Skip to main content

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

See other formats





r "■ — 


.^; ^H 



4J W 

^ ' 


c/i S 

3 • >^ 

'' -? 

tXOrH C 


3 00 
< 00 C 

: ^ ^ 

00 C 1 w 

rH C CO 


• c\3 r^ 0) 

to izi 

> x: r^ x: 

--H -M 
00 •-) 


PQ -^ ; 

1^ M 

'H e c ^ ^ 


<■ 4-> -H CO ; 


CO -H X CU ' 

PQ H Ct: 







4 . 


\ -^ 

\ ^ 







titxmann's synonyms of the new testament, 

&c. &c. &c. 














VOL. n. 





TAMENT .... 62 



Translated from the Original by Professor Robivso.v. 



Translated from the Original by Professor Robinson. 

Translated from the Original by Professor Robinson. 


TESTAMENT . . .183 

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


Translated from the Original by Professor Robiwson. 




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 



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. 


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. 


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- 


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. 


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 

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 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, 


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- 


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 


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- 


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 


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. 


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- 


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. 


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, 


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. 


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. 


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 ; 
bizaioc, does not revenge the crime, that is, 
he will not avenge it, for in such expressions. 


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. 


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- 


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 


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. 


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 


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- 


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,(, 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 


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. 



[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 

(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'' 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 


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 

d'TTozoivo/ 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 


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. ' 


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- 
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. 


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^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 

£-/.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. 


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 

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. 



(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' lllud studium, hoc operam 

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- 

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

(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. 


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' 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, 

(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. 


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- 


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[ difFerunt ut nostra helfen et heilen. 

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

^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. 

(/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. 


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

/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. 


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- 

'/.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 


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

yM.TO'TrT^ 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 


s/g doPav. 

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

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}. 


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' 


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 


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- 

/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. 


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

IMzra'xsfjj'TToiJMr 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. 

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


[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\, 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/ credo, 
opinor, existimo. v--7roAafjyj3dvu, suspicor. (ple- 
rumque de mala suspicione.) 

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


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 — 

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. 


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~ 

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 


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- 
o'jrr]- GTrriXaiov. Hebr. xi. 38. caverna — spelunca. 
vid. Valckenaer. ad Lennep. Etymol. L. Gr. p. 
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. 


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 

'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, 



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/ -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 


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. 


■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- 

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. 


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~ 

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

6av ha. cicwc/. 
'^To'soiJjOLt' rrrbooixat. s/M(po(3og ylvo/ 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 


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. 


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

anvo'^ojpso^ ^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 

(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. 


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. 


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 

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 


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. 


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- 

: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. 


<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 


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. 



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- 

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. 



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' 

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{- 

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

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

dyTTozPivo/JjUi' lyToXot/x/^a- 

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

d-roXvTPMffig' dXiCig djULUP- 


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. 

(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. 

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

dyoiTog- dyPYjcrog- (dvc>j- 

^pXric,) it 19, 30. 



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

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. 

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. 

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' 

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 

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



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

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

'TTooad'syo/icar 'TPOffdoy.soj. 

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


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

'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. 

hrccpdffGC/y h'TrXTirrw sx- 

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

(Jx(prjyoi V. (pivyM.) 

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 

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

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

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

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. 

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. 



(^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- 

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. 

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

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

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'") 

sTirayri v. hTOAr,. 


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 


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



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. 

iliGyjfiiLm' suyd^iffrog, ii. 

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

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. 

"^■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. 

^jatr^a/, i. 192. 
^s/or^j;* ^2or?3$, ii. 37. 

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

'^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. 

/£|&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/. 



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

(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.)'ji' '^T'j^ooj, ii. 38. 
zoc'/Ja' 'TtovYiDia.' xaytdg' 

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

■/.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. 

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

i. 128. 

zaraXXayyi v. haX\a.yn' 

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- 


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

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

diccipsvyoj' £X<pevyc*} v. 

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

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

jcars^oyC/a^w zaraz-j' 

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

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



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


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

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. 

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

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 

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. 



ratPC/j' fiiraivsu. 

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

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

/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. 

(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- 

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



[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;$* ivToXrj, 
voGog V. fjLaXuxia. 
voG(piZcfj' xAETrw, ii. 45. 
moTa^w xaOivdcij, ii. 46. 
^if&e* xaivog, ii. 46. 
^£1/0$' 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.) 



«;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. 

o,(Moiog' h[X(tic/ig v. /Cwc.»/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', 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. 

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

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

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

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

TaodXiog' cra^a.'^aXdffffiog, 

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

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

i^d.-rTTOiiMCL' dvOlMCL V. 

li. 50. 

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




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

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. 

'Xiidcc^yin' ■j'Trordffffiffdaiy 

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- 

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

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. 

TTovTi^ia' x-axiw irovri^og' 

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 

'TT^OSldoj' 'TTPOyiVOJffXOiJ. 

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

V. XccXsoj. 
rr^oedsyofxar rrPCffXa/ufSd- 


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

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

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



':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, 

pU'Tog' a-TrTXog. 

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

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- 

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- 

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. 

Gvvisvar vosn, ii. 56. 

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

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


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. 



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' ■, ii. 57. 
VTsvavriog v. d\/ridiy.oc, ii 

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- 

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

v'jroTdgffiGdar 'jrzi&aoyiTv, ii. 

^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' 

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

(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. 



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 


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 


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. 


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- 


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 


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 

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. 


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 



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 


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. 


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 


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 

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, 


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 


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 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 


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. 


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 


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- 


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 

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 


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 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 


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* 


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'^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- 


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- 


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 


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 

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, 


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. 


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." 


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 


in that prescribed by the syntax of the gram- 

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. 


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 


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. 



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. 


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. 


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 


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- 


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. 


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 

But since nothing is or can be entire and 

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



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 


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 ; 


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 


\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 


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 


he who is best able to estimate correctly their 

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 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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 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- 

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- 


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. 


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 



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 


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- 




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. 


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. 


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 


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 


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. 


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 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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 

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 


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> 


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 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 


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. 


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- 


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- 

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


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 


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. 


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. 


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 

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- 


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- 


(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 


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. 


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 


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 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. 


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 ■/ 
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. 


'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. 



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 


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 


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- 


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- 


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 


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 


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. 


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- 


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. 


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. 


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. § 

* 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 


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. 


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 


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, 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. 


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 


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. 



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 


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, 


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 


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. " 


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. 

"IN A 



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 


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- 

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- 


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 


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- 


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- 

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 : 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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, 


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 

^ 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, 


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- 

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 


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). 


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. 


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. 


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 

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 


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. 


tention of the ship's coming, would clearly not 
have been to accomplish such a purpose. 
Event then, and not purpose, is here designat- 

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. 


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 ? \ 


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 


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. 


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 

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? 

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. 


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 

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 


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 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 ; 


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 


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, 


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- 


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- 



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- 


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 


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. 


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.,* 


[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, 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 


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. 


[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- 

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 


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 

[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. 




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 



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 


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'> 


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. 


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 


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 


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. 


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. 


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- 


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,) 


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 


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. 


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- 


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. 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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. 


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, 


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 


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. 


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 


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- 

' 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- 


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. 


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 


genitive here, as elsewhere, expresses the thing 
itself in which t) ayraToooc/g, the reward, requital, 

' 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 

'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- 


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 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 

'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. 


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 

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. 


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 


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, 


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. 


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 



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- 


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( 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 


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 

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 


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- 


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- 


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, 


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 

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- 


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. 




Date Due