages, 
— and the illusti-ation of which here belongs to N. T. rhetoric : or 

(V) Constructions which have nothing to do with the su- 

Examples of (cc) are IL iv. 12, o \0709 tov deov TOfiMife' 
p09 virep iracrav fid'^aipav hiaropLov Mt. xvii. 2U,etti' 
eyrfre ttlo-tiv tw? kokkov crtvaireai';, the least faith; iv •16, 
Ka6r)/M€voi<; iv ycopa Koi ctkiu Qavdrov, in the darkest shadow. 
Compare Mt. xxviii. 3, Rev. i. 14, xviii. 5. 

{h) In CoL ii. 19, av^T]ai<; toO 6eov is n.oi glorious, extra- 
ordinary increase, but (irods increase, i. e., not merely " increase 
which is pleasing to Ctod," but " increase produced by God " 
(compare 1 C. iii. 6). In 2 C. i. 12, iv dirXoTTjrc Kal elXiKpivela 
Beov, the meaning is not "perfect sincerity," but "sincerity which 
God effects, produces," In Ja. v. 1 1, riXo<; Kvpiov is not "glorious 
issue," but issue which the Lord has granted " (to Job). So 

^ See also Herm. jEschyl. p. 230, Georgi, VimL 327, and Xova Biblioth. 
Luhec. II. Ill sq. . , 

* See especially Fasor, Cfrara. p. 298 sq. The JleLiew idiom ^3113 bSll 

ifi also found in later Greek poets ; see Boisson. Nk. Eugm. pp. 1D4, 3S3. Com- 
pare in the LXX <r(peS^« r^ilpx Ex. i. 12, Judith iv. 2 : fiiya; xx) fiiya; oc- 
ouis on the Rosetta Inscription, line 19. Not essentially different is the phrase 
(fiiKpiv) «V»v 3<r«v, H. X. 37, a very very little (Ht^rrn. Vir). ]>. 726), pro)>'Tly, 
Utile how very, how very! It is found in Greek authors with a substitutive 
annexed, as in Aristoph. Vesp. 213, oVav cVav a-T('x>!v, as big (i. e. as small) as a 
drop, and hence it came to be used as = qiiantUlum : we also find the simple 
eVov with a defining genitive, Arrian, Indic. 29. 15, tr-riipoutny JVov tjj; ^-w^jjs. 
The parallels adduced by Wetstein and Losuer do not sup))orr the phrase ora* 
ifoy, but the simple fnxpev 'iaoi. Compare however Is. xxvi. 20. 


also in Eev xxi. 11, 7ro\t9 e^ovaa rr)v Bo^av rov Oeou, not "f/reat 
glory," but strictly " the glory (glorious brightness) of (lod," 
see Ewald in loc ; 1 Th. iv. 16, adXin'y^ 6eov, not "great ov fat- 
bounding trumpet " {ad\7ri<y^ (f)a>prj<i fieydXrj'i, Mt. xxiv. 31), but 
" God's trumpet," i. e., trumpet sounding at God! s command, — or, 
more generally (since the word has not the article), such a 
trumpet as is used in the service of God (in heaven) ; Rev. 
XV. 2, KiBdpac To'v 6eov, harps of God, such as sound in heaven 
{to the praise of God), compare 1 Ch. xvi. 42. 

The commentators have long been agreed that in Rom. i. 
16, Bvvafxi<i Oeov signifies God's power (power in which God 
works) ; and there is no ground for charging Bengel with having 
regarded this as a Hebraistic periphrasis because he adds the 
explanation " magna et gloriosa." He merely brings into relief, 
in his usual manner, two qualities which a " virtus Dei " will 
possess, adding a reference to 2 C. x. 4, 

Lastly, daTeio<; ro) 6eu), used of ]\loses in A. vii. 20, is 
rather an expression of intensity than a substitute for the super- 
lative degree : it must strictly be rendered beautiful for (before) 
God, in the judgment of God, which is indeed equivalent to 
admodum formosus (compare 2 C. x. 4^). Exactly in the same 
manner are Q"''?^^^ and ^^^^"'^37 used in Hebrew,^ — compare 
Gen. X. 9, Jon. iii. 3 (LXX, TroXt? p.eyd\r} tu> 6eu>) ; ^ only this 
use -of the dative is not in itself a Hebraism.* 

Haab (p. 162) most erroneously maintains that even the wonl 
Xpio-To? is sometimes joined to a substantive merely to intensify its 
ordinary meaning : e.g. in Rom. ix. 1, 2 C, xi. 10, aXy'jBaa Xpurrov, 
iv Xpwrr<3, the most unquestionaUe truth. Some have interpieted 
$p7)(TK€ta tC)v ayyikiav, Col. ii. 18, on the Same principle, as mean- 
ing cidtus perfectissiiTMS : compare 2 S, xiv. 20, o-oc^/a dyytXov. 

Rem. Of the superlative strengthened by ndvTwv ^ we find only 
one example in the N. T., viz. Mk. xii. 28, irpuiTrj TrdvTwv. Compare 
Aristoph. Av, 473. 

^ Compare also Slurz, Zonarcb glonsai sacrcR, P. IT. p. 12 sqq. (Oriminse 

- Gcsen. Lehrg. j). 695. [Kalisch, Hebr. Gr. T. 199.] 

" See Fischer, Proluss. 231 sqq., Wolle, De usu. ft. abunu eculrtatwi nomi- 
nuvt divinor. sacrce, in his Comment, de Parentktsi sacra, p. 143 sqq. 

< Compare Heind. Plat. Noph. 336, Ast, Plat. Leyg. p. 479 a. 

'' Weber, Dcmoslh. p. 548. 


Section XXXVII. 


I. In expressing the day of the week ds is ragularly used 
in the place of the ordinal 7r/>wTOs : ' Mt. xxviii. 1, et? fxlav 
cra^f3aT0)v Alk xvi. 2,'7rpo)'l' r7]<; fMLa<; cralB/Sarrav' L. xxiv. 1^ 
Jo. XX. 1, 19. A. XX 7, 1 C. xvi. 2. The examples which have 
been citfed from Greek authors as analogous to this merely 
prove that el? is used to denote the Jirst member in partitionfi 
and enumerations,^ some such word as Bevrepo-i or aXXos folio vis- 
ing, e. g. Her. 4. 1 61, Thuc. 4. 115, Herod. <J. 5 2 sqq.^ Here 
€19 no more stands for irpwro^ than in Latin wms stauds for 
primus, when it is followed by alter, Urtius, etc. (Compare 
also Kev. ix. 12 withxi. 14, and G. iv. 24.) In Her. 7. 11 8, 
however, €t<? retfiins its proper meaning ^inus ; probably also in 
Paus. 7. 20. 1, where Sylburg renders it by una} This use of 
eh for 7rp(t)T0<i is Hebraistic ^ (as to the Talmud see Wetstein I. 
544 ; in the LXX compare Ex. xl, 2, Num. i. 1, 18, Ezr. x. 16 
sq., 2 Mace. xv. 36) ; classical Greek affords a parallel in com- 
binations of numbers, aseU Ka\rptr]Koar6<; Her. 5. 89,o/te and 
thiriiith. But we use the cardinal in a smiilar way (for brevity, 
in the first instance) in expressing the year or the page, in the 
year eighteen, page forty, etc.^ 

For the cardinal mic the singular noun is sometimes used alone, 
as in A. xviii. 11 iKaOia-ev iviavTov KoX fi^va? e$ (Joseph, jintt. 
15. 2. 3), Rev. xii. 14 Tp€<f)€Tai, ckc? Katpov (contrast Ja. iv. 13). 
But there is no ellipsis in such cases (compare § 26. 1), since 
the singular itself expresses unity. A similar usage is found iu all 

^ [In ilk. xvi. 9 we have t/)6.'t» o-a/J/iaTsu.] 

- Weber, Demosth. p. IGl. 

^ Georgi, Vind. 54 sqq. Foertsch also {Obaerv. in Lysiam, p. 37) has oiily 
been able to auduce pa.>-sage.s of this kind. On Oiog. L. 8. 20 see Lobcck, 
Aglaopfoani. p. 429. 

■* In ChisluiU, Antiq. Asiat. p. 159, /*<f tS; ^suXk-, is renJe-ied din co/icilii 

" Ewald, Krit. Or. 496 [Gesen. Hebr. Gr. p. 196 (Bagst.), Kalisch, HeMr. 
Gr. 1. 276.] 

* fOn rtffiTa.pii>tailiiiarH X. .xxvii. 27, 33 (for the more usual TKfra.fy.K'j.i'i.^, see 
Lob. -p. 409, where Dion. H. VII. 12. 103S, Plut. Vlt. Cot. III. 46, ah, Hve.qiiotftd: 
compare also the Ionic T£<rirt^£,-xaiSi««:r»,-, Her. 1. 84. — It may be inenliouud hers 
that the terniination -r\acn; does not occur in the N. T. : tlie later -T/.ay.wv 
(Lob. p. 411) Is found Mk. x. 30, L. viii. 8, iviii. 30. See also A. Buttmfiuu, p. 30. ] 



2. We meet with an abbreviated use of the ordinal in 2 P. 
ii. 5, oyBoov Ncoe . . . e<^vka^e, Noah as the eighth,!, e., Noah 
with seven others. So in Plat. Legy. 3. 695 c. Xaftcov rrjv apxh^ 
e^ho^o? Plutarch, Pelop. c. 13; ets: oIkiuv Efoheica'ro'i /ta- 
reXOcov Appian, Pww. p. 12 (2 Mace. v. 21)? Greek authors 
usually add avT6<; -, see Kypke II. 442, Matth, 469. 9 (Jelf 
656. 3, Don. p. 462). 

3. When the cardinals are repeated, they stand for dism- 
hutives, as in Mk. vi. 7, Bvo 8vo rjp^aro dTroareWetv, hinos mi- 
sit, two and two. For this Greek writers use Kara or ava hvo 
(Kriig. p. 80, Jelf 16] , Don. p, 514) ; the latter of these occurs 
e.g. in L. x. 1 ^ and in Mk. vi, 7 (cited above) T) has the same 
as a correction of hvo Bvo.' This repetition of the cardinal is 
properly Hebraistic,'' and is the simplest mode of expressing 
the distributive numeral: compare Lob. Pathol, y, 184. Yet 
isolated instances of a similar kind occur in Greek (poetry), e. g., 
yEschyl. Pers. 981, fivpia fivp'ia, that is, icara fivpidBa<; , and 
there is an analogous combination in Mk. vi, 39, 40, eirha^ev 
avTol'i uvaKKh'aL irdvra<i crvixTroa la avfxiroaia . , ^ ave-rre- 
crov TTpaaial vpaaiai. 

The following combinations are ••lecuHar : dva eh c/cao-To?, Rev. 
■xxi. 21, and cU KaO" ds (or KaOeh), Mk. xiv. 19, Jo. viii.. Q (like 
IV KaO' fv) ; also 6 KaO' els, Rom. xii. 5 (3 Mace. v. 34). Greek 
■writers use Ka,0' Iva (1 C. xiv. 31, E. v. 33), giving to the prepo- 
sition its proper government. Compare however dva Tccrcrapcs Pint. 
yEm. 32 (but see Held), eU KaOels (Bekker writes KaSeis) CeJren, 
II. 698, 723, eU Trap' eh Leo, Tact. 7. 83, and the sunple KaOeh 
Theophan. contin. p. 39 and 101 : other examples are cited from 
later writers by Wetstein (I. 627), see also Interp. ad Lucian. So- 
loic. 9 In these phrases the preposition simply plays the part of 
an adverb (Herm. De Fartic. dv, p. 5 ,sq.) : Doderlein's view ^ is 

^ Compare ;il«o Schfiif. Plutarch V. 57, Demosth. I, 812, 

'^ For this ava t]ie Syriac version always lepeats tiie cardinal ; e. g. Mk. vi. 
40, ava Uarov, \^ IP^D, ■ > ■ V) >^ ' « ^ >■ > [Cowper, Syr. Gr. p. 102.] 
In Acta Apocr. 92 we find ava Ho Ivo. 

•*. [KaT« luo also occurs : 1 C. xiv. 27.] 

^SpeOf-sen. Lehrg. p. 703: compare Gen. vii. 3, 9, and Leo Gramm. p. 11 
(a quotation fromCien. I. c). [Geseu. H^r. Or. p. 19G (Bagster), Kalisch 1, 276. 
This nsai.''' is found in modern Greek : see Mullacli, Vulg. p. 331, Sopliocles 
Gr. p. 142.] 

'•> Fr. de Brachi/lojla Serm. Gr. el Lat.fi; 10 (Erlang. 1831). 


4. The well-known rule that in combinations' of numbers 
Kai is commonly inserted when the smaller number precedes, 
and not otherwise^ (compare 1 C. x. 8, Jo. vi. 19, A. i. 15r vii. 
14, xxvii, 37, Rev. iv. 4, xix. 4^), must not be too rigidly 
pressed^ — at all events as regards the latter part of it.^ Kx- 
ceptions are met with everywhere ; in the N. T., at any rate, 
there are some which admit of no doubt, as Jo-ii. 20, reaaapd- 
icovro, KoX €^ eTeaiv (without any variant), v. 5, rpiaKovra koI 
oKroD €Ti) /^on prepondeiant authority), G. iii. 1 7, L. xLii. 11,* 16, 
A. xiii 20, L'ev. xi. 2 Similar examples occur occasionally in 
Greek writers, as Her 8. 1, eiKoat kuI eTrrd- Thuc. 1. 29, e^do- 
fMy]K0VTa Kal Trevre' Dion. Hal TV. 2090, 6ySo->]KovTa Kal rpec<i. 
In the LXX compare ] K. ix. 28, xv. 10, 33, xvi 23, 28, Gen. 
xi. 13 in dud. x. 4 Tischendorf has rpLciKovra koI hvo vloi and 
Tfjidfcovra iivo rrwXovi in the sanie verse ^ 

5. If e-navcc is joined to a cardinal to express cibove, more 
than,, tlie (cardinal is not governed in the genitive, but is placed 
in tlie case required by the verb of the sentence: Mk. xiv. 5, 
TTpadrjvaL itravw rpiaKoat'wu Br]vapia>v' 1 C. xv. 6, fJi^drj iirdvoi 
vevra/foaLOif; dBek(f)ol<!. Greek writers use the following word^ 
in n precisely similar manner, that is, without any influence on 
case: eXarrov, Plat. Lrgfj. 9. 856 d, ^rj eXajTOv heKa err) ye- 
yovorai: Thuc. C. 95 ; TrXeoy, Pausan. 8. 21. 1 ; TrepL, Zosim. 2. 
30 ', €49 or £9, Appian, Civil. 2. 96;^ H'^XP^' JEsclnu. Fals. Leg. 
37 (ed, Bremi) ; v-rrkp, Plut. Virt. Mid. 208 (ed. Lips.), Joseph. 
Antt. 18. 1. 5.' In Latin such constructions as " occisis ad 

^ Matth. 140 ; compare the Inscriptions in Chishiil], AniKj. Asiat. p. d'd sq. 
(Don. p. 142.) 

^ Three mnnerals are sometunes thus corabined : Eev. vii. 4, txuro* r-io- 

ju-faLXatTO, ■Ti.dca.fxt' xiv 3, xxi. 17, Jo. xxi. 11 ix^Toy <r!vr^x»yTix -ifu;. 

' Schoem /,s(r«s 332, Knip;. p. 7« (Je!f 16b) 

* [In this verse ««/ i.s probably not ;>( :),iiine. ] 

'■' [On ItKavitTt, G, i, 18, Lightfoct remarks : " ITjis and the analogous forms 
of numerals occur frequently in tlie MSS. of (ireok author-s of the post-cla.'-sicu] 
age, but in many cases are doubtless due to the transcribers writing out tlie 
words at length, where they had only the numeia! letters beloie them. The 
frequent occuirencu of these forms however m the Talmhr Hiro.dffnsts is a 
decisive testimony to their use, at least in some diale.ecs, much before the 
Christian era. They are found often in the LXX." This is tlie regular form 
in modern Greek for the numbers from 13 to 19 (Mullach p. 179).] 

^ T^ut compare Sturz, Lex. Xeti. II. 68. 

' See Lob. p. 410 sq.. Gieseler in Kosenmuller, Heperi. II. 139 sqq., Somrner 
in the AlUj. Schulzelt. 1831, p. 903. 


liominiim millibus quattuor" (Cses. Bell. Gall. 2. 33), in tlie 
historians, are sufficiently familiar. (Jelf 780. Ohs.) 

Rem. I. That the neuters Seurcpor, rpiTov, sometimes .signify 
for the seaml lime, third time, it is unnecessary to observe. Tlieae 
are o<;ca,sionally combined with toCto. as in 2 C. xiii. 1, tiutov 
rovro epxofML, this is t/ie third time that Income, or I ara naiv corn'mt) 
J or the third tims ; compare Her. 5. 76 Tiraprov tovto. 

Kcm. 2. The numeral adverb tTrraKts is once replaced by the 
cardinal, in the phrase cW ifiSofirfKovTaKis i-n-Ta, Mi. xviii. 22, 
seventy times seven (times; ., compare Geu iv. 24 (LXX) and ]}2\i? in 
Ps, cxix. 164 (instead of D'-lpys V^^), and see Ewald p. 498. The 
strict meaning of this phrase would be seventy times (and) seven, i.e. 
seventy-seven times, which would not suit tlie passage. That we 
inust not construe cws with tTrra but with £/3So/i,r/K. is shown by tlie 
preceding Iws cVtokis.! 

How variously the LXX express the numeral adverbs, the fol- 
lowing passages will show : Ex. xxxiv. 23, Dt. xvi. 16, 2 K. vi. 10, 
Neh. vi. 4,2 2 S. xix. 43, 


Section XXXVIIL 

the active and middle voices. 

1. As . transitive verbs in the active voice not unfrequently 
assume an intransitive (apparently a reflexive) meaning, so, con- 
versely, we find transitive (causative) verbs formed from in- 
transitives; — sometimes as a result of composition (e.g. hiatal- 
veiv H.xi. 29, Trapep'xeaOai L.xi. 42), sometimes by simple trans- 
ference, as fjbaOT}T€ueiv rivd ^ Mt. xxviii. 1 9 (OpiafMjSeveiv nvd 
2 C. ii. 14 ?). ^acTiXevetv Ttvd 1 S. viii. 22, 1 K. I 43, Is. vii. 6, 

^ [This is against Fritzsehe, wliOde explanation i<? "as far as 7 repeated 
70 times," Meyer defends tho otlier rendering, 77 times, on the gronnd that 
Mitf/«>i«9y'Taxi; i-TTa occurs Gen. iv. 24 (LXX) as a rendering of ny^tiT D'yUti' 

which can only mean "77 times:" this certainly seems a more weighty argu- 
ment than the mere probability that £ very high number would be used On 
the same side are Origen, (Augustine, j 'Bengel, and Ewald: in favour of 
"seventy times seven " see De Wette In loc, Bleek, Syn. Erkl. II. 93.] 
* [In this passage the numeral is omitted by the LXX.] 
Compare also rfcsrxTTitv nvd to commission some one. Act. A poor. 
p. 172. • ^ 


1 Mace, viii 13 (Lob. Ajao: 38G) : see § 32. 1.^ The transitive 
verbs which are often or mainly used intransitively belong in 
meaning to certain classes of ideas, which n)ay easily be learned 
from the following examples ; ayew (ayayfiev let us go), irapdyew 
Mt XX. 30, 1 C vii. 31, Treptdyeiv A. xiii. 11, ^dXkeiv A. xxvii. 
14 {to throw oneself, to rush), iin^dWeLv Mk. iv, 3 7 {to hetU 
in), dimppLirreiv A. xxvii. 43 (io throvj oneself off), K\iveiv L. 
ix. 12 {to decline), €kk\lv€iv Rom. xvi. 17, dpareWetv, fi\aard- 
veiv, av^dvetv (Lob. Ajatc p. 89 sq., 382 sqq.) ; arpe^eiv A. vii. 
42, dvaa-Tpe(f)eiu A. v. 22 (to return), and especially iiriaTpe- 
(fieci/ ; iKrperrecv^ irapadtBovai Mk. iv. 29, 1 P. ii. 23 (to offer 
or give up oneself), dire-^eiv to he distant, iiri'^eiv A. xix. 22 
(to detain oneself, i. e. revuiin), vTrepk^^Lv, aTrevheiv. In the 
N. T. dvaKapiTneiv and TTpoKOTrrecv are always intransitive.^ In 
these examples (mainly of verbs denoting motion), as conceived 
by a Greek,.there was no ellipsis of any word (not even of iavroi/); 
the verb denotes the action absolutely, he ;plunyes into the sea, he 
turns roimd, but as theie is no object named, the reader can only 
refer the action back to the subject.* 

We must not bring iu hero Jo. xiii. 2, toC 8ta/3dAou /SeySA?? ivoto? 
€is Tr)v KupSiav, whether we follow the received text, or the reatliiig 
adopted by Laclmiann and Tiscliendorf. In any case ^aWav lias an 
active meaning ; see Kypke. 

Several verbs have a transitive (causative) meaning in some of 
their tenses, an intran.sitive in others. To this number belongs 
larrjfit with its compounds (Buttm. II. 207), of which verb we need 
only say that the 1 aor. passive <TTa6rjvai (Mk. iii. 24) and the 
1 fut. a-TaBija-ofxai. (Mt. xii. 25, 46) share in the intransitive meaning 
stand, and that in A. xxvii 28 the 1 aor. ^lao-TryVavres signifies 
having gone back^ (compare crrqo-as, Malal. 2. p. 35, for (TTo.'i). Of 

' [See also § 2. 1. 6. J 

* ['ExT^85r£/» is inserted by mistake: the active does not occur in the 
N. T., nor does it seem to be ever used intransitively. On 1r(tfa.'iihin,a.^ see 

^ [Others of these verbs («.g. t««X/v«i») are "always intransitive in the N. T. " 
— A. Buttmanil (p. 144) adds to the list loriyu, iitatiyu, ■rjma.yu, J,t;", iv'^X'"^- 
attiXuu, KaraXvai, iyi'ipu (imper. iynf.) ; and remarks that some of these verbs, 
when their meaning has been thus modified, take a new object — as ^spinyi tAj 
*^>a? Mk. vi. 6 (Mt. ii. 9, Ph. iv. 7).] 

. * See on the whole Bos, ElUps. p. 127 sqq. , Matth. 495, Bernh. p. ;539 sq„ 
Kriig. p. 154 sq., Poppo, Thuc. I. 186, Fritz. Mark p. 138 [Jelf 359, Don. 
p. 425 sqq., Green, Gr. .p. 18f< ; and see below § 64. 5]. On liiivcu and its 
compounds in particular see Jacobs, Ph'doslr. p. 363 ; on Trap'-x-'^t -^st. Plat. 
Polit. p. 470, Wyttenb. Pint. Mor. I, 40.5. 

* [Should we Tiot rather refer ihid to § 64. 5, supplying t>i» ictZ* ? See 


<j>v<ii even the present tense is used intransitively in H. xii. 15, from 
the LXX (//. 6. 149).^ — In 1 P. ii. 6, TrepUx^L eV t^ ypa<^fi, is con- 
tained in the Script'ure., the verb is rather passive than intransitive 
compare Joseph. Antt. 11. 4. 7, Malal. 9. 216, 18. 449, and see 
Krebs, Obi^erv. 198.^ 

On the impersonal use of (the 3 pers. sing, of) certain verbs, as 
fSpovra, Ae'yet, ^r/rrt, see § 58. 9. 

2. The middle voice (of transitive verbs ^) refers baok the 
action to the agent (Don. p. 433 sqq., Jelf 362), — either 

M. Simply, as the direct object, as Xovofjuai I wash myself, 
KpvTTTOfMat I conceal r/vi/self (Jo. viii. 59), aTrdy^q^ai I hang 
viyself (Mt. xxvii. 5), Trapaa-Kevci^o/iaL (1 C. xiv. S):* or 

A. Bultra. p. 17. In modern Greek iffTxinv is in regular use as an intransitive 
aoi ist : perhaps a faint passive force may be observed in most of the instances 
in which it occurs in tljc, N. T.'J 

' [(in Mt. xxiv. 32, Jlk, xiii. 28, see § 15, s. v. (^vu.^ 

^ (With Laclimann s readijig -npiix^' « yp'^'P'i-, compare h i-naToXh tetfni- 

X,i» ouTcoi 2 MllCC. -\i, 22, a t'ouai ifiZv unp/ix^i, Ec. Nicod. C. 4, COS h *afa.' 

'hotrii 'JTifiix^i Ens. H. E. ',\. 1 (quoted witli others by Grimm, Wilkii Clavis 
a. v.). A. Buttmann refers to his examination of this passage in Stud. u. Krit, 
1858, p. 509. This uso of Tift'f.xu is not noticed by Rost and Palm or by 
Liddell and Scott. J 

'^ See L. Kiister, De vt,ro utsu ■verborum nicdiorum apud Grcfcos, and J. Clerici 
Disa. de verbis Gr<Mcarur/i rntd.iis, both reprinted in the work of Drcsig mentioned 
below: for a more nitionnl treatment sefi Herm. Emend. Hat. p. 178, Rernh. p. 
342 sqq., Rost ]j. 673 S([<j.. Krag \i. 102 sq'j. See especially Poppo, Progr. de 
(rrterorum verbis rnedii.-i, passivt.s, dejxmemibus rite discertiendis (Frankf. on 
Oder, 1827)j and ilehlhorn's corrections in his review of the work in Jahn's 
Jahrb. 1831, I. 14 sqq. ; Sommer in Jahn's Jahrb. 1831, II. 36 sqc^. , J. H. 
Ivistcmaker, De oriylne ar ci verboruni deponentium et medicrrum Grcecfe lingtuf, 
in the Classical Journal, No. 44 (Dec. 1820), No. 45 (March 1821). A mono- 
graph for the N. T. is, S. F. Diesigij Commentarius de verbis mediis iV. T nunc 
primum editus eiira J. F. Fischeri ■ Lfps. (1755) 1762. — On the whole, however, 
scholars have hitherto assumed too many verbs to be middle ; very many we 
are justified in regarding as passive because of the coKstowi use of the passive 
aorist, — for in Greek, a.s in Latin, the ])assive may be used for the reflexive. 
Thus *iv8«^ai, iydpiftai, iiu-Koviiirfiui, ayviZ^iirSxi, fJnivaKittiat, ioyfiarl^io'ffat (Coh 
ii. 20), «Ti^a^t«-^a:< (Fritz li'ofii. I. 72), a-Ltr^nfianXtr^ai, were Certainly conceived 
as j)a.s.sive, not middle verbs, like the Latin moveri, etc. Still more should opiyi- 
ci'at (ajypctita ferri), li'o7y.ioffiti {panel], etc., — also airy^vvtaSxi, — b<i brought 
in here. Compare, in general, Rost's Vorrede to the 3<i edition of his Oriech. 
Worttrb. p, 9 sqq., and his Gramm. p. 270 [?573J, Sommer lot:, cit. [The aor. 
iniddle of ipiyiiriai is in freqiient use, and in some others of these verbs this 
tense .sometimes occurs (see Veitch, Gre^k V. s. vv. ), The aor. middle (im- 
perative) of iytipui occurs several times in the received text, but not in the texts 
of 'I i.sfjhendorf and Tregelles.] 

* What verbs regularly express this reflexive meaning by the middle voice, 
must be learnt from observation. In many — indeed in most (see I'ost p. 574) — 
this meaning is always exjn-es.sed, not by the middle, but by the addition of the 
reflexive pronoun, tuvTo*, k.t.x. • see Hnttm. 122. 2 (Jelf 363. 4, Don, p. 433J. 
'J'hiw for show oneself "WQ find luKviu* lavToy (Mt. viii. 4, compare Her. 3. 119), 
for kill on<iself a\wnys avoxTiivnr iauriy {.)o. viii. 22): compare also Jo. xxi. 18, 
I 0. iii. 18, 2 Th. ii. 4, 1 Jo. i. 8 (in antithesis to a passive, Mt. xjciii. 12, 1 C. 


h. Mediately, the action being performed on or in some way 
for the subject: i^ajopd^o/iai I bin/ for myself, Trpoeyofx^ii 
I hold before Twyself (Fritz'. Eom. I. 171), viirroyuai Ta<i ;j(;et/3a9 
/ wash the hands for myself, I vjash my hands (Mk, vii. 3), 
a-irdofiai ttjv fid^aipav (Mk. xiv. 47), el'^KoXovfiat I call in to 
ma (A. X. 23), aTrcoOeofMai I thrust avjay for myself (from 
myself). Compare also TrepiTroteiadai, KOfit^eaOai, Karapri^e- 
crOac, eTtLKoXelaOai (Oeov), Fritz. Horn. II. 403 ; and the following 
passages, Mt. vi. 17, L. vi. 7, x. 11, A. v. 2 sq., ix. 39, xviii. 18, 
xix. 24, XXV. 11, G. iv. 10, 1 P. v. 5, 2 Th. iii. 14, H. x. 5. 

Sometimes the physical and the metaphysical significations 
of a verb are divided between the active and the middle : kutu- 
XapLJBdveLV seize, KaraXafi^dveaOat comprehend (understand), 
dvarcOivai set up, dvaTideadai set forth, relate, — probably also 
hia^e^atovaOaL} 1 Tim. i. 7, Tit. iii. 8 (compare Aristot. Hhd. 
2. 13). On Trpo^XiTreadat see below^ no. 6, 

In other instances a new meaning arises out of tlie middle 
voice : TreiBofxaL I persuade myself, i.e. / obey, aTroXvofiat 
solvo me, i.e. discedo, Travofxai I cease, (f)t)\d<T<jofiat I observe 
some one for r/iyself i.e. I am on my guard against him."'* 
Entirely transitive are TrapacTov/ial n (I deprecate something 
for myself) I decline something, aipovfiai 1 take for mysrlf, I 
choose, d7reL7rd/xr]v n I lay aside (2 C. iv. 2), eKxpeTrofiat rt 
(1 Tim. vi. 20), aTroSiBofial n (I deliver over something /rc»?/j, 
myself) -I sell something, drroKpivofiai (I give a decision /rom 
myself) I answer, imKaXou/JLaL Kaiaapa (A. xxv. 11) I call on 
the emperor for myself, I appcaJ, to the, emperor. So also 
Xvrpoai properly means, / set free, acting as master,- but 

xi. 31, or an active, L. ix. 25, xxiii. 35) ; see Kiister, De verb. meA. p. 66. 
Lexicographers siiould no longer defer a more accurate investigation of the 
subject. See also Poppo l. c. p. 2, note, and Kriiger p. 168. 

^ [Kartt kxf/.lianiv : ju cla.ssical Greek it is the activ/' that is used of the 
inental powers (Jo. i. 5 ?) ; in the N. T. the middle is always used with this 
reference. The active of tt.va.Tlii rim does not occur in the N. T., and in 
classical Greek it is not always used in a physical sense. The active of ?<«- 
liip>uiiiZff6cu seems not to occur iu any author.] 

2 ivXaaaiffSoLi as a middle verb has also the meaning aibi (aliqtdd) custo- 
dire, see Heind. Plat. Gorg. p. 323 [Shilleto, Dem. F. L. p. 151] ; and we find 
it used as early as Hesiod ((>p. 263, 561) in reference to something which a 
man keeps in his mind. In the sense of (legem) sibi observare — as, in several 
MSS., L. xviii. 21, rxuTtt -ratTn. i(pv>^a^a/i>iv ix usirriTos' — it seems not to occur 
in classical Greek, but is common in the LXX. In this passage, however, 
i<pixa.%a. is the better reading. [Tisch., Treg., and others read i^t/Xa^a^nv in 
Mk. X. 20.] 


Xvrpovfiai, I set free- for myself the slave of another (L. 
xxiv. 21). (Don. -p. 436, Jelf 363. 6.) 

When such a middle verb is joined with an accusative of a 
thing or quaHty belonging to the subject, the N. T. writers some- 
times add the pronoun to the substantive: Mt. xv. 2, ov viTTTovTai 
TU.S )(e2pa<; avTwv Rom. Ix. 17, otto)? evSei^w/Aat iv aol rrjv hvvafiiv 
fiov.^ A. vii. 58, a-n-WevTo ra c/i-arta avrutv (where Tischendorf 
leaves out the pronoun without sufficient reason), H. vi, 17,^ E. 
ii. 7, 1 P. iv. 19. In such cases the pronoun is redundant, and it 
is as a rule omitted by Greek writers, as indeed it frequently is in 
the N. T. (A. ix. 39, Mk. vii. 3, xiv. 47). 

From the usage (b) we must also explain 2 C. iii. 18, ^/^ct? Travrc? 
.... TTjv B6$av Kvpiov KaTo-n-rpL^ofjievoi : as it were, " sibi intueri," 
to behold (for ourselves) tJie glory of the Lord (as in a mirror) ; like 
Philo II. 107. In Horn. iii. 25 also,- ov TrpoWero 6 ^eos k.t.A.., 
recent commentators have noticed the use of the middle voice ; 
but Philippi seems to come nearer to the true explanation than 

3. c. Lastly, the middle voice not imfrequently denotes an 
action which takes place at the command or by the permission 
of the subject, — where a German would use the auxiliaiy (sich) 
lasscn, and where in Latin we should commonly find curare : * 
e.g. dhiKGlaOaL to let oneself be wronged, aTroa-repeicrdat to let 
oneself be defrauded (both in 1 C. vi. 7), uTroypdcfyecrOac to have 
oneself enrolled (L. ii. 1) : compare also ^airTi^eaOai, ya/.ceLa0ai, 
and many others.' Examples of middle verbs which in this case 
too receive a new and independent transitive meaning, are 
havetl^oixai, pcciiniam mutuo dandam sibi curare, i.e. mutuam 
sumere (Mt, v. 42), p,i(x6ov[jbat to get something let on hire to 
oneself, i.e. to hire, engaga, Mt. xx. 1. (Don. pp. 435, 439, 
Jelf 362. 6, 363. 7.) 

Some middle verbs combine with the reflexive meaning the 
reciprocal (Kriig. p. 1G5, Don. 440, Jelf 364) : PovXevea-Oai to consult 
with one anotMr (Jo. xii. 10), a-wTtOea-BaL to settle among themselves, 
agree (Jo. ix. 22), KplvecrOai to dispute, go to law (1 C. vi. 1 : should 
we add the O. T. quotation Rom. iii. 4 1).^ 

' 'EfTdhUyvua, is frequently thus used by Greek wnters ■ see Engeiliardt, Plat, 
Loch. p. 9, Schoem. Tlutarch, Agis p. 144 {Don. p. 447). 

* [H. vi. 17 is inserted by mistake : A alone (of the uncial MSS.) has the 
middle voice. In A. vii. 58 Tisch. restored airaiv in ed. 8. J 

* [Philippi renders "set forth ;" Fritzsche, "esse voluit (destinavit)."] 

* Compare Sommer in Seebode, Krit. Biblioth. 182S, II. 733. [See Riddell, 
Plat. Apol. p. 150 sq.] 

* [The name " dynamic " (Knig. p. 162) has be6n given to the middle when it 


4. Although the middle voice possesses an .accurately- 
defined and characteristic meaning, yet in usage its forms are 
often mixed up with those of the passive voice, even in the 
best Greek writers. 

(a) Not only are those tenses for which the middle voice 
has no special form (the present, imperfect, perfect, pluper- 
fect ') borrowed from the passive, and the 1 aorist passive of 
several verbs (as ^o^daBai, Koi/xdcrOai. iropevea-dat, dyvt^eaOac 
A. xxi. 24, 26,'^ — compare also, § 39, 2) used also as 1. aorist 
middle : — but also 

(b) A passive meaning is assumed by some of the middle 
tenses proper, particularly the future : ^ such a use of the aorist 
is far less common, and is indeed almost doubtful, especially in 
prose.* It has been supposed that the N T. contains examples 
of this transfer of meaning: G. v. 12, 6(f>€Xov kui aivoKoy^ov- 
rai ol avaararovure'i vfia<i, — -.yet here the middle yields a very 
suitable sense (see my Comment, in loc.) ; ** 1 C. x. 2, koI irav- 
Te<? e^aiTTiaavTo, which however may very fitly be rendered 
(see Meyer) they all allowed themselves to be baptised; i^a- 
TTTiaOrja-av, the reading of very good MSS., is probably a 
roiTection. 1 C. vi. 11, airekovaaaOe, is similar. In A. xv. 22, 

in'licates an action not simply and absolutely, bnt as calling forth and exercising 
the powers of the agent : see Ellicott on E. ii. 7, G. v. 6, Col. i. 6, and Webster, 
Syntax p. 98. Compare Don. p. 438 : " The appropriative middle often exhibitf 
a signification which might be called infrnsive, but which really implies an im- 
modiate reference to some result in which the agent is interested. One of the 
most common of the cases , ... is that of the aorist /Sir» and ll'irSai, of 
wjiich the former means simply ' to see,' the latter 'to behold, to look with 
interest or with a view to some contemplated and desired effect ' , . . . For this 
njason -'Saw is more frequently used than Hi in calling attention to something 
worth seeing .... In this particular use of the middle .... it will generally 
be found that the middle implies a certain special diligence and earnestness in 
the action."] 
1 See Buttm. I. 368 (Jelf 367. 2). 

' [Above (page 316, note ^) Winer calls iyv/^ja-^ati a passive.] 
'Monk, Eurip. Uippol. p. 169 (Lips.), Boisson. Eunap. p. 33C, Poppo, 
Thuc. I. i. 192, Stallb. Plat. Crit. 16, MiA.Bep. II. 230, Isocrat. Areopaij. p. 229 
(ed. Benseler), Weber, Demosth. p. 353 (Jelf 364. 7). According to Sommer /. c. 
the future middle itself was perhaps originally passive, and afterwards was pre- 
ferred to the future passive on account of its more convenient form. Compare 
Rost p. 573. 

♦ D Orville, Charit. p. 358, Abresch. Ari.<if<i7i. p. 178, Matth. 496. 5, and on 
Eur. Hel 42 ; but compare Schaef. Gnom. 166, Lob. p. 320 (Jelf/. c). 

* [Winer's explanation agrees with that given by Alford, Lightfoot, al. ; 
the force of the middle, however, is equally preserved in Ellicott's translation, 
*' cut themselves ofiF (from communion with you)."] 


eKXe^afievovq — even if we were to connect ifc with avBpaf — 
would not be equivalent to eK.\e-)(9evra'^ (see Kiilinol in loc, 
Schwarz, Comm. p. 499), but would retain the middle significa- 
tion, ivho have allowed themselves to he chosen, have undertaken 
the mission (with their own consent) : eK\€')(6eina<; would be 
who ha/oe been chosen, whether willingly or against their will.^ 
It is more probable however that eKXe^afievovi refers to 
uTToaroXoi and Trpea^vrepoL, so that we must render, after they 
had chosen men from aiiiowj themselves , see Eisner, Observ. I. 
429, and compare § 63. I. 1 

5. We sometimes find the active voice used by Greek writers 
where the middle might have been expected.^ 2 C. xi. 20, 
€c Tt? v/jid<i Karahovkol, is wrongly brought in here by some, 
who render, if any one enslaves you to himself, sibi (G. ii. 4, 
where the middle is a v. L). The apostle intends his language 
to be altogether general, if any one enslaves you, makes yoa 
slaves : the point is their becoming slaves, — to whom and how 
the context must show. In L. xii. 20 also the active is used 
correctly ; airairovatv diro a-ov is they require from thee — the 
words are designed to express merely the removal of the '^v)(^t]. 
On the other hand, the active iroielv is sometimes found (at least 
in the received text) where Greek writers ' would have used 
iroielaOav^ e.g. avvwiMoaiav iroLelv A. xxiii. 13 (Polyb. 1. 70. 6, 
Herod. 7. 4. 7),/ioi'^y7rot€ii' Jo.xiv.23 (Thuc. 1. 131, and Poppo 
in loc), TrpoBeaiv ■ TToielv E. iii. 11'' (but in the first two pas- 

-^ So perKaps Plutarch, Orator. Vit. 7 (V. 149; Lips.), -rirrtuffaf^ivct riiv 

* Poppo, Time. I. i. 185, Locella, Xm. Eph. p. 233, Buttm. Soph. Phil p. Itil, 
iSiebelis, Pausan. I. 5, Weber, Demosih. 252 sq. 

* Kiister p. 37 sqq., 67 sqq., Dresig p. 401 s*Y\., Kriig. p. 1P3. 

* 'oS»y !r«/«r» Mk. ii. 23 (where however the MSS. vjiry), is probably not put 
for aSov 'Toiufffxi Her. 7. 42 (like Topuav rron7tr6a.i L. xiii. 22), since there is hero 

•mething unsuitable in the meaning make a journeif : we ma}' adopt the strict 
rendering, plucking eitrs they made a way (a path) in the field. Lachmann, 
in accordance with his principle, receives o^afoiu*, the reading of B. [Meyer 
agrees with Winer. On the other side see Alford in loc. , who urges that this 
phrase occursvJud. xvii. 8 in the sense " make a journey," but does not notice 
Meyer's objection that, on this view of the passage, the pr'mcijxd action would 
be expressed by the participle (see below § 45. 6).] 

* The middle of -roitT)) is but seldom foun^ in the N. T. — beiug used by 
scarcely any writer except Paul and Luke (in the Acts) — but wherever it occurs 
we may easily recognise the middle signification. As the lexixjons do not usually 
present the active and the middle separately, a list of the phrases formed with 
the middle of this verb is here subjoined : A. i. 1, to* 'KfuToi x'oyo^ ivurita.- 
firit' viii. 2, iTDi^iffavre KoTtriv XXV. 17, a»a^oXri* ToiufSat' xxvU. 18, 4«» 


sages the middle is restored by Lachmann) : evpiaKetv also is 
used with the meaning consequi, instead of evpiaKeadai (see 
Fritz. Afatt. p. 390).^ Here and there the middle and the ac- 
tive are interchanged : * L. xv. 6 , crvy KaXet rov^ (f)L\ov<i' vcr. 9, 
avy/caXeiTai Ta<? (f)iXa<i K.r.K, according to Lachmann's reading- 
(Tisch. has the active in both verses).^ Here it was for the 
writer (Franke, Dem.oslh. p. 95) to decide whether lie would 
say he called together to hiynself, or generally, he called to- 
gether ; the latter was perfectly intelligible. Compare also Ja, 
IV. 2 sq., alrelre kuI ov \a/x0dv€Te, hion KaKw^i alrecade' 
1 Jo. iii. 22, compare v. 14 sq : * see Matth. 492 c (Foertsch, 
Li/s p. 39).^ In 1 C. ix. 5 Trepidje&Oai would be more appro- 

PiiXyir ■xotiladti' RoiTl. J. 0, E. 1. 16, 1 Th. i. 2, Phil. 4, fx-iun-y Tiiii xeiilrdcn' 

2 p. i. 15, fiyfiftni Titas -roiilffiai' i. 10, iKktyrm Toiuria,! Eiifialav' Jude 3, 

«-ro</3»jy Temrffai Ph. i. 4, 1 Tim. ii. 1, livrw iroitlaint' Roin. XV- 26, Kiitat- 

Ki'av Toiiitria.! E. iv 16, T» vufjiO. rr,i ai/^r,<rtv Toiurai' H. i. 3, 3i' la(/T«» 

icaiacivuo* Troivrdfiitit tw« afio-pTii^ii. In illustration of Greek usage much 
is collected by Drcsig, p. 422 sqq. ; see also V Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 53S S(i. 
The distinction between tlie active and the middle is thus defined by Blume (ofl 
Lycurf/. p. 55) : Est vonit, quotiescunque accusativus substantivi abstract i 
accedit, aliquid fffi-cere, parare, faciendum curare, produce, hrinii about, yrepart, 
■vaiurSai ipmiTfi J'acere curn substantivis junutum periphrasin faoit verbi, quod 
aut notatione aut certe notione nomini apposite conveniat. (On i.oyoi ttohTv 
and votilffiti see Weber, Demo-tth. p, 295.) [The above list of phrases formed 
with Tiiufixi is not quite complete We find linfftis -r. 1,. v. Z'-i, <rpitoi-x.i 

rr. If cm xiii. 14, elaitoi Xoyav mouuai rrif "4^1/^*!* riuiav ifiauTu A XX. 24 

(Tisch., Treg.); •ropiia.v ft.oiri*, and rvmifiiffia* •^iiuiriai (L. xiii. 22, Jo xiv. 
23, A xxiii. 13) are mentioned in the text and the last note : on this use of 
■xtniatai .see Jelf 363. 6, Shilleto, Dem. F. L. p, 59. In A. viii. 2 (quoted 
above) the best MSS. have i'Toirieay ; for other examples of the active so used 
see L X. 37 (xvi. 9), xviii. 7, Mk. xv. I (Schirlitz, Grundz. p. 274). In 1 Tim. 
ii. 1 leotuviai is usually taken as ]>a.ssive (Vulgate, EUicott) ; Bengel and Alford 
consider it middle : see Alford's note. J 

' In Jo. V. 4, «» atffoiTas , . . TfiecK. xai ixru irri ix'^' '" ''» afhti'ia, We 

cannot say that ixa* stands for ix<>f^i"f ; rather would fx->* '^* icrhtiia be 
equivalent to ix^" '^'^^''^s {KUKut). The following verse however shows that 
(X'^' is to be connected as a transitive with it-ji. 

2 For an example in which the distinction between the active and the middle 
Ls distinctly marked, see Dion. H IV 2088, t«» n atro* avioanrafi^yj, ««) t»» 

' Thus along with Ka.Tii.>.a.fi^a.*i(T^a.i TcXit, g. r. A., (take, occupy;, nara'Ka.ft.lia.nif 
irekiv is also in use ; compare Schweighauser, Lexic Polyb. p. 330. 

* In Mic. xiv. 47 we WwAff'ta.rd.fino; tru fiax'^'P'^'' ', but in Mt. xxvi 51, cfrifrtiff'. 
<ri\v fiuyaip. auTav. [Both airau and v'ra.afj.a-t are thu9 used in classical fJreek ; 
see Midlach, Vulg. p. 336. With the examples in the text compare clthxH* 
1 P, ii. 23, kiruXueiat A. iv. 17, 21 , On Ja. iv. 2 see Green, Notes p 1 S9. ] 

* We might bring in boie those actives combined with the reflexive pro- 
noun for which the middle was actually in use in a reflexive sense ; a.s Tot^«t 
kflw» xavTov Ph. ii. 8, Mt. xviii. 4, compare ra.'nuaZvea.i Ja. iv. 10 (Wetst. 11. 

271), 'iaxiXavi iavrev 1 C. ix. 19, ij^vvft/v lauTov .Jo. xxi. 18, ye/^nr^em iauTot 

1 Tim. iv. 7, al. But in all these passages th« reflexive pronoun stands in au 



priate : irepidyeiv nvd means to lead some one ahoid ior exhi- 
bition or for guidance (2 Mace. vi. 10, Pol. 12. 4. 14), but to 
lead ahouf with oneself (in one's company) is TrepidyeaOat : per- 
haps however the active is so used in Xen. Cyr. 2. 2. 28. Iti 
would not be at all surprising if foreigners, who had not a na- 
tive's instinctive insight into the language, should occasionally 
fail to notice the shades of meaning conveyed by the middle 
voice, delicate as these sometimes are : even in classical Gi"eek 
Hhe use of this voice seems to have often depended on the cul- 
ture and tact of the mdividual writers The use of the active 
KaOdiTTO) (A. xxviii. 3, though not without variant) in the place 
of the middle KaddTrrofjuai belongs to later Oreck; see Passow s.v, 

For SUpprjie TO. IfiaTta avTov Mt. xxvi. 65, A. xiv. 4, we might 
have had Siepp-^^aro to. i/xarta (see above) , but the active is also in 
use in such cases (Bernh. p. 348), The distinction between rrapcxcv 
and 7rape;)(£(r^at' is not uniformly observed by the Greeks themselves ; 
but in A. xix. 24, Col. iv, 1, Tit. ii. 7, the appropriateness of the 
middle voice will be easily recognised. In A. xvi. 1 6, ipyaaCav -n-oXAifv 
7rapet;(€ tois Kupt'ots avrrj'i /tiavTcvo/aeVr/, the active IS more suitable 
than the middle would be, since it was only in actual fact, and not 
by design, that this gain was procured by the damsel, 

6, Conversely, we find the middle joined with eavr^ in Jo. 
xix. 24, Bie/jLepto-avTo eavrol^; (11 Mt. xxvii. 35 simply tiefiepi- 
cravTo), compare Xen. Cyr. 1. 4. 13, 2. 1. 30, Lycurg. 11. 8, 
1 7. 3 ; also with eavrov, in the place of the active with kavrov 
(Plat. Protag. p. 349 a, Blume, Lycurg. p. 90), in Tit. ii. 7 
creavrov Trapexof^evo'; Tinrov, — but the middle had so fully estab- 
lished itself in the sense show oneself (in this or that mental or 
moral quality; that the writer used this voice even where he 
had (on account of rvirov) expressed the reflexive by a separate 
word. Compare Xen. Cyr. 8. 1. S9,'7rapdS€i,yfjia . . . roiovBe 
eavTov irapel')(ero? In Tit. i. 5, if with Rec. we read eiriBiop- 

antithesis (Kriig. p. 168), and in Jo. xxi,, for instance, the middle would even 
be incorrect Thus xupuv iavri* would mean "to shave oneself," xufm-ix4 
"to sAa?;e oneself." Moreover, where ambiguity might arise from the identity 
of the passive and the middle form, it vrould be natural to use the active with 


' Rost p. 575, Kriig. p. 163 , compare Kiister, no 49. [Don. p. 437, Green, 
Or. p. 185, Ellicott on Col. iv. 1, Tit. ii. 7.] 

■^ For other examples of the middle with iaurw, mvriv, see Schief. Dion. 
Hal. p. 88, Bornem. Xen. An. 76 ii\., Bernh. p. 347, Mehlhom I. c. 36, Poppo, 
Thuc. I. i. 189 ; compare also Epiphan. I. 380, o-rXiratAivoi ttcvriy. [Don. 
p. 435, Jelf 363. 2.1 


OaxTTf (but better MSS. have eTnZiopOoiarj^), the middle voice 
IS really used for the active.^ As little can we recognise a middle 
meaning in aireKhvea-Qai Col. ii. 15, aixvvecrOai A. vii. 24 (com- 
pare Dion. H. I. 548), apjjbo^eaOai 2 C. xi. 2.^ Perhaps also 
-rrpoi-^eadai, Rom. iii. 9, stands for the active. Similar examples 
are met with in Greek writers, especially those of a later date.^ 
T(j this head have been referred E. v. 13, irav to (fyavepovfie- 
vov (f)(ji)^ earC' and i. 23, tov to, iravra ev iracri irXrjpov/jLe- 
vov. In the first passage, however, ^avepovadai has just oc- 
curred as a passive, and to this the apostle immediately pro- 
ceeds to add (f)avepovfjb€vov, which must therefore be taken in 
the same sense (so Harless and Meyer) : everythifig if it is 
reproved is by the light made vumifest, for everything that is 
made manifest is light. In E. i. 23 TrXrjpovpLevov might be con- 
sidered passive (so Holzhausen), but then there would be a dif- 
ficulty in ra rravra iv rracn, as is well shown by Harless. For 
this reason I consider TfKrjpovixevov middle (Xen. Hell. 5. 4. 56, 
6. 2. 1 4, Demosth. Po^?/cA 707 b), tlie fulness of Him who filleth 
all ; the middle signification is not entirely lost, — "from Him- 
self through Himself, He filleth all." In H. xi. 40 also the 
middle Trpo^XeTreaOat is correctly used : Trpo^eireiv would 
denote a mere perception, seeing heforehand, foreseeing, the 
middle expresses the mental act of choosing beforehand, 'pro- 
viding : TTpoopacrOat and Trpoiheadao are similarly used by 
Greek writers. 

In the verb hepjiiv we find a distinction in usage between the 
active and the middle, the active being used by Paul of personal 
(1 C xii. 6, G. ii. 8, E. i. ll,al.),the middle of non^personal activity 
(Rom. vii. 5, Col. i. 29, 2 Th. ii. 7, al.) : hence in 1 Th. ii. 13 os must 
be referred, not to ^eo?, but to Xoyo?. 

7. From middle verbs must carefully be distinguished the 
deponents. These verbs, with a passive (middle) form, have a 

' [The middle is received by Tisch., "Westcott and Hort ; also by Ellicott and 
Alford, who consider this an instance of the "dynamic " middle (see above, p. 
318). In Col. ii. 15, we must surely give to i-rtxlvi<r^ai its strict middle mean- 
ing (compare Col. iii. 9) : see the notes of Ellicott, Alford, and Lightfoot. On 
ri/xutecTo, A. vii. 24, See A. Buttm. p. 194.] 

* Losner, Observ. p. 320 sq. ["Medium active dici doceri neqnit, sed eo 
respicitur ad eura, cui cura despondendi commissa est : " Wilke, Clavis s. v. (ed. 
(irinini). ] 

'^ Schaef, Plutarch. V. 101 ; Meineke, Index ad Cinnam. 244. In the passages 
(juoted by Schweighiiuser (J[,i?a;Jc. //ero'/. II. 185) the middle bignific.ition may 
for the most part be recognised. 


transitive or a neuter meaning : their active form either does 
not occur at all (in prose), or is used in precisely the same signi- 
fication (Rost p. 263, Don. pp. 265, 440, Jelf 368).^ Such are 
hvvaadai,, SaypelcrOai, yiyveaOat, ^id^ecrOac, evreXKea-Oai, ev- 
-^(€(7601, ivOvfjLeladat,, ipyd^eaOat, evXa^elaOai, /j,d')/pcr0ai, /u-t/x- 
<f>ecrdai, <f)eihea6ai, danrd^6<T0ai, efi')(eadat,, rjjeladai,, laadai. 
Xoyi^eadai, irpoaiTLaaOat,'^ with many others. On these it 
must be remarked that 

a. Although most deponents have their aorist of the middle 
form {middle deponents, as alTLaadai, dairdi^eaOat, ipyd^€- 
aOai, ^eiBea-6at), yet not a few have in its place the aorist 
passive (passive deponents^ : as 6ov\ecr6ai, BvvaaOai, eTrcfieXeZ- 
a-dai, ev\a^ec(r$ac, aTrXay^vi^eaOat, fj.cop.da-6at,,^ etc. (Don^ 
p. 268). 

b. Others have both forms of the aorist ; though in this 
case one or other form predominates (in prose). To tbis class 
belongs dpveiadai, on which (against Buttmann *) see Poppo, 
Thuc. III. iv. 209 : the N. T. writers always use the middle 
aorist rjpv7}(rdfn}v, which in Greek prose is the rarer form. 
On the other hand, Bui\ey€T0at has always a passive aorist in 
Biblical Greek (Don. p. 269 sq.). 

c. Some middle deponents which possess an aorist (or perfect) 
middle with an active meaning have also an aorist or perfect 
passive with a passive meaning : e. g. idedOrjv Mt. vi. 1, Mk. xvi. 
11 (Thuc. 3. 38),^ iOeaa-d/jLvv I saw; Iddrju Mt. viii. 13, L. vi. 
17 (Is. liii 5, Plat. L^g. 6. 758 d), lauat Mk. v. 29, but laa-d- 
fiTjv active ; i\oylcrdr)v frequently (compare Xen. Cyr. 3.1.33); 
aTreSixOrjcrap ^ A. XV. 4 (comp. 2 Mace. iii. 9), aor. middle in 

^ The active of Xv/j-n'maiai, for instance, is found in later writers only ; 
see Passow. On the other hand, the active of 'iupi7<r6a,t occurs as early as 
Pindar, Olymp. 6. 131. In the N. T. we find even ivayyi\iZ,u, as frequently in 
the LXX 

* [The actives P>ia.Z,u, uTixXu, occur, but not in Attic prose : see Veitch, Gr, 
Verbs s. vv.] 

2 [f/luficitrixi does not belong to this class, but should come in under c : 
it is a middle deponent (2 C. viii. 20, — /Esch. Ag. 277), with a rare aorist pas- 
sive (2 C vi. 3) in a pas'^ive sense. — The aor. mid. of i'TifitKiTiriai occurs, but 
only in late Greek.] 

* [" In Epic poetry and Ionic prose the aorist middle alone is used ; in classic 
Attic, with the exception of one instance in Euripides, two in ^schines, and 
one in Hyperides, the aorist passive. Buttmann and Matthia? wrongly confine 
the aorist middle to poetry. " Veitch s, v. ] 

* Compare Poppo, Thuc. III. i. 594 sq. 
^ [The best reading is •rapi^ix^t^ff-ar] 


L viii. 40, A. xviii. 27 ; Traprjrijfievo^ L. xiv. 19, aor. middle H. 
xii. 19, 25 ; eppvaOrju 2 Tim.'iv. 17, aor. middle Col. i. 13, 2 P. 
ii. 7, al. ; exapiadriv 1 C. ii. 12, Ph l 29 (pluperf Her. 8. 5), 
aor- middle often in the N. T. See on the whole Rest p. 577 
(Don. p. 274). 

(/. The future passive of Xoyi^ofiai, with passive meaning, 
oecurs liom. ii. 26 ; similarly laOrjaeTat, Mt. viii. 8, and airapvrf- 
Otja-ofxai, L. xii. 9.^ Of XoyL^o/xat even the present tense is used 
in a passive sense in Eom. iv. 5, comp Ecclus. xl. 19 (not in 
2 C. X. 2) ; so also of ^tdteadai, Mt. xi. 12: compare Poppo, 
TAuc. L 184, III. i. 31 (Don. p. 275, Jelf 368. 3. c). 

e. The perfect passive ecpyaa-fjuat is sometimes active in mean 
ing (2 Jo. 8/ Demosth Conon 728 a, Xen. Mem. 2 6. 6 
Lucian, Fujjit. 2), sometimes passive, as in Jo. iii. 21, Xen. Mem 
3. 10 9, Plat. Rep 8 566 a (Rost l. c, Don. I. c). On the other 
hand, rjpvqp-ai, 1 Tim v 8, ivTiraXfiat A. xiii. 47 (Herod. 1. 9 
23, Pol 17 2. 1, 1 S. xxi. 2, Tob. v. 1, al.) and SeSeyp^at A. viii 
1 4, have an active meaning only. See on the whole Buttm. II. 
51, Bernh, p. 341 ; but especially Poppo in the above-cited 
Progr., and Rost, Granim. p. 264 sqq. 

That amongst the verbs usually called deponent there are very 
many which should rather be considered middle verbs, is remarked 
by Rost (p. 263) and Mehlhoiu {I. c. p. 39). This is already admitted 
in regard to ■noXirf.viijdai. But KTaofuiL to acquire for ones(df, dyw- 
vi^Ofxai (Rost p. 575), fStdCta-daL, fXiyaXav)(ju(r6ai^ and perhaps 8e- 
;^o/Aai, dcrira^o/Aai (a middle deponent, according to Passow), should 
also be regarded as middle, as in all of them the reflexive meaning 
18 more or less apparent.^ Meyer calls TrXrjpovcrOai in E. i. 23 a 
deponent, but improperly.^ In the N. T. ia-Tepelcrdai is always used 
in the same sense as the active io-repdv. Lastly, r/TTaofxai and 
iJi.aivop.ai must be considered passives, according to the Greek cou- 
cpption of these verbs . see Sommer /. c 36. 

^ [Add x'^h'^^'^"'!^" Y\iS\ 22. Compare also iinfivlrii A. x. 31, Rev. 
xvi. 19 (Ea. xviii. 24), \-rt\tXi\ffiJt.\tn ia-Ti* L. xii. 6 (Is. xxiii. 16) : A. Battni. 
p. 52.] 

* [In 2 Jo. 8 we have the 1 aor., not the perfect, of tpya^afi<ti : it is singular 
that this slip is found iu five editions of the German (3rd to 7th). The perfect 
occurs twice only in the N T. , here and in 1 P. iv. 3. 

9 [In the N T. we find the active only, in Ja. iii. 5 Bee. Here however the 
true reading is fnydXa a.ox,i7. ] 

* [Compare Don. p 440 sq. Considering all deponents to be properly middle, 
Donaldson classifies them "according to the usages of the middle in which they 
respectively, originated "] 

"' [In ed. 3, 4, Meyer calls attention to the use of the middle voice, and renders 
qui sibi implet. J 


Section XXXIX. 


1. When a verb which governs the dative or the genitive 
of the person (as iria-revecv tlvi, Karrfyopeiv ri,v6<i) is used jn 
the passive, the Greeks are accustomed to make the noun which 
denotes the person the subject of the passive verb (Kriig. p. 159. 
Jelf 364. 5, Don. p. 432). 

a. Dative : G. ii. 7, Treirurrevfj^at to evayyeXiov, i. e. TreTTt- 
(Trev/M€vov e')(Oi to evafyyiXiov (active, Tncrrevecv rivi rt) ; Rom 
iii. 2. i7ncnev6rf<Tav (the Jews, ver.' 1) tcl \6yLa rov 6eov 1 C 
ix. 17, olicovofjiiuv TTeTTiaTeviMac: compare Diog. L. 7. 34, itlo-thv- 
6evre<i Tr}v iv TIep<yd^(p fii^XiodTjKrjv Pol. 3. 69. 1, Treiricrrevfie- 
V09 Tr)v TToXiv ira-pd ' Pcofiaicov 31. 26. 7, Herod. 7. 9. 7, De- 
mosth. Theocr. 507 c, Appian, Civ. 2. 136, Strabo 4. 197, 17 
197, etc., etc. So also when this verb is used in the sense of 
believing some one (Trtareveiv tlvL) we find the passive Tnarevo- 
fjbai I am believed:^ e.g. Xen. A71. 7. 6. 33, Isocr. Trapez. p. 874, 
Demosth. Callip. 720 a; ^aaiXevofiai, Aristot. Nic. 8. 11. — The 
case is different in 1 Tim. iii. 16, eiricrevOr] (XpiaTOf) iv k6(t^g): 
this cannot be referred to TCKneveiv Xpiara>, but ' presupposes 
the phrase iria-reveLV Xpocrrov ; just as iinaTevOr} to fiaprvpiov 
rjfiwV; 2 Th. i. 10, is founded on 7na-T€veiv ti (1 Jo. iv. 16). 

Other examples of the same construction are A xxi. 3, dva- 
^avevTe<; ^ t7}v KvTrpov, when Cyj)TUS heca^ne visible to theTn, i.e 
dva(^avei<Tav e')(ovTe<i ttjv K.; H. xi. 2, iv touttj ifMapTvprjOrjcrav 
01 Trpea^vTepoL (jiapTvpelv tivI), A. xvi. 2, al. ; H. xiii. 16, eva- 
pea-TeiTai 6 6e6<; (Bleek in loc.) ; further, H. viii. 5 KaOu)^ xe- 
-X^pTifidTia-Tat Ma}va7}<i (Mt. ii. 12, 22, Joseph. Antt. 3. 8. 8), and 
Mt. xi. 5 (L. vii. 22) tttqj'xoI evayyeXi^ovTaf H. iv. 2. The pas- 
sages last cited come in here because evayyeki^eadat (see Fritz. 
Matt p. 395) and xpVf^(i'rl^€Lv {J osei^h. Antt. 10. 1. 3, 11. 8. 4) 
are lisually followed by the dative of the person. We should 
probably add Col. ii. 20, t/ o)? ^wi^re? iv Kocrfxtp BoyfiuTi^eaOe 
(Soy/juaTL^eiv tivc 2 Macc. x. 8); see Meyer. In 3 Jo. 12 the pas- 
sive fiapTvpeiaOac has a dative of the person, like the active. 

b. Genitive. Of verbs governing a genitive KaTTjyopovfiac 

' The reverse aTurroufcti,, Wi.s. vii. 17. 

* [Tischendorf and "VVestcoU and IJorjt read av«yava>T£}, with Rec], 


alone is thus used: Mt. xxvii. 12, ev tm KarTryopeiaOao avrov 
VIVO TMV apx^epewV A. xxii. 30, to ri KaTrjyopeiTaL vtto (irapa) 
rcov 'lovhaiccv 2 Mace. x. 13.^ — (1 can find no sufficient reason 
for supposing;, nith Meyer, tliat Ke'^apKr/xai is passive in 2 C. 
n. 10.^'} 

Ill Uoni. vi. 17, v7rrjKovo0.r( . . . . cts ok -jrapiSoOrp-e tvttov Si 

^uY^s, we have perhaps tins construction in combination with 
attract.l')n (for vTr-qK. eis tvttov 6i6., ov TrapeSoO-qn, i. e. irapahoOivTo. 
%-)(€T()i yet see above § 24. 2. 

In H vii. 11, 6 Aaos i-rr a.vTr^<; ([epoffrvvTys) fevop.o6iTr]Tai, the 

construction may very well be founded on voixodtTelv tlvl, the peoph 
has r^i'xived the law (based, resting) on ihc priesthoud , compare 
viii. <) The parallels for I'o/to^cTctv Vtvai (ti) quoted from the LXX 
cannot be brought in here, since in this construction the verb al- 
ways lueans to lead some one according to the lavj : as Ps. cxviii. 33, 
vop.oOeTr](Tov fxe t^v oSov twv 8tKatuj/i.ara)v crov XXIV. 8, vofj.o6eTr](Tei 
a^afjTixvovra'i iv o^uJ. In the Byzantines, however, we find vofxadeTeiv 
Tico (in reference to a country or a people), as Malal. pp. 72, 194. 
The regular construction of the passive occurs in Dt. xvii. 10, ocra ai' 
vofx.o6cT7)6jj aoi. 

2. In many verbs whicli in ancient Greek have regularly 
the 1 aor. middle, in the middle sensn., the N. T. writers use 
instead the, 1 aor. passive (com p. § 38. 4). Thus we usually find 
oTTeKpiOrjf especially in the participle uiroKpLOei^ : '' the aor. 
middle drreKpivaro occurs Mk. xiv, 61, L. iii. 16, xxiii. 9, Jo. v. 
19, xli. 23, A. iil 12, and more frequently as a variant, e.g. in 
Jo. i. 26, xii. 34, xviii. 34.'' Similarly ocefcpidrj, Mt. xxi. 21, 
Mk xi. 23, Eom. iv. 20 ; but i/ipi.67] is passive in A. xxvii. 1.^ 
In other examples of aor. passive for aor. middle which have 
been quoted from the N T„ tt po^eKkiOrj A. v. 36, €peouvap,o)6r) 
Rom. iv. 20, Trapehodrjri: vi. 17, raTretvcoOrjre 1 P. v. 6, Ja. iv. 
1 0, the aorist is from the Greek (and also the N. T.) point of 

* [Add ■*<i'riy*ai<rftito< nr, Pr ii. 11 (A. ButtlTl. p, 188).] 

* fWfvfr.aave this up in his 4th ed. (1862).] 

3 Yetweihid a.-nxf.ir, in MSS. as early as Xen. Art. 2 1. 22: on I'lat. Ak. 
2 p 149 b. see Lob p \QH In the writers alter Aloxuiider it is not at all 
uncommon [See Voit'^h, Gr Verbs s. \ ] 

* From this tense we tind the fur i'TSKpiinirefiat, Mt. xxv. 37, 45, and 

" Compare Stiuz, Dial Alex. p. 148 sq.; Lobeclv, rhri/u. p. 108, Schoem. 
fscBUs p. 305. 

'' [Forothei exampieb see A Buttm p. 51 .sq. — The aor. pa.ssive of fixuf^aZu 
occurs Rev. xiii. 3 (I-ach.) in an active sense; so al.so Sxvu.airir.r'tuat Rev. xvti. 
8 (Lach., Tisch. ed. 7) : see Veitch p. 'J/l, A. Buttiu. p 59. j 


view really passive ; jnet as in Latin servari, delectari, are used 
instead of servare se, dehctare se, which agree with our idiom : 
compare Rest p, 673.' Wq must say the same of the 2 aor. kut- 
aWajTjTO) 1 C. vii. 11, 2 C. V. 20 (compare Kom. v. 10), and of 
the future {rrpoi;) KoXk-qdrjaeruL Mt. JCix. 5 (E. v. 31). 

^EKXr)[)o)6qfjiiv E. i. 11 (see Harleas ift- he), and 7rpo^iK\7jp<i)9rjaav 
A. xvii. 4, are evidently passive. 

3. That the perfect (Matth. 493) aud the pluperfect passive 
have also a middle signification has been generally admitted 
since the so-called perfect and pluperfect middle disappeared 
from our grammars (Buttm. 1. 362, Jelf 365. 3). In the N. T. 
compare A. xiii. 2 (etf j o TTpo<iKiK\r)[xai avrov<i, to which I have 
called them, for Tnyaelf ; xvi. 10;, irpaKeKXr/Tai r}fia<i o Kvpio<; 
evarfyeXlaaadac aiirovs, the Lord has called us for Himself etc. 
(compare Ex. iii, 18, v. 3); xxv. 12, Kaiaapa eirtKeKX.'qaai, tlwu, 
hast called for thyself to the emperor (appealed to him); Rom. iv. 
21, o eTTrjfyyeXTai, hwaroi, ecrri. koI 'jrotfjcrai (o 6e6<;), H. xii. 26 ; 
Jo. ix. 22, avveredecvro ol ^louSaloi' 1 1'. iv. 3, Treiropevfievov^ 
iv aa-e\y€lai<i (1 S. xiv, 1 7, 2 K.v. 25, Job xxx. 28, Zeph. iii. 16, 
Demosth. Nicostr. 723 c, al.j On the perfect passive of depo- 
nents see § 38. 7. 

On the otlier hand, 1 P. iv. 1 •n-cVavrai a/taprtas (commonly 
rendered peccare desiit, compare Xen, Cyr. 3. 1. 18) may be taken 
as passive, he has rest from sin, is secured against sin, see Kypke 
in loc. : Ph. iii. 12, howevor, can in no case come in here. — Ilo-