Skip to main content

Full text of "Remarks on the synonyms of the New Testament"

See other formats 


^ 


:/^- 


i 

1 

r    "■            — 

Hh 



.^;         ^H 

O 

fl 

4J            W 

^    ' 

# 

c/i        S 

3    •  >^ 

''        -? 

tXOrH     C 

1 

3   00    0 
<   00    C 

:  ^      ^ 

00   C     1     w 

rH     C    CO 

•§ 

•  c\3  r^   0) 

to             izi 

>  x:  r^  x: 

0   --H    -M 
00  •-) 

LO            -CI 

PQ          -^       0     ; 

1^                          M 

'H  e  c  ^  ^ 

:; 

<■   4->  -H    CO   ; 

"^ 

CO  -H    X    CU   ' 

PQ  H         Ct: 

€' 

<:^ 

\ 

1" 

^^. 

■^ 

4  . 

> 

\           -^ 

\          ^ 

THE 


BIBLICAL   CABINET; 


HERMENEUTICAL,  EXEGETICAL, 


AND 


PHILOLOGICAL  LIBRARY. 


VOL.    XVIIL 


titxmann's  synonyms  of  the  new  testament, 

&c.  &c.  &c. 


EDINBURGH: 
THOMAS  CLARK,  38.  GEORGE  STREET 

J.  G.  dE   F.   RIVINGTON,  LONDON  ; 

AND    W.    CURRY,    JUN.     &    CO.    DUBLIN. 

MDCCCXXXVII. 


J.  THOMSON,  I'KINTEll,   MILXK  SQUARE. 


REMARKS 


SYNONYMS 


NEW   TESTAMENT; 


DISQUISITIONS  ON  VARIOUS  GRAMMATICAL  AND 
PHILOLOGICAL  SUBJECTS. 


BV 

V 

JOHN  AUG.  HENRY  TITTMANN,  D.D., 

FIRST  THEOLOGICAL  PROFESSOR  IN  THE 
UNIVERSITY  OF  LEIPSIC. 


VOL.  n. 


EDINBURGH: 

THOMAS  CLARK,  38.  GEORGE  STREET. 
MDCCCXXXVII. 


CONTENTS. 


Page 
THE  SYNONYMS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

INDEX  TO  THE  SYNONYMS  OF  THE  NEW  TES- 
TAMENT ....  62 

ON    THE    GRAMMATICAL  ACCURACY    OF    THE 

WRITERS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  75 

Translated  from  the  Original  by  Professor  Robivso.v. 

ON  SIMPLICITY  OF  THE  INTERPRETATION  OF 

THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  .  .  1*^8 

Translated  from  the  Original  by  Professor  Robinson. 

ON  THE  PRINCIPAL  CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTER- 
PRETATIONS OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  132 
Translated  from  the  Original  by  Professor  Robinson. 

USE    OF    THE    PARTICLE   "iNA    IN    THE    NEW 

TESTAMENT  .  .  .183 

Translated  from  the  Original,  with  Notes,  by  Professor  Stuart. 

ON  THE  FORCE  OF  THE  GREEK  PREPOSITIONS 
IN  COMPOUND  VERBS,  AS  EMPLOYED  IN 
THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  .  .  241 

Translated  from  the  Original  by  Professor  Robiwson. 


PEIHGE 


NEW    TESTAMENT, 


CHAPTER  XL 


This  is  the  nature  of  synonyms,  that  they  ex- 
press diverse  modes  of  conceiving  the  same 
thing,  and  thus  cause  hearers  and  readers  to 
represent  to  their  minds  indeed  the  same  ob- 
ject, (as  they  call  it  in  the  schools),  and  yet  to 
form  varying  notions  of  it.  Hence  it  happens, 
that  among  the  best  and  most  accurate  writers, 
a  twofold  use  of  synonyms  is  chiefly  found,  one 
the  logical,  which  we  may  call  necessary^  another 
the  rhetorical,  which  may  be  termed  not  necessa^ 
ry.  We  call  that  necessary,  when  the  writer  has 
had  in  his  mind  a  certain  definite  form  of  any  ob- 
ject, and  has  wished  that  this  form  be  thought  of 
by  the  readers  ;  as,  for  instance,  if  any  one  were 

VOL.  II.  B 


2  THE  SYNONYMS 

to  speak  of  a  man  destitute  of  wealth,  and  com- 
pelled to  seek  his  necessary  sustenance  by  hard 
labour,  he  ought  to  call  him  Tsv/^ra*  if  he 
were  to  use  the  word  --TrToyJiv,  the  idea  of  a 
mendicant,  seeking  alms,  would  be  raised  in 
the  mind  of  the  reader.  Those,  therefore,  who 
speak  accurately,  are  accustomed  to  select  out 
of  many  synonyms,  that  is  words  having  a  kind- 
red meaning,  that  term  which  expresses  the 
precise  notion  which  he  wishes  to  convey.  The 
other  use,  which  we  have  called  not  necessary, 
appears  in  those  passages  where  two  or  more 
synonyms  are  placed  together.  This  may  be 
done  for  a  twofold  reason,  first,  because  he  who 
is  speaking  may  wish  that  these  kindred  ideas 
of  the  same  object  be  thought  of  separately 
by  the  mind  of  the  reader ;  and  next,  because 
he  may  desire  to  describe  the  same  thing  in  all 
its  parts,  and  to  exhibit  a  fuller  and  more 
lively  representation  of  it ;  which  is  for  the 
most  part  peculiar  to  orators  and  poets,  among 
whom  an  accumulation  of  synonymous  terms  is 
a  favourite  figure.  Of  the  former  sort,  are  those 
passages,  where  two  synonyms  are  coupled  by 
a  negative  particle,  as,  for  example,  when  Paul, 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Gal.  i.  12,  says,  oho)  yu^ 
lydj  rraoa,  avd^wTou  crafsXaCoi/  auro,  (yon  sdidd^Ori'y. 
For  he  denies  both  rh  Tu^aXajSiTv  and  rb  bthay&rivai. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  O 

These  words  really  differ,  as  synonyms  are  ac- 
customed to  do,  for  they  signify  different  modes 
of  the  same  thing  (knowledge  received  from 
another),  as  we  shall  shew  in  a  proper  place ; 
but  the  negative  remains  the  same,  for  it 
belongs  to  the  w^ords  ra^'  ccv^^wto-j.  Although, 
therefore,  Greek  writers,  in  similar  phrases, 
were,  for  the  most  part,  accustomed  to  write 
not  o'Jrs  but  ovd'-z,  yet  in  this  passage  o'jrs  ought 
not  lightly  to  be  disturbed.""  Synonyms  of  the 
latter  class  occur  so  frequently,  that  it  is  strange 
how  any  one  should  have  imagined  that,  in  the 
New  Testament,  when  two  or  more  synonyms 
are  found  in  juxta-position,  one  or  more  must  be 
considered  as  a  gloss,  and  rejected  from  the 
text,  without  any  authority  of  MSS.  The  rash- 
ness of  Wassenbergh  has  been,  of  late,  in  this 
respect,^  satisfactorily  exposed  by  F.  A.  Bor- 
nemann  f  and  our  own  Beck  '^  has,  later  still, 
with  great  acuteness  remarked,  that  additional 
expressions  introduced  in  the  discourse,  for  the 
sake  of  illustration  and  limitation,  ought  not 
always  to  be  considered  as  glosses,  and  he  has 

"  See  Scliaefer,  App.  to  Deinosth.  III.  p.  449. 

^  Dissert,  de  Glossis  N.  T.  praemissa  \^alkenarii  scholiis 
in  libros  N.  T.  Tom.  i.  p.  1,  sq. 

"  De  Glossemat.  N.  T.  caute  dijudicandis.  Schol.  in  Luc. 
p.  ix.  sq. 

'^  Conteu.  II.  de  Glossem.  quee  in  sacris  libris  occurrunt, 
p.  15. 


4  THE  SYNONYMS 

adduced  as  an  example,  that  passage,  Tit.iii.  1, 
where  b'rordff<!sffdai  and  crs/^a^-^g^v,  are  put  together. 
On  this  passage,  Wassenbergh  has  remarked, 
that  mi^ap^iTv  is  a  scholium  upon  the  preceding 
word  •j':rord(jGsffdai,  for  it  cannot  be  supposed  that 
Paul,  in  such  a  short  Epistle,  and  in  the  same 
place,  could  have  wished  to  sa?/  the  same  thing 
tivice.  Bornemann  is  indeed  of  opinion,  that  u-ro- 
r  a  (reseda/ refers  to  cLoyujc,  and  Ts/^a^p^g/i' to  s^ovffiaic. 
But  Beck  acutely  remarks,  that  Paul  has  not 
repeated  the  same  idea,  for  ucroraffcsff^a/  and 
'TTiidaoyjT^  do  not  signify  the  same  thing.  Since 
we  have  determined  to  continue  the  discussion 
on  synonyms,  an  opportunity  having  unex- 
pectedly presented  itself,  let  us  first  speak  of 
these  words. 

'vTTordsGicjQai,  crs/^cc^p^s/V :  Beck  has  most  truly 
said,  ■o'xoTddi^irai  is  used  of  one  who  willingly 
and  spontaneously  submits  to  another,  having 
the  right  to  command,  and  <^ii&a^^yjT^  of  one 
who  also  obeys,  but  from  compulsion.  Both 
acknowledge  the  authority  of  another,  and  live 
according  to  his  pleasure,  but  it  is  to  him  who 
does  it  of  his  own  accord,  without  being  or- 
dered and  commanded,  that  i/roracrffera/  applies, 
whereas  'T2/()ai;>/£/' refers  to  him  who  obeys  com- 
mands or  laws,  and  submitting  to  the  autho- 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  5 

rity  of  another,  does  what  is  commanded. 
What  an  honourable  man,  therefore,  is  ac- 
customed to  do  willingly,  not  being  compel- 
led by  violence  or  fear, — provided  the  things 
which  are  commanded,  are  just  and  honour- 
able, 6  iTn&ao'^v  does  not  do  of  his  own  ac- 
cord, but  by  the  order  of  another.  For  in  the 
word  uTorao-Csff^a/,  the  power  of  the  middle  voice 
is  also  conspicuous,  which  denotes  that  one  does 
or  suffers  something,  without  being  persuad- 
ed, impelled,  or  commanded  by  another.  In 
the  same  manner,  dvn'ka.[j.ZoLviG&ai^  of  which  we 
shall  afterwards  speak,  signifies  to  undertake 
the  management  of  something  spontaneously, 
whence  it  happens  that  ^ortkh  may  be  applied 
to  the  inferior  animals  and  things  without  life, 
but  (xv-tXafj.j3d)/sffdai  cannot. 

But  that  rrnSciP^sTv  properly  signifies  to  obey 
a  command  given  or  law  prescribed,  and  to  exe- 
cute the  orders  of  another  is  clearly  shown  by 
this  one  passage  of  Lucian  :   wots  i/vv/xh — la-/  rp 

&aoyj;jlMv  auroT;.^  Hence,  even  in  the  same  au- 
thor, "  life  is  said  to  obey  the  laws  which  nature 
prescribes,"  Tu^aoyjl'  6  (3iog  oig  rj  (p-jffig  svoixodsrriGvj.^ 
But  we  ought  not  to  be  surprised  that  ■jrordffffsff^ai, 
in  the  sense  of  to  submit,  or  subject  one's  self 

*  III.  Saturn,  p.  392.  ^  II.  Amor.  20,  p.  420. 


6  THE  SYNONYMS 

voluntarily  to  another,  is  found  frequently  in 
the  sacred  oracles,  and  not  among  other  writers. 
For  it  is  peculiar  to  the  rules  of  Christianity 
that  men,  spontaneously,  without  being  com- 
pelled by  fear,  or  urged  by  desire  of  gain,  ac- 
custom themselves  to  perform  all  the  duties  of 
life,  to  obey  the  divine  will,  and  to  submit  to 
human  laws,  unless  when  they  order  what  is 
sinful. 

Wherefore,  in  that  passage  the  one  word  can- 
not be  taken  for  an  exposition  of  the  other,  and 
also  in  the  rest  of  the  passages  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament Tsi&uQyjTv  is  to  follow  and  obey  one  who 
gives  orders  or  advice.^  The  Apostles  excuse 
themselves  for  not  complying  with  the  inter- 
diction of  the  council,  Acts  v.  29.  In  the 
same  manner  v'Trordffff&Gdai,  unless  where  it  has  a 
passive  signification,  is  used  in  the  New^  Tes- 
tament of  those  who  spontaneously  submit  to 
magistrates,^  to  masters,^  to  men  worthy  of 
honour^  in  the  cause  of  humanity,^  to  hus- 
bands,'" to  the  authority  of  Christ,"  to  God 
and  his  decrees.^  But  so  much  for  these.  Now- 
let  us  speak  of  some  other  synonyms,  and  first 
of  the  words, 

R  Acts  xxvii.  21.  *^  Rom.  xiii.  1,  5.        '  Tit.  ii.  'J. 

^  1  Cor.  XV.  27,  28.     >  Eph.  v.  21.  •"  Kpli.  v.  22. 

"  Eph.  V.  24.  "  Rom.  x,  3.    Heb.  xii.  9.  Jas.  iv.  7. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  V 

of  which  we  lately  made  incidental  mention. 

The}^  agree  in  as  far  as  they  signify  to  bring 
aid.  But  3^et  they  differ.  For  [SorihTv  has  the 
most  extensive  signification,  as  the  German 
he/fen,  succurrere^  to  help  to  succour:  avzi\a(j.- 
fSdvsGdai  is  to  undertake  the  management,  de- 
fence, or  the  cause  of  another :  sich  jemandes 
einer  Sache^  annehemen  :  I'xtXaiJjQdviGQoLt  is  to  as- 
sist some  one,  as  we,  using  another  image,  say 
heistehen  to  stand  by.  Boti^sTv  is  used  also  of  irra- 
tional animals  and  other  things,  but  dvriXafj.- 
(3a,vsffdc/,i  and  £T/?.a,a/3ai/£(r^a/  only  of  men. 

^orjdsTv  is  therefore  truly  to  give  assistance  ; 
that  is,  to  afford  succour  or  aid  by  our  power, 
by  our  strength,  by  our  advice,  by  our  intre- 
pidity, &c. ;  in  the  words  avr/Aa/XiSccvsc^a/  and 
l-zAa/x/SavscrtJa/,  the  inclination  and  endeavour 
to  assist  are  the  leading  ideas.  All  phy- 
sicians undertake  the  cure  of  the  sick,  dvrt- 
Xa/x/SaKJi/ra/  rojv  ]io6o\jvrojv,  but  all  do  not  render 
effectual  assistance  (por^Qovcsi).  But  it  is  not 
necessary  to  illustrate  the  signification  of  ^orikr^ 
by  examples  from  the  New  Testament.  'Ai/r/- 
/.a/x/Sav£(T^a/  is  always  so  used  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, as  that  it  may  be  distinguished  from 
BoTTikTv.  We  have  in  Luke  i.  54,  avrOM^iro  'ic^aj^A 
'TTuibog  uijrov.      The  author  did  not  say  s^oridn, 


8  THE  SYNONYMS 

for  God's  aid  was  granted  indeed,  but  in  vain, 
since  6  'jtcui  did  not  receive  it ;  at  all  events,  the 
result  was  at  that  time  uncertain.  In  the  same 
manner  also?  hu  avrt'ka(M^dvi6&at  tZ)v  acr^gfouvrwv  is 
employed.  Acts  xx.  35,  for  we  may  all  undertake 
the  care  of  the  sick  and  help  them,  but  we  can- 
not always  render  the  assistance  which  ^otj&sTv 
implies.  I  am  surprised  in  the  passage,  1  Tim. 
vi.  2,  that  this  signification  has  escaped  the  no- 
tice of  almost  all  interpreters,  except  Wahl, 
0/  TT^g  ihipyssiag  dvnAa/xjSavofMsvoi.  They  have 
supposed  I  know  not  what  idea  of  perceiv- 
ing, of  feeling,  and  of  enjoying,  and  they  have 
adduced  examples  of  it  very  little  to  the  pur- 
pose.'^ Even  Schleusner  himself  was  de- 
ceived by  an  inept  scholium  upon  Thucy- 
dides  VII.  66,  for  there  the  historian  means 
nothing  else  than  to  succour.  It  is  a  more 
plausible  example,  which  is  given  from  the 
Axioclius  ofj^ficliines  (1,6):  o  hi  ov-/,  ujv  ovds  rrig 
GTSp'^ffiojg  avTiXocfj^lBciHrai.  It  has  been  translated, 
he  does  not  feel ;  but  why  may  we  not  translate 
it,  he  does  not  care,  for  it  is  no  concern  of  his. 
The  passage  which  Eisner  quotes  from  the  life 
of  Pericles,  in  Plutarch,  is  foreign  to  the  pur- 
pose, for  there  the  verb  is  followed  by  an  accusa- 

P  See  Eisner.  Observ.  Sacr.  upon  this  passage,  and  Wett- 
stein. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  9 

tive.  In  another  passage  of  Porphyry  on  absti- 
nence from  animal  food,  crXs/ovwi/  ridovuv  uvriXri-^s- 
ffdai,  the  genitive  is  indeed  employed,  but  j^^ovjj  re- 
quired that  case.  For  dvnXafi^dvsg&ai  and  like 
verbs,  are  construed  with  the  genitive,  if  they 
speak  of  such  things  as  are  perceived  by  the 
mind  or  senses.  It  is  for  the  same  reason  the 
middle  voice  is  used.  Besides,  these  who  un- 
derstand the  words  rrig  ivspysffiag  d'm7.a,u.j3ai6/Mivci 
of  those  who  have  received  benefits,  whether 
they  refer  them  to  masters  or  servants,  seem 
to  pervert  the  sense  of  the  Apostle.  Masters 
cannot  indeed  be  understood  ;  for  if  the  words 
on  mcroi^  &c.  be  used  of  masters,  the  Apostle 
would  have  written  in  the  preceding  clause, 
fMccXXov  dovXiusru6av.  But  if  we  understand  ser- 
vants, it  is  foreign  to  the  purpose  to  say  that 
they  serve  Christian  masters,  more  cheerfully, 
because  they  have  received  benefits  from  them. 
For  the  true  cause  why  Christian  servants 
ought  more  willingly  to  serve  their  masters, 
ddsA(poTg,  is  because  they  themselves  are  'Triffroi 
xa}  dywTrrjToL  But  the  d.ya-~r'oi  are  the  0/  rrjc 
svs^ysffiag  dvTiXafx(3ccv6/j.svoi.  I  am  therefore  of 
opinion  that  in  this  passage  also  dvTiXaf/.^dvs- 
(s9at  should  be  understood  in  the  sense  of,  to 
have  a  care,  to  labour  diligently,  as  Wahl 
has  properly  translated  it.     The  sense  seems 


10  THE  SYNONYMS 

to  be  this  :  Let  those  who  are  compelled  to 
serve  masters  (not  Christians)  shew  them  all 
proper  respect,  (ver.  1.)  But  let  those  who 
have  Christian  masters  not  despise  them,  be- 
cause they  are  their  brethren  (equals),  nay 
let  them  indeed  attend  to  them  the  more, 
since  they  are  themselves  Christians,  and  be- 
loved by  their  masters,  forasmuch  as  they  se- 
dulously labour  for  their  benefit,  that  is,  study' 
to  deserve  well  of  their  masters.  The  sense 
will  become  more  clear  if  it  be  expressed  in  di- 
rect address.  Ye,  who  have  Christian  mas- 
ters, do  not  despise  them,  because  ye  are  their 
brethren  (it  would  be  improper  because  they 
are  your  brethren) ;  rather  serve  them  the 
more  zealously,  because  ye  are  Christians  as 
they,  and  esteemed  by  them  as  persons  who 
have  endeavoured  to  deserve  well  of  them. 
For  this  is  the  proper  signification  of  suipyiffia, 
whence  is  derived  svs^^yirsTv  to  deserve  well  of 
some  one.     Aristoph.  Plut.  V.  836. 

ivri^y'irr,(ru,  ^icfjLivovs  itnv  i^iacj; 

CVTUS  (Iiif^CliOVt 

In  the  same  manner  rr,v  'toXiv  svs^yersTv,  v.  913, 
914.  The  passage  is  one  which  deserves  the 
attentive  consideration  of  all  those  who,  in  our 
times,  wish  to  deserve  well  of  their  country.  El/ss- 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  11 

ysff/av  has  been  applied  to  servants,  in  relation  to 
their  masters,  even  by  Homer  in  his  Odyss. 
xxiii.374.  In  Thucydides,  1. 137,  Themistocles 
writes  to  the  king :  y-a.i  [mi  thz^yiGia  h:pu/.iTai, 
■/.as  vZv  'iyjjyi  cs  /xsyd/M  clyada  OPaGai  'rrdostfj^t.  There- 
fore dv-i/.a/M^dvB6^ai  svs^yzGiac,  is  to  be  very  care- 
ful that  you  deserve  well. 

'E-//.a/x/3a^s(r^a/  in  the  sense  of  assisting  some 
one,  may  seem  scarcely  to  differ  from  the  pre- 
ceding. But  if  we  consider  the  proper  signi- 
fication of  it  a  little  more  attentively,  a  differ- 
ence of  meaning  will  also  appear,  for  it  is  to 
take  hold  of,  to  seize  upon.  Both  phrases, 
Yj  y^uo  h-riXafijSdviTai  and  s-TriAajSi/v  rfi  yjiPi  are  used. 
But  s'ri'/M/j.lSdvicdai  Tivhg  (without  any  ellipse)  is 
to  lay  hold  of  some  one.  In  this  sense  it  is  fre- 
quently employed  in  the  New  Testament,  as 
in  1  Tim.  vi.  12,  19,  and  Heb.  viii.  9.  Hence 
it  is  figuratively  to  render  assistance,  by  tak- 
ing one  as  it  were  by  the  hand,  in  which  some- 
thing else  is  manifestly  implied,  than  in  air/- 
/.a/xlSdvsG&ai,  for  it  signifies  present  help  or  ser- 
vice, by  which  one  is  assisted  in  labour  or 
peril.  Thus  it  is  used  in  Keb.  ii.  16,  ou 
ydo  hri  tov  dyysXuv  l-iXa/juSd'^STUi,  d'/J.d.  (r-SPij.aroc 
'A/3paa/x.  Nor  is  Acts  ix.  27  to  be  taken  in  a 
different  sense,  BaomlSocg  d;  l'ri}.a!3o/j.ivog  av-bv 
rryccys   tpoc  rovg  aToffroXovg.      This  passage  has 


12  THE  SYNONYMS 

been  interpreted  by  many,  he  had  entertain- 
ed him  hospitably,  but  they  adduce  no  ex- 
ample of  this  signification,  nor  indeed  is 
any  to  be  found.  Besides,  it  would  have 
been  written,  Ba^i/.  ds  6  iTrtXa^ofuvog  avrhv  for 
the  article  could  not  be  wanting,  but  ciurov 
is  to  be  referred  to  nyajiv^  from  frequent  at- 
traction, s'l'iXaQofJbzvog  (auroS)  TJyayiv  avrov.  The 
sense  of  Luke  appears  to  me,  therefore,  to  be 
as  follows :  When  Paul  was  dreaded  by  the 
disciples,  so  that  he  endeavoured  in  vain  to 
associate  with  them,  Barnabas  assisted  him 
and  led  him  to  them,  er  stand  ihm  bey  undfiihr- 
te  ihn  zu  den  ubrigen.  But  I  do  not  remember 
that  sTiXafj.iSdvsffdai  is  used  in  the  sense  of  help- 
ing or  assisting  any  where  else,  yet  (rws'mXu/M- 
^dvicQai  is  often  so  used  in  Lucian,  and  even  in 
Herodotus  and  Thucydides.''  The  scholium 
upon  that  beautiful  passage  of  ^schylus, 
Pers.  V.  739,  explains  the  words,  6  "^-hg  ewd- 
■■mrai  by  6  ^sog  avrov  h'jiXaiJj^dnrai.  It  belongs  to 
later  Greek,  and  occurs  in  Ecclesiasticus  IV. 
12.  Ernesti  has  given  a  very  good  translation 
of  it  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  ii.  16.  It 
is  used  both  in  a  good  and  bad  sense,  as  the 
Lat.  vindicare. 

T  See  Herasterhuis  upon  Lucian,  1  Proineth,  p,  190. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  13 

havT/oi :  (u-rrsvavr/o;)  sy^^oor  avridiartds/ievor  dvriXsyrrj- 
rsc'  dvridi'/ior  dvrixsi/Mzvor  dvriraffgo/jjsvoi. 

So  great  is  the  number  and  diversity  of 
enemies  and  adversaries,  and  such  is  the  scarcity 
of  friends,  that  almost  all  languages  abound 
with  names  by  which  the  former  are  designat- 
ed, but  have  very  few  names  expressive  of  the 
latter.  The  Greek  language  has  only  one  ap- 
pellation for  friends,  ((p'A-og-)  but  many  for 
enemies,  of  which  those  mentioned  above  are 
found  in  the  books  of  the  New  Testament. 

'Evavr/oc,  which  signifies  properly  contrary, 
adverse,  has  the  most  extensive  signification,  but 
it  does  not  contain  in  itself  the  idea  of  hatred  or 
hostile  intention,  but  simply  denotes  a  man 
w^ho  is  not  /xsd''  -/i/muv,  with  us,  an  adversary,  an 
opponent.  In  the  New  Testament  it  is  only 
once  applied  to  men,  1  Thess.  ii.  15,  cratr/!/ 
dv&^uj-TToic  svawim^  who  oppose  all,  in  which  there 
is  the  notion  of  perversity.  But  in  Tit.  ii.  8, 
6  gf  bavrlag  has  no  signification  of  hostile  inten- 
tion. In  Coloss.  xi.  14.  Heb.x.27,  v-Trivavrlog 
also  occurs,  which  may  be  properly  rendered, 
clandestine  adversary. 

In  sy^dfog  the  idea  of  hatred  and  hostile  in- 
tention is  manifest.  There  are  some  who 
say  that  in  the  New  Testament,  ^xH'^^^  sig- 


14  THE  SYNONYMS 

nifies  wicked,  abandoned,  dishonest,  and  that 
it  specially  refers  to  those  who  are  enemies 
of  God  Qx^poi  ©solJ),  but  they  are  mistaken. 
Rom.  V.  10,  sxH^'  '^^'-^i  ^I'e  just  the  same  as 
those  who  are  called,  ver.  8,  a,«/a^rwXf/,  but  they 
do  not  signify  flagrant  sinners,  but  men  per- 
versely opposing  God,  as  the  following  words 
shew.  For  the  Apostle  says :  £%^go/  ovrsg  KarriXXd- 
yrjfMv.  But  this  '/.araXXayii  belongs  not  to  God, 
but  to  man,  as  I  have  shewn  in  another  place.  So 
also  in  Coloss.  ii.  21,  it  does  not  signify  flagrant 
transgressors,  but  men  alienated  and  adverse  in 
their  minds  to  God.  But  s^^^o/  ^soD,  is  an  ex- 
pression never  used  in  the  New  Testament,  for 
God  does  not  hate  men,  not  even  the  worst. 
Paul  has  very  truly  said,  Rom.  viii.  7,  ^^oi/jj.aa 
Trig  m^Aog  £%%«  £/;  '^sov,  which  some  very  im- 
properly interpret,  odious  to  God,  although 
Paul  also  adds  with  equal  truth,  ver.  8,  w  sv 
(Tas'/ii  hrsg  ^sui  d^'sdai  ov  dv'.avrai.  Indeed  there 
are  some  who  take  all  these  words  in  the  same 
sense,  and  do  not  doubt  but  s%^fa  s!g  ^sov  and 
iX^pa  ^2oC,  £%%o;  ihai  '^iov  and  ra  '^iui,  signify  the 
same  thing.  The  Greeks  called  a  man  hate- 
ful to  the  gods,  not  sy^C^hg  ^swi/  but  i%^^^>;  roTg 
'^ioTgJ    The  matter  is  made  very  clear  by  James 

'  Soj)l:ocl.  GEd.  I?,  v.  133G. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  15 

IV.  4,  5,  7]  (fnXia  rov  zotr/MU  S/^^fa  rov  ^;ov  sffriv.  og  a.\i 
ouv  (SovXrjdfi  (p/Xog  shai  rov  Koff/j^ou  s^^pog  rov  ^sov  xa&i- 
ararai,  that  is,  he  who  is  accustomed  to  love  the 
world,  cannot  love  God,  for  the  love  of  the 
world  is  opposed  to  the  love  of  God. 

The  w^ords  w^hich  follow,  express  the  various 
modes  in  which  an  adverse,  or  hostile  mind  is 
manifested.     And  first,  then, 

dvTid/aTi&sfism,  are  those  who  entertain  a  dif- 
ferent opinion,  and  who  ought  not  to  be  rebuked 
and  upbraided,  but,  if  they  are  in  error,  mildly 
instructed.  Therefore,  the  admonition  of  Paul 
is  just,  2  Tim.  ii.  25,  sv  -PaoTTin  '^aih-j-tv  Toug 
dwihc/.TikiLVio-jg,  This  compound  word  occurs 
only  in  this  passage,  but  the  sense  is  plain. 
Those  are  more  frequently  called  dtands/Mmi 
who  are  in  any  w^ay  affected  in  the  mind,  su, 
xazojg,  osivojg,  &c.  Therefore,  avridia-ids/xsifoi,  are 
those  who  form  a  contrary  judgment,  who  differ 
in  opinion.  Allied  to  these  are  0}  anOJiyovTig 
those  who  resist  with  words,  who  contradict, 
who  speak  against.  Acts  xiii.  45,  oc^rz/.s^ovrsg 
%a]  i3\u(}:p7iij.o\j])Tig.  In  John  xix.  12,  the  phrase 
avriX'-yu  tuj  Ka/Va^/,  contains  a  more  serious  ac- 
cusation. This  expression  of  Paul  is  softened 
by  Luther,  cler  ist  des  Kaisers  Freund  nicht^  he 
is  not  the  friend  of  Csesar.  But  those  who 
contradict  us,  are  generally  esteemed  enemies, 


16  THE  SYNONYMS 

and  seem  to  injure  us,  for  there  are  few 
who  bear  with  patience  those  who  contra- 
dict them.  But  much  more  of  the  character 
of  enemies  is  expressed  in  the  phrase  oi  avri- 
or^oi,  those  who  carry  on  a  law-suit  against 
another,  litigants,  adversaries.  Thus  Matt.  v. 
25.  Luke  xii.  58 ;  xviii.  3,  and  1  Peter  v. 
8,  didlSoXog  is  called  dvrihixoc,  as  the  accuser 
of  man  before  God,  such  at  least  was  the 
opinion  of  the  Jews.  Those  who  contend 
against  us  at  law  seem,  for  the  most  part,  to 
do  us  injury  ;  and,  therefore,  dvrldtxog  is  taken 
in  a  bad  sense. ^  But  we  may  also  cs^;  dixaiuv 
dvTidixeTv,  plead  for  our  right.^  Finally,  avr/' 
xiifAsvoi  and  dvTiTaffff6/x£]/oi  also  differ.  For  dvn- 
xiif/,im,  are  those  who  are  of  an  opposite  party, 
situated  as  it  were  on  the  opposite  side,  and 
dvTiraGgo/isvoi,  those  who  Stand  opposed,  as  it 
were,  in  battle  ;  resist  us  not  only  with  words, 
but  with  actions.  Thus  Luke  xxi.  15,  -rravreg 
0/  dvrixiiiMim  'j/j^Tv,  who  contend  against  us,  adver- 
saries. So  also  1  Cor.  xvi.  9,  those  who  block 
up  the  way  and  prevent  us  from  entering,  are 
called  uvTiy.sifiivoi  did  rr\c,  ^-joag.  And  Philipp.  i. 
28,  rrrvooiJjivoi  v-zh  toov  dvrr/.si/Ms\iojv^  they  who  are 
terrified  by  those  who  oppose  themselves.  Such 
is  also  that  unknown  avr/xs/'/xsvo;.    2  Thess.  ii.  4. 

*  Xeuoph.  Apol.  20,  25.  '  Xenoph.  Memor.  IV.  4,  8. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  17 

The  expression,  however,  in  a  more  extensive 
sense  appears  to  be  employed  to  denote  an  adver- 
sary of  any  kind,  1  Tim.  v.  14,  and  Luke  xiii.  17. 
But  dvuraGc^cff^j  seems  to  imply  something  more 
than  to  block  up  the  way  and  prevent:  dv-iraffffo- 
/Msvoi  are  those,  who,  standing  in  an  opposite  line, 
assail  and  attack.  Thus  Rom.  xiii.  2, 6  dyriraffso- 
fMsvog  rfj  s^ovaiccyis  not  only  he  who  does  not  render 
prompt  obedience  to  the  magistrate  in  all  things, 
but  injures  and  assaults  his  just  and  lawful 
authority,  and,  as  it  were,  wages  war  with 
the  magistracy.  Xenoph.  Cyrop.  III.  1,  10. 
TOA/i/  dvrirar70[jjhr,v  'Ttshg  stspoov,  ^V/c,  lirsidccv  '/jrTTi&fiy 
"TTccoa^PT^fMa  ru'jr'fi  dvr/  rou  /xd^scSoc/y  rrzldsc^ca  ^sXn* 
In  Acts  XYui.  6,  dvTiTaC)(}0/j,svojv  xa/ BXaG^irifio-JvTOJVy 
is  applied  to  those  who  resisted,  attacked,  and 
assailed  the  Apostle  by  words.  In  the  same 
manner  it  is  also  used  in  the  more  elegant 
Greek  waiters.  Nor  can  it  be  doubted  that 
dvTirdeGicdai^  is  a  Stronger  expression  than  d-jn- 
ziTady.!,  It  is  said  of  God,  James  iv.  6,  and  1 
Peter  v.  5,  according  to  the  Alexandrian  ver- 
sion, rciig  b<zi^r,(pdvoig  d'jTirdffgsrat  he  resisteth  the 
proud.  With  this  corresponds  the  Heb.  r^b'5 
he  renders  the  counsels  of  the  proud  of  none 
effect,  and  the  words,  roTg  dh  raTsmTg  didujGi 
X^'i''-',  are    properly  opposed."      The  passage, 

«  Proverbs  iii.  34. 
VOL.  II.  C 


18  THE  SYNONYMS 

James  v.  6,  xarg^/xacarg  s^ovsvffars  tov  hixaior  oux, 
dvTirdaffsrai  hfuv^  is  more  obscure.  With  re- 
gard to  it,  the  sentiments  of  interpreters  are 
much  divided,  but  I  conceive  that  dvriTdciffsrai 
ought  either  to  be  taken  passively,  in  the 
sense  of,  the  evil  which  you  have  done  is  not 
repaid  you ;  or  rather,  o  hixaiog  does  not  re- 
pay you  for  the  evil  which  you  have  done,  he 
does  not,  or  wall  not  take  revenge.  For  it  can- 
not be  doubted  that  Christ  is  6  dlxaiog,  whom 
the  Jews  slew,  therefore,  their  countrymen,  to 
whom  James  wrote,  had  good  reason  to  dread 
punishment.  The  discourse  is  rapid  and  short. 
But  it  is  certain,  that  in  these  words,  some 
consolation  is  to  be  sought ;  for  /^ajt^o^t^/^i^ <rar£ 
ovv,  is  immediately  added.  He  had  upbraid- 
ed them  severely  for  their  crimes  and  iniqui- 
tous life,   the  principal  crime  was  dixaiov  ho^iO- 

gars fiaxood-j/jy/](rars   ovv.    Every  one  sees  that, 

in  the  intervening  words,  there  ought  to  be 
reason,  why  they  should  fia-/,oodv/Ms7v,  patiently 
bear  the  present  evils,  until  the  'rrapo-jff/a  rov  xvpiou. 
But  if  vengeance  was  to  be  apprehended,  they 
could  not  have  waited  with  joy,  but  would  rather 
have  had  cause  to  dread  rrjv  rraoouciav.  There- 
fore the  fear  is  taken  away  by  these  words  ; 
0  bizaioc,  does  not  revenge  the  crime,  that  is, 
he  will  not  avenge  it,  for  in  such  expressions. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  19 

the  present  is  very  often  used  in  Greek  for 
the  future.  If  we  may  trust  manuscripts,  the 
passage  in  the  Supplices  of  Euripides,  v.  1150 
(1143),  is  very  similar. 

ag   KffTi^ov^^os  'in  9roT   uvriratrtrofiat 
ffov  (povov  ; 

Supply  rifj.ojp'/;(rMv.  Canterus  supposes  that  a^r/- 
r/Vo/^a/  is  the  just  reading.  In  this  passage,  in- 
deed, the  idea  of  vengeance  appears  from  what 
follows,  orav  t/Joi  dt'/.Tj  ca-fwo;,  but  in  James,  it 
is  inferred  from  w^hat  precedes. 

Luther  translates  d-^ps/ovg  dovXovg,  in  Luke  xvii. 
10,  unnutze  kneclite^  unprofitable  servants,  and 
in  like  manner.  Matt.  xxv.  30.  By  the  same 
word  he  expresses  ci^oriffTov,  in  Philem.  v.  11,  to 
w^hich  £j;/j'/3(rrov  is  opposed.  He  has  indeed 
rendered  them  correctly,  for  that  word  ex- 
presses both.  But  theologians,  who,  in  the 
former  passage,  interpret  slaves  to  he  of  no 
great  importance^  as  if  their  labour  and  zeal- 
had  no  value,  depart  very  far  indeed  from  the 
ture  meaning  of  the  Lord.  For  why  ?  An  ex- 
ample of  a  slave  is  given  :  who,  after  his  w^ork 
w^as  finished,  having  returned  quickly  (evdsojc) 
from  the  field  is  not  admitted  immediately  to 
supper,  but  ordered  first  of  all  to  prepare  food 
for  his  master,   and  to  serve  him  at  supper. 


20  THE  SYNONYMS 

When  the  slave  had  done  this,  Christ  says, 
his  master  .seeins  to  owe  him  no  thanks,  although 
he  did  all  things  properly  that  were  command- 
ed, ru  d/arayjhra.  So  therefore  ye  likewise 
XsysTS  on  covXoi  dy(^^sTot  Icfisv.  But  surely  he  is 
not  a  man  worthless  and  of  no  value,  who 
zealously  does  ail  ra  ha.TayfivTu..  But  if  he 
does  not  what  is  commanded,  we  rather  call 
him  o.y^iriCT(j^).  Indeed  our  Lord  gives  the  reason 
why  they  ought  to  esteem  themselves  dyodovg 
douXoug,  namely,  because  they  did  only  what  they 
ought  to  do.  But  in  what  manner,  we  con- 
tend that  he,  who  does  properly  what  he  ought, 
should  esteem  himself  a  servant  useless,  worth- 
less, and  of  no  value  ?  I  know,  indeed,  that  dy^iTog, 
is  often  interchanged  with  ciy^onffrog,  and,  there- 
fore, rendered  in  the  same  manner  by  lcxico(/ra- 
phers.  Still,  it  is  manifest,  that  in  this  place 
dyoiTog  is  not  a  man  of  no  value,  worthless, 
and  useless.  He  is  rather,  as  appears  to  me, 
properly  dy^oiTog — o5  ohz  sffri  y^'-icc,  or  rather  %f so?;, 
of  whom  there  is  no  need ;  but  ayjr,ffrog,  is  he 
whom  we  cannot  employ  properly,  because  he 
yields  no  benefit,  and  is  unprofitable  and  useless  : 
dy^oiTog  is  a  dispensable  person  (to  whom  we  owe 
nothing.)  ayor,(rrog,  unprofitable,  useless.  Paul 
says  in  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  that  Onesimus, 
alluding  to  the  meaning  of  the  word,  was  for- 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  21 

merly  ax^rierog,  but  now  he  was  i'^xDyiarog.  But 
that  servant,  Matt.  xxv.  30,  is  also  properly 
called  oi-yjzTog,  although  he  had  been  ax^^riisroc, 
TovTjfog,  xai  oy.vTjpog,  for  he  who  does  no  work  is 
not  wanted.  Doederlin,  in  his  first  Disserta- 
tion on  the  readings  of  Homer,  thinks  the 
diiFerence  between  them  to  be  this,  that  axoriarog 
is,  for  the  most  part,  used  of  things,  but  dyjsTog, 
of  living  creatures ;  many  examples,  however, 
shew  that  he  is  mistaken. 

Since  there  is  no  doubt  but  that  ayj'r\<5rog 
signifies  useless  (and  then  'rrovriohg  rather  than 
Xonarhg)^  we  shall  speak  in  this  place  only  of 
dxi^Tog.     It  is  a  compound,  as  I  have  already 
mentioned,  not  of  ;;^os/ain  the  sense  of  use,  'X^n(^'iy 
but  rather  of  %^go?  or  %^£/bc  (in  Homer  x?^'*')' 
in  which   sense  %?£'«  is    also   used.        Hence 
dx^iM,  in  its  primary   signification,  seems  to 
denote  a  thing  of  which  there  is  no  need.     It 
occurs  twice  in  Homer,  in  this  sense ;  a%?£?bv 
/5wv,     Iliad    II.    V.    269,    and    dyozm    syeXa66iv, 
Odyss.  XIII.  V.   162,  concerning  which,  see 
chiefly  Doederlin  and  Eustathius,  217,  25,  sq. 
The  Ambrosian  scholiast,    p.  498,  edited  by 
Buttm.  upon  that  passage  of  the  Odyssey,  ex- 
plains a.y-atoov^  fM'/jdsvhg  Tooxufisvov  (%fsoi;$),  ap/^J/oiSss, 
o-jos  TPoc  %^s/av  kojm(J)iLiwx,    In  both  passages  the 
scholiast  seems  to  think  that  it  signifies  what 


22  THE  SYNONYMS 

ought  not  to  have  been  done,  inasmuch  as  at 
that  time  and  place  it  ought  not  even  to  have 
been  done,  as  we  say  that,  icas  not  required^  inti- 
mating that  something  was  done  beyond  what 
was  necessary,  and  on  that  account  in  an  un- 
seasonable and  unbecoming  manner.     But  this 
explanation  of  the  word  does  not  certainly  agree 
with  the  other  passage,  where  Penelope  dyjuov 
syi},ac6i.     It  may  be  more  correctly   said,  she 
feigned  a  laugh,  her  manner  not  suiting  her 
words.     Nor  has  Eustathius  improperly  trans- 
lated it,  p.  1842,  25.     An   unknown  poet,  in 
Brunk's  collection  of  Epigrams,  III.  165,  has 
imitated  Homer.     And  Theocritus,  in  his  25  th 
Eclogue,  70,   sq.,  has  applied  it  to  dogs  : — 
rhv  di  yspovra  dy^PiTov  yCkdZ^ov  ri  mPiffffaivCv  ^'   krs^u^iv, 
where  it  is  to  bark  in  a  fawning  (that  is,  not  se- 
riously)  rather  than  in  an  angry  manner.     Al- 
though with  other  w  riters  dypuog  very  often  de- 
notes the  same  thing  as  dy^vjarog  (for  of  that  which 
is  ap/i'/joTov,  there  is  generally  ovoh  %fJ05),  yet  in 
many  passages  its  proper  signification  also  ap- 
pears, dyoemxai  'vupXs;  are  joined  together  in 
Xen.  Memor.  I.  2,  54.    In  I'hucyd.  also,  I.  84, 
rd  dy^oita  are  things  of  which  there  is  no  need, 
and  11.  6,  those  sent  out  of  the  city  with  the 
women  and  children  are  called  o/  dy^sioraroi,  the 
most  dispensable^  those  who  were  not  necessary. 


OF  TKE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  23 

In  a  word,  there  is  in  ax^^f^'og  not  only  a  negative 
idea,  of  rb  ^priffif^ov,  but  the  contrary  idea  rh 
cro^/yj^ov  is  generally  contained  in  it,  for  it  sig- 
nifies not  only  that  which  does  no  good,  but 
that  which  causes  hurt.  In  Xenoph.  Hier.  I. 
27,  ya^.'J'Og  ci^pyif^Tog,  is  not  a  useless  but  a  trouble- 
some marriage.  So  likewise  in  the  QEcon. 
VIII.  4.  But  "-Xi-^^^  contains  no  idea  of  blame 
in  itself,  it  only  denotes  a  person  or  thing  of 
which  there  is  no  need,  and  with  which  we  may 
dispense,  unnotliig,  entbehrlicli,  words,  w^hich 
of  themselves,  however,  are  rarely  mentioned 
without  disparagement.  For  human  pride  is 
even  apparent  in  this,  that  those  who  have 
hardly  performed  their  own  duty,  may  think 
that  others  cannot  want  their  assistance,  and 
therefore  demand  the  greatest  rewards  as  their 
right.  Hence  those  perpetual  complaints  of 
men,  who,  thinking  that  their  merits  are  not 
sufficiently  rewarded  in  this  life,  ask  of  God 
himself  eternal  rewards  for  their  virtue.  They 
do  not  perceive,  indeed,  that  although  men  were 
to  perform  all  the  duties  and  commands  of  God, 
they  have  no  right  to  demand  anything  more 
by  way  of  a  reward,  but  ought  to  be  satisfied 
with  the  consciousness  of  good  deeds,  because 
they  have  not  done  God  a  favour  by  acting 
virtuously.     By  discharging  their  duty,   they 


24  THE  SYN0NY3IS 

have  done,  as  it  were,  a  favour  to  themselves, 
and  therefore  cannot  require  that  God  should 
hold  himself  indebted  to  them,  or  make  a  re- 
turn as  if  he  had  received  a  benefit ;  for  he 
confers  benefits  on  men,  and  does  not  return  a 
favour.  He  therefore  has  admonished  his  friends 
to  esteem  themselves  a-/ouo-o-  bouXo-og^  not  be- 
cause they  are  useless  or  indolent  servants,  or 
are  esteemed  so  by  God,  but  because  God  owes 
them  no  favour  ;  for  the  Deity  oh  rrpocd'sirat  rmg 
(Acts  xvii.  25),  and  receives  no  benefit  from 
man  for  which  he  should  be  grateful.  Where- 
fore Christ  has  said,  ver.  9,  that  the  master 
does  not  syjiv  xV  ^'^^^  ^^t  be  grateful  to  the 
servant,  because  this  belongs  to  those  who  have 
received  a  benefit,  and  therefore  it  is  applicable 
to  man  but  not  to  God.  The  words  of  Luther 
are  ambiguous  (at  least  in  common  use),  but 
yet  they  express  the  sense  properly,  as  danken 
means  to  esteem  something  as  a  benefit,  which 
is  ix-'"  YyA^''^'  The  master  would  be  most  unjust, 
that  regards  the  servant,  who  has  diligently 
performed  his  duty,  as  a  useless  servant,  and 
thus  not  of  any  value  (which  pride,  although 
it  may  be  found  in  the  masters  of  tins  earth, 
certainly  agrees  not  with  the  character  of 
God).  But  still  he  justly  demands  these  duties 
as  his  right,  and  deservedly  punishes  the  ser- 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  25 

vant,  unless  -ro/s?  ra  bta.TayJhra,  he  does  what  is 
commanded.  It  notwithstanding  becomes  the 
servant,  althout^h  he  has  done  what  was  plea- 
sant to  his  master,  not  to  regard  it  as  a  benefit 
but  as  a  debt.  Nor  is  the  master  unjust,  be- 
cause non  h/si  p^as/v,  7.  e.  he  does  not  regard  it 
as  a  favour,  although  he  does  not  consider  his 
servant  d^^sTov,  that  is,  a  man  who  cannot  de- 
mand a  reward,  because  he  did  only  what  he 
ought,  for  God  ou  yosiav  'i'^u  rmg,  has  no  need 
of  any  one,  nor  Ss^a-rausra/,  is  he  served  by  men. 
But  this  moderation  is  rare  among  men,  and 
on  that  account  //>s/A'v]y//a,o/2/a  is  so  much  the 
more  frequent. 

John  xxi.  15,  17,  jSoffxs  rd  do/ia  iJ.ou.  It  is  not 
by  chance  that  i^os^srj  is  here  used,  while 
'TtoiiJ.rxijziv  is  found  in  other  places.  For  in 
^offy.siv  there  is  only  the  idea  of  feeding  or 
nourishing  (whence  a  flock  (3offx,o,(ji.hn,  feeding.) 
But  ~oi/Mair,iv  is  not  only  to  feed,  but  also  to  lead, 
to  watch,  to  manage  a  flock.  Luther  has  pro- 
perly translated  the  above  words,  iceide  meine 
Idmmer,  feed  my  lambs.  The  Lord  himself  i^ 
6  d^yj'xoiixriv,  the  chief  shepherd,  1  Pet.  v.  4. 
I'jut  the  care  of  the  flock  upon  this  earth  was 
to  be  committed  to  the  Apostles  ;  therefore  he 
immediately  adds :  To//xa/v£  rcc  i-polSard  fj^ov.  Hence 
it  is  very  often  used  of  those  who  preside  over 


26  THE  SYNONYMS 

the  church,  as  for  example  in  Acts  xx.  28.  1 
Pet.  V.  2.  The  idea  of  feeding  is  not,  however, 
excluded  as  in  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  ver.  12, 
.kavrovg  rrot/j.amvrsg.  This  figure  is  very  ancient. 
The  expression  'Troi/Mvsg  Xauv  frequently  occurs 
in  Homer.  H.  Stephen  has  already  remarked, 
that  ^schylus  has  called  kings  rrot/^d^ooac.  It 
is  found  in  the  tragedy  of  Pers.  v.  239.  The 
same  author  has  applied  -oi/MavoPiov,  to  a  flock 
of  men,  or  rather  an  army,  Pers.  v.  73.  But 
both  of  the  words,  if  we  consider  their  origin, 
seem  to  be  indeed  derived  from  feeding;  there 
is,  however,  ground  for  a  distinction.  For  in 
the  word  /3&w,  from  which  comes  /SoVxw,  the  uni- 
versal idea  of  nourishing  is  contained,  for  which 
reason  it  is  also  applied  to  men,  but  -rri/^aa/i/g/v 
is  properly  to  feed  on  grass  ("o/a),  which  is 
suitable  to  flocks,  nor  is  it  ever  found  properly 
said  of  men.  But  croZ/x^^j  and  c7o//>tv/ov  are  very 
fitly  applied  to  man  in  a  figurative  sense,  as 
flock  among  us.  Lucian  II.  Amor.  457,  ap- 
plies it  to  grave  and  supercilious  philosophers : 
as/xvu)v  ovoiMciruv  zo/X'^ev/j/affj  rovg  d/Mahlg  •Troi/jLaivsruffav. 
The  same  author,  III.  adv.  Indoct.  3,  p.  112, 
calls  the  worshippers  of  the  muses '^oz/xv/a.  But 
it  is  not  necessary  to  say  more. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  27 


CHAPTER  XII. 

[E  schedis  nieis  pauca  passim  adscripsi,  quae  adfu- 
turum  usum,  si  licuisset,  notaveram.  Ferant  ea 
viri  eruditi.  Quae  uncis  inclusa  sunt,  ea  proprie 
quidem  non  esse  synonyma  videntur,  sed  tamen 
quia  aut  certis  locis  de  eadem  re  dicuntur,  aut 
vulgo  prorsus  non  differre  plurimis  visa  sunt  (ut 
composita  et  simplicia)  et  tamen  ejusdem  rei  no- 
tionem  diversam  indicant,  non  praetermittenda 
duxi.  De  formulis  synonymis  alio  loco  dicere, 
si  deus  dederit,  animus  est.]* 

est  irritum  reddere,  a7.'oo(Zv  auctoritate  privare, 

xaraoyirj  vim  adimere. 
at/su)'  ho^dZ^Cf)' fjjzyaX'ov'j).     a/%£w  laudo.     ^o^a^w  cele- 

bro.     iLiya/Jov(ii  virtutes  alicujus  extollo.     Recte 

Lutherus  Luc.  i.  46. 
a'ioiv)  {aijja^r'iav)  (phuv.     Illud  est,  e  medio  tollere 

peccatum  cum  malis  ex  eo  oriundis,  hoc  est  ipsas 

poenas  suscipere  et  perferre. 

^  It  has  been  thought  advisable  to  leave  the  brief  Latin 
observations,  on  this  unfinished  portion  of  his  work,  exactly 
as  the  Author  left  them,  as  a  translation  might,  in  many  in- 
stances, have  rather  obscui-ed  than  elucidated  his  meaning. 


28  THE  synony:us 

aKS'/jjvoiJjar  evr^sirofJi^ccr  alg^itv/i'  evrpo'Trri'   alhujc.  Thuc. 

I.  84.     aihojg  ffM(p^0(rvv7^g  TXiTsrov  /Mrsy^n,   ai<ryrjr^g 

8s  7]   su-^u^/a.       Male  h.  1.    intellexisse   videtur 

Schol. 
(axoXoL'^sw*  s^a-/,oXov%Cfj.)     Postferius  tantum  in   se- 

cunda  ep.  Petri  legitur.  Est  usque  sequi,  sectari. 

Proprie  non  est  synonymum, 
a///;'^j^5*  uX'^'^ivog.     Non  videntur  synonyma,  sed  ta- 

men  distinguenda  sunt.     Nam   dXyj^/tg  in  N.  T. 

sensu  movali  tantum  dieitur :  ^so;  dXr,^7ig.     loh. 

iii.  33.      Sed  cc7.ri'^mjg  est,  qui  non  tantum  nomen 

iiabet  et  speciem,  sed  veram  naturam  et  indolem, 

quae  nomini  conveniat.  loh.  i.  19.     (pojg  uXi^^mv. 

vi.  12.     a^rov  dXr^ivov.  xvii.  3.      rov  y^wav  a/,Yi^m\i 

^sof.     Oceurrit  tantum  apud  lohannem  et  in  ep. 

ad  Hebraeos. 
uj't.ag'  iT'cooc.     lUud  denotat   alium,   nulla   diversi- 

tatis,   nisi   numeri,   ratione.      'irsoog  non  tantum 

alium  sed  etiam  diversum  indicat.     aWoc,  'ItjCovc 
,  — sVsgov  svwyysXio'^  2  Cor.  xi.  4,  sq. 
c/'/xa'  6/xoL/.     Utrumque  societatem  denotat ;  sed  aaa 

temporis  potissimum,  o/JjoZ  loci  et  modi.     Confun- 

ditur  ay.a  cum  o/jlov.      Rom.  iii.  12. 
ai/aysvvad^a/'  dvaxa,ivo\j6^ar   dvavsovc^ai  (civc/j'^iv  yi^- 

r/j^^va/).     Sensu  morali  de  eadem  re  dicuntur. 
d^ja.7,i^aJ>.oXt\>'  d':Tcy,aTa\7M7Tiiv.    ad  Eph.  i.  10,  et  Col. 

i.  20. 
d'jr/jMyia-  ii'iToo'j.  ad  Rom.  xii.  3,  6.      Permutantur 

h.  1.  sed  non  idem  significant. 
a,'jdiivY^(iig'   iTTOiJjvririig  (ava  —  ■j7:ofjjfMvr;(f/.iiv).    Differunt 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMI.NT.  29 

ut  nostra :    Andenken  et  Erinnerung.      iJ^^r,!xr,' 

w^rarTOOioCvaA'  di/TwroboGi;'  szb'r/.r,6ic'  iy.or/.iT,.  Ilia  iu- 
utramque  partem  dicuntur,  haec  ultionem  deno- 
tant.     Rom.  xi.  35;  xii.  19.     Hebr.  x.  30. 

duTidiari^sfxsvor  di/rOJyovTBg'  u,yri7aa66ixi\/0i'  d.vTiz-i;!,:- 
vor  dv-'ibfAo;'  ha'jrlor  -o-zvavriot.  a.'^Tihia-i^i;jA)/Ot,  qui 
contrariam  mentem  habeiit,  avr/As/o'/rj;,  qui  con- 
tra loquuntur,  d.v7i-a.mLiJ.t^(ji^  qui  contrarias  partes 
sequuntur,  d'^rixuihivoi^  qui  contra  moliuntur,  aWt- 
ciyjjt,  qui  lite  (injusta)  contendunt  c.  al.,  obtrecta- 
tores.  Widersacher.  (6  oiuSoXog.  1  Petr.  v.  8) 
havTioi  hi  omnes  sunt,  Gegner,  adversarii  (j'^i- 
i/avrki  clandestini  ?  certe  convenit  locis  Colosi--.  ii. 
14.     Hebr.  x.  27.) 

ct-gp/sr  dozzT.  ad  Marc.  xiv.  41,  drrsy^ir  t^a^sv  r^  oiy^a 
—  s/s/^sffSs,  ayufj^vj,  d'Tti'/ji.  Satis  est,  quod  prae- 
teriit :  do^yM^  suffieit,  quod  adest. 

d-iihiia-  dTTiorla,  illud  ad  animum  refertur,  hoc  ad 
mentem. 

d'TTozoivo/j.ar  Ovr6?^.a/A/5ai/c///.a;.  Luc.  x.  30.  Illud  est 
simpliciter,  respondere,  hoc  est,  excipere  sermo- 
nem  alterius,  ut  contradicas. 

cioa,'  cvii'  roivvv.  Recte  Hoogeven.  p.  1002.  aocx.  est 
illativum,  oxiv  conclusivum,  ci^a  argumentatur,  cvv 
accommodat.  rolyjv  ab  utroque  difFert ;  conjungit 
enim  id  quod  tumc  fiat  aut  fieri  debeat,  quoniam 
aliud  quid  factum  est. 

«fX^*  b-jvuf/^ig'  l^ovGioi.  cvva,'j.ig  vim  aUquid  efficiendi 


30  THE  SYNONYMS 

denotat,  s'^ovffla  potestatem,  a^y^^n  imperium,quod 
exercet,  qui  illis  utitur.  zvpiorric. 

doy^rr/oc'  alriog.  Comparanda  sunt,  quatenus  in  N. 
T.  de  Christo  auctore  et  causa  salutis  dicuntur. 
Hebr.  ii.  10;  v.  9. 

dy^piTog'  ciy^^Ttiiroi;.  (^duoj^iXyjc.)  dy^oitoc,  est,  cujus  nulla 
est  necessitas,  ou  o\)%  sgrt  yji'cc.  uy^rjcrrog  est,  qui 
non  solum  nuUam  utilitatem  praebet,  sed  etiam 
damnum  affert.  dy^sToi  dovXoi  non  sunt  inutiles, 
mali,  sed  tales,  quibus,  peracto  officio,  non  amplius 
opus  liabet  dominus,  ut  praemium  postulare  non 
possint,  quia  tantum  quod  debebant,  fecerunt. 

(iSaouG^ar  ^a^'jvzc^ai.)  De  discrimiue  liorum  ver- 
borum  vid.  Gataker.  ad  Marc.  Ant.  p.  254. 

/3a5o$*  oy/ioc.  (3doog  ipsam  gravitatem  denotat,  etsae- 
pissime  sine  molestiae  notione  dicitur  1  Thess. 
ii.  7.  2  Cor.  iv.  17.  Sed  oy/.og  est  [Sd^og,  quod 
molestum  est,  impedit  etc.     Semel  Hebr.  xii.  1. 

iSiog-  'i^MTj.  [Slog  est  vita,  quam  vivimus,  "C^ur,,  qua  vi- 
vimus.     Hinc  ^w/^  a/ojvtog,  non  /S/or,  in  N.  T. 

/Socxe/r  rroi[j.ahitv.  Hoc  in  universum  est,  curam 
gregis  habere,  ducere  gregem ;  sed  /S&Vxs/i/,  pa- 
scere,  nutrire.  Recte  loh.  xxi.  15,  \7.  iSocy.i  zd 
'TT^olSard  {u>ov.   Christus  est  6  rroi/xrjv. 

(/3psD/xa*  (3^ajff/g)  difFerunt,  ut  nostra  Spcise  et  Essen, 
ydy^  o\j  /S^w/xa,  1  Cor.  iii.  2.  (S^oj/xara,  1  'i'ini. 
iv.  3.     /Spwff/g  y.cci  Toffic,  Rom.  xiv.  17. 

yivvav  riy.rsiv.  rUniv  in  N.  T.  semper  de  mare  tan- 
tum dicitur,  sed  y-vvav  bis  etiam  de  f'euiinis  Luc. 
i.  1.3.     Gal.  iv.  24.  ' 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  31 

ywi'LYi'  (SouXyj'  doyfj.a,.     'y]/u),'j.rjV  didovai^  1  Cor.  vii.   25. 

2  Cor.  viii.  10,  6v/j.(3ovAs-jiiv. 
y^riyooeuj'  v7]:poj'  uyovr^so).     Con  v.  quod  non  dormire 
denotant.     Sed  7^-/570^4/1/  est,  interdiu  non  dormire, 
ayovrrvsTt/,  noctu,  vrifsiv,  vigilare,  wachsam  seyn. 
ym'  {yM^-)  ^attb.  i.  20.     Luc.  ii.  5,  24. 
diTrvov  aoiffTOv  hoyj].    De  prioribus  vide  Athenaeum, 
i.  9,  10.     In  V.  boyji  nulla  est  notatio   temporis, 
sed  notio  excipiendi  con  vivas.      Gastmahl. 
dsiffidai/j^ovia-  svXd[3ita.     Act.  xxv.  19;  xvii.  22.     In 

N.  T.  semper  sensu  bono  dicitur. 
dtadidovar  diao-daai.     Luc.  xi.  22.     Matth.  xii.  29. 
hhaGxaX^a'  didoi-^yj.     didaffxccAia  est,  quam  quis  acci- 

pit,  hihayji'>  quae  traditur. 
bisrdZziy  d'7oosT(j'^ar  (s^avrops/tr^a/)  dubium  animum 
denotant.  ^/ora^s/,  qui  dubitat,   e  pluribus  quid 
sequatur,  sentiat  etc.  d'zo^iT-ai,  qui  nescit  omnino 
quid  faciat. 
bi-^vyog'  diXoyog-  divrXooc.     Incertum  horainis,  inge- 
nium  denotant.     Fallunt  hi  tres  cranes  ;  diXoyog 
dictis,  hi-TtXoog  moribus  quoque,  vultu,  factis   etc. 
hi-^\)yj>g,  quoniam  ipse  non  constat  sibi,  sed  mutat 
sententiam.     lac.  i.  8  ;  iv.  8. 
hoXog'  d-d-'/i.    doXog  dolum  denotat,  quam  quis  struit 
alteri,  d-Trdrrj  fraudera,  qua  alter  decipitur.      Ver- 
fiihrung. 
boioidv  rfj  XH''^''     ^^f^ccv  respondet  nostro  umsonst. 
dovvai,  Xa/j!.j3dvsiv,  dc/j^zdv  est,  ita  dare,  vel  accipere, 
ut  nihil  referas,  nulla  praegressa  causa  dandi  vel 
accipiendi.     Hinc  d(/j^idv  d-z-s^oivi  non  est,  frustra. 


32  THE  SYNONYMS 

temere,  sine  efFectu,  sed  sine  justa  causa.    Gal.  ii. 

21.     Nam  si  bid.  toZ  vofMo-j  ri  dr/iaioGur/i,  nulla  erat 

causa  moriendi. 
sItcyj'  [MaTTi'j.     Usurpantur  proiniscue.     Nam  qui  iiTtr, 

agit,  is  plerumque  ijArri^^  agit.     Illud  proprie  est 

temere^  ho cfrus Ira. 
shi^y^r./xar  ziG'Tro^i-jo/jMi.     Proprie  difFerunt  ut  nostra 

hereinkommen  et  hinemyelien. 
h.dcroTv  'zdvTfjT-.     Illud  tantum   dc  tempore   (6/a- 

-a^vTog)  veteres  dixerunt.     Seriores  cravrors  et  de 

loco.     Vide  Thorn.  Mag.  Moerid.  et  Phrynichum. 
IxiT^ir  hnxj^iv.     Mattli.  iv.  2L     crPo/3a;  h/.u&iv.    Act 

XX.  13.     i'/.c7kv  (^'OCA.ovng  a.va/Mfx^cL'jiiM.  (non  est 

ihi  h.  1.)  Matth.  xvii.  20  ;  xviii.  36,  h  /3a(y/Xi/cfc  y\ 

'i(XTi  ojx  sVr/v  bjri\)hiv.  vid.  varr.  Lect. '  Luc.  xvi.  26. 
skkKum'  s'/.'/.o-ttoj.     Rom.  xi.  17,  19,  sq. 
sr.%o/x/^w  sxfs^oj.     Illud  de  funere,  semel   Luc.  vii. 

12.    Hoc  latius  patet. 
i-/./.sy-G^ar  s^aiPih:     In  illo  imperat  notio  optandi  e 

pluribus  (unde  in  medio)  :  hoc   habet  iiotionem 

separandi. 
£-/.7yAvijjsvor  ioU,a,iJ,vjoi^  ad  Matth.  ix.   36,   (vid.  V^arr. 

Lectt.)   Lutherus  :    languidi    et   dispersi.      Imo 

bioluti,  vagantes  et  dispersi. 
{ly-ihoi'  cr^org/i/w.)  Act.  xxii.  25.     cpoers/vsi/  al)7(i\>  ro/g 

/aac;    non    est,  caedendum  tradidit,   sed  vinctis 

inanibus  protendi  jussit  ad  caedcndum.    'i/xa;  non 

est  lorum  s.  flagellum,  quo  caeditnr.  conf.  v.  29. 
iKfolSog- bfJi>(po^og'  hr^o/xog.    Hebr.  xii.  21.     sV/Ja/x/Soi. 
(sAcyJ/s*  iZ-'-y'/J'^-)  2  Petr.  ii.  16.     Hebr.  xi.  1. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  33 

hdixog'  dUaiog.    lllud  est,  gesetzlich,  lege  constitutus, 

legitimus,  hdixog  x^ifftg,  lege  promerita. 
svdvofxur  TSDijSdXXofia/.     Quamqiiam  promiscue   di- 

citur  in  N.  T.  ivd-osc^ai  et  'jn^i^aXKiG^ai   ifiuTtov, 

tamen  difFerentiam    ostendunt  loci  ubi  hdvic^ai 

tropice  dicitur.  Luc.  xxiv.  49,  etc. 
Ivsdpa'  s'7n(3ouXyi.     Utrumque  tantum  in  Actis  ;  sensu 

malo,  quamquam  posterius  fMsaov  est. 
hioysw  iTTirsXiOj.     Philipp.  ii.  13.     Eph.  i.   11,  no- 

tanda  vis  propria  v.  svspysTv  praesertim  propter 

formulam  svs^yiTv  h  rivi. 
b'syjM'  svsd^svM'  Wzyja.     Postreraum  levissimum  est ; 

hzyu^  rivi  est,  observare  occasionem  alteri  nocen- 

di,  ivsd^svs/]^  insidias  ipsas  struere.    • 
hi(Syjj(ti'  svduvafiooj'  (^S'TTig^voj.     Luc.  xxiii.  5.)  v.  iff^Cg 

et  bbvaixtg.   hi6yjjii\)  est,  vires    reddere,   reficere, 

restituere,  lvbuva[i,oZv  vim  dare.     Luc.  xxii.  43. 

Philipp.  iv.  13. 
tvvoia'  h'^v/xTjffig.    Hebr.  iv.  12.    lUud  mentis  est,  hoc 

animi. 
sV-raA/xa'  svroXyj-  smrayfi'  hrsXAo/j^ar  s'Trirdffffoj.      Auf- 

trag.  Befehl.  Gesetz, — Anordnmig, — commission. 

command,  law. — order, 
hnu^tg'  sv^a^iGria  ad  1  Tim.  iv.  5. 
s^aXii^oj   v.   d'^irsu.       Coloss.  ii.    14,    conf.  Eurip. 

Iphig.  Aul.  V.  1486. 
JJaT/va*  i|a/pr/i$'  f^wjT^g.    s^d-:riva,  repenfe,  (non  ex- 
spectato)  proprie,  s^a-Trivi^g,  sgarr/j/a/wr,  vid.  Thorn. 
Mag.  s^ai(pvrjg,  subito,  improviso.  eg  avr^g  statim 
post,  illico. 

VOL.  II.  D 


34  THE  SYNONYMS 

(ijaro^gw  d<7ro§su.)     2  Cor.  i.  8 ;  iv.  8,   ccxo^oxjfiim, 

«/.>.'   OX)'/.  S^a'70P0V/M]>0l. 

sfafr/^w  rsXs/ow  'zX'/jpooj'  (zaraPT/^w.)     2   Tim.  iii. 

17.     Act.  xxi.  5. 
s^sXzw  diXsd^oj.     lac.  i.  14.     Egregie  Lutherus. 
s^s^svmoj  V.    l/cj>jr£w.     1    Petr.   i.    10,  ijs^si/va,   qui 

vestigia  quaedam  sequitur  rei  quam  quaerit,  stc- 

(!^rirs7;  qui  quaerit  nee  cessat  quaerendo. 
(i-^ayysXXw  s^ayysXAOj'  biayy'O.Xoi.)    icrayy^A/a,  k'z- 

dyyi\[j.a'   respondent  nostris;  ankiindigen,  ver- 

kundigeUi — to  publish^  make  known. 
s'rdv  sirsibdr  s<rsr  I'Trstoyj.     I'TTitbri'KZ^  vid.  Hermann, 

ad   Viger.  p.  784,  sq.     J'Ts/   propriam  significa- 

tionem  habet  etiam  Rom.  iii.  6.     Hebr.  x.  2. 
(f'Trai'a'ra'Jo/xa/*  d\>a'7:a{joiMat.)     Rom.  ii.  17. 
J-tz/Sasctw  s'TriG'/A'T'rofj.ai.     lllud  studium,  hoc  operam 

designat. 
sTtysiog'  ^o'/xog.     smyuog  est,  qui  in  terra  est,  fit, 

nascitur  etc.     hiriyuog  o/V./a   roD  CKrj\/ovg.     2    Cor. 

V.  1.     6o^ia  s'jriysiog.     lac.  iii.  3.     x^'iyCag^   qui  ex 

terra  est.     1  Cor.  xv.  47.     Ille  terrester^  hie  ter- 

renus. 
(sTiori/Mw   s7.briiJ.iOi'  d'xobri/jbsoj.)      Posteriora  signifi- 
cant, abesse  a  patria,  prius  est,  in  peregrina  terra 

iiabitare. 
(It/^jjtsw  v.  sx^'/iTsw.)     sT/^'/^Ts/i/  studium  rei  indicat. 

Et  potissimum  flagitare,  postulare. 
s'zi'^^amriog'   *)i/y/Toc.       Ille   est  morti   proximus   (ad 

mortem  jam  damnatus),  1  Cor.  iv.  9.     ':^vriT0Cy  na- 

tura  sua  mortalis. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  35 

Im'kaiJ.^avofLar  (Sori^sM.  Act.  ix.  27.  S'7riXa(3ofji.ivog 
non  est  hospitio  excipere,  de  quo  nusquam  dici- 
tur,  sed  :  curam  ejus  habuit,  ut  nos  dieimus :  sich 
eines  Fremden  annehmen^     Hebr.  ii,  16,  17. 

h'Tricraij.ar  oJdcc  Intelligo  (novi  Act.  xix.  15.)  —  scio. 
Marc.  xiv.  68,  ovk  o7da,  oudi  l-Tr/Vra/xa/. 

s'TnGTOfj^t^w  (pi/jt^oM.  Hoc  est,  efficere,  ne  quis  ore  sue 
utatur  ;  illud  est,  efficere,  ut  nolit  loqui. 

i'TTirwy^dvu.  Xwy^dvoi},  d'7ro'kafx(3dvcfj.  DifFerunt  ut 
nostra :  erkalteti,  hekommen^  empfangen^  —  to 
get,  obtain,  receive,  Rom.  xi.  7.  o  iTcit^fiTu — 
o'ox  Wzrxjyiv.  Act.  i.  17.  'iXay^z  rov  xXrj^ov.  Luc. 
xvi.  25.     d'TTsXa^sg  rd  dya^d  gov. 

'^yoij^ai-  iJTtCfj.  s^^ofjjdi  venio,  tixw,  veni,  adsum. 
Recte  Lutherus  Marc.  viii.  3,  /j^ccxoo^iv  tj-aovGi, 
sind  von  feme  gekommen,  —  have  come  from  afar. 
Conf.  Luc.  XV.  27.  loh.  viii.  42.  s7i  to\j  SsoD 
iJJjX^ov  Ttai  ri%M,  non,  natus  vel  missus,  sed  adsum. 
Hebr.  x.  7,  9.  (ex  Psalmo  xl.  7,  Hebr.  ^DK^i) 
eodem  modo  vertendum  erat. 

zhhoTiicc'  dyd'TT'/j.     Phil.  i.  15,  17. 

s-j^gwg*  £i/S-JS*  st,avT7^g'  ray(iug  vid.  i^d-rivcc.  sU^vg  et 
s-j'^scag  sunt  nostrum :  gleich,  sogleich,  statim,  nulla 
mora,  rayjug  fit,  quod  fit  brevissimo  tempore, 
schnell. 

(guXoy/cc*  ihya^KSTia.^      1  Cor.  x.  16. 

sxjvoiM.     Matth.  V.  25.     s'Trizixrig. 

iU'Tsi'^Tig'  s'Trnr/iyig.  lac.  iii.  17,  vide  ibi  Lutherum. 
Wettstenii  exempla  probant,  rorrsi'^rig  nusquam 
significare  aliud  quid  quam  obsequiosum. 


36  THE  SYNONYMS 

sv^v^uDog'  'TrXarvg.     Matth.  vii.  13,  weit  und  breit, — 

far  and  wide. 
roGYiiMi'  <pano6g.     1  Cor.  xiv.  9. 
sudTrXay^^vog'  •/pidTog.     Eph.  iv.  32.     1  Petr.  iii.  8. 
ih6yj]ix,(j)y'  vjyaoi(S7og.  decorus — acceptus  et  gratus 

ob  morum  castitatem.     Coloss.  iii.  15. 
ihTgairCk'ia;    (MOi^oKoyia.       Eph.   iv.    5.      cudyotikoyioL. 

Col.  iii.  8.     siir^acrsX/a  est  nugax  dicacitas,  ,awco- 

'koyia  fatua,    aic-x^ooXoyia   obscoena.      Lex.    Gr. 

Aug.  §61. 
fW5*  [Miyroi'  V.  a%g/.    sw;  finem  s.  terminum  indicat, 

sed  comprehendit  hunc  ipsum  terminum.     Vide 

de  loco  Matth.  i.  25.     Vulgari  explicationi  obstat, 

quae  praecedit,  negatio,  quae  non  est  negligenda. 
^0^05*  GxoToc.     Differre  videntur  ut  nostra  Dunkel- 

heit  et  Finsterniss.     Zji^og  ro\J  ^-/.oToug.     2  Petr. 

ii.  13. 
y^uoyovsw  ^woTo/sw.     Act.  vii.    19.     Luc.  xvii.  33. 

In  priori  loco  Z^uioyomG^at  est  vivura  conservari. 

In  posteriori,  si  lectio  sana  est,  conservare  vitam. 

Sed  ^woTo/:-?i'  est  vivum  reddere. 
yjXixog'   crrXr/.og'   O'-^oTog.     Priora   proprie   quantitatis 

notitiam  inferunt,   postremum  qualitatis.     rroffoc, 

ToTbg,  'rroTcC'Tog. 
'.)avuT6oj'  U'^ozTiivoj-  viZPooj.     ^avuTOj^sig — ^ucroir^sig. 

vi'A^ovv  est  pp.  reddere  vckdov,  i.  e.  cadaver,  viribus 

omnibus  privatum.     ('TrroJ/MCi.)     Vivum   cadaver, 

i/£/CPOj  ro/'g  r:aoa-Tu)/Maffi. 
'^av,adff/og'    ^av/xaffrog.       Proprie   ''•)au,<idaiog  est,   in 

quo  est  aliquid,  quod  possimus  admirari,  '^uv/xa- 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  37 

GTo:^  quern  admiramur.     wunderlich  w  ^avfxdffis ! 

wimderbar — Permutari  tamen  solent. 
%mr'/ig' ^ioTYii,    Rom.  i.  20.    Coloss.ii.  9.      Gottlich- 

heit —  Gottheit, — Divinity —  Godhead. 
^g^aTS'jw  }do[j.at.  difFerunt  ut  nostra  helfen  et  heilen. 

^ioairzbzG^at  d<7ro  tmv  da^svstojv.  idc^ai  rovg  dc^svouv- 

rac. 
^Ai^sG^ar  %a%o-oyji'6%ai.     Hebr.  xi.  37. 
^Xi-^ti'  6rsvoyjjosia'  G'jvoyri  zaedJag.     Rom.  ii.  9.     2 

Cor.  ii.  4. 
^vy}r6g'  vzn^og.     Sv/jm  aojiMctra.     Rom.  viii,  4.     Col. 

vi.  1 2.     Nusquam  %jrirog  est  idem  quod  vizoog. 
"^{joa'  'TT-jXr,.     Nusquam  in  N.  T.  permutantur,  neque 

Actorum  iii.  10,  vid.  Hebr.  xiii.  12. 
'/'ds'  idov.     Vid.  ad  Lucian.  Soloec.  iii.  p.  572.     et 

Thom.  Mag.  lacobi  iii.  3,  4,  3. 
'Jdiog-  oiKsTog.     1  Tim.  v.  8,  vid.  ad  Act.  iv.  23  ;  xxiv. 

23. 
(/e^ars/a-   /s^arsii/xa.)      Illud  functionem  sacerdotis 

denotat ;  hoc  sacerdotium  in  abstracto,  i.  e.  indo- 

lem,  dignitatem  eorum,  qui  sacerdotio  funguntur. 

Priesteramt,  Priesterthum.     1  Petr.  ii.  3,  9. 
(^Kcc^aPiff/jjog-  -Ad^aPiJja.)     Ilia  est  actio  purgationis, 

hoc  est,  quo  purgatur,  piamentum.     1  Cor.  iv.  1 3. 

vid.  Phavorinus. 
(xa^>3/xa/'   /caS/^w.)     DifFerunt  ut  nostra  sitzen  et 

setzen.     ;tcc^/^g/i/  semper  transitive  dicitur.     Luc. 

xxii.  30,  etc.  Mattb.  xxv.  31. 
xa^icTYiiJjr  Tia^lffra/xar  y/vofioii  ad  Rom.  v.   19,  conf. 

lac.  iii.  6  ;  iv.  4. 


38  THE  SYNONYMS 

xa/V  'xv^ou.  Illud  est  nostrum  hrennen  active,  hoc 
neutraliter. 

/Lokxi'Tmiv'  Ttob'TrTiiv  (/taraxaXucrrg/f.)  Non  confun- 
denda  sunt.  2  Cor.  iv.  3.  Luc.  xviii.  34.  Hinc 
a<7roxaX-j<:rTsiv  est  revelare,  d-Troyt^v-Trrs/v  abscondere. 
Vis  praepositionis  eadem  est,  sed  verborum  diversa 
notio.  Nam  xaXv-Trniv  est,  rem,  quae  in  conspectu 
est,  tegere,  ut  conspici  non  possit,  xgucrrs/v,  e  con- 
spectu earn  subducere.  ■/.ocra'/.aXv'TrTSG^ai,  non 
xarax^v'Trrsff^ai  dicitur  1  Cor.  xi.  6,  7,  recte.  Male 
Hesych.     xaraxaXv'Trruv'  xaraytphrtruv. 

xaoirhv  (pzptr  (hih6vai^%ce,D'7ro(poD27v'  xup'ttov  rtotih.  Utrum- 
que  Graeci  elegantiores  dixerunt,  sed  diverse 
sensu.  x-aoTTov  (p'ioztv  est,  fructus  ferre.  loh.  xv. 
16.  Sed  xa^Tov  touTv  est,  proferre,  gignere  fruc- 
tus. Hinc  Ceres  apud  Euripidem  Rheso  v.  964. 
xa^'TTOToiog  non  xaocro!p6^og  appellatur,  gignit  enim 
fructus,  non  fert.  Aristotel.  de  Plant.  I.  4,  et  c.  7. 
r/vw!/  fMsv  01  xa^'TToi  'j'oiovgi  ydXa,.  Itaque  elegantis- 
sime  Matth.  iii.  8.  <7roirj<faTs  xa^rrov  u^iov  ri^g  fisra- 
voiac.  conf.  vii.  17,  sqq.  Aristot.  de  plant,  ii.  9. 

xaTocxsi/jyar  (^xsT/xar  dvdxsi/Mar)  xaraxXlvo[x>ai.  Illud 
et  de  convivis  dicitur,  et  de  aegrotis  ;  hoc  tantum 
de  convivis,  qui  consederunt  {Iv  xX/vrj,  sed  recte 
xocTaxAi'^pg  sJg  rriv  rrPOjroxXiffiav,  sick  auf  den  ersten 
Platz  seizen)  ad  cibum  capiendum. 

(xardx^ifMa'  xardxoicig.)     Rom.  viii.  1.    2  Cor.  iii.  9. 

xrjL7(x(Lav^dv(jy  xaTuvoiiti.  Illud  semel  Matth.  vi.  28, 
conf.  Luc.  xii.  24,  27.     DifFerunt  tamen,  Act.  vii. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  39 

31.     lacob.  i.  23,  24.     Rom.  iv.  19,  conf.  Alex. 

Hiob.  XXXV.  5. 
zarccva^xdoj' xaralSaPiM.     2  Cor.  xi.  8,  9;  xii.    13, 

14,  16.    Hieronymus  xarai^apxai;  Cilicura  esse  ait. 

vid.  Wetsten.  Tom.  II.  p.  206. 
;iara(rx£'ja^&j*  to/sw.     ad  Hebr.  iii.  2,  3. 
('/.araro/M'^'  Ti^trofMy].^     ad  Philipp.  iii.   2.     In  con- 

temtum  Apost.     rj^v  <rrsoirofjjriv  tojv  'lovdaiuv  vocat 

zaraTOfX'^jv,  quasi  mutilationem. 
(;>tara^/X£w  (piXsu.)  Praepositio  rion  abundat.  Matth. 

xxvi.  48,  49.     Marc.  xiv.  44,   45.     Discrimine 

observato,   quis  non  magis  etiam   sentiat  ludae 

perfidiam  ? 
xars^oKC/a^w  zarazu^isvu.     Matth.  xx.  23.     Marc. 

X.  42.      Illud  de  iraperio,  hoc  de  potestate  et 

auctoritate  intelligendum.      o/   aP'^ovTsg  -Aara'/.v- 

('/.arsy^oj'  £%w.)  2  Cor.  vii.  30.  Quaeratur  de  locis, 
ubi  vulgo  dicunt,  '^arsynv  esse  impedire,  v.  c. 
Rom.  i.  18.  Mihi  sensus  esse  videtur  :  qui  pos- 
sidebant  rriv  dXrj^iav  cum  iraprobitate,  i.  e.  ha- 
buere  veram  cognitionem,  et  tamen  improbe  vixe- 
runt,  ut  xoLi^Biv  sv  '^Xi-\\^si,  'rXoursTv  h  irma  et  similia. 
Certe  sententiae  Pauli  melius  convenit  haec  in- 
terpretatio. 

'/.aTYiykoi'  didd&Tioj.  Differunt  ut  nostra :  unterrich- 
ten  et  lehren.  Tertio,  quo  nos  utimur,  unterweisen, 
Lutherus  expressit  v.  so(piGai.  2  Tim.  iii.  15.  Xoyoi 
6iGo<pt6iJjhoi.     2  Petr.  i.  16,  non  sunt  fraude  et 


40  THE  SYNONYMS 

astutia  excogitati,  sed  qui  ab  aliis  traditi  sunt.  opp. 

yM.TO'TrT^iZpix.ar  opciu.  2  Cor.  iii.  18.  semel.  xaToif- 
Toil^iG^ai  neque  est  clare  cognoscere,  neque  ex 
parte,  sed  quasi  in  speculo  considerare  aliquid  et 
ooav,  conspicere.  Artemidor.ii.  7.  xaro-rr^/^sa^a/ 
xa/  b^^v  TTiv  sauTov  slxom.  In  gloria  domini  re- 
tecta  (v.  13.)nostrara  do^av  conspicimus  tamquam 
in  speculo,   et   rriv   avrriv   zlxova  /xo^^pov/j^i^a    d'rrb 


do^rjg 


s/g  doPav. 


(xai/p^Tj/xa*  y.avy(^rj6ig.)  der  Ruhniy  das  Ruhrnen — hoasU 
boasting. 

xsi^tar  o^ovia.  Utrumque  vulgo  male  interpretan- 
tur  ifascias,  ut  ff-ra^yavouv,  Luc.  ii.  7,  12,  involvere 
fasciis.  Ksi^iai  pp.  de  fasciis,  quibus  mortuorum 
pedes  manusque  constringebantur,  o^ovia  sunt 
lintea  quibus,  totum  corpus  involvebetur.  ff'ja^- 
ydva,  et  (f-rot^yavouv  tantuni  de  recens  natis.  xsi^/at 
sunt  rd  svrd(piu  dsff/jjd.  (quamquam  etiam  crs^/ 
■Akivojv)  non  tantum  ex  o^ovioig  facta.  Etym.  M. 
p.  508,  12,  le  Moyne  ad  Var.  Sacr.  p.  298,  sqq. 

xiipaG^ar  ^vpdc^^au  1  Cor.  xi.  6,  sq.  differunt.  vid. 
Dresig,  de  verb,  med.v.  ^vpuo^^ai.  Lex.  August.  §  36. 

xgi/og*  fj^draiog'  xivug-  /xaraioog.  differunt  ut  inanis  et 
vanus.  1  Cor.  xv.  14,  17. 

y.ivoipmia.  (LarciioXoyia.  Utrumque  tantum  in  Epp. 
ad  Tim.  1.  vi.  20;  2  ii.  16  ;   1  i.  6. 

x£voai*  xaragygw.     Rom.  iv.  14,  v.  a^27£?v. 

xX»jgow  Xdyyjivw  7uy')(dv(a.  Lex.  Graec-  August. 
§  46.     Vid.  supra  sTtT'oKyJivu}. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  41 

nXivTi'  TLod^^arog.  Act.  v.  15,  vid.  Phrynich.  Thorn. 
Mag.  et  Pollux  Lib.  x.  cap.  7,  s.  35. 

Ttomc'  dza^aPTog.  de  cibis  utrumque  Act.  x.  14. 
vid.  Marc.  vii.  2. 

xoXXolSiiTTrig'  T^acrs^/V^g.  Recte  posterius  positum 
est  Matth.  xxv.  27,  nam  de  foenore  sermo  est : 
sed  illud  suo  loco  legitur  ibid.  xxi.  12.  Marc. 
xi.  15.  loh.  ii.  15,  differre  eodem  niodo  viden- 
tur  Romanorum  nummularius  et  mensarius. 

xhitog'  ijAy^og-  'jrovog,  ]  Thess.  ii.  9.  2  Cor.  xi.  27. 
2  Thess.  iii.  8.     Tto'xog  et  iJ^oy^og  junguntur. 

xofffMS(/j'  zaraffxsvd^oj.     Matth.  xxv.  7. 

■kpT/xcc'  x^i(fig.  vide  loh.  ix.  39. 

zrdo/Mai'  'iyu.  In  N.  T.  x.rda'^ai  semper  habet  pro- 
priam  significationem,  acquirendi  (lucrandi)  et 
possidendi,  etiam  Act.  i.  8,  et  Luc.  xxi.  19.  h 
rfj  •JTOfj.or/j  vfJvUjv  %ry]6iG^i  rag  -^-jyag  v/j^uv. 

(/iCfj(p6g'  dXaXog.  (xw^og  /xoyiXdXog.  Marc.  vii.  32) 
Marc.  ix.  25.  rb  t^su/JjO,  dXaXov  %«/  7ioj(p6v.  XM<pbg 
neque  in  N.  T.  denotat  mutum,  sed  surdum.) 

Xoyifffjjog-  v6ri,fMa.  2  Cor.  x.  4,  5.  Xoyia/j.og  ratioci- 
natio  est,  s.  judicium  (mentis  operatio)  sed  v6ri/j.a, 
est  sententia  hominis,  qui  aliquid  decernit.  (xaxa 
vosTv  rr/i)  Sic  i/o'/^/xa  semper  apud  Homerum.  Recte 
vo'^l^a  opp.  rf]  v--rcc-/.ofi  toZ  X^igtov.  Erat  Apostolis 
dimicandum  contra  judicia  perversa  hominum,  et 
vanam  superbiam  sapientiae  humanae,  et  contra 
lubidinem  propria  sententia,  suo  arbitrio  vivendi. 
Xoyiff'MOvg,  j-vj^w/xa  za^aiPouvTsg,  zai  alyf/MAMril^oV' 


42  THE  SYNONYMS 

ng  <xav  vo?j/xa  s/g  rriv  l)'7raxor,v  tov  Xo.  ut  non  suo 
arbitrio,  sed  Christi  vivant  subject!  imperio. 

/M'TTov  jUbsKkov.  rh  y.oiirhv  xa^gj^grs.  Matth.  xxvi. 
45.  Marc.  xiv.  41.  ug  ro  fjt>sXXov.  Luc.  xiii.  9, 
quod  superest,  restat,  —  postea.  to  Xoi'ttov  facere 
aliquid,  est,  facere  usque  ad  finein,  pergere  facere. 
iJg  TO  fjLsXXov  est  postea,  in  posterum.  rb  Xoimv 
■/.a^sudirs ;  (interrogative)  num  pergitis  dormire  ? 
schlaft  ihr  noch  immer?  Aristophan.  Eccles.  v. 
555,  557. 

}.ovoj'  vhroj.  loh.  xiii.  10.  Differunt  ut  nostra :  ba- 
den  et  waschen.  Ergo  vhrsG^ai  de  quaque  parte 
corporis  dicitur,  non  tantum  de  pedibus  mani- 
busve  ;  Xo'jGaG^ai  de  toto  corpore.  Act.  ix.  37. 
col.  Homer.  II.  w.  v.  582. 

X-jw  Xurgow.  h-juv  est  solvere,  liberare  aliquem,  Xu- 
T^ouv  est  facere  (dare)  aliquid  ut  alter  liberetur. 
Tit.  ii.  14.     1  Petr.  i.  18. 

'j,a/.aziu'  voffog,     Mattli.  iv.  23,  Wh  est  a egritudo,  hie 


fjbaXXov  'TrKiTov.  /mua.Xov  est  magis,  potius  ;  Matth. 
X.  6.     Marc.  vii.  36  ;  x.  48,  irXiTov  est  plus. 

fhiXiraoi'  [Mzoiixvdo}'  (poovriZ^c/u  (fMsXii  /xoi.)  ip^ovri^si, 
qui  alicui  rei  prospicit  ut  recte  fiat,  fMs^i/Mvd,  qui 
dum  curat,  dubitat,  veritus  ne  frustracuret ;  fxsKn 
itoi^  euro,  rationem  habeo,  [jjiXzruM,  operam  do, 
ut  aliquid  facere  postea  possim.  Marc.  xiii.  11. 
[MT]  rr^o/Moif./.vaTs  /x?j6=  //sXgrarg.  Luc.  xxi.  14,  f/,ri 
TPOfMXirav, 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  43 

luCToi'  TX^yjC'  ysfMOJV.  fxsffrog,  refertus,  quum  de 
horainibus  dicitur  pr.  in  deteriorem  partem  sural 
videtur,  'zXyjorig  in  meliorem  ponitur.  Sed  in  N. 
T.  illud  etiara  in  bonam  partem  dicitur.  Rom. 
XV.  14.  lacob.  iii.  17,  vid  Hemsterhus.  ad  Len- 
nep.  V.  /Ascrog.  ys/Mn,  qui  ita  crX'/^^^jg  est,  utsuper- 
fluat. 

/asm*  6-jv.  /jbsTcc  comitatum  denotat,  gvv  conjunctio- 
nem  et  unionem.  Quamquam  dicitur  :  /mctcI  rmg 
et  Gvv  Tivt  ihai,  [Mzra  tiHi'  vo/xwv  et  6-jv  7o7g  voiiotg, 
etc.  tamen  differunt.  DifFerentiam  docet  usus  in 
corapositis.  /jtsra/^a/x/Savs/v,  (juXhafx^dvuVy  (jjiTsy^siv, 
ffvvs'^nv.  all.  Dicitur  <ruv  ^sw,  non  item  eodem 
sensu,  ^sra  ^soD.  Nam  quod  afFertur  e  Platone 
/Mra  '^SMV  /SaC/Xsa  ffTTjffao^s,  Ep.  viii.  p.  355,  fin. 
id  non  est,  adjuvantibus  diis,  sed  potius  e  senten- 
tia  deorum,  i.  e.  quem  ipsi  dii  regem  fieri  volunt. 
Sic  apud  Xenoph.  Oecon.  XI.  20.  I^Im/xsvov  ug  l-i 
TO  'TTCAv  6i>v  roTg  %oTg.  Si  scriptum  esset,  fMsra  r, 
^swv,  sensus  esset :  una  cum  diis.  Convenit  for- 
mula 6VV  ^sui  s/^^&srai,  apud  Aristoph.  et  illud 
Herodoti  i.  86.  cag  o'l  s'/ri  ffvv  ^soD  iior,;j/svo\i.  Vid. 
Valckenar.  ad  Herodot.  III.  153.  Xenoph.  Cyrop. 
VIII.  6,  6,  ( 1 2.)  h[jjag  bi  —  6uy  aya^oTg  roTg  fii^' 
vfiMVj  sfiol  ffvfM/Jbd^ovg  sivai.  Act.  xiv.  27,  oca 
s'XOtrjGsv  6  ^zbg /J,ST  avTiov.  v.  12.  di'  avrcov.  opp. 
avsv  Tivog.  vid.  Abresch.  ad  Thuycd.  I.  128.  Dilu- 
cidat.  130. 

ixsraXccfilSdvsiv  v.  s'Ttrvy^avsiv  (a'TroXa/j^iSuvsiv.)  est 
percipere,  participem  fieri. 


44  THE  SYNONYMS 

IJjiTavozTv'  I'TTiST^Z'^zc^ar  [xsravoia'  l7rigr^o(prj.  Com- 
parentur  de  vitae  mentisque  emendatione. 

IMzra'xsfjj'TToiJMr  ijjiTay.cu.soj.  Utrumque  in  Actis  tan- 
tum  legitur.  vii.  14.  arroaTZiXag  ii,zrz'/.a7^z(SaT0.  xx. 
17.  cg/A-vl^ag  iLZTV/i.  X.  5,  32  ;  xxiv.  24,  25,  26. 
Ibi  non  temere  permutantur. 

/A/a/Vw  fMoXvvoj.  (cc/Xsw.)  Tit.  i.  13.  1  Cor.  viii.  7. 
fj^iaivsiv  est  nostrum  verunreinigen,  fj^oXvvsiv  besck- 
mutzen^  airiXoZv  beflecken.  fMiahsiv  pr.  est  colore 
alieno  tingere  s.  inficere  (Iliad.  d\  v.  141.)  deinde 
contaminare,  integritate  nativa  privare  (violare 
Virgil.  Aen.  XIl.  v.  67.)  unde  jSiog  Tta^cc^og  xai 
aitiiavTog,  ya^og  d/xiccvrog,  apud  Plutarch,  et  Pau- 
lum.  fjLoXvvsiv  est  sordibus  conspurcare,  sordes 
contrahere  e  luto  etc.  &-TXog  pr.  maculam  denotat, 
unde  (Tc/Xoui'  potissimum  de  vestibus  dicitur  quae 
maculantur.  Recte  2  Petr.  ii.  10.  s-Tn^ufMiu 
fMiccfffiou,  sed  2  Cor.  vii.  1.     /jboXve/Mou  ffaoxog. 

tLvud'  fJ^^iniJ^ri'  (J^viia.  est  Erinnerung^  Andenken^  re- 
cordatio.  /ai^j^/x^  Geddchtniss,  memoria,  v.  dva/nvr,- 
ffig.  vid.  Thorn.  Mag.  v.  (mvt^'JjYi,  Valckenaer.  ad 
Ammon.  p.  95.    Lex.  Graec.  August.  §  5.^) 

fMyig'  ijjokig.  [j.6yig  interpretatur  Thomas  Mag.  fxtra 
^iag,  fioXig  durl  rou  (S^adsug.  Vide  ibi  VV.  Was- 
sium  ad  Thuycd.  I.  12,  et  Hemsterhus.  ad  Lu- 
cian.  Tom.  I.  p.  86.  Dorvill.  ad  Charit.  L.  III. 
C.9. 

*  Quod  edidit  e  Cod.  Au^stano  Hermamms  noster  post 
Libr.  de  emendand.  graec.  gramm.  rations,  p.  319,  sq. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  45 

[ui')(jxo!Jjai'  (jjOiyz-jM.  Thomas  M.  iM(ji-)(aTat  6  av/;^, 
fioi^svsrai  r]  yvr/j.  Non  semper  observatur  hoc 
discrimen  in  N.  T. 

!J^oo;pr,'  6yjiij,u.  Phil.  ii.  6,  7.  C-/r\n.ci(,  latius  patet 
{[Mop^uaig.     Gal.  iv.  19.     Rom.  ii.  20.) 

vaog'  h^ov.  In  N.  T.  semper  observatur  discrimen 
hh.  vv.,  ut  hso'J  sit,  totus  locus  sacer,  cum  omnibus 
atriis,  conclavibus,  areis  etc.,  sed  vah<;  ipsa  tantum 
aedes  sacra,  in  duas  partes  divisa,  (per  rh  -/Mra- 
Tsrao/xa  rov  vaoZ,  Matth.  xxvii.  51.)  ay/ov  (yah) 
et  udvrov.  In  priori  sedebat  synedrium,  Matth. 
xxvii.  8,  banc  ingressus  est  Zacharias  Luc.  i.  9. 
Sed  tota  aedes  haec  sacra  intelligenda  Matth. 
xxvii.  51.  Marc.  xv.  38.  Luc.  xxiii.  45.  De 
adyto  non  dicitur  mog  in  N.  T.  Recte  Matth. 
xxiii.  35.  Zacharias  necatus  dicitur  [jjtra'^u  roZ 
vaov  -/tai  rou  '^u(}iaffTyj^iov.  Nam  ^uGiadrrj^iov  erat 
ante  rh  vaov,  Iv  6-a*3ow.  loseph.  A.  I.  VIII.  3,  3. 
Contra  rc^ov  nunquam  tov  vccov  aut  adytum  denotat. 
Loci,  quos  Schleusnerus  attulit,  id  ipsum  demon- 
strant.  Eodem  modo  losephus  semper  mov  et 
'n^hv  distinxit.  Insignis  est  locus  Ant.  lud.  XI.  4, 
3,  ubi  Samaritanis  petentibus  negatur  avy'/cara- 
O'AvoaGai  rhv  vaov,  sed  perraittitur  d(pr/,vovfJijSvotg  sig 
TO  hpov  (TSjSsiv  rov  '^sov. 

vo/MiC^oj'  o7ofjLar  v--:ro7,ccfji(3dvc>j.  vo/JjiI^u  arbitror,  puto, 
censeo.  (de  sententia  animi,  vo/jjog)  olo/j.ai  credo, 
opinor,  existimo.  v--7roAafjyj3dvu,  suspicor.  (ple- 
rumque  de  mala  suspicione.) 

vocf/^w  x/J-rw.     Illud  est  pr.  nostrum  unterschla- 


46  THE  SYNONYMS 

gen,  partem  rerum  redden darum  IbioironTv.  Act. 
V.  2,  3.     Tit.  ii.  10. 

vixrra^w  Tia^su^w.  Matth.  xxv.  15.  vosraZiiv  statum 
dormientium  potissimum  denotat ;  hinc  ad  ani- 
mum  translatum  (opp.  rp  ir](pnv.)  est,  segnem 
tardum,  socordem  esse.  2  Petr.  ii.  3.  Aristoph. 
Avib.  V.  639. 

^ivi^ofMar  ^a'j/xa^w.  Recte  Lutherus.  1  Petr.  iv. 
12.  /JjYi  Jsw^gff^s  —  lasset  euch  —  nicht  hefrem- 
den^ — think  it  not  strange,  item  v.  4.  Non  est 
i.  q.  ^ay^a^w.  Qui  gsi/Z^sra/,  ^ay.aa^g/  quidem, 
sed  wg  ^sfoy  rmg  ahroj  fiu/x(3alvovToc. 

gsvoc-  '/.amg.  vide  supra  zamg.  In  v.  Bfoc,  non 
novi  notio  imperat,  sed  peregrini,  quod  aliunde 
venit,  neque  ad  nos  pertinet.     1  Petr.  iv.  12. 

^si/os*  dy.XoT^iog'  rra^s'Tridrifj.og.     Hebr.  xi.  13. 

ohibct)'  obomoDSCf)'  odoi'TTOPia'  odog.  Conveniunt  in  eo, 
quod  dicuntur  de  itinere,  quod  fit  per  terram. 
Sed  odiUiv  latius  patere  videtur  ;  dicitur  enim  de 
quocunque  itinere  terrestri,  sive  pedibus  sive  cum 
equo,  fiat,  oooiitops/v  autem  de  pedestri  tantum 
itinere  dictum  videtur.  Herodian.  VII.  3,9.  ode-jsiv 
curru.     Sed  tamen  idem  V.  4,  13.     bhoi'xoPii'v. 

odup/Mog-  70.a\j~^ixog.  Matth.  ii.  18.  lamentatio  — 
fletus. 

o/'/isTog'  'ibiog.  1  Tim.  v.  8.  u  6i  rig  ruv  /oluv  >.ui 
IxdVjGTa  TCuv  o/Ziiojv  oh  'ttpovosT.  (o/;c/axoc.)  Christus 
ijg  TU  'lOia  ?5>J}£,  xal  o'l  )bioi  oh  '7raosXa(3ov  ahrov.  Non 
scribi  potuit  o/  oIxsTot.  sed  Christiani  sunt  oIxsToi  rov 
%ov.     Eph.  ii.  19. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  47 

otov  b'j)^ar6r  ohv  hrij  fieri  licet  (ob  qualitatem)  bv 
mrov  IffTi,  fieri  potest  (ob  quantitatem.) 

oTcvriPoc'  apyog.  aoylc  est,  qui  nihil  facit,  oxv/j^os  qui 
tarda  facit,  piger,  quem  piget  laboris,^^/  —  ver~ 
drossen. 

byjyog'  iM-Aooc.  Illud  et  de  magnitudine  dicitur,  ///- 
■/Sog  potissimum  de  quantitate. 

OA0X/.7J305*  rsAs/oj*  (j'/.oTc'/Sjg.  6Ao%?.7jcog  est  integer  suis 
partibus.  1  Tliess.  v.  23.  riXnog  est  perfectus, 
absolutus  omnibus  nuineris,  Jacob,  i.  4.  oXoTuJig 
est  omni  ex  parte  perfectus,  ut  'Trviu/jyO,  xa/  55  -^vy^r, 
■/Ml  TO  Goj/xa  dfMS/xrrroog  r^j^'/j^s/yj.      1  Thess.  v.  23. 

o}.og'  crag.  oXog  est,  cui  ad  quantitatem  nihil  deest, 
Trag  numeri  plenitudinem  denotat. 

o/wOic"  rrdvTOjg-  iig  to  'jravrfKic.  oXwg  est  prorsus,  'rdv- 
TC/jg  omnino,  s/'j  to  TmTSAsg  plane,  ut  nihil  desit. 
Luc.  xiii.  11.  Hebr.  vii.  25.  Posteriori  loco 
etiam  futuri  temporis  notitiam  habet.  cravr^s^ic 
rrdyTMg  jungitur  ap.  Aesch.     Sept.  c.  Theb.  v.  118. 

o^a/3|o$*  bsTog'  ^^oyj],  (Apoc.  xi.  6.  ha  [j^r^  (^i,^yji 
liTog.)  imber,  pluvia,  nimbus. 

hlho'i'^iiiat:  oiwioTTtg-  {jjij.oloj(jig.)  Male  dicunt  haec  tria 
idem  significare.  oij^oioTr^g  est  ipsa  similitudo,  die 
Aehnlichkeity  4<^o/w(r/j  imago,  ad  quam  aliquid  con- 
formatur,  biJjoioi[j.a  ipsum  simulacrum. 

hiibog'  aiGyJjvri.  huhog  est,  quod  ab  aliis  tibi  expro- 
bratur.  Luc.  i.  25.  aiayjjvn  (aJayog)  cujus  te 
ipsum  pudere  oportet.  Schmaeh  und  Schande. 
Sterilitas  omhog  erat  inter  ludaeos. 

hT(f)g'  d'ATj^uig,     ovrug  dicitur,   quum  quid  omnino 


48  THE  SYNONYMS 

esse  cogitamus.     uXtj^u);,  quum  tale  esse  agnosci- 
mus,  quale  esse   cogitatur.     Matth.  xi.  32.     6V/ 
hrug  '7:^o(pr,TY^g  ^v,  revera  est  propheta.    Luc.  xxiii. 
47.     ovTMi  6  civ'^^oj-rog  olrog   dixaiog  rjv,  hie  homo 
revera  erat  Justus.     Sed  loh.  i.   48.     7os   aXri^oog 
'lffDari}jTi^g,   en  verum   Israelitam.      Si  scriptum 
esset  ovrojg  'Iffo.  inepta  sententia  prodiret ;  da  ist 
wirklich  ein  Israelii,    Xenoph.  Hist.   Gr.   III.  4, 
17  ;  iv.  8,  4.     oi/rwg  refertur  ad  verbum,  aXy^o^g 
ad  objectum.     (Vide  de  usitatiori  ru)  oVr/.)     Lu- 
cian.  III.  Dial.  mer.  XI.  310,  fin.     ak7\^Zig  ffvv- 
ufjLsv.     Euripid.     Ale.  v.  805.     6  (3iog  dXn^uig  oh 
jSiog,     Iph.  Aul.  V.  1622.     'i^n  ovTOjg  sv  ^soTg  ofii- 
X/'av.     Ion.  V.  223. 
oj6r  Ta%uc.     ogi)$  est  pp.  qui  aptus  est  (acutus), 
ut  brevi  tempore  aliquo  penetret,  {po6(iog  oji);  ein 
scharfer  Lauf.)  rayjjg^  qui  celeriter  aliquo  tendit. 
Illud  motum  indicat  {schnell)  hoc  tempus  {gesch- 
wind.) 
o'jrr]-  GTrriXaiov.     Hebr.  xi.  38.     caverna  —  spelunca. 
vid.  Valckenaer.  ad  Lennep.  Etymol.  L.  Gr.  p. 
912. 
o'Torg*  on.     Non  idem  significant.     o~6rs  respondet 
nostris  :  damals  als^  wenn  einmol,  oVs  simplici  uls 
et  wenn.     Luc.  vi.  3.     l~oir}(rs  Aa[3id,  OTors    icrs/- 
vacg,  fecit  tunc  quum  esurire.     Si  scriptum  esset, 
oVs  I'TTihaas,  incertum   esset  an  non   saepius  hoc 
fecerit  sed  fecit  semel  tantum.     Contra  Matth. 
xxi.  34.     ore  rjyyiffiv  6  xai^bg  ruv  xag'Twi/,  uTSffniXi 
Tovg  dovXougy  scribi  non  poterat  o-on  viyyiffiv^  i.  e. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  49 

quutn  aliquando  adesset   etc.     Manifestum   est 
discrimem  in  loco  Homeri  Iliad,  o.  v.  230.     Hfi 

ATifMvuj  7csvsa'j')(ssg  yiyo^uac^s.  vid.  Hoogeveen.  de 

Part.  p.  827.     Hermann,  ad  Viger.  p.  916. 
(ooxw/o-oc/a*  o^-/.og.)     o^xw,a&(y/a  est   solemnis  affirma- 

tio  s.  promissio,   quae  fit  o^^w.     Recte  ponitur 

Hebr.  vii.  20,  21,  28.     Non  est  idem  quod  of/,og. 
o\j'  o\j')(l  et  reliqua  v.  /xtj. 
xxpsiXsryjg'  p^o£wp£/Xgr>jg.     Illud  latius  patet.     Rom.  i. 

14;  viii.  12.    Gal.  v.  3,  etc. 
<)-\j^//xo$*  o-vlz/oc.     vespertinus,  serus.     o-^idg  yivo[Mvrig 

—  bsrog  o-^ifMog. 
'TTccibayoiyog*  Taidsuri^g.     Non  in  v.  Taibayc/jyog  inest 

notio  durioris  disciplinae,  (1   Cor.  iv.   15.     Gal. 

iii.  24,  25),    sed   potius   in  v.   rraihiurrig.     Hebr. 

xii.  9. 
'Ttakaiog'  do-^a7og.     'raXailg  est,  qui  dudum  fuit,  vetus. 

aoyjxiog^  qui  ab  initio  fuit,  priscus,  antiquus. 
TaXa/o'w  aY.\)om.     Hebr.  viii.  13. 
rra^diSaffig'  ':raoa,-/.orj.     Hebr.  ii.  2.      Rom.  iv.  15. 
■ra^cczaXsCfj'  '7:cc^afj,-j%o/j,ai  (^■Trrxor^yo^ia).      1    Thess.  ii 

11.     Coloss.iv.il. 
'Xa^oc'/i'jTrTOij'  s/M[3X£'7ru.     Luc.  xxiv.   12.     loh.   xx.   5. 

1 1.     lacob.  i.  25.     Vix  synonyma  haberi  possent, 

nfsi  plerumque  illud  jungeretur  cum   actione  vi- 

dendi.      Sed  proprie  ei   non  inest  notio  visus. 

loh.  viii.  6.     Neque  inest  ellipsis. 
^apdXiog'  'xaPcc^aXuffffiog.     Matth.  iv.   13.     Luc.  vi. 

17,  ita  difFerre  videntur,  ut  craedXiog  oppo!]atur 

tSj  [MZ(ioyu'^,  et  dicatur  de  regionibus  raaritimis, 

VOL.  II.  E 


50  THE  SYNONYMS 

sed  'rrccoa^aXdasiog  de  iis  quae  sunt  in  litore  ma- 
rls, urbibus,  hominibus  etc.  Thuycd.  I.  3.  ruv 
(SupISupoov  01  b  Tj'TTsiPUj  iTaoa^akdccnoi,  conf.  II.  56. 

-aoa6'A.i-jdZ^M'  iro/,aa^w.  Utrumque  parare  denotat : 
sed  g-o/,aa^£/y  est  parare  aliquid,  ut  adsit,  cra^a- 
(?xgya^g/i/,  ut  aptum  sit. 

'rraoauri/ta'  'jtaoay^oriiJ.a.  'Trapavrixa  fit,  quod  in  prae  • 
senti  fit.     Polyb.  II.  33.     'z-aoavrr/.a  /x?i/  s/Mimv, 

fMTcc  ds  ravra 2  Cor.  iv.  17.  rb  'rraoavrlxa  7r\i 

liX/'-vpsw;.  Thucyd.  II.  64;  IV.  54.  ro  rrapuv- 
•r/xa  za/  to  i-eira.  Ta^a^^-^aa  fit,  quod  statim  fit, 
quum  aliud  quid  factum  est.  Matth.  xxii.  60,  etc. 
Thuycd.  I.  22.  sg  to  racap/s/j/xa  dzovstv.  II.  17, 
conf.  Polyb.  III.  31. 

c:apa(psPo/j.ar  -rg^/^soo/xa/.  Hebr.  xiii.  9.  Ditferunt 
sane,  /tin  und  her  —  herum  treiben.  Sic  nos  quo- 
que  de  nubibus,  Ep.  lud.  v.  12. 

■■xaoiP'/oiJjar  <:Ta^arTOPs{jo/xai.  vid.  sp^o/xai.  Proprie 
dicitur,  Matth.  viii.  28. 

■rdosffi;'  d(psffic.  Illud  uno  tantum  loco,  Rom.  iii. 
25,  in  rehquis  a(peffi;.  Scite  Alberti  in  Glossario 
p.  97,  observavit,  Apostolum  studio  hoc  tantum 
loco  adhibuis.^e  videri  vocem  T.dpiffiv,  quam  com- 
mode praetermissionem  vertas.  Errat,  qui  dicit, 
errare  eos,  qui  differentiam  statuant.  SciUcet 
longe  aliud  est,  de  quo  Ap.  h.  1.  loquitur,  quam 
quum  ci(piffiv  celebrat.  Nolo  6oy/xar/^gffSa/  in  in- 
terpretatione  ;  sed  nunquam  credam,  Apostolum, 
(|ui  semper  v.  ci^piffig  utitur,  etiam  in  ipsa  ad  Rom. 
epistola,  hoc  uno  loco  temere  rrd^sffiv  scripsisse. 
Nimirum  sententia  Ap.  haec  est :  deus    roog^gro 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  51 

iXa^rrj^iov,  ad  indulgentiam  suam  demonstrandam 
propter  s.  ob  praetermissionem  ruv  'x^oyiydvirm 
aij^a^rniMarm^  i.  e.  ut  praetermitteret,  missa  faceret 
peccata  olim,  i.  e.  sub  lege,  commissa.  Nou 
poterat  autem  locum  habere  haec  -Traosc/g,  nisi  per 
Christum :  ergo  ostendit  rj^v  diy.aio(ivv7iv  aiirov  dice 
T'^v  cagfeC/v.  Nori  scripsit  bia  T7\g  <^aosffsc>jg,  sed 
dta  TYiV  IT.  Nam  t]  'ttdooti^  dia^-^Kri  sublata  est  per 
Christum.  Hebr.  ix.  15.  Sed  de  his  alias.  In 
ejusmodi  vv.  saepe  erratum  est.  Similia  sunt, 
sed  non  idem  significant. 

ra^{jvo,u.a,r  'ttu^ov/xui.  Utrumque  metaphor,  de  men- 
tis animique  hebetudine  dicitur.  Sed  sic  differre 
videntur,  ut  Tayhn^^ai  indicet  mentem,  quae 
ipsa  tarde  se  movere  potest,  crw|ou(y^a/  animum, 
qui  quasi  callo  obductus,  rebus  aliis  parum  aut 
nihil  movetur.  'iraypg  est  tardus,  (opp.  ^uzvoc) 
'TTiiruouj/Msvog,  qui  sensu  caret,  hebes.  ■■xs-7ru)^uvTai 
o'l  cxp'^aXfjLo/.  lob.  xvii.  7,  quasi  callo  obducti. 
Hinc  Suidas.     Tw^wc/g'  rv(pXojGig. 

■rrsi^dcti'  'Tru^dZo).     'ffg/ga^s/i'  plerumque  in  malam  par- 
tem dicitur.  (etiam  Act.  xvi.  7,  de  irrito  consi-  ^ 
lio.)  'Xii^at^dijjivog  est,  qui  maiis  pressus  ad  peccan- 
dum  incitatur,   Tsi^djfMivogy   qui  jam  expertus  est 
mala,  iisque  ferendis  exercitatus. 

•rsvyig'  crruy^og.  pauper,  mendicus. 

Tsoag'  reXog.  m^ag  pp.  loci  est,  rikog  temporis. 
-igaj  avriKoyiag.  Hebr.  vi.  16.  Ad  hunc  locum 
spectat  glossa  Hesychii :  ir'i^ag  ,  .  xa/  i]  Xvffig,  nee 
debet  sollicitari. 


52  THE  SYNONYMS 

■TTsoiaioiC/j'  dcpaiosoo  {afxaoT'iag)  vid  Hebr.  x.  4,  II, 
sacrificia  non  possunt  unquam  prorsus  tollere 
peccata,  ideoque  repetenda  sunt. 

■n^ixcc^aPtjM'  TSPi'-^yj/jjU.  1  Cor.  iv.  13.  Notandum 
erat,  non  simpliciter  dici,  sed  addi  xoffjuov  et  crav- 
Twv.  De  hominibus,  qui  a  plerisque  tamquam 
pessimi  contemnuntur,  comparari  possent  nostra, 
Auswurfet  Abschaum. 

■rXsovs^iu'  (piXaoyj^'ia.  Longe  peior  est  77  rrXsovs^ici. 
Coloss.  iii.  3,  dicitur  eidojXoXarsda,  est  aviditas,  s. 
amor  sceleratus  habendi,  Selbstsucht,  verissima 
sJduXoXar^da.  Apud  Herodot.  VII.  149,  denotat 
arrogantiam,  et  Xoyog  rrXso/sKrrig  eodem  sensu 
ibid.  c.  158. 

'■TrXriv.  De  hac  part.,  quam  dicunt  vulgo  vicem  sus- 
tinere  diversissimarum  particularum,  aXXa,  ofMuc, 
apa,  fMovov,  etc.  vide  Hoogeven. 

(ToXL/.ag^wg*  'uoXvr^o'Trug.)  Hebr.  i.  J.  Recte  Lu- 
therus  :  manchmal  und  mancherley  Weise.  Glos- 
sar.  Gr.  Alberti  'jroXv/xsPcog'  dice,  rrXsioiMv  sc.  ^p6- 
vuv. 

rroXursy.yji'  croAjn/xog.      Marc.  xiv.  3.     loh.  xii.  3. 

nr^ucsoi'  'TTOisu.  DifFerunt  fere  ut  nostra  thun  et 
machen.  agere  ei  facere.  Quintil.  II.  \'6.  J.  Ter- 
tium  est  icya^gcSa/,  quod  proxime  accedere  vi- 
detur  ad  nostrum  handeln,  eo  sensu,  quo  signi- 
ficat  thdtig  seyn.  6  crarrio  /xov  sug  upti  ioydZsrui. 
Dicitur  sine  objecti  notitia,  ilia  non  possunt.  iZ 
(xaXJDg,  y.anojg  etc.)  rronTv,  TPdffffnv  (^X^iv)  certis- 
sime  differunt. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  53 

rTio6hi')(oixai'  v.  s'/Js^o/xcci.  Differunt  ut  nostra  er- 
warten  et  abwarten. 

•i:o()6%oij.ijja:  GxdvbaXov.  Rom.  xiv.  13.  t^oGKO/M/j^a  yi 
(S'/tdvbaXov.  v.  20.  o/a  '7r^o(t7i6/LL(xarog  sff'^/nv  differunt 
lit  nostra  Anstoss  et  Aergerniss.  v.  21.    'rr^^osxo'rmi 

'7p6(pastg'  a(pop/jjy].     1    Tim.   v.    14.     d(po§/.iriv  didovai. 

vid.  Valckenar.  de  Aristobul.  p.  65.     De  v.  tdo- 

(paffig  recte  Schol.  Euripid.   Hec.   v.  43,   proprie 

non  est  occasio  s.  causa.     a/V/a  est  causa,  d(po^,'xr, 

Veranlassung,  Atilass,   '7ro6(pa,6ig    Vorwand,    Ge~ 

legenheit. 
rrralw  a/xa^rai/w.     ■ttittoo.      Rom.  xi.  11.     i^ij  'i'rrroLi- 

6av  ha.  cicwc/. 
'^To'soiJjOLt'  rrrbooixat.     s/M(po(3og  ylvo/J.ai.     Luc.  xxiv.  37. 

TToriffiv  (po^ih'^a.i,  1  Petr.  iii.  6. 
TuvSai/o/xa/'  hurdoj.    Conveniunt  in  notione  scitandi, 

sed  differunt ;  nusquara  permutari  possunt.     Ne- 

que  temera  rrv^^avsG^ai  in  medio  tantum  dicitur ; 

sich  erkundigen. 
ea/S5/^w  ^acr/^w.     Hoc  latius  patet  usu.     ;coXa^/^w. 

Matth.  xxvi.  67.      Matth.  v.  39.      vid.  Henr. 

Steph.  in  Append,  de  Dial.  Att.  c.  4. 
pccbiov^yia'  doXog.      Act.  xiii.  10.  v.  cavoyoy/ct. 
ojj.aa*  Aoyog.     pi/j^a  verbum  est,   sed  Xoyog  res  ipsa, 

quae  verbis  inest,  sermo,  oratio.     Manifestum  est 

discrimen  in  usu  pluralis.     ^yjfj.arcx,  ^soD  dicuntur 

non  },6yot  r.  S. 
lo/x(paia'  ^i^og-  /judy^ai^a.     Proprie  ita  difFerre  viden- 

tur,  ut  '^l(pog  sit,  quo  punctim,  ,'j.d^aioa,  que  caesim 


54  THE  SYNONYMS 

liostis  petitur.  hoiMpciia  secundum  Hesych.  fuit 
ensis  longior  Thracicus  vid.  Eustath.  ad  Iliad.  N. 
V.  577.  In  N.  T.  ixayjuoa,  gladius,  suo  loco 
ponuntur.  /xa;/a/^ai'  (poozTv.  Rom.  xiii.  4.  (jus 
gladii)  ^/fog  non  occurrit,  sed  ejus  loco  est  ^o,a- 
(pala.  Apoc.  i.  6.  ^o/x^.  dlffro/jLog.  Luc.  ii.  35. 
rrjv  -^Myj]))  tfou  duXsvazTai  ^o/j,(pata. 

ga'ivM'  -/.oXax,ivctj.  ad  1  Thess.  iii.  3.  Gccincf^at  sv 
'^Xi-^sgi,  est,  in  calamitatibus  blanda  vitae  commo- 
dioris  spe  et  desiderio  pellici,[ut  deseras  officium. 
Nunquam  %ov(SsTa^ai  (ut  Chrysostoraus)  aut  ra- 
odma^ai  denotat.  Alieni  sunt  loci,  qui  afferun- 
tur.     Recte  Elsnerus  ad  h.  1. 

gr/do/Mur  ffiwTruoo.  vid.  Ammon.  v.  ffiojrr'/i.  eiyad&at 
est  tacere,  c/wTrav  silere.  Luc.  ix.  36.  hiyrjaccv^ 
xal  oudsvi  d'Trvjy'yuXav.  XX.  26.  Sau/xaCavrg?  soi- 
yi^gotv.  Act.  xii.  17.  xaratfs/Vas  ffr/av.  Luc.  i. 
20.  sg'fi  (JiWTTuv  zai  (MTi  dvvd/Mvog  Xakriffai.  Act. 
xviii.  9.  Xdy.u  -/.at  /xij  ffiuTrjcrig.  vid.  Valckenar. 
ad  Lennep.  Etym.  p.  883. 

(To^/a*  yvug/g-  (p^ovrjffig,  Eph.  i.  8.  Aristot.  Ethic. 
Lib.  I.  c.  ult.  Conf.  Raphel.  Ann.  Polyb. 

(TTrovdd^oj'  (S'TTsudu.  (^■■rsvdiiv  est  festinare  (de  tem- 
pore) g'TTovbdZiiv  properare  i.  e.  festinanter  et  se- 
dulo  aliquid^cere.  2  Petr.  iii.  12.  'TrDoebozojvrag 
xa/  (S'Tiiiihovrag,  i.  e.  acriter  et  avide  exspectantes, 
quod  est  festinantium.  Recte  Lutherus  Eph.  iv. 
3.  CiToubdZowig  rri^sTv  r.  svorrjra  r.  rrianojg.  Seyd 
Jieissig,  sedulo  date  operam,  conf.  2  Tim.  ii.  .5. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  55 

Iiiest  tamen  etiam  v.  a-rrovddZ^nv  notio  festinatio- 
nis  s.  potius  sedulitatis. 

anvo'^ojpso^u.ai.  ^XijSofjjai.  2  Cor.  vi.  8.  sv  'rrav-i 
^AijSufxsvoi,  a>\X  oh  Grivoyjji^oijiMivoi.  Quum  meta- 
phorice  dicuntur,  ^XZ/Sscl^a/  dicitur,  premi  (undi- 
que)  vexari  malis,  sed  (rr2vo;)/a;os/b't)a/  de  iis,  qui 
ita  in  angustiis  versantur,  ut  de  exitu  desperent. 
Egregie  Lutherus,  2  Cor.  vi.  12.  sich  dngsteii. 
Rom.  vii.  9.  ^Xi-^tg  tlci}  CTvioyjaoia^  Truhsal  imd 
Angst. 

(irsoiow  crjjo/^w  g^svooj.  Solidmn  reddere,  firmum 
sistere,  ponere  collocare  —  robustum  facere  crrr 
liZzi'i  T^ocw-oi/  ocOroD,  non  est  obfirmare  faciem, 
quod  nihili  est,  sed  firine  intendere  fticiem  ad  ali- 
quid,  sich  etwas  fest  vornehmen.  Luc.  xix.  51, 
quasi  figere  oculos  aliquo,  tamquam  in  metam. 
Apud  Themist.  Or.  XIII.     tooj   ffs    arsw^s/v   %a.\ 

Cuv/C^/vw  iy'/ioivo).      2  Cor.  x.  12. 

cui/sff^/V  (i-jiJj(pay(ti'  {cuvbu-rvlo).)  vid.  siraplicia. 

U'jvzvdoxsw  ffw^do/Mui.  In  v.  6vvriho[iai  inest  non  solum 
notio  probandi,  quae  est  in  v.  cui^su^o^Jw,  sed 
etiam  laetandi,  voiuptatem  capiendi  ex  aliqua  re. 
Paulus  probaverat  quidem  caedem  Stephani,  jus- 
tam  putaverat,  riv  Gvvivdo'/Sjv.  Act.  viii.  1,  sed  non 
dicitur  laetatus  esse  eo  facinore.  Contra  ipse 
scripsit,  Rom.  vii.  22.  cuv/ido/Mai  rui  v6/JjUi^  voiup- 
tatem ex  ea  capio  .  .  Nescio,  quibus  exemplis 
demonstrent,  in  v.  (jvjsvbozs/l/  inesse  etiam  notio- 
nem  oblectationis. 


56  THE  SYNONYMS 

ffuvisvar  vosTv.  DifFerunt  ut  nostra :  verstehn  et  mer- 
hen.  Marc.  viii.  17.  d-o'Kt/i  vosTrs  ovds  auvkn. 
Eodem  modo  difFerunt  acbvirog  et  uvo'^toc,  de  qui- 
bus  supra. 

Guvrd^GO)'  'ir^offraffffw  svrsXXofJbat.  rr^offru^ffst,  qui  rem 
ipsam  praecipit ;  Gvuraffffn  qui  etiam  modum  fa- 
ciendi  praescribit.  Nam  Matth.  i.  24.  siroiriCiv 
ug  itPoSiTa'tiv  o  ayysXoc,  sensus  est:  fecit  id  quod 
jusserat  ang.  ut  viii.  4.  -Trpoosviy'/is  to  du^ov,  o  'Tr^oa- 
gragg  Mwff^c.  Contra  xxvi.  19.  sToii^ffay  ug  (fuvs- 
ra^sv.  et  xxvii.  10.  manifesta  est  notio,  quam 
dixi.  Sed  sv-sXXsSai  est  dare  mandatum  et  po- 
testatem  aliquid  faciendi.  Matth.  xxviii.  20.  Vid. 
Hebr.  ix.  20.  Moses  scilicet  acceperat  manda- 
tum feriendi  foederis,  ota^'/j'/.rig  rjg  svBrstXaro  t^o? 
avTovg  6  %og,  quod  mandavit  deus  facere  vobis- 
cum.  Nee  putem,  temere  Apostolum  pro  v. 
dis^sTo,  quod  habent  Alex.,  et  usitatiori,  imo  so- 
lemni  in  hac  causa,  scripsisse  hsrs/Xaro. 

(c-jvrs/Mvoj'  G-jvTsXs'jj.)  Rom.  ix.  28.  Sequutus  est 
Ap.  Alexandrinos,  qui  toto  coelo  ab  hebr.  aber- 
rarunt.     Sed  Xoyov  illi  nou  dixerunt  pro  decreto. 

raXui-TTOJ^ia'  (TTBvoy^oj^iu.  vid.  (Jrsvo^c/joso/Mau  In  vv. 
ruXai-TTOj^sUj  raXai'jru^ia,  raXahu^og,  inest  potissi- 
inum  miseriae,  quae  ex  nimio  labore  [quo  frustra 
defatigamur,]  nascitur,  notio.  Recte  Rom.  vii. 
24.  raXai'TTUPog  syoj  o.  -pw-to^,  miihselig^  qui  frus- 
tra laboro. 

ru^dggw  Tu^(3d^u.  Luc.  x.  41.  vid.  Schol.  Aristoph. 
Equ.  V.  311. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  57 

TiXuQUi'  <7rXi^c6oj'  (rgXsw.)  nXnovv  est  perficere,  ut 
nihil  faciendum  restet,  sed  res,  opus,  tsahqv  sit. 
^"kri^ouv  est  complere  rem,  ut  ei  nihil  desit.  Matth. 
i.  22.  et  al.  ha  irXrjPu^fj  to  ^tj^sv,  Apud  lohan- 
nem  tantum  semel  xix.  28.  iVa  rsXnu^fi.  Vide 
formulas  rsTiXsiM/Mvoi  (sig  sV.  loh.  xvii.  23.)  crs- 
tXi^^m/msvoi,  quomodo  differant.  rsXsoijv  est  finire, 
ad  finem  et  exitum  perducere,  peragere.  Diflfert 
a  prioribus  formula  Luc.  xviii.  31.  rsXsa^TjCsrai 
Tavra  ra  yiy^a/x/j^sva  et  aliae. 

TOTTog'  %woa.  Quamquam  ro-rog  dici  potest  pro  %wpay 
tamen  %w^a  non  ponitur  pro  rovog.  Matth.  iv. 
16.  loh.  xi.  54.  To-rog  convenit  nostro  Ort^ 
X'^l^  ^st  Platz,  (  GegendS)  Posteriori  inest  notio 
spatii. 

Tsv:pd!f)'  ccraraXaw.  lacob.  v.  5.  rov(pav  potius  tnol- 
litiem  vitae  luxuriosae,  s-rctraXav  petulantiam  et 
prodigalitatem  denotat.  Corrige  Suidam :  (yra- 
ra.>//)  7]  TPv^prj.  Leg.  T^u(pr,.  Hesych.  c-ara/.a* 
yoy^ia.  2  Petr.  ii.  13.  ridovriv  riyovfjijsvoi  rr^v  h 
yi'jjioa  rD\)(p7}v.     1  Tim.  v.  6. 

v'xao'^ig'  •/.rnix.a.  Act.  ii.  45 ;  v.  1,  3,  8.  Illud 
latius  patet ;  estque  scriptorum  seriorum  :  veteres 
ra  ii'Tdp^ovra,  ut  alias  in  N.  T. 

■j-Ttdoyjji'  iiiMi.  differunt  sic,  ut  zhai  simpliciter  ease, 
brd^')(iiv  conditionem  aliquara  denotet,  qua  quis 
esse  cogitatur.     i)-7:doyiiv  sv  rm,  et  u^rdpy^et  fLoi. 

■j'razovM'  Tg/^o/xa/-  i/rsZ/cw.  Conveniunt  in  notione 
obsequii.  Sed  v-toc-aousi'j  (proprio  sensu  Act.  xii. 
13),  est  dicto  obtemperare,  gehorcheri;  crs/Ssc^ai 


58  THE  SYNONYMS 

monita  sequi,  folgen  ;  urs/xs/i/  vi  s.  auctoritati  ce- 
dere,  unterihdnig  seyn.     Hebr.  xiii.  17. 

•j<rivdvT/og'  v.  avridmog.  UTTBvdvTtog  et  evdvr/og  certe 
sic  difFerunt,  ut  illud  denotet  adversarium,  nulla 
manifestae  vis  notione,  s.  potius  contrarium. 

t/T£^£p/w  dia(psooj'  (^nvog.)  h'-ioiyjiv  est  excellere 
aliqua  re,  ha^phu^  rmg  aliquo  esse  praestantiorem. 
Philipp.  iii.  8.  ro  V'Tios-^ov  rrig  yvujffsug  Xp.  non 
est  praestantissima  cognitio  Chr.  sed  ipsa  exeel- 
lentia  cognitionis.  Haec  excellentia  causa  est, 
cur  omnium  bonorum  reliquorum  jacturam  facien- 
dam  esse  putet. 

■j<z6dyjfji.a'  ffavddXwv.  Vulgo  dicunt  in  N.  T.  promis- 
cue  dici  de  eadem  re.  Sed  dicant  illi,  cur  bis 
tantum  Marc.  vi.  9.  Act.  xii.  8.  ffavddXioi,  tri- 
buantur  iter  facientibus,  v'rodrjfj.ara  nusquam.  Et 
Marc.  vi.  9.  jubet  dominus  Apostolos  pedes 
tantum  munire  sandaliis,  sed  Matth.  x.  10.  Luc. 
X.  4,  de  apparatu  itineris  ibidem  loquutus,  vetat 
b'jrohrifj^ara.  Scilicet  li--xoh7^!JjaTa  sunt  pr.  soleae^ 
quae  commoditatis  causa  pedibus  subligabantur 
extra  domum,  in  spectaculum,  coenam  etc.  eunti- 
bus,  servisque  custodiendae  aut  ferendae  trade- 
ban  tur  (/3a<7ra^£/v  ra  V'-x 001] [Mara,  Matth.  iii.  11. 
coll.  Luc.  iii.  16).  Sed  sandalia  caligae  erant, 
quae  non  plantam  tandum  pedis,  sed  ipsum  pe- 
dem  usque  ad  taleam  tegebant,quibus  et  in  itinere, 
et  ornatis  mollibusque  delicatiores  utebantur. 
Caligis  s.  sandaliis,  non  autem  soleis,  in  itinere 
f)pus  erat. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  59 

v-roxoho/jLccr  vrroffrsXy.ofiai.  simulo,  fingo  —  dissimulo, 
reticeo.     Plut.  de  discr.  ad.  et  am.  fjj7]dh  viroffrsX- 

•jTOfMiVM-  Wzyjfi.  h'Z^yjiv  (semel  Ep.  lud.  v.  7),  sim- 
pliciter  est  sustinere,  hrAy]v  vTsy^siv,  laere  poenam  ; 
sed  v-TTo/jbhtsv  animum  in  perferendo  significat. 
Vid.  sequ. 

iiro/Movri'  v.  ai/o;/?;.  avs^sff'^ai  de  iis  dicitur,  qui  se 
ipsos  cohibent,  quo  minus  indignentur  aut  ul- 
sciscantur.  Itaque  avoyji  rou  ^soD,  Rom.  iii.  26, 
in  tolerandis,  nee  statim  ulsciscendis  peecatis  sita 
est,  et  Rom.  il.  4,  junguntur  avoyJ\  et  fiaK^o^vfila. 
\j<70(M0'j7i  ipsam  animi  constantiam  et  patientiam 
denotat.  Quare  non  dicitur  ii'zofxovTi  r.  '^sov.  Sed 
^io;  rrig  V'TroiiLO'./T^g,  Rom.  xv.  5,  non  est  deus,  qui 
postulate  sed  qui  largitur  bvrofj.or/iv,  ut  Ssog  rrig 
s/orjvrjc.  u.nyj(f^ai  est  nostrum  ertragen,  (uvsys- 
<r3a/  d^oovc^v.)  v'zofMhsiv,  geduldig,  ruhig,  aushar- 
ren. 

:pavXog'  ytazoc,.  (pccvXa  -puffffuv.  <pav}.o\/  crody/j^a.  (paZ- 
Xov  si'TTsTv  'TTsoi  rmg.  (pccvXoc  est  nostrum  schlecht. 
svTsXTig.  ohboLiMmg.  Vid.  Thom.  M.  Ruhnken,  ad 
Timaeum,  et  Menag.  ad  Diog.  Laert.  III.  63. 
(p'^oyyog-  (pojy/j.  Illud  1  Cor.  xiv.  7,  de  ipsa  voce,  ut 
videtur,  Rom.  x.  15.  (p'^syyic'^^ai  est  sonum  aii- 
quem  edere.  (pomTv  vocem  edere,  potissimum  hu- 
manam.  2  Petr.  ii.  16.  b'Troy-jyiov  a(puvov  hj 
d]/%^U)-7rov  (pmri  (p^sy^d/Xivov,  p^oyyog  Ton,  fw- 
vr^  Stimme. 


60  THE  SYNONYMS 

<puXdgSS(^ur  o^av  'rpocs'/^nv  Qui  (pvXdgffsrai,  is  ooa 
{m)  et  'rr^oGiyiu     Matth.  xvi.  6. 

'/lir\(irog'  y^or,(Si!Mog.  y^oriarhg  est  benigrius,  ad  benefa- 
ciendum  aptus  et  paratus.  Hinc  ^u/og  %g?3<rro5, 
Matth.  xi.  30,  iion  est  jugum  suave  (melius  Lu* 
tiierus  :  sanft)^  sed  benignum.  conf.  Luc.  v.  .39. 
'/jlTisHrriC,  7.  ^2ou  est  benignitas  dei,  ad  benefacien- 
dum  hominibus  potius  parata,  quam  ad  punien- 
dum.  Diflfert  a  v.  %%$•  In  hac  enim,  certe  in 
N.  T.,  imperat  notio  benevolentiae  et  gratiae, 
quae  nihil  merentibus  bene  facit.  yj^yif^iiJ^oi  est 
utilis.  vid.  dyouoc,. 

yjjftM'  /cy/Aog.  Q,uamquam  yj^i^/M  latius  patet, 
dieitur  enim  etiam  de  manibus  ut  nostrum  lahm^ 
tamen  ytuXkhg  in  N.  T.  de  manibus  dieitur  pro- 
prie,  Matth.  xviii.  8.     Marc.  ix.  43. 

yjaiiTr  hzyja'^ai.  yoo^iTv  est  capere  (spatiura)  ds- 
y^sff^ai  sumere  (ad  se)  excipere.  Itaque  dieitur 
y^u^iTv  cum  accusative  rei  quae  capitur.  loh.  ii. 
6  ;  xxi.  25.  Matth.  xix.  1 1,  sed  etiam  sine  objecto 
(neutraliter  dicunt)  cum  sola  notione  loci  quam 
res  capit.,  y^^^^v  s'lg  ti,  sv  rivi,  habetque  significa- 
tionem  eundi,  locum  capiendi.  (apud  Homer, 
cedendi,  desistendi).  unde  dvayuoiTv. 

'^\jyj]'  Ti'sD/xa.  Quum  de  homine  dicuntur,  ita  dif- 
ferunt,  ut  nostra  :  Seele  et  Geist.  rrnXiii.a.  ipsam 
naturam  spiritualem  denotat, -vl/iyp/j^  vim  animaleni, 
qua  vivimus,  sentimus  etc.  Hinc  -^-oyjTLul  parum 
difFerunt  a  ga^xixoTg  (nam  naturalis  homo  p^ovsi'Toc 
7rig  ffu^Ko;)  sed  opponuntur  roTg  rrv-v>MaTixoTg.  -^y^jyn 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  61 

anima  est,  qua  vivimus,  itn\)[xa  animus,  quo  sapi- 
mus.  Sed  usus  vitae  communis  non  semper  ser- 
vat  discrimina  verborum,  quibus  res,  quae  sensu 
tantum  percipi  possunt,  judicantur.  Nos  quo- 
que  dicimus :  Unsterhliclikeit  der  Seele. 
ojhiv  o&jvr,.  ojbiv  propria  significatione  accipiendum 
etiam  Act.  ii.  24.  Suidas  totum  locum  Psalmi 
explicat.       Respondet  Hebr.  bnn,  quod  ipsum 

quoque  de  doloribus  parturientium  dicitur.  (semel 
de  aliis  doloribus,  Hiob.  xxi.  16,)  neque  confundi 
debebat  cum  h'2'n,   quod  funera   denotat.     Vid. 

Lamb.  Bos.  Exercitt.  p.  69,  et  Valckenar.  ad 
Lennep.  Etymol.  v.  ud/v.  Contra  Steph.  le  Moyne 
ad  Var.  S.  p.  296,  sqq. 


62 


THE  SYNONYMS 


Tbe  following  list  of  Synonyms,  with  the  exception 
of  those  which  have  the  paging  attached,  were 
left  by  the  Author  without  any  explanatory  ob- 
servations— but  they  are  considered  of  sufficient 
importance  to  be  inserted,  as  they  will  point  out 
to  the  student,  those  w^ords  which  Dr.  Tittmann 
esteemed  to  be  of  synonymous  signification. 


'  Ayu^og-  dizaiog,  vol.  i.  29. 
dya^ospyiTv    uya^orronTv, 

i.  97. 
aya^ar  (piXuv^  i.  90. 
ayiaCsiv   aynCiir    aytoc. 

ayvog,  i.  35. 
ayaTTTiTug''  sxAiTtrog. 
dyiOGuiYi'  ayvua:  ayv't'Czir 

ciyvog'  xa^apog'  dfj^iav- 

rog,  i.  35. 
dy^v-'/su  v.  yPTjyofsM. 
ddi^/MOvsTv  v,  sKrAyjffGsffdai. 
ddizs/v  ddr/Jcf  v.  diXiCioT'ia^ 

i.  79. 
ddixog'  dvo/xog'  dfMa^rojXog. 
cc^srs/i-'  dzvpouv  y.araoysTi'' 

st,o!,Xit<pstv,  ii.  27. 
did'og'  a/u)viog,  i.  65. 

ii.  27. 

a'hzt)^    (dfj^aoTiav^     (^'-onv, 

'ii.  27. 
aiGyrjvcjijjrir    svr^sTO/J^ar 

aiGyjjwi'  hToo-Ttr;  aidojg, 

ii.  26. 


ai(/jr  ypovog'  woa*  xa/goj, 

i.  68. 
aiuiviog'  di'diog,  i.  65. 
dzaDa^ffia'  d.ffiXysia'   '^ro^- 

vs/a,  i.  260. 
d'/id&ciorog'  dcurog. 
dxazog'  dxspatog,  i.  46. 
(dxoXov^soj'  sB,azoXou6su,) 

ii.  28. 
d'/tv^ovv  V.  d&iTiTv. 
d\aXj)ng'  v-7rs^r,:pavor    b- 

ZptGrai,  i.  129. 
dXyi^ng'  dX'/j^mg,  ii.  28. 
dXXog'  g'rs^oc,  ii.  28. 
dXXor^iog'  dXXoysvrig'  dX- 

Xo^'jXog. 
diLCf.'  o^aoD,  ii.  28. 
d[JM^iTg'    dffrrjoizror      d- 

G^iviTg'  uopojffToi,  i.  133. 
dfMix^r)g-  dffOvirog. 
d/jjaordviiv   ddiKiTv. 
oc/xaor/a*   ■raod-rrru/j^a'  d- 

vo/jj/w  ddiTiia  (^ddi'/,7]/u/.,) 

1.  79. 
d/Ma^TCfjAog'  dsi'^rig. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


63 


a/xs/AT-roj*   aiJMfJbo:,  i.  50. 

arPs--roy  jSsjSaiov,  i.  152. 
u/jJavTog'   xa'^apog'  ayi-o's, 

i.  35. 
dvayiwdf/^ccr    dvotzanoij- 

a'^ar  dvavsouc^ai  (^diOJ- 

'^sv  'ysvy/j^rivai),  ii.  28. 
dvcc-/ts(pa}'.o\jv'     acro^caraX- 

Xdrrsiv,  ii.  28. 
dvakoyia'  [MiT^ov,  ii.  28. 
dvdfx\/ri<jig'  v-7r6fxvr]Gic^  ii.  28. 
d]/S'y/tXrirog-    dinrriXyj-Trrogy 

i.  53. 

dviw  X^i'^i  ^'  ^^^' 
dvoia'     dyi'Ota'    fj,Moia' 

d(pPO(Jv\iri,  i.  247. 
dvofMia.'  dijjaoria,  i.  79. 

i'/cdixi^ffic-  szdf/isTv,  i.  29. 
d.vTa'TrozoivofMou'       avTh-rc/j' 

d'j-tX'sycf), 
dvribiari'^sfMS'^or  dyriX'syov- 

7rA.ii[j.ivor   avridrz-og'     s- 

vdvrior  v-svd^vrio/.'u.  13. 
dvriXafju8dvs6^^ar  ^or^iTv 

?-/Aa/X|8av£(j-^i«/,  ii.  7. 
d^/oDv  V.  rtfj^av. 
draXXdrrsiy    acozaraX- 

Xdrrsiv,  i.  176. 


a-Trdri^'      doXog'       ■:x'Ka'vr{- 

{^iZhog^ 
di-'sy^ii'  do/tsTy  ii.  29. 
d-TTsihia'  driffria,  ii.  29. 
d-TrXorrjg'   s/Xtzpi'juw    d^- 

sXiicc. 
ocTrXovg,  i.  46. 
d';roxaoadoyJa'   l'i\-nig,  i. 

187. 
dyTTozPivo/JjUi'     lyToXot/x/^a- 

^o/>ta/,  ii.  29. 
d-7ro'/.aT0.XXd(fciiiv  v.  ai/axs- 

d-roXvTPMffig'  dXiCig  djULUP- 

TIUV. 

d'ToosTff^ar  v.  diGrdt^av. 
door  u\)Y  Tojvjv,  ii.  29. 
UPie-ov  V.  osa:ti'01'. 
do^ahg'  ■rraXa.iog. 
doyyj'  bbvaijjig'  st,ovaia,  ii. 

'29. 
(7.op^>3yo^'  alnog,  ii.  30. 
dGs(3rig  V.  dfJbccProj'Aog, 
d^GsXyna.'  dy.a^r/.oaia'  acw- 

r/cc,  i.  160. 
aff^sv^jg*  acrr^c/x-Osji.  133. 
aG-zoi/dog'  dffvv^STOC,  i.  132. 
aGTOoyor  dviXir^i^wzg. 
dffvviTog'  d;j.a^r,g. 
a'J^dhrig. 

d(piXorrig'  acrXorjjj. 
d.:p^oGv-^ri'  dvoia'  dvoT/rog,  i. 

247. 
dyoiTog-  dyPYjcrog-    (dvc>j- 

^pXric,)  it  19,  30. 


64 


THE  SYNONYMS 


{^a^iTo^ar  jSa^uviff^aiy  ii. 

30. 
jSd^o;-  oyxog,  ii.  30. 
jSaGiAiia     ^sov'     oboocvuv. 

l3s(3aiog,  i.  152. 
^sl3r}Xog.  dvoffiog. 
iSlog-  (^uTj,  ii.  30. 
(SXiTsir     hoar     oVrsff^a/* 

ibiTv  ^sw^s/i-,  i.  192. 
(Soffxs/y  '7roi,a,uivnv,  ii.  25. 
iSovXri'  ^sXri/jjU. 
lBouXo,(Mar  5sXw,  i.  214. 
(j3^oo,'j.a-  (Souxrig),  ii.  30. 
(ysfsa*  '^iysc/a*  ysvvrjffig.) 
yswar  ri'/trsiv,  ii.  30. 
(^yivji^^yjuar  yiviC^ai.^ 
(yvt^fiYi'  (3o-jXrj'  doyfia,  ii. 

31. 
yvoj^i^Cfj'  bsixvvu)' 
yvoj(Sig'  (^s'TriyvuGig')  v.  cro- 

ii.  31. 

yjvy)'  {yjil^->  ii'  31. 

osr  V.  ;>/^?j. 
(diixvou.  s-ndiixvjoj.) 
osTrrvor  d^iffror  hoyjiy  ii.  31. 
dsiffioai/Movia'  i-jXdjSiicc,  ii. 

31. 
biXsal^o/zar  v.  gjs/.xo/xa/. 
oiadibomr  S/aoTcctra/,  ii.  31. 
oiuxovog'  V.  oouXog. 


(diaXXaTTsadur      zaraX- 
Xdrrsffdai),  i.  176. 

diuGoapiTv    biayvu}oi^iir 
btccyysXXztr  <7:a^ayyiX- 
Xiiv     hicKpriijji^iiM'     £X- 
XaXsTv  s't,iiys7a6ar    xjj- 

(biaadJ^siv  ffoJl^siv.) 
biardGGiir  biaffrsXXiffdai, 

i.  149. 
btbaffx.aX/a'  bibayr^,  i.  31. 
(biioc^rar  ssmtcIv.) 
bizaiog,  i.  29. 
^/cra^s/i/'  d'zo^iTff^ar  (It^oL- 

ToosTs^ai),  ii.  31. 
oZ-vj/'j^os'  biXoyog'  bi^XCog, 

ii.  31. 
boyijja'  V.  yvdofj^rj. 
boKsh/'  TiyiTcdat. 
boXog'  d'Trdrri,  ii.  31. 

^o^cci^g/r  V.  ahsTv. 
bovXog'  ^g^acrwr  bidxovog' 

■j'TrTj^sTrig, 
boyji'   V.   bsTTTvov. 
b-jva/jjur    JffyJoo'     biivarai 

'rroiiTv  ri  6  iGyym. 
b'j'jcc'ug'     bo'i^oc,^      svs^yeiu- 

£t,ov0/a'   iGyJig  v.  d^^yji 

(xuoiorng.) 
boiifMU'  v--rs^u)Ov. 
bujpsd'  yjdiig'  bu)^ov. 
boupsdv  rfj  ydotri,  ii.  31. 
syxodriia'  6u<ppoGv]>i^. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


65 


i//t>j'  /JjcItt^v,  ii.  32. 
s/Vw  XaXsM,  i.  139. 
slffhyo/Mur  iiff-iropsvo/j^cn,  ii. 
32, 

kxd(fTOTs-  rrcivroTS,  ii.  32. 
hdsyo/jjai-  (d-7rsx.ds-)^ofMar) 

'TTooad'syo/icar  'TPOffdoy.soj. 

'/iaoadoz'sc/j'     (^diroxaoa- 

boTiitti.) 

sTtba-TTdy&r  (^da'rravdv.)  dv- 

aXiff/isiv. 
'r/,ds^o/xat  v.  ^ivi^Cf). 
sKdiKSOj  V.  dvrccTrodidM/jji. 
ixsWiv  Ivrsukv,  ii.  32. 
sz^yirsw   s^spvjvdoj'    (s'tti- 

s'/iXccziTr  sxAvso^au 
izzXaM'  sxxo-irru,  ii.  32. 
S/ixXivoj'  (psvyc/j. 
ixxo/jji^oj'  iKp'sou,  ii.  32, 
sx.XaXiTv  V.  diaffa(psTv. 
i'/iXsysff^ar  s^ai^iTv^  ii.  32. 
JxXsxro;*  dyairrirdc;  dyiog. 
s-/cXzXvfjjS\/or  s^^Pi/M/Mvoi,  ii.32. 
ix-XvcG^ai  V.  sx,'/.u'A,iTv. 
l-/C'7rX7j(rffs6dccr  s'/Jcx.fjj(Bs/'ffdar 

s^iffraGdcii,  i.  235. 
sx.'To^ivof^ar  \^zoyjjn,aA   v. 

i.]Giiyj>ix>u,i. 
hrccpdffGC/y  h'TrXTirrw  sx- 

(Ixrg/i/w  T^orsivu),  ii.  32, 
(sxTiX'sw  reXsoj'  s'lrinXsu.) 

(Jx(prjyoi  V.  (pivyM.) 
VOL.  II. 


sK(^)o(3og'  'i/j,po^og'  hr^o/j^og, 

'ii.  32. 
(D.s/J/s-  £X£7;;^o$),  ii.  32. 
sXssM'    olxrsipor    sXiruMm. 

o/zri^fxoj'j.  i.  122. 
iXzvoj'  Gv^oj.  i.  99. 
havrr  i/jj'ZPOG^sr  svavrloy 

svoj'Triov. 
hhiKog'  dixc/.iog,  ii.  33. 
hdvfMU'  hbvGig'  'ifiATiov  i- 
/xotriGfjjog'  sG'^yig'  zG^riGig. 
svdvofj^ar  •yggz/SccAXo/xa/,  ii. 

33. 
svsdoot.'  sm^ouX^,  ii.  33. 
hhysicc'    (hs^y/jfj^a)   vid. 

diivafMig. 
svspysu.  s'TriTsXBOj,  ii.  33. 
sv'sy^c>y  svsd^svw  S'?rsyoj,  ii. 

33. 
sviGyvM'  Ivdumfj^OM,  ii.  33. 
iv]/sbg  V.  x.cj(p6g, 
svvoia'  h&{j/j.yjG/g,  ii.  33. 
(^hoixsM-  oJxiCfJ.) 
hraXfMo,'  svroXyj'  S'Trirayrj' 

svTiXXoixoLi'  STTirdGGoj)  ii. 

33. 
hrsv^tg'  royaoiGr'ta,  ii.  33. 
hrPS'TTOJ' hr^O'rrri  v,  alGyor/j. 
svcoiT/ov  V.  havri. 
(st^KyysXXoj'  i'jrayysXXoj.) 
(sgaxoAOLi^sw   dxoXov^soj' 

s'^aXiipM  V.  dSiTsoj,  ii.  33. 

s^d-ziva,'  s^a'iprig-  s^avTTjc, 
ii.  33. 


66 


THE  SYNONYMS 


(^s^wzopsw  d-ropsu),  ii.  34. 
s^a^Ti^oo'  tsXsiocjJ'  TArjPow 

(xarapr/(^w),  ii  34. 
s't,'sX)iOij'  ^sXsa^w,  ii.  34. 
s^spiuvdu  V.  ix^Tjrsw,  ii.  34 

S^S^^OfMUr    S'/CTTO^iVO/Mai    V. 

s^riysofxat  v.  diaffa,(psu. 
^^iffrr,/xi  V.  sx(po3iu. 
i^OfMOAOySM'  ibyaoiGTioo. 
l^ov^ivio)  V.  xarcc(ppovsoj. 
s^ovG/a  V.  d^y^rj, 
(s-TrayyiXicc'  STdyysXfMa.) 
il'i:ayy'iKk(ji'   s^ayysXXoj' 

dtayy'sXXu),  ii.  34. 
(ivrax&Xo-j^sw   v.   dxoXov- 

srdv  S'TTStddr  i~sr  stsiOtj, 

ii.  34. 
(^Izavoe'Travoij'Mj'  dva-rravo- 

/ji>oci),  ii.  34. 

szsP^ofMar  smyhofj^cci. 
(s-rs^ojTuu'  V.  s^urdu'  dn- 

^ojrdoj.^ 
STi^o)  V.  ivsp^w. 
sTi^dXXoj-  k<rm^riiM. 
sTijSXs'^U'    tiriGTis-ro/jjai^ 

ii.  34. 
Irrr/siog'  y^o'ixog,  ii.  34. 
S'rrr/ivo/Mar  srrsoy^ofMai. 
(^s-Tiiyvuaic,'  yvuai;.) 

orj/j/iu,  ii.  34. 


s-7riiix'/i;  V.  suTTg/^^^. 
(sTT/^jjrgw  V.  e7t^»jrgw),  ii. 

34. 
s-Tri&avdriog'  ^t^toc,  ii.  34. 
s-TTi'^ufMia'  s'iTi^-jfjjOviJ.ar  0^5- 

yoi^ai'  loipc^  i.  233. 
STizov^ia'  fSorj^sia. 
S'mXaiui^lSdvofj.ar  (Boridsu,  ii. 

7,35. 
fT/'ToSsw  V.  }/xsioof/,ai. 
{smvibo}'  jcarai/s-jw.) 
s'7ri(rx.S'7rro,uai  v.  stSasttoj. 
£T/Vra,aa/*  oJBa,  ii.  35. 
s'TriGTO/j^i^M'  (pi'jjooj,  ii.  35. 
sTiffwayuyy}    (^ffwayuyrj'") 

STriffvGTafftc. 
sTirayri  v.  hTOAr,. 

(S-ITSXSCO  V.  SXTJASW.) 

sTiTi^i^,(Mi  V.  irrSdXXb). 
smri/xdoj'  d-TrsiXiOj. 
smTvy^dvoj'     Xay^dvw 

drroXafji^^dmy  ii.  35. 
s<7ri(p^oj  V.  S'xdyu. 
(sTov^dviog  V.  ov^dviog.) 
hyd^sff^ar  '7roisT\'"rodffGiiv. 
f^yov  rrpdy/j^a. 
5^£w  V.  XaXsCfj. 
sp/^sicc-  'i^tg  ((piXcvsixia.) 
i^y^o/jjar  '/jxu,  ii.  35. 
i^C/jrdw    disoojrdw    s^icu' 

raw  sz-spojrdw  ■7rv\>':.)d 

VOf/jCCI. 

sffd/jg  V.  //xdrm. 
Ic&iu)'  (pdyoi. 
hs^og  V.  dXXog, 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


67 


sro;'  sviavTog. 

cvdoy.s/li'  Gvy'/iarariQid&ai. 

ihboKla'  dyd-r),  ii.  35. 

■■ji^yiffia'  rjTOita. 

i'Jhrog'  /-/.avog'  ^oyjffifjjog. 

iv^sMC,  ii.  35. 

{ih'Koy'ici'  zbyaPtGria,)  ii.  35, 

i-jvosM,  ii.  35. 

sv-mit^Tjg'  s-in-/.yjCf  ii.  35. 

su'Zoua,'  i\Ji^yi<Sia. 

iliovy^uoog'  rrXarvg,  ii  36. 

i-jffij3rig'  rjGSjSna,'  roXaSrig,  j 

i.  252.  ! 

i'j6riiJjog'  (pcx.vso6g,  ii.  36. 
svavAayyvog'  y^yjGTog^    ii. 

36. 
iliGyjfiiLm'   suyd^iffrog,    ii. 

36. 
-\jTi>a-Xc/Ja.'  fMOJoriXoyia,  ii. 

36. 
ihya^KSria  v.  ih'Koyia. 
spjivsof^ar      Taoayivofxar 

hjg-  ijlzyoi  V.  a;)^o/,  ii.  36. 

{Ji^og-  G'/.orog,  ii.  36. 
t^uoyoiioj'  ^ojo'TToisuy  ii.  36. 
'^yoijiMat  V.  doxirj. 
ri'/iu  V.  iD')(OiMUi. 
Tj^jKog'  -TrriXixog'  o~oToc,   ii. 

36. 
"^■TTiog'  'TTPdog,  i.  244. 
YiOiiMog'  YiGvy^iogy  i.  114. 


^ai/arow     d'Troznl'yOj'     vs- 
xoow,  ii.  36. 

^aD/xa*   GrjfjjsTor    rs^ocg. 
^av/j^dGiog-  ^C6u/xa<yrdc,  ii. 

36. 
^jatr^a/,  i.  192. 
^iaT^i^oj''7:a^ahiiy[i<ji,7iZ(/)» 
^s/or^j;*  ^2or?3$,  ii.  37. 

SsAw  (3ouXofj.ai,  i.  214. 
SiPars'jw  /ao/>ta/,  ii.  37. 
^siia-wv  6oD?.oj'  oiy.STYig* 

b'TrriosTrig. 
'^sMosoj-  (3Xs-7ru,  i.  192. 
^Tjfraup/^w  Guvdyu. 
^}Jj3sG9ar     xaxovy^iTG^ai, 

ii.  37. 
^X/'-vj^/;'  Gnvoy^ojpia,  ii.  37. 
(^v^jcxw  dTohrjGKU.) 
'^vTjTog'  nx^og,  ii.  37. 
^j/xos"  o^/J?,  i.  229. 
^6oa*  ttuXtj,  ii  37. 
}do[Mui  V.  ^s^aTg-jw. 
73s*  /3o0,  ii.  37. 
73/o$*  oiKsTog,  ii.  37. 
Qioania'    ispdn-jf/^a),    ii. 

'37. 
/£|&i'*  caog,  i.  35. 
/fjjdriov  sG^rjC'  hdv/MU. 
t/j^iiPOfMar  STi'To&BOij. 
ha'  ooGrz. 

i^X^i^^  V.  iG-xyg'  iGyrjM  v. 
d-jvarog'  hbvaixig'   hi)\a- 

I  /AOC/. 


68 


THE  SYNONYMS 


{7(,aQaoi(S[jj6g'  xddaPfia)^  ii. 
37. 

(xu^vj/xar  Ka6i^u,  ii.  37. 
■/.aJIffrri/Mr     xadiffra/xar 

yhof/.ai,  ii.  37. 
■/.ahjjg  V.  xa&d'XiD. 
■/.aivog'  ]isog,  i.  106. 
■/Mjojjg'  a/wy,  i.  68. 
(y.aiToi'  '/.aiToiyi.) 
y.al'ji'  '^T'j^ooj,  ii.  38. 
zoc'/Ja'    'TtovYiDia.'   xaytdg' 

rrovYiPog. 
y.azo'Trd&ita'  ii-o/xovyj'   (mu- 

zsodvfj^ia. 
■/.a'/.o-TToisu  V.  dyados^ysoj. 
'/.a/,6g'  dyadog. 
xaXuTTBiy  zov'TT'Tiiv,  ii.  38. 
zd/jt^vw  s^ydt^ofj^at. 

za^rrh  (p's^siv,  ii.  38. 
(zaTa(3o(,ivu'  xars^'^o/jja/.) 
zcirayy'sXXo}  v.  oiayysXXu. 
■/.araytvoJazcA)'    '/iarax^ivM' 

zardyc/j  v,  dyoj. 
zardzsifiar  zaroczXho/xai, 

ii.  38. 
(xaraxp//xa*  zaTdzoicig,  ii. 

38. 
(zocrazvPiivw   zvphvoj.) 
xaraAaXid'     zaraXccAsw 
za-aXdXogv.  -^i^u^iffrai, 

i.  128. 


(ddvu.) 
zaraXXayyi  v.  haX\a.yn' 

d'xaXkayr,. 
zazcOJ^dcGO)'   bidKkd660). 

i.  176. 
xaraX^aa*    ^ivoboyjToy 

zaTaiMaM&dvM'    zuravoiu^ 

ii.  38. 
zaravapzdw    y.ura^aosoj, 

ii.  39. 
zaravsvoj  v.  i'zivsvcfj. 
zara^ysoj  v.  a^srcw. 
;jara^r/^w    tsXsiou-    (5ri- 

^SOOO'  dvaTATjOOOJ. 

zaraffZivd^M'  'rroiiu,  ii.39. 
zaraffvooj  v.  sXzvu. 
(xararo/x/y*   •TrsPiTO/j.Tj),   ii. 

39. 
zarcKps^u  v.  z,ardycfj. 
(zccTa(pBvyu*     d'::o(pi'jyCfi' 

diccipsvyoj'  £X<pevyc*}  v. 

{zaTa(piXi(/)'     (piXsu)f     ii. 

39. 
zara(p^oviTVf  i.  175. 
xarsva^T-/'     z.arsvdo'Tiov    v. 

jcars^oyC/a^w      zaraz-j' 

^nvoj,  ii.  39. 
(^zaTBPydC^o/Mur      ^^7«^'^' 

/xa/.) 
zars^^ofMar   xara/Sa/vw. 
(?tad;i^w  £;^c«;),  ii.  39. 
xar?5^£W  bthdczo),  ii.  39. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


m 


y.aTO-Trroi^ofjbar  opdo),  ii.  40. 
'Acc&Gi^og,  i.  35,  43. 

40^ 

-/.n^iar  (j&oMia,  ii.  40. 
Tii'isac^ai'  yvpasdai^  ii.  40. 
zsvog'  fMdraiog,  ii.  40. 
'/,svo(poma'  [jMraioXoy'ia,  ii. 

40. 
xsvoV  xccra^yeoi,  ii.  40. 

'/Xr\o6ct)'  7Myy^dvM'  r-jyyjj.- 

vu,  ii.  40. 
y.XivTj'  '/todiSiSarog,  ii.  41. 
'/.oivog'  d^ddcc^Tog,  ii.  41. 
/CoXa^&r  ri/xojpsoj. 
xoXkv^iSTrjg'  roa'riQryig,  ii. 

41. 
xo/x/^w  ^soct;  V.  sz/COfx/^u. 
'Aorrog'  /xoydog-  rrovog,  ii.  41. 
xoo/Asw  xaT-acptsua^w,   ii. 

41. 
Ko&'Mog'    ulojr    doyuv    rov 

zod/jjou — TO"j  cciojvog. 
z^d(3j3aTog  V.  xX/vjj. 
xooci^w  /Soccw*  zouvydi^o). 
z^ai-TdkYj'  [MiQri. 
•/.oaroLici'j}'  \syJjM. 
K^otrsTv  ri  et  xoaTiTv  nvoc, 

i.  156. 
zpdrog  v.  dvva'jLig. 
■/.oi'ij.u:  -/.Piffig,  ii.4]. 
'/.ou'TTU  V.  x.cfJ'.-j'Trru. 
zrdo/xar  s'p/w,  ii.  41. 
ztI^uj  v.  cro/iw. 


XTiGTrjg'  rroirirrig. 
(^•/iTiffig.  xrifffxa.) 
xv'kXog  V.  yuXog. 
Tivmg-  biC-OTYig. 
■/.vPiOTng  V.  aop/97. 
•/.oo7^oi>'  (Tw/o-a*  'TTTcio/xa. 
%wfo;*  aAa/.oc,  ii.  41. 
Xayydvu  V.  yXYiom. 

j.sw,  i.  139. 
"kaij.^dvu  V.  k'Ztr-jyyjiv(ri. 

Xaog'  Uvog. 

Xa-oiiu'  dovXiiw  Xarpsuw 

Xsyw  V.  XccXsu. 
Xiirovoyioj'  hoctrroo)'  >.£/- 

Xoyi6[jjog'  v67]iMa,  ii.  41. 

Xuyog*  hriixci. 

Xoi'TTor  fXiXXov,  ii.  42. 

Xo-JW  vI'TTTOJ,  ii.  42. 
X-jfj^a/vo/Mar     ^XditTW 

(pds'iPM. 
Xuw  XvT^ou,  ii.  42. 
fMuxPodvfMia  V.  dvoyyj. 
li>aXa%\u,'  j/oVoc,  ii.  42. 
[idXXor  iiXmv^  ii.  42. 
IJM.raioXoyia  v.  zsvopuvicc, 
l^draiog  v.  xsvo's*   /^ara/e- 

(j^drTiV  V.  s/xTj. 
[j,dyi6^ai'  [jAyoLi,  i.  116- 


[x,iyaX\j\i(f)  V.  uh/iu. 
H-'i&ri  V.  '/.oatrrdy.ri. 


i.  116. 


70 


THE  SYNONYMS 


ratPC/j'  fiiraivsu. 

[LikiTao)'  fjbi^tfjjvduy  ii.  42. 
,'j/sfj,<po/Mar    /xw/xso/xa/     v. 

afjjcijjrTTog. 
liiPilMvav  [j^zkiTu.))^  i.  239. 
/xstfrog*  'TrXrjOYig'  ys/xwi/,  ii. 

43. 
/xsra*  g'jv,  ii.  43. 
/xsraxaXsw    v.   ^agra-Ts/x- 

lurakaiM^umv^  ii.  43. 
iizravoiTv^  ii.  44. 
lurarriiM'TroiMai,  ii.  44. 
ijjiTiyjji'  xo/^w^^w•  /xsrop^oj" 

ovdiig.  iM7ibs'::ori'  oudi- 
iroTi.  fiTjXSTr  ov'/isrr 
firj'Trorv  oii'^ors.  fjLrj'uW 
ov'rru.  [xrirv  ovn,  i. 
170. 

(naivw  fioAvvu,  ii.  44. 

fj^ifn^T/jg'  ^rjXuTr,g. 

(/Mic'^og'  luo^ojiia.) 
(/jL/a^iog.  [UG^^OiTog. 
,av£/a*  (M\ir,fJ^ri,  ii-  44. 
fMoyiXdXog'  aXakog  v.  xw- 

<p6g. 
[Moytg'  /xoX/f,  ii.  44. 
IMOiyaofiai'    iJ.oiyi(j(/j,    ii. 

45. 


/MOAVVOO  V.  fUC/JVCf}. 

[J^o^^rr  6yji[j.a^  ii.  45. 
fj^dy^og  V.  xo-roc. 
fMvdog'  Xoyog. 
fMOjfxso/jLar  fjLS/ii(pofiai. 
/JbUPia'     d(ps:0Guvri'     avoicc* 
[Mu^og-  d\)6r,Toc,  i.  247. 
mo:*  /£^6i',  ii.  45. 
^£05•  y.cimg'  viujTS^og'  (^ea- 
iz/xoc)  vi(f)TiPiy.6g'  vi()7r,g' 
xanorrig,  i.  106. 
v£^sX?5*  i/£^oc,  i.  145. 
v?5-/o$'  a^^wr    cczXovg'  d- 
vorjTog,  i.  247. 

(vixTj-  vTy.og.) 

Vl'TTTU  V.   Xot/W. 

i/o'/j/^a  V.  XcyiG/jjog. 
vofj,i^Ui  ii.  45. 
i'C;/>tc;$*  ivToXrj, 
voGog  V.  fjLaXuxia. 
voG(piZcfj'  xAETrw,  ii.  45. 
moTa^w  xaOivdcij,  ii.  46. 
^£i'/^o^a/'Sai;/^a^6j,ii.46. 
^if&e*  xaivog,  ii.  46. 
^£1/0$'  dXkcT^tog,  ii.  46. 
o;^xo$  V.  (3d^oc. 
obzvoi'  oboicrophj,  ii.  46. 
63l/1'?j  v.  dibiv. 
obvpfxoc'  xXavOfxogy  ii.  46. 
oi'KiToc'  '/'biog,  ii.  46. 
oi'/irrig  v.  SfPacwi/. 
(o/XTj/xa*    b'r/.r,Gig'  cixriTri- 

Piov  oJ-Kia  V.  olxog.) 
{oixoboixri'  oixobo/xia.) 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


71 


«;xrs/^gw,  i.  120,  122. 

fj'toiiai  V.  vojuZui. 
o/or  5ui/aroy,  ii.  47. 
OKv'/jDog'  doyog,  ii.  47. 
ohiyog-  fJ^r/,o6c^  ii.  47. 
fjXoTcXrj^og'  rsXsiog,  ii.  47. 

oXo5'  '^occ,  ii.  47. 
oXcor  cravrc/jg,  ii.  47. 
o//',<3oor  •t^«7-o$'  ,/3po;i/95,  ii.  47. 
o/x/xa-  opdaXfj^og-  ISki-rrM,  i. 

192. 
o,(Moiog'  h[X(tic/ig  v.  /Cwc. 
o.ao/a»/xa*  oiMoiorrig^  ii.  47. 

oviidog'  aidyyvfi,  ii.  47. 
oj-rws*  aXrtdMC,  ii.  47. 
0^6$*  Tctyyc^  ii.  48. 
OT?;'  (T-TjAa/ov,  ii.  48. 

O'TTOTi'  OTS,  ii.  48. 

orou*  oy,  i.  170. 

orroixai  v.  /S/i-w,  i.  192. 

oTwg*  wVrs*  /Va. 

(o3a,aa*  o»affig.) 

bodctj  V.  (S/A-Troj,  i.  192. 

op^Tj*  ^o/y-o?,  i.  229. 

o^syoiJ,ar    i-idv/jjov/xar  o- 

fs^/g*  s'^ridu'Ji.la,  i.  233. 
hoQoivog'    rr^u))\og'    (o^doioc' 

TOW/'/XOC*  ~|ou/'o;.) 
()^i^oy  rdffaoj. 
(6o7i(fjfjLorrIa'  op'/,og,  ii.  49. 
oV/o;'  0(ji6Tr,g'  o(riuc  v.  dyioc, 

i.  35,  41. 


(orav  org.) 
o'i*  ou;^/  V.  ,</,>j'. 
oj  V.  oVou,  i.  170. 

o^s/XsrTjs*     yi'g&j^s/Xsr)].', 

ii.  49. 
(62)«/?w?j'  6^g/X'/j,«/a.) 
c(pdaXfjtj6c'  o;x,'j/CC  v.  /SAi-rw^ 

i.  192. 
o-vj^/^ao;*  o-vj^/o;,  ii.  49. 

'Tratda.yojyog^  'a-aih6rr}g,  ii. 

49. 
TCi/w  V.  r-JTrw. 
rraXaiog'  doyjuog^  ii.  49. 
TaXa/ow  axu^ow,  ii.  49. 
cravovpyta'   '^adiov^yicc  do- 

X6c'. 
rrapdfSuffig'    'irasw/.o'^,    ii. 

49. 
irctoayy'iXX^  v.  diccffa(psT'j. 
rra^axocXsw    '^raoafMvfsc- 

/Af/j,  ii.  49. 
craPotKV'TrTU'  tfJ^^Xsiroi,   ii. 

49. 
TaodXiog'  cra^a.'^aXdffffiog, 

li.  49. 
'xccpaij.v^so/xat  v.  craoaxa- 

Xsoj. 
'TTasavo'ua'  rTusd^a-Gig'ira" 

i^d.-rTTOiiMCL'       dvOlMCL        V. 

li.  50. 

'raoa-jrixa'     craoayfJj^aa, 
li.  50. 


72 


THE  SYNONYMS 


ii.50. 

'ira^S'-zidTj/Mog'    'Trdoor/.og   v. 
I'svoc. 

fxai,  ii.  50. 
cra^sc/r  a^gff/?,  ii.  50. 
rrccooi'jAri'  rrapajBoAyj. 

crag  V.  oXog. 

'Xardc<soi'  'TtaiM'  'jrXrjaGM  v. 

Tayvvofiar    Tw^ou/xa/,   ii. 
5l. 

'Xiidcc^yin'    ■j'Trordffffiffdaiy 

ii.4^ 
Tii^uw  Tg/Pcc^oj,  ii.  51. 

'7rs\'^g'  TTuyog,  ii.  51. 
rrs^ag-  rsXoc,  ii.  51. 
Tsoiui^soj'  d(paioicjj)  ii.  52. 
Tioi^dXXu  V.  hhijoi. 
'TTBDi^oXaiov  V.  s!/^u,aa. 
■reoixd^ci^fj^cc'     TSH-^vj/Jja, 
u  52. 

mffTivu  V.  'TTii^ofiau 
'TT/Avvj'  d-rrdrri'  ooXog-  -^sv- 

dog. 
'xXsovs^ia,'  (piXupyj^ia^   ii. 

52. 
tXJj^oc  v.  o;)^X&$. 
TA^v,  ii.  52. 


'xoiiw  'TTc^dffffw  hydX^afjjaj. 
'jToi'Mahitr  (Soffy.siv,  ii.  25. 
To>.s/xsw  /j,d,yjj/Mai.   ToXfe- 

/Ao;*  (xdyji^  i.  116. 
(toXl'/xscw;'  rroXuToo'Tug), 

ii.  52. 
'TroX-jTiXr/g'    rroXvri/jjog,  ii. 

52. 
TTovTi^ia'    x-axiw    irovri^og' 

•/.ctxog. 
iroGog'  'rroTa'^dg. 
■7Tpdyij.a'  iP^yov  cr^a^/c. 
'jr^aoTTig'  'rr^airi^g  v.  ^V/oc, 

i.  244. 

TodOffM'  'TTOISCf),  ii.  52. 
C7^au5*  cri'a'jrjjc,  i.  244. 
'TTos-mr  yp'/j  v.  ^s/I 
'TTPoynojCiKiir      T^oog/^g/v 
(o^^/'^s/i/.) 

'TT^OSldoj'   'TTPOyiVOJffXOiJ. 

T^os/Vw  Tpos^soj'   T^oXeyu 

V.  XccXsoj. 
rr^oedsyofxar   rrPCffXa/ufSd- 

VOJ. 

crooffdsyofiar  £x6eyo/xa/,ii. 
'  53.  ^ 

rr^06syco  v.  (puXdrro/Jba/. 
<7rp('j(jX0f/j/jja'  ffxdi/daXoVy   ii. 

'53. 
^^6(pa6tg'  d(poo/Mri^  ii.  53. 
'rra/w  afMUPTd^ct),  ii.  53. 
TTo'so/Mar  TTUPO/Mcci,  ii.  53. 
■rrruyog  v.  'Trsnig. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


73 


':rvXr}'  (-r/Xwv)  v.  Supa. 
iruv&dvo'xai'  hurdu,  ii.  53. 
rrv^ooj  V.  ytaioj, 
^a/3(3/^w  ^a-/^w,  ii.  53. 
habio'ooyia'  doXog,  ii.  53. 
oJj/Aa*  Aojog,  ii.  53. 
hou,(paia-  ^i(pog'  /jjdyatoa, 

'ii.53. 
pU'Tog'  a-TrTXog. 

o•at^w•  '/ioXaytzboi,  ii.  54. 
(TaXs'jw  (Ts/oc  raodsffoo. 
caoyjKog'  -^uy^ixog-  (<rap?c/- 

vog.) 
cstw  V.  GaXiVM. 
GYiiMOLhoy  dsizvvw  ffyjfMnou. 
Gy}/jjsTov  re^ag'  rsyMrj^iov. 
G^svocti'  Grr^oil^oi'   Ouva/z-ow 

ffiydo[i>ai'  Giojrdca,  ii.  54. 

G'/j^rdoy  dXXo/Mai. 
f7xX?5jog  V.  au5Ty}o6g,  i.  242. 
GTiO'jrio)  V.  (3Xi~c/j. 
Gloria'  (^GZOTog)  v.  <^6(poc. 
Gf)(pia'  yvujGig,  ii.  54. 
Go(p6g'  GwiTog'  Go^ia'  gvvs- 

Gtg. 
GrTXog  v.   ^v-rrog. 
Gifkdyyyci'  giktioimi,  \.  120. 
G-rodog'  7s:poa'  (xovig.) 
G-nO-jbd^Cf}-  G-Ts-jdoo,  ii.  54. 
GTivoyc/j:>so,'J^cx,r    ^KijSofxai. 

ii.  55. 
GrsvoyMPia'  ^Xi-^tg. 


GTs^sooy  GTTjoii^o},  ii.  55. 
G'jyAPi'joj'  sy'/ipivcn),  ii.  55. 
GvyyjM'raodGGM,  l^iGTrifjji, 

G-jiX'-Ka^iW  G[J\U}divW  GVGTi- 

vd.C^c/j. 
Gv/x-^vyor  ofj,6(ppovsg'  to  'iv 

(ppovovvreg,  i.  119. 
Gvv&oysM  V.  ^ori&'iU). 
GUViG^iu'     Gu/Mcpdyoj'     (CL/V- 

diiWso})  V.  simplicia. 

Cuvsroj  V.  Go(p6g. 
Gvvs-jdo'/.soj'    Cyv^^o/xa/,    ii. 

55. 
Gvvisvar  vosn,  ii.  56. 

Aofjjrxi,  ii.  56. 
(cui/rj/Avw     GwriXsctj},    ii- 

56. 
cy  !<  w3  u  v  w  (Tu/xcra  (J";)/ w  •  tf  y  (Tr  £ - 

GVPOJ  V.  sX/C-JW. 

ii.  56: 

ra^uGGoo'  Tvp(3d^ojy  ii.  56. 

TUGGaj'  opi^oj^. 

rdycc'  Taysci>g'  Tctyjj  vicl. 

rzx'LYiq^ior  r'soag  v.  Gi^fMm. 
TSAiioM'  'jrXriPocij,  ii.  57. 
r5^a$  V.  GrjfJ!.im. 
r  Sip  Pa  V.  G'TTodog. 
TiZTstv  V.  yswav. 
ri/xdcA)'  r/u)  v.  d^/ow. 
TOtrjv  V.  ajoc. 
r&Voc*  yjjyooi^  ii.  57. 
TPvpdoj-  G-araXdoj,  ii.  57. 


74 


THE  SYNONYMS,  &C. 


Touyybi'  (pdyoj  v.  hdloj. 
ruTTW  rT'kri66'j). 
T\)oSa.Zi6^cci  V.  rapdgfficdat. 

u-ira^'^ic'  y.TYiiLa^  ii.  57. 
ii'jdoyjf}'  iJ/M,  ii.  57. 
■j-raxo-joj'  ■Treidoij.ai,  ii.  57. 
VTsvavriog  v.  d\/ridiy.oc,  ii 

58. 
O-TTg^sp/w  diaiDiPUj,  ii.  58. 
v-rsprjOaHa  v.  i>/3^/?,  i.  129. 

•j'7riD:p^ovi7v,  i.  173. 
i-TTodi^/xa,'  (javddXioVj  i.  58. 
iiToxoivo/^ar  v<7roaTsXXo/xai, 

ii!  59. 
UToXa,a(3dvoj  v.   drroxom- 

(Lai. 
L/To/xsvw  b':Teyjfi,  ii.  59. 
bcro/xovrj  v.  dvoyfj^  ii.  59. 
i)TOffTsXXo/jjai  V.   b'^TOMbo- 

(lat. 
v'jroTdgffiGdar  'jrzi&aoyiTv,  ii. 

4. 
^dyoi  V.  sff&ioj. 
(pavXoi'  xccy.og,  ii.  59. 
^g^w  V.  a/'pw. 


(pdoyyoi'  <pcf)vr},  ii.  59. 
^/?Jw  dyocTduj  i.  90. 
^oov>3(y/g  V.  6o(pia.  (ppovi/j^og' 

Go(p6g. 
(ppovsTv,  i.  120. 
(p^ovrl^siv  V.  (Moifjjvav^   i. 

239. 
(ppov^sn-  (p'oXd.dGUv. 
(p\jXd66i(^ai'   opcly    Tooc'e- 

yji^  ii.  60. 

;^e?j  V.  a^r. 

yori<sr6g.   yor]6iij,oc,  i.  244. 
Ti.  60. 

p/fiovoj  V.  a/'oiv,  i.  68. 
yojXoc'  '/.vXXocy  ii.  60. 
yoj^cc  V.  roToc. 
;^W|£/V'  5£;)/gff^a/,  ii.  60. 
p/ojj/s  V.  ai/£i>,  i.  163. 
•^/sD^os  V.  d':rdrri. 
'^i^VPifffxog'    TcccTaXaXla,' 

■^I'^vPtaTyig'  xardXaXo;, 

i.  128. 
■^vy/i'  rri^iufia,  ii.  CO. 
-^vyixog  V.  ca^x/xoc. 
w6/i/*  666i/;5,  ii.  61. 
w£C6  V.  a/wv,  i.  68. 


GRAMMATICAL    ACCURACY 


WRITERS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


Among  the  imperishable  merits  of  Luther,  in 
relation  to  the  church  of  Christ,  it  must,  no 
doubt,  be  reckoned  the  greatest,  that  he  again 
laid  open  the  fountains  of  divine  truth,  which 
had  been  for  many  ages  concealed  or  corrupted ; 
and  vindicated  the  use  of  them,  not  only  to 
teachers  and  to  the  learned,  but  also  to  all  Chris- 
tians. But  as  in  many  other  things,  in  which 
he  could  only  make  a  beginning,  so  also  here, 
he  left  to  posterity  the  duty  of  becoming  more 
thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  sources  thus 
restored  to  them,  and  of  freeing  more  and  more 
the  doctrines  drawn  from  these  fountains  from 
the  inventions  of  human  opinions.  That  this 
was  not  done  by  Luther  himself,  no  one  can 
wonder ;  although  such  was  his  genius,  that  had 
he  not  been  deprived,  by  the  multitude  of  his 


76  ON  THE  GRAMMATICAL  ACCURACY 

other  severe  and  pressing  labours,  of  that  lei- 
sure which  the  study  of  ancient  literature  par- 
ticularly demands,  he  would  probably  have  been 
superior  to  all  his  contemporaries  in  the  true 
interpretation  of  the  New  Testament. 

But  that  after  three  centuries,  and  after  the 
labours  of  so  many  distinguished  men,  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  New  Testament  should  not 
yet  have  been  regulated  by  any  certain  laws  ; 
must  surely  be  matter  of  wonder  to  all,  and 
would  seem  hardly  credible,  unless  one  were 
acquainted  with  the  difficulties  of  the  subject, 
and  the  causes  of  the  errors  under  which  it  still 
labours.  The  number  and  magnitude  of  these 
difficulties  become  more  known,  the  longer  and 
more  diligently  the  sacred  writings  are  studied. 
The  nature  of  the  errors  and  faults  to  be  avoid- 
ed is  such,  that  the  more  experience  one  seems 
to  have  in  interpreting  the  writings  of  the  New 
Testament,  the  more  difficult  does  it  become 
to  avoid  these  errors.  They  grow  indeed  by 
practice,  and  are  so  impressed  by  daily  habit, 
that  unless  the  interpreter  shall  have  been  pre- 
pared in  the  best  manner,  he  is  constantly  more 
or  less  influenced  by  them.  Those  therefore 
who  in  youth,  have  become  imbued  by  severe 
study  with  a  deep  knowledge  of  the  ancient 
languages;  and   the  labours  of  whose  future 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  77 

lives  have  left  them  leisure  and  strength  to 
fulfil  the  proper  duties  of  an  interpreter  of  the 
New  Testament,  enjoy  a  rare  felicity.  The 
lot  of  very  many,  however,  is  widely  different ; 
they  have  been  able  formerly  to  read  but  few 
of  the  Greek  authors  ;  and  having  acquired  no 
insight  into  the  genius  of  the  Greek  language, 
are  compelled  to  acquiesce  in  the  decisions  of 
the  lexicons,  however  unsatisfactory  and  worth- 
less ;  and  are  thus  unable,  through  want  of 
leisure  and  books,  to  make  good  in  after  life, 
that  which  they  have  neglected  in  youth.  On 
the  other  hand,  those  philologians  who  would 
seem  to  be  the  best  qualified  for  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  New  Testament,  have  often  such 
a  distaste  for  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures, 
that  they  most  gladly  abandon  it  to  the  theo- 
logians. But  although  it  may  be  doubted, 
with  Valckenaer,^  whether  those  who  have  ac- 
quired their  knowledge  only  in  the  monuments 
of  the  profane  writers,  should  on  that  account 
be  prohibited  from  the  emendation  and  expla- 
nation of  the  sacred  books ;  still,  it  is  greatly 
to  be  wished,  that  all  theologians,  who  are  in 
a  manner  regarded  as  the  only  legitimate  in- 
terpreters of  the   New  Testament,   should  be 

a  Valckenarii  Orationes,  Lugd.  Bat.  1784,  p.  288,  sq. 


78  ()N  THE  GRAMMATICAL  ACCURACY 

able  to  sustain  a  comparison  with  those  great 
men,  who  have  been  so  much  distinguished  by 
their  zeal  for  the  study  of  languages,  by  learn- 
ing, sagacity,  and  sound  judgment. 

A  principal  reason  why  the  science  of  inter- 
preting the  New  Testament,  is  not  yet  firmly 
settled  on  its  proper  foundations,  seems  to  lie  in 
the  fact,  that  many  regard  the  interpreter  of 
the  New  Testament  as  having  nothing  to  do 
with  the  niceties  of  grammar.  Hence  it  hap- 
pens, that  even  those  who  have  best  understood 
the  genius  of  the  Greek  language,  have  in  ex- 
plaining the  sacred  books  paid  no  proper  regard 
to  the  laws  of  grammar  or  to  the  analogy  of 
language  ;  and  the  same  thing  has  therefore  hap- 
pened to  them,  that  has  usually  deterred  mere 
philologians  from  treating  of  the  Scriptures. 
They  have  taken  it  for  granted,  that  the  sa- 
cred writers  were  far  removed  from  that  gram- 
matical accuracy,  the  laws  of  which  are  founded 
in  the  nature  of  language  and  the  use  of  the 
best  writers ;  and  therefore,  in  explaining  their 
writings,  they  have  supposed  there  was  little 
or  no  use  in  applying  those  laws.  Indeed  it  has 
even  been  imagined,  that  in  seeking  the  true 
sense  of  the  sacred  writers,  he  was  exposed 
to  err  the  most  widely,  who  should  endeavour 
to  sul)ject  their  words  and  phrases  to  the  ordi- 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  79 

nary  rules  of  the  Greek  language.  Hence  the 
direction,  now  to  take  refuge  in  Hebraism  ;  or 
again,  where  there  is  no  place  for  Hebraism, we 
are  referred  to  the  barbarous  dialect  of  Alex- 
andria ;  or  at  last,  if  there  is  nothing  similar  to 
be  found  in  this  dialect,  we  are  told  that  the 
words  of  the  sacred  writers,  so  incongruously 
composed,  and  construed  in  a  manner  so  con- 
trary to  the  laws  of  language,  must  be  explain- 
ed from  the  connexion,  and  by  reference  to  the 
object  of  the  writer.  Inasmuch  now  as  this 
mode  of  proceeding  is  most  pernicious,  and  not 
only  renders  the  wdiole  interpretation  of  the  New 
Testament  uncertain,  but  delivers  over  the 
Scriptures  to  the  caprice  of  every  interpreter, 
it  may  be  worth  while  to  spend  a  few  moments, 
in  endeavouring  to  form  a  proper  estimate  of 
the  grammatical  accuracy  of  the  sacred  writers. 
Our  first  object  will  be,  to  explain  in  what 
we  suppose  this  grammatical  accuracy  to  con- 
sist. This  seems  the  more  necessary,  because 
there  is  here  more  than  one  error  to  be  avoided. 
It  is  therefore  first  of  all  to  be  remarked,  that 
we  are  not  to  treat  here  of  that  elegance  of  style, 
which  we  admire  in  poets  and  orators.  This 
quality,  w  hich  consists  partly  in  the  choice  of 
words  and  phrases,  and  partly  in  their  proper 
connexion  and  arrangement  in  sentences,  it  will 


80  ON  THE  GRAMMATICAL  ACCURACY 

be  easily  understood,  is  not  to  be  sought  for  in 
the  sacred  writers,  any  more  than  it  is  required 
in  the  discourse  of  unlearned  men.  An  elegant 
selection  of  words,  indeed,  demands,  in  the  first 
place,  that  there  should  always  be  at  hand  a 
copiousness  of  words,  sufficient  to  express  all 
the  thoughts  ;  so  that  we  may  not  only  com- 
prehend what  the  writer  thought,  but  also  the 
very  manner  in  which  he  thought  it,  and  in 
which  he  wished  to  present  it.  This  however 
is  a  thing  so  difficult,  and  that  too  from  such 
a  variety  of  causes,  that  although  it  is  properly 
expected  from  an  author  who  professes  to  be  a 
master  of  the  art  of  writing  ;  yet  it  cannot  be 
required  of  an  unlearned  man,  who  utters  with- 
out preparation  what  suddenly  arises  in  his 
mind,  or  who  is  compelled  to  write  for  others 
who  are  destitute  of  all  cultivation.  That  the 
sacred  writers  are  of  this  character,  no  one  will 
deny. 

In  the  next  place,  it  is  also  requisite  for  an 
elegant  selection  of  words,  that  the  words  of 
the  language  employed,  should  suffice  to  ex- 
press with  perspicuity  the  things  in  which 
others  are  to  be  instructed;  so  that  the  writer  may 
not  be  compelled,  either  to  employ  improper 
words  in  an  unusual  sense,  nor  to  choose  expres- 
sions  which  have  only   a  cognate   meaning. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  81 

That  the  sacred  writers  were  compelled  to  do 
both,  needs  not  here  to  be  demonstrated. 

Lastly,  that  elegance  which  lies  in  the  choice 
of  words,  requires  that  the  mind  of  the  writer 
should  neither  be  excited  by  the  novelty  of  his 
subject,  nor  agitated  by  the  magnitude  of  his 
purpose,  but  composed,  tranquil,  and  never  for- 
getful of  himself ;  especially  at  the  moment  of 
committing  to  writing  the  thoughts  which  he 
has  excogitated.  But  the  sacred  writers,  re- 
gardless of  applause,  and  unmindful  of  popular 
favour,  always  striving  for  this  end  alone,  that 
all  things  should  be  ':rfog  o/xodofj^riv,  neglected  so 
much  the  more  this  elegance  of  words,  because 
their  minds  were  aroused  and  inflamed  by  the 
magnitude  of  the  things  either  done  by  others, 
and  especially  by  their  divine  Master,  or  yet  to 
be  transacted  by  themselves. 

In  regard  also  to  that  elegance  of  style, 
which  consists  in  the  proper  construction  and 
arrangement  of  sentences,  there  is  probably  no 
one  w^ho  W' ould  demand  an  elegance  of  this  sort 
in  the  sacred  writers.  It  is  only  in  authors 
whose  chief  object  is  to  give  delight,  or  who 
wish  to  please  while  they  instruct  their  readers, 
that  this  species  of  elegance  must  not  be  w^ant- 
ing.  In  those  writers  who  desire  only  to  in- 
struct, and  to  impel  to  the  practice   of  that 

VOL.  II.  G 


82  ON  THE  GRAMMATICAL  ACCURACY 

which  is  honest  and  good,  nothing  more  is  re- 
quired, than  that  they  shall  speak  with  perspi- 
cuity and  in  a  manner  adapted  to  persuade  ;  for 
the  power  of  persuasion  lies  not  in  those  allure- 
ments of  words,  but  in  the  weight  of  thought, 
and  in  the  force  of  a  mind  imbued  with  a  sense 
of  important  things,  and  filled  as  it  were  with 
a  divine  spirit.  So  Paul  has  truly  judged,  1 
Cor.  ii.  4. 

I  do  not  here  fear  that  any  should  charge 
me  with  doing  injustice  to  the  sacred  writers. 
That  occasionally  the  most  elegant  expressions 
and  forms  of  speech  are  found  in  them,  is  ap- 
parent to  all ;  and  these  have  been  sought  out 
with  the  greatest  avidity  by  those  defenders  of 
their  style,  who  have  been  more  sedulous  than 
judicious.  These  single  forms  of  elegance, 
however,  cannot  constitute  an  elegant  style. 
But  as  is  the  case  with  many  who  bestrew  a 
bad  Latin  style  with  elegant  phrases,  like 
flowers,  and  still  are  as  far  as  possible  from  the 
true  elegance  of  that  language ;  so  here,  the 
use  of  well-turned  phrases  and  elegant  forms  of 
expression,  can  never  cause  the  writer  to  be  re- 
garded as  exhibiting  that  elegance  of  style,  for 
which  poets  and  orators  are  celebrated.  In- 
deed, if  there  be  in  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  any  elegance  of  style,   it  is  that 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  83 

which  consists  not  in  art,  but  springs  from  the 
simplicity  and  greatness  of  the  thoughts  them- 
selves ;  and  the  less  it  is  sought  for,  the  more 
certainly  and  deeply  does  it  affect  those  to 
whom  it  is  addressed.  That  this  species  of 
elegance  exists  in  the  sacred  writers  in  the 
highest  degree,  is  well  known  to  those  w^ho 
have  examined  the  subject. 

From  all  this  it  will  be  easily  understood, 
that  while  we  take  a  liberal  estimate  of  the 
grammatical  accuracy  of  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament,  we  by  no  means  assent  to  the 
opinion  of  those,  who  have  attempted  with 
more  zeal  than  success  to  shew,  that  these 
w'riters  have  employed  a  pure  Greek  idiom. 
But  would  that  all  those,  who  have  complained 
of  the  impure  Greek  of  the  New  Testament 
writers,  had  either  themselves  understood,  or 
at  least  explained  more  perspicuously  than  has 
commonly  been  done,  in  what  this  purity  of  the 
Greek  language  consists  !  Had  this  been  done, 
there  w^ould  have  been  no  ground  for  many  and 
long  disputes.  At  present,  however,  we  will 
not  enter  upon  this  subject ;  but  rather  express 
our  general  acquiescence  in  the  cautious  direc- 
tions of  Ernesti  :^    To  inquire  respecting  words. 

^  Institutio  Interp.  N.  T.  Part  I.  Sect.  II.  c.  3,  §  0". 
Biblical  Cabinet,  VoL  I.  p.  102. 


84  ON  THE  GRAMMATICAL  ACCURACY 

and  phrases^  expressing  tlnngs  about  ivhich  tJte 
Greeks  icere  accustomed  to  speak ;  and  firsts 
whether  such  single  icords  are  spoken  in  the  same 
sense  in  ichich  the  Greeks  used  them  ;  and  then, 
whether  such  phrases  have  not  only  the  syntax  of 
the  Greeks  but  also  the  same  sense  which  Greek 
usages  attributed  to  them.  As  to  the  mention 
of  syntax  here,  Ernesti  does  not  seem  to  have 
so  understood  it,  as  if  purity  of  style  were  to 
be  principally  estimated  in  reference  to  the  le- 
gitimate construction  of  words  and  phrases. 
It  is  one  thing  to  observe  the  grammatical  laws 
of  syntax ;  and  it  is  a  different  thing  to  follow 
the  practice  of  approved  writers  and  men  of 
cultivated  minds,  so  as  to  express  the  same 
things  in  the  same  words  that  they  have  used, 
or  in  the  same  way,  or  at  least  in  a  similar  and 
congruous  manner. 

Whether  this  is  actually  done,  is  not  so  easy 
to  be  determined  as  is  generally  supposed.  For 
a  habit  of  speaking  or  writing  with  purity  and 
correctness,  although  it  may  appear  to  be  un- 
restained,  is  nevertheless  limited  by  necessary 
laws  ;  the  reason  of  which  is  often  so  obscured 
by  usage,  and  so  changed  in  the  progress  of 
language,  that  it  cannot  in  every  case  be  en- 
tirely ascertained.  Hence  it  happens,  that 
words  and  phrases  used  by  the  most  approved 


OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  85 

writers,  appear  to  many  to  have  been  at  first 
received  without  ground,  and  as  it  were  b}^  ac- 
cident ;  than  which  opinion,  none  can  be  far- 
ther from  the  truth.     But  syntax,  properly  so 
called,  consists  in  the  mode  of  correctly  joining 
together  all  the  parts  of  style,  and  depends  on 
other  grounds  than  purity  of  style ;  although 
there  are  some  things  common  to  both.    Thus 
the  principal   laws   of  both  are  deduced  from 
reason,   the  common  source  of  all  languages. 
We  wish   it   therefore  to  be   distinctly  under- 
stood,  that  the   question   about  the  purity  of 
style  in  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  is 
entirely  foreign  to  our  present  discussion ;  so 
that  no  one  may  suppose,  that  we  rashly  desire 
to  renew  this  ancient  controversy.     We  are  to 
speak  only  of  the  grammatical  correctness  of 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  and  we  can 
now  more  easily  explain  in  what  this  accuracy 
consists. 

It  is  obvious  here  at  the  first  view,  that  the 
grammatical  accuracy  of  any  writer  must  con- 
sist in  the  observance  of  the  grammatical  laws 
of  the  lanofuagre  which  he  uses.  What  these 
laws  are,  and  on  what  causes  they  depend, 
seems  to  be  less  obvious ;  inasmuch  as  those 
who  attempt  to  expound  the  grammatical  laws 
of  a  language,   often   expend  all  their  labour, 


S()  ON  THE  GRAMMATICAL  ACCURACY 

either  in  explaining  single  forms  and  parts  of 
style,  or  in  shewing  how  these  may  properly 
he  joined  together  in  order  to  make  out  a 
whole  sentence.  But  why  this  should  be  done 
in  this  particular  way,  and  in  no  other,  they 
leave  unexplained,  and  rest  satisfied  with  hav- 
ing proved,  by  a  multitude  of  examples,  that 
it  is  often  so  in  classic  writers.  And  although 
the  assiduous  perusal  of  many  waiters  is  neces- 
sary, in  order  correctly  to  observe  the  laws  of 
syntax  in  a  language  ;  yet  the  causes  of  those 
laws  are  not  to  be  discerned,  except  by  a  dili- 
gent comparison  of  the  genius  of  the  language 
in  question,  w  ith  the  necessary  modes  of  think- 
ing and  speaking  common  to  all  languages. 
He,  however,  who  is  ignorant  of  the  causes  of 
these  laws,  cannot  properly  understand  their 
use  ;  much  less  can  he  teach  with  clearness  the 
mode  in  which  they  are  to  be  applied,  nor  to 
what  extent  they  may  be  changed  by  usage. 
Such  is  the  case  with  many  interpreters ;  they 
know  sufficiently  well,  how  a  word  or  construc- 
tion usually  is,  but  not  7ch?/  it  is  and  ought  to 
be  so  ;  and  consequently,  when  they  sometimes 
find  it  otherwise,  they  are  troubled  by  the  un- 
commonness  of  it,  and  cannot  explain  w4iy  it 
ought  not  to  be  so ;  or  they  tfdve  refuge  in  a 
farrago  of  exceptions,  as  they  are  called.     On 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  87 

this  account,  it  is  proper  here  to  treat,  in  a  few 
words,  of  the  causes  and  sources  of  all  gram- 
matical laws,  before  we  proceed  to  shew,  how 
far  we  suppose  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment have  observed  them. 

There  are  in  every  language  two  kinds  of 
laws.  The  first  kind  are  in  their  very  nature 
necessary,  so  that  they  are  and  must  be  found 
of  the  same  or  of  a  similar  character  in  all  lan- 
guages. The  other  kind  consists  of  those  laws 
which  spring  from  the  peculiar  genius  of  any 
particular  language.  The  former  kind  are  ne- 
cessary, because  they  arise  out  of  the  very  na- 
ture of  all  human  language,  that  is  from  reason 
itself,  and  can  therefore  never  be  violated,  but 
must  always  be  observed.  So  that  if  any  one 
should  speak  in  a  manner  different  from  what 
these  laws  require,  he  would  compel  his  hearers 
to  connect  in  thought  things  which  cannot  be 
so  joined  even  in  thought ;  as  if  a  father  should 
say,  ^^yhvYiGo,  <tou;  or  if  any  one  should  call  him 
who  is  the  son  of  Philip,  ^iXi-r-rrov  --aloa.  Here 
it  is  not  possible,  that  he  who  has  begotten 
another,  should  at  the  same  time  be  conceived 
of  as  having  the  cause  of  generation  .in  that 
other,  which  is  the  force  of  the  genitive  ;  or 
that  he  who  is  to  be  represented  as  the  son  of 


88  ON  THE  GRAMMATICAL  ACCURACY 

Philip,  should  really  be  conceived  of  as  a  son, 
when  no  relation  to  a  father  is  indicated.  The 
reason  of  these  laws  is  particularly  conspicuous 
in  the  Greek  prepositions,  where  their  own 
peculiar  force  demonstrates  the  cause,  why 
they  are  to  be  necessarily  joined  with  one,  two, 
or  three  cases.  Thus  if  we  accurately  consider 
the  proper  signification  of  each  preposition,  it 
will  not  be  difficult  to  see,  why  d~o  ij  and  t^o  can 
only  be  joined  with  the  genitive,  and  £/';  only 
with  the  accusative;  as  also  why  dia  and  xara 
not  only  may  be,  but  also  ought  to  be  con- 
strued, sometimes  with  the  genitive  and  some- 
times with  the  accusative. 

But  there  are  also  other  laws,  which,  as 
springing  from  the  nature  of  a  particular  lan- 
guage, and  being  in  a  manner  peculiar  to  it, 
are  not  in  the  same  degree  necessary ;  so  that 
it  is  possible  to  conceive  of  a  sufficient  reason, 
why  a  style  may  be  complete  and  perfect, 
although  these  laws  are  neglected.  Hence  it 
arises,  that  idioms,  which  are  introduced  by 
usage  contrary  to  the  general  laws  of  a  lan- 
guage,*^ are  not  to  be  regarded  as  faulty ;  and 
that  what  may  appear  as  solecisms  to  the  un- 
learned, are  sometimes  in  fact  the  most  elegant 

"  See  Hermann  ad  Vigeium,  Leips.  1822,  p.  80'5. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  89 

figures  ((r;^^/xara)  of  style.^  The  reason  of 
these  grammatical  laws  then,  although  in  it- 
self perhaps  obvious,  is  often  greatly  obscured 
by  opposite  usage ;  so  that  it  is  not  wonderful, 
that  the  precepts  of  grammarians  respecting 
this  part  of  syntax,  should  either  not  have  been 
understood  by  those  who  judge  of  the  nature 
of  language  only  by  number  and  case ;  or 
should  not  have  been  sufficient  to  enable  us  in 
all  instances  certainly  to  determine,  whether 
one  has  written  correctly  or  incorrectly.  It  is 
obvious,  however,  that  in  estimating  the  gram- 
matical accuracy  of  any  writer,  these  different 
species  of  grammatical  laws  must  be  distin- 
guished. If  a  writer  violate  those  laws,  of 
which  reason  and  the  nature  of  things  always 
require  the  observance,  he  cannot  be  said  to 
use  the  language  of  man  ;  but  if  he  neglect  the 
other  species  of  laws,  we  must  first  examine, 
whether  there  is  not  some  probable  cause  for 
this  neglect.  On  this  account  it  will  be  well 
to  treat  of  the  two  species  of  laws  separately. 

In  the  first  place  then,  although  it  mav  be 
taken  for  granted  that  the  sacred  writers  have 
observed  the  necessary  laws  of  the  Greek  lan- 
guage,— otherwise  they  would  hardly  seem  to 

^  Compare  ApoUonius  Alex.    De  Constructione  Orationis, 
L.  III.  p.  197.  ed.  Bekker. 


00  ON  THE   GRAM-AIATICAL  ACCURACY 

have  spoken  like  men  endowed  with  reason, — 
yet  it  may  be  worth  while  to  look  more  closely 
at  the  subject,   than   has  usually  been   done. 
There  are  those  who,  in  interpreting  the  New 
Testament,  care  very  little  for  the  observance 
of  any  laws  ;  and  if  the  words  of  any  writer  in- 
terpreted grammatically,   that  is,  according  to 
the  laws  of  language,  express  a  sentiment  fo- 
reign to  their  system  or  to  their  private  opi- 
nions, they  do  not  hesitate  to  disregard  entirely 
those  laws,  and,  neglecting  the  proper  force  of 
the  words,   contend,   that   the  writer  has  said 
what  no  one  in  his  senses  ever  could  have  said 
by  means  of  such  words.     And  we  could  show 
by  a  multitud.e  of  examples,  how  many  false 
interpretations  which  have  sprung  up  out  of  a 
hatred  of  orthodoxy,  rest  solely  upon  the  opi- 
nions of  men,  who,  because  they  have  taken  it 
for  granted,  that  the  sacred  writers  did  not  ob- 
serve even   the   necessary  laws    of  language, 
have  supposed  that  their  words  might  be  made 
to  signify  just  what  they  themselves  pleased. 
Inasmuch,  however,  as  the  interpretation  of  the 
New  Testament  would  be  destitute  of  all  cer- 
tain  rule  and  method,   unless  we  observe  at 
least  those  laws  of  language,  the  neglect  of 
which  implies  also  incorrectness  of  thought,  we 
will  endeavour  to  show  by  some  examples,  that 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  91 

the  sacred  writers  have  observed  even  those 
laws  in  which  few  require  accuracy  or  can 
judge  of  it. 

To  begin  with  the  prepositions ;  for  there  is 
no  signification,  however  repugnant,  which  has 
not  been  assigned  to  each  of  the  prepositions 
in  the  New  Testament ;  and  moreover  we  shall 
learn  to  estimate  more  correctly  the  accuracy 
of  the  sacred  writers  in  a  grammatical  view,  if 
we  find  them  paying  a  strict  regard  even  to 
those  laws,  which,  although  necessary,  are  yet 
by  few  regarded  as  necessary.  The  nature  of 
the  prepositions,  as  I  have  remarked  above,  is 
such,  that  they  can  either  govern  only  one 
case,  or  they  admit  two  or  more  cases  ;  in  such 
a  way,  however,  that,  according  to  the  variety 
of  their  signification,  they  require  necessarily 
some  one  particular  case.  I  do  not  however 
fear,  in  asserting  that  this  nature  of  the  pre- 
positions has  been  accurately  observed  by  the 
sacred  writers,  that  any  one  will  consider  me 
as  on  this  account  attributing  a  refinement  to 
the  style  of  unlearned  men.  It  is  necessary 
rather  to  be  on  our  guard,  lest  in  denying  to 
the  sacred  writers  those  things  which  are  re- 
garded as  peculiar  to  men  of  more  cultivated 
minds,  we  should  seem  to  approach  them  with 


92  ON  THE  GRAMMATICAL  ACCURACY 

faults  which  are  scarcely  to  be  excused  in  per- 
sons even  of  the  lowest  class. 

The  force  of  the  prepositions,  as  Hermann 
has  justly  remarked, '^  does  not  depend  upon 
the  cases  which  they  govern  ;  but  it  is  to  be 
explained  from  the  verbs  on  which  the  prepo- 
sitions  themselves   depend.      It  follows   from 
this,   that  a  preposition,  even  if  it  retain  the 
same   signification  as  to  the  general  notion  of 
the  thing  expressed,  may  yet  require  a  diffe- 
rent case,  provided  the  verb  on  which  that  pre- 
position depends,  changes  in  any  way  the  mode 
of  conceiving  the  relation  of  that  thing.     For 
if  prepositions  serve  to  indicate  the  relations  of 
ideas,   the   cause  is  apparent,   both  why  they 
govern  cases  at  all,  and  why  they  govern  only 
one  case,   or  why  they  govern  different  cases, 
if  the  verb  on  which  they  depend  changes  the 
mode  of  conceiving  that  relation.     Some  go- 
vern but  a  single  case,   because  the  idea  ex- 
})ressed  by  the  verb   on   which  they  depend, 
necessarily  demands  that  case  ;  for  the  force  of 
these  prepositions  is  such,  that  if  other  cases 
v.ere  joined  to  them,  the  very  idea  of  the  verb 
would  be   contradicted.     Others  again  govern 
more  cases,  because  the  idea  contained  in  them 

f  Hermann,  De  ejnejidenda  ratioiie   Graecae    Grainniat. 
J,.  102. 


or  THE   NEW  TESTA-MENT.  93 

is  such,  that  it  may  be  conceived  of  in  various 
relations,  though  in  a  different  manner ;  and 
hence  they  may  be  joined  with  verbs  of  diffe- 
rent species,  which  govern  different  cases. 

By  verbs  of  different  species,  I  mean  those 
which  indicate  the  diiferent  modes  in  which  the 
relation  of  two  things  may  be  conceived.  Thus 
ihai  and  "cc.y^zG'^at  are  different  species  of  verbs  ; 
for  when  we  couple  the  notion  of  any  two 
things  by  means  of  ihai,  we  signify  nothing 
more,  than  that  these  two  notions  are  in  some 
way  connected  ;  but  h-xis^"-'  properly  indicates 
motion,  by  which  the  relation  of  place  is  chang- 
ed. Now^  motion  may  be  conceived  of  in  a 
threefold  view,  as  either  z??,  or  from,  or  to  a 
place ;  and  therefore  the  verb  i^yja^at  governs 
also  three  cases,  and  calls  to  its  aid  those  preposi- 
tions, which  serve  to  express  those  different 
relations.  A  person  is,  therefore,  correctly 
said  u-o'Wo-j  ilvai,  and  O-o  'ix/w,  when  he  is  under 
(at,  near)  Ilium  ;  but  if  he  is  to  be  represented 
as  coming  to  Ilium,  so  as  to  be  under  it,  he  is 
said  v~b  "l/jov  soyjff^iau  The  reason,  therefore, 
why  Homer  says  :  alcyjs-og  bz  d\ir,o  l-o  "iKiov  tjk^z, 
is  to  be  sought  in  the  verb  ^X^s.  Had  he  said 
uto'Ia/w  v-^f?  it  would  have  signified  that  he 
came  to  Ilium,  but  that  being  under  Ilium,  he 
had  come  to  some  particular  place  there.  For  the 


94  ON  THE  GRAiMMATICAL  ACCURACY 

same  reason  we  find,  Luke  vii.  6.  ha  ii-b  -//v 
G-syr,'j  2/V£a3?5?.  In  the  following  passages  the 
reason  of  the  construction  is  different ;  Mark 
IV.  32,  i/To  rr,v  ffzidv  aurov  ra  cnrnvu  roii  ov^avou 
■7raTaff-/.'/jvovv,  John  l.  49,  O'/ra  'u~o  rri'j  ffvxriv.  1 
Cor.  X.  1.  ij'Tb  rrt'j  vipXrjv  rim>  In  these  instan- 
ces the  verbs  xaraffx-zji-oDi/  and  g?w./,  seem  to  re- 
quire not  the  accusative,  but  the  genitive  or 
dative  ;  so  that  at  first  view  one  is  tempted  to 
suppose  that  the  writers  have  erred  against  the 
necessary  laws  of  language.  But  there  is 
either  a  probable  reason  why  vto  should  be 
joined  with  the  accusative  in  a  relation  of  this 
sort,  or  else  the  best  writers  have  erred  in  like 
manner.  So  Xenophon,  Anab.  III.  4,  i:p  n^  r, 
■/.UTufSadi;  riv  s/g  ro  -soiov  Herodotus  II.  137,  ovrs 
yao  \i'7ri6Ti  6/>.>;,aara  jto  yriw  In  Homer  also  and 
other  writers,  Ocro  is  very  often  construed  with 
the  accuative,  when  the  verb  from  which  it 
depends  seems  rather  to  require  the  dative. 
But  if  we  carefully  look  at  all  the  examples  of 
this  sort,  it  will  easily  be  seen,  that  the  accu- 
sative is  used  in  order  to  make  more  conspi- 
cuous the  fact,  that  a  thing  or  person  is  so  con- 
nected with  another  thing,  that  the  latter  is  to 
be  conceived  of  and  regarded  as  an  adjunct  or 
accident  of  the  former.  The  noun,  therefore, 
which  is  put  in  the  accusative,   is  such  as  de- 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  95 

notes  either  the  p/ace  in  which  any  thing-  is  or 
happens,  or  the  time  at  which  it  happens  ;  for 
time  and  place  are  necessary  adjuncts  in  all 
things.  So  when  it  is  said  (1  Cor.  x.  1,) 
that  the  fathers  were  all  uto  rttv  vspXr,v,  we  are 
to  bear  in  mind,  that  while  they  were  journey- 
ing, the  cloud  was  always  with  them  ;  but  had 
it  been  b-b  vspXri;,  it  would  have  expressed  no- 
thing more  than  that  they  had  been  once  under 
a  cloud ;  which  was  not  the  intention  of  the 
writer. 

Should  any  one  be  disposed  to  regard  this 
distinction  as  more  subtle  than  true,  let  him  re- 
flect why  all  good  Greek  writers  say  v-h  yuzra, 
vp"  riH,ioav,  and  not  C'TO  vu-/.Th;,  ■j;p'  r^fji^spixgy  when 
they  wish  to  express  that  any  thing  was  done 
by  night  or  in  the  day  time.  Not  unfrequently 
we  are  able  to  see  why  a  thing  ought  to  be  said 
in  a  certain  way,  when  we  perceive  that  the 
same  could  not  have  been  said  in  any  other  way. 

The  principle  is  also  the  same,  in  regard  to 
the  preposition  o/a.  When  dia,  governs  the  ge- 
nitive, it  denotes  the  cause  h?/  or  tlirovgh  which 
a  thing  is  or  exists,  or  the  manner  in  which  a 
thing  is  done  or  becomes  such  as  we  would  re- 
present it.  With  the  accusative,  on  the  other 
hand,  oia  marks  the  cause  on  account  0/ which 
a  thing  is  done  or  conceived  to  be  done.    Thus 


96  ON   THE   GRAMMATICAL  ACCURACY 

in  Heb.  ix.  12,  it  is  properly  said,  Xpiarhg  did 
^ou  ihiox)  a'iiMarog  s/V^X^si/  iig  tol  dyia,  for  it  is  the 
mode  in  which  he  entered  that  is  here  spoken 
of.  So  also  it  is  correctly  said  in  Rev.  xii.  11, 
Wr/.Ttda'j  rev  '/.arriyooov  did  ro  ai[i,a  rov  -doyiov  zai  hid  rh 
}.6yov  T7\c,  /MUPT-j^iag  oJjtoov.  Here  we  are  to  con- 
ceive of  them  as  overcoming  out  of  regard  to 
ro  r/j/xa  x.ai  rov  Xoyov,  as  if  these  were  the  cause 
on  account  of  which  they  were  impelled  to 
conquer;  for  they  did  not  regard  their  own 
lives,  as  is  immediately  subjoined :  ouz  rjyd-rjGa.^ 
rr,v  •\\)yjiv  ah-m,  dyj^i  '^avdrov.  And  although  the 
cause  which  impelled  them  to  conquer,  also 
gave  them  strength  and  power  for  the  victory, 
yet  the  mode  of  conceiving  of  it  in  this  first 
relation  is  different.  Here  therefore  we  are  to 
think  not  only  of  the  efficient  cause,  which 
enabled  them  to  overcome,  but  also  of  the  im- 
pelling cause,  which  induced  them  to  under- 
take the  contest.  The  case  is  similar  in  1  John 
ii.  12,  on  d(psuvrai  u^(mTv  a)  dfj^aoricci  did  rh  o>o,aa  avroZ, 
For  if  John  had  written  did  rov  ov6/xarog,  we  must 
have  supposed  ro  ovo/jju  avrou  to  be  the  effi- 
cient cause  of  the  remission  of  sins ;  which, 
however,  is  not  the  meaning  of  the  apostle ;  and 
we  are  to  regard  them  as  having  obtained  re- 
mission on  account  of\  for  the  aahe  of,  his  name. 
And  when  it  said,  John  vi.  57,  xayw  ^&;  did  rov 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  97 

cannot  doubt  that  dice  denotes  not  so  much  the 
efficient  cause,  (certainly  not  that  alone,)  as 
the  end  or  object  in  which  the  reason  of  living 
is  to  be  sought ;  for  as  the  reason  why  Christ 
lived  on  earth  was  in  the  Father  who  sent  him, 
(since  it  was  the  object  of  his  life  to  fulfil  the 
commands  of  the  Father,)  so  those  live  because 
of  or  on  account  oj  Christ,  who  yield  obedience 
to  his  doctrines. 

The  same  holds  true  also  when  hd  seems  to 
denote  the  impulsive  cause,  as  it  is  called :  as 
bicc  (p'^mv^  did  ff-rrXdy^va  sAsoyg  SsoD-  very  similar  tO 
which  is  also  John  x.  32,  oid  --oTov  t^yov  Xi'^d^sT:  fxs. 
It  is  obvious,  if  he  had  here  said  did  miov  l^yoy, 
we  must  have  thought,  not  on  the  deed  on  ac- 
count o/'which,  but  on  the  manner  in  which,  they 
wished  to  stone  him  ;  just  as  if  one  should  say 
Old  }j^uv  Ki'^dt^iiv.  Here  also,  then,  did  denotes 
not  per,  but  propter ;  and  is  correctly  joined 
with  the  accusative.  On  the  other  hand,  in 
Acts  iii.  16,  7]  'jTiGTig  7}  6/  au-ou  is  not  t/ct/c  dg 
avrov,  but  the  Tiffrtg  of  which  he  is  the  author 
and  cause.  In  2  Pet.  i.  3,  piocXkavTog  rj/xdg  did 
du^ng  Ttai  a^srJjc,  it  is  not  he  who  calls  us  to  do^av 
yea!  d^iTTjv,  that  is  meant ;  but  he  who  calls  us 
through  do^av  zai  d^srriv  avrov,  ha  did  rovrm  rr.g 
^iiag  -/.oivuvoi  pvdCfjg  ysvu)/M^^a,  V.  4,  comp.  1  Pet* 
H 


98  ON  THE  GRAMMATICAL  ACCURACY 

ii.  9.  For  the  highest  ooga  xa)  doirri  of  God  are 
exhibited  in  this  vocation.  Had  it  been  the 
purpose  to  direct  our  attention  to  the  object  or 
end  to  which  they  are  called,  it  must  have  been 
written  bia  rr.v  ^o^av  xoci  d^sTTiv.  But  the  mean- 
ing of  the  formula  did  d6t,rig  in  2  Cor.  iii.  11,  is 
the  same  as  is  found  in  many  other  instances, 
where  bid  either  denotes  the  mode  in  which  a 
thing  is  done,  as  bid  vz-o,(Movr,g,  Rom.  viii.  23  ; 
Heb.  xii.  1,  and  bid  v6/j.ov  zpi^/iffovrai,  Rom.  ii.  12 ; 
or  it  indicates  the  cause  through  or  by  which  a 
thing  is  done,  as  bid  rrig  caoythg^  Rom.  v.  19  ;  viii. 
8,  and  bi^  o\>  xa/  rr]v  'x^odaytayrtV  scy^7i'/.ocfXiv,  Rom.  V. 
2,  comp.  V.  1,  11.  Hence  we  understand  why 
Peter  could  say  correctly  in  2  Pet.  iii.  5,  yri  ij 
vbaTog  zal  bi'  vbarog  ffwicruffa  ruj  ro\j  SsoD  aojuj. 
Here  Jg  vbarog  signifies  that  the  earth  arose  out 
of  the  water,  as  if  water  were  the  material. 
This  was  done  6/  vbaroc,  through  the  efficacy  of 
the  water  itself,  in  the  omnipotent  w  ill  of  God. 
What  is  subjoined  in  v.  6,  6/  &v  6  tots  xCs/Mog  vban 
zarayj.va'^slc  d-'djl-iro,  has  been  rightly  interpret- 
ed by  Markland  (ad  Lysiam  p.  329  ed  Reisk.) 
in  the  same  manner  as  a  thing  is  said  to  be 
done  bid  nvcc,  i.  e.  durinc;  the  existence  of 
something  else ;  as  in  the  passage  itself  of 
Lyias,  yvu)^i/Mg  yivC/Xivog  bid  rrig  sy.sivov  buva- 
GTsi'ag,  i.  e.  durante  fjiis  pof estate.  So  also 
in     Rom.    ii.     27,     rhv    bid    ypdfM/x/j.Tog   xui   m^i-0- 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  99 

fhv\g^  and  iv.  11,  rm  cT/ffrs'joi/rwv  bi  dx^oSvcfriag. 
Lastly,  in  the  celebrated  passage,  Rom.  iii.  25, 
Paul  has  correctly  said,  that  God  constituted 
Christ  }Xaff-y]oiov  dia  r/i;  'Tiffnu;,  (for  the  }Xaff^lg 
comes  through  faith,)  and  has  thereby  mani- 
fested rriv  dr/i(xw(S-j\/7jv  aurou  bta  r7\v  ^dpsffiv  ruiv  d[i,a^- 
rri'j.d-oi'j,  i.  e.  on  account  of  (propter)  the  pardon 
of  sins  ;  plainly  as  in  Rom.  iv.  25,  og  cra^sSo^'/j 
bia.  ra  <7:aoai:TiS}iJ^aTa  7]fJi,U)V  zai  rr/sp^T}  did  r^v  dixaidj^iv 
Tifj^Mv,  on  account  o/'pardon  and  salvation,  or  that 
we  might  obtain  pardon  and  salvation.  As  the 
apostle  says  in  1  Cor.  viii.  2,  hid  rdg  rroomag 
s'/taffTog  TTjv  suurou  ywuTza  sy/-ru,  {i.  e,  on  account 
of,  or  in  order  to  avoid,  fornication,)  so  also  in 
the  above  passage  he  has  correctly  said  ;  o  ^so? 
rr^oi^iTo  a\i-h  ikaffr/jPiov  did  rrig  •T/Vnwc,  s/g  hhit^iv 
rrig  dizaioavr/jg  cciirov  did  rr^v  ■:raps(riv  ruiv  dfj^asrrifMdr'jr,' 
for  this  is  the  end  of  rJj;  dr/,aio(fJ'jrig,  that  we  may 
obtain  pardon. 

These  examples  suffice  to  shew,  that  the 
sacred  writers  have  observed  at  least  the  ne- 
cessary laws  of  language  with  more  fidelity 
than  is  generally  supposed.  We  pass  there- 
fore to  the  other  species  of  laws,  or  those  pe- 
culiar to  the  Greek  tongue.  This  topic  is  a 
very  ample  one,  and  covers,  so  to  speak,  the 
Avhole  usus  locpiendi,  of  that  language  ;  and  it 
cannot  therefore  be  expected,  that  we  should 
here  explain  every  thing  in  which  the  inter- 


100     ON  THE  GRAMMATICAL  ACCURACY 

preters  of  the  New  Testament  have  found  a 
departure  from  Greek  usage.  The  subject  of 
Greek  idioms,  for  instance,  has  not  yet  been 
so  clearly  explained  and  settled,  that  every 
idiom  may  be  at  once  referred  to  a  certain  rule ; 
nor  so  that  the  causes  can  every  where  be  as- 
signed, in  consequence  of  which  usage  has 
correctly  introduced  forms  and  modes  of  speak- 
ing, which  are  contrary  to  the  grammatical  laws. 
In  general,  the  genius  of  the  Greeks  was  so 
active  and  rapid,  that  their  language  abounds 
in  forms  and  figures  of  this  sort,  more  than  any 
other ;  and  as  these  do  not  rest  on  the  autho- 
rity of  law,  and  seem  often  to  depend  on  mere 
taste  or  caprice,  they  render  this  part  of  Greek 
grammar  exceedingly  difficult,  and  are  regard- 
ed by  the  unskilful  as  faults.  Hence,  even  the 
ancient  grammarians  have  sometimes  named 
those  forms  of  speaking  solecisms,  which,  when 
occurring  in  the  best  writers,  they  have  called 
Jigures,  6')(7ifMaTa^  of  the  Greek  language.  And 
since  those  who  have  formed  their  estimate  of 
that  language  from  the  jejune  precepts  of  these 
grammarians,  have  of  course  not  understood 
the  nature  of  these  cyjuxaTci'  they  have  often 
regarded  the  sacred  penmen  as  writing  incor- 
rectly, when  they  have  only  used  the  same 
license  which  is  found  in  the  best  Greek  au- 
thors.    The  sacred  writers  duly  observe  the 


OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT,  101 

laws  of  grammar  ;  but  not  always  the  laws  of 
the  grammarians.  And  it  is  truly  said  by 
ApoUonius  Alexandrinus,  De  Constructione 
OratlOJiis,  III.  2,  ou  d'/j  yi  ^ri^oriGn  ric,  akoyoxjg  rag 
7oice.'jraz  ffvvrd^sig  (pdvat,  ruv  sXXoyifAurdrojv  dvdouv 
-^o'/jffafjjsvuvj  xai  ro\J  Xoyo'j  ovk  sfATodt^ovroc,'  ^^Xov  ouv 
'Jig  Tj  Kara  -oX'j  ysvofMsvri  ffuvra^ig  d<7rrjvsy/caro  rriv  ovo- 
fMaGiav  o5  Xoyw  x,ai  aXka  Kara  tXsov  s'riK^drTjds,  ''  No 
one  indeed  will  undertake  to  call  such  con- 
structions improper,  since  they  are  employed 
by  the  most  approved  writers,  and  are  not  con- 
trary to  reason.  It  is  manifest,  therefore,  that 
the  predominant  construction  has  borne  off  the 
name,  just  as  other  things  also  prevail  by 
numbers." 

Thus,  for  example,  when  it  said  in  the  Apo- 
calypse (i.  5,  6,)  d'n'b  'Irjffov  XPiffrov,  6  /j^d^rvg  6 
■TTiffrog, — xaiod^^uv  ruv^affiXsuvrjjg  yr^g'  rw  dya^xr^tsani 
rjijjdg  Tcai  Xouffavri  r}fidg  xai  s'Tro/rjffsv  yj/Jjdg  jSasiXsTg' 
auru)  Ti  do'^a  z.  r.  X.  there  seems,  at  first  view,  to 
be  almost  as  many  solecisms  as  there  are 
words.  Sed  salva  res  est.  We  grant,  indeed, 
that  this  form  of  apposition  is  somewhat  un- 
usual ;  and  if  it  had  stood  og  /Mdorvc,  no  objection 
could  have  been  made.  As  to  the  solecism 
which  is  commonly  found  in  the  following 
words,  as  if  the  dative  rw  dyaTrimvn  were  to  be 
referred  to  octo,  this  comes  not  from  the  apostle, 


102       ON  THE  GRAMMATICAL   ACCURACY 

but  from  the  transcribers.  The  full  sentence 
is  completed  with  y^c,  and  the  datives  are  to 
be  referred  to  the  following  avru)  ri  6oJa*  for 
nothing  is  more  common  than  the  insertion  of 
this  pronoun,  referring  back  to  the  article  at 
some  distance  before  it.  There  remains  then 
nothing  to  give  offence,  except  the  consecution 
of  the  indicative  after  participles ;  and  there 
are  probably  those  who  hold  this  to  be  an  error 
of  the  apostle.  But  even*  this  is  not  without 
some  probable  grounds.  For  since  the  parti- 
ciple partakes  of  the  nature  of  an  adjective,  it 
is  easy  to  see,  that  he  who  says  6  a^aT^aac, 
means  nothing  more  than  he  who  loved  ;  which 
is  the  same  as  if  he  had  said  og  Yr/d':TYi6iv.  There 
is,  therefore,  no  incongruity,  in  referring  an 
indicative  joined  with  a  participle  in  the  same 
period,  to  the  same  subject ;  because  in  both, 
there  is  the  designation  of  an  adjective  or  pre- 
dicate. Nor  was  it  necessary  that  the  Ig  which 
is  implied  in  the  participle,  should  be  repeated 
before  J^or/j^r  since  it  is  necessarily  understood. 
The  omission  of  a  word  does  not  render  the 
style  incomplete  or  incongruous,  provided  it  be 
plainly  implied  in  what  is  said  ;  neither  does  a 
change  of  case  produce  this  eifect,  unless  there 
should  be  no  word  expressed  or  implied,  which 
may  properly  govern  one  ortheotherofthecases. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  103 

But  if  there  be  any  thing  faulty  in  figures  of 
this  kind,  then  the  writings  of  the  prince  of 
poets  swarm  with  errors ;  for  in  Homer  such 
constructions  are  very  frequent.  So  II.  VI. 
509,  510. 

—  -j-^ov  5j  '/.doyj  "i'/it,  cc[j.:pi  3s  yjx7rat 
oiijL<pa  s  yovva  <p?^ii . 

"  He   bears  his   head  aloft,   his  mane  floats 
around  his  shoulders;  but  he,  trusting  in  his 
beauty,  his  limbs  lightly  bear  him,"  etc. 
So  also  513,  514. 


*'  He  advanced  exulting,  and  his  swift  feet 
bore  him." 

But  here  follows  a  passage,  in  which  all  the 
constructions  occur,  that  have  given  so  much 
offence  in  the  Apocalypse ;  II.  VI.  479,  ff. 

Ttai  rroTs  rig  s'Jrrrj  6v  'jrar^og  3'  oys  'ttoXXov  d/j^sivuv ! 
SK  'TToXsjuov  dviovra'  (pisoi  3'  svasa  (Soorosvra, 
zrsivag  d'/j/ov  dvdpa. 

"  And  then  may  some  one  say,  He  is  far 
braver  than  his  father,  him  returnins:  from  bat- 
tie ;  and  may  he  bring  back  bloody  spoils,  hav- 
ing slain  a  foe." 


104         ON  THE  GRAMMATICAL  ACCURACY 

In  truth,  it  is  the  very  nature  of  such  figures 
as  these,  to  render  the  style,  which  would 
otherwise  be  encumbered  by  too  many  words, 
more  adapted  to  express  the  ideas.  The  power 
of  language  does  not  consist  alone  in  this,  that 
the  same  idea  should  be  excited  in  the  mind  of 
the  hearer,  which  existed  in  that  of  the  speak- 
er ;  but  also  that  it  should  be  perceived,  and, 
as  it  were,  felt  in  the  same  manner  and  degree 
by  the  former,  as  it  presented  itself  to  the  mind 
of  the  latter.  If  now  any  one  will  reduce 
those  words  of  Hector  to  the  rules  of  syntax, 
he  will  at  once  see,  that  they  express  indeed 
the  same  ideas,  but  in  a  manner  far  different 
from  that  in  which  those  images  affected  the 
mind  of  Hector  himself. 

Should  it  now  be  said,  that  figures  of  this 
sort,  in  orators  and  poets,  are  artificial  and  ob- 
jects of  research,  but  are  in  the  apostles  unde- 
signed and  accidental ;  it  may  be  replied,  that 
the  question  is,  not  what  is  said  with  art  and 
study,  but  what  is  said  correctly.  The  best 
writers,  whether  poets  or  orators,  or  historians, 
are  applauded,  not  because  they  have  studious- 
ly sought  for  single  words  and  forms,  but  be- 
cause they  have,  as  it  were,  naturally  and  in- 
stinctively, written  or  spoken  in  the  manner 
which  the  subject  required,  and  not  necessarily 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  105 

in  that  prescribed  by  the  syntax  of  the  gram- 
marians. 

It  has  also  been  objected  to  the  sacred  pen- 
men, that  while  different  classes  of  authors 
usually  have  characteristics  peculiar  to  them- 
selves, the  style  of  the  writers  of  the  ^ew  Tes- 
tament is  mixed  up  from  every  kind  of  writing  ; 
that  while  the  peculiarities  of  tragic  authors, 
for  instance,  are  foreign  to  the  style  of  the  ora- 
tor and  historian,  in  the  New  Testament  all  is 
found  mingled  together.  This  representation 
is  not  without  the  appearance  of  truth  ;  but  the 
objection  may  be  easily  removed.  For  first, 
the  nature  of  the  style  of  the  sacred  writers  is 
such,  as  to  approach  as  near  as  possible  to  the 
common  usus  loquendi  of  ordinary  life.  But 
this  usus^  which  governs  alike  the  learned  and 
the  unlearned,  is  of  such  a  nature,  that  it  sub- 
mits with  difficulty  to  the  fetters  of  syntax,  so 
far  as  the  laws  of  this  latter  are  not  necessary 
and  essential ;  either  because  the  thoughts  are 
uttered  in  an  unpremeditated  manner  and  as 
rapidly  as  possible ;  or  because  the  mutual  in- 
terchange of  thought  does  not  require  or  bear, 
either  a  multitude  of  words,  nor  fulness  of 
construction  ;  or  because,  when  speaking  in 
the  presence  of  one  another,  men  do  not  need 
to  express  every  idea  fully  in  words,  since  tone. 


106        ON  THE  GRAMMATICAL  ACCURACY 

and  expression,  and  gesture  can  then  aiFord 
their  aid  for  the  full  understanding  of  what  is 
uttered.  It  is  therefore  not  surprising,  that 
this  mixed  kind  of  writing  should  be  found  in 
the  New  Testament ;  and  of  him  who  best 
understands  the  causes  of  this  style,  we  should 
not  hesitate  to  say,  that  he  is  the  best  inter- 
preter of  the  sacred  writers.  It  is  also  to  be 
borne  in  mind,  that  those  peculiar  modes  of 
speaking,  as  they  are  called,  are  not  so  exclu- 
sively appropriated  to  particular  classes  of 
writers,  but  that  they  may  be  employed  by  all 
those  whose  minds  are  aifected  in  the  same 
manner.  The  modes  of  expression  found  in 
poets,  are  not  peculiar  to  them  merely  because 
their  language  is  regulated  by  numbers ;  but 
because  their  thoughts  are  of  such  a  kind  as  to 
require,  or  best  to  bear,  these  modes  of  ex- 
pression ;  and  therefore  he  who  should  think 
the  same  things  in  the  same  manner,  might 
properly  apply  the  same  species  of  language. 
The  sacred  writers,  therefore,  are  not  to  be 
censured,  because  they  have  promiscuously 
employed  every  species  of  expression,  provided 
only  their  style  has  sufficient  symmetry  and 
congruity.  On  this  point,  it  is  more  difficult 
to  form  a  judgment  than  many  suppose,  who 
declare  that  the  sacred  writers  paid  no  regard 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  107 

to  grammatical  accuracy,  because  they  appear 
sometimes  to  have  used  middle  verbs  for  pas- 
sives, or  to  have  erred  in  some  other  manner. 
This  last  question,  however,  refers  not  to  the 
observance  of  grammatical  laws,  but  to  purity 
of  language,  as  has  been  remarked  above. 

Such  then  being  the  result  of  our  inquiries, 
it  follows,  that  in  order  that  the  interpretation 
of  the  New  Testament  may  not  be  left  in  a 
state  of  entire  uncertainty,  every  interpreter 
should  prescribe  it  as  a  rule  to  himself  to  pay 
a  strict  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  grammati- 
cal laws,  and  never  in  any  case  to  depart  from 
them,  nor  have  recourse  to  Hebraisms,  until 
he  clearly  sees,  that  a  passage  interpreted 
according  to  those  laws  alone,  must  be  despair- 
ed of. 


SIMPLICITY  IN  THE  INTERPRETATION 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


That  the  church  of  Christ  is  governed  not  by 
the  will  of  man,  but  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  we 
are  admonished  by  the  approach  of  the  holy 
festival,  on  which  we  are  to  celebrate  the  re- 
membrance of  that  Pentecost,  when  the  apos- 
tles were  first  divinely  imbued  with  this  same 
Spirit,  in  accordance  with  the  promise  which 
our  Lord  had  given  them  at  his  departure 
from  the  world.  At  that  time,  indeed,  it  was 
the  case,  as  often  happens  to  those  who  seek 
the  hope  of  safety  or  the  cause  of  fear  in  the 
external  vicissitudes  of  things,  that  the  full  im- 
port of  the  high  benefit  which  the  apostles 
then  received,  was  understood  by  very  few. 


OF  THE  NEAV  TESTAMENT.  109 

Kor  was  it  entirely  comprehended  at  a  later 
period,  when  the  church  had  become  corrupted 
by  the  lust  of  power  and  the  authority  of  mere 
human  opinions.  But  in  this  our  day,  when 
we  behold  all  things  governed  by  an  external 
power,  and  the  laws  of  right  reason  haughtily 
contemned,  it  is  very  seldom  that  men  raise 
their  minds  to  the  contemplation  of  the  holy, 
pure,  divine,  internal,  and  eternal  kingdom  of 
God ;  but  borne  down  under  the  sense  of  pre- 
sent evils,  they  either  acquiesce  through  tor- 
por in  those  things  which  they  see  and  feel  to 
be  inevitable,  or  are  compelled,  however  un- 
willingly, to  yield  to  them  the  service  of  their 
whole  lives. ^  There  are  also  not  a  few^  so  for- 
getful of  the  promise  of  our  Lord  that  he  will 
bestow  TO  crv2L//xa  TTiC  dXri^siug  upon  his  church,  as 
to  regard  the  church  of  Christ  as  little  other 
than  a  human  institution.  But  this  opinion  is 
refuted  by  the  voice  of  time ;  for  never  has  the 
Spirit  of  God  wholly  deserted  the  church,  even 
in  the  periods  of  her  greatest  danger ;  and  never 
will  the  same  Spirit  cease  to  direct  and  govern 
her  in  future,  but  will  preserve  her,  though  sur- 

a  There  would  seem  to  be  in  this  sentence  a  general  allu- 
sion to  the  pohtical  thraldom  and  despondent  feeling  of  Ger- 
many, at  the  period  when  the  article  was  written. — Ed. 


110  SIMPLICITY  IN  INTERPRETATION 

rounded  with  eminent  perils,  until  the  final 
consummation  of  all  human  things. 

It  is  however  the  duty  of  all,  especially  in 
these  our  days,  to  watch  and  see  how^  the  in- 
fluence and  power  of  the  divine  Spirit  may  be 
preserved  and  augmented  among  Christians. 
It  is  incumbent  particularly  on  those  who  have 
consecrated  their  lives  to  learning,  to  beware, 
lest  through   their  fault  this   light  of  human 
life  should  be  obscured  or  extinguished.     This 
may  happen,  it  is  to  be  feared,  chiefly  through 
the  neglect  of  those,  by  whose  erudition  and 
zeal  the  word  of  God,  that  instrument  through 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  operates,  ought  to  be 
daily  more  thoroughly  understood  and  made  to 
illuminate  more  and  more  strongly  the  life  of 
man,  that  thus  the  Gospel  may  be  preserved 
in  its  purity  in  the  church  for  ever.     For  if 
the  Spirit  of  God  operates  through  the  power 
which  is  inherent  in  the  word  of  God,  it  is  ob- 
vious, that  this  divine  gift  can  neither  be  pre- 
served, nor  the  church  remain  secure,  unless 
the  sacred  Scriptures,  correctly  interpreted  by 
men  of  real  learning,  are  open  and  accessible 
to  all  Christians,  so  that  they  may  draw  from 
this  pure  fountain  the  precepts  and  principles 
that  are  necessary,  in  order  to  the  right  dis- 
charge  of  all   their  duties  towards  God   and 
man. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT,  111 

This  subject  of  the  interpretation  of  the 
New  Testament,  however,  although  exceed- 
ingly ample,  has  yet  been  so  often  treated  of 
by  learned  writers,  that  there  seems  scarcely  a 
remaining  topic  on  which  to  make  suggestions 
relative  to  the  true  method  of  interpretation. 
Inasmuch,  however,  as  the  most  useful  pre- 
cepts can  avail  nothing,  unless  the  interpreter 
possess  that  disposition  and  those  qualities 
which  enable  him  rightly  to  employ  them,  we 
therefore  do  not  fear  that  we  shall  lose  our  la- 
bour, should  w^e  dwell  for  a  few  moments  on 
some  of  those  qualities  of  which  an  interpreter 
must  not  be  destitute,  and  thus  attempt  either 
to  excite  the  learned  or  instruct  the  ignorant. 
Other  writers,  and  especially  Ernesti,  have 
spoken  of  the  manner  in  which  the  judgnient 
of  the  interpreter  is  to  be  exercised  and  formed. 
But  in  regard  to  the  general  qualities,  charac- 
ter, and  disposition  of  mind,  which  are  required 
for  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, there  seems  yet  to  be  room  for  other 
remarks  ;  especially  on  that  simplicity  which 
all  recommend  in  interpreting  the  New  Testa- 
ment, but  which  very  few  understand,  and  to 
which  still  fewer  have  attained.  This  topic, 
therefore,  we  will  now  briefly  discuss. 

It  will  first  be  necessary  to  define  and  deter- 


112         SIMPLICITY  IN  INTERPRETATION 

mine  in  what  simplicity  in  the  interpretation  of 
the  New  Testament  consists.  It  differs  from 
that  facility  which,  when  conjoined  with  sim- 
plicity, Ernes ti  does  not  hesitate  to  call  the 
chief  excellence  of  an  interpreter.''  This  faci- 
lity? which  requires  an  interpretation  to  be 
such  as  to  present  itself  spontaneously  to  the 
mind,  has  indeed  thus  much  in  common  with 
simplicity,  viz.  that  the  interpretation  must 
not  be  sought  with  art  and  subtilty,  but  must, 
as  it  were,  voluntarily  offer  itself  to  the  mind. 
It  is  however  possible,  that  an  interpretation 
which  is  difficult  to  be  made  out,  may  at  the 
same  time  be  extremely  simple;  while  others, 
less  simple,  may  put  on  the  appearance  of 
facility.  Indeed  an  interpretation  in  itself 
simple,  often  requires  great  skill  and  study  in 
order  to  arrive  at  it.  The  facility  of  an  in- 
terpretation, moreover,  consists  not  only  in  the 
circumstance,  that  it  may  seem  to  be  found 
without  labour,  but  also  therein,  that  it  pre- 
sents a  facile  sense,  i.  e.  a  sense  which  connects 
itself  easily  with  the  views,  object,  and  cha- 
racter of  the  writer.  In  this  view  also  simpli- 
city is  connected  with  facility ;  and  both  are 


^  Institut.  Interp.   N.  T.  P.  II.  c.  1.  §  22.  ed.  Ainmon. 
See  Biblical  Cabinet,  Vol.  I. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  113 

opposed  to  every  thing  that  is  subtile  and 
forced.^  Indeed  the  term  simple  implies  that 
which  is  perfect  and  consistent  in  all  its  parts ; 
just  as  we  speak  of  simplicity  of  character  in 
a  person,  in  whom  the  different  virtues  are  ex- 
hibited in  completeness  and  harmony.  The 
Greeks,  who  were  much  more  exact  in  marking 
the  distinctions  of  ideas  than  the  Romans,  ap- 
pear to  have  designated  that  quality  of  simpli- 
city which  thus  consists  in  completeness,  by 
the  term  rh  oXozXriPovy  and  the  other  by  rb  d(piXsg, 
eveimess^  and  metaphorically,  that  ivhich  gives 
no  occasion  for  censure.  And  simplicity  may 
properly  be  called  dpXna,  in  so  far  as  there  is 
nothing  plain  and  certain,  which  does  not  ac- 
cord with  that  from  which  it  arose,  or  to  which 
it  is  to  be  referred,  i.  e,  with  its  source  or  with 
its  object ;  just  as  we  call  men  uncertain  and 
insincere,  whose  words  and  actions  do  not  cor- 
respond with  their  views  and  purposes,  but  are 
often  inconsistent  one  with  another,  and  re- 
pugnant to  those  very  things  on  account  of 
which  they  appear  to  have  been  spoken  and 
done. 

But  since  nothing  is  or  can  be  entire  and 

'^  See  Tittmann  on  the  Principal  Causes  of  Forced  Inter- 
pretation. 

VOL.   II.  I 


114         SIMPLICITY  IN  INTERPRETATION 

consistent  in  all  its  parts,  which  comes  from 
any  improper  source  ;  it  follows  that  simplicity 
is  to  be  sought  in  the  circumstance,  that  every 
thing  springs  from  the  source  from  which  it 
ought  to  be  derived,  while  nothing  is  engrafted 
as  it  were  from  any  other  quarter,  which  is  not 
in  itself  inherent  in  the  nature  of  the  person  or 
thing  in  question.  A  necessary  adjunct  also  is, 
and  this  is  a  principal  mark  of  simplicity,  that 
nothing  be  found  present,  except  what  could 
not  possibly  be  absent.  Art  and  subtilty,  on 
the  other  hand,  are  easily  detected,  when  any 
thing  is  introduced,  the  necessity  of  which  is 
not  apparent.  It  is  thus  that  simplicity  is  so 
pleasing  in  the  fine  arts ;  when  we  see  each 
and  every  part  essential  to  the  completeness  of 
the  whole,  and  find  nothing  which  is  super- 
fluous, or  that  could  be  spared.  So  also  we 
applaud  the  simple  elegance  of  a  poem  or  other 
work,  w  hen  it  exhibits  nothing  which  does  not 
seem  to  belong  to  it.  In  the  same  manner,  then, 
must  we  form  a  judgment  respecting  the  sim- 
plicity of  an  interpretation.  For  that  interpre- 
tation only  can  be  called  simple,  which  gives 
to  the  words  of  a  writer  such  a  sense  as  seems 
to  be  the  necessary  one ;  so  that  when  this 
sense  is  presented  to  us,  we  are  immediately 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  115 

conscious,  that  the  author  could  not  have  meant 
any  thing  else. 

It  will  perhaps  be  said,  that  such  an  inter- 
pretation is  to  be  called  necessary  rather  than 
simple.  Indeed  the  simplicity  lies  in  the  very 
circumstance,  that  nothing  extraneous  is  inter- 
mixed, but  all  is  necessarily  consistent  and  ac- 
cordant with  the  nature  of  the  thing  itself;  and 
therefore  just  as  we  term  the  words  of  a  person 
simple,  when  they  are  the  necessary  signs  of 
that  which  he  has  in  his  mind,  so  also  may  we 
properly  call  that  a  simple  interpretation,  which 
derives  from  the  words  of  a  writer  that  sense 
which  appears  to  be  the  necessary  one. 

This  necessity,  however,  requires  some  fur- 
ther illustration.  When  we  say  that  simplicity 
of  interpretation  is  manifested  in  the  circum- 
stance, that  it  proposes  no  other  sense  than 
what  seems  to  be  the  necessary  one,  it  may  be 
thought  that  our  definition  is  more  obscure 
than  the  thing  itself  which  is  to  be  explained  ; 
inasmuch  as  this  necessity  would  seem  to  be 
something  ambiguous  and  uncertain  in  all 
WTitings,  and  especially  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  whole  subject  is  indeed  much  embarrass- 
ed, and  requires  very  great  caution,  as  we  shall 
afterwards  see ;  but  still  it  may  be  easily  dis- 
entangled and  developed  in  a  twofold  method ; 


116        SIMPLICITY  IX  INTERPRETATIOrN 

of  which  those  who  either  do  not  know,  or  do 
not  well  weigh  the  nature  and  importance  of 
the  duties  of  a  grammarian,  appear  not  to  be 
at  all  aware. 

In  the  first  place,  if  words  be  the  signs  of 
ideas,  and  that  not  arbitrarily,  but  have  be- 
come fixed  through  the  usus  luquencU  and  by  a 
sort  of  necessity,  it  is  obvious  that  we  can  have 
no  doubt  in  regard  to  that  which  is  necessarily 
signified,  or  that  of  which  the  necessary  signs 
are  exhibited  to  us  ;  provided  we  are  acquaint- 
ed with  the  USH.S  loquendi,  (the  extent  and  in- 
fluence of  which  is  much  greater  than  is  usually 
apprehended,)  and  with  that  necessity  which, 
inasmuch  as  it  depends  on  and  consists  in  rea- 
son, the  inventress  of  all  languages,  may  be 
properly  termed  the  logical  necessity.  There 
are  however  not  a  few  interpreters,  who  after 
having  read  a  few^  books,  and  got  by  rote  the 
common  rules  of  the  grammarians,  and  turned 
over  the  lexicons,  which  in  this  respect  are  for 
the  most  part  miserably  written,  suppose  them- 
selves to  have  imbibed  treasures  of  philological 
learning ;  and  being  accustomed  without  con- 
sideration to  regard  all  languages,  both  ancient 
and  modern,  and  especially  the  former,  as  the 
result  of  chance,  they  pay  of  course  no  regard 
to  that  necessity  which  lies  in  the  essential  and 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  117 

\uiiversal  laws  of  language,  such  as  every  where 
necessarily  regulate  the  manner  of  expressing 
ideas  by  words.  Such  persons  therefore  pro- 
nounce that  to  be  the  simplest  interpretation, 
which  is  most  easily  confirmed  by  the  meagre 
authority  of  the  lexicons.  To  us,  however, 
those  persons,  above  all  others,  seem  to  be  ig- 
norant of  the  true  character  of  language, 
%vho  are  accustomed  to  refer  every  thing,  of 
which  they  cannot  explain  the  cause,  to  the 
mere  will  or  custom  of  the  people  among  whom 
this  or  that  language  was  vernacular.  And 
although  we  can  scarcely  hope^  ever  to  be  able 
to  perceive  fully  the  logical  grounds  and  causes 
of  all  languages ;  still  we  ought  to  make  it  the 
object  of  zealous  and  unremitted  exertion,  that 
these  causes,  so  far  as  they  are  necessary  and 
essential,  and  have  sprung  up  not  by  accident, 
but  from  the  laws  of  human  reason  itself,  should 
be  detected  and  developed. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  an  instinctive  qua- 
lity of  the  human  mind,  always  to  employ  the 
means  nearest  at  hand,  and  to  seek  for  no- 
thing at  a  greater  distance  than  is  necessary. 
This  indeed  is  the  surest  mark  of  sim.plicity 
and  integrity  even  of  personal  character.  We 
are  naturally  impelled,  not  to  art,  but  to  seek 
and  to  communicate  the  truth  bv  the  shortest 


118         SIMPLICITY  IN  INTERPRETATION 

and  simplest  means  possible ;  and  the  use  of 
art  may  be  said  to  arise  rather  from  some  obli- 
quity of  life  or  perverseness  of  mind.  Hence, 
inasmuch  as  the  same  law  prevails  in  the  use 
of  languag-e,  and  we  express  our  thoughts  and 
feelings  by  those  signs  which  make  known  our 
meaning  in  the  shortest  and  surest  manner,  it 
is  therefore  an  essential  characteristic  of  sim- 
plicity (i.  e.  of  completeness  and  necessity)  in 
interpretation,  that  we  attribute  to  the  words 
of  a  writer  that  sense,  of  which  these  words 
seem  to  be  the  nearest  and  most  direct,  or  the 
shortest  and  most  certain,  signs.  And  here  all 
who  undertake  to  interpret  the  New  Testa- 
ment are  to  be  admonished  and  exhorted,  to 
prescribe  to  themselves  as  a  rule,  this  quality 
of  simplicity ;  and  not  to  recede,  except  for 
grave  reasons,  from  that  sense  which  seems  to 
be  the  nearest  and  most  direct.  For  although 
all  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  were  not 
destitute  of  a  certain  degree  of  learning  and 
subtilty  of  talent ;  yet  they  all  were  exceed- 
ingly remote  from  those  arts  by  which  lan- 
guage, that  gift  of  God,  is  misused  in  order  to 
conceal  depravity  of  mind  or  purpose,  and  to 
deceive  others  by  words  of  double  meaning. 
Indeed  no  one  will  interpret  the  writings  of 
these  sacred  authors  with  more  felicity,  than 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  119 

he  who  is  best  able  to  estimate  correctly  their 
simplicity. 

It  seems  proper  here  to  dwell  more  particu- 
larly, for  a  moment,  on  this  quality  of  simpli- 
city in  an  interpreter  himself;  a  subject  which 
has  commonly  been  passed  over  in  silence, 
even  by  those  who  have  written  with  most 
acuteness  upon  the  qualities  and  disposition  ne- 
cessary to  a  good  interpreter.  There  is  doubt- 
less a  certain  simplicity  of  mind,  wdiich  is 
amiable  in  all  men,  and  which  is  particularly 
desirable  in  an  interpreter  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. It  is  manifested  especially  in  that  in- 
tegrity and  rectitude  of  mind,  which  perceives 
clearly  and  at  a  glance  every  thing  that  is  ap- 
propriate and  necessary  to  a  particular  person 
or  thing.  It  differs  from  the  disposition  of 
those  who,  by  the  employment  of  art,  or  in 
consequence  of  a  mode  of  life  not  conformed 
to  right  reason,  have  lost  this  natural  power  of 
perception ;  and  who  are  therefore  no  longer 
affected  by  that  simplicity  in  which  the  highest 
beauty  is  said  to  consist,  nor  are  able  to  per- 
ceive any  thing  in  its  true  light  or  without 
doubt  and  ambiguity.  But  in  that  simple  cha- 
racter of  a  mind  which  seeks  no  subterfuge  or 
ambiguity,  but  is  apt  and  prompt  to  compre- 
hend all  that  is  appropriate  and  necessary,  we 


120        SIMPLICITY  IN  INTERPRETATION 

see  an  ornament  of  human  life,  and  have  the 
surest  pledge  and  safeguard  of  a  love  of  truth. 
Hence  it  may  be  regarded  as  essential  to  every 
interpreter,  and  especially  to  the  interpreter  of 
the  New  Testament.  For  whoever  is  desti- 
tute of  this  quality,  and  cannot  comprehend 
what  is  appropriate  or  necessary  to  the  nature 
of  any  person  or  thing,  will  not  surely  be  able 
to  attain  to  the  right  sense  of  words ;  but  inas- 
much as  every  thing  in  his  own  mind  is  dis- 
torted and  perverted,  he  will  naturally  be  on 
the  look  out  for  ambiguity  and  quibbles  in  the 
language  of  others. 

There  is,  moreover,  cause  of  apprehension, 
that  this  simplicity  of  character  may  become  im- 
paired at  an  earlier  period  than  theologians  in 
general  come  to  the  interpretation  of  the  New 
Testament.  We  ought  therefore  to  be  much 
on  our  guard  lest  this  happen  through  our  own 
fault.  For  in  this  simplicity  is  required,  first, 
a  certain  natural  integrity  of  disposition ;  se- 
condly, rectitude  of  intention ;  and  lastly, 
purity  and  constancy  of  mind ;  from  all  of 
which,  at  the  present  day,  there  is  usually 
some  falling  off.  That  integrity  of  disposition 
which  aifects  us  so  pleasantly  in  children,  is 
apt  to  disappear  among  the  innumerable  arts 
by  which  human  life  is  encompassed,  and  drops 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  121 

away  like  childhood's  earliest  flower ;  so  that 
those  who  are  trained  with  the  greatest  care, 
are  not  seldom  found  to  have  swerved  the  fur- 
thest toward  the  opposite  extreme.  Whether 
this  arises  from  the  character  of  human  life  in 
general,  which  cannot  be  passed  without  the 
employment  of  art  and  deception  ;  or  from  the 
fault  of  our  mode  of  education,  which  is  per- 
haps too  far  removed  from  the  simple  laws  of 
nature  ;  we  must  in  any  case  regard  it  as  an 
evil  of  very  great  magnitude ;  and  if  all  our 
treasures  of  learning,  on  which  w^e  so  gorman- 
dize, have  been  necessarily  purchased  at  this 
price,  there  is  reason  to  fear  that  we  have  ex- 
changed gold  for  brass.  It  is  particularly  in 
this  respect  that  the  works  of  the  ancient 
classic  writers  may  be  recommended  to  be 
studied  by  an  interpreter ;  because  in  them, 
and  more  especially  the  Greeks,  e.  g.  Thucy- 
dides  and  Xenophon,  although  they  were  de- 
voted to  letters  and  occupied  with  important 
affairs,  there  is  yet  exhibited  that  natural  in- 
tegrity of  disposition  and  feeling,  i.  e.  that  sim- 
plicity of  character,  which  it  has  happened  tc> 
few  in  our  days  to  preserve. 

In  regard  to  rectitude  of  mind  ar.d  intention, 
which  is  wholly  lost  in  the  pursuits  of  an  arti- 
ficial and  complicated  life,  how  can  we  expect 


122  SIMPLICITY  IN  INTERPRETATION 

to  find  it  among  the  multiplied  questions,  opi- 
nions, and  distinctions,  which  distract  theolo- 
gians— in  short,  among  the  innumerable  thorns 
with  which  theology  in  these  days  is  over- 
grown— except  in  a  suffocated  and  corrupted 
state  ?  There  are  few  indeed,  who  approach 
the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament  with 
minds  uncorrupted  and  unprejudiced.  The 
greater  part  have  already  imbibed  certain  opi- 
nions. Some  have  become  habituated  to  the 
ancient  formulas  of  theologians ;  others  have 
learned  to  cast  off  all  restraints,  and  are  wonder- 
fully delighted  in  the  exercise  of  their  own  inge- 
nuity. One  party  are  led  astray  by  the  authority 
of  some  theological  system  ;  the  other  by  the 
most  recent  form  of  philosophy.  All  in  short  for- 
sake the  plain  and  simple  path,  and  have  recourse 
to  art  in  searching  after  truth.  That  rectitude 
of  purpose,  therefore,  which  sees  and  compre- 
hends the  truth  directly  and  without  evasion, 
is  exhibited  by  few  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
New  Testament.  And  hence  it  naturally  hap- 
pens, that  as  such  interpreters  are  themselves 
wanting  in  simplicity,  this  virtue  is  also  not 
found  in  their  interpretations. 

Lastly,  purity  and  constancy  of  mind  are  in 
the  highest  degree  necessary  to  simplicity,  in- 
asmuch as  a  mind  that  is  corrupt  and  wavering 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  123 

is  neither  adapted  to  perceive  the  truth,  nor  to 
understand  what  is  necessary  or  appropriate  to 
any  thing.  We  must  here  particularly  guard 
against  the  opinion  of  those,  who  believe  them- 
selves sufficiently  furnished  for  the  explication  of 
the  sacred  books,  when  they  have  heaped  toge- 
ther stores  of  erudition  derived  from  every  quar- 
ter; but  who  regard  it  as  a  matter  of  indiiference 
in  what  way  the  mind  and  heart  are  formed  and 
affected.  For  although  the  error  of  those  who 
think  that  piety  alone,  without  learning,  is 
sufficient  for  interpreting  the  sacred  books,  is 
very  pernicious ;  still  it  cannot  be  denied,  that 
the  more  pure,  chaste,  uniform,  and  constant  the 
mind,  the  better  it  is  adapted  to  understand 
and  expound  the  word  of  God.  Ta  tou  ^soD 
oudsig  oJds\/,  sj  fjy'/j  to  rrviviMCi  to\j  ^soD.  Yv^ixog  ds  dv' 
^DOj-TTog  oh  hi'/irai  ra  rou  'jrviv/j^arog  rod  ^sov.  ''  The 
things  of  God  knoweth  no  man,  but  the  Spirit 
of  God.  The  natural  man  comprehendeth  not 
the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God."  1  Cor.  ii. 
11,  14. 

More  especially,  however,  there  is  required 
for  the  simplicity  which  we  are  discussing,  that 
virtue  or  quality  of  mind  which  may  enable  the 
interpreter  always  to  control  his  own  genius 
and  imagination ;  so  as  to  indulge  himself  in 
nothing,   and  to  avoid  constantly  every  sport 


124         SIMPLICITY  IN   INTERPRETATION 

and  sally  of  the  fancy.  This  is  truly  more 
difficult  than  is  commonly  believed  ;  especially 
with  those  who  possess  a  richness  of  genius 
and  take  pleasure  in  a  figurative  style,  and 
who  therefore  err  through  natural  abundance  ; 
a  species  of  error  in  which  others,  men  of  in- 
ferior capacity,  so  much  delight,  that  they  en- 
deavour to  cover  up  their  poverty  of  genius  by 
a  ridiculous  hunting  after  similar  figures. 
There  is  however  nothing  of  greater  moment 
to  the  interpreter,  than  to  avoid  all  sallies  and 
arts  of  this  kind  :  and  he  should  prescribe  it  as 
a  law  to  himself,  that  the  more  acuteness  and 
skill  any  interpretation  may  seem  to  display, 
the  more  cautious  should  he  be  in  proving  it. 
We  are  indeed  deceived  by  nothing  more  easily 
than  by  the  adulation  of  our  own  self-compla- 
cency ;  and  it  is  often  the  case,  that  an  inter- 
pretation which  exhibits  great  ingenuity,  al- 
though it  be  demonstrably  false,  is  scarcely, 
and  perhaps  never,  laid  aside,  inasmuch  as  no 
one  willingly  resigns  the  praise  of  ingenuity 
and  acuteness.  Others  again  are  seduced  by 
such  examples  ;  and  they  too  strive  to  bring 
forth  something  acute  and  splendid.  For  since 
there  is  in  simplicity  a  certain  elegant  po- 
verty and  an  appearance  of  facility ;  many 
interpreters  seem   to  fear  lest  they  should  be 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  125 

L'ontemned  on  account  of  this  povertj^ ;  and 
therefore  they  prefer  to  show  oif  in  the  use  of 
false  aids,  rather  than  unpretendingly  follow 
after  the  plain  and  simple  truth. 

This  simplicity  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
New  Testament  is  also  so  much  the  more  ne- 
cessary, because  of  the  great  simplicity  in  the 
thoughts  and  teaching  both  of  the  sacred 
w  riters  aiid  of  our  Lord  himself.  In  regard  to 
our  Lord,  who  in  all  his  human  character  ex- 
hibited the  highest  perfection,  no  one  can  be 
ignorant  of  the  simplicity  of  heart  and  mind 
which  reigned  in  him,  unless  he  himself  be 
wholly  destitute  of  any  sense  or  perception  of 
this  virtue.  There  vras  in  Christ  not  only  that 
perfect  integrity  of  morals  and  of  practice,  by 
which  we  so  easily  distinguish  men  of  simpli- 
city and  uprightness  from  those  who  are  arti- 
ficial and  insincere  ;  but  he  exhibited  also  such 
admirable  purity  and  truth  of  character,  that 
his  whole  life  is  the  most  delightful  image  of 
the  highest  and  most  perfect  simplicity.  And 
this  was  exhibited  not  in  any  poverty  of  mind 
nor  in  low  views  of  things  ;  but  consisted  in 
the  simple  and  true  conception  of  the  loftiest 
subjects,  and  was  chiefly  conspicuous  in  the 
entire  direction  of  his  mind  to  heavenly  things  ; 
a  virtue  which  constitutes  the  essence  of  true 


126  SIMPLICITY  IN  INTERPRETATION 

religion.  It  is  therefore  an  error  to  sup- 
pose with  some,  that  a  man  devoid  of  this  sim- 
plicity is  adapted  to  comprehend  divine  things. 
It  is,  on  the  other  hand,  no  doubt  true,  that 
through  the  arts  with  which  we  are  accustom- 
ed to  embellish,  or  rather  to  corrupt  human 
life,  we  bring  loss  and  damage  to  the  preva- 
lence of  true  religion.  But  the  more  simplicity 
of  mind  and  heart,  so  much  the  more  prompt 
and  prone,  as  it  were,  is  a  person  to  embrace 
religious  truth.  He  then  only  can  comprehend 
the  simplicity  of  our  Lord,  so  conspicuous  even 
in  the  loftiest  sublimity,  who  is  endowed  in 
some  degree  with  the  same  quality.  Theolo- 
gians, on  the  contrary,  in  searching  for  subli- 
mity in  a  certain  artificial  obscurity,  have 
transformed  the  teaching  and  doctrines  of 
Christ,  so  heavenly,  simple,  and  appropriate, 
and  so  admirably  accordant  with  the  eternal 
relations  of  the  human  race,  into  a  system 
which  is  artificial,  arbitrary  [positive],  and 
more  correspondent  to  human  opinions.  This 
might  be  demonstrated  by  many  examples,  es- 
pecially of  such  passages  as  are  said  to  contain 
mysteries.  Interpreters  have  indeed  not  sel- 
dom found  difficulties,  because  they  have  not 
followed  the  simple  method  of  the  divine  Mas- 
ter, but  have  sought  in  his  words  the  occasions 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  127 

of  doctrinal  and  metaphysical  discussions. 
More  particularly  is  the  perception  of  this  sim- 
plicity necessary  in  those  passages,  where  our 
Lord  has  pointed  out  the  necessary  and  eternal 
relations  of  human  and  divine  things,  in  the 
comprehending,  observing,  and  following  out 
of  which  consists  essentially  all  true  religion 
and  piety,  and  which  he  has  brought  forth,  as 
it  were,  from  the  sacred  recesses  of  his  own 
mind  in  such  a  way,  that  he  has  often  signified 
them  by  a  word  or  by  language  simple  indeed, 
yet  significant  and  forcible  in  the  highest  de- 
gree. These  relations,  it  is  true,  are  of  such 
a  nature,  that  they  are  to  be  comprehended 
and  felt  in  the  mind,  rather  than  expressed  in 
words  ;  and  they  are  therefore  little  understood 
by  those  who  are  accustomed  to  embody  divine, 
I.  e.  eternal  and  infinite  things  in  the  resem- 
blances of  words  and  reasonings.  Hence  there 
have  been  at  all  times  few  who  could  justly 
estimate  the  piety  of  the  most  excellent  men,  as 
the  example  of  our  Lord  himself  clearly  demon- 
strates. 

But  the  apostles  also  possessed  the  highest 
simplicity  ;  and  it  is  therefore  to  be  feared, 
that  he  who  is  not  capable  of  perceiving 
and  imitating  this  quality  in  them,  w^ill  be 
found  altogether  unqualified  for  the  interpreta- 


1*28  SIMPLICITY  IN    INTERPRETATION 

tion  of  the  sacred  books.  There  are  indeed 
some  who  suppose,  that  Paul  presents  to  us  a 
more  learned,  animated,  and  subtile  mode  of 
discussion  and  writing;  and  even  Ammon*^ 
does  not  hesitate  to  affirm,  that  in  the  epistles 
of  Paul  the  more  difficult  interpretation  is  not 
seldom  to  be  preferred.  But  although  it  be 
conceded,  that  Paul  has  sometimes  disputed 
artificially  ;  yet  he  always  exhibits  that  sim- 
plicity which,  as  we  have  said  above,  consists 
not  in  facility,  or  rather  in  an  appearance  of 
facility,  but  in  integrity,  verity,  consistency, 
and  necessity.  And  those  arts  which  are 
charged  on  this  writer,  have  often  arisen,  not 
from  the  meaning  of  Paul,  but  from  the  ima- 
gination of  interpreters.  They  have  taken  it 
for  granted,  that  a  man  deeply  imbued  with 
Jewish  erudition,  has  of  course  instituted  subtile 
disputations  in  letters  written  in  the  language 
of  familiar  intercourse  ;  and  therefore  in  the 
simplest  discourse  of  the  apostle,  they  have 
sought  for  artifices  tmv  Xoyuv.  How  inconside- 
rately some  have  done  this,  Paul  has  himself 
shewn  in  1  Cor.  ii.  4,  seq.  In  this  passage  the 
drodii^ig  rrvsufMurog  xal  h'oMaiimc^  which  is  opposed 

•^Nota  ad  Ernesti  Institut.  Iiiterp.  N.  T.  P.  II.  c.  I.  §  22. 
.See  also  Biblical  Cabinet,  Vol.  I.  translated  by  Mr.  Tcrrot. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  129 

to  ro/'^  rrsidoTg  dv^^MTU'/jg  CoO'tag  hoyotc,  signifies  that 
simple  power  of  divine  truth  which  the  ^vyj-/.o; 
u.'f:^ouiCTog  ol  bzyjTar  and  they  are  y.oyoi  dwazroi 
TV£j/xaro;  a/Zou,  which  coming  with  that  divine 
power,  produce  certain  and  real  persuasion ; 
verse  5.  And  although  it  was  not  always  in 
the  apostle's  power  '7rviU{Ma,rr/.o7g  'XViv^ariT.d  C'jyx^i- 
vsiv,  to  compare  spiritual  things  with  spiritual 
(verse  13),  but  he  must  also  sometimes  dispute 
with  his  countrymen,  xar  uv^poj-c^  or  zard 
cdoza'  nevertheless  even  in  discussions  of  this 
sort,  how^ever  subtile,  he  has  still  preserved  a 
great  simplicity  ;  2.  e.  he  has  managed  these 
discussions  in.  such  a  way,  as  that  all  the  parts 
and  circumstances  are  consistent  and  coherent, 
and  tend  to  one  great  end,  as  if  by  a  natural 
completeness  and  necessity.  But  where  theo- 
logians can  justly  attribute  to  Paul  any  thing 
of  that  subtility  which  is  found  in  the  schools, 
I  am  not  aware.  They  would  seem  rather  to 
be  striving  to  secure  the  authority  of  the  holy 
apostle  for  their  own  opinions,  by  making  him 
the  author  of  them ;  and  hence  they  have  not 
unfrequently  been  compelled  to  have  recourse 
to  forced  or  subtile  interpretations. 

Errors  of  this  kind  have  been  committed  the 
more  frequently  in  regard  to  the  writings  of 
Paul,  because  interpreters  have  not  suiiiciently 

VOL.  II.  K 


130         SIMPLICITY  IN  INTERPRETATION 

regarded  the  nature  of  that  species  of  language 
which  is  commonly  employed  for  the  purposes 
of  familiar  intercourse ;  but  have  expected 
rather  in  his  epistles  an  accurate  distribution 
and  arrangement  of  topics,  and  a  continued 
and  uniform  discussion,  just  as  if  they  were 
regular  theological  treatises,  indeed,  the  in- 
terpreter should  above  all  things  fix  his  mind 
on  that  simplicity,  which  men  who  employ  the 
language  of  daily  life,  and  are  unacquainted 
with  the  more  learned  and  artificial  style  of 
books,  are  accustomed  to  preserve  in  writings 
of  this  sort.  This  is  found  in  all  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament ;  so  that  no  interpreter 
can  attain  to  their  true  meaning,  nor  feel  the 
beauty  and  sublimity  of  their  language,  unless 
his  own  mind  be  imbued  with  the  same  sim- 
plicity which  constitutes  the  characteristic  of 
those  ingenuous  and  uncorrupted  men. 

This  subject,  however,  of  the  simplicity  so 
characteristic  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  so  conspicuous  in  their  language,  is 
too  extensive,  and  requires  a  discussion  too 
protracted,  for  the  brief  limits  of  the  present 
essay.  I  add  therefore  only  this  one  reflection. 
How  greatly  is  it  to  be  desired,  that  in  declar- 
ing the  divine  doctrines,  in  preaching  the  word 
of  God,  we  may  imitate  the  simplicty  of  those 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  131 

holy  men ;  and  that  in  explaining  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  we  may  employ  also  that  simplicity 
which  has  been  above  described;  and  especially 
preserve  as  much  as  possible  that  simplicity 
of  mind,  which  is  manifested  in  an  aptness  to 
perceive  the  truth  and  to  comprehend  and  em- 
brace the  doctrines  taught  from  heaven.  Thus 
may  not  only  the  teachers  in  the  church, 
but  also  all  Christians,  hope  to  perceive  and 
experience  more  and  more  the  power  of  that 
divine  Spirit,  by  which  the  church  is  governed. 

Come  then,  fellow-citizens,  and  celebrate  the 
approaching  festival ;  in  order  that  thus  your 
minds,  elevated  above  the  vicissitudes  of  hu- 
man affairs,  and  purified  from  every  unworthy 
purpose,  may  be  nourished  and  strengthened 
in  their  simplicity  and  integrity  by  a  grateful 
remembrance  of  the  divine  benefits;  so  that  by 
the  aid  of  that  Spirit  which  is  not  of  this 
world,  you  may  be  enabled  both  to  persevere 
in  the  true  faith,  and  to  sustain  and  augment 
the  faith  of  others.  And  being  assured  that 
you  will  gladly  do  this  of  your  own  accord,  we 
willingly  indulge  the  hope  that  you  will  be 
present  at  the  sacred  solemnities,  which  are  to 
be  celebrated  in  the  manner  of  our  ancestors, 
in  the  university  hall,  on  the  first  day  of  Pen- 
tecost. 


PRINCIPAL    CAUSES    OF    FORCED 
INTERPRETATIONS 

OF 

THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.^ 


There  has  been  much  discussion  among  theo- 
logians in  our  day,  and  those  too  men  of  learn- 
ing and  deeply  imbued  with  a  knowledge  of 
the  Hebrew,    Greek,  and  Latin  literature,  re- 

'^  The  present  essay  was  prepared  on  the  occasion  of  the 
author's  becoming  Professor  Extraordinary  of  Theology  in 
1803;  and  was  republished  with  a  single  additional  note 
in  1829.  He  remarks  on  that  occasion,  that  although 
several  things  perhaps  need  further  definition  and  illustra- 
tion, he  yet  chooses  to  leave  them  in  their  present  state, 
lest  he  should  seem  desirous  of  embelhshing  a  more  youth- 
ful performance  with  the  fruits  gathered  in  riper  years. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  133 

specting  those  forced^  interpretations  of  the 
New  Testament,  by  which,  as  is  supposed,  the 
true  and  genuine  sense  of  the  sacred  writings 
has  been  corrupted  by  many  recent  interpre- 
ters. Although  this  complaint  is  not  without 
foundation,  yet  the  causes  of  the  evil  seem  to 
be  more  extensive  than  has  been  commonly 
supposed,  and  are  not  to  be  sought  only  in  an 
ignorance  of  languages,  or  in  the  neglect  of 
grammatical  interpretation.  For  those  even 
who  have  most  closely  followed  the  gramma- 
tical method,  have  been  some  of  the  first  to 
offend  in  this  respect,  by  proposing  interpreta- 
tions of  the  most  distorted  kind.  Such,  for 
instance,  was  Origen  himself,  the  celebrated 
author  of  grammatical  interpretation  ;  who,  as 
is  well  known,  has  extracted  from  the  Scrip- 
tures, through  his  superstition,  and  still  more 
through  his  imagination,  an  innumerable  mul- 
titude of  things,  which,  in  the  opinion  of  those 
best  able  to  judge,  are  not  contained  in  them. 
Indeed,  as  a  general  principle,  the  gramma- 
tical  method  of  interpretation,  although    the 

^  The  epithet  in  the  original  is  contorta,  to  which  the 
nearest  corresponding  English  words,  as  to  form,  are  contort^ 
ed,  distorted  ;  but  these  would  here  be  too  strong.  The  idea 
of  the  Latin  is  commonly  expressed  in  English  by  the  words 
forced,  strained,  etc — Ed. 


134   CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

only  one  which  is  or  can  be  true,  is  neverthe- 
less to  be  employed  with  great  caution,  in  ex- 
plaining the  sacred  Scriptures.  It  is  certainly 
a  correct  precept,  that  the  same  rules  are  to  be 
followed  in  interpreting  the  sacred  volume, 
which  are  applied  to  works  of  mere  human 
origin  ;  but  yet  this  precept  is  not  true  in  any 
such  sense,  as  would  imply  that  the  meaning 
of  the  New  Testament  is  to  be  sought  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  manner,  as  the  meaning  of  the 
words  and  phrases  of  Thucydides  and  Polybius. 
As  every  one  has  his  own  peculiar  habit  of 
speaking,  so  there  is  not  in  all  cases  the  same 
use  and  application  of  the  same  rules  (non  est 
idem  apud  eundem  earundem  regularem  usus)  ; 
and  an  interpretation  of  a  word  or  phrase  in 
Polybius  and  Xenophon  may  be  perfectly  cor- 
rect and  facile,  while  the  same  applied  to  one 
of  the  sacred  writers  would  be  as  forced  as 
possible.  Hence  it  arises,  that  those  authors 
who  have  applied  the  forms  and  phrases  of  the 
more  elegant  Greek  writers  to  the  explication 
of  the  New  Testament,  have  not  always  been 
able  to  escape  the  charge  of  proposing  forced 
interpretations  ;  and  there  are  many  things  of 
this  kind  extant  in  the  works  of  that  fine 
Greek  scholar  Raphel,  of  Eisner,  Alberti,  and 
the   truly   learned    Palariet.      And   although 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  135 

J.  A.  Ernesti,  the  celebrated  restorer  of  gram- 
matical interpretation  in  our  times,  has  given 
many  excellent  precepts  on  this  subject,  still 
(it  would  seem)  they  have  not  always  been  ob- 
served, even  by  those  who  profess  to  follow 
most  closely  the  grammatical  method.  Hence, 
the  causes  of  such  forced  interpretations  must 
be  sought,  not  so  much  in  the  neglect  of 
grammatical  exegesis,  as  elsewhere.  It  is 
therefore  proposed  to  offer,  on  this  occasion, 
some  remarks  on  this  subject,  tending  to  unfold 
briefly  some  of  the  chief  causes  of  the  interpre- 
tations in  question. 

First  of  all,  however,  it  is  necessary  to  de- 
fine the  nature  of  forced  interpretation,  in  re- 
gard to  which  there  is  some  ambiguity.  Many 
call  that  a  forced  interpretation,  which  gives 
to  a  passage  a  sense  foreign  to  the  intention  of 
the  writer,  and  which  is  not  contained  in  his 
words.  Others  give  this  name  to  every  expla- 
nation which  is  not  grammatical.  But  it  is 
obvious,  that  an  interpretation  which  is  foreign 
to  the  words,  and  even  repugnant  to  them,  is 
to  be  termed  false,  rather  thsui  forced  ;  and  also 
that  an  interpretation  may  be  entirely  gramma- 
tical, and  yet  forced.  This  will  be  evident  to 
the  good  sense  of  every  one.  There  are  indeed 
many  interpretations,  which  the  usus  loquendi 


136      CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

and  the  power  of  words  will  admit ;  but  which 
nevertheless  are  not  satisfactory,  and  even  give 
oifence,  by  seeming  to  interrupt  the  progress 
of  the  discourse,  and  imparting  to  it  a  sort  of 
foreign  colouring.  These  no  one  would  call 
false ;  nor  yet  would  any  one  hold  them  to  be 
true,  I.  e.  appropriate  to  the  passages  to  which 
they  are  applied ;  and  they  may  therefore  pro- 
perly be  terrnQd.  forced.  To  such  interpretations 
Ernesti  was  accustomed  to  oppose  the  very 
suitable  term  facile,"^  Thus  in  James  iii.  1,  the 
words  fj.i)  'TToXXoi  bidd6xa7.oi  y/vic^s,  are  some- 
times rendered  thus  :  do  not  too  eagerly  denire 
the  office  of  a  teacher.  This  sense  the  words 
indeed  admit ;  though  it  seems  somewhat  harsh 
to  understand  y'mck  as  being  put  here  for  m 
iieAsrs  yzviC^ai  TToXXoi  diddcxaXor  but  the  context 
rejects  this  sense  ;  to  which  such  an  admoni- 
tion against  an  ambitious  spirit  is  utterly 
foreign.  If  now  we  should  say  that  hbdexaXog 
here  means  a  person  who  carps  at  and  reproves 
others ;  no  one  probably  would  readily  concede 
that  this  sense  necessarily  lies  in  the  word  it- 
self; and  yet  it  suits  admirably  to  the  succeeding 
clauses.    We  may  perhaps  compare  the  German 

=  Institutio  Interpretis  N.  Test.  P.  II.  Cap.  I.  §  22.  ed. 
Ammon.  Leip.  1809.  See  Biblical  Cabinet,  Vol.  II.  trans- 
lated by  i^Ir.  Terrot. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  137 

word  meistern,  which  plainly  answers  to  rJ 
didci(r-/.siv  and  dtdaffxaXov  shai.  [So  also,  in  some 
degree,  the  English  verb  to  tutor.']  Nor  should 
I  hesitate  to  explain  Rom.  ii.  21,  sayrov  o-o  oiod- 
<yx--/g,  in  this  manner  :  thou  ivho  censurest  the 
faults  of  others,  dost  thou  not  censure  thine  oivn 
faults  ?  In  nearly  the  same  sense,  I  think,  is 
bibmxii Aoun^m  Ecclus.  ix.  1.  In  like  manner, 
the  word  oj^r/,  James  i.  19,  cannot  signify  wrath^ 
which  is  a  notion  entirely  foreign  to  the  sub- 
ject there  under  discussion;  but  it  denotes 
undoubtedly  the  indignation  or  indignant  feel- 
ing of  a  man  who  is  irritable  and  fretful  under 
the  calamities  to  which,  like  arrows,  the  whole  of 
human  life  is  exposed.'^  At  the  same  time,  the 
idiom  in  this  passage  as  to  form  is  not  Hebrew, 

'^  That  o^yyi  signified  among  the  Greeks  not  only  anger 
and  lorath,  but  also  the  feeling  of  a  man  offended  or  provok- 
ed, is  not  necessary  to  be  shewn  to  those  acquainted  with  the 
Greek  language.  Nor  are  there  wanting  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment examples  of  the  same  signification  ;  e.  g.  Mark  iii.  5  ; 
Rom.  ix.  22  ;  Heb.  iii.  11.  It  may  also  be  observed,  in  pass- 
ing, that  when  this  word  is  employed  in  the  New  Testament 
to  denote  punishment,  chastisement,  etc.  this  is  not  in  conse- 
quence of  any  Hebrew  idiom  ;  but  it  is  so  found  also  in  the 
best  Greek  writers.  So  Demosthenes  adv.  Mid.  p.  528,  ed. 
Reisk.  rZ  ^^Biiravri  §'  ovx.  "(tyiv  rm  o^yriv,  civ  S''  ixcuv,  civ  t  axuv, 
tra^iv  0  vofzos,  just  as  Paul  says  Rom.  iv.  15,  o  voficos  hoyriv 
KocTipyd^ivat.  Other  examples  may  be  seen  in  the  Index 
Dem.  Reisk.  v.  h^yh,  p.  540. 


138   CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTEEPRETATIONS 

hut  good  Greek ;  since  an  Anctor  incert.  in  Poet. 
Gnom.  has  this  sentence :  yiywj  d'  &}g  ooyr,)/  (j.y\ 
Tuyjj;  dX>M  (Soadvg. — From  these  examples  it  will 
easily  be  seen,  that  the  nature  of  the  interpre- 
tations under  discussion  will  be  very  much 
obscured,  if  they  are  to  be  defined  in  the 
usual  way  above  pointed  out,  i.  e.  if  we  merely 
say  they  are  such  as  are  not  grammatical. 

To  interpret  grammatically  is  surely  not  mere- 
ly, by  the  help  of  a  lexicon,  to  explain  simply 
the  verbal  meaning  and  render  word  fqr  word ; 
but,  as  the  most  distinguished  interpreters  have 
long  taught,  it  is  to  ascertain  the  proper  sense 
of  the  words,  and  the  idea  attached  to  a  parti- 
cular word  in  any  particular  place,  by  a  dili- 
gent attention  to  the  usus  loqueiidi,  the  object 
of  the  writer,  and  the  logical  connexion  of  the 
whole  context.  Neither  is  the  grammatical 
interpretation  a  different  thing  from  the  histo- 
rical one ;  there  is  not  one  grammatical  sense, 
and  another  historical.  Under  that  which 
earlier  interpreters,  as  Sixtus  Senensis,  for- 
merly called  the  historical  sense,  they  under- 
stood nothing  more  than  the  grammatical  one; 
and  they  called  it  the  historical,  merely  because 
it  is  deduced  from  a  proper  observation  of  times 
and  events.*      And  that  which   certain   later 

•  See  Ernesti,  Oj»p.  PhiL  Crit.  p.  221. 


or  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  139 

writers  have  begun  to  call  the  historical  sense, 
viz.  that  which  a  passage  expresses  when  ex- 
plained with  reference  to  the  time  in  which  the 
author  lived,  or  that  which  the  words  appear 
to  have  expressed  at  that  time  and  place,  and 
among  those  persons  for  whom  he  wrote ;  this 
is  nothing  else  than  what  the  earlier  interpre- 
ters called  the  grammatical  sense.  Indeed, 
accordino^  to  their  views,  and  those  of  every 
correct  interpreter,  the  grammatical  interpre- 
tation has  and  ought  to  have  for  its  highest 
object,  to  shew  what  sense  the  words  of  a  pas- 
sage can  bear,  ought  to  bear,  and  actually  do 
bear ;  and  it  requires  not  only  an  accurate  ac- 
quaintance with  words  and  the  iisus  loquendi  of 
them,  but  also  with  many  other  things.  It  is 
not  enough  to  investigate  what  is  said  ;  but  we 
must  also  inquire  hy  whom  and  to  ichom  it  is 
said,  at  what  time,  on  what  occasion,  what  pre- 
cedes, what  fiUoios,  etc.*^  For  to  interpret,  is 
to  point  out  what  ideas  are  implied  in  the 
language  ;  or  it  is  to  excite  in  another  the  same 
thoughts  that  the  writer  had  in  his  own  mind. 
But  the  power  of  doing  this  does  not  depend 
alone  on  a  knowledofe  of  words  and  of  the 
usus  loquendi :   but  demands  an  acquaintance 

^  So  Erasmus,  Ratio  et  IMeth.  verae  Theologiae,  p.  51,  ed. 
Semlei-. 


140      CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

with  many  other  things,  as  was  said  above. 
All  writers  do  not  follow  the  same  usiis  loquen- 
di  ;  Poly  bins  and  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus 
have  each  a  different  kind  of  language  ;  Thu- 
cydides  and  Xenophon  have  little  resemblance 
of  style ;  although  the  two  former  were  nearly 
contemporary,  and  the  latter  were  natives  of 
the  same  country.  We  ourselves  write  diife- 
rently  to  learned  men  and  to  our  familiar  ac- 
quaintance ;  and  our  habit  and  manner  of 
speaking  or  writing  depends  very  much  upon 
the  talent,  disposition,  and  personal  habits  of 
the  individual.  Practice  also  effects  very 
much.  Besides  all  these,  there  is  required,  in 
order  to  become  a  skilful  interpreter,  a  certain 
intellectual  sagacity  and  a  native  tact,  such  as 
the  Greeks  call  sv(pv'ia,  the  want  of  which  can- 
not be  compensated  by  any  degree  of  art  or 
erudition.  Hence  it  happens,  that  those  who 
are  destitute  of  this  natural  talent,  however 
extensively  they  may  possess  a  knowledge  of 
languages  and  of  the  whole  construction  of 
style  and  discourse,  very  often  propose  inter- 
pretations as  foreign  as  possible  to  the  mean- 
ing and  purpose  of  the  writer.^ 

Since  then   that  must  be  regarded  as  the 

s  Compare  this  whole  discussion  with  the  article  by  Prof. 
JIahn,  on  Interpretation  of  Prophecy. 


OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  141 

rue  interpretation,  which  accurately  g^ives  the 
true  sense  contained  in  the  words  of  a  writer, 
and  presents  in  a  legitimate  way  to  the  mind 
of  another  the  same  thoughts  which  the  writer 
had,  and  must  have  had,  in  his  own  mind  at 
such  a  time  and  in  such  a  place ;  it  follows, 
therefore,  that  we  must  call  that  a  forced  inter- 
pretation, which  does  violence  in  any  w^ay  to 
the  true  meaning  of  an  author  ;  so  as  to  make 
him  express  bj'^  his  words  a  different  sense  from 
that  which  he,  in  this  discourse,  and  at  that 
time  and  place,  intended  to  connect  with  those 
words. 

By  the  common  consent  of  the  ablest  inter- 
preters, the  proper  meaning  of  any  Avriter  is  to 
be  discovered,  first,  from  the  ttsus  loquendi 
which  is  familiar  to  him  ;  then,  from  an  obser- 
vation of  the  persons  and  times  and  places  in 
and  for  which  he  wrote  ;  and  lastly,  from  the 
context,  in  which  is  also  comprehended  the  ob- 
ject of  the  writer,  w^hich  some  make  a  separate 
head.  Hence  there  arise  three  characteristics, 
by  which  to  distinguish  a  forced  interpretation  ; 
viz.  first,  if  it  be  contrary  to  the  ordinary  usus 
loquendi  of  the  writer ;  secondly,  if  it  be  at 
variance  with  a  due  regard  to  the  persons, 
times,  and  places,  in  and  for  which  he  wrote ; 
and  thirdly,  if  it  be  incongruous  to  the  series 


142      CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

of  discourse.  We  therefore  call  that  a  forced 
interpretation,  which,  although  it  may  he  con- 
tained in  the  words  taken  hy  themselves,  neverthe- 
less expresses  a  sense  foreign  to  the  intention  of  the 
writer  ;  inasmuch  as  it  is  repugnant  either  to  the 
usus  LOQUENDi  of  the  ivriter,  or  to  time  and 
PLACE,  or  finally  to  the  context. 

There  are  two-  species  of  interpretations  of 
this  sort.  The  one  by  a  certain  violence  put 
upon  the  words,  is  calculated  to  displease  the 
learned;  while  the  other,  by  a  certain  appear- 
ance of  art  and  refinement,  allures  the  unlearn- 
ed. The  former  species  may  be  termed  inept, 
and  is  exhibited  when  a  sentiment  is  obtruded 
upon  a  writer,  which  is  alike  foreign  both  to 
his  constant  manner  of  thinking  and  speaking, 
and  to  his  intention  and  object.^  As  if  one 
should  say  that  Paul  in  Eph.  i.  7,  had  in  mind 

^  Those  interpretations  are  inept,  which  give  a  sense  not 
appropriate  to  the  passage,  the  writer,  or  the  time.  Indeed 
all  forced  interpretations  may  be  called  inept,  inasmuch  as 
they  are  inappropriate  to  the  passages  from  which  tliey  are 
extracted  ;  but  since  some  offend  more  the  judgment,  wiiile 
others  by  an  appearance  of  refinement  please  the  unlearned, 
I  have  preferred  to  distinguish  them  into  inept  and  subtile. 
The  nature  of  intepretations  of  this  sort  has  been  well  treated 
of  by  E.  A.  Frommann,  in  his  prolusion  entitled  :  FacUilas 
Umae  interpretalionis  nota,  §  X.  0pp.  Phil.  Hist.  p.  3fJ7> 
iseri. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  14;^ 

the  system  of  Christian  doctrine  ;  and  he  should 
go  on  to  interpret  riiv  6c<7ro'kvTocoGiv  dia  tov  a/;aa705 
a-jTOv,  rr,v  a(psffiv  rojv  'Trapccz-ru/j^uruvj  of  a  deliverance 
from  sin,  which  is  effected  by  this  doctrine, 
confirmed  by  the  death  of  Christ.  Such  an  in- 
terpretation is  supported  neither  by  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  apostle  is  accustomed  to  speak 
of  the  death  of  Christ,  nor  by  the  object  of  the 
writer  and  the  method  of  the  whole  discussion, 
nor  by  the  mode  of  thinking  among  the  Chris- 
tians to  whom  the  apostle  wrote :  unless  the 
utmost  violence  be  put  upon  the  words. — The 
other  species  is  usually  called  the  subtile. 
These  are  such  as  by  a  sort  of  art  extract  from 
the  words  a  sentiment,  good  indeed  in  itself, 
but  foreign  to  the  intention  of  the  writer,  and 
particularly  so  to  the  proper  force  and  signifi- 
cancy  of  the  words.  A  great  many  examples  of 
this  kind  have  been  collected  by  F.  F.  Griifen- 
hain,  in  his  Dissert,  cle  Interpret.  N.  T.  argutis 
maf/is,  quam  veris,  Leips.  1774. 

Since  then  every  true  interpretation  rests 
upon  the  usus  loquendi,  the  accurate  knowledge 
of  persons,  and  places,  and  times,  and  the  com- 
parison of  the  context  ;  so  ail  instances  of 
forced  interpretation  must  arise  either  from  ig- 
norance or  neglect  of  these  same  things. 
There  are,  therefore,  thi^ee  principal  causes  of 


144       CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

such  interpretations,  of  which  we  now  proceed 
to  treat. 

I.  The  first  cause  lies  in  the  want  of  a  pro- 
per knowledge  and  correct  understanding  of 
the  usus  loquendi.  The  style  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, as  is  now  generally  admitted,  is  not 
pure  Greek ;  but  is  mixed  and  made  up  of 
words  and  idioms  borrowed  from  several  lan- 
guages, and  particularly  from  the  Hebrew. 
This  has  been  the  judgment  of  the  most  learn- 
ed Greek  scholars,  as  well  as  of  the  most  erudite 
interpreters  of  the  New  Testament.^  And  al- 
though this  opinion  is  admitted  in  our  day  by 
all,  yet  there  seems  to  be  an  ambiguity  hang- 
ing around  it,  which  gives  occasion  to  very 
many  forced  interpretations. 

In  the  first  place,  those  who,  after  the  ex- 
ample of  Daniel  Heinsius,  have  pre-supposed 
in  the  New  Testament  a  peculiar  Hehraizinf/ 
dialect,  have  no  doubt,  by  the  common  consent, 
of  the  learned,  been  in  an  error ;  and  have  thus 
rendered  the  whole  discussion  respecting  the 
ztsus  loquendi  found  in  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  the  interpretation  of  the  New 

'  See  Ilemsterliusius  ad  Lucian.  Tom.  1.  p.  309.  G.  J. 
Planck,  Einleit.  in  die  theol.  Wisseiischaften,  Bd.  II.  p. 
42,  sq. 


OF  THE    NEW  TESTAMENT.  145 

Testament  itself,  uncertain.^  For,  in  the  first 
place,  single  forms  and  idioms  cannot  consti- 
tute a  peculiar  dialect ;  nor  are  those  things  of 

^  It  was  formerly  customary  to  call  the  language  of  the 
New  Testament  and  of  the  Alexandrine  interpreters,  the 
Hellenistic,  as  if  it  were  a  dialect  appropriate  and  peculiar  to 
them ;  and  to  regard  it,  I  know  not  how,  'Efi^ai^ovffay. 
This  opinion  is  most  learnedly  refuted  by  Claud.  Salmasius 
in  his  Comm..  de  Lingua  Hellenistica,  Lugd.  Bat.  1G43, 
(compare  also  his  Funus  Ling.  Hellenisticae  and  Ossilegium,) 
against  D.  Heinsius,  who  had  defended  it  in  his  Aristarchus 
Sacer,  his  Exercitatt.  Sacrae  in  K.  T.  (in  the  preface,)  and 
his  Exercitatio  de  Lingua  Hellenist.  L.  B.  1643.  But  al- 
though  no  one  who  is  in  any  degree  acquainted  with  the 
Greek  language,  can  assent  to  the  opinion  of  those  who  de- 
fend the  purity  of  the  New  Testament  Greek  ;  yet  never- 
theless the  position  seems  also  incapable  of  defence,  which 
makes  the  language,  or  rather  the  style  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, a  peculiar  and  proper  haXixroy,  the  so  called  rm  'EX- 
XriviffTiKriv.  For  it  is  one  thing,  to  employ  a  certain  common 
and  unpolished  (ihuTtxov  manner  of  speaking,  mixed  with 
foreign  idioms,  and  with  Latin  and  other  newly  coined  words, 
vio;^fjco7i  as  Phrynicus  calls  them)  and  a.'^oxif/.ois'  and  it  is 
quite  another  thing  to  make  use  of  a  particular  and  peculiar 
dialect.  The  position  of  Salmasius  (and  in  my  judgment 
the  correct  one)  is,  that  the  sacred  writers  had  no  such  pe- 
culiar dialect ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  he  is  as  far  removed 
as  possible  from  tlie  opinion  of  those  who  boast  of  the  purity 
of  the  style  of  the  New  Testament. — But  if  it  be  said  that  it 
is  mere  verbal  trifling,  not  to  admit  the  name  of  dialed 
where  it  cannot  be  denied  that  these  writers  have  employed 
a  kind  of  writing  mixed,  u^oxifAov,  <ruv  ob  ^t^uthivfciyaiv  and 
therefore  filled  with  many  Hebraisms  :  I  answer,  that  these 
things  we  certainly  do  not  deny  ;  since  no  one  not  entirely 
ignorant  of  the  Greek  language  can  do  this ;  but  we  deny 
VOL.   II.  L 


146     CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

course  Hebraisms,  which  have  some  resem- 
blance to  the  Hebrew  lang-uage ;  but  all  such 
appearances  may  be  referred  to  the  general 
feelings  and  opinions  of  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  and  to  their  mode  of  teaching,  ra- 
ther than  to  single  words  and  forms  of  phrases, 
which  are  of  uncertain  origin,  and  are  often 
common  to  many  languages.  And,  in  the  se- 
cond place,  there  was  no  dialect  peculiar  to  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament;  for  a  dialect 
belongs  to  a  people,  not  to  a  few  individuals. 
It  is,  as  Gregory  Corinthus  defines  it,  Xs^i; 
7diov  yj/.oay.rriou,  TO'rto'o  l[x<pamv6a}  "a mode  of  speak- 
that  these  appearances  constitute  what  it  is  pro})er  to  call  a 
peculiar  dialect,  'EXXYiviffrtxYtv  or  'E/S^a/^ot/irav.  We  would 
not  indeed  be  difficult  about  words,  Init  we  prefer  not  to  use 
the  term  dialect,  because  through  the  opinion  which  the  use 
of  this  word  Mould  imply,  the  interpretation  of  the  New 
Testament  is  rendered  uncertain ;  inasmuch  as  it  is  impos- 
sible to  form  a  right  judgment  respecting  the  origin  and 
sources  of  the  language  which  the  sacred  writers  have  em- 
ployed, unless  that  ambiguity  be  removed,  which  seems  to 
iiave  been  introduced  into  the  interpretation  of  the  sacred 
books  by  those  authors,  who  talk  about  a  peculiar  dialect, 
without  appearing  to  know  or  to  determine  any  thipig  certain 
respecting  it.  I  merely  touch  u])on  this  subject  here  and  in 
the  text ;  proposing  l-.ereafter  to  treat  of  it  more  fully  on 
another  occasion,  1  have  mentioned  it  here  in  order  to  vin- 
dicate the  real  opinions  of  Salmasius  :  since  some  appear  to 
consider  him  as  differing  very  little  from  the  error  of  Pfo- 
clien.  See  G.  J.  Planck,  1.  c.  p.  44.  Bib.  Cabinet,  Vol.  II. 
'  Greg.  Corinth.  De  Dialectis,  j).  I),  ec^.  Schaefer.  Com- 
pare Phavorin.  ^•arin.   Thes.  (Venet.  Wdii.)  fol.    230,  24n. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  147 

iiig  which  exhibits  [bears]  the  character  of  the 
place."  But  when  all  the  dialects  of  the 
Greeks  had  become  mingled  together,  and  the 
several  tribes  had  no  longer  each  a  separate 
and  peculiar  mode  of  speaking,  the  gramma- 
rians changed  also  the  signification  of  the  term 
dialect^  and  called  this  intermixture  or  farrago 
of  dialects  riv  '/.oivnv  didXixrov.^'^  The  Jews  then 
who  spoke  Greek,  had  not  a  peculiar  dialect  of 
their  own,  but  used  this  common  one,  rrtv  /Sa^ 
j3apfC,ovea'/  which  was  also  employed  by  all  the 
Asiatic    tribes    and   nations   that    then   spoke 

Maittaire  de  Graecae  Linguae  Dialectis,  p.  1,  seq.  Clem. 
Alex.  Strom.  VI.  p.  678.  B.  Scholiast,  ad  Aristoph.  Nubb- 
317. — The  editions  of  Greg.  Corinth,  whose  definition  is 
given  above,  have  Xi^is  "^lov  ^u^axrij^a  rvTou  \fi(paivovaa.^ 
Salmasius  (p.  450)  ingeniously  conjectured,  that  it  ought  to 
be  written  to  tow  although  he  hesitated  to  adopt  this  readings 
sufiiciently  coniirined  as  it  is  by  the  words  of  other  gramma- 
rians and  writers.  Thus  Clemens  Alex.  (Strom.  Lib.  L  p. 
404,)  says  in  like  manner:  ^idXiKr'o;  la-ri  Xi^tj  "5.  ;^«^.  toVsv 
lf/.ipulvouffa,  ri  >A%ti  'thiov  n  xoivov  sBvou;  lfi(puivot/ira  ;;^a^axr^ou 
Salmasius  supposes,  that  the  grammarians  perhaps  changed 
ToTov  into  TVTov,  because  in  their  times  there  \vas  no  longer 
any  Greek  dialect  peculiar  to  any  place  or  tribe.  He  has 
also  very  clearly  demonstrated  in  his  book  de  Hellenistica, 
%at  a  dialect  can  only  belong  to  a  tribe  or  people,  exovcrav 
^uvr,;  ^a^aKT>j^a  l^viKov,  as  says  the  ^chol.  in  Aristoph. 
quoted  above.  The  grammarians  themselves  also  do  not 
seem  always  to  have  used  the  term  dialect  very  accurately ' 
but  have  often  employed  it  yXS^cwj  l^jlafia^  ^s|/f,  etc. 
"'  Salmasius  1.  c 


148     CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

Greek.  Paul,  moreover,  a  native  of  Tarsus, 
had  learned  Greek  in  his  own  country,  long- 
before  he  came  to  the  school  of  Gamaliel ;  as 
was  also  the  case  with  Luke,  who  exhibits  few- 
traces  of  a  Jewish  education. 

Nor  do  those  authors  appear  to  have  judged 
more  correctly,  who  have  wished  to  call  the 
diction  of  the  New  Testament  the  Alexandrine 
dialect,"  and  have  regarded  the  dialect  of  Alex- 
andria as  the  source  of  the  style  of  the  New 
Testament.  This  opinion  is  supported,  neither 
by  a  comparison  of  the  New  Testament  with 
this  dialect  nor  by  history.  For  the  writers 
of  the  New  Testament  were  not  citizens  of 
Alexandria;  nor  simply  because  they  have 
sometimes  followed  the  Alexandrine  version, 
can  it  be  concluded  that  they  have  imitated 
the  Alexandrian  dialect ;  any  more  than  those 
who  follow  the  version  of  Luther,  are  accus- 
tomed to  imitate  his  style  in  other  respects. 
The  dialect  of  Alexandria  was  not  a  language 
peculiar  and  appropriate  to  the  citizens  of 
that  place  alone,  but  was  a  kind  of  speech 
mixed  and  corrupted  by  the  confluence  of 
many  nations,  as  Greeks,  Macedonians,  Afri- 
cans,  Carthaginians,   Syrians,   East    Lidians, 

"  This  name  wss  first  proposed  by  J.  E.  Grabe  in  liis 
Prolegom.  ad  V.  T.  ex  vers.  Sept.  Interpretum,  Tom.  11. 
'•.  1,  .;  40. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  140 

Sicilians,  Italians,  and  others.^  After  the  Ma- 
cedonians had  brought  the  whole  of  Greece 
under  subjection,  and  extended  their  dominion 
also  into  Asia  and  Africa,  the  refined  and  elegant 
Attic  began  to  decline  ;  and  all  the  dialects  be- 
ing by  degrees  mixed  together,  there  arose  a 
certain  peculiar  language  called  the  common,^ 


°  See  on  this  whole  subject  Sturz  de  Dialecto  Alexaii- 
drina,  Leips.  1808.  Compare  Fischer,  Animadv,  ad  Wel- 
leri  Gramm.  I.  p.  46.  [See  also  the  essay  of  H.  Planck  de 
Indole,  etc-  in  Biblical  Cabinet,  ^^ol.  II. 

p  Kom  hdXiKTas,  Gramm.  Leid.  p.  640,  ed  Schaefer.  Schol. 
Venet.  Hom.  ad  II.  a  85.  Eustath.  ad  II.  a'  p.  22.  Clem. 
Alex.  Strom.  L.  I.  p.  404,  B.  See  Kirchmeier  de  Dialecto 
Graecor.  communi,  Viteb.  1709.  Those  who  used  this  dia- 
lect were  called  xoivoi,  Schol.  Aristoph.  ad  Plut.  983.  Sui- 
das  V.  aS-a^x.  Phrynicus  calls  them  ot  vvv,  oi  •roWot.  On  the 
subject  of  this  dialect  Salmasius  has  a  long  discussion,  in  the 
work  so  often  quoted  above.  He  was  of  opinion  that  it 
ought  not  to  be  called  a  dialect,  but  rather  yXu^crav  xoivm  a 
tongue  common  to  all,  who  in  speaking  the  Greek  langniage, 
'EXAjjv/^avrsj,  did  not  follow  any  one  of  the  ancient  dialects. 
The  grammarians,  on  the  contrary,  chose  to  employ  for 
this  purpose  the  name  xotvh  hcUXsnTos,  to  designate  a  kind  of 
speech  mixed  up  from  all  the  forms  of  Greek  idioms,  and 
common  to  all  those  who  spoke  Greek  in  the  later  ages. 
Whoever  therefore  did  not  follow  one  of  the  four  dialects, 
viz.  the  Attic,  Ionic,  Doric,  or  Aeolic,  but  employed  a  diction 
composed  from  all  those  idioms,  was  said  to  have  rh  xom" 
XidkixTov ;  as  for  instance  Pindar  himself ;  see  Salmasius  1. 
0.  p.  28,  29.  But  we  must  also  distinguish  different  pe- 
riods or  ages  ;  for  the  grammarians  give  also  to  that  yXuaca 
which  was  current  among  all  Greeks  before  the  rise  and  dis- 
tinction of  the  four  dialects,  the  epithet  xom.     This  is  ap- 


150  CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

and  also  the  Hellenic  /"^  but  more  espe- 
cially, since  the  empire  of  the  Macedonians 

parent  from  the  fragment  of  the  so  called  Grammaticus 
JMeermanianus,  (which  with  Gregory  Cor.  and  the  Gram- 
mat.  Leidensis  was  published  by  Schaefer,  Leips.  1811,) 
where  it  is  said  :  ^/aXsxTOi  Vi  u<n  vriv-n'  'las*  'AtS-Zj*  Aeaoi;' 
AioXis'  xet)  Koivri'  ri  ya,^  Ti/uTTt],  'i%ov  ( vx'i^ovffa ^a^aKT>i^a,  xotvii 
&>vefidffB-t),  ^lori  Ik  ruvrns  a^^ovrai  <ffS,7ce,i'  XnTTTiov  Js  Tavrnv 
fit-h  T^o^  xecvom,  rug  ^J  Xoiwag  <r^os  Ihornrei.  '  The  dialects 
are  five,  the  Ionic,  Attic,  Doric,  Aeolic,  and  the  common. 
The  fifth,  having  no  peculiar  character  of  its  own,  is  called 
common,  because  all  the  others  have  sprung  from  it.  This 
one  is  to  be  learned  by  general  rule ;  the  others,  each  in  its 
own  particular  manner ;'  p.  642.  But  Gregory  Corinthiis 
(p.  12)  gives  the  name  x«v»j  to  that,  ^  -rcims  ;^^^»^£Sa,  vyovp 
91  Ik  Tft/y  5'  ffvutrruffa,  '  which  we  all  use,  %'iz.  that  which  is 
composed  from  all  the  four.'  With  him  also  coincides  the 
Gramm.  Leid.  (\.  c)  and  John  Grammaticus.  The  incon- 
sistency of  these  grammarians  is  chastised  by  Salmasius,  1.  c. 
p.  12,  sq.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  the  discrepancy  is  to  be 
reconciled  in  this  manner,  viz.  by  making  a  distinction  be- 
tween this  ancient  yXuffffa,  the  common  source  or  mother  of 
all  the  four  dialects,  which  the  Gramm.  Meerm.  calls  xwvw, 
and  that  later  mixed  kind  of  diction  common  to  all  the  na- 
tions that  used  the  Greek  language,  and  formed  by  the  mix- 
ture not  only  of  all  the  dialects,  but  also  of  the  idioms  of 
every  people  that  spoke  Greek  {'EWnvt^ovrm),  or  thatminglerl 
with  the  Greeks  :  and  which  was  also  commonly  called  h  xnvh, 
and  is  termed  by  Phrynicus  the  dialect  ruv  vtairi^u*  and  rS» 
ah  ^t^ailtvftivav.  The  grammarians  indeed,  having  no  rule 
but  their  own  taste  and  judgment,  seem  very  often  to  have 
been  rash  and  inconsistent  both  in  their  precepts  and  cen- 
sures. 

1  Hellenic  rather  than  Hellenistic  ,•  since  the  former  is  re- 
cognised by  the  grammarians  and  other  writers  of  that  age, 


or  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  151 

was  the  chief  cause  of  its  introduction  into 
general  use  from  the  time  of  Alexander  on- 
wards, it  was  called  the  MacedonicJ    This  dia- 

while  the  latter  never  existed ;  see  Salmasius  1.  c     But  in 
relation  also  to  the    words  'EXXzvtKos   and  'EXX«y/^s/»,  the 
grammarians  do  not  seem  to  have  been  of  'one  accord.     On 
the  one  hand,  these  words  are  very  often  employed  in  a  lau- 
datory sense,  when  all  who  spoke  Greek  are  termed  *EXA.»jv«- 
^rxt  and  'EXXtivi^ovri;.     This  is  proved  by  Salmasius  with 
many  arguments ;    and  is   also   sufficiently  manifest   from 
the  passage  in  Athenaeus  (Lib.  III.  c  84),  where  o'l  tr(po%^a. 
^EXX}jvtZ,ovris  are  those  who  speak  Greek  well.     On  the  other 
hand,  at  a  later  period  they  applied  the  epithet  'EkX*ivi)ios  to 
a  kind  of  speech  less  elegant,  and  composed  of  words  and 
phrases  common,   obsolete,   newly  coined,  or  also  foreign  ; 
see  IMoeris  sub  v.  ytXoTov  Schol.  Aristoph.  ad  Ran.  G.   Hence 
it  arose  that  to  'EkXvvixus  kiyav  was  opposed  to  to  'Arnxu;. 
The  grammarians  distinguished  in  this  common  language, 
between  such  things  as  were  less  elegant,  which  they  called 
a^oxtfiec,   'EXXvviKa,    as    being  common   roig    "EXXtjirr    (see 
Moeris  s  ib  v.  i^lxkuv  %ufi,(puyus')  and  such  other  things    as 
were  more  recent,  and  among  these  also  foreign  idioms,  all 
which  they  called  koivcc,,  i.  e.  obsolete  t^turmd-  which  is  done 
by  3Ioeris,  as  is  shewn  by  Pierson  ad  3Ioerid.  sub  v.  (piihuKo'i. 
But  all   the   grammarians   very   frequently  confounded    ta 
Konov  and  x,oiva>s  with  to  'EXXwv/xov  and  'EXXmixa/;  ;  a  circum- 
stance  deseiwiiig   the   attention    of   modern  grammarians. 
Compare  Salmasius,  1.  c.  p.  55,  sq. 

'  Not  the  ancient  INIacedonic,  which  we  know  to  have  been 
very  similar  to  the  Doric  )  but  the  later,  adopted  by  the 
J\J acedonians  about  the  time  of  Phihp,  and  especially  of 
Alexander.  This  came  to  be  employed  by  all  the  Greeks^ 
learned  and  unlearned,  in  common  life  and  in  their  writings  ; 
nor  was  there  any  longer  a  distinction  of  dialects.    It  is  very 


152       CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

lect  was  composed  from  almost  all  the  dialects 
of  Greece,  together  with  very  many  foreign 
words^  borrowed  from  the  Persians,  Syrians, 
Hebrews,  and  other  nations,  who  became  con- 
nected with  the  Macedonian  people  after  the 
age  of  Alexander.'  Now  of  this  Macedonian  dia- 
lect, the  dialect  of  Alexandria,  was  a  de- 
generate progeny,  far  more  corrupt  than  the 
common  rwy  Ma/.s^ov/^ovrw:/  y/.wCfTa,  or  common 
Macedonian  dialect.  It  was  the  current  lan- 
guage of  all  the  inhabitants  of  that  city,  even 
of  the  learned  in  whom  the  celebrated  school 
of  Alexandria  was  so  fertile,  and  also  of  the 
Jews ;  for  the  latter,  whom  Alexander  had 
permitted  to  dwell  in  that  city  on  the  same 

often  mentioned  as  the  common,  e.  g.  by  Phrynicus  ;  but  is 
also  called  Maxi'^oveov  '^la.Xizros,  Heiaclid.  ap.  Eustath.  ad  Od. 
x'.  p.  IG54  :  and  Maxtlovuv  ykutrffa,  Eudaem.  Pelus.  ap.  euiid. 
ad  Od.  y.  p    1457. 

^  Examples  are  given  in  >Spanheim  ad  Callim.  H.  in  Del. 
150.  Compare  Hemsterhus.  ad  Polhic.  10,  IG.  Heysch.  et 
Phavor.  v.  i^tka,  coll.  8elden  de  Diis  Syr.  lib.  1.  Etym. 
Mag.  V.  aTTa,  coll.  Ileinsius  Prnl.  in  Aristarch.  ti^ac.  p.  CC5. 
[Arist.  Sac.  p.  446  ?]  Spanlieim  ad  (Jallim.  H.  in  Dian.  6. 

'  Compare  Eniesti's  Prolusion  de  Drfficultate  N.  T.  rede 
interp.  in  Opp.  Phil.  crit.  p.  212.  See  also  Diod.  Ascalonites 
ap.  A  then.  XIV.  p.  102,  C.  Athenaeus  himself  says,  III. 
222.  A.  Maxilovi^ovras  oTSa,  ToXXov;  ruv  'Arnxuv  hat.  rrivl'rifji.i- 
liav^  coll,  IX.  p.  102,  C.  Phryniclius  de  JVIenandro  Athen. 
p.  415 — 41tJ.  ed.  Lobeck.  Eustath.  ad  Od.  t'.  p.  1854. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  153 

footing  as  to  rights  and  privileges  with  the 
Macedonians,  used  not  a  peculiar  dialect  of 
their  own,  but  the  common  language  of  the 
city.  What  Josephus  relates,  that  the  Jews 
had  a  certain  portion  of  the  city  allotted 
to  them,  O'TTMg  yM'^aooorspav  t^oisv  rrjv  dlcurav,  yittov 
sri/Mtff'yofxsvuv  rcov  dXXo(pvXuv,  '  in  order  that  they 
might  live  in  greater  purity,  and  have  less  in- 
tercourse with  strangers,'  certainly  does  not  of 
necessity  imply,  that  they  had  a  separate  and 
peculiar  speech  of  their  own,  which  they  pre- 
served in  the  midst  of  constant  intercourse  with 
the  multitude  of  colonists  from  other  nations, 
Egyptians,  Macedonians,  Sicilians,  and  others. 
Nor  were  they  called  Alexandrians  for  any 
other  cause,  as  Josephus  also  relates,*^  than 
that  as  Jews  dwelling  at  Alexandria,  they 
might  be  distinguished  from  the  other  Jews. 
This  Alexandrine  dialect  also,  thus  mixed  up 
from  the  idioms  (/^w/xara)  of  many  nations, 
was  the  language  employed  by  the  Greek  in- 
terpreters of  the  Old  Testament,  whoever  they 
were  ;  and  of  this  language  it  is  not  enough 
to  say,  that  it  has  a  Hebraizing  tendency.  It 
cannot  indeed  be  denied,  that  the  Jews  must 
naturally  have  adopted  into  their  Alexandrine 
language  many  Hebrew  words  and  forms :  yet 

"  Antiq.  Jud.  XIX.  5.  2. 


154      CAU.SES  OF  FORCED   INTERPRETATIONS 

it  is  apparent  that  the  Alexandrine  interpreters 
have  not  always  accurately  followed  the  words 
of  the  Hebrew  text ;  but  have  very  often  de- 
parted from  them,  and  sometimes  also  even 
corrupted  the  sense  of  them.  Indeed,  they 
might  themselves  not  improperly  be  styled, 
interpreters  of  seventy  tongues."^  The  writers 
of  the  New  Testament,  on  the  other  hand, 
have  made  use  of  that  common  language  which 
prevailed  throughout  Judea,  Syria,  and  Asia 
Minor,  not  less  than  in  the  whole  of  Greece  ; 
and  have  not  employed  this  ^Alexandrine  dia- 
lect. This  fact  is  established  not  only  histori- 
cally, as  we  have  just  shewn  ;  but  is  also 
proved  from  the  nature  of  the  circumstances 
themselves. 

In  the  first  place,  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  have  very  many  things,  which  be- 
long to  theMacedonic  dialect.  The  examples  of 

*  They  were  Jews  no  doubt ;  a  people  which,  among  every 
nation  where  they  are  born  or  sojourn,  employ  a  certain  pecu- 
liar dialect  of  that  language  which  is  vernacular  to  them.  It 
could  not  therefore  well  be,  but  that  the  Alexandrine  inter- 
preters, educated  as  .Jews,  should  write  a  kind  of  (xreek  less 
pure,  than  even  the  other  Alexandrine  writers.  These  latter, 
so  far  as  their  wi-itingshave  come  down  to  us,  were  men  of  cul- 
tivated minds,  and  therefore  employed  rhv  xoivriv  'SidXixrov  in- 
deed, but  in  a  less  impure  form  than  those  learned  Jews, 
who  have  translated  into  Greek  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  155 

this  are  indeed  almost  innumerable ;  but  the  few- 
following  may  here  suffice.  The  word  'irapifj.jSoXr, 
in  the  ISew  Testament  denotes  camp,  e.  g.  Acts 
xxi.  34  ;  Heb.  xiii.  1 1  ;  of  which  there  is  no 
example  in  pure  Greek.  But  Phrynicus  says 
(p.  377,  ed.  Lob.)  that  it  is  duvojg  MazsdoviKo^, 
'  very  Macedonic  ;'  and  the  Seventy  have  em- 
ployed it  likewise  in  this  sense  for  n^n!^?  e.  g. 

Gen.  xxxii.  *2J  Further  '^v/xri,  which  among- 
the  Attics  denoted  op/Mrjv,  onset,  was  used  in  the 
Macedonic  language  for  ffrsvoj-rrov,  a  lane,  alley, 
Luke  xiv.  21  ;  and  then  for  rrXania,  a  icide  street. 
Matt.  vi.  '2/  So  also  TootrxoTj^,  2  Cor.  vi.  3, 
coll.  Phrynicus,  p.  20,  ed.  De  Pauw;  (p.  85,  ed. 
Lobeck?)  Id'naijM.^id..  175,  ed. Lob.  coll.  Fischer 
de  Vit.  Lex.  N.  T.  p.  61,  71 ;  ^svi^^/xaraPhryn. 
286  ;  a]yjiayM-iG%7ivai  id.  442  ;  Tav^oxsOj,  id.  307  : 
cay£<r3a/, /3a£/5a^ov,  id.  327;  and  many  others. 
But  at  the  same  time,  many  words  have  been 
condemned  by  the  grammarians  unjustly ;  as 
dy,!i7]v,  for  ?V/,   Matt.  xv.  16,  which  Phrynicus 

•'■  Compare  Jos.  Ant.  Jud.  VI.  6.     Clem.  Alex.  Strom. 
I  v.  p.  521,  D. 

^  Phrynicus,  p.  404.  Pollux.  Onom.  IX.  §  38.  says:  Ta;^a  J' «» 
lu^oig  xa)  pvfAvv  tl^iifcsvijv  TrivTrXaruav,  a;  olvvv  Xiyoviri,  '  perhaps 
you  may  find  pv/^ri  employed  to  denote  a  icide  street,  accord- 
ing to  present  usage ;'  where  he  quotes  Philippides  o  Maxi- 


156       CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

(p.  125)  and  Moeris  (sub  voce)  censure  with- 
out reason ;  since  the  use  of  it  seems  to  be  only 
a  little  more  nice  and  uncommon. 

In  the  second  place,  the  writers  of  the  New- 
Testament  have  abstained  from  employing 
many  forms  of  speech,  and  many  unusual  and 
evidently  corrupted  words,  which  are  found  in  the 
Alexandrine  interpreters  ;  although  these  latter 
do  not  appear  to  have  all  been  equally  in  fault 
in  the  use  of  such  words.  Of  this  kind  are 
riX^oaav,  Ex.  XV.  27  ;  s(poi'yo(rav,  Ps.  Ixxvii.  29 ; 
'^r,}M(p7iffamVf  Job  V.  14,  coll.  Acts  xvii.  27  ; 
r3^>iX7]xa,  Ps.  xl.  11,  and  many  others;  to  col- 
lect and  review  which  would  be  a  matter  of  in- 
finite and  thankless  labour  ;  see  Sturz,  1.  c.  §  9. 
It  will  be  enough  to  mention  the  word  ^/xa/o$ 
and  its  cognates,  by  which  they  have  expressed 
the  Hebrew  nt^^S  pH^'  H/tDK,  ^pil ;  and  also 

yj^n.  Pi'ov.  xi.  7  ;  ^^y,  Job.  xxxiv.  10.     The 

concordance  of  Tromm  is  full  of  similar  ex- 
amples. Indeed,  the  levity,  negligence,  and 
inconsistency  of  these  translators  in  the  use  ot 
Greek  words,  is  most  incredible  ;  nor  would  it 
be  easy  to  find  any  thing  ever  uttered  in  Greek, 
more  barbarous  than  their  diction;  although 
in  some  of  the  books,  more  elegance  is  exhi- 
bited.    In  this  way  and  to  such  a  degree,  on 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  157 

the  other  hand,  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment have  not  erred  against  the  nature  and 
elegance  of  the  Greek  language ;  and  although 
their  style  is  not  pure,  yet  they  have  at  least 
written  Greek,  and  not  barbarisms.* 

This  ambiguity  and  inconstancy  in  the  judg- 
ments formed  respecting  the  Greek  style  of 
the  New  Testament,  to  which  we  have  above 
referred,  has  operated  as  the  cause  of  forced 
interpretations  chiefly  in  three  ways,  which  we 
now  proceed  to  exhibit. 

1.  It  has  thus  operated,  first,  because  that 
which  is  good  Greek  has  not  been  sufficiently 
distinguished  from  that  which  is  bad  Greek, 
and  vice  versa ;  and  the  same  words  and  phrases 
have  been  explained  now  according  to  the  more 
elegant  Greek  idiom,  and  then  again  from  the 
corrupted  language.  Thus  the  word  o/V.a/o,  and 
its  cognates  have  been  understood  by  interpre- 
ters, sometimes  in  the  pure  Greek  sense  ;  and 
at  other  times  in  the  Hebrew  sense ;  and  hence 
it  cannot  be  otherwise,  than  that  many  passages 
should  be  exceedingly  tortured.  We  see  also 
many  words  explained  by  a  reference  to  foreign 

=*  Ernesti  Opusc.  Philol.  Crit,  p.  209,  sq.  Institut.  Interp. 
N.  T.  Pt.  III.  c.  7.  ed.  Amraon.  Biblical  Cabinet,  Vol.  IV. 
Mr.  Terrot's  translation  of  Ernesti,  Vol.  II.  Planck,  Einl, 
in  d.  theol.  Wissensch.  II.  p.  46,  sq. 


158      CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

sources,  when  the  force  and  signification  of  them 
can  be  illustrated  and  fixed  by  domestic  exam- 
ples. Thus  the  name  "koyoc  in  John  many  suppose 
to  be  borrowed  from  the  philosophy  of  Plato,  or 
of  Philo  6  nXarMvifyv'  Others  that  it  signifies  the 
divine  wisdom  personified  in  the  Jewish  manner, 
or  the  divine  interpreter,  rh  Xiyoi/ra,  and  they 
dispute  largely  here  respecting  the  adversaries 
whom  John  intended  to  refute.     But  it  is  per- 
fectly evident,   that  it  here  denotes  a  certain 
olfficiv,   'oTj/Mari  ^soO  yiyovora  -Trfo  crotc^jj  xr/ffsw;,   --^cj- 
TOTOzov,  di'  ov  '/.at  roug  aiuvag  £'roir,asv  and  that  this 
word,  which  is  used  by  John  as  well  known  to 
those  whom  he  wrote,  i.  e.  not  to  learned  men 
but  to  unlearned  Christians,  is  not  to  be  ex- 
plained in  a  manner  new  and  unusual  among 
Jews  and  Christians  ;  but  so  that  it  wouhl  be 
easily  understood  by  all  those  accustomed  to 
speak  of  the   Messiah  in  the    same   manner. 
They  however  were  wont  zar   ^^^oyj,v,  to  call 
the    Messiah  rh  Xiyoixsm,  the  promised  of  God, 
ip-^oiMivov,  him  tcho  is  to  come,  the  first  and  most 
excellent  of  all  created  things  in  his  origin, 
nature,  and  power ;  so  that  the  word  is  to  be 
explained  in  the  same  manner,  in  which  all  at 
that  time  spoke  of  the  MessiaJi.*"     But  from 

''  See  Kcil  de  Doctoribus  Ecclesiae  a  culpa  corruptae  per 
I'lat.  rec.  Doctr.  Comm.  II.     [The  author  is  here  descrilnng 


OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMt::NT.  159 

this  uncertain  interpretation  of  the  word  "i^oyot, 
there  have  not  only  arisen  many  forced  inter- 
pretations, but  the  whole  purpose  of  the  apostle 
seems  to  be  perverted. 

2.  There  have  also  been  others,  in  the  se- 
cond place,  who  have  every  where  sought  to 
iind  Hebraisms  ;  and  these,  while  they  have  at- 
tempted to  explain  from  the  Hebrew^  language 
words  and  phrases  which  ought  to  be  inter- 
preted according  to  Greek  usage,  have  in  va- 
rious ways  tortured  the  sense  of  the  sacred 
writers.  Thus  they  have  given  it  as  a  pre- 
cept, that  the  use  of  the  abstract  for  the  con- 
crete (as  we  say  in  the  schools)  is  a  Hebraism. 
But  this  is  done  in  all  languages,  and  especi- 
ally among  the  Greeks,  in  whose  language  are 
extant  some  of  the  most  elegant  examples  of 
this  figure. '^  The  Seventy  also  have  often 
placed  abstract  words,  where  the  Hebrew  text 
has  concrete  ones ;  e.  g.  Ex.  xix.  6,  where 
they  have  UodriuiJ.cc  instead  of  hot;,  for  the  He- 
brew DOrtD,  as  in   1    Pet.  ii.  5,  9.— So  when 

the  prepositions  h  and   u;  are  interchanged, 

the  manner  in  which  the  Jews  spoke  of  the  Messiah,  in  Order 
to  illustrate  the  proper  sense  in  which  the  word  x'oyo;  is  to  be 
understood.  The  apostle,  on  the^other  hand,  declares  to  the 
Jews,  that  Sjoj  h  o  Xoyo;. — Ed.] 

^  Casaubon  ad  Allien.  I.  9.  D'Orville  ad  Chariton.  V.  5. 


160  CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

these  writers  have  referred  it  to  a  Hebraism. 
But  this  permutation  was  exceedingly  common 
among"  the  Greeks.  The  phrase  sJg  to  cpavsoov 
instead  of  sv  rOj  (tavioCJ,  is  well  known;  and  Thu- 
cydides  very  often  puts  Iv  with  the  dative  for  slg 
with  the  accusative.'^  Dionysius  of  Halicar- 
nassus  (Lib.  IV.  p.  276)  also  says  xaraksKpysvTzc 
sJg  ro  ffT^a-orrzdov,  for  sv  tui  oT^aroTg^w.  The  form 
s/g  adov  moreover,  is  plainly  Attic,  for  sv  ddow 
but  in  Euripides  w^e  read,  h.sTS'  sv  adov  ■/.siGoij.ai 
X<^{'i  <^2^2y.  But  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  the 
words  sig  and  sv  in  the  New  Testament  are  of- 
ten employed  according  to  Hebrew  usage, 
when  they  express  the  Hebrew  H  and  7  f  e.  g. 

where  h  signifies  inopter^  or  per  ;  although  ex- 
amples of  this  usage  occur  in  the  most  elegant 
of  the  Greek  writers.  So  Demosthenes  de 
Corona,  p.  308,  h  oudivi  ruv  5ra^'  i/xoD  ysyovvTav  rriv 
yj'rrav  svorjffsrs'  and  Andocides  de  Mysteriis,  p. 
79,  sv  rovTU)  6U)0g-)c/j  ufxag,  for  ()ta  rourov  x.r.X.  and 
so  in  the  other  passages. 

Hebraisms  are  strictly  forms  of  speech  ap- 
propriate and  peculiar  to  those  who  speak  the 
Hebrew   language ;  or   they  are  /d/wr/o;ao/   ruv 

'i  Diikerad  Thuc.  Lib.  VII.  c.  IG. 

"-  VorStius  de  Hebr.  N.  T.  p.  213,  219.    Gataker  de  Stilo 
N.  T.  p.  180,  sq. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  161 

'EjSpaiuv.  For  although  even  in  classical  Greek 
there  are  found  many  things  which  have  a 
great  similitude  in  words  and  forms  to  the 
Hebrew  language/  nevertheless  these  and  all 
other  things  which  are  not  wholly  peculiar  to 
the  Hebrews,  but  are  also  found  among  other 
nations,  and  current  in  their  usage  and  lan- 
guage, are  not  to  be  regarded  as  Hebraisms, 
but  as  general  forms  common  to  every  lan- 
guage, even  though  they  may  particularly  oc- 
cur in  Hebrew  writers.  Indeed,  as  every  lan- 
guage has  its  own  tdtdo/j^ara  or  peculiar  forms  of 
speech,  of  which  the  Greek  participles  are  an 
example,  so  also  there  are  other  constructions 
and  forms  which  are  of  universal  prevalence  in 
all  languages.  When  therefore  these  are 
found  in  a  writer,  they  are  to  be  regarded  as 
employed  by  common  right  and  usage,  and  not 
as  peculiar  to  the  particular  language  in  w  hich 
he  writes.  Thus  many  expressions  in  the  New 
Testament  have  been  stamped  with  the  name 
of  Hebraisms  for  no  other  reason  whatever, 
than  because  it  w^as  taken  for  granted  that  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  have  imitated 
the  Hebrew  mode  of  speaking,  just  as  if  they 

f  This  is  shewn  by  J.  A.  Ernesti  in  his  Prolusio  de  vcsii- 
giis  lin()uae  Hebraicae  bi  Ihujua  Graeca^  Opusc.  Phiiul. 
Crit.  L.  B.  1776. 

VOL.  II.  M 


162  CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

could  not  have  derived  those  forms  from  the 
like  usage  of  the  Greek  language  which  they 
were  writing.  Many  Hebraisms  have  thus 
been  pointed  out  by  Vorstius,  Leusden,  and 
others,  which  might  be  just  as  properly  called 
Hellenisms,  because,  forsooth,  they  occur  in 
the  New  Testament,  in  writers  'E/S^a^-^ovrgg, 
they  are  Hebraisms ;  while  the  same  things, 
when  found  in  Demosthenes,  Thucydides, 
Xenophon,  or  Polybius,  are  pronounced  to  be 
good  and  elegant  Greek.  Thus  in  the  New 
Testament,  the  use  of  the  demonstrative  pro- 
noun without  apparent  necessity  after  a  noun 
or  relative  pronoun,  has  been  regarded  as  a 
Hebraism,  inasmuch  as  the  Hebrews  do  indeed 
use  this  construction,  as  also  the  Arabs,  Sy- 
rians, Greeks  and  Romans.  Still  that  cannot 
surely  be  reckoned  as  a  Hebrew  idiom,  which 
is  also  employed  by  the  best  writers  of  other 
nations.  Casaubon  in  commenting  on  a  pas- 
sage of  Apuleius,  who  makes  frequent  use  of 
this  pleonasm,  says,  "  Est  'E/.A?iv/(y/xoc,  familiaris 
huic  scriptori,  apud  quem  saepe  reperias  earn 
dictionem  rtoLPkXy.ovGav. — Ita  autem  Graeci,  He- 
rodotus praesertim  atque  Pausanias,  atque  e 
recentioribus  Agatliias."  '  It  is  a  Hellenism 
familiar  to  this  writer,  in  whom  you  often  find 
tliis   pleonastic    construction.       80    also   the 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  l63 

Greeks,  and  especially  Herodotus,  Pausaiiias, 
and  of  later  writers,  Agathias.'     But  when  he 
adds,  etsi  id  proprie  Hebraeorum  dialecti  esse, 
certum  est,  '  although  this  belongs  peculiarly 
to  the  dialect  of  the  Hebrews,'  it  is  impossible 
to  understand  by  what  right  the  learned  writer 
makes   this   assertion.     Who  would    consider 
Cicero   as  employing  a   Hebraism,  w^hen  he 
says  (Orat.  pro  Coel.  c.  4),  "  lUud  tempus  ae- 
tatis,  quod,  ipsum,  sua  sponte  infirmum,  alio- 
rum  lubidine    infestum   est,    id  hoc  loco  de- 
fendo?"  or  in  writing  to   Sulpicius  (ad  Div. 
XVIII.  28),  "  lUud  quod  supra  scripsi,  ^^  tibi 
confirmo?"     Compare  pro  Lege  Man.  c.  10. 
So  also  Sallust  (Bell.  Catil.  c.  37),   "  Sed  ur- 
bana  plebes,  ea  vero  praeceps  ierat."     More- 
over   in  Thucydides,  6  'AmKdJrarog,  the  most 
Attic  of  all  Greek  writers,  we  find  the  same 
construction;  e.  g,  IV.  93,  rS)  ds ' iT'^ox.odrn  wn 
-Trs^l  TO  A'^Xtov,  ug  uvtCj  r^'y/sA'^i^.      In    Demos- 
thenes also  ovrog  is  elegantly  pleonastic  (rassX/cs/) 
in  his  Oratt.  (ed.  Reisk.)  adv.  Mid.  p.  522, 
adv.  Aristog.  A.  p.  775,  de  Corona,  p.  280. 
So   in    Xenophon,    Cj^rop.    Lib.    11.   p.    51, 

(o   ^soc)    aXkoxjg  avroTg  sirirazr^oag   hiooxsu       The 

construction  in  all  these     assages  is  evidently 


164   CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

the  same  as  in  Matt.  iv.  16,  viii.  5  ;  John  xv. 
2,  xviii.  11. 

We  turn  now  to  some  examples  of  forced  in- 
terpretation, which  have  sprung  from  this 
source.  In  Matt.  xii.  S6,  many  understand 
Infj^a,  uoylv  to  mean  loicked  and  injurious  icurds  ; 
as  if  ccpyh  were  the  same  as  rnvri^ov,  which  is 
found  as  a  gloss  in  Cod.  126.  They  think  the 
sense  to  be  this  :  '  Believe  me,  that  for  every 
wicked  and  injurious  word  shall  men  hereafter 
render  an  account.'  They  suppose  the  Lord 
intended  in  these  words  to  reprehend  the  Pha- 
risees, who  had  impiously  spoken  against  him, 
and  to  threaten  them  with  the  severest  pu- 
nishments, inasmuch  as  every  one  of  their  in- 
jurious and  impious  words  should  one  day  be 
punished.  The  supporters  of  this  interpreta- 
tion of  the  word  df/hg  endeavour  to  confirm  it 

by  comparing    /'tO^?   (from  the   Heb.  ^t0!3?) 

which  they  suppose  to  be  used  of  vain,  useless, 
and  also  injurious  words.  They  are  not  in- 
deed able  to  bring  forward  examples  from  the 
Hebrew  language  itself;  but  they  adduce 
two  passages  from  the  Chaldee  version,  viz. 
Ex.  V.  9,  where  Onkelos  expresses  IpCi^  Hll 

by  r^^LOn  |^":::lnQ,  and  Ecc.  v.  2.     They  ap- 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  165 

peal  also  to  the  Hebrew  version  of  the  New 
Testament  published  by  Miinster,  which  here 

renders  g-^/o-a  aoyo))  by  ^li0'3  *)1'1 ;  and  to  the 

Syriac,  which  has  fj^o  lli:o;  compare  the  same 
versions  on  Matt.  xxv.  3).  But,  so  far  as  I 
can  see,  these  examples  prove  only  that  a^yov 

might  be  expressed  in  Chaldee  by  7^lD3,  and 

denotes  idle^  otiosus,  and  then  useless^  slothful ; 
but  not  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
when  they  said  dpyovn  imitated  the  usage  of 
the  Chaldee  tongue.  Nor  in  the  Hebrew  text 
are  there  any  examples,  that  the  expression 
idle  or  vain  words  is  used  to  denote  injurious, 
mischievous  words.  In  short,  it  cannot  be 
proved  from  these  passages,  that  those  trans- 
lators employed  the  word  7't33  in  the  sense  of 

'jtovri^ov.  For  the  a-X^uog  dovXog  in  Matt.  XXV.  30, 
is  one  who  is  useless,  unprojitable,  i.  e.  who 
brings  his  master  no  advantage  ;  not  necessa- 
rily one  who  is  wicked.     And  1p£J^  also  often 

denotes  that  which  is  vain,  empty,  as  Jer.  viii. 
8,  xvi.    18,  where  'Ipt^^^  is   rendered  in  the 

Septuagint  by  g/c  /^ctr^jy*  and  very  frequently 
too  it  signifies  falsehood,  as  Ex.  xxv.  15,  and 
especially  Prov.  xii.  22,  xvii.  7,  where  the  Se- 


166      CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

venty  have  rightly  translated  ^pt^-^HD^   by 

p/?/>.?}  -^svdrj.^  This  interpretation,  moreover, 
would  not  be  in  accordance  with  what  precedes 
in  verses  33 — 35,  nor  with  what  follows  in 
verse  37..  For  it  is  not  any  wicked  discourse 
that  is  there  reprehended,  but  the  feigned  piety 
of  the  Pharisees,  and  their  aifected  zeal  for  the 
public  welfare.  In  order  to  avoid  the  charge 
of  levity  and  indifference,  they  demanded 
(verse  38)  a  sign,  crjfisTov,  as  if  desirous  that 
both  they  and  others  might  know  whether 
Jesus  was  truly  the  Messiah.  Against  this 
dissimulation  in  those  who  uttered  nothing 
sincerely  and  from  the  heart,  Jesus  had  in- 
veighed in  severe  and  appropriate  terms  in 
verses  33 — 35,  using  the  comparison  of  a 
tree,  which  no  one  judges  to  be  good  and 
useful,  unless  it  bears  good  fruit ;  and  from 
which,  if  it  be  bad,  no  one  expects  good  fruit.'' 
But  if  now    the  sense   of  verse   36   is    such 

e  Compare  Drusius  in  Auimadv.  ad.  h.  1.  Vorstius  de 
Hebr.  N.  T.  p.  80.  Fischer  de  Vit.  Lex.  N.T.  Diss.  XXV. 
p.  569, sq. 

*"  noii7¥  signifies  here  to  judge,  consider,  regard;  of 
which  sense  Rapliel  (on  this  passage)  has  collected  many  ex- 
amples from  Herodotus.  Such  examples  however  are  fre- 
quent in  Greek;  see  e.  g.  Dionys-  Hal.  Ant.  Rom.  IV.  211. 
i^allust.   Philos.   c   9.     Stobaeus  Serm.    247.— See   on   tl»e 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  167 

as  these  interpreters  would  make  it,  there  is 
added  in  it  a  sentiment  altogether  foreign  to 
what  precedes,  frigid,  and  apyh;,  i.  e.  wholly- 
destitute  of  effect  and  force ;  and  also  not  con- 
gruous to  the  sentiment  of  verse  37.  For 
where  the  Lord  says  (verse  37)  that  every  one 
shall  hereafter  be  judged  by  his  words,  he  can- 
not be  understood  as  meaning,  that  every  one 
will  be  capable  of  proving  his  integrity  and 
goodness  merely  by  his  words  alone ;  a  senti- 
ment surely  as  far  as  possible  from  the  inten- 
tion of  our  divine  Master.  We  must  there- 
fore necessarily  understand  a  certain  kind  of 
words  or  discourse,  which,  under  the  appear- 
ance of  sincerity  and  integrity,  is  often  the 
worst  possible,  and  xara^/xa^s/  rh  ai'SswTov,  "con- 
demns >a  man,"  .because  it  is  uttered  with  an 
evil  purpose.  If  then  we  interpret  aoyh  ac- 
cording to  established  Greek  usuage,  there 
arises  a  facile  and  very  appropriate  sense ; 
namely,  af/oj  is  the  same  as  oaoyoc,  otiosiis, 
vain,  idle ;  then,  void  of  effect,  without  result, 
folloiced  by  no  corresponding  events     Therefore 

other  hand  Glass  in  Philol.  Sac.  Lib.  1.  p.  228,  ed.  Dathe. 
But  such  modes  of  speech  are  surely  not  to  be  reckoned  as 
belonging  to  any  peculiar  usage  of  the  sacred  writers,  when 
they  are  found  in  almost  every  language. 

'  Compare   Demosth.   xari    'Afofiau   Xey    a!,   p.    815,  ed 
Reisk. 


168     CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

jjj/xa  d^yov  is  empty  and  vain  icords  or  discourse, 
i.  e.  void  of  truth,  and  to  which  the  event  does 
not  correspond ;  [xdraiog  Xoyog,  <zpdt,i(av  a/xoi^og 
ysvofievog,  as  Demosthenes  expresses  it.''  In 
short,  it  is  the  empty,  inconsiderate,  insincere 
language  of  a  man  who  says  one  thing  and 
means  another ;  and  in  this  sense  d^yhg  is  very 
frequently  employed  by  the  Greeks.  Thus 
in  Stobaeus  (Serm.  c.  34)  we  find  aloiToorsoov  dot 
idrct)  Xi^ov  iixri  (SaXBTi/,  yj  Xoyov  dpyor  which 
words,  as  it  seems  to  me,  Palairet  and  Kypke 
(on  this  verse)  have  incorrectly  understood  as 
meaning  icicked^  ittjurious  language,  when  they 
ought  to  be  explained  of  empty  discourse,  ut- 
tered inconsiderately  and  without  sincerity,  as 
is  shewn  by  the  comparison  of  a  stone  thrown 
u%%  in  vain,  loitliout  effect  Hierocles  also,  in 
speaking  of  vain  prayers,'  dvivlDynrov  ihyjiv,  calls 
them  70  doyh^  i.  e.  inefficacious,  since  they  result 
in  nothing,  being  made  -v^/X^c  rJjc  sv^rig  roTg  Xo- 

rag,  "  with  merely  thoughts  of  prayer,  profiting 
nothing  for  the  acquisition  of  the  things  sought." 
The  same  writer  in  another  passage  opposes 

r'^v  doyiav  rou  xaXoij  to  r^  Ivioyiia  rov'/caxov,  '*  the  in- 
efficiency of  good  to  the  energy  of  evil."  The 

•^  In  Orat.  ad  Philippi  Epist. 
'  In  Carm.  anr.  Pythagor. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  169 

sophism  of  the  ancients,  called  the  doylg  Xoyog, 
ignava  ratio^  is  also  well  known.  Chrysostom 
therefore  says  correctly,"  a^yoi/  h\  rb  //.ri  xara 
it^ayiLCLTOC,  Xiifj^svov^  rh  "^vobsg,  to  Cuzo<paiiTiav  s^ov, 
"  the  word  d^^yhv  signifies  that  which  is  not  ac- 
cording to  fact,  false,  delusive."  Hence  it 
would  appear  that  the  following  is  the  sense  of 
the  passage  under  consideration  :  "  Believe  me, 
he  who  uses  false  and  insincere  language  shall 
suffer  grievous  punishment ;  your  words,  if 
uttered  with  sincerity  and  ingenuousness,  shall 
be  approved,  but  if  they  are  dissembled,  al- 
though they  may  bear  the  strongest  appear- 
ance of  integrity,  they  shall  be  condemned."** 

•"  So  called  by  Cicero  de  Fato  c.  12.  Facciolatus  has 
treated  of  this  sophism  in  his  Acroas.  V.  [The  following 
is  the  passage  of  Cicero  above  refei-red  to.  "  Nee  nos  im- 
pediet  ilia  ignava  ratio,  quae  dicitur ;  appellatur  enim  qui- 
dam  a  philosophis  i^yos  koyeg,  cui  si  pareamus,  nihil  omnino 
agamus  in  vita.  Sic  enim  interrogant :  Si  fatum  tibi  est,  ex 
hoc  morbo  convalescere  ;  sive  medicum  adhibueris,  sive  non, 
convalesces.  Item,  si  fatum  tibi  est,  ex  hoc  morbo  nou 
convalescere  ;  sive  tu  medicum  adhibueris,  sive  non,  non 
convalesces;  et  alterutrum  fatum  est.  IMedicum  ergo  adhi- 
bere  nihil  attinet.  Recte  genus  hoc  interrogationis  ignavum 
atque  iners  nominatum  est,  quod  eadem  ratione  omnis  e  vita 
tolletur  actio."] 

«  Homil.  XLIII.  inMatt. 

**  We  have  dwelt  somewhat  longer  on  this  passage,  for  th« 
purpose  of  shewing,  with  how  much  uncertainty  and  indefi- 


170     CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

3.  Other  interpreters,  in  the  third  place, 
misled  by  that  ambiguity  above  described, 
have  either  neglected  all  grammatical  laws,  or 
have  too  strenuously  observed  them.  Although 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  have  not  in- 
deed always  followed  the  rules  of  the  Greek 
language ;  yet  it  cannot  be  said  that  they  have 
wholly  neglected  them.  It  will  suffice  to  give 
an  example  of  each  kind.  On  the  one 
hand,  interpreters  would  have  spared  them- 
selves much  pains,  and  done  less  violence  to 
many  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  had 
they  recollected  the  rule  of  Greek  syntax,  that 
futures  often  have  the  force  of  aorists  f  as  James 

niteness  tte  comparison  of  the  oriental  tongues  has  hitherto 
been  apphed  to  the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament. 
Although  it  is  by  no  means  our  opinion,  that  nothing  is  to  be 
gained  by  referring  to  the  analogy  of  those  languages  ;  and 
while  we  believe,  on  the  contrary,  that  this  is  productive  of 
rery  great  utility  ;  still  it  would  seem  to  be  necessary  to  ap- 
ply this  principle  with  very  great  caution.  Those  interpre- 
ters certainly  act  most  considerately,  who  prefer  to  explain 
the  words  of  a  writer  from  the  usus  loquendi  of  his  own  lan- 
guage, rather  than  by  the  uncertain  analogy  or  similarity  of 
a  foreign  tongue.  The  study  of  such  analogies  is  no  doubt 
very  attractive ;  but  they  have  also  given  occasion  to  many 
forced  interpretations.  For  want  of  due  caution,  such  inter- 
preters have  been  exposed  columbae  collo  commoverl,  as  Cicero 
.says,  Academ.  IV.  25. 

''  See  Lennep,  Analog.  Ling.  Graecae,  p.  354. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  171 

ii.  18,  xayw  0£/Jw,  which  is  to  be  rendered,  as  I 
also  am  accudomed  to  sheiv  you;  and  farther, 
that  aorists  often  signify  the  continuance  of  the 
action  which  the  verb  expresses ;  as  James  v. 
6,  KccTsdr/iaffars,  s^ovivcfars  rov  o'r/.aiov^  l.  e.  ye  are 
accustomed  to  condemn  and  murder  the  innocent; 
and  so  in  the  passage  cited  above  from  Matthew 
(xii.  33),  'zoiTiffarz  is  to  be  translated  judge  or 
7'egard  habitually^  etc.  I  conjecture  also,  in  the 
very  difficult  passage  in  1  Pet.  iii.  20,  that  6'-? 
is  put  elliptically  for  w;  In,  the  w?  being  here 
left  out,  as  is  often  done  in  comparisons  '^  and 
this  being  admitted,  a  remedy  perhaps  can  be 
applied  to  the  passage. — On  the  other  hand, 
in  James, iii.  6.  6  %oV/xog  rJjc  ahmac,  interpreters 
have  been  troubled  by  the  article  6  before  the 
predicate,  as  if  they  expected  in  this  writer  an 
entire  grammatical  accuracy,  uTiolSna'  comp. 
John  i.,  1.  It  is  here  the  article  s^r,yriTr/,og,  as  it 
is  called,  or  as  used  dsr/,riKoJg,^  and  was  familiar 
to  the  Hebrew^s,  who  not  unfrequently  employ- 
ed their  -n  to  connect  the  subject  with  the  pre- 

'i  See  Bos,  Ellips.  Graec.  p.  392.  Noldius,  Concord. 
Part.  p.  379.  Gataker  Advers..lMis,c.  II.  20,  p.  382.  Com- 
pare Eustath.  ad  II.  &(''258,  it?  xdvrxvBa  T^offvraxtunv  ffwri^ui 
cu$.     Compare  also  2  Pet.  iii.  4. 

■■  See  Vigerus  de  Idiotism.  Ling.  Graecae,  p.  19,  ed.  Her- 
mann. 1822. 


172      CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

dicate.^ — It  would  be  indeed  a  very  great  merit 
in  regard  to  sacred  interpretation,  if  some  one 
would  ascertain  and  illustrate  the  analogies 
of  the  Greek  style  of  the  New  Testament  with 
more  diligence  and  accuracy,  than  has  yet  been 
done  by  those  who  thus  wander  in  uncertainty 
and  ambiguity  ;  and  would  in  this  way  establish 
some  certain  principles  and  rules  in  regard  to 
this  diction.  It  would  then  be  easy  to  avoid 
a  multitude  of  forced  interpretations.'^ 

II.  We  come  now  to  the  second  cause  men- 
tioned above.  We  have  said  that  a  multitude 
of  forced  interpretations  have  had  their  origin 
in  this  circumstance,  that  the  interpreters  have 
not    accurately    understood    or   regarded   the 

*  Gesenius  Lehrgeb.  p.  708.  Stuart's  Heb.  Gramm.  § 
447. 

*  Inasmuch  as  those  who  are  ignorant  of  the  analogies  of 
an  ancient  language,  can  employ  no  certain  method  in  ex- 
plaining the  monuments  of  that  language,  but  must  be  go- 
verned by  the  authority  of  uncertain  usage  or  the  hints  of 
gr;inimarians  ;  so  also  the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment must  necessarily  be  destitute  of  any  certain  laws,  so 
long  as  the  analogies  of  the  language  which  the  sacred  writers 
employed,  shall  not  be  defined  in  as  accurate  and  certain  a 
manner  as  possible.  These  analogies  consist,  to  use  the  lan- 
guage of  I.  D.  Lennep,  "  in  the  constant  and  uniform  like- 
ness and  correspondence  (similitudo  et  convenientia)  of  all 
the  words  which  compose  a  language,  distril)uted  into  certain 

classes  ;    of  the  significations  attached  to  them  ;  and  lastly,  of 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  173 

genius  of  the  writer,"  and  the  times  and  per- 
sons for  whom  he  wrote.  We  will  speak  of 
these  in  succession. 

1.  There  is  evidently  a  diversity  of  style  and 
manner  among  the  different  writers  of  the 
New  Testament,  corresponding  to  their  diver- 
sity of  talent  and  disposition,  which  must  be 
diligently  observed  by  those  who  wish  to  avoid 
a  forced  mode  of  interpretation.  The  style  of 
John  is  placid,  but  marked  nevertheless  occa- 
sionally by  more  difficult  words  and  phrases. 
The  language  of  Paul  is  fervid,  often  involved, 
throwing  aside  all  else  for  the  sake  of  some  easy 
similitude,  pouring  itself  out  in  figures,  tropes, 
comparisons,  antitheses  of  members,  parallelisms 

the  phrases  and  whole  construction  ;"  and  they  are  exhibited 
not  only  in  the  laws  which  regulate  the  formation  of  words, 
but  also  and  chiefly  investigate  the  sources  of  the  significations 
and  the  proper  method  of  defining  them,  as  well  as  the  various 
laws  of  construction.  See  h.  C  Valcknaer  and  J.  C.  Lennep? 
ObservatU  de  Analogia  Ling.  Graecae,  ed.  Ev-  Scheid.  Traj, 
ad.  R.  1790.  Whether  there  are,  in  the  Greek  language  of 
the  New  Testament,  any  certain  and  distinct  analogical  rela- 
tions,  may  be  questioned  by  others  ;  for  ourselves  we  are 
persuaded,  that  unless  these  be  discovered  and  established, 
the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament  must  be  given  over 
to  the  caprice  of  every  interpreter. 

"  The  author  has  not  hitherto  directly  included  this  parti- 
cular topic  among  the  causes  of  forced  interpretation ;  although 
he  has  more  than  once  referred  to  it  indirectly;  see  p.  140 
seq. — Ed. 


174       CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

of  words  ;  yet  not  wholy  destitute  of  rhetorical 
art.      Peter's   mind   is  rapid  and   impetuous, 
scarcely  bearing    the   restraints  of  continued 
discourse ;  his  language  is  inelegant,  often  in- 
terrupted, obscured  by  new  words,  vehement, 
yet  variable.     Of  the  other  writers  also  the 
genius  is  different  and  the  style  various.     The 
diction  of  Matthew  is  unlike  that  of  Luke.    In 
the  former  you  find  a  mode  of  writing  some- 
what harsh  and  inelegant,  indicating  an  un- 
practised writer ;  in  the  latter  there  is  more 
polish,   and  a  certain  degree  of  elegance  and 
ornanlent.     The  characteristic  of  Mark  is  con- 
ciseness in  the  highest  degree.     But  in  each 
we  find  certain  words  and  phrases,  which  are 
in  a  manner  their  own  ;  and  which  either  do  not 
occur  in  the  others,  or  are  found  in  a  different 
sense.     Now  since  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain 
the  sense  of  any  writer  without  an  accurate 
knowledge  of  the  particular  usage  and  manner 
which   are  familiar   and    appropriate    to    that 
writer;  it  is  easy  to  perceive,  and  the  expe- 
rience of  all  ages  demonstrates  the  fact,  that 
those   who  are  ignorant   of  or  neglect  these 
things,   have  proposed    interpretations  in   the 
highest  degree  forced.    This  is  done  especially 
in  regard  to  metaphors  and  comparisons,  which 
every  one  employs  more  or  less.    And  the  same 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  175 

thing  often  takes  place,  when  language  which 
in  one  writer  ought  to  be  interpreted  metapho- 
rically, requires  in  another  to  be  explained 
literally ;  or  when  words  which  one  author  uses 
in  their  proper  sense,  are  therefore  understood 
in  the  same  manner  in  another  writer. — But  to 
have  suggested  this  point  is  sufficient ;  as  our 
object  in  this  discussion  is  not  to  speak  of  par- 
ticular passages  of  writers,  but  of  interpreta- 
tion in  general. 

2.  In  order  properly  to  understand  and  ex- 
plain any  writer,  an  acquaintance  with  the 
times  in  which  he  lived  and  for  which  he  wrote, 
must  evidently  be  of  the  highest  advantage. 
In  this  indeed  lies  almost  the  whole  sum  and 
essence  of  the  so  called  historical  interpretation, 
from  which,  however,  the  grammatical  can  in 
no  way  be  separated.^  Had  now  very  many 
interpreters  held   to    this  principle,  and  paid 

^  The  necessity  of  the  union  of  both  these  modes,  is  de- 
monstrated by  Keil  in  his  Commentat.  de  historica  Lib.  sac- 
ror.  interpretalionk  ejusque  necessitate,  Leip.  1788.  There  is 
in  fact  no  grammatical  interpretation,  and  cannot  be,  unless 
joined  with  the' historical.  There  are  indeed  some  who  wish 
to  separate  the  two  ;  but  while  they  pass  an  unfavourable 
judgment  on  the  form.er,  they  change  the  latter  into  an  un- 
bridled license  of  conjecture  in  regard  to  words — Comp.  G. 
Ij.  Bauer  in  Philol.  Glassii  his  temporibiis  accommodiita,  T. 
II.  Sect.  ii.  p.  25G,  seq. 


176  CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

due  regard  to  the  circumstances  of  time  and 
place,  there  is  no  doubt  that  they  would  have 
experienced  far  less  difficulty  in  judging  of 
very  many  passages  of  the  New  Testament. 
Since,  however,  they  neglected  to  do  this,  it 
was  not  possible  but  that  they  should  often  dis- 
tort the  true  sense  of  the  sacred  writers  into 
one  entirely  different,  and  thus  pervert  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus  and  the  apostles ;  or  at  least 
should  introduce  into  theology,  and  therefore 
into  religion  itself,  things  which  were  written 
only  for  those  particular  times  {e.  g.  from  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews) ;  or  more  especially, 
from  the  misapprehension  of  tropical  language, 
should  forge  new  dogmas  foreign  to  the  mind 
and  purpose  of  the  sacred  writers.  Examples 
of  this  kind  are  too  common  to  require  to  be 
exhibited  here. 

3.  If  also  it  be  of  the  highest  utility  in  re- 
spect to  right  interpretation,  to  have  regard  to 
the  men  of  those  times,  to  their  characters, 
manners  and  customs,  opinions,  vices,  etc.  then 
have  interpreters  been  guilty  in  this  respect  of 
a  twofold  error,  and  have  thus  been  led  to  give 
many  a  distorted  interpretation. 

On  the  one  hand,  there  have  been  those 
(and  they  are  probably  the  greater  number), 
who  suppose  that  the  apostles  spoke  and  wrote 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  177 

according  to  the  preconceived  opinions  of  that 
age  ;  and  that  our  Lord  himself,  in  like  manner, 
accnmniodafed  himself  to  their  feelings  and  pre- 
judices. This  supposition  is  doubtless  in  a 
certain  degree  true,  as  has  long  since  been  con- 
ceded by  the  most  learned  interpreters ;  but  it 
also  cannot  be  denied,  that  many  in  applying 
it  have  gone  quite  too  far,  and  done  violence 
to  the  sense  and  intention  of  the  sacred  writers. 
Examples  of  this  are  almost  innumerable  :  but 
none  is  perhaps  clearer  and  more  striking  than 
that  of  miracles  and  prophecy.  It  is  evidently 
not  the  part  of  an  interpreter,  to  attempt  to 
shew  how  far  that  w^hich  is  said  may  be  true  in 
itself,  but  simply  to  explain  the  meaning  of  the 
writer,  and  shew  what  he  thought.  The  for- 
mer indeed  is  not  to  interpret,  but  to  philoso- 
phise, as  Ernesti  has  well  demonstrated.^  Now^ 
that  the  opinion  of  the  apostles  and  of  our 
Lord  himself  in  regard  to  miracles  and  pro- 
phecy, has  been  altogether  changed  and  dis- 
torted by  disputations  of  this  sort,  must  be 
conceded,  especially  by  those  who  are  persuad- 
ed that  these  things  (miracles  and  prophecy) 
exerted  their  highest  influence  precisely  upon 
those,  among  w^hom  they  were  performed  and 

?  Prolus.  de  Vaiiitate  philosophantium  in  Religione,  in 
0pp.  Philol.  Crit. 

VOL.  II.  N 


178  CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

exercised.  If  the  apostles  were  eye-witnesses, 
who  could  not  be  deceived,  and  have  narrated 
all  events  and  circumstances  just  as  they  oc- 
curred ;  and  if  our  Lord  was  such  as  he  is  de- 
scribed in  the  New  Testament,  and  such  as 
adversaries  themselves  concede  him  to  have 
been,  then  those  interpreters  surely  act  with- 
out consideration,  who  explain  their  language 
in  such  a  way  as  to  make  them  subject  either 
to  reproach  on  account  of  fraud,  or  to  correc- 
tion on  account  of  error ;  who  make  Jesus 
either  a  juggler,  deceiving  the  people  by  his 
arts,  (for  no  fraud  can  derive  an  excuse  from  the 
intention  with  which  it  is  committed),  or  else  a 
vain-oflorious  man  who  boasts  that  this  and 
that  which  the  prophets  have  uttered  without 
meaning  (s/jjJj),  has  not  only  been  fulfilled  in 
himself,  but  was  also  primarily  spoken  in  re- 
ference to  him  alone.  Whether  such  interpre- 
tation as  this  is  to  be  tolerated,  does  not  need 
to  be  discussed.  But  if  the  apostles  were  de- 
ceived, and  have  narrated  many  things  which 
they  indeed  believed  to  be  true,  but  which  in 
fact  are  not  true,  still  the  interpreter  is  not 
permitted  to  doubt  respecting  their  real  opi- 
nion. Nor,  on  the  contrary,  when  the  things 
which  they  relate,  appear  not  to  be  true,  is  he 
iJlowed   so  to  explain  or   rather  distort  their 


OF  THE   NEW    TESTAMENT.  179 

words,  as  to  give  them  a  greater  appearance  ol" 
truth.  Such  license  no  one  would  think  of 
employing  in  regard  to  profane  writers ;  nor  do 
the  laws  of  just  interpretation  in  any  degree 
tolerate  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  have  been  those, 
especially  in  former  times,  who  have  had  no 
regard  whatever  to  the  contemporaries  of  the 
sacred  writers ;  nor  have  observed  for  what 
persons,  or  against  what  opinions  or  customs 
of  that  age,  this  or  that  passage  was  written  ; 
as  for  instance,  in  regard  to  those  subjects 
which  Paul  discusses  in  the  Epistles  to  the 
Romans  and  Hebrews.  Hence  they  have  nei- 
ther properly  understood  the  sacred  books  nor 
rightly  explained  them ;  or  rather,  they  have 
extorted  from  them  doctrines  and  opinions  evi- 
dently foreign  to  the  meaning  of  the  writers. 
In  the  explanation  of  single  words  also,  we  see 
many  fall  into  similar  errors  from  the  same 
cause  ;  they  have  acquired  no  distinct  know- 
ledge of  the  persons  for  whom  the  apostles 
wrote,  and  have  therefore  advanced  many 
things  which  these  writers,  addressing  those 
persons,  seem  never  to  have  thought  of.  Thus 
many  have  formerly  supposed  that  the  use  of 
the  words  ^wj,  (puT/^nv  ^w/^,  'rr'/jjoojfj.a.,  was  to  be 
deduced  from  the  philosophy  of  the  Gnostics, 


180   CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS 

although  the  use  of  them  with  reference  to  the 
Messiah  was  already  familiar  to  the  Jews.  So 
R.  Chaia  explains  9^5,  *)ij^,  Gen.  i.  3,  alle- 
gorically  of  the  Messiah ;  and  R.  Bechai  also 
applies  the  words  IIX  Ti]  WTih^  "iQtin 
to  the  days  of  the  Messiah,  DlO^  hv  TlDI^ 
n'5i^/!Dl.     So  in  the  Pesikta  Babba  it  is  said 

that  when  God  hid  the  light,  ^^^  Satan  came 
to  him  and  asked  him  to  look  at  it ;  and  having 
seen  it  he  said,   l^m^   H^^p   KIH   ^X^i:i 

T    .  .. .        -  T  T  ••  T  :        •  .  -  . 

"  verily  this  is  the  Messiah  who  is  to  come, 
and  to  cast  me  and  all  the  princes  of  the  na- 
tions forever  into  Gehenna ;"  compare  Is.  xxv. 
8.  R.  Bechai  says  further  (fol.  5.  col.  4) 
that  this  same  light,  the  Messiah,  existed  be- 
fore all  ages,  and  was  present  D^ti^KlS*  at  the 
creation;  that  this  is  the  beginning  of  all 
things,  the  light  of  wisdom,  VsH  K^n:  1nt^* 

rt/'  oy  ra  Tai/ra  eys\>iro,  as  the  apostle  says,  John  i. 
3.  Bechai  in  Leg.  fol.  125.  In  Beresh. 
Babba  all  R.  Samuel  Bar  Nachman  says,  that 
this  light  was  with  God  ;  but  R.  Bechai  (fol. 
89,  4)  teaches,  that  the  same  becomes  incar- 
nate   through    the    will  of  God.     Hence  we 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  181 

should  prefer,  were  it  necessary,  to  illustrate 
such  words  as  these  from  the  writings  of  the 
Jews,  rather  than  from  the  Gnostic  philoso- 
phy. In  like  manner  a  very  recent  interpreter 
of  John's  Gospel  has  explained  the  words 
rvsD/xa  6  ^=k,  John  iv.  24,  in  the  sense  in  which 
the  word  spirit  would  be  defined  by  philoso- 
phers at  the  present  day :  "  God  is  a  Spirit, 
i.  e.  his  whole  being  is  intellectual  and  moral 
perfection."^  Is  it  then  credible,  that  our 
Lord  should  have  taught  these  philosophical 
precepts  to  the  Samaritan  woman  ?  Indeed, 
the  word  was  never  employed  by  the  Jews  in 
this  philosophical  sense ;  nor  does  it  so  occur 
in  any  Greek  writer. 

III.  There  remains  now  the  third  cause  of 
forced  interpretations,  which  we  have  indicated 
above,  and  which  we  may  dispatch  in  few 
words.  The  context^  namely,  as  is  in  itself  evi- 
dent, is  an  important  auxiliary  in  ascertaining 
the  true  sense  of  a  passage,  especially  where 
there  is  any  ambiguity  in  the  words  or  forms  of 
construction,  any  obscurity  or  novelty  in  the 
circumstances,  or  any  neglect  of  the  usus  lo- 
quencli.  Still,  this  principle  requires  unques- 
tionably very  great  caution  in  the  application 

^  "  Sein  ganzes  Wesen  ist  Geistigkeit  und  Moralitat.  " 


182       CAUSES  OF  FORCED  INTERPRETATIONS. 

of  it,  particularly  in  regard  to  writers  who  have 
not  been  trained  in  the  rules  of  the  schools, 
■/.ai  ohx  sv  didccKToT;  avSpwc/vTjg  6o(piag  "koyoK;  XaXoum' 
and  more  than  all,  in  epistolary  writing,  where 
often  an  argument  is  not  carried  out  in  such  a 
way,  that  all  its  parts  are  entirely  coherent.  This 
indeed  is  not  usual  in    epistles  of  any  kind. 
There  is  commonly  in  a  letter  a  great  variety 
of  topics,  some  of  which  are  treated  in  one 
way,  and  some  in  another.    When  therefore  in- 
terpreters have  trusted  too  much,  or  indeed 
wholly,  to  this  principle,  and  have  been  con- 
tented to  make  out  a  sense  in  some  degree  suit- 
able to  the  context,  and  to  seek  every  where  a 
dialectic  congruity  and  a  sort  of  logical  arrange- 
ment; it  could  not  be  otherwise  than  that  they 
should  often  advance  empty  conjectures  instead 
of  true  interpretations,  and  torture  passages  of 
Scripture  until   they   could  elicit  from    them 
*4ome  similitude  with  the  general  series  of  dis- 
course.   This  however  is  of  itself  obvious;  and 
therefore  requires  here  no  further  illustration. 

We  come  then  to  the  conclusion,   for  the 
sake  of  which  this  discussion  was  instituted. 


USE  OF  THE  PARTICLE 
"IN  A 

THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS  BY  THE  TRANSLATOR. 

A  SOMEWHAT  familiar  acquaintance  with  the 
writings  of  Professor  Tittmann  has  brought 
me  to  regard  him  as  one  of  the  most  able, 
sober,  and  impartial  critics  on  the  language  of 
the  New  Testament  that  Germany  has  of  late 
produced.  He  has  left  nothing  behind  him 
which  I  have  seen,  that  will  not  abundantly 
repay  perusal,  and  even  study ;  which  is  more 
than  can  be  truly  said  of  most  writers,  in  any 
age  or  country. 

It  requires  indeed,  some  knowledge  of  criti- 
cism, in  order  to  understand  and  relish  the 
works  of  this  writer.    But  those  who  have  such 


184  USE  OF-INA 

knowledge,  will  employ  their  time  in  a  very- 
profitable  manner  by  studying  them.  Acute- 
ness,  sound  judgment,  uncommon  powers  of 
nice  discrimination,  together  with  grammatical 
and  exegetical  tact,  abound  in  them  all.  The 
student  who  aims  at  solid  philological  acquisi- 
tion, such  as  the  present  times  demand,  should 
number  the  works  of  Titmann  among  his  text- 
books. 

Sacred  literature  has,  not  long  since,  been 
called  to  mourn  the  too  early  death  of  this 
distinguished  critic.  The  piece  which  follows 
is  a  posthumous  publication  ;  as  the  title  indi- 
cates. The  importance  of  the  subject  which 
it  discusses,  can  hardly  be  appreciated  in  a  pro- 
per manner,  at  first,  by  a  cursory  reader ;  and 
it  may  therefore  be  proper,  to  premise  a  few 
things  in  the  way  of  explanation. 

The  use  and  signification  of  the  particles  in 
Greek,  once  a  subject  of  little  interest  and  at- 
tention among  lexicographers  and  gramma- 
rians, has  come  at  length,  and  very  justly,  to 
occupy  a  high  and  commanding  place  in  criti- 
cism. One  important  ground  of  preference, 
which  the  great  lexicon  of  Passow  has  over  all 
other  Greek  lexicons,  is  the  special  attention 
that  the  author  of  it  has  paid  to  the  develop- 


IN  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  185 

ment  of  the  powers  and  uses  of  the  Greek  par- 
ticles. The  old  work  of  Hoogeveen  on  this 
subject,  which  occupies  many  hundreds  of 
quarto  pages,  contains  a  great  mass  of  matter, 
and  is  the  result  of  more  than  Herculean  la- 
bour. But  the  critical  student  finds,  after  all, 
so  little  of  order,  method,  philosophy  of  lan- 
guage, nice  grammatical  discrimination,  and 
other  qualities  of  this  nature  now  so  imperious- 
ly demanded  by  the  present  state  of  Greek 
criticism,  that  he  is  apt  soon  to  grow  weary  of 
consulting  this  Thesaurus,  Good  use  may  be 
made  of  it,  however,  in  the  selection  of  ex- 
amples, by  a  student  who  already  possesses  the 
power  of  discrimination  ;  but  Hoogeveen  would 
hardly  be  a  safe  guide  for  one  who  has  yet  to 
acquire  such  a  power. 

Devarius  ou  the  Greek  Particles,  is  a  small 
work.  It  has,  however,  some  claims  to  re- 
spectful mention.  The  larger  work  of  Vigerus 
de  Idintismis  Ling.  Graecae,  is  well  known  even 
in  this  country,  and  has  become  common, 
particularly  by  means  of  the  abridged  form  in 
which  it  has  lately  appeared  in  England.  Her- 
mann, in  his  German  edition  of  the  work,  has 
made  many  important  corrections,  and  supplied 
some  new  and  important  matter.     But  after  all, 


1^<^  USE  0F"1NA 

the  new  patches  will  hardly  suit  well  the  old 
garment,  in  this  case.  The  real  fact  is,  that 
Vigerus,  like  Hoogeveen,  has  become  in  a  mea- 
sure antiquated.  The  old  manner  of  dividing 
and  subdividing  the  meaning  of  words,  (until, 
by  ramification  which  is  almost  without  mea- 
sure or  bounds,  the  sight  of  the  original  mean- 
ing of  the  word  and  the  proper  ground  of  its 
derived  significations  are  wholly  obscured  or 
lost),  is  the  one  which  Vigerus  follows  through- 
out. In  this  way,  one  might  almost  say* 
it  is  easy  dcducere  aliquid  ex  aliqiio.  So  has 
Schleusner  often  done,  in  his  lexicon  of  the 
New  Testament;  which  still  is  a  work  that 
contains  much  that  is  valuable.  An  erroneous 
taste  in  matters  of  this  kind,  was  introduced  by. 
a  few  such  works  as  Hoogeveen,  Vigerus,  and 
others  of  similar  character,  which  greatly  in- 
jured most  of  the  later  lexicographers  and  cri- 
tics in  regard  to  their  method  of  treating  the 
Greek  particles,  until  within  a  few  years.  A 
very  different  school  is  now  rising  up  under 
the  influence  of  such  works  as  those  of  Passow, 
Hermann,  Matthiae,  Butmann,  Winer,  and 
others  ;  which  bids  fair  to  throw  more  light 
upon  the  long  neglected  subject  of  those  little 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  187 

words,  that  have  often  and  appropriately  been 
named  the  joints  and  bands  of  discourse. 

On  the  use  of  a  particle  very  often  depends 
the  whole  turn  and  mode  of  a  writer  or  speaker's 
meaning  or  reasoning ;  yea,  the  main  object  of 
the  discourse  itself.  For  an  example  let  us 
take  the  word  ha, ;  of  which  Tittmann  has  so 
copiously,  ably,  and  satisfactorily  discoursed,  in 
the  following  pages. 

The  evangelist  Matthew,  in  chap.  i.  18-21, 
gives  an  account  of  an  angel's  prediction  in 
respect  to  the  supernatural  conception  and  the 
birth  of  Jesus,  and  also  of  the  reason  assigned 
by  the  angel  why  the  Saviour's  name  should 
be  called  Jesn^.  At  the  close  of  this  account 
the  evangelist  adds  :  "Now  all  this  was  done, 
ha  irArjocti^J!  to  ^rl^h  ■/..  r.  X,  that  it  might  he  fuljill- 
ed  which  was  spoken  of  the  Lord,  by  the  pro- 
phet, saying  :  Behold  a  virgin  shall  conceive 
and  bear  a  Son,"  etc.  This  is  one  form  in 
which  ha  TXyjou^f,  may  be  translated,  and  is 
translated  in  our  common  version.  But  here, 
and  in  many  other  of  the  like  passages,  a  se- 
rious and  very  important  question  arises,  viz., 
whether  the  phrase  'im  crXn^u^fi  %.  r.  X,  is  not 
susceptiMe  of  another  translation,  and  one 
which  is  justified  both  by  the  nature  of  the 


188  USE  OF  "INA 

case  and  by  the  signification  of  the  particle  1m. 
On  this  question  depends  the  whole  tenor  or 
aspect  of  the  evangelist's  assertion.  As  it 
stands  translated  above,  (which  is  the  form  of 
our  common  version),  the  meaning  seems  to  be, 
that  the  greatest  events  which  ever  happened 
in  our  lower  world,  viz.,  the  birth  of  Christ, 
and  also  the  occurrences  connected  with  it,  all 
took  place  in  order  that  or  for  the  purpose 
tJiat,  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  (vii.  14)  might  be 
fulfilled.  But  here  the  reflecting  reader  will 
l)e  constrained  to  pause  and  ask  :  "  What,  then? 
Was  it  not  to  redeem  a  world  in  ruin,  that  the 
Saviour's  miraculous  birth  and  the  events  ac- 
companying it  took  place,  rather  than  merely 
to  accomplish  the  prediction  of  Isaiah  ?"  The 
proper  answer  to  this  question  may  undoubt- 
edly be,  that  both  of  the  purposes  named  were 
to  be  accomplished  by  the  birth  of  Jesus.  The 
world  was  to  be  redeemed,  and  prophecy  was 
also  to  be  fulfilled.  But  the  great  and  ultimate 
end  must  be,  the  redemption  of  mankind. 
The  other,  viz.  the  fulfilment  of  the  particular 
prophecy  in  question,  was  altogether  subordi- 
nate and  merely  preparatory.  It  was  indeed 
the  design  of  heaven,  that  when  a  prediction 
had  been  uttered  respecting  the  birth  of  a  Sa- 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  189 

viour  and  the  manner  of  it,  that  nothing  should 
be  lacking  in  respect  to  the  accomplishment 
of  this  prediction.  But  to  suppose,  that  the 
great,  the  unspeakably  important  event  of  the 
incarnation  of  Jesus,  was  simply  a  fulfilment 
of  a  prophecy  which  designated  the  manner  of 
his  birth — would  be  a  supposition  which  seems 
to  cover  with  darkness  the  wise  and  benevolent 
purposes  of  Heaven  in  the  redemption  of  man, 
and  to  limit  them  to  the  production  of  an  event, 
which  (although  of  high  interest  as  a  display  of 
miraculous  power)  would  be,  or  rather  would 
thus  be  represented  as  being,  of  but  little  im- 
portance in  other  respects. 

Yet  if,  as  some  critics  strenuously  maintain, 
ha.  means  and  can  mean  only,  in  order  tliat^  to 
the  end  that ^  for  the  sake  or  purpose  of\  we  seem 
to  be  thrown  into  all  the  embarrassment  which 
such  a  representation  would  occasion.  If  the 
telle  use  only  of  this  particle  is  an  invariable 
and  necessary  idiom  of  the  Greek,  it  is  difficult 
to  see  what  escape  there  can  be  from  the  con- 
clusion, that  the  evangelist  has  reasoned,  or  at 
any  rate  expressed  himself,  in  such  a  way,  that 
we  must  necessarily  educe  from  him  the  senti- 
ment which  has  already  been  stated  above. 

If  the  reader  is  at  any  loss  to  know  what 


190  USE  OF  "INA 

the  telle  {riXm-}])  use  of  ha  means,  he  may  at 
once  be  satisfied  from  such  examples  as  the 
following  :  7/  ':roiyiffo>j,  ha  'iyoi  ^^nv  alojmv ;  "  What 
shall  I  do,  in  order  that,  or  to  the  end  that,  I 
may  have  eternal  life  ?"  "Ets/jtosv  tov;  oy^Xou;,  /va 
a/Trjffuvrai  Bao|a/5/3ai/,  "  They  persuaded  the  mul- 
titude, 171  order  that  they  should  make  request 
for  [the  release  of]  Barabbas."  Here,  and  so 
in  most  cases,  ha  is  telic,  i.  e.  it  points  to  ttie 
end  or  otject  to  he  attained^  viz.  attained  l)y 
that  which  is  related  as  said  or  done  in  the 
context  which  precedes  it.  This  use  is  so 
frequent,  that  the  reader  may  every  where  find 
examples  to  the  purpose. 

But  is  ha  limited  to  this  sense  only  ?  A 
question  which  is  answered  in  a  satisfactory 
and  masterly  way,  in  the  following  pages.  I 
cannot  but  believe  and  trust,  that  this  question 
is  now  put  to  final  rest,  by  this  effort  of  Titt- 
mann. 

The  amount  of  what  he  has  here  done,  is  to 
shew  that  ha  not  unfrequently,  even  in  the 
classics,  bears  the  same  sense  as  uffrs,  viz.,  no 
that,  quo  fit,  or  as  wc,  that.  If  this  be  satisfac- 
torily made  out,  then  it  follows,  that  we  may 
translate  ha  rr^r^i'^^hri  x.  r.  X.  by  the  phrase  .sr> 
that  there  should  or  might  be  an  accompUshmenf : 


IN  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  191 

sn  that  [this  or  that  prediction]  77iir/ht  or  should 
be  fulfilled,  etc.  Let  tiie  reader  who  wishes 
to  consider  this  subject  duly,  consult  and  care- 
fully examine  and  weigh  the  following  passages, 
where  such  a  formula  is  employed  ;  viz.  Matt, 
ii.  15,  (23);  iv.  14,  (viii.  17;  xii.  1";  xiii.  35); 
xxi.  4  ;  xxvi.  56  ;  xxvii.  35  (in  the  text,  re- 
cept.)  ;  Mark  xiv.  49  ;  John  xii.  38  ;  xiii.  18; 
XV.  25  ;  xvii.  12  ;  xviii.  9 ;  xix.  24  ;  xxviii.  36. 
The  instances  included  in  parentheses,  have 
o-ojr  instead  of  /Va,  which  is  an  equivalent. 
These  and  the  like  passages  will  shew,  that 
the  use  of  ha  in  the  sense  of  so  that,  that,  must 
almost  of  necessity  be  conceded.  Tittmann, 
however,  has  done  all  w^hich  needs  to  be  done, 
to  show"  that  this  use  may  properly,  and  often 
must  be  conceded. 

This  secondary  use  of  ha  in  the  sense  ot  Mcn^ 
is  technically  called  ecbatic  Qz^ariKrj)  i,  e.  that 
which  designates  the  end  or  event  which  is  ac- 
tually accomplished;  from  sx^ahu  or  hSatsi;). 
The  difference  betw'een  the  telic  and  ecbatic 
sense  of  iVa,  e.  g.  in  the  example  taken  from 
Matt.  i.  22.  above,  is  so  great,  that  an  entirely 
different  turn  is  given  to  the  whole  sentiment 
by  means  of  it.  If  we  say  :  All  this  took  place, 
IN   ORDER   THAT  what   ivas  spokcjt    by   Isaiah 


192  USE  OF^INA 

might  he  fulfilled^  this  is  representing  the  events 
themselves  that  are  spoken  of,  as  taking  place 
in  subordination  to  the  prophecy,  and  merely 
or  principally  in  order  to  fulfil  it.  But  if  we 
say  :  All  this  took  place,  so  that  the  prediction 
by  Isaiah  teas,  or  should  be,  fulfilled,  then  we 
merely  affirm  that  the  modus  of  the  events  was 
such,  that  a  fulfilment  of  prophecy  was  accom- 
plished by  it ;  while  at  the  same  time,  the 
events  themselves  might  have  an  unspeakably 
higher  end  in  view. 

To  such  importance  do  some  words,  often  re- 
puted small  and  unimportant,  frequently  rise. 
This  may  serve,  then,  to  cast  strong  light  on 
the  bad  consequences  which  ensue,  by  negli- 
gence of  lexicographers  and  critics  with  respect 
to  such  words ; — a  practice  frequent  indeed, 
but  deeply  to  be  lamented,  and  deserving  of 
most  serious  disapprobation. 

I  must  make  one  remark  more  on  the  for- 
mula ha,  'TTsA^u^fi,  in  regard  to  its  echatic  use. 
It  has  been  questioned,  whether  the  Subjunc- 
tive mode  after  'im  can  be  rendered  in  any 
other  way  than  as  having  a  future  sense.  The 
answer  to  this  might  be,  that  the  Present  and 
Aorists  of  the  Subjunctive,  as  is  now  fully 
conceded  by  the  best  grammarians,  do  not  of 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  193 

themselves  mark  any  tense^  but  depend  for  their 
sense  in  this  respect,  on  the  Indicative  which 
may  precede  them,  or  on  the  sense  demanded 
by  the  nature  of  the  passage.  Such,  indeed, 
is  the  fact  with  all  the  derived  or  secondary 
modes,  viz.,  the  Opt.,  Imper.,  and  Infinitive. 
See  N.  Test.  Grammar,  §  51.  2. 

The  student,  then,  who  becomes  satisfied  of 
the  echatic  use  of  iVa,  might  translate /Va  cr/.'/^^co^^ 
by  the  phrase,  so  that  there  ivas  an  accomplish- 
merit  ;  so  that  it  was  fulfilled^  ichicli  etc.  This 
many  have  done.  But  although  it  seems  to 
be  grammatically  lawful  to  do  so,  yet  it  is  un- 
necessary, in  this  case,  to  depart  so  far  from 
the  more  usual  and  classical  sense  of  ha.  Thus 
much  can  be  safely  averred,  viz.,  that  the  ac- 
complishment of  prophecy,  whether  viewed  as 
an  event  (i.  e.  viewed  ecbatically),  or  as  a  pur- 
pose or  end  (z.  e.  in  a  telic  way),  was  still  some- 
thing ^w^z^re — in  the  order  of  things  and  in  the 
mind  of  the  writer — to  the  events  themselves 
which  happened.  Fulfilment^  at  least  in  the 
order  of  our  conceptions  respecting  it,  succeeded 
the  events  by  which  it  was  brought  about.  It  is 
therefore  nearer  to  the  natural  order  of  thought, 
in  the  present  case,  to  translate  /Va  -XtjswSjj  by  the 
phrase,  so  that  it  might  or  should  he  fulJiUed^ 
which  etc. 


194  USE  OF"lNA 

I  apprehend,  moreover,  that  such  a  mode  of 
translation  expresses,  more  nearly  than  the 
other  proposed  method,  the  true  sense  of  the 
original  Greek.  The  writer  means  to  say,  if 
I  rightly  understand  him,  that  it  was  so  ordered 
on  the  part  of  heaven,  that  the  events  of  Jesus' 
birth  should  fulfil  the  prophecy  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Design  or  purpose  I  cannot  think 
to  be  wholly  left  out  of  sight  or  excluded. 
But  to  say  that  the  telic  use  of  ha  here  is  ex- 
clusive, would  be  to  affirm  a  position  little  short 
of  monstrous.  On  the  other  hand,  to  affirm 
that  the  modus  in  quo  of  Jesus'  birth  was  so 
arranged  on  the  part  of  heaven,  as  that  it  ful- 
filled the  prediction  of  Isaiah,  is  a  very  different 
thing,  and  is  the  very  one,  I  apprehend,  which 
the  evangelist  meant  to  assert.  Accordingly, 
when  we  translate  ha  rrXriou'^fi  by  the  phrase, 
so  that  it  should  be  fulfilled,  or  50  that  it  might 
hefufillcd,  we  give,  as  nearly  as  our  language 
will  permit,  the  true  sense  of  the  original. 

If  1  have  succeeded  in  making  the  reader 
understand  the  main  object  of  Prof.  Tittmann 
in  the  following  dissertation,  I  trust  he  will 
have  the  patience  to  read,  or  rather  to  study 
him  through,  with  care  and  diligence.  To 
speak  oi patience,  indeed,  when  such  efforts  as 
/.his  are  presented  to  our  examination,  is  almost 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  195 

to  abuse  the  word.  The  spirit  of  a  philologist 
will  drink  in  the  whole,  as  a  delicious  draught 
which  quenches  a  thirst  long  felt,  but  perhaps 
never  before  fully  satisfied. 

I  add  only,  that  the  ecbatic  use  of  ha  was 
Urst  seriously  called  in  question,  I  believe,  by 
Lehmann,   (ad  Lucian  I.  p.    71).      Fritsche 
next  contended  against  it,  in  Excursus  I.  ad 
Comm.  in    Matt.;    then    Beyer,  in  Kritsich. 
Journal,   IV.  p.  418,  seq.     Winer,  in  his  K. 
Test.  Grammar,  edit.  3d,  p.  382,  admits  the 
possibility  of  the  ecbatic  use  ;  but  he  contends 
that  it  has  been  carried  a  great  deal  too  far ; 
and  he  denies  that  it  is  admissible  in  the  for- 
mula  ha  '7r\'/iorJ^f,,  p.  385.     He  says  that  the 
meaning  may  be  thus  given :  "  God  has  fore- 
told that  this  should  happen ;  and  since  the  di- 
vine predictions  must  be  true,  it  could  not  be 
otherwise  than  that  this  should  take  place."  But, 
admitting  that  all  this  is  implied  in  the  formula 
ha  rrXri^cA)^'? ,  Still  this  meaning  is  not  at  all  ex- 
cluded by  the  ecbatic  sense  of  ha.    At  the  same 
time,  to  suppose  the  telic  use  of  ha  in  all  the 
cases  where  this  formula  occurs,  would  be  mak- 
ing a  supposition  of  a  state  of  ignorance  as  to 
the  nature  of  language,   or  else  of  a  state  of 
mind  among    the   evangelists  and  other    sa- 
bered writers,   that  seems  to  me  to  be  uttelvT 


196  USE  0F"INA 

irreconcileable  with  that  knowledge  and  illu- 
mination which  they  every  where  disclose.  It 
would  be  representing  the  main  object  of  the 
New  Dispensation,  of  which  the  Old  was  a 
mere  type  and  shadow,  to  be  the  accomplish- 
ment of  predictions  and  types  and  symbols, 
rather  than  the  redemption  of  a  world.  So 
much  does  the  sense  of  the  so  called  Utile  words 
influence  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures.  Let 
the  reader  of  the  New  Testament  beware  how 
he  deems  any  word  of  it  to  he -little  ;  and  let 
him  learn  duly  to  estimate  such  efforts  as  the 
following,  which  settle  long  contested  and 
doubtful  questions,  with  which  the  meaning 
of  many  an  important  passage  of  Scripture  is 
intimately  connected. 

I  have  only  to  add,  that  in  translating  the 
following  pages,  I  have,  for  the  sake  of  per- 
spicuity, used  the  liberty  of  breaking  up  the 
protracted  paragraphs  (so  common  among  the 
German  writers),  and  followed,  greatly  to  the 
prejudice  of  lucid  exhibition  and  much  to  the 
annoyance  of  the  reader,  even  by  Titmann. 
In  some  cases  I  have  divided  one  sentence  into 
two,  three,  or  even  four,  for  the  same  reason. 
I  have  omitted  some  few  remarks  made  by  the 
author  merely  oh  iter,  which  are  in  a  good 
measure  foreign  to  the  discussion,  and  of  no 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  197 

advantage  in  order  to  understand  it.  The 
Greek  which  Tittmann  has  quoted  in  full, 
without  any  translation,  I  have  quoted  in  the 
text  only  so  far  as  the  citation  of  the  Greek 
words  bears  directly  on  the  purpose  of  illustra- 
tion ;  but  I  have  thrown  the  original  into  the 
margin.  Not  having  all  the  original  authors 
at  hand,  and  many  of  the  passages  quoted  be- 
ing taken  out  of  context  important  to  its  illus- 
tration, I  do  not  feel  quite  certain  that  I  have 
in  all  cases  giveft  the  exact  shade  of  meaning 
as  to  every  word ;  but  if  I  have  failed  here, 
the  reader  will  receive  no  prejudice  from  it,  so 
far  as  the  object  of  the  following  essay  is  con- 
cerned. The  illustrations  are  still  plain,  in- 
telligible, and  valid,  whether  all  the  words  that 
are  more  distantly  connected  are  very  exactly 
rendered  or  not. 

There  are,  after  all,  some  few  places  of  the 
Latin  original  of  Tittmann  to  which  I  shall 
advert  in  the  notes,  that  I  am  not  sure  I  un- 
derstand. The  words  I  can  easily  translate  in 
a  literal  way.  But  the  reasoning  of  the  author 
seems  to  be  expressed  in  terms,  that  will  not 
appear,  at  least  to  most  readers,  as  being  very 
intelligible.  Perhaps  the  fault  is  in  me,  and 
not  in  the  author  If  it  be  so,  the  reader,  by 
recurring  to  the  original,  may  correct  me. 


198  USE  OF"lNA 

I  have  given  a  Jree  translation,  in  order  to 
bring  the  costume  of  the  piece  as  near  to  the 
English  fashion  as  might  safely  be  done.  In 
some  cases  I  have  added  epexegetical  clauses, 
in  order  to  render  the  meaning  more  plain  to 
the  cursory  reader.  In  no  case  have  I  will- 
ingly or  consciously  departed  from  the  meaning 
of  the  original,  or  withheld  any  thing  import- 
ant to  the  object  of  the  piece. — Tr  J 


USE  OF    INA   IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

It  is  now  generally  conceded,  that  the  usus 
loquendi^  although  not  destitute  of  some  fixed 
and  certain  principles,  has  a  very  free  scope  in 
every  language.  But  though  the  most  learn- 
ed philologists  teach  us,  that  a  great  part  of 
the  hermeneutic  art  consists  in  paying  a  proper 
attention  to  this,  yet  I  have  often  wondered 
how  it  should  come  about,  since  it  is  univer- 
sally allowed  that  the  usus  loquendi  is  diverse 
not  only  at  different  times  when  a  language  is 
a  living  one,  but  even  among  individual  writers, 
that  still,  in  those  very  books  which  of  all  are 
the  most  diligently  studied,  many  things  should 
yet  be  found  which  seem  to  be  dubious  and 
uncertain. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  199 

Of  late,  the  interpreters  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment are  all  agreed,  that  for  the  explanation 
of  particular  words  and  phrases  in  a  manner 
that  accords  with  the  sense  of  their  authors, 
neither  the  most  sharp-sighted  search  after 
Hebraisms,  nor  comparison  of  the  Alexan- 
drine Version,  nor  the  somewhat  dubious  dis- 
covery of  Hellenism,  suffices.  Many,  how- 
ever, and  even  some  lexicographers  well  versed 
in  making  out  the  signification  of  particular 
words,  either  regard  the  usus  loquencli  of  au- 
thors belonging  to  a  golden  age  as  their  only 
standard,  or,  like  a  ship  upon  the  rocks,  they 
stick  fast  upon  grammatical  precepts.  In  this 
way  it  comes,  since  no  meaning  of  a  word 
seems  to  them  to  be  correct  unless  it  is  one 
which  can  be  found  in  the  best  writers,  that 
they  either  find  much  fault,  in  their  commen- 
taries on  the  New  Testament,  with  the  usus 
loquendi  of  the  sacred  writers,  or  they  leave  the 
true  sense  in  doubt ;  while  some  appear  to 
teach,  with  more  caution,  that  this  and  that 
word  has/7ro/?er/?/ only  this  and  another  meaning, 
but  yet  in  such  and  such  a  passage  it  has  ac- 
tually a  somewhat  different  sense.  As  this 
must  often  happen,  inasmuch  as  idioms  are 
frequently  blended  in  the  usus  loquendi^  so  it 
will  be  particularly  frequent  in  those  parts  of 


200  USE  OF-'INA 

speech  whose  sway  in  every  language  is  some- 
what unlimited,  and  whose  interpretation  is 
very  difficult.  I  refer  now  to  the  particles, 
the  use  of  which  in  the  N.  Test,  seems  to  differ 
so  much  from  the  manner  of  the  best  classical 
writers.  There  is  so  great  an  affinity,  or  alli- 
ance {logical  we  may  call  it),  between  many 
jiartides  that,  although  their  meaning  cannot 
be  changed  into  that  of  an  opposite  kind,  and 
although  those  who  write  and  speak  with 
accuracy  ought  nicely  to  distinguish  them,  still 
they  may,  without  commiting  any  error,  be  ex- 
changed in  accordance  with  the  different  me- 
thods in  which  a  subject  is  conceived  of. 

As  I  have  been  lately  engaged  in  writing 
upon  the  Synonyms  of  the  New  Testament, 
it  is  my  present  intention  to  say  something 
concerning  certain  synonymouii  particles ;  re- 
specting the  use  of  which  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, all  know  that  a  great  contest  has  existed 
among  the  interpreters  of  the  sacred  books, 
which  is  not  settled  even  at  the  present  time. 

The  particles  to  which  I  now  refer,  are, 

"  "ivcL  '   OTOjg  •   ojg  •   ojffrs*'^ 

»  All  these  Tittirann  treats  of  and  compares  together ;  but 
the  design  of  the  present  essay  is  merely  to  treat  of  IW, 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  201 

I  have  no  apprehension  that  any  one  will 
affirm  the  signification  of  these  particles  to  be 
so  diiferent,  that  they  can  never  be  regarded  as 
synonymous.  "Iva  designates  the  end  or  cause 
on  account  of  which  any  thing  takes  place  ; 
o'Tog  suggests  to  the  mind  the  manner  in  which 
any  thing  is  accomplished ;  wcrrs  denotes  the 
events  because  the  particle  wgis  properly  em- 
ployed in  the  comparison  of  like  things,  and 
therefore  w^rs  designates  an  event  or  effect  which 
is  in  accordance  with  the  nature  of  some  ante- 
cedent. Now  the  notions  design,  end,  manner 
of  accomplishing  the  end,  and  of  the  event  itself, 
are  so  related  that,  as  in  fact  we  can  scarcely 
distinguish  them  in  thought,  so  in  speaking 
they  are  easily  commuted  for  each  other.  This, 
then,  is  the  very  reason  why  they  are  some- 
times to  be  reputed  as  synonyms ;  for  unless 
they  agreed  in  some  meaning  common  to  all, 
they  could  not  be  exchanged  for  each  other. 
Inasmuch,  moreover,  as  this  is  the  nature  of 
synonyms,  that  they  refer  a  common  notion 
of  the  same  thing  to  different  modes  of  it,  it 
follows  that  conjunctions  also,  which  designate 
the  various  modes  of  the  same   condition  in 

which  involves  by  far  the  most  interesting  questions  and  the 
greatest  difficulties. — Tr. 


202  USE  0F"INA 

which  two  things  associated  are  conceived  of, 
ought  to  be  regarded  as  synonymous. 

The  conjunctions  of  which  I  speak  agree  in 
this,  viz.,  that  they  designate  connexion,  i.  e. 
causal  conjunction ;  for  they  unite  the  notions 
of  two  things,  the  one  of  which  is  regarded  as 
being  a  catise  of  the  other.  But  as  in  every 
proposition  a  subject  is  connected  with  some 
predicate  ;  so  in  those  sentences  in  which  a 
causal  connection  of  two  things  is  indicated,  it 
is  in  such  a  way,  as  that  in  one  the  cause  of  the 
other  is  suggested. 

The  manner  of  sentences  which  belong  to 
this  species,  may  be  two-fold;  for  the  cause 
may  be  conceived  of  as  being  in  the  subject^ 
or  as  being  in  the  predicate.  If  the  cause  is 
regarded  as  being  in  the  predicate^  then  the 
conjunction  indicates  the  thing,  on  account  of 
which  that  which  is  conceived  of  as  being  in 
the  subject  either  took  place  or  might  have 
taken  place.  But  if  the  cause  is  regarded  as 
being  in  the  subject  of  the  sentence,  the  con- 
junction indicates  that  the  cause  is  in  the  sub- 
ject why  any  particular  thing  did  or  could  take 
place.^ 

^  This  is  expressed  with  sufficient  abstractness.  The 
meaning  is,  that  in  a  sentence  with  7»«,  etc.,  between  its 
several  parts,  if  the  subject  of  the  sentence  indicates  cause, 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  203 

To  my  mind,  the  office  of  all  the  causal 
conjunctions  seems  to  be  only  two-fold,  viz. 
they  either  show  that  the  cause  of  a  thing  is 
in  the  subject,  or  else  in  the  predicate.  Con- 
sequently if  a  cause  is  regarded  as  being  in  the 
subject,  the  conjunction  indicates  that  the  ef- 
fect is  in  the  predicate ;  but  if  the  cause  is  re- 
garded as  being  in  the  predicate,  then  what  is 
done  or  effected  is  designated  by  the  subject. 
Now  since  the  cause  must  be  conceived  of  as 
preceding  that  of  which  it  is  the  cause,  i.  e.  the 
eifect,  while  the  leading  idea  is  still  contained 
in  the  subject,  it  follows,  that  the  cause  which 
is  regarded  as  being  in  the  predicate,  must  be 
conceived  of  as  the  object  on  account  of  which 
the  thing  designated  by  the  subject  was  either 
effected,  or  might  or  should  have  been  ef- 
fected. 


then  the  predicate  will  indicate  the  effect,  and  the  conjunc- 
tion between  them  ("»«)  is  adapted  to  this  purpose.  But  if, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  predicate  indicates  the  cause,  then  the 
subject  must  exhibit  the  effect,  and  the  conjunction  must  be 
adapted  to  designate  such  a  connection  between  the  two. 
The  relation  between  the  two  parts  is  the  same  in  the  two 
cases,  but  the  modus  of  it  is  different  ;  for  at  one  time  the 
subject,  for  example,  denotes  cause,  at  another  effect.  Yet 
the  causal  relation  designated  by  the  conjunction,  remains 
one  and  the  same  in  both  cases.  Thus  different  modes  of  the 
same  thing  are  expressed. — Tn. 


204  USE  0F"INA 

All  causal  conjunctions  therefore  have,  as 
before  said,  a  twofold  province,  to  which  the 
various  uses  of  these  conjunctions,  as  enume- 
rated by  grammarians,  are  to  be  referred  in  re- 
spect to  origin;  for  they  designate  either  the 
(lesif/n,  or  the  effect,  of  the  thing  which  is  ex- 
pressed by  the  subject.^  The  end,  moreover, 
or  object  to  be  attained,  may  be  conceived  of  in 
a  two-fold  manner,  viz.,  either  as  it  is  in  itself, 
or  as  it  is  regarded  in  the  mind  of  him  who  is 
supposed  to  have  accomplished  any  particular 
thing.  This  last  may  be  named  purpose,  de- 
sign, intent,  (consilium).  These  different  modes 
of  causation,  then,  those  conjunctions,  serve  to 
express  of  which  I  am  now  to  treat.  Our  first 
inquiry  shall  be  directed  toward 

"INA. 

It  is  a  sentiment,  common  among  almost  all 

philologists  and  zealously  defended,  that  hu  is 

"  Tliis  clears  up  the  obscurity  which  rests  on  the  preced- 
ing paragraphs,  and  shews  that  all  conjunctions  denominated 
causal,  are  used  only  in  such  sentences  as  denote  that  one 
thing  is  done,  or  happens,  in  order  thai  something  else  may 
be  accomplished,  etc. ;  or  that  one  thing  is  done,  or  happens, 
so  that  another  thing  is  accompHshed.  The  first  denotes 
purpose,  (is  telic) ;  the  second  shews  event  itself,  (isecbatic). 
—Tn. 


IN  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT,  205 

used  by  accurate  writers,  only  ri>.i%Zii,  i.  e.  to 
denote  the  end  or  purpose  for  which  any  thing 
is  done.  Consequently,  when  ha  is  found  to 
be  employed  (as  it  very  often  is)  in  the  N. 
Test.,  in  cases  where  end  or  purpose  cannot  be 
supposed  to  be  designated,  these  interpreters 
betake  themselves  to  this  refuge,  viz.  that 
w^hat  was  said  rsX/xjDj,  is  still  to  be  understood 
and  explained  IxSar/xwc,  i,  e.  in  such  a  way  as 
is  declarative  of  events  rather  than  of  purpose.'^ 
The  original  ground  of  dispute  respecting 
the  sense  of  ha,  may  be  found  in  the  N.  Test, 
formula,  ha  'rXyjooj^fj.  In  many  passages,  where 
something  is  said  to  have  been  done  or  taken 
place  ha  '::7.rioo)^f]  ri,  viz.,  SO  that  such  a  predic- 
tion might  be  fulfilled,  the  nature  of  the  case 
does  not  permit  us  to  imagine  that  ha  can  de- 
signate design  or  purpose ;  as  if,  forsooth,  that 
which  takes  place,  had  been  done  or  effected 
merely  for  the  purpose  of  fulfilling  the  prophe- 

^  It  is  not  the  object  of  Tittmann  here  to  suggest  the  im^ 
propriety  of  explaining  ha  in  an  ecbatic  way ;  for  the  sequel 
is  occupied  with  endeavours  to  establish  the  very  point,  that 
ha  may  have  and  must  often  have  an  ecbatic  sense.  The 
practice  which  he  here  indirectly  censures,  is,  that  while 
many  critics  hold  that  the  only  sense  of  ha  is  telic,  they  still 
give  themselves  the  liberty  to  explain  or  interpret  it  as  hav- 
ing an  ecbatic  sense.  This  inconsistency  he  reprobates,  and 
shews  it  to  be  needless. — Tb. 


206  USE  OF'INA 

cy  in  question.  In  these  and  other  passages 
of  the  N.  Test.,  although  they  cannot  help 
seeing  that  ha  does  not  designate  purpose  or 
design,  yet  they  pertinaciously  adhere  to  th^ir 
favourite  maxim,  viz.  that  JVa  never  denotes 
effect  or  event,  although  it  must  still  be  ex- 
plained (as  they  acknowledge)  in  an  ecbatic 
way  in  such  passages.^ 

May  I  not  now  take  the  liberty  to  inquire, 
what  can  be  the  meaning  of  the  assertion,  that 
hot,  never  denotes  any  thing  but  design  or  pur- 
pose, when  in  passages  without  number  it  ma- 
nifestly denotes  effect  or  event  ?  But  still  they 
say,  '  that  among  good  classical  writers  it  is 
never  ecbatic'  Although  we  should  concede, 
now,  this  to  be  matter  of  fact,  still  I  cannot 
perceive  in  what  way  it  would  prove  hu  not  to 
be  so  used  among  writers  of  another  descrip- 
tion, particularly  since  it  is  certain  that  many 
writers  employ  this  particle  in  connecting 
cause  with  effect.  In  languages  that  are  still 
living,  it  is  easy  to  distinguish  between  ele- 
gant diction  and  that  which  is  employed  for 
the  purposes  of  common  life.     Grammarians 

"^  The  iriconsisteiicy  charged  on  these  interjireters  is  here 
made  apparent.  Wiiile  they  say  that  hoc.  has  only  a  leli" 
sensa,  they,  after  all,  feel  obliged  to  interpret  it  ixfimrjy.Mt, 
and  do  so. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  207 

who  make  out  the  rules  of  our  language,  have 
accurately  shewn  how  those  German  particles, 
class,  damit,  so  dass,  aufdass,  um  (with  the  Gen. 
or  Infin.),  do  differ  from  each  other  in  cultivated 
usage,  although  all  know  that  these  particles 
are  promiscuously  employed,  i.  e.  used  in  the 
same  sense,  in  the  daily  intercourse  of  society, 
not  only  by  the  common  people,  but  even  by 
the  learned.  After  all,  such  critics  are  unwill- 
ing to  admit  any  meaning  of  Greek  and  Latin 
particles,  which  they  do  not  find  among  the 
Attic  writers  of  a  polished  cast,  just  as  if  the 
usus  loquendi  in  any  language  were  limited  by 
the  style  of  the  learned  and  cultivated  !  In 
every  language,  this  itsus  is  more  extensive  in 
conversation  than  in  books.  We  do  not  learn 
the  copiousness  of  any  tongue,  nor  its  versati- 
lity, from  writers  of  high  cultivation  merely, 
but  from  popular  usage.  Could  examples 
now  be  produced  of  the  daily  conversation  of 
the  Athenians,  who  lived  in  the  time  of  Plato, 
Xenophon,  and  Aristophanes,  I  cannot  doubt 
that  we  should  find  many  words  to  have  been 
in  common  use,  which  are  at  present  reprobat- 
ed by  many  philologists  as  contrary  to  the  usus 
loquendi ;  and  this  merely  because  they  are 
not  found  among  the  select  few  of  elegant 
writers. 


208  USE  OF  'INA 

No  one  will  understand  me  as  speaking 
thus  because  I  am  desirous  that  our  youth, 
who  are  employed  in  writing  Latin  or  Greek, 
should  make  use  of  and  imitate  uncultivated 
writers.  But  still,  when  books  of  a  later  age, 
written  by  men  whose  usus  loquendi  was  that  of 
common  lite,  are  to  be  interpreted,  to  limit  the 
signification  of  particles  merely  to  the  sense 
which  is  found  in  select  classic  authors,  seems 
to  me  to  savour  of  ill-timed  rigidity. 

If  now  we  should  concede  that  ha,  in  writers 
named  classical,  is  commonly  so  employed  that 
it  denotes  purpose  or  design,  still  that  would  not 
follow  which  is  commonly  affirmed,  viz.,  that 
hct  is  not  always  employed  to  connect  event  or 
effect  with  cause.  There  are  many  writers 
even  of  the  best  stamp,  the  interpretation  of 
whom  would  be  much  more  facile,  if  we  should 
not  conclude  in  our  own  minds,  that  in  good 
writers  /W  is  never  to  be  understood  in  an 
ecbatic  way.  I  will  not  select  an  example  from 
Archimedes  (the  only  one  which  Hoogeveen 
has  with  confidence  adduced,  p.  524),  although 
it  is  a  very  clear  one ;  for  I  am  apprehensive 
that  the  critics  just  named  would  disclaim  him 
as  an  elegant  writer.  Nor  will  I  choose  ano- 
ther passage  from  Aristophanes  (Plut.  v.  91), 
which   Hoogeveen    has    cited    in    a   doubting 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  209 

way ;  for  there  is  no  good  reason  why  this  may 
not  be  understood  rs/./xw^.  But  in  this  same 
Aristophanes  I  find  several  passages  in  which, 
if  /Va  be  taken  ix/Sa-z^.w?,  the  sense  will  appear 
more  easy  and  agreeable.  One  may  be  found 
in  Vesp.  vs.  311,  312  :  r/  .«,£  drjr,  w  fisXsa  f/.rir£^, 
'iri'/trsc,  "l</  s/xo/  <::i^ayiiara  (Soffzsiv  Ta^s^pg;  "  Why, 
wretched  mother,  hast  thou  brought  me  forth, 
so  that  (ha)  I  must  take  the  trouble  of  procur- 
ing food  ?  "  The  child  does  not  complain  that 
his  mother  bore  him  tcit/i  the  intention  that  he 
should  perish  by  hunger,  but  that  she  produc- 
ed him  in  such  a  miserable  plight,  that  he  must 
perish  without  food. 

The  same  method  of  interpretation  will  ap- 
ply to  a  passage  in  Nub,  v.  58,  where  Strep- 
siades  chides  a  boy  who  had  lighted  up  a  drunk- 
ard-tamp ('TroTTjv  riirnv  Xv^vov),  i.  e.  one  which 
would  consume  an  immoderate  quantity  of  oil. 
AsD^'  £/3',  says  he,  ha  yXar,g  plainly  in  the  sense 
of  the  Latin,  Accede  hue  ut  ejules,  i.  e.  "  come 
here  that  you  may  howl,"  [or,  in  our  vulgar 
idiom,  "  that  you  may  have  a  crying-spell"]. 
The  design  of  the  lad's  coming  would  not  be 
this  :  but  this  would  be  the  consequence  or  event 
of  his  coming.  He  commands  him  indeed  to 
come,  that  he  may  scourge  him;  but  in  so 
saying,  he  indicates  the  event  itself  that  would 

VOL.  II.  p 


210  USE  OF^'INA 

follow,  and  not  the  reason  why  he  gives  the 
order  [for  the  reason  of  this  was  the  fault  com- 
mitted], "im  therefore,  in  this  passage,  does 
not  designate  the  idea  of  purpose  or  design, 
but  of  the  event  which  would  take  place  in  case 
he  should  come.  If,  however,  any  one  should 
think  there  is  more  of  subtilty  than  of  truth 
in  this  explanation,  it  will  suffice  to  say,  that 
ha  is  here  employed  so  as  not  only  to  desig- 
nate the  purpose,  but  also  the  event.^ 

In  like  manner  may  a  passage  of  Euripides 
(Iphig.  T.  vs.  357,  358)  be  construed,  where 
Iphigenia  complains,  that  no  ship  has  arrived 
which  could  bring  Helen  and  Menelaus,  /V 
avToi>5  u)'-STifj.uPr,(jdfir,v,  "  that  (/;«)  I  might  have 
been  avenged  on  them."  She  means  to  say, 
that  if  a  ship  had  brought  them,  she  might 
have  taken  vengeance  for  the  wrongs  done  her 
at  Aulis  on  their  account.     [The  object  or  in- 

*"  There  may  be  still  a  question,  Avhetlier  "va  in  this  case 
should  not  be  regarded  as  telic,  in  reference  to  the  design  or 
purpose  of  him  who  gives  the  command.  "  Come  here  !" 
Why  ?  "  In  order  that  I  may  scourge  you  and  make  you 
howl."  This  was  no  part,  indeed,  of  the  ioy's  purpose  in 
coming ;  but  was  it  not  the  end  that  was  in  view,  in  giving 
the  command  ?  The  design  of  the  master  was  to  scourge  the 
offending  lad  ;  and  that  design  may  therefore  be  indicated  in 
tiic  "»a  xXuris  that  follows.  Tittmanu  apj)ears  to  have  felt, 
that  the  example  is  not  of  a  decisive  nature — Tr. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  211 

tention  of  the  ship's  coming,  would  clearly  not 
have  been  to  accomplish  such  a  purpose. 
Event  then,  and  not  purpose,  is  here  designat- 
ed.] 

After  comparing  many  passages,  it  appears 
to  me,  that  the  signification  of  ha,  as  indicat- 
ing what  would  happen  if  something  else  had 
taken  place,  may  be  found  in  a  special  manner 
in  those  passages  in  which  /Va  is  construed  with 
the  Preterite  of  the  Indicative.  Thus  in  So- 
phocles (Oedip.  Tyr.  v.  1389),  we  find  'V  'Jv 

r-j(p\(j;  rs  Tcai  '/.Xvuv  iir,bh,  "  SO  that  I  was,  or  I 
might  be,  blind  and  dumb  ; "  for  immediately 
after,  in  v.  1392,  we  find  him  saying,  ug'ibsi^a 
fj.rr~or-  z.  r.  X.  Comp.  Aesch.  Prometh.  Vinct. 
V.  155.  [The  conclusion  here  drawn  is  not 
plainly  made  out.] 

Aristophanes  (in  Eccles.  v.  152)  says,  "  I 
could  have  wished  that  some  of  my  friends  had 
spoken  what  was  most  worthy  of  approbation, 
'iva  syM})-/jfj.r}v  TJff-jyjc,  su  that  {ha)  I  might  have 
sat  silent ;""  for  if  they  had  thus  spoken,  he 
would  have  held  his  peace. 

Many  passages  of  the  same  tenor  are  found 
in  Demosthenes:  from    which    the   follo^ins: 


& 


'212  USE  OF  "INA 

may  suffice.  Contra  Gallic,  p.  1273,  "  You 
might  then  have  said  to  the  father  of  the  de- 
fendant, Tisias,  why  do  you  do  these  things? 
Are  you  constructing  a  gutter?  Then  the 
water  will  fall  into  our  field ;  ha,  so  that,  if  he 
had  then  desisted,  nothing  troublesome  to  you 
had  taken  place  ^riv  Indie]  towards  each  other. 
.  .  .  And  surely  you  must  shew  that  a  gutter 
actually  exists,  that  (Im)  you  may  prove  the 
father  to  have  done  wrong,  not  in  word  only 
hut  in  deed."^  Pro  Phorm.  p.  958,  959, 
"  These  things  you  find  fault  with,  instead  of 
decorating  and  adorning  them,  JVa,  so  that  they 
might  appear  [s^a/^sro  Imperf.  Indie]  most 
agreeable  to  those  who  give  them,  and  to  you 
who  receive  them." '  Contra  Androt.  p.  599, 
"  He  says  we  ought  to  go  before  the  Judges, 
if  we  believe  these  things  to  be  true,  so  that 
(hoc)  we  might  there  risk  being  fined  1000 
drachmas,  in  case  we  should  be  found  guilty  of 
false    representations.""^      [Here    we    cannot 

^  Tio-i'a,  ri  TOMTtt  voii7s'  a^aiKo^ofius  rvv  ^a^ah^xv  ;  iW  ifiTt- 
eiirai  ro  uhu^  u;  ro  ^u^iov  to  fi/jtiri^ov,  tv,  tl  fjiXv  IfhovXiro  taifftt- 
ff^ai,  fitiTiv  lifjuv  ^uffpf^iKs  T^os  ukkriXovs  vv.  ...  xai  vh  At'  Wi^ii- 
|a/  ffi  yi  Taff'tv  uv^^uttoi;  ^^a^ci^^itv  ovffctMy  "vec  fz,h  Xoyeu  /jtovov,  akX' 
tpyu  rov  ^ari^ec  udixovvra  aTtipeitvis. 

'  Tavra,  avr)  tou  x-otr^uv  xai  Tt^ia-TiXXuv,  'Ivx  xai  ro7s  ^ouft* 
Ai;  iutr;^nfjt,oviff'rara  i(pxiviTO,  xoc)  Toii  Xafioua-iv  vfiTv,    ix'ty^tis. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  213 

suppose  the  meaning  to  be,  that  they  would 
go  before  the  judges  for  the  sake  of  being  fined, 
but  that  such  would  be  the  consequence,  in  the 
case  stated.] 

Of  the  like  tenor  is  the  passage  in  Plato 
(Euthyd.  p.  403),  "  And  truly,  said  he,  that 
was  worthy  of  a  hearing.  Why?  said  I. 
"iva  riTiovffag,  [Indie],  so  that  you  might  have 
heard  men  disputing,  who  are  now  regarded  as 
peculiarly  wise."^  So  in  Protag.  p.  335, 
*'  But  it  was  well  for  you,  who  are  prepared  on 
both  sides,  to  give  place  to  us,  ha,  so  that  we 
might  keep  company.""^  Again  in  Menex.  ad 
fin.  "  But  that  you  should  not  complain  of 
me,  IW,  so  that  I  may,  on  the  other  hand,  re- 
late [Subj.  here?]  to  you  her  many  and  excel- 
lent remarks  concerning  political  matters."" 

Tov?  Bttr/xoBiTas  KTeevrSv,  "v  IxiT  ^i^t   ^iXiuv  iKiv^vvivofAiv,  u  xu- 
•ra-^i'j^oy.ivoi  rrotZr  i<pa.ivofjt,i^a. 

'  THOU  fihv,  £'^«,  cc^iov  y  ^v  cixovffcci.  T/  ;  vvF  lyu.  "ivechxev- 
cas  dvdpuv  tiaktyo/:/,evav,  e't  vvv  ffa(pafTa,roi  £<V/.  [This  is  at  least  a 
very  doiihtful  case.  What  forbids  our  understanding  it  as 
meaning,  "  For  the  sake  of  hearing  men,  etc" — Tr.] 

"  'AXXa  (Ti  Ix^viv  vf^Tv  ffvy^a^i7v  rov  dfie.(pori^x  ^vvdfc'.voy,  'iva 
cvyC'Vtria,  lytyviro.  [This  appears  also  to  be  a  doubtful  case. 
May  not  the  speaker  mean,  In  order  that  we  might  keep 
company  f — Tr.] 

"  'AXX'  o'Tfeas  fjt,ov  fih  xari^tTi,  'Iva  xa)  aZS'is  aoi  -roXXovs  xai 
xaXoi/i  X'oyovs  -ra.^  cthrm  ToXtrixovs  d^otyyiXXu.  [dTrayytXu  ?  \ 


214  USE  OF^INA 

In  all  these  passages,  according  to  my  ap- 
prehension,  ha  is  so  employed  as  not  to  signify 
purpose  but  event  or  consequence.  Even  if  1 
were  to  concede  that  /Va,  when  joined  with  the 
Opt.  or  Subj.  mode,  is  so  construed  by  the 
Attics,  that  for  the  most  part  it  directly  denotes 
the  design  of  the  thing  which  precedes,  or  the 
purpose  of  the  agent,  still  I  have  no  apprehen- 
sion that  the  notion  of  event  or  consequence  is 
every  where  excluded.  Indeed  these  notions 
are  so  closely  joined  as  easily  to  coalesce  in 
one ;  for  if  we  suppose  any  thing  really  to 
take  place,  we  must  necessarily  suppose  that 
something  else  was  done,  which  if  it  had  re- 
mained undone  would  have  occasioned  a  fail- 
ure as  to  its  taking  place  ;  and  this,  whether  it 
was  done  purposely  to  bring  it  about,  or  done 
only  so  that  the  taking  place  was  a  consequence 
of  it. 

Hence  it  comes,  that  the  notions  of  a  Jinal 
cause  (as  it  is  named)  and  of  an  efficient  cause, 
are  not  accurately  distinguished  in  the  lan- 
guage of  common  life ;  and  therefore  they  are 
usually  expressed  in  nearly  the  same  way. 
Nor  are  passages  wanting  in  Homer,  in  which 
ha  is  employed,  where  he  who  speaks  seems  not 
only  to  designate  a  final  cause,  ?'.  e.  a  purpose  or 
design,    but  also  an   efficient  one.     We  will 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  215 

pass  by  examples  of  such  a  nature  as  the  pas- 
sage in  II.  I.  202,  T/W  aZr\  ar/rjyjao  Aiog  rszog. 
siXri/.ov'^ag  ;  yj  ha  vSorJ  'lor,  '  ^ya;jjs;j.v(ry0c  '  ArPiidao  ; 
''  Why  art  thou  come,  then,  son  of  shield-bear- 
ing Jove  ?  Is  it  that  thou  mayest  see  the  dis- 
grace of  Agamemnon,  the  son  of  Atreas?"  I 
merely  remark,  in  passing,  that  the  particle 
ri-rr-s,  in  Homer,  very  often  is  put  into  an  in- 
quiry which  respects,  not  the  design  or  pur- 
pose, but  the  cause  on  account  of  ichich  a  thing 
is  done;  e.  g.  in  II.  II.  323.  XL  656.  XII. 
244,  etc.  A  plainer  example,  however,  may 
be  found  in  Odyss,  XIII.  157,  "  Put  a 
stone  near  the  land,  like  a  swift  ship  [as  to 
magnitude  ;  /Va,  so  that  all  men  will  wonder, 
and  a  great  mountain  will  overshadow  their 
city.°  Here  Neptune  does  not  mean  to  say, 
that  he  would  do  this  for  the  purpose  of  excit- 
ing wonder,  but  (as  it  is  explained  in  v.  151) 
that  "  they  may  stop  and  cease  from  sending 
away  men."  ^ 

It  is  unnecessary,  however,  for  us  studiously 
to  seek  after  examples  from  ancient  writers. 
It  is  evident  enough,  that  authors  subsequent 
to  the  time  of  Alexander  have  very  frequently 


216  USE  OF"lNA 

employed  ha  in  an  echatic  sense.  It  may  be 
proper  to  subjoin  a  few  examples  ;  not  because 
any  will  doubt,  who  are  conversant  with  the 
later  Greek  writers,  but  because  some  suppose 
that  only  the  Alexandrine  interpVeters  have 
given  to  i'va  such  a  meaning. 

Marcus  Antoninus  (Comm.  II.  11)  says, 
"  The  Nature  of  the  universe  has  neither  com- 
mitted any  oversight  nor  missed  its  aim, 
through  want  of  power  or  skill,  so  that  (/m) 
happiness  and  misery  should  come  alike  to  the 
good  and  bad  without  any  distinction."  '^  Again 
in  VII.  25,  "  All  things  which  thou  beholdest, 
the  Nature  which  regulates  the  universe 
changes,  and  other  things  she  makes  from 
their  substance,  so  that  (iVa)  the  world  is  al- 
ways new  (vsa foe,  youncf  ).^  In  the  memorable 
passage  (XI.  3),  where  he  describes  the  man 
who  is  ready  to  die,  he  says,  "  The  readiness 
is  this,  that  (iVa)  it  comes  from  his  own  choice, 
and  not  from  mere  party  spirit,  like  that  of  the 
Christians,  but  in  a  rational  way,  with  serious- 

'1  'H  tuv  oXuf  (pvffis  oilri  -ru^iThv  oiln  vf^u^Tsy  vtoi -ra^'  dovta- 
ftieiv  ovrt  Tu.^  ccTf^viav,  'ivcc  tu.  dyu^a  xai  to,  xccxa  iTurvi  foii 
Ti  dya^oti  Kce)  ro7i  xaKoT;  'rapv^fji.ivui  irvfifiaivri. 

'  ndvTa,  otret  o^d;  /u,iTaliaki7  h  to.  oka  dioixoutra  (^Uffii,  xxi 
iXka  IK  Tri;  evffias  aiiTuv  TToiriffii,  'ivot  ail  viu^o;  »j  o  xofffioi. 


IN     THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  217 

ness,  and  so  as  to  persuade  others  without  any 
aifectation  of  show."  ^ 

With  Josephus  this  usage  is  every  where  to 
be  found;  e.  g.  Bell.  Jud.  IV.  3.  10,  "  We 
have  come  into  calamity  so  great,  that  Q\a) 
even  our  enemies  must  pity  us."* 

In  like  manner  Justin  Martyr  (p.  504)  ;  "  In 
this  way  it  will  not  be  in  your  power,  that  (Jm) 
you  should  influence  my  choice."*^  Again  in 
Ep.  ad  Zenam  (p.  508),  he  says,  ''  He  is  said 
to  be  dvo'/jTog  [wanting  in  good  sense],  who  is 
disordered  in  his  intellect  with  respect  to  some 
peculiarity  of  deportment ;  so  that  (ha)  want  of 
good  sense  may  be  characteristic,  as  well  as 
simplicity."^ 

So  in  the  epigrams  of  Agathias  (Analect. 
III.  61);  "  No  one  has  ventured  to  look  at 
your  grinders,  ha,  so  that  he  should  approach 
you  in  your  dwelling."^ 

*  To  Ti  'irotfiiov  Tov-o,  ha  uto  i^ixrj;  x^iasus  t^^TjTXi,  fih  xutk 
\}/tXriv  ^K^oiral^tv,  ui  ol  X^ttrnuvo),  ocXXa,  }^iXo'yierju.sveu$,  (rf/nyus, 
»a)  uffri  Kct)  oikXot  fi'iBnv  ar^a-yefi^as. 

'  n^of  ToffouTov  h>co//,sv  <TVfi(poPuv^  ho,  rif^txs  lki^(reo(ri  xx)  TaXi- 

"  Ov;^  ovTus  'iffrxi  ffou  To^warev,  hce  /xov  xiv^ffru  t^v  T^oa'i^Krir. 

^  Aiytrai  Ti  dvo*iros,  o  xolt  'ttiurifffjLov  Ta^iyi;;(^3-us  t^v  ala^ncn, 
<V  n  TO  dvo*iTo*  i^iuTixov,  ua-Ti^  xai  to  a'lpsXsj. 

■  Ov  Tti  dXoiyiTv^oci  ihuv  TirXviKi*  obovTUS  vfciTi^as,  ha  ffoTs  If 
fAtya^oii  ^iXoiff*i. 


218  ISE  OI"'lNA 

Sextus  Empiricus  says  (Pyrrh.  III.  60), 
'•  Hemlock  is  mingled  with  every  portion  of 
water,  and  is  extended  through  the  whole 
mass,  ha,  so  that  the  mixture  may  thus  be 
made."^  [But  is  not  this  a  dubious  example? 
-Tr.] 

That  the  Alexandrine  interpreters  used  par- 
ticles with  the  greatest  liberties,  is  very  evi- 
dent. Although  they  follow  the  original  He- 
brew very  closely,  and  rarely  use  the  causal 
forms  of  sentences  which  are  unfrequent  in  the 
Hebrew,  yet  when  ^;,  f^,  or  lj;,tD^  occur  in  a 

causal  sense,  they  express  them,  (in  the  man- 
ner of  the  Hebrews,)  promiscuously  by  ha  or 
oTwj,  so  as  to  denote  either  design  or  conse- 
quence. Of  uGTi  they  make  very  rare  use.  See 
and  comp.  Deut.  xiv,  23,  29  ;  xvii.  23;  vi.  2 ; 
xvii.  19,  20.  Prov.  xv.  t24.  Josh.  iv.  6.  This 
last  example  exhibits  ha  in  two  different  senses 
in  the  same  sentence  ;  "l\a  vrdoy^ojcrtv  v/xh  ovroi 
[sc«  X/^0/]  £/g  Grj'MTov  y.iiiMi^/ov  djwTraiTOi'  ha  orav  fjwr&t 
trs  6  \)'i(jc,  cou  X.  T.  >..  [The  first  ha  here  means  in 
order  that,  etc.,  corresponding  to  the  Hebrew 
n^nn  ]VD*7  ;  the  second  means  so  that,  etc., 

and  ha  orav  hura  corresponds  to   ]1^J^St^'  ^j.] 

'  'E^ifiiyvurai  to  x.uvhov  tkvti  f^i^u  rod  v^cctos,  xoct  Tapi/crilvi- 
rai  aiiTu  okov  oktu,  ha  ourus  h  K^a<ns  yivvrai. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  219 

See  also  and  compare  Ps.  cxix.  71.  Ezek. 
xxii.  12.     Ps.  1.  5.     Amos  ii.  7. 

There  is,  however,  no  need  of  examples ; 
for  it  is  plain  enough  that  the  Alexandrine 
interpreters  promiscuously  express  every  kind 
of  causal  connection  by  those  particles,  whe- 
ther cause  strictly  considered,  or  design,  be 
signified  by  the  Hebrew.  This,  although 
writing  in  a  dialect  which  had  many  barbar- 
isms, they  could  not  do,  unless  common  usage 
at  that  time-  had  sanctioned  it.  Nor  were 
these  translators  common  men,  but  learned 
Jews  who  were  acquainted  with  the  vulgar 
Greek  dialect. 

In  this  way  it  may  be  made  to  appear  less 
wonderful,  tluii  the  idioms  of  the  common 
spoken  language  should  be  found  among  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  especially  in 
the  free  and  undistinguishing  use  of  the  parti- 
cles^ in  which  the  popular  idiom  differs  most 
from  that  of  the  learned,  who  have  either  writ- 
ten classical  works,  or  who  have  read  and  imi- 
tated them.  And  since  this  is  so,  it  were 
much  to  be  desired,  that  those  who  undertake 
to  explain  the  idiom  of  the  sacred  books,  would 
not  only  have  due  regard  to  the  rules  of  syn- 
tax with  respect  to  case,  tense,  modes,  etc., 
but  also  to  the  usus  loquendi,  which  is  discern- 


220  USE  0F"INA 

ible  not  merely  in  these  matters,  but  also  in 
the  meaning  of  words,  or  in  the  logical  use  of 
them. 

In  view  of  preceding  facts,  then,  I  hesitate 
not  to  affirm,  that  in  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  not  only  purpose  and  design  are 
connected  by  ha.  with  the  object  designed, 
but  antecedent  cause  is  also  joined  with  its 
effect  by  the  same  particle ;  which  therefore 
signifies  both  purpose  or  design,  and  event,  effect, 
or  consequence.  That  rule  then,  or  maxim,  of 
many  interpreters  of  the  New  Testament,  that 
ha  properly  designates  only  design  or  purpose, 
but  in  one  and  in  another  place  must  still  be 
interpreted  hBar/zoJc,  although  it  wears  the  ap- 
pearance of  refinement  and  nice  distinction, 
seems  to  me  to  be  erroneous ;  for  if  it  is  evident 
that  ha,  in  any  particular  passage,  is  so  em- 
ployed by  the  writer  as  not  to  express  the  pur- 
pose or  design  of  the  preceding  action,  but  to 
denote  event  or  effect,  then  is  it  certain  that  it 
does  not  here  express  design  but  event,  i.  e.  it 
is  echatic.  Indeed  it  is  matter  of  wonder  to 
me,  how  it  should  be  that  many,  who  concede 
that  the  New  Testament  exhibits  various  sig- 
nifications of  words  peculiar  to  itself,  and  which 
are  not  found  in  classical  authors,  should  still 
deny  that  the  same  thing  takes  place  in  regard 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  221 

to  the  particles^  and,  in  order  to  serve  the  rules 
of  grammar,  prefer  making  the  unfounded  dis- 
tinction adverted  to  above,  to  admitting  that 
ha,  has  an  ecbatic  use.  I  concede  that  they 
may  very  properly  distinguish  what  belongs  to 
elegant  usage,  and  may  make  comparisons  ; 
but  in  explaining  the  words  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment w^e  are  to  inquire,  not  what  meanings 
other  writers  have  given  to  the  words,  but 
what  notions  the  sacred  writers  themselves 
have  designated  by  them.  Let  it  be  granted, 
then,  that  the  interpreters  in  question  have 
fully  shewn,  that  in  no  classic  writer  is  Im  used 
in  the  same  sense  as  ojcn  (so  that),  yet  this  does 
not  at  all  prove,  that  in  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  and  in  others  which  like  them  were 
written  after  the  golden  age  of  the  Greek,  this 
participle  is  not  used  in  an  ecbatic  manner.  This 
proof  can  be  made  out  only  by  shewing  that 
ha,  from  its  very  nature,  can  not  be  employed 
to  designate  effect  or  event,  which  has  never 
yet  been  done.  Still  they  tell  us,  that  in  the 
New  Testament  ha  must  be  understood  and  ex- 
plained in  the  ecbatic  w^ay,  while  in  fact  it 
never  has  such  a  sense  !  What  this  means,  I 
do  not  well  understand.  The  office  of  words 
is  merely  to  designate  our  ideas  or  notions  of 
any  thing  which  is  the  object  of  our  thoughts  ; 


1^*22  USE  OF  "INA 

tiiid  therefore  it  is  erroneous  to  say  that  any 
word  can  be  employed  according  to  the  mind 
of  a  writer  in  a  certain  sense,  and  yet  that  it 
does  not  mean  what  he  intended  to  signify  by 
it. 

It  is  very  diiferent  from  this,  if  any  any  one 
should  say,  for  example,  that  the  preposition 
sK  in  a  certain  place  had  the  same  sense  as  sv  or 
^^hg  or  ffuv  for  the  general  notion  which  h  ex- 
presses, does  not  admit  such  a  permutation. 
That  often  repeated  distinction  between  the 
sense  and  signification  of  a  word,  cannot  warrant 
us  in  the  assignment  of  a  meaning  to  any  word 
to  which  its  original  nature  is  repugnant  ;  for 
its  proper  force  and  power  is  the  very  ground 
why  it  significantly  designates  any  thing. 

Moreover,  that  ha  cannot  designate  event  or 
effect,  no  examples  from  the  classics  prove. 
Since  also  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  other  wri- 
ters employ  this  particle  in  an  ecbatic  way,  it 
follows  that  it  may  designate  event  or  effect. 
Nor  do  these  several  causal  notions  differ  so 
much,  but  that  the  same  particle  may  express 
the  notions  of  purpose  and  end,  and  also  of 
cause  and  effect.  On  this  account,  in  almost 
all  languages  the  use  of  such  particles  of  de- 
vjign,  etc.,  is  much  more  extended  by  vulgar 
custom  than  in  books  written  with  special  care ; 


IN  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  223 

nor  can  we  find  fault  with  this,  unless  we  can 
shew  that  there  is  something  in  the  general  idea 
of  such  a  connection  [i.  e.  of  a  causal  one],  as  is 
repugnant  to  such  a  usage. 

From  all  this  we  may  safely  conclude,  that 
the  usus  loquendi  of  select  classical  authors  who 
employ  ha  only  in  the  telic  sense,  cannot  prove 
that  it  is  incapable  of  designating  an  echatic 
sense  ;  for  it  is  thus  employed  in  other  writers, 
times  without  number.  The  interpreters  above 
mentioned  may  condemn  such  a  usage,  if  they 
please,  as  being  less  accurate  ;  I  will  make  no 
objections  to  their  so  doing.  But  let  them  not 
venture  on  saying,  that  in  the  latter  class  of 
books  ha  is  not  employed  ly.^a-izujz. 

Besides  all  this,  I  cannot  doubt,  if  we  had  a 
better  account  of  the  origin  of  the  particles  and 
of  their  history,  we  should  judge  more  equit- 
ably respectitig  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  regard  to  the  use  which  they  make  of 
them.  For  in  the  rude  state  of  language,  and 
before  letters  were  cultivated,  the  use  of  par- 
ticles was,  no  doubt,  undefined  and  various. 
But  when  cultivation  ensued,  and  practice  in 
writing  was  added,  this  use  was  circumscribed 
within  narrower  bounds.  Moreover,  when  the 
cultivation  of  literature  declines  or  ceases,  po- 
pular usage  again  usurps  the  place  of  principle 


224  USE  OF^INA 

or  rule,  and  ancient  liberties  are  again  allowed, 
and  even  more  than  these  are  taken.  Such  is 
the  condition  of  all  things  human,  that  in  their 
inceptive  stages  of  existence,  and  before  they 
have  become  objects  of  attention  and  cultiva- 
tion, they  labour  under  many  imperfections  ; 
but  still,  even  then  they  are  in  a  more  flourish- 
ing state  than  when  they  have  become  as  it 
were  superannuated,  and  are  in  a  ruinous  con- 
dition through  lapse  of  time,  and  hastening  to- 
wards final  dissolution. 

We  come  then  to  the  general  conclusion, 

that    THE    SIGNIFICATION    OF  ha    IN    THE  NeW" 

Testament  is  of  wide  extent,  so  that  it  not 
only  designates  purpose  or  design,  but  also  event 
or  effect ;  and  thus  it  appears  very  nearly  to  re- 
semble the  German  class  [that],  and  the  Latin 
lit.  There  are  passages  even,  where  both  no- 
tions are  combined  in  thought ;  for  when  we 
think  of  any  thing  as  done  or  to  be  done,  the 
thought  of  the  intention,  or  of  the  cause,  or  of 
the  manner,  is  almost  necessarily  connected 
with  it. 

Conjunctions,  moreover,  should  be  referred 
to  both  parts  of  the  sentence  which  they  con- 
nect. Thus  Mark  xi.  25,  i'i  n  'ix-rz  xara  rmg, 
a<p/iTS,  I'va  6  'JTCCTTIP  ii/Muv  d(pij  'j/mTv  cra^a-TTw/Aara  v/xcov. 
The  Saviour  could  not  inculcate  on  his  dis- 


IN     THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  225 

ciples  the  mere  prudential  duty  of  forgiving 
others,  in  order  that  they  themselves  might  ob- 
tain forgiveness,  (which  w^ould  be  quite  foreign 
to  real  integrity  and  purity  of  mind) ;  but  he 
wished  them  to  consider,  that  if  they  cherished 
an  implacable  spirit,  they  could  have  no  grounds 
to  hope  for  pardon  from  God ;  so  that  if  they 
themselves  were  not  ready  to  forgive,  it  was 
impossible  they  should  obtain  forgiveness. 

In  like  manner  in  Rom.  iii.  8,  it  is  plain  that 
the  notion  of  cause  and  effect  [i.  e.  the  notion 
of  such  a  relation],  is  comprised  in  the  expres- 
sion of  the  men  there  referred  to :  'xoinGu^ujiv  roe, 
xaxu,  ha  'iX^Tj  ra  dya^d'  where  some  suppose 
that  'I'm  has  the  sense  of  quoniam.  The  men  in 
question,  after  the  manner  of  the  Jesuits,  de- 
precate the  blame  of  base  conduct ;  for  they  al- 
lege that  they  are  free  from  blame,  not  because 
they  have  sinned  with  the  design  that  good 
might  come,  but  because  their  -vj/suc/o^a  (false  or 
treacherous  dealing)  has  been  the  occasion  of 
making  "  the  truth  of  God  to  abound ;"  v.  7, 
comp.  Rom.  vi.  1.  "  We  may  then  do  evil," 
say  they,  "  so  that  good  will  come." 

The  whole  dispute  about  the  meaning  of  /Va, 
as  before  intimated,  has  arisen  from  those  pas- 
sages, in  which  something  recently  done  is  re- 
ferred to  some  declaration  of  the  Old  Testa- 

VOL.  II.  Q 


226  USE  OF^INA 

ment  in  the  way  of  prediction.  Let  me  illus- 
trate my  views,  then,  respecting  this  particular 
point,  by  an  example  taken  from  passages  of 
this  nature. 

It  will  be  conceded  to  me  by  all,  that  in  pas- 
sages of  this  character  the  notion  of  design  or 
purpose  is  not  properly  admissible.  This  has 
taken  place  only  where  a  thing  which  is  done, 
is  conceived  of  as  done  by  the  counsel  or  pur- 
pose of  another  ;  and  this  idea,  as  all  must  per- 
ceive, is  alien  from  the  passages  which  we  are 
now  considering.  Nor  does  the  notion  of  end 
or  object  any  better  accord  with  the  nature  of 
the  thing ;  for  who  does  not  see,  that  it  would 
be  a  most  absurd  declaration,  in  case  we  should 
affirm  that  those  things  which  happened  in  the 
time  of  Christ,  were  all  done  in  order  that  the 
predictions  in  the  Old  Testament  might  be 
fulfilled  ? 

Let  us  briefly  examine  a  few  passages  in 
Matthew.  In  Matt.  i.  2,  after  the  birth  of  Je- 
sus is  related,  as  announced  to  Joseph,  it  is 

added  (v.  22),  roZro  oXov  ysyovsv^  ha  ctXtj^w^j^  70 
'^ri':)iv  dia  ruv  T^o^pyjrojv,  x.  r.  /.•  referring to  Isaiah  vii. 
14.  Shall  we  say  now,  that  the  Saviour  was 
to  be  born  merely  that  this  prophecy  might  be 
fulfilled  ? 

Again;  in  Matt.  ii.  15,  we  are  told,  that  Jo- 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  227 

seph  remained  concealed  in  Egypt  with  Jesus, 
when  the  latter  was  a  child,  until  the  death  of 
Herod,  /Va  'zXr,^oj^fj  rb  ^rj^h  '/..  r.  X.  viz.  SO  that 
what  is  said  in  Hosea  xi.  1,  might  be  fulfilled. 
The  words  of  the  prophet  are  not  the  object  of 
my  present  consideration,  nor  shall  I  now  in- 
quire whether  they  were  originally  spoken  in 
reference  to  Jesus  or  to  the  Jewish  people ;  for 
it  is  quite  certain  that  the  end  proposed  by  Jo- 
seph, and  to  be  accomplished  by  staying  in 
Egypt,  was  not  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy. 

Was  it  true,  moreover,  that  Christ  came  and 
dwelt  for  some  time  at  Capernaum  (Matt.  iv. 
13),  in  order  that  what  Isaiah  viii.  23;  ix.  1) 
had  said  might  be  accomplished  ?  The  like 
may  be  said  of  Matt.  xxi.  4 ;  xxvi.  56. 

In  Mark  the  formula  under  examination  is 
employed  but  once,  viz.  in  xiv.  9.  Luke  uses 
it  neither  in  his  Gospel  nor  in  the  Acts.  In 
John  it  is  most  frequently  employed,  and  it  oc- 
curs xi.  '38;  xiii.  18;  xv.  25;  xvii.  12;  xviii. 
9  ;  xix.  24,  28,  36. 

From  all  these  passages  it  may  be  most 
clearly  seen,  that  the  particle  /Va  does  not  sig- 
nify design  or  purpose,  when  it  refers  even  to 
the  most  explicit  prophecies ;  nor  w  as  there 
any  need,  in  the  interpretation  of  these  pas- 
sages,  that  critics  should  take  refuge  in  the 


228  USE  OF"iNA 

double  meaning  of  the  particle  ha  in  them,  be- 
cause they  apprehended  that  all  the  passages 
of  the  Old  Testament  to  wliich  an  appeal  is 
made,  are  not  real  and  veritable  predictions. 
Uniformly  the  design  is,  to  declare  tlie  agree- 
ment between  the  event  and  the  declarations  of  the 
Jewish  Scriptures. 

But  the  use  of  /W  in  an  echatic  way  is  not 
confined  to  declarations  of  this  kind  only. 
There  are  many  passages  in  which  the  notion 
of  design  or  purpose  has  no  place,  inasmuch 
as  it  would  make  the  writer  speak  absurdity. 
Many  passages  of  this  nature  occur  in  John. 
It  is  usual  with  him,  when  he  assigns  causality 
to  any  particular  thing,  to  conjoin  the  fffect 
with  the  cause  by  the  use  of  ha.  It  is  even 
occasionally  employed  in  both  its  senses  in  the 
very  same  sentence.  E.  g,  i.  7.  "  The  same 
came  for  a  witness,  iW //.a^ru^Tjo-?^,  in  order  that 
he  might  bear  testimony  concerning  the  light, 
ha  'jrdvTig  mgnvuffi  6/  avrov,  SO  that  all  might  be- 
lieve through  him."  Here  the  first  iVa  declares 
the  immediate  purpose  of  the  witness ;  the  se- 
cond, the  ultimate  object  brought  about  by  his 
testimony.  Comp.  2  Cor.  ii.  9 ;  Rom.  ix.  17  ; 
John  xviii.  37.*    Xen.  Cyrop.  II.  5.  2.     So  in 

•  Here,  however,  it  may  be  doubtful  whether  ?»«  has  anf 
thing  more  than  the  ielic  sense.      "  For  this  cause  wa».  I 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  229 

John  xvii.  21,  ha  h  uffn,  ha  6  xoV/xo;  Ti(fTsv(fr)'  comp. 
vs.  23,  24,  and  John  xv.  16.^ 

I  apprehend,  also,  that  the  ecbatic  use  of 
ha  obtains,  in  several  passages,  where  inter- 
preters have  given  themselves  much  trouble  to 
make  out  the  sentiment,  and  at  the  same  time 
to  insist  on  defending  the  felic  use  of  ha.  E.  g. 
John  ix.  2  ;  "  Who  hath  sinned  .  .  .  ha  rvpxhg 
yivvTj'^fj'  so  that  this  man  should  be  born  blind." 
So  John  xi.  4,  "  This  sickness  is  not  unto 
death,'!  ^'^■-X'  '^-^^  ^'/je  ^o^^g  rov  ^sol/,  rja  do^aG^r  6  v/bc 
rou  ^20J,  but  for  the  glory  of  God,  so  that  the 
Son  of  God  should  be  glorified."  The  death  of 
Lazarus  had  not  this  end  in  view  ;  but  it  was 


born,  and  for  this  end  came  I  into  the  world,  7va  fAa^rv^mu 
rri  aX*i3-ua,  in  order  that,  to  the  intent  that  I  might  bear 
testimony  to  the  trnth :"  this  latter  clause  being  epexege- 
tical  of  tti  ToZro,  and  being  logically  (although  not  in  point 
of  grammatical  form)  co-ordinate  with  it.  The  demands  of 
exe?esis  are  fairly  satisfied  by  this.  We  do  not  suppose  the 
Saviour  to  mean,  that  his  coming  had  no  other  ends  in  view. 
— Tr. 

^  This  last  example,  as  the  reader  will  see  if  he  consult 
the  original,  affords  one  of  the  most  indubitable  cases  where 
7»a  must  have  the  sense  of  so  that.  "  Ye  have  not  chosen 
me,  but  I  have  chosen  you,  and  ordained  yon,  iW  vftiTi  u-ra- 
ynn,  that  you  should  go  forth  and  produce  fruit,  and  your 
fruit  should  Lie  perennial,  hat,  o  rt  av  alrriirnri,  so  that  what- 
soever ye  shall  ask,  etc."  Jesus  did  not  ordain  them,  for 
the  end  that  whatsoever  they  should  ask  they  should  obtain, 
but  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  forth  much  fruit. — Tb. 


230  USE  OF  "INA 

the  occasion  of  glorifying  the  Son  of  God.  John 
xi.  15,  "  I  rejoice  on  your  account,  (/Va  tigts-j^ 
GrjTs,  so  that  you  might  believe)^  on  oux  tJ/jltiv  hsT, 
that  I  was  not  there."  [Here  the  immediate 
object  of  joy  is  stated  to  be,  that  Jesus  was  not 
present  at  the  death  of  Lazarus  and  /Va  mff-iv- 
6y}Ts  is  only  a  parenthetic  declaration,  epexege- 
tical  of  what  is  designed  by  the  clause,  3/  u/xag.'] 
The  meaning  is,  that  Jesus  rejoices  in  the  pro- 
spect, that  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  will  be 
attended  with  the  effect  of  confirming  the  faith 
of  his  disciples,  John  xi.  37,  "  Could  not  this 
man  have  brought  it  about,  /Va  xal  cvroc  i^n  a.'xo- 
"^dvri,  that  even  this  person  should  not  have 
died  ?"  John  xi.  42.  "  On  account  of  the  mul- 
titude who  stood  by  I  said,  ha  'zis-suffuGiv,  on  cJ 
(MS  oiTsffriiXug,  so  that  they  might  believe  [paren- 
thetic exegetical  declaration  thrown  in],  that 
thou  hast  sent  me.  John  xi.  50,  "  It  is  ex- 
pedient, ha  i'lg  av^POJ-TTog  ucro^dv^  'wTrs^  roZ  Xaou,  that 
one  man  should  die  for  the  people."  In  the 
same  manner  is  ha  employed  in  John  xvi.  7 ; 
xvii.  3  ;  1  John  v.  3  ;  et  al.  saepe.  The  man- 
ner of  these  passages  is  indeed  different ;  for 
in  some,  ha  is  preceded  by  certain  events,  in 
others  by  the  cause.  Yet  in  all  passages  of 
this  nature  it  is  plain,  that  the  notion  of  pur- 
pose or  design  is  not  expressed. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  231 

The  same  may  be  said  of  a  multitude  of  pas- 
sages in  the  writings  of  Paul ;  whose  copious  dic- 
tion, which  is  often  interrupted  and  almost  over- 
whelmed by  supervening  thoughts,  frequently 
seems  to  have  employed  some  particle  merely 
of  a  similar  nature  to  that  which  might  be  most 
appropriate ;  for  his  fervent  mind,  it  would  ap- 
pear, could  not  well  brook  the  delay  which  a 
particular  choice  of  words  would  occasion. 
As  examples,  the  following  passages  may  be 
consulted;  Rom.  iii.  19;  iv.  16;  v.  20,  21; 
vi.  1,  4,  6  ;  vii.  13  ;  ix.  11.  comp.  v.  19.  and 
31  ;  XV.  6;  xvi.  31,  32. 

But  more  examples  are  not  needed.  It  re- 
mains only,  that  I  say  a  few  things  concerning 
two  formulas  of  speech,  which  have  not  yet 
been  discussed. 

The  first  is  that,  where  ha  is  put  after  verbs 
of  asking^  admonishii2c/,  commanding,  and  others 
which  indicate  some  icish.  or  desire.  This  is  very 
common  in  the  New  Testament.  The  critics 
before  named  deny  that  ha,  in  these  formulas, 
indicates  object,  and  affirm  that  it  designates 
jjurpose,  design,  etc.,  viz.,  of  him  who  exhorts, 
commands,  etc.  E.  g.  i/'rh  ha'  'rra^izdXioav  ha 
a%j/wvra/-  they  explain  as  meaning :  '  Com- 
mand/c>?'  the  purpose  that ;  '  they  exhorted^or 
the  end  that  they  might  touch,   etc'     But  be- 


232  USE  OF  "INA 

sides  those  things  which  Winer  has  already 
suggested  against  such  a  method  of  interpreta- 
tion (Gramm.  Fasc.  II.  p.  117,  seq.),  I  may  be 
permitted  to  adduce  examples  from  the  better 
sort  of  writers.  I  am  aware  that  they  aver  the 
usage  in  question,  viz.  that  of  placing  'ha  with 
the  Subj.  mode  instead  of  the  Inf.  mode  after 
verbs  of  the  kind  named  above,  belongs  only 
to  the  more  recent  Greek  authors.  This  ex- 
ample only  they  admit  from  Homer  :  'Yi  s^i- 
\iic^  Qip^ahrhc  '^yjig  ysoac,  avrcc^  sfM  uurug  r,6^ai  hm- 
fisvov,  '  Or  do  you  wish  that  yourself  should 
have  the  reward,  but  that  I  should  remain  thus 
bereaved  of  it  ?*  [Here  o:poa  stands  in  the  like 
sense  with  JVa].  The  later  authors,  they  admit, 
have  imitated  this ;  see  Hermann  ad  Orphica, 
p.  814.  I  will  allow  now,  if  they  please,  that 
among  the  better  classic  authors  the  usage  in 
question  is  very  rare ;  although  in  the  later 
writers  it  is  exceedingly  common.  Thus  Non- 
nus,  in  his  paraphrase  of  John,  often  employs 
oipoa  in  order  to  correspond  with  ha  in  the  evan- 
gelist ;  see  his  paraphrase  of  John  vi.  7  ;  xi. 
15,  57  ;  xvii.  15,  24,  etc.  Examples  in  point, 
however,  may  be  found  among  the  more  accu- 
rate writers,  viz.  in  Lucian,  Dionysius  Halicar. 
(Charit.  III.  1.  init.),  rra^s-KciXn  os  KaXio'^orjv^  ha. 
xthru)  'XDoasX^ri,  '  he  besought  Calirrhoe  tliat  etc.,* 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  233 

[instead  of  saying  aOrp  cr^oersX^s/v]  ;  see  Schaefer 
ad  Dionys.  Hal.  de  Verb.  Compos,  p.  121. 
Hebraism,  therefore,  should  not  be  sought  after, 
in  such  constructions  as  these  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. With  the  Seventy,  this  idiom  is  ex- 
ceedingly rare. 

In  passages  of  such  a  nature,  now,  1  do  not 
see  with  what  reason  they  can  deny  tliat  the 
object  is  designated  by  the  particle  IVa.  >>  or  can 
the  German  dass  or  damit  be  well  compared 
with  /!/«.  The  particle  dass  we  do  indeed  em- 
ploy in  order  to  designate  a  caw5«/ connection : 
and  therefore,  when  we  mean  to  point  out  the 
thing  which  we  seek  after  ;  but  damit  answers 
better  to  the  particle  '6-vug.  After  verbs  ,  of 
asking,  commanding,  admonishing,  etc.,  we  use 
dass  in  order  that  we  may  designate  the  thing 
which  we  desire,  demand,  etc.  No  one  would 
say,  "  Ich  bitte  dich,  damit  du  mir  I J  rot  ge- 
best ;  ich  befehle  dir,  damit  du  fortgehest,  etc. 
.  .  .  Damit  denotes  purpose  or  design  ;  and  this 
is  its  proper  use  ;  but  in  common  parlance  and 
in  the  Version  of  Luther,  it  has  a  more  ex- 
tended meaning.  Still,  it  cannot  be  put  after 
verbs  of  asking,  etc.  But  the  particle  dass 
has  so  extended  a  meaning,  that  it  corresponds 
to  the  Latin  ut^  and  to  the  Greek  ha,  wj,  w^rs, 
and  oiT'j);. 


234  USE  of"ina 

The  ground  of  such  a  construction  seems  to 
me  to  be  this.  When  the  thing  we  ask  for, 
etc.,  can  be  expressed  by  a  noun^  that  noun  is 
put  in  the  Accusative,  for  this  is  the  proper 
office  of  the  Ace,  e.g,  ahuao-or  Bo-jXo,u.ai  iiPYivriv- 
But  if  we  cannot  make  use  of  a  noun  in  this 
way,  either  because  the  sense  would  be  imper- 
fect or  dubious,  or  because  that  which  we  ask 
for,  etc.,  is  something  which  consists  in  action 
or  must  be  done,  we  either  employ  the  Inf. 
mode  or  use  some  other  equivalent  causal  con- 
struction. If  we  should  say,  svsnikaro  uPTOM,  or 
rra^szdXsGsv  s/^Tjvyjv,  the  sense  which  we  mean  to 
convey  would  be  imperfect,  for  it  would  be, 
*  he  wished  that  bread  should  be  given  or  pro- 
cured ;'  '  he  urged  that  peace  should  be  stu- 
diously sought  for  or  made.'  But  to  express 
this  we  should  say,  hirsiXaTO  aorov  ayo^u(^in' 
^raPsxdXsffsv  h/ii)/  or  -ro/g/i/  sJ^yjvyjv.  The  Inf.  is  com- 
monly employed  here  unless  the  relation  of 
subject  and  predicate  is  or  may  be  uncertain  ; 
which  is  to  be  known  from  the  meaning  of  the 
preceding  verb.  But  as  there  is  certainty  in 
respect  to  those  verbs  which  signify  ivish  or 
dcshx',  the  Greeks  commonly  employed  the 
Inf. ;  for  as  to  verbs  of  this  sort,  there  cannot 
be  any  uncertainty  that  what  one  is  said  to 
will,  that  is  the  object  of  his  wishes.     The 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  235 

more  elegant  classical  writers,  therefore,  usually 
employed  the  Inf. ;  but  the  later  ones,  even  in 
those  passages  where  it  was  unnecessary,  used 
the  particle  iVa  or  o-wc.  On  the  other  hand, 
even  when  the  meaning  of  the  Inf.  would  be 
somewhat  doubtful,  they  still  often  employed 
it.  Thus  it  came,  that  after  verbs  of  asking, 
etc.,  the  object  asked  for,  etc.,  was  expressed 
by  the  use  of  /Va.  And  this  idiom  occurs  not 
merely  in  unlearned  authors  and  those  of  the 
lower  stamp,  but  also  among  those  of  an  op- 
posite character ;  as  is  proved  by  the  example 
of  Lucian  and  others. 

Even  among  authors  of  the  higher  rank, 
certain  expressions  occur,  which  seem  clearly 
to  develop  the  vulgar  idiom  in  this  respect. 
These  are  elliptical  expressions,  which  have 
been  taken  from  common  parlance  and  trans- 
ferred to  books,  and  frequently  occur  in  the 
dialogistic  forms  of  speech. 

I  will  not  here  appeal  to  the  passage  from 
Herodotus  (I.  126),  which  Schaefer  has  ad- 
duced, viz.,  rou  sfftovTog  x.  r.  X,  although  the  words 
have  the  same  construction ;  for  in  this  case 
there  is  no  ellipsis.  But  I  would  adduce  the 
formula :  r't  %Xiic,  'roiTjaoj ;  in  which  they  do  not 
doubt  that  ha  is  to  be  supplied ;  comp.  Matt. 
XX.  32.     John  xviii.  39,  etc.     I  wish  however 


236  USE  0F''INA 

to  know,  in  what  way  the  idea  of  purpose  or 
desi(/n  is  to  be  introduced. 

Nothing  is  better  known,  than  the  construc- 
tion of  ISovXofiat  with  the  Future  or  Subjunctive; 
e,  g.  Aristoph.  Ran.  v.  420,  (SouXsa'^s  dr,ra  -/.oivfj 
ffxw^|/w,a£^ '  A^x^d7]fx.ov ;  '  Do  you  wish  then,  that 
we  should  make  sport  in  common  with  Arche- 
demus  ?'  Aristoph.  Equit.  v.  52,  (SovXsi  rru^ad^ 
ffoi  do^^ov,  '  You  wish  me  to  present  you  with  a 
supper.'  So  very  frequently  in  Lucian  ;  Mort. 
Dial.  X.  8,  (SovASi  fxizfov  aipsXc/jfj^ai  -/.ai  rcov  hz^^vuv 
'  You  are  desirous  that  I  should  take  down 
arrogance  a  little.'  Dial.  XX.  3,  /S&jXs/  col  sTt- 
o£/gw  zai  roue  ffo:pov; ;  '  Do  you  wish  me  to  shew 
you  even  the  philosophers  ?'  Timon,  37,  BovXn 
biccXoyiciMai^oiaXoykufMai?)  -oog  6s;  '  Do  you  desire 
that  I  should  talk  with  you?'  see  Hemsterh. 
in  loc.  Deorum.  Dial.  XX.  16,  iWj'/.si  d-iroixo- 
<rw/xa/;  '  Do  you  not  wish  that  I  sho^ld  take 
an  oath?' 

But  there  is  no  need  of  examples.  A  mul- 
titude of  them  occur  in  Xenophon  and  Plato ; 
for,  as  it  would  seem,  this  elliptical  mode  of 
speaking  was  very  common  in  conversation,* 

^  The  ellipsis  to  which  he  refers  here,  is  that  of  "va  after 
Bfl«A«i,  etc.,  in  the  preceding  quotations.  Bovkofitti  expresses 
desire  or  wish,  hut  does  not  indicate  ultimate  purpose,  end, 
final  object.  In  accordance  with  tliis,  the  author  has  inti- 
mated above,  that  all  will  see  that  'Iva,  if  here  inserted,  would 
not  be  telic Ta. 


IN  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  237 

[viz.  with  the  omission  of  ha']  ;  see  Scholia  ad 
Eurip.  Phenis.  v.  729.  It  seems  to  me  now, 
that  relics  of  popular  usage  are  clearly  discern- 
ible in  this  formula  ;  but  in  this,  as  all  will  see, 
the  idea  of  end  or  purpose  is  not  expressed ;  see 
Hermann  ad  Vi^er.  p.  884.  But  let  us  ad- 
vance to  the  second  particular. 

"Im  is  said  by  some,  to  have  a  chronic  sense, 
[i.  e.  to  relate  to  time,  or  to  signify  ivfteji'],  in 
some  passages  of  the  evangelist  John.  E.  g. 
John  xii.  23,  sXyiKv^sv  rj  w^a,  ha,  dot^aff^fj  z.  r.  X. 
John  xiii.  1  ;  xvi.  2,  32.  Nonnus  has  express- 
ed ha  here  by  org,  when.  Grammarians  have 
made  the  remark,  that  examples  of  this  nature 
are  found  only  in  the  sacred  books  of  the  New 
Testament.  One  passage  is  adduced  from 
Aristophanes  (Nub.  v.  1*2.35),  xal  raZr  s^iXTjgiig 

a-TTOiJjOGai  iJjOI  rovg^iovg,  "I'/  av  /CiAsiiffoo  ''yoj  ffi :  '  Will 
you  then  be  willing  to  take  the  gods  to  witness 
for  me,  as  to  these  matters,  when  I  shall  de- 
mand it  of  you  ?'  Here  ha  may  seem  to  mean 
when;  and  Henry  Stephens,  in  accordance 
with  an  ancient  lexicon,  translates  it  quando- 
cunque. 

But  if  we  should  concede  now,  that  the 
particles  significant  of  place,^  are  often  appro- 
priated to  the  designation  of  time,  (as  is  the 
case  with  the  German  wo  and  da,  which  an- 


*238  USE  OF-'INA 

swer  well  to  the  adverb  /Va),  yet  the  construc- 
tion of  ha  with  the  Subj.  mode,  seems  to  stand 
in  the  way  of  its  being  taken  adverbially  [in 
the  sense  of  ivhere~\  in  such  passages.  If 
/Va,  moreover,  referred  to  place,  it  would  not  be 
joined  with  the  Subj.,  unless  av  were  inserted 
on  which  the  Subj.,  would  depend. 

The  passages  which  are  adduced  in  our  lexi- 
cons (e.  g.  Callim.  Hymn,  in  Cer.  v.  12.  Hom. 
11.  vii.  358),  in  order  to  prove  that  ha  has 
such  a  meaning,  are  altogether  inapposite. 
Two  passages  are  also  cited  from  Xenophon ; 
but  one  of  them  in  Memorab.  II.  i.  1 1,  as  emend- 
ed, reads  ihal  rig  f^oi  doxiT,  not  ha  rig.  In  the 
other  (De  Venat.  VI.  7),  ha  is  not  topic  but 
telic.  I  apprehend,  therefore,  that  in  the  afore- 
cited passages  of  John,  (elsewhere  this  sense  is 
not  assigned  to  /W),  this  particle  cannot  have 
the  meaning  of  wJien  assigned  to  it.  Nor  do  I 
4ind  any  passage  in  the  New  Testament,  in 
which  it  means  where.  Consequently,  in  those 
passages  I  apprehend  ha  is  to  be  explained  as 
indicating  what  is  to  happen  in  the  uoa  men- 
tioned in  John  xii.  23.  The  Greeks  usually 
employ  the  Inf.  in  such  cases,  e.  g.  xaiohg 
xa^svdiiv,  w^a  dsiTTMsTv  or  else  the  Gen.  case,  un- 
less perspicuity  demands  some  periphrasis. 
John  iv.  23  has  w^a  on-  so  in  v.  25  ;  but  in 


IN  THE  ^EVi  TESTAMENT.  239 

V.  28,  uoa  h  fi.  But  as  we,  in  common  par- 
lance, when  we  designate  the  time  in  which 
any  thing  is  to  take  place,  sometimes  employ 
particles  oi place  and  time,  sometimes  the  rela- 
tive pronoun,  and  sometimes  tJie  causal  par- 
ticle that  (dass)  ;  as  '  the  time  is  coming 
wherein,  therein,  at  ichich,  that,  you  will  repent 
of  it ;'  so  w^a  /Va  may  be  used  in  like  manner, 
e.  g,  '  the  time  is  coming  (when  it  will  be) 
that  etc'  In  the  same  manner  the  Latins 
express  themselves.  Nor  is  this  destitute  of 
a  good  reason,  if  we  will  only  concede,  (what 
examples  from  many  writers  prove),  that  ha  is 
not  only  telic,  but  likewise  serves  to  indicate 
the  thing  which  was  the  consequence  of  another, 
when  a  causal  connection  is  conceived  of  as 
existing. 

[The  author  closes  his  piece  with  adverting 
to  the  particular  religious  occasions  on  which 
it  was  delivered  or  published  ;  which  it  is  un- 
necessary here  to  insert,  as  it  is  not  connected 
with  the  main  object  of  the  discussion.  That 
parts  of  this  discussion  will  not  appear  as  be- 
ing very  explicit  to  the  young  reader,  there  is 
reason  to  apprehend.  But  there  are  so  many 
things,  and  so  important  ones  too,  which  he 
can  understand,  that  I  would  hope  he  will  not 


'210  USK   (»!'    "INA. 

l>o  (K'terriui  from  an  attentive  n-adin^-  and  coii- 
nidcr.'itioti  of  tlic  wlioUs  liy  hoiiu'  pani^raplis 
wliicli  may  not  appear  to  l)e  Huilieiently  lucid. 
-Tu.) 


FORCE  OF  THE  GREEK  PREPOSITIONS  IN 
COMPOUND  VERBS, 

AS  EMPLOYED 

IN  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT. 


The  negligence  and  inconsideration  Vv'itli 
which  lexicographers  and  grammarians  in  ge- 
neral have  proceeded  in  assigning  the  force  and 
significancy  of  the  Greek  particles,  cannot  have 
escaped  the  notice  of  any  correct  Greek  scholar ; 
and  in  no  species  of  particles,  perhaps,  have  these 
faults  been  more  frequently  conspicuous,  than 
in  respect  to  the  prepositions.  This  would 
seem,  at  first  view,  the  more  surprising ;  since 
it  is  doubtless  more  easy  to  perceive  and  ex- 
press the  relations  in  which  different  things 
stand  toward  each  other,  which  is  the  office 
of  the  preposition,  than  it  is  to  explain  the 
way  in  which  an  object  of  thought,  or  the  act 
itself  of  thinking,  stands  connected  with  the 

VOL.  II.  R 


242  GREEK  PREPOSITIONS 

thinking  mind,  which  is  a  principal  use  of  the 
conjunction.  There  are,  however,  various 
causes,  which  have  contributed  to  introduce 
confusion  in  respect  to  the  force  and  use  of  the 
Greek  prepositions.  A  principal  one  of  these, 
no  doubt,  has  been  the  circumstance,  that 
where  their  power  appeared  to  be  somewhat 
uncertain,  it  has  been  customary  to  regard 
them  as  without  any  force,  and  pronounce 
them  pleonastic.  This  has  been  very  com- 
mon among  interpreters  of  the  New  Testament ; 
who  would  seem  almost  to  have  been  upon  the 
watch  for  pleonasms,  whenever  any  uncertainty 
or  obscurity  could  be  detected  in  the  employ- 
ment of  prepositions.  Hence  the  lexicons  of 
the  New  Testament  are  filled  with  observa- 
tions of  this  nature ;  and  at  the  close  of  almost 
every  article  which  treats  of  a  preposition,  we 
find  the  remarlv,  "  hand  raro  redundatJ' 

In  regard,  especially,  to  those  prepositions 
which  are  compounded  with  verbs,  it  is  a  com- 
mon and  indeed  a  very  general  opinion,  that 
such  prepositions,  often  do  not  at  all  aftect  the 
force  of  the  verbs  ;  and  diat  therefore  the  force 
and  meaning  of  a  compound  verb  diifers  fre- 
quently in  no  respect  from  those  of  the  simple 
verb.  The  source  of  this  opinion  is  to  be 
found,  partly  in   a  want   of  attention   to  the 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  243 

niceties  of  language,  and  partly  in  the  desire 
of  avoiding  some  particular  interpretations. 
Thus,  in  former  times,  when  it  was  the  fashion 
to  look  for  an  emphatic  meaning  in  many  verbs 
where  there  is  none,  the  most  false  interpreta- 
tions were  not  unfrequently  brought  forward 
on  no  ground  whatever,  except  a  certain  sup- 
posed emphasis  imparted  to  the  compound 
verb  by  the  accession  of  the  preposition. 
Hence  too  it  was,  that  other  interpreters  were 
]ed  more  decidedly  to  deny  that  the  force  of 
the  verb  was  in  all  cases  affected  by  the  pre- 
position ;  in  many  cases,  at  least  they  affirmed, 
no  emphasis  was  to  be  sought  in  compound 
verbs.  This  was  doubtless  Ernesti's  meaning, 
when  he  says,^  that  "  in  Greek  verbs  we  must 
take  care  not  to  suppose  that  any  accession  of 
meaning  is  necessarily  made  by  the  accession 
of  prepositions,  especially  dm,  ac6,  t^o,  cvv,  iz, 
-s^i,  nor  must  w^e  draw  arguments  from  this  sup- 
jjosed  emphasis,  as  is  done  by  many,  and  often- 
times very  incongruously;  inasmuch  as  use  and 
observation  sufficiently  teach  us,  that  these 
prepositions  do  not  always  affect  the  significa- 
tion of  the  simple  verbs,  and  indeed  are  very 
frequently  redundant."     The  learned  writer  is 

^  Institutio  Interp.  N.  T.   P.  I.  s.  2,  c.  5,  §  8.     Stuai-t'> 


244  GREEK  PREPOSITIONS 

obviously  here  speaking  of  emphasis,  wiiicli,  it 
]nust  be  conceded,  is  not  always  produced  by 
the  prepositions.  But  still,  the  precept  which 
he  gives,  is  ambiguous  ;  for  it  is  one  thing  to 
impart  an  emphasis;  another,  to  produce  an 
accession  to  the  force  and  meaning  of  the  simple 
verb  ;  and  still  another,  to  change  the  meaning 
of  the  simple  verb.  It  is  this  ambiguity,  which 
seems  to  have  led  astray  those  who  have  since 
written  on  this  topic ;  especially  Fischer,  whose 
dissertation  on  the  subject  is  devoid  of  every 
thing  like  fixed  rule  or  settled  principle.^' 

It  does  not  indeed  require  much  study,  to 
demonstrate  by  numerous  examples,  that  pre- 
positions in  themselves  never  produce  emphasis, 
and  that  they  do  not  always  change  the  signi- 
fication of  the  simple  verbs ;  but  it  is  more 
difficult  to  shew  precisely  what  force  such  pre- 
positions really  have,  either  constantly  or  in 
certain  circumstances.  No  one,  so  far  as  I 
knoAV,  has  treated  of  this  subject  in  such  a 
manner,  as  to  have  reduced  this  part  of  gram- 
mar to  certain  and  fixed  laws ;  and  although 
individual  authors  have  written  on  particular 
points  with  judgment  and  discrimination,  still 
the   subject   of  the   Greek  prepositions,   as    a 

''  Prolus.  (ic  y'ilih  Leaker.  N.  T.    Frolus.  "\'.  p.  119,  sq. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  245 

whole,  has  not  yet  been  properly  discussed, 
especially  with  reference  to  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament.  Some  interpreters  indeed, 
having  adopted  the  opinion  that  the  New 
Testament  writers  scarcely  spoke  the  Greek 
language,  and  were  at  least  total  strangers  to 
all  its  grammatical  principles  and  laws,  have 
not  thought  it  worth  their  while  even  to  look 
at  the  force  of  the  particles,  and  more  parti- 
cularly of  the  prepositions  ;  and  hence  it  has 
arisen,  that  in  most  of  the  lexicons  of  the 
New  Testament,  the  prepositions  are  treated 
of  so  ineptly  and  unskilfully.  Another  class 
of  interpreters,  supposing  it  to  be  the  safest 
course  to  avoid  a  nice  explication  of  every  thing 
which  they  did  not  understand,  or  which  seem- 
ed to  them  unsettled  and  indefinite,  took  re- 
fuge in  pleonasm,  and  taught,  with  great  con- 
fidence, that  prepositions  in  composition  with 
verbs  are  often  redundant.  This  they  did  the 
more  earnestly,  because  they  recollected  that 
many  false  interpretations  and  heterodox  opi- 
nions rested  for  support  solely  on  the  emphasis 
alleged  to  exist  in  certain  compound  verbs,  e,  g. 
in  rgoo^/^s/v,  'jTooyivuiCxuv.  Others  again  have  ad- 
mitted, that  prepositions  sometimes  add  no  new 
signification  to  that  of  the  simple  verb,  while 
yet  they  sometimes  augment  the  latter ;  but 


246  GREEK  PREPOSITIONS 

they  have  given  no  certain  rules  by  which  to 
distinguish,  when  the  signification  is  thus  aug- 
mented or  when  it  remains  unaffected. 

Among  the  writers  of  this  latter  class,  who 
are  thus  wavering  and  uncertain  in  regard 
to  these  particles,  we  may  rank  most  of  the 
ancient  grammarians  and  scholiasts  ;  who, 
when  the  force  of  a  construction  was  not  ob- 
vious to  them,  have  not  hesitated  to  declare, 
^sojrrriv  ihca  ttjv  ir^o^iGiv,  "  the  proposition  is  re- 
dundant;" while  yet,  in  other  places,  they 
have  developed  the  force  and  meaning  of  the 
prepositions  with  far  more  subtlety  than  cor- 
rectness. Thus,  for  instance, — to  use  the  same 
examples  which  Fischer  (1.  c.)  has  adduced  in 
support  of  his  views, — the  Scholiast  on  Aris- 
tophanes says  of  the  verb  craoa/r^j^rw/xs^a,  ad 
Equit.  V.  37,  'm^trrri  57  <7raDd'  Igrt  yap  a/Vjjcw/xgSa, 
'::aoaxaki6(fj(i,iv.  TlXiovd^ouGi  yao  -/.ai  sXXsi'^ouffi  ruTc 
^po3g<r2(r/i/ 'Arr/xo/.  "The  aa^a  is  superfluous: 
the  verb  is  i.  q.  a/V^jcw/As^a  or  'ra^axaXscojjtMsv. 
The  Attics  often  make  pleonasms  and  ellipses 
with  the  prepositions."  But  surely  the  prepo- 
sition is  never  wholly  superfluous  in  'zapcurs^, 
and  least  of  all  in  this  place.  A/rsTv  is  simply 
fo  ask  for  any  thing ;  but  rrapainTv  is  so  to  ash 
as  to  deprecate  the  opposite;  a  meaning  perfect- 
ly well  adapted  to  this  passage.     The  same 


IN  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  247 

Scholiast  further  says,  ad  Plutwni  v.  499,  rh  ds 
dvYiPUircc  Tj  Tiotrrr^'j  'iy^si  rffy  ^po^sgiv  yj  driXojri7c6v  sen 
rou'zoy.'kdzi;  hoj-av.  "  In  avrjoura  the  preposition 
is  either  redundant,  or  else  it  indicates  repeat- 
ed questioning'."  Fischer  thought  the  first  so- 
lution to  be  the  true  one,  but  incorrectly;  for 
dvsoojrav  is  most  appropriately  employed  in  this 
place  to  mark  repp.ated  questioning,  and  not  a 
simple  interrogation  (lowrai/) ;  as  indeed  the 
Scholiast  explains  it  in  the  sequel.  The  same 
indefiniteness  and  want  of  consistency  occurs 
in  other  grammarians,  and  even  in  Eustathius.*" 
This  is  certainly  a  grievous  fault  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  any  book ;  but  ought  to  be  more 
particularly  avoided  by  an  interpreter  of  the 
New  Testament ;  inasmuch  as  the  greatest 
care  is  here  necessary,  lest,  by  neglecting  the 
real  force  and  significancy  of  the  prepositions, 
either  the  sense  should  be  deprived  of  its  full 
weight,  or  at  least  the  same  idea  should  not 
be  apprehended  in  the  same  manner  as  it  was 
by  the  writer  himself.  From  considerations 
like  these,  1  have  thought  it  would  not  be  la- 

''  Sop.  1009.  40.  U^oB-icni;  TTcc^iXjiava-i  Iv  ^rec^ivS-ia-n  ju.i}iv '^rw- 
Ti^uaa-t  rjj  (rvf^ccffla.  tuv  aTkcuv.  '  Prepositions  are  redundant 
in  composition,  adding  nothing-  to  the  significations  of  the 
simple  words.'  The  contrary  and  more  correct  doctrine  is 
given  on  p.  217,  18.  727,  19.  936,  48.  1553,  14. 


248  GREEK  PREPOSITIONS 

bour  lost,  to  give  the  subject  a  more  careful 
discussion.  But  as  the  limits  of  this  essay  for- 
bid a  complete  view,  it  will  be  proper  to  con- 
fine ourselves  to  a  succinct  exposition  of  the 
various  ways  in  which  the  force  of  the  prepo- 
sitions is  manifested  in  connexion  with  verbs. 
Prepositions  are  usually  connected  with 
verbs  in  a  threefold  manner.  They  are  either 
subjoined  to  the  simple  verb  as  a  compliment, 
as  op/xa  V  i-rri  rt, — or  they  are  compounded  with  the 
verb,  as  e(poP,u.av, — or  they  are  subjoined  to  a 
verb  already  compounded  with  the  same  or 
another  preposition,  as  s-^osfj^dv  slg  -roXs/xov,  d'jrs- 
yj<s%ai  d-o  rng  'rropvsiuc.  The  plan  of  this  essay 
includes  neither  the  first  nor  the  last  of  these 
modes  of  expression ;  but  only  the  second,  in 
which  the  prepositions  are  so  joined  with  the 
verbs,  as  to  form  with  them  one  compound 
word.*^     It  will  be  proper,  nevertheless,  to  pre- 

**  One  of  the  writers  who  has  done  most  justice  to  the 
subject  of  prepositions  in  composition,  is  Abresch  ad  Caitieri 
Gazophyl.  Graec.  p.  6*0.  But  he  api>ears  not  to  have  been 
sufficiently  aware,  that  the  diiferent  force  which  the  same 
preposition  (;xhibits  when  compounded  with  diiferent  vei-bs, 
arises  out  of  the  signification  of  the  verb  with  M'liicli  it  is 
thus  connected,  wliile  tlie  preposition  itself  always  retains  its 
own  proper  force  and  sigtiificancy.  I  prefer  to  subjoin  here 
some  examples  from  Catier  himself,  in  order  the  more  clearly 
to  illustrate  my  meaning ;  since  in  the  text  1  have  discussed 
the  subject  only  in  general  terms. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  249 

mise  a  few  remarks  upon  those  other  methods 
of  connexion ;  because  from  the  first  of  them 
we  learn  the  cause  why  prepositions  are  con- 
nected with  verbs  at  all ;  while  from  the  third 

'A^(p/,  according  to  Cattier,  denotes  in  composition,  cir- 
cum,  as  in  afi.(pifia.XXa,  and  also  dubitation,  as  in  afipfffinriu. 
But  in  both  these  instances  a^(p/  has  its  own  proper  signi- 
fication ;  it  denotes  strictly,  utrimque,  on  both  sides,  on  either 
hand,  as  does  also  the  adverb  «(46(p/j.  Hence  af4,(pir(iyiTSiv  is 
to  go  or  tend  towards  one  side  and  the  other ;  as  dfziptlidXXuy 
is  to  cast  on  either  side  ;  whence  ocfiiptfioXos,  ivoimded  or  at- 
tacked on  both  sides,  (Thucyd.  4.  32.)  metaph.  fluctuating, 
dubious,  uncertain  ;  and  so  also  a^(p</saXX£<v,  to  fluctuate, 
be  in  doubt.  The  reason  why  ufic<pi<r^7)Tt7v  signifies  to  be  in 
doubt,  lies  not  in  the  preposition,  but  in  the  verb ;  for  every 
one  who  is  in  doubt,  inclines  or  tends  first  to  one  side  and 
then  the  other,  so  long  as  he  has  not  decided  what  to  do — 
We  might  affirm,  with  the  same  right,  that  u/u,(pt  signifies 
defence,  as  in  df^.(pi(l>aiyuv,  e.  g.  o;  X^va-yiv  a^i2'</3£i3jjxaj  and 
other  examples  ;  but  this  no  one  would  tolerate The  pro- 
per signification  of  a^(p/  then  is  utrimque  ;  and  when  this 
preposition  is  joined  in  composition  with  verbs,  it  super- 
adds this  sense  to  the  idea  expressed  by  the  verl).  Thus 
vaiTv  is  to  think,  and  dfx,(ptvoiTv  is  so  to  think  that  the  mind  wa- 
vers on  one  side  and  the  other,  i.  e.  to  doubt.  The  Scho- 
liast on  Sophocles  therefore  is  incorrect,  when  he  says  ad 
Antigon.  v.  376,  a,fji.(pivou'  -rs^ifftrh  h  df/,(pi,  '  the  d/u,(pi  is  redun- 
dant.' The  author  of  the  Etymologicum  is  therefore  also 
wi-ong,  when  he  says  that  oift<pl  and  -n^i  are  synonymous ; 
for  Ti^i  is  properly  circa  or  circum,  about,  around.  It  there- 
fore not  only  superadds  a  far  different  sense  from  that  of 
d,fjL(pt  to  verbs  with  which  it  is  connected  ;  but  it  also  not 
unfrequently  simply  augments  or  gives  intensity  to  compre- 


250  GREEK  PREPOSITIONS 

we  may  most   clearly  perceive  how  inconside- 
rately, in  phrases  of  this  sort,    the  lexicogra- 
phers have  so  often  recurred  to  pleonasm. 
It  is  the  nature  of  verbs,  that  they  neces- 

hensiveness  to  the  meaning  of  the  simple  verb  :  because  the 
simple  action  expressed  by  the  verb  is  made,  by  the  addition 
of  ^B^l,  to  comprehend  as  it  were  the  whole  of  the  object,  as 
he'mg  affected  on  every  side  and  in  all  its  parts.  Thus,  as 
d,fjt.^ivoi7v  is  to  think  ivaoeringly,  so  rrt^ivoiTv  is  to  think  care- 
fully, to  consider  on  all  sides,  to  excogitate  ;  and  "rs^ivotx,  soler- 
tia,  ingenuity.  Hence  also  both  these  prepositions  are  united 
with  one  verb,  as  a.fjt.(pi'7n^i9rXuZ,t<r^ui,  to  ivander  about  hither 
and  thither,  Orph.  Lith.  80 ;  and  oifjt.(piTi^Krr^u(pav,  Iliad. 
VIII.  348,  comp.  Eustath.  716,  49;  d,fji,(pi<ffioi(p^iv6^iiv,  Horn. 
Hymn.  Ven.  271.  In  like  manner  they  are  also  sometimes 
used  together  as  separate  prepositions  ;  e.  g.  Iliad.  II.  305, 
XVII.  760,  comp.  Eusth.  p.  112fJ,  extr. 

'AfTo  in  composition,  Cattier  says,  signifies  negation,  as 
dvoipTifjcr  despondency,  as  d^u-rijv'  acquittal,  as  avoy^iKpiZ^uv' 
completion,  as  d'Ti0yoiZ,i(r^cct.  Abresch  adds  other  significations ; 
but  that  which  he  first  subjoins,  (in  dTiivoti,  dvoKotfiair^xt, 
aTox^vTrin,  etc.)  he  ought  to  have  marked  as  being  proper- 
ly the  primary  and  common  sense  of  aero  in  composition.  In 
d^o(pv/^t  it  is  not  the  preposition  that  denotes  negation,  but 
the  whole  verb ;  he  who  denies  or  refuses  a  thing,  declares 
that  thing  to  be  remote  from  his  mind  or  will  {aronuu.) 
On  the  other  hand,  Karoi(prif/.i  is  to  affirm,  to  assent,  (x«t«- 
vewE/v,)  to  annex  or  superadd,  as  it  were,  one's  own  views  or 
feelings  to  a  thing.  So  also  ^^^^^^(pi^uv  is  to  set  any  one  free 
by  vote  ,•  not  because  ccro  denotes  acquittal,  but  because 
\pv(p{^uv  and  ^ptiquZur^ai  signify  to  give  one\  sufrage  con- 
cerning any  thing  (<rs^/  rivo;) ;  and  therefore,  as  xa.Ta^vi(()t%tn 
Tivx  is  to  condemn  by  one's  suffrage,  (^-^'txpi^iiv  xarai  rtvof,) 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  251 

sarily  connect  the  notion  of  the  thing  which 
they  express,  with  the  conception  of  some 
other  thing,  which  may  stand  to  the  former  in 
the  relation  either  of  cause  or  eifect.    To  point 

so  ocro-^^Yi^'i^uv  Tivoc  is  to  acquit  by  suffrage  ;  because  he  who 
is  thus  acquitted,  is  conceived  of  as  freed,  taken  away,  from 
the  sentence.  Hence  also  ciTo-^'yKPit.iiv  is  construed  with  the 
accusative,  although  the  preposition  governs  only  the  genitive ; 
as  also  a.vofjt.oi^KT^cn,  a-TTohxa^iiv,  ocTfoXoyuff^cci,  and  Others. 

A/a  retains  everywhere  its  own  signification,  through,  in 
composition ;  but  still  it  gives  a  variety  of  modification  to 
the  meaning  of  verbs,  according  to  the  different  sense  which 
belongs  to  the  verbs  themselves.  In  hccKuXunv,  and  ^lanXiTf, 
for  example,  it  does  not  of  itself  signify  continuance,  nor  in 
hi^;^iff^ct4  is  it  praeier,  nor  in  "^taa-u/^eff^e/i  tid  rivoi  is  it  e^r, 
although  it  may  be  so  rendered  in  Latin.  Whoever  ^taxukuu, 
he  xaiXvn  "Side,  rivog,  i.  e.  hinders  through  the  whole  time  during 
which  any  thing  is  to  be  impeded ;  whoever  ^n^;^ireii,  he 
£^;^^sra<  hoi  rivos,  i.  6.  comes  through  something,  leaves  it 
AV'hoUy  behind  him,  whence  ^/£^;^;£<^9■ai  sfj  ri,  to  arrive  at  ; 
whoever  ^/a<r&;^s  ra/,  he  tra^ireti  ^ici  rivoi,  i.  e.  is  preserved 
through  the  whole  time  of  his  being  in  danger.  Hence 
ffu^iirS-cti  u;  ^ta,  Trvpog  1  Cor.  iii.  15,  and  "hietiru^nvui  ^i  uoaroi 
1  Pet.  iii.  20,  is  to  be  preserved  through  the  midst  of  the  fire 
and  the  water  by  which  they  were  surrounded ;  Avhich,  as 
to  the  sense,  is  indeed  equivalent  to  being  saved  ex  igne  vel 
aqua.  So  Xenophon.  A  nab.  V.  5.  7,  ^'«  croXX&Jv  xa)  "^uvio* 
T^ay/u.druv  trtruff/nivoi  Tei^io-Ti,  '  ye  Stand  here,  preserved 
through  many  and  great  evils  ;'  but  in  III.  2.  7,  ffu>X,ovTa,i  Ix 
9rdvv  ^£/v<s;v,  and  Hist.  Graec.  VII.  1.  16,  oi  a-aBivris  £«  "rou 
v^dyfjcaros.  Thus  also  in  all  other  verbs,  hei  fulfils  its  pro- 
per office,  and  signifies  through,  per  ;  it  denotes  that  the 
thing  in  question  e.rists  or  takes  place  in  such  a  w^ay,  that  it 


252  GREEK  PREPOSITIONS 

out  the  nature  or  mode  of  this  relation,  it  is 
often  necessary  to  employ  prepositions ;  whose 
office  it  is,  when  thus  used  with  simple  verbs, 
to  shew  whither  the  notion  of  the  thing  ex- 
must  be  conceived  of  as  existing  or  taking  place  through 
something  which  is  opposed  or  interposed.  But  since  a 
thing  may  be  regarded  in  a  twofold  manner,  either  as  the 
subject  on  which  the  idea  expressed  by  the  verb  depends,  or 
as  the  object  on  which  the  idea  expressed  by  the  verb  termi- 
nates, it  follows  that  "ttd  may  require  either  the  genitive  (of 
the  subject),  or  the  accusative  (of  the  object)  ;  and  hence  has 
arisen  the  twofold  signification  of  ^/a,  as  denoting  b<^th  man- 
ner and  cause.  And  since  that  through  which  a  thing  is  said 
to  exist  or  take  place,  is  to  be  conceived  of  as  a  sort  of  me- 
dium,  which  the  whole  thing  has  as  it  were  pervaded  or 
passed  through,  those  verbs  therefore  which  are  compounded 
with  ha,  often  express  the  notion  of  difference,  j)erfection, 
dividing,  distribiitinij,  dissipating,  contending,  and  the  like ; 
in  all  which,  nevertheless,  the  preposition  itself  retains  its 
own  proper  force.  Nor  do  I  fear  that  any  one  will  pro- 
nounce all  this  to  be  empty  speculation  ;  as  if  it  were  indif- 
ferent, whether  we  regard  the  preposition  itself  as  having 
a  different  power,  or  consider  the  modification  which  takes 
place  when  a  preposition  is  added,  as  arising  out  of  the  verbs 
themselves.  Our  lexicographers  would  surely  not  have  des- 
cribed one  and  the  same  preposition  as  denoting  every  thing 
in  composition,  had  they  more  closely  observed  tlie  peculiar 
force  and  significancy  of  eacb, — But,  to  return  to  the  pre- 
position lia.  It  is  said  to  have  the  signification  of  eacel- 
lence  in  ^utipi^uv,  ^/t;^£<v.  Tnie.  But  still  it  is  one  and  the 
same  signification  of  5/a'  which  causes  'ha^x.^adeu  to  mean  per- 
venire  ;  'ita^etmiv,  iransgredi  ;  and  also  ^/a^i^s/v,  to  differ  ; 
hiX^u¥,  to  be  prominent  This  is  clearly  established  as  to 
6ii-^!iv  by  tbe  passages  in  Homer,  Iliad  V    100.  XX.  41G. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  253 

pressed  by  the  verb,  is  to  be  referred.  Thus 
when  one  says,  sp/w  r/,  he  indicates  that  the 
possession  of  a  certain  thing  is  to  be  conceived 
of  in  connexion  with  himself ;  but  when  it  is 

It  is  surprising  that  Abresch,  in  the  place  above  cited, 
should  follow  the  custom  of  so  many  writers,  and  attribute 
to  the  Greek  prepositions  almost  as  many  significations  as 
the  Latin  ones  have,  by  which  they  are  commonly  rendered. 
Thus  on  p.  74  he  writes,  that  l|  in  composition  sometimes 
denotes  in  ;  as  IxvifftTv  u;  )^ol.(rfji.a.  yri;  in  Pausanias  ;  although 
the  very  passage  of  Lucian  which  he  adduces,  Nigrin.  c.  36. 
iK  (Jt-'itrns  rni  o^ou  xara-;ri^rttv,  might  have  shown  him  the 
true  solution ;  for  he  who  while  walking  along  a  path,  falls 
into  a  ditch,  falls  out  of  the  path,  ex  via,  into  the  ditch.  So 
the  passage  of  Xenophon,  Hist.  Gr.  V.  4.  17,  oVXa  am^- 
-rairB^ivTa  l^i^iffov  us  ^u.Xarrra.'i.  But  the  phrase  la  fiiffns  rris 
eloZ  xa.ra'Tri'rTiiv  means,  *  to  fall  out  of  or  at  the  middle  of  the 
way,'  i.  e-  after  completing  half  the  way — The  preposition 
?ra^a  in  composition,  he  says,  signifiies  not  only  us,  v^os,  trvv, 
T^o,  but  also  s^  and  ci-ro.  But  in  all  the  examples  that  are  ad- 
duced, it  signifies  nothing  more  than  jua^ta,  nigh,  near  to,  ne- 
ben,  in  which  is  also  implied  the  idea  of  praeter,  by,  bey,  vor- 
bey.  But  this  signification  does  indeed  give  a  different  modifi- 
cation to  verbs,  according  to  their  various  simple  meanings. 
Thus  ^agaxXiiuv  is  indeed  to  shut  out,  exclude,  not  surely  be- 
cause 5ra^a  signifies  ex,  but  because  when  one  is  shut  up  not 
in  this  place,  but  in  some  place  beside  {praeter,)  he  is  of 
course  conceived  of  as  excluded  from  this  place.  So  in  Aris- 
tophanis,  Eccles.  120,  •ra^iiva.i  may  be  rendered  by  prodire, 
to  come  forth,  to  approach,  etc.  [as  if  for  ^r^otrnvai,]  for  the 
connexion  is,  -x-u^it  is  to  tt^oo-Biv,  and  immediately  after  we 
find  xcl^i^i  Tct^iut.  But  still  even  here  -ra^a  is  properly 
juxta^  and  'xa.^i'ita'i  is  to  come  near,  draiv  nigh,  etc.  like  ra- 


254  GREEK    PREPOSITIONS 

inquired,  what  is  the  mode  or  ratio  of  this  pos- 
session, then  there  is  need  of  a  preposition : 
whether  it  be  to  shew  from  whom  he  has  the 
thing,  s^siv  arto  rmg  vel  craea  rm^^  or  to  desig- 
nate where  he  has  it,  as  lyii)/  h  x^'i'>  ^^  '^Z=''' 

^i^X.^iT^'^t.  In  the  same  author  we  read  Thesmophor,  804, 
irx^aKU'TTTUt  Ik  rris  B-v^i^o;,  and  a  little  before,  lyKv^rrnv.  The 
former,  they  say,  is  here  i.  q.  i'^okv^tuv,  and  ^a^a  performs 
the  office  of  t^o-  while  the  latter,  they  say^  is  for  inxv^ruv. 
But  in  this  sportive  passage,  -ra^axv'TTttv  is  not  *  to  look  out 
by  thrusting  the  head  through  the  window,'  but  '  to  lookout 
from  within  the  window  by  inclining  the  head  on  one  side,' 
as  is  done  by  modest  females  who  do  not  wish  to  be  seen 
from  without.  Tlie  notion  of  tt^o  lies  here  in  the  verb  xv- 
TTuv  itself.  The  poet  therefore  immediately  subjoins  :  xuv 
a.iT;^vvB:7iT'  a,iitx.^uor,<Ty^j  ttoXv  ju,a.XXov  ttus  I'^riS-Vfi;?  auB^i;  rrccect- 
xv'^av  loitv.  Neither  is  lyxuTTuv  used  for  avaxuTTuv,  as  the 
Scholiast  explains  it,  but  it  is  '  to  look  out  by  inclining  to- 
wards (the  -window),'  and  differs  from  TK^Kxvfrruv,  which 
the  sacred  Avriters  have  used  to  express  the  same  idea,  Luke 
xxiv.  12.  John  xx.  5,  11.  The  true  force  of  the  word  is 
shown  by  the  examples  which  Wetstein  has  given,  Nov.  Test. 
T.  I.  p.  823  ;  and  especially  by  the  ])assage  from  Aristo- 
])hanes,  Pac.  981,  sq — For  these  reasons  I  much  doubt 
whether  •xa^axv-^a.i  in  James  i.  25,  means  so  much  as  '  to 
consider  diligently,  to  know  thorouyhhj  ,-'  it  seems  to  denote 
simply  to  knoiv,  to  have  a  knowledge  of  the  law.  The  a})ostle 
says :  "  He  who  has  a  knowledge  of  the  law,  if  he  be  not 
{yivofjLim)  a  forgetful  hearer,  but  does  that  which  the  law 
])rescribes,  oZret  iLtcxd^m  la-rcn,  he  shall  be  blessed."  The 
^vord  is  also  used  of  knowledge  in  general^  not  careful  or 
perfect  knowledge,  in  Lucian,  /.  Rediv'tv.  p.  r>08.  !?o  also 
in  1  Pet.  i.  12,  it  signifies  nothing  more  than  simply  to  he 
hold,  to  become  acijuaiiited  ^^  ith. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  255 

fj.ia'^bv 'Tra^a  rd)  crarpiy    Matt.  vi.   1.      Hence  it  is 
easy  to  see,  how  the  entire  diiference  of  sigiii- 
cation  has  arisen  in  the  phrases  syjiv  d':r6  rr^og, 
and  d'Trs^siv  or  aTsyjc'^c/j.    In  these  latter  words, 
the  preposition  when  thus   compounded  with 
the    verb,    occasions    plainly    a    new^   signifi- 
cation,  directly   opposite   to  the  meaning   of 
the  simple  verb ;  the  thing  to  which  the  prepo- 
sition points  being  no  longer  conceived  of  as 
conjoined  with  the  notion  of  the  thing  expressed 
by   the   verb,   but  as  disjoined  from  it.     The 
case  is  different  when  a';rsp^s/v  signifies  to  have 
received^  (not  to  receive^)  as  d'jrs-xiiv  fjjc^ov,  Matt, 
vi.  2,  5,  16;  for  there  a^o  denotes  not  disjimc- 
tion^  but  an  accession  made  from  some  other 
quarter;  so  that  those  interpreters  are  in  an 
error,  who  here  make  d'rrz'xitv  [mig'^ov  signify  no- 
thing more  than  the  simple  'ixziv.     They  differ 
in  the  same  manner,  as  in  English,  to  have  and 
to  have  away  from^   i.  e.    to  have  taken  away 
from  another  to  one's  self;  to  have  received,  as 
above.     It  might  be  more  a  matter  of  dou])t, 
whether  in    the    words    d-7rsyj6:)ai  drro  rsiog,    the 
latter  preposition  is  redundant  or  not ;  for  the 
phrase  expresses  the  same  sense  without  the 
preposition  ;  as  Acts  xv.  20  d'Tiyis'^ai  d-h  rwv 
d}j(ry'/i{/.c/.TOjv  ruj'j  i/d'Jj/.cj',',  and  verse   29  wTTByjc'^c/./ 
£/ow/\&i)jrwv.    But  these  forms  of  expression  seem 


256  GREEK    PREPOSITIONS 

to  differ,  not  in  the  idea  or  thing  itself,  but 
merely  in  the  mode  of  conceiving  of  it ;  just 
as  they  say  in  German,  sick  von  erne?'  Sache 
entlialten  and  also,  sich  einer  Sache  enthaltert,  (i.  e. 
to  abstain  from  any  thing,)  where  in  the  for- 
mer mode  of  expression  the  notion  of  disjunc- 
tion is  referred  particularly  to  the  thing,  and 
in  the  latter  to  the  person. 

If  now  these  remarks  should  seem  to  any 
one  to  be  speculative  and  refined  rather  than 
true  and  well  founded,  let  him  remember,  that 
it  is  the  object  of  all  language,  not  alone  to 
excite  the  same  thought  in  the  mind  of  others, 
but  also  so  to  excite  the  same  thought,  that  it 
may  be  conceived,  and  as  it  were  felt,  in  the 
same  manner.  Hence,  wherever  language  is 
most  highly  cultivated,  the  more  does  it  abound 
in  the  use  of  particles  ;  whose  chief  province 
it  is  to  indicate  modes  and  relations,  and  as  it 
were  render  them  obvious  to  the  senses.  Thus 
it  is  not  surprising,  that  the  Hebrew  language 
should  need  to  employ  whole  phrases,  where 
in  Greek  one  verb  compounded  or  connected 
with  a  preposition,  is  sufficient. 

We  may  farther  remark,  that  when  a  prepo- 
sition is  subjoined  to  a  verb  already  com- 
pounded with  another  preposition,  it  is  done  in 
order  to  designate  more  accurately  the  relations 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  257 

of  those  things,  the  idea  of  which  is  conjoined 
with  the  verb,  i.  e,  that  the  designation  of  all 
the  adjuncts  and  circumstances  of  the  verb 
may   be    complete.       Thus    in    the    phrases, 

yiTv  a'TTo  rrig  7^5,  no  one  can  doubt  for  a  moment, 
that  the  prepositions  are  not  redundant. 

We  turn  now  to  the  consideration  of  the 
various  modes,  in  which  the  force  of  the  pre- 
positions is  exhibited  in  compound  verbs.  Our 
examples,  so  far  as  possible,  will  all  be  drawn 
from  the  New  Testament. 

The  force  of  the  preposition  in  a  compound 
verb,  is  in  general  of  a  twofold  nature.  It 
either  changes  the  signification  of  the  verb,  so 
that  the  idea  expressed  by  the  compound  is  a 
difi^rent  one  from  that  of  the  simple  verb ;  as 
in  s^siv  to  have,  k'T:iyji^  to  abstain,  avsyjtv  to  sus- 
tain ;  ahi7v  to  ask,  airairitv  to  deprecate  ;  aXyuv  to 
sorroiv,  a-^aXys/i/  to  banish  sorrow ;  xakh-rziv  to 
conceal,  d'::oxakb'7:riiv  to  disclose;  ffo<pt(^iiv  to  en- 
lighten, xaTac()(piZ^iiv  to  delude  ; — or  else  the  pre- 
position so  modifies  the  meaning  of  the  simple 
verb,  that  although  the  same  idea  is  expressed, 
yet  it  is  expressed  under  some  certain  relation 
and  in  a  different  manner.  As  to  the  first  of 
these  cases,  there  is  no  question ;  it  is  (so  to 
speak)   palpable,    that  such   compounds  have 

VOL.  II,  s 


258  GREEK    PREPOSITIONS 

significations  different  from  those  of  the  cor- 
responding simple  verbs.  The  only  matter  of 
dispute  is,  respecting  the  second  class  of  com- 
pounds, viz.,  those  in  which  the  main  idea  is 
the  same  as  in  the  simple  verbs.  And  it  is 
chiefly  because  the  diversity  in  the  relations  of 
things  is  so  manifold,  and  the  modes  of  con- 
ception in  respect  to  the  same  thing  so  various, 
and  because  these  modes  and  relations  again 
are  sometimes  so  indefinite  and  abstruse,  that 
the  custom  has  arisen  in  regard  to  this  class  of 
verbs,  of  aflftrming  as  a  rule,  that  compound 
verbs  often  signify  nothing  different  from,  or 
more  than,  the  corresponding  simple  verbs. 
Hence  also  comes  the  habit  of  loosely  aflfirm- 
ing,  sometimes  that  the  prepositions  do  not 
change  the  meaning  of  the  simple  verbs,  some- 
times that  no  accession  of  meaning  is  made  by 
them  to  the  simple  verbs,  and  again,  that  no 
emphasis  is  produced  in  such  cases  by  preposi- 
tions.    This  ambiguity  needs  to  be  removed. 

We  suppose,  then,  that  prepositions  in  this 
class  of  compound  verbs,  have  this  force,  viz., 
that  although  the  thing  expressed  by  the  com- 
pound verb  is  the  same  with  that,  the  notion 
of  which  is  contained  in  the  simple  verb,  yet 
in  the  compound  verb,  it  is  conceived  of  or 
apprehended  under  a  difterent  relation,  and  in 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  259 

a  different  mode.  By  relation^  I  here  mean 
that  relation  which  has  place  among  the  things 
or  adjuncts  which  are  connected  with  the  verb  ; 
by  mode^  I  understand  the  way  or  manner  in 
which  the  conception  or  apprehension  of  these 
adjuncts  affects  the  mind.  We  shall  treat  of 
both  of  these  successively. 

I.  The  causes  or  sources  of  the  ideas  of  re- 
lation, are  the  same  circumstances  by  which 
the  things  or  adjuncts  themselves  are  connected 
together,  viz,,  time,  place  or  space,  and  the 
connexion  of  cause  and  effect.  It  is,  indeed, 
the  peculiar  province  of  the  prepositions,  to 
point  out  these  relations. 

1.  When  therefore  a  preposition  is  com- 
pounded with  a  verb,  it  may  serve,  in  the  first 
place,  to  mark  the  relation  of  time  which  exists 
between  two  things,  or  to  indicate  that  one 
of  them  may  be  the  antecedent  of  the  other. 
Thus  when  one  is  said  hiZiiv  n,  he  is  indeed 
conceived  of  as  having  determined  something, 
but  ivhe7i  he  determined  it  is  left  uncertain  ; 
although  it  might  perhaps  be  conjectured  from 
other  circumstances.  But  when,  for  instance, 
it  is  to  be  so  expressed  as  to  imply,  that  he 
came  to  the  determination  before  the  persons 
whom  it  is  to  affect  were  alive,  he  would  be 
properly  said   'z^oo^fC^sr^,  to  fore-determine ;  and 


260  GREEK  PREPOSITIONS 

it  is  therefore  entirely  false  to  say,  as  very 
many  clo,^  that  t^oop/I^siv  denotes  nothing  more 
than  the  simple  o^'l^nv.  The  same  is  the  case 
with  the  verbs  yivdjaznv  and  crgoy/vw^xs/v.  When 
it  is  said  of  any  one,  eyvu  n,  we  conceive  of 
something  as  having  been  his  pleasure  or  de- 
termination ;  but  as  this  may  have  been  at  any 
indefinite  time,  when  we  wish  it  to  be  under- 
stood as  having  been  the  fact  a  long  time  since, 
or  of  old,  we  must  write  'Tr^osyvu.  Both  these 
instances  are  found  in  Rom.  viii.  29,  30.  In- 
deed, if  I  mistake  not,  it  is  this  very  passage  of 
Paul  that  has  given  the  chief  occasion  to  the 
rule  about  the  like  force  and  signification  of 
compound  and  simple  verbs.  The  authors  of 
this  precept  wished  to  take  away  all  ground 
from  those,  who  thought  they  perceived  in 
these  words,  traces  of  a  special  divine  favour 
towards  a  certain  class  of  persons. 

2.  The  relation  oi place  or  of  space,  is  three- 
fold. We  may  conceive  of  any  thing  as  in  a 
place,  as  being  removed  fro?n  a  place,  and  as 
coming  to  a  place.  It  is  the  office  also  of  the 
prepositions,  when  joined  with  verbs,  to  indi- 
cate one  or  the  other  of  these  relations.  No- 
thing can  be  more  obvious  than  this;  for  who 

•  Wahl  has  very  properly  abstained  from  precepts  of  tliis 
sort — Author. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  261 

will  deny  that  the  compound  verbs  am^aivsiv, 
zara^aivsiVy  dvajSdXXuv,  zaTa(3aXXstv,  dvdysiv,  zard- 
ynv,  d-e^'y^io'^a.i,  'nooa'i^yjG^ai,  signify  more  than  the 
corresponding  simple  ones?  And  yet,  in  respect 
to  certain  similar  verbs  in  the  New  Testament, 
interpreters  are  accustomed  to  teach,  that  their 
signification  does  not  differ  from  that  of  the 
simpl(?  verbs.  Thus  dvaGnvd'Citv^  Mark  viii.  12, 
they  say,  has  simply  the  meaning  to  sigh,  and 
not  to  sigh  deeply,  and  is  therefore  used  here  in 
the  same  sense  as  (snvdZiiv.  But  although  we 
concede  that  dvacnvdZiiv  does  not  in  itself,  per 
se,  denote,  to  sigh  deeply,  yet  it  differs  in  signi- 
fication from  the  simple  ffnvdl^uv.  The  latter 
indicates  simply  that  one  sighs  ;  but  the  pre- 
position being  prefixed,  causes  us  to  conceive 
of  him  as  drawing  his  sighs  upicard  from  the 
very  bottom  of  his  breast;  just  as  we  have  in 
English  the  distinction  between  a  sigh  and  a 
deep  or  deep  drawn  sigh.  In  this  way  the  com- 
pound is  much  stronger  than  the  simple  verb. 
When  the  same  interpreters  also  affirm,  that 
dva'TrXrjoovv  means  nothing  more  than  tXyi^ouv,  it  is 
the  same  as  if  we  should  say  in  English,  that 
there  is  no  difference  of  meaning  in  the  verbs 
to  Jill,  to  Jill  up,  to  Jill  out,  to  fulfil,  &c. 

The  arguments  by  which  this  opinion  has 
been  usually  supported,  are  chiefly  two ;  Jirst, 


262  GREEK  PREPOSITIONS 

that  both  simple  and  compound  verbs  are  em- 
ployed promiscuously  in  the  same  or  similar 
constructions  and  phrases,  e.  g.^  ffrivd^nv  and 
dvaffTSvd^siv,  rrX'/jPovv  tov  vo/xov  and  dvarrXriooZv  rh 
voiMov  secondly^  that  both  simple  and  compound 
verbs  are  employed  promiscuously  in  the  New 
Testament,  as  corresponding  to  the  same  He- 
brew verbs.  These  arguments,  however,  are 
easily  set  aside.  In  the  first  place,  although 
the  simple  verb  contains  the  notion  of  the  same 
thing,  so  that  whether  the  simple  or  compound 
verb  be  employed,  the  mind  receives  the  same 
general  idea,  and,  on  this  account,  in  many 
phrases,  both  the  simple  and  compound  verb 
may  be  used  promiscuously ;  yet  this  does  not 
take  place  because  the  compound  does  not  sig- 
nify something  more  than  the  simple  verb,  but 
because  the  true  force  and  meaning  which  the 
simple  verb  here  expresses,  is  gathered  from 
the  other  words  of  the  sentence,  or  because  the 
use  of  the  simple  verb,  as  is  often  the  case,  im- 
parts strength  to  the  expression.  Although, 
therefore,  we  may  concede,  that  ava-s-X^j^oDv  rh 
voij^ov  and  ctXjjpoDv  tov  vo/xov,  may  be  said  in  the 
same  sense,  yet  it  does  not  thence  follow,  that 
dva'x}.r,p(j\jv  and  'jX^ovv  are  synonymous,  nor  that 
the  compound  does  not  differ  from  the  simple 
verb.     If  they  were  synonymous,  then  crX^j^oDv 


IN  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  263 

might  be  employed  wherever  dva-Xri^ovv  is  used, 
which,  however,  no  one  would  be  ready  to  ad- 
mit. When  also  it  is  said,  that  Mark  uses 
sometimes  cnvdZiiv,  and  sometimes  dvacnvat^siv^ 
and  that  this  is  a  sure  proof  that  these  verbs 
do  not  differ  in  sense,  the  assertion  is  too  ob- 
viously unfounded  to  demand  a  refutation.  In 
the  second  place,  it  is  said  that  both  simple 
and  compound  verbs  often  correspond  to  the 
same  Hebrew  verbs,  and  that  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  have  everywhere  translated 
the  same  Hebrew  verbs,  now  by  compound, 
and  now  by  the  corresponding  simple  verbs ; 
so  that  it  would  appear  that  all  verbs  com- 
pounded with  prepositions  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, are  to  be  regarded  as  being,  in  them- 
selves, of  equal  force  and  significancy  with  the 
simple  verbs/  Yet  those  who  are  skilled  in 
both  these  languages,  and  know  the  compara- 
tive poverty  of  the  Hebrew,  will  easily  under- 
stand of  themselves,  that  no  other  conclusion 
can  justly  be  drawn  from  this  circumstance, 
than  tliat  the  Greek  writer  was  able,  by  means 
of  compound  verbs,  to  express  various  relations 
of  things,  which  the  Hebrew  writer  could  only 
indicate  by  one  and  the  same  simple  verb,  the 

f  Fischer,  1,  c  p.  124. 


264  GREEK  PREPOSITIONS 

Hebrew  language  being  wholly  destitute  of 
compound  verbs. 

The  truth  of  the  remarks  which  we  have 
made  above,  in  regard  to  the  relations  of  place, 
which  the  prepositions  in  compound  verbs  so 
often  serve  to  designate,  is  most  conspicuously 
exhibited  in  those  verbs  which  are  compounded 
with  two  or  three  prepositions.  In  verbs  of 
this  sort,  two  or  three  relations  of  place,  with 
reference  to  the  same  thing,  are  presented  at 
once  to  the  mind,  and,  as  it  were,  to  the  senses. 
And  he  would  be  in  a  great  error  who  should 
suppose  that  one  or  two  of  these  prepositions 
were  redundant.  The  Scholiast  on  Apollon. 
Rhod.  III.  665,  says  of  the  word  sTi'^r^ofioXovcoc 
very  absurdly,  tts^ittsusi  rj  I'jri  iroo^icig^  '  the  pre- 
position It/  is  redundant;'  for  the  sense  is, 
not  only  that  she  went  out  of  doors  ('ttpq),  but 
that  she  also,  at  the  sametime,  came  up  to  or 
upon^  supervenisse  (sfri) ;  and  the  compound  verb 
expresses  both  these  relations.  Very  clear 
examples  are  also  found  in  the  Homeric  com- 
pounds, u'Tr s'^amdvg,  Iliad  XIII.  652,  and  s^vruv- 
sffryj,  ib.  II.  267,  which  led  Eustathius  himself 
(217,  17)  to  a  fuller  and  more  careful  expli- 
cation of  the  force  of  the  several  prepositions. 
Many  words  of  this  kind  are  also  found  in  the 
New  Testament,  but  there  are  few  of  them 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  265 

which  have  not  been  inconsiderately  marked 
by  lexicographers  with  the  usual  sign,  i.  q.,  im- 
plying that  they  are  merely  synonymous  with 
the  simple  verbs.  We  give  here  some  ex- 
amples. 

' AvTava'TrXyj^ovv.  This  occurs  once.  Col.  i.  24, 
where  it  is  said  to  be  the  same  as  dva-TrXriPoZv. 
But  this  is  wrong,  for  avrcAacrXriPouv  is  not  simply 
to  Jill  up,  but  it  is  to  Jill  up  instead  o/'something 
else,  i,  e.,  so  as  to  supply  the  place  of  some- 
thing which  fails  to  compensate.  So  in  the 
examples  cited  in  the  note  below.^  Hence  the 
words  of  Paul,  avrava'jr'kyiooj  ra  ii(STS^ri[J^(x.ra  ruv 
^X/'-xJ/sw!)  rou  X^/<rroD  Iv  da^yJ  /xoj,  are  not  properly 
to  be  translated  as  they  are  usually  given,  / 
Jill  up  what  yd  rcmaineth  of  afflictions^  i.  e.,  as 
they  say,  I  endure.  For  {/(yrsprj/x-a,  both  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testament,  does  not  denote  what 
remains^  reliquum,  but  ivhat  fails,  defectum. 
Hence  b6Tior,iMara  rwv  ^Xz-vj^swi/  is  literally  the  de- 
ficiency of  or  in  afflictions,  i.  e.,  the  afflictions 

s  Deniosth.  ^t^)  2v^jC«o«.  p.  182,  20,  tovtmv  ll  tuv  ffvf^fio^iuv 
IxdffTnv    "^n^i-iTv  TciXivu   ^ivTt  /t*£^>j  KciTa  ^oihiKa  av^^ecs,    dvrava- 


■TrXyiPOVVTBiS    <T60S    TOV    tVTrO^UTOCTOV    ceil    Tou;    cc^o^cotxtous- 


Dio 


Cass.  XijIV.  48,  'Iv  'ivot  xaB-'  iKxa-Tov  oclruv  hihu — rovTO  Ix. 
T^j  <!rapa,  ruv  eiWuv  ffuvri'ki'ia.s  uvrKvccrX'/i^uB^.  Apollon. 
Alex,  de  Synt.  I.  p.  19.  iSylb.  h  dvruvuf^icx. — ctvravx'Trkn^ouaa. 
xati  T7IV  B-iffiv  Tov  ovofiaTOS,  xat  Ttiv  t«|<v  too  prif>e,ci<ros.  III.  J'. 
2'55,  "v  ixan^x  dvravaTkn^uB-ri  rod  XiiTfovros.    Ibid.  p.  'ioO. 


266  GREEK  PREPOSITIONS 

which  are  still  deficient,  or  wanting,  as  in  I 
Cor.  XVI.  17,  rh  u/xwv  bgrsprjfjja  oZroi  avsTXr/PUffai', 
your  deficiency  these  have  supplied^  comp.  Phil, 
ii.  30.  In  the  passage  before  us,  therefore, 
dvrccvaTXyj^u  ra  bcrsoTifxaTa  roJv  '^Xj-^^sojv  rov  Xpigtov 
sv  ffa^Ttl  f/.ou,  the  sense  is,  '  I  supply,  i.  e.,  com- 
pensate, make  good,  that  which  is  yet  wanting 
to  me  of  the  afflictions  which  I  endure  for 
Christ's  sake  ucrs^  u^awp,  in  your  behalf,  or,  r<Z 
•JIJ.COV  'TTioiGcrjfj.ari,  that  ye  may  the  more  abound, 
2  Cor.  viii.  14.  The  apostle  had  just  said, 
viiv  %a/|w  ToTg  '7ta^7i(i,a6iv  i/Ts^  'j/xwi',  /  now  rejoice  in 
suffering  for  yon, 

' Kvra'Koh'ihwiu.  Fischer,  in  treating  of  this 
word,  endeavous  to  shew,  that  the  preposition 
am  often  has  no  force  in  composition.  But  in 
all  the  passages  of  the  ]New  Testament  where 
this  word  occurs,  dvri  has  manifestly  its  own 
peculiar  power,  as  denoting  opposition  or  re- 
ciprocity. So,  Rom.  xi.  35,  r\  tic,  rr^osdcAjxsv  uvtu) 
xal  di/TWTrodo^yjffsrat  avrui,  or  ivho  hath  first  given 
to  him,  and  it  shall  he  requited  unto  him.  2 
Thess.  1.  6,  di'Twrodovvai  ToTg  ^X/[3ovffiv  b/j^ag  ^X/'-^'/v, 
to  requite  affliction  to  those  ivho  affict  you.  The 
same  force  exists  in  the  substantives  dvrwzodo/j.u 
and  dvrccn^dofftg.  In  Col.  iii.  24,  dvra'rodoffig  TT/g 
■/.Xrioovoiuag  does  not  signify  the  reward  of  piety, 
for   •jO.yioaniucf.  never  has  this  sense ;   but   the 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  267 

genitive  here,  as  elsewhere,  expresses  the  thing 
itself  in  which  t)  ayraToooc/g,  the  reward,  requital, 
consists. 

' Avra-TTcyt^voij^ai.  This  is  not,  as  is  often  said, 
simply  to  answer,  but  carries  the  idea  of  reci- 
procity, to  ansiver  in  turn,  to  respond  to  the 
icords  of  another,  to  reply.  So,  Luke  xiv.  6, 
oh-K  'i^ynjGav  dvra'7ro7i^i'^r,i/cci  avrui  'Tr^og  ravra,  they 
ivere  not  able  to  reply  to  those  things,  viz.,  which 
Jesus,  answering,  d'jro-^ot^zig,  v.  5,  had  demand- 
ed of  them.  Hence,  in  Rom.  ix.  20,  it  denotes 
to  contend.  Interpreters  might  have  learned 
from  this  one  passage,  that  the  preposition  in 
this  word  is  not  superfluous. 

'Avr/crccosop^o/xa/.  It  is  true  that  there  is  no- 
thing emphatic  in  this  word,  Luke  x.  31,  32, 
but  it  is  false  that  it  is  the  same  as  the  simple 
rra^z^yjiixat.  The  sense  is,  that  the  priest  and 
levite  not  only  passed  hy  the  wounded  man, 
but  that  they  passed  by  on  the  opposite  side  of 
the  way,  i.  e.,  they  did  not  even  approach  him, 
(comp.  V.  34,)  but,  as  soon  as  they  saw  him  at 
a  distance,  took  their  course  as  far  from  him  as 
possible. 

'ATTsx^j^o/xa/.  Here  is  no  emphasis;  but  the 
compound,  of  itself,  signifies  more  than  the 
simple  verb.  The  latter  means  to  expect,  to 
look  out  for,  to  wait  for,  but  the  compound  sig- 


268  GREEK    PREPOSITIONS 

iiifies  to  wait  for  to  the  end,  to  icait  oid,  as  I 
have  shewn,  de  Synoiiymis  N.  T.  c.  VI. 

'Arsx^jo/xa/.  This  is  said  to  be  the  same 
with  d'Trodvofjbai  and  szdvo/jLau  But  the  force  of 
dvo  and  h  here,  is  the  same  as  in  the  preced- 
ing word.  Both  dToduofj.at  and  hdvo/xai  signify 
to  put  off,  to  strip  off,  but  with  this  difference, 
that  in  d'7rodvo{ia/,  the  attention  is  directed  more 
to  the  thi7ig  which  is  put  off,  while  in  hdvo/^ai, 
the  person  is  more  prominent,  who  puts  off  or 
lays  aside  any  thing  in  which  he  was  before 
enveloped.  Comp.  2  Cor.  v.  3,  4.  In  a^s?t- 
dvofMai  therefore,  both  these  ideas  are  combined, 
so  that  it  signifies  to  put  or  strip  off  icholly,  ex- 
cutere.  So,  Col.  ii.  15,  dT£x.dvffdfMsvog  rag  doydg, 
is  (in  the  proper  sense  of  the  middle  voice) 
excutiens  potestates,  despoiling  principalities.^ 
The  same  sense  occurs  in  Col.  iii.  9,  d'zszovGd- 
(Mvjoi  rov  'TraXaiov  av'^^oo-ov,  i.  e.,  wholly  putting  off, 
utterly  renouncing  the  old  man  and  his  deeds. 
There  is  here  no  need  of  having  recourse  to 
Hebraism, 

'E-Tam-Tauo/xa/  is  not  the  same  with  ccvara-Jo^aa/. 
The  latter  is  simply  to  rest,  the  former  signi- 

''  So  Cicero,  Oral,  pro  Leg.  Jgrar.  II.  GO  or  23,  impera- 
tores  excutiant.  The  passages  adduced  by  Perizonius,  ad 
AUian.  II.  30,  are  of  the  same  nature.  More  correctly 
Dresig,  de  Verbis  Med.  I.  17. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  269 

fies  to  rest  upon,  as  Luke  x.  6,  then  to  lean 
upon,  to  confide  in,  as  if  to  rest  secure,  e.  g.,  rp 
vo/x-w,  Rom.  ii.  17.  'Ayacrausff^a/  is  not  used  in 
this  sense.^ 

'Ecravso^sff^a/  expresses  more  than  avs^;/so'^a/. 
The  latter  signifies  simply  to  return  in  general, 
but  in  the  former  there  lies  the  idea  of  return- 
ing  to  the  same  place.  So,  Luke  x.  35,  h  r'Xi 
s^Kvs^^sa'^a/  fjjs,  when  I  shall  return  hither 
again.     Comp.  Luke  xix.  15. 

'EvTsxT-s/vstr^a/  is  incorrectly  said  to  be  the 
same  with  sxtuvuv.  But  it  is  more,  for  h'jtnrrziv 
is  simply  to  extend,  but  l^sxrs/vgff^a/  is  equivalent 
to  szTsivsG^ai  Tgo;  Ti,  to  extend  one's  self  towards 
any  thing.  So,  in  Phil.  iii.  14,  roT;  ds  i/ju-r^oc^iv 
s-TTSTtnmfjjivog,  q.  d.,  rrohg  ra  'i/M'r^oG^iv  s-athvo/mvoc, 
reaching  forth  towards  those  tilings  which  are 
before. 

H^ox.arayysXXiiv,  to  announce  before  liand,  and 
'Tgo;caragr/^s/i/,  to  prepare  before  hand,  express 
more,  as  all  concede,  than  the  simple  verbs 
■/.aTayyiX>s.uv  and  -AaraoTiliiv.  Why  then,  in  the 
case  of  'Trpoyivojg/cu  and  'x^ooojl^siv,  should  interpre- 
ters deny  that  the  preposition  adds  any  thing 
to  the  signification  of  the  verb?  Because,  for- 
sooth,  there  seems   to   be   nothing   emphatic. 

'  See  Wetstein  ad  h.  loc. 


270  GREEK  PREPOSITIONS 

They  are  indeed  safe  as  to  emphasis,  but  they 
ought  not  to  have  taught  so  inconsiderately, 
that  the  same  preposition  is  significant  in  some 
verbs,  and  superfluous  in  others. 

These  examples  may  serve  to  remind  inter- 
preters of  the  New  Testament,  that  they  ought 
to  proceed  with  more  caution  and  accuracy  in 
investigating  the  force  of  prepositions  in  com- 
pound verbs. "^ 

^  It  may  be  proper  to  remark  here,  for  the  sake  of  learners, 
that  the  Greeks,  in  compounding  verbs  with  several  pre- 
positions at  once,  have  taken  care  to  place  the  prepositions 
in  the  order  in  which  the  ideas  themselves  naturally  succeed 
one  another.  Thus,  when  ava^vuvf  to  emerge,  is  compounded 
with  the  two  prepositions  vt'o  and  s^,  (not  'hvsiv  with  three,) 
the  former,  v-^o,  is  put  first,  because  it  is  a  more  natural 
order  of  thought,  first  to  conceive  of  the  person  emerging 
Tov  aya^t/avra  as  rising  up  from  a  lower  place,  and  then  as 
coming  out  or  forth ;  to  Avhich  then  dvu^vti^t  is  also  very 
jiearly  allied.     So  also  l^dyu,  Wi^dyu,  avnTi^dyco. 

I  have  here  gone  upon  the  supposition,  that  in  verbs  of 
this  sort,  {uTi^avec^vitv,  avTefpri^dyuv,)  only  the  two  first  pre- 
positions are  to  be  taken  into  account ;  and  the  same  is  the 
case  with  several  of  the  verbs  adduced  in  the  text.  The 
reason  is,  that  the  third  preposition,  which  stands  next  to 
the  simple  verb,  and  is  first  compounded  with  it,  has,  in 
these  instances,  the  effect  of  changing  the  meaning  of  the 
simple  verb,  i.  e.,  of  expressing,  in  conjunction  with  the 
simple  verb,  a  new  and  difierent  meaning,  which  the  verb 
would  not  Itear  without  it ;  and  therefore,  in  such  cases,  this 
preposition  cannot  be  taken  as  distinct  from  this  verb.  It 
will  l)e  obvious  to  every  one,  that  the  full  idea  expressed  by 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  271 

3.  In  the  last  place,  the  force  of  preposi- 
tions in  composition  is  further  shewn,  in  that 
they  serve  to  indicate  the  relation  of  cause  and 
effect.    This  relation,  however,  is  so  extensive, 

i^iyuv  and  avuhviiv,  is  not  contained  in  ayuv  and  ^Jj/v.  Hence 
it  may  happen,  that  to  verbs  ah-eady  compounded  with  a 
preposition,  another  preposition  may  be  prefixed,  which  shall 
sometimes  counterbalance  or  take  away  again  the  significa- 
tion produced  by  the  junction  of  the  first  preposition,  e.  g.^ 
avvayw,  to  collect,  etTro/ruvKyca,  to  disperse,  ffvffffiTiu,  to  eat  to- 
gether, tt.'^otTvaaiTiu,  not  to  eat  together.  Still,  however,  the 
signification  of  the  first  compound  must  here  be  retained 
and  regarded.  [Indeed,  the  force  of  the  preposition  last 
added,  goes  to  modify  only  this  signification,  and  not  that  of 
the  simple  verb.  Thus,  in  u.-Troirvvu.yei),  the  effect  of  a^o  in 
composition  is  very  different,  according  as  it  is  prefixed  to 
(Tviiayu  or  a.yu'  in  the  latter  case  {a'Trdyu)  it  denotes  merely 
to  lead  away  ;  in  the  former  {icTroffwdyu)  it  signifies  '  to  lead 
or  cause  to  go  away  that  which  had  previously  been  brought 
together,  i.  e.,  to  disperse — Ed.] 

It  is  on  these  grounds  that  the  reading  tiocTra.^a.T^ifia,)  for 
^agx^ictr^ifoai,  1  Tim  vi.  5,  Avhich  is  found  in  some  manu- 
scripts, seems  to  me  to  be  false.  The  verb  ^ra^ar^ilisiv,  to  rub 
upon  or  against,  is  not  used  in  the  sense  here  required,  but 
'hiocr^tfhuv,  to  rub  in  pieces,  wear  away ;  whence  ^ia.T^tP>h,  a 
wearing  away  e.  g.  of  time,  leisure  occupation,  listlessness  ; 
and  thence  5ra^a^/«T^//3>7.  I  know,  indeed,  that  Suidas  has 
explained  •^a.^a.T^t^h  by  Xoyofj!,a,^ia,,  disputation,  in  the  words 
of  an  uncertain  author,  t^v  yivo/Aivtjv  t^os  aln-ov  -ra^ctr^t^hv  xod 
Z,nXoTV9ritx,v.  But  it  would  seem  rather  to  denote  here  colli- 
sion, or,  as  we  Avould  say  in  common  life,  rubs.  The  apostle 
is  speaking  of  the  vain  desires  and  tendencies  (Theophylact 
very  properly,  (/.UTaiai  tr^^okas)  of  lii^B-aofiivuv  ui^^uTuv  voZv, 


272  GREEK  PREPOSITIONS 

that  we  cannot  be  surprised  to  find  interpre- 
ters of  the  New  Testament  involved  in  various 
errors,  while  attempting  to  observe  and  to  ex- 
plain it.  We  have  said  that  the  relation  of 
cause  and  effect,  as  here  understood,  is  that  re- 

Tuv  ve/^i^ovTuv  9fo^ifffx.ov  ilvat  T>jv  iixrifiitav,  men  of  corrupt  mind, 
who  regard  gain  as  godliness.  The  idea  of  contention  is 
foreign  from  his  object.  Indeed  he  expressly  declares  ras 
^arriffus  xeii  Xeyofia^^ias ,  questionings  and  strifes  about  words, 
to  be  the  cause  of  these  Ta^oihtar^tfiai.,  listless  occupations, 
empty  employment  of  time.  On  this  account  I  prefer  the 
common  reading,  although  the  other  is  found  in  many  manu- 
scripts. The  reading  appears  to  have  already  varied  in  the 
earliest  ages,  to  judge  from  Chrysostom's  exposition  of  the 
passage.  He  gives  a  double  interpretation,  one  of  whicli 
strictly  pertains  to  -;rei^a^iet<r^i(i»,  and  tlie  other  to  '^ta.^a.^ar^i^ri. 
His  words  are  found  Homil.  xvii.  in  Ep.  I.  ad  Tim.  '1  om. 
XI.    6*48,   dtttTaoar^ifiat  '  vouricm  ff^oXvi  rj   ^ictTot/s,'^ '   vi   tovto 

lio(/,iva  v'offou  xat  to.  vyicttvovrct  luTri-rXyiffiv,  outu  ko.)  ol  Tovn^oi 
av^^sf.  '  The  word  ha-ra^etT^tl^ai  signiries  Iciauie  or  leisure 
employment.  Or  hxTru^ar^ifiai  may  mean  thus  :  as  the  scabby 
part  among  the  flocks,  by  coming  in  contact  with  the  rest, 
(ir«^«T^//SajCt£ya,  rubbing  against  them,)  communicate  disease 
to  the  healthy,  so  also  these  wicked  men.'  In  this  extract  I 
can  scarcely  doubt,  but  that,  instead  of  the  first  ^laTa^ar^tfiai, 
we  ought  to  read  wec^othiccr^ifiai.  Tlieophylact  also  a]»])ea:s 
to  have  had  both  readings  before  hiin,  but  (Ecumenius  ex- 
plains "^lavra^ctT^ipiai  in  the  same  manner  as  t^hrysostoni. 
But  even  granting  that  hec^a^uT^tfiat  were  the  correct  read- 
ing, it  certainly  does  not  here  mean  perverse  disputations, 
but  rather  pertinacious  contentions  or  collisions.  Zonaras 
♦'xplains  ^lUTa^ur^ifih  by  ivhktx'-'"^)  dura/ion. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  273 

lation  in  which  the  thing  signified  by  the  verb, 
whether  action  or  condition,  stands  connected 
either  with  the  object  of  the  verb,  or  with  the 
person  or  thing  of  which  the  condition  or  action 
expressed  by  the  verb  is  predicated,  i.  e,,  the 
subject  of  the  verb.  Of  the  former  kind  are 
the  verbs  xaraysXa v,  xarayysXXs/v,  '/.aru^ivsiv,  zarrr 
yo^iTvf  smvosTVf  xaravos/P,  'TTs^ivoiTv,  for  in  all  these 
the  preposition  refers  to  the  person  or  thing 
which  is  the  object  of  the  action.  Of  the  lat- 
ter kind  are  hvosTv,  d/avoih^cciy  moysTvy  h^viuTs^ai^ 
where  the  preposition  points  to  the  subject  of 
the  verb.  The  distinction  between  these  two 
modes  of  this  relation,  is  not  always  easy  to  be 
observed.  It  is  here,  indeed,  that  we  are  to 
look  for  a  great  part  of  the  nicety  and  elegance 
of  language  in  general,  and  especially  of  the 
Greek,  which  abounds  particularly  in  verbs  of 
this  sort.  It  is  therefore  not  surprising,  that, 
since  the  Hebrew  is  wholly  destitute  of  such 
verbs,  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  should 
employ  sometimes  compound  verbs,  and  some- 
times the  phrases  by  which  the  idea  was  cir- 
cumscribed in  Hebrew,  e.  g.^  Rom.  viii.  23, 
GTivdZ^ofjjiv  h  eavToTg,  but  Mark  viii.  12,  dmffrsvd^ag 
TuJ  'TrvsCfj.aru  But  it  would  be  a  false  supposition 
to  regard  the  preposition  as  merely  pleonastic 
in  constructions  of  this  sort.     There  are  also 

VOL.  II.  T 


274  GREEK  PREPOSITIONS 

verbs,  and  chiefly  of  the  first  kind  above-men- 
tioned, in  which  the  preposition  is  to  be  refer- 
red to  the  very  idea  or  thing  expressed  by  the 
verb   itself,  more  especially  in  verbs  formed 
from  a  substantive  or  adjective ;  and  in  these, 
too,  it  would  be  a  great  mistake,   to  say  that 
the  preposition  had  no  force  at  all.     The  verb 
dt/affrauoouv  is  an  example,  which  some  inter- 
preters have  absurdly  rendered,  to  fix  again  to 
the  cross;  while  others,  with  equal  incorrect- 
ness, have  affirmed  that  the  preposition  avu  is 
without  any  force.     There  is  indeed  no  em- 
phasis attached  to  the  preposition ;  but  yet  it 
does  as  it  were  point  to  the  thing  or  object 
contained  in  the  verb  itself,  and  thus  cause  it 
to  be  more  vividly  expressed ;  it  points  to  the 
tfraypoc,  and  indicates  the  very  act  by  which 
any  one  is  affixed  to  the  cross ;  just  as  also 
avac-A.oko'TTi^iiVi  to  impale,  is  employed.  Although, 
theretore,  it  may  be  conceded,  that  the  same 
general  idea  might  be  expressed  by  the  simple 
verb  crauooZv,  yet  it  would  be  less  definite  and 
lively;  and  the  preposition  is   therefore  not 
redundant,  but  indicates  the  relation  between 
the  action  and  the  object  of  the  action.     In 
compound  verbs  of  this  sort,    therefore,  the 
preposition  may  be  said  to  render  the  signifi- 
cation of  the  simple  verbs  more  full  and  dofi- 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  275 

nite  and  vivid.  This  is  clearly  apparent  in 
those  verbs,  whose  proper  signification  is  first 
produced  by  the  junction  of  a  preposition  ;  as 
am'/.i(paXa.mv  to  arrange  under  one  head,  "^^ox^'s'" 
^s/v  to  cause  to  he  at  hand,  zaroiziTv  to  divell, 
'/.araoTiZztv  to  repair,  and  the  like. 

II.  These  examples  lead  us  now  to  the  con- 
sideration of  that  other  species  of  force,  which 
we  have  ascribed  to  prepositions  in  composi- 
tion, viz.  that  through  their  influence  the  same 
thing  is  conceived  of  or  apprehended  in  a  diffe- 
rent mode.  By  mode  I  here  understand  the 
way  or  manner  in  which  the  thing  that  is  the 
object  of  thought  or  conception,  aifects  the 
mind.  Prepositions  have  then  also  this  force, 
viz.  that  by  changing  the  way  or  manner  in 
which  the  mind  itself  is  affected,  they  occasion 
a  different  mode  of  conception  or  of  apprehen- 
sion. For  since  the  mind  is  variously  affected 
according  to  the  various  ways  in  which  the 
object  of  thought  is  presented  to  it,  it  follows 
that  prepositions,  which  change  the  manner  of 
presenting  the  object  of  thought,  must  also 
change  the  force  of  the  verb  itself.  It  is  true 
indeed  that  another  class  of  particles,  the  con- 
junctions, are  the  appropriate  index  of  this  re- 
lation between  the  object  of  thought  and  the 
mind ;    yet  nevertheless  the  prepositions  also 


276  GREEK  PREPOSITIONS 

in  compound  verbs,  have  sometimes  the  same 
power,  and  render  the  thought  or  idea  of  the 
verb  stronger  and  more  vivid,  by  presenting 
it  in  such  a  way  as  more  strongly  to  affect  the 
mind. 

There  are  various  modes  of  this  kind ;  of 
which  we  can  designate  only  the  principal. 
It  would  carry  us  too  far,  to  enumerate  them 
all  in  detail.  But  the  nature  and  effect  of  any 
predicated  action  or  condition  presented  to  the 
mind,  by  which  the  mind  is  to  be  affected, 
may  be  said  to  stand  connected  with,  and  to 
be  particularly  dependent  upon,  the  accessory 
notions  of  inclination,  time,  and  place,  and  pro- 
j)er  efficiency  ;  and  when  the  prepositions  serve 
to  indicate  these,  they  augment  by  this  means 
the  power  with  which  the  main  idea  express- 
ed by  the  simple  verb,  affects  the  mind ;  so 
that  the  modus  cogitandi,  the  mode  in  which 
the  idea  of  the  verb  is  conceived  or  apprehend- 
ed, is  thus  changed. 

1.  Certain  prepositions,  compounded  with 
verbs,  serve  then,  in  the  first  place,  to  indi- 
cate a  special  inclination,  or  desire,  as  being 
conjoined  with  the  action  denoted  by  the 
verb ;  and  although  the  signification  itself  is  not 
increased  nor  extended  by  these  prepositions, 
yet  through  their   influence  a  thing  is  more 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  277 

vividly  conceived  of,  and  as  it  were  more  felt, 
than  if  merely  the  simple  verb  had  been  em- 
ployed. Those  who  have  not  been  able  to  form 
a  correct  judgment  in  respect  to  compound 
verbs  of  this  sort,  may  seem,  perhaps,  to  have 
a  partial  excuse  in  the  circumstance,  that  when 
the  proper  significations  of  the  prepositions, 
drawn  as  they  are  from  the  relations  of  tangible 
objects,  are  transferred  to  the  actions  of  the 
mind,  they  become  often  in  usage  so  refined 
and  attenuated,  that  their  true  nature  and  cha- 
racter are  no  longer  always  obvious.  Of  this 
kind  is  the  verb  zarapiXsM,  in  which  there  is 
manifestly  a  stronger  meaning,  than  in  the 
simple  verb ;  although,  as  interpreters  say, 
the  evangelists  have  used  both  verbs  promis- 
cuously and  without  distinction.  But  I  know^ 
not  by  what  right  they  afliirm,  that  this  com- 
pound does  not  difi'er  from  the  simple  verb  in 
the  New  Testament ;  when  they  concede  that 
in  other  Greek  writers  the  compound  has  a 
greater  force. 

2.  Related  to  this  is  the  second  mode  above 
pointed  out ;  when  prepositions  which  refer 
to  time  and  place  are  compounded  with  verbs, 
and  serve  to  show  a  greater  force  or  degree  of 
action,  and  thus  indicate  also  greater  inclina- 
tion.    Of  this  kind  are  many  verbs  compound- 


278  GREEK   PREPOSITIONS 

ed  with  the  preposition  did,  as  diar^iTv,  hiaxobm, 
diacrovsTVf  diacpvXdggnv.  This  preposition  proper- 
ly indicates  motion  through  space,  and  is  then 
also  spoken  of  the  time  during  the  flow  of 
which  any  thing  is  conceived  of  as  being  done 
or  taking  place ;  whence  also  it  is  likewise 
employed  to  designate  a  cause.  These  com- 
pound verbs  therefore  have  a  greater  force  and 
meaning,  because  they  imply,  that  the  action 
or  condition  expressed  by  the  verb  is  not  tran- 
sient, but  continues  until  the  whole  space  and 
time  to  which  it  refers,  shall  have  been  cover- 
ed by  it;  as  diaado^siv,  diaffa(psiv,  6/a^Ss/og/v,  di'i- 
cp^ug/^sff^a/.  Different  from  these  are  those 
compounds  in  which  the  proper  notion  of  place 
is  retained,  as  hiayysWur  which,  nevertheless, 
some  have  said,  is  nothing  more  than  synony- 
mous with  the  simple  ayy'iWuv. 

3.  The  third,  and  not  the  least  frequent 
mode  above  mentioned,  includes  those  verbs 
in  which  the  prepositions  increase  the  signifi- 
cancy  of  the  simple  verbs,  by  imparting  the 
idea  of  efficiency  ;  and  this  they  do  by  indicat- 
ing, that  the  condition  or  action  signified  by 
the  verb,  has  reference  to  the  ^ohole  thing,  and 
will  not  cease  until  the  whole  is  completed. 
Of  this  kind  are  a-ro^v^jtrxe/i/,  a'KoxTumv,  cLirdkityiiy^ 
dco^X/'/Sg/v,  Jx^uyg/V,  and  the  like,  which  are  com- 


IX  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  2/9 

monly  said  to  signify  nothing  more  than  the 
corresponding  simple  verbs.  We  grant,  in- 
deed, that  the  simple  verbs  may  present  to  the 
mind  the  same  main  idea,  but  yet  all  will  feel, 
that  it  must  affect  the  mind  in  a  different  man- 
ner ;  and  also  that  the  force  of  the  verb  is  aug- 
mented and  the  conception  itself  rendered 
more  vivid  and  intense  by  the  preposition ; 
since  it  represents  the  action  designated  by 
the  simple  verb  as  being  consummated  and  fi- 
nished. The  verb  dToxrs/i/g/v,  to  kill,  has  there- 
fore a  stronger  meaning;  because,  in  conse- 
quence of  a^o  we  conceive  of  the  slayer,  rh 
xr£/!/avra,  as  not  desisting  until  he  has  accom- 
plished his  purpose.  In  like  manner  acTo^v/j- 
6-/.ztv,  to  die,  is  stronger,  because  it  presents  the 
idea  of  actual  decease.  It  is  also  a  mistake  to 
say  that  acro^XZ/Ss/i/  is  the  same  with  the  simple 
^Xi(3nv,  to  press  ;  for  it  indicates,  not  only  that 
a  person  or  thing  is  pressed,  which  may  be 
done  on  one  side  only;  but  that  it  is  pressed 
wholly,  entirely,  on  every  side,  in  which  sense 
it  is  spoken  of  grapes.  It  is  likewise  false  to 
say  that  a^xdkuyii))  does  not  differ  from  the 
simple  y.uyiiv^  to  lick.  Luke  says  elegantly, 
Xvi.  21,  0/  Ttlivig  d'TtiXiiy^ov  rd  sk'/tri  alrov,  the  dogs 
licked  his  sores,  sc.  clean.  Who  does  not  per- 
ceive that  something  more  is  expressed  here, 


280  GREEK  PREPOSITIONS 

than  if  he  had  written  iXir/ov?  The  force 
which  is  thus  imparted  to  the  conception  of 
the  action,  is  also  augmented  by  repeating  the 
same  preposition  after  the  verb,  as  is  said 
above. 

There  is  still  another  class  of  verbs  under 
this  general  head,  which  are  very  numerous, 
and  in  respect  to  which  we  must  be  very  brief. 
Since  now  the  mind  is  more  excited,  when  it 
not  only  forms  a  conception  of  a  thing,  but 
also  sees  and  feels  it  as  it  were  delineated  in  all 
its  parts,  it  is  obvious,  that  those  compound 
verbs  will  have  the  greatest  force,  in  which 
the  prepositions  produce  such  a  full  and  com- 
plete image  of  the  thing  signified.  These  are 
chiefly  such  verbs  as  are  compounded  with 
two  or  more  prepositions.  Indeed,  it  was  neces- 
sary to  provide,  not  only  that  the  thing  designa- 
ted should  be  conceived  of  in  some  manner,  but 
also  that  it  should  be  conceived  of  in  some 
certain  manner;  and  that  the  mind  should  be 
filled  with  a  clear  image  of  it,  by  viewing  all 
the  circumstances  accurately  and  as  they  took 
place.  As  therefore  they  greatly  mistake, 
who  affirm  respecting  the  compounds  ucrejata^t)^, 
s^vTraviGTYi,  s'm'x^oixoLoZGa,  that  one  or  another  of 
these  prepositions  are  redundant ;  so  also  it  is 
a  false  position,  that  Ta^aTo^susff^a/,  cra^/si/a/,  bio- 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  281 

d?6siv,  and  other  like  verbs,  of  which  we  have 
spoken  above,  have  no  broader  signification 
than  the  corresponding  simple  ones.  For 
although  the  simple  verbs  may  present  to  the 
mind  the  same  general  idea,  yet  the  com- 
pounds describe  it  more  accurately,  so  that  we 
see  it,  as  it  were,  with  our  eyes ;  and  in  this 
way  they  excite  a  more  vivid  and  stronger 
conception  in  the  mind. 

Should  these  brief  observations  lead  any 
who  are  devoted  to  Greek  and  sacred  litera- 
ture, to  a  closer  investigation  of  the  force  of 
the  prepositions,  our  labour  will  not  have  been 
in  vain. 


END  OF  VOL.  II. 


J.   THOMSOX,  PRINTER,  MILNE  SQUARE. 


# 


Date  Due 

1 

1 

^ 

(^ 

r