CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY PA 813.R64 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/cletails/cu31924021607209 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH BOOKS BY PROF. A. T. ROBERTSON Critical Notes to Broadus' Hahmont of the Gospels Life and Letters of John A. Broadus Teaching op Jesus Concerning God the Father The Student's Chronological New Testament Syllabus for New Testament Study Keywords in the Teaching of Jesus Epochs in the Life op Jesus A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testa- ment Epochs in the Life of Paul Commentary on Matthew John the Loyal The Glory of the Ministry A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in THE Light op Historical Research A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH BY A. T. ROBERTSON, M.A., D.D., LL.D. ProfesBor of Interpretation of the New Testament in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Louisville, Ky.< "'ExoA*€i' Sk Tov dtjaavpov tovtov ev btrrpaKivois tTKeb&nv, tva 4 imtpPoKii t^s Svvaiuas j rod 6eov Kal iir] 4| ■qiuiip. — 2 Cob. 4:7 HODDER & STOUGHTON NEW YORK GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY COPTKIGHT, 1914 BT GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY \DGj\r\Jib Composition, Electrotyping and Presswork: THE tJNrVEESlTY PRESS, CAMBEIDQE, U.S.A. TO THE MEMORY OF ilnlfn A. Irnaima SCHOLAE TEACHEE PREACHER PREFACE It is with mingled feelings of gratitude and regret that I let this book go to the pubUc. I am grateful for God's sustaining grace through so many years of intense work and am fully con- scious of the inevitable imperfections that still remain. For a dozen years this Grammar has been the chief task of my life. I have given to it sedulously what time was mine outside of my teaching. But it was twenty-six years ago that my great prede- cessor in the chair of New Testament Interpretation proposed to his young assistant that they together get out a revised edition of Winer. The manifest demand for a new grammar of the New Testament is voiced by Thayer, the translator of the American edition of Winer's Grammar, in his article on "Language of the New Testament" in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible. I actually began the work and prepared the sheets for the first hundred pages, but I soon became convinced that it was not possible to revise Winer's Grammar as it ought to be done without making a new grammar on a new plan. So much progress had been made in comparative philology and historical grammar since Winer wrote his great book that it seemed useless to go on with it. Then Dr. Broadus said to me that he was out of it by reason of his age, and \hat it was my task. He reluctantly gave it up and pressed me to go on. From that day it was in my thoughts and plans and I was gathering material for the great undertaking. If Schmiedel had pushed through his work, I might have stopped. By the time that Dr. James Hope Moulton announced his new grammar, I was too deep into the enterprise to draw back. And so I have held to the titanic task somehow till the end has come. There were many discouragements and I was often tempted to give it up at all costs. No one who has not done similar work can understand the amount of research, the mass of detail and the reflection required in a book of this nature. The mere physical effort of writing was a joy of expres- sion in comparison with the rest. The title of Cauer's brilliant book, Grammatica Militans (now in the third edition), aptly describes the spirit of the grammarian who to-day attacks the VIU A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT problems of the language of the New Testament in the light of historical research. From one point of view a grammar of the Greek New Testa- ment is an impossible task, if one has to be a specialist in the whole Greek language, in Latin, in Sanskrit, in Hebrew and the other Semitic tongues, in Church History, in the Talmud, in English, in psychology, in exegesis.* I certainly lay no claim to omniscience. I am a linguist by profession and by love also, but I am not a specialist in the Semitic tongues, though I have a working knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, but not of Syriac and Arabic. The Coptic and the Sanskrit I can use. The Latin and the Greek, the French and German and Anglo-Saxon com- plete my modest linguistic equipment. I have, besides, a smat- tering of Assyrian, Dutch, Gothic and Italian. I have explained how I inherited the task of this Grammar from Broadus. He was a disciple of Gessner Harrison, of the University of Virginia, who was tiie first scholar in America to make use of Bopp's Vergleichende Grammatik. Broadus' views of grammar were thus for long considered queer by the students who came to him trained in the traditional grammars and unused to the historical method; but he held to his position to the end. This Grammar aims to keep in touch at salient points with the results of comparative philology and historical grammar as the true linguistic science. In theory one should be allowed to as- sume all this in a grammar of the Greek N. T., but in fact that cannot be done unless the book is confined in use to a few tech- nical scholars. I have tried not to inject too much of general grammar into the work, but one hardly knows what is best when the demands are so varied. So many men now get no Greek except in the theological seminary that one has to interpret for them the language of modem philology. I have simply sought in a modest way to keep the Greek of the N. T. out in the middle of the linguistic stream as far as it is proper to do so. In actual class use some teachers will skip certain chapters. Alfred Gudemaim,^ of Munich, says of American classical scholars: "Not a single contribution marking genuine progress, no work on an extensive scale, opening up a new perspective or breaking entirely new ground, nothing, in fact," of the slightest scientific value can be placed to their credit." That is a serious charge, to be sure, but then originality is a relative matter. The . 1 Cf. Dr. James Moffatt's remarks in The Expositor, Oct., 1910, p. 383 f. « The CI. Rev., June, 1909, p. 116. PREFACE IX true scholar is only too glad to stand upon the shoulders of his predecessors and give full credit at every turn. Who could make any progress in human knowledge but for the ceaseless toil of those' who have gone before? Prof. Paul Shorey,^ of the Uni- versity of Chicago, has a sharp answer to Prof. Gudemann. He speaks of "the need of rescuing scholarship itself from the German yoke." He does not mean "German pedantry and superfluous accuracy in insignificant research — but ... in all seriousness from German inaccuracy." He continues about "the disease of German scholarship" that "insists on 'sweat-boxing' the evidence and straining after 'vigorous and rigorous' demon- stration of things that do not admit of proof." There probably are German scholars guilty of this grammatical vice (are Amer- ican and British scholars wholly free?). But I wish to record my conviction that my own work, such as it is, would have been im- possible but for the painstaking and scientific investigation of the Germans at every turn. The republic of letters is cosmopoUtan. In common with all modern linguists I have leaned upon Brug- mann and Delbriick as masters in linguistic learning. I cannot here recite my indebtedness to all the scholars whose books and writings have helped me. But, besides Broadus, I must mention Gildersleeve as the American Hellenist whose wit and wisdom have helped me over many a hard place. Gilder- sleeve has spent much of his life in puncturing grammatical bubbles blown by other grammarians. He exercises a sort of grammatical censorship. "At least whole grammars have been constructed about one emptiness." ^ It is possible to be " grammar mad," to use The Independent's phrase.* It is easy to scout all grammar and say: "Grammar to the Wolves."' Browning sings in A Grammarian's Funeral: "He settled Hoti's business — let it be! — Properly based Own — Gave us the doctrine of the enclitic De, Dead from the waist down." ' F. H. Colson, in an article entitled "The Grammatical Chapters in Quin- tilian," 1, 4-8 (The CL Quarterly, Jan., 1914, p. 33), says: "The five chapters which Quintilian devotes to ' Grammatica' are in many ways the most valuable discussion of the subject which we possess," though he divides "grammatica" into "grammar" and "literature," and (p. 37) "the whole of this chapter is largely directed to meet the objection that grammar is 'tenuis et jejuna.'" ' The CI. Weekly, May 27, 1911, p. 229. » Gildersleeve, Am. Jour, of Philol., July, 1909, p. 229. « 1911, p. 717. ' Article by F. A. W. Henderson, Blackwood for May, 1906. X A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Perhaps those who pity the grammarian do not know that he finds joy in his task and is sustained by the conviction that his work is necessary. Prof. C. F. Smith {The Classical Weekly, 1912, p. 150) tells of the joy of the professor of Greek at Bonn when he received a copy of the first volume of Gildersleeve's Syntax of Classical Greek. The professor brought it to the Semi- nar and "clasped and hugged it as though it were a most precious darling (Liebling)." Dr. A. M. Fairbairni once said: "No man can be a theologian who is not a philologian. He who is no grammarian is no divine." Let Alexander McLaren serve as a good illustration of that dictum. His matchless discourses are the fruit of the most exact scholarship and spiritual enthusiasm. I venture to quote another defence of the study of Greek which will, I trust, yet come back to its true place in modern education. Prof. G. A. Williams, of Kalamazoo College, says^: "Greek yet remains the very best means we have for plowing up and wrink- ling the human brain and developing its gray matter, and wrinkles and gray matter are still the most valuable assets a student can set down on the credit side of his ledger." Dr. J. H. Moulton has shown that it is possible to make gram- mar interesting, as Gildersleeve had done before him. Moulton protests' against the notion that grammar is dull: "And yet there is no subject which can be made more interesting than grammar, a science which deals not with dead rocks or mindless vegetables, but with the ever changing expression of human thought." I wish to acknowledge here my very great indebtedness to Dr. Moulton for his brilliant use of the Egyptian papyri in proof of the fact that the New Testament was written in the vernacular Koivri. Deissmann is the pioneer in this field and is still the leader in it. It is hard to overestimate the debt of modem New Testament scholarship to his work. Dr. D. S. Margoliouth, it is true, is rather pessimistic as to the value of the papyri: "Not one per cent, of those which are deciphered and edited with so much care tell us anything worth knowing."* Certainly that is too 1 Address before the Baptist Theological CoUege at Glasgow, reported in The British Weekly, April 26, 1906. ' The CI. Weekly, April 16, 1910. » London Quarterly Review, 1908, p. 214. Moulton and Deissmann also disprove the pessimism of Hatch (Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 1): "The lan- guage of the New Testament, on the other hand, has not yet attracted the special attention of any considerable scholar. There is no good lexicon. There is no good philological commentary. There is no adequate grammar." * The Expositor, Jan., 1912, p. 73, Ojij.±iU&JiAPHT AND PHONETICS 183 a and e. 'Ayyaptiu appears as iyyap. in K (Mt. 5 : 41) and NB (Mk. 15 : 21).^ The New Ionic dveicev (more commonly eveKev) has nearly displaced the Attic 'eveKa which Blass^ admits only in Ac. 26 : 21. Elrev for eiro appears in Mk. 4 : 28 as a rare Ionic form. Herodotus' ha,d both] elra and eiretra. Kadapl^w in the aorist (active and passive) and perfect middle has e for the second o in many of the best MSS. both in LXX and N. T. (cf. Mk. 1:42; Mt. 8:3 W. H.). Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 82, gives the facts. Blass^ points out that Uarepa (ndrapa) occurs in AC in Ac. 21 : 1. Teafffp&Kovra is the form given always by W. H. This is an Ionic form (vowel assimilation) which is not so common in the papyri as in the N. T. MSS.^ In modern Greek both aapavra and (Ttpavra survive. Likewise W. H. always give the preference to Tkaatpa, though the papyri do not use it till the fourth century a.d.^ But in the inscriptions rkacepa. is found several times,' one case in the first century a.d.^ Tkaaepas, however, does not occur in the N. T. MSS., though the papyri have it in the Byzantine age.' The Ionic and the modem Greek have rkaaepes and rkaaepa. The N. T. thus differs from the koic^ papyri, but is in harmony with the Ionic literature and inscriptions. In some MSS. in both LXX and N. T. in Doric and BcBotian, while ye is found in the Ionic, Attic and Cypriote (Meister, Griech. Dial., Bd. II, p. 29). 1 Deiss., B. S., p. 182, gives ivyaplas in a pap. (iv/A.D.). » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 20. Cf . Note in W.-Sch., p. 50; Thack., pp. 82, 135; Mays., p. 14. ' According to Phrynichus (Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 204) both of these words are ^itxAtws ^ap^apa. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 20. - Moulton, Prol., p. 46. ' lb. For assimilation between o and e in modem Gk. dialects see Dieterich, Unters. etc., pp. 272, 274. In mod. Gk. vernacular o frequently displaces initial e or o. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 14. ' Dieterich, Unters. zur Gesch. der griech. Spr., p. 4; also Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 163. ' Nachm., Laute und Formen d. magn. Inschr., p. 146. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 46. For further evidence see Cronert, Mem. Graeca Hercul., 1903, p. 199. In the ApostoUc Fathers and the N. T. Apoc. rkaa-epa and Tmiitp&.mvTa are common as well as iKoBtplaBri (Reinhold, De Graecitate Patr. Apostol. etc., p. 38 f. On the whole subject of a and e in the papyri see careful discussion of Mayser, Gr., pp. 54-60, where he mentions 4ko6w, kyyapeia, iirt\eiaa., A Sanskrit Grammar (1891). 4th ed. (1913). , Language and the Study of Language (1867). • — — , Life and Growth of Language (1875). WiLAMOWiTZ-MoLLENDOEFF, U. VON, Die grfech. Literatur des Altertums (Die Kult. d. Gegenw., 1907, Tl. I, Abt. viii, pp. 3-238. 3. Aufl. 1912). , Uber die Entstehung der griech. Schriftsprachen (Verf. deutscher Phil, und Schulm., 1879, pp. 36^1). WiLCKEN, U., Die Forschungen iiber die hellen. Spr. in den Jahren 1902-1904 (Archiv f. Pap., 1906, pp. 443^73). WiLHELM, A., Beitrage zur griech. Inschriftenkunde (1909). WiLHELMUS, De Modo Irreali qui Vocatur (1881). WiLKE, Neutestamentliche Rhetorik (1843). Williams, C. B., The Participle in the Book of Acts (1908). Wilson, A. J., Emphasis in the N. T. (Jour, of Th. Stud., VIII, pp. 75 ff.). Winer, G. B., De verborum cum praep. compos, in N. T. Usu (1834-1843). , Gramm. d. neut. Sprachidioms (1822). 7. Aufl. von Liine- mann (1867). Winer-Masson, a Grammar of the N. T. Gk. (1859). Winer-Moulton, a Treatise of the Grammar of N. T. Gk. 3d ed. (1882). Various eds. Winer-Schmiedel, Winer's Grammatik des neutest. Sprach- idioms. 8. Aufl. (1894—). Wineb-Thayer, a Grammar of the Idiom of the N. T. (1869). Various eds. WiTKOwsKi, St., Bericht uber die Lit. zur Koin^ aus den Jahren 1898-1902 (Bursian's Jahrb. CXX, 1904, pp. 153-256). , Bericht tiber die Lit. zur Koine aus den Jahren 1903-1906 (Jahresber. f. Alt., 1912, III. Bd., 159). xl A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT WiTKowsKi, St., Epistulae privatae graecae (1906). ,' Prodromus grammaticae papyrorum graecarum aetatis Lagidarum (1897). Woch. f. kl. Ph., Wochenschrift fiir klassische Philologie. Wright, J., A Comparative Grammar of the Greek Language (1912). WtmDT, Volkerpsychologie. 2. Aufl. (1904). 3. Aufl. (1911 f.). Young, Language of Christ (Hastings' D. C. G.). Zahn, Th., Einl. in das N.T. Bd. I (1906), II (1907). , On the Language of Palestine. Vol. I, pp. 1-72. Introduc- tion to the N. T. Tr. by Jacobus (1909). Zaencke, E., Die Entstehung der griech. Literatursprachen (1890). Zeitlin, The Ace. with Inf. and Some Kindred Constrs. in Eng- lish (1908). Zezschwitz, Profangrac. und bibl. Sprachg. (1859). ZiEMER, Vergl. Syntax der indog. Kompar. (1884). Z. N.-T. W., Zeitschrift fur neut. Wissenschaft (GieBen). PART I INTEODUCTION CHAPTER I NEW MATERIAL The Ideal Grammar? Perhaps the ideal grammar of the New Testament Greek may never be written. It is a supremely diffi- cult task to interpret accurately the forms of human speech, for they have life and change with the years. But few themes have possessed greater charm for the best furnished scholars of the world than the study of language.* The language of the N. T. has a special interest by reason of the message that it bears. Every word and phrase calls for minute investigation where so much is at stake. It is the task and the duty of the N. T. student to apply the results of Unguistic research to the Greek of the N. T. But, strange to say, this has not been adequately done.^ New Testament study has made remarkable progress in the sphere of criticism, history and interpretation, but has lagged behind in this department. A brief survey of the literary history of the subject shows it. I. The Pre- Winer Period. It was Winer who in 1822 made a new epoch in N. T. graromatical study by his Nevtestamentliches Sprachidiom. It is hardly .possible for the student of the present day to enter into sympathy with the inanities and sinuosities that characterized the previous treatises on the N. T. idiom. Not alone in the controversy between the Purists and Hebraists was this true, but writers like Storr, by a secret system of quid pro quo, cut the Gordian knot of grammatical difficulty by ex- plaining one term as used for another, one preposition for an- other, one case for another, etc. As a university tutor Winer ' See J. Classen, De Gr. Graecae Primordiis, 1829, p. 1, who says: "Inter humani ingenii inventa, quae diutuma consuetudine quasi ijaturae iura adepta sunt, nullum fere magis invaluit et pervulgatum est, quam grammaticae ratio et usus." 2 "And despite the enormous advance since the days of Winer toward a rational and unitary conception of the N. T. language, we stiU labour to-day ■under the remains of the old conceptions." Samuel Dickey, Prince. Theol. Rev., Oct., 1903, "New Points of View." 3 4 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT combated "this absurd system of interpretation," and not without success in spite of receiving some sneers. He had the temerity to insist on this order of interpretation: grammatical, historical, theologicar. He adhered to his task and hved to see "an enUghtened philology, as deduced and taught by Herrmann and his school," triumph over the previous "unbridled license."' n. The Service of Winer. (o) Winee's Inconsistencies. It must be said, however, that great as was the service of Winer to this science, he did not at all points carry out consistently his own principles, for he often ex- plained one tense as used for another. He was not able to rise entirely above the point of view of his time nor to make persist- ent application of the philosophical grammar. It is to be borne in mind also that the great science of comparative philology had not revolutionized linguistic study when Winer first wrote. In a true sense he was a pathfinder. (6) WiNEK Epoch-Making. —Winer in English. But none the less his work has been the epoch-making one for N. T. study. After his death Dr. Gottlieb Ltinemann revised and improved the NeiUestamentliches Sprachidiom. Translations of .Winer's Gram- matik into English were first made by Prof. Masson of Edin- burgh, then by Prof. Thayer of Harvard (revision of Masson), and finally by Prof. W. F. Moulton of Cambridge, who added excellent footnotes, especially concerning points in modem Greek. The various editions of Winer-Thayer and Winer-Moulton have served nearly two generations of English and American scholars. (c) ScHMiEDEL. But uow at last Prof. Schmiedel of Zurich is thoroughly revising Winer's Grammatik, but it is proceeding slowly and does not radically change Winer's method, though use is made of much of the modem knowledge.^ Deissmann,* indeed, expresses disappointment in this regard concerning Schmiedel's work as being far "too much Winer and too little Schmiedel." But Deissmann concedes that Schmiedel's work "marks a characteristic and decisive turning-point in N. T. philology." • See Pref. to the sixth and last ed. by Winer himself as translated by Dr. J. H. Thayer in the seventh and enlarged ed. of 1869. ' Winer's Gr. des neutest. Sprachid. 8. Aufl. neu bearbeitet von Dr. Paul Wilhehn Schmiedel, 1894—. s Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898, p. 20. He adds, "Der alte Winer wax seiner Zeit ein Protest des philologischen Gewissens gegen die WUlkiir eines anmaCenden Empiricismus." Of. also Exp., Jan., 1908, p. 63. NEW MATEKIAIi 5 (rf) BuTTMANN. Buttmann's Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs had appeared in 1859 and was translated by Thayer as Buttmann's Grammar ofN.T. GVeefc(1873), an able work. (e) Blabs. It is not till the Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch by Prof. Blass in 1896 that any other adequate gram- mar appears in this field. And Blass departs a little from tradi- tional methods and points of view. He represents a transition towards a new era. The translation by H. St. John Thackeray has been of good service in the English-speaking world.' in. The Modem Period. It is just in the last decade that it: has become possible to make a real advance in New Testa- ment grammatical study. The discovery and investigation that have characterized every department of knowledge have borne rich fruit here also. (o) Deissmann. Deissmann'' sees rightly the immensity of the task imposed upon the N. T. grammarian by the very richness of the new discoveries. He likewise properly condemns the too fre- quent isolation of the N. T. Greek from the so-called "profane Greek."' Deissmann has justly pointed out that the terms "pro- fane" and "biblical" do not stand in linguistic contrast, but rather "classical" and "biblical." Even here he insists on the practical identity of bibUcal with the contemporary later Greek of the popular style.* It was in 1895 that Deissmann published his Bibelstudien, and his Neue Bibelstvdien followed in 1897. The new era has now fairly begun. In 1901 the English translation of both volumes by Grieve appeared as Bible Studies. In 1907 came the Philol- ' First ed. 1898, second ed. 1905, as Blass' Gr. of N. T. Gk. A revision of the work of Blass (the 4th German edition) by Dr. A. Debrunner has ap- peared as these pages are going through the press. ' Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898, p. 5: "Diirch neue Erkennt- nisse befruchtet steht die griechische Philologie gegenwartig im Zeichen einer vielverheiCenden Renaissance, die fordert von der sprachlichen Erforschung der griechischen Bibel, dafi sie in engste Fiihlung trete mit der historischen Erforschung der griechischen Sprache." ' lb., p. 7. Like, for instance, Zezschwitz, Profangrac. und bibl. Sprachg., 1859. * Die Spr. der griech. Bibel, Theol. Runds., 1898, pp. 463-472. He aptly says: "Nicht die Profangracitat ist der sprachgeschichtUche Gegensatz zur 'biblischen,' sondem das classische Griechisch. Die neueren Funde zur Ge- Bchichte der griechischen Sprache zeigen, daC die Eigentumlichkeiten des 'biblischen' Formen- und Wortschatzes (bei den original-griechischen Schrif- ten auch der Syntax) im groCen und ganzen Eigentumlichkeiten des spateren und zwar zumeist des unliterarischen Griechisch iiberhaupt sind." 6 A GRAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ogy of the Bible. His Licht vam Osten (1908) was his next most important work {LigM from the Ancient East, 1910, translated by Strachan). See Bibliography for full list of his books. The contribution of Deissmann is largely in the field of lexicography. (6) Thumb. It was m 1901 that A. Thumb published his great book on the Koivi), Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hel- lenismus, which has done so much to give the true picture of the Kowri. He had already in 1895 produced his Handimch der neu- griechischen Volkssprache. In 1912 the second enlarged edition issued in EngUsh dress, by S. Angus, as Handbook of Modem Greek Vernacular. This book at once took front place for the study of the modem Greek by English students. It is the only book in English that confines itseK to the vernacular. (c) MouLTON. In 1895, J. H. Moulton, son of W. F. Moulton, the translator of Winer, produced his Introduction to N. T. Greek, in a noble linguistic succession. In 1901 he began to pub- lish in The Classical Review and in The Expositor, "Grammatical Notes from the Papyri," which attracted instant attention by their freshness and pertinency. In 1906 appeared his now famous Prolegomena, vol. I, of A Grammar of N. T. Greek, which reached the third edition by 1908. With great ability Moulton took the cue from Deissmann and used the papjri for grammatical piuposes. He demonstrated that the Greek of the N. T. is in the main just the vernacular Koivq of the papyri. In 1911 the Prolegomena appeared in German as Einleitung in die Sprache des Neuen Testaments. (d) Other Contributions. It is not possible to mention here all the names of the workers in the field of N. T. grammar (see Bibliography). The old standpoint is still foimd in the books of Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (1889) ; Hoole, The Classical Ele- ment in the N. T. (1888); Simcox, The Language of the N. T. (1890) ; Schaff, A Companion to the Greek Testament and English Version (1889) ; Viteau, Miide sur le grec du N. T. — Le Verbe (1893); Le Sujet (1896). The same thing is true of Abbott's Jo- hannine Vocabulary (1905) and Johannine Grammar (1906); Bur- ton's Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the N. T. Greek (1888, third ed. 1909) is yet a genuine contribution. In Kennedy's Sources of N. T. Greek (1895) we see a distinct transition toward the new era of N. T. grammar. In 1911 Radermacher's Neu- testamentliche Grammatik is in fact more a grammar of the Koivii than of the N. T., as it is designed to be an Einleitung. The au- thor's Short Grammar of the Greek N. T. (1908) gives the new NEW MATERIAL 7 knowledge in a succinct form. The Italian translation (1910) by Bonaccorsi has additional notes by the translator. Stocks (1911) made nmnerous additions to the Laut- und Formenlehre of the German edition. Grosheide in the Dutch translation (1912) has made a revision of the whole book. The French edition (1911) by Montet is mainly just a translation. The third enlarged edi- tion in English appeared in 1912. Many special treatises of great value have appeared (see Bibliography), by men Uke Angus, Buttmann, Heinrici, Thieme, Vogel, Votaw, J. Weiss, Wellhausen. (e) Richness of Matebial. Now indeed it is the extent of the material demanding examination that causes embarrassment. But only twenty years ago K. Krumbacher^ lamented that it was not possible to give "a comprehensive presentation of the Greek language" because of the many points on which work must be done beforehand. But we have come far in the meantime. The task is now possible, though gigantic and well-nigh insurmount- able. But it is not for us moderns to boast because of the material that has come to our hand. We need first to use it. Dieterich'' has well said that the general truth that progress is from error to truth "finds its confiirmation also in the history of the develop- ment that the Greek language has received in the last two thou- sand years." By the induction of a wider range of facts we can eliminate errors arising from false generalizations. But this is a slow process that calls for patience. Dionysius Thrax,' one of the Alexandrian fathers of the old Greek grammar (circa 100 B.C.), said: Fpaju/iariKlJ kivaiv d)s kirl t6 xoXi \tyoiih>(iiv. Andrew Lang* indeed is a dis- ciple of Dionysius Thrax in one respect, for he contends that students are taught too much grammar and too httle language. They know the grammars and not the tongue. A bare outline can be given of the sources of the new material for such gram- matical study. ' Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn's Zeits. ftir vergl. Sprach- forsch., 1882, p. 484: "Eine zusammenliangende Darstellung des Entwick- lungsganges der griechischen Sprache ist gegenwartig nicht moglich. Auf allzu vielen Punkten eines langen und viel verachlungenen Weges gebricht es an den Vorarbeiten, welche fur ein solches Untemehmen unerlaClich sind." ' Unters. zur Gesch. der griech. Spr. von der hell. Zeit bis zum 10. Jahrh. n. Chr., 1898, p. x. " As quoted in Bekker, Anec. Graeca (1816), vol. II, p. 629. Dionysius also mentions six likpii in grammar: hihyvwais, k^Tiyiiins, ■Y\wavaei)."* Indeed formal Greek grammar was the comparison with the Latin and began "with Dionysius Thrax, who utilized the philological lucubrations of Aristotle and the Alexandrian critics for the sake of teaching Greek to the sons of the aristocratic contemporaries of Pompey at Rome."^ His Greek grammar is still in existence in Bekker's Anecdota,^ and is the cause of much grotesque etymology since.' This period of grammatical activity came after the great crea- tive period of Greek Hterature was over, and in Alexandria, not ' So Dr. John H. Kerr, sometime Prof, of N. T. in the Pae. Theol. Sem., in conversation with me. ' Paul, Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., 1888, p. 18. » lb., pp. 1 ff. So Oertel, Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1901, p. 42, "Comparative grammar in Schleicher's sense is in its essence nothing but historical grammar by the comparative method." * Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philol., 1875, p. 259 f . 5 lb., p. 261. 6 Op. at., pp. 629-643. ' See Sayce, Intr. to the Sci. of Lang., 1880, vol. I, p. 19 f.; Dionysius Thrax's t4x«"; ypaniiaTtKii was developed into a system by ApoUonius Dysco- lus (ii/A.D.) and his son Herodian. Dionysius Thrax was bom b.c. 166. Dys- colus wrote a systematic Gk. Syntax of accentuation in 20 books (known to us only in epitome) about 200 a.d. NEW MATEKIAL 9 in Athens.' Rhetoric was scientifically developed by Aristotle long before there was a scientific syntax. Aristotle perfected log- ical analysis of style before there was historical grammar.' With Aristotle 6 ypaniiariKos was one that busied himself with the let- ters ^p&fifiaTa). He was not kypannaTos; i) ypafifiarLKij then had to do with the letters and was exegetical.' Plato does not treat grammar, though the substantive and the adjective are distin- guished, but only dialectics, metaphysics, logic* The Stoic gram- marians, who succeeded Plato and Aristotle, treated language from the logical standpoint and accented its psychological side.^ So the Alexandrian grammarians made ypafip,aTLKr] more like Kpiruc^. They got hold of the right idea, though they did not attain the true historical method.^ Comparative grammar was not wholly unknown indeed to the ancients, for the Roman grammarians since Varro made a com- parison between Greek and Latin words.' The Roman writers on grammar defined it as the "scientia recte loquendi et scri- bendi,"* and hence came nearer to the truth than did the Alex- andrian writers with their Stoic philosophy and exegesis. It has indeed been a hard struggle to reach the Ught in grammar.' But Roger Bacon in this "blooming time" saw that it was necessary for the knowledge of both Greek and Latin to compare them.'" And Bemhardy in 1829 saw that there was needed a grammatico- historical discussion of syntax because of the "distrust of the union of philosophy with grammar."" We needed' "the view- ' See Jebb in Whibley's Comp. to Gk. Stud., 1905, p. 147 f. ' See Steinthal, Gesch. der Spraohw. bei den Griech. und Rom., 2. Tl., 1891, p. 179. ' F. Hoffmann, tJber die Entwickelung des Begriffs der Gr. bei den Alten, 1891, p. 1. • lb., p. 144. The early Gk. grammarians were " ohne richtiges historisches BewuBtsein" (Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. etc., 1. Tl., 1863, p. 39). Even in Plato's Kratylus we do not see "das Ganze in seiner Ganzheit" (p. 40). ' lb., p. 277 f. For a good discussion of Dion. Thr. see Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 34 f. ' See EJretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, p. 1. ' See Kretschmer, op. cit., p. 4. » F. Blass, Hermen. und Krit., 1892, p. 157 f. ' Steinthal, Gesch. etc., 2. Tl., 1891, p. 1, caUs this time of struggle "ihre Blutezeit." " Roger Bacon, Oxford Gk. Gr., edited by Nolan and Hirsch, 1902, p. 27: "Et in hac comparatione Grammaticae Graecae ad Latinum non solum est necessitas propter inteUigendam Grammaticam Graecam, sed onmino neces- sarium est ad inteUigentiam Latinae Grammaticae." " Wissensch. Synt. der griech. Spr., 1829, pp. 7, 12. 10 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT point of the historical Syntax." Humboldt is quoted by Oertel' as saying: "Linguistic science, as I understand it, must be based upon facts alone, and this collection must be neither one-sided nor incomplete." So Bopp conceived also: "A grammar in the higher scientific sense of the word must be both history and natural science." This is not an unreasonable demand, for it is made of every other department of science.* 3. The Discovery of Sanskrit. It is a transcendent fact which has revolutionized granmiatical research. The discovery of San- skrit by Sir WiUiam Jones is what did it. In 1786 he wrote thus': "The Sanskrit language, whatever may be its antiquity, is of wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either; yet bearing to both of them a stronger aflBnity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could have been produced by accident; so strong that no philologer could examine all the three without beUeving them to have spnmg from some conunon source which no longer exists. There is a similar reason, though not so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanskrit." He saw then the significance of his own discovery, though not all of it, for the Teutonic tongues, the Lithuanian and Slav group of languages, the Iranian, Italic, Armenian and Albanian belong to the same Aryan, Indo-Germanic or Indo- European family as it is variously called. 4. From Bopp to Brugmann. But Bopp* is the real founder of comparative philology. Before Bopp's day "in all grammars the mass of 'irregular' words was at least as great as that of the 'regular' ones, and a rule without exception actually excited suspicion."* Pott's great work laid the foundation of scientific phonetics.* Other great names in this new science are W. von ' Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1901, p. 47. = See C. Herrmann, Philos. Gr., 1858, p. 422: "Die Natur der phUoso- phischen Granunatik war von Anfang an bestimmt worden als die eine Grenzwissenschaft zwischen Philosophie und Philologie." But it is a more objective task now. » Cf. Benfey, Gesch. der Sprachw., p. 348. "This brilliant discovery, de- clared in 1786, practically lies at the root of all Unguistic science." J. H. Moulton, Sci. of Lang., 1903, p. 4. * See his Vergl. Gr., 1857. He began publication on the subject in 1816. ' Delbriick, Intr. to the Study of Lang., 1882, p. 25. " Etym. Forsch. auf dem Gebiet der indoger. Spr., 1833-1836. NEW MATERIAL 11 Humboldt,' Jacob Grimm,'' Schlegel,' Schleicher,* Max Muller," Curtius,' Vemer,' Whitney,' L. Meyer.' But in recent years two men, K. Brugmann and B. Delbrlick, have organized the previous knowledge into a great monumental work, GrundriB der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermor nischen Sprachen}" This achievement is as yet the high-water- mark in comparative grammar. Brugmann has issued a briefer and cheaper edition giving the main results.^^ Delbruck has also a brief treatise on Greek syntax in the light of comparative gram- mar,*^ while Brugmann has applied comparative philology to the Laut- und Formenlehre of Greek grammar.^ In the GrundriB Brugmann has Bd. I, II, while Delbruck treats syntax in Bd. III-V. In the new edition Brugmann has also that part of the syntax which is treated in Vol. Ill and IV of the first edi- tion. The best discussion of comparative grammar for begin- ners is the second edition of P. Giles's Manual.^* Hatzidakis successfully undertakes to apply comparative grammar to the modern Greek.^^ Riemann and Goelzer have made an exhaustive comparison of the Greek and Latin languages." There are, in- deed, many interesting discussions of the history and principles growing out of all this linguistic development, such as the works ' Always mentioned by Bopp with reverence. s Deutsche Gr., 1822. Author of Grimm's law of the interchange of let- ters. Next to Bopp in influence. » Indische Bibl. * Vergl. Gr. der indoger. Spr., 1876, marks the next great advance. ' Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1866. He did much to popularize this study. • His most enduring work is his Prin. of Gk. Etym., vols. I, II, fifth ed., 1886. ' The discovery of Vemer's law, a variation from Grimm's law, according to which p, t and k, pass into 6, d and g, instead of /, th and h when not im- mediately followed by the word-accent. ' Life and Growth of Lang., 1875; Sans. Gr., 1892, etc. » Vergl. Gr., 1865. " Bd. I-V, 1st ed. 1886-1900; 2d ed. 1897—; cf. also Giles-Hertel, Vergl. Gr., 1896. " Kurze vergl. Gr., 1902-1904. " Die Gnindl. der griech. Synt., 1879. " Griech. Gr., 1900, 3. Aufl.; 4. Aufl., 1913, by Thumb. See also G. Meyer, Griech. Gr., 3. verm. Aufl., 1896. » A Short Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901. » Einl. in die neugr. Gr., 1892. " Gr. compar^e du Grec et du Lat.: Syntaxe, 1897; Phon^tique et fitude de Formes, 1901. Cf. also King and Cookson's Prin. of Sound and Inflexion as illustrated in the Gk. and Lat. Lang., 1888. 12 A GRAMMAE OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT of Jolly.i Delbruck,2 Sweet,' Paul/ Oertel,' Moulton,^ Whit- ney/ Max Miiller/ Sayce." It is impossible to write a grammar of the Greek N. T. without taking into consideration this new conception of language. No language lives to itself, and least of all the Greek of the N. T. in the heart of the world-empire.^" It is not necessary to say that until recently use of this science had not been made by N. T. granmiars." (6) Advance in Genehal Greek Grammar. There has been great advance in the study of general Greek grammar. The foundations laid by Crosby and Kuhner, Kruger, Curtius, Butt- mann, Madvig, Jelf and others have been well built upon by Hadley, Goodwin, Gildersleeve, Gerth, Blass, Brugmann, G. Meyer, Schanz, Hirt, Jannaris, etc. To the classical student this catalogue of names" is full of significance. The work of Kuhner has been thoroughly revised and improved in four massive vol- umes by Blass 1' and Gerth," furnishing a magnificent apparatus for the advanced student. Hirt's handbook** gives the modem knowledge in briefer form. These make use of comparative grammar, while G. Meyer** and Brugmann" are professedly on the * Schulgr. and Sprachw., 1874. 2 Intr. to the Study of Lang., 1882; 5th Germ. ed. 1908. titer die Resultate der vergl. Synt., 1872. Cf. Wheeler, The Whence and Whither of the Mod. Sci. of Lang., 1905; Henry, Precis de gr. du grec et du latin, 5th ed., 1894. » The Hist, of Lang., 1899. * Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., 1888; 4th Germ. ed. 1909. ' Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1901. « The Sci. of Lang., 1903. ' Lang, and the Study of Lang., 1867. » Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891. " Prin. of Comp. Philol., 1875. 1" By "die historische Sprachforschung" the Gk. tongue is shown to be a member of the Indo-Germanic family; thus is gained "der sprachgeschicht- liche Gesichtspunkt," and then is gained "ein wesentUch richtiges Verstand- nis . . . fiir den Entwicklungsgang der Sprache." Brugmann, Griech. Gr., 1885, p. 4. Cf. p. 3 m third ed., 1901. " See J. H. Moulton's Prol. to the N. T. Gk. Gr., 1906, and A. T. Robert- son's N. T. SyU., 1900, and Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., 1908. " The late G. N. Hatzidakis contemplated a thesaurus of the Gk. language, but his death cut it short. " Ausfiihrl. Gr. der griech. Spr. von Dr. Raphael Kiihner, 1. Tl.: Elemen- tar- und Formenlehre, Bd. I, II. Besorgt von Dr. Friedrich Blass, 1890, 1892. " lb., 2. Tl.: Satzlehre, Bd. I, II. Besorgt von Dr. Bemhard Gerth, 1898, 1904. " Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenlehre, 1902, 1. Aufl.; 2. Aufl., 1912. " Griech. Gr., 3. Aufl., 1896. " lb., 1900; 4. Aufl., 1913, by Thumb; 3d ed. quoted in this book. And now (1912) Wright has given in English a Comp. Gr. of the Gk. Lang. NEW MATERIAL 13 basis of comparative pliilology. Jannaris^ is the first fairly suc- cessful attempt to present in one volume the survey of the prog- ress of the language as a whole. Schanz" makes a much more ambitious undertaking and endeavours in a large number of mono- graphs to furnish material for a future historical grammar. Gil- dersleeve' has issued only two volumes of his work, while the grammars of Hadley-AUen and Goodwin are too well known to call for remark. New grammars, like F. E. Thompson's (1907, new ed.) and Simonson's (2 vols., 1903, 1908), continue to appear. (c) Cbitical Editions of Greek Authors. The Greek authors in general have received minute and exhaustive investigation. The modem editions of Greek writers are well-nigh ideal. Careful and critical historical notes give the student all needed, sometimes too much, aid for the illumination of the text. The thing most lacking is the reading of the authors and, one may add, the study of the modern Greek. Butcher* well says "Greek literature is the one entirely original literature of Europe." Homer, Aris- totle, Plato, not to say ^schylus, Sophocles and Euripides are still the modern masters of the intellect. Translations are better than nothing, but can never equal the original. The Greek lan- guage remains the most perfect organ of human speech and largely because "they were talkers, whereas we are readers."* They studied diligently how to talk.* (d) Works on Individual Writers. In nothing has the ten- dency to specialize been carried further than in Greek grammatical research. The language of Homer, Thucydides, Herodotus, the tragic poets, the comic writers, have all called for minute investi- 1 An Hist. Gk. Gr., chiefly of the Att. Dial., 1897. Of. also Wackemagel, Die griech. Spr. (pp. 291-318), Tl. I, Abt. VIII, Kultur der Gegenw. ' Beitr. zur histor. Synt. der grieoh. Spr., Tl. I. Ct. also Hiibner, Grundr. zur Vorlesung fiber die griech. Synt., 1883. A good bibhography. Krum- bacher, Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn's Zeitschr. etc., 1885, pp. 481-545. ' Synt. of Class. Gk., 1900, 1911. * Harv. Lect. on Gk. Subj., 1904, p. 129. See also Butcher, Some Aspects of the Gk. Genius, 1893, p. 2: "Greece, first smitten with the passion for truth, had the courage to put faith in reason, and, in following its guidance, to take no account of consequences." So p. 1: "To see things as they really are, to discern their meanings and adjust their relations was with them an instinct and a passion." ' lb., p. 203. ■ ' See Bemhardy, Griech. Lit., Tl. I, II, 1856; Christ, Gesch. der griech. Lit. bis auf die Zeit Justinians, 4. revid. Aufl., 1905; 5. Aufl., 1908 ff. Far- nell, Gk. Ljrric Poetry, 1891, etc. A. Croiset and M. Croiset, An Abr. Hist. of Gk. Lit., transl. by Heffelbower, 1904. 14 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT gation,! and those of interest to N. T. students are the mono- graphs on Polybius, Josephus, Plutarch, etc. The concordances of Plato, Aristotle, etc., are valuable. The ApostoHc Fathers, Greek Christian Apologists and the Apocryphal writings illus- trate the tendencies of N. T. speech. Cf. Reinhold, De Grace. Patr. Apost. (1898). The universities of America and Europe which give the Ph.D. degree have produced a great number of monographs on minute points Uke the use of the preposition in Herodotus, etc. These all supply data of value and many of them have been used in this grammar. Dr. Mahaffy,^ indeed, is impatient of too much specialism, and sometimes in linguistic study the specialist has missed the larger and true conception of the whole. (e) The Greek Insceiptions. The Greek inscriptions speak with the voice of authority concerning various epochs of the lan- guage. Once we had to depend. entirely on books for our knowl- edge of the Greek tongue. There is still much obscurity, but it is no longer possible to think of Homer as the father of Greek nor to consider 1000 B.C. as the beginning of Greek culture. The two chief names in epigraphical studies are those of August . Boeckh {Corjms Inscriptionum Graecarum) and Theodor Momm- sen {Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum). For a carefiil review of "the Nature of the New Texts" now at our service in the in- scriptions see Deissmann, Light, etc., pp. 10-20. See W. H. P. Hatch's article {Jour, of Bibl. Lit., 1908, pp. 134-146, Part 2) on "Some Illustrations of N. T- Usage from Greek Inscriptions of Asia Minor." Cf. also Thieme, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am M&ander und das Neue Test. (1906), and Rouffiac, Recherches sur les Caraderes du Grec dans le N. T. d'apres les Inscriptions de Priene (1911). Deissmann, op. dt., p. 18, thinks that aya[Trri]v is rightly restored in a pagan inscription in Pisidia of the imperial period. For the Christian inscriptions see Deissmann, op. dt., p. 19. Schliemann' has not only restored the story of Troy to the reader of the historic past, but he has revealed a great civi- 1 Cf., for instance, Die Spr. dea Plut. etc., Tl. I, II, 1895, 1896; Krebs, Die Prapositionen bei Polybius, 1881; Goetzeler, Einfl. des Dion. Hal. auf die Sprachgesch. etc., 1891; Schmidt, De Flavii Josephi eloc. observ. crit., 1894; Kaelker, Quest, de Eloc. Polyb. etc. ' "A herd of specialists is rising up, each master of his own subject, but absolutely ignorant and careless of all that is going on around him in kindred studies." Survey of Gk. CiviUzation, 1897, p. 3. ' Myceme and Tiryns, 1878. NEW MATERIAL 15 lization at Mycense.* Homer stands at the close of a long ante- cedent history of linguistic progress, and once again scholars are admitting the date 850 or even 1000 B.C. for his poems as well as their essential unity, thus abandoning Wolff's hypothesis." They have been driven to this by the abundant linguistic testimony from the inscriptions from many parts of Greece. So vast is this material that numerous grammatical discussions have been made concerning the inscriptions, as those by Roehl,' Kretschmer,^ Lautensach,^ Rang, * Meisterhans,' Schweizer,' Viteau,' Wagner,'" Nachmanson," etc. These inscriptions are not sporadic nor local, but are found in Egypt, in Crete, in Asia Minor, the various isles of the sea,'" in Italy, in Greece, in Macedonia, etc. Indeed Apostolides'' seems to show that the Greeks were in Egypt long before Alexander the Great founded Alexandria. The discoveries of Dr. A. J. ' See also Tsountas and Manatt, The Mycenaean Age, 1897. * Ridgeway (Early Age of Greece, vol. 1, 1901, p. 635) says that the methods applied to dissection of the Ihad and the Odyssey would pick to pieces the Paradise Lost and The Antiquary. "The Unguistic attack upon their age may be said to have at last definitely failed." (T. W. Allen, CI. Rev., May, 1906, p. 193.) Lang, Homer and His Age (1906), advocates strongly the unity of the Homeric poems. ' Inscr. Graecae Antiq., 1882. * Die griech. Vaseninschr. und ihre Spr., 1894. 6 Verbalfl. der att. Inschr., 1887. « Antiquity hell^n., 1842. ' Gr. der att. Inschr., 3. Aufl. von E. Schwyzer, 1900. ' Gr. der perg. Inschr., 1898. ' La decl. dans les inscr. att. de I'Empire, 1895. '" Quest, de epigram. Graecis, 1883. " Laute und Formen der magn. Inschr., 1903; cf. also Solmsen, Inscr. Graecae ad illustr. Dial, sel.; Audollent, Defix. Tabellae, 1904; Michel, Rec. d'inscr. Grace, 1883; Dittenberger, Or. Graeci Inscr. Sel., 1903-1905; Roberts- Gardner, Intr. to Gk. Epigr., 1888. See Bibliography. Cf. especially the various volumes of the Corpus Inscr. Graecarum. " As, for example, Paton and Hicks, The Inscr. of Cos, 1891; Kern, Die Inschr. von Magn., 1900; Gartingen, Inschr. von Priene, 1906; Gartingen and Paton, Inscr. Maris Aegaei, 1903; Letronne, Rec. des inscr. lat. et grec. de I'figypte, 1842. As early as 1779 Walch made use of the inscriptions for the N. T. Gk. in his Observationes in Matt, ex graecis inscriptionibus. Cf. also the works of E. L. Hicks, Lightfoot, Ramsay. " Essai sur THelllnisme figypt., 1908, p. vi. He says: "Les ddcouvertes rficentes des archfelogues ont dissipS ces illusions. Des mines de Naucratis, de Daphnfi, de Gurob, et de I'lUahoun (pour ne citer que les locahtfe dans lesquelles les recherches ont donnfi le plus de r&ultats) est sortie toute une nouveUe GrSce; une Grfece antSrieure aux Ramses . . .; et, si les recherches se continuent, on ne tardera pas, nous en sommes convaincus, k acqu6rir la certitude que les Grecs sont aussi anciens en figypte qu'en Gr^ce mSme." 16 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Evans in Crete have pushed back the known examples of Greek a thousand years or more. The linear script of Knossos, Crete, may be some primitive form of Greek 500 years before the first dated example of Phoenician writing. The civilization of the Hellenic race was very old when Homer wrote, — how old no one dares say.i For specimens of the use of the inscriptions see Buck's Introduction to the Study of the Greek Dialects (Gram- mar, Selected Inscriptions, Glossary), 1910. (/) FuLLEE Knowledge of the Dialects. The new knowledge of the other dialects makes it possible to form a juster judgment of the relative position of the Attic. There has been much confu- sion on this subject and concerning the relation of the various Greek races. It now seems clear that the Pelasgians, Achseans, Dorians were successively dominant in Greece.* Pelasgian ap- pears to be the name for the various pre-Achaean tribes, and it was the Pelasgian tribe that made Mycenae glorious.' Homer sings the glories of the Achaeans who displaced the Pelasgians, while "the people who play a great part in later times — Dorians, .(Eolians, lonians — are to Homer Uttle more than names."* The Pelasgian belonged to the bronze age, the Achaean to the iron age.^ The Pelasgians may have been Slavs and kin to the Etruscans of Italy. The Achaeans were- possibly Celts from northern Europe.* The old Ionic was the base of the old Attic' This old Ionic-Attic was the archaic Greek tongue, and the choruses in the Attic poets partly represent artificial literary Doric. There was not a sharp division* between the early dia- lects owing to the successive waves of population sweeping over the country. There were numerous minor subdivisions in the dialects (as the Arcadian, Boeotian, Northwest, Thessalian, etc.) due to the mountain ranges, the peninsulas, the islands, etc., and other causes into which we cannot enter. For a skilful at- tempt at grouping and relating the dialects to each other see Thimib's Handbuch, p. 54 f. The matter cannot be elaborated here (see ch. III). But the point needs to be emphasized that ' A. J. Evans, Ann. Rep. of the Smiths. Inst., p. 436. * See Ridgeway, The Early Age of Greece, vol. I, p. 84. ' lb., p. 293. For the contribution of the dialects to the koo/i} see ch. III. < Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901, p. 526.^ « jb., p. 406. « Ridgeway, op. cit., vol. I, p. 337. ' lb.., pp. 666-670. ' Hoffmann, Die griech. Dial., Bd. I, p. 7. A more recent treatment of the dialects is Thumb's Handb. der griech. Dial. (1909), which makes use of all the recent discoveries from the inscriptions. On the mixing of the dialects see Thumb, p. 61 f. NEW MATERIAL 17 the literary dialects by no means represent the linguistic history of Greece itself and still less that of the islands and other colonies (cf. Buck's Greek Dialects, p. 1). The blending of these dialects into the kolvti was not complete as we shall see.^ " Of dialects the purest Hellenic is Dorian, preserved in religious odes, — pure be- cause they kept aloof from their subjects. The next is the^ohc, preserved in lyric odes of the Lesbian school. The earliest to be embodied in literature was Ionic, preserved in epic poems. The most perfect is Attic, the language of drama, philosophy and oratory. This arose out of the Ionic by introducing some of the strength of Doric-iEolic forms without sacrificing the sweet smoothness of Ionic." ^ In general concerning the Greek dialects one may consult the works of Meister,' Ridgeway,* Hoffmann,^ Thumb,® Buck,' Boisacq,* Pezzi,' etc. (gf) The Papyri and Ostraca. Thiersch in 1841 had pointed out the value of the papyri for the study of the LXX in his De Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina, but nobody thought it worth while to study the masses of papyri in London, Paris and Ber- lin for the N. T. language. Farrar {Messages of the Books, 1884, p. 151) noted the similarity of phrase between Paul's correspon- dence and the papyri in the Brit. Mus. "N. T. philology is at present undergoing thorough reconstruction; and probably all the workers concerned, both on the continent and in English-speaking coxmtries, are by this time agreed that the starting-point for the philological investigations must be the language of the non-literary papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions" (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 55). The KOLvii is now rich in material for the study of the vernacular or popular speech as opposed to the book language. This distinc- tion belongs to all languages which have a literature and to all periods of the language. It is particularly true of the modern ' See Dieterich, Die Koivli und die heut. kleinasiat. Mundarten-Unters. zur Gesch. etc., pp. 271-310. Cf . Chabert, Hist, sominaire des 4it. d'^pigr. greoque, 1906. ' MS. Notes on Gk. Gr. by H. H. Harris, late Prof, of Gk. at Richmond College. > Griech. Dial., Bd. I, 1882, Bd. II, 1889; cf. Hicks, Man. of Gk. Hist. Inscr., 1888. * Op. at. » Op. cU. and Bd. II, 1893, Bd. Ill, 1898. See also various volumes of the Samml. der griech. Dial.-Inscljr. « Handb. der griech. Dial., 1909. ' Gk. Dialects. « Les dialectes Doriens, 1891; cf. also H. W. Smyth, The Gk. Dial, (fonie only), 1894. » Lingua Greca Antica, 1888. Cf. Lambert, fit. sur le dial. 6olien, 1903. 18 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Greek to-day as it was true in the early period. Witness the Athenian riot over the Pallis vernacular translation. Occasion- ally a writer like Aristophanes would purposely write in the lan- guage of the street. It is not therefore a peculiarity of the koiv^ that the vernacular Greek prevailed then. It always prevails. But the KaOapeiiovaa has secured a more disastrous supremacy over the Stj^uotikij than in any other language. And we are now able to estimate the vernacular kolvI], since the great papyri discoveries of Flinders-Petrie, Grenfell and Hunt and others. We had already the excellent discussions of MuUach/ Niebuhr/ Blass,' Foy* and Lottich.^ But in the last fifteen years or so a decided impetus has been given to this phase of Greek grammatical research. It is in truth a new study, the attention jiow paid to the vernacular, as Moulton points out in his Prolegomena (p. 22). "I will go further and say that if we could only recover letters that ordinary people wrote to each other without being literary, we should have the greatest possible help for the understanding of the language of the N. T. generally" (Bishop Lightfoot, 1863, as quoted in Moulton 's Prol., 2d and 3d ed., p. 242). If Lightfoot only lived now! Cf. Masson's Preface to Winer (1859). The most abundant source of new light for the vernacular Koivij is found in the papyri collections, many volimaes of which have already been pubUshed (see Bibliography for fuller list), while more are yet to be issued. Indeed, Prof. W. N. Stearns" com- plains: "There would seem to be a plethora of such material already as evidenced by such collections as the Berlinische Ur- kunde and the Rainier Papyri." But the earnest student of the Greek tongue can only rejoice at the "extraordinary and in part unexpected wealth of material from the contemporary and the later languages."' See the publications of Drs. Grenfell and Hunt,* ' Gr. der griech. Vulgarspr., 1856. ' tJber das Igyp.-Griech., Kl. Schr., II, p. 197 f. • Die griech. Beredsamkeit von Alex, bis auf Aug., 1865. • Lauts. der griech. Vulgarspr., 1879. > De Serm. vulg. Att., 1881. • Am. Jour, of Theol., Jan., 1906, p. 134. ' Samuel Dickey, New Points of View for the Study of the Gk. of the N. T. (Prince. Theol. Rev., Oct., 1903). 8 Oxyrhyn. Pap., vols. I-VIII, 1898-1911; Faylim Pap., 1900; Tebtunis Pap., 1902 (Univ. of Gal. Publ., pts. I, II, 1907; Hibeh Pap., pt. 1, 1906; vol. IV, bxyrhyn. Pap., pp. 265-271, 1904; GrenfeU and Hunt, The Hibeh Pap., 1906, pt. I. In general, for the bibhography of the papsri see Hohlwein, La papyrol. grec, bibliog. raisonn^e, 1905. NEW MATERIAL 19 Mahaffy/ Goodspeed,^ the Berlinische Urkunde,' Papyri in the British Museum,* the Turin Papyri,^ the Leyden Papyri,* the Geneva Papyri,' Lord Amherst's collection (Paris, 1865), etc. For general discussions of the papyri see the writings of Wilcken,' Kenyoli,' Hartel,'" Haberlin," Viereck,*^ Deissmann,'' de Ricci," Wessely.'' A great and increasing literature is thus coming into existence on this subject. Excellent handbooks of convenient size are those by H. Lietzmann, Greek Papyri (1905), and by G. MilUgan, Greek Papyri (1910). For a good discussion of the papyri and the literature on the subject see Deissmann, Light, etc., pp. 20-41. The grammatical material in the papyri has not been exhausted. There are a number of excellent workers in the field such as Mayser,^* St. Witkowski," Deissmann,** Moulton," H. A. A. Kennedy,2o Jamiaris,^! Kenyon,!^ Voelker,=» Thumb.'^ ' Flinders-Petrie Pap., 1891, 1892, 1893. 2 Gk. Pap. from the Cairo Mus., 1902, 1903. ' Griech. Urk., 1895, 1898, 1903, 1907, etc. * F. G. Kenyon, Cat. of Gk. Pap. in the B. M., 1893; Evid. of the Pap. for Text. Grit, of the N. T., 1905; B. M. Pap., vol. I, 1893, vol. II, 1898. 6 Peyron, 1826, 1827. ' Zauber Pap., 1885; Leeman's Pap. Graeci, 1843. ' J. Nicole, 1896, 1900;oTkpuv." "EXXtjj'ik^ T pamiaToXoyla, 1894, p. 6. * "As a matter of course, I do not presume to have said the last word on all or most of these points, seeing that, even in the case of modern Gk., I cannot be expected to master, in all its details, the entire vocabulary and grammar of every single NeoheUenic dialect." Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897, p. x. ' Wissensch. Synt. der griech. Spr., 1829. THE HISTORICAL METHOD 33 Christ,^ Wundt,^ Johannsen,' Krumbacher,^ Schanz,^ G. Meyer,' I. Miiller/ Hirt,^ Thumb,^ Dieterich/" Steinthal." The Latin syntax received historical treatment by Landgraf,!^ not to men- tion EngUsh and other modern languages. n. Language as a Living Organism. (a) The Origin of Language. Speech is indeed a character- istic of man and may be considered a divine gift, however slowly the gift was won and developed by him.'' Sayce is undoubtedly correct in saying that language is a social creation and the effort to communicate is the only true solution of the riddle of speech, whether there was ever a speechless man or not. "Grammar has grown out of gesture and gesticulation."" But speech has not created the capacities which mark the civilized man as higher than the savage.'' Max Miiller remarks that " language forms an impassable barrier between man and beast." Growls and signs do not constitute "intellectual symbolism."" Paul indeed, in op- position to Lazarus and Steinthal, urges that "every linguistic creation is always the work of a single individual only." " The psychological organisms are in fact the true media of linguistic 1 Gesch. der griech. Lit., 1893. ■' Volkerpsychol., 1900, 3. Aufl., 1911 f. ' Beitr. zur griech. Sprachk., 1890. * Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1885. 5 Beitr. zur hist. Synt. der griech. Spr., Bd. I-XVII. « Ess. und Stud, zur Sprachgesch. und Volksk., Bd. I, II, 1885, 1893. ' Handb. der Altertumswiss. He edits the series (1890 — ). ' Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl. Eine Einftihr. in das sprach- wiss. Stud, des Griech., 1902, 2. Aufl., 1912. ' Die griech. Spr. im Zeitalter des Hellen., 1901. '" Untersuch. zur Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1898. " Gesch. der Sprachwiss. bei den Griech. und Rom., Tl. I, II, 1891. « Hist. Gr. der lat. Spr., 1903. Of. Stolz und Schmalz, Lat. Gr., 4. Aufi., 1910; Draeger, Hist. Synt. der lat. Spr., Bd. I, II, 1878, 1881; Lindsay, The Lat. Lang., 1894. In Bd. Ill of Landgraf's Gr., GoUing says (p. 2) that Latin Grammar as a study is due to the Stoics who did it "in der engsten Verbin- dung mit der Logik." Of. Origin of Gk. Gr. " See Whitney, Lang, and the Study of Lang., 1868, p. 399. " Sayce, Intr. to the Sci. of Lang., voL II, p. 301. 16 Whitney, Darwinism and Lang., Reprint from North Am. Rev., July, 1874. " Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 9. See also The SUesian Horse- herd: "Language and thought go hand in hand; where there is as yet no word, ' there is as yet no idea." Many of the writers on animals do not accept this doctrine. " Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., p. xliii. 34 A GEAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT development. Self-observation and analogy help one to strike a general average and so make grammar practical as well as scien- tific. (6) Evolution in Language. Growth, then, is to be expected in a living tongue. Change is inseparable from life. No language is dead so long as it is undergoing change, and this must be true in spoken and written usage. It is not the function of the gram- marian to stop change in language, a thing impossible in itself. Such change is not usually cataclysmic, but gradual and varied. "A written language, to serve any practical purpose, must change with the tunes, just like a living dialect." ^ In general, change in usage may be compared to change in organic structure in "greater or lesser fitness." ^ The changes by analogy in the speech of children are very suggestive on this point. The vocab- ulary of the Greek tongue must therefore continually develop, for new ideas demand new words and new meanings come to old words. Likewise inflections vary in response to new movements. This change brings great wealth and variety. The idea of prog- ress has seized the modern mind and has been applied to the study of language as to everything else. (c) Change Chiefly in the Vernacular. Linguistic change occurs chiefly in the vernacular. From the spoken language new words and new inflections work their way gradually into the written style, which is essentially conservative, sometimes even anachronistic and purposely archaic. Much slang is finally ac- cepted in the literary style. The study of grammar was originally confined to the artificial book-style. Dionysius Thrax expressly defined grammar as kfiireipia tS>v irapd. iroMjraTs re xal avyjpcu^euaiv iis exi TO TToKv 'Keyonevoiv. It was with him a concern for the poets and writers, not "die Sprache des Lebens."^ Grammar {■ypap.lia.Tucq, 7pd0co), then, was first to write and to understand what was written; then the scientific interpretation of this literar ture; later the study of Uterary linguistic usage. It is only the moderns who have learned to investigate the living speech for its own historical value. Before the discovery of the Greek in- scriptions the distinction between the vernacular and the literary style could not be so sharply drawn for the Greek of the classical * Paul, Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., p. 481. ^ lb., p. 13. Kiihner speaks of "das organische Leben der Sprache'' and of "ein klares, anschauUches und lebensvolles Bild des groCen und ifcraftig bltihenden Sprachbaums." Ausfiihrl. Gr. der griech. Spr., 1. Bd., 1890, p. iii. ' Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 3-5. THE HISTOEICAL METHOD 35 period, though Aristophanes should have taught us much. We have moved away from the position of Mure' who said: "The distinction between the language of letters and the vulgar tongue, so characteristic of modern civilization, is imperceptible or but little defined in the flourishing age of Greece. Niunerous peculi- arities in her social condition tended to constitute classical ex- pression in speaking or writing, not, as with us, the privilege of a few, but a public property in which every Hellene had an equal interest." The people as a whole were wonderfully well educated, but the educated classes themselves then, as now with us, used a spoken as well as a literary style. Jannaris^ is clear on this point: "But, speaking of Attic Greek, we must not infer that all Athe- nians and Atticized Greeks wrote and spoke the classical Attic portrayed in the aforesaid literature, for this Attic is essentially what it still remains in modern Greek composition: a merely historical abstraction; that is, an artistic language which nobody spoke but still everybody understood." We must note therefore both the vernacular and the literary style and expect constant change in each, though not in the same degree. Zamcke indeed still sounds a note of warning against too much attention to the vernacular, though a needless one.' In the first century a.d. the vernacular Greek was in common use all over the world, the char- acter of which we can now accurately set forth. But this non- literary language was not necessarily the speech of the illiterate. Mahaffy* is very positive on this point. "I said just now that the Hellenistic world was more cultivated in argument than we are nowadays. And if you think this is a strange assertion, ex- amine, I pray you, the intellectual aspects of the epistles of St. Paul, the first Christian writer whom we know to have been thor- oughly educated in this training. Remember that he was a practi- cal teacher, not likely to commit the fault of speaking over the heads of his audience, as the phrase is." Hatzidakis^ laments that the monuments of the Greek since the Alexandrian period are no longer in the pure actual living speech of the time, but in the ar- ' A Crit. Hist, of the Lang, and Lit. of Anc. Greece, 1850, vol. I, p. 117. 2 Op. at., 1897, p. 3 f. ' Die Entst. der griech. Literaturspr., 1890, p. 2: "Denn man liefe Gefahr, den Charakter der Literaturdenkmaler ganzlich zu zerstoren, indem man, ihre eigenartige Gestaltung verkennend, sie nach den Norm^ einer gespro- chenen Mundart corrigirt." But see Lottich, De Senn. vulg. Att., 1881; and Apostolides, op. cil. ' Prog, of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., 1905, p. 137. ^ Einleitung, p. 3. 36 A GEAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT tificial Attic of a bygone age. The modem Greek vernacular is a living tongue, but the modem literary language so proudly called KcuBapeiovaa is artificial and tinreal.^ This new conception of language as life makes it no longer possible to set up the Greek of any one period as the standard for all time. The English writer to-day who would use Hooker's style would be affected and anachronistic. Good EngUsh to-day is not what it was two hundred years ago, even with the help of printing and (part of the time) dictionaries. What we wish to know is not what was good Greek at Athens in the days of Pericles, but what was good Greek in Syria and Palestine in the first century a.d. The direct evidence for this must be sought among contemporaries, not from ancestors in a distant land. It is the hving Greek that we desire, not the dead. III. Greek not an Isolated Language. (a) The Importance of Comparative Grammar. Julius Csesar, who wrote a work on grammar, had in mind Latin and Greek, for both were in constant use in the Roman world.^ Formal Sanskrit grammar itself may have resulted from the comparison of San- skrit with the native dialects of India.^ Hence comparative grammar seems to lie at the very heart of the science. It cannot be said, however, that Panini, the great Sanskrit scholar and grammarian of the fourth century B.C., received any impulse from the Greek civilization of Alexander the Great.* The work of Pdnini is one of the most remarkable in history for subtle orig- inality, . "une histoire naturelle de la langue sanscrite." The Roman and Greek grammarians attended to the use of words in sentences, while the Sanskrit writers analyzed words into syl- lables^ and studied the relation of sounds to each other. It is not possible to state the period when linguistic comparison was first made. Max Mtiller in The Science of Language even says: "From an historical point of view it is not too much to say that the first Day of Pentecost marks the real beginning of the Science of language." One must not think that the comparative method is "more characteristic of the study of language than of other • "Eine Literatursprache ist nie eine Art Normalsprache. " Schwyzer, Weltspr. des Altert., 1902, p. 12. * King, Intr. to Comp. Gr., p. 2. ' Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philol., p. 261. ' Goblet d'Alviella, Ce que I'lnde doit k la GrSce, .1897, p. 129. ' King, op. Ht., p. 2f. "The method of comparative grammar is merely auxiliary to historical grammar," Wheeler, Whence and Whither of the Mod. Sci. of Lang., p. 96. THE HISTORICAL METHOD 37 branches of modern inquiry." ' The root idea of the new gram- mar is the kinship of languages. Chinese grammar is said to be one of the curiosities of the world, and some other grammatical works can be regarded in that hght. But our fundamental obli- gation is to the Hindu and Greek grammarians.^ (&) The Common Bond in Language. Prof. Alfredo Trom- betti, of Rome, has sought the connecting link in all human speech.^ It is a gigantic task, but it is doubtless true that all speech is of ultimate common origin. The remote relationships are very difficult to trace. As a working hypothesis the compara- tive grammarians speak of isolating, agglutinative and inflectional languages. In the isolating tongues like the Chinese, Burmese, etc., the words have no inflection and the position in the sen- tence and the tone in pronunciation are relied on for clearness of meaning. Giles* points out that modem Enghsh and Persian have nearly returned to the position of Chinese as isolating lan- guages. Hence it is inferred that the Chinese has already gone through a history similar to the Enghsh and is starting again on an inflectional career. Agglutinative tongues like the Turkish ex- press the various grammatical relations by niunerous separable prefixes, infixes and sufiixes. Inflectional languages have made still further development, for while a distinction is made between the stem and the inflexional endings, the stems and the endings do not exist apart from each other. There are two great families in the inflexional group, the Semitic (the Assyrian, the Hebrew, the Syriac, the Arabic, etc.) and the Indo-Germanic or Indo-Euro- pean (the Indo-Iranian or Aryan, the Armenian, the Greek, the Albanian, the Italic, the Celtic, the Germanic and the Balto- Slavic).* Indo-European also are lUyrian, Macedonian, Phrygian, Thracian and the newly-discovered Tocharian. Some of these groups, like the Italic, the Germanic, the Balto-Slavic, the Indo- Iranian, embrace a number of separate tongues which show an inner affinity, but all the groups have a general family likeness.' 1 Whitney, Life and Growth of Lang., 1875—, p. 315. ^ F. Hoffmann, tJber die Entwickel. des Begriffs der Gr. bei den Alten, 1891, p. 1. ' See his book, The Unity of Origin of Lang. Dr. Allison Drake, Disc, in Heb., Gaelic, Gothic, Anglo-Sax., Lat., Basque and other Caucasic Lang., 1908, undertakes to show "fundamental kinship of the Aryan tongues and of Basque with the Semitic tongues." * Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901, p. 36. ■^ Brugmann, Kurze vergl. Gr. der indoger. Spr., 1. Lief., 1902, p. 4. 6 See Misteli, Characteristik der hauptsachlichsten Typen des Sprach- 38 A 6EAMMAE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (c) The Original Indo-Geemanic Speech. It is not claimed that the original Indo-Germanic speech has been discovered, though Kretschmer does speak of "die indogermanische Ur- sprache," but he considers it only a necessary hypothesis and a useful definition for the early speech-unity before the Indo-Ger- manic stock separated.! Brugmann speaks also of the original and ground-speech (Ur- und Grundsprache) in the prehistoric back- ground of every member of the Indo-Germanic family.^ The science of language has as a historic discipline the task of inves- tigating the collective speech-development of the Indo-Germanic peoples.' Since Bopp's day this task is no longer impossible. The existence of an original Indo-Germanic speech is the working hypothesis of all modern linguistic study. This demands indeed a study of the Indo-Germanic people. Horatio Hale* insists that language is the only proper basis for the classification of man- kind. But this test breaks down when Jews and Egyptians speak Greek after Alexander's conquests or when the Irish and the American Negro use Enghsh. The probable home and wander- ings of the original Indo-Germanic peoples are well discussed by Kretschmer.^ It is undeniable that many of the same roots exist in slightly different forms in all or most of the Indo-Germanic tongues. They are usually words that refer to the common do- mestic relations, elementary agriculture, the ordinary articles of food, the elemental forces, the pronouns and the numerals. In- flexional languages have two kinds of roots, predicative (nouns and verbs) and pronominal. Pdnini found 1706 such roots in Sanskrit, but Edgren has reduced the number of necessary San- skrit roots to 587.* But one must not suppose that' these hypo- thetical roots ever constituted a real language, though there was an original Indo-Germanic tongue.' baues, 1893. For further literatiire on comparative grammar see ch. I, 2 (j) of this book. There is an English translation of Bnlgmann's Bde. I and II called Elements of the Comp. Gr. of the Indo-Ger. Lang., 5 vols., 1886-97. But his Kurze vergl. Gr. (1903-4) is the handiest edition. MeiUet (Intr. k I'fitude Comp. etc., pp. 441-455) has a discriminating discussion of the litera- ture. ' Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 7-9. 2 Kurze vergl. Gr., 1. Lief., 1902, p. 3. 3 lb., p. 27. " Pop. Sci, Rev., Jan., 1888. " Einl. in die Gesoh. etc., pp. 7-92. « See Max Muller, Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 29. ' Sayce, Prin. of Comp. PhiloL., 1875, p. vi. THE HISTOKICAL METHOD 39 (d) Geeek as a "Dialect" of the Indo-Gekmanic Speech. Greek then can be regarded as one of the branches of this original Indo-Germanic speech, just as French is one of the descendants of the Latin,! \i^q Spanish, Portuguese, Italian. Compare also the re- lation of English to the other Teutonic tongues.^ To go further, the separation of this original Indo-Germanic speech into various tongues was much like the breaking-up of the original Greek into dialects and was due to natural causes. Dialectic variety itself impUes previous speech-unity.^ Greek has vital relations with all the branches of the Indo-Germanic tongues, though in varying degrees. The Greek shows decided affinity with the Sanskrit, the Latin and the Celtic* languages. Part of the early Greek stock was probably Celtic. The Greek and the Latin flourished side by side for centuries and had much common history. All the com- parative grammars and the Greek grammars from this point of view constantly compare the Greek with the Latin. See especially the great work of Riemann and Goelzer, Grammaire comparie du Grec et du Latin} On the whole subject of the relation of the Greek with the various Indo-Germanic languages see the excel- lent brief discussion of Kretschmer.' But the hypothesis of an original Graeco-Italic tongue cannot be considered as shown, though there are many points of contact between Greek and Latin.' But Greek, as the next oldest branch known to us, shows marked affinity with the Sanskrit. Constant use of the San- skrit must be made by one who wishes to understand the historical development of the Greek tongue. Such a work as Whitney's Sanskrit Grammar is very useful for this purpose. See also J. Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik. I, Lautlehre (1896). II, 1, Einleitung zur Wortlehre (1905). So Thumb's ' See Meyer-Lubke, Gr. der r5m. Spr., 3 Bde., 1890, 1894, 1899. ' See Hirt, Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl., 2d ed., 1912, p. 13. Cf. Donaldson, New Crat., p. 112 (Ethn. Affin. of the Anc. Greeks). ' Whitney, Lang, and the Study of Lang., 1868, p. 185. See Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 6: "Die griechische, lateinische, indische u.s.w. Grammatik Bind die konstitutiven TeUe der indogermanischen Grammatik in gleicher Weise, wie z. B. die dorische, die ionische u.s.w. Grammatik die griechische Grammatik ausmachen." * See Holder, Altcelt. Sprachsch., 1891 ff. s Synt., 1897. Vhoti6t. et fit. des Formes Grq. et Lat., 1901. ' Einl. in die Oesch. der griech. Spr., pp. 153-170. ' Prof. B. L. Gildersleeve, Johns Hopkins Univ., has always taught Greek, but his Latin Grammar shows his fondness for Latin. See also Henry, A Short Comp. Gr. of Gk. and Lat., 1890, and A Short Comp. Gr. of Eng. and Ger., 1893. 40 A GEAMMAK OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Handbuch des Sanskrit. I, Grammatik (1905). Max Muller» playfully remarks: "It has often been said that no one can know anything of the science of language who does not know Sanskrit, and that is enough to frighten anybody away from its study." It is not quite so bad, however. Sanskrit is not the parent stock of the Greek, but the oldest member of the group. The age of the Sanskrit makes it invaluable for the study of the later speech- developments. The Greek therefore is not an isolated tongue, but sustains vital relations with a great family of languages. So important, does Kretschmer consider this aspect of the subject that he devotes his notable Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache to the setting forth of "the prehistoric beginnings of the Greek speech-development." 2 This effort is, of necessity, fragmentary and partly inferential, but most valuable for a scientific treat- ment of the Greek language. He has a luminous discussion of the effect of the Thracian and Phrygian stocks upon the Greek when the language spread over Asia Minor.^ IV. Looking at the Greek Language as a Whole. We cannot indeed make an exhaustive study of the entire Greek language in a book that is professedly concerned only with one epoch of that history. As a matter of fact no such work exists. Jannaris^ in- deed said that "an 'historical' grammar, tracing in a connected manner the life of the Greek language from classical antiquity to the present time, has not been written nor even seriously at- tempted as yet." Janna^is himself felt his limitations when he faced so gigantic a task and found it necessary to rest his work upon the classical Attic as the only practical basis.^ But so far 1 Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 72. 2 P. 5. Prof. Burrows (Disc, in Crete, 1907, pp. 145 S.) raises the question whether the Greek race (a blend of northern and southern elements) made the Gk. language out of a pre-existing Indo-Exiropean tongue. Or did the northerners bring the Gk. with them? Or did they find it already in the iEgean? It is easier to ask than to answer these questions. » See pp. 171-243. * Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897, p. v. ^ lb., p. xi. Thumb says: "Wir sind noch sehr weit von einer Geschichte oder historischen Grammatik der griechischen Sprache entfemt; der Ver- such von Jannaris, so dankenswert er ist, kann doch nur provisorische Gel- tung beanspruchen, wobei man mehr die gute Absicht und den FleiC als das sprachgeschichtliche Verstandnis des Verfassers loben muB." Die griech. Spr., etc., 1901, p. 1. Cf. also Krumbacher, Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr. (1884, p. 4): "Eine zusammenhangende DarsteUung des Entwickelungs- ganges der griechischen Sprache ist gegenwaxtig nicht moglich." But it is more possible now than in 1884. THE HISTOKICAL METHOD 41 he departed from the pure historical method. But such a gram- mar will come some day. (a) Descriptive Histobical Gbammar. Meanwhile descriptive historical grammar is possible and necessary. "Descriptive gram- mar has to register the grammatical forms and grammatical con- ditions in use at a given date within a certain community speaking a common language." ^ There is this justification for taking Attic as the standard for classical study; only the true historical perspective should be given and Attic should not be taught as the only real Greek. It is possible and essential then to correlate the N. T. Greek with all other Greek and to use all Greek to throw light on the stage of the language under review. If the Greek itself is not an isolated tongue, no one stage of the lan- guage can be so regarded. "Wolffs deprecates the restriction of grammar to a set of rules abstracted from the writings of a 'golden' period, while in reality it should comprise the whole his- tory of a language and trace its development." H. C. Miiller' indeed thought that the time had not arrived for a grammar of Greek on the historical plan, because it must rest on a greater amount of material than is now at hand. But since then a vast amount of new material has come to light in the form of papyri, inscriptions and research in the modem Greek. Miiller's own book has added no little to our knowledge of the subject. Mean- while we can use the historical material for the study of N. T. Greek. (&) Unity of the Greek Language. At the risk of slight repe- tition it is worth while to emphasize this point. Miiller* is apolo- getic and eager to show that "the Greek language and Uterature is one organic, coherent whole." The dialectical variations, while confusing to a certain extent, do not show that the Greek did not possess original and continuous unity. As early as 1000 B.C. these dialectical distinctions probably existed and the speech of Homer is a literary dialect, not the folk-speech.^ The original sources of 1 Paul, Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., 1888, p. 2. 2 Oertel, Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1902, p. 27. Thumb (Theol. Litera- turzeit., 1903, p. 424) expresses the hope that in a future edition of his Gr. des N. T., Blass may do this for his book: "Die Sprache des N. T. auf dem groCen Hintergrund der hellenistischen Sprachentwicklung beschreiben zu konnen." ' Hist. Gr. der heU. Spr., 1891, p. 14 f. * lb., p. 16. On "die griechische Sprache als Einheit" see Thumb's able discussion in Handb. d. griech. Dial. (pp. 1-12). With aU the diversity of dialects there was essential unity in comparison with other tongues. ' Brugmann, Vergl. Gr., 1902, p. 8. 42 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the Greek speech go back to a far distant time when as one single language an Asiatic idiom had taken Europe in its circle of in- fluence.i The translator of Buttmann's Greek Grammar speaks of Homer "almost as the work of another language." This was once a common opinion for all Greek that was not classic Attic. But Thiersch entitled his great work Griechische Grammatik vor- ziiglich des homerischen Dialekts, not simply because of the worth of Homer, "but because, on the contrary, a thorough knowledge of the Homeric dialect is indispensably necessary for those who desire to comprehend, in their whole depth and compass, the Grecian tongue and literature.'"' But Homer is not the gauge by which to test Greek; his poems are invaluable testimony to the early history of one stage of the language. It is a pity that we know so little of the pre-Homeric history of Greek. "Homer pre- sents not a starting-point, but a culmination, a complete achieve- ment, an almost mechanical accomplishment, with scarcely a hint of origins." ' But whenever Greek began it has persisted as a linguistic unit till now. It is one language whether we read the Epic Homer, the Doric Pindar, the Ionic Herodotus, the Attic Xenophon, the ^olic Sappho, the Atticistic Plutarch, Paul the exponent of Christ, an inscription in Pergamus, a papyrus letter in Egypt, Tricoupis or Vlachos in the modern time. None of these representatives can be regarded as excrescences or imperti- nences. There have always been uneducated persons, but the Greek tongue has had a continuous, though checkered, history all the way. The modern educated Greek has a keen appreciation of "die Schonheiten der klassischen Sprache."* Miiller* complained that "almost no grammarians have treated the Greek language as a whole," but the works of Knunbacher, Thmnb, Dieterich, Hatzidakis, Psichari, Jannaris, etc., have made it possible to ob- tain a general survey of the Greek language up to the present' time. Like English,* Greek has emerged into a new sphere of unity and consistent growth. ' Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, p. 6. On the un- mixed character of the Gk. tongue see Wackernagel, Die griech. Spr., p. 294, Tl. I, Abt. 8 (Die Kult. der Gegenw.). On the antiquity of Gk. see p. 292 f. 2 Sandford, Pref. to Thiersch's Gk. Gr., 1830, p. viii. ' Miss Harrison, Prol. to the Study of Gk. Rel., 1903, p. vii. * Hatzidakis, Einl. in die neugr. Gr., 1892, p. 4. 6 Hist. Gr. der hell. Spr., 1891, p. 2. ' See John Koch, Eng. Gr., for an admirable bibliography of works on Eng. (in Ergeb. und Fortschr. der germanist. Wiss. im letzten Vierteljahrh., 1902, pp. 89-138, 325-437). The Germans have taught us how to study English! THE HISTORICAL METHOD 43 (c) Periods of the Greek Language. It will be of service to present a brief outline of the history of the Greek tongue. And yet it is not easy to give. See the discussion by Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon (p. 11 f.), inadequate in view of recent discoveries by Schliemann and Evans. The following is a tentative outline: The Mycenaean Age, 2000 B.C. to 1000 B.C.; the Age of the Dia- lects, 1000 B.C. to 300 B.C.; the Age of the Koiv-l), 300 B.C. to 330 A.D.; the Byzantine Greek, 330 a.d. to 1453 a.d.; the modern Greek, 1453 a.d. to the present time. The early stage of the Byzantine Greek (up to 600 a.d.) is really kowti and the rest is modern .Greek. See a different outline by Jannaris^ and Hadley and Allen." As a matter of fact any division is arbitrary, for the language has had an unbroken history, though there are these general epochs in that history. We can no longer call the pre-Homeric time mythical as Sophocles does.' In naming this the Mycenaean age we do not wish to state positively that the Mycenaeans were Greeks and spoke Greek. "Of their speech we have yet to read the first syllable."* Tsountas^ and Manatt, however, venture to believe that they were either Greeks or of the same stock. They use the term "to designate all Greek peoples who shared in the Mycenaean civilization, irrespective of their habitat."* Ohnefalsch-Richter {Cont. Rev., Dec, 1912, p. 862) claims Cyprus as the purveyor of culture to the Creto- Mycenaean age. He claims that Hellenes lived in Cyprus 1200 to 1000 B.C. The Mycenaean influence was wide-spread and comes "down to the very dawn of historical Greece." '' That Greek was known and used widely during the Mycenasan age the researches of Evans at Knossos, in Crete, make clear.* The early linear ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. xxii. Cf. also Schuckburgh, Greece, 1906, p. 24 f. Moulton (Prol., p. 184) counts 32 centuries of the Gk. language from 1275 B.C., the date of the mention of the Achseans on an Egyptian monument. ^ Gk. Gr., 1885, p. 1 f . Deissmann indeed would have only three divisions, the Dialects up to 300 b.c, Middle Period up to 600 a.d., and Mod. Gk. up to the present time. Hauck's Realencyc, 1889, p. 630. Cf. Muller, Hist. Gr. der hell. Spr., 1891, pp. 42-62, for another outline. ' Gk. Lex., etc., p. 11. * Tsountas and Manatt, The Mycenaean Age, 1897, p. 316. 5 lb., p. 335 ff. « lb., p. 235. ' lb., p. 325. See also Beloch, Griech. Gesch., I., 85: "Auch sonst kann kein Zweifel sein, dafi die mykenaische Kultur in Griechenland bis in das VIII. Jahrhundert geherrscht." FUnders-Petrie (Jour, of Hell. Stud., xii, 204) speaks of IIOO to 800 B.C. as the "age of Mycenaean decadence." * Cretan Pictographs and Pre-Phoenician Script, 1895, p. 362; cf. also 44 A GRAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT writing of the Cretans came from a still earlier pictograph. The Greek dialects emerge into hght from about 1000 b.c. onward and culminate in the Attic which flourished till the work of Alexander is done. The Homeric poems prove that Greek was an old language by 1000 to 800 b.c. The dialects certainly have their roots deep in the Mycenaean age. Roughly, 300 b.c. is the time when the Greek has become the universal language of the world, a Welt~ sprache. 330 a.d. is the date when the seat of government was re- moved from Rome to Constantinople, while a.d. 1453 is the date when Constantinople was captured by the Turks. With all the changes in this long history the standards of classicity have not varied greatly from Homer till now in the written style, while the Greek vernacular to-day is remarkably like the earliest known inscriptions of the folk-speech in Greece.' We know something of this history for about 3000 years, and it is at least a thousand years longer. Mahaffy has too poor an idea of modem Greek, but even he can say: "Even in our miserable modem pigeon- Greek, which represents no real pronunciation, either ancient or modem, the lyrics of Sophocles or Aristophanes are unmistakably lovely." 2 (d) Modern Greek in Particular. It is important to single out the modern Greek vernacular' from the rest of the language for the obvious reason that it is the abiding witness to the perpetuity of the vernacular Greek as a living organism. It is a witness also that is at our service always. The modern Greek popular speech does not differ materially from the vernacular Byzantine, and thus connects directly with the vernacular Koivri. Alexandria was "the great culture-reservoir of the Greek-Oriental world . . . the repository of the ancient literary treasures."* With this Jour, of Hell. Stud., xiv, 270-372. See Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 22, for fur- ther proofs of the antiquity of Gk. as a written tongue. Mosso (Palaces of Crete, 1907, p. 73 f .) argues that the Mycenaean linear script was used 1900 B.C. Cf. Evans, Further Researches, 1898. » Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 13. See also Hatzidakis, Einl. in die neugr. Gr., 1892, p. 3. ' Survey of Gk. Civiiiz., 1896, p. 209. Cf. further Mosso, Dawn of Civihz. in Crete, 1910; Baike, Kings of Crete, 1910; Fbmen, Zeit und Dauer der kretisch- myken. Kult., 1909. » The modern literary language {KaSape<>ov(ya) is really more identical with the ancient classical Gk. But it is identity secured by mummifying the dead. It is identity of imitation, not identity of life. Cf . Thumb-Angus, Handb. of Mod. Gk. Vern., Foreword (p. xi f.). * Dieterich, Gesch. der byz. und neugr. Lit., 1902, p. 2. THE HISTORICAL METHOD 45 general position Thumb heartily agrees."^ Hatzidakis^ even says: "The language generally spoken to-day in the towns differs less from the common language of Polybius than this last differs from the language of Homer." Since this is true it at first seems odd that the students at the University of Athens should object so much to the translation of the N. T. into the modem vernacular. They forget that the N. T. is itself written in the vernacular KOLvi]. But that was so long ago that it is now classic to them. Certainly in the Gospels, as Wellhausen' insists, the spoken Greek became literature. Knowledge of the modern Greek* helps the student to escape from "the Procrustean bed of the old Greek" which he learned as a fixed and dead thing.^ It is prob- able that Roger Bacon had some Byzantine manual besides the old Greek grammars.' "In England, no less than in the rest of Western Europe, the knowledge of Greek had died away, and here also, it was only after the conquest of Constantinople that a change was possible."' Western Christians had been afraid of the corruptions of paganism if they knew Greek, and of Moham- medanism if they knew Hebrew (being kin to Arabic!). But at last a change has come in favour of the modem Greek. Boltz in- deed has advocated modem Greek as the conamon language for the scholars of the world since Latin is so little spoken.^ There is indeed need of a new world-speech, as Greek was in the N. T. times, but there is no language that can now justly make such a claim. English comes nearer to it than any other. This need has given rise to the artificial tongues Uke Volapiik and Espe- ' "Die heutige grieohische Volkssprache ist die naturliche Fortsetzimg der alten Koivfi." Die neugr. Spr., 1892, p. 8. See Heilineier's book on the Ro- maic Gk. (1834), who first saw this connection between the mod. vem. and the vem. koivIi. 2 Transl. by J. H. Moulton in Gr. of N. T. Gk., 1906 and 1908, p. 30, from Rev. des £t. Grq., 1903, p. 220. Of. Krumbacher, Das Prob. der neugr. Schriftspr., 1902. * Einl. in die drei ersten Evang., 1905, p. 9. ' See Riiger, Prap. bei Joh. Antiochenus, 1896, p. 7. ' Thumb, Handb. der neugr. Volkspr., 1895, p. x. « Roger Bacon's Gk. Gr., edited by Nolan and Hirsch, 1902, p. Ix f. ' lb., p. xlii. * Hell, die internat. Gelehrtenspr. der Zukunft, 1888. Likewise A. Rose: "Die griechische Sprache . . . hat . . . eine glanzende Zukunft vor sich." Die Griechen und ihre Spr., 1890, p. 4. He pleads for it as a "Weltsprache," p. 271. But Schwyzer pointedly says: "Die Rolle einer Weltsprache wird das Griechische nicht wieder spielen." Weltspr. des Altert., 1902, p. 38. Of. also A. Boltz, Die heU. Spr. der Gegenw., 1882, and Gk. the Gen. Lang, of the Future for Scholars. 46 A GRAMMAE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ranto,^ the latter having some promise in it. But the modern Greek vernacular has more merit than was once conceded to it. The idioms and pronunciation of the present-day vernacular are often seen in the manuscripts of the N. T. and other Greek docu- ments and much earher in inscriptions representing one or an- other of the early dialects. The persistence of early EngUsh forms is easily observed in the vernacular in parts of America or Eng- land. In the same way the late Latin vernacular is to be compared with the early Latin vernacular, not with the Latin of elegant literature. "Speaking generally, we may say that the Greek of a well-written newspaper [the literary language] is now, as a rule, far more classical than the Hellenistic of the N. T., but decidedly less classical than the Greek of Plutarch." ^ What the rela- tion between the N. T. Greek and the modern Greek is will be shown in the next chapter. It should be noted here that the N. T. Greek had a strong moulding influence on the Byzantine, and so on the modem Greek because of the use of the Greek New Testament all over the world, due to the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire.' The great Christian preachers did not indeed use a peculiar ecclesiastical Greek, but the N. T. did tend to emphasize the type of Koivfi in which it was written. "The diction of the N. T. had a direct influence in moulding the Greek ordinarily used by Christians in the succeeding cen- turies."^ Compare the effect of the King James Version on the English language and of Luther's translation of the Bible on German. V. The Greek Point of View. It sounds like a truism to insist that the Greek idiom must be explained from the Greek point of view. But none the less the caution is not superfluous. Trained linguists may forget it and so commit a grammatical vice. Even Winer* will be found saying, for instance: "Appel- latives which, as expressing definite objects, should naturally ' Cf. J. C. O'Connor, Esperanto Text-book, and Eng.-Esper. Diet. * Jebb, On the Rela. of Mod. to Class. Gk., in Vincent and Dickson's Handb. to Mod. Gk., 1887, p. 294. Blass actually says: "Der SiH-achge- brauch des Neuen Testaments, der vielfaltig vom Neugriechischen her eine viel bessere Beleuchtung empfangt als aus der alten klassischen Literatur." Kuhner's Ausf. Gr. etc., 1890, p. 25. Blass also says (ib., p. 26) that "eine wissenschaftliche neugriechische Grammatik fehlt." But Hatzidakis and others have written since. ' See Reinhold, De Graecitate Patrum, 1898. * Jebb, ib., p. 290. « Gr. of the N. T. Gk., Moulton's transl., 1877, p. 147. THE HISTORICAL METHOD 47 have the article, are in certain cases used without it." That "should" has the wrong attitude toward Greek. The appel- lative in Greek does not need to have the article in order to be definite. So when Winer often admits that one tense is used "for" another, he is really thinking of German and how it would be expressed in German. Each tongue has its own history and genius. Parallel idioms may or may not exist in a group of lan- guages. Sanskrit and Latin, for instance, have no article. It is not possible to parallel the Hebrew tenses, for example, with the Greek, nor, indeed, can it be done as between Greek and English. The English translation of a Greek aorist may have to be in the past perfect or the present perfect to suit the English usage, but that proves nothing as to how a Greek regarded the aorist tense. We must assume in a language that a good writer knew how to use his own tongue and said what he meant to say. Good Greek may be very poor English, as when Luke uses ku t4> elaayaytiv roiis yoveis to xaiSiov 'Irjaovv (Lu. 2:27). A literal translation of this neat Greek idiom makes barbarous English. The Greeks simply did not look at this clause as we do. " One of the commonest and gravest errors in studying the grammar of foreign languages is to make a half-conjectural translation, and then reason back from our own language to the meaning of the original; or to ex- plain some idiom of the original by the formally different idiom which is our substantial equivalent." ^ Broadus was the greatest teacher of language that I have known and he has said nothing truer than this. After all, an educated Greek knew what he meant better than we do. It is indeed a great and difl&cult task that is demanded of the Greek grammarian who to-day imder- takes to present a living picture of the orderly development of the Greek tongue "zu einem schonen und groCen Ganzen" and also show "in the most beautiful light the flower of the Greek spirit and life."^ Deissmann' feels strongly on the subject of the neglect of the literary development of Primitive Christianity, "a ' Broadus, Comm. on Mt., 1886, p. 316. See also Gerber, Die Spr. als Kunst, 1. Bd., X871, p. 321: "Der ganze Charakter dieser oder jener Sprache ist der Abdruck der Natur des Landes, wo sie gesprochen wird. Die griechi- sche Sprache ist der griechische Himmel selbst mit seiner tiefdunklen Blaue, die sich in dem sanft wogenden agaischen Meere spiegelt." ' Kiihner, Ausf. Gr. der griech. Spr., 1834, p. iv. How much more bo now! » Expos. Times, Dec, 1906, p. 103. Cf. also F. Overbeck, Hist. Zeitschr., neueFolge, 1882, p. 429 ff. 48 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT subject which has not yet been recognized by many pBrsons in its full importance. Huge as is the library of books that have been written on the origin of the N. T. and of its separate parts, the N. T. has not often been studied by historians of literature; that is to say, as a branch of the history of ancient literature." CHAPTER III THE KOINH The Greek of the N. T. has many streams that flow into it. But this fact is not a peculiarity of this phase of the language. The KOLvri itself has this characteristic in a marked degree. If one needs further examples, he can recall how composite English is, not only combining various branches of the Teutonic group, but also incorporating much of the old Celtic of Britain and re- ceiving a tremendous impress from the Norman-French (and so Latin), not to mention the indirect literary influence of Latin and Greek. The early Greek itself was subject to non-Greek influ- ence as other Indo-Germanic tongues were, and in particular from the side of the Thracians and Phrygians in the East,i and in the West and North the Italic, Celtic and Germanic pressure was strong.^ I. The Term Koivifi. The word Koivf/, sc. SidXeKTOs, means simply common language or dialect common to all, a world- speech (Weltsprache). Unfortunately there is not yet uniformity in the use of a term to describe the Greek that prevailed over Alexander's empire and became the world-tongue. Kiihner- Blass^ speak of " 17 koivti oder eXXijwK^ 5idX«KTos." So also Schmie- del* follows Winer exactly. But Hellenic language is properly only Greek language^ as Hellenic culture* is Greek culture. Jan- naris^ suggests Panhellenic or new Attic for the universal Greek, 1 Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 171-243. But the true Phrygiana were kin to the Greeks. See Percy Gardner, New Ch. of Gk. Hist., p. 84. ' Kretschmer, op. cit., pp. 153-170, 244-282. ' Griech. Gr., Bd. I, p. 22. < W.-Sch., N. T. Gr., p. 17. ' Mahaffy, Prog, of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., p. 3. Mahaffy does use Hel- lenism like Droysen in his Hist, of Hellenism, as corresponding to Hellen- istic, but he does so under protest (p. 3 f.). He. wishes indeed that he had coined the word "Hellenicism." But Hogarth (PhUip and Alexander, p. 277) had already used "HeUenisticism," saying: "Hellenisticism grew out of Hel- lenism." » Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 6. 49 50 . A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the Greek par excellence as to common usage. Hellenistic Greek would answer in so far as it is Greek spoken also by Hellenists differing from Hellenes or pure Greeks. Krumbacher applies Hel- lenistic to the vernacular and Koivii to the " conventional literary- language" of the time,! but this is wholly arbitrary. Krumbacher terms the Hellenistic "ein verschwommenes Idiom." Hatzida- kis and Schwyzer include in the Koivq both the literary and the spoken language of the Hellenistic time. This is the view adopted in this grammar. Deissmann dislikes the term Hellenistic Greek because it was so long used for the supposedly peculiar biblical Greek, though the term itself has a wide significance.^ He also strongly disapproves the terms "vulgar Greek," "bad Greek," "graecitas fatiscens," in contrast with the "classic Greek." Deissmann moreover objects to the word Koivfi because it is used either for the vernacular, the literary style or for all the Greek of the time including the Atticistic revival. So he proposes "Hellenistic world-speech."' But this is too cumbersome. It is indeed the world-speech of the Alexandrian and Roman period that is meant by the term Kowi}. There is on the other hand the literary speech of the orators, historians, philosophers, poets, the public documents preserved in the inscriptions (some even Atti- cistic); on the other hand we have the popular writings in the LXX, the N. T., the Apostolic Fathers, the papyri (as a rule) and the ostraca. The term is thus sufficient by itself to express the Greek in common use over the world, both oral and literary, as Schweizer^ uses it following Hatzidakis. Thumb ^ identifies Koivii and Hellenistic Greek and applies it to both vernacular and written style, though he would not regard the Atticists as proper producers of the Koivi]. Moulton^ uses the term noivi) for both spoken and literary Kowii. The doctors thus disagree very widely. On the whole it seems best to use the term Koivq (or Hellenistic Greek) both for the vernacular and literary Koivq, excluding the Atticistic revival, which was a conscious effort to write not koiviJ * Miinchener Sitzungsber., 1386, p. 435. * Art. Hell. Griech., Hauck's Realencyc, p. 629. ' lb., p. 630. « Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 19 f. 6 ^je grfech. Spr. etc., p. 9. « Prol., p. 23. It is not necessary to discuss here the use of "Hellenistic" Gk. as "Jewish-Gk." (see "Semitic Influence" in ch. IV), for it is absurd. The notion that the mivii is Macedonian Gk. is quite beside the mark, for Mac. Gk. is too barbarous. The theory of an Alexandrian dialect is obsolete. Du Ganges, in his Glossarium called Hell. Gk. " corruptissima lingua," and Niebuhr (tJber das Igyp.-Griech., Kl. Schr., p. 197) calls it "jargon." THE KOINH 51 but old Attic' At last then the Greek world has speech-unity, whatever was true of the beginning of the Greek language.* n. The Origin of the KoiWi. (a) Triumph of the Attic. This is what happened. Even in Asiatic Ionia the Attic influence was felt. The Attic ver- nacular, sister to the Ionic vernacular, was greatly influenced by. the speech of soldiers and merchants from all the Greek world. Attic became the standard language of the Greek world in the fifth and the fourth centuries B.C. "We must not infer that all Athenians and Atticized Greeks wrote and spoke the classical Attic portrayed in the aforesaid literature, for this Attic is essentially what it still remains in modem Greek compo- sition: a merely historical abstraction, that is, an artistic language which nobody spoke, but still everybody understood."' This is rather an overstatement, but there is much truth in it. This classic literary Attic did more and more lose touch with the ver- nacular. "It is one of our misfortunes, whatever be its practical convenience, that we are taught Attic as the standard Greek, and all other forms and dialects as deviations from it . . . when many grammarians come to characterize the later Greek of the Middle Ages or of to-day, or even that of the Alexandrian or N. T. periods, no adjective is strong enough to condemn this 'verdor- benes, veruneinigtes Attisch'" (S. Dickey, Princeton Rev., Oct., 1903). The literary Attic was allied to the literary Ionic; but even in this crowning development of Greek speech no hard and fast lines are drawn, for the artificial Doric choruses are used in tragedy and the vernacular in comedy.^ There was loss as well as gain as the Attic was more extensively used, just as is true ' Blass indeed contrasts the literature of the Alex, and Rom. periods on this principle, but wrongly, for it is type, not time, that maxks the difference. "If then the Uterature of the Alexandrian period must be called Hellenistic, that of the Roman period must be termed Atticistic. But the popular lan- guage had gone its own way." Gr. oftheN.T. Gk., 1898aadl905, p. 2. On the Gk. of Alexandria and its spread over the world see Wackemagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 304 f. ' See KJretschmer, Einl., p. 410. Dieterich: "Das Sprachgebiet der Eou/^ bildet eben ein Ganzes und kann nur im Zusammenhang betrachtet werden." Unters., p. xvi. ' Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897, p. 3 f. On the superiority of the Attic see Wackernagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 299. * Rutherford, Zur Gesch. des Atticismus, Jahrb. fur class. Phil., suppl. xiii, 1884, pp. 360, 399. So Audoin says: "Ce n'est point arbitrairement que les icrivains grecs ont employ^ tel ou tel dialecte." fit. sommaire des Dial. Grecs. Litt., 1891, p. 4. 52 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT of modem English. "The orators Demosthenes and ^schines may be counted in the new Attic, where other leading representa- tives in literature are Menander, Philemon and the other writers of the New Comedy." ^ As the literary Attic lived on in the literary KOLv^, so the vernacular Attic survived with many changes in the vernacular Koivfi. We are at last in possession of enough of the old Attic inscriptions and the koivti inscriptions and the papyri to make this clear. The march of the Greek language has been steadily forward on this Attic vernacular base even to this pres- ent day.2 In a sense, therefore, the KOLvii became another dialect (^olic, Doric, Ionic, Attic, Koivij). Cf. Kretschmer, Die Ent- stehung der Koivi], pp. 1-37. But the Kot,vii was far more than a dialect. Kretschmer holds, it is fair to say, that the kolv/i is " eine merkwiirdige Mischung verschiedenster Dialects" (op. dt, p. 6). He puts all the dialects into the melting-pot in almost equal pro- portions. Wilamowitz-MoUendorff considers the Ionic as the chief influence in the KOivri, while W. Schmidt denies all Doric and Ionic elements. Schwyzer rightly sees that the dialectical influences varied in different places, though the vernacular Attic was the common base. (6) Fate of the Other Dialects. The triumph of the Attic was not complete, though in Ionia, at the end of the third century b.c, inscriptions in Attic are found, showing that in Asia Minor pure Ionic had about vanished. In the first century b.c. the Attic appears in inscriptions in Bceotia, but as late as the second cen- tury A.D. ^olic inscriptions are found in Asia Minor, ^ohc first went down, followed by the Ionic. The Doric made a very stub- bom resistance. It was only natural that the agricultural com- munities should hold out longest. See Thumb, Hellen., p. 28 f. Even to-day the Zaconian patois of modern Greek vernacular ' Simonson, Gk. Gr., Accidence, 1903, p. 6. He has a good discussion of the dialects, pp. 221-265. 2 Riemann and Goelzer well say: "Quant au dialecte attique, grdce aux grands ^crivains qui I'iUustr^rent, grdce k la pr6pond6rence poUtique et com- merciale d'Athtoes, grSce aussi k son caractfere de dialecte intermfidiaire entre I'ionien et les dialectes en a, il se rfipandit de bonne heure, hors de son domaine primitif, continua k s'dtendre mSme aprfes la chute de Tempire pohtique d'Ath6nes et finit par embrasser tout le monde sur le nom de langue com- mune {mivii SiiXeKTos)" (Phon6tique, p. 16). And yet the common people understood Homer also as late as Xenophon. Cf. Xenophon, Com. 3, 6, Kal vvfi Svvalfa]v &v 'Wikia S\t)V Kai 'OSbaaaav dird ffrAjaoTos elireiK. Cf, Lottich, De Serm. vulg. Attic, 1881. On the "Growth of the Attic Dialect" see Rutherford, New Phrynichus, pp. 1-31. THE KOINH 53 has preserved the old Laconic Doric "whose broad a holds its ground still in the speech of a race impervious to Uterature and proudly conservative of a language that was always abnormal to an extreme."' It is not surprising that the Northwest Greek, because of the city leagues, became a kind of Achaean-Dorian KOLvii^ and held on till almost the beginning of the Christian era before it was merged into the koivt} of the whole Grseco-Roman world.' There are undoubtedly instances of the remains of the Northwest Greek and of the other dialects in the Koivq and so in the N. T. The Ionic, so near to the Attic and having flourished over the coast of Asia Minor, would naturally have considerable influence on the Greek world-speech. The proof of this will ap- pear in the discussion of the kowt] where remains of all the main dialects are naturally found, especially in the vernacular.* (c) Partial Koines. The standardizing of the Attic is the real basis. The Koivii was not a sudden creation. There were quasi-koines before Alexander's day. These were Strabo's alli- ance of Ionic-Attic, Doric-^olic (Thumb, Handb., p. 49). It is therefore to be remembered that there were "various forms of Koivii" before the KOLvij which commenced with the conquests of Alexander (Buck, Gk. Dialects, pp. 154-161), as Doric Koiv-q, Ionic KOLvri, Attic Koivrj, Northwest KOLvij. Hybrid forms are not un- common, such as the Doric future with Attic ov as in iroi-qcovvTi (cf. Buck, p. 160). There was besides a revival here and there of local dialects during the Roman times. (d) Effects of Alexander's Campaigns. But for the conquests of Alexander there might have been no Koair\ in the sense of a world-speech. The other Greek koines were partial, this alone was a world-speech because Alexander united Greek and Persian, east and west, into one common world-empire. He respected the ' Moulton, Prol., p. 32. » lb., p. 37. ' Radennacher(N. T. Gr., p. 1) puts it clearly: "Esgeniigtzusagen, dalSdie KOLvfj starksten Zusammenhang. mit dem Attischen, in zweiter Linie mit dem lonisohen, verrat. In der altesten Periode des HeUenismus zeigt sich daneben geringer EinfluC anderer Dialekte, des Dorischen und Aolischen." * "II est h, peine besoin de r6p6ter que ces caractSres s'effacent, k mesure que I'on descend vers I'fere chrfitienne. Sous I'influence sans cesse grandis- sante de I'atticisme, il s'6tablit une sorte d'uniformit6." Boisacq, Les Dial. Dor., 1891, p. 204. "The Gk. of the N. T. is not, however, mere Kourq. In vocabulary it is fundamentally Ionic" (John Burnet, Rev. of Theol. and Phil., Aug., 1906, p. 95). "Fundamentally" is rather strong, but i-vbaroKos, as ambassador, not mere expedition, ebXoyla, vnarda, give some colour to the statement. But what does Prof. Burnet mean by " mere itotirli " ? 54 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT customs and language of all the conquered nations, but it was in- evitable that the Greek should become the lingua franca of the world of Alexander and his successors. In a true sense Alexander made possible this new epoch in the history of the Greek tongue. The time of Alexander divides the Greek language into two peri- ods. "The first period is that of the separate life of the dialects and the second that of the speech-unity, the common speech or KOLvii" (Kretschmer, Die Entst. d. Koivri, p. 1). (e) The March toward Univeksalism. The successors of Alexander could not stop the march toward universalism that had begun. The success of the Roman Empire was but another proof of this trend of history. The days of ancient nationalism were over and the kolv-Ii was but one expression of the glacial move- ment. The time for the world-speech had come and it was ready for use. m. The Spread of the Koivi]. (a) A World-Speech. What is called ^ Koivq was a world- speech, not merely a general Greek tongue among the Greek tribes as was true of the Achsean-Dorian and the Attic. It is not speculation to speak of the Koivri as a world-speech, for the in- scriptions in the Koivfi testify to its spread over Asia, Egypt, Greece, Italy, Sicily and the isles of the sea, not to mention the papyri. Marseilles was a great centre of Greek civihzation, and even Gy- rene, though not Carthage, was Grecized.^ The Koivij was in such general use that the Roman Senate and imperial governors had the decrees translated into the world-language and scattered over the empire.'' It is significant that the Greek speech becomes one instead of many dialects at the very time that the Roman rule sweeps over the world.' The language spread by Alexander's army over the Eastern world persisted after the division of the kingdom and penetrated all parts of the Roman world, even Rome itself. Paul wrote to the church at Rome in Greek, and Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor, wrote his Meditations {tS>v els 'EavTov) in Greek. It was the language not only of letters, but of commerce and every-day life. A common language for all 1 See Churton, Infl. of the LXX Vers., 1861, p. 14. 2 Viereck, Sermo Graecus quo Senatus Popul. Rom. etc., 1888, p. xi. » See Wilamowitz-MoUendorff: "In demselben Momente, wo die caaari- sohe Weltmonarchie alle Strome hellenischer und italischer Kultur in einem Bette leitet, kommt die griechische Kunst auf alien Gebieten zu der Erkennt- nis, daC ihre Kreise erfuUt sind, daa einzige das ihr bleibt, Naehahmung ist." Uber die Entst. der grieoh. Schriftspr., Abhandl. deuts. Phil., 1878, p. 40. THE KOINH 55 men may indeed be only an ideal norm, but "the whole character of a common language may be strengthened by the fact of its transference to an unquestionably foreign linguistic area, as we may observe in the case of the Greek koij'iJ."^ The late Latin became a Koivii for the West as the old Babylonian had been for the East, this latter the first world-tongue known to us.^ Xeno- phon with the retreat of the Ten Thousand' was a forerunner of the KoivTi. Both Xenophon and Aristotle show the wider outlook of the literary Attic which uses Ionic words very extensively. There is now the " Groi5-Attisch." It already has yivofiai,, evtuev, — rojcai', eiira and rjveyKa, edoiKa/jLtv and edcoicav, ficurLXuraa, deiKvica, cff, va6s. Already Thucydides and others had borrowed (tct from the Ionic. It is an easy transition from the vernacular Attic to the vernacular Koivii after Alexander's time. (Cf . Thmnb's Hand- buch, pp. 373-380, " Entstehung der Koivri.") On the development of the Koivq see further Wackemagel, Die Kultur der Gegenwart, Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 301 ff.; Moulton, Prol, ch. I, II; Mayser, Gr. d. grkch. Pap., Kap. I. But it was Alexander who made the later Attic the common language of the world, though certainly he had no such purpose in view. Fortunately he had been taught by Aristotle, who himself studied in Athens and knew the Attic of the time. "He rapidly established Greek as the lingua franca of the empire, and this it was which gave the chief bond of union to the many countries of old civiUzations, which had hitherto been isolated. This imity of culture is the remarkable thing in the history of the world." ^ It was really an epoch in the world's history when the babel of tongues was hushed in the wonderful language of Greece. The vernaculars of the eastern Roman provinces remained, though the Greek was universal; so, when Paul came to Lystra, the people still spoke the Lycaonian speech ' Paul, Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., p. 496. See also Kaerst, Gesch. d. hel- lenist. Zeitalt., 1901, p. 420: "Die Weiterentwicklung der Geschichte des Altertums, so weit sie fur vmsere eigene Kultiir entscheidende Bedeutung er- langt hat, beruht auf einer fortschreitenden Occidentalisierung; auch das im Oriente emporgekommene Christentum entfaltet sich naoh dem Westen zu imd gelangt hier zu seiner eigentlich weltgeschichtUchen Wirksamkeit." ^ Schwyzer, Die Weltspr. etc., p. 7. » See Mahaffy, Prog, of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., p. 7; cf. also Rutherford New Phrynichus, 1881, p. 160 f.; Schweizer, Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 16. Moulton (Prol., p. 31) points out that the vase-inscriptions prove the state- ment of the Const, of Athens, 11. 3, that the Athenians spoke a language com- pounded of all Greek and barbarian tongues besides. * Mahaffy, Prog, of Hellen., etc., p. 40. 56 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT of their fathers.^ The papyri and the inscriptions prove beyond controversy that the Greek tongue was practically the same whether in Egypt, Herculaneum, Pergamum or Magnesia. The Greeks were the school-teachers of the empire. Greek was taught in the grammar schools in the West, but Latin was not taught in the East. (6) Veknacular and Literaky. 1. Vernacular. The spoken language is never identical with the literary style, though in the social intercourse of the best edu- cated people there is less difference than with the uncultured.'' We now know that the old Attic of Athens had a vernacular and a literary style that differed considerably from each other.' This distinction exists from the very start with the Koivri, as is apparent in Pergamum and elsewhere.* This vernacular KOivii grows right out of the vernacular Attic normally and naturally.* The colo- nists, merchants and soldiers who mingled all over Alexander's world did not carry Uterary Attic, but the language of social and business intercourse.* This vernacular Koivfi at first differed httle from the vernacular Attic of 300 b.c. and always retained the bulk of the oral Attic idioms. "Vulgar dialects both of the an- cient and modern times should be expected to contain far more archaisms than innovations."' The vernacular is not a varia- tion from the literary style, but the literary language is a develop- ment from the vernacular.* See Schmid' for the relation between the literary and the vernacular Koivf). Hence if the vernacular is the normal speech of the people, we must look to the inscriptions and the papyri for the living idiom of the common Greek or kolvti. The pure Attic as it was spoken in Athens is preserved only in ' Schwyzer, Weltspr., p. 29. ' Schweizer, Gr. der perg. etc., p. 22. ' See Kretschmer, Die griech. Vaseninschr. und ihre Spr., 1894; and Mei- sterhans, Gr. der att. Inschr., 1900. Cf. Lottich, De Serm. vulg. Attic, 1881. * Schweizer, Gr., p. 27. 5 Thumb, Griech. Spr. im Zeitalter etc., p. 208 f. Lottich in his De Serm. vulg. Attic, shows from the writings of Aristophanes how the Attic vernacular varied in a number of points from the literary style, as in the frequent use of diminutives, desiderative verbs, metaphors, etc. » Schweizer, Gr., p. 23. ' Geldart, Mod. Gk. Lang, in its Rela. to Anc. Gk., 1870,' p. 73. See also Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 10, who calls "die KOLvij weniger ein AbschluC als der Anfang einer neuen Entwicklung." On the older Gk. mivii see Wackemagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 300 f . ' Deissmann, Hell. Griech., Hauck's Realencyc, p. 633. « Atticismus, Bd. IV, pp. 577-734. A very important treatment of the whole question is here given. THE KOINH 57 the inscriptions.^ In the Roman Empire the vernacular kolv^ would be understood almost everywhere from Spain to Pontus. See IV for further remarks on the vernacular koivt]. 2. Literary. If the vernacular Koivii was the natural develop- ment of the vernacular Attic, the literary Koivii was the normal evolution of the literary Attic. Thumb well says, "Where there is no development, there is no life."^ "In style and syntax the literary common Greek diverges more widely from the collo- quial."' This is natural and in harmony with the previous re- moval of the Uterary Attic from the language of the people.* The growth of the literary Koivii was parallel with that of the popular Kot.vri and was, of course, influenced by it. The first prose monu- ment of literary Attic known to us, according to Schwyzer, is the Constitution of Athens^ (before 413), falsely ascribed to Xeno- phon. The forms of the literary Koivri are much like the Attic, as in Polybius, for instance, but the chief difference is in the vocab- ulary and meaning of the same words.' Polybius followed the general literary spirit of his time, and hence was rich in new words, abstract nouns, denominative verbs, new adverbs.^ He and Josephus therefore used Ionic words found in Herodotus and Hippocrates, like ev8eais, irapa<^uXaK^, not because they consciously imitated these writers, but because the Koivi], as shown by papyri and inscriptions, employed them.* For the same reason Luke and Josephus' have similar words, not because of use of one by the other, but because of common knowledge of literary terms, Luke also using many common medical terms natural to a physician of culture. Writers like Polybius aimed to write without pedan- try and without vulgarism. In a true sense then the literary koivtj was a " compromise between the vernacular KOLvii and the literary Attic," between "Ufe and school." i" There is indeed no Chinese ' Hirt, Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl., 1902, p. 41. 2 Griech. Spr., p. 251. » Moulton, Prol., p. 26. * Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 5. Deissmann (New Light on the N. T., 1907, p. 3 f.) shows that part of Norden's criticism of Paul's Gk. is nothing but the contrast between Uterary mtvii and vernacular icoLvii; cf. Die ant. Kunstpr. ' Schwyzer, Die Weltspr. der Alt., p. 15. See also Christ, Gesch. der griech. Lit., p. 305. See Die pseudoxenophontische 'ABrivaiuv UoTureia, von E. KaUnka, 1913. ' Schweizer, Gr., p. 21. ' Christ, op. cU., p. 588. * Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 213. See also Goetzeler, De Polyb. Eloc, 1887, p. 15. ' Thumb, ib., p. 225 f. See also Krenkel, Josephus imd Lukas, 1894, pp. 283 ff. " Thumb, ib., p. 8. 58 A GBAMMAR OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT wall between the literary and the vernacular Koivri, but a constant inflow from the vernacular to the written style as between prose and poetry, though Zamcke' insists on a thorough-going distinc- tion between them. The literary koiv^ would not, of course, use such dialectical forms as rous iravres, rots Tpay/iarois, etc., com- mon in the vernacular koivt).^ But, as Krumbacher' well shows, no literary speech worthy of the name can have an independent development apart from the vernacular. Besides Polybius and Josephus, other writers in the literary Koivii were Diodorus, Philo, Plutarch, though Plutarch indeed is ahnost an "Anhanger des Atticismus"* and Josephus was rather seK-conscious in his use of the literary style.* The literary Koivri was still affected by the fact that many of the writers were of "un-Greek or half Greek descent," Greek being an acquired tongue.* But the point must not be overdone, for the literary Koivrj "was written by cosmopoli- tan scholars for readers of the same sort," and it did not make much difference "whether a book was written at Alexandria or Pergamum."' Radermacher* notes that, while in the oldest Greek there was no artificiality even in the written prose, yet in the period of the Koivii all the literary prose shows "eine Kimst- sprache." He applies this rule to Polybius, to Philo, to the N. T., to Epictetus. But certainly it does not hold in the same manner for each of these. (c) The Atticistic Reaction. Athens was no longer the centre of Greek civilization. That glory passed to Alexandria, to Per- gamum, to Antioch, to Ephesus, to Tarsus. But the great crea- tive epoch of Greek culture was past. Alexandria, the chief seat of Greek learning, was the home, not of poets, but of critics of style who found fault with Xenophon and Aristotle, but could not produce an Anabasis nor a Rhetoric. The Atticists wrote, to be sure, in the Koivij period, but their gaze was always backward to the pre-Koivii period. The grammarians (Dionysius, Phrjmi- ' Zamcke in Griech. Stud., Hermann Lipsius, 1894, p. 121. He considers the Homeric poetry a reflection of the still older historical prose and the epic the oldest Uterary form. See his Die Entst. der griech. Literaturspr., 1896. Cf. Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, Die Entst. der griech. Schriftspr., Verhandl. d. Phil., 1878, p. 36 f. ' Hatzidakis, Einl. in die neugr. Spr., p. 6. » Das Prob. der neugr. Schriftspr., 1903, p. 6. A valuable treatment of this point. * Weissenberger, Die Spr. Plut. von Charonea, 1895, pp. 3, 11. » Jos., Ant., XIV, I, 1. « Susemihl, Gesoh. der griech. Lit. in der Alexandrienzeit, 1. Bd., 1891, p. 2. ' Croiset, An Abr. Hist, of Gk. Lit., 1904, p. 425. s n_ x. Gr., p. 2. THE KOINH 59 chus, Moeris) set up Thucydides and Plato as the standards for pure Greek style, while Aratus and Callimachus sought to revive the style of Homer, and Lucian and Arrian' even imitated Herod- otus. When they wished to imitate the past, the problem still remained which master to follow. The Ionic revival had no great vogue, but the Attic revival did. Lucian himself took to Attic. Others of the Atticists were Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Dio Chrysostom, Aristides, Herodes Atticus, ^lian, etc. "They as- sumed that the limits of the Greek language had been forever fixed during the Attic period." ^ Some of the pedantic declaimers of the time, hke Polemon, were thought to put Demosthenes to the blush. These purists were opposed to change in language and sought to check the departure from the Attic idiom. "The purists of to-day are like the old Atticists to a hair."' The Atti- cists were then archaic and anachronistic. The movement was rhetorical therefore and not confined either to Alexandria or Per- gamum. The conflict between the kolvti (vernacular and hterary) and this Atticistic reaction affected both to some extent.'* This struggle between "archaism and fife" is old and survives to-day.^ The Atticists were in fact out of harmony with their time,' and not like Dante, who chose the language of his people for his im- mortal poems. They made the mistake of thinking that by imitation they could restore the old Attic style. "The effort and example of these purists, too, though criticized at first, gradually became a sort of moral dictatorship, and so has been tacitly if not zealously obeyed by all subsequent scribes down to the pres- ent time."' As a result when one compares N. T. Greek,* he ' A sharp distinction as a rule must be made between the language of Airian and Epict. The Gk. of Epict. as reported by Arrian, his pupil, is a good representative of the vera, /toti'ij of an educated man. Arrian's intro- duction is quite Atticistic, but he aims to reproduce Epictetus' own words as far as possible. ' Sophocles, Lex., p. 6. Athenaeus 15. 2 said: El tiri larpol fiaav, oiSiv &v fiv Tutv ypafifjtar&av fjuopdrepov, ' Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 180. On Atticism in the koipti see Waeker- nagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 309. * Norden, Die griech. Kunstpr. bis Aug., Bd. I, 1898, p. 150. » Thumb, ib., p. 8. « lb., p. 252 f. ' Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 7. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 26. The diction of Aristophanes is interesting as a specimen of varieties of speech of the time. Cf. Hope, The Lang, of Parody; a Study in the Diction of Aristophanes (1906). Radermacher (N. T. Gk., p. 3) holds that we must even note the "barbarisches Griechisch" of writers like John Philoponos and Froclos. 60 A GRAMMAE OF THE GREEK liTEW TESTAMENT must be careful to note whether it is with the book Greek (ko- Oaptiovaa) or the vernacular (dniXov/jLevri). This artificial reac- tionary movement, however, had httle effect upon the vernacular KOLvi] as is witnessed by the spoken Greek of to-day. Consequently it is a negligible quantity in direct influence upon the writers of the N. T.i But the Atticists did have a real influence upon the literary koivti both as to word-formation^ and syntax.' With Dionysius of HaUcarnassus beauty was the chief element of style, and he hoped that the Attic revival would drive out the Asiatic influence.* The whole movement was a strong reaction against what was termed "Asianism" in the language.* It is not surpris- ing therefore that the later ecclesiastical literary Greek was largely under the influence of the Atticists. "Now there was but one grammar: Attic. It was Attic grammar that every freeman, whether highly or poorly educated, had learned."^ "This purist conspiracy" Jannaris calls it. The main thing with the Atticists was to have something as old as Athens. Strabo said the style of Diodorus was properly "antique."' IV. The Characteristics of the Vernacular Koiinfj. (a) Veknaculak Attic the Base. One must not feel that the vernacular Greek is unworthy of study. "The fact is that, during the best days of Greece, the great teacher of Greek was the com- mon people."* There was no violent break between the vernacu- lar Attic and the vernacular Koivrj, but the one flowed into the other as a living stream.' If the reign of the separated dialects was over, the power of the one general Greek speech had just begun on the heels of Alexander's victories. The battle of Chseronea broke the spirit of the old Attic culture indeed, but the Athenians ' Schmid, Der Atticismus etc., Bd. IV, p. 578. " lb., p. 606 f. » Troger, Der Sprachgeb. in der pseudolong. Schr., 1899, TI. I, p. 61. « Schmid, ib., Bd. I, pp. 17, 25. See Bd. IV, pp. 577-734, for very valu- able summary of this whole subject. 5 Norden, Die griech. Kunstpr., 1898. 1. Bd., p. 149. So Blass calls it "gleichzeitige atticistische Reaction gegen die asianische Beredsamkeit." Die griech. Beredsamkeit etc. von Alex, bis Aug., 1866, p. 77. « Jannaris, op. cit., p. 11. See also Eritz, Die Briefe des Bischofs Syne- sius von Kyrene. Ein Beitr. zur Gesch. des Att. im 4. und 5. Jahrh., 1898. ' Strabo, 13. 4, 9. 8 Sophocles, Lex. of Rom. and Byz. Period, p. 11. » Deissmann, Die sprachl. Erforsoh. etc., p. 11. Rutherford (New Phryn., p. 2) says that "the debased forms and mixed vocabulary of the common dialect would have struck the contemporaries of Aristophanes and Plato as little better than jargon of the Scythian poUcemen." On the form of the noivii see Wackernagel, Kult. etc., TI. I, Abt. 8, p. 305. THE KOINH 61 gathered up the treasures of the past, while Alexander opened the flood-gates for the change m the language and for its spread over the world.^ "What, however, was loss to standard Attic was gain to the ecumenical tongue. The language in which Hellenism expressed itself was eminently practical, better fitted for life than for the schools. Only a cosmopolitan speech could comport with Hellenistic cosmopolitanism. Granunar was simplified, excep- tions decreased or generahzed, flexions dropped or harmonized, construction of sentences made easier" (Angus, Prince. Rev., Jan., 1910, p. 53). The beginning of the development of the ver- nacular KOLvi] is not perfectly clear, for we see rather the com- pleted product.^ But it is in the later Attic that lies behind the Koivr]. The optative was never common in the vernacular Attic and is a vanishing quantity in the Koivrj. The disappearance of the dual was already coming on and so was the limited use of the superlative, —roiaav instead of —vtwv, and —adtaaav instead of -adcav, ylvofiai, aa, elira, rts instead of Trorepos, iKaaros and not iKarepos.^ But while the Attic forms the ground-form^ of the Kocvii it must not be forgotten that the Kouvii was resultant of the various forces and must be judged by its own standards.^ There is not complete unanimity of opinion concerning the character of the vernacular Koivi]. Steinthal* indeed called it merely a levelled and debased Attic, while Wilamowitz" described it as more properly an Ionic popular idiom. Kretschmer * now (wrongly, I think) contends that the Northwest Greek, Ionic and Boeotian had more influence on the KoivTi than the Attic. The truth seems to be the position of Thumb,' that the vernacular Koivfi is the result of the mingling with all dialects upon the late Attic vernacular as the base. As between the Doric a and the Ionic jj the vernacular Koivi] follows the Attic ' Christ, Gesch. der griech. Lit., 1905, p. 509 f.. For "the Attic ground- character of the Koiv^" see Mayser, Gr. der griech. Pap. (1906, p. 1). 2 Kaibel, Stil und Text der 'AerivaLuiv HoXtrefa, p. 37. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 3. Even in the literary icoivii the dual is nearly gone, as in Polybius and Diodorus Siculus; cf. Schmidt, De DuaU Graec. et Emor. et Reviv., 1893, pp. 22, 25. * Gott. Gel.-Anz., 1895, p. 30 f.; Hatzidakis, Einl. in die neugr. Gr., p. 168 f.; Krumbacher, Byz. Lit., p. 789. ' "Die Erforschung der kolvti hat lange genug unter dem Gesichtswinkel des 'Klassicismus' gestanden." Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 10. « Gesch. der Sprachw., II, p. 37 f. ' Verhandl. der 32. phil. Versamml., p. 40. » Wochenschr. fur klass. PhQol., 1899, p. 3; Die Entst. der Kotv^, 1900. » Op. at., pp. 53-101, 202 f. 62 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT usage, and this fact alone is decisive.^ Dieterich* indeed sums up several points as belonging to the "Attic KOLvfj" such as verbs in -vco instead of -vfii, in -cotraj' instead of -uv in contract imper- fects, disuse of the temporal and the syllabic augment in com- position, disuse of redupUcation, -riv instead of -77 in ace. sing. of adjs. in -ijs, -ov instead of -ovs in gen. sing, of third declen- sion, -a instead of -ov in proper names, disuse of the Attic de- clension, -es for -as in accusative plural, t6p as relative pronoun, ISios as possessive proiioun. But clearly by "Attic Koivij" he means the resultant Attic, not the Attic as distinct from the other dialects. Besides the orthography is Attic (cf. Uecos, not 'iXaos) and the bulk of the inflections and conjugations Ukewise, as can be seen by comparison with the Attic inscriptions.' Schlageter* sums the matter up: "The Attic foundation of the kolvti is to-day gen- erally admitted." (6) The Other Dialects in the Koivij. But Kretschmer ^ is clearly wrong in saying that the koivti is neither Attic nor decayed Attic, but a mixture of the dialects. He compares the mixture of dialects in the kolvti to that of the high, middle and low Ger- man. The Attic itself is a kolvti out of Ionic, ^olic and Doric. The mixed character of the vernacular Koivri is made plain by Schweizer* and Dieterich.'' The Ionic shows its influence in the presence of forms like iSLrj, (rireipris, eiSvXa, -vlris, Kad' h-os (cf. vetus), barka, xeiKkoiv, jSAa/Sewv, xpvcreov, —as, — a5os; absence of the rough breathing (psilosis or de-aspiration, ^oUc also); dropping of III in verbs like 8l8S>; mdiiv (xiTcbj'), recraepa, Tvpaxraoi for tpclttos (Attic also), etc. Ionic words like iJ.ov-6Qa\iio% (Herod.) instead of Attic eT€p-6(t>6a\fios occur. Conybeare and Stock {Sel. from LXX, p. 48) suggest that Homer was used as a text-book in Alex- andria and so caused lonisms like trxeipTjs in the kolvti. The spread of the Ionic over the East was to be expected. In Alexander's army many of the Greek dialects were represented.* In the Egyp- tian army of the Ptolemies nearly all the dialects were spoken.' The lonians were, besides, part of the Greeks who settled ia Alex- 1 Moulton, Prol., p. 33 f. ' Unters. zur Gesch. d. griech. Spr., 1898, p. 258 f. ' Meisterhans, Gr. der Att. Inschr. ' Der Wortsch. der auCerhalb Attikas gefundenen att. Inschr., 1912. ' Wochensohr. fur klass. Phil., 1899, p. xvii. ' Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 201 f. ' Unters. zur Gesch. etc., p. 259 f. s Arrian, II, 20. 5. ' Myer, Das Heerwesen der Ptolemaer und Romer in Xgypten, 1900. THE KOINH 63 andria.' Besides, even after the triumph of the Attic in Greece the Ionic had continued to be spoken in large parts of Asia Minor. The Ionic influence appears in Pergamum also. The mixing of the Attic with foreign, before all with Ionic, elements, has laid the foimdation for the Koivij.^ The JEolic makes a poor showing, but can be traced especially in Pergamum, where Schweizer con- siders it one of the elements of the language with a large injection of the Ionic' ^olic has the a for ij in proper names and forms in as. Bceotian-jEolic uses the ending -oaav, as elxoaav, so conomon in the LXX. Moulton^ points out that this ending is very rare in the papyri and is foimd chiefly in the LXX. He calls Bceotian- iEolic also "the monophthongizing of the diphthongs." In the Attic and the Ionic the open sound of 17 prevailed, while in the Boeotian the closed. In the Koivi] the two pronimciations existed together till the closed triumphed. Psilosis is also Ionic. The Doric appears in forms Uke Xa6s (keiis), vaos (vecos), ■jridfu (xiefco), iairoida^a, fi Xi/ios, t6 xXoCtos, dX^KTWp, JcXi/Saj/os (Kpi^avos) ; and in the pronunciation perhaps /3, 7, 5 had the Doric softer soimd as in the modem Greek vernacular. But, as Moulton* argues, the vernacular koivij comes to us now only in the written form, and that was undoubtedly chiefly Attic. The Arcadian dialect possibly contributes cu^ecocTot, since it has a4ii>o6v> but this form occurs in Doric and Ionic also.* Cf. also the change of gender ^ Xijuoj (Luke) and to xXoStos (Paul). The Northwest Greek contrib- uted forms like apx^irots, tous 'Kiyovres, ^rat i^nv" cf. Messe- nian and Lesbian also), rjpiiTovv (like Ionic), elxocrav (cf. Boeotian), \t\vKav. The accusative plural in -es is very common in the papyri, and some N. T. MSS. give rkaaapes for rkaaapas.'' The Achaean-Dorian KOLvii had resisted in Northwest Greece the inroads of the common Greek for a century or so. The Mace- ' H. Anz, Subsidia ad cognoscendum Graec. Senn. vulg. etc., 1894, p. 386. Mayser, Gr., pp. 9-24, finds numerous Ionic peculiarities in the Ptolemaic pap. far more than jEolic and Doric. He cites — roxraj', naxaipv^i ^<"^! ewec, dpiaiv, 70776fw, vapaBiiKri, riatrepes, ImrTM^iia, etc. On the Ionic and other non- Attic elements in the Koivii see Wackemagel, Kult., p. 306 f. ■' Kaibel, Stil und Text etc., p. 37. « Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 202. ' Prol., p. 33. The caution of Psichari (Essais de Gr. Hist. Nto-grq., 2*™° 6d., 1889, p. cxUx) is to be noted, that the vernacular is not necessarily dia- lectical, but "destinge au peuple et venait du peuple." Cf. on ^oUc ele- ments, Mayser, Gr., p. 9. He cites 4 Ximos in the pap.; cf. N. T. ' Prol., p. 34. " Moulton, ib., p. 38, n. 3. For Doric elements in the pap. see Mayser, Or., p. 5 f. ' W. H., Intr. to the Gk. N. T., App., p. 150. 64 A GRAMMAE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT donian Greek, spoken by many of Alexander's soldiers, naturally had very slight influence on the koivv. We know nothing of the old Macedonian Greek. Polybiusi says that the Illyrians needed an interpreter for Macedonian. Sturz^ indeed gives a list of Macedonian words found in the Koivri, as fio-xiXos, Kopaaiov, irapen- fioX'li, pbuv. But he also includes dTT^XXco! The Macedonians apparently used /3 instead of ^ as piXiinros, 5 = 9 as Savaros, er=/3 as akptdpov. Plutarch' speaks of Alexander and his soldiers speaking to each other Ma/ceSoi'to-Tt. For full discussion of the Macedonian dialect see O. Hoffmann, Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und Volkstum, 1906, pp. 232-255. (c) Non-Dialectical Changes. It is not always possible to separate the various pecuUarities of the kolvt] into dialectical in- fluences. "Where Macedonian, Spartan, Boeotian, Athenian and Thessalian were messmates a Koivq was inevitable. Pronounced dialecticisms which would render unintelligible or ludicrous to others were dropped" (see Angus, Prince. Theol. Rev., Jan., 1910, p. 67). The common blood itself went on changing. It was a living whole and not a mere artificial mingling of various ele- ments. There is less difference in the syntax of the kolvti and that of the earlier Greek than in the forms, though the gradual disap- pearance of the optative use of I'm and finite verb in the non-final sense rather than the infinitive or even on, the gradual disuse of the' future part, may be mentioned. It was in the finer shades of thought that a common vernacular would fail to hold its own. ."Any language which aspires to be a Weltsprache (world- language), as the Germans say, must sacrifice much of its deli- cacy, its shades of meaning, expressed by many synonyms and particles and tenses, which the foreigner in his hurry and without contact with natives cannot be expected to master."* 1 Polybius, 28. 8, 9. 2 De Dial. Alexan. etc., 1786, p. 56 f.; see also De Dial. Macedonica et Alexan., 1808, pp. 37, 42; Maittaire, Graecae Ling. Dial. Sturzii, 1807, p. 184; Sophocles, Lex. of Rom. and Byz., Period, p. 3. Schweizer, Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 27, sees very little in the Macedonian influence. ' I, 592 B, 694 C. Kennedy (Sources of N. T. Gk., p. 17) says: "In any case, the Macedonian type of Greek, whether or not it is admissible to call it a special dialect, was so far removed from ordinary Attic as to make it cer- tain that the latter on Macedonian lips must soon and inevitably suffer thor- ough-going modification." * Mahaffy, Survey of Gk. CiviUzation, p. 220. Cf. Geldart, Mod. Gk. Lang, in its Rela. to Anc. Gk., p. 73, for discussion of "the levelUng tendency common to all languages." THE KOINH 65 (d) New Words, New Forms or New Meanings to Old Words. Naturally most change is found either in new words or in new meanings in old words, just as our English dictionaries must have new and enlarged editions every ten years or so. This growth in the vocabulary is inevitable unless the life of a people stops. A third-century inscription in Thera, for instance, shows crwaycoyii used of a religious meeting, irapoiKos (not the Attic ixkroiKOi) for stranger, oTroo-ToXos and Kariixncns in their old senses like those Americanisms which preserve Elizabethan EngUsh ("fall" for "autumn," for instance) .^ Here are some further examples. It is hard to be sure that all of these are words that arose in the Koivi], for we cannot mark off a definite line of cleavage. We mention aykKii, Ayiorris, ayvdrris, afficrfios, aB'eri}cns, aKSorpujeiria kotos, aKark- XuTos, &KpoaT'iipLov, avdpcairapeaKos, dLVTiXvrpov, apaKaivoo) (and many verbs in -doj, -afw, -if to), avayevvaco, ^airriafia (many words in -fia), PaTTTLCixos, ^aiTTUTTiis, ypr]yopkio (cf. also (tt'/ikciS), SeifftSai/wvia, 5r]va.pu>p, SiKaiOKpiaia, iXeriiiocriivri, e/CKa/ceoj, iKuvKT-qpi^u, fletorrjs, O&nrv&KTTOi, X0710, Karrixioi, KpafiarTOs, iiaJ9i]Tevca, oiKodeairSTTis, opdpi^o}, bpapuiv, b^piivuiv, irpocKaLpos, pop,(j)aia, aviifiovXiov, reKuviov, vtodeala, vkottoSuov, i^tXaSeX- ia, wTtoy, etc. Let these serve merely as examples. For others see the lists in Deissmaim's BMe Studies, Light from the Ancient East, Moulton and Millegan's "Lexical Notes on the Papyri" (Expositor, 1908—), Winer-Schmiedel (p. 22), Thayer's Lexicon, (p. 691 f.), Rutherford's New Phrynichus, and the indices to the papyri collections. One of the pressing needs is a lexicon of the papyri and then of the kolvti as a whole. Many of these words were already in the literary Koivri, though they probably came from the vernacular.^ Some old words received slightly new forms, like kvoBitm. 'curse' (avadrifia 'offering'), airavTrjins (aTravrriim), airo- CToala (dirooraffis), dporptdco (dpocj), Pacri\i.a(ra (fiaaiKeia), yevkam. {yev'effKio) , BeKaroa {SeKareio}) , Twxvla (Kvxv'wv), fiKTBairodoala [fuado- boala), fwv6(j)da\iMs (iTep6da\iios) , povdtcrla {vov6kTi^(ns) , oiKoSofiii (pl- ' Hicks, St. Paul and Hellen., in Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., 1896, p. 5. Mayser (Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 24r-35) gives an interesting list of words that were chiefly "poetical" in the classic Uterature, but axe common in the papjnri. The poets often use the vernacular. Some of these words are iXixriap, PiPpii- CKW, Sttriuos, Saiia, inTivi-aaw, iirrpkvofMi., kurcurku, iinaelw, ffdXiru, KaTaffT^XXco, Koijudo/iai, kSttos, Xoo£ = people, iikpi.ii.va, viiiruK, okTjT^pwi', vtpUanai, ■upoa^xuv'ea, aidiKSdi, ariryri, (rvvavT&oi, ieros. New forms are given to old words as Xi/iTrdyw from Xetirto, etc. Ramsay (see The Independent, 1913, p. 376) finds Iju/Sarefrw (cf . Col. 2 : 18) used in the technical sense of entering in on the part of in- itiates in the sanctuary of ApoUos at Claros in an inscription there. " See W.-Sch., p. 19, n. 8. 66 A GEAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Kod6fit,ffii), 6y£iSi(7)u6s {6veidos), hrTaala (3iAk), iravSoxevs^ {iravboKehs) , rapa^povia {irapatjipoavpri) , pacrtfo) (paLvu, cf. fiairTL^oi, pdirrcS), ariiKU (?ffT7j/ca), Tanuov {raixieiov), (foprlov (and many diminutives in -lov which lose their force), vaiSiipvov (and many diminutives in -Lpwv), (jivamoiiai (i^ucdo/iot), etc. Words (old and new) receive new meanings, as kvaiCldvw ('re- cline at table'). Cf. also avanTTToi, avaKup.ai, avriXeyu ('speak against'), 6.TroKpuBrjvaL (passive not middle, 'to answer'), 5tufwvi.ov ('evil spirit,' 'demon'), 8Siim ('house-top'), kpc^T&co ('beg'), eixapiffTto) ('thank'), k-wicrkWu ('write a letter'), 64^6.pu>v ('fish'), 6\l^i)vu>v ('wages'), Tapa/caXeo) ('entreat'), irappriala ('confidence'), irepuxTao- ptaL ('distract'), waiSeio, ('chastise'), 7rT«Ma ('corpse'), L\avdpo}ire'Li>, etc. It is to be observed also that the KOkvi) was not the vernacular of all the peoples when it was spoken as a secondary language. In Palestine, for instance, Aramaic was 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., 1905, p. 3 note. ' Gr. des neut. Sprachid., § 3. 1, n. 4. » Sour, of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. 23. Irenseus (Minucius Pacatus) and De- metrius Ixion wrote treatises on "the dialect of Alexandria" (Swete, Intr. to the O. T. in Gk., p. 289). But they probably did not understand that the vernacular mirli, which difiered from the hterary kou-jJ, was international (Thackeray, Gr. of the O. T. in Gk., vol. I, p. 19). "It is certain that many forms of this later language were specially ckaracteristic of Alexandria" (ib.).. * Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 27. « Unters. zur Gesch. etc., pp. 258 ff. « Die griech. Spr. etc., p. 168 ff. See also Anz, Subs, ad cognos. Graec. Serm. vulg. etc., 1891, p. 262. "Nee quae ApostoUdes homo doctus Alexan- drinus nuperrime protuht omnes caligines propulsaverunt. Certe nemo jam existet qui cum Sturzio Macedonicam dialectum ibi quaerat, sed altera e parte neminem puto judicare iUam quae vulgo appellatur dialectum Alexan- drmam sohs vindicandam esse Alexandrinis." Cf. Susemihl, Lit. der Alexan- drinerzeit. THE KOINH 69 the usual language of the people who could also, most of them, speak Greek. Moulton's parallel of the variations in modem English is not therefore true, unless you include also peoples like the Welsh, Scotch, Irish, etc. But as a whole the vernacular kolvti was a single language with only natural variations like that in the English of various parts of the United States or England.' Thumb perhaps makes too much of a point out of the use of knos rather than fiov in Asia Minor in its bearing on the authorship of the Gospel of John where it occurs 41 times, once only in 3 Jo. and Rev. (34 times elsewhere in the N. T.), though it is interesting to note, as he does, that the infinitive is still used in Pontus. But there were non-Greek influences here and there over the empire as Thumb ^ well shows. Thmnb' indeed holds that "the Alexandrian popular speech is only one member of a great speech-development." (/) The Personal Equation. In the vernacular koivIi, as in the literary language, many variations are due to differences in edu- cation and personal idiosyncrasies. "The colloquial language in its turn went off into various shades of distinction according to the refinement of the speaker" (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 59). The inscriptions on the whole give us a more for- mal speech, sometimes official decrees, while the papyri furnish a much wider variety. "The papyri show us the dialect of Greek Egypt in many forms, — the language of the Government offi- cial, of the educated private person, of the dwellers in the temples, of the peasantry in the villages."* We have nimierous examples of the papyri through both the Ptolemaic and the Roman rule in Egypt. All sorts of men from the farm to the palace are here found writing all sorts of documents, a will or a receipt, a love- ' Sir Jonathan Williams, an Eng. savant, is quoted in the Louisville Cou- rier-Journal (May 9, 1906) as saying: "I have found in the city of Louisville a pronunciation and a use of terms which is nearer, to my mind, to Addison and the EngUsh classicists than anything which the counties of England, the provinces of AustraUa, or the marshes of Scotland can offer." He added that the purest EngUsh known to him is spoken in Edinburgh and Louisville. These two cities, for geographical reasons, are not provincial. 2 Griech. Spr. etc., pp. 102-161; Theol. Literaturzeit., 1903, p. 421; cf. also Moulton, Prol. p. 40. Moulton sets over against Ijnos the fact that John's Gospel uses Iva rather than the infinitive so often. Much of the force of such an argument vanishes also under the personal equation. ' Griech. Spr. etc., p. 171. Cf . also Zahn, Einleitung in das N. T., I, 38. * Kenyon, ext. vol. of Hast. D. B., art. Papyri, p. SSS*". See also id., Paleeog. of the Gk. Pap., 1899. 70 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT letter or a dun, a memorandum or a census report, a private letter or a public epistle. "Private letters are our most valuable sources; and they are all the better for the immense differences that betray themselves in the education of the writers. The well- worn epistolary formula show variety mostly in their spelUng; and their value for the student lies primarily in their remarkable resemblances to the conventional phraseology which even the N. T. letter-writers were content to use."^ Deissmann^ has insisted on a sharp distinction between letters and epistles, the letter being private and mstinct with life, the epistles being written for the public eye, an open letter, a literary letter. This is a just dis- tinction. A real letter that has become literature is different from an epistle written as literature. In the pap3Ti therefore we find all grades of culture and of illiteracy, as one would to-day if he rummaged in the rubbish-heaps of our great cities. One need not be surprised at seeing rdv fiijTposs, t6v dkciv, and even worse blunders. As a sample Jaimaris' gives d^etco^eis maiparSiv ypa- fmra net e'Mrtav, for dJicoOets m' aiirSiv ypafiftara /*i) eidoruv. Part of these are crass errors, part are due to identity of sounds in pronunciation, as o and oi, et and tj, ei and t. Witkowski* properly insists that we take note of the man and the character of work in each case. It is obvious that by the papyri and the inscriptions we gain a truer picture of the situation. As a specimen of the vernacular Koivi] of Egypt this letter of the school-boy Theon to his father has keen interest (see 0. P. 119). It belongs to the second century A.D. and has a boy's mistakes as well as a boy's spirit. The writ- ing is uncial. 1 Moulton, Prol., p. 27 f. ' B. S., 1901, pp. 3-69. "The distinction holds good, even if we cannot go all the way with Deissmann in pronouncing aU the Pauline writings 'letters' lather than 'Epistles.'" G. MiUigan, Gk. Pap., p. xxxi. ' "Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 7. Quoted from Griech. Urk., BerUn, 13 ^ belonging to year 289 a.d. * The papyri contain "exempla ex vita deprompta, cum sermo scripto- rum ut solutae ita poeticae orationis nuUo modo veram nobis imaginem ser- monis iUius aetatis praebeat. Etenim sermo, quem apud auctores heUinisticos deprehendimus, arti, non vitae, debetur." Witkowski Prodr. gr. pap. Graec, etc., 1898, p. 197. He urges that in case of variations in forms or syntax one must inquire "utrum ab aha qua dialecto petita sit an in Aegj^jto nata, utrum ab homine Graeco an barbaro formata." lb., p. 198. He thinks it is necessary that we have "hbrum de sermone papyrorum, hbrum de sermone titulorum, librum de sermone auctorum poeticae et pedestris orationis iUius aetatis, librum de dialecto Macedonica tractantem." lb. THE KOINH 71 Qkuv QkcavL Tc^ xarpl xatpe"'- KaXws iiroLriaes. oiik airkvqx^s M^ M^^' ^ ' irapa [(r]ov oCre ttoXi xO'^P^ at \vir6v. Slix liij OeXjis awevkKaL /i[e], Tavra 7e[i]j'eTe. Kal ^ fiilTTip pjov eiTre 'Ap- XeXaCj) OTi avaaraToi ne ' appov airov. KaXcos Sk kiroii]p6. fioi. hrefjal/e[s lur/aKa kpaKia ireirKavriKav fjiiSis ^Kep], Tg rlnkpq, ij3' OTi eTrXeuces. \vir6v irkpfpov et[s lie, irapoJiaKSi ae. an fir) ire/ii^jjs oh nil 0a- 7&J, oh fi^ irelvoii' ravra. hpuaOk ae elixipf^- T0|3i iTj'. On the other side: dxoSos GeciJi't [djiro GecoTOxos uifi. MilHgan {Greek Papyri, p. xxxii) admits that there may be now a temptation "to exaggerate the significance of the papyri." But surely his book has a wonderful human, not to say linguistic, in- terest. Take this extract from a letter of Hilarion to his wife Alls (P. Oxy. 744 B.C. 1): 'Edc iroWaTroXKwv reKys, eav f^v apaevov, ouj)es, kav ^v BifKea, 'eK^aKe. (g) R^STiM^. To all intents and purposes the vernacular Koivii is the later vernacular Attic with normal development imder historical environment created by Alexander's conquests. On this base then were deposited varied influences from the other dialects, but not enough to change the essential Attic character of the language. There is one kolvti everywhere (cf . Thumb, Griech. Spr., p. 200). The Uterary kolvIi was homogeneous, while the vernacular Koivii was practically so in spite of local variations (cf. Angus, The Koine: "The Language of the N. T.," Prince. Theol. Rev., Jan., 1910, p. 78 f.). In remote districts the language would be Doric-coloured or Ionic-coloured. Phonetics and Orthography. It is in pronunciation that the most serious differences appear in the Kotv^J (Moulton, Prol., p. 5). We do not know certainly how the ancient Attic was pronounced, though we can approximate it. The modem Greek vernacular pronunciation is known. The Kotpii stands along the path of progress, precisely where it is hard to tell. But we know enough 72 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT not to insist too strongly on "hair-splitting differences hinging on forms which for the scribe of our uncials had identical value phonetically, e.g. oi, i}, v, v, t=ee in feet, or at=e" (Angus, op. cit., p. 79). Besides itacisms the t-monophthongizing is to be noticed and the equalizing of o and a. The Attic tt is aa except in a few- instances (like eKcLTTwv, KpeiTTuv). The tendency is toward de- aspiration except in a few cases where the reverse is true as a result of analogy (or a lost diganuna) . Cf . ^i^' eXiriSt. Elision is not so common as in the Attic, but assimilation is carried still further (cf. kfifikav). There is less care for rhythm in general, and the variable final consonants v and s appear constantly before con- sonants. The use of -ei- for -lei- in forms like Telv and TaneZov probably comes by analogy. OWeLs and fiTjOds are the common forms till 100 B.C. when ovdeis and /i?j5ets begin to regain their ascendency. Vocabulary. The words from the town-life (the stage, the mar- ket-place) come to the front. The vocabulary of Aristophanes is in point. There was an increase in the number of diminutive forms. The kolv^i was not averse to foreign elements if they were useful. Xenophon-is a good illustration of the preparation for the Koivii. Cf. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 8. Word-Formation. There is the natural dropping of some old suffixes and the coining of new suffixes, some of which appear in the modern Greek vernacular. The number of compound words by juxtaposition is greatly increased, like TrXjjpo-^opaw, x^'P^Pff^o"- In particular two prepositions in compounds are frequent, like (rvv-avrL-Xati^avofiai. New meanings are given to old words. Accidence. In substantives the Ionic -pijs, not -pas, is common, bringing nouns in -pa into harmony with other nouns of the first declension (Thackeray, Gr. of the 0. T. in Gk., p. 22). The Attic second declension disappears. Some feminine nouns in -os be- come masculine. The third declension is occasionally assimilated to the first in forms like viKrav, Buyarkpav. Contraction is absent sometimes in forms like opkuu. Both xaptv and . x^pi-ra occur. Adjectives have forms like aa Sour, of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. 146. 2 Art. Lang, of the N. T., Hast. D. B., 1900. » B. S., 1901; HeU. Griech., Hauck's Realencyc. etc. ' B. S., p. 67. 6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 2. s Theol. Literaturzeit., 1895, p. 487. ' ProL, p. 1. 8 Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 120. It lasted "aolange die biblische Gra- citat als etwas isoliertes betrachtet wurde." Thumb attacks the idea of a N. T. dialect or a peculiar biblical variety of the mivit, pp. 162-201. For his- tory of the Purist controversy see W.-Th. § 1, W.-Sch. § 2. THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 79 were not aloof from the life of their time. "It embodied the lofty conceptions of the Hebrew and Christian faith in a language which brought them home to men's business and bosoms."' Wackemagel imderstates the matter: "As little as the LXX does the N. T. need to be isolated linguistically." ^ (6) Pboof that N. T. Geeek is in the Vernacular Kocvi]. The proof is now at hand. We have it in the numerous contemporary Greek inscriptions abeady published and in the ever-increasing volumes of papyri, many of which are also contemporary. As early as 1887 a start had already been made in using the inscrip- tions to explain the N. T. by E. L. Hicks.' He was followed by W. M. Ramsay,* but it is Deissmann who has given us most of the proof that we now possess, and he has been ably seconded by J. Hope Moulton. Deissmann^ indeed insists: "If we are ever in this matter to reach certainty at all, then it is the inscriptions and the papyri which will give us the nearest approximation to the truth." Hear Deissmann® more at length: "Until the papyri were discovered there were practically no other contemporary documents to illustrate that phase of the Greek language which comes before us in the LXX and N. T. In those writings, broadly, what we have, both as regards vocabulary and morphology, and not seldom as regards syntax as well, is the Greek of ordinary intercourse as spoken in the countries bordering on the Mediter- ranean, not the artificial Greek of the rhetoricians and litterateurs, strictly bound as it was by technical rules. This language of or- dinary life, this cosmopolitan Greek, shows unmistakable traces of a process of development that was still going on, and in many respects differs from the older dialects as from the classical 1 Thayer, Hast. D. B., art. Lang, of the N. T., Ill, p. 366. 2 Die griech. Spr. (Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8), p. 309. ' 01. Rev., 1887. " Exp. Times, vol. X, pp. 9 ff. ' B. S., p. 81. Deissmann calls attention also to a booklet by Walch, Observ. in Matthseum ex graecis inscr., 1779. So in 1850, Robinson in the Pref. to his N. T. Lex. says: "It was, therefore, the spoken language of common life, and not that of books, with which they became acquainted"; cf. also the works of Schweizer, Nachmanson, Dittenberger, etc. ' Encyc. Bibl., art. Papyri. "At the time when the ancient Greek culture was in conflict with Christianity, the assailants pointed sarcastically at the boatman's idiom of the N. T., while the defenders, glorying in the taunt, made this very homeUness their boast. Latin apologists were the first to make the hopeless attempt to prove that the Uterary form of the Bible as a whole, and of the N. T. in paxticular, was artistically perfect." Deissmann, Exp. Times, Nov., 1906, p. 59; cf. also Norden, Kunstpr., II, pp. 512 f., 526 f. 80 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Attic." As Moultoni puts it, "the Holy Ghost spoke absolutely in the language of the people." The evidence that the N. T. Greek is in the vernacular koivt) is partly lexical and partly grammatical, though in the nature of the case chiefly lexical. The evidence is constantly growing. See Deissmann, Bible Studies, Light from the Ancient East; Moulton and Milligan's "Lexical Notes on the Papyri" {The Expositor, 1908 — ). We give first some examples of words, previously sup- posed to be purely "biblical," now shown to be merely popular Greek because of their presence in the papyri or inscriptions: ayaTT], oKaTayvoxrros, ava^aca, dLvaarardco, avrCKiiiiirTup, aXKofyevtjs, aifuXapyvpos, aWevrkw, Ppoxhi evavTi, bihSxiciuii, kvinrLOV, kiriKarapaTos, iiriavvayuyi], eiaptaros, tvirpoo'COTrio}, Uparevo}, inaTi^ui, KaTair'tTaap,a., KaTayye\evs, 'Kariiyup, KaQapl^oi, kokklvos, KvpiaKos, XeirovpyiKos, \oyeia, vt6(l>vTos, 6i\oTrpuTevaKT0v Kal -TrepijSdXou. 8s 3' av 'Kri(j}dfj, eaurat alVtos ^orai 5to t6 k^aKoXovdeLv davarou. The words above are no longer biblical airo| Xeyo/jieva. But this is not all. Many words which were thought to have a peculiar meaning in the LXX or the N. T. have been found in that very sense in the inscriptions or papyri, such as a5e\6s in the sense of 'common brotherhood,' adhTtjcrLS, &neTav6riTos, ap4>OTepoi = iravrts, ava- (TTpkkpci), avTiXrjiJal'is, airexoii, aTOKpifM, aTroraauofiai,, aperri, ApKeros, 'KatApxris, affrj/xos, acTra^ofiaL, aroiros, fiaara^oi, Pefiaiwais, ^idfo/xat, PoiiXonai., yevrnia, ycyyi^u, ypanfiarebs, ypa.^u>, huirvkoi, Seov kcTTi, SiafiaWca, Siaae'ua, St/caios, Siotl = on, SLXOTOixkca, doKi/jiios, 86kl~ fios, 5Sifia, kav = av, d ixiiv, dSos, els, 'tKreveia, kros, hKTivaaata, ev, heSpevca, evoxos, kvTvyxavo}, ^xtjSaXco!', kTlaKoiros, kpcaroM, tvaxvpMV, knobcnos, eixapiarko, ew, ■^yovfiai, ^^Xtxia, fiavxia, BepJkXiov, deoipku, X8u)S, iKaariipiov, tXews, laropkoi, KadapL^u), Kaj9ap6s, Kaivo^, KaKoiraJBeia, /card, KaraKpiiia, KaravT&oi, kKlvi], KoXdfo/iai, KoWaw, /coXa<^ifco, kotos, Kopaaiov, KT&op.ai., Kvpios, XtK/idco, Xi^, Xoio/iai, fievovvye, iuj.pTvpovp.at., nei^orepos, fxiKpos, noyiKoKos, povij, vavs, veKpol, vii, vofios, oikio, 6p.o- "Koykta, 6vop,a, cnj/ijVLOV, irapa, irapadeiaos, TrapadiiKri, irapanvirToi, irapei- a(j>kpvpls, (Tvyjeviis, avnfioh\u)v, crvveidriais, avv- 4x£o, awevSoKko), o'uj'eucox^OMi') TwlaTrjiii, auiia, ouiTiip, Tripr](ns, tStos, utos, uios 6eov, vtoOeala, inco^ir/vov, vroiroStov, inzb(TTacn%, (pacris, 4>kp9a,vi\os, X^pw rQ QeQ, XPS't") XpoKos, \l/ciifilov, ^vxhv aSxrai. This seems like a very long list, but it will do more than pages of argument to convince the reader that the vocabulary of the N. T. is practically the same as that of the vernacular Icoivfi in the Roman Empire in the first century A.D.i This is not a complete Ust, for new words wiU be added from time to time, and all that are known are not here included. Besides neither Deissmann nor Moulton has put together such a single list of words, and Kenyon's in Hastings' D. B. (Papjrri) is very incomplete. After compiling this list of words I turned to the list in the Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible by Thayer (art. " Language of the N. T.") where are found some thirty new words common to the N. T. and the vernacular kolvIi, words not com- mon in the classic Greek. Thayer's list is entirely different save a half-dozen. In his list are comprised such interesting words as dXXijYop^co, avTOi, kyyl^w, eiri,xopvyk<^> ibSoKkcc, ehKaipkoi, dpiafi^ehca, etc. This list can be largely increased also by the comparison between words that are common to the N. T. and the comic poets (Aristophanes, Menan- der, etc.) who used the language of the people. See Kennedy's lists in Sources of N. T. Greek (ch. VI). Many of these, as Ken- nedy shows, are theological terms, like aicdrirripiov, appa^isv, /Sair- Tif 0), eixoptCTta, Kvpla, ixvcritpiov, iXade\4>la,. The Christians found in common use in the Roman Empire terms like dSeX^os, kiri4apeia, hmtfiaviis, Kbpu)s, 'KeirovpyLa, irapovala, Trpeafivrepos, irpoypcujjco, (Toirrip, crcoTjjpia, vlds GeoO. They took these words with the new popular connotation and gave them "the deeper and more spiritual 1 It is not meant, of course, that the bulk of the N. T. words are new as compared with the old Gk. Far from it. Of the 4829 words in the N./T. (not including proper names) 3933 belong to older classic language (literary and vemao.) while 996 are late or foreign words. See Jacquier, Hist, des Livres du N. T., tome l^', 1906, p. 25. Thayer's Lex. claimed 767 N. T. words, but Thayer considered 89 as doubtful and 76 as late. Kennedy (Sour, of N. T. Gk., p. 62) found about 550 "bibUcal" words. But now Deissmann admits only about 50, or one per cent, of the 5000 words in the N. T. (Light, etc., p. 72 f.). Fmdlay (Exp. Gk. T., 1 Cor., p. 748) gives 5594 Greek words in the N. T. (whole number), while Viteau (Syntaxe des Prop., p. xxx) gives 5420. 82 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT sense with which the N. T. writings have made us familiar" (MiUigan, Greek Papyri, p. xxx). They could even find toO fieya'Kov GeoO tvepykrov Kcd a-coTrjpos (GH 15, ii/B.c). Cf. Tit. 2 : 13; 2 Pet. 1 : 1.' The papyri often show us how we have misunder- stood a word. So kvoypa^ri (Lu. 2 : 2) is not "taxing," but "en- rolling" for the census (very common in the papyri). But this is not all, for the modem Greek vernacular will also augment the list of N. T. words known to belong to the oral speech. When this much is done, we are ready to admit the vernacular character of all the words not known to be otherwise. The N. T. Greek is like the Koivi] also in using many compounded (" sesquipedalian") words like aveKSLrjyriTOs, ave^epaiivriTOs, aWoTpioeir'uTKOiros, mepevrvy- xavw, etc. There is also the same frequency of diminutives, some of which have lost that significance, as TrXoidptov, wrapiou, iiriov, etc. The new meanings to old words are well illustrated in the list from the papyri, to which may be added avoKixa, evrpoirri, ^oioiroiios, (TxoMi, xopTO't^, etc. As to the forms we need say less, but the evidence is to the same effect. The papyri show examples of 'A/cuXa (and -ov) for geni- tive, bvSiv and hval, kyevap.'qv, 'eXa^a, eXe7as, eXett^a, ^X5a, rivolyriv, ■qpT^ayqv, ^^a, SeS&jKes, otSes, ?7pa^^es, tiSco, cnreLprjs; the imperative has only the long forms -rcoaav, -adciiaoLV, etc. The various dialects are represented in the forms retained in the N. T., as the Attic in jSoiiXei, Sibbaai, Vip-eKKt, etc.; the Ionic in jj.axa.'-PV^, yivojiai, yivixTKia, etc.; the Doric in abavTai, rjrw, etc.; the iEoHc in airoKrkvvu, 3d plural in -cav, etc.; the Northwest Greek in accusative plural in -es, perfect in -a;* (3d plural), confusion of -aco and -ew verbs, etc.; the Arcadian-Cyprian group in accusative singular in -av, o.4>kcav- rai (also). It is curious that Thayer in Hastings' D. B., follows Winer's error in giving kbiSoaav as an example of a form hke dxoaav, for the present stem is Si5o-, and crav is merely the usual ixi ending. See Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 4r-20. Among the syntactical pecuharities of N. T. Greek which are less numerous, as in the Koivij, the following are worthy of note and are found in the Koivrf. the non-final use of ha; the frequent use of the personal pronoun; the decreased use of the possessive pronouns; disuse of the optative; increased use of 6tl; disuse of the future participle; use of participle with dul; article with the infinitive (especially with h and eis); fi^es and ^Xhre with sub- junctive without conjunction; the absence of the dual; use of 6cj>e)v>v as conjunction; frequency of kav; orav, etc., with indicative; 1 Moulton, Prol., p. 84; Wendland, Hell.-rora. Kult., p. 100. THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 83 interchange of kav and av; firi increasing upon ol; decreased use of indirect discourse; ets = Tts; disuse of some interrogative particles; use of tSws as possessive pronoun; Tapa and irip with compara- tives; disappearance of the superlative; frequency of prepositions; vivid use of present tense (and perfect); laxer use of particles; growth of the passive over the middle, etc. Various phrases are common both to the N. T. and to the papyri, like Se^thv SlStaiu, hv rots = 'in house of,' 6.rd tov vvv, eis t6 SiriViKes, KaB(bs y^paTTai, eK avp^iivov, 'ewi to avrd, Kar' ovap, Kard, to Wos, oiix o rvxiiv, ■wapkxoiJ'O-i- kfiavTSv, t6 airrb 4>poveiv. "There is placed before us in the N. T. neither a specific speech-form nor a barbaric Jewish-Greek, but a natural phase of the Hellenistic speech-development." 1 Deissmann {Exp. Times, 1906, p. 63) properly holds the N. T. to be the Book of Himianity because it "came from the imexhausted forces below, and not from the feeble, resigned culttire of a worn-out upper class." Swete (0. T. in Gk., pp. 295 ff.) shows how the LXX is influenced by the vernacular Koivi]. As early as 1843 B. Hase (Wellhausen, Einl., p. 14) explained the LXX as " Volkssprache." Thackeray {Gram- mar, pp. 22 ff.) gives a good simamary of "the koivti basis of LXX Greek." n. Literary Elements in the New Testament Greek. It is true then, as Blass^ sums it up, that "the language employed in the N. T. is, on the whole, such as was spoken in the lower circles of society, not such as was written in works of literature." The N. T. writers were not Atticists with the artificial straining after the antique Attic idiom. But one must not imagine that they were mere purveyors of slang and vulgarisms. FreudenthaP speaks of the Hellenistic Jews as "one of those societies without a mother-tongue which have never attained to any true excel- lence in literature." And even Mahaffy* speaks of the Greek learned by the Jews as "the new and artificial idiom of the trad- ing classes" which had neither "traditions nor literature nor those precious associations which give depth and poetry to words." That is a curious mistake, for it was the Atticistic re- vival that was artificial. The Koivit had all the memories of a * Thumb, Die sprachgesch. Stell. des bibl. Griech., Theol. Runds., 1902, p. 93. Cf. also Amaud, Essai sur le caractfere de la langue grecque du N. T., 1899. Viteau (Et. sur le Grec du N. T., 2 vols., 1893, 1896) insists on the dis- tinction between the lit. and the vemac. elements in the N. T. 2 Gr. of the N. T. Gk., p. 1. ' HeU. Stud., 1875. * Gk. Life and Thought, 1896, p. 530. 84 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT people's life. Instance Robert Bums in Scotland. It is to be said for Mahafify, however, that he changed his mind, for he later' wrote: "They write a dialect simple and rude in comparison with Attic Greek; they use forms which shock the purists who examine for Cambridge scholarships. But did any men ever tell a great story with more simplicity, with more directness, with more power? . . . Believe me against all the pedants of the world, the dialect that tells such a story is no poor language, but the out- come of a great and a fruitful education." The N. T. uses the language of the people, but with a dignity, restraint and pathos far beyond the trivial nonentities in much of the papyri remains. All the N. T. Greek is not so vernacular as parts of the LXX.^ The papyri often show the literary koivti and all grades of varia- tion, while the lengthy and official inscriptions' "often approx- imate in style to the literary language." Long before many words are used in literature they belong to the diction of polite speech.^ In a word, the N. T. Greek " occupies apparently an in- termediate position between the vulgarisms of the populace and the studied style of the litterateurs of the period. It affords a striking illustration of the divine policy of putting honour on what man calls 'common.' "* It would indeed have been strange if men like Paul, Luke and the author of Hebrews had shown no literary affinities at all. Prof. J. C. Robertson {The Classical Weekly, March 9, 1912, p. 139) in an article entitled "Reasons for Teaching the Greek N. T. in Colleges" says: "Take the par- able of the Prodigal Son, for instance. In literary excellence this piece of narrative is unsurpassed. Nothing more simple, more direct, more forceful can be adduced from among the famous passages of classical Greek literature. It is a moving tragedy of » Prog, of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., 1905, p. 114 f. Cf. Schtirer, Jew. Pec. in Time of Jes. Ch., div. II, vol. I, pp. 11 ff., Hellen. in the Non-Jew. Regions, Hellen. in the Jew. Regions. He shows how Gk. and Lat. words were common in the Aram, and how thoroughly Gk. the Jews of the Dispersion were. On this point see Schtirer, Diaspora, in ext. vol. of Hast. D. B. "Greek was the mother-tongue of the Jews" aU over the gentile world: Susemihl holds that in Alexandria the Jews gave "quite a considerable Hebraic tinge" to the Koivii, Gesch. der griech. Lit., Bd. II, 1892, p. 602. An excellent discussion of the literary elements in the Gk. N. T. is to' be found in Heinrici's Der Ut. Charakter der neutest. Schr. (1908). He shows also the differences between Palestinian and Alexandrian Judaism. 2 Cf. Geldart, Mod. Gk. in its Rela. to Anc. Gk., 1870, p. 180. Cf. also Kennedy, Sour, of N. T. Gk., p. 65; Frankel, Altert. von Perg., 1890, p. xvii. » Deissmann, B. S., p. 180. * Kennedy, Sour, of N. T. Gk., p. 77. B Thayer, art. Lang, of the N. T., Hast. D. B., Ill, 36''. THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 85 reconciliation. Yet its literary excellence is not accidental. The elements of that excellence can be analyzed." In an age of un- usual culture one would look for some touch with that culture. "I contend, therefore, that the peculiar modemness, the high in- tellectual standard of Christianity as we find it in the N. T., is caused by its contact with Greek culture." * In his helpful article on N. T. Times BuhP underrates, as Schiirer^ does, the amount of Greek known in Palestine. It is to be remembered also that great diversity of culture existed among the writers of the N. T. Besides, the educated men used much the same vernacular all over the Roman world and a grade of speech that approached the literary standard as in Enghsh to-day.* One is not to stress Paul's language in 1 Cor. 2 : 1-4 into a denial that he could use the literary style. It is rather a rejection of the bombastic rhet- oric that the Corinthians hked and the rhetorical art that was so common from Thucydides to Chrysostom.^ It is with this com- parison in mind that Origen (c. Celsus, vii, 59 f .) speaks of Paul's literary inferiority. It is largely a matter of standpoint. Deiss- mann* has done a good service in accenting the difference between letters and epistles. Personal letters not for the public eye are, of course, in the vernacular. Cicero's Letters are epistles written with an eye on posterity. " In letters one does not look for trea- tises, still less for treatises in rigid imiformity and proportion of parts." ^ There may be several kinds of letters (private, family, pastoral or congregational, etc.). But when a letter is published consciously as literature, hke Horace's Ars Poetica, for instance, it becomes a literary letter or epistle. Epistles may be either genuine or unauthentic. The unauthentic may be either merely • Mahaffy, Prog, of HeUen., p. 139. ^ Ext. vol. of Hast. D. B. ' Jew. Pec. in Time of Jes. Ch., div. II, vol. I, p. 47 f. He admits a wide diffusion of a little knowledge of and easy use of Gk. among the educated classes in Palestine. * Of. Norden, Ant. Kunstpr., Bd. II, pp. 482 ff., for discussion of literary elements in N. T. Gk. Deissmann makes "a protest against overestimating the literary evidence" (Theol. Runds., 1902, pp. 66 ff.; Exp. Times, 1906, p. 9) and points out how Norden has missed it in contrasting Paul and that ancient world, merely the contrast between non-hterary prose and artistic Ut. prose. ' Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 15. ' B. S., pp. 16 ff. However, one must not think that the N. T. Epistles al- ways fall whoUy in one or the other category. Ramsay calls attention to the "new category" in the new conditions, viz., a general letter to a congregation (Let. to the Seven Chur., p. 24). ' lb., p. 11. See also Walter Lock, The Epistles, pp. 114 ff., in The Bible and Chr. Life, 1906. 86 A GKAMMAE OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT pseudonymous or real forgeries. If we examine the N. T. Letters or Epistles in the light of this distinction, we shall see that Phile- mon is a personal letter. The same is true of the Pastoral Epistles; but Ephesians is more like an epistle from its general nature. The Thessalonian, Cormthian, Galatian, Colossian, Philippian writings are all congregational and doctrinal letters. Romans partakes of the nature of a letter and an epistle. Jaequier, how- ever {Histoire des Ldvres du N. T., 1906, tome l"', p. 66), re- marks that "The Pauline Epistles are often more discourse than letter." It will thus be seen that I do not agree with Deissmann {BiUe Studies, p. 3 f.) in calling all the Pauline writings "letters" as opposed to "epistles." Milligan (Greek Papyri, p. xxxi) like- wise protests against the sweeping statement of Deissmann. Deissmann gives a great variety of interesting letters from the papyri in his Ldght from the Ancient East, and argues here (pp. 224-234) with passion that even Romans is just "a long let- ter." " I have no hesitation- in maintaining the thesis that all the letters of Paul are real, non-literary letters." Hebrews is more like an epistle, as are James, 1 John, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude, while 2 and 3 John are again letters. The Letters to the Seven Churches again are epistles. This is a useful distinction and shows that the N. T. writers knew how to use one of the favourite literary methods of the Alexandrian period. Dr. Lock concludes: "Letters have more of historic and literary interest, epistles more of central teaching and practical guidance." ^ That Paul could use the more literary style is apparent from the address on Mars Hill, the speech before Agrippa,^ and Ephesians and Romans. Paul quotes Aratus, Menander and Epimenides and may have been acquainted with other Greek authors. He seems also to have understood Stoic philosophy. We cannot tell how extensive his literary training was. But he had a real Hellenic feeUng and outlook. The introduction to Luke's Gospel and the Acts show real literary skill. The Epistle to the Hebrews has oratorical flow and power with traces of Alexandrian culture. Viteau' reminds • Bible and Chr. Life, p. 117. For the history and literature of ancient letters and epistles see Deissmann, B. S.; Susemihl, Gesch. der griech. Lit.; Overbeck, tJber die Anf. der patrist. Lit. The oldest known Gk. letter was written on a lead tablet and belongs to the iv/s.c. and comes from near Athens. It was discovered by Prof. Wunsch of Giessen. See art. by Dr. Wilhehn of Athens in Jahresh. des osterreich. archaol. Inst. (1904, vii, pp. 94 ff.). » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 5. • Le Verbe: Synt. des Prop., p. xxx. THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 87 US that about 3000 of the 5420 words in the Greek N. T. are found in ancient Attic writers, while the syntax in general "obeys the ordinary laws of Greek grammar." ^ These and other N. T. writers, as James, occasionally use classic forms like Uixtv, Ure, laaai, i^ttrav, etc. Konig^ in his discussion of the Style of Scrip- ture finds ample illustration in the N. T. of the various Uterary linguistic devices, though in varying degree. See "Figures of Speech" (ch. XXI). But the literary element in the N. T. is sub- ordinate to the practical and is never artificial nor strained. We have the language of spirit and life. The difference between the old point of view and the new is well illustrated by Hort's remark (Notes on Orthography, p. 152 f.) when he speaks of "the popular Greek in which the N. T. is to a certain extent written." He con- ceives of it as literary kolvIi with some popular elements. The new and the true view is that the N. T. is written in the popular KOLvi] with some literary elements, especially in Luke, Paul, He- brews and James. Josephus is interesting as a background to the N. T. He wrote his War in Aramaic and secured the help of Greek writers to translate it, but the Antiquities was composed in Greek, probably with the aid of similar coUaborateurs, for parts of Books XVII- XIX copy the style of Thucydides and are really Atticistic' It is interesting to take a portion of 1 Maccabees as we have it translated from the Hebrew original and compare it with the cor- responding portion of Josephus. The Greek of 1 Mace, is, like the LXX, translation Greek and intensely Hebraistic, while Jo- sephus smooths out all the Hebraistic wrinkles and shifts it into the rolling periods of Thucydides. The N. T. has slight affinities in vocabulary, besides Josephus, with Philo, Plutarch, Polybius, Strabo, Diodorus and a few other writers in the literary koivti^ Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 64) holds that Paul's "Greek never becomes literary." "It is never disciplined, say, by the canon of the Atticists, never tuned to the Asian rhythm : ' W.-M., p. 37. Kennedy indeed (Sour, of N. T. Gk., p. 134) says that 80 per cent, of the N. T. words date from before 322 b.c. * Hast. D. B., ext. vol. ' See Thackeray, art. Josephus in ext. vol. of Hast. D. B.; cf. also Schmidt, De Flavii Jos. Eloc, 1893. Thumb (Die griech. Spr., p. 125) and Moulton (Prol., p. 233) accent the fact that Josephus has only one Hebraism, irpoaH- BtaBai. with infinitive = 7 T^"^- Cf . also Raab, De Fl. Jos. Eloc. Quest., 1890. * Kennedy, Sour, of N. T. Gk., pp. 50 ff . Hoole, The Class. Elem. in the N. T., 1888, gives an interesting list of Gk. and Rom. proper names that occur in the N. T. 88 A GEAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT it remains non-literary." But has not Deissmann given a too special sense to "literary"? If 1 Cor. 13 and 15, Ro. 8 and Eph. 3 do not rise to literary flavour and nobility of thought and expression, I confess my ignorance of what hterature is. Har- nack (Das hohe Lied des Apostels Paulus'von der Ldebe und seine religionsgeschichtliche Bedeutung, 1911) speaks of the rhythm, the poetic form, the real oratory, the literary grace of 1 Cor. 13. The best literature is not artificial nor pedantic like the work of the Atticists and Asian stylists. That is a caricature of literature. We must not forget that Paul was a man of culture as well as a man of the people. Deissmann {Light, p. 64 f.) does admit the literary quality of Hebrews. This epistle is more ornate as Origen saw (Eus., Eccl. Hist., VI, xxv, 11). III. The Semitic Influence, 'this is still the subject of keen controversy, though not in the same way that the Purists and the Hebraists debated it. Now the point is whether the N. T. Greek is wholly in the lanvii or whether there is an appreciable Semitic colouring in addition. There is something to be said on both sides of the question. (a) The Tradition. See i, (a), for proof of the error of this posi- tion. It is certain that the idea of a special Hebraic Greek for the N. T. is gone. Schaff ' said that the Greek spoken by the Grecian Jews "assumed a strongly Hebraizing character," and the N. T. Greek shared in this "sacred and Hebraizing character." Ac- cording to Hatch ^ "the great majority of N. T. words . . . ex- press in their biblical use the conceptions of a Semitic race." Viteau' calls it "Hebraizing Greek," while Simcox* speaks of "the half -Hebraized Greek of the N. T." Reuss^ calls it "the Jewish- Greek idiom." Hadley^ considered the "Hellenistic dialect, largely intermixed with Semitic idioms." Westcott' spoke of "the Hebraic style more or less pervading the whole N. T." But Westcott' admitted that "a philosophical view of the N. T. lan- guage as a whole is yet to be desired," as Hatch' lamented that the N. T. Greek "has not yet attracted the attention of any con- siderable scholar." That cannot now be said after the work of Blass, Deissmann, Moulton, Radermacher and others, and was an overstatement then. And yet the old view of "biblical Greek" » Comp. to the Gk. Test., 1885, pp. 22, 25. ' Ess. in Bibl. Gk., p. 34. « Lang, of the N. T., Smith's B. D. ' Synt. des Prop., p. xxxvi. ' Art. N. T., Smith's B. D. « Lang, of the N. T., p. 20. « lb. 5 Hist, of the N. T., 1885, p. 36. » Ess. in Bibl. Gk., p. 1. THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 89 for both N. T. and LXX is still championed by Conybeare and Stock in their grammar of the Septuagint {Selections from the Sept., 1905, p. 22 f.). They insist, against Deissmann, on the "linguistic unity" of the LXX and of the N. T. as opposed to the vernacular koiv^. They admit, of course, that the LXX is far more Hebraic than the N. T. This sturdy contention for the old view is interesting, to say the least. Wellhausen (Einl. in die drei ersten Evangelieii) is rather disposed to accent the "Semiticisms"'(Ara- maisms) in the Synoptic Gospels in contrast with the Attic Greek. Nobody now claims the N. T. Greek to be Attic in purity. "No one denies the existence of Semiticisms; opinions are only divided with reference to the relative proportion of these Semiticisms" (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 65). The old view is dead beyond recall. (b) The View of Deissmann and Moulton. Over against the old conception stands out in sharp outline the view of Deissmann^ who says: "The linguistic unity of the Greek Bible appears only against the background of classical, not of contemporary 'pro- fane' Greek." Note the word "only." Once more 2; "The few Hebraizing expressions in those parts of the N. T. which were in Greek from the first are but an acddens which does not essentially alter the fundamental character of its language." The portions of the Synoptic Gospels which were either in Aramaic or made use of Aramaic originals he considers on a par with the LXX. They use translation Greek. No one "ever really spoke as he may have translated the Logia-coUection, blessed — and cramped — as he was by the timid consciousness of being permitted to convey the sacred words of the Son of God to the Greeks."^ Thumb* accepts the view of Deissmann and admits "Hebraisms in a few cases" only and then principally the meaning of words. In 1879 Guillemard^ disclaimed any idea of being able to give "an exhaustive exhibition of all the Hebraisms," but he "put for- ward only a few specimens" \ Moulton* admits practically no Hebraisms nor Aramaisms outside of "translation Greek." "Be- tween these two extremes the N. T. writers lie; and of them all ' B. S., 1901, p. 66. = lb., p. 177. ' lb., p. 76. "What would we give if we could recover but one papyrus book with a few leaves containing genuine Aramaic sayings of Jesus! For those few leaves we would, I think, part willingly with the theological out- put of a whole century" (Deissmann, Light, p. 57). ' Griech. Spr. etc., p. 121. ' Hebraisms in the Gk. Test., Pref. " Prol., p. 10. 90 A GKAMMAR OF THE GKEEK NEW TESTAMENT we may assert with some confidence that, where translation is not mvolved, we shall find hardly any Greek expression used which would soimd strangely to speakers of the kolvIi in Gentile lands." -Once more': "What we can assert with assurance is that the papyri have finally destroyed the figment of a N. T. Greek which in any material respect differed from that spoken by ordi- nary people in daily life." Moulton^ reaUzes "the danger of go- ing too far" in summing up thus the issue of the long strife over N. T. Hebraisms. According to Moulton (p. 18) the matter is complicated only in Luke, who, though a gentile, used Aramaic sources in the opening chapters of the Gospel and Acts. This new and revolutionary view as to Semitisms is still challenged by Dal- man' who finds many more Aramaisms in the Synoptic Gospels than Moulton is willing to admit. Deissmann indeed is not dis- posed in his later writuigs to be dogmatic on the subject. "The last word has not yet been said about the proportion of Semiti- cisms" (Expositor, Jan., 1908, p. 67). He is undoubtedly right in the idea that many so-called Semiticisms are really "interna- tional vulgarisms." Schiirer, Theol. Liter atwzeitung, 1908, p. 555, criticizes Deissmann {lAcht vom Osten, 1908, p. 35) for run- . ning the parallel too close between the N. T. and the imliterary papyri. It is truer of the LXX than of the N. T. The old view cannot stand in the light of the papyri and in- scriptions. Both the Purists and the Hebraists were wrong. Many words and idioms heretofore claimed as Hebraisms are shown to be current in the vernacular kolvyi. As specimens* one can mention hiiinov ("'jsj according to Winer-Liinemann, p. 201, and "biblical" according to Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 90) is found in the papyri; irpea^ijTepos in the official sense occurs in the papyri of Egypt in combinations like irpea^in-epoi, iepeis; kptaTa(a = 'to beg' is in the papyri; els in sense of vrpuTos also; > ProL, p. 18. ' lb., p. 18. He quotes approvingly Deissmann 's remark that "Semitisms which are in common use belong mostly to the technical language of reUgion" and they do not alter the scientific description of the language. Moulton (Interp., July, 1906, p. 380) says: "Sufiice it to say that, except so far as the N. T. writers are quoting baldly Mteral translations from the LXX, or making equally literal translations' from the Aramaic in which the Lord and His disciples usually spoke, we have no reason whatever to say that the N. T. was composed in a Greek distinguishable from that spoken all over the Roman Empire." » Wds. of Jes., 1902. ' See Deissmann (B. S. and Light) and Moulton (Prol.). THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINE 91 Trpoo-eujt^ can no longer be regarded as a word of Jewish formation for a Jewish place of prayer, since it appears in that sense in a Ptolemaic inscription in Lower Egypt in the III cent. b.c. ; ovona occurs also in the sense of "person"; expressions hke vlbs Oavarov are found in the papyri; /SX^-ew aro occurs in a papyrus letter; eJs Svofw, is in inscriptions, ostraca, papyri; Sio Svo is matched in the papyri by rpia rpLa (this idiom has been traced in Greek for 2500 years); the instrumental use of h as ev /jiaxaipv is common; the use of h tQ and the infinitive so common in Luke appears in the papyri; and even ew a.%avTr\(nv meets us in the papyri (Tebt. Pap. 43, II cent. b.c). Certainly a full hst of the words and phrases that can no longer be called Hebraisms would be very formidable. Besides, the list grows continually under the re- searches of Deissmann, Moulton, Mayser, Thtunb, Kalker, Wit- kowski, Milligan and other scholars. The presumption is now clearly against a Hebraism. The balance of evidence has gone over to the other side. But after all one has the conviction that the joy of new discovery has to some extent blurred the vision of Deissmann and Moulton to the remaining Hebraisms which do not indeed make Hebraic Greek or a peculiar dialect. But enough remain to be noticeable and appreciable. Some of these may vanish, like the rest, before the new knowledge. The LXX, though "translation Greek," was translated into the vernacular of Alexandria, and one can but wonder if the LXX did not have some shght resultant influence upon the Alexandrian koivt) itself. The Jews were very numerous in Alexandria. "Moreover, it remains to be considered how far the quasi-Semitic colloquialisms of the papyri are themselves due to the influence of the large Greek- speaking Jewish population of the Delta" (Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, 1906, p. cxx). Thackeray {Gr. of the 0. T. in Gk., vol. I, p. 20) uses the small number of Coptic words in the Greek papyri against the notion of Hebrew influence on the Koivii in Egypt. However, Thackeray (p. 27) notes that the papyri so far discovered tell us little of the private life of the Jews of Egypt and of the Greek used by them specifically. The marshes of the Delta were not favourable for the preservation of the papyri. The Koivii received other foreign influences we know. The Jews of the Dispersion spoke the vernacular Koivn everywhere, but they read the LXX, "a written Semitic Greek which no one ever spoke, far less used for literary purposes, either before or after."' And yet ' Deissmann, B. S., p. 67. See also Angus, N. T. Philol., Harv. Theol. Rev., July, 1909, p. 453. The LXX, though translation Greek (see above), 92 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the Hellenistic Jews all over the world could not read continually the LXX and not to some extent feel the influence of its peculiar style. No one to-day speaks the English of the King James Ver- sion, or ever did for that matter, for, though like Shakespeare, it is the pure Anglo-Saxon, yet, unhke Shakespeare, it reproduces to a remarkable extent the spirit and language of the Bible. As Luther's German Bible largely made the German language, so the King James Version has greatly affected modern EngUsh (both vernacular and literary). The situation is not the same, but there is enough of truth to justify the comparison. There are fewer details that preserve the Semitic character, but what does not disappear is the Hebrew cast of thought in a writer like John, for instance. No papyrus is as much a parallel to John's Gospel as the Book of Job, for instance. Westcott* has true insight when he says of N. T. Greek: "It combines the simple directness of He- brew thought with the precision of Greek expression. In this way the subtle delicacy of Greek expression in some sense interprets Hebrew thought." What is true of John's Gospel is true also of James. The numerous quotations both from the LXX and the Hebrew in the N. T. put beyond controversy the constant use of the 0. T. in Greek on the part of the N. T. writers. Besides, with the possible exception of Luke and the author of Hebrews, they all knew and used Aramaic as well as Greek. The point is that the N. T. writers were open to Semitic influence. How great that was must be settled by the facts in the case, not by pre- sumptions for or against. Dr. George Milligan {Greek Papyri, p. xxix f .) says : " In the matter of language, we have now abun- dant proof that the so-caUed 'peculiarities' of bibhcal Greek are due simply to the fact that the writers of the N. T. for the most part made use of the ordinary colloquial Greek, the Koivfi of their day. This is not to say that we are to disregard altogether the influence of 'translation Greek,' and the consequent presence of undoubted Hebraisms, both in language and grammar. An over- tendency to minimize these last is probably the most pertinent is in the vern. marli, and thus the N. T. writers had a double point of contact with the mivi,. Cf. Wackernagel, Theol. Lit., 1908, p. 38; Milligan, Epis. to the Th., p. Iv. ' Exp., 1887, p. 241. Thumb (Griech. Spr. etc., p. 132) denies any influ- ence on the development of the Gk. But Thayer (Hast. D. B., Lang, of the N. T., Ill, 40°') is not surprised to find "idioms havmg a distinctly Hebra- istic flavour even in native Greek circles." Cf . also Reuss, Hist, of the N T 1884, vol. I, p. 33. ' ' THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 93 criticism that can be directed against Dr. J. H. Moulton's Pro- legomena to his Grammar of N. T. Greek." So Dr. Swete "deprecates the induction which, as it seems to him, is being somewhat hastily based upon them (the papyri), that the Greek of the N. T. has been but slightly influenced by the famiUarity of the writers with Hebrew and Aramaic" {Apocalypse of St. John, p. cxx). Von Soden* sums up the whole matter as follows: "It was unavoidable but that the primitive Christian writers often used compulsion with the Greek tongue and offended against its genius. They wished to bring to expression things which, up to that time, were foreign to the Greek spirit and only found ex- pression in Semitic languages. And besides, it is only natural that the phraseology of the Greek translation of the O. T., to which they were habituated from their youth, should uncon- sciously flow from their pens, and still more, that when their sub- ject-matter brought them into close contact with the 0. T. or when they translated from the Aramaic dialect of Palestine, their Greek should receive a foreign tinge." This by no means makes a special N. T. dialect nor even Jewish-Greek, but it admits a real, though slight, Semitic influence even where it is not "trans- lation Greek." This position is more nearly in accord with all the facts as we now know them. It is pleasing to find Deissmann {Expodtor, Oct., 1907, "Philology of the Greek Bible," p. 292) rather reacting a bit from the first extreme position. He accents here strongly the influence of the LXX on the N. T. "It is one of the most painful deficiencies of biblical study at the present day that the reading of the LXX has been pushed into the back- ground, while its exegesis has been scarcely even begun." (lb., p. 293): "A single hour lovingly devoted to the text of the Sep- tuagint wiU further our exegetical knowledge of the Pauline Epistles more than a whole day spent over a commentary." (76., p. 294): "This restoration of the Greek Bible to its own epoch is really the distinctive feature of the work of modern scholarship." That hits the point. We cordially agree with his remark (Exposi- tor, Nov., 1907, p. 435) that the Semiticisms of the Greek Bible do not place the N. T. outside of the scope of Greek philology, but are merely its birth-marks. In the Dec. (1907) Expositor (p. 520) Deissmann comments feelingly on the fact that the LXX "has served the Christian Church of Anatolia in unbroken con- tinuity down to the present day." ' Eaxly Chr. Lit., 1906, p. 11 f. 94 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (c) Little Direct Hebrew Influence. The Hebrew was not a living language any longer. Less than half of the 0. T. quota- tions' in the N. T. are from the Hebrew text. It was still read in most of the synagogues of Palestine and it is possible that a modernized Hebrew was in use to some extent for literary pur- poses.2 Perhaps the Hebrew text was consulted by the N. T. writers who used it much as a modern minister refers to his Greek Testament. The reading of the Hebrew 0. T. would give one dignity of style and simplicity of expression. The co-ordination of clauses so common in the Hebrew is not confined to the Hebrew, but is certainly in marked contrast with the highly developed sys- tem of subordinate sentences of the Greek. But this paratactic construction is partly Hebraic and partly colloquial. The total absence of extended indirect discourse is a case in point also. Compare the historical books of the N. T. with Xenophon and Thucydides. Likewise the frequent use of Kal and the sparing use of particles may be mentioned. The pleonastic use of pro- nouns like ijv oMels Shvarai KKetcrat avri/v (Rev. 3 : 8) finds an occa- sional parallel (Moulton) in the papyri, but none the less its frequency in the N. T. is due to the Hebrew. The same remark applies to the effort to express in Greek the Hebrew infinitive ab- solute by the participle, as pXewovres p\kif'ere (Mt. 13 : 14), or the instrumental, as. x^p? xaipei (Jo. 3 :29). Both of these construc- tions are found in the Greek, but with far less frequency. The use of TrpoaTidrjUL with an infinitive for repetition, as irpotredeTo Tpirov Trkixil/ai (Lu. 20 : 12) is in evident imitation of the Hebrew Eio^. E£=tis; does not mean ou as in ei Sodfiatrai. ctiixtiov (Mk. 8 : 12), but is aposiopesis, the apodosis not being expressed. This use is in the papyri. 06-7ras in the sense of oidds is due to the LXX trans- lation of V3"»5, though Moulton (p.- 246) has found in the papyri iivev and xwpts so used with iras. The use of prj/m, in the sense of la'n 'thing' is a Hebraism after the LXX. The classic Greek already has X670S in this sense. np6- (TUTTov \afiP&v€iv d^iSi !*to is a clear Hebraism. IIpoo-ajTroXij/tT'"^ first appears in the N. T. So also is lipkaKuv kvimbv tlvos rather than apkcTKeiv rivi a Hebraism. Cf . the circiunlocutions irp6 irpoaiiitov r^s elaodov airov (Acts 13 : 24) rather than the simple Trpd avrov. The frequent use of the article in address, though occasional in Greek, • Swete, Intr. to the O. T. in Gk., 1900, pp. 381-405. ^ Schurer, Jew. Peo. in Times of Ch., div. II, vol. I, p. 10. "Hebrew also continued to be the language of the learned, in which even the legal discus- sions of the scribes were carried on." THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 95 is like the Hebrew and Aramaic vocative. The common use of ijv or tari and the participle suits both the Hebrew and the analy- tic tendency of the Koivii. Cf. the more frequent use of the instru- mental h. So the frequent construction ehai els is due to *? in Hebrew, though in itself not out of harmony with the Greek genius. It occurs in the papyri. 'Aird irpoo-c<)7rou='i.?BB and Tp6 irpotr6)irov='^i'o)3 are both Hebraisms. The use of SiSovai in the sense of riBkvai is due to "IfiJ having both senses (Thackeray, Gr. of the 0. T. in Gk., p. 39); cf. Deut. 28 : 1, Siitrei. at inrepLvu. So ij/i^pat takes the flavour of the Hebrew biai, and dpiivri is used in salutation Uke fiiiiB'. The superfluous pronoun calls for notice also. The frequency of iv rcf with the infinitive is due to ?. So also vlos occurs in some Hebraistic senses like 11, but the papyri have some examples of vlos for 'quality,' ' characteristic' Thack- eray (p. 42) notes the Hebrew fondness for "physiognomical expressions" like dcfSoKfios, irpoauirov, a-rdixa, x^Pt irovs, etc. The in- creased use of aviip and avdpwiros like ^J'^!* rather than tIs, ^Ss, tKoaros must be observed. The very extensive use of prepositions is ac- cented by the Hebrew. Kai kykvero translates '^n'?^. The use of a question to express wish is like the Hebrew idiom (cf. 2 Kgs. 18:33). But these constructions are doubtless due to the LXX rather than to Hebrew itself. It is not possible to give in clear outline the influence of the Hebrew Bible on the N. T. apart from the LXX and the Aramaic, though there was Uttle of just that kind. Kennedy ^ gives thirteen words common to the LXX and the N. T. (Thackeray, Gr., pp. 31 £f., gives a Ust of "Hebra- isms in Vocabulary") and coimts "twenty Hebrew and Aramaic words which do not occur in the LXX, e.g. ^i^avvov, papxavas, paKa, biaavvL" The words in the N. T. known to be Hebrew and not Aramaic are as follows: a/3a55£!)i'=Tiiai«; dXXi;Xowd=a;"lb!3n; apiiv = 1»s; apfiayeSi)v=t'^i^ "^O; dppoj3d)j'=fa'i5; ^dTos=ti|i; ;8eeXfe;8oir/3 =a>iat ii?5; |8oanjp7es=ia35 "^P.^ (cf. Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 49); j8£ro-(70s=f13 (cf. also fiiatrivos); i^paiarl from "i^S; ^Xet='^5N (MSS. Mt. 27:46); KdiLn;Xos=5tt?; lovSat^ai, lovSaiapos, lovSaUos, lovSa'ios=iTyVT]; Kopfiav='\'2.']P/, id)pi.vov=y\^^; Xt^ai'os=n3ia^; iiavva =15; nupk=T\'v:>; ira(rxo=nDB (LXX, but same for Aramaic snos); /5o|8|8i(e0='^a'?; o-oj3ocbff=tiiKaS; ffd;3/3aToi'=n|i»; ^p'P; i5a-o-&nros = niTi* ; x«pou/3iM=o''ail|; (hffavva=&': Sffiin (Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 222). Some of these were already in classical Greek (fiiaaos, » Sour, of the N. T. Gk., p. 110 f. Cf. Gregory, Prol., etc., p. 102 f., for foreign words in the N. T. 96 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT yi^avos, (7ax<^6ipos). Of doubtful origin are vapSos, vlrpov (Jer. 2 : 22), (TVKanivos. This is a fairiy complete list of the Hebrew words in the N. T. The Aramaic words will be given later. There are to be added, however, the very niunerous Hebrew proper names, only a few samples of which can be given, as Mapta/i= fi'JT?; M€Xxto-e5k=p'l2-i3^a; 2aouX= iwiu; Sa/join7X=iiS!l'3l?; kt\. Deiss- mann is correct in saying ("Papyri," Encyc. Bibl.) that lexical Hebraisms "must be subjected to careful revision," but these remain. Certain it is that the bulk of the examples of Hebraisms given by Guillemard vanish in the light of the papjTi and inscriptions. He feared indeed that his book was "a return to old exploded methods." It is indeed "exploded" now, for the N. T. is not "unlike any other Greek, with one single exception, and abso- lutely imique in its peculiarities."^ There are three ways of giv- ing these Semitic words: mere transliteration and indeclinable, transliteration and declinable, Greek endings to Aramaic, words. (d) A Deeper Impress by the LXX. It is true that the N. T. at many points has afSnities with the LXX, the "single exception" of Guillemard, but the LXX is not "the basis of the Christian Greek." ^ In his second volume Viteau began to see that he had been too extreme in his notion that the N. T. was Hebraized Greek: "The language of the N. T. is not derived from that of the LXX; it is its sister. It is the same famiUar Greek language which one finds employed in the one or the other. But the Greek of the LXX has exercised a considerable influence upon that of the N. T." ' But even in this volume Viteau overestimates the influence of the LXX on the N. T. Westcott* had the old idea that the N. T. language, "both as to its lexicography and as to its grammar, is based on the language of the LXX." It is undoubtedly true^ that a very large proportion of the N. T. 1 Hebr. in the N. T., 1879, p. ix f. " Schaff, Comp. to the Gk. Test., p. 23. » Sujet, Compl. et Attr., 1896, p. ii. « Art. N. T., Smith's B. D. Helbing in his Gr. der LXX (1907) promises to investigate the Hebraisms in the second volume (p. iv). But he aheady sees that TpoaTiShai occurs in the papyri as well as constructions hke i^Hv . . . 4{ airav. In general (p. vii) the LXX shows the same tendency as the rest of the Koivri towards uniformity (the disappearance of the opt., the superl., the 2d aorist, the middle, etc.). Of. also Sel. from the LXX by C. S. (1905) with a brief Gr. of the LXX; Deissmann, Die Anf. der Sept.-Gr., Intern. Wochenschr., Sept. 26, 1908. » Kennedy, Sour, of N. T. Gk., p. 142 f. Cf. Brockehnann, Grandr. der vergl. Gr. der semit. Spr. (1907). THE PLACE OP THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINE 97 words are found in the LXX, but there are very few words that are found" in the N. T. and the LXX and nowhere else.^ Both the LXX and the N. T. use the current vocabulary. There are indeed numerous theological terms that have a new meaning in the LXX, and so in the N. T., like ayta^eiv, a^eo-ts, ykevva, iKKKritrla, KbpuK, X670S, yMTpbu, iwvoyeviis, irceO/to, criaTTipia, xpio'''6s, kt\. (See longer list in Swete, Introduction to 0. T. in Greek, p. 454.) So also many N. T. phrases are found in the LXX, like dK irpbaunrov, ■q Siaairopa, kt\. (ib.). The 0. T. apocryphal books also are of interest on this point. We have a splendid treatment of the LXX Greek by Thackeray. He shows "the Koivi] basis of LXX Greek," as to vocabulary, orthography, accidence and syntax (pp. 16-25). He notes era, TeaaepaKovra, finds v movable before consonants, va6s, vvktov, TrXiipris indeclinable, iure^rjv, disappearance of jui-verbs, iiKBoaav, rj}\ffa, avi^aivav, ii>pa.Kav, os kav, oWiis, nomina- tivus pendens, even in apposition with genitive (cf. Apocalypse), constructio ad sensum, \kycav and Xkyovres with construction like amiyykXri X^ovres, recitative oti., neuter plurals with plural verb, partial disappearance of the superlative and usually in elative sense, wpSiTos instead of irpSrepos, eavrois, -cov, -ots for aU three persons, disappearance of the optative, great increase of rod and the infinitive, co-ordination of sentences with kclL, genitive absolute when noun in another case is present, blending of cases, in- crease of adverbial phrases and prepositions, ei/ii eis, interchange between iv and eis (increase of eis), etc. See also Psichari {Revue des etudes juives, 1908, pp. 173-208) for a discussion of the Semitic influence on the N. T. Greek. The use of eifil eis occurs occasionally in the papyri, the inscriptions and koiv^ writers, but it is extremely common in the LXX because of the Hebrew 5. In the realm of syntax the LXX is far more Hebra- istic than the N. T., for it is a translation by Jews who at many points slavishly follow the Hebrew either from ignorance of the Hebrew or the Greek, perhaps sometimes a little of both. B in Judges, Ruth, -2-4 Kings, has eyi) eifii with indicative, as eyi} eifii KoBiaofuiL (Judges 6 : 18).* BA in Tobit 5 : 15 have taotuu Sidovai. B in Eccl. 2 : 17 has eidariad avv riiv ^aiiiv = aT^nn-ns. 1 The 150 words out of over (?) 4800 (not counting proper names) in the N. T. which Kennedy (Sour, of N. T. Gk., p. 88) gives as "strictly peculiar to the LXX and N. T." cut a much smaller figure now. New pap. may remove many from the list that are still left. ■' Cf. Swete, Intr. to O. T. in Gk., p. 308. 98 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Swete^ finds this misunderstanding of fi8 common in A in Ec- clesiastes and six times in 3 Kings. It is the characteristic of Aquila.'' No such barbarisms as these occur in the N. T., though the "wearisome iteration of the oblique cases of personal pro- nouns answering to the Hebrew suffixes" finds illustration to some extent in the N. T. books, and the pleonastic use of the pro- noun after the Greek relative is due to the fact that the Hebrew relative is indeclinable.^ The N. T. does not have such a con- struction as ijp^aro Tov o'lKoSofietv (2 Chron. 3:1), though tov kaeX- delv with kykvero (Ac. 10 : 25) is as awkward an imitation of the Hebrew infinitive construct. The LXX translators had great difficulty in rendering the Hebrew tenses into Greek and were often whimsical about it. It was indeed a difficult matter to put the two simple Hebrew timeless tenses into the complicated and highly developed Greek system, and "Vav conversive" added to the complexity of the problem. Conybeare and Stock, Selections from the LXX, p. 23, doubt if the LXX Greek always had a meaning to the translators, as in Num. 9 : 10; Deut. 33 : 10. The LXX Greek is indeed "abnormal Greek,"* but it can be un- derstood. Schiirer^ is wrong when he calls it "quite a new lan- guage, swarming with such strong Hebraisms that a Greek could not understand it." It is indeed in places "barbarous Greek," but the people who spoke the vernacular Koivij could and did make it out. Many of the Hellenistic Jews knew no Hebrew nor Ara/- maic but only the kolv^. The Greek proselyte, like the Ethiopian eunuch, could read it, if he did need a spiritual interpreter. Schti- rer,* who credits the Palestinian Jews with very little knowledge of the ciurent Greek, considers "the ancient anonymous Greek translation of the Scriptures" to be "the foundation of all Ju- dseo-Hellenistic culture." He is indeed right in contrasting the hardness of Palestinian Pharisaism with the pliable Hellenistic Judaism on the soil of Hellenism.^ But the Jews felt the Greek spirit (even if they could not handle easily oratio indirecta) not only in the Diaspora, but to a large extent in the cities of Pales- tine, especially along the coast, in GaUlee and in the Decapolis. 1 Intr. to O. T. in Gk., p. 308. ' Use should be made of the transl. of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus, though they are of much less importance. Of. Swete, p. 457 f. » Swete, ib., p. 307. * Moulton, Prol., p. 13. » Hist, of Jew. Peo. in Time of Ch., div. II, vol. Ill, p. 163. ' lb., vol. I, p. 47 f., and div. II, vol. Ill, p. 159. ' lb., p. 157. THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 99 On the spread of Greek in Palestine see Milligan, N. T. Documents, pp. 39 ff. The prohibition,' about the time of the siege of Jerusa- lem, against a Jew teaching his son Greek, shows that it had previ- ously been done. The quotations in the N. T. from the 0. T. show the use of the LXX more frequently than the Hebrew, sometimes the text quoted in the Synoptics is more like that of A than B, sometimes more like Theodotion than the LXX.^ In the Synoptic Gospels the quotations, with the exception of five in Matthew which are more like the Hebrew, closely follow the LXX. In John the LXX is either quoted or a free rendering of the Hebrew is made. The Acts quotes from the LXX exclusively. The Catholic Epistles use the LXX. The Epistle to the Hebrews "is in great part a catena of quotations from the LXX."' In Paul's Epistles more than half of the direct quotations follow the LXX. Here also the text of A is followed more often than the text of B. Swete* even thinks that the literary form of the N. T. would have been very different but for the LXX. The Apocalypse in- deed does not formally quote the 0. T., but it is a mass of allu- sions to the LXX text. It is not certain' that the LXX was used in the synagogues of Galilee and Judea, but it is clear that Peter, James, Matthew and Mark, Jewish writers, quote it, and that they represent Jesus as using it. In the Hellenistic syna- gogues of Jerusalem it would certainly be read. It would greatly facilitate a just conclusion on the general relation of the N. T. Greek to the LXX Greek if we had a complete grammar and a dictionary of the LXX, though we are grateful for the luminous chapter of Swete on the Greek of the Septuagint in his Irdroduo- tion to the 0. T. in Greek; to Kennedy for his Sources of N. T. Greek; to Hatch for his Essays in Biblical Greek; to Deissmann for his Bible Studies and his Philology of the Greek Bible (1908) ; to Helbing for his very useful Grammatik, and especially to Thack- • MBgilla, I, 8. Cf. Hamburger, Realencyc, art. Griechentum; R. Meister, Prol. zu einer Gr. der Sept., (Wiener Stud., xxix, 27). 2 Swete, Intr. to O. T. in Gk., p. 395. Cf. Deissmann in Exp. Times, Mar., 1906, p. 254, who points out that Pap. Heid. (cf . Deissmann, Die Sept. Pap., 1905) "assimilates such passages as are cited in the N. T., or are capa- ble of a Christian meaning, as far as possible, to their form in the N. T. text, or to the sphere of Christian thought." Heinrici shows the same thing to be true of Die Leip. Pap. frag, der Psalmen, 1903. ' Swete, Intr., etc., p. 402. All these facts about LXX quotations come from Swete. ' lb., p. 404. See ib., p. 404 f ., for bibliography on N. T. quotations. ~ lb., pp. 29 ff. 100 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT eray for vol. I of his Grammar: It is now possible to make in- telligent and, to a degree, adequate use of the LXX in the study of N. T. Greek. The completion of Helbing's Syntax and of Thackeray's Syntax will further enrich N. T. students. The Ox- ford Concordance of Hatch and Redpath and the larger Cambridge Septvagird are of great value. Swete^ laments that the N. T. grammars have only "incidental references to the hnguistic char- acteristics of the Alexandrian version." The translation was not done all at once, and not by men of Jerusalem, but by Jews of Alexandria who knew "the patois of the Alexandrian streets and markets."^ One doubts, however, if these translators spoke this mixture of Egyptian Koivij and Hebrew. On this point Swete' differs from most scholars and in- sists that "the translators write Greek largely as they doubtless spoke it." They could not shake off the Hebrew spell in trans- lation. In free Greek like most of the N. T. the Semitic influence is far less. Mahaffy was quick to see the likeness between the papyri and the LXX.* But one must not assume that a N. T. word necessarily has the same sense that it has either in the LXX or the Koivij. The N. T. has ideas of its own, a point to be con- sidered later. We agree with Swete^ that the LXX is "indispen- sable to the study of the N. T." Nestle* justly remarks that the Greek of the LXX enjoys now a much more favourable judgment from philologists than some twenty years ago. Conybeare and Stock {Sel. from the LXX, p. 22) observe that, while the vocabu- lary of the LXX is that of the market-place of Alexandria, the syntax is much more under the influence of the Hebrew original. The LXX does, of course, contain a few books like 4 Maccabees, written in Greek originally and in the Greek spirit, like Philo's works. Philo represents the Atticistic revival in Alexandria that was a real factor with a few. But the "genitivus hebraicus," hke 6 Kpiriis rrjs dSuctas, is paralleled in the papyri and the inscriptions, though not so often as in the LXX. Of. Radermacher, N. T. Greek, p. 19. So also (p. 21) toTs ej 'epiBf.ias (Ro. 2 : 8) is like k TrX^pow in the papyri and already in the tragic poets. Thumb' properly takes the side of Deissmann against Viteau's exaggerated I Intr., p. 289. 3 ib., p. 299. ■' lb., p. 9. 4 Exp. Times, iii, p. 291. » Intr. to O. T. in Gk., p. 450 f . Hitzig, of Heidelberg, used to open his lectures on O. T. by asking: "Gentlemen, have you a LXX? If not, sell whatever you have and buy a LXX." Nestle, LXX, in Hast. D. B., p. 438. « LXX, Hast. D. B., p. 451. ' Griech. Spr. etc., pp. 128-132. ■±a.iu jSap/SApots. John (5 : 2; 19 : 13, 17, 20; Rev. 9 : 11; 16 : 16) uses "EiSpaiffTi in the sense of the Aramaic. So Luke has i) 'E/Spais Si&XeKTos (Ac. 21 : 40; 22 : 2; 26 : 14). The people under- stood Paul's Greek, but they gave the more heed when he dropped into Aramaic. 4 Mace. (12 : 7; 16 : 15) likewise employs 'E/3pats ^uvrj. The two kinds of Jewish Christians are even called (Ac. 6 : 1) "EXXTjvta-rai and 'EjSpaTot, though 'EXXTji/to-rai and 'Zvpiarai would have been a more exact distinction.^ It is beyond contro- versy that the gospel message was told largely in Aramaic, which to some extent withstood the influx of Greek as the vernacular did in Lycaonia^ (Ac. 14 : 11). One caimot at this point discuss the Synoptic problem. It is not certain that Luke, probably a gentile, knew either Aramaic or Hebrew, though there is a real Semitic influence on part of the Gospel and Acts, due, Dalman' holds, to the LXX example and a possible Aramaic or Hebrew original for the opening chapters of the Gospel, already put in- to Greek. Mark was probably written in Rome, not Palestine. Hence the Aramaic original of Mark, Bousset argues, cannot be considered as proved.* He rightly insists, as against Wellhausen,' that the question is not between the classic Greek and Aramaic, but between the vernacular koij'tj and Aramaic. But whatever is or is not true as to the original language of Mark and of Mat- thew, the gospel story was first told largely in Aramaic. The translation of the Aramaic expressions in Mark proves this be- yond all doubt, as ToKuBa, Koifi by t6 KopacLov, iryeipe (Mk. 5 : 41). Dahnan' indeed claims that every Semitism in the N. T. should first be looked upon as an Aramaism unless it is clear that the Aramaic cannot explain it. The Mishna (Neo-Hebraic) was not itself unaffected by the Greek, for the Mishna has numerous 1 Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 7. ' Schwyzer, Weltspr. etc., p. 27. ' Words of Jesus, p. 38. Dalman doubts the Heb. document, but admits a "wealth of Hebraisms" in Lu. Vogel (ZurCharac. des Lu., p. 32 f.) arguea for a "special source" for these opening chapters. Blass, Philol. of theGosp., p. 195, denies that Luke knew Hebrew. * Theol. Runds., Jan., 1906, pp. 2-4, 35 f. ^ Einl. in die drei Evang., §§ 2-4. ' Words of Jesus, p. 19; cf. also Schaff, Comp. to the Gk. N. T., p. 28. In 1877 Dr. John A. Broadus said in lecture (Sum. of the Leading PecuUarities of N. T. Gk. Gr., Immer's Hermen., p. 378) that the N. T. Gk. had a "Hebrew and Aramaic tinge which arises partly from reading Hebrew and chiefly (so his own correction) from speaking Aramaic." If instead of Hebrew he had said LXX, or had added LXX to Hebrew, he would not have missed it far. THE PLACE OP THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 105 Greek words and phrases that were current in the Aramaic.^ The Aramaisms of vocabulary that one can certainly admit in the N. T. are the following words: d|3j3d=sa8;; 'AKeX5o/u(ix=sKi'i iipn; all words beginning with /Sap =15 hke Bapva^as; Bee\^e^oi\=)>''S^, >iiat; Bij0€<7Sd=S^t?|-i tiia; Btid^cUBa, B5;faed=sni;. rr^a; TaPffa£6i.= »na5; 7eei'j'a = rian SJ; roX7oSd = »t!i)3^a; ^Xcot, kXut, Xa/id aafiax- davel (or probably Heb. ''!bs=^X£i, and the rest Aramaic, Dal- man, Words of Jesus, p. 53 f .) = ''?i?i:?5i9 ^'a'!} %'iisi %':iiiS!; k4>aBa= nnsfiss; Kop)3oj'as=»3ai^i?; / Swete, Intr. to the O. T. in Gk., p. 381. 2 Dalman (Wds. of Jes., p. 42) thinks that the Heb. of Mt. are due to the LXX. THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 107 Hebrew or Aramaic* Luke presents something of a problem, for he seems to have had Aramaic sources in Lu. 1 and 2 (possibly also Ac. 1-12), while it is uncertain whether, he was familiar with the Aramaic. There seems httle evidence that he knew Hebrew. Blass" thinks that he may have read his Aramaic sources or had them translated for him. Curiously enough, though a gentile and capable of writing almost classic Attic (Lu. 1 : 1-4), yet Luke uses Semitisms not common elsewhere in the N. T. Dalman' shows that the few real Hebraisms in Luke like X670US in sense of things (9 : 28 but classical authority for this exists), Sia (ttoijuitos (1: 70) are due to the LXX, not the Hebrew. The use of iv tQ with the infinitive and followed by the subject of the clause occurs 25 times in Luke, once in Mark, thrice in Matthew and in John not at all.* See kv ra mocTpk^tiv rdv 'Iriaovv (Lu. 8 : 40). Blass calls this an Aramaism.^ But it is not a peculiarity of the discourses of Jesus, as it is found there only in iv tQ (Tirelpeiv (common to all the Synoptics, Mk. 4:4; Mt. 13: 4; Lu. 8:5), and in Lu. 10:35; 19: 15. Hence the idiom is common* in Luke from some other cause. The construction occurs in " clas- sical historians, in Polybius and in papyri,"' but is most common in the LXX, and the parallel is wanting in the spoken Aramaic. Luke also freely uses Kal kyevero (almost peculiar to him in the N. T.), which at once suggests ^':l';l. He doubtless got this from the LXX.* He has three constructions, viz. Kal kr/kvero Kal ^Xffe, Kal kryhero fiKde and Kal kyhero 'iKdelv. The first two' are common in the LXX, while kykvero 'eKBeiv is due to the Greek vernacular*" as the papyri testify. The superfluous d^eis, vP^aro, etc., are Ara- maisms, while eiiii and the participle is Aramaic, hke the Hebrew, and also in harmony with the analytic vernacular Koivii. Nestle" ' Biesenthal (Das Trostschreiben des Ap. Paulus an d. Heb., 1878) even thinks that the Ep. .was written in Aram, or Heb. 2 Philol. of the Gosp., p. 205. ' Wds. of Jes., p. 38 f. Of. also Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., pp. 113 f., 118; Vogel, Zur Charac. des Lukas, p. 27. * Dalman, Wds. of Jes., p. 33. ' Evang. sec. Lucam, p. xxii. But hv tQ with the inf. occurs with great fre- quency in the LXX, 555 times in the O. T., Apoc. and N. T. (Votaw, Inf. in Bib. Gk., p. 20), chiefly in the LXX (455 tunes, only 72 in the N. T.). It occurs nearly as often in the LXX as all other prepositions with the infinitive together. ' Dalman, Wds. of Jes., p. 34. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 14 (1st ed.). » W.-M., p. 760 note. • Cf. Thackeray, Gr.,'pp. 50 ff. We have the type ijkvero ^'K8e 145 times, and ijtveTo Kol fj\di 269 times in the LXX, but iyhero i^JSitr only once (1 Kgs. 11:43 B). " Moulton, Prol., p. 17. " Zeitschr. ftir neutest. Wiss., 1906, p. 279 f. 108 A GRA.MMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT agrees with Blass (p. 131) in taking 6iw\ojeiv 'ev in Mt. 10 : 32 and Lu. 12 : 8 as . a Syrism. a with nnin is not in the Hebrew, nor 6mo\. hv in the LXX, but ■^liK is used with a in the Jewish-Ara- maic and Christian-Syriac. Nestle refers to ofioXoyovvruv tQ bvb- fjMTL (Heb. 13 : 15) as a Hebraism, for in such a case the Hebrew used ^. The LXX and the Aramaic explain all the Semitisms in Luke. Dalman* ventures to call the LXX Hebraisms in Luke "Septuagint-Grsecisms" and thinks that the same thing is true of the other Synoptists. Certainly it is proper to investigate ^ the words of Jesus from the point of view of the peculiarities of style in each reporter of them. But, after all is said, the Semitisms in the N. T. Greek, while real and fairly numerous in bulk, cut a very small figure in comparison with the entire text. One can read whole pages in places with Uttle suggestion of Semitic in- fluence beyond the general impress of the Jewish genius and point of view. IV. Latinisms and Other Foreign Words. Moulton' considers it "hardly worth while" to discuss Latin influence on the Koivij of the N. T. Blass* describes the Latin element as "clearly trace- able." Swete^ indeed alleges that the vulgar Greek of the Em- pire "freely adopted Latin words and some Latin phraseology." Thumb* thinks that they are "not noteworthy." In spite of the conservative character of the Greek language, it yet incor- porated Latin civil and military terms with freedom. Inas- much as Judea was a Roman province, some allusion to Roman customs and some use of Latin military and official terms was to be expected,' though certainly not to the extent of Romanizing or Latinizing the language. Cicero* himself described Latin as provincial in comparison with the Greek. Latin words are fairly common in the Mishna.* Latin names were early naturalized into the Greek vernacular and in the N. T. we find such Roman names as Aquila, Cornelius, Claudia, Clemens, Crescens, Crispus, Fortunatus, JuUa, Junia, Justus, Linus, Lucius, Luke, Mark, 1 Wds. of Jes., p. 41. i Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 4. 2 lb., p. 72. 6 Comm. on Mk., 1898, p. xliv. » Prol., p. 20. " Griech. Spr. etc., p. 152. » Hoole, Class. Element in the N. T., p. 4. ' Pro Archia 10. Cato lamented: AttoXoCiti 'Patiaioi to. Trpaynara ypaniMTUv 'EXXiinKUK i.vaTKiiaetvTK (Plut., Cato Maj. 23. 3). Cf. Colin, Rome et la Grfece de 200 h. 146 avant J&us-Christ (1905). » Sohiirer, Jew. Peo. in Time of Ch., div. II, vol. I, pp. 43 ff. Krauss (Griech. und lat. Lehnw. im Tal., Tl. I, p. xxi) says: "One speaks of the lan- guage of the Romans with the greatest respect as the speech of the soldiers." THE PLACE OP THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 109 Niger, Paul, Priscilla, Publius, Pudens, Rufusi, Sergius, Silvanus (Silas), Tertius, Titus among the Christians themselves (Jewish and gentile), while Agrippa, Augustus (translated Se/3ao-T6s), Csesar, Claudius, Gallio, Felix, Festus, Julius, Nero (Text. Rec), Pilate, Tertvdlus are typical Roman names. Note the Roman cities mentioned in Ac. 28, Caesarea and Tiberias in Palestine. More than forty Latin names of persons and places occur in the N. T. The other Latin words, thirty (or thirty-one), are mili- tary, judicial, monetary or domestic terms. They come into the N. T. through the vernacular Koivii, none of them appearing in the LXX and but two in Polybius. "Plutarch uses Latin words more frequently than Polybius, but for the most part not those employed in the N. T."^ Jannaris^ observes that "the Roman administration, notwithstanding its surrendering to Greek culture and education, did not fail to influence the Greek language." But in the N. T. only these Latin words are found: aaaapiop (as), STivapiov (denarius), ?xw=aestimo (ix« /*« TrapnTrjtiivov, Lu. 14 : 18), eipoKiiXwj', Bpiafi^eieLV, Kevrvpuav (centurio), Krjvcros (census), mbpav- rrjs (quadrans), KoKcavla (colonia), Kova-roiSia (custodia), XeyMoy (legio), 'SivTiov (linteum), 'hiPeprlvos (Ubertinus), Xirpa (libra), ix6.- KeWov (macellum), luen^pava. (membrana), juiXtoc (mille), juoSios (modius), l^karti% (sextarius), irpaiT63pu)v (praetorium), (riKapios (si- carius), a-inidvdiov (semicinctium), v (sudarium), a-ireKov- \aTb)p (speculator), ai ra^kpvai (tabema), rirXos (titlus), 4>eKbvri% (paenula), ^opoc (forum), pa'Ye\\u>v (fiagellum), 4>paye\'\6v\&.a(Teiv may be due to cavere ab or to the general analytic tendency to express the preposition with the case (cf. the Hebrew also). Other smaller details are the absence of & with the vocative, abv as equal to Kal, 6s=Kal ovros {qui=et hie), yaniw with dative =nM- here alicui, infinitive alone with KeXtto. There is no evidence that the absence of the article in Latin had any influence on the ver- nacular KOLvi], though Schmid^ thinks he sees it in the irregular use of the article in jElian. It is interesting in this connection to note the development in the vernacular Latin as represented in the Old Latin and the Vulgate versions. Unusual cases are used with many verbs; prepositions are much more frequent; the indicative with final ut and in indirect questions; common use of quia and quoniam like quod with verb rather than the accusative and infinitive; ille, ipse, hie, is, more like the article, as the later Italian il, Spanish el, French Ze.^ ; Other foreign words had, of course, entered the koiv^ or the earlier Greek, like jSowos (Cyrenaic and Sicilian); pe8r] (Gallic or Celtic); &,yyapevca (even ^schylus), ya^a, Tapadeia-os, iravSa\ix>v (Per- sian); x'TOJf (Oriental); Kpafiarros (cf. Latin grabatus), iraptn^oKii, l>i)inj (Macedonian); appaP6)v, Ku>v6.iiciifu>v, Kifuvop, ixva (Phoenician); fiatov, pipXos, jSiio-o-os, fflvam, v (Egyptian or Semitic?); fifd- vu)v (Arabic?). On the Egyptian words in the Ptolemaic papyri see Mayser, Grammatik, pp. 35-40; on the Persian words, ib., p. 42 f ., including ya^a and TrapaSeiaos. Xiuain is of uncertain origin. But Greek was known in all parts of the Roman Empire except parts of North Africa and the extreme west of Europe. There were great libraries in Alexandria, Pergamum and elsewhere. Schools were numerous and excellent. But none the less the mass of the people were fiapfiapoi to the real Greeks and inevitably brought laxities into the vernacular. Cf. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., pp. 9 ff., who gives a good discussion of the Latinisms in Koivii writers. • Atticismus etc., p. 64. Cf. Georgi, De Latinismis N. T., iii, Vita, 1733. * On this whole subject see Konsch, Itala iind Vulgata. Das Sprachid. der urchristl. Itala und der Kath. Vulg. unter Beriicks. der rom. Volksspr., 1875, p. 480 f. Cf. also The Holy Lat. Tongue, W. Barry, in Dublin Rev., April, 1906, and Our Lat. Bible, ib., July, 1906. "The common dialect, spoken with local differences in every part of Italy, in Gaul, Spain and Africa, saw its happy moment arrive when Christianity spread over those shores" (Dub- lin Rev., April, 1906, p. 293). 112 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT V. The Christian Addition. Bat was there a Christian ad- dition if there was no separate bibUcal Greek, not to say a special Christian Greek? Winer* admitted "religious technical terms" in the Christian sense, but thought that "the subject scarcely Kes within the Umits of philological inquiry." Blass has nothing to say on the subject. But even Deissmann'' insisted that "the language of the early Christians contained a series of religious terms peculiar to itself, some of which it formed for the first time," but he added that this enrichment did not extend to the "syntax." Once more hear Deissmann': "Christianity, like any other new movement affecting civilization, must have produced an effect upon language by the formation of new ideas and the modification of old ones." Moulton^ sounds a note of warning when he says that "it does not follow that we must promptly obliterate every grammatical distinction that proves to have been imfamiliar to the daily conversation of the first century Egyptian farmer . . . The N. T. must still be studied largely by light drawn from itself." Westcott^ indeed thinks the subject calls for "the most careful handling" in order to avoid Jewish usage on the one hand and the later ecclesiastical ideas on the other. This is obviously true. Connect the discussion of the Semitic influence on the N. T. with this point and recall the revolutionary effect that Christianity had upon the Greek lan- guage in the ecclesiastical Greek of the Byzantine period, and the difficulty will be appreciated. Mahaffy^ does not hesitate to say that the main cause of the persistence of Greek studies to-day is due to the fact that the Gospels are written in Greek. " Greek conquered Jew and Jew conquered Greek and the world inherited the legacy of their struggle through Roman hands." Under the influence of Christianity some of the old heathen vocabulary vanished and the remaining stock "was now considerably re- duced and modified in a Christian and modem spirit."" The ' W.-M., p. 36. 2 B. S., p. 65 (note). ' Encyc. Bib., art. Papyri, p. 3562. * Prol., p. 20. Cf. Thumb, Griech. Spr., p. 182 f. 6 Smith's D. B., axt. N. T. « The Gk. World under Rom. Sway, 1890, p. 389 f. Butcher, Harv. Leot. on Gk. Subj., 1894, p. 2 f., calls the power of Jew and Gk. on modem hfe one of "the mysterious forces of the spirit." "Each entered on a career of world-wide empire, till at length the principles of Hellenism became those of civiUzation itself, and the reUgion of Judea that of civiUzed humanity." ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 10 f . THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 113 N. T. Greek became the standard for ecclesiastical Greek as the Attic had been for the ancient world. Winer ^ indeed curtly says: "To attempt to explain such^ex- pressions of the apostolical terminology by quotations from Greek authors is highly absurd." Rutherford^ almost despairs of un- derstanding N. T. Greek as well as " classical Greek," since it con- tains so many alien elements, "but it has at least begun to be studied from the proper point of view," though he overestimates the difi&culty and the difference when he speaks of "the singular speech in which the oracles of God are enshrined." On the other hand' we must not let the papyri make us swing so far away from the old "bibUcal" Greek idea as to imagine that we can find in the vernacular Koivf/ all that Christianity has to offer. The Christian spirit put a new flavour into this vernacular koiv^ and lifted it to a new elevation of thought and dignity of style that unify and glorify the language. This new and victorious spirit, which seized the best in Jew and Greek, knew how to use the Greek language with freedom and power.* If the beauty of the N. T. writings is different from the ancient standard, there is none the less undoubted charm. Matthew Arnold put the Gospels at the acme of simplicity and winsomeness, and R6nan spoke of Luke's Gospel as the most beautiful book in the world. Norden^ admits that the N. T. style is less exclusive and more universal. There was indeed a compromise between the old and the new. The victory of the new brought rhythm (not the technical sort) and unity as the chief characteristics." In Christianity Hellenism becomes really cosmopolitan.' If Christianity had merely used the Greek language and had been entirely aUen to Hellenism, the 1 W.-M., p. 36, n. 3. ^ Epis. to the Rom., p. x f. ' Cf. Zezschwitz, Profangrac. und bibl. Sprachg., 1859, p. 4, where he speaks of "dieses neue geistige Princip an der Sprache." Deissmann (Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, p. 8) accents the difference between the •Christian ideas and the Graeco-Rom. heathen words that express them. * lb., p. 12. Norden (Die griech. Kunstpr., Bd. 11, pp. 453 ff.) indeed thinks that the N. T. wants the "freedom" {Freiheit) and "serenity" (Hei- terkeit) of the ancient hterature. This is true in part of Paul's writing, where passion rages fiercely, and in Rev. and other apocalyptic passages. But what can excel Lu. and Jo. in lucidity and beauty? "Heiterkeit — bUtheness or repose, and Allgemeinheit — generaUty or breadth, are the supreme characteristics of the Hellenic ideal." Walter Pater, The Renais- sance, 1904, p. 225. 5 Die griech. Kunstpr., Bd. II, p. 456. 8 lb., Bd. I, p. 290. ' lb., Bd. II, p. 463. 114 A GBAMMAE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT N. T. would not have belonged to Greek literature, but this sympathy with the best in the world must not be overworked.* The N. T. language is real Greek, though with the Christian spirit supreme ui it because Christianity seized the Hellenic spirit and transformed it. W. Christ" rightly calls attention to the fact that Christianity brought "a renewal of the human race," "the moral worth of man and a purer view of God." So "this ethical new birth of mankind" found expression m the N. T. The touch of life is what distinguishes the N. T. writings from the philosophical, historical, rehgious and ethical writings of the time.' In the Synoptic Gospels this quality reaches its height. "Far above these details is the spirit, the hterary conception of a life to be written without ornament, without reflection, without the writer's personality."^ This fact constitutes a literary phe- nomenon amounting almost to a miracle. This vital spirit dis- closes itself on every page and baffles analysis. It is the essence of the N. T. language, but "is as pervasive as the atmosphere," "as intangible as a perfume."' If some concentration and strength are lost, there is great adaptability.^ Thayer'' does not hesitate to speak of the fitness of N. T. Greek for its providential office. It is the language of men's business and bosoms. It is the language of life, not of the study nor the cloister. It is not the language of a bygone age, but the speech of the men of the time. "The Book of the people has become, in the course of centuries, the Book of all mankind" (Deissmann, Light, p. 142). Chris- tianity "began without any written book at all" except the Old Testament. "There was only the living word — the gospel, but no Gospels. Instead of the letter was the spirit. The begiiming, in fact, was Jesus Himself" (ib., p. 245). The N. T. is in close sjnnpathy with both Jew and Greek, in a sense has both languages to draw on, can reach both the Semitic and the gentile mind, becomes a bond of union, in a word (as Broadus used to say) it is better suited to be the vehicle of truth conveyed by Jewish minds than classical Greek would have been. And a grammarian must admit that, however necessary and fundamental grammat- • Cf. Hatch, Infl. of Hellen. on Christ. ' Gesch. der griech. Lit., 1905, p. 912. - Hicks, Gk. Phil, and Rom. Law in the N. T., 1896, p. 12. * MahaEfy, Surv. of Gk. CiviUz., 1897, p. 309. 6 Thayer, Hast. D. B., art. Lang, of the N. T., p. 40''. 5 Rodwell, N. T. Gk., 1899, p. 2. ' Hast. D. B., ib. Cf. SehaEE, Comp. to the Gk. N. T., p. 26. THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 115 ical exegesis is, it forms only the basis for the spiritual exposition which should follow. When one comes to details, he notes that the influence of Christianity is chiefly lexical, not grammatical.' But a few points in syntax are to be observed, as in expressions Uke ev Xptor^^; iv Kvp'uf, iriaTtita^ kv with locative, ds with accusative, h^i with the locative or the accusative, inaTtijoi with the dative, with the accu- sative or absolutely. As to the lexical element the lists of o7ra| evprifiiva require severe sifting.^ It is too soon to pass a final verdict, but in the nature of the case the number would be small. Such words as Avrixptfros, irepoSiSaaKaXtos, eva/yytKunii^, avvaravpobi, \l/&i- SkSeKitxK, 4/ev8air&aTo\os, etc., naturally spring out of the Christian enterprise. The vocabulary of the N. T. Greek is not very ex- tensive, somewhere near 5600 words, including proper names.' But the main point to note is the distinctive ideas given to words already in use, like ayaTri, ar/La^oi, ayios, dSeXc^os, clvtItvtos, avrifii- odia, AiroXiiTpojcis, diriXeta, AxoffToXos, AiroaroMi, &pTos, fiaaiXeia, jSott- Tifco, fiawTiafia (— juos), y\S>crpoavvri, 6 utos rov deov, 6 vlds rod avBpiiirov, vtoBeaia, xapis, Xpi- o-Tos, ^ux^i) ^i'X'k6s. When one considers the new connotations that these words bear in the N. T., it is not too much "to say that in the history of these and such like words lies the history of Christianity."* The fact that these and other terms were used ' Cf. Thumb, griech. Spr., pp. 162-201. 2 Cf. Deias., Die neutest. Formel "in Christo Jesu" untersucht, 1892. ' Cf. Abb., Job. Vocab., 1905, pp. 19-80. On the whole question see Buttmann, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 173 ff.; Moulton, Prol., p. 67 f. * Cf. Deiss., Hell.-Griech., Hauck's Realencyc, p. 636. Not 550 (as Ken- nedy, Sour, of N. T. Gk., p. 93) bibl. words, but only 50 N. T. formations (Deissmann, Exp., Jan., 1908; Light, p. 73). 6 Kennedy, Sour, of N. T. Gk., p. 88. The Eng. of the King James Vers. (O. T. and N. T.) contains only about 6000 words (Adey, The Eng. of the King James Vers.). Max Muller (Sci. of Lang., p. 16) says that we use only about 4000 words in ordinary Eng. « Weatcott, Smith's B. D., N. T. Cf. also Hatch, Ess. in Bibl. Gk., p. 11. "Though Greek words were used they were the symbols of quite other than Greek ideas." That is, when the distinctively Christian ideas axe given. On the influence of Gk. on other languages see Wack., Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, pp. 311 ff. 116 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT in the popular language of the day gives a sharper point to the new turn in the gospel message.. The deification of the emperor made Christians sensitive about the words dtbs, vlds deov, 6eZos, Kipios, KvpioKos, aosTTjp, xo-po-yijui, fiaaiKevs, ffacrikeia. See the lumi- nous discussion of Deissmann {Light, pp. 343-384). The papyri and the inscriptions throw almost a lurid light on these words. Cf. Kipws Kato-ap and Kiipws 'Iriaovs {Martyrium Polycarpi, viii, 2) with 1 Cor. 12 : 1-3. The Christians did not shrink from using these words in spite of the debased ideas due to the emperor- cult, Mithraism, or other popular superstitions. Indeed, Paul (cf. Col. 2 : 1 f .) often took the very words of Gnostic or Mithra cult and filled them with the riches of Christ. Cf . The Expositor for April, 1912, "Paul and the Mystery Religions," by H. A. A. Kennedy. For the stimuU that Christianity derived from popu- lar notions of law, religion and morality see Deissmann, Light, pp. 283-290. The mass of the N. T. vocabulary has been trans- figured. The worshippers of a Caesar would indeed call him (TUTrjp Tov Koanov or vtos deov, but the words were empty flattery. Deissmann 1 well shows that a LXX word, for instance, in the mouth of a citizen of Ephesus, did not mean what it did in the LXX, as apxiepeijs, SLojBijKi], dtbs, Tpo4>'i}T7j%, awrripia. Much more is this true of the N. T. The new message glorified the current koivti, took the words from the street and made them bear a new con- tent, finked heaven with earth in a new sense. In particular the N. T. writers took and greatly enriched the religious vocabulary of the LXX. VI. Individual Peculiarities. The language of Christianity was not stereotyped at first and there was more play for indi- vidualism. If the style is not all of the man, certainly each writer has his own style. But style varies with the same man also at different stages of his own development, with varying moods and when discussiag different themes. Style is thus a function of the subject. All these points of view must be kept in mind with several of the N. T. writers, as Paul, Luke, Peter and John, whose writings show marked variations. Simcox^ notes that in the Thessalonian and Corinthian letters Paul uses h iravri twelve ' B. S., p. 83. Cf. Schleierm., Hermen., pp. 66 ff., 138 ff., who early called attention to the Christian element in the N. T. Cf. also Viteau, Le Verbe; Synt. des Prep., p. xlf. 2 Writers of the N. T., p. 37. A. Souter (The Exp., 1904, Some Thoughts on the Study of the Gk. N. T., p. 145) says: "We must take each writer's grammar by itself." THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE. KOINH 117 times, in the Pastoral Epistles h irSiai five (or six) times, while in Ph. 4 : 12 he has both. In thus accenting the individuaUty of the N. T. writers one must not forget that each writer had access to the common religious terminology of early Christianity. There was a common substratum of ideas and expressions that reappear in them all, though in certain cases there may have been actual use of documents. But one can never be sure whether Peter had James, or the author of Hebrews Luke's writings. Peter probably had some of Paul's letters when he wrote 1 Peter, and 2 Peter 3 : 15 f. expressly refers to them. The grammarian caimot be expected to settle questions of authorship and genuineness, but he has a right to call attention to the common facts of linguistic usage. Immer' indeed complains that the linguistic peculiarities of the N. T. writers have been worked more in the interest of criticism than of exegesis. The modem method of biblical theology is designed to correct this fault, but there is a work here for the grammarian also. Winer^ declines to discuss this question and is horrified at the idea of grammars of each writer of the N. T.' Language is rightly viewed from the point of view of the speaker or writer. The rapid and continued changes in the individual mind during the niental process of expressing thought find a parallel in the syntactical relations in the sentence.* One cannot protest too strongly against the levelling process of an unsympathetic and unimaginative linguistic method that puts all the books of the N. T. through the same syntactical mill and tags this tense as "regular" and that one as "irregular." It is not too much to say that the characteristic of the Greek litera- ture of this time was precisely that of individuality (cf . Plutarch's Lives). ^ Viteau* has a brief discussion of "The Psychological Character of the Syntax of the N. T.," for, added to all other things, there is "the influence of the moment." Differences in > Hermen. of the N. T., 1877, p. 132. Thayer (Lex. of N. T. Gk., p. 689) speaks of "the monumental misjudgments committed by some who have made questions of authorship turn on vocabulary alone.'' ' W.-M., p. 1 f., remands this whole matter to the realm of N. T. rhetoric (cf. Wilke, 1843, N. T. Rhet.; Schleierm., Hermen.; Gersdorf, Beitr. zur Sprachchar. d. N. T.), but some discussion is demanded here. Schmiedel abbreviates Winer's comments. ' W.-M., p. 4. He did not live to see Dr. Abbott's two stout volumes, Joh. Vocab. (1905) and Joh. Gr. (1906). * Cf. Steinthal, Intr. to the Psych, and Sci. of Lang. ' Cf. Norden, Die griech. Kunstpr., Bd. I, p. 243. Cf. also Blass, Hermen. und Krit., p. 206. ' Le Verbe; Synt. des Prep., pp. xh ff. 118 A GRAMMAE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT culture, in environment, in gifts, in temperament inevitably af- fect style, but this fact is not to be stressed so as to make a new dialect for each writer.i In the following discussions some lexical comments are given besides the grammatical to give a better ideai of the writer's style as a whole. (a) Mark. Certainly Blass' theory^ of an original Aramaic Mark is not proven, but Peter often spoke in Aramaic, and Mark was bilingual like Peter. For the Aramaisms and Hebraisms of Mark see previous discussion (Semitic Influence). The idea that Mark first wrote in Latin need not be seriously discussed. Mat- thew and Luke have also nearly as many Latinisms as Mark. It is not in his vocabulary that Mark is most distinctive, for of the 1270 words in Mark (besides 60 proper names) only 80 are pecuUar to him among the N. T. writers.' He has 150 in common with Matthew and Luke alone, while only 15 belong to Mark and John and nowhere else in the N. T. About 40 words belong only to Mark and the LXX in the Greek Bible, while Mark has 38 (besides proper names) occurring nowhere else in the N. T. or the LXX; but these are not all real axa^ XeTo/iera, for there are the papyri! Mark seems fond of diminutives hke the vernacular KOLVTi in general (dvyarpiov, tcopacnov, Kvva.pt.ov, etc.); eipi and epxo/tai with the participle are common, as in Luke (cf . 1 : 6, ^j* ... 4k- Sehviikvoi) 1 :39, fi)\Bev Kripvaacov); in fact he multiplies pictorial participles (cf . 14 : 67, iSovaa . . . in^Xbj/acra \kyeL) ; av occurs with past tenses of the indicative (3 : 11, orav airov ideoipovv); he loves the double negative (1 : 44, nr/devl ij,y]5b> etxTjs); the article is com- mon (as in N. T. generally) with the infinitive and sentences (9 : 23, TO d 5vv{i) ; broken and parenthetic clauses are frequent (cf . 7 : 19, KaOapl^uv) ; at times he is pleonastic (2 : 20, Tore b> kKeivp Tjj riijkpti)] he uses eWv% or tWksiis about 40 times; he is emo- tional and vivid, as shown by descriptive adjectives, questions and exclamations (cf. 1 :24; 2 :7); the intermingling of tenses (9 : 33 £f., kinipdiTa . . . \kyei . . . elirev) is not due to ignorance of Greek* or to artificiality, as Swete well says, but to "a keen sense ' As Simcox does in Writers of the N. T., p. 1. ' Philol. ot the Gosp., pp. 196 ff. Cf. Marshall, Exp., ser. 4, vi, pp. 81 ff.; Allen, ib., ser. 6, vi, pp. 43&-443. ' Swete, Comm. on Mk., 1898, p. xl. Thayer (Lex. of N. T. Gk., App., p. 699) gives 102, but the text of some 32 is in dispute. Hawkins, Hor. Syn. ^ p. 200, gives 71. Swete gives interesting lists of Mark's vocabulary from various points of view. Cf. also Salmond, Mark (Gosp. of), in Hast. D. B. * Swete, Comm. on Mk., p. xUii. Thieme (Die Inschr. von Magn. am Maander und das N. T., 1906, p. 4) says: "Die Gruppe der sogenannten Ha- THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINE 119 of the reality and living interest of the facts; there are 151 his- toric presents in the W. H. text against 78 in Matthew and 4 in Luke; there is frequent and discriminating use of prepositions (2 : 1, 2, 10, 13) ; the connective is usually /cot rather than dk, sel- dom ovp; there is little artistic effect, but much simplicity and great vividness of detail; the vernacular koivti is dominant with little literary influence, though elrev, iraiSto^ej' and o^ta are held so by Norden.' neirXijpwTai (Mk. 1 : 15) is paralleled by kiv\-ripii6ri m. a Fayflm papyrus and avix-Kbcia avfjnrSa-La., Tpaaud Tpaatal by T^y/xara rajiMTa in the "Shepherd of Hennas" (Goodspeed, Bibl. World, 1906, p. 311 f.). In general Mark is not to be considered ilUterate, though more Semitic in his culture than Greek. Wellhausen has noted that D has more Aramaisms in Mark's text than B. But Mark's Semitisms are not really barbarous Greek, "though Mark's extremely vernacular language often makes us thiak so, until we read the less educated papyri" (Moulton, Comb. Bibl. Essays, p. 492). Even his fondness for compound (even double compound) verbs is like the vernacular Koivri. If the influence of Peter is seen in the Gospel of Mark, it was thoroughly congenial as to language and temperament.^ He gives an objective picture of Jesus and a realistic one. (6) Matthew. The writer quotes both the Hebrew and the LXX and represents Jesus as doing the same. He has 65 allusions to the 0. T., 43 of them being verbal quotations. And yet the book is not intensely Hebraistic. He has the instinct for Hebrew parallelism and the Hebrew elaboration, and his thought and gen- eral outlook are Hebraistic, though his language is "colourless Hel- lenistic of the average type" (Moulton, Camh. Bibl. Essays, p. 484). We need not enter into the linguistic peculiarities of Q as distinct from our Greek Matthew if that hypothesis be correct. In Mt. 9 : 6 we see kXij-tj rather than the vulgar KpafiarTos of Mark. In 12 : 14 Matthew has (rvn^odXiov eKa^ov for <7. eSiSovv of Mark (Moulton, op. cit., p. 485). He can use paronomasia as in KaKois KaKS>s awo- \kaii avTovs (21:41). He uses rare 91 times against 6 in Mark and 14 in Luke; he has ^ jSactXeta t&v ovpavwv 32 times, while he paxlegomena ist bedenklich zusammengeschrumpft; es handelt sich im Neuen Testament meistens um airol eipimha, nicht airal dpTifiha." ' Die Ant. Kunstpr., Bd. II, p. 488. ' Schaff, Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 51. Cf. on Mark, Schulze, Der schrift- steller. Charakter und Wert des Marcus (Keil and Tzschimer's Analecta, II, 2, 3). See Hawkins, Hor. Syn.^, pp. 114^153. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 203, 261, 276, 278, 302) has comments on the narrative style of Mark. 120 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT has ii PaaiKeia tov Beov 14 times (Mt. 4; Lu. 32); he uses 6 irariip b oipavios 7 times and 6 irarrip 6 kv rots ovpavots 13 times; he 12 tmies quotes the 0. T. with the formula Iva (oxos) irXripiadri t^ Pn^'^v or t6t€ 'eii-\TipiiBri t6 priBkv, whereas Luke does not have it at all, Mark only once and John 7 times; /car' ovap occurs 6 times and no- where else in N. T.; like Luke he uses kclI iSox) often (27 times) and ISoii after the genitive absolute 11 times; he alone speaks of ■fl ayia ttoXis and irdXis tov fieyaXov iSao-tXecos; like Mark he uses 'lepoaShvua always save once (23 : 37), whereas Luke usually has 'lepovaaXrin; ofivm kv or eis, common in Matthew, does not occur in the other Gospels; ra^os, not in the other Gospels, is found 6 times; o-wrk'Keia tov alcovos occurs 5 times, and only once more in the N. T. (Heb.) ; note the pleonastic use of avdpwiros as avBpca- TTos jSao-tXeus; he twice uses ew to bvo(xa, but the other Gospels kv tQ ovd/xari or kiri; the oriental particularity is seen in using wpoatpxofiai 51 times while Mark has it only 5 and Luke 10 times; awayeiv is used by Matthew 24 times; the vernacular koivti is manifest in many ways as in the use of iiov64>9a\px}s (like Mark), KoXXu;3io-Tat. Thayer in his list {Lexicon, p. 698 f.) gives 137 words occurring in Matthew alone in the N. T., but 21 are doubtful readings. Matthew has fewer compound verbs than Mark. Matthew does not use adverbial ttoXXo, while Mark has it 9 times. He has bk where Mark has Kai about 60 times. Matthew has on after verbs of saying 38 times, while Mark has it 50 times. Of the 151 historic presents in Mark only 21 appear in Matthew, though Matthew has 93 historic presents in all. ' See Hawkins, Horae Synopt., p. 144 f. Matthew frequently has aorist when Mark has imperfect (see Allen, Matthew, p. xx f.). The periphras- tic tenses are less common in Matthew than in Mark and Luke (pp. cit., p. xxii). Matthew is less fond than Mark of redundant phrases (op. cit., p. xxvi). The Gospel is largely in the form of discourses with less narrative element than Mark. The style is more imiform and less graphic than either Mark or Luke and so less individual.^ (c) Luke. Whether Luke knew Hebrew or Aramaic or both, cannot be stated with certainty. He did make use of Aramaic documents or sayings in Lu, 1 and 2, and in the early part of the Acts. He was also quite familiar with the LXX, as his quo- » Cf. Dalman, Wds. of Jes., 1902; Gla, Die Originalspr. des Mt., 1887; See Hawkins, Hor. Syn.', pp. 154^173; Allen, Mt., pp. xix-xxri; Plummer, Mt., p. xiiif.; Zahn, Einl. in d. N. T., Bd. II, 1898. On Matthew's style see Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 203, 276, 278, 300, 302, 305. THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 121 tations from it show. The Semitic influence in his writings has already been discussed. "He consciously imitates the Greek Bible, and in the parts of his narrative which have their scene in Palestine he feels it congruous to retain the rough diction of his sources" (Moulton, Comb. Bibl. Essays, p. 479). One thing is certain about him. He had a good command of the vernacular KOLv^ and even attains the literary /cotvij in Lu. 1 : 1-4 and Ac. 1 : 1-5; 17 : 16-34. The preface to his Gospel has often been compared to those of Thucydides and Herodotus, and it does not suffer by the comparison, for his modesty is an offset to their vain- glory."^ Selwyn^ thinks that Luke was a Roman citizen, and he was a fit companion for Paul. He exhibits the spirit of Paul in his comprehensive sympathy and in his general doctrinal position.' R&an* calls Luke's Gospel the most literary of the Gospels. He writes more like an historian and makes skilful use of his mate- rials^ and with minute accuracy.^ His pictures in the Gospel have given him the title of "the painter." Norden indeed thinks that Luke alone among the N. T. writers received Atticistic influence (Kunstprosa, II, pp. 485 ff . Of. Blass, Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa, p. 42). But we need not go that far. His versatility is apparent in many ways, but withal he makes a faithful use of his materials.'' His vocabulary illustrates his breadth of culture, for he uses 750 (851 counting doubtful readings) words not occurring elsewhere in the N. T.' Some of them are still oTral Xeyo/tem. One special item in his vocabulary is the large number of medical terms in his writings, as is natural, since he was a physician.^ His command of nautical phraseology is abim- ' Schafif, Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 55. He calls attention to the fact that the intr. of Herodotus and Luke are about the same length. Cf. Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., pp. 7 ff. 2 St. Luke the Prophet, 1901, p. 81. ' Davidson, Intr. to N. T., ii, p. 17. * Les Evang., pp. 232, 283. = Plummer, Comm. on Luke, 1896, p. xlvii. • Ramsay-f St. Paul the Traveller, 1895; Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem?; Chase, CredibiUty of Acts, 1902. ' Vogel (Zur Charak. des Lukas, 1899, p. 19) calls attention to differences in the speeches of Stephen, Peter and Paul in the Acts. 8 See the lists of Thayer (Lex., pp. 699 ff.), Plummer (Comm., pp. lii ff.), Hawkins (Hor. Syn. =, pp. 201-207). Of the 851 some 312 occur in the Gospel and 478 in the Acts. ' Hobart, Medical Lang, of St. Luke, 1882. Many of these occur in the LXX also, but plenty remain to show his knowledge of the medical phra- seology of the time. 122 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT dantly shown in Ac. 27 and 28.* The question of a double edi- tion of the Gospel and Acts does not belong here.^ His language is that of a man of culture with a cosmopoUte tone, who yet knows how to be popular also (Deissmann, Light, p. 241 f.). He not only has a rich vocabulary, but also fine command of the Kowii diction. In particular his style is more like that of Paul and the writer to the Hebrews. Among matters of detail in Luke one will note his use of the infinitives with '&> tQ (37 times) and of rod with the infinitive (25 instances); avv (25 times) is frequent, though seldom in the other Gospels; Kal airds (avTri) he has 28 times, and often constructions like airds 6 xpo^o^'i ''"■^ iykvero or iykvero 8k he uses 43 times; he has S^ Kal 29 times; he loves iropedo- fiai (88 examples); he uses ei like an interrogative 18 times; t6 occurs often before a clause, especially an indirect question; he makes frequent use of /cot Idov; kavos is common with him; ^v with present participle occurs 47 times; the descriptive genitive is common; 7rp6s with the accusative occurs 151 times with him and only 25 in the rest of the N. T. ; he is fond of kvuTiov; re (and re Koi) is almost confined to him in the N. T.; the optative is alone used by Luke in indirect questions and more often otherwise than by any other N. T. writer save Paul. This is a literary touch but not Atticistic. He alone makes any special use of the future participle; he is fond of iras and aTas; ofwiov rpcnrov 7. For further details see Mayor on "Grammar of Jude and of Peter" {Comm., pp. xxvi-lv). He has 20 words (one doubtful) not found elsewhere in the N. T.'' A few of them like ifKavnTtis occur in the LXX. Some of them have a stately ring like KiiMra Hypia, and a number occur which are found in writers of the Uterary kolv^i. He uses ^ noivri aoiTijpla. ("the safety of the state") in a Christian sense, and so ol vpoyeypaiiixkvoi ("the proscribed"). But he has also command of technical Christian terms like 0,7101, kKtitoL, irlaTt-s, irvevfia, i^ux^os as Paul used them. The vividness of his style hardly justifies the term "poetic."' Deissmann {Light, p. 235) considers Jude a literary epistle in popular style and "cosmopolite" in tone (p. 242), with a certain degree of artistic expression. The correctness of the Greek is quite consonant with the authorship of the brother of Jesus, since Palestine was a bilingual country (Moulton, Camb. Bibl. Essays, p. 488). Besides, the Epistle has only 25 verses. (/) Peter. As Peter was full of impulses and emotions and ap- parent inconsistencies, the same heritage falls to his Epistles. The most outstanding difference between 1 Peter and 2 Peter is in the vocabulary. 1 Peter has 361 words not found in 2 Peter, while 2 Peter has 231 not in 1 Peter.* Many in each case are common words like 0710^0), ^Xxtfw, evayyeXi^ia, etc., in 1 Peter, and jSacriXeia, ^7ra77€Xio, k-myivixTKoi, etc., in 2 Peter. 1 Peter has 63 words not in the rest of the N. T., while 2 Peter has 57 (5 doubt- ful); but of these 120 words only one (diroSecns) occurs in both.^ This is surely a remarkable- situation. But both of them have a 1 Chase, Jude (Epis. of), Hast. D. B. * See Thayer's list (Lex., p. 709). For fresh discussion of the gram, aspects of Jude and 2 Pet. see Mayor's Comm. (1908). He accepts the genuinenetis of Jude, but rejects 2 Peter. * Maier, Der Judasbrief, 1906, p. 169. * Bigg, Comm. on St. Peter and St. Jude, p. 225. 6 Thayer* Lang, of the N. T., Hast. D. B., p. 42*. 126 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT number of words in common that occur elsewhere also in the N. T., like avaaTpo^i}, ypvx^, etc.^ Both use the plural of abstract nouns; both have the habit, like James, of repeating words,^ while Jude avoids repetitions; both make idiomatic use of the article; both make scant use of particles, and there are very few Hebraisms; both use words only known from the vernacular Koivii; both use a number, of classical words like avar/KoaTm (1 Peter, Plato), T^aaros (Her., Eur., Xen., 2 Peter)'; both use pic- ture-words*; both seem to know the Apocrypha; both refer to events in the hfe of Christ; both show acquaintance with Paul's Epistles, and use many technical Christian terms. But, on the other hand, 1 Peter is deeply influenced by the LXX, while 2 Peter shows little use of it; 1 Peter is more stately and ele- vated without affectation, while 2 Peter has grandeur, though it is, perhaps, somewhat "grandiose" (Bigg) and uses a number of rare words like rapTapbta; 1 Peter makes clear distinctions be- tween the tenses, prepositions, and uses smooth Greek generally, while 2 Peter has a certain roughness of style and even apparent solecisms like ^Kkjina (2 : 8), though it is not "baboo Greek" (Abbott)* nor hke modern "pigeon Enghsh"; 1 Peter shows little originality and rhetorical power, while 2 Peter, though not so original as Jude, yet has more individuality than 1 Peter. Deissmann {Light, p. 235) says: "The Epistles of Peter and Jude have also quite unreal addresses; the letter-like touches are purely decorative. Here we have the beginnings of a Christian literature; the Epistles of Jude and Peter, though still possessing as a whole many popular features, already endeavour here and there after a certain degree of artistic expression." It is not for a grammarian to settle, if anybody can, the controversy about those two Epistles, but Simcox^ is not far wrong when he says of 2 Peter that "a superficial student is likeher than a thorough student to be certain that it is spurious." Spitta,'' Bigg' and > Cf. Zahn, Einl. in d. N. T., Bd. II, p. 108; B. Weiss, Einl. in d. N. T., p. 445. ' Bigg, Comm., p. 225 f . Cf . also Schulze, Der schriftsteller. Charakter Tind Wert des Petrus, Judas und Jacobus, 1802. " Cf. excellent lists by Chase, Hast. D. B., 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Many of these words are cleared up by the pap., like SoKlyiwv and dpcTi}. * Vincent, Word-Studies, vol. I, p. 621. 6 Exp., ser. 2, v. III. Chase, Hast. D. B., p. 808% finds needless difficulty with Trapeiatpkpeiv (2 Pet. 1 : 5), for iropA is 'alongside,' 'in addition.' " Writers of the N. T., p. 64. ' Der Zweit* Brief des Petrus. 8 Comm. on St. Peter and Jude. THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 127 Zahn* among recent writers suggest that in 2 Peter we have Peter's own composition, while in 1 Peter we have the Greek of an aman- uensis wlio either wrote out Peter's ideas, revised them or trans- lated Peter's Aramaic into Greek. We know that Peter had interpreters (Mark, for instance), and Josephus used such literary- help and Paul had amanuenses. On the other hand Chase (Hast- ings' D. B.) and others reject 2 Peter entirely. It is worth men- tioning that 2 Peter and the Apocalypse, which are the two books that furnish most of the linguistic anomalies in the N. T., both have abundant parallels among the less well-educated papyri writers, and it is of Peter and John that the terms aypdniiaToi. and ihSirai. are used (Ac. 4 : 13). As we have a problem con- cerning 1 Peter and 2 Peter on the linguistic side, so we have one concerning John's Gospel and Epistles on the one hand and Revelation on the other. The use of the article in 1 Peter is quite Thucydidean in 3 : 3 (Bigg), and eight times he uses the idiom like t6v t^s irapoiKias vfiSiv xp^vov (1 : 17) and once that seen in to ^oUKntw. tS>v kSvSiv (4 : 3), the rule in the N. T. The article is generally absent with the attributive genitive and with prepositions as eis pavTiaiwv atfiaros (1 : 2). There is a refined accuracy in 1 Peter's use of cos (Bigg), cf. 1 : 19; 2 : 16, etc. A distinction is drawn between firi and oii with the participle in 1 : 8. Once Iva occurs with the future indicative (3:1). The absence of av and the particles apa, ye, hrel, eTretSi?, re, Sr/, irov, ircos is notice- able. 1 Peter makes idiomatic use of fiiv, while 2 Peter does not have it. 2 Peter uses the "compact" structure of article, attribu- tive and noun, Uke 1 Peter (cf. 2 Pet. 2 : 1, 10, 13, 16), but the "uncompact" occurs also (cf. 2 Pet. 1:3, 9, 11, 14). In Jude and 2 Peter the commonest order is the uncompact (Mayor, Jude and Second Peter, p. xxii). The single article in 2 Pet. 1 : 1, 11 is used of two names for the same object. Cf. also Jude 4. The article with the infinitive does not occur in 2 Peter (nor Jude). 2 Peter has some unusual uses of the infinitive after 'ixco (2 Pet. 1 : 15) and as result (2 Pet. 3 : 1 f.). 1 Peter has the article and future participle once (3 : 13) 6 KaKiiccav. Both 1 Pet. (1 : 2) and 2 Pet. (1 : 2) have the optative ir\r]6vv6e't.ri (like Jude). 1 Peter twice (3 : 14, 17) has ei and the optative. See further Mayor on "Grammar of Jude and 2 Peter" {Comm., pp. xxvi-lv). (fif) Paul. There was a Christian terminology apart from Paul, but many of the terms most familiar to us received their ' Einl. in d. N. T. Mayor in his Comm. on Jude and 2 Peter (1907) re- jects 2 Peter partly on linguistic grounds. 128 A GRAMMAK OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT interpretation from him. He was a pathfinder, but had inex- haustible resources for such a task. Resch^ has done good ser- vice in putting together the words of Paul and the words of Jesus. Paul's rabbinical training and Jewish cast of mind led Far- rar" to call him a Hagadist. Simcox^ says that "there is hardly a line in his writmgs that a non-Jewish author of his day would have written." Harnack* points out that Paul was wholly un- intelligible to such a Hellenist as Porphyry, but Ramsay^ rephes that Porphyry resented Paul's use of Hellenism in favour of Chris- tianity. But Hicks ^ is certainly right in seeing a Hellenistic side to Paul, though Pfleiderer' goes too far in finding in Paul merely "a Christianized Pharisaism" and a "Christianized Hellenism." Paul and Seneca have often been compared as to style and ideas, but a more pertinent linguistic parallel is Arrian's report of the lectures of Epictetus. Here we have the vernacular Koivi) of an educated man in the second century a.d. The style of Paul, like his theology, has challenged the attention of the greatest minds.* Farrar' calls his language "the style of genius, if. not the genius of style." There is no doubt about its indi- viduality. While in the four groups of his letters each group has a style and to some extent a vocabulary of its own, yet, as in Shakespeare's plays, there is the stamp of the same tremendous mind. These differences of language lead some to doubt the genuineness of certain of the Pauline Epistles,' especially the Pas- toral Group, but criticism is coming more to the acceptance of all of them as genuine. Longinus ranks Paul as master of the dogmatic style (IlaOXos 6 Tapaeiis ovriva Kal irpSiTOV ctyrifii. irpouTTanevop '■ Der Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu, 1904. 2 Life and Work of St. Paul, vol. I, p. 638. ' Writers of the N. T., p. 27. * Miss, und Ausbr. des Christent., p. 354. Cf. Moffatt's transl., vol. II, p. 137. « Exp., 1906, p. 263. ' St. Paul and HeUen., Stud. Bib., IV, i. ' Urchristentum, pp. 174^178. * See Excursus I to vol. I of Farrar's Life^of Paul. * lb., p. 623. On Paul's style cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 1, 5, 251, 276, 279, 281 f ., 284 f ., 289, 300-305. As to the Pastoral Epistles it has been pointed out that there is nothing in Paul's vocabulary inconsistent with the time (James, Genuin. and Author, of the Past. Epis., 1906). It is natural for one's style to be enriched with age. The Churph Quart. Rev. (Jan., 1907) shows that all the new words in the Past. Epis. come from the LXX, Aristotle, Koivii writers before or during Paul's time. Cf. Exp. Times, 1907, p. 245 f. THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 129 Soynaros ^wroSeUcTov) . Baur' says that he has "the true ring of Thucydides." Erasmus {ad Col. 4 : 16) says: "Tonat, fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus." Hausrath^ correctly says that "it is hard to characterize this individuaUty in whom Christian fulness of love, rabbinic keenness of perception and ancient will- power so wonderfully mingle." It is indeed the most personal' and the most powerful writing of antiquity. He disclaims classic elegance and calls himself iSicotjjs tQ 'Koycf (2 Cor. 11 : 6), yet this was in contrast with the false taste of the Corinthians. But Deissmann {St. Paid, p. 6) goes too far in making Paul a mere tentmaker, devoid of culture. He is abrupt, paradoxical, bold, antithetical, now like a torrent, now like a simuner brook. But it is passion, not ignorance nor carelessness. He was indeed no Atticist. He used the vernacular Koivn of the time with some touch of the literary flavour, though his quotation of three heathen poets does not show an extended acquaintance with Greek literatxire.^ The difference between the vernacular and the Uter- ary Koivii is often a vanishing point. Paul's style is imhellenic in arrangement, but in Ro. 8 and 1 Cor. 13 he reaches the eleva- tion and dignity of Plato.* Certainly his ethical teaching has quite a Hellenic ring, being both philosophical and logical.' Hatch' considers Paul to be the foremost representative of the Hellenic influence on early Christianity. He shows some knowl- edge of Roman legal terms* and uses arguments calling for edu- cated minds of a high order.' The grammar shows little Semitic influence. He uses many rhetorical figures such as paronomasia, paradox, etc., which will be discussed in the chapter on that sub- ' Paul, vol; II, p. 281. Cf. K. L. Bauer, Philol. Thucyd.-Paul., 1773; also his Rhet. Paul., 1782. Cf. Tzschimer, Observ. Pauli ap. epist., 1800; La- sonder, De ling. paul. idiom., 1866. 2 Der Apost. Paulus, p. 502. ' R^nan, St. Paul, p. 232. Cf. also Jacquier, Hist, des Livres du N. T., tome l^', 1906, p. 37: "Son grec, nous le verrons, n'est pas le grec Uttfiraire, mais celui de la conversation." Cf. also pp. 61-70 for discussion of "Langue de Saint Paul." Cf. also Adams, St. Paul's Vocab. St. Paul as a Former of Words, 1895. < Cf. Farrar, Exc. Ill, vol. I of Life of St. Paul. ' Norden, Die Ant. Kunstpr., Bd. II, 1898, pp. 499, 509. « Hicks, St. Paul and Hellen., 1896, p. 9. ' Hibbert Lect. (Infl. of Hellen. on Chris., p. 12). 8 Ball, St. Paul and the Rom. Law (1901). Cf. Thack., Rela. of St. Paul to Contemp. Thought (1900). Paul's use of voiios shows knowledge of the Roman lex as well the Jewish Torah. 9 Mahaffy, Surv. of Gk. Civiliz., p. 310. 130 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ject, some thirty kinds occurring in his writings. Farrar' sug- gests that Paul had a teacher of rhetoric in Tarsus. He is noted for his varied use of the particles and writes with freedom and accuracy, though his anacolutha are niunerous, as in Gal. 2 : 6-9. He uses prepositions with great frequency and discrimination. The genitive is employed by Paul with every variety of appUca- tion. The participle appears with great luxuriance and in all sorts of ways, as imperative or indicative or genitive absolute, ar- ticular, anarthrous, etc. He is 'E^paioj e? 'Efipaiuv, but he handles his Greek with all the freedom of a Hellenist. He thinks in Greek and it is the vernacular xoivi] of a brilUant and well-educated man in touch with the Greek culture of his time, though remaining thoroughly Jewish in his mental fibre. The pecuUar turns in Paul's language are not due to Hebraisms, but to the passion of his nature which occasionally (cf. 2 Cor.) bursts all bounds and piles parenthesis and anacoluthon on each other in a heap. But even in a riot of language his thought is clear, and Paul often draws a fine point on the turn of a word or a tense or a case. To go into detail with Paul's writings would be largely to give the grammar of the N. T. In Phil. 2 : 1 we have a solecism in et tls airXajxva. His vocabulary is very rich and expressive. Thayer (Lexicon, pp. 704 ff.) gives 895 (44 doubtful) words that are found nowhere else in the N. T., 168 of them being in the Pastoral Epistles. Nageli^ has published the first part of a Pauline lexicon (from a to g) which is very helpful and makes use of the papyri and inscriptions. The most striking thing in this study is the cosmopohtan character of Paul's vocabulary. There are very few words which are found only in the Attic writers, like aiaxpoTTis, and no cases of Atticism, though even in the letters a to e he finds some 85 that belong to the literary kolvIj as shown by books, papyri and inscriptions, words like adamiria, aOerku, etc. In some 50 more the meaning corresponds to that of the literary Koivi], as in avaXvoo (Ph. 1 : 23). To these he adds words which appear ia the literary kolvti, papyri and inscriptions after Paul's time, words like apTayiibs, ava^fjv, etc. Then there are words that, so far as known, occur first in the N. T. in the Christian sense, like kKXijcrio. But the vernacular koiviJ as set ' Life of St. Paul, vol. I, p. 630. ' Der Wortsoh. des Apost. Paulus, 1905. He says (p. 86): "Es uberrascht una nicht mehr, daC jeder paulinische Brief eine Reihe von Wortern enthalt, die den tibrigen unbekannt sind." This is well said. Each letter ought to have words not in the others. THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 131 forth in the papyri and inscriptions furnishes the ground-work of his vocabulary, when to this is added the use of the LXX (including the Apocrypha) as in avrikafi^avofiai, ayiA^u. Espe- cially noteworthy are some nice Greek points that are wanting in Paul (as well as in the rest of the N. T.) and ia the papyri and inscriptions, as ol6s rk dm, aiadavofuu, iravv, fiaXa, 'iironai (seldom in the inscriptions), etc. NageU sums up by saying that no one would think that Paul made direct use of Plato or Demosthenes and that his diligent use of the LXX explains all his Hebraisms besides a few Hebrew words like a/iiiv or when he translated He- brew. His Aramaisms (like A/S^a) are few, as are his Latinisms (Uke irpatTojpioj'). "The Apostle writes in the style natural to a Greek of Asia Minor adopting the current Greek of the time, borrowing more or less consciously from the ethical writers of the time, framing new words or giving a new meaning to old words . . . His choice of vocabulary is therefore much like that of Epic- tetus save that his intimate knowledge of the LXX has modified it."' Paul's Greek, ia a word, "has to do with no school, with no model, but streams unhindered with overflowing bubbling right out of the heart, but it is real Greek" (Wilamowitz-MoUendorff, Die griechische Ldteratur des AUertums, pp. 1-126. Cf . Die Kultur der Gegenwart, Tl. I, Abt. 8, 1905). Deissmann (Ldght, p. 234) seesj Paul wholly as "a non-literary man of the non-literary class in the Imperial Age, but prophet-Uke rising above his class and surveying the contemporary educated world with the con- sciousness of superior strength." 1 Walter Lock, Jour, of Theol. Stud., 1906, p. 298. Athletic figures are almost confined to Paul (and Heb.), and Ramsay (Exp., 1906, pp. 283ff.) thinks Tarsus left this impress on him. A further discussion of Paul's rhetoric will be found in the chapter on Figures of Speech. Cf . J. Weiss, Beitr. zur paulin. Rhetorik, 1897; Blass, Die Rhyth. der asian. und rom. Kunstpr., 1905. Deiss. (Theol. Literaturzeit., 1906, pp. 231 ff.) strongly controverts Blass' idea that Paul used conscious rhythm. Cf. Howson, Metaph. of St. Paul. On Paul's Hellen. see Hicks, St. Paul and Hellen. (Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., 1896); Curtius, Paulus in Athens (Gesamm. Abhandl., 1894, pp. 527 ff.) ; Ramsay, Cities of St. Paul (pp. 9, 30-41); Heinrici, Zum Hellen. des Paulus (2 Cor. in Meyer); Wilamowitz-Moll., Die griech. Lit. des Altert. (p. 157); G. MiUigan, Epis. to the Th. (1908, p. Iv). Paul had a fuU and free Gk: vocab., thought in Gk., wrote in Gk. as easily as in Aramaic. But his chief indebtedness seems to be to the LXX, the vernac. mivii and the ethical Stoical writers. MiUigan (see above, pp. lii-lv) has a very discriminating discussion of Paul's vocab. and style. Garvie (Stud, of Paul and His Gospel, p. 6 f.) opposes the notion that Paul had a decided Gk. influence. 132 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT {h) Whiter of Hebrews. Bruce * is certain that the author was not a disciple of Paul, while Simcox^ is willing to admit that " he may have belonged once to the school of Philo, as Paul did to that of Gamaliel. Harnack suggests Priscilla as the author. If Paul had "imperial disregard for niceties of construction," He- brews shows "a studied rhetorical periodicity."' Von Soden* considers that in the N. T. Hebrews is "the best Greek, scarcely different in any point from that of contemporary writers." This is the more surprising when one observes his constant quotation of the LXX. The grammatical peculiarities are few, Uke the fre- quent use of irapd in comparison, iTret with apodosis (protasis sup- pressed), the perfect tense to emphasize the permanence of the Scripture record which sometimes verges close to the aorist (4 : 3), the frequent participles, the varied use of .particles, periphrases, the absence of the harsher kinds of hiatus, the presence of rhythm more than in any of the N. T. books, and in general the quality of literary style more than in any other N. T. writing. Westcott notes "the parenthetical involutions." "The calculated force of the periods is sharply distinguished from the impetuous eloquence of St. Paul." The writer does not use Paul's rhetorical expres- sions tI ovv; rl yap; Moulton {Camb. Bibl. Essays, p. 483) notes the paradox that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by one who apparently knew no Hebrew and read only the LXX. The use of subordinate sentences is common and the position of words is carefully chosen. There is frequent use of nkv and re as well as Sdtv and 3i6. The optative occurs only once and shows that it is true Koivri. The studied style appears particularly in ch. 11 in the use of Triffret. The style is hortatory, noble and eloquent, and has points of contact with Paul, Luke and Peter. The vocabulary, like the style, is less hke the vernacular Koivrj than any book in the N. T. Of 87 words which are found in the LXX and in this book alone in the N. T., 74 belong to the ancient literary works and only 13 to the vernacular. 18 other words peculiar, to this Epistle are found in the literary kolvti. There are 168 (10 doubt- ful) words in Hebrews that appear nowhere else in the N. T. (cf. Thayer, Lexicon, p. 708). These 168 words are quite char- acteristic also, like acjyopav, aiadriTripiov, iraviiyvpts, irpwTOTbKva.. West- » Hast. D. B., Hebrews. 2 Writers of the N. T., p. 42. ' Thayer, Lang, of the N. T., Hast. D. B. * Early Chris. Lit., 1906, p. 12. On the lang. of Heb. see the careful re- marks of Jacquier (Hist, des Livres du N. T., tome \", 1906, pp. 457 ff.). Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 1, 5, 279, 280 f ., 288 f ., 296 ff., 303 f. THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 133 cott' considers the absence of words like evayyk\iov, nvariipiov, TrKtipou remarkable. The chief bond of contact in the vocab- ulary of Hebrews with the Koivri is in the use of "sonorous" words like AvTiKoBia-Tijui, einrepia-TaTos, but the author is by no means an Atticist, though he does approach the literary Koivij. Deissmann" indeed considers Hebrews as alone belonging "to an- other sphere: as in subject-matter it is more of a learned theo- logical work, so in form it is more artistic than the other books of the N. T." He even feels that it "seems to hang in the back- ground like an intruder among the N. T. company of popular books" {Light, p. 243). (i) John. The Johannine question at once confronts the mod- em granamarian who approaches the books in the N. T. that are accredited to John. It is indeed a difficult problem.' There is a triple difficulty: the Gospel presents a problem of its own (with the Epistles), the Apocalypse also has its burden, and there is the serious matter of the relation of the Gospel and Apocalypse on the linguistic side. Assuming that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel, Epistles and Apocalypse, we have the following situation. The Gospel of John has a well-defined character. There are few Hebraisms in detail beyond the use of vtol ^rb% (12 : 36), Kal in the sense of "and yet" or "but" (cf. Hebrew T and mi in LXX) as in 20 : 14, the absence of the particles save oh, and the con- stant co-ordination of the sentences with rhythmical parallelism. In the formal grammar the Greek is much like the vernacular (and hterary) Koivij, but the cast of thought is wholly Hebrew. Ewald* rightly calls its spirit "genuinely Hebrew," while R6nan^ even says that the Gospel "has nothing Hebrew" in its style. Godet^ calls the Gospel a Hebrew body with a Greek dress and quotes Luthardt as saying that it "has a Hebrew soul in the Greek language." Schafif' compares Paul to an Alpine torrent and John to an Alpine lake. There is indeed in this Gospel great simplicity and profimdity. John's vocabulary is somewhat lim- ited, some 114 words (12 doubtful, Thayer, Lexicon, p. 704) be- > Comm. on Heb., p. xlvi. * Exp. Times, Nov., 1906, p. 59. ' Cf. Dnimmond, Charac. and Author, of the Fourth Gosp., 1904; Sanday, Crit. of the Fourth Gosp., 1905; Bacon, The Fourth Gosp. in Res. and De- bate, 1910. « Quoted in Schaff, Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 67. ' lb. On p. 73 Schaff puts Jo. 1 : 18 side by side in Gk. and Heb. The Heb. tone of the Gk. is clear. « Comm. sur I'Evang. de S. Jean, vol. I, pp. 226, 232. ' Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 66. 134 A GEAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT longing to the Gospel alone in the N. T. But the characteristic words are repeated many times, such as dXijOeta, aiiapria, yivuxTKu, do^a, fw^, KoaiMS, Kp'uns, \6yos, fxaprvptu, ina-Tevu), okotos, us, etc. "He rings the changes on a small number of elementary words and their synonyms."^ But words hke kKKKriala, eiayykXiov, utrh- vow., Ttapa^oKi], tticttw, aocji'ui. do not occur at all. However, too much must not be inferred from this fact, for xtoreioj and evayye- Xifoj do appear very often.^ Other characteristics of the Gospel are the common use of tva in the non-final sense, the distinctive force of the pronouns (especially keiws, e/t6s, iSios), the vivid use of the tenses (like Mark), the unusual use of ovp,^ fwi) atciwos is frequent (21 times, and more than all the rest of the N. T.), fre- quent repetition, favourite synonyms.* The Johannine use of Kai, Sk, aXXd, yap, d, on, prj, oi, etc., is all interesting (see Abbott). The prepositions, the cases, the voices, the modes all yield good results in Abbott's hands. The Epistles of John possess the same general traits of the Gospel save that oui> does not occur at all save in 3 Jo. 8 while on is very common. Kai is the usual con- nective. Only eight words are common alone to the Gospel and the Epistles in the N. T., while eleven are found in the Epistles and not in the Gospel. Westcott,* however, gives parallel sen- tences which show how common phrases and idioms recur in the Gospel and the First Epistle. The Apocalypse has much in common with the Gospel, as, for instance, no optative is found in either; ottws is not in either save in Jo. 11 : 57; tva is very common in Gospel, 1 John and Apocalypse, more so than in any other book of the N. T. save Mark, and I'm p.ii is very common in Gospel and Apocalypse; ovv is almost absent from the Apocalypse » Abb., Job. Vocab., p. 348. ^ lb., p. 158. Abbott has liiininous remarks on such words as irurreia, i^ovala, and all phases of John's vocabulary. ' Occurs 195 times in the Gospel and only 8 of the instances in the dis- courses of Jesus. Nearly all of these are in the transitional sense. Cf. Abb., Joh. Gr., 1906, p. 165. * On Joh. Synon. (hke Seupfeo, dpia) see oh. Ill of Abbott's Joh. Vocab., 1905. In John ip&a is not used in present (though often HipaKo), but p\iira> and Beopiu. Luke uses it also in present only 3 times, Heb. 2, Jas. 2, Ac. 8, Apoc. 18. On the whole subject of Joh. gr. see the same author's able work on Joh. Gr. (1906), which has a careful and exhaustive discussion of the most interesting points in the Gospel. » Comm. on Epis. of Jo., pp. xU ff. The absence of olv, when so character- istic of the Gospel, shows how precarious mere verbal argument is. Baur, Die Evang., p. 380, calls the Gospel the Apocalypse "transfigured." Cf. Blass on John's style, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 261, 276, 278 f., 291, 302. THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 135 as in Epistles and the discourses of Jesus, being conunon as tran- sitional particle in narrative portion of Gospel'; apa, common in other Evangelists and Paul, is not found in Gospel, Epistles or Apocalypse; fikv, so common in Matthew, Luke (Gospel and Acts), Paul and Hebrews, is not found at all in Apocalypse and John's Epistles and only eight times in his Gospel; SiaTe, which appears 75 times elsewhere in the N. T., is not found in Gospel, Epistles or Apocalypse save once in Jo. 3 : 16; firi iron, fairly common in Matthew, Luke and Hebrews, does not occur in John's writings save in Jo. 7 : 26 (Paul uses it also once only, 2 Tim. 2 : 25, preferring /«J ttcos, which John does not have) ; iiaprvpku is more fre- quent in Gospel than in 1 John and Apocalypse, but iiapTvpla. is as common in Apocalypse as Gospel; ovoita is frequent in Gospel and Apocalypse as applied to God; oUa is found less often in Apoca- lypse than in Gospel; a\t}6iv6s is common in Gospel, Epistle and Apocalypse, though aKr)6ris and ciXiiBeia do not appear in the Apoca- lypse; viKoxa occurs only once in Gospel (16 : 33), but is common in 1 John and Apocalypse; 6iSco/it is more frequent in Gospel and Apocalypse than in any other N. T. book (even Matt.); dei- Kvvfii appears about the same number of times in Gospel and Apocalypse; X670S is applied to Christ in Jo. 1 : 1 and Rev. 19 : 13; the peculiar expression Kai vvv kcrriv which occurs in John 5 : 25 is similar to the nai kcr/jiev of 1 Jo. 3 : 1, and the /cai ovk elal of Rev. 2:2, 3 : 9; all are fond of antithesis and parenthesis and repeat the article often. Over against these is to be placed the fact that the Apocalypse has 156 (33 doubtful) words not in the Gospel or Epistles, and only nine common alone to them. Certainly the subject-matter and spirit are different, for the Son of Thunder speaks in the Apocalypse. Dionysius^ of Alexandria called the language of the Apocalypse barbaric and imgram- matical because of the numerous departures from usual Greek assonance. The solecisms in the Apocalypse are not in the realm of accidence, for forms like d^Kes, ireTTTuiKav, didS), etc., are com- mon in the vernacular kolvti. The syntactical peculiarities are due partly to constructio ad sensum and variatio structurae. Some ("idiotisms" according to Dionysius) are designed, as the expres- sion of the unchangeableness of God by ciTrd 6 (Sv (1 : 4). As to 6 Tji/ the relative use of 6 in Homer may be recalled. See also 77 oval in 11 : 14, ofnoiov vt6v in 14 : 14, oval tovs k. in 8 : 13. Benson ' Similarly re, which occurs 160 times in the Acts, is found only 8 times in Luke's Gospel. Cf. Lee, Speaker's Comm., p. 457. ' Apud Eus. H. E., VII, xxv. 136 A GRAMMAK OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (Apocalypse) speaks of "a grammar of Ungrammar," which is a bold way of putting it. But the "solecisms" in the Apocalypse are chiefly cases of anacolutha. Concord is treated lightly in the free use of the nominative (1 : 5; 2 : 20; 3 : 12), in particular the participles Xkyoiv and iex^v (4:1; 14 : 14); in the addition of a pronoun as in 3 : 8; in gender and number as in 7 : 9; in the use of parenthesis as in 1 : 5 f. Cf . Swete, Apocalypse, p. cxviii f . The accusative, as in the vernacular kolvIi (cf. modem Greek) has encroached upon other cases as with Karriyopeiv (12 : 10). The participle is used freely and often absolutely in the nominative as 6 vLKwv (2 : 26). Most of the variations in case are with the parti- ciple or in apposition, as 6 fiaprvs after Xpiarov (1 : 5). Moulton^ has called attention to the numerous examples of nominative ap- position in the papyri, especially of the less educated kind. The old explanation of these grammatical variations was that they were Hebraisms, but Winer ^ long ago showed the absurdity of that idea. It is the frequency of these phenomena that calls for remark, not any isolated solecism in the Apocalypse. Moulton' denies that the Apocalypse has any Hebraisms. That is possibly going too far the other way, for the book is saturated with the apocalyptic images and phrases of Ezekiel and Daniel and is very much like the other Jewish apocalypses. It is not so much par- ticular Hebraisms that meet us in the Apocalypse as the flavour of the LXX whose words are interwoven in the text at every turn. It is possible that in the Apocalypse we have the early style of John before he had lived in Ephesus, if the Apocalypse was writ- ten early. On the other hand the Apocalypse, as Bigg holds true *" 1 Exp., 1904, p. 71. Cf. also Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. 151; Reinhold, Graec. Patr. etc., p. 57 f.; Schlatter, Die Spr. und Heimat des vierten Evang. Schl. overemphasizes the Aramaic colour of the Gospel. 2 W.-M., p. 671. » Prol., p. 9. Cf. also Jiilicher, Intr. to N. T.; Bousset, Die Offenb. Joh., 1896; Lee, Speaker's Comm. on Rev. Swete (Apoc. of St. John, 1906, p. cxx) thinks that John's "eccentricities of syntax belong to more than one cause: some to the habit which he may have retained from early years of thinking in a Semitic language; some to the desire of giving movement and vivid reaUty to his visions, which leads him to report them after the manner of shorthand notes, jotted down at the time; some to the circumstances in which the book was written." The Apoc. "stands alone among Gk. Uterary writings in its disregard of the ordinary rules of syntax, and the success with which syntax is set aside without loss of perspicuity or even of hterary power." Swete welcomes gladly the researches of Deissmann, Thumb and Moulton, but considers it precarious to compare a Uterary document like the Apoc. with sUps in business letters, etc. THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 137 of 2 Peter, may represent John's real style, while the Gospel and Epistles may have been revised as to Greek idioms by a friend or friends of John in Ephesus (cf. Jo. 21 : 24). With this theory- compare Josephus' War and Antiquities. One is slow (despite Moffatt's positiveness in the Exp. Gk. Test.), in the Ught of Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, to say that John could not have written the Apocalypse, though it be the last of his books. Besides what has been said one must recall that the Apocalypse was composed on the Isle of Patmos, in some excitement, and possibly without careful revision, while the Gospel and First Epistle probably had care and the assistance of cultured friends. At any rate the ver- nacular Koivri is far more in evidence in the Apocalypse than in the Gospel and Epistles. "As Dante had the choice between the accepted language of education, Latin, and the vulgar tongue, so St. John had to choose between a more artificial kind of Greek, as perpetuated from past teaching, and the common vulgar speech, often emancipated from strict grarflmatical rules, but nervous and vigorous, a true Uving speech." ^ Vn. N. T. Greek Illustrated by the Modem Greek Vernacu- lar. Constant use will be made of the modem Greek in the course of the Granmiar. Here a brief survey is given merely to show how the colloquial Kot.vri survives in present-day Greek ver- nacular. Caution is necessary in such a comparison. The literary modem Greek has its affinities with the literary Koivri or even with the Atticists, while the vernacular of to-day often shows affinities with the less educated writers of papyri of the N. T. time. The N. T. did indeed have a great effect upon the later Koivii when theological questions were uppermost at Alexandria and Constantinople.^ The cleavage between the Hterary and the vernacular became wider also. But apart from ecclesiastical terms there is a striking likeness at many points between the ver- nacular Koivri and modern Greek vernacular, though modem Greek has, of course, Germanic and other elements' not in the Koivij. The diminutive^ is more common in the modem Greek than in * Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, 1905, p. 209. In general see Seeberg, Zur Charak. des Apost. Joh., Neue Kirch. Zeitschr., 1905, pp. 51-64. 2 Cf. Gregory Naz., II, 13, A; Gregory Nyssa, III, 557 B; Reinhold, De Graec. Patr. etc., 1898. » Thumb, Indoger. Forsch., 1903, p. 359 f. Boltz (Die hell. Spr., 1881, p. 10) quotes Rangab6 as saying that the mod. Gk. is as far removed from that of the LXX as from that of Xenophon. * Cf. Hatz., Einl. in d. neugr. Gr., p. 37 f ., for list. 138 A GRAMMAE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the KOLvii and usually in i, as t6 kpvl. The optative is rare in the N. T.; in the modem Greek it has disappeared. The infinitive is vanishing before Iva in the N. T.; in the modem Greek vk has dis- placed it completely save with auxiliary verbs.* The accusative^ in modern Greek has made still further headway and is used even with ii-Ko and all prepositions. The til verb has entirely vanished in modem Greek vernacular except elvai. The forms in -oaav, -ovcav are very common, as are the a forms in aorist and imper- fect. The forms in -& (-as) for perfect and first aorist are also frequent. The middle voice has ahnost vanished as a separate voice (cf. Latin). Prepositions in the vernacular (chiefly ew) have displaced the dative. The superlative is usually expressed by the article and the comparative. Kennedy' gives an interesting list of words that appear either for the first time or with a new sense in the LXX or the N. T. (or the papyri) that preserve that meaning in the modern Greek, as bCl)ixa{' tooV) ,6vai.aaTi]pu)v ('altar'), KadiiyriTris ('professor,' in N. T. 'master'), ^evodoxtiov ('hotel,' in N. T. ^£vo5oxio3= ' entertain strangers'), TraiSeiLia) ('chastise,' from Trais), 0&ai/a)('arrive'),xopTdfaj('feed'),etc. The list could be greatly extended, but let these suffice.^ A specimen of modem Greek vernacular is given from Pallis' translation of Jo. 1 : 6-8: ByfJKi evas avBpcoTTOs araXiikvos aird rd 0«6' t' &voiJ,a tov 'I&idyijj. Avtos fjpde "yia Ktipvy/ia, 7ta va Kijpi^et to s, Toi! va Kavei Ki' oKoi va Tiarkiffovv. Aiv elrav hceivos t6 (j>us, Tapa yik va Kijpi^ei t6 a)s. The literary modem Greek in these verses differs very little from the original N. T. text, only in the use of hrTJp^ep, dvo/ia^op^vos, Blo. va, 8h, rJTo. Moul- ton^ in an interesting note gives some early illustrations of modern Greek vernacular. In the second century a.d. kaov is ' It still persists in Pontic-Cappadocian Gk. according to Thumb, Theol. Literaturzeit., 1903, p. 421. ' There is a riot of indiEEerence as to case in the vernacular Byz. Gk., as iric TTJs jvvai.K6s. Cf . Mullach, Gr. der griech. Vulgarspr., p. 27. Jean Psichari, 'P6Sa Kal M^Xa (1906), has written a defence of the mod. Gk. vernac. and has shown its connection with the ancient vemac. The mod. Gk. has like free- dom in the use of the genitive case (cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 32 flf.). Prep- ositions have displaced the partitive gen., the genitive of material and of comparison (abl.), in mod. Gk. The mod. Gk. shows the ace. displacing the gen. and dat. of the older Gk. (op. dt., p. 35 f.) after iKoXoven, iucoia, ivavTu, etc. The double ace. goes beyond anc. Gk. usages (op. dt., p. 36) as 3Xo piSiva TO. /SX^TTw, 'I see everything rosy.' » Sour, of N. T. Gk.,.pp. 153 ff. » Cf. Thumb's Handb. der neugr. Volksspr. (1895); V. and D., Handb. to Mod. Gk. (1887); Thumb-Angus, Handb. of Mod. Gk. Vemac. (1912). » Prol., p. 234. THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 139 found in OP 528. He quotes Thumb (BZ ix, 234) who cites - from an inscription of the first century a.d. 'ixovtres as nominative and accusative plural. And Ramsay (Cities and Bish., II, p. 537) gives kriTiideiaovv as third pliu-al form on a Phrygian inscription of the third century a.d. As one illustration note Paul's use of Karkxu (Ro. 1 : 18). In modern Greek dialects «aT4xw=^feiipw, 'I know.' PART II ACCIDENCE CHAPTER V WOKD-FORMATION I. Etymology. Grammar was at first a branch of philosophy among the Greeks, and with the foundation of the Alexandrian library a new era began with the study of the text of Homer.* After Photius etymology "rules the whole later grammatical literature."^ The Stoic grammarians were far better in ety- mology than in anything else and we owe them a real debt in this respect, though their extended struggle as to whether anal- ogy or anomaly ruled in language has left its legacy in the long lists of "exceptions" in the grammars.' In some grammars the term etymology is still applied to the whole discussion of Forms or Accidence, Formenlehre. But to-day it is generally applied to the study of the original form and meaning of words.* The word irvfuikoyLa. is, of course, from ervfios and Xoyos, and ^t-v/ws, meaning ' real ' or ' true,' is itself from the same root er^ from which h-eos, 'true,' comes. So also eT-dfco, 'to test.' Compare also San- skrit sat-Ajos, 'true,' and sat-^am, 'truth,' as well as the Anglo-Saxon s6&, 'sooth.' To erviMv is the true literal sense of a word, the root. No more helpful remark can be made at this point than to insist on the importance of the student's seeing the original form . and import of each word and suffix or prefix. This is not all that is needed by any means, but it is a beginning, and the right be- ginning.^ " It was the comparative study of languages that first ' Riem. and Goelzer, Phon^t. et fit. des Formes Grq. et Lat., 1901, p. 245. ' Rfiitzenstein, Gesch. der griech. Etym., 1897, p. vi. 5 Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. etc., 2. Tl., pp. 347 ff. * "6 irvfws XoYos heiiSt ja auch 'die wahre Bedeutung'; daC man hier irv- Mos sagte und nieht iCKifiiis, liegt daran, daC ionische Sophisten, namentlich Prodikos, die Etymologie und Synonymik aufbrachten." F. Blass, Hermen. und Erit., Bd. I, MiiUer's Handb. d. klass. Alt., 1892, p. 183. 6 See Pott, Etym. Forsch., 1861; Curtius, Gk. Etym., vols. I, II, 1886; Prellwitz, Etym. Worterb. der griech. Spr., 1893; Brug. und Delb., Grundr. der vergl. Gr., 1897-1901; Skeat, Etym. Diet, of the Eng. Lang., etc. 143 144 A GKAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT gave etymology a surer hold."' Curtius means etymology in the modern sense, to be sure. n. Roots." It is not to be supposed that what are called roots necessarily existed in this form. They represent the original stock from which other words as a rule come. What the original words actually were we have no means of telling. They were not necessarily interjections, as some have supposed. Mere articu- late sounds, unintelligible roots, did not constitute speech. Some interjections are not roots, but express ideas and can often be analyzed, as "jemine"=/esM Domine.^ Others, like most nursery words, are onomatopoetic. There is, besides, no evidence that prim- itive man could produce speech at will.* But a few root-words appear like the Latin i ('go') and probably the Greek § (though iik is found in Epic Greek). The number of Greek roots is compara- tively few, not more than 400, probably less. Harris^ observes that of the 90,000 words in a Greek lexicon only 40,000 are what are termed classic words. The new words, which are constantly made from slang or necessity, are usually made from one of the old roots by various combinations, or at any rate after the anal- ogy of the old words.* Words are "the small coin of language,"' though some of them are sesquipedalian enough. There seem to be two ultimate kinds of words or roots, verbs and pronouns, and they were at last united into a single word as ri-iJil, 'say I.' 1 Curtius, Gk. Etym., vol. I, p. 16. " The whole subject of N. T. lexicography calls for reworking. Deissmann is known to be at work on a N. T. Lex. in the light of the pap. and the inscr. Meanwhile reference can be made to his Bible Studies, Light, and his New Light on the N. T.; to J. H. Moulton's articles in the Exp. (1901, 1903, 1904, 1908); to Kennedy's Sour, of N. T. Gk. (for LXX and N. T.); to Thayer's N. T. Gk. Lex. and his art. on Lang., of N. T. in Hast. D. B.; to Cremer's Theol. Lex. of N. T.; to Mayser's Gr. d. griech. Pap. For' the LXX phenomena see careful discussion of Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 112- 136. Nothing like an exhaustive discussion of N. T. word-formation can yet be attempted. But whatsis here given aims to follow the lines of historical and comparative grammar. We must wait in patience for Deissmann's Lex. George MilUgan is at work with Moulton on his Lexical Notes from the Pap. (Exp., 1908—). Of. also Nageli, Der Wortsch. des Apost. Paulus, a por- tion of which has appeared. Especially valuable is Abb. Joh. Vocab. (1905). For the LXX cf. also Swete, Intr. to O. T. in Gk., pp. 302-304. The indices to the lists of inscr. and pap. can also be consulted with profit. ' Paul, Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., p. 181. * lb., p. 187. » MS. notes on Gk. Gr. Cf. on slang, Wedgwood, Intr. to the Diet, of the Eng. Lang.; Paul, Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., p. 175. ' Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 235. WOED-FORMATION 145 It does not seem possible to distinguish between verbal and nomi- nal roots, as in English to-day the same word is indifferently verb or noim, "walk," for instance. The modern view is that verbs are nominal in origin (Hirt, Handb., p. 280). The pronominal roots may furnish most of the sufl&xes for both verbs {pijuara) and nouns (oTO/iaTo). Verbs, substantives and pronouns (iiVTcavofiim), there- fore, constitute the earUest parts of speech, and all the others are developed from these three.^ Adjectives (ovofiara eirWeTo) are merely variations from substantives or pronouns. Adverbs {enp- prinaTci) are fixed case-forms of substantives or adjectives or pro- nouns. Prepositions {irpodk^eis) are adverbs used with nouns or with verbs (in composition). Conjunctions (aMea-iioi) are adverbs used to connect words and sentences in various ways. Inten- sive (kiriTaaecos) particles are adverbs from nominal or pronominal stems of a special kind. Speech has made a very small be- ginning with isolated words; in fact the sentence is probably as old as human speech, though we first discuss words.^ The number of root-words with the mere ending is not very great, but some few survive even in the N. T., where the case-ending is added directly to the root, as aX-s (aXo, Mk. 9 : 50), with which compare Latin sal, English sal-t. So vavs (Ac. 27:41), Latin ndv^s. In- stead of oXs the N. T. elsewhere follows the kolv^ in using rd oXas, and t6 ir\oiov instead of vavs. In tovs (ir65-s) the root is only slightly changed after the loss of 8 (analogy of oh or 6606s). The pronoun els (iv-s) is similarly explained. Pronouns and numerals use the root directly. In verbs we have many more such roots used directly with the personal endings without the thematic vowel o/t and sometimes without any tense-suffix for the pres- ent, like v= fivs rripeiul in. Words with Formative Suffixes. The Indo-Germanic languages have a highly developed system of afBxes,' prefixes, infixes, suflaxes. The suiBxes are used for various purposes, as case-endings of nouns, as personal endings of verbs, as aids in the creation of words (formative suflBxes). The Greek is rich in these formative suflBxes, which are more or less popular at various peri- ods of the language. The suflBxes in the Greek are quite similar to those in the older Sanskrit. When the formative suffixes are used directly with the root, the words are called primitives; when the stem of the word is not a root, it is called a derivative. Hence there are primitive and derivative verbs, primitive and deriva- tive substantives, primitive and derivative adjectives. There are, of course, in the N. T. Greek no "special" formative suflBxes, though the kolvIi does vary naturally in the relative use of these terminations from the earlier language. In the modern Greek a number of new suflBxes appear Hke the diminutives -ttouXos (tSiKos, 'foal'), kt\. "In all essentials the old patterns are adhered to" in the N. T. word-formation.* See also Hadley-AUen (pp. 188 S.) for the meaning of the Greek formative suflBxes. (o) Vebbs. On the stem-building of the verb one can consult Hirt or Brugmann for the new point of view.^ Without attempt- ing a complete fist of the new words in the Koivii, I give what is, I trust, a just interpretation of the facts concerning the new words appearing from the time of Aristotle on that we find in the N. T. Hence some classes of words are not treated. 1. Primary or Primitive Verbs. No new roots are used to make verbs with old or new terminations^ in the kowij. The ten- » Cf. Rachel White, CI. Rev., 1906, pp. 203 ff., for interesting study of iTUTKiirTa, 2 BlaBs,Hermen.undKrit.,Bd.I,p. 191. Heine, Synon. des neutest. Griech., 1898, has a very helpful discussion of N. T. word-building (pp. 28-65), but does not distinguish the mivii words. ' Next to Sans. Gk. uses more inflections and so more affixes. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 45. * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 61. On the whole subject of word-building see Brug., Griech. Gr., 1900, pp. 160-362; K.-Bl., Bd. II, Ausf. Gr., pp. 254-340. 6 Brug. op. dt. Hirt, Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl., 1902, pp. 360-391. « Sohmid, Der Atticis. etc., 4. Bd., p. 702. WORD-FORMATION 147 dency is all towards the dropping of the non-thematic or fii forms both with the simple root and with the suffix. The remnants of the fii forms, which are not quite obsolete in the N. T., will be given in the chapter on the Conjugation of the Verb. Here may be mentioned airdXKvfii, which uses the suffix -w} Thematic verbs made from the root by the addition of o/e are very common, like Xe7-«, XetTT-oj (Xitt). The N. T., as the Koi.vr!, has new presents like KpujSco, vIttu, xi>vvo], etc. These kept increasing and are vouched for by modern Greek. Cf . Thumb, Handbook, pp. 129 ff. 2. Secondary or Derivative Verbs. Not all of these verbs are formed from nouns; many come also from verbs. Denominatives are made from nouns, like Tina-ta from ti/*^, while verbals (post- verbals, Jannaris^) are made from verbs. The simple denomi- natives,' ending in -aw, -ioo, -eico, -dfco, -tfo), are not always distinguished from the intensive verbals or the causative denomi- natives, though -00), -aivo), -ivco more commonly represent the latter. 'Oirravc-} (from Sttto!) besides Ac. 1 : 3 appears in the LXX, Hermes, Tebt. Papyri. Cf. also the rare Xi.^i.iravoi. The Koivri is rich in new verbs in -vco. Verbs in -dco are common in the N. T., as in the Koivij, hke rinaco, Si^dw, fdco, etc. 'Am-fdoj occurs in Artem., Sotion, inscriptions, etc. In the modem Greek verbs in -dco have gained at the expense of verbs in -eco.* They belong to the oldest Greek speech and come from feminine stems in -a.^ Verbs in -dfco show great increase in the N. T. as in the koivti and modem Greek,* like ajiA^cij (ayios, ayi^co, LXX), hTaxt)ta.^co {evTaijjui, Anthol., Plut.), vqina^oi {vrjTnos) in Hippocrates, ervyva^co (from arvyvos) in Schol. on ^sch. and in LXX 6pos, LXX, pap.), but dwareoo (only in N. T.) is to be noticed on the other side." 'AKaipica (from Sjcatpos) is found ' On history of the lu. verbs see Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 234. In the pap. verbs in -vfu keep the non-thematic form in the middle, while in the active both appear. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 38. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 300. ' Harris, MS. Notes on Gk. Gr. 4 Thumb, Handb., p. 175; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 218, 300! ^ Sutterlin, Gesch. der Verba Denom. in Altgriech., 1891, p. 7. Cf. also Pfordten, Zur Gesch. der griech. Denom., 1886. Mayser (Gr., pp. 459-466) has an interesting Ust of derivative verbs in the Ptol. pap. » Thumb, Handb. of Mod. Gk., V., p. 135 f. There is frequent inter- change between forms in -dfiji, -ifw and -a. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 61. 148 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT in Diodorus; thirpoauyirku) (ivirpSauiros) is found in Gal. 6 : 12 (in papyri, 114 B.C.; Sttcos eiirpoffuirunev, Tebt. P. No. 19i2f.). Cf. Moulton, Expositffr, 1903, p. 114. These verbs have always been very numerous, though -eco gradually retreats before -om. Tpriyo- pkw (Arist., LXX, Jos.) is formed from the perfect iypiiyopa, which is not in the N. T., but Winer long ago found a similar form in ^Trt/caxeip^co (Papyri Taurin. 7).^ 'E\aTTovko3 (Arist., LXX, pap.) is from eXarroj'. 'EWoyica (and -oca) is in inscriptions and papyri. 'E^aKoKovBeoi (Polyb., Plut., inscriptions) is not "biblical" as Thayer called it. AiBevrba {aWkvTTis, airos and ivrea) is in the Koiv^, according to Moeris, for the Attic auToSt/cew. (In the late papyri see Deissmann, Idght, p. 85.) No great distinction in sense exists between -&co and -ba. Verbs in -e6a> are also very common and are formed from a great variety of stems. AixfioXcoTeiu (from oixMaXwrw) is read in 2 Tim. 3: 6 only by D° EKL al. pi. Or., the form in -ifco being genuine. It is, however, common in the LXX, as is kyKparelmiMi (1 Cor. 9 : 25), from kyKparris (in Aristotle). Vvfivirevoi} (not yvixvri- Tiboj, Dio Chrys., Plut., Dio Cass., etc.) is found in 1 Cor. 4:11 and is from yvp,viiTris. ZiJXeue (Simplic, Democr.), not f^Xua-oj', is the correct text in Rev. 3 : 19 (so W. H. with ABC against NP). Both are from f^Xos. Qpianfievu (from dpiap,^o%) is in the literary Koivii? 'lepareliu (Lu. 1:8) is from iepeis and is found in the LXX, the Koivi] writers and the inscriptions. Meo-iTsiw (Heb. 6 : 17) is from (leaiTrjs and is found in Arist., Polyb. and papyri. Ma6riTe{j(a is from ixa3rirli% (Plut., Jambl.); oKodpevu (Heb. 11:28, LXX) is from oXeflpos (ADE read okeBpevcov in Heb. 11 : 28). In Ac. 3 : 23 k^oXedpebu is the form accepted by W. H. after the best MSS. of the LXX.^ UayiSeia (Mt. 22 : 15) is from vayls and occurs in the LXX. Hapa-jSoXeiio/iat is the correct word in Ph. 2 : 30 against CKLP which read irapa-PovXeionai. The word is from irapa-jSoXos, which has not been found in other writers, but an inscription (ii/A.D.) at Olbia on the Black Sea has the very form irapaffdkeva-anevos used by Paul (cf. Deissmann, Light, p. 84). UepTrepeiofiai. (1 Cor. 13 : 4) is made from irepTrepos and is found in » W.-M., p. 115. * Cf. BplaiiPov ela&yav, triumphum agere. Goetzeler, Einfl. d. Dion, von Ital. auf d. Sprachgeb. d. Plut., 1891, p. 203. Deiss. (Light, p. 368) gives this word (with iperii, iiovaia, Sb^a, iaxis, updros, neyaUiSrris) as proqf of a paral- lel between the language of the imperial cult and of Christianity. ' Cf. W.-M., note, p. 114. Mayser (Gr., pp. 415-509) gives a very com- plete discussion of "Stammbildung" in the Ptol. pap. WOKD-FOEMATION , 149 Antoninus. Xpria-redofiai is from xpvfros- Three verbs in -flw appear which are made from verbs in -dw and -ku, viz. akiidca (iXkbi), Kvi]do} (kvooj), vijdu {vkcS), one {vfidu) being found also in Plato Polit. (p. 289 c). Cf. modern Greek deru {TWyiiJ.i). The causative ending -oca is usually formed on noun-stems and is very common, sometimes supplanting verbs in -eica or -ifw, as &va-KaLv6ct> (Isocrates, dva/catvifo))/ avaaraToca (from apaararos, LXX, papyri. Cf . dmo-Taroi fie, ' he upsets me/ Deissmann, Light, p. 81) ; 6jcj)-mrv6i^c>i) . So KoKofiou (from KoKofios, Arist., Polyb., Diod.) ; v€Kp6cii (from vexpos, Plut., Epict., M. Aur., inscriptions); Kparauxa (LXX, eccl.), from Kparivu; aapboi (Artem., ApolL, Dysc), from aaipca (aapos); crrifieLoii} (from ariixetov, Theoph., Polyb., LXX, Philo, Dion. Hal., etc.); cdevboi (Rhet. Gr.), from adeveoi (adivoi); xapi^rou (LXX, Jos., eccl.), from xop's- Verbs in-6w do not always have the full causative idea,^ d?i6co= ' deem worthy' and 5tKai6co='deem righteous.' Verbs in -tfw do not necessarily represent repetition or inten- sity. They sometimes have a causative idea and then again lose even that distinctive note and supplant the older form of the word. Forms in -if &) are very common in modern Greek. 'Favri^u (LXX, Athen.), for instance, in the N. T. has displaced paivu, and iSaiTTifco (since Plato) has nearly supplanted /3dirTa). These verbs come from many sorts of roots and are very frequent in the N. T., as the Koivri is lavish with them. The new formations in the koiv^ appearing in the N. T. are as follows: aJpertfco (from alperos, LXX, inscriptions); aixiidXcori^ca (literary Koivij and LXX), from aix/td- XcoTos; avaJdefian^ta (LXX and inscriptions), from avadefia; avefii^o) (Jas. 1 : 6) is found in schol. on Hom. Od. 12, 336, the old form being avefiou; arevl^o} (from arevris, Arist., Polyb., Jos.); 8uyfw.Tl^o} (from deiyna) appears in apocryphal Acts of Peter and Paul; doynarl^u (from Sdypa) is in Diodorus and the LXX; kyyi^oi (from iyyis, from Polyb. and Diod. on); k^-vTvi^u (from Bttcos, LXX, Plut.); dearpi^ci} (from Bkarpov) in ecclesiastical and Byzantine writers, MeaTpi^ca being in Polybius; t/iarifw (from limtiov) is 1 Cf. Siitterlin, Zur Gesch. der Verba Denom., p. 95. * lb. 150 A GKAMMAR OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT found in Serapemn papyrus 163 B.C.; lovSat^u (from 'lovSaios) is found in the LXX and Josephus and is formed like eWrivi^u and similar ethnic terms; KoBapl^co (classic KoJBaLpu, from KoBapbs, LXX, Jos., inscriptions); KpvaToKKl^co (from kpxkttoKKos, Rev. 21:11) is still "not found elsewhere" (Thayer); liVKTripl^co (from fivKrrip, 'the nose') is in the LXX; bpdpl^ia (from 6pdpo%) is in the LXX; TreXe/cffw (from rk\eicvs) is common in literary noivii; an"i) occurs in LXX, Attic had an active o-7rXa7X''«^w; avfifiopi^o} (from a{)p.px>poi) is the correct text in Ph. 3 : 10 against (rvnnop6o3 (ElKL), though neither word is known elsewhere, perhaps coined by Paul; tpvXad^ia (from Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 302; Thumb, Handb., p. 133. ' Cf. Donaldson, New Crat., p. 615, for discussion of -itku verbs. WORD-FORMATION 151 meaning not only of the root, but of this formative suffix also when possible. The root has in most cases the strong form, as in \6yQieY)-os. These substantives are thus from the same root as the verb. With -/to-s, -fiii, expressing action, are formed in the old Greek words like dv-fi6s, n-iiri. With -^a, denoting re- sult, we find 6.vT-aT6-8o-iia (LXX, old Greek 6.vT-aT6-5o-vii (from irtWa, Ignatius and later) and ^irt-Xijo'-juoj'ii (^i-Xavfl-ayw, i.iri-'Kiia-iuav, Sirach). Xay-rivrj (LXX, Plut., Lucian) has suffix -jjyij (cf. -ovo, -ov-q, etc.). Ata- virop-b. (Sia-aireipu, LXX, Plut.) and Trpoa-evx-^ {irpoa-thx-oiiai, LXX, inscriptions) use the suffix -a (-?/). Cf. airo^pai6.^ec); IfiaTicr-ixos (from tMarifa), LXX, Theophr.,Polyb., Diod., Plut., Athen.); iretpaa-nos (from xetpdfw and common in the LXX). From verbs in -ifw we have ^aimtr-iibs (Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 62) used by Josephus of John's baptism,^ but not in the N. T. of the ordinance of baptism, save in Col. 2 : 12, in X" BD*FG 47,' 67**, 71, a Western reading rejected by W. H.; oveiSiff-iJios (Plutarch and Dion. Hal.); irapopyia-itos (not found earlier than LXX nor in mivit writers, Dion, uses irdpopyi^u) ; iropur- m6s (Sap., Polyb., Jos., Plut., Test. XII Patr.); pavna-nos (LXX); aa^^aria-iibi (Plut. and eccl. writers); (ra)0povto--/i6s (Jos., Plut., etc.); \l/i0vpi,a-ii6s (from i^tSupifo), LXX, Clem. Rom., Plut., ono- matopoetic word for the hissing of the snake). The ending -fi6s survives in literary modern Greek. Cf. Jannaris, op. cit, p. 288. The tendency to make new words in -pj6s decreased. The modem Greek vernacular dropped it (Thumb, Handbook, p. 62). Abstract nouns in -o-ts are /3tw-o-is (in Sirach, from ;8i6m); am- Kaivai-ais {ava-Kaivo-ca, Etym. M. Herm.); airavTrj-ais {air-avrk-bi, LXX, Polyb., Diod., papyri) ; diro-zcnXu^ts (LXX, Plut.) ; Axo-Kard- <7Ta-(rts (Polyb., Diod., papyri, etc.) ; diro-crra-o-to (LXX) ; kK^i]Tri-aii {kK-^riTkco, true text in 1 Tim. 1 : 4, Basil Cses., Didym.) ; hv-S6p.7i-aL% (from kv8oiJ,€(a, Jos., also ivbiip/qcni); eTrnroBri-ais (LXX, from eirt- irodiu); vTT-avTri-ais (LXX, Jos., App.). Words in -o-ts, common in Hebrews, make few new formations in the later Greek. 'Ayatrri begins to displace ayavricns (LXX, inscription in Pisidia, and papyrus in Herculaneum). Abstract nouns in -eta (W. H. -ia) are chiefly from verbs in -eiw as apeaKela (from hpeaKibca, Polyb., Diod., papyri, and usually in bad sense); kirL-wodeia (so W. H., not kiri-irodla, in Ro. 15 : 23, from kimroBkcc, probably by analogy like kiriBvixia. Not found elsewhere). 'Epieeux (from kpiBihta, Arist. pol. The verb from ipiBos, 'working for hire'); Uparda (from Uparevca, Arist. pol., Dion. Hal., LXX, inscriptions) ; Xo7eta {-La) is from \oyebb3 ('collect') and is found in inscrip- tions, ostraca, papyri (see Deissmann, Ldght, p. 105); iiedoSela (from ij,edo5tijo3, which occurs in the KOLvii, from p.kdo5os, but not the abstract noun). ' Rutherford, New Pliryii., p. 407; Donaldson, New Crat., p. 451; Light- foot on Ph. 2 : 6. ' Ant. 18. 5, 2. Cf. Sturtevant, Stud, in Gk. Noun-Formation (CI. Philol., vii, 4, 1912). For long list of derivative substantives in the Ptol. pap. see Mayser, Gr., pp. 416-447. WORD-FORMATION 153 From cKJje'iXu we have 60etXiJ (common in the papyri), b^d\rina (Plato, Arist., LXX). Words in -na (result) are more common in the later Greek and gradually take an abstract idea of -cts in modem Greek.' The new formations appearing in the N. T. are A-7j'6)j-/ia (O. T. Apoc, from ayvokxS); aWM-na. (correct text in Ac. 25 : 7, and not alTlafm), from alriaofuu. Cf. atrtcotrts in Eustathius, p. 1422, 21. This form as yet not found elsewhere); &vT\iina (from avrXkio, Plut., what is drawn, and then strangely a thing to draw with, hke avrXriT^p or avrKr/Tripiov) ; &Tr-avyacr-iJ,a (from a-iravya^ui, and this from diro and avy^, in Wisdom and Philo); aTo-cKiaa-fia (from dTToo-Ktafo), and this from aird and o-Ktd. Only in Jas. 1 : 17) ; aadkirq-tM (from acBevku, in physical sense in Arist. hist., papyri) ; j8(i7rTto--/m (from jSairrifco, "pecuhar to N. T. and ecclesiastical writers," Thayer). In ^a-KTicr-im, as distinct from PaiTTia-iJtos, the result of the act is included (cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 62); k^kpa-na (from efepdco, in Dioscor., example of the verb, cf. Lob., ad Phryn., p. 64); ^rny/ia (from fiTTao-fiaL, LXX, in ecclesiastical writers); hparev-na (from Uparevca, LXX); Kar-opdu-fw. (from KaT-opdboi, literary Koivi], as Polyb., Diod., Strabo, Jos., Plut., Lucian and 3 Mace); pairi(T-pa (from poTrifco, An- tiph., Anthol., Lucian); a-repico-na (from arepeoo}, Arist., LXX). Blass ^ calls attention to the fact that in the later Greek words in -/to, like those in -iris, -rijs, -tos, often prefer stems with a short vowel, as Sofia (Soirts), Biim (fikaii), though this form is already in the older Doric, KKt-p.a, Kpt-fia, iroixa (Attic xwjuo). Hence avajBe-fw. inN. T., though avadTina. in Lu. 21: 5 (W. H. ace. to BLQF, etc.), and in the papyri "nouns in -^ta are constantly showing short penult."' But avadefia, like defia and Sofia, belongs to the list of primary substantives. Words in -rris (agent) are fairly nmnerous, hke fiaTTur-riis (from /SoxTtfu, Jos.) ; ^laa-riis (from ;8tdf to. Pind., Pyth. and others use jStaTcis); yoyyva-TTis (from yoyyv^w, Theodotion and Symm. trans- lation of the LXX); eXXjjytcr-T^s (from eWrivi^w, not in Greek authors, though eXXi/j'tfw is, as in Xen., Anab., and Strabo, etc.);k^- opKia-ri]! (from e^-op/cifw, Jos., Lucian, eccl. writers); eiayyeXicr-rris ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 289. Thumb, Handb., p. 65. On frequency in LXX see C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 28. Cf. Frankel, Griech. Denom., 1906. " Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 62 f. For same thing in LXX {avoBtim, TpSadeiJia, dSiM, etc.) see C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 28. ' Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. 108. He instances besides iLvaBiiw. in the sense of ' curse,' Bkim, 'eivWtiia, TrpboBiixa, irpbiofm.. On avnStiia, for exx. in iii/B.c. inscr., see Glaser, De Rat., quae interc. inter serm. Polyb. etc., 1894, p. 82. 154 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (from iiiayyeKl^a, eccl. writers) ; Kepjiaria-rris (from Kepixari^u, Nicet., Max. Tyr.); koXXu/Skt-tiJs (found in Men. and Lys.) has no verb (coXXujStfoj, but only k6XXu;8os, a small coin; Xurpco-T^s (from Xurpow, LXX and Philo); nepur-riis (from fiepi^co, Pollux); irpoa-Kvvr)-riis (from TcpouKvv'tu), inscriptions, eccl. and Byz.); crraaiaa-Tiis (from o-Tafftdfw, Diod., Dion. Hal., Jos., Ptol.); TeXeiu-rris (from reXeiiw, only in Heb. 12 : 2). A few late words in -rrjp-wv (from -rijp and -to?') occur as dxpoa- riipiav (from aKpoaonai, Plut. and other koivti writers) where -rilPLov means 'place'; iXoff-r^ptoi' (from iXdcKo/iat, LXX, inscrip- tions, papyri, Dio Chrys.) is a substantive in the N. T., made probably from the adjective iKacrripios (cf. cruT^pios) and means 'propitiatory gift' or 'means of propitiation' and does not allude to the mercy seat^ or covering. However, in Heb. 9 : 5 iKaariiputv does have the meaning of 'Tplace of propitiation' or 'mercy seat' (cf. OvjiM-rrtpiov). Deissmann passed this passage by, though he is correct in Ro. 3 : 25. Cf . (jivKaKTripMv. (0) Those from substantives. Several words expressing place are formed after the fashion of the older Greek as aeSp6)v (prob- ably from the Macedonian a(l>e8pos, and that from edpa and airo) which may be compared with kotpqov; fipafietov (from /3pa/3eiis, Me- nand. Mon., 0pp., Lycoph., Clem. Rom.); k'KaLiiv (from 'ekaiov, like a/iTreK-iiv from a/ixeXos, in the LXX, Jos., inscriptions and papyri),^ with which compare pvXiiv {-uvos) in Mt. 24 : 41 accord- ing to DHM and most cursives instead of /tuXos. Moulton (The Expositor, 1903, p. Ill) has found 0LK(i)v {-S>vos), 'palm-grove,' in A. P. 31 (112 B.C.). EiSco\eiov (-lov W. H.), found first in 1 Mace, and 1 Esd., is formed after the analogy of iiovae-to-v. TeKdsviov (from TeKiivris) is found in Strabo. TerpdStoi' (Philo) is from Terpds, the usual guard in the prisons. Several new words in -njs (qual- ity) appear, as dSeX^o-rijs (from d6eX<^6s, 1 Mace, 4 Mace, Dio Chrys., eccl. writers); ded-rris (from Btos, Lucian, Plut.); /cupio-rrys 1 See Deiss., B. S., p. 131 f., where a lucid and conclusive discussion of the controversy over this word is given. See also Zeitschr. fiir neutest. Wiss., 4 (1903), p. 193. 2 Blass is unduly sceptical (Gf., p. 64). Deiss. (B. S., p. 208 f.) finds nine examples of JXaKbi'=' place of ohves' or 'oUve orchard' in vol. I of the Ber. Pap., and Moulton (Exp., 1903, p. Ill; Prol., p. 49) has discovered over thirty in the first three centuries a.d. In Ac. 1 : 12 it is read by aU MSS. and is correct in Lu. 19 : 29 (ag. W. H.) and 21 : 37 (ag. W. H.). 'EXatajy is right in Lu. 19:37, etc. In Lu. 19 : 29; 21 : 37, question of accent. Cf. also i.fnre\iiv (from i/iTcKos, LXX, Diod., Plut.) which is now found in the pap. WORD-FORMATION 155 (from /ciipios, originally adj., eccl. and Byz. writers). '2vpo-oi.vlKi.(r(ra is the text of KAKL, etc., in Mk. 7 : 26 as against Supa ^oivkuraa in BEFG, etc. In either case oivlKLaaa, not tfrnivuKra (Text. Rec.) which is the usual feminine of 4>oivi^, as KlXtero-a is of KiXtf. Lucian has a masculine Supo^otvif and Justin Martyr a feminine XvpocjxnuUri. From this last (ftoivlKia-a-a probably comes. Cf. the use of ^aa'CKujaa, the Atticists preferring ^acriKls or /SairiXeia. 'HpcoS-tapos (from 'HpcbSTjs) and Xpto-r-iaj'os (from XpurrSs) first appear in the N. T., and are modelled after Latin patronymics like Caesarianus (Kaiaap-LavSs, Arrian-Epictetus). Blass' goes im- necessarily far in saying that the N. T. form was XpriaT-iavos (from Xpricrds), though, of course, i and ri at this time had little, if any, distinction in pronunciation. MeyiaTav is from fikyurros (as viav from vtos). Cf. Latin megistanes. Meyiarav is found in LXX, Jos., Maneth. nXij/i/iiipa (LXX, Dion. Hal., Jos., Philo) is from Tkrififir]. There was, of course, no "Christian" or "biblical" way of forming words. Diminutives are not so common in the N. T. as in the Byzan- tine and modem Greek^ where diminutives are very numerous, losing often their original force. Bi;3XapiStoj' (a new form, but compare 'Ki.6api8uiv) is read in Rev. 10 : 2 by NACP against /StjSXtSdpioj' (fragment of Aristoph.) according to C* and most of the cursives and /3t/3Xioj' (by B). Variations occur also in the text of verses 8, 9, 10. TwaiKaptov (from yvvri) is used contemptuously in 2 Tim. 3 : 6 (also in Antonin. and Epict.). 'Ix6v8lov (from iX^us), kKiv'iSiov and KKuvapvov (from kKIvii) occur from Aristoph. on. Kopdffioj' (from Koprj, called Maced. by Blass) is used disparagingly in Diog. Laert. and Lucian, but in LXX and Epict. as in the N. T. that is not true, though it hardly has the endearing sense (some- times found in the diminutive) in Kwapiov (K6i'es = ' street-dogs'), but that sense appears often in TaLSlov as in Jo. 21 : 5. 'Ovapiov (from 6vos) is found in Machon and Epictetus. 'OtpapLov (from &\l/ov) is found in Alexis and Lucian, and 6\f/6}vu)v (likewise from o^'ov) is used by Dion., Polyb., Jos., Apocrypha and papyri. Ilre- • Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 63. Cf. Lipsius, Ursp. des Christennamens, 1873. W.-Sch. (p. 135) suggests that these two words are not after the Lat. model, but after the type of 'Ao-iacis, which was foreign to the European Greeks. But 'Aamvds (from 'Atria) is in Thucyd. and besides is not parallel to Xpiards, XpurT-Mvds. Cf. Eekinger, Die Orthog. lat. Worter in griech. Inschr., 1893,, p. 27. 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 292; Thumb, Haadb., p. 62. 156 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT piyiov (from irrkpy^) comes from Arist. down, but ^txtov (from ^i|) does not appear elsewhere. Both dirapiov {Anthol., Anax.) and ftjTtoj' (LXX) are from oSs, but have lost the diminutive idea, just as iiari. in modern Greek means merely 'eye' {bny.aTu>v) . Blass* indeed accuses Luke of atticising when he uses ovs in Lu. 22 : 50. (7) Those from adjectives. The new substantives derived from adjectives in the later Greek found in the N. T. all have suffixes expressing quality. With -la we find dxo-ro/t-ia (from airo-rofios, Diod., Dion., pap.); kXacjipla (from k\a4p6s, cf. Lob., ad Phryn., p. 343. Cf. aiaxp-la from aiaxpos, Eust.); irapai^pov-ia (from Trapo- ijipuv. Greek writers use -Kapa^po-cvvit, but cf. eiiSaipav-la from ei- SalpMv). So -Kepicrada (from irepurabs, LXX, inscriptions, Byz.). W. H. use the ending -la with micoTrajBe-ia (from KaKoiraSris). With -aivri several new words occur from adjectives in -os with the lengthening of the preceding vowel, as ayadcc-adpTi (from d.yaJ36s, eccl.) ; ayiM-avvn (from a-yios, not in earlier Greek writers) ; lieya'Koi-avvri (from stem fieyaXo of /xkryas, LXX and eccl.). These forms are like iepca-avvq from lepos (also in N. T.) which is as old as Serod. and Plato. Still fieyaXo-avvrj and hpo-ahvri are both found in inscriptions or in Glycas.^ Most of the words in -abvri belong to the later language.' 'EXerjfio-avvri (from iXernxuv, Callim. in Del., Diog. Laert., LXX), like other words in -auvri, loses the v. So 7aTruvo-(j>po-(Tvvri (Jos., Epict.). Rather more numerous are the new words in -t?js,* as ayLo-rris (from a7ios, 2 Mace); ayvS-rris (from ayvos, inscriptions); ciStjXo- Tjjs (from aSijXos, Polyb., Dion. Hal., Philo) ; a^eKo-rtis (from a(j}e\'l]s, eccl. writers, ancient Greek a^^Xeta) ; yv/xvo-Tris (from yvp,- vos, Deut., Antonin.); /iarati-riys (from liaravos, LXX and eccl. writers); layaKevo-rijs (from iieyoKeios, Athen., Jer.); ttw-ttjs (from wluv, Arist., Theophr., LXX). 'AKaSap-rris (Rev. 17:4) is not supported by any Greek MSS. The neuter (and often the masculine and feminine) of any ad- jective can be used as a substantive with or without the article, as TO 3oKLiJ,Lov (from doKl/uos, Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 259 f., Dion. Hal., Long., LXX, papyri). Like p,ed6piov (the Syrian reading for opia in Mk. 7 : 24) is irpoa^ayuiv {vpoa-^ayios, -ov from irpoo'-^a- 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 63. " Cf. W.-Sch., p. 124, n. 14. On the termination -aivTi see Aufrecht, Ber. Zeitschr. fiir vergl. Sprachf ., 6. Heft. 3 W.-M., p, 118, n. 1. ^ On words in -ttjs see Lob. ad Phryn., p. 350; Biihler, Das griech. Secun- darsuflBx Tijs, 1858; Frankel, Gesoh. d. Gr. Nom. Ag. (1910). WORD-FORMATION 157 7611', inscriptions), v\aK- riipiov is the neuter of the adjective ^vhiK-ritpvoi, —a, -ov (from 4)v\a,KTiip, (l)v\6.ei5oiJ,ai) is not yet foimd elsewhere than in 1 Cor. 2 : 4, but Blass^ regards it as "a patent corruption," Trei^oTs for ireidoi. The evidence is in favour of ireiJBoZs (all the uncials, most cursives and versions). $6,yos (from root (j)aj-) is a substantive in the N. T. with paroxy- tone accent as in the grammarians, the adjective being (jiay-os. The other new adjectives from roots in the N. T. are verbals in -Tos. There is only one verbal (gerundive) in -rkos (Lu. 5 : 38, elsewhere only in Basil), and that is neuter {^XriTiov), "a survival of the Uterary language in Luke."^ The sense of capability or possibility is only presented by the verbal iraJdrj-Tds (from root ToS-, 7rdeiS6ix€vos, Plut., Mosch., Alex.) is a new word of this nature. Cf. 6iw\oyovp.kvcos in the older Greek. So tvxov, bvrcas and inrepPa\\6v- Tws. The neuter accusative singular and plural of adjectives con- tinue to be used adverbially. Badkm occurs also in Theoc. and ^lian. 'Akhtiv (Theoc, Polyb., Strabo) is in the inscriptions also as well as ev dK/iat (cf. Ditt., Syll. 326, 12). 'EPpaCaH (Sirach) is properly formed (cf. 'EWrimffTi) from E|3pats. 'IouSoikcos is in Jos. See also kdvLKcis (ApoU. Dysc, Diog. Laert.). Etrev (correct text Mk. 4 : 28) is a rare Ionic form for dra (papyri also). KevSis is used from Arist. on. 'OXt7cos occurs out of the N. T. only ia Anthol. and Aquila. Ilptbr&js (correct text Ac. 11 : 26) occurs here for the first time. Tt/tws is found in Polyb., Strabo, Plut. 'Fuiialari is common in the literary kolv^ (Plut., App., etc.) and in Epictetus. XcanariKccs comes from Aristotle and Plutarch. TviriKus is in the ecclesiastical writers. ^vatKus is in Aristotle, Philo, etc. Mayser {Or., pp. 455^59) has a good list of deriva- tive adverbs. See ch. VII for full discussion of the formation of the adverb. IV. Words Fonned by Composition (Composita). The Greek in the Ptolemaic papyri is not equal to modem German in the facility with which agglutinative compound words (St-rXa Aris- totle termed them) are formed, but it is a good second. The N. T. writers make use of many of the new compounds (some new kinds also), but not more than the literary kolvti, though more than the Atticists or Purists.^ The following lists will show how fond the N. T. is of double prepositional compounds Uke dvT-am-TrXjjpoco, &iro-KaT-a\\acr(TTos (2 Mace, eccl. writers, inscriptions, papyri); d-KaTa-KdXuxTos (Polyb., LXX, Philo); a-Kara-KpiTos (earliest example); d-xard- \vTos (4 Mace, Dion. Hal.); d-KaTd-iroo-Tos (found only here. 162 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT This is the reading of AB in 2 Pet. 2 : 14 rather than a-Kark- irauffTos, verbal of Karairaijca, found in Polyb., Diod., Jos., Plut., cf. W. H., App., p. 170; Moulton, Prol., p. 47); a-KaTa-araala (Polyb., Dion. Hal., papyri); a-KaTa-araTOi (Hippoc, Polyb., LXX); L-KaTa-axtTos (LXX, Diod.); A-Kup6cd (Diod., Dion. Hal., Plut., 1 Esdr.); d-XdX?7Tos (Anth. Pal.); a-iiWvaTos (LXX, Dion. Hal., Plut.); &.-m™-6eTo% (Polyb., LXX, Diod., Plut., inscriptions); a-ziera-j'OTjTos (Lucian, Philo, papyri); kv-avri-fytiTos (from Polyb. down, inscriptions); av-aTro-\6yriTos (Polyb., Dion. Hal., Plut.); av-€K-8L-iiyriTos (Clem. Rom., Athen.); dy-k-XatxTos (Diod., Plut., papyri); av-kv-8eKTos (Artem., Diog. Laert., eccl., Byz.); dy-ej- epevvriTos (LXX, Symm., Dio Cass.); av-e^-ixvlaaTos (LXX, eccl. writers); 6.v-eir-aiaxvvTos (Jos.); kv-dj-Beros (Moschion); av-'CKtoK (reading in Jas. 2 : 13 of L, other MSS. have dv-eXeos, old Greek dv-ijXeiJs) ; a-voiu)% (LXX, a-vofila from Thuc.) ; av-wrb-raKTos (Artem., Philo); d-7rapd-/3aTos (Jos., Plut., papyri, etc.); k-TrdpaaTo% (Jos., eccl., old Greek a-velparos); k-vepl-TivqTos (LXX, Philo, Plut.); a-Trpoa-iTos (lit. Koiurj) ; d-jrpocr-Koxos (Sir., Sext., inscriptions) ; a-ptutxK (LXX, Jos.) ; a-(rxtXos {AnthoL, eccl.) ; a-araTko} (Anthol.) ; a-aroxiio (Polyb., Plut., Lucian, papyri); a-ariipiKTos (Anthol.); a-iftikbrtis (eccl. writers) ; a-8apTos (Arist., Wisd., Plut., inscriptions) ; d-iX- ayoBos (papyri and 2 Tim. 3:3); a-(t>i-\-apyvpos (Diod., Hippoc, inscriptions, papyri).^ With dpxt- (from apxo}) we have dpx-d77€Xos (eccl.); apx-iipa- TLKos (inscr., Jos.); apx-^epevs (LXX, inscr.) ; dpxi-iroi/i^»' (Test, of 12 Patr., wooden tablet from Egypt, Deissmann, Exp. Times, 1906, p. 61); A-pxt-cTw-ayoiyos (inscr., eccl.); dpxt-reXtbw/s (only in Lu. 19:2); dpxt-rpi-KXti'os (Heliod., cf. (n;;uxo(n-dpx5?s in Sirach). Cf. apxi-^vXaKLTTis, P.Tb. 40 (B.C. 117), apxi.-SearfiO-v\a^ (LXX). With d- connective or intensive are formed k-vej/ub^ (for d-vex- Ti6s, LXX, cf. Lat. con-nepot-ius), a-revl^co (Polyb., Diod., Jos., Lucian)." With 8va- we have dva-PkaraKTo^ (LXX, Philo, Plut.); Suc- evripiov (late form, correct text in Ac. 28 : 8, older form dva-evrepia) ; 1 Cf. Hamilton, The Neg. Comp. in Gk., 1899. "The true sphere of the negative prefix is its combination with nouns, adjectives and verbal stems to form adjective compounds" (p. 17). Cf. also Margarete Heine, Subst. mit a privativum. Waok. (Verm. Beitr. zur griech. Sprachk., 1897, p. 4) suggests that jiStjs is from &el and -Se, not from d- and ISelv. Ingenious! Cf. Wack. again, Das Dehnungsgesetz der griech. Composita, 1889. " Cf. on A- connective or intensive, Don., New Crat., p. 397. Also Doder- lein, De S.\0Tp6iq(ra>, fl kievoSoxVf (1 Tim. 5 : 10). So in/ziiXajipovtlp (text of W. H. in 6 : 17). 164 A GKAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (Philo, eccl. writers) ; &,vTL-Trap-ipxo-tMi. {Anthol., Sap., eccl. writers, Byz.) ; avT-o(t>6a\iJ.ico (Sap., Polyb., eccl. writers) ; air-eKirL^u (LXX, Polyb., Diod., inscriptions); Liro-jpa^oiMi. (papyri); aTro-Brjcravpi^o} (Sir., Diod., Jos., Epict.); dxo-Ke^aXifo) (LXX, Epict., etc.); aW^ ivrkco (Polyb., papyri); yovv-Trereca (Polyb., Heliod., eccl. writers); dM-yvcapi^o) (Philo, schol. in Bekk.); Sia-^oyyv^co (LXX, Heliod., Byz.); 8M-ypriyopka} (Herod., Niceph.); St-avya^u (Polyb., Plut.); Sia-tfyrtiii^u (Aratus, Dion. Hal.); di-epfiijveiju (2 Mace, Polyb., Philo) ; di-odeiioi (LXX, Polyb., Plut.) ; dovX-ayoyyeu (Diod. Sic. and on); elprivo-iroiba (LXX, Hermes); kK-SaTravaw (Polyb.); k-Six^w (LXX, ApolL, Diod.); hfi-^aTeico (inscr.); ev-Kaivi^u (LXX); ev- KOKEO) (Polyb., Symm. translation of LXX, Philo, Clem. Rom.); kv-xp'iM (Tob., Strabo, Anthol, Epict.); e^-aprtfco (Jos., Hipp.); k^-iaxw (Sir., Strabo, Plut.); km-aKtivoui (Polyb.); kn-tjiaiiaKO} (LXX, Acta Thom.) ; kin-xofyriyko} (Dion. Hal., Phal., Diog. Laert., Alex. Aphr.); eTepo^i5a (only instance in 2 Tim. 2 : 14) ; naKpo-dvuba, (LXX, Plut.) ; niB-epfiriveica (Polyb., Diod., Sir., Plut.); /*€Ta-Aiop<^6&) (Diod., Philo); ixeTpio-iraJBeu (Philo, Jos.) ; noaxo-TTodo} (LXX and eccl. writers) ; /iu-coirdf to (Arist.) ; oiko- Seairorko} (Lucian, Plut.) ; 6p.elpofiaL is a puzzle (Fritzsche derives it from 6p.ov and e'ipo;, but other compounds with biwv have instru- mental-associative, not genitive case, as dnL-\koi, from o/^iXos (6/ioO, iXt;); Photius and Theophr. get it from dfiov ripp,6adai; but, as Nicander uses pAponai luelponai, modem editors print o/iei- pSfievoL in 1 Th. 2 : 8 (o-, W. H., elsewhere only in Job and Symm., Ps. 62) ; 6p6o-Tro5kw (only instance) ; bpdo-Toixkca (LXX, eccl. WORD-FOEMATION 165 writers) ; dx^o-iroLku (only in Ac. 17:5); irapa-^oKthonai (inscr. ii/A.D.); irap-euT-kpxoimL (Polyb., Philo, Plut.); Trept-Xd/iTTO) (Diod., Jos., Plut.) ; ir\T)po-4)opk(ji (LXX, eccl. writers) ; rpo-eK-irl^co (Posid., Dexipp., Greg. N.); irpoc-eYyl^o} (LXX, Polyb., Diod., Lucian); irpoa-KKtipbtj} (Philo, Plut., Lucian) ; irpoaoiTo-Xquirrkco (N. T. word) ; a-vv-av^Lvu (LXX, inscriptions); crw-aToariXKoi (LXX, papyri, in- scriptions); (TTparo-'Koyeco (Diod., Dion. Hal., Jos., Plut., etc.); (Tvv-vTo-KpivonaL (Polyb., Plut.) and many other verbs with (tw; TeKTO-yovko (Anthol.); T€Kvo-Tpo(^kci} (Arist.); Terpa-aprxJesa (Jos.); TpoTro-4>opici> (LXX and eccl. writers, so W. H. with NBDHLP, etc., in Ac. 13 : 18) ; Tpo(j)o-pev-aTraTaM (eccl. and Byz. writers) ; xpovo-rpifibi) (Arist., Plut., Hehod., Byz. writers). Thus, it will be noticed, verbs compounded with nouns are very common in the Koiv^. Often two prepositions are used in composition with the same verb, where the proper meaning must be given to each. The use of double prepositional compounds grew rapidly in the koivti; cf. Schmid, Att. IV, pp. 708 S. Mayser gives a long list in the Ptol. papyri (Gr., pp. 497-504), some of which are old and some new. Of 162 examples 96 are new. The N. T. is in perfect accord with the Koi-vfi here. So it is with avTi-Trap-kpxomi- {Anthol., Wisdom, eccl. and Byz. writers) in Lu. 10 : 31; a.vT-ava-^\'ripbia in Col. 1 : 24 (Dem., Dio Cass., ApoU. Dysc); avTi-dia-TWrini, (Philo, Diod.); ATO-JcaT-aXXatrffo) (nOt in old Greek), e7n-dui-Ta<7(rqfiaL (only in N. T.); kn-(Tvv-a.yco (LXX, ^sop, Polyb.); Kar-e^-ovaia^oi (only in N. T.); 7rap-eicr-€pxo/iat (Polyb., Philo, Plut.); ■Kpo-ev-kpxop.a.i (only in N. T.); aw-ava-filyvvfiL (LXX, Plut.); aw-ava-ravonai. (LXX, Dion. Hal., Plut.); cw-avTi-Xan^avofuu. (LXX, Diod., Jos., inscrip- tions, papyri); inrep-eK-xivco (LXX); virep-ev-rvyxa-vcij (eccl.). There is in the papyri (P. Tb. I, 66) a triple prepositional compound, irpo-avT-av-aipba. 2. Substantives. Here again the new compound substantive draws on verbs, substantives, adjectives, adverbs and preposi- tions for part or all of the word. There are also double compound substantives from compound substantives, adjectives, adverbs and prepositions like irpocbJiroKruxij/'M, ixXKoTpLewiaKoiros, hianrapaTpi^i). The great majority have substantive or adjective for the second half of the word. These nouns are more often abstract than concrete. ' kyoBo-iroda (from adjective and verb-stem, eccl. writers); hyaBo- 166 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 7roi6s (adjective and verb-stem, Sirach, Plut. and later papyri); &ypi-k\aLOi (from aypios and ?\aios, Arist.); alfiar-eK-xvcrla (from substantive, preposition and verb xhvu, eccl. writers) ; aKpo-^va-ria (LXX) ; aXiKTopo-cjuovla (^sop, Strabo, eccl. writers) ; dXXorpt-eirt- a-KOTos (from dXX6rpios and 'eiri-aKoiros, Dion. Areop., eccl. writers. Deissmann finds a synonym for the word in iiSKoTpUav hnBvp.7}- Tijs, Faytoi Papyri. See Bible Studies, p. 224)^ aix^-o5ov (LXX, Aristoph., Hyper., papyri); dva-Setfts (Sir., Polyb., Plut.); ava- ffTpocjir] in the ethical sense (LXX, Polybius on, inscriptions in Pergamum and Magnesia) ; ava-xv- ^uXa? (Jos., Lucian, Artem., apxi'-Sev\ou (Clem, of Rome, N. T. Apoc); St/cixio- Kpurla (Test, xii Pat., eccl.J papyri); Soipo-^pla is read by MSS. BDFG against haKovla in Ro. 15 : 31 ; i9e\o-dprip (papyri; cf. Deiss- mann, Light, p. 90; Radermacher, Gr., p. 15); KaTd-Xu/*a (LXX, WORD-FORMATION 167 Polyb., Diod.); Kara-irkravtM (LXX, Jos., Aristeas, Philo, inscrip- tions); ww-So^io (4 Mace, Polyb., Philo, Plut., Lucian); koo-^io- Kp&Tup (Orph., eccl. writers, inscriptions); Kcofio-voXis (Strabo, Ag. and Theod., eccl.); 'Koyo-fw.xla (only in 1 Tim. 6:4); naraio-Xoyia (Plut., Porph.); iitao-vhK-riov (Arist., LXX, Koivi} writers); lucb- TOLXov (Erat.); fiea-ovpavrifia (Manetho, Plut.); ner-omeala, (LXX, Anthol^) iiiaB-wKo-hoala and -Sottjs (eccl.); /iwpo-Xo7ta (Arist., Plut.); yo/io-StSdo-zcaXos (eccl.); vvxO^iiepov (Alex., App., Geop.); oiKo-deairdrris (Alexis, Jos., Plut., Ign., etc.); olKo-Sofiii (possibly Arist., Theophr., certainly LXX, Diod., Philo, Jos., Plut., con- demned by Phrynichus); oIvo-tottis (Polyb., LXX, Anthol., Anacr.); oKiyo-^iarla (eccl. and Byz.); SKo-Khjpia (LXX, Diog. Laert., Plut.); dpK-cotwiria. (LXX, Jos., to, opK-osfidaia in Attic); bpo-deaia (eccl.); 6^eaX;uo-SouXta (only instance is in N. T.); ToKtv-yeviaia (Philo, Longin., Lucian, Plut.); iravTo-KpaToop (LXX, eccl., Anthol.); irapa-KXjjros (Aq. Theod., Diog. Laert., Dio Cass., papjT:i, inscriptions); irapa-xeifULaia (Polyb., Diod.); xoTpi-dpxijs (LXX); irepi-Biais (Arr., Gal., Sext.); Ttpi-Kad-ap/ia (LXX, Epict., Curt.); 7repi-ox^ (Theophr., Diod., Plut., etc.); irepi.-ToiJ,-li (LXX, Jos., papyri) ; irepi-\l/rifm (Tob., Ign.) ; Tpav-iraBla (Philo, Ign.) ; irpo- a{i\iov (Pollux); xpo-crdj3j3aTOV (LXX, eccl.); irpoo--aiTj;s (lit. kolvti); irpbc-Konim, (LXX, Plut.); irpoc-KaprkpaidK (inscriptions, 81 a.d.); Tpoff-KwriTTis (inscriptions, eccl., Byz.); irptxr-^Kiyvov (inscriptions, c4/ov 'Attikcos, irpo(r-4>b/yix>v "EXXiji'ikSs, Moeris); Tpoatairo-XiifnrTris (Chrys.); TrpoaooTO-Xrujol/ia (eccl.) ; TpuTO-KaOedpla (eccl.; irpwTO-KKicia (eccl. writers) ; irpcoTo-Toua (LXX, Philo, Byz.) ; pafiS-ovxos (pd/35os, exw, literary KOiv^); padi-obp'yrip.a (literary Koivij, eccl.); aapB-ow^ (Jos., Plut., Ptol.) ; (TiTo-fieTpiov ( Polyb., Diod., Jos., inscriptions) ; (TKtjvo-Trrj'yia (Arist., LXX, Philo, inscriptions); cKijj'o-Troios (^han, eccl.); aKXripo-Kapdla (LXX); uTpa.To-Tc'tS-apxos, — dpxijs (reading of Syrian class in Ac. 28 : 16), though critical text rejects both (Dion. Hal., Jos., Lucian) ; (rvKo-fnopia (Geop.) ; various new words with (Tvv, like o^ (Arist., Plut.); eirt-9amTtos (Dion. Hal.); kin-TodriTos (eccl.); iT€p6-y\o}a- (Tos (LXX, Strabo, Philo); ev-apearos (Wisd., eccl., inscr., but Xen. has eiapkarois) ; eii-jcoxos (Polyb., LXX); eu-Xo^ijTos (LXX, Philo); ev-fiera-SoTos (Anton.); eu-xdp-eSpos (for Text. Rec. £u-7rp6o-- eSpos, Hesych.) ; eii-Tepi-araTos (only in Heb. 12:1); ei-wpoaStKTos (Plut., eccl.); evpv-xojpoi (Arist., LXX, Diod., Jos.); ei5-(77rXa7x''os (Hippoc, LXX, eccl. writers); deo-BldaKTos (eccl.); deo-TrvevcrTos (Plut., Phoc, eccl. writers, inscriptions); io--d77eXos (cf. laS-deos, WORD-FOEMATION 169 Philo, eccl.); lao-TLfios (cf. la6-\pvxos, Philo, Jos., Plut., Lucian, jElia, etc.) ; KoBijiiepivos (from koB' i\nkpav, Judith, Theophr., Athen., Plut., Alciph., Jos.); /car-eiS&jXos (only in Ac. 17:16); /cevo-SoJos (Polyb., Diod., Philo, Anton., eccl. writers); Xa-feuros (LXX); XeiT-oup-yt/cos (LXX, eccl. writers); naKpo-xpovios (LXX, Hipp., Agath.); juaTaio-X67os (Telest.); /«)7i-XaXos (LXX, schol. to Lucian); yeo-^uros (LXX, papyri, Aristophanes?); oKTa-^ixepos (eccl. writers); 6Xi76-7ri(rTos (only in N. T.); d\iy6-^vxos (LXX, Artem.); 6Xo-r«X^s (Plut., Hexapla, eccl. writers); irav-ovpyos (Arist., KOLvii, LXX); Trapa-XuriKos (eccl. writers); Trap-elcr-aKTOS (Strabo); Tap-eirL-dT]fws (Polyb., Athen., LXX); irarpo-wapa-doTos (Diod., Dion. Hal., eccl. writers); irevTe-Kat-SkKaros (Diod., Plut., etc.); :roXXa-7rXao-ta)j' (Polyb., Plut., etc.); xoX{i-(r7rXa7X''''s (LXX, Theod. Stud.); irdXi-TL/ws (Plut., Herodian, Anthol.); woraiw- 6priTos (only in Rev. 12 : 15 and Hesych.); irpo-fiaTiKos (from irpo-^aTov, LXX, Jo. 5:2); irpoa-Kaipo^ (4 Macc, Jos., Dio Cass., Dion. Hal., Strabo, Plut., Herodian); Tpo-ppi]v, LXX, Plut.); rpi-areyos (Dion. Hal., Jos., Symm.); 4>Biv-0Tr(apt.vbs (Arist., Polyb., Strabo, Plut.); i\-ayadbs (Arist., Polyb., Wisd., Plut., Philo); l\-avTo% (Arist., Philo, Plut., Jos., Sext.); 4>iK-T)bovos (Polyb., Plut., Lucian, etc.); 4>CKb-Btoi (Arist., Philo, Lucian, etc.); pev-aTra.Tr]s (eccl. writers); x^'P-iT'^Tos (Artem., Plut., etc.); x^i-po-t^oItjtos (LXX, Polyb., Dion. Hal., papyri); xP^ao-SaKrvXios (Jas. 2 :2, elsewhere only in Hesych.). It will be apparent from this list how many words used in the N. T. appear first in Aristotle or the literary koiv^. Aris- totle was no Atticist and broke away from the narrow vocab- ulary of his contemporaries. Many of these late words are found in the papyri and inscriptions also, as is pointed out. But we must remember that we have not learned all that the papyri and inscriptions have to teach us. Cf. also the numeral adjective SeKa-rkcrffapei (LXX, Polyb., papyri).^ See further chapter VII, Declensions. 4. Adverbs. The late Greek uses many new adverbs and new kinds of adverbs (especially compounds and prepositional ad- verbs). For list of the new prepositional adverbs see chapter on 1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 70. 170 A GKAMMAK OF THE GEEBK NEW TESTAMENT prepositions. These are usually formed either from adjectives like kv-iiTLov (neuter of ei'-coTrios) or by composition of preposition and adverb as in irmp-avai, or preposition and adjective as ia k-xe- ptc-o-oO, or two or more prepositions (prepositional adverbs as in aT-ev-avTi), or a preposition and a noun-root as in diro-T6/jws, or a sub- stantive and a verb as in TOw-exSs, or an adjective and a substan- tive as in Tav-rXridei, or an adjective and an adverb as in irav-rore, or a preposition and a pronoun as in k^-avrrjs. In a word, the com- pound, adverb is made from compound adjectives, substantives, verbs with all sorts of combinations. The Kot-vq shows a distinct turn for new adverbial combinations and the N. T. illustrates it very clearly. Paul, especially, doubles his adverbs as in iirep- €K-TepuT(Tov. These adverbs are generally formed by parathetic composition and are used as prepositions in the later Greek, in- correctly so according to Blass.^ But it must be remembered that the Kowii developed according to its own genius and that even the Atticists could not check it. In Luke irav-irKrid^l (Lu. 23 : 18) and irav-oLKei (Ac. 16 : 34) are not derived from adjectives or previous adverbs, but from substantives (perhaps assoc. instr.). As to the use of adverbs as prepositions, all prepositions were originally adverbs (cf. kv-avrlou). In the later language we simply can see the process of development in a better state of preservation. No magical change has come over an adverb used with a case. It is merely a helper of the case-idea and is part of the analytic linguistic development. The chief compoimd adverbs used in the N. T. characteristic of the KOLvii are here given. As the list of adverbs is much smaller than those of verbs, substantives and adjectives, compounds with d- privative are included here. 'A-Sta-XeiirTcos (Polyb., Diod., Strabo, 1 Mace, papyri) ; ava-fiea-ov and &,va.-fiepos is the Text. Rec. in Eev. 7 : 17 and 1 Cor. 14 : 27, but this is not the modem edit- ing, rather ava pkcov, etc.; av-avn-priToos (Polyb., etc.); avTi-rspa (Ken. avTi-irtpav, Polyb., etc.); aT-kvavTi (Polyb., LXX, papyri and inscriptions) ; d-Trepi-o-Trdo-Tws (Polyb., Plut.) ; airo-rofuas (Polyb., Diod., Wisd., Longin.); S7i\-avyS>s (so NCLA in Mk. 8 : 25 for TrjX-avy&s) ; Sta-jrairos is the way Griesbach and Tisch. print 3td iravros; ex-TraXai (Philo and on, inscriptions); k-reySs (Polyb., LXX, inscriptions); iv-avn (LXX, inscriptions); h-6iiriov (Theoc, LXX, papyri); k^-ainva (LXX, Jamb., Byz.); k^-avTfjs (Theogn., Arat., Polyb., Jos., etc.); ict>-a.Ta^ (Lucian, Dio Cass.; 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 65. Cf. Mayser's Gr., pp. 485 ff. Jaonaris, § 1490. WOKD-FOKMATION 171 etc.); Kad-e^fji (^lian, Plut.); Kar-kv-avri (LXX, Hermas); mr- tv-iainov (LXX) ; wiiy-excos (Arist., Polyb.) ; irav-ifkqdei (Dio Cass.) ; ■Kav-oiKii (rejected by the Atticists for iravoLKli}. [LXX], Plato Eryx., Philo, Jos.) ; Trav-Tore (Sap., Menand., Dion. Hal;, condemned by the Atticists for eKkaTOTi); irap-eKros (LXX); 7rpoo--<^aT&)s (LXX, Polyb., Alciph.); {nrep-avoi (Arist., LXX, Polyb., Jos., Plut., etc.); bmp-kKtiva (Byz. and eccL); virep-eK-irepLacrov (Dan. 2:22, Aid., Compl.) ; {nrep-€K-ir€pi.(r(rws (T, W. H. marg. 1 Th. 5 : 13, Clem. Rom.); inrep-Klav (Eust.); virep-Trepuracos (only Mk. 7 : 37). , There are two ways of writing some of these compound adverbs, either as single words or as two or more words. The editors differ as to Sta iravTos, e0' aira^, eK-7rdXai, koB' fnxipav, Ka6' S\ov, vrip kKtiva, etc. The editors do as they wish about it. These compound adverbs were still more numerous in the Byzantine writers.' For further list of verbs compounded with prepositions see "Language of the N. T." by Thayer, in Hastings' D. B. The KOivi} was fond of compound words, some of which deserve the term sesquipe- dalian, like KaToUvvaaTeiioi, awavTiXafifiavofuu, etc. We must not for- get that after all these modem words from Aristotle onwards are only a small portion of the whole. Kennedy {Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 62) claims that only about 20 per cent, of the words in the N. T. are post-Aristotehan. Many of this 20 per cent, reach back into the past, though we have no record as yet to observe. The bulk of the words in the N. T. are the old words of the ancients, some of which have a distinct classic flavour, literary and even poetic, like aiadrjT'fipiov, iroXuwoixtXos. See list in Thayer's article in Hastings' D. B., Ill, p. 37. These lists seem long, but will repay study. They are reason- ably complete save in the case of verbs compounded with preposi- tions and substantives so compounded. As a rule only words used by Aristotle and later writers are given, while Demosthenes is not usually considered, since he was more purely Attic. V. Personal Names Abbreviated or Hjrpocoristic. The chap- ter on Orthography will discuss the pecuharities of N. T. proper names in general. Here we are concerned only with the short names formed either from longer names that are preserved or from names not preserved. This custom of giving short pet- names is not a peculiarity of Greek alone. It belonged, moreover, to the early stages of the language and survives still.^ It was used not merely with Greek names, but also with foreign names brought into the Greek. It is proof of the vernacular Koivii in the N. T. ' W.-M., p. 127. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 293. 172 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Cf. English "Tom" and "Will." Many of these abbreviated names are compound also, as ZTji/as for Zrivo-Supos (Tit. 3 : 13). Of the various forms used in these abbreviated names only three occur in the N. T., -as, -ijs, -«s. The great majority belong to -as or -ds.^ 'A/xvMas (or -las) is the reading of the Western and Syrian classes in Ro. 16:8 for 'A/i:rXiaTos (Latin Ampliatus); 'AvSpkas is, according to Blass,^ "a genuine old Greek form," while SchmiedeP thinks it can come from 'AvSpofieSris; 'Avrixas is a contraction of 'AvTlirarpos (Rev. 2 : 13) (found in inscription iii/A.D. at Pergamum*); 'AiroXXws may be* a con- traction for 'AxoXXcbi/tos, is the reading of D in Ac. 18 : 24, though N 15, 180 read 'AireXX^s here, while 'AxeXX^s is read by all MSS. in Ro. 16 : 10 (cf . Doric 'ATreXXas in inscriptions, PAS, ii, 397) ; 'Aprefids (Tit. 3 : 12) is an abbreviation of 'AprefiiSospos; Ajj/ios (Col. 4 : 14; Phil. 24; 2 Tim. 4 : 10) is probably an abbreviation of Ajj/i^Tpios, though Ajj/xeas and Arjuapxas are both possible, not to mention Arip,apaTos, ArifidSonos; 'Exa^pSs (Col. 1:7; 4 : 12; Phil. 23) may (Ramsay so takes it. Expositor, Aug., 1906, p. 153. Cf. genitive 'E7ra<^paSos, PAS, iii, 375) or may not be a con- traction of 'ETract>p65iTos (Ph. 2 : 25; 4 : 18), but it does not follow that, if true, the same man is indicated in Ph. and Col.; "Ep/iSs (Ro. 16 : 14) is from the old Doric form contracted from "Ep- juoSwpos; 'Epufjs (Ro. 16 : 14) may be merely the name of the god given to a man, though Blass doubts it^; Zrjvds (Tit. 3 : 13) is from ZrivoSupos; QevSds (Ac. 5 : 36) is possibly a contraction of GeoScopos; 'lovvias (sometimes taken as feminine 'lovvia, Ro. 16 : 7) may be 'lovvids as contraction of 'lowLavos; KXeoTras (Lu. 24 : 18) is apparently a contraction of KXeoirarpos; AoukSs (Col. 4 : 14; Phil. 24; 2 Tim. 4 : 11) is a contraction of AovKavos and of Aovklos''; Nu/i^Ss (Col. 4 : 15) is probably derived from Nu/i^oSopos; 'O'Kvfnras 1 See Fick-Bechtel, Die griech. Personennamen, 1894; Pape, Worterbuch der griech. Eigennamen, 1842, ed. Benseler, 1870; KeU, Beitr. zur Onomatolo- gie; W. Schulze, Graeca Lat., 1901; Hoole, the Class. Elem. in the N. T., 1888; Kretsch., Gesch. der griech. Spr., Die kleinasiat. Personennamen, pp. 311-370. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 71. W.-Sch., p. 143. 4 Deiss., B. S., p. 187. 6 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 143 f., for objections to this derivation. In a Faytoi pap. (Deiss., B. S., p. 149) 'AiroWiivios occurs Ss Kal avpitrrl 'loiviBai. Cf. Drug., Griech. Gr., 1900, p. 175. 6 Gr.ofN.T.Gk.jp. 71. Cf. also Fick-Bechtel, p. 304. Fick (xxxviii) takes it from 'EpyuoKpdTTjs, as also 'Ep/nSs. ' Ramsay (Exp., Dec, 1912, pp. 504 ff.) quotes inscription of Pisid. Antioch where AoukSs and Aoukios are used for the same person. WORD-FOKMATION 173 (Ro. 16 : 15) is apparently contracted from '0\vn,Tn6Sojfm, though 'OXu/iiriacos is possible; Uapntvas (Ac. 6 : 5) is probably a con- traction of UapnevLSris, though Blass' suggests llapfiivciiv; Uarpo^as (Ro. 16 : 14) is derived from IlaTpojSios; SiXas (Ac. 15:22, etc.) is the same man as StXouam (MSS. often StX|8aj'6s) as Paul always calls him (1 Th. 1 : 1, etc. So Peter in 1 Pet. 5:12); ST€cj)avas (1 Cor. 1 : 16; 16 : 15, 17) may be either a modification of Srfe^a- vos or a contraction of 'Zre^a.vii4>opos; liisirarpo^ (Ac. 20 : 4) is read SaxriTaTpos by a dozen of the cursives and the Sah. Cop. Arm. versions, while Sojo-txaTpos is the correct text in Ro. 16 : 21, but it is not certain that they represent the same man, for Sdjirarpos is from Beroea and Scoo-tTrarpos from Corinth, though it is pos- sible. 'ApxeXaos, NiKoXaos appear in the N. T. in the uncontracted forms, though in the Doric the abbreAdated forms in -as were used. On the subject of the N. T. proper names one can consult also Thieme, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Mdander und das N. T., 1906, p. 39 f. He finds twenty of the N. T. names in the Mag- nesia inscriptions, such as 'Airt^ia, ' K.pr€pBs{' kprenlSoipoi) , etc. Kupia is a common proper name (cf. Hatch, Journal of Bibl. lAt., 1908, p. 145). For the papyri illustrations see Mayser, Gr. der griech. Papyri {Laut- und Wortlehre, 1906), p. 253 f. Cf. also Traube, Nmnina Sacra (1907), who shows that in both B and N as well as D the abbreviation IHC XPC is found as well as the more usual TU 7C. Cf . Nestle, Exp. Times, Jan., 1908, p. 189. Moul- ton (CI. Quarterly, April, 1908, p. 140) finds 'A/couo-iXaos in the body of a letter in a papjTUS and 'AkoOti, the abbreviated ad- dress, on the back. See also Burkitt, Syriac Forms of N. T. Proper Names (1912), and Lambertz, Die griech. Sklavennamen (1907). VI. The History of Words. This subject concerns not merely the new words appearing in the N. T. but all words there used. This is the best place for a few remarks on it. It is not enough to know the etymology, the proper formation and the usage in a given writer. Before one has really learned a word, he must know its history up to the present time, certainly up to the period which he is studying. The resultant meaning of a word in any given instance will be determined by the etymology, the history and the immediate context.^ The etymology and the history be- long to the lexicon, but the insistence on these principles is within 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 71. Cf. Meisterh., Gr. der att. Inschr. (pp. 114:- 118), for formation of proper names. ' Cf. Heine, Synon. des neutest. Griech., p. 29. Goodell, The Gk. in Eng., 1886, gives a popular exhibition of the influence of Gk. on Eng. 174 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the purview of grammar. The N. T. Greek on this point only calls for the same treatment granted all literature in all languages and ages. Take trKavSoKop, for instance. It is a shorter form of the old Greek word aKav8&Kri6pov, ' trap-stick.' The root crrnvS is seen in the Sanskrit skdndami, 'to dart,' 'to leap.' The Latin has it in scando, de-scendo. The termination -oKiiBpov is possibly the suffix —rpov {~6pop) for instrument and <7KavS-a\a{rj). The form aKapSaXv occurs in Alciphro, of which cKkvS-aXo-v is simply the neuter variation. 'ZKo.vS-aKo-v occurs first in the LXX as a translation for iripia or iiiiri?)?, 'a noose,' 'a snare,' as in Ps. 69 (68) : 23. It was the trap- stick, the trap, the impediment; then a stumbling-block or any person who was an occasion of stumbling, as in Josh. 23 : 13. So Peter became a stumbling-block to Jesus, aKavSaKov el iiwv (Mt. 16 : 23). Christ crucified became a crKa.v8a\ov to the Jews (1 Cor. 1 : 23). Take again kK-Kkriaia (from ^k-kXtjtos, kiacaXku). The root KoX appears in the Latin cal-endae, con-cil-ium, nomen-cld-tor; in the Old High German hal-6n, ' to call.' Originally ka-Kkriaia was a calling-out of the people from their homes, but that usage soon passed away. It became the constitutional assembly of Athens and "we must banish from our minds all remembrance of its ety- mology."' In the LXX the word is used as the equivalent of ini5, the assembly of the Israelites as a whole. In the N. T. the word takes a further advance. It still appears in the sense of 'assembly' at times, as in 1 Cor. 11 : 18, but usually, as Thayer shows {Lexicon), the idea of the word is that of body or company of beUevers whether assembled or not, the body of Christ. This is true at times where the idea of assembly is impossible, as in Ac. 8 : 3. The word in this sense of body of Christians is used either in the local (Ac. 8:3) or the general sense (Mt. 16 : 18). In the general sense the word does not differ greatly from one aspect of the word ^aciXeia. These examples must suffice. VII. The Kinship of Greek Words. The study of the family tree of a word is very suggestive. AelK-vv-m is a good illustration in point. It has the root 5ik which appears in the Sanskrit diQ-d- mi, 'to show,' Latin dic-o, Gothic teiho, German zeigen, etc. On the root 8lk a number of Greek words are built, as Sk-jj, 'the way pointed out,' 'right' or 'justice'; Skriv, 'after the way' or 'like'; Sel^-is, 'a showing'; deiy-na, 'something shown'; Sk-atos, 'a man who seeks to go the right way,' 'righteous'; Suc-atdw, 'to » Hicks, CI. Rev., 1887, p. 43. See also Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., pp. 57-60. WORD-FORMATION 175 make or declare one to be righteous'; SiK-aUa-ais, 'the act of declar- ing one righteous'; SiK-aUo-fui, 'the thing declared to be right'; SiK-avo-ahvti, 'the quality of being right,' 'righteousness'; 6iK-auos, 'righteously' or 'justly'; StK-aiw-r^s or SiK-aa-riis, 'one who decides righteously'; diK-aa-rripLov, 'the place for judging righteously.' Each of these words occurs in the N. T. save three, SUriv, SiK-aua- Ti^s, biKoa-TTipiov. With these twelve words the difference in mean- ing is not so much due to historical development (like hiuCKriala) as to the idea of the various suflSxes. It is, of course, true that the N. T. has a special doctrine of righteousness as the gift of God which colours most of these words. The point is that all these various points of view must be observed with each word. An- other illustration that will not be followed up is 'Kv-rpov (Mt. 20 : 28), dTTo-Xii-Tpoj-o-ts (Ro. 3 : 24). The ideas of action, agent, result, instrmnent, quality, plan, person, etc., as shown by the suffixes, differentiate words from each other. Green in his Handbook to Grammar of N. T. Greek''^ illustrates this point well with the root xpi (icpiv), giving only the examples that occur in the N. T. They will be found interesting: first, the verb, Kplv-di, ava-Kpiv-w, avT-airo-Kpiv-oiiai, airo-Kplv-opM., Sia-Kpiv-co, krt-Kplv-03, kTi-Kpiv-oi, Kara-Kplv-w , avy-Kpiv-ca, avv-vvo-Kpiv-oiiai, mo- Kplv-oj; second, the substantive, Kpi-ais, Kpi-fia, Kpi-riipiov, xpi-ri^s, kvL-Kpi-ais, kirb-Kpi-ixa, airo-Kpi-ais, dia-Kpi-ais, eiXt-Kpiv-eia, Kara-icpL-na, Kara-Kpi-cris, irpo-Kpi-na, {nro-Kpi-ais, VKO-Kpi-riis; third, adjectives, Kpi-TtKOS, &-dl.a-KpL-TOS, d-Kard-Kpt-TpS, &.V-VTr6-Kpi-T0S, aVTO-KaTCi-Kpi-TOS, eDu-Kpi-viis. The development of this line of study will amply repay the N. T. student. Vin. Contrasts in Greek Words or Synonyms. The Greek is rich in synonyms. In English one often has a choice between the Anglo-Saxon word or its Norman-French equivalent, as "to ask" or "to inquire."^ The Greeks made careful distinctions in words. Socrates tripped the Sophists on the exact meaning of words as often as anywhere. We are fortunate in N. T. study in the pos- session of two excellent treatises on this subject. Trench, Syno- nyms of the N. T., 1890, is valuable, though not exhaustive. But he gives enough to teach one how to use this method of investi- gation. Heine, Synon. des neutest. Griech., 1898, is more com- prehensive and equally able. The matter can only be mentioned > § 149, new ed., 1904. = Cf. Skeat, Prin. of Eng. Etym., 1st ser. (Native Words, 1892); 2d ser. (Foreign Words, 1891). 176 A GRAMMAE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT here and illustrated. With Skaios, for instance, one should com- pare &.ya66s, ayLos, Kodapos, koXos, 6(nos, before he can obtain a complete idea of N. T. goodness or righteousness. We see Jesus himself insisting on the use of 0.70665 for the idea of absolute goodness in Mk. 10 : 18, obSels ayados d uri els 6 debs. Both ayaBbs and StKoioj occur in Lu. 23 : 50. In Lu. 8 : 15 the phrase KapSia &ya6ri ml KoXri approaches Socrates' common use of koXos k' hyadbs for "the beautiful and the good." It is also the Greek way of saying "gentleman" which no other language can translate. To go no further, rkpas, Sivafiis and aijtietov are all three used to de- scribe the complete picture of a N. T. miracle. Neos is 'young' and 'not yet old,' /cawos is 'recent' and 'not ancient.' CHAPTER VI ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS The term orthography is used to include all that pertains to the spelling of Greek words. Phonetics deals with the sounds of the letters. The orthography was constantly changing, but not so rapidly as did the sounds. Each had an independent develop- ment as is seen very strikingly in the modern Greek vernacular (Thumb, Handbook of the Mod. Gk. Vernac., p. 6). There has never been a fixed orthography for the Greek tongue at any stage of its history. There has always been an effort to have new phonetic spelling to correspond to the sound-change. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 6. The confusion ia spelling grew with the centuries as in English. Many delicate questions confront us at once. It has not seemed possible to give the explanation of all the varied phonetic (true or merely analogical) and orthographic changes in the use of the vowels and consonants. An orderly collection of the facts with historical side-Ughts is all that is attempted. I. The Uncertainty of the Evidence. It is difiiciilt to tell what is the vernacular usage in N. T. times on many points, though somewhat less so since the discovery of the papyri. (a) The Ancient Literary Spelling. The difficulty is much increased by the comparison of the phonetic spelling of the modem vernacular with the historical orthography of the ancient Uterary Greek.' This method applied to any language may lead one into error. Modern conversational English differs widely in orthog- raphy from Spenser's Faerie Queene. For most of the history of the Greek language no lexicons nor grammars were in use. There were the schools and the books on the one hand and popu- lar usage on the other. The movement of the Atticists was just the opposite of the modern phonetic spelling movement in Eng- lish. The Atticists sought to check change rather than hasten it. It is to be remembered also that the Atticists were the cloister 1 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 19 f; 177 178 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT copyists of the ancient Greek writings and of the N. T. Later copyists reflect local types, some more conservative, some less so. The law of life is best here, as always, without artificial impulse or restraint. In seeking to restore the orthography of the Koivfi ver- nacular of the first century a.d. one must not be handicapped by the literary Attic nor the modern Greek vernacular, though each will be of service. In simple truth one has to be less dogmatic these days concerning what could or could not have been in the past. Breasted^ calmly assures us that over 3000 B.C. "the al- phabetic signs, each of which stood for one consonant," were in use in Egypt. He adds : " Had the Egyptian been less a creature of habit, he might have discarded his syllabic signs 3500 years before Christ, and have written with an alphabet of 24 letters." The Greek language was a growth and did not at first have 24 letters. E, even in early Attic,^ not to mention Cretan, had the force of e, ij and sometimes et. Indeed Jannaris' asserts that "the symbols jj and co, in numerous cases also t, originated at school as mere compensatory marks, to represent positional or 'thetic' « or o." It is not surprising with this origin of vowels (and consonants do not differ) that variations always exist in the soimd and use of the Greek letters. Blass* is clearly right when he points out that in changes in the sounds of words " it is usual for the spelling not to imitate the new sound off-hand," and in the case of the N. T. writers there was "no one fixed orthography in existence, but writers fluctuated between the old historical spelling and a new phonetic manner of writing." Moulton^ adds that the N. T. writers had to choose "between the literary and illiterate Greek of their time," and "an artificial orthography left the door open for not a few uncertainties." Here is a "letter of a prodigal son" (B.G.U. 846 ii/A.D. See Milligan, Gk. Papyri, p. 93 f.) in which we have "phonetic" spelling in abundance: Kal Sla TravTO)[v] eiSxo/ioi (Tot vyeiaiveiv. To irpoaKvvrjua aov [ttoiJco kolt' alKoxTTrjV fjixalpav irapb. tQ Kvpkf [Sep]aT€i5ei. reLvdicrKeiv aai 6k\{ and B differ, but usu- ally that is not true. There is a general agreement between the older uncials in orthography as against the later uncials and the cursives which fell under the spell of the Byzantine reformers, who sought to restore the classical literary spelling. The SjTian class of docmnents therefore fails to represent the orthography of » Hort, The N. T. in Orig. Gk., App., Notes on Sel. Read., p. 152. But in the Intr. (p. 304) Hort is not willing to admit "pecuUarities of a local or strictly dialectic nature" in the N. T. Still Hort (Notes on Orth., p. 151) allows the Doric 6Sayio) {iSrn^) in "single MS." like B and D, irpoaaxHv in B, liluraa in D, etc. Hirt (Handb. d. Griech., p. 53) attributes much of the vocal change to dialect-mixing and analogy. On S and B see Hort, op. cit., p. 306 f. 2 Blaas, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 6 f. ' lb., p. 7. Hort (p. 302 f. of the Intr. to the N. T. m Grig. Gk.) makes a strong defence of his effort to give as nearly as possible "the spelling of the autographs by means of documentary evidence." There must not be "slov- enly neglect of philological truth." But Moulton (Prol., p. 47) does not "set much store by some of the minutiae which W. H. so conscientiously gather from the great uncials." Certainly "finaUty is impossible, notwithstanding the assistance now afforded by the papyri" (Thaok., Gr., p. 71). 180 A GRAMMAB OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the vernacular Koivi] of the first century a.d. The Syrian class, for instance, reads KaTepvaobfj,, not Kaifiapvaoifi. But do the MSS. which give us the pre-Syrian types of text preserve the auto- graphic orthography? The fourth century is a long time from the first and the presumption might seem to be to some extent against the Neutral, Alexandrian aiid Western classes also. The temp- tation is constant to spell as people of one's time do. This diffi- culty is felt by every editor of classical Greek texts and often purely arbitrary rules are used, rules made by modem critics. Hort^ is willing to admit that in some instances the spellings found in the great uncials which are at variance with the Textus Receptus are due to the "literary speUings of the time" when the MSS. were written, "but for the most part they belong to the 'vulgar' or popular form of the language." Hort could see that before we had the new knowledge from the papyri and inscrip- tions. He adds^: "A large proportion of the peculiar spellings of the N. T. are simply spellings of common Ufe. In most cases either identical or analogous spellings occur frequently in inscrip- tions written in different countries, by no means always of the more illiterate sort." This fact showed that the unclassical spell- ings in the uncials were current in the Apostolic age and were the most trustworthy even if sometimes doubtful. "Absolute uni- formity belongs only to artificial times," Hort' argues, and hence ■it is not strange to find this confusion in the MSS. The confusion existed in fact in the first century a.d. and probably the auto- graphs did not follow uniform rules in spelling. Certain it is that the N. T. writings as preserved in the MSS. vary. But itacism applies to all the MSS. to a certain extent and makes it difficult to know what vowel or diphthong was really before the scribe. In general the N. T., like the LXX, is grounded in matters of or- thography on the rules of the grammarians of the time of the Csesars (AppoUonius and Herodian) rather than upon those of the time of Hadrian, when they had an archaistic or Atticistic tendency (Helbing, Grammatik d. LXX, p. 1). Moulton {Prol, p. 42) thinks that "there are some suggestive signs that the great uncials, in this respect as in others, are not far away from the autographs." But Thackeray (op. dt., p. 56) denies that this 1 Op. dt., p. 303 f . Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 35) calls attention to the fact that the professional copyists not only had to copy accurately, but "in the received uniform spelling." Cf. also Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, p. 2. For further remarks on the phenomena in the LXX MSS. see Swete, O. T. in Gk. p. 300 f. " Op. at., p. 304. » Op. dt., p. 308. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 181 conclusion can be drawn ipso facto of the LXX, since it was trans- lated (the Pentateuch certainly) some three centuries earlier than the N. T. was written, (d) The Papyei. They strengthen the case for the uncials. Deissmann* and Moulton^ show that the great uncials correspond in orthography not only with the contemporaneous inscriptions as Hort had seen, but also with the papyri of the better-educated writers. Among the strictly illiterate papyri writers one can find almost anything. The case of eav=av in relative clauses is worked out well by Moulton to prove this point. In the papyri dated b.c. the proportion of iav to av in such cases is 13 to 29, while in the first century a.d. it is 76 to 9. But in the fourth century A.D. it is 4 to 8 and the usage disappears in the sixth century a.d. Thackeray {Grammar, vol. I, pp. 65 ff.) shows (after Deissmann') how the LXX confirms this conclusion for ia.v=av. The usage appears in b.c. 133; copyists are divided in different parts of the same book as in Exodus or Leviticus; it is predominant in the first and second centuries a.d., and then disappears. Thackeray (p. 58) traces ovdels (jiifids) "from its cradle to its grave" (from 378 B.C. to end of ii/A.D.) and shows how in ii/A.D. ovhds is supreme again. This point very strikingly confirms the faithfulness of the uncials in orthography in a matter out of harmony with the time when the MSS. were written. We may conclude then that Hort is right and the uncials, inscriptions and papyri give us the ver- nacular orthography of the Koivri with reasonable correctness. II. Vowel-Changes (o-xoixettt <|)n is the Syrian reading for Kacjiapvaovp, (W. H.). So W. H. read MoXeXeiJX in Lu. 3 : 37, not MeX. (Tisch.) , and 'Naffavari\. 2eXa5ti7X (in- stead of SaX.) appears iu B. Thumb^ remarks that these changes between a and e occur to-day in the Kappadocian dialect. a and r\. The Doric forms 650765, 65075 are found in the Koivii, though Schweizer' calls it hardly a Dorism. So in N. T. MSS. we have irpocraxkoi in B (Ac. 27 : 27) and pdo-o-o in D (Mk. 9 : 18). The Ptolemaic papyri regularly have dvriKlcKti.v .till ii/A.D. (May- ser, Gr., p. 345). For a and q, see ij and j/ under (c). a and 0. The changes^ between these two vowels are seen in the Lesbian ixd (inro), Arcadian TpiaKacrtoL, Doric el'/cart (ei/coo-i), etc. W. H. give ParToXoyko} in Mt. 6 : 7 (cf. ^arTapi^co) instead of j8ar- ToTioyka. ABK and twice N and many cursives have xpos KoXaao-aeTs • Dieterich Unters. etc., p. 70. Cf . Thack., Gr., vol. I, p. 75 f . So AaX/uaWo in 2 Tim. 4 : 10, though C has AeX/j. as Lat. has both. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 21. Both forms are in the pap., Deiss., B. S., p. 182. ' Hellen. (Griech. Spr.), p. 76. See also Radermacher, N. T. Gr., pp. 34 ff. ' Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 49. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 62, xpaaSai, for xPwOai. So A in 2 Mace. 6 : 21. * K.-B1., Tl. I, Bd. I, p. 117 f. Cf. Meisterh., Gr. etc., p. 117, where Attic inscr. are shown to have NeoTroXfTijs. ORTHOGEAPHY AND PHONETICS 185 as the title, while in Col. 1 : 2 nearly all MSS. read h KoXoo-croTs. Blass finds the title in o also in accordance with the coins and the profane writers; Xen., Anab. I, 2. 6, has a variant reading in KoXao-- ffai. In Mk. 13 : 35 B has niaaviiKTiov and D in Lu. 11:5 instead of fieaoviiKTLov.^ In 1 Tim. 1 : 9 W. H. give fuirpoX^ais and xarpo- Xciiats (instead of -oKoiats) on the authority of NADFGL. Blass^ compares Tarpo-KTSvos. a and a. 'kvdyaiov is read by the most and the best MSS. in Mk. 14 : 15; Lu. 22 : 12. 'kvoiyeov, h/oyyaiov, aviyyecav, av&yeop have only "trifling authority."' Tatos is Doric and Ionic. a and ai. The papyri* sometimes have the Epic and Ionic aid, though the N. T. only reads dei. The t early dropped but between the vowels. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 103. B has aUi in 1 Esd. 1 : 30. The N. T., Uke the LXX, has KaUa and xXatw, though the Ptole- maic papyri rarely have kom and kXA&j. d and av. In Lu. 2 : 1 NCA have ' Ay ovarov instead of Myoharov. This spelling of a for av is found in Pergamum by Schweizer^ in the reflexive pronoun iaTov, while Meisterhans^ gives examples of it as early as 74 b.c. in the Attic inscriptions. Moulton' is probably correct in saying that we need not assume the existence of this spelling in the N. T. autographs, though it is not impos- sible. He indorses Mayor's suggestion {Exp., VI, x, 289) "that dKarairdo-Tous in 2 Pet. 2 : 14 AB may be thus explained: he com- pares axuiiPV 1 '■ 19 A^'". This dropping of t; between vowels ex- tended to the dropping of v before consonants. In the modern Greek we have aiiTos {aftos) and aros (in Pontus), whence comes TO (not the article).* The examples of 'Ayovcros and aros {aroyev- vriTov once) in the papyri are very common.' Thackeray (fir., p. 79) finds no instances in the LXX. ' Hort (Notes on Orth., p. 152) compares iiia-aPop, and Blass (Gr., p. 21) ItamariiKuiv. Meroii (jieraib) is in 1 Clem, and Barn. (Reinhold, De Graec, p. 40" . Cf . Mayser, Gr., p. 60 f ., SKKoi for aXXot. Illiterate scribes confused o and o, a and e in the LXX (as /leroji) and in the pap. (Thack., Gr., p. 77). 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 21. ' Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 151. W.-Sch., p. 51, compare xora-i^a-ySs and KaTbi-(f>ayd.s as parallel. Cf. Meisterh., Gr., p. 17. * Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 31, 1904, p. 107. » Qr. etc., p. 91 f. ' Gr. etc., p. 61. Cf. also Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 78. ' Prol., p. 47. ' Moulton, Exp., 1904, p. 363. So also in the Rom. period occasionally ijiarov, karov. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 35; Wack., Kuhn's Zeitschr., xxxiii, pp. 2ff. " Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 33; 1904, p. 107. He quotes Laurent (B.C.H., 1903, p. 356) as sajdng that this phenomenon was very common in the latter half of i/B.c. 186 A GEAMMAE OF THE GEBEK NEW TESTAMENT ai and €. ai was written oe in early Boeotian and Attic inscrip- tions (cf . Latin transliteration) and so naturally was pronounced as e (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 28). By 100 a.d. in the Koivij at was the mere equivalent of e. The Egyptian papyri show abun- dant illustrations of it. Especially do the LXX MSS. exhibit it (Thackeray, Gr., p. 78). The modern Greek pronounces both these vowel-soimds ahke, as indeed did the Boeotian dialect long before the KOLvii. Numerous examples of this interchange of spelling exist in the Pompeian wall-inscriptions and in the vernacular Kowii from 100 A.D. on.i Indeed in the N. T. MSS. it is very common to find -aBai and -aBt used indiscriminately, probably representing the common later pronunciation which was already developing in the first century a.d. Hort^ compares this "shortening of an identical sound" to the late orCiXos for crvkos and Kpi/ia for Kpiiw.. So com- mon did this blending become that Blass' places little confidence in the N. T. MSS. on this point. Such readings occur as kreiaBe for airuaBe and yvveKan for yvvaiKes. Sometimes only the con- text* can decide between e and oi where different forms result, as in avaweae or -ot (Lu. 14: 10), eyeipe or -ai (Mt. 9:5), eir&vayKes (Ac. 15^28),^ "epxe!TB€ or -cBai in KADL (Lu. 14:17), Mpois or eraipoLs (Mt. 11 : 16 Syrian reading), irapheyKe or -ai (Mk. 14 : 36), etc. In Gal. 4 : 18 both K and B read fTjAovaSe for ^TJXomBai,. B reads AiXa/itToi in Ac. 2 : 9, from B^'is, the rest 'EX. The author- ity according to Hort^ is "usually preponderant" for ^^e^vrjs and e(t>vi5ios instead of ai W.-Sch., p. 47. > Notes on Orth., p. 150. Cf. on oi and e, Mayser, Gr., p. 107. 8 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 9. * W.-Sch., p. 47. 5 'Eir' Ai'd'cicats "Alexandrian only" according to Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 161. 6 lb. ' lb. Cf. the Western Kmvoavlas for Ka>oil>wvlas in 1 Tim. 6 : 20. In 1 Th. 3 : 3 instead of aalveoBai FG read aikv^adai.. Nestle (Neut.-Zeit., 1906, p. 361) finds parallels in the forms naivo/itvoiv and aiandds. 8 Notes on Orth., p. 151. » CI. Rev., 1904, p. 107. The pap. give aiv6'Ku>v. ORTHOGKAPHT AND PHONETICS 187 (6) The Changes with e. The interchanges of e and a have already been discussed under (a), but others took place with rj, i, o. e and €i. In the Boeotian these were freely interchanged ^ and the same interchange occurs in the Doric, New Ionic and Attic as ir\kiiiv or TrXetcoy. The Attic inscriptions^ show this conunon phenomenon. The t before a vowel easily and early loses its force and drops out. Before the adoption of the scholastic orthography at Athens (b.c. 403) e stood for «, 17, ei. Sooner or later et became everywhere a monophthong (Buck, Greek Dialects, p. 28). But the Koivij usually wrote ti before vowels rather than e (Thackeray, Or., p. 81). The LXX MSS. reveal the same traits as the N. T. 'Apao7ra7iT7/s is in Acts 17 : 34, but "Apeios occurs (Ac. 17 : 19, 22). 'Axpetos is uniform in the N. T., but in Ro. 3 : 12 we have vxpfi)- Briaav (NABDG). In Lu. 3 : 13; Jo. 21 : 15; Ac. 15 : 28, W. H. print irKkov (Attic has even ttX^jtos),' but elsewhere the N. T. has forms in ei. The derivatives all have e like irXeoveKTea. But the N. T. has only T^Xetos, reXetow, though Herodotus always and the Attic usually used reXeoM. D° has TeKeSmai in Heb. 10 : 1.* Of words with e and n before consonants one may. note that kiro- (yrd>M in Ac. 7 : 34 is aorist subjunctive. (Cf. Ex. 3 : 10.) Both heKiv and itv&cev occur in the N. T. (both Ionic and Attic). The N. T. never has h, but always ew. However, 'iau is the uniform reading in the N. T. Homer used either daw or eo-w. € and r\. Numerous examples of long « occur in the inscriptions like iikrt {/liiTe).^ These changes are probably all analogical and not phonetic. But in the N. T. we have only the shortening of ri, back to short e in some words like avadefia, though this particular word ('curse') came to be distinct from avaJBrifia ('votive offering'). 'AvoBrjfm occurs only once in the N. T. (Lu. 21 : 5), and even here NADX, etc., have avcuBe/m. Tisch. quotes Moeris as saying ava- Brjua tLTTiKOOS, avaJBe/jm eWriviKOos. But the use of avadefia as 'curse' ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 28, as BeiSs = ee6s; Thumb, Handb., p. 220. " Meisterh., Gr., p. 20 f. Cf. Schweizer, Gr. etc., p. 44 f. The change in e and « was very common in vi/iii b.c. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 37. ' But even the Arcadian dial, has TrXiova, vXiivuiv (Sohnsen, Inscr. Graec, p. 4). nX4oK is common in the N. T. Apoc. (Reinhold, De Graec. Patr. Apost. etc., p. 40). Cf. Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 40 f. On the whole subject of e and €1 in the pap. see Mayser, Gr., pp. 67-73. They are very numerous indeed, these changes in the pap., both ways. * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 22. ' Sohnsen, Inscr. Graecae etc., p. 1. Arcadian dial. Cf. also Meisterh., Or., p. 3. In the Pontic dial, to-day there is a wide-spread use of « instead of 1}, as in ak^ojiou, (Thumb, HeUen. [Griech. Spr., referred to hereafter usually as Hellen.], p. 149). 188 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT "is not an innovation of biblical Greek" (Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 46). In Ac. 11 : 11 NABDO' read rjiiev, not ijuriv. Perhaps this exchange between e and ij bears on the use of ari^Kere with Iva in Mk. 11 : 25; 1 Th. 3 : 8, and of MS. evidence for davfia^ere m Jo. 5 : 20 and k^oiw\oyfiAXtos also is alone well-attested,' not j/jjc^dXeos (1 -Tim. 3 : 2, etc.). HotioXoi in Ac. 28 : 13 represents the Latin Puteoli, using t for e (cf. Dittenberger, p. 145). HiiiidvOiov (not -601') is the N. T. reading (Ac. 19 : 12) for Latin semidnctium. So Tt;8^pios (not Te/Sepws) is the N. T. rendition of Tiberius in Lu. 3 : 1, though the later Greek writers used Te/Sepws, Ao/ierpios, etc.^ It is really surprising that more examples of this exchange of e and I do not appear. The interchanges between et and i are dis- cussed under (d), those between eu and v under (/). e and o. The Lesbian iEolic had arpb^di for the Doric arpk^ui. The Ionic- Attic made it (TTpkcjjca. Meisterhans' gives numerous ex- amples of this change in e and o: 6^o\6s for o/JeXos as early as the middle of the fourth century b.c. Dieterich* mentions the assimi- lation of € and o as one of the marks of the Egyptian Koivij. In Ac. 18 : 24 K 15. 180. Cop. arm. and in 19 : 1 N 180. read 'ATreXXijs for 'AiroXXis, though D has 'AttoXXcowos in 18 : 24. The Doric and the Attic inscriptions^ had 'ArkXkcov, 'AireWwvuis, 'AwkWios, etc. In 1 Cor. and Titus we have only 'ATroXXcis. Indeed Blass^ suggests that 'AireXX^s is the reading of the a text in Acts and that 'AiroWiis is an interpolation from 1 Cor. It is more likely to think that the two old forms of the name were still in use, though 'AttoX- X(i)s is the correct text in Acts also. The MSS. of the N. T., even good uncials, have oKodptvu, k^dXodptioi, oKodpevr-qs as well as the usual oKeBpihia, etc. (cf. ofidXos for 6/3eX6s by assimilation), and Hort ' accepts the e form only in Ac. 3 : 23. The Syrian class has the o form. Blass,* who usually cares little for such points, properly insists on the documentary evidence. In Heb. 11 : 28 only ADE have the e form, while in 1 Cor. 10 : 10 DFG read e. ' Notes on Orth., p. 151. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 21. But always Tiros. Cf. Naohm., Magn. Inschr., p. 22, in discussion of e for Lat. i. Both \eyui>v and Xhrtov are read in Magn. inscr. (Thieme, Die Ilischr. von Magn. etc., p. 8). Cf. also Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 46. For assimilation between c and i in mod. Gk. see Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 272 f . » Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 22. Cf. also K.-BL, Tl. I, Bd. I, p. 118. ' Unters. etc., p. 135 f. Cf. Hirt, Handb. d. Griech. etc., p. 115. s K.-B1., Tl. I, Bd. I, p. 118, and Hirt, op. cU., p. 115. « Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 21. Cf. Mayser (Gr., pp. 94^97) for a discussion of the pap. situation. ' Notes on Orth., p. 152. » Gr. of N.,T. Gk., p. 21. He quotes Buresch, Rhein. Mus., p. 216 f., as in favour of « in the N. T. as well as the LXX. '0X«9. appears in the Apost. Fathers (Goodspeed, Index) and oXofl. in N. T. Apoc. (Reinhold, p. 40). For assimilation between t and o in mod. Gk. see Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 274. 190 A GEAMMAB OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT The LXX according to }' ('if') is rarely found in the pap. also. Moulton (CI. Rev., 1901, p. 434) gives Slv uti i-n-oSm (AP 43, ii/B.c). Cf. also CI. Rev., 1901, p. 32; Mayser, Gr., p. 152 f. Mayser gives exx. of iav = av and of av==ia.v. « Prol., p. 43; CI. Rev., 1901, p. 32, etc. ' Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 68. See Gregory, Prol. (Nov. Test. Gr.), p. 96, for the facts about the N. T. MSS. and iii>. ' Cronert, Mem. Graeca Here, p. 130. 8 Dieterich, Unters. eto^, p. 326. OBTHOGBAPHY AND PHONETICS 191 Indeed Attic does not contract ea with exception of eav= fyi?- But ldi'= modal av is found in Xen. Mem., ^ kav o-pixottii, in Lysias, o8s kav fiovKyfiSiaiv, etc. (see Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 421). This use of iav occurs over sixty times in the N. T. Examples occur in late Greek of el — t&v as well as el — av, instead of eav. Cf . Rein- hold, De Graecitate Patrum Apost. etc., p. 35; Moulton, Classical Review, 1901, p. 32. Thackeray {Gr., pp. 65 ff.) finds that in the ii/B.c. the papyri nearly always have 8s av, while in the I/a.d. they nearly always have 8s kav. In the books of Exodus and Leviticus he notes that in the first half of each book both forms occur while in the second part 8s eav almost vanishes. Each book may have been written on two rolls. (c) The Changes with j]. The changes between ij and a, rj and 6 have already been discussed. 11 and I. As already stated, originally H was merely the rough breathing, but the Ionic psilosis left a sjonbol useless, and heta was called eta.* Thus the new letter took the old long e value in Ionic and Attic and also largely supplanted the long 5. where a became e. The Sanskrit used long a, the Greek ij and the Latin either e or I. This new (in spelling) 77 (v/b.c.) gradually turned more to the i sound in harmony with the growing itacism of the language, though there was some etacism on the other hand.' As early as 150 b.c. the Egyptian papyri show evidence of the use of i for 77.* By the middle of the second century a.d. the confusion between rj and i, T) and €1, ijt»and ei is very general. By the Byzantine times it is complete and the itacism is triumphant in the modern Greek.* Reinhold^ thinks that the exchange between ri and t was natural in view of the relation between 7; and e and the interchange be- tween 6 and t. As early as the fifth century b.c. the change between r) and i is seen on vases and inscriptions. But the Ptole- maic papyrillshow little of it and it is rare in the LXX MSS. NAB (Thackeray, Gr., p. 85). In the N. T. times the interchanges between 7; and t, 77 and ei, 7J^ and ei are not many. In 1 Cor. 4 : 11 W. H. read yvuvirevta, though L and most of the cursives have 7j. ' Thumb, Hellen., p. 92. ' Hirt, Handb. d. Griech. etc., p. 63. » Thumb, Hellen., p. 98 f. ■ * Brag., Griech. Gr., p. 29. Cf. also Thumb, Hellen., p. 138. In Bceotia also ij and t interchange in ii/B.c. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 46. Mayser (Gr., p. 82) cites from a Hom. pap. of i/B.c. ^ikc for Wtik€, and per contra (p. 84) 64>iiKero. ' Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 47. He gives kirii for ewl from a Byz. inscr. ° De Graec. Pair, etc., p. 41. Cf. also Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 34 f. 192 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT The N. T. always has SrjvapLov, though 5lv&.plov appears very early.i For Kdiiij'Kos in Mt. 19 : 24 and Lu. 18 : 25 a few late cursive MSS. substitute kclulKos ('rope'), a word found only in Suidas and a scholium on Arist. But "it is certainly wrong," ^ a mere effort to explain away the difficulty in the text, an effort as old as Cyril of Alexandria on Luke. For Kvprivios B' it. vg. sah. have KvpXvos, while B* has Kvpeiyos and A has KvpivLos, a striking example of itacism, 17, i, «t, v having the same sound in these MSS. The N. T. MSS. give cniii.dvdLov ia Acts 19 : 12, but Liddell and Thayer both suggest ariix. as an alternative spelling like the Latin semi- cinctium. So also the best MSS. in Rev. 18 : 12 read aipiKos, though some cursives have itiiplkos (like Jos. and others), and still others crupiKos.' Indeed in 1 Pet. 2 : 3 for xfiV^ros L and many cursives have Xpiaros. The heathen misunderstood the word Xpio-ros and confounded it with the familiar xp^t^Tos, pronounced much ahke. Suetonius (Claudius 25) probably confused Christus with Chres- tus. In Ac. 11 : 2B J< 61 have .Xprjcmavoiis, while B has Xpucrr. So in Ac. 26 : 28 N has XpritxTiavov for Xpurr., while B has again et. The same thing occm-s in 1 Pet. 4 : 16. r\ and £i. The Boeotian and the Thessalian dialects early changed^ jj for ei, TiSaixi,= Tld'qp.i. Schweizer^ gives irapahja-oi for xapaSetiros (Byzantine inscription). In Lu. 14 : 13 (21) we have ctmTretpos (ABDEL), avaweipos (GHK, etc.), and -Trtp- (NR). This itacism is condemned by Phrynichus the Atticist as vulgar.^ In the LXX K has avairtipos in Tob. 14 : 2 and AV show it in 2 Mace. 8 :24 (Thackeray, Gr., p. 83). In Heb. 6 : 14 W. H. follow NABD in reading el fir/v rather than ^ uriv. This form occurs in the LXX and in the papyri. Moulton^ has shown that several times in the papyri it is obviously for fj fir/u by mere ita- cism, and so is not due to a confusion between the Hebraistic use of ei firi = ii)> as, thus correcting Hort. The uncials and the ' Blass, Ausspr. d. Griech., pp. 37, 94. 2 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 151. ' lb., refers to a-tpiKoiroios in Neap, inscr. (C. I. G. 5834). In the niod. Gk. i; = t in pronunciation. Cf. Thumb, Handb. d. neugr. Volkerspr., p. 2. W.-Sch. (p. 46) mention eiiPriv, W/Sijc, Beipriv in Ex. 2 : 3-6. * Cf. Blass, K.-Bl., Tl. I, Bd. I, p. 135. " Perg. Inschr., p. 47. Cf . also p. 56. See numerous exx. of this change in Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 47 f. « Cf. Bekker, Anec, I, pp. 9, 22. It is found also in 2 Mace. 8 : 24. Hort (Notes on Orth., p. 15) shows that ajrapos (not fiinjpos) is read in Herod, i. 32. ' Prol., p.' 46; CI. Rev., 1901, p. 33. See also Thackeray, p. 83. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 193 papyri hete agree. Deissmann^ calls attention to the use of d ixav in a Doric inscription of the first century b.c. Blass {Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 306) observes that a papyrus reads Krjpia for xetpta (cf. Jo. 11:44, Ketp— , (cr/p— , Kip-iats). 1)1 and €1. In the old Attic there was no rii in writing, only ei, since ij was not used as a vowel. As early as 400 b.c. the Attic used 111 and ei interchangeably, kXjjco becoming xXeiw, KXj7s=KXeis, Xiirovp- y6i=\eLTovpy6s, etc.^ This usage was not very common in Perga- mum' nor in Magnesia.* Cronert finds this interchange in the Herculaneum papyri only in the papyri copies of Epicurus and Polystratus.* In the N. T. \ei,Tovpy6s, —La, —eiv, — ikos are taken over from the Attic, but they occur also in Pergamum^ and Magne- sia.' The Attic indeed carried the fondness for et so far that it was used always in writing in the second singular indicative middle everjrwhere, the other dialects using jj save the Ionic. The KOLvij has jj save in /8o6X«i, o'iei, 8^ei. In the N. T. y is universal according to W. H. save in Lu. 22 : 42 where jSouXei is genuine, though some MSS. have et in other passages. Blass* observes that this is a literary touch in Luke for the colloquial deKeis. Hatzidakis ' notes how difficult this process made it to tell the difference between voiija'gs and irovqatis, for instance, because of this Attic intermix- ture of the diphthongs. Blass ^"^ will not hear of this as a possible explanation in any cases, but one must remark how well this vowel-blending harmonized with the kinship in meaning between the aorist subjunctive and the future indicative (cf. Suo-jj in some MSS. for Sdxrei in Jo. 17 : 2) and made it easy for the later so-called future subjunctive (cf. Latin) to develop. Winer- Schmiedel indeed accept as possible this vowel confusion in sev- eral instances." In Mk. 8 : 35 (Lu. 17 : 33) Ss av airoKkcei, Lu. 12 : 8 8s &v diM\oyri5i7S, Kpvri, \aBp(i,, Travraxfj, ttoj'tb, irp^pa, tr^ifw, inrepQov, fajov, though he hesitated to put o-ojfco in the text. It is just as well to finish the discussion of the iota subscript here, though some of these examples go beyond the range of ij. The best edi- tors print also drjfiocriq,, idia, iJ/qrpoh^as, TroTpoXcJias, irarpc^s, iref§, llanodpaKT], Tpdjas, though fiLfiviicKoi and Trpaos. W. H. have forms in -oiv also, as KaraaKtivotv (Mt. 13: 32). Moulton^ gives a curious example of the loss of the irrational t in the case of the subjimctive XI which sometimes in the papyri appears as ^v, having lost the i, and taken on irrational v. As a matter of fact iota adscript (iota * Blass, Pronun., etc., p. 50. ^ Hirt, Handb. d. Griech., p. 114. ' Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 65. ^ Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 64. In the iv/s.c. the Attic often wrote et for rjt, but not for h. In the Thess., ^ol. and Ionic inscriptions the L with a, 1], w is freely omitted or wrongly inserted (irrational 0> as in rfj 7r6Xa, rd opn, as early as vi/s.c. Cf. K.-Bl., Tl. I, Bd. I, p. 183 f. Strabo (14. 41) says that many regularly dropped the i in spurious diphthongs. ttoX- Tiol yap x^pis ^ow t yp^ovai Td.s SotikclSj Kal IfC/S&XXouo't Sk t6 Wos ^vtnKijfit aiTlav oiiK ixov. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 29 f. Schweizer (Perg. Inschr., p. 47) cites riiiv elivoiav. * Introd. to N. T. Gk., p. 314. ' Mayser, Gr., p. 121, finds no t with S.v in the pap. ' Prol., pp. 49, 168, 187. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 195 subscript not yet, of course) does not appear in the great uncials save ^iSiffoK in D (Mk. 1: 34) and ^vXcol in K (Lu. 23 : 31).i Forms with and without the mute iota appear in the Herculaneum pa- pyri,^ as elKTJi or dKrj. Blass' would also restore t to avrnripa^q^. He doubts if i was written in such new optative forms as Sdniv (fioiijc Attic) though it should be put in the text. •q and V. Since these two vowels came to be pronounced alike as in modem Greek,* it was to be expected that some interchange would come, though any early examples are wanting. However, by the second century a.d. the inscriptions give many instances such as 6iipa (Oiipa), firip65ei,Tos. This was apparently the beginning" of itacism which was extended to V, 7], and then to y, ol, vl. Jannaris" thinks that the introduc- » Gregory, Prol. (New Test. Gr.), p. 109. ' Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., pp. 41 ff. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 7. The LXX phenomena are similar. Cf. Helbing, Griech. d. LXX, pp. 3 ff. ■■ Hatz., Einl. in neugr. Gr., p. 304. 5 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 48. « HeUen., p. 171. ' Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 310. On the subject of 77 and v see Mayser, Gr., p. 85 f. He denies (p. 86) that the itacising pronunciation of ri prevailed in the.Ptolemaic period. 8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 47. « lb. " lb. " lb., p. 41. 196 A GEAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT tion and rapid spread of rj contributed to this confusion as by that time et was pronounced Uke i, and j; was taken by many, not as long e, but equal to i. The confusion apparently began in the Boeotian dialect ^ and in postclassical times, but swept the field in all the dialects till every u (closed and open) was pronounced as I. By 100 b.c. the Attic inscriptions show a general inter- change between ei and i, and in the second century a.d.^ the con- fusion exists between ei, and i. Dieterich' thinks that this'itacism had its widest development in Egj^jt. The Ptolemaic papyri of ii/B.c. show itacism very frequently. It is only the more illit- erate scribes that use et for t, though B has 6peiov (Thackeray, Gr., p. 86 f.). Thumb^ considers the interchange between t and ei in the kolvti on a par with that between o and oi. In Pergamum^ the change from i to €i is much more common than that from ei to t, though forms in -ia. for -eta occur, as antXia. The same thing is true in Magnesia, where rifieZv {finlv) is common.^ The Hercu- laneum papyri tell the same story,' while it is so common in the Egyptian papjTi that Moulton^ is unable to set much store by the minutiae gathered by W. H. from the great uncials, "for even W. H. admit that their paramount witness, B, 'has little authority on behalf of ei as against i.'" Clearly the partiality of N for t and of B for et throw them both out of court as decisive witnesses on this point.' So it is not merely itacism that we have to deal with in the numerous N. T. examples of exchange between t and et, but "genuine peculiarities of original orthography" also.^" What- ever Dr. Hort meant, all that is true is that different scribes merely preferred one or the other method of representing I. The whole matter therefore remains in doubt and one is prepared for all sorts of variations in the N. T. MSS., because the Koivi] no ' K.-Bl., p. 131. Mayser (Gr., pp. 87-94) has a full discussion of the prob- lem in the pap. of the first three centuries b.c. and finds that in Egypt the pronunciation of « closely approached that of i. ' Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 49. In the succeeding pages he gives numerous exx. in chron. order of the various interchanges between i and a, many of them identical with the N. T. exx. ^ Unters. etc., p. 45. * Hellen., p. 172. The next most common interchange of vowels in the ■N. T. MSS. are at and t, ri and t or et, ot and u (Warfield, Text. Grit, of the N. T., p. 103). 6 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 53 f. ' Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 35 f. Cf . Egyp. pap. also. 1 Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., pp. 27 ff. s Prol., p. 47. For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, pp. 7ff. Thack. (Gr., p. 86 f .) thinks that the orthography in this poiut is older than that of K and A. » Warfield, Text. Grit, of the N. T., p. 103. *» Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 152. OETHOGKAPHY AND PHONETICS 197 longer insisted in the vernacular on the distinction between long or short t and ei. The examples here presented will give a fair idea of the situation. For the textual evidence see careful dis- cussion by Gregory.! "^here ei is written for t it is to be piro- nounced like t. Et is shortened to i in some abstract substantives, -la instead of —eia, as^ 'ArraXta, ayvLa (possibly), perhaps aKpi^la, aXafovia, iuvah'ia, apeoKia, perhaps aireuBla, WeKoBpriaKia (but BprjaKeia), eiScdXoXarpia (but Tsarpeia), eikucpwLa, perhaps eKTevia, e;rt6iKia, kpidia, iplitjvla, Uparla, Kaurapia, KOiKorfila, KaKOTradia, KoXaKla, nv^ia, Aao5ucia, fiayla, fiedoSia, d^6a\fio8ov\ia {SovXla doubtful), possibly iraiSia (cf. Ps. 53 : 5); TToXtTta, TTOpia, WTiaxla,, •n-payfmTla, irpavToBla, probably Za/iapia, XeKevKia, perhaps ffTparia, ^pfiaida, ^iXaSeXc^ia, dx^eXia. Deissmann' shows that it is \pytla., not Xo7ta in the papyri and so in 1 Cor. 16 : 1 f. Some MSS. have ^xdpxeia (for -ta), eiiTpaireXeia (for -la), -late MSS. KoXoiveia. The endings -€lov and -etos appear sometimes as -uov, -los. So 01710s, "Aptos {nd7os), &6s, (tkotwos, (^wtiws. Further examples of t for ei are found as in the MSS. in aSiA- XtTTTOS, avkKXiTTTOs, oX'ujxi}, o/iTiBbi}, i.-iTiO^s, aTTidia, airoSe&i.yiJ.kvos, "Apeoira- yiTTis, Siyiia, i^aKi4>ci}, KaTokeXifinevos (Ac. 25 : 14), even Kptcnrajj', Xt/i/ia, ''Ki.T0vpy6s, napyapirris (cf. iroXirjjs, rexvirris), fiealTTjs, o'lKTipca, irapa- Siyp,aTl^(i},Tn.66s, imSKip.pa, i\6vLKOs, (^tXoj'tKta, XP«O0'X^'''')S- This is not to mention the verb-forms Uov, 'idav, 'iSev which W. H. count alternate forms in Revelation, but which are pure examples of itacism. In the case of 'Ikovlov (Ac. 13 : 51; 14 : 1) the inscriptions give both 'Ik. and Ek.^ The use of ei for i is seen in several ways also in N. T. MSS. In Mt. 28 : 3 W. H. give eidka, not i5^a. Teivofiai and yeLv6i(TKu are very common in the best MSS. 'Rfielv and {ifieZi' are rarely seen, however. 'A^elvrj, FaXetXaia, 'EXa^ueirrjs, Aeveirris, AeueiTiKos, \eiav, NweuetTT/s, IletXaros, SaAiapetnjs all are found, as well' as rpairef eiTijs, ^apeuratot. Taxewj' appears in John and Hebrews. In the Pas- toral Epistles, Hort^ finds -XeiTr- for -Xiir- forms. Ketpiaw is correct in Jo. 11:44. Hort* also prefers xawt/cet, but vaix-wKriBd is undisputed. Such verb-forms occur as neLywfit., rei/ido), reiirw. » Prol., pp. 83-90. ' According to Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 153. ' B. S., pp. 142.f ., 219 f. » Notes on Orth., p. 155. « Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 8. » lb., p. 154. 198 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Semitic proper names in ' have et as 'ASSd, 'Apvei, 'Eo-Xet, 'HXei, MeXxet, Nijpet. Cf. also* 'Miidv, 'Axet/t, Bewa/isij', AauetS, 'EXiawtM, 'lupelfi, Kets, Aevels, Ne(l>6a\iifi, SaXei/*, Se/ieeij', x^pov^dv, Xopafeiv. So also 'EXewra/Ser, 'HXetas, Guorsipa, 'laetpos, 'Iepeix lb., p. 84. 2 Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 28 f. ' Hellen., pp. 139, 193 ff. Cf. Kretschmer, Einl. in d. Gesch. d. griech. Spr., p. 225 f. Cronert (Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 21 f .) gives exx. in Hercul. pap. Cf . Mayser, Gr., pp. 100-103, for exx. like /Si^Xos, pvPiKlov, etc., in the pap. * Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 22. In Athens before 403 B.C. o stood for o, (I), m (Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 24). = Lobeck, p. 235; The New. Phryn., p. 310. Cf. K.-Bl., I, p. 140 f., for this change in Old Attic and New Ionic. The N. T. Apoc. (Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p. 41) has exx. like k^oKoiniv as the mod. Gk. vemac. (Thumb, Neugr. Volksspr., p. 6). Cf. Buresch, Phil. U, 89. Most conmion bet. vi/iii b.c. ace. to Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 37. ' Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 66 f. 200 A GEAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT o and v. The MSS. vary between* xpSos (Syrian) and irpats in Mt. 11 : 29; 1 Pet. 3 : 4, as well as between irpa&rris and Tpaiirris in Pauline Epistles. W. H. adopt the form in -v. Von Soden varies between these forms, giving no reasons. It is the old distinction surviving in the KOLvfi. The LXX has the v form. The papyri have other illustrations (Mayser, Gr., p. 97). Cf. UorloXoi in Ac. 28 : 13 for the Latin Puteoli. and (0. Originally o represented both the short and long sounds, so that it was easy with careless pronunciation for more or less con- fusion to exist after oj came into use. The Boeotian Pindar, for instance, has AiajKuo-os instead of Ai6vvcros.^ The New Ionic foi; (parox.) appears in lieu of f w^. However, the introduction of the Ionic alphabet in 403 B.C. kept the two vowels pretty distinct in Attic till the Roman time, though the change began in the third century b.c' After the second century b.c. the exchange of these two vowels was indiscriminate in the more illiterate vernacular.* The confusion was earliest in Egypt, ^but the Attic inscriptions kept the distinction well till 100 a.d. The early un- cials for the LXX and the N.T. show little evidence of the inter- change (Thackeray, Gr., p. 89). Jannaris finds it common. The modern Greek makes no difference in sound between o and oo ex- cept medial o as in not. "In the early papyri the instances of confusion between o and co are innumerable."* The inscriptions tell the same story about the Koivii in Magnesia^ and Pergamum.' In some instances,* like dofia for SiS/ta and wpoSofia, an to is shortened to o after the analogy of e from ij in difia. In the N. T. MSS. "probably the commonest permutation is that of o and w, chiefly exemplified in the endings -o/iev and -cop.tv." ' It is useless to fol- low the MSS. through their variations on this point. In Ro. 5 : 1 ^xw/**" is supported by all the best documents and gives a difficult sense at first, though a better one on reflection than exonev. In 1 Cor. 15 : 49 the evidence is so nearly balanced that " Gregory, Prol., p. 82. ^ K.-Bl., I, p. 141. ' Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr.,p. 24 f., gives numerous exx. of the exchange in inscr. of various dates. * Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 37. Jann. quotes a Louvre pap. (165 B.C.) which has TO airo Tpinrai. Mayser (Gr., pp. 97 ff .) finds only two exx. of this confusion of o and u in the Ptol. pap. of iii/B.c, but seventy in the next two.- 6 lb. Cf. Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 19 f. » Naehm., Magn. Inschr., p. 64. ' Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 95. Cf. Thumb, Hellen., pp. 143, 172. 8 Reinhold, De Graec. Patr., p. 41, and Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. 108. 9 Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 309. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 201 W. H. cannot decide between ^i-^Tr]s (Soden) nor xpeco0eiX^ri7s according to LU, etc. (Lu. 7 : 41 ; 16 : 5). But co is correct apparently in ayoBaiaivri, ayuaaiwri, ivS6}pri(ns (Rev. 21 : 18, Soden -B6p-), Upiaahvri, p.eryaXoia-bvri, wpoi'ivds. So also the LXX, but irpb'ipos (Thack., Gr., p. 90). Codex B shows others in the LXX (*.). In Lu. 18 : 5 and 1 Cor. 9 : 27 the MSS. vary between fiTTcoxtdfto (from iir-oiinov) and uTroirtdfw (— Trt^fo) old form), though the best MSS. read inroitr.^ In Ro. 13 : 3 r$ ayadi^ Ipyif may possibly be t4> ayaSoepyQ. So in 2 Pet. 3 : 6 5t' Siv may be* for h' ov. In Rev. 4 : 7 f. 'ix'^v, not 'ixov (Soden), is read by the best MSS., though the substantive is ^i^ov. Now second century B.C. papyri have {nr6p.vripa 'ix<^v where a> and o are exchanged.* (/) The Changes with v. For the changes with v and i see under (d), v and o under (e). V and cv. Only one example of this exchange appears in the N. T., that of Trpetr/SuTijs in Phil. 9. Here the sense seems to demand Trpeo-jSeuT^s. Bentley suggested it long ago and Lightfoot (comm. in loco) collected a niunber of instances of the omission 1 Cf. Reinhold, De Graec. Patr., p. 102; Hatz., Einl. etc., p. 306. 2 W.-Sch., p. 48. ' Hort thinks so ''perhaps.'' The Doric had o-toio. Blass (Gr. N. T. Gk., p. 22) prefers the correct StwikAs, Von Soden Sratrfs. * Ace. to W.-Sch. (p. 48 f .) this is not orthographical at all, but etymolog- ical. Why not both? 6 lb., p. 48. 8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 37. Doubtless other vowel-exchanges in Rev. may have a similar explanation and so do not violate concord of gender. 202 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT of € from ev in single MSS. Hort^ thinks it due to a scribe and not to Paul, since the earlier Greek shows no examples of this interchange. However, Wood^ has found irpeafieiiTepos for irpeafii- repos in an Ephesian inscription "(analogy: in naodem Greek tv=ef). Thackeray {Gr., p. 97) finds this "natural error" in the LXX MSS. V and ov. This has always been a rare exchange in the Greek, the Boeotian dialect having retained the original v sound of v after the Attic gave it up.' The Zaconian preserves it in the modern Greek.* The koivI] has sometimes xpovtros for xpufos-' But ov was rather frequent in the Koivrj to represent the Latin u as Apovcos.^ In Rev. 3 : 18 the Latin coUyrium is given in the MSS. as KoWobpLov, KoXKbpLov, KovWovpiov, etc. W. H. prefer KoXXodpioj', though Ji^BC read -vpiov (so Soden). Blass' observes that we have long V in -ipiov. B in the LXX shows the same variations (Thack., Gr., p. 92). The Ptolemaic papyri have few instances. Cf. change of V and ov (Mayser, Gr., p. 118). Thumb (Hellen., p. 193 f.) thinks that V in the Koivi] was pronounced Uke German il, i and also u. In Rev. 1 : 5 the distinction between XxxravTi (XAC) and \ovaavTi (BP) is more than mere orthography, though the confusion was rendered easy. TI is always so written in the N. T. uncial MSS.,' though the iota was sometimes dropped in the inscriptions. {g) The Changes with co. For changes with co and a see vmder (o), for o) and o under (e). u and ov. The Thessalian dialect* exchanged co and ov as in ToD KOLvov for tS> KOLvSi. This change reappears in Rhodes and the ^olic-Doric.i" Buresch'^ finds the change between co and ov common in the Egj^jtian vernacular, as in the Sahidic Greek oo is often used for co.'^ It is, of course, possible, according to the view of Winer-Schmiedel,^' that some indicatives in ov may really ' Notes on Sel. Read., p. 136. ^ Disc, at Ephesus, App., p. 24. ' Thumb, HeUen., p. 31. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., 4th ed., p. 32 f. * Hatz., Einl. etc., p. 103. » Thumb, Hellen., p. 85. ' Cf. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 62. Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 71 f. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 22. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 118. 8 Cf. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 46 f.; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 9 f., ob- serves that B occasionally divides thus i/i.6s at end of a line and so practically A and D. 9 K.-Bl., I, p. 135. Common in mod. Gk. (Thumb, Handb., p. 8). '° Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 70 f. • " Jahrb. f. klass. Philol., 1891, p. 434. i" Tattam's Egyp. Gr., p. 5. " P. 52. Reinhold (De Graec. Patr. Apost., p. 41) gives similar exx. Xvvkv pavra appears in Egyp. pap. (B. M., vol. II, cliv). Cf . Mayser, Gr., p. 99 f. OKTHOGEAPHY AND PHONETICS 203 be subjunctive as a result of this vowel-interchange. The con- tract form for the present participle t$ vikovvti is read by AC in Rev. 2 : 17 and A in 2 : 7, a change more likely due to confu- sion of -dco and -ku verbs. So with ha fjjXoCre (Gal. 4 : 17) and tva (pvauivaBe (1 Cor. 4 : 6), but the present indicative can be used with 'Iva, and one is slow to credit this form to a mere vowel- exchange. The same remark applies to Iva Tpk(t>ovcnv (W. H. marg. Rev. 12 : 6) as well as Iva yivixmovcrLv (Tisch. and Treg., Jo. 17 : 3) and iva ffupovi^ov(Tt.v (Tisch. and Treg., Tit. 2:4). The future indicative with Iva as KaTa8ov\i)aovtn.v (Gal. 2:4), irpoaKvvi](yovau> (Rev. 9:20), (rTavpi3(Tovol ayioi, ivoxoi. ^(rav, etc. The Attic iascriptions show that the vernacular tongue did not care much about hiatus.' The lighter elisions Hke 3' were used or not at will, while the heavier ones like Skat' ih-ois were rare. The same indifference to elision appears in the koipti inscriptions* and in the papyri.' In general in the N. T. elision takes place regu- larly before pronouns and particles and before nouns in combina- tions of frequent occurrence* hke Kar' oIkov. Blass ^ has carefully worked out the following facts in the N. T. MSS. Te, oDre, /tijTe, ana, apa, ye, kjA, ?ti, Iva, Hare, etc., do not undergo elision nor do noun- or verb-forms. The verse of Menander quoted in 1 Cor. 15 : 33 is properly printed xp'/o-™ i>niKiai by W. H.^ Even the compound words Teffa-epaKovTaeriji (Ac. 7 : 23) and iKarovTaerris (Ro. 4 : 19) do not suffer .«•'. sion, while rerpa-Lpxris has no eli- sion in NCA (Alexandriaji ■ iort). Tour' tan or Tovrkim, is the only example in the prono'/^ 3 that we have in the N. T.' It is iu the particles then that most N. T. eUsions occur, though there are comparatively few. 'AXXa, according to Gregory,* has elision in 215 cases and fails to have it in 130, though the MSS. vary much. Hort' observes that in dXXd elision is usual before articles, pro- nouns and particles, but rare before noims and verbs. Ro. 6 : 14-8 : 32 has many non-elisions of dXXd, and the elision varies be- fore the different vowels except that it is constant before t. Ak rarely suffers elisionoutside of Ss 5' S.v, but here frequently, while W. H. read 3^ airS' in Ph. 2 : 18 after KBP. In 2 Cor. 3 : 16 W. H. put ifviKa 5' av in the margin, text fiv. Si iav (so Tisch., Nestle). In oidk elision takes place several times, as in oii5' av (Heb. 8 : 4), odd' el (Ac. 19 : 2, NAB), oi5' Iva (Heb. 9 : 25), o65' Stl (Ro. 9 : 7), oi5' ob (Mt. 24 : 21; Heb. 13 : 5), 063' ddrm (1 Cor. 14 : 21). Blass'" further notes that prepositions seldom use elision ■ Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 69 f. " Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 134; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 71 f. ' Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 138 f. Cf. also Thumb, HeUen. etc., p. 82. * Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 146. 6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18. Of. also Gregory, p. 93 f. ' Moulton (01. Rev., Feb. 31, 1901) finds that the pap. like the Lat. have a vowel not used in the metre. The laser, concur in this practice. Moulton, Prol., p. 45. Cf. also Mayser, Gr., pp. 155-158, 160-162. He shows that in the pap. it is largely a matter of indifference. On the scarcity of elision in the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, p. 12 f.; Thackeray, pp. 22, 136 f. ' Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 306) refers to the Oxyrhynchus pap., which have TOUT' At6>v in Jo. 20 : 22. " Prol., p. 93 f. 9 Notes, p. 146. " Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18. 208 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT with proper names, since it was thought better, as on the in- scriptions, to keep the name distinct and readily discernible, though W. H. read Si' 'kfipahii in Heb. 7 : 9. Elision is most common with 3ta as 5i' kaoirrpov (1 Cor. 13:12), "because there were already two Towels adjacent to each other" Blass^ thinks. 'Avri has eUsion only in avd' Siv (Lu. 1 :20, etc.). Elsewhere the prepositions show elision with pronouns and in current phrases, as in Att' ipx^s,'dx' apri, ax' airov, aiv' ifwv, hr' air^, Kar' k/jk, Kar' idlav {Kad' iSlav), Kar' oIkov, lier' kfiov, Trap' Siv, v(j>' rinGiv' {ifJMu), iir' oii5ev6s (1 Cor. 2 : 15) .^ So the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 137). (0 Crasis. The Attic official inscriptions make Uttle use of crasis, though it is fairly common in the vase-inscriptions of the fifth century b.c' In Magnesia Nachmanson finds only a few examples of Kai and the article.^ The same thing is true of Per- gamum.^ In the N. T. it is confine4 also to /cat and the article. And in the case of Kal crasis only occurs if the following word is a pronoun or a particle. Kal thus oftes, though not always, coalesces with kyi} and the oblique cases, as Kayi), mnoi, Kaixk. If there is a "distinct co-ordination of 'eyii with another pronoun or a substantive," crasis does not take place.* Even the MSS. vary greatly.' KdKeTws also is found as well as Ka/ceT and naKeWev. Kot likewise blends only occasionally with kav in the sense of 'and if,' as in Mk. 16 : 18; Lu. 13 : 9; Jas. 5 : 15. In the sense of 'even if the crasis is more common, as in Mt. 26:35; Jo. 8:14. In the sense of 'if it be but' or 'if only' the crasis is uniform as in Mk. 5:28; 6:56; 2 Cor. 11 : 16.^ Cf. K&.v — Ka.l k&v (Jo. 8:14, 16). The article suffers crasis very often in the older Greek, but in the N. T. it is seldom so. Hort' declines to accent ravTo. for raOra in 1 Cor. 9 : 8 or ravra. for to, aiira in Lu. 6 : 23, 26 ; 17: 30, though supported in Luke by some good MSS. He does, how- ever, accept Tovvofia iii Mt. 27:57 and Toivavriov in 2 Cor. 2:7; Gal. 2:7; 1 Pet. 3:9 ("stereotyped as a single word," Blass""). Crasis is quite rare in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 137). 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18. See Additional Notes. 2 For more minute details about the prep, see Gregory, Prol., pp. 94 fE. ' Meisterh., Att, Inschr., pp. 70 ff. * Magn. Inschr., p. 74. 5 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 133. Cf. Mayser, Gr., pp. 168 ff., for the common pap. exx. like Ki.yii, T&Xrjflfe, etc. ^ Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 145. ' See Gregory, Prol., p. 96; Von Soden, I, p. 1380. 8 See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18, and W.-Sch., p. 38; Von Soden, I,p. 1380. Blass gives KiirSinei, from D (Lu. 15 : 16). " Notes on Orth., p. 145. i» Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 19. For scarcity in LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, p. 13 f. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 209 in. Consonant-Changes (oToixeta driv, etc. In the Ptolemaic age (iii/i b.c.) the papyri give both forms. From"i/iv a.d. the papyri and uncials (LXX and N. T.) give almost wholly m forms. In the Byzantine period (vi/viii a.d.) the classic Xrjipoixdu reappears. Cf. Thack- eray, Gr., p. 108 f.; Mayser, Gr., p. 194 f.-; Cjronert, Mem., p. 66. In the LXX the uncials give the spelling of their own date, not that of the translation. In Mk. 7: 32 the extra y in fioy{'Y)L\a.\ov is inserted by the Syrian class only and is not to be accepted. In Heb. 11 : 32 X is added to l^anadov (Sa/ii^d)!/). So also in Ac. 3 : 7 (NABC) 3 is added to (7^ii(3) po;/ which is as yet "unexplained."* In the case of 'Adpaixwrrivc^ (Ac. 27: 2), read by W. H. on author- ity of AB 16 Copt, instead of 'Adpa/ivTrrivQ, a slightly different situation exists. Two ways of pronouncing and spelhng the name of the city existed. (c) The Omission of Consonants. There are not many cases where a consonant drops out of a N. T. word. In Rev. 13 : 2 the correct reading (all the uncials) is undoubtedly apKov, not &PKTOV. This form is found also in the LXX and in inscrip- tions of the first or second century a.d.' W. H., following B and a, also (save in Mk. 3 : 22) read fiee^e^ovX instead of ^eeX^e^ovX. TtKojitat and yivixTKui are the exclusive forms in the N. T., though some MSS., as in the papyri and inscriptions, have yuv-. Nach- ' Blass compares the insertion of consonants in Semitic names like "Ea-i- pas, MOM-/3-P?. 2 Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 34. ' Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 179 f. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 64, for full references concerning the use of n with \anP6.vw. Cf. Gregory (Prol., p. 72) for list and references of the various compounds of Xa/iffapw and X^iA's in the N. T., im~, kveKi-, ivn-, &to-, Kara-, fiera-, Trapa-, irpo- Tpotr-. The LXX MSS. have \iijjiipoiJuu (Q \riij/ovTai) and k\iiiul>Briv. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 22. < Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 24; W.-Seh., p. 64. » lb., p. 65. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 211 manson^ states clearly the facts. The Ionic as early as the fifth century B.C. used the yiv forms, and the Doric shows the same situation in the fourth century. Even in Athens the yiv forms appear, and in the,Koici7 the 717^ forms vanish. To\y(£ii follows the Hebrew f^)i^)>\ rather than the Chaldaic snji^b^ in having only one X. According to Winer-SchmiedeP the two forms mvSa and /cXaOSa (Ac. 27 : 16) represent two different islands near each other, which were confused in the MSS. It is hardly worth while to remark that capbuov (correct text in Rev. 4 : 3) is a substantive, while aapdivos (Text. Rec.) is an adjective. (d) Single or Double Consonants. Blass' and Winer- Schmiedel* comment on the obscurity concerning the use of single or double consonants in the Koivii. The phenomena in the N. T. in general correspond to the situation in the koivti.^ In the modern Greek vernacular (cf. Thumb, Handbook, p. 27) the double con- sonants, except in Southeastern Greek dialects, have the value of only one. In the oldest Attic inscriptions in most cases where the doubling of consonants was possible the single consonant was used.* The rule with initial p was that when it passed to the middle of a word as a result of reduplication or the prefixing of a preposition, etc., it was doubled. But IxpavTiankvos is read by NACDP in Heb. 10 : 22 as in Ionic and late Greek, ^epiiifihoL in D (Mt. 9 : 36), and Trepi.pepafiiJ.kvos in K (Rev. 19 : 13). Blass' observes ' Magn. Inschr., p. 108. Cf. also Hoffmann, Griech. Dial., Bd. Ill, p. 173; Meisterh., p. 128; Mayser, Gr. d. grieoh. Pap., p. 165; Schmid, Atticismus, Bd. IV., p. 579 (for the Atticistic t'T""); Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 91 f.; Reinhold, De Graec. Patr. etc., pp. 46-48. In the LXX yivoimi and yiviiaKui are miiform. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 21. Thack. (Gr., p. Ill f.) finds illustrations of the omission of intervocaUc 7 in the LXX imcials as in the pap.' (Mayser, Gr., p. 167 f.). 2 P. 65, where a fuU discussion of the geographical points is given. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 10. * P. 55; cf. also Riem. and Goelzer, Phonfit., pp. 225 ff. ' See Thumb, Hellen., pp. 20 ff.; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., pp. 122 ff.; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., pp. 88 ff.; Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., pp. 74 ff. Cf. Mayser, Gr., pp. 211-219. For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 14-16. The MSS. of the LXX are largely the same as those of the N. T. and show similar phenomena in orthography. So in Ex. 7: 10 B has ipii/ai, 'App. Both ippaffiiv and 6.pa06iv occur, and it is in the pap. that we can often find the true Ptolemaic spelling. A curiously has usually ykurma and B ykvniiui. ° Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 93. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 10, 328. Similar variations in usage as to p or pp appear in the inscr. of the Koaiii (Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 124, i.vavnpiiTut, etc.; Nachm., Magn. etc., p. 91) and even in the Attic inscr. (Meisterh., p. 95, hvaprfihrts, etc.). Cf. Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p. 42, for exx. of tpbaaro, etc. 212 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT that the Syriac versions use samn for TajMl, though some Attic inscriptions use initial pp. In Mt. 9:20 alfioppoowa is correct (XL one p). In Ac. 10:29 BD 61 read avavriprirw, and in Ac. 19 : 36 BL have avavripfiTcav. In Ac. 27 : 43 W. H. follow NC in airopi^/avras, and in Lu. 19 : 35 all but the Syrian class read kwi- p'i4/avres and XAB have the same form in 1 Pet. 5:7. In Mt. 9 : 36 the Neutral (and Alexandrian) class has 'epi.p.fikvoL, the Syrian kpp., while D has pepiij.p.-. In Mt. 15 : 30 NDL read ipvpav, while only the Syrian class has gppiiAai', and so in Ac. 27 : 19. But in Lu. 17 : 2 epptirrat is supported by all MSS. save n and p"". In Jo. 19 : 23 apoc^os is read by W. H., though B has oi.pp. In 2 Cor, 12 : 4 appfrtTo. is right as appuaros in Mk. 6 : 5, 13, etc. In 2 Cor. 1 : 22 W. H. follow BCD vs. NAL in reading appa^dva, a Semitic word which in its Semitic form has the doubling of the consonant and the metrical prosody --- according to Blass,^ who compares also the Latin arrha. W. H. have StapiJ^as in Mk. 14 : 63 after BN, while in Lu. 8 : 29 Suipiicraoiv is supported by ABCRUA. In Mt. 26:65 W. H. give 5i.kpri^€v on the authority of only Qt according to Tisch., though BL read Siepria-aeTo in Lu. 5 : 6. But Trpo(rkpr]^ev in Lu. 6 : 48 is supported by XBDL and in 6 : 49 by BDL. In Ac. 16:22 ireptpri^avTes is the reading of all uncials save P, but most cursives follow P. But in Ac. 14 : 14 all MSS. have Siapp^- ^avT€s and in Lu. 9 : 42 the same thing is true of eppri^ev. In Mk. 2 : 21 kTipairreL is read by all the best MSS. and the Ss^-ian class is divided, and the same is true of Mt. 26 : 67 hpa.tn.aav. In 2 Cor. 11:25 epaPSL(Tdr]v is correct, while likewise kpavricrev (Heb. 9:19, 21) has all save late Syrian support. So -pp- in 'eppWri (BD kppjjdr], not W. H., Mt. 5 : 21, etc.) is the constant reading in the N. T. In Eph. 3 : 17 (18) and Col. 2 : 7, all MSS. have kppi^oinhoi. W.. H. follow B alone in 2 Cor. 1 : 10; 2 Pet. 2 : 7 with kpixxaro, while in Col. 1 : 13 B is joined by FGP. In 2 Tim. 3 : 11 AD read kpbcoLTo, and NAC 37 give eputr9r;y in 2 Tim. 4 : 17. All MSS. have ippuxyde: (Ac. 15 : 29). Miippa (B) is changed to M6pa in the S3Tian text (Ac. 2 : 5; cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 160), but Winer-Schmiedel (p. 58) found only Mupa in the inscriptions. UapapvSiiJ.ei' (Heb. 2 : 1) is read by all the pre-Syrian classes. TLapprjaia, irapprjaia^oiiai (from irav- prjffla), not Tapr]-, is the usual reading in the N. T. (see Additional Notes), as occasionally in the inscriptiops.^ W. H. read irvppos in ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 10. 'Apa/3ci» "only Western," Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 148. But the pap. (Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 33; Deiss., B. S., p. 183 f.) frequently have ApaPiiiv, and, as Deissmann remarks, people are not always pax- ticular to preserve mere etymology. ^ CIGn,2722. 5. Cf.W.-Sch.,p. 56. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 213 Rev. 6 :4 and 12 :3, though the evidence is pretty evenly balanced.^ The Alexandrian class has Tvpa^ei in Mt. 16 : 2, but W. H. reject the passage. The MSS. all have Hujiappov in Jo. 18 : 1. The other instances outside of p are not so numerous. The MSS. (all but late Syrian) support ^aWavTvov, not ^aXavTiov, as do the papyri.^ Blass' argues for it also on metrical grounds. Tkvriiia, because given by no grammarian, was "attributed by Fritzsche (on Mark, pp. 619 ff.) to the carelessness of transcribers" (Thayer), but as sometimes in the LXX (Ezek. 36 : 30) so in the N. T. the best MSS. distinguish between ykvvmixa (from '^evvoM), ' living creatures,' as y€vviiiJ.aTa kxi-^vSiv (Mt. 3 : 7) and ykvqiia (from yivofiai), the fruits of the earth,' as iK tov jevfiiiaros Trjs anirk\ov (Mk. 14:25). Phrynichus* condemns the use of ykvvr]fia= napTrds (Dio- dorus, Polybius, etc.). Root of both verbs is yev. This distinction between jkvqixa and ykvvriii.a appears in the papyri also, though yivt]- dtvfa occurs in the Fay&m Papyri (B.U. 110. 14) "undoubtedly from Tewao)."^ So N. T. MSS. vary* about Tewjj/ia. The gram- marians (Lobeck, cd Phrynichum, p. 726) reject iKxiwo) for kxeco, but the best MSS. give kKxivvu everywhere in the N. T. W. H. accept this iEolic form in Mt. 23:35; 26 :28; Mk. 14:24; Lu. 11 : 50 marg.) ; Lu. 22 : 20 (bracket the passage) ; Ac. 9 : 22; 22 : 20. So also (Tvvxbvvu (W. H.) in Ac. 9 : 22; 21 : 31. Cf. inrepeKxvvvoMe- vov in Lu. 6 : 38. Likewise MSS. support ava^aivvca, dTrTawofnai, while the ^olic airoKrhwu is received by W. H. in Rev. 6 : 11 and airoKTevvbu in Mk. 12 : 5, though rejected elsewhere in N. T. on divided testimony. "Eraros has been restored throughout the N. T. by W. H. instead of 'ivvaros of the Text. Rec. The inscrip- tions support the N. T. MSS. in this change (Thayer). So W. H. give kpevriKovra (Mt. 18:12 ff.; Lu. 15:4, 7) but kwka always. 'Eveos, not kvveos, W. H. give (Ac. 9 : 7) as the LXX (Is. 56 : 10), a word possibly identical with Scecos (avaos). W. H. present' Kpa/Sar- Tos instead of the Kpafi^aros of the Text. Rec, though Kpa^aros would more nearly represent the Latin grabatus as it appears in Etym. M. (154. 34; 376. 36). Kpa^arpLos is found also for the 1 The inscr. show trvpds also (Dittenb., 177. 15; 748. 20). 2 Cronert, Mem. Graec. HercuL, p. 76. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 11. ■ Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 348. ' Deiss., B. S., pp. 109 f., 184. Cf. Thackeray, p. 118. » Gregory, Prol., p. 79. ' In Mk. B (5) has KpaParos, but is not followed by W. H. in Jo. and Ac. (6). Thumb, Hellen., p. 22, argues for ;3/3 as the correct form from mod. Gk. usage. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 328) cites both Kpa/SarTos and /cpo/Sdrtoi' from Arrian's Diss.. Epict. and Kpaparros from the pap. Cf . Moulton's note in Einl. 214 A GKAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Latin grabatarius (CIGII 2114 d i). N, however, has 10/11 times the strange form KpafiaKTos {-tt- only in Ac. 5 : 15). Aoo-^a (Ac. 27 : 8) is Aaco-ata in some MSS. Mo/iwas, from Aramaic siidSB, is correct. Mao-ao/jai is the right reading in Rev. 16 : 10 (NACP). Only the Western class has vXriiMiipris for irXTj/iM^pr/s in Lu. 6 : 48. W. H. properly have paxos, not pd/c/cos, from pijyvviii (Mt. 9 : 16; Mk. 2 : 21). In the Western interpolation in Ac. 20 : 15, W. H. read TpcayiXiov, not -{iWiov nor -i\tx>v. Some Latin MSS. read hysopus for iiccoiiros in Jo. 19 : 29 and Heb. 9 : 19. $676X05, not -eXXos, is read in 2 Tim. 1 : 15 by all save A and most cursives. Cf. ^vykXios in CIGH 3027. The Hebrew and Aramaic proper names call for special re- mark. "Avms = ^'i'n (Josephus "Avavos) may be due to the drop- ping, of a or to the analogy of "Awa=n3n. W. H. (Ac. 1:23; 15:22) prefer Bapo-a/SiSas (from saipia, 'son of the Sabbath') to Bapo-ajSas (from s??' 15, 'son of Saba')-' The Text. Rec. has r&rj- aapkr (W. H. Ttwria-apkr) in Mk. 6 : 53, elsewhere -vv-.^ Tdfwppa is read in LXX and N. T. (Mt. 10 : 15, etc.), nias. W. H. accept 'EXto-atos, not 'EXto-ff. (Syrian) in Lu. 4 : 27=9^'')>% 'leo-o-oi (Lu. 3 : 32, etc.) comes from ^V":. The N. T. and 1 M^acc. have 'loiririj, but the ancient grammarians and lexicographers pre- fer 'loTTJj.^ In Lu. 3 : 27 'loiavav (indecUnable) is the right text. W. H. prefer 'luava (inii) to 'luiavva in Lu. 8 : 3; 24 : 10. But more doubt exists concerning 'Iwavris, which W. H. read everywhere save in Ac. 4:6; 13 : 5; Rev. 22 : 8, following B and sometimes D. The single v prevails in D in Luke and Acts, while 'Icoavpi;x is more common in D in Matthew, Mark, John.* N has the single V in the part written by the scribe of B.^ The inscriptions have it both ways. Blass^ finds the explanation in the Hebrew termi- nation -an, which was treated as a variable inflection in the Greek, the LXX MSS. having now 'Iwamc and now 'Icodyoi'. This fact opposes the derivation of the name 'Icoavvris from 'Iccav&v-ris, leaving the -17s unexplained.'' Maptd^u (c^l^a) = Mapiaixfiri in Josephus.' Meo-ffias is from the Aramaic i«n;^o'.J?= Hebrew n'maran, but the Syr- » Cf. W.-Sch., p. 57. 2 Cf. Pliny (Nat. Hist., V, 15. 71 for Tevr,.) also. In W.-Sch., p. 57, the point is made that the unpointed Targums do not distinguish between IP'^, and IQIJ. ' W.-Soh., p. 56, ='13; or ;3;. Cf. on this subject Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 26 f. < BIass,*Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 328, quoting E. Lippett. 6 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 159. ' W.-Sch., p. 57; E. Bibl., p. 2504 f. « Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 11. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 11. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 215 ian class reads Meo-ios in Jo. 1 : 41 (42) ; 4 : 25. 2appa, Heb. nito (feminine of lie), is read by MSS. generally in N. T., though L has Sapas in Eo. 4 : 19 (vulg. Sarae). All the MSS. have w in T^owavva (Lu. 8 : 3) after the Heb. nsiBim ('a lily')- Xappav is supported by most MSS., though D and a few cursives have Xapi.v in Ac. 7 : 2 after the Hebrew Tin. The LXX has Xappav and the Greek writers (Strabo, etc.) have 'Kappai, Latin Carrhae. Doubling of the Aspirate. As a rule the aspirated mutes {6, x, ^- In Philemon 2 D has 'k.4>ia, while 3 has 'Axirta (so vulg.) and FG, etc., even 'kli4>la. In Mk. 7 : 34 all MSS. have iaBa (or e^^effd) save A and two Coptic MSS. which have kvaBa. W. H. give MaB6a'ioz = Hebrew rii,Pia in the N. T. (Mt. 9 : 9 ff., etc.), and UaJddkv in Mt. 1 : 15. W. H. read MaT6aT in Lu. 3 : 24, but Ma66aT in Lu. 3 : 29. In Ac. 1 : 23, 26 W. H. have MaSflias, but in Lu. 3 : 25 f. they pre- fer MoTTa^ias to Ma00a0ios. In Ac. 5 : 1, W. H. consider 2a<^0£ipa Western and read Sairc^etpa (either Aramaic !*"ii6p, 'beautiful,' or Hebrew li&o, 'precious stone ').i The LXX MSS. show the same variations. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 121. (e) Assimilation of Consonants. In the early period of the Greek language the inscriptions often show assimilation of con- sonants between separate words. The words all ran together in the writing (scriptura continua) and to some extent in pro- nunciation like the modern French vernacular. Usage varied very early, but the tendency was constantly towards the dis- tinctness of the separate words (dissimilation). However, k^ came finally to be written k before consonants, though iy, kK, ex, tyK and even k (cf. Latin) are found in Attic inscriptions,^ as iy vriaav, etc. Only sporadic examples outside of k^ and k appear in the N. T. as dj'e7Xt7rTos in D (Lu. 12 : 33), dxe7Suo-€i in B (Col. 2 : 11), 'eyyova in D (1 Tim. 5 : 4), eggona, not engona? The Attic inscriptions even have s assimilated in tovK XWovs. The most ' On the whole subject see Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 159, and Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 11. Cf. also Schweizer, Perg. etc., pp. 110 f., 114 f. Cf. for the pap., Mayser, Gr., pp. 190-224; Soden, I, pp. 1372 fE. 2 Cf . Meisterh., pp. 105-109. In North Engl, one hears "ith wood" for "in the wood." The MSS. of the LXX show the same phenomena as one sees in the N. T. MSS. and the pap., like iy jaarpl, in iniaif, avyypcupav, etc. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 16 f.; Thack., Gr., pp. 130 ff. ' Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 12; Ausspr. etc., p. 123. Alexandrian writers followed the Attic in this assimilation. Blass compares the guttural use of a in d^Xi (Mt. 27 : 46) in L and in the LXX 'AepMuv, 'AevSiip. 216 A GKAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT common assimilation between separate words is in words ending in -V, especially with the article and kv. Examples like ttiix ttoKlv, To\ \6yov, Top 'VoSiov, k\ Aec/Sq), kff Xi8S)vi, etc., are very common.' Similar phenomena occur in the kolvti inscriptions, though the failure to assimilate is far more noticeable. See list of examples in Nachmanson.2 As a rule the papyri do not assimilate such cases.' In the N. T., as in the later kolvti generally, only a few remnants survive of this assimilation of v between words. Blass,* who has used the MSS. to good purpose, finds several, as, for in- stance, ky yaffTpi in A (Lu. 21 : 23), ky Kavd in AF (Jo. 2 : 11), k/i likaoi in AC (Rev. 1 : 13; 2 : 1, etc.), in AP (Heb. 2 : 12), in LA (Mt. 18 : 2; Lu. 8 : 7), kp, 7rpa6rr;rt in K (Jas. 1 : 21), cr{)fi Maptd/i in AE, etc. (Lu. 2 : 5), avu ■Ko.ffi.v in EG, etc. (Lu. 24 : 21). The earUer papyri (up to 150 b.c.) show a good deal of this assimilation be- tween words (Thackeray, Gr., p. 131). This assimilation between separate words is common in modem Greek (of. Thumb, Handb., pp. 16 ff.). So Tov irarkpa—tombatera. But a much more difficult matter is presented in the case of kv and vvv in composition, though in general "assimilation is the rule in compounds of kv, retention of v in those of cvv."^ But in 1 and 2 Peter assimila- tion is the rule (only two clear exceptions) for both cvv and kv, due possibly^ to the absence of uncials. The later papyri as a rule do not assimilate chv, though often kv.'' In the N. T. no ex- amples occur of kv or aiiv before ^ or p.* Hort ^ gives a list of what he considers "the certain and constant forms" of kv and cw in composition. "All other compounds of ahv and kv are included in the list of alternative readings." Hort thus reads e/i- before the labials (x, /3, ) and the liquid ij. except hvKepi%aTi]cco (2 Cor. 6 : 16), possibly kvKvkuv (Ac. 9:1), and 'ivwpoadev once (Rev. 4:6) and Western class elsewhere. So assimilation takes place before the liquid X, as eXXoYdco. But before the palatals k, y the usage varies, though before x we have kyxp'i<^o.i (Rev. 3 : 18) with }{ reading kv. 1 Meisterh., p. 110 f. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 97. " Magn. Inschr., p. 100 f. Cf. also Schweizer, Perg. etc., p. 127; Jami., Hist. Gk'. Gr., p. 92. = Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 57; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 12. * lb., pp. 11 f., 306. 6 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 149. " lb. In general see Wecklein, Curae Epigr. ad Gr. Graecae etc., 1869, p. 47f. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 12. Cf. Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 61. 8 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 149. See for LXX Thackeray, pp. 132 ff. ' lb. For the inscr. see Nachm., Magn., p. 104 f. The Coptic shows similar variation. For the loss of final v in mod. Gk. vernac. see Thumb, Handb., p. 24 f . OKTHOGRA.PHY AND PHONETICS 217 We read hyey paii/ikmi in 2 Cor. 3 : 2 f . ({lJjai,, evKivrpi^di, evKplvoi, though £7- KoKici), h/Kkqua, etc., and hr/KaraKfiictii except in Acts.^ As to abv here is Hort's decision. Iiwiv- he accepts save in aviiirdaia. On the other hand Hort has only avvPaciXevu, crw/St/Saf co, elsewhere avp.^- as in (TvuPaivu; only o-foi^jj/ut, avv(t>ijco, but avfj/tj)^ as in epiii. With the palatals Hort reads awK- always, as in (TWK&BrjfiaL, only (xuyye- VT]s, (yvyKoKbiTTU, but trvvxpi^fJ^i- and avyx^o^i'S- He has both i^(ii, avfifiopcfios. Hort has avv^Si, etc., but cv^vye; abv^vxos, but has both avvaravpoo}, etc., and avarpkclxa, etc. For the detailed MS. evidence see Gregory." Hort also prefers iraKivyiveala, but is doubtful about Kevxp^oX, ira,VKKr\dd. (/) Interchange and Changing Value of Consonants. One cannot here go into the discussion of the labial, palatal, dental, velar stops, the spirants, liquids, nasals. One can give only the special variations in the N. T. The 6 sound was rare in the older Indo-Germanic languages and easily glided into u or v? The Greek ^a.lv "greatly preponderates over apirriv" (Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 33). Cf. also Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p. 44 f. Thumb, Hellen., p. 77 f. 218 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Bappiiv is the correct text, f displaces o- in a few words. Voiced v\aaopiu and Tpoo(l>opko3 are two distinct words, though the MSS. differ widely in Ac. 13 : 18, the Neutral and Western supporting rpov-. Hort considers a^vpls for o-Trupis right (Mt. 15 : 37, etc.). It is well attested by the papyri.* W. H. read e\KU(rTiK6v (paragogic v) cannot be reduced to any clear rule. The desire to avoid hiatus extended this usage, though it probably originally had a meaning and was extended by analogy to cases where it had none. Cf. Enghsh articles a, an (Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 208). ' Prol., p. 45. Cf. Thumb, HeUen., p. 90. ' Cf. W.-Sch., p. 69. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 24; W.-Sch., p. 61. Cf. Meisterh., p. 48, for this interaspiration in the old Attic inscr. Cf. Mayser, pp. 180 S. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 45. The Ptol. pap. have both spellings, Deiss., B. S., p. 185. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 173. 220 A GRAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT The same thing is true of movable final s. In the old Attic before 403 B.C. this movable v was seldom used. It is more frequent in the new Attic up to 336 b.c, and most common in the noivii, vanishing again in the modern Greek, as v easily disappears in pronuncia- tion. Meisterhans^ has an interesting table on the subject, show- ing the relative frequency in different centuries. This table proves that in the KOi,vr] it came to be the rule to use the movable V both before consonants and vowels. This is shown also by the inscriptions^ and the Ptolemaic papyri. Per contra note the dis- ' appearance of final v in modern Greek vernacular, when not pro- nounced (Thumb, Handb., pp. 24 ff.). However, as a rule, this movable final v occurs only with the same classes of words as in the Attic as after -en, karl and e in verbs (3d sing, past tenses). The irrational v mentioned as common later by Hatzidakis' is rare. The older N. T. MSS. (KABC) are in harmony with the KOLvr] and have the movable v and s both before consonants and vowels with a few exceptions. The later N. T. MSS. seem to feel the tendency to drop these variable consonants. Moulton^ mentions tieL^c^v (Jo. 5 : 36) as a good example of the irrational v in N. T. MSS. (ABEGMA). Cf. also the irrational v with the subjunctive in the papyri. So eav rjv apavov P. Oxy. 744 (i/B.c.) for J. See Moulton, Prol., pp. 168, 187, for further examples. The failure to use this v was originally most common in pause, some- times even before vowels.^ Blass^ observes that it was only the Byzantine grammarians who made the rule that this v should be used before vowels and not before consonants, a rule of which their predecessors did not have the benefit, a thing true of many other grammatical rules. We moderns can teach the ancients much Greek! Since the N. T. MSS.' show no knowledge of this later grammatical "rule," W. H. follow a mechanical one indeed, 1 Att. Inschr., p. 114. 2 Sohweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 137, whose table confirms that of Meisterh. Cf. also Thieme, Inschr. von Magn., p. 8; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 110, with similar table. The pap. agree, Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 137, and Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 236 ff . In the LXX v k^i\K. occurs before con- sonants also. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 22 ff.; Thack., Gr., pp. 134 £f. So as to movable s. Cf . iikxpi ifuiv and iiixpi-s o5 in LXX. 3 Einl. etc., p. Ill, like hrropiiB-nv & vaSs. Cf. Schweiz., Perg. Inschr., p. 137. 4 Prol., p. 49. Cf. also Reinhold, De Graec, p. 37. 6 W.-Sch., p. 62. 6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 19. ' Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 147 f.; Gregory, Prol., p. 97 f. In simple truth V movable was not so uniform in the earlier Gk. (esp. Thuc.) as the grammars imply. Cf. Maasson, De Uttera c Graec. parag., 1881, pp. 47, 61. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 221 but the only practical guide under the circumstances. They go by the testimony of the oldest uncials. Hort gives a considerable list of examples where the v is wanting in one or more of the older uncials, but where W. H. have v, as in afmvaiv (Mt. 4:6), iraaLv (Mt. 5 : 15), etc. But in Lu. 1 : 3 "e8o^e is read by NBCD. In Ac. 24 : 27 KOTeXtTre is supported by XB. There are about a dozen more instances in Hort's long list of alternative readings where W. H. prefer the form without v, rather more frequently after o-t, than after e.' W. H., however, have et/cocrt everywhere, as was usually the case in the Attic inscriptions and always in the Ptole- maic papyri and the LXX MSS. both before vowels and con- sonants.^ So fUTpoadev, 'e^coBev, bncdtv in the N. T. Likewise ■wkpvcn is correct in 2 Cor. 8 : 10; 9:2.' The variable s calls for a few words more. All good MSS. give &vTi.Kpv% Xiou in Ac. 20 : 15.* But as in Attic, the N. T. MSS. usually have axpi- and m^xP' even before vowels. "Axpt (always before consonants) thus precedes vowels some fifteen times, and once only do we certainly* have dixP" (Gal. 3 : 19), though it is uncertain whether it is followed by av or o5. M^xP' is always used in the N.. T. before a consonant and once before a vowel, yuexpi 'Iwavov (Lu. 16 : 16). The early N. T. editors used to print ovna before consonants and outojs before vowels, but W. H. print oiircos 196 times before consonants and vowels and only ten times oiirw (all before consonants). These ten instances are Mk. 2:7; Mt. 3: 15; 7: 17; Ac. 13:47; 23:ll;Ro. 1:15; 6:19; Ph. 3:17; Heb. 12:21; Rev. 16:18.« (i) Metathesis. ^aiKovris (2 Tim. 4 : 13), Latin paemda. See Additional Notes. IV. Breathings. (a) Origin of the Aspirate. As is well known, in the mod- ern Greek no distinction is made in pronunciation between spiri- tus asper and spiritus lenis, or Tveviia Saav and wvevixa ^CKbv. That » See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 19; Gregory, Prol., p. 97. * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 328, and references there given. Of. Thack., Gr., p. 135. ' Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 19) quotes Attic usage for vkfivaiv before vowels. * For the Horn. &vtikpv and further items see W.-Sch., p. 63 and note. 'kvTiKpvs {jiaravTiKpi) in Attic is 'downright,' not 'over against' (Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 20). Of. for the pap. Mayser, Gr., pp. 242 ff. ' Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 148. But W. H. read axpw oC in Heb. 3 : 13, else- where axpt o6. For further discussions of Sxp' and m^xp' see W.-Sch., p. 63 note. " For illustrations from the noaiti inscr. see Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 112. Of. Reinhold, p. 37 f. 222 A GKAMMAK OF THE GKEEK NEW TESTAMENT is to say, the "rough" breathing is only a conventional sign used in writing. This sign is indeed a comparatively modern device, ' and ', in use in the MSS. generally since the eleventh century A.D.1 This form was an evolution from H (Phoenician B, he), then h and ^, then L and J.'' This breathing (rough or smooth) did not find a place in the Greek alphabet, and so is not found in the early uncial MSS. It becomes therefore a difficult question to tell whether the modern ignoring of the rough breathing was the rule in the first century a.d. The MSS., as Hort' points out, are practically worthless on this point. The original use of H as equal to h or the rough breathing was general in the old Attic and the Doric, not the iEolic and Ionic. And even in the Attic- inscriptions the usage is very irregular and uncertain. Nmnerous examples like HEKATON occur, but some like HEN also, so that even H was not always rough.^ The modern EngUsh cockneys have no monopoly of trouble with h's. In French h is silent as I'homme. The Greeks always found the matter a knotty prob- lem. The use of H=77 in the Ionic and Attic (after 403 B.C.) left the Greeks without a literary sign for h. The inscriptions show that in the vernacular H continued to be so used for some time. (6) Increasing De-aspiration (Psilosis). But there was a steady decrease in the use of the h sound. The Ionic, like the .^oUc, was distinguished by psilosis, and the kolvti largely' fol- lowed the Ionic in this respect. More certain is the use of the aspirated consonants x, &, , which succeeded the older KH, TH, IIH.' But certainly the rough breathing was in early use as the > Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 63. The marking of the rough breathing waa general in the earlier forms in vii/A.D., ib., p. 65. ^ Cf. Bekker, Anec, II. 692, and Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 63. » Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 310. Cf . also Sitterley, Praxis in MSS. of the Gk. Test., 1898, p. 32. See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 25 f., for remarks on breath- ings in the LXX MSS., where ^oUc and Ionic psilosis occur in tir' A5ou kot' Ira as well as exx. of aspirated consonants like koB' 68a\iiobs, koA' iviavT6v, bji' elSep, not to mention o6k iapluaunv and oix ISoii. For further remarks on breathings in the LXX see Swete, O. T. in Gk., p. 302. * Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 81, 91. The stop for the opening of the glottis (lenis) easily becomes breathed (rough). Cf. also Thumb, Unters. iiber d. Spir. Asper. im Grieoh., 1888, p. 63. ^ Cf. Thumb., p. 73 f. The Laconic Gk. used H in interaspiration as well as at the beginning (ib., p. 8). Dawes (Pronun. of the Gk. Aspirates, 1894, p. 103) is not able to reach a final decision as to whether the Gk. aspirates are genuine aspirates like the Sans, according to Brugmann, Curtius, etc. • Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 91. On the whole subject of the aspirated ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 223 inscriptions show, though not with much consistency.* Some- times the rough breathing may be due to the disappearance of a digamma, though sometimes a smooth breathing displaces it, as ipyop from Fkpyov^ (cf. English 'work'). Then again the disap- pearance of ), see Meisterh., p. 102, exx. of Ixto in Attic inscr. v/b.c. See also article by Pemot in Rev. des fit. Grq., 1906, pp. 10-23, on La M^tathSse dans les Dial, de Chio. * Schweizer, Perg. Inschr. etc., pp. 116 ff. The Attic had only tdu>s, but iopTTi (Meisterh., p. 87). ' Naohm., Magn. Inschr., p. 83. ° Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 152 f. ' Thumb, Hellen. etc., p. 64. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 44. Cf. also for the inscr., Dittenb., fe^' Iros (458. 71), Kae' ISlav (233. 49), and for the pap., Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901 (pp. 33, 434) and 1904 (p. 106). Cf. also Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 312. ' lb., p. 311. i» Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 15. " Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 313; App., p. 160. ^ W.-Sch., p. 40. " Gregory, Prol., p. 91; Thack., p. 125. 224 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT in Hermas and in the Attic.^ In Ro. 8 : 20 W. H. accept k^' kXTriSi., while various MSS. support it in Ac. 2 : 26; 1 Cor. 9 : 10; Ro. 4 : 18; 5:2; Tit. 1 : 2, and FG have Kad' k\iri8a in Tit. 3 : 7. Hort'' thinks this is due to digamma dropped as well as in the case of aopcLv may be the explana- tion.' "E0t5€ is read by a few MSS. in Ac. 4:29 as k^itbev in Lu. 1 : 25. Gregoay* gives many examples of d^-, 'e^, koB- with ^XTTtfw and dSov in the LXX. W. H. offer ovx tSoii as an alternative reading in Ac. 2 : 7, while B reads ovx iSovres in 1 Pet. 1 : 8 aQd oix et5ov in; Gal. 1 : 19. A has oix oxlyeade in Lu. 17: 22. W. H.^ put oiix 'lovSaLK&s in the margin in Gal. 2 : 14. Ka9' ISiav appears in K once, in B eight times, in D three times, in A once (Mt. 14 : 23; 17: 1,19; 20: 17; 24:3; Mk.4:34; 6 :31; 9:28; 13 :3). But W.H. no- where accept it, not even when B combines with K or D. NB have it in Mt. 24 : 3. The form koB' tSLav is common in the Koivii inscrip- tions and the papyri. KadeiSaiXov is read by M in Ac. 17 : 16. On the other hand koB' 'iros, so common in the Koivii (cf. Latin vetus), is not found in the N. T., all MSS. in Lu. 2 : 41 reading Kar' eras. Hort* considers ovk eaTriKev (Jo. 8 :44) to be merely the imperfect indicative of Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 144. s W.-Sch., p. 39. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 16. < Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 16. 6 Hort, Intr. to N. T. Gk., p. 313. Cf. also Gregory, Prol., p. 106 f., for list of these words. ' Strange as it may seem, "Hebrew'' rather than "Ebrew" is modem (Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 313). ' Hort (Notes, etc., p. 144), however, merely follows custom and prints iir(r. 8 Intr. to N. T. Gk., p. 313. ' Ib. " Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 16. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 30 f. " W.-M., p. 53. 226 A GEAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT tom.i The MSS., of course, give no help in the matter. The breathing with p is not written in the modem Greek vernacular text as in Pallis or Thmnb. if) The Question of Avtov. This is somewhat knotty. It seems clear that as a rule avrov and not airov is to be printed in the N. T. A number of reasons converge^ on this point. The older Greek often used ainov rather than iavrov as shown by the aspiration of the prepositions like d^' airov, etc. In the N. T. there is not a single case of such aspiration after elision save in a few single MSS. Add to this the fact that the N. T. uses the re- flexive pronoun much less than the earUer Greek, "with unusual parsimony" (Hort). Besides the personal pronouns of the first and second persons are frequently employed (Buttmann) where the reflexive might have been used. Buttmann urges also the point that in the N. T. we always have o-eauroO, not aavTov. The earliest uncial MSS. of the N. T. and the LXX that use the dia- critical marks belong to the eighth century, but they all have avTov, not avTov. Even in the early times it was largely a matter of individual taste as to whether the personal or the reflexive pro- noun was used. Blass (p. 35) indeed decides absolutely against aiiTov. But the matter is not quite so easy, for the koivti inscrip- tions give examples of u<>' avrov in first century b.c. and a.d.' Mayser* also gives a number of papyri examples like kojB' avrov, lied' avrov, v4>' aiirSiv, where the matter is beyond dispute. Hort agrees with Winer in thinking that sometimes avrov must be read unless one insists on undue harshness in the Greek idiom. He in- stances Jo. 2 : 24, airds 5i 'Iriaovs oiiK tirlar&XTtv avrdv ahroh, and Lu. 23 : 12, irpovw^pxov yap kv ixOpa- &vres irpos avrovs. There are other examples where a different meaning will result from the smooth and the rough breathing as in 1 Jo. 5 : 10 (airi^), 18 (ai- rov, avrov), Eph. 1 : 5 (avrov), 10 (aiT Henry, Comp. Gr. of Gk. and Lat., Elliott's transl., 1890, p. 93 f. Cf. Meister, Bemerk. zur dorischen Accentuation, p. 1. ' Of. Wheeler, Griech. Nom. etc., p. 11, and Wack., Beitr., p. 19. ' Prol., p. 99 f. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 15. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 67, for further parallels. Also W.-M., p. 57. 6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 15. « P. 68. •' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 15. Blaas urges that B has eXei^w, but W. H. refuse to follow B in matters of orthography. But the Herculaneum roUs here rein- force B with « before i/. On the whole subject see Lipsius, Gr. Unters., pp. 31 £f.; Lobeck, Parall., pp. 400ff.; Cobet, N. T. Vatic, pp. xhxS. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 231 4:35). By parity of reasoning W. H. reject the circumflex ac- cent in i\Kvaai., Mvov, fivpov, (tttlKos, arvKos, (rvvTeTpl(j)9aL (Mk. 5:4), though (TWTpi^ov (Lu. 9:39) and cKvKa (Lu. 11:22). Cf. /iCdos, fiapyapLTai,, vlkos, ctTtos, crvKov, etc. W. H. read yj/iixos also. The length of V in idncrw is uncertain; avaKij^ai. and irapaKii^ai usually appear in the N. T. W. H. have, however, Kpa^ov in Gal. 4:6 and XaTXai^ in Mk. 4 : 37. But ea-rarai (Ac. 12 : 14) is right, though Spat (Mt. 24 : 17), dviiiaacu (Lu. 1 : 9) because of long a. Cf. also brapaL (Lu. 18:13), km^avcu (Lu. 1:79), irpofai (Ac. 26:9), but irtAa-ai (Jo. 7 : 30). So KOTaXOcrat (Mt. 5 : 17), KCLTfvOvvai (Lu. 1 : 79) and KcoXvaaL (Ac. 10 : 47). 2. Separate Words. These are not so easily classified. W. H. read kyopaioi, not d76patot; &VTI.KPVS, not kvTiKpi; avrlTrepa, not &,vti- irkpa(y); inrodeKTOs, not airoSeKTOs but l/cXeKris, eiiXoyriTos, fuaBcaTOs; apetrda (from apea-Kevco) , with which compare epidia (from kpiOebu); dxpeios (Attic axpeios), as also 'epr;fu>s (Attic ipTJfios), eTot/ios (Attic iroifioi), /icapos (Attic fiSipoi), oiwlos (Attic dpmos), xXwpos (Attic x^^ pos); ^padvrijs (3d decL), but aJ&p6rr)s (3d decl.); ia^o{]s (Mt. 3:4), not oo-^Cs; laxw, not lo-xCs; icXets in nominative singular (Rev. 9:1), though kXcTs (1 : 18) and /cXeiSas (Mt. 16 : 19) in accusative plural, etc., with which compare -wovs (Mk. 9:45), not TToCs, and Cf. W.-M., p. 58. 2 As shown in W.-M. (p. 60), the N. T. MSS. have iXuap6s. The compound adverbs eTrkeim, inrep- kKiiva have thrown back the accent. 3. Difference in Sense. With some words the accent makes a difference in the sense and is quite important. We have, for in- stance, "Ayia, not ayia, in Heb. 9:2. W. H. read dXXa, not aXXo, in Jo. 6 : 23. In Jas. 1 : 15 W. H. have airoKvei (from -koS), not cLTTOKveL (from -KViS). So W. H. print &.pa (interrog.) in Gal. 2: 17, not iipa. (illative). Avrri and avTr] are easily confused, but W. H. prefer aiiTiy to avrri in Mt. 22:39 {avrrj in margin); Ro. 7:10; 1 Cor. 7:12; and avr^fi to avrv in Lu. 2:37; 7:12; 8:42; Ro. 16 : 2. In Rev. 2 : 24 the adjective ^aBka is correct, not the sub- stantive ^adea (uncontracted from Pados). Ae^toXa/Sos or 8e^i6\a- iSos is possible in Ac. 23:23 (cf. Winer-Schmiedel, p. 69). So W. H. give us eyxp'i(rat (infinitive) in Rev. 3 : 18, not eyxpi-crai. (imperative). Cf, also kTiTip,ii(Ta.L (Jude 9), optative, not infinitive -^(rai. Note the difference between o^rie'nTe (imperative) in Lu. 12 : 5. In Jo. 7 : 34, 36, W. H. prefer ei/ii rather than el/xL (not elsewhere used in the N. T. save in com- position with prepositions awo, ds, k^, kwi, ahv). In Mk. 13:28 and Mt. '2A:2i2 W. H. have k^ujj (present active subjunctive), not k0ug (second aorist passive subjunctive). In Lu., 19:29; 21 : 37 W. H. prefer 'EXaicoj', not 'EXatcbi' (the correct text in Ac. 1 : 12, and possibly in Luke also according to the papyri, though 'EXaiSva would be the form expected) .* In Mk. 4 : 8, 20, W. H. put kv in the text and iv in the margin. "Evi, not kvi, occurs with o\ik several times, once (1 Cor. 6 : 5) oiin hi kv. In Lu. 9 : 38, W. H. read km^ke^ai (infinitive), not kwi^'Kepai. (imperative). In 1 Cor. 5 : 11 W. H. read fl (subjunctive), not ^ (conjunction as Rec). In Ro. 1 : 30 W. H. follow most editors in giving OeoaTvyeis (pas- sive), not deocTiyeis (active sense of the adjective). In Mk. 5 : 29 all editors have the perfect Wat, not the present iarai. In Lu. 22 : 30 W. H. read Kadrj (future indicative) to Kepbavo: (aorist subjunctive), and in 1 Cf. W.-S., p. 73. ^ lb., p. 72. 3 lb., p 69. 1 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 69. On accent of the vernac. see Apostolidea, rXoio-o-wat MeXIrat (1906). OKTHOGEAPHY AND PHONETICS 233 1 Cor. 6 : 2 Kpivovaiv (future) to Kplvovaiv (present indicative in marg.). In Mk. 12 : 40 we have fiaKpa, not imkp^. In 1 Cor. 3 : 14 W. H. prefer /iem (future) to ixkvei (present), and in Jo. 14 : 17 they have nkva. In 1 Cor. 4 : 15 (14 : 19) and Mt. 18 : 24 no distinction can be made in the accent of ii,vpioL ('innumerable') and ixbpvoi, ('ten thousand') because of the cases. Dr. E. J. Goodspeed, of Chi- cago University {Expository Times, July, 1909, p. 471 f.), suggests ois=6fu>lo}s. In Jo. 18:37 W. H. give oiKovv, not oiKovv, in Pilate's question. In Ac. 28 : 6 W. H. print irLinrpacBai (tit verb), not Tn/iTpaadai (w verb). In Rev. 17 : 5 TopvSiv (feminine) is probably right, not irSpvuv (mas- culine). UpuTOTOKos (Col. 1 : 15), not ttpuitotokos, is manifestly right. The difference between the interrogative ris and the in- definite Tis calls for frequent attention. In Heb. 5 : 12 W. H. have TLva, not Hva, but in Heb. 3 : 16 rlvts, not nves, and in 3 : 17 t'utlv', not TLcriv, while in Mt. 24 : 41, 1 Th. 4 : 6, 1 Cor. 15 : 8 and 16 : 16 the article t$ is to be read, not the indefinite tc^, which form does not occur in the N. T. In 1 Cor. 10 : 19 tI kanv (twice) is not interrogative, but the enclitic indefinite with the accent of kariv. In Jas. 3:6 rpox^s ('wheel') is properly read, not rpoxos ('course'). In Mk. 4:12 W. H. read cwLocnv, not a-vviSxnv, as (TvvioviTiv iuMt. 13 : 13. Winer' considers the suggestion of ^cotSiv for 6iT0}v in Jas. 1 : 17 "altogether absurd." 4. Enclitics (and Proclitics). Proclitics are regular in the N. T. The accent of enclitics calls for comment. As a rule W. H. do not accent them. So we have avrov nvas (Mk. 12 : 13), etrai nva (Ac. 5:36), ISoi) TLves (Mt. 28: 11), 656v daiv (Lu. 8: 12), aavveroL icre (Mk. 7 : 18), y&p kare (Mk. 13 : 11), Kai vria'Lv (Heb. 8 : 5 and cf. Mt. 14 : 8; Ac 25 : 5, 22; 26 : 25; 1 Cor. 6 :16; 2 Cor. 10 : 10) for clearness in punctuation, xai eiclv (Mt. 19 : 12 and cf . Ac. 5 : 25) for emphasis, Beov kaiiiv (1 Jo. 3 : 2), iiwo tivSiv (Lu. 9 : 8) Hkewise, oi)K flfii (Jo. 1 : 21). In oirov el/jLi (Jo. 7 : 34, 36) the accent is regular, though some critics wrongly prefer et/ii. The use of eariv and €ctti.v demands special comment. When unemphatic, not at the beginning of a sentence, not preceded by dXX', ei, Kal, ovk, '6tl, tovt', or a paroxytone syllable, as, for example, in 'lovda'iMv karlv (Jo. 4 : 22), we have unaccented kopos (2 Tun. 1 : 16; 4 : 19), n&rapa (Ac. 21 : 1), Uippos (Ac. 20:4), Swt6x'7 (Ph. 4 : 2), Xcctrdhris (1 Cor. 1:2), TifMv (Ac. 6 : 5), T6- XtKos (Ac. 20:4) ^iXtjtos (2 Tim. 2 : 17). But Xpurros always re- tains the oxytone accent whether proper name (1 Tim. 1:1) or verbal adjective (Mt. 16 : 16). In 2 Tun. 4 : 21 Aivos, not ATj-os, is read. So Tiros (2 Cor. 2 : 13, etc.). In Ac. 27 : 17 Siprts is read by W. H. But $i?Xi? in Ac. 24 : 22, etc. 6. Foreign Words. These always give occasion for diversity of usage in transliterating them into another tongue. BlaSs^ lets the quantity of the vowel in Latin determine the accent in the Greek equivalent for Latin words. So Marcus, Map/cos, etc., but W. H. do not accept this easy principle and give us Map/cos in Ac. 12 : 25, etc., Kpiairos (1 Cor. 1 : 14), etc. W. H. likewise ' Cf. Lipsius, Gr. Unters., p. 61. Cf. also W.-Sch., p. 78. * In W.-Sch., p. 74 f ., see reiriarks on the subject. ' Cf. W.-Sch., p. 73. This word is, of course, not to be confounded with iaaov (Ac. 27 : 13) as Text. Rec. did. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 15. 236 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT throw the accent back on Latin names like KoirapTos (Ro. 16:23), JlplaKiWa (Ac. 18:2), SkoucSos (Ac. 20:4), IkprvWos (24:2), but we have on the other hand Taios (Ro. 16 : 23), not Taios, Ovp- Pavos (Ro. 16 : 9), XtKovavos (2 Cor. 1 : 19), Xxevas (Ac. 19 : 14).i But not even Blass attempts to bring the Semitic words under regular rules. Still, it is true, as Winer ^ shows, that indeclinable Semitic words (especially proper names) have the accent, as a rule, on the last syllable, though the usage of Josephus is the con- trary, because he generally inflects the words that in the LXX and the N. T. are indeclinable. So 'Kapiiv, 'k^a&Siiv, 'Afiia, 'A^iovS, 'A/3pad/i, to take only the first two pages of Thayer's Lexicon, though even here we find on the other side "A/SeX and 'k^ibSap. If you turn over you meet "Ayap, 'A5o/i, 'A55et, 'A5fidv, 'A^iip, etc. It is not necessary here to give a full list of these proper names, but reference can be made to Lu. 3 : 23-38 for a good sample. In this list some indeclinable words have the accent on the penult, as 'EXiefep (29), ZopoiSdjSeX (27), Aafiex (36), $aX€/c (35) .^ The in- flected Semitic words often throw the accent back, as "AfuTos, 'laKco^os, Adfopos. Many of the Aramaic words accent the ultima, as 'Aj8/3d, roKyoda, Kop^av, 'EXcot, aafia.xOa.vd, etc. For further re- marks on the subject see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 26-31. The difficulties of the LXX translators are well illustrated here by Helbing. VI. Pronunciation in the Kouvri. This is indeed a knotty problem and has been the occasion of fierce controversy. When the Byzantine scholars revived the study of Greek in Italy, they introduced, of course, their own pronunciation as well as their own spelling. But English-speaking people know that spelling is not a safe guide in pronunciation, for the prommciation may change very much when the spelling remains the same. Writing is originally an effort to represent the sound and is more or less successful, but the comparison of Homer with modem Greek is a fruitful subject.* Roger Bacon, as Reuchhn two centuries later, adopted the Byzantine pronunciation .^ Reuchlin, who intro- duced Greek to the further West, studied in Italy and passed on the Byzantine pronunciation. Erasmus is indirectly responsible for the current pronunciation of ancient Greek, for the Byzan- > Cf. W.-Sch., p. 75. 2 W.-M., p. 59. » Cf. also Gregory, Prol., p. 102 f.; W.-Sch., p. 75; Westcott, Notes on Orth., pp. 155, 169; Thackeray, pp. 150 ff. * Blass, Ausspr. des Griech., 1888, p. 7. 6 Nolan, The Gk. Gr. of Roger Bacon, p. xx. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 237 tine scholars pronounced ancient and modem alike. Jannaris' quotes the story of Voss, a Dutch scholar (1577-1649), as to how Erasmus heard some learned Greeks pronounce Greek in a very different way from the Byzantine custom. Erasmus published a discussion between a lion and a bear entitled De Recta Latini Graedque sermonis pronuntiatione, which made such an impres- sion that those who accepted the ideas advanced in this book were called Erasmians and the rest Reuchlinians. As a matter of fact, however, Engel has shown that Erasmus merely wrote a literary squib to "take off" the new non-Byzantine pronunciation, though he was taken seriously by many. Dr. Caspar Rene Gregory writes me (May 6, 1912): "The philologians were of course down on Engel and sided gladly with Blass. It was much easier to go on with the totally impossible pronunciation that they used than to change it." Cf. Engel, Die Aussprachen des Griechischen, 1887. In 1542 Stephen Gardiner, Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, "issued an edict for his university, in which, e.g. it was categorically forbidden to distinguish ot from e, ei and ol from I in pronunciation, under penalty of expulsion from the Senate, exclusion from the attainment of a degree, rustication for students, and domestic chastisement for boys."^ Hence though the continental pronunciation of Greek and Latin was "Erasmian," at Cambridge and Oxford the Reuchlinian influence prevailed, though with local modifications. Geldart,^ however, complains that at i!ton, Rugby and Harrow so little attention is paid to pronouncing according to accent that most Greek scholars handle the accents loosely. The Classical Review (April, 1906, p. 146 f .) has the scheme approved by the Philological So- cieties of Cambridge and Oxford for "The Restored Pronuncia- tion of Latin," which is the virtual adoption of the Continental principle. The modern Greeks themselves rather vehemently in- sist that ancient Greek should be pronounced as modern Greek is. Miiller,^ for instance, calls the "Erasmian" pronunciation "false" because it treats Greek "as dead." Geldart (Modefn Gk. Language in Its Relation to Ancient Gr., p. vii) says: "Mod- ern Greek is nothing but ancient Greek made easy." It is not » Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 31 f. Cf. Mayser, Gr., pp. 138-151. 2 Blass, Pronun. of Anc. Gk., Purton's transL, p. 3. ' Guide to Mod. Gk., p. x. * Hist. Gr. der hell. Spr. (pp. 26, 36). In pp. 35-40 he states the case against the squib of Erasmus. Cf . Engel (Die Ausspr. des Griech., 1887) who defends the mod. Gk. method, as already stated. 238 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT quite as simple as that. Foy* properly distinguishes between the old Greek vocal sounds and the modern Greek and refers to the development of Latin into the several Romance languages. There is this difference in the Greek, however, that it has only one modern representative (with dialectical variations) of the ancient tongue. One must not make the mistake of comparing the pro- nunciation of the modern Greek vernacular with the probable pronunciation of the literary Attic of the fifth century B.C. Then, as now, there was the literary and the vernacular pronunciation. The changes in pronunciation that have come in the modem Greek have come through the Byzantine Greek from the kolv^, and thus represent a common stream with many rills. The vari- ous dialects have made contributions to the pronunciation of the KOLvfi and so of the modern Greek. In cultivated Athens at its best there was a closer approximation between the people and the educated classes. "Demosthenes, in his oration irepl o-rei^dcou, called ^schines a luaBdirbv, but had accented the word erroneously, namely, niadarov, whereupon the audience corrected him by cry- ing fuadooTop."^ Like the modern Italian, the ancient Greek had a musical cadence that set it above all other European tongues.' We can indeed appeal to the old Greek inscriptions for the popu- lar pronunciation on many points.* According to this evidence in the first century b.c. in Attica at = ae,ei=L,i} = i,v= t, vi =v, tt = t, j3=t; (English v).^ Clearly then in the Koivri the process of itacism was already at work before the N. T. was written. What was true of the koivIj vernacular then does not of course argue conclu- sively for the pronunciation of cultivated Athenians in the time of Socrates. In versatile Athens "a stranger, if introduced on the stage, is always represented as talking the language or dialect of the people to which he belongs." « Blass' indeed thinks that in Tarsus the school-teacher taught Paul Atticistic Greek! ""Ifffiev, ' Lautsystem der griech. Vulgarspr., 1879, p. 83 f . ' Achilles Rose, Chris. Greece and Living Gk., 1898, p. 61. ' Cf. Mure, A Grit. Hist, of the Lang, and Lit. of Anc. Greece, I, p. 99; Holland, Die althell. Wortbet. im Lichte der Gesch., 1897, p. 6. Cf. Pronun. of Gk. as deduced from Graeco-Latin Biling. Coins. By Cecil Bendall in Jour, of Philol., vol. XXIX, No. 58, 1904. Here the rough breathing is represented by h, e = th, =ph. * Thumb, Unters. etc., 1888, p. 1. Cf. Sophocles, Hist, of Gk. Alph. and Pronun., 1854. T61fy, Chron. und Topog^ der griech. Ausspr. nach d. Zeugnisse der Inschr., 1893, p. 39. ' Rutherford, The New Phryn., p. 32. ' Philol. of the Gosp., p. 9. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 239 IffTt, t(Ta {SltXtj) or 7 (Koptavis) were used, or a slight break in the line made by a blank space. Then again the first letter of the line was written larger than the others or even made to project out farther than the rest.^ The paragraph was to the ancients the most important item in punctuation, and we owe a debt to the N. T. revisers for restoring it to the Enghsh N. T. Cf. Lightfoot, Trench, EUicott, The Revision of the N. T., 1873, p. xlvi. Euthalius (a.d. 458) prepared an edition of the Greek N. T. with chapters {Kea\aui) , but long before him Clement of Alexandria spoke of iripiKoiral and Tertullian of capituln. These "chapters" were later called also TirXot." The (tHxos of Euthalius was a line of set length with no regard to the sense, like our prin- ter's ems. W. H. have made careful use of the paragraph in then- Greek N. T. The larger sections are marked off by spaces and the larger paragraphs are broken into smaller sub-paragraphs (after the French method) by smaller spaces.' Another division is made by W. H. in the use of the capital letter at the beginning of an important sentence, while the other sentences, though after a period, begin with a small letter. This is a wholly arbitrary method, but it helps one better to understand W. H.'s interpre- tation of the text. ' On the paragraph see Thompson, Handb. of Gk. and Lat. Palseog., pp. 67 ff. Occasionally the double point (:) was used to close a paragraph. 2 Cf. Warfield, Text. Grit, of N. T., pp. 40 ff. ' Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 319. For the ffxJxos see further Gregory, Prol., p. 112 1. 242 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT W. H.' have also printed in metrical form passages metrical in rhythm like the Magnificat of Mary (Lu. 1 : 46-55), the fragment of a hymn in 1 Tim. 3 : 16, etc., while Lu. 2 : 14 and the non- metrical hymns in Revelation are merely printed in narrower colxmms. The Hebrew parallelism of 0. T. quotations is indicated also. (6) Sentences. The oldest inscriptions and papyri show few signs of punctuation between sentences or clauses in a sentence,^ though punctuation by points does appear on some of the ancient inscriptions. In the Artemisia papyrus the double point (:) occa- sionally ends the sentence.' It was Aristophanes of Byzantium (260 B.C.) who is credited with inventing a more regular system of sentence punctuation which was further developed by the Alexandrian grammarians.^ As a rule all the sentences, like the words, ran into one another in an unbroken Une {scriptura am- tinua), but finally three stops were provided for the sentence by the use of the full point. The point at the top of the line (•) {ari.'yiiri TtKfla, 'high point') was a full stop; that on the line (.) {jnroaTiynij) was equal to our semicolon, while a middle point {ariyiiri iiiaij) was equivalent to our comma.^ But gradually changes came over these stops till the top point was equal to our colon, the bottom point became the full stop, the middle point vanished, and about the ninth century a.d. the comma (,) took its place. About this time also the question-mark (;) or epoir'nua.TLKov appeared. These marks differed from the arlxoL in that they concerned the sense of the sentence. Some of the oldest N. T. MSS. show these marks to some extent. B has the higher point as a period, the lower point for a shorter pause.* But still we cannot tell how much, if any, use the N. T. writers themselves made of punctuation points. We may be sure that they did not use the exclamation point, the dash, quotation-marks, the parenthesis, etc' Parenthetical clauses were certainly used, which will be discussed elsewhere, though no signs were used for this structure by the ancient Greeks. W. H. represent the parenthesis either by the comma (Ro. 1 : 13) or the dash with comma (1 Tim. 2:7). Instead of • Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 319 f. » Thompson, Handb., etc., p. 69. 2 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 62. * lb., p. 70; Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 67. ' I follow Thompson (Handb., etc., p. 70) on this point instead of Jannaris (pp. 63 and 67), who makes the inrocrnyiiii^oMi comma. « Of. Gregory, Prol., pp. 345, 348; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 17. D has the arlxoi in the way of sense-lines (Blass, ib.). ' Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 67. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 243 quotation-marks W. H. begin the quotation with a capital letter with no punctuation before it, as in Jo. 12 : 19, 21. One way of expressing a quotation .was by t6, as in Ro. 13 : 8. In the case of 0. T. quotations the Scripture is put in uncial type (Jo. 12 : 13). The period {ireploSos) gives very little trouble to the modem edi- tor, for it is obviously necessary for modern needs. Here the editor has to make his interpretation sometimes when it is doubt- ful, as W. H. give 'iv. S ykr/ovev kv, not ^v o ykyovev. kv (Jo. 1:4). So W. H. read Bavn&^ert. 3ia tovto Moiva^s in Jo. 7 : 22, not dav/xL^tre did. TOVTO. Mctfuo-jjs, etc. The colon (k&jXoj'),^ 'limb of the sentence' formed a complete clause. See Jo. 3 : 31 for example of use of colon made by W. H. The comma (K6/i/ia) is the most common division of the sentence and is often necessary, as with the voca- tive. So AiSacTKoXe, tI iroiriaco/xtv; (Lu. 3 : 12) and many common examples. In general W. H. use the comma only where it is necessary to make clear an otherwise ambiguous clause, whether it be a participial (Col. 2 : 2) or conjunctional phrase (Col. 1 : 23), or appositive (Col. 1 : 18), or relative (Col. 2:3). The first chap- ter of Colossians has a rather imusual number of colons (2, 6, 14, 16, 18, 20, 27, 28) as Paul struggles with several long sentences, not to mention the dashes (21, 22, 26). The Germans use the comma too freely with the Greek for our English ideas, leaving out the Greek! Even Winer defended the comma after Kapwdv in Jo. 15 : 2 and 6 vlkuv in Rev. 3 : 12, not to mention Griesbach's "excessive" use of the comma, Winer himself being judge.^ My friend. Rev. S. M. Provence, D.D. (Victoria, Tex.), suggests a full stop before noBiiv in Ac. 23 : 27 f . That would help the character of Claudius Lysias on the point of veracity. (c) Words. The continuous writing of words without any space between them was not quite universal, though nearly so.' The oldest Attic inscription (Dipylon vase, probably eighth cen- tury B.C.) is written from right to left. With the common method it was not always easy for the practised eye to distinguish between words. Hence there arose the SiaoroXi} or {nro5iaaTo\ri, a comma used to distinguish between ambiguous words, as kaTi poOs, not kaTlv oiis. But W. H. make no use of this mark, not even in 8, ti to distinguish it from the conjunction ori. They print uniformly Sn (Lu. 10 : 35; Jo. 2:5; 14 : 13; 1 Cor. 16 : 2, etc.), not to men- * Thompson, Handb., etc., p. 81. So Suidas. The colon is the main semi- division of the sentence, but mod. Eng. makes less use of aU marks save the period and comma. ' W.-M., pp. 63, 67. ' Thompson, Handb., etc., p. 67. 244 A GKAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT tion doubtful cases like Mk. 9 : 11, 28; Jo. 8:25; Ac. 9:27; 2 Cor. 3 : 14.^ As to the marks of diuresis (") reference may be had to the discussion of diphthongs and diaeresis in this .chapter under II {{). W. H., like other modern editors, use the apostrophe ('). (or smooth breathing) to represent elision, as air' kpxns (Mt. 24 : 21).2 The coronis is the smooth breathing used also to show when crasis has taken place, as in Kd/ioi (Lu. 1:3).' The hyphen, a long straight line, was used in the Harris-Homer MS. to connect com- pound words, but it is not in the N. T.* The editors vary much in the way such words as aXXd 76, tva rl, tovt' tan, etc., are printed. The MSS. give no help at all, for tovto 8e kanv in Ro. 1 : 12 is not conclusive against tovt' Utlv elsewhere.* W. H. prefer dXXd ye (Lu. 24 : 21; 1 Cor. 9 : 2), dpd ye (Ac. 8 : 30), 5td ye (Lu. 11 : 8; 18 : 5), ei ye (2 Cor. 5 : 3, etc.), /cat ye (Ac. 2 : 18; 7 : 27), Ss 7^ (Ro. 8 : 32), ha TravTds (Mk. 5 : 5, etc.), 5td tL (Mt. 9 : 11, etc.), 'iva tI (Mt. 9 : 4, etc.), el ircos (Ac. 27 : 12), m woTe (everywhere save in Mt. 25 : 9 where fir]TOT€), firi tov (Ac. 27 : 29), tirj xtos (1 Cor. 9 : 27, etc.), jut? Tis (1 Cor. 16 : 11, etc.). So also StjXoj' '6tl in 1 Cor. 15 : 27, oorts oSp (Mt. 18 : 4). But on the other hand W. H. print Stori as well as elre, aire, ixrjTe, clicrTe, Koiirep, t^rjiroTe (once), tajdeiroTe, firiSeroo, ovdeirore, p.T]K.kTi, ovickTi, /^ijxco, ov-kui, nvriye, even /Jiiiye (Mt. 6 : 1), Ka6a, Kado, Kadus, Kadawep, KaBbTi, koBoXov, Siairep, uael, cbcrxepei (1 Cor. 15 : 8), etc. But W. H. give us kcuB' eh in Ro. 12 : 5, dcd neaov in Mt. 13 : 25, etc.; Kara fiovas in Mk. 4 : 10, Kad' 'oaov in Heb. 3 : 3. Adverbs like kireKeiva (Ac. 7 : 43), xnrep'eKeiva (2 Cor. 10 : 16), irapeKTos (2 Cor. 11 : 28) are, of course, printed as one word. W. H. prop- erly have iiirep kyis (2 Cor. 11 : 23), not {nrepeyij. In Ac. 27 : 33 TeaffapeaKaLdemTos is one word, but W. H. have "lepd IIoXw in Col. 4 : 13 and Nea ttoXw in Ac. 16 : 11. It must be confessed that no very clear principles in this matter can be set forth, and the effort of Winer-SchmiedeF at minute analysis does not throw much light on the subject. (d) The Editor's Prekogativb. Where there is so much con- fusion, what is the editor's prerogative? Blass ^ boldly advances » W.-Sch., p. 35. ^ See this ch. n (fc) for discussion of elision. For origin and early use of the apostrophe see Thompson, Handb., etc., p. 73. ' See this ch. 11 (l) for discussion of crasis. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 88. * Thompson, Handb., etc., p. 72. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 14. For the usage of Tisch. in the union and the separation of particles see Gregory, Prol., pp. 109-111. In most cases Tisch. ran the particles together as one word. « P. 35. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 17. Left out by Debrunner. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHOStETICS 245 the German idea: "The most correct principle appears to be to punctuate wherever a pause is necessary for reading correctly." But Winer 1 shrinks from this profusion of pimctuation-marks by the editors, which "often intruded on the text their own interpre- tation of it." The editor indeed has to interpret the text with his punctuation, but certainly good taste demands that the mini- mum, not the maximum, of punctuation-marks be the rule. They must of necessity decide "a multitude of subtle and difficult points of interpretation."^ Hort indeed aimed at "the greatest simplicity compatible with clearness," and this obviously should be the goal in the Greek N. T. But the editor's punctuation may be a hindrance to the student instead of a help. It is the privi- lege of each N. T. student to make his own punctuation. 1 W.-M., p. 63." 2 Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 318. CHAPTER VII THE DECLENSIONS (KAISEI2) Space will not be taken for the inflection of the nouns and pro- nouns, for the student of this grammar may be assumed to know the normal Attic inflections. Aristotle ^ used the term " inflection " (TTTcoo-ts) of noun and verb and even adverb, but practically inflec- tion is applied to nouns and conjugation (/cXto-ts priiiaT, xcop?. The Indo-Germanic stock, as shown by the Sanskrit, had originally three separate sets of endings for these cases. 1 Hadley, Ess. Philol. and Crit., Gk. Gen. or Abl., p. 52. Cf. also Miles, Comp. Synt. of Gk. and Lat., 1893, p. xvii. This blending of the cases in Gk. is the result of "partial confusion" "between the genitive and the ablative between the dative and the locative, between the locative and the instru- mental" (Audoin, La D^cl. dans les Lang. Indo-Europ., 1898, p. 248). In general on the subject of the history of the eight cases in Gk. see Brugmann, Griech. Gr., pp. 217-250, 375 f . ; Comp. Gr. of the Indo-Ger. Lang., vol. Ill, pp, 52-280; Kurze vergl. Gram., II, pp. 418 ff.; K.-BL, I, pp. 365-370, II, pp, 299-307; Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 268-301; Bopp, Uber das Dem und den Urspr. der Casuszeichen etc., 1826; Hartung, tlber die Casus etc. 1831; Hubschmann, Zur Casuslehre, 1875; Rumpel, Casusl., 1845; Meillet, Intr. k I'Etude Comp., pp. 257 ff.; Penka, Die Entst. der Synkr. Casus im Lat., Griech. und Deutsch., 1874. See also p. 33 f. of Htibner, Grundr. zu Vorles. uber die griech. Synt.; Schleicher, Vergl. Griech.; Schmidt, Griech. Gr., etc. » Brugmann (Griech. Gr., 1900, p. 225), who considers the s in oBtos, kt\., due to analogy merely, like the s in €776-5, ktX. But he sees an abl. idea in &-t4s. Cf . also oipav6-$i like coeli-tus. ^ Hadley, Ess. Phil, and Crit., p. 52. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIZ) 249 The Greek plural uses for all three cases either "the loca- tive in -<7t or the instrumental forms in -ots."^ "The forms in -ois, Latin -^s, from -a stems, are a new formation on the analogy of forms from -o stems." ^ 'KBiivqai is locative plural. In the singular of consonant, i and v stems, the locative ending -i is used for all three cases in Greek, as vvktI. In the a declension the dative ending -at usually answers for all three cases. The form -at contracts with the stem-vowel a into ?i or jj. A few examples of the locative -t here survive, as in TraXai, '0Xu;ii7rtat, 057/3at-7«j'^s.^ Xa/iai may be either dative or locative. In the o declension also the dative ending -at is the usual form, contracting with the o into 0). But a few distinct locative endings survive,, hke ket, 'laBiioi, o'Uoi. (cf. otKt})), iroL, etc. The Homeric infinitive Sofiev and the infinitive like kpei.v are probably locatives also without the t, while the infinitives in —at (bbnevai,, Sowai, \e\vKivai, \iea6ai, XOcrat, etc.) are datives.* The instrumental has left little of its original form on the Greek singular. The usual Sanskrit is a. Cf. in Greek such words as a/ta, ev€Ka, Iva, jitTa, irapa, ireSA, possibly the Doric icpva, Lesbian aXXa. Brugmann^ thinks the Laconic in7-iro/ca= Attic Trtb-irore is instrumental like the Gothic M (EngUsh wh'g). Cf. i/ie in " the more the better," etc. Another Greek suSix -4>i, (Indo-Germanic, hhi) is found in Homer, as jStrjc^t, d(bi.v (plural). But this -0t was used also for ablative or locative, and even genitive or dative. It is clear therefore that in Greek the usual seven (eight with the vocative) Indo-Germanic cases are present, though in a badly mutilated condition as to form. The ideas, of course, expressed by the cases continued to be expressed by the blended forms. In actual intelligent treatment it is simpler to preserve the seven case-names as will be seen later. (6) The Blending of Case-Endings. This is a marked pe- cuUarity of the Indo-Germanic tongues. Neuter nouns illustrate ' Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 287. * lb., p. 290. For survivals of the dat. -ot see the Rhodian rat (Bjorkegren, De Sonis dial. Rhod., p. 41). ' Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 228. Cf. the Lat. dom%, Romaeii). For nu- merous exx. of loc. and dat. distinct in form in the various dialects see Meister, Griech. Dial., Bd. II, pp. 61 ff.; Hoffmann, Griech. Dial., Bd. I, p. 233 (dat. -fit, loc. -i; dat. -wi, loc. -ot). Cf. CoUitz and Bechtel, Samml. d. griech. dial. Inschr., p. 308. * Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 278 f. ' Griech. Gr., 3. Aufl., p. 229. Cf. K.-Bl., II., pp. 301-307, for examples of the survival of abl., loc. and instr. forms in Gk. adverbs. Cf. also Meister, Griech. Dial., II., p. 295, for survivals of instr. forms in Cypriotic dial, (dpa, e6x"Xa). See Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I. Tl., p. 194. 250 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the same tendency, not to mention the dual. The analytic pro- cess has largely triumphed over the synthetic case-endings. Originally no prepositions were used and all the word-relations were expressed by cases. In modem French, for instance, there are no case-endings at all, but prepositions and the order of the words have to do all that was originally done by the case- forms. In English, outside of the old dative form in pronouns like him, them, etc., the genitive form alone remains. Finnish indeed has fifteen cases and several other of the ruder tongues have many.^ On the other hand the Coptic had no case-end- ings, but used particles and prepositions like NTE for genitive, etc. It is indeed possible that all inflectional languages passed once through the isolating and agglutinative stages. English may some day like the Chinese depend entirely on position and tone for the relation of words to each other. (c) Okigin of Case Suffixes. Giles ^ frankly confesses that comparative philology has nothing to say as to the origin of the case-suffixes. They do not exist apart from the noun-stems. Some of them may be pronominal, others may be positional (post- positions), but it adds nothing to our knowledge to call some of the cases local and others grammatical. They are all gramma- tical. The ablative and the locative clearly had a local origin. Some cases were used less often than others. Some of the case- forms became identical. Analogy carried on the process. The desire to be more specific than the case-endings led to the use of prepositional adverbs. As these adverbs were used more and more ther6 was "an ever-increasing tendency to find the important part of the meaning in the preposition and not in the case-ending." ' In the modern Greek vernacular, as already stated, only three case-forms survive (nominative, genitive, accusative), the dative vanishing like the ablative.* » Farrar, Gr. Synt., p. 23. " Man. of Comp. PMol., p. 271. Bergaigne (Du R61e de la D^riv. dans la D^cl. Indo-Euiop., Mfim. de la Soc. de Ling, de Paris, to. ii, fasc. 5) and G. Meyer (Zur Gesch. der indo-germ. Stammb. und Decl.) both argue that case- endings had no distinctive meaning in themselves nor separate existence. But see also Hirt, Handb. etc., pp. 231-288, for careful treatment of the cases. On the general subject of syncretism in the Gk. cases see Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., 1. Tl., pp. 189 ff., 195 f. See also Sterrett, Hom. II., N. 15, for traces of abl., loc. and instr. forms in Hom. (loc. -i, -8t; instr., -(^i, -(^iv; abl., -6ep). " Giles, oj). cif., p. 273. * Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 149. Cf . also Keck, tJber d. Dual bei d. griech. Rednern etc., 1882. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIs) 251 3. Number (dpiOiids) in Substantives. The N. T. Greek has lost the dual {8vik6s) and uses only the singular {iviKbi) and the plural {tXtjOvvtiicos). The Sanskrit and the Hebrew had the dual, but the Latin had only duo and ambo (and possibly odo and vi- ginti) which had a plural inflection in the oblique cases. Coptic^ had no plural nor dual save as the plural article distinguished words. English has only the dual twain, but we now say turins. The scholars do not agree as to the origin of the dual. Moul- ton^ inclines to the idea that it arose "in prehistoric days when men could not count beyond two." It is more likely that it is due to the desire to emphasize pairs, as hands, eyes, etc., not to accept "Du Ponceau's jest that it must have been invented for lovers and married people."^ In the oldest Indo-Germanic lan- guages the luxury of the dual is vanishing, but Moulton considers its use in the Attic as a revival.^ It never won a foothold in the jEohc and the New Ionic, and its use in the Attic was limited and not consistent.^ The dual is nearly gone in the late Attic inscrip- tions,^ while in the KOLvi] it is only sporadic and constantly vanish- ing in the inscriptions and papyri.' In Pergamum' and Pisidia' no dual appears in the inscriptions. The only dual form that occurs in the LXX and the N. T. is 5vo (not S6co) for all the cases (as genitive in 1 Tim. 5 : 19), save 8v, dvetv occasionally appear" along with 5v(ri(y). In the modem Greek the dual is no longer used. "A/i^u has vanished iu the N. T. while dju^orepot occurs fourteen times (Mt. 9 : 17, etc.), 1 Tattam's Egyp. Gr., p. 16. » Prol., p. 57. ' Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 23. Cf. Geiger, Ursp. d. Spr., § ix. Cf. Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 264. « Prol., p. 57. ' Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 101. ^ Meisterhans, Att. Inschr., p. 201. ' Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 436. » Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 138. ' Compemass, De Serm. Vulg. etc., p. 15. Tatian (p. 96 of his works) shows a dual. " Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 289 f. But cf. K.-BI., I, p. 362, for further items about the dual. " Deissmann, B. S., p. 187. For 5ua\fiv yccvias." ^ In Gal. 4 : 25 Paul has not mis- takenly used TO with "Ayap, for he is treating the name as a word merely. Any word can be so regarded. (c) Variations in Gender Due to Heteroclisis and Me- TAPLASM. These will be discussed a little later. Delbriick thinks that originally all the masculine substantives of the first or a de- clension were feminine and that all the feminine substantives of the second or o declension were masculine. 5. The First or a Declension. There was a general tendency towards uniformity* in this declension that made it more popular than ever. Here only the N. T. modifications in this general de- velopment can be mentioned. (a) The Doric Genitive-Ablative Singular a. This form survives in fioppS. (Lu. 13:29; Rev. 21:13) and was common in the Attic after 400 b.c. Note also naij,(ava (Lu. 16 : 9). It is fre- quent in the LXX, papyri, inscriptions, though mainly in proper names. These proper names in -os, chiefly oriental, make the genitive-ablative in -a or, if unaccented -as, in a. So AwXa and 'AkvXov in papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 187), though no gen. hi N. T. (only -as and -av) 'Aypiinra^ (Ac. 25 : 23), 'Avavia J Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26. Cf. Theophrast, De lapid. 49, for 4 BeXos. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 59. He corrects this erratum in note to H. Scott. ' lb. * Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 106. Swete, O. T. in Gk., p. 304 f., has some good illustrations and remarks about the declensions in the LXX. " Both 'Ayplinra and 'Ayplr-irov occur in the pap. Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, pp. 34 and 434. This gen. in -a gradually became "a ruling principle" for all substantives in -os (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 108, 110). See Thumb, THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIs) 265 (from -OS, so Thayer), "Awa (Lu. 3 : 2), 'AvrlTas (indeclinable here or mere slip for -o, Rev. 2: 13), 'Apkra (2 Cor. 11 : 32), Bapa/3;8a (gen. does not appear, only nom. -as as Mk. 15 : 7, and accus. -dv as 15:11, etc.), Bapj-d/Sa (Gal. 2 : 1 ; Col. 4:10; see Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 187), 'Exa#a (Col. 1 : 7), 'Epuciv (Ro. 16 : 14, Doric accusative), Ziji/ai/ likewise (Tit. 3 : 13); 'HXeia (Lu. 1 : 17) accord- ing to HB (so W. H.); 'lobSa. (person, Lu. 3 : 33; Mk. 6:3; tribe, Mt. 2: 6; Heb. 8:8; land, Lu. 1 : 39), 'low (Mt. 12 : 39), Katd^a (Lu. 3 : 2; Jo. 18 : 13), Ktj^S (1 Cor. 1 : 12), KKcoira (Jo. 19 : 25), AovKcis (only in nominative, as Col. 4 : 14, but genitive would be -a), Xarava (Mk. 1 : 13), 2IXas (dative SiX^ in Ac, and genitive 2iXa in Jos. Vit., 17), Sxeua (Ac. 19 : 14), -Lre^iava. (1 Cor. 1 : 16). Nach- manson finds the Doric genitive fairly common with such short proper names and mentions 2ijm in his list.^ Very common in modem Greek, cf. Hatzidakis, Einl., p. 76. (6) The Attic Genitive-Ablative. The usual Attic form for the genitive-ablative {ov) is found also as in Aivkas (so Lobeck, Prol. Pathol, p. 487), 'Avbpkov (Mk. 1 : 29), Bapa-xiov (Mt. 23 : 35), 'EfeKioi; (so LXX), 'HXeiou (Lu. 4 : 25), "ELaalov (Mt. 3 : 3, etc.), 'Itpeiiiov (Mt. 2: 17), Avaavlov (Lu. 3: 1), Ovpiov (Mt. 1:6), Zaxa- p'u)v (Lu. 1 :40). These Hebrew proper names ended in n— , but receive the regular inflection for masculine nouns of the first declension. There are likewise some proper names in -jjs with genitive-ablative in -ov. 'lai'j'jjs and 'IaM/3pi}s (2 Tim. 3 : 8) only appear in the N. T. in the nominative. Kp97e\6vr,s (2 Tim. 4 : 13), have no oblique case in the N. T. save the accusative {-vv)-^ 'Iwdvijs in W. H. always has genitive-ablative in -ov for the Apostle and in Jo. 1 : 42; 21 : 15, 16, 17, for the father of Simon Peter, though Bapuovd in Mt. 16 : 17.' So for John Mark (Acts 12 : 12). Handb., p. 49. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., pp. 160-166. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 33, for LXX illustrations. ' Magn. Inschr., p. 120. Cf. also Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 139. 2 a. W.-Sch., p. 94. ' Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 159. See Nachmanson (Magn. Inschr., p. 119) and Schweizer (Perg. Inschr., p. 138 f.) for illustrations of these points from the notvii inscr. The gen. in -ov is more common in the pap. than that in 256 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT J^taadivris has accusative in -ijj' (Ac. 18 : 17) for the first declension and is heterocUte.^ We have only ^ea-rSiv in Mk. 7 : 4. Words like veavLas have the genitive-ablative in -ov (Ac. 7 : 58). (c) Voc. in -a of masc. nouns in -tjjs in Sea-irora, 'en-LdrhTa, Kap- SuyyvSiaTa, inroKpira. Cf. g,Sri: (d) Words in -pa and Participles in -uta. These come reg- ularly^ to have the genitive-ablative in -r/s and the dative-locative- instrumental in -7j like the Ionic. Moulton' indeed thinks that "analogical assimilation," on the model of forms like 86^a, 56^s, had more to do with this tendency in the kolv/i than the Ionic in- fluence. Possibly so, but it seems gratuitous to deny all Ionic in- fluence where it was so easy for it to make itself felt. The "best MSS."* support the testimony of the papyri and the inscriptions here.^ So W. H. read juaxaiprjs (Rev. 13 : 14), irKrinixvfyris (Lu. 6 : 48), irp4)pj7s (Ac. 27 : 30), Sarr^eipB (Ac. 5 : 1), o-TreipT/s (Ac. 21 : 31; 27 : 1). In Acts B is prone to have -as, -a. as with D in Ac. 5 : 1, but W. H. do not follow B here. In Ac. 5 : 2 o-uj/etSutTjs may be compared with knPePriKviris (1 Sam. 25 : 20), and other examples in the LXX,' but the forms -vlas, -via still survive in the Ptolemaic period.' The preference of the LXX MSS. and the early papyri for naxaipas (-pa) shows that it is a matter of growth with time. In the early Empire of Rome -pTjs forms are well-nigh universal. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 142. On the other hand note the adjective (TTiipq. (Lu. 1 : 36). Words like ■qp.kpa (.-pa) and aXijBeia, filS. (to, eia) preserve the Attic inflection in -as, a.* (e) The Opposite Tendency to (d). We see it in such exam- ples as AiSSas (Ac. 9 : 38, but Soden reads -Sr/s with EHLP) and Mdp6as (Jo. 11 : 1). Moulton' finds the Egyptian papyri giving TanvaBas as genitive. Qkpp,a is given by Lobeck, though not in N. T. (genitive -ijs, Ac. 28 : 3), and note irpvp.m in Ac. 27 : 41. -o. See Mayser, Gr. griech. Pap., 1906, p. 250 f. (Laut- u. Wortlehre). For the contracted forms see p. 252. It is also more frequent in the LXX. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 161 f . 1 W.-Sch., p. 94. 2 B. S., p. 186. ' Prol., p. 48; CI. Rev., 1901, p. 34. where a number of exx. are given Uke 4po4pi,s, KoBifiKvlris, etc. Cf. Thumb, Hellen., p. 69. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 31-33, and Thack., Gr., p. 140 f., for similar phenomena in the LXX. " Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 156. » Deissmann, B. S., p. 186. 6 Gregory, Prol., p. 117. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 81. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 48. ' Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25. « CI. Rev., 1901, p. 434. For examples in Attic inscriptions see Meister- hans, p. 119 f. Cf. Zowdwas in LXX, C. and S., Sel. fr. the LXX, p. 26. THE DECLENSIONS (kaISEIS) 257 Moulton' suggests that Nh/juljav (Col. 4 : 15 according to the cor- rect text) is not due to a Doric Nuju^ac, but by a "reverse analogy process" the genitive Nuak^j/s produced the short nominative Nu/i0a like do^a, do^s. Blass^ calls xpvcrS,v (Rev. 1 : 13) "a gross blunder, wrongly formed on the model of xpv(tS.s 1 : 12," but Moulton' holds that we have "abundant parallels." (/) Double Declension. This phenomenon appears in the case of Niav UoXiv (Ac. 16 : 11) and 'lepS, IloXei (Col. 4 : 13), the adjective as well as the substantive being treated separately in the first and third declensions. (g) Hetbroclisis (irepoKXiaK) and Metaplasm {fieraTrXaa-fio';). Blass* makes no distinction in his treatment of heteroclisis and metaplasm, though the distinction is observed in Winer-Schmie- del.' For practical use one may ignore the distinction and call all the examples metaplasm with Blass or heteroclisis with Moul- ton.^ The fluctuation is rare for the first declension in the N. T. In Ac. 28 : 8 editors properly read BvcevTeptov rather than Svaevre- pia (supported only by a few cursives). The usual Attic form dea (Ac. 19 : 27) and 17 dtos (Ac. 19 : 37) are both found. This variation between the first and the second declensions is well illustrated by Tofwppas (2 Pet. 2:6) and Toubppwv (Mt. 10: 15; -ow, Mk. 6: 11 Rec), AicTpav (Ac. 14:6) and AvcrpoLs (Ac. 14:8). Moulton' finds abundant parallel in the Egyptian papyri use of place-names. In Rev. 1:11 ABC and some cursives read Qvareipav instead of the usual BvareLpa. So in Ac. 27 : 5 some of the MSS. read Mvppav instead of Mvppa as accus., a reading confirmed by Ramsay,^ who found the accus. in -av and the gen. in -uv. Moulton' cites fi 'Iepo(T6\viJ.a from two MSS. of xI/a.d. (Usener, Pelagia, p. 50). The chief variation between the first and second declensions appears in the compounds in -apxvs and (Attic) -apxos. Moulton'" finds examples of it passim in the papyri and calls the minute work of Winer-Schmiedel "conscientious labour wasted thereon." But Hort" does not think these variations in good MSS. "wholly • Prol., p. 48. Cf. also his paper in Proo. Camb. Philol. Soc, Oct., 1893, p. 12. ' Gr., p. 25, but 4th ed., p. 28, cites P. Lond. I, 124, 26, xpmav § ipyvpav. » Prol., p. 48. "Falsche Analogie" ace. to W.-Sch., p. 81. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 28 f. ' Pp. 83 ff. Thack. (Gr., p. 153) includes heteroclisis under metaplasm. « Prol., p. 48. ' lb., p. 244. 8 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 129. Cf . Moulton, Prol., p. 48. '' lb. " lb. Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 34. " Notes on Oi^h., p. 156. 258 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT irregular." In the N. T. forms in -apxv^, like most of the dialects and the Koivrj, are greatly in the majority.* Thus in the N. T. we have 'kaiapxris (Ac. 19:31; not in nom. in N. T.), iBvapxr)i (2 Cor. 11:32), iraTpiapxn^ (Heb. 7:4), iroKiTapxvs (Ac. 17:6, 8), T€Tpaapxv^ (Lu. 3 : 19), but always x'^'^PXos- In the addition of the p text to Ac. 28 : 16 the MSS. divide between orpaTOT^Sapxos (HLP) and -apxv^ (cursives). ''Emrovrapxos is the nominative in Mt. (8 : 5, 8; 27 : 54), and the accusative in -xov is found once in Acts (22:25). Elsewhere in all cases in Matthew, Luke and , Acts the form in -xtjs is read by the best MSS. (as Ac. 10 : 1). The first and the third declensions show variation in 3i^os (old form 5'i.il/a) in 2 Cor. 11 : 27, where indeed B has diif'v instead of Si^ei. NtK)j (the old form) survives iii 1 Jo. 5 : 4, but elsewhere the late form vZkos prevails (as 1 Cor. 15:54 f.). The LXX Ukewise shows TO 8i\l/os, TO vZkos interchangeably with the ■n forms. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 49; Thackeray, Gr., p. 157. The dative 'louaveL (third declension) instead of 'Icodi'j? (first declension) is accepted a few times by W. H. (Mt. 11 : 4; Lu. 7 : 18; Rev. 1 : 1). SaXa/tii'B (first declension) for SaXa/itj/i (third declension) in Ac. 13 : 5, Hort' considers only Alexandrian. The third declension nouns often in various N. T. MSS. have the accusative singular of consonant stems in -v in addition to -a, as xiipa-v in Jo. 20 : 25 (NAB), 1 Pet. 5 : 6 (NA). This is after the analogy of the first declension. Other examples are apaevav in Rev. 12 : 13 (A), Lat^riv in Ro. 4 : 5 (NDFG), kcTkpav in Mt. 2 : 10 (NC), d(70aX^i' in Heb. 6 : 19 (ACD), Mav m Ac. 14 : 12 (DEH), elKovav in Rev. 13 : 14 (A), txrjvav in Rev. 22 : 2 (A), irohiip-qv in Rev. 1 : 13 (A), av^yivrjv in Ro. 16 : 11 (ABD), ijiriv in Jo. 5: 11 (N). Blass' rejects them all in the N. T., some as "incredible," though properly recalling the Attic rpiiip^v, AruMXTdevriv. Moulton^ finds this conformation to the "analogy of first declension nouns" very common in "uneducated papjrri, which adequately foreshadows 1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 28; K.-Bl., I, 3, 502. Of. also W.-M., p. 70 f.; W.-Sch., p. 82; Soden, p. 1387 f . For iUustrations from the LXX see W.-M. Cf. also Nachmanson, Magn. Inschr., p. 121. For numerous pap. examples of compounds from apxa see Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap. (Laut- u. Wortl.), p. 256 f. For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 37 f . Thack., Gr., p. 156, finds -opx'7s ousting -apxos. 2 Notes on Orth., p. 156. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26. Not in ed. 4. < Prol., p. 49. Cf. Gregory, Prol., p. 118; W.-M., p. 76; Jann., pp. 119, 542; Psichari, Grec de la Sept., pp. 165 ff. Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev.-, 1901, p. 34 f., for this "very common" ace. in the pap. See Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 286 f. THE DECLENSIONS (kAIZEIZ) 259 its victory in modern Greek." The inscriptions' as well as the papyri have forms like ywaiKav, avdpav, etc. It is these accusative forms on which the modem Greek nominative in Sipxavras is made (cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 47) and thus blended the first and the third declensions.^ Hort' will accept none of these readings in the N. T. because of the "irregularity and apparent capricious- ness" of the MS. evidence, though he confesses the strength of the testimony for dcri^aX^j' in Heb. 6 : 19, ffuyyevrip in Ro. 16 : 11, and xeiP""' in Jo. 20 : 25. These nouns are treated here rather than under the third declension because in this point they invade the pi:ecincts of the first. The LXX MSS. exhibit the same phe- nomena (iXiriSav, tiovoytvrjv, etc.). See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 50; Thackeray, Gr., p. 147. The opposite tendency, the dropping of V in the first declension accusative, so common in modern Greek, is appearing in the papyri, as Septet x"Pti (Volker, Papyforum Graecorum Syntaxis etc., p. 30 f.). (h) Indeclinable Substantives. These are sometimes inflected in some of the cases in the first declension. Br]9aviA is accusative in Lu. 19 : 29, and so indeclinable, Uke BriB^yr], but elsewhere it is inflected regularly in the first declension (so -lav Mk. 11:1, etc.) save once or twice in B. BjjOo-atSd has accusative Brjdaaihav in Mk. 6:45; 8:22, but it may be only another alternate inde- clinable form (Thayer) like Ma7a5d;'. So likewise To\-yoBa has accusative in -av in Mk. 15:22. Hort^ finds "the variations between Mapia and the indeclinable Maptd/i" "singularly intricate and perplexing, except as regards the genitive, which is always -los, virtually without variation, and without difference of the persons intended." It is not necessary to go through all the details save to observe that as a rule the mother of Jesus and the sister of Martha are Mapid/i, while Mary of Clopas is always Mapio. Mary Magdalene is now Mopid/i, now Mopta. In the Aramaic as in the Hebrew probably all were called Mapidju. Mapia is merely the Hellenized form of MaptAp,. It is probably splitting too fine a hair to see with Hort^ a special appropriate- ness in Moptd/i in Jo. 20 : 16, 18. 6. The Second or o Declension. There is no distinctively feminine inflection in the o declension, though feminine words oc- * Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 133. * Cf. Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 156 f.; Schmid, Atticismus, IV, 586. ' Notes on Orth., p. 158. Kretschmer (Entst. der Koiv^, p. 28) finds this ace. in -an in various dialect inscriptions. Cf . also Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p. 24, for xAp'Toi', etc. * Notes on Orth., p. 156. ' lb. 260 A GRAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT cur, like ri 656s. But the neuter has a separate inflection. Modern Greek preserves very few f eminines in -os.' Thumb (Handb., p. 53 f) . gives none. The main peculiarities in the N. T. are here noted. (a) The So-Callbd Attic Second Declension. It is nearly- gone. Indeed the Attic inscriptions began to show variations fairly early. = The kolvti inscriptions^ show only remains here and there and the papyri tell the same story.* Abeady Xa6s (as Lu. 1 : 21) has displaced Xecos and mos (as Lu. 1 : 21) yecJjs, though veca- Kopos survives in Ac. 19 : 35. 'Avayaiov Ukewise is the true text in Mk. 14 : 15 and Lu. 22 : 12, not aviij&av nor any of the various modifications in the MSS. In Mt. 3 : 12 and Lu. 3 : 17 i} aXoiv may be used in the sense of 77 aXojs (see Thayer) by metonymy. The papyri show aXus (Attic second declension) still frequently (Moulton and Milligan, Expositor, Feb., 1908, p. 180). Cf. same thing in LXX. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 49 f.; Con. and Stock, Sel. Jr. LXX, p. 26; Thackeray, Gr., p. 144. 'AiroXXis has accusa- tive in -61V in 1 Cor. 4 : 6 aijd Tit. 3 : 13, though the Western and Syrian classes have -6i in both instances. In Ac. 19 : 1 'AttoXXo) is clearly right as only A^L 40 have -63v. The genitive is 'AttoXXcI) without variant (1 Cor. ter). So the adjective tXecos is read in Mt. 16 : 22 and Heb. 8 : 12, though a few MSS. have tXeos in both places. The best MSS. have ri\v Kcb in Ac. 21 : 1, not KSiv as Text. Rec. Cf. 1 Mace. 15 : 23. Blass^ compares aiSdjs of the third declension. (&) Contraction. There is little to say here. The adjectives will be treated later. 'Octovv (Jo. 19 : 36) has darea, accus. pL, in the best MSS. in Lu. 24 : 39 and barkuv in Mt. 23 : 27 and Heb, 11 : 22. So also darricov in the Western and Syrian addition to Eph. 5 : 30. 'Op-viov (Rev. 18 : 2) and opvea (Rev. 19 : 21) are without variant. The papyri show this Ionic influence on uncontracted vowels in this very word as well as in various adjectives (Moul- ton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 435). For examples in the LXX (as oarecav 2 Ki. 13 : 21) see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 82, and Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 36; Thackeray, p. 144; Con. and Stock, Sel. jr. LXX, p. 27. Moulton* considers it remarkable that the N. T. shows > Jaim., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. Ill f. 2 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 127 f. » Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 123 f.; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 142. * Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 34. See also Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., 1906, p. 259 f . For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 38 f ., where a few exx. occur. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25. Neis appears in 2 Mace. 6 : 2, etc. » Prol., p. 48 f . He thinks it proof that the N. T. writers were not illiterate, since the pap. examples are in writers "with other indications of illiteracy.',' Cf. also Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 34. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIS) 261 no traces of the contraction of Kbpios into Kiipis and raiSiov into iraidiv, for instance, since the papyri have so many illustrations of this tendency. The inscriptions' show the same frequency of the -K, -Lv forms which finally won the day in modem Greek. Cf . Thumb, Handb., p. 61. (c) The Vocative. In the o declension it does not always end in « in the masculine singular. Geos in ancient Greek is practically always retained in the vocative singular. The N. T. has the same form as in Mk. 15 : 34 (cf. also Jo. 20 : 28), but also once 6ei (Mt. 27 : 46). This usage is found occasionally in the LXX and in the late papyri.^ So also Paul uses Ti/xodee twice (1 Tim. 1 :18; 6:20). Aristophanes had 'Afut>ldee, Lucian Tifiddee, and the in- scriptions ^CKhBee? Note also the vocative uids Aavelh (Mt. 1 : 20) and even in apposition with K^pie (Mt. 15 : 22). The common use of the article with the nominative form as vocative, chiefly in the third declension, belongs more to sjTitax. Take as an instance of the second declension /ii) ofiov, t6 nucpdv iroinviov (Lu. 12 : 32). (d) Hetehoclisis and Metaplasm. Variations between the first and second declensions have been treated under 5 (/). The number of such variations between the second and third declen- sions is considerable. NoDs is no longer in the second declension, but is inflected hke /SoOs, viz. voos (2 Th. 2:2), vot (1 Cor. 14 : 15, 19). So ttXoos in Ac. 27 : 9, not xXoO.* The most frequent inter- change is between forms in -os, mascuhne in second declension and neuter in the third. In these examples the N. T. MSS. show frequent fluctuations. To eXeos wholly supplants rdv eXeov (Attic) in the N. T. (as in the LXX), as, for instance, Mt. 9 : 13; 12 : 7; 23 : 23; Tit. 3 : 5; Heb. 4 : 16, except in a few MSS. which read i\eov. Without variant we have ^Xeous and ikkei. On the other hand 6 f^Xos is the usual N. T. form as in the ancient Greek (so f ijX^jj, Ro. 13 :13; 2 Cor. 11 : 2), but t6 ^rj\os is the true text in 2 Cor. 9 : 2 and Ph. 3:6. In Ac. 5 : 17 only B has f^Xous, and all read f 17X0U in Acts 13 : 45. ''Hxos is usually masculine and in the second declension, as in Heb. 12 : 19 (cf. Lu. 4 : 37; Ac. 2 : 2), and for the • Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 125; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 143. On the origin of these forms see Hatz., Einl., p. 318; Brug., Grundr., ii, § 62 n.; Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 34. " Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, pp. 34, 434. ' Cf. W.-Sch., p. 81. In the LXX both SaSs and Bit occur. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 34; C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 26; Thack., p. 145. * Cf. Arrian, Peripl., p. 176. See W.-Sch., p. 84, for similar exx. in the insor., as ^ovs, poos in late Gk. For pap. exx. of 0odi/, TrXoB;/ and xov" see Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 257 f ., 268 f. 262 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT earlier iixn according to Moeris and Blass.* In Lu. 21 : 25 W. H. read iixovs from ^x<^> but Horf admits ijxovs from t6 ^xos to be possible, and Nestle reads fjxovs in his sixth edition. In Ac. 3 : 10 C reads danPov instead of Baii^ovs. In eight instances in Paul (2 Cor. 8 : 2; Ph. 4 : 19; Col. 1 : 27; 2 : 2; Eph. 1:7, 2:7; 3:8, 16) in the nominative and accusative we have t6 ttXoOtos, but 6 ttXoOtos in Gospels, Jas., Heb., Rev. The genitive is always -tov. To (TKOTiK instead of 6 cKOTOi is read everywhere in the N. T. save in the late addition to Heb. 12 : 18 where aK&rif appears, though f6^£[) is the true text. The form haKpvaiv (Lu. 7 : 38, 44) is from SaKpv, an old word that is found now and then in Attic, but rb SaKpvov appears also in Rev. 7: 17; 21 :4; Saupvoiv may belong to either decl. HaPfiarov {-tov, -tlS) is the form used in the N. T, al- ways, as Mk. 6: 2, but aaP^aai.]' as Mk. 1 : 21, etc. B has (ra/3/3dTois, Uke the LXX sometimes, in Mt. 12 : 1, 12. Kar-Ziycop is accepted by W. H. and Nestle in Rev. 12 : 10 on the authority of A against NBCP, which have the usual Karriyopos. According to Winer- SchmiedeP this is not Greek, but a transliteration of the Aramaic "iiaiop. Blass,* however, thinks it is formed on the model of p^rojp. Several words fluctuate between the masculine and the neuter in the second declension. In Lu. 14 : 16; Rev. 19 : 9, 17, several MSS. read Selxvos instead of the usual deiTvov. Like the old Greek, SecrpAs has the plural 8eap.a m Lu. 8 : 29; Ac. 16 : 26; 20 : 23, but ol htcpol in Ph. 1 : 13. Before Polybius ^vybv was more common (Thayer), but in the N. T. it is ^vy6% (Mt. 11 : 30). "0 eep.k\ios is the only form of the nom. sing, in the N. T., as 2 Tim. 2 : 19 (supply \i6os) ; Rev. 21 : 19, but to. Oep.e\i.a (ace.) in Ac. 16 : 26 like the LXX and the Attic. The plural defieXlovs we have in Heb. 11 : 10; Rev. 21 u 14, 19. Qe^eXiov (ace.) may be either mascuhne or neuter. In Ro. 11 : 10 6 vutos is used in the quotation from the 0. T. instead of the older to vSitov. In the early Greek 6 citos (never to alrov) had a plural in o-iTa as well as clroi. The same thing is true of the N. T. MSS. for Ac. 7 : 12 except that they di- vide between to. ctIto. and to, (ruria, and , but in Mk. 6 : 3 'IdxrrJTos is the reading. So runs Aeveis (nominative, Lu. 5:29), Aevd (genitive, Lu. 3:24), Aeveiv (accu- sative, Lu. 5:27). Dative appears only in the LXX as Gen. 34 : 30 Aeuei. M.ava Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 121. ^ P. 90. ' Notes on Orth., p. 158. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 35, gives tivrnp as voc. three times in a iii/A.D. pap. (B.U.). * Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 119. b Mofllton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 435. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIZ) 265 cussion. However, there are other consonant-stems which form the accusative in -v instead of -a. In Tit. 3 : 9 and Ph. 1 : 15 we have iptv instead of 'epiSa.^ So in Rev. 3 : 7 and 20 : 1 the Attic k\€lv is read, for this is not a new tendency by any means, but in Lu. 11 : 52 the MSS. have K\uSa, though here also D has KKeiv. KXetSa is found in the LXX as in Judg. 3 : 25. Xapira appears in Ac. 24 : 27 and Ju. 4, and A has it in Ac. 25 : 9, but the Attic xapi-v holds the field (forty times) .^ In the LXX the Ionic and poetical xapira occurs only twice (Zech. 4:7; 6 : 14) and is absent from the papyri before the Roman period. Cf Thack- eray, Gr., p. 150. For the irrational v with fiei^co in Jo. 5 : 36 see Adjectives. In Ac. 27 : 40 the correct text is dpre/itom, not -ova, from nom. aprknav. (c) The Accusative Pltjbal. In Winer-Schmiedel (p. 88) ipa$ is given as nominative and accusative except in 1 Cor. 1 : 11 (^piSes, nom.), but as a matter of fact the accusative plural does not appear in the N. T. except as an alternative reading ipus in K-'ACKLP, in Tit. 3 : 9 (correct text ipiv). In Gal. 5 : 20 W. H. put ?p€is in the margin rather than epis, probably "an itacistic error." ' W. H. read ras KXets In Rev. 1 : 18, but xXeTSas in Mt. 16 : 19. In Ac. 24 : 27 xap^as is supported by HP and most of the cursives against x^P'™ (correct text) and x^pti* (N°EL, etc.). The accusative in -vs has changed into -as with -v and -ov stems, as jSoas from fiovs (Jo. 2 : 14 f., cf. LXX), ^orpvas from /36- Tpvs (Rev. 14 : 18), tx^uas from ixdiis (Mt. 14 : 17).* This simplifica- tion of the accusative plural was carried still further. Just as TToXeas had long ago been dropped for woXeis, so ;8ao-tXeas has be- come -eis like the nominative, "and this accusative plural is reg- ular in N. T. for all words in -eus."* In the LXX -eas appears a few times, but since 307 b.c. the Attic inscriptions show -£ts as accusative.^ It is found indeed sometimes in Xenophon and 1 Cf . Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157. For the LXX see Thack., p. 140; Hel- bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 40 f., where the N. T. situation is duplicated. ^ See Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 151, for illustr. of these aces, in the inscr. For the pap. see Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 35, both x&ptra and xiip'") etc. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 271 f. ' Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157. * Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26, and W.-Sch., p. 86. Arrian has ixSias. LXX MSS. (Thack., Gr., p. 147) show i>ri6s and veiis, vrjas and vavs, /86os. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 43. Usually ix9(ias, p. 44. 6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26. « Meisterh., p. 141. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 86. So the LXX. Cf. Thack., Gr., p. 147 f.; Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 43. Wackern. (Indoger. Forsch., 1903, 266 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Thucydides, though the strict Atticists disown it. Cf. jpan/ia- T61S in Mt. 23 : 34, etc. A few forms in -eas survive in the in- scriptions.' Ni7o-T€is (from vTJffTLs) is the correct accusative in Mk. 8 : 3 and Mt. 15 : 32. N here reads vfiv) is indeclinable in X in Mt. 1 : 6 as usually in the LXX. But the best MSS. in Mt. 1 : 6 have the accusative SoXoMcora, a few -Siura. So the genitive SoXo/iioi'os in Mt. 12 : 42, ' W.-Soh., p. 86. So Sir. 25 : 3, etc. The LXX also has the Ionic gen. yiipovs. See Thack., Gr., p. 149; Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 42. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. Griech. Pap., p. 276. ^ As Ex. 25 : 9. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 87. ' Hort, Notes on Orth. But Xen. and Plut. (often) have inixCiv. See W.-M., p. 75. In LXX note tt^x'os and wiixeais, iriixf^v and vrixav. Helbing, . Gr., p. 45; Thack., p. 151. « W.-Sch., p. 88. 6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 27. » Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 58-60, for discussion of the decl. of proper names in the LXX. The phenomena corre- spond to those in N. T. MSS. Upoiirjetis had an Attic nom. -i^s, gen. -faos, Thumb, Handb., § 330. 1. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIs) 269 though a few MSS. have -uvtos. The Gospels have umformly the genitive in -cows. But in Ac. 3 : 11 W. H. accept 'LoKohSjvtos (so also 5 : 12), though BD etc. have wcos in 5 : 12. Cf. 'Eevo(j)5ivTos (from nominative -wv). AioTpeayfi, 2ia»>, Xiva, etc. There are other indeclinable Hebrew and Aramaic words such as Kop^av (Mk. 7 : 11), iJ.avva (Rev. 2 : 17), iraaxa (Lu. 2 : 41), aL- Kepa (Lu. 1 : 15 as in LXX). The gender (fem.) of the inde- clinable oiai (Rev. 9 : 12; 11 : 14) is probably due, as Blass^ sug- gests, to flXi^is. In 1 Cor. 9 : 16 oial is used as a substantive (so also LXX). The use of 6 u>v ml 6 ^v ml o ipxa/ievos in the nominative after Atto in Rev. 1 : 4, etc., belongs more to syntax than to accidence. It is evidently on purpose (to express the iinchangeableness of God), just as 6 StSdcr/caXos kuI 6 Kvpios is in apposition with ne (Jo. 13 : 13) in heu of quotation-marks. n. THE ADJECTIVE ("ONOMA 'Eni0ETON) Donaldson 8 is probably right in saying that, in general, the explanation of the adjective belongs to syntax rather than [to etymology. But there are some points concerning the adjective that demand treatment here. 1. The Origin of the Adjective. Adjectives are not indis- pensable in language, however convenient they may be.* In the Sanskrit, for instance, the adjective plays an vmimportant part. Whitney* says: "The accordance in inflection of substantive and adjective stems is so complete that the two cannot be separated in treatment from one another." He adds^ that this wavering line of distinction between substantive and adjective is even more uncertain in Sanskrit than in the other early Indo-Ger- manic tongues. Most of the Sanskrit adjectives have three endings, the masculine and neuter being usually a stems while the feminine may have a or I, this matter being "determined in great part only by actual usage, and not by grammatical rule." So hkewise Giles in his Comparative Philology has no distinct treatment of adjectives. The adjective is an added descriptive appellative (ovona iirWeTov) while the substantive is an essential appellative {6vona ovaLacTiKov). But substantives were doubtless 1 See further Ust in W.-Sch., p. 91. » New Crat., p. 502. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 32. < Fairar, Gk. Synt., p. 29. " Sans. Gr., p. 111. 8 lb. Cf. Monro, Horn. Gr.,'p. 117, for the adjectival use of the substantive. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIS) 271 used in this descriptive sense before adjectives arose, as they are still so used. So, for instance, we say brother man. Doctor A., Professor B., etc. Cf. in the N. T. h t^ 'lopSavn Tora/t<3 (Mt. 3 : 6), etc. This is, indeed, apposition, but it is descriptive ap- position, and it is just at this point that the adjective emerges in the early period of the language.' Other Greek adjectives in form as in idea are variations from the genitive case, the genus case.^ In itself the adjective is as truly a noun as the substantive. As to the form, while it is not necessary' that in every case the adjective express its gender by a different inflection, yet the ad- jectives with three genders become far commoner than those with two or one.* From the etymological point of view this in- flection in different genders is the only distinction between sub- stantive and adjective.* The Greek has a much more highly developed system of adjectives than the Sanskrit, which has sur- vived fairly well in modern Greek, though a strong tendency is present to simplify adjectives to the one declension (-os, —17, -ov). Participles, though adjectives in inflection, are also verbs in sev- eral respects and call for separative discussion. The process of treating the adjective as a substantive belongs to syntax.^ The substantivizing of the adjective is as natural, though not so com- mon in Greek as in Latin, as the adjectivizing of the substantive which we have been discussing.' The distinction between adjec- tive and substantive is hard to draw in modern Greek (Thimib, Handb., p. 66). In modem Greek every adjective has a special feminine form. The development is complete. Cf. Thumb, pp. 66 ff. 2. Inflection of Adjectives. In Greek as in Sanskrit, the ad- jective has to follow the inflection of the substantive in the various declensions, the three genders being obtained by combining the first with the second or the third declensions. (a) Adjectives with One Termination. Of course at first this may have been the way the earliest adjectives arose. Then the genders would be formed. But analogy soon led to the for- mation of most adjectives with three endings. Some of these ' Delbriick, Syntakt. Forsch., IV, pp. 65, 259. Cf. GUes, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 239. 2 Donaldson, New Crat., p. 474. * Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 139. » Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30. ^ Donaldson, New Crat., p. 502. * Brug. (Griech. Gr., pp. 413-417) has no discussion of the adjective save from the syntactical point of view. ' See Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 414 f., for numerous exx. in the earlier Gk. 272 A GKAMMAE OF THE GKEEK NEW TESTAMENT adjectives with one ending were used only with the masculine or the feminine, and few were ever used with the neuter.' Jannaris^ considers them rather substantives than adjectives, but they il- lustrate well the transition from substantive to adjective, like aTrats, namp, vyas. In fact they are used of animated beings. In the N. T. we have Hp-n-a^ (Mt. 7 : 15; 1 Cor. 5 : 10), tt^vj/s (2 Cor. 9 : 9. Cf. irXavfjTes, Jude 13 B), and avyyevls (Lu. 1 : 36). Xvyyevis is a later feminine form like evyevis for the usual ffvyyevris (both mascuUne and feminine) which Winer ^ treats as a substantive (so Thayer). Strictly this feminine adjective belongs* only to words in — n^s and -eiis. Blass^ quotes eiyevidwu ywaiKibv by way of com- parison. Modern Greek still has a few of these adjectives in use. The ancient adjectives in -17s (etyevfis) have disappeared from the modern Greek vernacular (Thumb, Handb., p. 72). (&) Adjectives with Two Tebminations. Some adjectives never had more than two endings, the masculine and the femi- nine having the same form. In the so-called Attic second de- clension this is true of tXews (Mt. 16 :22). But a few simple adjectives of the second declension never developed a feminine ending, as, for instance, fiap^apos (1 Cor. 14 : 11), k{al)(j>vlSios (Lu. 21 : 34), ffWT'fipLos (Tit. 2 : 11).« In the N. T. i^avxos has changed to ■fi(rixu)s (1 Pet. 3:4). The adjectives in the third declension which end in -ijs or -uv have no separate feminine form. So eiyeviis (Lu. 19:12), eixre^ris (Ac. 10:7) nd^tav (Jo. 15:13), etc. Then again some simple adjectives varied' in usage in the earUer Greek, especially in the Attic, and some of these have only two endings in the N. T., hke atdios (Ro. 1 : 20), eprnios (Ac. 1 : 20, etc.,- and often as substantive with yfj or x'«'Pi not expressed), k6(tiiuk (1 Tim. 2:9), ovpLvios (Lu. 2:13; Ac. 26:19), <^Xfrapos (1 Tim. 5:13), (jjpovLnos (Mt. 25:2, 4, 9), ixjjkXifws (1 Tim. 4:8; 2 Tim. 3: 16). With still others N. T. usage itself varies as in the case of aloivios (Mt. 25:46, etc.) and aiuvia (Heb. 9:12; 2 Th. 2:16, and often as a variant reading) ; eTot/«js (Mt. 25 : 10) and ^roi/iij (1 Pet. 1:6); fiaraios (Jas. 1 : 26) and fiaraia (1 Pet. 1:18); 3/«jtos (Rev. 4 : 3, second example correct text) and 6/iota (Rev. 9 : 10, 1 K.-Bl, I, p. 647 f. 2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 143. 3 W.-M., p. 80. But cf. W.-Sch., p. 97. * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33. - lb. ' Cf. K.-Bl., I, p. 535 f., for fuller list. Some of the simple verbals in -ros also had no fem., as HiniTos. ' In the LXX we see a very slight tendency towards giving a fem. form to all adjs. Thack., Gr., p. 172. THE DECLENSIONS (kaISEIs) 273 though W. H. put duoiois in the margin instead of dfioias, 19) ; So-wj (1 Tim. 2:8; so probably, though octous may be construed with iiraipovras instead of xetpas). The early Attic inscriptions furnish examples of two endings with such adjectives as 56/ct/ios (no fem- inine example in the N. T.) and \onr6s with either two or three (N. T. only three) .^ The papyri furnish epjj/ios and oiipavios as feminine and others not so used in the N. T., as SkaLos, nhpios, avbpijjm."^ It was the rule with compound adjectives to have only two endings, for the most of them never developed a feminine form, as 6 {r\) aXoyo%? This tendency survives in the inscriptions, especially with compoimds of a- privative and prepositions, and in the papyri also we have abundant examples.^ The N. T. usage is well illustrated by 1 Pet. 1 : 4, ds K\r]povop,lav a.s, Koaiuosyia Magnesia (Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 140). Aristophanes used /SoiriXeios, pipauK, naxa.- pios, obpavws, Trarpios with two endings (G. Wirth, De Motione Adjectivorum, 1880, p. 51). This is true also of Euripides (ib., p. 49 f.). For further discus- sion of adjectives with two endings see Wilhehn, Zur Motion der Adjec. dreier End. in Griech. etc., p. 23; Wilhelm, Der Sprachgebr. der Lukianos etc., p. 23. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 57 f. On the whole the LXX shows the ex- tension of the fern, so that adjs. which in Attic have two or three terminations have three in the LXX (aypio!, pi^aios, SUaios, tXeiiBepos, naratos). Thack., Gr., p. 172. 2 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 289 f. ^ K.-Bl., I, p. 538. * Cf. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 141; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 158; Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 291. « K.-Bl., I, p. 538 f. « Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 158. ' Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 291. 274 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the first declensions, like 6|6s, o^eta, o^ii; Trfis, iraaa, irav; iKisp, eKovaa, eKov; fikkas, fteXau>a, nk\av; fikyas, fieyakri, fieya; irokvs, iroXXiJ, Tokv. Cf . the perfect active participle in -is, -vZa, -6s. The LXX MSS. sometimes have irSiv as indechnable {wdv t6v tottov, etc.) like irXijpjjs. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 51. Indeclinable xXiJpijs is retained by Swete in Sir. 19:26. Cf. Helbing, ib. See (/) below. (d) The Accusative Singular. Some adjectives of the third declension have v after the analogy of the first declension. See this chapter, i, 5, (g), for the discussion in detail. W. H. reject them all, though in a few cases the testimony is strong.^ They are aaeffrjv (Ro. 4 : 5), a(r(j>a\'nv (Heb. 6 : 19), liei^cav (Jo. 5 : 36), avyjivrjv (Ro. 16: 11), iyLTJv (Jo. 5: 11). The use of irrational v with ;u€ifw (Jo. 5 : 36 ixel^uv in ABEGMA) is likened by Moulton (Prol, p. 49) to irrational v with subjunctive § {^v). Cf. ch. VI, ii (c). (e) Contraction in Adjectives. Two points are involved, the fact of contraction (or the absence of it) and the use of a or ij after e, t, p. The uncontracted forms of adjectives are not so common as is the case with substantives. Cf . this chapter, i, 6, (&). The contracted forms are practically confined to forms in —ovs, like airXoOs, StirXoOs, apyvpovs, irop^vpom, cnS-qpovs, xoXkoOs, xpuo'ous. Here again we have a still further hmitation, for the uncontracted forms occur chiefly in the Apocalypse and in K and in the case of xpvcovs.'^ Cf. Rev. 4:4; 5:8, where X reads xpvaeovs, -tas. But in Rev. 2 : 1 ^{PB read xpwwi', while AC have xpvtreuv. Xpvadv in Rev. 1 : 13, though accepted by W. H. and read by NAC, is rejected by Blass, but admitted by Debrunner (p. 28), as shown on p. 257. P. Lond. reads xp^fdv rj apyvpdv, and L. P." (ii/iii a.d.) also has xpv(rvv ij apyvprjv.^ In each instance probably analogy has been at work.* Thackeray (Gr., p. 172 f .) gives a very few uncontracted forms in -eos in the LXX. W. H. accept the genitive ^adkus in Lu. 24 : 1 and irpaeus in 1 Pet. 3 : 4 instead of the usual form in -os. Hort^ considers the variations in ^/tto-us as "curious," but they find abundant parallel in the * Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157 f . For pap. exx. of iyLrjv see Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 295. Thack. (Gr., p. 146) considers it a vulgarism, though it began as early as iv/s.c. (see 'Zamparnv, tp4pi)v). It is common ii/A.D. " Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25. Cf. Hel- bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 34 f ., for LXX. * Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, pp. 35, 435. * Moulton, Prol., p. 48. Cf . ttJc iep^y K€(t>a\iiv on Rom. tomb (Kaibel, Epi- gram. Graeca, 1878, p. 269). » Notes on Orth., p. 158. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIs) 275 papyri as does xpv<^^<^v above.* In Mk. 6 : 23 rui'urovs, not -eos, is tlie genitive form, the usual (probably only) form in the pa- pyri.^ The neuter plural ij/iio-ea has practically no support in Lu. 19:8, though rinliTr] is the Text. Rec. on the authority of late, uncials and cursives. Ta ■qnlav has slight support. W. H. read TO, itidaia (NBQ 382, L having itacistic -eto) and derive it from a possible i7/itTos where the principle crossed with a different appUcation because irp&repos was dis- appearing, it is the superlative that goes down, especially the true superlative as opposed to the elative (intensive). Hermas, though in the vernacular, still uses the superlative in the elative (inten- ' Moulton, Prol., p. 79 » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 34. > W.-M., p. 306. 4 Farrax, Gk. Synt., p. 30. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIS) 281 sive) sense very often.' In the N. T. then the comparative is beginning to take the place of the superlative, a usage occasion- ally found in classical Greek,^ and found now and then in the papyri.' See 1 Cor. 13 : 13 to, rpla ravra' ixd^iav 8i tovtwv ri ayawri. See also & iitl^oiv (Mt. 18:4). But this matter will call for more comment under Syntax (ch. XIV xiii, {%)). in. NUMERALS {'APieMOI). No great space is demanded for the discussion of the non- syntactical aspects of the numerals. 1. The Origin of Numerals. Donaldson^ thinks that seven of the first ten numerals may be traced to primitive pronominal ele- ments. Pronouns and numerals belong to the stable elements of language, and the numerals are rather more stable than the pro- nouns in the Indo-Germanic tongues.* See the numerals in sub- stantial integrity in modem Greek (Thumb, Handb., pp. 80-84). The system of numeration is originally decimal (cf. fingers and toes) with occasional crossing of the duodecimal.^ There possibly were savages who could not count beyond two, but one doubts if the immediate ancestors of the Indo-Germanic peoples were so primitive as that.'' See previous discussion in this chapter, i, 3. Counting is one of the first and easiest things that the child learns. It is certain that the original Indo-Germanic stock had numerals up to 100 before they separated.* The roots are wide- spread and fairly uniform. 2. Variety among Numerals. (a) Different Functions. The numerals may be either sub- stantive, adjective or adverb. So fi x^^^'^s (Lu. 14:31), x'^^ioi (2 Pet. 3 : 8), Itttclkis (Mt. 18:21).' Number thus embraces sep- arate ideas. (6) The Cardinals (ow'/ttara api6fji,r]TiKd). They may be either declinable or indeclinable, and this according to no very well-de- fined principle. The first four are declinable, possibly from their frequent use.'" After 200 (Sta-zcoo-tot, -ot, -a) they have the regular * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33. He cites the mod. Italian also which makes no distinction between the comp. and superl. " Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., II, pp. 172 £f. ' Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 439. « Giles, Man., etc., p. 393. * New Crat., p. 294. « lb. ' However, see Moulton, Prol., p. 58. Cf. Taylor, Prim. Cult., I, p. 242 f. 8 Moulton, Prol., p. 58. » Cf. K.-B1., I, p. 621 f. " Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35. 282 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT inflection of adjectives of the second and first declensions. The history of els, n'la, ev is very interesting, for which see the compara- tive grammars.! jjls is exceedingly common in the N. T. as a cardinal (Mt. 25 : 15) and as an indefinite pronoun (Mt. 8 : 19), approaching the indefinite article. For the use of els in sense of ordinal see Syntax, ch. XIV, xv, (a), but it may be remarked here that the papyri have rjj ixi^ Kal eUaSi (Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 35). The indechnable use. of els (or adverbial use of Kara) is common in later Greek. Cf. koB' els in Mk. 14 : 19; (Jo. 8:9); Ro. 12 : 5.^* So modem Greek uses eva as neuter with which Mayser' compares ha as feminine on an early ostrakon. But the modem Greek declines ems, fila, eva in all genders (Thumb, Handb., p. 81). OiSets and lu/Seis are both very common in the N. T. with the inflection of els. MriBeis occurs only once (Ac. 27 : 33). W. H. admit oWeis only seven times (all in Luke and Paul, as Ac. 20 : 33), and once (Ac. 15 : 9) oiBtv is in the margin. Jannaris {Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 170) calls this form in B chiefly Alexandrian, rare in Attic, but Mayser {Or., p. 180) notes ovMs as "Neubildung" while Olivets is good Attic. For history of it see Orthography and Pho- netics, 3, (/). The frequent use of dvo as indeclinable save in the plural form dvai in the later Greek has already been commented on in this chapter (i, 3), as well as the disappearance of afiit>co be- fore a.fi46TepoL. Indeclinable Svo is classical, and after Aristotle 5vaL is the normal dative (Thackeray, Gr., p. 186). Tpia (possibly also Tpts) is occasionally indeclinable in the papyri.^ The common use of rkaaepa in the Koi.vi) and the occasional occurrence of rkaaapes as accusative in N. T. MSS. (like Northwest Greek) have been noticed in chapters VI, 2, (a), and VII, i, 7, (c).^ ILhre, e| and eirra need not detain us. The originally dual form 6ktc!j is found only ten times, and five of them with other numerals. 'Evvka appears only five times, while 5ka is nothing Uke so common as eTrra, not to mention the first five cardinals. "Evdem is found six times, but 8co8tKa is quite common, due chiefly to the frequent mention of the Apostles. From thirteen to nineteen in the N. T., like the pa- pyri* and the modern Greek, Ska comes first, usually without mi, > Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 211; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 311; Giles, Man., p. 394. On numerals in the LXX see Thack., Gr., pp. 186-190; C. and S., Sel. fr. the LXX, p. 30 f. 2 Cf, w.-M., p. 312. So &yd. eh (Rev. 21 : 21). ' Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 312. Perhaps the earliest ex. of indechnable iha. For the LXX usage cf. W.-Sch., p. 90. ' Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 315. 6 lb. Cf. also Dittenb., 674. 28. " Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 316. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIs) 283 as Ska 6kt63 (Lu. 13 :4), though once with Kai (Lu. 13 : 16). But unlike the papyri the N. T. never has SeKoSiio} But deKairivre (as Jo. 11 : 18) and SeKariaffapes (as Gal. 2 : 1) occur several times each. EiKoat is a dual form, while rpiaKovra and, so on are plural." 'EKarSv is one hundred hke a-ira^ W. H. accent eKarovTaeTijs, not -krris. Usually no conjunction is used with these niunerals, as eiKoai rkcraapfs (Rev. 19 :4), eKarov eiKoci (Ac. 1 : 15), but reaaapa- Kovra Kol 'i^ (Jo. 2 : 20). Cf. Rev. 13 : 18. In the LXX there is no fixed order for niimbers above the "teens." Thackeray, Gr., p. 188. The N. T. uses xCKioi often and biaxiKioi once (Mk. 5 : 13) and TpuyxiKvoi once (Ac. 2 : 41). The N. T. examples of p.vp'ios by reason of case do not distinguish between fiiipuji, 'ten thousand' (Mt. 18 : 24) and livpioi, 'many thousands' (1 Cor. 4 : 15). The" N. T. uses /ivpias several times for the latter idea ('myriads'), some- times repeated, as nvpiaSes nvpiaSuv (Rev. 5 : 11). So also x'^^'m is more common in the N. T. than xt^'ot, both appearing chiefly iu Revelation (cf. 5 : 11). In Rev. 13 : 18 B and many cursives have x^s' = e^aKoaioL i^r]KovTa e^, while the cursive 5 has xi-s' = i^anS- aioi 8eKa e^. As a rule in the N. T. MSS. the numbers are spelled out instead of mere signs being used. (c) The Ordinals (ovofMara ra/CTiKo). They describe rank and raise the question of order, iroaros.^ They are all adjectives of three endings and all have the superlative form -ros save irp6- repos and dei-repos which are comparative.* In most cases the ordinals are made from the same stem as the cardinals.^ But this is not true of Tpwros nor indeed of Sev-repos (not from dvo, but . from Stiofiai).^ Cf. the English superlative 'first' (•with suflJx -4sto). HpcSros has driven xporepos out of use in the N. T. except as an adverb (or to irpbrepov) save in one instance, irporepav avariv (Eph. 4:22). The disappearance of Tpwros before the ordinal use of eis belongs to Syntax. In the N. T. as in the papyri' the ordinals up to twelve are regular. From 13 to 19 the N. T., like the vernacular papyri'' (so Ionic and kolvti generally), puts the smaller • AkKa Slio is normal in the pap. of the Ptol. age. Cf. Rec, Ac. 19 : 7. Cf. Thack., Gr., p. 188. So also SUa rpels, and even dUa /uas once. Always Skxa T^o-ffopes, SeKa irkyre, Skxa oktu. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 35. ^ Giles, Man., p. 398. " K.-Bl., I, p. 622. Cf. Brug., irfio-ros, CI. Philol., 1907, p. 208. * These both have a super!., as irpwros and Stiraros (Horn.). Brug., Gk. Gr., p. 212. ' Giles, Man., p. 400. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 212; Moulton, ProL, p. 95 f. ' Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 318. ' lb. Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 35. 284 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT number first and as a compound with Kai, only the second half of the word in the ordinal form. So Tea-aapea-KaiSkKaroi (Ac. 27: 27), not TkrapTos Kal deKaros (Attic) .' But the papyri show examples of the usual Attic method,^ as ^mros Kal e'lKocrTos. The distinction between the decades (like rpta/coo-Tos) and the hundreds (like rpia- Koauoarbs) should be noted. In modern Greek all the ordinals have disappeared out of the vernacular save irpSros, Seirepos, rpi- Tos, rkrapTos.^ The article with the cardinal is used instead. (d) Distributives in the N. T. The iriultipUcative distrib- utives (with ending -irXoDs) occur in the N. T. also. 'AxXoDs as an adjective is found only twice (Mt. 6 : 22; Lu. 11 : 34), both times about the eye. AtTrXoDs appears four times (as 1 Tim. 5:17). Cf. the Latin sim-plex, du-plex, English simple, diplomatic. The proportional distributives end in -ifKatTiMv. As examples one may note kKaTovTaifKaalova (Lu. 8 : 8) and ■KoWairKaalova (Lu. 18 : 30). Cf. EngUsh "two-fold," "three-fold," etc. One of the com- monest ways of expressing distribution is by repetition of the numeral as in biio hvo (Mk. 6:7). Cf . cvtiirocia o-u^uTroo-ta (IVLk. 6 : 39 f.). In Lu. 10 : 1 we have dva. &vo dvo in the text of W. H., a "mixed distributive" (Moulton, Prol., p. 97). The modern Greek has either airb bvb or Svb 8vb (Thumb, Handb., p. 83). It is a vernacular idiom which was given fresh impetus (Brugmann, Distributiva, p. 9) from the Hebrew idiom. Deissmann cites TpLa rpia from 0. P. 121 (iii/A.D.). Moulton {Prol, p. 21) follows Thumb {Hellen., p. 152) in denying that it is a Hebraism. See further ch. XIV, xv (d). (e) Numeral Adverbs. These are of two kinds, either like afia (Ac. 24 : 26), SLxa, 'in two' (not in the N. T., though see Stx^fw Mt. 10 : 35), or like aira^, 8ls, rpLs, etc. The one kind answers to multiplicatives and the other to proportionals.* The numeral ad- verbs continue in use in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 189 f.). The modern Greek instead of the numeral adverb uses v, etc. Not only do MSS. give the regular irpos in, but the papyri* furnish ew /ie, Trepi nov, mo jmv. The question whether aov or 9dKfjuff aov in the same sentence (Mt. 7: 4. Cf. also the next verse). Nestle here has no such refinement, but aov all through these verses. The third personal pronoun gave trouble in Greek as in some other languages. In Attic the old o5, ol, ? (without nominative) was chiefiy reflexive,* though not true of the Ionic. Possibly this pronoun was originally reflexive for all the persons, but came to be used also as the simple pronoun of the third person, whereas in Latin it remained reflexive and was restricted to the third person.^ The N. T. is like the KOLvii > K.-Bl., I, p. 579, have only five. ' Hirt, Handb., p. 296. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 84, for mod. Gk. ' Cf. K.-B1., I, pp. 580 ff. See briefer summary in Giles, Man., p. 298 f., and Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 244 f. On the multiplicity of roots in the pers. pron. see Riem. and Goelzer, Phondt., p. 336. * Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 302 f . Cf . Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 165. 6 Cf. Farrai, Gk. Synt., p. 33. He illustrates by the Eng.: "I will lay me down and sleep." Cf. inivia Mt. 6 : 19 f, ' Riem. and Goelzer, PhoniSt., p. 341. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIZ) 287 in the use of airos (common also in Attic) instead of ov as the third personal pronoun. It is used in all three genders and in all cases save that in the nominative it usually has emphasis (of. Mt. 1 : 21), a matter to be discussed under Syntax. Indeed ouTos, whatever its etymology, is originally an intensive pro- noun (like Latin (pse), not a personal pronoun.^ The "frequent and almost inordinate use" (Thayer) of aMs in the LXX (cf. Jer. 18 : 3 f.) and the N. T. is noticeable. So modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 86) (b) The Intensive Peonotjn. The N. T. has nothing new to say as to the form of the intensive avros. It is usually in the nominative that it is intensive like avrds fiovos (Jo. 6 : 15), though not always (cf. Jo. 14 : 11). The modem Greek^ uses also a shorter form tov, etc. (also Pontic arov), as personal pronoun. The use of 6 avTos may be compared with 6 Ktos. See ch. XV, iii, (g). (c) Reflexive Pegnotins. The reflexive form is nothing but the personal pronoun plus the intensive airds. The reflexive is one use of this intensive in combination with the personal pro- noun. They were originally separate words.' So airds kyii (Ro. 7: 25) which is, of course, not reflexive, but intensive. The Greek reflexives have no nominative and the English has almost lost "himself," "myself" as nominative.* In the N. T. the first and second persons have a distinct reflexive form only in the singular (ifiavTov, aeavTov). In 2 Th. 1:4 avrovs 'q/iS.s is obviously inten- sive, not reflexive. In 1 Cor. 7 : 35 riijuiv avrSiv it is doubtful.^ See ch. XV, IV, for further discussion. The contracted form aaurov is not found in the N. T. It is common in the Kingdom books in the LXX and occurs in the papyri. See even aardv in av /3\4xe carou air6 tS)V 'lovSa'uav, B.G.U. 1079 (a.D. 41). So as to avrov. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 190. The modern Greek uses tov enavrov fwv for the reflexive (Thumb, Handb., p. 88). The reflexive for the third person^ (usually iavrov in the singular, about twenty times avTov, etc., in W. H., as airdv in Jo. 2 : 24), while the only reflexive form for all persons in the plural in the N. T. has no secure place in the N. T. for the first and second person singular. The pos- sible reflexive (or demonstrative?) origin of ov made this usage natural. It appears in the papyri" {to, avrov, Pet. 1. 15, 15) and the ' Flensberg (tTber Urspr. tind Bild. des Pron. aiirSs, 1893, p. 69) denies that it is from a5, but rather from ai, ava. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 244. 2 Thumb, Handb., p. 85. » Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 144. ' K.-Bl., I, p. 596. « Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 33. * Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 62. ' Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 303 f. 288 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT late inscriptions^ for the first and second person singular. In the modern Greek the same thing is true.^ But in the N. T. only late MSS. read d^' eavrov against air6 aeavrov (NBCL) in Jo. 18 : 34. In Gal. 5 : 14 and Ro. 13 : 9 only Syrian uncials have eavrSv for aeavTov} This use of iavrSiv for all three persons is fairly common in classical Attic. Indeed the personal pronoun itself was some- times so used {^okSi fioi, for instance).* (d) Possessive Pronouns (jcTrjTiKaX avrcow/iiai). It is some- what difficult in the discussion of the pronouns to keep off syntactical ground, and this is especially true of the possessive adjectives. For the etymology of these adjectives from the cor- responding personal pronouns one may consult the compara- tive grammars.^ But it is the rarity of these adjectives in the N. T. that one notices at once. The third person possessives (os, c^krepos) have entirely disappeared. S6s is found in only two of Paul's letters: 1 Cor. and Phil., and these only three times. S6s is found about twenty-six times and inkrepos eleven (two doubtful, Lu. 16:12; 1 Cor. 16:17). 'Tfikrepos appears in Paul only in 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Ro. 'H^ere/Dos appears only nine times counting Lu. 16 : 12, where W. H. have vp^repov in the margin, and Ac. 24 : 6 which W. H. reject. It is only ipos that makes any show at all in the N. T., occurring some seventy-five times, about half of them (41) in the Gospel of John. Thumb ^ and Moulton' have made a good deal of the fact that in Pontus and Cappadocia the use of ifibs, ads, etc., is still common, while elsewhere the genitive per- sonal pronoun prevails.' The point is that the Gospel of John thus shows Asiatic origin, while Revelation is by another writer. But one can easily go astray in such an argiunent. The Gospel of Luke has kfjtos three times, but Acts not at all. The large amount of dialogue in the Gospel of John perhaps explains the frequency of the pronoun there. The possessive ifiAs is naturally in the mouth of Jesus (or of John his reporter) more than o-os, for Jesus is speaking so much about himself. The possessive is more formal and more emphatic in the solemn ' Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 161. ^ Thumb, Handb., p. 88. » Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 167. These last two quote Lev. 19 : 18. Cf. Simcox, ib.; Dyroff, Gesch. des Pron. Reflex., 2. Abt., pp. 23 ff. (Hefte 9 und 10 in Schanz's Beitr. etc.). 4 Cf. Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 63; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 167. 6 Giles, Man., p. 301; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 250; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 307. 8 Theol. Literaturzeit., 1893, p. 421. ' Prol., p. 40 f . He admits that the other possessives do not tell the same story. 8 Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 89. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIS) 289 words of Jesus in this Gospel.' This is probably the explanation coupled with the fact that John was doubtless in Asia also when he wrote the Gospel and was open to whatever influence in that direction was there. The discussion of details will come later, as will the common use of the genitive of the personal pro- nouns rather than the possessive adjective, not to mention the' article. The reflexive pronoun itself is really possessive when in the genitive case. But this as well as the common idiom 6 Ulos need only be mentioned here. The Boeotian inscriptions show piSios in this sense as early as 150 b.c. (Claflin, Syntax of Boeotian Inscriptions, p. 42). The line of distinction between the pronouns is thus not always distinct, as when iavrS>v {avrSiv) is used in the reciprocal sense (Lu. 23 : 12), a usage known to the ancients. The necessity in the N . T. of using the genitive of personal pro- nouns in the third person after the disappearance of 6s is like the Latin, which used ejus, suus being reflexive. Farrar {Greek Syntax, p. 34) recalls the fact that its is modem, his being origi- nally neuter also. (e) Demonstrative Pbonouns {SeticTiical avraw/ilai). But deictic must have a special limitation, for all pronouns were pos- sibly originally deictic (marking an object by its position). The anaphoric (dm^o/otKat) pronouns develop out of the deictic by usage. They refer to or repeat. The true relative is a further development of the anaphoric, which includes demonstrative in the narrower sense. In a strict historical method one should be- gin the discussion of pronouns with the demonstratives in the larger sense and show how the others developed.^ But here we must treat the demonstrative pronouns in the narrower sense as distinct from the original deictic or the later relative. The demonstrative thus applies both to position and relation. The declension of the demonstratives is more akin to that of substan- tives than any of the other pronouns.' "OSe* occurs only ten times in the N. T., and eight of these in the form raSe, seven of which come in the formula in Rev. rade \iyei (as Rev. 2 : 1, etc.). The others are rode (Ac. 21 : 11), rgSe (Lu. 10 : 39), rrivde (Jas. 4 : 13).^ 1 Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 64. Dr. Abbott (Job. Gr., p. 295) thinks that John's love of contrast leads him to use ineis as often as all the Sjmoptists. ^ So Riem. and Goelzer in their PhoniSt., pp. 316 ff. ' lb. * Gildersleeve (Am. Jour, of Phil., 1907, p. 235) considers BSe the pron. of the first person, outos of the second, iKtivos of the third. ' Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 35 f. For the etymology of the dem. pron. see Brug., Gk. Gr., p. 242 f. 290 A GEAMMAK OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT The inscriptions and the papyri agree with the N. T. in the great rarity of 68e in the later KOivi).^ But in the LXX it is commoner, but chiefly here also raSe \iyei, (Thackeray, Gr., p. 191). There are also many examples of os as a demonstrative, as Ro. 14 : 5 and also cf . 6, 17, t6 with 5e, as 01 5^ in Mt. 27 : 4. This latter de- monstrative construction is very common. Avt6s is beginning to have a semi-demonstrative sense (common in modern Greek) in the N. T., as in Lu. 13 : 1, iv airrQ r<^ KaipQ. There is little to say on the non-syntactical side about eKtivos and ovros save that both are very common in the N. T., ovros extremely so, perhaps four times as often as kKelvos which is relatively more frequent in John.^ Blass' points out the fact that oin-off-l does not appear in the N. T. (nor in the LXX), though the adverb vvv-i is fairly common in Paul and twice each in Acts and Hebrews- Ouxt is much more frequent especially in Luke and Paul. Smith* compares k-Ketvos (KtLvos in Homer) to Oscan e-tanto. Modern Greek uses both forms and also ^-toDtos and tovtos in the nominative.^ Of the correlative demonstratives of quality toTos is not found in the N. T. and roioade only once (2 Pet. 1 : 17). Tomvtos (neuter ToiovTo and -ov) occurs less than sixty times, chiefly in the Gospels and Paul's earlier Epistles (Gal. 5 :21). We find neither t66Tepoi lingers on in some four- teen instances (cf. Mt. 9 : 17). 'AWriXuv (composed of aXXos, aX- \os) is naturally only in the oblique cases of the plural, but is fairly common (cf. Jo. 4 : 33). It has vanished in the modern Greek. "EKacros on the other hand appears only in the singular except in Ph. 2:4 (probably twice there). It too has disap- peared in the modern Greek. "Erepos is beside &/z(^6Tepoi the only surviving dual pronoun, and it goes down in the modern Greek along with &ij,6Tepoi..^ It is less common (97 times) in the N. T. 1 Dieterich, Unters., p. 202; Hatz., Einl., p. 207. ' Thumb, Handb., p. 95 f. s j}^ ^ p_ gg^ * Bla^s, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 179. The pap. (Mayser, Gr. d! griech. Pap., p. 312) show a few examples of iKdrepos, uriSinpos, &Tbrtpos. Once (Prov. 24 : 21) the LXX has lirfikrcpos. ±rLj^ ijay.uj'jiyaioiNS (kaiseis) 293 than &Wos (150), chiefly in Matthew, Luke, Paul, Heb., never in Revelation, Peter, and only once in Jo. (19 : 37) and Mk. (16 : 12) and this latter in disputed part. ' It is usually in the singular (73 times, plural 24). The distinction (not always observed in the N. T.) between aXXos and irepos belongs to Syntax. The use of els rhv tva as reciprocal (1 Th. 5 : 11) and of tavT&v (1 Cor. 6 : 7) along with other uses of dXXos and erepos will receive treatment under Syntax. V. ADVERBS ('EniPPHMATA) 1. Neglect of Adverbs. A glance at the average grammar will show that the grammarians as a rule have not cared much for the adverb, though there are some honorable exceptions. Winer has no discussion of the adverb save under Syntax. Still others have not understood the adverb. For instance. Green ^ says that once in the N. T. "a preposition without change is employed as an adverb," viz. i-rrep hydi (2 Cor. 11 : 23). That is a perfunctory error which assumes that the preposition is older than the ad- verb. It is of a piece with the idea that regards some adverbs as "improper" prepositions. Donaldson^ says that, with com- pliments to Home Tooke, "the old grammarian was right, who said that when we know not what else to call a part of speech, we may safely call it an adverb." Certainly it is not easy nor practicable always to distinguish sharply between the ad- verb and preposition, conjunction, interjections and other particles.' But the great part played by the adverb in the history of the Greek language makes it imperative that justice shall be done to it. This is essential for the clear understand- ing of the prepositions, conjunctions and particles as well as the adverb itself. Substantive and verb blend a,t many points and gUde easily into each other in English, for instance. At- tention has often been called to the use of "but" in English as adverb, preposition, conjunction, substantive, adjective and pronoun.* ' Handb. to the Gr. of the N. T., p. 138. 2 Gk. Gr., p. 37. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 535-643, has the most com- plete treatment of the adv. ' Brug., Gk. Gr., p. 250. In the Sans, the line is still less clearly drawn between the various indeclinable words (Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 403). ' Giles, Man., p. 237 f . Of. Schroeder, t5ber die form. Untersch. der Redet., p. 35 f.; Delbriick, Grundr., Bd. Ill, p. 536 f. 294 A GRAMMAR OF THE liKJfiJfiK NEW TESTAMENT 2. Formation of the Adverb. The name suggests a mere addendum to the verb, an added word (Uke the adjective) that is not necessary. But in actual fact adverbs come out of the heart of the language, expressions fixed by frequent usage. (a) Fixed Cases. A large number^ of words retain the case- ending in the adverb and often with the same function. Perhaps the bulk of the adverbs are either the simple case used directly in an adverbial sense or the formation by analogy. It is just be- cause adverbs are usually fixed case-forms or remnants of obsolete case-forms that they deserve to be treated under the head of De- clensions. They have to be approached from the standpoint of the cases to understand their history. Leaving analogy for the moment let us see some examples of the cases that are so used. The cases most commonly used thus are the ablative, locative, instrumental and accusative.^ The dative and genitive are sel- dom employed as adverbs. The vocative never occurs in this sense, and the nominative (so occasionally in Sanskrit) only in a phrase like kojB' els in the addition to John's Gospel (Jo. 8:9), to Kad' els (Ro. 12: 5). a. ava-ni^. Examples of the various cases as used in the N. T. will be given without attempting to be exhaustive. The KOLv^ and the modem Greek illustrate the same general ten- dencies as to adverbs that we see in the earlier Greek. Here the N. T. is in close accord with the papyri as to adverbs in use.' (1) The Accusative. The most obvious illustration of the ac- cusative in adverbs is the neuter of adjectives in the positive, comparative and superlative (singular and plural). In the com- parative the singular is the rule, in the superlative the plural, but variations occur.* In the modem Greek accusative plural is more common even in the comparative (Thumb, Handb., p. 77). Take for the positive aiipiov, eWi (s added later), iyyv{s), nkya, ukaov, irXriaiov, ■woXh, raxv, aiiiJ.epov, aXXd (tiXXa), xoXXd, fiaKpav. The com- parative may be illustrated by varepov, ^eXxLov, and the superlative by irpS>Tov (and irpSiTa) and ijSLcrTa. Cf . also raxiffTrjv. Sometimes the article is used with the adjective where the adverbial idea is encroaching, as to \onr6v, t& ttoXXA, and note also T'fiv apxhv (Jo. 8:25), substantive with article. But the substantive alone has abundant examples also, as dK/iijc, apxhv, Swpeav, irkpav, xa^P^v. ' Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 250 ff. " Hirt, Handb. etc., pp. 320 ff. ' Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 456 ff. * Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 251; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 322. In the Sans. the ace. also is the case most widely used adverbially (Whitney, Sans. Gr., 408). Cf. Delbruck, Grundl., pp. 34ff. THE DECLENSIONS (kAIZEIS) 295 SxeSiy is a specimen of the adverb in -Sou, -5a. Cf . also duodvua- dou, Imi^nSbv. The accusative in adverbs is specially characteristic of the Koivii (cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 459; Schmid, Attic, II, pp. 36 ff.). In the modern Greek the accusative for the adverbs is almost universal. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 77. (2) The Ablative. All adverbs in -us are probably ablatives. KaXws, for instance, is from an original koX&S. The 5 (Sanskrit t) is dropped and a final s is added.' Cf. old Latin meritod, fadlumed.^ The oiiTw, iis of the Greek correspond exactly with the old Sanskrit iad, ydd. The ending in -us comes by analogy to be exceedingly common. Practically any adjective can by -cos make an adverb in the positive. Some, like dStaXetTTTcos, belong to the later Greek {KOLvij).^ Participles also may yield such adverbs as (t>eiSoiJ.ivo>s (2 Cor. 9:6), biw\oyovtikv(»s (1 Tim. 3 : 16), '6vtu>s (Mk. 11 : 32). Radermacher {N. T. Gk., p. 54) cites Lpkovvtw, TeToK/xriKOTcas (Diod., XVI, 74. 6), etc. The bulk of the adverbs in -ws are from adjectives and pronouns. But the examples of -cos are rare in the modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 77). (3) The Genitive. There are not many adverbs in this case outside of those ending in -on, like avrov, mov, irov, ofiov and -rjs {i^rjs). This use survives in modern Greek. Cf. the local use of the genitive in 'E4>erj{^), \adpa{a), ^idXa, itavTrj{-g) , ira,VTaxfj(£) > '''"■X"-! ctc, are doubt- 1 Giles, Man., p. 240. ^ Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 320. ' Cf . Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 457 f ., tor further exx. Cf. the Lat. adv. (abl.) raro, quomodo etc., Bopp, Vergleich. Gr., § 183. Cf . also Delbriick, Grundl., pp. 48ff. * Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 252. ^ Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 410. « lb. ' Handb. etc., p. 321. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 252 (dat. ace. to Brug.). s Hirt, Handb., p. 321. » Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 409. 296 A GKAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT less instrumental. In some cases t is added to bring it in harmony with the locative-dative cases with which it blended.* Brug- mann^ also puts here such words as Uvea, Karu, i^u, avurkpu, &vu- tLtoj, ov-TTiii. —lib} is by ablaut from — ttjj (so Laconic ■n-fi^iroKa). (6) The Dative. As in the Sanskrit,' so in the Greek the dative is very rare in adverbs. Indeed Hirt^ is not far wrong when he says that it is not easy to find any dative adverbs distinct from the locative, though he accepts irapal, x"M- vvxa. The papyri furnish parajlels for practically all these N. T. examples (and many more).' "Axa? seems to stand by itself. (c) Compound Adveebs. Some adverbs are due to the blend- 1 Hirt, Handb., p. 321 f. 2 Griech. Gr., p. 252 f . Cf. Delbriick, Grundr., Ill, p. 581 f. ' Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 410. i Handb., p. 321. 5 Griech. Gr., p. 252. Cf. also p. 229 f ., where he acknowledges the other point of view as possible. e Qrundl. p. 60 f. ' In Lat. adv. are partly remnants of case-forms and partly built by anal- ogy. Draeger, Hist. Synt., p. 109. For Gk. see also Lutz, Die Casus-Adv. bei att. Rednern (1891). 8 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 456. 9 lb., pp. 455-459. See also Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 253-257. Cf. Donald- son, New Crat., pp. 449-501, for discussion of these adv. suffixes. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIZ) 297 ing of several words into one word, perhaps with modification by analogy. The kolv^i is rather rich in these compound ad- verbs and Paul fairly revels in them. As samples take kxaXai (2 Pet. 2:3), KarevavTi. (2 Cor. 12:19), Karevinnov (Eph. 1:4), irapavTiKa (2 Cor. 4:17), airpo(ruiTo\l]fiTTCos (1 Pet. 1:17), irapa- XPwa (Lu. 1:64), iirep&vu (Eph. 4: 10), iwepiKeiva (2 Cor. 10: 16), inrepeKTeptaaov (1 Th. 3:10), virepXiav (2 Cor. 11:5), hirepvipiaaias (Mk. 7:37), etc. The intense emotion in 2 Cor. explains the piling-up and doubhng of some of these prepositional phrases. Occasionally a verbal clause is blended into one word and an ad- verb made by analogy with -cos. So (from vow 'exoi) vovvexois (Mk. 12:34), used by Aristotle and Polybius along with another ad- verb like vovvexovTus in Isocrates.' But in Mark it is used without any other adverb. "TwepfiaWovTois (2 Cor. 11:23) is made from the participle and is common in Attic (Xen., Plato). There are, .besides, adverbial phrases like oiTro fiaKpSdev (Mk. 15:40) air' avco- Bev, h}s kLtu (Mt. 27: 51), etc. Cf. Con. and Stock, Sel. fr. LXX, p. 47. See chapter IV, iv, (/), for discussion of the formation of compound adverbs which are very common in the Koivrj. Paul uses the idiom frequently. For the use of adverbs in the kolv^, see Mayser's careful list from the papyri, pp. 455 ff., and Nach- manson, Magn. Inschr., p. 138 f. New adverbs are continually made in the later Greek, though many of the older ones survive in the modem Greek. Cf. Thumbj Handb., pp. 78 ff. He groups them under place, time, manner and quantity. (d) Analogy. A word is needed to accent the part played by analogy in the formation of adverbs, though it has already been alluded to. The two examples mentioned above, vowexSis and inrep^aXKbvTois will serve as good illustrations of the work done by the principle of analogy. The bulk of the -us adverbs are abla- tives made by analogy.^ (e) The Comparison of Adverbs. In general the adverb is like the adjective save that in the comparative the accusative singular is used, like raxi^v, and the accusative plvural in the super- lative, hke Ta,xi-(Tra. But, per contra, note ttp&tov and Karwrkpos (Mt. 2 : 16), irepuraorkpccs (2 Cor. 1 : 12), airovSaioTkpm (Ph. 2:28), iax&rois (Mk. 5:23), iroppbyripo} (Lu. 24:28. AB -pov). Cf. fur- ther ch. XII, III. 3. Adverbial Stems. The derivation' of the adverb deserves a further word, though the facts have already been hinted at. Brief mention is all that is here called for by way of illustration. 1 Giles, Man., p. 240. ^ lb. 298 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (a) Substantives. As N. T. examples of adverbs from sub- stantives may be mentioned apxqv, doipeav, x^P^v. (b) Adjectives. It was and is always possible to make an adverb from any Greek adjective by the ablative ending -cos. Cf. both raxb (accusative) and rax^^s (ablative). Indeed the line be- tween the adjective and adverb was never sharply drawn, as will be shown when we come to the study of the syntax of the adjec- tive (cf. English "looks bad," "feels bad," a different idea from the adverb, however). In passing note iKovaa (Ro. 8 : 20) and Seurepatoi (Ac. 28 : 13) in strict accordance with the Greek idiom. The comparison of adverbs is another link between adverb and adjective. In most cases, however, it is merely the use of the comparative and superlative forms of the adjective as an adverb. But in some cases the comparative and superlative adverb is made without any corresponding adjective, done by analogy merely. So fiaWou, naXurra, from juaXa, aviirepov from the adverb avu. Cf. also eyyirepov (Ro. 13 : 11) from ^7711$, Karoirkpu (Mt. 2 : 16) from Kdrco, and iroppurtpov (Lu. 24 : 28) from roppcc. Com- parative adjectives made from positive adverbs are, on the other hand, seen in e^iirepos (Mt. 8 : 12), eaoirepos (Heb. 6 : 19), Kariirepos (Eph. 4:9). 'KaToyrepoi, wepicra-oTkpcas (Heb. 2:1, often in Paul; Gal. 1:14), cirovSaiorkpois (Ph. 2:28), roXfiriporkpcos (Ro. 15:15) rather than the forms in -npov are due to analogy of the abla- tive -Clis. Adverbs made from participles can be looked upon as adjectival or verbal in origin, since the participle is both verb and adjective. (c) Numerals. All that is necessary here is to mention such words as irpSiTov, Sis, eirraKis, etc. In Ac. 11 : 26 we have irpoirois instead of vpSmv. Blass (Or. of N. T. Gk., p. 58) cites for -us Clem., Horn. 9, 4; 16, 20; Polyb. vi, 5. 10; Diod., etc. (d) Peonouns. The pronominal adverbs are very numerous, like ovTcas, diaaiiTUs, etc., oiitoO, irore, rore, Side, etc. As with the correlative pronouns, so the correlative adverbs are lessening. Of the indefinite adverbs only xore, irov (a few times), and tcos (only in eilxcos, p.i) ircos) appear.^ Forms like ol, ottoi, ttoI have van- ished before o5, oirov, xoO. Cf. English,^ "where (rather than 'whither') are you going?" Cf. also the accusative tI (Mk. 10: 18) = 'why.' (e) Verbs. Besides sUch words as vowexus (verbal phrase) and participles like 6vtw, bpokor^ovuhw, ^aSonkvw, inreppaWSvTws one should note 'E/SpaiVri (from 'E/Spatfoj), 'EWvvuttI (from 'EKKtivl^cS) , ' BlasB, Gr. of N, T. Gk., p. 69 f. ' Green, Hwdb. to N- T. Gk., p. 137. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIS) 299 etc. In Jas. 4 : 13; 5:1 aye is used with the plural as an adverb, if indeed it is not in reality an interjection. The modern view of the imperative forms like aye (cf . vocative 6.yk from dyos) is that it is merely the root without suffix.^ In the case of Sevpo we actually have a plural devre. Moulton^ illustrates the close con- nection between inter jectional adverb and verb by the English "Murder!" which could be mere interjection or verbal injunction according to circumstances. 4. Use of Adverbs. This is still another way of looking at the subject, but it is a convenience rather than a scientific principle. Blass' in his iV. T. Grammar follows this method solely. (a) Adveebs of Manner. These are very numerous indeed, like ■nvevtiaTLKcis, (rirovSaius, etc. 'Eo-xAtcos exei (Mk. 5 : 23) is not like the English idiom. The phrase really means that she has it in the last stages. Cf. fiapioss ixov Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 59. 2 lb. s lb. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIS) 301 (o) Relation between Adverbs and Prepositions. When we come to study prepositions (ch. XIII) a fuller discussion of this matter will be given. Here the principle will be stated. "The preposition therefore is only an adverb specialized to define a case-usage." ^ That puts the matter in a nutshell. Many of the older grammars have the matter backwards. The use of prepo- sitions with verbs is not the original one. In Homer they are scattered about at will. So with substantives. "Anastrophe is therefore no exception, but the original type"^ like t'lvos eveKo. (Ac. 19 : 32). To quote Giles' again, "between adverbs and prep- ositions no distinct line can be drawn." As samples of cases in prepositions take 7rap-6s (gen.), irap-al (dat.), inp-i (loc), irap-a (instr.). It is unscientific to speak of adverbs which "maybe used like prepositions to govern nouns"* and then term them "preposition adverbs" or "spurious prepositions." Preposi- tions do not "govern" cases, but more clearly define them. When adverbs do this, they are just as really prepositions as any others. These will be treated therefore in connection with the other prepositions. They are words like aija, avev, 'e^ta, drlcro}, etc. (6) Adverbs and Conjunctions. These are usually of pro- nominal origin like o-re (ace. plus re), ov (gen.), cbs (abl.), dXXd (ace. plural), i-m (instr.), etc. Some conjunctions are so early as to, elude analysis, like 5i, rk, etc.^ But in most cases the history can be traced. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 60) re- marks on the poverty of the N. T. Greek in particles, a pov- erty as early as the 'Adrivaicav HoXtTeia of Aristotle, which is much barer than the N. T. These conjunctions and other par- ticles in the N. T. are cited by Blass: dXXd, Him,, apo., apayt, apa, apa 76, axpt(s), yap, ye, 8i, bij, drjirov, 8i6, didirep, kav, kavirep, el, ctxep, elra, elre, kir6.v, kirel, kTeidrj, hreidiiirep, kireiTep (only as variation in Ro. 3 : 30), eweiTa, teas, fj, ^ or d iiijv, ^Sij, ijvlKa {^irep only variation in Jo. 12:43), iJTOL, iva, KoSk, KcuBcnrep, KoJdo, koBoti, koBois, nai, Kalwep, KalTOt.{ye), fiiv, iievovvye, fiivroi, ^^xP'(s) o5 (ji^xpih] variation for), (I'll, Uribk, firiTe, iiriTi, val, vi),'biUjis, birbre, 'dvuis, orav, bre, on, ov, ovxh oh&k, ovKouv, ovv, oUre, irep with other words, ir\ijv, Trpiv, re, toi (in nalroi, IxkvTOi, etc.), TOL-yap-ouv, Tolvvv, cos, . Interjections may be mere sounds, but they are chiefly words with real meaning. "A7« and ide are both verb- stems and iSoii is kin to tSe. The origin of the adverbs here used as interjections is not always clear. Oiiat as in Mt. 1 : 21 (common in the LXX, N. T. and Epictetus) has the look of a dative, but one hesitates. As a substantive ^ ovaL is probably due to 8i\i\l/i.s or ToKanrupla (Thayer). Cf. chapters XII, v, and XVI, v, (e), for use of article with adverb, as to vvv. For the adverb like adjective, as 17 6vT03s x'^IP'^ (1 Tim. 5:5), see ch. XII, vi. In Lu. 12:49 ri may be an exclamatory adverb (accusative case), but that is not certain. AeOpo sometimes is almost a verb (Mk. 10 : 21). The rela- tive adverb cos is used as an exclamation in verbs is less advanced than in the N. T. (Thackeray, Gr., p. 244) and the middle -/it forms held on longest. In the kolvIi this process kept on till in modem Greek vernacular ef/iat is the only remnant left. In the Attic deUvvfu, for instance, is side by side with Sukvvu. In the N. T. we find such forms as StSco (Rev. 3:9), iaru (Ro. 3:31, EKL), crwto-rco (2 Cor. 3 : 1, BD). (d) N. T. Usage as to -jjli, Verbs. The -/tt verbs in the N. T. as in the papyri are badly broken, but still in use. 1. The Second Aorists (active and middle). We take first the so-called second aorists (athematic) because they come first save where the present is practically identical. In some verbs only the second aorist is athematic, the stem of the verb having dropped the -/tt inflection. A new view' makes the second aorist some- times "a reduced root," but this does not show that in the parent stock the old aorist was not the mere root. Analogy worked here as elsewhere. Kaegi^ properly calls the old aorists of verbs like /SaXXw (?-;8X)7-To instead of the thematic and later ^-/SdX-e-To) "prim- itive aorists." In the early Epic the root-aorists and strong thematic aorists outnumber the o- or weak aorists by three to one.* The important N. T. -/tt verbs will now be considered. BaCv(o. Only in composition in N. T. (dm-, Tpoa-ava-, riKaT€ (Mt. 23 : 23), a.iiKaii€v is aorist in Mk. 10 : 28 as well as in its parallel Mt.- 19 : 27 1 Notes on Orth., p. 168. Cf. also W.-Sch., p. 121. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 48 f. » Prol., p. 55. Cf. Dittenb., SyU., 462. 17, etc. * Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 168. ^ Qr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 49, 212. " Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 398. ' Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 166. The evidence is ''nowhere free from 310 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (cf. Lu. 18 : 28). So also as to awiiKare in Mt. 13 : 51. The per- fect in -ewa does not, however, occur in the N. T. nor in the LXX (cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 51), though the papyri have it (Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 331). "Io-ni|ii. This verb is used freely by itself, especially in the Gospels, and occurs in twenty prepositional combinations ac- cording to Thayer {6.v-, hir-av-, e^-av-, avd-, A-, hi-, 'ei>-, i^, eir-, i^, KaT-etj)-, avv-t((r-, kojB-, ovti-koS-, airo-KoB—, (i^-, irap-, irept,-, irpo-, avv~), going quite beyond the papyri in richness of expression.^ The second aorist active indicative ^ittt; {airkaTi}, etc.) is common and is intransitive as in Attic, just like kcToSri (cf. Blass, Gr. ofN. T. Gk., p. 50). The other forms are regular (crrw, ar^di, etc.) save that avaiTTa (like dcd/Sa) is read in a few places (Ac. 9 : 11; 12 : 7; Eph. 5 : 14), but (TTijdi., avaffTTidi (Ac. 9 : 6, 34), kiricrTrfiL, (TTrJTe, avTlarriTe, airoarriTe, airoariiTCi}.^ Winer' cites awoaTO., irapatTTa also from late writers and a few earlier authors for avacrra. The LXX shows a few examples also.^ 'OvCvTifii. This classic word (not given in the papyri, according to Mayser's Grammatik) is found only once in the N. T., the sec- ond aorist opt. middle bvainrjv (Phil. 20). Tl6i^|ii. The compounds of tWi/z^ii in the N. T. (Am-, irpoa-ava-, awo-, Sio— , avTi-8ta—, hi—, 'eiti.-, crvv-ein—, Kara,-, avv-Kara-, juera— , xa- pa—, irtpi—, wpo-, irpoff—, aw—, vtto-) vie with those of taTriiu and equal the papyri use.° The second aorist active in -ko alone ap- pears (so LXX) in the indicative singular and plural as WiiKav (Mk. 6 : 29), but the subjunctive in -OS) (Mt. 22 : 44), imperative irpocrdis (Lu. 17 : 5). The middle has the regular second aorist •eBero (Ac. 19 : 21 and often). *illi.t. If one is surprised to see this verb put under the list of second aorists, he can turn to Blass,^ who says that it is "at once doubt," some MSS. read iSoixes (Jo. 17 : 7 f.) and i.i)Kert (Mt. 23 : 23), not to say ItipoKes (Jo. 8 : 57), kXiiKvefs (Ac. 21 :22, B also). Moulton (Prol., p. 52) considers -« a "mark of imperfect Gk." For further exx. of this -es ending in the LXX and Koivii see Buresch, Rhein. Mus. etc., 1891, p. 222 f. For hiiu, and its compounds in the LXX see C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 45 f ., showing numerous -u forms, i^rJKav (Xen. ijraj'), etc. * Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 398. 2 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 168. » W.-M., p. 94. * Thack., Gr., p. 254. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 122 f. On larhvai and its compounds in the LXX see interesting list in C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 43 f., giving -cj forms, transitive i(TTouia, etc. ' Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 411. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 50. The verb is mentioned here to impress the fact that it is aorist as well as imperfect. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB ('PHMa) 311 imperfect and aorist." It is common in the N. T. as aorist (Mt. 4 : 7, for instance, tipri). It is not always possible to decide. 2. Some -fu Presents. It is difficult to group these verbs ac- cording to any rational system, though one or two small groups (like those in -vviu, — ija") appear. The presents are more com- mon in the N. T. than the aorists. The list is based on the un- compounded forms. AcCk-vu-|j.i. Already in the Attic SeiKvbia is common, but Blass* observes that in the N. T. the middle-passive -fii forms are still rather common. It is compounded with 6,va-, a-iro-, h-, i-in~, {mo-. No presents (or imperfects) occur with ava- and wo-. The word itself is not used very extensively. The form SeUvvfii is found once (1 Cor. 12 : 31), -iioi not at all. So on the other hand 5eiK- yiiets occurs once (Jo. 2 : 18), -us not at all. AeUwdiv is read by the best MSS. (Mt. 4 : 8; Jo. 5 : 20). The middle hdekvwTai ap- pears in Ro. 2 : 15. The -fii participle active is found in Ac. 18 : 28 (iTTiSetCTus) and 2 Th. 2 : 4 (aTobHKvhvTo). The middle -/it par- ticiple is seen in Ac. 9 : 39; Tit. 2 : 10; 3:2 (-fi/xews, etc.). In Heb. 6 : 11 the infinitive 'evbtUwadai is read, but SeiKvveiv (Mt. 16 : 21 B -iiwt).^ The other N. T. verbs in -vfii (otTroXXu/ii, ^iivvvfu, biro- ^iivvvfii, biivvfiL, afievwui, arpiivvviii, iwoaTpiiwviu,, kt\.) will be dis- cussed in alphabetical order of the simplex. The inscriptions show these forms still in use (Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 178). The verbs in -win were the first to succumb to the -w inflection. In the LXX the -fit forms are universal in the middle, but in the active the -to forms are more usual (Thack., Gr., p. 245). AC8a>|ii, See under (d), 1, for list of compounds in the N. T. Attic Greek had numerous examples from the form 3i56-w (8i5ov, edlSovv, -ous, -ov). This usage is extended in the N. T. as in the papyri' to SiSSi (Rev. 3:9), though even here BP have Si5w/tt. In Wisd. of Sol. 12 : 19 SiSots occurs, but Lu. 22 : 48 has the regular TapaSi8us. AiSuai is common (in LXX, Ps. 37 : 21, didoZ appears) and Sidoaaiv in Rev. 17 : 13. The uniform imperfect eSlSov (Mt. 15 : 36) is like the Attic. Hort observes that Mk. (15 : 23) and Ac. (4 : 33; 27 : 1) prefer iSiSovv. Jo. (19 : 3) has, however, «5iSo- aav and Acts once also (16 :4). AiSov (Attic present imperative) is read by some MSS. in Mt. 5 : 42 for S6s. In Rev. 22 : 2 the > lb., p. 48. ' In the pap. both -u/« and -iw, but only -v/iai. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 392. ' Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 37. Cf. Deiss., B. S., p. 192. Mod. Gk. has SlSoi. 312 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT text has participle airoSidovv for -6v (marg. -ois), while wapaSt- SQv is read by N in Mt. 26:46 and D in Mk. 14:42, etc.i The middle-passive forms in -ero (imperfect) from a present Si5a> are like the aorist forms, which see above. So St'eSiSero (Ac. 4 : 35) and TrapeSiSero (1 Cor. 11:23). So also subjunctive irapaSiSot is found only once (1 Cor. 15 : 24) and is probably to be rejected (BG), though the papyri amply support it.^ In the imperfect kSL5oaav holds its place in the LXX, while in the present the -/ii forms generally prevail (Thackeray, Gr., p. 250). The LXX is quite behind the N. T. in the transition from -fii to -co forms. Axivafjiai. The use of Sbvn (Mk. 9 : 22; Lu. 16 : 2; Rev. 2 : 2) in- stead of Svvaaai argues for the thematic 5i}vondi. Elsewhere Sivaaai (Lu. 6 : 42, etc.). This use of Biivg is found in the poets and from Polybius on in prose (Thayer), as shown by inscriptions' and papyri.* Hort* calls it a "tragic" form retained in the Koivrj. It is not surprising therefore to find B reading Suvo/mi (also -ofi^a, -dfievos) in Mk. 10:39; Mt. 19:12; 26:53; Ac. 4:20; 27:15; Is. 28: 20 (so N in Is. 59 : 15). The papyri' give plenty of illus- trations also. MSS. in the LXX give Sdvofiai and Svvg. El|j.C. The compounds are w;ith dir-, kv-, 4f- (only i^eaTiv, 't^ov), Trap-, (TVV-, avv-rap-. The papyri^ show a much more extended use of prepositions. This very common verb has not undergone many changes, though a few call for notice. In the present indicative there is nothing for remark. The imperfect shows the middle rj^r/y, fineda regularly (as Mt. 25 :43; 23 :30), as modem Greek uniformly has the middle present etimi., etc., as well as imperfect middle. Cf, already in ancient Greek the future middle 'eaoiiai. The use of fjnr]v, seen in the papyri' and inscriptions' also, served to mark it off from the third singular ^v. But examples of ^/ueK still survive (Ro. 7:5, etc.). Moulton'" quotes from Ramsay" a Phrygian inscription of etyuat for early fourth century a.d. He cites also the Delphian middle forms ^rat, ecovrai,, Messenian ^vtm, > Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 167. Cf. also W.-Sch., p. 121. 2 Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 37. ' Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 177. * Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 355; Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 36. Cf. also Dieterich, Untersuch., p. 222; Schmid, Atticismus, IV, p. 597; Deiss., B. S., p. 193. « Notes on Orth., p. 168. Cf. Lobeck, Phryn., p. 359 f. ' Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 355; Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. -36. ' Mayser, ib., p. 394. ' lb., p. 356. 9 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 178. " Prol., p. 56. D (M. shows) alone has ^c in Ac. 20 : 18. " Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, II, 565. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB ('PHMA) 313 Lesbian icao, as early instances of this tendency, not to mention the Northwest Greek.' The peculiar classical second person ^ada is found in Mk. 14: 67; Mt. 26: 69, but elsewhere ^s (Jo. 11:21, 32, etc.), the common form in the Kotvij.^ 'Hre (Ro. 6 : 20, for in- stance) is regular. So with the imperative ladi (Mt. 2 : 13, etc.). "Htw (as 1 Cor. 16: 22) is less common^ than the usual iana (Gal. 1:8). "Eo-Toxrac (never ivTuv nor eaTuv), as in Lu. 12:35, is a form found in Attic inscriptions since 200 b.c.^ Some of the pa- pyri even have ^roxrav.^ Mention has already (Orthography) been made of the irrational v with the subjunctive § in the papyri,^ as in orav fiv — drjXiiaw. The use of !evt.= ive-, koB-, irap-, avv-^. The same thing appears to be true of the papyri as given by Mayser,^ though fif- teen combinations greet us in the papyri. But the papyri and the KOLvfi inscriptions have not yet furnished us with the -w formation with Irifu compounds which we find in iuft- and awbuu ' Just so the pap., Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 395. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 52. Cf. also for pap., Moulton, 01. Rev., 1901, p. 38. For LXX see Thackeray, p. 272. » W.-Sch., p. 118; Schweizer, Perg. Inschi., p. 177; Reinhold, De Grace, P- 89. 4 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 398. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (tHMA) 315 in the N. T.i and the LXX." But Philo' and the N. T. Apoc- rypha and early Christian writers^ follow the LXX and the N. T. 'kvlitixi indeed has only hvikvTis (Eph. 6 : 9) in the present stem. So also KoBiriiu shows only KaJBie/jievov {-nkvriv) in Ac. 10 : 11; 11 :5, while iraptij/ii has no present, but only an aorist (Lu. 11: 42) and a perfect passive (Heb. 12 : 12). 'A4>li]fu is the form of the verb that is common in the N. T. In Rev. 2 : 20 a^ets is probably a present from a<^^&).^ But Blass {p. 51, of N. T. Gram- mar) compares the Attic d<^ie« and rWtis. Only (uplritiL (Jo. 14 : 27) and &.'i.riai (Mt. 3 : 15) occur, but in Lu. 11:4 a^hiitv is from the Ionic a4>ica (cf. dlSca). So also in Rev. 11 : 9 i^Lovaiv and in Jo. 20 : 23 marg. W. H. have a4'tx)VTai. Elsewhere a4>'i€VTai (Mt. 9 : 2, etc.). In the imperfect fi^iev from d^tu is read in Mk. 1 : 34; 11 : 16. 'K^kdivrai (Lu. 5 : 20, 23, etc.) is a perfect passive (Doric Arcadian, Ionic).* Cf. Ionic ioiKa. Simcox {Language of the N. T., p. 38) quotes also avkdivrai from Herodotus. With avvlrifii. the task is much simpler. Blass' sums it up in a word. In Ac. 7 : 25 avviivai gives us the only undisputed instance of a -/ii form. All the others are -co forms or have -co variations. However (rvvievTos is correct in Mt. 13 : 19 and avvikvai in Lu. 24 : 45. There is a good deal of fluctuation in the MSS. in most cases. W. H. read avvlovccv (Mt. 13 : 13), avvi(a(n.v (Mk. 4 : 12), crwUav (Ro. 3 : 11). In 2 Cor. 10 : 12 W. H. read awidaiv after B. In the LXX only the compounded verb occurs, and usually the -fu. forms save with awlriiM (Thackeray, Gr., p. 250 f.). 'It,(TTS3VTes D^EKL.^ The form in -dvco is uniformly given by W. H., though the form in -dw comes from Herodotus on and is frequent in the LXX.* But the -/it forms hold their own pretty well in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 247). The form in -avoi may be compared with the Cretan araviiav and is found in the late Attic inscriptions.' Instances of the form in -avu in the W. H. text are Ac. 1:6; 8:9; 17:15; 1 Cor. 13:2; 2 Cor. 3:1; 5:12; 6:4; 10:12, 18; Gal. 2:18; Ro. 3:31;6:13, 16). In Mk. 9 : 12 W. H. (not so Nestle) accept the form dTroKarta-Tdyet after B, while XD read aTroKaracrTdvei (cf. Cretan aTavvoi). D has this form also in Ac. 1 : 6 and 17 : 15. KeXfiai. This defective verb is only used in the present and imperfect in the N. T. as in the papyri,* and with a number of prepositions in composition like the papyri also. The prepositions are ava—, aw-ava-, avri-, dxo— , kin—, Kara—, irapa— , irepi—, irpo-. The regular -/it forms are always used, and sometimes as the passive of Tt^Tj/tt, as ireptKet/iat (Ac. 28: 20; Heb. 5:2). For dfd/cei/iai only the participle avaKel/ievos appears (so Mt. 9 : 10) save once dyketro (Mt. 26: 20) and twice with (tvv- (Mt. 9 : 10 = Mk. 2 : 15). In Lu. 23 : 53 rjv Keifievos follows the Attic, but HB have ^v r^ei/ik- vos in Jo. 19:41.' So in the LXX Tidrnu partially replaces m/iai (Thackeray, Gr., pp. 255, 272). Kp£|j.a|j.ai. This verb is used as the middle, of the active Kpe/idc- w/ii (this form not in N. T.) and does not appear in Mayser's list > Blass, Gr. of N. T., p. 49. 2 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 168; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 49. " Here Hort (Notes, etc., p. 168) differs from Westcott and prefers -ovai. ' lb. 6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 48. 6 lb. W,-Sch., p. 122. ' Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 177. For many -vw verbs in mod. Gk. see Thumb, Handb., p. 133 f. 8 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 354, 399. For the Byz. and mod. Gk. usage see Dieterich, Unters., p. 223. » Blas^, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 51. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (tHMa) 317 for the papyri. The form' Kpknarat. is read in Mt. 22 : 40 and the participle Kpttianevos(v) in Gal. 3 : 13; Ac. 28 : 4-. In Lu. 19 : 48 NB (so W. H. and Nestle) read e^Kphixero, an -a; form and the only compound form of the verb in the N. T. The other forms are aorists which come from an active present KpepAvvviii, -awxica, -aco or -afw. They are Kpe/iaaavres (Ac. 5 : 30) and Kpeiiaadfj (Mt. 18 : 6). But none of these presents occurs in the N. T. Cf. Veitch, Greek Verbs, p. 343 f., for examples of the active and the middle. So also no present of Kepdvvu|j.i (compound avv-) is found in the N. T., but only the perfect passive (Rev. 14 : 10) and the aorist active (Rev. 18:6). MtYVUiAi. The only-/ii form is the compound (rvv-ava-nLyvvcdai (1 Cor. 5 : 9, 11) and so 2 Th. 3 : 14 according to W. H., instead of avv-ava-nlyvvcde. Elsewhere, as in the papyri,' the N. T. has only the perfect passive (Mt. 27 : 34) and the aorist active (Lu. 13 : 1).^ 0'it"YVU|JLi. This verb does not appear in the N. T. in the simple form, but always compounded with av- or 5i.-av-. Besides it is always an -oi verb as in the papyri' and the LXX.* It is worth mentioning here to mark the decline of the -jut forms. "0\\v|ii. Only in the common air- and once with a-w-aw- (Heb. 11 :31). In the active only the -w forms are found as diroXXiiet (Jo. 12:25), awoWvi (Ro. 14:15). But in the middle (passive) only the -/ii forms ^ meet us, as aToXXurai (1 Cor. 8 : 11), aTruWwTo (1 Cor. 10 : 9). So the LXX. "0]Lvv[Li, A haK-dozen examples of the present tense of this verb occur in the N. T. All but one {ofivvvai., Mk. 14:71) belong to the -w inflection, as o/ij/^et (Mt. 23 : 21 f.). The Ptolemaic pa- pyri also have one example of 6p,vvixi, the rest from d/ivica.^ The LXX sometimes has the -^t form in the active and always in the middle (Thackeray, Gr., p. 279). Neither tttj^vuixi (aorist Heb. 8 : 2) nor Trpoa-ir^yvvfii. (aorist Ac. 2 : 23) appears in the present in the N. T. n£|AirXii|j.i. No present tense in the N. T., though a good many aorists, save the compound participle enTnr\S>v, from the -w verb -aw. Mayser' gives no papyri examples. LXX has —u form usually. ' In the LXX the active goes over to the -a class. Thack., Gr., p. 273. ^ Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 403. ' lb., p. 404. And indeed the old Attic ivolyai, Meisterh., p. 191. * Thack., Gr., p. 277. » So the pap. Mayser, Gr., p. 352; Thackeray, p. 246. ' Mayser, ib., pp. 351 f ., 404. ' lb., p. 406. 318 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Hl^TTptwii. The simple verb occurs once only, irlfiTpaffOai (Ac. 28 : 6) according to W. H.' This is the only instance where a present occurs at all in the N. T. The papyri give no light as yet. No simplex in the LXX, but hitirlnirpuv in 2 Mace. 8 : 6 (Thack- eray, Gr., p. 249). ' PtJ7vu [It. The compounds are with 5m-, xept- -rrpoa-. No pres- ents appear save in the simple verb and 5tap-. With 8iap. only the -co forms are used as BiepriaceTo (Lu. 5:6), Smp^<7rinL The participle is so used in the N. T. (Ac. 24 : 9; Ro. 1 : 22). Xivrini appears only once (Ro. 7 : 16). The -/it inflection is uniform in rini both in the present and the imperfect (aorist). The only forms in the N. T. are ^jj/it (1 Cor. 7 : 29), riaiv (Mt. 13 : 29), (fiaaiv (Ro. 3:8), and the common ?07j (Mt. 4:7). It is regular -hl in the LXX. Xpi\. This impersonal verb had a poetic infinitive XPV""''- of the -jw inflection, but Veitch (p. 627) and L. and S. get it from xpau. At any rate xp^ is found only once in the N. T. (Jas. 3 : 10), Set having supplanted it. Mayser does not find it in the papyri nor Nachmanson and Schweizer in the inscriptions. 3. Some -/tt Perfects. There are only three verbs that show the active perfects without (k)o in the N. T. (mere root, athematic). SvTJCTKO). The compounds are ciTro- (very common), aw-airo- (rare). The uncompounded verb occurs nine times and forms the perfect regularly as an -oj verb irkdvuiKo), save that in Ac. 14 : 19 DEHLP read redvavai instead of TedvriKivaL, but the -/it form is not accepted by W. H. The N. T. has always TedvrjKiis, never TfBvfi)s. In the LXX these shorter second perfect fonns occur a few times in the more literary books (Thackeray, Gr.,pp. 253, 270). They show "a partial analogy to verbs in -/it" (Blass, Gr., p. 50). 018a is a -/tt perfect in a few forms (t (Mt. 9:6), etSerat (1 Th. 5 : 12), tlSm (Mt. 12 : 25). The LXX usage is in accord with the N. T. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 278. "I(7Tti|ii. See Aorist (1) for compounds. The second perfect is in the N. T. only in the infinitive earavai (Lu. 13 : 25; Ac. 12 : 14; ' Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 355. ^ lb. So inscr., Nachm., p. 157 ' Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 372. * Cf. W.-Sch., p. 114 f. Neither olo-flo nor fiSatrBa appears in the N. T. 320 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 1 Cor. 10 : 12) and the participle eo-rdis (Mt. 20 : 3, 6, etc.) though icTTTjKus (-W form) also sometimes (Mk. 13 : 14; 15 : 35, etc.), ioT^aa (1 Cor. 7 : 26; 2 Pet. 3 : 5), €trT6s (Mt. 24: 15; Rev. 14 : 1) although earriKos also (Rev. 5 : 6 text, W. H. marg. -cis). The same variation occurs in the papyri.' Curiously enough the earlier LXX books show less of the short perfect than the later ones and the N. T. Thackeray (Gr., p. 253) suggests an "Atticistic reversion" for a while. The form ((rraKa (papyri also) belongs to the -oi form as well as the late present (rTriK Gk. Synt., p. 62. Cf. Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 417. 2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 179. ' Horn. Gr., p. 49. ' New Crat., p. 617 f. ^ phon^t., p. 455. ' Prol., p. 164 f. Farrar (Gk. Synt., p. 45) refers to Protagoras as the one who first distinguished the moods. ' Giles, Man., p. 459. « Prol., p. 164. 322 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT syntax, but the history of the mode-forms is in harmony with this position. As with the cases so with the moods: each mood has fared differently in its development and long history. Not only does each mood perform more functions than one, but the same function may sometimes be expressed by several ^ moods. The names themselves do not cover the whole ground of each mood. The indicative is not the only mood that indi- cates, though it does it more clearly than the others and it is used in questions also. The subjunctive not merely subjoins, but is used in independent sentences also. The optative is not merely a wish, but was once really a sort of past subjxmctive. The im- perative has the best name of any, though we have to explain some forms as "permissive" imperatives, and the indicative and subjunctive, not to say injunctive, invade the territory of the im- perative. "It is probable, but not demonstrable, that the indica- tive was the original verb-form, from which the others were evolved by morphological changes" (Thompson, Syntax of Attic Greek, p. 494). The origin of the mode-signs cannot yet be ex- plained. (c) The Indicative (opiamcr) eyicXiaK) . There is indeed little to say as to the form of the indicative since it has no mode-sign. It is the mode that is used in all the Indo-Germanic languages unless there is a special reason to use one of the others. In fact it is the normal mode in speech. It is probably the earliest and the one from which the others are derived. Per contra it may be argued that emotion precedes passionless intellection. The indicative continues always to be the most frequent and per- sists when others, like the injunctive and optative, die. It is the only mode that uses all the tenses in Sanskrit and Greek. In the Sanskrit, for instance, the future is found only in the indicative (as in Greek save in the optative in indirect discourse to represent a future indicative of the direct) and the perfect appears only in the indicative and participle, barring many examples of the other modes in the early Sanskrit (Vedas). In the Sanskrit the modes are commonest with the aorist and the present.^ And in Greek the imperfect and past perfect never got beyond the indicative. The future barely did so, never in the subjunctive till the Byzantine period. The perfect subjunctive and optative, not to say impera- tive, were always a rarity outside of the periphrastic forms and ' Clyde, Gk. Sjfiit., p. 62. Cf. Kohlmann, tiber die Modi des griech. und des lat. VerbumB (1883). 2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 201. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB ("PHMA) 323 in the Koivii have practically vanished.* Thus we can clearly see the gradual growth of the modes. In modem English we have almost dropped the subjunctive and use instead the indicative. In the modem Greek the indicative survives with as much vigor as ever. The N. T. peculiarities of the indicative can best be treated under Syntax. It may be here remarked, however, that besides the regular indicative forms a periphrastic conjugation for all the tenses of the indicative appears in the N. T. The present is thus found as icrTiv vpocravairhipovaa (2 Cor. 9 : 12), the perfect as karlv reirpayiikvov (Ac. 26 : 26), the imperfect as ^v Sida- cKuv (Lu. 5 : 17), the past perfect as fjcav ■7rpoeupaK6Tes (Ac. 21 : 29), even the aorist as ?jv p\r]6eis (Lu. 23 : 19), the future as iaecde Xa- \ovvTes (1 Cor. 14:9), the future perfect as icoixai. ireiroiBoss (Heb. 2: 13). This widening of the range of the periphrastic conjuga- tion is seen also in the LXX. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 195. (d) The Subjuxctive {viroTaKTHcr)) . The function of the sub- junctive as of the other modes will be discussed under Syntax. Changes come in function as in form. Each form originally had one function which varied with the course of time. But the bond between form and fvmction is always to be noted.^ The German grammarians (Blass, Hirt, Brugmarm, etc.) call this the conjunc- tive mode. Neither conjunctive nor subjunctive is wholly good, for the indicative and the optative both fall often under that technical category.' It is in the Greek that mode-building reaches its perfection as in no other tongue.* But even in the Greek sub- junctive we practically deal only with the aorist and present tenses, and in the Sanskrit the subjunctive rapidly dies out save in the first person as an imperative.^ In Homer lixev is indicative® and 'voiitv is subjunctive so that non-thematic stems make the subjunctive with the thematic vowel o/e. Thematic stems made the subjunctive with a lengthened form of it co/r;. Cf . in the Ionic, Lesbian, Cretan inscriptions' forms like d/tei^erat. The same thing appears in Homer also in the transition period.^ Jannaris' in- deed calls the aorist subjunctive a future subjunctive because he • See discussion bet. Profs. Harry and Sonnenscheiii in CI. Rev., 1905-6. Cf. also La Roche, Beitr. zur griech. Gr., 1893; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 197. ' For contrary view see Burton^ N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 1. ' Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 45 f. * K.-Bl., Bd. II, p. 40. s Giles, Man., p. 458 f. " lb., p. 459. In the Boeotian dial, the subj. does not appear in simple sentences (Claflin, Synt. of Boeotian, etc., p. 73) ' Riem. and Goelzer, Phonfit., p. 456 f. » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 49. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 179. 324 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT conceives of the aorist as essentially past, a mistaken idea. The subjunctive does occur more freely in Homer than in the later Greek, partly perhaps because of the fact that the line of dis- tinction between it and the indicative (especially the aorist sub- junctive and the future indicative) had not been sharply drawn.' Add to this the fact that TOLrjcn and iroiricrtL came to be pronounced exactly alike and one can see how the confusion would come again. Cf. im Scotrei (Sixrii) in the N. T. MSS.^ On the short vocal ending of the subjunctive and its connection with the indicative one may recall Woiiai, irlonat, in marg., question of editing). Jannaris' calls the Greek optative the subjunctive of the past or the secondary subjunctive (cf. Latin). Like the indicative (and originally the subjunctive) the non-the- matic and thematic stems have a different history. The non-the- matic stems use hj (te) and the thematic oi (composed of o and i)- The 2j (subjunctive) a "syntactical necessity" in spite of the evidence for S<^ (optative). But see above. The aorist optative in -at is the usual form, as KarevObvai (1 Th. 3: 11), ifKeovaaai Kat Ttepiaaebaai (1 Th. 3 : 12), KaTaprlaai. (Heb. 13 : 21), etc., not the .ffiolic-Attic -ete. So also TOiijcaLev (Lu. 6 : 11), but ^ri\a(l>ii(7eiav (Ac. 17:27) according to the best MSS. (B, etc.).^ Blass^ com- ments on the fact that only one example of the present optative appears in the simple sentence, viz. etjj (Ac. 8:20), but more occur in dependent clauses, as Trdcrxoire (1 Pet. 3: 14). The opta- tive is rare in the LXX save for wishes. Thackeray, Or., p. 193. (/) The Impebattve (TrpoaTaKTiKrj). The imperative is a later development in language and is in a sense a makeshift like the passive voice. It has no mode-sign (cf . indicative) and uses only personal suflSxes.' These suffixes have a varied and interesting history. 1. The Non-Thematic Stem. An early imperative was just the non-thematic present stem.' In the imperative the aorist is a later growth, as will be shown directly. Forms like Utti, de'iKvu are pertinent. 2. The Thematic Stem. Gf. aye, Xkyt. This is merely an in- terjection (cf. vocative Xoye).' This is the root pure and simple with the thematic vowel which is here regarded as part of the stem as in the vocative Xoye. The accent elire, kWe, ivpk, ide, \afik was probably the accent of all such primitive imperatives at the beginning of a sentence.'" We use exclamations as verbs or noims.'' 1 Hort, Intr. to N. T. Gk., p. 168. Cf. LXX. ' Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 191. » Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 326 f . ; Cronert, Mem. Gr. Hercul., p. 215 f . ; Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. Ill f. Aol also appears in pap. as opt. as well as subj. « Prol., p. 55. Cf. Blass' hesitation, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 49 f. ' Cf. W.-Sch., p. 114. In the LXX the form in -etc is very rare. Cf. Hel- bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 68 f. The LXX has also -otaav, -aiaav for 3d plu. Cf. Thack., Gr., p. 215. Opt. is common in 4 Mace. s Gr. of N. T. Gk., p 220. « Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 464. ' K.-Bl., Bd. II, p. 41. 9 lb., p. 269. " lb., p. 464. Cf. Brug., Grundr., II, § 958; Riem. and Goelzer, Phon^t., p. 359. It is coming more and more to be the custom to regard the thematic vowel as part of the root. Giles, Comp. PhUol., p. 415. " Moulton, Prol., p. 171 f . 328 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT In Jas. 4 : 13 we have &ye vw oi Xeyovres, an example that will il- lustrate the origin of a7£. Note the common inter jectional use of Ue (so N. T.). Cf. also accent of Xd/3e. The adverb SeOpo (Jo. 11 : 43, Aa^ape devpo e^w) has a plural like the imperative in -re (Mt. 11 : 28, SeOre xpos fie iravres ot KoiruovTes). 3. The Suffix -di. The non-thematic stems also used the suf- fix -di (cf. Sanskrit dhi, possibly an adverb; cf. "you there!"). So 7j'co9t for second aorist active, ladi for present active, (jnivridi, \v- BriTi for second and first aorist passive.^ In the N. T. sometimes this -01 is dropped and the mere root used as in dyd/Sa (Rev. 4 : 1), /i€Td|3a (Mt. 17:20), avacrra (Eph. 5:14; Ac. 12:';0 according to the best MSS.^ The plural dra/Sare (Rev. 11 : 12) instead of dydjST/re is to be noted also. The LXX MSS. exhibit these short forms {avaara, airbcTa, but not hvafia) also. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 70; Con. and Stock, Sel. from LXX, p. 46. See lii^a, Kard/Sa, etc., in Attic drama. But drao-rjjOt (Ac. 8 : 26), 'eirl(TTi)di, 2 Tim. 4:2), fieraPridi (Jo. 7:3), KarafiridL (Lu. 19:5), irpoaava^ridL (Lu. 14 : 10) occur as usual. In the papyri -di. has practically disappeared save in Icdi..^ 4. The Suffix -to. It is probably the ablative of the demon- strative pronoun (Sanskrit tod). It is used with non-thematic (eo-TCd) and thematic stems (XeY^-rw). The Latin* uses this form for the second person also (agito). In the case of eoro) (Jas. 1:19) the N. T. has also f/ru (Jas. 5 : 12) .^ The form Kara^aro} (Mt. 24: 17) has the unlengthened stem, but 'eXdarco is like the first aorist eiriaTpexl/aToi. The N. T. like the Kotvi] generally* has the plural only in TO}(rav which is made by the addition of crav to tco. Cf . 'earwaav (Lu. 12:35). The middle (xdco (of imcertain origin)' likewise has the plural in the N. T. in adairav. So irpoatv^Ladcoaav (Jas. 5 : 14). This is true of the plural of both present and aorist as in papyri and inscriptions. So the LXX cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 69 f. 5. The Old Injunctive Mood. It is responsible for more of the imperative forms than any other single source. "The injunctive » Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 341. = Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 168. ' Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 327. * Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 466. Cf. Brug., Gk. Gr., p. 341. ^ So pap. and late inscr., Moulton, Prol., p. 56. 8 Cf. for pap. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 327. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 343. It is after iii/s.c. that — rojcrov completely supplants -vres kK^oKw (Mt. 7:4). Cf. English "let" with infini- ' Moulton, Prol., p. 165. ^ Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 332. » lb. « lb. « Hirt, Handb.,*p. 429 f. « W.-Soh.,p. 119. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 165. " Riem. and Goelzer, Phongt., p. 372. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 345. » Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 468; Hirt, Handb., p. 430; Wright, Comp. Gk. Gr., p. 334. i» Moulton, Prol., p. 179 f. " V. and D., Handb., p. 81. Cf. Dieterich, Unters., p. 205. « Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 345; Hirt, Handb., p. 427. " Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 164. " K.-BL, Bd. II, p. 45. 330 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT tive. Cf. Sevre airoKreivuixev in Mt. 21 : 38. Besides otc, Seme we may have Spa with the subjunctive (Mt. 8:4), ^XcTrere with future indicative (Heb. 3 : 12). 9. Prohibitions. Here the aorist subjunctive with fi^ held its own against the aorist imperative quite successfully. In the Sanskrit Veda the negative ma is never found with the impera- tive, but only with the subjunctive.' Later the Sanskrit uses the present imperative with ma, but not the aorist. This piece of history in the Greek ^ is interesting as showing how the impera- tive is later than the other modes and how the aorist imperative never won its full way into prohibitions. However, in the N. T. as in the inscriptions and papyri, we occasionally find the aorist imperative with jmj in 3d person. So fir) mTaParia (Mt. 24 : 17). 10. Perfect Imperative. In the Sanskrit the imperative is nearly confined to the present tense. The perfect imperative is very rare in the N. T. (only the two verbs cited) as in all Greek. We find tppcjade (Ac. 15: 29; in 23 : 30 W. H. reject ippoiao) and ir£0i/u&)o-o (Mk. 4 : 39). The perfect imperative also occurs in the periphrastic form as ao-raxrac icepi.e^ aankvai (Lu. 12 : 35). 11. Periphrastic Presents. Other periphrastic forms of the im- perative are t(Tdi eivoS>v (Mt. 5 : 25), Icrdi, exwi' (Lu. 19 : 17), jui) ylveadt irepo^vyovvTes (2 Cor. 6 : 14) and even icrre yivisaKovres (Eph. 5 : 5). 12. Circumlocutions. But even so other devices (see Syntax) are used instead of the imperative, as the future indicative {aya- 7n7(rets, Mt. 5 : 43) ; Iva and the subjunctive (Eph. 5 : 33) ; a ques- tion of impatience like ov ■wa.ba'Q 5Lauiv (Ac. 13 : 10), etc. VI. The Voices (SiaGeo-cis). (a) Tkansitive and Intbansitivb. The point is that "tran- sitive" is not synonymous with "active." Transitive verbs may belong to any voice, and intransitive verbs to any voice. Take kblSa^a, 'eMa^kp.ii)v, ididaxOvv, which may be transitive in each voice. On the other hand ti/ii, ylvofiai, 'sKvdtjv are intransitive. The same verb may be transitive or intransitive in the same voice, as 07a). A verb may be transitive in Greek while intransitive in English, as with /carayeXao) and vice versa. This matter properly belongs to syntax, but it seems necessary to clear it up at once before we proceed to discuss voice. Per se the question 'of transitiveness belongs to the idea of the verb itself, not to that of voice. We 1 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 240. ' lb.; cf. also Delbriick, Synt. Forsch., IV, p. 120. Hence Delbnick argues that the aorist imper. did not come into use untU after the pres. imper. The imper. was originally only positive, not negative. CONJUGATION OP THE VERB ("PHMA) 331 actually find Green* making four voices, putting a neuter (pddk- Tepov) voice (using active and middle endings) on a par with the others! The Stoic grammarians^ did speak of a neuter voice as neither active {Karriyoprifia bpdbv) nor passive (iiirrLov), meaning the middle (/leo-ij). Jannaris^ confounds transitiveness with voice, though he properly says (p. 356) that "the active voice is usually transitive," i.e. verbs in the active voice, not the voice itself. Even Whitney^ speaks of the antithesis between transitive and reflexive action being effaced in Sanskrit. Was that antithesis ever present? Farrar^ speaks of verbs with an "active meaning, but only a passive or middle form," where by "active" he means transitive. Even the active uses verbs which are either transi- tive (dXXo7rafli7s) or intransitive {avToiraSiji). So may the other voices. If we clearly grasp this point, we shall have less difficulty with voice which does not deal primarily with the transitive idea. That belongs rather to the verb itself apart from voice .° On transitive and intransitive verbs in modern Greek see Thumb, Ha'nM., p. 112. (6) The Names of the Voices. They are by no means good. The active {hepyeTiKrj) is not distinctive, since the other voices ex- press action also. This voice represents the subject as merely act- ing. The Hindu grammarians called the active parasmai padam ('a word for another,') and the middle (jikcri) dtmane padam ('a word for one's self').' There is very little point in the term mid- dle since it does not come in between the active and the passive. Indeed reflexive is a better designation of the middle voice if direct reflexive is not meant. That is rare. The middle voice stresses the interest of the agent. Cf. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 155 f . In truth we have no good name for this voice. Passive {■iraJBriTt,Kri) is the best term of all, for here the subject does experi- ence the action even when the passive verb is transitive, as in hdiSaxOvv- But this point encroaches upon syntax. ' Handb. to the Gk. of N. T., p. 55. « Cf. Dion. Thr., p. 880- Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 40. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 179. * Sans. Gr., p. 200. ' Gk. Synt., p. 41. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 467 f. ' Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 476: "The distinction between the transitive and intransitive meanings of the active voice depends upon the nature of the root in each case." ' Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 200. Cf. also Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 492. See also Clark, Comp. Gr., p. 182, for the meaningless term "'middle." It ia as active as the "active" voice. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 119. 332 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (c) The Relative Age of the Voices. It is a matter of doubt as between the active and middle. The passive is known to be a later development. The Sanskrit passive is the yd class.* In Homer the passive has not reached its full development. The pas- sive future occurs there only twice. The aorist middle is often used in passive sense ('/SX^to, for instance)." That is to say, in Homer the passive uses all the tenses of the middle with no distinct forms save sometimes in the aorist. In later Greek the future middle (as Ti/ii}(70Mai) continued to be used occasionally in the passive sense. The aorist passive in fact used the active endings and the future passive the middle, the passive contributing a special addition in each case {ri, 6y\, r] Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 275; Thumb, Handbuch d. Skt., pp. 394 ff. 2 Sterrett, Horn. II., Dial, of Horn., p. 27. * Clyde, Gk. Syn.,'p. 55. ' Comp. Philol., p. 477. « Moulton, Prol., p. 152. ' Griech. Gr., p. 346. Cf. Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 599. Cf. Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 419. ' Prol., p. 153. 8 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 200. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (tHMa) " 333 /3iJ(ro/iai) ; some on one voice only (like net/jKu). As concerns voice these verbs were defective rather than deponent.* Note also the common use of the second perfect active with middle verbs (yivofiaL, ykyova).^ A nimiber of verbs sometimes have the future in the active in the N. T. which usually had it in the middle in the older Greek. These are: aKovaoi (Jo. 5 : 25, 28, etc., but aKoixroixai, Ac. 17 : 32), o/iapTj^o-o) (Mt. 18 : 21), dxacTijo-a) (Mk. 14 : 13), apiraaos (Jo. 10 : 28), /SXei^co (Ac. 28 : 26), 7eXAo^r]drJTe avroiis) the pas- sive is used substantially as a middle. Cf. the continued use of Ti.iiri(Tonai as future passive in the earlier Greek as a tendency the other way. The history of this matter thus makes intelligible what would be otherwise a veritable puzzle in language. Here is a list of the chief passive aorists in the N. T. without the passive idea, the so-called "deponent" passives: airiKpiB-qv (Mt. 25 :9 and often, as John, Luke alone having Attic aveKpivaTo also, Ac. 3 : 12), SieKp'iBriv (Ro. 4 : 20), crvvvTreKp'uBriv (Gal. 2 : 13), o.TTe\oyi]Or]v (Lu. 21 : 14, but see 12 : 11), iijaWioB-qv (Jo. 5 : 35), kyevrjOriv (Mt. 6 : 10, but also iyevdfiriv often, as Ac. 20 : 18) ; cf. ykyova and yeyivrjiiai, kSe/iOriv (Lu. 5 : 12); riyepBvv (Lu. 24 : 34), ri5vvaa0riv (Mk. 7 : 24, as New Ionic and LXX) and vSwiidriv (Mt. 17 : 16), 8ie\kx9vv (Mk. 9 : 34), kdavfiaadi]v (Rev. 13 : 3, but passive sense in 2 Th. 1 : 10), ieaix^ildriv (Mk. 1 : 27), kvevfirideis (Mt. 1 : 20), fiereixeXiidriv (Mt. 21 : 32), kaiHimav above. The modem Greek kpoiTovaa is a new formation (Thumb, Handb., p. 171) modelled after it. Blass* needlessly hesitates to accept -av in the present perfect instead of the usual -ola.vrj-v, is really an active form like 'e-firj-v {k-avq-v is the proper division) .^ Cf. Latin tace-re. So k-xapri-v from xatpew. The first aorist in -dr/v seems to have developed by analogy out of the old secondary middle ending in -dris (k-dd-drii) parallel with ao (Sanskrit thas).^ The future passive is a late development and merely adds the usual ao/e and uses the middle endings. The ending in -driv is sometimes transitive in Archilochus,* as the middle often is, and perhaps helps to understand how in the Koivii these forms (first aorist passive) are so often transitive ("de- ponents") as in aireKpidriv, k4>o^ridr]v, etc. The second aorist passive as noticed above is really an active form. So the passive forms have a decidedly mixed origin and history. There is nothing special to note about these passive endings in the N. T. save the increased use of them when even the passive idea does not exist. In some verbs {)n (Mt. 24 : 32, but Rec. k^ug, though k^ij; m Mk. 13 : 28), eivTai. In the N. T., W. H. give kppkdrj (Gal. 3 : 16; Mt. 5 : 21, etc.), but Hort" thinks the Attic kppridri should appear always in Matthew. Verbs in ^w have two knotty problems. In Gal. 4 : 17 fj/XoDre and 1 Cor. 4 : 6 povS>vTe and per contra i.fairovvTts from pap. ' P. 117 note. * Hort (Notes on Orth., p. 166) prefers J4poov and the aorists earriv, 'i Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 268. 2 lb. Cf. also Riem. and Goelzer, Phon6t., pp. 396, 410, 414. So K.-Bl., II, p. 92 f. 3 Cf. GUes, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 453 f. * So Whitney, Sans. Or., p. 308. Cf. Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 371. Cf. K.-BL, II, p. 30 f., for list. s Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 298. ' See interesting hsts in Sterrett's II., N. 38 ff. ' V. and D., Handb. etc., p. 79 f. 8 K.-B1., II, p. 102 f. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 313; Delbruck, Grundl., etc., IV, pp. 75 fl. Hartmann (De aoristo secundo, 1881, p. 21) makes too much distinction between the second and first aorists. 9 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 313. " Sterrett, Hom. II., N. 42. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB ("PHMa) 347 tension of this usage (after the analogy of the perfect) is seen in the Byzantine* and modem Gr^ek' form eXWriKa for kXWiiv. There is one more aorist form, the aorist passive. As already shown, the so-called second aorist passive (-niv), like k(l>&.vriv, kx^fniv, is merely the second aorist active.^ The so-called first aorist passive in -Oriv is a Greek creation after the analogy of the old Indo-Germanic' Homer makes little use of either of these pas- sive aorists, but the second is the more frequent with him and the form in -driv is very rare.* If this emphasis upon the aorist forms seem unusual to modem students, they may be reminded that in English we have only two tenses (apart from the periphrastic conjugation) and that they are usually punctiliar, as "I sing," "I sang." One is a present aorist, the other a past aorist.^ We do not here enter into the Aktionsart of the aorist (whether ingressive, constative or effec- tive).' That belongs to syntax. The inscriptions agree with the development shown above in the aorist and support the N. T. phenomena.' Mayser* gives a careful discussion of the papyri development. In brief it is in harmony with what has already been observed. The non-the- matic strong aorist is confined to a few verbs like jS^wi, yvS>vcu., Sovvai, 8vvai, 6eZvai, wpiaadai, (TTTJvai. The k aorists are used ex- clusively in both singular and plural. The thematic strong aorist is disappearing before the weak sigmatic aorist. In the N. T. the k aorists idoiiia, WiiKa, a(t>ijKa occur always ex- cept that Luke (1:2 in the literary introduction) has irapkboaav. Elsewhere eSci/coTe (Mt. 25 : 35), WriKav (Mk. 6:29), a4>TjKaTe (Mt. 23 : 23), etc., and quite frequently.' The LXX also nearly always has k with these aorists in the plural.'" The non-thematic aorists'in the N. T. are not numerous. The list is fotmd in the discussion of -jut verbs and includes avk^Tjv, eyvoiv, 'icrriv, iyiv, &vanr]Vi and all the forms of Sovvai, elvai and deivai save the indica- tive active. ' V. and D. Handb., etc., p. 81, but in particular Thumb, Handb., p. 144. 2 Cf. K.-B1., II, p. 93 f. ^ Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 399 f. * Sterrett, Horn. II.,' N. 42 f . = Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 126. Cf. Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 45. ' Munro, ib., p. 47. ' Cf. Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., pp. 180 £f.; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., pp. 162 ff.; Meisterh., Att. Inschr., pp. 181, 185, 187. » Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 358-370. ' Cf. W.-Sch., p. 119. ■» See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 94 f ., for similar exx. in the LXX, and Thack., Gr., p. 255. 348 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT The thematic strong aorist in the N. T. shows the two develop- ments noted above. The use of -a instead of -ov with the strong aorist-stem is very common. See this chapter, vi, (h), for N. T. list hke iPa\av, etc. The MSS. vary much in the matter.^ The other change is the increased use of the sigmatic aorist. Here again Blass^ has a careful presentation of the facts. 'EjSt&xra (1 Pet. 4 : 2) is a case in point instead of the old Attic kpi(av. So is £/3Xd- arriaa (Mt. 13:26; Heb. 9:4; Jas. 5 : 18) rather than i^Xaarop. Both ky6.nv(Ta (Mt. 5 : 32) and iyvfia (Mt. 22 : 25) occur. Cf. Hel- bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 93 f., and Thackeray, Gr., pp. 233 ff., for LXX illustrations. 'H|a occurs a few times instead of the common i^yayov, as ^irdjas (2 Pet. 2:5), kinavva^aL (Lu. 13:34). Blass justifies it as appear- ing at least in dialects, LXX and late writers.' It is part of the tendency towards the sigmatic aorist. Likewise a/jtaprria-oi is slip- ping in beside anapToi (Mt. 18 : 15; Ro. 5 : 14, 16, cf. verse 12). Blass finds it in Emped., LXX, Lob., Phryn., 732. W. H. accept 'iSvaev (Mk. 1 : 32 on the authority of BD {HA, etc., eSv). Luke in Ac. 24 : 21 has the reduplicated aorist kkpa^a hke the LXX, but usually the N. T. has the late form 'iKpa^a as in Mt. 8 : 29 (eKpa^av), though once the Attic avkKpayov appears (Lu. 23 : 18). Once Luke (Ac. 6 : 2) has KaraXd-^avras, a form that Blass* finds in Herm., Vis. VIII, 3. 5, and Mayser? observes avreCKri^ai in the papsoi. "O^Tjo-fle (Lu. 13 : 28) finds a parallel in an old Homeric aorist di\f'ci.p,r]v (Winer-Schmiedel, p. 109). In Rev. 18:14 the Text. Rec. (without any known authority) has an aorist form eiipr/o-a. So in Jas. 4 : 13 some MSS. have enTopevaoifieda. Indeed some verbs have dropped the strong aorist form entirely like ffu)oi, pXacyravu, kytipo- piaL, KTeLvio. See careful discussion of Winer-Schmiedel, p. 109 f. MSS. frequently read Sosa-g, Sdocrufiev, etc., as if from an aorist tSoiaa, as Jo. 17:2; Rev. 4:9. Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, p. 120. Cf. Hel- bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 90 f., for LXX examples that further parallel these illustrations. Conversely is to be noted a new strong aorist avWaSov (Ph. 4 : 10) which Blass ° takes in a causative sense (avedaKere to mip kiiov tt>povetv). Verbs in -f oj make the aorist both in a and ^. Most of these 1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 45 f. ^ lb., p. 43. ' lb. Mayser (Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 369) finds it in the pap. as well as i,yayri6pr]- pvyTjvai is read by some MSS. in Mt. 24:43; SteT&Yiji' (Gal. 3 : 19), {iTeTayriv (Ro. 8 : 20, etc.), but the Attic BLaraxOkvTa (Lu. 17:9f.); • Cf. W.-Seh., p. 105. * Cf . Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 360 ff., for careful^ discussion and references for further research. ' So iroviu and 0oplu(e) in the LXX. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 105. * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 43. » Cf. Schmid, Atticismus, IV, p. 594 f. • Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 171; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 190 f. ' Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 381 f. Cf . Reinhold, De Graec, p. 76 f. 350 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT KareKariv (Rev. 8 : 7; 1 Cor. 3 : 15), but Attic k^eKaWriaav (Ro. 1 : 27); Kareviiyriv (Ac. 2 : 37); kpijSiji' (Jo. 8 : 59). So also fe^V in- stead of evp follows the analogy of hppinjv (Heb. 2 :'l) and ix^ptjp (Lu. 22 : 5). Thus we have kc^ug (Mk. 13 : 28) i and i.-k-vvv-ni, d,ir-6X-Xi/-/it, 8eiK-vv-fiL, l^evy-vv-fu, ^iiv-vv-iii, Kar- ky-w-iii, K€p6.-vvv-fii, Kopkrvpv-fu, Kpe-fia-vvv-iiL, iiLy-vv-fiL, oii-vv-iii, wiiy- vv-iii, ^riy-w-fiL, a^krvvv-iu, aTpi)-vvv-iu, but these all have more commonly the -c>> forms.^ 4. The Simple Thematic Present. So X^w, Xico. This was a constantly increasing class at the expense of the -fit verbs. It had several branches also including root-verbs like ayco, yp(i.-4>u, a strengthened vowel like iri'tB-ca (jtdS), Xcitt-o) (Xitt), (^efry-o (<>u7), (ri)irci), T^KO), TP&17C0, 6\ipu, irvtyoi, etc., Hadley and Allen's "strong vowel class," ^ and the many contract denominative verbs like n/ia-w, (j^.'kk-ca, i,^i6-oi. But see the t Class for these contract verbs. New verbs were added to this list from nouns and some also from verb-stems, yprjyopk-w from the old perfect iypriyopa (this tense never in the N. T.),' aTiiK-ta (Mk. 11 : 25) from icTriKa (modem Greek arkKcS).^ In Lu. 1 : 24 irepikKpvfiev is probably imperfect, not aorist, from KpiijSco {Kprnra). Cf. hKpvfirjv.^ The LXX shows these new presents from perfect stems (Thackeray, Gr., p. 224 f.). 5. The Reduplicated Thematic Present. So ylvopai, (yiyv-o-fmi, *yi-ykv-oiw.L), irliTT-oi (*7rt-ir^T-co), tlkt-oi (*ti-t£K-&!), —yv-, -^iri—, —kt—, being weak forms of -yev-, -rer-, -res-. The N. T. has also lax^o-u from icxto {*ai-aix-<^. 6. The Thematic Present with a Suffix. There are five (-1, -v, -OK, -T, -6). Each of these divisions furnishes a number of verbs. (a) The i class. It is very large. This suffix is used to make verbs from roots and substantives. It is probable* that originally the suflBx was ^i. It is thought that contract verbs in -aco, -eu, -o£o, etc., originally had this i as j or y which was dropped.'' It is thus the chief way of forming denominative verbs and is pre- eminently a secondary sufiix.* Some of these verbs are causative, some intensive, some desiderative.' The special Greek desidera- tive in -atUo does not appear in the N. T., but forms Uke Koxiaco are found. In particular, forms in -ifw become so common that they no longer have an intensive, iterative or causative force,"* • Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 48. " Gr., p. 122. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 40. * lb., p. 41. The LXX MSS. show both y/ynyopka and o-TSj/toj. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 82. ' Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 41. ' Cf. Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 34; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 380. ' Hirt, ib., p. 383 f. » Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 440. ' lb., pp. 445 ff. On the whole subject of contract verbs see Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 207 ff. " Jann., ib., p. 222. 352 A GEAMMAE OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT but are used side by side with the older form, as fiairTu, Pairri^u; palvo), /Jaj'Ttfo), etc. In all the -fw forms the t has united with a palatal (guttural) or lingual (dental), a matter determined by the aorist or future. So tl>vKa.iT-ao3 is from (j)vXdK-jo3, pa,^o} from i^pdS- jw. Other familiar combinations are i and X, as /3aX-jw=/3aXXw, i with V by transposition, as (l>a.v-ju=a.-a-Kci}, or with reduplication as yL{y)v6)-a-Ko}, Si-Sa-cKoi (for 5t-6d.x-crKa>), p.i-p.vii-aKOi, ira-(7xco (for Tod-aKcS). Cf. apk-aKca, yafi-icTKCo, yrjpa-aKw, evp-'uTKW, lieBv-nKU). Reduplication is thus a feature with root-verbs (non- thematic) Uke 8l-dcii-p,i, and thematic like yl{y)vo-fmi. as well as the (TK class. For reduplication in the aorist and the perfect see (h). The iterative idea of some of these (tk verbs suits well the reduplication. (5) The T class. It is not a very numerous one (about 18 verbs), though some of the verbs are common. The verb has » Gr.ofN.T.Gk.,p. 41. The LXX has these new presents. Thack., p. 225. ' Blass, ib. The LXX MSS. illustrate most of these' peculiarities of verbs in the present tense. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 82-84. 3 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 436. * Grundr., IV, p. 59. Cf. Brug., Grundr., II, § 669. 5 Horn. Gr., p. 34. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (thMa) 353 always a labial stem like aic-ru, /Sott-to), Tinr-ru. The root may end in ^ as in /caXix-rw, tt as in tIiw-toi, or as in /SAtt-tw. It is even possible that ttt may represent an original irj (cf. iota class). (e) The 8 class. Cf. akq-Bw, 'ea-dos, Kvi\-B(ii, vij-du in the present. The modem Greek has developed many new presents on the basis of the aorist or the perfect (Thimib, Handb., p. 143). (/) The Future Tense (o/ieWmv ;\;/3oVo?). The origin of this tense has given rise to much discussion and some confusion. Vincent and Dickson ' even say that the first aorist is derived from the o- future! Like the other tenses there has been a de- velopment along several lines. No general remark can be made that will cover all the facts. As already remarked, the future tense is fundamentally aoristic or punctiliar in idea and not dura- tive or linear. The linear idea can be accented by the periphrastic form, as iaeade \aKovvTes (1 Cor. 14:9). Cf. also Mt. 24:9; Lu. 1:20; 5 : 10; Mk. 13:25. But as a rule no such distinction is drawn. The truth is that the future tense is a late development in language. In the Sanskrit it is practically confined to the in- dicative and the participle, as in the Greek to the. indicative, in- finitive and participle (optative only in indirect discourse, and rarely then, not at all in N. T.). And in the Rigveda the sya form occurs only some seventeen times.^ The Teutonic tongues have no future form at all apart from the periphrastic, which ex- isted in the Sanskrit also.' In the modern Greek again the future as a distinct form has practically vanished and instead there occurs 6a and the subjunctive or OkXa and the remnant of the in- finitive, Hke our EngUsh "shall" or "will."* Giles^ thinks it un- certain how far the old Indo-Germanic peoples had developed a future. Probably the earliest use of the future was one that still sur- vives in most languages. It is just the present in a vivid, lively sense projected into the future. So we say "I go a-fishing" as Simon Peter did, {ixaya oXieuetv (Jo. 21 : 3). The other disciples respond kpxofifBa Kal finets avv aol. This usage belongs to the realm of syntax and yet it throws Ught on the origin of the future tense. So Jesus used (Jo. 14 : 3) the present and future side by side {^ipx<^ ' Handb. of Mod. Gk., p. 82. ^ Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 401. » Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 446; Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 333 f. ' Thumb, Handb., pp. 161 f., 173. ' Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 446. On the whole subject of "Indo-European Futures " see Hadley, Ess. Phil, and Crit., pp. 184 £f. 354 A GRAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ftat Kal irapaX-lifirf/oiiaL). We have seen already that a number of aorists and presents like ayotiaL. It is possible that those with variable vowel like idofjuu may really be the same form as the Homeric subjunc- tive (like hiiev as opposed to 'l[iev).^ Ilto/iat is common in Attic (N. T.) and is from aorist root (i-Tn-ov). The form (pajoiuu. (LXX and N. T.) is analogous (aorist, ^^0701'). The Attic used x^ as future also, but LXX and N. T. have xeiS (Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 42). Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 88, for LXX illustra- tions to the same effect. The LXX has the classic JSo/xai; not in the N. T. (Thackeray, p. 231). It used to be said that the cr future was merely a variation of the Sanskrit sya, the y or j sound disappearing in the Greek. This gave a simple explanation of the o- futures. But a rival the- ory has been advanced which derives the a future from the a aorist.' The frequency of the aorist subjunctive in Homer with K€ (av) in principal clauses much like the future indicative in Attic, and the absence of a future passive, not to say future optative, in Homer give some colour to this contention.* Thus Sei|&) and the Latin dixo would be identical in form and meaning.^ But Brug- mann^ has perhaps solved the problem by the suggestion that both explanations are true. Thus ypa\l/w he derives from the aorist subjunctive yptpoi, a mixed tense with a double origin. The use of -avo/e in the Doric lends weight to the derivation of these verbs at least from the sya (Sanskrit) type.' Hirt* re- gards ato/e (Doric) as a combination of the a future and the e future (liquid verbs, for instance) and considers it a new Greek formation. This Doric future therefore may be as old as any, 1 Sterrett, Horn. II., N. 38. 2 Giles, Man., p. 447. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 184; Eiem. and Goelzer, Phon^t., p. 438. » lb., p. 446. Cf. also Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 401 f. 4 Sterrett, Horn. II., N. 27. 6 Giles, Man., p. 446. « Griech. Gr., p. 320. This position is accepted by K.-Bl., II, p. 105. » lb., p. 105 f. 8 Handb. etc., p. 403 f. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB ("PHMA) 355 if not the oldest suffix, in fact the really distinctively future sufiSx. In the N. T. this Doric form survives in Teaov/ML^ (Mt. 10 : 29). 'P&o has ^mca (Jo. 7: 38), kKolim has KXabcroj (Lu. 6 : 25), while (ptiiyu has (jith^oimi. (Jo. 10 :5). The other forms common in Attic have no future in the N. T. This mixed "^ origin of the future (partly aorist subj., partly Indo-Germ. sya) shows itself in the Aktionsart of the tense. So Moulton notes xpoA^co (Mk. 14 : 28) as durative, but a|ei (1 Th. 4 : 14) as aoristic. Cf . Thumb, Handb., p. 123. Thus we may gain further light' on the Ionic-Attic future of verbs in -ifw. It is like the Doric -aeo/e. So we have -iireco, drop- ping a we get -ii in first sin- gular and so /i£toikiw (Ac. 7 : 43) and irapopyiSi (Ro. 10 : 19), both quotations. Elsewhere W. H.* prefer the forms in -io-co, and Blass' thinks that in the original passages of the N. T. the -Laoj forms are genuine. So the forms in -'urei (like /Saxrto-et) are uniform in the N. T. (Lu. 3 : 16) save KaQapiti (Heb. 9 : 14) and 5iaKa6apiel (Mt. 3 : 12) .* MSS. vary between a^opitl and -lo-ei, c^oiTieT and -to-ei, xpovLii and -icet. Cf. Blass.' So in Eph. 6:8; Col. 3 : 25, the MSS. vary between KOfueiTai. and Kop,icreTai. Some MSS. read KOfiiovfievoi in 2 Pet. 2 : 13.^ All editors' accept Konietade in 1 Pet. 5 : 4. The active plural W. H." print as -lovcri always (as /ia/ca- piavaiv, Lu. 1 : 48) save in yvcopiaovaLv (Col. 4:9). The syncopated futures" from the dropping of a do not survive in the N. T. in Kdkkau, TiKkcos which always retain the a. *^ So even h-KoKkau (Mt. 21 : 41), though a-KoKCi is common in the LXX and ' And this Tceaoviuu is possibly not from irer-iroO/iai, but a change of t to a. Cf. K.-Bl., II, p. 107; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 322; Hirt. Handb., p. 404. Henry (Comp. Gr. of Gk. and Lat., p. 116) considers the Doric future to be the affix of the future twice over, as amo, aeo. ■'■ Moulton, Prol., p. 149. > Cf. K.-BL, II, p. 106 f. * Notes on Orth., p. 163. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 356. " Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 42. ' lb. But Blass (ib.) prefers iyyiii (Jas. 4:8). ' Ib. See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 84 f., 87 f., for the LXX exx. of verba in-fu. « Ib. '« Ib. ' Notes on Orth., p. 163. " Giles, Man., p. 446 f. " Blaes, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 41 f. Brug. (Griech. Gr., p. 321) considers this a new formation after the aor. subj. suffix. The LXX keeps cr. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 86; Thack., Gr., p. 230. 356 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT is quoted once in the N. T. (1 Cor. 1 : 19). However, the middle airoKovfiai. is the N. T. form (Lu. 5 : 37) like &,iro6a.vovnai,. 'EXafeco has no futm-e in the N. T. The N. T., like the LXX, has a future form a(j>e\S> (Rev. 22 : 19) from the aorist tl\ov of alpko. The liquid verbs in X, v, p present few problems. They belong to the aorist subjunctive type of formation.^ Here again we have syncopation of the a. Verbs like /SdXXw (/SaXcS), fievco {fievw), atpu (&pS>) form the future with the variable vowel o/e added to the stem without a in the N. T. as in the earlier Greek. Blass^ has shown that in the N. T. the future active has largely displaced the future middle with verbs that were defective in the active voice. These futures are as follows: afiapTii (2 Pet. 1 : 15), avvavTiico} (Lu. 22 : 10). We see this tendency al- ready in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 231 f.). On the other hand the future middle alone occurs with dirodavovp.ai (Jo. 8 : 24), yvi)a-op,ai (1 Cor. 4: 19), \rip.\l/op.ai (Mt. 10:41), o-^opaL (Mt. 24:30), ittcToviiai (Doric, Mt. 10 : 29), -wlopai (Mk. 10 : 39), ^ayopai. (Lu. 14 : 15), 4)ev^onai (Jo. 10 : 5). Xapiicrop.ai. (Lu. 1 : 14) Blass' regards as Attic future from the aorist (kxapriv) as compared with the future xaipijcro) from the present. Both aKovaco (Jo. 5 : 25) and aKohaoiuu (Ac. 21 : 22, chiefly in the Acts) are found, and f ijirw (Jo. 5 : 25) and f^o-o^at (Jo. 11 : 25). The so-called second future passive as seen in the case of xo-PV<^o- liai above is really just the middle ending with a put to the aorist active stem. There is no difference in form or sense between firi-ao-nai and (naX-Tj-ao-pai, save the — ij- which was really a part of the active stem of these verbs.* The point is that fundamentally these so-called second future passives are really future middles corresponding to active aorists hke the future middles and pres- ents above (Xiyyu^o/iat, for instance). This point is made clearer by the fact that the Doric* used only active endings like dcaYpa- (^TjtreT (not -erai). Homer, besides, only has one second future pas- sive {p.iyi]avoviuu, (1 Pet. 4 : 18) which may be durative like the Attic as Moulton' argues. So ■Kaiicovrai, (1 Cor. 13 : 8) and kTavaicai)aeTa.i (Lu. 10:6). Cf. also avoiry/jaofiai, (Mt. 7:7), aprayriaofmL (1 Th. 4 : 17), (pavfiaoixai. (Mt. 24 : 30), inroraylfaofiai (1 Cor. 15:28), \lniyiiaonat (Mt. 2^y. 12), xop^o'OAiat (Lu. 1 : 14, see above). The first future passive so-called is built upon the distinctively* Greek aorist in -dr)-. It is unknown to Homer, as stated above, and, like the second aorist passive, is aorist in origin and idea. Here again the Doric used the active endings^ like a, it'ewpaxa, riraxa. 5. Middle and Passive Forms. It is only in the active that the perfect used the k or the aspirated form (<^, x)- We have seen already that in the Koivr; some active perfect forms drop the distinctive endings and we find forms Hke idipaxav and edjpo/ces. Helbing (Or. d. Sept., pp. 101-103) gives LXX examples of root- perfects like eppoyya, k perfects Uke rkOtiKa, laTijKa and transitive 'iaraKa, aspirated perfects like 'epprixa. The middle and passive perfects did use the reduplication, but the endings were added directly to this reduplicated stem as in \k-\v-iiai. On the history of the ending -Ka see Pfordten, Zur Geschichte des griechischen Perfedums, 1882, p. 29. 6. The Decay of the Perfect Forms. In the Sanskrit the per- fect appears in half the roots of the language, but in the later Sanskrit it tends more and more to be confused with the mere past tenses of the indicative (aorist and imperf.) and grows less common also.^ In the Latin, as is well known, the perfect and the aorist tenses blended. In tridi and dedi we see preserved' the old perfect and in dixi we see the old aorist. The Greek of the Byzantine period shows a great confusion between the per- fect and the aorist, partly due to the Latin influence.^ Finally 1 Giles, Man., p. 451. = Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. 279, 295 f. 2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 325. « Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 451. ' Sterrett, Horn. II., N. 43. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 142. * Giles, Mah., p. 451. 360 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT in the modern Greek vernacular the perfect form is lost save in the perfect passive participle like KeKkrinhos. The perfect active is now made with exw and the passive participle (?x" Sefikvo) or with ?x" and a root similar to the third singular aorist sub- junctive (^xw S^o-et or dea-ti). Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 161. The only K perfect in modern Greek is evpriKa, "the only certain rem- nant of the ancient perfect" (ib., p. 148). Cf. ex« Me irafrjjTriiikvov (Lu. 14 : 18). Cf. also TreTroipoifikvrjv exeT« rriv Kap8iav v/xSiv (Mk. 8 : 17). This is much like the EngUsh perfect in reality, not hke the Greek ex" and aorist participle (like ex^ amiaas). Cf. Sonnen- schein, Greek Grammar, Syntax, 1894, p. 284. The perfect pas- sive in modern Gre6k vernacular is formed like exw 'i^vdrj {-ti) or Xekvfikvos ei/xai.^ But we are in no position to throw stones at the Greeks, for we in English have never had a perfect save the peri- phrastic form. How far the perfect and the aorist may have be- come confused in the N. T. in sense is a matter of syntax to be discussed later.^ 7. The Perfect in the Subjunctive, Optative, Imperative. Here the perfect is practically' confined to the indicative. No example of the perfect optative occurs even in the periphrastic form. The subjunctive perfect, except the form dSQ (dSiJTe, 1 Jo. 5 : 13), ap- pears only in the periphrastic conjugation, of which a few examples remain. So the active, as § TeironiKcos (Jas. 5 : 15), ireiroudores Sifiev (2 Cor. 1 : 9), and the passive, as ufftv reTeKeuiinevoi. (Jo. 17 : 23), J KeKKrinevos (Lu. 14 : 9), § ireir'Xripupivri (Jo. 16 : 24). So also Jo. 17 : 19, 1 Cor. 1 : 10, etc. The imperative makes a little better show- ing. We still have tare (Jas. 1 : 19; Eph. 5:5; Heb. 12 : 17 all pos- sible indicatives), ire^t/icocro (Mk. 4 : 39) and "eppuade (Ac. 15 : 29). The periphrastic imperative perfect is also found as 'iaroiaav irepLe^oiafikvaL (Lu. 12 : 35). In simple truth, as previously re- marked (see proof in Prof. Harry's articles), the perfect sub- junctive, optative and imperative never had any considerable vogue in Greek, not as much as in Sanskrit. In Homer the per- fect subjunctive active is more common than in later Greek, but it is rare in Homer.* 8. The Perfect Indicative. It is to the indicative that we turn ' Thumb., Handb., p. 165. Certainly the aorists in -ra are very common in the mod. Gk. (Thumb, Handb., pp. 140, 146 ff.). 2 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 143 f. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 200 f. Cf. discussion between Prof. Harry and Prof. Sonnenschein in CI. Rev., 1906, and La Roche, Beitr. z. griech. Gr., 1893. * Sterrett, Horn. II., N. 43. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB ("PHMa) 361 for the real development of the perfect. Here the perfect was for long very frequent indeed, and the time element comes in also. The ancients did not agree in the names for the three tenses of per- fect action in the indicative. The Stoics ^ called the present perfect avvreKiKos (or T^Xetos) xpovos hea-Tdis, the past perfect (TVVTe\iKds {j'e- Xeios) xpovo^ irapCi)XW^''OS) the future perfect avvTeki.K6% (TeXeios) xP^vos lieKKuv. Sometimes the present perfect was called merely 6 xapa- Keinevoi xpovos, the past perfect 6 virepavpTekLKos xpovos, and the future perfect 6 ner' oXlyov /i^XXtoi' xp^vos {Juturum exactum). The name plu-perfect is not a good one. The tense occurs in the N. T. with 22 verbs and 15 have the augment (H. Scott). Thus Tede/xe- \'mto (Mt. 7 : 25) and kXriXWei. (Jo. 6 : 17), but k^k^r)To (Lu. 16 : 20) and TrepLedidero (Jo. 11 : 44). Cf. eTxov aTroKu/iivriv (Lu. 19 : 20) in the light of modem Greek. In the N. T. the past perfect is not very frequent, nor was it ever as abundant as in the Latin .^ It goes down as a distinct form with the present perfect in modern Greek. Hirt' calls attention to the fact that Homer knows the past per- fect only in the dual and the plural, not the singular, and that the singular ending -77 is a new formation, a contraction of -eo into -ri. In the N. T., however, only -eiv is used. It is not certain whether the past perfect is an original Indo-Germanic form. The future perfect was always a very rare tense with only two ac- tive forms of any frequency, icrrri^co and r^vrj^cc. The middle and passive could make a better showing. In Heb. 8:11 eiSri(rov(Ti.v is probably future active (from LXX),* and in Lu. 19 : 40 some MSS., but not NBL (rejected by W.H.), give KeKp&^ovTai (cf. LXX). In Heb. 2 : 13 (another quotation from the LXX) we have the periphrastic form ea-ofmi TrewoiOiis. The future perfect passive occurs in the N. T. only in the periphrastic form in such examples as Sorai deSe/ievov (Mt. 16 : 19), icrrai XeKvtiiva (Mt. 18 : 18), eaovrai SiaiMiiepuTjikvoi (Lu. 12 : 52). Cf. ia-g Kar[a]Td9iiij\k]vo{i) B.G.U. 596 (a.d. 84). In the nature of the case the future perfect would not often be needed. This periphrastic future perfect is found as early as Homer .^ The papyri hkewise show some examples.' » K.-Bl., II, p. 2 f. ' Blass, Gr.ofN.T. Gk.,p.201. Brug. calls the past perf. a'' neueBildung." ' Handb. etc., p. 415 f. * So Hirt follows Wackern. in seeing a new stem here dSr)-. Cf. ib., p. 416. B in Deut. 8 : 3 has etSrjaai' Uke the aorist dSrjaa from Arist. onwards. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 370; Thack., Gr., p. 278. ' Sterrett, Horn. II., N. 27. ' Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 377. In the Boeotian inscr. the past perf. and the fut. perf. are both absent. 362 A GRAMMAB OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT The present perfect and the past perfect also have the periphrastic conjugation. So we find with comparative indifference' eariv yeypafiiikva (Jo. 20 : 30) and in the next verse ykiypairTai. So also yfv yey panixevov (Jo. 19:19) and iireyiypa-irTo (Ac. 17:23). Cf. also Lu. 2 : 26. The active has some examples also, though not so many, as iardos dfu, (Ac. 25: 10), and ^aav TpoaapaKores (Ac. 21 : 29). 9. S in Perfect Middle and Passive and Aorist Passive. It may- be due to a variety of causes. Some of these verbs had an original o- in the present stem, like Te\k{a)u, a.Ko{j{cr)u. Hence rerkXea-fmi., ^KovcTfiai, (rjKovadriv) , etc.^ Others are dental stems like ireW-w, iri- ireiafML. Others again are v stems which in Attic (apparently analogical) changed to a, as Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 202 f. Brug. (Griech. Gr., p. 330 f.) points out how in prehistoric timea the periphrastic form alone existed in the subj. and opt. middle and passive, as indeed was practically true always'for all the voices. 2 lb., p. 326. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 100 f.; Thack., pp. 219 ff., for LXX iUustr. of both a and v (ji). ' Brug., Comp. Gr. (transl.), vol. IV, p. 10. See note there for books on Reduplication. Add Lautensach, Gr. Stud. (1899). * lb., p. 11. Cf. K.-Bl., II, p. 8. P Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 176. Fritzsche (Ques. de redupl. graeca; Curtius, Stud, zu griech. and lat. Gr., pp. 279 ff .) considers the doubling of the syl- lable (iteration) the origin of all reduplication like hp-ap-laKa, /Si-^i-fu. • Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 222. ' Sterrett, Horn. II., N. 32, CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (tHMa) 363 aorist is much more frequent than in later Greek, but forms like iqyanov, %ve^Kav, dTOP, persist in N. T. Greek and the Koivii gener- ally. Of. kkpafo in Ac. 24 : 21. The Greek present shows reduplication in three classes of presents, viz. the root class (like Si-dwiu, i-^-iu, l-ffTTiiii, etc.), the thematic presents (like yi-^vo-nai, tti-tttco, etc.), inceptive verbs (like jt.-^va (Kafi^avca) , e'lpriKa (cf. kpprjdriv). Note also etXjjxa and eiXoxa. With verbs beginning with a vowel there was sometimes the doubling of the syllable as aKriKoa, or the mere lengthening of the vowel as T^Kovanai, or the addition of e alone with contraction as iW^fikvos, or uncontracted as eot/ca (from eJ/cw). Cf. eUoBa. In Jo. 3 : 21 (so 1 Pet. 4:3) we have dpyacpai as in Attic and et\KO}p,hos in Lu. 16 : 20. In opau we have edpcuca in Paul's Epistles (1 Cor. 9 : 1) and sometimes a sort of double reduplication (like e'UoBa) as ecopoKa (Jo. 1 : 18). So Attic. See Additional Note. In Col. 2 : 1 the form kbpaKav calls for notice both for its reduplication and its ending (cf. kiipaKav Lu. 9:36). So also hykayev (1 Cor. 16 : 9; N ^peajyajs, Jo. 1 : 52) and aveayypivris (2 Cor. 2 : 12). Indeed in this last verb the preposition may re- ceive additional redupUcation (treble therefore), as in iiveosyiikvri (Rev. five times). See also itix<^Liap,kvov (Mt. 11:8; Lu. 7 : 25) from &H(l)ikwviu. But as a rule with compound verbs in the N. T. re- » Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 408. 2 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 338 E. ' Naohm., p. 160 f.; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 171. ' Notes on Orth., p. 170. ' P. 103. Cf. also K.-B1., II, p. 23, and Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 38. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB ("PHMA) 365 duplication comes only between the prepositions and the verb. Sometimes the redupUcation is not used, as in ivapearrriiiivai (Heb., 11 : 5), but NDEP have euijp-. We have i^Kobbn-riTo (Lu. 4 : 29), but oUo&oixTiaeai (Lu. 6:48).i Cf. okoSo/iiidri (Jo. 2:20) for ab- sence of augment. Reduplication in the perfect has disappeared from the modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 119) and is showing signs of decay in the Koivri. For suppression of reduphcation in papyri see Mayser, p. 341. (i) Augment {av^r]paivovro (Ac. 7:41), evwopeiro (Ac. 11:29), eWv- Spofiriaanep (Ac. 16:11), txyxaplarriatv (Ac. 27:35).^ But on the other hand we have ri\)puTKov (Mk. 14 : 55), irpoarib^avTo (Ac. 8 : 15), jjfixow (i^o- 9-3), ijiSoKj/craj' (Ro. 15:26); of oi, oiKoSop.'^dri (Jo. 2 : 20), etc., but ^KoSofniaev (Lu. 7 : 5), etc.; of ei, el^anev (Gal. 2 : 5) just like Attic; of e, biepniivvaiv (Lu. 24 : 27), Sieyeipero (Jo. 6 : 18), ^vWri (Ac. 16 : 26), d^kBriaav (Ro. 4 : 7, Ps. 32 : 1); of o, Trpo- opti/w?" (Ac. 2 : 25; Ps. 16 : 8), and some MSS. in Lu. 13 : 13 {avop- 6i£rj) and Ro. 9: 29 {bpoiiiBrtnev); of t, laxwtv (Lu. 8 : 43), kavoicev (2 Cor. 3 : 6) and ISlto (Lu. 9 : 11); of m, iivkoiuu, has no augment, iiviiijTevuev (Mk. 7: 6), incappriaiaaaTO (Ac. 9 : 27), kiivK0^li.VT7](ia, but evriyyeKicraTO (Ac. 8 : 35) in late Greek and irpotvrijyeXLaaTo (Gal. 3:8). If the com- pound embraces a preposition, the augment as in Attic usually follows the preposition Uke aTrrivTrjaav (Lu. 17: 12). Some verbs derived from nouns already compovmded are augmented like verbs compounded with a preposition, as hiriKovei. (Mt. 8 : 15) unhke At- tic. As further examples note avebiiiiriaev (Mt. 21 : 33), iiredufiriffav (Mt. 13 : 17), Karijyopovv (Mk. 15 : 3), kirexdprjcav (Lu. 1:1), axe- Xo7€tTo (Ac. 26:1), avv/ipyei (Jas. 2:22). Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, p. 102. But in Mt. 7: 22 and 11 : 13 the Syrian class of MSS. have irpoeipriTexiaaixev and -aav. Sometimes the preposition itself is treated as a part of the verb when put directly to the verb, as U^iv (Mk. 1 : 34), ^voi^ev (Rev. 6 : 1), dirivoLyev (Lu. 24 : 32), kKa- eeuSoi- (Mt. 25 : 5), iKodriTo (Mt. 13 : 1), 'eKcuBiffev (Jo. 19 : 13), ka- de^ero (Jo. 4:6). In Mt. 13 : 15 kKannvaav (from Is. 6 : 10) is assimilation of Karaniia. Verbs beginning with edi- vary in aug- mented tenses between ev- and rii-, but when followed by a vowel, the verb is treated as a compound like tiriyytyicraro above. 7. Dovble Augment. It is fairly common in the N. T. In the seen (Thack., Gr., pp. 196, 199 f.). The pap. often have -apWriv for -jipWriv (Mayser, pp. 127, 335). 1 See W.-Sch., p. 100 f. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 162 f. 368 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT case of ^70701' and elwov the augment is added to the aoristic re- duplication. But in iiipuv (Jo. 6 : 2 in Tischendorf's text, W. H. Weispovv) there is a clear case of double augment like the double reduphcation in iiipaxa. So also the N. T. regularly it^vvrtBijv (Mt. 17 : 16) and even ■fiSvv&.adr) (Mk. 7 : 24). Both iSivaro (Mk. 6 : 5) and iidiivaro (Mk. 14 : 5) appear and the MSS. vary much. This 77 (analogy to ftdeXov) first arises in the Attic in 300 B.c.i With jLieXXw, iJiieWov is the usual form (Jo. 4: 47), though IfieWov occurs also (Jo. 7: 39). BohXonai in the N. T. never has rj, though the Text. Rec. has it in 2 Jo. 12. On the other hand dk'Sco always has 7; (Gal. 4: 20, ftdekov) even after the initial e was dropped. 'Airo/ca- eiarrjiii has always a double augment, one with each preposition. So cLTreKaTkarri (Mk. 8 : 25) and airemTeaToBrt (Mk. 3:5).^ So LXX and later Greek.' But in Heb. 12 : 4 avTiKarkcTTjTe is the true text.* 'kvo'i-yw has a peculiar history. It now has single augment on the preposition, as rivoi^iv (Rev. 6:3), now double augment of the verb, as avko>kev (Jo. 9:14), now a triple augment on verb and preposition, as ijveiix^ijcav (Mt. 9 :30). 'Avkxonai, on the other hand, has only one augment, as avtaxomv (Ac. 18 : 14) and avdxi(rQe (2 Cor. 11:1). For double augment in the LXX see Thackeray, GV.,pp. 202ff. Vni. The Infinitive (ii dirape|i Whitney, ib., p. 347. Cf. ger. of Lat. For special treatises on the inf. see Bnig., Comp. Gr. (transl.), IV, pp. 595 ff . ; Griech. Gr., p. 359. Cf . also Grune- wald, Der freie formelhafte Inf. der Limitation im Griech. (1888); Birklein, Entwickelungsgesch. des substant. Inf. (1888); Votaw, The Use of the Inf. in Bibl. Gk. (1896); Allen, The Inf. in Polyb. compared with Bibl. Gk. (1907). Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 480 ff., 568 ff.) has a very good sketch of the history of the inf. in Gk. On p. 672 f. he discusses John's use of the inf. with verbs (129 exx.). Cf. Jolly, Gesch. des Inf. im Indog. (1873); Gildersleeve, Contrib. to the Hist, of the Articulai Inf. (Transl. Am. Phil. Ass., 1878, A. J. P., vol. Ill, pp. 193 ff.; vol. VIII, pp. 329 ff.; vol. XXVII, p. 105 f.). ' Brug., Comp. Gr. (transl.), II, p. 471. " Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 433. « Moulton, Prol., p. 204. * Moulton, Prol., p. 203. ' Votaw, Use of the Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 59. 5 Hirt, Handb., p. 431. » Moulton, Prol., p. 204. 370 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT future like 'eirtKelxraaOai (even in early papyri).' In the LXX we find Tth^aadai. (2 Macc. 15 : 7) and kK<^eb^kpeiv, for instance. But the cases used with the infinitive will be discussed in Syntax. 5. Dative and Locative in Form. The infinitive continued a substantive after the voice and tense-development. At first the case-idea of the form was observed, but gradually that disap- peared, though the form remained. The Greek infinitives are always either datives or locatives, "dead datives or locatives" usually.^ All infinitives in -at are datives. Thus all those in -vai, -aai, -'&ai, -fievai (Homer), -o-^at (-5at). Those in -adai alone give any trouble. It is probably a compound (a, 6ai), but its precise origin is not clear.^ The locative is seen in -eiv, and Homeric ~'iiev, but the origin of -eiv is again doubtful.' But no distinction re- mains between the two cases in actual usage.* In Homer' the dative sense as well as form remain extremely common, as in- deed is true of all Greek where the infinitive remains. The very common infinitive of purpose, like fjy^ov ayopaaai, is a true dative. (Cf. Mt. 2 : 2.) But the very essence of the infinitive as a com- plete development is that this dative or locative form could be » Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 385. Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., Feb., 1901, p. 36 f. Cf. Hatz., Einl., p. 190. " Brug., Comp. Gr. (tranal.), IV, p. 7. ' Brug., Comp.Gr. (transl.),p.7. ' K.-BL, II, p. 4. 6 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 90. « Cf. Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 469 f.; Brug., Grundr., II, § 1093. 8. ' Hirt, Handb., p. 432; Giles, Man., p. 470. . 8 Moulton, Prol., p. 202. » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 154. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (tHMa) "^371 used in any case like any other substantive without inflection, an indeclinable substantive in a fixed case-form. 6. The Presence of the Article. After Homer's day it was com- mon and chiefly in the Attic,' but this is a matter to be treated fur- ther in Syntax. The point to observe here is that the article did not make a substantive of the infinitive. It was that before voice and tense were used with it. But it is true that even in Homer the verbal aspect is more prominent than the substantival. In the vernacular the article was never much used with the infini- tive; perhaps for convenience it was not so employed. 7. The Disappearance of the Infinitive. The old forms in -eiv and -mi. remain longest (Thackeray, Gr., pp. 210, 257). ' The causes for the disappearance of the infinitive in later Greek till in the modem Greek vernacular it is (outside of the Pontic dialect) dead and gone, lie largely in the region of syntax. The infinitive as a whole disappears before oti and Iva (modern Greek va). Far- rar'' calls attention to the absence of the infinitive in Arabic. It was always a matter of discretion with a Greek writer whether in certain clauses he would use the infinitive or an object-clause (on, oTTws, Iva).^ Cf. Latin. The English infinitive has an inter- esting history also as the mutilated form of the dative of a ge- nmd.* 8. Some N. T. Forms. Not many N. T. forms call for special remark and those have been explained already, such as -div (Mt. 13 : 32; Heb. 7 : 5), ireiv and even irZv for irulv (Jo. 4:9). In Lu. 1 : 79 im^avai instead of the Attic ^t^iyrat is noticeable. In Ph. 4 : 12 we have weivav, not -^c. The Coptic has the infinitive /ta- cTiyyoiv (cf. W. H. KaraaKrivoLv, Mt. 13 : 32; Mk. 4 : 32, and aTroSe- KUToiv in Heb. 7:5). In 1 Cor. 11 : 6 we find both Kdpaadai and ^vpaaBai. In Mk. 14 : 71 dfivvvai is the regular -fu form. In Heb. 11 : 5 eiapeartiKtvai is without reduplication in AKT. In Lu. 9 : 18 (11 : 1) a periphrastic infinitive appears, kv tQ elvai. avrdu irpo- a&rxpiievov. The augment occurs with avetfx^^vai. in Lu. 3 : 21. Cf. iaopai Mbvai, in Tob. 5:15 B. IX. The Participle (i^ ixctoxiJ). 1. The Name. This does not really distinguish this verbal ad- jective from the verbal substantive, the infinitive. Both are par- ' Moulton, Prol., p. 213 f. 2 Gk. Synt., p. 164. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 221. Thumb (Handb. of Mod. Gk.) has no discussion of the infinitive. « Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 169. Cf. Donaldson, New Crat., p. 603. 372 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ticiples and both are infinitives. Voss' calls the participles "mules" because they partake of both noun and verb, but the infinitives are hybrid in exactly the same sense. Like the infini- tive, the Greek participle has voice, tense, and governs cases, and may use the article. Unlike the infinitive the participle has reg- ular inflection like other adjectives. Clyde^ would include parti- ciples in the infinitive. So Kiihner-Blass.' Dionysius Thrax^ puts the participle right: Meroxv iffi Xe|w nerexovaa Trjs tSiv pri- [laTcav /cat Trjs tuiv ouofidTOiv ISiorrjTos. 2. Verbal Adjectives. As a matter of fact no absolutely clear line can be drawn between verbal adjectives and other adjec- tives'.^ An adjective may not only be used with a case like Ktvos with the ablative, but may even take on a verbal nature in cer- tain connections.' Some, like k\vt6s, were always purely adjec- tival.' Most of the forms in -ros in Greek are adjectival, but many of them have a verbal idea developed also, either that of completion, as 1x70x17x6$ ('beloved,' Mt. 3 : 17), or of possibility or capability, as iraSriTos ('hable to suffering,' Ac. 26 : 23). In Greek these verbals in -ros never became a part of the verb as in Latin perfect passive participle.^ Moulton' shows how amatus est and "he is loved" represent different tenses, but scriptum est and "it is written" agree. But there was no reason why the -ros should not have had a further verbal development in Greek. For the structure of this verbal adjective see the chapter on Forma- tion of Words, where a list of the chief examples is given. Moul- ton'" points out the wavering between the active and passive idea when the true verbal exists in the N. T., by the example of ciSi- varov in Ro. 8 : 3. Is it 'incapable' as in Ro. 15 : 7 or 'impos- sible' as is usual? Blass" indeed denies the verbal character of the -Tos form in the N. T. to any examples except iradriTos (Ac. 26: 23). But this is too extreme, as Moulton^^ clearly proves. 'Aaiivfros is active in Ro. 1 : 31 while aavvderos is middle {avvTideiiaC). "With the forms in -ros therefore two points have to be watched: first, if they are verbal at all, and then, if they are active, middle or pas- sive. There is no doubt as to the verbal character of the form in -T^os, which expresses the idea of necessity. This is in fact a ge- 1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 169. » Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 474. 2 Gk. Synt., p. 94. 8 jb. ' II, p. 4. 9 Prol., p. 221. * § 19. i« lb. B Brug., Comp. Gr., IV, p. 605. " Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 37. 8 lb., II, p. 456. n Prol., p. 222. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB ("PHMa) 373 rundive and is closely allied to the -ros form.^ It has both a per- sonal construction and the impersonal, and governs cases like the verb. It is not in Homer ^ (though -ros is common), and the first example in Greek is in Hesiod.^ The N. T. shows only one ex- ample, /SXTiTeov (Lu. 5 : 38), impersonal and governing the accusa- tive. It appears in a few MSS. in the parallel passage in Mk. 2 : 22. One further remark is to be made about the verbals, which is that some participles lose their verbal force and drop back to the purely adjectival function. So e/ccic, neKXwv in the sense of 'future.' Cf. eloquens and sapiens in Latin.* In general, just as the infinitive and the gerund were surrounded by many other verbal substantives, so the participle and the gerundive come out of many other verbal adjectives. In the Sanskrit, as one would expect, the division-fine between the participle and ordinary ad- jectives is less sharply drawn.^ 3. True Participles. These have tense and also voice. Brug- mann^ indeed shows that the Greek participle endings go back to the proethnic participle. Already in the Sanskrit the present, perfect and future tenses (and in the Veda the aorist) have parti- ciples in two voices (active and middle),' thus showing an earlier development than the infinitive. The endings of the Greek parti- ciples are practically the same as those of the Sanskrit. The Latin, unlike the Sanslcrit and the Greek, had no aorist and no perfect active participle, and the future participle like acturus may have come from the infinitive.* The Greek has, however, two endings for the active, -vt for all tenses save the perfect, just fike the Sanskrit. The perfect ending {-^es, -^os, — ms, Greek -ens, -or, -vl) is difficult of explanation, but is likewise parallel with the San- skrit.^ The perfect participle is more common in Homer than any other form of the perfect (Sterrett, Homer's Iliad, N. 44). The middle ending -fievo is uniform and is like the Sanskrit. The Greek aorist passive participle ending (-OeuT) is peculiar to the Greek and is made by analogy from the old active form like av-eli), 1 Brug., Comp. Gr., IV, p. 605. '• Sterrett, Horn. II., N. 28. » Hirt, Handb., p. 438. Moulton (CI. Rev., Mar., 1904, p. 112) finds one ex. of -tIos in the pap. and "the -ros participle is conunon in neg. forms." Note that he calls it a participle. * Brug., Comp. Gr., II, p. 457. - Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 347. « Indog. Forsch., V, pp. 89 ff. Cf. Moulton, ProL, p. 221. ' Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 202. « Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 474. » Hirt, Handb., p. 436 f. 374 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT like Latin, manens} The participles survive in modem Greek, though the active, like the third declension, takes on the form ypa4>ovTas (ypcKJHOv).^ The modem Greek uses chiefly the present active, the past passive participle (Dieterich, Unters., p. 206), and some middle or passive participles in -oviievos or -d/iecos (Thumb, Handb., p. 167). The use of the aorist and perfect active participles gave Greek a great superiority over the Latin, which had such a usage only in deponent verbs like sequor, secutus. But Greek used the other participles far more than the Latin. Enghsh alone is a rival for the Greek in the use of the participle. One of the grammarians calls the Greeks L\oiikToxoi. because they were a participle-loving people.' The use of the tenses of the participle belongs to syntax. One may merely remark here that the future participle is very rare in the N.T. as in the papyri and KOivfi generally (cf. Infinitive). The LXX has it seldom (Thackeray, Gr., p. 194). It is found chiefly in Luke in the N. T., as Lu. 22:49; Ac. 8:27; 20 :22; 22: 5; 24: 11, 17.* The N. T. itself presents no special peculiari- ties as to the forms of the participle. In Rev. 19 : 13 pepaniiivov has been cited under the question of reduplication. "Eo-ras is more frequent than ^o-TijKcis. Other perfects like ctTroXcoXcis call for no comment. 4. In Periphrastic Use. The participle is common in the N. T. in the periphrastic tenses. These have been given in detail under the various tenses, but a summary at this point is desirable. This use of the participle with various forms of the verb "to be" is so common in all languages, ancient and modern, as hardly to require justification. Modem English uses it largely in its verb- inflection, as does modern Greek. The use of the participle as the predicate is found all through the Indo-Germanic languages.* It is very frequent in the Sanskrit, especially in the later language.' Its oldest usage seems to be in the perfect tense, which exists as far back as we can go.^ In the N. T. the perfect optative does ' Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 473. Cf. the Sans, passive part, ia -td or -nd, Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 340. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 206. Cf. Hatz., Einl., p. 143. ' Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 169. * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 37. He cites elsewhere Mt. 27 : 41, aiiirav, Jo. 6 : 64, 1 Cor. 15 : 37; Heb. 3:5; 13 : 17; 1 Pet. 3 : 13. Then these are the doubtful forms KavaoO/xtva (2 Pet. 3 : 10, 12) and Ko/uofijueroi (2 Pet. 2 : 13). ' Brug., Comp. Gr., IV, p. 444. 8 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 394. » Brug., Comp. Gr., IV, p. 446. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB ("PHMa) 375 not appear, though once a good chance for the periphrastic perfect optative arises as in Ac. 21 : 33, kirvvdavero tIs thj xal tI kaTiv iniroii]- K Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 4 f. " W.-Th., p. 276. ' Synt., p. 5. 388 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT be true. Burton^ says: "It is by no means the case that each- form has but one function, and that each fimction can be dis- charged by but one form." Certainly the same function can come to be discharged by various forms, as is the case with the loca- tive and dative infinitive forms (Xa^eiv, aKovaai). But that is not to say that originally the locative and dative verbal substantive were identical in idea. The Sanskrit completely disproves it. It may very well be true that each form had one function originally, whereas later the same function came to be expressed by various forms. As a starting-point, therefore, one may assume, till he learns otherwise, that form and function correspond. The neces- sity of getting at the ground-idea of an idiom is rightly emphasized by Delbruck {Grundlagen, p. 1). It may indeed come to pass as in the English "but," that the one form may be used for most of the parts of speech (Giles, Man. ofComp. Philol., p. 237 f.). On the whole subject of the agreement of form and idea see Kuhner- Gerth, I, pp. 64-77. (d) Development. But the beginning is not the end. The ac- tual development of a given idiom in the Greek language up to the N. T.time must be observed. Each idiom has a history. Now it cannot be expected that the space can be given to the actual work- ing-out of each idiom in history as Jannaris has done in his His- torical Grammar, or minute comparison at every point by means of comparative grammar. What is essential is that the gram- marian shall have both these points in mind as he seeks to explain the development from the etymological basis. This is the only secure path to tread, if it can be found. Burton^ indeed distin- guishes sharply between historical and exegetical grammar and conceives his task to be that of the exegetical grammarian. For myself I regard exegetical grammar as the last stage in the pro- cess and not to be dissociated from the historical. Indeed how a Greek idiom is to be represented in English is a matter of Uttle concern to the Greek grammarian till the work of translation is reached. The Greek point of view is to be observed all through the process till translation comes. It is Greek syntax, not English. (e) Context. There is one more stage in the interpretation of the Greek idiom. That is the actual context in any given in- stance. The variation in the total result is often due to the dif- ference in the local colour of the context. The same idiom with a given etymology may not have varied greatly in the long course of history save as it responds to the context. In a word, etymol- 1 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 1. 2 lb., p. 3. THE MEANING OF SYNTAX (sTNTAEIs) 389 ogy, history, context are the factors that mark the processes in the evolution of a Greek idiom in a given case. These are the things to keep constantly in mind as we approach the idioms of Greek syntax. We may not always succeed in finding the solu- tion of every idiom, but most of them will yield to this process. The result is to put syntax on a firmer scientific basis and take it out of the realm of the speculative subjective sciences. (/) Translation. This is the translation of the total result, not of the exact Greek idiom. Translation crisply reproduces the result of all the processes in harmony with the language into which the translation is made, often into an utterly different idiom. It is folly to reason backwards from the translation to the Greek idiom, for the English or German idiom is often foreign to the Greek and usually varies greatly from the original Greek. English is Enghsh and Greek is Greek. Syntax is not transla- tion, though it is the only safe way to reach a correct transla- tion. Exegesis is not syntax, but syntax comes before real exegesis. The importance of syntax is rightly appreciated by Gildersleeve.^ (g) Limits of Syntax. After all is done, instances remain where syntax cannot say the last word, where theological bias will in- evitably determine how one interprets the Greek idiom. Take iSan in Ac. 1:5, for instance. In itself the word can be either locative or instrumental with /SaxTtfu. So in Ac. 2 : 38 ew does not of itself express design (see Mt. 10 : 41), but it may be so used. When the grammarian has finished, the theologian steps in, and sometimes before the grammarian is through. . ' Synt. of Class. Gk., p. iv. C. and S., Sel. fr. the LXX, p. 22, observe that the life of a language lies in the syntax and that it is impossible to translate syntax completely. The more literal a translation is, like the LXX, the more it fails in syntax. CHAPTER X THE SENTENCE I. The Sentence and Syntax. In point of fact syntax deals with the sentence in its parts and as a whole. And yet it is not tautology to have a chapter on the sentence, a thing few gram- mars do. It is important to get a clear conception of the sentence as well as of syntax before one proceeds to the work of detailed criticism. The sentence is the thing in all its parts that syntax treats, but the two things are not synonymous. At bottom gram- mar is teaching about the sentence.^ II, The Sentence Defined. (a) Complex Conception. A sentence is the expression of the idea or ideas in the speaker's mind. It is an opinion {senten- tia) expressed (auToreXijs X670S). This idea is in itself complex. It is this combination of "the small coin of language" into an intelligible whole that we call a sentence.'' Just a mere word accidentally expressed is not a sentence. "The sentence is the symbol whereby the speaker denotes that two or more ideas have combined in his mind."' (b) Two Essential Parts. Only two parts are essential to this' complex intelligible whole to form a sentence. These two parts are subject and predicate. A statement is made about something and thus an idea is expressed. These two parts are called substantive and verb, though the line of distinction be- tween substantive and verb was originally very dim,' as is now often seen in the English ("laugh," "touch," "work," etc.). Many modern linguists hold that the verb is nominal in origin, > K.-G., I, p. 1. Cf. Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., Ill, p. 623; Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., 1. Tl., pp. 73-85. ^ Giles, Man. of Comp. PhiM., p. 235. Opposed to this idea of a sentence as due to synthesis is the modem psychological definition of Wundt who defines a sentence as "die Gliederung einer GesamtvorsteUung." ' Strong, Logeman and Wheeler, Intr. to the Study of the Hist, of Lang., 1891, p. 93. Cf. Paul, Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., p. iii; Sayee, Prin. of Comp. Philol., p. 136. 390 THE SENTENCE 391 since some primitive languages know only nominal sentences. We do not know which is the oldest, subject or predicate.^ In the Greek verb indeed subject and predicate are united in the one form, the original sentence.^ (c) One-Membered Sentence. The sentence in form may be very brief, even one word in truth. Indeed the long sentence may not express as much as the short one. In moments of passion an exclamation may be charged with more meaning than a long ram- bling sentence.' We have plenty of examples of one-word sentences in the N. T., like direxei (Mk. 14 :41), ■wpoirhnvaov (Mk. 14 : 65), TTpoexiiifda (Ro. 3 : 9), 0k\o} (Mt. 8 : 3), ohxi (Lu. 1 : 60). Com- pare also TTOpeWriTi, lepxov, Trolrjaov (Mt. 8:9). (d) Elliptical Sentence. Indeed, as seen in the case of o6xt (Lu. 1 : 60) the sentence does not absolutely require the expression of either subject or predicate, though both are implied by the word used. This shortening or condensation of speech is com- mon to all the Indo-Germanic languages.* Other examples of such condensation are the vocative, as Kiipie (Mt. 8:2), with which compare i;7ra7e, XaravS, (Mt. 4 : 10), the interjections like ayt (Jas. 5 : 1), ia (Lu. 4 : 34), Idoi, (Rev. 14 : 14), We (Jo. 1 : 29), oM (Rev. 8 : 13). These interjections may be used alone, as ia (Lu. 4 : 34), or with other words, as oiai and 'iSe above. Cf. Martha's Noi, Kvpii (Jo. 11 : 27), two sentences. Jo. 11 : 35 (idaKpvcrev 6 'Iriaovs) is the shortest verse, but not the shortest sentence in the N. T. (e) Only Predicates. The subject may be absent and the predicate will still constitute a sentence, i.e. express the complex idea intended. This follows naturally from the preceding para- graph. The predicate may imply the subject. The subject in Greek is involved in the verbal personal ending and often the context makes it clear what the subject really is. Indeed the Greek only expressed the personal subject as a rule where clear- ness, emphasis or contrast demanded it. The N. T., Uke the Koivii in general, uses the pronominal subject more frequently than the older Greek (cf. English). Often a glance at the context is » Thompson, Gk. Synt., 1883, p. xv. Delbruck (Vergl. Synt., 1. TL, p. 77) quotes Schleicher as saying that nouns either have or had case-forms, verbs either have or had pers. endings, and that all words were originally either noims or verbs. But it is not quite so easy as that unless pronouns be included in nouns. " K.-G., I, p. 2. ' Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 236. On sentence-building see Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., Ill, pp. 623-774. ■ lb., p. 624 f . The mod. Gk. shows it (Thumb, Handb., p. 179). Sir W. R. Nicoll in Br. W. instances the Scotch "aweel." 392 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT all that is needed, as with Kal Trapeylvovro /cat ifiairTi^ovro (Jo. 3: 23), ipxovrai (Mk. 2 : 3), etc. Sometimes indeed close attention is required to notice a change of subject which is not indicated. So fcai &l>ayov iravrts /cat kxopT&adticrav, Kal ripav to Ttpi(Taevov tSiv KKaafia.To:v (Mt. 14: 20). For this change of subject with no indi- cation see Lu. 8: 29; Jo. 19: 31; 2 Cor. 3 : 16; 1 Jo. 5 : 16.* Some- times the subject is drawn out of the verb itself, as in o-aXxto-et (1 Cor. 15 : 52), 'the trumpet shall trumpet.' So in oiire yafiovaiv ovre yap,l^ovTai (Mt. 22 : 30) men have to be supplied with the first and women with the second verb. God is considered by some the unexpressed, but well-known subject, as with jSpexet (Mt. 5 : 45), elpriKsv (Ac. 13 : 34), XeTet (Eph. 4:8), c^ijatj' (Heb. 8:5). , ' Often what is said is a matter of conamon remark or usage and the subject is designedly concealed, indefinite subject. So when Paul uses cjyrialv (2 Cor. 10 : 10) of his opponent unless we follow B and read ^ao-t. The plural is very common in this sense as orav bveihUroicnv vixas (Mt. 5 : 11), /ujjrt avKKkr/ovcnv; (Mt. 7 : 16), dis \k- yovciv (Rev. 2 : 24) like German man sagt, French on dit. Cf . also, not to pile up examples, Mt. 8 : 16; Mk. 10 : 13; Lu. 17 : 23; Jo. 15 : 6; 20 : 2; Ac. 3 : 2; Rev. 12 : 6. This impersonal or rhetorical plural appears in irpoa^kpovcnv and Svvavrai (Heb. 10 : 1) if the text is genuine. Moulton {Prol., p. 58) cites /cXeirroyres (Eurip. I. T., 1359). Sometimes the plural purposely conceals the identity of the person referred to, as when TfdvrjKaaiv (Mt. 2 : 20) is used of Herod the Great. The same principle applies to aiTovaiv (Lu. 1-2 :20). Then again the verb may be merely im- personal, as with 'ippe^ev (Jas. 5 : 17), ax^x«' (Mk. 14 : 41), ayei (Lu. 24 : 21), oi M^et o-ot (Mt. 22 : 16), ei Tirxpi (1 Cor. 14 : 10). Cf. b^k iykvero (Mk. 11 : 19). So the modem Greek still (Thumb, Handb., p. 179). Usually the impersonal verb in the N. T. is in the pas- sive voice, so that the subject is involved in the action of the verb. Thus fieTprjdriffeTat. (Mk. 4 : 24), MiiaeraL (Mk. 4 : 25), TnarfitTaL and o/ioXoyetroi (Ro. 10: 10), ffireiperaL and eyeiperat (1 Cor. 15:42), etc. Sometimes indeed a verb appears to be impersonal at first blush, when really it is not. So eo-ra 5k (2 Cor. 12. : 16) has the previous sentence as the subject. In 1 Pet. 2 : 6 the subject of irepikxti. is the following quotation. In Ac. 21 : 35 avvkfiri has as its subject the infinitive /Saordfeo-Sat. So in general whenever the infinitive is used with a verb as subject, the verb is not imper- sonal, as avkfiri i-Ki. See Viteau, fit. sur le Grec du N. T., Sujet, Compl. et Attr., p. 55 f. THE SENTENCE 393 Siepx^i^SaL (Jo. 4 :4), irpeirov karlv ifKripSiaai (Mt. 3 : 15), KodrJKtu ^rjv (Ac. 22 : 22), hdhxeraL LiroKkcrdaL (Lu. 13 : 33), and even kvkvbtKTbv ixTTiv Tov iiri ekdeiv (Lu. 17 : 1) and krykviTO rod elaekdeiv (Ac. 10 : 25) where the genitive infinitive form has become fixed. 'EyeveTo does indeed present a problem by itself. It may have the simple in- finitive as subject, as diairopeiiecdaL (Lu. 6 : 1) and elcreXdfiv (Lu. 6 : 6). Cf. Mk. 2 : 15. But often ml kykvero or kykviro 5k is used with a finite verb as a practical, though not the technical, subject. So KoX kykvero, eXdXoui' (Lu. 2 : 15), kykvero 5i, (jvvrivrr)(jtv (Lu. 9 : 37). So also KoX 'kcrrai., knxeSi (Ac. 2 : 17). One is strongly re- minded of the similar usage in the LXX, not to say the Hebrew iri71. Moulton^ prefers to think that that was a development from the Koivi] (papyri) usage of the infinitive with ylvonai as above, but I see no adequate reason for denying a Semitic influence on this point, especially as the LXX also parallels the other idiom, mi kykvtTo Kal ?\v SidacrKwv (Lu. 5 : 17, cf. 5 : 1, 12, etc.), a construction so un-Greek and so like the Hebrew vav. Here Kal almost equals 8ri and makes the second Kal clause practically the subject of kykvero. The use of a on or Iva clause as subject is common either alone or in apposition with a pronoun. Cf . Mt. 10 : 25 (tm); 1 Jo. 5:9 (on); Jo. 15: 12 (tva). In a case like apKel (Jo. 14 : 8), avrjKev (Col. 3 : 18), k'Xoyladi^ (Ro. 4 : 3) the subject comes easily out of the context. So also the subject is really implied when the partitive genitive is used without the expression of nvks or iroXXoi as (rwifKBov Sk Kal rSiv fioBrirSiv (Ac. 21 : 16) and etirav ovp k rSiv fiajBrirSiv (Jo. 16 : 17), a clear case of the ablative with e/c. The conclusion of the whole matter is that the subject is either expressed or imphed by various linguistic devices. The strictly impersonal verbs in the old Greek arose from the conception of 666s as doing the thing.^ (/) Only Subject. Likewise the predicate may be absent and only implied in the subject. Yet naturally the examples of this nature are far fewer than those when the predicate implies the subject. Sometimes indeed the predicate merely has to be mentally supplied from the preceding clause, as ivith d\i^6ne8a (2 Cor. 1 : 6), aya-witffti. (Lu. 7 : 43), exei (Lu. 20 : 24), Xa/t/Sam (Heb. 5:4). Cf. Eph. 5 : 22. It may be that the verb would be » Prol., p. 17. * On the whole matter of subjectless sentences see Delbrilck, Vergl. Synt., 3. Tl., pp. 23-37. Cf . Gildersleeve, Gk. Synt., pp. 35-41, for classical illustra- tions of the absence of the subject. Cf. also Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 436, for exx. in the pap. of the absence of the subject in standing formulas. 394 A GKAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT slightly changed in fonn, if expressed, as ea'Mv (Ac. 19 :28). As a matter of fact the copula may be absent from any kind of sentence which is free from ambiguity, as yjaxapioi ol KojBapoi (Mt. 5 : 8), 'Irjaovs XpiffTos ... 6 aiiros (Heb. 13 : 8), a^ws 6 ipjaTTis (Mt. 10 : 10), eri iiLKpSv (Jo. 14 : 19), en yap fUKpdv oaov &aov (Heb. 10 : 37), iras . . . ctxeipos X670U Sinaioavvqs (Heb. 5: 13), tbs ol iroKpiTal (Mt. 6 : 16). Cf. Ro. 11 : 15 f. for several further examples, which could be easily multipUed not only for effTi and eicrt, but for other forms as well, though the examples for the absence of ei/ii and el are not very numerous. Forms of the imp., fut., imper., subj., opt., inf. and part, (often) are absent also. For eini see 2 Cor. 11 : 6. For el see Jo. 17 : 21; Gal. 4 : 7 Ms. Observe Xo7ifo/tai in verse 5 and iStcoTijs in verse 6, but the participle dXX' 'ev iravrl ir&criv eis umSs goes over to the hterary plural, about which see further in this chapter. Com- pare also 2 Cor. 8 : 23. In Mk. 12 : 26 eifii is absent, though eye!) is used. For further examples of the absence of kaiiev see Ro. 8 : 17; Ph. 3 : 15. For el see Rev. 15 :4 (v (Ro. 15 : 33), iXe&js (Toi. (Mt. 16 : 22). As Blass^ observes, in the doxologies like eiiXoyriTos 6 Beds (2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3) one may supply either kcTLv or e'ijj or even 'iarca, though Winer^ strongly insists that elij is necessary because of .the LXX examples. But Blass very prop- erly points to Ro. 1 : 25, 6s 'tariv evXoyrjTos els toxis aioivas. Cf . also 1 Pet. 4 : 11, where A drops karLv. The imperative shows a few examples of the dropping of kark as with the participles in Ro. 12 : 9, though, of course, only the context can decide between the indicative and imperative. Winer ^ is right against Meyer in re- fusing to supply k(TTk after the second kv $ (simply resumptive) in Eph. 1 : 13. But some clear instances of the absence of 'mtu appear, as in Col. 4:66 X670S viJ,S>v iravTore kv x^P'", Mt. 27 : 19 liri8iv aoi, 2 Cor. 8 : 16 X"P's t& deQ, Heb. 13 : 4 rijutos 6 yaixos. The infinitive elvai is present in Ph. 3:8, but absent in Ph. 3 : 7. The participle shows a similar eUipsis as in Jo. 1 : 50 tUbv ai iiTTOKOTOj T^s <7i;k?js, Lu. 4 : 1 '\i\aovs hi irKripris. The other verbs used as copula may also be absent if not needed, as with yivonai (Mt. 6 : 10; Ac. 10 : 15). The absence of the copula with i5ov is indeed like the construc- tion after the Heb. n|fi as Blass^ points out, but it is also in harmony with the kolvti as Moulton^ shows. But it is especially frequent in the parts of the N. T. most alUed to the 0. T. Like other interjections tSoii does not need a verbal predicate, though it may have one. As examples see Mt. 17 : 5; Lu. 5 : 18; Rev. 4:1. In the last example both el5ov and i5ov occur and the con- struction follows, now one now the other, as is seen in verse 4. (i) The Two Radiating Foci of the Sentence. Thus, as, we have seen, the subject and predicate are the two foci of the sentence regarded as an ellipse. Around these two foci all the other parts of the sentence radiate, if there are any other parts. The sentence may go all the way from one abrupt word to a period a couple of pages long, as in Demosthenes or Isocrates. School- boys will recall a sentence in Thucydides so long that he forgot to finish it. Giles* speaks of the sentence as a kingdom with many provinces or a house with many stories. That is true potentially. But the sentence is elastic and may have only the two foci (sub- ject and predicate) and indeed one of them may exist only by im- 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 74. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 74. " W.-Th., p. 586. ' Prol., p. 11. ' lb. 8 Man. of Comp: PhiloL, p. 236. THE SENTENCE 397 plication. The context can generally be relied on to supply the other focus in the mind of the speaker or writer. Thus by the context, by look and by gesture, words can be filled to the full and even run over with meanings that of themselves they would not carry. Emotion can make itself understood with few words. The matters here outlined about the Greek sentence apply to Greek as a whole and so to the N. T. Greek. (j) Vakieties of the Simple Sentence. It is immaterial whether the simple sentence, which is the oldest sentence, be de- clarative, interrogative or imperative. That affects in no way the essential idea. All three varieties occur in great abundance in the N. T. and need not be illustrated. So hkewise the simple sen- tence may be affirmative or negative. That is beside the mark in getting at the foundation of the sentence. All these matters (and also abstract and concrete) are mere accidents that give colour and form, but do not alter the organic structure. For an extensive discussion of the various kinds of independent sen- tences in the N. T. (declarative, interrogative, hortatory, wish, command) see Viteau, Syntaxe des Propositions, pp. 17—40. The matter will be discussed at length in the chapter on Modes. m. The Expansion of the Subject. (a) Idea-Woeds and Form-Wokds. There are indeed, as al- ready seen, two sorts of words in general in the sentence, idea- words and form-words, as the comparative grammars teach us.^ The idea-words (called by Aristotle (jxcvai arnrnvTiKal) have an inner content in themselves (word-stuff), while the form-words ((/itomt &ar)iiai) express rather relations^ between words. Substantive, verb, adjective, adverb are idea-words, and pronouns, prepositions, some adverbs (place, time, etc.), the copula are form-words. In reality the form-words may have been originally idea-words (of. el/ii, for instance, 'and the prepositions). The distinction is a real one, but more logical than practical. The form-words, when prepositions, really help out the meanings of the cases. (6) CoNCOKD AND GOVERNMENT. Clyde ^ offers another distinc- tion, that between concord and government, which has something in it if it is not pushed too far. "In concord, the substantive is, as it were, a syntactical chief, and all his followers wear the same badge as himself; in government, the substantive ap- pears, as it were, in. various conditions of service, and is dressed each time according to the particular function he discharges." 1 Cf. Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., Ill, p. 631. ^ K.-G., I, p. 7. ' Gk. Synt., p. 126. 398 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NE"W TESTAMENT He uses concord where the substantive is king and government where the verb rules. There is something in this distinction be- tween the two parts of the sentence, only at bottom the verb has concord too as well as the substantive, as can be shown, and as Clyde really admits by the term congruity for the case-relations with the verb. This distinction is not one between subject and predicate, but between substantive and verb. (c) The Group around the Subject. This may be formed in various ways, as, for instance, by another substantive, by an adjective, by the article, by a pronoun, by an adverb, by a prep- ositional phrase (adjunct), by subordinate clause.^ Each of these calls for illustration and discussion. They may be explained in inverse order for practical reasons. 1. For Subordinate Clause take Lu. 1 : 43. 2. With the Article. In Ro. 7 : 10 we have ^7 kvToKri ij eU ^wrjv. Here the article shows that this prepositional phrase or adjunct is under the wing of the substantive ivToki]. In the chapter on the Article this matter will call for more elaborate discussion. For the article and pronoun take oCros 6 'Iijo-oCs (Ac. 1:11). 3. The Adverb. As examples of adverbs with substantives take Tg vvv 'lepovaaXrin (Gal. 4 : 25) and v Sk avoo 'lepovaakriii, (verse 26). 4. The Adjective. The origin of the adjective and its close relation to the substantive was discussed under Declensions (chapter VII) and will be further shown in the chapter o'n Adjec- tives in Syntax. Take as an example 6 iroiiiiiv 6 koXos (Jo. 10: 11). 5. The Substantive. The earliest and always a common way of expanding the subject was by the addition of another substan- tive. It was done in either of two ways. (a) By an oblique case, usually the genitive. Even the dative may occur. The ablative is seen in ^kvoi ruv SiaBrjKuv (Eph. 2 : 12). But the genitive, the case of genus or kind, is the case usually employed to express this subordinate relation of one word to another. This whole matter will be discussed under the genitive case and here only one example will be mentioned, 6 iraTijp Trjs So^rjs (Eph. 1 : 17), as illustrating the point. (j8) Apposition. This was the earliest method. Apposition is common to both subject and predicate. Sometimes indeed the ' As a matter of fact any substantive, whatever its place in the sentence, may be the nucleus of a similar grouping. But this is a further subdivision to be noticed later. On the grouping of verbs around the subst. see Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., 3. Tl., pp. 200-221. For various ways of grouping words around the subj. in a Gk. sentence see K.-G., I, p. 52. THE SENTENCE 399 genitive is used where really the substantive is in apposition, as irtpl Tov vaov rod aoi/MTos airov (Jo. 2 : 21), a predicate example where "temple" and "body" are meant to be identical. So with il oiKta TOV cKrivovs (2 Cor. 5 : 1) and many other examples. But in general the two substantives are in the same case, and with the subject, of course, in the nominative. As a matter of fact apposi- tion can be employed with any case. The use of &.v^p, avdpcoiros, yvvTi with words in apposition seems superfluous, though it is perfectly intelligible. The word in apposition conveys the main idea, as avrip tt/jo^i^tjjs (Lu. 24 : 19), S-vOpuTos oUoSeairdrrii (Mt. 21 : 33). Cf. &.v8pes dSeXc^oi (Ac. 1 : 16) and S.v8pa ovka (Ac. 3 : 14). So also avSpes 'lapariKelmi. (Ac. 2 : 22), avSpes 'ABtivoIol (Ac. 17: 22), an idiom common in the Attic orators. Such apposition, of course, is not confined to the subject, but is used in any case in every sort of phrase. So irpds yvvaZm xvpo-v (Lu. 4 : 26), avOpiyircf oiKoSeo-iroTi? (Mt. 13 : 52, but note also 21 : 33), Zipxavos Bvpakois (Ac. 10 : 32). Sometimes the word in apposition precedes the other, though not usually. Thus 6 Kocpos r^s AStKtas, )} yXSiaaa (Jas. 3:6); Kal yap rd irdcrxa rip£)v irWri, Xpurros (1 Cor. 5:7). But this is largely a matter of definition. The pronoun, of course, may be the subject, as hyd) 'Irjarovs (Rev. 22 : 16). So kyi} IIoCXos (Gal. 5:2). Cf. vvv vp^ls ol ^apiaatot (Lu. 11:39). The word in apposition may vary greatly in the precise result of the apposition, a matter determined wholly by the word itself and the context. Thus in 'A/Spad/i 6 TraTpiApxvs (Heb. 7:4) a descriptive title is given. Cf. also et kyw ivi^j/a v/xSiv rois iroSas, 6 Kipms Kal 6 SuSaaKa'Kos (Jo. 13 : 14). Partitive or distributive ap- position is common, when the words in apposition do not cor- respond to the whole, as ot Si ape\ri(ravT€s a.irrj\dov, 8s p,iv els tov ISlov ay pbv, os 5e brl Tijv 'epiroplav aiTov (Mt. 22 : 5). Often the word in apposition is merely epexegetic, as it iopTfi tSjv 'lovSaUov •q (TKrivoTriyia (Jo. 7:2). Aiiros is sometimes used in emphatic apposition, as 6 XptiTrds Ke<^aX7j Trjs ec/cXijirtas, avTos awTTjp tov ai>pa- Tos (Eph. 5 : 23). The phrase tovt' iaTiv is used in epexegetical apposition with the subject, as 6X1701, tqvt' 'icmv okt^) ^l^xai (1 Pet. 3 : 20). But the phrase is a mere expletive and has no effect on number (as seen above) or case. It can be used indifferently with any case as the locative (Ro. 7 : 18), the instrumental (Mk. 7 : 2), the accusative (Ac. 19 :4; Heb. 13 : 15; Phil. 13), the genitive (Heb. 9 : 12; 11 : 16). Any number of words or phrases may be in apposition, as in ^/SXi^Sij 6 dpaKcov 6 pkyas, 6 btfus, 6 apxatos, d KaXoi- fievos AmPoKos Kal 'SaTavas, 6 ifKavcap ttiv oiKovphnjv oXtjj' (Rev. 12 : 9). 400 A GEAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT An infinitive may be in apposition with the subject, as ov yip 5td vSiwv Ti eirayyeXia, tQ ' k^paafx ^ tQ airkpiutTL avrov, to K\qpovbnov avrov elvai Koa-fiov (Ro. 4 :'l3). Cf. 1 Th. 4: 3; 1 Pet. 2 : 15. Once more, a clause with on or tva may be in apposition with the subject (or predicate either), as auxTj ia-Tlv fi naprvpla, 6tl ^coriv aUiviov 'iScoKev & 6eds rifuv (1 Jo. 5:11) and omtt) yap kariv rj ayairri rod deov tva rds ^jToXds ahTov Tfjpcbixei/ (1 Jo. 5:3). Cf. Jo. 6 : 29, 39, 40. For many more or less interesting details of apposition in the N. T. and the LXX see Viteau, Sujet, Complement et Attribut (1896), pp. 220- 236. On apposition in John see Abbott, Johannine Grammar, pp. 36 ff. On the general subject of apposition see Delbriick, Vergl. Syntax, Dritter Teil, pp. 195-199; Kiihner-Gerth, I, pp. 281-290. IV. The Expansion of the Predicate. (a) Predicate in Wider Sense. Here predicate must be taken in its full sense and not merely the verb, but also the other ways of making a predicate with the copula. One cannot do better here than follow Brugmann,^ though he makes the verb, not the predicate, the centre of this group. It is simpler just to take the predicate as the other focus answering to the subject. The predi- cate can be expanded by other verbs, by substantives, by pro- nouns, by adjectives, by adverbs, by prepositions, by particles, by subordinate clauses. (6) The Infinitive and the Participle. These are the common ways of supplementing a verb by another verb directly. They will both call for special treatment later and can only be mentioned here. Cf . ijdeXev irapeXdeZv (Mk. 6 : 48) and ekoBdv nvts ^evicavres (Heb. 13 : 2). But sometimes two verbs are used to- gether directly without any connective, as xoC deKen ^rot/ido-o/iej' (Mt. 26:17). See discussion of asyndeton in this chapter (xii, Connection in Sentences). (c) The Relation between the Predicate and Substan- tives. This matter receives full treatment under the head of Cases, and a word of illustration suffices here. It is not the accusa- tive case alone that occurs, but any oblique case of the substan- tive or pronoun may be used to express this relation, as wpocextre eauTots (Lu. 21 : 34). In the case of a copula this case will be the nominative and forms the predicate, as aiir?; karlv ^ hwayyeXla (1 Jo. 2:25). (d) The Pronoun. It is sometimes the expanded object, as TOLovTOVs ^■qrti Tovs TvpoaKwovvTas airdv (Jo. 4: 23). 1 Kurze vergl. Gr., Ill, p. 634 f. Cf. K.-G., I, pp. 77-82; Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., pp. 154-181, THE SENTENCE 401 (e) Abjectives. They are common with predicates and as predicates. So aTemTea-TciSr] vyi,'f]s (Mt. 12 : 13). Cf. ^\dev irpuros (Jo. 20 : 4), airapafiarov 'ix^i, rriv lepoiahv-qv (Heb. 7 : 24). The article and the participle often form the predicate, as Mt. 10 : 20. (/) The Adverb. The use of the adverb with the predicate is so normal as to call for no remark. So dtio\oyovixivo}s ntya kcrlv rd TTJs eiiffe/Seias livcrrjpiov (1 Tim. 3 : 16). Cf. ourws yap xXoufftcos iirLxopriyTi9ri(T€TaL (2 Pet. 1:11). (g) Prepositions. Let one example serve for prepositions: Iva ir\ripw9rJTe eis irav t& wKripwiMa tov deov (Eph. 3 : 19). (h) Negative Particles oi and yit^. These are not con- fined to the predicate, but there find their commonest illus- trations. Cf. ou 7cip ToX/jiwiiev (2 Cor. 10 : 12) and firi ykvoLTo (Gal. 6 : 14). {i} Subordinate Clauses. Most commonly, though by no means always, they are expansions of the predicate. The adverbial clauses are mainly so, as 'eypaipa i/uv tm tlSrJTe (1 Jo. 5 : 13), and most object (substantival) clauses, as the on fcoiji' exfTe a.iwvtx>v in the same sentence. But adjective clauses likewise often link themselves on to a word in the predicate, as kv Xpiarc} 'Iricrod ov Tpoidero (Ro. 3 : 24). (j) Apposition with the Predicate and Looser Amplifica- tions. It is common also, but calls for little additional remark. Predicative amplifications, as Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 527) calls them, are common. So ets o eyii krkdriv Kr\pv^ (1 Tim. 2,: 7), 6v TpoWero 6 Beds iKaarripLov (Ro. 3:25). The participle with cos is frequent, as ij/^Ss o>s Kara capKa xept-TraroDyras (2 Cor. 10 : 2). Cf. 1 Pet. 2 : 5. Note also ets as ets vlov (Ac. 7 : 21), a Greek idiom parallel to the Hebrew and very abundant in the LXX. A com- mon construction is to have a clause in apposition with tovto in an obUque case. So we see the accusative as in tovto yiviicKeTe ort fiyyiKtv ij ^aaCKda. tov Btov (Lu. 10 : 11), ablative as in nei^ova TavTris ayairriv ov8els exet tva tls Trjv ^vxw clvtov dfj inrkp Tcav ^tXcoj' aiiroO (Jo. 15 : 13), locative ev to{it<^ yi,vi>(jKop.ev oTt iv avT^ fievo/xev (1 Jo. 4 : 13). Cf. \kyio tovto oti eKacTos \>p.wv Xeyet (1 Cor. 1 : 12). Like- wise the infinitive may be in apposition with tovto, as hcpiva kfiavTca TOVTO, t6 lit) ttoKlv kv \virri Tpos inas e\6ilv (2 Cor. 2:1). Cf. also Lu. 22 : 37 where t6' /cat fjieta avofiw eXoyiffdri is in apposition with TO yeypanph>ov bet Tekeadftvai ev eixoi. For an extended predicate with numerous classes see Rev. 13 : 16, iroiet iravTas, tovs nLKpois Kal TOVS neya\ovs, (cat Toiis irXovciovs Kal Toiis ttcoxovs, Kal Toiis kKevdk- povs /cat Toiis Sov\ovs. 402 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT V. Subordinate Centres in the Sentence. Each of the words or phrases that the subject or predicate groups around itself may form a fresh nucleus for new combinations. Thus the long sentences with many subordinate clauses resemble the cell mul- tiplication in life. The N. T. indeed does not show so many complications in the sentence as the more rhetorical writers of Athens. In Mt. 7 : 19 the subject 5iv5pov has the participle toiow, which in turn has its own clause with fi'fi as negative and Kapvbv KoKbv as object. In Jo. 5 : 36 the predicate exco has fiaprvplav as object, which has the predicate adjective nd^ia, which in turn is followed by the ablative rod 'losavov. This is all too simple to need further illustration. Even adverbs may have expansive apposi- tives as in S>5e kv tjj xarptSi crou (Lu. 4 : 23). Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Syntax, pp. 222-227, for discussion of the adjective and its con- nection, and p. 228 for the adverb. VI. Concord in Person. The concord between subject and predicate as to person is so uniform as to call for little remark. In Greek the person was originally expressed in the ending. In the later Greek the pronoun was increasingly used in addition (see chapter on Pronouns). But only ignorance would allow one to mix his persons in the use of the verb. The only problem oc- curs when the subject comprises two or even all three persons. Then, of course, the first prevails over both the second and the third. So iyd) koL 6 Trarrip ev ifffiev (Jo. 10 : 30). Cf. Mt. 9 : 14; Lu. 2 : 48; 1 Cor. 9 : 6. But in Gal. 1 : 8 (k&v Pixels ^ Si.yye\os k^ ovpavov evayyeXLcriTaL) the reverse is true either because Paul fol- lows the nearest in both person and number or (Winer-Thayer, p. 518) because he acknowledges thus the superior exaltation of the angel. Then again in cases like Ac. 11 : 14 (o-ufliyo-jj <7v Kal iras 6 oiKos cov) the speaker merely uses the person and number of the first and most important member of the group. Cf. Ac. 16 : 31. The subject of person thus easily runs into that of number, for the same ending expresses both. Sometimes indeed the first and second persons are used without any direct reference to the speaker or the person addressed. Paul in particular is fond of arguing with an imaginary antagonist. In Ro. 2 : 1 he calls him S> avBponre iras 6 Kpivosv. So also 2:3. In Ro. 9 : 20 Paul is very earnest, nevovvye crv tis el; cf. also 11 : 17; 14 : 4. In 1 Cor. 10 : 30 the first person may be used in this representative way. The same may be true of Gal. 2 : 18, but not of 2 : 19. Ro. 7 : 7-25 is not so clear. The vehemence of passion argues for Paul's own experience, but note o-e in 8 : 2. Cf . Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., THE SENTENCE 403 p. 317. On the whole subject of agreement in person see Del- briick, Vergl. Synt, p. 229 f . ; Kiihner-Gerth, I, p. 82. For change in person see 2 Jo. 8; 1 Cor. 10 : 7-10. Vn. Concord in Number. Here we have a double concord, that between subject and predicate (both verb and adjective if copula is used) and that between substantive and adjective in general. It is simpler, however, to follow another division. (a) Subject and Pkedicatb. 1. Two Conflicting Principles. One follows, the granamatical number, the other the sense (/cora avepoi6fj to, epya rod Beov (Jo. 9 : 3) and k4>a.vr)(rav TO. priixara (Lu. 24 : 11). In Rev. 1 : 19 we find a eiclv Kal a fieXKei yeviadai.. The predicate adjective will, of course, be plural, even if the verb is singular, as ^avepa kcmv to. TfKva (1 Jo. 3: 10). Cf. Gal. 5: 19. Winer ^ and (to some extent) Blass^ feel called on to explain in detail these variations, but one has to confess that the success is not brilliant. It is better to re- gard this indifference to congruity as chiefly an historical move- ment characteristic of the KOivi) as shown above. Even the Attic did not insist on a singular verb with a neuter plural of animate objects when the number of individuals was in mind. The neuter plural was in origin a collective singular. In 1 Cor. 10 : 11 the MSS. differ much between awk^aivev and -ov. 3. Collective Substantives. These show a similar double usage. Thus we have 'tKoBrjTo irepl avrov oj(\o% (Mk. 3 : 32) and so more commonly with these collective substantives hke oxXos, irXijSos, oIk'm, Xaos. But plenty of examples of construction according to sense occur. So 6 be w^uaros SxXos iarpuaav (Mt. 21 : 8). Sometimes we have both together, as riKoXoWei aur^ oxXos ttoXus, &TI. Weoipovv (Jo. 6:2). Where there was such liberty each writer or speaker foUo-wed his bent or the humour of the moment. The same variation is to be noticed with the participle. Thus 6 oxXos 6 fiif jiviiaKoiv t6v vbpjov eTaparol tij>^ yvfivol iirapxoicnv. We have a similar difficulty in English in the use of the disjunctive and other pronouns. One will loosely say: " If any one has left their books, they can come and get them. " 6. The Literary Plural. We have already mentioned the use of the plural in a kind of impersonal way to conceal one's identity, as TedvriKcunv (Mt. 2 : 20), alTovciv (Lu. 12 : 20) and the general indefinite plural like iis Xkyovcriv (Rev. 2 : 24). The critics disagree sharply about it (the literary plural). Blass^ flatly denies that we have any right to claim this literary plural in Paul's Epistles be- cause he associates others with himself in his letters. Winer' in- sists that Paul often speaks in his apostolic character when he uses the plural and hence does not always include others. Moul- ton^ considers the matter settled in favour of the epistolary plural in the Koivfi. He cites from the papyri several examples. So Tb.P. 26 (ii/B.C.) ovTi fwi kv TLroXefiaidei, — irpoaiireaev '^tuv, B.U., 449 (ii- iii/A.D.) aKoicas 8rt vwBpeby aywpiovnev, J.H.S., xix, 92 (ii/A.D.), xiTp4 HOI, p,rJTep y\vKVTa.Tr], Kal ^povTi^ere rnxSiv. Dick^ has made an ex- haustive study of the whole subject and produces parallels from late Greek that show how easily kya and ^juets were exchanged. The matter can be clarified, I think. To begin with, there is no reason in the nature of things why Paul should not use the literary plural if he wished to do so. He was a man of culture and used to books even if he used the vernacular Koivri in the main. The late Greek writers did; the papyri show examples of it. G. Milligan (Thess., p. 132) cites Tb. P. 58 (ii/s.c.) €vp^Kafiev — dpov — j3e/3ou- XeiijueOa; P. Hib. 44 (iii/s.c.) kypa^aHev — opSivTes — wi/irjv; P. Held. 6 (iv/A.D.) iTKTTevoixev — ypacpdj Kal (^Xuop^ero); and an inscription, possibly a rescript of Hadrian, O. G. I. S 484, \oviJ£v — [/wTtTre/*-] ipa/j/tjv — jSouXjjSefs — iSo^ev iffieiv — k8oKt,n&(rafiev — iirlaT&Jov — fjyria&iiriv — voiil^co. Besides, Blass ^ admits that we have it in IJo. 1 : 4, where ypa^fiev does not differ in reality from ypa^ of 2 : 1. But in Jo. 21 : 24 dlbaixev probably is in contrast to John, who uses oliiai. just > Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 80. » W.-Th., p. 517. 2 lb., p. 166. 4 ProL, p. 86. 6 Der sohriftstell. PIu. bei Paulus (1900), p. 18. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 166. THE SENTENCE 407 below. In Jo. 1 : 14, as certainly in 1 : 16, others are associated with the writer. The author of Hebrews also uses the singular or plural according to the humour of the moment. Thus weiSon^a — ixontv (13 : 18) and the next verse irapaKoKQ — airoKaTatTToudw. Cf. also 6 : 1, 3, 9, 11, with 13 : 22 f. Now as to Paul. InRo. 1:5 he has 5i' oS k\&^onev X'^P'-" ""^ kiroaToMiv. Surely he is talking of no one else when he mentions 6.TO(rT6\i}v. Blass' overlooks this word and calls attention to x^pw' as applicable to all. Then again in Col. 4 : 3 fi/uv is followed in the same verse by 8kSeimi. It is clear also in 1 Th. 2 : 18, iidiKiiaanev — 'eyii p.iv IlaBXos. But what really settles the whole matter ^ is 2 Cor. 10 : 1-11 : 6. Paul is here defending his own apostolic authority where the whole point turns on his own personality. But he uses first the singular, then the plural. Thus TrapoKoXS (10 : 1), Oappca, \oyL^ofuii (10 : 2), arpa- Tevofieda (10 : 3), rffieZs (10 : 7), Kavxhoo^iMi,, aurxwdrjaofmL (10 : 8), 86^ia (10 : 9), ka/ikv (10 : 11), Kavxri irSs 6 Xads iiSaii^oi, Lu. 2 : 13 aTpanSs aluovuTvas tuv aliivccp (Gal. 1:5), or with singular and plural, as tov aiSivos t5>v a'uavwv (Eph. 3 : 21). Cf. also to, ayia for 'the sanctuary' (Heb. 8 : 2) and iiyia ajUov for 'the most Holy Place' (Heb. 9:3). The word ovpa- yij is used in the singular often enough, and always so in the Gos- pel of John, as 1 : 32, but the plural is common also. Cf . Paul's allusion to "third heaven" (2 Cor. 12 : 2), an apparent reflection of the Jewish idea of seven heavens. In English we use "the heavens" usually for the canopy of sky above us, but ij jSao-t- Xeta tSiv ovpavuv uniformly in the N. T., as Mt. 3 : 2. The Hebrew fi'^.tti? is partly responsible for ovpavoi. The so-called "plural of majesty" has an element of truth in it. For further details see Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 83. A number of other words have this idiomatic plural, such as e/c Se^iSiv, k^ apia-Tepciv, e^ evuvv/itav (Mt. 25 : 33), eis tA Se^td p^^pr, (Jo. 21 : 6), kv Toh beiio"is (Mk. 16 : 5), diro avaroXHv (Mt. 2 : 1), awo dvv (Mt. 8 : 11), dvpai, (Ac. 5 : 19), irbXai (Mt. 16 : 18), K6XiroL (Lu. 16 : 23). But the singular of some of them is also found, as ev rfj avaToXfj (Mt. 2 ■.9), kv Se^ia (Eph. 1: 20), Tp6 Tfjs dvpas (Ac. 12 : 6). The plural of IpaTiov seems to mean only IpaTiov (not x^toiv also) in Jo. 19 : 23 (cf. 19 : 2). For the plural ai/iara note Jo. 1 : 13. The names of feasts are often plural, such as TO. kyKalvLo. (Jo. 10 : 22), to. jevk(na (Mk. 6 : 21), to. afu/xo (Mk. 14 : 1), yaiioi (Mt. 22 : 2), ad^fiaTa (Ac. 17 : 2). So also some cities have plural names, as 'IepoiT6\vp,a (Mt. 2:1), 'AdTJmt (Ac. 17 : 16), KoXoo-trat (Col. 1:2). Different are eTrio-ToXai (1 Cor. THE SENTENCE 409 16 : 3), tA Apyipta (Mt. 27: 5), to. 6\p6ivM (Lu. 3 : 14), SLadrJKai (Ro. 9:4). (e) Idiomatic Singular in Nouns. On the other hand the singular appears where one would naturally look for a plural. A neuter singular as an abstract expression may sum up the whole mass. Thus w&p 6 in Jo. 6 : 37 refers to behevers. Cf. also Jo. 17 : 2. The same collective use of the neuter singular is found in rd 'iKaTTov (Heb. 7:7). Cf. t6 yevv6>iievov (Lu. 1:35) and vav ri yeyevvrinivop (1 Jo. 5 : 4). The same concealment of the person is seen in t6 Karexov olSare (2 Th. 2:6). The neuter plural in- deed is very common in this sense, as to fuopa, to. aadevrj, etc. (1 Cor. 1 : 27 f.). Then again the singular is used where the substantive belongs to more than one subject. So ireirupupkvriv ex^rt rfiv Kap- Siav (Mk. 8 : 17), 'edevro 'ev rfj KapSiq, avruv (Lu. 1 : 66), eTrecaj' iirl irpoauTTOv airSiP (Mt. 17 : 6), irtpL^ojaapevoi tyiv 6a(t>vv ipSiv (Eph. 6 : 14), iSodri aiiTols (TtoXi) \evKri (Rev. 6 : 11), dir6 xpocrcoirou tS>v irari- poiv (Ac. 7:45), 5ia CToparos wavTcov (Ac. 3 : 18), e/c t^s x^'Pos aircov (Jo. 10 : 39). In 1 Cor. 6 : 5, ava pkaov tov aSeK4>ov, the difficulty lies not in pkaov, but in the singular dSeX^oD. The fuller form would have been the plural or the repetition of the word, dSeX0oD kclI Me\(l>ov. In all these variations in number the N. T. writers merely follow in the beaten track of Greek usage with proper freedom and individuality. For copious illustrations from the ancient Greek see Gildersleeve, Greek Syntax, pp. 17-59.^ (/) Special Instances. Two or three other passages of a more special nature call for comment. In Mt. 21 : 7 {k-weKaSicrev kfiravu avTuv) it is probable that ah-cav refers to to. IpaTia, not to ttjv Svov Kai t6v iruiKov. In Mt. 24 : 26 ^v tjj epi^AKf! and kv toTs ra/ietois are in contrast. In Mt. 27 : 44 o£ 'K'gaTai is not to be taken as plural for the singular. Probably both reproached Jesus at first and afterwards one grew sorry and turned on the other, as Lu. 23 : 39 has it. In Mt. 22 : 1 and Mk. 12 : 1 elirev kv irapaPoXais is followed by only one parable, but there were doubtless others not recorded. In Mt. 9 : 8, kdo^aaav tov Otbv tov hbvTa k^ovcriav tomvttiv toTs a.v6pi}irois, we have a double sense in ddvra, for Jesus had the k^ovaiav in a sense not true of avdp6)iroi.s who got the benefit of it. So in Ac. 13 : 40 t6 tlprjpkvov kv tois irpo^i)Tai,% is merely equivalent to h> j3i/3Xa) tSiv vpo^i)TCiv (Ac. 7 : 42)^ On these special matters see Winer- Schmiedel, p. 251. Cf. xepo^iS*'" (Aramaic dual) and KaTacKik- fovTo (Heb. 9:5). 1 Cf. also Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., 1. Tl., pp. 133-172, 3. Tl., pp. 240-248; K.-G., Bd. I, pp. 271 ff.; Brug., Griech. Or., pp. 369-373. 410 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Vin. Concord in Gender. Here we deal only with nouns, for verbs have no gender. But gender plays an important part in the agreement of substantive and adjective. (a) Fluctuations in Gendek. The whole matter is difficult, for substantives have two sorts of gender, natural and gram- matical. The two do not always agree. The apparent violations of the rules of gender can generally be explained by the conflict in these two points of view with the additional observation that the grammatical gender of some words changed or was never firmly settled. All the constructions according to sense are due to analogy (Middleton in Syntax, p. 39). For further general re- marks on gender see chapter on Declensions. In Ac. 11 : 28 Luke has Xi/toj' fieyaXriv, not n^av. In Rev. 14 : 19 two genders are found with the same word, 'i^aXev els rriv Xrjvdv rod Bv/mv tov deov tov fikyav. Cf. Lu. 4 : 25 and 15 : 14. The papyri vary also in the gender of this word (Moulton, Prol., p. 60). The common gender of 6e6s (Ac. 19 : 37, cf. dek 19 : 27) and similar words is discussed in the chapter on Declensions. In Rev. 11:4 al ecrtbrK skips over \vxvla,i curiously 1 and goes back (the participle, not the article) to oiiTOi {ovToi flffLV at 8vo eXatai Kal at 8vo \vxvi-ai at hwiriov rod Kvpiov TTJs yrjs icTUTes). But more about the Apocalypse later. In Mk. 12 : 28, irola karlv kvTokij Tpiirri wavTOiv, Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 178) thinks that iraaHv would be beside the point as it is rather the general idea of omnium. Is it not just construction Kara avveaiv? In Ph. 2:1 d tis awXaxva is difficult after et tl wapafivdiov and ei Tis KOLveavia. Blass^ cuts the knot boldly by suggesting el n in all the examples here which Moulton' accepts with the sense of si quid valet, but he cites papyri examples like eiri n niav rSov . . . olklSiv, Par. P. 15(ii/B.C.) ; el 8e tl irepiaca jpa.nij.ara, B.U. 326 (ii/A.D.). See also kav 5e ti aWa aT7aiTr\dS>ixev , Amh. Pap. .11, 85, 11, and 'eav he Tl aPpoxos yevTiTat, ib., 15. Cf. Radermacher, N. T. Or., p. 184. Perhaps after all this correction may be right or the text may be corrupt. The scribe could easily have written ns for rtm because of the preceding examples. A nodding scribe may even have thought c-KKaxva feminine singular. But what is one to say of i} oval in Rev. 9 : 12; 11 : 14? Shall we think* of OXbpLs or ToXanrw- pla? In Mt. 21 : 42 (Mk. 12 : 11), Tropd Kvplov kyevero avri] Kal eariv ' But Moulton (CI. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 151) cites from the pap. numerous false gender concords like rijv ireirTWKOTa, etc. Cf. Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p. 57; Krumbacher, Prob. d. neugr. Schriftspr., p. 50. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 81. » Prol., p. 59. 4 W.-Sch., p. 255. THE SENTENCE 411 Bavfiaarii, we may have a translation of the Hebrew tiST (Ps. (117) 118 : 23), for oStos is used just before in reference to \iBov. ToDto would be the Greek idiom for avrri. It is even possible that airri may refer to K€^aKiiv yuvlas. So also rfj BdaX in Ro. 11:4 comes from the LXX (Jer. 2:8; 2 : 28; 7:9; Hos. 2 : 8). Cf. rg BdaX tjj 3a/idXei in Tobit 1 : 5 B. See Declensions for further remarks. (6) The Neuter Singular. This is not always to be regarded as a breach of gender. Often the neuter conveys a different con- ception. So in the question of Pilate, ri karLv'dXrideLa; (Jo. 18 : 38). Cf. also tL ovv 6 voiios; (Gal. 3 : 19), t'l kcrtv dvdpcoiros; (Heb. 2 : 6), tI av ehi ravra; (Lu. 15 : 26), ei 5o/ceT tw etvai tl ixr]8iv &v; (Gal. 6:3). But on the other hand note elvai nva (Ac. 5 : 36), aurjj kcrlv fj fie- ya\i) biToKi] (Mt. 22 : 38), ris ^ irp6aKi)n\l/i,s; (Ro. 11 : 15), Tis icTLV ij 'e\irls; (Eph. 1 : 18). In particular observe ri 6 n^Tpos ijeveTo (Ac. 12 : 18) and ovtos Sk H (Jo. 21 : 21). Cf. also tovto x^pw (twice) in 1 Pet. 2 : 19 f., where tovto is predicate and really refers to ei iiro- 4>'epti Tis and ei monevuTe. Cf . also ij ipvxh irXelov koTiv t^s, Tpo4>^s (Lu. 12 : 23). Indeed raOra may be the predicate with persons, as TavTCL Tives ^re (1 Cor. 6 : 11). The neuter adjective in the predi- cate is perfectly normal in cases like kavdv tQ tolovtui ij kiriTifiia wirri (2 Cor. 2:6). So also apKeTov rjj rilitp'!- 17 naKla avTTJs (Mt. 6 : 34) . Cf. also the reading of D apeaTov in Ac. 12 : 3. Blass^ treats apKe- Tov above and kawj' kcTiv in Lu. 22 : 38 as like the Latin satis. The neuter singular in the collective or general sense to represent persons is not pecuUar to the N. T. So to KaTkxov (2 Th. 2:6), irav o (Jo. 17 : 2), TO airo\(>>\6s (Lu. 19 : 10), etc. So the neuter plural also as rd pxiipa tov koctiwv, to. aardevrj (1 Cor. 1: 27). The neuter article t6 "Ayap (Gal. 4 : 25) deals with the word Hagar, not the gender of the person. In Jas. 4 : 4 fio(.xa\l5es in W. H. stands without /ioixaXoi /cat, but none the less may be regarded as comprehensive.^ Cf. yevea. ^lotxaXis (Mt. 12 : 39) and Hos. 2 : 4, 23. In 1 Cor. 15 : 10 note eifxl o eifii., not os, a different idea. (c) Explanatory o ecmv and tovt eanv. A special idiom is the relative 6 as an explanation (§ kaTiv) and the demonstrative tovt' iffTi, which are both used without much regard to the gen- der (not to say number) of antecedent or predicate. Thus in Mk. 3 : 17 ovona Boavripyes, o kaTW vtol ^povTTJs; 12 : 42 XeTrrd 5vo 6 kaTiv KodpavTTjs; 15 : 16 ttjs aiXrjs, 6 hoTiv irpaiTospLOv; 15 : 22 roX'yoffdi' t6tov, eaTiv Kpavlov tAttos (cf . Mt. 27 : 33) ; pa)3j3ei, o \eyeTai. (Jo. 1 : 38); 1:42 Meo-o-iav 8 kcrTiv; Col. 3 : 14 riiv ayainiv, 6 ka-Tw chvSecpjos; 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 76. ^ cf . W.-Sch., p. 254. 412 A GRAMMAR- OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Eph. 6: 17 n6,xai-po.v, S 'eariv fifjixa deov. Blass^ observes that it is only in the Apocalypse that this explanatory relative is assimilated to the antecedent or predicate, as Xaixir&des, a eida.\iJ.ovs ixTa., ol eiaiv to. irvebiiaTa (5:6). But it is other- wise with the ordinary relative, as 6 vaubs tov deov, olrtvks kcrre i/teis (1 Cor. 3 : 17); ^iXiirirous, rJTw ka-rlv ttputij woXls (Ac. 16 : 12); ^6 twv avTiKetiikvcov, ^t« karlv abroLs 'evdei^is awuiXeias (Ph. 1 : 28) ; h rats 9\L- , 4'eiTiv iwv birkp ii/xSiv, tjtis karlv bb^a vfiSiv (Eph. 3 : 13). The use of tovt' iimv is a common idiom in the later Greek (less so in the older) and is exactly equivalent to the Latin id est and has no regard to case, number or gender. So 'EXwi — tovt' iaTtv dee ^mv (Mt. 27:46); tovt' Utiv Toiis 6.Se\ois (Heb. 7:5). Cf. Heb. 2: 14; 9 : 11, etc. See furthet p. 399, and ch. XV, vii, (d), 10. (d) The Participle. It often has the construction Kara aive- (TLv, as in Mk. 9 : 26, Kpa^as Kal TroXXot aTapa^as referring to to irvev/m, Cf. Lu. 2 : 13 ffrpartSs alvovvTcov; wKijOos Kpa^ovTes (Ac. 21 : 36) ; fiouv- Tes (25 : 24). But on the other hand note avacTov irXrjdos (Lu. 23 : 1). S<3 also in 1 Cor. 12: 2 Wvri awayoiievor, Eph. 4 : 17 f. Wvn] 'eaao- Ttankvoi] Rev. 4 : 8 ^Qa, h> koO' %p 'ext^v \eyovTes; 11 : 15 4)tioval /tteyd- Xat Xkjovrei (cf. (I>ciivfiv 'Kk.yovTa, Rev. 9 : 14); 19 : 14 aTpaTehfuiTa hSeSviievoi. Cf. dripiov yifwvTa (Rev. 17 : 3). Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 526) takes eaKOTUfikvoi in Eph. 4 : 18 with ii/iSs. Cf. also irXfjdos epovTes (Ac. 5 : 16). Cf. Lu. 19 : 37. So {al iKKkrjaiai) aKoiovres (Gal. 1 : 22 f.). But in Rev. 21 : 14 Td reZxos 'ex(>>v seems a mere slip. But f^iov — "ext^v (Rev. 4 : 7) may be mere confusion in sound of ixov and exup. See also ^x^vii — X^ojj' (4:1), (^wwi — X^ojres (11 : 15), Xvxviai. — eiTTSiTes (11:4). Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 87) cites f^o" — a<7Tpa,iirTCiiv from Apocalypsis Anastasiae (pp. 6] 13). (e) Adjectives. The question of an adjective's using one form for more than one gender has been already discussed at length in the chapter on Declensions. Thus orparios ovpaviov (Lu. 2 : 13) is not a breach of concord, for oipaviov is feminine. If mas- culine and feminine are used together and the plural adjective or participle occurs, the mascuUne, of course, prevails over the fem- inine when persons are considered. Thus ^v 6 ttotijp airov nal ri fiiirrip Oavfjia^ovTes (Lu. 2: 33). So also 'A7pt7nros Kal Bepvkjj acTTra- caiievoi (Ac. 25 : 13) and even with the disjunctive ^, as ASeX<^6s ^ aSeKipfi yviivoi (Jas. 2 : 15). In Rev. 8 : 7 the neuter plural is used of two nouns (one feminine and one neuter), x^^afi Kal irvp /jieniy- jihia. Cf. also ^Saprots, hpyvpiw ri xP^^'i-V (1 P^t- 1-18), really ap- position. IIotKiXais vbaois Kal ^aaavois (Mt. 4 : 24), irAo-ijs Apx^s "al ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 77. THE SENTENCE 413 i^owias (Eph. 1 : 21), etc. But on the other hand note iroXts ^ ot- Kia iiepiaBetaa (Mt. 12 : 25), the same gender. But when different genders occur, the adjective is usually repeated, as in Troraxoi XWoi Kal irorairal olKoSofjai (Mk. 13 : 1), iraaa Boats Kal irav 86}prifia (Jas. 1 : 17), ovpavbv Kaivbv Kal yrjv Kaivfiv (Rev. 21 : 1), etc. There is em- phasis also in the repetition. But one adjective with the gender of one of the substantives is by no means uncommon. Thus in Heb. 9 : 9, Supi, re Kal dva-iai nij Svvaiiivai, the last substantive is followed, while in Heb. 3 : 6, iap riiv vappTia-iav Kal t6 KaixtlM iikxpi T^Xouj ^e^alav KaTdffxwjuei', the first rules in gender.^ Per contra note vtdu apffev in Rev. 12 : 5. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 86) cites (j)i\e tUvov from the Iliad, XXII, 84. IX. Concord in Case. This is not the place for the syntax of the cases. That matter belongs to a special chapter. (fl) Adjectives. They concur in the case of the substantive with which they are used. The variations are either indeclinable forms like ttX^pj^s^ in Jo. 1 : 14 (agreeing with ahrov or bb^av) or are due to anacoluthon, as Jas. 3 : 8 ttiv bi '{tiJhaaav ohbeh baficurai 56mTai MpiiTUV aKarkaTaTOV KaKov, fieaT'fi lov (so W. H. punctuate). (6) Participles. They lend themselves readily to anacoluthon in case. Thus eSo^e rots dTO(rT6Xots Kal rots Tpea^vripoK, yp^/avTes (Ac. 15 : 22 f.). See Mk. 7 : 19 KoBapi^cov. Mk. 6 : 9 has inrobeSe- fikvovs, whereas before we have avTols and aipcoaiv, but W. H. read ivbhaaadaL (Nestle, 'evbiiar{aOi). In Mk. 12 : 40, ol Karkadovres Kal irpocyevxaiievoL, we have a nominative in apposition with the ablative &,w6 ruv jpaixnaTkoiv tuv deKSvTcav. In Ph. 3 : 18 f. rovs 'exQpoiis is in agreement with the case of oi5s, while ol 4>povovvTes below skips back to ttoXXoi. Sometimes, as in kiricrTeWricrav t& X67ia (Ro. 3 : 2), the substantive will make sense as subject or object of the verb. In Heb. 9 : 10 biKauiifiaTa — iriKeifieva in apposition with dvfflai skips over the parenthetical clause between. Cf . also perhaps ap^afievoi (Lu. 24 : 47), ap^a/iews (Ac. 1 : 22. Cf. Lu. 23 : 5), ip^i-fievos (Ac. 10 : 37). Note this idiom in Luke's writings. (c) The Book of Revelation. It is full of variations (sole- cisms) from case-concord, especially in appositional clauses. Thus in Rev. 7: 9 after dbov, Kal ibob we first have. the nomina- ' On the subject of gender see Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., 1. TI., pp. 89-133; Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 365-369. ' The exx. of this indecl. use of ttX^pijs are abundant in MSS. of the N. T., occurring in most passages of the N. T. See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 81. The pap. confirm the N. T. MSS- See Moulton, Prol., p. 50. See oh. VII, 2, (f), of this book, for details. 414 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT tive with iSov and then the accusative with eUov. Thus 6 (t&fyrvs (Rev. 1 : 5) retains the nominative rather than the ablative 6.ird 'IijffoO Xpiarov, whereas in 11 : 18 roiis niKpois is in apposition with the dative rots SoiiXots, kt\. Cf . 20 : 2 where 6 6tj)is (text, marg. ace.) is in apposition with the accusative tov SpaKovra. The papyri show the idiom. Cf. rod d5eX<^0 — 6 Smtoxos (=5ia5.) in Letr. 149 (ii/A.D.), 'kvTi4>'CKov "EXXT/y — lirirapxris in B.G.U. 1002 (i/B.c). Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 60. The Apocalypse is thus by no means alone. See also Tropd to[v IIo(7t]ou/«)u tov evpovra B.G.U. 846 (ii/A.D.), fJKovca To^^s 'Kiy^v P. Par. 51 (b.c. 160), k^i \e\vKas TToXtds exoiv, ib. In particular the participle is common in the nom- inative in the Apocalypse. In the case of airb b &v Kal 6 Jjv ml 6 ipxofievos the nominative is evidently intentional to accent the unchangeableness of God (1:4). Cf. this formula in 1 : 8; 4 : 8; 1 : 17; 16 : 5. 'Ovikwv occurs as a set phrase, the case being ex- pressed by avrds which follows. So in 2 : 26 airc^ (rripibv also) ; 3 : 12 avTov, 21 avT^. But in rQ vlkuvtl diicrco aiiri^ 2 : 7, 17, the case is regularly in the dative without anacoluthon. The wrong case appears with Ix'^v in 1 : 16 (almost separate sentence) if it is meant to refer to avrov or gender if ^xiivij; 9 : 14 (6 exw in apposi- tion with ayyiXw) ; 10 : 2 ?x<"f (sort of parenthesis, cf . 1 : 16) ; 14 : 14 iex(av (loosely appended); 19 : 12 (loose coimection of ixoiv). In 5 : 6 and 17 : 3 extov has wrong gender and case. This parti- ciple seems to be strung on loosely generally, but in 21 : 11 f. the proper case and gender occur. Cf . also v 'Kiyovcra (2 : 20) and 'Khyoiv (14: 7). In 14 : 12 ol rripovvTis is a loose addition like ■q Kara^aivovaa (3 : 12). More difficult seems tv Kapivi^ ireirvpani- pj/s (1 : 15), margin ireirvpcofievoi. In 19 : 20 rriv \lfivriv tov Tvpos T^s KaioiJ.kvr]s the participle agrees in gender with 'Kip.vriv and in case with 7rup6s. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 86) cites dTr^x" Trap' avTov rbv d/wKoyovvTa (Amh. Pap. 11, m to us, where regu- larly the accusative of a participle is in apposition with a geni- tive or ablative). He gives also Oxy. P. I N 120, 25, oii SiSoKTai yap riiuv ixetv n Svarvxovvres; Flinders-Pet. Pap. Ill 42 C (3) 3, aSLKoiip,fBa inrd ' ATroXKoiviov ifiPaWcov. Dittenberger (Or. inscr. 611) gives Se;8a(7ToD and vlos in apposition. But the point of difficulty in the Revelation of John is not any one isolated discord in case or gender. It is rather the great number of such violations of concord that attracts attention. As shown above, other books of the N. T. show such phenomena. Observe especially Luke, who is a careful writer of education. Note also Paul in Ph. 1 : 30 where ixovres (cf . this word in Rev.) is used with viuv, THE SENTENCE 415 and 2 Cor. 7 : 5 ^fiuv — 6\ifi6iitvoi. Similar discords occur in the LXX, as in Jer. 14: 13; Dan. 10 : 5-7; 1 Mace. 13 : 16; 1 Mace. 15 : 28; and indeed occasionally in the very best of Greek writers. The example in 1 Mace. 13 : 16 (Xaoj' X^Yoires) is worth singling out for its bearing on both case and number. Nestle {Einf. in das griech. N. T., p. 90 f.) notes the indechnable use of Xeywj' and Xe- yovTfi in the LXX, like l)as«lb. Cf. Nestle, Phil. Sacra., p. 7. See also Thackeray, Gr., p. 23. One must not be a slavish martinet in such matters at the expense of vigour and directness. The occa- sion of anacoluthon in a sentence is just the necessity of breaking off and making a new start. But the Apocalypse demands more than these general remarks. Wiaer (Winer-Thayer, p. 534) calls attention to the fact that these irregularities occur chiefly in 'the description of the visions where there would naturally be some excitement. Moulton' argues from the fact that the papyri of uneducated writers show frequent discord in case that John was somewhat backward in his Greek. He speaks of "the curious Greek of Revelation," "the imperfect Greek culture of this book." He notes the fact that most of the examples in both the papyri and Revelation are in apposition and the writer's "grammatical sense is satisfied when the governing word has affected the case of one object."^ Moulton' cites in illustration Shakespeare's use of "between you and I." This point indeed justifies John. But one must observe the comparative absence of these syntactical discords in the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John. In Ac. 4 : 13 both Peter and John are called cuypdnfiaToi /cat iSicoTat.. This need not be pushed too far, and yet it is noteworthy that 2 Peter and Revelation are just the two books of the N. T. whose Greek jars most upon the cultured mind and which show most kinship to the Koivi] in somewhat illiterate papyri. One of the theories about the relation between 1 Peter and 2 Peter is that Silvanus (1 Pet. 5: 12) was Peter's scribe in writing the first Epistle, and that thus the Greek is smooth and flowing, while in 2 Peter we have Peter's own somewhat uncouth, unrevised Greek. This theory rests on the assumption of the genuineness of 2 Peter, which is much dis- puted. So also in Acts Luke refines Peter's Greek in the reports " Exp., Jan., 1904, p. 71; CI. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 161; Prol., pp. 9, 60. ' CI. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 151; Prol., p. 9. ' lb. Merch. of Venice, iii, 2. Cf. also Harrison, Prol. to the Study of Gk. Rel., p. 168. In the Attic inscr. the noun is found in apposition with the abl., the loc. and in absolute expressions. Cf. Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 203 f. 416 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT of his addresses. Now in Jo. 21 : 24 we seem to have the com- ment of a brother (or several) on the Gospel of John which he has read and approved. Moulton^ naturally suggests the hypothesis that the Gospel and Epistles of John had the smoothing hand of this brother of culture (perhaps in Ephesus), while in the Apoca- lypse we have John's own rather uncultured Greek. One may add to this the idea of Winer about possible excitement and pas- sion due to the great ideas of the book. In the Isle of Patmos John, if still there, would have little opportunity for scholarly help and the book may have gone out unrevised. There are other theories, but this matter of authorship is not the grammarians' task. (H) Other Peculiarities in Apposition. Further examples of apposition call for illustration. Thus in 1 Jo. 2 : 25, wbTt) harlv f/ eirayytXia, ^c auTds kTniyyeiKaTo rj/juv, ttiv fco^v Tfjv alv a^vnosv (Lu. 22 : 1). The use of toOt' larLv with any case has already been alluded to under Gender. Note Mk. 7:2; Ac. 19 : 4; Ro. 7 : 18; Phil. 12; 1 Pet. 3 : 20; Heb. 9 : 11; 11 : 16, etc. In ai)TCK tac throws proper emphasis upon dtov. The position of the subordinate clause varies greatly. It often comes first, as in Lu. 1 : 1-4. (d) The Minor Words in a Sentence. In general they come close to the word to which they belong in sense. Thus the adj. is near the subst. and after it. So v&oip ^uv (Jo. 4 : 10), 5t- da(7Ka\e ayadk (Mk. JLO : 17), fcoiji' aluviov (ib.). But observe oW cLvdpuirov vyLTj (Jo. 7 : 23), both adjs. So also note 5^' aviiSpoiv roiroiv (Mt. 12 :43), KoXdv (rirepua (Mt. 13 : 27), kxdpds &vepuTos (Mt. 13 : 28), where the adj. gives the main idea. With the repeated article the adj. has increased emphasis in 6 wocuriv 6 KoXds (Jo. 10: 11). With TTpevfia aytov this is the usual order (as Mt. 3 : 11), but also t6 ayu)v irvevija (Ac. 1 : 8) or ro irvevna t6 ayLov (Jo. 14 : 26). In Ac. 1 : 5 the verb comes in between the substantive and adjective {iv Trv€viJ,aTL ^aivriaOi]ffida\nom. Here avrov is entirely removed from b^aXnobs and is without particular emphasis. It was probably felt that the geni- tive of the pronouns made a weak close of a sentence. Observe also Jo. 9 : 10, aov oi b^BaXtioi (cf. 9:11). Thus also 9 : 17, 26, 30. Note 'eirtaev aiiTOV vpds rois iroSas (Jo. 11 : 32) and ovk Hv fwv 6.iridavev b iideK^bs (ib.). So crii /mv vlirreLs tovs ttoScls (Jo. 13 : 6) where some emphasis by contrast may exist in spite of the enclitic form fwv. Cf. i/uv e/wji in Ph. 3 : 1. But on the other hand we have b a8t\4i6i fiov in Jo. 11 : 21 (cf. 11 : 23 aov) and tov irarpos luov (Jo. 10 : 18). The tendency to draw the pronouns toward the first part of the sentence may account for some of this transposition, as in rd ToWb, ae ypafifjMTa els navlav TreptTpeirei (Ac. 26 : 24), but the matter goes much beyond the personal pronouns, as in kv Trvevixari fiwKTiaBii- atade ayi(f (Ac. 1 : 5), fiLKpav ex^is 5\)vamv (Rev. 3 : 8), etc. But a large amount of personal liberty was exercised in such traj action of words.' Is there any such thing as ryhthm in the N. T.? Deiss- mann^ scouts the idea. If one thinks of the carefully balanced sentences of the Attic orators like Isocrates, Lysias and Demos- thenes, Deissmann is correct, for there is nothing that at all ap- proaches such artificial rhythm in the N. T., not even in Luke, Paul or Hebrews. Blass' insists that Paul shows rhythm in 1 Cor. and that the book is fuU of art. He compares* Paul with Cicero, Seneca, Q. Curtius, Apuleius, and finds rhythm also in Hebrews which "not unfrequently has a really oratorical and choice order of words." ^ He cites in Heb. 1 : 4 ToaoWai Kpe'iTTuv yevbfievos tup ayyeXoiv ocriu SuKJMpijTepov irap' avrois KticKripovbiJjqKev ovona; 1 : 5; 11 : 32; 12 : 1, 8, etc. In Greek in general he suggests that lively and animated discourse gives rise to dislocations of words. Now one would think Blass ought to know something of Greek style. But Deissmann will have none of it. He refers Blass to Schramm, who wrote in 1710 of De stupenda eruditione Pauli apostoU and thinks that Blass is wilful and arbitrary in his ' Boldt, De lib. Ling. Graec. et Lat. CoUoc. Verb. Capita Sel., p. 186. 2 Theol. Literaturzeit., 1906, p. 434; Exp., Jan., 1908, p. 74. ' Die Rhythmen der asian. und rom. Kunstprosa, 1905, pp. 43, 53. * lb., pp. 73 f ., 77. Cf. Hadley, On Anc. Gk. Rhythm and Metre in Ess. Phil, and Crit., pp. 81 ff. 6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 286 f. Cf. Zarncke, Die Entstehung der griech. Literatursprachen, p. 5 f., for good remarks about rhythm. See also Dewing, The Orig. of the Accentual Prose Rhythm in Gk., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1910, pp. 313-328. THE SENTENCE 421 use and proof of rhsrthm. On the other hand Sir W. M. Ramsay ^ contends that Paul was a better Hellenist in point of culture than some suppose, and knew Greek philosophy and used it. It is after all partly a dispute about terms. If by rhythm one means grace and charm of diction that naturally belong to the expression of elevated ideas under the stress of chastened passion, surely one would be hypercritical to deny it to 1 Cor. 13 and 15, Ac. 17, Ro. 8 and 12, Eph. 3, Jo. 14^17, Heb. 2 and 11, not to mention many beautiful passages that seem perfect like pearls. At white heat nature often strikes off what is better than anything mere art can do even as to beauty of form and expression. Luke^ may even have known Thucydides, and yet one has no right to expect the "niceties of language' in the vernacular which contribute so much to the charm of Plato." Intonation and gesture in spoken language take the place of these linguistic refinements to a very large extent. It is true that Paul's "Greek has to do with no school, with no pattern, but streams unhindered with overflowing bubbling direct out of the heart," but "yet is real Greek," as Wila- mowitz-MoUendorff* remarks. Wilamowitz-Mollendorff does in- deed hold that Paul knew little Greek outside of the Greek Bible, but he thinks that his letters are unique in Greek literature. On Paul's Hellenism see chapter IV, and also G. Milligan, Epistles to the Thess., p. Iv. On p. Ivi Milligan takes the writer's view that the "well-ordered passages" and "splendid outbursts" in Paul's writings are due to natural emotion and instinctive feeUng rather than studied art. Bultmann {Der Stil der Paulinischen Predigt und die Kynisch-stoische Diatribe, 1910) finds that Paul had the essential elements of the Stoic Diatribe in his argumentative style (question and answer, antithesis, parallelism, etc.). Paul's art is indeed like that of the Cynic-Stoic Diatribe as described by Wendland,^ but he does not have their refinement or overpunc- tiliousness.* It is not surprising to find that occasionally N. T. writers show unintentional metre, as is common with speakers and writers of any language. In the Textus Receptus of Heb. 12 : 13 there is a good hexameter, koi rpoxl | os op | das iroi \ Tjaare \ toIs iroalv I ' The Cities of Paul, 1908, pp. 6, 10, 34. Cf. Hicks, St. Paul and Hellen."^ ' J. H. Smith, Short Stud, on the Gk. Text of the Acts of the Apost., Pref. ' J. H. Moulton, Intr. to the Study of N. T. Gk., p. 7. * Die griech. Lit. des Altert., p. 159. Tl. I, Abt. 8, Die Kultur der Gegenw., 1907. W. H. P. Hatch, J.B.L., 1909, p. 149 f., suggests t' 47. in Jas. 1 : 17. 6 Beitr. zur Gesch. der Gk. Phil, und Rel., 1905, p. 3 f. » J. Weiss, Beitr. zur PauUn. Rhet., 1897, p. 167 f. 422 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Ojuw") but the critical text spoils it all by reading Troieire. So also one may find two trimeters in Heb. 12 : 14 f. (o5 — awo), one in Jo. 4 : 35 (jerpaiirivos — epxerai), one in Ac. 23 : 5 (apxavra — KaKws). Green (Handbook to the Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 356) cites the acci- dental EngUsh anapaestic Une " To preach the acceptable year of the Lord," the hexameter "Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them," and the iambic couplet "Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace." But surely no one would call these writers poets because occasional metre is found in their writings. There is an unconscious harmony of soul between matter and form. Paul does indeed quote the Greek poets three times, once an iambic trimeter acataleptus from the comic poet Menander (1 Cor. 15: 33) &apou\alv jj|9^ xpv\<^'''°' ojm\ 'Kiai\K&Kcu, though one anapsest occurs (some MSS. have XPV<^6')> once half an hexameter from Aratus (Ac. 17:28) toD 7dp|Koi yevos\e(rfiev, and a full hexameter from Epimenides of Crete (Tit. 1:12) KprJTh a \ el \l/ev | aral KaKci \ dripla \ yacrrepes | apyai. How much more Paul knew of Greek poetry we do not know, but he was not ignorant of the philosophy of the Stoics and Epicureans in Athens. Blass^ indeed thinks that the author of Hebrews studied in the schools of rhetoric where prose rhjrthm was taught, such as the careful balancing of ending with ending, beginning with be- ginning, or ending with beginning. He thinks he sees proof of it in Heb. 1 : 1 f., 3, 4 f . ; 12 : 14 f., 24. But here again one is in- clined to think that we have rather the natural correspondence of form with thought than studied rhetorical imitation of the schools of Atticism or even of Asianism. We cannot now follow the lead of the old writers who saw many fanciful artistic turns of phrase.^ Antitheses and paralleUsms could be treated here as expressions of rhythm, but they can be handled better in the chapter on Figures of Speech. As a specimen of an early Chris- tian hymn note 1 Tim. 3 : 16. Harnack (The Independent, Dec. 28, 1912) takes this as a Christmas hymn. EUzabeth (Lu. 1: 42-45), Mary (1:46-55) and Zacharias (1:67-79) break forth into poetic strains with something of Hebrew spirit and form. In Eph. 5 : 14 we have another possible fragment of a Christian hymn. The Lord's Prayer in Mt. 6 : 9-13 is given in metrical arrangement by W. H. Cf. Hort, Inlr. to N. T. in Gk., p. 319 f. In general on N. T. parallelism see Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 297 f. 2 Cf ., for instance, Gersdorf, Beitr. zur Sprachcharakt. d. Schriftst. d. N.T., 1816, pp. 90, 502. THE SENTENCE 423 and Messiah of the Apostles. In 1 Cor. 13 one can see the beauty and melody of a harmonious arrangement of words. See also the latter part of 1 Cor. 15. (/) Prolepsis is not uncommon where either the substantive is placed out of its right place before the conjunction in a subordinate clause like tV ayairrfv Iva yv&re (2 Cor. 2 : 4) and ^imtiko. Kpniipta. khv ixv^e (1 Cor. 6 : 4), or the subject of the subordinate clause even becomes the object of the previous verb like ISelv t6v 'Irtaovv tIs iariv (Lu. 19 : 3). Cf. Ac. 13 : 32. But this betokens no studied art. Cf. Mk. 8 : 24; Lu. 10 : 26; Ro. 9 : 19, 20; 14 : 4, 10; 1 Cor. 15 : 36. So riixiv in Ac. 3 : 12. (g) Hysteron Protekon. We occasionally meet also an ex- ample of icrepov Tporepov hke 077^X01)5 rod deov ava^alvovras Kal Kara- /SaivoKTas (Jo. 1 : 51), a natural inversion from our point of view. But Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 553) does not admit this figure in the N. T. Certainly not all the apparent examples are real. The order of weiri.aTeijKaiiev Kal 'eyvuKap.ev (Jo. 6 : 69) is just as true as. that of ir/vuiaav koX kiris a.vk\bi<7Lv is the sub- stantive object of k^TiTovv, as rd rts drj is of a-vv^riTelv in Lu. 22 : 23. As a sample of the subject-clause in the nominative talie ov nkXei s rc^ OtQ. Cf. also Rev. 4 : 11; 5 : 12; Ro. 9 :4. Note also a similar repetition of o^rt in Ro. 8 : 38 f. For /t^re see Jas. 5 : 12. So with ^ in Mk. 10 : 29. Perhaps, as Blass suggests,^ polysjmdeton is sometimes necessary and devoid of any particular rhetorical effect, as in Lu. 14: 21. But asyndeton is frequent also. Cf. S.vSpes 'lapavXeirai (Ac. 2 : 22). See Mt. 15 : 19; Jo. 5 : 3; 1 Cor. 14 : 24; 15 : 1 f. For a striking example of asyndeton see Ro. 1 : 29-31, where some variety is gained by change in construction (case) and the use of adjective instead of substantive, ireirXripw- ju^WDs ir&aTH ddi/cia irovripiq, irKeove^lq, KaKiq,, fiecTTOvs lkpe. Cf. Jas. 5:1. In Mk. 15 : 36 note a^ere J5a)/t€j'. One verb really supplements the other much as the infin- itive or participle. Cf . English " let us see." In the modem Greek 6.S (abbreviation of a^€s) is used uniformly as the English and al- most like a particle. Of a similar nature is the asyndeton with fleets avWk^tanev (Mt. 13 : 28) and ^oitXeade aToXvau (Jo. 18 : 39). Cf. ek\€Te xotjjo-o) (Mk. 10 : 36). Cf. also kyeipecrde aytafiiv (Mt. 26 : 46) above. These are all paratactic in origin, though hypotactic in logical sequence. But see chapter on Modes for further details. In the case of 6pa, bpare, jSXexere, we can find examples of both the conjunctional use of juij and clear cases of asyndeton with some on the border fine. Thus clearly conjunctional /^i? is found in pXewkno firi wkffTi (1 Cor. 10 : 12), |8X^;rere ^"7 kirkXextikc. 13 : 40), /SX^Trere ni) TrapaiTTiaiiade (Heb. 12 : 25). Asyndeton is undoubtedly in Spa inj- Sevl fiTiSiv dirxis (Mk. 1 : 44) with which compare iiraye Sel^ov in the same verse. Cf . also Mt. 8 : 4. Thus again opdre /xrideh yiviaaKkru (Mt. 9 : 30) where note two imperatives as in opare, p.ii dpoeioBe (Mt. 24 : 6). But in jSX^xere ju^ rts ujuas ;rXai'i^<7a (Mt. 24 : 4) and ' W.-Th., p. 541. THE SENTENCE 431 bp&Tt fiii T« dxoS^ (1 Th. 5 : 15) the asyndeton is more doubtful, since n^li can be regarded as a conjunction. Cf. 2 Cor. 8 : 20. 3. The Infinitive and Participle as Connectives. A very conunon connection is made between clauses by means of the infinitive or the participle, sometimes with particles Uke &crTe and irplv with the infinitive or cbs, ibcrwep, Kalirep, with the participle, but usually without a particle. The infinitive often is used with the article and a preposition, as kv rQ elvai (Lu. 9 : 18). But usually the infinitive is brought into the closest connection with the verb as subject (t6 yap 6i\eiv xapd/cetrai p,oi, Ro. 7 : 18) or object (/3oiiXo/*ai irpoaevxtcQai, av8pas, 1 Tim. 2:8), or in a remoter relation, as i^ffKdev 6 a-ireipwu tov aireZpai (Mk. 4:3). The participle sometimes is an essential part of the predicate, as 'eiraiiaaTo XaXcSc (Lu. 5:4), or again it may be a mere addendum or preliminary or even an independent statement. Thus observe elaeKdiiv, buxKer/onevos ml ireiBiov in Ac. 19 : 8. As further examples of participles somewhat loosely strung together without a connec- tive in more or less close relation to each other and the principal sentence see Ac. 12 : 25; 16 : 27; 23 : 27. The genitive abso- lute is common in such accessory participles. The only point to consider concerning the infinitive and participle here is the fre- quency with which they are used in the structure of the Greek sen- tence. Thus long sentences are easily constructed and sometimes the connection is not clear. Frequent examples of anacoluthon come from the free use of the participle, as will be shown later. See xii'poTovrideis and (xreKKbuivoi as instances in 2 Cor. 8 : 19 f . By means of the infinitive and participle the Greek enjoyed much elasticity and freedom which the modern Greek has lost. In modern Greek conjunctions and finite verbs have very largely dis- placed the infinitive and the participle. Even in the N. T. a tend- ency in that direction is discernible, as is seen in the use of Iva with fieXco (Mk. 6 : 25), d^irz/it (Mk. 11 : 16). One is inclined to think that Viteau' overstates it when he says that the N. T. writers have a natural and general inability to combine and subordinate the elements of thought and so express them separately and make an abnormal use of asyndeton. I would rather say that there is a great simplicity and directness due partly to the colloquial style and the earnestness of the writers. They are men with a message rather than philosophical ramblers. But part of this absence of subordination may be due to the Hebrew temper as in John, and part to the general spirit of the time as less concerned, save in the ' Le Verbe, Synt. des Prop., p. 9. 432 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT case of the Atticists, with the niceties of style. Clearness and force were the main things with these N. T. writers. They use connec- tives or not as best suits their purposes. But the infinitive con- struction and the conjunction construction must not be regarded as identical even in the N. T. Note /caXdc abrif el o{jk kyevviidri (Mk. 14 : 21), hv Toirai yLVv(tIv (Mt. 14 : 8), Hv (Ac. 23 : 35), oi ^emiiai (Ro. 9 : 1), kv a4>poavvxi X^w (2 Cor. 11 : 21), etc. But the insertion of ^T/a-tf and €<^77 between words is rare in the N. T. Cf. Simcox, Language of the N. T., p. 200. A very interesting parenthesis is the insertion in the speech of Jesus to the paralyliic, of X^et t4> Tapa\vTiK(^ (Mk. 2 : 10). Mt. (9 : 6) adds rore. Lu. (5 : 24) has elirev tQ irapaKeKviikvcf. The SjTioptists all had the same source here. These phrases, common also to the ancient Greek, do not need marks of parenthesis, and the comma is sufficient. A little more extended parenthesis is found in a clause Uke ovo/xa avrQ 'Iwaj'Tjs (Jo. 1 : 6), NlkoSijimjs ovo/ia avT& (Jo. 3 : 1), though this again may be considered merely a form of apposition. A more distinct parenthesis still is the insertion of a note of time like ?iaav bk flixepai. tSiv a^vficov (Ac. 12 : 3). Thackeray (Gr., p. 149 note) notes a tendency in the LXX to put numeral statements in parenthesis. Note also the explanatory parenthesis in Ac. 1 : 15 introduced by re. Cf . also cbo-et ■fip.kpai. 6kt6} in Lu. 9 : 28, which can be explained otherwise. In Mt. 24 : 15 the parenthetical command of Matthew or of Jesus, 6 avayi.viicTKOiv voeiroo, is indicated by W. H. only with the comma. In general the historical books have fewer parentheses than the Epistles, and naturally so. In Paul it is sometimes hard to draw the line between the mere parenthesis and anacoluthon. Cf. 1 Cor. 16 : 5; Ro. 5 : 12 (18); 9 : 11; 15 : 23-28. Oh may look back beyond the parenthesis as in Jo. 4:7 ff . (Abbott, Jo- hannine Grammar, p. 470). See Jo. 10:35 Kai ov Sumrai 'Kvdrjvai 17 ypacj}^. Cf . the sharp interruption in Jo. 4 : 1-3. In Gal. 2 : 5 f . we have two parentheses right together marked by the dash in W. H.'s text, besides anacoluthon. Cf. Lu. 23 : 51, Col. 1 : 21 f. for parenthesis of some length. But see 2 Pet. 2 : 8 for a still longer THE SENTENCE 435 one, not to mention 2 Cor. 9 : 12; Heb. 7 : 20 f.; Lu. 6 : 4. See Viteau, ^ttide, 1896, p. 11. As illustrating once more the wide difference of opinion concerning the parenthesis, Blass' comments on the harshness of the parenthesis in Ac. 5 : 14, while W. H. do not consider that there is a parenthesis in the sentence at all. At bottom the parenthesis in the text is a matter of exegesis. Thus if in Jo. 13 : 1 ff. eis rkXos ■/jyavriaei' avroiis be regarded as a paren- thesis and verses 1-5 be considered one "sentence (note repetition of ei8iis) a much simpler construction is the result.^ Instead of a parenthesis a writer switches off to one aspect of a subject and then comes back in another sentence as Paul does in 1 Cor. 8 : 1-4. He resiunes by the repetition of irepl — ddcoXoOiiruv diSaiiev. Cf . also a similar resumption in Eph. 3 : 14 roirov xapt>' after the long digres- sion in verses 1-13. This construction is not, however, a technical parenthesis. (e) Anacolttthon. But a more violent break in the connection of sentences than the parenthesis is anacoluthon. This is merely the failure to complete a sentence as intended when it was begun {avoLKSKovdov). The completion does not follow grammatically from the beginning. The N. T. writers are not peculiar in this matter, since even in an artistic orator like Isocrates such grammatical blemishes, if they be so considered, are found.' And a careful historian like Thucydides will have tSo^ev avrois — eTrtmXoOyres (iii. 36. 2). It is just in writers of the greatest mental activity and ve- hemaice of spirit that we meet most instances of anacoluthon. Hence a man with the passion of Paul naturally breaks away from formal rules in the structure of the sentence when he is greatly stirred, as in Gal. and 2 Cor. Such violent changes in the sentence are common in conversation and public addresses. The dialogues of Plato have many examples. The anacoluthon may be therefore either intentional or unintentional. The writer may be led off by a fresh idea or by a parenthesis, or he may think of a better way of finishing his sentence, one that will be more effective. The very jolt that is given by the anacoluthon is often successful in making more emphasis. The attention is drawn anew to the sentence to see what is the matter. Some of the anacolutha belong to other languages with equal pertinence, others are peculiar to the Greek genius. The participle in particular is a very common occasion • Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 279. 2 S. M. Provence, Rev. and Exp., 1906, p. 96. » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 282. On the anacoluthon see K.-G., Bd. II, pp. 588-592. 436 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT for anacoluthon. The Apocalypse, as already shown, has many examples of anacoluthon. The more important N. T. illustra- tions of anacoluthon will now be given. It is difficult to make a clear grouping of the examples of anacoluthon in the N. T. on any scientific principle. But the following will answer. 1. The Suspended Subject. What Abbott* calls the suspended subject finds illustration elsewhere than in John, though he does have his share. It may be looked at indeed as suspended object as well sometimes. The point is that the substantive, pronoun or participle is left by the wayside and the sentence is completed some other way. Thus in wdv {nina apydv 8 XaX'^aovaw oi avdpojiroi, avo8(j3tTov(nv irepl avrov (Mt. 12 : 36) observe how irav prjfia is dropped in the construction and irepl aiirov used. In ttSs odi> oarts 6fw\oyri- cei — 6iw\oyii(yu /cd7d) iu avrQ (Mt. 10 : 32) the same principle holds in regard to ttSs and kv aiir^. But in the same verse the regular construction obtains in So-tk kpvitaiijTai — apvricrofMi Kayd> avrov. In Lu. 6 : 47 ttSs 6 kpxop^vos ktK., {iTodeL^oi} vfuv tLvl iariv op,oLos we see a similar anacoluthon unless iras 6 kpx- be regarded as a rather vio- lent prolepsis of the subject, which is not so likely in this instance. In Lu. 11 : 11 the anacoluthon is not quite so simple, though riva, is after all left to itself (riva Si k^ inSiv t6v irarkpa airiiati b uios Ix^iv, firi clvtI ix6vos &(j>t,v avri^ kinScoaei;) . If instead of riva the sen- tence read ei or eav, all would go smoothly except that i^ vfuiv would be slightly awkward. Observe that alriicTet. has two accusatives without Tim. The apodosis is introduced by p,ii and as an interrog- ative clause expects the answer "no." But in spite of the gram- matical hopelessness of the sentence it has great power. In Lu. 12 : 48 the matter is simpler {iravri 8i & iSodri xoXu, iroXii ^■qriflii- aeTatirap' ahTov). Here two things are true. We not only have the stranded subject (cf. %ap' avrov), but it has been attracted into the case of the relative (inverse attraction), iravri, not ttSs. With this compare xas Ss Ipet — a^tBijaeraL aiirc^ (Lu. 12 : 10). In 2 Cor.' 12 : 17 we merely have the anacoluthon without any attraction, riva expecting a verb governing the accusative (^4 nva &v airhrakKa irpds ifids, di' aiirov kirXeoveKririaa ifidsf). Here indeed &v is attracted into the case of roiruv unexpressed. A simpler instance is 6 Mcou- ffrjs odros — o'lSaixev ri eykviro aiTij) (Ac. 7 : 40; Ex. 32 : 1). Blass^ finds anacoluthon in Mk. 9 : 20 {iSdiv avrov t6 irvevfw. awe(rir&- pa^ev avrov), but surely this is merely treating irvevna as masculine (natural gender). But in Ac. 19 : 34 {hriyvovres Si 6ti 'lovSatos iarw 4)o>vri kyivero fiia k ir&vrcov) there is a clear case of anacoluthon in > Joh. Gr., p. 32. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 283. THE SENTENCE 437 the change to k tr&vruv. The writings of John show similar illustra- tions. There is no anacoluthon in Jo. 6 : 22 in the text of W. H., which reads elBov &ti instead of ISiiv on — bre (margin of W. H.). But in 6 : 39 there is real anacoluthon (irSiv 6 SkSwKiv /ml nij airoKkau k^ abrov) in the change from irav to k^ aWov. It is possible to re- gard irSiv n^l] here"^ as equivalent to ohMs and not like xos — /ii? in Jo. 3 : 16. In 7 : 38 another suspended subject is found in 6 n- (TTebcov els kfik (cf. axirov further on). But 10 : 36 is hardly anacolu- thon,^ since one has merely to supply the demonstrative keictj) or the personal pronoun avrQ with X^yere to make the sentence run smoothly. In'15 : 2 irav Kkrjua — avro we have very slight anacolu- thon, if any, since both may be in the same case (cf. resumptive use of ovTos). But in 15: 5 the matter is complicated by the in- sertion of Kayi) kv ahrQ {6 nkvuv kv kfiol K&yi} kv abrif odros naTa) the participle can be con- nected in thought, as Mark probably did, with Xe7€i in verse 18, but the intervening quotation makes Mark's explanatory adden- dum a real anacoluthon. The example in Jo. 1 : 15 Abbott' calls "impressionism" due to the writer's desire to make his impression first and then to add the explanatory correction. He compares 4 : 1 with 3 : 22. In 1 : 15 ovtos riv bv dirov is taken by Abbott as a part of the Baptist's statement, but W. H. read olros ^v 6 eiirdsp as a parenthetical remark of the writer. So in Jo. 20 : 18 /cat ravra elirev airy does not fit in exactly after &ti "EwpoKa rov Kbpuov. The added clause is the comment of John, not of Mary. The margin of Ac. 10 : 36 (W. H.) with ov is a case of anacoluthon, but the text itself is without bv. In Ac. 24 : 6 the repetition of bv Kal leaves eipbv- Tes cut off from iKparriaantv. In Ac. 27 : 10 {deupSi otl — /ikWeiv) the oTt clause is changed to the infinitive, a phenomenon noted by Winer^ in Plato, Gorg. 453 6. The anacoluthon in Gal. 2 : 6 {airo 8i Twv SoKohvTcov etval tl — droloi wore ^' & ripaprov and the comparison is never completed. In verse 18 a new comparison is drawn in complete form. The sentence in Ro. 9 : 22-24 is with- out the apodosis and verse 25 goes on with the comparative cbs. 2 Pet. 1 : 17 shows a clear anacoluthon, for the participle XajScbj* is left stranded utterly in the change to Kal TaiTtjv ritv s in Heb. 10 : 1 (if SvvavTai. be accepted, W. H. Sivarai marg.) and exovres in Ph. 1 : 30, where, however, W. H. make a long parenthesis and seek to connect 'exovres with cTriKere (verse 27). These are indeed mere anacolutha, but one wonders if the connection between these and Ro. 12 : 6 (exoyres) is so very distant after all. Participles are scattered along in this chapter in an "unending series"^ mingled with infinitives and imperatives. Thus in 12 : 9-13 we have participles, verse 14 the 1 lb., p. 571. 2 Moulton, ProL, p. 223. ' lb. * lb., p. 225. 6 Blasa, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 285. 440 A GBAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT imperative, verse 15 infinitive, verse 16 * participles, 16^ impera- tive, 17 participles. Here the participle does seem to be practi- cally equivalent to the imperative (cf. inf. also). See Participle (Verbal Noxms) for discussion of this point. In 2 Cor. 6 : 3 the participles skip over verse 2 and carry on the construction of verse 1, and it is resumed in verse 9. For a group of participles with the imperative see Eph. 5 : 15-22. Cf. also Col. 3 : 16. The point is that these various gradations in the use of the participle are not always clearly defined. As regards the nominative par- ticiple rather than the genitive absolute, Winer ^ remarks that thus the participle gains greater prominence in the sentence. In Eph. 4 : 2 av€xoiJ,evoi may not be anacoluthon, but may be in ac- cord with ^s hK\ii6riTe. Col. 1 : 26 is the case of the indicative rather than a participle {i(j>avep6)6ri, not Trecjiavepufihov). See 1 Cor. 7:37 where exup is succeeded by ?x") but (W. H.) kjtipas /coi KoJdiaas (Eph. 1: 20). Cf. Rev. 2:2, 9. As to Heb. 8: 10 (10: 16) diSois is explained by Winer ^ as referring to 5iaJd'fi(ToimL without anaco- luthon, while Moulton^ considers it equal to an indicative and parallel to kTVLypa^ca. I am inclined to agree with Winer on this point. In 2 Cor. 5 : 6 if . Paul, after using Bappovvres, repeats it in the form of Bappovytev because of the intermediate clauses before he expresses evSoKoviJxv, the main verb.* Finally compare a^' ov av iSjjs t6 Tvevfm Kara^atvov Kal pivov knr" ainbv (Jo. 1 : 33) with to irvevpa KaTafioLVOV cis irepiCTtpav k^ obpavov, Kal 'ifieivev tr' avrov (verse 32), where the last clause is the comment of the Baptist to give spe- cial emphasis to that point, more than the participle would. 4. Asyndeton Due to Absence of bk and aXXa. Winer* considers the absence of 5e or AXXa to correspond with p.kv as a species of anacoluthon, and Blass^ shares the same idea. As a matter of fact (see chapter on Particles) ii,kv does not require 5^ either by etymol- ogy or usage. It is rajbher gratuitous to call such absence an in- stance of anacoluthon. The examples will be discussed later, such as Ac. 1 : 1; 13 : 4; Ro. 11 : 13, etc. (/) Okatio Variata. 1. Distinction from Anacoluthon. Sometimes indeed the line between anacoluthon and oratio variaia is not very clearly drawn. Thus in Lu. 17 : 31 (Ss iarai 'eiri toO Supmtos kclI rA aKebri avrov 'ei> rg oklg.) the second clause cannot repeat the relative 8s, but hsis to use ahrov. Cf. 1 Cor. 8 : 6 (e^ o5 — Kal eis ainbv), 2 Pet. 2 : 3 {oh — Koi avrSsv). So also in 1 Cor. 7 : 13 auT^s repeats jfrts. Cf. Rev. 1 W.-TK., p. 572. 8 Prol., p. 224. « lb. ' lb., p. 573. < W.-Th., p. 573. « Ov- cU., P. 286. THE SENTENCE 441 17 : 2. In Ro. 2 : 6 ff. after the relative clause 8s diroScio-et there is a subdivision of the object, on the one hand (toIs nev — !^r]ToviJTai airkdavov, a very effective interruption, however. The case of 1 Jo. 2 : 2 is simple where instead of irepi t&v okov tov Koaiiov (to be parallel with oh irepl rS>v ■fip.eTepcov) John has merely irepi 6\ov TOV Koafwv, a somewhat different conception. A similar ex- ample is found in Ac. 20 : 34 as between rats xp«ic"s nov and toTs oSo-i ixiT kfiov. Heb. 9 : 7 furnishes the same point in inverse order {{iwip iavTov Kal tuv tov Xaou ayvorifiaTcov). A lack of parallel is shown also in Ph. 2 : 22 between irarpi riKvov and aiiv kfwi where Paul purposely puts in (riv to break a too literal carrying out of the figure. In Rev. 1 : 6 the correct text in the parenthesis has » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 286. " W.-Th., p. 679. » lb. 442 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT rifiois ffaaiXdav, Upets tQ 5«$, a different conception from ^aaCKm. See further Ac. 16 : 16 f. 3. Participles in Oratio Variata. These offer a frequent occa- sion for oratio variata, since they can so often be used parallel with subordinate clauses of various kinds. Thus in Jo. 5 : 44 'Kafifiavovres would naturally be followed by fjjToOcres, but we have fijTeiTe. So, on the other hand, in 1 Cor. 7 : 13 Kal avveudoKei does not fit in as smoothly with airuTTov as koL' avveuboKovvTa would. The same lack of parallel in the use of the participle is seen in Jo, 15 : 5 (6 )ikvuv Kayci>) and in Lu. 17 : 31 where the relative and the participle are paired off. So also Ph. 1 : 23 and 1 Jo. 3 : 24. Cf. the Participle in Anacolutha. In Ro.'12 : 6 f. participles and sub- stantives are placed in antithesis, as in 2 Cor. 6 : 3 f . we have participles, in 4-7" iv, in 7'' f. 5id, in 9 f. adjectives and parti- ciples. Cf. 2 Cor. 11 : 23ff. where adverbs, adjuncts and verbs are in antithesis. 4. Exchange of Direct and Indirect Discourse. But the most striking instance of oratio variata is that between direct and in- direct discourse. It is either from the indirect to the direct or from the direct to the indirect. As Blass^ justly observes, the N. T. writers, like all popular narrators, deal very little in indirect dis- course. The accusative and the infinitive is not common in the old sense nor is 6ti always the sign of indirect quotation. Fre- quently it is merely recitative on. and corresponds to our quotation- marks, as in Mk. 14 : 14, etxare tQ oiKoBeiriroTTfi on '0 Si8a(TKa\os \iyei. So also i/j.eis Xeyere oti ffKa(r(f>r]neLs (Jo. 10 : 36). This re- version to one form of discourse from another is not unknown to the ancient Greek. But it is peculiarly in harmony with the N. T. vernacular and essentially vivid narrative style. In Lu. 5 : 14 we have a typical instance of the change from indirect to direct dis- course {irapiiyyeiXev aiirQ firjSevl elTeiv, dXX' aireXdoju del^ov ceavrdv). Exactly parallel with this is Ac. 1 : 4 dXXot Trepiixheiv rfiv krajyeKiav Tov Tarpos rjv iiKoixrark pxtv where observe /m)u. Cf . also Ac. 17 : 3 where after SteXe^aro '6ri — 6 TtjctoCs Luke concludes with the direct words of Paul bv 'eydi KaTayyeKKco v/juv. In Jo. 13 : 29 we have the reverse process where the writer drops from the direct to the in- direct statement {aybpacov oiv xpe'df expua) et$ rrfv eoprriv, fl toTs TTTcaxols tva tl 8^). So also we see the same thing in Ac. 23 : 23 f. {iroLfiaa-aTe — rrjs vvkt6s, KT-r\vr) re irapaa-Tr}(raL tva — dLacrixrua-iv) . But in Ac. 23 : 22 the other change occurs, as 7rapa77eiXas /iridevl «Xo- "Kfjaat OTi Tavra ej/ei^apicros irpos ep,k. In W. H.'s text of Ro. 12 : ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 286. THE SENTENCE 443 1 f. we have TrapaxaXw i/ias irapa(TTrji has disappeared save in composition. If this N. T. situation, which is amply supported by the papyri, is com- pared with the usage of Homer, the contrast will be very great.^ To carry the matter a step further one may note that in late Greek there is a constant tendency for all prepositions to be used with the accusative, so that in modem Greek vernacular all the "proper" prepositions are regularly employed with the accusa- tive.' The occasional LXX use of avv -\- accusative, while a mere error, was in line with this tendency. (e) Incheasing Use of Pbepositions. The constantly in- creasing use of prepositions is one of the main reasons for the blending of the case-forms. This was already partly apparent in the Sanskrit in the assimilation of genitive and ablative singular and in the plural of ablative and dative. So the Latin locative, dative, ablative, instrumental, in most words merged their forms. Moulton* accents the fact that it was the local cases (loc, abl., instr.) in the Greek that first gave way in their endings. That is true with the exception of the accusative (not a purely local 1 Man. of Comp. PhUol., p. 341. ' lb. But Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 125, correctly admits the gen. - Moulton, Prol., p. 106 f. » lb. ' lb., p. 105 f. • Cf. Monro, Horn. Gr., pp. 125 ff. ' Thumb, Handb., p. 98; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 366. 8 Prol., p. 60 f. 452 A GKAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT case), which has shown more persistence than any case save the genitive. The genitive is a non-local case and has held on, though the dative has disappeared in modern Greek vernacular before eis + accusative, the accusative without eis, and the genitive. But this break-down of the case-endings seen in Sanskrit, much more apparent in Greek and Latin, has reached its climax in modern English and French. In modern EngUsh the six Anglo-Saxon end- ings, barring pronouns, have disappeared save one, the genitive (s), and even that can be expressed by the prep. of. In French the process is complete extept in prons. Modern Greek vernacular shows the influence of this tendency very decidedly. The Greek of the N. T. comes therefore in the middle of the stream of this analytic tendency. In the old Sanskrit it was all case and no preposition. In modern French it is all preposition and no case- ending. The case-ideas have not disappeared. They are simply expressed more minutely and exactly by means of prepositions. By and by the case-endings were felt to be useless as the prepo- sition was looked to entirely for the idea. The case without prep- osition belongs to the early stage of language history .^ When Delbriick^ speaks of a "living" case, he means the case-ending, as does Moulton' when he asserts that "we can detect a few moribund traces of instrumental, locative and ablative." If he means the case-meaning, the instances are abundant. And even in case-ending it is not all one-sided, for the locative -t and the instrumental -ots both contributed to the common stock of forms. Henry ^ even suggests that in ovofia-rros we have the ablative t (d), for the Latin word is nomen {nominis). if) Distinction Preserved in the N. T. But the N. T. has not lost distinctive use of the cases and prepositions. Special causes explain some of the phenomena in the N. T. The excessive use of ev in the N. T. is parallel to that in the LXX (cf. Jer. 21, for instance) and is doubtless due partly to the Hebrew a which it so commonly translates as Moulton^ observes. But the so- called instrumental use of kv hke ev poti(t>aLq. (Rev. 6:8; cf. Mt. 12 : 26 f .) is not due entirely to the Hebrew, for, while very com- mon in the LXX, where it is in "the plenitude of its power,"* yet the papyri show undoubted examples of the same instrumental 1 See further Bmg., Griech. Gr., p. 376; Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 419. ' Vergl. Synt., I, p. 193. » Prol., p. 60. * Comp. Gr. of Gk. and Lat., p. 217. « Pro!., p. 61. 6 c. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 82. THE CASES (nTfiSEIs) 453 usage.* See further Locative Case and also Prepositions (iv). In- deed in the N. T. kv outnumbers els three to two.* If these two prepositions are left out of consideration, the disappearance of the locative with prepositions is quite marked in the N. T., a de- cay already begun a good while before,' only to be consummated in the modern Greek vernacular, where eis has displaced iv (Thumb, Handb., p. 100). When one recalls that dative and instrumental also have gone from the modern Greek vernacular and that ct6 with the accusative (eis t6v) replaces all three cases in modem Greek and that originally iv and eis were the same preposition, he is not surprised to read 6 eis t6v aypov (Mk. 13 : 16) where Mt. 24 : 18 has 6 kv tQ &ypcf. So Mt. 12 :41, lierevoriaav eis t6 Kijpvyna TcopS. Moulton* has a very suggestive study of Tnareba). He omits those examples where the verb means ' entrust' and finds about forty others with the simple dative. In the majority of these forty the verb means 'believe.' There are some debatable passages Uke Jo. 5 : 24, 38; 8 : 31; Ac. 5 : 14; 16 : 34; 18 : 8. He finds only one passage outside of Eph. 1 : 13 where h ^ is assimilated (cf . ka^rpa.- yiadriTe), viz. Mk. 1 : 15 (irnrTeiiere kv tQ evayyeXuS) , and he follows Deissmann* in taking kv as 'in the sphere of.' Uio-Teiio) kiri is found six times with the genitive and seven with the accusative in the sense of 'repose one's trust' upon God or Christ. But tti- arevco eis occurs 45 times (37 in Jo. and 1 Jo.) in the sense of 'mystical union with Christ,' like Paul's kv XpurrQ.^ IV. The Distinctive Ideas of Each of the Cases. (a) Fundamental Idea. The point is, if possible, to get at the fundamental idea of each of the eight original cases. To do this it is essential that one look at the Greek cases historically and from the Greek point of view. Foreigners may not appreciate all the niceties, but they can understand the respective import of the Greek cases.' The N. T. writers, as we now know per- fectly well, were not strangers to the vernacular KOivrj, nor were the LXX translators for that matter, though they indeed were hampered by translating a Semitic tongue into Greek. The N. T. writers were in their element when they wrote vernacular » Moulton, Prol., p. 61 f. ' lb., p. 62. Helbing, Die Prepos. bei Herodot und andem Histor. (1904), pp. 8 ff., gives a summary of the uses of Ic and t£s. Cf . also Moulton's re- marks on Helbing's items (Prol., p. 62). ' Moulton, Prol., p. 62. * Prol., p. 67 f. ° Cf. Heitmiiller, Im Namen Jesu, I, ch. 4. 6 In Christo, p. 46 f. ' Farrai, Gk. Synt., p. 68. 454 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT KoivT). They knew the import of the Greek cases as used at that time by the people at large. (b) Cases not Used fob One Another. We have no right to assume in the N. T. that one case is used for another. That is to say, that you have a genitive, but it is to be understood as an accusative. Winer ^ properly condemns such enallage casuum. Not even in 2 Cor. 6 : 4 {avviaTavovTes iavrovs ois 6eov Siamvoi) do we have an instance of it, for the nominative (lit. plural) means 'as minister of God I commend myself,' while the accusative (Suucdvovs) would be, 'I commend myself as a minister of God.' We are then to look for the distinctive idea of each case just as we find it. In the modern Greek, to be sure, the cases are in such confusion (da- tive, locative, instrumental gone) that one cannot look for the old distinctions. (c) Vitality of Case-Idea. This independence of the case- idea is not out of harmony with the blending of case-forms (abl. and gen., loc. and instr. and dat.). This is a very different matter from the supposed substitution of cases alluded to above. The genitive continued to be a genitive, the ablative an ablative in spite of the fact that both had the same ending. There would be, of course, ambiguous examples, as such ambiguities occur in other parts of speech. The context is always to be appealed to in order to know the case. (d) The Historical Development of the Cases. This is always to be considered. The accusative is the oldest of the cases, may, in fact, be considered the original and normal case. Other cases are variations from it in course of linguistic develop- ment. With verbs in particular which were transitive the accusa- tive was the obvious case to use unless there was some special reason to use some other. The other oblique cases with verbs (gen., abl., loc, instr., dat.) came to be used with one verb or the other rather than the accusative, because the idea of that verb and the case coalesced in a sense. Thus the dative with ireWo- liai, the instrumental with xpo-oiio-i-, etc. But with many of these verbs the accusative continued to be used in the vernacular (or even in the Hterary language with a difference of idea, as aKovoi). In the vernacular kolvti the accusative is gradually reasserting itself by the side of the other cases with many verbs. This tendency kept up to the complete disappearance of the dative, locative and instrumental in modern Greek (cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 31), and the ' W.-Th., p. 180 f . The ancients developed no adequate theory of the cases since they were concerned little with syntax. Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 37. THE CASES (nTQZEIz) 455 genitive, accusative and ds compete for the function of the old dative {ib., pp. 38 ff.).' The accusative was always the most popular case. Krebs^ has made a useful study of the cases in the literary Koivii, and Moulton' thinks that these tendencies of the literary KOLvii are really derived from the vernacular. But not all the verbs fall in with the decay of the dative-locative-instru- mental. Thus irpocKvvtlv in the N. T. has the dative twice as often as the accusative, just the opposite of the inscriptions.^ But the papyri show little proof of the decay of the dative save in the illiterate examples.' The accusative gains from the genitive and ablative in the N. T. also, as Krebs found in the later Uterary Greek. Moulton* finds that out of 46 examples Kparelv has the genitive only 8 times, but 8ui4kp€i.v has the ablative always. 'EvTpkireadai. takes only the accusative, and the accusative appears with verbs of filling (Rev. 17 : 3).' Moulton concludes his rdsmn6 of Krebs by calhng attention to the hst of verbs that were once intransitive, but are transitive in the KOLvij. This is a matter that is always changing and the same verb may be used either way. A verb is transitive, by the way, whether it takes the accusative or not; if it has any oblique case it is transitive. As illustrations of this varied usage Moulton cites from the N. T. fvepytiv, avvtpyeZv, kirkpxtadai, KaTa^apeiv, /coraXaXety, KaraTOvetv, kw Tiaxi'&'V, TrXeoveKTeiv, Tpoacjjoiveiv, moTpkx&-v, xopvy^v. He concludes his discussion of the matter with a needed caveat (p. 65 f .) against thinking that all distinctions of case are blurred in the N. T. " We should not assume, from the evidence just presented as to varia- tion of case with verbs, that the old distinctions of case-meaning have vanished, or that we may treat as mere equivalents those constructions which are found in common with the same word." Analogy no doubt played its part in case-contamination as well as in the blending of the case-endings.* • Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 325. ^ Zur Rection der Casus in der spat. hist. Grac, 1887-90. » Prol., p. 64. 5 Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. 153. * lb.; CI. Rev., 1901, p. 436. « Prol., p. 65. ' Ib. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 102. Cf. Thumb, Theol._ Lit., XXVIII, p. 422, for mod. Gk. usage. As a matter of fact the ace. was always more pop- ular in the vemac. Gk., and no wonder that the pap. show it to be so even with verbs usually in the Ut. lang. used with other cases. Cf . VoUser, Pap. Graec. Synt., 1900, p. 5 f. ' Middleton, Anal, in Synt., pp. 47-55. Parrar, Gk. Synt., overstates it when he says that the ace. alone has preserved its original force. He means form alone. 456 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (e) The Method of this Geammab. In the study of each case the method of this grammar is to begin with the root-idea of the particular case in hand. Out of that by means of context and grammatical history the resultant meaning in the particular instance can be reached. This is not only more simple, but it is in harmony with the facts of the linguistic development and usage. Even in an instance like h fiaxaipti (Lu. 22 : 49) the locative case is not out of place. The smiting (xard^o/ief) is conceived as located in the sword. Cf. kv pafidif (1 Cor. 4 : 21). The papyri show the same usage, as indeed the older classical Greek did occasionally. In English we translate this resultant idea by 'with,' but we have no right to assume that the Greeks thought of kv as 'with.' The LXX shows that the Hebrew 3 corresponded closely to the Greek iv in this resultant idea. In translation we often give not the real meaning of the word, but the total idea, though here the LXX follows closely the Hebrew. One of the chief difficulties in syntax is to distinguish between the Greek idiom and the English translation of the idiom plus the context. But enough of prelim- inary survey. Let us now examine each case in turn. V. The Nominative (tttwo-is opBrj, eoiOeXa, 6vo|ia el Jlhrpos (Mt. 16 : 18). The Latin is fond of the dative in such examples as id mihi honori est, and the Greek can use one dative, as 6voiia iari /iOi.° Thus in the N. T. e/cXijSjj t6 bvoiia aiirov 'IijcroDs (Lu. 2 : 21), aviip KoKoi/ievos ZaKxcuos (Lu. 19 : 2), ^v ovo/ia tQ dov\(fi MAXxos (Jo. 18 : 10), as well as' 'loiavris karlv ovofM abrov (Lu. 1 : 63). The use of the nominative in the predicate with the infinitive in indirect discourse (aoi, Ro. 1 : 22) is proper when the sub- ject of the principal verb is referred to. See Indirect Discourse (Modes and Infinitive). But the N. T., especially in quotations from the LXX and passages under Semitic influence, often uses ' lb., p. 302. ^ Cf. Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 188. ' Cf. Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 203, for exx. of the free use of the noun in app. . * Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 117. ' Cf. Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 393 f.; Monro, Horn. Gk., p. 114 f. • Cf. K.-G., I, p. 44. ' Cf. W.-Soh., p. 256. 458 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT eJs and the accusative rather than the predicate nom. Moulton' denies that it is a real Hebraism since the papyri show the idiom iffxov Trap' iinSiv els Sa,{veu)v) ffirkpfiara, K.P. 46 (ii/A.D.), where ei$ means ' as' or 'for,' much like the N. T. usage. But the fact that it is so common in the translation passages and that thQ LXX is so full of it as a tranlation of ^ justifies Blass'' in saying that it is formed on a Hebrew model though it is not un-Greek. Winer' finds it in the late Greek writers, but the Hebrew is chiefly respon- sible for the LXX situation. The most frequent examples in the N. T. are with elvai (eaovrai. eis aapKa ulav, Mt. 19 : 5, which can be compared with Lu. 3 : 5; 2 Cor. 6 : 18; Ac. 8 : 23, etc.), ylvecBai {eyevTiBri eis (cei^aXijj' ycovias, Mt. 21 : 42, with which compare Lu. 13 : 19; Jo. 16 : 20; Rev. 8 : 11, etc.), eyelpeiv eis /SaaiXea (Ac. 13 : 22), IXo7i'(Ro. 4 : 3ff.). Cf. also Jo. 16 : 20. Probably the following examples have rather some idea of purpose and are more in accord with the older Greek idiom. In 1 Cor. 4 : 3, ifwl eis 'eKaxicrbv 'eariv, the point is not very different. Cf. also 1 Cor. 14 : 22 (eis ajfieiov) . But observe pij els Kevov ykviirai (1 Th. 3 : 5), eis TTOVTOS apdpuiTOVs eis KaTa.Kpi.ua (Ro. 5 : 18), kyeuero rj iroXts eis rpia nkpr, (Rev. 16 : 19). (d) Sometimes Unalteked. As the name-case the nominative is sometimes left unaltered in the sentence instead of being put ia the case of the word with which it is in apposition. Cf. Rev. 1:5; Mk. 12 : 38-40; Lu. 20 : 27; Ac. 10 : 37. This is in accord with the ancient Greek idiom, though the Book of Rev. has rather more than the usual proportion of such examples. See chapter on the Sentence for detailed discussion. In Rev. 9 : 11 observe oro/ta exei 'AiroXXuajc (cf. 'AffaSSoiv also), where the nominative is retained much after the fashion of our quotation-marks. The same thing* is noticeable in Jo. 13 : 13 iyueis ^icaveiTe ne "0 SiSdo-zcaXos Kal 6 Kbputs, for thus W. H. print it. This is a classic idiom. Cf. Xenoph., Oec. 6, 14 exovras, to aefivov tovto to koXos re Kayados. Cf. Lu. 19 : 29; 21 : 37, where W. H. print eis to opos t6 KoKoiifievov e\aiMv. But we know from Ac. 1 : 12 (dird Bpovs tov /caXov/xepou eXat&vos) that k\aii>v could be in Luke a nominative (abundantly confirmed » Prol., p. 71 f . » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 85. "Ein starker Hebraismus," W.-Sch., p. 257. ' W.-Th., p. 184. * Moulton, Prol., p. 235, endorses Blass's view (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 85) that in Jo. 13 : 13 we have the voc. The nom. is hardly "incredible" (Blass). Cf. loose use of the nom. in lists in Boeot. inscr. in the midst of other cases (Claflin, Synt., etc., p. 46). THE CASES (nTflSEIs) 459 by the papyri). The most that can be said about the passages in Luke is that the nominative i'Kauiiv is entirely possible, perhaps probable.* In Rev. 1 : 4 (a-rd 6 &v Kal 6 ^v koL 6 ipxofievos) the nominative is kept purposely, as has been shown, to accent the unchangeableness of God, not that John did not know how to use the ablative after airh, for in the same sentence he has aird tSiv TvtvtiaTwv. Moulton^ aptly describes the nominative as "resid- uary legatee of case-relations not obviously appropriated by other cases." But as a matter of fact the nominative as a rule is used normally and assimilation is general so that in Mt. 1 : 21 (cf. 1 : 25 also) we read KoXkaets t6 ovofia avrov 'Iijaodv. Cf . Mk. 3 : 16 ovo/xa HkTpov and Ac. 27 : 1 iKarovTapxil ovbixan 'louXttj). Cf. Ac. 18 : 2. It is, of course, nothing strange to see the nomina- tive form in apposition with a vocative, as ujiteTs ol (papuraZoi (Lu. 11 : 39), rarep ijfiSiv 6 kv rots ohpavoh (Mt. 6:9). This is only nat- ural as the article and participles have no vocative form. Cf . Si avdptinre o Kpivcov (Ro. 2:3). Cf. even oial vfuv, ol hinrerXrianevoi (Lu. 6 : 25), where we have really the vocative, not apposition. (e) The Nominative Absolute. The nominative is sometimes used absolutely, nominatus pendens, just as the genitive (abla- tive) and accusative are. Cf. ablative absolute in Latin, loca- tive in Anglo-Saxon, and nominative absolute in modern Greek and modern English. In titles the nominative is the natural case and is left suspended. Cf. IlaOXos /cXijtos aToaroXos (1 Cor. 1:1). The LXX has an abnormal number of suspended nominatives, due to a literal translation of the Hebrew.' But the N. T. has some also which are due to change of structure, as 6 vikSiv ttoiijitco aiiTov (Rev. 3 : 12), 6 vlkuv S6>acij avrQ (Rev. 3 : 21), 6 yap Mtouo-ijs oStos — oiiK ol8anev tI hr/'evero avrif (Ac. 7 : 40), irciv pfjua apyov — airoSiiaown irepl avrov \6yov (Mt. 12 : 36), ravra a deupeiTe, eXevaoprai ijlikpaL (Lu. 21 : 6). In particular is the participle (cf. Jo. 7 : 38, 6 TncTtiiaiv eis kfii) common in such a nominative, about which see the chapter on the Sentence (anacoluthon). Moulton* considers this one of "the easiest of anacolutha." Cf. further was Ss kpei — d^eeiJo-tTot avT(f (Lu. 12 : 10; cf. verse 8). Cf. Jo. 18 : 11. Some of the examples, like to aShvarov tov vofiov, kv w riadevei (Ro. 8:3), may be regarded as accusative as easily as nominative. The ' See extended discussion in Moulton, Prol., pp. 69, 235. See also note in this Gr. in ch. on Orthog. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 256 f. 2 Prol., p. 69. ' C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 55. " Prol., pp. 69, 225. 460 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT papyri 1 show plenty of examples of this suspended nominative. For classical instances see Riemann and Goelzer, Syntaxe, p. 41. For elliptical nominative see Evdla (Mt. 16 : 2). There was a con- stant tendency in the LXX to drift into the nominative in a long series of words in apposition (Thackeray, p. 23). (/) The Parenthetic Nominative is of a piece with what we have been considering. So in Jo. 1 : 6 we have ovo/m aiirQ 'Itaavtis all by itself. Cf . 3 : 1 (Ni/coSj/^uos ovo/ia airQ). Similarly the nom- inative in expressions of time rather than the accusative may be explained.^ For example in Mk. 8 : 2 we read tin ^S?j rnjiipat, rpeti irpoaiikvovalv fioi. Cf. Mt. 15 : 32. In Lu. 9 : 28 clio-ei ijnepai bKrii the matter is simpler. Blass' compares with this passage cis iip&v rpiuv StctcTTij/ia (Ac. 5: 7) and iSoh SiKa Kal Sktu h-ii (Lu. 13 : 16). The use of IBoi) with the nominative is very common and may be a case of ellipsis. Cf. iSoir (^oivt? €k twv oiipavSiv Xkyovaa (Mt. 3 : 17). Cf. Heb. 2 : 13, etc. In Mk. 6 : 40 observe avkirecrav wpaa-ial irpacriai. This leads one to suspect that avp,ir6a-ia a-vinrocna in verse 39 may be nominative also. The repetition is not a mere Hebraism, since the papyri show examples of it. See Eccl. 2 : 16 KadSn ijdri at ifixkpai ipx<>iJ-6vai to. itavra 'eireK-qadii. This use of the nominative is common in the papyri (cf. ?ri ■tjtikpai yap fjSri rpets Kal viiKres rpets 6kXa ouK iyfiyeprai, Acta Pauli et Tfieclae in O.P. i., p. 9) and can be traced in the Attic vernacular back to the fifth century b.c.^ Thumb finds it still in the modem Greek, and Hopkins (A.J.P. xxiv. 1) "cites a rare use from the Sanskrit: 'a year (nom.) almost, I have not gone out from the hermitage' " (Moulton, Prol., p. 235). See other papyri examples in CI. Rev., April, 1904, p. 152. Of a piece with this is the nominative with adverbs (prepositions) like 6is Kara eh (Mk. 14 : 19) where the first els is in partitive apposition and the second is kept rather than made accusative. Cf. Kad' eh (Ro. 12 : 5), ava eh (Rev. 21 : 21). Brugmann^ indeed considers the adverbs irpGiTov, Seirepov, etc., in the nominative neuter rather than the accusative neuter singular. He cites &vafii^ as proof. Cf. the use of Kal tovto (and also Kal Tavra), as Kal tovto ewl airiaToiv (1 Cor. 6:6). But avrd tovto (2 Pet. 1 : 5) is probably accusative. The prolepsis of the nominative as in 1 Cor. 14 : 16 (6 LvaifhipSsv TOP Toirov Tov ISiiiTov xcos €pet) is natural. Cf. examples like xP^vos d oiros in Boeotian inscriptions (Claflin, Syntax, etc., p. 47). 1 Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. 151 f. 2 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 70. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 85. * Moulton, Prol., p. 70; Meisterh., Gr., etc., p. 203. For pap. exx. see Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. 152. ^ Qriech. Gr., p. 378. THE CASES (nTfiSEIz) 461 (g) In Exclamations. The nominative is natural in exclama- tions, a sort of inter] ectional nominative.^ So Paul in Ro. 7 : 24, ToKalTupos iyi) &v9pciixos', and 11:33, BeQ (Ro. 6 : 17). For parallel in papyri see Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 436. Cf. xapts row deals, B.U. 843 (i/A.D.). (ft) Used as Vocative. It only remains to consider the nom- inative form which is used as a vocative. Cf. chapter VII, 7, (a), for details as to form. It all depends on what one means by the term "case" when he says that the nominative is used as a voca- tive. The form is undoubtedly the same as that of the vocative in a multitude of instances (all neuter nouns, for instance, singular and plural, plural of all nouns in truth). It is only in the singular that any distinction was made between the nominative and voca- tive in form, and by no means always here, as in the case of fem- inine nouns of the first declension, 6e6s (usually) in the second, liquid oxytones like iroifiijv in the third, etc. But if by the voca- tive one means the case of address, then the nominative form in address is really vocative, not nominative. Thus aii, ttotijp (Jo. 17:21) is just as truly vocative as ai, irarep (17:5). Indeed in Jo. 17 : 25 we have warfip BkaLe, showing that irariip is here re- garded as vocative. The article with the vocative in address was the usual Hebrew and Aramaic idiom, as indeed in Aristophanes^ we have 6 irats aKoKoWei. It is good Greek and good Aramaic too when we have 'A/3|3d 6 warrip (Mk. 14 : 36) whether Jesus said one or both. In Mt. 11 : 26 {val, 6 Tarijp) we have the vocative. When the article is used, of course the nominative form must occur. Thus in Rev. 18 : 20 we have both together, oipavi mi ol 07101. Indeed the second member of the address is always in the nom- inative form.' Thus Kvpie, 6 Geos, 6 iravTOKparuip (Rev. 15 : 3). Cf. Jo. '20 : 28. I shall treat therefore this as really the vocative, not the nominative, whatever the form may be, and now pass on to the consideration of the Vocative Case. VI. The Vocative (irxwo-is kXtjtikt)). (a) Nature of the Vocative. Dionysius Thrax called it also TrpoaayopeuTiKri, but in reality it is not a case at all. Practically it has to be treated as a case, though technically it is not (Farrar, Greek Syntax, p. 69). It is wholly outside of syntax in that the word is isolated and has no word-relations.* The isolation of the ' Cf. Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 41; Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 115 f. 2 Cf. Blasa, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 86; Moulton, Prol., p. 70. ' Riem. and Goelzer, p. 42. * Bmg., Griech. Gr., p. 376 ; Giles, Man., p. 302. 462 A GEAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT vocative may be compared to the absolute use of the nomina- tive, genitive and accusative. The native Sanskrit grammarians do not name it in their list of cases, and Whitney^ merely treats it in the singular after the other cases. Indeed the vocative is sometimes as much a sentence as a case, since the word stands to itself and forms a complete idea. Thus Maptd/t and 'PojS/Souj'ei (Jo. 20 : 16) tell the whole story of recognition between Jesus and Mary. When Thomas said '0 Kvpujs Kal d de6s nov, he gave Christ full acceptance of his deity and his resurrection. (6) Various Devices. The vocative has no case-ending, but has to resort to various expedients. In general it is just like the nominative in form. This is true in all pronouns, participles and various special words like deds, besides the plurals, neuters and feminines mentioned under v, (h). Cf. the same practical situation in the Sanskrit.^ Farrar^ indeed conjectures that originally there was no difference in form at all between the nominative and voca- tive and that the variation which did come was due to rapid pronunciation in address. Thus war'fip, but xdrep. Cf . avep (1 Cor. 7 : 16). In most languages there is no distinction in form at all between nominative and vocative, and in Latin the distinction is rare.* It need not be surprising, therefore, to find the nominative form of many singular words used as vocative as noted above under the discussion of the nominative. Moulton^ indeed re- marks: "The anarthrous nominative should probably be regarded as a mere substitute for the vocative, which begins from the ear- liest times to be supplanted by the nominative." Even in the singular the distinction was only partial and not very stable at best, especially in the vernacular, and gradually broke down till "in modern Greek the forms in e are practically the only separate vocatives surviving." Thus Blass^ observes: "From the eariiest times (the practice is as old as Homer) the nominative has a tend- ency to usurp the place of the vocative." This nominative form in the singular is just as really vocative as in the plural when used in address. The N. T. therefore is merely in line with the oldest Greek idiom in such examples. So dvy&TTjp (Mk. 5 : 34; Lu. 8 : 48; Jo. 12 : 15, LXX), but see e{iyaTep in Mt. 9 : 22. In Jo. 17 : 21, 24, 25, W. H. read war^p, but irdrep in Jo. 12 : 28; 17 : 1, 5, 11, etc. Moulton' rightly refuses to follow Hort in writing ir&TTip in voca- » Sans. Gr., p. 89. ' Gk. Synt., p. 70. = Proi,_ p_ 71, ' Whitney, p. 105. « lb., p. 69. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 86. ' Prol., p. 71. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158. THE CASES (nTQSEIs) 463 tive. In the margin of Mt. 9 : 27 W. H. read vids AavelS rather than vU A. Mt. 1 : 20 has 'Iw(n}<> vlds AaveLS, and 15 : 22 Kbpie vlos AavelS, all examples of apposition. Cf. Mt. 20 : 30. But in Lu. 8 : 28 and 18 : 38 we have vti. The adjective S4>p is attributed to the Semitic in- fluence. The common absence of it gives a sort of solemnity where it is found.* Moulton^ observes that it is only in Luke's writings that it appears in the N. T. without emphasis after the classical fashion. Take as an instance of this literary usage w Geoi^tXe (Ac. 1:1), but Kpariart Qe6i\e in Lu. 1 : 3. Moulton likewise notes the absence of Si in prayer in the N. T. (though sometimes in the LXX) and considers "the progressive omission of Si" in Greek not easy to explain. It came up from the verna- cular and then gradually vanished from the vernacular much as » W.-Sch., p. 258 f.; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 86 f. 2 ffist. Gk. Gr., p. 327. » Delbriick, Syntakt. Forch., IV, p. 28. " Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 327. « C. and S., Sel. from the Sept., p. 56. « Prol., p. 71. 464 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT our has done.' Blass^ notes that in most of the N. T. examples it expresses emotion, as & yxivat, (Mt. 15 : 28), 5 Tepea amaros (Mk. 9 -.19), S) TcKiipris (Ac. 13 :10), etc. The tone may be one of censure as in Ro. 2:3; 9:20. But it is a mistake to think that the ancient Greeks always used S3 in formal address. Simcox' notes that Demosthenes often said avSpes 'Adrivaioi just as Paul did in Ac. 17: 22. Paul says u iivSpes once (Ac. 27: 21). But the addresses in the N. T. are usually without u (cf. Ac. 7:3). (d) Adjectives Used with the Vocative naturally have the same form. Thus Si avdpwire Kevk (Jas. 2 : 20), SoOXe Tovripk (Mt. 18:32), TT&Tep ayie (Jo. 17:11), KpLTLcre 0«60iX6 (Lu. 1:3). In Jo. 17 : 25 we read irarrip SUaie, clearly showing that irariip was regarded as a true vocative form. In Lu. 9 : 41 c& yevecL airiaTos the substantive has the same form in nominative and vocative and the adjective here follows suit. Cf . also Ac. 13:10; Lu. 12 : 20 where the adjective alone in the vocative has nominative form. (e) Apposition to the Vocative. The nominative forms and distinctive vocative forms are freely used side by side, in apposi- tion, etc., when the case is vocative.^ In Mt. 1 : 20 we have 'l&)o-i)0 vids AavelS, and in 15 : 22 W. H. read in the text Kbpie vtds Aaveid. Cf. also Mt. 20 : 30. So icvpie, 6 deds, 6 iravTOKparuip (Rev. 15 : 3), and Si avdpuire, tS,s 6 Kpivcav (Ro. 2:1). In the last instance the participle and article naturally are unchanged. See again ovpavk Kai ot 07101, etc. (Rev. 18 : 20). Cf. also irarep rnuhv b h toIs ovpavots {Mt. 6 : 9) . So /cf'pt^/uoi"raT77p, B.U. 423 (ii/A.D.). But two vocative forms are put together also. So 'Itjo-oO vU tov {i\f/laTov (Lu. 8 : 28), irdrep Kijpie tov ovpavov (10 : 21), TjjcroO vU AaveiS (18 : 38). In Ac. 13 : 10 the nominative form is followed by two vocative forms, (S ifKijprjs iravrds 56\ov ktX., vU Sm^oXov, ix^pi 'Jraaris Sucaio(7vvr]s. But ir'Kijp'rjs may be here indeclinable. There is a distinct tendency among the less educated writers in the papyri to use the nominative as a convenient indeclinable (Moulton, CI. Rev., April, 1904). So rrjs kiTLTripria-LS, N. P. 38 (iii/A.D.). (/) Vocative in Pbedicate. The vocative is rarely found in the predicate, though not grammatical predicate. This was oc- 1 Cf. J. A. Scott, Am. Jour, of Philol., xxvi, pp. 32-43, cited by Moulton, Prol., p. 71. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 86. Cf. also W.-Sch., p. 257 f.; Johannessohn, Der Gebr. d. Kasus u. d. Prap. in d. LXX, 1910, pp. 8-13. » Lang, of the N. T., p. 76. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 378. * K.-G., I, p. 50; Giles, Man., p. 302; Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 116. Cf. also C. and S., Sel. from the Sept., p. 55. THE CASES (nTQSEIz) 465 casionally the case in the older Greek by a sort of attraction to a real vocative in the sentence.' But in the N. T. we only have a few examples in the nature of quotation or translation. So in Jo. 1 : 38, 'Pa/S/Set, 8 X^yerai n^epfitivivbutvov AtSdir/caXe; 20 : 16 "Pa/3- fiovvei, 3 Xkyerat, AtSdaKoKe. (g) The Article with the Vocative. This idiom is frequent in the N. T., some 60 examples.'' It is a good Greek idiom and not infrequent.' Delbriick* finds it in harmony with the Indo-Germanic languages. Moulton^ denies that the coincident Hebrew and Aramaic use of the article in address had any influence on the N. T. But one must admit that the LXX translators would be tempted to use this Greek idiom very frequently, since the He- brew had the article in address.* Cf. 3 Ki. 17 : 20, 21, etc. In Mk. 5 : 41 the Aramaic TaXei9d is translated to KopLanov. One is therefore bound to allow some influence to the Hebrew and Ara- maic' Cf. also 'A/3/3a 6 irariip in Mk. 14 : 36, Gal. 4 : 6, and Ro. 8 : 15. It is doubtless true that 17 xats 'eyeipe (Lu. 8 : 54) has a touch of tenderness, and that t6 fUKpiv iroliiviov (Lu. 12 : 32) means 'you little flock.' But one can hardly see such familiarity in 6 irarrip (Mt. 11 : 26). But in Mk. 9 : 25 there may be a sort of insistence in the article, like 'Thou dumb and deaf spirit' (to fiXaXoy Kal Kadv irvevpa). Even here the Aramaic, if Jesus used it, had the article. Moulton' considers that ^aaiKev in Ac. 26 : 7 admits the royal prerogative in a way that would be inappropriate in the mockery of Jesus in Jo. 19 : 3 (xaipe, 6 jSao-iXei/s tSiv 'lov&aUav). But Mk. 15 : 18 does have ^axrCKev tS>v 'lovSaioiv, due, according to Moulton, to "the writer's imperfect sensibiUty to the more delicate shades of Greek idiom." Possibly so, but may not the grammarian be guilty of slight overrefinement just here? In Mt. 27 : 29 the text of W. H. has /Soo-tXeO while the margin reads 6 /SatriXeus. In Rev. 15 : 3 we have 5 fiaaikeis tS>v aiiivcav. In Heb. 1 : 8 it is not certain whether {6 Bpbvos aov 6 6e6s) 6 Oebs is vocative or nominative. But 6 SeairoTTis 6 07105 Kal clKhjOlvos (Rev. 6 : 10) is vocative. As examples of participles in the vocative take 6 KaraXvuv (Mt. 27 : 40) » Giles, Man., p. 302; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 377. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., p. 397 f. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 70. » Farrai, Gk. Synt., p. 70. Cf. K.-G., II, pp. 46 ff. * Vergl. Synt., p. 398 f. ^ Prd., p. 70. • C. and S., Sel., etc., p. 54. ' Moulton in a note (p. 235) does concede some Aram, influence. In He- brews it only occurs, as he notes, in O. T. citations. Cf. also Dalman, Gr., p. 118. « Prol., p. 70. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 327. 466 A GEAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT and 01 kiMireirKrtanivoi vvv (Lu. 6: 25). In Rev. 4 : 11 we have also the vocative case in 6 Khpios koI 6 deos. In Jo. 20 : 28 Thomas ad- dresses Jesus as 6 Kipios txov kol 6 deds nov, the vocative Uke those above. Yet, strange to say, Winer^ calls this exclamation rather than address, apparently to avoid the conclusion that Thomas was satisfied as to the deity of Jesus by his appearance to him after the resurrection. Dr. E. A. Abbott^ follows suit also in an extended argument to show that K^pte 6 6e6s is the LXX way of addressing God, not 6 Kipujs kclI 6 deos. But after he had written he appends a note to p. 95 to the effect that "this is not quite satisfactory. For xiii. 13, ^umr^ /xe 6 SiSdcjcoXos kcu 6 Kvpios, and Rev. 4 : 11 a^ios el, 6 Kvpios Kal 6 Beds iipMv, ought to have been mentioned above." This is a manly retraction, and he adds: "John may have used it here exceptionally." Leave out "excep- tionally" and the conclusion is just. If Thomas used Aramaic he certainly used the article. It is no more exceptional in Jo. 20 : 28 than in Rev. 4 : 11. Vn. The Accusative (rj alTiaxiKTi tttcoo-ls). (a) The Name. It signifies Uttle that is pertinent. Varro calls it accusandei casus from ainaoiiai, while Dionysius Thrax explains it as Kar' airiav ('cause'), a more Ukely idea. Glycas calls it also rd alrvov. So Priscian terms it causativus. Gildersleeve ("A Syn- tactician among the Psychologists," Am. Jour. Philol., Jan., 1910, p. 76) remarks: "The Romans took the bad end of ahla, and trans- lated airiaTLKii, accusativus — hopeless stupidity, from which grammar did not emerge till 1836, when Trendelenburg showed that alrMTiKfi TTTtoo-is means casus effectivus, or causativus . . . The object affected appears in Greek now as an accusative, now as a dative, now as a genitive. The object effected refuses to give its glory to another, and the object affected can be subsumed under the object effected." With this I agree. Cf . Farrar, Greek Syntax, p. 81. Old EngUsh "accuse" could mean 'betray' or 'show,' but the " showing" case does not mark it off from the rest. Originally, however, it was the only case and thus did show the relations of nouns with other words. On the small value of the case-names see Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 379. But at any rate accusativus is a false translation of aWiariaKi]. Steinthal, Geschichte d. Spr., p. 295. (6) Age and History. A more pertinent point is the age and history of the accusative, the oldest of all the cases. Farrar {Greek Syntax, p. 81) calls attention to the fact that €7cbj' (old form of iyi)), Sanskrit aham, tvdm, Boeotian Toijv, Latin idem, all have the ' W.-Th., p. 183. 2 Joh. Gr., pp. 93 ff. THE CASES (nxnsEis) 467 accusative ending though in the nominative. If it is true that the accusative is the oldest case, perhaps we are to think of the other obhque cases as variations from it. In other words the ac- cusative was the normal oblique case for a noim (especially with verbs) unless there was some special reason for it to be in another case. The other oblique cases were developed apparently to ex- press more exactly than the accusative the various word-relations. Indeed in the vernacular Greek the accusative retained its old frequency as the normal case with verbs that in the Uterary style used other cases.' In the old Greek poets the same thing is no- ticeable. Pindar,^ for example, has "a multiplicity of accusatives." In the modem Greek vernacular the accusative has regained its original frequency to the corresponding disuse of the other oblique cases. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 35. "When a fine sense for lan- guage is failing, it is natural to use the direct accusative to ex- press any object which verbal action affects, and so to efface the difference between 'transitive' and 'intransitive' verbs.'" There was therefore first a decrease in the use of the accusative as the Uterary language grew, then an increase in the Koivfi vernacular,* the later Greek,^ and especially the modem Greek vernacular.* This gain or rather persistence of the accusative in the vernacular is manifest in the N. T. in various ways. But the literary koivti shows it also, as Krebs' has carefully worked out with many verbs, (c) The Meaning op the Accusative. It is not so easy to determine this in the view of many scholars. Delbriick^ despairs of finding a single unifying idea, but only special types of the ac- cusative. Brugmann' also admits that the real ground-idea of the case is unknown, though the relation between noun and verb is expressed by it. The categories are not always sharply defined in the soul of the speaker.'" Hiibschmann'' treats the expansion 1 MuUach, Gr. der griech. Vulgarspr., pp. 328-333. * GUes, Man., p. 306. ' Jebb, Vincent and Dickson's Handb. to Mod. Gk., p. 307. « Volker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec, p. 5 f. 6 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., 5. 328. « Hatz., Einl., p. 221. ' ZurRect. der Casus in der spat. hist. Grac. (1887-90). Cf . also Moulton, Pro!., pp. 63 ff. 8 Die Gmndl. d. griech. Synt., Bd. IV, p. 29; Vergl. Synt., I, p. 187. Cf. Ill, pp. 360-393. » Kurze vergl. Gr., p. 441. " Griech. Gr., p. 379. " Zur Casusl., p. 133. For list of books on the ace. see Hiibner, Grundr. etc., p. 40 f. Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 44, agree with Htibschm. Cf. also K.-G., I, p. 291. 468 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT of the verb as the ground-idea of the accusative. "The relation of the accusative to its governing verb resembles the relation of the genitive to its governing substantive." ^ La Roche^ considers it originally a local case and that the inner meaning came later. The usage of the accusative can indeed, for convenience, be di- vided into the outer {oklav, Mt. 7 : 24) and the inner {k^^iiBiiaav 6pov iiiyav, Mk. 4 : 41) usage. But the whole case cannot be discussed on this artificial principle, as Monro' rightly sees. He sees hope only in the direction of the wide adverbial use of the accusative. In the Sanskrit certainly "a host of adverbs are accusative cases in form."* Green^ calls it "the limitative case," and he is not far out of the way. Farrar' thinks that "motion towards" explains it all. Giles,' while recognising all the diffi- culties, defines the accusative as the answer to the question "How far?" The word extension comes as near as any to ex- pressing the broad general idea of the accusative as applied to its use with verbs, substantives, adjectives, prepositions. It is far more commonly used with verbs, to be sure, but at bottom the other uses have this same general idea. Being the first case it is naturally the most general in idea. If you ask a child (in English) "Who is it?" he will reply "It's me." This is, however, not a German idiom. The accusative measures an idea as to its content, scope, direction. But the accusative was used in so many special applications of this -principle that various sub- divisions became necessary for intelligent study. (d) With Verbs of Motion. It is natural to begin with verbs of motion, whether we know that this was the earliest use or not, a matter impossible to decide. We still in English say "go home," and the Latin used domum in exactly that way. Extension over space is, of course, the idea here. One goes all the way to his home. It is found in Homer and occasionally in Greek writers.* Modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 37, has a local accusative) ■wafie o-TTtTt, 'we are going home.' Moulton {Prol., p. 61) notes that it is just the local cases that first lost their distinctive forms (abla- tive, locative, associative-instrumental; and the "terminal accusa- tive" like ire Romam disappeared also. "The surviving Greek ' Strong, Logeman and Wheeler, Hist, of Lang., p. 128. ' Der Accus. in Horn., p. 1. " Notes on Gk. and Lat. Synt., p. 10. ' Horn. Gr., p. 92. » Gk. Synt., p. 81 f. * Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 90. ' Man., p. 303. 8 See K.-G., I, p. 311 f. for exx.; Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 96. Extremely com- mon in Sanskrit. THE CASES (nTQSEIs) 469 cases thus represent purely grammatical relations, those of subject, object, possession, remoter object and instrument." The place- adverb does supply the place of the terminal accusative, but not entirely of the locative, ablative and instrumental. Some MSS. in Ac. 27 : 2 read irXetv rovs Kara rriv 'Aaiav towovs, but the best (W. H.) have eis after ir\etv. In inreirXebaantv rriv KbirpovandTd ireKayos StoirXefiffavTes (cf. English sail the sea"), verses 4 f., the prepositions in composition help to explain the case. In Mt. 4 : 15 68dv doKaaa-qs has no verb of motion and comes in the midst of vocatives in a way quite startling. Green^ refers to the LXX (Is. 9 : 1) for the explanation and quotes " Christ and Him Crucified." But the LXX gives little relief, for, while B does not have it, several MSS. do and without a verb. B how- ever reads ol rfiv irapa\iav, which presents the same diflSculty as to case. Winer^ suggests okovvTes with ol, possibly correct. But even in Matthew the writer may have had in mind the general accusative notion of extension, 'along the way of the sea.' (e) Extent of Space. The ordinary" accusative for extent of space does not differ materially from that of motion above. Here the root-idea of the case is easily perceived apart from the force of the verb. The point is that this is not a special development of the accusative, but is the normal idea of the case, extension. The application to space is natural. The Greek continues all along to have this idiom as the Latin and English. The adverb lULKpav (Ac. 22 : 21) is a good example. Take Jo. 6 : 19 'tKii\aKbrii COS (TToSious etKoai, irkvre ij TpiaKovra, Lu. 22 : 41 aireaTaadj] air' ahrSiv iidil \Wov jSoXiji'. The accusative tells " how far." Observe in Lu. 2 : 44 fj^dov iinkpas bSbv. UpocreXOdiv /nKpov (Mt. 26 : 39) is a good example of this use of the accusative. In Ac. 1 : 12 aapfiarov ^xov dSov varies the construction by the insertion of ixo"- In Lu. 24 : 13 similarly we have dTrexouo-ai' araSiovs i^Kovra. Cf . Mt. 14 : 24. The use of airo, as cos dird (TTaSUav BiKairevre (Jo. 11 : 18; cf. 21 : 8; Rev. 14 : 20), Blass {Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 95) calls a Latinism (cf. a millihus passuum duobus), but Moulton (Prol., p. 101 f.) cites Doric and papyri parallels for irpo and makes a mere Latinism unlikely. So O.P. 492 (H/a.d.) ner' kviavrbv em. Diodorus and Plu- tarch use the same idiom. It is clearly not a direct Latinism. In modem Greek the accusative is common for locality or place affected (Thumb, Handb., p. 35 f.). (/) Extent of Time. It answers the question "how far?" in time, or "how long?" In the N. T. the examples of time are far > Handb., etc., p. 234. » W.-Th., p. 231. 470 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT more frequent than those of mere space. The locative, instru- mental and genitive are also used to express time, but they bring out a different idea, as will be shown. The accusative is thus used for duration or extension in the Indo-Germanic languages gener- ally. Cf. Ti &Se iaTrjKare o\r]V rrjv fifikpav apyoi (Mt. 20 : 6); TOtravra erij SouXeiu aoi (Lu. 15 : 29). A good example is "tiiewav ttiv iinkpav iKdvnv (Jo. 1 : 39). Cf. Jo. 2 : 12; 11 : 6. In Lu. 1 : 75 W. H. (text) read iraaais rah ij/iepais (instr.). Another good illustration is aireSrifiricev xpovovs LKavovs (Lu. 20 : 9) . Cf . be Bi^vapLov T'fjV rifiipav (Mt. 20 : 2) where the accusative well brings out the agreement between the landlord and the labourers. In vvKra ml rifdpav (Mk. 4 : 27) the sleeping and rising go on continually from day to day. Cf. ■fip.kpav ej vf^pas (2 Pet. 2:8). The papyri examples are nu- merous, like tSkovs StSpaxi^vs tt}s ixvas tov fifjva tKaarov, A.P. 50 (ii/B.c). Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., Dec, 1901. The plural is like- wise so used, as tcis i)fiepas — tos vvktcls (Lu. 21 : 37). Perhaps little difficulty is felt in the accusative in Ac. 24 : 25, rd vvv exov iroptvov. So also as to to \oit6v (or \oit6v) in Mk. 14:41, t6 TrKelaTov (1 Cor. 14 : 27), and even ej'eKoxrd/ijji' to. ttoWo. (Ro. 15 : 22). But there are uses of the accusative in expressions of time that do furnish trouble at first blush. In some of these the accu- sative seems to be merely adverbial (Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 94) with httle stress on duration. Indeed a point of time may be in- dicated. Cf. TO TrpbTtpov (Jo. 6:62), irpbrepov (Heb. 10:32), irpuTov (Mt. 5 : 24). It is not hard to see how the accusative of general reference came to be used here, although it is a point of time. Note the article (to Kad' iffiepav, Lu. 19 : 47) in the accusa- tive. We can now go on to rd t^Xos (1 Pet. 3 : 8) and even Tijv apxiv (Jo. 8 : 25). But a more difficult example is found in Jo. 4 : 52, Ix^^s 03pav ifidofirju, where a point of time is indicated. See also Toiav Sipav in Rev. 3 : 3; irS.(Tav cbpav (1 Cor. 15:30). One may conjecture that this use of &pap was not regarded as essentially different from the idea of extension. Either the action was re- garded as going over the hour or the hour was looked at more as an adverbial accusative like t6 \oi-Kbv above. Cf. also t^v fjiik- pav rrjs irevrrjKoaTTjs yevkaOai eis '\tpoab\vixa (Ac. 20 : 16). In Blass- Debrunner, p. 98, examples are given from .iEschylus, Euripides, Aristotle, Demosthenes, where &pav = eis &pav. Cf . Moulton, Prol., p. 63, for t6 irkixrTov ?tos (O.P. 477, U/a.d.) 'in the fifth year.' T(J irapov B.¥. 22 (U/a.d.) means 'at present' (Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 437). In the modern Greek vernacular the accusative is used freely to designate a point of time as well as extent of time THE CASES (nTQZEIs) 471 (Thumb, Handb., p. 37). So in the N. T. the accusative is widen- ing its scope again. In Ac. 10 : 30 dTrd TerapTijs fmkpas iikxpi' TavTrjs rrjs S>pas rjuriv tt)v kva.Ti)v Tpocrevxofievos we can see an interesting ex- ample where ti)? kva.Tii]v is explanatory of the previous note of time, a point of time, and yet a whole hour is meant. In Ac. 10 : 3 (jrepl Sjpau ivarriv) observe xepi, though some MSS. do not have the preposition. Cf. also iieaoviiKriov (ace.) ^ dXe/cropo^coj'ias (gen.) ^ irpul (loc.) for points of time.^ The papyri have examples of a point of time in the accusative,^ as already seen. But the locative is still more frequent in the N. T. for a point of time, as iroiot cipa (Lu. 12 : 39). It is not difficult to see the appro- priateness of the accusative in TeaaapeaKaiSeKaTTjv arinepov ijfikpav vpoadoKuvres ao-troi SiaTeketre (Ac. 27 : 33). It is good Greek with the ordinal. (g) With Transitive Vekbs. The most common accusative is when it is the object of a transitive verb. One cannot hope to pursue all the uses of the accusative in the order of historical development. For instance, no one knows whether cognate ac- cusative (of inner content or objective result) preceded the ordi- nary objective use of the case. Does the adverbial accusative (so common in adjectives) precede the accusative with verbs? These points have to be left unsettled. In actual usage the accusative with transitive verbs calls for most attention. But the term "tran- sitive" needs a word. It means a verb whose action passes over to a noun. This idea may be intransitive in another language, as, for instance, fii) dfivvere fii/Te rbv ovpavdv ni]Tt Tr)v jrjv (Jas. 5 : 12). In English bp,vvi>> is rendered by 'swear by.'" Cf. kpyd^eoBe nfi rr/v fipSiffiv (Jo. 6 :27), EngUsh 'work for.' Not all Greek verbs are transitive, as elfil, for example. The same verb may be used now transitively, now intransitively, as ifjtevov viias (Ac. 20 : 5) and inevev Trap' airois (Ac. 18 : 3) . So 6 fi\&riav hv t^ kpvtttQ (Mt. 6 : 4) and ri di /SXexew to Kdp^os (Mt. 7:3). Cf. Enghsh word "see." As further illustration of the freedom of the Greek verb note PXiwere ri aKovere (Mk. 4 : 24), /JX^Trere tovs Kivas (Ph. 3:2), /SXeirere &t6 t^s i^ifiris (Mk. 8 : 15).' There is indeed a difference between the accusative and the use of a preposition as in euyeTe t^v iropveiav (1 Cor. 6 : 18) and iptdyere aird t^s eiSwXoXarpeias (1 Cor. 10 : 14). ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 311. 2 Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. 152. O.P. 477 (21) iros is so used. The ace. is used in the Sans, for a point of time. Cf . Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 92. For exx. in the LXX see C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 56. Cf. also Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 75. ' Green, Handb., etc., p. 230. 472 A GKAMMAE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT But for practical purposes many Greek verbs were used with lib- erty. In the case of ^ofitoixac with accus. (Mt. 10 : 26, 28) or with &t6 and ablative (Mt. 10 : 28) we have a Hebraism. Moulton (Prol., p. 102) admits that this use of air6 is a "translation-Hebraism" Osi). It occurs in both Mt. (10 : 28) and Lu. (12 : 4) and repre- sents probably the Aramaic original. Cf. dpare /cat vX6L(rv\a(r. This matter will call for further discussion directly. But we have already observed that transitive verbs in Greek do not always have the accusative. The transitiveness may be as clearly expressed by a dative as with aKoXovdtu, the genitive with kirtdvueu, the ablative with axoorep^co, etc. The accusative is indeed the normal case with transitive verbs, but not the only one. Some verbs continued to use the accusative parallel with the other cases. Thus ewCKavdavonai has to, p,h> ottio-w in Ph. 3 : 13, but ^iKo^evlas in Heb. 13 : 2. Sometimes the point lies in the dif- ference of case, as aKohovres fiiv t^s (pcovijs (Ac. 9:7), but rriv 5i caviiv obK fJKovaav (Ac. 22 : 9). Then again verbs otherwise in- transitive may be rendered transitive by the preposition in com- position. Cf. Siripx^o Tr)v 'lepeix^ (Lu. 19 : 1), but kKeLvrjs in 19 : 4. So TrapoTrXeOo-at rfiv "Eofiai. as in Attic is found with the accusative in Tit. 1 : 14 and Heb. 12 : 25. In 2 Tim. 1 : 15 the aorist passive » See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 87-89. Cf. also W.-Th., pp. 221 ff. THE CASES (nTfiSEIs) 473 (i,ire(TTparia&v fie) is SO used. For like use of the aorist or future passive with accusative see kvTpairiicovTai t6v vlov fwv (Mt. 21 : 37), where the earUer writers generally had dative (kvTpkTonai) ; hxai- ffXw^S A** (Mk. 8 : 38) from iiraia-xdvoiiai, whereas alcxiivoimi is in- transitive (dTTo and abl. in 1 Jo. 2 : 28) . So also ob&tv aTeKpWi} (Mk. 15 : 5) as ov&kv airepivaro (Mt. 27: 12), but note aireKplBri irpos om tv prjfw. (Mt. 27 : 14). Cf. ri dxoKpteg (Mk. 9:6). For ^o/ST/fl^re oiiTois see Mt. 10 : 26 and note <^o/37j9^r€ 6.ird t&v aTOKTewdvTcov (10 : 28) which happens to be in imitation of the Hebrew idiom {■p) as of the EngUsh "be afraid of." (Cf. above.) See Jer. 1 : 8. In Mt. 10 : 31 ^o^ticdt is intransitive. Bao-Katcco in Attic Greek was used with the dative in the sense of 'envy,' but in Gal. 3 : 1 the accusative in the sense of 'be- witch.' 'SKa(js TroieTre rots /iKTOvcnv (Lu. 6 : 27). The remaining verbs' that call for discussion in this connection cannot be grouped very well. They will be treated simply in alphabetical order. In the LXX yevonai is fairly common with the accusative, and some examples occur in other later writers in- stead of the usual genitive.^ In the N. T. the genitive is still the usual case (davarov, Lu. 9 : 27; Jo. 8 : 52; Heb. 2 : 9; Seiirvov, Lu. 14 : 24; SupeSis, Heb. 6 : 4; firi8ev6s, Ac. 23 : 14), but the accusative ' Volker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec, pp. 6-8, gives the following verbs as having the ace. in the pap. : AXXdffffco, SovXevia, kiridufikui exiTiryx^*'", iirCKavdavoixai^ l^£pXO/zai, 6&5oKko, KaTTiyopko, Kparktay Kvpieiita^ XuTrko, Trapitrra^at, iropeijonaLj TrXTipou, {ntavToM, xpioiuu, etc. ^ Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 77. 474 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT is found in Jo. 2 : 9 (to iiSup) and Heb. 6 : 5 (koKov 6eov pfjiia). In Rev. 17 : 3 we even have yknovra ovoftara instead of ovonarcov. The accusative appears with yowireTkoi (Mk. 10 : 17), but absolutely in Mk. 1:40, and with i/iTrpoaOev in Mt. 27 : 29. In Rev. 2 : 14 SiSaaKu has the dative (r^ j3aXa/c), a construction which might a priori seem natural with this verb, but not so used in Greek (cf. Latin and English).' Ait^dw and Teivau are intransitive in the N. T. save in Mt. 5 : 6 where the accusative is used, not the usual genitive. ApaffffopMi appears only once (1 Cor. 3 : 19) in a quotation from the LXX and has the accusative. 'EXeew is transitive (Mt. 9 : 27, etc.) as is oiKTeipco (Ro. 9 : 15, quotation from LXX). 'Ejuxopeuo- juat occurs only twice, once intransitive (Jas. 4 : 13), once with ac- cusative (2 Pet. 2:3). 'Evedpeiu likewise occurs only twice (Lu. 11 : 54; Ac. 23 : 21) and with accusative both times. Cf. O.P. 484 (ii/A.D.) in sense of 'defraud' with accusative. (Moulton, CI. Rev., Apr., 1904). 'Ext^u/i^o) is found with the genitive (Ac. 20 : 33) or with the accusative (Mt. 5 : 28) according to W. H. (BD, etc.). 'Epya^o/Jiai is often transitive, but rr/v 6a\acraav kpya^ovrai (Rev. 18 : 17) is somewhat unusual, to say the least. Eiia77eXtfo- Aiai (active in Rev. 10 : 7; 14 : 6; passive Gal. 1 : 11; Heb. 4 : 6, etc.) has the Attic idiom of accusative of the thing and dative of the person (Lu. 4 : 43; Ac. 8 : 35, etc.), but examples occur of the accusative of the person and of the thing (Lu. 3 : 18; Ac. 8 : 25). In Ac. 13 : 32 Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 90 note) denies two accusatives to £11077., construing tijv — €Ta77eXtai' with on Tainriv 6 d&)s 'eKT€ir\TipcoKep. This is rather forced, but even so the 6ti clause would be in the accus. EvdoKew is trans, in the LXX and so appears in the N. T. twice (Mt. 12 : 18, quotation from the LXX; Heb. 10 : 6, 8, LXX also). Evxapi-poveiv there is the object of the verb after the transitive use in the LXX (Ezek. 17: 24). But most probably this is the accusative of general reference. 'ATreXirtfo) (Lu. 6 : 35) is indeed transitive with accusative, but so is 'iKirl^oi (1 Cor. 13 : 7; 2 Cor. 1 : 13, etc.) sometimes. Here are some examples of 5td: to weKayos Si,a,ir\iOaavTes (Ac. 27: 5), heiroptb- ovTo Tos TriXeis (Ac. 16 : 4), dieXdiiv Tr)v MaKedoviav (Ac. 19 :21; cf. ace. in Lu. 19 : 1 and gen. keij'ijs in 19 : 4). In Heb. 11 : 29 (5i^;3r/- aav TTjv daXaaaav cos Sid ^rjpas 717s) Blass' notes both accusative and genitive (with .Std). Even kvepyko} has the accusative in 1 Cor. 12 : 6, 11. As examples of Kara observe KaTe^apTjaa vfias (2 Cor. 12 : 1 Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 436. ^ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 89. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 64. « Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 78. ' Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 80. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 89. * Joh. Gr., p. 78. THE CASES (nTfiSEIs) 477 16), vfias KaTafipafitvtTco (Col. 2 : 18), KaTijywviaavTO ^aciKtlas (Heb. 11 :33). Note also KaTaao4>i,a\rji 'ixldi oUtoi to ypaixfiaTeiov. Cf . Tts iroLnaivet iroifivriv (1 Cor. 9:7). So also in Lu. 8 : 5, k^rjXdev 6 (nreipcov tov avelpai tov airopov. Gildersleeve {Am. Jour, of Philol., xxxiii, 4, p. 488) objects properly to Cauer's crediting, in his Grammatica Militans, "the division of the accusative into the object affected and the object effected" to Kern, since Gilder- sleeve himself was using it as far back as 1867. In modem English this repetition of the same root is condemned, but it was not so in Greek. Conybeare and Stock ^ observe that the Hebrew and the Greek coincide on this point, and hence the excess of such accusatives in the LXX in various applications. And the N. T., here unlike the papyri, shows an abundance of the cognate ac- cusatives. The accusative of the inner content may be illustrated by riiv 8iKaiav KpiaLV Kpivere (Jo. 7: 24), tov 06/3oj' avrSiv fiij (po^ridrJTe (1 Pet. 3 : 14), au^ei Triv av^aiv tov deov (Col. 2 : 19), tva cnpaTeirg ttjv Kokfiv (TTpaTeiav (1 Tim. 1 : 18), ayoivi^ov t6v koKov ayuva (1 Tim. 6 : 12), wiioKoyrjcas ttjv koMip ofioXoyiav (ib.), edavfiaaa i5 aapd (Gal. 2 : 20) which may be equal to 'in that,' adverbial accusative.' In 2 Cor. 12 : 13 the accusative relative follows the nominative interrogative rl kenv 6 ■^aaudriTe. This neuter accusa- tive of the adjective easily glides into the purely adverbial accu- sative, like ir&VTa iraaiv apkatua (1 Cor. 10 : 33), itavra fiov nkuvticrdi (ICor. 11:2). As a further example of the more objective result one may note ^XMoX'lireuo-ei' aixiJui\o3rip,riv\aKa.s (Lu. 2 : 8) ob- serve 4'Ko56/i7j(rei' ttjv obcLav (Mt. 7 : 24), biiaare Seanas (Mt. 13 : 30, but KBC have els). The analogous cognate accusative is seen in such constructions as /ti) (l>oPo{inevaL uriSefilav irT&i]v. KaBiarritu shows several examples like tk ne KartaTriaev Kpiriiv (Lu. 12 : 14). Cf. also Ac. 7 : 10; Heb. 7 : 28. In Gal. 2 : 18 we have irapa^aTriv kpav- t6v avvicTTava. ' kiro5dKvvp.i shows an example in 1 Cor. 4 : 9 and vpoopl^u in Ro. 8 : 29. For further verbs with two accusatives, not to weary one, see irepiayu (1 Cor. 9:5), iKavbta (2 Cor. 3:6), biKkyo- fuu (Jas. 2 : 5), itf^oi (Ac. 5 : 31). This second accusative may be either substantive, adjective or participle. As specimens of the adjective take 6 Troiijtras jue tytn 1 Anal, in Synt., p. 25. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 92. THE CASES (hTOSEIS) 481 (Jo. 5 : 11), Tois ToioiTTous kvri/Mvs Jexire (Ph. 2 : 29). In 1 Cor. 4 : 9 indeed the adjective makes three accusatives and with us four, 6 6e6s ijjuSs Toi)s aToariXovs karxarovs airkSa-^ev ii% eKiBavariovs (so W. H.). As an example of the participle see Karkarriaev aiirdv iiyovixevov (Ac. 7 : 10). Cf. 2 Tim. 2 : 8. Sometimes cos occurs with the second accusative, as in iis irpoiiTriv avrov dxov (Mt. 14 : 5). Cf. 21 : 26. In 2 Th. 3 : 15 note /ti) m ix'^pdv fiyeiei.v), taking object-sentence as "thing." Indeed in Gal. 1 : 9 (et tis i/iSs eiia7- ytKi^eTai Trap' 8 xapeX(i;8ere) the same thing exists, for while the antecedent of 8 would be irapa tovto, ti is really implied also, ti Trapd TOVTO 6. Another group of verbs in the ancient Greek with two accusa- tives is that of depriving, etc. Here indeed the ablative may take the place of one accusative, as in 1 Tim. 6 : 5 with the passive of airoffTspkci) the ablative is retained (t?s aXriddai). But in the N. T. neither diroerTep^o), nor a4>aipk(i3, nor Kpinrrco has two accusatives. Either the ablative alone occurs or with dx6 (Lu. 16 : 3; Lu. 19 : 42; Rev. 6 : 16). With ^ivKaaaeaOai (Ac. 21 : 25) aiiTohs is the ac- cusative of general reference (so-called "subject") of the infini- tive.- But verbs of clothing or unclothing, anointing, etc., do have two accusatives, though not always. Thus k^kbvtrav avrdv rrjv xXa/iMa (Mt. 27 : 31; cf. Mk. 15 : 17; Lu. 15 : 22), hkdvaav ah- Tbv tA ijudrta avTov (Mt. 27 : 31; cf. Mk. 15 : 22). But afi^iewviu does not have two accusatives nor TrepiTtOijjw (Mt. 27:28). In Lu. 23:11 some MSS. give two accusatives with irepi^aXiiu, but KELT omit aiiTov. In Jo. 19 : 2 the text is beyond dispute i/mTLov irop (Rev. 3:5). Moreover xptw has two accusatives in Heb. 1 : 9 (^xptce" <'■« 6 Seos ekaiov), a quotation from the LXX. In Rev. 3 : 18 KoWovpiov is not the object of eyxP'cot, but of ayopaaai. 'AXei^co is not used with two accusatives, but has the thing in the instrumental case (Mk. 6 : 13). nXi/poco does not indeed have two accusatives in the N. T., but the passive with accusative in Ph. 1:11 and Col. 1 : 9 really involves the idiom. The following causative verbs have two accusatives. "Opjcifoj at t6v dfov (Mk. 5 : 7) is a case in point (cf. e^opKkco in Herod.). See ' Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 78 f., argues unsuccessfully against the idea that £4o77eXifo/iat has two aces. 484 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT also Ac. 19 : 13 and one example of Ivopd^co in 1 Th. 5 : 27. The idea is really to "cause to swear by." In Jas. 5 : 12 {ofiviiere fvllTe Tov ovpavbv fiiire rifv yr\v ixi^Ti aXKov rivd. SpKov) we have two con- structions, one "swear by," the other the cognate accusative. So dtaiiaprvpofiaL in 2 Tim. 4: 1 f. Cf. P.O. 79 (ii/A.D.) dfivvoi AvroKparopa Kaiaapa 'M.ap[Ko]v AvprjXiov — okTidfj £if [at] to, irpo-. nortfco is a good example of the causative sense. Thus Ss av Toria'g i/iSs tottipiov BSaros (Mk. 9 : 41). Cf. Mt. 10 : 42; 1 Cor. 3:2. In Ro. 12 : 20 tj/cani^u has the accusative of the person, in 1 Cor. 13 : 3 the ac- cusative of the thing (cf. Jer. 23 : 15 for double accusative with both these verbs). In Lu. 11 : 46 we have ^pri^ere roiis avBpis- ■Kovs ^opria dva^aaraKra. Cf. riXaTTCoaas avrbv Ppaxii rt in Heb. 2 : 7 (LXX). Finally some words of doing good or ill have two accusatives. Thus in)bb> ^Xaif/av avTov (Lu. 4 : 35) where the pronoun is really a cognate accusative, as is the case with ifias ov8kv 6}(t)e\riaei (Gal. 5 : 2). Cf. Ac. 25 : 10 'lovSalovs oiSiv i]hUrjKa. In Mt. 27 : 22 we read Ti olv TToiiJo-w 'Iriaow. Cf. also Mk. 15 : 12, though D has tc^ fiaaCKet (Blass, Gr. ofN. T. Gk., p. 91). Elsewhere in the N. T. we meet the dative of the person as in Mt. 21 : 40; Ac. 9 : 13. See trepl S>v avrrjv ireiroLriKaaLv, P. Grenf. ii, 73 (late iii/A.D.), where S>v is attracted from a= 'of what they have done to her.' Cf. firiSev irpdjgs aeavrc^ KaKbv (Ac. 16 : 28). In Mk. 7: 12 the dative of the person is in keeping with ancient Greek usage. In Mt. 17 : 12 kv ahrCf may be more exactly 'in his case' (ND do not have kv), but note e£s i>p,as in Jo. 15 : 21 and the likeness of this to the- modem Greek use of eis with accusative as the usual dative. Blass (ife., p. 92) compares also the use of kv knoi (Mk. 14 : 6) and €i$ ipx (Mt. 26 : 10) with epya^ofMi, and observes that epya^oimi, in Attic had some- times two accusatives. One may compare again the expression ri ' &pa 6 UiTpos kykvero (Ac. 12 : 18). Aeyoi and elirou indeed have two accusatives in the N. T., but in Jo. 1 : 15 the margin (W. H., R. V.) really has this idiom. Cf. also Ac. 23 : 5. (j) With Passive Vebbs. Indeed the accusative may be found with verbs in the passive voice. Draeger^ calls the accusa- tive with passive verbs in Latin "ein Gracismus." This accusa- tive may be of several kinds. See cognate accusative in Mt. 2 : 10, kx&pwo'f X'^P^v. It occurs with the so-called passive deponents like 6.ir€Kpidr]v (oiSiv aireKpidr), Mk. 15 : 5). Cf. oi8h> aweKpivaro (Mt. 27 : 12) and AireKpWjj X67oj' (Mt. 15 : 23). As further instances note 6,weaTp&hpav (Lu. 16 : 19), kKaviiarLcrdrjcrav /caO/ia /xkya (Rev. 16 : 9), SaprjatTanroX- Xas {irKriyas, Lu. 12 : 47, oXiyas, 48), to fidirTicrfm 6 PaTTi^ofmi, ;8oir- rurdfjvai (Mk. 10 : 38, two examples), iv irveviia kiroriffdrjuev (1 Cor. 12 : 13), ireTre'urixeSa to. Kpelaaova. (Heb. 6 : 9), xexXijpco/xej'oi Kapirbv diKaioaiivris (Ph. 1 : 11; Col. 1 :9 Iva irKripoidrJTe Trjv 'eirlyvoiaiv and of. Ex. 31 : 3, hkifKrica aMv irvtv/jia (ro^tos) and compare 2 Tim. 1 : 5 for genitive {'Lva xipSs ttXijp&jOw), I^ri/iu>i6rjvai tt\v ^vxvv avrov (Mk. 8 : 36). Cf. also Mt. 16 : 26; Ph. 3 : 8; Heb. 10 : 22. See S hiv ki, kixov dx^eXijSgs (Mt. 15:5); tI axj)eXriQr)v 1 Th. 2:4; knaTeiiBrj t6 imprvpuov 2 Th. 1 : 10; cf. also 1 Cor. 9 : 17; Gal. 2 : 7; Ro. 3 : 2; 1 Tim. 1 : 11). Then again Trepi. PaWo/iai. is frequently so employed, as irepi^e^rifievos civSova (Mk. 14 : 51; cf. 16 : 5; and especially in Rev., as 7 : 9, 13; 10 : 1; 11 : 3; 12 : 1; 17 : 4; 18 : 16; 19 : 13). This is not the middle as Blassi has it, though the future middle does occur in Rev. 3 : 5 with kv, and the aorist middle with the accusative in Rev. 19 : 8. In Rev. 4 : 4 we have xept/Se/SXij/teTOus IfiarioLs (loc), and margin (W. H.) kv Ip.. Once more ireplKafmi. is used as the passive of xeptTiS?j/ii with the accusative of the thing, though the verb itself means to 'lie around' instead of 'be encompassed with.' So rriv &\v(nv irepl- K€ipai (Ac. 28 : 20). Cf. also Heb. 5 : 2, but in Lu. 17 : 2 we have Trept repeated. 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 93. 486 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT There are once more still looser accusatives with passive verbs, partly by analogy and partly merely an extension of the principle illustrated already. Thus mTtixohnevos rdv XoyovXG^T^- 6 : 6) does not differ radically from as kdiSaxOv^^ above. In deSe/jievos roiis iro- 3as Kal Tos x"pas (Jo. 11 : 44) we see a close parallel to Tept/Se/SX?;- fikvos above. Note active in Mt. 22 : 13. In Siei^apiikvuv top vovv (1 Tim. 6 : 5), 'pepaVTiaixkvoi rds KapSias (Heb. 10 : 22), XeXovafitvot TO aS>na (10 : 23) the accusative seems to be rather remote and to come close to the accusative of general reference, but not quite, for the force of the verb is still felt. This is still true of TTiu .auTTiv elKova p,eTaiiop4>ovneda (2 Cor. 3 : 18) and perhaps even of TTiv avTTiv avTifiLaOlav TrKaritvOriTe (2 Cor. 6 : 13). In Ac. 21 : 3 av- acl)avavT€s, not ava4>avkvT€s, is the correct text, as Blass* observes. The impersonal verbal in —rfey occurs only once in the N. T. (Lu. 5 : 38) and as in the ancient Greek it is used with the ac- cusative, olvov vkov eis aaKoiis Kaivoiis ^\r)Thv. This verbal is more usually transitive than the personal form in -rkos, which is not found in the N. T. (fc) The Adverbial Accusative. It is not very common in the N. T. except in the case of pure adverbs. The adverbial accusa- tive is really nothing more than a loose use of the accusative with intransitive verbs, with substantives or adjectives. It is rare in Homer^ and increases steadily till it becomes very common, though perhaps never quite so abundant as in the Sanskrit, where a veri- table host of such accusatives occur.' It is a perfectly normal development of the case, for extension is its root-idea. This ac- cusative is sometimes called the accusative of general reference. As an example of such an accusative with an intransitive verb note KaOlcTarai to. irpos top Bebv (Heb. 5:1). See also avkveaav ol avSpes Tov apiBfiov dis TreirawcrxiXtoi (Jo. 6 : 10),* tov Tpbrov tKTop- vtiKTacTOLL (Jude 7), bv TpoTov opvis kTiavvayei (Mt. 23 : 37) and 2 Tim. 3 : 8 {dv Tpoirov). Cf. avelxecrdk fiov p.iKpbv tl (2 Cor. 11:1). In Ro. 15 : 17 the whole verbal phrase is concerned with to. irpos Oeov, but see Ro. 12 : 18, to k^ inQv neTO, wavTUV avdpiyircov eiprivivovTes, where to k^ vp£iv is ace. In Ro. 1 : 15 t6 KaT' hp.k may be nom. In Heb. 2 : 17 this adv. ace. occurs with the adj. as in inuT6% apxi-epeis to. ivpos tov Bebv. So also with a subst. as in 6 Xpio-r^j ri KaT&. ahpKa (Ro. 9:5). The Text. Recept. in Ac. 18 : 3 had (tktjj'o- TTOtos Tifv Ttxvy}v, but W. H. rcad (tktivotvomI rg Tkxvo- Indeed the » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 93. ^ q^^^ Man., etc., p. 309. » Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. J91, 93. « Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 75. So 2 Mace. 8 : 16. THE CASES '(nTOSEIs) 487 instrumental is usual in the N. T. in such instances,' as ppa5eh t^ KapdLq, (Lu. 24 : 25), Xvpo(t>oivlKicraa tQ ykvu (Mk. 7 : 26), 'Kiiirpvoz t^ yivti (Ac. 4 : 36), iravTl tp^ttcj) (Ph. 1 : 18), rais t^ux^ts iK\v6fievoi (Heb. 12 : 3). But, on the other hand, observe rovvona 'l(aari4> (Mt. 27: 57), but elsewhere in the N. T. we have ovofiari. (Ac. 18 : 2). In Ro. 16 : 19 some MSS. have t6 k' ifuv. The phrase t6 koB' els (Ro. 12 : 5) is accusative, even though th itself is nominative in form. In 1 Cor. 11 : 18 see also pkpos n iriaTevco. Perhaps thus is to be explained the accusative with the interjection in Rev. 8 : 13 oial Toiis KaroLKovvTas. Cf. oial and nominative (or vocative) in Is. 1 : 4. There is only one instance of an accusative with an adverb of swearing in the N. T. and that is in 1 Cor. 15 : 31, vi) ttiv vfie- ripav Kavxv<^i-v. In Mk. 6 : 39 avp,x6cna avfixoaia may be looked at as nominative (cf. wpacMi in verse 40) .or accusative (cf . Lu. 9 : 14). Brugmann^ considers Kal tovto (1 Cor. 6 : 6, 8) nominative rather than accusative, but that seems hardly possible with aM TOVTO (2 Pet. 1:5), and Kal tovto may be accusative also (Ph. 1 : 29, etc.). Cf. also tovto p.kv — tovto be (Heb. 10 : 33). In Ac. 15 : 11; 27 : 25 we have koJB' ov Tporov. In Ph. 4 : 10 {avsdaXeTe to mep kpav ^povttv) the infinitive is probably the accusative of general reference. Cf. tov iroSav woveZs awd aKoXa-irov, B.U. 380 (iii/A.D.). There are indeed other expressions that come more closely to the pure adverb. Such, for instance, are to kolB' rifiipav (Lu. 11:3; 19:47; Ac. 17:11), ti^v d.pxvv (Jo. 8:25), t6 \olw6v (Mk. 14:41; Ph. 3:1; Heb. 10: 13, etc.), to irpoTepov (Jo. 6:62, etc.), to ttpSitov, (Jo. 10 :40; 12 : 16); to TrXeicTov (1 Cor. 14:27), tA iroXXA (Ro. 15 : 22, MSS. ttoXXAkk), tA vvv (Ac. 17 : 30), t6 vvv ixov (Ac. 24 : 25), TO reXos (1 Pet. 3:8). In the case of to \onr6p (1 Cor. 7 : 29) it may be either accusative or nominative. In 2 Cor. 6 : 13 Tijp avTCfuadiav is considered adverbial accusative by some, as is iravTa with apeaKca (1 Cor. 10 : 33) and with p,kp.vtjaOe (11:2). Observe also TO abTo (Ph. 2 : 18; Mt. 27 :44). Cf. ovbiv xpe'^v ^xw (Rev. 3 : 17), and the common use of tL in the sense of 'why' as in Mt. 17: 10 {Slo, tI in verse 19). This phase of the adverbial accusa- tive is common in the papyri.' But the most numerous group of adverbial accusatives is found in the adverbs themselves. The accusative is not the only case used for adverbs, but it is a very common one. In Homer* in- ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 117. Cf. Landgraf, Der Accus.^der Beziehung nach Adj., p. 376, Archiv fiir lat. Lex. und Gr., vol. X. ' Griech. Gr., p. 378. ^ Volker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec, pp. 10-13. * Giles, Man., etc., p. 309. 488 A GBAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ■ deed adverbial accusatives of substantives are almost absent. But the N. T. shows a few in harmony with the development of the language. Thus aKiir/v (Mt. 15 : 16), Bupeav (Mt. 10 : 8), x'^P"' as a preposition (Eph. 3 : 1, etc.). But adjectives in the accusa- tive were numerous in Homer ' both in the singular and the plural. They occur in the positive, comparative and occasionally the su- perlative. As examples of the positive singular may be taken To\i (2 Cor. 8 : 22), dXlyov (Mk. 6 : 31), fiiaov (Ph. 2 : 15), raxv (Mt. 5:25), \olw6p (1 Cor. 1: 16, etc. Cf. B.U., iv, 1079, 6). Indeed the participle tvxov (1 Cor. 16 : 6) is used as an adv. ace. (see Ace. Absolute). As an example of the plural positive note iroXXA in Ro. 16 : 6, though this may be construed as cognate ace. with iKorlaaev. Cf. Jas. 3 : 2; 1 Cor. 16 : 12, 19. For the comparative singular note /xaXXou Kfttlcuov (Ph. 1 : 23), o-TrovSaiorepov (2 Cor. 8 : 22), Sebrepov (1 Cor. 12 : 28), Trepiacbrepov (Mk. 7 : 36), fikXriov (2 Tim. 1 : 18), "e\aTTov (1 Tim. 5:9), Urepov (Mt. 22 : 27), rLxiMv (Jo. 13 : 27), etc. Cf. -irokv airovbaibTtpov (2 Cor. 8 : 22) with iroWQ p,S,\- Xoj' (Ph. 1 : 23), the instrumental and usual idiom in the N. T. In the superlative it is usually the plural form like ^durra (2 Cor. 12 : 9), /idXto-ra (Ac. 20 : 38), raxi-ffTa, (Ac. 17: 15), etc. But note irpSiTov (1 Cor. 12 : 28), rplTov (ib.). The later Greek continued to exhibit a wealth of adverbs in the accusative.^ (0 The Accusative by Antiptosis.' It is not in reality a special use of the accusative, but merely a shifting of the noun or pronoun out of its usual order and into the government of the other preceding clause, and thus it becomes accusative whereas it would otherwise be nominative. So in Mk. 1 : 24, olda at ris d (cf. Lu. 4 : 34), Lu. 19 : 3, tSetv 'Iria-ovv ris tariv. But in Mt. 15 : 14 we have a kind of prolepsis (not the technical sort) without any change of case, tv4>K6s tvcjAov kav oSrjyy. In the case of ni] tlvo. Siv 6.ireaTaKKa irpos vfias, 8l' avrov iTXeoveKTr/cra ii/uSs; (2 Cor. 12 : 17) the TLva is left to one side and anacoluthon takes place and the sen- tence is concluded by Si' avrov. (m) The Accusative by Inverse Attraction. Thus op- Kov 8v &p.oatv (Lu. 1 : 73), tov &ptov bv KKS>ixiv (1 Cor. 10 : 16). Cf. t6 Torijpuiv (1 Cor. 10 : 15). In Mk. 3 : 16 but for the parenthesis (xat kTredriKev ovojia XiixcavL) Uirpov we should seem to have the dative and the accusative in apposition. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 93. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 348 f.; Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Ill, p. 625 f. * Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 331. ' Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 85. THE CASES (nTfiSEIs) 489 (w) The Accusative with 'the Infinitive. The grammars generally speak of the accusative as the subject of the infinitive. I confess that to me this seems a grammatical misnomer. The in- finitive clause in indirect discourse does correspond to a finite clause in Enghsh, and a clause with on and the indicative may often be used as well as the infinitive clause. But it is not tech- nically scientific to read back into the Greek infinitive clause the syntax of Enghsh nor even of the oti. clause in Greek. Besides, not only is the infinitive a verbal substantive' and in a case Uke the verbal adjective (the participle), but being non-finite (in-fini- tive) like the participle (partaking of both verb and noun), it can have no subject in the grammatical sense. No one thinks of call- ing the accusative the "subject" of the participle. Take ews av UwcTLv Tov viov Tov avd puTTov epxofievov (Mt. 16 : 28). Here the ac- cusative is the object of IScoaiv and the participle is descriptive of vlov. Now with the infinitive in indirect discourse it is as a rule the infinitive, not the substantive, that is the object of the verb. No further case is needed with the infinitive, if the pronoun or substantive be the same as the subject of the principal verb. Thus e'i Tis &,(rxvfMveLv — yo/uifei (1 Cor. 7 : 36). If such a word is used, it may be in the nominative in apposition with the subject of the verb, as auKovTes elvai ao^oi (Ro. 1 : 22), or the accusative may be used. This accusative may be with a verb that can have two accusatives, as in iji} k/xavrdv ov Xoyi^ofmi KaTeLKr]cl>kvaL (Ph. 3 : 13) or the accusative of general reference as in ireiroiOa^ re aeav- Tov dSriydv etvai tvKGiv (Ro. 2 : 19). This latter usage is the ex- planation of the accusative with the infinitive in the instances where the word used with the infinitive is other than the subject of the principal verb. Typical examples are seen in ol ^kyovaiv avrdv ^rjv (Lu. 24 : 23), vofii^ovrfs airdv rtdvrjKivai, (Ac. 14 : 19), /3ou- Xonai irpoaebxtaBai, rois avSpas (1 Tim. 2:8). In these examples the infinitive is the object of the verb and the affirmation is made as far forth as the word in the accusative. They affirm living as to him; considering having died or death as to him; and wish pray- ing as to the men. This is the psychology of this accusative with the infinitive. The fact that later grammarians call it the "sub- ject" of the infinitive cuts no figure in the matter of the origin of the usage. Clyde ^ has interpreted the matter correctly. He sees that "grammarians framed this rule in ignorance of the etymology ' For inf. aa subject and as object, see ch. on Verbal Nouns. ' Gk. Synt., p. 139 f. Cf. also Donaldson's Gk. Gr., § 584, and Green's Handb. to N. T. Gk. Gr., p. 232. 490 A GRAMMAK OP THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT of infinitives," and that "since the infinitive was originally a case, the accusative could not originally have been its subject." This descriptive accusative or accusative of definition (general refer- ence) has a very wide range in Greek, as seen above, and is the true historical explanation of the accusative with the infinitive (other than the accusative which may be the object of the infini- tive itself). When the accusative is used with the infinitive, it in- dicates the agent who has to do with the action by the accusative, since the infinitive can have no subject in the technical sense. This use of the accusative with the infinitive is common also when the infinitive is in a prepositional clause like ev t^ eiaayayeiv tovs yovels TO iraidlov 'Iriaovv (Lu. 2 : 27). Here the matter becomes clearer for the reason that the article tQ cannot be slurred over and it becomes imperative to explain one of the accusatives as that of general reference. The context makes it clear that to irai- Slov is the object of daayayelv, while toDs yovets is the accusative of general reference. Many examples of this sort occur. Cf. Mt. 13 : 4. In Mt. 26 : 32, ikto. to kytpdrjvaL fie, note the accusative ne rather than nothing or a6r6s or kixavTov. Cf. also Ac. 23 : 15. The article may be so used without a preposition, and either the nomi- native appear, as bkofiai to firi wapwv dappfjirai (2 Cor. 10 : 2), or the accusative, as tb^ov (Jo. 7 : 13), €is Tiji* iroXii' (Mt. 26 : 18), kn Tr)v yrjv (Mt. 15 : 35), Kara rbv vbjjiov (Lu. 2 : 22), utra iinkpas rpets (Lu. 2 : 46), Trapd rriv bSbv (Mt. 20 : 30), irepl avrbv (Mt. 8 : 18), Tpbs avrbv (Mt. 3 : 5), VTrep dov\ov (Phil. 16), inrb rbv fibSiov (Mt. 5 : 15). Of these ets is, of course, by far the most frequent and has only the accusative. Ata, fiera, irepl, iwkp, iwb have the genitive-ablative more than the accusative, while eirl, Kara, Trpos have the accusative more often. For exact figures see Moulton, ProL, pp. 105-107. In the chapter on Prepo- sitions there will be further discussion of the matter. Vni. The Genitive (True) Case {r\ "yeviKii irTacris). (a) Two Cases with One Fohm. It is now generally ac- cepted by the comparative grammars that in Greek two cases appear under the form of the genitive: the genitive proper and the ' For ace. in apposition with sentence in pap. see Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. 152, Ti pii, 6v, T.P. 1 (ii/B.c). ' Green, Handb., etc., p. 234. » Giles, Man., etc., p. 311. < Moulton, Prol., p. 106. 492 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ablative.' It is a syncretistic form. The matter has already had some discussion in this granmiar under Declensions and calls for little remark here. Moulton is not too hard on Winer when he calls it "an utterly obsolete procedure" to speak of the genitive as "unquestionably the whence-case."^ Winer is followed by Green.' Now the ablative is the whence-case, but the genitive is a different case. Delbriick* gives an interesting sketch of the fate of the ablative case in the Indo-Germanic languages. In the Sanskrit singular the two cases (gen. and abl.) have the same form, except I.-G. -o (Sans, -a) stems (Sans. gen. -asya, abl. -ad). In the Balto-Slavic tongues ablative and genitive have the same endings. In the Itahc languages, ablative, locative, instrumental (and partly dative) have the same form. Indeed in the Thessa- lian dialect as in the Latin some forms of the genitive and locative coincide (like domi). Dionysius Thrax* had the idea that both cases flourished under one form in Greek, for he describes this case as fi yiviKfi KrriTii(ii Kal irarpiKri. Thompson* indeed recognises the two cases, but thinks it is not possible to group the uses of the form under these two divisions because some suit either case. There is a "debatable land" as Giles' observes, but this applies to only a very small part of the examples and is very natural indeed. As a matter of fact it is not possible to give a really scientific ex- planation of the usage in Greek from any other standpoint. The . ablative will therefore be treated as a separate case and the true genitive discussed how. (&) Name Incoeeect. The genitive case has the wrong name. The Latin genitivus is a translation of yevvr\Ti.Kit (more like the ab- lative in idea). It is ij Yej-i/ci) TTTcoo-ts. The name Yevt/ci^ comes from ykvoi {genus), 'kind,' and corresponds to the Latin generalis.^ Pris- cian' so calls it {generalis casus). It is a pity that one still has to call it "genitive." » Delbriick, Grundl. der griech. Synt., IV, p. 37; Giles, Man., p. 319. Cf. Hadley, Ess. Philol., etc., p. 46 f. 2 W.-Th., p. 184; Moulton, Prol., p. 72. But W.-Sch., p. 259, does not make this error. » Handb., etc., p. 207. • Vergl. Synt., I, p. 200. " Bekker, Anec. Graeca, 1816, Vol. II, p. 636. • Gk. Synt., 1883, p. 59. ' Man., p. 313. 8 Cf. Max Muller, Lect., I, pp. 103-105; Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 70. " Lib. V, de Cam. See Meister, Der synt. Gebrauch des Genit. in den kretischen Dial.-Inschr. Indoger. Forsch., XVIII, pp. 133-204. Cf. also Ruttgers, De accus., gen., dat. usu in inscr. archaicis cretensibus. Diss. Bonn, 47 p. THE CASES (nTazEis) 493 (c) The Specifying Case. It is this and no other. The idea of the genitive case is at bottom simple. The genitive shows SuiiptcLv and something eiSmbv. It is the case of genus {'ykvoi) or kind. For a very full discussion of the genitive see Del- briick, Vergl. Synt., Ill, pp. 307-360. The genitive does indeed resemble the adjective, but it is not adjectival in origin,' though the source of the genitive ending is unknown. The ad- jectival possessive pronoun (like k/jw) is a mere variation of the genitive case (knov) and the two may be in apposition with one another, as rg e;ug xetpi UavXov (2 Th. 3 : 17). But the function of the case is largely adjectival as in rifikpa TapaaKevijs (Lu. 23 : 54), though the adjective and the genitive are not exactly parallel, for with two substantives each idea stands out with more sharp- ness, as in kv KaivbT-qTi fcogs (Ro. 6 : 4) and eiri ifKohrov abrikbrriTi (1 Tim. 6 : 17).^ It is the specifying case, then, the case of appurte- nance.' In the Sanskrit Whitney* finds the genitive adjectival in idea and defiming the noun more nearly. So also Kiihner-Gerth* who find it quahtative with nouns or verbs. But Delbriick,^ followed by Brugmann,' makes the verb the starting-point for ex- plaining the genitive. One hesitates to part company with Del- briick and Brugmann, but the older view that it was first used with nouns seems here to have the best of it.* It may be remarked that the genitive is the most persistent of all the cases in retaining its forms, as is seen in the English s. Indeed in the modern Greek the form shares with the accusative the result of the loss of the dative, so that we often meet a construction like avTov to etira (' I told him so').° One other remark is called for concerning the meaning of the genitive in Greek. It is that the case does not of itself mean aU that one finds in translation. The case adheres to its technical root-idea. The resultant idea will naturally vary greatly according as the root-conception of the case is applied to different words and different contexts. But the varying element is not the case, but the words and the context. The error must not be made of mistaking the translation of the resultant whole ' Giles, Man., etc., p. 311. " Hadley, Ess. Philol. and Grit., p. 48. ' Cf. W.-Th., p. 236. * Sans. Gr., p. 98 f . 6 Tl. I, p. 331. Cf. Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 102. " Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 185 f., 307-380. ' Griech. Gr., p. 385. ' GUes, Man., etc., p. 315. Of. Donaldson, Gk. Gr., pp. 464 ff. ' In late Gk. the true gen. survives while the abl. fades further away. Jann., ffist. Gk. Gr., p. 333. 494 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT for the case itself. Thus in Mt. 1 : 12 we have iieroiKtaiav BafivKSi- vos. It is translated 'removal to Babylon.' Now the genitive does not mean 'to,' but that is the correct translation of the total idea obtained by knowledge of the 0. T. What the geni- tive says is that it is a 'Babylon-removal.' That is all. So in Mt. 12 : 31, fi Tov TTvtviiaTos ^\a(j4>i)nla., it is the 'Spirit-blasphemy.' From the context we know that it is blasphemy against the Spirit, though the genitive does not mean 'against.' When a case has so many possible combinations in detail it is difficult to make a satisfactory grouping of the various resultant usages. A very simple and obvious one is here followed. But one must always bear in mind that these divisions are merely our modem conveniences and were not needed by the Greeks themselves. At every stage one needs to recall the root-idea of the case (genus or kind) and find in that and the environment and history the explanation. (d) The Local Use. This is normally the first to begin with. In Greek literature it appears mainly in poetry ^ and in adverbs of place like ahrov, o5, irov, oirov, ofiov, iravraxov. But it is possible that these are locatives like aWodi in a shortened form." But on the other hand in Homer the genitive undoubtedly' appears in local relations with the archaic genitive in -olo, though even in Homer the examples are chiefly stereotyped ones. There are in the N. T. only these examples in Luke and Acts. In Lu. 5 : 19 mi) tvpovTn ■^olas d(T€vijKCiO(nv avTov and 19 : 4 teti'jjs ^/ieXXey Siepxec^Qt we have two undoubted examples. Blass^ indeed calls these "incorrect" on the ground that "classical Greek" would not have used the genitive thus. But it is sufficient reply to say that Luke was not writing classical Greek. Certainly Xenophon might have used TToiq., tKeivg (as D has in Lu. 19 : 4). Moulton^ finds often in the papyri vorov, Xt/3(4x, though in Rev. 21 : 13 we have the ablative" &ird v6tov. In Ac. 19 : 26 we have a very striking example that the commentaries have failed to notice as Moulton' observes. It is oil iJidpov 'Ek(rov dXXa ax^Sov iraaijs r?s 'Ao-tas 6 IlaOXos ireicras ju«t^ ffTiiaev Uavdv ox^ov. Moulton on the whole agrees with Hackett that the genitive here is dependent on oxXoi/. In Homer one has a parallel like ovk "Apyeos ^ev, but Moulton finds none in the ver- nacular KOLv^. Still, since Luke did use e/ceivrjs and ^otas, it does ' Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 73. Cf . K.-G., I, p. 384 f. 2 Delbruck, Vergl. Gr., I, p. 359. ^ ci. Rev., 1901, p. 437. • Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 104. « Moulton, ProL, p. 73. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 109. ' lb. THE CASES (hTOSEIS) 495 not seem difficult to believe that he was ready to employ the geni- tive of place in Acts. There is another passage in Luke also (Lu. 16 : 24) where the genitive of place occurs, tea patf^ij to aKpov rod SaKrCXov avrov vdaros. Here iiSaros emphasizes the kind of material which the speaker clearly has in mind. N has iJSari. One may note in this connec- tion the Homeric idiom \oveadai. Tora/jtoto, 'to bathe in the river.' Cf. also the classic irov yrjs. Somewhat similar also is ij bia&iropb. tS)v 'EWrivoiv (Jo. 7 : 35) and 68ds Wuuv (Mt. 10 : 5), which are ob- jective genitives but of place also. Cf. h Tapat^ ttjs KiXt/cww (Acts 22 : 3) which is described by Blass-Debrunner, p. 101, as parti- tive genitive. (e) The Temporal Use. It is common enough. This is a very old use of the genitive.' This is the true genitive.^ The accusative when used of time expresses duration over the period, the locative regards the period as a point even if it is of considera- ble length (cf. e^ 'ireaiv, Jo. 2 : 20), while the genitive imphes noth- ing' as to duration. In Mt. 24 : 20 this distinction can be seen in xii'f^vos Kal (raPParu, one the case of genus, the other a point of time. Brugmann* indeed regards the genitive of time as a devel- opment of the partitive genitive, but this seems hardly necessary. Moulton,^ on the other hand, connects it with the genitive of pos- session and finds it very frequently in the papyri, Uke erovs B, 'in the second year.' So tov ovtos firivos, F.P. 124 (ii/A.D.). On the difference between the genitive and the accusative of time see rlp,epas Kal vvktos (Lu. 18 : 7) and viKra Kal ■qiJ.kpav (Lu. 2 : 37), the genitive the time within which (kind of time), the accusative the time during which (all through). Cf. also vvktos t6 irpSiTov (Jo. 19 : 39). See also tov XoittoO (Gal. 6 : 17) and t6 \onrbv (Heb. 10 : 13). Once more observe fieirovvKTtov r| a\€KTopo4)oovias (Mk. 13 : 35) where some MSS. have fieaowKTiov. The accusative here is more like the adverb oij/k just preceding. Further examples of the genitive may be seen in fiiarjs vvktos (Mt. 25 : 6), 6pdpov PaSkos (Lu. 24 : 1). For adverbs in expressions of time, see viii, (h). (/) With Substantives. This is the chief use of the case. The accusative indeed is chiefly connected with the verb, while the genitive is mainly related to substantives.* 1. The Possessive'' Genitive. In simple point of fact it is not > Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 356. Cf. Sans., Whitney's Sans. Gr., p. 100. 2 Delbriick, Grundl., etc., IV, p. 45. ' Prol., p. 73. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 105. ' Giles, Man., etc., p. 311. « Griech. Gr., p. 389. » Delbnick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 344. 496 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT necessary to see any particular inner connection between the many uses of the genitive with substantives other than the com- mon root-idea of the case. For convenience it suits us to group these usages, but one must think that the Greeks themselves looked at the whole matter much more simply. After all it is the context that varies rather than the genitive.^ The resultant idea is therefore a matter of exegesis rather than due to any particular label to be attached.^ The most obvious illustrations like iraTd^as rbv SovXov to'v dpxtep^ws a^eiXev aliiTov to cotiop (Mt. 26 : 51) call for little remark. It is the high-priest's servant, not another's, and it is the servant's ear, not another's. The possessive pronouns, especially e/xos in John's Gospel, were used to some extent in the N. T., but usually the genitive of the personal pronoun is found. In Jo. 7 : 16 they occur side by side. Cf. Tg kfi^ x^i-pi- HaiiXou (1 Cor. 16 : 21). 2. Attributive Genitive. Like an adjective the genitive may be either attributive or predicate. This is sometimes called the genitive of quality. But the name helps little, as all genitives have this idea. The sense of attribute is indeed the usual one with the genitive, as IlaOXos 8ov\os 'Irjaov Xpio-ToO (Ro. 1:1). Thus observe the descriptive genitive in Mt. 18 : 9 els TrjV 7€ej'yaj' tov irvpos, Ro. 6:6 t6 crSifia rrjs afiaprlas, to aSifia rijs Tairei,voi ^fiaTi. TTJs Swafiecas avTov, the second genitive is technically de- • Giles, Man., etc., p. .312. ^ Moulton, Prol., p. 72. Blass, also (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 95) thinks that the exact shade of the gen. idea is often a matter of theological, not gram- matical interpretation. THE CASES (hTOSEIS) 497 pendent on Swiifieias. Cf. 2 Th. 1:7. I doubt the wisdom of Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 237) in saying that in ra prjixara ttjs f«?s ToirTjjs (Ac. 5 : 20) the demonstrative goes in sense with piifmra. The same objection applies to 6 \6yos rrjs auTriplas Tahrrjs (Ac. 13 : 26) and kK rod v 86>deKa (Mk. 5 : 42). So Lu. 2 : 42. Cf. also iav Tivas eiipjj rrjs oSov Svtos (Ac. 9:2), and indeed iykvero yvii- utis (Ac. 20 : 3) is to be explained the same way. There is as much latitude in the predicate genitive as in the attributive possessive genitive. We have viol (jkotos kcm Kal viol ■fip.kpas (1 Th. 5 : 5) and ovk eafiiv vvktos oiSk okotovs (1 Th. 5 : 6) and rmkpas ovres (verse 8).^ We may continue the illustrations like kyoi elfit. JlavXov (1 Cor. 1 : 12), ovk kari iavT&v (1 Cor. 6 : 19), tov Beov ov dp,i (Ac. 27 : 23), wavTa vfuov karlv (1 Cor. 3 : 21), oix vnS>v eariv yv&vai (Ac. 1:7), tva rjfuijv ykvrjTai. fj KKrjpovoiila. (Lu. 20 : 14), rlvos avTtav iarai yvvri (Mk. 12 : 23), reXeioiiv karlv fj arepea Tpo4>Tt (Heb. 5 : 14), XpioToD timt (2 Cor. 10 : 7), &V karlv ^vye\os /cat 'Epiwykvris (2 Tim. 1 : 15), tva r) iirepPoXri rrjs dwafiecas g rod (2 Cor. 4 : 7), and finally, ' W.-Th., p. 195. Is no distinct type, Giles, Man., p. 317. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 96. 498 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT though by no means all that can be adduced, wv iaTu oix & — Kixriws (1 Pet. 3:3). These passages not only illustrate the va- riety of the predicate genitive, but show that this is essentially a substantival genitive (cf. predicate nominative) and not a verbal genitive. As an example of the objective genitive in the predi- cate take (TKav8a.\oi> el ijwv (Mt. 16 : 23). In the modem Greek the predicate genitive has been still further extended (Thumb, Handb., p. 35). 4. Apposition or Definition. This is a very simple use of the case, but is not an extremely common idiom in the N. T., since the two substantives can easily be put in the same case. In the modern Greek mere apposition rules (Thumb, Handb., p. 33). But some interesting examples occur.^ It is a well-known idiom in Homer and certainly needs no appeal to the Hebrew for justi- fication.'' kuhner-Gerth' may also be consulted for other poetical examples. In the N. T. we note iroXeis J^oSo/mv koi Toiwppas (2 Pet. 2 : 6) which Blass compares with 'IXiov irokiv of Homer and observes* that xoXeais Qvardptav (Ac. 16 : 14) is merely the geni- tive of iroXts Gudreipa (cf. 7r6Xet 'lowirn in Ac. 11:5). In 2 Cor. 11 : 32 the adjective is used as tijv woXiv Aa/juuTKrivSip, while in Rev. 18 : 10 we have true apposition. One may note further rod vaov Tov criifiaTOS avTOv (Jo. 2 : 21), tov appafiSiva rov Trvevfrnros (2 Cor. 5 : 5), aritietov irepiTOfi^s (Ro. 4 : 11, AC irepiroixi]v) , to TTJs dXjj^eias tov evayyeXiov (Col. 1:5), fi avTWirbSoais t^s KKrjpovoixiai (Col. 3 : 24), kv ^vfiji tcadas (1 Cor. 5:8), 17 oc/ii) t?s yvdoaeus aiiTov (2 Cor. 2 : 14), 1) Trpoatf)op& tSiv Wvuv (Ro. 15 : 16), rd IxioroTOLXov TOV paynov (Eph. 2 : 14), 6 BefikXios tS>v aTrocTToXoiv (Eph. 2 : 20), fle/xeXios niravolas (Heb. 6 : 1), t& airdKpifia tov davarov (2 Cor. 1 : 9), 6 ifiirKoKrjs TpixSiv — koo-ixos (1 Pet. 3 : 3), 6 o-T^^awj rrjs foj^s (Rev. 2 : 10), 6 aT&jtavos ttjs So^rjs (1 Pet. 5 : 4), 6 ttjs SiKaioaiivris (TTbjiavos (2 Tim. 4 : 8), eopT'/j tS>v a^viuav (Lu. 22 : 1), iopTri tov waaxa, (Jo. 13 : 1), 71 okia TOV (TKijvovs (2 Cor. 5:1),^ airapxri tov irveifmTOS (Ro. 8 : 23), T'qv iTray'yeKiav tov TrvtiipuTos (Ac. 2 : 33), vbiwi iricTfws (Ro. 3 : 27). These are by no means all, but they illustrate at least the freedom of the N. T. in the use of the genitive of defini- tion or of apposition. It is, of course, possible, as Moulton {Prol, p. 74) suggests, that the vernacular has preserved the poetical • Cf.Jaim., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 335. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 73 f. » II, p. 264. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 98. Cf. also W.-Sch., p. 266 f. THE CASES (hTOSEIS) 499 idiom in this as in so many other matters. Poetry often expresses better than prose the language of the people. In Eph. 4 : 9 «is ri, KariiTtpa iieprj ttjs y^i we probably have not this usage, but the ablative after the comparative. Cf. EUicott in loco. In Jo. 21 : 8 t6 5'lktvov tSiv IxBviov the genitive merely gives the content (cf. material and quantity as opposed to quality). Cf. also &\a0atTTpov livpov (Mk. 14 : 3) and Ktpaiuov uSaros (Mk. 14 : 13), &yt\ii xoi/o«»' (Mt. 8 : 30) and imTov fiarovs kXaiov (Lu. 16 : 6). 5. The Subjective Genitive. It can be distinguished from the objective use only by the context. Sometimes the matter is not clear. This genitive is the common possessive genitive looked at from another angle. In itself the genitive is neither subjective nor objective, but lends itself readily to either point of view. The subjective genitive can indeed be applied to the merely possessive genitive noted above.^ Take Ro. 1 : 17 where Sucaioavvr] deov means the righteousness which God has and wishes to bestow on us. A typical example is found in 2 Cor. 5 : 14, ij yap ayawri rod Xpurrov (rwkx&- vficis. Here it is unquestionably the love that Christ has for sinners and so for Paul that is the constraining influence in his life. In Ro. 8 : 39 the matter is explained indeed by the phrase aird rijs ayawris rod Beov rfjs h XpiffTCf 'Itjo-ov. Abbott^ is apparently right in finding only a couple of passages in the N. T. where ayaini is used with the objective genitive (2 Th. 2 : 10, ij 07. rijs aKrjdilas; Lu. 11 : 42, irapepxefde riiv Kp'unv Koi ttjv ayairifv tov Beov). Jo. 5 : 42 rriv ayairriv tov deov oiiK ^x*''^ ^^ iavrois might be either subjective or ob- jective, but see Ro. 5:5. In Ph. 4:7^ eipiipri tov 6eov is probably subjective and so 'the peace that God has and gives,' but the meaning is richer than any phrase, as Simcox^ well observes. Cf. Col. 3:15. In Ro. 15 : 8, virip aXriBeias 6eov, we seem to have the sub- jective genitive. Note also diKaioavvri iriareus (Ro. 4 : 13), which is explained as subjective by Paul in the phrase ^ diKaio&iivri kK irio-reajs (Ro. 10 : 6). In 1 Tim. 4 : 1, bihacKoKlais daipoviuv, we have again the subjective genitive. Some passages are open to doubt, as eiayyiXiov rijs xoptTOS tov dtov (Ac. 20 : 24), eiayytkiov rrjs fiaai\iias (Mt. 4:23). 6. The Objective Genitive. It is quite frequent in the N. T.,* especially when it is vanishing in the later Greek.' The adnominal genitive preserves a remnant of the old objective genitive in mod- ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 333. ' Joh. Gr., pp. 84 £f. Abbott gives a very just discussion of the matter. ' Lang, of the N. T., p. 87. * Green, Handb., etc., p. 219. ^ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 334. 500 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 34). Here again we must appeal to the root-idea of the genitive as the case of genus or kind. The resultant idea is due to the context and one must not suppose that the Greek genitive means all the different Enghsh preposi- tions used to translate the resultant idea. Thus in Mk. 11 : 22 ix^re Tri(TTLv 6eov we rightly translate ' have faith in God,' though the genitive does not mean 'in,' but only the God kind of faith. Cf. Ro. 3 : 22. Take Mt. 12 : 31, 17 8i tov irvemaros |3Xo(r<^7jAiia, where the context makes it clear that it is blasphemy 'against' the Holy Spirit. Another striking example is Ac. 4 : 9, hn evep- ytaia avdp6)Trov acdevovs, where the good deed is done 'to' a sick man. In Jo. 7: 13, 816. rdv 06/3ov tSiv 'lovdaiwu, it is fear 'towards' or 'in reference to' the Jews, while Jo. 17: 2, k^ovaia iraa-ris aapKos, means authority 'over' all flesh (cf. i^ovaiav irvevfidTCJu aKadaprwu, Mt. 10: 1, and ryjs mS>v k^ovaias, 1 Cor. 9: 12). In 1 Cor. 10: 6, TiiTTOL ■fjiiSsu, we have types 'for' us. In Jo. 18 : 29 we have accu- ■ sation 'against' this man, narriyoplav tov avdpwirov, etc. Each ex- ample calls for separate treatment. So t6 aritieZov 'Icovd (Lu. 11 : 29) may be the sign shown in Jonah, while vofios tov av8p6s (Ro. 7:2) is the law 'about' the husband (cf. 6 vofws tov XexpoO, Lev. 14: 2). In 1 Pet. 2: 19, diA. crwelSria-Lv 6eov, it is a gcJod conscience 'toward' God, while kv rjj vpoaevxv tov deov (Lu. 6 : 12) we have prayer 'to' God. '0 f^Xos tov otnov aov (Jo. 2': 17) is zeal 'con- cerning' thy house. See Ro. 10: 2; cf. also Heb. 11 : 26, tov bvu- St-aphi TOV Xpia-Tov. In Col. 2 : 18, BpricrKela tGiv ayyk\o}v, it is worship 'paid to' angels, while ets Ti)v maKovqv tov Xpkttov (2 Cor. 10: 5) is obedience 'to' Christ. But see per contra xnraKoti wiaTeas (Ro. 1 : 5) which is subjective genitive. In 1 Cor. 1 : 6, fiapTvpiov tov XpioroO, we have again witness 'concerning' Christ. Cf. also 6 X670S 6 TOV (TTavpov (1 Cor. 1 : 18) and aKoal iroXkiuav (Mt. 24 : 6). So in 1 Cor. 8 : 7 ij a-vueL8riai.s tov eiSdSKov is consciousness 'about' the idol, not the idol's consciousness. See also the two objective uses of a7d;r)j tov Oeov (2 Th. 2 : 10; Lu. 11 : 42) and possibly also Jo. 5 : 42; 2 Th. 3 : 5; 1 Jo. 2 : 5. In Ro. 5 : 5 either will make good sense. The phrase 6fios deov (Ro. 3:18) is objective, and note also 2 Cor. 5:11 {t6v (pofiov tov Kvpiov). Eph. 5 : 21 is objective. See also Kad' monoviiv 'epyov ayaOov (Ro. 2 : 7), 'in' a good work, and eis diKaluaLv fcoijs (Ro. 5 : 18), 'to' life. Cf. avaaTa- v (Mt. 10: 5), way 'to' the Gentiles; 656v doKaaaris (Mt. 4 : 15), way THE CASES (nTflSEIz) 501 'by' the sea; ttiv Siaairopav t&v ''EKKiivwv (Jo. 7 : 35), dispersion 'among' the Greeks; irpSPara (r4>ayfjs (Ro. 8:36), 'doomed to' slaughter; 6vpa tuv irpo^aToiv (Jo. 10:7), door 'to' the sheep; jue- ToiKeala Bo/SuXcoi'os (Mt. 1 : 11 f.), and even airo\Wpciiv epyiav there is little cause for com- ment. The same remark applies to kIvSwoi iroraiiSiv, "KfiaTSiv (2 Cor. 11 : 26). In Jo. 19 : 14 17 wapacrKtvii tov iraaxa probably al- ready means the day 'before' the Sabbath (Friday).^ Cf. ij irapa- /80X17 TOV crireipovTos (Mt. 13 : 18). Cf. also the genitive of price, Xolvt^ (tItov Stivaplov (Rev. 6 : 6), 'for' a penny; apraWayfrn ttjs \l/vxvs avTov (Mt. 16 : 26), exchange 'for' his soul. Cf. Lu. 10 : 36. Enough has been said to show how carefully the genitive must be interpreted and what great latitude was used in connec- tion with it. Deissmann {St. Paul, pp. 140 f.) thinks that Paul's use of the genitive is "very peculiar" and transcends all rules about subjective and objective. He even suggests "mystic geni- tive" for Paul. 7. Genitive (if Relationship. For lack of a better name this use of the genitive is called "genitive of membership" ^ or "of re- lationship."^ In reality it is merely the possessive genitive of a special application. The substantive is not used because the con- text makes it clear. Thus Mapia fi 'laKco/Sou (Lu. 24 : 10) is James' Mary; whether mother, wife, daughter or sister, the context must decide. In this instance it is James' mother. Mk. 16 : 1 and Mk. 15 : 47 give us Mapia 17 'loxrfjTos, while in 15 : 40 we have both James and Joses. In Mt. 27 : 56 as in Mk. 15 : 40 we have the full construction with nvrrip. But in Jo. 19 : 25 Mapia fi rod KXcoTra it is the wife (ywri) that is meant. So in Mt. 1:6k rijs rod Oipiov. In Lu. 6 : 16 and Ac. 1 : 13 we have 'louSas 'laKwjSou, which probably means the brother (a8e\6s) of Jude in view of Jude 1 {aSfK(f>6s 'loKtijSou) rather than son. But vtos is the word usually to be supplied, as in 'laKu^ov tov tov Ze/SeSatou (Mt. 4: 21), tov 'Iov- 8av Xifucvos (Jo. 6 : 71), "ZlpMv 'lotavov (Jo. 21 : 15 ff.), AauelS tov ToO 'leo-o-at (Ac. 13: 22). See also Ac. 20 : 4, ScoTraTpos Ilippou. Cf. Lu. 3 : 2 where uios is used, as viol generally is for ' sons of Zebe- dee' (Mk. 10 : 35). In Jo. 21 : 2 we have oi tov Ze/SeSaiou so used. 1 Abbott, Job. Gr., p. 92. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 95. ' W.-Th., p. 190. 502 A GRAMMAR OF THK GREEK NEW TESTAMENT But sometimes the article refers to the family in general as in inro tG>v XK&ris (1 Cor. 1 : 11). Cf. ol irepl aMv (Lu. 22 :49). In Mk. 5 : 35, aird rod apxuTwayiiyov, it is possible that oi/cos is to be supplied, since the man himself (verse 22) has already come.i In Ac. 2 : 27, 31, W. H. read eis qS'qv, while some MSS. have eis q.hov (cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 395) and the MSS. ' vary also in Ps. 16 : 10 (LXX). Cf. kv t^ ^v in Lu. 16 : 23. It is more likely that in Lu. 2 : 49, kv tols tov iraTpds, we have the idea of 'house' rather than that of 'business.' Cf. eis to. Wia (Jo. 19 : 27) and eis to. tdia and ot Idioi in Jo. 1 : 11. See kv tols K\av8{iov), P.O. 523 (ii/A.D.), for 'house' of. It is a classic idiom. Cf. Lysias eis to. tov d3eX<^oO. These constructions are all in har- mony with the ancient Greek idiom.^ In an example like to Tijs aKrjdovs wapoiixlas (2 Pet. 2 : 22) it is not the genitive that calls for remark so much as the article without any substantive. The discussion belongs to the chapter on the Article. 8. Partitive Genitive. Here a part of the whole is given. See %v TOVTWV (Mt. 6 : 29), to denarov Trjs TroXecos (Rev. 11 : 13), hos ij/ii(Tous TTJs jSaciXetas (Mk. 6 : 23), ^fuav Kaipov (Rev. 12 : 14), to, Tjixicna. nov tGiv vwapxovTUV (Lu. 19 : 8), t6 irepLaaevov tS>v KKaana/rav (Mt. 15 : 37), TO tpItov tt\s yris (Rev. 8 : 7). See further %v tUv jueXcoj' v avOpiiTcav (Lu. 18 : 11), /ivpiaSes pvpiaZoiv koX xiXidSes X'XiaS&jj' (Rev. 5 : 11), to, ripiaiA pjov Twv virapxovTcov (Lu. 19 : 8) and the curious to. aird, tSiv iraJBriiMTCiiv (1 Pet. 5:9). For the blending of the partitive genitive with the ablative and k and for further discussion see ix, (c). In the N. T. the partitive relation is usually more sharply defined by prepositions (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 102). Cf. Ac. 21 : 16, (TvvrjXdov tS)v nadriTcov, where the partitive genitive is subject. 9. The Position of the Genitive. In general one may note that the genitive usually comes after the limiting substantive, as TTjv ykevvav tov irvpds (Mt. 5 : 22), but the genitive comes first if it is emphatic Hke 'EWrivosv woXii xX^^os (Ac. 14 : 1) or if there is sharp contrast like tov (TvaTpaTiiiTtiv /wv, vpMV Si airdaroKov (Ph. 2 : 25). In Eph. 6 : 9 both genitives precede, /coi aiTuv /cai i/iSiv 6 Kvptos. If the article is used with both words we may have the usual order, as t^iv TavoirXiav tov deov (Eph. 6 : 11), or less often the classic idiom, as t6v ttjs irlaTeus apxvyov (Heb. 12: 2). Sometimes indeed the article may be repeated, as 6 X670S 6 tov o-raupoD (1 Cor. ' Green, Handb., etc., p. 213. » Blafls, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 95 f. THE CASES (nTQSEIs) 503 1 : 18) .1 AiroO usually comes after the noun in the Synoptics, as TTiv &\oim airov (Lu. 3 : 17), but John sometimes puts airov first" (1 : 27; 9:8; cf. aov in 9 : 10, aov ol 6^6a\iw'i). Sometimes a word intervenes between the substantive and the genitive as in fififBa TkKva. iati 6p7?s (Eph. 2 : 3). Cf. also Ph. 2 : 10; Eo. 9 : 21, etc. But note ds aKthpov aara rpla (Mt. 13 : 33). 10. Concatenation of Genitives. Two or more genitives may be used together. This is, of course, common in the earlier Greek. Paul in particular is fond of piling up genitives. Take 1 Th. 1 : 3 as a typical example, fivrnwvevovTes iiii&v rod Ipyov rii% Trta-rews KoX Tov KOTTOV TJjs aycLirtis Kai rrji iwofiovrjs ttjs eXiridos rod Kvpiov ■^ficiv 'ItjiTov XpKTTov. Here we have practically all the points, viz., two simple genitives, two in apposition, three together, one of the per- son and the other of the thing. A very simple case is found in Ro. 8 : 21, rfiv iXevBepiav Trjs do^rjs t&v rkKvcov rod deov, and in verse 23 Tijv airdKvTpoicnv tov a6}p,aTos fmuv. Cf. also Jo. 6 : 1; 2 Cor. 4 :4; Eph. 1 : 6; 4 : 13; Col. 1 : 13, etc. In Rev. 16 : 19 we have four genitives, to iroriipiov tov olvov TOV dvfiov Trjs opy^s avTov, and five occur in Rev. 19 : 15, coimting the appositives, t^c 'Krivdv tov olvov Tov dvfiov TTJs opyrjs tov deov tov vavTOKpaTopos. Blass' calls this "a really burdensome accumulation of words," but surely the sense is clear enough. The governing genitive comes before the de- pendent genitive in regular order here. But in 2 Pet. 3 : 2 this smooth order is not observed, yet all five can be readily under- stood: ivd tS>v aylo>v Trpo^rjT&v Kal ttjs t&v airocTbXwv v/juav kvToXrjs TOV Kvpiov. Cf . Ph. 2 : 30 also. In 2 Cor. 3 : 18, aird Kvpiov irvehpaTos, it is not clear whether Kvplov is genitive or is the ablative in apposi- tion with TvevfULTos. In Jas. 2 : 1 it is diflacult to put into brief compass the Greek idiom, Trjv iruniv tov Kvpiov rnuHv 'Itjaov Xpkttov T^s S6^s. Here 'Ijj. Xp. is in apposition with Kvpiov. Kvpiov has riiiuiu and is itself the objective genitive with irlaTw, while t^s 56^?js is probably in apposition with 'Iij. Xp. (see Mayor in loco). (g) The Genitive with Adjectives. Giles* observes how natu- ral it is for adjectives to take the genitive, since many of them are developed from substantives in apposition. Adjectives of fulness can logically take either the genitive or the instrumental. Giles* explains how with the Latin pUnus, by analogy to vacuus, the ab- lative is used and also because the ablative and instrumental forms ' Cf. GreeB, Handb., etc., p. 215. ' Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 90. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 99. ' Man., etc., p. 316. Cf . Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 353 f. ' lb. 504 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT are the same in Latin. Indeed even in the case of the participle we have the genitive when the participle is regarded no longer as an adjective, but as a substantive, as rd. mapxavra. /wv (1 Cor. 13: 3). Cf. Lu. 12 : 33; Lu. 2 : 27, rd eWiaixevov tov v6iwv; and Ph. 3 : 8, rd iirepkxov rijs ypiiaews. The adjective itself is so used in 1 Cor. 10 : 33, TO kixavTov avix^opov. Cf . 1 Cor. 7 : 35. But different is avii- Iiop4>ovs T^s e'lKovos TOV vlov aiJTov (Ro. 8 : 29). Here we have the true adjective, but the genitive is due to the principle just stated. In avvepyos, Ro. 16 : 21, we have the substantive also. The case with verbals in -ros may be considered genitive, but see the ab- lative also. Thus 01 ayairriTol deov (Ro. 1 : 7), yevvrjTol yvvaiKuv (Lu. 7 : 28), kXeKTot deoxj (Ro. 8 : 33), kKijtoI 'Irtaov (Ro. 1 : 6). In StSax- Tol deov (Jo. 6 : 45), ote kp 8i8aKT0is avdpoyirlvris las \dyois (1 Cor. 2 : 13) one may question if we do not have the ablative. But in ei\oyriiievoi tov xarpos (Mt. 25 : 34) the genitive is likely the case. There is only one adjective in -oc6s in the N. T. which has the genitive, kpltikos ivOvfirtatiav (Heb. 4 : 12). "A^tos is very common with the genitive in the N. T., as H^lov t^s fieravoias (Mt. 3 : 8). So also acafios (unless abl. because of a- privative), as ava^ioi ^ore kpitti- p'iMv i\axi(^Toiv (1 Cor. 6:2). Delbriick^ confesses his inability to explain this genitive, though Blass^ considers it genitive of price. The figure of weighing or scales seems to be involved in the word. In 1 Cor. 9 : 21 (ewofios Xpiarov) we have a very "bold use" of the genitive^ due to the substantive idea involved (vofws). But prob- ably in Heb. 3 : 12, KapSia irovripd. airia-Tias, the genitive is dependent on mpSLa, not ■Kovrjpa,. "Epoxos brings up an unusual genitive in Mt. 26 : 66 ivoxos davarov, and Mk. 3 : 29 (correct text) evoxos kcxTiv aia- v'uiv ap.apT'ljp.aTos. Moulton* considers this genitive "aberrant" and still more iuoxos KpiirLov ttjs do^s (Ju. 24), K{i/cXa) tov dpbvov (Rev. 4 : 6), jxkaov yevfSs c/coXtas (Ph. 2 : 15), p,^' ijpSiv (Mt. 1 : 23), jueralii troD (Mt. 18 : 15), p.kxpi T^s arjixepov (Mt. 11 : 23), TrapwivMjaiov 6a.va.TOV (Ph. 2 : 27), tK^ctLov tov x'^P'^^ (Jo- 4 : 5), irepi tov (jyiaTos (Jo. 1 : 8), ToiiTov x^P"* (Eph. 3:1). "Ep,Tpo<76ev, oirurdev, ivpb, wpos, hirkp, etc., all have the ablative. Cf. to iaiadev vp&v (Lu. 11 : 39) where 'iao^ev may be looked at more as a noun. 'Ev pJkac$ has almost the force of a preposition with the genitive {vp&v, for instance, 1 Th. 2:7). ij) The Genitive with Verbs. As already remarked, Del- ' Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 338), after the analogy of the Lat. and the Gk. Ktvbs, hSeqs, etc., considers it the abl. that we have with iMipris. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 106. * Giles, Man., p. 318. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 337. ^ Jb.^ p, 319, 506 A GKAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT briick^ begins his discussion of the genitive with the verb. In Lu. 5 : 19, TTotas ei(TevtyKoiat.v, the genitive is not due to the verb and is a rather loose ahnost adverbial phrase. 1. Very Common. In Greek the genitive with verbs cuts a larger figure than in Latin.^ Broadus used to say that the genitive with verbs means 'this and no other,' while the accusative with verbs means 'this and no more.' Probably therefore the genitive with verbs is a variation from the accusative with verbs, the original and normal case with verbs. This point may be illus- trated by aKovere avrov (Mk. 9 : 7) and i^mvaev tov iiairaaiJtv (Lu. 1 : 41). Some verbs jaeld themselves naturally to the idea of the genitive, while others use the accusative. Others again use now one, now the other. The predicate genitive is passed by here, having been discussed under Substantives. 2. Fading Distinction from Accusative. But it must not be assumed that it is wholly a matter of indifference whether the ac- cusative or the genitive is used with a verb, though the accusative in the later Greek constantly made inroads on the genitive. Even in the old Greek much freedom existed. In the modern Greek the genitive with verbs occurs only in some dialects (Thumb, Handb., p. 35). Cf. (ivrifioveveTe rrjs yvvaiKds Aiir (Lu. 17:32), but fivrifuj- vevere rois irevre aprovs (Mt. 16 : 9). In Tavra imv fikfivricrdt (1 Cor. 11:2) both cases occur. This is all in accord with classical usage. So also iinXaBkaOai, tov epyov ijxSiv (Heb. 6 : 10), but to. fih inrlaoi 'eiriKavBavbixevos (Ph. 3 : 13); yevaerai nov tov deiirvov (Lu. 14 : 24), but hyeiiaaTo to vdup (Jo. 2:9); yifiovcnv oaTkcov (Mt. 23 : 27), but even ykpovTa 6v6p.aTa 0\aa-(j>iiin'Las (Rev. 17: 3). But it is perfectly proper to appeal to the distinction in the cases in the apparent contradiction between amiovTes p.kv t?s (^cof^s (Ac. 9 : 7) and ttiv bk ijxavriv o\!K ijKovaav (22 : 9). The accusative (case of extent) accents the intellectual apprehension of the sound, while the genitive (spe- cifying case) calls attention to the sound of the voice without accenting the sense. The word aKovca itself has two senses which fall in well with this case-distinction, one 'to hear,' the other 'to understand.' Cf. o5 ovk ^Kovaav (Ro. 10 : 14) and uri ovk iJKovaav (Ro. 10 : 18). And yet the genitive can be used where the sense is meant, though not stressed, as ^mvaa (jxavrjs (Ac. 22 : 7), but ijKovaev (jxovrip (Ac. 9:4; and 26 : 14).' But see further imder 3. 1 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 308. ' GUes, Man., p. 315. » Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., pp. 87 S., has an extensive discussion of the gen. and ace. with draiw, but seems to miss the point after all. They heard the sound but not the words. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 103, admits this classic distinction sometimes in the N. T. THE CASES (nTOZEIz) 607 3. Verbs of Sensation. One of the chief classes of verbs that may be used with the genitive is verbs of sensation. One seems compelled to make some division in the verbs used with the gen- itive for the sake of intelligible discussion. Yet as a matter of fact each class and each verb indeed relates itself to the root-idea of the genitive. That is the thing to keep in mind and not a mere artificial grouping of the verbs. Analogy was at work, of course, but the verbs after all were separate units and had independent development. These groupings of the grammarians are mere matters of convenience. And it is a deUcate matter that varies somewhat with the writer, this use of the genitive. By sensation we refer to verbs that mean to hear, smell, taste, touch, though verbs of seeing have the accusative. The most common verb of hearing is oKoico, about which some remarks have already been made. It is not necessary to give an exhaustive list of the instances of Akoum. A typical one is fJKovaeu 6vov (Ac. 9 ". 1) is certainly analogous, as Blass^ observes, who refers to the LXX for parallels (Josh. 10:40, irav ifiirvkov fcoijs), for both genitive and accusative. Cf. Johannessohn, Der Gebr., p. 36. Thus oi nv Tewi/Tat Oavarov (Jo. 8 : 52), but in Heb. 6 : 4 f. we have the genitive and accusative right together, a matter hardly accidental,^ yevaafiivovs tjjs Sapeds, yevaa/ihovs 6eov prjiM. But Blass* considers the accusative here, as in Jo. 2 : 9, merely a colloquialism in harmony with the general 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 103. » Moulton, Prol., p. 66. 2 lb. ♦ Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 101. 508 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT tendency to retain the accusative (see 2 above). Other verbs of tasting are KopeaB'tvTts rpocjjijs (Ac. 27 : 38) and roinovs xopTo-crai aprwv (Mk. 8:4). Cf. also iiertKaiifiavov TpoTJs (Ac. 2:46) and TpoaihA^ovTo Tpo(l)rjs (Ac. 27:36). Ati^ao and veivau use only the accusative (Matt. 5:6). The verbs of touching can be briefly disposed of. Thus ^aro tS>v luarioiv (Mk. 5 : 30) and often in the Gospels. So Kav driplov Blyg tov opovs (Heb. 12 : 20), but ^rjKa^tau has only the accusative (Ac. 17: 27). Perhaps the other verbs of taking hold of and seizing may as well be mentioned, for it is less than a step from the idea of touch. Thus hbs avOk^erai (Lu. 16 : 13) ; rd kxoiieva r^s troJTTjpias (Heb. 6:9); (u/TeKa^eTO 'laparjK iraidos airov (Lu. 1 : 54) and ol TJjs eiiepyealas avTiKanfiavofievoi, (1 Tim. 6:2); kireKafitro ahrov (Mt. 14:31), and eiriXajSo/uei'os t^s x«'P^s '''ov tv\ov (Mk. 8:23), where the part taken hold of is indicated; kKparricrev t^s xeipbi aiiTrjs (Mt. 9 : 25), where the part is again in genitive, but the whole is in the accusative in KparTiaas tov 'lioavtiv (Mt. 14 : 3) ; xido-as ai- rov T^s xe'pos (Ac. 3:7), where the whole is in the accusative and the part in the genitive. Blass' notes that this last (iridfu) is a "vulgar" word. But here, as usual, the N. T. is in harmony with the vernacular. The papyri ^ show exofiai with the genitive as well as kvTikap,fiavoiw.i,. So exoiitvos fiov,P. Par. 51 (b.c. 160). Besides Mk. 8 : 23 (above) the double genitive (whole and part) may be seen in Lu. 20: 20, Iva eiriXa^covTai avrov X67011 (cf. also verse 26), though here avrov is probably dependent on X6701;. 4. Verbs of Emotion. These naturally have the genitive, such as to desire, care for, neglect, have compassion, spare, bear with, aim after, obtain, remember, forget, enjoy, etc. 'EiriBvfiku has the genitive in Ac. 20 : 33, apyvplov ^ xpv<^'i^v ^ t/iaTicr/toO o^defds, but the accusative probably in Mt. 5 : 28 (text uncertain, but LXX has accusative, Ex. 20 : 17). 'Opeyofiai. also has the genitive, as in Heb. 11 : 16, KpeirTovos opkyovrai. Cf. 1 Tim. 3 : 1, where both opiryeTai and kTidvutZ are used with the genitive. Cf. also btmpb- fxevoi vn&v (1 Th. 2 : 8). The verbs of concern are fairly numerous and uniform. Thus avexbfievoi. aWriXcav (Col. 3 : 13) in the N. T. as in the older Greek. So jui? d/^eXei tov kv aol xapiff/xaros (1 Tim. 4 : 14), JU17 okiyupei iraiSeias Kvp'tov (Heb. 12 : 5). But these three verbs may have the ablative. 'Avkxoimt, here is 'hold oneself back from.' Like the eariier Greek also is iiretieKridri aiiTov (Lu. 10 : 34) and /iij tQv PoSiv p,k\ei t<^ 6t&; (1 Cor. 9:9). Blass' considers ohbev ToiiToiv tQ VoKkiOivi ineXev (Ac. 18 : 17) the personal construction, 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 101. " Moulton, 01. Rev., Dec, 1901, p. 437. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 104. THE CASES (nTfiSEIz) 509 as often in the classical Greek. But already in the Attic inscrip- tions (Meisterhans, p. 211) we have kmixeKeofmL with the dative. So, too, TTcpi appears with the genitive in Jo. 10 : 13, etc. Consider further tSiv iSiuv xal noKiara oUeidiv ov Trpovoei (1 Tim. 5 : 8) and iVa ^povTi^oxTiv KoKwv 'ifr/uiv (Tit. 3:8). In Mt. 6 : 34 we have iitpt- livqaei oiiT^s, though some MSS. read to. iavTyjs. Once again take Tov iSiov oiiK 'e(l>iicraTo (Ro. 8 : 32). These all are in regular order. In Mt. 18 : 27 tov 8ov\ov is more likely dependent on 6 Kvpios rather than on airXayxvicrdds. Verbs of obtaining are illustrated by i\axe TOV Ovfuaaai. (Lu. 1 : 9), not mere "appearance,"^ though the accusative is elsewhere found in the N. T. as in Ac. 1 : 17 (cf. classic frequency of the accusative). On the other hand Tvyxo^vu always has the genitive in the N.T., as tov aidvo^ iKelvov Tvxtiv (Lu. 20 : 35). But with eTriTvyxavu we have eirkTvxov kirayytXiwv (Heb. 11:33) and tovto oiin. kirkrvxtv (Ro. 11:7). Moulton {CI. Rev., p. 437, Dec, 1901) notes genitive and accusative with 'eKi.TvxbvTt$ — T^s "Pw/iat&Ji' TToXiTetas koX kinyaiilav, B.U. 113 (ii/A.D.). In general the papyri confirm the N. T. use of these verbs. Verbs of remem- bering and forgetting call for little remark. Thus nvriadfjvaL diaSiiK-qi (Lu. 1 : 72), fivriiwveveTe tov X670U (Jo. 15 : 20). MinvqaKoimL always has the genitive and fivrjixoveio} usually. But iwaniiivijaKO} (act., mid. and pass.) always has the accusative in the N. T. Cf. kvenvi](j6y\ to prjfia (Mk. 14 : 72), whereas ancient Greek usually had the genitive. With iywofunviicKca the usage is divided again, as the accusative is alone used in the active (Jo. 14 : 26), but the genitive in the passive (deponent), as mtuvijaBT] tov pri/iaTos (Lu. 22 :61; cf. Mk. 14 : 72 above). 'ETiXavBavofiai again has usually the gen- itive, as 4>iKo^evias firj erikavdavecdt (Heb. 13 : 2), but the accusative once (Ph. 3 : 13) and X in Heb. 13:2 according to classic idiom. Cf . Oxy. P. IV, 744, 11 and 12 (I/a.d.). We once also have kXeXijo-Se TTJs irapoKX^(r«ws (Heb. 12 : 5). Of verbs of enjoying we have only _ kyi) (TOV ovaintjv (Phil. 20). 'A7rqXaii&> does not occur in the N. T., and neither d7aXXid&) nor xaipoj is used with the genitive, but only absolutely, with the instrumental, or with prepositions. Aiadavofmi appears only once (Lu. 9 : 45) and with accusative. 5. Verbs of Sharing, Partaking and Filling. Indeed, verbs of sharing can be looked at as taking the partitive genitive. Thus with litTkx^w we have xpaTr^fijs (1 Cor. 10 : 21), €k tov hos oprou (verse 17, clearly ablative) and xtip""! (verse 30, associative in- strumental by analogy of avvKouxavkta). Cf. KtKowiavijKev aijuaros koX capKos (Heb. 2 : 14), though elsewhere in the N. T. the associative 1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 102. 510 A GBAMMAK OP THE GKEEK NEW TESTAMENT instrumental occurs with persons. MeraSLSuiii has only the ac- cusative and instrumental. As to nerakan^avu and irpoaXanfiavu it is more doubtful if it is not ablative rather than genitive. Cf. IX, (/), 7, for discussion. The partitive idea is divided be- tween the genitive and the ablative.' In the N. T. prepositions are chiefly used and with the ablative. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 102) finds in the partitive idea the explanation of the local and temporal use of the genitive, but not rightly. The true genitive is found with verbs of filling like kir^Kriadri 17 ttoXk rrjs a-vyxixre'^s (Ac. 19 : 29), ■weirhipwKaTe rijv 'lipovaaXfifi t^s 8i8axfjs v/iSiv (Ac. 5." 28), yenlaare Tos vSplas iiSaros (Jo. 2:7), irepLairevovTai apruv (Lu. 15 : 17), eveKKr]- aev ayadSiv (Lu. 1 : 53). In Latin words of filling (plenus, etc.) use the ablative or instrumental, as the Greek has the ablative with words of lacking (vcTepovvTai, Trjs 86^^ (Ro. 3 :23). By analogy therefore we find e/c and the ablative with irkripdo}, as eirXjjpciSij k T^s 6cr/i^s (Jo. 12 : 3) and yefil^ca, as kykixiaev avrov kK tov wvpos (Rev. 8:5). For the instrumental with the passive see Ro. 1 : 29, etc. Indeed the accusative is seen in Ph. 1:11 and Rev. 17 : 3 and some MSS. in Ac. 2 : 28. 6. Verbs of Ruling. These probably have the true genitive, though verbs of excelling use the ablative. Thus in Mk. 10 : 42 we have three such verbs in one sentence, oi SoKovvres apx^v t&v idvSiv KaraKvpievovcnv avrShv Koi ol /leyaXoi aijTSiv Kare^outriaf oucrij' avTuv. Other examples are avdvirarevovTos according to some MSS. in Ac. 18 : 12, aWevreiv av8p6s (1 Tim. 2 : 12), /SactXeiiet ttjs 'Iov8aias (Mt. 2 : 22 KB; elsewhere kTrC), fiyetiovevovros rrjs Supias (Lu. 2:2), kv- pLtvofiev ijiGiv Trjs Triareois (2 Cor. 1 : 24), KaTa8vvacrTevovcn.v vp,S>v (Jas. 2:6), TerpaapxovvTos t^s 'Irovpaias (Lu. 3:1). These verbs all have a distinct substantive-affinity like 'be ruler of,' etc. See fur- ther Lu. 22 : 25 for Kvpievu and e^ouo-tdfo), Mt. 16 : 18 for koltio-xvuI' 7. Verbs of Buying, Selling, Being Worthy of. It is not per- fectly clear what the origin of this usage is. The use of k drivaphv with crvtKpuvriaas (Mt. 20 : 2) may be noted, but in verse 13 8rivap'LOV (rvv&t>(!ovriaas. Cf. also rjyopaaav 't^ ahrSiv (Mt. 27:7) with ■jrpa.dijvai. ttoXXoC (Mt. 26 :9). 'Ayopd^co is used also with h (Rev. 5:9). So again one may note kKTriaaro xo>piov k IxurBov Tijs dSiKtas (Ac. 1 : 18. Cf. Lu. 16 : 9, k tov lux-iuava) with fx,t,crdov k^ex^^vo^O'V (Ju. 11). Cf. Slo. with irtpiToikoixai (Ac. 20:28). These examples show that it was easy to go from the genitive to 4^ and the ablative. Consider also divqaaTo Tifirjs apyvp'wv (Ac. 7: 16), av eiroLrjaev (Lu. 3: 19), an idiom common in Luke, but rare elsewhere, as aarkpuv o6s erSes (Rev. 1 : 20). (j) The Genitive op the Infinitive. This is more properly an instance of the genitive of substantives as it is the substantival aspect of the infinitive that is in the case. The full discussion of the matter belongs to the chapter on Verbal Nouns. Here it may simply be remarked that the infinitive with rov is not unknown to ancient Greek, though nothing like so common as in the LXX as the translation of the Hebrew infinitive construct. But the Hebrew infinitive is not an exact analogy as it does not have the article.! But Thucydides .had already shown a fondness for this idiom which is thoroughly Greek. As an example from the LXX take TOV i^eKkadai (Dan. 6 : 14). For the N. T. note k^fiXBev 6 airelpwv tov airdpeiv (Mt. 13 : 3). The substantival nature of this infinitive with tov is well shown in Kotpds tov ap^aadai (1 Pet. 4 : 17). But in general tov with the infinitive has as wide an extension of meaning in the vernacular Koivi] as the genitive absolute.* The details come later. (fc) The Genitive Absolute. It may indeed be ablative absolute as Farrar^ holds, following the analogy of the Latin. But, as Giles ^ observes, the Latin absolute is very likely instru- » C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 59. » Gk. Synt., p. 76. = Moulton, Prol., p. 216. « Man., etc., p. 339 f. THE CASES (nTQZEIs) 513 mental or locative. The various languages differ greatly, however, in the use of the absolute cases, nearly all having a turn in one language or another. Cf. dative in Anglo-Saxon. Since the San- skrit uses genitive as well as instrumental and locative (usual construction), Giles considers the Greek genitive absolute a true genitive. In this he is perhaps correct. But Brugmann (Griech. Or., p. 523) discusses the genitive absolute separately from both genitive and ablative. Cf.Moulton,CZ.i2ey.,1901,p.437. MuUachi observes that the genitive absolute is a mark of the higher style and was not much used in the vernacular. Jebb^ remarks that in the modem Greek the genitive absolute is more commonly para- phrased in harmony with the general disuse of the participle. However, in the vernacular Koi,vi} "the rapid extension of the geni- tive absolute is a very obvious feature,"^ and the N. T. is in line with the papyri on this point also as in most other matters of grammar. Moulton observes further that " in the papyri it may often be seen forming a string of statements, without a finite verb for several lines," which is rather more than can be said of the N. T. It naturally occurs in the N. T. chiefly in the historical books. Abbott* has felt that Mark uses the genitive absolute "somewhat monotonously to introduce the circumstances of a new narrative," and he finds it common in Matthew in temporal clauses. John, he observes, has the construction nowhere in re- cording Christ's words, though he elsewhere^ "employs it with more elasticity of meaning than is found in the Triple Tradition." The LXX shows many examples of the genitive absolute and with abundant freedom also.^ The normal usage in the older Greek is to have a genitive absolute when a participle occurs with a noun that is discormected from the rest of the sentence as in avaxoipv'o-''- Tuv ahr&v (Mt. 2 : 13). Cf. 2 Cor. 2: 12. But the older Greek did not always conform to this norm, and variations appear also in the N. T. Thus sometimes the participle is found alone as in 'tKdovTwv (Mt. 17: 14) and dirbvTos (17: 26), a very frequent idiom in the papyri.' Cf. avayvoiaBhToiv B.U. 925 (iii/A.D.?), St/XcoSei/Tos B.U. 970 (ii/A.D.). The papyri also show k^ovros instead of the old ^f6j'.8 Cf.oiK^|6fros P.0.275 (a.d. 66). Then again the genitive absolute occurs when as a matter of fact the noun or pronoun is not absolute and the participle might have merely 1 Gr., p. 357. = lb., p. 84. ' V. and D., Handb., p. 334. « C. and S., p, 58; Thafik., p. 24. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 74. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 74. * 36k. Gr., p. 83. « lb. 514 A GKAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT agreed in case with the word in question. The simplest example is the repetition of the pronoun in the same case as daeXddvros avTov eis oIkov ol noBriTai avrov (Mk. 9 : 28). But more noticeable is an example like /ii? kxovros Si avrov dxoSoOmt kKsKeva-ev aiirbv (Mt. 18 : 25), or ravra Si airov evdvinjdkvros — ict>a.vri aiirQ (Mt. 1 : 20), a usage more common apparently in the N. T. than in the papyri. But note ij,ov KLvSvvvaavros ds daXaacrav iaoxnv, B.U. 423 (ii/A.D.), where /te is implied with iconrtv. One even notes the genitive ab- solute when the nominative is present as in nvrjarevdeuTiis Trjs nnirpos avTov Mapias — eipedri (Mt. 1 : 18). Moulton^ notes "a violent use" of the genitive absolute in Heb. 8 : 9 from the LXX, where we have kv ■^nepq. hrCSa^oixkvov iwv. Here the participle is treated al- most like the infinitive (as a substantive). Moulton regards it as due to the original Hebrew, and Westcott {in loco) cites h rjiiepii, kvTeiXafievov cov avT(^ (Baruch 2:28). See further under Parti- ciples. IX. The Ablative ("Ablatival Genitive") Case (ii d(|>aip€TiKii TTTWo-is). The treatment of this case will be briefer, for it never had the manifold development of the Greek genitive. In the original speech the genitive and ablative had no distinctive endings save in the o stems in the singular.^ See chapter VII, ii, (a), for discus- sion of form. (a) The Name. But the name ablativus is credited to Julius Caesar.' Besides act>aipeTiKri it is also called irarpiKTi. The name is quite appropriate. (&) The Meaning. The ablative is then the 'whence' case, the case of origin, source, separation or departure. Some of the grammars use the expression "ablatival genitive." That implies that the case is after all a kind of genitive. That is only true as to form, not as to sense, and causes some confusion. In Greek the ablative is not a live case in form, but in sense it is. (c) Rare with Substantives. It is possible (though not probably correct) to regard SiKaiocrhvr] Beov (Ro. 1 : 17) as ablative, deov being the source of the righteousness. More likely are the following examples: Tr/v eK^aaLv t^s &,vaaTpo^rjs (Heb. 13 : 7), SiaaroM 'lovdaiov re Kal "EXKrivos (Ro. 10 : 12), StaKpiais koXov Kal KaKov (Heb. 5 : 14). See Monro, Homeric Grammar, p. 146. In 2 Pet. 1 : 20 we have a clear case of the ablative in the predicate after the copula yiverai.. Here kirCKbaew ('disclosure') is in the ablative. Of. also Tov deov in 2 Cor. 4 : 7. One may note also kYeveTo yvdj/iris (Ac. 20 : 1 Prol., p. 74. 2 Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 193. » Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 71. THE CASES (nTfiSEIs) 515 3) as probably parallel. In Heb. 12 : 11 xapSs and \inrris may be considered either true genitives or ablatives. Doubtful also are iiroffToX^s and irio-retos in Heb. 10 : 39. But we have a clear abla- tive in Ac. 20 : 37 ikocos 8^ K\avBfids kykvero vavroiv. Moulton' notes the obvious fact that dir6 and k (with abl.) are freely used for the old "partitive genitive." Delbriick ^ thinks the genitive of material originally abl. Cf. viii, (/), 8, fdr the true genitives in the parti- tive sense. This partitive gen. may be illustrated by Iv tovtouv (Mt. 6 : 29) which is to be compared with ev k^ avrSiv (Mt. 10 : 29). In Jo. 3 : 25 the use of k makes clear the ablative, 'eykvero ^rjTrjan k Tuv luxBrjTSiv. Blass' rather needlessly explains this usage by appeal to the Hebrew !». Note also Tras 't^ vfuiv (Lu. 14 : 33). The matter may be further illustrated by ris ahrOiv (Lu. 7 : 42) and Tis 't^ iiiiuv (Mt. 6 : 27). Indeed with Hs, as Blass* observes, the N. T. nearly always uses k^ in such examples. He finds the oppo- site true of ris save in John. Thus nves tS>v ypannarkav (Mt. 12 : 38), but Tivh i^ aiiT&v (Lu. 11 : 15. Cf. Jo. 6 : 64). But ax6 is also- found with Tis (Mt. 27 : 21). One may note also tIs 'ev vfuv (Jas. 5 : 13). A classical but curious use of this idiom, like the parti- tive genitive (aheady noted), is as the subject or object. The explanation lies, of course, in the ellipsis. Thus avvr}\6ov Kal tSiv itaJBrfTciv (Ac. 21 : 16) may be compared with dirav k tcov ixoSthtSiv (Jo. 16 : 17), k ToO SxXo" avve^i^acav (Ac. 19 : 33). Cf. Rev. 11 : 9. Take Mt. 23 : 34 as an example of the use as object, e? avrSiv aTOKTeveiTe, i^ aincav lULarvyiiatTe. Cf . especially k tUv rkKvoiv aov irepiiraTovvTas (2 Jo. 4). In Ac. 15 : 2 we have the full ex- pression Tims aXXous k^ avTuv. Brugmann {Griech. Gr., p. 397) notes the syncretism between the ablative and the genitive with the superlative. See a Uke confusion in the predicate (Monro, Horn. Or., p. 148). W. Havers (Indog. Forsch., XXXI, Bd. 1, Heft 3, 1912) "on the spUtting of the genitive in Greek" sug- gests that the partitive genitive was originally independent and adverbial. (d) The Ablative with Adjectives. The number is not large (cf. the Genitive with Adjectives). In Plato we have, for instance, einaTiinris Kevos, iXeiiBepos alSovs, but see Kuhner-Gerth ^ for a full list in the ancient writers. Thus in the N. T. we find with preposition nadapoi axi toO ai/iaros (Ac. 20 : 26), a clear ablative. Cf. also hT^evdkpa awo rod vd/wv (Ro. 7 : 3) and kXeWepos be iravnov (1 ' Prol., p. 72. Cf. also Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 109. ' Vergl. Synt., I, p. 340. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 97. * lb. ' I, p. 401. The adjs. with a- privative are regarded as usually vpith abl. 516 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Cor. 9 : 19). But the ablative occurs without prepositions. So ^^coi Tuv SLadriKuiv (Eph. 2 : 12). It is probably best to regard the verbal adjectives as having the ablative in these examples: &yairr]rol deov (Ro. 1 : 7), yevvTiTots yvvawSiv (Mt. 11 : 11), diSaKTol deov (Jo. 6 : 45), 3t5aKToTs irveinaTos (1 Cor. 2 : 13), k\iitoI 'Itictov Xpio-ToO (Ro. 1:6). One may also suggest here eiiXoyrinevoi. tov irarpos (Mt. 25 : 34), but on the whole it is fo be regarded as a true genitive. The ablative with adjectives with a- privative have "plentiful illustrations from papyri."^ For instance aicivdwos iravroi klvSvvov Tb. P. 105 (iii/B.c), rrjs eis avavTas eiefyyeaias — a^o^dtiros B.U. 970 (ii/A.D.). In Mt. 27:24 we find adifos eifif aird tov atnaros with air6. Cf. also aa-TiKov awd tov Koafwv (Jas. 1 : 27). Thus we easily see the ablative in dKaTa7rd(rToiis djuaprias (2 Pet. 2 : 14), ava^ws Kpi- TTipluv (1 Cor. 6 : 2), avoiios deov (1 Cor. 9 : 21), aireipos \6yov (Heb. 5 : 13), airdpaaTos kckSiv (Jas. 1 : 13). Moreover, the ablative after the comparative is very common ,in the N. T., apparently more so than in the papyri. Let a few examples suffice: icrxvpoTepos /xov (Mt. 3 : 11), ixiKplnepov bv iravTuv tSiv airepixaTOiv (Mk. 4:31), irKelovas tS>v irpisTCOv (Mt. 21:36), irKelov ttjs Tpo(j)rjs (Lu. 12:23), TrovqpdTSpa iavTOV (Mt. 12:45), fiei^uv TOV Kvplov (Jo. 13 : 16). Cf. Jo. 21 : 15; 1 Cor. 10 : 22; 1 Tim. 5 : 8. Here the ablative idea of difference or distinction is very plain. The Latin also uses the ablative in this sense. Cf. x'^IP"- f^'fl ^Xarroj' eT&v e^iiKovTa (1 Tim. 5:9). In Jo. 5:36, fiapTvpiav fiei^a tov 'luavov, it is not clear whether it is the witness borne by John or to him. In Ac. 4 : 19 6eov after rj is genitive, not ablative, due to aKoveiv. The superlative may likewise have the ablative as in xpcoros nov (Jo. 1 : 15), a usage found in the papyri.^ Abbott' rather needlessly endeavours to explain irpSnos as a substantive meaning ' chief,' like tQ irpdiria ttjs viiaov (Ac. 28 : 7). Note also xoia kaTiv ivToXri irpiiTTj tolvtuv (Mk. 12 : 28) where wavTcov is neuter plural (a possible partitive genitive). Cf. eaxiTov iravToiv (1 Cor. 15: 8). The positive xepicrcos may even have the ablative, as ri Trepicrchv T011T03U (Mt. 5 : 37) . Cf . irKetov with the verb ireptcra-eiia) and the ablative irKiiov tSiv — ^apiaaUav (Mt. 5 : 20). In Eph. 3:8, 'e/xol tQ k\axi'le\e L.Pb. (ii/s.c), acjieKkadai Siv idunav O.P. 237 (ii/A.D.). One may note here again kKiri-n-Tu with the ablative in Gal. 5 : 4 and 2 Pet. 3:17. Cf. kcoX6co d7r6 (Lu. 6 : 29). 2. Verbs of Ceasing, Abstaining. So one may interpret oii ^pahiiva KdpLos TTJi eirayyeyias (2 Pet. 3:9), the marginal reading in W. H. (1 Pet. 4 : 1) TeiravTai afiaprias, and airkxea^dai eiScSKodvToiv (Ac. 15 : 28; cf. also 15 : 20; 1 Tim. 4 : 3; 1 Pet. 2 : 11), though &ir6 also is used with awexofiai (1 Th. 4 : 3; 5 : 22). One can only repeat that these divisions are purely arbitrary and merely for convenience. For airo with avairavonai. and Karairavco see Rev. 14 : 13; Heb. 4 : 4, 10. 3. Verbs of Missing, Lacking, Despairing. Thus we note &v Tives a,(TTOX''](ravTts (1 Tim. 1:6), XdweTai (ro0tas (Jas. 1:5), vorepovv- T-ai T)js Sofijs (Ro. 3 : 23), oeoiv XP!7fe' (Lu. 11:8), xpo^Seo/ieyis titos (Ac. 17: 25), k^awopridrjvai ■fip.as Kal tov ^fjp (2 Cor. 1:8). Cf. tS>v avajKaiuv ixTTtpeiv L.Pb. (ii/B.c), tS>v BedvTcav 'ey'Kiiretv (ib.). Moul- ton, CI. Rev., p. 437, Dec, 1901. • An "impossible" reading to Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 106. « CI. Rev., 1901, p. 437. THE CASES (nTQSEIz) 519 4. Verbs of Differing, Excelling. Here the comparative idea is dominajit. We observe toW&v (ttpovS'mv Suutjepere vnels (Mt. 10 : 31), riiv inrepfiaWovaav rrjs yvixretas ayairriv (Eph. 3 : 19), {nrepexovras iaVTuv (Ph. 2 :3), vaTeprjKevaL t&u iirepXlav airoaToKoiv (2 Cor. 11 : 5; cf. use of iicTepeco in sense of lack above. Here the comparative idea of ianpos is uppermost. 5. Verbs of Asking and Hearing. These may also use the abla- tive. This is the usual construction with Seofiai, especially in Luke, as Siofmi aov (Lu. 8 : 28). The person is in the ablative, but the thing will be in the accusative, as Skopai. 8i rd fiii irapuv Bapprjaai. (2 Cor. 10 : 2). So also note ^y riKoiffark pov (Ac. 1:4), but both otto (Lu. 22 : 71) and irapk (Jo. 1 : 40), and e/c (2 Cor. 12 : 6) occur. 6. Verbs with the Partitive Idea. Here a sharp difference exists between the accusative which presents the whole and the genitive or the ablative which accents a part. Thus in Rev. 2 : 17 we have Sojo-Q) avTc^ Tov pM.vva where the point lies in the idea of "some" of the manna, but B reads to and N k tov. In the same verse note the accusative Stixro) aiir^) \l/fj(t>ov "KevKriv. When the whole is ex- pressed in the N. T. the accusative is used. Thus 4>ayf1v eiSuiXo&vTa (Rev. 2 : 14), but kadleL av6 tS>v \l/ix'^v (Mt. 15 : 27) and k tov ap- Tov effSteto) (1 Cor. 11 : 28). Thus also irivoiv otvov (Lu. 7: 33), but wlfTf e^ avTOV (Mt. 26 : 27), 6s av irij; eK tov idaros (Jo. 4 : 14). Cf. also iv^KaT€ h-Ko Tuiv b^ap'uiiv (Jo. 21 : 10). Phrynichus says: eirtov olvov 'AttlkoI, otvov "EXXjjves — ajtayov Kpecos 'AttlkoL, Kpeas "EXXTjces. Cf. avd TOV Kapitov bi}Tis (Ac. 27:36). In this last example the MSS. vary a good deal. MiToXap^avcc (see (i), 3) may be abl. or gen. in ptereKapfiavov Tptx^^s (Ac. 2 :46). Blass^ notes that only Luke, Paul and the author of Hebrews, the more literary writers in the N. T., use the ablative (gen.) with peTa\apPa.v(a and irpoc'XapPavw. Examples like Ro. 9 : 16; Heb. 12 : 11 may be regarded as either ablative or genitive. 7. Attraction of the Relative. Thus €k tov iSaros ov kyd) Siicco » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 100. 520 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT airc^i (Jo. 4 : 14), ovdh kros X^wv S)v re ol irpoiprjrai kXoKriaav (Ac. 26:22). Cf. Pronouns. X. The Locative ("Locatival Dative") Case ('i\T Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 100. Cf. also Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 221; Brug., Grieoh. Gr., p. 403; K.-G., I, p. 441. ' Giles, Man., etc., p. 330. • Main, Loc. Expr. in the Attic Orators (1892), p. 231. « Meister, Dialec, Bd. II, p. 193. » Qj.. of N. T. Gk., p. 119. ' 01. Rev., 1904, p. 153. Cf . also ib., 1901, p. 438, for 'EUvaivi, Letr. 220 (iv/A.D.). 522 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT in inscriptions as late as the sixth century a.d., B.C.H., 1903, p. 335, tQ Ti/jScj). (d) Time. It is expressed much more persistently with the mere locative. It has outlived the usage as to place and is "fairly frequent"^ in the N. T. Cf. Sanskrit, Latin, older Greek, Anglo- Saxon. Here, of course, time is regarded from the point of view of a point, not of duration (accusative). But the accusative is mak- ing inroads on the locative and is already used occasionally for a point of time. See Accusative. For papyri examples take toTs iraXatois xpovois B.U. 903 (ii/A.D.) and yevealois, 7d/«jis B.U. 1 (iii/A.D.), Moulton, CI. Rev., April, 1904, and Dec, 1901. See also tS ava^acei, O.P. 742 (ii/B.c). Observe the difference between the accusative {to a-aP^arov ria-vxacrav) and the locative (rg 8i fiiq, Tuv traPficLTcov ^Xdav) and the genitive (opdpov fioBkus) all in the same sentence (Lu. 24 : 1). The accusative is easily differentiated from both the locative and the genitive. As between the locative and the genitive the matter is not quite so clear. Brugmann^ indeed thinks that originally there was little difference. The difference lies in the essential meaning of the two cases. The locative is a point and the genitive is the case of genus. Thus in Mt. 24 : 20 we have Iva iifi yevtjTaL 17 (j>vyri vnSiv xtiM'oi'os ;mj3^ (ra/3;3aT£j). It is not mere hair-splitting to note that winter is here set over against sum- mer (time within which) and that Sabbath is the point of time. In practical result the difference is very slight, but it is hardly just to regard the two usages as without difference. Cf. vvktos (Mt. 25 : 6), wktI (Mk. 14 : 30), viiKra (Ac. 26 : 7). Katp45 (Lu. 20 : 10) for 'in due time' may be illustrated by tQ beovn Kaipi^, O.P. IV, 729, 5, and tQ t^s bviipas mipQ, ib., 11. As further examples of the mere locative we may note the various instances of ■finkpa. So rg tpIt'q ijlJiipq, (Mt. 20 : 19), rg niS. (TaPfiarcov (Jo. 20 : 1), rg TrpdjTB fiiikpq. Tuiv &^vfio3v (Mk. 14 : 12), tv fifiipq, TV oydon (Ac. 7:8), Tg € Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 120, for careful discussion. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 77 ff. THE CASES (hTHSEIS) 523 found as with toutj/ (Lu. 19 : 42), kKeivn (Lu. 6 : 23), oySon (Lu. 1 : 59), iiiq. (Lu. 20 : 1), kaxarji (Jo. 6 :44), with wipi} and aa^^aTuv (Lu. 4 : 16), iiiikpa. and genitive (Lu. 4 : 25), with t^^s (Lu. 7 : 11), where W. H. read in text b> t^ rather than kv rjj. The MSS., especially D, vary a good deal. Nukti occurs without hv (Lu. 12 : 20) and with kv (Mt. 26 : 31). So also we find aaPfiarcf (Mt. 24 : 20), aa^^aaiv (Mk. 2 : 24), but also kv with each (Mt. 12 : 2; Mk. 2 : 23). With iapa we have both &pa (Lu. 2 : 38) and 4c (Lu. 12 : 12). Once more (jbuXaKJ? occurs without iv (Mt. 14 : 25) and with kv (Lu. 12 : 38). With eros we have kv once (as Lu. 3 : 1) and without kv twice (Jo. 2 : 20; Ac. 13 : 20), but these two examples {jheaiv TtaaepaKovra, ojs irecnv TtTpaKocriois Kal irevrri- KovTo) are probably associative-instrumental.' Cf . ■wpofie^rjKOTas ^Sjj Tois 'tTtaiv, Tb.P. i (ii/A.D.) with Lu. \:7 kv. Moulton observes that it is hard sometimes to draw the line between the locative and the instrumental {CI. Rev., Dec, 1901). With topri] again we note the mere locative (Lu. 2 : 41) or usually kv (Jo. 2 : 23). See also Kaipots idiots (1 Tim. 6 : 15), but usually kv KaipQ (Mt. 11 : 25, etc.). Xpovos has only kv (as Ac. 1 : 6) save the associative-instrumental usage like (Ka)>4) XP^^V (-A-C. 8 : 11). Observe also toTs yeveeriots airov (Mk. 6 : 21). So again irkpais yeveais (Eph. 3 : 5), but kv in Mk. 8 : 38. Nuvi (chiefly in Paul, as Ro. 3 : 21) is a locative form (cf. o6x0- Other locative adverbs of time are det (2 Cor. 6 : 10), kKii (Mt. 6 : 21), ^kpv^L (2 Cor. 8 : 10), wpcoi (Mk. 16 : 2). (e) Locative with Adjectives. Thus we note ot wrcaxol tQ Tvebfiari (Mt. 5:3), KoBapol tjj KapSlg. (5:8), aSvvaros toTx iroalv (Ac. 14 : 8), CTTcpeol rg irto-ret (1 Pet. 5:9), voidpol rais a/coais (Heb. 5 : 11), TtipiTOii^ dKTaiip,epos (Ph. 3 : 5), k\eWepoi rg diKaiocrivii (Ro. 6 : 20), Toireicis rg Kap8iq. (Mt. 11:29), aTrepiTfn]TOL KapSiaiS (Ac. 7:51), ayia Kal aisnaTi Kal irveifiaTi (1 Cor. 7:34). Cf. Ro. 12:10-13. In Blass-Debrunner, p. 118, these examples are treated as instru- mental. (/) Locative with Verbs. Cf. dtdenkvos tQ irvevpari (Ac. 20 : 22), Tipi^ep\yip.kvovs tiiarioLs XeuKoTs (Rev. 4 : 4, marg. kv). In Ro. 12 : 10-13 note the various examples of the locative with participles, though ToTs xpetow KOLvuvovvTis is probably instrumental. Cf. also kaKOT(i>iikvoL rg Suivoiq, (Eph. 4 : 18), foioironjSets TveifjuiTt. (1 Pet. 3 : 18), ffxWTi evpeBeis (Ph. 2:8). We seem to have the locative in KaTfipyaaaro i/nv (2 Cor. 7:11), but usually kv appears in such examples as kv kfwl (Gal. 1 : 24). Further examples with verbs are ' Cf. Brug., Grieoh. Gr., p. 405; Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., p. 225; Moulton, Prol., p. 75. 524 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ToTs We<>Pv (A-C. 9 : 31), orav iretpaer/LtoTs %tpnrkar)T6 irot/ciXots (Jas. 1:2), XBffTais irepiirtaev (Lu. 10 : 30), karepeovvto tjJ irlaru km, hrep'uraevov t$ apiJBfiQ (Ac. 16 : 5), KatiriTt Tats ^nrxais (Heb. 12 : 3), kmikvuv rg iriarei (Ac. 14 : 22), ktnijiivuaiv rg AiricrTiq, (Ro. 11 : 23; of. 22), hKevrpiadrjaovTai rg Idiq. eXat^ (Ro. 11 : 24), tQ aQ bvopari 'eirpo(i>i)Tebaaiif:V (Mt. 7: 22; cf. i^ePaKonev also), ^iuv tQ irvevnaTi (Ac. 18 : 25; cf. Lu. 10 : 21 and Mk. 5 : 29), rg eXii^et monkvovTes (Ro. 12 : 12), and perhaps even jSairrto-ei u/tSs irveii/MTi. ayicf (Mk. 1:8). See Ac. 16 : 5. For the so-called instrumental use of kv (like h fiaxaipv, Mt. 26 : 52) see the chapter on Prepositions (cf. also Instrumental Case). As a matter of fact kv always has the locative, and this use of kv has the locative also. The activity of the verb is conceived as finding expression in the object mentioned. It is not a mere Hebraism, for the papyri have it as indeed the earlier Greek oc- casionally. But as a practical matter this use of kv with the locative was nearly equivalent to the instrimiental case. The use of ofwXoyico kv (Mt. 10 : 32; Lu. 12 : 8) Moulton {ProL, p. 104) considers a Semiticism due to the common Aramaic original. Cf. the usual dative (Heb. 13 : 15). (fif) The Locative with Substantives. Cf. Heb. 11 : 12, Kodiis TO. aarpa rov ovpavov tQ irXrjdet.. So in Col. 2 : 14, to koB' iituav xei-poypaov tols bbypaaiv, the adjective is used as a substantive. In 1 Cor. 14 : 20 we have the locative with substantive, verb and adjective, /tij iraibla ylveaBe rais ^pealv, dXXd rg KaKlq, vrjiriA^fxt, rais 3^ (t>pe(rlv rfkeioi ylvecrde. (h) The Locative with Prepositions. Just because the prepositions that were used with the locative were only. " adverbial elements strengthening and directing its meaning" ^ they were very numerous. Originally nearly all the prepositions occurred with the locative. Thus in Homer and epic and lyric poetry gen- erally we meet with the locative with afupl, ava, els (dialects, in- scriptions), nera, and when the so-called dative is found in Greek with kv, kiri, Tvapa, T€pi, Tpos, virb, it is really the locative case.^ But with a compound verb the case may not always be locative, as instance irpoKeifievov 'fifuv (Heb. 12 : 1). A number of the preposi- tions like 6.fi(l>i, avri, kv {kvt), iirl, irepi, irpos (xpori) are themselves in the locative case. Cf. the locative adverbs of time already mentioned and 'EjSpaiVTi (Jo. 5 : 2), 'EXXij^htti (Jo. 9 : 20), idiKKcf (Mk. 3 : 34), the conjunction Kal, etc. There are only four prepo- sitions in the N. T. that use the locative. As examples note kv tQ ' Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 103. « Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 101. THE CASES (HTfiSEIs) 525 'IopS6.vxi (Mt. 3:6), kirl OiifMLs (Mt. 24.: 33), Trapa tQ ffravpQ tov 'Iriffov (Jo. 19 : 25), Tp6s tQ livrmeicf (Jo. 20 : 11). But of these 7rp6s has the locative only 6 times, irapa 50, while kTri has it 176 times.' 'Ev, of course, having only the locative, is very common. One may note here iv irpcoTois (1 Cor. 15 : 3) almost hke an adverb. (z) The Pbegnant Constkuction op the Locative. It is common in the N. T. with kv, as the accusative with eis after verbs of motion or rest. This matter comes up for discussion again under the head of Prepositions, but a few words are perhaps needed here. The identity of h and eU in origin and early usage must be borne in mind when one approaches these two prepositions. Cf. i fls t6v aypop in Mk. 13 : 16. On the other hand note 6 in^bpas liitT- ipov riiv x«tpa «" TV rpv^Vicf (Mt. 26 : 23). Here Mark (14 : 20) has CIS t6 Tpu/SXioj'. This interchange of iv and €is is a feature of the LXX (Moiilton, Prol., p. 245). Originally there was no difference, and finally kv vanishes before eis in modern Greek. Each writer looks at the matter in his own way. Cf . EngUsh vernacular, " come in the house," "jump in the river," etc. So also Mt. (3 : 6) has ^jSaTTTifbvTo iv T^ 'lopSavn iroranQ, while Mk. (1 : 9) reads i^a.-KTladt] e£s TOV 'lopdLvrjv. Cf. iv ot/ccj) icrriv, text of Mk. 2 : 1 and marg. €is oik6v iajLv. This same pregnant idiom appears with Trapa as (rraaa dTiaco irapa Tois iroSas avrov (Lu. 7:38). See also Mk. 4:1. Cf. again i/i^avTi els to tt'Ko'lov (Mt. 8 : 23). But observe the locative with iv in composition (Ro. 11 : 24). With ovofxa we have the mere locative (Mt. 7 : 22), iv and the locative (Mt. 21 : 9), iwl and loca- tive (Mt. 18 : 5), ds and accusative (Mt. 10 : 41; 28 : 19).^ Cf. also Mt. 12 : 41. XI. The Instrumental (" Instrumental Dative ") Case (fi Xpil«midi irT(o Moulton, Prol., p. 106. * Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 89. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 123 f. ' Gk. Dial., II, p. 295. ' Eiem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 207. « I, p. 405. 526 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT verbs* in -a and -»/ (-q., -v) like Kpu<^g, Xdflpa, t., deotjyiv. But in Homer one must note that these endings for singular and plural are used for the locative, ablative, and possibly for the dative also.^ It is not always easy to draw the line of distinction between the locative and instrumental in Greek after the forms blended.' Sometimes indeed a word will make good sense, though not the same sense, either as locative, dative or instrumental, as tjJ 6e|ig Tov deov vil/ciidels (Ac. 2 : 33; cf. also 5 : 31). The grammars have no Greek term for the instrumental case, but I have ventured to call it xPV^TiKri xTCjo-is. The increasing use of prepositions {ev, Sid, fiera) makes the mere instrumental a disappearing case in the N. T. as compared with the earlier Greek,* but still it is far from dead. (6) Syncretistic? It is a matter of dispute as to whether this instrumental case is not itself a mixed case combining an old asso- ciative or comitative case with the later instrumental. Both of these ideas are present in the Sanskrit case (Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar, p. 93). On the whole, however, one is constrained to doubt the existence of this so-called comitative case. Most of the difference is due to the distinction between persons (association, accompaniment) and things (means, implement, instrument). Cf. Delbruck, Vergl. Syntax, I, p. 231. Hence neither term covers exactly the whole situation. We have a similar combination in our EngUsh "with" which is used in both senses. So also the Greek v, both senses occur together. But we may agree that the associa- tive was the original usage out of which the instrumental idea was easily and logically developed.^ The comitative usage, for instance, is very common in Homer' and Herodotus.' (c) Place. There is no example of this usage in the N. T. except TtavTaxa (W. H. text, Ac. 21 : 28). In Jas. 2 : 25, irkpa, 65^ 1 Cf. Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 99. » Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 239. » Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 438. * Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 116. The mod. Gk., of course, does not use the instr. case at all, but only iii (/uera). Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 103. 6 Giles, Man., p. 334. Cf. Draeger, Hist. Synt., p. 428. « Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 99. ' Helbing, tJber den Gebrauch des echten und sociativen Dative bei Herod., p. 58f. THE CASES (nxnsEis) 527 kjSaXoOcra, we probably have the locative, though the instr. is possible. (d) Time. But we do find examples of the associative-instru- mental used with expressions of time. This is indeed a very old use of the instrumental, as Brugmann^ and Delbriick^ show. The Sanskrit had it also as the time "by the lapse of which anything is brought about."* The singular, like xpovv inavQ (Lu. 8 :27; Ac. 8 : 11), finds parallel in the papyri,* as is seen also in Pindar, Euripides, Aristophanes, Thucydides.* For the papyri note xoXXoTs Xpbvois N.P. 50 (iii/A.D.), xpovf A.P. 77 (ii/A.D.). Cf. Polybius xxxii, 12, TToKSois xpbvois (Moulton, Prol., p. 76). There is no doubt about the plural instrumental in Ro. 16 : 25, xpovois aUaviois, a parallel to which Moulton' finds in the epistolary formula in the papyri, 'eppSiadal ae eiixo/uat ttoXXoIs xpovois. He rightly doubts the necessity of appealing to the Latin as W. Schulze'' does for the explanation of the use of the plural, since the classical tQ xpovv could easily give the impulse. In Jo. 2 : 20, Tea-aepaKoura Kal e^ 'ertauv olKodofirjdri , we have the in- strumental also, though, of course, this might be looked at as a locative, the whole period regarded as a point of time. In an ex- ample like xoXXoTs xpovols cvvripitaKei avrov (Lu. 8 : 29) we probably have the instrumental also, though here the locative would give a good idea, 'on many occasions' ('oftentimes' Rev. V.), whereas the marg. ('of a long time') gives the instrumental idea. For the instrumental idea Moulton* cites from Letronne (p. 220, fourth century A.D.) ttoXXois vcrrepov xp^^oi-^- See also cos eretrt TerpaKoaioLS Kal irevriiKOVTa (Ac. 13 : 20). Cf. also Tracrais rats iinkpan (Lu. 1 : 75), but marg. of W. H. has accusative. As Moulton' observes, only the context can decide which is locative and which instrumental in such examples and he suggests that this uncertainty had some- thing to do with the increasing use of iv to make the locative clear and distinct from instrumental or dative. " Speakers of Greek were certainly beginning to feel that they could not trust the dative out alone, and we can understand the occasional employment of nursemaid h in places where she would have been better left at ' Griech. Gr., p. 410. = Vergl. Synt., I, p. 246. » Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 94. * Moulton, 01. Rev., 1901, p. 438; 1904, p. 153; Prol., p. 75. s Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 246. « Prol., p. 75. ' Gr. Lat., p. 14. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 121, calls this "duration of time" "unclassical," but incorrectly as is already shown. 8 CI. Rev., 1901, p. 438. » lb. 528 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT home, or replaced by avv." Blass* comments on the frequency of the instrumental with expressions of time in Josephus with no perceptible difference between it and the accusative. One can hardly agree to Blass'^ explanation of the instrumental of time that it is due to the disinclination of the writer to put another accusative beside the direct object of the verb. Certainly the accusative is the most frequent idiom in the N. T. for the idea of extension of time, as can be seen in Mk. 2: 19; Lu. 13:8; Ac. 13 : 18; Rev. 20: 3, etc. In Jo. 14 : 9 W. H. have touovtov xp^vov in the text and put roaoirca xpovv in the marg. In Lu. 8 : 27 some MSS. have instead of the instrumental xpovi^ havi^ the ablative k (LttS) xpovci3v Ikovwv. (e) The Associative Idea. The idea of association alone is responsible for a good many examples, chiefly with verbs, though adjectives are not wanting. Substantives cut no figure at all according to Blass,^ for rts Koivoivla (fxarl wpds (tkotos (2 Cor. 6 : 14) is an example of the pure dative (cf. also Lu. 5 : 10; 2 Cor. 6 : 16), and in Ro. 15 : 26 we have eis rois tttcoxous and in 1 Jo. 1 : 3, 6, 7 ixed' rinSiv. But another example in 2 Cor. 6 : 14, ris fixToxri biKauxThvig Kal avoixia, comes much closer to the substantive use of the associa- tive-instrumental. But an undoubted example of a substantive followed by the associative-instrumental appears in eis vTravTr}iTi.v T^ Tijo-oG (Mt. 8 : 34). So ets aTra.vTr)(nv i/ixlv (Ac. 28 : 15). Cf. also Jo. 12 : 13 (aiiTi?) and 1 Mace. 3 : 11 eis vTos. Thus to aSifia crvixfiop4>ov t^ aionaTi (Ph. 3 : 21) and a-vfKt>vTOL tQ d/wiMfiaTL (Ro. 6:5), but aiiiifwpclios has the genitive rrjs e'lKovos in Ro. 8 : 29 like a substantive. The other compounds in aiv are treated as substantives^ with the genitive, like awaixm- 'KciiTos, avyyeviji, avvepyos, ciu'Tpo^os, ixkroxos (Heb. 1:9). But note ivavTios ai)Tol% (Mk. 6 : 48), virevavriov ■fifiiv (Col. 2 : 14). With verbs the associative-instrumental is very common in the N. T. as in the older Gk. The most important examples will be given in illustration. 'AKo\ovdi(o is a common instance, as r\Ko\oiOiiao.v avr^ (Mk. 1 : 18). Cf. also awaK. (Mk. 5 : 37). Rather oddly iTroimi is not so used, but once we find crvvdirtTo airc^ (Ac. 20 : 4). So 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 121. Cf. Schmidt, de Jos. elocut., p. 382 f. ' lb. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 115. * lb. TBE CASES (nTQSEIs) 529 SuXh^To aiiTots (Ac. 20 : 7), though irp6s (Mk. 9 : 34) also is used. Other compounds of 8td with this case are BiaWayridi. tQ aSeXipca (Mt. 5:24), he^\i\dri aiirQ (Lu. 16:1), tQ Sta/JoXcj) BiaKpLvo/ievos (Ju. 9), ToTs 'louSatois SidKaTrfXeyxcro (Ac. 18:28). But closely aUied to these words are KarriW&yritiiv t$ dev (K.o- 5 : 10), aot KpiJB^mt (Mt. 5 : 40), tb/itXei avr^ (Ac. 24 : 26), which last may have irpbs and accusative (Lu. 24 : 14). Then again note irepo^vyowres (2 Cor. 6 : 14), rots irpevfiaTiKots 'eKoivdivrjaav (Ro. 15 : 27), KoKSaadai avToZs (Ac. 5 : 13), kvrvyxiiveL tQ deQ (Ro. 11 : 2). Cf. further LvSpl SkSerai (Ro. 7 : 2) and fiefuy/iivriv mipi (Rev. 15 : 2). In Rev. 8 : 4 we may (R. V. dative) have the associative-instrumental' rais irpoffcuxits with kvefit]. Moulton cites diroSuo-co o-oi t^j ej/yta-Ta SoBtiiTotiivif cnf/cavicfi, B.U. 69 (ii/A.D.) 'with your next wages' {CI. Rev., Dec, 1901). Cf. the old Greek avrois avdpacLv and the "military dative" (Moulton, Prol., p. 61). The compounds with (Tvv that use this case are numerous. Thus avWafiiadai (Lu. 5:7), cvufiovXeva-a^ rots 'lovSaiois (Jo. 18 : 14), though this might be a dative (cf. avixfiaivui and avij4)kpii), cwe^x^viiBrt vfuv (Ac. 5:9; cf. 15 : 15),^ p,Lq, i^uxS (TvvajS}^ovvTes VjJ iricTT€L (Ph. 1 : 27, two examples probably of the instrumental, the first of manner), cvvriKoKoiidei. abr^ (Mk. 14 : 51), al (Twavafiaaai amQ (Mk. 15 :41), avvaveKeivro T(f 'Itjcov (Mt. 9 : 10), lifj avvavapiyvvadai airc^ (2 Th. 3 : 14), Tas avrQ (Lu. 9 : 32), avyKoJBrinevot avTois (Ac. 26 : 30), (rvvKaKOTraBtjcov tQ eiiayyeklcf (2 Tim. 1:8), avvKOKOvxe'io'da.L TCfi Xa^i (Heb. 11 : 25), (rvvKaTaredeifihos TJj jSouXg (Lu. 23 : 51), fiii avvKeKepaa/ievovs rfj irltTTei rots aicovaaaiv (Heb. 4 : 2, two examples of the instrumental), avvKoivuveiTt rots ipyois (Eph. 5 : 11), avvKplvovTis iavTois iavrois (2 Cor. 10 : 12), avvXaXovvres t^ 'IjjffoD (Mk. 9:4), awfmpTvptZ toj irvevixari (Ro. 8 : 16), avvodevovres aiiT^ (Ac. 9:7), (Tvvoiiopovaa ry avvaycoy'g (Ac. 18 : 7), avviraBrjcai ' Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 75. ' Considered peculiar by Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 114. 530 X GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT rats &adevelai,s (Heb. 4 : 15), avvirapoures fiiuv (Ac. 25 : 24), avv- eirknypafiev airois (2 Cor. 8 : 22), avvewoptijovTO avrQ (Lu. 7 : 11), avvaravpadevTos avT^ (Jo. 19 : 32), (TvvaTOVXti rg vvv 'lepovaaXrifi (Gal. 4 : 25), ix'^ avvaxvf^'''''^^'^^ I'V atcoi'i tovtcj (Ro. 12 : 2), aucTuxetJ' aiiT^ (Lu. 8 : 19), avvvwexplBriaap avr^ (Gal. 2 : 13), avvkxo-i-pov aW^ (Lu. 1 : 58), cwxpuvraL Sa/iapetrais (Jo. 4:9), though xpaopjai uses the strict instrumental usually; a rather long hst surely, but one not in vain, if one gets a just idea of the N. T. usage. Some of these verbs occur frequently and some have xpos or nfrk, (/) With Words of Likeness and Identity. We find this usage with several adjectives. Thus o/wios avdpinzt:^ (Lu. 6 : 48) and always, save the accusative in Rev. 14 : 14 and in 1 : 13 (true text). In Jo. 8 : 55 some MSS. actually have opoios ifuav instead of vfiiv. Cf. our vulgar "the hkes of you." So also laovs ■ntiiv (Mt. 20 : 12) and urdrifiov riixtv iriaTi.v (2 Pet. 1:1). '0 aiiTb% with the instrumental is found once only, %v koX to avrd rfj e^vprifievjj (1 Cor. 11 : 5). In 1 Th. 2 : 14 we find to. abra. KoBiis, and in Ph. 1 : 30 Tov avTov a.'yS>va olov. Several verbs are used the same way. So foiKtv av8pi (Jas. 1 : 23), rots dSeX^oTs biwuadrpiai (Heb. 2 : 17), Trapo/ioidfere ra^ois (Mt. 23 : 27), "eirpewev clvtQ (Heb. 2 : 10). Some MSS. have 6/ioiws aurg in Mt. 22 : 39. In Rev. 4 : 3 S/iotos opdtrei XtSoj we have two instrumental examples. (gr) Manner. It is expressed by the instrumental case. This, like the other uses of the case in the N. T., is in harmony with ancient usage,^ not to say that of the Koivi). Some N. T. adverbs illustrate this usage well, like drifioal^ (Ac. 16:37), ekg (1 Cor. 15 : 2), ISiq. (1 Cor. 12 : 11), xpu^g (Eph. 5 : 12), XdSpa (Mt. 2 : 7), iravoiKel (Ac. 16:34), TravirKyidei (Lu. 23:18), irkvTT) (Ac. 24:3), irefg (Mk. 6 : 33), raxa (Ro. 5:7). But the usage is abundant outside of adverbs, chiefly with verbs, but also with adjectives and even with substantives. Thus we find rkra ^ixreL bpyfjs (Eph. 2 : 3) and Kuxptos rt? yevei (Ac. 4 : 36; cf. also 18 : 2, bvbua-fi 'AidJ\av, UovTiKov tQ y'ev€i). See also the participle ra ovri (Ro. 7 : 23). Cf. also 0u(r€i in Gal. 2 : 15 and t§ -wpoffiiirco in Gal. 1 : 22. Here are some of the chief examples with verbs: xdptrt /terexw (1 Cor. 10 : 30), irpoatvxoiikvri aKaraKoKiiTTCf tjj Kec^aXjj (1 Cor. 11:5), irepLTiiridrJTe tc^ Wei (Ac. 15 : 1), tJ Tpodkaei irpocrnkveiv (Ac. 11 : 23), on, iravrl rpoTrco, eire irpocjiAcrei elre aXrideiq,, Xpiaros KaTayyeKKerai (Ph. 1 : 18, all three examples), avaKeKoKvunhcf irpoaonri^ KaroTrrptfo/iej'oi (2 Cor. 3 : 18). Blass notes also ^airiaixacnv ainbv e\a0ov (Mk. 14 : 65) as a vulgarism which finds a parallel in a papyrus^ of the first century » K.-G., I, p. 435. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 118. XHE CASES (nTflSEIs) 531 A.D., KovSv\ot,s ?Xaj86i'. Cf. rg ^iq,, B.U. 45 (iii/A.D.). But often fieT& and the genitive (juerd ^tas, Ac. 5 : 26), hv and the locative (ev Skxa XtXidtrw', Lu. 14 : 31), /card and the accusative (Ac. 15 : 11) or the mere accusative (Mt. 23 : 37) occur rather than the instru- mental. There is one usage in the N. T. that has caused some trouble. It is called' "Hebraic" by some of the grammarians. The instances are rather numerous in the N. T., though nothing like so common as in the LXX.^ Conybeare and Stock quote Plato to show that it is, however, an idiom in accordance with the genius of the Greek language. Thus \6ycfi \kyeLv, (jieiycov ^vy'g, 4>\)(ru ireaev (Ac. 2 : 30), i^icTTjaav l/co-rdcrei tieyaXfi (Mk. 5 : 42), irapayyeXlq, ira.ptiyyeiXa.p.ev (Ac. 5 : 28), irpoaeuxv i^poarji^aTO (Jas. 5 : 17), x^p? xalpei (Jo. 3 : 29; cf. 1 Pet. 1:8). Cf. also o-jj- fiaivwv irolcf daparcf rjixeKkev airodvriffKeiv (Jo. 18 : 32) and (ttiimilvuv ToLcfi davarui Sogdcret tov Btbv (Jo. 21 : 19), where the idiom seems more normal. Blass^ observes that this usage "intensifies the verb in so far as it indicates that the action is to be understood as taking place in the fullest sense." In Ro. 8 : 24 we more likely 1 Moulton, Prol., p. 75. ■•' C. and S., p. 60 f. ' Prol., p. 75 f. Cf . Blivov BavaTif in Homer. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 119. 5 lb. Thack. (Jour, of Theol. Stu., July, 1908, p. 598 f.) shows that in the Pentateuch the Hebrew infinitive absolute was more frequently rendered by the instr. case, while in the Books of Samuel and Kings the participle is the more usual. In the LXX as a whole the two methods are about equal. On p. 601 he observes that the N. T. has no ex. of the part, so used except in 0. T. quotations, while several instances of the instr. occur apart from quota- tions, as in Lu. 22 : 15; Jo. 3 : 29; Ac. 4 : 17; 5 : 28; 23 : 12; Jas. 5 : 17. See also Thack., Gr., p. 48. 532 A GEAMMAE OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT have the means than the manner. Cf. apKetade rots inl/wviois in Lu. 3 : 14. Qt) Measure. Closely allied to the idea of manner is that of measure. The accusative is sometimes used here also with the comparative, as iroXv fiaWov (Heb. 12:9). But in Lu. 18:39 we have ToWQ naWov (cf. Mt. 6 : 30). Cf. 7roXX45 imXSov, P. Par. 26 (ii/B.c). In Ph. 1 : 23 we find the instrumental with the double comparative iroXX^i ij,S.X\ov Kpeiaaov. In particular observe Toaoiji^ liSXKov 6acfi /JXexere (Heb. 10 : 25) which corresponds to the English idiom "the more, the less" in "the more one learns, the humbler he grows." As a matter of fact the English "the" here is instru- mental also, as is seen in the Anglo-Saxon Sy. Cf. also roaovrcf KpdTTdiv (Heb. 1:4). (i) Cause. The instrumental may be used also to express the . idea of cause, motive or occasion. This notion of ground wavers between the idea of association and means. Here are some illus- trations: ir^ii bi 'KifiQ &8e awoWvuai. (Lu. 15 : 17), Iva CTavpQ tov XptoToD nil SiiiKccvTai (Gal. 6 : 12), Xuxj/ Karairo^g (2 Cor. 2:7), nvis S^ T§ awrjdela kaBlovciv (1 Cor. 8 : 7), oh SieKpldr] tjj d;ritrTi^ dXXcL evedvvapiidi] ry Triarei (Ro. 4 : 20), rfj aTncrTiq, i^eKK6uT6r]{ia-ei (Jas. 3 : 7), avpaw^xSv avruiv TH inroKpitrei (Gal. 2 : 13), ireirKripuiiivovs iraa-g abiKM, irovriplq,, ktK. (Ro. 1 : 29), x^P""' *"■■'■* aeffuanivot, (Eph. 2:5, 8), /xri fitdvaKeade olvcf (Eph. 5 : 18), pepavTi,(Tfikvov aXpan (Rev. 19 : 13), irveviMTi (Ro. 8 : 14), oil (j^aprois, apyvp'ua fj xp^'^'^t i\vTp6idr]T€, aWa. rt/iiqi aijuari (1 Pet. 1 : 18 f.), 4^ ■'■'s f/TTT/Tat (2 Pet. 2 : 19), i(T tovs oipavoiis eKTiaev." Besides some examples are open to doubt. Thus KaraKavaei Tvpl aafikarc^ (Mt. 3 : 12) may be either locative or instrumental. The same might be true of 7(5 irXotapitj) ^\Bov (Jo. 21 : 8) and k^aimaai i)5aTt (Ac. 1:5), though the locative is pretty clearly right here. Then again in Ac. 22 : 25, irpokreivav tols Ifidaiv, we have either the instrumental or the dative. But in 2 Pet. 1 : 3 i8ia So^y nai aper^ (marg. in W. H.) are clearly instrumental, not dative. In Ro. 8 : 24, rg kXiridi. kffiiBrifiev, we have either the modal instrumental or the instru- mental of means. Cf. also 1 Cor. 14 : 15. Blass^ perhaps over- emphasizes the influence of the Heb. a on the N. T. Greek in what is called the instrumental use of kv (the case with kv is always locative; historically considered). This is a classic idiom' and the papyri give numerous illustrations* of it, though the Heb. ' In Herod, we find a double instr. with xpflffSai. Cf . Helbing, Der Instru- mental in Herod., 1900, p. 8. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 117. ' K.-G., II, p. 464 f . « Moulton, Prol., pp. 76, 104; CI. Rev., 1904, p. 153. 534 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT a did make it more frequent in the LXX. Some of the uses of iv and locative, hke h fiaxC'lpv diroXoOyrai (Mt. 26 : 52), ToikefiTiau kv rfi pon4>'e\iiios with irpbs (1 Tim. 4 : 8). Only in the most illiterate papyri is the decay of the dative seen, as in tIvi, \6yov, N.P. 47 (iii/A.n.), and in the late inscrs. like 6 PmidSiv inQv, J. H. S., XIX, 14. Of. Moulton, CI. Rev., Apr., 1904. Per contra note eTniJ.t\ii6[riT]i. tQ xaiSicj), P. Oxy. 744 (i/B.c). Leaving out kv,the locative, instrumental and da- tive show a contraction in the N. T. as compared with the earlier Greek.* But even in the N. T. "kv is considerably more than a match for eis," yet the vernacular revived and intensified the old identity of h and eis seen in the early dialects.^ Hatzidakis* shows how this tendency increased in the later Greek till eis tri- umphed over kv in the modern Greek. But even in the N. T. it is often impossible to insist on the idea of motion or extension in > Horn. Gr., p. 97 f. * lb. " Grieeh. Gr., pp. 226 ff. = Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 122. » Prol., p. 62. 6 Einl., p. 210 f. 536 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT eis, as 6 &v eis t6v koXtoj' (Jo. 1 : 18), 6 els rbv &yp6v (Mk. 13 : 16). Cf. Tois els t6v oIkov (Lu. 9 :.61). Moulton^ cites from D h as equiva- lent to eis in Acts 7 : 12; 8 : 23. One may compare the disappear- ance of the locative with vird and the use of the accusative for both motion and rest,^ whereas in Appian and Herodian (Atticists) the locative is in the lead.' Cf . the disappearance of the dative forms in English save in the pronouns him, whom, etc. Even Wyclif had "believe ye to the gospel" (Mk. 1 : 15). (c) The Idea of the Dative. It is that of personal interest. It is sometimes used of things, but of things personified.* Apol- lonios Dyscolos calls the dative the case of irepiiroliqais. The accu- sative, genitive and dative are all cases of inner relations,^ but the dative has a distinctive personal touch not true of the others. The dative is not a local case. There was originally no idea of place in it.' It is thus a purely grammatical case {rdn grammatisch). Even ipxoiiai aoi (Rev. 2 : 16) is used of a person, not place. Cf. 'epxerai v tQ deQ (2 Cor. 9 : 12), S\i^i,v rrj aapd (1 Cor. 7 : 28), aveaw r^ irveinaTi jiov (2 Cor. 2 : 13), (Tk6\oi[/ tJ aapd (2 Cor. ■ 1 Prol., p. 235. 2 lb., p. 63. » Cf. Helbing, Die Prap. bei Herod., p. 22. Cf. Moulton, Prol., pp. 63, 107. * Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 98. " Wundt, Volkerpsych., 1. Bd., Tl. II, p. 126. " Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 185. But see E. W. Hopkins, Trans. Am. Hist. Assoc, XXXVII, pp. 87 ff. ' Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 95. 8 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 277. » Brug., Griech Gr., p. 399. THE CASES (nTi22EIs) 537 12 : 7), &vi,iravixtv ein'i, the dative is not due to eifiL. Cf. in next verse ri kn'fi awoXoyia tols kiii avaKplvovcnv. Cf. also avTols in Ph. 1 : 28. So v6fUK iavTots (Ro. 2 : 14), kfwl db.vaTo% (Ro. 7 : 13), and, not to multiply examples, tovto fioi. Kapiros epyov (Ph. 1 : 22), 4 iwlaraals fwi (2 Cor. 11 : 28). Cf. Ro. 1 : 14; 8 : 12. In 1 Cor. 4 : 3 both the dative and ets and accusative occur, but properly so, inol di els 'eKkxiavr} — ijiup (Ac. 10 : 40), ivoxos earaL T(fi evven Splcf (Mt. 5 : 22), t6 exiaxrilMV Kal eiitapehpov tu Kvpko (1 Cor. 7: 35), iKavov T(^ ToiovTif (2 Cor. 2:6), koKov aoi kariv (Mt. 18 : 8), iiovoyevfii TJj firiTpl (Lu. 7: 12), veKpovs rg aixaprlq, (Ro. 6 : 11), iriaTriv t^ Kvpicf (Ac. 16 : 15), irrcoxois tQ KoafUf (Jas. 2 : 5), (roirripios Tciaiv (Tit. 2 : 11), ^ . . . miiKOOL (Ac. 7 : 39), e\ip.a toTs a.v6p6nroi,s (Tit. 3 : 8). Wellhausen {Einl., p. 33 f.) calls 'ivoxos r&i "ungriechisch." But note ivoxos earu tois Itrois kinTe[l]fU)is, P. Oxy. 275 (a.d. 66). The participle in Lu. 4 : 16 (Ac. 17 : 2) almost deserves to be classed with the adjectives in this connection, to eUo66s avrcc. (/) With Adveebs and Prepositions. The dative is found a few times with adverbs. Thus cos oaiuis Kal diKaiws Kal anknirTois vpHv Tols inaTehovaiv 'eyePrjdTifiev (1 Th. 2 : 10), oval tQ Kdaficf, (Mt. 18 : 7) and so frequently (but accusative in Rev. 8 : 13; 12 : 12). Blass* compares Latin vae mihi and vae me. Brugmann^ indeed considers xarai, xapat, irciXai, xo^Mit ^^H to be dative forms. But, while this is true, the dative is not used with prepositions in the ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 112. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. 153, finds &.ko\oWws with dat. in pap. ^ Qriech. Gr., pp. 226, 228. 538 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Sanskrit 1 and not certainly in the Greek.^ The locative is very common with prepositions, and the instrumental appears with two, but the dative is doubtful. In reality this statement must be modified a bit, for kyybs has the dative twice in the N. T. (Ac. 9:38), rg 'loTirxi; ^ ^776$ (Ac. 27 : 8), though the genitive is the usual case employed. Cf. 477tf&j with dative, Ac. 9:3; 10 : 9; Jas. 4 : 8. Brugmann' admits the dative with kvrlov, evavriov, TXrjaiov in the older Greek, though no N. T. examples occur. Delbfiick {Grundl., p. 130) finds the dative with 4xi. (g) With Verbs. Here the dative finds its most extensive use. 1. Indirect Object. Perhaps the earliest use. Certainly it re- mains the one most commonly met. Indeed there are few transi- tive verbs that may not use this dative of the indirect object. In the passive of these verbs the dative is retained. Some representa- tive illustrations are here given.. "Ac^es avrQ Kal to luaTiou (Mt. 5 : 40), a4>6s fiijuv TO. b7]V Kemaiirtixkvriv t^ avdpi (Rev. 21 : 2), avawXripovTai aiiTots (Mt. 13 : 14), 5t.Kaio3 vofios oh Ketrai, (1 Tim. 1:9; note long list of datives), avaaravpovvras iavrois tov vlov (Heb. 6 : 6), (J cii p,ep,ap- riipnjKas (Jo. 3 : 26), iKpwa ifiavr^ tovto (2 Cor. 2 : 1), /iij nepifivaj-e tJ i^uxi? (Mt. 6: 25) kaefikciv reduKiis (2 Pet. 2:6), dre k^ktTTTititv, deQ- ilre povovfiiv, vp,Zv (2 Cor. 5 : 13), helxev avr^ (Mk. 6 : 19). Blass' notes how frequent this idiom is in Paul's Epistles, especially in the vehement passages. Thus /itj/c^ti iavrols ^S)Ci.v (2 Cor. 5 : 15), IVa Qt(^ fijcraj (Gal. 2 : 19), aireddvoneu rfj AixapTiq. (Ro. 6 : 2; cf . 6 : 10 f .), WavcLTodriTe tQ voficf — eis t6 ytveaBai. ii/tSs irkpi^ (Ro. 7 : 4), eipkdri fiOL (Ro. 7 : 10), tQ i8Uf nvp'ua crrriKei fj TriTrrei (Ro. 14 :4), Kvpici} hadlei. (Ro. 14 : 6), eavrQ fj — iavriff airodviiaKei (verse 7). Cf. ifwl in Ro. 7 : 21, vfuv in 2 Cor. 12 : 20 and fioi with iykvero in Ac. 22 : 6. A good example is kicoiMcaoneda vixtv, Lu. 10 : 11. See knavri^ in 2 Cor. 2 : 1 and t<5) TtvebpaTi (2 : 13). Cf. fiacrk^uv aiir^ tov aravpbv (Jo. 19 : 17). In Mk. 10 : 33 note also the other datives, either the indirect object or the direct object like hnTrailova{.v avrtf. Cf. also iraaiv and rots 'lovdaioLs in 1 Cor. 9 : 19 f. In this con- nection one may note also H /wi, to S^eXos (1 Cor. 15 : 32), ri fiiiiv Kal col (Lu. 4 : 34). The intense personal relation is also manifest in the examples in 1 Cor. 1 : 23 f . Cf. also 1 : 18, 30. Prof. Burkitt {Jour, of Theol. Stud., July, 1912) interprets tI kfwl KaiaoL (Jo. 2:4) to mean 'What is it to me and thee?' That is, 'What have we to do with that?' In a word, 'Never mind!' like the modern Egyptian md 'alesh in colloquial language. The so-called ethical dative (cf. cat in Mt. 18 : 17) belongs here. A very simple example is (rvp4>kpu yap aoi (Mt. 5 : 29). Moulton^ cites a papyrus example for ipxotw.1 payla-driTe. The LXX uses h rarely with iruTTeiica and no other preposition. But in the N. T. eis occurs 45 times (37 times in John's Gospel and 1 Jo.) while eiri ap- pears 6 times with the locative and 7 with the accusative. Moul- ton objects to overrefining here between eis and kri (at most like believe in and believe on). So also as to accusative and locative with kiri. What he does properly accent is the use of these two prepositions by the Christian writers to show the difference be- tween mere belief (dative with iriareio}) and personal trust (eis and 67ri). This mystic union received a further development in Paul's frequent h XpkttS. The relation between ev tQ dvofiarL and twl tQ bvdfiari is parallel.* We must note other groups with the dative, like verbs of serving. Thus dirjKovovv avrQ (Mt. 4 : 11), t^j vol SovXeioi vofii^ 6eov (Ro. 7 : 25, both instrumental and dative here), Xarpeheiv abrQ (Lu. 1 : 74), iirripeTe'iv aiirci (Ac. 24 : 23). But in Ph. 3 : 3 we have the instrumental with Mrpeiu, and irpoarnvkos uses either the dative (Mt. 2:2) or the accusative (Jo. 4 : 23), not to mention 'evuiriov (Lu. 4:7). The dative with SouXow in 1 Cor. 9 : 19 is merely the indirect object. Another convenient group is verbs to please, to suffice, to be envious, angry, etc. Thus dei^ apetrai (Ro. 8:8), 'eve^pipxavro aiirg ^ In Christo, p. 46 f. My friend, Prof. Walter Petersen, of Lindsborg, Kan., does not believe that the dative is ever the direct object of a verb, and Dr. W. O. Carver agrees with him. 2 Prol., p. 67 f . » In Christo, p. 46 f. * Moulton, Prol., p. 68; Heitmuller, Im Namen Jesu, I, ch. i. THE CASES (nxnzEis) 541 (Mk. 14 : 5), fierpioiraJBeiv rots ayvoovaiv (Heb. 5 : 2), 6 dpyi^o/jievoi tQ i.S€\^ (Mt. 5 : 22), dp/cei aoi (2 Cor. 12 : 9), dXXiJXots ^dovovvrts (Gal. 5 : 26, accusative, margin of W. H.). Once more, we may note verbs meaning to thank, to blame, to enjoy, etc. So euxapiCTCo aoi (Jo. 11 :41), eyKoXdruaav dXXiyXois (Ac. 19 : 38), h-erifiriafv abrots (Mt. 12 : 16), rots avkfiois kiriraa-crei (Lu. 8 : 25). So also irpoaha^ev ahrQ (Mt. 1 : 24), Steo-T^XXero auroTs (Mk. 8 : 15), e/ioi xo^Sre (Jo. 7: 23). But KiKthu has accusative, though the dative occurs in the papjTi. There remain verbs meaning to confess, to lie, to help, to shine, etc. Thus we find biioKoyovvruv t^ ovoimti. (Heb. 13 : 15)^ and avduixoKo-ytiTo tQ 6eQ (Lu. 2 : 38), o{ik 'el/aicia iu/BpiivoK (Ac. 5:4), /3o^0€i iMi (Mt. 15 : 25, but u^tKkco has accusative), tva (jjalvoiaiv a^Tg (Rev. 21 : 23). In the later Koivii we find ^oridtou with accusa- tive or genitive (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 110). Cf. also Tqi fl£$ irpotyfbxtcdai. (1 Cor. 11 : 13), Jj tvTiaTitre (1 Pet. 5 : 9). Cf. two datives in Lu. 11 : 4. 4. The Dative with Intransitive Verbs. However, this is not a point that it is always easy to decide, for in dp/cei trot (2 Cor. 12 : 9) one is not sure where to place it. See above. Cf. Lu. 3 : 14. We are so prone to read the English into the Greek. The same remark applies in a way to tI v/uv So/cel (Mt. 18 : 12), Tpewei ayiois (Eph. 5:3). But there is no doubt about H kykvero avrQ (Ac. 7: 40), ahrQ av/i^aiveiv (Mk. 10 : 32), and the passive constructions like dTToXeiireToi aapPaTiaiws t^ Xa^i (perhaps dativus commodi, Heb. 4 : 9), bjiavri airQ (Mt. 1 : 20), ippitOri tois dpxaiois (perhaps in- direct object, Mt. 5 : 21). The same thing is true of a number of the examples of "advantage or disadvantage" already given, like Ro. 6 : 10; 14 : 4, etc. Cf. also MeXet tv deii (1 Cor. 9 : 9). See iv croi Xeiirei (Lu. 18 : 22), but ev (re vartpel (Mk. 10 : 21). 5. Possession. The Greek, like the Latin, may use the dative for the idea of possession. Thus ovk ^v avrois totvos (Lu. 2:7), ovk iiTTiv coi fiepis (Ac. 8 : 21), viiiv kariv ri ^a77«Xia (Ac. 2 : 39), rivi iffrai. (Lu. 12 : 20), eii>vei aiiTois (Ac. 22 : 2). With ■KpocnaikUa (Mt. 27: 60) the dative is merely the indirect object, but note kizi in Mk. 15 : 46. Compounds of birb likewise generally have the dative, as » Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 116. THE CASES (nTQSEIs) 543 hmnobu (Mt. 8 : 27), uirapxw (Lu. 12 : 15), birorkaau (Lu, 10 : 17), iffOTieeAMii (1 Tim. 4:6). (/i) Ambiguous Examples. Sometimes it is not easy to decide whether the case is locative, instrumental or dative. The ex- ample in Ac. 2 : 33, ii^oOc Tg Sefi^i, has already been cited. This may mean 'to lift up to the right hand,' 'at the right hand' or 'by the right hand.' Cf. also Ro. 8 : 24; Jo. 21 : 8. But it is not often that there is any serious difficulty in the matter. In 2 Cor. 11:1, aveixeffOi nov fiiKpdv tl &.^po(Tiivris, note ablative, accusative, genitive. And, if some cases remain, as with the genitive and ablative, that cannot be finally settled, the matter must simply remain in abey- ance. It so happens that in Lu. 8 : 29 f . we have all eight cases used if ToXXoTs xpovois be here locative and not instrumental. It may serve as a good exercise to discriminate in this passage each of the cases and explain the distinctive meaning and the result in this special context. The cases have kept us for a good while, but the subject is second to none in importance in Greek syntax. Nowhere has comparative philology shed more light than in the explanation according to historical science of the growth and meaning of the Greek cases. CHAPTER XII ADVERBS ('EniPPHMATA) I. Special Difficulties. See chapter VII (Declensions) for dis- cussion of the origin, formation and history of adverbs. The matter will come up again in chapter XIII (Prepositions) where the so-called "improper" prepositions are treated. Brugmann' has no syntactical handling of the subject, though Delbriick^ gives an exhaustive presentation of the matter. But even Delbriick gives less than a page to the purely syntactical phases of the adverb (p. 643), whereas Winer' treats the adverb only under syntax. (a) Natuee of the Adverb. The first difficulty is in deciding what is an adverb. As shown in chapter VII, the adverb not only has great variety in its origin, but also wide expansion in its use. In simple truth a large portion of the "parts of speech" are adverbs. Brugmann* pointedly says that it is not possible to draw a sharp line between adverb, particle and preposition. The devel- opment of adverb into preposition, conjunction, intensive particle and even interjection was illustrated in chapter VII with perhaps sufficient fulness. To this list may be added the negative particles which are really adverbs. In particular in the Sanskrit is there difficulty in the treatment of preposition and conjunction as distinct from adverb, since the indeclinable words were less dis- tinctly divided.* But this vagueness applies to other members of the Indo-Germanic group.* In Greek and Latin no distinct line can be drawn between adverbs and prepositions.'' (6) The Naeroweh Sense of Adverb. These wider and more specialized forms of the adverb must be dropped out of view » Griech. Gr., pp. 250-257. » Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 635-643. s W.-Th., pp. 462-473. * Griech. Gr., p. 250. On final s in adv. see Fraser, CI. Quarterly, 1908, p. 265. » Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 403. « Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 536. ' Giles, Man., p. 341. 544 ADVEKBS ('EniPPHMATA) 545 before we can do anything with the mere adverb which is not prep- osition, conjunction, particle nor interjection. There is a good deal that needs to be said concerning the syntax of the mere ad- verb, for, in spite of its being a fixed case-form, it has a varied and interesting usage in the Greek sentence. The adverb has been treated by the grammars as a sort of printer's devil in the sentence. It has been given the bone that was left for the dog, if it was left. n. Adverbs with Verbs. (a) GoMMONEST Use. This is indeed the etymology of the word and the most frequent use of the pure adverb. But one can- not say that this was the original use, as the name ^xippjjjua might suggest. The truth is that the adverb has such a varied origin that it is difficult to make a general remark on the subject that will be true. Only this may be said, that some adverbs began to be used with verbs, some with adjectives, some absolutely, etc. At first they were not regarded as strictly adverbs, but were used progressively so (cf . xop'") until with most the earlier non-adverbial uses ceased. (6) N. T. Usage. Winer * suspects that the N. T. writers did not understand the finer shades of meaning in the Greek adverbs, but this is true only from the point of view of the Attic literary style and applies to the vernacular Koivri in general. But he is wholly right in insisting on the necessity of adverbs for precise definition in language. The grammarians find offence^ in the adverbs of the KOivq as in other portions of the vocabulary. Some of the "poetic" adverbs in Winer's list are at home in the papyri as in the N. T., like tvap'&TTus. A few examples will suffice for the normal usage in the N. Tj See the majestic roll of the adverbs in Heb. 1 : 1, iroXvixepSis /cat TroXuTpoirois irdXat. Cf. airovSaLOTtpoos (Ph. 2 : 28), Trepiaaorkpcos and raxeiov (Heb. 13 : 19), irepaiTepu (Ac. 19 : 39) as examples of comparison. (c) Pkedicative Uses with yivo/jLui and elfii. There is nothing out of the way in the adverb with jivofiaL in 1 Th. 2 : 10, ois baius (cai diKaiiiis Kai dju^/txTcos ifuv rots Tnardovaiv kyeviidri/iev. Here the verb is not a mere copula. Indeed eifil appears with the adverb also when it has verbal force. Thus Kad. It has some idiomatic constructions with the adverb that are difficult from the English point of view. Thus Toiis KaKSsi ixovras (Mt. 14 : 35), and with the instrumental case in Mk. 1 : 34. Cf. Lu. 7:1. In English we prefer the predicate adjective with have (He has it bad), whereas the Greek likes the adverb with 'ex<». So k<7xaTus ?x" (Mk. 5 : 23) and in Jo. 4 : 52 Kon4/bTepov iaxev the comparative adverb. One must be willing for the Greek to have his standpoint. Cf. ourws ?x«' in Ac. 7 : 1 and ■Koppia Axexet (Mk. 7:6). IIws exovai,v (Ac. 15 : 36) needs no com- ment. It is a common enough Greek idiom. Cf. fiapius ixovaa, P.Br.M. 42 (B.C. 168). (e) With Pakticiples. "Afxa kXiri^oiv (Ac. 24 : 26) belongs to the discussion of participles. But one may note here ijdri TtBvqKora (Jo. 19 : 33) and cos iiiXKovras (Ac. 23 : 15). Cf. also the use of ijSri with irap^iKdev (Mt. 14 : 15), a matter that concerns the aorist tense. But note both vvv and ^Stj with iarlv in 1 Jo. 4 : 3. (/) Loose Relation to the Verb or any other part of the sentence. So aKp,i)v (cf. ?rt) in Mt. 15 : 16 and riiv apxhv in Jo. 8 : 25, for this accusative is really adverbial. Cf. also t6 \oi.wbv (Ph. 3:1), rovvavr'iov (Gal. 2:7). in. Adverbs Used with Other Adverbs. There is, to be sure, nothing unusual about this either in Greek or any other tongue. So xoXii paKKov (Heb. 12 : 9), pSXKov Kpeiaaov (Ph. 1 : 23), paKSav TrepuTtTOTtpov (Mk. 7 : 36) are merely normal uses barring the double comparative in the two examples which, however, have their own explanation. The compound adverbs, which are common in the N. T. (as inrepTrepiacrSis, Mk. 7: 37; cf. iroXvTpoircos in Heb. 1 : 1), call for no more explanation than other compound words. Cf. Kodd'Xov (Ac. 4 : 18). The Greek, Uke the German, easily makes compound words, and the tendency to long compound words grows with the history of language. See airepunraffrus in 1 Cor. 7 : 35. For compound adverbs see chapter VII, 11, (c). For the comparison of adverbs see ib., 11, (e). IV. Adverbs with Adjectives. A typical illustration is found in 1 Tim. 3 : 16, 6fioKv (Mt. 6 : 34), irepl Tr\% aimepov (Ac. 19 :40). But it is not merely when the adverb has the article that it is treated as a substantive. Prepositions are used with adverbs without any article. Then it is not always clear whether we have two words or one. Thus editors print iirip iKeZva as well as inrepeKfiva (2 Cor. 10 : 16), virip sk iripiacov as well as iirepai- > Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 798. ' Cf. K.-G., I, p. 551. 548 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT irepKTaov (Eph. 3 : 20), iirip Xiav as well as {nrep\iav (2 Cor. 11 : 5). Cf . hreira, hrkvu, 40(it7ra?, and ews aprt in 1 Cor. 15 : 6. Thus 6,Tr6 irepvat, (2 Cor. 9 : 2), dTr' avudev 'iois kcltw (Mk. 15 : 38), air' opn (Mt. 23:39), 6.t6 paKpddev (Mt. 27:55), &ir6 irpoil (Ac. 28:23), &Ua TTpui (Mt. 20 : 1), i'cos &PTL (Mt. 11 : 12), ?cos rpls (Lu. 22 : 34), ?a)s ^TTTdws (Mt. 18 : 21 f.), &s ^?w (Ac. 21 : 5), 'ices 'iau (Mk. 14 : 54), €0)5 1:676 (Mt. 17 : 17), ?us JiSe (Lu. 23 : 5), etc. For this doubling of adverbs see kros ei n^i (1 Cor. 14 : 5) in the realm of conjunctions. Moulton {Prol., p. 99) finds in the papyri k rore, O.P. 486 (ii/A.D.), and note airo irkpvai. (Deissmann, B. S., p. 221). Vn. The Pregnant Use of Adverbs. Just as the prepositions kv and eis are used each with verbs of rest and motion (and irapd with locative or accusative), so adverbs show the same absence of minute uniformity. Iloi, for instance, is absent from both the LXX and the N. T., as is oroi. Instead we find irov {nrayei (Jo. 3 : 8) and Sttou eyu inrdyu (Jo. 13 : 33), but Tro^ey ipxirai. (Jo. 3 : 8) and Wa> k^XBov (Mt. 12 : 44). So also ipxerat ket (Jo. 18 : 3) like our "come here." But on the other hand in Ac. 22 : 5, a^oov Kal Toiis keio-e 6vTas, the usual word would be ket. But kKetae is rfegu- lar in Ac. 21 : 3. Winer ^ calls this an "abuse" of language, which is putting it rather too strongly, since it is found in the best Greek. It is largely a matter of usage, for with SiSe and kvdade the ideas of hie and hue had long coalesced, while i^udev, eaudev, k&tu mean both 'without' (Mt. 23 : 27) and 'from without'(Mk. 7 : 18), 'with- in' (Mt. 7 : 15) and 'from within' (Mk. 7 : 23), 'below' (Mt. 4 : 6) and 'from below' (Jo. 8 : 23). Cf. Aierd/3a !^v9ev kel (Mt. 17 : 20) and 'evdev — kKeWev (Lu. 16 : 26). In Mt. 25 : 24, 26, W.-Th., p. 472. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 258. ' Joh. Gr., pp. 22 ft. ADVERBS (^'ehipphmata) . 549 cussion of Kal vvv in John and Luke. Nwi is found only in Acts, Paul and Hebrews, the most literary portions of the N. T. Then again Mark has abundant use of evdhs, but not eWews, while Mat- thew employs both. John uses each only three times. Abbott ' notes that wherever Matthew uses eWis it is found in the parallel part of Mark. Euflews prevails in Luke (Gospel and Acts). Abbott insists on difference in idea in the two words, eWkos (' immediately'), eufliis ('straightway'). So in Matthew rare is exceedingly common, while in 1 Cor. ewtiTa is rather frequent, though the two words have different ideas. Then again ^711$ is more common in John than all the Synoptists together .^ The context must often decide the exact idea of an adverb, as with iKoBe^eTo ovtus (Jo. 4:6). Cf, as rjv iv TrjKkv fn liibvov, the adjective tihvov means that ' he did not leave me alone.' As an adverb, if the position allowed it, it would be 'not only did he leave, but,' etc., just the opposite. In 2 Tim. 4 : 11 iibvos means that Luke is alone with Paul. So in Lu. 24 : 18 av /mvos may be contrasted with /wvov iriarevaov (Lu. 8 : 50). The point is specially clear with xpcoros and tputov. Thus in Ac. 3 : 26 we have iliiv irpSnov avaariiaas, not intv TpiiroLS. It is not 'you as chief,' but 'the thing is done first for you.' So also Ro. 2 : 9 {'lovBaiov re irpuTov Kai "EXXt/pos). But in 1 Jo. 4 : 19 note fiiiets ayairSifiev, oti aiirds xpoJTos ■qyairriaev riiias. 'God is the ^rs< one who loves.' Cf. also ^\dtv irp&Tos ets to nvrmeiov (Jo. 20 : 4) where John is the first one to come to the tomb. In Jo. 1 : 41 the MSS. vary between wp&ros and irp&rov (W. H.). One can but wonder here if after all irpSiTOi is not the correct text with the implication that John also found his brother James. The delicate implication may have been easily overlooked by a scribe. Cf. also the difference between eXaXet bpdSii (Mk. 7 : 35) and avacTridi hirl rovs ir65as (tov opdos (Ac. 14 : 10). The Enghsh has a similar distinction in "feel bad" and "feel badly," "look bad" and "look badly." We use "well" in both senses. Cf. iSpaZos in 1 Cor. 7 : 37. (6) Difference in Greek and English Idiom. But the Greek uses the adjective often where the English has the adverb. That is, the Greek prefers the personal connection of the adjective with the subject to the adverbial connection with the verb. So we have ainopArrj ^ yrj Kapvo^opei (Mk. 4 : 28) and avTopArri ijvo'vyi] » lb., p. 20. 2 lb., p. 19. 550 A- GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (Ac. 12 : 10). In Lu. 21 : 34 the same construction is found with kcl>vlSios ij iifikpa kKilvri. The ancient Greek idiom of the adjective rather than the locative of time appears in Ac. 28 : 13, Seurepaiot rfKdontv. So bpdpivai (Lu. 24: 22). The same use of the adjective rather than the adverb meets us in 1 Cor. 9 : 17, el yap iKiiv tovto wpaaaa — ti 8i olkuv, just as we see it in the ancient Greek. Of. the Latin nolens volens. See Ro. 8 : 20. In /ikcros the Greek has an adjective that we have to use a phrase for. Thus /teo-os i>iiu>v (TTrjKei. (Jo. 1 : 26), 'there stands in the midst of you.' Cf. a very different idea in rifikpas uteris (Ac. 26 : 13), 'middle of the day.' X. Adverbial Phrases. (a) Incipient Advebbs. Some of these are practically ad- verbs, though they retain the case-inflection and may even have the article. Thus rriv apxnv (Jo. 8 : 25), rd \onrbv (Ph. 3:1), ToiivavTlov (Gal. 2 : 7), to tputov (Jo. 12 : 16), to Tporepov (Jo. 6 : 62), rd TKetiTTov (1 Cor. 14 : 27), t6 koB' fifiipav (Lu. 19 : 47), rov Xoiirov (Eph. 6 : 10), etc. These expressions are not technically adverbs, though adverbial in force. Cf. also the cognate instrumental like xapq. xaipei- (Jo. 3 : 29). So O.P. 1162, 5 (iv./A.D.). (6) Prepositional Phrases. These adjuncts have the sub- stantial force of adverbs. Indeed there is little practical differ- ence in structure between aird irkpvai (2 Cor. 9 : 2) and mep\iav (2 Cor. 11 : 5), virepavw (Eph. 4 : 10) and tcos /carw (Mk. 15 : 38). Since the uncial MSS. had no division between words, we have to de- pend on the judgment of the modern editor and on our own for the distinction between an adverb Uke irapaxpvm (Lu. 1 : 64) and an adverbial phrase like irapa tovto (1 Cor. 12 : 15). Cf. also iiri- Kuva (Ac. 7 : 43), virepiKeiva (2 Cor. 10 : 16), KaBoXov (Ac. 4 : 18). In Ro. 7 : 13 Ka6' vwep^oXriv is used with an adjective. Other examples are /car' Idiav (Mt. 14 : 13), mTO. fiovas (Mk. 4 : 10), KaTo, eKoixnov (Phil. 14), Kar' kvtxwTbv (Heb. 10 : 1), k bevrkpov (Mk. 14 : 72), k ^hxns (Col. 3 : 23), hi, hpxns (Jo. 6 : 64), dx' dpx^s (2 Th. 2 : 13), eis Kevbv (Ph. 2 : 16), kv &\v6eiq. (Mt. 22 : 16), h irpiiTots (1 Cor. 15 : 3), kv diKaioavvfi (Ac. 17:31), hr' aXrideias (Lu. 22:59), koB' -qntpav (Mk. 14 : 49), kv wktI (1 Th. 5:2), kv kKTeveiq. (Ac. 26 : 7), dx6 fitpovs (Ro. 11 : 25), k nkpovs (1 Cor. 12 : 27. Cf. /iepos ti, 11 : 18), Kara likpos (Heb. 9:5), dx6 jtttSs (Lu. 14 : 18), d% to iravTiKes (Heb. 7 : 25). With ukaov we have quite a list, Hke ava fikaov (Mt. 13 : 25), k ukaov (Mt. 13 : 49), kv Meo-y (Mk. 6 : 47), Std /xkaov (Lu. 4 : 30), Sid ixkaov (Lu. 17: 11), eis t6 ixkaov (Lu. 5 : 19), eh p-kaov (Mk. 14: 60), KOTd pJkaov (Ac. 27: 27), pkaov (Ph. 2 : 15). In Mk. 14 : 30 adverb and phrase occur together, aim^pov toiitjj rg wktL This is not a ADVERBS ('EniPPHMATA) 551 complete list by any means, but it will suffice to illustrate the point under discussion. A striking example is found in 1 Cor. 12:31, KoB' virep^ok^v 6S6v viiiv SeiKvvni, where the adverbial phrase has practically the force of an adjective with 686v. Clearly, then, many of the adverbs grew out of these prepositional phrases Uke vapavrka (2 Cor. 4: 17), eKiroKai (2 Pet. 2 : 3), etc. Cf. even vovv- exfis (Mk. 12 : 34). (c) Participles. Some participles come to be used adverbially. This is not merely true of adverbs made from participles, hke ovtcos (Mk. 11: 32), o/ioXoyovnivois (1 Tim. 3 : 16), i-n-ep^aM^ovTois (2 Cor. 11 : 23), but it also applies to n? 6vti (Ro. 7 : 23), t6 vvv exov (Ac. 24 : 25), Tvxov (1 Cor. 16 : 6) and verbals hke dvoTicao-TOs (1 Pet. 5:2). Besides, the intensive use of the participle is adverbial in effect Uke tv\(r/S>v evkoyijcca o-e (Heb. 6:14). Then again a case like \l/euhbp.evoi (Mt. 5 : 11) is in point. Cf. O'eKuv in Col. 2 : 18. See also i!:poadeh elirev (Lu. 19 : 11) which Blass {Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 258) compares with irpoadtZca ereKiv (Gen. 38 : 5). See chapter on Verbal Nouns. (d) The Verb Used Adverbially. This is, of course, not true technically, but only in the result. The old Greek idiom with \avdavia and ^davoi, where the participle expressed the chief idea and the verb was subordinate, occurs twice in the N. T. So 'iKaSbv TLves ^evi(TavTes (Heb. 13 : 2) and irpok4>daatv \k'Yiav (Mt. 17: 25). But it must be borne in mind that the Greek idiom is perfectly consistent in this construction, as 'they escaped notice in entertain- ing,' 'he got the start in saying.' Cf. Xd0p9 elsewhere in N. T. It is not necessary in Ac. 12 : 16, tirknevtv Kpovuv, to take the verb as an adverb in sense. It is simply, 'he continued knocking.' The infinitive may likewise present the chief idea as in irpok\a.fitv iivpicai (Mk. 14 : 8), irpocr^ero irkfj^/ai (Lu. 20 : 11 f.), hke the Heb. Cipiil riiiuji. But in .Mk. 12 : 4 we have the regular Greek idiom^ iroKiv aTeffTeCKev. Cf. Ac. 12 : 3 Tpoaidero avWa^eiv. This idiom is ex- ceedingly common in the LXX.^ In Lu. 6 : 48, yKa^/ev koi k^aBwev ('he dug and went deep'), we have an idiom somewhat hke our English vernacular "he went and dug," "he has gone and done it," etc. Cf . Ro. 10 : 20 diroroX/ia KoX \k'yei, Mt. 18 : 3 'tav am? arpa- <^ijT€ KoX ykvuiaBe. But I doubt if deXoi with the infinitive is to be taken in the N. T. either adverbially or as the mere expletive for the future tense. In Jo. 7 : 17 OeAjj woieiv means 'is wilhng to do.' So in Jo. 8 : 44, etc. The text is obscure in Col. 2 : 18 and 1 W.-Th., p. 468. 'J 2 C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 97. 552 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT there dk\o}v may have an adverbial force. Blass* conceives that in Mt. 6 : 5, itvvviJi,i. In the Sanskrit most of the verbal pre- fixes can be traced to adverbs with cases.' (c) Explanation. Hence the name must be explained. The later grammarians used the term for those adverbs which were used in composition with verbs and in connection with the cases of nouns. Both things had to be true according to this definition. But it will be seen at once that this definition is arbitrary. The use with verbs in composition was the last step, not the first, in the development. Besides, what is to be said about those ad- verbs that are used, not with verbs, but with cases, and no longer appear as mere adverbs? Take iivev, for instance, with the abla- tive. It is not found in composition with verbs nor by itself 1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 95. * Monro, Horn. Gr., pp. 123, 147. Courtoz (Les Prefixes en Grec, en Lat. et en Frangais, 1894, p. 51) says: "Outre les dix-hnit propositions que nous venons de passer en revue, il y a encore, en grec, quelques particules insepa- rables, qui s'emploient comme prefixes dans les mots composes. Ces particules sont 4, i.pi ou ept, dviT, fo et nj." But these are not the "prepositions" under discussion. • Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 414. 553 554 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT apart from a noun. It is, of course, a preposition. The grammars call it an "improper" or adverbial preposition. It is only "im- proper" from the standpoint of the definition, not from that of the Greek language. The truth seems to be that by preposition one must mean a word used with cases of nouns and many of which came to be used in composition with verbs. The facts do not square with the other definition. II. The Origin of Prepositions. (a) Originally Advekbs. This is now so well recognised that it seems strange to read in Winer ^ that "prepositions e.g. often assume the nature of adverbs, and vice versa," even though he adds "that the prepositions are adverbs originally." Giles^ puts the matter simply and clearly when he says: "Between ad- verbs and prepositions no distinct fine can be drawn." Thus even in Homer aft^i, irepi, etc., appear still as adverbs.' Delbriick^ goes a bit further and says that originally the prepositions were place- adverbs. Brugmann* qualifies that to " mostly, " and he adds that we cannot draw a sharp line between the use as adverb and the use as pre-verb or preposition.^ (6) Reason for Use of Prepositions. "The preposition is, therefore, only an adverb specialized to define a case-usage."' This definition gives the reason also. The case alone was enough at first to express the relation between words, but, as language developed, the burden on the cases grew heavier. The analytic tendency in language is responsible for the growth of prepositions.' The prepositions come in to help out the meaning of the case in a given context. The notion, therefore, that prepositions "govern" cases must be discarded definitely. Farrar' clearly perceived this point. "It is the case which indicates the meaning of the preposi- tion, and not the preposition which gives the meaning to the case." This conception explains the use and the non-use of a preposition like h, for instance, with the locative, awo or irapa with the abla- tive, etc. In the Sanskrit the prepositions do not exist as a sep- arate class of words, though a good many adverbs are coming to be used with the oblique cases (except the dative) to make clearer the case-idea.'" ' W.-Th., p. 356. 2 Man., etc., p. 341. 3 Delbnick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 659. Cf. Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 123. « lb., p. 659. Cf. Grundl., IV, p. 134. 5 Griech. Gr., p. 429. s Parrar, Gk. Synt., p. 94. « lb., p. 430. 9 lb. ' GUee, Man., etc., p. 341. " Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 414. PREPOSITIONS (nPOBESEIs) 555 (c) Vabting History. The adverbs that come to be used with the cases vary greatly in their history. Some cease to be used as adverbs, as aiv, for instance. Others continue (besides the use with cases and with verbs) to be employed occasionally as adverbs (ava eh, Rev. 21:21; Kara eh, Mk. 14:19; iirep ky'i- Krebs has made a careful study of the prepositions in Polybius,^ as Helbing has done for Herod- otus* and Johannessohn for the LXX.' They show the same general tendency towards the increased use of some prepositions to the disuse of others. For the N. T., Moulton' has made a careful calculation which is worth reproducing. ''S.v and eis far outnumber any of the other prepositions in the N. T.' And hv leads ets by a good margin. Moulton takes iv as unity and finds the other N. T. prepositions ranging as follows: dva .0045, LvtI .008, d7r6 .24, Std .24, th .64, k .34, 4iri .32, Kard .17, juerd .17, iropd .07, Trepi .12, irpb .018, xpos .25, avv .048, fiTr^p .054, ii7r6 .08. The three commonest prepositions in Herodotus i" are d%, iv and eni, in this order. In Thucydides and Xenophon the order is kv, ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 121. ' Cf. Parrar, Gk. Synt., p. 95; Egger, Gr. Comp., p. 195. » Moulton, Prol., p. 100. * lb. 6 Die Prap. bei Polyb., 1882; cf. p. 3. ' Die Prap. bei Herod, und andern Hist., 1904. ' Johannessohn, Der Gebr. der Casus und der Prap. in der Sept., TI. 1, 1910. Cf. also C. and S., p. 80 f. » Prol., p. 98. » lb., p. 62. " See Helbing, Prap. bei Herod., p. 8 f ., for the facts here used. PKEPOSITIONS (nPOGESEIs) 557 els and lirl. But Xenophon varies the order of frequency in his various books. In Polybius the three chief prepositions are KaT&, 7rp6s, els; in Diodorus eis, Kara, wpos; in Dionysius h, kirl, els; in Josephus (yVar) wpSs, els, Kara, (Ant.) els, kwi, Trpos; in Plutarch ep, irpSs, els; in Dio Cassius 'ev, els, hrl. In the N. T. the three main ones, as seen above, are 'ev, els, 'eic, though liri is not far behind k. In the literary Koivii it will be seen that the use of eis is nearly double that of ev, whereas in the N. T. eis is ahead of ev only in Mark and Hebrews.^ In the vernacular Koivi], 'ev makes a rather better show- ing. The large increase of the adverbial prepositions in the N. T., as in the Koivii, calls for special treatment a little later. It may be here remarked that they number 42, counting varying forms of the same word Uke oxio-ffcj', diriaca. (e) In Modern Greek. The varying history of the eighteen prepositions goes still further.^ Thus avri^s) survives in the ver- nacular as well as awo (onr^), Slo. (710), els {is, a'e, 's), iiera. (fii), Kara M and 6s, 'as a sage'). In a sense then the Greek prepositions mark a cycle. They show the return of the accusative to its original frequency. They have lost the fine distinctions that the old Greek prepositions once pos- sessed when they were used to help out the ideas of the cases. They drop out before the rise of other prepositions which more clearly exhibit the adverbial side of the preposition. The so-called im- proper prepositions are more sharply defined in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., pp. 107 ff.). But in the N. T. the prepositions have not gone so far in their history. IV. Prepositions in Composition with Verbs. (a) Not the Main Function. As has already been shown, this was not the original use of what we call prepositions, though this usage has given the name to this group of words. Besides it debars one technically from caUing those numerous adverbs prep- ositions which are used with cp,ses, but not used in composition with verbs. But no "inseparable" prepositions were developed > Moulton, Prol., p. 62. ' See Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 365 f., for careful comparison between anc. and mod. Gk. Cf. Hatz., Einl., p. 151. 558 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT in Greek/ though in the N. T. d/ti^i does not appear outside of composition. In most dialects d/w^i was obsolete (Buck, Gk. Dia- lects, p. 102). In modem Greek ova-, irapa- and k- (fe) are used chiefly in composition. (Thumb, Handb., p. 99), but 6x occurs with accusative. (6) Pheposition Alone. Sometimes indeed the preposition is used alone (ellipsis) and the verb has to be supplied, as in ovk hi (Gal. 3 : 28) for oiK Iveari.. So lirep 'eyi> in 2 Cor. 11 : 23. Cf. dXX' ava ('but up!') in Homer. This ellipsis does not differ greatly from the common use of tmesis in Homer, where the preposition is regarded more as an adverb. ' (c) Increasing Use. The use of prepositions in composition increased with the history of the Greek language. One character- istic of the later Greek is the number of compound verbs employed.^ This is a matter partly of impression and will remain so till one "xoKK^vrepos grammarian" arrives "who will toil right through the papyri and the Koivii literature."' No one is anxious for that task, but Krebs^ is able to say that verbs compounded with prepositions play a noteworthy r61e in the later Greek. This is not simply true of new compounds like h-KaKeu, etc., but "there is a growing tendency to use the compounds, especially those with Sia, Kara and avv, to express what in the oldest Greek could be sufficiently indicated by the simplex."* The N. T. does not indefed show as lavish a use of compound verbs as does Polyb- ius, the chief representative of the literary kolvti of his time. But these SiTrXa belonged to the language of the people in Aristotle's time^ and the papyri show a common use of compound verbs.' As compared with Polybius the N. T. makes less use of certain verbs, but the matter varies with different verbs and different writers.* » Monro, Hem. Gr., p. 123. * The LXX in particular shows a great variety of uses of the prep, with verbs, partly. due to transl. from the Heb., partly to the Koivi/. Cf . C. and S., p. 88, for list. Cf . Johannessohn, Der Gebr. d. Casus und der Prap. in der LXX. » Moulton, Prol., p. 118. Cf. W.-Th., p. 426. * Zur Rect. der Casus in der spateren hist. Grac, III. Heft, p. 3. s Moulton, Prol., p. 115. « Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 70. ' Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 486 ff. Kuhring (de praepositionum Graecarum in chartis Aegyptiis usu quaestiones selectae, 1906) and Rossberg (de praep. Graec. in chartis Aegypt. Ptol. aetatis usu, 1909) have both attacked the problems in the pap., as Geyer (Observationes epigraphicae de praep. Graec. forma et usu, 1880) has done for the inscr. \ » Moulton, Prol., p. 116 f . The great work on prepositions is Tycho Momm- sen's Beitr. zu der Lehre von den griech. Prap., 1895. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEiz) 559 (d) Repetition aftek Verb. Sometimes the preposition is repeated after the verb, as in the older Greek. The prepositions most frequently repeated are &t6, k^, els, kv, 'eiri. This is partly because these prepositions are so common in the N. T. and partly because they emphasize the local notions of 'from,' 'in,' or 'upon,' and 'to' or 'into.' Perhaps also the preposition in composition is a bit worn down. The .papyri and inscriptions show the same repetition of the preposition, though hardly so frequently, if one may judge by his impressions. See dTr^Xeei/ air' oOtoO (Mk. 1 : 42). With Lirb indeed Winer ^ finds that for the most part the preposition is repeated in the N. T. Thus we note also dirapSS dir' avr&v (Mt. 9 : 15), a.4>aiptiraL air' kfiov (Lu. 16 : 3, but not so in 10 : 42), dinjXXdx^ii dx' avrov (Lu. 12 : 58), diretoere dird T&v (TTOiXfiMV (Col. 2 : 20), dir' abrcav airo^avTfs (Lu. 5:2), direxetraf diri Tuv o^daKiiOiv (Ac. 9 : 18), airofxpavLcdivTes d^' iifucv (1 Th. 2 : 17), iujmpiaei dx' aWrjXcov (Mt. 25 : 32), aireairaaBt] dx' avrSiv (Lu. 22:41), dxoo-Tpe^ei aird 'la/ccb/S (Ro. 11 : 26), dxox«p«TTe dx' ^juoO (Mt. 7 : 23), aTrdarriTe dx' ifiov (Lu. 13 : 27, but not 2 : 37). Likewise k may be repeated as with k/SdXXei k tov 6r]aavpov (Mt. 13 : 52), iK aov i^ekthairaL (Mt. 2 : 6), e^aipovnevos e/c tov XooO (Ac. 26 : 17), k^eke^afiriv kK tov Kda-fwv (Jo. 15 : 19), kK TTJs Kord (jtmiv i^tK6irris (Ro. 11 : 24), k^eireaav kK tS>v x^'-P'^v (Ac. 12 : 7), kKiropevoixevov kK Tov aTbfMTos (Mt. 15: 11), kKcj)vy€tp kK TOV OLKov (Ac. 19 : 16). Verbs compounded with eis "uniformly repeat els" (Winer- Thayer, p. 430). So, for instance, €10-1770701' (Lu. 22 :54), eio-iewt (Ac. 3 : 3), eia-rjT^Btv (Mt. 2 : 21), ilciroptbovTai (Mk. 1 : 21), da^ikptis (Ac. 17:20). With kv we observe the repetition in some verbs appears, though often €is occurs instead both where motion is impUed and where the idea is simply that of rest (pregnant construction). As is well known, kv and ets are really the same word. Hence the rigid dis- tinction between the two prepositions cannot be insisted on. There are two extremes about eis and kv, one to blend them entirely be- cause of alleged Hebraism, the other to insist on complete dis- tinction always. As a rule they are distinct, but ets frequently encroached on kv where one has to admit the practical iden- tity, like eis olKbv ktxTiv (Mk. 2:1, marg. in W. H.), 6 Civ eis tov kSKttov TOV TaTpoi (Jo. 1 : 18), etc. For the frequent LXX examples see, Conybeare and Stock, p. 81. Still, for the sake of uniformity, only examples of kv are here given, like e/(/3d^as kv tQ tpujSXiCi) (Mt. 26 : 23), kfi^piii^nevos kv iavrc^ (Jo. 11 : 38), kvyeYpafipivri kv tois ' W.-Th., p. 427. 560 A QRAMMAR OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT KapSicLLs (2 Cor. 3:2), hSriiwvuTes ev tQ o-cb/xaTi (2 Cor. 5:6), ivepyuv hi iiuv (Ph. 2 : 13), kvkp.uvav kv rg SiaJBiiiqi (Heb. 8 : 9), kvoiKelru kv i/uv (Col. 3 : 16), ivTpvuvTes kv rats airaraLs (2 Pet. 2 : 13). A number, of verbs have kiri repeated, such as eirt;3e;8?jKd)s eirl with accusative (Mt. 21:5), ^xt/3dXXet ^xi with accusative (Lu. 5 : 36), eTrrjpev kir' kfd (Jo. 13 : 18), k(i>a\6iJi,€vos err' airoiis (Ac. 19 : 16), iirektijaeTai kirl ak (Lu. 1 : 35), hn8e iTvl tcls kt\. (Ac. 4 : 29), 'erkKeiro kir' ai)TQ (Jo. 11 : 38), kTk^e\l/ev kwl rriv ktX. (Lu. 1 : 48), kivkxtatv kir' avrbv (Lu. 1 : 12), eir' ovBevl aiiTOOv kiriTeirruKos (Ac 8 : 16), kinpL^avTis kir' airSv (1 Pet. 5 : 7), einTiJBkaaiv kTl tovs kt\. (Mt. 23 : 4), kTroiKoSo- ixei kirl Tov ktK. (1 Cor. 3 : 12), kxoLKoSofiridkvTes eirl tQ ktK. (Bph. 2:20). As to ha. not many verbs have it repeated, but note SiaTro- peieaOai, avrov Sia airopiixoiv (Lu. 6 : 1), Siea-iidria-av 5l' vdaros (1 Pet. 3:20), Stepxerai 8l' aviiSpoiv (Mt. 12:43), St^pxeTO 5ta [jiiaov (Lu. 17:11). A similar rarity as to repetition exists in the case of /cariii, but we note Kartiyoptire Kar' adrov (Lu. 23 : 14), KaraKavyaaBe Kard, rijs &Xr]d€ias (Jas. 3 : 14). Very seldom is irapa repeated as in TrapeXd/SeTe Trap' riii&v (1 Th, 4:1, cf. ITh. 2:13;2Th. 3:6). Ilepi is repeated with more verbs than irapd. Thus irepvaaTpd-^ai, ■Kepi 'epk (Ac. 22 : 6), irepie^ucrfikvoL inpl to. ktX. (Rev. 15 : 6), irepi- Keirai irepl tov ktK. (Lu. 17: 2), irepitairaTO irepl ToWriv (Lu. 10 : 40). Ilpd, like fiera, shows no example of repetition in the critical text, though some MSS. read ■wpoKopivcrrt vpb irpocruirov (for 'evdoinov) in Lu. 1 : 76. As examples of irpos repeated take xpoo-KoXXr/Oi^o-eTat xpAs rfiv ktK. (Eph. 5 : 31), irpoakTeaev Trpos tovs kt\. (Mk. 7: 25), TpoaerkBti irpos TOVS kt\. (Ac. 13 : 36). It is seldom repeated. As a lonely example of avv repeated see crvve^aoTrolriffev povetv irapa see Ro. 12 : 3. Cf. virepPdWoo exi in 2 Cor. 9 : 14 and mepalpoiJiM brl in 2 Th. 2 : 4. With viro we find a number of prepositions especially with iiirdTw, as iierA. (Mt. 5 :41), ds (9 : 6), Airi (13 :44), xp6s (Jo. 13 :3), h (Jas. 2 : 16), with which compare oirto-o) (Mt. 16 : 23) and inra^i) (18 : 15). Cf. also iTroo-Tpl^o) with eis (Lu. 1 : 56) and h-i (Ac. 8 : 28). Delicate shades of meaning will be found in all these prepositions without undue refinement. See Conybeare and Stock, p. 88, for different prepositions with verbs in the LXX. (/) Second Preposition not Necessary. But it is not always necessary for any preposition to follow the compoimd verb. Often the preposition with the verb may be followed by the case that is usual with the preposition without much regard to the verb itself. That is to say, the preposition in composition may be tantamount in result to the simple verb followed by that preposi- tion. This is not always true, but it sometimes happens so. It is not necessary to give an exhaustive list. As examples we may note the following: ''EniriTTeLv avrcf (Mk. 3 : 10) with the dative may be compared with ttjs x^pi-tos k^e-wiaare (Gal. 5 : 4) with the ablative. Here the two prepositions and the cases correspond exactly. The instnunental case is illustrated hj awxapriTk iioi (Lu. 15 : 6). Cf. also the ablative in Lu. 10 : 42 with a^mipediiaeTaL. As an example of the locative take kn/xkveiv T^^iriaTu. (Ac. 14 : 22). An example of the genitive is seen in aov KaranaprvpovcLv (Mt. 26 : 62. Cf . also Mt. 16 : 18) and of the accusative in ttjv 'oKvaiv rabrriv irepi- Ktinat. (Ac. 28 : 20) where a change of standpoint takes place, since the chain is around Paul. Cf. Heb. 12 : 1. In a case like Steiro- peiovTo Tixs iroXets (Ac. 16 : 4) one may either regard the accusative as loosely associated with the preposition (cf . did. ukaov in Lu. 17 : 11) or consider that the preposition has made an intransitive verb transitive (see next point). See ch. XI for further exx. {g) Effect of Preposition on Meaning of the Verb. Some- times there is no effect at all. The preposition is merely local as in k^kpxo/JMt., 'go out.' The preposition may be "perfective" and PREPOSITIONS (npoeEZEis) 563 merely intensify the meaning of the verb, as in KOTeuSiw ('eat up'), KaraSuiim ('hunt down'). The preposition is sometLraes weakened in idea as in aTrodkxoiiai, dTro/cptWiuai. Prepositions in composition sometimes change the meaning of the verb and blend with it. A resultant meaning arises with a new construction. The use of 5id alluded to above may be a case in point. Thus take SuiPaivu with accusative (Heb. 11 : 29), Stepxo/iat (Lu. 19 : 1). The use of Sia-irXko) with the accusative in Ac. 27 : 5 is probably the result of the preposition in composition. See also Tpoa^co iftas in sense of 'go before' (Mt. 26 : 32). Cf. further aToSfKarovv, neTaSiScatu, ovyKKtiuv. These examples will suffice, though they could be multiplied easily. Qi) Dhopping the Pkeposition with Second Verb. Winer* denies that we have in the N.T. an instance of the old Greek idiom of using the preposition with the first verb and dropping it with the repeated verb though really retained in sense. But Moulton^ seems to show that the N. T. does offer some examples of this construction, like the Karrjyov, ^yov, ^yov, of Euripides' Bacchides, 1065 (English 'pulled down, down, down,' Moulton).' He cites irapiTM^ov, 'eXafiov (Jo. l:llf.); Trpoeypa4>ri, 'eypa.4>ii) (Ro. 15:4); i^paivr/cau, epavv&VTis (1 Pet. 1 : 10 f .) ; kirevdicaadai, hSvaafnevoi. (2 Cor. 5:3); avTicrTfjvai., oriji'ai (Eph. 6 : 13); Kark^yov, itftayov (Rev. 10 : 10). These are certainly possible illustrations, though I have doubts about 2 Cor. 5 : 3 and Eph. 6 : 13. In Eph. 6 : 13 especially arrival, is stronger alone than with ocri. I do not agree that in 1 Cor. 12 : 2 we have an illustration in ^yeaOt iiirayoixevoi. ' (i) Intensive ob Perfective. There is still another very conmion use of the preposition in composition. It is that of a mere adverb and intensifies or completes the idea of the verb. Sometimes the frequent use of the compound form tends to ob- scure this adverbial idea. Thus in airoKplvonai the force of dx6 has largely faded and in avoBviicKO} it is quite obscure. Doubtless 'die off' was the original idea for the one, as 'answer back' for the other. The appeal to the original usage will explain the force of the preposition. But in most instances the idea is very clear, as in awKoKel to\k l\ovs (Lu. 15 : 6), 'calls his friends together.' This common function of the preposition in all the Indo-Germanic tongues was probably the original use with verbs. At any rate it is common enough in English, though we usually separate verb and preposition. We say /'up-set" as well as "setup," but they 1 W.-Th., p. 433. 2 Prol., p. 115. » lb. 564 A GKAMMAR OF THE GKEEK NEW TESTAMENT mean different things. We all see the adverbial force in "come home," "come back," "come away," etc., but it is the adverb just as truly in "fore-close," "pre-clude,"etc. Indeed, prepositions when compounded are etymologically pure adverbs. The English may be compared with the Homeric Greek in the separateness of the adverb from the verb.^ In German the compound use of the pre- position is very extensive, but later Greek and Latin illustrate it abundantly.^ The German prepositions are either inseparable or detachable. As appUed to the meaning of the verb the term "per- fective" is used for the force of the preposition, but it is not a very happy designation, since one is at once reminded of the perfect tense with which it has nothing to do.^ Moulton gives a number of luminous examples such as 6vfi(^KU) 'to be dying,' airodavetv 'to die (off) '; Kpeiyeiv ' to flee,' hia^vyeiv ' to escape (flee clean through) '; biisKos 'to pursue,' KaroStcoKW 'to hunt down'; rripeiv 'to watch,' avvTt}- peiv 'to keep safe'; kpya^ecBai 'to work,' KaTepya^eadai. 'to work out (down to the end),' etc. The preppsition in this "perfective" sense does have a bearing on the present and aorist tenses of any given verb, but that phase of the matter belongs to the discussion of the tenses. Indeed, not all of the N. T. verbs by any means show examples of this "perfective" use of the preposition. Moulton* notes this absence, as compared with Polybius, in the case of apxo- (Mi, 0edo/iat, deupioo, "koyl^oixai, KLvSvvevco, nkWco, bpy'i^opai, wpacraco. He finds that the papyri support this "perfective" use of the preposi- tion as between simplex and compound. N. T. illustrations are interesting. Thus criraofiai, (Mk. 14 : 47) ig used of Peter's drawing his sword (note voice), but Biaairaadfj (Ac. 23 : 10) expresses the fear that Paul may be drawn in two. So kpya^o/iaL is a common verb for doing work (as Mk. 14 : 6), but Karepya^ofw.!. accents the carrying of the work through as in Ph. 2 : 12, and in verse 13 ivepyeiv is used for the idea of in-working as contrasted with the out-working or development taught by KaTepyL^tadai. Cf. also liriSkv kpya^oixhovs dXXd irepLepya^op,evovs (2 Th. 3 : 11) where the whole idea turns on rept, 'doing nothing but doing about' is a free rendering. The same distinction is seen between kadlu 'to eat' (Mt. 15 : 2) and KareadiM 'to eat up (down)' in Lu. 20 : 47. Cf. also es Kal kirtyvdicrdriv {ib.). In general, on the whole subject of prepositions in composition see Delbriick, Ver- » Moulton, Prol., p. 112. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 111. » Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 815. * Prol., p. 116. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 565 gleichende Syntax, I, pp. 660 ff. Cf. also Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 431 f . See also ch. XVIII for further remarks. (j) Double Compounds. It is always interesting to note the significance of both prepositions. As noted in chapter V, Word Formation, iv, (c), these double compounds are frequent in the Koivii and so in the N. T. The point to emphasize here is that each preposition as a rule adds something to the picture. There are pictures in prepositions if one has eyes to see them. For instance, note Lvri-Trap-fjiSiv (Lu. 10 : 31 f.), avv-avTi-'Ka^riTai (10 : 40. Cf. Ro. 8 : 26. First known in LXX, but now found in papyrus and inscriptions third century b.c. Cf. Deissmann, Light, p. 83), iirep-ev-TvyxO'''ei' (Ro. 8 : 26), aPT-ava,-T\r]pS) (Col. 1 : 24), (ruc-Trapa-Xa- Pfiu (Ac. 15 : 37), irpoa-ava-TrKjipu (2 Cor. 9 : 12), avTi-Sia-rWeiMt (2 Tim. 2:25), etc. V. Repetition and Variation of Prepositions. A few words are needed in general on this subject before we take up the prep- ositions in detail. (a) Same Preposition with Difpebent Cases. Sometimes the same preposition is used with different cases and so with a dif- ferent resultant idea. Take 8ia, for instance. In 1 Cor. 11 : 9 we have oiK eKTurBri avrtp Sia rriv yvvaiKa, while in verse 12 we read &vfip 5to rfjs yvvaiKos. In Heb. 2 : 10 the whole point turns on the dif- ference in case, Si' Si' to, iravra Kal Sl' ol tA. iravra. In Heb. 11 : 29 the verb with ha in composition has the accusative while 3ia alone has the genitive, Bie^riaav rriv 'EpvBpav QaKaaaav iis Sid. ^r]pS,s yrjs. Cf. Sid fikaov (Lu. 4 : 30) and 5ta likaov (Lu. 17: 11). But the resultant idea is here the same. 'EtL is a pertinent illustration. In Rev. 5 : 1 we find kirl rriv be^iAv and kitl tov Bpovov, while in Rev. 11 : 10 observe ^i rrjs 7^s and ct' airoTs. Cf. also Rev. 14: 6. So again in Mt. 19 : 28 note iirl Bpbvov and 'eirl dpovovs and in Mt. 24 : 2 iirl \Wov, but \iBos kirl XWcf in Lu. 21 : 6. Cf. «ri rod and eirl Tijv in Rev. 14 : 9. So JX7r[fa> hirl with dative in 1 Tim. 4 : 10 and accusative in 5 : 5. This is all in harmony with the ancient Greek idiom. For an interesting comparison between the Synoptic and the Johannine use of prepositions and the varying cases see Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, pp. 357-361. The variation is especially noticeable in 6ia, iirl and irapd. The LXX shows abundant use of the preposition after verbs. Cf . Conybeare and Stock, Selections from the LXX, p. 87 f., and Johannessohn, Der Gebrauch etc. In some stereotyped formulae one notes aird xapSios, fiera pLas, kotA Sia/J6Xou (Thumb, Handb., pp. 103 ff.). 566 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (6) Repetition with Several Nouns. When several nouns are used with the same preposition the preposition is repeated rather more frequently than in the earlier Greek.^ Winer ^ thinks that the repetition occurs only when the two or more substantives do not come easily under the same category. Within limits this is true (cf. repetition of the article), but there is rather more free- dom in the later Greek on this point. In Jo. 4 : 23 we do have a similar idea in the phrase kv TrvevixaTi /cai oKrideiq. as in &wd tj)6^ov /cai TrpoffSo/cias in Lu. 21 : 26. Cf. also kv Aiarpois Kal 'iKovUf (Ac. 16 : 2), but in verse 1 observe /cat eis Aep^riv Kal els Aiarpav, where perhaps the double conjunction plays some part. Indeed with Kal — Kal or re — Kal the preposition is commonly repeated. Thus Kal kv oKlyco Kal kv fieyoKcf (Ac. 26 : 29), tv re tols Sec/ioTs fuyv Kal kv t% Imdhyflq, (Ph. 1:7). With disjunctive conjunctions the repetition is usual also, as diro aKavdSsv § air6 rpL^oKcov (Mt. 7 : 16). With antithesis the repetition is the rule, as jmj kv riTCiv (Lu. 24 : 27), irpbs mp.o}va Herpov Kal Trpos tov oKKov (Jo. 20 : 2), kv bvvaijxi Kal kv irvtiiiari ayicf Kal kv ir\rjpo(j>oplq. (1 Th. 1:5). In a comparison again the preposition is repeated, as kir' airovs — &i!Tov (Mt. 1 : 22) for mediate and intermediate agent. One should not make the prepositions mere synonyms. Cf. inrkp (R0..5 : 6), &vtL (Mt. 20 : 28), and irepi (Mt. 26 : 28) all used in connection with the death of Christ. They approach the subject from different angles. VI. The Ftmctions of Prepositions with Cases. (a) The Case befoee Prepositions.' Both in time and at first in order. In the Indo-Germanic tongues at first the substan- tive was followed by the preposition^ as is still seen in the Greek evtKev, xO'Pi-v, etc. The Greek, however, generally came to put the preposition before the substantive as with compound verbs. (6) Notion of Dimension. The prepositions especially help express the idea of dimension and all the relations growing out of that,' but they come to be used in various abstract relations also. Indeed it was just the purely "local" cases (ablative, locative and instrumental) that came to lose their independent forms (Moulton, Prol., p. 60 f.), due partly to the increase in the use of prepositions. (c) Original Force of the Case. The case retains its orig- inal force with the preposition and this fundamental case-idea must be observed. The same preposition will be used with dif- ferent cases where the one difference lies in the variation in case as already noted. Take irapa, for instance, with the ablative, the locative or the accusative. The preposition is the same, but the case varies and the resultant idea differs radically.* ' K.-G., I, p. 448. "La proposition ne fait que confirmer, que prOciser une idOe exprimfie par ub cas employ^ adverbialement." Riem. and Cucuel, Synt. Grec, 1888, p. 213. * DelbrUck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 653. Cf. Brag., Griech. Gr., p. 433 f. » K.-G., I, p. 451. Cf. DelbrUck, Grundl. etc., p. 134. •> K.-G., I, p. 450. 568 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (d) The Gkound-Meaning of the Peeposition. This must always be taken into consideration.^ It is quite erroneous to say- that irapd, for instance, means now 'from/ now 'beside,' now 'to.' This is to confuse the resultant meaning of the preposition, case and context with the preposition itself. It is the common vice in the study of the prepositions to make this crucial error. The scientific method of studying the Greek preposition is to begin with the case-idea, add the meaning of the preposition it- self, then consider the context. The result of this combination will be what one translates into EngUsh, for instance, but he translates the total idea, not the mere preposition. It is puerile to explain the Greek prepositions merely by the Enghsh or German rendering of the whole. Unfortunately the Greeks did not have the benefit of our Enghsh and German. Kiihner-Gerth'' well observe that it is often impossible to make any translation that at all corresponds to the Greek idiom. (e) The Oblique Cases Alone with Prepositions. See also ch. XI. The vocative was obviously out of the question, and the nominative only appeared with pure adverbs like ava eh (Rev. 21 : 21). Cf. Mk. 14 : 19; Ro. 12 : 5, nad' eh. But not all the six oblique • cases were used with equal freedom with prep- ositions. Certainly in the original Indo-Germanic tongues the dative was not used with prepositions.' The dative is not origi- nally a "local" case and expresses purely personal relations. Delbruck thinks that the Greek dative did come to be used sometimes with kirl as in Homer, ewl Tpcoeo-in piaxeo'&at.* Indeed some N. T. examples of Itti may naturally be datives like ^o-TrXa- yxviadr] h:' avroh (Mt. 14 : 14), jxa-KpoOhfiTiaov eir' eixoi (Mt. 18:26). But usually even with eiri the case is locative, not dative. We do have two examples of ^711$ with the dative, as Ac. 9 : 38; 27: 8. Originally again the genitive was not used with prepositions,* but the Greek undoubtedly uses the genitive, though not a "local" case, with some prepositions like avH, 5ta, eirl. (/) Original Freedom. That is to say, most of the preposi- tions could be used with ablative, locative, accusative and some with the genitive or instrumental. But the three just mentioned ('whence,' 'where,' 'whither' cases) called upon most of the prepo- sitions. The dialect inscriptions give many proofs of this matter. Thus Lira and e? both appear in the Arcadian and Cyprian. dialects » K.-G., I, p. 451. . 2 lb. ' Delbruck, Grundl. etc., pp. 130, 134. Cf. also Monro, Horn., Gr. p. 125. « lb., p. 130. 6 lb., p. 134. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 669 with the locative as well as the ablative.* 'AiJKt>i originally oc- curred with locative, accusative and genitive. The same thing was true of kirl, fiera irepl and Jtto (possibly with ablative, not genitive). Indeed irtpi once used the ablative also. Ilapd and xpos were used with locative, accusative or ablative. It is pos- sible indeed that xpos may have been used with five cases, adding true dative and true genitive to the above.^ In the case of 'eirl four cases occur (Delbriick) since it apparently used the dative also. Other prepositions once were used with two cases, as iv with locative and accusative and the same thing was true of ets and avh,, whereas Kara, seems to use accusative, genitive, abla- tive. np6 originally had locative as well as ablative, while iirkp had ablative (genitive ?) and accusative and 3i& accusative and genitive. 'AvtI has only genitive, while aiiv has only instnmiental. 'kli4>[ is no longer a free preposition in the N. T., but occasionally occurs in the papyri. (3) No Adequate Division by Cases. It is very difficult, there- fore, to make any adequate diAnsion of the prepositions by the cases. There were indeed in early Greek two with only one case, eight with two, and eight with three cases. But the point to observe is that the usage varies greatly in the course of the cen- turies and in different regions, not to say in the vernacular and in the literary style. Besides, each preposition had its own history and every writer his own idiosyncrasies. For the detailed compa- rison of the prepositions see Helbing,^ and for the history of the cases with the prepositions see Krebs.* But in the Ptolemaic times prepositions are more and more used with the accusative to the corresponding disappearance of the other oblique cases.^ In particular one must note (cf. ch. XI) the disappearance of the locative, instrumental and dative before the accusative and the genitive, until in the modem Greek eis and the accusative have superseded kv and the locative and the dative proper also. Even aiiv and the instrumental disappear in the modem Greek verna- cular before nk {nera) and the accusative.* {h) Situation in the N. T. But in the N. T. the matter has not developed that far and the cases are not so much blurred, ' Delbnick, Grundl., p. 129. Cf . Hadley and AUen, pp. 252-260. ' Brug., Griech. Or., p. 449 f. » Die Prap. bei Herod., p. 8 f . Cf. Abbott, Job. Voc, etc., pp. 357 ff., for prep, in the Gospels. * Die Prap. bei Polyb., p. 6 f. » MviUach, Gr. Volg., pp. 376 £f.; Volker, Pap. Graec. Synt., p. 30. « Cf. Geldart, Guide to mod. Gk., p. 247; Thumb, Handb., pp. 100 ff. 570 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT though the range of the prepositions in the matter of cases is greatly Hmited. The seventeen "proper" prepositions {afujtl drops out) in the N. T. use the cases as will be now shown. 1. Those with One Case, 'kva, kvTi, airS, eis, k, iv, irpb, aiiv use only one case, eight as opposed to two in the early Greet {&.vtI and cbv). The cases used are not the same (accusative with ava and eis; genitive with avri; ablative with airS, k and irph; locative with kv; instrumental with avv), but nearly half of the prepositions have come to one case in the N. T. In the modern Greek all the prepositions occur usually with the accusative (or even the nom.). The use of the genitive (abl.) is due to hterary influence. The com- mon proper prepositions in modern Greek are eis, diro, fik, yia, and less commonly Kara, irapL, avrU, and in dialects irpos (Thumb, Handb., p. 98). This tendency towards case simplification is well illustrated by the so-called improper prepositions which use only one case (abl., gen. or dat.), though they do not feel the movement towards the accusative. 2. Those with Two Cases. Five (as opposed to eight) use two cases: Sta, fiera, irepi, virkp, tirS. The cases used are genitive and accusative each with Slo., fiera, wepi; ablative and accusative with iiirkp and vTo. In the case of irepi some of the examples can be explained as ablative (from around), while wro seems, like ipep, to use the ablative (cf . Latin svb) and possibly the genitive also. 3. Those with Three Cases. Only four prepositions (as against eight) retain three cases: iiri, Kara, Tapa, irpbs, unless xepl, irnkp and vitb have both ablative and genitive. Kara in Mt. 8 : 32, Sipn^qaev Kara tov Kpr]p,pov, is used with the ablative. IIpos indeed only has the genitive once (Ac. 27 : 34) and that is due to the literary influ- ence on the N. T.* If wpos drops out, only three prepositions still use three cases, barring irepi, virep and vwo. Of these irapa is not very common (gen. 78, ace. 60, loc. 50), still less Kara, while hrl is still frequent (ace. 464, gen. 216, loc. 176). 4. Possibly Four with kiri. In the case of 'eitl indeed we may have to admit four cases, if there are examples of the pure dative like Mt. 18 : 26, fiaKpodburjcrov kir' kpioi. But at any rate exi and itaph. alone show the old freedom in the use of the cases. (j) Each Peeposition in a Case. Like other adverbs the prepositions are fixed case-forms, some of which are still apparent. Thus avTi is in the locative case, like kv{i), exi, xepi. Cf. also xpori (xp6s). The forms Stai and ixoi occur also (datives). The old dative xopai occurs, while ■::apk is instrumental. So ava, SiA, Kark, juerA are » Moulton, Prol., p. 106. PBEPOSITIONS (nPOGEZEIs) 571 in the instrumental case. What fijro is we do not know. But the case in which the preposition may be itself has no necessary bear- ing on the case with which it is used. It is just a part of the word's own history, but still it is always worth observing. Vn. Proper Prepositions in the N. T. (a) 'Avd. The case of ava is not clear. Originally it was ava and may be the same as the Lesbian, Thessalian and Cyprian &v. Cf. EngUsh "on." It may be compared with the Old Per- sian and Gothic ana, the Latin and German an. One may com- pare the Greek av and Sanskrit ana} The fundamental idea seems to be "on," "upon," "along," like German auf, and this grows easily to "up" like avw in contrast with Kara, {koltw). Homer uses the adverb ava as an elhpsis to mean "up." The locative was once used with avd, but in the N. T. only the accusative occurs. The distributive use may be up and down a line or series, and MSS. give Kara in several of these instances (a common use of KarA also). While Lva is very common in composition with verbs in the N. T. (over ten pages of examples in Moulton and Geden's Concordance), only thirteen examples of the preposition alone occur in the N. T. One of these (Lu. 9 : 3) is absent from W. H. (Nestle retains it), while in Rev. 21 : 21 (ava els) the word is merely adverb (cf. Homer), not preposition.^ Of the remaining eleven instances, four are examples of 6.pa ukaov with the genitive, a sort of compound prepositional phrase with the idea of "be- tween" (like Mt. 13 : 25), similar to the modem Greek ava/xeca, and found in the LXX, Polybius, etc. One (1 Cor. 14 : 27, &va. nipos, means 'in turn," while the remaining six are all examples of the distributive use, like ava Siio (Lu. 10 : 1). The distributive use is in Xenophon. For examples in papyri and inscriptions see Radermacher, p. 15. Cf. our "analogy." In Ac. 8 : 30, yivoj- (TKeis a avayiviicKus, the point turns on ava-, but it is not clear how Ava- turns "know" to "read." See Ac. 10 : 20 avaaras Kara- Pridi for contrast between ava and Kara. Abbott, Johannine Gr., pp. 222 ff., argues at length to show that the one example in John (2 : 6) is distributive, 'kva does not survive in modern Greek ver- nacular (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 366). In the papjTi ava shows some new compounds not in the N. T., like avairopevoiMi, (Mayser, > Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 436; K.-G., I, p. 473. On the N. T. prep. Bee also Tycho Mommsen, Beitr. zu d. Lehre von d. griech. Prap. (1895). ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 178, cites some late Gk. exx. of (aik as adv. Clearly not a Hebraism. Deiss., B. S., p. 139. » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 122, cites Polyb. 672 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Gr. d. Griech.Pap.,Tp. 486). Delbriick, Vergl. Syntax, I, p. 734, con- siders dca, like avri, one of the "proethnic" prepositions. It is rare in the papyri and the inscriptions (Radermacher, iV. T. Gr., p. 115). But avacTTaroi Hi, 'he upsets me' (P.Oxy. 119, ii/iii a.d.), is strangely like Ac. 17 : 6 oi ri/v oIk. avaaTariicavTes. (6) AvtC. This preposition is in the locative case of ai/ra. Cf . Sanskrit dnti, Latin ante, Lithuanian ant, Gothic and, German ant {-ent) , Anglo-Saxon andlang, and-swerian (' answer ') . The root- idea is really the very word " end." Brugmann (Griech. Gr., p. 437) thinks it may mean "front." If so, "in front of" would be the idea of the word in the locative. Cf. ante-room, avrios, avTaca {air-, iv-), havTios, ' at the end' (ai'Ti). Suppose two men at each end of a log facing each other. That gives the etymological picture, "face to face." The case used with it was originally the genitive and na- turally so, though in modern Greek the accusative has displaced it.' It is obviously the real adnominal genitive and not ablative (cf. Sanskrit adverb dnti) that we have with avH and is like the genitive with the adverbs avra, avriov, avrla, and the adjective avrios, etc.^ In Homer indeed avrl has just begun to be used in composition with verbs so that it barely escapes the Hst of the "improper" prepositions.' Blass^ calls it "one of the preposi- tions that are dying out," but as a matter of fact it survives in modern Greek. In the N. T. it is used in composition with twenty- two verbs (single compounds) and occurs twenty-two times also with nouns and pronouns. It is not therefore very flourishing in the N. T. It does not occur often in the indices to the papyri volumes, and Mayser^ gives papyri support for some of the N. T. compounds like avdofioXoyeco, avrlKeinai, avTiXafi^avofiai. It is absent from the inscriptions of Magnesia and Pergamon (Radermacher, iV. T. Gr., p. 115). In some of the compounds the original idea of the preposition comes out finely. Thus in a.vT-o(t>da\fiuv tJ^^ &vifuf (Ac. 27 : 15) the preposition merely carries on the idea of the d(t)da\n6s. The boat could not look at ('eye, face to face') or face the wind. This root-idea is always present in avrl and is the basis from which to discuss every example. It is equally plain in a word like avTL-jrap-fj\dev (Lu. 10: 31 f.). The priest and Levite passed along on the other side of the road, facing (avri) the wounded traveller. Note avrL-PaWere in Lu. 24 : 17, where the two dis- > Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 368. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 740. ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 437; Monro, Horn. Gr., pp. 126, 149 f. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 150. > Gr. of N. T. Gr., p. 124. ' Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 487. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 573 ciples were exchanging words (casting them from one to the other as they faced each other, avTi) with one another, an intimate and vivid picture of conversation. Cf. also the contrast between Avt£ and kotA in e>'isoi'0£feTai(' cleave to,' 'cling to,' 'hold one's self face to face with') Kal rod erkpov KaTa(t)povi]daKp.dv &,vtI 6(l>6a\iwv (Mt. 5 : 38; cf. also avrl bbbvTos) there is exact equivalence like "tit for tat." So also Ka,Kbv avrl kukov (Ro. 12 : 17; 1 Th. 5 : 15; 1 Pet. 3 : 9), "SoiSoplav LvtI 'Koi.Sopias (1 Pet. 3:9). None the less does the idea of exchange (cf. avT-kWayfia, Mk. 8 : 37) result when a fish and a snake are placed opposite each other, avrl ixOvos o^iv (Lu. 11: 11) or one's birthright and a mess of pottage (Heb. 12 : 16). In Mt. 17: 27, LvtI iiiav Kal aov, there is a compression of statement where the stater strictly corresponds to the tax due by Christ and Peter rather than to Christ and Peter themselves. But in \vTpov avrl ToWSiv (Mt. 20 : 28; Mk. 10 : 45) the parallel is more exact. These important doctrinal passages teach the substitutionary conception of Christ's death, not because avH of itself means "instead," which is not true, but because the context renders any other resultant idea out of the question. Compare also avrikvTpov inrip Tavruv by Paul (1 Tim. 2 : 6) where both avrl and virkp combine with \\)Tpov 574 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT in expressing this idea. Cf. Avti-tuitos (Heb. 9 : 24). In Mt. 2 : 22 avH Tov irarpos the substitution takes the form of succession as son succeeds father on the throne. Cf. avd-iiraros (Ac. 13 : 7). In Jas. 4 : 15 avrl tov Xkyeiv the result is also substitution, the points of view being contrasted. In Heb. 12 : 2 the cross and the joy face each other in the mind of Jesus and he takes both, the cross in order to get the joy. The idea of exchange appears also in 1 Cor. 11 : 15 17 /co/ur; avrl irepifioXaiov. Blass^ considers x^pti' avrl xaptTos (Jo. 1 : 16) as "peculiar," but Winer^ rightly sees the original import of the preposition. Simcox' cites from Philo xapiTM vka% avrl TraKaioripuiv extSiScoo-o' as clearly explaining this "remark- able" passage. But really has not too much difficulty been made of it? As the days come and go a new supply takes the place of the grace already bestowed as wave follows wave upon the shore. Grace answers (avrC) to grace. The remaining examples are five of av6' S}v in the sense of 'because' ('therefore'), when two clauses or sentences correspond to each other, one the reason for the other. This is indeed classical enough (LXX also). Similar is avTi rotnov (Eph. 5 : 31) where the LXX (Gen. 2 : 24), which Paul does not quote, has 'iviKtv tovtov (cf. Mk. 10 : 7; Mt. 19 :4). There is yet another idea that comes out in composition Uke avT-airo-Si8o>iii, (Lu. 14 : 14) where awd has the meaning of 'back' and avH of 'in return* (cf. "in turn"). Cf. avT-airo-Kpivofuu (Lu. 14 : 6) and avd-opx>\' fis rifikpas (Col. 1:9). In Mt. 7 : 16, airb tSiv KapTwv knyviiaeade, the notion of source is the real idea. Cf. SteX^^aro avToZs airo tS>v ypav\a.(7v 'lovSa'uiiv, B.G.U. 1079 (a.d. 41), the first reference to the Jews as money-lenders. Some of the N. T. examples are merely for the so-called "partitive genitive." Thus kXe^d/^ews aw' ahr&v SiideKa (Lu. 6 : 13), ivkyKare dxo tUv aipaplmv (Jo. 21 : 10), hcx^ui airb TOV TvevnaTos (Ac. 2 : 17), eadiei airo tS>v ^iximv (Mt. 15 : 27), ttico dir6 TOV yevliiJ,aTos (Lu. 22 : 18), Tiva airo tu>v 8io (Mt. 27 : 21), etc. The point is not that all these phrases occur in the older Greek, but that they are in perfect harmony with the Greek genius in the use of the ablative and in the use of diro to help the abla- tive. Moulton {Prol., p. 246) cites & airo t&v XpicrTiavSiv, Pelagia (Usener, p. 28) as fairly parallel with oval — dxo tS)v (TKavSHkav (Mt. 18 : 7). The partitive use of the ablative with kirb does come nearer to the realm of the genitive (cf . English of and the genitive), but the ablative idea is still present. One may note Tbv dird KeXrcoj' fiav in an ostra- con from Thebes, a.d. 192. Cf . rSiv air' 'O^vpiyxcov voXew, P. Oxy. 38, A.D. 49. 'Airo is also, like k (Ac. 10 : 45, etc.), used for mem- bers of a party in Ac. 12 : 1, Ttras t£>v airo Tfjs kfcXTjo-tas, an un-Attic usage. But on the whole the two prepositions can be readily dis- tinguished in the N. T. 5. Comparison with irapL As to Trapd, it suggests that one has ' Moulton, Prol., p. 102. « Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 228. « Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 227 f. « jb., p. 229. » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 125. « Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 125. PEEPOSITIONS (nPOGESEIs) 579 been by the side of the one from whom he comes. In relation to God we find kx rod deov k^\dov (Jo. 8 : 42), irapa rod iraTpbs i^rjT^ov (16 : 27), Air6 deov ^f^Xfles (16 : 30). Cf. wpds rbv debv (Jo. 1 : 1). It would be overrefinement to insist on a wide and radical difference here between diro, k and irapa; and yet they are not exactly syn- onymous. In the older Greek irapa was the common preposition for the conscious personal departure.^ But in N. T. kirb occurs also with persons. So a.KitKoap.ev air' abrov (1 Jo. 1:5), iMdeXv acj)' iiubv (Gal. 3 : 2), irapQva^ov aird tov Kvpiov (1 Cor. 11 : 23). One must not, however, read too much into &ir6, as in Gal. 2 : 12, where nvas &,ir6 'laKii^ov does not mean 'with the authority of James,' though they doubtless claimed it. Cf. Mk. 15 : 45; 1 Th. 3 : 6. One doubts if we are justified in insisting on a radical distinction between irapa rod irarpos (Jo. 10 : 18) and aird rod Kvplov (1 Cor. 11 : 23) save as etymology throws light on the matter.* 6. Compared with inrb. The MSS. of ancient writers,' as of the N. T., varied often between airb and iiirb. As instances of this va- riation in the N. T. take Mk. 8 : 31; Ac. 4 : 36; 10 : 17; Ro. 13 : 1. The MSS. often vary where airb is the correct text. The use of kirb with the agent is not precisely like inrb, though one has only to compare hwb with Latin ah and English of to see how natural it is for airb to acquire this idiom. Observe KarevexOAs airb tov Sttwu (Ac. 20: 9). So in Jas. 1:13, airb deov ireipa^oixai, we trans- late 'tempted of God.' The temptation, to be sure, is presented as coming from God. Cf. also 6 luadbi 6 cL' vp£>v (Jas. 5:4), where the keeping back of the reward is conceived as coming from you. Cf. Ac. 4 : 36. In Mt. 16 : 21, iradeiv airb Tuv irpea^vripcov, ' at the hands of, ' is a free rendering of the idea of agency or source. In Lu. 16 : 18, airoXeKvfievrjv awb avSpbs, note the repetition of airb. This idea of removal is present in iaSrjvaL airb, and ivoxKovfitvoi kirb presents no real trouble. There may be a zeugma in the last clause. In Lu. 9 : 22, aToSoKinacrdrjvai. airb tS>v vptafivTipuv, we have the same construction as in 16 : 18 above (cf. 17: 25). Cf. ■fjTOLp.acrp.ivov kirb tov deov (Rev. 12 : 6) and Ac. 2 : 22 airoSeSeiyfiivov airb tov 6eov. The use of awb after substantives throws some light on this matter. Thus viji' kirb a-ov eirayyeKiav (Ac. 23 : 21), dTro crov arineiop (Mt. 12 : 38). This use of kwb after passive verbs came to be the rule in the later writers. Cf . Wilhelm, /. G. XII. 5, 29. But it is not alone a form of agency that kwb comes to express. ' W.-Th., p. 370. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 125. » a. W.-Th., p. 370. » Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 138. 580 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT It may also be used for the idea of cause, an old usage of 6x6. For instance, take curb t^s x«ipSs ahrov vTcivyti (Mt. 13 : 44), 4x6 roO (po^ov 'eKpa^av (14 : 26), oval tQ k6s (Jo. 11 : 16). Cf. kaxi(T9v eis Sdo (Mt. 27: 51). 2. 'By Twos' or 'Between.' But the preposition has advanced a step further than merely "two" to the idea of by-twain, be-tween, in two, in twain. This is the ground-meaning in actual usage. The word Si-fiaXaccos originally meant 'resembUng two seas' (cf. Euxine Sea, Strabo 2, 5, 22), but in the N. T. (Ac. 27: 41) it ap- parently means lying between two seas (Thayer). The notion of interval (be-tween) is frequent in the N. T. both in composition and apart from composition. Thus in rifiepcov dLa-yevofikvwv tivS)v{Ac. 25 : 13), ' some days came in between ' (6id). Cf . Sia-^viiaofuiL to, koS' i/xas (Ac. 24 : 22) with Latin di-gnosco, dis-cerno and Greek-English dia-gnosis {hk-yvwcnv, Ac. 25:21). Ata-fl77Krj is an arrangement or covenant between two (Gal. 3 : 17). See Si-aipovv (1 Cor. 12 : 11); 5ia-8iSci3ni (Lu. 11:22) 'divide'; oWev St-kKpLvev ixera^v ■tjp&v re koX airuv (Ac. 15 : 9) where nera^v explains 5td. Cf . 5td-Kpt(rts (Heb. 5 :14), 'dis- » C. and S., p. 83. " Vergl. Synt., I, p. 759. ' K.-B1., II, p. 250. Cf. Karat, irapal, ival. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 581 crimination'; Sia-'Keliriii (Lu. 7 : 45), 'intervals of delay'; Sia-Xiu (Ac. 5 : 36), 'dis-solve'; SuL-ftepi^ca (Ac. 2 : 45), 'dis-trjbute'; Sia-piiyvviu. (Lu. 8 :29), 'rend asunder'; Sia-aKopiri^o) (Jo. 11 : 52), opposed to aw- ayu, 'di-sperse'; SM-triroM (Mk. 5 : 4), 'rend in two'; BM-irirdpu (Ac. 8:1)=' scatter abroad ' ; dia-criropa (Jo. 7 : 35) , ' dispersion ' ; Sui-arkWu (Heb.l2:20), 'divide'; diA-(rTr]fia {Ac. 5: 7), 'distance' or 'interval'; Sia-cTToXii (1 Cor. 14 : 7), 'distinction'; hta-TiBepai. (Lu. 22 : 29), 'dis- pose'; ha-kp(a (Ac. 27:27, Mt. 6:26), 'bear apart,' 'differ'; hid- (Popos (Ro. 12: 6), 'different'; Si-xiifw (Mt. 10: 35), 'set at variance' ('cleave asunder'). These numerous examples ought to be suffi- cient to show what the real meaning of the word in itself is. A particularly noticeable instance appears in Lu. 24 : 51, where we have SL-kcTTti air' ahruiv. The N. T. preserves this notion of interval in expressions of time and so it is hardly "peculiar only to literary style." ^ Thus in Mk. 2 : 1 5i' rmepuv means 'interval of days,' 'days between,' 'after some days,' though surely no one would think that 5ta really means 'after.' Cf. Mt. 26 : 61, 3ia Tpuiv ■fipxpihv (cf. kv, 27 : 40); 5i' krCiv irXeiovcov, Ac. 24 : 17; Gal. 2:1, 5ia beKareaaapuiv krSiv. Cf. Ac. 5:7. In Ac. 1 : 3, 5i' rfp^pSiv TeaaepaKovra oTTavbixtvoi, the appearance of Jesus was at intervals within the forty days. But see opposition to this idea in Abbott, Johannine Grammar, p. 255 f. In the phrase SiA vvktos (Ac. 5 : 19; 16 : 9, etc.), 'by night,' Slo. adds little to the genitive itself. It is the real adnominal genitive. The preposition is very common in the N. T., especially with the genitive (gen. 382, ace. 279),^ though the accusative be- comes dominant later. 3. 'Passing Between' or 'Through.' The idea of interval between leads naturally to that of passing between two objects or parts of objects. 'Through' is thus not the original meaning of SiA, but is a very common one. The case is usually the genitive, though in Homer' the accusative is common also, as we find it once in the N. T. (Lu. 17 : 11), 3ta fikaov So/iapias (cf. 5id fiiaov, 4 : 30), and even here note the genitive after fiicrov. Some MSS. in Jo. 8 : 59 read also diCL nkiTov. Blass^ wrongly calls the accusative an "inadmissible reading" in view of Homer and the growing use of the accusative in the vernacular with all prepositions (cf. modern Greek). This use of 'through' or 'thorough' is common in composition and sometimes has a "perfective" idea ('clear through') as in Sia-KoBapvei TTiv oXcoTO (Mt. 3:12), 'will thoroughly cleanse.' Cf. also Sia-fiaivu > Jann., Hist. Gr. Gk., p. 374. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 145. • Moulton, Prol., p. 105. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 132. 582 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (Heb. 11:29), 5ia-/3X47rw(Mt.7:5), di-ayykXKta (Lu.9:60), 8M-ypriyopku (Lu. 9 :32), St-ci,7&j (1 Tim. 2 :2), Si,a-5ixoiJ.ai (Ac. 7:45), Sia-Kare- X^XOAtat (Ac. 18 : 28), Sux-iiaxoimi (Ac. 23 : 9), 5ia-fikvu) (Lu. 1 : 22), Sia-vvKTepeio) (Lu. 6 : 12), Si-avioi (Ac. 21 : 7), 3ia-7rapaTpi/3iJ (1 Tim. 6:5); 5ia-o-eico (Lu. 3 : 14), Sta-ffcbfco (Lu. 7:3), Sia-^uXatro-oj (4 : 10). This sense of 5ta is used with words of place, time, agent or ab- stract word. In all of these relations the root-idea of the preposi- tion is easily perceived. Thus in Mt. 12 : 43, St^pxerai Si' dwSpcoj' TOTTWV, 8ia fr/pas (Heb. 11 : 29), dia Trjs Hafiapias (Jo. 4:4), 5tA Tvpds (1 Cor. 3 : 15), Si' kadirrpov (1 Cor. 13 : 12). Cf. Ac. 13 : 49; 2 Cor. 8 : 18. In Ro. 15 : 28, aTreKevaonai. Si' vfiSiv els STrafiav, Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 378) takes Si' ifiSiv to be 'through you,' i.e. 'through your city,' 'through the midst of you.' In all these exam- ples the idiom runs just as in the older Greek. The use of Sia with expressions of time was never very common and gradually was transferred 1 to eis. But some examples occur in the N. T. hke Si' oX^js vvKTos (Lu. 5 : 5), which may be compared with Sia xairds tov ^rjv (Heb. 2 : 15) and the common phrase Sia iravros (Mk. 5 : 5). Here the idea of through is applied to time. Rouffiac {Recherches, p. 29) cites Sid tov x^i-l^vos SXov from inscriptions of Priene 112, 98 and 99 (i/B.c). The agent may also be expressed by Sid. This function was also performed in the ancient Greek, though, when means or instrument was meant, the instrumental case was com- monly employed.'' Aid is thus used with inanimate and animate objects. Here, of course, the agent is coficeived as coming in be- tween the non-attainment and the attainment of the object in view. One may compare ypaxj/avTes Sid x«tpos avrSiv (Ac. 15 : 23) with dio eTTKTToXds, Sid Nt/Su/wju fiiav, Sid ^povlov ixaxo-ipo4>opov fiiav, ' B.U. 1079, A.D. 41 (Milligan, Greek Pap., p. 39). So oi dk^co Sid fiiXavos Kal KoXafiou col ypa.ei,v (3 Jo. 13), Sid y\i} with either loc. or ace. Cf. Claflin, Synt. of Boeotian Dial. Inscr., p. 56 f. Pindar shows cK with ace. " Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 438. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 147. 686 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT has entirely disappeared before eis which uses only the accusa- tive.i There is once more unity, but not exactly on the same terms. In the Greek N. T. this process of absorption is going steadily on as in the kolvti generally. There is rarely much doubt as to the significance of kv, whereas eis has already begun to resume its old identity with ev, if indeed in the vernacular it ever gave it up.* We may compare kv t$ aypQ in Mt. 24 : 18 with eis top &yp6v in Mk. 13 : 16. Cf. kirk(7X^v xpovov eis rriv ' kalav (Ac. 19 : 22), Ttipiiadai ets Kaiaaplav (25 : 4), «is oMv kariv (some MSS. in Mk. 2:1). Cf. Jo. 1 : 18. In the N. T. ev is so frequent (2698 instances) that it is still the most common preposition. Indeed Moulton' thinks that its ultimate disappearance is due to the fact that it had become too vague as "a maid of all work." 3. Place. The simplest use is with expressions of place, like iv rfi &yopq. (Mt. 20 : 3), h Se^iq. (Heb. 1 : 3), h t$ dpovv (Rev. 3 : 21), kv T^ irXoUf (Mt. 4 : 21), ev tj} iroXet (Lu. 7 : 37), kv t^ TopSdcj/ Tora/t^ (Mt. 3 :6), kv vSari. (3 : 11), kv rg ctMTeXci) (Jo. 15 :4). Cf. also k^fiXdev 6 X670S kv Trj 'lovSaiq, (Lu. 7 : 17) and kv tQ ya^o^vkaK'uf (Jo. 8:20). For the "pregnant" construction of kv after verbs of motion cf. chapter XI, x, (i). Cf. examples given under 1. In these and like examples kv indeed adds little to the idea of the locative case which it is used to explain. See also kv rots (Lu. 2 : 49) in the sense of 'at the house of (cf. ets to. 'Lha, Jo. 19 : 27) for which Moulton^ finds abundant illustration in the papyri. Cf. kv Tois 'AiroWoivlov, R.L. 38* (iii/B.c). The preposition in itself merely states that the location is within the bounds marked by the word with which it occurs. It does not mean 'near,' but 'in,' that is 'inside.' The translation of the resultant idea may be indeed in, on, at, according to the context, but the preposition itself retains its own idea. There is nothing strange about the metaphorical use of kv in expressions like kv jSacraww (Lu. 16 : 23), kv tQ dava.T(a (1 Jo. 3 : 14), kv So^jj (Ph. 4 : 19), kv iivarTipU^ (1 Cor. 2 : 7), etc. 4. Expressions of Time. 'Ec may appear rather oftener than the mere locative. Cf . kv tj) kcrxarji i)tikpq. in Jo. 6 : 44, but t3 kaxarn vfikpa, in 6 : 54, while in 6 : 40 the MSS. vary. By kv rpurlv fllikpais (Jo. 2 : 19) it is clear that Jesus meant the resurrection 1 V. and D., Mod. Gk., p. 109 f. 2 Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 142. * Prol., p. 103. In the Ptol. papyri, Rossberg (Prap., p. 8) finds 2245 examples of iv and it is the most common preposition. * Prol., p. 103. On the retreat of kv before ds see Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 380. PREPOSITIONS (nPOBESEIs) 587 will take place vnthin the period of three days. Cf . rg rpirj; viJikpq, (never with kv in the N. T.) in Mt. 16 : 21.^ More common ex- pressions are kv aa^^arw (Mt. 12 : 2), kv t% rinkpq, (Jo. 11 : 9), kv Tg vvKTi (11 : 10), kv Tif Sevrkpv (Ac. 7: 13), kv t^ KoBt^s (Lu. 8 : 1), kv T(f iiiTa^d (Jo. 4 : 31), kv rais ^ju^pais ketcow (Mt. 3:1), kv Tg irapovaiq, (1 Th. 2 : 19), kv rg avaaraaei (Mk. 12 : 23), ev i^/i^p^ Kpiaeus (Mt. 10 : 15), kv Tg ^(rxAT}? <7aX7rt7Tt (1 Cor. 15 : 52), etc. Cf. Lu. 1 : 7. Another temporal use of kv is kv ^ in the sense of 'while' 1. The frequent use, espe- 40), of kv Tca with the infin- (Mk. 2:19). Cf. also kv oh in Lu. 12 cially in Luke (cf . kv t$ hcoaTpk(j>ti.v, 8 itive calls for a word. Examples of this idiom occur in the ancient Greek (16 in Xenophon, 6 in Thucydides, 26 in Plato) ^ and the papyri show it occasionally.* Cf. kv t(5> Xo7tfe(TSat, Par. P. 63 (ii/B.c). But in the LXX it is a constant translation of a and is much more abundant in the N. T. as a result of the LXX profusion. 5. ^ Among.' With plural noims kv may have the resultant idea of 'among,' though, of course, in itself it is still 'in,' 'within.' Thus we note kv yewriTots yvvaiKoiv (Mt. 11 : 11), eariv kv riiuv (Ac. 2 : 29), ^v kv avTols (4 : 34), kv vfuv (1 Pet. 5 : 1), kv rois riyefida-iv 'lov8a. (Mt. 2:6). This is a common idiom in the ancient Greek. Not very different from this idea (cf. Latin apud) is the use kv 609oX/iots ripMv (Mt. 21 : 42), like Latin coram. One may note also kv b/uv in 1 Cor. 6 : 2. Cf. kv rots Wvt(ji.v (Gal. 1 : 16). See also 2 Cor. 4 : 3; 8 : 1. 6. 'In the Case of,' 'in the Person of or simply 'in.' A fre- quent use is where a single case is selected as a specimen or striking illustration. Here the resultant notion is 'in the case of,' which does not differ greatly from the metaphorical use of kv with soul, mind, etc. Cf . Lu. 24 : 38. Thus with airoicaKinrTco note kv k/jioi (Gal. 1 : 16), ei8iis kv iavr^ (Jo. 6 : 61), ykvriTai. kv kfioi (1 Cor. 9 : 15), kv Tcf ^pQ tI ykvriTai (Lu. 23 : 31), kv fip,Zv p,ajBr]T€ (1 Cor. 4 : 6), kv rg /cXdo-ei (Lu. 24 : 35). One may note also kv t^ 'ASd;u iravres airo6vriaKov airri/ (1 Chron. 28 : 6). 3 Prol., p. 103. 6 Prol., p. 103. * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 131. ' lb. ' C. and S., Sel., etc., p. 82. Cf. Thack., Gr., p. 47, for the frequent use of iv of accompanying circumstance in the LXX. " Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 130. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 589 usage. Note, for instance, h Ska xtX"io't»' inravrfjaaL (Lu. 14 : 31), JjhBtv kv 6.ylaK iivpuuriv airov (Ju. 14), ku iraa-iv AmXajSoyres (Eph. 6 : 16), h CToXats Trtpncaruv (Mk. 12 : 38), ipxavrai. kv ivb{jiia(n.v irpofikTuv (Mt. 7 : 15), kv XeuKoTs Kade^o/jtivovs (Jo. 20 : 12), /xereKa- 'Kkffaro — kv \^kxbvi^ liCLxaipris (Heb. 11 : 37). The Apocalypse has several examples, like ■jroXejUTjo-o) kv rfj pofutmig, (2 : 16), a-woKTeZvai kv pop,(j)aiq, koX kv \ipx^ Kal kv Oavarcf (6 : 8), kv /iaxatpj/ airoKrevel (13 : 10). In Rev. 14 : 15, Kpa^oiv kv (jxavy, we do not necessarily have to explain it in this manner. Cf. Ro. 2 : 16; 2 : 28; IJo. 2 : 3; Jas. 3:9. On the whole there is little that is out of harmony with the vernacular KOLvfi in the N. T. use of kv, though Abbott ' thinks that the ex- ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 379. But see Deiss., B. S., p. 119 f. 2 W.-Th., p. 388. ' Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 144. * C. and S., p. 82; Thack., p. 47. 6 Moulton, Prol., pp. 12, 61, 104, 234 f. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 379. ' lb., p. 61. 8 Job. Gr., p. 256. PREPOSITIONS (nPOGESEIs) 591 amples of Deissmann and Moulton do not exactly parallel the N. T. instrumental use. For repetition of h see 2 Cor. 6 : 4 ff. (/) Els. There is nothing to add to the etymology of €is as com- pared with that of h save that eis is known to be really kv-s as we find it in the inscriptions of Argos, Crete, etc. So kvs 'Adavaiav.^ This s seems to have been added to kv by analogy to k^.^ Usually with the disappearance of v the form was ds, but Thucydides, like the Ionic and Doric writers and the poets, preferred ks which was current in the inscriptions before 334 b.c' So is appears in a Phry- gian Christian inscription.^ But the iEolic eis gradually drove out all the other forms.* Originally, therefore, kv alone existed with either locative or accusative, and ds appears nowhere else save in the Greek. The classic use of eis At8ov (some MSS. in Ac. 2 : 27, 31 and reading in Is. 14 : 15) is the true genitive, according to Brugmann {Griech Gr., p. 439), 'in the sphere of Hades.' 1. Original Static Use. In Homer eicr-KeicrdaL means merely to he within. But, though eis really means the same thing as kv, it was early used only with the accusative, and gradually special- ized thus one of the usages of kv. The locative with kv, however, continued to be used sometimes in the same sense as the accusa- tive with eis. The accusative indeed normally suggests motion (extension), and that did come to be the common usage of eis plus the accusative. The resultant idea would often be 'into,' but this was by no means always true. Eis is not used much in composition in the N. T. and always where motion is involved save in the case of eia-oKovoi where there seems little difference between eis and kv (cf. 1 Cor. 14:21; Mt. 6:7). In itself eis expresses the same dimension relation as kv, viz. m.' It does not of itself mean irdo, unto, or to. That is the resultant idea of the accusative case with verbs of motion. It is true that in the later Greek this static use of ets with the idea of rest (in) is far more common than in the earlier Greek. This was naturally so, since in the vernacular eis finally drove kv out entirely and did duty for both, just as originally kv did. The only difference is that eis used the one case (accusative), whereas kv used either ac- ' Solmsen, Inscr. Graecae, p. 46. ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 438. He treats kv and ds together. » Jann., ffist. Gk. Gr., p. 376. ' Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, II, p. 525. Cf. ako Psichari, fitudes de Philol., 1892, p. v. ' Cf. H. W. Smyth, p. 80, Transactions of Am. Philol. Assoc, for 1887. J. Fraser (CI. Quarterly, 1908, p. 270) shows that in Cretan we have hs bpBov (before vowel), but is rbv (before consonant). ^ K.-G., I, p. 468. 592 A GKAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT cusative or locative. But^ then the accusative was once the only case and must be allowed large liberty. And even in the classic writers there are not wanting examples. These are usually ex- plained^ as instances of "pregnant" construction, but it is possible to think of them as survivals of the etymological idea of eis (kv-s) with only the general notion of the accusative case. Certainly the vernacular laid less stress on the distinction between eis and h than the literary language did. Though els falls behind iv in the N. T. in the proportion of 2 to 3, still, as in the papyri^ and the inscriptions and the LXX,* a number of examples of static eis oc- cur. Some of these were referred to under h, where the "pregnant" use of iv for eis occurs. Hatzidakis gives abundant examples of kv as eis and eis as h. Cf. eis 'AXe^avSpeiav kari, B.U. ii. 385; eis tvv^ov Keifiai, Kaibel Epigr. 134; KcvSweijcravros eis daKaaaav, B.U. 423 (ii/ A.D.). Deissmann {Light, p. 169) notes Paul's kivSvvoi.s kv OaXaaaji and that the Roman soldier in the last example writes "more vul- garly than St. Paul." In these examples it is not necessary nor pertinent to bring in the idea of 'into.' Blass^ comments on the fact that Matthew (but see below) has no such examples and John but few, while Luke has most of them. I cannot, however, follow Blass in citing Mk. 1 : 9 e/JairTio-Sjj eis rov 'lopSavriv as an example. The idea of motion in PairTl^u suits eis as well as iv in Mk. 1 : 5. Gf. vii^ai. ds (Jo. 9:7). But in Mt. 28 : 19, /SaxTifovTes eis t6 Svo/xa, and Ro. 6 : 3 f., eis Xpurrov and eis tov davarov, the notion of sphere is the true one. The same thing may be true of /3a7r- Tia6i]Tui eis a^ecriy tSiv aixapriSiv (Ac. 2 : 38), where only the context and the tenor of N. T. teaching can determine whether 'into,' 'unto' or merely 'in' or 'on' ('upon') is the right translation, a task for the interpreter, not for the grammarian. One does not need here to appeal to the Hebrew tima ^as as Tholuck does {Beitrdge zur Spracherklarung des N. T., p. 47 f.). Indeed the use of ovofia for person is common in the papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 196 f.). Deissmann gives examples of eis bvoim, kir' bvofiaTos, and the mere locative bvoixari, from the papyri. The static use of eis is seen in its distributive use like kv in Mk. 4 : 8, eis TpiaKovra Kal kv i^rjKovra Kal kv harov. But there are undoubted examples where only 'in,' 'on' or 'at' can be the idea. Thus 1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 376. " lb., p. 377. Cf. MuUach, Gr. d. griech. Vulgarsp., p. 380. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 123, calls it a "provincialism." Cf. further Hatz., Einl., p. 210 f.; Moulton, Prol., p. 234 f. » Moulton, Prol., p. 62 f . « C. and S., Sel., p. 81. = Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 133, PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 593 Ktipiiaauv ds ras avvay(aya.s (Mk. 1 : 39) where there is some excuse for the "pregnant" explanation because of ^\dev. So iXdiiv Kart^Kti- atv eis Trokiv (Mt. 2 : 23; 4 : 13), but note only irapifKijcxev eis yyjv (Heb. 11: 9) and ebp'dSi) els "Uutov (Ac. 8 : 40). Cf. KoBrinhov ds t6 &pos (Mk. 13 : 3),. 6 eis t6v aypdv (Mk. 13 : 16), toTs ds rbv oIkov (Lu. 9 ; 61), ds ttiv ko'itijv daiv (Lu. 11 : 7), 'eyKaToKtbl/us ds q,Stiv (Ac 2 :27; cf. verse 31), rots eis iiaKpav (2 :39), eis xoM" — ovra (Ac. 8 : 23), kirtax^v XPovov eis T'fjV 'Aalav (Ac. 19 : 22), airodavetv els 'lepovaaMi/i (Ac. 21 : 13), eis 'P6)iJ,r]V fiapTvprjaai, (Ac. 23 : 11), Ttipdcdaj. CIS Kauraplav (Ac. 25 : 4), 6 uiv els tov koXtov (Jo. 1 : 18), oi rpeis eis TO h elaiv (1 Jo. 5:8), eis ^v cTrJTe (1 Pet. 5 : 12). Nor is this quite all.. In some MSS. in Mk. 2 : 1 we have eis oIkov 'eaTiv (NBDL 'ev oUcf). In Ac. 2 : 5 the MSS. vary between eis and h as in Mk. 10 : 10. Another instance is found in Eph. 3 : 16, KpaTaioid^vai els t6v iau avdptaTTov. Cf. Jo. 20 : 7; Mk. 13 : 9. But in iarrj els rb pkaov (Jo. 20 : 19, 26) we have motion, though tcrrj els tov aljiakdv (Jo. 21 : 4) is an example of rest. Jo. 17 : 23 is normal. In Mt. 10 : 41 f., eis 6voim irpocl>riTov {na£riTov, SiKaiov) one can see little dif- ference between eis and h. Certainly this is true of Mt. 12 : 41, lieTev&tiaav els Kripvyp,a 'Iiava, where it is absurd to take eis as ' into' or 'unto' or even 'to.' See also (rvviiynkvoi, els to 'eiibv ovojxaQAt. 18 : 20). 2. With Verbs of Motion. But the usual idiom with eis was undoubtedly with verbs of motion when the motion and the accusative case combined with eis ('in') to give the resultant meaning of 'into,' 'unto,' 'among,' 'to,' 'towards' or 'on,' 'upon,' according to the context. This is so common as to call for little illustration. As with kv so with eis, the noun itself gives the boundary or limit. So eis ttiv okiav (Mt. 2 : 11), eis to 6pos (5 : 1), eis TO irpaiTijipLov (27 : 27), els dakaaaav (17 : 27), els tov oxipavbv (Rev. 10 : 5), eis Wvri (Ac. 22 : 21), eis Treipaapov (Mt. 6 : 13), eis t6 Hvriiieiov (Jo. 11 : 38), eis ttiv b8bv (Mk. 11:8), eis tovs fiaffriTas (Lu. 6 : 20), eis TOVS Xi/o-Tos (Lu. 10 : 36), eis kXIvtiv (Rev. 2 : 22), eis TO de^ia (Jo. 21 :6), eis tj)!' Ke4>a\iiv (Mt. 27:30), eis rds ayKciKas (Lu. 2 : 28), eis iSkov Tbv Kbapav (Mk. 14 : 9), eis ipas (1 Th. 2:9). These examples fairly illustrate the variety in the use of eis with verbs of motion. For idea of ' among' see Jo. 21 : 23. It will be seen at once, if one consults the context in these passages, that the preposition does not of itself mean 'into' even with verbs of motion. That is indeed one of the resultant meanings among many others. The metaphorical uses do not differ in principle, such as ka-xurdri els Siio (Mt. 27: 51), avvayeiv els ev (Jo. 11: 52), eis TTIV ^wliv (Mt. 18 : 8), eis Kplaiv (Jo. 5 ; 24), eis viraKonv (2 Cor. 594 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 10 : 5), eis xetpas (Mt. 17 : 22), etc. For many interesting exam- ples of h and €ts see Theimer, Die Prdpositionen eis, kv, k im N. T., Beitrage zur Kenntnis des Sprachgebrauches im N. T., 1896. 3. With Expressions of Time. Here eis marks either the limit or accents the duration expressed by the accusative. Thus in 2 Tim. 1 : 12 we find 0uXd?ai eis kKeivriv rrjv fi/ikpav where 'until' suits as a translation (cf. 'against'). Cf. Ph. 1 : 10, eis wkpav XpLCTTov. Not quite so sharp a limit is eis riyv ai5ptoj' (Mt. 6 : 34). Cf. 1 Pet. 1 : 11. There is httle that is added by the preposition to the accusative in such examples as eis to /ikXKov (Lu. 13 : 9), eis Tou aiUva (Mt. 21 : 19), eis 7ei'eds Kal '^eveks (Lu. 1 : 50), eis t6 hvrfvtKes (Heb. 7:3), etc. Cf. Lu. 12 : 19. But a more definite period is set in cases like eis rov Kaipov (Lu. 1 : 20), eis to juera^i eis (Mt. 5 : 34 f.), t& avT6 eis dXX^Xous (Ro. 12 : 16), in.v Trvevfia /SXairc^T)- Hririna eis (Ac. 6:11), kinfiovKri eis (Ac. 23 : 30), anapTaveiv eis (Lu. 15 : 18), etc. As a matter of fact all that ets really accent- uates here is the accusative case (with reference to) which happens to be in a hostile atmosphere. But that is not true of such ex- amples as i]deTriv els xipcic yevr)v) ffirepAjara, 'for a loan.' Cf. our "to wife." Moulton (Prol., p. 67) cites M. Aurelius, VI, 42. * C. and S., p. 81. Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 143, citea an ex. from Theogn. 596 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the frequency that we find it in the LXX. Cf. Lu. 13 : 19. Blass* credits eis in iiraje eis ei/yfivrjv (Mk. 5 : 34) to the Hebrew through the LXX (cf. 1 Sam. 1 : 17). Cf. also eis Siarayas ayyk\cov (Ac. 7 : 53) where eis is much like kv. In general therefore, as with h so with eis we must hark back to first principles and work out to the resultant idea by means of the context and the history. 7. Compared with kirl, wapa and irpos. The growth in the use of eis is shown by its appearance where kirl or irpos would be ex- pected in the older Greek. Cf. 'ipxerai eis ttoXiv (Jo. 4 : 5), where the point is not 'into,' but 'to.' So 11 : 31, iirayei eis t6 fivrinelov. In 11 : 38 D has eiri, not eis. So in Mk. 3 : 7, avexi>priaev vpds rriv da\acravov k^ aKavOdv (Mt. 27:29), where the material is expressed by k^. 7. Cause or Occasion. Closely allied to the above is the notion of cause or occasion which may also be conveyed by k. Thus note TO e| ipSiv in Ro. 12 : 18, knac&vTo k tov ttovov (Rev. 16 : 10), diKaio£kvTas k iriaTeus (Ro. 5 : 1), k^ 'ipyuv (Gal. 3 : 10), k tov eiayyeXlov fflc (1 Cor. 9 : 14), k^ airdeveias (2 Cor. 13 : 4), k tov pa- fuava (Lu. 16 : 9). Cf. also airkdavov k tSiv {iSaTuv (Rev. 8 : 11). Perhaps here belongs kic\ripiidt] kK Trjs 6ap,rjs (Jo. 12 : 3). Cf. yepl^u iK in Jo. 6 : 13 (Abbott, Johannine Gr., p. 253). At any rate a > Joh. Gr., p. 251 f. PEEPOSiTiONS (npoeESEis) 599 number of verbs use 4/c in this general sense like dx^eXew (Mk. 7:11), ^riiiiovffdai (2 Cor. 7:9), ahiKeZadai (Rev. 2:11), xXout^w (Rev. 18 : 3), xoprafeffOat (Rev. 19 : 21), Kmik^w (Jo. 4 : 6), fau (Ro. 1 : 17), etc. Cf. tfi\aariiJ,i]ov anovaavm (Jo. 7:40), da.va.Ti}(Tovai.v k^ ifiSiv (Lu. 21 : 16), el avrSiv aTOKTevetTe (Mt. 23 : 34), ^kirovcriv k rSiv Xawi' (Rev. 11 : 9), Sltikovovv k tS>v {nrapxov'Ciiv (Lu. 8 : 3), 'e^ avTov <^d7jj (Jo. 6 : 50), k rov irvebfuiTos StSoiKev (1 Jo. 4 : 13), irlvojv k toD fiSaros (Jo. 4 : 13), oi8els e^ avruv (Jo. 17: 12), etc.^ In Heb. 13 : 10 it is what is on the altar that is eaten. The use of k with a class or for a side or position may as well be mentioned here also. Thus 6 oliv k t^s oKriOelas (Jo. 18 : 37), 01 k vd/iov (Ro. 4 : 14), 6 k iritxTeois (Ro. 3 : 26), ol k irepi- TOfirjs (Ac. 11 : 2), 01 k ipiJBias (Ro. 2 : 8), etc. The partisan use is allied closely to the partitive. Cf . Ph. 4 : 22 oi k tijs Kalaapos oIkIm. See further ch. XI, Cases. 9. 'E/c and k. A word in conclusion is needed about the so- called blending of k with iv. Blass' doubts if this classic idiom appears in the N. T. The passages that seem to have it are fiii KarafiaTU Spai to, k t?js ot/ctas avrov (Mt. 24 : 17) where k might in- deed have been employed, but k coincides in idea with apat. Cf . Mk. 13 : 15, where k does not have rd before it. In Lu. 11 : 13 6 Tarifp 6 i^ ovpavov Scixret irvevfia ayiov W. H. bracket 6 before i^, and with 6 the sending of the Holy Spirit by the Father has ' Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 145. 2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 100. ' lb., p. 258. Cf. also Field, Ot. Norv., Pars III, Mk. 5 : 30, on r^y k^ afrroO 600 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT caused 4| to displace kv which would otherwise have been regular. In Jo. 3 : 13 some MSS. add 6 Siv kv tQ ohpavi^ to 6 uids toO avOpiiirov, thus making Jesus in heaven at that moment when he was speak- ing to Nicodemus. In Col. 4 : 16, tijv Ik AaoSiKias, the e/c assumes, of course, that an Epistle had been sent to Laodicea, and suggests that the Colossians get it from (k) them. Cf . Ro. 3 : 25 f . for examples of 5td, h, eis, Trpos, k. See airo and irapa. (h) 'EirC. See Sanskrit dpi (locative case), Zend aipi, Latin 6b, Lithuanian pi. 1. Ground-Meaning. It is 'upon' as opposed to inro. It differs from mep in that kiri implies a real resting upon, not merely over.* But the very simplicity of this idea gives it a manifoldness of re- sultant uses true of no other preposition. Sometimes indeed in the causal and ethical usages the root-idea seems dim,^ but none the less it is there. The only safety consists in holding on to the root-idea and working out from that in each special context. It marks a delicate shade of difference from h, as is seen in dw ev oiipavQ K.a.1 'ei:l 7^s (Mt. 6 : 10). 2. In Composition in the N. T. It is very common, always re- taining the root-idea (cf. ijr-£v-5vca, 2 Cor.. 5 : 2), though sometimes the perfective idea is clear. Thus with iir-aLTkca in Lu. 16 : 3, kn- yiviiaKca in 1 Cor. 13 : 12,^ kiri-yvoxns in Col. 1 : 9, kn-reKku in 2 Cor. 8 : 11. 3. Frequency in N. T. In the N. T. eirl is still in constant use, though it ultimately dropped out of the vernacular* before kvavos. Note ?tos kirl buCK[oyi,(j]iu)%, P. Oxy. 294 (a.d. 22) like d^d els, etc. But in the N. T. it is the one preposition still used freely with more than two cases (ace. 464, gen. 216, dat. and loc. 176).* Most of the examples called dative in the lexicons and grammars are really locatives, but some of them are possibly true datives.' So then liri really has four cases still in the N. T. In Homer exi often stands alone for ^Tr-eori. Farrar, ' quoting Donaldson, finds in the locative with kirl the idea of absolute superposition, while the genitive expresses only partial superposition and the accusative implies motion with a view to superposition and the dative would be superposition for the interest of one. There is some truth in this distinction and the case-idea must always be observed. But » K.-G., I, p. 495. 2 lb. > a. Moulton, Prol., p. 113. * Jann., Hist. Gk. Gfr., p. 383; Mullach, Vulg., p. 381. fi Moulton, Prol., p. 107. B K.-G., I, p. 495; Delbnick, Grundl., p. 130; Vergl. Synt., I, p. 676 f. ' Greek Synt., p. 102. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEiz) 601 the growth of the accusative in the later language at the expense of the other cases caused some confusion in the usage according to the standard of the earlier Greek. Simcox^ considers it "al- most a matter of indifference" whether in the N. T. one uses locative, genitive or accusative. This is somewhat true, but even so it does not follow that there was no difference in the cases. The locative accentuated mere location, the genitive brought out rather the kind or genus, while the accusative would present the general idea of extension modified by the fact that the accusative tended to absorb the other cases without insisting on the distinct case- idea. Thus sometimes either case with hirl would give substan- tially the same idea, though technical differences did exist. For instance, in Ac. 5 : 9 note kwl tjJ Bvpq,, while in verse 23 we have hrl Tuv OvpGiv. So compare 677115 kmiv iirl dvpcus (Mk. 13 : 29) with 'iartiKa 'ml riiv dbpav (Rev. 3 : 20). Here the notion of rest exists with all three cases, though in Rev. 3 : 20 Kal /cpouw may have some effect on the presence of the accusative. Once more observe KoBicT'd kizl Opbvov and KoBiiffeade iwl ScoSe/co dpbvovs in Mt. 19 : 28. Rev. 4 : 2 gives us hrl rbv dpovov KoBiinevos, verse 9 (marg. of W. H., text of Nestle) 745 KaOriiiivcj} ixl tQ Bpbviff, while verse 10 has rov Kodrjuevov hi Tov dpovov, three cases with the same verb. It would be over- refinement to insist on too much distinction here. But the cases afford variety of construction at any rate. In Rev. 14 : 9 the single verb \afipavei has kirl tov iieTooirov avrov rj kirl rijv X'^P"- o-vtov (cf. Ac. 27 : 44). Compare also XWos irl WBov in Mt. 24 : 2 with \iBo$ hrl \Wif in Lu. 21 : 6. In Ph. 2 : 27 the MSS. vary between Xiirijc ki^l Xinrijv and Xuittjj' 'etrl \virji. Cf. also eir' 6X170 and 'eirl iroWiJov in Mt. 25 : 21. The use of Tnarevoi kirl with locative or accusative has already been discussed. The accusative suggests more the initial act of faith (intrust) while the locative implies that of state (trust). We find «is also used with this verb as well as dative (both common in John). Once we have irio-rei/o) kv (Mk. 1 : 15). See Moulton, Prol., p. 68. But, after all is said, the only practical way to study kirl is from the point of view of the cases which it supplements. 4. With the Accusative. As already noted, it is far in excess of the other cases combined. It is hardly necessary to make mi- nute subdivision of the accusative usage, though the preposition with this case follows the familiar lines. With expressions of place it is very common and very easy to understand. So k\Beiv kirl to. vdara (Mt. 14 : 28), TrepieTrarr/irei' krl ra vdara (14 : 29), avairecretv krl 1 Lang, of the N. T., p. 146. 602 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT rrjv yriv (Mt. 15 : 35), anbros kyevero kwl Traaav rrjv yrjv (Mt. 27 : 45), iropevov hrl rifv 686v (Ac. 8 : 26), eirk^aXov tos x"P«is eirl t6p 'Iijaovv (Mt. 26:50), avawtadiv 'eirl t6 (TTfjBoi (Jo. 13:25). The meta- phorical use is in. harmony with this idiom. Thus 6pos kTrknctv kir' avrdv (Lu. 1 : 12), Karkariiaas abrov kvl to, Ipya (Heb. 2:7), j3a- aiKthati kirl rbv oIkov (Lu. 1 : 33), tva kiruTKriviiaig kir' kuk ij Sbvafiis toO Xpio-ToO (2 Cor. 12 : 9). Cf. 2 Cor. 1 : 23, kinKa}Mvtxai kirl ttjv k/ifiv rpvxnv. But not all the accusative uses are so simple. In a case like Mt. 7 : 24, ^KoSoiiriaev kirl rriv itkrpav, some idea of motion may- be seen. But that is not true of Mt. 13 : 2, ttos 6 SxXos kirl t6v alyiaXdv lva (Ac. 10 : 17), kcj}' vficis avairaiierai (1 Pet. 4 : 14), KoXvfifia 'eirl rriv Kapb'iav KuraL (2 Cor. 3 : 15), icovrai. oKijBovaai 'en rb aiirb (Lu. 17: 35). Here it is hard to think of any idea of 'whither.'^ Sometimes indeed 'eir'i seems not to imply strictly 'upon,' but rather 'as far as.' So with epxovrat 'eirl rb ixvinxttov (Mk. 16 : 2), mrk^riaav kirl Trjv OaKaccav (Jo. 6 : 16), ^XSov 'eiri tl vSbip (Ac. 8 : 36). The aim or purpose is sometimes expressed by 'eiri, as 'erl rb ^aitTiaixa (Mt. 3 : 7), 4<^' 6 irdpet (Mt. 26 : 50). It may express one's emotions as with inaTevia 'tirl (Ro. 4 : 24), ^Xirifco 'tirl (1 Pet. 1 : 13), .ayxvi^onaL km (Mt. 15 : 32). Cf. ^<^' ov yeybvei in Ac. 4 : 22 and the general use of kiri in Mk. 9 : 12 y'eypairTai kirl rbv vlbv Tov avdpcoTov. In personal relations hostility is sometimes sug- gested, though 'eirl in itself does not mean 'against.' Thus cos 'eirl \QiJTiiv 'e^iiKBoLTe (Mt. 26 : 55). In Mt. 12 : 26 k4>' eavrbv kp.epiaeri is used side by side with fiepicdeZca koS' iavrrjs in the preceding verse. Cf. also Mk. 3 : 26, etc. Abbott^ notes that John shows this usage only once (19 :33). For 'evL with the idea of degree or measure see k(j>' otrov (Ro. 11 : 13). Cf. kwl rb airS in the sense of 'all together' (Ac. 1 : 15). With expressions of time kirl may merely fill out the accusative, as with kirl irri rpia (Lu. 4 : 25, marg. of W. H.), krl rifikpas ir\elovs (Ac. 13 : 31), ktj)' oaov xP°vov (Ro. 7:1), or a more definite period may be indicated, as with 'eirl T'^v Sipav rrjs xpocreux^s (Ac. 3 : 1),' eiri riiv aipiov (Lu. 10 : 35). It is common with adverbs like 'e4>' aira^, 'eirl rpLs, etc. 5. With the Genitive. The genitive with kirl has likewise a wide range of usages. Usually the simple meaning 'upon' sat- » Blaas, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 136. For LXX ex. of rest see C. and S., p. 85. " Joh. Gr., p. 259. • A postclassical usage, Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 147. PREPOSITIONS (nPOGESEIs) 603 isfies all requirements, as in kirl kKIvtis (Mt. 9:2), k' ov ^ko56ij,i]to (Lu. 4 : 29), Krjpi/^are kirl rSiv Sosnaroiv (Mt. 10 : 27), kpxSfievop eirl v&^tKSiV (Mt. 24 : 30), W'i)Kev'eirl tov aravpov (Jo. 19 : 19), KaJBivas kirl Tov fii]p,aTO% (Ac. 12 : 21), km rrjs KecjjoKfjs (Jo. 20 : 7), eirl rrjs daM.aa7]s (Rev. 5 : 13), h-l ?6Xou (Ac. 5 : 30). In Mk. 12 : 26, kvi tov ^arov, an ellipsis in thought occurs in the passage about the bush. Sometimes, indeed, as with the accusative, so with^the genitive, 'eiri has the idea of vicinity, where the word itself with which it is used has a wide meaning. Thus in Jo. 21 : 1 kwl tjJs BaSAaarjs seems to mean ' on the sea-shore,' and so ' by the sea.' So with M tjJs dSov (Mt. 21 : 19), the fig-tree being not on the path, but on the edge of the road. Abbott^ notes how Matthew (14 : 25 f.) has hrl Tr/v QaKaaaav which is not ambiguous like the genitive in Jo. 6 : 19. Cf. Ac. 5 : 23 k-wl tS>v dvpwv. The classic idiom with kxl and the genitive in the sense of 'towards' is not so common in the N. T., though it has not quite disappeared as Simcox^ thinks. Cf. ijevero rd irXoiov iwl tijs yrjs (Jo. 6 : 21), KoBiknevov eTrt tiJs 7^s (Ac. 10 : 11), jSaXoCaa to fivpov irl tov (riifuiTOS (Mt. 26 : 12), hriirTev 'ewi t^s 7^s (Mk. 14 : 35), yevop.evos hrl tov tottov (Lu. 22 : 40), t6v hr' aiTrjs ipx&fiivov (Heb. 6:7), Tecrdiv kirl Trjs yfji (Mk. 9 : 20). In these ex- amples we see just the opposite tendency to the use of the accusa- tive Avith verbs of rest. Cf. xeaeiTat kwl ttjv yrjv (Mt. 10 : 29) with Mk. 9 : 20 above and PaKeiv kirl ttiv yrjv (Mt. 10 : 34) with Mk. 4 : 26. With persons eiri and the genitive may yield the resultant meaning of 'before' or 'in the presence of.' Thus eirl ijyefwvtav (Mk. 13 : 9), Kpiveadai kirl tS>v abUciiv (1 Cor. 6:1), krds d firi kirl dio 7] TpiSiv fiapTipccv (1 Tim. 5 : 19), kirl ILoutLov IleiXdroii (1 Tim. 6 : 13), kirl aov (Ac. 23 : 30), kir' k/wv (25 : 9). Blass' observes how in Ac. 25 : 10 eo-ris kirl tov ^ijnaTos Kaio-apos the meaning is 'before,' while in verse 17 the usual idea 'upon' is alone present {icaBiaas kirl TOV p^fmTos). Cf. kwl TUtov in 2 Cor. 7: 14. With expressions of' time the result is much the same. Thus kx' kcxaTov tuv xpovcav (1 Pet. 1:20) where kwl naturally occurs (cf. Ju. 18). With kirl tS>v irpocrevxuiv fiov (Ro. 1 : 10) we have period of prayer denoted simply by kwi. Cf. eireuxo/ioi kiri (Magical papyrus, Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 252). There is no difficulty about kirl t^s juerot- Ktffias (Mt. 1 : 11). With persons a fuller exposition is required, since kirl KXavdlov (Ac. 11:28) is tantamount to 'in the time of Claudius' or 'during the reign of Claudius.' Cf. also ewl apxi-epkois "kvva (Lu. 3 : 2), kirl 'EXio-atou (4 : 27), kitl 'AfiiajBap apx^epkccs (Mk. » Joh. Gr., p. 261. ' Lang, of the N. T., p. 147. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 137. 604 A GRAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 2 : 26). Cf. eir' aiTTjs in Heb. 7:11, The idea of basis is a natural metaphor as in kir' aXrjdeias (Lu. 4 : 25), o kiroiei kirl tS>v atrdevoivTuv (Jo. 6 : 2), dis eiri iroWSiv (Gal. 3 : 16), kirl (ttS/mtos (Mt. 18 : 16). One of the metaphorical uses is with the resultant idea of ' over,' growing naturally out of 'upon.'^ Thus /caTatrr^trei eirl ttjs depaireias (Lu. 12 : 42), though in Mt. 25 : 21, 23 both genitive and accusal tive occur. Cf. also ^acriXeiav hrl tSiv ^aaCKkuv (Rev. 17 : 18), b C>v - kirl iravTosv (E,o. 9 : 5), etc. 6. With the Locative. Here Ixi is more simple, though still with a variety of resultant ideas. Blass^ observes that with the purely local sense the genitive and accusative uses outnumber the locative with ewL But still some occur like iirl ir'ivaKi (Mt. 14 : 8), hwl r% irriy^ (Jo. 4:6), hrl lixarica irdkauf (Mt. 9 : 16), eirl raiiTjj tjj ■wkTpq. oiKoSofiiiffu (Mt. 16 : 18; cf. some MSS. in Mk. 2 : 4, 4' V KarkeiTo), kwl rois Kpa^arTOts (Mk. 6 : 55), kwl tQ xoprc^ (Mk. 6 : 39), 'fK' kpriiMis TOTTOts (Mk. 1:45), ^irketTO ex' airQ (Jo. 11:38), kwl aaviaiv (Ac. 27 : 44; cf. also kiri rivcav). In Lu. 23 : 38, eTnypafi kw' avrQ, the resultant idea is rather that of 'over,' Mt. 27 : 37 having kiravoi rrjs Ke(j)a.\fis avrov. As with the accusative and genitive, so with the locative the idea of contiguity sometimes appears, as in kirl diipais (Mt. 24 : 33), kirl ry irpo^aTLKy (Jo. 5 : 2), kwl rg (TTOq, (Ac. 3 : 11). Here the wider meaning of the substantive makes this result possible. Cf. also kirl tQ woranQ (Rev. 9 : 14). 'Exl is used very sparingly with the locative in expressions of time. Cf. kwl (TvvTeKela tSiv ai6}v(i>v (Heb. 9 : 26). The use of kirl izkaxi rg ixvtlii, vfiSiv (Ph. 1 : 3), oil avviJKOLV kirl rots fiprois (Mk. 6 : 52), Oepi^uv ext e6Xo7tats (2 Cor. 9 : 6) wavers between occasion and time. Cf. also kirl rg xpc!)T2j Staffi^Kj; (Heb. 9 : 15). The notion of kirl rpurlv p.a,p- Tvaiv (Heb. 10 : 28) is rather 'before,' 'in the presence of.' Cf. kirl v&ipdts (Heb. 9 : 17). All these developments admit of satis- ' factory explanation from the root-idea of kirl, the locative case and the context. There are still other metaphorical applica- tions of kiri. Thus in Mt. 24 : 47, kirl iraaiv, ' over' is the resul- tant meaning. So also in Lu. 12 : 44 krl rots virdpxovai,. The notion of basis is involved in ex' apnf /xovu in Mt. 4 : 4, brl ri^ pi]p,aTi (Tov in Lu. 5 : 5, ekeixrovTai kirl t& ovofMri pov in Mt. 24 : 5, ^x' eXxiSt in Ac. 2 : 26, etc. Ground or occasion likewise may be conveyed by krl. Thus note exi toIjtoi in Jo. 4 : 27 and in particular k' ^ k4>poviiTe (Ph. 4 : 10) where 'whereon' is the simple idea. See 1 For iirl ToO 'Eitpykrov in Prol. to Sirach see Deiss., B. S., p. 339 f. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 137. PKEPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 605 also kirl vapopyLanQ vn&v (Eph. 4 : 26), cf. 2 Cor. 9 : 15. The idea of aim or purpose seems to come in cases like hrl epyois &yaBoLs (Eph. 2 : 10), 60' ^ Kal KOiTiXiiii^eriv (Ph. 3 : 12). Note also Gal. 5 : 13, 'eir' eXevdepiti,; 1 Th. 4 : 7, oiiK iir' aKoBapaiq. (cf. kv ayiaa/iif), 'ewl Karaa-rpocjifj (2 Tim. 2:14). Cf. 'er' kXevOeplai, inscr. at Delphi ii/B.c. (Deissm., Idght, p. 327). The notion of model is involved in kAXow eirl tQ bvopjo-Ti (Lu. 1 : 59) and kwl tQ bfutiiiixaTL (Ro. 5 : 14). Many verbs of emotion use 'ewi with the locative, as ^xf'P*" kirl iraai (Lu. 13 : 17), davpA^ovres kwi (Lu. 2 : 33), etc. But some of the examples with these verbs may be real datives, as is possibly the case with the notion of addition to, like irpoaWriKep Kal tovto hrl T&aiv (Lu. 3 : 20). 7. The True Dative. As we have seen, it was probably some- times used with kxl. The N. T. examples do not seem to be very " numerous, and yet some occur. So I would explain Sta rriv iirep- P&Wovaav xapLv tov 6eov kav(f (Ac. 11 : 19). Here the personal relation seems to suit the dative conception better than the locative. The notion of addition to may also be dative. Cf. Lu. 3 : 20 above and Col. 3: 14, kwl iraatv M to{)toi.s; Heb. 8: 1, kirl rois Xero/ilvow. In Eph. 6 : 16 the best MSS. have kv. It is possible also to regard the use of kirl for aim or purpose as having the true dative as in 1 Th. 4 : 7. (i) Kard. There is doubt about the etymology of this prepo- sition. In tmesis it appears as mra, and in Arcadian and Cypriote Greek it has the form Karv. It is probably in the instrumental case,' but an apparently dative form /carat survives a few times. Brugmann^ compares it with Old Irish (xt, Cymric cant, Latin com-, though this is not absolutely certain. 1. Root-Meaning. Brugmann' thinks that the root-meaning of the preposition is not perfectly clear, though ' down' (cf . ava) seems to be the idea. The difficulty arises from the fact that we 1 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 342. ' Griech. Gr., p. 443. Cf. also Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 759 f. » lb. 606 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT sometimes find the ablative case used when the result is doum from, then the genitive down upon, and the accusative donim along. But 'down' (cf. KotTw) seems always to be the only idea of the preposi- tion in itself. In the N. T. three cases occur with /card. 2. Distributive Sense. Kara came to be used in the distribu- tive sense with the nominative, like dvd and avv, but chiefly as adverb and not as preposition.^ Hence this usage is not to be credited to the real prepositional idiom. Late Greek writers have it. So els Kara eh in Mk. 14 : 19 (and the spurious Jo. 8 : 9), TO KoB' eh in Ro. 12 : 5. The modern Greek uses Kadeh or Koudems as a distributive pronoun.^ Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 138 f., considers also els kojB' kao-ros (A Lev. 25 : 10) merely the adverbial use of Kara. But see Kad' eva in 1 Cor. 14 : 31, Kara Si eoprriv (Mt. 27 : 15). 3. Kard in Composition. It is true to the root-idea of 'down,' like KariPr} in Mt. 7 : 25, Karayayelv in Ro. 10 : 6. But the various metaphorical uses occur also in composition. Often Kara occurs with "perfective" force.' So, for instance, observe naTaprlaei. (1 Pet. 5 : 10), KarriyoiviaauTo (Heb. 11 : 33), KaredUo^ev (Mk. 1 : 36), KaradovXal (2 Cor. 11 : 20), KaraKavcrei (Mt. 3 : 12), KaraubBere (Mt. 6 : 28), KaTavoriaare (Lu. 12 : 24), Karkiravcav (Ac. 14 : 18), /toTa- irivovTes (Mt. 23 : 24), KaraaKevacei (Mk. 1:2), Karepya^ecrde (Ph. 2 : 12), KaT'e4>ayev (Mt. 13 : 4), KoBoparai (Ro. 1 : 20). This preposi- tion vies with 5td and cr6i' in the perfective sense. Karexw in Ro. 1 : 18 is well illustrated by 6 Karexwi' top Bv/wv from an ostracon (Deissmann, Light, p. 308). In the magical texts it means to 'cripple' or to 'bind,' 'hold fast.' But in Mk. 14 : 45, KaT€<^tXT/o-e, the preposition seems to be weakened, though the A. S.V. puts "kissed him much" in the margin. Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., Nov., 1907, p. 220. 4. With the Ablative. This construction is recognised by Brug- mann,* Monro,* Kiihner-Gerth,^ Delbriick.' There are some ex- amples of the ablative in the N. T., where 'down' and 'from' combine to make ' down from.' Thus, for instance, is to be ex- plained i^oKev Kar' aiirijs ave/ws TVriTe{iw» KOTO /ce^aX^s exuv, we have 'down from' again, the veil hanging ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 178. » Horn. Gr., p. 145. 2 lb.; Moulton, Prol., p. 105. « I, p. 475. ' Cf. ib., pp. 115 ff. ' Vergl. Synt., I, p. 760. < Grieoh. Gr., p. 443. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 607 down from the head. In Mk. 5 : 13 we find Sipfiijaev 17 0171X17 koto ToD Kfninvov (cf. Mt. 8 : 32; Lu. 8 : 33) where 'down from the cliff' is again the idea. 5. With the Genitive. It is more usual with kotA than the abla- tive in the N. T. as in the earUer Greek.^ The idea is ' down upon,' the genitive merely accenting the person or thing affected. A good example of this sense in composition followed by the genitive appears in /coTo/cupieio-os aiioTtpo}v (Ac. 19 : 16). Some MSS. in Mk. 14 : 3 have koto with rrjs k£oX^s, but without it Karkxitv means 'pour down on' the head. In 2 Cor. 8 : 2, ij koto ^adovs TTwxeio, the idea is 'down to' depth. But with the genitive the other examples in the N. T. have as resultant meanings either 'against,' 'throughout' or 'by.' These notions come from the original 'down.' Luke alone uses 'throughout' with the geni- tive and always with oXos. The earlier Greek had. kojB' SXou (also alone in Luke in the N. T., Ac. 4 : 18), though Polybius employed koto in this sense. Cf. in Lu. 4 : 14 kojB' oXijs ttjs irepi- xi>pov; Ac. 9 : 31 KoJd' oXt/s rijs 'lovdaias (so 9 : 42; 10 : 37). The older Greek would have used the accusative in such cases. But cf. Polyb. iii, 19, 7, koto ttjs vijoov diecTapijcav. The notion of 'against' is also more common^ in the kolvti. But in the modem Greek vernacular koto (ko) is confined to the notions of 'toward' and 'according to,' having lost the old ideas of 'down' and 'against' (Thumb, Handb., p. 105 f.). Certainly the preposition does not mean 'against.' That comes out of the context when two hostile parties are brought together. Cf . English vernacular "down on" one. This koto then is 'down upon' rather literally where* the Attic usually had kwl and accusative.' Among many examples note koto rod Ttjo-oO fxaprvpiav (Mk. 14 : 55), vvfKJirjv koto Tivdepas (Mt. 10 : 35), KOTO Tov irvebfiaros (Mt. 12 : 32), koto tov UoiiXou (Ac. 24 : 1), etc. Cf. Ro. 8 : 33. Sometimes liera and koto are contrasted (Mt. 12 : 30) or koto and iirkp (Lu. 9 : 50; 1 Cor. 4:6). The other use of koto and the genitive is with verbs of swearing. The idea is perhaps that the hand is placed down on the thing by which the oath is taken. But in the N. T. God him- self is used in the solemn oath. So Mt. 26 : 63, k^opd^co ae koto tov 6eov. Cf. Heb. 6 : 13, 16. In 1 Cor. 15 : 15 kp.apTupi)aap.ev Kara toD 6eov may be taken in this sense or as meaning 'against.' 6. With the Accusative. But the great majority of examples 1 Delbriiok, ib., p. 761. 2 Jebb, in V. and D., Handb., etc., p. 313. » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 133. 608 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT in the N. T. use the accusative. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 116) notes the frequency of the accusative in the papyri where irepi would appear in the older Greek. Farrar^ suggests that Kara with the genitive (or ablative) is perpendicular ('down on' or 'down from') while with the accusative it is horizontal ('down along'). Curiously enough John has only some ten . instances of Kari. and several of them, are doubtful.^ On the whole, the N. T. use of the accusative with Kara corresponds pretty closely to the classic idiom. With a general horizontal plane to work from a number of metaphorical usages occur. But it appears freely in local expres- sions Uke aTrjXOe Kad' oXriv rijv Tr6\ivKripi>(r{)ft.T\v (1 Cor. 7:6), etc. Various resultant ideas come out of different connec- tions. There is no reason to call kotci Traaav airlav (Mt. 19 : 3) and Kara ayvoLav (Ac. 3 : 17) bad Greek. If there is the idea of cause here, so in 1 Tim. 6 : 3, Kar ehak^uav, the notion of tend- ency or aim appears. We must not try to square every detail in the development of koto or any Greek preposition with our translation of the context nor with classic usage, for the N. T. is written in the kolvt). This preposition is specially common in Acts and Hebrews. Kar' ibiav (Mt. 14 : 13) is adverbial. But Kara irpbcoiirov iS not a mere Hebraism, since the pap3rri have it (Deissmann, Bihle Studies, p. 140). As a sample of the doubling up of prepositions note avuen-karri Kar' ai)Tuv (Ac. 16 : 22). (j) M€Td. Most probably juerd has the same root as iJ.kao%, Latin medius, German mit {mi&i), Gothic mip, English mid (cf. a-mid). Some scholars indeed connect it with a/xa and German samt. But the other view is reasonably certain. The modem Greek uses ' a shortened form fik, which was indeed in early vernacular use.^ Some of the Greek dialects use ireSa. So the Lesbian, Boeotian, Arcadian, etc. Mero, seems to be in the instrumental case.' 1. TheRootr-Meaning. It is ('mid') 'midst.' This simple idea lies behind the later developments. Cf. iiera^ii and kvaixtaa. We see the root-idea plainly in /ieTecoptfco (from ner-icapos, in 'mid-air'). In the N. T. we have a metaphorical example (Lu. 12 : 29) which is inteUigible now in the day of aeroplanes and dirigible balloons. The root-idea is manifest also in ukr-uiTov (Rev. 7:3), 'the space between the eyes.' 2. In Composition. The later resultant meanings predominate in composition such as "with" in lieTaSiScofju. (Ro. 12 : 8), fieroKafi- /Sapo) (Ac. 2 : 46), neHx'^ (1 Cor. 10 : 30); "after" in neTairkinrw (Ac; 10 : 5) ; or, as is usually the case, the notion of change or transfer is the result as with fiedia-TrjuL (1 Cor. 13 : 2), fieraPalvu (Mt. 8 : 34), fieTaiwptjtooi (Ro. 12:2), fieTafik\ofmi, (Mt. 27:3), neravokw (Mt. 3:2). 3. Compared with civ. Mera is less frequent in composition than ' lb. ' Jann., Hist. Gr. Gk., p. 388; Hatz., Einl., p. 163. ' GUes, Comp. PhUol., p. 342. A 610 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT aiiv, though far more common as a preposition. Simcox' thinks that it is useless to elaborate any distinction in meaning between fieri, and aiiv. The older grammars held that v av6p6)ir(iiv (Rev. 21 : 3), /ierct duiiyfuiov (Mk. 10 : 30), e/iL^ev UtTOL T&v dvauxiv (Lu. 13 : 1), otvov fierA. xoXiJs (Mt. 27 : 34). It is not far from this idea to that of conversation as in tier a yvvaiKds k\a\eL (Jo. 4 : 27), and general fellowship as with elptjvevm (Ro. 12 : 18), avfi4>t>>veu (Mt. 20 : 2), koivccv'mv exu (1 Jo. 1 : 3), (rvvaipco "Koyov (Mt. 18 : 23), etc. Perhaps the most frequent use of fiera is with the idea of accompaniment. So with &K6\ov6kw (Lu. 9 : 49), Xa/i- fiavco (Mt. 25 : 3), TrapoKafifiavw (Mt. 12 : 45), epxo/iai- (Mk. 1 : 29), ivaxupkco (Mk. 3:7), etc. Cf. Mt. 27 : 66. So with eliii (Mk. 3 : 14), but sometimes the notion of help or aid is added as in Jo. 3:2; 8 : 29, etc. Cf. also ^ xap« /*e6' vfuiv (Ro. 16 : 20) and often. The notion of fellowship may develop into that of followers or partisans as in Mt. 12 : 30. Sometimes the phrase ol p^r' avrov with the participle (Jo. 9 : 40) or without (Mt. 12 : 4) means one's attendants or followers (companions). The idea of accompani- ment also occurs with things as in i^Xdare p.€Ta paxaipSiv (Lu. 22 : 52), p,fTa. rS>v \ap,iraScav (Mt. 25 : 4), pera CTaXirLyyos (Mt. 24:31), IMerd. Ppaxlovos u^tjXoO (Ac. 13 : 17), some of which approach the instnunental idea. Cf. p^ra errtdiffeus tuv xeipwy (1 Tim. 4 : 14), where the idea is rather 'simultaneous with,' but see pera opKov (Mt. 14 : 7), pera (jxavrjs peyaXris (Lu. 17: 15). Still in all these cases accompaniment is the dominant note. See also pt}5kv{d) LirokiKvardaL tuv fiera (rirov ('in the com service'), B.U. 27 (ii/A.D.). Certainly it is not a Hebraism in Lu. 1 : 58, for Moulton {Prol., p. 246) can cite A.P. 135 (ii/A.D.) rl 8.i fipeZv awkpi] pera tuv apxovToiv; In later Greek the instrumental use comes to be common with p^To. (cf. English "with").' In Lu. 10 : 37 6 iroiriaas ro gXeos per' ai- rov Debrunner (Blass-Deb., p. 134) sees a Hebraism. But see Herm. S. V. 1, 1, k-Kolifat per' kpov. The metaphorical use for the idea of accompaniment occurs also like- pera dwapeu^ Kal 36^s (Mt. 24:30), pera poveca the no- tion is rather 'to be beside one's self,' 'out of mind.' Cf. also irapa- itItttu in Heb. 6 : 6, found in the ostraca (Wilcken, i. 78 f.) as a commercial word 'to fall below par.' For irapevoT(\eiv (Ac. 15 : 19) see irapevoxKeiv ijiias, P. Tb. 36 (ii/s.c). Ilapd occurs in the N. T. with three cases. The locative has 50 examples, the accusative 60, the ablative 78.* > K.-G., I, p. 509. ' Thumb., Handb., p. 102. ' Delbriick, Die Grundl., p. 130. * Moulton, Prol., p. 106. 614 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 4. With the Locative. IlapA with the locative is nearly confined to persons. Only one other example appears, i(TTriKet,(7av irapa tQ ffravpQ (Jo. 19 : 25). This confining of xapci to persons is like the usual Greek idiom, though Homer i used it freely with both. Homer used it also as an adverb and in the shortened form ir&p. The only instance in the N. T. of the locative with irapA after a verb of motion is in Lu. 9 : 47, iarriaev ahrh irap' eavrc^, though here D reads iavrov. The locative with irafia leaves the etymological idea unchanged so that we see the preposition in its simplest usage. Cf. 8v airkXeiirov irapa KapTrcji (2 Tim. 4 : 13) as a typical example of the use with persons which is much like apud in Latin, 'at one's house' (Jo. 1:40), 'in his society,' etc. So KaTaKvl, 'on both sides'). Cf. irepii (Ac. 5 : 16), where the root- idea is manifest. Cf. Latin drcum, circa. The preposition has indeed a manifold development,^ but after all the root-idea is plainer always than with some of the other prepositions. The N. T. examples chiefly (but cf. Ac. 28 : 7) concern persons and things, though even in the metaphorical uses the notion of ' around' is present. 2. In Composition. The idea of 'around' in the literal local sense is abundant. Cf . irepiijyev (Mt. 4 : 23), irepiao-rpa^at (Ac. 22 : 6), TTipiecToiTa (Jo. 11 : 42), TrepieSpapov (Mk. 6 : 65), irepi^kpuv (Mk. 6 : 55), irepL-ipxofmi (Ac. 19 : 13), ^paypiv avrQ wepiWriKev (Mt.- 21 : 33). In wept.-TraTeoi (Mt. 9 : 5) irepi has nearly lost its special force, while in wepcepya^ofikvovs (2 Th. 3 : 11) the whole point lies in the preposition. Note in Mk. 3 : 34, ir€pi.-^epap.ivos tovs irepl aiirbv kvkKc^ Kadrjiievovs, where k6kXc[) explains xepi already twice ex- pressed. Cf. also TepL-KUKhixTovciv (re (Lu. 19:43). The perfective idea of irepl in composition is manifest in irepi-eKtZv anaprlas (Heb. 10 : 11), 'to take away altogether.' Cf. vepi-a^avTuv TrDp h iikatf t^s ouX^s (Lu. 22 : 55), where note the addition of xept to kv ukau. In Mk. 14:65 irepL-KoKlnrTW means 'to cover all round,' 'to cover up,' like irepi-KpvTTO} in Lu. 1 : 24. This is the "perfective" sense. Cf. irepl-XvTTos inMt. 26 : 38. Per contra note TrepLepyos (1 Tim. 5 : 13) for 'busybody,' busy about trifles and not about important mat- ters. In 1 Tim. 6 : 10 note Tepikreipav in the sense of 'pierced through.' But in 2 Cor. 3 : 16, xepiatpttToi, 'the veil is removed from around the head.' 3. Originally Four Cases Used. These were the locative, ac- cusative, genitive, ablative. The locative was never common in prose and died out in the late Greek, not appearing in the N. T. Delbriick' is very positive about the ablative in some examples in Homer and the earlier Greek. Indeed he thinks that the true genitive' is a later development after the ablative with irepi. I think it probable that some of these ablative examples survive in the N. T., though I do not stress the point.* 4. With the Ablative. There is some doubt as to how to explain 1 K.-G., I, p. 491. ' Brug., Griech. Gr.) p. 447. » Die Grundl., p. 131 f.; Vergl. Synt., I, p. 711 f. ' Cf. also Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 447. 618 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the ablative with irepL In Homer' it is usually explained as like ablative of comparison. Cf. mrip. Thus trepi is taken in the sense of 'beyond' or 'over,' and is allied to -rkpa (irkpav) and iirkp, ac- cording to the original sense. ^ Brugmann' cites also ■n-epkitu and irepi-yiyvoiJMi where the notion of superiority comes in. With this compare irepiKparus yevkaBat t^s aKatfytis (Ac. 27: 16), which would thus have the ablative in ctko^s. But Monro* admits that the origin of this notion with wept is not quite clear. On the other hand, the use of irepi in composition may throw light on the subject. In 2 Cor. 3 : 16, irepi-aipetTai to /caXv/^jua, 'the veil is taken from around.' Cf . also Ac. 27 : 20. The same notion occurs in irepL-KaJBapua (1 Cor. 4 : 13) and 7repi\^ij/ta (i6.), 'off-scour- ing' and 'off -scraping.' The same idea of from around occurs in irepL-pfi^avres rd t/idrta (Ac. 16 : 22; cf. 2 Mace. 4 : 38). In Lu. 10 : 40 this idea appears in a metaphorical sense with irepitcriraTo, 'drawn away' or 'from around,' 'distracted.' See xepwrirai, P. Brit. M. 42 (b.c. 168) for 'occupy.' Cf. also the notion of beyond in ireplepyos (1 Tim, 5 : 13), TreptXetxw (1 Th. 4 : 15), ireptnevoi (Ac. 1 : 4), irepuivcnos (Tit. 2 : 14), irtpwaeixa (Jo. 6 : 12), irepto-ffos (Mt. 5 : 37). In the last example, to irepurabv ToiTuv, note the ablative. There remains a group of passages of a metaphorical nature where the idea is that of taking something away. These may be explained as ablatives rather than genitives. So in Ro. 8 : 3, Trept d/iaprtas, the idea is that we may be freed from sin, from around sin. Thayer (under irepi) explains this usage as "purpose for removing something or taking it away." This, of course, is an ablative idea, but even so we get it rather indirectly with inpL See XpitTTos oTraf irepl afiapTiSiv a.Trkdava> in 1 Pet. 3 : 18. It is worth observing that in Gal. 1 : 4 W. H. read virkp rather than irepl, while in Heb. 5 : 3 W. H. have itepl rather than inrkp. Cf. Mk. 14 : 24. In Eph. 6 : 18 f . we have beijaei, irepl iravTcov tS>v ayuav, Kal inrip iiMv, where the two prepositions differ very httle. But in 1 Pet. 3 : 18 (see above), bwip adlKcov, the distinction is clearer. Cf. Jo. 16 : 26; 17 : 9. See Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 152 f . D has iwkp with eKxvvponevou in Mt. 26 : 28 rather than trepL Cf. Blass, Gr. ofN. T. Gk., p. 134. Cf. Trept with iXo(rjtt6s in 1 Jo. 2 : 2. The ablative with iiTep renders more probable this ablative use of irepl. 5. With the Genitive. This is the common case with irepl in the 1 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 133; Sterrett, The Dial, of Horn, in Horn. II., N 47. ' Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 714. Cf. wepairipu, Ac. 19 : 39. ' Griech. Gr., p. 448. Cf. Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 476. « Horn. Gr., p. 138. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 619 N. T. If the genitive and ablative examples are counted together (the real ablatives are certainly few) they number 291 as against 38 accusatives.' But in the later Greek the accusative gradually drives out the genitive (with the help of Std also)." The genitive was always rare with xepi in the local or temporal sense. The N. T. shows no example of this usage outside of composition (Ac. 25 : 7), unless in Ac. 25 : 18 xept ov be taken with ffTadevres, which is doubtful.' Curiously enough the Gospel of John has the genitive with irepl almost as often as all the Synoptic writers and the accu- sative not at all in the critical text, Jo. 11 : 19 reading Trpds ri/v Mdpdav.* This frequency in John is due largely to the abundant use of iMpTvpkci), \^cii, \a\ko, ypattxii, etc. Cf. Jo. 1 : 7, 22; 7 : 13, 17, etc. Ilepi may occur with almost any verb where the notion of 'about,' 'concerning' is natural, Uke kcrir\ayxvlSivTa (Xen. Anab. 7, 4, 16), where the idea is 'Paul and his companions.' ' But in a case hke ol irepl avrbv (Lu. 22 : 49) the phrase has only its natural significance, 'those about him.' The still further development of this phrase for the person or persons named alone, like the vernacular "you all" in the Southern States for a single person, appears in some MSS. for Jo. 11 : 19, irpbs rds TrepZ yiapdav Kal Mapiav, where only Martha and Mary are meant,^ the critical text being Trpos tt]v M.apBav. Blass' "notes that only with the Philippian Epistle (2 : 23, to. irepl kfik) did Paul begin the use of the accusative with Trepi (cf. genitive) in the sense of 'con- cerning,' like Plato. Cf. in the Pastoral Epistles, irepl t^^v irianv (1 Tim. 1: 19), Trepi ttiv ak-qdeiav (2 Tim. 2: 18). But Luke (10: 40 f.) has it already. Cf. Trepi ra roiavra (Ac. 19: 25). But KiDcXtj) in the LXX, as in the Kotvii, is also taking the place of Trepi (Thack- eray, Gr., p. 25). 'Afut>i could not stand before irepi, and finally Trepi itself went down. The entrance of iiirep into the field of Trepi will call for notice later. (m) Ilpd. Cf. the Sanskrit prd and the Zend /ra, Gothic /ra, Lithuanian pra, Latin pro, German /wr, vor, Enghsh/or-(/or-ward), fore (/ore-front). The case of Trpo is not known, though it occurs a few times in Homer as an adverb.^ Cf. dx6 and inro. The Latin prod is probably remodelled from an old *pro like an abla- tive, as prae is dative (or locative). 1. Tfie Original Meaning. It is therefore plain enough. It is simply 'fore,' 'before.' It is rather more general in idea than avH and has a more varied development.' In xp6 rrjs dhpas (Ac. 12 : 6) the simple idea is clear. 2. In Composition. It is common also in composition, as in Tpo-ai\iov (Mk. 14 : 68), 'fore-court.' Other uses in composition grow out of this idea of 'fore,' as irpo-fiaivea (Mt. 4 : 21), 'to go on' ('for-wards'), irpo-KoirTu (Gal. 1 : 14), irpo-ayu (Mk. 11:9; cf. Ako- 'Kovetio in contrast), Trpo-SjjXos (1 Tim. 5 : 24), 'openly manifest,' » W.-Th., p. 406. 3 lb. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 134. ■> Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 149. 5 K.-G., I, p. 454. Cf. Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 716. PREPOSITIONS (nPOGESEIs) 621 'before all' (cf. Gal.3: 1, irpo-eyp&.v (Jas. 5:9), irpo rod TTuXcoyos (Ac. 12 : 14), irpd T^s TToXecos (14 : 13). Cf. 'ep.Tpov tov xa Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 449. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 149. Cf . Delbruck, Die Gnmdl., p. 132. The inscr. show the loc. also. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 393. ' Griech. Gr., p. 449. * Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 393. 5 a. Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 722. 622 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Jannaris' attributes this common idiom in the late Greek writers to the prevalence of the Roman system of dating. This has been the common explanation. But Moulton ' throws doubt on this "plausible Latinism" by showing that this idiom appears in a Doric inscription of the first century B.C. (Michel, 694), Trp6 anepap Ska ruv fivarripiuv. The idiom occurs also in the inscriptions, irpd le KdkavSuv AvyoliaToiv, I.M.A. iii. 325 (ii/A.D.), and the papyri, irpd) Sio fiiiepSv, F.P. 118 (H/a.d.). So Moulton proves his point that it is a parallel growth like the Latin. Rouffiae (Recherches, p. 29) re-enforces it by three citations from the Priene inscrip- tions. Cf. also TTpd iroWSip tovtuv ijiiepSiv Ada S. Theogn., p. 102. Moulton thinks that it is a natural development from the abla- tive case with irpo, 'starting from,' and refers to 6\l/i aa^^aroiv in Mt. 28 : 1 as parallel. May it not be genuine Greek and yet have responded somewhat to the Latin influence as to the fre- quency (cf. LXX and the N. T.)? Similarly vpb kruv deKareaaapcav (2 Cor. 12 : 2), 'fourteen years before (ago).' Abbott* con- siders it a transposing of irp6, but it is doubtful if the Greek came at it in that way. Simcox^ calls attention to the double genitive with irp6 in Jo. 12 : 1, really an ablative and a genitive. 6. Superiority. Upd occurs in the sense of superiority also, as in irpd iravTuv (Jas. 5 : 12; 1 Pet. 4 : 8). In Col. 1 : 17 7rp6 iravruv is probably time, as in irpo ipov (Jo. 10 : 8; Rom. 16 : 7). Cf. irpd TOVTUV iravTuv in Lu. 21 : 12. (n) Ilpds. The etymology of irpos is not perfectly clear. It seems to be itself a phonetic variation^ of irpoTi which is found in Homer as well as the form ttotL (Arcad. wos, ttot in Boeotian, etc.). What the relation is between ttotL and Trpori is not certain.^ The Sanskrit prdti is in the locative ease. The connection, if any, be- tween irpos and TTpo is not made out, except that xpo-rt and prd-ti both correspond to irpo and prd. Thayer considers — ri an adverbial sufiSx. 1. The Meaning.'' It is the same as xpori and ttotL The root- idea is 'near,' 'near by,' according to Delbriick,* though Brug- mann' incHnes to 'towards.' In Homer irpos has an adverbial » Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 394. Cf. Viereck, Senno Graecus, p. 12 f. » Prol., pp. 100 ff . He refers also to the numerous ex. in W. Schulze, Graec. Lat., pp. 14-19. » Joh. Gr., p. 227. . - Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 449. ♦ Lang, of the N. T., p. 153 f. « lb. ' Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 726. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 449. « Die Grundl., p. 132. » Griech. Gr., p. 449. PREPOSITIONS (nPOGESEIz) 623 use, irpds 5k, with the notion of ' besides.' ' 'Near,' rather than 'towards,' seems to explain the resultant meanings more satis- factorily. The idea seems to be 'facing,' German gegen. Cf. vpdacoTTov. In 6 \&yos fjv irpos top 9e6v (Jo. 1 : 1) the literal idea comes out well, 'face to face with God.' 2. In Composition. Probably one sees the original notion in iTfMiT-eSpevca, 'to sit near' (cf. Eurip., etc.). Some MSS. read this verb in 1 Cor. 9 : 13, though the best MSS. have irapeSpeio). But we do have Tpoa-K&tiaKaiov (Mk. 4 : 38) and irpoa-nkvu (Mt. 15 : 32; 1 Tim. 5 : 5). Cf. also irpoa-^kyvov (Jo. 21 : 5), and ■wpoa-opul^a (Mk. 6 : 53). The other resultant meanings appear in composition also as 'towards' in irpoc-ayu (Lu. 9 : 41), 'to' in irpoa-KoWoM (Eph. 5:31), 'besides' in irpo(T-o(j>eiSo} (Phil. 19), 'for' in wpoa-Kaipos (Mt. 13 : 21). This preposition is common in composition and sometimes the idea is simply "perfective," as in irpoff-Kaprepku (Ac. 1 : 14), 7rp6(r-Tr«tws (Ac. 10 : 10). 3. Originally with Five Ca^es. The cases used with irpbs were probably originally five according to Brugmann,^ viz. locative, dative, ablative, genitive, accusative. The only doubt is as to the true dative and the true genitive. Delbriick' also thinks that a few genuine datives and genitives occur. Green* (cf. irp6, 3) speaks of "the true genitive" with irp6; it is only rarely true of irpos and mkp. The genitive with irpbs is wanting in the papyri and the Pergamon inscriptions (Radermacher, ISf. T. Gr., p. 117). And in the N. T. no example of the genitive or dative appears. In Lu. 19 : 37 irpos ry Kara^acrti might possibly be regarded as dative with krcyi^ovTo^; but it is better with the Revised Version to sup- ply "even" and regard it as a locative. In composition {Trpoaexere iavTots, Lu. 12 : 1) the dative is common. 2 Maccabees shows the Uterary use of irp6s with dative of numbers (Thackeray, Gr., p. 188). 4. The Ablative. There is only one example of the ablative in the N. T. and this occurs in Ac. 27 : 34, tovto irpds t?$ bfitrkpas (TWTriplas iirapxei- This metaphorical usage means 'from the point of view of your advantage.' It is possible also to explain it as true genitive, 'on the side of.' This is a classical idiom. So then Tpos in the N. T. is nearly confined to two cases. Moulton* agrees * Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 728. Ilpij, as well as iieri,, still appears as adv. in Polyb. Cf. Kaelker, Quest, de Eloc. Polyb., p. 283. » Griech. Gr., p. 448 f. ' Vergl. Synt., I, p. 729 f . * Notes on Gk. and Lat. Synt., p. 163. " Prol., p. 106. 624 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT with Blass* that this is a remnant of the literary style in Luke. Moulton finds the genitive (ablative) 23 times in the LXX. The true genitive appeared in examples like xpds tov iroratuiv, 'by the river' or 'towards the river.' In the modern Greek vernacular 7rp6s fades ^ before ew and airo as the ablative use is going in the N. T. It is rarely used of place and time, and even so the usage is due to the literary language (Thumb, Handbook, p. 106). 5. With the Locative. IIpos indeed occurs in the N. T. with the locative only seven times, so that it is already pretty nearly a one-case preposition. These seven examples are all of place and call for little remark. Cf. Trpds r^i opei (Mk. 5 : 11), irpds rqi iivrjueLf (Jo. 20 : 11). They are all with verbs of rest save .the use with kyyi^ovTos in Lu. 19 : 37. See under 3. The correct text gives the locative in Mk. 5:11 and Jo. 20: 11,' else we should have only five, and D reads the accusative in Lu. 19 : 37. These seven examples illustrate well the etymological meaning of xp6s as 'near' or 'facing.' Moulton counts 104 examples of Tpos and the dative (locative) in the LXX. Four of these seven examples are in John's writings. Cf. especially Jo. 20 : 12. Moulton {Prol., p. 106) notes "P. Fi. 5 xpds tQ irv\S>vi, as late as 245 a.d." 6. With the Accusative. It was exceedingly common in Homer and always in the literal local sense.' The metaphorical usage with the accusative developed later. How common the accusative is with irpos in the N. T. is seen when one notes that the number is 679.* This was the classic idiom ^ with irpos both literally and meta- phorically. It is not necessary to say that irpos with the accusative means 'towards.' The accusative case imphes extension and with verbs of motion irpos ('near') naturally blends with the rest into the resultant idea of 'towards.' This is in truth a very natural use of irpos with the accusative, as in av6xpr)(rev irpds ri]v doKaaaav (Mk. 3:7). In Mk. 11:1 note both ds i'lepocroKvfia) and 7rp6s (t6 opos) with 'eyyi^o}. In Phil. 5 (W. H.) the margin has both with persons. Here Lightfoot {in loco) sees a propriety in the faith which is towards (irpos) Christ and the love exerted upon (ets) men. But that distinction hardly « applies in Ro. 3 : 25 f.; Eph. 4 : 12. Cf. Mk. 5 : 19. In Mk. 9 : 17 W. H. and Nestle accent irpds ck. There seems to be something almost intimate, as well as personal, in some of the examples of Trpos. The examples of irpos with per- sons are very numerous, as in k^eiropemro irpds avrov (Mt. 3 : 5), 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 140. « Moulton, Prol., p. 106. 2 Jann., Gk. Gr., p. 366. 6 jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 394. • Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 142. « Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 155. PREPOSITIONS (nPOGESEIs) 625 Sevre wpos /le (Mt. 11 : 28), etc. But one must not think that the notion of motion is essential to the use of xpos and the accusative (of. eis and h). Thus in Mk. 4:1, xas 6 SxXos irpds rriv BaKaaaav irl T^s yrjs Jiaav, note both 'eiti and irpos and the obvious distinc- tion. Cf. also dtpiMivbuevoi irpbs t6 i^tos (Mk. 14 : 54). It is not strange, therefore, to find irpds fipas dalv (Mt. 13 : 56), irpis tre xotfi rb irdto-xa (26 : 18). Cf. also ra. wpbs tijp Bvpav in Mk. 2 : 2. The accusative with irpos is not indeed exactly what the locative would be, especially with persons. In Mk. 14 : 49 we find koB' ■nfiepav ^tirpi irpds VIMS kv tQ Upv SiSaaKoiv. Abbott* properly illustrates Jo. 1 : 1, 6 \6yos ^v Tpos rbv deov with this passage in Mk. and with 2 Cor. 5. : 8, kvSrinijaai. irpds top icvptov. It is the face-to-face converse with the Lord that Paul has in mind. So John thus conceives the fellowship between the Logos and God. Cf. oto/mi irpis (TTo/ia in 2 Jo. 12, 3 Jo. 14 and Trpocojirov wpbs irpocuTov in 1 Cor. 13 : 12. But, while this use of xpos with words of rest is in perfect harmony with the root-idea of the preposition it- self, it does not occur in the older Greek writers nor in the LXX.^ Jannaris' is only able to find it in Malalas. Certainly the more common Greek idiom would have been irapa., while nfra and avv might have been employed. Abbott,* however, rightly calls attention to the frequent use of irpos Math verbs of speaking like Xe70), XaXeo), etc., and Demosthenes has it with fdco. So then it is a natural step to find irpos employed for living relationship, intimate converse. Two very interesting examples of this personal intercourse occur in Lu. 24 : 14, up.i'Kovv irpos dXXijXous, and verse 17, avTifiaWere irpos oWrfKovs. Cf. also xpos with irepixar^co (Col. 4 : 5), Koivavia (2 Cor. 6 : 14), SiadrjKri (Ac. 3 : 25 as in ancient Greek), X670S (Heb. 4 : 13), etc. Certainly nothing anomalous exists in ir'tTTei irpos roiis iroSas (Mk. 5 : 22) and irpoo-jco^jjs irpds Xt^oj" (Mt. 4:6). Ilpds is not used often with expressions of time, and the notion of extension is in harmony with the accusative case. Cf. irpds Koipbv in Lu. 8 : 13, irpds &pav in Jo. 5 : 35, xpds dXtyas vnepas in Heb. 12 : 10. In irpds lairkpav (Lu. 24 : 29) the'resultant notion is 'toward,' rather than 'for.' Blass^ points out that irpds to irapov (Heb. 12 : 11) is classical. The metaphorical uses of irpds are naturally numerous. Disposition towards one is often ex- pressed by irpds, whether it be friendly as in /iajcpoOupeTre irpds irdyras (1 Th. 5 : 14) or hostile as in kv exOpq. ovres xpds avrovs (Lu. 23 : 12). ' Joh. Gr., p. 273 f. ■• Joh. Gr., p. 275. 2 lb. 6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 139. • Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 395. 626 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Cf. fier' iXKiiKuv (ib.). JIp6s does not of itself mean 'against,' though that may be the resultant idea as in yoyyvffijJis — Trpds rovs 'E|3paious (Ac. 6:1). Cf. also irpds irXrjanovriv rrjs aapubs (Col. 2 : 23) and irpAs rois ktK. (2 Cor. 5 : 12). Sometimes Trpos adds nothing to the vague notion of extension in the accusative case and the idea is simply 'with reference to.' Thus irpds Tois hyytKovs \eya (Heb. 1:7). Cf. also Lu. 20 : 19. Epos in the Koivii shares with 6is and irepi the task of supplanting the disappearing dative (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 112). In particular Trpos avrov (-o6s) takes the place of out^j (-oTs) after X^w, elirov, airoKpivonai, as shown by parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels, as in Lu. 3 : 14, where MSS. vary between aiiTois and irpos airovi. Adjec- tives may have irpos in this general sense of fitness, like aya66s (Eph. 4 : 29), dwari. (2 Cor. 10 : 4), kai^is (2 Cor. 2 : 16), \evKal irpds depiaixov (Jo. 4 : 35), etc. Cf. also to, Trpos tov Qtbv (Ro. 15 : 17). The phrase tI Trpds riixas; (Mt. 27:4) has ancient Greek support.^ The notion of aim or end naturally develops also as in iyp6.(l)ri rrpds vovdecriav rifiSiv (1 Cor. 10 : 11), Trpos tI elwev (Jo. 13 : 28), 6 TrpAs rriv 'tKeqiMavvqv Kadiifievos (Ac. 3 : 10). Cf. 1 Cor. 14 : 26; 15 : 34. Some examples of the infinitive occur also in this connection, like Trpds to BeaOrjvai airois (Mt. 6:1), Trpos rd KaraKavaai abri. (13 : 30), etc. In irp6s to Setv ■wpoaeiiX'^'rOai (Lu. 18 : 1) the notion is hardly so strong as 'purpose.' But see Infinitive. Then again cause may be the result in certain con- texts as in Muuo-jjs irpbs t^iv cKkr)poKa.phlav ifiuv hrerpe^ev (Mt. 19:8). There is no difiiculty about the notion of comparison. It may be merely general accord as in irpbs t6 dk\rjixa avTov (Lu. 12 : 47), Trpis Triv akriduav (Gal. 2 : 14), or more technical comparison as in ovK a^M TO. TradrincLTa tov vvv Kaipov Tp6s Trjv fikWovaav Bo^av airo- Ka\v(l)d7jvai (Ro. 8 : 18). With this may be compared Trp6s Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 139. » Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 454. » Vergl. Synt., I, p. 730. * Entwick. einiger Gesetze fur d. Gebr. d. griech. Prap. /jeri, abv and aim, p. 444. 6 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 454. PREPOSITIONS (nPOGEZEIs) 627 Cf. Latin cum and English con-comitant. The associative in- stnunental is the case used with occurs in a context where the idea is 'besides,' aXXA ye Kal avv irdaw rohrois (Lu. 24 : 21). Cf. Neh. 5 : 18. So probably also Ph. 1:1. It appears in the papyri in this sense also. Cf. Moulton and MilUgan, "Lexical Notes on the Papyri," The Expositor, 1911, p. 276. In Mt. 8 : 34 Text. Rec. reads eis awavTriaiv tQ Tij^oO where critical text has inr-. The case of Tijo-oO is associative-instrumental in either in- stance. MSS. give avv- in other passages. The use of aiv rg Svv&fiei Tov Kvplov (1 Cor. 5 : 4) has a technical sense ('together with') seen in the magical papyri and in an Attic cursing tablet (iii/B.c). Cf. Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 304 f. See also Deissmann's Die neut. Formel "in Christo Jesu" for discussion of abv Xpio-riy, the notion of fellowship in Ph. 1 : 23. He now cites a graffito with these words to a deceased person, ei)xoA«ii Kajii kv raxv aiiv aol etvai {Light, p. 305). Cf. Col. 3:3. In 1 Th. 4:17 note &p.a aiv avToZs and in 5 : 10 a/jia ahv ahrZ like our "together with," which shows also the retreat of avv before a.p,a. For aw-ein and Kara, see Ac. 16:22. (p) 'Yir^p. In Homer, by anastrophe, sometimes we have iirep. Cf. Sanskrit updri (locative case of upar), Zend wpam,Latin.sMper, Gothic ufar, German liber, Anglo-Saxon ofer, English over. The 1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 396 f.; Joui. of Hell. Stud., XIX, pp. 287-288. * Cf . Westcott on Jo. 1 : 2 for discussion of distinction between and ' Cf. the use of aiv Kal in the pap. Deiss., B. S., p. 265 f. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 629 oldest Indo-Eur. locative ^ was without i. A longer comparative occurs in iirkprepos, and a superlative vTripraros shortened into iiraTos. Cf. Latin superus, summus, and EngUsh wp, upper, upper- most. 1. The Meaning. It is therefore clear enough. It is the very EngUsh word 'over' or 'upper.' Chaucer uses 'over' in the sense of 'upper.' As an adverb it does not occur in Homer, though Euripides {Medea, 627) has imip dyav. Jannaris^ calls fiirep (Blass irip) iyii (2 Cor. 11 : 23) "the monstrous construction," which is rather overdoing the matter. The use of the preposition is not remarkably abundant in the N. T. 2. In Composition. The N.T. has also the compound preposi- tions {nrepavo} (Eph. 1 : 21), wrepiKicepicraov (Eph. 3 : 20), iirepkKava (2 Cor. 10 : 16) and the adverbs inripkiuv (2 Cor. 11 : 5), inrepffaWdv- Tus (2 Cor. 11 : 23). The literal meaning of inrkp ('over') appears in mep-avu (Heb. 9 : 5), virep avT^iv {ib. D), inrep-c^ov ('upper room,' Ac. 1:13). The notion of 'excess,' 'more than' (comparison), appears in iwep-aipu (2 Cor. 12 : 7), iTep-eKirepicraov (1 Th. 3 : 10), hv€p-kxkp(a (ib.), etc. The point comes out with special force in instances where kotol is contrasted with inrip as in els inrip tov ivos (jyvaLovaBe Kara rod erkpov (1 Cor. 4:6). Cf. also Mk. 9 : 40; Ro. 8 : 31. We must nbt, however, make the mistake of thinking that iirkp of itself literally means 'in behalf of.' It means 'over.' It is sometimes said that avrl means literally 'instead' and hrkp 'in behalf of.'^ But Winer' sees more clearly when he says: "In most cases one who acts in behalf of another takes his place." Whether he does or not depends on the nature of the action, not on avrl or irnkp. In the Gorgias of Plato (515 C.) we have virip crov for the notion of 'instead.' Neither does wpo (nor Latin pro) in itself mean 'instead.' In the Alcestis of Euripides, where the point turns on the substitutionary death of Alcestis for her hus- ' I, p. 486. 2 Horn. Gr., p. 147. * Moulton, Prol., p. 105. ' Vergl. Synt., I, p. 749. 6 cf. w.-Th., p. 382. 6 Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 156. Winer (W.-Th., p. 38) implies the same thing. ' Ib. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 135, has nothing on this use of iirtp. Moulton, Prol., p. 105, merely calls ivip "the more colourless" as compared with &vtI. PREPOSITIONS (npoeEZEis) 631 band, iirkp occurs seven times, more than avri and irp6 together. Cf . Thucydides I, 141 and Xenophon Anab. 7 : 4, 9 for the substi- tutionary use of birkp. In the Epistle to Diognetus (p. 84) we note ydiTpov iirkp rificav and a few Unes further the expression is avraWayri. Paul's combination in 1 Tim. 2 : 6 is worth noting, avr'CKvTpov inrkp iravTuiv, where the notion of substitution is manifest. There are a few other passages where virkp has the resultant notion of 'instead' and only violence to the context can get rid of it. One of these is Gal. 3 : 13. In verse 10 Paul has said that those under the law were under a curse {mo Karapav). In verse 13 he carries on the same image. Christ bought us "out from under" the curse (4k t^s Karapas tov vopov) of the law by becoming a curse "over" us {yev6iJ£vos in:kp r)pMv Karapa). In a word, we were under the curse; Christ took the curse on himself and thus over us (between the suspended curse and us) and thus rescued us out from under the curse. We went free while he was considered accursed (verse 13). It is not a point here as to whether one agrees with Paul's theology or not, but what is his meaning. In this passage mep has the re- sultant meaning of 'instead.' The matter calls for this much of discussion because of the central nature of the teaching involved. In Jo. 11 : 50 we find another passage where inrkp is explained as meaning substitution, tva eh avBpcoTOS aroBavxi mip tov \aov Kal p,ri SKov t6 Wvos a.Trb'kqTai. Indeed Abbott ' thinks that "in almost all the Johannine instances it refers to the death of one for the many." In Philemon 13, virkp povi,iiMTtpoi inrip tovs vlovs (Lu. 16 : 8), TOfidsrepos xiTtkp iraffav naxaipav (Heb. 4 : 12). In Jo. 12 : 43 W. H. read ^irep in text and iwkp in margin after ixRWov. But iirkp has the compara- tive sense of 'more than' after verbs, as 6 0iXi3y warkpa ^ iiijTkpa iirkp kjxk (Mt. 10 : 37). In the LXX the positive adjective occurs with iitkp, as evho^os inrip rois aSek^oiis (1 Chron. 4:9). In Ro. 12 : 3, nil vir€p^povelv irap' 3 Set (jjpovetv, note the conjunction of inrkp and irapa. Moulton {Prol., p. 237) cites mip iavrdv (jspoveZv, T.P. 8 (ii/B.c). Blass^ doubts whether {iwepXiav, iirepeKTepura-ov can be properly regarded as compounds. He would separate virkp as an adverb, tnrip 'KLav. But the modern editors are against him. It has disappeared in modem Greek vernacular before 71a (Thumb, Handh., p. 105). (q) ' Yird. Little is called for by way of etymology since fiiro is the positive of inrkp. Cf. the Sanskrit upa, Latin sm6, Gothic uf, possibly also German auf, English up, ah-ove. The form mo is of unknown case, but the Elean dialect^ has iira-, and Homer ^ has also {iirai (dative.) 1. The Original Meaning.'^ This was probably 'upwards' or 'from under.' Unlike Karai iw6 never means 'downwards.' As a matter of factj 'up' and 'under' are merely relative terms. The very English word up is probably viro. Cf. 8^t 'aloft,' iir-TLos 'facing upwards,' inr-aTos 'uppermost,' ii^ttrros. The meaning of under or beneath is common in the N. T., as {ixd tov /wSijov (Mt. 5 : 15). 2. In Composition. Here vto appears simply with the notion of 'under' as in {nro-mToj (Mk. 7 : 28), iTr-ojiria^u (1 Cor. 9 : 27), vwo- ypaiip^s (1 Pet. 2 : 21), hro-Todiov (Mt. 5 : 35), iwo-dkca (Mk. 6:9). Cf. also vwo-SeLyna (Jo. 13 : 15), viro-^iiyiov (Mt. 21 : 5). In {nro- KpuTLs (Mt. 23 : 28), iiTro-xpiTijs (Mt. 6 : 2) the notion of an actor under a mask lies behind the resultant idea. The idea of hos- pitality (under one's roof) is natural with inroSkxonai (Lu. 10 : 38), hro-yiap^avo} (3 Jo. 8). In Ro. 16 :4 vTo-rldrifJu. has the idea of 'put under,' as iiro-^iiwvni (Ac. 27: 17), 'undergird.' In biro- » lb., p. 108. * Brug., Grieoh. Gr., p. 452. " C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 84. ^ Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 139. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 135. « lb. Cf. Brug., ib. 634 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Xa/Scbv ditai (Lu. 10 : 30) the notion of interrupting or following a speech comes from the idea of 'up' in iivb, taking up the talk, etc. The "perfective" idea appears in iiTro-Xeiirto (Ro. 11 : 3), 'leave be- hind or over.' So with inro-rpexw (Ac. 27 : 16), 'run under or past.' Cf. iiiro-irX^co (Ac. 27:4, 7), 'sail close by.' But in mo-irvku (Ac, 27 : 13) the preposition minimizes the force of the verb, 'blow softly.' Cf. our swspicion, the French soupgon. So with under- estimate. In uxo-jSaXXoj (Ac. 6:11) the notion of suggestion has an evil turn, but in inro-iiLnvrjuKia (Jo. 14 : 26) there is no such colour. The idea of subjection (note how these ideas appear in English usage all along) occurs invT-aKoico (Ph. 2 : 12), ux-ei/tw (Heb. 13 : 17), etc. In inr-avTao} (Mt. 8 : 28) the special force of viro has rather disappeared. Cf. our vulgar "meet up" with one. So tTr-evavrios (Col. 2 : 14). 3. The Cases Once Used with xnro. The locative was originally very common with iwo, as in Homer, even with verbs of motion.* As a matter of fact, however, in the historical writers the locative and accusative with vt6 are very rare as compared with the abla- tive,^ though Appian and Herodian use the locative more than the accusative.' But the locative retreated* before the accusative with i7r6 till in the N. T. and the modern Greek it has disappeared. In the N. T.^ the accusative shows 50 examples and the ablative 165, but in the vernacular of the Byzantine Greek the accusative with bw6 disappears before awoKaTu and vTOKarcc.^ In the modern Greek vernacular dx6 has displaced inro (Thumb, Handb., p. 102). Brugmann' even thinks that vt6 once occurred with the instru- mental case, and he is clear that the ablative, as well as the geni- tive, was found with it. Delbriick^ agrees to both ablative and genitive. Thus originally iiro occurred with five cases (loc, instr., ace, abl., gen.). In the N.T. we meet only the accusative and ablative. No example of the pure genitive with inro occurs in the N. T. In Jo. 1 : 50 we find d56v at vwoKaTw r^s o-wcijs, but not mb. So also in some other N.T. passages where a genitive with ix6 might have been used. Cf. Mk. 7: 28; Lu. 8 : 16, etc. The accusative with vvb, as in bvTa ixo ti)» ovktiv (Jo. 1 : 48), supplants ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 140. " Helbing, Die Prap. bei Herod, und and. Histor., p. 22. ' Moulton, ProL, p. 63. * Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 399. Cf. Jebb in V. and D., Handb. to Mod. Gk., p. 313. ' Moulton, Pro!., p. 105. ' Griech. Gr., p. 452 f. 8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 398 f. s Vergl. Synt., I, p. 698. PREPOSITIONS (npoeEZEis) 635 the genitive also in the N. T. The use of birb for agency and cause is ablative like the Latin usage with ah (a). 4. With the Accusative. It is considered by Winer ' to be the original use of ii7r6. This indeed would accord with the notion of 'upwards,' 'up from under.' But in the N. T., as in the later Greek, the accusative occurs with the notion of rest (cf. di).^ The accusative in the N. T. takes the place of the local use of iiro with locative and genitive.' Thus we find (motion) riBkaaiv airov iw6 Tov iMuov (Mt. 5 : 15), but also (rest) bvra vird rriv avKrjv (Jo. 1 : 48). Other examples with verbs of rest are i-rd rr/v itkmv KaraaKrivotv (Mk. 4 : 32), ux6 rbv oipavbv (Ac. 4 : 12), with et/ii, we have hwb to, X^'i-^V (Ro. 3 : 13), vird vbiwv (Ro. 6 : 14 f.), hro iratSajcoyov (Gal. 3 : 25), etc. These examples are as freely used as those like 'im tu>v inro ttiv ariiyriv dcri\6jis (Mt. 8:8). The examples are both local as with kiriawayco (Lu. 13 : 34) and figurative as with Tairetvoia (1 Pet. 5:6). Cf. Ac. 4:12 vird tov ohpavbv with mo Ala Tijv "HXtov M Urpois P. Oxy. 48, 49, 722 (a.d. 86, 100, 91). Cf. Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 332. Only one instance of the use of iwd with time appears in the N. T., inro top opOpov (Ac. 5 : 21), where it has the notion of 'about' (or 'close upon') dawn. John uses hirb with the accusative only once* (Jo. 1 : 48) and with the ablative only five times (Jo. 14 : 21; 3 Jo. 12 his; Rev. 6 : 8, 13), an incidental ar- gument for unity of authorship. 5. With the Ablative. In the sense of efficient cause or agent it was the commonest classical usage and it continues so in the N. T.* The local and temporal uses do not occur, but only the metaphor- ical. These occur after passive or neuter verbs. Abbott* thinks that John preferred to represent the agent as performing the act and so avoided into. The ancient Greek indeed used mo chiefly in this sense of agent. The use of kirodvi^cKoi ix6 as the correlative of diroKTeiviL rts is well known.' In the N. T. once (Rev. 6 : 8) mo actually occurs with the active of airoKTeivui (airoKTeZvai iv poficfxiiq. — Kal mo TOiv BrjpUov). This is probably due to the desire to distin- guish between the living agent and the lifeless causes preceding.* But the N. T. has neuter verbs with mo, like airoWvfiai (1 Cor. 10 : 9), \afiPavco (2 Cor. 11 : 24), irdo-xw (Mk. 5 : 26), mofukva (Heb. 12 : 3). In the case of passive verbs the usage follows the tradi- tional lines. Cf. Mt. 4 : 1 for two examples, aviixOri inro rod irvei- » W.-Th., p. 407. 6 Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 157. * Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 398. « Joh. Gr., p. 279. " Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 135. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 156. • Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 278. " Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 157. 636 A GKAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT liaroi, irapaadfjvai. iirb tov StajSoXou. It is to be noted that in Lu. 9 : 8 vTo is not repeated with aXKuv. The bulk of the N. T. instances of {nr6 occur of personal agency like kfiairTl^ovTo vir' airov (Mt. 3 : 6), SieairaaBaL ix' avrov (Mk. 5:4), etc. Sometimes, when StA is added to iiro, a distinction is made between the intermediate and the mediate agent, as in rd prtdh inro Kvpiov Sia tov irpocjyijTov (Mt. 1 : 22). Cf. 2 : 15. There is nothing pecuUar about the use of uto in 2 Pet. 1 : 17, KJicavrjs kvexOdaris inro t^s neyaKoirptTovs S6^s.^ But ird is not the only way of expressing the agent. Besides Std for the in- direct agent otto is the most common^ substitute for inro, though k and iraph both are found for the notion of agency. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 116) speaks of avd as "die eigenthch pradestinierte Partikel." The instrumental case and kv and the locative must also be recalled. But Sid with the accusative (motive or cause) must not be confounded with this idea. Cf. Lu. 21 : 17 for fiTro with ablative and 5id with the accusative. The prepositions will richly repay one's study, and often the whole point of a sentence turns on the prepositions. In Lu. 5 : 19 eight prepositions occur, counting "ep.vpoadev, and many such passages are found as Gal. 2 : 1, 2. Cf. Joy, On the Syntax of Some Prepositions in the Greek Dialects (1904). VIII, The "Adverbial" Prepositions. The list in the N. T. of those prepositions which do not occur in composition with verbs is considerable. As already remarked in the beginning of this chapter, what are called "proper" prepositions were originally adverbs, fixed case-forms which came to be used with nouns and in composition with verbs. We have followed the varied history of this most interesting group of words. Homer' in particular used most of them at times merely adverbially. In Homer the "regular" prepositions often retain this adverbial force, as kv he, Tapa 5e, and this separation from a verb is no longer considered a "surgical operation" (tmesis). Cf. Seymour, Homme Language and Verse, 25, 78. Some of these prepositions gradually disappeared, but the total use of prepositions greatly increased. This increase was due to the wider use of the remaining prepositions and the increasing use of so-called "improper" prepositions, adverbs with cases that never came to be used in composition with verbs. The Sanskrit* had no proper class of prepositions, but a number of 1 W.-Th., p. 369. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 126. But &t6 occurs in this sense in Xen. Cf. W.-Th., p. 369. 3 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 151. * Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 414. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEi?) 637 adverbs which were sometimes used with cases. These adverbial prepositions varied constantly in the history of the Greek. Some of them, like S.v€u, kyyvs, eveKa, come right on down from Homer. Others drop by the way while each age sees a new crop coming on. But in the late vernacular a number of these prepositional adverbs are followed by the preposition^ before the case, like &iroKaTo> Intb. In the modem Greek the improper prepositions are used either with the genitive (only with enclitic pronoun) or by the addition of 's, diro, nk with the accusative. They are quite new formations, but made from ancient Greek material (Thumb, Handb., p. 107). From our point of view any adverb that occurs with a case may be regarded as a prepositional adverb,^ like a^Lcos rod evayyeXlov (Ph. 1 : 27). Some of these prepositional adverbs, as already shown, occur both as adverbs, as ana Kal eKwi^uv (Ac. 24 : 26), and as prepositions, as iifia avrois (Mt. 13 : 29), while others appear only as prepositions with cases, as avev tov irarpos (Mt. 10 : 29). But it is not necessary to make a separate list on this basis. Blass,' who treats these words very scantily, is right in saying that no hard and fast line can be drawn between adverb and preposition here. The LXX shows some adverbial prepositions which do not occur in the N. T.* Thus a-Kavoidev (Judges 16 : 20) may be compared with kravudiv (classical also), and {nroKarcodev (Deut. 9 : 14), which in ancient Greek is only an adverb. Simcox* carefully explains hi)TU)v, so common in the LXX, as a translation and imitation of ijisa, but even Conybeare and Stock ^ surrender this word as not a Hebraism before Deissmann's proof.' The N. T., hke the kolvti in general, makes free use of these prepositional adverbs. I have given the list in my Short Grammar of the Greek New Testa- ment (3 ed., 1912, p. 116 f.), forty-two in all, more than twice as many as the " regular" prepositions.' 'A^tois noted above is not in- cluded. Of. aira^ tov kviavTov (Heb. 9 : 7). Conybeare and Stock (p. 87) even count exo/jieva irkrpas (Ps. 140 : 6), but surely that is gomg too far. Cf. to, Kpilaaova Kal kxbii^va aoirqp'uis (Heb. 6:9). There is more excuse for claiming kacorepov t^s /coXuju/S^flpas (Is. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 366. = Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 150. ^ Lang, of the N. T., p. 159. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 122, 127 f. « Sel., p. 87. « C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 86 f. ' B. S., p. 213 f. " Krebs, Die Prapositionsadverbien in der spateren hist. Grac, I. Tl., p. 4f., gives a list of 61, and 31 of his list do not appear in the N. T., while 12 are in the N. T. that he does not mention, viz. tvavri, kviiviov, Karkvavri., Kata/inriov, Km\69ev, iikffov, dirlacs), 6tpkj irapaTr\l](TLov, wapeKTSs, fiir^Ketya, inrepeKirepiaaov, This list by Krebs shows the freedom in the mtvv development of adv. prep. 638 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 22 : 11). It will pay us to take up briefly these adverbial prepo- sitions. All of them use the genitive or the ablative case except ixna (instrumental) and ^77115 (dative). 1. "A/itt. It is probably in the instrumental case itself. Brug- mann' connects the word with the root of els, fiia, ev as seen in a-iraf , d-7rXo0s, Cretan andus, Latin semel, Sanskrit sama, English same. Cf . also ofiov, i-Karov. It occurs in Homer with the associa- tive-instrumental case.^ The word occurs in the N. T. only ten times and usually as adverb, either merely with the verb as in Ro. 3 : 12, LXX, or with 8i ml (1 Tun. 5 : 13; Phil. 22). Cf. Kal in Col. 4 : 3. Three of the examples are with participles (Col. 4 : 3 above and Ac. 24: 26; 27:40). Twice we find a^a (t{jv with the instrumental, a sort of double preposition after the manner of the later Greek (1 Th. 4 : 17; 5 : 10) and once a/ia wpui with adverb (Mt. 20 : 1). The use of afia aiiv Thayer explains by taking aiw. as an adverb with the verb. Only once does it occur as a simple preposition with the instrumental, ana avroZs (Mt. 13:29). For the later revival of iifia and use like fiera see Jannaris.' In 2 Esdr. 17 : 3 tin is translated by afia. In the Acta Nerei afia is used only with the genitive (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 119). 2. "Avev. It is of uncertain etymology.* Homer has another form, iivevdev, the Eleatic avevs, the Epidaurian avev-v, the Megarian ai/is. There is, however, no doubt as to the meaning, 'without' or 'besides,' and the case used is the ablative. There are only three examples in the N. T., not counting Mk. 13 : 2, where W. H. and Nestle reject avev xetpcSj'. Two of these (1 Pet. 3 : 1 ; 4 : 9) occur with abstract words, and one (Mt. 10 : 29) with tov irarpdi. The word is rare in the late Greek, especially with a case.^ 3. "AvTiKpvs (some editors avTCKpli). It is a compound form that originally meant 'straight on,' but in later Greek occurs in the sense of 'opposite,' 'face to face.' It was common in the ancient Greek as adverb of place or as preposition. In the N. T. we find it only once (Ac. 20 : 15) and the case used is the genitive, &vti.kpvs Xiov. It occurs in modem Greek vernacular (Thumb, Handb., p. 109). 4. 'Avriirepa {avTL-irkpav, Polybius, etc.). It is just avri and irkpav combined. Thucydides uses avTLirkpas as adverbial preposition. Only one example occurs in the N. T. (Lu. 8 : 26), avriirepa Trjs 1 Griech. Gr., pp. 85, 211, 230. 2 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 151; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 456. » Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 397. < Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 456. 5 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 337. In Eleatic fiwus occurs with the aco. PEEPOSiTioNS (npoeESEis) 639 TaXiXaias. The case is open to dispute, since 6.vt'l comes with the genitive and Tripav with the ablative. 'Over against' would be genitive, 'on the other side of would be ablative. Either will make sense in Lu. 8 : 26. Probably genitive is the case here. 5. 'AwkvauTi. It is a triple compound of 6.t6, kv, avrl. A number of adverbial prepositions were formed on aurl as a base. In the N. T. we find also iuavn, kvavriov, Karkvavri.. These are late, except ivavTiov (from Homer on. Cf . Si.vTa, iv-avra). Polybius uses &.TevavTL with the genitive, and it is common with this case in the LXX^ (cf. Gen. 3 : 24). In the N. T. it occurs only six times, and in two of these (Mt. 27 : 24; Mk. 12 : 41) W. H. put mrkvavn in the text and airivavTi in the marg. Of the remaining four examples two (Ac. 3 : 16; Ro. 3 : 18) have the sense merely of 'before,' 'in the sight or presence of.' One (Mt. 27: 61) has the notion of 'oppo- site' or 'over against,' while the fourth (Ac. 17:7) takes on a hostile idea, 'against.' These resultant ideas all come naturally out of the threefold combination. The other compounds with avH will be noted later. 6. "Arep. This word is of unknown origin, but compare Old Saxon sundir, Old High German suntar, Sanskrit sanutdr. It is common in Homer and the poets generally. Later prose uses it. But it occurs only once in the LXX (2 Mace. 12 : 15) and twice m the N. T. (Lu. 22 : 6, 35). The case is clearly the ablative, and the meaning is 'without.' One example, arep 6x>^ov, is with persons and the other, artp ^aWavHov, is with a thing. 7. "Axpi(s). It is related to p.kxpl{s) whatever its origin. Cf. usque in Latin and axpt eis hke usque ad. As a mere adverb it no longer occurs in the N. T., but it is common both as a prepo- sition and as a conjunction. In the form axp'' ov (Ac. 7 : 18) and oxpt ^s fifiipas (Mt. 24 : 38) it is both preposition and conjunc- tion (resultant temporal phrase). Leaving out these examples, ftxpi is found 30 times in the N. T. (W. H. text) and some MSS. read fixpt in Ac. 1 : 22 and 20 : 4, while in Mt. 13 : 30 the MSS. vary between axpi, m^xp' and eus (W. H.). The meaning is 'up to' and the case used is the genitive. It occurs with place (Ac. 13 : 6), persons (Ac. 11 : 5), time (Ac. 13 : 11) and abstract ideas (Ac. 22 :4, 22). It occurs mainly in Acts, Paul's writings and Revelation. Cf. its use with the adverb axpi tov vvv (Ro. 8 : 22).' 8. '£7765. It is a mere adverb (see comp. iyyinpov, superl. iyyuTTo) possibly related to 'ey^ini. It is common in Homer both as adverb and with the genitive. The late Greek added the true > C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 86. 640 A GEAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT dative and all three uses (adverb, gen., dat.) occur in the N. T. There are nineteen examples of the pure adverb in the N. T. (cf. Mt. 24 : 32), one the comparative (Ro. 13 : 11) and the su- perlative in some MSS. in Mk. 6 : 36. There are eight examples of the genitive with iryyis (cf. Jo. 11 : 54). Only four times does ^7115 have the dative (Ac. 9 : 38; 27:8), counting the indeclin- able 'lepovcraKiin (Lu. 19 : 11; Ac. 1:12), in which case Luke (4) would have the dative uniformly and John (6) and Heb. (2) the genitive (H. Scott). Once (Heb. 6 : 8) it is postpositive. 9. 'E/cTos. It is a combination of k and the adverbial ending -Tos with which may be compared Latin coelitus} The case used with it is, of course, the ablative and it is just a fuller expression of k, meaning 'without.' In the N. T. we find it only eight times, four of these with the ablative, as in 1 Cor. 6 : 18 (cf . with the relative in Ac. 26 : 22). Note position of sktos X^^coc wv in Ac. 26 : 22. Three times we have kr6s et /iij (1 Cor. 14 : 5; 15 : 2; 1 Tim. 5 : 19), which is a pleonasm due first to the use of kros d. Deissmann {Bible Studies, p. 118) cites an inscription of Mopsues- tia for "this jumbled phrase," peculiarly apropos since Paul was Cilician, krds ei iiri [e]a.v M.ayva fibvri 6t\\Ti\crij. Once (Mt. 23 : 26) 'tKTbi is probably a mere adverb used as a substantive, though, even here it may be regarded as a preposition. 10. "EiiirpoaBiv. This is merely kv and Tp6cr6ev which adverb used the ablative^ when it had a case. In the N. T. it is still four times a mere adverb of place, as in Rev. 4 : 6, but it is usually a preposition with the ablative. It occurs with words of place, as in Mt. 5 : 24, with persons (Mt. 5 : 16), and sometimes with the notion of rank (Jo. 1 : 15). As a preposition it appears 44 times in the N. T. 11. "EvavTt.. (Cf. 'ivavra in Homer.) It is one of the dvTi com- pounds and is found with the genitive case when it has a case. It is very common in the LXX even after Swete' has properly re- placed it often by kvavrlov. The old Greek did not use it. In the N. T., W. H. accept it in Lu. 1:8 and Ac. 8 : 21 (though some MSS. in both places read kvavrlov) and reject it in Ac. 7: 10. It is not found in the N. T. as a mere adverb. 12. 'EvavTLov. This is, of course, merely the neuter singular of hvavTios (cf. Mk. 6 : 48), and is common in the older Greek as in the LXX. For the papyri see kvavrlov avbpSiv rpiuv P. Eleph. 1 • Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 198, 254. s lb., p. 456. ' C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 87. The LXX used a number of prep, to transl. 'as'?. Cf. Swete, Intr. to the O. T. in Gk., p. 308. PREPOSITIONS (nPOBEZEIs) 641 (B.C. 311). In the N. T. it does not occur as a mere adverb, but we find itfive times as a preposition with the genitive (cf . Lu. 1 : 6), all with persons (cf. Latin coram). 13. 'EvtKa. It occurs in three forms in the N. T., either euem (Lu. 6 : 22), iveKtv (9 : 24) or elveKev (18 : 29), but always as a prepo- sition ('for the sake of), never as mere adverb. These variations existed in the earlier Greek also. In the Koiuii, 'iveKev is the more usual (Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 35). Only twice, however, is it postpositive in the N. T., and this after the interrogative (Ac. 19 : 32) or the relative (Lu. 4 : 18, LXX) . The case used is the genitive. The etymology is quite imcertain, but the form elvtKev is Ionic and partially in the Koivii supersedes the Attic.^ The preposition occurs 26 times m the N. T. Once (2 Cor. 7 : 12) we find it used with rod and the infinitive. Cf . evtKev and Std, Lu. 21 : 12, 17. 14. 'EvtSs. It is like the Latin in-tus (opposite of kros) and has the same ending -tos. It means ' within' and as a preposition is used with the genitive. The word occurs only twice in the N. T., once as an adverb with the article (Mt. 23 : 26), though even this may be regarded as a preposition with the article and the genitive (cf. kros, Mt. 23 : 26), and once as a preposition (Lu. 17 : 21) with the genitive. Thayer cites two passages from Xenophon where kvros may have the idea of ' among' and claims that this is the idea in Lu. 17 : 21, because of the context. But the meaning in Xenophon is disputed and Liddell and Scott give only 'within' for kvros. Besides, in one of the new Logia^ of Jesus we have a similar saying in a context that makes 'within' necessary and would seem to settle the point about the passage in Luke: il PaaiXela tS>p oipavS>v kvTos vn&v ecrlv. 15. 'Eviiinov. This is the neuter singular of the adjective ivwTnos which (Thayer) is from the phrase h uiri (6 kv uwl &v). Homer uses ra kvinna, but no example of the adverb or preposition kviiiriov occurs before the time of the LXX. Deissmann' thinks it possible, but not probable, that it was first used in this sense as a translation of the Hebrew i5p^. A papyrus of the Thebaid from the second or third century B.C. has it also. As a preposition it is very .common* in the LXX and in the N. T. also. Curiously enough it does not occur' in Matthew and Mark, though very * Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 457. ' C. Taylor, The Oxyrhyn. Sajdngs of Jesus, 1905, pp. 7, 11. Besides in Polyb. ijirSs is always the opposite of UtSs. Cf . Thiemann, Quest. Polyb., 1882, p. 23. " B. S., p. 213. * C. and S., p. 87. 642 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT common in Luke's writings and Revelation. The Gospel of John has only one example and the Johannine Epistles two. Cf. also KareviiTLov. In the N. T., kvuirLov is always a preposition with the genitive and it occurs 92 times. It appears sometimes with place (Rev. 4 : 10), but usually with persons (Lu. 5 : 25 ; 12 : 9 bis), and especially of God (1 : 15). Sometimes the notion is that of judg- ment, as in 1 Tim. 2:3. See Wikenhauser, 'Evwttlos — hiiinov — KttTe^'djTrtoi' (Bibl. Z., 1910, pp. 263-270). 16. "E^w. It is an adverb from ej (cf. 'iaai, es) and is probably in the ablative case like oi)T«(s). As adverb and preposition it is common in the N. T. (16 times) as in the older Greek. It is found as preposition only with the ablative and that 19 times. It means 'outside' or 'without' and is used in the N. T. only with places, like 'e^oi Trjs oidas (Mt. 10 : 14). John's Gospel has it 13 times, first Ep. 1, Rev. 2; Paul has it 5, and only as adverb. 17. "E^oidev. It is the same word plus the suffix -dev, 'from without,' and was common in the poets (cf. laudtv). The case used is the ablative. In the N". T. it is much less frequent (13 times) both as adverb and preposition than y^o. Indeed, if to i^dsBev Tov iroTTipiov (Mt. 23 : 25; Lu. 11 : 39) be not considered the prepositional usage, there would be only three left (Mk. 7 : 15; Rev. 11 : 2; 14 : 20). There is the same ambiguity in the two passages above that was noted about kros and hros (Mt. 23 : 26). Cf. Lu. 11:40. 18. ''Eir-avca. This is just the preposition €xt and the adverb aval. It occurs in Attic Greek both as adverb and as preposition. As an adverb it is rare in the N. T. (19 times), once with the rel- ative adverb ov (Mt. 2:9), once with a numeral with no effect on the case (1 Cor. 15 : 6; cf. Mk. 14 : 5 where the case may arise from irpaiBfjvai) , once where a pronoun is really implied (Lu. 11:44). As a preposition we find it fifteen times in the N. T. Cf. kiravw 'dpovs (Mt. 5 : 14) where it has the somewhat weakened* sense of 'upon' rather than 'above.' The case used is the genitive. Modern Greek vernacular uses it as (d)7rdi'w 's (Thumb, Handbook, p. 109). 19. 'EireKeiva. It is merely hri and keim. Thayer suggests the ellipsis of iiepri. It occurs in the Attic 'Greek both as adverb and as preposition. In the N. T. it appears only once in a quotation from Amos 5 : 27 and as a preposition with the ablative in the sense of ' beyond' (Ac. 7 : 43. Cf . i-irephKeim) . 20. "Eo-w. It is the adverb of ^s (cf . elw) and is in the ablative ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 129. PEEPOSiTiONS (npoeESEis) 643 case. The form eio-w (els) does not occur in the N. T. nor in the LXX. Indeed the word iau is found only nine times in the N. T. and only one, iaw ttjs avk^s (Mk. 15 : 16), is the prepositional use. The case used with it is the genitive. This, however, is a gen- uine example, while 'iauBev (12 times) is never a preposition in the N. T., for even Lu. 11 : 39, to eaoidev inuv, has the article. Cf. iai)Ttpov TTJi KoKv/jfirjOpas (Is. 22 : 11). 21. "Ecds. In Homer it is both demonstrative and relative ad- verb (from etos, eXcos).^ Cf. us and cJis. The use of kos as a prep- osition appears in Demosthenes, Aristotle, Polybius, etc. In Northern England and Scotland "while" is used as "till" (Lid- dell and Scott) and illustrates how e&js as conjunction is used in the N. T. It is equally common in the N. T. as preposition and conjunction, if the phrases e'ais o5, ias otov be treated as conjunc- tions, as indeed they are, though technically composed of the preposition his with the genitive of the relative. It is in the later Greek mainly, therefore, that it appears as a preposition (cf : LXX and papyri). The case used with it is the genitive (but very late Greek shows accusative sometimes), and it is found 86 times in the N. T. and 51 of the examples are in the Synoptic Gospels. The preposition is used with places, like ecos adov (Mt. 11:23), kos ovpavov (Lu. 10: 15), ews 'Avrtoxeias (Ac. 11 : 22); with persons, like eus avrov (Lu. 4 : 42) ; with expressions of time, like &0S TTJs ariiitpov (Mt. 27 : 8), , avri. The MSS. in the N. T. often vary^ between KarevavTi and airkvavTi as in Mt. 21 : 2; 27 : 24; Ac. 3 : 16, etc. In Mt. 27 : 24 and Mk. 12 : 41 W. H. put avhavn in the margin. KaTevavrLov, found in Hesiod and Herodotus, does not occur in the N. T. There are only nine examples of Karkvavn in the N. T. One of these (Lu. 19 : 30) is merely adverbial, while the rest are prepositional. The idea is 'before,' 'over against,' 'in the presence of,' and the case used with it is the genitive. It occurs with place (Mk. 13:3) and persons (Mt. 27: 24). Cf. KarkvavTL dtov h XplctQ (2 Cor. 2 : 17; 12 : 19) and the attraction of relative (^) in the dative to the genitive case of 6eov, the incor- porated antecedent (Ro. 4: 17). 23. Karevonrtav. It is just evoiwiov (see above) and koto. Homer uses Karivcoira with the genitive, but KaTevinriov appears in the LXX. The N. T. shows only three examples (cf. the frequency of kviiirLov), two with persons (Eph. 1:4; Col. 1 : 22), one with abstract word (Ju. 24). The case used is the genitive and the word means 'in the presence of.' 24. KvK\6dev. It is an old adverb in -6ev that occasionally occurs in the LXX (Jer. 17 : 26) as a preposition. In the N. T. it appears as a preposition twice with the genitive Opovov (Rev. 4 : 3 f.) and once as an adverb (4 : 8). 25. KbK\cf is, of course, merely an adverb in the instrumental case and is common from Homer down. In the LXX it is extremely frequent and occasionally as a preposition with the genitive (Is. 6:2). In the N. T. it is merely an adverb except with tov Bpbvou (Rev. 4 : 6; 5 : 11; 7 : 11). Cf. Ki/cX^ iikxpi (Ro. 15 : 19). 26. Mkaov. As a preposition it occurs in Herodotus 7, 170, but was not common. It appears in the late Greek writers and the papyri.'' Many adverbial phrases were made from fikcov which were used as prepositions, some of which survive in the N. T., like ava ixkaov, 5id ukaov {-ov), ets fiia-ov (and eis rd p,k Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 128. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 374. PREPOSITIONS (nPOGESEIs) 645 27. Meralii. Like so many of the adverbial prepositions, it is a compound (m^tA, ^iv). As a mere adverb, we meet it only twice in the N. T., once in the sense of 'meanwhile' (Jo. 4 : 31), once in the sense of 'afterwards' (Ac. 13 :42), as commonly in the later Greek.' Cf . twofold use of juerd. As a preposition it occurs seven times in the N. T., with places (Mt. 23 : 35), persons (Mt. 18 : 15) and in abstract relations (Ro. 2 : 15). A good example occurs in Ac. 15 : 9 where both Sm and fiera^v appear. 28. M^xpi. Like &xpi and eois, it is both preposition and con- junction as well as originally adverb. No example of the mere ad- verb is found in the N. T., as it was rare in the older Greek. The form is akin to axpi and the sense is the same. If /t^xpts ov be treated as a conjunction (cf. &xpi ov, eojs ov), the preposition with the genitive appears fifteen times with another doubtful reading in Mt. 13 : 30. It is used with places (Ro. 15 : 19), persons (Lu. 16 : 16), time (Ac. 10 : 30), abstract expressions (Ph. 2:8). Like axpi, the notion of 'measure' or 'degree' is sometimes present (Heb. 12:4). 29. 'OwurOtv. It is of uncertain etymology, perhaps related to iiri. It occurs in Homer both as adverb and as preposition. In the N. T. we find it five times as adverb and twice as preposition, and some MSS. have it in Rev. 1 : 10. The case used with it is the ablative. So 6TneKa, kvdcTiov, kirkr Kuva, Kareviiir lov, irapaT\ii(nov, v-wep'tKuva, virepavco, viroKaria. Of the rest nkaov is also adjective; xo-pw substantive; xXj/trtoj' substantive and adjective; ctxpt, ews, M^XP'j tXi^i' conjunctions; and the rest are also adverbs. IX. Compound Prepositions. A considerable number of these adverbial prepositions are compound words. So are avTi-Kpv{s), auTL-irepa, air-iv-avTi., 'ep,-irpoov, the text is corrupt, but probably the phrase is not to be taken too literally and etymologically (cf. 5td here). Atd fieaov is read once (Lu. 17: 11) and 5td nkaov once in W. H. (Lu. 4 : 30). Eis /itcrov (Mk. 14 : 60) appears once, but els t6 iikaov (Lu. 4 : 35) six times. 'Ek p,e(Tov, like all the circumlocutions with ixkaov, is followed by the genitive (Mt. 13 : 49) and it occurs 7 times. Kara p,e(jov is found once (Ac. 27:27). The commonest (27 times) of these circum- . locutions is kv p.kacd {^nnkaa some MSS.) as in Mt. 10 : 16. 'Ec t^ /i€<7-£i) (Mt. 14: 6; Ac. 4 : 7) is not a prepositional phrase. Cf. k rov iikaov (Col. 2 : 14). See also chapter XII, x, (6). 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 129 f. » Moulton, Prol., p. 99 f. PEEPOSiTiONS (npoeESEis) 649 (6) "OvoiM. It is sometimes adduced as an example of a prep- ositional circumlocution and as a pure Hebraism. Deissmann* has given abundant illustrations from the papyri to show that the use of els t6 ovofia, kv tQ dvo/iaTi. is common enough in the vernacular Koiv^ where, as in the LXX and the N. T., ovo/xa represents the person. It is more than doubtful if we are justified in considering these phrases as mere prepositional circumlocutions with the gen- itive. The examples that come nearest to it are eU ovona ■n-pofjs TepnraT'fi Cf. Parrax, Gk. Synt., p. 88; K.-G., I, p. 272 f.; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 415. On the later distinction between adj. and subst. see Schroeder, tJber die formelle Untersch. der Redet., 1874, pp. 195 ff. ' But his notion of adjs. "formed by the apostles themselves" vanishes sadly in the light of the papyri. • Deiss., B. S., p. 165 f. So uJds rfls yepovaias, vlis t^s tSKois, etc. 652 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT examples are quotations from the LXX or translations from the Aramaic, admits that the majority in the N. T. are due to "trans- lation Hebraisms" and the rest to analogical formation. in. The Adjective as Substantive. Simcox^ thinks that the N. T. shows a more frequent use of this idiom than the earlier Greek. But the earlier Greek shows abundant evidence of the use of the adjective without the substantive as a practical sub- stantive, usually with the article, but not always.^ (a) Any Gender. Such adjectives may be of any gender, according to the gender of substantive. So 6 Ka\6s, ij epjjAws, t6 Xtyn<^rbv. This is no peculiarity of Greek alone, though it has its own development in the substantival use of the adjective. Indeed the participle was often used as a substantive. Thus 6 aivdpm (Mt. 13 : 3), fiyoifievos (Mt. 2:6). In Ph. 3 : 8 we have the parti- ciple used as a substantive with the genitive, t6 mepkxov Trjs yvixrtm. Cf. Lu. 16 : 1, rd iirapxovTa clvtov. So t6 kfii^vTov ai/MJiopov (1 Cor. 10 : 33) where the adjective, like a substantive, has the genitive. (&) With Masculine Adjectives. With masculine adjectives the substantives naturally suggest themselves out of the con- text or the nature of the case.^ Thus in Mt. 11:5, tu^Xoi dm- /SX^TTOUo'tj' Kal xfwXot vepLvaTomiv, ktK. Cf. oi ayioi (1 Cor. 6:2), aiMpTciiXovs (1 Tim. 1 : 15), St/catou and tov tvyaSov (Ro. 5 : 7), kicKtKTihv Oeov (8 : 33), Tdv oK-qBivov (1 Jo. 5 : 20), 6 0710$ tov Beov (Jo. 6: 69) and probably tov irouripov (Mt. 6 : 13). In Jas. 5 : 7, Trpb'iiiov ml 64'i.iu)v, supply veTov. Sometimes- only the context can determine the gender, as in Eph. 6 : 16; 1 Jo. 3 : 12). (c) With Feminine Adjectives. These are usually exam- ples of the ellipsis of 686s, x^'i-P, JV, yvvri, vnkpa, yXoKTua. I follow Blass^ mainly in these examples. Thus 7^ is responsible for the feminine gender in Tr\v ^ripav (Mt. 23 : 15; Heb. 11:29), 17 irepi- Xiapos (Mt. 3:5), Triv 6piivl)v (Lu. 1 : 39), rg ^pij/icd (Mt. 3:2), t^s olKovpkvr\i (Ro. 10 : 18), etc. In k t^s wo tov ovpav6v (Lu. 17 : 24) Blass prefers iJ.epi8os to 7175 and urges that we do not refine too sharply over el ivavTias (Mk. 15 : 39; Tit. 2:8). As examples of the influence of 656s note eWeLas (Lu. 3 : 5), xoias (5 : 19), keij/jjs (19 : 4). For x«ip observe ^ a.piaTepa. and 17 Se^id (Mt. 6 : 3), ^v bt^i^ (Ro. 8 : 34), rg Selt^i (Ac. 2 : 33). But k be^Mv (2 : 34) may be compared with ets to. Sefid /i^pr? (Jo. 21 : 6). The ellipsis of iipkpa is noticed by Blass in rg kxop.m (Lu. 13 : 33), rg kiruovaji (Ac. 16 : 11), » Lang, of the N. T., p. 91. s Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 414; K.-G., I, p. 266 f. » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 140. « lb., p. 140 f. ADJECTIVES ('EHieETA) 653 Tg iripq. (20 : 15), rg iirahpiov (Mt. 27 : 62), tj) rpLrv (Lu. 13 : 32), rrjs i^SSfiiii (Heb. 4:4), rg ixiq. t&v aa^^Lrwv (Ac. 20:7), p.ixpi- rgs ffijAiepoi' (Mt. 11 : 23), a0' ^js (2 Pet. 3 : 4), rg Jfgs (Ac. 21 : 1). But Blass rightly supplies Sipa with d^' ^s in Lu. 7 : 45, as with 6\j/ias (Mt. 8 : 16), Trpctfias (Mt. 27: 1). To conclude the list of feminine examples with rg irveoian (Ac. 27:40) supply af)p^, with h ry 'EX- Xi/wfcg (Rev. 9:11) supply yXoiacji (but cf. rg 'E|8pat5i StaXeKxco, Ac. 22 : 2), with iroXXas and 6X170$ (Lu. 12 : 47 f .) supply irXriyas, with OTTO fuas (Lu. 14 : 18) insert covrjs. But /car' Idiav (Mk. 6 : 31) and iSiq. (1 Cor. 12 : 11), though stereotyped, may refer to 65^. Cf. also Kard novas (Mk. 4 : 10) as an instance of 656s. So S'qiwclq. (Ac. 16 : 37). Words like cariipvos (Tit. 2:11), aiiivixtv (Jo. 6 : 47), ei^Tre- piaroLTov (Heb. 12 : 1) are, of course, feminine, not masculine. See chapter on Declensions. (d) With the Neuter. The neuter furnishes a number of interesting examples. Thus Troritpiov yj/vxpov (Mt. 10 : 42), where 85oTos is referred to. So vbmp is meant by to y\vKii ml to ttlkpSv (Jas. 3 : 11). With h 'KevKots (Jo. 20 : 12), one must insert ifmriois as with kp pakoKots (Mt. 11: 8). Cf. iropKJJvpow in Rev. 18 : 16. With Tov 8u)ireTovs (Ac. 19 : 35) Blass* suggests ayaKpaTos, and with rd Tp'iTov Tgs yrjs (Rev. 8 : 7) we must supply ju^pos ("not classical," Blass). Cf. e£s Tb Upbv (Mt. 21 : 23). In Mt. 6 : 13, d7r6 tov Tovripov, most likely 6tdj3oXos is meant,^ not mere evil. In Mt. 19 : 17 we have irepl tov ayadov explained by 6 ayoBos, though the American Standard Version gives it 'that which is good.' But cf. Ro. 5 : 7. The number of these neuter adjectives used substantively in the N. T. is large and varied, but the older Greek shows abundant illustrations' of the same thing, especially in philosophical discus- sions. With prepositions in particular we meet with this use of the neuter. Thus els t6 peaov (Jo. 20 : 19), kv tQ kpvttQ (Mt. 6:4), eis 4>avtpbv (Mk. 4 : 22), /iard ^tKp6i' (Mt. 26 : 73), h pk<7Cf (Mt. 10 : 16), kv 6X170) (Ac. 26 : 28), h peyaXif (26 : 29), pera fipaxv (Lu. 22 : 58), etc. Cf. eis ayaSa (Jer. 24:6). Very common is the adverbial usage of this neuter like ^paxv (Ac. 5 : 34), pucpbv (Mt. 26 : 39), pbvov (Mt. 8 : 8), TO TpwTov (Jo. 12 : 16), but the adjective's rela- tion to the adverb will receive special treatment. See xi. Cf. tQ 6vTi. Sometimes the neuter singular was used in a collective sense for the sum total (cf. English "the all"). Thus in Jo. 6 : 37, 39, irSiv 6, 17 : 24 0, where persons are meant. The neuter plural is ' lb., p. 141. » So Rev. Vers, uniformly. Cf. Green, Handb. to Gk. N. T., p. 268. « W.-Th., p. 235. 654 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT common in this sense like to, travTa (Col. 1 : 16) where the universe is thus described. Cf. to ovra and ra nii bvra (1 Cor. 1 : 28). B in the LXX (Helbing, p. 51) frequently has ■KS,v==T6.VTa (ace. sing, masc). (Cf. also Ps. of Sol. 3 : 10; 8 : 23 V; Test, xii, Pat. Reub. 1 : 10 irav apTovj Gad 3 : 1 irav vbnov) See also the common collec- tive neuter in the LXX (Thackeray, Grammar, p. 174 f.). Usually the neuter plural is concrete, however, as in rh, bpara ml abpara. (Col. 1 : 16), where wavra, is thus explained. Cf. to. ^aSka (Rev. 2 : 24), ctpxaia (2 Cor. 5 : 17). In Ro. 1 : 20, as Wineri points out, TO. abpara makes more concrete r? re dtStos diivafus nal deibrris. But one must confess that in Eph. 3 : 10, kv rots eTovpaviois, it is not clear what the idea is, whether places, things or relations. In Jo. 3 : 12 eTiyeLa and iirovpavux, seem to refer to truths. In 1 Cor. 2 : 13, irvevfiariKots irveviiaTiKa avvKplvovres, a like ambiguity exists, but the presence of Xoyois inclines one to the notion that Paul is here combining spiritual ideas with spiritual words. The neuter singular .with the article is very common for the expression of an abstract idea. One does not have to say that the adjective is here used instead of the abstract substantive, but merely as an abstract substantive. Cf. English "the beautiful and the good" with "beauty and goodness." This is good ancient Greek. Cf. also in the papyri rb bkaiov Tb.P. 40 (b.c. 117) and (ib.) ra KadriKovra. Winer^ was troubled over to Sodpiiov rrjs Tiareccs (1 Pet. 1 : 7) and said that no such adjective existed and therefore this was a mere substantive. There was none in the lexica, but Deissmann' has found a number of instances of the adjective in the papyri. So xpv^s, we have irXeZov because the abstract idea of thing is expressed. This also is a frequent Greek idiom. Cf. ovSiv (1 Cor. 7: 19), S (1 Cor. 15 : 10), raCra (1 Cor. 6 : 11). IV. Agreement of Adjectives with Substantives. (a) In Ntjmbeb. It is not necessary to repeat what has been " W.-Th., p. 235. Cf. lateness of the forms in -ik6s (only two in Horn.). Hoffmann, tJber die Entw. des Begr. des Griech. bei den Alten, p. 2. In 1 Tim. 5 : 17 note «iirX?s (from -60s). 'lb. » B. S., p. 259 f. ADJECTIVES ('EniGETA) 655 said ou this subject in chapter X, vii, (&), on concord between adjective and substantive in number. The normal thing is for adjective and substantive to agree in number. But one must not get the idea that "construction according to sense" of the gram- marians is an anomaly. "The term is unobjectionable, provided we remember that constructions according to the meaning are generally older than those in which meaning is overridden by idiom or grammatical analogy." ' Thus there is no cause for as- tonishment in seeing eK^a/ijSoi with 6 Xaos in Ac. 3 : 11, nor irXrjOos Kpa^ovres in Ac. 21 : 36. (6) In Gender. For concord in gender see chapter X, viii. Here again the construction according to sense is normal likeo-Tpa- TiSs oipauiov aij'oiii'Tcov (Lu. 2:13), but ohpaviov in the same phrase is the feminine (cf. aliivios, etc.). The N. T. does not have the Attic idiom with jj/ito-us of agreement with the gender of the gen- itive substantive, though it is still in the LXX. Cf. tAs ■^filaeis tSiv aiMpTLcov (Ezek. 16 : 51). Instead see ecos ■fnxiaovs rijs /SacrtXatas nov (Mk. 6 : 23). But aiirri and davfiaaT'li in Mt. 21 : 42 (Mk. 12 : 11) are probably due to the Hebrew tisT, the Hebrew using the fem- inine for abstract ideas, since it had no neuter. But even here in Ps. 117 : 23 the context has Ke^aKiiv yiiivla^.^ One other remark is to be made which is that when an adjective occurs with more than one substantive it may agree with the gender of the nearest, as in iraaav iroKiv /coi tottov (Lu. 10.: 1), be repeated with each, as in iraaa Soais ayadri Kal irdv hiopijixa riXtiov (Jas. 1 : 17) and iv Toia Svvanei rj iv TToicj) ovbuaTi (Ac. 4:7), or agree with the masculine rather than the feminine or neuter, as in yvuvoi (Jas. 2 : 15). With the same gender there may be repetition (Mt. 4 : 23; 9 : 35) or not (Mt. 12 : 31). (c) In Case. For concord in case see chapter X, ix. The main instances of variation here belong to the participle as in Ac. 15 : 22 f.), and in particular the Book of Revelation furnishes illustra- tions (Rev. 3 : 12, etc.), as already shown. (d) Two OH More Adjectives. When two or more adjectives occur together the conjunction may be used as in ttoWo. Kal fiapka alTLuixara (Ac. 25 : 7) and even iroXXa Kal dWa crr]fma (Jo. 20 : 30), as in Latin.' But see erepuv iroWSiv (Ac. 15 : 35) and the repetition of the adjective with the article (Rev. 2 : 12). V. The Attributive Adjective. The adjective (from adjaceo) is a word joined on to another {kTrWeTov). The adjective is by no ■ Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 118. 2 Ct. W.-Th., p. 238; Moulton, Prol., p. 59. » Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 87. 656 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT means the only attribute used with substantives. Thus the attri- bute may be substantive in apposition with another substantive, like avdpwTCf ot/coSeo-xoTjj (Mt. 13 : 52), or a genitive, like i) tov 6eov tiaKpodviila (1 Pet. 3 : 20), or an adverb, Uke t^s avw KK^iatcos (Ph. 3 : 14), or an adjunct, like fj kclt' tKhoyiiv irpbdecns (Ro. 9 : 11), or a pronoun, like to k/idv opona (Mt. 18: 20).* When the article is used before the adjective or participle it is, of course, attributive, as in 6 /caXos (Jo. 10 : 11),, kv rfi irapoijcr'o ciKrideLq. (2 Pet. 1 : 12). But ad- jectives and participles may be attributive when no article is used. Thus with aTpartas oipavLov (Lu. 2 : 13), CScop ^uv (Jo. 4 : 10. Cf. TO 65up TO ^S)v in verse 11), novoyevris Beos (Jo. 1 : 18). The un- usual position of the attributive adjective, like 6 6x^os iroXds (Jo. idea" where the substantive and adjective form "a composite 12:9), (Jebb, Soph. 0. T., pp. 1199 ff.), may be illustrated from the papyri, O.P. 99, t^s inrapxoba'iis avrca uriTpiKrjs okias Tpiariyov (Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. 154). Cf. also kx t^s naTaias vp&v ava(TTpo4>7Js iraTpoTrapadoTov (1 Pet. 1 : 18), where, however, irarpo- ■KapaSoTov may very well be predicate (see vi). Cf. French La Republique Frangaise. VI. The Predicate Adjective. The adjective (including par- ticiple) is common as a predicate, as is the substantive. Monro ^ considers the substantive in the predicate adjectival. Cf. pro- noun, adverb, etc. As examples note ttoWoI (Mk. 5:9), d/wla (Mt. 13 : 31), o-corijpws (Tit. 2 : 11), grot/ia (Lu. 14 : 17), Mi> (Jo. 4 : 11), SLddaKwv (Mt. 7:29). But adjectives are predicate with- out a copula, as in Ti /xe Xeyets ayoBov (Mk. 10 : 18), 6 iroiiicM fie iiyifj (Jo. 5 : 11; cf. 7 : 23), dSdTrai'oi' Brjiru t& evayyk\u>v (1 Cor. 9 : 18), iJ,eya\fi Tg 0}vij (Ac. 26 : 24), airapL^aTov ?x«' I'^i' Upeaaiivriv (Heb. 7:24). Cf. Mt. 4 : 18 with Mk. 1 : 7; 1 Cor. 11:5. As examples of the verbal in -ros take iraBrjTds (Ac. 26 : 23) and 7J'c<)- (TTov (Ac. 4 : 10) with which last compare the attributive use in Ac. 4 : 16 yvoiCTdv arjixeiov. Cf. Mk. 3:1. As further interesting examples of the predicate adjective, note oXos (Jo. 9 : 34), Soklhoi ^avSiiiev (2 Cor. 13 : 7), iyi'lis (Mt. 12 : 13), xpaJros (Jo. 20 : 4), ^SpaTos (1 Cor. 7: 37), 6pd6s (Ac. 14 : 10), fi6vos (Lu. 24 : 18; cf. Mt. 14 : 23), etc. Cf. 6\ov in Lu. 13 : 21. The distinction between the attributive adjective and the predicate adjective lies in just this, that the predicate presents an additional statement, is indeed the main point, while the attributive is an incidental description of the substantive about which the statement is made. Cf. Ac. 4 : 10 and 16 above for both uses of yvuaTov. Cf . rauTas in Ac. 1 : 5. ' Cf. K.-G., I, pp. 268 ff. » Horn. Gr., p. 117. ADJECTIVES ('EHieETA) 657 This distinct predication' with the adjective in an oblique case is seen in tovto dXr)5& etpriKas (Jo. 4 : 18) and is a classical idiom.^ Note the use of iravra as predicate for 6 Beds in 1 Cor. 15 : 28 as with Xpiards in Col. 3 : 11 for the totality of things. Vn. Adjective Rather than Adverb. See ch. XII, ix, for dis- cussion of this subject. A few items are added here. Cf. TrpSros Mwvafjs "Kiyei (Ro. 10 : 19), 'Moses is the first who says,' with irpSiTov diaWayridi tQ a5e\^ aov (Mt. 5 : 24), 'Be reconciled with thy brother as the first thing that you do.' In Mt. 10 : 2 xpSros IiljMiJV means that first in the list is Simon, whereas irpm-ov, in Jo. 1:41, means that Andrew finds his brother Simon as the first thing which he does. UpSiTov ixOvv (Mt. 17 : 27) means the first fish that came up. Cf. h 'epal irpiiTc^ (1 Tim. 1 : 16), 'me as chief.' The exact idea of Trpirij in Lu. 2 : 2 is not certain, but most prob- ably Luke's idea is that there were two enrolments under Cyrenius. Cf. Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem f With jmvos and (lAvov a like distinction is to be observed. Take avixiopriaei/ irahiv eis t6 6pos airos ii6vos (Jo. 6 : 15) and aii p,6vos irapoiKeZs 'lepovaaKrifi (Lu. 24 : 18). The difference is much like that between the Eng- lish "alone" and "only." So in Lu. 9 :36, ebpedr] Tijo-oOs /wvos, 'Jesus was found alone,' and in Mt. 17: 8 (cf. Mk. 9 : 8), ov8kva eiSov el iiij avrbv 'Irjaovv fiovov, it is adjective, not adverb. Cf. oir/c dpi p/bvo% (Jo. 16 : 32) with ov px>vov in Ac. 21 : 13. Cf. 2 Jo. 1. Contrast pjbvov in Mt. 8 : 8 with phvos in Mt. 14 : 23. There are some examples where either adverb or adjective would make good sense,' as in Mk. 6 : 8, p,ri5b> d p.ri paffSov p.bvov, where D reads pbvr)v; Ac. 11 : 19, ix7)5evl ei pri povov TouSatois, where D has pbvoLs; and 1 Jo. 5 : 6, ovK kv tQ iiSan povov, where B reads phvcf. But this is not all. The Greek often uses an adjective where other languages prefer adverbs or prepositional phrases. Latin and English have similar expressions for other ideas.^ Naturally this idiom is common in Homer.' For time note Sevrepaioi ijXdopev (Ac. 28 : 13), 'we came second-day men' ('on the second day'). Cf. rerapraZos Jo. 11: 39. D has likewise TrepwTcuoi, in Ac. 20 : 6. So yevopevai bpdpival kwl TO pvrjpilov (Lu. 24:22), ewiar'g k(t>vlSu>s (Lu. 21:34), aWaiperos (2 Cor. 8 : 17), bKraiifiepos (Ph. 3 : 5). Vin. The Personal Construction. This matter belongs more properly to indirect discourse and the participle, but it calls for > Monro, ib., p. 119. ' lb. * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 141. « Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 89. ^ Seymour, Horn. Lang, and Verse, p. 79. On the relation between adj. and adv. see Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 416 f.; Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 40 f. 658 A GKAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT just a word.here. The Greeks were more fond of the personal construction than we English are. Farrar^ indeed doubts if Greek has a true impersonal verb. But kyevero in a passage like Lu. 1 : 8 comes close to it. Cf . Lu. 1 : 23. We have fewer examples in the N. T. of the personal construction, none in truth with either SiJXos (1 Cor. 15 : 27 is impersonal construction) or with 4>avep6s. But we do have ^avepovfitvoi on eark eiricrroXri Xpiarov (2 Cor. 3:3). Cf. XpicTos KTipitrcreTaL on in 1 Cor. 15 : 12. Note also afws Iva Xiro-o) (Jo. 1 : 27), but the impersonal construction is found with Skaiov in Ph. 1 : 7. See also Uavos ha in Mt. 8 : 8. Awaros oc- curs with the infinitive (2 Tim. 1 : 12). This personal construction is probably due to assimilation of gender by analogy.^ Cf. SoKel ffocjids elvai (1 Cor. 3 : 18), perfectly regular predicate nominative. See good example in 1 Cor. 15 : 9. IX. Adjectives Used with Cases. Examples were given under the various oblique cases of adjectives that were construed with the several cases. A mere mention of the matter is all that is re- quired here. Thus the genitive appears with 'ivoxos Bavarov (Mt. 26 : 66), the ablative with ^evoi twv 5iaBr]KC>v (Eph. 2 : 12), the da- tive (Mt. 20 : 1) and accusative with opioios vlov avdpiyirov (Rev. 14 : 14), the ace. with inaTbs to, irpos rov dtov (Heb. 2 : 17), the da- tive with ivoxoi Tjj Kp'urei (Mt. 5 : 21) and koKov aol ka-Tiv (Mt. 18 : 8), the instrumental with 'to-ous r]pA.v (Mt. 20 : 12), the locative with iSpaSets Tj? KapSiff (Lu. 24 : 25). Cf." locative in Col. 2 : 13 f. The adjective is, of course, used with various prepositions, as t6 kyoBbv irpds iravras (Gal. 6 : 10), ttkttos kv ^XaxicTcj) (Lu. 16 : 10), jSpaSus eis opynv (Jas. 1 : 19). X. Adjectives with the Infinitive and Clauses. If cases can occur with adjectives, it is natural that the verbal substantive known as the infinitive should come within that idiom and be in a ease. The case of the infinitive will vary with the adjective. Thus in fifios KXridTjvai. (Lu. 15 : 19) the infinitive is probably in the genitive case. Cf. also a^tos tva Xiio-co (Jo. 1 : 27). With Swards KoiKvaai (Ac. 11: 17) we have the accusative of general reference. In the case of iKavds Pacrracai (Mt. 3 : 11) we may see either the accusative of general reference, as above, or the dative, accordbig to the original idea of the form and the common case with kavos. Cf. also iKavis iva ela^k'Xdjis (Mt. 8:8). The instances of both in- finitive and Iva are numerous in the N. T. As specimens of the infinitive and preposition after the adjective, take raxus eis t6 d/coOffai, fipa5i)s eis to XaX^o-at (Jas. 1 : 19). Indeed the genitive ' Gk. Synt., p. 89. ^ Middleton, Anal, in Synt., p. 15. ADJECTIVES ('EnieETA) 659 article tov with the infinitive occurs with adjectives where it would not naturally be looked for, as in ^toliwL ka/xep tov aveXelv (Ac. 23 : 15). Cf. iroinos tifii, Topeveadai, (Lu. 22 : 33). But see further jSpaSeis tov itujTfhtiv (Lu. 24: 25). XI. The Adjective as Adverb. This subject has been treated in the chapter on the Cases as well as in the one on Adverbs. Hence a few words will suffice here. The border line between ad- jective in the nominative and adverb gets very dim sometimes. Thus in English we say "I am well," "He spoke well." Farrar' even says that it is "more correct" to use an adverb than an ad- jective in a phrase Uke atr/iei'os u/iSs dbov. But that is going too far even if we call it antimeria. He quotes Milton {Par. Lost, vii, 161), "Meanwhile inhabit lax," and Shakespeare {Taming of Shrew, I, i, 89), "Thou didst it excellent." We can see the difference be- tween ava.<7Tr}6L bpBos (Ac. 14 : 10) and bpdS>s iKpivas (Lu. 7 :43). But, as already observed, the difference between liovov and novc^ grows faint in 1 Jo. 5 : 6 and similar examples. Hence it becomes very easy for the adjective form in the accusative to be used indiscriminately as adverb where the adjective idea disappears. Thus only the context can tell whether /mvov is adjective (Jo. 8 : 29) or adverb (Gal. 1 : 23). So as to nLKpdy (Jo. 7 : 33 and 16 : 19), ToU (Lu. 12:48 and Ro. 3:2), 6X1701' (Mk. 1 : 19), etc. UpSiTov, for instance, is very common as an adverb (cf . Mt. 7 : 5, and even to irpuTov is found, Jo. 10 : 40), but irpcirajs occurs only once (Ac. 11: 26). It is needless to multiply here examples like these. Other cases are used besides the accusative to make ad- verbs from adjectives, as the ablative in Trpdiros above, the geni- tive as biMv (Jo. 4 : 36), the associative-instrumental as hripjociq. (Ac. 16 : 37). Cf. toXKQ (Ro. 5:9). All degrees of comparison furnish adverbs, thus ttoXu (Ro. 3 : 2; 2 Cor. 8 : 22), irXkov (Jo. 21 : 15), judXio-ra (Ac. 20 :38). The accusative singular of the com- parative is the common adverb of that degree as -KepLcabTtpov (Heb. 7: 15), but see irepuraorkpoos (2 Cor. 1 : 12). In the super- lative both the singular as tp&tov (Lu. 6 : 42) and the plural as juaXtora (above). These examples sufficiently illustrate the .prin- ciples involved. XII. The Positive Adjective. (a) Relative Contrast. In discussing the positive adjective first one must not get the idea that the positive was originally the absolute idea of the adjective as distinct from the compara- tive or superlative. This notion of absolute goodness or great- > Gk. Synt., p. 90. 660 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ness, etc., is itself later than the notion of comparison.^ Indeed the adjective itself has a relative sense and suggests the opposite, as light implies darkness. And then many of the oldest com- parative forms have no positive at all and never did have, like aful>6Tepos, apL(TTep6s, fieKrepos, Beiirepos, etc. More of this under the comparative. The point to get hold of just here is that the ad- jective per se (like many other words) implies contrast, and that originally this is what the comparative form meant. Thus in Homer some comparatives in -repos have no notion of greater or less degree, the idea of duality, but merely contrast, like BrjKvTipa as opposed to male, dpearepos as opposed to valley, dpicrepos op- posed to right, de^kepos opposed to left, •fipiTepos opposed to ii/ierepos and vice versa? Cf . the comparative idea (and ablative case after) in TO weptacov Toinav (Mt. 5 : 37). (6) Used as Comparative or Superlative. With this no- tion of the relative contrast in the adjective and the first use of the comparative one is not surprised to find the positive still used alongside of the comparative. In Lu. 1 : 42, evKoyrifikvr] at) kv yv- vai^iv, we do not have a mere Hebraism, though a very natural one in this translation from the Aramaic talk of Elizabeth. The Hebrew has no degrees of comparison at all and has to resort to circumlocutions.^ But Homer and other early Greek writers show a similar idiom, like dla decuav, dia yvvaiicuv (Eurip., Ale., 471).* Other examples occur in the N. T., like 0710 ayiwu (Heb. 9 : 2 f., frequent in the LXX), iroia kvTokfi p,eya\r] kv tc^ v6hc$ (Mt. 22 : 36). Cf. jSao-iXeus fiaaCkkoiv (Rev. 19 : 16), idipios tSjv Kvpuvovroiv (1 Tim. 6:15), Tov aiSivos r&v aUovuiv (Eph. 3:21). The vernacular noivii uses repetition of the adjective, as in inyaSoi /xeyaKoi, B.U. I, 229, ixeyaKwv koX p^yaXoiv ayadSiv, Inscription of Thera {Herm. 1901, p. 445), Bepiia OeppA, Herondas IV, 61. Cf. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 57. The positive suggests contrast clearly in rSiv irdKKiav (Mt. 24 : 12). Cf. ol -rroWoi in Ro. 5 : 15, 19; 1 Cor. 10 : 33. Here the majority is the idea, a comparative notion. Cf. Paul's use of Tois irXeiovas (1 Cor. 9:19) and Matthew's 6 TrXelo-ros oxXos(21:8). See also Mk. 12 : 37 6 ttoXvs oxXos and Lu. 7:11 oxXos xoXiis, and in 2 Cor. 8 : 15 to ttoXu and rd oXiyov. Hence it is not surprising in Lu. 16 : 10 to see kv 'tKa-xicTc^ and kv iroWif side by side (cf . kv 6\iyv Kcd kv ixeya\(f in Ac. 26 : 29), as in Mt. 5 : 19 also ^Xaxioros and » Cf. Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., Heft i, 1893, p. 7 f. ' Seymour, Horn. Lang, and Verse, p. 60. Cf.'K.-G., II, p. 21. » C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 64. * Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., Heft i, p. 9. ADJECTIVES ('EnieETA) ' 661 liiyas are set over against each other. Cf. also Mt. 22 : 38. In Ac. 26 : 24, to. iroWa. yp&niJiaTa, we have an implied comparison.' (c) With Pbepositions. The positive may be used with prep- ositions also where comparison is implied. Thus aixapruhol irapa irivras rois TaKiXaiovs (Lu. 13 : 2). Winer ^ properly compares this idiom with the use of us in Heb. 3 : 2, for in the next verse the author uses ir\eiovos S6^s as the sense of verse 2. But in the LXX this is a very common idiom' and it is found in the classical Greek. The correct text in Lu. 18 : 14 (NBL) has also SeSucaico/x^ws Tap' 'tKtivov. Cf. ci^ta xpos in Ro. 8 : 18. (d) CoMPAHisoN Implied by ^. Once more the positive may occur with Vj. . It is not necessary, in view of the preceding dis- cussion, to suggest the "omission" of paKKov.* It is true that we have only one such example in the N. T., koKov aoi ianv eiaeSBeiv t, p\rfifivai, (Mt. 18 : 8). Cf. Mk. 9 : 43, 45. But the LXX again furnishes many illustrations * like Xeu/coi ij (Gen. 49 : 12) . The ancient Greek also is not without parallels. And there are N. T. examples, as in LXX, of verbs so employed hke di\o: ij (1 Cor. 14 : 19) and Xuo-tTeXeT rj (Lu. 17 : 2) and substantives as x^pa iarai, ij (Lu. 15 : 7). Older Greek writers show this idiom with substantives and verbs.^ In Mt. 18 : 8 we have the positive adjective both before and after ij as KvXkov fi x'^^ov. But cf . 2 Tim. 3 : 4 for compara- tive before and positive after. (e) In Absolute Sense. After the three grades of comparison were once established, analogy worked to form and use positive, comparative and superlative. And sometimes the positive oc- curs in. the absolute sense. So we find Christ discussing the ab- solute meaning of the positive d7a96s in Mt. 19 : 17 (Mk. 10 : 18). Thus it comes to pass that sometimes the positive is more abso- lute than comparative or superlative which are relative of neces- sity. God is alone ayadds in this sense, while others are ^eKrloves and fik\TL(TToi. Our God, 6 ayaSos Beds, is higher in ideal and fact than Jupiter Maximus or Zeis apurros ^di p.^iaros.'' Of KaX6s the opposite is ov koXos and this is not the positive attribute alaxpos. In Mt. 17 : 4 we find Peter saying fervently koXov karw i\pS.s &6e etj/at. "The positive represents the highest absolute idea of a quality and cannot therefore be increased." ' ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 143. ' W.-Th., p. 240. ' C. and S., p. 64. * Though Blass does, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 143. 6 C. and S., p. 64; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 143; W.-Th., p. 241. « W.-Th., p. 240 f. ' Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Heft i, p. 9. » lb., p. 19. 662* A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT XllL The Comparative Adjective (s. So is 5ef-i6s' which explains the disappearance of Se^irepos. One of the comparative endings is -tos. This leads one to remark that the oldest comparative forms are not formed from positives as such, but from their own roots. Thus diirepos, which is obviously comparative and expresses duality, has no positive form. Cf. an^oTtpos and the examples just mentioned.* This original com- parative need not be formed from an adjective at all, but from a substantive like PaaiXevrepos, Kvvrepos, etc., in Homer where the comparative expresses the possession of the quality "in contra- distinction to objects which are without it" (Monro, Homeric Gr., p. 82). So Tporepos (from the adverb irpo) is not 'more forward,' but ' forward' in opposition to Harepos, ' backward.' Cf . Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 415. Cf. e\eWepos, 'free to come.' So k^wrepos is 'outside,' not 'more outside.' These oldest forms represent the original meaning which was not the comparison of greater or less, not a matter of degree, but a question of contrast or duality.* So fikXrepos, ap.eivcov have no positive forms. There is indeed a distinct weakening of this original duality in adjectives as in pronouns.^ Cf. the dropping of the dual endings. Thus in the N. T. irpoTepos as an adjective occurs only once, Kara ri/v irporkpav ava(rTpoiiv (Eph. 4: 22). It is rare in the papyri (Moulton, Prol., p. 79). Elsewhere xpSros holds the field when only two objects or persons are in view, like TpSirds fwv (Jo. 1 : 15), irpuTos and oXXos (20 : 4), etc. Cf. our 'first story' when only two stories are contemplated, 'first volimie,' etc. And as an adverb wpoTepov sur- vives only ten times (cf. 2 Cor. 1 : 15), while wpSiTov is very com- 1 Moulton, Prol., pp. 77 ff. " Brug., Grundr. vergl. Gr., II, i, p. 420. ' lb. Transl. (Comp. Gr.), vol. II, p. 132. • Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., Heft i, p. 5. » lb., pp. 4ff. » Moulton, Prol., p. 77 f.; CI. Rev., 1901, p. 439; 1903, p. 154. ADJECTIVES ('EHieETA) 663 mon. Luke does not use irp&repos (adjective or adverb) so that vpuTos in Ac. 1:1 with \6yos does not imply "tpitos. Moulton' finds irplnepos only once in the Grenf ell-Hunt volumes of papyri so that this dual form vanishes before the superlative ttputos. Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 244) sees this matter rightly and calls it a Latin point of view to insist on "former" and "latter" in Greek, a thing that the ancients did not do. (6) Degkee. The next step was for the notion of degree to come into the comparative. The notion of "two-ness" remained, but it had the added idea of more in degree. They run along then parallel with each other. The comparative form, therefore, has two ideas, that of contrast or duality (Gegensatz) and' of the relative comparative (Steigerung), though the first was the origi- nal.* Relative comparison is, of course, the dominant idea in most of the N. T. examples, though, as already remarked, the notion of duality always lies in the background. Thus apeKT&repov ?(rTai (Mt. 10 : 15), 0e^au)Tepov (2 Pet. 1 : 19), ets to Kpeiaaov (1 Cor. 11: 17), (ToiX6deoi,. "In Jo. 3 : 19 p&Wov — ij is used with two substantives" (H. Scott). In Phil. 16 we have a distinc- tion drawn between pAXurra and pRXKov with &de\(j)dv ayaTrrirov. No example occurs in the N. T. of two comparatives with ij, but in Ro. 9 : 12 we have 6 /ieif uj' dovXevaei t^ eXacraovi, and in Heb. 1 : 4, ToiTovTCf Kpe'iTTcav yevop^vos 6(ri^ Sia(l>op6}T€pov. I (d) Double Compahison. Sometimes indeed paXXov occurs with the comparative form itself. This applies to adjectives and adverbs. Thus paWov irepKrcrbrepov (Mk. 7 : 36), irepiatjorkpais paKKov (2 Cor. 7:13). Cf. in pRWov Kal p&Wov (Ph. 1:9), irepuraoTepov Iti Ka.Ta5r}\ov (Heb. 7:15). Recall also the double comparative form Hke vernacular English "lesser," pei^orkpav (3 Jo. 4), and the comparative on the superlative 'e\axi- Gk. Synt., p. 41. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 142. » W.-Th., p. 242. ADJECTIVES ('EnreETA) 665 more in length of experience than of age. Deissmann (B. S., p. 154 f.) finds in the papyri 6 Trpeff/Siirepos & K6iiir)s, an official title. Pap. Lugd. A, 35 f. (Ptol. Per.). In Ac. 17: 21 Kaivbrepov means, of course, something newer than what they had recently heard. Socrates said to Hippocrates when he came in (Plato, Protagoras 309 C): M Ti viisTipov LyyiXKecs; Then again, in Ac. 17: 22, 5eto-i- SaiiMvecripovi is more religious (or superstitious, as the case may be, . a matter for exegesis. I prefer religious) than ordinary or "than I had supposed. One does not need to deny the "elative" compara- tive sense of "very"^ here and elsewhere. The elative compa- rative is still comparative. But Blass^ denies even the elative comparative in a number of these examples. This is to a certain extent to surrender to translation the true interpretation of the Greek idiom. In Ac. 18 : 26 kKpifikarepov i^Wevro teaches that ApoUos received more accurate information than he had previously had. Cf. k^eraaOiiaeTaL trepl tovtov kKpi^karepov, B.U. 388 (ii/A.D.). Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 439. So in Ac. 24:22 LKpi^kuTepov ei5d)s means that Felix more accurately than one would suppose, and? in verse 26 wvicvdrepov shows that he sent for Paul more fre- quently than he had been doing before. Ac. 25 : 10 koWlov kinyi- viiffKHs is an interesting example. Paul hints that Festus knows his innocence better than he is willing to admit. Cf. fiiXnov ai yiviidKHs (2 Tim. 1 : 18), 'better than I.' BeXTLuv occurs in the papyri as adjective, though not in the N. T. Thus one could go through all the rather numerous examples of elative comparative adjectives and adverbs in the N. T. and show that with proper attention to the context the point of comparison appears plainly enough. The comparative ^ven without the expressed object of comparison is not just the positive. So in Ac. 27 : 13 aaaov irapthkyovro clearly means 'nearer than they could do before' (cf. vapaKeybpuvoi. in verse 8). Again in Jo. 4: 52 Kon'^brepov 'eaxev (note the construction) is 'better than before the word of Christ was spoken.' As further illustrations, not to overdo the point, note fioKKov in 2 Cor. 7 : 71 (cf. Ph. 1 : 12), (TTTovdaLdTepos in 2 Cor. 8 : 17 (cf. 2 Tim. 1 : 17) and (TwovSaiorkpeos in Ph. 2 : 28 (cf. 1 Th. 2 : 17), roXixriporkpccs (Ro. 15: 15), /ictfoces (2 Pet. 2 : 11), Kariirepa in Eph. 4 : 9. The common expression ol wXeiovs (Ac. 19: 32), and Tois irXeioms (1 Cor. 9 : 19) for 'the majority' should occasion no difficulty. In free trans- lation one may sometimes use 'very' or 'rather,' but this is ' Moulton, Prol., p. 236. He notes some "elative comparatives" in D, in Ac. 4 : 16 (tmvepdrepop, 10 : 28 pk\nov. > Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 142. 666 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT merely the resultant idea. Cf. iripois \6yois irKeloa-Lv (Ac. 2 : 40), The older Greek shows this idiom.^ (/) Followed by v- This fj is merely the disjunctive conjunc- tion. But ^ is not common in the N. T. in this connection. Indeed Blass* considers that it does not occur where any other construc- tion would be perfectly clear. As is well known in the ancient Greek, ^ is not common after TKe'uav and kXarrcav with numerals. This use of the comparative as a mere parenthesis is in the papyri. Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 438. O.P. 274 (I/a.d.) irXeico 7r)ix«w hvka. Cf. Schwab, Hist. Syntax, Heft ii, pp. 84 £f. Cf. also kiravco in Mk. 14 : 5 and 1 Cor. 15:6, where it has no effect on the construction. In Mt. 5 : 20 there is an ellipsis (TrXeToi' rSiv 9ap.), 'than that of the Pharisees.' So in Mt. 26 : 53 TrXeico ScbSera Xe7tw- vas occurs with no change in the case of XeYiaJyas. In Ac. 4 : 22; 23 : 13; 24 : 11 hkewise rj is absent without change of case. So in Ac. 25 : 6 ou ir\eiovs oktu rj diKa, for fj here does not go with TrXetous. But in Lu. 9 : 13 we do find ovk eia-lv fiiuv irKiiov rj aproi irivre. And in 1 Tim. 5 : 9 the ablative construction occurs. In justifi- cation of Blass' point' above, he points out that with two adjec- tives we have rj (2 Tim. 3:4); with a conjunction, as hyyvrepov rj ore (Ro. 13 : 11); with an infinitive, evKoiruripov dceKduv fi {eiaeKdeZv to be repeated, Mt. 19:24. Cf. Ac. 20:35); with a genitive (same form as the ablative would be if ^ were absent), like i/uiv aKoiiHv fiSWov fj Tov deov (Ac. 4 : 19) ;. with a dative, like aveKTorepov 7g So56iUcov fj t'q iroXei kKeivg (Mt. 10 : 15). These are all pertinent and striking examples. There remain others (against Blass' view) which are not so justified, like irXelovas noBriras TroteT ^ Tcodcijs (Jo. 4 : 1), riyairrjcav nSXKov to ckStos ^ to 0i3s (Jo. 3 : 19), etc. But it remains true that ^ is becoming rare in this usage in the N. T. (fir) Followed by the Ablative. The ablative is the most common means of expressing the standard of the comparison: so we must take the case, and not as genitive. As remarked in the chapter on the cases, this ablative construction seems rather more common in the N. T. than in the papyri. It is found in Homer.* In the old Sanskrit the ablative was found with comparatives,* though occasionally the locative or the instrumental appeared. ' Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Heft ii, p. 178; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 143. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 107 f. ■ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 316, sustains him. ' Monro, Horn., Gr., p. 109. ' « Ziemer, Vergl. Synt. der Indoger. Comp., 1884, pp. 29 ff. ADJECTIVES ('EniGETA) 667 Indeed the various constructions after the comparative (particle like ^, case, preposition) occur in the other Indo-Germanic lan- guages.' Schwab^ estimates that in Attic prose the ablative after the comparative stands in relation to ^ as 5.5 to 1 and in poetry 18 to 1. Blass' thinks that in the Koivii the ablative is three times as common in this idiom as in Attic prose. So in the N. T. this is the usual construction after the comparative. As further ex- amples observe nei^wv roiroiv (Mk. 12 : 31), /ietfcoc rod warpds vfiSiv (Jo. 4 : 12), irKiov robroiv (Jo. 21 : 15), aoopiiTepov Tap'.avTohs', 3 : 3, irXelovos 86^s irapa Mcovcrjv; 9 : 23, KpeiTTOcn dvalais irapa rahras. So Heb. 11:4; 12 : 24. Examples of virkp in this sense occur likewise in Lu. 16: 8, ^poviixinepoi. virkp Tovs VLOvs; Heb. 4 : 12, Tondirepos iirep iraaav p.axat.pav. In the LXX' comparison was usually completed by means of irapa or iivip. (i) The Comparative Displacing the Superlative. This increase of the comparative in contrast to the corresponding de- crease of the superlative is one of the most striking peculiarities of the adjective in the koivt). Indeed one may broadly say with Blass,' that in the koivti vernacular the comparative with the article takes ' lb., p. 1. 2 Hist. Synt. etc., Heft ii, p. 92. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 329. The abl. is sometimes used with personal pro- nouns after the comp. in mod. Gk. (Thumb, p. 76). *' Blass, ib., p. 108. 5 Einl. in die drei ersten Evang., p. 28. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 236. « Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 108. ' Thumb, Handb., p. 75 f. " C. and S., Sel., pp. 84 ff. For various prepositions so used in older Gk. see Schwab., Hist. Synt., Heft i, pp. 45 ff. ' Hermeneutik und Kritik, p. 199. 668 A GEAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT over the peculiar functions of the superlative. In the modem Greek vernacular the comparative with the definite article is the only idiom employed for the true superlative.^ The form in -raros in modern Greek is rare and always elative. Moulton^ finds the papyri supporting this disappearance of the superlative form be- fore the comparative to a certain extent. "It seems fair to con- clude that (1) the superlative, apart from its elative use, was dying, though not dead; (2) the comparative had only sporadically begun to be used in its place."' He reminds us that the literary use had as much weight as the vulgar idiom. As a matter of fact the superlative form is not essentially necessary. The Armenian has no superlative and is like the vernacular modem Greek. The root-difference between the comparative and the superlative is that between "twoness" and "moreness." As the notion of duality vanished or was no longer stressed, the need for a distinction be- tween the comparative and superlative vanished also. Both are in reality comparative in relation to the positive.* In the N. T. therefore we see this blurring of distinction between comparative and superlative. Of. 1 Cor. 13 : 13 nd^osv 8i roiroiv ^ ajSiirri where three things are compared. In English we say " greatest of these." Sir W. M. Ramsay gives iravroiv neZ^ov in a Christian inscription.' In Mt. 18 : 1 we have ris apa iteL^uv, etc. Cf. Mk. 9 : 34. So in Mt. 11 : 11 (cf. Lu. 9 : 48) note 6 8^ lUKpdrepos (but note also nel^up avTov). In Lu. 7 : 42 f., irKetov and rb ifKelov do indeed refer to the two debtors (verse 41), though it is questionable if that fine point is here insisted on. But in 1 Cor. 12 : 23 the comparatives have their usual force. Moulton* cites from O.P. 716 (ii/A.D.) riiv &nil- vova aipeciv 8i.86vtl, 'to the highest bidder.' Winer ^ indeed finds similar examples in Demosthenes and Athenagoras. Note the adverb ia-Tepov iravTOJv (Mt. 22:27), obviously as superlative. So in 1 Tim. 4 : 1, ev iarkpoLS Kaipois. In Eph. 4 : 9, ra Kardsrepa nkpij is likewise in the superlative sense. The Epistle of Barnabas shows similar examples. Blass* reminds us that the Italian does not dis- tinguish between the comparative and the superlative. The mod- em Greek to-day says 6 aocl)63Tepoi airo oXovs 'the wisest of all.'* ' Thumb, Handb., p. 73. » ProL, p. 78; CI. Rev., 1901, p. 439; 1904, p. 154. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33. > lb., CI. Rev., 1901, p. 439. Cf. Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc.. Heft ii, pp. 172, 177. ■• lb., Hefti, pp. 17ff. ' Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, II, p. 525. » Prol., p. 78 f. 8 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33. ' W.-Th., p. 242. • Jebb, V. and D.'s Handb., p. 309. ADJECTIVES ('EHieETA) 669 Moulton* notes the fact that, while KpeirTuv and x«tpt<»' in the N. T. are strictly comparative, they have no superlative, but he notes (p. 236) that the papyri show xti'Pi-(rros, as Tb.P. 72 (ii/s-c). XIV. The Superlative Adjective (■OirepeCTiKbv ovo|j,a). For the forms see chapter VII, ii, 3, (c). As already set forth, the superlative is moreness rather than twoness. (a) The Superlative Vanishing. As already remarked, the superlative forms are vanishing in the N. T. as in the Koivi} gener- ally. Blass^ observes that ecxaTos and irpSiTos are the only excep- tions to this disappearing tendency. Under the weakening of dualism irporepos goes down. Usually icrxo-ros refers to more than two, the last of a series or last of all, like iv kaxarxi rtiiipq. (Jo. 11 : 24), laxarov^ iravTuv (1 Cor. 15 : 8). Sometimes first and last are contrasted, like ^ Jcrxarij irSkvij x'^'-P'^v ttjs irpiiTris (Mt. 27 : 64) . Note comparative also. Cf. Mt. 19 : 30. So 6 tputos Kal 6 'iaxaros about Jesus (Rev. 1 : 17). In the LXX 'itrxa-ros occurs as com- parative (cf. in Deut. 24 : 3), and even as an adverb meaning 'after' in Deut. 31 : 29. Cf . Thackeray, p. 184. Even more com- mon than ?(7x.aTos is irpwros. It is used in the usual sense often (Mk. 12 : 20), but is also common where only two are concerned (1 Cor. 15 :45; Jo. 20 :4) as already shown. Sometimes irpSiros expresses mere rank as in Ac. 17 : 4. In Mt. 22 : 38 note ^ p,eya\ri Kal TpiOTt] evTciMj. Cf . irpiirri iravTwv in Mk. 12 : 28 (note gender also).^ These are true superlatives. Sir W. M. Ramsay {Expos- itor, Nov., 1912) shows that Trpciirrj in Lu. 2 : 2 is not in sense of Tpbrepos. It is first of a series of enrolments as we now know. But this proves nothing as to Ac. 1:1. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 60) quotes I Gr. XII, 5, 590, 'i^dacas iCKaxov irpSiros, where two are compared. (6) A Few True Superlatives in the N. T. But a few other true superlatives survive in the N. T. Thus 6 ^Xdxto-Tos in 1 Cor. 15 : 9 is a true superlative, 'the least.' But it is elative in Lu. 12:26. Cf. Mt. 2:6; 5:19. Moulton^ finds adxti\TaTos (Eurip., Hippol.), naKiara SavoTaros (Thuc), etc. Cf. Latin minimissimus and English "most straitest sect," "most unkindest cut of all," etc. (e) Followed by Ablative. The superlative, like the com- parative, may be followed by the ablative.^ Thus with irpuTov ipMv (Jo. 15 :18), irpSnbs px>v (Jo. 1 : 15), and possibly in m' kax'>''ro^ » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33. Blasa considers rg iiyiMThrj, (Ju. 20) elative. » Moulton, Prol., p. 78. « lb., p. 236. » Schwab, ffist. Synt. etc., Heft iii, pp. 70 ff. * lb., p. 79. 8 Cf . Abbott, Job. Gr., pp. 11 ff. ADJECTIVES ('EHIGETA) 671 ruv rinepup robruv (Heb. 1:2), though this passage may be merely the genitive. (/) No "Hebraistic" Superlative. It is gratuitous to con- sider do-retos t^ deQ (Ac. 7 : 20) and similar passages superlatives. XV. Numerals. For the general discussion of the forms see chapter VII, iii. The ordinals are indeed adjectives, as are the first four cardinals and all after two hundred. The syntactical pecuUarities of the numerals are not many. (a) EZs AND n/3ftJT05. The use of els rather than itpSiros is one of the most striking points to observe. Before we can agree with Blass* that this is "undoubtedly a Hebrew idiom," who follows Winer,* we must at least hear what Moulton' has to say in reply. To begin with, in modem Greek "the cardinals beyond 4 have ousted the ordinals entirely." * Then we learn from the inscriptions that this usage of cardinals as ordinals is as old as the Byzantine Greek.^ Moulton* also quotes from papyri of the second and third centuries a.d. tJ inq, km eixASt, B.U. 623 (ii/iii a.d.), a construction like luq, Kal ekaSt rod firivos in Haggai 2 : 1.^ The Germans, like the English, can say "page forty." ^ lii the N. T. we only find this sub- stitution of the cardinal in the case of els, while in the modern Greek the matter has gone much further. In the classic Greek no real analogy exists, though els stands in enumerations when Siirepos or aXXos follows, and in compound numerals a closer par- allel is found, like ets Kal TptaKoarSs, though even here the case is essentially different.' Cf. Latin unus et vicesimus, "a case of the formation of the ordinal being imperfectly carried out."^ Cer- tainly then it was possible for this development to have gone on apart from the Hebrew, especially when one considers that xpcoros is not derived from els, though Moulton'" admits that the Hebrew has the same pecuharity. Moulton" further objects that if Semitic influence had been at work we should have had Tg wevre in the modem Greek, since the Hebrew used the later days of the month in cardinal numbers.^ Still, the striking fact remains that in the LXX (cf. Numb. 1 : 1) and in the N.T. the first day of the month is expressed by nia, not by irpiyrri. This was obviously in harmony with the KOLvii of a later time, but the first evidence of its actual ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 144. ' C. and S., Sel., p. 31 . • W.-Th., p. 248 f. ' W.-Th., p. 249. • Prol., p. 95 f. » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 144. • lb. Cf. Thumb, Handb., etc., p. 82. " Prol., p. 96. ' Dieterich, Untera. etc., p. 187 f. " lb. •'Prol., p. 96. « Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 144. 672 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT use SO far is in the LXX, and it is in exact imitation of the Hebrew idiom on the point. It is hard to resist the idea that the LXX at least is here influenced by the Hebrew. And, if so, then the N. T. naturally also. Later on we need not attribute the whole matter to the Hebrew influence. In the N. T. indeed we once have vp&Tji caPfiarov (Mk. 16 : 9), which belongs to the disputed close of the Gospel.' Cf., on the other hand, els fiLav aa^^iirwv (Mt. 28 : 1), irp&Ji [rg] niq. t&v aa^^ardiv (Mk. 16 : 2), rg fiiq, tSsv aafi^aruv (Lu. 24: 1; Jo. 20 : 1; Ac. 20 : 7); kotA niav ua^^krov (1 Cor. 16 : 2). There is nothing peculiar in the use of kyiavrdv kuI jugras ej (Ac. 18 : 11). Cf. Rev. 12 : 14. (6) The Simplification of the "Teens." This began in the classical period as is seen in the Attic inscriptions.^ Hence from the third century B.C. on we usually find "simplified ordinals from 13th to 19th."' So we have TpurKaiS'tKaroi, reacrapecyKaiSeKaTos, etc. So the papyri* usually have 5e/ca rptZs, 5ko e?, and even Skm 8vo rather more^ frequently than SiiStKa. Cf. TeaaapeaKaiSeKarri in Ac. 27 : 27, 33. Hence Kai is not always inserted when the smaller number precedes and "omitted" when the larger comes first. It was never a uniform custom (Winer-Thayer, p. 250), least of all in the N. T. Cf. Gal. 3 : 17, etc. But three numerals may ap- pear without Kai, as in iKarbv TrevTriKOvra rpicov (Jo. 21:11). Cf. Rev. 7 : 4; 14 : 3; 21 : 17. See further chapter VII, iii, 2, (&). (c) The Inclusive Ordinal. Cf. 06x65 rptTos, 'he and two others.' It has one illustration in the N. T., oydoov Nwe (2 Pet. 2 : 5), 'Noah and seven others' or 'Noah an eighth.' The idiom is classical enough, though the ancient writers usually had airds also.* Moulton' finds one parallel in the papyri, rplros &v in P.P. iii. 28, though the literary Koivii writers (Plutarch, Appian) use it. Moulton expresses no surprise at this idiom in 2 Peter where "we rather expect bookish phrases." He comments also on the "translation English" in the Authorized Version's render- ing "Noah the eighth person," and uses it as an illustration of the way that the LXX often rendered the Hebrew, though un- like the misprint "strain at a gnat," it did not gain currency in English. ■ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 144, remarks that Eusebius quotas the verse " Meisterh., Att. Inscr., p. 160. » Moulton, Prol., p. 96. * lb. AiKa occupies first place from thirteen upwards, but with ordinals the reverse is true. ' Like the LXX. C. and S., p. 30. « W.-Th., p. 249. » Prol., pp. 98, 107. ADJECTIVES ('EniGETA) 673 (d) The Distributives. There is no trouble over the classic use of ava. (Mt. 20 : 9) and Kara (Mk. 6 : 40) in this sense. We have already (chapter XIII, avix, and Kara) discussed Lva eh (Rev. 21 : 21) and KoB' eis (Ro. 12 : 5). The point here that calls for comment is whether 36o hho in Mk. 6 : 7 is a Hebraism. Cf . ava. biio [Sio] in Lu. 10 : 1. Winer' termed it "properly Hebraistic," while Blass {Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 145) more guardedly described^ it as "after the Semitic and more colloquial manner." The repetition of the numeral is a Hebrew way of expressing the distributive idea. Cf. in the N. T. also avixvbaia avuTrdaia (Mk. 6 : 39), xpatriai vpaaial (verse 40). Moulton^ cites also Seir/ias Stafias, as the read- ing of Epiphanius for Mt. 13 : 30. But Winer' had himself cited ^schylus, Persae, 981, livpla nvpla, and Blass* compares in Eris, the lost drama of Sophocles, filav iilav. The Atticists had cen- sured this as "colloquial," but at any rate "it was not merely a creation of Jewish Greek." Deissmann^ besides quotes rpLa rpia from the Oxy. Papyri. W. F. Moulton^ had already called atten- tion to the fact that modem Greek shows the same usage. Hence we must conclude, with Moulton' and Thumb,* that the KOLvii de- velopment was independent of the Hebrew. Moulton^ comments also on the reading of B in Lu. 10 : 1, ava Svo 8vo, and notes how ia the papyri nejciKov ixeya\ov=ihe elative superlative neyia-Tov. See also KaT&.Sio 8vo in P. Oxy. 886 (iii/A.D.). For the proportionals the N. T. has only -^\aa'uov, not the classic -^Xdo-ios. Cf . imTovTaifKau'ioiv, Mk. 10 : 30 and Mt. 19 : 29 NCDX; iroXXaTrXao-iwj', Lu. 18 : 30 and Mt. 19 : 29 BL. Cf. Blass-Debnmner, p. 38. (e) The Cardinal "Ettto. With i^doixtiKovraKis kvTa (Mt. 18 : 22) rather than inrraKis D the rendering 'until seventy times seven' is certainly possible in itself and follows literally the Greek words. The identical expression (e^Sojuiy/covTci/cis «rra) occurs in Gen. 4 : 24 (where the Revised Version renders it 'seventy and seven fold') and in Test, xii, Pat. Ben. 7 : 4. The margin of the Revised Version for Mt. 18 :22 gives "seventy times and seven" which > W.-M., p. 312. ' Prol., p. 97. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 330. • W.-Th., p. 249; W.-M., p. 312. » Theol. Literaturzeit., 1898, p. 631. » W.-M., p. 312 note. Cf. Jebb in V. and D.'s Handb., p. 310. Rader- macher (N. T. Gr., p. 57) cites a-v Sii8eKa, the article at first looks incongruous, 'the one of the twelve,' but the early papyri give illustrations of this usage also.^ It is as a pronoun that els is to be construed here and in the rather frequent alterna- tive expressions els — els (Mt. 24 : 40), fila — h'm (verse 41), t6v eva — r6v erepov (Mt. 6 : 24), iv6s — rod irkpov {ib.}^ eh — tov epos (1 Cor. 4:6)., Cf. els Kal eh (Mt. 27 : 38) and the reciprocal use in 1 Th. 5 : 11. ' Cf. els feaffros, Mt. 26 : 22. (j) The Distributive Use of EI?. So Ik Kad' ev in Rev. 4:8 and the "barbaric" (Winer-Schmiedel, p. 247) eis kotA eTs (Mk. 14 : 19), rb Kad' eh (Ro. 12 : 5), dvA els hiaopLKat). They either "point out" or they "refer to" a substantive. So we get the modem terras, demonstrative and relative (cf. Monro, Homeric Gr., p. 168 f.). But some pronouns may be demon- strative or relative according to the context. The demonstrative or deictic was the original usage. For practical purposes we have to follow a more minute division. I. Personal Pronouns (irpcoTdTuiroi t] irpocrcoiriKal dvTcaw|x(ai). The personal pronouns (first and second persons) are deictic (I, thou). The reason for the use of pronouns, as already explained, was to avoid .the repetition of the substantive. In Jo. 11 : 22 note the repetition of Beds. Cf. also Lu. 6 : 45. (a) The Nominative. As already explained, the verb uses the personal pronoun as personal suffixes, so that as a rule no need was felt for the separate expression of the pronoun in the nom- inative. All verbs had the personal endings like el-fii, kir-al, ka-ri. The use of the personal pronoun in addition to the personal end- ing of the verb was due to desire for emphasis. Then the sepa- rate expression of the pronoun led to the gradual sloughing off of the personal ending. In modern Enghsh this process is nearly complete. In Greek this process was arrested, though in modem Greek all verbs save eifial are -u verbs. In most cases, therefore, in Greek the existence of the personal pronoun in the nominative implies some emphasis or contrast. But this is not quite true of all examples. "The emphasis of the first and second persons is not to be insisted on too. much in poetry or in familiar prose. • Cf. Schoemann, Die Lehre von den Redet. nach den Alten, p. 95 : "Die Nomina benennen die Dinge nach ihren Qualitaten, die Pronomina bezeichnen sie nach ihren Verhaltniasen." 676 PRONOUNS ('ANTflNTMIAl) 677 Notice the frequency of eyv^a, irtQtMi,."^ In conversation it was particularly common to have the personal pronoun in the nomina- tive. In the later Greek generally the personal pronouns show a weakening of force,' but never to the actual obliteration of emphasis, not even in the modern Greek.' Moulton* agrees with Ebeling' that there was "no necessary emphasis in the Platonic ^v 5' ^ti, ^-nv kyi}, d)s av (Mis." Clearly then the frequency of the pronoun in the N. T. is not to be attributed to the Semitic influ- ence. Even Conybeare and Stock ° see that it is not necessary to appeal to the well-known Hebrew fondness for pronouns for this usage. But Blass' thinks that some of the MS. variations may be due to Semitic influence. We are free therefore to approach the N. T. examples on their merits.* 1. The First Person, iy6) and ij/ueTs. It is easy to find in the N.T. numerous examples where kyi) shows contrast. So hju xp««i»' ixu frjrd (Tov fiaiTTicrdrjpai (Mt. 3 : 14), kryii di Xiyu (5 : 22), kyu tre m^aaa (Jo. 17 : 4). Cf. kyii and cv in Jo. 17 : 23. The amount of emphasis will vary very greatly according to circumstances and may sometimes vanish entirely so far as we can determine. Differ- ent shades of meaning appear also as in iirip o3 ^u tiTov (Jo. 1 : 30), 'I, myself.' Cf. Ka.y(j} ovk jiSeiv avrov (Jo. 1 : 33) and Kayu iupaKa Kal ii£ius.pThpi]Ka (verse 34) and note absence with second verb. Cf . Jo. 6 : 48; 16 : 33; 1 Cor. 2 : 1, 3. Note absence of iyii in Mt. 5 : 18, 20, X^7w vjuv. Cf. also tIs aadeveZ Kal oxjk LadevSi; (2 Cor. 11 : 29) with tw (rKavdcLKi^erai Kal oiiK kyi) irvpov/xai; (ib.). as proof that the point must not be pressed too far in either direction.* Further examples of iyi) may be seen in Ro. 7: 17; Jo. 5 : 31, 34; 10:30; Eph. 5 : 32; Ph. 4:11. For the plural ■qiiets see ■fifieZs TrpoaKwov/ieu (Jo. 4 : 22) in opposition to ijuels, but then follows merely o ot5afiev. So in Ac. 4 : 20 note ov 5vpafie0a ■fifiets 8. eiSa/jitv and rt Kal ijyueTs kw8v- viiiofuv; (1 Cor. 15 : 30). Cf. Mt. 6 : 12. The "editorial" 'we' has already received discussion (cf . The Sentence) and may be merely illustrated here. Blass '" considers it a ' 'wide-spread tendency among Greek writers, when they speak of themselves to say ij/teTs instead ' Gildersleeve, Synt. of CI. Gk., part i, p. 35. = Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 348. « Gildersleeve, Studies, p. 240. ' Thumb, Handb., etc., p. 59 f. « Sel. from the LXX, p. 65. * Prol., p. 85. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 316. ' In general the N. T. follows the classic idiom. W.-Sch., p. 194. » Cf. W.-Sch., p. 194. " Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 166. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 86 f., who leaves the matter to the exegete. 678 A GBAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT of kyi)." This is not always true in Paul's Epistles (Ro. 1 : 5), for sometimes he associates others with him in the address at the beginning. There are undoubted examples in the N. T. like oloi kaiiev (2 Cor. 10: 11), iteMiuBa (Heb. 13 : 18), ypa^oixev (1 Jo. 1 : 4). But sometimes the plural merely associates the readers or hearers with the writer or speaker. So kcjyoptcranev (1 Cor. 15 : 49), dfioi^aia- Ijxv (Mk. 4 : 30). Sometimes the first person singular is used in a representative manner as one of a class (cf. the representative article like 6 ayaffds) . Blass* does not find this idiom so common in Greek as in other languages, but it occurs in Demosthenes and certainly in Paul. So ri en Kaycb cos d/ioprcoXos Kpivoixai; (Ro. 3:7). Cf. in next verse PKaaiiti.tBa. See 1 Cor. 10 : 30; Gal. 2 : 18. In Ro. 7 : 7-25 special difiiculties occur. 2. The Second Person, ah and vfieh. Thus in Jo. 17: 5 note the contrast in m« <^v. Cf . Jo. 1 : 42 o-i el Si/ico^ — av KKriOriaTa, 2 -.10 aii reriipriKas, 4 : 9 irSs ai 'lovSatos, 4 : 10 crii av ■grriaas, Ro. 2 : 3 OTt ci) kKfpev^jl, Lu. 1 : 76 Kal av di, etc. Cf. also Mt. 27 : 11. Sometimes av has a very emphatic position, as in aii ris et (Ro. 9 : 20; 14 : 4). In 1 Cor. 15 : 36, a<^pa)i/, ab S airdpeis, it is possible,'' though not necessary, to take ab with a^pt^v (cf. Ac. 1 : 24). In koI ah k^ avTwv el (Lu. 22 : 58) one is reminded of the Latin Et tu, Bride. See Lu. 10 : 15; Ac. 23 : 3; ^ ml ah H i^ovdevets (Ro. 14 : 10). As ex- amples of the plural take eaeade hfiets (Mt. 5 : 48), Sore avrots vfieis ^ytlv (Mk. 6 : 37). See kKttvos and hfiets contrasted in Jo. 5 : 38; ifiels in verse 39 and also in 44 f. Cf. Ac. 4:7; Lu. 10 : 24, and in particular hfieXs bipeade (Mt. 27: 24). For hfiets and rffieZs con- trasted see Jo. 4 : 22. In Jo. 4 : 35, ohx h/iets \kyeTe, we have the same inclusive use of the second person that we noticed in the first. In Ro. 2 : 3, 17, the second person singular occurs in the same repre- sentative sense that the first has also. Cf. also Ro. 9 : 20; 11: 17, etc. In Jo. 3 : 10, ah el 6 SiSaaKoXos, we have a case of distributed em- phasis. Cf. also Mt. 16 : 16; Jo. 9 : 34; 2 Cor. 1 : 23, as examples of this sustained emphasis, where the emphasis of the pronoun passes on to the remainder of the sentence and contributes point and force to the whole.' On the whole the Greek language has freedom in the construction of the pronouns.* Moulton raises^ the question if in ah eiTras (Mt. 26 : 64), ah X^ets (27 : 11), vfiets X€7€Te (Lu. 22 : 70), we do not have the equivalent. of 'That is right,' > Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 316 f. ' W.-Sch., p. 195. ' Renaud, The Distributed Emphasis of the Pers. Pron., 1884. * Bemhardy, Wissensch. Synt. der griech. Spr., 1829, p. 45. » ProL, p. 86. PRONOUNS ('ANTHNTMIAl) 679 but irXiji' (Thayer) is against it in Mt. 26 : 64. 26 occurs in John more frequently than in all the Synoptics put together (Abbott, Johannine Gr., p. 297). 3. The Third Person. It has had a more radical development or lack of development. As a matter of fact the Greek had and has no definite third personal pronoun for the nominative like 'eyi) and ai. No nominative was used for o5, ol, etc., and this pro- noun was originally reflexive. Besides it is not used in the N. T., though literary koiv^ writers like Aristides, Arrian, Lucian, Polyb- ius use it.' Where another pronoun was desired for the third person besides that in the personal ending, various devices were used. The Attic writers usually employed a demonstrative (6 5k, o nkv, ovTos, kKelvos, 3s de, oSe, etc.). The N. T. shows examples of all these constructions which will be illustrated in the discussion of the demonstrative pronoims. But the N. T. uses also avros as the subject, an idiom foreign to Attic writers, but found already in Horner^ and common in the modem Greek, where indeed it has come to be itself a demonstrative.' Simcox* rightly remarks that the main point to observe is not whether it has emphasis, but its appearance at all as the mere subject. All the personal pronouns in the nominative have more or less emphasis. The use of avros in contrast with other persons is natural like avros nal ot fier' aliTov (Mk. 2 : 25). We are not here considering the intensive use oi avros as 'self' nor the use of 6 avros 'the same.' There is^^no dis- pute as to use of airos as emphatic 'he' in the N. T. like the Pytho- gorean^ (Doric) avros ?0a. So Ac. 20 : 35 avrSs elirev, as much as to say 'The Master said.' Cf. the way in which some wives refer systematically to their husbands as "He." Other undoubted examples are avros yi.p aoia-ei. rbv Xaou (Mt. 1 : 21). Here the em- phasis is so clear that the Revised Version renders: "For he it is that shall save." In Mt. 12 : 50 avros fwv adeXtjios is resumptive, gathering up So-rts, and is distinctly emphatic. Cf. likewise avros PaTTiaei, referring to 6 kpxonevos in Mt. 3 : 11; 6 rripuv — Kal airos, IJo. 3 : 24; Sc S.v L\iiv KrijaeaBe ras \j/vxo.s iifiSiv (Lu. 21: 19). See also position of pov in Mt. 8 : 8 and Jo. 11 : 32. As a matter of fact the genitive of personal pronouns, as is common in the KOLvri (Moulton, Prol., p. 40 f.), has nearly driven the possessive pronoun out. The use of the article with this genitive will be dis- cussed in that chapter (The Article). Cf. top irarkpa pov (Mt. 26 : 53) and 0tXoi pov (Jo. 15 : 14). Both iipSip in Paul (1 Cor. 9 : 12) and airov (Tit. 3 : 5) may be in the attributive position. The position of airov is emphatic in Eph. 2 : 10 as is that of vpSiv in 1 Cor. 9 : 11 and vpuv in Jo. 11 : 48. The attributive position of ^p&v (2 Cor. 4 : 16) and airov with other attributes (Mt. 27: 60) is not unusual. 4. Enclitic Forms. The first and second persons singular have enclitic and unenclitic forms which serve to mark distinctions of emphasis in a general way. We may be sure that when the long 1 lb., 2. Abt., pp. 69, 89. • 2 Jann., ffist. Gk. Gr., p. 152. 682 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT form ifiov occurs some slight emphasis is meant, as in in&v re Kal efwv (Rom. 1:12). But we cannot feel sure that all emphasis is absent when the short form is used. Thus ol/codoii'^aoi} /wv rfiv kKKKriaiav (Mt. 16 : 18), iravTa /xot irapedodi] inro tov irarpos Mov (11 : 27). With prep- ositions (the ,"true" ones) the long form is used as in ancient Greek except with vp6s, which uniformly has fie even where em- phasis is obvious.' Thus Bevre irpds fie (Mt. 11 : 28), Kal av ipxv irpos fie (3 : 14). Some editors here and in the LXX print irpos fik. But in Jo. 6 : 37 rpds k/ik is the true text. Cf. irpos ifik also in P.Tb. 421 (iii/A.D.). With aov the only difference is one of accent and we have to depend on the judgment of the editor. It is difficult, if not impossible, to lay down any fundamental distinction on this point. On crov and aoO see chapter VII, iv, 4, (a). Nestle has k^/wXayovfiai coi (Mt. 11 : 25) and Kayi) Se Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 165. ^ Abbott, Job. Gr., p. 281. I > W.-Th., p. 148. Cf . C. and S., p. 65 f . 684 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT suggested by AKpopvarla. So in Ac. 8 : 5 airoZs refers to ttAXw. In Mk. 5 : 41 aiiTJJ follows the natural gender of irai.diov rather than the grammatical. But in Jo. 6 : 39 aM agrees grammatically with the abstract collective ttSi/ S. In Lu. 6 : 6 we find a usage much like the original Homeric absence of the pure relative.' We have ml airov used with avdpuirm much as o5 was. In Mt. 28 : 19 aiTToiis refers to Wv-q. In Mk. 6 : 46 airoTs points to SxXov. (/) Eepbtition of the Substantive. Sometimes indeed the substantive is merely repeated instead of using the pronoun. Thus in Jo. 11 : 22 we have r6v Oeov — 6 6i6s. This is usually due to the fact that the mere pronoun would be ambiguous as in the use of 'I)j(roOs in Jo. 4 : 1. Sometimes it may be for the sake of emphasis as in 6 uJds toO avOpiiirov (Lu. 12 : 8) rather than kyd). Sometimes antithesis is better sustained by the repetition of the substantive. Thus with Koffiu^ — Kotr/iov (Jo. 9:5), afiapria — ojuapTios (Ro. 5 : 12). But this is no peculiarity of Greek. n. The Possessive Pronouns (KXTiriKal avTavv[Llai). (a) Just the Article. It is not merely the possessive relation that is here under discussion, but the possessive pronoun. Often the article alone is sufficient for that relation. Thus in kKreivas rriv x"Pi (Mt. 8 : 3) the article alone makes the relation clear. Cf. also rds X"pas (Mk. 14 : 46), rriv [laxaipa-v (14 : 47), rbv a5eK4tbv (2 Cor. 12 : 18). The common use of the genitive of the personal pronoun is not under consideration nor the real reflexive pronoun like eauToO. (6) Only fob First and Second Persons. There is in the N. T. no possessive form for the third person. The other expe- dients mentioned above (usually the genitive ainov, avruiv) are used. The personal pronouns are substantival, while the posses- sive forms are adjectival. In modem Greek no adjectival pos- sessive exists. Just the genitive occurs (Thumb, Handbook, p. 89). The possessive knos and aos are disappearing in the papyri (Rader- macher, iV. T. Gk., p. 61). Originally the accent^ of ^;tt6s was *ipx)s. The forms fifik-Tepos and 6/ie-repos are both comparative and imply emphasis and contrast, the original meaning of the comparative.^ (c) Emphasis, When Used. When these possessive forms oc- cur in the N. T. there is emphasis. But it is not true, as Blass* » Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35. " Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 250. » Seymour, The Horn. Dial., p. 60. « Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 168.' Brugmaim (Vergl. Gr., ii. 283) derives the poss. from the gen., while Delbriick (V, i. 213) obtains the gen. from the poss. Who can tell? PRONOUNS ('ANTflNTMIAl) 685 affirms, that there is no emphasis when the genitive forms are used. See I, (6), 4. The possessives do not occur often ia the N. T. For details see chapter VII, iv, 4, (d). (d) With the Article. The possessives in the N. T. usually have the article save when predicate.^ Thus ■fi enii (Jo. 5 : 30), tIjs kurjs (Ro. 10 : 1), rb kfidv (Mt. 18 : 20), tQ a(^ (Mt. 7 : 3), etc. When the article is absent the possessive is usually predicate as in to. ly.k TT&vTa ak kaTiv, Kal tA aa 'tnk (Jo. 17: 10; Lu, 15 : 31). In /ii? 'exu^ ifiiiv SiKatxxrhvriv T'fjv he v6fu)v (Ph. 3 : 9) the possessive is attributive, a righteousness of my own, though the article comes later. In Jo. 4 : 34 we have kudv fipSink ka-rcv Xva where the attributive use also occurs. But see Mt. 20 : 23. One may note ifiSip in predicate (1 Cor. 3 : 21). (e) Possessive and Genitive Together. Paul's free use of the possessive and genitive together as attributives is well illus- trated by rd kiidv irvevfia koX rt> ifiSiv (1 Cor. 16 : 18). In 1 Cor. 16 : 17 the MSS. vary between ri v/xSiv iareprina and to vixkrtpov (BCD) iiar. So in 1 Jo. 2:2 we have both irept tSiv afiapriSiv ^fiuv and also irepl tGiv fiiierkpoov. Indeed the genitive may be in apposi- tion with the genitive idea in the possessive pronoun. Thus rg kiiv X6'pi UaiiXov (1 Cor. 16 : 21). Cf. 2 Th. 3 : 17; Col. 4 : 18; Jo. 14:24. (J) Objective Use. The possessive pronoun may be objective just like the genitive. This is in full accord with the ancient idiom. So ttiv kuTjv au6.iJivri IlaOXos. There is nothing particularly essential in the order whether ahrbs kyii or ^i diros (see above). "'Er/uye is not in the N. T. (6) Varying Degrees of Emphasis. For a list of the vari- ous shades of meaning possible with ahrbs see Thompson, Syntax of Attic Greek, p. 59 f. In Ro. 15 : 14 avrbs occurs with the first person and aiiTol with the second in sharp contrast. In Shake- speare we have "myself" as subject: "Myself have letters" {Jvlius Ccesar, iv. 3).' Cf. Latin ipse. In Jo. 2 : 24, avrds Si 'Iriaovs, we have Jesus himself in distinction from those who believed on him. In 1 Cor. 11 : 14 77 4>v(ns aiiTT) is 'nature of itself.' Note airol oWare (1 Th. 3 : 3), 'ye for yourselves.' In Ac. 18 : 15, 6^eade aiiTol, we find 'ye by yourselves.' Each instance will vary slightly owing to the context. Cf. airoi (Ac. 16 : 37); airos /mvos (Mk. 6 : 47). On abrol nh olv see Ac. 13 : 4. See d^' taxnuv (Lu. 12 : 57), not aiiTOi. (c) A.vTO'i WITH OuTO?. In Ac. 24 : 15, 20, the classical idiom ahroi oZroi occurs. Cf. els ainb tovto (Ro. 9 : 17), irexoiScis avrb tovto (Ph. 1 : 6), aijrb tovto (2 Pet. 1 : 5, accusative of gen. reference). Cf. 2 Cor. 7: 11. The other order is found in ejpai[/a tovto aM (2 Cor. 2:3). (d) Auto's almost Demonstrative. In Luke o6t6s 6 is some- times almost a pure demonstrative as it comes to be in later Greek. The sense of 'very' or 'self is strengthened to 'that very.' Thus ai>T^ tJ Sipq, (Lu. 2 : 38), ev ah-Q tQ Kaipc^ (13 : 1), kv avry tJ ■linkpil. (23 : 12). The modem Greek freely employs this demonstra- tive sense. Cf. Thumb, p. 90. Moulton {Prol., p. 91) finds this demonstrative use of aMs b in the papyri. . So avrbv Tbv 'Avtclv, O.P. 745 (i/A.D.). Moulton thinks that aiirds is demonstrative also in Mt. 3 : 4. See vi, Qi), for further discussion. (e) In the Oblique Cases. It is not so common as the nom- inative. So abrots rots KkriTots (1 Cor. 1 : 24). Cf. koI airoiis in Ac. 15 : 27 (cf. 15 : 32). But examples occur even in the first and 1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35. PEONOXTNS ('ANTHNTMIAl) 687 second persons. Thus k/jtov ain-ov (Ro. 16 : 2), aov auTrjs (Lu. 2 : 35), oirois fiiMs (2 Th. 1 : 4), ^1 i/iwc airoii' (Ac. 20 : 30, probable text). Here the use is intensive, not reflexive. The same thing is pos- sible with i/iuv ahrCsv in 1 Cor. 7 : 35 (of. 11 : 13). But I think this reflexive. This intensive use of ahrbi with e/toO and o-oO is found in Attic. In ahrSiv rjiiSiv and inSjv only the context can decide which is mtensive and which reflexive. Cf. Thompson, A Syntax of Attic Greek, p. 64. Cf. ef airSov ruv vtKpoTaiJMv, 'from the grave-diggers themselves,' P. Grenf. ii, 73 (iii/A.D.). (/) A.vT6' i/tas, 17 : 27 56s 6,vtI kpuiv Kal aov, 18 : 15 tXty^ov . . . nera^i aov Kal avrov. Matthew has rather more of these survivals. But see d^iSco rd irepl k^k (Ph. 2 : 23), rb /car' k/ik vpbdviws (Ro. 1 : 15). For this idiom in Attic see Thompson, Syn- ' Cf. Dyroff, Gesch. d. Pron. Reflex., 1. Abt., p. 16. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 166 f. 688 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT tax of Attic Greek, p. 64. This is not indeed the classic Attic idiom, but the vernacular Attic (as in the Koivij) is not so free from it. In.particular the third person presents peculiar problems, since the ancient MSS. had no accents or breathings. The abbreviated reflexive ainov and avrov would look just alike. It is a matter with the editors. See chapter VI, iv, (/), for details. Thus W. H. give dparw TOP aravpov avrov (Lu. 9 : 23), but ovk 'ewlaTevev avrdp airoTs (Jo. 2 : 24). In Lu. 9 : 24 we have rriv \pvxvv avrov, but in 14 : 26 TVv ^vxvv eavTov. For airov as indirect reflexive in Attic see Thomp- son, A Syntax of Attic Greek, p. 64. Cf. abr^, Ac. 4: 32. In the light of the history of the personal pronouns the point is not very material, since avrov can be reflexive also. The Attic Greek used to have 5okSi fiot. But Luke in Ac. 26 : 9 has 'i5o^a eixavrQ as Paul in 1 Cor. 4 : 4 says hixavrQ avvoida. Old English hkewise used the personal pronouns as reflexive. Thus "I will lay me down and sleep," "He sat him down at a pillar's base," etc.^ Cf. Ac. 19 : 21, fie twice. See also chapter VII, iv, 4, (c). (6) The Absence of the Reflexive feom the Nominative. It is impossible to have a reflexive in the nominative. The in- tensive pronoun does occur as avrds kyi> (2 Cor. 10 : 1) . The EngUsh likewise, as already shown, early lost the old idiom of "myself," "himself" as mere nominatives.^ Cf. d(^' iavrov, Jo. 11 : 51, where ahrbs could have been employed. (c) The Indirect Reflexive. It is less common in the N. T. It does indeed occur, as in the ancient Greek. So 0eXco iravrai MpiyKOVS ilvai cos Kal knavrov (1 Cor. 7:7), avve'iSr](n,v 5i Xeyco oiixi rr/v iavrov dXXa rrjv rov irkpov (10 : 29). But on, the other hand, note iyd) kv tQ kiravkpxeadai fie dTroSojcrto croi (Lu. 10 : 35), TrapoKaXS — avvaycovlffatrdal poi, (Ro. 15 : 30). Cf. 2 Cor. 2 : 13. This on the whole is far commoner and it is not surprising since the personal pronoun occurs in the direct reflexive sense. Cf. 9iv ^Kovcrark fu)v (Ac. 1:4). In Thucydides the reflexive form is generally used for the indirect reflexive idea.* ; (d) In the Singular. Here the three persons kept their sep- arate forms very weU. Hence we find regularly inavrov (Jo. 14 : 21), aeavrQ (Ac. 16 : 28), iavrQ (Lu. 18 : 4). Indeed iavrov never stands for kiJ.avTov.* For aeavrov or crtavrbv some MSS. read kavrov in Mk. 12 : 31; Jo. 18 : 34; Gal. 5 : 14; Ro. 13 : 9. In 1 Cor. 10: 29 ^auToC='one's own' (Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 441; Prol., p. 87). There was some tendency towards this usage in the an- ' Fairar, Gk. Synt., p. 33. » Dyroff, Gesch. etc., Bd. I, 1892, p. 19. 2 lb. « W.-Sch., p. 205. PRONOUNS ("ANTflNTMIAl) 689 cient Greek,* though the explanation is not perfectly clear.* But the usage is clearly found in the Atticists, Dio Chrys., Lucian and Philost. II.' In Rev. 18 : 24 kv airy is a sudden change from h aol of the preceding verses, but is hardly to be printed aiiT^, for it is not strictly reflexive. The same^ use of aWriv rather than ak appears in Mt. 23 : 37 and parallel Lu. 13 : 34. Cf. also Lu. 1 : 45. But Moulton (CI. Rev., Dec, 1901, p. 441, April, 1904, p. 154) finds in the papyri several examples of this "un- educated use of iavTov" for first and second persons singular, avy- XospS) /ierA ti)v iavTov reXevrriv, B.U. 86 (ii/A.D.). Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 61) cites kirkypaxf/a lavrQ (Petersen-Luschan, Reisen etc., p. 26, n. 32). Thucydides has a few possible examples and certainly the Latin is is in point (Draeger, Historische Synt. d. Lai. Spr., p. 84). In early Greek Delbriick finds the reflexive referring indifferently to either person. Cf. Thompson, Synt. of Attic Greek, p. 64. In the modem Greek the singular iavrov occurs constantly for first and second persons and even tov iavrov nov, Tov iavTov (TOV for emphasis. Cf. "myself," "thyself," "herself" and vulgar "hisself." See Simcox, Language of the N. T., p. 63. In translation from Semitic originals we sometimes find i^ux^c rather than kavrbv as in Lu. 9 : 24 (cf. Mk. 8 : 36). Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 87; Robinson, Study of the Gospels, p. 114. The form aiiTov (Jo. 2 : 24), airi^ (Lu. 12 : 21) is preserved in some 20 pas- sages by W. H. and Nestle. (e) In the Pluhal. Here the matter is not in any doubt. It is rather too much to say with Simcox that iavrdv is the only form ' for the reflexive plural. This is indeed true for the first and third persons as avedeimTicafiev iavroiis (Ac. 23 : 14). In 2 Th. 1 : 4 avroiis ■iiims is intensive, as already shown (chapter VII). In the third person also only iavTuv occurs as in Mt. 18 : 31. In the second person plural a few examples of the reflexive iii&v avT&v apparently survive, as in Ac. 20 : 30; 1 Cor. 5 : 13 and probably so in 1 Cor. 7:35; i/itc avroXs in 1 Cor. 11 : 13. But the common idiom for the second person plural is undoubtedly iavT&v, as irpoakxere iavrols (Lu. 17 : 3). Cf. Mt. 25 : 9; Ro. 6 : 13; IJo. 5 : 21, etc. There are some seventy examples of kavrSiv for first and second persons plural in the N. T. (Moulton, Prol., p. 87), as is the custom in the papjrri, chiefly in illiterate documents. Cf . Iva yeiviifieBa irp6s TOts Kod' iavToiis, Tb.P. 6 (ii/s.c); tva KOfuaun^a rk iavruv, Tb.P. 47. > Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 167. ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 421. Cf. Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 194. » W.-Sch., p. 205. - lb. 690 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT The LXX (Conybeare and Stock, Sel., p. 30) has this use of iavrup for first and second persons plural. We even find reflexive and personal together like vfiiv iavTois (Ex. 20: 23). (/) Aeticle with. The reflexive is used with or without the article and in any position with the article. But curiously enough aiavTov is never so found and Iimlvtov only once in sharp contrast, jui) frjTcoj' t6 k/jiavTov avfulMpov dXXA t6 tS>v iroKKSiv (1 Cor. 10:33). Instead of this reflexive genitive (possessive) we have the genitive of the personal pronoun. Cf. tiim t6v itarkpa /wv (Jo. 8 : 49), &(t>es T& Su)p6v ffov (Mt. 5 : 24). The examples of eavrov are, of course, abundant as in T'qv iavrov aiiXiiv (Lu. 11 : 21), the common idiom in the older Greek. But note also the order to 'epyov iavrov (Gal. 6:4), iavrov rois irddas (Ac. 21 : 11), 5ov\ovs iavrov (Lu. 19 : 13), Krjirov iavrov (Lu. 13 : 19). These are all attributive, but the sense is not quite the same in the two last. The use of avrov in such examples has already been noted as in Mt. 16 : 24. Sometimes the MSS. vary between iavrov and airov as in Lu. 4 : 24. The plural iavruv is likewise found thus, roiis iavrcov veicpovs (Mt. 8 : 22), rQ Kvp'u$ iavrSiv (Mt. 18 :31), iavruv ra luaria (Mt. 21:8). See further chapter XVI, The Article. (g) Reflexive in the Reciphocal Sense. This use of laurav does not really differ in idea from aXX^Xco:'. This is in harmony with the ancient Greek idiom. The papyri show this same blending of iavrS>v with aWiiXoiv.^ Cf. P.P. 8 (ii/B.c.) three tunes, O.P. 260 (i/A.D.), C.P.R. 11 (ii/A.D.) twice. Thus we may note on Kpliiara txere fied' iavriau (1 Cor. 6 : 7),XaXoOj'Tes iavrols (Eph. 5 : 19), vovderovv- res iavro{)s (Col. 3 : 16), etc. Sometimes it occurs side by side with hWilktav as if by way of variety, as in avexofievoi aXX^Xwi* nal xapi~ ^SufvoL iavrots (Col. 3 : 13). Cf. also aWrfKcov and avrois in Lu. 23 : 12. In Ph. 2 : 3 dXXijXoiij iiyovp,evoi vrrepkxovras iavruv each word retains its own idea. Qi) Reflexive with Middle Voice. Sometimes indeed the reflexive occurs with the middle voice where it is really superflu- ous, as in Ste/iepiffttj'To iavrois (Jo. 19 :24, LXX), where'' Mt. 27: 35 (free paraphrase of LXX) has only Siefiepiaavro. So also aeavrov irapexofievos (Tit. 2:7). But usually such examples occur where the force of the middle is practically lost, as in jlyrinai kimvrSv (Ac. 26 : 2), dppijo-Ao-fl&j iavrov (Lu. 9 : 23). On the use of the re- flexive in Anglo-Saxon see Penny, A History of the Reflexive Pronoun in the English Language, p. 8. Cf. irapakl)p.^oiut.i irpbs kixavTov (Jo. 14 : 3). Moulton {Prol, p. 87) admits that sometimes » Moulton, Prol., p. 87. " W.-Th., p. 257. PRONOUNS ('ANTONTMIAl) 691 iavTov occurs without great emphasis. This use of the reflexive with the middle may be compared with the reflexive and the personal pronoun in the LXX. So Xfujif/oimi, IimutQ i/ms Xadv kiial (Ex. 6 : 7), oh iroiiiaeTe ifuv lavrols (20 : 23). So English "me my- self," "you yourselves." Cf. Thackeray, p. 191. See further chapter XVII, Voice. (i) The Use of "ISto?. This adjective is frequent in the N. T. It is usually treated as a possessive, opposed' to koii'6s or 8rin6au)s. In the N. T. we find it, especially (17 times) in kot' i5Lav (cf. Lu. 9 : 10), in the sense of 'private.' So this sense occurs also in Ac. 4 : 32 and Heb. 7 : 27. Cf. iStSrat in Ac. 4 : 13 (1 Cor. 14 : 16). Sometimes also the word implies what is peculiar to one, his par- ticularity or idiosyncrasy, as 1 Cor. 3:8; 7:7 (cf. the classic idiom). Cf. our "idiot." But in general 6 'ISlos or iSios without the article (cf. ^auroO) means simply 'one's own,' a strong posses- sive, a real reflexive. To all intents and purposes it is inter- changeable in sense with iavrov. The examples of this reflexive idea are many. Thus in Mt. 9 : 1; Lu. 6 : 41; 10 : 34; Jo. 1 : 41; 4 :44, etc. The use of ot iSioi for 'one's own people' (cf. also ol okeioL, 1 Tim. 5 : 8, classic idiom) is not strange. Cf. Jo. 1:11; 13 : 1, etc. Moulton'' finds the singular in the papyri as a term of endearment. The use of to. i5ia for 'one's home' (Jo. 1 : 11; 19 : 27; Ac. 21 : 6) is seen also in the papyri. Moulton {CI. Rev., 1901, p. 440) cites tA ISm, B.U. 86 (ii/A.D.), 183 (I/a.d.), 168 (ii/iii a.d.) 6is, etc. The papyri also illustrate Jo. 1 : 11, ol ISiol, for 'one's relations.' So irpAs tous iStous, B.U. 341 (ii/A.D.). Examples with- out the article are Bea-TOTais iStots (Tit. 2:9), Kcupois l8lois (1 Tim. 6 : 15). Cf. Uios \6yos, B.U. 16 (ii/A.D.). Moulton, CI. Rev.,^ 1901, p. 440. In Jo. 1 : 41 Moulton' rightly agrees with Westcott in seeing in t6v Idiov an implication that some one else went after his brother also. The only other point that here calls for remark is the question whether 6 tSios is used in an "exhausted" or unemphatic sense. Blass* finds it so in els top Ulov aypbv (Mt. 22 : 5). Meisterhans (p. 235) finds a few examples in the Attic inscriptions and Deissmann finds the weakened use of iStos in the literary Koivij. Deissmann^ argues further that this exhausted sense may be assumed in the N. T. because some examples in the LXX (Job 24 : 12; Prov. 27: 15), etc., seem to occxu-. Moulton' ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 169. 2 Prol., p. 90. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 169. » lb. " B. S., p. 123 f. » 01. Rev., Dec, 1901, p. 440 f.; Prol., p. 90. 692 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT finds that the papyri do not support this contention. Emphasis is beyond dispute in most of the N. T. instances Hke Mt. 9:1; Lu. 6 : 41; Jo. 1 : 41; Ac. 1 : 25; Gal. 6 : 5, etc. Moulton {Prol, p. 89) refers with point to Ro. 14 : 5, b> tc^ iSl(f vot, as showing 'iSios the equivalent of iavrov. The N. T. passages may be assumed to show emphasis in spite of the later Byzantine 'idios iwv (cf. ^outov nov in modern Greek). Moulton ^ agrees with the Revisers in using 'own' in Mt. 22 : 5 as a "counter-attraction." The only diffi- cult passage is Ac. 24 : 24 where B may be wrong. But is it not possible that iSlg. may have a covert hint at the character of Drusilla? For the present she was with Felix. In Tit. 1 : 12 note ISios aiTciv xpot^ijTTjs. Moulton (CI. Rev., 1904, p. 154) cites finuv iSiov, Ch.P. 4 (ii/A.D.), idiov avTov, N.P. 25 (ii/A.D.), and eis I8lai> fiov xpdav, B.U. 363 (Byz., Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 440). In mod- ern Greek 6 'iStos=6 ambs (Thumb, Handb., p. 97) or 'self,' iyi) d idios, 'I myself.' Cf. rijt nbrrji. in the papyrus of Eudoxus (ii/s.c), but Moulton (Prol., p. 91) observes that it does not occur in the N. T. in this sense. V. The Reciprocal Pronoun (t\ d|ioipata dvT(ovi)|ji£a). The use of the reflexive in the reciprocal sense has just been discussed (cf . personal pronouns as reflexive). From one point of view it might seem hardly necessary to give a separate discussion of reciprocal pronouns. But, after all, the idea is not exactly that of the mere reflexive. 'AWiiXcov is, of course, reduplicated from aXXos, one of the alternative pronouns. Cf . the Latin alius and alter alteri. The Latin idiom is common in the classic Greek and is found in Ac. 2:12,aXXos Trpos tiWouXeyovTes; 19:32, aXXoi ciXXo ti eKpa^ov; 21:34, aWoL dXXo Tt iirecl)iivovv. Cf. in the papyri HWo eyco, aWo iravTes, B.U. 1079 (a.d. 41). But the true reciprocal aX\ri\(av has no nom- inative and is necessarily plural or dual (in older Greek). It occiu's 100 times in the N. T. (W. H.) and is fairly well distributed. We have examples of the genitive (Ro. 12 : 5 aWij^iav nkXij), the ablative (Col. 3 : 13 Lvex^iievoi. 6.XMi\ci}v), the accusative (1 Cor. 16 : 20 aairacacBf. aWrjXovs, 1 Jo. 4 : 7 ayairSinev dXX^Xous), the locative (Ro. 15 : 5 ^ji aXKri\oi.s), the dative (Gal. 5 : 13 dovXevere dXXiJXois). The prepositions are used 48 times with aXXi^Xwy. This pronoun brings out the mutual relations involved. In 1 Th. 5 : 11, Trapa- KaXeiTe dXX^Xous Kai oiKoSoixeire ets rbv 'iva, note the distributive explaining the reciprocal. Moulton {Prol., p. 246) compares the modern Greek b iva% rbv 'aXKov. In Ph. 2 : 3 note both dXXi)Xous and tavrSiv. In 1 Th. 5 : 15 we have ets dXX^Xous koi eis iravTos. > Prol., p. 90. Cf. Jann., ffist. Gk. Gr., p. 613. PKONOTTNS (-ANTHNTMIAl) 693 In 2 Th. 1 : 3 note iv6s kKkarov and eis aXX^Xous. The N. T. does not, like the LXX (Ex. 10 : 23), use d6€X06s as a reciprocal pro- noun. The middle voice is also used in a reciprocal sense as in awt^ovKtiiaavTo (Mt. 26:4). Cf. chapter XVTI, Voice. VI. Demonstrative Pronouns (SencriKal dvTo>vu|j.lai). (a) Nature. Curiously enough the demonstrative pronoim, like all pronouns, has given the grammarians a deal of trouble to define. For a discussion of the various theories during the ages see Riemann and Goelzer.' Originally all pronouns were " deictic," "pointing." The "anaphoric" use came gradually.* Indeed the same pronoun often continued to be now deictic, now anaphoric, as OS, for instance, originally demonstrative, but later usually relative. Indeed the anaphoric use blends with the relative. Monro' marks out three uses of pronouns, not three kinds of pro- nouns. The "deictic" "marks an object by its position in respect to the speaker." Thus 'eyij, aii, 6Se, oStos, eKeivos all fall under this head. The "anaphoric" pronoun "is one that denotes an object already mentioned or otherwise known." Thus the resumptive use of 6Se, oSros, iKeZvos, 6s, oaris. The "relative" in the modern sense would be only Ss, octtis, olos, 6, b be, etc. This is no longer very frequent in the N. T. ^ So b nev oBtcos, b 8i oBtcos (1 Cor. 7: 7); ol iikv, 6 Se (Heb. 7 : 20, 23); ol iiiv, ol Sk (Ac. 14 : 4); ol /xh, S.\\oi 8i, erepoi Sk (Mt. 16 : 14 f.). In Mt. 13 : 23 we most Ukely have S /xkv, S 8e, not 6 nkv, 6 Sk. Cf . iJikv (Lu. 8:5). In Ac. 17 : 18 note rives, ol dk, and in Ro. 14 : 2 Ss fikv, b 5k. (3) The most common use of the demonstrative is where 6 Sk, -li Sk, ol Sk refer to persons already mentioned in an oblique case. Thus in Mt. 2 :5 ol 8k refers to Trap' avrcov. So in ol Sk (Lu. 23 : 21) the reference is to airoTs, while b Skin the next verse points to airAi'. In Mk. 14 : 61 6 Sk refers to 'Ii]aovv, as in Ac. 12 : 15, ij Sk to avT'liv. In Lu. 22 : 70 6 Sk has no antecedent expressed, but it is implied in the elirav iravres before. (d) "O?. The granmiarians call it apdpov {nroraKTiKov or relative.*- It did come to be chiefly relative, as already the Sanskrit yds, yh, ydd has lost its original demonstrative force.' But in the Lithu- anian j--J-s Brugmann {Comp. Gr., Ill, p. 332) finds proof that the pro-ethnic i-o was demonstrative as well as relative. Cf. also l-va in Homer=both 'there' and 'where' and then 'that.' In Homer os„ like ois (iis), is now demonstrative, now relative, and was originally demonstrative.* This original demonstrative sense con- tinues in Attic prose, as in the Platonic ^ 5' os; koi Ss; ov fikv, Sv Sk, etc.^ However, it is not certain that the demonstrative use of os (raJ OS, ^ 5' os) is the same word as the relative. Brugmann' in- deed finds it from an original root, *so-s hke Sanskrit sd-s. The examples of this demonstrative in the nominative are few in the N.T. Thus note in Jo. 5 : 11 (correct text) Ss 5^ aireKpiSri, and also Ss Si oi)K "eKa^ev in Mk. 15 : 23. Indeed Ss Si? in Mt. 13 : 23 is close to the same idea. But this verse furnishes a good example of this demonstrative in contrast, o iikv eKarbv 6 Si i^KovTo, o Si rpiaKovra. This example happens to be in the accusative case (cf. Ro. 9 : 21), but the nominative appears also as in a niv iireaev (Mt. 13 : 4), Ss fiiv els rbv ISiov aypbv, Ss Si erl Tr/v kfiiroplav (Mt. 22 : 5), Ss fiiv ici&TtiieL (Ro. 14 : 2), 6$ niv yap npivei — os Si Kpivei, (14 : 5). So 1 Cor. 11 : 21. 1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 145. ' K.-Bl., I, i, p. 608. ^ Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 185. •'■ Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 195. = Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 68. « Cf. Griech. Gr., p. 241; Comp. Gr., Ill, p. 335. 696 A GRAMMAB OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Instances of otlier cases occur also. I see no adequate reason for refusing to consider bv nh> 'iSeipav, bv 51 kickKTHvav, bv bi k'KiBoffokriaav (Mt. 21 : 35) examples of the demonstrative 6s.^ Cf. Lu. 23 : 33. In the accusative plural note oOs /ikv, o8s Sk, Mk. 12 : 5; Ac. 27 : 44; Ju. 22 f. For the dative singular, ^ nkv, ^ Sk, note Mt. 25 : 15. In 1 Cor. 12 : 8 we have ^ fiiv, aWv Se, ktX. For the dative plural see oh iikv., ots bk, 2 Cor. 2 : 16. In 1 Cor. 12 : 28 we have dOs iikv as demonstrative without any corresponding o8s bh. Cf. ol nkv olv in Ac. 8 : 4, 25; 11 : 19; 15 : 3, 30, and 6 fiiv odv in Ac. 23 : 18 as above in (c). The relative at the beginning of sentences or para- graphs, like kv oh in Lu. 12 : 1 (cf. av9' &v verse 3), may indeed at bottom be a reminiscence of the old demonstrative. Cf . Latin and English usage. The demonstrative is often used to connect sen- tences, as in Mt. 11 : 25; 12 : 1; Mk, 8 ; 1, etc. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 276. In Mt. 26 : 50, 4(^' S jrapet, we may also have an instance of the demonstrative. But we do not have in the N. T. KoX OS, mi Tbv, Tov Kal tov, irpd tov. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 62) finds demonstrative oabe in an inscription in Heberdey-Wilhebn, Reisen. N. 170. (e) "OSe. Brugmann* finds the enclitic -be the same that we have in be-vpo, bri, l-bk (?), Latin quan-de. It corresponds to the Latin Mc, German der hier, English this here. It refers to what is "immediately near" in space or time,' and is of relatively more importance than ovtos. As a matter of fact oSe occurs only ten times in the N. T. In the LXX " obe is much commoner than in the N. T." (Thackeray, Gr. of the 0. T. in Gk., vol. I, p. 191), especially in the more literary parts. For its rarity in papyri and inscriptions see Mayser, Gr., etc., p. 308. It is already failing in the first century B.C. (Radermacher, N.T.Gr.,Tp. 62) . For rabe see chapter VII, iv, 4, (e). In Lu. 16 : 25 Sibe is the correct text. In Ac. 15 : 23 r&be is not well supported and in 2 Cor. 12 : 19 rd 5k is right. In one of the remaining examples, rgSe ^v abeKcjyfi (Lu. 10 : 39), Blass^ bluntly calls it "not even used correctly," a rather curt judgment. But he cites the LXX (Gen. 25 : 24; 38 : 27). In Winer-SchmiedeP this example is not considered as o5e used for ovtos, but rather hke the classic bSe kyis, o'lbe fineis (cf. Ex. 8 : 25; Gen. 50 : 18). In Jas. 4 : 13, -KoptvabixfBa eh rijvbe r^v irbXiv, it is hardly necessary to take riivbe as like the classical riiv beiva or r7\v ml Ti]v (cf. Plato), though that is a possible construction. Cf. • So Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 68, n. 3. 2 Griech. Gr., p. 242. < Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 170. » Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 65. « p. 2I6. PRONOUNS ("ANTfiNTMIAl) 697 miiiaonep rovro fl keiw in verse 15. Plutarch* seems to use T^vSe in this sense. More likely in James rrivSe merely means 'this' city which the enterprising Jew exploits for a year before he passes on to the next. (/) OvTO<}. Of doubtful etymology, possibly an original root u.^ With this combine 6, 17, t6=o6, ab, tou. Then add to-s, Ta(ri), to. In reality, therefore, oStos is a doubled demonstrative (combination of so and to, Giles, p. 296). It is like the Latin is-te (double also). OuTos is more often anaphoric than deictic' In Horner^ it (deictic) expresses an object present to the speaker, but not near him. The word is limited in use in Homer and usually refers to what is previously mentioned (anaphoric) .° It is very common in the N. T. and on the whole the usage accords with that of the older Greek. Naturally there is much diversity in the context. 1. The Purely Deictic. This use is not wanting. Thus in Mt. 3 : 17, oMs kcTTiv 6 itos iu)v, the demonstrative identifies the one present as the Son of God. For further examples of the purely deictic use see Mt. 12 : 23; 17: 5; 21 : 10 f. (a particularly good illustration); 21 : 38; 27 : 37, 47, 54; Mk. 6 : 3; 15 : 39; Lu. 4 : 22; 8 : 25, etc. But a stiU plainer example is in Jo. 21 : 21, when Simon pointed to John as ouros 5^ tL 2. The Contemptuous Use of oBtos. It is merely one variation of the purely deictic idiom due to the relation of the persons in ques- tion.. It is rather common in the N. T. So in Mt. 26 : 61 ovtos 'iri we find a "fling" of reproach as the witnesses testify against Jesus. Cf. Mt. 26 : 71 (parallel Lu. 22 : 56 koI oBtos), the maid about Peter; Mk. 2 : 7, the Pharisees about Jesus; Lu. 15 : 2; Jo. 6:42; 9 : 24; 12:34; Ac. 7:40, Jews about Moses; 19:26; 28: 4, about Paul; Lu. 15 : 30, the elder son at the younger; 18 : 11, the Pharisee at the publican, etc. A striking example occurs in Ac. 5 : 28. 3. The Anaphoric Use. The pronoun here refers to one previ- ously mentioned, as in Mt. 27 : 58 where ovtos alludes to 'loscrrjcj) in verse 57, where note the anacoluthon. So in Heb. 7: 1 oBtos points to the mention of Melchizedek in the preceding verse. There are many variations in the anaphoric idiom. The simplest is the one already mentioned, where the subject of discussion is merely con- tinued by oBtos, as in Mt. 3 : 3 (cf. the Baptist in verse 1). In particular observe Kal o^tos, as in Lu. 8 : 41; 16 : 1. In Lu. 22 : 59 ' Quest, conviv. 1. 6. 1, t^j/Sc r^y rjiiipav. 2 Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 242, 428. « Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 170. » Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 65. = lb. 698 A GKAMMAE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Kal oStos is rather deictic. A striking example of the continua- tive oBros occurs in Ac. 7 : 35, 36, 37, 38, 40. Here the pro- noun is repeated as often as is desired. So Jo. 6 : 42. Cf . the use of the pronoun because of prolepsis (Ac. 9 : 20). The more frequent use is the resumptive or epexegetical use which is rather more abundant in the N. T.^ Here oh-os is really in apposition. In Ro. 7 : 10, 1^ ^iroXiJ ^ eJs ^oyfiv airri els davarov, we seem to have the resumptive use with a substantive. But a clear example (different in number and gender)'' occurs in Mt. 13 : 38, rd 5i koXov avipfM, oStoI eicTLv. One may note a similar use of kKetvos (Jo. 12 : 48; 16 : 13) and of airos (Jo. 12 : 49). Another plain instance is in Ac. 2: 23, where tovtov refers to 'Irjffovv (verse 22). Cf. also tovtov (2d) in Ac. 7: 35. In Ac. 4 : 10 ec toiitoi is resiunptive referring to the pre- ceding substantive followed by two relative clauses, while oStos is deictic. In verse 11 again oStos is continuative. In Ro. 9 : 6, ol k^ 'lapoLijK, oBtoi (cf. Gal. 3:7), the resumptive use is plain. The par- ticiple before oBros is a very common idiom, as 6 5^ inroixeivas eis t^Xos oStos (Mt. 10 : 22; 24 : 13) ; 6 kfi^&^Pas tier' ifwv — ovtos (26 : 23). Cf. 1 Cor. 6 : 4; Lu. 9 : 48; Jo. 7 : 18, etc. The participle, of course, often follows ovtos, not resumptive, as in Jo. 11 : 37. The rel- ative is followed by resumptive ovtos as in Ss 5' av diroX^o-j; — OVTOS (Lu. 9 : 24), 6 BiXco tovto irpaaau (Ro. 7 : 15 f., 20). So Mt. 5 : 19; Mk. 6 : 16; Ac. 3 : 6; Gal. 5 : 17; 6 : 7; 2 Tim. 2 : 2. The plural is seen in Jo. 8 : 26, a — TaDra; also in Ph. 4 : 9. For Sltwo. — Tama see Ph. 3 : 7, and oo-ot — ovtoi Ro. 8 : 14; Gal. 6 : 12; Ph. 4 : 8. Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, p. 218. See oTav — TOTt, KoBios — Tama (Jo. 8 : 28). In Ph. 1 : 22 tovto resumes to ^tjv. In 2 Th. 3 : 14 tovtov is resumptive with d tis as in Jas. 1 : 23; 3 : 2. Cf. also 1 Cor. 8 : 3; Ro. 8 : 9; Jas. 3 : 2.' For kkv tis see Jo. 9 : 31. Sometimes only the context can clear up the exact reference of the anaphoric oItos. So in Ac. 8 : 26 amti points to 4 bbbs. 4. In Apposition. See also chapter X, ix. OStos itself may be expanded or explained by apposition. The simplest form of this construction is where a substantive* is in apposition as in 2 Cor. 13 : 9, Tomo Kal evxbixeBa, ttiv iftuv KaTkprunv, where agreement in gender does not occur. Cf . the nominative ii Trlans in 1 Jo. 5 : 4. Cf . 1 Th. 4 : 3. OBtos is, of course, the antecedent of the rela- tive OS, as in Mt. 11 : 10; Jo. 7: 25; tovto 8 in Jo. 16 : 17. In • Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 65 f. ' lb. 3 lb., p. 66. * Cf. Blasa, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 171. PRONOUNS ('ANTHNTMIAI) 699 Ph. 2 : 5 note tovto — S Kal. Sometimes a clause is in apposition with oStos which may be either nominative or in an oblique case. Thus with Sti we have the nominative (with feminine predicate noun), as in oiirjj iarlv ^ Kplais on (Jo. 3 : 19). Cf. IJo. 1 : 5; 5 : 9, 11, 14. In Mk. 4 : 41, tIs &pa oMs ianv 8tl, the on is almost equal to &trTe. The accusative with Sn we have in tovto on (Ro. 2:3; 6 : 6; Lu. 10 : 11; Ac. 24 : 14; 1 Cor. 1 : 12; 15 : 50; 2 Cor. 5 : 14; 10 : 7, 11; 2 Th. 3 : 10; Ph. 1:6 (cLird tovto), 25; 1 Tim. 1 : 9; 2 Tim. 3 : 1; 2 Pet. 1 : 20; 3 : 3, 8. Cf. also 6tA tovto Sn in Jo. 12 : 39.1 In Qai_ 3 . 17^ af^gj. toDto X^oj, we have the direct dis- course without recitative Sti, but the quotation is really in the accusative in apposition with tovto. Cf. also Lu. 12 : 18, tovto vovfiaw KaOiKS> fwv ras airoBijKas, and Jo. 4 : 17. The genitive with 8n appears in irtpl toxitov &Tt, (Jo. 16 : 19). The locative appears in h ToiTv Sn, 1 Jo. 4 : 9, 10, 13. Cf. kv Toircf 8ti. (Jo. 16 : 30; 1 Jo. 3 : 19, 24) in a shghtly different sense where Sti is really the accu- sative. But in general these substantive clauses have the same case as tovto. Closely allied to this use of Sn is that of tm. Thus the nom- inative, irodev twi TOVTO Iva ^XSp, occurs in Lu. 1 : 43. In Jo. 17 : 3, oiirjj he koTiv ri aictifios fcoi) tva, the pronoun is feminine because of the predicate substantive. Cf. Jo. 15 : 12; 1 Jo. 3:11, 23; 5 : 3; 2 Jo. 6. The accusative as the direct object of the verb is seen in TOVTO irpoaebxofiai tva in Ph. 1 : 9. Cf . also toCto — tva, Jo. 15 : 11, 17; 1 Jo. 5 : 13. The feminine substantive occurs in the accusative also, as in TaiTijv ttjv kvToX'qv ixofiev aw' avTov, tva, 1 Jo. 4 : 21. The accusative is found also with prepositions. So tis TOVTO, tva, Ac. 9 : 21; Ro. 14 : 9; 2 Cor. 2 : 9; 1 Pet. 3 : 9; 4 : 6; 1 Jo. 3:8. In Eph. 6 : 22 we have eis aiTd tovto tva. Cf. Col. 4 : 8. Likewise note Slo. tovto, tva in 2 Cor. 13 : 10; 1 Tim. 1 : 16; Phil. 15. In 2 Cor. 2 : 3,- eypa^a tovto airo tva, we probably have the direct accusative, though roOro aWd could be adverbial accusative, 'for this very reason.' The locative appears in iv ToiTif iSo^axrdr] tva, Jo. 15 : 8. Cf . 1 Jo. 4 : 17. The ablative case appears in Jo. 15 : 13, liel^ova TaiTtis ayairriv ovSeh ?x«'i '■va- In 3 Jo. 4 the ablative plural is found, nu^oTkpav Toiruv — tva. The apposition in these various constructions varies in degree of directness. An example of ottojs with ets avTd tovto occurs in Ro. 9 : 17 quoted from the LXX (Ex. 9 : 16). Cf. also o-TeXXo/tevoi tovto uri in 2 Cor. 8 : 20. In 1 Pet. 2 : 19 note also the use of d with tovto (though x"P« ' Cf. W.-Sch., p. 217, where it is observed that elsewhere often Sid tovto points to what goes before. 700 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT is predicate), tovto yap x^P's «^' Here the ft clause is in the same case as tovto, nominative. So in Jo. 2 : 3 we have e6.v in apposition with ev ToiiTtf (locative). In 1 Jo. 5 : 2 the correct text has oTav in similar apposition with kv To{>T(fS. The infinitive also occurs in apposition with tovto. In Heb. 9 : 8 the perfect infinitive in indirect discourse with the ac- cusative is in apposition to tovto which is itself accusative, tovto BrjXovvTos Tov irvexJuaTOS tov ay'iov, ixifiru TeLV in 1 Pet. 2 : 15.' Cf . Ro. 1 : 12 where tovto — awirapaKKii\B^vai are merely subject and predicate. In 2 Cor. 7 : 11 the nominative infinitive, to 'XvTrjdijvai, occurs with aird tovto. Indeed in Mk. 12 : 24 the causal participle is really explanatory of tovto (5id tovto ir^avacBe, p,ri etSores). It is possible to see a similar example'' in Lu. 8 : 21, &deK4)oi pov ovtoI eiatv ol — amvovTes. Here in truth ovToi seems unnecessary. 5. Use of the Article. The article commonly occurs with the noun when the noun is used with ovtos. The noun is by no means always necessary with ovtos. See 6. Indeed the demonstrative alone is often sufficient, as in Jo. 1 : 2, 7, etc. So airoi oBroi (Ac. 24 : 15, 20). In a sense a double demonstrative thus occurs, since the ar- ticle was originally demonstrative. This is in exact accord with classic usage and calls for no special comment, except that it is an idiom foreign to Latin and English. The modern Greek pre- serves this idiom with the demonstrative. So TobTti fi Yumua, avTds & &vSpas (Thumb, Handb., p. 92). It is immaterial whether ovtos comes first, as ovtos 6 Te\6}vris (Lu. 18 : 11), or last, as 6 avdpca- iros oStos (Lu. 23 : 47). Cf. Jo. 9 : 24. When an adjective is used with the substantive, then the article may be repeated with the adjective, as fi x^po- oll>Tr\ ^ -wTuxh (Mk. 12 : 43), or ovtos may, like the adjective, be brought within the rule of the article. So tis 4 ' For exx. in earlier Gk. and literary Kaivii see W.-Sch., p. 217. 2 W.-Sch., p. 218. PRONOUNS ('ANTflNTMIAl) 701 Kaivli aiiTTi [17] vird aov 'KdXovfievri 5i8ax^ (Ac. 17: 19) .' Even if the second article be admitted here, the point made still applies. The position of o5tos with the article, oSros 6 rather than 6 ovtos, does not mean simply the predicate idea, though the position is predi- cate. But not so Tijp k^ovaiav TavTtjv aivaaav in Lu. 4 : 6. Here the real predicate notion appears. In Kuhner-Gerth (I, p. 628) the explanation is given that it is either apposition (oBtos 6 a.vi)p= 'this, the man') or predicative sense (6 avfip 087-05= 'the man here'). Probably so, but in actual usage the connection is much closer than that. See Lu. 15 : 24, ovtos 6 vlbs nov. Cf. the French idiom La Ripublique Frangaise. Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 324) takes the predicate explanation. See also chapter XVI, The Article. 6. Article Absent. The article does not always occur with sub- stantives when oBtos is used. When oBros occurs with proper names in the N. T., the article is present. So Ac. 1:11 ovtos 6 'Irjaovs, 19 : 26 6 IlaCXos oBros, 7 : 40 6 yap Mwvcrrjs ovtos, 2 : 32 tovtov top 'Iriaovv, Heb. 7 : 1 oBros yap 6 McXxtceSk, except in Ac. 6 : 14 Tijo-oDs 6 Nafoj/oaTos oBtos, where the article is used with the adjective, not with Ttjo-oOs. So uniform indeed in the Greek is the presence of the article with the noun and ovtos, that the absence of the article causes something of a jolt. In Ro. 9 : 8 the conjunction of the words TavTa rkKva must not deceive us. The copula kaTiv must be suppUed between. The American Revision indeed calls in the English relative to render the idiom oh to. TkKva rrjs aapKos ravTa rkKva Tov deov. Cf. the simple predicate use in 1 Cor. 6:11, koi raOra Tivis ^T€. In Lu. 1 : 36, oBtos ^l.i\v Utos kcTiv, the substantive is predicate. The same thing is clearly true of Lu. 2 : 2, avTr/ airoypa4>ii irpurri iykveTo. Cf. also tovto vfuv (rrtfieiov in Lu. 2 : 12. Some MSS. have TO, but in either case the copula is supplied. The remaining exam- ples are not so simple, but ultimately resolve themselves into the predicate usage unless one has to except Ac. 24 : 21 (see below). In Lu. 7 : 44, Tavrriv rifv yvvalKa, the article does not occur in L 47". Winer ^ considers the reading without the article "imexception- able," since the woman was present. In Lu. 24 : 21 the predicate accusative really is found, tpLttiv raiTrjv Tjixkpav a7et d<^' oB toOto iyivfTo, a common Greek idiom difficult to put into English. It is not 'this third day,' but 'this a third day.' Cf. also 2 Pet. 3 : 1, TavTrju SiVTipav ypacjxa kwiaToXiiv. In this instance the English translation resorts to the relative 'that' to bring out the predi- cate relation, 'this is the second epistle that I write.' In Jo. 2 : 11, * See Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 331, for this "pseudo-attributive position." ' W.-Th., p. 110. 702 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Tairriv hiroiriaev apx^v twv arineioiv, even the American Revision has a wrong translation, 'this beginning of miracles.' It is rather 'this Jesus did as a beginning of miracles.' But K and Chrys. here have t'/jv. In Jo. 4 : 18, tovto aKrjdh dpr\K.ai, the English rela- tive is again necessary, 'this is a true thing that thou didst say' or 'thou didst speak this as a true thing.' The translation 'truly' rather obscures the idea. In Ac. \:b,ob fieri, iroXXAs rabras wkpa.%, several difficulties appear. The litotes, ob fieri. xoXXas, does not have the usual order .i Cf . Ac. 27 : 14 for tier ' ob iro\b. There is be- sides a use of fifTo. somewhat akin to that of irp6 in xpd 8^ Tjiiep&v roO Trdo-xa (Jo. 12 : 1).^ The order would more naturally be ob iroXXds Tjixipos ixera, rabras or ob woWSiv iiiiepu>v fiera rabras. However, the predicate use of rabras without the article permits the condensar tion. The free translation 'not many days hence' is essentially cor- rect. It is literally 'after not many days these' as a starting-point (from these). In Jo. 21: 14, rovro ^5rj rplrov bj)avepi>9r] TjjctoDs, the matter is very simple, 'this already a third time,' or to use the English relative, 'this is now the third time that.' So also in 2 Cor. 12 : 14 and 13 : 1, rpirov rovro. The most difficult instance to understand is in Ac. 24 : 21, irepl fiias rabrris (t>cavrjs ^s kxkKpa^a. Here ' concerning this one voice which I cried' makes perfectly obvious sense. The trouble is that it is the only N. T. example of such an attributive usage without the article. Blass' takes it to be equivalent to 17 (^ojj't? rj kykvero fjv iiia aiirij. This is, of course, the normal Greek idiom and is possibly correct. But one wonders if a lapse from the uniform idiom may not occur here. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 92) cites robrov irpayfiaros, ravra d5iK^- imra, rovro Kri)pa from inscriptions in Magnesia (Petersen-Luschan, Reisen in Lykien, p. 35, n. 54) and 'earriaav r68e nvrjim from a Bi- thynian inscription (Perrot, Exploration arch, .de la Galatie, p. 24, N. 34). Hence one had best not be too dogmatic as to Luke's idiom in Ac. 24 : 21. After all, the predicate use may be the orig- inal use, as with keTws. Cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 426 f.; Thompson, Syntax of Attic Greek, p. 67. See also chapter XVI. 7. Ovros in Contrast with keiws. The distinction between oSe for what follows and oStos for what precedes* (not strictly observed in the ancient Greek) amounts to little in the N. T., since 6Se is so rare. But oStos does, as a rule, refer to what is near or last mentioned and eKelvos to what is! remote. See airi] and o5tos in ' W.-Sch., p. 221. s Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 126, 133. ' lb., p. 172. « Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 66. PRONOUNS ('ANTflNTMIAl) 703 2 Jo. 6 f. and rovro in 2 Cor. 13 : 9. This idiomatic use of ovtos is plain in Ac. 7 : 19. In 1 Jo. 5 : 20 oStos really refers to abrov {y T$ v'uf aiiTov) and so no difficulty exists. In Ac. 4:11 oStos is resumptive and takes up the main thread of the story again (cf . oinos in verse 9). In Ac. 8 : 26 aiirri may refer to Va.t;av, but more probably (see 2, end) refers to 656s, a more remote substantive, indeed. In Lu. 16 : 1 again only the sense'^ makes it clear {iivdpoi- irbs Tis ^v irKoiaios &s ttx^v oIkovoimv, koL ovtos) that ovtos refers to olnovbtiov. In Lu. 18 : 14, KaTk^i) ovtos SeSiKaLu/xivos eis tov olkov atroD Trap' bcetvov, the two pronoims occur in sharp contrast, one point- ing out the publican, the other the Pharisee. In such contrasts ohos refers to the last mentioned. This is clearly one example (besides 2 Jo. 6 f.) in the N. T., which curiously enough Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 171) does not recognise. Cf. also Jo. 13 : 24; kiceZvos ToiiTCf in Jo. 5 : 38, and raOra iKelvois in 1 Cor. 10 : 11. In Jo. 1:7 f. both ovtos and ketcos are used of John and in proper idiom.^ Instead of iKeXvos we might have had OVTOS properly enough because of avTov, but eKeivos calls us back pointedly to TwdrT/s. Cf. Abbott, Johannine Grammar, p. 236. Note oStos 6 X670S — 6 ixadrirris eKeivos in Jo. 21 : 23. In 1 Cor. 6 : 13, 6 8k deds Kal ravTTjv Kal ravra KaTapyrjaei,, we find outos used for both the near and the remote. The number and gender make it clear. In 1 Cor. 9 : 3 avrt] points to what follows. In a case like kv Tovrtf xatpu (Ph. 1 : 18), the main thought is meant by the demonstrative. So with kv rovno 5t6co/if tovto yap ifiiv avij4'epei (2 Cor. 8 : 10). Cf. tovto Ac. 24 : 14, etc. 8. As Antecedent of the Relative Pronoun. The absence of the demonstrative pronoun before the relative pronoun will be dis- cussed later. This absence is in the case of a possible pronoun before the relative and after it also. The resumptive use of the demonstrative pronoun after the relative sentence has been al- ready treated. But' it is "the normal correlative" oBtos — 0%. So oStos irepl oh (Mt. 11: 10), oSros ov (Jo. 7: 25), oBtos OS (Ac. 7: 40), toOto— 3 (Ph. 2:5). See interrogative demonstrative and rela- tive in Tts eaTiv OVTOS os (Lu. 5 : 21; 7 : 49); t'i tovto 6 (Jo. 16 : 17 f.). Cf. Lu. 24 : 17. On the whole, however, the demonstrative before the relative is not common in the N. T. In Gal. 2 : 10 both avTo and TOVTO are incorporated into the relative clause, Kal iairovbaaa. aM TOVTO iroLrjcrai. ■ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 171. ' Blass, ib., p. 172, explains Uavos as showing that the discourse passes from John to Jesus. But iKetms refers to John. ' Thomp., Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 66. 704 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 9. Gender and Number of oSros. See chapter X. In general, like other adjectives, oSros agrees with its substantive in gender and number, whether predicate or attributive. Cf. Jo. 2 : 11. In 1 Cor. 6 : 13, koI raiiTriv Kal ravra, note the number and gender. But sometimes the construction according to sense prevails. So the masculine, not feminine, in Ac. 8 : 10, ovtos kariv ^ Atoa- piK Tov 6eov. So (TKeOos kXo7^s kariv fwi oStos (Ac. 9 : 15), oSrot and Wpi] (Ro. 2:14). Cf. also Ju. 12, ouroi — ce^^Xat, SkvSpa, Khiuna, affripes; 2 Pet. 2 : 17, oiitoL eia-iv Trriyal, and oStoi — eXaiai (Rev. 11 : 4). In these examples assimilation to the gender of the predicate does not occur. Cf. rauTa ri, Jo. 6 : 9. In Mt. 21 : 42(Mk. 12: 11), irapd Kvplov 'eykvero aiirr], the feminine occurs where the neuter would be natural in Greek. This is a piece of "translation" Greek (Ps. 118 : 23). In Hebrew the feminine is the case for abstract words, the Hebrew having no neuter gender. In Eph. 2 : 8, rg yap xaptH hare aeaoifffievoi Stct TrliTTeus' Kal tovto ovk ef ifi&v, there is no reference to irfo-rews in tovto, but rather to the idea of salvation in the clause before. But in 1 Pet. 2 : 19 f . we have two examples of the neuter (tovto) on purpose to present a more separate and abstract notion than avTT] would have done, an ancient Greek idiom, tovto yd.p xapis el — tovto x^P" Tro-po- OeQ. In 1 Cor. 10 : 6 the same prin- ciple applies, TavTa 5^ rhiroi fipLoiv 'eyevi]BrtaKaiov in Heb. 8:1. The case of ovtos in Jo. 21 : 21 is noteworthy. 11. The Phrase tovt' ianv. See also chapter X, viii, (c). It is used without any regard to the number, gender or case of the word in apposition with it, exactly like the Latin id est. There are eighteen examples of it given in Moulton and Geden's Concord- ance, all but three of them from the Acts, Romans, Philemon and Hebrews. It is a mark of the more formal literary style. In Mt. 27 : 46 the case explained is the vocative, in Mk. 7 : 2 the instrumental, in Ro. 7 : 18 the ' locative, in Heb. 2 : 14 the accu- sative, in Heb. 9:11 the genitive, in Heb. 7 : 5 the plural, in 1 Pet. 3 : 20 the plural. In Ro. 1 : 12 the uncontracted form occurs with dk. In 1 Mace. 4 : 52 oBtos 6 ixi\v XaceXeO is in appo- sition with the genitive.' Here ovtos performs the function of tovt' 'icTLv. Cf. the case-irregularities in the Apocalypse. 12. In Combination with Other Pronouns. Mention may be made of kv tovtc^ ovtos (Ac. 4 : 10) and other instances of the double use of oSros. Cf . Mk. 6 : 2. Cf . ovtos ovtco in Mk. 2 : 7, rauTa oirm (Ac. 24:9), o^tcos tovto (1 Cor. 5^:3), and in 2 Pet. 3 : 11 Toirccv oiTciis iravToiv. Examples of avTo tovto are common in Paul (Ro. 9 : 17; 13 : 6; 2 Cor. 7 : 11; Ph. 1 : 6. Cf. 2 Pet. 1 : 5). For tovto abrd see 2 Cor. 2 : 3, aiiTo tovto Ro. 13 : 6. For avTol oSroi see Ac. 24 : 15, 20. For tovto SXov cf. Mt. 1 : 22; 26 : 56. There is no doubt some difference between ToCra iravra (Mt. 4:9; Lu. 12 : 30; 16 : 14) and wavra Tama (Mt. 6 : 32). "In the first ex- pression, iravTa is a closer specification of TaOro; in the second, TtavTa is pointed out demonstratively by means of TaOra."* 13. Ellipsis of oItos. The demonstrative is by no means always used before the relative. Often the relative clause is simply the object of the principal verb, as in 5 X^co hiuv kv t% (tkoti^ eiiraTi (Mt. 10 : 27). Sometimes the implied demonstrative must be expressed in the Enghsh translation. The simplest form of this ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 171. ' W.-Sch., p. 219. » lb. * W.-Th., p. 548. 706 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT idiom is where the case of the demonstrative would have been the same as that of the relative. Thus irvyyev^s &v o5 airkKo4'tv n^Tpos t6 iiTiov (Jo. 18 : 26). Cf. 6v in Ac. 1 : 24. In Ac. 8 : 24 &v is for Tohroiv a by attraction. But the ellipsis occurs also when a different case would have been found.' So in Mt. 19 : 11 oh 3^5otoi would have been ovtol oh SeS. In Jo. 13 : 29 &v would have been preceded by TaOra. Gf. also Ac. 8 : 19; 13 : 37, etc. In Ro. 10:14, jrojs iruTTeva-ua-iv oS oiiK ijKovtrav, the antecedent of o5 would be either Toircf (or kwl roijTCf) or more probably eis tovtov (preposition also dropped). When a preposition is used, it may belong to the rela- tive clause, as in tus 'eriKaXkiruvTai. eh 8v ovk kTiarevaav (Ro. 10: 14; cf. Jo. 19 : 37), or to the impUed demonstrative, as in tva nareiiariTe eh ov aireaTeCKev (Jo. 6 : 29). In Ro. 14 : 21 li/ ^ illustrates the prep- osition with the relative, while in the next verse it illustrates the preposition with the antecedent. In Jo. 11 : 6 'ev v, 15 : 11 etre kryw elre kKetvoi. In Ac. 3 : 13 the contrast is sharp between ip.els — kKeivov, and in 2 Cor. 8 : 14 between {inuv — kKelvoiv (cf . kKeivuv — i/iwc in same verse). Cf iiuv — keiwis in Mt. 13 : 11. In Jo. 5 : 39 ketrai ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 172. » Joh. Gr., pp. 285, 567. • Abbott, ib., p. 568. He cites Mt. 27 : 19, 63 as exx. of the good and the bad sense of iKeivos. Cf. Lat. iUe. 708 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT is in opposition to iniZs, as kKetvos to inets in the preceding verse. Cf. 2 Cor. 8 : 9. For a contrast between those present in the same narrative see oCtos and ketvos in Lu. 18 : 14. Cf. kKetvos and afiT6s in 1 Jo. 2 : 6 and tovto ^ kKelvo in Jas. 4 : 15. It is common in ex- pressions of place, like 5ia t^s oSov mdvqs (Mt. 8 : 28), ds SKr\v T^v yrjv kaelvriv (9 : 26; cf. kv 9 : 31), etc. It is frequent also with general phrases of time, like kv rats finkpais iKelvais (Mt. 3:1). Cf. Mk. 8:1; Lu. 2:1. It usually occurs at a transition in the nar- rative and refers to something previously mentioned. Blass ^ notes that Lu. (1 : 39) uses also rairats in this phrase and that in 6 : 12 D has ketj'ats rather than rairats. In particular observe the phrase iKelvri 17 vfikpa for the Last Day (Mt. 7: 22; Mk. 14 : 25; Lu. 21 : 34; 17 : 31; Jo. 16 : 23, etc. Cf. Jo. 6 : 40, etc.). 5. Emphasis. Sometimes keivos is quite emphatic. Abbott* notes that in John's Gospel, outside of dialogue, iKetvos usually has considerable emphasis. Instance Jo. 1 : 8, 18, 33; 2 : 21; 3 : 30; 4 : 25; 5 :, 19, 38; 6 : 29; 8 : 42; 14 : 26; 15 : 26, etc. In the First Epistle of John he observes that it occurs only seven times and all but one refer to Christ. He is the important one in John's mind. Cf. avros in Ac. 20 : 35. But iKetvos is not always so em- phatic even in John. Cf. Jo. 9 : 11, 25; 10 : 6; 14 : 21; 18 : 17; Mk. 16:ldfl; 2 Tim. 3:9. 6. With Apposition. It is not common with words in apposition. But note Jo. 16 : 13, kKelvos, to irvevjia t^s dXjj^eias (cf. Jo. 14 : 26). Note also bieivo yiviicrKeTe, on (Mt. 24 : 43) after the fashion of ovros with oti. Cf . also the resumptive uses with participles (Jo. 1 : 18, etc.). 7. Article with Nouns except when Predicate. When the noun is used with kKelvos in the N. T., the article always appears, except when predicate. In Jo. 10 : 1, kKetvos KXexrr;s eo-riv., the substantive is predicate, as in 10 : 35, kKe'ivovs elirev 6eovs. With adjectives we may note the repetition of the article in Jo. 20 : 19 and the am- biguous position of kKeivq in Heb. 8 : 7 due to the absence of BmBtikti. With oXos we find this order, €ts SXriv rijv yriv kKelvr}v (Mt. 9 : 26, etc.) and ttSs the same, iraaav riiv b(f>eCK't]v kKeivrjv (Mt. 18 : 32, etc.). 8. As Antecedent to Relative. So kKetvos ka-nv ^ (Jo. 13 : 26), kKetvov iiirkp o5 (Ro. 14 : 15) keicois Si' ovs (Heb. 6:7). Note also kKetvos koTLv 6 LyairSiv (Jo. 14 : 21) where the articular participle is the practical equivalent of a relative clause. 9. Gender and Number. Little remains to be said about varia- tions in gender and number. Two passages in John call for re- » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 171. ' Joh. Gr., p. 283. PEONOUNS ("ANTQNTMIAl) 709 mark, inasmuch as they bear on the personality of the Holy Spirit. In 14 : 26, 6 5^ irdpA/cXijTos, rd itvevna t6 &yiov o irifitf/ei 6 irarrip kv tqj bvbtiarl imv, kKtlvos fi/Mts 5t3dfet,the relative 6 follows the grammatical gender of irveviM. 'Emivos, however, skips over Tvev/xa and reverts to the gender of irapaKKnTm. In 16 : 13 a more striking example occurs, irav &k tSS'n kKetvos, rd Tvevfia Trjs aXrjBeias. Here one has to go back six Unes to kKetvos again and seven to irap6.K\riTos. It is more evident therefore in this passage that John is insisting on the personality of the Holy Spirit, when the grammatical gender so easily called for iKetvo. Cf . o in Jo. 14 : 17, 26 and airo in 14 : 17. The feminine ImIwjs in Lu. 19 : 4 evidently refers to ddov unex- pressed. 10. Independent Use. The frequency of ketros in John's Gospel may be noticed, but the Synoptics and Acts are not far behind. More curious, however, is the fact that in the Synoptics kKeivos is nearly always used with a substantive (adjectival) while the in- dependent pronominal use of the singular is almost confined to the Gospel of John (and First Epistle).^ All the uses in the First Epistle and nearly all in the Gospel are independent. As excep- tions note Jo. 4 : 39, 53; 11 : 51, 53; 16 : 23, 26, etc. On the other hand only two instances appear in the Apocalypse (9 : 6; 11 : 13) and both with substantives. Qi) AvT(h. It has undoubtedly developed in the Koi,vii a demon- strative force as already shown in 3, (d), and as is plain in the mod- em Greek. Moulton^ quotes plain examples from the papyri (see above). In the N. T. it is practically confined to Luke (and Mt. 3 : 4 perhaps), where it is fairly common, especially in the Gospel. So h air^ rg oidq. (Lu. 10 : 7), ' in that house.' Moulton' notes that in Mt. 11 : 25 (parallel to Lu. 10 : 21) we have h iKelvcff tQ KaipQ and in Mk. 13 : 11 h hcdvxi rfi &pg. (parallel to Lu. 12 : 12 h air^ rg cipf). The tendency was not foreign to the ancient Greek and it is common enough in the modem vernacular* to find airds 6= 'this.' (i) The Correlative Demonstratives. Only four occur in the N. T. One of them appears only once and without the article, (JHiivijs hexBeio-rii ahr^ roiaaSe (2 Pet. 1 : 17). It has died in the ver- nacular (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 63) hke oSe, TTJkiKoabi and Toaotrde. Tj/XwcoOtos appears once as predicate, TTjXt/caCTa fiyra (Jas. ' Abbott, ib. For the Job. use . of iKeiros see Steitz and A. Buttmann, Stud, in Krit. (1859, p. 497; 1860, p. 505; 1861, p. 267). Cf. Blass, Gr. of N.T. Gk., p. 172. » Prol., p. 91. ' Ib. * Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 320, 351. 710 A GKAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 3:4), elsewhere attributive. The article is not used. This cor- relative of age always refers to size in the N. T. (2 Cor. 1 : 10; Heb. 2:3). Once indeed it is in connection with o&tws fikyas (Rev. 16 : 18) and so redundant. The other two are toiovtos and TOffoOros. ToioOtos is the demonstrative of quality (Latin talis) and it is used with a good deal of freedom. It is, of course, merely ToTos and oBtos combined. The compovmd form alone occurs in the N. T. and became more frequent generally.* Toiovtos without a substantive is used either without the article (Lu. 9 : 9) or more usually with the article in the attributive position (Mt. 19: 14; Ac. 19: 25; Eo. 1 : 32; 1 Cor. 7: 28; 2 Cor. 10 : 11, etc.). In Jo. 4 : 23, ToiciiTovs ^rirei Tois irpoaKwovvTas, the articular parti- ciple is in the predicate accusative. When used ivith substan- tives TOLovTos may be anarthrous, as in Mt. 9 : 8; 18 : 5; Mk. 4 : 33; Heb. 7 : 26; 8:1; Jas. 4 : 16, etc., but the article occurs also (Mk. 6 : 2; 9 : 37; 2 Cor. 12 : 3). In Mk. 6 : 2 we have the order ai 8vvafiii.s toioOtoi (cf. ovtos, kKeXvos). It comes before the substan- tive (Jo. 9 : 16) or after (Ac. 16 : 24). It is used as the antece- dent of oTos (Mk. 13 : 19; 1 Cor. 15 : 48; 2 Cor. 10 : 11) following oTos. But note also toiovtovs drotos in Ac. 26 : 29, tolovtos 6s in Heb. 7 : 26 f.; 8 : 1, and in 1 Cor. 5 : 1 Toiairri ^tis. We even have TOIOVTOS opiKal &VTo>vt)|Ji(ai). (a) List in the N. T. The only relatives in the N. T. (not counting adverbs) are 6s, 6(ttls, olos, diroZos, ocos, ^\Ikos, and 6 in the Apocalypse. The others have fallen by the way. Some MSS. read Swep in Mk. 15 : 6, while oaBriwep in Jo. 5 : 4 is not in the critical text. The LXX has oxep (airep) five times,^ but jjXkos not at all. These relative pronouns do not occur with uniform fre- quency as will be seen. "Os is the only one very common. > Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 162. i" Thaok., Gr. of O. T. in Gk., vol. I, p. 192. PRONOUNS ('ANTONTMIAl) 711 (&) The Name "Relative." It is not very distinctive.* The idea of relation (anaphoric use) belongs to the demonstrative and to the personal pronouns also. The anaphoric demonstrative use is indeed the origin of the relative.^ The transition from demon- strative to relative is apparent in Homer in the case of both 6 and 8s. Sometimes it is difficult in Homer to tell the demon- strative and the relative apart.' Cf. English that, German der. Homer often used re and rw with 6 and 6s to distinguish the rela- tive from the demonstrative.* Gradually the relative use, as dis- tinct from the anaphoric demonstrative, won its way. (c) A Bond between Clattses. The relative becomes then the chief bond of connection between clauses. Indeed many of the conjunctions are merely relative adverbs, such as dis, 3re, ottojs, etc. The relative plays a very important part in the structure of the subordinate sentence in Greek. That matter will receive due treatment in chapter XIX, Mode. The agreement of the relative with antecedent in person, number, gender, and some- times case, is just the natural effort to relate more exactly the two clauses with each other. These points will receive discussion under os which best exemplifies them. The assimilation is at bottom the same that we see in other adjectives (cf. demon- strative pronouns). The assimilation of the relative in person, gender, number, and even case of the antecedent may be com- pared to assimilation in the adjective and even verbs (com- pound verbs especially) and prepositions. Cf. Josef Liljeblad, De Assimilatione Syntadica apvd Thuc. Questiones, 1900, p. 1). (d) "O?. 1. In Homer. See discussion of the demonstrative os for origin.^ But already in Homer the relative sense, &p6fMv moraKTiKov, is the main one, and the demonstrative is on the decline.' 2. Comparison with Other Relatives. Though os in the N. T. far outnumbers all the other relatives, yet the distinction between ' Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 81. ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 556; Baron, Le Pron. Rel. et la Conj., 1891, p. 25. He notes that Ss went from dem. to rel. before 6 did. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., pp. 186 ff. * Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35. 'Oart survives in Pindar, Bacch., Ion. and Trag. choruses. Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 68 f. s Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 195. Baron, Le Pron. Rel. et la Conj. en Grec, p. 35. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Ill, p. 295 f.; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 243. ' Momro, Horn. Gr., p. 186. So & yiip is ambiguous. On the anaphoric demonstr. 8s cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Ill, p. 310; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 241. 712 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 05 and the other relatives is breaking down. Indeed in the ver- nacular it may be questioned if it was ever preserved. One may compare the unchangeable Hebrew lig'i*. Moulton^ observes that in Polybius the distinction between Ss and oans has "worn rather thin." In the LXX Ss is frequent," but in the modem Greek Ss "is used rarely even in writing."* It is wholly absent in the vernacular. The modem Greek vernacular uses irov or Sttou. In the oblique cases the conjunctive pronoun tov, -rrjs is added to irov (cf. the Hebrew idiom). See Thumb, Handb., p. 93. Jebb (Vin- cent and Dickson's Handb., etc., p. 303) calls it "a curious ex- ample of false- analogy" and finds an instance in Aristophanes {Birds, 1300), iii\ri ottoi;. Here 6wov=kv oh. The vernacular car- ried it further. He cites modem English vernacular, " The men as he met." Indeed in Rev. 2 : 13 6irov really points to an un- expressed Trap' hixlv. In Col. 3 : 11 Sttou is almost personal. The occasional apparent confusion between os and interrogative pro- nouns will be discussed directly. On the whole, Ss in the N. T., as in the Koivq generally, is still used in accord with the classic idiom. 3. With Any Person. In itself, of course, Ss, hke all relatives, has no person. So the first person in 1 Cor. 15 : 10, the second person in Ro. 2 : 23, the third person in Mt. 5 : 19; Lu. 6 : 48 f.; 1 Cor. 4 : 17. These examples may suffice. 4. Gender. This is not so simple. The normal thing is for the relative to agree with the antecedent in gender, as in 1 Cor. 4 : 17, Ti/Meov, OS hariv fiov rkmiov. So in Col. 1 : 24 birkp rod auiimTos aiiTOV, 6 kariv ■^ iKKhja-ia; Col. 2 : 10 kv aiirQ, os 'tarai ■q Kt^xCKii (cf. Eph. 4 : 15); Col. 2 : 17 aa^^dTOiv, a (some MSS. S) k(TTtv o-wci, tQp fieXKovTcav; Rev. 5 : 6 6(^0aX/w£is exrct, ot daw rk [eirra] irveinara. In Rev. 21 : 8, TO ;u^pos avrSiv kv ry Idiivg t§ Kau>iJ,iv'[i irvpl Kal Beicp S kariv 6 Bamros 6 Sehrepos, the agreement is regular, but the idea of S may be more inclusive than merely* /tepos. Cf. 1 Pet. 3 : 4. On the other hand the relative is assimilated in gender to the predicate substantive. This is also a perfectly natural agreement. Winer^ considers that this is true particularly when the predicate presents the main idea. See Mk. 15 : 16, t^s aiX^s, S kanv irpairisptov; Gal. 3: 16, tQ airkpimTl aov, Ss kariv Xpiaros; Eph. 6: 17, riiv fi&xatpo-v » Prol., p. 92. 2 Thack., Gr., vol. I, p. 192. ' V. and D., Handb., etc., p. 56. "The disuse of 3s in common speech is characteristic; so simple a form ceased to satisfy the desire of emphasis." Jebb in V. and D., p. 302. * a. W.-Sch., p. 231 f. » W.-M., p. 207. PRONOUNS ('ANTfiNTMIAl) 713 ToO irvebfiaros, & lariv ^rjfia deov; Rev. 4 : 5, Xa/iTraSes — a elaiv t& iirri. Tvd^Ta (but some MSS. aJ). Cf. 2 Th. 3 : 17. The MSS. vary in a number of instances between agreement with antecedent and predicate. So Col. 1:27, rod nva-rriplov ToiTov—6s (or 6) iffriv XpitTTis. Cf. also 1 Tim. 3 : 16, where the true text 6s is changed in the Western class of documents to 3 to agree with iivariipiov. See also Eph. 1 : 13 f., r^ irveinaTL — 8 (MSS. 6s) kcrriv appa^&v. So oi! or a in Rev. 5:8. In Mt. 13 : 31 f. kokkcji is followed first by &i/ and then by S (cf. aveppkruv). In another group of passages the change is made acijording to the real gender rather than the grammatical. Thus in Ac. 15 : 17 ra Wvr] itj)' oh (cf. 26 : 17), Jo. 6 : 9 iratbapiov Ss %t, Ro. 9 : 23 f . oKihri 'tKkov% — oils, Col. 2 : 19 K€a\riu k^ ov, Phil. 10 Hkuov &v, Rev. 13 : 14 d-qpk^ 3s. In Gal. 4 : 19 oils is preceded by both ipjas and Te/ti'ia. In 2 Jo. 1, e/cXeKTg Kvpiij, Kal rots reKvois avr^s, ovs, the gram- matical gender (feminine and neuter followed by masculine) is ignored entirely. Cf. Ph. 2 : 15. In a passage like 1 Cor. 15 : 10, dpi 8 eini, there is no mistake. See 3s above in verse 9, It is not 'who I am,' but 'what I am,' not exactly ohs either, but a more abstract idea than that. Cf. 3 in Jo. 4 : 22, used twice for the object of worship, God. So in 1 Jo. 1 : 1 observe &?jv — S i,KtiKbap&>, b iiop&Kap^v (cf . verse 3) for Jesus. One may recall here that the collective abstract neuter, irav 3 (Jo. 6 : 37, 39; 17 : 2), is used for the disciples. Cf. 3 — Kdmwt (Jo. 17 : 24). Sometimes also the relative agrees neither with the antece- dent nor with a predicate substantive, but gathers the general notion of 'thing.' A good example occurs in 1 Jo. 2 : 8, kvroXiiv Kaivrjv yp6L(tica ifuv, 6 'tariv aKr]des, 'which thing is true.'^ So Eph. 5 : 5, TrXeoi/^KTT/s, 8 (Western and Syrian classes read 3s) kanv elSu- XoX(iTp»)s, 'which thing is being an idolater.' A particularly good example is Col. 3 : 14 where 8 comes in between a feminine and a masculine, Ti)v kykT-qv, 3 kcnv cr{ivSecrp,os.' In Mk. 12 : 42 we have a similar example, XeTrra 8vq, 6 kanv KoSpavrris. Indeed 3 kanv comes to be used as a set expression, hke tovt' tariv, without any regard to the antecedent or the predicate, as 3 hTTiv viol fipovTrjs, Mk. 3 : 17. Three phrases go together in this matter, 8 kanv, o ipinjveverai, 6 Xkyerai. The two latter occur in the periphrastic form also. Indeed the examples just noted above may very well be explained from this point of view. So Mt. 1 : 23, 'Ep.fw.vov'qK 3 kariv p^epp/ijvevopevov peB' ripcov d 6e6s, where ob- 1 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 302. 714 A GHAMMAK OF THE GKEBK NEW TESTAMENT serve the neuter participle like 3. Cf . Ac. 4 : 36. In Mt. 27 : 33, ToKyoda 8 kariv Kpavlov t6xos \ey6iJ.evoi, the participle is masculine like TOTTos (cf. Mk. 15 : 22). In Jo. 1 : 39 S Xiyerai ne0epfi7]vev6- fievov connects two vocatives. Cf. 20 : 16. In Jo. 1 : 41 note the accusative and nominative connected with neuter participle, Miaaiav 6 kariv fi^epfirivevdfievov XpiffTos. So 8 h (cf. eh 8 in 2 Th. 1 : 11; 2 : 14; 1 Pet. 2 : 8). Cf. also 8 Kal ii/xas avTirvwov vvv ccifet ^diTTurixa (1 Pet. 3 : 21). Per contra see in the papyri ov used like 8 after analogy of roiovTo{v) ? Note in passing 8 6 in Lu. 2 : 15, like ^ ^ re in Heb. 9 : 2. 5. Number. Here again, as a rule, the relative concurs with the antecedent in nimiber, as in aarrip ov (Mt. 2:9), dtov 3s (Ro. 2:6). The construction according to sense is not infrequent, as in TfKrjfios ol (Lu. 6 : 17 f.), Kara iroKiv iracrav kv ah (Ac. 15 : 36, note distributive idea), fu>ipo\oy'ia ^ evrpaTreKla a (Eph. 5 : 4, where feminine singular could have occurred because of <;), 7ei'eas — kv oh (Ph. 2 : 15), Sev- rkpav hyZv ypkia hrLHToKiiv, ev ah (2 Pet. 3 : 1, referring to both, probably) . Cf . o — \kyovtas (Rev. 5:13). On the other hand note the change from the plural to the singular in rnxepai ScbSe/co &4)' i5s (Ac. 24 : 11), and kv oiipavols — kk o6 (Ph. 3:20). For the neuter plural in the relative (cf. toOto) to cover a vague general idea see Siv in 1 Tim. 1 : 6, avB' uv Lu. 1 : 20, kv oh Lu. 12 : 1 (cf. Ac. 26 : 12), kcl>' oh Ro. 6 : 21, etc. Cf. Col. 2 : 22. 6. Case. (a) Absence of attraction normal. The obvious way is for the case of the relative to be due to the construction in which it is used or to follow the same law as other nouns and pronoims (so » W.-Sch., p. 233. » Mayser, Gr., p. 310. PRONOUNS (antantmiai) 716 with prepositions). That is to say, assimilation of case is not a ne- cessity. It was indeed in a sense an after-refinement. One must not get the notion that assimilation of case had to be. Thucy- dides,' for instance, did not use it so extensively in his rather com- plicated sentences, where the relative clauses stand to themselves. Indeed the absence of it is common enough in the N. T., outside of Luke. Cf . Mt. 13 : 44 k'ypQ 6v, Mk. 13 : 19 KrLaeus fiv, Jo. 2 : 22 X67V &v (cf. 4 : 50), Jo. 4 : 5 x^op^" 8 (CD o5). Tit. 3 : 5 Ipyuv S., Mt. 27 : 60 fivrnie'u^ 6, Ac. 8 : 32 ypa(t>rjs ijv. Not to be exhaustive, one may refer to the rather long list in Winer-Schmiedel'' (Mt. 13 : 44, 48; 23 : 35; Lu. 13 : 19, 21; Ac. 1 : 4; 4 : 10; 1 Tim. 6 : 21; Heb. 6 : 19; 8 : 2; 9 : 7; 1 Pet. 1 : 8; Rev. 1 : 20, etc.). The absence of assimilation in case is not only common in the old Greek, but also in the LXX, the Apocrypha and the papyri. In Aristotle attraction is nearly confined to the more recondite essays (Schind- ler, De Attradionis Pronominum Rel. Usu Aristotelico, p. 94). (/3) Cognate accusative. The accusative in Ro. 6 : 10, S airtdavtv, 6 fg, and Gal. 2 : 20, 8 fS, may be called adverbial. In reality it reproduces the idea of the verb (cognate ace). Cf. Mk. 10 : 38 f. (7) Attraction to- the case of the antecedent. This is very com- mon in the N. T., especially in the writings of Luke. The papyri, even "the most illiterate of them,"' show nmnerous ex- amples of attraction, "a construction at least as popular in late as in classical Greek." This applies to the LXX also. The MSS. naturally vary sometimes, some having attraction, others not. Indeed Blass^ finds this "always" in the passages in W. H. with- out attraction save in Heb. 8 : 2. Cf . fjv (^s) in Mk. 13 : 19, ov {&) in Jo. 2: 22; 4: 50, etc. On the whole attraction seems the more common. But this "idiomatic attraction of the relative" "occurs only twice in Matthew (18 : 19; 24 : 50) and once m Mark (7 : 13)," whereas it "is very common in Luke" (Plummer, Comm., p. li). The effect of "this peculiar construction" was to give "a sentence more internal unity and a certain periodic compactness."* No instance of attraction of a nominative to an oblique case occurs in the N. T., though this idiom is found in the ancient Greek.* > Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 173. = P. 226. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 93. Attraction of the relative to the case of the ante- cedent is not unknown in Lat. Cf . Draeger, Hist. Synt., Bd. II, p. 507. Horn. shows only one instance. Middleton (Analogies in Synt., p. 19) considers analogy the explanation of the origin of attraction. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 173. ' W.-Th., p. 163. « Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 71; W.-Sch., p. 227. 716 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT It is usually the accusative case that is assimilated into another oblique case. Thus the accusative may be attracted into the gen- itive, as TTpayfiaros ov (Mt. 18 : 19), X670U o5 (Jo. 15 : 20), tr&vruv &v (Ac. 1:1; 3 : 21; 22 : 10), SutdiiKtis ^s (Ac. 3 : 25), kirayye\las ^s (7: 17), WpHv S>v (7:45), irvei^aros &ylov o5 (Tit. 3 : 6). Cf. also ■ Ac. 9 : 36; 22 : 10; 1 Cor. 6 : 19; 2 Cor. 10 : 8, 13; Eph. 1 : 8; Heb. 6 : 10; 9 : 20; Jas. 2:5. In several instances it is the accusa- tive of the inner object that is attracted. Cf. Eph. 1 : 19 f . So Trapa/cXlJcrews ^s TapaKoKovfieBa (2 Cor. 1:4), x^'Pi'TOS ^s hxO'Plrwatv (Eph. 1 : 6), Kkw&as rjs iKXiidriTe (4 : 1), (^cov^s ^s hKtKpa^a (Ac. 24 : 21), Ipywv ao-ejSetas Siv ijakpriaav (Ju. 15).^ There are examples also of the accusative attracted to the ablative. So he tuv Keparicav Siv (Lu. 15 : 16), k tov iiSaros ov (Jo. 4 : 14), dxd rSiv oiapUav Ssv (21 : 10), k TOV irvebfiaros ov (1 Jo. 3 : 24). Cf. Jo. 7: 31. Then again the assimilation of the accusative to the pure dative might have been expected, but curiously enough I find so far no example of it in the N. T. In 1 Cor. 7 : 39 there is an instance of the relative at- tracted from the accusative to the dative of an omitted antece- dent, k\ev6kpa karlv & 6'eKei yaixrflrivai, imless yanrjBfjvai be repeated, when ^ is the necessary case. However, several examples occur where the accusative is attracted to the locative or the instru- mental. Instances of the locative are found in kv finkpq. g — kv iapq, ^ (Mt. 24 : 50. This is not an instance of one preposition for antecedent and relative), kirl irainv oh (Lu. 2 : 20; 9 : 43; 24 : 25), kv T^ bvopari ffov ^ (Jo. 17 : 11 f.), kv t& ixviiparL 4> (Ac. 7 : 16), kv kvSpl 4) (17 : 31), ktrl tQ Uyv v (20 : 38), kwl rg kKoBapaiq. g (2 Cor. 12 : 21), kirl ipyoii LyadoZi oh (Eph. 2 : 10),^ kv — ffkliPeuiv ah (2 Th. 1:4), kv T(^ TOTtipio) \evTi03 § ^v die^oiaixkvos, either the in- strumental 4> or the accusative o (cf . Jo. 21 : 7) is correct. In Ac. 9 : 17, kv Tg 65(? § vpxov, the cognate accusative i^v is possible, though the locative originally is more hkely. In 1 Th. 3 : 9, kwl wacrn rg XW V xai-pofiev, a cognate accusative was possible (ijc) attracted ' Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 174; Moulton, Prol., p. 93. ' But in W.-Sch. (p. 225) ols is held to be essential to the structure. For attraction in John see Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 298. » But see per contra W.-Sch., p. 223. PRONOUNS ('ANTfiNTMIAl) 717 to the locative or an original instrumental. In Col. 1 : 23, tov eh- ayyeKiov o5 i/KoiaaTe, either the accusative or the genitive might occur with kmhw. But in 2 Tim. 1 : 13, 'kbyoiv Siv rap' inov iJKova-as, the accusative was almost certainly the original form.' Cf. Ac. 1 : 4 ^1/ riKoixTaTi imv. Plummer {On Luke, p. li) notes that this attraction in Luke is particularly frequent after ttSs (Lu. 2 : 20; 3 : 19; 9 : 43, etc.). In Lu. 5 : 9, kirl rfj ixypq. rSiv Ixdvccv Siv {§) avv&^a^ov, the attraction in some MSS. is to the locative, in others to the genitive. A few instances are found in the N. T. where the attraction is from some other case than the accusative. A clear case of a loca- tive assimilated to a genitive appears in Ac. 1 : 22, fe'&is tjjs Tfii.kpa.% rjs aviKiiixdri. This is inaccord with the ancient Greek idiom. The very same construction appears in the LXX (Lev. 23 : 15. Cf. Bar. 1 : 19). In 1 Tim. 4 : 6 A reads 5i5acrKaXias fi irapriKoKoWriKas, but the rest have ijs. A dative has been attracted into the geni- tive along with incorporation and the preposition in Ro. 4 : 17, KO/rkvavTi ov hrlaTevaev Beov — KarkvavTi tov Beov ^ kirlcTevcrev. So the phrase d' rinkpas fj (locative attracted to ablative). In Ac. 20 : 18 we actually have aird irpisTiis rinkpas a' ^s eTre/Sijv, but as a point of departure (ablative) rather than a point of location (locative). Cf. also d<^' ^s fifikpas (Col. 1 : 6, 9) where the incorpo- ration resolves itself into d<^' •^p.kpas f. So likewise axpt ^s fifikpas (Mt. 24 : 38; Lu. 1 : 20; 17 : 27; Ac. 1 : 2) really comes from axpi fl/j^pas jj (locative to genitive). In Heb. 3 : 9 o5 can be regarded as adverb 'where' or as relative 'wherewith' (marg. of the Ameri- ican Revision). If it is relative, ^ was probably the unattracted form (instrumental to genitive like Treipac/ioO). In Mk. 10 : 38 f., tA jSdiTTto-jua o ^aTTTifojitai, the relative is in the cognate accusative retained with the passive verb.^ See further chapter on Cases. (S) Inverse attraction. What is called inverse attraction is due to the same tendency to identify antecedent and relative, only the assimilation is that of the antecedent to the relative. In itself this phenomenon is no more peculiar than the other. Plato, who uses the ordinary attraction very often, seldom has inverse attrac- tion (Cleef, De Attractionis in Enuntionibus Rel. Vsv Platonico, pp. 44-46). No inverse attraction is found in Pisidian Greek (Compernass, De Serm. Gr., p. 13). The examples are not very numerous in the N. T., but the ancient Greek amply supports the ' W.-Sch., p. 225. Hort in note to text says: "&v probably a primitive error for ir." » Cf. W.-Sch., p. 226 f. 718 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT idiom.* One example, \i9ov ov aireSoKifiakpovcrai. a rirolixaaav apiiixaTa; Jo. 6 : 14, 'idovres a 'eirobqcr&i a-rip^la (W. H.) ; Mt. 7:2, iv ^ yap KpipaTi Kplvere Kpi£ria.\L(ra 'Iwavriv oBros iiykpdrj. Here the demonstrative pronoim is resumptive. The change is made ffom nominative to accusative. The same thing is true of the spurious passage in Jo. 5 : 4, cP STjirore KareixeTo voaTifuiTi (change from genitive to instrumental). This is probably true of Ac. 21: 16, ayovre^ irap' ^ ^evtcrdunev Mi-d- cwvl TivL Kuirptcj). The resolution of this passage is not certain, but it may be ayovres yLvkarava irap' ^ (change from accusative to locative).' But xpos Myao-wm may be correct. In Ro. 6 : 17, iirriKovcraTe els ov vapeSiOrire tvttov SiSaxjJs, the resolved form would probably be Tinrv\i)v, the substantive would have been in apposition with hi 'lovda (the ablative). In Heb. 10 : 10 ^y (J deXrifiarL the ac- cusative t6 6k\rina is present in the preceding sentence. The same thing is true of 1 Pet. 1 : 10, irept rjs crcoTTjpias (crcoTijpiav just before). In 2 Cor. 10 : 13 we have in the same sentence the substantive re- peated (once incorporated and attracted to the case of the relative, but the relative itself attracted to the case of Kavdvos), Kara t6 ukrpov Tov Kavovos ov e/jiipiaev ripiiv 6 Beds pkTpov. 3) In a few instances the attraction has been that of the relative to the case of the antecedent, transferred to the relative clause. See Ac. 25 : 18, uv irfiii vwevdovv itovttpm. For examples with prepo- sitions (see chapter on Prepositions) note : irepl iravToiv &v eirolriaev Tovripdv (Lu. 3 : 19), irepl ira/rSiv Siv elSov Svvafiecav (19 : 37), where the incorporation is only partial. It is clear therefore that in the great majority of instances there is no change of case re- quired. Very many also are set phrases like ov rpcnrov, ^ ibpa, fj ■nukpq,, Si' ^c alrlav, etc. For presence of the antecedent see Jo. 16 : 17 f. 7. Absence of Antecedent. It so often happens that the rela- tive has no antecedent that it calls for special consideration. ' Thompson (Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 71 f.) finds this change only in the aec. But this is not Attic. 720 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT The clause indeed often becomes a substantive rather than an adjective clause. "Os thus occurs in general statements as in Mt. 10 : 14; 23 : 16, 18 (cf. also iros os, Lu. 12 : 48; 14 : 33; Ac. 2 : 21; Gal. 3 : 10). Blass (Gr. ofN. T. Gk., p. 173) gives a large number of such instances of the general or ind^nite use of 6s. So 6s exei &Ta cLKobeiv dfcouerco (Mk. 4:9), where the relative clause is the sub- ject of aKovero). This is the indefinite relative. Cf. Mk. 4 : 25. Here the relative and the antecedent (if expressed) are in the same case (nominative). Cf. 1 Cor. 15 : 10, eiid 6 elfu; Lu. 9 : 50, etc. Both may be in the accusative as in S 5^ ifuv 'Kkjoi iraatv "Kkyu (Mk. 13 : 37), AM? eJScbs S X^t« (Lu. 9 : 33). Cf. Mk. 15 : 12; Lu. 11 : 6; Jo. 1 : 46; 6 : 29; 19 : 37, etc. But the relative may be in the ac- cusative when the antecedent would have been in the nominative. So S XaXei ylverat. (Mk. 11 : 23). Cf. Jo. 1 : 26; 4 : 18, etc. So both may be examples of the genitive, as crvyyevris av oB aire- Ko^ev ILirpoi ri dirlov (Jo. 18 : 26) where ob^rohrov ov. So in 1 Cor. 7 : 1 xepi &v = Trepl tovtcov (or irpaynaTcav) irepl &v. But in axpi o5 (Rev. 2 : 25) we really have oxpt Kaipov 4> (or h ^). In Lu. 23 : 41, a^ta 3>v hrpa^afiev, the resolution is tovtcov S, (gen. and ace). So in Jo. 17: 9 irepl &v dediaKas = ir€pl tovtcov ovs. In Ac. 21 : 24 Jiv kotij- Xi]VTai irepl Tcov a, etc. Exactly so &v in Lu. 9 : 36; 23 : 14; Ac. 8 : 24; 22 : 15; 25 : 11; Ro. 15 : 18; 2 Cor. 12 : 17. In Ac. 26 : 16, naprvpa S>v Te eldes p,e Siv re 6tj)9ri(Top.ai aoi, it is the second wv that gives trouble. The antecedent would be toiitcov and the relative before attraction either a (ace. of general reference) or oh (locative or instrumental). In Ro. 4:7 Siv has as its unex- pressed antecedent ovtol. Cf. also Ac. 13 : 25. In Mt. 6 : 8 (so Jo. 13 : 29), &v xpt't'O-v, the antecedent would be in the accusative. So also irepl Siv, Ac. 24 : 13. In Lu. 17 : 1 8l' at is resolved into To6rq) St' o5 (dative). In Ro. 10 : 14, tt&js maTeicruiTiv o5 oOk TjKovv=6.ird ToiiTiav a, while in 2 Cor. 2:Z a4' Siv=6.ird tovtcov a. &v. Cf. Lu. 6 : 34, irap' &v; 1 Cor. 10 : 30. In Ac. 13 : 39, i.ird v&vtoiv &v, the one preposition covers both ablatives. For the dative I note ols SeSorai (Mt. 19 : 11), where the antece- dent like irayTes would have been in the nominative. Cf. Lu. 7 : 43 47 (5; Ro. 15 : 21 oh and 2 Pet. 1 : 9 §. In 1 Cor. 7 : 39, '^ ek\ei ya.fii]9rjvaL, the antecedent would have been in the dative also. So also 2 Cor. 2 : 10 ^; Ro. 6 : 16 ^ twice. In 2 Tim. 1 : 12, oUa ^ PRONOUNS ("ANTfiNTMIAl) 721 irarhTevKa, it is the accusative rather followed by dative, avrbv ^. In Mt. 20 : 23 (Mk. 10 : 40) the antecedent of oh is probably Toiyruv. In Ro. 10 : 14 the antecedent of o5 would be TofiT^. Some few examples of the locative appear also. Cf . i' oh, Ro. 6 : 21, where the antecedent would have been eirl roinon. So Ro. 2 : 1 and 14 : 22 kv ^ implies kv toxiti^ (cf. also 1 Pet. 2 : 12; 3 : 16), but not so verse 21 where kv ^ refers to an involved rt or ixTjSkv. In Ro. 1:Q kv i^ may involve to{itcj) kv ^. In Heb. 2 -.IS kv ^ {= kv roi)Tt$ kv ^) really has a causal force. In Ph. 4 : 11 kv oh=kv Toh- roK kv oTs, but in 2 Tim. 3 : 14 ^j- oh=kv roirois &. Cf. 2 Pet. 2 : 12 (but ravra kv oh may be correct). I have noticed no examples of the instrumental. But great freedom and variety are manifest. 8. Prepositions with the Antecedent and Relative. The prep- osition may be used twice' "in the case of a sharper division of the relative clause." So eis rijv 7^?' rainriv, eis fjv, Ac. 7:4; airti irpiiTiis vnkpas iup' ^s, 20 : 18. Then again the preposition may occur with the antecedent, but not with the relative, though implied, as in kv vavrl xfAvtf ^ elffT]\dei>, Ac. 1 : 21. So the margin in Ro. 2 ilQ kv ■itukpt). ^. Cf. Lu. 1 : 25. It is possible also so to under- stand kv Tjj ddQ f ^pxov, Ac. 9 : 17. But it is clearly true of l^irb t&v- Tuv 3)v, Ac. 13 : 39. On the other hand the preposition may occur with the relative, but not with the antecedent. Thus kei^jj rg cip^ kv ^, Jo. 4 : 53. When the antecedent is absent, the preposition may be the one common to both, as in d<^' Siv (2 Cor. 2 : 3), or which belongs to only one. Cf. Trap' S)v (Lu. 6 : 34), kcj,' oh (Ro. 6 : 21), kv oh (Ph. 4 : 11), iwip oB (1 Cor. 10 : 30), kv ^ (Ro. 14: 22), eh 6v (Ro. 10 : 14), irepl Siv (l.Cor. 7: 1), etc. This "one" maybe the antecedent, as in &' Siv (Heb. 5 : 8) =d7rd roircov a, eh ov (Jo. 6 : 29)=«is tovtov 6v, irepl Siv (Jo. 17 : 9) = 7r£pi rovrcov ovs, imip a (1 Cor. 4 : 6)=U7r^p ravra S., a(j>' &v (Heb. 5 : S)=air6 tovtoiv a, ets 8v (Jo. 19 : 37)=eis TovTov 6v, etc. Or the "one" may be the relative, as 3i' ov (Lu. 17:1)= ToiiTCj) Si.' o5, k' ov (Heb. 7:13) = oBto$ k' ov, etc. The use of prepositions is common in the same way with the relative and its incorporated antecedent. See kv ^ Kplfian (Mt. 7:2), oxpi ^s ■^tikpas (Lu. 1 : 20), 5t' fjv alHav (Lu. 8 :47), Tap' ij — Mrao-ojyt (Ac. 21 : 16), eh ov — Tvwov (Ro. 6 : 17), a^' ^s rifikpas (Col. 1 : 9), irepl ^s (TUTVplas (1 Pet. 1 : 10), etc. Cf. Ro. 16 : 2. 9. Relative Phrases. Some of the abbreviated prepositional clauses come to be used at the beginning of principal sentences > Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 174. 722 A GRAMMAE OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT like the free use of conjunctions and relatives. Cf. Latin use of qui. Cf. Draeger, Hist. Syntax, Bd. II, p. 512. So &vB' S>v (Lu. 12 : 3), kv oTs (12 : 1), bi6 (Heb. 3 : 7), irepi &v (1 Cor. 7 : 1), o5 xi^piv (Lu. 7 : 47), Si' fiv akiav (2 Tim. 1:6). Cf. odiv (Heb. 3 : 1). Indeed (Winer-Schmiedel, p. 228) hv ^ may be here equal to ev ToiiTii} 6n, avd' &v—a.VTl ToiiroiV on, 4<^' ^ = l7ri ToiiTif on (2 Cor. 5:4), 5i6Tt (1 Th. 2 : 8)=SiA toDto Srt, Ic^' oh (Ro. 6 : 21), etc. The tem- poral and causal use of the relative phrases is common. Cf. kv V (Heb. 2 : 18). Indeed Ka96 (Ro. 8 : 26) is Kod' 6, KoBbn (Ac. 2 : 45) is KoB' on, KoBaivep (Ro. 4 : 6) is Kad' airep. Cf. kij)' 6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 175. ' Thack., Gr. of 0. T. in Gk., p. 46. PEONOUNS ('ANTflNTMIAl) 723 TijXtKoOTos (Rev. 16 : 18), ok — oiJrws (Mk. 9 : 3), Sxou — Im (Rev. 12 : 6, 14), &TOV — kw' airuv (Rev. 17 : 9).i In Ac. 15 : 17, k(j>' o8s — kw' abrovs, we have a quotation from the LXX (Amos 9:12). " The N. T. examples are all from places where Aramaic sources are certain or suspected" (Moulton, Prol., p. 95). One almost wonders, after this admission, why Moulton, p. 94, seems so anxious to prove that the idiom in the N. T. is not a Hebraism. By his own admission it seems a practical Hebraism there, though the idiom had an independent development in the Greek. The early sporadic examples in the ancient Greek'' blossom out in the later Greek again and in the modern Greek become very common. Psichari* considers it rather far-fetched in Moulton to appeal to the modem Greek vernacular, 6 yiarpos tov top 'iareiXa, 'the doctor whom I sent for,' since the modem Greek vernacular just as readily uses TOV without avTov. Psichari complains that Thumb* also has not explained clearly this idiom. But Psichari believes that the idiom existed in the vernacular kolvti (and so fell in readily with the Hebrew usage) and has persisted to the present day. He considers^ the example from a papyrus of the third century a.d. (P.Oxy. 1, 117, 15) decisive, l| &u — k^ avrSiv. See also P. Amh. II, 11, 26, oirep (jjavtpdv tovto 'eykvtTo. Moulton' has given abundant ex- amples from Old English. So in Chaucer (Knightes Tale, 1851 f .): " Namely oon, That with a spere was thirled his brest-boon." He compares also the German der du hist. Simcox' cites vernacu- lar English "a thing which I don't hke it." Evidently therefore the idiom has had independent development in various languages in the vernacular. According to Jannaris {Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 353) the relative is in such cases regarded as "a mere connective." In Gal. 3 : 1, oh — kv v/uv, W. H. reject kv iifiiv. In Gal. 2 : 10, S — aiirA TOVTO, we have the intensive use of amb, but tovto is pleonastic. In 1 Pet. 2 : 24, o$ — ambs, we have again intensive abrbs. 11. The Repetition of os. Winer* rightly remarks that it is a misapprehension of the Greek genius to expect the relative rather than ouros or ovtos in a case like Jo. 1:6; Lu. 2 : 36; 19 : 2; Ac. 1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 175; Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 59. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 175, cites o5 4 TrraiJ ofiroS, from Clem. Cor. i. 21. 9. ' Essai sur le grec de la Sept., p. 182. » HeUen., p. 128. s Cf. also Jami., ffist. Gk. Gr., p. 353. « Prol., p. 94. ' Lang, of the N. T., p. 59. Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 113. » W.-M., p. 186. 724 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 10 : 36. The old Greek could, and commonly did,' use oStos or more usually airos with koi to continue the narrative. Blass^ rather curiously calls it "negligent usage." Cf. Lu. 13 :4, icj)' ovs hrtaev 6 wvpyos Kal awtKTUvev airois; 1 Cor. 8 : 6, k^ o5 — Kal eis ahrov and 5i' od — nal Si' airov (cf. Heb. 11 :4); 2 Pet. 2 :3,oh — Kal avT&v; Rev. 17:2, ixdd' ijs — Kal ahrrji. In Lu. 17:31 koL b occurs rather than ml avros. Cf. Jo. 13 : 24. In Jo. 1 : 33, bf)' 6v — mi eir' aiirbv, the repetition of the relative would have been impracticable. But in 1 Cor. 7 : 13 Paul might very well have written ^tw — koL 6s rather than Kal ovtos (a sort of parenthesis). It is common,' also, to have neither the relative repeated nor the demonstrative. So OS ye Tov l5iov vlov oiiK kijulaaro, dXXa xmkp r\iMV iravTuv iraphSuKev aiT6v(Ro.8:32). Cf. Ph. 4 : 9. But the relative may be repeated. A good many such examples occur in the N. T. KaL may be used, as &v Kal &v (Ro. 4:7). Cf. also ov — ^ Kai (Ac. 27 : 23) and &v re — Sivn— (Ac. 26 : 16). Cf. 1 Cor.. 15 : 1 f., 8— S Kal — kv ^ Kal — Bi' oS Kal. See Jo. 21 : 20. But examples occur also of the repetition of the relative with- out any conjunction, as in 6s — 6v — Tap od (Ac. 24 : 6). See 1 Cor. 4 : 17. Cf. 6cra—6cra, etc. (Ph. 4:8). This repetition of 6s is specially frequent in Paul. Cf. Col. 1 : 24, 28 f.; Eph. 3 : 11 f.; 1 Cor. 2 : 7 f., though it is not exactly "peculiar" to him (Winer- Moulton, p. 209). In 1 Jo. 1 : 1 o is repeated without conjunction three times, while in verse 3 o is not repeated with the second verb. In 1 Pet. 1 : 6-12 four sentences begin with a relative. In Ro. 9 : 4 f . we have olnvis — Siv — S>v — Kal e^ Siv. The use of kvB' &v 6aa together (Lu. 12 : 3) finds abundant par- allel in the LXX, easily falling in with the Hebrew construction* with 1IBS. Thus a double relative occurs. In Ro. 4 : 21 the conjunction of 6ti 6 is merely accidental; but that is not true of 6 — 6ti. in 1 Jo. 4 : 3. Cf . also olov 6ti in Ro. 9 : 6. 12. A Consecutive Idea. This may be implied in 6s. Thus in Lu. 7:5, a^ios ecTTt-v ^ irapk^n tovto. One is reminded of qui in Latin.5 Cf. also Hs kanv o^itos 6s Kal aiMprias dc^ii/o-ti/; (Lu. 7: 49). A particularly good example is 1 Cor. 2 : 16, ris y&p iyvw vovv Kvpiov, 6s avv^L^atru avrov; See chapter XIX, Mode. 13. Causal. "Os may also mtroduce a causal sentence. So os » Bemhardy, p. 304; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 354; Jelf, 833.2; K.-G., II, P- ^^2. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 175. " "Normal" indeed. Thompson, Synt., p. 70. * Thack., Gr. of O. T. in Gk., p. 25. 6 Cf. Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 369. PRONOUNS ('ANTfiNTMIAl) 725 7« in Ro. 8 : 32. Cf. Latin quippe qui. This is perfectly regular in ancient Attic. Cf. Thompson, Syntax of Attic Greek, p. 374. See also chapter XIX, Mode. 14. In. Direct Questions. The passage in Mt. 26 : 50, iraZpe, k' 6 irdpet, is the only one in the N. T. where such a construction is possible. There is no doubt as to the occasional use of So-tis (see (e), 9), biroaos, dworepos, Sirws in direct questions in the ancient Greek. For examples see Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 473 f. See further chapter XIX, Mode. This double use of relative pronouns is on a par with the double use of interrogative stems (cf . indefi- nite) so common in the Indo-Germanic tongues.^ The Latin qui and quis are kin in root and usage. Moulton^ rightly considers it "superfluous to say that this usage cannot possibly be extended to direct question." Winer' explained the "misuse" as belonging to late Greek. A few examples^ of Ss in a direct question do occur. So in Euseb., P. E. vi, 7. 257 d, Gaisford edition, Siv heKa; Just., Cohort. 5 (p. 253 A), 5i' ^v airiav — Trpoakxeis 'Ofi'iifKf; Apophth., 105 C, 'Apakvie, Si' 6 k^\des; Certainly the idiom was chiefly in the ver- nacular and rare even there. Blass' conjectures a slip in the text, alpt having been changed to iralpe, and Chrysostom had an imperative in his text. We may suppose "a rather harsh ellipsis" of the principal verb and treat it as an ordinary relative.* "Os may indeed here be demonstrative as suggested by Noah K. Davis.' There was undoubtedly in the later Greek considerable confusion in the use of the relatives and the interrogatives. It is not im- possible for OS here to be interrogative. That is as much as one can at present say. Blass thought it "quite incredible." 15. In Indirect Questions. Here the matter is much clearer. Even Blass ^ admits that "relatives and interrogatives become confused in Greek as in other languages." In the classical lan- guage OS (still more ocms) is "frequently" so employed. This use comes from Homer on down and occurs in Aristophanes, Sophocles, Herodotus, Xenophon, Plato, Lysias. Thucydides' uses it side by side with Sorts. The papyri have it as Moulton has shown."* > Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gr., p. 74. 2 Prol., p. 93. » W.-M., p. 208. • BlMa, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 331; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 474. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 176. « Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 68. ' Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 178. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 175. ' Thompson, Synt., p. 74. Cf. also Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 473; Moulton, Prol., p. 93. " Prol., p. 93; CI. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 441. 726 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Cf. ^pa^ovTts h ?jt, Kc!>/t»;i olKovaiv, R. L. 29 (iii/s.c.); (^poj/rio-as 5t' Zv del ravra kpyacBTJvai, P.P. ii. 37 (ii/B.c). It is a little surprising, however, to And Blass' saying that this usage "is wanting in the N. T." W. F. Moulton* in his footnote gives undoubted examples of OS in indirect questions after verbs of knowing, declaring, etc. So otSep — &v xpeiij' ^x*''*; Mt. 6:8; 6,Trayyei\aTe a aKoiiere, 11:4; elSvia 6 yiyouev, Mk. 5 : 33; avkyvure 6 'eiroiriarfv, Lu. 6 : 3 (cf. Mt. 12 : 3 Ti) ; firi eiStJjs S \kyu, 9 : 33; Si' riv dlriav fjtj/aTO aiiTov airiiyyeiXtv, 8 : 47 (cf . Ac. 22 : 24) ; StSafei ii/Ms & del eiweiv, 12 : 12. Cf. also Lu. 9 : 46. And then in 1 Tim. 1 : 7 we find a "hkyov^iv and irepl rlvuv SiajSe- ^aioOi/rai used side by side after nii voovvrtt. Cf. also Jo. 18 : 21. One may compare' also Lu. 11 : 6, obK ix<^ o irafMOijaco avrQ, with Mk. 8 : 2 (Mt. 15 : 32), o{)k ^x"""'"' ^' (jjayuaip. See also cos ladri in Lu. 8 : 47, and note Gr; of N. T. Gk., p. 175. » W.-Sch., p. 237. " W.-M., p. 207 f. < lb., p. 236. » Cf . Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 69, for the exx. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 172 f. ' Prol., p. 91. ' lb.; 01. Rev., Dec, 1901, p. 441 f. » Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 352. PEONOUNS ('ANTONTMIAl) 727 than 8s, in postclassical times was used indiscriminately for Ss. He is supported by Kaelker about Polybius.* But in the vernacu- lar modem Greek oti is alone common, other forms of So-tw being rare, though brivos and brivuv are found (Thumb, Handb., p. 93 f.). Kriiger'' calls iis "objective" and oaris "quaUtatiye and generic." W. F. Moulton' defines oo-tis as properly indicating the class or kind to which an object belongs. But no exact parallel can be drawn nor uniform distinction preserved. Each has its own his- tory. Jebb^ takes oorts to refer to class in ancient Greek and hence is either indefinite or causal. In the modem Greek it is still in- definite, but has also in the vernacular displaced 6s in the mascu- line and feminine nominative. In the LXX octls is less frequent than 8s and is almost confined to the nominative and accusative.^ In the papyri^ it is less frequent than Ss and is usually in the nom- inative as in the N. T. (Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. 154). I 3. The Indefinite Use. This is, as a matter of fact, still the most frequent in the N. T. Cf. Latin quicumque. The examples are too numerous to give save a few samples. Cf. So-tis ci ^arl^ei eis rip) bt^iav auxr/bva (Mt. 5 : 39), Scttis apviiarjTai ixe (10 : 33), 8ri &v airijariTe (Jo. 14:13), oarLs iav § (Gal. 5 : 10). Thus it is used with indicative or subjunctive, with or without av (iav). Cf. Mt. 13 : 12. In Mk. 8 : 34 €1 rts does not differ very greatly from ocrris. Cf . also i6.v nil, Mk. 10 : 30. IIos oans is, of course, indefinite also. Thus Mt. 7 : 24; irSi' 6 tl iav iroiTJTe (Col. 3 : 17), etc. For iraaa 4'VXV V''''-^ °-v see Ac. 3 : 23 (LXX). In P. Par. 574 (iii/A.D.) note So-tis xot' olv el. 4. The Definite Examples. These are chiefly causal clauses. Some indeed seem merely descriptive. Thus Mt. 7 : 15, tS>v \l/evdoTpo Prol., p. 91. ' V. and D., Handb., p. 302. <■ Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 173. • The pap. show the same situation. Moulton, CI. Rev., April, 1904, p. 154. Thus fiin-tva BM 77 (viii/A.D.), Svnva inscr. J.H.S., 1902, p. 349, «| 6tov BM 190 (iii/?), ews 8toi> NP 56 (iii/A.D.). PRONOUNS ('ANTflNTMIAl) 729 with kos and the genitive, iw 8tov, is rather frequent. Cf. Mt. 5 : 25; Lu. 12 : 50 (Luke three times, Matthew and John once each). This is the only form of the shortened inflection. The LXX once' (2 Mace. 5 : 10) has ijarLvos, elsewhere otov. The accu- sative is found in the N. T. only in the neuter singular on (absent from modern Greek). But see (note 6, p. 728) occasional ovriva and ijvTiva in the papyri. So Lu. 10 : 35, 8ti av xpoo-Saxafijo-Hs. Cf . Sti S.V, Jo. 2:5; 14 : 13; 15 : 16; Sn i&.v, Mk. 6 : 23; 1 Cor. 16 : 2f.; Col. 3 : 17; Sn alone, Jo. 8:25; Ac. 9:6. The other ex- amples are all in the nominative. 7. Number. In general .the number of Sims agrees with that of the antecedent. But in a few instances oo-ris agrees with the predicate. So with 1 Cor. 3 : 17, vads otrivts — iineis, Eph. 3 : 13, e\lrl/eaiv ^ris — So^a. Cf . Ac. 16 : 12. 8. Gender. Likewise oans in general agrees with the antece- dent in gender. So Eph. 1 : 22 f . bacKtiaia ^rts — t6 aSina, Gal. 4 :24 fiia ^Tis — "Ayap. Cf. Rev. 11:8. But the gender of the predicate may be followed as in Ac. 16 : 12, ^iXittttous (fem., H. Scott says, but Thayer has ol) ^rts — iroXts; 1 Tim. 3 : 15, oikcj) deov — ^T« — kKKkricia. In Ph. 1 : 28, ^rts — ivSii^is, the antece- dent is the general idea of the preceding clause. One example of 8n is neuter singular (2 Cor. 3 : 14, on h XpiarQ KaTepyeirai), and several times the neuter plural (Jo. 21 : 25, anra kav ypa4rj- Toi). So Gal. 4:24; 5 : 19. Cf. the absence of the neuter in the modem Greek. The masculine and feminine, both singular and plural, are very frequent. Cf. Mt. 2:6; 7 : 15; Lu. 2:4; 23 : 55. See further for number, gender and case, chapter X, vii, VIII, IX. 9. Direct Questions. Examples of oari-s in direct questions are found in Aristophanes and Plato as quoted by Jarmaris.^ An ex- ample of it occurs also in 1 Chron. 17 : 6, 6tl ovk iikoSomcraTk iwi oIkov Kk&pwov; Here the Hebrew has na^. Cf. also 2 Ki. 8 : 14 in AB, oTi where other MSS. have tI. In Barn. Ep. c. 10 we have Sn bi Muvaris eipriKev, Vulgate has quare.^ Jannaris^ gives a number of instances for the later Greek. And yet Blass^ calls it "quite incredible," a remark impossible to justify in the light of the facts. It is, indeed, unusual, but there is no a priori reason 1 Thack., Gr., p. 192. » Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 473. « Cf. W.-M., p. 208. * Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 473. It is more usual ia the second of two questions. Cf. Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 398. « Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 176. 730 A GBAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT why the N. T. writers could not occasionally use 6(ttls as a direct interrogative. One may note also the use of el in a direct question.* The N. T. examples are. all confined to 3 n. In Mt. 7 : 14 on is certainly merely causal, not exclamatory nor interrogative. In Mk. 2 : 16 oTi is read by BL 33 and is accepted by W. H. and Nestle as interrogative. AC al. read H on, while ND have Sia n. It is possible, to be sure, that on may bean "abbreviation"^ or "ellipsis"' for n on. But it is more probable that it is here re- garded as tantamount to an interrogative (ri on or Sia ti). Moul- ton {CI. Rev., 1904, p. 154) quotes on n in B.U. 607 (ii/A.D.) ypa^ov jxoi on n eirpa^as. But in Mk. 9:11 the Greek uncials all give the first on. This is all the more remarkable since the second on is clearly a conjunction. The Latin MSS. give variously quare, quia, quid, etc., and some Greek cursives ttcos adv. 'Why' is the natural and obvious idea.* So in Mk. 9 : 28 on is read by the great mass of MSS. (including XBCL), though AD and a number of others have &ia n, some even have on ha n (conflate reading), a few n on. In John 8 : 25 both W. H. and Nestle print as a ques- tion, Tijv apxvv o n /cat XaXoi iixlv; The Latin versions have quod or quia. It is a very difficult passage at best. Tijc apxriv 6 n may be taken to mean'' Why do I speak to you at all?' {riiv apx^v= Sheas). But there may be ellipsis,* 'Why do you reproach me that {on) I speak to you at all?' If necessary to the sense, on may be taken here. as interrogative.* Moulton' admits the N. T. use of oo-Tis in a direct question. Recitative on is even suggested in Winer-Schmiedel, ' but the occasional interrogative use of on is sufficient explanation. But the passage in Jo. 8 : 25 is more than doubtful. Chrysostom takes on there as relative, Cyril as causal.' 10. Indirect Questions. In ancient Greek 6ans is exceedingly common in indirect questions, sharing the honours with t«." The astonishing thing about this use of oans is its almost entire ab- sence from the N. T. (cf. modern Greek, where it is not used in this sense). No example has yet been shown from the papyri. Indeed the relative forms, the so-called indirect interrogatives, are not common in the N. T. in that sense. The direct interroga- , 1 Lachmann, Praef., p. 43. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 176. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T., p. 176. « Simcox, Lang, of N. T., p. 68. » W.-M., p. 208. ' Prol., p. 94. * Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 68. " P. 238. The use of 6ti. tL lends colour to the notion of recitative 6ti. » Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 143. >« Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 473. PRONOUNS ('ANTBNTMIAl) 731 tives are the rule in the N. T. in indirect questions.' Only one instance of Sti in an indirect question is found in the N. T., Ac. 9 : 6, XdXridijceTal aoi on at. Set iroieij'. Even this reading, though supported by NABC, Blass^ rejects "in view of the general practice elsewhere," a needless conclusion. Why not call it a "literary" mark in Luke? "Oir&js is so used once (Lu. 24 :20), 3irou not at all (not even Jo. 14:4), oTos in 1 Th. 1 : 5, and fiTrotos only in 1 Cor. 3 : 13; Gal. 2:6; 1 Th. 1:9; Jas. 1 : 24. See further chapter XIX. (/) oro9. 1. Relation to 6'?. This correlative form is related to 3s as qualis is to qui. The antecedent toiovtos is not, of course, always expressed. But it is qualitative, and not a mere relative like os or even oans. In the modern Greek the word has disappeared except the form oykos (6 olosY in the dialects and is rare (14 times) in the N. T. Mayser* merely mentions it in his Grammatik d. griech. Papyri. It is in the N. T. usually without tolovtos, as in Mt. 24 : 21, but it is several times followed by tolovtos, as in 1 Cor. 15 : 48; 2 Cor. 10 : 11. A rather unusual instance is olos — TijXtKoOros aeiaiids ovtu fiiryas (Rev. 16 : 18). In 2 Cor. 12 : 20 olov is, of course, first person. So oTot 1 Th. 1 : 5. 2. Incorporation. No instance of attraction occurs, but an ex- ample of incorporation is found in 2 Tim. 3 : 11, o'iovs 5tx>iyfu)vs ivi]veyKa. In Rev. 16 : 18 the addition of tijXikoOtos ovtui nkyas after olos is by way of explanatory apposition. But in Mk. 13 : 19, oia oil yeyovev ToiaiiT-q, the incorporation is redundant after the fashion of bv — a\)Tbv. 3. Indirect Question.^ Like 3s we have olos so used. Cf. 1 Th. 1 : 5, oUaTe oloi, iyevridritiev. In 2 Tim. 3 : 11 we may have an in- direct question also. The Textus Receptus for Lu. 9 : 55 (D has Toiov) has another instance of the use of olos in an indirect question, ovk otSare o'lov irveviiaTOS 'tart iixets. 4. Number. Olos may agree in number with the predicate rather than the antecedent. So 1 Cor. 15 : 48, olos — tolovtoi. Note the difference in the position of the negative in ohx olovs and olov oh, 2 Cor. 12 : 20. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 179, calls Tdv aiiTov — olov (Ph. 1 : 30) peculiar. 1 Cf. Blaas, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 175; W.-Sch., p. 236 f.; Viteau, Prop., pp. 62 ff. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 175. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 87, 168; Thumb, Handb., p. 94. * P. 311. 5 a. K.-G., II, p. 439, for exx. in the older Gk. 732 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 5. 0T6»' rk ecriv. The only example* in the N. T. is in Ro. 9 : 6, o\>x olov Si oTi, where note the absence of re. It does not occur in exclamations. (gf) 'OTTOtO?. 1. Qualitative. It corresponds to the interrogative ttoTos. It is very rare in the N. T. (see Declensions), but occurs in modem Greek vernacular for 'whoever' (Thumb, p. 93). In the literary modern Greek 6 ottoIos, Jannaris^ thinks that the use of the article was due to the Italian il quale and the French lequel (cf. Old English the which), since educated scribes objected to the ver- nacular oirov and ttoO.' 2. Double Office. Like olos, o{>Tovs diraiios. Cf. qimliscwmque. Note here the difference in number. Qi) "Oo-o?. 1. Quantitative. It is found in the LXX like oTos and oiroTos' and survives in the modern Greek.' There are a hundred and eight instances in the N. T. (W. H. text) which display great variety of usage. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 63) notes that in Philo oaos is often equal to ol'. 2. Antecedent. The presence of the antecedent is not common outside of iravres otroi (Ac. 5 : 36, 37), iravTo, oaa (very common, as Mt. 7:12; 13:46; 18:25; Mk. 11 : 24, etc.), g(7ot — oStoi (also frequent, as Ro. 8 : 14; Gal. 6 : 12, etc.). Cf. ocroi — aiiTois in Jo. 1 : 12. But in Mk. 3 : 28 oaa has &napTriiMTa and /3Xao-<^r/Aitai as antecedents and naturally is neuter. Cf. Ac. 3 : 24; 9 : 39; Rev. 21 : 16. It is common without antecedent both in the masculine (8' 6cyov xpovov. 5. Repetition. In Mk. 6 : 30 we have in W. H. o(7a Kal oaa (not Tisch.). But in Ph. 4 : 8 oaa is repeated six times without Kal. In Heb. 10 : 37 oaov otrov (LXX) is in imitation of the Hebrew in Hab. 2 : 3. Cf. also Is. 26 : 20 and D on Lu. 5 : 3 where &v — mrav (Prol., p. 93). As a matter of fact in the N. T. &aos nowhere occurs outside of the nom. and ace. except in Lu. 11 : 8 and Heb. 1 : 4; 8 : 6; 10 : 25. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 179. Blass also cites Aristoph., Vesp., 213. * Moulton, Prol., p. 97; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 330. " Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 168. « Mayser, Gr., p. 311. 734 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT \i\riv av6.irT€i. The examples in James may be regarded as exclam- atory. Note also that ijXkoj' refers to greatness and ■^XUriv to small- ness of the size. In Gal. 6 : 11 W. H. and Nestle read TnjXiKois in the text and rfKiKois in the margin. This again is indirect question after Were. (j) 'O AS Relative. The use of the t forms of 6, ■^, to as relative is very old in Greek. It appears in Homer ' and is common in Herodotus. In Arkadian 6 appears as demonstrative, as article and as relative (Meister, Die griech. Dialekten, Bd. II, p. 116). Cf. also South Ach. (Hoffmann, Griech. Dial, pp. 257, 292-300). Jannaris^ gives examples of it from Ionic (where very common), Doric and Attic (inscriptions), and sporadically in the later Greek. In modern Greek it survives only in sententious sayings with rd and in Crete and Southeast Greek (Thumb, p. 94). Mayser' finds a few doubtful instances in the papyri. Wilcken (Archiv, I) gives some examples from B. M. as to tun diScoKes (p. 292), ttiv ayawriv Tiiv TToteis (p. 301), and Moulton {CI. Rev., 1904, p. 155) quotes 7rp6s to Bh/ofie from B.U. 948 (iv/v a.d.) "very illiterate." Mayser (op. dt.) gives numerous examples of 6 Kai which "first in Roman time" appears in the nominative. He compares this with the relative use OS Kai and is inclined to regard 6 Kal as relative. The analogy of the Latin qui et favours the relative idea, but the article alone is sufficient in Greek. I would not insist on the relative for SaDXos 6 Kal IlauXos (Ac. 13 : 9), though admitting the possibility of it. It means (Deissmann), not 'Saul who is henceforth Paul,' but 'also Paul.' Cf. also Hatch, Jour, of BiU. Lit., Pt. II, p. 141 f., 1908. In truth this use of 6 mi with double names was very common in N. T. times.* Dieterich^ sees no instance of 6 as relative in the N. T. But m Rev. 1 : 4, 8; 11 : 17, we have 6 ?iv. One either has to say that here 6 is used as a relative or that it is a relative. It all comes to the same in the end. It may be a bit artificial, 6 5iv Kal 6 fjv Kal 6 ipxoiJievos, but the antique and vernacular relative 6 came in as a resource when John did not wish to use yevofievos of God, and since there is no aorist participle for elui. Psychologically 1 Monro, Horn. Gr., pp. 182 ff. For hist, of the matter see K.-Bl., I, pp. 608 ff. 2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 353. Cf. also Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 560; Meisterh., Gr., p. 156; Dieterich, Byz. Arch., pp. 1, 198 f. » Gr., pp. 310 ff. * See Schmid, Der Atticismus, III, p. 338; Vollcer, Synt. d. griech. Pap., p. 6; Ramsay, Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, XIX, 429; Deiss., B. S., pp. 313 ff.; Moulton, Prol., p. 83. 6 Unters., p. 199. Winer (W.-Th., p. 107) rejects 4 ml as relative. PRONOtJNS ('ANTBNTMIAl) 735 the article is called for here between two articles, but grammar can do nothing with it. If rj^ is treated as a substantive, that would call for to as in to Sk 'Avk^ri (Eph. 4:9). Moulton^ finds several examples in late papyri of 6 as relative, like t^v ayairriv Triv TTOKis (B. M., p. 301), TTjv xtpi Ti?" StSoiKev (p. 304). The only- real difficulty in Rev. 1:4, 8, etc., is the nominative use, and that was not insuperable when the exigencies of the sentence de- manded it. It is possible that this phrase had come to be a set phrase among the Christians for the eternity and imchangeable- ness of God. For the possible use of tw as relative see under VIII. Vin. Interrogative Pronouns (clvTO)vu|iCai IpoTiiTiKat). (o) Ttv. The root of the interrogative tis (Thess. kIs. Cf . Ionic Kus, Kdrepos), indefinite tis (cf. re), is at bottom the same as the Indo-Germanic root quis and Latin quis {aliquis, que)? Curiously enough some of the grammars, Monro's Homeric Grammar, for example, give no separate or adequate discussion of the inter- rogative pronouns. 1. Substantival or Adjectival. Tis is either adjectival as rim luadov ix^re; (Mt. 5 : 46), or, as more commonly, substantival like Tis inrkSei^ev; (Mt. 3:7). 2. The Absence of Gender. That it appears only in the nom- inative and accusative is noteworthy. This fact probably had something to do with the gradual retreat of tis before ttoTos.' The neuter in the N. T. occurs with adjectives only, as ri ayaffov in Mt. 19 : 16. 3. Tts='7roTos. An opposite tendency is seen in the use of Tts= TToTos.* Hatzidakis* has shown examples of this idiom as early as Euripides. As New Testament illustrations one may note rts ovt6s '&TTIV OS (Lu. 7 : 49), rives oi \byoi ovtol oSs dvrtjSaXXeTe (Lu. 24 : 17; cf. xola 24 :19), tis icTiv oEtos 6 vU>% tov avdpuirov (Jo. 12 : 34). Cf. Lu. 4 : 36. Only once* is iroTos used with the article (Jas. 4 : 14, and here B omits 17), while we find tIs 17 (ro(^ta (Mk. 6:2), Tis ij aiTio (Ac. 10 : 21), etc. Sometimes Tis and irolov are used to- gether. It might seem at first as if the distinction were here insisted on, as in eis riva f) irolov Kaipov (1 Pet. 1 : 11) and irotov oiKov—fj tLs totos (Ac. 7:49). But tautology seems plain in the last example and may be true of 1 Pet. 1 : 11, but not certainly ' CI. Rev., April, 1904, p. 155. ' Cf. Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 194; Bnig., Griech. Gr., pp. 117, 244. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 163. ^ Einl., p. 207 f. - lb., p. 164. » Blaes, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 176. 736 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT SO.* In Mk. 4 : 30 W. H. read kv Hvi, but some MSS. have kv ttoi^i. Cf . also Tis Kal TOTairds in Lu. 7 : 39, which is not tautological. 4. Indeclinable tL In Jo. 18 : 38, H ka-nv aXrideia, the neuter in the predicate calls for no special remark. So Gal. 3 : 19. Cf. Latin quid and English what in such a sentence. This idiom be- longs to the ancient Greek and distinguishes between the essence of a thing (ti) and the classification of a thing (ris), as Gilder- sleeve puts it (Syntax of CI. Gk., p. 59). Cf. i/ieis rives kark; (Ac. 19 : 15) and rl kuTiv Mpuwos (Heb. 2:6). But this explana- tion will not hold for 1 Jo. 3 : 2, H kdoiitBa, nor Ac. 13 : 25, H kfik trovoeire. The text in Acts is not certain. The icoivri shows this development outside of the N. T.^ In the modem Greek "the neuter tI is used with all genders and cases both in the singular and plural" (Vincent and Dickson, Handb., p. 55). Cf. ri &pa dvai; 'what o'clock is it?' Ti ywaiKa; 'which woman?' Thumb, Handb., p. 94. It is not unusual in classical Greek^ to have tI as predicate to ravra, as in Lu. 15 : 26 ri av eirj ravra, Jo. 6 : 9 Tavra tI kcTTiv. So probably ri ravra ToieZre; (Ac. 14 : 15), though rl here may be 'why' and not predicative. The usual construction ap- pears in Ac. 17 : 20 riva Bk\ei ravra etvai (cf. Jo. 10 : 6), 11 : 17 ^ti Tis fni-qv; cf. Lu. 8:9. In Ac. 21 : 33 tw and ri are sharply dis- tinguished. The use of ri with yivoijuu is hardly in point here (Ac. 5 : 24; 12 : 18) as it is found in the Attic* ri ykvaimi,. In Jo. 21 : 21 ovros Si ri; we must supply yevfitrerai. 5. Predicate Use of ri with rovro. In Ac. 23 : 19, ri kariv o ?x«s, we find the full expression. In Lu. 16 : 2, ri rovro aKoiica irepl aov, we meet the abbreviated idiom. ' Cf. Ac. 14 : 15 ri ravra (see also 9). Cf. Lu. 1 : 66; Ac. 5: 24. The phrase ri Trpds iJaiSs (Mt. 27: 4), ri xpos crk (Jo. 21:22) is matched by the Attic ri ravr' kfwi (Ktihner-Gerth, II, 417; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 177). Cf. olros ri (Jo. 21 : 21). Blass (i&.) also compares ri y&p poi rois i^w Kpiveiv (1 Cor. 5 : 12) with the infinitive in Arrian, Diss. Epid., ii, 17. 14. Ti k/wl Kal aoi (Jo. 2 : 4, etc.) is in the LXX (2 Ki. 3 : 13), but it is also a Greek idiom (elUpsis, Kiihner- Gerth, ib.). 6. In Alternative Questions. Quality in general is nearly gone from the Koivri. Tis when ^Srepos might have been used is not unknown in ancient Greek.^ Indeed even in Latin guis occurs sometimes instead of the more usual uter.^ In the LXX irorepos > Blass, Gr. of N'. T., p. 176. * lb. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 164. ^ jg]f^ §74^ oj,g 4^ » BlasB, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 177. « Draeger, ffist. Synt., p. 103. PRONOXmS ('ANTQNTMIAl) 737 is supplanted by ris and the particle irorepov occurs only once, and that in Job (literary).^ Moulton'' finds only one example of irdrfr pos in the papyri, and that unintelligible. So in the N. T. ir&repos does not occiu- as an adjective. So in Mt. 9 : 5 ti yap kanv eiKo- iriiTtpov direXv — ij elwetv, 21 : 31 ris 'tK t&v diio kiroirjaev, 27: 21 riva ek\iT€ &ir6 tS>v 8{jo. Cf. also 23 : 17, 19; 27 : 17; Mk. 2 : 9; Lu. 7 : 42; 22 : 27; 1 Cor. 4 : 21; Ph. 1 : 22. Moulton' notes that "whether, adjectivally, is as archaic as worepos," and predicts that "the best of the two" will be the EngUsh of the future. 7. The Double Interrogative. Cf. Hs wc^ep in Soph., Tr. 421. It is common in other Indo-Germanic languages.* Cf. tIs tLvos k(TTiv kpykT-qs, Horn. Clem. 2, 33. So tIs ti apo in Mk. 15 : 24. Some MSS. have t« tI also in Lu. 19 : 15, but not NBDL (W. H. and Nestle read ti). Cf. rfKimv — rfKUriv in Jas. 3 : 5. 8. As Relative. Just as ds and oans came to be used as inter- rogatives, so ris drifted occasionally to a mere relative. We have seen (1 Tim. 1 : 7) how the relative and the interrogative come to be used side by side. "In English, the originally interrogative pronouns 'who' and 'which' have encroached largely on the use of the primitive relative 'that.'"^ Moulton's sketch of the facts' makes it clear that in the N.T. ris may be relative if the exigencies call for it. Moulton finds it only in the illiterate papyri, but the usage is supported by inscriptions' and by the Pontic dialect to- day.* Moulton' give? from the papyri, edpov yeopydv tIs avra tkKiiaji, B.U. 822 (iii/A.D.); wos kav xp'i^a-v 'exos, B.M. 239 (Iv/a.d.). From the inscriptions see rts &v KaKus irot^cet, J.H.S., XIX, 299. Moulton' also quotes Jebb on Soph., 0. T. 1141: "Tis in clas- sical Greek can replace oo-ris only where there is an indirect ques- tion." The plainest New Testament example of tis as 3s appears to be Mk. 14 : 36 ob H 'eyili deXu a\\a. ri av. Cf. Mt. 26 : 39 ovx is eyi) deKa, dXX' cos crii. But it is not much more so than Mt. 15 : 32 obK ixov(Jiv tI > tL (/>w, which looks like an indirect question. Cf. Winer-Moulton, p. 211; Winer-Schmiedel, p. 240. It is not necessary to bring ^ under this construction ob yap jJSet tL &iroKpuB§ (Mk. 9 : 6) nor Mk. 13 : 11. Here the idiom is really that of in- direct question (deliberative question). Cf. the direct question in Mt. 6 : 31 with the indirect in 6 : 25. So in Mt. 10 : 19 (first ex- ample) and see 9. But the second example in Mt. 10 : 19 (Sodtjae- Tai — tI '\aKi). It is possible also thus to construe Lu. 19 : 3, iduv 'Iticrovv tLs hariv, in- stead of taking ris hanv as an accusative of general reference. Cf . Mk. 1 : 24, olSa ere ris el (Lu. 4 : 34 also). Cf. the prolepsis o-ii rts el in Jo. 8 : 25. So Ro. 14 : 4, 10. The rhetorical questions in Lu. 11 : 5; 15 : 4, 8; Jas. 3 : 13 are not, of course, instances of this usage.^ Perhaps the anacoluthon in Lu. 11 : 11 (riw 8i i^ iiuhv rbv varepa alTriaei — kiri56}aei;) may have arisen because of this idiom. The distinction between ris and os is, of course, usually maintained (Jo. 16 : 18; Ac. 23 : 19 f.; Heb. 12 : 7).- It is at least noteworthy that in 1 Cor. 15 : 2 Paul changes from os (used four times) to rivi XoYtj). An indirect question comes with a jolt and makes one wonder if here also the relative use of rts does not occur. In Mt. 26 : 62 {ovBiv airoKplvg t'l ovtoI os;) 8 : 26 (ri SeCKoi eare;) 19 : 17; 20 : 6, etc. In Ac. 14: 15 t'l ravra iroietre we prob- ably have Tt=' why.' Cf. Mk. 11:3. In Mk. 2 : 24 Ti TTowOffii' ToTs ahP0a(7iv S o\)K 'i^eariv; note 'why,' though ri is followed by 8. It 1 As Simcox does, Lang, of the N. T., p. 69 f. ' Cf. W.-Sch., p. 241; Moulton, Prol., p. 93. » W.-Sch., p. 241; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 331. « Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 175. « Cf. W.-Sch., p. 241. PRONOUNS ('ANTflNTMIAl) 739 is interesting to note tt&js ^ t£, Mt. 10 : 19; Lu. 12 : 11. In Jo. 14 : 22 Ti f'eyovtv on we see the full form of the common tI oti (Lu. 2 : 49; Ac. 5 : 4, 9, etc.). Here ri still='why.' But in ha H (1 Cor. 10:29 and Mt. 9:4; 27:46; Lu. 13 : 7; Ac. 4:25; 7:26) tJ is really the subject of yivriTai (ellipsis). It is not unknown in Attic Greek.i W. H. never print IvaH (cf. Mt. 9:4; Lu. 13 : 7). It is common in LXX. 10. With Prepositions. There is very little difference between n='why' and SiA ri='because of what' (Mt. 15:2, 3; 17:19; Lu. 24 : 38, etc.) . Kara rl (' according to what ') is practically ' how.' Cf. Lu. 1 : 18. For kv tIvi see Mt. 5 : 13. But Tpds H (Jo. 13 : 28)= 'for what purpose.' In Jo. 13 : 22 Tepl Hvos \kyu there is no such idea. But purpose again is expressed hyeU tI (Mt. 14 : 31 ; 26 : 8; Mk. 14:4; Ac. 19:3). 11. With Particles. Paul in particular is fond of the rhetorical use of ri yap (Ro. 3 : 3; 4 : 2, etc.), ri otv (3 : 1, 9, etc.), rl en (3 : 7; 9 : 19), dXXd ri (11 : 4), ^ ri (11 : 2). Cf. Hs &pa in Lu. 22 : 23 and Tl&pa 1:66; Ac. 12:18. 12. As Exclamation. In Mt. 7: 14 W. H. read 'on (causal), not Ti (TTevfi ^ iriiXij. But in Lu. 12 : 49 koJ ri BkKoi ei ijSri avri(t>6r] there is no doubt of the text. W. H. punctuate as a question, but Nestle as an exclamation. Examples of exclamatory Tt='how* are found in 2 Sam. 6 : 20; Song of Sol. 7:6 and in the modem Greek, ri KoKds SyepcoTTos! Cf. MuUach, Vulg., pp. 210, 321; Winer-Moulton, p. 562. Blass^ compares the Hebrew n^. On the whole it is best to take Ti in Lu. 12 : 49 = 'how.' 13. Indirect Questions. It is, of course, the ancient idiom' to have tIs in an indirect question. But in the N. T. the indirect in- terrogative 8(7Tis has disappeared in this idiom save in Ac. 9 : 6 (MSS. divided here). A good example of ris occurs in Ac. 10 : 29 irvvBavonai, tIvl Xoytf iieren-kp^/aadk ixe. In Luke we meet the neuter article rather frequently before the .indirect question. So t6 t£ S.V ek\oi (1 : 62), t6 tIs &v elij (9 :46).' Cf. 22 : 23, 24, etc. Blass {Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 158) sees no special point in the article (cf. English "the which"). Paul sometimes uses it also (Ro. 8 : 26; 1 Th. 4 : 1 TO tSis) . The question is brought out rather more sharply by the article. The Attic use of rd ri, rd iroZov (Thompson, Synt., p. 74) in reference to something previously mentioned is like our "The what?" Cf. Herm., Sim., VIII, i, 4, Clem., Ham., i, 6. 14. Tis or TIS. Sometimes it is difficult to decide whether ris » W.-Sch., p. 240. 2 Gr. ot N. T. Gk., p. 177. • Thompson, Synt., p. 74. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 561. 740 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT or tIs is right. So 1 Pet. 5 : 8 W. H. have fijrfiy Karaintiv with rivh, in the margin. But Nestle actually prints ^iitSiv rim KaTawieiv. In Heb. 5 : 12 W. H. read tlvo. and Nestle Tim (both indefinite). In Jas. 5 : 13 the reading is, of course, tw, not tIs. So 1 Cor. 7 : 18. (6) Iloto?. 1. Qualitative. It occurs sixteen times in direct questions. It is still used in its original qualitative sense. Clearly this is true in Jo. 12 : 33, a-rjiiaivuv iro'uf Bavaros ijneWep aToBp^aKeiv (cf. 18 : 32), Ro. 3 : 27 (5id iroiov vSftov; tuv^ Ipyuv;). The same thing is true of 1 Cor. 15 : 35 {iroU^ aiinari ipxovTai;) , cf. also 1 Pet. 2 : 20. In 1 Pet. 1 : 11 we find both Tiva and irotov in apparent contrast. Other possible instances are Jo. 10 : 32; Ac. 7 : 49 (LXX); Jas. 4 : 14. The common kv icoia k^ovalg,. (Mt. 21 : 23; Mk. 11 : 28; Ac. 4 : 7, LXX, etc.) seems also to retain the qualitative force. Cf . also Lu. 24 : 19. The qualitative sense is clear in D iroiov irveiinarbs kare (Lu. 9 : 55), a spurious passage, however. 2. Non-qualitative. But some examples clearly have lost the qualitative sense. In the modem Greek tolSs is used regularly* = TIS, and is the usual interrogative. Note the accent voios. Indeed examples of this weakened sense of xoios Jannaris^ finds as early as iEschylus and Euripides. See (a), 3. In Mt. 24 : 42 ovk oldare iroiq. fj/jiepq. 6 Kiipios i)nS>v Ipxtrai there seems to be merely the force of TIS, not quality. Cf . also 24 : 43 Troiq. 4>v\aK^, Lu. 12 : 39 lioiq. &pq,, Ac. 23 : 34 iroias kTapxeias, Rev. 3 : 3 iroiav ibpav. This is probably true also of Mt. 22 : 36 wola ivro\i] (Mk. 12 : 28). In Lu. 5 : 19 irotas and 6 : 32 f . Trota x«P's either point of view will answer. 3. In Indirect Questions. It occurs sixteen times (not counting Lu. 9 : 55) in this construction against four for biroZos. Cf. in- dicative in Mt. 21 : 24; 24 : 42; Jo. 12 : 33; 21 : 19, and the sub- junctive in Lu. 5 : 19 /i;) xotas elaeviyKoiaw. Holos is found in the LXX and in the papyri. (c) Ilo'cro?. 1. Less Frequent than iroiov. It occurs chiefly in the Synoptic Gospels (twenty-seven times in W.H. text). 2. Meaning. It is used in the sense of 'how much' (iroo-^ Mt. 12 : 12), 'how great' (ir6croy Mt. 6 : 23), and of 'how many' {troaovs apTovs exere; Mt. 15 : 34). Eleven examples of iroa-if occur almost like an adverb (Mt. 7: 11; 10 : 25, etc.). The use of woaos xpovos — cos (Mk. 9 : 21) is noteworthy. ' Thumb, Handb., p. 94. " Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 163. Cf. Dieterich, Unters., p. 202. PRONOUNS ('ANTflNTMIAl) 741 3. In Indirect Questions. See oiiK oKoheis irbaa crov Karanaprvpovcnp; (Mt. 27 : 13). Cf. Ac. 21 : 20, etc. 4. The Exclamatory Use. This is found in Lu. 15 : 17 iroaot fiiaBtot, rod irarpSs imv, and in 2 Cor. 7: 11 irbctiv Kareipyaaaro ii/uv airovdiiv. The exclamatory use of xcDs may be mentioned (Mk. 10:23f.; Jo. 11 :36). Cf. us in Ro. 10:15 and 11:33. Cf. TToo-os — (is in Mk. 9 : 21. (d) IlrjXiKOv ypannarkosv Mt. 12 : 38, rts tS>v ixadrjTSiv Lu. 11:1, tis £K Tov ox^ov 12 : 13. The plural is usually = 'some,' as Mk. 9 : 1; 1 Cor. 9 : 22. In Homer tis was sometimes "public opinion, the man in the street" (Gladstone, quoted in Thompson's Syntax, p. 75). This idiom is very nearly represented by elirev dk tls k tov 3xXou, Lu. 12 : 13 (cf. 11 : 1; 7 : 36). In Heb. 2 : 6, SienapTipaTo TToii TIS, the Tis is really quite definite in the writer's mind, though he writes thus. 4. With Numerals =' About.' With numerals Tts sometimes in classical Greek gives an approximate idea rather than exact reckoning, like our "about." No certain instances of this idiom appear in the N. T. Certainly not Ac. 19 : 14, where tlvos, not Tives, is the correct text. In Lu. 7 : 18, Trpov, Jo. 1 : 46 ti &yaB6v, Ac. 25 : 26 d(r<^aXes ti, Ro. 14 : 14 Tt, Kbivov, 2 Cor. 11 : 16 fUKpov ti, we have rather the substantive use of ti. But in TvS6s tis, Lu. 18 : 35, both are adjectives. Cf. aXXos tis (Lu. 22 : 59) and eTepos tis (Ac. 27:1). 7. As Predicate. Here tis may be emphatic = ' somebody in particular,' as Ac. 5 : 36, X^wy elmi Tim eavrov (cf. 8:9). See also Gal. 2 : 6, air6 t&v Sokovvtqiv dval ti, where note difference between Tl and Tivts. In Gal. 6 : 3 note in d doKei tis eivai ti in]bb> Siv both senses of tis. But the predicate may have the other meaning of Tl ('anyone,' 'anything'). So 1 Cor. 3 : 7; 10 : 19; Gal. 6 : 15. In Gal. 2 : 6 compare ti and ottoToi. 8. The Position of tis. It is not material. It naturally follows the substantive or adjective as in ets kco/lhji' nva, Lu. 10 : 38, but we often- have the other order as in Tiva xhpo^^t I^u. 21 : 2. Tiyfe may indeed begin a sentence (Ph. 1 : 15; 1 Cor. 8:7). 9. As Antecedent. In Mt. 16 : 28 Tti'es is the antecedent of otTtces, but here o'lTivts is more definite than o'L would have been. Cf. Lu. 8:2. In 2 Cor. 10 : 2 note Tivas tovs X. 10. Alternative. It is used to express alternative ideas, as Tivis nkv — Tivis hk in Ph. 1 : 15. Cf . virb tivwv — iiiro tivuv — aWuv Sk in Lu. 9 : 7 f . and tis — iTepos in 1 Cor. 3 : 4. 11. The Negative Forms of; tis, ij.ii tis. These are not printed as single words by W. H., except ju^ti as an interrogative particle expecting the answer No, as in Mt. 26 : 22, /i^ti eyw dp,i, idipie; cf. Jo. 4 : 33. It is all a matter with the editor whether in IVa /iij "s 1 W.-Sch., p. 242. ' W.-M., p. 212 f.; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 178. » Moulton in W.-M., p. 213. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 178. 744 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT elirv, 1 Cor. 1 : 15 (cf. Eph. 2 : 9), we may not really have iu^rts. The separation in Heb. 3 : 13; 4 : 11 is against it. Cf., for instance, nil TLva (2 Cor. 12 : 17) and iiiiri. in the next verse. The anacolu- thon with nva here is noticeable. 12. Indeclinable ti. The use of tis with a-vX&yxva Kal oiKTipiial (Ph. 2 : 1) may be compared with indeclinable n. Indeclinable Ti itself survives in modem Greek /can (Moulton, Prol., p. 244). (6) EZ9 = T«. This is merely one usage of th, the cardinal numeral. The idiom is common after Plutarch, but traces of it occur earlier.' Moulton 2 sees no difference between els and tis in Aristophanes, Av., 1292. Thepapyri furnish similar examples. "The fact that eh progressively ousted tis in popular speech, and that even in classical Greek there was a use which only needed a little diluting to make it essentially the same, is surely enough to prove that the development lay entirely within the Greek language, and only by accident agrees with Semitic."' This use of els alone, with geni- tives, with substantives, was treated at the close of the chapter on Adjectives.' For els tis see tis. For els — els as alternative pro- noun see later, and for eh — oh and oiibeh (fitiSeis) see Negative Pronouns under xi. (c) Has = ' any one' no matter who, ' anything' no matter what. Cf . quidvis.* We see this construction in Ac. 2 : 21 (LXX), irSs 3s kav iTiKaUatiTai. So Gal. 3 : 10 (LXX) ; Lu. 14 : 33. Uas with a participle may have the same force, like iravros amiovTos t6v 'Soyov, Mt. 13 : 19 (cf. Lu. 11 : 4), and ttSs 6 bpyi^onevos, Mt. 5 : 22, etc. For ttSs — ov = 'no one' see negative pronouns. For the adjectival uses of Vas, see chapter on Adjectives and chapter on Article. (d) 'O Aelva. This rare pronoun was current chiefly in colloquial speech (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 166). It survives in the modem Greek (Thumb, p. 98). It means "Mr. So-and-So." It occurs only once in the N. T., Trpds t6v SeZva, Mt. 26 : 18. X. Alternative or Distributive Pronouns (dvTcavv|JiCai 6aTr\- pCai). 1 apply a term from ^schylus in lieu of a better one. The re- ciprocal pronoun dXXiJXajv has been already treated. (a) 'Ayu^oVe/aot. "Aam^w has vanished ^ from the xotvi?. ' kii^orepoi. has taken its place. It continues in the later Greek,^ but Thumb • Hatz., Einl., p. 207; W.-Soh., p..S43. ' Thompson, Synt., p. 77. 2 Prol., p. 97. 6 Moulton, Prol., p. 57. ' lb- « Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 320. PRONOXTNS ('ANTBNTMIAl) 745 does not give it for modem Greek. It is frequent in the LXX,' but is found only fourteen times in the N. T. It occurs without the article in all but five instances. So Mt. 9 : 17. Once the article is used with the substantive, AAi(^6T«pa to irXoia, Lu. 5 : 7. The other four examples have the article before the pronoun, hke ol b.ij4lnepoi, Eph. 2 : 18. It is possible, even probable, that in two instances duality has disappeared from the word. It seems certain that three items are referred to in Ac. 23 : 8 and in Ac. 19 : 16 the seven sons of Sceva are alluded to. A corruption of the text is possible (cf. the Bezan text for 19 : 16), but it is hardly neces- sary to postulate that in view of "the undeniable Byzantine use"* of d/K^orepot for more than two (cf. "both" in old EngUsh). The papyri show undoubted examples also and "the Sahidic and some later versions took afutmrkpuv as 'all.'"' But Moulton^ hesitates to admit in Luke "a colloquialism of which early examples are so rare," a rather surprising objection from Dr. Moulton. On the whole one is safe in the two passages in Acts here quoted to admit the free use of d/w^oTepoi. The papyri examples bearing on this usage include N.P. 67, 69 (Iv/a.d.) "where it is used oifour men" (Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. 154), probably also B.M. 336 (H/a.d.). See Bury, CI. Rev., XI, p. 393, for the opposite view. Nestle (Berl. Phil. Woch., 1900, N. 47) shows that German also uses "beide" for three and more persons. (b) "E/cao-To?. In the'LXX iK&Tepos is still used to a limited ex- tent (Gen. 40:5) and occasionally =eKa Thack., Gr., p. 192. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 80. " lb. * lb. « lb., p. 79. Cf. Thack., Gr., p. 192. » Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 96; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 178. On the whole subject of distrib. pron. see Brag., Die distrib. und die kollekt. Num. der indoger. Spr., 1907. 746 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 3. With tls. This is very frequent. So ets ^Kaaros Mt. 26 : 22, etc. We even have ava eh Uaaros, Rev. 21 : 21. But in Ac. 21 : 19, k^yeiTO KouS' iv Uaarov Siv 'eiroirtaev, we must not' connect hcaffTov with 'iv. 4. With Genitive. It is common also with the genitive, as in Lu. 13 : 15; Eph. 4 : 7, 5. Partitive Apposition. This is frequent also. Thus ac^^re eKatTTos Mt. 18 : 35, kiropthovro irki/res — 'imtTTos Lu. 2 : 3, etc. The same thing is true in Eph. 5 : 33 ifiets koB' iva iKcurros. This is a classical construction.* 6. Bare in Plural. So 'iKaaroi Ph. 2 : 4, but even here W. H. have 'iKocTTos in the margin. 7. Repetition. Note the repetition of eKaaros in Heb. 8 : 11 (from Jer. 31 : 34). This translation of aJ''!!!! by (ka fuas — rrjs d' aXXjjs G. H. 23" (ii/B.c.) ; Suo, t6v iikv em — koi t6v aX\op B.U. 456 (iv/A.D.). Moulton* explains the existence of koi rriv aWriv (aiayova) in Lu. 6 : 29 as a failure on Luke's part to correct his source, a like failure appearing in Mt. 6 : 39, unless that was his source. But the matter goes much further than that. In Mt. 12 : 13 17 &X\ri refers to the other hand (x«tp)- In Jo. 19 : 32 note tov irpcbrou — Kai ToO aXXou.5 Cf. also Jo. 18 : 16; 20 : 3 f. In Jo. 5:32 ey63 and aXXos are contrasted. So Mt. 25 : 16, to -irkvTe raXavra — oXXa irkvre, for which Blass' finds " complete illustration in classi- ' W.-Sch., p. 246 f . * ProL, p. 79. " Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 179. " W.-Sch., p. 245. 8 lb., p. 180. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 180. PRONOUNS ('ANTfiNTMIAl) 747 cal authors." There are other N. T. examples such as aXXr/i' in Mt. 19 : 9, tA Siio — aXXa Sim Mt. 25 : 17, EWriv Mk. 10 : 11, aWop 10 : 12, oXXoj' nrapLKkriTov Jo. 14 : 16. 3. As Adjective. Common. Cf. Mt. 2:12; 4:21; and in particular Rev. 14:6, 8, 15, 17, 18 and 1 Cor. 15:39, 41. 4. With the Article. It is not frequent. The article sharply refers to a preceding example. Cf. Mt. 5 : 39; Mt. 27 : 61. John alludes to himself in his Gospel as 6 AXXos luxBtiriis (18 : 16; 20 : 2, 3, 4). The article may be repeated, as in Jo. 18 : 16; 19 : 32. 5. The Use o/ctXXos a.Wo = 'One One Thing, One Another.' This is classical and is illustrated in Ac. 19 : 32; 21 : 34. In Ac. 2 : 12, oXXos irpos SWov, the idiom is almost reciprocal like dXXijXaji'. 6. In Contrast for 'Some — Others.' We have aXXr; fiiv — aXXj; St, 1 Cor. 15 :39 and 41; & tikv — &KKa 8k, Mt. 13 :4 f. (cf. Kal aXXo, Mk. 4:5); ol nkv — aWoi. bk—'erepoi St, Mt. 16:14; kclI oXXoi — aXXoi St, Mk. 8 :28; i>7rd ti.vS>v — aXKuv, Lu. 9 :8; 6 els — 6 aXXos, Rev. 17 : 10. 7. Ellipsis of aXXos is possible in Ac. 5 : 29, Utrpos Kal ol (sc. oXXot) air6L. Blass* cites also Ac. 2 : 14, II^pos aiv rois (sc. XoiTTois) 'ivSfKa. But psychologically this explanation is open to doubt. 8. The Use of aXXos and irepos Together. Blass^ finds this "probably only for the sake of variety." Certainly in 1 Cor. 12 : 9 f . no real distinction can be found between S.'Kkos and 'irepos, which are here freely intermingled. But I am bound to insist on a real difference in Gal. 1 : 6 f . The change is made from erepov to oXXo for the very reason that Paul is not wilUng to admit that it is a gospel on the same plane (aXXo) as that preached by him. He admits Erepov, but refuses aWo. The use of ei p.i] by Paul does not disturb this interpretation. The same thing would seem to be true of 2 Cor. 11 : 4, ciXXoj' Tr/croOi' — imevtux h-tpov — fvayyekiop erepov. It may be that variety (as in 1 Cor. 12 : 9 f.) is all that induces the change here. But it is also possible that Paul stig- matizes the gospel of the Judaizers as erepov (cf. Gal. 1 : 6) and the Spirit preached by them, while he is unwilUng to admit an- other (aXXoj') Jesus even of the same type as the one preached by him. 9. =' Different.' Besides, it is not to be forgotten that in ancient Greek aXXos itself was used for ' different kind.' Thomp- son (Syntax, p. 76) cites aXXa rwv SiKalav from Xen., Mem., IV, 4. 25. Cf . also dXXd in the sense of ' but.' Cf . dXXd dXXij in 1 Cor. 15 : 39. ' lb. 2 lb., p. 318. 748 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Indeed in 1 Cor. 15 : 39, 41, aWrj [ikv — &\\v Sk, it is expressly- stated that the glory is not fi aiiri). In verse 40 krkpa, occurs. Here aXXos seems to be used in the sense of 'different,' like ?T6pos. In Latin alius was often used where earUer Latin would have used alter. Cf. Draeger, Hist. Synt., p. 105. 10. 'AXXorptos. This variation of aXXos has the same relation to it that alienus has to alius. It means 'belonging to another,' and occurs fourteen times in the N. T. Cf . Ro. 15 : 20. The con- trast with airup is seen in Mt. 17 : 25. In Heb. 11 : 34 it has the notion of alienus. (d) 'Ere/jo?. 1. Absolutely. So often as in Lu. 14 : 19 f., but it is also used more frequently with substantives than is oXXos. Cf. Lu. 4 :43; Ac. 7: 18 (LXX), etc. For ?Tep6s t« see Ac. 8 : 34; Ro. 13 : 9. For the genitive with ?Tepos cf. Mt. 8 : 21. 2. With Article. The article is also more common with h-epo% than with aXXos. Cf. Mt. 10 : 23; 11 : 16, etc. 3. Second of Pair. A common, probably the original, use of (Tepos is for the second of a pair. Cf. Latin alter. It is the only surviving dual pronominal word in the N. T. (except d/i<^6- Tepoi), and is common in the LXX* and the papyri.* For abv Irkpti, /!'? see P.Tb. 421 (iii/A.D.). The examples are rather abun- dant in the N. T. of this dual (comparative) sense (e-Tcpos). So Tov eva — rdv h-tpov, Mt. 6 : 24; ah — ^ 'irepov, 11:3; kv tQ irkpc^ irXoiv, Lu. 5 : 7. Cf. also Lu. 7 : 19 f.; 14 : 31; 16 : 13; 17 : 34 f.; 18 : 10; 20 : 11.^ Not radically different from this conception is the use of it for 'next,' as in Lu. 6 : &, kv krkpif aafi^aTc^, 9 : 56 eis irkpav Kiitaiv, Ac. 20 : 15 rg irkpt;,. Cf. also Mt. 10 : 23. See also, t6v 'irepov in Ro. 2 : 1; 13 : 8= 'neighbour.' 4. =' Different.' The sense of 'different' grows naturally out of the notion of duality. The two things happen just to be dif- ferent. Cf. Latin alius and alienus. The word itself does not mean 'different,' but merely 'one other,' a second of two. It does not necessarily involve "the secondary idea of difference of kind" (Thayer). That is only true where the context demands it. But note how Latin alter lends itself to the notion of change. Thomp- son^ suggests that this sense may be "an euphemism for KaKds." The N. T. examples are rather numerous. So kykvero — rd eUos TOV ■KpoaisTTov aiiTov irepov, Lu. 9 : 29. Cf. also Ac. 2:4; Ro. 7 : 23; 1 Cor. 14:21; 2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1 : 6; Heb. 7:11, 13, 15; Ju. 7. » Thack., Gr., p. 192. ' Cf. W.-Sch., p. 244. = Mayaer, Gr., p. 312. * Synt., p. 77. PRONOUNS ('ANTfiNTMIAl) 749 Cf. also irkpus in Ph. 3 : 15 and ku Mpq. ixop4>^ Mk. 16 : 12 (dis- puted part of Mark.)' Cf. Ac. 17:21. We have already seen that oXXos may be equal to 'different' (1 Cor. 15 : 39). "Et€pos occurs in verse 40 in the sense of 'different.' Ramsay (on Gal. 1 : 6) argues that, when h-tpos occurs in contrast with aXXos, it means not 'different' (as Lightfoot in loco), but 'another of the same kind.' Moulton {Prol., p. 246) stands by Lightfoot in spite of Ramsay's examples. 5. =' Another' of Three or More. But erepos comes also to be employed merely for ' another' with more than two and with no idea of difference. This usage probably grew out of the use with two groups. So Lu. 10 : 1, aviSei^ev eripovs €^Soixi)KOVTa Svo. In Mt. 12 : 45, iiTTa erepa Trvebtm/ra irovripbrepa kavrov, the notion of difference is present. This difference may also be implied by Luke in 23 : 32, koI erepoi. KaKovpyoi dvo. Cf. Lu. 8 : 3. But this is hardly true of Ac. 2 : 13. In Ac. 4 : 12 the point of erepov is rather that no other name at all than that of Jesus, not that of difference in kind. In Lu. 19 : 16-20 we have this order, 6 -wpSsTos, 6 SeuTe- poj, 6 ?T€pos. So in 1 Cor. 4 : 6, elx bTkp roO ivds v(TU>vade Kara tov irkpov, the third is again presented by 'irepos. Then, again, irepoi. occupies third place in Mt. 16 : 14 and Heb. 11 : 36. In Mt. 15: 30 it comes in the fifth place. Blass^ admits that this use of erepos "at the close of enumerations may be paralleled from Attic writers." See further Lu. 3 : 18; Ro. 8:39; 1 Tim. 1: 10. But in 1 Cor. 12 : 8-10 irkpe^ occurs in the third and the eighth places. We are not surprised then to learn that the papyri furnish plenty of examples where erepoj refers to more than two.' Blass indeed considers this extension not correct, and Moulton seems surprised that Luke should change the correct aXXos (Mk. 4 : 5-8; Mt. 13 : 5-8) to irepov in Lu. 8 : 6-8. But Luke is reinforced by Paul in this laxity as to eVepos: Cf . iroXXa mJ h-epa in Lu. 3 : 18. Moul- ton {CI. Rev., 1904, p. 154) calls this "incorrect "irepos" and finds it in the papyri, as in O.P. 494 (ii/A.D.). But we do not need to hold 6Tepos in leading strings. The "subtlety" {CI. Rev., 1901, p. 440) is only called for in that case. 6. In Contrast. "Erepos may also be used in contrast for 'the one,' 'the other.' So 1 Cor. 15 :40, irkpa pbi—irkpa be. It is common in contrasts with other pronouns; Thus with els in Mt. 6 : 24; 6 els in Lu. 7 : 41 ; Lu. 17 : 34 ff. ; with ns, Lu. 11 : 15 f . ; with likv, Lu. 8 : 5 f.; with ol nev and aXXot, Mt. 16 : 14. But ' Cf. W.-Sch., p. 245. » Moulton, Prol., p. 79. > Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 179. 750 A GKAMMAK OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT neither ovSkrepos (ixriS-) nor oWkrepos (mi^-) occurs in the N. T., though iitjdkTepos is read in Prov. 24 : 21. In Clem. Horn. XIX, 12 we have ovO'erepm. (e) Other Antithetic Pronouns. For els — els (Mk. 10 : 37), els ~6bk (Gal. 4 : 24 f.), 6 «Ts — 6 fiXXos (Rev. 17 : 10) see els under Numeral Adjectives. So likewise t« may be contrasted with T« (Ph. 1 : 15), with fiXXos (Lu. 9 : 7 f.), with 'irepos (1 Cor. 3 : 4). For the very common bfikv — o 5k, Ss nb> — Ss 5k see Demonstrative Pronouns. The repetition of the substantive is to be noted also. So oiKOs kirl oIkov iriirrei, Lu. 11: 17; 6 aaravas rbv aaravav kn^oKKa, Mt. 12 : 26 (cf. Lu. 11 : 18). This notion of repetition is seen in illjkpti. KoX iiixkpq. (2 Cor. 4 : 16; cf. Heb. ?ai'T >:ii). Cf. also els koX els (Mt. 20 : 21; 24 : 40 f.; 27: 38, etc.); els S^ h-epos, Lu. 7: 41. For els — /cai eh — Kal els see Mk. 9 :5=Mt. 17:4=Lu. 9:33. This threefold repetition of ets is rhetorical.' The distributive use of els with koto and &va {iv koB' ev, els kojB' els, ava els) was treated under Numeral Adjectives. XI. Negative Pronoims (dvT(ovu|Ji,Cai dpvriTiKat). (o) OvBek. 1. History. Note this accent rather than ovSeis. OvSeis is sup- planted in modern Greek vernacular by Kaveis, but ovSkv survives as negative particle in form dkv. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 171. 2. OWeis. This is made from ovre els (sometimes also from ovdi els, 'not even,' Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 146) and occurs sometimes in the best N.T. MSS. Cf. W. H.'s text for Lu. 22 : 35; 23:14; Ac. 15:9; 19:27; 26:26; 1 Cor. 13:2; 2 Cor. 11:9. Jannaris ^ finds it a pecuUarity of the Alexandrian school. Meister- hans' has shoTvn from the inscriptions how oWeis and /irjSets came to be practically universal during the third century and the first half of the second century B.C. Thackeray^ has reinforced this position from the uncials for the LXX. The papyri are in full accord.* In the fourth and fifth centuries a.d., the date of the great uncials, oWeis and /tijjflels had disappeared from current speech, and yet a number of instances survive in the MSS. of the 0. T. and the N.T., though others were probably replaced by oiSeis and /ilSeis.* In- ' W.-Sch., p. 246. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 170. But see Schwyzer, Perg. Inschr., p. 114, for idea that the change is due to t and S being pronounced alike. ' Att. Inschr., p. 259. * Gr., pp. 58 ff. B Thumb, Hellen., p. 14; Mayser, Gr., p. 180 f. « Thack., Gr., p. 60. PRONOUNS (-ANTONTMIAl) 751 deed oWtls was a sort of fashion (Moulton, CI. Rev., Mar., 1910, p. 53) that came in iv/B.c. and vanished ii/A.D. It was nearly extinct in N. T. times. See further chapters VI, in, (g), and VII, in, 2. 3. Gender. The feminine form is less frequent in the N. T. than the mascuUne and neuter. The word occurs with substantives (Mk. 6:5), with other pronoxms (aXXos, Ac. 4 : 12; irepos, 17: 21), but usually alone, as in Mt. 5 : 13; 6 : 24. It is common with the genitive (Lu. 18 : 34). The adverbial use of oidkp is seen in Gal. 4 : 1 obSiv buu^kpei SoiiKov, but the cognate accusative is a possible explanation (Gal. 2:6). Cf. oiSev in 1 Cor. 7: 19. In Rev. 3 : 17, oi)8iv xp^'i^v exw, the neuter is not to be construed with xp«' k^ abruv oh ireatiTai. In Mt. 5 : 18 we have «V — oh iii). For oh&ds oo-tw see So-tis. (6) MijSet?. In general the history of /jijSeis is parallel to that of oMets. It is naturally much less frequent and its use instead of ohbds belongs to the discussion of Modes and Negative Particles. It follows in that matter the fate of /i^. Mjjffew appears only once in the text of the N. T., Ac. 27 : 33. The use of unbh &v. Gal. 6 : 3, may be compared with ohdkv eifii, 1 Cor. 13 : 2. In 1 Th. 4 : 12 note juijSevos xpt'ot'' ^X'?''*- (c) Oi/Tt? AND M»jTts. These were treated under tis. Following the editors in the separation of these forms, it is to be observed that ixiiTL as mere particle occurs not merely in questions like firiri. oCtos i(TTw 6 XpuTTos; Jo. 4 : 29, but also with d. So ei firiTi in 1 Cor. 7 : 5; 2 Cor. 13 : 5. But in Lu. 9 : 13, el (lijTi vopevd'evres fmels 6,yopa,(T. Cf. Ex. 12 : 16, 43; 20 : 10, etc. But it is not without analogy also in the papyri use of Tras "with prepositions and adjectives of negiative meaning. Thus avev or x'>'pk ■jrdarisvirepdkffecos, a recurrent formula, avmeWevoi iravrds kirlfiov, Tb.P. 105 (ii/B.c); tixa xd(rr)$ k^ovffias, Plutarch, Cons, ad Uxor., 1 (cf. Heb. 7 : 7)."=' Clearly the construction was in harmony with the noivii. 3. M^ — TTos. The same principle applies. Cf. 1 Cor. 1 : 29, Sttcos /iTj KavxwriTai irdaa crap^. Here it is 'no flesh' as above with oi — wds. See also Rev. 7:1. On the other hand ^^ ttSs (1 Jo. 4 : l)='not every' hke oi ttSs. » W.-M., p. QIS. » Moulton, Prol., p. 246. Cf. CI. Rev., Dec, 1901, p. 442; Apr., 1904, p. 155. PRONOUNS ('ANTQNTMIAl) 753 4. 06 iiii — TcLv in Rev. 21 : 27 does not differ at all from the ob — iras and aii? — tSs in construction. 5. Has — oil. Here the ancient Greek idiom to a certain extent comes to one's reUef.^ But the si — 53 lies behind the LXX translation. It is less harsh than oi — was. Cf . Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 178. The denial about iras is complete as with oii — ttSs. See 1 Jo. 2 : 21, irav ipevSos €k tijs AXijSetas oiiK ianv. Cf. 1 Jo. 3 : 15; ;Eph. 5:5; Rev. 22 : 3. . 6. Has — jui? falls into the same category. Cf. Jo. 3 : 16; 6 : 39; 12 : 46; Eph. 4: 29; 5 : 3. Here also the denial is universal. But most probably /iTjSeis would have pleased an older Greek more. 7. Has — oi) nv. In Rev. 18 : 22 the same explanation holds. 8. Oil — iri-vres. With the plural oiiK dclv iravres e^ iifilbv, 1 Jo. 2 : 19, the matter is not so clear. Two translations are possible, as is seen in the American Revision. The text there is: "they all are not of us." The margin has: "not all are of us." The analogy of oi) — iras in the singular favours the first. 9. Ildj'Tes oil. With iravres oi) /cot/iTjOijffo/ieffa, 1 Cor. 15 : 51, the oi) goes with the verb. The effect is the same as iras — oi) above. 'We all shall not sleep' means that 'none' of us shall sleep. 'We shall all be changed.' Per contra, see oi) ir6.vT&, Ro. 10: 16= 'not all.' ' W.-M,, p. 215. CHAPTER XVI THE ARTICLE (TO "APGPON) I. Other Uses of 6, 11, t6. For the demonstrative & and the relative 6 see chapter on Syntax of Pronouns. It is confusing to say with Seyffart*: "Der Artikel hat die urspriingliche demon- strative Bedeutimg." It is then just the demonstrative, not the article at all. Why call the demonstrative the article? Great con- fusion of idea has resulted from this terminology. It is important to keep distinct the demonstrative, the article and the relative, n. Origin and Development of the Article. (o) A Greek CoNTRiBtrTioN. The development of the Greek article is one of the most interesting things in human speech.'' Among the Indo-Germanic languages it is "a new Greek depar- ture.'" It is not found in Sanskrit nor in Latin. It does not ap- pear to be pro-ethnic* and first shows itself in Homer. Indeed, the existence of the genuine article in Homer is denied by some.' But it seems an overrefinement to refuse to see the article in such Homeric phrases as 01 xXeoves, 01 apicrroi, etc.* And it is beyond dispute that it is in the Attic prose, particularly in Plato, that the Greek article reaches its perfection.^ The article has shown re- markable persistency and survives with very little modification in modem Greek.' In the N. T. the usage is in all essentials in har- mony with Attic, more so than is true of the papyri.' But Volker^" finds the papyri in practical accord at most points with Attic. Simcox" points out that even the Hebrew article does not differ radically in use from the Greek article. * Hauptr. der griech. Synt., p. 1. * Cf . Schneider, Vorles. uber griech. Gr. » Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 41. * Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 607 ff. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 424. ' Delbriick, op. cU. Cf. also Thompson, Synt., p. 41 f. « Monro, Horn. Gr., pp. 178 ff. ' Thompson, Synt., p. 41 f. 8 Cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 40 ff.; Jebb. in V. and D.'s Handb., p. 193 f. ° Moulton, ProL, p. 80 f. i» Synt. d. griech. Pap., pp. 5 ff . " Lang, of the N. T., p. 45. 754 THE AKTICLE (tO "APePON) 755 (b) Derived from the Demonstrative. The Greek article is the same form as the demonstrative 6, ij, t6. Indeed the Ger- man der is used as demonstrative, article, relative. So English the is related to the demonstrative that (also relative). Clyde {Greek Syntax, p. 6) calls the article a "mere enfeeblement" of the demonstrative. So the French le, the Italian il, the Spanish el, all come from the Latin demonstrative ilU. But while this is true, the demonstrative, relative and article should not be confused in idea. The Greek grammarians applied apBpov to all three in truth, but distinguished them as apOpov TporaKTiKov (dem.), &pdpov moTOKTiKov (rel.), apOpov bpiariKby (art.). Some, how- ever, did not distinguish sharply between the demonstrative and the article. The article always retained something of the demon- strative force (Gildersleeve, Syntax, Part II, p. 215). It is an utter reversal of the facts to speak of the demonstrative use of the article. It is only of recent years that a really scientific study of the article has been made.^ Even Brugmann^ gives no sep- arate treatment for the article. But Part II of Gildersleeve's Syntax (1911, pp. 215-332) has a really scientific treatment of the article. Professor Miller is mainly responsible for it. But even here I must demur against "the substantive use of the article" (p. 216) instead of plain substantival demonstrative. Miller there uses "article" in two senses (form and idea). The Latin word articulus has the same root as the Greek apOpov (ap- as seen in Lp-ap-'uTKco, 'to fit,' 'join'). The origin of the article from the de- monstrative can probably be seen in Homer. Monro' thinks it due to apposition of a substantive with the demonstrative 6. So Iliad, 4. 501, ^ 8' irkpoio Sia Kporcupoto irkprjaev aixP-'h XI^sit;. Here oix/iii explains 17 and ^ wavers between demonstrative and ar- ticle and illustrates the transition. So with new proper names 6 anticipates the name which is loosely added later. "In Attic the article shows that a particular known person is spoken of; in Homer it marks the turning of attention to a person." * In Homer the article usually marks contrast and not mere definiteness. But this contrast or singling out of the special object is in essence the real article which is thus attributive. ; in. Significance of the Article. The article, unlike the demon- strative, does not point out the object as far or near. It is not deictic. There is either contrast in the distinction drawn or allu- sion (anaphoric) to what is already mentioned or assumed as well ' Biem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 794. ' Horn. Gr., p. 178. » Griech. Gr. « lb. 756 A GKAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT known. The article is therefore to bpiariKhv apdpov, the definite article. The article is associated with gesture and aids in pointing out hke an index finger. It is a pointer. It is not essential to language, but certainly very convenient and useful and not "otio- sum loquadssimae gentis instrumentum," as Scaliger^ called it. The Greek article is not the only means of making words definite. Many words are definite from the nature of the case.'' The word itself may -be definite, like yrj, obpavbs, Tt/o-oOx. The use of a prepo- sition with definite anarthrous nouns is old, as kv oUc^. Possessive pronouns also make definite, as do genitives. The context itself often is clear enough. The demonstrative may be used besides the article. Whenever the Greek article occurs, the object is cer- tainly definite. When it is not used, the object may or may not be. The article is never meaningless in Greek, though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom, as in 17 croia, 6 TiavXos. It is not a matter of translation. The older language and higher poetry are more anarthrous than Attic prose. Dialects vary in the use of the article, as do authors. Plato is richer in the article than any one. Its free use leads to exactness and finesse (Gilder- sleeve, Syntax, Part II, p. 215 f.). IV. The Method Employed by the Article. The Greek article points out in one of three ways.' It distinguishes: (a) Individuals feom Individuals. The article does not give the reason for the distinction drawn between individuals. That is usually apparent in the context. The translators of the King James Version, under the influence of the Vulgate, handle the Greek article loosely and inaccurately.^ A goodly Hst of such sins is given in "The Revision of the New Testament,"^ such as 'a pinnacle' for to TTepbyiov (Mt. 4: 5). Here the whole point lies in the article, the wing of the Temple overlooking the abyss. So in Mt. 5 : 1 TO 6pos was the mountain right at hand, not ' a moimtain.' On the other hand, the King James translators missed the point of ixera yvvaiKos (Jo. 4: 27) when they said 'the woman.' It was ' a woman,' any woman, not the particular woman in ques- tion. But the Canterbury Revisers cannot be absolved from all blame, for they ignore the article in Lu. 18 : 13, t^ a/iapruX^. The vital thing is to see the matter from the Greek point of view and ' Quoted by Farrar, Gk. Ssnit., p. 57. " The old idea that the article was necessary to make a word definite is seen in Madvig, Synt. of the Gk. Lang., p. 8. » Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 70. * lb. 5 Lightfoot, Trench, Ellioott, p. xxx f. THE ARTICLE (tO 'APGPOn) 757 find the reason for the use of the article. In Mt. 13 : 65, 6 tov rkKTovos vl6s, it is the son of the (well known to us) carpenter. In 1 Cor. 4:56 eiraivos means the praise due to each one. Cf. 6 liiaBos in Ro. 4:4. In 1 Cor. 5 :9, kv rg ^loroXg, Paul refers to a previous letter which the Corinthians had received. In 15 : 8, t§ iKTpiifiaTL, Paul speaks thus of himself because he alone of the Apostles saw Jesus after His Ascension. The examples of this use are very numerous in the N. T. Thus in Mt. 5 : 15, tov IJU)8iov, rriv \vxviav, the article singles out the bushel, the lamp- stand present in the room. In 15 : 26, toTs Kwaplots, Jesus points to the little dogs by the table. In Lu. 4 : 20, t6 j3ij3Xtoy airoSoiis r^ iirripkrii, the roll was the usual one and the attendant was there at his place. So in Jo. 13 : 5, /SAXXei 'iScap eis tov vnrTrjpa, the basin was there in the room. The article in Jo. 7 : 17, yvuicnTai irepl Trjs didaxns, means the teaching concerning which they were puzzled. (&) Classes from Other Classes. The (generic) article is not always necessary here any more than under (a). See irovrjpois Kal ayadovs (Mt. 5:45); Stmios iirep aSUoiv (1 Pet. 3:18). Cf. in particular 1 Cor. 12 : 13 eUe 'lovdatoi elre "EXXiji-es, 12 : 29. So also irov (70(^6s; irov ypaniiarevs; (1 Cor. 1 : 20). But it is quite common to use the article with different classes. So in Mt. 8 : 20 note at dXtiire/ces, to, irereivk. So al yvvaiKes (Eph. 5 : 22), ot avSpts (5 : 25), Tct TiKva (6:1), ol TraTkpes (6 : 4), oi dovKot (6 : 5). In these ex- amples the vocative often has the article. Cf . Col. 3 : 18 ff . A good example of the use with classes is found in Mt. 5 : 3-10 (the Beatitudes), ot wToixoi, etc. Cf. Toiis ao?s A ^aaiXdis, Mt. 2:1; and 6 pav b^apluv. See Lu. 9 : 13. Cf. also Uoip in 4 : 10 and t6 iSup in verse 11. So liayoL in Mt. 2 : 1, but Toiis fjiayovs in verse 7; fifdwa in 13 : 25, but tA fifdi-Mi in verse 26. Cf. Ac. 9 :4, 7; 9 : 11, 17; Jas. 2 :2, 3; Rev. 15 : 1, 6. In Jo. 4 : 43, tAs diio rmipas, the article refers to verse 40. Cf. Jo. 20 : 1 with 19 : 41; 12 : 12 with 12 : 1; Heb. 5 : 4 with 5 : 1; 2 Cor. 5 : 4 with 5:1. In Ac. 19 : 13 we have IlaCXos, but 6 IlaDXos in 19 : 15. Volker (Syntax, p. 21 f.) finds the anaphoric use of the article common enough in the papyri. (b) With Adjectives. The discussion of the adjective as at- tributive or predicate comes up later. Thus /caXos 6 w/ios (1 Tim. 1 : 8) is a different construction from 6 iroiniiv 6 koKos (Jo. 10 : 11). 1. The Resumptive Article. The use of the article and the adjective is perfectly normal in rS>v ay'uav irpo^Tuv (2 Pet. 3:2). Cf. rg haxBLTo wepa (Jo. 6 :40). See also Lu. 1:70; Jas. 2 : 7. This repetition of the article with the adjective as in 6 Toifii/v & Ka\6s above is quite common also. Abbott* thinks that this re- duplication of the article "adds weight and emphasis to the ar- ticle." Cf. Tg rpiTjj rinkpq. (Lu. 9 : 22) with rg ■finkpa rg Tpirn (18 : 33). Abbott* considers that as a rule John reduplicates the article with the adjective only in utterances of the Lord or in weighty sayings about him. Cf. Jo. 1 : 9, 41; 2 : 1; 3 : 16; 5 : 43; 7 : 18; 10 : 11, 14. But this is hardly true of Jo. 6 : 13; 18 : 10. He notes also that in John the possessive adjective, when articular, nearly always has the reduplicated article. Cf. to. Tpo^ara to. kiih (10 : 27). So rbv a5e\(l>6v tov iSiov in Jo. 1 : 41. In Homer the substantive usu- ally comes before the article and the adjective. The resiunptive article "repeats the noun in order to add the qualifying word."' Cf. Rev. 1 : 17; 3 : 7; 22 : 16, where the article is repeated, twice. Cf. also Ac. 12 : 10. So tS>v Svo tSiv aKovaavrcov (Jo. 1 :40). In Lu. 6 : 45 both the article and adjective are repeated after the form of the first part of the sentence, 6 irovijpds k tov irovripov Tpool in 1 Cor. 1 : ' Joh. Gr., p. 63. » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 181. 2 lb., p. 64. THE AETICLE (tO "APePON) 763 27, al h-oiiMi in Mt. 25 : 10, etc. All these examples are obvious enough. The ellipsis is simple and usually suppUed from the con- text. The three uses of the article occur with the adjective alone. The individual use appears in such examples as 6 ayioi rod 6tod (Jo. 6 : 69), 6 Skaws (Ac. 22 : 14),- 6 dX7j9tTOs (1 Jo. 5 : 20), 6 irovripos (1 Jo. 5 : 18), TO ■KoKb and to oXiyov (2 Cor. 8 : 15), to ayaObv aov (Phil. 14), t6 &8\jvaTov tov vdfwv (Ro. 8:3), tt/v ^pav (Mt. 23 : 15), Tois aylois (Ph. 1 : 1), b> rots 'eirovpav'iois (Eph. 1 : 3). The generic or representative (class from class) is very common also, more frequent indeed. So 6 SUavos (1 Pet. 4 : 18), tov ayoBov (Ro. 5 : 7), Tbv TTTioxov (Jas. 2 : 6), rois xrcoxoOs (2 : 5), ol irKoixrwi (5 : 1). So TO. /ca/cd and to. kyoBa. (Ro. 3 : 8), r6 kyaSbv (Lu. 6 : 45). Cf. in particular Ro. 12 : 21 biro tov Ka/coO, '&> t^ kyoBQ t6 kolkov. Cf. also Ro. 13: 3 f., Tb LyoBbv (Gal. 6 : 10), rd Uavbv (Ac. 17: 9), Tb KoKbv (2 Cor. 13:7), Tb &.yiov (Mt. 7:6), to opio. (Mt. 19:1), tcov cToplfuav (Mk. 2 : 23). The use of the neuter singular with the article as the equivalent of an abstract substantive Blass^ notes as "a pecuUar usage of Paul (and Hebrews)" and considers that "this is the most classical idiom in the language of the N. T., and may be paralleled from the old heathen literature, from Thu- cydides in particular." But he cautions us against thinking that Paul imitated Thucydides, since Strabo^ and all other writers of the Koivii, not to mention the papyri,^ show the same construction. Deissmaim has made it plain from the papyri that Tb SokLulov ipmv T^s viaTtus in Jas. 1 : 3 (cf. 1 Pet. 1 : 7) belongs here. See also Tb iMpbv TOV deov (1 Cor. 1 : 25), t6 i/i&' axnuv ffifipbv TTJs dXi^eus (2 Cor. 4 : 17), Tb ttjs iiperipas ayaTTjs yvr\ciov (8 : 8), Tb yvcacTbv tov deov (Ro. 1 : 19), to xoV^tov tov deov (2 : 4), TO irepurabv (3:1), Tb dwarbv avTov (9 : 22), rb kirieiKes vn&v (Ph. 4:5), Tb aiKToBeTov Trjs ^ovXfji (Heb. 6 : 17), rd aiTrjs aaBeves (7: 18). Ex- amples of the plural in this abstract sense occur in t& koKo. — tA ffOTTpd (Mt. 13 : 48), to, iubpwTa (Ro. 1 : 20), rd kpvwto. tSsv tvOpwirav (2 : 16), TO. KpvTTCL TOV cKOTovi (1 Cor. 4 : 5), TO, wavTa (Col. 1 : 16), TO bpaTo, Kdl TO. abpaTa (ib.). The neuter adjective with the ar- ticle sometimes appears in the collective sense for persons. So TO eKaTTov (Heb. 7:7), Tb do}SeKav\ov fiiiSiv (Ac. 26 : 7), Td /^upd ToO KoaiMv — Td acBevTj tov Khcpov (1 Cor.'l : 27 f.). See further Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 262. 3. The Article not Necessary with the Adjective. Blass,* who ■ Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 155. ' Cf. Schmid, Atticismus, IV, p. 608. » Deiss., B. S., p. 259. « Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 156. 764 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT has the best discussion of the use of the article with adjectives, notes that it is not accidental that, while we have kv tQ (jtavepi^ (Text. Rec, Mt. 6 : 4), yet els (jiavepdv kMeiv prevails (Mk. 4 : 22; Lu. 8 : 17), since the thing is not yet in existence. But it is a rather fine point, since both iv kpvtttQ (Jo. 7 : 4, 10) and els Kp{nrn\v (a subst. Lu. 11 : 33) occur as well as '& rQ avepQ (Mt. 6 : 4, Text. Rec). In Ro. 2 : 28 kv tQ 4>avepiff is genuine. In Jas. 4 : 17 note KoKov iroietv. The adjective alone may express class as in Mt. 5 : 45; Lu. 10 : 21; Ro. 1 : 14; 1 Cor. 1 : 20. 4. With Numerals. The article with numbers is more common in Greek than in English and is a classic idiom (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 228). Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 315) notes that with numerals the article points out a certain number now brought forward. So hna — oJ irivre — 6 els — 6 aWos (Rev. 17 : 10). (c) With Participles. In all essential respects the article is used with the participle exactly as with the adjective. The article is not necessary to the participle when used as an attribute (Jas. 4 : 17), though it is most commonly foimd (Heb. 12 : 1, 2). For the predicate use see Jo. 10 : 12. The participle with the article is common without the substantive, as ol irevdovvres (Mt. 5:4). The neuter for a person appears in rd ytvviiinvov (Lu. 1:35). In rd aTo\u)\6s (Lu. 19 : 10) we have the collective neuter singular. The abstract singular is seen in to imepkxov t^s YycicreMs (Ph. 3 : 8) and the abstract plural in to. 5uict>epovTa (Ro. 2 : 18). Cf. tA vir&pxovTci pov ('my belongings') in 1 Cor. 13 :3, for the more in- dividual use. The representative or generic sense is found in 6 ■ arirdpoiv (Mt. 13 : 3). The article with the participle is very com- mon as the equivalent of a relative clause.' In Mt. 5 : 32 iras 6 avoXiiciiv and 6s kav — yap,7)ari are parallel. See also Col. 1:8. So oJ 7re7ri(rr«u/c6Tes (Tit. 3 : 8), ^ elirdiv (2 Cor. 4:6). Cf. Mt. 5 : 32. The article is repeated with participles if they refer to different persons (Rev. 1:3) or even if the same person is meant where different aspects are presented (Rev. 1 : 4, where 6 ffv comes in between). But note tQ ayairiavTi ■^fias kuI Xiiaavn fi p,as (1:5). Winer ^ makes a special point of the use of a definite predicate with an indefinite subject like nvks daiv ol TapaaaovTes iiias (Gal. 1 :7), p,-q Tis ijuSs iffTai 6 avKayuiywv (Col. 2:8), aXXos karlv 6 paprvplav (Jo. 5 : 32).' He also notes the definite subject where the German would have an indefinite one as in ovk Ihtiv b avv'uav (Ro. 3 : 11). Cf. also the article and the future participle in 6 KaToxpivwv (Ro. > Cf. K.-G., I, p. 594. 2 W.-M., p. 136. 3 More frequent in John than in the Synoptists. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 59 f . THE AKTICLB (tO "APOPOn) 765 8 : 33), Ac. 20 : 22 to awavriiaovTa. Cf. Is. 1 : 31, oii/c 'iarai b a^katav. More of this when the Participle is reached (ch. XX). For the repeated article see rg xtip'" rg doddaji (1 Cor. 1:4). See further VI, Position with Attributives. (d) With the Infinitive. This idiom is so common that it must be merely touched upon here and the discussion of it re- served for the Articular Infinitive. In general it may be said that in the Attic and the Koi.vii the article is used with the infinitive in any case (save vocative) and very much as with any abstract substantive. The lUad does not have the article and the infinitive, but it occurs once in the Odyssey^ and is in Pindar. Examples of the articular infinitive may be seen in the nominative to Kadltrai. (Mt. 20 : 23), the accusative t6 \aheiv (1 Cor. 14 : 39; cf. Ac. 25 : 11), the genitive d\.wls irdaa rod ais^eadai (Ac. 27 : 20; cf. Lu. 24 : 29), the ablative iKparovvro rod fifi kinyvSivai, (Lu. 24 : 16; cf. 2 Cor. 1 : 8), the locative h tQ a-wdpuv (Mt: 13 : 4), the instrumental t(? /iij ebfiiiv (2 Cor. 2 : 13). The dative does not occur in the N. T.with the article, but see BkaaacOaL (Mt. 11 : 7). For the articular infin- itive with prepositions see Mk. 5:4; 14:28, etc. The article is frequently missing with eis ireiv in the vernacular Koivi) (papyri), as Herodotus three times has avrl dvai? Cf. Clyde, Greek Syntax, p. 13 f. But enough for the present. The articular infinitive is curiously rare in the Gospel of John, "almost non-existent."' It occurs only four times and only with prepositions (Jo. 1 :48; 2: 24; 13:19; 17:5). (e) With Advebbs. This is no peculiarity of the Koivri, not to say of the N. T. It is common in the older Greek with adverbs of place, time, quality, rank, manner.^ It is not necessary to re- peat what is said imder Cases and Adverbs concerning the ad- verbial expressions (really adjectives), like t6 irpSiTov (Jo. 12 : 16), rd TiOLTov (Ph. 4:8), to. ttoXXci (Ro. 15 : 22). The point to note is that the article is used somewhat freely with adverbs as with . substantives and adjectives. As examples observe to. avv Tb xws Sei hpSs, Ro. 8 : 26 t6 yb,p tL irpoaeu^iip^da, Lu. 1 : 62 evevevov to tL av 6e\oi Ka\eZ(TdaL, 9 : 46 eiff'^X- 6ev duiKoyurfibs t6 tIs av eit] fiei^cov, 19 : 48 ovx ifipuTKov to tl iroi^auffiv, 22 : 2 e^'riTovv t6 irSis &vk\cii>cTLv, 22 : 4 (rweXdXj/o-ei' tA ttcSj Tapad^, 22 : 23 avv^riTelv t6 tIs eh], 22 : 24 kykveTO (jjiXoveiKia to tLs SoKel, Ac. 4 : 21 firi8h ebplaKovTes to ttcos KoXdcwi'Tai, 22 : 30 71'coi'ai to tI KaTTiyopeiTai. 1 Gk. Synt., p. 14. « Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 263. ' Thompson, p. 45. Cf. Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 265. * Jebb, V. and D.'s Handb., p. 295 f. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 158. THE ARTICLE (tO 'APGPOn) 767 (Ji) With Genitive Alone. This is also a common idiom in the ancient Greek.* The noivii uses this idiom very often (Rader- macher, N. T. Gk., p. 94), as seen both in the inscriptions and the papyri. The article stands alone, but the ellipsis is usilally very plain, as is shown by the gender and number as well as the context. So 'IAkcojSos 6 rod Ze;8e3aiou (Mt. 10: 2), where utos is im- plied; Mapia i) rod KXojira (Jo. 19 : 25), where yvvij is to be supplied; Mapia ri 'laxiifiov (Lu. 24: 10), where m^tjjp is meant; to rfjs So^s (1 Pet. 4 : 14), where irveD/ta is to be understood; ol tov ZefieSaiov (Jo. 21 : 2), where vloi is meant, etc. In 1 Cor. 15: 23 fiaSriTai is probably to be supplied (cf. Gal. 6: 24), and dSeX<^s in Lu. 6: 16 (cf. Ju. 1). The neuter plural is common for the notion of "affairs" or "things." So to iavTciv and ri. Xpia-rov TjjctoD (Ph. 2:21), rot Eaicapos and to. tov deov (Lu. 20 : 25), ra t^s aipiov (marg. W. H., Jas. 4:14), to. tov kocfimv (1 Cor. 7:33), rA ttjs aapKos and ra tov TTveviMTos (Ro. 8 : 5), TO, Tfjs elpijvris (14 : 19), etc. One may note also here kv toTs tov Trarpos liov (Lu. 2 :49) for 'house of my. Father.' Cf. kv Toh KXau5(iou), P.Oxy. 523 (ii/A.D.). See eis to. i5ia and ol t&ioi (Jo. 1: 11). The neuter singular has an abstract use like to T?s cCK-qdovs irapoiiiias (2 Pet. 2:22), t6 ttjs (xvKrjs (Mt. 21; 21). {%) Nouns in the Pkedicate. These may have the article also. As already explained, the article is not essential to speech. It is, however, "invaluable as a means of gaining precision, e.g. Oeds Jfv b X67os."^ As a rule the predicate is without the article, even when the subject uses it. Cf. 'eydi avdpunrbs dfii (Lu. 7:8). This is in strict accord with the ancient idiom.' Gildersleeve {Syn- tax, p. 324) notes that the predicate is usually something new and therefore the article is not much used except in convertible prop- ositions. Winer ,^ indeed, denies that the subject may be known from the predicate by its having the article. But the rale holds wherever the subject has the article and the predicate does not. The article is then definite and distributed, the predicate indefi- nite and undistributed. The word with the article is then the subject, whatever the order may be. So in Jo. 1 : 1, 0€6s i)v 6 \6yos, the subject is perfectly clear. Cf. 6 X670S aap^ 'eykvero (Jo. 1 : 14). It is true also that 6 Bebs rji/ 6 X670S (convertible terms) would have ' K.-G., I, p. 268 f.; Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 280 f. The neuter article with the gen. is extremely common in Herod. Cf . StauraS, Uber den Gebr. d. Gen. bei Herod., p. 25. * MUden, The Limitations of the Pred. Position in Gk., p. 9 f. » Cf. Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 46; Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 325. ' Winer-Moulton, p. 142. 768 A GEAMMAK OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT been Sabellianism.' See also 6 0t6s kyai:ri kariv (1 Jo. 4 : 16). "God" aad "love" are not convertible terms anymore than "God" and "Logos" or "Logos" and "flesh." Cf. also ol Oepiaral ayyeKoi elaiv (Mt. 13 : 39), & X670S 6 cr6s aMideM kcniv (Jo. 17: 17), 6 voims A/xaprla; (Ro. 7:7). The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea. Cf . also avdpuiroKrdvos and 4'^i]aXri, the context makes it clear (W. H. marg. av^p Kt^iaKii kcmv) that &.vr]p is subject even without the article. ' In Jo. 9 : 34, kv d/iapriats ai kjevvijdris oXos, the article with oXos is not needed, a neat use of the predicate adjective. But the article is quite frequent with the predicate in the N. T. and in strict accord with old usage. It is not mere haphazard, however, as Winer rather impUed. Hence W. F. Moulton,^ in his note to Winer, properly corrects this error. He finds that when the article is used in the predicate the article is due to a previous mention of the noun (as well known or prominent) or to the fact that subject and predicate are identical.' The words that are identical are convertible as in the older idiom.* If he had added what is in Winer-Schmiedel,^ that the article also occurs when it is the only one of its kind, he would have said all that is to be said on the subject. But even here Moulton's rule of identity and converti- bility apply. The overrefinement of Winer-Schmiedel's many sub- divisions here is hardly commendable. In a word, then, when the article occurs with subject (or the subject is a personal pro- noun or proper name) and predicate, both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable. The usage applies to substantives, adjectives and participles indifferently. Cf. 6 Xixvos Tov cwnaTos kariv 6 o^OaX/ios (Mt. 6 : 22), ifieis icrk to aXas TTJs yfjs (Mt. 5 : 13), 6 dk d/ypos karw b Koapjoz (13 : 38), ah ei 6 Xpurrbs (16 : 16), els kuTW 6 aya66s (19 : 17), ris dpa karlv 6 iritrTos SoCXoj (24 : 45), tovto kanv to aS>p,a. pov, tovt6 kaTiv to alixa fjtov (26 : 26, 28), TiTr\% tl S}s (8 : 12), ovx outos ka-Tiv 6 KajBiip,€vos (Q : 8; cf. 19 f.), ^£0 el/M 4 6{>pa (10 : 7), kyoo €lp,i 6 xoi.p,rjv (10 : 11), 670; elfu ^ avLaTaaK Kal 4 fto^ (11 : 25, note both articles), kyu elfii ri 6S6s /cai ^ dXiJSeia koI * See per contra, Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 48. ' W.-M., p. 142. ' Cf. Donaldson, New Crat., p. 522; Middleton, Gk. Art., p. 54. ^ Thompson, Synt., p. 46. e p. 159. THE AKTICLB (tO "APePON) 769 ij fuij (14 : 6, note three separate articles), ketvos kaXri 6 Xpiarbs iariv (1 Cor. 11 : 3), 6 Sk Khpios t6 irvev/M kariv (2 Cor. 3 : 17), abros kariv ij elprivri riiuov (Eph. 2 : 14), 6e6s kariv 6 evepyQv (Ph. 2 : 13), 4/iEis Top eff/tey ^ Tf piTOfirj (3:3), ij ap,apTia icrrlv 17 &vofi'i.a (1 Jo. 3 : 4), 47cb ei/ii t6 "AX0a Kal t6 ''fi (Rev. 1 : 8), 'ey6} dfiL 6 irpuTos Kal 6 ^ffxaros (1 : 17, note both articles), av el 6 ToXaiircopos (3 : 17), etc. This Ust is not exhaustive, but it is sufficient to illustrate the points involved. Note 6/3a(TiX€6s(Mt.27:ll) and/3ao-tX€us(Jo. 1:49). Even the superlative adjective may have the article as in Rev. 1 : 17 above. But see 01 ^(rxaroi irpcoToi /cat ot Trpuroi i(rx''''''oi- (Mt. 20 : 16) for the usual construction. Cf. 4(rxdTjj &pa. (1 Jo. 2 : 18). See further kv kaxb-TCLLs 'fiiikpais, Jas. 5 : 3; 2 Tim. Z :1', kv KaipQ kexarco, 1 Pet. 1 : 5, and Tjj kcrx^'T'd fttikpa, Jo. 6 : 39. For the common predicate accu- sative see chapter XI (Cases), vii, (i). In the N. T. most examples are anarthrous (Jo. 5 : 11; 15 : 15), and note 1 Cor. 4 : 9 17/ias rois airocTToKovs kaxa.Tov% airkhul^ev. Cf. Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 326. (j) DiSTBIBUTIVB. Cf. kK Srjvapiov rfiv r/fikpav (Mt. 20 : 2), oTra^ Tov kvLavTOV (Heb. 9:7), Sis rod aa^parov (Lu. 18 : 12), iirTciKLS TTJs fifiipas (Lu. 17:4). This is, to be sure, an ancient idiom fa- mihar also to the English (cf. our "by the yard," "by the pound," etc.). It is foxmd in the papyri.^ But ^koo-tos is not used in the N. T. with the article. Cf. ol koB' ha eVoo-ros (Eph. 5 : 33). We have once d/w^orepa ret TrXoTa (Lu. 5:7), and several times 01 ap4b- repoL (Eph. 2 : 18), to, a.p.<(>bTtpa (2 : 14). Cf. tous Bio in Eph. 2 : 15. Cf. Thompson, Syntax of Attic Gk., p. 51. (k) Nominative with the Article = Vocative. This matter was sufficiently discussed in the chapter on Cases. It is an occa- sional Greek idiom repeated in the Hebrew and Aramaic regu- larly and frequent in N. T. As examples see ml, 6 irariip (Mt. 11 : 26), TO oKoiKoy Kal iaa(j)dv irvevpia (Mk. 9 : 25), ^ Trats (Lu. 8 : 54), 6 jSoirtXeus (Jo. 19 : 3). (Z) As THE Equivalent of a Possessive Pronotjn. The article does not indeed mean possession. The nature of the case makes it plain that the word in question belongs to the person mentioned. The French can say j'ai mal a, la tite, aKyd rfiv Kt^mXijv? The examples in the N. T. are rather numerous. .See, ' Volker, Synt. d. griech. Pap., p. 8. Volker notes also the presence of hiaaTos or of hvi,, /card, in, vpbs. ' Cf. Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 16. See K.-G., I, p. 556. 770 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT for instance, Lireviiaro ras x«iPM (Mt. 27: 24; cf. Lu. 13: 13). In Mt. 4 : 20 we have tA S'tKTva, while in verse 21 we find to SIktvo. avTwv. Cf. KareaeLffe ry x«ipi (Ac. 21 : 40; cf. Mk. 7 : 32), rov vidv t6v fiovoyevrj (Jo. 3 : 16), t^ vot SovKthta (Ro. 7 : 25), rod warpSs (1 Cor. 5 : 1), Tkov Kal t6v ^Se\(j)6v (2 Cor. 12 : 18; cf. also 8 : 18).' Cf. Mt. 8:3; Jo. 1:41. (m) With Possessive Pronouns. The article is always used in the N. T. with these pronouns unless the pronoun is predicate. So TO i/ia iravTa ' = 'his,' i.e. Luke. For pap. exx. see Volker, Synt. d. griech. Pap., p. 7. * Thompson, Gk. Synt., p. 51. * Meisterh., Att. Insohr., p. 231. > Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 181. » Claflin, Synt. of B.D. Inscr., p. 42. THE ARTICLE (tO "APGPON) 771 In general it may be noted that the absence of the article with the noun means that oBros is a real predicate, as in Jo. 2 : 11, ■ Toinnv iiroiriaev apxr\v tSsv aiifieUiiv. Cf . Lu. 24 : 21 ; Ac. 1 : 5. Even with proper names the article occurs, as in oBtos 6 'Iijo-oDs (Ac. 1: 11). For further details see chapter on Pronouns. It may be remarked that the rigidity apparent in the use of the article in connection with oStos and iKetvos does not exist in the case of the correlative demonstratives. The article is wanting in the N. T. in connection with Touxrhe and tjjXocoDtos. TocroOros occurs once only with the article, a true attributive, 6 toctovtos ttXoOtos (Rev. 18 : 16). ToiouTos, on the other hand, usually appears with the article and in the attributive position, as in tSiv tomvtuv iraiSloiv j(Mk. 9 : 37), though once' the predicate position is found, ai 8vvafiei.s JTOLavrai (Mk. 6:2). Most of the examples have no substantive, like 01 ToiovToi, (Ro. 16: 18), to, rouivTa (Gal. 5: 21). (p) With "OXo?, Has ("ATra?). "Attos is found chieflyin Luke and Acts. The MSS. vary greatly between ciiras and Tras. The text of W. H. now has iras in the margin (Lu. 9 : 15), now awas (15 : 13). Blass* fails to find any satisfactory rule for the use of oTras, the Attic distinction of airas after a consonant and iras after a vowel not holding (cf. Lu. 1:3), though in general axas does occur (when used at all) after a consonant (cf. Mt. 6 : 32). "ATras, when used with a substantive in the N. T., is always with the article. Once only does it appear in the attributive position, riiv airaaav fiaKpoBv- liiav (1 Tim. 1 : 16), 'the total sum of his long-suffering.' Else- where we have either the order 6 Xaos airas (Lu. 19 : 48) or awavra t6v Xaoi^ (Lu. 3 : 21). If oBtos also is used, we have ttiv k^ovaiav ravrriv aT.aaav (Lu. 4:6). Cf. ol airov aTravTes (Ac. 16 : 33). The construction of irSs is varied and interesting. It is an ex- ceedingly common adjective in all parts of the N. T. In general it may be said that the idiom of the N. T. is in harmony with the ancient Greek in the use of ttos and the article.^ In the singular iras may be used without the article in the sense of 'every.' So iravra ireipaaiwv (Lu. 4:13), irav CTO/ia (Ro. 3 : 19), iraaav (TWiidricnv avdpiyrwv (2 Cor. 4:2), irav Sev8pov (Mt. 3 : 10), etc. Blass' dis- tinguishes between e/ca W.-Sch., p. 187. 772 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Y^v (Mt. 27 : 45), iravrl t^ o'lKcf (Ac. 10 : 2). Even without the ar- ticle ttSs may be 'all,' if it is a proper noun, like iraa-a 'lepoaoXviia (Mt. 2:3), iras 'lapa^X (Ro. 11:26). In Ac. 2:36, ttSs oIkos- 'lapaTJX, there is only one "house of Israel," so that 'all' is the idea. Winer ^ says that it is treated as a proper name. Abstract substantives also may be used with or without the article. There is very little difference in idea between ttcio-jj yvoiaei (1 Cor. 1 : 5) and iraaav tt)v yvSxTLv (1 Cor. 13 : 2). With the abstract word "every" and "all" amount practically to the same thing. There is an element of freedom in the matter. So iraerav rrp/ iria-Tiv (1 Cor. 13 : 2), but iraaxi co^t^i (Ac. 7:22). There may indeed be occasionally the difference between a specific instance hke Trdo-jj rg 6\i^ei fiiuiv (2 Cor. 1 : 4) and a general situation Hke vaay ffKal/a (i&.).^ But see vaaxi {nro/wp^ (2 Cor. 12 : 12), iracry ayviq, (1 Tim. 6 : 2), ixeTO. irappria-Las iratrijs (Ac. 4 : 29), etc. See also irdca i) in 2 Tim. 3 : 16 to mean ' all Scripture,' but it is more Ukely 'every Scripture.' In Jas. 1 : 17, ttoo-o Sotrts, we have 'every,' as in 7r(WT6s irpoaiyKov (Ac. 17: 26).* Has 6 and the participle is a very common construction in the N. T. Here the idea is 'every,' and 6 and the participle are in apposition. Thus iras 6 clkovuv (Mt. 7 : 26) is practically equivalent to Tras oo-Tis dicofiei (7: 24). Cf. irds 6 opyi^ofiepos (Mt. 5 : 22), Tras 6 » W.-Th., p. 111. Cf. 1 Sam. 7 : 2 f. Blasa (Gr. of N.'T. Gk., p. 162) caUs this imitation of Hebrew. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 162. ^ cf. W.-Sch., p. 187. THE AKTICLE (tO "APePON) 773 ffXbrap (6 : 28), iras 6 airoKinav (5 : 32), tSs 6 airHv (7: 8), etc. But sometimes we find ttSs without the article as in iravros &KoiovTos (Mt. 13 : 19), wavrl bd>x)VTi (Lu. 11:4), where some MSS. read tQ. See iravTl tQ marebovrL (Ro. 1 : 16). The abstract neuter wav t6 is regular. So irav t6 ela-ropevbiievov (Mt. 15 : 17), irav ro (x^CKb- (levov (18 : 34). Cf. wav 8 in Jo. 6 : 37, 39. The idiom 6 7ras='the whole,' 'the totality,' is not frequent in the singular. It occurs twice.* See rov ir&vTa xpovov (Ac. 20 : 18), 6 TTos vbiws (Gal. 5 : 14), das gesamte Gesetz? Cf. also Bam. 4 : 9, 6 iras xP^vos. Here the whole is contrasted with a part. '0 irSs v6im}s= 'the entire law,' 'the whole law.' It was never so common a con- struction in the ancient Greek ^ as irds 6. In the plural Travres is used sometimes without the article. The article is not necessary with proper names, like iravres 'ABrjvaioi. (Ac. 17 : 21). Cf. ir6.vTes 'lovdaiot (26 : 4). But the article, is absent elsewhere also, as in iravres kpyarai aSiKias (Lu. 13 : 27), iravras &vepi)Trovs (Ac. 22 : 15; cf. Ro. 5: 12, 18), waaiv aycuBois (Gal. 6:6; cf. iraa^LV rots in 3 : 10), icavTUV q/yicov (Eph. 3:8), iravres SLyyeXoi, (Heb. 1:6). These examples are not niunerous, however. Cf. 1 Pet. 2 : 1 ; 2 Pet. 3 : 16. Blass* considers it a violation of clas- sical usage not to have the article in Eph. 3 : 8 and 2 Pet. 3 : 16, because of the adjectives, and in Lu. 4 : 20, vavrosv h t% awa- ^co-yg, because of the adjimct. But that objection apphes chiefly to the literary style. See ol ayioi if&vTes (2 Cor. 13 : 12). The usual construction is TrSfrat at yeveal (Mt. 1:17), xdvras roiis opx'epeis (2:4), etc. Sometimes we have the other order like ras jroXets irAffas (Mt. 9 : 35). Cf. 2 Cor. 13 : 12. Has may be repeated with separate words (Mt. 3:5). For the use with the participle see Mt. 8 : 16. A few ex9,mples of the attributive position are found, like ot iravTts avSpes (Ac. 19 : 7)= 'the total nmnber of the men,' as in the ancient idiom. See, also, at wdcrcu. ^l/vxal (Ac. 27 : 37), Tois ahv airots iravras aylovs (Ro. 16 : 15), ol avv kyxA iravres a8e\hrxris. In this sense the plural also»is found as in oXous otKous (Tit. 1 : 11). One may compare oXij TepowaXiJ/i (Ac. 21:31), with waaa 'lepoad'Xviia (Mt. 2:3). We usually have in the N. T. the order oXij ij ir6Xts (Mk. 1 : 33), but sometimes ^ TToXts oXtj (Ac. 21 : 30). Sometimes we have oXos and iras in the same sentence as in 2 Cor. 1: 1; 1 Th. 4: 10. The word may be repeated several tunes (Mt. 22 :37; Mk. 12 :30, 33). It occurs alone also as a predicate (Jo. 9 : 34), or with tovto (Mt. 1 : 22). (g) With IIoXi;?. There is a peculiar use of the article with TToXus that calls for a word. The regular construction with the article (attributive) hke rd TroXii avrov i\eos (1 Pet. 1 : 3) occurs in the singular (cf . 6 t6 iroXii, 2 Cor. 8 : 15) and much more frequently in the plural. So ol ttoWoL alone (Ro. 5 : 15; 12 : 5; Heb. 12 : 15; 1 Cor. 10: 17), tA xoXXA (Ro. 15: 22). With the substantive added note iiS&Tdiv iroXXcoi' (Rev. 17: 1), ai aixaprlai at iroXXat (Lu. 7:47), Tct TToXXa ypanfiara (Ac. 26:24). This is all in harmony with classic idiom^ as well as the frequent use of ttoXvs without the ar- ticle in an indefinite sense. But in 6 oxXos iroXvs (Jo. 12 : 9, 12) Moulton' finds "a curious misplacement of the article." Moulton cites a piece of careless Greek from Par.P. 60, dTro tUv irXr] pcnnaTuv Lpxauav. It is possible that oxXos iroXis came to be regarded as one idea. Gildersleeve {Syntax, p. 284) cites a few rare attributive examples of the type 6 avfip ayoBos from Homer and ^schylus where the adjective is appositive rather than predicative. The Homeric examples may be demonstrative. One may note also kK Trjs fiaralas ifiSiv kvaaTptxjyris iraTpoTapaSorov (1 Pet. 1 : 18) and iird Tgs Xer/Ofihris irepiTonfjs b> crapKt xstpt"roii7TOU (Eph. 2 : 11). See VI, (c), 5. We do find the usual order 6 ttoXus oxXos in Mk. 12 : 37. But it is a fact that oxXos iroXiis is the usual order in the N. T. (Mt. 26 : 47; Mk. 5 : 24; Lu. 7 : 11; 9 :.37; Jo. 6 : 2, 5). The analogy of iras, oXos, oBtos may have played some part in the matter. For axXoi ToWoL see Mt. 19 : 2; Lu. 14: 25. In Mt. 21 : 8 (parallel 1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 190. 2 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 53. " Prol., p. 84. THE ARTICLE (tO "APGPOn) 775 with Mk. 12 : 37, 6 TroXis 8x>^) we have 6 irXeTo-ros SxXos, but ifc is difficult to lay much stress on this point of variation. One is reminded of the constant French idiom, but -that is merely an independent parallel. The idiom ol irXeioves may be seen in 1 Cor. 9 : 19. See further ch. XIV. (r) "A/epo?, "H/ito-u?, 'Ea-xartxi, MeiiTa rg MpairlvB, the repeated article makes for greater clearness. THE ARTICLE (tO "APePON) 777 17: 5), TTiv yfiv riiv ayadiiv (Lu. 8:8), rd <^(3s t6 aKtiBLvhv (Jo. 1:9), rb iiSosp t6 fwy (4 : 11), 6 Koipds 6 k/xos (7:6), i) d^ireKos ij 'aXri9i.vfi (15 : 1), Td TTPeO/ia t6 wovt,p6v (Ac. 19 : 15). Cf. also Mt. 6 : 6; Lu. 7 : 47; Jo. 6 : 13; 1 Cor. 12 : 31; 2 Cor. 6 : 7; Eph. 6 : 13; Col. 1 : 21; Heb. 13 : 20; 1 Jo. 1 : 2; 2 : 25; 4 : 9. There is an apparent diflB.culty in Heb. 9 : 1, to re ayvov kocfiukov, which may be compared with 6 oxXos iroXiis above (Jo. 12 : 9).^ Perhaps both iiytov and KoaniKov were felt to be adjectives. 3. Article Repeated Several Times. So in Ac. 12 : 10, riiv iriiXriv ri/v (nSrjpav Trjp tjiipovtrav. Cf. rd irvp to aicoviov rd ■^TOLnaa/xevov (Mt. 25 : 41), 6 fioBriTris 6 aXXos 6 yvuiCTbs (Jo. 18 : 16), rijj' pofjujiaiav Tijv diffTOfiov TTIV o^eiav (Rev. 2 : 12). In particular note the repetition of the article in Heb. 11 : 12; Rev. 3 : 14; 17 : 1; 21 : 9. In Rev. 1 : 5 note four articles, 6 ixaprvs 6 ttuttos, 6 itp&jtotokos — /cai 6 &PX<^v. Cf. Rev. 12 : 9; 1 Pet. 4 : 14. For this common classic idiom see Gildersleeve, Syntax, pp. 328 ff . In Ph. 1 : 29, ujuTc 'txa- piadr] t6 inrip Xpiarov, the two infinitives following, each with t6, explain the first to. 4. One Article with Several Adjectives. When several adjectives are used we find an article with each adjective if the adjectives accent different aspects sharply. So 6 TrpGros Kal 6 etrxaros Kal 6 t&v (Rev. 1 : 17; cf. 22 : 13). Cf. also b &v — Kal 6 ipxbfievos (1 : 4, 8). But ordinarily the one article is sufficient for any munber of adjectives referring to the same substantive. So 6 ToXaixojpos Kal iT^eivos Kal TCTiaxos koI tv^\os koI yvuvbs (Rev. 3 : 17). In Mt. 24 : 45, 6 irto-Tos SoOXos Kal pbvifios, the Kal carries over the force of the article.^ So Ukewise the presence of another attribute may explain the probable predicate position waTpoTrapaSbTov (1 Pet. 1 : 18) and xe'poTot^roi; (Eph. 2 : 11).^ See further (c), 5. 5. With Anarthrous Substantives. There is still another order.* It is d/yiivrjv tt/v kp,r]v (Jo. 14 : 27). Here the substantive is indefinite and general, while the attribute makes a particular application. Cf. vbiuK 6 Swantvos (Gal. 3 : 21). Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 93) finds this idiom frequent in the Koivrj. So yvvatKa Ti/u evyeveaTaTrjv (I. G., XII, 7 N. 240, 13). 6. With Participles. The participle may come between the ar- ticle and the substantive like the attributive adjective, as in ttiv ilToiiMtxiikvnv hpxv ^aaCKilav (Mt. 25 : 34). Cf. 1 Tun. 1 : 10; Ro. 8 : 18; 1 Cor. 12 : 22; 1 Pet. 1 : 13. On the other hand (cf. 5), » Cf. W.-Sch., p. 177. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 160. » Cf. W.-Soh., p. 181. * It is common enough in classic Gk. Cf. Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 283. 778 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT all else may come between the article and the participle, as in 1 Pet. 1 : 10, oi — irpo^ijreuo-aj'Tes. A long clause (including a rela- tive clause) may come between the article and the participle, as in Ro. 16 : 17, Toiis — iroiovvras. Once more, the participle may come in the midst of the attributive phrases, as in 1 Pet. 1 : 3, 6 — Aw- ytvvrjaas, or immediately after the article, as in 2 Pet. 1 : 3. Either the participle or the modifier may occur outside of the attributive complex (Gildersleeve, Syrdax, p. 289 f.). Gildersleeve gives co- pious illustrations of the various constructions of the attributive participle. The article may be repeated after the substantive, like rd vSap rd ^Siv above (Jo. 4 : 11), ol ypaiJ,naTet$ oi — KarafiavTss (Mk. 3 : 22). Cf. Jo. 5 : 12; 1 Cor. 15 : 54; 1 Pet. 1 : 25; 5 : 10; Ac. 7 : 37; Heb. 13 : 20. The article may occur with the parti- ciple when not with the substantive. This supplementary ad- dition of the article is more common with the participle than with other adjectives.^ Cf. TraiSlois rots h ayopq. KaOriiiivois (Lu. 7 : 32), ywtuKes at avvaKoKovdomai air^ (23 : 49), 0,776X01; rod oipdevTOs airrQ (Ac. 7 : 35), xpv<^i-ov tov kiroKKvukvov (1 Pet. 1 : 7), and in particular oiihk yap ovopia, tariv 'erepov to deSofievov (Ac. 4 : 12). Cf. also Ac. 1 : 12; Gal. 3 : 21; Ro. 2 : 14 (^edvri tA jlhj vo/mv exovra). But in deov TOV kyeipavTos (Gal. 1 : 1),, XpicrroO tov Sovtos (1 : 3 f.), the proper names are definite without the article. So 'Iriaovv tov l>v6iJ.evov (1 Th. 1 : 10), etc. Participles in apposition with per- sonal pronouns may also have the article. Cf. kyu ei/ii 6 \dK&v aoi (Jo. 4:26), t$ B'tKovTi e/xol (Ro. 7:21), ai 6 Kpivcav (Jas. 4: 12), '^fiiv Tots wepLiraTovaiv (Ro. 8:4), r/nas Toiis ■wurTibovTos (Eph. 1 : 19), aiiTots Tots iri,(iT€vov(nv (Jo. 1 : 12), etc. Note two articles in 1 Th. 4 : 15, 17, ■qp.tis ot ^SiVTei ol irepiXeiTro^uewt. Cf. Eph. 1 : 12; 1 Jo. 5:13 (u/iTv — toIs t.);- 1 Cor. 8:10. The pronoun may not be expressed outside of the verb, as in ^xw^ei' ot Kora^u- yovTes (Heb. 6 : 18; cf. 4 : 3). Cf., on the other hand, fmeh, airop4>a- vurBkvTK (1 Th. 2 : 17). The article and participle may follow Tiv'&, as in twos rois ireTrotSoTas (Lu. 18:9), Tivks ehtv ot Tapaaaov- T& (Gal. 1:7). If the substantive has the article and the par- ticiple is anarthrous, the participle may be (cf . above) predicate. So T^iv (txavfiv kvex6eL(Tav (2 Pet. 1 : 18), rots irvebiuunv — direuBiiaaaiv (1 Pet. 3 : 19 f.), apTraykvTa t6v tolovtod (2 Cor. 12 : 2), t6v av8pa TovTov av\\rip4£kvTa (Ac. 23 : 27). Cf. Lu. 16 : 14; Jo. 4: 6; Ro. 2 : 27; 1 Cor. 14 : 7; 2 Cor. 3 : 2; 11 : 9; Heb. 10 : 2; 1 Pet. 1 : 12. The presence of the article with the participle here would radically change the sense. The same article may be used with several par- 1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 243. TKTC ABTICLB (to 'APePON) 779 ticiples, as in roD &yairri<7avT6s fie Kal irapaSSvTos (Gal. 2 : 20), t$ hyawuvTi. Kal \iaavTi (Rev. 1:5). The use of the article with the participle in the predicate is illustrated by deds 6 bimiSiv • tis 6 ko- TonpivOsv; (Ro. 8 :33; cf. Jo. 5 :45). In questions the pronoun, though coming first, may sometimes be really predicate. Then again the article may be absent from both substantive and parti- ciple (predicate or attributive), as in yvvii odaa (Mk. 5 : 25), de^ fScri (1 Th. 1 : 9), avBpiyirc^ okoSofiovvTi (Lu. 6: 48). (6) With Genitives. From the nature of the case the genitive as the genus-case is usually attributive. In general the construc- tion in the N. T. follows the ancient idiom.' 1. The Position between the Article and the Substantive. This is common enough, and especially so in 1 and 2 Peter. So ^ tov deov imKpodvula (1 Pet. 3 : 20); 1 : 17; 2 : 15, 3 : 1. See in partic- ular demonstrative pronouns like rg kKeivov xo-pi-Tt (Tit. 3:7). Plato (Soph., 254a) has tA. ttjs tSjv irdKKoiv ^/vxfjs Sniiara. For a series of such genitives in this position see 6 — Koafios (1 Pet. 3:3). For adjective and genitive see 3 : 4, 6 Kpuxrds rrjs KapSlas avdpcoiros. Cf. Mt. 12 : 31; 1 Pet. 5:1. In 1 Pet. 4 : 14 the article is re- peated, TO T^s So^s Kal t6 tov Beov Tvevfia. See also Jo. 1 : 40, Twv dim tSiv &KOvaauTOV. 2. Genitives after the Substantives without Repetition of the Ar- ticle.^ This is even more common. Thus tov 4>6^ov tC>v 'lovhaluiv (Jo. 20 : 19), TTi% ayairrii tov deov (Ro. 8 : 39). Cf. 2 Cor. 4 : 4; Ro. 8 : 2; 1 Th. 1 : 3. Sometimes the two types are combined, thus ij hriyeios fiixwv oWta tov oktivovs (2 Cor. 5:1), tjjs rac airoaTohav vfuav ivTokrjs tov Kvpiov Kal acoTrjpos (2 Pet. 3:2). The personal pro- nouns illustrate either order except that (mv is nearly always out- side (but see t&v icaTpiKuv pxjv irapadoffeuiv, Gal. 1 : 14, and h tJ irpiiTji fiov airdhoyiq,, 2 Tim. 4:16); either, as is usual, 6 Kvpvbs nov (Jo. 20 : 28) or fwv tovs 6(^aXAioiis (Jo. 9 : 11). We find rg avTov xapni (Ro. 3 : 24) and tov \abv avTov (Mt. 1 : 21) and avTov iv t% aykiqi (Jo. 15:10. Cf. 9:6; 11:32), ttiv eauroO aiiK-qv (Lu. 11 : 21) and Tijv akpKa lavTov (Gal. 6 : 8), Tijv yeveav rijy eavrov (Lu. 16 : 8) and iavT&v to. lixaTia (Mt. 21:8). Cf. also to 6vop.a aov (Mt. 6 : 9), ij 8e^L6. aov xdp (Mt. 5 : 30; but not 5 : 29. Cf. also 1 Tim. 5:23), aov tt)v K&t>a\fiv (Mt. 6: 17), tov apTov iinSiv (6 : 11), iiiiHv TOV ipyov (1 Th. 1 : 3), t'^v iiytSiv ayawriv (Col. 1 : 8), etc. With the partitive the usual (but see Jo. 6 : 70; 9 : 16, 40) position is this: t& TpiTov Ttjs 7?s (Rev. 8:7). Cf. 1 Cor. 15 : 9. ' Cf. K.-G., I, p. 597; Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 49. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 159. 780 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 3. Repetition of Article with Genitive. The genitive may fol- low the other substantive with a repeated article. Here the ar- ticle closely resembles the original demonstrative. So 6 X67os 6 ToO aravpov (1 Cor. 1 : 18), t4> Wa t$ Mwvaim (Ac. 15 : 1), rriv 5t5a- aKaXiav rriv tov acaTTJpos fjiuav (Tit. 2 : 10). This construction is not very common.' 4. The Article Only with Genitive. Cf. k^ovalai kolI kTnTpovrjs Trji T&v apxiep^v (Ac. 26 : 12). Cf. Ac. 1 : 12, Spous tov, with Lu. 19 : 29, t6 opos fo. Here again the article is almost pure demon- strative as in Jas. 1:25, vd/wv reKeiov rbv r^s ^X6u0epias=' perfect law, that of liberty.' Volker {Syntax, p. 16) finds abundant illus- trations of these positions in the papjrri. So with proper names like Mapta 17 Tokco/Sou (Mk. 15 : 40), AaueiS tov tov 'leaaai (Ac. 13 : 22), etc. Cf. Mt. 4 : 21. 5. Article Absent with Both. The genitive may still be attribu- tive and both substantives definite. Cf. ;ruXai q,Sov (Mt. 16 : 18), arjiietov xeptro/x^s (Ro. 4 : 11), vSfiov xttrrecos (3 : 27), etc. The con- text must decide whether the phrase is definite or not. Cf. 6eov vlos (Mt. 27: 54), e{iepye(7iq. avdpinrov (Ac. 4:9). 6. The Correlation of the Article. In such cases, according to Middleton,^ if two substantives are united by the genitive, the article occurs with both or is absent from both.* But note (H. Scott) that (1) the genitive may be anarthrous if it is a proper name, (2) the governing noun may be anarthrous if it depends on a preposition. The normal type may be well illustrated by T^ vofup TTJs afiapTcas (Ro. 7:23) and vo/ju^ anaprlas (7:25). The genitive a/xaprlas is an abstract noun which may or may not have the article. But voixc^ is definite in either instance in 'the law of sin.' See again tQ voiuf tov deov (7 : 22) and vb/jufi deov (7 : 25). Gtos can be definite with or without the article. So, again, to ^pivTipa TOV irvev/xaTOS (8 : 6) and Tvevfia deov, irvevixa Xptcrrou (8 : 9), biMiAiimTi, capKos (8:3) and t6 cfypovrjfia rrjs capKos (8 : 6). Cf. also 6 voims tov irveiiiiaros Trjs foiTjs (8:2), Ti)v kXevOeplav ttjs So^rjs tuv TtKVUU tov Beov (8 : 21), TTiv Sccpeav tov ayiov irveiifiaTos (Ac. 2 : 38), jStjSXos yevkcrtoos 'Ir,(Tov XpL 5eft§ rod 0eov (Ro. 8 : 34; cf. Heb. 1 : 3), but note rfj Se^i^ Tov deov (Ac. 2 : 33). In general, where the word without the article is not otherwise definite, it is indefinite even when the other one has the article. One is indefinite, the other definite. So apx'fiv TUP (FTjiuiMv (Jo. 2 : 11)= ' a beginning of miracles.' In Mk. 1 : 1, apxh TOV tiiwyyekiov 'IijcroO Xpto'T'oO, the notion may be the same, though here apxh is more absolute as the title of the book. In Ro. 3 : 25 it is possible to take eh tvhei^iv rrjs SiKaioavvr)^ aiiTou='for a showing of his righteousness,' while in 3 : 26 xpis rriv ivhti^tv t^s SiKauxriivris airov may refer to the previous mention of it as a more definite conception. Compare also t'^v tov Oeov SiKaiocvvrtv (Ro. 10 : 3) and buiaunyhvn) Btov (3 : 21), where, however, as in 1 : 17, the idea may be, probably is, *a righteousness of God,' not 'the righteous- ness of God.' In examples like this (cf . dmv uJos, Mt. 27 : 54) only the context can decide. Sometimes the matter is wholly doubtful. Of. vloi avOpinrov (Heb. 2 : 6) and t6v vtdv tov avdpiyirov (Mt. 16 : 13). In an example like SiAkovos tov Xpiarov (Col. 1 : 7), therefore, the idea is a minister of the Christ, not the minister of Christ. So (T(^pa- 7l3a Trjs SiKaioavvris (Ro. 4:11), AtKottitl rrjs Kowciivias (2 Cor. 9:13). Hence uWs tov deov (Mt. 4:3, 6; Lu. 4 : 3) and 6 vids tov Oeov (Jo. 1 : 49; Mt. 16 : 16; Jo. 11 : 27) do not mean the same thing. The devil is represented as admitting that Jesus is a son of God, not the Son of God. In Jo. 5 : 25 Jesus claims 6tl ol veKpol aKovaovaiv T?s o}vijs TOV vlov TOV 6tov. In Jo. 10 : 36 Jesus uses argumentum ad hominem and only claims to be vios tov deov. Cf. the sneer of the passers-by in Mt. 27 : 40 (W. H.), vtos tov Beov, and the demand of Caiaphas in 26 : 63, 6 vl6s tov deov. In Jo. 5 : 27 vto^ avOpiyirov may be either 'the son of man' or 'a son of man.' Cf. a simi- lar ambiguity in the Aramaic bamasha. The point may become very fine indeed. Cf . iravTos avSpds ij /ce^aXij 6 Xpi(rT6s and Ke^aXi) ywaiKos 6 a.vi]p (1 Cor. 11 : 3). At any rate man is not aflirmed to be woman's head in quite the same sense that Christ is man's head. But see also Ke^aKi) tov Xpiarov 6 debs. In these examples the anarthrous substantive is predicate as is the case with avrtp itTTiv ict(f>a\i) Tijs yvvawds cos Kal 6 XpiCTos xei^aXij ttjs l/c/cXijcrtas (Eph. 5:23). Hence the matter is not to be stressed here, as another ' W.-M., footnote, p. 146. 782 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT principle comes into play. It is possible also that the qualita- tive force of anarthrous nouns comes in here (Eph. 5 : 23, Ke^aX^ TTJs yvvcuKos, Ke^aXij rrjs kKKKriaias, ffcori^p rod (yiifiaros). See VIII, (j). Cf. ^kvoi T&v SiaBriKcbv rrjs 'eirayyeklas (Eph. 2 : 12). So ^oprij tup 'lovSa'iMv (Jo. 5 : 1) = ' a feast of the Jews,' apxosv tS>p 'lovSa'iMv (3 : 1). Cf. Ac. 6:1. Cf. fiairTUT/jM fieravolas eis fi^eo-ij' aiiapTMV (Mk. 1:4) and eis S.(j>e(nv tuv anapriSiv ifuov (Ac. 2:38), els KOLVuviav rod vtov (1 Cor. 1:9), prepositional phrase. But enough of a some- what thorny subject.* (c) With Adjuncts or Adverbs. In general the same usage applies to adjuncts as to adjectives. 1. Between the Article and the Noun. Thus ri avos Kkijcns (Ph. 3 : 14), ij /car' bCKoyriv irpbdtcis (Ro. 9 : 11), 17 irap' ktiav &iaBT}Kr] (11 : 27), b h> ^Xaxio'TCi) oStras (Lu. 16 : 10), rijv b> ria j> aireiffovvrcov h tJ 'louSaiq, (Ro. 15 : 31), t&v 'l(Tpari\ Kara ffdp/ca (1 Cor. 10 : 18), to, Wvq kv aapKi (Eph. 2 : 11), rSiv ivToKoov kv doyficunv (2 : 15), 6 Secrfiios 'ev Kvpic^ (4:1), oi veKpol kv XpiffTv (1 Th. 4 : 16), t^s Koivoivias eJs airois (2 Cor. 9 : 13), Tin/ BoKipav kv Xpi&TCf (Ro. 16 : 10), ot KoinrfikvTes kv XpicrrQ (1 Cor. 15 : 18). Cf. Ph. 1:1. In Col. 1 :4, riiv xio-tiv vixS>v kv XpiarQ, and Ph. 4 : 19, t6 xXoCtos aiiTov kv fiofj kv HpiarQ '1i](tov, more than one adjunct occurs outside the article. Cf. Eph. 3 : 4, 13. Blass* considers this idiom peculiar to the N. T., but pertinent examples are cited' from Herodotus V, 108, i5 ayyeKia irepl tuv Xapdiwv, Thucydides, II, 52. 1, etc. The vernacular character of the N. T. diction renders it more frequent. It is not. common in classic Greek.* 5. When Several Adjuncts Occur. "It often becomes inconve- nient and clumsy to insert all of these between the article and the substantive."' Even so, but at bottom the matter does not differ in principle from the examples above. We have seen the same freedom with a second attributive adjective (cf. Mt. 24:45). See a good example of two adjuncts in Eph. 1 : 15, riiv koS' vnas ir'uTTLv kv tQ icvpicf 'IijtroO. The first attribute may be adjective, genitive, adverb or adjunct. So to koB' ■qfi&v x«'P07pa<^oj' rots Soypaaiv (Col. 2 : 14), rrjs kfifjs irapovaias iraXiv xpos ipas (Ph. 1 : 26), TTji/ Ik 6eov SiKauxrvvriv kirl tjj TiaTU (3:9), Trjv kfirjv avaarpo^v irore kv T^ 'Iov8cuafi4 (Gal. 1:13). Cf. Ph. 1:5. The article and the participle readily yield examples like 6 Kara iroXi kvayevviiaas els kXwiSa (1 Pet. 1:3), Tois kv Swafitt 6eov tf>povpovij.kvovs Slcl Tricrecos (1:5). But sometimes the several adjuncts (cf. adjectives and genitives) are inserted between the article and the substantive. So rrjs kv t^ Koafiu kv krudviiiq, (jidopds (2 Pet. 1:4). Cf. Ac. 21 : 28. For similar position of several genitives and adjuncts see 2 Pet. 2:7; Lu. 1 : 70. In particular note Ro. 16 : 17 for the various phrases between tovs and TOLovvras. Note the many ad- juncts in Ro. 3 : 25 f. See further vi, (a), 6. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 160. 2 lb., p. 159. ' W.-Sch., p. 180. ' The three regular positions are common. Cf . Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 286. 6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 160. 784 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 6. Phrases of Verbal Origin. Phrases that are consciously verbal in origin readily do without the repeated article.* So in Ro. 6 : 3 we have eis top Bavarov avrov kfiairTiadtiiiev and in the next verse we read avveTa4i\ii.a> aiir^i Sia tov ^airrlaiMTOS els t6v Bavarov. It is plain, therefore, that here eis tov Bavarov is to be construed with Pairriafia- ros, not with awera^ixev. In other examples the verbal construction appears in other contexts. It is, however, possible that the usage with the verb renders the anarthrous construction more frequent. So Ph. 1 : 26, T7JS ims irapovvias w&Xiv rpos v/ids, maybe compared with iraptlvai irpos ifiRs (Gal. 4 : 20). Cf. also iraSrinara inrkp (Col. 1 : 24) with Taax^Lv inrkp (1 Pet. 2 : 21), BXlrpeffiv inrkp (Eph. 3 : 13) with 6Xifi6iie6a inrkp (2 Cor. 1:6). The classic idiom shows similar examples.^ 7. Exegetical Questions. Sometimes it is quite important for doctrinal reasons to be careful to note whether the adjunct is attributive or predicate. Thus in Ro. 8 : 3, KareKpive rrjv &.iiaprla.v kv rfj crapKL, if ev rfj aapKi is attributive with aimpriav, there is a defi- nite assertion of sin in the flesh of Jesus. But if the phrase is predicate and is to be construed with KarkKpive, no such statement is made. Here the grammarian is helpless to decide the point. The interpreter must step in and appeal to the context or other passages for light. One conversant with Paul's theology will feel sure that kv aapd is here meant to be taken as predicate. The same ambiguity arises in verse 2, 6 vofios rov irvevfiaros rijs f&jTjs kv XpLcrQ ijXevBkpcoakv \6v kic yeverris (Jo. 9:1), avBponros kv irveiiiiari aKoBaprd^ (Mk. 1 : 23), xo^pa^ kv irvtiiixari. ayicff (Ro. 14 : 17), iri KoB' inrepfioXriv 686v (1 Cor. 12 : 31), etc. Note in particular 2 Cor. 11 : 23, 27. The older Greek furnishes illustration of this idiom.^ 1 W.-Th., p. 136; W.-Sch., p. 180. » W.-Sch., p. 180. » lb. But Blaas (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 159) doubts it. THE ARTICLE (tO 'APGPOn) 785 (d) Several Attributives with Kai. 1. Several Epithets Applied to the Same Person or Thing. See already under vi, (a), 4. Usually only one article is then used. For classic examples see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 330. So, for in- stance, 6 raXaiirufXK Kal k\et.vds Kal ttt&jx^s Kai Tv\ds Kal yv/jivos (Rev. 3 : 17). This is the normal idiom in accord with ancient usage. So Mk. 6:36 vlds ttjs Mapias Kal 6t5e\(l>6s 'Icuciifiov, Lu. 6 : 49 6 5^ 6.Kov(ras Kal nil TTOi^cras, Ac. 3 : 14 t6v ayiov Kal SiKavov, Jas. 3 : 9 rhv Kipiov Kal irar'tpa, 2 Pet. 2 : 20 (3:2) tov Kvpiov Kal croiTrjpos, 1 Tim. 4 : 3 ToTs ■Kiarois Kal 'eveyvciiKbai. Cf. also Gal. 1:7; Eph. 6 : 21; 1 Tim. 6 : 15; Heb. 3:1; Rev. 1 : 9 (both 6 and rg). When a second article does occur, it accents sharply a different aspect of the person or phase of the subject. So in Rev. 1:17 6 xpSros koI 6 ItTxaros, Kal 6 ^Hv, one article would have been sufficient, but would have obscured the separate affirmations here made. Cf. also rd 'AX(^a Kai rd 'fl in 1 : 8; 21 : 6. In Jo. 21 : 24 W. H. read 6 naprvpHv TCtpl ToiiTwv Kal 6 ypk^as ravra, but they bracket Kal 6. The second article is very doubtful. A similar superfluity of the second ar- ticle appears in the second i} (brackets W. H.) in Ac. 17 : 19, and in the second t6 in 1 Pet. 4 : 14, rb t^s So^ijs koI rd tov deov ■jrvevpa (due probably to the second genitive to emphasize each). So Jo. 1 : 40. See (c), 9, above. Outside of special cases like these only one article is foxmd when several epithets are applied to the same person. The presence of a genitive with the group of words does not materially alter the construction. The genitive may occur with either substantive and apply toboth.i So 6 Beds Kal irarfip fffiHv (1 Th. 3 : 11) and tov Kvplov fifiSiv Kal a-ccTrjpos (2 Pet. 1:11). As a matter of fact such genitives (see above) occur either inside or outside of the regimen of the article. Cf. tQ deQ Kal iraTpl rmuv (Ph. 4 : 20), 6 Oeoi Kal iraTfip tov Kvpiov ripwv (1 Pet. 1 : 3; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3). The presence of tiijmv with Kvplov does not affect the construction any more than the use of Kvpiov itself or TiiMv above. In Ph. 3 : 3 one adjunct comes before one participle, the other after the other participle, but only one article occurs. A most important passage is 2 Pet. 1 : 1, tov deov fifi&v Kal (ruTijpos Tijo-oO Xpto-ToO. Curiously enough Winer^ endeavours to draw a distinction between this passage, "where there is not even a pro- noun with acaTrjpos" and the identical construction in 2 Pet. 1 : 11, TOV Kvplov rjiiwv Kal ccoTrjpos 'Iriaov XpiaroO, which he cites' as an example of "merely predicates of the same person." Stranger ' 1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 155. 2 W.-Th., p. 130. s lb., p. 126. 786 A GBAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT still, he bases his objection on doctrinal grounds, a matter that does not per se concern the grammarian. The matter is handled in Winer-Schmiedel,* where it is frankly admitted that the con- struction in 2 Pet. 1 : 1 is the same as that in 1 : 11 and also in 2:20; 3:2, .18. Schmiedel says also that "grammar demands that one person be meant." In Ju. 4, rdv novov SecKorrjv koL Kbpuov riiiMv 'Irjaovv Xpiarov, the same point holds, but the fact that Khpios is so often anarthrous like a proper name slightly weakens it. The same remark applies also to 2 Th. 1 : 12, tov deov inubv Kai Kvplov 'Iriaov Xpurrov, and Eph. 5 : 5, kv rg /Sao-tXetoi tov Xpiarov Kdl deov (since deov often occurs without the article). One person may be described in these three examples, but they are not so clear as the type tov Kvpiov fifjMv kcu aonripos (2 Pet. 1:1, 11). In Tit. 2 : 13, TOV neyaXov deov (cat (ToiTyjpos rumv XpiCTOV Tt/ctoO, it is almost certain that one person is again described. Cf. also rriv liojcapiav k^irlSa nal kin.&veLav t^s So^s, where the one article unites closely the two substantives. Moulton* quotes most pertinently papyri examples of vii/A.D., which show that among Greek-speak- ing Christians "our great God and Saviour" was a current form of speech as well as the Ptolemaic formula, tov nejaXov deov ebepjeTov Kal acoTTJpos (G. H. 15, ii/s.c). He cites also Wendland's argument' that the rival rendering in Titus is as great an "ex- egetical mistake" as to make two persons in 2 Pet. 1:1. Moul- ton's conclusion* is clear enough to close the matter: " FamiUarity with the everlasting apotheosis that flaunts itseK in the papyri and inscriptions of Ptolemaic and Imperial times lends strong support to Wendland's contention that Christians, from the latter part of i/A.D. onward, deliberately annexed for their divine Master the phraseology that was impiously arrogated to themselves by some of the worst of men." 2. When to be. Distinguished. Then the article is repeated. So Mt. 23 : 2 ot ypanfMTeis Kal oi $api(7atoi, Mk. 2 : 18 ot iiadr\Ta.l 'Ibikvov KoX ot ^apKraioi., 6 : 21 toZs fieryuTTaaLV avTOV Kai toXs X'^'tipxo's Kal TOLS TTpwTOis, 11:9 ot TTpoayovTes Kal ol aKoXovdovvTes, 11 : 18 (cf. 14 : 43) oi lipxtepeTs Kal ot Tpa/i/iarets, Mk. 12 : 13 tS>v ^aptaaiuv Kal TUP ''H.pcfSiavSiv, Lu. 11 : 39 tov iroTrjplov Kal tov irivaKos, 15 : 6 roiis ^IKovs Kal Tois yeiTOva^, 23 : 4 rois dpxtepeTs Kai rois oxXous, Jo. 4 : 37 6 aicelpuv mi 6 Bepi^ojv, 1 Cor. 3:86 vTevu>v Kal o totL^cov, Jas. 3 : 11 t6 7X11x11 Kal t6 wiKpov, Ac. 26 : 30 6 jSao-tXeus Kal 6 iiyefiisv, Rev. 18 : 20 ot ayLoi, Kal ot airbaToKoi. /cat ot 7rpoct>rJTai.. Cf. Rev. 11 : 4; ' P. 158. -' On ScjTT^p in ZNTW, v. 335 f. « Prol., p. 84. * Prol., p. 84. THE ARTICLE (tO "APePON) 787 13 : 16; 2 Th. 1 : 8. The list can be extended almost indefinitely.* But these are examples of the same number, gender and case. Nor have I referred to abstract words of quahty like the list in Rev. 7 : 12, or examples Uke ras crvvayoiyas Kal rds dpxds /cat ras k^ovaias (Lu. 12 : 11). It is not contended that these groups are all absolutely distinct (cf. ot ypafinarels Kal ol ^apuraioi), but that they are treated as separate. Even with the scribes and Pharisees they did not quite coincide. Cf . Mt. 21 : 45; Ac. 11 : 6. The use of another attributive may sometimes be partly responsible for two articles. So Lu. 8 : 24 r^i avkfu^ Kal t^ k\{iSoivi. tov bSaros, Mk. 2 : 18 01 nadrjTal 'losavov Kal ot ^apiaatoi, 11 : 15 ras rpairk^as- tS>v Ko\Kv^t.(TTSiv Kal ras KoBk&pas tuv wcoKodvroiv. Cf. also Lu. 20 : 20; Ac. 25 : 15; 1 Cor. 11 : 27; Rev. 13 : 10. 3. Groups Treated as One. Sometimes groups more or less dis- tinct are treated as one for the purpose in hand, and hence use only one article. Cf. rds 0tXos Kal yeirovas (Lu. 15 : 9), rovs vo/xt-Kois Kal ^apiaaiovs (14: 3), ras irXareias Kal pvnas (14: 21), tuv wpecrfivTepcav Kal ypatifmrkcov (Mk. 15 : 1), t&v ''EttlkovpIcov Kal Xtooikuv (Ac. 17: 18), Tcov iapicraloiv Kal SaSSouKaiMj' (Ac 23 : 7), rciv dTTOordXcoi' Kal irpotjyiiTSiv (Eph. 2 : 20), rfj airoXoyla Kal fie^aiixret. tov eiayyeXiov (Ph. 1:7), TO xXdros Kal h^kos Kal fiados Kal iJ^os (Eph. 3 : 18), rfiv KKriau) Kal kK\oyi]v (2 Pet. 1 : 10). Cf. Ti]v in Tit. 2: 13. So in Mt. 17 : 1 (W. H. text) we have t6v Hhrpov Kal 'laKcafiov Kal 'loiavriv, where the three are one group. This is probably more frequent in ex- amples where a genitive occurs also, or some other attribute.^ So Ph. 1 : 20 rriv airoKapadoKlav Kal eXxi5a /wv, 1 : 19 Trjs iiiSiv deljaeus Kal kinxop'qyias tov irvebiiaTOi, 2 : 17 rij Bvcia Kal \eiTovpyiq. rrjs xttrrecos. Cf. also 1 Th. 2 : 12; 3 : 7; Mt. 24 : 3; Ro. 1 : 20; Col. 2 : 8; Eph. 3:5; 2 Cor. 1:6; Lu. 14:21; 1 Pet. 2:25; Ph. 1:25; 1 Th. 3:7. These are all the simplest and clearest illustrations. 4. Point of View. Obviously, therefore, whether one or more articles are to be used depends on the point of view of the speaker or writer. In geographical terms the matter of freedom is well illustrated. Thus in 1 Th. 1 : 7 we have kv rg MaKe5ovlq. Kal kv rg 'Axat^, while in the very next verse we meet kv rg MaKeSoK^t koI 'Axaia as in Ac. 19 : 21. These two Roman provinces are distinct, but adjacent. Cf. also rrjs 'lovBalas Kal 'Sa/iapias (Ac. 8:1; cf. 1 : 8), T^s 'lovSaias Kal FaXiXaios Kal Sa/iaptas (9 : 31), where these sec- tions of Palestine are treated together. Cf . Ac. 27 : 5. In Ac. 15 : 3 note ttjp re ^oivIktiv koL 'Lap.apiav, the two sections treated together are not even contiguous. In Ac. 15 : 23, Kara Tiiv 'Avti.6- 1 Cf. W.-Th., p. 128. 2 W.-Soh., p. 156 f . 788 A GKAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Xiiav Kal Hvplau Kal KiKiKiap, we have a city grouped with two coun- tries (as in Lu. 5 : 17; Mt. 4 : 25), while in 15 :41 we meet riiv Si/ptaj' ml riiv KiXidau (W. H. text). Hence no absolute conclu- sions can be drawn from the one article in Ac. 16 : 6, ttiv ^pvyiav Kal TaXaTiKiiv x^pO'V (cf. reverse order in 18 : 23) as to the separate- ness' of the terms "Phrygia" and "Galatic region." Cf. also Lu. 3 : 1, r^s 'Irovpalas Kal T paxuvlriSos x'^P"'^- But the matter is not wholly whimsical. In Ac. 2 : 9 f . note the rl^v with Meiro- iroraiiiav, which stands alone, while we have also Uovtov Kal riiv 'Aaiav, probably because the province of Asia (not Asia Minor as a whole) is meant. Then again we meet rd iJi,ipr] rrjs Aifiiris rrjs Kard. Kvprivriv, because of the details stated. In Ac. 6 : 8 f . the use of rwv twice divides the synagogues into two groups (men from Cihcia and Asia on the one hand, men from Alexandria, Cyrene and Libertines (?) on the other). The matter is simple geography but for AiPeprivuv, and may be after all if we only knew what that term means. See Winer-Schmiedel, p. 158. Cf. also Rev. 14 : 7, where two words have articles and two do not, and Ac. 15 : 20, where three words in the list have articles and one, ttvlktov, does not. So in Ac. 13 : 50 we have t6v Jlav\ov Kal B., while in 15 : 2 we find tQ n. Kal tQ B. Then again in Mt. 17 : 1 observe the one article with Peter, James and John, while in Heb. 11: 20 we see eiiXoyricyev Tcradfc rdv Ta/cfb/S Kal r6v 'Rcav. The articles here empha- size the distinction between subject and object as in Mt. 1 : 2-16. Cf. also tSiv aw. Kal tSjv irp. (Ac. 15 : 4) and ol Att. Kal ol irp. (15 : 6) with T&v dx. Kal TTp. tS)u (16 : 4). 5. Difference in Number. If the words combined differ in number, usually each one has its own article. The reason is that they generally fall into separate classes. So 6 AvayivisaKuv Kal ol aKoiovres (Rev. 1:3), t^s aapKds Kal tS>v Buivoluv (Eph. 2:3), r'fiv ack^eiav Kal rdj KoamKos 'eiriBvyilas (Tit. 2 : 12). But one article may also be found, as in t<5 Koap^ Kal Lyy'eKois Kal b,vOpi>iroi.% (1 Cor. 4:9). Here, however, the anarthrous words "particularize the tQ Kbcrpw."^ Yet in 1 Jo. 2 : 16 wav rd kv tQ K6crp,as. So also Ac. 15 : 4, 20; 26 : 30; Col. 2 : 13; 1 Tim. 5 : 23; Rev. 2 : 19. The papyri illustrate the N. T. usage of the article with several sub- stantives (cf. Volker, Syntax, p. 20). So 6 tj\ios Kal aeXiivrj, Pap. L, Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 195. 9. 7. With Disjunctive Particle. If a disjimctive preposition be used, there will naturally be separate articles (even when Kai is the connective), whatever be true about number and gender. So fiera^i tov vaov Kal rod fluffUKTTTjpiou (Mt. 23 : 35 cf. Lu. 11 : 51). So when the conjunction ^ occurs as in tov vbpov ^ tow irpocfriTas (Mt. 5 : 17), TQ) iraTpl fj tJ ixriTpl (15 : 5), TO aKOTos ^ to (j)S)s (Jo. 3 : 19), inrb TOV n&diov rj viro rfiv kKIvtiv (Mk. 4 : 21), tQ Xaoi f) toZs (6tv WvSiv T£ Kai 'lovbaUav, we generally find the repeated article with T€ Kal. Even here 'lovbaluv as a proper name does not need the article. Cf. '\ov5aiMv re Kal 'EXXiy^'coc in 14 : 1, but o t€ ot parity 6s Kal ol apxiepeis (5 : 24) with difference in number also. Vn. Position with Predicates. It is not the use of the article with the predicate noun, like oBtos iaTiv 6 KkrjpovoiJLos (Mk. 12 : 7), that is here before us. That point has already been discussed under v, (i). When the article occurs with the substantive, but not with the adjective, the result is the equivalent of a relative clause. Cf . fieyakji tjycovy (A?. 14 : 10) and ^covg iJteyaX-o (7 : 57) = 'with a loud voice,' with fieyoKn ry ^cofg (26: 24)= 'with the voice elevated.' See also avojceKa'Kvfifiivco irpocinrc^ (2 Cor. 3 : 18) = 'with unveiled face' and aKaTaKoKinrTt^ rg Kf4>iiKxi (1 Cor. 11 : 5) = 'with the head unveiled.' Cf. Mk. 3:1, k^ripaiinkvriv Axiav ttiv x"pa. Other examples are ireirpci}p,evriv Tr)v Kap5lav (Mk. 8 : 17), ttiv napTv- ptac Hfl^Q} (Jo. 5: 36), T171' ayairrjv eKTevrj (1 Pet. 4:8), t7)v dvafi vpiiTri (Lu. 2 : 2) because it is in the pred- icate. Cf. rovTo AXijOes eJprjKas (Jo. 4 : 18). The position of auTg Tj; KoKovfikvn (Lu. 1 : 36) may be noted. D in Mk. 7 : 5 reads mt.- vais Tois xeptriv.^ Gildersleeve {Syntax, p. 292) considers this use of the predicate position "a gnomon of artificial style" out- side of the more simple combinations. See also Milden, The Limitations of the Predicative Position in Greek (1900, p. 43). It is noticeable in prepositional phrases, as in Xen., Anab., 1, 3, 14, Sid <^iXios T^s xi^po-s- Vin. The Absence of the Article. I do not care to use the term "omission" in connection with the article. That word im- phes that the article ought to be present. As has. been already shown, the article is not the only means of showing that a word is definite. This luxury in language did not become indispensable. The servant never became master. There remained in the classic period many parallel phrases which were intelligible without the article. Indeed, new phrases came into use by analogy without the article. I do not think it is necessary to devote so much space to this phase of the subject as is done in most grammars. Most of the cases have already come up for discussion in one way or another. It is sufficient here to give a rfeiune of the chief idioms in the N. T. which are without the article and are still definite. Much of the modem difficulty about the absence of the Greek article is due to the effort to interpret it by the standard of the English or German article. So Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 119) speaks of "appellatives, which as expressing definite objects should have the article"! Even Gildersleeve, in discussing the "Absence of the Article" (note the phrase. Syntax, p. 259), says that "prep- ositional phrases and other formulae may dispense with the ar- ticle as in the earlier language," and he adds "but anaphora or contrast may bring back the article at any time and there is no pedantical uniformity." Admirably said, except "dispense with" and "bring back," dim ghosts of the old grammar. Moulton* cites Jo. 6 : 68, pij/iora fwijs a'uaviov, which should be translated 'words of eternal life' (as marg. of R. V.). There are indeed "few of the finer points of Greek which need more constant attention"' than the absence of the article. The word may be either definite or indefinite when the article is absent. The context and history of the phrase in question must decide. The translation of the expression into English or German is not determined by the mere 1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 315. * Prol., p. 83. » lb. THE ARTICLE (tO 'APePON) 791 absence of the Greek article. If the word is indefinite, as in Jo. 4 : 27; 6 : 68, no article, of course, occurs. But the article is ab- sent in a good many definite phrases also. It is about these that a few words further are needed. A brief sununary of the various types of anarthrous definite phrases is given.' A sane treatment of the subject occurs in Winer-Schmiedel.^ (a) With Proper Names. Here the article is used or not at the will of the writer. So t6v 'Iriaovv ov IlaOXos Ktipiaau (Ac. 19 : 13), but t6v ILavKov in verse 15. The reason is apparent ia these three examples. Words in apposition with proper names are usually anarthrous. Cf. Mt. 3 : 6; Mt. 1 : 5. See further v, (a), 3. (b) With Genitives. We have seen that the substantive may still be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so. Cf. iruXoi qSov (Mt. 16 : 18), avaaTaaii vtKpSjv (Ac. 23 : 6), x^pin dtov (1 Cor. 15 : 10), \byov deov (1 Th. 2 : 13), wor^piov Kvplov (1 Cor. 10:21), vli 5iaPo\ov (Ac. 13:10), etc' In particular, personal pronoims in the genitive were not always felt to need the article. Cf. K^iroj' iavTov (Lu. 13 : 19). See further v, {h). The LXX uses this idiom freely (Blass-Debnmner, p. 151). English can show the same construction. " Eye of newt and toe of frog. Wool of bat and tongue of dog, Adder's fork and blind worm's sting, Lizard's leg and hornet's wing." — Macbdh. (c) Prepositional Phrases. These were also often consid- ered definite enough without the article. So hv oIkco (1 Cor. 11 : 34. Cf. kv T($ oliofi, 'in the house,' Jo. 11 : 20)= 'at home.' So we say "go to bed," etc. Moulton* pertinently cites English "down town," "on 'change," "in bed," "from start to finish." This idiom is not therefore peculiar to Greek. It is hardly necessary to mention all the N. T. examples, so common is the matter. Thus with av&. observe dva fikpos (1 Cor. 14 : 27). With kivb note Lit' aypov (Mk. 15 : 21), aw' ayopas (Mk. 7:4), dx' ovpavov (Lu. 17: 29), &ir' ovpavuv (Heb. 12 : 25), otto dmroXiJs (Rev. 21 : 13), oTrd avaro\Siv (Mt. 2 : 1), air' apxrjs (1 Jo. 1 : 1), dTTO KaTaPoKrjs (Mt. 13 : 35), dir6 nepovs (Ro. 11:25), airo veKpSiv (Lu. 16 :30). Cf. Rev. 21 : 13, diri ^oppa, avb votov, aird Svv. So axpi Kaipov (Lu. 4 : 13). For Std note Sid vvktos (Ac. 5 : 19), 8m (ikcov (Lu. 4 :30), Std iikaov (17:11). » See on the whole subject K.-G., I, pp. 598 ff. » pp. i62 ff. > See extensive list in W.-Sch., p. 166 f. « ProL, p. 82. 792 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT For eh see ds ^Srjv (Ac. 2 : 27), e£s olipavdv (1 .Pet. 3 : 22), eU &.yp^v (Mk. 16:12), els daXaffcrav (Mt. 17:27), els oZkov (Mk. 3.: 20), els irpbauirov (Mk. 12 : 14), eis iikaov (Mk. 14:60), els okiav (2 Jo. 10), els Tk-Kos (Mt. 10 : 22). For ev may be noticed 'ev ohpavQ (Mt. 6 : 20), 'ev ohpavots (Heb. 12 : 23), ev b^icTOLs (Lu. 2 : 14), ev 5e^? (Heb. 1:3), kv Koaiitf (Col. 2 : 20), 'ev LypZ (Lu. 15 : 25), ^y A70P? (Lu. 7: 32), kv oIkc^ (1 Cor. 14 : 35), ev eKK\ri(Tiii,= 'a,t church' (1 Cor. 14 : 19), kv irpoa&irc^ (2 Cor. 5 : 12), kv iinkpg. (Ro. 13 : 13), kv KatpQ (Mt. 24 : 45), kv apxv (Jo. 1 : 1), iv crapd (2 Cor. 10 : 3), kv MpiyiroLs (Lu. 1 : 25), kv vvKTi (Ac. 18 : 9). Examples of k^ are k /ikpovs (1 Cor. 12 : 27), k \pvxvs (Eph. 6 : 6), k ve&rvtos (Ac. 26:4), 1^ &pxvs (Jo. 6 : 64), k Seltaj/ (Mt. 27: 38), ^? evuvvtMv (Mt. 25 : 41), e? apiarep&v (Lu. 23 : 33), k m^o-ou (2 Th. 2 : 7), k Kap8las (Ro. 6 : 17), k veKp&v (Lu. 9 : 7), k^ ovpavov (Jo. 1 : 32). For eo)s observe ews ^Sov (Mt. 11 : 23), ews ofipawO (Mt. 11 : 23), &jj Svatucv (Mt. 24 : 27), icos kcrrkpas (Ac. 28 : 23), 'iws rkXovs (1 Cor. 1:8). Examples of krl are ^l yrjs (Lu. 2 : 14), kTrl dvpais (Mt. 24 : 33), kirl irpbcToywov (Lu. 5 : 12). For Kara, see kot' 6(t>9a\fw{js (Gal. 3:1), /cara Xt;3a Kal xark xwpoi' (Ac. 27 : 12), Kara iiea7)p.^piav (Ac. 8 : 26), Kar apxas (Heb. 1 : 10), Kara irpoacoirov (Ac. 25 : 16), Kard, fikpos (Heb. 9:5), Kara a&pKa (2 Cor. 10 : 3), Kara avOpinrovs (1 Pet. 4:6). For juexpt observe m^XP' iJ^ecrovvKTlov (Ac. 20 : 7), fikxpt rk'Kovs (Heb. 3:6). For TTopd note irapA fldXocrffai' (Ac. 10 : 32), irapa iroTan6v (Ac. 16 : 13). For Trepi see irepl tiecrni^plav (Ac. 22 : 6). For irpb see irpd /tatpoO (Mt. 8 : 29). For Tppos observe irpdauTov irpds irpoacoTrov (1 Cor. 13 : 12), trp&s i(nrkpav(Lu. 24:29). For inro see fix' ohpavbv (Lu. 17 : 24). It will be noted that this usage after all is confined to a rather narrow range of words, some of which, hke ovpavbs and 777, repre- sent single objects. More of this a little later. Most of these examples have articular parallels. See also v, (/). For classic examples see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 259 f. The papyri furnish abundant parallels (Volker, Syntax, pp. 15-17) as do the inscrip- tions (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 92). {d) With Both Pbeposition and Genitive. It is not sur- prising to find no article with phrases which use both preposition THE AETICLE (tO "APOPGn) 793 and genitive like «Js eimy'Yk\u)v Beov (Ro. 1:1), Axd 6da\fMv aov (Lu. 19:42), l/c St^uip imv (Mt. 20:23), Att' dpx^s koitiwv (Mt. 24:21), 7rap& Kaipdv iiKiKias (Heb. 11:11), h xaipQ Treipacrfiov (Lu. 8:13), Aird KarajSoX^s k6<7hov (Mt. 25:34), li/ fipaxiovi airov (Lu. 1:51), etc. (e) Titles of Books or Sections. These may be without the article, being already specific enough. So £110771X101' Kara M&pKov before the Gospel in many MSS., Apxi) 'rov evajy eKlov (Mk. 1 : 1), Pip\os yevkcrecos TrjcoO Xpiarov (Mt. 1: 1), ' AiroKoKinf/is 'Itjo-oD XpuTTov (Rev. 1:1). A good example of anarthrous headings may be seen in 1 Pet. 1 f. (cf. Hort, / Peter, p. 15), where no article occurs in the whole opening sentence of five hues. The article is used quite idiomatically in 1 Peter. (/) WoEDS IN Paiks. These often do without the article. Very often, of course, the article is used. Words for day and night (as in English) frequently occur together. Cf . vvktos ml rip.epas (Mk. 5:5), iinipas Kal vvkt6s (Rev. 4:8). They occur singly also without the article, as vvkt6s (Jo. 3 : 2), fi/xipas (Rev. 21 : 25), liiaris VVKTOS (Mt. 25 : 6) . See also other pairs like ev ovpavQ eire iirl yrjs (1 Cor. 8 : 5; cf. 2 Pet. 3 : 5), warkpa ^ p.r,Tipa. (Mk. 7: 10), ffivTos Kal vtKpohs (1 Pet. 4:5). Indeed the anarthrous construc- tion is common in contrast with ^, dre, oCre, p,i]Te, ob — dXXa (cf. Ro. 6 : 14). For long lists of anarthrous words (definite and in- definite together) see Ro. 8 : 35; 1 Cor. 3 : 22; 12 : 13, 28; 2 Cor. 11 : 25 f.; 1 Pet. 1 : 2; Heb. 12 : 18, 23; 1 Tim. 3 : IQ} Cf. also Lviip k 7waiK6s (1 Cor. 11:8). Some of these usages belong to proverbs, formulae and enumerations. See Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 260. The Koivii (inscriptions and papyri) shows the idiom (Ra- dermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 94). {g) Ordinal Numerals. The article is usually absent in ex- pressions of time. The ancient idiom is here followed.^ The ordi- nal was often felt to be definite enough alone. This was true of the predicate. Cf. aT7oypa<^ Tpiiri] (Lu. 2 : 1), ^i* &pa Tplri) (Mk. 15 : 25), ^i/iseVri; (Jo. 19:14). Cf. Eph. 6 : 2; Ac. 2 : 15. But it was not confined to the predicate by any means, nor even to prepositional phrases like airb wpisTtis ruikpas (Ac. 20 : 18), cws tp'ltov ovpavov (2 Cor. 12 : 2), dx6 Teraprrjs ■qp.kpa.s (Ac. 10 : 30), wepl Sipav tKr-qv (Ac. 10 : 9), kv 'irei irevTeKaiSeKarcf (Lu. 3 : 1), his &pas kvarris (Mk. 15 : 33), etc. Cf. Ac. 23 : 23. The same construction occurs also • Cf. W.- Sch., p. 168; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 149. * Thompson, Synt., etc., p. 54; W.-Th., p. 126. See further J. Thompson, CI. Rev., 1906, p. 304; Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 261. 794 A GEAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT in SteXOovTes irpiiTt^v (jivXaKfiv Kal Sevrkpav (Ac. 12 : 10). Cf. Mk. 15 : 33, yevo/jxvris &pa.i (kTrjs. Examples with the article are not wanting. Cf. Mt. 27 : 64; Lu. 12 : 38; Ac. 10 : 40. {h) In the Predicate. As already shown in v, (i), in the predi- cate the. article is often absent. See v, {{). Cf. Beds fjv 6 \6yos (Jo. 1:1), 6 6e6i ayairri eariv (1 Jo. 4:8), etc. This is the rule unless the terms be convertible or the predicate is singled out as promi- nent. For the superlative without the article see also 1 Jo. 2 : 18. Cf. 1 Pet. 1 : 5, !;< kcrxarc^ KdipQ. {{) Abstract Words. In English the presence, not the ab- sence, of the article with abstract words needs explanation. Hence the anarthrous lists in Gal. 5 : 20 f., 22 f ., seem to us much more in harmony with our idiom than the lists with the article in Rev. 5 : 12, 13; 7: 12. In German,' however, the opposite is often true. The article is often absent in the Greek, where the German would have it. Cf. Ro. 1 : 29. See iv, (c), for discussion of article with abstract nouns. No vital difference was felt between articu- lar and anarthrous abstract nouns (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 259). (j) Qualitative Force. This is best brought out in anarthrous nouns. So el e^eariv avdpl ywaiKO. avoKvcrai (Mk. 10 : 2; cf. 1 Cor. 7 : 10), Trapaduaei, aSe\6s aSt\a\fi rrjs yvvaiKos, 6 Xpiaros Kt^aXij ttjs eKKXriarias and avros aoyr^p tov ciipxiTOs. In al yvvatK€s tols a.vSpav is anarthrous it describes the human condition, not the divine agency. But it may be questioned if this is not a purely artificial . rule, as there are evident exceptions to it. The use of irvevna with a genitive hke irvevfia Xpto-roO (Ro. 8 : 9) and with a preposition, 'eK -irveifiaTos (Jo. 3:5), accounts for some examples. An example like oiirco ^v wuevna (Jo. 7 : 39) merely illustrates the use of Trj/eC^a like Beds as substantially a proper name. As for Middleton's rule that the article is absent when the personaUty of the Holy Spirit is taught,^ that is nullified by Jo. 14 : 26, to irvevfia to ayvov, where the Holy Spirit is spoken of in distinction from the Father and the Son. Cf. also 15 : 26. See also to -Kveviia to ayiov (Lu. 3 : 22), at the baptism of Jesus. Kiipios, like Btos and Tvevixa, is often prac- tically a proper name in the N. T. In the Gospels it usually refers to God, hke the 0. T. Lord, while in the Epistles of Paul in par- ticular it nearly always means the Lord Jesus.^ It is not merely in a prepositional phrase like the common ev Kvp'it^ (1 Cor. 7: 22), or the genitive like to ipyov Kvplov (1 Cor. 16 : 10), but especially KbpLos Tjjo-oOs XpicTTos (Ph. 1:2; 2:11, etc.). In the Gospels 6 XpiaTos is usually a verbal adjective='the Anointed One,' the Messiah (Mt. 2:4; Jo. 1:41). In Mt. 1:1; Mk. 1:1, we have XpiaTos as a proper name and even in the words of Jesus as re- ported in Mk. 9 : 41, Xpio-roO, and in the address of Peter in Ac. 2 : 38, 'Iijo-oO XpufTov. It was a natural growth. In Paul's Epistles XptffTos is more frequent than 6 Xpio-Tos.* There is even a de- velopment in Paul's use of Tt/o-oOs Xpiaros and Xpurrds Tjjo-oOs. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 148. « Cf. W.-M., footnote, p. 151. 2 W.-Th., p. 122. = W.-Th., p. 124. » Expos., Oct., 1909, p. 327. " See Rose's list for Paul's use of rfpios, XpurrAs, etc., in Middleton's Doc- trine of the Gk. Art., pp. 486 ff . It is based on Textus Rec. 796 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT In his earlier Epistles the former is the rule (cf. 1 Th. 1:1), while in the later Epistles he prefers Xpio-ros 'IijcroCs (2 Tim. 1:1). Other examples of this idiom are seen in kcxt/ws, which even in the nominative is anarthrous, hfwl Kdtrfws karaipoiTai. (Gal. 6 : 14). Cf. Ro. 4:13. See also kv Koaixca (Ro. 5 : 13) and aird Kara^oX^s Kotr/wi; (Lu. 11 :^0), etc. Noakjs is a word that is used with a deal of free- dom by Paul. In general when vo/jms is anarthrous in Paul it refers to the Mosaic law, as in kTravairahn vbfu^ (Ro. 2 : 17). So kav vofiov xpdo-o-j/s (2 : 25), etc. It occurs so with prepositions, as kv vo/juf (2 : 23), and in the genitive, like k^ 'ipyuy vo/Miv (Gal. 2 : 16). Cf. kycl} dia vbjMv votuf airkdavov (2 : 19),.iit6 voiwv AXXa iwd x'^pi-v (Ro. 6 : 14). In irepov vofiov (7: 23) 1/6^10$= 'principle,' and is here indeterminate. In 2 : 14, Wvri to, firi vo/iov 'ixovra, the Mosaic law is meant, but not in iavrols eialv vbfios. It is at least problematical whether vo/ws in 2 : 13, ol aKpoaraX vd/Mv, and ol irotT/rai vofiov (note the article with the other words) means the Mosaic law and so really definite or law as law (the hearers of law, the doers of law).' X. The Indefinite Article. The Greek had no indefinite article. It would have been very easy if the absence of the article in Greek always meant that the noun was indefinite, but we have seen that this is not the case. The anarthrous noun may per se be either definite or indefinite. But the Greek made an approach to the modern indefinite article in the use of eh and tw. The later writers show an increasing use of these words as the practical equivalent of the present indefinite article. This matter has al- ready been discussed under these two words (ch. XV). An example of tk is seen in voiukos tls (Lu. 10:25). The tendency was constantly for els to displace rts, so that "in modem Greek the process is complete,"^ i.e. ils drives out ns in this sense. This use of els is seen in the papyri and need not be denied in the N. T.' As a N. T. example of €Ts='a' see els ypatifiaTeiis (Mt. 8 : 19).* The indefinite article does not appear with predicates in the modern Greek.^ Unus in the sense of the indefinite article is one of the peculiarities of the Latin Vulgate (Jacquier, Le N. T. dans I'Egl. Chr., Tome II, p. 122). • For a full and detailed discussion of the whole matter see W.-Seh., pp. 174 ff. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 96. See Thumb, Handb., p. 41. ' Moulton, ib., p. 97. Cf . Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 164 f. « Cf. for LXX use, C. and S., Sel., p. 25. 6 Thumb., Handb., p. 42. CHAPTER XVII VOICE (AIAeESIZ, Genus) I. Point of View. For a discussion of the nature of the verb see chapter VIII, Conjugation of the Verb, i and ii. (a) Distinction between Voice and Teansitiveness. See II, (&), and chapter VIII, vi, for a discussion of this point. The matter might have been well reserved for syntax, but it seemed worth while to set forth at once the fundamental facts about voice. It is here assumed, therefore, that one understands that voice per se does not deal with the question of transitive or in- transitive action. That point concerns the verb itself, not the voice. Active and middle verbs may be either transitive or in- transitive. Passive verbs may even be transitive, though usually intransitive, in one sense of "transitive." But Gildersleeve^ holds that "a transitive verb is a verb that passes over to a passive rather than one that passes over to an object." That is truer of Latin than of Greek, which, "with a lordliness that reminds one of English," makes a passive out of any kind of an active. Ter- minology in syntax is open to dispute at many points, but I see only hopeless confusion here unless voice is kept to its real mean- ing. In Kiihner-Gerth^ it is held that "the active has a double meaning," either intransitive or transitive. My point is that the voice per se has nothing to do with that question. Some verbs are intransitive, some are transitive, some are used either way. This freedom in the use of verbs increased till in the later Greek verbs that were once intransitive become transitive.' Brugmann* properly separates the question of transitive and intransitive verbs from that of voice (cf. iterative, intensive, inchoative, de- siderative verbs). Some of the intransitive uses of verbs were due to the absence of the reflexive pronoun, as in irepiijye (Mk. 6:6), awoppupavTas (Ac. 27: 43).^ The modern Greek preserves the same 1 Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 279. * Griech. Gr., p. 467. ' Bd. I, p. 89. ' Jebb.,V. and D.'s Handb., p. 318. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 357. 797 798 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT freedom in the use of transitive and intransitive verbs and has pecuharities of its own.' (&) Meaning of Voice. Voice relates the action to the sub- ject. The use of voice then is to direct attention to the subject, not to the object. Xhat concerns transitive and intransitive verbs. Stahl^ puts it crisply: "The voice of the verb describes a relation of the verb-idea to the subject." (c) Names of the Voices. Cf. chapter VIII, vi, (6). Thfe names come from Dionysius Thrax (about B.C. 30), but "he has no inkling of a middle sense,"' showing that already the middle is disappearing before the passive. The terminology is very poor. Gildersleeve* calls the fashion of the Germans "a positively in- decent nomenclature," since they call the voices genera (yivrf), "based on a fancied resemblance to the genders." We in English follow the French voix (Latin vox), found first in this sense in the Grammatica graeca nova of J. Weller (a.d. 1635).' (d) History of the Voices. See chapter VIII, vi, (c), (d), (e). Cf. also Jannaris, Historical Gr., p. 362 f.; Moulton, Prol., p. 152. In the pro-ethnic language there were probably both active and middle. Cf . Delbriick, Vergl. Syntax, Bd. II, p. 413. There was no passive as there was none in the Sanskrit, save in the present system.' The rise of the passive meaning with the use of middle and active endings was sure to bring confusion and a tendency towards simplification. It was inevitable that the three voices should go back to two. In the actual outcome, the passive, though an interloper, ousts the middle of its forms and of most of • its uses.' In the modem Greek vernacular, therefore, we find only two voices as to form, for the passive has taken over the meaning of the middle also (Thumb, Handb., p. Ill f.). In the beginning there were only active and middle. In the end we find only active and passive. (e) Help from the Sanskrit. The verb development in the Indo-Germanic languages has been more independent than that of nouns. Latin, for instance, has recast its verb-system, and it is quite difficult to compare the Greek and Latin voices. Sanskrit 1 Thumb., Handb., p. 112 f. 2 Krit.-hist. Synt. d. griech. Verbums, p. 42. * Thompson, Synt., p. 168. < Notes on Stahl's Synt. of the Gk. Verb in Am. Jour, of PhiloL, 1908, p. 275. 5 Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 233. « Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 201. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 362. VOICE (aiasesis) 799 and Greek have preserved the voices best of all. Hence the San- skrit can throw a good deal of light on the Greek voices.* (/) Defective Verbs. Not all verbs were used in all the voices. Some were used only in one, some in two, some in all three. Then again, some verbs had one voice in one tense, another voice in another tense. This is just like the Sanskrit,^ and just what one would expect from a living language in contrast with an artificial one. Brugmann,^ indeed, divides verbs, as to voices, according to this principle (those with active only, middle only, with both, etc.). In the N.T. Blass {Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 180) finds the same general use of the voices as in the older Greek, the same difficulty in differ- entiating the voices, and the same "arbitrariness" in the use of individual verbs. But much of this difficulty is due to coming at the matter with preconceived rules. Blass' treatment of the voices is quite imsatisfactory. Cf . further for this matter, chapter VIII, VI, (d). II. The Active Voice (8id8€a, (Jo. 19 : 22) is transitive. (e) The Active as CAUSATrvE. But this usage is not due to the voice, and is, besides, common to all languages.^ Cf . the Hebrew HipMl conjugation. Viteau (" Essai sur la Syntaxe des Voix dans le Grec du N. T.," Revue de Philologie, 1894, p. 2) says that the Greek voices would not be strange to a Jew who was used to the seven conjugations of the Hebrew verb. But the point is not strictly parallel. In one sense this idiom is due to the fact that what one does through another he does himself.' Cf. rdv ijXtov airqv drar^XXei (Mt. 5 : 45), strictly causative. But in Jo. 19 : 1, (ka^ev 6 IltXaTos t6v 'Iriaovv Kal ifUKrHycoaev, the other kind of causa- tive occurs. So also with T€pikT€fiev (Ac. 16 : 3). There was in- deed a remarkable increase in the LXX in the niunber of verbs used in the causative sense, many of which had been usually in- transitive. Cf. PatTiK&xa, which occurs 36 times in the causative sense in the LXX (cf. Judg. 9 : 6).* The Hebrew Hiphil is partly 1 Prol., p. 154. s Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 359. » Gildersleeve, Synt. of CI. Gk., p. 63. < C. and S., Sel., p. 76, 802 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT responsible for this increase.' See further verbs in -now, like KaraSovKoo} (Gal. 2:4). (/) Active with Reflexives. Certainly there is nothing unusual in this construction. Cf. cruaov ceavrdv (Mk. 15 : 30), e^aXev iavTov (Jo. 21:8), vpoaexere iavrots (Lu. 17:3). Cf. Jo. 21 : 18. Blass" indeed says that the "active for middle" occurs. One hesitates to subscribe to that dictum. It is indeed true that the use of the reflexive pronoun with the active brings out much more sharply the reflexive relation than the mere middle. It is not necessary to say that KaradovXol (2 Cor. 11 : 20) is used "for" the middle. It is true that vretpaf w in the Koivri supplants the Attic ireipaonai, but this is not due to a confusion of voice. With vrotecd the N. T. does show a number of examples of the active where the middle was more common in the Attic, though the N. T. gen- erally has TOLeZcrdai ava^oKi]v, Xiyyov, iropelav, awovSijv. And the IVJSS. vary greatly between active and middle of Troieco with eKSkri- v\ka(Te(xde (12 : 15). Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 157. {g) Impebsonal Active. Some impersonal verbs occur in the active. Cf. T-epikx^i. kv rg 7pa0g (1 Pet. 2:6), and 'efipe^ep (Jas. 5:17). (h) Infinitives. These do not always reflect the force of the voice, especially in the "epexegetic" use,' like our English "fair to see," "good to eat." Cf. KpidijvaL and Xa^iiv, Mt. 5 : 40. The infinitive has no voice in Sanskrit. See further under Infinitive (ch. XX, Verbal Nouns). {{) Active Verbs as Passives of Other Verbs.* Thus aTro- Ovrja-KO} is more common than the passive of airoKTelvu (-KTkvvoi), though examples of this passive occur in the N. T. (Rev. 6:11, etc.). W. H. read kokSs txei in Mt. 17:15 rather than kmus iraax^i (cf. iroiw KaK&s, etc.). So kxt^Tw (Ac. 27: 17, 26, 29) occurs 1 Thack., Gr. of the O. T. in Gk., p. 24. ' Cf. Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 63. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 183. * Thompson, Synt., p. 172. VOICE (aiagesis) 803 as passive of k/3aXX&), but note kjSaXXeo-flat in Mt. 8 : 12. Cf. Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 75. In 1 Cor. 11 : 18 dKoiiw has the classic turn 'I am told.' But in 5 : 1 A/co6eTat the passive itself occurs in the sense ' It is reported.' But in all such cases the distinction between the verbs is not really lost. in. The Middle Voice (SidGetris ^a-r\). (a) Origin op the Middle. See chapter VIII, vi, (c), for the uncertainty as to the priority of active and middle. That ques- tion is an open one and must be left open. Both active and middle appear in Sanskrit and in Homer. The prehistoric situation is purely speculative. Logically the active would seem to come first, though the difference in form may be due to variation in sound (ablaut). ^ Probably at first there was neither active nor middle, the distinction being a development. In the Sanskrit^ we meet a full system of both active and middle forms for all the tenses (not all the modes), the participle, however, having only a partial system and the infinitive no voice at all. But each verb has its own development and that was by no means uniform. Some had a very limited use as to voice, tense and mode. In Homer indeed the middle is rather more common than in later Greek.' It is only in the Sanskrit, Zend (Old Persian), Greek and Gothic that the middle is kept as a distinct voice.* In the Gothic only remnants of the middle are found,^ while in Latin the middle as a separate voice disappears.* It is very difficult to run a parallel between the Latin and Greek voices. But there is a considerable remnant of Latin middles like miror, sequor, utor (cf . Draeger, Hist. Syntax, pp. 145 ff.). The final disappearance of the Greek future and aorist middle before the passive is well sketched by Jannaris.' But at first we are not to think of the passive at all, that inter- loper that finally drove the middle out of use. (6) Meaning of the Middle. It is urged that the term "middle" is good because the voice in meaning stands between the active and the passive.* But, unfortunately for that idea, the middle is older than the passive. It is true that the passive arose out of the middle and that the middle marks a step towards 1 Moulton, Prol., p. 152. ^ Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 200. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 7. * Of. O. Hoffmann, Das Prasens der indoger. Grundspr., 1889, p. 25. In the Bantu language Mr. Dan Crawford finds 16 voices (reflexive, reciprocal, intensive, etc., all having special forms). 5 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 406. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 362 f. » lb., p. 405. . . « Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 57. 804 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the passive. The passive idea existed before there was a sepa- rate passive form, a thing never true of all tenses and all verbs. The Hebrew Hithpael conjugation is somewhat parallel,* but not wholly so. The only difference between the active and middle voices is that the middle calls especial attention to the subject. In the active voice the subject is merely acting; in the middle the subject is acting in relation to himself somehow. What this pre- cise relation is the middle voice does not say. That must come out of the context or from the significance of the verb itself. Gilder- sleeve ^ is clearly right in holding that the interpretation of the difference between active and middle is in many cases more lexical than grammatical.- "The middle adds a subjective ele- ment."' Sometimes the variation from the active is too minute for translation into English. This "word for one's self" is often very difficult of translation, and we must not fall into the error of explaining the force of the middle by the English translation. (c) Often Difference from Active Acute. As examples note: alphta, 'I take'; alpkoiMi, 'I take to myself' ('choose'); avafiifivrj- (7K01, 'I remind'; a.vaiuiJiviiaKoiJi,ai., 'I remind myself' ('remember'); dx^xw, 'I hold off'; airixofiai; 'I hold myself off' ('abstain'); airoSiSuixi, 'I give back'; dxoSiSojuot, 'I give back of my own' ('sell'); airdWviiL, 'I destroy' ; ciTroXXu/xot, 'I perish'; axTw, 'I fasten'; axTo/iat, 'I touch'; S-pxca, 'I rule'; apxoimi., 'I begin'; /JouXeuto, 'I counsel'; fiov\tiop.ai, 'I take coimsel' ('deliberate'); yaixiu, 'I marry' ('bridegroom'), yafiiofiat. ('bride'); yevco, 'I give to taste'; yeio/iai, 'I taste'; ypoAJxa, 'I enrol'; ypa^ofiai 'I indict' (but 'enrol one's self in Lu. 2:5); davei^co, 'I lend'; Savd^ofiai, 'I borrow'; SiSaaKu, 'I teach'; Maamtiai, 'I get taught'; Icrytui, 'I place'; iarap.ai, 'I stand'; Xavdavu, '1 escape notice'; Xavdavoiiai, 'I forget'; tiiadbu, 'I let,' fuadoofuu, 'I hire'; iravui, 'I make to cease'; jraioimi, 'I cease'; ireiBa'i.vonai). Cf. Hatzidakis, Einl., pp. 201 if.; Thompson, Syntax, p. 161. (/) Direct Middle. It is necessary to discuss the various uses of the middle, but the divisions made by the grammarians are more or less arbitrary and unsatisfactory. They are followed here merely for convenience. The middle voice is very broad in its scope and no one word, not even reflexive, covers all the ground. It is essen- tially the voice of personal interest somewhat like the dative case. Grosse {Beitrage zur Syntax des griechischen Mediums und Passi- vums, 1891, p. 4) denies that the reflexive is the original use of the middle. But Rutherford (First Gk. Syntax, 1890, p. 74), derives both passive and middle out of the reflexive use. For the various uses of the middle in Homer, who is specially fond of this voice, see Monro, Homeric Gr., p. 7. But, curiously, Monro mentions "the Intransitive use" as one of the separate idioms of the middle. Nearly every grammarian^ has his own division of these "uses" of the middle, none of which the Greeks themselves had. Gildersleeve' is justly impatient with this overrefinement and observes that "one must needs fall back on the way of the lan- guage," which "is capricious in such matters." It is needless to take up philosophical abstractions like "subjective" and "ob- jective." It is not possible to tell whether the direct middle (reflexive middle) was the original use of the voice or not. The direct middle is comparatively rare in Homer and in the early Greek generally.^ It began in the Koivi} to disappear, before the active and the reflexive pronoun (cf. N. T.), but the direct middle • Prol., p. 158 f. He cites ako awaptu. Xbyov, B.U. 775 (ii/A.D.). But the pap. use the middle also. 2 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 117; Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 459 £f.; K.-G., Bd. I, pp. 100 ff.; Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., pp. 49 ff. > Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 278. < Mom'o, Horn. Gr., p. 7. VOICE (aiagesis) 807 revived again as the indirect middle disappeared before the passive ■ because of "its subtle meaning."' Hence in Neo-Hellenic "al- most every transitive verb, if active, admits of a direct middle."* In modern Greek this direct reflexive is nearly the sole use of the middle.' The modem Greek has no distinction in forms between middle and passive, but the middle signification survives. Thus \ov^oimi means 'I bathe myself' (Thiunb, Handb., pp. Ill, 114). Thumb finds the direct reflexive use conunon. Moulton^ practi- cally confines this idiom in the N. T. to dx^T^aro (Mt. 27: 5), 'he hanged himself,' and even here Moulton suggests 'choked' as a truer English translation. This is indeed "a survival from clas- sical Greek," but there seem to be other N. T. examples also. The example cited by Winer' from Jo. 8 : 59 (cf. also 12 : 36), hph^t), is passive, as Moulton^ points out. But in 5s \oviv (Eph. 4 : 2) is also the direct middle, 'holding yourselves back from one an- 1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 360. « lb. 2 lb. ' W.-Th., p. 253. » Moulton, ProL, p. 156. « Prol., p. 156. 808 A GRAMMAE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT other.' The same thing is true of &irix^adat elScdKoBiruv (Ac. 15 : 29). In 1 Pet. 6: 5 TaTtLvtxjjpoahvriv iyKonfiiicraade, 'gird your- selves with humility,' we may have the same idiom. In Ac. 18 : 5, avveixeTo tQ \6yta8ai (2 : 1) is passive. In Mt. 5 :42 SavUrarrdai, is 'to have money lent' ('to borrow'). Miadbxratrdai (Mt. 20 : 1) is 'to let out for wages' ('to hire'). In 1 Cor. 11 : 6, utipaadui, KtipaaBai fi ^vpaadai (or ^{ipaadai), we find the permissive middle. Cf. ^vpii- (Tovrai Trjv Ke4>a\riv (Ac. 21 : 24). But airoKo^ovrai (Gal. 5 : 12) is causative, 'have themselves castrated' (cf. Deut. 23 : 1), So aire- 'Koumade, according to text of Rev. V. (1 Cor. 6 : 11). In Rev. 3 : 5 ireptjSaXelTai comes rather close to the passive sense. See (/) above. In Lu. 14 : 18, 19, ?xe Me irapTjTriiikvov, we have a con- struction more Uke modern EngUsh. The causative idea in dva- Kt(j)akaii)craa6ai to, iravra iv t<3 Xpiar^ (Eph. 1 : 10) is not due to the voice, but to the verb itself (Sea). Qi) Indirect Middle. In the flourishing period of the language this was by far the most frequent use, but it finally faded before the active and the intensive (reflexive) pronoun or the passive.^ In 1 Cor. 15 : 28, hrorayiiaerai, the passive may bear the middle force (Findlay, Expos. Gr. T., in loco). But in general the indirect middle is abundant and free in the N. T. In the modem Greek Thumb gives no instances of the indirect middle. The precise shade of the resultant meaning varies very greatly. The subject is represented as doing something for, to or by himself. Often the mere pronoun is sufficient translation. Each word and its context must determine the result. Thus in Heb. 9 : 12, aioiviav XbrpcocLV ebpap.evos, Jesus is represented as having found eternal redemption by himself. He foimd the way. In Mt. 16 : 22, irpoaKa^btitvos avTov, 'Peter takes Jesus to himself.' In Mk. 9 : 8, xept/SXe^a/tewi, 'the disciples themselves suddenly looking round.' In Lu. 8 : 27, ovK kvediaaro tuariov, 'did not put a garment on himself.' In 8 : 52, iKOTTTovTo avT-fjv, the word has really changed meaning, 'they beat themselves for grief as to her' ('bewailed her'), actually a direct middle. "We have, in fact, to vary the exact relation of the re- flexive perpetually if we are to represent the middle in the form ap- propriate to the particular example." ^ That is precisely the case. So irpo(TKa\eaaixtvo% (Mt. 10 : 1) represents Jesus as calling the dis- ciples to himself. Cf. eio-KaXoCjuai (Ac. 10 : 23). So -irpooKan^aveade (Ro. 15 : 7; cf. also irpoaeKafieTo) is 'take to yourselves.' Kaitrapa imKoSovnai (Ac. 25 : 11) is ' I call upon Csesar in my behalf.' Aipijao- ' Thompson, Synt., p. 162. « Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 360, 362. ' Moultonj Prol., p. 157. 810 A GBAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT /uai (Ph. 1 : 22) is 'I take for myself ('choose'), while KTiJo-ijo-ee (Mt. 10 : 9), though only in the middle, means 'provide for yourselves' ('procure'). In crwacrantvos rifv ^laxaipav (Mk. 14 : 47), the possessive is probably sufficient, 'drawing his own sword' (cf. airkairaaev — avTov in Mt. 26 : 51). 'EKTiva^aiJxvos to. tfiaTui (Ac. 18 : 6) is rather 'shaking out his clothes from himself,' while awevbl/aTo ras x^'^poLS (Mt. 27 : 24) is probably 'he himself washed his hands.' In A.-iroieettrde aiirbv (Ac. 13 :46; cf. Ro. 11: 1) the idea is 'ye push it away from yourselves' ('reject'). 'kir'^ocBe (Ac. 5 : 8). is 'ye gave away for your own interest' ('sold'). 'Evo<7i(raTo (Ac. 5 : 2) means ' kept back for himself.' In ein5ei.KvviJi.evai x'tcotos (Ac. 9 : 39) the women were 'showing garments belonging to themselves.' Note the fulness of meaning in irepieTroviiaaTo (Ac 20 : 28). Cf. irapa- Ttipetade (Gal. 4 : 10), diretxa/iijj' (2 Cor. 4:2), kKTpkTrotiaL (1 Tim. 6 : 20). In Stefcbo-aro (Jo. 21 : 7) we have 'he girded roimd himself.' Ua.paLTi)crrjade (Heb. 12 : 25) is 'beg off from yourselves' ('reject'). In Col. 4 : 5, rdv Kaipbv k^ayopa^onevoi, we have ' buying the oppor- tunity for yourselves out of the open market.' ' Airodhfievoi (Heb. 12 : 1) is 'laying aside from yourselves every weight.' In k^ekk^aro (Lu. 10 : 42) we have 'she selected for herself ('chose'). 'Eve- BiSiicTKeTo (Lu. 16 : 19) is 'he put clothes on himself,' though this may be direct middle with accusative of thing added. KoTOTrrpt- ^bjxevoi (2 Cor. 3 : 18) is probably 'beholding for ourselves in a mirror.' In Ro. 3 : 25, &v TpoWero 6 debs, note that it was God's own Son whom he set forth. This free indirect reflexive use came to be the typical middle in the flourishing period of the Greek language. No fixed rule can be laid down for the translation of this or any other use of the middle. Even "deponents" like xpaofiac may be indirect middles. This word from XPV ('neces- sity') means ' I make for myself what is necessary with something' (Moulton, Prol., p. 158). An interesting group of middles occurs in Ac. 24 : 22—25, avePoKero, biayviiaoiiaL, diara^aijxvos, irapayevbuevos, IxeTefir'ejxil/aTo, 5La\eyop.kvov, iropeiiov, fieTaKokkaoiuu. These are not all " indirect" middles, as is obvious. Cf . also iKffa\}J>iJi,evoi. (Ac. 27 : 38) and TTpoa-eKa^eTo (Ro. 14 : 3). It is interesting to note the difference between irapeTxe in Ac. 16 : 16 (the damsel who furnished gain for her masters) and irapeixero in Ac. 19 : 24 (Demetrius who furnished gain for his craftsmen and himself). So ireWco is 'to exercise suasion,' and weiBopai 'to admit suasion to one's self (Moulton, Prol., p. 158). {i) Reciprocal Middle. Since eavrSiv was used in the recip- rocal sense, it was natural for the middle to fall in with this idiom. VOICE (AueEzis) 811 Thus awePovkeiaavTo (Mt. 26 :4), 'they counselled with one an- other,' does not differ radically from i^eXkyovro (Lu. 14 : 7), 'they selected the first seats for themselves." So also ipovKevaavTo (Jo. 12:10), avverkSeiVTO (9:22), cruvavafiiyvvcdai, (1 Cor. 5:9), Kpl- vtffdai (6:1), ifmxovTo (Jo. 6:52), SiaXeyontvos (Ac. 19:8. In Mk. 9 : 34, irpos dXX^Xous diekkx^ijaav, we have passive deponent with reciprocal pronoim).^ The reciprocal middle survives in modern Greek (Thiunb, Handb., p. 114). For classic examples see Gil- dersleeve, Syntax, p. 66. (j) Redundant Middle. Here the pronoun and the middle both occur. This idiom is foimd as early as Homer and indicates a dimness in the force of the middle on the part of the speaker. "The effect is artificial" according to Thompson.' Gildersleeve {Syntax, p. 68) sees in this idiom the effort to bring out more clearly the -reflexive force of the middle. Moulton {Prol., p. 162) cites from the papyri raurij' ahiAcerai, Tb.P. 35 (ii/s.c). This redundance probably began very naturally. Thus in Ac. 7 : 58, tirkBeiiTo rk ifiaTLa aiiTcav, the personal pronoim is added, not the reflexive. So in {nrdSriaat. to. (rav8a\ia aov and irepcffaXov rd tiiariov cov (12 : 8) and a.Xei\^at cov rriv Ke^aX'^f (Mt. 6 : 17). Cf. vLirTovrai Tos xetpas (Mt. 15 : 2) without the pronovm. So in Lu. 14 : 1, ml avTol rjaav irapaTiipohtmioi, the avrol wavers between mere personal and intensive. Cf. the active m Eph. 5 : 26, wapaariiffxi airds iavru. But in Jo. 19 : 24 the LXX quotation is given as Ste/jiepiaavTo — iavTcits, while in Mt. 27 : 35 it is merely Siefiepiaavro. Note also ceavrdv Tapexofievos (Tit. 2 : 7) and iroiovfiat — l/iauriS (Ac. 20 : 24). See also kveOp'ej/aTo avTov eavr^ eis vlov (Ac. 7 : 21) and 1 Tim. 3 : 13 iavTots wepnroutvvTaL. Most of the examples, however, in the N. T. occur with verbs which are not foimd in the active. Cf . Lu. 9 : 23 apvriaaadoi iavrov, Ac. 24 : 10 to. irepl kfiavTov cnroKoyov/Jiai, 26 : 2 fjyrjiML kiiavTov, Ph. 3 : 12 kpxwTov oBttco XoYifoyuai. {k) Dynamic (Deponent) Middle. "I would fain call the drip-pan middle, the TavdeKTtis middle, the middle that is put at the bottom to catch the drippings of the other uses."^ And this is the most difficult use of the middle to explain. Some writers distinguish between the dynamic and the deponent. Others, like Thompson,^ make the dynamic include the deponent. The name "deponent" is very unsatisfactory. It is used to mean the laying > Moulton, Prol., p. 157. 2 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 361. ^ Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 166. * Gildersleeve, Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 277. ' Synt., p. 161. 812 A GRAMMAE OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT aside of the active form in the case of verbs that have no active voice. But, these verbs in most cases never had an active voice. Moulton^ is clearly right in his contention that the term in reality appUes as well to active verbs that have no middle as to middle verbs that have no active. The term is usually applied to both middles and passives that have no active (Clyde, Gk. Syntax, p. 61). Others'* use the term for middle verbs that have no longer a reflexive idea. But "deponent" is a very poor definition. Nor is the word "dynamic" much better. Winer's remark' is not very lucid: "From Middle verbs are to be carefully distinguished Deponents." They are indeed either transitive or intransitive, but some are in the middle voice, others passive. But the point about all the "dynamic" middles is that it is hard to see the dis- tinctive force of the voice. The question is raised whether these verbs have lost the middle idea or never had it. "Like the rest of us, Stahl has to go into bankruptcy," Gildersleeve^ remarks on Stahl's attempt to explain this use of the middle. Moulton {Prol., p. 158) thinks that in these verbs "it is useless to exercise our in- genuity on interpreting the middle, for the development never progressed beyond the rudimentary stage." But these verbs per- sist in the modem Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 113). It is possible that the Greeks were more sensitive to the exact force of this middle than we are, just as they used the intensive particles so freely. Where guessing is all that we can do, is it not clear that these "dynamic" middles represent the original verb before the distinction was drawn between active and middle? The French says je m'apergois, 'I perceive.' The intensive force of this middle is partially seen in verbs of mental action which are so common in Greek, like aicdavonaL (Lu. 9 : 45), apvkoiJ.ai, (Lu. 12 : 9), TrpoaiTiaofuu (Ro. 3 : 9), affirdfoMoi (Ac. 25 : 13), StajSe/SatoCjuat (Tit. 3 : 8), Kara- 'KafiPavofuu (Ac. 4 : 13, but note KaraXa/i/Sdcw in the same sense in Ph. 3 : 12), ^craXoAiat (Heb. 11 : 22), 'ewCKavdkvonai (Mt. 16 : 5), €i5xoMai (Ro. 9 : 3), riykonat, (Ph. 3 : 8), Xoyi^onaL (Ph. 4 : 8), naivopai (Ac. 26 : 25), nkij4>oiiai. (Ro. 9 : 19), (l>ei8ofiai (Ro. 8 : 32). I imagine that the personal interest of the subject is not so difficult to recog- nise in such verbs, especially since in a word like KaToKanfiavonai it is not "deponent," but occurs also in the active. The papyri vary,^ as does the N. T. in the use of ttoioujuoi and xoiw with nomis. Thus we have avfi^oUKiov iroiriaavTes (Mk. 15 : 1), but iJ,velav iroioii- » Prol., p. 153. * Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 278. » Thompson, Synt., p. 161. » Moulton, Prol., p. 159. » W.-Th., p. 258. VOICE (aiagezis) 813 fievos (Eph. 1 : 16). There is the utmost freedom in the matter in the N. T. Not all the "deponents" of mental action are middles in the aorist. Cf. fioiiXofmi, kvdviiiofiat,, kirifieXkonai, evXa^kofiai. These are commonly called passive deponents in the present as well as in the aorist and future, but the matter is not clear by any means. At any rate there are middle verbs which are very hard to explain, like yivoiiai (Mt. 8 : 26), aXXo/mt (Jo. 4 : 14), a.i.Kvioiiai (Ro. 16 : 19), haiMpTvpoiMi, (Ac. 2:40), 'epxofiai- (Jo. 1:39), epya^onai (Mt. 25: 16), KoBk^oiiai. (Mt. 26 : 55), mdrifiai. (Mt. 13 : 1), (rvvkToixai (Ac. 20 : 4; cf. sequor). Ketnai is probably passive. It is not hard to see the reflexive idea in SixofMi (Mt. 10 : 14). Uepi^XeTo/iai is always middle in the N. T. (cf. Mk. 3:5), accenting the movement of»the eyes or concern expressed in the look. There are also passive deponents that correspond to this list that really do not seem to be passive in idea, like PotiKonai, Sbvapai, (fxyfiiofmi. Some of these verbs have both middle and passive forms, like yivofiai. {^ivero, kyeviidrip), Skxofiai, (iSi^aro, kSkxdriv). Not all of these middle "de- ponents" have middle forms in all tenses. Cf. yiyova, Jjl\Bov, i\ri\vBa, 'i\adov. Then, again, some verbs have the deponent or dynamic middle only in the future, like 8^o/«it, though Homer is fond of the middle forms of this verb.^ But the aorist and future middle call for special treatment. (0 MmDLE Future, though Active Present. Some verbs, active in the other tenses, have the future only in the middle. No real explanation of this phenomenon is known. For a list see chapter VIII, vi, (d). -Some of them are really separate verb- roots, as dpa.03, o^o/iai; kcrdioi, (j)a.yop,ai. Others represent a special variation of the future form, like 6.TodavoviJ.ai, weaoviiai., ttIohcu, but both KofiiaofML and KOfiLovp,ai.. Others are regular enough, like kKoiiaofiai, —prjaonai, yvixroixai, iaofiai, davnh.cojw.L, Tt^opai, tj>e{j^oitai. In other instances the old classic middle has vanished in the N. T. before the active future, as in d^uapn^o-co, wwavTiiaiii, apraaas, ye\6,(r Moulton, Prol., p. 155. Cf. Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 42. 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 363 f. s Hatz., Einl., pp. 194 ff. Cf. Thumb, HeUen., p. 127. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 158 f. 6 lb., p. 159. 8 Lang, of the N. T., p. 95. ' Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, pp. 121 £f. VOICE (aiagesis) 815 was liable to be used in the passive sense.' As is well known in Homer, the future passive forms do not occur except two, Hiyiia-ecdai. and Sariaeat. (Stahl, Syntax, p. 66), and the distinction between aorist middle and aorist passive is indistinct. Indeed, strictly speaking, there was no passive voice as to form in Greek, as there was none in the original Indo-Germanic speech.* The passive sense was developed in various languages in different ways. This sense may be due to verbs of state, but Greek fell upon various devices like the active of some verbs (kokcos exco, 7ra(rx£o), the mere use of the middle, the development of two special tenses by the use of active endings (aorist) and middle (future) with a special suffix. In Homer' kffl^ijixriv, kKraixriv, iaxdmv occur as pa,ssives just hke jSAXXo/tot, exo/iat. "Even in Attic kax^l^^vv appears as a passive, eaxedvp being late."* In Homer also the distinctive aorist passive form sometimes has practically the active or middle signification.* This much of repetition is necessary to get the position of the passive clearly before us. It is really no voice at all in form as compared with the active and middle. Cf . French je me trouve and the use of reflexive pronouns in English. (&) Significance of the Passive. The subject is represented as the recipient of the action. He is acted upon. The name "passive" comes from patior (cf. xdirxw vir6 in Mt. 17:12). ' ATroKTav6ijvaL (Mk. 9 : 31) occurs as well as iirodviiaKeLv. The use of TTtpiKeLfiaL as the transitive passive (Ac. 28 : 20) of TtpiTidriiii, is somewhat different. The idea of having an experience is very vague and allows wide liberty. The point to note is that at first this idea had no distinctive form for its expression. Only the context and the force of the verb itself could make it clear. The future passive, being built upon the earher aorist passive, reflects the Aktionsart of the aorist.* (c) With Intransitive or Transitive Verbs. "Theoret- ically the passive ought to be formed from transitive verbs only with an accusative object."' But Greek follows no such narrow rule. That is an artificial rule of the Latin which Greek knows nothing about.* Cf. KarriyopeLTaL ixA tSiv 'lovSaiuv (Ac. 22 : 30). Other N. T. examples are SiaKovrfirjvai. (Mk. 10 : 45), krYKoketaOai (Ac. ' Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. 201, 275. » Thompson, Synt., p. 162. ' Qf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 464. ■ * Gildersleeve, Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 278. » Sterrett, The Dial, of Hom., N. 27. « Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 464. ' Gildersleeve, Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 279. 8 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 359. 816 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 19:40), ivapiaTticdai (Heb. 13:16), Kareyvuaiikvos (Gal. 2:11), naprvpelcdai, (Ac. 6:3), xPWiTtfeoreai (Mt. 2 : 12). Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 185) notes that "only in Lu. 2 : 26 do we have ^v avTc^ KexprilJMTurnkvov." The passive is used with both active and middle verbs. Thus we have from Xoyi^ofiai, both i'KoyiffaiJ.riv and 'tKoyiaQriv. Cf. eyevofiriv and kyeviidrjv from jlvotiai. (d) The Passive Usually Intransitive. But it is not neces- sarily so. AiSao-KO), for instance, is transitive in the passive, os k8i.8ax6vrt (2 Th. 2: 15), and note koltvxvi^vos rriv dSov (Ac. 18:25). See also 1 Cor. 9 : 17; Lu. 7 : 25; 9 : 25; Gal. 2 : 7. Transitive passives are usually verbs that in the active have two accusatives or an accusative of the thing with the person in the dative or ab- lative. This accusative of the thing is retained in the passive. Cf. kiTLffTiWrjcrav to. Xoyta tov deov (Ro. 3:2), irepiPePXrifihovs aroXas \evKas (Rev. 7:9). For full list see "Accusative" in chapter XI, Cases. Cf. also ttjc oKvaw Taiirriv Trepkei/tat (Ac. 28 : 20). The transitive passive "deponents," like uri 4>oPT]drJTe aiirom (Mt. 10 : 26), call for special discussion a little later. Certainly there is no "passive" sense in iropevdrjvai,. The vernacular^ in later times preferred the active to passive. Cf. alTomiv (Lu. 12 : 20) as a N. T. illustration. In ayvlerdriTi. (Ac. 21 : 24) the passive appar- ently has the force of 'let' or 'get' (cf. the causative middle). Cf. also irepiTefivricTde (Gal. 5:2).'' It is possible so to regard aSiKeiade and airoaTepeiaBe (1 Cor. 6 : 6 f.). Sometimes, indeed, it is difficult to tell whether a verb is middle or passive. Cf . ttuxoI eiayye- Xtfoj/Tai (Mt. 11:5), Trpoex6iJ.eea (Ro. 3:9), ivSvvaiwvade.(El>^- 6: 10). Indeed, as already said, in all the Greek tenses save the aorist and the future it is always an- open question whether we have middle or passive. "The dividing-line is a fine one at best" (Moulton, Prol., p. 162). Only the context and the verb-idea can decide. So with kydpo/iai (Mt, 27:63), irepie Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 359. s Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 185. » Seymour, The Horn. Dial., p. 74. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 464. VOICE (AueEzis) 817 bottom.* Out of this intransitive aorist active (cf. dTroXwXo) grew the so-called second aorist passive forms (-^v) with active endings. We have kp6/37/j' (Jo. 8 : 59) from the transitive Kpimrui (cf . karlCKrtv from ariXSw, etc.) and exapriv (Jo. 14:28) from the intransitive xalpu. It is probable that riyepdri sometimes (as in Mk. 16 : 6) is merely intransitive, not passive, in idea. Moulton (ProL, p. 163) says "often." In 1 Cor. 15: 15 f., etc., the true passive "empha- sizes the action of God." But ixeTayrjcrav (Ro. 10 : 3) is more likely passive in sense, like kKoifi^driv (1 Th. 4 : 14), 'was put to sleep' (Moulton, Prol., p. 162). Moulton quotes from the papjrri "a purely middle use of Koitnfirjvai, 'fell asleep'," fivUa ftfieWov Koifirid^vai 'eypa\l/a, Ch.P. 3 (iii/s.c). He finds a "clear passive" in Iva tA, irpoPara kei Koifxridiji., F.P. 110 (i/A.D.), but eKoWi)Bii] (Lu. 15 : 15) can be explained as passive or middle in sense. In a few verbs (eo-Tiyf, k(TT&9riv) a distinction was developed.'' W. F. Moulton thinks (Winer-M., p. 315, n. 5) that "a faint passive force" may be ob- served in aToSrjvai in the N. T., but hardly in Mk. 3 : 24. Cf . also intransitive aradriaofiaL in Mt. 12 : 25, 46. 'EaradriKa in modem Greek is aorist passive for (rrkKta, 'stand,' and karridriKd for ariivu, 'place' (Thumb, Handb., p. 145). The correct text (W. H.) in Ac. 21 : 3 is ava4>a.vavTes ttiv Kiirpov (active), not ava4>avkvTei (pas- sive). But still some MSS. do have this transitive second aorist passive participle. If one keeps in mind the origin of this aorist passive form (from the active), he may be the less surprised to find it also transitive like the active. Already in Homer this was true. The so-called passive "deponents," verbs which had no active, formed the aorist with the passive form. But they were not always intransitive. Some of them were so, hke iropebop.a.i (Mt. 8 : 9), liera/jik'Sofmi. (Mt. 27:3), 5{)vap,ai (Mt. 17:16), but most of them are really transitive. They probably represent a survival of the old active origin of the aorist passive, forms.' As examples of the transitive passive deponents note k^ovKiiBri (Mt. 1 : 19), eSeiidTj (Lu. 5:12), 'tvBvp.T]BkvTos (Mt. 1:20), 'tmiieMtdri (Lu. 10:34), kcjMPridri (Mt. 14:5). These passive aorists have precisely the construc- tion that the middle or active would have so far as case is concerned. The distinctive passive sense is absent. Some of the "deponents" have both a middle and a passive aorist with a dis- tinct passive sense. Thus note the middle and passive voices side 1 Giles, Comp. PhiloL, p. 410; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 465. " Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 181. ' See ch. VIII, vi, (e), for list of these N. T. passive aorista. 818 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by side in &pvria6.fievos and ifirapvriBriaeTat. (Lu. 12 : 9). It so happens that this context is full of passive forms. Some of them in the strict passive sense, like kiri.avvax6ei.(ru)v (12 : 1), cvyKeKaKvufihov karlv o oi)K aTroKa\v6ria-tTai. (12 : 2), yvoia-diiaeTai (12 : 2), aKowdijaeTai and KripvxOriofiucB€ (12:7). Cf. also airoSk^aaOai (Ac. 18 : 27) and TrapeSexBrjcav (15 : 4), where the voices are distinguished, dikaaffOai rois a,vaKeip.kvovs (Mt. 22 : 11) and ■Kpb% t6 deadijvat. aiirols (Mt. 6:1), 'koyiaafievos (Heb. 11 : 19) and iXoyiadf] (Lu. 22:37), laaaro (Lu. 9:42) and iaBri (Mt. 8:13), kpiiaaTo (Col. 1 : 13) and ipvadriv (2 Tim. 4 : 17), kxapimro (Lu. 7: 21) and xa-pi-fB^jvai (Ac. 3 : 14). One may note also irap-grTiaavTo (Heb. 12 : 19) and ext m« Trapurrinhov (Lu. 14 : 19, perfect passive) ; k^eXk^aro (Mk. 13 : 20), but 6 kK\e\eyp.kvos (Lu. 9 :35); Kopeadhres Tpoa.vi}(TeraL (Mt. 24 : 30), iTOTay'{i6^aofia.i coi (Ac. 26 : 16) the passive voice is transitive and even causative (cf. Is. 1 : 12). Cf. the examples of reflexive passives in the LXX (Conybeare and Stock, Sel., p. 76), like o00r;Ti='show thyself' (1 ' Gildersleeve, ib., p. 73 f. Cf. Haitel, AbriC der Gr. d. horn, und herod. Dial, 1888, p. 40. 2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 463 f. » Moulton, Prol., p. 162. < Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 61; Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 171. s a. Thumb, Handb., pp. 115, 125. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 363. ' Movdton, Prol., p. 163. Cf ., for the LXX, Helbing, Gr., p. 98. 820 A GEAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Ki. 18: 1). It is possible, of course, for &v to be attracted to the case of ToiiTup from oh ('in which,' 'wherein'). Then 6 Weymouth, On Rendering into Eng. of the Gk. Aorist and Perf., 1894, p. 11. * Cf. Broadus, Comm. on Matthew, p. 54 note. » N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 4 f. • W.-Th., p. 264. 821 822 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 2. Bad Influence of the Latin on Greek Grammarians. Most of the older Greek grammars were made by men who knew Latin better than Greek. Even to-day' the study of the Greek tenses is hampered by the standpoint of Latin idioms which de- veloped under very different conditions. This is true of school grammars^ in particular, whereas Latin has had no influence on the Greek tenses themselves by the time of the Koivi]. The perfect and the aorist blend in Latin, while that is not true in Greek till a very late date (1000 a.d.).' The separate Greek development (cf. the Sanskrit) was due to the genius and spirit of the Greek people and has continued throughout the history of the language,* though in modem times the Greek tenses have suffered serious modification. The Latin tenses must be left to one side. The time element is more prominent in the Latin. 3. Absence of Hebrew Influence. There is no time ele- ment at all in the Hebrew tenses. Hence it is not strange that the LXX translators had much trouble in rendering the two Hebrew tenses (perfect and imperfect) into the Greek with its richness of tense. A similar difficulty exists for the English translators. Curious devices (possibly slips) sometimes occur, hke kr/ui d^i Kojd'uronai (B in Ju. 6: 18), icronai 8iS6vai (BA in Tob. 5: 15).^ But such translation Greek left no lasting impress on the Greek of the N. T. save in wpoaeBero irki^/ai (Lu. 20 : 12; cf. Ex. 25 : 21). The problems of the Greek tenses are not to be solved by an ap- peal to the Semitic influence. 4. Gradual Growth of the Greek Tenses. There is no future optative in Homer and no future passive. The aOrist pas- sive is also rare.' The past perfect is rare in Homer,' and it does not occur with the idea of relative time. " In the examination of tense usages, we must be careful to observe that tenses, in the sense in which the word is now used, are of comparatively late development."' In the beginning the verb-root was used with personal suffixes. At first this was enough. Some verbs developed some tenses, others other tenses, some few all the tenses. '■ Mutzbauer, Die Grundl. d. griech. Tempusl., 1893, p. i. ' K. Roth, Die erzahlenden Zeitformen bei Dion, von Hal., p. 5. ' Emault, Du Parfait en Grec et en Lat., 1886, p. 164. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 440. * Mutzb., Die Grundl. d. griech. Tempusl., 1893, p. vi f. ■> Cf. Swete, Intr. to O. T. in Gk., p. 308. « Sterrett, Dial, of Horn., N. 42. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 44. 8 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 482. TENSE (XPONOS) 823 5. " Aktionsart" of the Veeb-Stem. Aktionsart ("kind of ac- tion") must be clearly understood. The verb-root plays a large part in the history of the verb. This essential meaning of the word itself antedates the tense development and continues afterwards. There is thus a double development to keep in mind. There were originally two verb-types, the one denoting durative or linear action, the other momentary or punctiliar action.* Hence some verbs have two roots, one linear (durative), like <^€pcj (fero), the other punctiliar (momentary), like fiver/Kov (tuli). So opaoi, elSov, ToKii&ca, ^tXt/j'. With other verbs the distinction was not drawn sharply, the root could be used either way (cf, ^ly-^t, e-^'n-v; X£7-a>, i-'Key-o-v). All this was before there was any idea of the later tense. So irijiay-ov is punctiliar, while 'eaQLii is hnear or durative.. Moulton^ rightly observes that this is the explanation of "defective" verbs. Moulton notes ?x" as a word that can be used either for durative, as in Ro. 5:1, or punctiliar, like aorist iaxov (cf. e<7X€s and exe« in Jo. 4 : 18). The regular idiom for a papyrus receipt is iaxov irapa aov. This matter of the kind of action in the verb-root (Aktionsart) applies to all verbs.' It has long been clear that the "tense" has been overworked and made to mean much that it did not mean. The verb itself is the begin- ning of all. But scholars are not agreed in the terminology to be used. Instead of "punctiliar" (punktuelle Aktion, Brugmann), others use "perfective" (Giles, Manual, p. 478). But this brings inevitable confusion with the perfect tense. All verbs may be described as "punctiliar" (punktuell) and "non-punctiliar " (nicht- jmnktuell). But the "non-punctiliar" divides into the indefinite linear (durative) and the definite linear (completed or perfect). The notion of perfect action as distinct from point action came later. The three essential* kinds of action are thus momentary or punctiliar when the action is regarded as a whole and may be represented by a dot (.), linear or durative action which may be represented by a continuous line , the continuance of per- fected or completed action which may be represented by this graph • . The distinction between punctihar and perfected action is not clearly drawn in the verb-root itself. That is a later refinement of tense. Brugmann' credits this "perfected" idea to the perfect stem. "Iterative" action belongs to certain * Giles, Man., etc., p. 477 f. ' Prol., p. 110 f. ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 469. * Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, p. 131; Stahl, Krit.-hiBt. Synt. d. griech. Verbums.p. 86 f. « Griech. Gr., p. 472. 824 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT stems (reduplicated, like ylyvoiMi), but it is not a fundamental kind of action. 6. The Three Kinds of Action Exprjissed in Terms of Tense. These ideas (pmictiliar, durative, perfected state) lie be- hind the three tenses (aorist, present, perfect) that run through all the moods. The forms of these tenses are meant to accentu- ate these ideas.i The aorist stem presents action in its simplest form (a-optcTTos, 'undefined')- This action is simply presented as a point by this tense. This action is timeless. The present is also timeless in itself as is the perfect.^ It is confusing to apply the expression "relations of time" to this fundamental aspect of tense, as is done by some grammars.^ Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 121) uses Zeitart and Zeitstufe, but why Zeitart instead oi Aktionsartf It is better to keep "time" for its natural use of past, present and future, and to speak of "kind of action" rather than "kind of time."* These three tenses (aorist, present, perfect) were first developed irrespective of time. Dionysius Thrax erred in explain- ing the Greek tenses from the notion of time, and he has been followed by a host of imitators. The study of Homer ought to have prevented this error. The poets generally do not bring the time relations to the fore.^ Even Paul {Principles of the History of Language, p. 300) falls into this error. It is doubtless easier^ to trace the history of the verb than of the noun, but as many mistakes lie along the way. 7. Time Element in Tense. But for the indicative the Greek tenses would have had a simple history. There are no past tenses in the subjunctive. The future subjxmctive is an anomaly of very late Greek. The future optative occurs only in indirect discourse and is not found in the N. T. The time element in the infinitive is confined to indirect discourse and neWo3. Time in the participle is only relative to the principal verb. It is thus kind of action, not the time of the action, that is expressed in these forms.' But in the indicative the three grades of time had tenses of their own. The Greeks evidently felt that there was no need for time in the other modes except in a relative sense. As a matter of fact, the real time of subjunctive, optative, and imperative is future « K.-G., Bd. I, p. 130. 2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 469. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 433; GUdersleeve, Synt. of Class. Gk., p. 79. • Cf. Benard, Formes Verb, en Grec, 1890, p. 279. 8 Mutzb., Die Grundl. d. griech. Tempusl., 1890. ' Sayce, Intr. to the Sci. of Lang., vol. II, 1880, p. 149. » Cf. Spyridis, Lang. grec. actuelle ou mod., 1894, p. 287. TENSE (XPONOS) 825 in relation, to speaker or writer.' It was evidently with difficulty (cf . absence of time in Hebrew) that time was expressed in a posi- tive (non-relative) sense even in the indicative. It is only by the augment (probably an adverb) that past time is clearly expressed.^ "Homer and later Greek writers often use the present with an adverb of time instead of a past tense, a construction which has an exact parallel in Sanskrit and which is therefore supposed to be Indo-Germanic." ' There is no really distuictive form for the present indicative. The future was a later development out of both the present and aorist. See chapter VIII, Conjugation of Verb. The augment was not always used. Homer used it only when it suited him. But past time was objective and the three kinds of action (punctiliar, durative, perfected) were regularly expressed with the tenses (aorist, imperfect, past perfect). There is Aktions- art also in the present and future time, but the tense development did not go on to the full extent here. There are only two tense- forms in the present and practically only one in the future. But both punctiUar and linear action are expressed, but not differen- tiated, in the present time by the same tense, as is true also of the future. The kinds of action exist, but separate tense-forms unfortunately do not occur.* There might thus have been nine tenses in the indicative: three punctiliar (past, present, future), three linear (past, present, future), three perfect (past, present, future).^ Because of this difference between the indicative and the other moods in the matter of time some grammars^ give a separate treatment to the indicative tenses. It is not an easy matter to handle, but to separate the indicative perhaps accents the element of time unduly. Even in the indicative the time element is subordinate to the kind of action expressed. A double idea thus runs through tense in the indicative (kind of action, time of the action). 8. Faulty Nomenclatdee of the Tenses. There is no con- sistency in the names given the tenses, as has already been ex- plained. Cf. chapter VIII, vii, (6). The terms aorist, imperfect and perfect (past, present, future) are properly named from the point of view of the state of the action, but present and future are named from the standpoint of the time element. There is » Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, 1890, pp. 23, 27. ' Cf. Seymour, Trans, of the Am. Philol. Asso., 1881, p. 89. » Giles, Man., etc., p. 487. « Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, p. 131. = Cf . Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 120 f . ' Cf. Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, pp. 8, 22. 826 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT no time element in the present subjunctive, for instance. But the names cannot now be changed, though very unsatisfactory. 9. The Analytic Tendency {Periphrasis). This is the com- mon way of expressing tense in the Germanic tongues. It was not unknown to the older Greek and was very frequent in the LXX under the Hebrew influence. See an extended list in Conybeare and Stock, Selections from the LXX, pp. 68-71. The tendency is strong in the N. T. See the smnmary already given in chapter VIII, vii, (j). In the modem Greek the periphrastic form has displaced the usual inflected forms in all the tenses but the present, imperfect and aorist. These are "simple." The rest are "compound" (Thumb, Handb., p. 115).' This analytic ten- dency affected the durative and perfect kinds of action. It did not suit the purely punctiliar idea. 10. The Effect of Pheposittgns on the Verb. This is another aspect of Aktionsart. This subject has already been briefly discussed from the standpoint of the prepositions.^ Del- bruck^ has worked the matter out with thoroughness and he is followed by Brugmann.* Moulton^ has applied the principle to N. T. verbs. The point is that often where the simple verb is durative it is rendered "perfective" by the preposition in composi- tion. This peculiarity is common to all the Indo-Germanic tongues and reaches its highest development in the Germanic (cf . English and German) and the Balto-Slavic languages.^ Thus we in Eng- lish say bring and bring up, burn and burn up, carry and carry off, come and come on, drive and drive away {home, in, off, out), drink and drink up, eat and eat up, follow and follow up, go and go away, grow and grow up, knock and knock down, make and make over, pluck and pluck out, run and run away, speak and speak out, stand and stand up, take and take up, wake and wake up, work and work ovi.'' The "imperfective" simplex becomes "perfective" in the compound. Prof. A. Thumb ^ has a paper "Zur Aktionsart der mit Prapositionen zusammengesetzten Verba im Griechischen," in which he compares some tables of Schlachter for Thucydides with some by Prof. S. Dickey for the N. T. Thucydides shows for the present tense 260 simplida verbs to 83 compound, for the aorist 158 to 199. Dickey has investigated about thirty N. T. verbs * Jebb in V. and D.'s Handb., pp. 323, 326. 2 Cf. ch. XIII, IV, (i). 6 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 482. » Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, pp. 146-170. ' Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 112. * Griech. Gr., pp. 482 ff. » Indoger. Forsch., XXVII. « Prol., pp. 111-115. TENSE (XPONOS) 827 like airkxu, etc. He teports for the present tense a proportion of 1160 simplida to 83 compound, for the aorist 885 to 226. It is un- fortunate that the term "perfective" is used for this idea, since it inevitably suggests the perfect tense. Some writers^ use "perfec- tive" also for the aorist or pimctiliar action, a means of still fur- ther confusion. Brugmann^ uses "Perfektive Aktion" for the effect of the preposition in composition and "Perfektische Aktion" for the perfect tense, a distinction hard to draw in English. Latin and Greek both show abundant illustrations of this use of prep- ositions. Cf . sequor and consequor, fado and efficio, teneo and sustineo. Moulton' thinks that the freedom in the position of the preposition in Homer helped the adverb to retain its force longer than in later Greek and Latin. The point of the preposi- tion here is best seen in the prepositions airo-, dia-, Kara-, e{iyo3 (Heb. 2:3), 'to escape,' Karaxjieiiyo) (Heb. 6:18), 'to find refuge'; Tijpew (Ac. 24: 23), 'to watch,' with Siarripku, 'to keep continually' (Lu. 2 : 51), and cvvTTipiea (Lu. 2: 19), 'to keep together (safely)'; ffirau (Mk. 14: 47), 'to draw,' with 3ta<7irda)(Mk. 5:4), 'to draw in two'; Katw(Jo.l5:6), 'to bum,' with KaraKalca (Ac. 19 : 19), 'to bum up'; Kplvia (Jo. 5 : 30), 'to judge,' with KaraKpivia (Mt. 12 : 41), 'to condemn'; \v Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 230. 6 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 184. But Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, p. 157, "momentan, effektiv, ingressiv." 8 Moulton, Intr. to the Stu. of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. 190, ' Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 302. 8 Moulton, Prol., p. 109, prefers "summary" to "constative." TENSE (XPONOS) 833 oTi. lie kiralSevaas koXcos, B.G.U. 423 (ii/A.D.). Thus in Jo. 2 : 20, Itcra-fp&KovTa Kal ?f 'tTeaiv oUoSofiridr] d mis oStos, we have a good example of the constative aorist. The whole period of forty-six years is treated as a point. In Mt. 5 : 17, fj\8ovi we have a very simple constative aorist, just punctihar and nothing more, describ- ing the purpose of Christ's mission. It is true that the constative aorist in this sense is far more frequent than the ingressive and the effective uses of the tense. This has always been so from the nature of the case. The increasing number of "perfective" com- pounds, as already shown, increased the proportion of constative aorists.* When the action is in itself momentary or instantaneous no difficulty is involved. These examples are very numerous oil almost any page of the N. T. Gf . in Ac. 10 : 22 f ., ixptimTiaOrj, nerwirkiifpaaBaL, aKovcai, k^iviaev, crvvrjXffov. See the aorists in Ac. 10 : 41 f. Cf. Mt. 8 : 3; Ac. 5 : 5. This is the normal aorist in all the moods. But verbs that are naturally durative may have the aorist. In hKaprepriaev (Heb. 11 : 27) we have a verb naturally "durative" in idea, but with the "constative" aorist. Cf. also kpii^ri rpifirivov (Heb. 11 :'23), where a period of time is summed up by the constative aorist. Cf. i^aa'iXevaev 6 davaros airo 'Adcifi liixpi- M. (Ro. 5 : 14). A good example is i^jqaav koX ifiaa'CKivcav nera tov Xpiarov xt^'o (Trj (Rev. 20 : 4) . Here e^rjcav is probably ingressive, though ii]cup.ev is constative in 1 Th. 5 : 10, but ipaal- 'Kivaav is clearly constative. The period of a thousand years is merely regarded as a point. Cf . also Jo. 7 : 9 inuvev b> Tg TaKCkaii^, 10 : 40 i/jieiuev IxeT. See also Ac. 11 : 26 eykvero airoZs kviavrov o\ov avmxSTJvai h> t^ iKK\rialg,, 14 : 3 havov xpovov dieTpLipav, 18 : 11 eKadiaev inavrdv /cat /iTjj'as «?, 28 : 30 'i/itLvev SieTiav oKriv. Cf . Eph. 2 : 4. See dei— StereXeo-a in B.G.U. 287 (a.d. 250). Gildersleeve {Syntax, p. 105) calls this "aorist of long duration" (constative). For a striking example of the constative (summary) use of the aorist, note k(l>' ^ iravres ^fiaprov (Rom. 5 : 12). Note in particular the summary statements in Heb. 11, as anrkSavov ovtoi Tvavres (13), ouToi vavres — oiK iKOfiLaavro (39). Gildersleeve's "aorist of total negation" (Syntax, p. 106) is nothing more than this. Repeated or separate^ actions are thus grouped together, as in Mt. 22 : 28, iriLVTis iaxov aiiriiv. So rpU epaPdiadriv, rpls kvavayrica (2 Cor. 11 : 25). In Mk. 12 : 44, wavres — e^dKov, oCtij di — 'i^akev, the two actions are contrasted sharply by the aorist. There is no difficulty in ets inrlp w&VTCOv awWaviV apa ol iravTes dirkBavov (2 Cor. 5 : 14). The same verb may sometimes be used either as constative (like i^aai- • Moulton, Prol., p. 115. ^ siass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 193. 834 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Xivaav, 'reigned,' Rev. 20 : 4 above) or ingressive (xal JjSao-iXeucras, 'assumed rule,' Rev. 11: 17, though true here of God only in a dramatic sense). Thus kalynav (Ac. 15 : 12) is 'kept silence' (constative), but ciyriaai (verse 13) is ingressive as is kaiyriaav (Lu. 9 : 36). Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 21. In Gal. 5 : 16, ov /ii) reXeariTe, we have the constative aorist, while ■wXiipoiaai. is effective in Mt. 5 : 17. In line with what has already- been said, /SaXety may mean 'throw' (constative), 'let fly' (ingres- sive) or 'hit' (effective). Cf. Moulton, Prol, p. 130. Illustra- tions occur in the N. T. in 'efiaXtv axnbv eh v\aKi]v (Mt. 18 : 30, constative, 'cast' or 'threw'), /3a.Xe aeavTov hrevdev kcltco (Lu. 4: 9, ingressive, 'hurl.' Note 'evreWev, as well as "perfective" force of kAto). Cf. Mt. 5 : 29), !e^a\ev Kar' avTrjs (effective, 'beat,' Ac. 27: 14). (j3) Ingressive Aorist. This is the inceptive or inchoative aorist. It is not, however, like the "constative" idea, a tense- notion at all. It is purely a matter with the individual verb.^ Thus kwriixeucev, 2 Cor. 8:9, is 'became poor'; efijo-ev, Ro. 14:9, is 'became alive' (cf. airWaveu just before).^ Perhaps in Jo. 16 : 3, oiK 'iyvcaaav, the meaning is ' did not recognise.' ' But this could be constative. But it is clear in Jo. 1 : 10. So in oaoi eXajSoj' abrov (Jo. 1 : 12) the ingressive idea occurs, as in ob irap^Xa- jSoj- in verse 11. Cf. 'eKKavaev (Lu. 19 : 41)= 'burst into tears' and e7J'a)s (vs. 42) = ' camest to know.' So kSaKpvcev (Jo. 11:35). In Mt. 22 : 7 upyiffdr] = ' became angry.' Cf . also jui) So^re (Mt. 3:9), av ISkcv eTvei (kiroiei) rbv ^unov (Inscr. de la Syrie 2413*), and Siecra^eis for 8L€(ra.i](ras (P. Lond., XLII, Kenyon 30). But I venture to be sceptical. In both pas- sages the imperfects make perfectly good sense. Radermacher urges the common use of kreKevra, but that may be merely de- scriptive imperfect. I grant that it is "willkurlich" ui Herodotus (in 1214) to say Si.eTO (Lu. 8 : 23) ; ^pe tou KpafiaTTOv avTOV Kal irepieiraTei (Jo. 5:9); avi^ri — Kal k8i8acrKep (7 : 14) ; k^fj}£oi> Kal iKpavya^ov (12 : 13). In Lu. 8 : 53 note KareyeKuv and airkdavtv. Once again note dSapiev — Kal kKoikvofitv in 9 : 49 and KaTtvbovv Kal dSov (Ac. 11 : 6). Cf. further Ac. 14 : 10; 1 Cor. 3 : 6; Mt. 21 : 8; Mk. 11 : 18; Jo. 20 : 3 f . In 1 Cor. 10 : 4 note 'einov — hrivov; in 11:23, wapkdiiiKa, TrapeStScTo. The same sort of event will be recorded now with the aorist, as ttoXu irXflSos iiKo\ovdrivl/€v (13 : 12), cbs kiTk^aav (21 : 9), oh iieKe^aro (Ac. 1:2), ovs irpokyvoi (Ro. 8 : 29. Cf. 30 also). In Jo. 18 : 24, aTkareiKev oh, the presence of oHiv makes the matter less certain. If oh is transitional, there would be no antecedence. But if oBc is inferential, that may be true, though Abbott con- siders it "impossible."' Clyde'' calls the aorist "an aggressive tense, particularly in the active voice, where it encroached on the domain of the perfect, and all but supplanted the pluperfect." That is true, and yet it must not be forgotten that the aorist was one of the original tenses, much older than the perfects or the future. In wishes about the past (unattainable wishes) the N. T. uses 6(j)e\ov (shortened form of &4>iKov) with the aorist indi- cative (1 Cor. 4 : 8) '64>tKbv yt ifiatriKebcraTe. A similar remark ap- plies to use of the aorist indicative in conditions of the second class (past time), without av in apodosis (Gal. 4 : 15) or with &v (Jo. 11 : 21). In both cases in English we translate this aorist by a past perfect. (e) Relation to the Present. The so-called Dramatic Aorist is possibly the oldest use of the tense. In Sanskrit this is the com- mon use of the tense to express what has just taken place.' One wonders if the gnomic or timeless aorist indicative is not still older. The absence of a specific tense for punctiliar action in the present made this idiom more natural.* This primitive use of the aorist survives also in the Slavonic.^ Giles suggests that "the Latin perfect meaning, like the Sanskrit, may have developed directly from this usage." The idiom appears in Homer* and is 1 Joh. Gr., p. 336. Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 23. 2 Gk. Synt., p. 76. » Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 329. * Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 129. ' Giles, Man., etc., p. 498. "The aorist is used not uncommonly of present time." lb., p. 497. " Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 48. 842 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT found chiefly in the dramatic poets where a sudden change comes/ or in colloquial speech or passionate questions." It is a regular idiom in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 123) as Treiwcra, 'I grew hungry,' 'am hungry still.' This aorist is used of actions which have just happened. The effect reaches into the present. Moulton (Prol., p. 247) quotes a traveller in Cos who "had a pleasant shock, on calling for a cup of coffee, to have the waiter cry "E^Saera." The English can still use a past tense in passion- ate questions affecting the present.' Moulton* speaks of "cases where an aorist indicative denotes present time," though he adds: "None of these examples are really in present time, for they only seem to be so through a difference in idiom between Greek and English." This latter statement is the truth. The aorist in Greek, particularly in dialogue, may be used for what has just happened. It seems awkward in English to refer this to past time, but it is perfectly natural in Greek. So we trans- late it by the present indicative. From the Greek point of view the peculiarity lies in the English, not in the Greek. The examples in the N. T. are numerous enough in spite of Winer ^ to be worth noting. Moulton' has made a special study of Matthew con- cerning the translation of the aorist. " Under the head of ' things just happened' come 9 : 18 kreXevTrja-ev (with afyn), 5 : 28 k/Mi- X&jriKafiev, 12 : 28 i4>9a(rev, 14 : 2, etc., riytpdi], 16 : 17 otTreKctXy^e, 18 : 15 eKepSjjo-as, 20 : 12 kirolriaav —as, 26 : 10 ripyaaaro, 26 : 13 hrolriae, 26 : 65 e/SXao-^lJ/ijjo-ev, ijKoicaTe, 26 : 25, 64 etTras, 27 : 19 hradov, 27 : 46 ^KareXiTres, 28 : 7 elirov, 28 : 18 eSo^Tj (unless 11 : 27 forbids) and perhaps kyevrjdri." Certainly this is a respectable hst for Matthew. Add knepiaOv (Mt. 12 : 26). These all can be translated by the Enghsh 'have.' EuSoKjjo-a (Mt. 3 : 17 and par- allels) is a possible example also. Cf. 6v eidoKtiaev 17 ^wxv fov (12 : 18, LXX). It is a "timeless" aorist' and may be gnomic, as already pointed out. Cf. 2 Pet. 1 : 17; Mk. 10 : 20, &pv\a- ^aiir]v k TTJs veoTitros; k^kdrri in Mk. 3 : 21; kirkxei, ^\6iv — irapaSlSorai (14 : 41) . Other examples of the aorist for what has just happened are iiyepBrj, ovk eanu SiSe (Mk. 16 : 6) ; rjykpBri — kireaKk^aTO (Lu. 7 : 16); riyopaca, iyritia (14 : 18-20); ^rjcrev, tiipkBri (15 :32); errvuv (16 : 4) ; kKpv^iq (19 : 42) ; 6vtw riykpdn (24 : 34) ; ■KpoatKinrqaav (Jo. 1 Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, p. 18. ■■ W.-Th., p. 278. ^ » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 437. « Prol., p. 140. 8 Gildersl., Synt., p. 113. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 134 f. « Prol., p. 134. TENSE (XPONOS) 843 4 ".20); ijKOwas (11 :42); awrjliSev (12 :19); ^\dov eis rfiv &pav rabrtiv (12 :27); i?Xfl€j' (13 : 1); vw kSo^kaBri (13 :31), but kSb^aca (17:4) points backward, *I did glorify thee,' while tdo^kaBri in 15 : 8 is possibly gnomic; 'eitiaaaTt vvv (21 : 10); ihoiiKwaa., kjevS/iriv (1 Cor. 9 : 19, 20, 22. Cf. xotco in verse 23); iirecrev, Utcev (Rev. 14 : 8; 18 : 2).^ With this use of the aorist adverbs of time are common to make clear the present relation of time. Cf. tovto ^Sij rpirov k9ri (Jo. 21 : 14) where tovto has the effect of bringing the action forward. For a sharp contrast between the aorist and present see e], B.G.U. 287 (a.d. 250). Cf. also Lu. 10 : 24. See m particular ijvoi, iryvuv and iyvia(Ta.v in Jo. 17 : 25. The timeless aorist is well illustrated in the participle in Lu. 10 : 18, Weiipow t6v Haravdv veaovTa. (f) Relation to Present Perfect. The problem just here is not whether the present perfect is ever used as an aorist. That will be discussed under the present perfect. If the distinction be- tween the two tenses was finally^ obliterated, as early happened in Latin,' there would be some necessary confusion. But that has not happened in the N. T. period. Jannaris* notes it regu- larly about 1000 A.D. It is undeniable that the early Sanskrit used the aorist chiefly for "something past which is viewed with reference to the present" and it disappeared before the growth of the other more exact tenses.^ The perfect may be said to be a development from the aorist, a more exact expression of com- pleted action than mere "punctiliar" (aorist), viz. state of com- pletion. But in the Greek the aorist not only held its own with the other tenses, but "has extended its province at the expense of the perfect," particularly in the N. T. period, though different writers vary greatly here.* But was the aorist used "for" the perfect? Clyde' says: "The aorist was largely used for the per- fect." Winer* replies: "There is no passage in which it can be certainly proved that the aorist stands for the perfect." Gilder- sleeve' more correctly says: "The aorist is very often used where we should expect the perfect," i.e. in English. But the trans- • Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 135. ^ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 440. ' Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 78. Still, in Lat. the aorist must be noted for sequence of tenses. Cf. Meillet, L'Aoriste en Lat., Revue de PhU., 1897, p. 81 f. « ffist. Gk. Gr., p. 437. Cf . Hatz., Einl., p. 204 f. s Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. 298, 329. • Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 199. « W.-M., p. 344. ' Gk. Synt., p. 78. » Synt., p. 107. 844 A GKAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT lation of the aorist into English will call for special discussion a httle later. What is true is that the action in such cases "is re- garded as subordinate to present time,"i in other words, the precise specification of relative time which we draw in our English perfect is not drawn in the Greek. The Greek states the simple undefined punctiliar action in a connection that suggests present time and so we render it in English by our " have." ^ But Farrar' is right in insisting that we do not explain the Greek tense by the English rendering. In truth, the examples given under the head of "Relation to the Present" (e) may often be rendered by the EngUsh "have" with tolerable accuracy.* Sometimes the use of an adverb or particle helps the English. The examples are rather numerous in the N. T., as in the papyri,^ where the aorist and the present perfect occur side by side. Thus xwpis S)v airejpa- ^l/aiiTjv Kai irkirpana, O.P. 482 (ii/A.D.) ; ttjs yevofikvrjs km. aTOwtrefiiiivris yvvaiKos, N.P. 19 (ii/A.D.). Moulton adds: "The distinction is very clearly seen in papyri for some centuries." In most in- stances in the N. T. the distinction is very sharply drawn in the context, as in on brcKpri, Kal on iyriyepTai (1 Cor. 15 :4). So 'eKTl(a, leypa^pa (note the perfects after on). But in 1 Jo. 2 : 21 eypa\l/a may be the epistolary use, though Winer* protests against it. Here as in 2 : 26, ravfa iypwpa, the reference may be not to the whole epistle, but to the portion in hand, though even so the standpoint is that of the reader. Cf. also 5 : 13. In 1 Cor. 9 : 15 also the reference is to the verses in hand. In Eph. 3 : 3, KoBiis vpokypa^a kv 6X170), the allusion may be to what Paul has just written or to the whole epistle, as is true of kviareiKa (Heb. 13 : 22). Certainly ypa.4>ta is the usual construction in the N. T. (1 Cor. 4 : 14; 14: 37; 2 Cor. 13 : 10, etc.). "E.ypa'^a usually refers ' Most of these exx. from Mt. come from Moulton, Prol., p. 140. 2 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 324. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 437. < W.-Th., p. 278. 846 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT to an epistle just finished (Phil. 19; 1 Pet. 5 : 12; 1 Jo. 5 : 13), but even so the standpoint veers naturally to that of the reader. This is particularly so in Gal. 6 : 11 which probably refers to the concluding verses 11-18 and, if so, a true epistolary aorist. In Ro. 15 : 15 the reference may be^ to another portion of the same epistle or to the epistle as a whole. In 1 Cor. 5 : 9, 11, "eypaipa refers to a previous letter, as seems to be true also in 2 Cor. 2 : 3, 4, 9; 7: 12; 3 Jo. 9. But eTepj/a is found in undoubted instances as in Ac. 23 : 30; Eph. 6 : 22; Ph. 2 : 28; Gol. 4 : 8. So avkirtix^a in Phil. 11 and i^fiovKiieijv in Text. Rec. 2 Jo. 12. Curiously enough Gildersleeve^ says: "The aorist in the N. T. [Ep. aor.] is clearly due to Roman influence, and is not to be cited." The epistolary aorist is more common in Latin (cf, Cicero's Letters), probably because of our having more epistolary material. The idiom occurs often enough in the papyri. Cf. iirtfi^'a, B.G.U. 423 (ii/A.D.), iypm^a hrip avTov y-ri idoros ypafifiara, P.Oxy. 275 (a.d. 66). There is therefore no adequate reason for denying its presence in the N. T. examples above. (0) Relation to the Future. The future was probably (cf. Brug- mann, Griech. Gr., p. 480) a late development in the language, and other devices were at first used, like the present indicative, the perfect indicative, the aorist subjunctive. The aorist indica- tive was also one of the expedients that never quite disappeared. It is not exactly, like the epistolary aorist, a change of stand- point. It is a vivid transference of the action to the future (like the present ipxofmi, Jo. 14 : 3) by the timeless aorist. The aug- mented form is still used, but the time is hardly felt to be past. This idiom survives in the Slavonic also.' It is a vivid idiom and is still found in modern Greek.* Thumb {Handb., p. 123) cites Ki av III (Tovfi'Kia-eTe, eras FpaiKos ix^-^Vi ' even if you impale me only one Greek perishes.' Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 124) cites from Epictetus, &Tav de^iis, k^^\des. Gildersleeve^ calls it "a vision of the future." Burton' considers it "rather a rhetorical figure than a grammatical idiom," but the idiom is not so strange after all. Cf. Eur., Ale, 386, &.Trco\dfiriv A p,e X€t^eis='I perish if you leave me.' The examples are not numerous in the N. T. and some of them may be gnomic. Cf. iav aov aKoiiaii, kepSijo-as rdv adi\(t>6v aov (Mt. 18 : 15. Cf. irapaXafie as the next apodosis in verse 16 and JcTTw in verse 17); kav Kal yafiijans, ovx ^fiapres (1 Cor. 7: 1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 194. * Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 437. 2 Synt., p. 128. e Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 114. ' Giles, Manual, p. 499. « N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 23-. TENSE (XPONOS) 847 28); orav niXKii o-aXirifeu', Kal kriKkaOTj (Rev. 10 : 7), probably also 'tav nil TLS fihfi kv kiwi, efiXridri — Kal k^ripavOri (Jo. 15 : 6), though this may be merely gnomic, as already stated. Cf. the use of kiitpladri and i0a<7tv in Mt. 12 : 26, 28 in a condition of the present time. In Jo. 13 : 31 kSo^aadri (twice) is explained (verse 32) by So^a&ei /cat eWv% So^aaeL. (t) Aorist in Wishes. The special use of the aorist indicative in wishes about the past and conditions determined as unfulfilled will be discussed in chapter XIX, Modes. (k) Variations in the Use of Tenses. Where so much variety is possible, great freedom is to be expected. In modem English we make a point of uniformity of tense in narrative. The Greeks almost made a point of the opposite. It is jejune, to say no more, to plane down into a dead level the Greek spontaneous variety. Cf. ijiiapTov Kal varepovvrai (Ro. 3 :23). In Matt. 4:11, for instance, we have a^lriinv (historical pres.), TpoarjXdov (aor.), Sltikovovv (imperfect). In Mt. 13 :45f. note kaTiv, ^iitovvti., ebpuv, airthSoiv, irkirpaKev, etx^v, iiybpaaev. "When they wished to narrate a fact, or to convey a meaning, there is good ground for holding that they employed the tense appropriate for the purpose, and that they employed it just because of such appropriateness."^ That is well said. The explanation is chiefly psychological, not mere Analogy, which is true of only a few tenses, especially in late Greek (Middleton, Analogy in Syntax, 1892, p. 6). Jan- naris. Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 437, lays probably too much stress on "the terminal homophony of the two tenses" (aor. and perf.). (X) Translation of the Aorist into English. The Greek aorist ind., as can be readily seen, is not the exact equivalent of any tense in any other" language. It has nuances all its own, many of them difficult or well-nigh impossible to reproduce in English. Here, as everywhere, one needs to keep a sharp hne between the Greek idiom and its translation into English. We merely do the best that we can in English to translate in one way or another the total result of word (Aktionsart) , context and tense.^ Cer- tainly one cannot say that the English translations have been successful with the Greek aorist.' Weymouth in his New Testa- ment in Modern Speech has attempted to carry out a consistent principle with some success. Moulton* has thought the matter 1 P. Thompson, The Gk. Tenses in the N. T., p.l7. * Weymouth, On the Rendering into Eng. of the Gk. Aorist and Perfect, 1894, p. 151. » Thomson, The Gk. Tenses in the N. T., p. 23. * Prol., pp. 135-140. 848 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT important enough for an extended discussion. He makes clear that the Greek aorist is true to itself, however it is rendered into English. Take nvis iKoiiiifivaav (1 Cor. 15 : 6), for instance, 'fell asleep (at various times),' Moulton explains, "and so have fallen asleep." In Mt. 3 : 7 vwiSa^tv may be translated by ' has warned,' but 'warned' will answer. The English past will translate the Greek aorist in many cases where we prefer "have." Burton' puts it clearly thus: "The Greek employs the aorist, leaving the context to suggest the order; the English usually suggests the order by the use of the pluperfect." The Greek aorist takes no note of any interval between itself and the moment of speaking, while the English past takes note of the interval. The Greek aorist and the English past do not exactly correspond, nor do the Greek perfect and the EngUsh perfect.^ The Greek aorist covers much more ground than the English past. Cf. Sid exKiidri 6 aypos iKftvos 'Aypos Atfiaros e&js rijs (rrifiepov (Mt. 27: 8), where the Greek aorist is connected with the present in a way that only the English perfect can render. See also ews apn om jiriiaaTi (Jo. 16 : 24). From the Greek point of view the aorist is true to its own genius. The aorist in Greek is so rich in meaning that the EngUsh labours and groans to express it. As a matter of fact the Greek aorist is translatable into almost every English tense except the imperfect, but that fact indicates no confusion in the Greek.' (c) The Aorist Subjtmctive and Optative. The aorist of these two "side-moods"^ may very well be discussed together. The two moods are not radically different as we shall see. (a) No Time Element in the Subjunctive and Optative.^ There is only relative time (future), and that is not due to the tense at all.* The subjunctive is future in relation to the speaker, as is often true of the optative, though the optative standpoint is then more remote, a sort of future from the standpoint of the past. (/3) Frequency of Aorist Subjunctive. As between the aorist and present in subjunctive and optative, the aorist is far more common. For practical purposes the perfect may be almost left out of view; it is so rare. As a rule in these moods the action is either punctil- iar (aorist) or durative (present). The contrast between point and linear action comes out simply and clearly here. It is just that 1 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 27. ^ lb., p. 24 f. ' Thomspon, Gk. Synt., 1883, p. xix. » Gildersleeve, Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 401. = K.-G., Bd. I, p. 182. 8 Stahl, Hist.-krit. Synt., p. 171. TENSE (XPONOZ) 849 seen between the aorist and the imperfect indicative.* In the classical Sanskrit the subjunctive exists only in a remnant of the first person, which is treated as an imperative, but it is common enough in the early language.* In Homer (both Iliad and Odyssey) the aorist is in great preponderance over the present (65 to 35 for the average between subjunctive and optative, about the same for each).' Gildersleeve* considers the difference due to the nature of the constructions, not to mere lack of differentiation in the early stage of the language. The subj. is more common in Homer than in the later Greek and the aorist subj. is correspondingly abundant. There is no doubt that the aorist is gauiing in the Kocvq over the present in the subj., opt., imper. (Radermacher, N. T. Chi, p. 123). The distinction is understood. Cf. mxpis av TJXios Sxyg (aim) and &xpw °-v tirlKaipov 5ok§ (duration), I. G., XII, 5, 647. Radermacher cites also Sirws Xa/ijSdcwo-ij' and Sxcos XA/Soxriv, oTTOJs iTrapxv and tva Sod^ from a Pergamum inscr., N. 13 (b.c. 300). He fears that this proves confusion between the tenses, and appeals also to the papyrus example Iva ypk^oi koL (jAvapriau (Deiss- mann, Idcht, p. 153). But there is no necessary confusion here. The modern Greek preserves clearly the distinction between punctiliar and linear action in the subj. and uses the aorist and present side by side to show it (Thumb, Handb., p. 124). The situation in the N. T. is even more striking. Mr. H. Scott, Birkenhead, England, writes me that he finds only five present subjs. in Acts and one (13 : 41) is a quotation. In the Pauline Epistles (13) he notes 292 dependent aorist subjs. and only 30 dependent pres. subjs. Gildersleeve^ complains of Stahl's weari- someness in proving what "no one will dispute." The point is that the aorist subj. or opt. is used as a matter of course unless durative (linear) action is to be emphasized or (as rarely) the com- pleted state is to be stressed (perfect). But variations occur even here. Thus Abbott' notes only two instances of the pres. subj. ' Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 82; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 194. ' Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 298. ' Schlachter, Statist. Unters., pp. 236-238. < Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 245. ' lb., p. 400. ' Joh. Gr., p. 370 f. But there is little point in these exceptions. Abbott rightly notes the variations in the major uncials between -Itrn and -£fn in Uk. 9 : 43-47. Mr. H. Scott finds Hv with pres. subj. also (W. H.) in Mk. 1 : 40; 9 : 47 (4 in all). In Lu. he adds 5 : 12 (=Mk. 1 : 40); 10 : 6, 8, 10 {k&y to be suppUed); 13 : 3; 20 : 28 (8 m all). In Mt. he notes 5 : 23; 6 : 22, 23; 8 : 4 (= Mk. 1 : 40); 10 : 13 bis; 15 : 14; 17 : 20; 21 : 21; 24 : 49 Us; 26 : 35 (12 in all). But he makes 78 aor. siibjs. with i&v in the Synoptics. 850 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT with Icti; in Mk. (9 : 45; 14 : 31) and two in Lu. (6 : 33; 19": 31), aj^art from ni/ and except changes with ixca and 6t\(a. The aorist subj. in the Synoptics is well-nigh universal with iav. But in John there is .more diversity between the two tenses. "Most Greek writers observe the distinction between the aorist and present subjunctive, as Englishmen observe that between 'shall' and 'will,' unconsciously and without any appearance of dehberately emphasizing the difference. But we have seen above (2511) that John employs the two forms with great deliberate- ness, even in the same sentence, to distinguish between the begin- ning of 'knowing' and the development of it."i Cf. ha jvSire koi yivixTKriTe (10 : 38) and ei ravra otSare, jiaKapiol han kav -KonJTe axira (13 : 17), where the pres. is again used purposely. Note also John's tI TTotSjuej' (6 : 28) and Luke's rl ■n-oi.'fiaoifiev (3 : 10). We need not fol- low all the details of Abbott,'' but he has made it perfectly clear that John makes the sharp distinction between the aor. and pres. subj. that is common between the aor. and imperf. ind. Cf. kav rw TTipriaji (Jo. 8 : 51) and lai* rtipcofiev (1 Jo. 2:3); otl av airrjcrriTe (Jo. 14 : 13) and S av airStnev (1 Jo. 3 : 22). But Paul also knows the punctiliar force of the aor. subj. Cf. anapTrjcuixev (Ro. 6 : 15) with kinij.evwij.6v (6:1), where the point lies chiefly in the difference of tense. See also 2 Tim. 2 : 5, kav Si Kal ad\fj rw, od (rreipavovTai kav nil vo/il/jMs affKiia'Q. Cf. iroirJTe in Gal. 5 : 17. In deliberative ques- tions the aorist subj. is particularly common, as in 8S>fiev ^ /ii) Scbfiev (Mk. 12 : 14). In tipijvriv ex^iJiv (Ro. 5 : 1) the durative present occurs designedly = ' keep on enjojdng peace with God,' the peace already made {SiKaicodkvTes). Moulton (Prol, p. 186) thinks that the aorist subj. in relative clauses like Ss av (jmvevaji (Mt. 5 : 21), or 6wov kav KaraXaffii (Mk. 9 : 18), or conditional sentences like kav aaTaoPv9m (Mt. 1: 20). But, as 'a rule, it is the ingressive aorist subj. used in prohibitions to forbid a thing not yet done or the durative present imper. to forbid the continuance of an act. The N. T. is very rich in ex- amples of both of these idioms because of the hortatory nature of the books.' Moulton* finds 134 examples of mi^ with the pres. imper. and 84 of /ii? with the aorist subj. In Matthew there are 12 examples of nii with the pres. imper. and 29 of ixri with the aorist subj. But these figures are completely reversed in the Gospel of Luke (27 to 19), in James (7 to 2), in Paul's Epistles (47 to 8) and John's writings (19 to 1). The case in Jo. 3 : 7 has already been noticed. It may be said at once that the excess of examples of pres. imper. over aorist imper. is the old situation in Homer.* In the Attic orators. Miller {A. J. P., xiii, 423) finds the proportion of fii/ ttoUi type to /ifj Troiijo-ns type 56 to 44, about the same as that in the N. T., 134 to 84. In the N. T. this pre- dominance holds except in Matthew, 1 Peter and Rev. (Moul- ton, Prol., p. 124). The aorist imper. was an after-growth, and yet is very common in the N. T. (and LXX) as compared with the older Greek.* In the Lord's Prayer, for instance, every tense is aorist (Mt. 6 : 9-13). Gildersleeve remarks that the aorist suits "instant prayer/' But cf. Lu. 11:2-4. However, the point is > Cf. R. C. Seaton, CI. Rev., Dec, 1906, p. 438. " Prol., p. 126. ' lb., p. 123. Mr. H. Scott properly observes that "the correctness of these figures will depend upon how a repeated jui? or /iriSi mthout a verb is to be counted. E.g. is Mt. 10 : 9 f . to be counted as one or as seven? The same question arises with a verb without a repeated ki.v or Xva, etc. It seems to me that these are merely abbreviated or condensed sentences and should be counted as if printed in extenso — as separate sentences. In that case Mt. 10 : 9 f. would count seven instances of nii with subj. aor." * lb. « GildersL, Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 244. • GildersL, Justin Martyr, p. 137. TENSE (XPONOS) 853 here that in the N. T., as a rule, the idiom gives little diflGlcuIty. Cf. /iij voixUriTe (Mt. 6 : 17); a") elTev^Kjis vimLs (Mt. 6 : 13; Lu. 11:4); nil elcreMeiv els rbv weipacr/wv (Lu. 22:40). Cf. /ti) craKiria'gs (Mt. 6 :2), 'don't begin to sound,' and fifj eriaavpL^ere (6 : 19), 'they were already doing it.' Note again /ti) Sure nriSk: /SaXTjre (Mt. 7: 6) and mi? Kplvire (7:1). With Mt. 3 : 9 /iij 56|ijre \kyei.v com- pare Lu. 3 : 8 jui) ap^riade Xiyeiv. But in Lu. 3 : 14, nr]Siva SuureiajiTe liriSi (TVKoavTrieiv in same verse.) It is not necessary to labour the point. But in Mt. 6 : 25 we have /lij liipilivaTt, implying that they were anxious; in 6 : 34, ^4 oHv fxepi- Hvi\ai]Tt, a general warning in conclusion. Once more, in Mt. 10 : 26, note iii} ovv 0o/3ij0^t€ avrovs, the warning against fearing evil men; in 10 : 31, nij ovv (j>ofietad€='qmt being afraid.' In Jo. 5:45, nil SoKetre, it is implied that 'they had been thinking that'; in 2 Cor. 11 : 16, p,il tIs fie So^ii, 'no one did, of course.' ' In Jo. 6 : 43 Ml? yoyyi^ere is interpreted by kySyyv^ov in verse 41. Cf. liil KXalere (Lu. 8 : 52), 'they were weeping.' In p,^ 86^ (2 Cor. 11: 16) and nii e^ovBeviiaii (1 Cor. 16 : 11) the normal use of pi/ with the aorist subj. occurs with the third person. A good double example occurs in Lu. 10 : 4, pii ^aara^ere ^aWavriov ('don't keep carrying'), and in pri8eva aaicLariade ('don't stop to salute'). In Col. 2:21 pii d^Pxi is a warning to the Colossian Christians not to be led astray by the gnostic asceticism. In 2 Cor. 6 : 17, aKoBapTov pii airrecde, the prophet (Is. 52 : 11) assumes that the people were guilty, if KAQ be followed as by Paul, but B has wpricdi. In Jo. 20 : 17, pii pov airrov, Jesus indicates that Mary must cease clinging to him. Cf. piire dpoajis (Mt. 5 : 36) and pii opviere (Jas. 5:12). As to the present imperative fur- ther discussion belongs elsewhere, but a word is necessary here. Moulton* thinks that "rather strong external pressure is needed to force the rule upon Paul." John has only one case of pij with the aorist subj., and yet Moulton holds that all his uses of the present imper. fit the canon completely. The difficulty in Paul's use of the pres. imper. is due to the fact that the present tense is not always durative. It is sometimes punctiliar. There is an aoristic present imper. as well as an aoristic present ind. One of the imper. presents is merely exclamatory (cf. aye, Jas. 5:1). • Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 196. ' Prol., p. 125. 854 A GRAMMAB OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Another, like Spa with firiSevl eVVijs (Mt. 8 : 4), is almost like a "sort of particle adding emphasis." ' Besides, the Aktionsart of the word comes into play. The word may have a punctiliar meaning or it may accent a special phase of linear action (iterative, cona- tive, etc.). Hence the answer^ to /xij Tolei, which usually =' Stop doing,' may be in a given case='Do not from time to time,' 'Do not as you are in danger of doing,' 'Do not attempt to do' or simply 'Do not do' (aoristic present). In Eph. 5:18 lifj fiediiaKeade may mean that some of them were getting drunk (cf. even at the Lord's Table, 1 Cor. 11 : 21), or a course of action (the habit) may be prohibited. In /i^ anapravere (Eph. 4 : 25) the imminent peril of sin may be implied (cf. dpyi^eade). So in /ii) yl/tiSeade (Col. 3 : 9) we may have the aoristic present, though the usual linear notion is pertinent. But cf. mi) ot/^eXei (1 Tim. 4 : 14), firidevl hTirldu and /ijjSi koivojvu (5 : 22),^ and ixri yivtade tis 01 hiroKpiral (Mt. 6 : 16), where the verb accents the ingressive idea. In the modern Greek "as a prohibitive the aorist subj. is on the whole less commonly used than the present" (Thumb, Handb., p. 127). M17 with the present imper. survives in a few instances, but the subj. in modern Greek does practically all the work of prohibiting. (e) Aorist Subjunctive with ov fir). It is merely the tense that calls for comment here, not the mode nor the negative. The present subj. was sometimes used with ou /ii? in the ancient Greek, but no examples occur in the N. T. The aorist is very natural as the action is distinctly punctiliar. Of the 100 examples of oi fii} in the W. H. text, 86 are with the aorist subj., 14 are future inds.* Cf. oi) iJ.il dak'KBriTe (Mt. 5:20); oiiKkri oil ixri irlco (Mk. 14:25). The other aspects of the subject will be discussed elsewhere (chapters on Modes and Particles). (f) Aorist Optative. It is more frequent than the present in the N. T. This is partly due to the relative frequency of jut) ykvoiTo (cf. Gal. 6 : 14) and the rarity of the optative itself. The distinction of tense is preserved. Cf . /ijjSeis ^ti^yoi. (ingressive, Mk. 11:14); w'KridvvBeiri (effective, 1 Pet. 1:2); KaTtvdvvai—irXeovacat ml wepuraevaai. (constative, 1 Th. 3 : 11 f.). Cf. 5kpiT€ stands out. It is probably a polite conative offer to the master of the feast. In the Lord's Prayer in Mt. (6 : 9- 11) note ayiaaOriTco, yevridi)T Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 244 f.; Apr., 1909, p. 235. 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Or., p. 451. » lb., p. 449. 6 Thomson, The Gk. Tenses in the N. T., p. 29. * Moulton, Prol., p. 173. « Moulton, Prol., p. 129. 856 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT irapaa-riia-aTe in verse 19. In Lu. 7 : 8, wopeWrjrc — iropdierai, Tolrj- aov — TTotet, the presents are also aoristic. As with the ind. the aorist (constative) may be used with a durative word. So nelmTe kp rg ayairii rfj kfi^ (Jo. -15 : 9). The action, durative in itself, is treated as punctiliar. Cf . Mt. 26 : 38, fieivare Side Kal ypriyopeiTe fxer' ifiov (Mk. 14:34). So with naKpoBvni]caTe ecos rrjs irapovaias Tov Kvplov (Jas. 5:7); riiv -irapadrjKriv (jjiiXa^ov (1 Tim. 6 : 20. Cf. 2 Tim. 1 : 14; 1 Jo. 5 : 21); roDra rapadov (2 Tim. 2:2); (tvvkoko- iradriaov (2:3); airoiSaaov (2:15). Cf. the aorists in Jas. 4:9. Most of them call for Httle comment. Cf. Jo. 4 : 16, 35. Ab- bott^ notes the avoidance of the aorist imper. of irurTeica, possibly because mere belief (aorist) had come to be misunderstood. The pres. imper. presses the continuance of faith (cf. Jo. 14 : 11). The real force of the effective aorist is seen in Xiro-are rdv vaov tov- Tov (Jo. 2 : 19). In Mk. 15 : 32, mTafiaru vvv, the "perfective" force of the preposition is added. Moulton^ notes that 1 Peter shows a marked liking for the aorist (20 aorists to 5 presents in commands, H. Scott), while Paul's habit, as already noted, is just the opposite. Moulton' has an interesting comment on the fact that "in seven instances only do the two evangelists [Mt. 5-7 and Luke's corresponding passage] use different tenses, and in all of them the accompanying variation of phraseology accounts for the differences in a way which shows how delicately the distinc- tion of tenses was observed." - There may be variations in the translation of the Aramaic original (if the Sermon on the Mount was spoken in Aramaic?), "but we see no trace of indifference to the force of the tenses." In the imperative also different writers will prefer a different tense. One writer is more fond of the aorist, another of the present. Note the impressive aorists, apare tov "KWov, 'Kbaare diirbv Kal a.(j>iTt aiirov iiirayeiv (Jo. 11 : 39, 44). Abbott* rightly calls the aorist here more authoritative and solemn than the present would have been. The aorist here accords with the consciousness of Jesus (11:41, iJKovaas). The aorist imper. oc- curs in prohibitions of the third person, like iuij yvi^Tu (Mt. 6:3); jiiij /carajSoj-to (24:17); /ti) kTnaTpe\[/aTO} (24:18). This construction occurs in ancient Greek, as uridk o-e Kivrjaaria ns, Soph. Ai. 1180. But fi-li and the aorist subj. was preferred. In the N. T. this is rarely found (1 Cor. 16 : 11; 2 Th. 2 : 3). (e) The Aorist Infinitive. In Homer the durative (present) idea is more common than the punctiUar (aorist) with the infini- 1 Joh. Gr., p. 319 f. ' lb. « ProL, p. 174. 1 Joh. Gr., p. 318 f. TENSE (XPONOS) 857 tive, as with the imperative.* There is, of course, no time in the inf. except relative time in indirect discourse. The history ef the inf. belongs elsewhere, but here we have only to do with the ex- cellent illustration of punctiliar action afforded by the aorist inf. Radermacher finds the aorist and the pres. inf. together in the Carthaginian inscr. (AudoUent, 238, 29, iii/A.D.), nrjSi rp'e- Xtiv iUijS^ TtpnraTetv nrjdi vuirjaai, n'rfik k^ehJdetv. So in the papyri B.G.U., I, 183, 25. The features of the tenses in the inf., once they are fully established, correspond closely to the use in the moods.^ As a matter of fact originally the inf., because of its substantival origin, was devoid of real tense-idea (Moulton, Prol., p. 204), and it was only by analogy that tense-ideas were asso- ciated with the inf. But still the aorist inf. deserves a passing word. Take Ac. 15 : 37 f ., for instance,^ 'Sapva^as de ifioiiXero aw- irapaKafieiv Kal tov 'I. rbv kcCK. MapKov. Here the constative aorist is perfectly natural for the proposed journey. But see the outcome, IlaOXos 5^ ii^Lov — p.'q (TvvTrapd\afi^a.vei.v tovtov. Paul was keenly conscious of the discomfort of Mark's previous desertion. He was not going to subject himself again to that continual peril (durative). Cf. also Mt. 14 : 22, rivayKacre tovs nadtira.'s e/t/S^rai (in- gressive aorist), /cat irpoayeiv airov (durative, 'go on ahead of him'). An interesting example occurs in Jo. 13 : 36 f ., ov diivaaai p.oi vvv 6,KoKovdfj(Tai (ingressive aorist for a new act) ; 5ta ri oh dwa/xal col aKoKovdetv cLpTi (durative, 'keep on following,' is Peter's idea).^ The aorist inf. is the predominant construction with Shvapai, hv- varbs, di\o}, KeXeiw, etc.^ The distinction in tenses is well observed. For Simpai see further \ap.^a.v€i.v (Jo. 3 : 27) and Xapelv (14 : 17) ; PaffTOL^eiv (16:12) and fiaaracai (Rev. 2:2); Tnarevaai, (Jo. 5:44) and TrurTtveiv (12:39).* Abbott notes also that woLrjaai occurs in John with dvvanai. only in Jo. 11 : 37, whereas iSeiv, daeKdetv, yevvri- BTjvai are natural (3 : 3ff.). So with 6e\co note Xa^tiv (Jo. 6 : 21); iriaaai (7: 44), but epuirav (16 : 19). In Mt. 5 : 17 f. KaTokvacLL and irXtipiibaai are effective, but (nyijaai (Ac. 15 : 13) is ingressive, while alTrjffat. (Mt. 6 : 8) is constative. Cf . Lu. 7 : 24 f . The aorist inf. is rare with fiiWa (aTOKoKv^drjvai, Ro. 8 : 18; Gal. 3 : 23, though airoKoMirTecrdai in 1 Pet. 5:1). So 'iiieWov airoOavetv (Rev. 3:2). Cf. Rev. 3 : 16; 12 : 4. A good example of the constative aorist ' Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., p. 244. In Sans, the inf. has no tenses at all. '' Moulton, Prol., p. 204. Cf. Gildersl., Synt., p. 133 f.; Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 30. Plato, Theat., 155 C, &vev rod ylyv&rBai ytvkaBaL idivarov, ' Moulton, ib., p. 130. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 196 f. * Abbott, Job. Gr., p. 361. ' Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 360 f. 858 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT inf. occurs in Ro. 14 : 21.* The aorist inf. is used with an aorist as the ind., oU ^\6ov KaraXOo-at (Mt. 5 : 17), the subj., elwcufiev irvp KaTafirjvai (Lu. 9 : 54), the imper., fic^es BarPai (Mt. 8 :22). But the aorist inf. is common also with durative tenses like «f ijtow Kparrjaai (Mk. 12:12); ovk ^deKtv — kTapai. (Lu. 18:13). There is apparently no instance in the N. T. of an aorist inf. used to represent an aorist ind. in indirect ' discourse.^ In Lu. 24 : 46, on dvTcas ykypairrai iraBeiv Kal avaarrivai. «/c veKpSiv, we have the usual timeless aorist, the subject of ■ykypairTai. So /ti) 'Selp (2 : 26). In Ac. 3 : 18 Tradetv is the object of irpoKarriyyeLKev. The aorist and pres. inf. with prepositions vary a good deal. The aorist occurs with fier^ (Mt. 26 : 32; Lu. 12 : 5, etc.), with rpo (Lu. 2 : 21; Jo. 1 :48); irpSs (Mt. 6:1); els (Ph. 1 :23); and even with h sometimes (Lu. 2 : 27), but only once with Sia (Mt. 24 : 12). Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 49 f . The following- are Mr. H. Scott's figures for the Synoptics: Abticulab Infinitive t6 TOV Sii. t6 els t6 ip To^7,eeiaa (Mk. 5:33); &yvoiicravTes (Ac. 13 : 27); a.yaTrri(ras (2 Tim. 4 : 10). The effective ' Blasa, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 197. 2 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 53. » Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 244. * Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gr., p. 213. TENSE (XPONOS) 859 aorist appears in irXripuxravTes (Ac. 12 : 25), the constative in avv- irapdha^ovTes (ib.). Further examples of the effective aorist are TreiaavTis Toiis 8xXous Kal "Ki&aa-avTes rbv HaOXoj' (Ac. 14 : 19); SiKaua- dhres (Ro. 5:1). The constative is seen again in irapa5o6s (Mt. 27:4); inaTtvaavTes (Jo. 7:39). The aorist participle in itself is, of course, merely punctiUar action. {0) "0 and the Aorist Pdrtidple. The punctiliar force of the aorist part, is well illustrated in this idiom. It differs from the relative (os + verb) in being a more general expression. In Mt. 23 : 20 f., 6 ofwaas bixvvu, we have identical action, not ante- cedent. The aorist is, strictly speaking, timeless (Burton, Moods and Tenses, p. 69). "0 6/i6cras='the swearer,' 6 Xa/3a)v='the re- ceiver,' etc. Cf. Seymour, "On the Use of the Aorist Part, in Greek," Transactions of the Am. Philol. Ass., 1881, p. 89. In John the examples, however, are usually definite.^ Contrast 6 \aPcov (Jo. 3 : 32) probably = 'the Baptist' with was 6 aKoi(ras — nouBuv (6 : 45) and ol aKohaavres, ot TroH^o'aj'Tes (5 : 25, 29). "0 + aorist part, may be used with any tense of the ind. Thus 6 XajSc!)? in Jo. 3 : 32 occurs with kpa,yi,(j€v, xfis 6 aKoixras (6 : 45) with 'ipxerat,, oi TTOiiicTavTes (5 :'28 f .) with kKwopevaovrai.. Cf. Mt. 26 : 52, iravres ol Xa/Jd^Tes iMXO'Lpav ev /MxalpV aTroXoOcrat. In simple truth the aorist in each instance is timeless. It is not necessary to take it as = future perf.^ in an example like 6 vTo/jielvas els reXos ovros (TudriatTai (Mk. 13 : 13). So Mt. 10 : 39. Note the resumptive ovTOs. Cf. 6 yvovs — Kal fifi eroip,a.aa% fj xoti^aas dapiictraL (Lu. 12 : 47). Cf. Jo. 7: 39; 16: 2; 20 : 29, in all of which examples the simple punctiliar action is alone presented in a timeless manner. But in Jo. 3 : 13, oii5tls avafiePijKev els tov ovpavov el firi 6 be tov ov- pavov Kara^as, the content suggests antecedent action. Cf. also 6:41, 'eyii elfu. o apros 6 Karafias^] tov &Tro(XTei\avTa in Mt. 10: 40; Jo. 5 : 15, 6 Tot^aas; Heb. 10 : 29. '0 and the aorist part, is sometimes used of an act past with reference to the time of writing, though future with reference to the action of the principal verb.^ This classic idiom occurs in the N. T. also. Cf. 'lovdas 6 'IffKapt&JTJjs 6 Kal irapaSovs avrbv (Mt. 10:4; cf. also 27:3); usually the phrase is 6 TapaStdois (26 : 25; Jo. 18 : 2, 5). So in Ac. 1 : 16 both yevo/ihov and a-vWa^ova-iv are future to irpoetire. In Col. 1:S b Kal driXiiaas is future to knadere. So Jo. 11:2 (cf. 12 : 3) riv 5k Mapiafi ^ dXci^ao'a tov Kipiov fivpig koI kKfia^aaa tovs ' Abbott, Job. Gr., p. 363. ' As Abbott does, Job. Gr., p. 362. ' lb., p. 364 f. * Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, p. 52 f.; Humphreys, CI. Rev., Feb., '91. 860 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 7r63as aiirov. Cf . Ac. 7 : 35 roO b^devTOs, 9 : 21 6 iropdriaas. This development, though apparently complex, is due to the very indefiniteness (and timelessness) of the aorist participle and the adjectival force of the attributive participle. (7) Antecedent Action. This is the usual idiom with the cir- cumstantial participle. This is indeed the most common use of the aorist participle. But it must not be forgotten that the aorist part, does not in itself mean antecedent action, either relative or absolute.^ That is suggested by the context, the natural sequence of events. As examples of the antecedent aorist part, (ante- cedent from context, not per se) take vriaTtiaM — 'eireivaatv (Mt. 4:2); iSdiv — fierafieKrideis 'iaTpej/ev (27 : 3) ; pi^as — Swexiipv^^", aireXdiiv airiiy^aTo (27:5). These so-called antecedent aorists do not have to precede the principal verb in position in the sen- tence. Thus riyecpev avrijv Kpar'^aas t^s x^'P^s (Mk. 1 : 31), e^xo- puTTOvfiev — aKOvaavTes (Col. 1:3, 4), /leXXet Kpiveiv — jropoo'xti'J' (Ac. 17:31), kKoSwev — yevofievos (Heb. 1:3). This idiom is very common in the N. T. as in the older Greek.^ Indeed, one par- ticiple may precede and one may follow the verb as in Lu. 4 : 35, pi\f/av — k^rjXdtv — /SXd^ai'. In Heb. 6 : 10 the aorist is distin- guished from the present, iveBd^aade—rSiaKouiicravTes rois ayiois Kal diaKovovvres. In Ro. 5 : 16, 81 ivos anapriia-avTos, there is a refer- ence to Adam (verse 14). The principal verb may itself be future as in &pas — iroi-tiaoj (1 Cor. 6 : 15). In Lu. 23:19 ^v pXridels is punctiUar periphrastic (aorist passive), ^v being aoristic also. Moulton {Prol., p. 249) cites ^v aKovcaaa from Pelagia (inscr. 18). Cf. ^aav ytvofievoi in Thuc. 4, 54, 3, and dri vKaKiiv, TapayyelXavTes t(^ 8€}(j)iiKaKL. This is so obviously a case of coincident action that it would never have been adduced but for need of examples to support a theory elsewhere. Cer- tainly "in 17: 26 dpicas is not 'later' than the ivolnjaev in time" (Moulton, Prol., p. 133). Still worse is the instance in 21 : 14, jj.'fl Tei8op,kvov di airov ■^cvxa-o'aiJitv tlTovres' Tov Kvpiov to dkXtjiia yive- oBoi. The participle is here necessarily antecedent or coincident (this last remark of acquiescence). So in 22 : 24, keXeuo-ev — e'liras, the participle is coincident like the common airoKpuSds elirev. Cf. \kyw in Heb. 2 : 11 f.; Ac. 7 : 35. Precisely the same thing is true of ecjyr] — Ke^^icras in 23 : 35. In 24 : 23, ave^akero is expanded by three coincident aorist participles, etScbs — e'iiras — StaTa^aixevos. There remains 25 : 13, Kariivrrjcav els K-aiaaplav aavaaanevoi tov ^rjarov. Here Blass, as already noted, accepts the future aawaao- nevoi, but the aorist is probably correct. But even so, if one simply notes the "perfective" force of the preposition in Ka.Ti}VT-n- t^ ovonari aov iKfiaWopra SaifidvM (Lu. 9 : 49). Cf. elSev av5pa—d(re\e6vTa Kal kiridivra (Ac. 9 : 12. So in 10 : 3; 26 : 13) ; riKoiiranev — kvexBeimv (2 Pet. 1 : 18). 2. PuNCTiLiAR (AoKiSTic) PRESENT (o iveerTQXi ■)^p6vo<;). The present tense is named entirely from point of time which only applies to the indicative. But a greater difficulty is due to the absence of distinction in the tense between punctiliar and linear action. This defect is chiefly found in the indicative, since in the subj., opt., imper., inf. and part., as already shown, the aorist is always punctiliar and the so-called present practically always Un- ear, unless the Aktionsart of the verb itself is strongly punctiliar. Cf. discussion of the imper. But in the ind. present the sharp line drawn between the imperf. and aorist ind. (past time) does not exist. There is nothing left to do but to divide the so-called Pres. Ind. into Aoristic Present and Durative Present (or Punc- tiliar Present and Linear Present). The one Greek form covers both ideas in the ind.^ The present was only gradually developed as a distinct tense (cf . the confusion about €-<^ij-j', whether aorist or imperf.). The present is formed on punctiliar as well as linear roots. It is not wise therefore to define the pres. ind. as denoting " action in progress" like the imperf. as Burton* does, for he has to take it back on p. 9 in the discussion of the "Aoristic Present," which he calls a "distinct departure from the prevailing use of the present tense to denote action in progress." In sooth, it is no "departure" at all. The idiom is as old as the tense itself and is due to the failure in the development of a separate tense for punctiliar and linear action in the ind. of present time. "The forms duL, dyn, 4)rip.l, 070;, ypatj}, etc., in which the stem has the form generally found only in aorists (§ 11, § 31) may be ' Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 408. ' Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 51. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 134. * Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 120 f.; Sayce, Intr. to the Science of L., vol. II, P- 152 f. 6 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 6. TENSE (XPONOS) 865 regarded as surviving instances of the 'Present Aorist,' i.e. of a present not conveying the notion of progress. Wq may com- pare the English use of / am, I go (now archaic in the sense of I am going), I say, {says she), etc."' Hear Monro again: "The present is not a space of time, but a point," and, I may add, yields itself naturally to aoristic (punctiUar) action. Some pres- ents are also "perfective" in sense like ^koj. The so-called "pres- ent" tense may be used, therefore, to express an action simply (punctiliar), a process (durative or Unear), a state (perfective or perfect).^ Some of the root-presents (like <^7j-m0 are aoristic. The perfect came originally out of the root-meaning also (cf., fim, ot8a) and grew out of the present as a sort of intensive present.' The notion of state in vlkSj, KparS>, fiTTWfiai is really that of the perfect. So the momentary action in j3?j (i-Pti-v) be- comes Unear in the iterative ^i-ffa-co, 'patter, patter.' Moulton* clearly recognises that "the punctiUar force is obvious in certain presents." The original present was probably therefore aoristic, or at least some roots were used either as punctiliar or linear, and the distinctively durative notions grew up around specially formed stems and so were applied to the form with most verbs,, though never with all. In the modern Greek we find "the crea- tion of a separate aorist present (iraycS)," while irayaLvo} is linear. So ■Kayalvu is 'I keep going,' while Tayca is 'I go' (single act). Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 119. "As a rule the present combines cursive (durative, continuous, etc.) and aorist action" (ib., p. 120). The aoristic present = undefined action in the present, as aoristic past (uid.)= undefined action in the past. In the case of ayu we see a root used occasionally for punctiUar, linear and even per- fected action. There are, besides the naturally aoristic roots, three special uses of the aoristic present (the universal present, the historical present, the futuristic present).^ (a) The Specific Present. Gildersleeve^ thus describes this sim- plest form of the aoristic present in contrast with the universal present. It is not an entirely happy description, nor is "ef- fective present," suggested by Jannaris," since there may be in- gressive and constative uses also. The common eijui (Jo. 10 : 11) is often aoristic. A fine example of the constative aorist pres- ent occurs in Lu. 7 : 8, iropebdr]Ti, Kal TropeveTai — epxov, Kcd ipxerai — ToiriliVTai is effective aorist present as in iarai (Ac. 9 : 34). Cf. offot . oiiK 2xo"o't»'j olTLves oxjK "eyvoiaav (Rev. 2 : 24) ; ivbBev JjMov and iriSe;' gpxoMttt (Jo. 8 : 14) ; ?x" — ^X^ei- (Jo. 16 : 21). Moulton {Prol., p. 247) notes how in Mt. 6 : 2, 5, 16, airkxavai, the combination of the aoristic pres. and the perfective use of dxo makes it very- vivid. " The hypocrites have as it were their money down, as soon as their trumpet has sounded." The "perfective" kirkxia (Mk. 14 : 41) is copiously illustrated in the papyri and ostraca (Deiss- mann, Light, etc., p. 111). (6) The Gnomic Present. This is the aorist present that is time- less in reality, true of all time. It is really a gnomic present (cf. the Gnomic Aorist) and differs very little from the "Specific Present." In Mt. 23 : 2 kKaBurav is gnomic, and in verse 3 we have the aoristic presents (gnomic also), \k'yovriT7]s ovk hyeLperai, (Jo. 7: 52). It is this gnomic present. It is not true, to be sure, but this was not the only error of the Sanhedrin. Cf. Mt.7:8. (c) The Historical Present. This vivid idiom is popular in all languages,^ particularly in the vernacular. "We have only to overhear a servant girl's 'so she says to me' if we desiderate proof that the usage is at home among us."^ Cf. Uncle Remus. Curiously the historic present is absent in Homer.^ But Gilder- sleeve ^ applauds Stahl for agreeing with his position "that it was tabooed as vulgar by the epos and the higher lyric" {A. J. P., xxiii, 245). It is absent from Pindar and the Nibelungenlied. Gildersleeve' also observes that it is much more frequent in Greek than in EngUsh and is a survival of "the original stock of our languages." "It antedates the differentiation into imperfect and aorist." The "AimaUstic or Note-Book Present" (hke yly- vovrai iratSes 5\j6) is practically the same use of the aorist present. Moulton' suggests ytwarai in Mt. 2 : 4, but that is more like the 1 Joh. Gr., p. 358. ^ Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 393. 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 434. » Syntax of CI. Gk., p. 86. » Moulton, Prol., p. 120 f. ' Prol., p. 120. * Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 47. TENSE (XPONOS) 867 futuristic (prophetic) use of the present. Brugmann' divides the hist. pres. into "dramatic" and "registering" or annalistic pres- ents (cf. Gildersleeve). This vivid idiom is preserved in the modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 120). It is common enough in the LXX, since Thackeray {Or., p. xx) notes 151 examples in 1 Samuel, though it is rare in 2 Samuel and 2 Kings (" absent," Thackeray, Gr., p. 24). But Hawkins {Horae Synopticae, p. 213) finds it 32 times in 2 Samuel and twice in 2 Kings. Haw- kins (ib.) finds the hist. pres. in the LXX 337 times. Josephus uses it also. The N. T. examples are thus "dramatic." The hist. pres. is not always aoristic. It may be durative like the imperfect.^ This point has to be watched. Blass^ considers that the historical present "habitually takes an aoristic meaning," but room has to be left for the durative meaning also. It is common in the Attic orators and in the N. T., except in Luke where it is rare.* Luke's Gospel has it only 9 times (possibly 11) and the Acts 13 times. Hawkins, from whose Horae Synopticae (2d ed., pp. 143 £f.) these figures are taken, finds 93 historic presents in Matthew (15 of them in Parables), but 162 in John and 151 in Mark. It is rare in the rest of the N. T. It is most frequent in Mark, John, Matthew and in this order. Mark indeed uses it as often as 1 Samuel, though a much shorter book. John's Gospel is much longer than Mark's, but when the discourses and dialogues are eliminated, the difference between John and Mark is not great.^ Moulton^ adds that the idiom is common in the papyri. Cf. Par. P. 51 (ii/s.c.) avvyco — 6pS> — Kkaiyu — iiroptvbutjv — koJ ipxofmi — eXe70j', etc. Moulton illustrates Xeyei 'luicrovs in the Oxyrhynchus Logia by Kaiaap X^et, Syll. 376. See also aiipTra(Tev Kal fiovKeraL, P. Oxy. 37 (a.d. 49). Luke's mani- fest reluctance to use it (changing Mark's historical presents except in 8 : 49) is due to the fact that in Luke's time the con- struction was regarded as "too familiar for his liking." He is the scientific historian, while Mark and John are the dramatists. Different writers would feel differently about it. "Josephus would use the tense as an imitator of the classics, Mark as a man of the people who heard it in daily use around him; while Luke ' Gk. Gr., p. 484 f . The hist, present demands merely that the reader take his stand with the writer in the midst of the moving panorama. Del- briick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 261. ' Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 11. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 188. ' Ib. ° Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 143 f. ' Prol., p. 121. 868 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT would have Greek education enough to know that it was not common in the cultured speech of his time, but not enough to recall the encouragement of classical writers whom he probably never read and would not have imitated if he had read them."' But what about John? Jannaris^ remarks that the idiom was common in the late Greek as in the early. The personal equation may have to explain the variations in the Gospels. Blass' un- dertakes to give a philosophy of the matter on the theory that the "circumstances," "incidentals" and "final results" are ex- pressed in the past tenses of the ind., while the "principal actions" are found in the historical present. He cites Jo. 1 : 29-42 in il- lustration (jSX^Tret — \iyei. — e/jmpTvpriaev — tarriKei — "Kiyei — ^kov- aav — 'Kkr/ti — elirav — \kryei — r[kdav nal elSav — ^v — ^v — ebpioKti — \ir^ei — Tijajiv — d-wev). One doubts if the phenomena can be brought under any rule. Matthew and Luke use ISov to enliven the narrative, while Mark and John avoid it.^ Mark has a habit of using Kai before the historical present, while John often employs asyndeton.^ But there is no doubt of the vividness of the narra- tive in Mark and John which is largely due to the historical presents. Modern literary English abhors this idiom, but it ought to be preserved in translating the Gospels in order to give the same element of vividness to the narrative. The historical present may begin ^ a paragraph (often so), occur in the midst of aorists and imperfects, or alternate with aorists. In Mt. 3 : 1 irapwyiveTat, 'Icaaprjs is preceded by a note of past time. In Mk. 5 : 15 ipxovrai Kal decopovaiv occur between aorists. In Mk. 4 : 37 the realistic yiverai XoTXai^ is followed by the imperfect. As specimens of this present in parables see Mt. 13 : 44. Sometimes the MSS. vary as between 4>alveTai and k4>Lvri (Mt. 2 : 13). The variation in parables may be partly due to obscuration of the gnomic nature of the narrative. In such a wealth of material for illustration it is hard to select, but note John 20. In verse 1 f. note epxerat — ^X^Tret — Tpkx^t — ipxerai., all indicating the excite- ment of Mary. Then the narrative goes on with aorists and im- perfects till Peter and John draw near the tomb, when we have pU-Tcei — 'ipxerai — OeupeZ (5-7) with two parenthetic aorists inter- jected (oiK eiaij\eev, elaij^dev). In verse 8 the narrative is resumed by aorists. In verse 12, again dewpet shows the surprise of Mary at seeing the angels i\kyovaiv — \kyii, verse 13), as in verse 14 > Prol., p. 121. t Hawkins, Hor. Synop., p. 144. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 434. » Abbott, Job. Gr., p. 350. 3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 188. ' W.-Tb., p. 267. TENSE (XPONOS) 869 the present is used when she sees Jesus. Historical presents run through the dialogue with Jesus (15-18). Then the resumptive Tdvra etvtp. That is enough to say on the subject. (d) The Futuristic Present. This futuristic present is gener- ally punctiliar or aoristic' The construction certainly had its origin in the punctiliar roots,^ but some of the N. T. examples (cf. English "I am going," as well as "I go") are durative, as Moulton' shows. Thus in 1 Cor. 16 : 5 hkpxoixai. (in contrast with bi&Sw) means 'I am going through' (Macedonia). TlvonaL leans to the aoristic* and so ylv^Tai (Mt. 26 : 2) may be punc- tiliar. "In aipvov airodvii(rKOfi€v (1 Cor. 15 : 32) we have a verb in which the perfective prefix has neutralized the inceptive force of the suffix -i (Xio-oj) alone occur. But the modern Greek has developed thus two futures, Oa Xiiata punctiliar, da Xvco durative (Thumb, Handb., pp. 116, 125). The Germanic languages (cf. English shall and will) have only the periphrastic future. For the history of the future ind. see Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 552 ff. In Sanskrit the fut. had no modes, i.e. it was confined practically to the ind. (Whit- ney, Sans. Gr., p. 201). The oldest roots are derived either from punctiliar presents (ind.) or aorist (punctiliar) subjunctives.* Cf. TTio/iat, jSiJoro/iai. Gradually the future was formed on dura- tive roots also. Thus /ievco, 'I shall remain.' Some verbs formed two futures,^ one punctiliar, like o-xijo-o from e(rxov='I shall ob- tain,' the other durative, Uke e^o, 'I shall have.' The KOLvij has dropped (Txn<^^, as it has "generally got rid of alternative forms.'" So also Bpk^onai {rpkxta) was durative and Spaixovnai {e&paixov) punctiliar,' though both are absent in the N. T. It is probable 1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 189. ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 480. = Abbott, Job. Gr., p. 352. « Moulton, Prol., p. 150. » Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 479. ' Thompson, Synt., p. 219. * Giles, Man., p. 447. TENSE (XPONOZ) 871 that in the future passive we have with most verbs a purely punctiliar future formed on the aorist stem. The middle future was usually durative, the future passive punctiUar.' Very few of the list of examples given by Jannaris can be illustrated in the N. T. owing to the disappearance of the future middle before the future passive. In 1 Pet. 4 : 18 (jjavelTai. (LXX, Prov. 11: 31) is durative and certainly avricerai. (Mt. 24 : 30) is punctiliar. So in Lu. 16 : 31 irei.(iBij(TovTai is punctiliar (effective), but ireicrofiai does not occur in the N. T. So KriiaecBi ras \pvxa.s vficov (Lu. 21 : 19) seems to be durative, though no fut. passive of this verb appears in the N. T. So also awaxOvcrovTaL (Mt. 24 : 28) is punctiliar (effec- tive). But the very disappearance of the future middle (as with the Attic ^o/S^o-o/iai) threw the burden of the durative future'' on the future passive. So ^fiTidijaafw.i in Heb. 13 : 6 is durative. Cf. the durative apKeaBr^cbufBa (1 Tim. 6 : 8). So also aXXa Kal xo-PV- aonai (Ph. 1 : 18) is durative. Cf. also Jo. 16 : 20, 22, though xa-phaovTai in Lu. 1 : 14 is ingressive punctiUar, as irkritrBiiiTiTai (1 : 15) is effective punctiUar. But in Jo. 16 : 20 both Xvwqdijaeade and yeviiaeTai seem ingressive. In Heb. 9 : 28 (xjidriaeTai. (cf. Ac. 26 : 16) is ingressive, but o^ffofmi may be either durative (Mt. 5 : 8; Jo. 1 : 50; 19 : 37; Rev. 22 : 4) or punctiliar (Jo. 1 : 39; Heb. 12 : 14, etc.). An excellent example of the effective future is found in 6 mofieivas tis reXos atii0i)(X€Tai (Mt. 10 : 22). So the same form in the future may be either punctiliar or durative, as itpoa^di iifias (Mk. 14 : 28) is durative, while a^ei is punctiliar (ef- fective =' bring').* Helffofiev is punctiliar (effective) in Mt. 28 : 14 and durative in 1 Jo. 3 : 19. So yvdsaofiai is pxmctiliar or dura- tive (Rev. 2 :-23).' As punctiliar yvuaonai may be either ingres- sive (1 Cor. 14 : 7, 9), effective (1 Cor. 4 : 19) or merely constative (Jo. 8 : 28, 32). From the nature of the action as future this Akticmsart of the verb will not be as prominent* in the future aorist as in the other punctiliar constructions. Blass* even goes so far as to say that the future "is the one tense which does not express action [kind of action, he means], but simply a time relation, so that completed and continuous action are not diffe- rentiated." But it must be borne in mind that the future tense in itself makes as much distinction between pimctiliar and dura- 1 Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, pp. 114 fif., 170 ff.; GUes, Man., p. 483; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 441. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 150. ' lb., p. 149. * Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 33. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 201. 872 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT tive action as the present tense .does. The difference is that the future is usually punctiliar, while the present is more often dura- tive. The point need not be pressed. Other examples of the punctiUar aorist are KaXecrets (Mt. 1 : 21) ingressive; irapaKKtiBitaovTai (Mt. 5 : 4) effective, and so xop'''°-<^6i](TovTaL, but k\eri6iiQ^v koI iropevcerai. — /tat etirn ahr^, the fut. ind. (rhetorical) and aorist subj. occur side by side if we can trust the reading. Cf. Mt. 7: 6, with fiii-woTe; Eph. 6 : 3, with Iva (O. T.). The examples of the fut. ind. in deliberative questions are all disputed by some MSS. which have the aorist subj., so that Blass* remarks that "the N. T. in this case prac- tically uses only the conjunctive"; but that is an overstatement, since the btest MSS. (see W. H. and Nestle texts) support the fut. ind. in some instances. As an example of merely interroga- ' lb. 2 N. T. Moods and Tenses, pp. 36, 76 f. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 211. * lb., p. 210. Cf. W.-Th., p. 279. 876 A GBAMMAR OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT tive deliberative questions with fut. ind. take « ■jrara^o/iep kv fia- Xo-'i'PO (Lu. 22 : 49). In Jo. 18 : 39, ^oiiXeade dxoXiro-ci), we may have the fut. ind. or the aorist subj., but note /3o6Xe Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 201. * lb. 4 lb.; Moulton, Prol., p. 151. » Appendix, p. 172. « Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 556. • See the list in Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 486. TENSE (XPONOS) 877 examples in the N. T. seem to be punctiliar save two (Ac. 11 : 28; Jo. 21: 25). MkWoi has the fut. inf. three times, but only in the case of iaeadat (Ac. 11 : 28; 24 : 15; 27 : 10). The three other instances of the fut. inf. in the N. T. belong to ind. discourse. One (xwpiiereti') occurs with oi/mt (Jo. 21:25), one {iaeadai) with lifivvu, or more exactly after eiri|3ouXiJ (Ac. 23 : 30, genitive absolute, fiiivvdeiaiis fwi htn^ovXfjs ^aeaBai),^ one (etffeXeio-ecrflat) with o/ivio) (Heb. 3 : 18). So that the fut. inf. "was already moribund for practical purposes."^ In the papyri Moulton found the fut. inf. often a mere blunder for an aorist. In Ac. 26 : 7, B has the fut. inf. after k\iri^bj. In the fut. inf. the time relation is only relative, as with all infinitives, not absolute as in the ind.' Elsewhere with such verbs the aorist inf. occurs as with eXxffw (1 Cor. 16 : 7) ; /i^XXco (Ro. 8 : 18); duuboi (Ac. 2 : 30); diwSoyba (Mt. 14: 7); xpoo-SoKooj (Ac. 27 : 33) ; TpoKarayykWb} (Ac. 3 : 18) ; or the present inf. as with fikWca (Ac. 3 : 3); or the perfect inf. as with kXiri^u (2 Cor. 5 : 11). (3) The Participle. The future part, was later in its develop- ment* than the other tenses of this very ancient, even prehistoric,^ verbal adjective. The fut. part, was never developed in the Boeotian Dialect.' It is by no means dead in the papyri. Moul- ton' notes "the string of final fut. participles in O. P. 727 (ii/A.D.); B. U. 98 (iii/A.D., etc." See also KoivoKoyriaSnevov P. Goodspeed 4 (ii/B.c). TO. — {i7)Tadri(r6iJLiva P. Tb. 33 (B.C. 112), and the list in 0. P. 1118, 10 f (I/a.d.). It seems to me to be more common in the papyri than in the N. T. Simcox^ suggests that its rarity in the N. T. is due to the use of other phrases. Cf . fiiWca in Ac. 18 : 14; 20 : 3, 7 and ipxofievos in Rev. 1.: 4, etc. The time is, of course, only relative to that of the principal verb, as in iXriXWei wpoaKvvriauv (Ac. 8 : 27). The anarthrous examples are volitive' and are the most freq^ent."' They are used for purpose or aim. Cf . Mt. 27 : 49 epxtrai aisaiav, Ac. 8 : 27 eXrjXuffet irpoaKwriacov, 22 : 5 hiropevpiniv a^uv, 24 : 11 avkP'qv TpoaKvvqcrciiv, 24 : 17 Toiiiabiv irapeyevop/riv, Heb. 13 : 17 kypvirvovaiv cos airoSiiiaovTes. Cf . also V. 1. uis eupriaiov in Mk. 11 : 13. These all seem to be punctiliar. Some MSS. also read iunraaoiiivoi. in Ac. 25 : 13. This is surely a slim showing com- ' Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 120, suggests omission of fieXXu. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 151. Cf. Hatz., Einl., pp. 190 ff. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 202. ' Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 71. ' Prol., p. 230. " Moulton, Prol., p. 151. « Lang, of the N. T., p. 126. 8 Claflin, Synt. of the B. Inscr., p. 73. » Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 496. '» Moulton, Prol., p. 151. That is, in the old Gk. Both voUtive and futur- istic are rare in the N. T. 878 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT pared with the classic idiom.* Some MSS. read KOfiu)vnevoi in 2 Pet. 2 : 13, rather than aSucovfievoi.. The future participle with the article is futuristic, not volitive. So with rd eabiuvov (Lu. 22 :49); 6 -Kapabiicuv (Jo. 6 :64); rd avvavriiaovra (Ac. 20 :22); b KaKuauv (1 Pet. 3 : 13) ; to yev^^ao/xevov (1 Cor. 15 : 37) ; 6 KaTaKpivuv (Ro. 8 : 34); tSiv \akifij)aonkviav (Heb. 3:5). (d) The Periphrastic Substitutes for the Future. The peri- phrastic future is as old as the Sanskrit and has survived the in- flected form in Greek. Some of these forms are durative, probably- most of them, but a few are punctiliar. Jannaris notes in Soph- ocles, O. C..816, \vT7jBds 'iaei., and 0. T. 1146, ov (nuir'fiaas eaa, but no examples of the aorist participle and eo-o/iat occur in the N. T. They are all present parts, (like 'icecde ^.taohfixvoi, Lu. 21 : 17) and so durative. In the LXX we actually have the inf. with iaoiiai (Num. 10 : 2; 2 Sam. 10 : 11; Tob. 5 : 15). The use of nkWw with the aorist inf. approaches the punctiliar future.^ Cf. ^IxiKKev -irpoirayayetv (Ac. 12:6); /xeXKovcrav a.'K0Ka\vcj>6r)vai, (Ro. 8 : 18. Cf. Gal. 3 : 23), with which compare the pres. inf. in 1 Pet. 5:1. The aorist inf. occurs also in Rev. 3:2, 16; 12 : 4. The volitive future was sometimes expressed by dk\ ri ypail/oS), in. Durative (Linear) Action. The principles underlying the use of the tenses have now been set forth with sujficient clearness to justify brevity. 1. Indicative. (a) The Present (6 hiarSis) for Present Time. It has already been seen that the durative sense does not monopolize the "pres- ent" tense, though it more frequently denotes Unear action.^ The verb and the context must decide. (a) The Descriptive Present. Its graph is ( ). As with the imperfect, so with the present this is the most frequent use. Cf. &,Tro\\vneda (Mt. 8 : 25. Contrast aorist aSiaov. So Mk. 4 : 38; Lu. 8 : 24) ; o^kvvwTai (Mt. 25 : 8) ; ey ^ ipxofmi (Jo. 5:7); aivei. (1 Jo. 2:8); awxivveTaL (Ac. 21 : 31) ; reXetrat (2 Cor. 12 : 9) ; ^au- juaf CO OTL ovTCOs raxetos luraTiOeade (Gal. 1:6); iTn' o5 epxopai (Lu. 13 : 7) ToaavTO, irri dovKeiiai aoi (15 : 29) ; iroKhv ^8ri xP°vov €X*i (Jo. 5 : 6) ToaovTOv xpovov p,€B' vixSiv ei/xi (14 : 9) ; aw' apxvs /xer' l/toO kare (15 27); TraXat SoKetre (2 Cor. 12 : 19). Cf. airo fipktJMvs ol8as (2 Tim. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 443. » Moulton, Prol., p. 119. » Synt., p. 86. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 189; Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 10. 880 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 3 : 15). It is a common idiom in the N. T. Cf. 2 Pet. 3 : 4; 1 Jo. 3 : 8. In Jo. 8 : 58 einl is really absolute. (-y) The Iterative or Customary Present. Its graph is ( ). Cf . kr/Kpareverai (1 Cor. 9 : 25) ; Tru/creuaj and tircotria^oj Kal dovXaycoyS) (9 : 26 f.). So vtiarehca Sis tov aa^^krov, airoSeKareicio iravra oca ktSiimi (Lu. 18 : 12) ; 5tSco/it koL diroStS&j/it (19 : 8, unless it refers to a new purpose in Zaccheus, when ifc would be aoristic); S evhyyovixw (1 Cor. 10 : 16); Si' KKufiev (10 : 16); xpoXa/i/Sdvet (11:21); KarayykX- Xere (11 : 26); eaOlei Kal vivei (11 : 29); Koifucvrai (11 : 30); ovx afmp- tLvu (1 Jo. 3:6); Ampravu (3:8). Cf. Mt. 9 : 17. Probably also ail>loiiev (Lu. 11:4). (5) The Inchoative or Conative Present. Either an act just beginning; like yiverai, (Mk. 11:23), eWvs aKavbakl^ovrai, (4:17), XtfldfeTe (Jo. 10 : 32), viirrus (13 : 6), irotels (13 : 27), ayei (Ro. 2:4), or an act begun but interrupted like nWeis (Ac. 26:28; cf. 2 Cor. 5 : 11), avayKa^ws (Gal. 2 : 14), SiKaiovaQe (5 :4), avay- Ka^ovaLv (6 : 12). Indeed XM^ere (Jo. 10 : 32) and viirTus (13 : 6) may be regarded as conative also. This idiom is more common in the imperfect. Cf. Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 82. In English we have to use "begin" or "try." (e) The Historical Present. These examples are usually aoristic, but sometimes durative.^ In Mk. 1' : 12 we have kjSaXXet which is durative. Cf. ijyero in Lu. 4 : 1 (but Mt. 4 : 1, avrixBv)- So in Mk. 1 : 21 elairopevovTai is durative. The same thing seems to be true of aKo\ovdov(TLv in 6:1. (f) The Deliberative Preserd. Rhetorical deliberative questions may be put by the present ind., but it is rather a rhetorical way of putting a negation than a question of doubt. Cf. tL iroiovfieu; (Jo. 11:47), 'What are we doing?' Cf. tI ivoiiiau (Mt. 21:40) with ri irouap.tv (Jo. 6 : 28) and rl iroL-liffcofiev (Ac. 4 : 16). The im- plication of the question in Jo. 11:47 is that nothing was being done. In Mt. 12 : 34, tt&js Sbvacrde d7a0d XaXeiy; a durative delib- erative question is expressed by means of bhvaade and the pres. inf. Cf. a sunilar construction with Sei in Ac. 16 : 30.'' Cf. the same idiom in an indirect question (Col. 4: 6; 2 Th. 3 : 7; 1 Tim. 3 : 15). The use of the pres. ind. in a deliberative question is a rare idiom. Blass' finds parallels in colloquial Latin and an ex- ample in Herm., Sim., IX, 9, 1. (tj) The Periphrastic Present. The examples are not numerous in the LXX.* Cf. Num. 14 : 8; 1 Ki. 18 : 12, etc. It is rare m », Goodwin, M. and T., p. 11. » lb. 2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 210. • C. and S., Sel., p. 68. TENSE (XPONOZ) 881 the N. T. Moulton' warns us that "ix<>>v 'eari and 5kov iarl (with other impersonal verbs) are both classical and vernacular." In the -present tense the idiom is on purely Greek lines, not Semitic. For classical examples see Gildersleeve {Syntax, p. 81). So the impersonal verbs (and ^x") stand to themselves^ in support from ancient Greek and the kolut]. Cf . iarw exovra (Col. 2 : 23) ; irpkr TTov karlv (Mt. 3 : 15); k^bv {sc. kaH) in Ac. 2:29 and 2 Cor. 12: 4; deov iaHv (Ac. 19:36. Cf. 1 Pet. 1:6). Other examples are ^(7T(is dfil (Ac. 25 : 10), tanv Karepxoiikvrt (Jas. 3 : 15), karlv irpoaava- irXi/poOcro — dXXo Kol ireptaffeiovaa (2 Cor. 9 : 12), iari-p aWijyopoii- lieva (Gal. 4 : 24) and, in particular, explanatory phrases with 6 kariv (Mt. 1:23; 27:33; Mk. 5:41; Jo. 1:41). Cf. further Ac. 5 : 25; Col. 1 : 6; 3 : 2; 2 Cor. 2 : 17. (9) Presents as ^Perfects. Here the form is that of the present, but the root has the sense of completion. The action is durative only in the sense of state, not of linear action. This is an old use of these roots.' Cf. Lu. 15 :27, 6 a5eX(^6s fj/cei ('has come,' 'is here'). Cf. k^^dov Kal ^kco (Jo. 8,: 42). See ch. VIII. So with Ketrai (Mt. 3 : 10), 'the axe lies at the root of the trees' (has been placed there); 6 SidaaKoKos irapea-Tiv (Jo. 11:28)= 'the Teacher is come.' Sometimes vwcaw is so used (cf . Ro. 12 : 21 ; Rev. 15 : 2). So riTTuvTai (2 Pet. 2 : 20). Cf. aKoverai in 1 Cor. 11 : 18. See also aicoberai (1 Cor. 5 : 1) which is rather iterative. 'ASiKoj in Mt. 20 : 13 is durative, but approaches a perfect in Ac. 25 : 11 (cf. Treirpaxa). (0 Perfects as Presents. Some perfect forms have come to be used as practical durative presents, though not of the same word. Thus ol8a from elSov='I have seen,' 'I know' (cf. Mt. 6 : 8). So iffTTiKa (Lu. 8 : 20), fiifivrifuu (1 Cor. 11:2). As to dTroXcoXa that occurs in the N. T. in the participle (Mt. 10 : 6) and the same tlung is true of euada (Lu. 4 : 16), which occurs in past perfect. So jS^^rjKa, ykyova, SkdoiKa, i]ful)UafmL, kypriyopa, iouca, KeKXrifmi, KkKTrjiuu, irkroiJBa, Trk€pa as aorists (Thumb, Handb., p. 143). Thumb {Th. L.-Z., xxviu, 423) thinks that in the N. T. eepov had begun to be treated as aorist, but Moulton (Prol., p. 129) demurs, though he admits the possibility of punctiliar action in Trp6(r(t>epe to Scopov in Mt. 5 : 24 {ib., p. 247). See also kpe Kal i5e, 'ep€ Kal /SaXe in Jo. 20 : 27. But one must not think that the Greeks did not know how to distinguish between the aorist and the imperfect. They "did not care to use their finest tools on every occasion,"^ but the line between aorist and imperf. was usually very sharply drawn.* The distinction is as old as the Sanskrit.' In modem Greek it still survives, though the differ- > Moulton, Prol., p. 128. ' Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 394. ' Giles, Man., p. 488; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 487; Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 46. < Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., XXIV, p. 180; XXIX, p. 4. ' Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 17. Gildersl., Synt., pp. 91, 94. ' Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 201 f. TENSE (XPONOS) 883 ence between eKeyev and elirev is well-nigh gone,* if it ever existed. The same thing is true of the usage of Achilles Tatius.^ Hence we need not insist that ^v (Jo. 1 : 1) is strictly diirative always (im- perfect). It may be sometimes actually aorist also. So as to fe^ (Mt. 4:7); iXeyev (Mk. 4 :21, 24, 26, 30, etc.), etc. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 192, fails to make a clear distinction. Note MXtvov (Ac. 16 : 22). (j3) The Descriptive Tense in Narrative. But the linear action may be insisted on in the true imperfect. It is properly "nicht- pimktuell." Though less frequent in Homer than the aorist it often "divides the crown with the aorist."' The imperfect is here a sort of moving panorama, a "moving-picture show." The modem Greek preserves this idiom (Thumb, Handb., p. 121). In 1 Cor. 10 : 3 f. 'i(t>ayov and eviov give the summary (con- stative) record, while hnvov presents an explanatory description. See further ■jrpo, 'the choking in his rage.' See the picture of Jesus in kdei^pei (Mk. 12:41). Cf. Weiipovv (Lu. 10 : 18), k^eXiyovTO (14 : 7), irepie/SXeireTO (Mk. 5 : 32), i^iiTTavTo (Lu. 2 :47; cf. Ac. 2 : 12). Cf. Lu. 9 : 43-45; 16 : 19; Mt. 8 : 24. A good example is iKv\leTo aippi^uv (Mk. 9 : 20). Cf. further, hrnrTev Kal TpoaijbxeTo (Mk. 14:35), the realistic scene in Gethsemane (Peter's description probably); iireBbixei Kal obSels i&i8ov (Lu. 15 : 16); wnlXow vrpAs dXXi7Xous (24 : 14); k^eifKijcaovvTo (Mt. 7:28); 'eridei (2 Cor. 3 : 13); rjKoKbiidei Kal kKoSriTo (Mt. 26 : 58). A splendid example of the descriptive durative is tciunra (Mt. 26 : 63) = 'kept silent.' So «rX€OM«i' (Ac. 21:3). Note ^vo- /wfoj' (Ac. 21 : 29) between past perfect and aorist. Cf. fe^iXei ' Moulton, Prol., p. 128. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 436. ^ Sexauer, Der Sprachgebr. d. rom. Schriftst. Achilles Tatius, 1899, p. 29. ' Gildersl., Am. Jour, of PhiloL, 1908, p. 242. • Hultsch, Der Gebr. d. erzahlenden Zeitf. bei Polyb. 884 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (Jo. 11 : 36), Sieriipei. (Lu. 2 : 51. Cf . 2 : 19). See the picture of Noah's time in Lu. 17:27. Cf. en-opeiiovro xa't^povres (Ac. 5 :41). Quite striking is iiktl^oixev in Lu. 24 : 21. See further for the "imperfect and aorist interwoven" in narrative Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 91. An artist could describe his work by krolriffa or kiroiovv. Gildersleeve notes (ib., p. 93) that in the inscriptions of the fourth cent. b.c. the imperfect is absent. It becomes com- mon again in the imperial time. (7) The Iterative {Customary) Imperfect. Sometimes it is diffi- cult to tell whether an act is merely descriptive or is a series. Cf. TToXXoi wKovaioi e^aXKov (Mk. 12 :41); irviyovTo (5 : 13), where the separate details are well described by the vivid imperfect. The notion of repetition is clearly present in ripdora iXernMavvriv (Ac. 3:3); ^pwra aMv (Mk. 7 : 26). Cf. Jo. 4 : 31. The modern Greek keeps this usage (Thumb, Handb., p. 122). It is not neces- sary to see any "aoristic" notion here.^ Cf. TapeKoSow (rTov8aU>is (Lu. 7:4, W. H.) ; irap-gvei (Ac. 27 : 9). It is well shown in Bapva- jSos k^ovXero, IlaOXos rj^lov (15 : 37 f.), the one opposing the other. In Ac. 24 : 26 repetition is shown in cb/itXei by irvKvoTepov fiera- veniro/ievos. Cf . oXXo^ 5^ aWo ri kTe4>6}vovv (21 : 34) ; eTwdavero in verse 33; kojB' ruikpav kKaBt^bp,-qv (Mt. 26:55); eTvirrov (27:30); OTTOU ^Kovov (Mk. 6 : 55) ; KaTtiyopow iroWa (15 : 3) ; aTekvev ov Trap^TOVVTO (15 : 6. Cf . €i6£ei airoKveiv 6v ^deKov, Mt. 27 : 15) ; kvk- vivov (Lu. 1 : 62); kp6.TTL^ev (Jo. 3 : 22); JXue (5 : 18); iSldoirav (19 : 3) ; k^iivvves (21 : 18) ; krldow (Ac. 3:2); kirLirpaaKov Kal Sie/ieptfoi' (2 : 45. Cf. 4 : 34). Moulton {Prol, p. 128) represents the iterative imperfect by the graph ( ). Cf. Ac. 16 : 18; 18 : 8; Mk. 3 : 11; 4 : 33 f. A good example is in Lu. 2 : 41, eiropeWro xar' (tros. (8) The Progressive Imperfect. Sometimes the imperfect looks ahead, even approaching the time of the speaker.^ Thus Ti ori k^riT€iTk jtte (Lu. 2 : 49); fjv dxtre air' apxvs (1 Jo. 2:7); kvoiOTTTbfniv (Ro. 15 :22); ep.e\\ov (Rev. 3:2). This idea is, however, often expressed by ^eXXw,' but without the backward look also. Cf. Lu. 9 : 31; 10 : 1; Jo. 4 : 47; 6 : 71, etc. In kKivSivevov (Lu. 8 : 23) the verb itself expresses peril or danger. Gildersleeve {Syntax, p. 97) calls this idiom "Imperfect of Unity of Time." Cf. the "progressive" present in (a), {fi). The Text. Recept. gives a good example in ^u ^dXai t6 irXoiov kv fikirca rrjs da\&(T(T7i% (Mk. 6 :47). See also ^v yap ef havOiv xp^vuv dkXoiv Ideiv avrov (Lu. 23 : 8). » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 191. » Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 13 f. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 13. 8 Gildersl., Synt., p. 94 f. TENSE (XPONOS) 885 (e) The Inchoative or Conative Imperfect. Here the accent is on the beginning of the action either in contrast to preceding aorists (just begun) or because the action was interrupted (be- gun, but not compl€;J;ed). The two sorts of inchoative action may be represented by two graphs, thus ( ) for the first, (- ) for the second.^ In English we have to say "began" for the one, "tried" for the other. The modem Greek maintains this idiom (Thumb, Handb., p. 121). As examples of the first sort where "began" brings out the idea, note kdiSacKe (Mt. 5 : 2. Cf. Jo. 7 : 14); k\6Xei (Mk. 7 : 35. Cf. Lu. 1 : 64); UMiev (14 : 72); SiepiiaatTo (Lu. 5:6); Sie\a\ovv (6 : 11); avveirXrjpovvro (8 : 23); kireo-da^ev (9 : 34. Note ingressive aorist kcjmfiiidriaav) ; btk^aKiv (23 : 54) ; eire- yivcaaKov (Ac. 3 : 10); 'tKi^pvcaev (9 :20); SiacpivovTo (11 :2); Kariiy- ye\}ix>v (13 : 5) ; kdopi^ow (17 : 5) ; wapco^vvero (17 : 16) ; aireXoytiTo (26:1); iroiovvTo (27:18); kMero (27:41). Cf. Lu. 13:13, 17. In eKoKovv (Lu. 1 : 59) we see both ideas combined. The action was begun, but was sharply interrupted by oux', aXXa from EUza- beth. Cf. vvv i^i]Tovp (Jo- 11:8). A good instance of the inter- rupted imperf. is Trpoa^ptv in Heb. 11 : 17. Examples of the conative imperfect (action begim, but interrupted) are SitKiiKvev (Mt. 3:14); kblbow (Mk. 15:23, in contrast with o\jk eXa/Sev); iKcaUofiev (Lu. 9:49); k^iiTow (Jo. 10:39; cf. 19:11); ho/u^ev (Ac. 7 : 25. Note ob avvTJKav) ; crvvfiXKaacrev (7 : 26. Note dircio-aro) ; ^€t9€c (Ac. 18:4); rivajKa^ov (26:11); ■wpoai4>eptv (Heb. 11:17). Moulton {Prol., p. 247) cites the conative pres. avayKa^ovciv (Gal. 6 : 12). (f) The "Negative" Imperfect. This is not a very happy piece of nomenclature, to use Gildersleeve's remark about Stahl's over- refinement, and yet it is the best one can do. "The negative imperfect commonly denotes resistance to pressure or disappoint- ment."^ As examples note 6 8i ovk fjdeKev (followed by ifiaXev, Mt. 18 : 30) and preceded by irope/cciXet (iterative), ovSels kdldov (Lu. 15 : 16), ok ^eXev (15 : 27. Note iipyicdrj), oiK kiriffrevev (Jo. 2 : 24), oi yap ilOeXev (Jo. 7 : 1), ovSeh kToX/jia (21 : 12), ovk eitav (Ac. 19 : 30). Cf . Mt. 22 : 3. (rj) The "Potential" Imperfect. This is a peculiar use of the tense for present time, where the present ind. fails to meet the requirement of the situation. Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 97) calls it "modal" use, iSei, etc. The unfulfilled duty comes as a surprise. This "modal" force of the imperfect ind. appears still in the » Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 128. » Gildersl., Synt., p. 95- Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 338. 886 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT modem Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 128). There are several Va- rieties of it. Verbs of wishing form one class of passages. In a case like kfiovXofiriv (Ac. 25 : 22), /SoiXo/icti would be too blunt (of. 1 Tim. 2:8). The exact idea is 'I was just on the point of wishing.' It is freely rendered 'I could wish' or 'I should wish.' In 2 Cor. 1 : 15 k^ovKbiitjv irpdrepov has its usual signification. In Phil. 13 f . k^ovKofiriv (a past preference) is set over against oiSiv i]B't\riaa (a past decision).^ Another example is ftdiSov irapelmi. irpbs iifias apri (Gal. 4 : 20). Note opTt. For the force of the pres- ent see 1 Cor. 10 :20; Col. 2:1; and especially Lu. 19 : 14, ov BeKofuv. In Jo. 6 : 21, TjOeKov, the usual notion occurs. An ex- ample is found in Ro. 9 : 3, rivxam", where Paul almost expresses a moral wrong. He holds himself back from the abyss by the tense. He does not say evxoiJ.ai (cf. 2 Cor. 13 : 7), nor ei/^aifiriv av (Ac. 26 : 29). Note ov \pev8oiiai. in Ro. 9:1. In Ac. 27: 29 rivxovTo has its usual force. Wishes about the present are naturally unattainable. In the ancient idiom eWe or ei yap was used with the. imperf. ind. or Si4>t\ov and the inf. Callimachus, b.c. 260, uses Si^iKov with the ind. The augmentless form o^eXoi' appears in Herodotus (Moul- ton, Prol., p. 201). In the N. T. only 64>eKov is used with the imperf. for wishes about the present. Cf. o^eKov aveixeaBe (2 Cor. 11:1); 6e\ov ^s (Rev. 3 : 15). Verbs of propriety, possibility, obligation or necessity are also used in the imperfect when the obligation, etc., is not lived up to, has not been met. Winer ^ has stated the matter well. The Greeks (and the Latins) start from the past and state the real possibility or obligation, and the reader, by comparing that with facts, notes that the obhgation was not met. The English and the Germans start from the present and find trouble with this past statement of a present duty (an unfulfilled duty). A distinc- tion is usually drawn between the present and the aorist infini- tives when they occur with these verbs (kSivaro, &^ei'kov, Uu, KoKbv rjv, KpuTTov ^v, avrjuev, KadrJKev). The present inf. refers more di- rectly to the present, the aorist to an action in the past. This is, however, only by suggestion. Thus in Mt. 18 : 33, ovk Uu Kal ak kXtfjaai, note bis kaycb uk iiXeriaa. Cf . also Mt. 23 : 23 ravra Si ?Sei 5roti70-ai Kweiva p/r) a^eivat, (25 : 27) eSei at jSaXeTc, (26 : 9) kdvvaro irpadfjvat, Kal Sodrjvai., (26 : 24) Ka\6v fjv ahrQ (no inf. here), (Ac. 22 : 22) oh yap KadrJKev avrdv ^rjv, (24 : 19) oBs eSet brl trod wapeivai, (26 : 32) aTo\t\vadaL kdivaro (note perf. inf.), (27:21) eSet ptii avdyeffdai » Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 15. » W.-Th., p. 282. TENSE (XPONOS) 887 ■Kep8rjv iSei fie xntpeti', (Col. 3 : 18) ojs avTJKev iv Kvtj'uf. (Cf . Eph. 5 : 4.) But it must not be supposed that these imperfects cannot be used in the normal expression of a past ob- ligation or possibility that was met. The context makes the matter clear. Cf. Lu. 13 : 16; 22 : 7; 24 : 26; Jo. 4 : 4, etc. In Lu. 15 : 32 i8ei applies to both the past and present, probably with an implication against the attitude of the elder brother. In Heb. 2 : 10 eirpeirev and 2 : 17 &(j>€t\ev have their natural past meaning. Another instance where the imperfect refers to present time is in the second-class conditional sentences (see chapter XIX, Mode). When a condition is assumed as unreal and refers to present time, the imperfect tense is used both in the protasis and the apodosis in normal constructions. See apodosis in Mt. 26 : 24 and in Ac. 26 : 32 (both quoted above). It is only the tense that calls for discussion here. Cf. anaprlav oirx. elxoaav (Jo. 15 : 22, 24), where vvv Sk is used to explain the point. So ovk elxes (Jo. 19 : 11). In 1 Cor. 5 : 10, w^eiXeTe apo — ^^eX^eiv, and Heb. 9 : 25, iirel idei — iroBeiv, we only have the apodosis. Cf . d vv — kryivtucrKev av (Lu. 7 : 39) as a type of the more usual construction wih 'av. Cf. Lu. 17: 6. In Heb. 11 : 15 the imperfects describe past time. {Q) In Indirect Discourse. In general the imperfect in iadir. discourse represents an imperfect of the direct discourse. But sometimes with verbs of perception it is relative time and refers to a time previous to the perception.^ Thus elx'av rbv 'luavnv on Trpo0^TT)5 Tjv (Mk. 11 : 32); dSov '6ti oi)k rjv (Jo. 6 : 22. Cf. ovk eanv in verse 24) ; on irpoffaiTjjs fjv (9 : 8) ; kweyivoieKov 6tl rjv 6 KajBriixevos (Ac. 3 : 10), while in 4:13 rjcrav is rightly antecedent to kireyivoi- oKov, ^Seiaav on — mrjpxev (16:3). In Ac. 3 : 10 the idiom ap- proaches that in. Jo. 1 : 15, ovtos fjv 6 eiiriiv (a parenthesis), where the verb is thrown back to past time. Our idiom more natu- rally calls for kariv here. Gildersleeve^ calls this the "imperfect of sudden appreciation of real state of things." (i) The Periphrastic Imperfect. It is easy to see how in the present, and especially in the future, periphrastic forms were felt to be needed to emphasize durative action. But that was the real function of the imperfect tense. The demand for this stress- ing of the durative idea by ^v and the present participle was cer- > BlasB, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 192; Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 339. This imperfect is particularly common in John. 2 Synt., p. 96 f. 888 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT taioly not so great. And yet it is just in the imperfect in the N. T. that this idiom is most frequent. It is not imknown in the an- cient Greek.i Schmid'' finds it rare in the Koivij, especially in the imperfect, where the N. T. is so rich in the idiom. He suggests the Aramaic influence, particularly as that language is fond of this periphrasis. Periphrasis is thoroughly Greek, and yet in the N. T. we have unusual frequency of a usage that the Koivij has not greatly developed except "where Aramaic sources underlie the Greek" (Moulton, Prol., p. 226). Gildersleeve {Syntax, p. 124) gives classical examples from Pindar, Thuc, Isocrates, etc. It is true that in the N. T. the pres. participle with ijy occurs chiefly in Mark (16 times), Luke (30), Acts (24, but 17 of them in chap- ters 1-12), and just in those portions most subject to Aramaic influence (possible Aramaic sources). Only 7 occur in Acts 13- 28, and these mainly in the speech in 22 delivered in' Aramaic' The LXX^ gives abundant illustration of this analytic tendency in the imperfect. Cf. Gen. 37: 2; Deut. 9: 24; Judg. 1:7. Of. Thackeray, Gr., p. 24. From Pelagia (p. 18) Moulton {Prol., p. 249) cites i^nriv airepxofievos. For a papyrus illustration see oaa ^v KoSriKovTOL, P. Oxy. 115 (ii/A.D.). The idiom itself is therefore Greek, but the frequency of it in the N. T. is due to the Hebrew and Aramaic. Matthew has it 3 times, John 10, Paul 3.* The Pauline examples (Gal. 1 : 22 f . ; Ph. 2 : 26) are more like the classic independence of the participle. It is. usually the de- scriptive imperfect* that uses the periphrastic form. So ^v StSd- o-Kajv (Mt. 7:29); rjv exov (Mk. 10:22); ^(rav ava^aivovres (10: 32); fjv Tpoaevxofievov (Lu. 1 : 10); Kaio/ievri fjv (Lu. 24 :32).^ But sometimes it is the iterative imperfect as in ^i/ duivevuv (Lu. 1 : 22); ^v SiSLaKuv to koB' finkfiav (19 :47).' In Lu. 5 : 17 the peri- phrastic imperfect and past perfect occur in the same sentence. In Lu. 23 : 12 note wpoijirrjpxou ovres (cf. Ac. 8:9). (k) Past Perfects as Imperfects. The present perfects of these verbs are merely presents in sense when compared with other verbs. So the past perfects have only an imperfect force. Thus iSei (Mt. 27: 18); eii^ei (27: 15); iariiKei (Jo. 18 : 5). (c) The Future for Future Time. The future is mainly aoristic (punctiliar), as has already been shown, but sometimes dura- tive.^ The broad lines of the problem have already been » Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, p. 38 f. 6 Moulton, Prol., p. 227. « Atticismus, III, p. 113 f. s Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 16. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 227. » Moulton, Prol., p. 149. * C. and S., Sel., p. 69. TENSE (XPONOZ) 889 drawn. As already shown, the modem Greek has a special dura- tive future by means of Ba \vw (pres. subj.). See Thumb, Handb., p. 160. A summary statement of the durative future is given. (a) The Three Kinds of Action in the Future {futuristic, voli- tive, deliberative). These occur here also. Thus merely futur- istic are o-too-ei (Mt. 1 : 21); fiairriaeL (Mt. 3 : 11); kXiriovaLv (12 : 21) ; iarai (Lu. 1 : 14 f .) ; 'eirurrfK^a and icpoeKihaerai (1 : 16 f .) ; eX- Kbaa (Jo. 12 : 32) ; ^iiao/jiev (Ro. 6:2); Kvpitiiaa (6 : 14) ; /Sao-T&o-ei (Gal. 6:5); kirirfKiaei (Ph. 1:6); xO'C^coimi, (1 : 18); fjjrijo-ou- ffo' (Rev. 9:6). Burton^ calls this "the progressive future." Cf. Ac. 7:6. Durative also is adiKijaa with ov nii (Lu. 10 : 19). So oh nil Si\pri(T€i (Jo. 4 : 14; cf. 6 : 36); oii nii aKo\ovdiioi (Mk. 13 : 13; Lu. 21 : 17); (Mk. 13 :25) iaovrai. ■KVKTOvTts, (Lu. 1 : 20) ia-g aiMirSiv, (5 : 10) etrjj ^byypuv, (17 : 35) iaovrai. oMidovaai, (21 : 24) tarai. icaTOvphni, (1 Cor. 14 : 9) 'eatade \a\ovvTK. Cf. Gen. 4 : 12, 14; Deut. 28 : 29; Mai. 3 : 3, etc. The frequent use of /i^XXco and the pres. inf. (durative) has already been mentioned. The fut. of /teXXw itself occurs (Mt. 24 : 6) with the pres. inf. 2. Subjunctive and Optative. The rarity of the pres. subj. (and opt., of course) has already been commented upon. The aorist is used as a matter of course here unless durative action is to be expressed. A few examples will suffice. Thus ri irouinev; (Jo. 6 : 28); h6.v ixvre (Mt. 17: 20); -ixufiev (Ro. 5:1). The sub- jimctive is very common indeed, but not in the present tense. There is in the N. T. no instance of a periphrastic present subj. ' N. T. M. and T., p. 32. ^ cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 444. 890 A GRAMMAE OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT or optative. John's free use of the pres. subj. has already been noted (Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 369 ff.). Cf. k&v iroivre (13 : 17); kd.v liapTvpQ) (5 : 31). In Col. 1 : 18 note yhrirai irpoiTebcav like kyivero arlX^ovTa (Mk. 9:3). The present opt. survives in Bwalfiriv (Ac. 8 :31); ixot (Ac. 17:11); ^oUkoiTo (Ac. 25:20); 9k\oi (Ac. 17:18; Lu. 1 : 62); «i; (9 : 46; 15 : 26; 18 : 36; 22 : 23; Ac. 10 : 17). 3. Imperative. The contrast between the present imperative and the aorist subj. in prohibitions had to be set forth in con- nection with the punctiliar-aorist subj. .The present imper. was found to be regularly durative. In Paul's frequent use of the pres. imper. with fifi the inchoative or conative or customary (prohibiting a course of conduct) use of the present is noticeable, as in fiii djueXet (1 Tim. 4 : 14); nvSevi 'eiciriBei (5 : 22); ii,i]bk KOLviiva (lb); nv tiedbaiceaee (Eph. 5 : 18); a") ^eOBeaee (Col. 3:9).^ Cf. nv aira'LTei (Lu. 6 : 30). In general jiti? is used with the present imper. to forbid what one is already doing. Cf. firi (jm^eiffde (Jo. 6 : 20); M Kpivere (Mt. 7:1); tiriKeri. aiidprave (Jo. 5 : 14); jai) Bavixa^ert (5:28); nil SoKetre (5:45); nrjKkTi cKuXXe (Lu. 8:49). The durative force of the pres. imper. is well seen in KadevSert Kal avairaveaBe (Mt. 26 : 45) . Cf . also iravTore xo-'i'P^^j aSiaXeiTrrcos irpoa-fixeaOe, iv iravrl eiixapto-retTe (1 Th. 5 : 16-22). A good ex- ample is seen in Ac. 18 : 9, M^ (jyofiov, ctXXA XaXet koI ixrj a-iuTriia-iis, 'He had been afraid, he was to go on speaking, he was not to become silent.' Cf. 2 Tun. 2 : 16, 22 f . The contrast between aorist and pres. imper. is often drawn in the N. T., as in Jo. 5 : 9; Mt. 16 : 24. We note the periphrastic pres. imper. in ladi. eivoQiv (Mt. 5 :25); Udi ixoiv (Lu. 19 : 17); lare yiviiaKovres (Eph. 5:5)^; icTwcav KaiofievoL (Lu. 12 : 35). Cf. Judg. 11 : 10; Prov. 3 : 5; yivov ypriyopuv (Rev. 3:2); 2 Cor. 6 : 14. Moulton {Prol, p. 249) cites from Pelagia (p. 26) eao yiviianuv. 4. Infinitive. The present inf. can be assumed to be dursr tive. The matter has had some discussion in connection with the aorist inf. (punctiliar), but a few further examples will illustrate the usage. Cf. ra aira ypa.uv ifuv (Ph. 3 : 1) and to ayairSiv avTov (Mk. 12 : 33) where the linear action is obvious.' Indeed the force of the pres. inf. is so normal as to call for little com- ment.^ Cf . oi) 5vvapM.L Toieiv (Jo. 5 : 30. Cf . Mt. 6 : 24) ; to fleXeiv (Ro. 7:18); apapTaveiv (1 Jo. 3:9); irpoaivx^aOai (1 Cor. 11 : 13); Tov TzoiTuv (Lu. 10 : 19), etc. For the distinction between the > Moulton, Prol., p. 125 f. Cf. Naylor, CI. Rev., 1906, p. 348. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 204. » Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 46. » Moulton, Prol., p. 204. TENSE (XPONOS) 891 aorist and pres. inf. see knfirjvai — ml Tpoayeiv (Mt. 14 : 22). Cf. aLrfiv in Ac. 3 : 2. The frequent use of nkXKca and the pres. inf. has already been twice mentioned. In indirect discourse the pres. inf. merely represents the pres. ind. of the direct discourse. Cf. dmt (Mt. 22:23; Ro. 1:22); kjSdXXeti' (Lu. 11:18), etc. There is no instance in the N. T. of a pres. inf. in indir. discourse representing an imperfect ind.^ Luke has a periphrastic pres. inf., iv T^ dvai abrov irpoaevxonevov, which occurs twice (9 : 18; 11: 1). Cf. 2 Chron. 15 : 16. Only two fut. infs. in the N. T. seem to be durative (Ac. 11:28; Jo. 21:25). The pres. inf. is most natural with kv (cf. Lu. 8:40), and is common with Sia (cf. Mt. 13 :5f.); els (Ro. 12 : 2); but not (pres. 3, aor. 9) with irpos (Mk. 13:22). It is used only once with irpo (Jo. 17:5) and is not used with ixera. Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 49 f . 5. Participle. The present participle, like the present inf., is timeless and durative. (o) The Time of the Present Participle Relative. The time comes from the principal verb. Thus in irtoXoOKTex 'e4>€pov (Ac. 4 : 34. Cf. ira)Xi7cros fjveryKev in verse 37) the time is past; in yxpiiiv&v Sxivarai. (Mt. 6 : 27) the time is present; in 'iaeade ixtaobfievoi (Mt. 10 : 22), 6 PKkirav airoBdocei, (Mt. 6 : 18), o^ovTat top vlov toO avOpooTrov kpxo- nevov (24:30) it is future. Cf. Mt. 24:46; Lu. 5:4; 12:43. Further examples of the pres. part, of coincident action are seen in Mt. 27:41; Mk. 16:20; Jo. 6:6; 21:19; Ac. 9 :22; 10:44; 19 : 9. (6) Futuristic. Just as the pres. ind. sometimes has a futuristic sense, so the pres. part, may be used of the future in the sense of purpose (by implication only, however). Cf. iv\••■• B).^ It is the perfect of repeated action. Cf. Jo. 1:18; 5:37; 2 Cor. 12:17. ' Jebb in V. and D.'s Handb., p. 327. Cf . Giles, Man., pp. 449, 491 f. 2 Synt., p. 99. Cf . also Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 395 f. " Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 198. * Moulton, Prol., p. 144. 894 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (d) Idea of Time in the Tense. In the ind. it appears in three forms with the notion of time (past perfect, present per- fect, future perfect). In the other modes only the present per- fect occurs, but it has no time in itself and in the imper. and subj. is naturally future. Often in the N. T., as in the Attic writers,! a; sharp distinction is drawn between the perfect and the aorist or the present., Cf. naprvpei with airiaraXKep and fiefiaprifiri- K€u in Jo. 5 : 36 f.; eia^iyayev — Kal KenoivcaKev (Ac. 21 : 28); otl 'tTo^ii, KoX OTi kyriyepTai (1 Cor. 15 : 4) ; iKTlaBi) — enTLCrai (Col. 1 : 16) ; rjaav, fdooms, TerripriKas (Jo. 17:6). The perfect active is frequently in- transitive,^ as has been already shown under Voice. Cf. Uriim., earrjKa, airoXKviu, airoKtaXa, etc. . 2. The Indicative. (a) The Present Perfect (6 eveaross cvvreKi,K6s fj TapaKeifievos). It is not clear how the notion of present time is conveyed by this tense in the ind. since it is absent in the subj. and imper., not to say inf. and part. Gildersleeve suggests that it "comes from the absence of the augment and from the fact that a completed phenomenon cannot complete itself in the future." But that ex- planation is not very satisfactory. The tense does occur some- times in the future, and the present perfect is older than the past perfect which rests on it. Perhaps at first it was just the perfect tense (cf. aoristic presents and timeless aorists) and was timeless. By degrees it came to be used only for present time. The rise of the past perfect made it clear. The pres. perf. is much more common in the koivti than in the earlier Greek. "The perfect was increasingly used, as the language grew older, for what would formerly have been a narrative aorist" (Moulton, Prol., p. 141). In particular is this true of the vernacular as the papyri show. (a) The Intensive Present Perfect. Moulton^ calls these "Per- fects with Present "Force." They are Perfecta Praesentia. In reality they are perfects where the punctihar force is dropped and only the durative remains (cf. past perfect). Gildersleeve* dis- tinguishes sharply between the intensive use of emotional verbs and what he calls the "Perfect of Maintenance of Result." But it is questionable if the difference does not he in the nature of the verb rather than in a- special modification of the tense. A real distinction exists in 1 Jo. 4 : 14 between reBeaneda and naprvpov- Htv. Burton^ follows Gildersleeve, but he admits the doubt on 1 Giles, Man., p. 493. * Synt., p. 99 f. 2 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 23. 6 n. x. M. and T., p. 37 f. ' Prol., p. 147. TENSE (XPONOS) 895 the subject.* In these verbs when the perfect has lost the punctiliar notion it is due to the change in meaning of the verbs.=' The hst is rather large in Homer, particularly where attitude of mind is expressed.' Giles {Man., p. 481) thinks that originally the perf. was either intensive or iterative like 'iarijKa, and that the notion of recently completed action (extensive) is a develop- ment. These almost purely durative perfects in the N. T. may be illustrated by «oiKa (Jas. 1:6); avec^a (2 Cor. 6: 11); otSa (Mt. 6:8); 'e•••■). Perhaps TreirpoxA n in Ac. 25 : 11 is to be so understood. But certainly it is true of dir^oraX/ca (2 Cor. 12 : 17) where Paul refers to various missions to the Corinthians. In particular Moulton^ notes the examples with irinroTe, as oidels iiipaKev ■KisTOTt (Jo. 1 : 18). Cf. further fie/juipTbpriKev (5 : 37); 8t5ov- XeiiKa/iev (8 : 33). (5) The Dramatic Historical Present Perfect. Here an action completed in the past is conceived in terms of the present time for the sake of vividness. Burton' doubts if any genuine examples of the vivid historical perfect occur in the N. T. Certainly nkKpayev (Jo. 1 : 15) is a vivid historical tense even if only intensive in sense. Cf. naprvpei just before. But by the term "historical" it is not meant that this use of the perfect is common in all narrative. But the Vedic Sanskrit has it often in narrative. It is a matter of personal equation after all. Thus Xenophon, who "affects naivete," uses ' the present perfect much more frequently than Herodotus and Thucydides.* It is rather the tense of the orator or the dramatist and is often rhetorical.^ Hence Isocrates and Demosthenes surpass Plato in the use of the present perfect. "The nearness of any department of literature to practical hfe may readily be measured by the perfect."* Moulton' notes how in the papyri there is an increasing use of the present perfect just 1 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 144. ' lb. 4 Gildersl., Am. Jour. PhUol., XXIX, p. 396. ' N. T. M. and T., p. 38. ' Thompson, Synt., p. 216. « Gildersl., Am. Jour. Philol., 1908, p. 396. ' Prol., p. 141. TENSE (XPONOS) 897 because it is so largely the language of life. He notes also how Socrates in Plato's Crito uses this vivid present perfect: "T&ciiai- po/iai & Tiros kwirviov, S iojpaxa oklyov irpbrtpov rairris t^s vvktSs, where point of time in the past would have dSov as inevitable as the aorist is in English, had not Socrates meant to emphasize the present vividness of the vision." This vivid perfect is foimd in John's Gospel in particular. One only needs to have some imagi- nation himself. Cf. TeBea/mi (1:32). John still has that vision. So difrfiKafiev (1 : 41). The aorist would have been prosaic. Cf. also aveaTaKKare (5:33), a realistic change. (Cf. l:19£f.) So also d-wtaToKKev in Ac. 7: 35; KeKoLuosKev in 21 : 28 and -iveiroiriKa in 2 Cor. 11 : 25. A striking instance of it is seen in Rev. 5 : 7, eUiyf^ev, where John sees Jesus with the book in his hand. It is dull to make elX^ec here=^aj3ei'. Another example of this vivid perfect is kax^KOLixiv (2 Cor. 1:9), a dreadful memory to Paul. So with iffxni^fv in 7 : 5. A particularly good instance is y'eyovtv (Mt. 25 : 6), where the present perfect notes the sudden cry (cf. aorist and imperf. just before). Cf. eipT/xec in 2 Cor. 12 : 9. Blass^ has observed that it occurs sometimes in parables or illustrations, and quite naturally so, for the imagination is at play. Thus is to be explained aTr€\rj\v6ev (Jas. 1 : 24) between two aorists. James sees the man. 'He has gone off.' Cf.Mt.l3:46,aTre\d^virkTrpaKev iravTa oaa dxtv Kol 'f/yopcurfv avTov. In Lu. 9 : 36 eojpaKav is "virtu- ally reported speech."^ Cf. aKijKdaiiev (Ac. 6 : 11, but ijKobaaniv in 15:24). (e) The Gnomic Present Perfect. A few examples of this idiom seem to appear in the N. T. The present was always the more usual tense for customary truths,' though the aorist and the per- fect both occur. Cf . TereKeiuTai, (1 Jo. 2:5); SeSsTai (1 Cor. 7 : 39)^; KiKpiToj. and ireir'urT&iKev (Jo. 3 : 18); KaraKkKpirai (Ro. 14 : 23); veirMipoiKiv (13 : 8). Cf. Jo. 5 : 24; Jas. 2 : 10. (f) The Perfect in Indirect Discourse. It is misleading to say, as Blass^ does, that "the perfect is used relatively instead of the pluperfect" in such instance* This is explaining Greek from the German. Blass does not call this construction "indirect dis- course," but merely "after verbs of perception"; but see my discussion of Indirect Discourse in ch. XIX. Cf. Lu. 9 : 36 ovSevl i.iriiyyfi\av ob&h> &v HipaKav, Ac. 10 : 45 k^karriaav on ^KK^xurai. In Mk. 5 : 33, etSuTa o ykyoptv oiitjj ^dev, the perfect preserves the ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 200. * Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 39. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 144. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 200. » Goodwin, M. and T., p. 53 f. 898 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT vividness of the woman's consciousness. Here the past perfect or the aorist could have been used (cf. Mk. 3:8; 1^ : 10; Mt. 27: 18; Ac. 19:32). It is akin to the reportorial vividness of the historical perfect. It is not the perfects here that call for expla- nation from the Greek point of view. It is rather the occasional aorists, imperfects or past perfects that demand discussion. (ri) Futuristic Present Perfect. Since the present so often oc- curs in a futuristic sense, it is not strange if we find the present perfect so used also = future perfect. This proleptical use of the perfect may be illustrated by dedo^aa /xai (Jo. 17:10), SidwKa (17: 22), TtTiKiarai (19 : 28), akariirev and yejovev and KaTiMTai. in Jas. 5 :2f. (cf. ecrat koX cfiayeTai). This use is sometimes called "pro- phetico-perfect." Indeed some of the examples classed as gnomic are really proleptical also. Cf. Jo. 3 : 18; 5 : 24; Jas. 2 : 10; Ro. 13 : 8; 14 : 23.i (d) The "Aoristic" Present Perfect. The Present Perfect is here conceived as a mere punctiliar preterit like the aorist ind. We have seen how in some verbs the ptmctiliar idea drops out and only the durative remains in some present perfect forms (like olSa)^. It is not per se unreasonable to suppose that with some other verbs the durative idea should disappear and the form be merely punctiliar. We seem to have this situation in KeKpaya in the LXX (Moulton, Prol., p. 147). - The action itself took place in the past though the state following its completion is present. By centering attention on the former, while forgetting the latter, the perfect becomes aoristic. We must distinguish between the aoristic (punctiliar) and the preterit notions. We have seen that originally the tense was probably timeless. Nothing, then, but an appeal to the facts can decide whether in the N. T. the present perf. ind. ever = the aor. ind. (i.e. is preterit punctiliar). The Sanskrit^ shows a deal of confusion and freedom in the use of the pres. perf. ind. The blending of the perfect and aorist forms in Latin is also a point to note in spite of the independence of the Greek tense development. E. J. Goodspeed {Am. J. Theol, X, 102 f .) regards Latin as having some influence on the ultimate confusion in the Greek. There is no doubt of the ultimate con- fusion in the late Greek' (from a.d. 300 on) between the perfect and the aorist (see later). The use of -driKa and -ijxa in the aorist pass. ihd. in modem Greek illustrates one way confusion could ' Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 15; Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 101. ' Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 296. 8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 440; Moulton, Prol., p. 142. . TENSE (XPONOS) 899 ft arise (Thumb, Handb., p. 144). Cf. idoiKa, StSoiKa. In the modern Greek all other remnants of the old perfect form are gone save in the participle, which has lost its reduplication, like defikvos. But had it begun in the older Greek? Jannaris^ answers Yes and cites Thuc. 1, 21, odre cos iroiriTal ii/ivriKaai. — r ovre ev, and in 7 : 14, eipriKa, are mere preterits in sense." Well, I do deny it as to t1Xrj(t>ev in Rev. 5 : 7 and 8 : 5, where we have the vivid dramatic colloquial historical perfect. The same thing is possible with dpr^m in 7 : 14, but I waive that for the moment. Burton* is more cautious. He claims that the 'N. T. writers "had perfect command of the distinction between the aorist and the perfect," but admits that "there is clear evidence that the perfect tense was in the N. T. sometimes an aorist in force," though "the idiom is confined within narrow limits." Some of the examples claimed by him for this usage I have ex- plained otherwise already. Moulton' sees that this confusion may exist in one writer, though not in another, but he admits a ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 439. « lb., p. 142. ' V. and D., Handb., p. 328. ' Lang, of the N. T., p. 104. ' lb.; Jann., Hist. Gk.. Gr., p. 339 f. ' N. T. M. and T., p. 44. * Moulton, Prol., p. 141. » Prol., pp. 143 ff. 5 lb. 900 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT "residuum of genuinely aoristic perfects." He admits yir/ava to be "perplexing," though in the 45 examples in the ind. in the N. T. "it has obviously present time" and "the aoristic sense is not really 'proved for any of them." That is cer- tainly true. There are instances in the N. T., as in the later Greek generally,' where yir(ova approaches a present in sense, as in 1 Cor. 13: 11, but its use as a mere preterit is not shown, not even by the examples quoted by Moulton^ from the papyri (0. P. 478 and B. U. 136). The first has irpoaPe^riKkvai. — yeYovtvai — TtTtKtvKkvai, all three apparently vivid historical perfects. The example in Josephus {A-pion, 4 : 21) may be the same. We have left ei\y}^a, ApriKa, eaxni^a,, irk-wpaKa. The last Moulton' refuses to admit as an aorist in sense, since "the distinction is very clearly seen in papyri for some centuries" between weTpaKa and Tiydpaira. He cites O. P. 482 (ii/A.D.), x'JP's ^v 6.irey parf^aiiriv xal itkirpaKa. Be- sides in Mt. 13 : 46 ireirpaKiv is in a viAdd parable (dramatic his- torical perfect). Moulton notes the confusion as worse in illiterate papyri, like ovk 'eKovcaix-qv ovk rfKiiJtt (= fjXeiiinai) , 0. P. 528 (ii/A.D.). As to ^ffxry/ca the matter is more plausible in one example (2 Cor. 2 : 13). Blass^ affirms the true present perfect sense for ?o-xj;ko elsewhere in the N. T. (Mk. 5 : 15; 2 Cor. 1 : 9; 7 : 5; Ro. 5 : 2). Moulton^ replies that "we must, I think, treat all the Pauline passages alike." But why? He does not claim such uniformity ioTjkyom in any N. T. writer.* There is some analogy between 'eaxniiCL and e^jjKa and a(l>rJKa, and i(Txov may be ingressive, not con- stative. Moulton (ProL, p. 145) makes a good deal out of the fact that effxov occurs only 20 times in the N. T. and that thus ^(Txi/Ka may have come to mean 'possessed' (constative), but he admits that this does not suit in Ro. 5:2. He cites a possible example from B. U. 297 (ii/A.D.) tols dLKaiav airiav kaxnu^i- Koi ^veu TLvds cLfi^i,(r^riTri(recos iv rfi voixfj yevofievovs (=-ois). Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 122) thinks that the perfect in the Koivn comes within the sphere of the aorist at times. Thackeray {Gr., p. 24) thinks that eiXij^a in Daji. 9 4 : 30*" and iaxvKa, 3 M. 5 : 20, belong here. But if the whole case has to be made out from one ex- ample (2 Cor. 2 : 13; cf. 2 Cor. 7 : 5), it is at least quite proble-' matical. The only substantial plea for taking eaxv^a as preterit here is the fact that Paul did have aveirw for his spirit after Titus ' Cf. Buresch, Tiyovav (Rh. M., 1891, p. 231 note). 2 Prol., p. 146. » lb., p. 142. s Prol., p. 145. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 200. « lb., p. 146. TENSE (XPONOS) 901 came. But it was a partial aveais as the Epistle shows. It is therefore possible that in 2 Cor. 2 : 13 we do have a present per- fect = preterit punctiliar (cf. t^^l\6ov), possible but not quite cer- tain. Paul may have wished to accent the strain of his anxiety up to the time of the arrival of Titus. The aorist would not have done that. The imperfect would not have noted the end of his anxiety. It was durative plus punctiliar. Only the past perfect and the present perfect could do both. The experience may have seemed too vivid to Paul for the past perfect. Hence he uses the (historical dramatic) present perfect. That is certainly a pos- sible interpretation of his idea. Moulton (Prol., p. 238) in the Additional Notes draws back a bit from the preterit use of 'icTxriKa. He had advanced it "with great hesitation" and as "a tentative account." "The pure perfect force is foimd long after Paul's day: thus in the forruula of an lOU, dfjoXoySi 'effxqKkvai. irapa aov Sia x^'pos k^ oIkov xpW"' 'ivTOKov (B. U. 1015 in the early iii/A.D.), 'to have received and still possess.' " We have etXjy^a and etpjjKa left. Take etXij^a. In Rev. 3 : 3 we have fivrinoveve oSc ttSs €tX7j<^as Kal rJKOvcas Kal T'fipei., Kal neravdrjaov. It is preceded by eiiprjKa in the proper sense. This is an exhortation about the future. If ^Kouo-as had been tudiKoas no difficulty would exist. The perfect would emphasize the permanence of the obligation. It is as easy to say that fiKovpaK£v and fJKovaei' in Jo. 3 : 32 (cf. 1 Jo. 1 : 1—3). Note also elaijyayeii koX KeKoivcaKtv (Ac. 21 : 28). Cf. Lu. 4 : 18 where Nestle puts period after iie. Moulton^ does find such confusion in the ilUterate documents among the papjri. Simcox {Lang, of the N. T., p. 105) wishes to know what "distinction of sense" exists between 'tKa^ov and rere- XetdJ/itti in Ph. 3 : 12. It is very simple and very clear. "EKafiov denies the sufficiency of Paul's past achievement, TtTeKeuaiiai de- nies it as a present reality. Cf. Ro. 13 : 12. I have already ex- plained eiXi7(^a in Rev. 5 : 7 and 8 : 5. There is surely no trouble about ^[Kr]a in 2 : 28. In 11 : 17 again, Sti eiX?j0€s rrtv divaidv aov Trp/ neyah\v Kal t^aa-'iXeva-as, it is not etXiyc^es (punctiliar-durative, » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 199. ' Prol., p. 142 f. 902 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 'receivedst and still hast') that calls for explanation, but kfiaal- Xeuo-as, which may be used to accent the ingressive idea or as a practical equivalent of the perfect. The use of etpijxa (Rev. 7 : 14) and eipriKav (19 : 3) seems more Uke a real preterit than any- other examples in the N. T. In 7 : 14, B reads eliroj'. I would not labour the point over these two examples. If such a confu- sioir of tenses occurred anywhere in the N. T., the Apocalypse would be the j)lace to expect it. And yet even the Apocalypse is entitled to a word in its defence on this point in. spite of the fact that Moultoni "frankly yields" these instances and Blass'' says that "the popular intermixture of the two tenses appears un- doubtedly in the Apocalypse." It is to be remembered that the Apocalypse is a series of visions, -is intensely dramatic. It is just here that the rhetorical dramatic (historical) perfect so freely granted in the orators would be found. It is wholly possible that in this use of eV'pTjKa we have only this idiom. "In history the perfect has no place outside of the speeches and the reflective passages in which the author has his say."' It is curious how aptly Gildersleeve here describes these very instances of the present perfect which are called "aoristic." So I conclude by saying that the N. T. writers may be guilty of this idiom,* but they have not as yet been proven to be. Cf. 'exo-pw on evpriKa in 2 Jo. 4. The distinction between the perf. and pres. is sharply drawn in Jas. 3 : 7, 5a/tdf erai /cat SeSd/iacrrat. (i) The Peri-phrastic Perfect. For the origin of this idiom see discussion in connection with the Past Perfect, (6), (ij). The use of (ex(^ (so common in later Greek and finally triumphant in modem Greek) has a few parallels in the N. T.^ Cf. Ixe i^ irap^Ttinevov (Lu. 14 : 19 f.) with Latin idiom "I have him beaten." Cf. exo* Keiixtva (Lu. 12 : 19, pres. part, used as perf.), k^pafifikvriv ex'^" Triv Xiipa. (Mk. 3:1). Cf. Mk. 8 : 18; Heb. 5 : 14; Jo. 17 : 13, lx<^(riv — T€w\r] pa fievriv. Here the perf. part, is, of course, predicate, but the idiom grew out of such examples. The modern Greek uses not only ex&> Sepivo, but also 8enkva, but, if a conjimctive pron. precedes, the part, agrees in gender and mmiber (cf. French). So T1JJ' ixt^ ISonhT), 'I have seen her' (Thumb, Handb., p. 162). Passive is etnai Sepivos. The use of ylvop,ai is limited. Cf . kykviro » ProL, p. 145. = Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 200. » Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 396. * E. J. Goodspeed (Am. Jour, of Theol., Jan., 1906, p. 102 f.) shows that the ostraca confirm the pap. in the free use of the perfect. ' Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 438. TENSE (XPONOS) 903 iffKOTuiiivri (Rev. 16 : 10), a mixture of tenses (cf. Mk. 9:3). See Ex. 17: 12; Ps. 72 : 14. Peculiar is yeySvare 'ixovres in Heb. 5 : 12. It is dill that is commonly used (about 40 times in the N. T.) with the perfect part. Cf. Num. 22 : 12; Is. 10 : 20. Burton i notes that the intensive use of the perfect tense (cf. past perfect) is more common than the extensive. As examples of the inten- sive (= present) take ireiruaijivos eariv (Lu. 20 : 6). So Jo. 2 : 17; Ac. 2 : 13, etc. For the extensive use (= completed act) note iixTiv Treirpayixevov (Lu. 23 : 15). So Jo. 6 : 31; Heb. 4 : 2, etc. In Ac. 26 : 26 the main accent is on the punctiliar aspect (at the begin- ning, as in Jo. 6 : 31). (k) Present as Perfect. These examples, like »}«&», irapeiiii, titto.- o/ML, KetficLL, have already been discussed under 1, (a), (t/). Cf. diro- K€LTai (2 Tim. 4:8). (b) The Past Perfect (6 mtpawTiKiKoi) . (a) The Double Idea. It is the perfect of the past and uses the form of the present perfect plus special endings and often with augment. The special endings'' show kinship with the aorist. As the present perfect is a blending in idea of the aoristic (punc- tiliar) and the durative present (a sort of durative aoristic present combined), so the past perfect is a blend of the aorist and the imperfect in idea.' It is continuance of the completed state in past time up to a prescribed limit in the past. As in the present perfect, so here the relation between the punctiliar and the dura- tive ideas will vary in different verbs. The name iirepavvTt\i.K6s (plus-quam-^erfectum) = more than perfect in the sense that it always refers to an antecedent date, ''a, past prior to another past"* is not always true. (8) A Luxury in Greek. The Greeks cared nothing for rela- tive time, though that was not the only use for the past perfect, as just stated.* Ordinarily the aorist ind. was sufficient for a narrative unless the durative idea was wanted when the imperfect was ready to hand. Herodotus shows a fondness for the past perfect.* It disappeared in Greek before the present perfect,' though in the N. T. it still survives in current, but not common, usage.' It was never so frequent in Greek as the past perfect 1 N. T. M. and T., p. 40. » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 201. » Giles, Man., p. 457. * Thompson, Synt., p. 217. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 148. It is absent from the Boeotian dial. (Claflin, Synt., etc., p. 72). « Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 122. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 441, " Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 201. 904 A GKAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT was in Latin. The N. T. idiom conforms to that of the older language. (7) The Intensive Past Perfect. Present perfects that had come to be mere presents through accent on the durative idea and loss of emphasis on the aoristic (punctiliar) are virtual im- perfects when turned into the past. Cf. Tov and rore. Here the past perfect would more exactly have marked off t6 irpSiTov. If the previous time is to be depicted in its course, the past perfect is used (Thumb, Handb., p. 163). (e) The Past Perfect of Broken Continuity^ (....>....)_ Ttjjg is true of Lu. 8 : 29, ■woXKots xpovois avvtipirkKeL aiirbv. It is an 1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 201. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 148. 906 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT iterative past perfect in a series of links instead of a line, like the present perfect of broken continuity in Jo. 1 : 18. Cf. the perf . inf. in Ac. 8 : 11. (f) Past Perfect in Conditional Sentences. Usually the aorist ind. occurs in these conditions of the second class determined as unfulfilled in relation to the past. But sometimes the past per- fect appears. Cf. Jo. 19:11; Ac. 26:32; IJo. 2:19. See Con- ditional Sentences, ch. XIX. (j)) The Periphrastic Past Perfect. This construction had al- ready begun in ancient Greek. In the third person plural of hquid and mute verbs it was uniformly done for the sake of euphony. It was occasionally found also with other verbs. In the modem Greek ^ we find elxa. Sefikvo, '1 had hound,' fj now Senevos or etxa deBeZ. "Exw was at first more than a .mere auxiUary, though in Herodotus it appears as a true auxiUary. The dramatists also use it often.2 j^ ^he N. T. the examples with elxov are not nu- merous. Cf . (TVK^v dxiv Tts Tre4>vreviJ,iv7iv (Lu. 13 : 6) ; fjp elxov airo- Keifjikvriv (Lu. 19 : 20), really predicative accusative participles with exw. But the past perfect with the perfect partic. and rjv is rather common. Cf. Jo. 19 : 11. Burton' notes that about two-thirds of them are intensive and only one-third extensive. As examples of the intensive use see Mt. 26 :43, rjcav ^e^aptiiikvoi; Lu. 15 :24, rjv dTToXcoXcos. Cf. also Lu. 1:7. Examples of the extensive type are rjaau kXrfKvdores (Lu. 5 : 17); ^crav irpoetapaKores (Ac. 21 : 29). For examples in the LXX see 2 Chron. 18 : 34; Judg. 8 : 11; Ex. 39: 23, etc. See also ^e^airTLiJiikvoi. vir^pxov (Ac. 8 : 16). (d) Special Use of eKelfiriv. This verb was used as the passive of TWrifii. The present was = a present perfect. So the imperfect was used as a past perfect, as in Jo. 20 : 12, oirov tKuro t6 6a.i (extensive). See oiKoSoixrjadai. (Lu. 6: 48). Cf. Ac. 18: 2; 27: 9. In 8 : 11 we have the perf. inf. of "broken continuity." In the N. T. the perf. inf. with prepositions appears only with Sia, eis and /uerd. 6. The Pabticiple. (o) The Meaning. The perf. part, either represents a state (in- tensive) or a completed act (extensive). Examples of the former are /ce/coirtaKtis (Jo. 4:6); io-riis (18 : 18); t6 eiuBos (Lu. 4 : 16). In- stances of the latter occur in 6 €tX7?0&)s (Mt. 25 : 24) ; xexoti/KOTts (Jo. 18 : 18). The perf. part, is quite common in the N. T. and preserves the usual idea of the tense. (6) The Time of the Tense. It is relative, not absolute. It may be coincident with that of the principal verb, usually so in the intensive use.^ Cf . Jo. 4 : 6 KeKoxtoKois kKoBk^eTo, (19 : 33) d- 8ov fjSri TfdvqKOTa, (Ro. 15 : 14) eo-re — irejfKrfpdiixkvoi. But by sug- gestion the act may be represented as completed before that of » W.-Th., p. 334. 2 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 71. 910 A GRAMMAR OF THE. GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the principal verb and so antecedent action. Thus lar^Keiaav — ireiroLTjKOTes (Jo. 18 : 18) ', irpo(r4>a,Tias eXriXvOora (Ac. 18 : 2) ; diroXeXu- fifvriv (Lu. 16 : 18); dpriKOTos (Mt. 26 : 75). This antecedent action may be expressed also by the intensive perfect as in k^fjXdev 6 re- OvriKus (Jo. 11 : 44), but deSefikvos is coincident action. So in Mk. 5 : 14 lixaTLfTijivov is coincident, but tov kaxv^Ta antecedent. Cf. Rev. 6 : 9. The modem Greek keeps the perf. part. (Thimib, Handb., p. 167). (c) The Perfect Tense Occurs with Various Uses of the Participle. The attributive part, has it. Cf. ol dxeo-TaX^ueyoi (Ac. 10 : 17). Sometimes a distinction is drawn between the aorist and the perf. part. Cf. 6 Xa/S&jy in Mt. 25 : 20 with 6 eiXij^cis (25 : 24); 6 KoXiaas in Lu. 14 : 9 with 6 K€' vfuhv avvla-Taadai, we have a simple past obhgation. So in Lu. 7:41; Heb. 2 : 17. Note common use of the present tense also, as in Ac. 17 : 29. Cf. 5 ci^eDs.ofitv iroLfjaaL ireiroiiiKaiiev (Lu. 17 : 10), where the obligation comes on from the past. But in 1 Cor. 5 : 10, ewel inpelXere S,pa kK rod Kocrfwv k^e\9etv, we have merely present time under consideration and a practical apodosis of a second-class condition imphed. I do not agree with Moulton^ that av in such instances has been " dropped." It simply was not needed to suggest the unreality or non-realization of the obligation. The context made it clear enough. Xp^ occurs only once in the N. T. (Jas. 3 : 10), whereas TrpocrijKei (Attic) is not found at all, nor ^feo-rt (but i^6v) nor k^v.^ But eSvvaro is used of the present time. So Jo. 11 : 37. Cf. the apodosis in the second-class condition without av in Jo. 9 : 33; Ac. 26 : 32. The use of cbs avrjK€u (Col. 3 : 18) and a ovk avrJKev (Eph. 5 : 4) are both pertinent, though in subordinate clauses. Note in particular ov yap KadiJKev avrdv ^ijv (Ac. 22 : 22), 'He is not fit to live.' In Mt. 26 : 24, Ka\6v ^v ahrQ d OVK eyevvijdri, we have the apodosis without av of a condition of the second class (determined as unfulfilled). There is no condition expressed in 2 Pet. 2 : 21, Kpeirrov yap riv airots mi? kTtyvoiKkvai. t)jv dSov TTJs diKatoavvris. Moulton* finds the origin of this idiom in the conditional sentence, but Winer* sees in it merely the Greek way of affirming what was necessary, possible or appropriate in itself. So Gildersleeve.^ The modem Greek preserves this idiom (Thumb, • Our transl. therefore often fails to distinguish the two senses of anyhow. It seems to have a demonstrative sense (definite, then, in that case) which was shifted to an indefinite use. Cf. tov Kal TQV, rd. Kal To..^ Gildersleeve interprets it as a particle "used to colour the moods of the Greek language." With the past tenses of the indicative in independent sentences it is a definite particle. The effort to express unreality by the indicative was a somewhat difficult process. In Homer "the unreal imperfect indicative always refers to the past."* So in Heb. 11:15. Nothing but the context can show whether these past tenses are used in oppo- sition to the past or the present. The Koi.vi} received this idiom of the unreal indicative "from the earlier age as a fully grown and normal usage, which it proceeded to limit in various directions."* In Jo. 15 : 22 we have a good illustration of this construction. We know that anapriav ovk iixoaav is in opposition to the present reality because it is followed by vvv 8i irpo^atnv ovk exovaiv. The same thing is seen in verse 24 when vvv 8^ kiipaKaav follows. In verse 19 av «<^iXet is used, the usual construction. In Lu. 17 : 6 'Akritjt av and iir^Kovcrev av are used after the protasis d ix^re (first- class condition). This is a mixed condition. So also the marginal reading in W. H. in Jo. 8 : 39 is kiroLetre after ti kcrrk and is fol- lowed by vvv dk ^riTeire (cf. above). The absence of av seems more noticeable in John's Gospel. Cf. Jo. 19 : 11, ovk dx^s i^ovciav Kar' efiov oii8tp,iav el fiii ^v SeSonkvov aoi aviadev.^ Paul has the same* idiom. Thus Gal. 4 : 15 d Swarbv tow 64>da\iiovs inSiv i^opi^avres idiiKark pioi and Ro. 7 : 7 tiji* afiapriav ovk eyycoy d p,ri ha vo/wv, rriv re » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 205. = Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 168 f. ' Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., Jan., 1909, p. 16. Cf. Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 251 f. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 199. " Here SA read «x"s. " But not in Acts. Cf . Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 206. 922 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT yh.p 'eiruBvfiiav ohx ^Seiv ei /ifi 6 vS/ios. The MSS. vary In the support of &,i> as in Gal. 4 : 15, where EKLP (and H'B") have it. In Jo. 18 : 36, B does not have av, while in 8 : 19, D does not have it, and the other. MSS. differ in ■ the position of av.^ This particle comes near the beginning of the clause, though not at the begin-, ning. It does not precede oi)K (cf. Gal. 1 : 10). It is sometimes repeated in successive apodoses (cf. Jo. 4 : 10), but not always (cf. Lu. 12 : 39). Cf. Kiihner-Gerth, Bd. I, p. 247. On the use of av in general see Thompson, Syntax, pp. 291 ff. Hoogeveen (Dodrina Partic. Linguae Graecae, ed. sec, 1806, p. 35) makes ap mean shnply debeo, a very doubtful interpretation. "The addition of av to an indicative apodosis produced much the same effect as we can express in writing by italicizing 'if.' "^ This emphasis suggests that the condition was not realized. The papyri likewise occasionally show the absence of av.^ The condi- tion is not always expressed. It may be definitely implied in the context or left to inference. So Kayi) k\diiv cvv tokc^ av expafa ainb (Lu. 19 : 23) and nal eKduv kyi) eKOfiicra^riv Slv to kfiov aiiv tokco (Mt. 25 :27). Here the condition is implied in the context, a con- struction thoroughly classical. But, in principal clauses, there is no instance of av with a past tense of the indicative in a frequent- ative sense.* It only survives in relative, comparative or tem- poral clauses (cf. Mk. 6 : 56; Ac. 2 : 45; 4 : 35; 1 Cor. 12 : 2; Mk. 3 : 11; 11 : 19). So D in Mk. 15 : 6, 6v av trovvTo. Both the aorist and the imperfect tenses are used thus with av in these subordinate clauses. There was considerable ambiguity in the use of the past tenses for this "unreal" indicative. No hard and fast rule could be laid down. A past tense of the indicative, in a condition with- out &v, naturally meant a simple condition of the first class and described past time (cf. Heb. 12 :25). But in certain contexts it was a condition of the second class (as in Jo. 15 : 22, 24). Even with av it is not certain' whether past or present time is meant. The certain application to present time is probably post- Homeric.^ The imperfect might denote' a past condition, as in Mt. 23 : 30; 24 : 43 (Lu. 12 : 39); Jo. 4 : 10; 11 : 21, 32; 1 Jo. 2 : > Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 206. ^ Moulton, Prol., p. 200. ' lb. Cf. Moulton, Class. Quart., Apr., 1908, p. 140. Moulton (Prol., p. 200) cites without &v O.P. 526 (ii/A.D.) 06 Trapefftmv, O.P. 530 (ii/A.D.) iriXiv aoi i.irfiTTi\Kav, Rein. p. 7 (ii/B.c.) ote i,irkaTrii, all apo'doses of 2d class conditions. The mod. Gk. here uses the conditional 86. (Thumb, Handb., p. 195). * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 207. Cf. Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 170 f. « Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., § 399. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., pp. 236 f . ' Moulton, Prol., p. 201. MODE (efkaisis) 923 19; Heb. 11 : 15, or, as commonly, a present condition (cf. Lu. 7: 39). The aorist would naturally denote past time, as in Mt. 11 : 21. The two tenses may come in the same condition and con- clusion, as in Jo. 14 : 28. The past perfect is found in the protasis, as in Mt. 12 : 7; Jo. 19 : 11. Once the real past perfect meets us in the conclusion (1 Jo. 2 : 19). And note &v rjSuTe in Jo. 14 : 7. (5) Impossible Wishes. These impracticable wishes were in- troduced in Attic by eWe or el yap, which used also Si(l>€\ov with the infinitive. From this form a particle was developed oc^eXoi' (aug- mentless) which took the place of eWe and d yap. The dropping of the augment is noted in Herodotus (Moulton, Prol., p. 201). As a matter of fact, this unfulfilled wish occurs only three times in the N. T. : once with the aorist about the past, o<^eX6j' ye e0aai- 'Keixrare (1 Cor. 4:8), and twice with the imperfect about the present (2 Cor. 11 : 1; Rev. 3 : 15). "O^eXoi' occurs once also with the future (Gal. 5 : 12). Many of the MSS. (D^EFGKL) read &(j>e\ov in 2 Cor. 11 : 1, and a few do the same in 1 Cor. 4 : 8. The idiom occurs in the LXX and in the inscriptions. Cf . Schwyzer, Perg., p. 173. The modern Greek expresses such wishes by va or OS and imperf. or aorist (Thumb, p. 128). For 'eSpafwv in Gal. 2: 2, of unrealized purpose, see Final Clauses. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 127) quotes 6^el\ov eixetvas, Achilles Tatius, II, 24, 3, and &(l)e\ov kyu imWov iiciipeaaov, Epict., Diss., 22, 12. (6) The Present. In Mt. 12 : 38, BMaKoXe, OeXonev airo aov crri- fieiov ISeiv, the present seems rather abrupt.* In Jo. 12 : 21, Kvpie, dk\oiiei> rdv 'lt](xovv ISeiv, this is felt SO strongly that it is translated: 'Sir, we would see Jesus.' See also Jo. 6 : 67. Cf. i^ovXafiriv in Ac. 25 : 22 and ev^alp,t]v av in 26 : 29. There does not seem to be the same abruptness in OeKoi in 1 Cor. 7 : 7. Cf . also (jtelSofmi in 7 : 28. There were probably delicate nuances of meaning which sufficiently softened these words, shadings which now escape us. There is no difficulty about dpjcet in 2 Cor. 12 : 9. In a case like {nr&,yo} oKieiieiv (cf. epxoneda) in Jo. 21 : 3, the suggestion or hint is in the fact, not in the statement. The indicative is a definite assertion. The nature of the case supplies the rest. In 1 Cor. 10 : 22, ^ irapa^rjXovfiev rdv Kipiov; the indicative notes the fact, while the surprise and indignation come out in the interrogative form. The question in Jo. 11 : 47, H iroioviJiev; is very striking. It may be questioned^ if the point is the same as H woiSiiJiev; (cf. Jo. 6: 28), like the Latin Quid fadamusf The subjimctive of de- » Cf. Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 21. 2 Against Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 210. 924 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT liberation suggests doubt on the whole subject or expresses a wish to do something. Blass' cites the colloquial Latin for paral- lels for this idiom. But we do not need such parallels here. The inquiry of Caiaphas is rather indignant protest against the in- activity of the Sanhedrin than a puzzled quandary as to what they should do. The^ indicative suits exactly his purpose. He charges them with doing nothing and knowing nothing and makes a definite proposal himself. Winef sees the point clearly.^ The same use of di\o3 noted above appears in questions of deUb- eration as in deXeis avKKi^cofiev; (Mt. 13 : 28). So /SoiXecrfle airoXbau; (Jo. 18 : 39). Cf. Lu. 18 : 41. Possibility or duty may be ex- pressed in questions also, as in ttcos SbvaaOe ayaOa \aKeZv irovripoi ovres; (Mt. 12 : 34); ri fie Set iroieiv I'm aooeSi; (Ac. 16 : 30). This is the analytical method rather than trusting to the mode.' "It is found possible, and more convenient, to show the modal character of a clause by means of particles, or from the drift of the context, without a distinct verbal form."* (c) The Future. The future indicative "was originally a sub- junctive in the main"^ and it has a distinct modal development. This fact comes out in the fact that the future tense of the indic- ative is a rival of the subjunctive, the optative and the impera- tive.* Like the subjunctive and optative the future may be merely futuristic (prospective) or deliberative or volitive. This matter has been discussed at length under Tenses, which see. As an example of the merely futuristic note Mt. 11 : 28, of the voli- tive see Lu. 13 : 9, of the deliberative note Jo. 6 : 68. n. The Subjunctive Mode {r\ •OiroxaKTiKTi cykXio-is). Some of the Greek grammarians called it ^ SiaraKTiKii, some ij crvtifiouKevTLKri, some ^ mcSeriKr]. But no one of the names is happy, for the mode is not always subordinate, since it is used freely in principal clauses, nor is it the only mode used in subordinate clauses. But the best one is ij biaToxTLKfi. 1. Relations to Other Modes. The development of the modes was gradual and the differen- tiation was never absolutely distinct. (a) The Aorist Subjunctive and the Future Indicative. These are closely aUied in form and sense. It is quite probable that the future indicative is just a variation of the aorist subjunctive. Cf. idofiaL, iriofiai, 4>ayonai. The subjunctive is always future, in 1 lb. Ct. Thompson, Synt., p. 187. « Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 235. 2 W.-Th., p. 284. 6 Moulton, Prol., p. 199. » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 210. « Thompson, Synt., p. 218. MODE (efkaisis) 925 subordinate clauses relatively future. Hence the two forms con- tinued side by side in the language. There is a possible dis- tinction. "The subjunctive differs from the future indicative in stating what is thought likely to occur, not positively what will occur.'" But in the beginning (cf. Homer) it was probably not so. Brugmann (Griech. Gr., p. 499) pointedly contends that many so-called future indicatives are just "emancipated short-vowel conjunctives." Cf. Giles, Manual, pp. 446-448; Moulton, Prol., p. 149. (6) The Siibjundive and the Imperative. These are closely al- lied. Indeed, the first person imperative in Greek, as in San- skrit,'' is absent in usage and the subjunctive has to be employed instead. There is a possible instance of the subjunctive as im- perative in the second person in Sophocles, but the text is uncer- tain.' The use of /iij and the aorist subjunctive in prohibitions of the second and third persons is also pertinent. Thus the subjunctive is in close affinity with the imperative. (c) The Subjunctive and the Optative. They are really varia- tions of the same mode. In my Short Grammar of the Greek N. T.* I have for the sake of clearness grouped them together. I treat them separately here, not because I have changed my view, but ia order to give a more exhaustive discussion. The closeness of the connection between the subjunctive and the optative is manifest in the Sanskrit. "Subjunctive and optative run closely parallel with one another in the oldest language in their use in independent clauses, and ares hardly distinguishable in depen- dent."* In the Sanskrit the subjunctive disappeared before the optative save in the imperatival uses. It is well known that the "Latin subjunctive is syncretistic, and does duty for the Greek conjunctive and optative."^ Delbriick, indeed, insists that the two modes originally had the same form and the same meaning.' Delbriick's view has carried the bulk of modem opinion. But Giles* is justified in saying: "The original meaning of these moods and the history of their development is the most difficult of the many vexed questions of comparative syntax." It is true that » Thompson, Gk. Synt., 1883, p. 133. 2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 216. » Cf. Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 149. * Pp. 129-131. 6 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 216. » Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., 1907, p. 191. ' Die Grundl. d. griech. Synt., p. 115 f. » Comp. Philol., p. 502. 926 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the subjunctive in Greek refers only to the future, while the optative is not boiind to any sphere.' But the optative is usually relatively'' future like our "should," "could," etc. The use of the subjunctive was greater in Homer's time than afterwards. The independent subjunctive in particular was more freely used in Epic than in Attic. In the modem Greek' the subjunctive has not only displaced the optative, but the future indicative and the infinitive. But even so in modem Greek the subjunctive is rela- tively reduced and is almost confined to subordinate clauses (Thumb, Handb., pp. 115, 126). The fut. ind. in modern Greek is really da (dava) and subj. G. Hamilton* overstates it in say- ing: "This monarch of the moods, which stands absolute and alone, has all the other moods dependent on it." It is possible that originally these two moods were used indifferently.' Van- dacle* argues for a radical difference between the two moods, but he does not show what that difference is. There were distinctions developed beyond a doubt in actual use," but they are not of a radical nature. The Iranian, Sanskrit and the Greek are the only languages which had both the subjunctive and optative. The Sanskrit dropped the subjunctive and the Greek finally dis- pensed with the optative as the Latin had done long ago.* 2. Original Significance of the Subjunctive. Delbriick' is clear that "will" is the fundamental idea of the subjimctive, while "wish" came to be that of the optative. But this position is sharply challenged to-day. Goodwin*" denies that it is possible "to include under one fundamental idea all the actual uses of any mood in Greek except the imperative." He admits that the only fundamental idea always present in the subjunctive is that of futurity and claims this as the primitive meaning from the idiom of Homer. Bmgmann" denies that a single root-idea of the subjunctive can be found. He cuts the Gordian knot by three uses of the subjunctive (the volitive, the deliberative, the futur- 1 GUdersl., Am. Jour, of PhiloL, Jan., 1909, p. 11. 2 Cf. Baumlein, Unters. tiber griech. Modi (1846, p. 25 f.). ' Cf. V. and D., Handb., p. 321 f. " Latin of the Latins and Greek of the Greeks, p. 23. " Bergaigne, De conjunctivi et optativi in indoeurop. Unguis. ' L'optatif grec, p. xxiii. ' lb., p. iii. ' Jolly, Ein Kapitel d. vergl. Synt., Der Konjunktiv und Optativ, p. 119. » Die Grundl., p. 116 f. Cf. Synt., II, pp. 349 ff. '° M. and T., App., Relation of the Optative to the Subjunctive and other Moods, p. 371. " Griech. Gr., p. 499. MODE (efkaisis) 927 istic). W. G. Hale* identifies the deliberative and futuristic uses as identical. Sonnenschein^ sees no distinction between volitive and deliberative, to which Moultpn' agrees. "The objection to the term 'deliberative,' and to the separation of the first two classes, appears to be well grounded." He adds: "A command may easily be put in the interrogative tone." That is true. It is also true "that the future indicative has carried off not only the fu- turistic but also the volitive and deliberative subjunctives." But for practical purposes there is wisdom in Brugmann's division. Stahl* sees the origin of all the subjunctive uses in the notion of will. The future meaning grows out of the volitive. Mutzbauer^ finds the fundamental meaning of the subjunctive to be the atti- tude of expectation. This was its original idea. All else comes out of that. With this Gildersleeve^ agrees: "The subjunctive mood is the mood of anticipation," except that he draws a sharp distinction between "anticipation" and "expectation." "Antici- pation treats the future as if it were present." He thinks that the futuristic subjunctive is a "deadened imperative."' But Monro ^ on the whole thinks that the futuristic meaning is older than the volitive. So the grammarians lead us a merry dance with the subjunctive. Baumlein* denies that the subjunctive is mere possibility. It aims after actuality, "a tendency towards actuality." . At any rate it is clear that we must seek the true meaning of the subjunctive in principal clauses, since subordinate clauses are a later development, though the futuristic idea best survives in the subordinate clause.*" In a sense Hermann's notion is true that three ideas come in the modes (Wirklichkeit, Moglich- keit, Notwendigkeit). The indicative is Wirklichkeit, the impera- tive is Notwendigkeit, while the subjunctive and the optative are Moglichkdt. I have ventured in my Short Grammar^^ to call the subjunctive and optative the modes of doubtful statement, ' The Anticipatory Subjunctive in Gk. and Lat., Stud. Class. Phil. (Chicago)) I, p. 6. See discussion of these three uses of fut. ind. under Tense. 2 CI. Rev., XVI, p. 166. ' Synt., Pt. I, p. 147. • Pro!., p. 184. ' lb., p. 148. * Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 235 f. « Horn. Gr., p. 231. ' Konjunktiv und Optativ, p. 8 f. ' Unters. iiber die griech. Modi, p. 35. Cf. Wetzel, De Conjunctivi et Op- tativi apud Graecos Usu, p. 7. '" Hammersohmidt, tJber die Grundb. von Konjunktiv und Optativ, p. 4. " Pp. 129-131. As a matter of fa;ct both Delbriick and Goodwin fail to eatabUsh a sharp distinction between the subjunctive and the optative. Cf. Giles, Man., p. 504. ' 928 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT while the indicative is the mode of positive assertion and the im- perative that of commanding statement. The modes, as already seen, overlap all along the Hne, but in a general way this outline is correct. The subjunctive in principal sentences appears in both declarative and interrogative sentences. Cf. dpijvnv '€x<^nev irpbs t6v deov (Ro. 5:1), ri eiirw ii^tp; (1 Cor. 11 : 22). It is found in both positive and negative statements. Cf . SSitiev ^ firi Stifiev; (Mk. 12 : 14), nfi irfr]Te (Mt. 23 : 33) = 7rcos (jxi^ecrde. This is probably deliberative, but he makes a better case for h t<^ ^pQ rl yhrirai (Lu. 23 : 31). Blass* notes that "the mixture of the fut. ind. and aorist conj. has, in com- parison with the classical language, made considerable progress." He refers to Sophocles, Lexicon, p. 45, where etirco aoi. is quoted as = ipS> o-oi.^ In a principal clause in Clem., Horn. XI. 3, we have Kal oirus — Swridfj, and Blass has noted also in Is. 33 : 24 d^eSg yap aiiTots v cLuapria. We cannot, indeed, trace the idiom all the way from Homer. "But the root-ideas of the subjunctive changed remarkably Uttle in the millennium or so separating Homer from the Gospels; and the mood which was more and more winning back its old domain from the future tense may well have come to be used again as a 'gnomic future' without any knowledge of the antiquity of such a usage."' It was certainly primitive in its sim- plicity* even if it was not the most primitive idiom. The use of ov with the subj. did continue here and there after Homer's day. We find it in the LXX, as in Jer. 6 : 8 (above) and in the Phrygian inscription (above). In fact, in certain constructions it is common, as in nfi oh after verbs of fearing and caution. Cf . 2 Cor. 12 : 20 and MSS. in Mt. 25 : 9 (^i^ Trore ovk apKiaii). It is even possible that the idiom ob p.r] is to be thus explained. Gildersleeve^ remarks on this point: " It might even seem easier to make ob belong to ai(rxvv6&, thus combining objective and subjective negatives, but it must be remembered that ov with the' subjunctive had died out (except in jut) ov) before this construction came in." The vernacu- lar may, however, have preserved ov with the subj. for quite a while. Jannaris' confidently connects ov in this idiom with the subj. and explains ni} as an abbreviation of p,riv. If either of these explanations is true, the N. T. would then preserve in negative principal sentences the purely futuristic subjimctive. Burton'' is clear that anyhow "the aorist subjunctive is used with oi ni) in the sense of an emphatic future indicative." The ancient Greek sometimes employed the present subjunctive in this sense, but the N. T. does not use it. But the LXX has it, as in Jer. 1 : 19. So in Is. 11 : 9 we find ov p.ri KaianrodiaovcLv ov5i p,ri SiiviavTai. The future ind. with oii fiii is rare in the N. T., but ov fii] with the aorist 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 208. » Justin Martyr, p. 169. " See also Hatz., Einl., p. 218. • Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 449. » Moulton, Prol., p. 186. ' N. T. M. and T., p. 78. * Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 2, 372. 930 A GEAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT subj. appears in the W. H. text 71 times.' It cannot be said that the origin of this ob /iij construction has been solved. Goodwin' states the problem well. The two negatives ought to neutralize each other, being simplex, but they do not (cf. nij oi). The ex- amples are partly futuristic and partly prohibitory, EUipsis is not satisfactory nor complete separation (Gildersleeve) of the two negatives.. Perhaps oi expresses the emphatic denial and nij the prohibition which come to be blended into the one construction. At any rate it is proper to cite the examples of emphatic denial as instances of the futuristic subjunctive. Thus ov ixii o-e a.vS>, oiS' oi) firi ae kyKaTaXiwo} (Heb. 13 : 5) ; ob /ii) airokka^ (Mk. 9 : 41) ; ohKeri ov nil iriu (Mk. 14 : 25). Cf. Lu. 6: 37 etc.. See oi n^i in both prin- cipal and subordinate clauses in Mk. 13 : 2. See also Tense. It is a rhetorical question in Lu. 18 : 7 (note also /laKpodvnu) rather than a deliberative one. In Rev. 15 : 4 we have the aor. subj. and the fut. ind. side by side in a rhetorical question, tIs oii fiil ofir]dfj, Kbpie, Kal So^aaei t6 ovofia; See also the ris e^ bfiZv i^et. tptTe, ei)6vTuu (Attic for koivti (jyepiToicrav) . Moulton^ appeals also to the combination of the first and second persons in con- structions like eyeipeaOt ayc>>tiev (Mk. 14:42). This example illus- trates well the volitive idea in &yo3iiev? The plural is the person usually found in this construction. Cf. also ayuintv (Jo. 11:7); (t>ayuij,iv /cat iriuniv (1 Cor. 15:32); exoinev (Ro. 5:1, correct text); es ISufiev (Mt. 27:49). In a(t>ts the sin- gular has become stereotyped.* This use of ci^es was finally shortened into fis in the modem Greek and came to be universal with the hortatory subjunctive of the first person and even for the third person imperative in the vernacular (as as 'ixv for ixirta). In the N. T. a^es is not yet a mere auxiliary as is our "let" and the modern Greek as. It is more like "do let me go."° Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 134) quotes a(j)es 8el^oinev, Epict.- I, 9, 15. In the first person singular the N. T. always has a^«s or Stvpo with the hortatory subjunctive." Thus a<^«s k;8dXw (Mt. 7 : ' Prol., p. 175. ' lb. ' See 1 Cor. 10 : 7-9 for the change from first to second persons. • Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 447. " Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 208. But see fi^ere tSw^ev (Mk. 15 : 36), though SD here read ttjia. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 176. Jannaris (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 448) derives Ss from iaat (iaaoy), Sure, ' It was rare in classic Gk. not to have 4-ye or tjttpe or some such word. Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 88; Gildersl., Synt., Ft. I, p. 148 f. The voUtive subj. is common in mod. Gk. (Thumb, Handb., p. 126) both for exhortations, commands, prohibitions and wishes. It occurs in the late pap. for wish, as (caToJiieri), P. Oxy. I, 128, 9. So in the inscr. toioOto TraSji, Pontica III, 62, 8 932 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 4); Lu. 6 :42 and Sevpo airocxTe'iXoi (Ac. 7:34, LXX). Moulton' cites a^es ky(h ahrrtv Bpriviicrw from 0. P. 413 (Roman period). We do not have to suppose the eUipsis of tva, for di<^€j is just the auxiliary. In Jo. 12 : 7, a<^es airriv Iva rripijcrxi, it is hardly prob- able that Iva. is just auxiliary,^ though in the modern Greek, as already stated, as is used with the third person. In the second person we have only the negative construction in prohibitions with the aorist subjunctive, a very old idiom' (see Tenses, Aorist). "The future and the imperative between them carried off the old jussive use of the subjunctive in positive commands of 2d and 3d person. The old rule which in ('Angli- cistic') Latin made sileas an entirely grammatical retort dis- courteous to the Public Orator's sileam?" (Moulton, ProL, p. 177). This example reinforces the idiom in the dialect of Elis which "produced such phrases as km/JikXeLav xotiJoTat NiKoSpo/iop, 'let Ni- codromus attend to it,' has no place in classical or later Greek, unless in Soph., Phil., 300 (see Jebb). Add doubtfully LI. P. 1, vs. 8 (iii/B.c), Tb. P. 414 ''"• (ii/A.n.)." See Moulton, Prol, p. 178. In the LXX, Jer. 18 : 8, note Kal kTnTi, parallel with aivoarpa- i}T(j) in 18 : 11. In the modern Greek we have wishes for the fu- ture in the subj., since the opt. is dead. So 6 Oebs v\a,^, 'God forbid' (Thumb, Handb., p. 127). Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 135) finds the subj. for wish in late papyri and inscriptions. It is even in the LXX, Ruth 1 : 9, Sixg Kvpios ificav Kal eiipT/re avdiravatv, beside the optative. In the Veda the prohibitive ma is fojmd only with the conjunctive, thus seeming to show that the imper- ative was originally used only in positive sentences. This idiom of nil and the aorist subj. held its own steadily in the second person. This point has been discussed at some length under Tenses. Take as illustrations the following: /lii 0oj87j6gs (Mt. 1 : 20); fiii vonicTiTe (5: 17); jui) daevkyKxis (6: 13). The use of 6pa and opare with nij and the aorist subj. is to be noted. Some of these are examples of as3nideton just like o^es. Thus Spa /iriSevl p,ribb> elxj7s (Mk. 1 : 44; cf. Mt. 8 : 4). So also bpa ixi, (Rev. 22 : 9) where the verb TroLri Prol., p. 175. 2 lb. ' Dplbnick, Synt., p. 120; Monro, Horn. Or., p. 240. MODE (efkaisis) 933 ^X^irere fifi irXavrjdTJTe, we seem to have parataxis as is possible' in Heb. 12 : 25, /SX^xeTs fifi irapairijo-ijfffle. Cf. Ac. 13 : 40; Gal. 5 : 15. These forms occur with the third person also, as jSXexere jui} tis inas TXatrfiaji (Mt. 24 : 4). But, per contra, see 1 Cor. 10 : 12 {nij iffToi in Col. 2:8). In 1 Th. 5 : 15, dpare firi rts KaKdv avrl KaKov rivl &iroSQ, parataxis is probable. But the third person aorist subj. occurs with firj alone as in nij t« otv aMv k^ovdevrjan (1 Cor. 16 : 11); n^ Tis lie S6^jj S.a elvai (2 Cor. 11 ; 16); n'l] tis u/zos k^a- iroT^o-j (2 Th. 2 :3). Elsewhere ah} and the aorist imperative occur in the third person. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 134) quotes nil and 3d person aor. subj. from Koivii writers, inscr. and papyri. Careless writers even use /ii) olv AXXcos Trotgs, B. G. U. Ill, 824, 17. Even Epictetus (II, 22, 24) has juij airodev awotjjaivTi. No less volitive is an example with ov fiii, like ob nii kak}Sr]Te (Mt. 5 : 20), which is prohibitive. So oh tiii viij/ias (Jo. 13 : 8) ; oh nr/ Tin (Lu. 1:15). There is an element of will in iSiTa tv ^ nia Kepaia oh /tij irapeKdji (Mt. 5 : 18) in the third person. In Mt. 25 : 9, iiii iron ov lift d.pKka'g finiv ml vpZv, the subj. is probably futuristic (or de- liberative). In a late papyrus, O. P. 1150, 6 (vI/a.d.), note M^ov TTiv Shvaiiiv Sii where the 3d pers. subj. = imperative like Latin. There are examples in the N. T. where Iva seems to be merely an introductory expletive with the volitive subjunctive. Thus ha kiTLO^i (Mk. 5 : 23); I'ra dra/SX^i^co (10 : 51); ha irepiacehvTe (2 Cor. 8:7); Iva fivrniovehu/nv (Gal. 2 : 10. Note present tense) ; Iva oXX' Iva fiaOn. The use of e^Xw Iva (cf. Mk. 6 : 25; 10 : 35; Jo. 17: 24) preceded this idiom. Moulton' even suggests that irpoa-evxecde Iva firi i\di]re eis Teipaapov (Mk. 14 : 38) is as much parataxis as opSre koX ^vKaaceade (Lu. 12 : 15). This "innovation" in the KOLvi) takes the place of oxws and the future ind. Moulton {Prol., p. 177 note) cites oTros poi. firi ipeXi, Plato, 337 B, 'don't tell me,' where oxa)s='in which case.' The use of htj after words of caution and apprehension is probably > But Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 278) holds the opposite view. ' Prol., p. 179. » lb., p. 178. 934 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT paratactic in origin.' Moulton" notes the use of the present subj. with expressions of warning as well as the aorist. Thus in Heb. 12 : 15, eTna-Koirovvres iii] tis ptfa iriKplas kvoxKxi- ^^^ t^is construc- tion borders so closely on subordinate clauses, if not clear over the line, that it will be best discussed there. Subordinate clauses show many examples of the volitive sub- junctive (as clauses of design, probably paratactic in origin, Moulton, Prol., p. 185). See 5i ^s Xarpeiwuev (Heb. 12:28); owov 4>k'yvyriTe aird TTJs Kplaews t^s yekvvqs; (Mt. 23 : 33); ti ykvqTCLi; (Lu. 23 : 31). See further Mt. 26 : 14; Ro. 10 : 14. It is sometimes uncertain whether we have the subjunctive or the indicative, as in trtpov TpoaSoKufiev; (Mt. 11 : 3) and eTaivkcrco ipas; (1 Cor. 11 : 22). But note Ti eiTTw iifiiv; in the last passage. In Lu. 11:5 we have both 1 Cf. BlasB, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 212 f . ' Prol., p. 178. » Monro, Horn. Gr., pp. 199, 229. * Synt., Pt. I, p. 152. Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 92. « Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 211. 8 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 77. MODE (ErKAisis) 935 Tts efei and eiirn. So rl 8oi (Mk. 8 : 37, ACD Siiaa) may be com- pared with tL Scbo-et (Mt. 16 : 26) .^ This ambiguity appears in tL TTot^ff&j; and iyvw rl iroiijaci} in Lu. 16 : 3 f. The deliberative subj. is retained in indirect questions. Cf. Mt. 6 : 31 with Mt. 6 : 25. The kinship between the deliberative subj. in indirect questions and the imperative and the volitive subjunctive is seen in Lu. 12 : 4 f ., fifi (t>oPridrJTe — {iiroSei^u 8i ifuv riva 0o/3j;S^Te" (i>ofii\driTe ktK. The deliberative subj., like the volitive, has various introductory words which make asyndeton (parataxis). These become set phrases like ftc^es, Spa. Thus irov deXeis iToi/iacrwfiev; (Mt. 26 : 17), deKeis diroinev; (Lu. 9 :54). In Lu. 18 :41 we have H aoi deXus TOL^ffa; and Iva ava^eif/ca as the reply. But the Iva was not ne- cessary. Cf. further Mt. 13 : 28. In Jo. 18 : 39, fiovKtaBe olv avoKbadi, we probably have the subj. also. Some MSS. have d irara^afiev; in Lu. 22 : 49.^ We may leave further discus- sion of the subj. to the subordinate clauses. We have no ex- amples in the N. T. of av with the subj. in independent sentences (but see nk and the subj. in Homer). In subordinate clauses av is very common, though not necessary, as will be seen.^ (Cf. discussion of ei, 3v\a^ (Moulton, Prol., p. 249), though va is not here necessary (Thumb, Handb., p. 127). The ancient idiom with eWe and el yap is not found in the N. T., as stated already several times. "Oc^eXoy with the future ind. occurs for a future wish (Gal. 5 : 12). (c) Deliberative. There is little more to add here. The LXX* gives . instances of ris 5i^; (Num. 11 : 29; Judg. 9 : 29; 2 Sam. 18 : 33, etc.) without av as in Homer, where a deliberative subj. would be admissible. See also Ps. 120 (119) : 3, H SoBe'vq trot koI tI itpo(TT(Belri aoi; In Lu. 6 : 11 Moulton* remarks that ri av Toiij- ffaiev in the indirect question is "the hesitating substitute for the direct H iroi,ri<70fiev;" Why not rather suppose a "hesitating" (deliberative) direct question like tL av Oh\oL 6 airepfwKoyos ovtos "KkyeLv; (Ac. 17 : 18). As already remarked, the context shows doubt and perplexity in the indirect questions which have av and the opt. in the N. T. (Lu. 1 : 62; 6 : 11; 9 : 46; 15 : 26; Ac. 5 : 24; 10 : 17). The verbs (kvkvevov, SieKoKovv, ilaTJhBtv diaKoyia-fios, kirvv- 6av£To, SiriTTopovv) all show this state of mind. One may note also ei PobXoLTo in Ac: 25 : 20 after atopovfitvoi. Cf. 27 : 39. The de- liberative opt. undoubtedly occurs in Lu. 3 : 15, 5i.a\oyi^oijJkv rather than ^trrai in Mt. 20 : 26. (b) The Subjunctive. The volitive subjunctive is quite to the point. In the first person this use of the subj. held its own al- ways in Ueu of the imperative. It is needless to repeat the dis- cussion of this matter (see Subjunctive in this chapter). The use of Iva with the subj. in an imperatival sense is seen in Mk. 5 : 23 (6 : 25) ; Eph. 5 : 33 is there discussed also. Cf . Tit. 2 : 4. Let M (TXio'w/tej' aMv, AXXd Xaxw/iej* (Jo. 19 : 24) serve as an example. So in the second person the aorist subj. held its place in prohibitions past KOLvri times to the practical exclusion of the aor. imper. with fii). The two constructions existed in the koivij side by side with the third person. Thus /iij TvobrM (Mt. 6 : 3) and jui? tis k^ovBeviiaxi (1 Cor. 16 : 11). Cf. 66s and jut) airoarpa^^s in Mt. 5 :42. The final triumph of the subj. over the imperative (save in the second person) has been shown. Cf. the fate of the opt. before the subj. (c) The Optative. There is only one example, nijKfTL firjdds (payoi (Mk. 11 : 14), in the N. T. The distinction between a curse and a prohibition is not very great. The parallel passage in Mt. 21 : 19 has^ oil iXTiKkri e/c aov KapTos yhrjTai (volitive subj.). (d) The Infinitive. The idiom is very frequent in Homer.^ It occurs chiefly after an imperative. The command is carried on by the infinitive. There is no need for surprise in this construc- tion, since the probability is that imperative forms like Bel^ai. (like the Latin legimini, Homeric \ey'e-iievai) are infinitive in origin.' It is true that the accent of the editors for the aorist. active optative is different from the aorist active inf. in forms like Karevdwai, irepia- aevaat. (1 Th. 3 : 11 f.), but the MSS. had no accent. We could properly print the infinitive if we wished.* So as to irapaKokiirai (2 Th. 2 : 17) where the accent is the same for both infinitive and optative (the imper. form aor. mid. sec. singl. is irapaKo,- \eaaL). Cf. Paimaai and ^airrlaai, one and the same form. The idiom is less frequent in the Attic ^ outside of laws and maxims, » Moulton, Prol., p. 179. * Moulton, Prol., p. 179. » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 162. « Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 222. » Giles, Man., p. 468. 944 A GKAMMAB OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT but happens to be the one infinitive construction that is alive in the Pontic dialect to-day.' Moulton^ expresses surprise at the rarity of this use of the inf. in the N. T., since it is common in the papyri. Cf. k^uvai, luaduicai, A. P. 86 (I/a.d.). Moulton {Prol.y-p. 248) notes that Burkitt {Evang. darMepharr. ii, 252 f.) reads ravra Se iroLrjaai, KaKeiva /jifi dc^etj'ai in Mt. 23 : 23. Blass' notes also a revival of the simple inf. or the accusative and in- finitive in the later language in legal phraseology. He explains the idiom as an ellipsis, but Moulton is undoubtedly correct in rejecting this theory. There is no need of a verb of command understood in view of the etymology of a form like /SaTrrto-ai. The use of xf tpeiv as greeting in epistles (with the nominative) is ex- plained in the same way. Cf. Ac. 15 : 23; 23 : 26; Jas. 1:1. It is the absolute use of the inf. as imperative. It is very common in the papyri, as UoXvKpaTrjs rSii iraTpl xaipe"') P- Petr. II, xi, 1 (iii/B.c). So Moulton {Prol., p. 180) denies the necessity of the ellipsis of a verb of command. In Ro. 12 : 15 xaipew and KKaiuv are clearly parallel with evXoyeire Kal fi'fi Karapdcrde. So in Ph. 3 : 16 o-ToixeiJ' is to be compared with the hortatory povSifiej/. Blass* needlessly wishes to emend the text in 2 Tim. 2 : 14, so as not to read p.'fi XoyofuixeZv. This use of the inf. occurs also in Tit. 2 : 9. We probably have the same construction in fifi awavap.i'yvvaBai (2 Th. 3 : 14), though it may be explained as purpose. In 1 Cor. 5 : 12 Kpiveiv is the subject inf. In Lu. 9 : 3 after el-rrev the quo- tation begins with MriSev aipere and is changed to /i^ re ix^cv (indi- rect command). In Mk. 6 : 8 f. both forms are indirect (one with IVa ixTjdiv atpucnv, the -other with ^iij evdvaaadai). The marg. in W.H. has p.fi hSiiariade. The MSS. often vary between the middle inf. and imper. or subj. Winer^ thinks that expositors have been unduly anxious to find this use of the infinitive in the N. T. But it is there. See further chapter XX, Verbal Nouns. (e) The Participle. Winer ^ found much difficulty, in the abso- lute use of the participle in the N. T. The so-called genitive ab- solute is common enough and the participle in indirect discourse representing a finite verb. It would seem but a simple step to use the participle, like the infinitive, in an independent sentence without direct dependence on a verb. Winer admits that Greek prose writers have this construction, though "seldom." He ex- 1 Hatz., Einl., p. 192. Cf. Thumb, HeUen., p. 130 f. 2 Prol., p. 179 f . » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 222. 6 W.-Th., p. 316. 'lb. ' « lb., pp. 350 ff. MODE (ErKAisiz) 945 plains it on the ground of ellipsis of the copula as is so common with adjectives (cf. Mt. 5 : 3-11). He passes the poets by (often the truest index of the vernacular) and admits "the Byzantine use of participles simply for finite verbs." T. S. Green* says: " The absolute use of the participle as an imperative is a marked feature of the language of the N. T." He explains it as an "Ara- maism." To this W. F. Moulton'' expresses surprise and admits only "the participial anacoluthon," which, by the way, is very much the same thing. But J. H. Moulton^ has found a number of examples in the papyri where the participle is fairly common for the indicative. The instances in the papyri of the participle in the sense of the imperative are not numerous, but one of them seems very clear. Thus Tb. 59 (i/B.c.) kv oh kav irpoaStrtadk nov tTiracaovTks fwi. irpodvfi&repov. It is preceded by a genitive abso- lute. Moulton gives another equally so: G. 35 (i/s.c.) 'eiriiitKbutvoi Iv' iyiaivriTe. Moulton* cites also the Latin form sequiminl (= iir&iievoi) for the second middle plural present indicative. The similar looking form sequiminl imperative has an infinitive origin, as already shown. See chapter XX, Verbal Nouns, for other examples and further discussion. On the whole, therefore, we must admit that there is no reason per se why the N. T. writers should not use the participle in lieu of the imperative. It is, of course, a loose construction, as ellipsis is and anaco- luthon is, but it is not the mark of an uneducated person. In the papyrus example given above Grenfell and Hunt call the writer "an official of some importance." Moulton^ also trans- lates Thumb* concerning the "hanging nominative" (common in classical and koivt) Greek) as saying that the usage "is the pre- cursor of the process which ends in modern Greek with the dis- appearance of the old participial construction, only an absolute form in -ovras being left." In the ellipsis of the copula it is not always clear whether the indicative or the imperative is to be supplied. Cf. evXayriTOi 6 Beds (2 Cor. 1:3). Shall we supply iaTLv or fiTO) (iffrcS) as we have it in 1 Cor. 16 : 22? In a case Uke 1 Pet. 3 : 8 f. it is plain that the unexpressed ^o-re would be im- perative, but Moulton notes the curious fact that tare (impera- tive) does not appear in the N. T. at all, though we have tadi. five times, iaTu or 7JT — Kbayios, dXX' b Kpyirrds tjJs KapSias avdpuiros. The same explana- tion applies to ov ixovov — dXXa KaL in 1 Pet. 2 : 18, but /ti) /iovov is regular in Jas. 1 : 22, etc., because of the absence of dXXd. In cases of contrast with ov — dXXd (with participles and impera- tives) the reason for ov is thus apparent (H. Scott). In Mt. 5 : 37 oO ov (like mi mt) is the predicate (like a substantive), not the negative of 'iaroj. In 2 Tim. 2 : 14 iir' ovbkv xPV'''-f">v (a parenthetical expression of ^iJ \oyonaxftv used as an imperative), the negative goes specifically Avith the single word xP'h<"'l">v. Cf . also 1 Cor. 5 : 10. The upshot is that /«) remains the negative of the imperative. Cf. iiii lioi kottovs irdpexe (Lu. 11 : 7). (c) Entreaty. A command easily shades off into petition in certain circumstances. The tone of the demand is softened to pleading.^ Moulton' notes that the imperative has a decided tone about it. "The grammarian Hermogenes asserted harsh- ness to be a feature of the imperative; and the sophist Protagoras even blamed Homer for addressing the Muse at the beginning of the Iliad with an imperative."^ The N. T. shows a sharp de- parture in the use of the imperative in petitions (rare in the older Greek and in the Koivri). The prophet pleads with the imperative, not with potential optative or future indicative. Jesus spoke with authority and not as the scribes.^ "Moreover, even in the language of prayer the imperative is at home, and that in its most urgent form, the aorist. Gildersleeve observes (on Justin Martyr, p. 137), 'As in the Lord's Prayer, so in the ancient Greek liturgies the aorist imper. is almost exclusively used. It is the 1 Prol., p. 173. * lb. 2 Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 158. « Mt. 7 : 29. > Prol., p. 172. 948 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT true term for instant prayer.' "* Gildersleeve^ denies that the N. T. shows "the absolute indifference that some scholars have considered to be characteristic of Hellenistic Greek" in the use of the imperative. He credits Mr. Mozley with the observation that "the aorist imperative is regularly used in biblical Greek when the deity is addressed; and following out this generalization Herr Krieckers, a pupil of Thumb's, has made a statistical study of the occurrences of the two tenses in Homer, Hesiod, Sappho, iEschylos, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, with the result that in prayers addressed by men to men both present and aorist are often used, whereas in prayers addressed by men to gods the aorist largely predominates." Examples^ of the imperative in petitions appear in Mk. 9 : 22, /SojJ^Tjo-of vfuv, (Lu. 17 : 5) irpoades flfiiv iriariv, (Jo. 17 : 11) rriprjaov dvToiis kv tQ ovopxtrl crov. (d) Permission. All this is in strict line with the ancient Greek.* A good illustration is seen in Mt. 26 : 45, KoBeidere \oit6v Kal ava- vavecrOe. This is not a question nor necessarily irony. It is too late to do Christ any good by keeping awake. He withdraws his plea for watchfulness. There is irony in irXr/pitrare (Mt. 23 : 32), though it is the permissive use of the imperative. The note of permission is struck in eXdaro} and kin(TTpaiiTco (Mt. 10 : 13). Of. the fut. ind. in Lu. 10 : 6. See further xt-jptf ^c^w (1 Cor. 7:15); &yvoeiTO} (14 : 38, W. H. marg.). In 2 Cor. 12 : 16 iarco 8e is like our 'Let it be so' or 'Granted.' In Mt. 8 : 31 airoiTTeikov is en- treaty, while, ilixa7£Te is permissive. In 1 Cpr. 11:6 Kipaado is probably hortatory. (e) Concession or Condition. It is an easy step from permis- sion to concession. This also is classical.^ Take Jo. 2 : 19, Xmare rdv vattv tovtov, Kal kv rpualv ■fip.kpaLS eyepu avrov. This is much the same as kav XitarjTe. It is not a strict command. We have para- taxis with Kai, but it is equivalent in idea to hypotaxis with kav. So with avTia-TT]Te tQ 8taj36Xc^, Kai ^ei^erat d0' vfiSiv (Jas. 4 : 7 f .) ; avaara k t&v veKpS>v (LXX), Kal kirujiavaei aoi b Xpitrros (Eph. 5 : 14). See also uri Kpivere, Kal ov /ii) KpiBrJTf Kal /iij KaTaSuci^ere, Kai oil jit} KaraSLKacdrJTe- airoXvere, Kal aTToKvOrjcreirde- 8l8oTe, Kal Sod^arai vfuv (Lu. 6 : 37 f.). Then again naKpodbp.riaov kit' kpol, Kal irA-vra airoSixro} 1 Moulton, Prol., p. 173. " Am. Jour, of Philol., Apr., 1909, p. 235. » Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 80. * Cf. Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 158; Miller, The Limitation of the Imperative in the Attic Orators, Am. Jour, of Philol., 1892, pp. 399-436 » Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, p. 236. MODE (efkaisis) 949 ffoi (Mt. 18 : 26). So also tovto toIu mJ fijo-j? (Lu. 10 : 28); tpx^aBt ml^€(I^e{5o.l■.Z^). Cf. 5€STeKaiToiii(r&)(Mt.4 :19). Sometimes two imperatives are comiected by Ka.1 when the first suggests con- cession. Thus Eph. 4 : 26, 6pyi^ekpe with another imperative. "Aye with KkaiKran (Jas. 5:1) is an interjection like SeDpo aKoKoWei fioi. (Mt. 19 : 21) and Sevre Uere (Mt. 28 : 6). See also Jo. 4 : 29; 21 : 12; Rev. 19 : 17. More common is viraye and irayere with another imperative. So viraye irp&rov bioKhayqdi, (Mt. 5 : 24) ; iirayen dirayyeiXare (28 : 10) . See further Mt. 8 : 4; 18 : 15; 21 : 28; 27: 65; Mk. 1 :44; 6 : 38, etc. In Mt. 16 : 6 we have dpSre Kal irpo(rkxiTe. Cf. also Lu. 12 : 15. But asyndeton occurs in Mt. 24 : 6, dpare p,ii Bpoelade. So dpare fiXkirere (Mk. 8 : 15). In Mt. 9 : 30 the persons and numbers are different, dpare iiridds yivuicrKkTu. In Rev. 19 : 10, '6pa p,it, the verb with iiT] is not expressed. For opa Troiiiaeis see also Heb. 8 : 5 (LXX). The simplest form of asyndeton is seen in Ph. 3 : 2, j3X4x€T€, jSXeTreTe, jSX^irere. (g) In Subordinate Clauses. The reason for treating this sub- ject here is that it is so rare that one may not catch it in the dis- cussion of subordinate clauses. It is well established, though rare, in Demosthenes, Lysias, Plato, Thucydides and the tragic poets.^ The case of Siare at the beginning of a clause is not perti- nent, for there it is a mere inferential conjunction, as, for in- stance, 1 Cor. 3 : 21, Sitrre firiSels Kavxaadu. Here <&v\6.(T(tov. Cf. O. P. 1125, 19 (ii/A.D.), uv Bi/ia KaBapdu aitb TcavTWV avadorai. 1 Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 162. ' lb., p. 167. 950 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Aio at the beginning of the sentence was hardly felt as a rela- tive (inferential particle), but see 1 Cor. 14 : 13, did Tpoaevx^adw.'' Qi) The Tenses. This matter received adequate discussion under Tenses. It may simply be noted here that in positive sentences the aorist imperative is naturally common, especially frequent in the N. T. Cf. Aaybi; (Mk. 14 : 14; Lu. 22 : 11).* Prof. Earle, in a fine paper on "The Subj. of Purpose in Relative Clauses in Greek" {Class. Papers, 1912, pp. 213 ff.) shows how Xenophon, Soph., Eurip., Plato and other Attic writers use the idiom. Cf . Xen., Anab., II, 4, 20, oiix f^ovaiv knelvoi. otol <(>{iyo3i.iiev Mvaawvi rivi, and in Heb. 8 : 3, odev avar/Katov ^xf* '''' KoX TovTov o TrpoaeveyKxi (cf. o Trpoa^kpti. in Heb. 9:7). In Heb. 12 : 28, 3t' ^s \aTp€V(iifiev, the subj. may be conceived as either volitive (hortatory) or merely futuristic, more probably volitive like exTa (Mk. 4:9) and 6 -ixoiv Sira (Mt. 13 : 9). Cf. el ns in Mk. 4 : 23. One might as well say that 6 Xaiifiavuv (Jo. 13 : 20) is the same thing as Ss MfiPavei (cf. Mt. 10 : 38). There is a change from participle to relative clause in Mt. 10 : 37 f ., 41 f. Cf . Mt. 12 : 30, 32; Lu. 9 : 50. So then av nva irtivpu (Jo. 13 : 20) is a condi- tional clause.* It is true that ov nva does not occur in the N. T., but d Tts and octh differ in conception after all, though the point is a fine one. The MSS. sometimes vary between ei tis and offTts as in Mk. 6 : 22 f.; 8 : 34; 1 Cor. 7 : 13. In Jo. 14 : 13 f. note hri hv ahijariTe and kav ti airrjariTe. Note the distinction between 8 KexapKr/iai and el tl Kexapicrfiai in 2 Cor. 2 : 10. In Mk. 8 : 34 f . note ei tis dkXei — os eav Oekn. What is true is that the relative sentences are either definite or indefinite. It is not a question of mode nor of the use of av, but merely whether the relative de- scribes a definite antecedent or is used in an indefinite sense. The definite relative is well illustrated by 2 Th. 3 : 3, mxTos Be 'tcTiv b Kbpios 8s arripl^ei, or Mk. 1 : 2, rbv ajyekbv fwv 8s Karao-Keudp-tt TTiv bSbv pxtv. So also xopf Si' ^s \aTpebuipjev (Heb. 12 : 28). Cf. S TTpoaevkyKTa (Heb. 8:3). But indefinite is 8s exei, Sodriaerai. airif (Mk. 4 : 25). In the same verse koI 5s oijk ^x^i is indefinite, but /cat 8 ix^i is definite. Indefinite also is So-ot ^4'avTo (Mt. 14 : 36) and * Moods and Tenses, p. 197. « N. T. M. and T., p. 119. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 470. * Cf. Robertsoni Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 169. MODE (ErKAISIs) 957 go-oi av ^ypaPTo (Mk. 6 : 56). So also with ttos os kpel (Lu. 12 : 10) and xas 6s av 6fio\oyiiaei. (12 : 8). Cf. Ss ^trrat (17: 31) with os kau ^nriiffii (17: 33) and Ss 5' &v kiroKkau. Cf. Ac. 7: 3, 7; Gal. 5 : 17. That it is not a question of mode is thus clear. Cf . Ss iav deXii with 8s Si,v aitoKkau (Mk. 8 : 35). Thus note in Mk. 4 : 25 Ss yap ?Xet Sodriaerai aiiTcy, but in Lu. 8 : 18 Ss o^ yap ixv Sodiiatrai abrQ} So in Lu. 12 : 8 we have xSs Ss &v opxiXoyijaet. iv 'tpjol, but in Mt. 10 : 32 iras oaTis 6fw\oyii ei>Trp6cr5eK- Tos, ob KoBd oiK ex*', there is a pointed distinction between the sub- junctive and the indicative modes.^ Thus the indicative occurs with either the definite or the indefinite and the subjunctive like- wisey though usually the subjunctive comes with the indefinite relative. One may make a positive statement about either a definite or an indefinite relative or a doubtful assertion about either.' The lines thus cross, but the matter can be kept distinct. The distinction is clearly perceived by Dawson Walker.' The subjunctive with the indefinite relative, like that with oraj' and iav, is futuristic (cf. also future indicative). Moulton {Prol., p. 186) argues that, since this subj. is futuristic and the aorist describes completed action, the aorist subj. here is really a fu- ture perfect. "Thus Mt. 5 : 21, Ss av ^oj/eiioj?, 'the man who has committed murder.' " But this seems rather like an effort to in- troduce the Latin idiom into the Greek and is very questionable. (/) The Use of av in Relative Clauses. This is the place for more discussion of av, though, sooth to say, the matter is not perfectly clear. See also Conditions. It is probably kin to the Latin an and the Gothic an, and had apparently two meanings, ' Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 139. ' Cf. W.-Th., p. 307. " Elem. Gk. Synt., 1897, p. 7. Cf. Baumlein, Unters. etc., p. 315. 958 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 'else' and 'in that case rather.' Monro' argues that the pri- mary use of av and Kh is with particular and definite examples. Moulton (Prol., p. 166) translates Homeric kyci) Sk Ktv aiirds ?Xa)/*ai by the Scotch 'I'll jist tak her mysel'.' There was thus a limi- tation by circumstance or condition. The use of av with relative, temporal and conditional clauses "ties them up to particular occurrences" (Moulton, Prol., p. 186). It is not always quite so easy as that. This use of modal av appears rarely in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 188). "It. is a kind of leaven in a Greek sentence; itself untranslatable, it may transform the meaning of a clause in which it is inserted" (Moulton, Prol., p. 165). That is putting it a bit strong. I should rather say that it was an interpreter of the sentence, not a transformer. Moulton counts 172 instances of modal av {kdv) in the N. T. (p. 166). Mat- thew leads with 55, then Mark 30, Gospel of Luke 28 and Acts only 10, Paul's Epistles 27, the Johannine writings only 20, He- brews 1, James 1. Mr. H. Scott fears that these figures are not correct, but they are approximately so. The MSS. vary very much. These examples occur with ind. or subj. Moulton finds 739 cases of modal av in the LXX (Hatch and Redpath). Of these 40 are with opt. (26 aorist), 56 with ind. (41 aorist, 6 imp., 1 plup., 1 pres., 7 fut. ind.), the rest with subj. Rader- macher {N. T. Gr., p. 165) finds modal iiv in the Koivii decreas- ing and unessential with ind., subj. or opt. in relative, temporal, final or conditional clauses. The use with indefinite or general statements was rare in Homer, but gradually came to be more frequent. But in the N. T. some examples of the definite use of av survive especially in temporal clauses. So in Rev. 8:1, orav fjvoL^ev. But orav criiKeTe (Mk. 11 : 25) may be general. There is doubt also about orav 6^k kykvero (11 : 19). But in Mk. 6 : 56, ocTot av Tf^avTo, the construction is rendered more definite by av, though ottou av eiaeropebeTo in the same verse is indefinite. In Mt. 14 : 36 we have oaoL rrpavro, which is not more definite than Mark's construction.'' In Rev. 14 : 4, owov av hrayu, the construction is indefinite. In Ac. 2 : 45 and 4 : 35, KadoTi av tk elxfv, we have repetition and so a general statement to that ex- tent. In Mk. 3:11, Srav ahrbv Weiipouv, it is general. In most in- stances in the N. T., therefore, the use of av is clearly in indefinite relative clauses whether with the indicative or subjunctive.' It 1 Horn. Gr., p. 263 f. " Per contra see W.-Th., p. 306. » Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 217) quotes Ss 8.v avvT£\i\oy7)aei (Mt. 10 : 32) and OS av 6no\oyiiaei, (Lu. 12 : 8); Ss 'iarai. (Lu. 17:31) and Ss av airoKkcH (Mk. 8 : 35). For Ss oc and fut. ind. see Compernass, De Sermone Pis., p. 38. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 145) cites Ss i' av aSiKiiffei, Inscr. Petersen-Luschan, Reisen, p. 174, N. 223, 21. As already seen, the relative with the subj. usually has av, as eis fjv &v irb\iv eiakpxijaOe (Lu. 10:8); oti av wpoaSairavfia-gs (10 : 35). Cf. ^ av fiob\r)raL (10 : 22). In a few examples the best MSS. do not have av, as in oo-tw apvriariTaL (Mt. 10 : 33) ; oo-tis Tripiia-n — irraicrxi Si (Jas. 2 : 10). The use of kav like av has been shown (cf. Orthography) to be very common with relatives at this period. It is immaterial which is found. So 6s eav Xva-g and OS av TTotiJo-j/ (Mt. 5 : 19). The MSS. often vary between kav and &v, as in Mt. 10 : 14; Ac. 7:7. So also oo-a 'eav dekrire (Mt. 7 : 12) and offa av alriiariTe (Mt. 21 : 22). But in the N. T., as in the papyri, eav is more common in relative clauses. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 145) quotes oo-ot — kyXLirwai, Inscr. Perg. 249, 26, and OS avaairapa^n (or av affw.) I. Gr. XII, 1, 671. Moulton (Prol., p. 169) cites C.P.R. 237 (H/a.d.), o(ra avrQ ■KpoartKijTai. He (i6., p. 168) quotes So-' av iraax^Te F.P. 136 (Iv/a.D.), 6oi.To from Philo. There is one instance of av with the infinitive in the N. T. (2 Cor. 10: 9), iva p.ri Sb^oi cbs av kK^ofielv iinas, but av is here probably the same as kav and cos aj'='as if.' The upshot of it all is that av has no peculiar construction of its own. It is more frequent with the subjunctive than with the indicative in rela- tive sentences, but is not absolutely essential with either mode.^ In the Attic the subj. is invariable with av, but "in the less cul- tured Hellenistic writers" (Moulton, Prol., p. 166) it occurs with the ind. also. Curiously in the Gospel of John av occurs with So-Tts only in the neuter (Abbott, Johannine Grammar, p. 304). Always in the N. T. Sti kav='6Ti av unless in Mk. 6 : 23 the correct text is Sri 8 kav as in margin of W. H. The text is probably correct (cf. Lu. 10 : 35; Ac. 3 : 23, etc.). 1 Cf. K.-G., Bd. II, pp. 421, 424. 960 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (g) Special Uses of Relative Clauses. As in Latin,i the relative clause may imply cause, purpose, result, concession or condition, though the sentence itself does not say this much. This is due to the logical relation in the sentence. The sense glides from mere explanation to ground or reason, as in S Koi kairoiSaaa aiyrb TovTo -iroLrjaai. (Gal. 2 : 10). In 1 Cor. 3 : 17, 6 vaos rod 6eov iiyios koTiv o'iTi.vks kare ineis, there is an argument in olrLves. This is clearly true^ in Ro. 6 : 2, otrives airedavoiiev rfj afiapriq,, ttcos in ^-qaofitv kv avry; Cf . also Ac. 10 : 41, otnves crvvect>ayonev Kal avvtr irioijeev oaitQ. See Gal. 5 : 4, oirivts h votu^ diKaiomBe. Cf. Latin qui, quippe qui. A good example is seen in Ro. 8 : 32, Sy ye tov tdiov vtov o\M h(l>ei(TaTo. Cf. also a e/jiiWov (Rev. 3 : 2) and the com- mon &.vB' Siv (Lu. 1 : 20). Cf. Ac. 10 : 47; Ro. 1 : 25, 32; Ph. 2 : 20; Col. 3 : 5. Only the ind. mode occurs in the N. T. in this construction.' Purpose is also found in relative clauses (cf. Latin qui=ut is). Either the future ind. or the subj. is used for this construction. When the subj. occurs it is probably volitive.* So Burton^ would explain all the cases of subj. of purpose with rela- tives, but wrongly. The use in Mk. 14 : 14 is analogous to the retention of the subj. of deliberation in an indirect question. Cf. the subj. of purpose with relative clause in Attic Greek.^ But the subj. construction is Homeric (like Latin also). The Attic idiom is the future ind., and the future ind. also appears in the N. T. So Ss KaTa.<7Kev&. o irapadiicro) (Lu. 11 : 6) where the Attic Greek would ^ have on. Sometimes Iva occurs where a relative might have been used. So 2 Cor. 12 : 7 eSodri /wl okoKo^ — Iva. fie KoXa^ifj;, (Jo. 5 : 7) o\ik €x<» avdpoiTOV 'iva jSaXj; jue, (9 : 36) Iva xicTTeiio-o) eis aiiTov. Cf. Gal. 4:5; Rev. 19 : 15. Viteau* stri- kingly compares Mt. 10 : 26, 8 ovk axoKoXii09i7(reToi and S oii yvwaOii- cerai, with Mk. 4 : 22, 'eh.v fifi iva avepuid^ and Iva eXOjj eis CKoTinri6S>aiv. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 138) cites for the Koi.vri Diod. XI, 21, 3, Sl' ov rp&Kov — kviK'^; XIV, 8, 3, h' Sjv k^&,(>} f 5 koI iifieZs f ijerere. The negative is usually ov as in IJo. 2 : 16. Once in the N. T., Jo. 3 : 18, Stl firi ireirlarevKev, we have nrj, but ob is seen in 1 Jo. 5 : 10, 8ri oi ireirUrTtvKev. "The former states the. charge, quod non crediderit, the latter the simple fact, quod non credidit" (Moulton, Prol, p. 171). Cf. Sn /lij in Epictetus IV,' 4, 11; IV, 5, 8-9. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Or., pp. 162, 535. The distinction is subtle, nil being more subjective and ideal. In Heb. 9 : 17, k-irel liT\ t6t€ (or /i^ irore) lo-xuet, we likewise meet /x^. In B. G. U. 530 (I/a.D.), kTl liii avrkypayj/as avrfj — oti ova 'eTen\{/a.s Tp6s ere, note kirl (ei) ju^ and on ovk with true distinction. With oii we have the objec- tive fact, with nil the element of blame {t^ti.^TaC) appears. "The comparison of Plutarch with the N. T. shows a great advance in the use of 3ti mi?" (Moulton, Prol., p. 239). Cf. also E. L. Green, Gildersleeve Studies, pp. 471 ff.; Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 171. He cites ori fiv ^xe«. Epictetus IV, 10, 34. It is making inroads on OTl oi. We sometimes have av6' &v in a truly causal sense as in Lu. 1 : 20, and that is true also of oBev in Mt. 14 : 7. In Heb. 2 : 18 ^y ^ is practically causal. So also 10' ^ is causal in Ro. 5 : 12; 2 Cor. 5:4; Ph. 4:10. Cf. k^' ^ Scio-et, P. Oxy. 38 (a.d. 49). The classical e0' ^ re does not occur in the N. T. See k(j>' ^ Stio-ei, 'on condition that he give,' P. Oxy. 275 (a.d. 66). Then cis has almost the force of a causal particle in Mk. 9 : 21; Jo. 19 : 33; Mt. 6 : 12 (cf. Lu. 11 : 4, Kal yh,p); 2 Tim. 1 : 3. The same thing is true of fcaScis in Jo. 17 : 2. KaB' oaov is causal in Heb. 7 : 20 (9 : 27) and £' oaov in Mt. 25 : 40, 45. So naBoTi in Lu. 19 : 9 (cf. 1:7). In Ac. 17 : 31 HLP. read bibn. None of these ' Cf. Nilsson, Die Kausalsatze im Griech. bis Arist. I, Die Poesie. 964 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT particles are strictly causal, but they come to be so used in cer- tain contexts in the later Greek. We have cbs on in 2 Cor. 5 : 19; cbs oTt deis rjv kv XpicrTqJ Koajuov mraWaaauv iavr^ (cf. our "since that"). Here the Vulgate has quoniam. But in 2 Cor. 11 : 21 the Vulgate renders cos on by quasi, as in 2 Th. 2:2, cos on ivkarriKev. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 321 f. It is found also in Esther 4 : 14 and is post-classical.* Aton is found in the Lucan writings, the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews, James and 1 Peter. In the modem Greek^ it takes the form Ttart, Once (Ro. 8 : 21) some MSS. (W. H. read on) have 3i6n in the sense of objective on ('that') as in later Greek (cf. late Latin quia = quod). Instances of causal 5i6n may be seen in Lu. 1 : 13; Ro. 1 : 19, etc. It is compounded of SiA and &ri (cf. English "for that")- In Ph. 2 : 26 Sloti is causal and ori is de- clarative. In modern Greek Ston survives in ^ KoBapeiiovaa. The vernacular has d^oD, eirnZi), yuni (Thumb, Handb., p. 194). But all other causal particles are insignificant beside on which grew steadily in use.' It was originally merely relative and para- tactic* In 1 Jo. 4: 3 note 6— oti. and on & in Ro. 4: 21. It is accusative neuter on (cf. on av Trpoo-Saxav^o-jjs in Lu. 10 : 35) and is more common as the objective particle in indirect discourse (subject or object clause) than as a causal conjunction. In 1 Jo. 5:9 on occurs twice, once as causal and once as objec- tive particle. In 2 Th. 3 : 7 f. exegesis alone can determine the nature of on. In Jo. 3:19 Chrysostom takes on = ' because.' Cf. also Jo. 16 : 8-11 (see Abbott, Johannine Or., p. 158). The EngUsh "the reason that" (vernacular "the reason why") is simi- lar. It is very common in 1 John in both senses. In Jo. 1 : 15 ff. causal oTt occurs three times in succession. In Lu. 9 : 49, kw- \iioiJ,ai avTov on ovk aKoKovdei jxed' ■^fiuv, the present is used because of a sort of implied indirect discourse. In Mk. 9 : 38 W. H. read on ouk iiKo'Kovdti,. A good example of causal 8n is seen in Ro. 5 : 8. The precise idea conveyed by on varies greatly. In Jo. 9 : 17, ri ai) X^ets Tepi aiirov, on iivkoi^kv ffov tovs o^OaX/ioiis/ the use of on wavers between objective and causal. Cf. also Mk. 6 : 17. But we need not appeal to the Hebrew^ for a justification of this balancing of two ideas by &n. So in Jo. 2 : 18, rl a-mxtiov Sei- Kvhas iintv, on raOra Trqtets; Akin to this construction is that in " Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 98. » lb. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 454. * Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 189. 5 As Viteau does in Le Verbe, p. 100. The LXX does show the idiom, as in 1 Ki. 1 : 8, t{ iari (Toi 3ti icXafas; MODE (efkaisis) 965 Jo. 14 : 22, tI yiyovev 6ti, which is shortened into ri 6tl in Ac. 5 : 4. There is a correspondence sometimes between 5td tovto and 6ti (Jo. 10 : 17); oiirwj and ort (Ro. 9 : 31 f.). Obx on may be either objective or causal as in Ph. 4 : 11, 17; 2 Th. 3:9. In the ancient Greek it meant 'not only do I say that, but I also say.' But in the N. T. it either means ' I say this not because ' or 'I do not mean to say that,' and usually the latter according to Abbott.i We must have a word about 'eirel, h-eiSii, eireiSijirep. As a matter of fact ^ei-S^-irep (note the composition) appears in the N. T. only in Lu. 1 : 1 (Luke's classical introduction). This is un- doubtedly a literary touch.^ 'Eireidii is i-ead by W. H. in Lu. 7 : 1 and Ac. 13 : 46, but brtl Sk is put in the margin: Eight other examples remain, all in Luke (Gospel and Acts) and Paul (1 Co- rinthians and Philippians). Cf. Lu. 11:6; 1 Cor. l:21f. 'Ex«i, obsolescent in the late Greek,' is almost confined to Luke, Paul, the author of Hebrews. Elsewhere in Matthew, Mark and John. Two of these are examples of the temporal use (Mk. 15:42; Lu. 7 : 1 W. H. marg.). The ordinary causal sense is well illustrated in Mt. 21 : 46, iml els irpo^yijTTiv elxov. The classical idiom of the el- lipsis with 'eird has already been mentioned and is relatively fre- quent in the N. T. Cf. Ro. 3 : 6; 11 : 22; 1 Cor. 14 : 16; 15 : 29; Heb. 9 : 26; 10 : 2. It occurs in the simplest form in kTrtl irfis (Ro. 3 : 6) atxAkirei ri (1 Cor. 15 : 29). In 1 Cor. 14 : 16, h-tl k6.v, it is equivalent to 'otherwise' and in Ro. 11 : 22 to 'else,' ^el Kal ffi kKKOTrriay. The apodosis of a condition of the second class oc- curs in 1 Cor. 5 : 10; Heb. 9 : 26; 10 : 2. Verbs of emotion in classical Greek sometimes used ei (con- ceived as an hypothesis) rather than 6ti (a direct reason).* The N. T. shows examples of davfia^co el in this sense (Mk. 15 : 44; 1 Jo. 3 : 13), though davna^u Sti is found also^ (Lu. 11 : 38; Gal. 1 6). "Otl is the N. T. construction^ with 6,yavaKTec)) (Lu. 13 : 14) 'eiptia^oykoimi (Mt. 11 : 25); ehxapiarku (Lu. 18 : 11); /iiXei (Mk. 4 38); xatpto (Lu. 10 : 20); xoXaco (Jo. 7 : 23). Cf. Srt and i^,' ^ in Ph. 4 : 10. On the possible causal use of ire and orav see article by Sheppard, The CI. Rev., Sept., 1913. (c) Relative Clauses. This matter received sufficient discussion under Relative Clauses. For examples of 3s take Ro. 8 : 32; » Joh. Gr. p. 162. ' Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 101. • Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 454. « Cf. ib. " Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 101. 966 A GEAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Heb. 12 :6. For oans note Mt.' 7:15; Ro. 6:2. See also ov xapi.v (Lu. 7 : 47) and Si' rju alriav (8 : 47). (d) Ata t6 and Bai, note the perfect tense and the repetition of the in- finitive. Burton' thinks that here 8iA gives rather the evidence than the reason. Why not both? There is one example of the instrumental use of the infinitive to express cause, t^ /uij ebptlv fie (2 Cor. 2 : 13). The text of B has six examples in the LXX^ (cf. 2 Chron. 28 : 22, tQ dXifirjvaL avTov). No examples of iirl T

'excov Kal ovx cos ol 7pa/i/iaTeTs, the first cos gives the ostensible (and true ground) of the astonishment of the people. Cf . also Lu. 16 : 1 ; Ac. 2 : 2. But in Lu. 23 : 14, cos airoaTpkcjmvTa top \a6v, Pilate does not believe the charge against Jesus to be true. So also with cb$ ixeWovTosv in Ac. 27 : 30. 3. Comparative Clauses. The discussion in my Short Gram- mar^ forms the basis of this section. The conjvmctions employed are all of relative origin, but the construction deserves separate treatment. (a) The Relative oi' 3(r(j) 5ta- 4>opi)T€pov Trap' aiiTovs KiKKqpovop/qKtv &voiia. The same phenomena are present in 8 : 6, save that the correlative is absent. In 10 : 25 there is no comparative in the relative clause. The others are examples of kojB' oaov. In 3 : 3 there is no correlative, but the comparative appears in both clauses. In 7 : 20 f . the correlative is Kara tcktovto, but there is no comparative in the relative clause. This is probably causal in idea, as is true of koB' oaov in 9 : 27, where there is no comparative, though we have the correlative oiiTwj Kdl. The example in Mk. 7 : 36, ocov Si ainis StearkWeTo avTol nS.'k'\ov irepicraSrepov 'eKijpvaaov, lacks the correlative and has no comparative with the relative, but has a double comparison in the principal clause. In Jo. 6 : 11 and Rev. 21 : 16, '6o^tiv (here alone in the N. T. with infinitive) ='as if to frighten.' "Uairep occurs with the in- dicative as in Mt. 6:2. In Mt. 25 : 14 a parable is thus intro- duced, but with no correlative. But we have the correlative in Ro. 5 : 19 (6 :4), iliairtp — oOros /cat. So Jo. 5 : 21. So Siairep — (iffoOTOs (Mt. 25 : 14-18) ; onrxep — outojs (13 : 40). We find &(Tirep also with the participle (cf. Ac. 2:2). Often the verb is wholly wanting as in Mt. 6 : 7. We meet iicirepd only once (1 Cor. 15 : 8) and that without a verb. 4. Local Clauses. These are all relative adverbial sentences and are usually treated with relative sentences, but they are worthy of a separate note. The adverbs (conjunctions) used are fSai, ov, 'dwov. With 66&> only the indicative is found as in Lu. 11 : 24, Wev k^Tj\dov. More common than odev is ov as in Mt. 2 : 9, o5 ^v t6 imLSlov. Cf . past perfect in Ac. 20 : 8. It occurs mainly in Luke's writings and always with the indicative save once in 1 Cor. 16 : 6, o5 eav Topeicafiai.. Here the indefinite relative natu- rally has ap and the subjunctive. 05 is used with verbs of motion as well as with those of rest as this passage shows. Cf. also Lu. 10 : 1, o5 l^iieWev avrbs epxecrOai. But oirov is the usual local con- junction in the N. T., particularly in Matthew, Mark and John (Gospel and Revelation). It occurs with verbs of rest as in Mk. 2 : 4, oirov riv, and of motion as in Jo. 7 : 34, owov inrayw. The indicative is the usual mode. Once, Mk. 6 : 56, oirov av elaeiro- pebiTo, we find av to emphasize the notion of repetition in the im- perfect tense, but this is not necessary. Cf. 6tov ^SeXes (Jo. 21 : 18). Note the emphatic negative in 6irov oh BtKtis (jb.). Cf. also &TOV av iiirayeis (Rev. 14 : 4) where av occurs with the present ind. (indefinite relative). In 6tov (jyayco (Mk. 14 : 14; Lu. 22 : 11), as already explained, the subj. is probably deUberative, answering to irov ayo} in the direct question. Cf. ovk exei- irov rfiv Kf4>a\riv kKIvji (Lu. 9 : 58). But the subj. with kav in oirov iav airkpxv (Lu. 9 : 57) is the common futuristic subj. So in the parallel passage in Mt. 8 : 19. See further Mt. 24 : 28; 26 : 13; Mk. 6 : 10; 9 : 18; 14 : 9, 14. Curiously enough all the N. T. instances of Sirov with the subj. are found in the Synoptic Gospels. There is ellipsis of the copula in Rev. 2 : 13, as is not infrequent with relatives. "Oirov is used also in metaphorical relations, as in Heb. 9 : 16. The correlative adverb ket occasionally appears with oirov as in Lu. 12:34; 17:37; Jo. 12:26. Kal is a correlative in Jo. 17:24. The use of oirov in classical Greek is confined to indefinite sen- tences, but the N. T. shows a frequent use (especially in John) 970 A GEAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT where there is a definite antecedent.' Cf. Jo. 1 : 28; 4 :46; 7: 42; 10 : 40; 12 : 1, etc. 5. Temporal Clauses. (a) Kin to Relative CloMses in Origin and Idiom. Blass* bluntly says that temporal clauses introduced byj Cf . Abbott, Job. Gr., p. 152 f . « Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 329. » Or. of N. T. Gk., p. 218. » l6., p. 328. » N. T. M. and T., pp. 118, 126 ff. MODE (efkaisis) 971 guage is without a parallel."' The different constructions may be conveniently grouped for discussion. Just as the optative with temporal clauses vanished, so there came a retreat of va- rious temporal conjunctions. As a result in the later Greek the construction is much simpler.^ (6) Conjunctions Meaning 'When.' The classic use of the op- tative for repetition with such clauses has been effectually side- tracked in the vernacular Koivii (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 130). Only the ind. and subj. modes occur in these clauses. 'Eirei has vanished' in this sense, save in Lu. 7 : 1 where it is a variant (mar- gin in W. H. and Nestle) for kiretSii, the correct text. Curiously enough this is also the only instance of the temporal use of kireiST] in the N. T., kireiSii kirkiipuaev. It is a definite point of time in the past and naturally the indicative occurs. There are three examples of eirav with the subjunctive (Mt. 2 : 8, hrav evptjre; Lu. 11:22, kirav vwiiaji; 11:34, eTraK § where it is parallel with orav 5). There are only two instances of fivka (2 Cor. 3 : 15, 16, ijviKa av LvayivisaKifrai, i/viKa eav 'exL<7Tpi\l/xi). It is the indefi- nite idea as the subjunctive shows. Note S.v and iav (indefi- nite also and with notion of repetition). Nestle (AEH) reads drbre ereivaaev in Lu. 6 : 3, but W. H. and Souter (NBCD) have ore. *07r6Taj' does not occur in the N. T. "Ore and aTai- are both common and in all parts of the N. T. The connec- tion between Sre (cf. 6-6ev, Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 254) and Homeric ore and 8s re (Monro, Horn. Gr., p, 191) is disputed.^ Cf. the conjunction S from Ss and Sn from oans. Homer used ore as a causal conjunction like 6tl. Only the indicative (see be- low) mode appears with ore in the N. T., but it occurs with past, present and future. Usually the events are definite, as in Mt. 21 : 1, 8t€ ^7710-ai' eis 'lepocroXvfia. The present tense is rare, as in ore yiyova kvifp in 1 Cor. 13 : 11; ore fg in Heb. 9 : 17. In Mk. 11:1 iyyl^ovaiv is the historic present. The great bulk of the examples are in the past with the aorist indicative, though the imperfect occurs for custom or repetition, as in Jo. 21 : 18; Col. 3:7. The future indicative is naturally indefinite even when (ire is preceded by a word like Sipa (Jo. 4 : 21, 23) or rifikpa (Ro. 2 : 16. Incorporated in W. H.). Souter's Rev. Text (so W. H.) has > W. G. Hale, Stud, in Class. Philol., The Cum Constructions, 1887, p. 259. > Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 466. ' 'Errtf was rare in Homer. Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 226. * Cf. Monro, Horn. Gr., pp. 189 ff.; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 561; Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 444 f. 972 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT f03s dirtiTt in Lu. 13 : 35, but Nestle still reads iois fj^ei ore elirriT€. The text is in much confusion, but at any rate here is manuscript evidence for the subjunctive with 6t€ without &v. This is in har- mony with what we saw was true of os and ocrris. It is also a well-known Homeric idiom.' Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 164) cites Sre api:nTai (Vettius, pp. 106, 36). 'Orav naturally occurs more frequently with the subjunctive for indefinite future time. It is usually the aorist tense, as in Mt. 24 : 33, orav ISrire. The present subj. does occur when the notion of repetition is implied, as in Mt. 15 : 2, 'orav aprov kadlcacLV. Cf . Mt. 6 : 2. Once the idea of duration seems manifest (Jo. 9 : 5, orav kv tc^ Koa-ncf Si), but usu- ally it is future uncertainty simply. It is not necessary to take the conmion aorist subj. here as the Latin futurum exadum? Cf . Stoc irapaSoi in Mk. 4 : 29. The av {ore av) is always present save in the doubtful ore elirrjTe of Lu. 13 : 35. "Ore with the subj. is found in poetry and in the Byzantine writers.' So Test. XII Pat. Levi 2 : 10 ore av&Sxi% hel. On the other hand a number of examples occur of Srav with the indicative (cf. kav and oirov &,u with the indicative). Homer, Iliad, 20, 335, has ore Ktv fu/i/SXiJ- creat ainQ. So in Rev. 4 : 9 we find orav SoKrovaiv. The close afiin- ity in form and meaning of the aorist subj. with the future indicative should cause no surprise at this idiom. In Lu. 13 : 28 BD read orav b\l>eaBe, though W. H. put '6 Cf. W.-M., p. 388. MODE (efkaisis) 973 Prov. 1 : 22; Josephus, Ant., xii, 2, 3; Strabo, I, 1, 7; Act. Apocr., 126. In 2 Cor. 12 : 10, Srav kaBtvC}, we probably have the present subj. Cf. 1 Th. 3 : 8, kav ari^Ktre. The examples of orav with the aorist or imperfect indicative are more numerous. In Thucyd- ides irt was always definite and &T(yn indefinite.^ "Oraj' with the optative appears in Xenophon.^ The Atticists have h-eiSav and dirorav (sic) with the opt. (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 165). In the KOLvii the field of orav is widened, as already shown. Aga- thias uses &Tav with the aorist indicative.' It is common in the Septuagint to have Srav with past tenses (Gen. 38 : 11; 1 Sam. 17:34, orav toero; Ps. 119:7, drav 'eKa\ovv; Num. 11:9; Ps. 118 : 32; Dan. 3 : 7).* The usual notion is that of indefinite re- petition. Thus we note it in Polybius 4, 32, 5, Srav fikv oStoi ^cav, 'eykvtro ro dtov. Strabo I, 1, 7 has Srav ^a'lv. Cf. also 13, 7, 10. In Tobit 7:11 observe mroTi kav. In Mk. 3:11 we have Srav a\iT6v ide6)povv, Tpoo'ewiirTov abrQ. Cf. oirov av and Scroi av in Mk. 6 : 56. But the Koivij writers used orav with the aorist indicative for a definite occurrence. This is common in the Byzantine^ writers. In the modem Greek orav is freely used with the indicative.^ See Philo II, 112, 23, orav eis houj. riKBev. Blass' calls this quite in- correct, though the LXX has cbs &v k^rikBev 'la/ccij/S (Gen. 27:30; cf. 6:4) of "a single definite past action.*" There are two ex- amples in the N. T., Mk. 11 : 19, orav opi kyevero, i^ewopeiovro e^ia Ttji x6X€cos (possible to understand it as repetition), and Rev. 8 : 1, orav i^voL^ev rfiv , like indirect discourse), or a lively proleptic future in terms of the present, as in 'iws IpxoiMi. irpoaexe Tj) avayv6)aei (1 Tim. 4 : 13) and in Jo. 21 : 22 f . It is possible to take Mk. 6 : 45 as this proleptic future.' Indeed some MSS. here give also droXiKru and -et. In Mt. 14 : 22 the reading (in the parallel passage) is ecas o5 iiroXia-jj. Cf. the construction with the Latin dum. In Lu. 19 : 13 W. H. read h ^ epxofiai, instead of €ws ?pxojuai. Instead of 'icos rifikpa eariv (Jo. 9:4) W. H. have v\aKrjv ecos AttoS^ t6 l>4>eiKbnivov, the subj. is retained after secondary tense of the in- dicative as in indirect discourse. "Ecos occurs after negative verbs also (cf. Trplv), as in Lu. 22 : 34. Moulton {Prol., p. 169) quotes Tb. 6 (ii/B.c.) "etas iikvtaaiv, G. H. 38 (i/s.c.) ?cos Karafi^s. In the papyri av, as in the N. T., is often absent from these conjimctions meaning 'until.' Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 140) finds &o$ and the subj. common in the papyri, the inscrs. and the Koivii writers. Blass' thinks he sees a certain affinity with final sentences in the subj. with these conjunctions for the future indefinite. At any rate it is good Attic and should cause no trouble. The mivri fully agrees with the ancient idiom. It is, of course, a matter of taste with the writer whether he will regard a future event as a present reality or a future uncertainty to be hoped for and attained. Uplv is a comparative form (cf . superlative irpu-ros) like the Latin ' Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 128. But the proper sense of the indie, is better as an expression of the fact. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 140. ' Goodwin, M. and T., p. 235. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 219. MODE (efkaisis) 977 pritts.^ It is the neuter accusative singular. It is really the same in idea as Trphrtpov, 'before,' 'formerly.' Pindar uses it as a prep- osition with the ablative irplv &pas = 7rp6 iipas. The original con- struction with TpLv was the infinitive, though the subj. and the optative occur with it in Homer.'' Homer has it 81 times with the infinitive, 6 with the subj., once with the opt. and not at all with the indicative.' The word developed so much importance in the later Greek that Goodwin in his Moods and Tenses gives it a separate extensive discussion (pp. 240-254). In the N. T. there are only thirteen examples of it and all of them in the Gospels and Acts. Eleven of the thirteen are with the infinitive (cf . Homer). Of. irplv airodavetv (Jo. 4 : 49), irplv 'kfipakp. y&ikadai. (8: 58). Five times we have itplv ij, as in Mt. 1 : 18. Luke alone uses the clas- sic idiom of irpiv with the subj. or opt. after negative sentences. In both instances it is only relative future after secondary tenses, but in Lu. 2 : 26, ;iij Idelv Bavarov irplv [rj] &v i5jj rbv Xpurrdv Kvplov, the subj. is retained according to the usual rule in indirect dis- course in the kolvIi (so often in the Attic). In Ac. 25 : 16, as al- ready explained heretofore, wplv ij ?x<" — Xd/3oi after aireKpidriv on obK itTTLv is changed from the subj. to the opt. as is possible in indirect discourse, a neat classic idiom found in Luke alone in the N. T. Some of the MSS. do not have av in Lu. 2 : 26 and N reads ?ais av here. A few MSS. have irplv fi in Lu. 22 : 34.* The papyri writers do not show the same consistency as Luke in the use of irplv? But note /ii^re didoTco — irplv avrc^ kiriffTeWriTai., 0. P. 34 (ii/A.D.). For 'until' 6C0S kept the field. Indeed in Lu. 22 : 34, ou 4>iiivri' oB. In Lu. 13 : 7 d^' o5 is preceded by rpla 'irri as the terminus a quo. It ' Cf. Sturm, Geschichtl. Entw. der Konstr. mit irplv, 1882, p. 4; Frenzel, Die Entw. der Satze mit vplv, 1896, p. 12. 2 Sturm, ib., p. 145. ' Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 219. ' lb., p. 6. s Moulton, Prol., p. 169 note. 978 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT means 'since.' Cf. Tplrriv Tavrriv rfukpav ayei a' ov in Lu. 24:21, In Rev. 16 : 18 it is the simple equivalent of dx6 tovtov ore as in the Attic Greek and Herodotus. In these examples the indica- tive occurs, but in Lu. 13 : 25, a^' ov av kyepBrJ, the construction of ecos is used for the uncertain future, the subj. with av. The con- ception of diro Tohrov ore has to be appealed to, 'from that mo- ment when,' 'when once' the steward arises. In like manner we see a(t>' ^s used for 'since' in Lu. 7:45; Ac. 24 : 11; 2 Pet. 3 :4. In Col. 1 : 6, 9 we have the form d<^' ^s ^;uepas. 'Ej' ' ov g xpovov (note ab- sence of av). (e) The Temporal Use of the Infinitive. There are nine examples of 7rp6 rov and the infinitive. In the LXX there are 35 examples (Votaw, The Infinitive in Bibl. Gk., p. 20) . These examples all have the accusative with the infinitive, as in irp6 tov ip.as airrjaai avrbv (Mt. 6:8. Cf. Lu. 2:21; 22:15; Jo. l:48f.; 17:5; Ac. 23: 15; Gal. 2 : 12; 3:23), except Jo. 13 : 19, xpd tov yevkadai, but even here it is implied. The tense is aorist except a present in Jo. 17 : 5. The sense is quite like irpiv (see before). The in- scriptions (Moulton, Prol., p. 214) show scattered examples of irp6 TOV and inf. The use of kv t^ as 'when' or 'while' is much more common. It occurs only 6 times in Thucydides, Plato 26 times, Xenophon 16 times.* But it is very common in the Septuagint as a translation of the Hebrew 3 and the infinitive construct. Moulton^ admits a Hebraism here in the sense of 'during,' a meaning not found in the vernacular Koivn so far. The construc- tion is, however, very common in Luke, the most literary of the N. T. writers, and in all parts of the Gospel. It is found both in the sense of 'while' and 'when.' Usually it is the present tense that has the notion of 'while' and the aorist that of 'when.' So 1 Moulton, Prol., p. 215. ^ lb., p. 249. MODE (efkaisis) 979 in Lu. 1 : 8 note h tQ hpaTtveiv ahrbv, (2 : 27) kv T(^ eiaayayelv tovs yovfis t6 iraiSiov 'Iriaovv. The examples are numerous (55 in the N. T.), but the LXX shows 500 instances/ undoubted proof of the influence of the Hebrew there, where it is nearly as common as all other prepositions with the infinitive. This use of h t& and the infinitive is not always temporal. In Lu. 12 : 15 it is rather the content than the time that is meant. In Lu. 1 : 21 it may be causal. Mera to and the infinitive we find fifteen times in the N. T. In the LXX the construction appears 222 times according to Votaw.^ It has the resultant meaning of 'after' and always has the aorist infinitive except the perfect in Heb. 10 : 15. It is found in Luke, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Hebrews, and chiefly in Luke. A good example is found in /^era ri otto- uTttvai (Lu. 12 : 5). See also Ac. 7:4; 10 :41. Mention should also be made of ecus toO iKdiiv in Ac. 8 : 40, as in the LXX (Judith 1:10; 11:19). It occurs 52 times in the O. T. and 16 in the Apocrypha. But note Aiexpt ™'' TrXeTc, P. B. M. 854 (I/a.d.). On prepositions and inf. see Verbal Nouns. (/) Temporal Use of the Participle. This subject will demand more extended treatment under the head of the Participle (Verbal Nouns). Here it may be noted that the participle does not of it- seK express time. We may in translation render the participle by a temporal clause with 'as,' 'while,' 'since,' 'when,' 'after,' etc., like the Latin cum? As a rule the unadorned participle in English is enough to bring out the idea. The participle may be co-ordinated in translation with the principal verb by the use of 'and.' The present participle is merely descriptive and contemporaneous, as airoOvrjaiMv (Heb. 11 : 21). The aorist participle has either simul- taneous action, as acriracanevoi (Ac. 25 : 13), or antecedent, as i/i- fiavra (Mt. 13 : 2). The wealth of participles gave the Greek a great advantage over the Latin in this matter. In the flourishing period of the language the temporal participle vied with the con- junctions in the expression of temporal relations. In the Koivij this use of the participle is still quite live, as almost any page of the N. T. shows, though it has manifestly in places shrunk before the analytic tendency to use conjunctions and finite verbs. This tendency to use conjunctions is still more noticeable in modern Greek.* 1 Votaw, The Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. « lb. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 230. "We should not usually put a temporal clause to represent these, as it would overdo the emphasis." * Jebb in V. and D.'s Handb., p. 333. 980 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 6. Final and Consecutive Clauses. (a) Kinship. It is a difficult matter to correlate properly these subordinate clauses. They nearly all have relative adverbs as conjunctions. Often the same conjunction is used indifferently in a number of different kinds of clauses. So c!)s in comparative, declarative, causal, temporal, final, consecutive, indirect inter- rogative, exclamatory. In Uke manner Sttcos has a varied use. Cf. the Latin ut, which is comparative, final, apprehensive, consecutive. The English that and German doB have a Uke his- tory. Goodwin,' therefore, treats "final and object-clauses" to- gether as pure final clauses, object-clauses with verbs of care and effort, clauses with verbs of fearing. He gives a separate discus- sion of consecutive clauses.^ Burton' practically follows Good- win. Viteau^ blends them all into one. Winer practically ignores consecutive clauses. Jaimaris^ pointedly says that the popular speech "avoids the consecutive construction" and uses Sian and the infinitive for either final or consecutive (cf . Latin ut and Eng- Hsh that) "thus confounding consecutive with final clauses." It was not quite that. As a matter of fact the various points of view shade off into one another very easily and sometimes quite imperceptibly. It is not always easy to distinguish purpose and result in the mind of the writer or speaker. The very word finis may be the end aimed at (purpose) or attained (result). My colleague, Prof. W. O. Carver, D.D., has suggested grouping these ideas all under result, either contemplated, feared or at- tained. Some such idea is near the true analysis and synthesis. The later Greek showed a tendency to gather most of these ideas under tva.^ (b) Origin in Parataxis. It seems clear that these final clauses had their origin in parataxis, not hypotaxis. The conjunctions, when used, were an after-development. The step from parataxis to hypotaxis has already been taken when we meet the Greek of Homer,' though the paratactic construction continued side by side in isolated instances. Examples like a0€s k/SaXco (Lu. 6 : 42), jSouXeo-fle dTroXicro); (Jo. 18 : 39), OeXeis iroiiiat^oifiev (Mk. 14 : 12) are probably instances of this original idiom rather than of a mere ellipsis of Im.^ Cf. also the possible origin of oi fifi as ofj- /jkij. This 1 M. and T., pp. 105-137. " lb., pp. 217-233. - Le Verbe, pp. 71-95. ' N. T. M. and T., pp. 83-100. » Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 455. ' lb., p. 458. Thus Sttus and iis gradually disappear. ' Brug., Grieoh. Gr., p. 555. s Goodwin, M. and T., p. 109. ' MODE (ErKAISIs) 981 disconnected idiom was felt to be especially bare in the positive form, but the negative paratactic construction with fi^ with verbs of fearing is present in Homer .^ Gildersleeve" quaintly says: "Parataxis, which used to be thrust into the background, has come forward and claimed its rights." This grammatical sage, barring the infinitive and participle, adds: "Nihil est in hypotaxi quod non prius fuerit in parataxi." The subjunctive, therefore, in final clauses is merely the volitive subj. of parataxis.' It was natural that the parataxis should be plainer in negative sentences, for alongside of miJ (originally the mere negative in para- taxis and the negative conjunction in hypotaxis) there came Iva lii], Sirojs M^.* The whole matter is carefully worked out by Weber' with careful discussion of each construction in the various writers during the long course of Greek linguistic history from Homer through the Attic writers. (c) Pure Final Clauses. Here conscious purpose is expressed. This class constitutes the bulk of the examples and they are the easiest to understand. The Greek is rich in variety of con- struction for this idea. We can deal only with the idioms in the N. T. "0(J3pa, for instance, is not in the N. T., nor is the idiom of has with the future indicative after verbs of striving. (o) Iva. The etymology of 'Lva is not certain. A fragment' of Hesiod has tv airQ. Perhaps Iv-a is derived from this form. But at any, rate in Homer Lva=hic€i in Iliad, 10, 127. After Homer, especially in the poets, it has the meaning 'where,' 'in what place,' 'whither.'' The exact connection between this local demonstrative and relative sense and the final 'that' (ut) is not clear.* But we have a similar transition in the Latin id, English that, German daS. Sophocles in his Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods gives nineteen uses of lva, for the Greek of that era. They may all be whittled down to three, viz. the pure final, the object-clauses or sub-final, the consecutive. There is no doubt that lva came to be used in all these ways in the Byzantine period. In the kolvti of the N. T. time the first two are abundantly shown. The ecbatic or con- secutive use is debatable in the N. T. But each in its order. Curiously enough the Attic inscriptions make a very sparing use ' lb., p. 108. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 185. ' Am. Jour, of Philol., 1883, p. 419. * Goodwin, M. and T., p. 107. " EntwickelungBgeschichte der Absichtsatze (1884, 1885). " Dyroff, Gesch. des Pronomen reflexivum, 1892, p. 71. ' Of. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 566. ' lb. 982 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT of Lva, much preferring owccs and oxws oi'.' So in epic and lyric poetry tva is overshadowed by S^pa and in tragedy by ws, though Aristophanes uses it in three-fourths of his final sentences and Plato and the Attic orators use it almost exclusively (Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 109). The original use of tva, after the demonstrative and the relative stage, was the pure final. It is so in Homer, though Monro admits one instance of the object-clause .^ Only the subj. occurs with it in Homer in this construction. This is the natural mode for the expectant note in clauses of purpose.' But it must not be overlooked that tva in no way controls the mode, for the idiom is at bottom paratactic in origin.* But the indicative had a use also as well as the optative, as will presently be shown. A word further is needed concerning the tremendous development in the use of IW. Thucydides used oxcos three times as often as tva, and iis as a final particle only twice. Xenophon in the first three books of the Anabasis has oircos one and a half times as often as I'm, and cbs nearly as often as tva. But Polybius (books I-V) uses tva exclusively, and the N. T. has tva about twelve times as often as ottcos, and dis perhaps once. It is thus not simply that tva displaced oxus and cl>s, but it gradually usurped the final use of the infinitive also. It comes to be almost the exclusive means of expressing purpose, and in the modem Greek vernacular every phase of the subj. and the old future ind. can be expressed by va (tva) and the subj.^ NA is used also with the ind. The intention in modern Greek is brought out a bit more sharply by yia vk (Thumb, Handb., p. 197). But the distinction is sometimes faint. All in all it is one of the most remarkable developments in the Greek tongue. The eight and a half pages of examples in Moulton and Geden's Concordance bear eloquent testimony to the triumph of tva in the N. T. Nearly a page and a half of these examples are in the Gospel of John. But we are now specifically concerned with the pure final use of tva. Here tva is in the accusative case of general reference. Thus in i\ri\vda tva ixaBui (cf . veni ut discam, ' I am come that I may learn') tva is really a demonstrative. ' I am come as to this,' viz. ' I may learn.' The conjunction is supplied to avoid the asyndeton and is in apposition with (mdu. As already explained, the subj. is the predominant mode, as in tovto 5i oXov 't'^yovtv tva irKyipuB^ (Mt. 1 : 1 Meisterh.-Schw., p. 253 f. ' Horn. Gr., p. 207. ' Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 479; Mutzbauer, Konj. und Opt., p. 76. * Goodwin, M. and T., p. 107; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 211. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 416 f.; Jebb in V. and D., pp. 319-323. MODE (efkaisis) 983 22). Cf. Ph. 3 : 8. The negative with Im is ixri, as in tva /ii) KpuBTJTt (Mt. 7: 1). The aorist sub j. is the normal tense, of course, as in tva fieradS) (Ro, 1: 11), though the present occurs to denote a continuous action, as in Iva TnareiiriTe (Jo. 13 : 19). Cf. Iva yvure Kal yivixTKrire (Jo. 10: 38). The perfect subj. occurs in eiSu, as iva eiSgs (1 Tim. 3 : 15); Iva dd&tuv (1 Cor. 2 : 12); Iva d5rJT€ (1 Jo. 5:13). Cf. also Jo. 17:19, 23; 1 Cor. 1 : 10; 2 Cor. 1 :9 (tva fiii irtiroSoTK Sifiev); Iva irapeaKevaafikvoi fjre (2 Cor. 9:3). The subj. is regularly retained after a secondary tense of the indica- tive as in avk^ tva tSjj (Lu. 19 : 4) ; kweTifiriffev Iva iiriStvl eliruxnv (Mt. 16 : 20). Cf. Mk. 8 : 6. There is no instance in the N. T. of the optative used with iva after a secondary tense of the indica- tive. It is true that W. H. read tva dc^ in the text of Eph. 1 : 17 (iva Sojjj or dQ in the margin), but this is after a primary tense, ov iraiiofuu. It is the volitive use of the optative and is not due to iva. It is like the optative in a future wish.* This use of the opt. with iva after a wish is not unknown to classic Greek.^ It is the subj., not the opt., that is seen in iva ■wKr^pots (Col. 4 : 17), lea TrapaSoI (Mk. 14: 10) and in the sub-final tva yvoZ (Mk. 9 : 30).' In Homer and the early writers generally the rule was to use the opt. with the final clauses after secondary tenses, but in the Attic orators the two modes (subj. and opt.) are on a par in such a con- struction, while Thucydides prefers the subj., though Xenophon is just the reverse.* In the N. T. the optative in final clauses after secondary tenses is non-existent. In 2 Tim. 2 : 25 firi wore 5^jj is after a primary tense as in Eph. 1 : 17, and here again the text is uncertain (cf . Siyg in margin and avavriyl/coaiv in text.) The Atti- cists (Arrian, Appian, Herodian, 4th Mace, Plutarch) made a point of the opt. with tva as "the hall-mark of a pretty Attic style" (Moulton, Pro!., p. 197). The N. T. writers, more like Diodorus and Poly bins, fail "to rival the litterateurs in the use of this resuscitated elegance." Moulton speaks also of "the ' Cf. W.-H., vol. II, App., p. 168. 2 W.-M., p. 363. ' On the sparing use of the opt. with final sentences in late Gk. see the tables in Diel, De enuntiatis finaUbus apud Graecarum rerum scriptores posterioris aetatis, 1894, pp. 20 S. See also Radermaeher, N. T. Gr., p. 132. Moulton (Prol., p. 197) notes how the Atticists revelled in the opt. with tva, ircos, iis. Josephus has 32 per cent, opts., Plut. 49 (Lives), Arrian 82, Appian 87! Polyb. has only 7, Diodorus 5. These are true kolpti hterati. Moulton finds only one pap. of this period with opt. with tva, O.P. 237 (late ii/A.D.), tva — dwniBtCriv. In iii/A.D. he notes L.Pw., iv' — diji in primary sequence. Tb. 1 (ii/s.c.) actually has ij^Uijaa xpi?/'a'"t''^4o'ot'"o. * Weber, Entwickelungsgeschichte der Absichtsatze, p. 243. 984 A GKAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT riot of optatives" in the artificial Byzantine writers. On the whole subject of final clauses see Gildersleeve on "The Final Sentence in Greek," 1883, p. 419, A. J. of Philol, IV, pp. 416 £f., VI, pp. 53 ff. There is no trouble to find in the papyri, inscr. and Koiv^ writers generally abundant examples of Iva and the subj. in pure design (Radermacher, N. T.Gr., p. 138). But while the subj. is the normal construction, the indicative is also present. In clas- sical Greek tva was not used with the future ind.' It was not com- mon even with .ottojs, cos and /iij. The similarity in form and sense (not to mention itacism of -p and -ei) made the change very- easy and, indeed, the text is not always certain as between the aorist subj. and the future ind. Thus in 1 Cor. 13:3 Im Kavxv- ao3nai is supported by NAB, tva Kavdrjacaimi by CK and Iva Kavdi/- aoiiai by late documents.^ In Gal. 2 : 4 the best documents have 'iw KaraSovKixrovaiv instead of —coicnv. In Jo. 17 : 2 the MSS. vary between Iva Soicret and Swo-jj. So in Jo. 15 : 8 note tva Vo (1 Cor. 9:18); tva 5i3diov Moulton, Prol., p. 35. s Approved by Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 212. * W.-M., p. 362. MODE (efkaisis) 985 MSS. support the present ind. with Iva in Jo. 4 : 15; 5:20; 17: 3; Gal. 6 : 12j. 1 Th. 4: 13; Tit. 2:4; 2 Pet. 1: 10; Rev. 12:6.i In the earlier Greek writers we do find Iva used with past tenses of the indicative.'' The idea was to show that the purpose was dependent on an unfulfilled wish or unattained action. But this refinement does not appear in the N. T. except in two examples with liT) irwj. With all the wide extension of tva in Western Hel- lenistic,' at the heart of it there is the pure telic idiom. "Iva with the imperative in 1 Cor. 1 : 31 is due, of course, to the quotation. "Iva is repeated three times in 2 Cor. 12 : 7. In Jo. 11 : 37, iroirjaai tva Kal ovTos firi airdBavg, one is reminded of the Latin facere ut (sub-final). Westcott {Hebrews, p. 342 f.) gives a list of all the examples of tva in the Epistle (20). Only two of Sxws. (jS) "Ottcos. It is compounded of the neuter accusative relative i and the indefinite adverb irtbs.* It occurs in indirect questions as in Lu. 24 : 20 in the sense of 'how.' One notes also the article and the interrogative as in tA xios (Lu. 22:2) like English "the which." "Ottojs in a sense is the connecting link between the various kinds of final sentences.^ Thucydides and Xenophon preferred oirws to 'iva, and Aristotle has Iva only a few times (W. Schmid, Atticismus, III, p. 87). Polybius does not use oxus at all in books I-V. The N. T. has iva 493 times, Sttois 52 (Jannaris, p. 417) as far as Colossians. I figure tva 661 times in text of W. H., not including 6 of Iva rl and 53 of ottos. Thumb does not give oTrctfs as a final particle in modern Greek {Handb., p. 197). Even in later Greek ottcos was a sign of literary affectation.* As already noted, in the fourth and fifth centuries B.C. ott&js was quite the rule in the Attic inscriptions.^ It is rare in Homer and never has Kk or av in pure final clauses in the Homeric language.* This idiom with av first appears in ^schylus. In the great Attic writers and the Attic inscriptions the subjunc- tive, the future indicative and the optative after secondary tenses, all are found. The future indicative occurred chiefly with verbs of striving, though sometimes in pure final clauses.' The negative with this future indicative was ^utJ (ottcus ij.r]), though no example 1 Cf. W.-H., App., pp. 167, 169, 171. See further Meyer on 1 Cor. 4 : 6. ' Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 120. The Mod. Gk. has v6. with past tenses of the ind. (Thumb, Handb., p. 198). ' Moulton, Prol., pp. 41, 205, 211. * Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 665; Delbriick, Konj. und Opt., p. 61. ' Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 348. • Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 417. » Goodwin, M. and T., p. 111. ' Meisterh.-Schw., p. 253 f. » lb., p. 113 f. 986 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT occurs in the N. T. Moulton {Prol., p. 177 note) finds in the papyri a few survivals of Sircos m^ and the fut. ind., though mostly ousted by Iva ^i,. Cf. Hb. P. 45, 60, 168 (iii/B.c), Tb. P. 414 (ii/A.D.). Stahl {Syrdaxy-p- 360) calls Sxws ix-ij and fut. ind. Attic. In the N. T. the optative does not occur in this construction. In the Atticists it is revived as with iva.} The fut. ind. with ottcos in pure final clauses has practically vanished from the N. T. The one example in Ro. 3 : 4, Sttcos av SucaicoSgs nal viKrjcreis, is a quo- tation from the LXX (Ps. 51: 6), but changed from subj. there. But oTTOJs davariiaovaiv is a variant reading in Mt. 26 : 59, and the future ind. is possible in Mt. 2- : 8, oircoj irpoaKwricrco, though it is probably the aorist subj. Other variant readings where the future ind. is supported with orus are 1 Cor. 1 : 29, Kavxhcerai, and Mk. 5: 23, Sxcos ^rj^erai (here W. H. read Iva ^Tjari). But at any rate the use of the future ind. with otoos in pure final clauses is not quite dead in the N. T. period, though surely dying. Else- where the aorist subj. alone occurs save in Lu. 16:26 {bis), 28 and Mt. 6 : 4. "Ottojs no longer^ has av in final clauses save in the quotation from Ps. 51 : 6 (Ro. 3 : 4) and three passages in Luke's writings (Lu. 2 : 35 oirois av aTOKa\v4>doi(nv Ac. 3 : 19 f. oirojs av eSducriv — Kal oiTrocrTeiXj?, 15 : 17 oirws av kK^rirriaiCfftv from Amos (so A, but B without av) 9 : 12). "Aj' is a variant reading in Mt. 6 : 5 and is found very often in the LXX. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 158) finds Sttojs &v in Diodorus XIV, 80, 8, Aris- teas, § 239, inscr. of Halicarnassus (iii/B.c), Jahrb. d. Ost. Inst. XI, 56. But it is rare and ottcos steps into the background be- fore 'iva. The revival of ottcos in the third and fourth cent. a.d. was Atticistic and did not affect the vernacular. The inscriptions and the papyri for the first century a.d. show the prevalence of I'm over oircos (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 157 note). The nega- tive is, of course, always ixri, as in Ac. 20 : 16, ottcos jlh) ykvqTai. The subj. is used indifferently after primary tenses (Mt. 6 : 2, -Koiovaiv Sttcos bo^acdSxTiv) and secondary tenses (Ac. 9 : 34, TapeTripovvTo oTTois aiiTov (u/'eKiaaw). Cf. Ro. 9 : 17. It is interesting to note that in the N. T. mw is ahnost confined to Matthew and Luke's writings. The literary flavour of Luke explains his use of the idiom, but we do, not look for hterary ear-marks in Matthew. The one example in John (11:57) occurs side by side with Iva (iw firivixrvi Stws ■KLaawaiv) and may be used for the sake of variety as in iva yivriTai ottcos yhtiTai (2 Cor. 8 : 14). Cf. also Lu. 16: 28; ' Moulton, Prol., p. 197; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 417. ' Blaes, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 211. MODE (ErKAISIz) 987 1 Cor. 1 : 29; 2 Th. 1 : 12, though IW— I'm appear in 1 Cor. 4:6; Gal. 4 : 5.' In 1 Cor. 1 : 17 note I'm /mj and 6irm /ti? in 1 : 29. But tva has "invaded the territory of oxcos, as with i^poi'Tifetj' and airovSa^eiv" (Moulton, Prol., p. 206). In modem Greek Sxcos has lost all tehc force (Thumb, Handb., p. 198). Sometimes owws represents the main purpose and the infinitive the subor- dinate purpose, a construction amply illustrated in the papyri.^ So then, though orcos as a pure final conjunction is disappearing in the N. T., it yet occurs with the same concept on the whole. (7) 'S2s. It was not a favourite final particle with Thucydides (only twice), though Xenophon used it nearly as much as Iva. It is not surprising to find only one instance of it in the N. T. and that one not certain. HB read v k^k'KtiKTi TO. Tdxv- The N. T. hardly uses the relative clause of purpose as freely as the Attic Greek. (f) The Infinitive. A brief statement is alone necessary here, since the infinitive receives full discussion in the next chapter. Suffice it to say that the infinitive is exceedingly common in the N. T. for the notion of pure purpose. Votaw' counts some 1,285 such instances of the simple infinitive of purpose in "biblical Greek." He does not give the figures for the N. T. alone. He notes that "this use of the infinitive is second only to that of general object in order of relative frequency of occurrence." Moulton {Prol., p. 205) notes that the inf. of purpose is more common in the N. T. than in Attic, and he agrees with Thumb {Theol. Lit, 1903, p. 421) in the theory that this frequency of the inf. of purpose in the Koivi} is due to the Ionic dialect. It has sur- vived in the Pontic dialect of modern Greek, though elsewhere displaced by va and the subj. Cf. iroLfiaaufiev cjyayeiv (Mt. 26 : 17) and hoinaauiiiv tm (jiayos (Mk. 14 : 12). The telle inf. is common in the koipiJ, writers generally (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 152). Cf. Xenophon of Eph., 393, 28, 'tkrjKWei. Trpoaev^aadcu. It is com- monest with verbs of movement (Moulton, Prol., p. 205), as in ki.v dvajSw Kajoii TpoaKWTJcraL, Par. P. 49 (ii/s.c.). This infinitive may be resolved easily into the original dative (or locative), as in Jo. ' Prol., p. 194. • Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 217. ' lb., p. 197. ' The Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 10. " Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 216 ff. 990 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 21 : 3, u7ro7w oKieieiv, 'I go a-fishing*; Mt. 2 : 2, ^\6otiev irporiKa ipZv ware Tre/ii^TjTe. There are two examples of cos in W. H., cbs iroitiaaai (Lu. 9 : 52, other editors SsaTe) and cbs ettos elireiv (Heb. 7:9). In Ac. 20: 24 most editors have cbs TeXeicocrai, but not W. H. The articular infinitive with prepositions is very common in the N. T. as in the LXX, about one-half of all the examples of the articular infinitive.® For a discussion of prepositions with the inf. see Verbal Nouns. Both eU t6 and irpos to occur with the inf. in the papyri, the latter » Moulton, Prol., p. 204. * Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 21. ' lb., p. 207. 5 lb., p. 10. » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 223. « lb., p. 19. MODE (efkaisis) 991 more frequently. They both seem "to carry the thought of a remoter purpose." (Moulton, Prol., p. 220.) Moulton cites B. U. 226 (i/A.D.) Sttcos etSg irapkaeaTai {=dai) — irpAs to Tvylv, 0. P. 237 (ii/A.D.) Sttws ^povTiaxii — Trpis t6 firi — eyrvxaveiv. The pa- pyri have e£s rd h /ij/Sevi iieiul>6ijvaL as a "recurrent formula." Cf. P. Fi. 2 (iii/A.D.) 4 times. Moulton gives numerous papyri ref- erences for telic ets to. The examples with ew to are the most common of all in the N. T. (72 instances). As a rule these indicate purpose more or less strong, though not always. It is particularly conunon in Paul (50 exx., H. Scott). So ets to o-tjj- pixS^rai (Ro. 1:11), eis t6 elvai (8:29). Cf. 1 Th. 3:5; Eph. 1: 12; Ph. 1 : 10). The instances of irpds to are few (12) and chiefly in Luke and Paul. Cf . irpds rd dtaBrjvai. (Mt. 6:1); irpds t6 biivasBai (Eph. 6 : 11) .1 (9) The Participle. The future participle, so common in this construction in the Attic Greek, has nearly vanished from the N. T. as from the rest of the Koivij. A few remnants survive like fpX^Tai 'HXetas cdicruv (Mt. 27:49), avkfi-qv irpotrKwifCFUv and TOiriacav (Ac. 24:11, 17). Cf. Ac. 8:27. So also the present participle occasionally occurs where purpose is implied. Thus dxeo-mXKa- Hev airayYkWovTas (Ac. 15 : 27). Cf. eirep^/av ayyliKKovTas (Thuc. VII, 26, 9)." Cf. also Mk. 3:31. A good example is Ac. 3: 26, aitkdTeiKiv ainbv eilXoyovvTa. See Participle (Verbal Nouns) and Tense for further remarks. (d) Sub-Final Clauses {really object or subject clauses like oti clauses ). There are a considerable number of clauses which are not pure purpose and yet are not result. They are the bridge, in a sense, between the two extremes. They are found with verbs of striving, beseeching, commanding, fearing. In some instances the clause is hardly more than an object-clause. The same con- junctions are here used in general, and this shows that no hard and fast line was drawn in the matter. Various divisions are made of these verbs.' Burton* calls them object-clauses of ex- horting, of striving, of fearing, of subject and predicate, of com- plementary and epexegetic clauses, of conceived result. But even so they overlap and run into one another. (a) "Ira. Here again the main conjunction is tea. All these varieties noted by Burton are seen with Iva save with verbs of 1 Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 161 f. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 198. ' Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 122 ff. * N. T. M. and T., p. 83. 992 A GEAMMAE OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT fearing. As we have seen,' there were two tendencies in the KOLvri. One was the spread of the Ionic use of the inf. of purpose, the other was the wide extension of Iva in Western Hellenistic. So the Iva in the non-final or sub-final sense, once rare,' now comes to be exceedingly common. The development came on soon after the close of the classical age.' But Thackeray (Gr., pp. 24, 194) finds it rare in the LXX. It came to be used in almost any sense that the infinitive bore and finally displaced it. This weakened use of I'm is one of the characteristics of the koiv^ and is richly illustrated in the N. T., particularly in the writings of John. Thus in Mt. 5 : 29, (ivti4>kpa Iva aTokjjTai, the Iva clause is the subject of o-u/i0^pei and is a subject-clause in the nominative case. There is a great variety of phrases * which thus use tva. So ApKerdv Iva yivriTai (Mt. 10 : 25; 18 : 6). Cf. 1 Pet. 4 : 3 (inf.). See also kavos tva (Mt. 8:8), though elsewhere inf.; fiftos Iva (Jo. 1 :27), but inf. in 1 Cor. 16 :4, as often; aw^deia v/uv tva (Jo. 18 : 39) ; k'KijKvBev &pa iva (Jo. 12 : 23) ; kiwi els kXaxi^crov ka-Tw iva (1 Cor. 4:3); i/xdv fipuna iariv iva (Jo. 4 : 34); XutrireXei — tva (Lu, 17:2); toOto, iva &£ri (Lu. 1 : 43) ; fijTeirai iva (1 Cor. 4:2); xapav iva (Ph. 2:2). Thus the iva clause is seen to be either nom. or ace, simply, or in apposition with a substantive. In John* the appo- sitional use is very frequent. So avrri iva (Jo. 17:3); iiel^ova rab- rifs, iva (15 : 13, ablative) ; kv tovtu, iva (15 : 8, Iqcative) ; x^-pi-v, iva (3 John 4, accusative). Cf. Jo. 6: 39; 1 Jo. 3 : 1, 11, 23; 4 : 21; 2 Jo. 6; 1 Cor. 9 : 18; Rev. 2 : 21. In Jo. 15 : 12 iva AyawciTe (subj.) is in apposition with kvToKT]. Some of these are comple- mentary or epexegetic clauses, In the subject and object (or appositive) clauses the subjunctive is usually found, though occa- sionally the fut. ind., as in kppkBr] iva aSiKriffovaiv (Rev. 9:4). See further examples of the fut. ind. in Rev. 3:9; 6 : 11; 13 : 12; 14 : 13 (especially common in the Apocalypse). In Rev. 9 : 5 we have kSodr) Iva fiij airoKTeivuaLV avroiis, aXX' iva fiaaavitrOiiaovTai. In Jo. 17 : 3 some MSS. read iva yivisoKovcuv (read by Treg. and Tisch.). Object-clauses with iva after verbs of striving, beseech- ing, etc., largely displace Sttws. Many of these verbs use also the infinitive and a few retain Sttws.* Blass' gives a careful list of the construction in the N. T. with each of these verbs. See also » Moulton, Prol., p. 205. 2 It is seen as early as Demosthenes (IV, 28). » Jebb in V. and D.'a Handb., p. 320. « Cf. Blasa, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 228. « Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 225 f. » W.-Th., p. 338 f. ' lb. MODE (ErKAizis) 993 Thayer under tva (2). Cf. Acta Pauli et Theclae, 29, vpdcrev^ai iiirip Tov rkKvov fiov, Iva fijfferai. With these verbs tva gives the purport or object rather than the purpose. This use of im is very rare* in classic Greek, though in itself not out of harmony with the Greek genius. The parallel between tm in this sense and oti is seen in Jo. 11:50; 1 Jo. 5:3, 9, 11. Per contra see 1 Jo. 5: 13 for distinction. Cf. also Sti in Mt. 13 : 13 with Iva in Lu. 8 : 10. It is worth repeating that in the modern Greek (except in the Pontic dialect) it is universal (va) to the exclusion of the inf. and oruis. It is common after verbs of saying (Thumb, Handb., p. 189). The examples in the N. T. are too numerous to give a complete list. But note tva after ajjapehoi (Mt. 27 : 32) ; o7aXXidojuat (Jo. 8 : 56) ; &ytavl^ofiai (Jo. 18 : 36) ; airtoiiai (Col. 1:9); diraYTeXXw (Mt. 28 : 10. So TrapayykWw, Mk. 6:8); dxo- <7TeXXw (Ac. 16 : 36); a.iriixi (Mk. 11 : 16); ^ovXeiofuiL (Jo. 12 : 10) and v\a.^\ax6S>(Ti., B. U. 631 (ii/A.D.) TcapaKokS) ere tva Karaaxv^i O- -P- 121 (iii/A.D.) elira aot, ftva Sii(rbi(Tiv. Moulton (Prol., pp. 177, 208) recalls the old jussive subj. as sufiicient explanation of this use of tva. Radermacher (Rh. M., LVI, 203) and Thumb (Hellen., p. 159) support Moulton against the Latin influence theory. Per contra see Goetzeler, De Polybii EL, pp. 17 ff.; Kalker, Qtiest.; Viereck, Sermo Grae- • It is found in Horn. Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 128. 994 A GRAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT CMS, p. 67. Moulton scores his point and observes also that the inf. was not driven out by tva.in the papyri, see (e). Cf. A. P. 135 (ii/A.D.), epuTcS <7€ /iij aneKfiv fiov. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 155 f .) gives numerous other examples of non-final Iva in papyri and inscriptions. The subj. is the usual mode employed even after secondary tenses. Thus k^ovKei>aavTo Iva kiroKTdvuaiv (Jo. 12 : 10). In Mk. 9 : 30, ovk ijdeXev tm tls yvot, we have still the subj., not the opt. As already noted, Iva 54"7 in Eph. 1:17 is an optative of wish after a primary tense. It is here also the subfinal Iva. Cf. Phil. 14; Col. 4 : 12. Moulton' points out how closely akin are irpoaevxeo^Oe Iva firj eXSijre (Mk. 14 : 38) and dpStre Kai povTiciv oTTCiJs — aTOKaTacTTSxTiv. The few examples in the N. T. are all in the subj. Burton notes only three (Mt. 12 : 14; 22 : 15; Mk. 3 : 6), and all three after (Tvp,pov\iov tXa^op {kdiSow). The clause thus partakes of the nature of. an indirect deliberative • Prol., p. 178. » lb. ' W.-M'., p. 396. * See art. by Jann., Expositor, ser. V, vol. IX, p. 296. MODE (efkaizis) 995 question (cf. Mk. 11 : 18, ttws). They are all after secondary tenses. There are some instances in the N. T. of 6irois after verbs of beseeching, though many verbs that in Attic had this idiom no longer have it. Thus Sircos and the subj. occur with dtoij.ai (Mt. 9 : 38), alriofMi (Ac. 25 : 3), kpur&M (Lu. 7:3), irapaxaXeo) (Mt. 8 : 34), TTfioaihxoiuu (Ac. 8 : 15). (7) M^, nil irojs, /ti7 iroT€. The usual construction in the nega- tive sub-final clauses is Iva. fiij, but a small list of verbs commonly have tii) as the conjunction. This is true of verbs meaning 'to take heed,' 'to care for,' 'fear."^ It is a much narrower range than the sub-final use of Iva. In the N. T. the subj. always oc- curs with nil except in Col. 2 : 8 fiXeirere nv tls 'earai. Thus fi\tirtTe nil Tis VIMS TXaviiaji (Mt. 24 : 4). Treg. and Tisch. read the fut. ind. in 2 Cor. 12 : 21, but W. H. and Nestle rightly have Taireivdiaii (cf. verse 20). The pres. subj. occurs in Heb. 12 : 15 kirixTKoirovvTts nil 'fvoT(Kri. Elsewhere we have only the aor. subj. Thus after /SXeTTO) (Mk. 13 : 5) ; bpiua (Mt. 18 : 10) ; aKowkw (Gal. 6:1); <^o;3eo- nai (Ac. 27: 17). In Ac. 23 : 10 some MSS. have tvXapeonai, but oPeqnai is correct. This construction with 0o/3eo/iot is rare in the N. T. (Luke, Paul and Hebrews) and is apparently a literary touch. Cf. Ac. 27 : 29. In Ac. 5 : 26, k^ofiovvro yap top 'Kadv nv 'KiSaadSxnv (note subj. after secondary tense), there is a prolepsis of rdv Xaoc.^ M^ ttojs is found after ^Xkirco with the aor. subj. (1 Cor. 8 : 9) and <^o;8^o/xai (2 Cor. 11 : 3; 12 : 20). Cf. Gal. 2 : 2 in 6, (c), (5) Pure Final Clauses. If the fear is about an object in the present or past, the indicative is used. Thus in Lu. 11 : 35, (TKOTrei nv — karlv, and in Gal. 4:11, o^ovnaL vnas nv '"'^s eUfj KeKoriaKa els vnas. This is in strict accord with Attic idiom.' The papyri show it also (Moulton, Prol, p. 193). So Par. P. 49 (ii/B.c.) ayuvt.Si nil i^ore appoiareX, N. P. 17 (iii/A.D.) vtpicpovne nV apa hdpwaKuv IXadev vSari. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 141) adds examples of fut. ind., as Enoch 6 : 3, 4>oPovnai. nil oii deXiicere; Dio Chrys., xxxiv, 44, ov yap ian kIvSvvos, nil MaXX&jTcoj' kconkvoiv aaOevk- (TTipoi So^iTt. The negative in such a clause is oi. Thus o^ovnai nil irus ovx oLovs 6e\o3 evpca (2 Cor. 12 : 20). This is to show contrast to nil- Cf . Col. 2 : 8, iui7 t« 'earai — Kal ov. Sometimes a verb of fearing is implied, though not expressed (cf. elliptical use of Iva and 'iva nv)- Thus Ac. 5 : 39, nil ""ore eupedrjTe. This is a possible explanation of nil ifort ov nv apK^trj? (or nv "■ore ovk) in Mt. 25 : 9 1 Burton, N. T. M. and T., pp. 88, 95 f. ' Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 95. » Goodwin, M. and T., p. 133. 996 A GRAMMAK OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (note negatives) and /tij irore d^v (2 Tim. 2 : 25). M^ irort is used with the aorist subj. after itpoakxi^ (Lu. 21 : 34; Heb. 2:1), with a present subj. after (jm^koiuu. (Heb. 4:1), with a pres. opt. after irpoo-SoKow (Lu. 3 : 15, indirect question), with a fut. ind. after jSXixw (3 : 12). These clauses are also of paratactic origin.^ This paratactic construction survives in the use of opa with the im- perative (Mt. 9 : 30; 24 : 6), but even so the clause may be de- pendent in actual use as in Mt. 18 : 10; 1 Th. 5 : 15. Some doubt" arises concerning the clauses with fi\eiro} which have a paratactic origin, but are practically dependent. Those in the third person are clearly so (Mk. 13 : 5; Ac. 13 : 40, etc.). This argues for a like usage in Lu. 21 : 8; Gal. 5 : 15; Heb. 12 : 25. (5) The Relative Clause. It is a classic idiom for complemen- tary relative clauses to be used in a sub-final sense.' As examples of this idiom in the N. T. note o^i6s 'tanv ^ irapk^xi (Lu. 7:4); ok ^xw 8 irapaffriaca (11 : 6); ovSkva ^x" oarii /jxpi/xviia-ei, (Ph. 2 : 20). Cf. ffxC Ti ypatpci} (Ac. 25 : 26) and rl ypaxf/ai ovk ?x" (ib-). Rader- macher [n. T. Gr., p. 138) quotes from Achilles Tatius, IV, 16, 3, airoyevaoiMi, tooovtov o(tov KaK€lvri Xa/Sjj. (e) The Infinitive. With verbs of exhorting, beseeching, etc., the infinitive was the normal idiom in the ancient Greek. In the N. T. it still occurs twice as often as tva and Sxcos together.* Some of these verbs have only the inf. in the N. T., as aiaxvvop.ai, d^ioo), aaKeui, fioUkoiMi, SoKeUf iau, hn6vp,k(ii, hnirodecc, eiriTpkru, hrixeipio}, KeKeiiu, oKvkoi, irapawku, ireipoM, crirovBa^co, Taaata and compounds, (^pojTifo), ofieoiJ,ai in the sense of 'to be afraid to do' (Mt. 2 : 20). Many of the verbs that use sub-final tm may have the inf. also. Thus Toiiiaw iifMs yeviadai (Mk. 1 : 17) . So also iSouXeio/iai, airco/uai, irpoaevxofjuu, \iyoi, etc. Cf. a^ios XDtrat (Ac. 13 : 25) and aftos tva Xuo-o) (Jo. 1:27). In 2 Cor. 9 :5 the inf. is used after the Iva clause to express an epexegetic or complementary purpose (ravTrjv iroinriv elvai), a rather common usage. Cf. in 1 Cor. 9 : 15 both 'iva and the inf. in a broken sentence. Moulton^ argues that in Paul the majority of cases of tov with the inf. are epexegetic (Ro. 1:24;7:3;8:12;1 Cor. 10 : 13) or adnominal (Ro. 15 : 23; 1 Cor. 9 : 10; 16 : 4; 2 Cor. 8:11; Ph. 3 : 21) or the ablative construction (Ro. 15 : 22; 2 Cor. 1:8). Certainly tov /X17 iXBeiv in Lu. 17 : 1 is not purpose, nor rod eiaeXdelv in Ac. 10 : 25. Cf . also Mt. 21 : 32, TOV TriaTewoLi. Luke uses tov and the inf. more than >■ Moulton, Prol., pp. 185, 248. « Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 87. 2 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 89. ' Prol., p. 218 f. ' Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 217. MODE (efkaisis) 997 any other N. T. writer. In Lu. 18 : 1, irpds t6 Setv is not final. E£s t6 and the inf. we find chiefly in Paul (44 examples, Moulton, Prol., p. 218. Mr. H. Scott makes 50 by counting the verbs instead of the preposition). The construction is always final in the other N. T. writers. But Paul has non-final uses, as in 1 Th. 2 : 12; 4:9. The papyri show this non-final use of rod and the inf. (Moulton, Prol, p. 219 f.). So B. U. 1031 (ii/A.D.) p6vriaov rov iroirjaai, B. U. 164 (ii/iii A.D.) Treitrat aiirdv rod iXdeiv, B. M. 23 (ii/B.C.) TpoaStofiivov iwv rov TepiiroLrja-ai.. (f) El and on. In Lu. 17 : 2 we have Xuo-tTeXet el tppiirTat, rj tva (TKavdaXivji, where ei and Iva introduce subject-clauses. Cf. also d=!iTi in Mk. 9:42. In Lu. 19:21, ^(^ojSouai'?'' o-e on avOpuTos aiarripds et, the rare use of 6tl with 4>o^koiMi. is, to be noted. It is made easier by the proleptic use of at. The usual object-clause with oTi belongs to indirect discourse. (e) Consecutive Clauses. (o) "Im. It is debatable whether tva has the ecbatic use in the N. T. There is in itself no reason why it should not have it, since undoubtedly it was so used in the later Greek.' It occurs also in modem Greek, as elvai vk x^cj? Kavth to fiva\6 tov, ' that is for one to lose his reason' (Thumb, Handb., p. 197). The parallel of the Latin ut may have had some influence on this late Greek. The development, however, was in the vernacular, and out of the sub- final use of iva, and the Latin influence was not needed. There is not space to follow the long debate in the grammars and com- mentaries on this subject. Kiihner^ held that ha had the ecbatic sense, but Thayer' boldly accepts the verdict of Fritzsche and Winer who "have clearly shown that in all the passages adduced from the N. T. to prove the usage the telic (or final) force pre- vails." W. F. Moulton* agreed with Winer as against Fritzsche in the admission of the sub-final use of Iva, but he balked at the consecutive idea. "But it does not follow that the weakened 'iva is generally equivalent to chare: this use of Iva is rather, as we can still perceive in most cases, an extension of eo consilio ut." Yes, In most cases, beyond a doubt. I once had just this feeling and stood against^ the admission of the consecutive force of Iva. J. H. Moulton' confesses to a similar development of opinion on this subject. He had once' committed himself against the ec- ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 455. ' Gr., § 555, 2, Anm. 3. ' Lexicon, p. 304. Abbott, Job. Gr., p. 381, holds to the strict use of Ira. * W.-M., p. 421. « Prol., p. 206. 5 Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., pp. 153, 155. ' Intr. to N. T. Gr., p. 217. 998 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT batic iva, but now he confesses himself "troubled with unsettling doubts." He boldly advocates^ the freedom of commentators to interpret im as the context demands (final, sub-final, consecutive). EUicott^ had defended just this principle, and he is the most severely grammatical of commentators. The commentator must have grammar, but he needs the grammar of the author on whose work he is making comments. So also Sanday and Headlam on Ro. 11:11 (fir) iirraiaav Iva Teacaaiv;) pointedly interpret it thus: "Iva expresses the contemplated result." They appeal to Elli- cott, Lightfoot and Evans in support of this laxer use of IVa as against Winer and the Germans. They also (p. 143) quote Chry- sostom's exposition of Iva in Ro. 5 : 20: to 8i 'iva hravda ovk aiTio- \oylas ttclKiv dXX' k/Sdo-eais etTTiv. Lightfoot admits the consecutive force of iva in Gal. 5 : 17; 1 Th. 5 : 4. He is correct in both instances. See also Lu. 1 : 43. In Jo. 16 : 2, epxerai S>pa Iva 56^ii, it is almost temporal. It is argued that, where tva seems to be used in a consecutive clause, it is the divine purpose that is to be considered. But certainly no such explanation is possible in Ro. 11:11. There is such a thing as the divine purpose and it is seen' in Lu. 9 : 45, rjv irapaKeiiaKvjxiievov air' avrCiv 'iva fiij alaOiavrai avTo. Cf. also Mt. 1 : 22, iva irXripoiOfj. But surely no such pur- pose* appears in Jo. 6 : 7, ovk apKovaiv avroh iva eKaaros Ppaxv Xa|3jj. Here we have contemplated result, it is true, but it is result just the same. It is probably just out of this idiom (conceived result) that the use of iva for actual result came. Burt.on^ admits this conceived result as in Heb. 10 : 36, and seeks to explain Jo. 9 : 2, ris TJfmpTev — tjia tv4>\6s yevvtfl^; But the effort is not successful. He denies that there is a certain, "scarcely a probable, instance in the N. T. of a clause denoting actual result conceived as such."^ He considers' Rev. 13 : 13, Troiet arjixeia /xeyaXa, iva Kal irvp iroLfj ex- Tov ovpavov Kara^aiveiv, as the most probable instance of Iva de- noting actual result. But there are others just as plain, if not clearer. Thus 1 Jo. 1 : 9, tkttos 'ecTiv /cat SUaios, IVa a(t>fj ras anap- rias. Blass' places this beside aSt/cos eirCKaBkadai (Heb. 6 : 10) and thinks that the consecutive use of iva grew out of the infinitive in* that sense. With this Moulton" agrees. Cf. also Rev. 9 : 20, ov lUTivlyqaav, iva nfi irpo(TKVvi)iTOvciv, with ov ixiTevbticav dovvai avr^ 56^av ' Prol., p. 209. « lb., p. 94. 2 On Eph. 1 : 17. ' lb. » Moulton, Prol., p. 210. s Gj.. of N. T. Gk., p. 224. * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 228. " Prol., p. 210. ' N. T. M. and T., p. 92 f. MODE (ErKAISIs) 999 in 16: 9. Note in particular IJo. 3 : 1, where the clause nai kiTfiev accents the ecbatic force of tva. This use is possible also in Jo. 9 : 36; Mk. 11 : 28. In Mk. 4 : 22, kav mij IVa avepoiB^, we have tva (cf. iXX' 'iva) used like uare and the inf. (cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 218). In Mk. 2 : 10 'iva almost means 'on condition that.' The consecutive Iva appears outside of the N. T. as in Arrian (Diss. Epid., II, 2, 16) oiirco fuapos ^v-, 'Iva firi t&p- Sophocles in his Lexicon gives a quite extensive list of passages in the koivti writers where 'iva has the consecutive sense. He has probably claimed too many, but some of them are real instances. Even Josephus has 'iva in the sense of conceived result.^ Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 156) cites Epictetus, IV, 3, 9, eXeWepos yap eifii Kal (j>L\os rod 6eov Iv' eKoiv irddoip.ai avrQ. Several other examples occur in Epic- tetus. So, then, we conclude that I'm has in the N. T. all three uses (final, sub-final, consecutive), and thus runs a close parallel with the infinitive which it finally displaced.^ Sophocles cites several examples of consecutive tva from the LXX. One of these is certainly pertinent. Wisdom of Sol. 13 : 9, for 'iva SvvoivTai, fol- lows Toa-ovTov and I'ra has the force of uxTre. (0) "Hare. This conjunction is merely cos and r4='and so.' In Homer cos is both a demonstrative and a relative. Either idea may appear in Sxrre. It is really a comparative particle.' In the early writers the inf. was more common than the ind. with cixn-e. Thus in Euripides the inf. occurs 130 times to 20 indicatives. In Thucydides it is 144 to 82, but in Plato it is 253 to 240. The consecutive sentence began with the inf. and was extended to the finite verb.* In late Greek it returned to the inf. construction. Cf. Green, Diodorus and the Peloponnesian War, 1899, p. 21. Of the 83 instances^ of &' wre in the sense of 'on condition that.' In Gal. 2 : 9 Iva has practically that idea. (y) 'Os. Thayer considers that in Heb. 3:11 and 4 : 3 we have the consecutive use of tis. It is a quotation from the LXX (Ps. 94 : 11) and is possible, though the simple 'as' is suflacient.^ But ' Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 223 ff. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 224. « Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 99. ' Prol., p. 209. 6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 224. • In Xen. iis rather than fiore occurs both with the inf. and the modes. Cf. Wehmann, De Siare particulae usu Heroditeo Thucydideo Xenophonteo, 1891, p. 40. MODE (eFEAISIS) 1001 c!)s has kept its place as a consecutive particle in the koip^i (Rader- macher, iV. T. Gr., p. 160). (5) "Oti. There is no doubt about the consecutive use of Sti in "the later Greek.' We find it in the LXX, as in Ex. 3:11, tis el/iL eye!) ort iropthaoiMi irpos ^apoAi; Cf. also 2 Ki. 8 : 13. The in- stances in the N. T. are not numerous, but they are very clear. Thus Mk. 4 : 41, tk apa ovt6$ kanv oti. Kal 6 S-ve/ws Kal 17 66l\aai i\kovs; at any rate it is used here very freely. Blass* considers the infinitives in Lu. 1 : 72 used "quite incoherently." But in Ac. 5 : 3 rffevaaaOai. has a consecu- tive idea, as has k-wCKoBkadai in Heb. 6 : 10. See also avot^ai in Rev. 5 : 5 and SoCmt in 16 : 9. Cf . Lu. 1 : 76, 78 f . It is probable that originally the dative -at in the inf., Sofievai as opposed to Sbiiev, > Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 455; Moulton, Prol., p. 249. Cf. Compemass, § 38. See Sophocles' Lexicon. 2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 218 f. > Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 468. *. Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 224. 1002 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT expressed "designed result" (Moulton, Prol., pp. 204, 207), but this idea shrank into the background. This idiom is found in the papyri,^ as in O. P. 526 (ii/A.D.), obK ijurjv airoBris dX6YCos ae airdXii- weiv. Meyer on Ro. 7 : 3, tov ii-ti thai, argues that tov and the inf. never expresses result, a position which I once held.^ But the evidence is too strong to resist. See Infinitive for distinction be- tween actual and hypothetical result. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 154) quotes Acta Barnabae, 10, firi ^lAaii Bapvd^av tov fiij iro- peiieaBai, as consecutive. The idiom is not common in the papjTi as is true of tov and inf. (Moulton, Prol, p. 220). It belongs chiefly to the LXX and Byzantine writers, and Moulton puts it in "the higher stratum of education in the main." The epexe- getic use occurs, as in C. P. R. 156 i^ovaLav — tov — Beadai, 0. P. 275 TOV aToinracdfjmL 'tTiTeinov. This construction {tov and the inf.) had a very wide development in the N. T. in opposition to the encroachments of I'm. See Lu. 17 : 1 and Ac. 10 : 25, where tov and the inf. is practically the subject of the verb (cf. original dative and locative cases). Luke has two-thirds of the examples of tov and the inf. in the N. T. Only half of these (in Gospel and Acts) seem clearly final according to Moulton.^ He holds that of the 13 examples in Paul none are unmistakably final, though Ro. 6 : 6 and Ph. 3 : 10 are probably so. In both instances tov and the inf. is epexegetic of a iva clause (Moulton, Prol., p. 218). In Paul ' so as to' will usually express his idea with tov and the inf. A clear instance in Luke is seen in Ac. 7 : 19, imKcoaev tovs irnTepas TOV 7rot€t>'='so as to make.' Blass^ cites a parallel from the LXX (1 Ki. 17 : 20), ai> kKo-Kcoaas tov BavaTuaaL tov vtdv aiirijs. Other LXX instances are Gen. 3 : 22; 19 : 21; Is. 5 : 14. The case in Ro. 7: 3 is very clear, tov firi dmi. It is possible in Lu. 9 : 51; Ac. 18 : 10; 20:3; 27: 1; Ro. 1: 24. Cf. tov kpuTrjaai and oirw KaTa- yayjis in Ac. 23 : 20. So with ets to and the inf. Its most natural signification is aim or purpose, but, just as with tva, so here re- sult is sometimes the idea. Meyer in his note on Ro. 1 : 20, eU to dvai avTois avairoXoyfiTovs, insists that the meaning of eis to is al- ways purpose. In this particular instance divine purpose is probably the idea, though result is a possible conception. See Sanday and Headlam in loco. EUicott on 1 Th. 2 : 12, eis to irepLiraTeiu (after irapaKoKovvTes kt\.), admits the sub-final use of eis r6 (cf. Iva) after verbs of exhorting (cf. 1 Th. 3 : 10), though denying the ecbatic use. But it is only a step to go on and that 1 Moulton, Prol., p. 210. » Prol., p. 217. " Short Gr. of the Gk. N, T., p. 156. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 236. MODE (efkaizis) 1003 the N. T. writers took. See the epexegetic use of els t6 in 1 Th. 4:9. Winer* admitted the consecutive use of eis to and the inf. as in 2 Cor. 8 : 6, eU t6 ■jrapaKoKiaat, ijjuos TLtov, ' so that we be- sought Titus.' This idiom is not present in the Johannine wri- tings, though it is very frequent in Paul's writings (especially Ro. and 1 Th.) and Hebrews. Notice raxiis ds rb aKovaai, fipaSiis eis TO XaX^ffttt (Jas. 1 : 19). In Heb. 11: 3, els t6 yeyovevai., we have a clear example of result. Note the perfect tense with notion of permanence.^ See also poveiv els t6 o-cix^pomj' (Ro. 12 : 3), where purpose is impossible. Cf. Gal. 3 : 17. As to irpds to and the inf. the point is not clear. Purpose is undoubtedly present as in Mt. 6:1; Eph. 6:11, and there is total absence of purpose in Lu. 18 : 1, irpds TO Setv. It is not certain, in spite of Blass' comment,' that in the N. T. irpds to expresses result. In Mt. 5 : 28, irpds t6 kiTLdvurjcrai, either purpose or result is possible. W. F. Moulton* denies that the idiom. ever conveys mere result, but admits that it may have subjective purpose as in 1 Th. 2:9. J. H. Moul- ton' holds that this is the idea in all the four examples in Paul's writings. See further 2 Th. 3 : 8; 2 Cor. 3 : 13. 7. Wishes. The use of the optative for a future wish like A^ido-ai (1 Th. 5 : 23), firi yhoLTo (Gal. 6 : 14), is not a hypotactic construction. This is pure parataxis and has already been dis- cussed under the Optative.' See Optative Mode. The only hypo- tactic sentence for the expression of a wish in the N. T. is that with &^e\ov, which comes in the late Greek to be used as a par- ticle. Even here it is possible to regard the construction as paratactic, but note ei yap and eWe. It is the second aorist ind. of 60eiXa> without the augment. 'O(t>e\ov with the inf. occurs in Herodotus, and the form is thus probably Ionic' For koi.v^ par- allels see "Impossible Wishes" under Indicative Mode. Cf. e\ov fe^fcXoJas in Job 14 : 13 and d yi.p o^iKov Svvaiiiijv in Job 30 : 24. Evidently ieKov was not felt to be suffi- cient alone. • » Prol., p. 201. 1004 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT third persons is due to the meaning 'I would' rather than 'thou shouldst.' As a matter of fact its use in the N. T. is very limited, though ddi and ei fap are wanting as particles of wishing. For a wish about the past we have the aorist ind. So S^eXof 76 ^/Soo-t- Xei(rare (1 Cor. 4:8). Cf. Ps. 118 (119) : 5. For a wish about the present we have the imperfect ind. So 2 Cor. 11 : 1, (x^tKov i>.vd\i(j6t, and Rev. 3 : 15, bcpeXov ^s. The Text. Rec. here has 6(j)e\ov etTjs, but it is baseless. However, we do find the fut. ind. for a future wish. So Gal. 5 : 12, 6 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 227. Cf . Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1909, p. 14. ' W.-M., pp. 363 £f. * Pp. 161 S. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 213 f. « Am. Jour, of Philol., 1882, pp. 435 ff.' MODE (efkaizis) 1005 is more remote than the subj. In this type the premise is not assumed to be either true or untrue. The point is in the air and the cloud gathers round it. But there is less mist over the subj. than the opt. In broad outline this is the classification of the conditional sentences which I hold to be true. Thompson^ is surely right in saying that no division can claim any higher right than that of convenience and intelligibility, except that I should like to add that the exposition should be in harmony with the facts of the historical development of the Greek language. There is no nobler achievement in syntax than the Greek conditional sentence before it broke down from the loss of the optative and the future indicative. In the modem Greek it is therefore a wreck, and there is corresponding obscurity between the various classes of conditions, as in English, in spite of special develop- ments to make atonement for the loss.^ In broad outline these four classes of conditions may be termed Reality, Unreality, Probability, Possibility. The word Probability is, however, too strong a term for the third-class condition (^di' and the subj.). La Roche' prefers "objektive Moglichkeit" for the third class and "subjective MogUchkeit" for the fourth class (ei and the opt.). This is also the language of Winer ,^ "objective possibility" and "subjektive possibility." Farrar^ prefers the words Possibility, Impossibility, Slight Probability, Uncertainty. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 142) calls ei with ind. "objektiv," kau with subj. "an sich objektiv," el with opt. "subjektiv," ei with past tenses of ind. " Irrealitat." So it goes. Radermacher thinks also that, to understand the Greek conditions, we must distinguish sharply 'between the vernacular and the noipri ("so miissen wir scharf scheiden zwischen Volkssprache und der Koin6"), a mistaken view in my judgment. It is best to use Koivri for both the ver- nacular and literary language. This brings us face to face with the other theory, the one adopted by Farrar. It was expounded by Goodwin^ and has had quite a vogue in America and Eng- land.' This theory calls for "particular" and "general" supposi- tions as a fundamental element. This is a false step in itself. As • Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 296. ' Jebb, V. and D.'s Handb., pp. 330 ff.; Thumb, Handb., p. 194 f. » Beitr. zur griech. Gr., 1893, pp. 14, 18. He uses "Wirklichkeit" and "Irrealitat" (pp. 8, 28) for the others. « W.-M., p. 364. 5 Gk. Synt., p. 156 f. « See Proc. of the Am. Acad., vol. VI; Jour, of Philol., V, pp. 186-205, VIII, pp. 13-38; M. and T., pp. 145 ff. ' Adopted by Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 296. 1006 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Gildersleeve* shows, each of the four classes of conditions may be particular or general. That point has no bearing on the quality of the condition. Goodwin's past general supposition, where alone a show of distinct structure is made, is a mixed condition (see later under fourth class condition). But the point on which I wish to attack Goodwin's scheme is chiefly in his definition of the first and second class conditions. That involves the third also, as will be seen. Goodwin confuses the "fact" with the "statement" of the fact. He describes the first condition thus: "When the protasis simply states a present or past particular supposition, implying nothing as to the fulfilment of the condition, it takes a present or past tense of the indicative with d." The words to which I ob- ject, besides "particular," are "implying nothing as to the fulfil- ment of the condition." This condition pointedly implies the fulfilment of the condition. It is the condition of actuality, real- ity, Wirklichkeit, and not mere "possibility" as Farrar has it (see above) d la Goodwin. This is the crux of the whole matter. Once see that the first class condition with the ind. implies the reality of the premise, all else follows naturally. In the discussion of the second class condition Goodwin^ properly says: "When the protasis states a present or past supposition, implying that the condition is not or was not fulfilled, etc." This is the condition of unreality as the other is that of reality and the indicative is, of course, used with both. Hence the subj. and the opt. conditions fall apart to themselves as undetermined. The point about all the four classes to note is that the form of the condition has to do only with the statement, not with the absolute truth or cer- tainty of the matter. Examples will be given directly to show that the second class condition is sometimes used where the fact is just the opposite. The same thing is true of the first class condi- tion. We must distinguish always therefore between the fact and the statement of the fact. The conditional sentence deals only with the statement. This point is clearly seen in Ktihner- Gerth, II, p. 465, except that the third class is lost sight of and merged with the first. Burton^ follows Goodwin through all his ' Am. Jour, of Philol., 1882, pp. 435 ff. Gildersl. still objects to the distinc- tion of "particular" and "general" suppositions which Goodwin brought into fashion. That merely depends on the character of the apodosis. Cf. Am. Jour, of Philol., 1909, p. 10. = ^ and T., p. 147. » N. T. M. and T., pp. 100 ff. Farnell (Gk. Conditional and Rel. Sent., 1892) also follows Goodwin, as does R. H. Smith (The Theory of Cond. Sent, in Gk, and Lat., 1894). MODE (ErKAISIs) 1007 ramifications. A word further is demanded by way of warning. One must not try to explain the Greek condition by the English or German translation. The English is often hopelessly ambigu- ous, while the Greek is perspicuous if one will only give it a chance to speak for itself. The true explanation is only possible by the approach from the Greek standpoint. And that is by the mode, not by ei or iav. 'EAv is nothing but ei av. The av is not essential to either protasis or apodosis. Horner^ used el with the subj. with or without Kk or av. The Attic Greek' sometimes has el S.V with the opt. and Pemosthenes used el av with the past ind. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 127) quotes Joh. Philqp. De asterni- tate 430, 28 (iii/A.n.) el — riSivaro av. He gives also (p. 163) kclv — Poridoiri, Diod. XI, 37, 3; iav uri — piaairo, Diod. I, 77, 3. The modern Greek uses av (for i&v) with any tense of the ind. (Thumb, Handb., p. 194). There is no principle involved in av, simply custom. In modern Greek the subj. is used, of course, more freely since the fut. ind. and the opt. have vanished.' Jolly holds that the ind. was a later development with conditional sentences in Greek and that the first attempt was made with the subj. and the opt. He thinks that the use of the ind. was the result of a clearer conception of the logical possibilities of the conditional clause. The subj. was more common in the Zend and the Sanskrit (and Latin) than in the Greek.^ Here as always av is difficult to explain. "Now it has a definite reference, now it is indefinite. Sometimes the reference is supplied by the context, sometimes by the opposite."* See The Use of av in Relative Sentences in this chapter. We shall first examine tjie standard forms of the conditional sentence and then note the variations and modifications. (6) Four Classes. (a) Determined as Fulfilled. This class of condition assumes the condition to be a reality and the conclusion follows logically and naturally from that assimiption. Gildersleeve (Am. Jour, of Philol., 1882, p. 435) observes that this is the favourite condition in argument: "It is the favourite condition when one wishes to be fair, the favourite condition when one is sure of the premises." The construction is el (sometimes kav)^ and any tense of the in- ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 210 f . ' Baumlein, Unters., pp. 352 B. • Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 463; Thumb, Handb., p. 194 f. « Cf. JoUy, Ein Kapitel vergl. Synt., 1872, p. 122 f. ' GildersL, Am. Jour, of Philol., 1882, p. 449. ' The origin of d is uncertain. El is the same as ot in Homer (and Doric). 1008 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT dicative in the protasis. The apodosis, varies very greatly. It all depends on what one is after, whether mere statement, pre- diction, command, prohibition, suggestion, question. Hence the apodosis may be in the indicative (any tense) or the subjunctive or the imperative. There is no necessary correspondence in tense between protasis and apodosis. The variation in the mode of the apodosis has no essential bearing on the force of the con- dition. This condition, therefore, taken at its face value, assumes the condition to be true. The context or other light must deter- mine the actual situation. The apodosis is the principal clause, but since the protasis is the premise, the protasis usually pre- cedes the apodosis. The apodosis may be declarative or inter- rogatory, positive or negative. This condition is so frequent in the N. T. that no exhaustive list can be given, but representative examples must sufi&ce. Thus in Mt. 12 : 27, d iyu h Beefe/SoiiX ^KjSaXXo) TO. BaLfiovia, ol viol vnS>v kv tIvl 'tK^aWovaiv; This is a good example (cf. also Gal. 5 : 11) to begin with, since the assmnption is untrue in fact, though assumed to be true by Jesus for the sake of argument. The question is a reductio ad absurdum. In verse 26, el 6 'Saravas tov liaravav k/3aXX«t, 'e4>' iavrov kfj^pladTj, there is the additional point of change of tense in the apodosis. He was already divided against himself, in that case, before he casts him- self out. But the tense may be merely due to a quick change of view-point as accomplished (timeless aorist in reality). This point comes out well in verse 28, el Si h rvtviiaTi 0eov kyii k/3aXXw TCI Saifi6vui, &pa i^a' i/iSs fj jSao-tXeto. Note apa with the aorist. For the past ind. in both clauses see Ac. 11 : 17 {el iSiOKev, tIs wvv); 1 Cor. 15 : 2; Rev. 20 : 15 (el tk oix ebpkdv, k^M^v)- For the present ind. in both clauses note Mt. 19 : 10 {el ovtus karlv — ov aviJ.kpeC) ; Ro. 8 : 9; Jo. 15 : 18; 1 Cor. 15 : 10. The presence of the perfect in protasis (15 : 14, 17, 19) or apodosis (15 : 13, 16) does not vary the point. In 2 Cor. 2 : 5, the perfect is followed by the perfect. The fut. ind. may, though rarely in the N. T., occur in both clauses, as in Mt. 26 : 33 {el aKavbaKiaditaovTai., a-KavSoKurdii- aofiai). Cf. Mk. 14 : 29; Lu. 19 : 40; 1 Cor. 3 : 15; 2 Tim. 2 : 12; 1 Cor. 3 : 14 f . But such little niceties cut no figure in this con- struction. There is perfect liberty to mix the tenses ad libitum. So past and present (Lu. 19 : 8 f.; 11 : 20; 2 Cor. 7:8, 14; Ro. Lange (Der horn. Gebr. der Partikel Ei) makes it exclamatoiy. But Hale (The Orig. of Subj. and Opt. Cond. in Gk., Harv. Stu. in Class. PhiloL, 1901) treats it as a demonstrative in the locative case, meaning 'in that case.' This is more probable. MODE (ErKAISIs) 1009 4 : 2; 15 : 27; 1 Jo. 4 : 11), past and future (Jo. 13 : 32; 15 : 20; Lu. 16 : U), present and future (Mt. 17:4; Jo. 5 :47; 11 : 12; Ac. 5 : 39; 19 : 39; Ro. 8 : 11). In 1 Cor. 9:11 el iTa LKoiiuv, kKovkrca. Cf . Mt. 5 : 29; 8 : 31; Lu. 4 : 3; Ac. 16 : 15; Jo. 7:4; 18 : 23. In Lu. 4 : 3, ei vl6% el tov dtov, dirk, we have a good example of the first class condition. The devil would not, of course, use the second class (assumed to be untrue), for that would be an affront to Christ. The third and fourth classes would throw doubt on the point. The temptation, to have force, must be assumed as true. The devil knew it to be true. He accepts that fact as a working hypothesis in the temptation. He is anxious to get Jesus to 'prooe it, as if it needed proof for Christ's own satisfaction and for his reception. If the devil used Aramaic, then we have Christ's own translation of it or that of the Evangelist. In Jo. 18 : 23 (ei xaKws ^XAXjjira, papTvprqaov irepl tov KaKov), however, the as- sumption is not a fact, though Christ treats it as such for argu- ment's sake. Cf. Lu. 23 : 35, 37. In Jo. 20 : 15 note the aorist ind. (ei k^aaraa-as) and the imper. (tlTrk). Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p.- 215) takes ei SeXets in the late Koivri to be hke the French s'il vous plait. Cf. Mt. 17 : 4. For the subj. in the apodosis note Gal. 5 : 25, ei ^(bnev irvevfiarL, xvei/jiaTL nal iJ.ev. The use of iav with the ind. is rather more frequent in the late koij-^. Finally ei came to be "a mere literary alternative.'" In the Koivii in Pisidia and Phrygia kav occurs with the aorist ind., the pres. ind. and the future ind. as well as with the subj.^ The papyri examples are unmistakable, as kav 8eZ in Tb. P. 58 (ii/B.c), kau oldep B. U. 546 (Byz.), kav 4>a.'i.veTai A. P. 93 (ii/A.D.), kav h' elalv O. P. (ii/A.D.), kav Ke\ei)eis 0. P. 1150, 2 f. (vi/A.D.), kav imxovaiv Par. P. 18, kavwep kKir\rjpi}(rovnrf]covcnv, nor in Rev. 2 : 22 kav nil luravoijaovaiv. In Mt. 18 : 19 the editors seem un- willing to follow the MS. evidence for the fut. ind. It is mere tradition to feel that kav has to have the subj. Besides, we have kh.v icrji and edi' nriKkri. irpoadria-eo in Hermas, Mand. ¥,1.2 and Vis. I, 3. 2, V. 1. In Lev. 22 : 9 we find kav PefiriXisaovcnv. There is at any rate no great difference in the resultant sense between the fut. ind. and the aor. subj. and it was a very natural develop- ment. Cf. Homer's use of Kk with both. But, when all is said, as a matter of fact, in the N. T. as in the koivti generally, the rule is for d to appear with the ind. and kav with the subj. In 1 Cor. 7 : 5 we have el firirt. av (bracketed by W. H.) without a verb. It is matched by the papyri.' Thus B. U. 326 d n kav — KaraXixco, 0. P. 105 (ii/A.D.) ei Ti aXXo aiiiv (^)xco, B. M. 233 (Iv/a.d.) d n &v — &va\o>(rxis, Tb. P. 28 (ii/s.c.) d Kav SivaraL. In these the modal av (kav) is separated from ei and used as if with Ss, oirov. Rader- • Prol., p. 168. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 215. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 169. MODE (eFKAISIs) 1011 macher (N. T. Or., p. 162) cites also Joh. Philop., Be wtern., p. 85, 19, el oi}K av — inrapxv- Deissmani sees no analysis of kav iiij Ti in this, though Moulton contends for this explanation. The use of el TrepUeLTai. in Mk. 9 : 42 in the sense of Sn Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 215) calls "quite incorrect." He means it is not " classic." Note the irony in 1 Cor. 14 : 38, el tis ayvoeZ, kyvoelToi. The negative of the protasis in the first class condition is practically always oii in the N. T. We have el oh as a rule, not el nil. In the classic Greek the rule was to use ei firi, and ei ob appeared only where the ob coalesced with a single word (the verb generally) or for sharp antithesis or emphasis.'' But in the N. T., as in the kow'i? generally and occasionally in the Attic,' we meet €1 ov in the condition of the first class. Jannaris* notes 34 examples of el ob in the N. T., but Moulton^ finds only 31 of this class of condition. There is only one in the second, so that there is a slight discrepancy. In truth el /iri occurs only five times with the simple logical condition, and the examples are not quite nor- mal except the one in Mk. 6 : 5, ou/c eSbvaro el nr\ WepaTevaev (a simple past condition), and in 1 Tim. 6 : 3, el tls — ixfi irpoaebxeTai (Blass calls tliis an "abnormal" instance from the literary style. It is surely not "abnormal"). But see 1 Cor. 15 :2 kris ei /xtj eUfj kTUTTebaare, 2 Cor. 13 : 5 ei /il^ri hSoKiiuii kare, Gal. 1 : 7 ei ixij Tiv'e% elcnv. Elsewhere the negative is ob. This is in harmony with the meaning of ob and the ind. mode. The definite negative goes with the definite mode. This is the condition of supposed reality and ei ob is the natural combination. In general Blass* is correct in saying that ob is the negative of the ind. and firi of the other modes including the inf. and part. This, of course, was not the Attic standard, but that was hopelessly gone even for the Atti- cists.' In the modern Greek Sev (from obSev) supplants ob with the ind. and fiii{v) goes with the subj. That is the goal, as Moulton observes,' which is not yet reached in the N. T., for firi occurs in questions of doubt with the ind. and ei fiii still holds on. Even in the modern Greek, Thumb (Handb., p. 195) gives 5ev with subj. or ind. in conditions as a 8iv -Kiarebxis and a &h iriiyaiva. Rader- ' B. S., p. 204. * lb. ' W.-Th., p. 477. ' Pro!., p. 171. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 429. « Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 253. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 170. Of. Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1880, first copy. ' Prol., p. 170. Of. P. Thouvenin, Les Negations dans le Nouveau Testa- ment, Revue de Philol., 1894, p. 229. 1012 A GKAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT macher (N. T. Gr., p. 172) cites Pap. Wess. xxvi, d o\i SlSorai. But the point to get clear is that in the first class condition the normal negative in the Koivfi is ei oh. Moulton counts the idiom 6 times in Luke, 3 in John, 16 in Paul, 2 in James, and one each in Matthew, Hebrews, 2 Peter and Revelation. As examples take Lu. 18 : 4 ei koI t6v Otov oii ^o^ovnai. obSi iLvdpojjrov evrpkrofiai, and Jo. 1 : 25 ei ci o{ik d 6 Xpi<7t6s. In the latter case the nega- tive is very emphatic. So in Jo. 5 : 47 ei oi TiaTevtre. Cf. further Lu. 12 : 26; 16 : 11, 31; Jo. 3 : 12; Ro. 11 : 21; 1 Cor. 15 : 13, 15- 17; 2 Th. 3 : 10. Sometimes ov practically coalesces with the verb, as in Lu. 14 : 26; 1 Cor. 7: 9; 11 : 6; 16 : 22; 1 Tim. 5 : 8; Rev. 20 : 15. The notion of contrast is seen in Jo. 10 : 37 ei ov TToico, ei dk xoiw. Note also kSlv iii) xto-Teurjre. So in 5 : 46 f . ei wl- arebere, ei Si — oi TncTeiiere. See further Lu. 11: 8; Jas. 2 : 11; 2 Pet. 2:4. In Mt. 26 : 42 note ei ov Bvvarai tovto irapeKBeZv eav ixi\ irib). In Ro. 11 : 21, ei ovk 'eiiTris, iyivuiarKev. The Pharisee here assumes that Jesus is not a prophet because he al- lowed the sinful woman to wash his feet. Jesus is therefore bound to be ignorant of her true character. The form of the con- dition reveals the state of mind of the Pharisee, not the truth about Jesus' nature and powers. As a matter of fact it is the Pharisee who is ignorant. For this reason I cannot agree with Moulton's statement* that the ind. is not suited to the expression of contingencies, wishes, commands or other subjective concep- tions. On p. 201 Moulton recovers himself by saying that "these sentences of unfulfilled condition state nothing necessarily unreal in their apodosis," and "the sentence itself only makes it untrue under the circumstances." I should add "as conceived by the speaker or writer." Surely the ind. is the mode for positive and negative statements, for directness of statement and clarity of expression. But one must emphasize the words "statement" and "expression." The ind. does not go behind the face value of the record. Most untruths are told in the ind. mode. The 1 Prol., p. 199. Goodwin, M. and T. (p. 147), sees clearly on this point. . MODE (ErKAISIz) 1013 statement of unreality here from the standpoint of the speaker or writer, is as clear cut and positive as that of reality in the first class condition. The term "unreal" as applied to this use of the ind. properly belongs only to the standpoint of the user. To him the case is impossible and he makes a positive statement to that effect with the ind. By the ind. mode the condition is determined. Whether it is fulfilled or unfulfilled is a more diflicult matter. This idea has to be conveyed by suggestion. It is -not a question of positive or negative, but of definite assumption of unreality. The "unreality" does not come from the ind. That in its origin is a matter wholly of the context. Take Mk. 6 : 5, for instance, oiiK kSbvaro ei lirj idepaTevcrep. In the abstract it is not possible to tell which class of condition we have here. It is either first or second, we know. If the writer is talking about the present time in terms of past time, then it is a second class condition de- termined as unfulfilled. The Greek fell upon the use of the past tenses of the ind. as a device to help in this matter. An unful- filled condition about present time was expressed in terms of the imperfect ind. An unfulfilled condition about past time was ex- pressed in terms of the aorist or the past perfect ind. There is the analogy of wishes to justify it, if, indeed, wishes did not come out of this construction (eWe, ei yap). The origin of this precise point is obscure.i In the context one must seek for light and help. In Mk. 6 : 5 (piK kSiivaro iKel TroifjcraL oiSefiiav 8ivaiJ.iv, ei firi b\iyoLs iippiiaroLs iiridels rds x«'pis kBepairevcrev) it is clear that a definite past event is chronicled. So it is a condition of the first class, de- termined as fulfilled. But in Jo. 15 : 22 (and 24) ei firi JihBov nal eXaXijtra aiirois, apapriav oiiK elxoaav, how is it? Is it a simple his- torical narrative about a past situation? Is it a hypothesis about the present time in terms of past time to suggest its unreality? Fortunately here the context shows. The very next words are vvv 8i irp6(j>a(ri.v oiiK exovcnv wepl t^s anaprlas aircov. (Cf. also vvv Si in verse 24). The contrast with the present and actual situation is made in plain terms. In Jo. 9 : 41 we have vvv 8e even after av. This is not always done in the context and one is either left to his wits or av is added to the apodosis. In verse 18 of John 15 we have ei k rod KfKTiMv ^Te, 6 Koapjos av to lSlov i(j>i\ei,. "The addi- tion of av to an indicative hypothesis produced much the same effect as we can express in writing by itaUcising 'if' "^ or by add- > Cf. Wilhelmus, De Modo Irreali qui Vocatur, 1881, p. 3. Mod. Gk. no longer has this idiom. It uses iv with the past ind. and Si. in the apodosis for av. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 200. 1014 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ing to the apodosis 'in that case.' This is the definite use of av. But it is a mistake to say, as some writers' do, that av in the apod- osis is essential to the second class condition. Even Moulton^ says: "The dropping of av in the apodosis of unfulfilled conditions was classical with phrases like eSei, expv", ndKov ^v." The absence was so undoubtedly, but was av ever really necessary with these verbs? When av was used with them, there was a slight change of meaning. The N. T. is in perfect accord with ancient idiom when it has koXov rjv d ohK kyevv^Orj (Mt. 26 : 24) ; eShvaro el ixri kire- KkK\i]To (Ac. 26 : 32); ei firi ^v, ovk ihiivaro (Jo. 9 : 33), not to men- tion the apodosis alone in Mt. 25 : 27; Lu. 19 : 23; Ac. 22 : 22; 27: 21; 2 Cor. 2 : 3; 12 : 11; 2 Pet. 2 : 21. In Ac. 24 : 19, oBs Uu 'ewl (7oO TapeXvaL Kal Karriyopetv el ti exoiev Tpos hfik, it is a mixed cond. (protasis in fourth class) and the apodosis is itself a relative clause. But the idiom goes further than these verbs of propriety and possibility and obhgation, as is seen in Gal. 4 : 15, el dwarov, eSo}- Kark IJ.01; Jo. 15 : 22, 24; 19 : 11, ovk etxes, el uri rjv aoL Sedofievov; Ro. 7 : 7, oOk eyvuv el firi Sm vojmv and oi)K xi^eiv el fifi eXeyev. In 1 Cor. 5 : 10, eirel oK^etXere, we have the apodosis of this condition. Moul- ton (Prol., p. 200 note) cites 0. P. 526 (ii/A.D.) el Kai fiii av'tfieve, 'eyu> oil wapk^evov; 0. P. 530 (ii/A.D.) el — irapeKeiro, a.TerJKev, though W. H. have ovk av in the margin. "Av is repeated also in Jo. 4:10. The simplest form of this condition is when the imperfect occurs in both clauses or the aorist in both. In the former case present time is generally meant, as in Lu. 7: 39 €i ^v, eylvwdKev av; Jo. 5 : 46 ei kirurTeiere, kiruTTexjere av. So also Jo. 8 : 42; 9 :41; 15 : 19; ' Bamberg, Hauptregeln der griech. Synt., 1890, p. 45.; Conditional Clauses in Gk., p. 2, Anonymous Pamphlet in Bodleian Library. 2 Prol., p. 200. MODE (ErKAISIs) 1015 18 : 36; 1 Cor. 11 : 31; Gal. 1 : 10; Heb. 8 : 4, 1} In Jo. 8 : 19, d ^Sure — av •gSeire, we have the same construction, for this past perfect has the sense of the imperfect. In Heb. 11 : 15, d ifiv^- liovevov — elxov &.V, however, the reference is to past time as the context makes clear. It is descriptive of an unreal hypothesis in the past of a continuous nature. 'If they had kept on remember- ing, they would have kept on having.' This is a classical idiom, though uncommon. Another example is seen in Mt. 23 : 30, el fiiieda kv rats rjiikpais tS>v irarkpav r)iiS>v, oIk av ^fifBa. Only the con- text can help one tell the kind of condition in 1 Cor. 12 : 19 and Heb. 7: 11, for the apodosis appears in the form of a question without av and the verb. The other normal condition of this class is where the aorist ind. occurs in both clauses, as in Mt. 11 : 21 el 'eykvovTO, TraXoi av fierevdrja-av, Mk. 13 : 20 el firj 'eKoKbfiwaev, ovK av kaiidr). This refers to past time. Cf. Mt. 25 : 27; 1 Cor. 2 : 8; Jo. 14 : 2; Heb. 10 : 2 (only apodosis). Sometimes one tense occurs in one clause, another in the other. The standpoint is shifted. Thus in Jo. 14 : 28 el ruairare, kx&PVTe av, Gal. 3 : 21 el edodri, av ^v, Heb. 4 : 8 ei Kar'eiravaev, ovk av KKaXei. Cf. also Jo. 15 : 22, 24. It is not always certain that the present reference of rjv can be insisted on, since there was no separate aorist form of ei/ii. Sometimes Jfv is aorist. So as to Jo. 11 : 21, 32, el ^s, ovk av airiBavev. But the point of difference is certainly made in Jo. 18 : 30, el rjv iroiSiv, ovk av wapeddiKafiev. Cf. also Ac. 18 : 14; Mt. 26 : 24. In Jo. 4 : 10, el fiSeis, ovk av ^TTjo-as, we have the same thing. Cf. also Mt. 24 : 43. In Ac. 18 : 14 note in the next verse el 8e kcTTiv, a\f/e av, where note kav with aorist ind. like the modern Greek av rb fi^ivpa (Thumb, Handb., p. 195). The negative of the second class condition is in the N. T. al- ways iiii except once, Mt. 26 : 24 (Mk. 14 : 21) koKov ijv avrif el ovK ir/evviiBri. Here the oi is very emphatic. Elsewhere we have ei fii] as in Mt. 24 : 22 (note fiij in protasis, ov in apodosis) ; Jo. 9 : 33; 15 : 22, 24; 18 : 30; 19 : 11; Ac. 26 : 32; Ro. 7 : 7. In itself £1 n'li is three times as common in the N. T. as ei ov, but outside of the five examples of el firi in the first class conditions above and one in the third class (Lu. 9 : 13) el y.i] is confined to the second class condition and to the elliptical use like xX^v in the sense of 'except' or the phrase el 8k ht) meaning 'otherwise' with- out a verb (cf. el nij thus in Mt. 12: 4; Lu. 4: 26; el Sk ixii in Jo. 14 : 11).' See a bit later on this point. As already noted, modem Greek uses av bkv in this condition (Thumb, Handb., p. 195). (7) Undetermined, but with Prospect of Determination. This class uses in the condition clause the mode of expectation {Er- wartung), the subj. It is not determined as is true of the first and second class conditions. But the subj. mode brings the expecta- tion within the horizon of a lively hope in spite of the cloud of hovering doubt. W. G. Hale^ considers that the subj. in this condition is due "to a fusion of volitive subj. and the anticipatory subj." Monro^ thinks it is the quasi-imperative sense (volitive subj.). He argues that the use of fiii with the subj. (cf. prohibi- tions) proves this. But Moulton* replies that "the negative fiii, originally excluded from this division of the subjunctive, has trespassed here from the earliest times." So he urges that the subj. with kav (as with orav) is the futuristic, not the volitive, use. The futuristic subj. in Homer may have ov, but usually ix.ri with the subj. in conditions, and yet some cases of el oh with the subj. occur in Homer when ob coalesces with the verb as el obK WeKwaiv, Iliad 3. 289, el ovk elibtnv, 20. 139. In Jer. 6 : 8 we still have jJtis oil KaroiKicd^ in B. The truth probably is that in some instances this subj. is futuristic, in others voUtive or deliberative. The point is a fine one as one can readily see. Gildersleeve^ finds the 1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 254; Moulton, Prol., p. 171. 2 The Origin of Subj. and Opt. Conditions in Gk. and Lat., Harv. Stu. in Class. PhUoL, 1901, p. 115. ' Horn. Gr., p. 230. Stahl, Griech. histor. Synt., p. 390, makes it futuristic. • Prol., p. 185. » Am. Jour, of Philol., 1909, p. 11. MODE (eFKAISIS) 1017 prevalence of the subj. in conditional (as in temporal) clauses due to the greater exactness of the subj. here. It enables one, since it has a "tendency to realization" {Tendenz zur Wirklichkeit) ,^ to make a difference between the indicative and the optative conditions, though it has more afl&nity with the optative, except in the case of some future indicative conditions which come very close to the subj. idea. The kinship in origin and sense ^ of the aorist subj. and fut. ind. makes the Une a rather fine one between el and the fut. ind. and iav and the subj. Indeed, as we sometimes have kav and the fut. ind. in the first class condi- tion, so we occasionally meet d and the subj. in the third class condition. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 162) notes d and subj. at first as a "vulgarism," but surely the classic usage answers that. The inscriptions have usually only kav and aorist subj. he' finds. But he finds also] abundant instances of el and subj. in kolvti and late writers. So Epictetus, II, 18, 11 el ixii ns efaXet^j;, Vet- tius, 274, 11 el 8k Tts Xfryio-ijTat, Hippiatr., 177, 2 ei wpocrtrxv^, Demetrius, De eloc. 21, 11 el ykv-qrai, Pausanias, II, 35, Z el — iiSpehuvTai. So in Lu. 9 : 13 et y.ijTL ayopaaafiev, 1 Cor. 14 : 5 €ktAs el fifj diepiirjveiyg, Ph. 3 : 12 ei KaraXajSco (possibly also el xcos Karav- T'iiao) in verse 11), Rev. 11:5 el rts deKi\ayv KaTaKiKpnai. So Jo. 20 : 23; Ro. 2 : 25; 7 : 2. More difficult seems the aorist ind. in the apodosis. The aor. ind. is sometimes timeless as is always true of the other modes (see chapter on > Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 215. » Prol., p. 186. » Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 371. 1020 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Tenses where papyri parallels are given). That may be the ex- planation here. It is possible also to explain it as a change of standpoint. The protasis looks to the future, while the apodosis turns back to the past. Such vivid changes in language are due to the swift revolution in thought. See Mt. 18 : 15, id.v aKomri, k^pSjjo-as; Jo. 15 : 6, kav m tk tihrg kv iiwi, kp\ridri 'e^ca Kal k^ripavdri (cf . kSo^acdri tva (tikprjTe also of the future) ; 1 Cor. 7 : 28, kav koL yau'ljans, ovx fjnapres- Kal eav yfi/Jin fi irapd'evos, oix fjnaprev. For a similar idiom see Ignatius, Ep. to Romans 8:3; to Polycarp 5:2, Moulton (Prol., p. 247) cites Epict., av niv cTpaTeiiaoifiai, aTrrjWayiiv. See also Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 586. In Mk. 10 : 30, iav liv '>^&Pvy we have kav n'fi almost in the sense of os fii). Cf . also kav uri Im in Mk. 4 : 22. The use of ei ov and eav lirj side by side is seen in Mt. 26 : 42, €1 oil Svvarai, tovto TrapeKdetv kav nij avro ttioj. Cf. also Jo. 10 : 37, 61 oil ttolSi and Kav firi TncTem)Te. (5) Remote Prospect of Determination. Hale^ attributes "the Greek optative assumption to a fusion of the true opt. and the potential opt." The use of the opt. in the protasis of this condi- tion is probably volitive, since the negative^ is ni]. That is cer- tainly true of the optative in wishes with d or et yap (eWe).^ But the deliberative use occurs a few times with et in indirect ques- tions. The potential opt. in the apodosis with av is more difficult to explain. It is certainly not volitive any more, not more than mere fancy (Vorstellung) , the optative of opinion,^ and apparently futuristic. This fourth class condition is undetermined with less likelihood of determination than is true of the third class with the subj. The difference between the third and fourth classes is well illustrated in 1 Pet. 3 : 13 f. So Jesus draws the distinction in Lu. 22 : 67. The use of the opt. in both apodosis and protasis accents the remoteness of the hypothesis. And yet it is not in the category of um-eality as in the second class. It floats in a mirage, but does not slip quite away. It is thus suitable not merely for real doubt, but it also fits well the polite temper of courteous address. It is evident that this condition will be com- paratively infrequent. It is an ornament of the cultured class and was little used by the masses save in a few set phrases (or wishes). It is not strange, therefore, that no complete example of this fourth class condition appears in the LXX, the N. T. or the papyri so far as examined.^ Radermacher {N. T. Gr., pp. • Origin of Subj. and Opt. Cond., Harv. Stu. in Class. Philol., 1901, p. 115. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 196. * Gildersl., Am. J. of Philol., 1909, p. 7. » Cf. Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 227. » Moulton, Prol., p. 196. MODE (eFKAISIS) 1021 133, 143) with all his diligence produces no example of the opt. in both condition and conclusion in the current Koivf]. In the modern Greek it has disappeared completely. In the N. T., as in the LXX, the instances of the protasis are very few. Moulton^ notes only 13 in the LXX apart from the Atticistic 4 Maccabees. Of these he observes that 2 are wishes, 5 are cases of Si(T{irep) el Tw and 2 are indirect questions. There are in the N. T. only 11 examples. Some of these are indirect questions. Thus in 'ekeyov ti fioUKoLTo iropeiiea-dai. (Ac. 25 : 20) we have the opt. of ind. dis- course. The direct was ei /SoiXj;. The same thing is true of 27 : 39, tfiovXevoPTo ei bvvaiTo 'tmSiaai rb tKolov. There is implied indirect discourse or purpose (cf. the classic use of ei for pur- pose).^ So we see aim in Ac. 17: 27, ^rtrtiv ei Spa ye ^■i{Ka4)ri(Teiav avrbv Kal e&poiev, and 20 : 16, eairevSev el dwarov eh). In 27 : 12, ei irws SvvaivTo, we have both purpose and implied indirect discourse. In 24 : 19, el n ^xoi^^v, the protasis is more nearly that of the proper fourth class condition, but even so it is a mixed condition, since the apodosis ?5et belongs to the second class. Blass' ven- tures to suggest ei tl 'exovaiv as more correct. But it is needless to change the text. These examples are all in Acts, one of the more literary books of the N. T. Paul has only the stereotyped phrase ei riixoi. (1 Cor. 14 : 10; 15 : 37), which is a true example of this protasis, "if it should happen." The two other examples are in 1 Pet. 3 : 14 £t Kal iraaxoiTe 5ta biKaioahvriv, fiaKapiOL, and 3 : 17 KpeiTTOV ayaJdoiroiovvTas, ei deKoL to BeKtipM tov 6eov, iraaxeiv. The idiom is a mere torso, as is evident. In 0. P. 1106, 7 (vi/A.D.), ei yap iiniJkkvoitv, irKrjdos einaTi]v, Kal iroiriao). The adverb deike has the force of an imperative. There is an impUed condition here. So also 11:24, iriaTtheTe Kal iarai. Cf. Mt. 7: 7; 11:29; 19:21; Lu. 7:7; Jo. 2:19; 14:16; Jas. 4:7. The imp. may be (Jas. 1 : 5) the apodosis of an expressed condition and the implied protasis of another conclusion.^ In Eph. 5 : 26, dpyi^e- aBi Kal firi aiiapravere, two imperatives together practically answer as protasis and apodosis. In Mt. 7 : 10, ^ koI ixdvv ahiiaei. — ixij &^iv kiriSiia-ei avrQ; the two questions do the same thing in a rough sort of way (anacoluthon). Cf. 1 Pet. 1 : 24. In Mt. 26 : 15, ri OkXerk ixoL bovvai Kh/yd tipZv irapaSixrco ahrbv; the question takes the place of the protasis. Here Kal joins the two parts of the sentence, but in Jas. 5 : 13 we have question and imperative in separate sentences. Cf. also 1 Cor. 7:21. These devices are all found in the classic idiom.' (7) Elliptical Conditions. An incomplete condition is really a species of ellipsis or aposiopesis and is common to all languages.* Ellipsis of the copula in the apodosis (1 Cor. 12 : 19) or the prot- asis (Ro. 8 : 17) is not the point. That is, of course, common. So Ro. 4 : 14; 8 : 17; 11 : 16; 1 Cor. 7: 5; 1 Pet. 3 : 14; 2 Cor. 11 : 16. There may be the absence of either protasis or apodosis. The apodosis is wanting in some instances. The suppression of the apodosis in Lu. 13 : 9, kSlv ixiv wotriaji Kapirov els to fieWov — amounts to aposiopesis.* See also 19 : 42, el iyvias Kal av. Cf. further Mk. 7 : 11; Jo. 6 : 62; Ac. 23 : 9. In Lu. 22 : 42 the aposio- pesis disappears from the text of W. H. (rapiveyKe, not irapeveyKeZv). In 2 Th. 2 : 3, eap fir) eKdji, we have a mere anacoluthon as in Ph. 1:22. These protases belong ^to either the first, second or third classes. The lonely protases of the fourth class discussed above (cf. 1 Pet. 3 : 14, 17) come in here also. We have a species of anacoluthon. The structure of the sentence is changed so that the corresponding apodosis does not follow. In the same ' Moulton, Prol., p. 230. ' Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 110. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 461. * Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 166. « W.-Th., p. 600. 1024 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT way (suppression of apodosis) is to be explained the use of d like tis in the sense of 'not,' in solemn oaths or questions. The apod- osis is wanting. So el SodrjcreTai, rg yeveq, raiirg arjixitov (Mk. 8 : 12). So Heb. 3 : 11 (4 : 3, 5) ei k\ehaovTai (Ps. 94-95 : 11). This is aposiopesis. The full expression is seen in Gen. 14 : 23; Num. 14 : 30; 1 Sam. 14 : 45. It is an apparent imitation of the Hebrew idiom, though not un-Greek in itself. Eadermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 184) treats this idiom in Mk. 8 : 12 as due to translation from the Hebrew (Aramaic). Analogous to this is d fii]v in Heb. 6 : 14, if €1 is not really ^ changed by itacism (cf. Ezek. 33 : 27; 34 : 8). Hort' holds to the difference between el fir/v and ^ fi'^v and would take el in Heb. 6 : 14 as the true el. But Moulton" makes out a good case from the papyri and the inscriptions for taking it as merely a variation of ^ uriv. He finds eleven papyri examples of el iMrjv from ii/B.c. to I/a.d. Particularly clear is the Messenian Mysteries inscr., Michel 694, el nki> l^eiv. If so, it does not come in here. But the use of el in questions is pertinent. Thus el 6X1701 ol aoi^dfievoi; (Lu. 13 : 23). Cf. Mt. 12 : 10; Lu. 12 : 36; 22 :49; Ac. 17: 27; 19 : 2. Eadermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 136) takes d in questions =■§ as in Lu. 22 : 49. This is possible on grounds of ita- cism, but it does not entitle Radermacher to say "werden muJ5." The use of the condition in the sense of 'to see if borders on this elliptical construction. Something has to be supplied before the protasis in order to make the idea clear. The apodosis is virtually contained in the protasis. It is a classic' idiom and reappears in the papyri.* So 0. P. 743, SXos Suiirovoviiai el "E. xaX- Kovs cLTdXeaev. The protasis here may conform to the first class condition as in el exei (Lu. 14 : 28) ; el ttojs ijdri Trori evoSciidiia-Ofiai, (Ro. 1 : 10). So Mk. 11 : 13; Ac. 8 : 22. In Ph. 3 : 12, d xal nara- Xd/Sco, we have the third class and possibly also in Ro. 11 : 14. But in Ac. 27 : 12 it is the fourth class, el xcos Svvaivro. The use of el in the indirect question, as in Mk. 3 : 2, ei Bepairemei, corre- sponds closely with the preceding. Cf. also 11 : 13. The same thing is true of el in the sense pf Srt, as in Ac. 26 : 23. This is also true of el with verbs of wonder, as in Mk. 15 : 44; Ac. 26 : 8. The protasis itself is sometimes abbreviated almost to the van- ishing point, as in el fiii without a verb, in the sense of ' except' (Mt. 5 : 13). Here el and ij,i) seem to coalesce into one word like ir\riv. Cf. 11 : 27, ovSeh eTrtYtvojcKei tov vlov el fir/ 6 waTTip. This is very common as in classic Greek. Sometimes we have el ij.ii nbvov as in • App., p. 151. » Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 180 ff. 2 Prol., p. 46. « Moulton, Prol., p. 194. MODE (efkaisis) 1025 Mt. 21 : 19. The origin of this use of el fiii was the fact that the verb was identical with the preceding one in the apodosis and so was not repeated. From this elUpsis the usage spread to mere exceptions to the previous statement, a hmitation simply. Ei /ii} may make exception to a preceding negative as in Gal. 1 : 19, irepov 8i rm airoa-roXuv ovk etdov d uri 'laKwjSov t6v aStKfjibv. The effect here is to make ei nij seem adversative instead of exceptive. Cf . Mt. 12 : 4. For ib.v firi in this construction see Gal. 2 : 16. In 1 Cor. 7: 17 ei liii has the sense of 'only' and is not to be con- strued with irepiiraTeirdi. The use of el /iri occurs in questions ex- pecting a negative answer, as in Mk. 2 : 7, Hs Siimrai a.ievat. &na,p- Ttos ei /iij els 6 debs; In 1 Cor. 7:5, ei /iijrt [av\, we have ti (cf . et TL in Mt. 18 : 28) added and possibly also Hv. B here omits Ev, possibly to "ease a difficulty" as Moulton^ suggests. If genuine, it would be a sort of analysis of kav into el av that occurs in the illiterate papyri. For examples see under 8, (6), (a). For el ixiiTi with the ind. pres. see 2 Cor. 13 : 5 and the subj. aorist. See Lu. 9 : 13. The use of eKros el firi probably comes by analogy from iKTbs el (cf. Latin nisi), but it occurs in the N. T. without verbs only in 1 Tim. 5 : 19. Elliptical also are el n^i Iva (Jo. 10 : 10); e£ n^h Sri (2 Cor. 12 : 13); el /^i) brav (Mk. 9:9). In Jo. 14 : 11 note ei Si /iri in the sense of 'but if not,' 'otherwise.' Cf. Mk. 2 : 21; Rev. 2:5, 16. For ei 5^ fi^ye see Lu. 5 : 36. Other forms of ei used eUiptically are e'i irep (Ro. 3 : 30) ; coo-ei (Mt. 3 : 16) ; . Cf. also kSlv 8^ in Mt. 26 : 35 with kii.v 5^ in Mk. 14: 31. The use of el (eav) in the sense of 'though' shows that there is at bottom no essential difference. The structure is precisely the same as the conditional sentence. They are, to repeat, nothing but conditional sentences of a special tone or emphasis. The use of Kal was to sharpen this emphasis either up or down. With Kal el the supposition is considered improbable.' With Kal el the truth of the principal sentence is stoutly affirmed in the face of this one objection. It is rhetorically an extreme case. In 1 Cor. 8 : 5, /cat yap eiirep elalv — [aXX'] r)tuv els deos, we have an in- stance. In Mk. 14 : 29 the true text is el Kal, not Kal el. In 1 Pet. 3 : 1 W. H. read simply el. In late Greek Kal el vanishes before Kal av (kav).* So in the N. T. we have Kal kav Kplvia (Jo. 8 : 16). So also Gal. 1 : 8. For Kav see Jo. 8 : 14, kSlv p.apTvpSi. So Mt. 21 : 21; 26 : 35. See Jo. 10 : 38, el 5k wolu, kclv kpol xto-Teiujre. The clauses with kav and the subj. are, of course, third class condi- tions. Sometimes^ Kal el and k&v can hardly ° be considered as strong as 'even if.' They may be resolved into 'and if.' So Mt. 11 : 14; Lu. 6 : 32; Mk. 16 : 18; Jo. 8 : 55; Rev. 11 : 5. Much more common is el Kal. This phrase means 'if also.' Here the protasis is treated as a matter of indifference. If there is a conflict, it makes no real difficulty. There is sometimes a tone of contempt in el Kal. The matter is belittled. There is often some particle in the conclusion in this construction as in Lu..l8 : 4, el Kal Tov Beov oh <^o;3oO/iai obSk avOpairov kvTpkirofiaL, 5ia ye TO irapkxeiv, kt\. Note 7e as in 11 : 8. Cf. Col. 2 : 5, 'ei Kal — aXXd. 1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 215. * Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 465. » N. T. M. and T., p. 112 . » Thayer's Lexicon. » Paley, Gk. Part., p. 31. • Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 114. MODE (efkaisis) 1027 There is considerable variety with el /cat. Thus in 2 Cor. 7 : 8 we have a condition of the first class (so Lu. 11 : 8; 18 : 4, etc.), while in 1 Pet. 3 : 14, ei Kal ■n-acrxoi.Te, we have one instance of the fourth class. With iau xai and the subj. we find, of course, the third class. So Gal. 6 : 1, kav Kal Trpo\riiidfj. Cf. 2 Tim. 2 : 5. In 1 Cor. 7:28, kav Kal yatiijaxis, the notion is 'if even' rather than 'also' (cf. koL iav yfinii)- Iii Mt. 18 : 17 note iav irapaKova-g abrSiv and kav Si koI tijs 'tKKKrjalas irapaKovcf^j. There is nothing peculiar about Ro. 14 : 8, kav re ^cofiev — kav re airodvriaKayfiev. (Cf . Ex. 19 : 13.) Cf. etre — elre with the ind. (1 Cor. 3 : 23) or the subj. (1 Th. 5 : 10). The use of the participle for concession (see Kaiirep S)v, Heb. 5 : 8) will be treated under the Participle. For the use of k&v even after kiv see Mk. 5 : 28. (e) Other Particles with el and kav. These have no effect on the condition as a distinct class, though they modify the precise idea in various ways. This point will be treated more exactly under Particles. But note el apa (Mk. 11 : 13; Ac. 8 : 22); e'L ye (Eph. 4 : 21); el apa ye (Ac. 17: 27 opt.); el ye Kal (2 Cor. 5 : 3); ei 6k liiiye (Lu. 5 : 36); el olv (Mt. 6 : 23; Heb. 7: 11); direp (Ro. 3 : 30); kavirep (Heb. 3 : 14; 6 : 3); ei irois (Ro. 1 : 10, the fut. ind.; Ac. 27 : 12, the opt.). In Mk. 8 : 23 et n is in direct question. 9. Indirect Discourse (Oratio Obliqua). (a) Recitative "On in Oratio Recta. Direct quotation is more frequent in primitive language, in the vernacular, and in all vivid picturesque narrative. It is the dramatic method of reporting speech. It is natural in Homer, in the Old Testament and in the Gospels, in Aristophanes and in Shakespeare, and in Uncle Remus. The prolonged indirect discourse in Thucydides and in Livy, in Xenophon and Csesar, is more or less artificial. In the LXX little use is made of indirect discourse. The direct quotation may not be as verbally exact as the indirect,' but it is more lively and in- teresting. As a rule the direct discourse is simply introduced with a word of saying or thinking. The ancients had no quotation-marks nor our modern colon. But sometimes otl was used before the direct quotation merely to indicate that the words are quoted. We find this idiom occasionally with 6tl, more seldom with d>s, in the Attic writers.' It is very rare' in the LXX, since the Hebrew so frequently has a special participle like ' saying.' But see Gen. 28 : 16. In the N. T. Jannaris* counts 120 instances of recitative on. » Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 130. ' Goodwin, M. and T., p. 285. ' Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 50; but see on the other hand Con. and Stock, Sel., p. 114. " Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 472, 1028 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT The idiom appears chiefly in the historical books. See Mt. 7 : 23, 6iio\oyri'^vrjaai, rpls airapviia'Q lie. So Mk. 1 : 37; 2 : 12, 16; 4: 21; 8 : 28; Jo. 10 : 36; Ac. 25 : 8; Rd. 4 : 17. In Mt. 16 : 7 we have (W. H., but R. V. marg. has cau- sal) recitative on (on aprovs ovk kXa^oiiev) ; while in verse 8 the indirect (probably causal) use, on, &pTovs ovk ix^re; In Mk. 6 : 23 (W. H. marg.) we have a direct quotation with on, in Mt. 14 : 7 the same thing appears as indirect discourse without 3n. In Jo. 10 : 34, aireKpWr] — oiik ta^nv jeypaiipivov on irfi) elira 6eoi kare, note a treble direct quotation, once with 6n and twice without. In Jo. 1 : 50 the first on is recitative, the second is indirect discourse. The on in the begirming of Jo. 20 : 29 is causal. In Jo. 20 : 18 (cf . 3 : 18) on is recitative and declarative. It is doubtful whether it is recitative or causal in Jo. 21 : 17. In Ro. 3 : 8, on iroiiiauiiiv (hortatory subj.), on is also recitative. So in 2 Th. 3 : 10 Sn occurs with the imperative kadikTca. The instances of direct quota- tion without '6n are very numerous. Cf. Mt. 8 : 3; 26 : 25. Some- times the same thing is reported with on (Mt. 19 : 9) or without on (Mk. 10 : 4). For single words quoted without agreement with the word with which they are in apposition note b StSdo-KoXos and 6 Kiiptos in Jo. 13 : 13. W. H. seek to indicate the presence of reci- tative on by beginning the quotation with a capital letter as in all their quotations. Cf . Jo. 9 : 9. This redundant Sn may occur before direct questions as in Mk. 4 : 21 ; 8 : 4. It continues common in the Koivii and the modern Greek uses tt&js in this idiom.^ (6) Change of Person in Indirect Discourse. Sometimes this was not necessary, as in Mt. 27 : 43. So in 16 : 18, Kaydi bk aoi \kycii on (TV d Jlerpos, there is no change in the second person. Cf. also Jo. 11 : 27; Gal. 2 : 14. But in Mt. 20 : 10, kvbmaav on -rXeiov \rip,\l/ovTai, the direct discourse would have 'Kriix\l/bp,fda. So Lu. 24: 23. Compare kXaPoixev in Mt. 16 : 7 with exere in v. 8. Note TL a.-yo}p,ev (direct) in Mt. 6:31, but tI <^d7?jTe (indirect) in 6 : 25. In Mk. 9 : 6, oil yap fjSet ri b-iroKpid^, the direct would be ri airoKpudu; 1 Schmitt, tJber den Urspr. des Substantivsatzes, 1889, p. 66. ^ Thumb, Handb., p. 192. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 472. KoJ rires the TrSs Ak trov rb 'Xe7a ir/w; 'then he Said, Didn't I tell you so?' MODE (efkaizis) 1029 The person may be both ways in the same sentence, as in Ac. 1 : 4, irapijyyiCKev — irepLnheiv Tijv ewayy^lav tov Trarphs ^v iiKovaark fiov. See further under Mixture. (c) Change of Tense in Indirect Discourse. Mr. H. Scott objects to the wide scope here given to the term "indirect discourse" to cover "object clauses" after bp&M, kt\., but I conceive the prin- ciple to be the same. After primary tenses there is, of course, no change in mode or tense. Cf. Mt. 16 : 18; 27 : 43 above. See also Mk. 11 : 24, Tna-rebere '6ti k\6,fieTe Kal ia-rai i/iiv. It is only after secondary tenses that any change occurs. Usually even then there is no change of tense in Greek. Thus ottou ^kovov Sti ecTLv (Mk. 6 : 55). So with d/couo-as OTi jSao-tXeuei — ecl)ofiiidri (Mt. 2 : 22). So ^Xxi- ^ofiev Sti o6t6s kaTiv (Lu. 24 : 21). See also Mt'. 21 : 45; Mk. 6 : 14; Lu. 1 : 22; Jo. 2 : 17; 6 : 24. Cf. Gal. 2 : 14, dSov Sti oiiK dpdoroSov- aiv. So Jo. 11 : 13. In Jo. 21 : 19 the future ind. is retained after ilictv atiiMlvuiv, Cf. Mt. 20: 10. So in Lu. 5 : 19 the aorist subj. occurs. In Mk. 2 : 16 we have on. kadlei twice, the first in ind. discourse and the second with recitative Sti. But sometimes the ancient Greek, even the Attic,^ used a past tense of the indicative in ind. discourse where the direct had the tenses of present time. The N. T. shows occasionally the same construction. In a case like Jo. 1 : 50, elirov o-ot Sti el86v ai, the aorist tense belonged to the direct. Cf . 9 : 30, 32, 35. So as to the imperfect ^v and aorist LvkeiKePiv in Jo. 9 : 18. Cf. also Lu. 13 : 2. In Mt. 27: 18, gSet Sti 5ta- ifSbvov irapkBwKau avrbv, the aorist is used for antecedent action. Cf . irapaSeSdjKetcrav in Mk. 15 : 10. See also Mt. 16 : 12, Sti ovk elirev. But in Jo. 2 : 25, avrds y&p 'eylvoxrKfv tL ^v iv t^ av- 6piiTti$, the direct form^ would have kanv, not ?iv. So with gSei rl ilieKKtv iroLeiv (6 : 6) ; ovk ^yj'Cdo-aj' Sti t6v Tarkpa avTols i\eyev (8 : 27) . Cf. also 11 : 51; 12 : 16, 33; 18 : 32. In Ac. 19 : 32, oiic fjSeLaav rivos hitKa avvtKriKWei.<7av, the past perfect stands when the direct would have the present perfect. In Ac. 16 : 3, ^heiaav Sti "EXXiji* 6 irarTip avTov iTrjpxiv, the imperfect may indicate that Timotheus' father was no longer living, though it is not the necessary meaning, as we have just seen. Cf. Mk. 11 : 32; Jo. 6 : 22-24; 16 : 19; Ac. 22 : 2; 1 Pet. 1 : 12. In Ac. 22 : 29, ktjmfiriBri kinyvovs on 'PunatSs kanv mi on aiiTov ^v SeSeKcis, we see both constructions combined. In 1 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 263. • Cf. Robertson, Short Gr., p. 181. As a matter of fact, the primitive method in aratio ohliqva was probably this very change of tense as in Eng. We have it more frequently in Hom. than the change of mode or the graphic retention of tense. Cf. Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 402. 1030 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Jo. 11 :40, oiiK ilirbv coi ort, k6,v Tnarevaiis oij/ii, the subj. and the fut. ind. are retained after secondary tense, unless on is recitative. This preservation of the original tense appears in clauses not strictly in indirect discourse. In Lu. 9 : 33, elirev — /ii? tlSus 6 'hkyei, the present tense is retained in the relative clause S X^et, as it is in the causal clause in 9 : 49, kKuXionev avrbv brt ovk ajcoXovdei fied' fi/jiuv. In Jo. 21 : 25, x'^P'h'^^i-v, the future inf. stands for the future ind. in the direct, as TtBvrjKkvai does in Ac. 14 : 19 for the perfect ind. In Lu. 20 : 6 dvai really represents the imperfect indicative of the direct. (d) Change of Mode in Indirect Discourse. The rule with the Greek was not to change the tense. The mode after past ten- ses, with more freedom, was either retained' or changed to the corresponding tense of the optative mode. The optative, as the most remote in standpoint of the modes, suited this idiom very well. The imperfect and past perfect indicative were, however, retained, though even here the optative sometimes appeared.^ When the aorist optative represented an aorist indicative of the direct discourse the opt. represented past time.' Usually the op- tative and subjunctive are future as to time. We have the optative in the N. T. in indirect discourse only in Luke. It was in the KOLvi) a mark of literary care, almost Atticism, quite beyond the usual vernacular. And with Luke the idiom is almost confined to indirect questions. Luke never has the opt. after on or cbs. Once (Ac. 25 : 16) in a subordinate temporal clause the optative occurs where the subj. with (cf. Lu. 2 : 26) or without av would be in the direct, vplv ^ txo' — Te 'ka.^oi. And even here ovk ecTTiv after 6tl comes just before. This change in the subordinate clause was also optional in the ancient idiom.* If av was used with the subj. in the direct it was, of course, dropped with the change to the optative in the indirect. Similar to this is the use of ei and the optative with dependent single clause either as prot- asis with implied apodosis or purpose like d yj/Tika^ijiTeiav (Ac. 17 : 27); d Svvardv eiij (20 : 16); d ttojs SvvatvTo (27: 12). Here after primary tenses we should have kav and the subj. or ei and the future ind. Cf. Ph. 3 : 12; Ro. 1 : 10. Cf. ri ypi.4^a.yup.tv. So Lu. 22:2, 4; Ac. 4:21. Cf. subj. with Iva after secondary tenses (Ro. 1 : 13; 1 Pet. 4:6). The use of the optative (as distinct from subj.) in indir. dis- course was a Greek development. We see the beginning of it in Homer. The optative, however, does occur in Lu. (18 : 36, W. H. text, margin av) in an indirect question where the direct had the indicative. Cf. iroTairbs dij m 1: 29. So 8:9, kirripuTuv tLs d-q. In Ac. 21 : 33, kimvdavero tIs etij /cat ri kcriv weiroiriKiis, both con- structions occur side by side. The variation here in the mode (retention of the ind.) gives a certain vividness to this part of the question. See Optative in Paratactic Sentences where the KOivri parallels are given. In jIvolto Kpartlv Traarjs rjs av atprjade xwpas, P. Par. 26 (b.c. 163), there is no sequence of mode. The subj. is with the indefinite relative and the opt. is a wish. It has been already (under Optative) shown that &v and the opt. in an indirect question is there because it was in the direct (cf. Ac. 17 : 18, tI av deXoi; with Lu. 1 : 62, to tL av 6e\oL. Sometimes, one must admit, the difference between the two is reduced to a mini- mum, as in the papyri occasionally.' So in Lu. 9 : 46, to tIs av eiri (cf. to tIs dr) in Lu. 22 : 23). See also Lu. 15 : 26; Ac. 10 : 17. But there is always a shade of difference. The manuscripts re- flect this haziness in the variations between ind. and opt. as in Lu. 18 : 36; 22 : 23; Ac. 2 : 12). In Lu. 3 : 15, p.i) woTe dr,, we also have the opt. in an indir. question. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 165) quotes Diod. I, 75, 5, exetSov — irpoadoiTo. The Atticists used it often. (e) The Limits of Indirect Discourse. It is not always easy to draw the line between indirect discourse and other constructions. Thus Jannaris^ uses it only for declarative clauses with firt or us. Burton' confines it to indirect assertions and indirect questions, but admits that it also covers indirect commands and promises. Take Mt. 14 : 7, difiokoyrjaev air^ dovvai S iav aiT^cjjTai. The Ln- I Moulton, Pro!., p. 198. « Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 471 f. ' N. T. M. and T., p. 131. So most of the grammars. 1032 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT finitive Bovvai is the direct object of the verb and does not seem to be in indir. discourse, for in Mk. 6 : 23 the direct form has SixTd}. But, after all, it is practical indir. discourse, though the analogy of tense construction breaks down in this instance. But note fut. infinitive with Sinoaev in Heb. 3 : 18, according to the principle of indirect discourse. On the whole it is best to consider three classes or kinds of indirect discourse: declarative clauses, indirect questions, indirect commands. (/) Declarative Clauses {Indirect Assertions). (a) "On and the Indicative. There is no clear instance of cis in this sense in the N. T. It was common in the ancient Greek.' Just as final oirtas retreated before I'm, so declarative ojs did before oTiJ^ In late Greek tva monopolized the field as a final particle and divided it with 6tl as a declarative conjunction. We do have (I)s in indirect questions a few times as will be shown. This is more likely the meaning even in Ac. 10 : 28, kwlaTaaBe cbs adkniTov. Reeb' points out that Demosthenes uses is% for what is false and oTi for what is true. The German wie is used like dis with verbs of reading, narrating, testifying. With these verbs dis is more than just on ('that'). "On expresses the thing itself and ws the mode or quality of the thing (Thayer). With this explanation it is possible to consider it as declarative, though really mean- ing 'how.' Cf. Lu. 24: 6, iiviicrdriTe s and tin and TTcSs. W. H. bracket us in Lu. 6 : 4 and read tSk in Mk. 12 : 26 and on in Jude 5, though cis is retained in 7* In all these passages it is possible to regard cbs as the ' how' of indirect ques- tion rather than declarative. The encroachment of irSis on &n is to be noticed also. Cf. Mt. 12 : 4 after avaycvdja-Ku (and Mk. 12 : 26), Mk. 12 : 41 after decopku, Mk. 5 : 16 after Siriykonai., Lu. 14 : 7 after ^ixiov, Ac. 11 : 13 after airayyeXhoj (so 1 Th. 1:9). In the later Greek ir&s comes gradually to be equivalent to 5ti.' Gradually irus gained the ascendency over otl till in the modern Greek it became the regular declarative particle. See Thumb, Handb., p. 190. In Ro. 10 : 15; 11 : 33, cbj is exclamatory. The K01.V1] writers and the papyri show this same retreat of cos before ' Goodwin, M. and T., p. 258. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 571. • De Particulorum Sti et is apud Demosthenum Usu, 1890, p. 38. * Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 230 f. ' Hatz., Einl., p. 19. MODE (efkaisis) 1033 8ti and the inroad of xcos on on (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 159). Cf . B. U., I, 37 (51 A.D.), ot3as TToJs — xP'n^<^i; and Epictetus often after bpaia. There is, however, no doubt of the use of cbs oti in the declarative sense='that.' It is an unclassical combination, but it appears in the LXX (Esther 4 : 14) and in the /cotcij writers.^ It is like the Latin qvusi in the Vulgate. The late papyri (fourth cent. A.D.) show that cbs Srt came in the vernacular to mean simply 'that."* Moulton cites also two Attic inscriptions from the first century B.C. which have cbs on in the sense of d)s or on alone. The editors have removed oti, from cbs oti. in Xenophon's Hellen. Ill, ii, 14, dwoju cos on oKvoLrj. Moulton agrees to Blass' stigma of "unclassical" on cbs oti., but Paul has kolvti support for his use of it in 2 Cor. 5 : 19; 11:21; 2 Th. 2:2. But 8n has won its place in the N. T. not only over dis, but also over the in- finitive. The use of the inf. in indir. discourse' takes quite a sub- ordinate place in the N. T. Luke alone uses it to any extent. The use of otl is the common way of making a declaration in in- direct discourse in the N. T. The periphrasis with otl has super- seded it in nearly all the N. T. writers.* There arose also 5i6ti in the declarative sense* (cf. late Latin quia=quod), but no example occurs in the N. T. The classic causal sense of StoTi prevailed. It is sometimes doubtful whether oti is causal or declarative as in Ac. 22 : 29. The context must decide. Finally, as noted, iroJs came to be the normal declarative conjunction in the ver- nacular (over the inf. as over ojs and otC) as the infinitive disap- peared from indir. discourse.' The only mode used with oti in the N. T. is the ind. In E,o. 3 : 8 (subj.) on is recitative. At bottom on is just o n, and Homer sometimes used o re in the declarative sense (and o). Cf. on oTe together in 1 Cor. 12 : 2. The verbs after which otl is used in the N. T. cover a wide range. Indeed, oti comes also after substantives like ayyekia (1 Jo. 1:5); KpluLs (Jo. 3 : 19); Xo-yos (Jo. 15 : 25); fiaprvpla (1 Jo. 5: 11); iiapTvs (2 Cor. 1:23); irapprjaia. (1 Jo. 5 : 14); (jxcvn (Ac. 22 : 14); <^d(r« (Ac. 21:31). It is in apposition also with h 6v6imtl (Mk. 9:41). We see also h tovti^ Sn (1 Jo. 3:16). Some- ' See Sophocles' Lexicon under tbs. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 413. Moulton (Prol., p. 212) gives C.P.R. 19 (iv/A.D.) irpirnv /3i/3X£o kiriStSoiKa rg (rg iTTi/ieKeiq. d)s 6tl k^ovK^drjv. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 212. * Moulton, Prol., p. 211. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 231. f^ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 413. ' Mitsotakis, Praktische Gr. der neugriechischen Schrift- und Umgangs- sprache, 1891, p. 235. 1034 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT times oTt. itseK seems to imply hv toiitc^ (Ro. 5:8) or irtpl tovtov (Mk. 1 : 34) or eis 'tKtivo (Jo. 2 : 18). Cf. tovto 6ti (Rev. 2:6). Another irregularity of construqjtion is the prolepsis of the sub- stantive before on (and change of case) as in 1 Cor. 16 : 15. This idiom is sometimes called the epexegetic use of on. Cf. Lu. 9 : 49; Ac. 9 : 20. It is a rather common idiom. Cf. Mt. 25 : 24. See especially Jo. 8 : 54. In Ro. 9 : 6 note oix ohv Si on. In 1 Cor. 15 : 27 8rj\ov 'on is almost adverbial, but that is not true of irp68ri\ov oti in Heb. 7: 14. The elliptical H otl (Lu. 2 :49) may be compared with tI ykyovev on in Jo. 14 : 22. The elliptical ovx OTt. (cf . Jo. 6 : 46) is like the corresponding English ' not that.' The on clause may be in the nominative (subject clause) as in Mk. 4 : 38, ov nt\ei riTris ^v (note tjv). Blass' calls this use of €XM a Latinism hke haheo. Cf . also iiToKanPavo} otl (Lu. 7 : 43), a clas- sical construction. So also \aKku (Heb. 11 : 18); o-uju/SijSaf&j (Ac. 16:10); (r(^pa7ifa) (Jo. 3:33); yvcapi^oi (1 Cor. 12:3); 4A^a- Hfcd (Heb. 11:14); h^oiioXoyku (Ph-. 2:11); Karijxfeo (Ac. 21: 21); Krtpvaau (1 Cor. 15:12); airoSe'LKvvp.i (2 Th. 2:4); urivda (Lu. 20 : 37) ; viroStiKwiJiL (Ac." 20 : 35) ; ^vipootMi (2 Cor. 3 : 3) ; avoKoKinrTO) (1 Pet. 1:12); TapadlSwiiL (1 Cor. 15:3); Trapari- Orip.1 (Ac. 17:3); ■wpo^tiTeina (Jo. 11:51). The great mass of the verbs of perceiving, showing (contrary to Attic), knowing, believing, hoping, thinking, saying, declaring, replying, testify- ing, etc., use either the declarative otl or the infinitive. In Lu. 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 231. MODE (efkaisis) 1035 9 : 18 f . with Xtyw we have the inf. and 6ti side by side. So also in Ac. 14 : 22 with irapaKaXba. Outside of X^7w and 6.vTi,\kyu iirinaprvpko, KaraKplvw and irapoKaXeco the infinitive in indir. dis- course in the N. T. is confined to the writings of Luke and Paul and Hebrews according to Viteau,^ "comme vestige de la langue litt^raire." But even with Luke and Paul the rule is to use on. Blass* has a careful Ust of the uses of these verbs. In margin of W. H. in Jo. 5 : 15 we have avay'^&CKbi with Srt, but the text has elirov. But see 8ti also in Ro. 2 : 4 {kyvokia), Mt. 12 : 5 {avafivioaKU)) , Lu. 18 : 37 {airayyeXho}), Ac. 25 : 16 (awoKplvofiai), 1 Jo. 2: 22 (apvko- liai), Ac. 17 : 6 (/SoAoj), 1 Pet. 2 : 3 (yevoiiai.), Ro. 10 : 5 {ypaopkco), 2 Cor. 13 : 2 {irpodprqKa koI irpoKkyoi, of. Gal. 5: 21), Ac. 23 : 34 {wvvBavonai) , Lu. 15 : 6, 9 {avyxalpu), Jo. 18 : 14 (crii/ijSoiiXefia)), Ro. 8 : 16 {avixixapTvpkw) , Mt. 16 : 12 {avvlqij.i), Ju. 5 {viroiufiviiaKcc) , 1 Cor. 10 : 19 {i]p.'i), Lu. 10 : 20 (xaipw), 1 Tim. 1 : 12 (xapii' exw Ttj-i). I caimot claim that this is a complete list, but it is the best I can do with the help of H. Scott, Blass, Thayer, Moulton and Geden, and Viteau's list. At any rate it gives one a fairly clear idea of the advances made by Sn on the classic infin- itive idiom. Some verbs still share the participle with on, but not verbs of showing. These no longer appear in the N. T. with the participle.'' So with on note /SXeTroi (Heb. 3:19); Beiapkw (Mk. 16 : 4). Cf. Ac. 19 : 26, deupkia and aKoica. So als6 kwiyiviiaKOi (Lu. 7: 37); kiriarayiai (Ac. 15 : 7); fipLa-Koi (Ro. 7 : 21); nvqiMvevw (Ac. 20: 31) ; opiiw. (Mk. 2 : 16). Besides some verbs appear with either Sn, the infinitive or the participle. Thus dKouo (Mt. 5 : 21; Jo. 12 : 18; Lu. 4 : 23) ; 'yivdiaKw (Mt. 21 : 45; Heb. 10 : 34; Lu. 8 : 46) ; XoTtfo/^ai (Ro. 8 : 18; 2 Cor. 10 : 2 both inf. and part.); oUa (Ac. 16 : 3; Lu. 4:41; 2 Cor. 12:2); o/xoXoyew (Mt. 7 : 23 unless recitative on; • Le Verbe, p. 51. « Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 231 f. « lb., p. 233. 1036 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Tit. 1 : 16; 2 Jo. 7). In Ac. 27 : 10 we find on used with the in- finitive "quite irregularly" Blass^ calls it. But it is just the classic mingling of two constructions seen in the more usual form in Ac. 14 : 22, where a change is made from the inf. to on and del. Dif- ferent verbs had varying histories in the matter of Sn. It was not a mere alternative with many. With aKoiu, for instance, art, is the usual idiom. The same thing is true with aTOKplvofiat., 7ti'cb- (T/co), /Sodco, olSa, Xiyca, vo/iifo), TricrTeico. But with (t>r]iJ,i, in classical Greek almost always with the infinitive (Ro. 3 : 8), we twice have oTL (1 Cor. 10 : 19; 15 : 50). For on and then the inf. see Mk. 8 : 28 f . The substantive nature of the on clause is well shown in i Th. 3 : 6. For 6n with the inf. see Ac. 27 : 10. Radermacher (A''. T. Gr., p. 159) cites on — fiTrdpxetJ' from Proklus' 7w rem publ., II, 225, 22. (0) The Infinitive. With some verbs we have only single in- stances of the infinitive of indir. discourse in the N. T. So with )3odw (Ac. 25 : 24) ; ywiiiTKoi (Heb. 10 : 34) ; KaroKan^avonai (Ac. 25 : 25); iiykofMi (Ph. 3:8); vo^co (Heb. 11 :3). ' AiroKpivofiai has it only twice (Lu. 20 : 7; Ac. 25 :4). See also d7ro77eXXc<) (Ac. 12 : 14); airapveofiai, (Lu. 22:34); duaxvpi^ofiai. (Ac. 12:15); SriXdoi (Heb. 9:8); erayyeWoimi, (Mk. 14 : 11; Ac. 7:5); knfux.pTiiponai. (1 Pet. 5:12); KaraKpivca (Mk. 14:64); fiaprvpku (Ac. 10:43); wpoaLnaofML (Ro. 3:9); TrpoKarayyeKXco (Ac. 3 : 18) ; arinaiveis (Ac. 11 : 28); xPViJ^'ri-!^'^ (Lu. 2 : 26). Some of these are words that are not used with any construction very often, some occur only with the infinitive, like eiriSuKvicc (Ac. 18 : 28); irpoca (Ac. 18 : 27) ; SeiKviu (Ac. 10 : 28) ; 3t5do-/c&) (Lu. 11 : 1); dia'paprvponai (Ac. 18 : 5); dLavoiyu (Ac. 16 : 14. Cf. Tov in Lu. 24 : 45); eiayyeXi^oiiai (Ac. 14 : 15), cvfiPovXeiioo (Rev. 3 : 18). In Luke and Paul the inf. of indir. discourse is fairly •common with X^toj (Lu. 9 : 18, 20, etc. Cf. Mt. 11 : 24; Mk. 3 : 23) and with vop,i^(a (Lu. 2 : 44; Ac. 7 : 25, etc.). In the old Greek the inf. was the favourite construction in in- direct discourse.^ The Latin had it in all its glory, but the grad- ual disappearance of the inf. from late Greek made it wither away. Indeed, it was a comparatively late development in Greek • Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 233. 2 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 267. MODE (ErKAiziz) 1037 anyhow and is rare in Horner.^ It is not easy to draw the line between jSoiiXo/iot and KeXeiu with the inf. on the one hand and X^w and ro/iifw with the inf. on the other.^ At bottom the con- struction is the same. The question of the case of the substantive or adjective used with this inf. is not vital to the idiom. It is really a misnomer to call it "the accusative and infinitive." That is, in fact, more frequently the case found with this inf., but it is so, not because the idiom calls for it per se, but simply because the infinitive can have no subject, not being a finite verb (cf. the participle). Hence when a noun (not the object) occurs with the inf. in indir. discourse it is put in the accusative of general refer- ence, if there is no word in the sentence in another case for it naturally to agree with by apposition. This matter was dis- cussed under Cases, but will bear some repetition at this point since it is so often misunderstood. Clyde' correctly sees that, since the inf. itself is in a case and is non-finite, it cannot have a subject. Monro ^ thinks that the accusative was a late develop- ment to assist the "virtual" predication of the later inf. Some- times this ace. itself is the direct object of the principal verb (so verbs of asking, etc.). Gildersleeve has a pertinent word: "I look with amazement at the retention [by Cauer in his Grammatica Militans] of Curtius' utterly unsatisfactory, utterly inorganic ex- planation of the ace. c. inf. in oratio obliqua, against which I protested years ago {A. J. P., XVII, 1896, 517): ijyyeiKav on. 6 KOpos kvUrjae becomes ^7761X01' tov KDpof on kvLKijtrev, but on evL- Kva<7KovTes eimi o-o(^oi. See further Ro. 9 : 3; 1 Cor. 3 : 18; 8 : 2;^ 14 : 37; 2 Cor. 10 : 2; Heb. 5 : 11; Jas. 1 : 26; Jo. 7 :4 (W. H. text). In a case hke Lu. 20 : 20 SiKaiovs elvai, is inevitable because of viroKptvo/ikvovs. But there are a good many examples in the N. T. where the nominative could have been properly re- tained and where the accusative has crept in, perhaps owing to a tendency towards uniformity rather than to any special Latin influence as Blass supposed.^ Moulfon^ notes the same tendency in the koiv/j outside of Latin influence. Moulton (JProl., p. 249) refers to iEschylus, P. V. 268 f.,with the note of Sykes and Wynne- Wilson, and to Adam's note on Plato, ApoZ., 36 B., for classical ex- amples of acc._with inf. where nom. could have occurred. Cf. Ro. 6 : 11, ii/ieis \oy'i^eadt eaurous elvai veKpoi)%. It is rare in the classical Greek for the accusative to occur in such sentences.^ The N. T. undoubtedly shows an increase of the ace. where the nominative was the rule for the older Greek. So Ro. 2 : 19, TreToiBas atavrdv oBriydv elvai TV(t>\S>v, where avros (cf . Ro. 9 : 3) would have been suf- ficient. Cf. also Ac. 5 : 36 (cf. 8 : 9) 'Kkryicv ilval Tiva iavrov, (Ph. 3 : 13) iyd) knavrbv ovtci> 'Koyi^ofiai KareCKri^kvai, (Heb. 10 : 34) yivii- aKovres 'exeiv iavrois Kpdaaova liwap^iv, (Eph. 4 : 22) arrodkcdai vfiRs (some distance from the verb kd^daxBrire). See also Ac. 21 : 1; Ro. 1 : 20 f . Blass thinks that in 2 Cor. 7:11 the classical Greek would have had 6vTas, not elvai. Even so, but the N. T. has 1 Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 238 f. » Prol., p. 212 f. 3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 237. MODE (efkaisis) 1039 elvai. An example like Lu. 20 : 20 (see above) is hardly pertinent, since the participle on which the inf. depends is itself in the accu- sative. Cf. Lu. 6 : 4.1 In Ac. 25 : 21, rod UaiiKov kiriKoKeaankvov TTipttadat, aiTov, the pronoun could have been assimilated to the case of IlaiiXou {aJnov). So also in Rev. 2:9; 3:9, tSsv 'keyovroov 'lovdalovs etcai eavTovs (different order in 3 : 9). We find the same lack of assimilation in Ac. 22 : 17, juoi — /wv — ne, and in 25 : 27 HOL — irkfiTTovTa and in Heb. 2 : 10 avri^ — ayaybvra. In 2 Pet. 3 : 3, yipiiaKovres is due to anacoluthon (cf . 1 : 20) as with airkx^irBai. — ixovres (1 Pet. 2 : 11 f.) and with areWonevoL (2 Cor. 8 : 20). So Lu. 1 : 74 fifuv fivadkvTas, 5 : 7 ixerkxais k\66vTas. The Greek of the N. T. did sometimes have assimilation of case as in Ac. 16 : 21, a oiiK i^ecTiv rnup irapaSkxe(Tdai, oi/di woitiv 'Fuiialois oScriv. So also 15 : 25, ido^ev ijiilv yevofievois ofwdvfioSov eK\e^a,iJ.kvois {—ovs margin of W. H.) Trkfi-il/ai (cf. accusative retained inverse 22, kXe^a/i^wus). Cf. also Lu. 1 : 3; 9 : 59; 2 Pet. 2 : 21. Contrast 'ido^k /wi of Lu. 1 : 3 with tdo^a knavrQ of Ac. 26 : 9. The same situation applies to the cases with the articular infinitive. Cf . Mt. 26 : 32, juera to iyepdrjvaL ixe irpodfco. Here the fie is not necessary and avros could have been used. So with Lu. 2 : 4, 5td to elvai aWov. The aMv is superfluous, as in Heb. 7 : 24.^ Cf. Lu. 10 : 35, eydi iv tQ eiravepxe- c6al ne diroSwo-co troi. See further Lu. 1 : 57; 2 : 21; 24 : 30; Ac. 18 : 3. It is easy to show from this use of the articular inf. that the inf. has no proper "subject." The accusative is due to other reasons. Take Lu. 2 : 27, iv tm elaayayeZv tovs yovfts to TraiSiov 'Irjaovv, where the context m&,kes plain that iraLSiov is the object of iiaayayeZv and yoveis the acc. of general reference. The article Tw must be considered in explaining this instance. Cf. Lu. 18 : 5; Ac. 1 : 3; 27 : 4; Heb. 5 : 12 (three accusatives in W. H.'s text). The acc. with the inf. was normal when the substantive with the inf. was different from the subject of the principal verb. Cf. Ro. 3 : 8, (jiaaLv Tive tums Xeyeic oiri (note inf. after 0r;//i, and 6ti after \kyca, but it is recitative on). In Lu. 24 : 23, XeyoverLv aMu ^fjv, we see 'Kkyu with the acc. and inf. Typical examples are seen in Mt. 17 :4, KoXov iffTiv vfias S>5e elvai, Ac. 12 : 14; 14 : 19; 16 : 13; 24 : 15; 1 Pet. 3 : 17; 5 : 12; 1 Cor. 14 : 5; Heb. 9 : 8. See further Verbal Aspects of Inf., (d), in next chapter. The tense of the original is preserved in the inf. as a rule. A case like Mt. 14 : 7, kvai, P. Oxy. 37 (a.d. 49). There is little more to say. The use of tov and the inf. as sub- ject has already been conunented on. See tov ktSeiv, Lu. 17 : 1, where to. (XKavbaXa is the ace. of general reference while this geni- tive inf. is itself in the nominative case. See also Ac. 10 : 25. We do not have av with the inf. in indir. discourse. In 2 Cor. 10* : 9, iva nil 86^0} (jis &v eKope'LV, we have cos av='as if.' It is not the av in apodosis. Nestle in his N. T. gives at 1 Pet. 5 : 8 ^riTwv riva. Karainuv, but surely tlvo. is the correct accent. W. H. -places even this in the margin. Souter prints nva, departing from R. V. which has nva. But Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 147) cites Cal- linicus in Vita Hypatii, 57, 12, ttoO evpetv, and 113, 11, tI iroirjadi. (cf. German Was tunf). It may be worth while to add that sometimes we meet an inf. dependent on an inf. (cf. inf. on part, in Lu. 20 : 20). I have noticed the idiom only in Luke and Paul. Cf . Lu. 6 : 12, e^ekOetv avrov eis to opos irpoctv^audai, where the first is in indirect discourse, and Ac. 18 : 2, Sui to diareTaxipai KXaii- Slov xcoptfecSat Trd^Tas Tois 'lovSaiovs, where the second is indirect discourse (indir. conmiand). Cf. Ro. 15 : 8. (7) The Participle. Middleton' suggests that the use of the participle in indir. discourse is older than the inf. This may be true, since in the Sanskrit it developed much more rapidly than the inf. But there were cross-currents at work in indirect discourse. Just as the inf. was circumscribed by the declarative 6tl, so the participle was limited by 6ti or the infinitive. Thus verbs of showing (StiKvvtu, Sri\6co) and of manifesting ((^avepow) no longer occur with the participle in the N. T. However, we have the participle with (jmivoijuu ('appear'), as in Mt. 6 : 16. Besides, the participle has disappeared from use with aiadavonai, navekvw, ne- fivrjfuu, avviriiu. The participles with navdavu in 1 Tim. 5 : 13 are additional statements, as the Revised Version correctly translates. With the inf. pavBavM means 'to learn how,' not 'to learn that.' ■ Analogy in Synt., p. 64. MODE (eFKAISIs) 1041 Cf. Phi 4 : 11; Tit. 3 : 14. But some verbs in the N. T. still have the participle in indir. discourse. They are verbs of percep- tion by the senses (hearing, seeing, knowing). In the ancient Greek the nominative was used when the participle referred to the subject of the verb. Thus 6pSi ijjuaprij/cdjs meant 'I see that I have sinned.' In the N. T., however, we have declarative 6tl in such clauses (Mk. 5 : 29; 1 Jo. 3 : 14) .^ Viteau^ rightly insists on a real difference between the participial conception and the de- clarative oTi or the inf. If the idea is one of intellectual appre- hension merely, an opinion or judgment, we have 6pS> &ti, (Jas. 2 : 24). If it is a real experience, the participle occurs as in Mk. 8 : 24, c!)s SkvSpa bpS> TepiiraTovvTas. So in Ac. 8 : 23, eis abvSeaiiov bpSi o-e ivTa. There is something in this distinction. Cf. /SX^irw 8ti (Jas. 2 : 22), but the participle in Heb. 2 : 9, 'lr}uovv karti^avoi- fikvov. In Mk. 8 : 24 we have on with /SXIttw and the part, with 6pS). The realistic quality of the part, is finely brought out in Mk. 9 : 1, itos av ISwaiv ttjv PcuriKtiav . tov 6eov k\ri\vdv'tav kv Svvi.fia. Note the tense as in Lu. 10 : 18, Wtospow t6v J^aravSiv — ireaSvTa. Cf. 9:49; 21:20; Ac. 11:13; 17:16. See Jo. 19:33, cbs eldov ^Stj airbv TeBvriKOTa. The tense of the direct is preserved. See for deapiu, Mk. 16 : 4 and Lu. 24 : 39, KoBihs e^^ Owpttre ixovra. For 'eiriaraiMi take Ac. 15 : 7 and 24 : 10. Cf . also nvrtiiovevos with OTL (Ac. 20 : 31) and the part. (2 Tun. 2:8). It is very clear in ebp'uTKu (see on in Ro. 7 : 21) which, as in classic Greek, is com- monly used with the participle. See Mt. 1 : 18; 12 : 44; Lu. 23: 2; Ac. 9:2. In Mt. 1:18 we have the personal construction eip'edri exovaa. In Lu. 23 : 2 we find three participles. AoKina^di in the N. T. has only the inf. (Ro. 1 : 28) and the participle (2 Cor. 8 : 22). So with Tjjkopai. (Ph. 2 : 6; 3 : 7). Cf. also exe ixe irapyTi]- fikvov (Lu. 14 : 18). In 2 Jo. 7 note the part, with dirnXoykoj. In verse 4, irepiTaTovvTas with ebplcKw, the case agrees only in sense with k tSiv TkKvwv. The difference between on with olSa (Ac. 23 : 5) and the part, is clear (2 Cor. 12: 2), though this is the only in- stance of the part, with this verb. It prefers on, but may have the inf. (Lu. 4 : 41). The difference is even clearer in yLvojaKca. See on in Mt. 21 : 45, the inf. in Heb. 10 : 34. The usual idiom is on, but note Lu. 8 : 46, ejvav Sbmniv h^eKriXvdvlav air' kfiov, where Christ thus graphically describes the terrible nervous loss from his heal- ing work. He felt the power "gone" out of him. In our ver- nacular we speak of a sense of "goneness." See also Ac. 19 : 35; Heb. 13 : 23. But see Mk. 5 : 29, &yvw r^ aiiiian on laTai. In 1 Blasa, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 246. * Le Verbe, p. 53 f. 1042 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Mk. 5 : 30 kmyiviiaKoi} has the attributive participle after it. 'Akovco also occurs with declarative on, (Mt. 5 : 21; so usually), the inf. (Jo. 12 : 18; 1 Cor. 11 : 18) or the part. (Aq. 7 : 12; 14 : 9; 3 Jo. 4; 2 Th. 3 : 11, etc.). These examples have the accu- sative when the thing is understood. Blass' curiously calls the ace. incorrect in Ac. 9:4; 26 : 14. The genitive with (pccvri does occur in 11:7; 22:7. Blass has an overrefinement on this point. As with the ace. construction of the part. Tvith d/couco, so most of the genitive examples are found in the Acts. So 2:6; 6 : 11; 14 : 9, etc. But see also Mk. 12 : 28, aKoiaas avrdv av^ri- TovvTwv. So 14 : 58; Lu. 18 : 36; Jo. 1 : 37. The perfect part, in this construction is seen in Lu. 8 :46; Jo. 19 : 33, etc. For the aorist see Lu. 10 : 18. In Mk. 6 : 8 we have oratio variata. The sentence starts with Iva and concludes with the inf. Hence the part. inro5eb€ixkvov$ is construed with the inf. See 'the ace. part, in Rev. 4 : 4 as explained by dSov in verse 1, though l5oii and the nominative have come between. (5) Kat 'eykvtTo. One hardly knows whether to treat this con- struction as indirect discourse or not. It is a clear imitation of the Hebrew "^tt^l and is common in the LXX with two construc- tions. It is either koi kykvtTo Kal with finite verb (or kyevero Se) as in Gen. 24 : 30; 29 : 13; Josh. 5 : 1, etc.), or we have asyndeton, Kal kytv€To plus finite verb (Gen. 22 : 1; 24 : 45, etc.). For kjkvero we often find eyevfidTi (1 Sam. 4:1; 11 : 1, etc.). This asyndeton is also common in the future as Kal iarai with finite verb (Is. 9 : 16; 10 : 20, 27, etc.). This Kal eaTciL construction is quoted a few times in the N. T. (Ac. 2 : 17, 21; Ro. 9 : 26) from the LXX. For Kal iarai ml see Ex. 13 : 11 f. W. F. Moulton^.has pointed out that the idiom occurs when the principal sentence has some note of time. J. H. Moulton^ quotes Driver (Tenses, § 78) as describing the ^D;!! construction in a similar fashion, "a clause specifying the circumstances under which an action takes place." All the examples of these two constructions in Luke fit this de- scription. Luke has in the Gospel eleven of the koI kykvero Kal ex- amples and twenty-two of the Kal 'eykvtro type. For koI iyevero Kal see Lu. 17 : 11; without the second Kal 17 : 14. See in particular Lu. 8 and 9. It is frequently the case that Luke has kv rcf and the inf. with the idiom. So 9 : 51, iykvero Si kv tQ avixirXripovcOaL — Kal avTos kariipiaev. Here Kal is almost equivalent to on. So koI kyk- veto kv T(f dvai — eXirkv tis (11 : 1). We have Kal kykvero Kal also in » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 246. » W.-M., p. 760, n. 2. a Prol., p. 16. MODE (ErKAisis) 1043 Mt. 9 : 10. The form Kal iytvero Moulton' counts outside of Luke only twice in Mark and five times in Matthew with the phrase kr/kvero ore ertKeaev. Cf. Mt. 7 : 28. Moulton is concerned to show against Dalman that the idiom is not Semitic. He ad- mits the Hebraism in koI kyivero /cat, but doubts as to Kal kyivero (asyndeton). But surely the LXX has left its mark in this point also. The LXX does not have iyiviro (or ylveTai) and the infini- tive (but cf. 2 Mace. 3 : 16 ^v — riTpixTKtcOai). In the N. T. we find it in Mt. 18 : 13; Mk. 2 : 15; five times in Luke and seventeen times in Acts. Cf. hiuv yivoLTo Kparttv, P. Par. 26 (b.c. 163-2). The other two constructions are absent from the Acts, showing that in the Gospel Luke was more directly using Semitic sources or imitating the LXX on the point. But even so inf. with ir/kviTo is not ancient Greek, which used avvkfit}. We do have awipt] and the inf. in Ac. 21 : 35. The modem Athenian vernacular has (rvvk^ri 6tl while the country districts^ use h-vxe va. Moulton finds the inf. with ylverai in the papyri and rightly sees in the vernacu- lar Koivri the origin of this idiom. There is no essential difference between the inf. with yiverai and kyevero. Cf. Ac. 6:1; 16 : 16; 9 : 32, 37, 43; 11 : 26, etc. Outside of Luke (Gospel and Acts) the inf. with 'eykvero is confined to Mk. 2 : 23, which Moulton calls "a primitive assimilation of Lu. 6:1." See Ac. 10:25, kyk- v€To Tov iiaeXBetv. This is Moulton's presentation, which is cer- tainly more just than the mere description of "Hebraism" for all these constructions.' We do not have the on clause with ylvtrai or iyivero in the N. T. {g) Indirect Questions. (o) Tense. See (c) under Indirect Discourse. It may here be simply stated that when the principal verb is primary no change in tense occurs. When it is secondary, still no change appears as a rule, though occasionally one does see it, as in Jo. 2 : 25; 6 : 6; 18 : 32. But note ivwdavero xov ytwarai, (Mt. 2:4); ideiipovv vov rWiiTai (Mk. 15 : 47). Cf. Ac. 10 : 18. Note difference between present perfect in Mk. 15 : 44 and the aorist in the same verse. For the future ind. see Jo. 21 : 19; Mk. 11 : 13. (0) Mode. It is only necessary to say that as a rule the same mode is retained in the indirect question that was in the direct. Thus see Mk. 5 : 14; 15 : 47; Lu. 8 : 36; 23 : 55; Ac. 10 : 29, where the indicative occurs. We have the ind. after secondary as well as primary tenses. This is the common idiom in the N. T. as in > lb. » lb., p. 17. » Afl in Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 142 f. 1044 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the Koivii. In all instances where a subj. appears in this con- struction it is due to the fact that the subj. would have been present in the direct (deliberative subj.). Note ri 4m.yo}nev; in Mt. 6 : 31 and tI 4>ayriTi (6 : 25). See also irov fikveis; of Jo. 1 : 38 and elSav irov ixkva of verse 39 for the retention of the indicative. The Latin changed the ind. to the subj. in indirect questions, but the Greek did not. This deliberative subj. occurs after primary- tenses as in Lu. 9 : 58, ovk ?x" toO riiv K&jjaXrjv kKIvih, and after sec- ondary tenses also as in Mk. 9 : 6, oii yap ■gdet rl a-woKpiB^. Cf. also Mk. 6 : 36; Lu. 5 : 19; 12 : 36. So also the optative occurs a few times where it was in the direct. This is the construction with av which has already been discussed twice. See Ac. 17 : 18, t'l av 6(\oi, for the direct form, and Lu! 1 : 62, H av d'eKoi, for the indirect. Cf. Lu. 9 : 46; Ac. 5 : 24. In 2 Tun. 2 : 25, ni) wore Stb?? (W. H. have Siyg in margin), we have the optative without Slv after a primary tense if 54u; be correct. Moulton* Considers the subj. here a "syntactical necessity." We need not moralize, therefore, on this instance of the optative even if it is genuine. Radermacher (Neut. Gr., p. 132) shows that the Atticists frequently used the opt. after a primary tense, as copyists often fail to catch the spirit of a thing. The papyri (ib.) have some illustrations of the same idiom. The other examples of the opt. in indirect questions are all after secondary tenses and the change is made from an indica- tive or a subj. to the optative. These examples all occur in Luke. As instances of the opt. where the direct had the ind. see Lu. 1 : 29; 3 : 15; 18 : 36. See Ac. 21 : 33 for both modes. In Ac. 17 : 27, et apaye yl/'i(Ka Prol., pp. 55, 193. Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 134. " Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 68. MODE (ErKAisiz) 1045 served in indirect questions, as in Jo. 13 : 24 (cf. 13 : 12). The occasional confusion between rts and os was discussed under Pro- nouns. See 1 Tim. 1 : 7 and Jas. 3 : 13. Now and then the sim- ple relative pronoun or adverb is used in an indirect question, as was true of classical Greek also. So Mk. 5 : 19 f . oaa, Lu. 8 : 47 Si fjv airiav, Ac. 15 : 14 Kadws, 1 Th. 1 : 5 dot, and the various examples of us discussed in connecition with Indirect Assertions (Lu. 8 : 47; Ac. 10 : 28, 38, etc.) which are more likely to be understood in the sense of 'how,' and so indirect questions. Cf. Lu. 6:3 f. (S and cos), Mt. 10 : 19 {bodiiaerai. ir&s fj H XaX^o-Tjre) and Lu. 17 : 8. Other interrogative words used are irov (Mt. 2 : 4), TTodev (Jo. 8 : 14), ttoTos (Rev. 3 : 3), wore (Lu. 12 : 36), irws (Lu. 8 : 36), xj^Xkos (Gal. 6 : 11), 7r6a.ycc; some writers take the ottou clause as an indirect question with the deliberative subj., but it may be the volitive subj. simply. There are plenty of in- stances of ei in indirect questions (see Conditional Sentences) as in Mk. 15 :44 after 0avfi&,^oi and exepwraw; Lu. 14 : 28 after ^ij- (^tfw; 14 : 31 after ^ovXevoimi.; Mt. 26 : 63 after elTov; 27 : 49 after dpaca; Mk. 3 : 2 after xapariypeo); Jo. 9 : 25 after olSa; Ac. 4 : 19 after Kplvcc; 10 : 18 after irvvdavotia.1.; 19 : 2 after okouco; 2 Cor. 2 : 9 after yivwaKoi; 13 : 5 after xetpafw. There are, besides, those passages' where a word is suppressed, like Mk. 11 : 13; Eph. 3 : 2; Ph. 3 : 12; 2 Th. 2 : 15. See also the optative with ei in Ac. 17 : 27; 25 : 20; 27 : 12. This is all quite classical and gives no trouble. We find firj likewise used in an indirect question after cKovki} with the indicative (Lu. 11 : 35) and /i^ xore after 810X071- fo;uot with the opt. (Lu. 3 : 15). In Jo. 7 : 17 an alternative indi- rect question occurs with irorepov — ij. The only other alternative construction in an indirect question is in 2 Cor. 12 : 2 f . after oUa, and is etre — dre. In all these points the N. T. is in harmony with the K01V17. The use of ri with the subj. (Mk. 6 : 36) or the future ind. (Ac. 25 : 26 possibly subj. aor.) may be compared with TTOV after exw in Lu. 9 : 58. In Col. 4 : 6 xcSs after eiSkvai is to be distinguished from the use of the inf. after ol8a ('know how to do.' Cf. Lu. 11 : 13). In Mk. 2 : 24, tSe ti irotoDo-ij'; the tS^ is prob- ably just the interjection as in Mt. 25 : 25. For the ace. and the ind. question side by side see Mt. 16 : 9. (5) The Article with Indirect Questions. This classical idiom » Cf. Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 62. 1046 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT appears in Luke and Paul. See to tL (Lu. 1 : 62), rd ris (9 : 46), rd xcos (22 : 4). So Paul has to ttiSs in 1 Th. 4 : 1 and to tI in Ro. 8:26 (cf. tI t6 in 8:27). See also Lu. 22:23f.; Ac. 4:21; 22 : 30. The substantive nature of the indirect question is well shown also in Jo. 4 : 10. Cf. Lu. 24 : 19 f. (h) Indirect Command. As already explained, this construction is somewhat vague and the line is hard to draw between this and other idioms. (a) Deliberative Question. A direct command may be turned into a dehberative question in the indirect with the subjunctive. The volitive idea of the imperative thus ghdes into the delibera- tive. In Lu. 12 : 5, iiroSei^u 5e iniv Tiva 4>o0r]97JT€- (t>oPiidriTe top, ktX., we have the point illustrated both in the direct (imperative) and the indirect (deliberative subj.). Here the only difference be- tween the two forms is the accent. Cf . /ii? ofiuadi. Obviously this is a natural, though not very frequent, turn for the command to take. (/3) The Conjunctions Iva, and ottojs. These may be used after verbs of commanding and beseeching. This idiom does not differ clearly from the sub-final construction. It is a species of purpose (or sub-final. See Final Clauses). The examples there given might suffice, but note the following: Mk. 6 : 8 wapiiyyeCKtv aurois iva uriSkv a'ipcoaLV, Mt. 16 : 20 'eireTiixricrtv toIs iJ,aBr\Tais Iva firjdivl ehrca- aiv, 2 Th. 3 : 12 TapayyeWo/j.tv Kal wapaKoKoviiev kv KvpLia 'Ir/o-oO XptcTTQ Iva — kadluaLV, Ac. 25 : 3 aiTovfievoL otuis fieTairifJof/riTaL. See further Mt. 8 : 34; Lu. 16 : 27; 1 Cor. 1 : 10. In Lu. 16 : 27 f. we have the purely final idea in both ottojs and Iva which are sub- ordinate to the first Iva after kpoiTSi. But we cannot follow this use of Lva after dekca and such verbs where it is more or less purely objective. The recitative on with the imperative in 2 Th. 3 : 10 is not an instance of indirect command, but simply the direct command preserved. (t) The Infinitive. It seems more obvious and is still common in the kolvt], though retreating before IVa. The negative is, of course, nrj. This use of the infinitive must not be confounded with the idiom for indirect assertion (declarative) as in Mk. 12 : 18, OLTives X^70i;o'i)' avauTaaLV firi elvai,. Note Ac. 21 : 21, \eyuv nil irepiTkiuiuv avTOvs to reKva p,ri5i tois Wtatv irepiiraTetv, where we have prohibition, not assertion (note incidentally the two accusatives) with X^Ycov (same verb as above). So also 23 : 12, "KeyovTes fiiire ct>ayeiv nijTe welv. Cf . 21 : 4. Simple enough is the construction after elira in Lu. 9 : 54, enrojixev irvp KaTa^rjvai; See also Mk. 8 : MODE (efkaisis) 1047 7. In Mt. 16 : 12, awfJKav Sn om elirev irpoakx&.v (cf. irpoakxtn in verses 6 and 11), we have the declarative Sn and the indicative followed by the inf. in indirect command. In Lu. 2 : 26, fiv air^ Kex.pi)iMTiay,kvov fiij Idetv davarov, the construction is like that of in- direct command, but the sense comes nearer to the mere object infinitive. See the direct diicro} in Mk. 6 : 23 reproduced in the indirect by dovvai (Mt. 14 : 7). There is a certain amount of free- dom taken in such transference to the indirect. In Ac. 18 : 2, Sta t6 Siarerax^vai 'KKaiiSiov x^^pi't^'^Oai itavTa's, the inf. is dependent on an inf. Other instances of the inf. in indir. command are seen in Ac. 25 : 24, fioUvTes firi deiv airdv f^v, 26 : 20, i.T'fiyyeWov fieTavoeiv. In 2 Th. 3 : 6 we have irapayyeWonev arkWecBai, while in verse 12 we have tva. In verse 10 the direct quotation follows this same verb. In Mk. 6 : 8 f. we have both tva. ixii alpuaiv and p,ri ivd{>aa(rBaL (marg. of W. H., Mi) evSiiariaQi) after wapiiyyeiXev. Luke (9 : 3-5) gives it all in the direct form. In 2 Th. 3 : 14, rovrov ai]iM.ovade, jiii avvavafilyvvcBai avr^, the inf. is not in indirect com- mand, but rather the inf. used in the direct as the equivalent of the imperative. But in 1 Cor. 5 : 11, eypa\l/a iipXv firi cwavan'iyw- aOai (so also verse 9), we do have indirect command. (i) Mixture. Strictly this point belongs to the chapter on Figures of Speech (cf. also, Oratio Variata, The Sentence), but a word is called for here. We have mixture of several sorts as in the classic Greek. In Ac. 19 : 1 f., IlaOXoi' eXdelv Kal ebptiv, tl-rkv re, we have the infinitive (object-clause subject of iyivero) and the finite clause elirev re side by side. Cf. Ac. 4 : 5 f . for inf. followed by nai and the indicative. So in Lu. 9 : 19 we have the infinitive construction and the otl construction side by side after cLiroKptBkvres elirav. In Ac. 14 : 22, irapaKaXovvres kiifiivtiv Tjj viaTu, KoX on — Set, the construction glides from the inf. into Sri. In Ro. 3 : 8 the recitative on is dependent on the inf. X^yeii' after (paaiv. In Ac. 9 : 27, 5i,T)yricavT0 irois ev tjJ bhQ elBev tov Kbpiov Kal on e\a\riaev airQ, Kal ircoj kt\., we have a change from ind. question to indirect assertion and then back again to indirect question. The change may be from the indirect to the direct as in Ac. 1 : 4, irept-nkveiv rriv ewayyeXiav tov warpos ^v riKovcark pov. Cf. also 23 : 22. See also Jo. 12 : 29. This change appears in Mk. 6 : 8 f., if the true text is evbiiatiade. But the change may be just the reverse, from the direct to the indirect, as in Ac. 23 : 23, elttev ''EroipAffare — KTijvq re TapacrrrjaaL. In 27 : 10 on occurs with the inf., a mixture of the on and the infinitive constructions in indirect assertions. This use of on with the inf. appears in 1048 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT classic Attic (cf. Xen., Cyr., 1, 6, 18, etc.). See Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 570. Moulton {ProL, p. 213) gives a papyrus example, O. P. 237 (ii/A.D.), Sri\&v on el to. aki^drj (j)aveiri iir\5i Kpiaeus Seladai. t6 Tpayfw.. See further Winer-Moulton, p. 426. (j) The Subordinate Clause. A complex sentence may be quoted in indirect discourse as readily as the simple sentence. This principal clause follows the usual laws already discussed. Secondary tenses of the indicative in the subordinate clause suffer no change at all in mood or tense.' This is obviously true after primary tenses, as in Gal. 4 : 15, iiaprvpu i/uv on el Suvarov — iSdsKark noi. Here the copula ^v is suppressed. In Lu. 19 : 15 note elwev (jxavrjBTJvai — ols SeSwKei. So after primary tenses the pri- mary tense follows, as in Mk. 11 : 23, Xeyoi 6tl os av el'xjj — 'iaTcu amQ. Cf . Ac. 25 : 14 f . But even after secondary tenses the rule is to retain the tense and mode of the direct much more than in the Attic where the mode was quite optional.^ See Lu. 9 : 33, ilirev nil etScis S X^7€t. Another example of the relative clause appears in Mt. 18 : 25, kKkXevaev — irpadfjmi — Kal oca ex«t- Even after a con- dition of the second class the primary tense may be retained, as in Lu. 7 : 39, kylvucKO/ av ris /cat Trorainj 77 yvvri ^ris aTTTerai aiirov on djitapTcoXos kcnv. For a causal sentence see eKcaXvofiep aiirbv 6ti. ovK hKoKovBCi ixeS' ^pMv (Lu. 9 :49). A temporal clause with the subjunctive appears in Mt. 14 : 22, rivayKaaev — irpoayeiv — ews ov dxoXiiffjj. See also Ac. 23 : 12, aveBenancav — eojs o5 airoKTelvoicrLV. In 25 : 16, however, we have the optative in the subordinate clause of time with rplv fj {exoi, Xafioi) after a-KeKpldtjv, the sole ex- ample. It is in Luke, as one would expect. The change here is from the subj. to the opt. In Lu. 7 : 43, on ^, only the subordinate relative clause is given. 10. Series of Subordinate Clauses. It is interesting to observe how rich the Greek language is in- subordinate clauses and how they dovetail into each other. It is almost like an end- less chain. The series may run on ad infinitum and yet all be in perfect conformity to the genius of the language. I have col- lected quite a number of examples to illustrate this complexity of structure, some of which are here given. A typical one is Mk. 11 : 23. After X^yco 6n we have Ss av dir-g which has watio recta, but the relative clause proceeds with Kal iiri diaKpidfj dXXd naTeifn on o XaXei yiverai,. The relative 8 XaXeT is the fourth involution of subordinate clauses after Xeyco. Cf. also Jo. 17 : 24. A similar multiplicity of subordinate clauses is found in Ac. 25 : 14^16. ' Goodwin, M. and T., p. 273. » lb., p. 272. MODE (ErKAizis) 1049 After hvkdeTo \kyuv we have orcUio recta. The first step is the rela- tive clause irepl o5 — kveepeLV ottov ^kovov Sti yriv (infinitive, relative, declarative). So again 1 Cor. 11 : 23 f . (oTt, g, etirev and oratio recta). Here also the 6 clause is in appo- sition with the OTt clause. Cf. Lu. 19 : 15 (inf., tm, tQ. In Ac. 7 : 25, kvofiL^ev avvikvai tovs aSeXc^ois oti, ktK., we have two forms of indirect assertion (the inf., then otl), one dependent on the other. So also OTt follows 8m t6 XeyeaBai in Lu. 9 : 7 f . In Ph. 4 : 10 we have the oti clause and then the articular inf. In Jo. 6 : 24 the OTt clause is subordinate to the ore clause. In 1 Jo. 5 : 9 we have a OTt clause dependent on a oti clause. In Jo. 4 : 1 we have us — On — 3Tt. In Mt. 16 : 20 the sequence is I'm — STt. So Jo. 16: 4; 17: 23. In Mk. 14 : 14 we have two cases of oratio recta, one dependent on the other. In Lu. 24 : 7 it is cbs — oTt. Cf . Iva — Iva in Gal 3 : 14. In Col. 1 : 9 the Iva clause and the infinitive ireptwaTrjcrai are parallel. The instances are numerous where one infinitive is dependent on another infinitive. Thus e^fXdeiv irpatv^aadai (Lu. 6 : 12) ; boBrivai a'ye1u (8 : 55) ; irpos to Seiv wpoaev- Xeff^at (18 : 1) ; Slo, to Teraxevai KXauStoi' x<^pi-l^i<^SaL, after kXriXvdoTa (Ac. 18 : 2) ; Setv -wpa^ai (26 : 9) ; yeyev^a-dai ets to fii^aiciaaL (Ro. 15 : 8); KaTTipTurdai els to yejovkvai, (Heb. 11 : 3). In Ac. 23 : 30, urivv- delaris /tot JirtjSouXijs ets Tdp av8pa iatadai, the future inf. in indirect discourse is dependent on the participle in the genitive absolute. In Heb. 9 : 8, toOto SjjXoOi'tos toO xveifiaTOs tov a/yiov ire^avepihaBat., the perfect inf. follows the genitive absolute. There are various other combinations. These are given as illustrations. No rules are called for about the using of a series of subordinate clauses. The presence of so many of them in Luke, Paul and Hebrews shows the literary quality of a more periodic structure. CHAPTER XX VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT "PHMAT02) I. Kinship. The finite verb, verbum finitum {das bestimmte Verb), has now been discussed as adequately as the space in this grammar allows. Originally there was no difference between verb and noun (see Conjugation of .the Verb). But gradually there was developed a difference. It was done largely by the help of the pronouns which were added to the verb-stems. Nouns also had their own inflection. But a considerable body of words partook of the nature of both verb and noun and yet did not cut loose from either. In a sense therefore the finite verb is a com- bination of verb and pronoun while the non-finite verb combines verb and noun. These verbal nouns are the non-finite verb, ver- bum infinitum (das unbestimmte Verb).^ They failed to add the personal pronominal endings of the finite verb and so did not become limited to a subject (finite). And yet they developed tense and voice and were used with the same cases as the finite verb. In so far they are true verbs. On the other hand they are themselves always in a case like other nouns. The verbal sub- stantive comes to drop its inflection (fixed case-form) while the verbal adjective is regularly inflected in the singular and plural of all three genders just like any other adjective. These verbal nouns may be regarded either as hybrids or as cases of arrested development, more properly deflected development, for they con- tinued to develop in a very wonderful way. The Greek of the Attic period would be barren indeed if robbed of the infinitives and the participles. The names are not distinctive, since both are participles'' (partake of the nature of both verb and noun) and both are non-finite or infinitives (are not limited to a subject by personal endings). The root-difference between these lies not > K.-Bl., Bd. II, p. 4. ' In K.-G. (Bd. II, p. 1) the ch. begins thus: "Lehre von den Partizipialen; dem Infinitiv und dem Partizipe." Both are "participles" and both are "infinitives." 1050 VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT "PHMATOZ) 1051 in the verbal idea, but in the noun. It is the difference between substantive and adjective. Both are verbals, both are nouns, but one is a substantive and the other is an adjective. These general remarks may help one to understand the history and usage of both infinitive and participle. n. The Infinitive (v diTape|i(|)aTos sykXio-is or t6 dirap^|i<})aTov pffjia). 1. Origin. There is no real ground for difference of opinion on this subject, however much scholars may argue as to the sig- nificance of the infinitive.^ In the Sanskrit the infinitive did not have tense nor voice. The root used was that of a substantive closely connected with a verb.^ But it is verbal in Sanskrit also in the notion of action, nomina adionis. In the Veda and Brah- mana the number of these verbal nouns is very large. They are used with cases, the cases corresponding to the verb, but that phenomenon appears in Latin and Greek. In Plautus "we even find the abstract noun tactio in the nominative governing its case just as if it were tangere. Classical Greek has a few well- known examples of a noun or adjective governing the case ap- propriate to the verb with which it is closely connected."^ The same thing occurs in the N. T. also. Cf. Koiviavla 4>i>itI (2 Cor. 6 : 14). See chapter on Cases. These substantives have enough "verbal consciousness" to "govern" cases.' In the old San- skrit these verbal substantives occur in any case (except the vocative, which is not a real case). The later Sanskrit has only one such case-ending so used, the accusative in -turn or -^twn (cf. the Latin supine).* But for the developments in other lan- guages, especially in the Greek and Latin, these Sanskrit verbal substantives would not have been called infinitives. But they show beyond controversy the true origin of the infinitive before tense and voice were added. They were originally substantives in any case, which were used as fixed case-forms (cf. adverbs) which had a verbal idea (action), and which were made on verbal roots. The Latin shows three cases used in this way: the loca- tive as in regere, the dative as in regi and the accusative as in the supine rectum.^ The Greek infinitive shows only two case- endings, the dative —at as in XOo-ai (cf. also SoFevai, dovvai,, with Sanskrit davane; Homeric FiSfievai. with Sanskrit vidmdrm) or the 1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 297. ' lb., p. 203. * Moulton, Prol., p. 202. ' Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. 347 ff. ' Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 202; Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 469; Vogrinz, Gr. d. horn. Dial., 1889, p. 139. 1052 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT locative in Xietc* Thus in the Greek and Latin it is only oblique cases that were used to form the infinitives.'' It is then as a substantive that the infinitive makes its start. We see this in the Sanskrit davdne vdsunam = Sovvai t&v ayaSSiv? - This substantive aspect is clearly seen in the use of iravrbs with rov ^rjv in Heb. 2 : 15. ' The first^ step towards the verbal idea was in the con- struction Sovuai. TO, ayada. Moulton* illustrates the border-land of the English inf. by the sentence: "He went out to work again." If we read "hard work" we have a substantive; but if we read "work hard," we have a verbal notion. Strictly speaking, dovmi tA ct7a0a = 'for giving the good things,' while ISeiv to. aya6a. = ' in seeing the good things.' This was the original etymological sense as the Sanskrit makes clear. See further chapter on Conjugation of Verb. 2. Development. In the Sanskrit we see the primitive in- finitive without tense or voice. In the modern Greek the in- finitive, outside of the Pontic dialect, has disappeared save with auxiliary verbs, and even so it is in a mutilated state, as with 6k\ii Xuei, fj6e\a Sedet, 'exoo dkaei, remnants of the ancient infini- tives Xiietv, SedrjvaL, BkcraL (Thumb, Handb., pp. 162, 167). Between these two extremes comes the history of the rise and fall of the Greek infinitive. We may sketch that history in five periods.* (o) The Prehistoric Period. The infinitive is simply a substan- tive with the strict sense of the dative or locative case. Cf. the Sanskrit. We may infer also that there was no tense nor voice. This original epexegetical use of the inf. as the dative of limita- tion has survived with verbs, substantives and adjectives. So 6 xpovos rov rtKdv (Lu. 1:57). Cf. our "a wonder to behold." See dvvaraL dovKebeiv (Mt. 6 : 24), 6p/iij iiffpiaai (Ac. 14 : 5), havos \vcraL (Mk. 1:7). See also Jas. 1: 19, raxvs ds to d/coCcrai, where eis t6 reproduces the dative idea. (&) The Earliest Historic Period. The case-form (dative or lo- cative) begins to lose its significance. In Homer the dative idea is still the usual one for the infinitive, in harmony with the form.' With verbs of wishing, commanding, expecting, beginning, being able, etc., the dative idea is probably the original explanation of 1 Cf. Gilea (Man., p. 470) for Xfr-eiK and its relation to the Sana. -sanr4. 2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 515. * lb. ' lb. 6 proi., p. 203. " Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 143, has four. But see Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 188. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 154. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOS) 1053 the idiom. Cf. olSare SiS6vai (Mt. 7: 11), 'knows how to give' (for 'giving'). Homer has ;8^ S' i€i'ai='stepped' for 'going.' But already in Homer there are signs that the case-form is getting obscured or stereotyped. It occurs as apparent subject with impersonal verbs and as the logical object of verbs of saying in indirect discourse.^ The use of vpip with the inf. is common also in Homer. Upiv would naturally be used with the ablative, like purd and the infinitive in Sanskrit,'' and so the Greek idiom must have arisen after the dative or locative idea of the inf. in Greek was beginning to fade.' In Homer the inf. is already a fixed case-form. The disappearance of -ai as a distinct case-ending in Greek may have made men forget that the usual inf. was dative. This dative inf. was probably a survival of the old and once common dative of purpose. Gradually the inf. passed from being merely a word of limitation (epexegetic) to being subject or object. We see the beginning of this process in Homer, though there is only* one instance of the article with the inf., and that is in the Odyssey (20. 52), t6 4>vKa.(Tcrei,v. But even here rb may be demonstrative.^ But in Homer the inf. has tense and voice, a tremendous advance over the Sanskrit inf. This advance marks a distinct access of the verbal aspect of the inf. But there was no notion of time in the tense of the inf. except in indir. discourse where analogy plays a part and the inf. represents a finite mode.^ This use of the inf., afterwards so common in Latin, seems to have been developed first in the Greek.' But it was the loss of the dative force as aQ essential factor that allowed the inf. to become distinctly verbalized.' As it came to be, it was an imperfect instrument of language. As a verb it lacked person, number and time except in indirect discourse. As a substantive it lacked inflection (without case or number) after it came to be limited to two cases. Even after the case-idea van- ished and it was used in various cases it was still indeclinable.' 1 lb., pp. 157, 159. » Whitney, Sans. Gr., § 983. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 158. It seems a bit odd to find Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 145) saying of the inf.: "in seiner virsprungUchen Bedeutung als Modus." The inf. is not a mode and the original use was substantival, not verbal. ' Monro, ib., p. 179. " Birklein, Entwickelungsgesch. des substantivierten Infin., 1888, p. 2 f. » Monro, Hom. Gk., pp. 158 ff. Cf . Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 515. ' Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 299. « Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1882, p. 195. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 568. 1054 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT The addition of tense and voice to the fixed case-form of the substantive with verbal root was possible just because of the obscuration of the case-idea. (c) The Classic Period from Pindar on. The articular infini- tive is often used and there is renewed accent on its substanti- val aspects. The inf. is freely used with or without the article in any case (except vocative) without any regard to the dative or locative ending. Pindar first uses the neuter article to with the inf. as the subject.^ "By the assumption of the article it was substantivized again with a decided increment of its power."'' It is to be remembered, however, that the article itself is a de- velopment from the demonstrative and was very rare in Homer with anything. Hence too much must not be made of the later use of the article with the inf. Hesiod shows two examples of the article with the inf. Pindar has nine and one in the accusative.' The absence or ambiguous character of the article in early Greek makes it necessary to be slow in denying the substantival aspect or character of the inf. in the Homeric period.* Hence it is best to think of the article as being used more freely with the inf. as with other nouns as the article made its onward way. The greatly increased use of the article with the inf. did serve to restore the balance between the substantival and verbal aspects of the inf. now that tense and voice had come in. The enlarged verb-force was retained along with the fresh access of substantival force. "The Greek infinitive has a life of its own, and a richer and more subtle development thsEi can be found in any of the cog- nate languages."^ The infinitive, thus enriched on both sides, has a great career in the classic period of the language, especially in Thucydides, the Orators, Xenophon and Plato. It has a great variety of uses. In general, however, it may be said that the inf. was not as popular in the vernacular as in the literary style for the very reason that it was synthetic rather than analytic, that it lacked clearness and emphasis.^ But it was not till the KOLvri period that the inf. began to disappear.' (d) The Kocvri Period. The inf. begins to disappear before Iva ' Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 143. ' Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1882, p. 195. ' Birklein, Entw. d. subst. Infinitivs, p. 4 f. * Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 576. Hesseling (Easai hist, sur I'infinitif grec, 1892, p. 5) puts the matter too strongly. ' Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1882, p. 195. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 569. ' lb., p. 480. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOS) 1055 on the one hand and on on the other. Jannaris' outlines the two chief functions of the inf. in its developed state to be 'pro- spedive (purpose like Iva) and declarative (subject or object like Sti, and tva ultimately also). The fondness for analysis rather than synthesis, particularly in the vernacular, gradually pushed the inf. to the wall. The process was slow, but sure. There is indeed a counter tendency in the enlarged use of roO and the inf. in the Koivi}, particularly in the LXX under the influence of the Hebrew infinitive construct, and so to some extent in the N. T. So from Polybius on there is seen an increase of tov and the inf. side by side with the enlarged use of Iva and on. The two contradictory tendencies work at the same time.^ On the whole in the kolvti the inf. has all the main idioms of the classic age (with the marked absence of e<^' i^ re) and the new turn given to TOV and tv tQ. The Hebrew did not use the inf. as much as the Greek and never with the article. Certainly the inf. is far less frequent in the LXX than in the comparatively free Greek of the N. T., about half as often (2.5 to the page in the LXX, 4.2 in the N. T.).' But the Hebrew has not, even in the LXX, introduced any new uses of the inf. in the Greek. The Hebrew inf. construct had no article and was thus unlike rov and the inf. The total number of infinitives in the N. T., according to Votaw,* is 2,276. The number of anarthrous infs. is 1,957, of articular 319. The inroad of 'Lva and on, is thus manifest as compared with the Attic writers. The writings of Luke show the largest and most varied use of the inf., while the Johannine writings have the fewest.* Paul's use is very uneven. Votaw^ finds the same inequality in the case of the apocryphal books. The papyri show a similar situation. Different writers vary greatly, but on the whole the inf. is dying save in the use with auxiliary verbs, and it is going even there as is seen from the use of lva. with SeXo) in the N. T. Cf. Mk. 9 : 30. In the Koivii we find lva with /3ouXo/*oi and Siivafiai, in Polybius, the LXX and later Kotvij writers.'' As the inf. disappears in the later Greek strange combinations appear, as in Malalas and Theophanes we ' ffist. Gk. Gr., p. 568. * Kalker, Questiones de Elocutione Polyb., 1880, p. 302. ■■ Votaw, The Use of the Inf. in Bibl. Gk., 1896, p. 55. * lb., p. 50. ' lb., p. 52. ' lb. ' Thompson, Synt. of Attic' Gk., p. 248. Cf . Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 574, for list of verbs with tva in late Gk. 1056 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT meet irp6 rod with the subjunctive (rpd tov kTippi^aiaLv, icpb tov evwdSxriv).^ The inf. never had a monopoly of any construction save as the complement of certain verbs hke /3o6Xo/iat, Beku, etc. This was probably the original use of the inf. with verbs and it was true to the dative case-idea.'' It was here alone that the inf. was able to make a partial stand to avoid complete obliteration. (e) The Later Period. Outside of the Pontic dialect the inf. is dead, both anarthrous and articular, save with the auxiliary verbs.' The use of 6k\o3 as a mere auxiliary is common enough in Herodcjtus and probably was frequent 'in the vernacular then ' as it was later.* " The fortunes of the infinitive were determined by its nature."^ The increased use of abstract nouns made it less needed for that purpose, as the fondness for tva and on made it less necessary as a verb. The N. T. is mid-stream in this cur- rent and also midway between the rise and the end of this river. The writers will use the inf. and 'im side by side or the inf. and oTL parallel. Even in the classical Attic we find Sttojs after irei- paopai, (Xenophon).' As otojs disappeared tva stepped into its place. In Latin ut was likewise often used when the inf. could have occurred. The blending of Iva and oti. in the koivti helped on the process. In the N. T. the exclusive province of the inf. is a rather nar- row' one. It still occurs alone with bbvapai and iikWui. It has a wide extension of territory with tov. But on the whole it has made distinct retreat since the Attic period. The story is one of the most interesting in the history of language. 3. Significance. Originally, as we have seen, the infinitive was a substantive, but a verbal substantive. This set case of an abstract substantive has related itself closely to the verb.* The Stoic grammarians' called it a verb, a,irapkij4o-Tov ^fj/m, airapkiu^- Tos "eyKKitrii. ApoUonius Dyskolos*" called it a "fifth mode" and the later grammarians followed his error. Some of the Roman grammarians actually took infinitivus in the sense perfectus, * Rueger, Beitr. zur hist. Sjmt. d. griech. Sprache, 1895, p. 11. 2 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 154. ' Jebb in V. and D.'s Handb., p. 324. * lb., p. 326. G. Meyer (Essays und Studien, 1885, p. 101) says that the Albanians are the only Slavic folk "dem ein Infinitiv abgeht." It is due to the mod. Gk. ' Thompson, Synt. of the Attic Gk., p. 247. « Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 221. ' lb., p. 222. 8 Curtius, Erlaut., p. 296. 9 Jolly, Gesoh. des Inf. im Indoger., 1873, p. 16. >» lb., p. 22. VERBAL NOXTNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOz) 1057 just as they mistranslated yeviKfi by genitivus.^ Bopp^ rightly perceived that the inf. has a nominal origin and was later ad- justed to the verb in Greek. It is not a real verb in the very height of its glory.' And yet the consciousness of the nominal origin was partially obscured even in the time of Homer. The original case-form is so far forgotten that this dative may appes r in the nominative and the accusative. The tenses and voices have developed. But Brugmann^ seems to go too far in saying that already the inf. was "only",a verb in the popular feeling. Moulton,* indeed, harks back to ApoUonius Dyskolos: "The mention of 'The Verb' has been omitted in the heading of this chapter, in deference to the susceptibilities of grammarians who wax warm when Xiiuv or Xiio-as is attached to the verb instead of the noun. But having thus done homage to orthodoxy, we pro- ceed to treat these two categories almost exclusively as if they were mere verbal moods, as for most practical purposes they are." He states, it is true, that every schoolboy knows that in origin and part of the use the inf. is a substantive, but "nearly all that is distinctive is verbal."^ I venture to say that this is overstating the case. It is not a mere question of the notion of the user of the infinitive in this passage or that. The history is as it is. In the full development of the inf. we see the blending of both substantive and verb. In this or that example the substantival or the verbal aspect of the hybrid form may be dom- inant, but the inf. in the historical period is always both substan- tive and verb. It is not just a substantive, nor just a verb, but both at the same time. The form itself shows this. The usage conforms to the facts of etymology. It is not true that the article makes the inf. a substantive as Winer'' has it. As a matter of fact, therefore, the inf. is to be classed neither with the noun nor with the verb, but with the participle, and both stand apart as verbal nouns. The article did enlarge* the scope of the inf. just as the use of tense did. The Germans can say das Trinken and French le savoir like the Greek to "ivSivai.. There is no infinitive in Arabic. As a matter of fact, the inf. because of its lack of end- ings (here the participle is better off with the adjective endings) is the least capable of all parts of speech of fulfilling its functions.' ' lb., pp. 31 ff. ' Vergl. Gr., p. 3. ' Of. Schroeder, tJber die formelle Untersch. der Redet. im Griechischen und Lateinischen, p. 10. « Griech. Gr., p. 515. « lb. » Goodwin, M. and T., p. 298. » Prol., p. 202. ' W.-M., p. 406. » W.-M., p. 399. 1058 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT In its very nature it is supplementary. It is either declarative or prospective,' but always a verbal substantive. There is a differ- ence between to wpaaaeiv and t\ xpafts. Both have verbal stems and both are abstract. The difference^ lies in the tense and voice of irpaaaeiv. But irpaaauv has all that is in xpSfts plus tense and voice. I decline, therefore, to divide the infinitive into the anarthrous and articular uses so popular in the grammars. These uses do exist, but they simply represent two uses of the inf. in its substantival aspects. They do not affect the verbal side of the inf. at all. The inf. may properly be discussed under its sub- stantival and its verbal aspects. But even so a number of uses cross over as indirect discourse, for instance, or the inf. to express purpose (with or without the article). We must look at both sides of the inf. every time- to get a total idea of its value. A number of points of a special nature will require treatment. 4. Substantival Aspects of the Infinitive. (a) Case (Subject or Object Infinitive). Here I mean the cases of the inf. itself, not the cases used with it. The inf. is always in a case. As a substantive this is obvious. We have to dismiss, for the most part, all notion of the ending (dative or locative) and treat it as an indeclinable substantive. A whole series of impersonal expressions has the inf. as subject besides the ordinary verbs. Thus note 1 Cor. 9 : 15 koKov fioi uSiWov awodaveXv, (Heb. 4 : 6; 9 : 27) airoKeiTai toTs audpoiirois awa^ airodaveiv, (Mt. 18 : 13) kav- ykvij- Tai fvpeiv avro, (3 : 15) wpkwov 'tarlv ■fip.iv irKijpSxrai, (Ac. 21 : 35) avvk^t) ^offTa^iadai, (Lu. 6 : 12) kyhero i^eXdeiv avrov, (18 : 25) tiiKO- iriiTepov iariv elaeKdeiV, (Jo. 18 : 14) avfufikpet. airodaveiv, (Mt. 22 : 17) i^ecTLV 5odvaL, (Heb. 9 : 5) ovk mtiv vvv \iy€i.v, (Ac. 27 : 24) Set irapa- (rTrjvaL, (Ac. 2 : 24) ^v Svvardv Kparetadai, (Ph. 3:1) ra aura ypd- ^eiv oOk oKvripbv. So Ac. 20 : 16; 2 Pet. 2 : 21. All this is simple enough. The articular inf. -is likewise found in the nominative as in Mk. 9 : 10, ri kcnv to kK veKpSiv avaaTfjvai. Here the article is not far removed from the original demonstrative. Cf. 10 : 40, to Kadlaai ovk eariv kpov bovvai, where bovvai is probably the original dative 'for giving.' One naturally feels that the articular inf. is more substantival than the anarthrous, as in Ro. 7 : 18, to 6k- 'Kei.v TapaKCLTai not, but that is not correct. The siibject-inf. oc- curs freely both with and without the article in the N. T. as in the Koivri generally. See Mt. 15 : 20 rd pov€Zv, the acc. may be that of general reference. Cer- tainly in 1 Th. 3:3, ro aaiveaOai, this is true. Blass' calls it here "quite superfluous." In Ro. 14 : 13 to ixii ndkvai is in ap- position with the accusative tovto, as in 2 Cor. 2:1. In 2 Cor. 10 : 2, bkopai TO nil irapdsv dapprjffai, we should naturally look for the ablative with Skofmi. The instances without the article are more numerous. A fairly complete list of the verbs in the N. T. that have the inf. in indirect discourse was given in the chapter on Modes (Indirect Discourse, (/), (0)). These infs. are in the acc, 1 Prol., p. 210. 2 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 57. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 234. Cf. 2 Esd. 6 : 8 rd ^ij KaTapyneijpai. 1060 A GRAMMAE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT though some of them may possibly preserve the original dative or locative idea. But the ace. with the inf. is that of general reference, while the inf. itself is in the ace. case, the object of the verb of saying or thinking. Cf. Lu. 2 : 44, von'icavres aiirdv etvai. The occasional use of the nom. predicate, as in Ph. 4 : 11, e/iaBov avrapKris dmi, accents the ace. character of the object-inf. This point is clear also in the case of indirect commands where the noun or pronoun is in the dative and the inf. in the ace, as in 1 Cor. 5 : 11, iypaif/a iiuv nfi avvavaiiiyvvadai. The illustrations are numerous and need not be multiplied (see list under Indirect Discourse). With ^ovXofiai, Svvafiai, BeXco the dative makes a good idea and was probably so understood in the beginning.^ It may be questioned, however, if in actual usage this idiom is not also the ace. Cf. Mt. 1 : 19 e/SouXiJ&rj air6\vaai, (1 : 20) ixri ^o/Sijflgs irapa.- XajSeiy, (5 : 34) \eyci> iifuv /*)) ofioaai, (16 : 12) oi/c elirev vpoakxnv, (Lu. 18 : 1) irp6% TO Seiv irpoaeiixtadai (both ihfs. in the ace, one with irpos, the other general reference with Setv), (Ro. 15 : 8) \irfu Xpiarov diaKovov yeyevrjadai (cf. Ac. 27: 13), (2 Cor. 10:2) 'Koyl^ofMi ToKn^aai, (1 Th. 4 : 11) irapaKoXovfiev irepuraebeiv Kal (^CKorinttaBai. ijo-uxafaiy Kal irpaatreiv to. tSia Kal kpya^eaBai (note the interrelation of these infs.). See further Mk. 6:28; 12 : 12; Lu. 16:3; Jo. 5: 18; Ro. 14: 2; Gal. 3: 2; 1 Cor. 10 : 13. In the ace. also are the articular infs. with prepositions like ew (Ro. 1: 11); 5td (Ac. 8 : 11); ai£tA (Lu. 22 : 20); 7rp6s (Mt. 5 : 28). But the inf. occurs in the other oblique cases also with more or less frequency. The genitive, for instance, appears with the prepositions avrl (Jas. 4:15); Sia (Heb. 2 : 15, 5io xajros rov triv); hiKa (2 Cor. 7: 12);?cos (Ac. 8 :40). The only instance of an attribute with the infinitive in the N. T. is Heb. 2 : 15, except in apposition with tovto. It was rare in classic Greek and confined to pronouns. Cf. to avTov vpaTTav, Plato, Rep. 433. The genitive may be found with kwi.'XavdcCvofjuiL as in Mk. 8 : 14, iire\a.6ovTo XajSety (cf. kirikoBkadai rod ipyov in Heb. 6 : 10. But we have to. oriaco in Ph. 3 : 13). At any rate in Lu. 1 : 9, eKaxe tov Bvniacai (cf. 1 Sam. 14 : 47), we have an undoubted genitive. Cf. also iMTefieKridriTe tov TrtoTeOo-ai (Mt. 21 : 32). The very common use of tov with the inf. must also be noted. Most of these are genitives, as in to axoXecrai (Mt. 2 : 13). The free use of tov with the inf. where the case is not genitive will be discussed under a special section under the article with the inf. Cf., for instance, Lu. 17: 1; Ac. 10 : 25; 20 : 3; 27: 1. The gen. occurs ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 154. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT -PHMATOs) 1061 with substantives just as other substantives are used. This is a fairly common idiom. See Ac. 27:20 kXirh iraaa rod aii^eadai, (1 Cor. 9 : 10) kir' kXiridi rod /xerkxeiv, (10 : 13) rriv 'iK0apbvr)vaL avTov, Ac. 10 : 47 Sivarai KcoXDcat rts tov /li] ^a.irTiadyjvaL, 14 : 18 KaTkiravaav tov jii] dvuv. Cf. also Ac. 20 : 20, 27; Ro. 11 : 10; 15 : 22; 2 Cor. 1 : 8; Heb. 7 : 23; 1 Pet. 3 : 10. Cf. in the LXX, Gen. 16:2; 20:6; Ps. 38:2; 68:24 (quoted in Ro. 11 : 10); Is. 24: 10; 1 Sam. 8:7; Jer. 7: 10.^ The abl. occurs also with prep- ositions as Ik in 2 Cor. 8 : 11, k tov ext^v and irpo, in Mt. 6: 8 Tpo TOV aiTTJa-ai. In Ac. 15 :' 28, ToWoiv t&v iiravajKes, aTrexeadai., the inf. is in the abl., in apposition with the preceding words. The only instance of the inf. in the instrumental in the N. T. occurs in 2 Cor. 2 : 13, r<5 p,r) ebpetv p,e "VItov. The inf. is not found with aiiv in the N. T. Votaw {Inf. in Biblical Greek, p. 29) notes six examples of thie instrumental t^j and the inf. in the LXX text ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 234. » Cf. Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 172. 1062 A GKAMMAE OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT of B (2 Chron. 28 : 22; Eccl. 1 : 16; Is. 56 : 6; 4 Mace. 17: 20, 21). But other MSS. vary. Moulton {Prol, p. 220) cites L. Pb. (ii/B.c), aXXus Si tQ uridiv' ix^i^v- The locative occurs with h as in kv tQ eiiXoyeZv (Lu. 24 : 51). It is extremely frequent in the N. T., especially in Luke. The possible Hebraistic aspect of the idiom comes up under Prep- ositions with the Inf. There remains, of course, a possible loc- ative use of a form like Xuety. But one doubts if this original idea is preserved in the N. T.' Cf . Mt. 16 : 3, yLvuaKere SiaKpLveiv, which is more naturally explained as a dative: 'ye have knowl- edge for discerning,' though 'in discerning' makes sense. But with the dative it is different. There is no instance of the dative inf. with a preposition, but the original dative is clear in all ex- amples of purpose without rov or a preposition. Thus Mt. 5 : 18, oiiK rfSBov KaToiXvaai, dXXd xXrypScat, 'I came not for destroying, but for fulfilling.' So Lu. 12 : 58, 56s hpyaalav airriWaxdcLi, 'give dili- gence for being reconciled.' Cf. Mt. 7: 11; 16 : 3 with otda and yivixTKu. See further Mt. 2 : 2, ij\Bofi€v wpofficvvijcTaL, 'we came for worshipping'; Jo. 21:3, mayoi oKieveiv, 'I go a-fishing.' So Ro. 3 : 15, o^ais kxeai alfm, 'swift for shedding blood.' The substan- tive also has the dative inf. in Ro. 9 : 21, k^ovalav xot^o-ai, 'power for making.' See further 1 Pet. 4:3, Karupyaadai, 'for having wrought'; Gal. 5:3, binCKkr'rjs Toirjaai., 'debtor for doing'; Heb. 11 : 15, Kaipdv avaKaptl/ixi, 'time for returning.' This was the orig- inal idiom and, with all the rich later development as verbal substantive, the inf. did not wholly get away from the dative idea. (6) The Articular Infinitive. We have to cross our tracks fre- quently in discussing the inf. in a lucid fashion. Numerous ex- amples of the articular inf. have already been given in treating the cases of the inf. But the matter is so important that it calls for special investigation. If we pass by the doubtful articular inf., TO v\&.(TaeLv, in the Odyssey,^ we still find (as already shown) a few examples in the oldest Greek (two in Hesiod, nine in Pin- dar, nine in the Lyrics).' The use of the article with the inf. grew with the growth of the article itself. But it is not to be overlooked that in Homer the anarthrous inf. had already developed nearly » Moulton, Prol., p. 210. " Cf. Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 179. Gildersl. (Am. Jour, of Philol., 1912, p. 488) gave this name ("articular infinitive") to the idiom. "I watch the fate of my little things with a benevolent detachment." ' Birklein, Entwickelungsgeschichte, p. 91, VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT "PHMATOS) 1063 all the constructions of this verbal substantive.^ The addition of the article made no essential change in the inf. It was already both substantive and verb. But the use of the article greatly en- larged the range of the inf. It is extended to new uses, especially with prepositions. The article was first used with the nom., then the ace. and then the other cases. The use of rod and t$ with the inf. is wholly post-Homeric.^ In the Dramatists and Herodo- tus it is still chiefly in the nom. and ace, though we do find tov and tQ, and we see the inf. used with prepositions also.' In Thu- cydides the articular inf. suddenly jumps to great prominence, occurring 298 times,^ especially in the speeches. Of these 163 occur with prepositions.^ He even uses to with the future inf. and with S.v and the inf. The orators likewise use the art. inf. very freely. It was especially in Demosthenes that "the power of taking dependent clauses" was fully developed.' Only the Pontic dialects, as already noted, keep the inf. as a living form, and a few substantives preserve a mutilated form, like rd (jxiyi (' eating') = TO (jjayelv, to (piXi (' kissing') = Td c^iXeij' (Thumb, Handb., p. 117). In the N. T. we see all this power still retained with the further development in the use of tov. The inf. itself, as we have seen, is retreating in the N. T., but it still possesses the full range of its varied uses. The articular inf. has all the main uses of the anarthrous inf. Votaw {The Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 51) finds 22 uses of the inf. (19 anarthrous, 15 articular), but some of these overlap and are artificial. Moulton (Prol., p. 214) con- cludes from a study of the inscriptions that the articular inf. only invaded the dialects as the Koivri was starting. There is no essential difference in idea, and the mere presence or absence of the article is not to be pressed too far. Jannaris' admits that sometimes the verbal character is completely obscured. On that point I am more than sceptical, since the inf. continues to have the adjuncts of the verb and is used with any voice or tense. Jannaris' thinks that in late Greek the substantival aspect grew at the expense of the verbal and the articular inf. had an in- creasing popularity. I admit the popularity, but doubt the dis- » Goodwin, M. and T., p. 315. 2 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 164. ' Goodwin, M. and T., p. 315. ' Birklein, Entwickelungsgeschichte, p. 91. ' GildersL, Contrib. to the Hist, of the Inf., Transac. of the Am. Philol. Asso., 1878, pp. 5-19. ' Goodwin, M. and T., p. 315. Hypereides, he adds, even exceeds Demos- thenes. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 576. » lb., p. 577. 1064 A GBAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT appearance of the verbal aspect. Jannaris makes the mistake of taking "substantival inf." as coextensive with "articular inf." Blass^ questions if the article always has its proper force with the inf. and suggests that perhaps sometimes it merely occurs to show the case of the inf. Here again I am sceptical. Why does the case of the inf. need to be shown any more than other indeclin- able substantives? In Mt. 1 the article does serve to distinguish object from subject. I have never seen an articular inf. where the article did not seem in place. Moulton^ considers the use of the article "the most characteristic feature of the Greek infinitive in post-Homeric language." Blass' seems puzzled over the fre- quency of the articular inf. in the N. T., since it is chiefly confined to Luke and Paul, whose writings have most affinity with the literary language. Jannaris* notes how scarce it is in the writings of John and in unlearned papyri and inscriptions, doubtful in the medieval period, and absent from the modern vernacular. "The articular infinitive, therefore, could not resist any longer the ten- dency of the time, whether it was conceived as a noun or as a verb."' The analytic tendency drove it out finally. Moulton* has made some researches on the use of the articular inf. in the dialect inscriptions. He does not find a single instance in Lar- field's Boeotian inscriptions. He finds one from Lesbos, one from Elis, one from Delphi, a few from Messene, etc. He notes the silence of Meisterhans on the subject. The conclusion seems to be inevitable that the articular inf. is as rare in the Attic ver- nacular as it was common in the Attic orators. It is "mainly a literary use, starting in Pindar, Herodotus and the tragedians, and matured by Attic rhetoric." Aristophanes uses it less than half as often as Sophocles and Aristophanes gives the Attic ver- nacular. And yet it is not absent from the papyri. Moulton' counts 41 instances in vol. I of B. U. The N. T. uses it about as often to the page as Plato. He scores a point against Kretsch- mer's view that the Attic contributed no more to the ratrij than any one of the other dialects, since from the literary Attic "the articular inf. passed into daily speech of the least cultured people in the later Hellenist world." * Polybius' deserves to rank with Demosthenes in the wealth of his use of the inf. He employs the > Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 233. » lb. = Prol., p. 213. 6 prol., pp. 213 ff. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 233. ' lb., p. 213. « ffist. Gk. Gr., p. 579. s lb., p. 215. » Allen, The Inf. in Polyb. Compared with the Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 47. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT "PHMATOs) 1065 inf. in all 11,265 times, an average of 7.95 to the page. He has the articular inf. 1,901 times, an average of 1.35 to the page. In the N. T. the inf. occurs 2,276 times, an average of 4.2 times to a page. The articular inf. is found in the N. T. 319 times, an average of .6 times to a page. The N. T. shows fewer uses, in proportion, of the articular inf. than the 0. T. or the Apocrypha. Of the 303 (Moulton) instances, 120 are in Luke's writings and 106 in Paul's Epistles. But Votaw^ counts 319 in all. The MSS. vary in a number of instances and explain the diflFerence. Moulton* gives the figures for all the N. T. books thus: James 7, Hebrews 23, Gospel of Luke 71, Paul 106, Acts 49, 1 Peter 4, Matthew 24, Mark 13 (14), John 4, Revelation 1. The other N. T. books do not have it at all. Luke has the most varied use of the articular inf., and Paul's is somewhat uneven.^ The use of the articular inf. in the various cases has already been suf- ficiently discussed. In general one may agree with Moulton* that "the application of the articular infin. in N. T. Greek does not in principle go beyond what is found in Attic writers." The special use of the articular inf. with prepositions is reserved for separate discussion. There is little doubt that the first use of TO with the inf. was demonstrative as it was with everything.^ In Mk. 9 : 10, ri kcriv to eK veKpuv avaffTrjvai, the article is almost demonstrative, certainly anaphoric (cf. verse 9). The same thing is true of 10 : 40 where to Kadlcrai refers to KajBiaaifiev in verse 37. It is not necessary to give in detail many examples of the articu- lar inf. in the N. T. I merely wish to repeat that, when the article does occur with the inf., it should have its real force. Often this will make extremely awkward English, as in Lu. 2 : 27, h T& elaayayeZv tovs yoveis to irai^iov. But the Greek has no con- cern about the English or German. It is simply slovenliness not to try to see the thing from the Greek standpoint. But we are not to make a slavish rendering. Translation should be idio- matic. It is hardly worth while to warn the inept that there is no connection between the article t6 and the English to in a sen- tence like Ph. 1 : 21, ifiol y6,p t6 fiji' Xpurrds Kal to airodavelv Kip8os. Here the article to has just the effect that the Greek article has' with any abstract substantive, that of distinction or contrast. Life and death (living and dying) are set over against each other. See further Mt. 24 : 45; Lu. 24 : 29; Ac. 3 : 12; 10 : 25; 16 : 9; 21 : » Inf. in Bibl. Gk., pp. 50 ff. * Prol., p. 215. 2 Prol., p. 216. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 164. 8 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 52. 1066 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 12; 25:11; Ro. 4 : 11, 13, 16, 18; 13:8; 14:21; 2 Cor. 8:10f.; 9 : 1; Ph. 1 : 23, 29; 2 : 6; 4 : 10; 1 Th. 3 : 2 f. Some special words are needed about rod and the inf. The question of purpose or result may be deferred for separate dis- cussion. We have seen how the genitive inf. with tov occurs with verbs, substantives, adjectives and prepositions. The ablative inf. with TOV is found witK verbs and prepositions. The ablative use is not here under discussion, since it involves no special diffi- culties save the redundant ju^. We may note that in Critias tov was very common with the inf.' We see it also in Polybius in various uses named above.^ It is an Attic idiom that became very common in the postclassical and Byzantine Greek.^ Cf . ixi) afiiKiia-gs tov ^coxX^cat Qwv'uf, O. P. 1159, 11-13 (iii/A.D.). There is no special difficulty with tov and the inf. with verbs as object except in a case like Mt. 21 : 32 where tov inaTevaai "gives rather the content than the purpose of iJ,eTefie\iidr]Te." * The instances with substantives like Ac. 14 : 9, ex«i t'kttiv tov acjodijvai, give no trouble on the score of the article. It is the case (objective genitive) that has to be noted. So with Ph. 3 : 21, t^i» evipyeuiv tov dvvaadai. As to adjectives, as already noted, it is doubtful if in 1 Cor. 16 : 4, kav de Sl^lov fj tov Ka^i iropeveaBai, the inf. is to be taken with a^iov as genitive. Moulton* so regards it, but it may be a loose nominative, as we shall see directly. But there is a use of tov and the inf. that calls for comment. It is a loose construction of which the most extreme instance is seen in Rev. 12 : 7, iyhero- iroXefios ki> tQ ohpav^, 6 Mtxc")^ koI ol ayyeKot avTov TOV iroXtfiTJaai jueTot tov SpaKovTos. This inf. (note the nom. with it) is in explanatory apposition with iroXe/ios. Moulton* cleverly illustrates it with the English: "There will be a cricket match — the champions to play the rest." It is a long jump to this from a case like Ac. 21 : 12, irapaKoKovnev tov /li) avafiaiveiv avTov, where the simple object-inf. is natural (cf. 1 Th. 4 : 10 f.). Cf. also Ac. 23 : 20, crvvkdtVTO tov kposTijaai at oxojs KaTa7d7j;s. "This loose inf. of design" is found twelve times in Thucydides, six in Demosthenes and five in Xenophon.' These writers prefer the prepositions with tov and the inf. Polybius in his first five books has this simple tov and the inf. only six times, all negative.* 1 Birklein, Entwick., p. 9. < Moulton, Prol., p. 216. 2 AUen, The Inf. in Polyb., pp. 29 ff. » lb. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 578. " lb., p. 218. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 578. Cf. Birklein, Entwick., p. 101. ' Jann., ib. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOS) 1067 The normal use of tov with the inf. was undoubtedly final as it was developed by Thucydides, and in the N. T. that is still its chief use.i But many of the examples are not final nor consecu- tive. It is only in Luke (Gospel 23, Acts 21) and Paul (13) that rod with the inf. (without prepositions) is common.^ They have five-sixths of the examples.' And Luke has himself two-thirds of the total in the N. T., Matthew has six. John avoids it. Moul- ton* shows that of Paul's "thirteen" examples two (Ro. 6:6; Ph. 3 : 10) may be either final or consecutive, two (Ro. 15: 22; 2 Cor. 1 : 8) are ablative, five occur with substantives (Ro. 15 : 23; 1 Cor. 9 : 10; 16 : 4; 2 Cor. 8 : 11; Ph. 3 : 21), four are epexegetic (Ro. 1:24; 7:3;8:12; 1 Cor. 10 : 13). In Luke about half are not final. It is this loose epexegetical inf. that calls for notice. We find it in the LXX (cf. Gen. 3 : 22; 19 : 19; 31 : 20; 47: 29, etc.).^ It is possible that this very common idiom in the LXX is due to the Hebrew 5. It does not occur in Polybius.* In the LXX also we see tov and the inf. used as the subject of a finite verb in complete forgetfulness of the case of tov. Cf. 2 Chron. 6 : 7, kykveTO kirl Kaphlav AauetS tov iraTpos fiov tov oinoSotiTJaai oIkov. Sol Sam. 12:23; 1 Ki. 8:18; 16:31; Ps. 91:3; Is.-49:6; Jer. 2 : 18; Eccl. 3 : 12; 1 Esd. 5 : 67.' One must recall the fact that the inf. had already lost for the most part the significance of the dative ending -at and the locative -t {-tiv). Now the genitive tov and the dative -ai are both obscured and the combination is used as subject nominative. We have this curious construction > Moulton, Prol., p. 216. ^ lb., p. 217. ' Mr. H. Scott gives the following list for toO and the inf. : Pros. Aor. Paul 13 4 Synoptics 9 22 Acts 11 12 Heb. 1 3 Rev. — 1 ! Jas. — 1 1 Pet. — 1 34 45 79 • ProL, p. 217. a. also Gal. 3 : 10. » Cf. W.-M., p. 410 f. • Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 53. Cf . Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., vol. XXVII, . 105 f. ' Votaw, The Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 28. 1068 A GBAMMAE OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT in Lu. 17 : 1, avkvhtKTov icnv rov m i\Mv. See also Ac. 10 : 25, iyk- vtTo Tov dfftKBeiv, and 27: 1, 'eupWrj rov aTorXetv. Cf. further 20: 3. It is naturally rarer in the N. T. than in the LXX. Moul- ton {Prol, p. 220) gives a papyrus example closely alUed to it, 0. P. 86 (iv/A.D.) Wos TOV irapaax^fjvai. See Winer-Moulton, p. 411, for numerous examples in LXX. But closely aUied to it is the use of tov as pbject-inf., with kvTiXKofiai in Lu. 4:10 (Ps. 90 : 11); KaTdveiu in 5 : 7; o-TTjptfo) in 9 : 51; iroLiu in Ac. 3:12; /caKoco in 7: 19; iinaTkWu in 15 : 20; TapaKokku in 21 : 12; avvTidetiat. in 23 : 20. Cf. also "tToiiws tov in Ac. 23 : 15. This is surely "a wide departure from classical Greek." ^ It is, however, after all in harmony with the genius and history of the inf., though the nominative use of tov comes from the LXX. The vernacular papyri show a few examples of tov and the inf. It is found in the inscriptions of Pisidia and Phrygia. Cf. Compernass, p. 40. Moulton^ illustrates Lu. 1 : 9 with aiifKuv TOV ypb4>uv, B. U. 665 (i/A.D.) ; Mt. 18 : 25 and Jo. 5 : 7 (ex«) with Iv' ix'- "TOV iruKeiv, B. U. 830 (i/A.D.); 1 Cor. 9 : 6 with k^ovaiav — tov — dkadai, C. P. R. 156; Lu. 22 : 6 with eimtplas — tov evpeiv, B. U. 46 (ii/A.D.). He concludes that the usage is not common in the papyri and holds that the plentiful testimony from the LXX concurs with the N. T. usage to the effect "that it belongs to the higher stratum of education in the main." This conclu- sion holds as to the N. T. and the papyri, but not as to the LXX, where obviously the Hebrew inf. construct had a consider- able influence. Moulton seems reluctant to admit this obvious Hebraism. (c) Prepositions. We are not here discussing the inf. as pur- pose or result, as temporal or causal, but merely the fact of the prepositional usage. The idiom cannot be said to be unusual in classical Greek. Jannaris' agrees with Birklein* that classical writers show some 2,000 instances of this prepositional construc- tion. The writers (classic and later) who use the idiom most frequently are Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Diodorus, Diony- sius, Josephus, Plutarch, Dio Cassius. The most prolific user of the construction is Polybius (1,053 instances) and Josephus next (651 times) .^ If the prepositional adverbs be added to the strict ' Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 159. In late Gk. this use of toB and the inf. came to displace the circumstantial participle and even finite clauses, only to die itself in time. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 483. 2 Prol., p. 219 f . * Entwickelungsgesch., p. 103. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 576. ' Krapp, Der substantivierte Inf., 1892, p. 1. VEEBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT "PHMATOS) 1069 list of prepositions, the number is very much enlarged, especially in Polybius, who has 90 with x"-pi-v, 115 with aixa, 504 with 3id, 160 with irpos, 74 with eis, 24 with iv, 90 with kirl, 33 with /lerd, 41 with Trept, only one with irapa.} The idiom was here again later than the articular inf. itself and was also Attic in origin and literary. But it is common also in the Greek inscriptions accord- ing to Granit.* It is rare in the papyri, according to Moulton,' save in the recurrent formula, ets to kv tiri5evl /jxufjid^vaL, and particu- larly in the case of irpds to. Cf . irpds t6 Tvxiv, B. U. 226 (I/a.d.) ; Tp6i Td nil — kvTvyxavekv, 0. P. 237 (I/a.d.) ; irpds t6 — Benidrjvai (i6.). Votaw* finds the prepositional inf. almost one-half of all the articular infs. in the 0. T., the Apocrypha and the N. T., the pro- portion being about the same in each section of the Greek Bible. Not quite all the prepositions were used with the inf. in ancient Greek, the exception^ being dra. 'A/^c^t had it- only with the geni- tive, Kara with the accusative, xapd with the ace, irepi with the ace. and gen., irp6s with ace. and loc, mep with the ablative, iro with the ablative.' It was not therefore freely used with all the usual cases with the different prepositions. As a rule the article was essential if a preposition occurred with an inf. The reason for this was due to the absence of division between words. It was otherwise almost impossible to tell this use of the inf. from that of composition of preposition with the verb if the two came in conjunction. Cf. avrl tov \eyeLv in Jas. 4 : 15. A few instances are found without the article. Thus avrl 8e 'apxit^Oai (note pres- ence of 5^ between) in Herodotus I, 210. 2. It appears thus three times in Herodotus. So also in ^schines, Eum. 737, we have TrXriv yafiov TvxeivJ So Soph., Ph., 100. Winer* finds two in Theodoret (cf. IV, 851, xapd (TvyKK6iBecdai) . The papyri "give us ets /Sdi^ai, O. P. 36 (i/A.D.), and the conunon vernacular phrase' ets Tret^ ('for drinking'). Cf. 56s lioi ireiv in Jo. 4 : 10. Moulton^" cites also an example of axpt from Plutarch, p. 256 D, and one from an inscription of iii/n.c. (O. G. I. S. 41, Michel 370) kirl — \anPaveLP. The instances without the article are clearly very few. Moulton {Prol., p. 81) suggests that the significant frequency of » Allen, The Inf. in Polyb., p. 33. 2 De Inf. et Part, in Inscr. Dialect. Graec. Questiones Synt., 1892, p. 73. » Prol., p. 220. * Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 19. » Goodwin, M. and T., p. 320. • Cf. Birklein, Entwickelungsgesch., p. 104. These preps, "retain this dis- qualification in the N. T." (Moulton, Prol., p. 216). ' Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 246. » Moulton, Prol., p. 216. 8 W.-M., p. 413. "> lb. 1070 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT tls iretv in the papyri is due to Ionic influence. The LXX furnishes several instances of anarthrous ets, as eis kK^vyetv in Judg. 6 :11 (cf. 2 Esd. 22:24; Sir. 38:27; Judith 4:15). Note also kos kXeelv in 1 Mace. 16 : 9; etas o5 oUTeiprjaai in Ps. 122 : 2 (so Ruth 3:3); m^XP« o" 67710-01 in Tob. 11: 1. Cf. also ■ir\riv with anar- throus inf. in Polybius, etc. The tenses have their full force in this prepositional construc- tion, as in Mk. 5 : 4, 5ta to — SeSiadat nal Biecriraadai. Kal — awTtrpi- 4>8ai.. Naturally some tenses suit certain prepositions better, as hv with the present tense.' The principles of indirect discourse apply also to the inf. with prepositions. Cf . fiera to kyepdfjvai i^e Tpoa^u (Mk. 14 : 28). In the N. T. the accusative seems to occur always even when the nominative predicate would be possible,^ as in Sia TO ixkveiv aMv (Heb. 7 : 24). So also Lu. 11:8. But note Xen., Cyr., I, 4.- 3, 5td to i\onaB'qs dvai. It is not necessary for the article to come next to the inf. as in Mt. 13 : 25. Several words may intervene and the clause may be one of considerable extent. Cf. Mk. 5:4; Ac. 8:11; Heb. 11:3; 1 Pet. 4 : 2. But the N. T. does not have such extended clauses of this nature as the ancient Greek, and the adverbs usu- ally follow the inf.' The English "split inf." is not quite parallel. In the 0. T. there are 22 prepositions used with the inf. and the Apocrypha has 18, while the N. T. shows only 10.'* Of these only eight are the strict prepositions {avTi, Sia, eis, kv, kx, utTo., irp6, xpos) and two the prepositional adverbs eve/ca and i'cos. It remains now to examine each in detail. 'KvtI tov is not rare with the inf. and is chiefly found in the Greek orators.^ But we have it in Thucydides, Xenophon and Plato. Herodotus* has only 11 instances of the preposition with the inf., but 5 of them are with LvtI. It does not occur in Polyb- ius. In the N. T. we have only one instance, Jas. 4 : 15, avTi TOV \kyeiv. Votaw gives one for the LXX, Ps. 108 : 4, avTl tov Lyairav. Aid has 33 instances in the N. T., all but one (genitive, Heb. 2 : 15, Sid iravrds tov ^ijv) in the accusative. Mr. H. Scott reports the 33 exx. thus: Paul 1, Jas. 1, Heb. 4, Mk. 5, Mt. 3, Lu. 9, Ac. 9, Jo. 1. The 0. T. has it with the inf. 35 times and the • Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 50. 2 W.-M., p. 415. ' lb., p. 413. * Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. " Birklein, Entwick., p. 104. ' Helbing, Die Prapositionen bei Herod., p. 148. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOS) 1071 Apocrypha 26,' all with the accusative. The idiom Slo. to is so frequent in Xenophon and Thucydides that as compared with 6ti it stands as 2 to 3.^ In later Greek (koii'iJ and Byzantine) it comes to displace even tva and ottws, though finally shifting to 5id V&, in modem Greek (cf. English "for that")-' It is not sur- prising therefore to find it in the N. T. with comparative fre- quency. It is most frequent in Luke's writings, and once in Paul's Epistles, and rare in the other N. T. writers.* It is usu- ally the cause that is given by 5ia to, as in Mt. 13 : 5 f ., Sm to /ti) 'extiv. It is not merely the practical equivalent of on and dioTi, but is used side by side with them. Cf . Jas. 4 : 2 f ., 3td t6 /ifi airet- adai i/iSs — Slotl KaKcis aiTiiade. It may stand alone, as in Lu. 9 : 7; 11 : 8, or with the accusative of general reference as in indirect discourse, as in Lu. 2:4; 19 : 11. Note two aces, in Ac. 4 : 2. The perfect tense occurs seven times, as in Mk. 5 : 4 {ter) ; Lu. 6:48; Ac. 8 : 11; 27:9. In Mk. 5:4 it is rather the evidence than the reason that is given.^ Blass {Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 236) unnecessarily rejects Jo. 2 : 24. Eis TO is common also with the inf. without much difference in sense from kwl t6 and Tpds to with the inf .^ . But the N. T. does not use kTri with the inf. There is no doubt about the final use of eis t6 whatever is true of the consecutive idea. In the late Greek Jannaris' notes a tendency to use ds t6 (cf. /SpaSus eis to XoX^o-ai in Jas. 1 : 19) rather than the simple inf. Cf. 1 Th. 4 : 9. But this tendency finally gave way to I'm. The 0. T. has eis to 124, the Apocrypha 28 and the N. T. 72 times.^ In the N. T. it is more common than any other preposition with the inf., kv coming next with 55 examples. Moulton' counts only 62 instances of eis t6 in the N. T., but Votaw is right with 72. Paul has it 50 times. There are 8 in Hebrews and only one each in Luke and Acts, a rather surprising situation. The papyri i" show scattered examples of it. Cf. eis t6 ev nvSevl liefupBfjvaL, P. Fi. 2 (iii/A.D.) 4 times. In 1 Pet. 4 : 1, eis TO — PlSktcu, note the long clause. There is no doubt that in the N. T. eis to has broken away to some extent from the classic notion of purpose. That idea still occurs as in Ro. 1:11, eis t6 Moulton, Prol., p. 215. « Prol., p. 215. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 237. « P. 249. ' Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. 8 But Dalman, Worte Jesu, p. 26 f ., denies that it is an Aramaean constr. » Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 379. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT "PHMATOS) 1073 idiom is not confined to Luke's writings. Cf. Mt. 13 : 4; 13 : 25; Mk. 4 : 4; Heb. 2 : 8; 3 : 12, etc. Ordinarily it is the present inf. as in Mt. 13 : 4; Lu. 8 : 5; Ac. 3 : 26, where the Attic writers would have the present participle. But in Luke we have also the aorist inf. as in 2 : 27 h tQ daayayeZv, (3 : 21) h r<^ fiairTLcrBrj- vai, where Blass^ sees the equivalent of the aorist participle (cf. 'Itjo-oO fiairriadkvToi) or a temporal conjunction with the aorist in- dicative. One questions, however, whether the matter is to be worked out with so much finesse as that. The aorist inf. with hv T^ occurs only 12 times in the N. T.^ It is more correctly just the simple action of the verb which is thus presented, leaving the precise relation to be defined by the context, like the aorist par- ticiple of simultaneous action., Cf. kv tC^ moT&^ai in Heb. 2: 8; Gen. 32 : 19, kv t^ dpetv. This is all that kv tQ should be made to mean with either the present or the aorist. Cf. Mt. 13 : 4; 27 : 12; Lu. 8 : 40; 9 : 29. The idea is not always strictly temporal. In Ac. 3 : 26 (cf. Jer. 11 : 17), 4 : 30, it is more like means. Votaw' sees content in Lu. 12 : 15; Heb. 3 : 12. In Heb. 8 : 13, iv tQ Xkyeiv, the notion is rather causal. The con- ception is not wholly temporal in Mk. 6 : 48; Lu. 1 : 21.* No other preposition occurs in the N. T. with the inf. in the locative case. But cf. iirl tQ i/xal wapafikviv, 0. P. 1122, 9 f. (a.D. 407). "EveKev rod appears in Xenophon, Plato and Demosthenes, usu- ally as final, but also causal.* Sophocles in his Lexicon quotes the construction also from Diodorus and Apophth. There is only one instance of it in the N. T., 2 Cor. 7 : 12, ev€K€v tov ^ave- pu6rjvai TTiv awovSriv ificav, where it is clearly causal as with the two preceding participles, 'eveKev tov a.5iKi)cavTos, iveKtv tov adiKTidevTos (a good passage to note the distinction between the inf. and the part.). The case is, of course, the genitive. 'Ek tov, likewise, appears in the N. T. only once with the inf. (2 Cor. 8 : 11, kK TOV exetv), but the case is ablative. Its usual idea in Attic prose is that of outcome or result.* Votaw' gives no illustration from the 0. T., but three from the Apocrypha. Blass* takes it in 2 Cor. 8 : 11, to be equivalent to koBo av 'exv. More 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 237. ' Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. 2 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 50. * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 237. ' Birklein, Entwick., p. 106. It is found in Polyb. also. Cf. Kalker, Ques- tiones, p. 302; AUen, Inf." in Polyb., p. 35. Lutz (Die Casus-Adverbien bei Att. Redn., 1891, p. 18) finds it "zuerst bei Antiphon." ' Birklein, Entwick., p. 105. ' Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 237. 1074 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT likely it is meant to accent the ability growing "out of" the pos- session of property, whatever it may be. In Poly bins k rod with the inf. has a more varied use (departure, source of knowledge, source of advantage).^ He uses it 25 times. "Ews Tov, likewise, occurs but once (Ac. 8 : 40, ews rod &Setv), and with the genitive. Birklein does not find any instances of «£os TOV and the inf. in the classic writers, though he does note ykxpi- TOV and less frequently &XP' ''o''-^ Cf. ju^xp' tov irKetv, P. B. M. 854 (i/ii a.d.). But in the 0. T. Votaw' observes 52 instances of ecos TOV and 16 in the Apocrypha. Cf. Gen. 24 : 33; Judith 8 : 34. We have already noted the anarthrous use of ecos 'iKdelv in 1 Mace. 16 : 9 A. Cf . Gen. 10 : 19, 30, etc. So also ecos oS, and /iJxP'(s) ov and the inf., 1 Esd. 1 : 49, and Tob. 11 : 1 B. It is rather surprising therefore that we find only one instance in the N. T. and that in the Acts. The construction is probably due to the analogy of irplv and the inf. Mera to is found only a few times in Herodotus, Plato and Djemosthenes.* It appears, however, thirty-three times in Polyb- ius and usually with the aorist tense .° The idea is temporal and the aorist is a practical equivalent for the aorist participle. In the 0. T. Votaw* finds it 99 times and only 9 in the Apocrypha. There are 15 examples in the N. T. and the case is the accusative always. Merd t6 vanislied with the inf. in modern Greek.' The aorist is always used in the N. T. save one perfect (Heb. 10 : 15)'. See Mk. 1 : 14; 14 : 28, iitTo. Tb kyepdfjvai /le. Eight of the examples occur in Luke's writings (Lu. 12 : 5; 22 : 20; Ac. 1 : 3; 7 : 4; 10 : 41; 15 : 13; 19 : 21; 20 : 1). See also Mt. 26 : 32; Mk. 16 : 19; 1 Cor. 11:25; Heb. 10 : 15, 26. Upd TOV in the ancient writers was used much like Trplv and in the temporal sense.* It gradually invaded the province of irplv, though in the N. T. we only meet it 9 times. It is not com- mon in the papyri nor the inscriptions.' See Delphian inscr. 220, irp6 TOV Tapap.el.vai.. Polybius has it 12 times.^" In the O. T. we find it 46 times, but only 5 in the Apocrypha." The tense is always the aorist save one present (Jo. 17 : 5). Cf. Gal. 3 : 23, 7rp6 TOV ekdetv Tr/v iruniv. There is no essential differ- > AUen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 34 f. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 386. « Entwick., p. 105. s Birklein, Entwiok., p. 105. » Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. » Moulton, Prol., p. 214. ' Birklein, Entwick., p. 108. »» Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 33. « AUen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 41. " Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk,, p. 20. « Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOS) 1075 ence in construction and idea between irplv and the inf. and TTpo Tov and the inf. The use of irpiv with the inf. was common in Homer before the article was used with the inf. The usage became fixed and the article never intervened. But the inf. with both irpiv and xp6 is in the ablative case. Cf. ablative ^ inf. with purd in Sanskrit. UpLv was never used as a preposition in com- position, but there is just as much reason for treating irpiv as a prepositional adverb with the ablative inf. as there is for so con- sidering eus TOV, not to say eus alone as in ?a)s iXBelv (1 Mace. 16 : 9). The use of the article is the common idiom. The fact of wpiv and the inf. held back the development of irpd rod. In modem Greek Tpd tov as irporov occurs with the subj. (Thumb, Handb., p. 193). In the N. T. irpiv is still ahead with 13 examples. The instances of irpd tov are Mt. 6:8; Lu. 2 : 21; 22 : 15; Jo. 1 : 48; 13 : 19; 17 : 5; Ac. 23 : 15; Gal. 2 : 12; 3 : 23. Epos TO is the remaining idiom for discussion. It was used by the ancients in much the same sense as els to and ewi to, 'looking to,' 'with a view to.'^ The idiom is very common in Polybius,* 150 examples, and there are 10 of xpos te(r6ai, (Jo. 1 : 12) k^ovffiau yevkadai, (19 : 40) Woi ivTaui,^eiv, (Ac. 24 : 15) ^X7rt3a jxeKKuv, (Ro. 13 : 11) Sipa eyep- Orjvai, (Gal. 5 : 3) o^eiXexTjs xoiijcoi, (Heb. 7 : 5) kvToXijv aToSeKaroiv, (Rev. 11: 18) mipds KpLdTjvaL, etc. These are all real datives and the construction is common enough in the N. T., more so than in the LXX. In Ph. 1 : 23 note eiriSvulav eis to avoKwai. The same substantives may have rov and the inf., though now, of course, the case is genitive. Cf. (Lu. 1 : 57) xpovos rov rtKetv, (2 : 21) iifikpai, Tov irepLTefitIv, (10 : 19) k^ovalav rov TaTtiv, (Ac. 14 : 9) ■k'uttlv rov cTcodTJvaL, (27 : 20) iXirls rod ado^eaOai, etc. It occurs eight times in Luke's writings and nine in Paul's Epistles. It is about as common in proportion as in the LXX.* See further Lu. 1 : 74; 2 : 6; 21 : 22; 22 : 6; Ac. 20 : 3; Ro. 1 : 24; 8 : 12; 11 : 8; 15 : 23; 1 dor. 9 : 10; 10 : 13; 2 Cor. 8 : 11; Ph. 3 : 21; 1 Pet. 4 : 17; Heb. 5 : 12, etc. Since the inf. is a substantive, the genitive re- lation with other substantives is obvious and natural. (e) The Infinitive with Adjectives. This idiom is likewise clas- sical and is common from Homer on.^ As already shown, the case varies with different adjectives. This inf. is complementary as with substantives. It is natural with adjectives as any other substantive is. It held on longest with dwards, kavos, but other adjectives in late kolvv began to give way to ds to (cf. Jas. 1 : 19, Taxis ets Tb aKovaai, ^paSvs eh to \a\fja-ai) rather than the simple inf. and finally this disappeared before Im (cf . Mt. 8 : 8, ikopos tva).^ In the LXX and the N. T. the inf. with adjectives is less frequent than with substantives. "We have it with both the an- arthrous and the articular inf. See (Mt.3: 11) havis /Sao-rdo-at, (Mk. 10 : 40) iixAu dovvai, (Lu. 15 : 19) ftftos KXvdvvai, (Jas. 3 : 2) 8v- vaTds xaXiTO7a)7^(rat, (1 Cor. 7: 39) iXevekpfl yafirjeTJvai, (Heb. 5 : 11) SmepniivevTos Xkyeiv, (1 Pet. 4 : 3) apKerds Kareipyaadat, etc. It is > Goodwin, M. and T., p. 301. ' Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., pp. 15, 26. « AUen, Inf. in Polyb., pp. 23, 32. * lb., p. 27. 5 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 165 f . For Polyb. see AUen, Inf. in Polyb., pp. 23, 32. « Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 487. VERBAL NOXJNS ('ONOMATA TOT "PHMATOZ) 1077 more common with ci^ios, Swaros, lKav6s. The only adjective that often has rod and the inf. in the 0. T. is ^Toi/ios.^ We find it also with adverbs as in Ac. 21 : 13, SeBrjvai kiroBavuv iroiiMas ?xw (so 2 Cor. 12 : 14). The articular examples are less frequent. But note (Lu. 24 : 25) fipadets toO ■KUTTOieiv, (Ac. 23 : 15) eroLnoi rov hitKeiv. Some would add 1 Cor. 16 : 4, a^usv tov Topev€ Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 27. » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 154. * Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 7. » See Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 487. " Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 574 f. » Atticismus, Bd. IV, p. 81. Cf. also Hatz., Einl., p. 215. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 211. ' lb. » Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 572 f. For an extended list of the verbs in the N. T. used with the complementary inf. see Viteau, Le Verbe, pp. 157 fE. 1078 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT He finds tva about 125 times and the inf. with verbs about 129 times. Of these 57 belong to Siim/xoi (37) and Ok^u (20). There are besides, 10 with del and 12 each with f»;T^w and with nkWu). The rest are scattered with SiSwiu, exw, 6<^eiXw, 8oKku, a^lrmi, alrko), kpoiraoj, apxoiiai,, etc. It is clear, therefore, that the inf. with verbs is by no means dead in the N. T., though the shadow of Ipa is across its path. As illustrations of the great wealth of verbs with the inf. in the N. T. note (Mt. 11 : 20) ^p^aro oveiSi^eiv, (27 : 58) eKeKevatv airoSodrjvai,, (Mk. 12 : 12) ef ijrow' KpaTrjaai, (Lu. 16 : 3) (TKairreLv ovk iffxiiu, eiraiTetv alarxvfofiat. Almost any verb that can be used with a substantive can be used with the inf. The use of the inf. with TrpoarWefuiL is a Hebraism. Cf. Ex. 14 : 13. See Lu. 20 : 12, irpoaWeTo ■7rkfi\(/aL. It means 'to go on and do' or 'do again.' It is the one Hebraism that Thumb' finds in Josephus. Cf. also Lu. 20 : 11 f. The articular inf. with verbs is much less frequent. But note t6 ayairdv after 6(l)eL\u (Ro. 13:8); TapaLTOVfiaL^To aToBavetv (Ac. 25 : 11); tov TreptxaTeij*- after iroikoi (Ac. 3 : 12) ; ^TriirTeTXat rod airkxi(rda.t (15 : 20) ; Kareixov tov firi Topeieadai (Lu. 4 : 42). In 1 Ki. 13 : 16 we have rod kin Hellen., p. 125. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 233. ' Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 17. ' Cf. Hadley and Allen, § 950; Goodwin, § 1517. ' Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 29. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOs) 1079 17 : 3; IJo. 3 : 11, 23; 4 : 21; 5 : 3, etc.). We find Sn also in 1 Jo. 2:3;3:16).i 5. Verbal Aspects op the Infinitive. It is worth repeat- ing that the same inf. is substantive as well as verb. Each inf. does not, of course, have all the substantival and verbal uses, but each inf. has both substantival and verbal aspects. The uses vary with each example. The verbal aspects do not exclude the substantival, though some^ writers say so. Per contra, Jannaris' holds that "the verbal nature of the substantival infinitive was sometimes completely lost sight of." This I do not concede. After tenses came to the verbal substantive its dual character was fixed. But, as already shown, the inf. did not come to the rank of a mode. (a) Vmce. The Sanskrit inf. had no voice. In Homer the inf. already has the voices, so that it is speculative as to the origin. It is possible that the original Greek inf. had no voice. This is an inference so far as the Greek is concerned, but a justifiable one. Moulton* illustrates it well by Sumros Oavnaaai, ' capable for won- dering,' and a^tos 9au/iao-ai, 'worthy for wondering,' when the first means 'able to wonder' and the second 'deserving to be wondered at.' They are both active in form, but not in sense. " The middle and passive infinitives in Greek and Latin are merely adaptations of certain forms, out of a mass of units which had lost their in- dividuality, to express a relation made prominent by the closer connection of such nouns with the verb."* There was so much freedom in the Greek inf. that the Sanskrit -turn did not develop in the Greek as we see it in the Latin supine. Gradually by analogy the inf. forms came to be associated with the voices in the modes. Practically, therefore, the Greek inf. came to be used as if the voices had distinctive endings (cf. the history of the imper. endings).^ Thus in Lu. 12 : 58, 66s kpyaalav aTnjXXax^ai dir' oiroO, it is clear .that the passive voice is meant whatever the origin of the form -o-floi. The reduplication shows the tense also. The- same remark applies to Mk. 5 : 4, Std to 5e8ecrdaL koI dLeairaadai iv' avTov ras aXvaeis. See also 5 : 43, elirev SoBrjpai auTJj (jmyetv. No special voice significance is manifest in ttmyeiv, which is like our 1 See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 229. ' As, for instance, Szczurat, De Inf. Horn. Usu, 1902, p. 17< He claims that the Horn. inf. came to serve almost all the ideas of the finite verb. ' ffist. Gk. Gr., p. 576. " Prol., p. 203. » lb. ' In Ac. 26 : 28, ireWeis Xpurruivov iroiijaai, one notes a possible absence of the strict voice in iroirjaai. But it is a hard passage. 1080 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ' eating' and is the ace. of general reference with Sodfjvai which in turn is the direct object of etinv. But 8odrjvai has the passive force beyond a doubt. Cf. further iiroXeXicrdaL kSiivaro in Ac. 26 : 32 and eveKev tov (^aj-epcoe^mi in 2 Cor. 7 : 12. In general, therefore, after the inf. is fully developed, the voice in the inf. appears exactly as in the modes. So tov dxexeo-flai (Ac. 15 : 20); awoypa^aadai (Lu. 2:5); h-ikaBeadai (Heb. 6 : 10); -yaixridrivai, (1 Cor. 7: 39); KXrjerjvai vU>s (Lu. 15 : 19). Cf. etkcaadai (Lu. 7 : 24) and fleaS^mt (Mt. 6:1). (6) Tense. See chapter on Tenses for adequate discussion of this point. Some general remarks must here suffice. As the Sanskrit inf. had no voice, so it had no tense. In the original Greek there was possibly no tense in the inf., but in Homer the tense is in full force.' There is no time-element in the inf. (cf. sub]., opt. and imperative) except as the future inf. echoes the expectation of a verb like 'iK-wl^io {ov-tikWoi) or as the inf. repre- sents a fut. ind. in indirect discourse (see Indirect Discourse under Modes). It is probably true that originally there was no distinc- tion between aorist (punctiliar) and present (linear) action in the inf. In Sanskrit and Latin the infinitives and supines have no necessary connection with the present stem (cf . supine tadum and inf. tangere)? "The v aKiayriixa- Tuv, the predicate nominative in Ac. 17 : 18 KaTayyeXeis etvai, the predicate accusative in Ro. 2 : 19 TkToidas crtavTov oSriyov elvai, or the ace. of general reference in ind. discourse in Mk. 12 : 18. But this brings us again to the ace. in indirect assertion, a matter al- ready treated at some length. (See Accusative Case, Indirect Dis- course, and the next section.) But the thing to note is the real verbal nature of the inf. in the matter of cases. Note the three accusatives with tov SLdacKuv in Heb. 5 : 11 f., two objects, one of general reference. The cognate neuter plural is seen in xoXXd 7raMj'(Mt. 16:21). (d) The Infinitive in Indirect Discourse. The frequent ob- scuration of the cases with the inf. in indirect discourse justifies some additional remarks besides those in the chapter on Modes. The inf. is not finite and, like the participle, has no subject. By courtesy the grammars often say so, but it beclouds more than it clears to do so. The case of the predicate* with the inf. is the > Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 486, 552 ff. 2 Prol., p. 204 f. Cf. Hatz., Einl., pp. 142, 190; Kalker, Quest., p. 281. ' » Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 59. * Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Tl. II, p. 460. Brug. (Griech. Gr., p. 518) takes the ace. as originally the obj. of the verb. That was not always true, as we have seen in Indirect Discourse. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOs) 1083 place to start. Cf. Mt. 19 : 21, el BeXeis reXeios etvai. See also 2 Cor. 10 : 2, Skonai rd iiij irapd)v Bapprjaai, where the nominative oc- curs within the domain of the accusative articular inf. But note Mk. 14 : 28, nerd, to kyepBrjval lie irpoa^oi. The true nature of the ace. with the inf. as being merely that of general reference comes out well in the articular inf., as in Jas. 4 : 2, oiiK exere 5id t6 ad) alreladai i/tas. It is not necessary here to go over again the steps taken under Modes, but simply to insist on the true nature of the ac- cusative with the inf. It stands, indeed, in the place of a finite verb of the direct statement, but does not thereby become finite with a subject. From the syntactical standpoint the construc- tion is true to both the substantival and verbal aspects of the inf. The subject of the finite verb, when thrown into the ace, takes this turn because of the limitations of the inf. When it is retained in the nominative, it is by apposition with the subject of the principal verb or by attraction if in the predicate. Draeger sees this point clearly in his treatment of the matter in Latin where the ace. with the inf. is much more frequent than in Greek.' "The name is confessedly a misnomer," say King and Cookson.^ Schmid' also sees the matter clearly and makes the ace. with the inf. the ace, of general reference. The usual beaten track is taken by Jolly,* but the truth is making its way and will win. Schmitt* admits that the ace. is not the grammatical subject, but only the logical subject. But why call it "subject" at all? Schroeder^ properly likens it to the double accusative with 6i.ba.aK03, as in MacKw aiirdv ■Kepiirarelv. The late Sanskrit shows a few examples like English "if you wish me to live."' The use of the ace. with the inf. early reached a state of perfection in Greek and Latin. Schlicher* notes 130 instances of it in Homer with (jtrnil alone as against 15 with is, ort. We see it in its glory in historians like Xenophon and Thucydides in Greek and Caesar in Latin. Vo- taw' notes the rarity of the construction in the 0. T., while the Apocrypha and the N. T. have some 46 verbs which use the idiom. But even in the N. T., as compared with the ancient Greek, the construction is greatly narrowed. The particular ' Hist. Synt., Bd. II, pp. 380, 446. ' Uber den Infinitiv, p. 40. ' Introd. to Comp. Gr., 1890, p. 214. * Gesch. des Inf., p. 247. ' tJber den Urspr. des Substantivsatzes, p. 5. ' tlber die formeUe Untersch. der Redet., p. 28. ' Wilhelmius, De Inf. linguarum Sanscritae, Beoticae, Persicae, Graeoae, Oscae, Vrabricae, Latinae, Goticae Forma et Vsv, 1873, p. 65. ' Moods of Indirect Quotation, Am. Jour, of Theol., Jan., 1905. 9 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 9. 1084 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT verbs in the N. T. which may use the ace. and the inf. in indirect assertion were given under Modes. A general view of the matter discloses a rather wide range still. But the idiom, being largely literary, is chiefly found in Luke, Paul and Hebrews. The other writers prefer on. Luke, in fact, is the one who makes the most constant use of the idiom, and he quickly passes over to the direct statement. There is with most of them flexibility as was shown. Blass^ has a sensible summary of the situation in the N. T. There is, in truth, no essential difference in the Greek construction, whether the inf. is without a substantive, as in Ac. 12 : 15 Sucrxu- pl^tTO oCtws eX"'') with the ace, Ac. 24:9 ipaaKOvres ravra oirus 'fx^iv, or with the nom. Ro. 1 : 22 aaKovT€s elvai ao(l>oi. Cf. Ac. 17: 30; 1 Pet. 3 : 17. Words like Sei, avdyK-q may be followed by no substantive (Mt. 23 : 23; Ro. 13 : 5). Cf. Lu. 2 : 26. In 1 Pet. 2 : 11, we have only the predicate ojs irapoiKous — airkx^aOai.. Freedom also exists. In Mk. 9 : 47 we have koXov ak kcmp iwvo- da\nou eia-eXdeiv, while in Mt. 18 : 8 we read mkov aoi kcmv /wvd- da\iwv dcreKduv. Even in Matthew the predicate adj. is aec, though it might have been dative, as in Ac. 16 : 21. Further ex- amples of the predicate dative when an accusative is possible are seen in Lu. 1 : 3; 9 : 59; Ac. 27 : 3 (KAB) ; 2 Pet. 2 : 21. But see Ac. 15 : 22, 25; Heb. 2 : 10. Impersonal constructions may also use the ace. with the inf. There are besides verbs of willing, desiring, allowing, making, asking, beseeching, exhorting, some verbs of commanding, the inf. with Tplv, ware, rb, tov, prepositions and the articular infinitive. With all these the ace. may occur. A difficult inf. occurs in Ac. 26 : 28, iv oXtyoj /^e ireWets Xpurriavdv iroivkpu, Wos kirHv, kekp,iTov, aiaxpov, etc. As shown above, koKov kanv is used either with the ace. or the dative, as is true of Xe7co (cf. Mt. 5 : 34, 39 with Ac. 21 : 21; 22 : 24). Blass^ adds also Ac. 5 : 9, awi(l>wi>i]dv i/itv Teipacrai. He notes also that irpocTaaaui occurs with the ace. (Ac. 10 : 48) as is true of kirirkaaca (Mk. 6 : 27) and Tatraca (Ac. 15 : 2). Even (Tvp(j>epei appears with the ace. and inf. (Jo. 18 : 14) and i^e 6.vaipedrjvaL aiirbv, (1 Th. 5 : 27) dpd^ca inas a.vayvoKrdTJpai Ti)i' lirto'ToXV- In Ac. 21 : 12, irapeKciXovfiev — tov ii.r\ avafialvtiv airdv eis 'IfpovaaXrin, the avTov is aee. of general reference with the inf., which is itself in the genitive as to form, though the real object of the verb. There is no instance in the N. T. of the inf. in a sub- ordinate clause unless we follow Nestle in 1 Pet. 5 : 8, ^tiruv riva KaTdinetv. There are sporadic examples of such a construction due to analogy of the inf. in the main clause.^ Cf. 0. P. 1125, 14 (ii/A.D.), o8s Kal Kvpieieiv tSiv KapTcov. (e) Personal Construction with the Infinitive. Many verbs and adjectives allowed either the personal or the impersonal con- struction with the infinitive. The Greek developed much more freedom in the matter than the Latin, which was more limited in the use of the impersonal.* In the N. T. the impersonal con- struction occurs with fixed verbs like bet, Ac. 25 : 24, fioSivTts firi dtlv aMv f ^v firiKkri, where note inf. dependent on inf. as is com- mon (Lu. 6 : 12; Ac. 26 : 9; Lu. 5 : 34; Heb. 7 : 23; Mk. 5 : 43; Lu. 6 : 12; 8 : 55). So also with ^Jeo-rii', etc. The impersonal con- struction is seen also in Lu. 2:26; 16:22; Ph. 3:1; Heb. 9:26, etc. The inf. with impersonal verbs is somewhat more frequent in the N. T. than in the LXX. On the whole the personal construc- tion with the inf. is rare in the N. T.^ But in the N. T. doKku has the personal construction, as in Ac. 17 : 18, SoKei KaTayyeXeis ehai. (cf. Jas. 1 : 26; Gal. 2 : 9, etc.), but we find eSo^k fwi in Lu. 1 : 3 (cf. Ac. 15 : 28, etc.) and even eSo^a kp.avT^ Setv Tpa^ai (Ac. 26 : 9). The Koivii seems to use it less frequently than the ancient Greek. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 148) quotes Vett. Valens, p. 277, 19, do^ei — iir&pxiiv ahrrjv rr\v atpeffiv. We have 5eSoKip,a.cfieda ■wKjTev- Brjvai (1 Th. 2 : 4) and kfiaprvpiiBri elvai (Heb. 11:4). One may compare the personal construction with 6tl (1 Cor. 15 : 12; 2 Cor. • Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 241. ^ lb. ' Cf. Middleton, Analogy in Sjnat., p. 9. Maximus of Tyre has it in a rel. clause. Dilrr, Sprachl. Unters., p. 43. * Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 239. 5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 239. 1086 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 3 : 3; 1 Jo. 2 : 19). The personal construction occurs with irpkiret (Heb. 7: '26). The impersonal has the ace. and the inf. (1 Cor. 11 : 13), the dative and the inf. (Mt. 3 : 15), both the dative and the ace. (Heb. 2 : 10). Cf. W. F. Moulton in Winer-Moulton, p. 402. The love of the passive impersonal appears in Ac. 13 : 28, ■fiTrjcrai'TO HeiXarov, apaipedrjvaL avTov, and in 5 : 21, airea-TeiXav axBrjvaL airoi/s (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 148). The nominative predicate with the inf. and the nom. in indirect discourse is to be noted also. (/) Epexegetical Infinitive. As already remarked, there is no essential difference between the appositional and the epexegetical use of the infinitive. The epexegetical inf. is added to a clause more or less complete in itself, while the merely appositional is more simple. 1 It is common in the dramatists. This use is prob- ably adnominaP in origin, but it drifts into the verbal aspect also. We see a free use of the limitative' inf. in cos eras eiwiiv, which only occurs once in the N. T. (Heb. 7:9). Brugmann does not agree with Griinewald that this is the original epexegetical or limitative inf., though it is kin to it. Blass* applies " epexegetical ' ' merely to the appositional inf. It is in the epexegetical inf. that we see more clearly the transition from the original substantive to the verbal idea. It is hard to draw the line between hbjua airoypa(j)eadaL iraaav rrju olnoviikv-qv (Lu. 2 : 1) and irapkdcoKev airoiis eis aJboKLixov povv, TToteZv to, /mti KaBriKovra (Ro. 1 : 28). The first is appo- sitional, the latter epexegetical. A good instance of the epexeget- ical inf. is seen in 2 Cor. 9 : 5, where rabrriv iToln-qv elvai iis tvKoyiav is subsidiary to the I'm clause preceding, as is often the case. Vi- teau^ notes that the construction is frequent in the Epistles. Cf. Eph. 1 : 16-18 (tva — eis to eldivat), 3 : 16 f. {'iva — KparaiMOrjvai, Karoi- KTJaai), Col. 1 : 10 {'iva — irepi.-iraT7Javat, tov KarevOvvai, Ac. 17 : 27 fr/Tetv, 2 Pet. 3 : 2 nvri(r6fjvai,. The LXX^ shows rather frequent instances of the articular inf. in this sense (cf. Gen. 3:22; Judg. 8:33; Ps. 77: 18). The N. T. shows very few. Indeed, Votaw finds only one, that in Gal. 3 : 10, Jxt/carapaTos xSs 6s ovk kp,p,ev€L xScii' toTs yeypafifiivoLs iv TCf j8i/3XtC[) tov vop-ov tov iroaicai avra. But certainly 1 Thomspon, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 239. ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 517. ' Grunewald, Der freie formelhafte Inf. der Limit, iin Grieoh., p. 21 f. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 229. 6 Le Verbe, p. 161. « Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 26. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOs)' 1087 Tov cLTt/ia^eaBai (Ro. 1 : 24) after wapkSuKev is just as truly epexeget- ical as is voutv in verse 28 after irapkSuKep. So also Ro. 7:3; 8 : 12; 1 Cor. 10 : 13. Burton' looks at the epexegetical inf. as "an indirect object," as in Lu. 10 : 40, 17 dSeX^i^ ixov ixovrjv fie Kark^Hirev diaKoveiv. There is no doubt that in such instances the inf. is in the original dative case with the dative idea. See further Mk. 4:23; 6:31; Lu. 7:40; 12:4; Ac. 4 : 14; 7:42; 17:21; 23:17, 18, 19; Tit. 2 : 8, etc. (g) Purpose. It is but a step from the explanatory or epexe- getical inf. to that of design. Indeed, the epexegetical inf. some- times is final, a secondary purpose after Iva, as in Eph. 1 : 18; 3 : 17; Col. 1: 10, etc. The sub-final or objective use of the inf. is also a step on the way. This use was very common in the ancient Greek, but was partially taken up by I'm in the N. T.^ But many verbs, as we have seen, retain the sub-final inf. in the N. T. as in the rest of the koivti. Blass' careful lists and those of Viteau were given under Indirect Discourse. This notion of purpose is the direct meaning of the dative case which is retained. It is the usual meaning of the inf. in Homer,' that of purpose. It goes back to the original Indo-Germanic stock.'' It was always more common in poetry than in prose. The close connection between the epexegetical inf. and that of purpose is seen in Mk. 7 : 4, a irapkXaPov Kpareiv ('for keeping,' 'to keep'). So Mt. 27: 33, eSuKav airS TTLetv olvov ('for drinking,' 'to drink'). So Mt. 25 : 35, iSii- Kart poL (pajitv. The inf. with the notion of purpose is exceedingly frequent in the LXX, second only to that of the object-inf. with verbs.^ It was abundant in Herodotus.* Hence Thumb' thinks its abundant use in the Kowri is due to the influence of the Ionic dialect. Moulton* agrees with this opinion. This is true both of the simple inf. of purpose and tov and the inf. The Pontic dia- lect still preserves the inf. of purpose after verbs like ava^aivca, etc. It is noteworthy that the inf. was not admitted into Latin except with a verb of motion. Moulton {Prol., p. 205) cites Par. P. 49 (ii/B.c.) iav avafiSi Kajii Trpoa-KvvTJaai., as parallel to Lu. 18 : 1 N. T. M. and T., p. 147. ' Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255 f.; Humphreys, The Problems of Greek, Congress of Arts and Sciences, 1904, vol. Ill, pp. 171 ff. ' Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 154. * Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 516; Delbriick, Grundr., IV, pp. 463 ff. ' Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 10. • Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 240. ' Theol. Lit., 1903, p. 421. » Prol., p. 205. 1088 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 10, avk^rqaav — irpotreii^aadai. Moulton' notes this correspondence between the ancient and the modern vernacular and agrees with Thumb's verdict again that the result is due to the two conflict- ing tendencies, one the universalizing of Iva, which prevailed in Western Hellenism and resulted in the disappearance of the inf. in modern Greece, while the locaUzing of the inf. in Pontus serves to illustrate to-day the N. T. idiom. The N. T. use of the inf. of purpose includes the simple inf., rod and the inf., els r6 and the inf., Trpos to and the inf., Siare and the inf. There is no ex- ample of i(l)' v re. First note the simple inf., all in the original dative case. This use had a wider range in Homer than in the Attic writers. Thus Mt. 2 :2 fiXdonev wpoa-Kvvwai avr^; (5:17) ovK rjXdov KaToKvaai,, dXXa irKtipSxrai.; (7: 5) 5uifi\k\j/€LS bc^oKetv to K&p- os; (11:7) Tt i^XBaiTe els rriv iprifiov Oeacaadai (so verse 8, l&etv); (20 .: 28; Mk. 3 : 14) a.iroaTkW-Q aiTobs Ktjpixraeiv; (5 : 32) irepie^U- ireTO l8eZv; (Lu. 18 : 10) avk^rjaav irpoaeh^aadai; (Jo. 4 : 15) dtipx^liai. evda,8e aPTXeZv; (Ac. 10 : 33) irapea-fiev aKovcrai,; (2 Cor. 11:2) ^pjuo- aajxriv vims — irapaaTrjaai; (Rev. 5 : 5) kviKricrep — avot^ai; (16 : 9) oil ixeTevbiqaav SoOrat. These examples will suffice. It is very com- mon in the N. T. It is not necessary to multiply illustrations of Tov after all the previous discussion. The 0. T. shows the idiom in great abundance, though the construction is classic. It was used especially by Thucydides.* This was a normal use. We have already noticed that Paul makes little, if any, use of this idiom.' It is possible in Ro. 6:6; Ph. 3 : 10. Indeed, Votaw* notes only 33 instances of tov and inf. of purpose in the N. T., and these are chiefly in Matthew, Luke and Acts. Note (Mt. 2 : 13) fijreij' TOV airoKkirai., (13 : 3) eJ^rjKdev tov . See further Final Clauses in chapter on Modes for papyri examples. (/j) Result. Purpose is only "intended result," as Burton* ar- gues. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p., 153) says that the difference between purpose and result in the inf. is often only in the more subjective or objective colouring of the thought. It is hard to draw a line between conceived result and intended result. Blass^ explains a number of examples as result that I have put above under Purpose, as Rev. 5 : 5; 16 : 9. It is largely a matter of standpoint. The line of distinction is often very faint, if not wholly gone. Take Rev. 5 : 5, for instance, iv'ucTiaev 6 \ecov avoX^ai.. The lion had opened the book and so it was actual result. So also Ac. 5 : 3, SlA. ri kTKijptacev h craravas rifv KapSiav crov, \l/€vaacrOal (re. Ananias had actually lied. In the ancient Greek also the distinction between purpose and result was not sharply drawn.' The inf. may represent merely the content' and not clearly either result or purpose, as in Eph. 3 : 6, elvai to. Wvri. Cf . also 4 : 22, airo- Bkadai. This is not a Hebraistic (Burton) idiom, but falls in na- turally with the freer use of the inf. in the koij/i?. See also Ac. 15 : 10 kiridetvai ^vjbv, (Heb. 5 : 5) yevriOTJvai apxi^epia. Where it is clearly result, it may be actual or hypothetical.* The hypothet- ical is the natural or conceived result. The N. T. shows but 12 ' Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 10. ' N. T. M. and T., p. 150. ' Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 24. Cf. W.-M., p. 409. < N. T. M. and T., p. 148. > Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 224. " Baumlein, Modi, p. 339. ' W.- M., p. 400. See Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 150 f. « Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 21. 1090 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT instances of the simple inf. with the notion of result, according to Votaw.' In the 0. T. it is quite common. The 12 examples in the N. T. are usually hypothetical, not actual. So Ro. 1 : 10 evo- duidi/aoiiai, k\6ecv irpos v/xai, (Eph. 3 : 17) KpaTaiMOfjvai, KaToiKrjaai, (6 : 19) yvcapLaai, (Col. 4 : 3) XaXfjcai, (4 : 6) etSemi, (Heb. 6 : 10) ^TriXa- dtadai. It is here that the kinship with purpose is so strong. Cf. Rev. 16 : 9. But some examples of actual result do occur, as in Lu. 10 : 40; Ac. 6:3; Rev. 5:5. In the 0. T.^ we have actual result with rod and the inf., but no examples occur in the N. T. Not more than one-half of the examples of rod and the inf. in Luke, who gives two-thirds of the N. T. instances, are final.' Some of these are examples of h3rpothetical result. See discussion of Result in chapter on Mode for further discussion and papyri examples. It is rather common in the 0. T., though not so frequent in the N. T.* It is possible to regard Mt. 21 : 32, /lereixeXiiOTire rod Tntrrev- aai, thus, though in reality it is rather the content of the verb.* There is similar ambiguity in Ac. 7 : 19, kKo-KCicrev rod touIv. But the point seems clear in Ac. 18 : 10, ovStU eTidiicTtral coi rod KaK&crai ire, and in Ro. 7 : 3, rod p.7j elvai avriiv jUotxiXiSa. If rod can be oc- casionally used for result, one is prepared to surrender the point as to eis ro if necessary. It is usually purpose, but there is ambi- guity here also, as in Mt. 26 : 2; 1 Cor. 11 : 22, where the purpose shades off toward hypothetical result. In Ac. 7 : 19 we seem to have hypothetical result, eis ro /xri ^(aoyovelirdai. So also Ro. 6 : 12, eis TO viraKoveLv. It may be true also of Heb. 11 : 3, eis ro yeyovkvai.. See further Ro. 12 : 3; 2 Cor. 8 : 6; Gal. 3 : 17.« Votaw' argues for actual result in Ro. 1 : 20, eis ro elvai avrovs avairoXoynrovs. It is hard to deny it in this passage. But it is oxrre and the inf. that is the usual N. T. construction for this idea with the inf. As already shown (see Mode) nearly all of the 51 examples of cio-re and the inf. in the N. T. have the notion of result. Once Votaw« notes an instance of hypothetical result in the N. T., 1 Cor. 13 : 2, K&v ^x^^ Tacrav rijv irlariv Siare opy] fieBia-raveiv. Burton' goes fur- ther and includes in this category Mt. 10 : 1 ; 2 Cor. 2 : 7. But these debatable examples are in harmony with the usual am- ' Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 13. 2 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 25. Cf. Ruth'2 : 10, t£ 6n iSpov x&pi-v iv 609oX- iioXs a-ov Tov iinyvoii/al jue; See also 2 Chron. 33 : 9; 1 Mace. 14 : 36. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 217. * Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 25. « Moulton, Prol., p. 216. « Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 161; Moulton, Prol., p. 219. ' Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 21. 8 lb., p. 14. fl N. T. M. and T., p. 149. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOS) 1091 biguity as to result and purpose. There is no doubt about the examples of actual result with ibare. Thus Mt. 13 : 54 kSldaaKev aiiToiis Siare kKTcKi\aaiaOai Kal \fr(ei,v, (Mk. 9 : 26) ibare tovs ttoXXous "KkytLV, (Lu. 12 : 1) Siare TreptiraTeZv aXKrfKovs, (Ac. 5 : 15) uaTe kK^'e- peiv. See also Ac. 15 : 39; Ro. 7 : 6; 2 Cor. 7 : 7; Ph. 1 : 13, etc. There is one instance in the text of W. H. where tbs occurs with the inf., Lu. 9 : 52, tos iroifikaai. Here hypothetical result or purpose is possible. Cf. d)s axtiv 0. P. 1120, 19 f. (iii/A.o.). The use of cbs exos dirttv (Heb. 7:9) is the absolute idea, as already shown. Different also is ws av kK(j)ofieiv (2 Cor. 10 : 9)= 'as if.' A clear case of result occurs in Epictetus, IV, 1, 50, ovTois — /ii) &iro5vpacdai. (i) Cause. There is only one example in the N. T. of the ar- ticular inf. without a preposition in this sense. That is in 2 Cor. 2 : 13, tQ firi evpelv, and it is in the instr. case as already shown. The LXX shows a half-dozeu examples, but all with variant readings.' But it is common with 5id to to have the causal sense, some 32 times in the N. T.'' See Prepositions and Substantival Aspects of the Infinitive. Cf. Mt. 13 : 5 f.; Mk. 5 : 4; Lu. 6 : 48; Jas. 4 : 2 f . There is one instance of 'ivtKtv tov in 2 Cor. 7 : 12. (j) Time. Temporal relations are only vaguely expressed by the inf. See Tense in this chapter for the absence of the time- element in the tenses of the inf. except in indirect discourse. Elsewhere it is only by prepositions and irplv (an adverbial prep- osition in reality) that the temporal idea is conveyed by the inf. Antecedent time is expressed by wpiv or xp6 tov. For irp6 tov, see Mt. 6 : 8; Lu. 2 : 21, etc. Upiv or Tplv ^ (so in Mt. 1 : 18; Mk. 14 : 30; Ac. 7 : 2; W. H. have xplv J) in the margin in Ac. 2 : 20) occurs with the inf. 11 times in the N. T. (all in Gospels and Acts). We have it only twice with finite verb after negative sentences, once with the subj. (Lu. 2 : 26), once with the opt. (Ac. 25 : 16), both in Luke (Uterary style). See, for the inf.,' Mt. 26 : 34 rrplv aXkKTopa ^oivijcaL, (Jo. 4 : 49) irplv airodaveiv. See further Mt. 26 : 75; Mk. 14 : 72; Lu. 22 : 61 (five of the instances are practically identical); Jo. 8 : 58; 14 : 29; Ac. 2 : 20. In He- rodotus, under- the influence of indirect discourse, the inf. occurs with oKws, sTret, ewei5ri, d, hioTi and the relative pronouns.^ Con- > Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 29. 2 Biirton, N. T. M. and T., p. 161, mentions only 23. ' The inf. with irplv is common in Horn. See Monro, p. 168. * B^nard, Formes verbales en Grec d'apres le Texte d'H^rodote, 1890, p. 196. See also Sturm, l)ie Entwick. der Konstrukt. mit irpiv, 1883, p. 3. 1092 A GHAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ' temporaneous action is described by kv t(^, especially in Luke. Cf. Lu. 1 : 21, kv T(? xpovi^tiv. See Prepositions with Infinitive for further remarks. Subsequent action is set forth by fiera rb as in Mt. 26 : 32; Lu. 12 : 5, etc. In Ac. 8 : 40, em rod eXMv, we have the prospective future. (fc) The Absolute Infinitive. This idiom is very common in Homer, especially as an imperative and in the midst of impera- tives.i R. Wagner^ notes that in Homer this use of the inf. oc- curs with the nom. The papyri still show examples like 6 Setw Tc^ deZva xaipetc' Gerhard* holds that in such cases there is ellipsis of \tr/ei. The Attic inscriptions* frequently have the absolute infinitive as imperative. Deissmann {Light from the Anc. East, p. 75) notes that, as in German, it is common in edicts and no- tices. Cf. imperatival use of infinitive in modem French. He quotes from the " Limestone Block from the Temple of Herod at Jerusalem" (early imperial period): MT/fl^ya aK\oyevrl eiairopeveadai, kvrds Tov irepl rd iepdv Tpv(j>aKTov Kal iripi^oSov, ' Let no foreigner enter within,' etc. See also Epictetus, IV, 10, 18, Iva 5k ravra ykvrjTai, oil fiiKpa de^aadat. oidk fuKpcov anrorvxttv. The imperatival use was an original Indo-Germanic idiom.^ It flourishes in the Greek prose writers.' Burton^ and Votaw' admit one instance of the imperatival inf. in the N. T., Ph. 3 : 16, rQ abrQ (ttoix^Iv. But Moulton'" rightly objects to this needless fear of this use of the inf. It is clearly present in Ro. 12 : 15, xaip^"', ic\alHv. The case of Lu. 9 : 3 is also pertinent where jui? re exetv comes in between two imperatives. Moulton himself objects on this point that this inf. is due to a mixture of indirect with direct discourse. That is true, but it was a very easy lapse, since the inf. itself has- this imperatival use. In 1 Th. 3:11,- 2 Th. 2:17; 3:5 , there is tlie nominative case and the whole context besides the accent to prove that we have the optative, not the aorist ac- tive infinitive. See Mode for further discussion. Moulton''^ quotes Burkitt as favouring the mere infinitive, not eSet, in Mt. 23 : 23, ravra Bk iroLrjaaL KaKtiva /ii) a^eivai, after the Lewis Syriac MS., and also KavxaaOai. — in 2 Cor. 12 : 1 after K- The 1 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 162. ^ Der Gebr. des imper. Inf. im Griech., 1891, p. 12. ^ Reinaoh, Pap. grecs et d^motiques, 1905. * Unters. zur Gesch. des griech. Briefes, Phil. Zeitsohr., 1905, p. 56. "> Meisterh., p. 244. 6 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 516. » Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 18. ' W.-M., p. 397. 10 Prol., p. 179. » N. T. M. and T., p. 146. " lb., p. 248. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT "PHMATOs) 1093 imperatival use of the inf. was common in laws and maxims and recurs in the papyri.^ So A. P. 86 (I/a.d.) k^eivai, /iicdiaaai. Rader- macher(iV. T. Gr., p. 146) quotes Theo, Progymn., p. 128, 12,' (I>kp6 ^TiTelv, where the inf. is used as a deliberative subj. would be. He gives also the Hellenistic formula, ets 8hvaniv dvai riiv kfiriv, Inscr. Pergam., 13, 31; 13, 34. Hatzidakis^ notes that in the Pontic dialect this construction still exists. The epistolary inf. has the same origin as the imperatival inf. It is the absolute inf. This is common in the papyri. See Ac. 15 : 23; 23 : 26; Jas. 1 : 1, xatpeu'. The nom. is the nominative absolute also. Cf. 2 Jo. 10, where xatpe'i' is the object of XeyeTe. Radermacher (iV. T. Gr., p. 146) notes how in the later language the ace. comes to be used with the absolute inf., as in C. Inscr. lat. V. 8733, 8ovve avT03v= bowai avTov. It is just in this absolute inf. that we best see the gradual acquirement of verbal aspects by the inf. It is probably the oldest verbal use of the inf .^ The construction in Heb. 7 : 9, (is hr(K eiireiv, is but a step further on the way. There is but one instance of this sort with us in the N. T.* Cf. roO iroKenrjcai in Rev. 12 : 7, where it is an independent parenthesis. (Q Negatives. The ancient Greek used ^i? chiefly with the inf. except in indirect assertion where ob of the direct was retained. But we see 06 with the inf. after verbs of saying as early as Ho- mer, 4>^i oix vToneivai, Iliad, XVII, 174. Thus ob won a place for itself with the inf., but many verbs retained nit as verbs of swearing, hoping, promising, etc. But special phrases could have ob anywhere and strong contrast or- emphasis would justify ob.^ Votaw* finds 354 instances in the Greek Bible where the inf. it- self is modified by the negative. Of these 330 have ixi] and the rest have compounds of iJ.it. The anarthrous inf. with iiit he notes 59 times in the O. T., 32 in the Apocrypha and 47 in the N. T., 139 in all. The articular inf. with nit he finds in the O. T. 136 times (toO 99, to 37), in the Apocrypha 21 times (toO 10, t6 11), in the N. T. 35 times (roO 15, rb 20), 192 in all (toO 124, t6 68). With the anarthrous inf. the negative more frequently occurs with the principal verb as in ob S^Xco. We do have ob in infinitival clauses, as will be shown, but in general it is true to say that the inf. directly is always negatived by n'h in the N. T. This is true of > lb., p. 179. ^ Einl., p. 192. ' Moulton, Prol., p, 203. * For the variety of uses of the absolute inf. in ancient Gk. see Goodwin, M. andT., pp. 310£f. ' Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 414. 6 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 58. 1094 A GEAMMAB OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT all sorts of uses of the inf. So the subject-inf. uses nij, as Kpetr- Tov ^v avTciis uri kireYvwKhai (2 Pet. 2 : 21), both the anarthrous as above and the articular as in Lu. 17 : 1. The object-inf. likewise has uri, as in Lu. 21 : 14, dkre kv toTs KapSlais ifiSiv uri irponekeToiv. For the articular accusative with jui^ see Ro. 14 : 13. We have it with indirect commands as in Mt. 5 : 34, \eyo3 i/fuv nil biwcrai, and in indirect assertion as in Ac. 23 : 8, Xkyovaiv nri tlvai avaaraaiv nijTe ayyekov nrire -irvevfm. We have it with tov fii] as in Jas. 5 : 17, tov fifi fipk^ai, and with prepositions as in 2 Cor. 4 : 4j ets to p.ii avyaaai. With verbs of hindering and denying the negative /ii) is not necessary, but it was often used by the ancients as a redundant negative repeating the negative notion of the verb, just as double negatives carried on the force of the first negative. It was not always used. When the verb itself was negatived, then nri ob could follow.^ But we do not find this idiom in the N. T. Examples of the N. T. idiom have already been given in this chapter. The variety in the N. T. may be illus- trated. See Lu. 23' : 2 KoiXiovTa 4>dpovs Kalaapi StSovai, (Ac. 4 : 17) awtLKijiTuiieQa avTols lirjKkTi. XaXeiv, (Gal. 5 : 7) tLs iifias kvkKoxf/ev a\r]- Oeiq. nil ireWeaOai, (Ro. 15 : 22) kveKoitTbnw tov k\8etv, (Lu. 4 : 42) KartLXov avTov tov /xV iropeheffdai,, (Mt. 19 : 14) fiij KoikheTS avTci, iXdeiv vpos iue, (1 Cor. 14 : 39) to XaXetv fiii KcoXvere, (Ac. 14 : 18) ;u6Xis KCLTeiravaav roiis oxXous tov fiij dveiv aurois, (Ac. 8 : 36) tL KuiXvei lit paTTiadrjvai, (10 : 47) niiTi to v8(ap Svvarai KoAvaai tls tov nij /Sair- TiaOrivai, (20 : 20) ovhtv vire]V tov p,V b,vayyeL\ai. Rader- macher {N. T. Gr., p. 149) illustrates "the PauUne t6 nv with the infinitive" by Sophocles' Electra, 1078, to re /xri fiXkTtiv erolna, and the inscr. (Heberdey-Wilhelm, Reisen in Kilikien, 170, 2), to fiv^kv' aWov — kweiaevevKetv. We may note also Ac. 4 : 20, ov Svvafieda nii \a\e1v, where the negative is not redundant. Cf. also Jo. 5 : 19, ov SbpaTai iroieiv ovdev, where the second negative is redundant, but it repeats the ov. Some MSS. have a redundant negative nv with eiSevai in Lu. 22 : 34 (cf. 1 Jo. 2 : 22 after on) and with Trpo(TTedrj- vai in Heb. 12 : 19. So AP read avTiXkyovTes in Lu. 20 : 27. Even in indirect discourse the same negative is repeated, as in Ac. 26 : 26, Xavdaveiv aWdv TOVTiav ov irdOop.ai ovdkv. Here ovdkv strictly goes with Xavdavuv in spite of its position after irdOoixai, but oh is construed with ireWo/xat, and so ovdkv is used rather than HT)6kv or nv^kv. But in Mk. 7 : 24, ovhkva fjdeXev yvSivai, it is not best to explain ovSkva with the inf. in this fashion. This looks like the retention of the old classic use of ob with the inf. which 1 See Thompson, Synt., pp. 425 ff. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT THMATOS) 1095 the grammars are not willing to allow in the N. T.' Epictetus uses oil with the inf. as in IV, 10, 18, oi fitKpa Se^aadai ov5i fiiKplav kiroTvxtlv. As a matter of fact we have a number of other examples of oil with the inf., too many to rule out without ceremony. There is the case in Heb. 7: 11, ris en XP*'" i^"-'^"- ttiv ra^iv MeXxio-eS^x h-epov avLaTaa-dcLL Kal oi Hard, rijv ra^LV \kyeadai; It is true that _ov comes just before Kara rriv ra^Lv, but it is rather forced to deny it any connection with "Ktyeedai. See also Ro. 8 : 12, o^eiXerai ov rg aapd Tov Kara aapKa ^fjv, where, however, ov occurs outside of rod and is directly concerned with rg crapd. Other examples of sharp contrast by means of ob are found,' as in Ac. 10 : 40 f., i8oiKiv avrdv ilJ,avrj yevkadai, ov iravrl rcf Xa§ dXXd p.apTV(n] Ro. 7:6, iavTt 8ov- Xeieiv tv KaivoTTiTi irveiinaros Kal ov TraXatorTjrt ypafipaTOi] Heb. 13 : 9, /Se^aujOo-flat ob fipoinaaip (but here no contrast is expressed). In Ro. 4 : 12, 16, with eis to, we find ov nbvov — dXXa kolL (m) "kv with the Infinitive. This classic idiom has vanished from the N. T. save in 2 Cor. 10 : 9, cbs av kK4)ofitiv. Even here it is not a clear case, since 'tK^io^itv depends on 56gco and qjs av comes in as a parenthetical clause, 'as if ('as it were'). The treatment of the infinitive has thus required a good many twists and turns due to its double nature. III. The Participle (f> iieTOXTJ). 1. The Veebals in -to? and -reos. These verbals are not eX' actly participles inasmuch as they have no tense nor voice. They are formed from verb-stems, not from tense-stems, and hence are properly called verbal adjectives.^ In the broadest sense, however, these verbals are participles, since they partake of both verb and adjective. Originally the infinitive had no tense nor voice, and the same thing was true of the participle. For con- venience we have limited the term participle to the verbal ad- jectives with voice and tense. The verbal in —ros goes back to the original Indo-Germanic time and had a sort of perfect passive idea.' This form is like the Latin -tus. Cf. Yfoiros, notus; ayvos- Tos, ignotus. But we must not overdo this point. Strictly this pro-ethnic -tos has no voice nor tense and it never came to have intimate verbal connections in the Greek as it did in Latin and English.* Thus amatus est and ayairriTos kanv do not correspond, nor, in truth, does 'he is loved' square with either. "Even in Latin, a word like tadtus illustrates the absence of both tense ■ Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255. ' Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 262. " Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 200. * Moulton, Prol., p. 221. 1096 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT and voice from the adjective in its primary use."^ Already in the Sanskrit voice and tense appear with some of the participles, but "the division-line between participial and ordinary adjec- tives is less strictly drawn in Sanskrit than in the other Indo- European languages."" The ambiguity due to the absence of voice in the verbal in -ros was inherited from the original Indo- Germanic time.' It becomes, therefore, a lexical, not a syntactical problem to decide in a given instance whether the verbal is "active" or "passive" in signification. In itself it is neither. A similar problem is raised in compound adjectives like 6eo-fiAxoL (Ac. 5 : 39), 'fighting God.' It modern Greek the verbal in -ros is rare and is little more than an adjective (Thumb, Handb., p. 151), though the new formation in -Sltos has more verbal force. This ambiguity appears in Homer and all through the Greek language.* Blass^ overstates it when he says that in the N. T. "the verbal adjective has practically disappeared, with the ex- ception of forms like dwaros, which have become stereotyped as adjectives." As a matter of fact the verbal in -ros is still com- mon in the N. T. as in the Kotvi/ in general. Take, for instance, ayairriTds, S.yvciJTOS, adiivaros, aKarayvccTos, aj'a/^dprijros, avacTos, &6pr]- Tos, airwrros, dirojSXjjros, ApecrToj, apKerbs, yevTrqrbs, ypawros, SiSaKTOs, BwarSs, evXoyrjros, ^ecrros, davfJuwrSs, dvrfTos, deoTrviua-TOS, 6par6s, Tadtj- Tos, irapeicraKTOs, xto-ros, i^aprbs, xpijcros, etc. It is true^ that the tendency is rather to accent the adjectival aspect at the expense of the verbal idea of these words. But this also was true at the start, as we have just seen in the Sanskrit. The point to note is that the verbal does not denote voice. In Ac. 14 : 8; Ro. 15: 1, adimrov is 'incapable,' whereas usually it is 'impossible,' as in Mt. 19 : 26; Mk. 10 : 27, etc. In Ro. 8 : 3, therefore, it is doubtful whether t6 adivarov rod vbiiov is the 'impotency' or the 'impossibility' of the law.' There is no notion of tense nor of Aktionsart in these verbals in --ros and so &yairriT6s does not dis- tinguish' between ayairiiixevos, ayawrjOels and iiyairijukvos. Moul- ton thus properly notes the fact that in Mt. 25 : 41 we have Karripaiitvot,, 'having become the subjects of a curse,' not Karapa- Toi, 'cursed.' It is interesting to note x^p? dj'£KXaXi7rcj> xai 5e5o- ^ou/iej/a, ill 1 Pet. 1 : 8, but here dceKXdXijros is active in sense, 1 Moulton, Prol., p. 221. « Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 761. 2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 347. ^ Qp. of N. T. Gk., p. 37. ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 200. » Cf. Viteau, Essai siir la Synt. des,Voix, Revue de Philol., p. 41. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 221. » lb. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT "PHMATOZ) 1097 'inexpressible.' The ambiguity comes also in our English parti- ciple 'borne' used for alponevov in Mk. 2 : 3, and the punctiliar 'brought' used for hix6iiiXofi.kToxoL.^ Broadus used to call the Greek "a participle-loving language," and, taken as a whole, this is true. Certainly the participle had its most perfect develop- ment in the Greek. The aorist participle died in the Sanskrit and did not appear in the Latin. It is the aorist active participle which made the participle so powerful in Greek. The English, like the Sanskrit and the Greek, is rich in participles, though the German is comparatively poor. "We gain a certain grandeur and terseness by the construction, a certain sweep, a certain wepi- &o\i], such as Hermogenes recognises as lying in the participle."' This wealth of participles gives flexibility and swing to the lan- guage. (c) The Attic Period. In Herodotus the participle jumps to > Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 202. ^ Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 262. » Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 521 f . * Brug., Indoger. Forsch., V, pp. 89 ff.; Giles, Man., p. 473; Moulton, Prol., p. 221. 5 Williams, The Part, in the Book of Acts, 1909, p. 7. « Boiling, The Part, in Hesiod, Cath. Univ. Bull., 1897, III, p. 423. ' lb. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 505. 3 Gildersl., Stylistic Effect of the Gk. Part., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1888, p. 142. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOS) 1099 17|^ times per page of 30 lines.* But Sophocles has it only 9 times on the same scale. Williams^ runs the parallel on with 13 for Thucydides, 12f for Xenophon, 10^ for Plato, lOf for De- mosthenes. It is thus in the historians and orators and not the poets, that we see the participle in its glory. (d) The KoLvri. Here we note a sharp difference in the several styles of writing. The Atticists like Josephus with 20, and 2 Maccabees with 23|-, lead in conscious imitation of the ancients. They go beyond them in fact. But the writers of the literary Koivri follow close behind, as Polybius with 17|-, Strabo with 13j and Plutarch with 14. Certainly there is no sign of decay here. But in the LXX, Exodus, Deuteronomy and Judges give only Q^ while' the papyri show 6f. This confirms the judgment that the vernacular was not fond of the participle and found it clumsy. Jannaris* quotes striking passages from Thucydides, Plato and Demosthenes which illustrate well the clumsiness and ambiguity of the participle in long, involved sentences. Even in the older Greek in unconventional or unscholarly composition the accumulation of participles is shunned. The clearer and easier analysis of co-ordinate or subordinate clauses was used instead.* In the N. T. we see the participle used on the whole more fre- quently than in the LXX and the papyri. The Hebrew had a certain restraining influence on the participle in the LXX. In the vernacular papyri the participle was held back on the prin- ciple just stated above. It is Luke who makes most frequent use of the participle with 16f in the Gospel and 17g^ in the Acts per page of 30 lines.* But 1 Peter follows close behind with 15f and Hebrews with 14. In the other Gospels Matthew has it 12j, Mark llf and John lOf .' James has it 10 per page, while in the Epistles and Revelation it drops back to 8 and 9. On the whole it is much as one would expect. The more literary books lead (after Paul with only 9 per page average in Gal., 1 Cor., and Rom.).^ The historical books surpass the Epistles, while Hebrews here reveals its hortatory, sermonic character. For a succession of participles see Ac. 12 :25; 23 : 27; Heb. 1 : 13 f.; Mk. 5 : 15. The details of the N. T. situation will come later. (e) Modern Greek. The participle more and more came to be ' Williams, The Part, in Acts, p. 7. ' lb., p. 10. ' lb., p. 505. » lb. « Williams, Part, in Acts, p. 23. * Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 504. ' lb. " lb., p. 22. Williams did not count 2 Cor. and the other Pauline Epistles. 1100 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT scholastic and dropped out of the vernacular.' In particular was this true of the circumstantial participle. The classic Greek by means of the participle developed the periodic style (X^fis KareaTpanfihri) and is seen at its highest in Isocrates. See, for example, the "Ciceronian period" in Isocrates, p. 82. Jebb^ con- trasts this with \k^Ls eipoidvri, simply tacking clause to clause as in Mt. 7 : 27 and the colloquial repetition of finite verbs as in Jo. 1 : 47; 7 : 4. But /SXeTrerc, ^Xkirere, fiXeirere (Ph. 3 : 2) has rhetorical ef- fect. In the vernacular modern Greek, therefore, we see aTetreat of the participle all along the line. It is not dead as the infinitive, but is dying, though some vernacular writers are bringing back the use of the participle for literary purposes (Thumb, Handb., p. 168). The analytic tendency of modern language is against it. See Jebb's remarks for the various devices used instead of the participle. The only participles left in modern Greek are the indeclinable present active in -ovras (cf. gerund in Latin), some middle (or passive) parts, in -ohnevos or -afievos and perfect pas- sives hke 8efievos (no reduphcation).' A few are made from aorist stems like iBafihos (Thumb, Handb., p. 150). The use of the part, in the modern Greek is very limited indeed. 3. Significance of the Participle. (a) Originally an Adjective. The infinitive was originally a sub- stantive, as we have seen. In the Sanskrit it did not acquire voice and tense, though it had the verbal idea of action. The participle, as we have seen, had made more progress in the San- skrit, but it was also originally an adjective. It never got away from this original adjectival idea.* But we are not left to history and logic to prove this point. It so happens that some participles in form never became participles in fact. They are merely ad- jectives. Homer shows a number of such words.^ Cf. acr-iievos. We see remnants of this usage in the N. T. like eK Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 505. 2 V. and D., Handb., p. 333. ' Thumb, Handb., p. 167. Cf. also Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 242. * Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 522. » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 54. Cf. Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 681. « BoUing, The Part, in Hesiod, Cath. Univ. BuU., 1897, III, p. 422. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOS) 1101 not all verbs express motion. The mere adjectival notion is more common in the Latin, as in prceteritils, quietus, tacitus, etc. In Mt. 17 : 17, yevia &inaTos Kal SiearfMUfiivri, the verbal adjective and participle occur together. (6) The Addition of the Verbal Functions. These functions are tense, voice and case-government. There was originally no no- tion of time in the tense, nor does the tense in the participle ever express time absolutely. It only gives relative time by sug- gestion or by the use of temporal adverbs or conjunctions.' The verbal idea in the participle thus expands the adjectival notion of the word.^ But the addition of these verbal functions does not make the participle a real verb, since, like the infinitive, it does not have subject.' (c) The Double Aspect of the Participle. The very name parti- ciple {pars, capio) indicates this fact. The word is part adjective, part verb. Voss calls it mules, which is part horse and part ass.* Dionysius Thrax says: Meroxv 'tan 'Kk^is flerkxovcra rrjs rSiv (ntfiaTuv Kal rrjs tSiv ovonaruv idi^rrjros. In the true participle, therefore, we are to look for both the adjectival and the verbal aspects, as in the infinitive we have the substantival and the verbal. The em- phasis will vary in certain instances. Now the adjectival will be more to the fore as in the attributive articular participle like 6 KaXaJv.* Now the verbal side is stressed as in the circumstantial participle. But the adjectival notion never quite disappears in the one as the verbal always remains in the other (barring a few cases noted above). One must, therefore, explain in each in- stance both the adjectival and verbal functions of the participle else he has set forth only one side of the subject. It is true that the verbal functions are usually more complicated and interest- ing,' but the adjectival must not be neglected. (d) Relation between Participle and Infinitive. As already ex- plained, they are closely allied in use, though different in origin. Both are verbal nouns; both are infinitival; both are participial. But the participle so-called is inflected always, while the infinitive so-called has lost its proper inflection. The infinitive, besides, ex- presses' the action in relation to the verb, while the participle ex- presses the action in relation to the subject or the object of the 1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 522. < Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 169. 2 lb. ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 522. » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 53. « Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 163. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 242. In general, on this point, see Goodwin, M. and T., p. 357. 1102 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT verb (or some other substantive or pronoun).^ The distinction between the participle and the infinitive thus becomes quite im- portant. Thus in Lu. 16 : 3, kiraiTeZv alaxiivonai, the idea is ' I am ashamed to beg and do not do it,' while kwairciv aiaxivo/iaL would be 'I beg and am ashamed of it.'^ Cf. the analytic expression in 2 Tim. 1 : 12. In Xenophon, Mem., 2, 6, 39, we have ai(Txi>vo- fiai \kyuv. So apxona.1 in Attic Greek took the infinitive as a rule, linking the infinitive with the verb. But sometimes the parti- ciple occurred, linking the action to the subject (or object) and so contrasting the beginning with the end.' In the N. T. all the examples have the inf., there being no occasion for the point of distinction. In Lu. 3 : 23, apxoixevoi oiad h-Siv tpiAkovtu, we have neither with apxoiievos. Cf . Lu. 14 : 30, Tjp^aro o'lKoSonelv. Rader- macher (N. T. Gr., p. 169) compares ap^a/xevos k^erideTo (Ac. 11 : 4) with ap^afikvr] — Karkxapiai (Xen. of Eph., p. 388, 31). On the other hand, in the N. T. iravopai occurs only with the participle, as in Lu. 5 : 4, kvaixraro XaXcoi'. Cf. Ac. 5 : 42; 6 : 13; Eph. 1 : 16; Col. 1 : 9; Heb. 10 : 2. But in Ac. 14 : 18 note Karexavaau rod p,ri Biieiv, which well illustrates the difference between the inf. and the part. The use of krkXecrev Siaraaacov (Mt. 11 : 1) Blass^ calls unclassical. The part, alone occurs with kvKaKku (Gal. 6 : 9; 2 Th. 3 : 13). Note also 'evkp.€i/ov kpuTuvres (spurious passage in Jo. 8:7), but ao-iroi SiareKeZre (Ac. 27:33) without ovres. Cf. Ac. 12 : 16, kirep,evev Kpobcav, and Lu. 7 : 45, oi> dieKLTtv KaratjiiXovcra. Radermacher {N. T. Or., p. 169) finds the part, with kiripJevw in "vulgar hterature." He observes that many of these neater classical idioms with the part, do not appear in the N. T. Contrast with this the inf. in Ac. 20 : 20, 27, ov yap meaTiiKaix-qv Tov nil avayyelXai. There is no example of the inf. with KJiaivopiaL in the N. T., but the part, occurs in Mt. 6 : 16, 18 {vqaTtvoiv). The adjective alone is seen in Mt. 23 : 27, 28. Cf. also Ro. 7 : 13. It is hardly on a par with the participle in Mt. 6 : 17 in spite of Blass's insistence.^ Thoroughly classical also are irpokda(Tiv airbv 'Kkyoiv (Mt. 17 : 25) and 'ekadov ^ivlcavTK (Heb. 13 : 2), specimens of literary style. The infinitive with Trpo^davo} occurs in Clem., Cor., II, 8, 2. The part, with Tvyxo^vos does not occur in the N. T. In the later Koivh the inf. ta,kes the place of the participle with Xavdavu, iravofmi and da.vu (Rader- macher, N. T. Gr., p. 169). The part, is found with uxdpxw ' Cf. Schoemann, Die Lehre von den Redet. nach den Alten, 1862, p. 34. 2 Robertson, Short Gr., p. 194. * lb. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 245. « lb. VEKBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT *PHMATOS) 1103 (Ac. 8 : 16) and wpomapxo) (Lu. 23 : 12). It is doubtful if the participle belongs to the verb in 1 Tim. 5 : 13, Ap7ai ixavdavovaiv TepiepxoMemi, but, if SO, it is not to be understood as like the inf.i In Ph. 4 : 11; 1 Tim. 5 : 4, the inf. occurs with fiavdavw according to classic idiom. At any rate, if ireptepxc/iemt (1 Tim. 5 : 13) is a circumstantial part., something has to be supphed with apyai. The part, in 1 Tim. 1 : 12, inarbv fie rtyfiaaro dkfievos, is certainly circumstantial. The distinction between the inf. and the part, comes out sharply in indirect discourse also. The inf. is more objective. Thus note ijKovcrav tovto ahrbv ireiroiriKkvai, t6 arjueXov (Jo. 12 : 18) and aKoitonev yap tlvcls irepLiraTovvras (2 Th. 3 : 11). The participle is a descriptive adjective even though in indi- rect discourse (cf. Lu. 4 : 23; Ac. 7 : 12). See 1 Cor. 11 : 18 for the inf. again. In Mt. 7 : 11, oUare Sonara ayada Mbvai, the inf. with oUa means 'know how to give.' But in Lu. 4 :41, fi^eKTav t6v XpLOTov avTov elvai,, it is mere indirect discourse. For the part, see 2 Cor. 12 : 2, ol8a — apirayevra top tolovtov (cf. Mk. 6 : 20). In Ac. 3 : 9 note elSev ahrbv TrepiTaTovvTa. Here we have the same root, though a different sense. OlSa is common with 6tl. But yiviiaKw occurs both with the inf. as in Heb. 10 : 34, yivwaKovres ix^iv iav- Toiis Kpda-a-ova liirap^Lv, and the participle as in Heb. 13 : 23, ytvoi- OKere top a5tK(l>dv fifxwv iLpMeov airdXeKvfikvov. Cf . Lu. 8 : 46, ey(h 'eyvoiv bwaniv k^eKrfKvdvLav, where the tense and participle both ac- cent the vivid reality of the experience. But note the inf. in Mt. 16 : 13. The same thing is true of dfuiKoyku as in Tit. 1 : 16, Oedv o/MAoyovcnv eldevai, and 1 Jo. 4 : 2, o dudXoyei 'IjjcroDc ev capxl 'ehihidbra (cf. 2 Jo. 7). Cf. also Ac. 24: 10 ovra ce KpiTrjv kTitrTa/jtevos and Soufia^co in 1 Th. 2 : 4 and 2 Cor. 8 : 22. Note difference between Iva eipcoaLV KaTrjyopetv avrov (Lu. 6 : 7) and ehpuTKei avrobs KadevSovras (Mk. 14 : 37). Cf. Indirect Discourse. Further examples of the supplementary participle come later. These suflSciently illustrate the difference between the use of inf. and part. (e) Method of Treating the Participle. The hybrid character of the participle has led to a great deal of diversity in its treat- ment in the grammars. Prof. Williams^ gives an interesting summary in his monograph. None of them are satisfactory be- cause they do not follow a consistent plan. Part of the divisions are from the adjectival, part from the verbal point of view. They are not parallel. Thus we have Kiihner's complementary, attrib- utive, adverbial participles; Goodwin's attributive, circumstan- tial, supplementary; Burton's adjectival, adverbial, substantival; ' W.-M., p. 436. ' The Part, in Acts, pp. 1 S. 1104 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Jannaris' adjectival and adverbial; Blass' attributive and in additional clause; Hadley and Allen's attributive and predi- cate; Delbruck-Brugmann's external, objective, adverbial. Then Williams 1 adds another that is no better, ascriptive, adverbial, complementary. Thompson^ gives the attributive and the supple- mentary participle after saying that the nominal and the verbal classification is more elastic. The only way to get symmetry in the treatment of the participle is to follow the line of its double nature (adjectival and verbal) and discuss the adjectival functions and the verbal functions separately. See the discussion of the infinitive. That is to say, each participle must be considered as both adjectival and verbal. Not all the adjectival aspects will be true of any one participle nor all of the verbal, but each one will have some adjectival and some verbal functions. Thus alone can one get a clear statement of the many participial combina- tions and permutations. As an adjective the participle is attrib- utive (anarthrous or articular) or predicate. It may even be substantival, especially with 6. It is always declinable. As a verb there is always voice and tense and there may be cases. But any given anarthrous predicate participle may be either supplementary (complementary) or circumstantial (additional) or wholly inde- pendent (as indicative or imperative). The articular participle is ruled out of this three-fold alternative, though it still has voice, tense and governs cases. The articular participle is always at- tributive (or substantival). The lines thus cross and recross in the nature of the case. But a clear statement of all the essential facts can be made by taking the adjectival and the verbal aspects separately. In any given instance there is thus a double problem. Both sides of the given participle must be noted. 4. Adjectival Aspects of the Participle. (o) Declension. The free declension of the participle in num- ber and gender and case (cf. per contra the infinitive) makes the task of noting the adjectival aspects comparatively simple. There are anomalies of agreement in these three points as with other adjectives. Thus in Rev. 3 : 12 17 Kara^alvovaa in apposition with Tijs Kaivrjs 'lip. does not conform in case. There is a difficulty of both case and gender in ireirvpcafikvris in Rev. 1 : 15. See also ir\fjeos Kpa^ovTfs (Ac. 21 : 36) where the number and gender both vary. In Mk. 4:31 note os — 6c wLvtwv t&v awepfiarcoy where 6v takes the gender of The Part, in Acts, p. 5. 2 Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 249. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT "PHMATOS) 1105 But these matters are discussed adequately in chapter on The Sentence. (6) Attributive Participle. (a) Anarthrous. The article is not of course necessary with the attributive participle any more than with any other attrib- utive adjective. Thus we have i)5wp fajy (Jo. 4 : 10), ' living water,' which is just as really attributive as t6 iScap t6 f coy (Jo. 4 : 11). When the article is used there is no doubt about the participle being attributive. When it is absent, it is an open question to be examined in the light of the context. Note also 1 Cor. 13 : 1, XoXkAs iixiiiv ^ Kin^oKov AXaXdfoc. This construction (the anar- throus attributive) is not so common as the other uses of the participle,^ and yet it is not wholly absent from the N. T. See ?JX0S &awep iiTov 'KkyovTos, we probably have the articular attributive participle, since the Greeks did not always place the attributive participle between the article and the substantive.^ The use of tx^v is interesting in Rev. 15 : 1, elSov ayyeXovs iirTo. exovras irXrjy&s. The anarthrous iadefinite participle is seen also in a few con- structions like irpofferidevTo iruxTiiovrts t& Kvp'ua (Ac._5 : 14), where the participle means 'believing men' and has ttXij^t; in apposition with it. See also ^wc^ /Soajj/ros (Mk. 1 : 3, LXX), efeXeuo-eTai riyoi- nevos (Mt. 2: 6, LXX), oiiK iimv irwioov and ovk tanv kK^rjTccv (Ro. 3 : 11, LXX) where 6 is more common, ex^is eKel KparovvTas (Rev. 2 : 14). It is worth noting in this connection also the fact that occasionally a preposition occurs with an anarthrous participle (cf. infinitive). So x'^pw KrjpicraovTos (Ro. 10 : 14). Here the idea is not 'without preaching,' but 'without one preaching,' 'without a preacher.' For 'without preaching' we must have Xti^pis TOV Krjphaaeiv. See once more xitpet;' p^fra x<''i'POVTOiv, K\aiei.v p,eTa KSaibvTwv (12 : 15) and iirl TOLovvras (1 Pet. 3 : 12) . In 1 Cor. 15 : 27, tKTos rod virora^avTos, we have the usual articular construction. 03) Articular. The articular participle occurs a few times in Homer.^ In general the Book of Acts has the articular participle in about the same proportion as the great Attic writers.' All articular participles are, of course, attributive. But the matter has some points of interest and cannot be dismissed with this general statement. The examples are very numerous. The sub- stantives may be expressed as in rriv rjTOLp.aap.evriv vpTiv fiaaiKelav (Mt. 25 : 34) ; ol ypap.p.are'ii ol dird 'lepo(To\vp.o}v Kara^avTes (Mk. 3 : 22). Like other articular adjectives, the participle may come be- tween the article and the substantive, as in rg vyiaivovari diSaaKa- Xia (1 Tim. 1 : 10) ; tov 4>0Livop.kvov dorepos (Mt. 2:7); t^s wpoKupivrii avrQ xopas (Heb. 12 : 2). Cf. Jude 3. The substantive may pre- cede and the a,rticle may be repeated, as to BSojp to ^G>v (Jo. 4 : 11); t6 aSipxi t6 yevri(T6p.evov (1 Cor. 15 : 37); t((i 0e^ tw 8i56vti. (1 Cor. 15 : 57). Cf.Mt.26:28;27:44; Jas.5:l;Ro.'2':ll. InMk.l2:38 the article is repeated as in 12 : 40 (apposition) when the nom- inative reminds us of the common anacoluthon in Revelation. ' Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 330. ' Vogrinz, Gr. des hom. Dialektes, 1889, p. 184. » Williams, The Part, in the Book of Acts, p. 46. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOs) 1107 With proper names note 'Itjctovs 6 \ey6iievos Xpurros (Mt. 1 : 16) ; 6 hn.Kd\ovnevos Uhpos (Ac. 10 : 18). Cf. 1 Th. 1 : 10; 2 Tim. 1 : 8 f. For a long passage see 6 — BiSacrKcov (Ac. 21 : 28). The order of the words is not insisted on and in long passages the participle may follow without the repetition of the article, as in Mt. 6 : 30, Tov xbpTOV Tov ar/pov (xrjfiepov bvra Kcil a^piov ds KKi^avov fiaXKoiievov . See also Ac. 12 : 10; 13 :32; 26 :4, 6; Heb. 2 : 2; Heb. 12 :3, where in the long clause the participle with roiaw-qv comes in be- tween t6v and {nroiiefievriKSTa and a good distance from avTiXoyiav. Sometimes the article is used with the participle, but not with the substantive, as in TratStots toTs ev Lyopq, Kadrintvois (Lu. 7 : 32); xpvc'i-ov TOV airoWviikvov (1 Pet. 1:7); ovopjo. to 8e5op.ivov (Ac. 4:12); ttoXiIis a.pi.dfids & •Kiarthaas (Ac. 11:21); xoXXoi ttKLvoi ol fifi bp.oSoyovvTes (2 Jo. 7); &v6pcoToi ol — apvohntvoi (Jude 4, where note the series of participles and one adjective dee/Sets parallel with the participles). Cf. also 1 Cor. 2 : 7. The articular parti- ciple also occurs with pronouns,^ as in povovvTes (Ph. 3:18 f.). Particularly in address do we find the articular participle, as in Mt. 7: 23; 27:40; Lu. 6 : 25 (but note dative in 6 : 24); Ac. 2 : 14; 13 : 16. The use of the articular participle with irds is com- mon, as Tras 6 opyc^ofievos (Mt. 5 : 22); ttSs 6 aKoiup (Mt. 7:26), iras 6 \k-yiav (7: 21). This is equal to the relative clause iras octls (Mt. 7: 24). In Ro. 2 : 1 ttSs 6 Kplvoiv is used with Mpw-re. Cf. wdvTes ol a.Koi]ovT€% in Ac. 9 : 21. Here also 6 iropdiiaas is continued by Kal eXijXii0€t as if it were a relative clause. The articular parti- ciple sometimes occurs where it is followed by an infinitive. Here it is still further complicated, but it is clear. See tt/v fiiWovaav So^av awoKoXvipBrjvai. (Ro. 8 : 18) ; to. doKovvra p,k\ri — mapxn-v (1 Cor. 12 : 22). Cf. also 2 Pet. 3 : 2. The use of b S>v in Acts calls for special remark. In Ac. 13 : 1, KaTo. t^v olaav kKKKrjalav, we see this idiom, which Moulton^ translates 'the local church.' Note 14: 13 D, TOV ovTos Albs npoTToXeois (or irpb TroXecos). Cf. Ramsay's remark (Ch. in Rom. Emp., p. 52, quoting J. A. Robinson), that in Acts 6 &v "introduces some technical phrase, or some term which it marks out as having a technical sense (cf . 5 : 17 ; 13 : 1 ; 28 : 17) , and is almost equivalent to tov bvopa^oplevov." An ingenious person might apply this in Eph. 1 : 1 to the text with ev 'Eifiiaca absent; but the usual view needs no defence against such an alternative. 1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 243. ' ProL, p. 228. 1108 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT With ai o5o-ot in Ro. 13 : 1 we may compare Par. P. 5 (ii/s.c.), k(t>' Upeciiv Kal tepeiuv tSiv ovtoiv Kal ovaSiv. So N. P. 49 (iii/A.D.), Tov ovTos lirjvos 'the current month.' The passage in Ac. 5 : 17 reads ij ovaa alpeais, and 28 : 17 has tovs ovras tuv 'lovdaUav irpiiTovs. Moulton agrees, we may note, with Sanday and Headlam {in loco) in taking 6 &v hrl irdvTwv (Ro. 9 : 5) as referring to Jesus. As is well known, the difficulty here is a matter of exegesis and the punctuation of the editor will be made according to his theology. But it may be said in brief that the natural way to take 6 S>v and Beds is in apposition to 6 Xpurros. It is a very common thing in the N. T., as already noted, to have 6 and the participle where a relative clause is possible. But this idiom is common in the older Greek. See Ac. 10 : 18, 32, and chapter on Article. It remains then to speak of the frequent use of the articular participle with- out a substantive or pronoun. This idiom is too common for ex- haustive treatment, but some examples are given. Cf. Mt. 10: 40, 6 Sexojitci'os ^mSs kfii dex^Tai,, /cat 6 kfii dexofievos Sexe^at t6v aToarel- 'KavTo, fie. Note also 6 Sexop^vos and the next verse and 6s av TTOTio-n in verse 42. See further Mt. 10 : 37; Ac. 10: 35; Rev. 1 : 3. The question of the tense is interesting in some of these ex- amples, as in 6 aipcbc rriv fpvxfiv airov ixTroXeo-ei avrriv in Mt. 10 : 39, but that will be discussed a bit later. Like a relative clause, the articular participle may suggest ^ the notion of cause, condition, purpose, etc., as in Mt. 10 : 37, 39, 40, 41; Lu. 14: 11; Ro. 3:5. But this notion is very indefinite. (c) Predicate Participle. From the adjectival standpoint all participles that are not attributive are predicate. This aspect of the participle must be elucidated further. The verbal aspect comes into special prominence with all the predicate participles. They will be touched very lightly here and receive full discussion under Verbal Aspects. It may be said at once that all the supple- mentary and circumstantial participles are predicate. One must not confuse the articular participle in the predicate like o-u el 6 kpx6p,evos (Lu. 7 : 19) with the real predicate participle. Cf. Lu. 16 : 15; 22 : 28.^ The predicate participle is simply the adjective in the predicate position. That is, it is not attributive. There are obviously many varieties of the predicate participle. But the predicate adjective has had adequate treatment. Cf. exe fie irapn- Tvpkvov (Lu. 14 : 18). Cf. also Heb. 5 : 14; Ac. 9 : 21. (d) The Participle as a Substantive. The adjective, though a variation from the substantive, is sometimes used as a substantive ' Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 167i ^ lb., p. 169. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOS) 1109 as in tA ayadbv. It is not strange, therefore, that the parti- ciple also shows substantival uses. These are sometimes anar- throus, as in &px<^v (Mt. 9 : 18), ftyoifievos (Mt. 2:6). But, as a rule, the participle as a substantive is articular. Cf. Lu. 12 : 33, TO, {nrapxovTa ii{iSiv, where the genitive shows the substantival character of this participle. Cf. further 2 : 27 t6 eWitrnhov tov vonov, (1 Cor. 7 : 35) xpds rd inSiy abrSiv avfui'^pov, (Ph. 3 : 8) Stdi rb iirtpkxov rfjs yuiiffeus, (Mt. 14 : 20) t6 repiacrevov rSiv KhaaiMTuiv, (Ro. 7 : 23) tQ 6vTi, (Heb. 12 : 11) irpds to irapov, etc. There are also the many examples where 6 and the part, is used without a subst. or pron., as in Mt. 10 : 39, 6 ebpisv and 6 diroX^o-as (cf. 6 ayaBbi, 6 ko,- Kos). The substantive use of the participle is a classic idiom. * The use of the neuter participle as an abstract substantive is not Bo common in the N. T. as in the ancient Greek.^ But see further rd yeyovos (Lu. 8 : 56), to. yivofieva (9 : 7), t6 awoKoiKos (19 : 10), to, ipxbfiiva (Jo. 16 : 13), t6 vvv ixov (Ac. 24:25), to, jxrj '6vTa., to. 6vra (1 Cor. 1 : 28), rd avSoi/ievov (14 : 7), to 5eSo^a£d)v ireKpaKtv (Mt. 13:46), 'he has gone and sold.' So also awo-Tds pSiv (Lu. 15: 20), 'he arose and came.' Once again note Xa/3oOo-a kvtKpv\l/ev (Mt. 13 :33), 'she took and hid.' This idiom is more Aramaic than Hebraic and is at any rate picturesque vernacular. But it is also Greek. Pleonasm belongs to all tongues. Rader- macher (N. T. Gr., p. 179) quotes Herod. VI, 67, 10, eixe a%; VI, 68, 5, "f4>ri — Xevcov. Mr. Dan Crawford finds in the Bantu language "dying he died" for the irrevocableness of death. We now turn to the verbal aspects of the participle, which are more complex. 5. Verbal Aspects of the Pabticiple. (a) Voice. There is nothing of a distinctive nature to say about the voice of the participle in addition to what has already been said (see ch. on Voice). The voices run in the participles pre- cisely as in the verb itself. We find the voice in the earliest Greek as in the Sanskrit. All the nuances of the voices appear in the participle. Cf. the active in bibaoKuv (Lu. 13 : 10), ^S>v (Jo. 4 : 10) the middle in irpcxrSexonevois (Lu. 12 : 36), kiriKakeaafievos (Ac. 22 16), airaaaijxvos (Mk. 14:47); the passive in Xwoi/itvos (Mt. 19 22), T^v iLiroKeKpvtJi,nivriv (1 Cor. 2 : 7), airo\e\viikvov (Heb. 13 : 23), iirL<7Tpaeis (Mk. 5:30), KoAvdevres (Ac. 16:6). We may note in particular ?x« /^^ Trap^Trnxkvov (Lu. 14 : 18 f.), ioftixBe niaohnevoi (Mt. 10 : 22) and iaeade XaXoDi/res (1 Cor. 14 : 9). In Mk. 5 : 26, " Bmg., Griech. Gr., p. 523. ' Prol., pp. 14, 76. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT "PHMATOs) 1111 iraSovaa inr6 iroWcav iarpSiv, the active participle has the construc- tion of the passive, but this is due to the verb irharxoi, not to the voice. Cf . also Gal. 4 : 9, yvdpres ddv /jmWov Si yvoiadkvTes iiird deov. (6) Tense. (a) Timelessness of the Participle. It may be said at once that the participle has tense in the same sense that the subjunctive, optative and imperative have, giving the state of the action as punctiliar, linear, completed. In the begirming' this was all that tense meant in the participle. The participle was timeless. Indeed the participle in itself continued timeless, as is well shown by the articular participle.^ Thus in Mk. 6 : 14, 'Itodprjs 6 jSoirrif uc, it is not present time that is here given by this tense, but the gen- eral description of John as the Baptizer without regard to time. It is actually used of him after his death. Cf. ol ^riTovvres (Mt. 2 : 20). In Mt. 10 : 39, 6 eiipiiv airoKkaei, the principal verb is future while the participle is aorist, but the aorist tense does not mean past or future time. So in Mt. 25 : 20 and 24 6 Xa/Soij' and 6 eiXij- 4>i>% have no notion of time but only the state of the action. But the tenses of the participle may be used for relative time. In relation to the principal verb there may be suggested time. Thus 6 ebpisv aitoKkau above implies that ebpiiv is antecedent to atroKkaei which is future. In Ac. 24 : 11, avi^rjv irpocrKwricruv, the principal verb is past, but the participle is relatively future, though abso- lutely past. The relative time of the participle approximates the indicative mode and is able to suggest antecedent (aorist, present, perfect tenses), simultaneous (aorist, present tenses) and subsequent (present, future tenses) action. The tenses of the participle must be studied with this distinction in mind. But this notion of relative time "is deeply imbedded in the nature of the participle and the use is universal."' Certainly this notion of relative time is more obvious in the Greek participle than in the Latin or in the modern languages.* In the chapter on Tense the participial tenses were treated with reasonable completeness, but some further remarks are necessary at this point. A word needs to be said about the idiom oBtos rjv 6 tWiiv (Jo. 1 : 15), oEtos ^v 6 — KoBijiitvos (Ac. 3 : 10), where the principal verb is thrown into the past. • Brag., Griech. Gr., p. 522. ' Moulton, ProL, p. 126. He notes Heb. 10 : 14, toSs d-yiafo/ifoous, as a good ex. of the timelessness of the part. » Gildersl., Synt. of Class. Gk., Pt. I, p. 139. . « W.-M., p. 427. 1112 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (0) The Aorist. The Aktionsart of the aorist participle is suf- ficiently illustrated in the discussion of the aorist tense. There is, of course, no reason for not having the constative, ingressive or effective aorist in the participle.' Schaefer^ argues that in most cases the participle uses the effective aorist. That may be true, though there is nothing in the nature of the participle itself to cause it. Blass' thinks that the aorist participle contains the idea of completion, but even so that notion may be merely constative or ingressive. Goodwin^ holds that the aorist participle generally represents the action as antecedent to the principal verb. Bur- ton^ has it more nearly correct when he insists that the aorist par- ticiple conceives of the event indefinitely or simply. So Blass* denies that the aorist tense implies antecedent action. It is usu- ally assumed that the proper use of the aorist participle is ante- cedent action and that only certain verbs (as exceptions) may occasionally express simultaneous action. But this is a misappre- hension of the real situation. It is doubtless true, as Burton' notes that the antecedent use furnishes the largest number of in- stances, but that fact does not prove priority nor originality of conception., "The aorist participle of antecedent action does not denote antecedence; it is used of antecedent action, where antecedence is implied, not by the aorist tense as a tense, but in some other way."* Moulton' is equally explicit: "The connota- tion of past time was largely fastened on this participle, through the idiomatic use in which it stands before an aorist indicative to qualify its action. As point action is always completed action, except in the ingressive, the participle naturally came to involve past time relative to that of the main verb." It is probable that the original use of the aorist participle was that of simultaneous action. From this was developed quite naturally, by the nature of the various cases, the antecedent notion. Cf . vricTTexxras kreivacrev (Mt. 4 : 2) where the fasting ejipressed by the participle is given as the reason for the hungering expressed by the principal verb. For further examples of antecedent action see Mt. 2 : 14; 2 : 16; 27 : 3; 1 Cor. 6 : 16. For the articular aorist see Mt. 10 : 39; Lu. 12 : 47; Jo. 5 : 15. WhUe this came to be the more common idiom ' Schaefer, Das Partizip des Aoristea bei den Tragikem, 1894, p. 5. 2 lb. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 197. ' M. and T., p. 48. So Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 48. ' N. T. M. and T., p. 59. • Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 197. « lb. » N. T. M. and T., p. 61. « Prol., p. 130. VERBAL NOUNS (•QNOMATA TOT 'PHMATOZ) 1113 from the nature of the case, the original use of the aorist participle for simultaneous action continued. One has no ground for as- suming that antecedent action is a necessary or an actual fact with the aorist participle.* The aorist participle of simultaneous action is in perfect accord with tlje genius and history of the Greek participle. For numerous examples of both uses see the chapter on Tehse. A good instance is seen in Mt. 27 : 3, vnap- Tov TTapaSovs alfw, ajBcfov. So also woXajSojj' etTry (Lu. 10 : 30). See Ac. 2 : 23, tovtov irpoffiri^f aires ave'tXare, where the slajdng was manifestly done by the impaling on the cross. The two actions are identical per se. Moulton {Prol., p. 131) observes that when tlie verb precedes the aorist participle it is nearly always the participle of coincident action. He {Prol., p. 132) cites 0. P. 530 (ii/A.D.), h^ 5}v 5ii(jeL$ — \vTpi)aaa(x. fiov to, tfiarta. It SO happens that the N. T. shows a great number of such examples. See Mk. 15 : 30 aSia-ou KorajSas, (Lu. 2 : 16) ^\6av aweixravTe^, (Ac. 10 : 33) KaXus kroLriaas irapayevofievos. Cf. Mt. 26: 75- In Ac. 10: 29, ^Xdov neTairen(l>Odi, the participle is antecedent in idea. Acts, however, is particularly rich in examples of the coincident aorist participle which follows the verb. See 10 : 39; 11 : 30; 13 : 33; 15 : 8, 9; 19 : 2; 23 : 22, 25, 30; 25 : 13; 26 : 10. It is in point of fact a characteristic of Luke's style to use frequently the coincident participle (both aorist and present) placed after the principal verb. This fact completely takes away the point of Sir W. M. Ramsay's argument^ for the aorist of subsequent action in Ac. 16 : 6, where, however, it is more probably antecedent action, as is possible in Ac. 23 : 22. The argument made against it under Tense need not be repeated here.' Burton assents* to the no- tion of the aorist of "subsequent" action in the participle, but no real parallels are given. I have examined in detail the N. T. ex- amples adduced and shown the lack of conclusiveness about them all. See chapter on Tense. It is even claimed that subsequent action is shown by the participles (present as well as aorist) in Ac. 5 : 36; 6 : 11; 8 : 10, 18; 14 : 22; 17: 26; 18 : 23; 28 : 14, but with no more evidence of reality. Actual examination of each passage shows the action to be either simultaneous or antecedent. See also Lu. 1 : 9, eXaxe tov dvfit&aai elae\diiv ets tov vabv, where it is obviously coincident. The same thing is true of Heb. 11: 27, Ka.T'ikni-iv AiyviTTOv, uri (pofirideis. Cf. also Ac. 7 : 35 8v ripvria-avTO » Moulton, Prol., p. 131. " St. Paul the TraveUer, p. 212. ' See BaUentine, Bibliotheca Sacra, 1884, p. 787, for discussion of N. T. exx. ' N. T. M. and T., p. 65. 1114 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT eiirdvTes, (13 : 22) dTev impTvprjaas. A case like 1 Pet. 1 : 20 f . is not, of course, pertinent. However, the common use of the aorist participle in indirect discourse (as with all the supplementary participles) without any notion of time is to the point. So Ac. 9 : 12, elbtv avbpa daeXdovra ical 'tiriSevTa. So kOeoipovv rbv "Zaravav ireaSuTa (Lu. 10 : 18). The action is purely punctiliar with no notion of time at all. It is true that the articular participle is occasionally used (see chapter on Tense) for time, past tot he time of the writer, but future to the time of the principal verb. As a matter of fact this aorist participle is timeless, as is shown by the use of 6 Tapa5ovs in Mt. 10 : 4 and 6 irapaSiSovs in 26 : 25. So 6 eliriiv in Jo. 5 : 12; 6 Troiiiaaz 5 : 15; 17 aXehl/aaa 11:2. It is the action alone that is under consideration, not the time of its performance. See, 'per contra, 6 '•/vovs — Kal p.ri iroLnaaas r) 'irouf\- tros Sapijo-crai (Lu. 12 : 47) where the aorist participle gives the simple action with a future verb. Cf . Lu. 6 : 49 for the articular aorist part, with the present indicative. Burton 1 feels the weak- ness of his contention for "subsequent" action in the aorist participle when he explains that it is "perhaps due to Aramaic influence." There is no need for an appeal to that explanation, since the fact does not exist. It is only in the circumstantial par- ticiple that any contention is made for this notion. It is certainly gratuitous to find subsequent action in Ro. 4 : 19; p,ri acrdeviiffas rg irio-ret Ka.Tivm\c€v, not to mention 4 : 21; Ph. 2:7; Heb. 9 : 12. Burton reluctantly admits that, though in 1 Pet. 3 : 18 fooTrotij- 6ds is "clearly subsequent to airWavev," yet it "is probably to be taken together with davaroidds as defining the whole of the pre- ceding clause." This latter view is, of course, true, since the order of the participles is BavaToiBeh, fcooiroiTj^ets. The timelessness of the aorist participle is well shown in Jo. 16 : 2, 6 airoKTdva.% [u/ias] Sofjj Xarpeiav Tpo(Tv hvvarai (Mt. 6 : 27) ; eaeadt \a\ovv- res (1 Cor. 14:9). The articular present especially shows the absence of time. So ol doKovvrts oiiSiv Trpoaavkdevro (Gal. 2:6); ■KpoatTidu Tovs cco^oixevovs (Ac. 2 :47); 6 dexonevos vfj&s kp.^ Sex^TaL (Mt. 10 : 40) ; kadltrt to. irapaTLdkpeva (Lu. 10 : 8) ; 6 ffXewcav kv tQ Kpv\6s SivinQ: 25. Cf . also Gal. 1 : 23, 6 SiioKoiv rip,S,s totI vvv eiHvyyeKi^eTai, where both participle and verb have adverbs of time by way of contrast. For other instances like these see Mt. 9 : 20; Mk. 5 : 25; Lu. 8: 43; Jo. 5:5; Ac. 24:10; Eph. 2:13; Col. 1:21; 1 Tim. 1:13, etc. There are also undoubted instances of the present participle to express the notion of purpose, futuristic in conception, though present in form. Add to the instances already given the follow- ing: Mk. 3 : 31, ^^0) (TTTiKovTes aireo-TetXay KoKovvTts. Here the first participle is only noticeable as the usual linear action (with aorist indicative). The second participle, however, is practically pur- pose. 'They sent to him calling him.' 'They sent to call him.' So also Lu. 13 : 6 ffKdev fijTcoj', (13 : 7) 'ipxopai ^rirSiv. It is not strictly true that here the present participle means future or subsequent time. It is only that the purpose goes on coincident with the verb and beyond. This prospective present part. (cf. present ind.) appears in Ac. 21 : 3, rjv b,-Ko4>opTi.^bp,€vov tov ySftov. 'The ship was appointed to unload her cargo.' Cf. Mt. 6 : 30; 1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 47; GUdersl., Synt., Part I, p. 139. 1116 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 11:3; 26:28; Lu. 7:19; 1 Cor. 15 : 57; Jas. 5 : 1; Ac. 3 : 26. The future is " simulated" ^ also by the present participle when it is used for conative action. It is, of course, not the participle that brings out this notion. See (Mt. 23 : 14) oiSi Tois daepxoiik- vovs oK^iere ei(re\9e1v, (27 : 40) 6 KaroKvuiv rbv vabv, (Ac. 28 : 23) irei- duiv airoiis. The notion of repetition (iterative present) occurs also as in Ac. 2 : 47, wpoaerWei. roiis (rca^o/ikvovs, 'kept adding those saved from time to time.' So TrwXoOi'Tes 'e4>tpov xal iriBovv (Ac. 4: 34). 'They would from time to time sell and bring and place at the feet of the apostles.' There is thus a sharp contrast from the specific instance of Barnabas, of whom it is said: ircoKijaai fiviyKtv (4 : 37). It is not clear, however, why the present parti- ciple occurs in 3 : 8, kiaXSonevtK ^ott; Kal irepiirarei,, unless it is to note that he kept on leaping and walking (alternately). Cf. this notion in verse 8, TrepiiraTuv Kal aWofievos. Cf . also in 5 : 5, clkovcov ireaiiv k^k\l/v^ev, where irevTevixhriv, (Heb. 5 : 14) to, , aladrjTripLa, ytyvfivafffikpa kx^vTcop. It needs to be noted again that the perfect participle has no time in itself. In the nature of the case the act will be antecedent except where the tense has lost its true force as in iarcis, T(6vr)Ki)s, eiSojs. But it is only relative time, not absolute, and the leading verb may itself be punctiUar, linear or perfect, in the past, present or future.^ Just as the present participle may suggest antecedent action and so be a sort of "imperfect" participle (past time), so the perfect participle is sometimes^ used where a sort of past perfect sense results. The action was finished and is now no longer the fact, though the state represented by the perfect once existed. So kitl rQ avuPefiri- k6ti abrQ in Ac. 3 : 10. Cf. Mk. 5 : 15, deaipoua-iv rbv 8aLiiovi^6iJ,tvop KaJBijfiivov lyaTUTiikvov kcu a(a^povovvTa., top iaxVKora top \eyiSipa, Kal i(t>oPridiiaap. This is a most instructive passage. The historical present and the aorist indicative here occur side by side. The attributive and the predicate participles appear side by side. The present and the perfect participles come together. Of the two per- fect participles, one, limTiafiivop, is still true (punctiliar plus linear) and describes the man's present state; the other, rdp kaxvi^oTa, is no longer true and describes the state of the man before Jesus cast out the demon, which casting-out is itself in the past. This participle is therefore a sort of past perfect. Cf. also Jo. 8 : 31. Another striking example is Jo.. 11:44, k^ffXdep 6 T-edprjK^ SeSe- likpos. Here Sedefikvos is still true, though redpriKdos is not. Lazarus had been dead, but is not now. We see the same situation in 1 Cor. 2 : 7, ttip aTroKeKpvufikpijp. The widsom of God is no longer hidden. The point is still clearer in Ro. 16 : 25 f ., iivaTijplov xpo- poLS aiuipLois atai/yijiihiov aytikv(j}u (6:9), aWov ayyeKov ava^alvovra. (7:2), acrrepa 'tK rod ovpavov ireirTUKora (9 : 1). Cf. also Mk. 5:33, ^o/Sij^etira Kal Tpk/xovca, eiSvta. One must not confuse the perf. part, in Gal. 2:11 and Rev. 21 : 8 with a present Uke }]/r]\a4(ankvv in Heb. 12 : 18 ('touchable'). (e) The Future. The future participle, like the future tense in general, was later in its development than the other tenses. It is usually punetiliar also and has something of a modal value (volitive, futuristic) like the subjunctive (aorist).' See discussion under Tense. The future participle is always subsequent in time to the principal verb (cf. the present participle by sugges- tion), not coincident and, of course, never antecedent. Hence the future participle comes nearer having a temporal notion than any of the tenses. But even so it is relative time, not absolute, and the future participle may occur with a principal verb in the past, present or future. This idiom grew out of the context and the voluntative notion of the future tense.^ This point is well illustrated by the parallel use of fiiWeav to express intention. Cf. 6 irapadbiauv airbv (Jo. 6 : 64) and 6 fieWcav avrov TrapadiSouai (12 : 4). As already shown, the future participle is much less frequent in the N. T. (as in LXX) than in the Koivii generally (as in the papyri). Another rival to the future participle is 'tpxbp,evo% (Jo. 1:9), 6 kpxoiievoi (Lu. 7:19). Both nkXKu and ipxoiiai (cf. el/ii) are anticipatory presents.' Cf. hearSiTa and iiiWovra in Ro. 8 : 38. Nearly all the N. T. examples of the future partic'ple (see chapter on Tense for discussion) are in Luke and Paul and Hebrews (the three best specimens of literary style in the N. T.). But see Mt. 27 : 49, aiixruv, Jo. 6 : 64, 6 ■irap(iS6}(rup; 1 Pet. 3 : 13, 6 KaKdiaav. For the Gospel of Luke see 22 : 49, rd iahn&ov. The rest of his examples are in the Acts, as 8 : 27, irpoaKV- vrjauv, (20 : 22) rd. (TvvavTriaovTa, (22 : 5) a^cav, (24 : 11) Trpoaicuvii- (Tcov, (24 : 17) iroiijacov. For Paul see Ro. 8 : 33, & KaraKptvuv (a 1 Cf. Delbruck, Synt. Forsch., IV, p. 97. ' Brag., Griech. Gr., p. 523. • There is an expectant note in ri iaxuvvbiuvov (Mt. 26 : 28). VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOs) 1119 question of editing, but cf. 6 kvoOaviiv in verse 34), 1 Cor. 15 : 37, t6 yevqabiievov. For Heb. see 3 : 5, t&v \aKriQi]apvaoi>fi Si' iiixtpSiv ijKoiadri oTi kv oiKCi) kariv, the personal construction is retained even with the circumstantial participle. Cf. also 2 Cor. 3 : 2, (pavepov/ievoi oTi kari Jirio-ToXi) XpttrroO. But it is vanishing with the verbs where it was once so common. See under Infinitive, 5, (e), for further re- marks. Jannaris ' has made a careful study of the facts in the later Greek. It may be noted that oixofiai does not occur at all in the N. T., though the LXX (and Apocrypha) has it 24 times, twice with the inf. It disappeared from the vernacular. As to rvyxavu it occurred only once with the participle (2 Mace. 3:9). It has the inf. as well as tea (va) in the later Greek, though it is very abundant with the participle in the papyri.* Cf. T[vy]xa.vei NeiXos pkoiv, P. B. M. 84 (ii/A.D.). But rvyxavos i^iXos without &v occurs also in the Koivii (Radermacher, N. T. Or., p. 169). Curiously enough Xavfldi/w appears once with the participle in the LXX (Tob. 12 : 13) as in the N. T. (Heb. 13 : 2). In the Koivi, the inf. supplants the part, as it had already gained a foothold in the old Greek.' Note also the adverb as in Xdflpci kKfiAXKovaiv (Ac. 16 : 37). $9dpa) continued in use through the koivt], but with the sense of ' arrive,' ' reach,' not the idiomatic one ' arrive before.' This latter notion appears in irpo4)davii3 (cf. TrpoXanfiLvw), which has it once only in the N. T. (Mt. 17 : 25), while the inf. is seen in irpokXaPtp nvplcrai (Mk. 14 : 8). As early as Thucydides the inf. is found with ^6.vo}, and see also 1 Ki. 12 : 18. It is common in the Koivi].* The » Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 493. > Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 493. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 228. « lb., p. 494. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT "PHMATOZ) 1121 tendency to reverse the construction by using one of these verbs in the participial form is seen in Tvxbv (participial adverb) in 1 Cor. 16 : 6. It is possible that ^aii'o/iai still shows the participial construction in Mt. 6 : 16, 18, but not in Ro. 7 : 13, where the participle is circumstantial, not complementary. The impersonal construction gains' on the personal in the Koivii. In the N. T. we no longer have S^Xos tlnl nor (t)avep6s tinL But we do have eupkBr} ?Xou(7a in Mt. 1 : 18. "Apxoiuu has lost the part, in the N. T., but iirdpx" holds on to it, but not in the sense of 'begin,' rather of 'existing.' Cf. both adjective and part, in Jas. 2 : 15 and 1 Tim. 4:3. It tends to sink into the level of elui as an auxiliary verb with the periphrastic participle, as in Ac. 8 : 16; 19 : 36. The same thing is true of irpouTropxw in Lu. 23 : 12, but not in Ac. 8 : 9 where [iayeiiuv is circxmastantial. We have seen that iraiofiat is true to the part. (cf. Lu. 5:4; Ac. 5:42, etc.) and that the part, occurs also with kmnkvu (Jo. 8:7), reKkta (Mt. 11:1), and that StareXew has the adj . without &v (Ac. 27 : 33) . Cf . also SiaXeiTu in Lu. 7 : 44. See also the part, with kyKaKba in Gal. 6:9; 2 Th. 3 : 13. The part, with Kaprepiia in Heb. 11:27 is circumstantial, as' is that with avkxom'' in 1 Cor. 4 : 12 and with miiuoj in Heb. 12 : 3. The doubtful participle with pavdavui in 1 Tim. 5 : 13 has already been discussed (Relation between Inf. and Part., 3, (d)). Moulton* is positive that the absolute construction advocated by Weiss is intolerable and that we must either admit the supplenientary participle here or boldly insert tlvat, with Blass. (7) Verbs of Emotion. Moulton' is probably right in opposing the incorrectness of the part, with di Tpaaaco in Ac. 15 : 29, k^ Siv StarijpoOi'Tes iavrqiis ^^pa^ere. At bottom this is the same idiom as we have in IQ : SdifiKaX&s eirotrjcras irapay€vdp,€vos. Cf. also Ph. 4: 14; 2 Pet. 1: 19; 3^ Jo. 6. Blass* is right in including in this category ri toiiire (Mk. 11:5), rl iroiure KXaiovres (Ac. 21 : 13), ^liaprov irapaSoxK (Mt. 27:4). As a matter of fact it is not be- yond controversy that the part, with these verbs of emotion is the supplementary and not the circumstantial participle. At any rate the idiom comes to the border-line between the two constructions. I do not wish to labour the point and so treat the construction as complementary. The connection is not, however, so close with these verbs as is true of those in the two preceding lists. Indeed, the connection varies with different verbs and with the same verb in different contexts. It seems clear enough in 1 lb. « lb., p. 228 f. 2 Prol., p. 229. < Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 245. 1122 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Ac. 16 : 34, ■fjyaXKiaaaTo TreTn Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 245. = Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 495. » Blass, ib., p. 247. * The pap. show the same tendency. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 229. See Ra- dermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 169. » Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 497. 8 N. T. M. and T., p. 176. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 246. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT "PHMATOs) 1123 Cf . Mk. 3:1; Ac. 9 : 21, Iva SeSenhovs aiirovs ayayg. See also 24 : 27. Then note Ph. 2 : 3, aXXiJXous iiyovnevoL iirepexovTas.^ The addition of cis does not change the real construction as in roiis 'Koyi^onkvovs iffias (hs Kara ahpKa irepiTraTOVVTas, 2 Cor. 10 : 2; iis 'exOpov riyiiade, 2 Th. 8 : 15. In principle it is the double accusative, too common with some verbs, only the second ace. is a predicate adj., not a substantive. Cf. Ro. 10 : 9 (margin of W. H.), kav bpoKoyiia-at icbpiov 'Iriv, (Lu. 8 : 46) iyvt^v bbvaixiv i^e\ri\vdvtav air' iiMv. The point to note is that even here in indirect discourse, where the participle represents the verb of the direct, the participle is still an adjective though the verbal force has become prominent. The examples are too nu- merous to discuss in detail or even to quote in full. As represen- tative examples see Mt. 16 : 28 after el8ov {epxofjxvov, but Mk. 9 : 1 has eKrfKvBvZav) , Mk. 5:30 after exiywcixTKco, 7:30 after ebpia-Koj (cf. also Lu. 23 : 2), Lu. 10 : 18 after deoipiw (cf. in particular Ac. 7:56), Jo. 1:38 after dea.op.aL, 7:32 after clkovu, Ac. 19 : 35 after yiviiCKca, 24 : 1'O after kiriiTTap.ai, Heb. 2 : 9 after ^kroi, Heb. 13 : 23 after yivcocKO}, 2 Cor. 8 : 22 after Sow/iafco, Ph. 2 : 3 after riyiopai, 2 Jo. 7 after bpxikoykia. The punctiUar idea is present as in ire- obvTo. in Lu. 10 : 18, or the linear as in 'eyyi^ovcrav (Heb. 10 : 25), or the perfected state as in ireirroiKbTo. (Rev. 9:1). Cf. also Ac. 2 : 11; 24 : 18; Mk. 9 : 38; 1 Jo. 4 : 2. Burton' explains as "the substantive participle" (see 4, (rf)) also Jo. 4 : 39, rijs ywaiKos p,ap- Tvpov ^ixkpq. evTtCKaiikvov cov ahrQ. Cf. exi irapovaiv butiv, B. G. U. 287 (a.d. 250). The reference of Burton to Josephus, Avi. 10, 4. 2, does not justify the interpretation which he gives. (e) The Circumstantial Participle or Participial Clauses. (a) The General Theory. There is but one difference between the supplementary and the circumstantial participle. It lies in the fact that the circumstantial participle is an additional state- ment and does not form an essential part of the verbal notion of the principal verb. The circumstantial participle may be re- moved and the sentence will not bleed. It is still a true parti- ciple, predicate adjective as well as circumstantial addition to the verb. In point of agreement the circvunstantial may be related to the subject of the principal verb or the object, or indeed any other substantive or pronoun in the sentence. It may have also an independent construction with a substantive or pronoun of its own (genitive or accusative absolute) or have no substantive or pronoun at all. Once again the participle may be so indepen- dent as to form a sentence of its own and not merely be a sub- ordinate clause. See the section on The Independent Participle as a Sentence- Here we are dealing with the independent participle in a subordinate clause with various stages of independency from mere addition and agreement with a substantive or pronoim to complete isolation though still subordinate. Some of the gram- mars, Burton' for instance, call this the "adverbial" participle. There is a slight element of truth here, but only so fcwr as there is a sort of parallel with the subordinate conjunctional clauses which are adverbial (cf. on, Iva, iis, etc.). But it is distinctly misleading to treat this participle as adverbial. In fact, there is a constant tendency to read into this circmnstantial participle more than is there. In itself, it must be distinctly noted, the participle does not express time, manner, cause, purpose, condition or conces- sion. These ideas are not^ in the participle, but are merely sug- gested by the context, if at all, or occasionally by a particle like a/ia, €i06s, Kaiirep, irork, vvv, tos. There is no necessity for one to use the circiunstantial participle. If he wishes a more pre- cise note of time, cause, condition, purpose, etc., the various subordinate clauses (and the infinitive) are at his command, besides the co-ordinate clauses. The vernacular increasingly > N. T. M. and T., pp. 169 ff. » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 247. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOS) 1125 preferred the co-ordinate or the subordinate clause with con- junctions to the rather loose circumstantial participle.' We see the triumph of this analytic tendency in the modem Greek.^ But it remains true that the participial clause was one of the great resoiarces of the Greek language and in contrast the Latin seems very poor.' The English comes next to the Greek in its rich use of the circumstantial participle. Moulton* notes the failure of the English, even with the help of auxiliary verbs, to express the precise difference between \iv ahv TOKCf tv a{)T& iirpa^a, the participle is part of the apodosis, while the condition is implied in the preceding question. Moulton' rightly notes that one can no longer decide by the presence of /i^ with the participle that it is conditional or concessive, since uri has come in the kolv/i to be the usual negative of participles. There is no instance of av with the participle in the N. T., though Moulton {Prol., p. 167) quotes one in a kolv^i inscr., I. M. A. iii, 174, Si,KaL6Tepov av coidhra (in a despatch of Augus- tus). For cos ap see Particles with Participles. Concession. This is also a frequent construction. Cf. Mt. 14 : 9, XvTTideis. The context calls for the adversative idea in 7 : 11, TTovripol 6vTes. See further Mt. 26 : 60; 14: 5; Mk. 4 : 31; Jo. 12 : 37; 21 : 11; Jas. 3 : 4; Ac. 13 : 28; Ro. 1 : 21, 32; 9 : 22; 1 Cor. 9 : 19; Jas. 3 :4; Jude 5. To avoid ambiguity the Greek often used particles to make the concessive idea plain, and this idiom survives in the N. T. Cf. nal ye — mapxavra (Ac. 17: 27), Kai TOL yevqdkvTbJv (Heb. 4:3), KaiTrep more frequently as in Ph. 3:4; Heb. 5:8; 7:5; 12:17; 2 Pet. 1:12. In Heb. 11 : 12 we also have koI ravra veveKpaiikvov. Kairbiye occurs only with the finite verb as in Jo. 4 : 2.* So xaiToi in Ac. 14 : 17. It is worth while to note the survival of oi with ml ye in Ac. 17 : 27.' Moulton {Prol., p. 231) admits Wellhausen's (Einl., p. 22) claim that XaXet /3Xa(707j/iei (Mk. 2 : 7) is an Aramaism for two Aramaic 1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 502. ■" Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 248. 2 Prol., p. 230. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 230. ' lb., p. 229. 1130 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT participles, "the second of which should appear as a participle" as in Lu. 22 : 65, pXaaijyriiiovvTts tXeyov. But W. H. punctuate (7) The Absolute Participle in Subordinate Clauses. It is not strange that the participle should have been used in clauses that stand apart from the rest of the sentence. There it has its adjec- tival agreement. It is but a step further than the ordinary cir- cumstantial participle which makes an additional statement. All the varieties of the ciicumstantial participle can appear in the absolute participle. Nominative Absolute. It is possible thus to explain some ex- amples of anacolutha in ancient Greek' and the N. T., though Blass' demurs. Cf . 6 TLarevuv eis ifik — iroTafwl iK rijs KOiXtas avrov pebaovaiv (Jo. 7 : 38) ; kircyvovTes, 5e — ^oiyij kyhero fxla kK iravToiv (Ac. 19: 34); 6 vlkSiv hixru abrQ (Rev. 3 : 21). Cf. also tuv deXovruv and ol KarkcdovTes (Mk. 12 : 40). So Mk. 7 : 19; Rev. 2 : 26. At any rate it is the nominativus pendens, and there is not any special difference. In the modem Greek (Thimib, Handb., p. 169) the nominative absolute with the participle occurs, though rare, and usually a conjunctional clause has supplanted the genitive ab- solute. Accusative Absolute. This construction was used with im- personal verbs or phrases like Siov, k^bv, irapSv, etc. It was prob- ably an appositional addition to the sentence.' It has nearly, if not quite, disappeared from the N. T. The adverb -rvxov (1 Cor. 16 : 6) is really an instance of it, but not so e^ov in Ac. 2 : 29, where kariv is probably to be supplied. Cf . k^ov fjv (Mt. 12 : 4) and Skov kariv (Ac. 19 : 36). Cf. also ov a-vn4>epov t'.kv in 2 Cor. 12 : 1. But a possible accusative absolute is yvi>aTitv ovra (Ac. 26 : 3), though it is very rare to see the accusative absolute with a substantive of its own.* In such instances it was usual to have also ois or uairep.^ The accusative is an old idiom, appearing in the oldest Greek title known to us.* But it came to be rather common in Thucydides.' It was rare in the Attic orators. Luke avoids the accusative absolute in Ac. 23:30, by an awkward* » Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 259. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 251. He calls it "antiquated." It was never very common. " Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 524. < Goodwin, M. and T., p. 339. « Thompson, Synt., p. 261. « Deiss., Exp. Times, 1906, Dec, p. 105. ' Lell, Der Absolut-Akkusativ im. Griech. bis zu Arist., 1892, p. 17. ■• Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 252. VERBAL NOUNS ("ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOs) 1131 use of the genitive absolute, iiriwdeiarii Sk fuoi kwifiovkrjs els t6v av- Spa ictadai. The papyri use k^6vTo% rather than k^ov.'^ We do not have the ace. absolute in Ph. 1 : 7, since i>iMs ovto.% is a resumption (apposition) of 6/ios before. Genitive Absolute. It is by no means certain that the case is always genitive. Indeed, it is pretty clear that some of these examples are ablative. Probably some are real genitives of time.2 The Sanskrit uses chiefly the locative in these absolute constructions. It is possible that the Latin ablative absolute may sometimes be locative or instrumental.' The use of the true genitive in the Greek idiom is probably to be attributed to expressions of time in the genitive case with which parti- ciples were used. Then the temporal circumstantial participle was right at hand. It is in Attic prose, particularly the ora- tors, that we see the highest development of the idiom.^ The accusative absolute was just as idiomatic as this genitive-ablative construction, but it did not get the same hold on the language.^ See Cases for further remarks. The Koivij shows a rapid extension of the genitive absolute. "In the papyri it may often be seen forming a string of statements, without a finite verb for several lines." ^ In the N. T. different writers vary greatly, John's Gos- pel, for instance, having it only one-fourth as often as the Acts." The most frequent use of the idiom is when the substantive (or pronoun) and the participle stand apart with no syntactical con- nection with any part of the sentence. Cf. Mk. 4 : 17, elra yevo- idvris ffKlipfXiK ri Suoyiiov Sia tov \6yov eWis CTKav8a\i^ovTai; Ac. 12: 18, yivoixkvris de fiiiipas fjv rapaxos ovk bXlyos; 18 : 20; 7: 5; Eph. 2 : 20; Mk. 8 : 1; 2 Pet. 3 : 11; Heb. 9 : 6-8, 15, 19. These are perfectly regular and normal examples. But sometimes the genitive abso- lute occurs where there is already a genitive in the sentence. So Mt. 6 : 3, (TOV 8i iroiovvTos — 17 apurrepa. aov; 9 : 10; Ac. 17: 16. In Mk. 14 : 3 we find a double gen. absolute ovros airod — KaTCLKeinevov avTov. Even in the classical Greek the genitive absolute is found when the participle could have agreed with some substantive or pronoun in the sentence.* It was done apparently to make the ' Ofe kiovTos, P. Oxy. 275 (a.d. 66). ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 524. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 167 f . ' Cf . Spieker, The Genitive Abs. in the Attic Orators, Am. Jour, of Philol., VI, pp. 310-343. 5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 251. « Moulton, Prol., p. 74. ' Gildersl., Styl. Effect of the Gk. Part., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1888, p. 153. ' Goodwin, M. and T., p. 338. 1132 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT participial clause more prominent. The papyri show illustrations of the same thing,' as in B. U. 1040 (ii/A.D.) xaip" on iioi ravra kiroLTiaas, kiMv tierajiekoiikvov irepl firiSevos. It is fairly conomon in the N. T. We have it even when the part, refers to the subject of the verb, as in Mt. 1 : 18, /^ivrjo-Teu^eio-rjs t^s /tijTpos avrov MapLas — eiipedri exovea. In Ro. 9 : 1 the construction is regular, though fwi and pov occur. In Mt. 8 : 1 we find KaraPavros avrov — tikoKoWtj- cav ahrlf. Cf. 5:1; 9 : 18; 17: 22; 2 Cor. 4 : 18, etc. Likewise the genitive and the accusative come together as in Jo. 8 : 30, avTov XaXoOi'Tos — e-ticTevcav els avrdv. Cf. also Mt. 18 : 25; Ac. 28 : 17. Quite unusual is Ac. 22 : 17 where we have /xoi imotxTpk- \pavTi, ■irpocevxop.kvov pov and y'eveadai pt. The N. T. occasionally uses the participle alone in the genitive absolute according to the occasional classic usage.^ In the papyri it is more frequent than in the N. T.' In particular note the common k^ovros, P. Oxy. 275 (a.d. 66). Cf. also 5r,UsdkvTo%, B. U. 970 (ii/A.D.). See Mt. 17: 14, 'eKdovrtav; 17:26, eiirbvTo^; Ac. 21:31, ^riTovvTcav. In Lu. 12 : 36, 'iKBovTos KoX Kpoii(ravTos evdiais avoi^cocnv avrQ, we have the genitive participle although amQ is present. Cf. B. G. U. 423 (ii/A.D.) oTt pov KLvbthcavTos eis Ob^Kacraav iecroia^e, where pe the object of eiroxre is not expressed. (/) The Independent Participle in a Sentence. There is no doubt that the use of the absolute participle (nominative, ac- cusative, genitive-ablative) is a sort of "implied predication."* It remains to be considered whether the participle ever forms an independent sentence. We have seen that the inf. is occasionally so used. It is but a step from the independent clause to the in- dependent sentence. Did the participle take it? The nominative absolute as a sort of anacoluthon appears in the ancient Greek. Cf. Plato, Apol. 21 C, Kal diaXeyopevos avrQ, 'tdo^k pjoi b &vrip elvai ao4>6s. As the genitive-absolute, like other circmnstantial par- ticiples, retreated before the conjunctional clauses, there was an increasing tendency to blur or neglect the grammatical case agreements in the use of the participles. The N. T., like the Koivri in general, shows more examples of the anacoluthic nominative participle than the older Greek.^ The mental strain of so many participles in rapid conversation or writing made anacolutha ' Cf. Moulton, Prol., pp. 74, 236; CI. Rev., XV, p. 437. 2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 338. " Moulton, Prol., p. 74. This idiom is common in Xen. Roche, Beitr., p. 128. * Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 167. ^ Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 259. VERBAL NOUNS ("ONOMATA TOT THMATOs) 1133 easy.' "Hence even writers of systematic training could not but occasionally blunder in the use of the circumstantial participle." Jannaris had thus concluded that the late Greek showed an in- dependent use of the participle as anacoluthon.^ Blass' would go no further than this. Viteau^ found abundant illustration of the independent use of the anacoluthic participle in the LXX. Viteau explains it as a Hebraism. But Moulton' claims that the subject is removed from the realm of controversy by the proof from the papyri. Thumb ^ finds the idiom in classical Greek and in the koiv^ (in the LXX, N. T., papyri, inscriptions, etc.). It is easy to be extreme on this point of dispute. In the chapter on Mode (the Imperative) adequate discussion appears concerning the participle as imperative. That discussion need not be re- peated. It may be insisted, however, again that the participle in itself is never imperative nor indicative, though there seem to be examples in the N. T., as in the papyri, where, because of ellipsis or anacoluthon, the participle carries on the work of either the indicative or the imperative. In examples like 2 Cor. 1 : 3, eiXoyrirds 6 debs, either iarlv or 'earca may be supplied with the verbal adjective. It must not be forgotten that this is the work of the interpreter to a large extent rather than of the grammarian. The manuscripts often vary in such examples and the editors differ in the punctuation. But the grammarian must admit the facts of usage. The papyri and the N. T. show that sometimes the participle was loosely used to carry on the verbal function in independent sentences.' Cf. airoarv- fcvvTes t6 Tovrjpdv, KoKKiifievoL tQ ayaBQ (Ro. 12 : 9), for instance, where we have a complete sentence without coimection with anything else. The preceding sentence is i} ayaTr] awirbKpi.Tos (an independent sentence itself) and it is followed by a series of independent participles (verses 10-13). In verse 14 we have abruptly €v\oyeZTe — Kal to] KarapSicde (imperatives) and then the absolute infinitive xoipeti' (imperatival also). The point seems to be incontrovertible. Cf. also Col. 3 : 16. It is only necessary to ■ add a word about the independent participle in the midst of in- dicatives, since this use is far more frequent than the imperative i(^om just noted. In general it may be said that no participle 1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p 505. * Le Verbe, pp. 200 £f. 2 lb., pp. 500, 505. ' Prol., pp. 180 ff., 222 ff. » Gr. of Gk. N. T., p. 283. « HeUen., p. 131. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 180, cites Meisterh., pp. 244r-246, for the use of the imp. part, ia decrees. It is the nominaiivus pendens applied to the part. 1134 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT should be explained in this way that can properly be connected with a finite verb. In Ro. 12 : 6, 'exovres 5k, it is clear that we can- not carry on the participle as subordinate to exo/iei' or kcrnev in the preceding verses. W. H. boldly start a new sentence. In either case, whether we have comma or period before, we must take 'exovres as imperatival or indicative, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, supply kafikv or &fiev as iroietTe is supplied in Ro. 13 : 11 with Kttt eiSores rdv Kaipov} But other examples leave no such alternative. We may first summarize Moulton's satisfactory ex- position of the matter. There is a striking similarity between the third person plural indicative and the participle in the Indo- Germanic tongues {*bheronti, ferunt, kpov(n, iairand, etc.). The frequent elhpsis of est in the Latin perfect and passive is to be noted also. The probability that the Latin second plural middle indicative is really a participle which has been incorporated into the verb inflection (cf. sequimini and eTonevoi) is also suggestive. This fact may point to the prehistoric time when the Latin used the participle as indicative. The papyri re-enforce the argument strongly. We quote a bit from Moulton^: "Tb. P. 14 (ii/B.c), Ttot ovv arnMivojxkvwL 'HpSrt wapriyyekKOTes h>&nri.ov, 'I gave notice in person' (no verb follows). Tb. P. 42 (i6.), r]dt,Kripivos (no verb fol- lows). A. P. 78 (ii/A.D.), filav irao-xoJC ema-TOTe, etc. (no verb)." This may serve as a sample of many more like them. Moulton {Prol., p. 223) adds that use of the part, as ind. or imper. in the papyri is "not at all a mark of inferior education." See 1 Pet. 2 : 12 where exovres does not agree with the Trapokovs. We may now approach the passages in dispute between Winer' and Moulton.* Moulton passes by Winer's suggestion that in 2 Cor. 4 : 13 ixovrei is to be taken with TncrTtiiofiev. This is probable, though awkward. So in 2 Pet. 2 : 1 the participles can be joined with irapeiaa^ovaiv. But in Ro. 5 : 11 it is, Moulton argues, somewhat forced to take ov fiovov Se, dXXa Kal Kavxiip^voi otherwise than as independent. If we once admit the fact of this idiom, as we have done, this is certainly the most natural way to take it here. Moulton is silent as to areWbixevoi in 2 Cor. 8 : 20. Winer connects it with Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 284 f . * lb., p. 250. 1136 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (Mt. 8 : 29 'acpa^av Xkyovres), 13 : 21 kiw.pT\}pr\cev Kal etire (Ac. 13 ; 22 tlirep fiaprvpijcras) , 18 : 25 iipviiaaTO Kal elirev (Mt. 26 : 70 ripv/)- aaro \kyav), where John prefers the particularity of the finite verb. But see also Lu. 6 :48, icKo^w ml kfiadvvev, 'he dug and deepened'='he dug deep.' Cf. Jo. 8:59. There remains the relation of participles to each other when a series of them comes together. There is no rule on this subject beyond what applies to other words. Two or more participles may be coimected by Kal as in Ac. 3 : 8, irepLvarSiv Kal aWo/xevos Kal aivSiv tov 6e6v. But we have asyndeton 1 in Ac. 18 : 23, Siepxd^evos rriv TaXariKrip x^pi'^v, CTijpifwi' Tois fiajBrjT&s. Cf. Lu. 6 ". 38, iikrpov koKov ireintcrfikvov aeaa- "Ktvukvov {/TrepeKxvvvdfievov - Boiaovcnv. Sometimes Kal occurs only once as in Mk. 5 : 15, KoBiinevov tiiaTLtr/ikvov koX awi^povowTa. There may be a subtle reason for such a procedure as in Ac. 18 : 22, KariKBdiv ds KaL Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255 f. " Prol., p. 231. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255. Cf. Gildersleeve, Encroachments of ^i} on o6 in later Gk., Am. Jour, of Philol., I, p. 45 f. * Cf . Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 340 ff. « Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 252. 1140 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the correctness of Blass' interpretation on this point. Cf. also &lia &vivTes (27:40); irpoaevxonevoL afw. ml irepl iniMV (Col. 4:3), where it requires some overrefinement to refuse the classic idiom to Luke. Under the concessive participle we saw examples of Kai 76 (Ac. 17:27), miroi (Heb. 4:3), Kalirep (Heb. 5:8, etc.). There is also the use of o/xajs in the principal sentence to call at- tention to the concessive force of the participle (1 Cor. 14 : 7). So oxnwi points back to a participle of time or manner (Ac. 20 : 11). Worth noting, besides, is koL tovto as in Ro. 13: 11, though here a finite verb may be implied. So also Kal ravTa vevtKpcanivov (Heb. 11 : 12). There remain dis, obo-et, ibairep. The use of watl (Ro. 6:13) and of cio-xep (Ac. 2:2) is. limited to condition or comparison. It is only with dis that there is any freedom or abundance. Blass ^ notes the absence of the accusative abso- lute with ijs in the N. T. and its absence from the future parti- ciple save in Heb. 13 : 17, where it is not strictly design. There is nothing specially significant in the phrase oiix ois, 'not as if,' in Ac. 28 : 19; 2 Jo. 5. The N. T-, like the classical Greek, uses Ss without the participle in abbreviated expressions like cbs t^ Kvpicf (Col. 3 : 23); iis h finkpg. (Ro. 13 : 13); is Sl' iiixQiv (2 Th. 2 : 2), etc., where the participle is easily supplied from the context.^ In some instances one must note whether the particle does not belong with the principal verb. But, common as d)s is with the participle, it does not change the nature of the participle with which it occurs.' The participle with ws may be causal, tempo- ral, conditional, manner, etc. Then again cos may be used to express the notion of the speaker or writer as well as that of one who is reported. In truth, djs implies nothing in itself on that point. The context alone must determine it.* The various uses of c!)s itself should be recalled. There may be nothing but com- parison, as in cbs k^ovaiav lx<^v (Mk. 1 : 22) ; cbs oiin kkpa bkpuv (1 Cor. 9 : 26). So also Mk. 6 : 34; 2 Cor. 6 : 9 f.; 1 Pet. 2 : 13, 16. In Lu. 22 : 26 f . observe i>% 6 buxKovlbv. The causal idea is prominent in cbs iiKeqnkvo% (1 Cor. 7:25). Cf. Heb. 12 : 27 and D in Ac. 20 : 13, dis p,kWovTa t6v 'Xadv in Lu. 23 : 14. He declines by the use of d)s to accept the cor- rectness of the charge of the Sanhedrin against Jesus. For a similar use see &>s jueXXoi'Tas (Ac. 23 : 15) ; cbs fiiWcov (23 : 20) ; irpo- ipaaei cos /ieXKovToiv (genitive absolute 27: 30). But in 2 Cor. 5 : 20 (see above) Paul endorses the notion that he is an ambassador of God and ws is not to be interpreted as mere pretence. God is speaking through Paul. There is no instance of &v with the participle in the N. T. as appears in classic Greek. Winer ^ notes two instances of us av with the participle in the LXX (2 Mace. 1 : 11 ; 3 Mace. 4:1). To these Moulton' adds another (2 Mace. 12 : 4) and a genitive absolute example in the papyri, Par. P. 26 (ii/B.c), cbs av eiiTaKTuidriconkvuv. Cf. also ib., cos av iir6 Trjs Xi/i^s SuiKvdfievoi.. The inscrs. show it also, 0. G. I. S. 90, 23 (ii/B.c), cis av — avvetxTtjKvlas. Blass * finds a genitive absolute with cbs av in Barnabas 6 : 11. All this is interesting as fore- shadowing the' modern Greek use of aav as a conjunction.' 1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. '253. « W.-M., p. 378. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 253. ' Prol., p. 167. ' Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 167; Hatz., Einl., p. 217. CHAPTER XXI PARTICLES (AI IIAPA0HKAI) I. Scope. The word particle is a Latin diminutive, particula (cf . French particule) from pars. It is a small part of something. Longinus terms this part of speech irapaBiiKrf with the notion that it was a word placed beside another. No portion of syntax is treated with so little satisfaction in the grammars. The gram- marians are not agreed as to what parts of speech should be called "particles." Riemann and Goelzer' treat imder this term {Les Particules) negative particles, particles of comparison and prepositions. Jannaris'' includes prepositions, conjunctions and negative particles. Kiihner-Gerth' here discuss conjunctions, prepositions and the modal adverbs, though they use the phrase "die sogenannten Partikeln." Blass* almost confines the dis- cussion of particles to conjunctions. He makes the two terms equivalent: "Particles (Conjunctions)." Winer^ uses the word broadly to cover all adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions. Monro ^ limits the designation to certain conjunctions and ad- verbs "that are mainly used to show the relation between other words and between clauses." But he does not treat all conjunc- tions (paratactic and hypotactic) nor all modal adverbs. He passes by prepositions. Brugmann" sees clearly that, as there is no real distinction between adverbs and prepositions, so there is no fast line ("keine feste Grenze") between "particles" and other adverbs. All languages have a large group of words that pass over into the category of particles, but Brugmann cuts the Gor- dian knot by declaring that it is not a function of scientific gram- mar to delimit these words. That is a matter of subjective standpoint. He takes little interest in the various subdivisions of the particles, but he extends the term to its widest sense to 1 Synt., pp. 802-820. » W.-Th., pp. 356-512. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 365-433. • Horn. Gr., pp. 240-269. > II, pp. 113-347. » Griech. Gr., pp. 525-550. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 259-275. 1142 PARTICLES (aI HAPAeHKAl) 1143 cover all modal adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions. Brug- mann notes that many of these particles go back to the Indo- Germanic time and hence their etymology is imknown. He treats the particles from the standpoint of their origin so far as known. Hartung* takes a much narrower view of particles. He discusses the paratactic conjxmctions and the intensive particles. He^ con- ceives that the greater portion of the particles have no mean- ing in themselves, but are merely modifications on other words or on whole sentences. This is not strictly correct. We are not always able to discover the original import of these words, but it is probable that they originally had a definite meaning. It is true that the particles are all subordinated to other words in various ways. In a broad way it may be stated that there are four classes of words (verbs, noims, pronoims, particles) in the sentence. From this point of view the word particle covers all the adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and inter- jections. But it is impossible, as Brugmann holds, to make a perfectly scientific treatment of the particles without much over- lapping. The interjections in one sense do not belong to gram- mar. The negative and the interrogative particles cannot be properly treated imder adverbs, though they are adverbs. So also conjunctions are adverbs, but a good deal more. Intensive particles again are adverbs, but more. It is not worth while to recount the story of the adverbs and the prepositions at this stage. They are particles, but they have received sufiicient discussion in special chapters. In the same way the construction of hypo- tactic conjunctions came in for somewhat careful treatment in connection with subordinate sentences under Mode. Hence, hy- potactic conjunctions do not here demand as much discussion as the paratactic conjunctions. One has to be, to a certain extent, arbitrary in this field, since the ground is so extensive and so much remains to be done. There is still need of a modern and exhaustive treatise on the Greek Particles. It was in 1769 that the Dutch scholar Hoogeveen' wrote his book. He was followed by Hartung.'* Klotz^ reworked the writings of Devarius. In ' Lehre von den Partikeln der griech. Spr., TI. I, 1832; Tl. II, 1833. = lb., Tl. I, p. 37. Schroeder (tlber die formelle Untersch. der Redet., 1874, p. 35 f.) writes well on the obscurity of the origin of particles and the use of the term. ' Doctriaa Particularum Linguae Graecae. Ed. Secunda, 1806. * See above. ' De Graecae Linguae Particulis, vol. I, 1840; II, 1842. 1144 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 1861 Baumlein produced his Untersuchungen uber griech. Parti- keln. Paleyi has carried the work on, as has Navarre.^ There are, to be sure, a great number of monographs on special groups or on single particles.^ "If any particular section of Greek gram- mar were taken as a specimen to illustrate the historical evolu- tion of the Greek language, no better representative could be selected than the section of the particles."* Jaimaris speaks thus, not because the grammars have treated the particles with such skill, but because the particles best show the growth and decay of parallel words before other new synonyms that are constantly coming into existence. The particles come to a sharp point and gradually lose the edge and whittle down into platitudes. Then they give way to others with more freshness. In general, the particles mark the history of the effort to relate words with each other, clause with clause, sentence with sentence, paragraph with paragraph. They are the hinges of speech, the joints of language, or the delicate turns of expression, the nuances of thought that are often untranslatable. We must here confine our attention to Intensive Particles, Negative Particles, Interrog- ative Particles, Conjunctions and Interjections. This order is chosen for logical reasons simply, not because this was the order of development. That we do not know. The particles that are linked to single words logically come before conjunctions which have to do with clauses and sentences. Interjections stand apart and so are put last in the list. Some of the particles are employed with words, clauses and sentences (Uke cipa, 8k, oiiv), so that a strict division on this basis is not possible.^ II, Intensive or Emphatic Particles (irapaefiKai e|j,<|)aTiKaC or irapairXiiptoiiaTiKol (r^vSE(r|ioi according to Dionysius Thrax). 1. Limitations. Here again there is no absolute agreement as to what particles are considered '.'emphatic" or "intensive." Winer, indeed, has no separate discussion of the intensive par- ticles Uke ye, wep. He admits* that, while the Greek of the N. T. uses adverbs well in an extensive sense, it is defective in the in- tensive use. Adverbs of place, time, manner, all come in abund- ance in the N. T. Thompson' follows Winer in the absence of discussion of the intensive particles. The intensive particles, in » The Gk. Particles, 1881. 2 Etudes sur les particules grecques, R. E. A., VII, pp. 116-130. ' Cf. Hubner, Grundr. zu Vorlesungen ilber die griech. Synt., pp. 70-87. * Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 365. ' W.-Th., p. 462. » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 240. ' Synt. of Attic Gk. PARTICLES (aI nAPAGHKAl) 1145 fact, as a rule receive poor handling in the grammars.' But Paley'* properly sees that they are "an elaborately finished part of a most complex and beautiful machinery." Poetry, especially tragic poetry, uses these emphatic particles more than other kinds of writing. In Homer "they sustain and articulate the pulses of emotion. By them alone we can perceive that Greek was the language of a witty, refined, intellectual, sensitive and passionate people. It would be impossible in any book to tabu- late the delicate shades of meaning, the subtle, intricate touches of irony or pathos, the indescribable grace and power which the particles lend to many of the grandest passages in ancient litera- ture.'" It is only by a close study of the entire context that these can be felt. They can never be fully translated from one lan- guage to another. Thus it is impossible to reproduce in English the various shades of meaning of fikv and 8e when in contrast. "The attempt to translate "a particle leads to curious results. Dr. Cyril Jackson used always to render TpS>ks pa by 'the Tro- jans, God help them,' and a former head-master of Eton always distinguished between o-ot, 'Sir, to you', and toi, 'at your service'" (Coleridge, Greek Classic Poets, p. 221).^ Indeed, it is not pos- sible to put into mere written language all that the look, the gesture, the tone of voice, the emphasis of the accent carried when heard and seen. Cf. a Frenchman in conversation. The spoken vernacular thus has all the advantage of the written style. All the vernacular cannot be reproduced on the page. Cf. the charm of the actual speech of Jesus and Paul. The N. T. is in the vernacular Kotvli, but even so it does not reproduce to any great extent the witchery of the old Greek particles. Time has worn them down very much. Still, we do find them here and there. There is a good example in Ph. 3 : 8, aWa /jtiv oZv ye xoi riyovnai. So also el ttojs v^v irork (Ro. 1 : 10) and tI cti Ko/yii dis (3:7). Cf. P. B. M. 42 (b.c. 168) ob p.iiv &XK' kwel Kai and 0. P. 1164, 5 (vi/vii A.D.) ov ixriv 8h dXXa kblL This shows that Paul at least knew how to indicate the finer shades of thought by means of the Greek particles. Blass^ notes that, in comparison with the Semitic languages, the N. T. seems to make excessive use of the particles, poor as the showing is in comparison with the classic period. "Modem Greek has lost the classical Greek wealth of connective and other particles which lend nicety and > Paley, The Gk. Particles, p. vi. * lb. " lb., p. ix. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 259. " Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 195. 1146 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW .TESTAMENT precision of thought. Only /cat (ovre, ov8k), ^ and the less com- monly used conjunctions aXXd, ttXtip, o/ms have been retained. The loss of yap, apa has been compensated by new formations; but the ancient Greek rk, Sk, fiev — Se, pJkvToi, niiv, oiv (yovv), en, Sri, yk, irkp have left no successors" (Thumb, Handb., p. 185). The papyri seem barren of intensive particles in comparison with the older Greek. Jannaris' observes how thes* postpositive par- ticles {yk, 5iJ, iikv, irkp, roi and their compounds) tend in the later Greek either to disappear or to become prepositive. The N. T. is in harmony with this result. The same thing occurs with apa, which sometimes becomes prepositive, but that is not true of yap, Sk, ovv. Dionysius Thrax^ has a very extensive list of "expletive particles" or ■wapaTrkripiap.aTiKol avvSea-fioi {eicrl 8i o'iSe' 8ri, pa, vv, xoC, roi, Bi]v, ap, Sijra, irkp, tto), ixifv, av, aC, vvv, ovv, Kkv, yk, dXXd., ixiiv, Tolvvv, Totyapovv). Some of these (like apa, o^v, dXXd, and one might add ykp, 5k) are so prevailingly conjunctival that they are best treated under conjunctions. Others (like Kkv, pa) belong to earlier stages of the language. The discussion of av could have come here very well, since it is undoubtedly intensive whatever its adtual meaning, whether it is blended with d into iav or used with os. Sorts, iVo, Sttcos, tbs, etc., or used with the verb itself in the apodosis of a condition. It is a modal adverb of em- phasis (now definite as in Rev. 8:1, now indefinite as in Mt. 23: 18). It is like a chameleon and gets its colour from its environ- ment or from its varying moods. This fickleness of meaning is true of all the intensive particles. Indeed, Dionysius Thrax is rather slighting in his description of these words, baoi irapSures ov5h> dxjjeKetv divavrai oUre nrfv X'^f'COkvTei \viMivovTai. He contradicts his disparagement by the use of fiiiv in this very sentence. The adverbial nature of the intensive particles is well shown by the variety of usage of the modal adverb outcos. See Thayer's Lexicon for the N. T. illustrations, which are very numerous (some 200). In Jo. 4:6, kKadk^ero ourcos kiri rg irriy^, we have a good example of the possibiUties of ouras. The local adverb irob dwindles from 'somewhere' (Heb. 2:6) to 'somewhat' in Ro. 4 : 19. Cf. also Sij irou ('surely') in Heb. 2 : 16. Some of the temporal adverbs also at times approach the emphatic particles. Cf. TO XoiTov in Ph. 3:1; 4:8 (see Kennedy in loco) almost^ = o5c. But in the N. T. apn and fjdri are always strictly temporal. How- 1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 400. ' Cf . Uhlig's ed., p. 96, and Schol. Dion. Thrax in Bekk. An., 970. 10. ' So mod. Gk., Thumb, Handb., p. 184. PARTICLES (aI nAPAGHKAl) 1147 ever, irork sometimes loses its notion of 'once upon a time' (Gal. 1 : 23) and fades into that of 'ever' as in 1 Cor. 9:7; Eph. 5 : 29. In ij8ri TTOTk (Ro. 1 : 10; Ph. 4 : 10) it is more the notion of culmination ('now at last ') than of time. But in fiij irore the notion of time may be wholly gone before that of contingency ('lest per- chance'), as in Lu. 12: 58. In the N. T. we find undoubted in- stances of the non-temporal use of vvv and vwl where the sense differs httle from Si] or oh. Some of the passages are in doubt. But the logical and emotional use, as distinct from the temporal, is clear in Jo. 15 : 22, 24 where vvv 5i gives the contrast to the preceding conditions', 'but as it is.' Cf. also 1 Jo. 2 : 28, Kal vvv, rticvla, where John's emotional appeal is sharpened by the use of vvv. Cf. likewise Kai vvv Sevpo in Ac. 7:34 (LXX). Cf. Kal vvv, B. U. 530 (i/A.D.). In general, the N. T. language, like the Eng- Hsh, leaves most of the emotion and finer shades of thought to be brought out by the reader himself. "The historical books of the N. T., and especially their dialogues and discourses, are only fully and truly intelligible to us in reading them in high voice in the -original Greek text, and in supplying the intonation, the gestures, the movement, that is to say, in reconstituting by the imagination the scene itself." * 2. The N. T. Illusteations. (a) Ti. We may begin with yk. The origin of yk is by no means certain. In the Boeotian, Doric and Eleatic dialects it is ya. It seems to correspond^ to the k in the Gothic mi-k (German mi-cK). Cf. Greek ifik-ye. Brugmann sees also a kinship to the g in the Latin ne-g-otium, ne-g-legere, ne-g-are. Hartung' con- nects it with the adverb fd. It may also be the same word as the Vedic Sanskrit gha, which is used in the same way.* Cf . further qui in the Latin qui-dem. It is not so common in the Koivii as in the classic Attic (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 29). Its function is to bring into prominence the particular word with which it occurs. It is enclitic and so postpositive. The feelings are sharply involved when yk is present. It suits the Greek, ^ which "delights in pointed questions, irony and equivocal assent." But there is no English equivalent and it frequently cannot be translated at all. Hartung^ sees in yk a comparative element, while ' Viteau, fitude sur le grec, 1896, p. ii. ^ Cf. Brag., Griech. Gr., p. 541. ' PartikeUehre, I, p. 344 f. Cf. K.-G., II, pp. 171-178. « K.-G., II, p. 171. « Paley, The Gk. Paiticles, p. 14. " PartikeUehre, I, p. 326. 1148 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Ktti is cumulative and arithmetical. As a matter of fact, yk brings to the fore the idea of the word with which it is used, but adds no distinctive notion of its own.' Hiibner^ calls it a concessive particle on a par with o/tws. But that is not always true of yk. The distinction made by yk may be either the least im- portant or the most important (Thayer). The resultant idea may be 'at least,' this much if no more, a concessive notion. We find this to be the significance of yk in Lu. 11 : 8, 5id ye riiv avatSiav airov. Here, however, the! yk more properly belongs to avaiSLav, since that is the point, not the preposition SiA. The same slight variation from the classic idiom appears in 18 : 5, Slo, ye TO irapkxeiv fwi, k&wov rfiv xhP^-v Taiirriv. The concessive minimizing idea comes out clearly in Jo. 4 : 2, Kairoiye 'IijcroOs avTos. See further apa ye and koi ye in Ac. 17 : 27, and, in particu- lar, a\\& ye vfitv ei/ii (1 Cor. 9 : 2) where again the ancient idiom would prefer iifuv ye, 'to you at least' (if not to others). Once more note el ye in Eph. 3 : 2; 4: 21; Col. 1 : 23, and ei Si m^ 7* in Mt. 6 : 1; 9 : 17, etc. There is a keen touch of irony in Ro. 9 : 20, 01 avOptMe, fjxvovvye ai ris el; Cf. apaye in Mt. 17:26. On. the other hand yk means 'this much,' 'as much as this,' in other contexts. So in Lu. 24: 21, AXXa ye Kal cvv iraaL rohrois, where the ascensive force is accented by Kai, ahv and aXKa (affirinative here, not adversative),, and the climax of the crescendo is reached in yk. The same climacteric force of the particles occurs in Ph. 3 : 8, AXXa fiiv olv ye Kal ijYoO/iat irciVTa ^rjpiav elvai. 'I go,' says Paul, 'as far as to consider all things to be loss.' Cf. apaye in Mt. 7: 20 and /cat ye in Ac. 2 : 18 (Joel 3:2). So we have S.pa ye in Ac. 8 : 30. A fine example is Ss ye tov l5iov vtov oiik k(l>ei Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 256. . ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 273 f. * Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 410. ' Klotz ad Devar., II, p. 392. 5 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 256. » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 274. 1150 A GRAMMAR OF, THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (c) El n'liv, vri and vai. Somewhat akin to the positive note in 54 is the use of ^ /iiji' which is read by many MSS. in Heb. 6 : 14. The etymology of this adverb is again quite uncertain, though it is possible that it may have the same root as ij {^Fe, ^Fi).^ Cf. ^ Sr) (ijSrj). In rjirep (Jo. 12 : 43) and fJToi (Ro. 6 : 16) we have the comparative or disjunctive ^. In Homer it was often used in connection with other particles.^ We may pass ixriv for the pres- ent. If ^ were genuine in Hebrews the usage would be in strict accord with classic construction for a strong asseveration. But" certainly €1 ^m^i/ is the true text. This queer idiom appears a few times in the LXX (Ezek. 33 : 27; 34 : 8; 38 : 19, etc.). It occurs also in the papyri and the inscriptions' after iii/s.c, Cf. el ixijv, P. Oxy. 255 (a.d. 48). So that it is mere itacism between fj and ei. The Doric has el for 17 where Moulton* holds against Hort' that the distinction is strictly orthographical. See further chap- ter VI, Orthography and Phonetics, 11, (c). So then e? iiijv has to be admitted in the KOLvi) as an assevCTa,tive particle. It is thus another form- of rj ij.riv. Jannaris^ gives a special section to the "assevera- tive particles" yn and aux.' We do not have na in the N. T. and v/i only once in 1 Cor. 15 : 31, Kad' ri/jiepav airodvfiaKo} vii ttjv vfierkpav KavxrifTi-v- Ni; is a peculiarity of the Attic dialect and is iised in solemn asseverations (oaths, etc.) and means 'truly,' 'yes.' It is probably the same word as vai, the affirmative adverb which oc- curs over thirty times in the N. T. Not may be simply 'yes,' as in Mt. 13: 51. It may introduce a clause as 'yea' or 'verily,' as in Mt. 11 : 9. It is used in respwtftJl address, Nai, K6pie (Jo. 11 : 27). It may be used as a substan^ve (hke any adverb) with the article (2 Cor. 1: 17) or without the article (Mt. 5 : 37), where it is repeated. It occurs wiA eniiv in Rev. 1 : 7. It stands in contrast with ov in Mt. 5 : 37 and 2 Cor. 1 : 17. There was" an old form vai-xi. (cf. ov-xl). But we do not know the etymology, though Brugmann' compares it with the Latin ne and nae and possibly also with the old Indo-Germanic na-^na ('so — so'). (d) Mh. We know a little more about m*", which is postposi- tive, but not enclitic. It is only another form of firiv which occurs m the N. T. only in Heb. 6 : 14. The Doric and Lesbian use /mv and the Thessahan /id — 54. So then it seems probable* that nav 1 Cf. Brag., Grieoh. Gr., p. 541; K.-G., II, p. 144. = Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 248. > Moulton, Prol., p. 46. . » Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 410. * lb., p. 46. ' Griech. Gr., p. 544. ' App., p. 151. « lb. PAETICLES (aI HAPAeHKAl) 1151 {n6, used with words of swearing after a negative), ii'/iv and nkv are one and the same word. Indeed, in Homer i all three forms occur in the same sense. That original sense is affirmative, mean- ing 'surely,' 'indeed,' 'in truth.' It is overrefinement to find in fih (niiv) the subjective confirmation and in 617 the objective at- testation.^ It is probable that in the change from the old alphabet to the new the transcribers adopted the two ways of spelling, common in Attic and Ionic (jih and uriv) with a notion that ^rjv was merely emphatic with single words, while fiiv was correlative (forwards or backwards) or antithetical.' Questions of metre may also have entered into the matter. But there is no doubt at all that in itself nev does not mean or imply antithesis. The original use was simply emphatic confirmation of single words, usually the weightiest word in the sentence. This use was gradu- ally left more and more to iii/v and other particles, but it is not anacoluthic, as Winer ^ holds, for fiev to occur without the presence of Sk or aWa. The older language is naturally richer* in this original idiom with fikv, but it survives in the N. T. and is not to be regarded as unclassical or uncouth. For an example in the papyri see B. U. 423 (U/a.d.), irp6 fiiv iravruv. The old idiom sur- vived best in the vernacular and in poetry, while the literary prose was more careful to use the antithetical or resumptive fih. This fiki> solitarium, as the books call it, may have a concessive or restrictive force.^ Cf. ei iiev yap 6 kpxo/Jtevos (2 Cor. 11:4), where there is no thought of Si or dXXa. It is seen also rather often in the Acts. Cf. 1:18 ovtos p.tv ovv kKrria-aro x'^p'">v> (3:13) ov vixets iitv irapeduKare (cf. v/itts Sk in next verse which is copulative, not adversative), (3 : 21) 6v Sel ovpavdv ixtv Se^aaBai, (3 : 22) Miavcrjs fiev eiTiv, (17 : 12) ToWol ixev otv k^ avT&v 'eKiCTevcav , (21 : 39) 'eyii avBpuTTOs nkv e'lixi, (23 : 18) 6 fitv ovv wapaXaPiiv (cf. also 23 : 31), (27 : 21) eSei fiev, (28 : 22) irepl iiev yap Trjs aipecreois TauTTjs, and the in- stances of 01 liiv ovv Hke Acts 1 : 6; 2 : 41; 5 : 41; 8 : 25, where no contrast is intended. See d p,tv ovv in Heb. 7 : 11; 1; ixkv evSoKla in Ro. 10 : 1; i(t>' oaov ixkv ovv el/xi ^701 in 11 : 13. Cf. 2 Cor. 12 : 12; 1 Th. 2 : 18, kyd) ixkv. Cf. also the single instance of pevovv as one word (Lu. 11 : 28) which is obviously without contrast. The same thing is true of p.tvovvye (Ro. 9 : 20; 10 : 18; Ph. 3 : 8) however it is printed. The main word is sharpened to a fine point and there is a hint of contrast in Ph. 3 : 8. Indeed, most ' Monro, Horn. Or., p. 251. • W.-Th., p. 575. 2 K.-G., II, p. 135. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 409. ' Jamn., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 409. « Hartung, PartikeUehre, II, p. 404. 1152 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT of the instances of ixkv oh in the N. T. are resumptive, not cor- relative or antithetical.^ There remain the instances where fiiv implies contrast. It is just a step in advance of the original idiom. Cf . Mt. 8 : 21, etrlTpt^/bv fwi irpurov aireXdetv, where there is nothing to correspond to wpSiTou. The hreira is involved in what precedes. So with irpS>Tov and re — Kai in Ro. 1 : 16 and vpSiTov — Kai in 2 Cor. 8 : 5. The Kai does not answer to the irpuiTov? Just so we have Tov fiiv tpS>tov "Koyov in Ac. 1 : 1 without a ^eiirepov 5k, though the clear implication is that the Acts is the second book. In 1 Cor. 11 : 18, irpSiTov nev yap, the contrast is implied' in verses 20 ff., but in Ro. 1 : 8, irpurov piv evxapurrci, there is no hint of other grounds of thanksgiving. This instance may be a change of thought on Paul's part (anacoluthon), or it may be the original use of piv, meaning 'first of all in truth.' Cf. irpSiTov jxev in Ro. 3:2. In Ro. 7 : 12, b ph> vopos, there is no contrast stated, but in verse 14 it is given by 8k, yet without p.kv. In Col. 2 : 23, arLva kias, the antithesis is really stated in ovk iv npfj, kt\. without an adversative particle. In 1 Cor. 5 : 3 the pkv stands alone, while airiiv and Tapiiv are contrasted by 5^. In Heb. 12 : 9 there is contrast between the fiev clause and the next, which has no particle (only iroXv paXKov). In Ac. 26 :4, 6, pkv is followed by- Kai vvv by way of contrast and by ra vvv in 17: 30. Cf . pkv — Kai in 1 Th. 2 : 18, pkv — rk in Ac. 27 : 21, where there is practically no contrast. But see 6 pkv — Kai 'hepov in Lu. 8 : 5ff., o pkv — Kai aWo in Mk. 4 : 4 ff. We have p,kv — iweLra in Jo. 11 : 6; Jas. 3 : 17; 1 Cor. 12 : 28. These are all efforts to express antithesis. We see this also in nkv — irXi/v in Lu. 22 : 22 and in pkv — dXXA in Ac. 4 : 16; Ro. 14 : 20; 1 Cor. 14 : 17. In Mk. 9 : 12 f. dXXa is independent of the pkv. But it is the nkv — Sk con- struction that is the most frequent in the N. T. as in the Attic Greek. There are two and a half pages of examples of p,ku in its various uses in the N. T. given in Moulton and Geden's Con- cordance, but even so the particle has made a distinct retreat since the Attic period.* It is wholly absent from 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus (critical text) and Revelation. It occurs only once in Eph. (4 : 11), Col. (2: 23), 1 Th. (2 : 18), Jas. (3 : 17). It is most frequent in Matthew, Acts, 1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 267. Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 410) gives a very large list of illustrations of the original use of titv from anc. Gk = Cf. W.-Th., p. 576. » But Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 267) takes it to be 'from the very outset' and so the original use of /ikv. j lb. p. 266. PARTICLES (AI nAPAGHKAl) 1153 Romans, 1 Corinthians and Hebrews. Paley' thinks that ixiv and St may contain the roots of one (juta) and two (Siio). But certainly the correlative antithesis is not necessary to either of them, though with Se there is the notion of addition. Cf. in this connection iiiv — Kai (Mk. 4:4; Lu. 8 : 5) and Tdre ixkv (Jo. 11:6). There are varying degrees of contrast where ixkv and &k occur together. There may be no emphasis on the iikv and very little on the &k, which is not essentially adversative. The iikv may pre- serve almost its original idiom while 6e has sUght contrast. So Lu. 11 : 48, apa liiipTVpks kare Kal (TvvevdoKeiTe rots ipyois tuv Tarkpcov, Sti a{)Tol ixiv air'tKTtu/av aiiroiis ineis Sk oiKoSofietre. The whole sen- tence is qucfted to show that it is agreement (correspondence), not opposition, that is here accented. In verse 47 we have 5k, but not nev, which is hardly felt in 48. See also Ac. 13: 36 f.; Ph. 3: 1; Heb. 7:8. In particular we note this slight contrast when a whole is distributed into its parts as in Mt. 25 : 14 ff.; 1 Cor. 9 : 25. Cf . also Ac. 18 : 14 f. But the distribution may amount to sharp division, as in 1 Cor. 1-; 12, 'Eyi) pkv d/xt. HaiiKov, 'Eyoi di 'AttoXXo), 'E7U Si Kjja, 'EjLa k^ eiuvinoiv. The examples are nmnerous. See ot nkv — 01 Sk (Ph, 1 : 16 ff .) ; oBs nkv — ovs Sk (Jude 22) ; rivis iikv — nves Sk (Ph. 1:15); eh pkv — els Sk (Heb. 9:6f.); oi fikv — SXXoi. Sk (Mt. 16:14); SiWv, iiiv — &\\v Sk (1 Cor. 15 : 39) ; tovto p,kv — tovto Sk (Heb. 10 : 33) ; irpuTov p.kv — hreira Sk (Heb. 7:2); d niv oSi/ — ei Sk (Ac. 19 : 38 f .) ; d p,kv — vvv Sk (Heb. 11 : 15 f.), etc. These examples fairly exhibit the N. T. usage of /ikv. It is often a matter of one's mood how much emphasis to put on iikv and Sk, as in Mt. 9 : 37 and Mk. 14 : 38. In fikvroi there is always strong contrast. As examples of fikv'— AXXa in sharp contrast see Ro. 14 : 20; 1 Cor. 14 : 17. So also p.kv — w\iiv (Lu. 22 : 22). (e) Hep. It is probably a shortened form of irepi (cf. perfect) or irepi more exactly.' It is both postpositive and enclitic and is usually in the N. T. printed 'as a part of the word with which it » The Gk. Particles, p. 34. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 266. » Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 545. 1154 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT occurs. But in Homer this is not true, while xep follows Kal only once.i There is no doubt about the etymology of this particle.^' Some' even connect it directly with irkpav or irepa. Cf. irepairkpu (critical text in Ac. 19:39). But this idea does not conflict with the other, for irkpL is the locative of irepa. It is an Indo- Germanic root, and the original notion of irepi. occurs in xept- ■wip.irKrini, irepi-^'Kridiis, nu-per, per-^manere, per-tinax, semper, etc. It means then to do a thing to the limit (beyond), thoroughly. There is a note of urgency in vkp. It is intensive as yk, but prob- ably tends to be more extensive also.^ Sometimes the emphasis in irep is in spite of opposition^ as in Kaiirep which occurs six times in the N. T. (Ph. 3 : 4; Heb. 5:8; 7:5; 12 : 17; 2 Pet. 1 : 12), and always with participles, as Kaiirep &v vlos (Heb. 5:8). The Textus Receptus has ovirep in Mk. 15 : 6, but W. H. read only 6v, but 5i6;r€p appears twice as an inferential conjunction (1 Cor. 8 : 13; 10 : 14). See Hcrirep, 0. P. 1125, 6 (iii/A.D.). The other examples are all with conjunctions, as eavxep (Heb. 3:14; 6:3); eixep (a half-dozen times, all in Paul, as Ro. 8:9; 1 Cor. 15 : 15); kictlirep (some MSS. in Ro. 3 : 30, but the best MSS., as W. H. give, have el'xep) ; kirei^riirep (only Lu. 1:1); rjirep (only the crit- ical text in Jo. 12 : 43) ; KoBaicep (some 17 times, all in Paul save Heb. 4 : 2), KodtisaTep (Heb. 5 : 4 and a varia lectio in 2 Cor. 3 : 18), &aTep (some 36 times, chiefly in Matthew, Luke and Paul, as Mt. 6: 2), ixTirepel (once only, 1 Cor. 15: 8). (/) Toi does not occur alone in the N. T., but only in composi- tion. It is enclitic as in rJTot, xairoi, p,kvToi., but it comes first in Toiyapovv and roivvv. The etymology is not certain. Brugmann* takes it to be a fixed form of the ethical dative aol (toi). Others' take it as the locative of the demonstrative to. Kiihner-Gerth* consider it the locative of the indefinite tI. There seems no way of telling for certain. But it seems to have the notion of restric- tion and in Homer' is often combined with adversative particles. In the N. T. we find fJTOL once (Ro. 6 : 16), /cairoi twice (Ac. 14 : 17; Heb. 4:3), Kalrovye once (Jo. 4:2), pilanoi eight times, five in John's Gospel as Jo. 4: 27 and once in Paul (2 Tim. 2 : 19),- TOLjapovv twice (1 Th. 4 : 8; Heb. 12 : 1), toIvvv three times (Lu. 20 : 25; 1 Cor. 9 : 26; Heb. 13 : 13). "Ojiuos is an adversative par- » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 257. • Griech. Gr., pp. 402, 525. 2 Hartung, Partikellehre, I, p. 327. ■' Cf. Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 252. " Baumlein, Partikeln, p. 198. ' II, p. 149. * K.-G., II, p. 168. » Horn. Gr., p. 252. » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 257. PARTICLES (aI IIAPAeHKAl) 1155 tide that occurs three times in the N. T. (Jo. 12 : 42, here with fiivToi; 1 Cor. 14 : 7; Gal. 3 : 15), twice with a participle. in. Negative Particles (orepiiTiKal irapa6iiKa i) . The use of the negative particles has been discussed already in various parts of the grammar in an incidental way in connection with the modes, verbal nouns and dependent clauses. But it is necessary at this point to treat the subject as a whole. It is not the logical nega- tive that one has here to deal with. Many words are negative in idea which are positive in form. Thus "empty" is negative, "cold" is negative, "death" is negative. Aristotle uses arepriTiKSs for this negative conception. It is in reality an ablative idea as (TTipkbi implies. But the grammarian is concerned simply with those words that are used to make positive words (or clauses) negative. This is the grammatical negative. There are, indeed, in Greek, as in English, negative post-fixes.' But there is a com- mon negative Greek prefix a(i') called alpha privative, Sanskrit a{rt), Latin in, Gothic un, English un. In Sanskrit this prefix does not occur with verbs and is rare with substantives. It is there found chiefly with adjectives and participles.^ In Greek it occurs with verbs, but chiefly denominative verbs like aTifi&^co.^ The use of a- (av- before vowels) is in the Greek still more common with adjectives and verbals. See the chapter on For- mation of Words for details. Cf. aSoKifios, aSida, aTeidris, kavveros, aaivdtTos, acTopyos, aveKefipxav (Ro, 1 : 28-30) . 1. The Objective Ov and its Compounds. (a) Origin. This is unknown. Hiibschmann^ sees a connection with the Latin haud as do other scholars.* Fowler^ takes it as an original intensive particle like pas in the French ne pas and -xi (Indo-Ger. -^hi) in oir-xi. The Zend ava is also noted and the Latin au (au-fero).'' But there is no doubt that ov in the Greek took the place of the Sanskrit nd, Latin ne- (ne-que, ne-scio; the re- lation of ne ne-quidem, ne-quam to this ne is not known), Gothic TO. The use of the Greek oii corresponds to the Sanskrit nd. ' Anon., Notes on Negative Postfixes in Gk. and Lat., 1884, p. 6. 2 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 447. " Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 529. * Cf. Das indoger. Vokal-System, p. 191. 6 Cf. Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., XVIII, pp. 4, 123 f.; Horton-Smith, ib., pp. 43 ff.; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 528. ' The Negatives of the Indo-Europ. Lang., 1896. Cf. Delbrtick, Grundr., IV, p. 519. ' But Draeger (Hist. Synt., p. 133) says that this connection with the Lat. haud cannot be shown. 1156 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (jb) History. As far back as Greek goes we find ob, but oi did not hold its own with fiij in the progress of the language. Within the past century oi has become obsolete in modern Greek outside of a few proverbs save in the Laconian and the Pontic dialects.' The Pontic dialect uses d from Old Ionic ovkL But modem Greek has om and oiiTe (Thmnb, Handb., p. 200). In the Boeotian dia- lect, it may be noted, ov never did gain a place. We have seen obdkv used as an adverb, an idiom that goes back to Homer.'' Jannaris' explains that the vernacular came to use oiSev and fini- sh for emphasis and then on a par with oi and ixrj. Then oiStu dropped ov and lirjSh lost dh, leaving Skv and n^fj for the inodem Greek. At any rate this is the outcome. Akv is the negative of the ind. in modem Greek except after va and final clauses when we find va ^i) (Thumb, Handb., p. 200). And bkv is the regular negative in the protasis of conditional sentences both with ind. and subj.^ The distinction between oh and /i^ did become more or less blurred in the course of time, but in the N. T., as in the KOLvij generally, the old Greek idiom is very well preserved in the main. Buttmann' even thinks that the N. T. idiom here conforms more exactly to the old literary style than in any other point. Aev may represent mbkv (Rendel Harris, Exp., Feb., 1914, p. 163). (c) Meaning. Ob denies the reality of an alleged fact. It is the clear-cut, point-blank negative, objective, final." Jannaris' com- pares ob to oTt and nil to Iva, while Blass' compares ob to the indicative mode and iiij to the other modes. But these analogies are not wholly true. Sometimes, indeed, ob coalesces with the word as in of) ^yii =not merely 'I do not say,' but 'I deny.' So ovK eaca (Ac. 16 : 7) = 'I forbid.' Cf. ob BiXoi (Mk. 9 : 30); ovk exoj (Mt. 13: 12); obK ayvoku (2 Cor. 2 : 11). See also t6v ob \a6v in Ro. 9:25 (LXX) where ob has the effect of an adjective or a prefix. Delbriick' thinks .that this use of ob with verbs Uke the Latin ne-sdo was the original one in Greek. In the LXX ob translates s^. (d) Uses. Here it will be sufficient to make a brief summary, since the separate uses have already been discussed in detail in > Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 182; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 425. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 259. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 426. * Thumb, Handb., p. 194 f.; Jebb, in V. and D., p. 339. ' Gr. of the N. T. Gk., Thayer's Transl., p. 344. ' Cf. Thouvemin, Les Ndgations dans le N. T., Revue de Philol., 1894, p. 229. ■> Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 427. 8 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 253. » Synt. Forsoh., IV, p. 147. PARTICLES (aI HAPAeHKAl) 1157 the proper places. The point here is to show how all the varied uses of oh are in harmony with the true meaning of the particle. (i) The Indicative. We meet ob with the indicative in both in- dependent and dependent clauses. (o) Independent Sentences. Here the negative ob is universal with the indicative in declarative sentences. The force of ov {oiJK before vowels, oix before aspirate) is sometimes very power- ful, like the heavy thud of a blow. Cf. ovk idiiKare, obK tiror'uraTe, oh (TvvriyayeTe, oil irepie^aKere, ohK 'fweaKeij/oxTde (Mt. 25 : 42 f .) . The force of all these negatives is gathered up in the one oh in verse 44. In verse 45 oh and ohSk are balanced over against each other. See OVK hreaev in Mt. 7:25. Cf. oh irap'eKafiov in Jo. 1 : 11. In Mt. 21 : 29 see the contrast between ir/iy, Khpte and ok airTjXdev. Note the progressive bluntness of the Baptist's denials till o6 comes out flat at the last (Jo. 1:21 f.). In the N. T. oh alone occurs with the future indicative used as a prohibition, though the classic idiom sometimes had /ti}. Cf . oh ^ovehaeis (Mt. 5 : 21) ; OVK 'eaeade cos ol iTroKpirai (6:5), etc. Still, Blass^ quotes p,i]dkva. lua^fjaere in Clem., Horn., Ill, 69. The volitive subjective nature of this construction well suits ju^, but oh is more emphatic and suits the indicative. In Mt. 16 : 22, oh nr) euTai aoi tovto, we have oil nil in the prohibitive sense. When oh occurs alone = 'no,' as at the end of a clause, it is written ov as in o6, ju^ irore (Mt. 13:29);T6O0oi)(2Cor. 1:17). But in interrogative (independent) sentences oh always expects the answer 'yes.' The Greek here draws a distinction between oh and (I'll that is rather difficult to reproduce in English. The use of a negative in the question seems naturally to expect the an- swer 'yes,' since the negative is challenged by the question. This applies to oh. We may leave fiij till we come to it. Oh in questions corresponds to the Latin nonne. Cf. Mt. 7 : 22, oh tQ ac^ ovbnan iirpo(l>riTth\6s tv4>\6v ddriyeiv; and ohxl. with the other (side by side) ohx^ afujiOTepoi eh fiodwov kiivecrovvTai; There is a tone of impatient indignation in the use of oh in Ac. 13 : 10, oh irahcji SiauTpk^bsv tos oSovs tov Kvplov t&s ehdeias; In Ac. 21 : 38, ohK apa ah el 6 Aiyhxrios; the addition of apa means 'as I supposed, 1 Gr. N. T. Gr., p. 254. 1158 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT but as I now see denied.' ^ In Mk. 14 : 60 note the measured use of oil and obdh in both question, ovk airoKplvu oiSev; and the descrip- tion of Christ's silence, Kai o{ik ainKpLvaTo ovSkv. In Lu. 18 : 7, oij liii iroiricrji — Kal iiaKpodvp.eZ kir' airois; we come near having ov /iri in a question with the present indicative as well as with the aorist subjimctive. In a question like fiii ovk exo/Jitv; (1 Cor. 9:4) oii is the negative of the verb, while /ti? is the negative of the sentence. Cf. Ro. 10 : 18, 19. In 1 Cor. 9 : 8 we have firi in one part of the question and oh in the other, /t^ Kara avdpbnrov ravra XaXcS, fj Kal 6 vbm Tama ob \kyei; In Mt. 22 : 17 (Lu. 20 : 22; Mk. 12 : 14) we have rj oC; as the alternative question, and Mark adds ^ ^17. Babbitt^ holds that "ov is used in questions of fact, while in other questions (e.g. questions of possibility) firi is used." I doubt the correctness of this interpretation. In declarative sentences the position of ov is to be noted when for emphasis or contrast it comes first. Cf. ob and dXXa in Ro. 9:8. So ob yap — aW o in 7: 15. In 7: 18 f. note oi5- ob side by side. Cf. also position of ov in Ac. 1 : 5; 2 :15; Ro. 11 :18 (ob ab — dXXci). So dXX' ovk ^70} in 1 Cor. 6 :12. (fi) Subordinate Clauses. In principle the use of ob is the same as in independent sentences. But there are some special adapta- tions which have already been discussed and need only brief men- tion here. In relative clauses with the indicative ov is almost the only negative used in the N. T., the examples of firi being very few as will be seen directly. This is true both with definite relative clauses where it is obviously natural, as in 2 Cor. 8 : 10, oiTives ob novov — trpoevrip^aade (cf. Ro. 10 : 14; Jas. 4:14), and in indefinite relative clauses where /xii is possible, but by no means necessary, as in Mt. 10 : 38, 6s ov Xa/i/Jdyet (cf. Lu. 9 :. 50; 14 : 33, etc.). The use of ob in the relative clause which is preceded by a negative is not an encroachment' on ixi). Cf. ob /iij d^eSg &8e \iBos hrl \i9ov OS ov KaraXvBitatTai (Mt. 24: 2). It is a common enough idiom in the old Greek, as we see it in 10: 26 (Lu. 12: 2), ovhkv kcnv KtKa- \vixnkvov b OVK airoKa\v^i](jeTai. Cf. Lu. 8:17, where the second relative has ob iirj yvcocrdfi, and Ro. 15:18 for the negative ob in principal and relative clause. In Mk. 4 : 25 note 6s ?xet and 8s obK £x«- Cf. S ekXos and S ob ee\iKvoviievoL, where the two nega- tives are in good contrast. In local clauses likewise the use of oh is obvious, as in ottov ohx elxev yrjv w6KKi}v (Mt. 13 : 5) ; otov oh dtKtis (Jo. 21 : 18. Here the oh is very pointed) ; ov bk ohK icmv vbpos (Ro. 4 : 15). In causal sentences oh is not quite universal, though the usual negative. Cf. Mt. 25 : 45 k^' oaov ohn hrovfiaaTe ivl rohruv tSiv eXa- Xumav, (2 : 18) oti ovk dclv, (Heb. 6 : 13) iird Kar' ov8evds dxiv, (1 Cor. 14: 16) erreiSij ohK oUev. See further Lu. 1 : 34; Jo. 8: 20, 37; Ro. 11: 6. In Heb. 9 : 17 kwel ixrj rbre [juij 7roT€ marg. of W. H.] iuxva. may be a question as Theophylact takes it, but W. H. do not print it so in the text. But it is not a departure from an- cient Greek idiom to have /^i? with the ind. in causal sentences as will be shown. Cf . Jo. 3 : 18 with 1 Jo. 5 : 10. In final clauses with the ind. oh does not occur. The reason for /ii7 in clauses of purpose is obvious even though the ind. mode be used (cf. Rev. 9 : 4, 20). It is only with clauses of apprehension that oh is found with the verb when ju^ occurs as the conjunc- tion. Cf. 2 Cor. 12 : 20, i.\ei (1 Cor. 16 : 22). Cf. also 2 Jo. 10, d t« ^pxerat Kal oii ^kpei. Cf . also el ob toiu and el itoiSi in Jo. 10 : 37 f ., where the antithesis is quite marked. See also the decisive negation in Jo. 1 : 25. But, when all is said, el oii has made distinct inroads on d nr/ in the later Greek. As to the negative in indirect discourse with the indicative, it only remains to say that the use of ob is universal. Cf. Mt. 16 : 12, ffvv^Kav oTi obK elirev irpoakxeiv. In 16 : 11 note ttcos ob voeire 8ti ob irepl S,pT03u elirov ifuv; where each negative has its own force. Cf . also 1 Cor. 6 : 9. (ii) The Subjunctive. In Homer ob was the negative with the futuristic subjunctive* as in ob 8i Idionai, Iliad, I, 262. This futu- ristic use of the subj., as we have seen (Modes), largely passed over to the futurie indicative,' so that ob disappears from the subjunc- tive almost entirely both in principal and subordinate clauses. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 429. * Jebb, V. and D.'s Handb., p. 339. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 254. = W.-Th., pp. 477 ff. » Les Negations, etc., p. 233. » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 198. ' Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 498. Cf. W. G. Hale, The Anticipatory Subjunctive in Gk. and Lat., Cornell Stu., 1895. PARTICLES (aI HAPAeHKAl) 1161 One may compare the final disappearance of- 06 before /tij with participles. In Jer. 6 : 8 B reads ^rts oii Karoi-KUTdfj where KAQ* have KaToiKiadiictTai. It is to be remembered also, as already noted, that in the modem Greek 5'ev occurs in the protasis with subjunctive as well as with the indicative, as a Siv incTtiygi (Thumb, Handbook, p. 195). This is partly due, no doubt, to the obscuration of the oh in bkv, but at bottom it is the futuristic use of the subj. We have already noted the use of ^4 ""X in 2 Cor. 12 : 20 with eiipco after (JM^ovfiai, where the oi is Jcept with the subj. (classic idiom) to distinguish it from the conjunctional n^. It is also a case of the futuristic subj., not volitive as in final clauses with Iva or ottcos. In Mt. 25 : 9 th6 margin of W. H. has fi'fl TTOTe ovK apKka-[i without a verb of fearing, though the notion is there. The text has a"7 '^rore ov firi. Jannaris' boldly cuts the Gordian knot by denying that ju^ in ov iiij is a true negative. He makes it merely a shortening of ij,i)v. If so, all the uses of oh tiij with the subj. would be examples of oh with the subj. Some of these, however, are volitive or deliberative. This view of Jan- naris is not yet accepted among scholars. It is too simple a solution, though Jaimaris argues that oh n'i]v does occur as in Soph. El. 817, Eur. Hec. 401, and he notes that the negation is continued by oh Bk, not by fiii Se. Per contra it is to be observed that the modern Greek writes fiiiv as well as iiri, as vA ij.'qv elxe TrapdSes, 'because he had no money' (Thumb, Handb., p. 200). But, whatever the explanation, we do have oh nii with the aorist subj. in the N. T. We have had to discuss this point already (Tense and Mode), and shall meet it again under Double Nega- tives. But in Jo. 18 : 11, oh /ii) itius; the answer is in accord with oh. (iii) The Optative. In the N. T. there are no instances of the use of oil with the optative. It is only in wishes (volitive) that the optative has a negative in the N. T. and that is naturally ni).^ But this is just an accident due to the rapid disappearance of the optative. There is no reason why oh should not be found with the potential optative (futuristic) or the deliberative which was always rare. (iv) The Imperative. The most striking instance is 1 Pet. 3 : 3, S>v earos ohx ^ — kocijxk, aXX' 6 KpvTrros, ktK. It is the sharp contrast with dXX' that explains the use of ohx- Cf. also oh iwvov in 1 Pet. 2 : 18, where the participle stands in an imperative atmosphere. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 433. ' Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 200. 1162 A GEAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Cf. also ov with the inf. in the imperatival sense in 1 Cor. 5 : 10; 2 Tim. 2 : 14. Elsewhere with the imperative we have a"> I^vov (Jo. 13 : 9; Ph. 2 : 12; Jas. 1 : 22). Ov is used in an imperatival connection with the fut. ind. (Mt. 5 : 21) and in questions of like nature (Ac. 13 : 10). (v) The Infinitive. It is common to say that in the N. T.* ov does not occur with the infinitive, not even in indirect assertion. In Homer and in the classic Attic we do find ov with the inf. in indirect assertion. This is usually explained on the ground that the oil belonged to the original indicative in the direct and is simply preserved in the indirect. Monro {Horn. Gr., p. 262) ob- serves that in the old Sanskrit only finite verbs have the negative particles. This question received full discussion under Mode and Verbal Nouns. Only a brief word is allowed here. The oldest use of the negative in indirect discourse was in the form ov ri N. T. M. and T., p.' 184. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255. « lb., p. 183 f . PAETICLES (aI nAPAGHKAl) 1163 the subject of ov and fiii with the participle under the Verbal As- pects of the Participle (see Verbal Nouns). Galloway ^ thinks that it was with the participle that ov was first used (as opposed to the Sanskrit negative prefix) before the infinitive had oi. At any rate ov is well established in Homer. We may simply accent the fact that the encroachment of aiij on ov with the participle gives all the greater emphasis to the examples of ov which re- main. Cf. & oU &v TToi/iiJj' (Jo. 10 : 12); cis ovk bkpwv (1 Cor. 9 : 26). There is no trouble in seeing the force of o6 wherever we find it with the participle in the N. T. (vii) With Nouns. Here we see a further advance of the nega- tive particles over the Sanskrit idiom which confined them to the finite verb. The Greek usually employs the negative prefix with nouns, but in a few instances in the N. T. we have ov. So rbv ob \a6v in Ro. 9 : 25 (LXX), ou Xa6s in 1 Pet. 2 : 10 (LXX), ^' OVK Wvu in Ro. 10 : 19 (65 8^ Deut. 82 : 21). But this is by no means a Hebraism, since it is common in the best Greek writers. Cf. ij oh SiaXvais in Thuc. 1, 137. 4 and 17 ovk k^ovcria in 5, 50. 3. Cf. obK apxitp'iios in 2 Mace. 4 : 13. As Thayer well says, oii in this construction "annuls the idea of the noun." The use of ob to deny a single word is common, as in 06 Bvalav (Mt. 9: 13). Cf. oiiK kfik in Mk. 9 : 37. In general for ov with exceptions see ovk h (To^iq. (1 Cor. 1 : 17), oi ni\avi (2 Cor. 3 : 3). In 2 Tim. 2 : 14, Itt' ov8iv xp^o'')'"''') it is possible that xPW'^l^v is in the substantival sense. There is, of course, nothing imusual in the use of ob with adjectives like ov iroXXoi On the Use of Mij with the Participle in Class. Gk., 1897, p. 6. 1164 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT single words or phrases, where uri is the normal negative of the clause. (e) Kai Oil. In general when a positive clause is followed by a negative we have Kal ov as in classic Greek. Cf . Ro. 7 : 6 (with inf. as in Heb. 7:11). See also Col. 2 : 8, 19. So Lu. 8 : 14, aw- /irvLjovTai, Kal oh re\e(T(t>opovs oh voeire on oh, kt\. (16 : 10) ; oh To\firicru ti XaXeiv uv oh KafeipyaffaTO Xptffxos (Ro. 15 : 18) ; ovk oKare ort — oh KXfipovofi'q- (Tovciv (1 Cor. 6 : 9). In Mt. 24:2 ou follows oh n-i}. See also Lu. 8 : 17. The uses of p.it oh and oh p.ri are treated later. But note oi5, m4 i"ot£ — kKpi^isai^Te (Mt. 13 : 29) where o6 stands alone. The solemn repetition of oh — ou in 1 Cor. 6 : 10 is rhetorical. (h) The Intensifying Compound Negative. We have seen how oh can be made stronger by x' {ohxl, as in Lu. 1:60). Brug- mann* considers this an intensive particle and different from the Homeric' d (oh-Kl) which is like tl (««, /ct, ns, rt). So also oh8k was originally just oh Sk ('and not,' 'but not') and is often so printed in Homer.* In the sense of 'not even' see Mt. 6 : 29. The form ohSds is intensive also, originally 'not one indeed'' and was sometimes printed ohSi els (Ro. 3 : 10) for even stronger emphasis. But oh — ns also occurs (Jo. 10:28). Cf. also ohSk TLS (Mt. 11: 27); oh 8hvn 'en (Lu. 16 : 2); oiiTe — ns (Ac. 28 : 21); » Cf. W. H. S. Jones., CI. Rev., Mar., 1910. ••= Griech. Gr., p. 528. 4 lb. » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 259. " Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 528. PARTICLES (aI nAPAGHKAl) 1165 oi — iroTi{2 Pet. 1:21). The adverbial form ovSkv occasionally occurs in Homer. The form oWeis (cf. Ac. 26 : 26), which flour- ished for a limited period in the koivti, has already had sufficient discussion. Various other compound negatives were built up on ob, as ovBa/i&s (Mt. 2:6); oM^irco (Jo. 20 : 9) ; ovSkiroTe (Mt. 7 : 23) ; omiTi (Mt. 19 : 6). Oinovv was used so much in questions that it lost its negative force (Jo. 18 : 37), unless one writes it oHkovv. OvT€ is, of course, only oi and re. These compound negatives merely strengthen the previous negative. This emphatic repe- tition of the compound negative was once good vernacular in both English and German, but it gave way in literary circles before the influence of the Latin.* It was always good Greek. This discussion does not apply to subordinate clauses (as in Jo. 8 : 20) where each negative has its own force. The use of ovde and oi)T€ belongs to the discussion of conjunctions (cf. aire — oiire — ov5k in Ac. 24 : 12 f.), but the examples in the N. T. of the other compound negatives with oi are numerous. Farrar^ gives some good illustrations of old English. " No sonne were he never so old of years might not marry," Ascham, Scholemaster. Modem English vernacular refuses to give up the piling-up of negatives. "Not nohow, said the landlord, thinking that where negatives are good, the more you heard of them the better" {Felix Holt, ii^ 198). Again: "Whatever may be said of the genius of the English language, yet no one could have misunderstood the query of the London citizen. Has nobody seen nothing of never a hat not their own?" So like-wise the Hebrew uses two negatives to strengthen each other (cf. 1 Ki. 10 : 21; Is. 5 : 9). A good example is Mk. 5:3, oiiSi oMtl ovSeis. So ovdels omoi (11:2). The commonest kind of example is like oi 8iua Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255. * Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 324 ff.; Thompson, Synt., pp. 425 fF. 1172 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (vi) The Participle. We have seen already how the oldest San- skrit did not use the negative particles with the participle. In Homer we have only one instance of iiri with the participle (Od., IV, 684).i But liTj gradually made, its way with participles even in Attic Greek. In the modem Greek firi has driven ov entirely from the participial use. In the N. T. ov still hangs on, as we have seen, but that is all. The drift of the xoti/ij is for, ixtj, and a writer like Plutarch shows it.^ MiJ is the usual negative of the participle. The details were given in connection with Participles. In the N. T. we need pay no attention to the Attic refinements on this point, which were not always observed even there. We have /iri with the participle in the N. T. as a matter of course. Cf. Mt' 12 : 30 6 Ml? H"' and 6 n'fi awaycov, (1 Tim, 5 : 13) to firi Siovra, (La. 4 : 35) fivSiv ^\k^av, (Ac. 20 : 22) ^i) dbiii. In Mt. 22 : 11 f. and 1 Pet. 1 : 8, a distinction, as was shown, seems to be drawn be- tween o\) and Ml? with the participle. Cf. Mt. 18 : 25; Lu. 12 : 33 J Jo. 7:15; Ac. 9:9; 17:6; 1 Th. 4 : 5 (cf. Gal. 4:8), etc. The downright denial of oh lingered on awhile in the Koivi} (cf. papyri), but jui? is putting ov to rout.' (vii) Nouns. The ancient Greek* used nij with substantives as 6 jxii larpos (Plato, Gorg. 459 b), adjectives as ot nfi naQapol {Ant. V. 82), or adverbs as to fiii kfiirodav (Thuc. ii, 45. 1). In the N. T., so far as I have noticed, ^i? with substantives and adjectives occurs only in contexts where it is natural. Thus in Lu. 10 : 4, All? irripav, fiij VTo8ri[jMTa, we have just before ^t) /SacrrafeTe fiaWav- TLov. In Jo. 13 : 9, /ti? I'oi's irodas p-ov iibvov, we have no verb, but vlirre is to be supplied from the preceding sentence. Cf. also Eph. 5 : 15; Jo. 18 :40. So in Ro. 12 : 11 /ti? omriipol is in the midst of participles used in an imperatival sense. In 1 Tim. 3:3, p.ii TrapoLvov, ixri irKrtKTriv, the construction is 8u elvai. This infinitival construction is carried on in verse 6 (in spite of the parenthesis in verse 5) by jxij veb(j>vrov. So as to verse 8 and Tit. 1 : 7. There is no difiiculty as to the use of /ii? in Col. 3 : 2 and 2 Th. 3 : 6. (rf) The Intensifying Compounds with Mij. The same story in the main that we found with ov is repeated with jxri. There is no fitixi., but we have uriri in this sense. The examples in the N. T. are all in questions (cf. Mt. 7: 16: Jo. 18 : 35) except one, d P.JJTL (Lu. 9 : 13). The position of /ii? may give it emphasis as in Jas. 3 : 1 (cf. oii in Mt. 15 : 11). The use of the compound ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 263. » Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 231 f. 2 Thompson, Synt., p. 255. • Thompson, Synt., p. 410 f . PARTICLES (aI HAPAeHKAl) 1173 negative as a second (or third) negative is simply to strengthen the negative as is true of oL Cf. Mk. 11 : 14 uriKkri. ftriSds ^ayoi, (Ac. 25 : 24) ^xi/SowcTes iiij deiv avrbv ^rjv firiKkTi, (Ro. 13 : 8) uriSevl uridkv 6<^eiX6T6, (2 Cor. 13 : 7) /iij — firjdiv, etc. Besides' nrjSels there is liijdkv (Ac. 27:33), iJ,r]Se in the sense of 'not even' (Eph. 5: 3), /lijye (Mt. 6 : 1), jtw/S^xore (2 Tim. 3 : 7), livSkirco (Heb. 11: 7), /ii/KCTi (Mk. 9 : 25), nrjTore (margin of W. H. in Heb. 9 : 17. Else- where in the N. T. a conjunction), ij,ri8aiiSis. (Ac. 10 : 14), /iriirov (Ac. 27 : 29), n^^w (Ro. 9 : 11), n'tinye (1 Cor. 6 : 3), h^itls (2 Th. 2:3). M^TTws is only a conjunction in the N. T. If ^^ is followed by o6 as in 1 Jo. 3 : 10, 6 /ii) xoicov SiKaioaivriv oiiK wnv 'tK roO Qiov, the last negative retains its force. So vice versa in Ac. 4 : 20. In Gal. 6 : 3 there is a sharp contrast between n and lirihkv (both neuter abstracts referring to a person.). (e) Kai ixij. We saw that after a positive statement the nega- tive was carried on by koX oh. So also we have Kal nij as in Eph. 4 : 26, opyi^ecde Kal iiii afiapravere, and in Lu. 1 : 20; 2 Cor. 12 : 21 In Ac. 18 : 9 note /ii) (t>o^ov dXXa XdXei Kal firi cruairiiajis, where a positive command comes in between the two examples of /jiti. In Jas. 3 : 14, per contra, iiij KaraKavxaade Kal ^€v8eade Kara rrjs dXriBeias, the negative nii seems to cover both verbs connected by Kal rather than fjtr]8L Cf. also Lu. 3 : 14. We have instances also of Kal connecting a clause with the conjunction /li] totc (Mt. 13 : 15; Mk. 4 : 12) .i In Lu. 14 : 29, tm iir, Trore dhros airov de/xk- \lov Kal /ii7 la-x^oPTOS — ap^uvrai, we have fii] irore with Ap^cavrai. and nil with icxhovTOS. (/) Disjunctive Use of M17. The simplest form of this con- trast is fiii — 5k as in Lu. 10 : 20, fiii x'^'^P^^ — xa'P«« Sk. Then we have firi — dXXd as in /ii) tovtov dXXd tov BapafiPav, Jo. 18:40; /iij (tm^ov dXXd XdXet, Ac. 18 : 9. We have fii] — irXriv in Lu. 23 : 28. In Lu. 10 : 20 we really have firi on — Se on. Moulton {ProL, 240) does not find nri on in the N. T., but considers fiiinye in p. 1 Cor. 6 : 3 as tantamount to it. See Jo. 13 : 9 for p,ri fiovop — dXXd Kai. So Ph. 2 : 12. We need not trench further upon the conjunctions. 3. Combination of the Two Negatives. (a) Mri oh. This is very simple. It is in the N. T. confined to questions where p,i} is the interrogative particle and oh is the nega- tive of the verb. Each negative thus has its own force, though it is a bit difficult to translate the combination into good Eng- lish. But it is good Greek. Moulton {JProl., p. 192) quotes 1 Cf. W.-Th., p. 494. 1174 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Plato's Prolog. 312 A, dXX' apo nv ovk inroXa/t/Saveis. Cf. also fii) oixl in Jer. 23 : 24. So Ro. 10 : 18, fifi oxjk ^Kovaav; We may- render it 'Did they fail to hear?' expecting the answer 'No.' Paul repeats the same idiom in 10 : 19. See further 1 Cor. 9 : 4 f.; 11:22. 1 Cor. 9:8 is not an instance, since nii comes in one part of the question and ob in the other. We do have fiii irm ovx eiipw after <^o/3o0/iai in 2 Cor. 12 : 20, but here M is a conjunction and ovx is the negative of eBpw, both retaining their full force. The construction in IJo. 3 : 10 is not pertinent. (6) Oil ixi]. The use of oh — nij in Ac. 4 : 20 is not under discus- sion, nor the redundant iiii after oh (Ac. 20: 20, 27), but only the idiomatic oh fiii with the aorist subj. (rarely present) or occasion- ally the fut. ind. Cf . oh firi 4>a.y(j}, oh /ji.'fi Trtivoi in the boy's letter, P. Oxy. 119 (ii/iii a.d.). See Is. 11:9, oh iJ.ii KaKoiroiri Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 389 ff.; Thompson, Synt., pp. 431^38. ' Justin Martyr, p. 169. PARTICLES (aI DAPAGHKAI) 1175 mony with the papyri by eliminating the 70 passages due to Semitic influence. Cf. Gildersleeve {A. J. P., iii, 202 £f.) and Bal- lentine (ib., xviii, 453 ff.). But Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 172) explains Mt. 24:21, ota — ovS' oh /iri yivriTai, not as a Hebraism, but as a "barbarism" like the Wesseley Papyrus xxvi, ovS' ov firi ykvrjTai not, yvvi). He quotes also Pap. Lugd. II, p. 107, 9, kav fleXjjs Yuvai/coj ov fii) axfSrjvai. Cf. ov nij dStXTj^g (Rev. 2 : 11); ov fir) iarai (Mt. 16 : 22). There is a climax in Rev. 7:16, oii — ovSk — ovSi nil TrkxT^. Even ov nii was not strong enough sometimes, so that we have ovSk and ov /xij in Heb. 13 : 5, ov fiii a-e hvS> ov5' ov nij ce ^KOTaXtTrw. So also ovSiv ov fiii aSiKTiaei (Lu. 10 : 19). In Mk. 13 : 2 we have ov nij in both the principal and the subordinate (relative) clause. IV. Interrogative Particles (lircpcon^Kal -irapaBiJKai). It is not the mode that we have under discussion here, but simply the particles used in the various forms of questions.* 1. Single Questions. (a) Direct Questions. (i) No Particle at all. So avviiKaTi Tavra iravra; (Mt. 13 : 51). So 13 : 28 and very often. Here the inquiry is colourless except as the tone of voice or context may indicate one's attitude. In fact, most interrogative sentences have no interrogative word at all. Cf. Lu. 13 : 2; Jo. 7: 23; 13 : 6; Ac. 21 : 37, etc. Hence it is sometimes a matter of doubt whether a sentence is interrogative or declarative. Cf. Jo. 16 : 31; Ro. 8 : 33; 14 : 22; 1 Cor. 1 : 22; 2 Cor. 3:1; Heb. 10 : 2; Jas. 2 : 4, etc. It may be doubtful also at what point the question ends. Cf. Jo. 7 : 19; Ro. 4:1. Winer ^ rightly says that on this point grammar cannot speak. (ii) The Use of Negative Particles. They are used to indicate the kind of answer expected. This subject has already had suffi- cient discussion. See imder ov and /ii?. Ov iexpects the answer 'yes' (cf. Mt. 7:22) and nv the answer 'no' (cf. Jo. 7:31). In Jo. 18 : 37 we have ovkovp, according to W. H., which has lost its negative force, but o^kovv would preserve it. Probably Pilate was hardly ready to go that far unless in jest. The use of iiij varies greatly in tone. The precise emotion in each case (protest, in- dignation, scorn, excitement, sjnnpathy, etc.) depends on the con- text. Cf. Jo. 4: 29; 6 : 67; 7: 47; Lu. 6 : 39; Ro. 10 : 18; 11 : 1. In Jo. 3 : 10 the first part of the question has no negative and the second part has ov. » Cf. W.-Th., pp. 508 ff.; Robertson, Short Gr., pp. 177 ff. i! W.-Th., p. 508. 1176 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (iii) Other Particles. There are not many. There is apa (akin to root of ap-ap-iaiaa, 'to join'), an illative particle which occurs with oiiK as in Ac. 21 : 38, jUT^rt as in 2 Cor. 1 : 17, or with rls as in Mt. 18 : 1. This classic use is not strictly interrogative, but illa- tive in the interrogative sentence. But cipa, from the same root* with more vocal stress, is interrogative. Indeed, it is sometimes doubtful which accent is correct, as in Gal. 2 : 17, where apa is probably correct. In Ro. 14 : 19, however, W. H. give apa ovv. We have apa in Lu. 18 : 8 and Spd ye in Ac. 8 : 30. "Apa looks backward, S.pa forward. But the accent is a question of edit- ing. The use of ei in direct questions is either a Hebraism^ or involves ellipsis. Cf . Mt. 12 : 10, ei ^^eo-rt rots aa^Paaiv depaTreiietv; So also 19 : 3. It is common in the LXX (cf. Gen. 17 : 17) but is foreign to the old Greek. The classic Greek, however, did use €1 in indirect questions, and this fact may have made it easier for the direct use of ei to arise. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 136) takes this ei=i5. The N. T. does not use ^, but the papyri have it: ^ tidvbii ev ^a/cxtoSt; rj /ieX(X)w ivrvvxaviv; P. Fay. 137 (i/A.D.). So the question to the oracle. (iv) Interrogative Pronouns. The most common in the N. T. is Tis_(cf. Mt. 3:7). Other words are frequently added, as fipa (24 : 45); 7ap (9:5); ovv (Lu. 3 : 10). The various uses of rl as adverb (Mk. 10 : 18, Lu. 16 : 2); with prepositions, as bia rl (Mt. 9 : 11) and eis rl (Mk. 14 : 4) or xopf titos (1 Jo. 3:12); or elUptically, as Ti on (Lu. 2 : 49) and ha ri (Mt. 9 : 4), need not detain us. The double interrogative ris H appears in Mk. 15 : 24. Both tIs and TOLos occur in 1 Pet. 1 : 11. For woTairds see Mt. 8 : 27, and iro- o-os see 15 : 34. We need not tarry longer on these elementary details. (v) Interrogative Conjunctions. These are common besides t'l (as in Mk. 10 : 18). The possible exclamatory use of tL in Lu. 12: 49 = 'how' is sustained by the modern Greek ri KaXa= 'how fine.' Cf. T0C6.KIS (Mt. 18 : 21); irdre (25 : 38); e'ws Trdre (17 : 17); xoO (Lu. 8 : 25); ircos (10 : 26); irSeev (Mt. 13 : 27), etc. (6) Indirect Questions. Here there must be either a pronoun or a conjunction. (i) Pronouns. The use of tLs (ti) is common. Cf. Mt. 6 : 25; Lu. 9 :46; Jo. 2 :25; Ac. 19 :32. We find Sn so used in Ac. 9 : 6 and a apparently so in 1 Tim. 1 : 7. Certainly droios occurs in this construction (1 Cor. 3 : 13). The same thing is true of ' Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 411) notes the pre-Attic v lia. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 260. PARTICLES (aI nAPAGHKAl) 1177 6 avdposirds el/xi, utto k^ovclav. The Kal here points to Christ's relation to the boy. The centurion, like a true soldier, does not say that he is a man who gives orders, but rather one who obeys them. He has the true military spirit and knows therefore how Jesus can cure the boy without going to see him. The Kal is here very significant. Cf. ovTws Kal vneis in Mt. 7: 12, where the Golden Rule is" applied to Christ's hearers by Kal. Cf . Jo. 7 : 3 I'm Kal ol fiadrjTal aov, (12 : 10) iva Kal rov Aa^apov. This use of Kal is more frequent in Luke than elsewhere in the N. T.' Cf. Kayd} (Lu. 20 : 3); ^ /cat (Lu. 12 :41); Si Kal (12 : 54, 57); tI Kal (1 Cor. 15 :29); Kal y&p (Mt. 8: 9); td.v Kal (Gal. 6:1); et Kal (2 Cor. 11 :15); Kal dk (Mt. 10 : ' Griech. Gr., p. 542. ' HeUen., p. 129. * Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 196. » Prol., p. 12. » Jann., Gk. Gr., p. 401. « Cf . M. W. Humphreys, The 01. Rev., 1897, vol. XI, pp. 140 ff. ' Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 140. PARTICLES (aI nAPAGHKAl) 1181 18); (bs Kai (Ac. 11 : 17); mOiis Kal (Ro. 15 : 7); ovrw mi (Ro. 6 : 11); 8s Kai (Ac. 24 : 6, 8); 6/ioiws Kai (Jo. 6 : 11); dxraiTcas Kai (1 Cor. 11 : 25); KoBairep Kai (1 Th. 3 : 12); Sid Kai (Lu. 1 : 35); 5td tovto Kai (Lu. 11:49); dXXd mi (24:22), etc. So then Kai in the sense of 'also' occurs with nouns, pronouns, verbs, iadverbs, conjunctions. It may refer to 'a word or a clause. Cf. aXXcos re mi, B. G. U. 530 (i/A.D.). For the use of 6 Kai see the Article, and for cvv Kai see Prepositions.' It is common for mi to sum up a sentence that precedes. For the relative and articular participle see the Kai in the sentences in Mt. 5 : 39-43. Here Kai balances the principal and the subordinate clauses. So in the apodosis of a conditional sentence we find Kai as in Jo. 14 : 7. Cf . Heb. 7 : 26, where Kai almost means 'precisely,' and Mt. 6: 10, where it means 'just so.' Cf. Ro. 11 : 16. So with a we find it in the apodosis (Jo. 5 : 19). Cf . also after wo-irep in 15 : 26. Sometimes the Kai seems to be redundant as in Lu. 11 : 1, mScis Kai, or rois XoiiroTs Wvtciv. See olba Kai — ol8a Kai (Ph. 4:12). The Ascensive Use {'Even'). The notion of 'even' is an advance on that of mere addition which is due to the context, not to Kai. The thing that is added is out of the ordinary and rises to a climax like the crescendo in music. Cf. Latin adeo. Cf . oi iihvov, dXXd Kai (Ac. 21:13; Ro. 13:5). This use of Kai depends wholly on the context. Cf . Mk. 1 : 27, koL rois Tvehixaai rois aKoBaprois 'cKiraaaei. (So Lu. 10 : 17). Cf. also mt ol TeK&vai. and mi ol kdviKoi, Mt. 5 : 46 f. See further Ac. 10 : 45; 11 : 1, 20; Gal.' 2 : 13. The use of mi ei belongs here. (Cf. 1 Cor. 8 : 5.) The Mere Connective {'And'). The difference between Kai as 'and' and Kai as 'also' is very slight, whichever was the original idea. The epexegetic or explicative use of Kai occupies a middle ground between 'also' and 'and.' Blass^ treats it under 'also.' Cf. Lu. 3 : 18, TToXXd mi 'irepa TrapaKa\S>v, where the "connective" force of Kai is certainly very shght. So also Jo. 20 : 30, iroXXd koI aXXo crunla. See further Jo. 1 : 16, Kal x^^pi-v avrl xdpiTos, where the clause is an explanatory addition. Cf . (Ac. 22 : 25) koI aKaraKpiTov, (1 Cor. 2 : 2) mi tovtov 'earavpupJtvov, (Ro. 13 : 11) mi tovto (Latin idque) which is our 'and that too' where we combine 'and' and 'also' ('too') in the Kai, (Heb. 11 : 12) mi Tavra (frequent in ancient ' Cf. Deiss., B. S.; Hatch, Jour, of Bib. lit., 1908, p. 142. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 263. 1182 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Greek). See in particular Eph. 2 : 8, Kal tovto ovk k^ inSiv, where TovTo refers to the whole conception, not to xap'Tt- The simple copulative idea is, however, the most common use of Kal where words are piled together by means of this conjunction. Sometimes the connection is as close as with rk. Thus 6 deds Kal warrip (2 Cor. 1:3); (caXj) Kal ayad^ (Lu. 8 : 15). But the words may be very loosely joined in idea, as ot ^apicaloL Kal SaS5ou/caToi (Mt. 16 : 1). Kal may be used to coimect all sorts of words, clauses and sen- tences. Thus Xe7o "Epxou, Kal 'epxerai (Mt. 8:9). The use of Kai after the imperative is seen in Mt. 11 : 29. The chain with Kal as the connective may go on indefinitely. Cf . the four examples in Ph. 4 : 9; five in Ro. 9 : 4; the six in Rev. 7 : 12 (so 5 : 12). So we have Kal on. three times in 1 Cor. 15 : 4 (koi to connect on clauses). In Rev. 12-16 every paragraph and most of the sen- tences begin with Kal. In fact.it is true of much of the Apoca- lypse. If one turns to First Maccabees, it is true even to a much greater extent than in the Apocalypse. In First Maccabees Kal translates the Hebrew 1. But Thum,bi has found this repetition of Kal in Aristotle so that the Hebrew influence simply intensified a Greek idiom. We have noted the use of Kai with re {rk — Kal. Cf. Ro. 1: 20). The use of ml — Kal is far more common in the sense of ' both — and' as in Ac. 2 : 29, Kal kreXevTria-e Kal kTa4>i}. Cf . Mk. 4 : 41 ; Ph. 2 : 13 ; Ac. 26 : 29. Sometimes the connection almost amounts to 'not only, but also.' In Col. 2 : 16 note Kai — fj. Cf . Kav — Kcij' (Lu. 12 : 38). A. Brinkmann contends that in the. papyri and late Greek Kav is sometimes 'at any rate' and is never a mere link (Scriptio continua und Anderes, Rhein. Mus. LXVII, 4, 1912). In Lu. 5 : 36 we have Kal — Kal — Kal ob (so Jo. 6 : 36), and in Jo. 17 : 25 Kal oii — 5h — Kal. It is usual to have Kai oil after an affirmative clause as in Jo. 10 : 35. Cf. Kai lii] in 2 Cor. 9 : 5. See Negative Particles. In Lu. 12 : 6 Kai oh follows a question with ovxl- Kat connects two negative sentences in Lu. 6 : 37. For cure — Kal see Jo. 4 : 11. Sometimes Kai be- gins a sentence when the connection is with an unexpressed idea. Children use "and" thus often in telling stories and asking questions. Cf . Kai ah ^aOa in Mt. 26 : 70 (and 73) like Et tu, Brute. See also Mk. 10 : 26, Kai tIs Svvarai, (Teadrjvai. So also Lu. 10 : 29; Jo. 9 : 36; 2 Cor. 2 : 2. Cf. also the use of Kai in parenthesis as in Ro. 1 : 13, Kai kKiaKvdriv axpi rod Sevpo. The context gives other turns to Kal that are sometimes rather startling. It is common to find Kai where it has to bear the content 'and yet.' So Jo. 1 Hellen., § 129. PARTICLES (aI nAPAGHKAl) 1183 3 : 19; 4 : 20; 6 : 49; 7 : 30; IJo. 2 : 9. The examples are common in John's Gospel (Abbott, J oh. Gr., pp. 135 ff.). See Jer. 23 : 21. In Mk. 4 : 4 note lih — /cat. In 1 Cor. 10 : 21 we have ov — koi in contrast. Cf. also Mt. 3 : 14, koX ab ipxv irpos fie; So also Ph. 1 : 22, Kal tI atpijffoiMu. This idiom occurs in Plato, and Abbott notes a number of them in the Gospel of John. Cf. 1 : 5; 2 : 20; 3 : 13; 5 : 39 f.; 7: 27 f.; 8 : 57, etc. In Lu. 12 : 24 Kai is almost equal to dXXa, that is, the context makes contrast. Cf. also Mt. 6 : 26 (pi — KaO ; Mk. 12 : 12; Lu. 20 : 19; Jo. 18 : 28. Tholuck' so takes Kai in Ro. 1 : 13 (the parenthetical xai). Sometimes Kal seems imitative of the Hebrew 1 by almost having the sense of oTi or tra ('that') as in Mt. 26: 15; Mk. 14:40; Lu. 9: 51; 12: 15. In particular note Kal kjivero Kai (as in Lu. 5 : 1, 12, 17, etc.). In Mt. 16 : 6 observe dpare Kai. So Lu. 12 : 15 and Mt. 26 : 15. In modern Greek Kai has so far usurped the field that it is used not only in all sorts of paratactic senses like 'and,' 'but,' 'for,' 'or,' 'and so,' but even in hypotactic senses for va or ttoD, declarative and even consecutive (Thumb, Handb., p. 184). In Mk. 3 : 7 koi comes near taking the place of 6, for in the next verse there are five instances of Kai co-ordinate with each other, but subordinate to Kai in verse 7. Sometimes after Kai we may supply 'so' as in Kai Xafiirei, Mt. 5 :,15; Kal ^Xhirofjiev, Heb. 3 : 19. See also Ph. 4 : 7. This is a kind of consecutive^ use of Kai. Cf. Lu. 24 : 18. The fondness for co-ordination in the Gospels causes the use of Kai where a temporal conjunction (ore) would be more usual. Cf^ Mk. 15 : 25, ^v Sipa rpirti Kal iaravpiacav (Lu. 23 : 44). But Blass' admits that this is a classic idiom. Cf. Mt. 26 : 45; Lu. 19 :43, where Kai drifts further away from the ancient idiom. Cf. also Kal i8ov in the apodosis, ' and behold,' as in Lu. 7 : 12. In 2 Tim. 2 : 20 note Kai followed by & nkv — d 3e. In Ph. 4 : 16 note Kai thrice (one = ' even,' two = ' both — and'). (iii) Ae. This conjunction is generally ranked wholly as an ad- versative particle.* Monro^ says: "The adversative &k properly indicates that the new clause stands in some contrast to what has preceded. Ordinarily, however, it is used in the continuation of a narrative." As a matter of fact, in my opinion, Monro has the matter here turned round. The ordinary narrative use (continuative) I conceive to be the original use, the adversative the developed and later construction. The etymology confirms • Beitr. zur Spracherklanmg d. N. T., p. 35. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 262. * So Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 407. ' lb. " Horn. Gr., p. 245. 1184 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT this explanation, though it is largely conjectural. Brugmann* associates it with the aksl. ze and possibly also^ with SiJ and the enclitic ending -5^ (oUa-Be, 6-Se, roads-Se), while Hartung^ connects it with 8vo, Sk, and Baumlein* with Sei-repos. The enclitic -Se thus means 'again,' 'back,' while the conjunction 5^ would mean 'in the second place' or 'a second comment' or 'an important addi- tion' (8ri). But, however we take it, there is in the word no essen- tial notion of antithesis or contrast. What is true is that the addition is something new^ and not so closely associated in thought as is true of A and KaL I prefer therefore to begin with the narra- tive and transitional (copulative) use of 8k. Ktlhner-Gerth^ call this use of 8k for 'something new' {etwas Neues) copulative and give it separate discussion. Abbott' has the matter correctly: "In classical Greek, 8k, calUng attention to the second of two things, may mean (1) in the next place, (2) on the other hand." The first of these uses is the original one and is copulative. The second is adversative. Abbott notes also that 5^ in both senses occurs in Matthew and Luke nearly three times as often as in Mark and John. Its use is mainly in the historical books of the N. T. It is so common there that, as with KaL, Moulton and Geden do not give any references. A good place to note the mere copulative force of Se is in the genealogy in Mt. 1 : 2-16 where there is no notion of opposition at all. The line is simply counted from Abraham to Christ. In verses 6 and 12 there are breaks, but the contrast is made by repetition of the names, not by 8k, which appears with every name alike. In Mt. 23 : 4 we have both uses of 8k. The first is properly translated 'yea' and the second 'but' (adversative). See further 1 Cor. 4: 7 (5e and Si /cat) where there is a succession of steps in the same direction. So 15 : 35; 2 Cor. 6 : 15 f.; Heb. 12 : 6; and in particular the list of virtues in 2 Pet. 1 : 5-7. Sometimes a word is repeated with Sk for special emphasis, as SiKaioavvrj Sk in Ro. 3 : 22 (cf. 9 : 30). A new topic may be introduced by Sk in entire harmony with the preceding discussion, as the Birth of Jesus in Mt. 1 : 18 ('Now the birth of Jesus Christ,' etc.). The use of 5^ in explanatory parenthesis is seen in Jo. 3 : 19 ('And this is,'- etc.) ; 19 : 23 ('Now the coat,' etc.). For tbs 8k ('and when,' 'so when') in John see 2 : 9, 23. In John 1 Griech. Gr., p. 547. 2 lb. Cf. also Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 410. . Cf. Klotz ad Dev., II, p. 355. ' I, p. 156 f. * Part., p. 89. « II, p. 274. ' W.-Th., p. 443. ' Job. Gr., p. 104. PARTICLES (aI nAPAGHKAl) 1185 as elsewhere it is sometimes not clear whether Sk is copulative or adversative. Cf. 3:1, ^v Sk. Is Nicodemus an illustration or an exception? 1 The resumptive use of 8e, after a parenthesis, to go on with the main story, is also copulative. Cf . Mt. 3:1; Lu. 4:1. There is continuation, not opposition, in the use of Kal dt, as in Lu. 1 : 76, mi ah 5i, where 8k means 'and' and /cat 'also' Cf. further Mt. 10 : 18; 16 : 18; Jo. 15 : 27. In Jo. 6 : 61 we have Kal Sk in the apodosis of the condition in this sense. At is always postpositive and may even occupy the third place in the sentence (Mt. 10 : 11) or even the fourth (Jo. 6 : 51) or fifth (1 Jo. 2:2) or sixth (Test, xiii, Patr. Jud., 91) as shown in chapter on Sentence. In accord with the copulative use of Se we frequently have oidk and /iijSe in the continuative sense, carrying on the negative with no idea of contrast. Cf. Mt. 6 : 26, ov a-ireipovcnv oiSi depi^ov, dXXd ^bfiov, dXXd kirivbdyiaiv, dXXd f^Xoi', dXXd hcS'iKTiaLV. All these six examples are confirmatory and continuative. See further Lu. 24 : 21, dXXd yt Kal ahv iraaiv Toirois, where it is cli- 1 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 105. * K.-G., II, p. 286. '' Unters. fiber griech. Partikeln, p. 7. ° lb. 3 Paley, Gk. Particles, p. 1. = Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 269. 1186 A GRAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT macteric, not contradictory. The story is carried on by aXXd Kal in verse 22. Cf. also 2 Cor. 1:9; Lu. 12:7; 16:21. In Ph. 1 : 18, xci'P'^j oXKa Kal xapijco/iai, the connection is very close. The most striking example of all is Ph. 3 : 8, a\\a /ievovvye Kal riyovfiai. In 2 Cor. 11 : 1, dXXa Kal &,vkxi arjT€ — kav 8i ni) a.4>rJTe. Cf . also 6 : 23. So uri Briffavpi^eTe — dtiaavpi^ere 8k (6 : 19 f.). Cf. 1 Cor. 1 : 10, etc. The contrast may lie in the nature of the case, particularly where persons stand in contrast as in kyii 8k (Mt. 5 : 22, 28, 32, etc.), ai> 8k (Mt. 6 : 6; 1 Tim. 6 : 11); i7AieTs 8k (1 Cor. 1 : 23); VTs 8k (Mk. 8 : 29); the common 6 8k (Mk. 1 : 45), oi 8k (Mt. 2:5); aiiT&s 8k (Lu. 8 : 37), air6s 8k 'Irjaom (Jo. 2: 24), etc. The contrast is made more manifest by the use of p.kv (see Intensive Particles) as in Mt. 3 : 11. In 1 Cor. 2 : 6, (To4>lav 5e ov rod aiuvos tovtov, an exception is filed to the preceding. This adversative use of 8k is very common indeed. Cf. further Mk. 2 : 18; Lu. 5 : 5; 9 : 9, 13; 24: 21; Ac. 12 : 15; Ro. 8 : 9if. (ii) 'AXXd. Just as aXXos (cf. 2 Cor. 11:4) can be used in the sense of erepos (when it means 'different,' not merely 'second'), so 1 Joh. Gr., p. 100. ' lb., p. 99. PARTICLES (aI nAPAGHKAl) 1187 dXXA can mean 'another' in contrast to the preceding. With a negative the antithesis is sharp as in Lu. 1 : 60, ovxl, dXXa kXtjSi}- aeraL 'laavris. So Jo. 6 : 32, o!) Muikt^s — dXX' 6 irariip (cf. 6 :38). Cf. Mk. 9:37; 1 Cor. 15:37. In verse 39 of 1 Cor. 15 note dXXd aXXi; likv — aXXi; Sk where both dXXd and aXXij have the no- tion of difference due to the context. In 1 Cor. 9 : 12 note dXXd twice. In Mt. 15 : 11 oh begins one clause and dXXd the other. Cf. 2 Cor. 4:5, oh yap iavrohs Ktiphaaofiev, dXXd Xpia-rov 'Irjcovv Kvpiov. So Mt. 5 : 17. In Lu. 12 : 51 note ohxi, dXX' rj, and in 2 Cor. 1 : 13, dXXd — dXX' fj, a sort of pleonastic use of dXXd. This is a classical idiom.^ Cf . also oh fibvov — dXXd (Ac. 19 : 26) or dXXd Kal (Ro. 5:3). See Negative Particles. For ohx otl — dXXd see Jo. 7 : 22, for ohx tva — dXXd see 6 : 38. For dXXd ye in apod- osis see 1 Cor. 9 : 2, for dXXd Col. 2 : 5, for dXX' oh, 1 Cor. 4 : 15. Sometimes dXX' Iva may be elliptical as in Mk. 14 :49; Jo. 1 : 8. 'AXXd alone may refer to an interruption in thought not expressed, as in Jo. 12 : 27. t)ne of the most striking instances of dXXd occurs in Ac. 16 : 37, oh yap, dXXd, where oh yap means 'not much' with fine scorn (cf. Kal vvv; just before). Both Winer and W. F. Moulton (W.-M., p. 566) felt certain that dXXd never equalled ei y.ri, not even in Mt. 20 : 23 and Mk. 4 : 22. But J. H. Moulton (Proh, p. 241) quotes Tb. P. 104 (i/s.c.), Kal firi k^kaToi $tXi(rKcoi yvvaiKa &XXr;j' lirayaykaBai dXXd 'ATroXXojj'taj', where dXXd means practically 'except.' See also Gen. 21 : 26. Moulton sug- gests that, since el (iti (brachylogy) in Lu. 4 : 26 f.; Rev. 21: 27, means 'but only,' the same may be true of dXXd. (iii) nx^j'. Curtius gets it from irXeoy ('more'), but Brugmann^ finds its original meaning to be 'near by.' At any rate it was a preposition (Mk. 12:32). Cf. Ac. 15 : 28, ir\kov ■K\r)v Tohrcav where the two words exist together. Probably its original use as a conjunction is seen in the combination itXijj' Srt (Ph. 1 : 18). It is chiefly confined to Luke's writings in the N. T. As a con- junction it is always adversative (cf. Lu. 6 : 24; 12 : 31, etc.). In Mt. 26 : 39 note irXriv ohx <^s — dXX' dw. The classical language used it as a preposition and with on, but Aristotle^ shows the existence of ttX^j/ as a conjunction which developed in the ver- nacular. Blass* notes that Paul uses it at the end of an argument to single out the main point. Cf. 1 Cor. 11:11; Eph. 5 : 33; Ph. 3: 16; 4 : 14. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 269. » Griech. Gr., p. 550. » Blafls, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 268. * lb. 1188 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (iv) Mhrot,. This word is a combination of two intensive par- ticles (jikv, ToL), and is used to mean 'however.' Cf. Jo. 4 : 27; 12 : 42. It occurs in the N. T. only eight times. (v) "O/i&js. This word is even more rare than fikvToi. It occurs with two participles (1 Cor. 14: 7; Gal. 3 : 15) and once with /iiv- TOi (Jo. 12:42). (vi) E£ firi. This phrase marks an exception, as in Mt. 12 : 4; Jo. 17 : 12. We even have iKrds d nii (1 Cor. 14 : 5; 15 : 2; 1 Tim. 6 : 19). (c) Disjunctives. Dionysius Thrax calls this construction avv- fleo-is Sia^evKTLKTi. It was always possible to express alternative ideas without any conjunction (cf. the Latin nolens volens) or by copulative conjunctions {5k, Ka'i), a construction common in the vernacular 1 (cf. Hebrew 1). Dissimilar things may be united by Ktti as in Col. 3 : 11, but we do not have to take mi as being ij or vice versa? (i) "H. Its origin from ^e (enclitic)'5s held by Brugmann.' They are equivalent in Homer. We may have just rj as in Mt. 5 : 17. For fi (Cat see Mt. 7: 10; Lu. 18 : 11. In the sense of 'or' ^ may be repeated indefinitely (Ro. 8 : 35). In Ro. 1 : 21 we have ovx—v as in 4: 13. See/ii^Trw — ii-nSk — ^ (Ro. 9:11). This use in negative clauses appears in Thuc. 1, 122, and later writers. In 1 Th. 2 : 19 note f) ohxl ical. In Mt. 21 : 23 we have . koi tk, while in Lu. 20 : 2 (parallel passage) the reading is rj tLs. This does not prove Ktti and ij to be synonjrmous. The logion was translated differently. The modern Greek retains oOre, urire and ij (Thumb, Handb., p. 185). In 1 Cor. 11 : 27, os &v iaOix) t6v aprov fi ttIvq t6 iroTripiov Tov Kvpiov, some MSS. have Kal, but rj is the true text. This, however, does not mean that some partook of one element and some of the other, but that, whatever element was taken in this way, there was guilt. The correlative use of ^ — ^ (' either — or') is also frequent.^ Cf. Mt. 6 : 24; 1 Cor. 14: 6. In Ro. 6 : 16 "note jJToi — ■>). As a disjunctive we have ironpov — ■^ in Jo. 7 : 17 and rJ — ^ — ^ — j} in Mk. 13 : 35. For irplv ^ see Mt. 1 : 18; for ^ after e^Xco see 1 Cor. 14 : 19; after KoKbv, Mt. 18 : 8; after x^pA, Lu. 15:7; for dXX' ri, Lu. 12:51. Radermacher {N. T. dr., p. 27) finds f, tol—9i, B. G. U. 956;^ roi—^roi, > Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 406. » W.-Th., p. 440. » Griech. Gr., p. 541. * Cf. Margolis, The Particle fl in O. T. Gk. (Am. Jour, of Sem. Lang, and Lit., July, 1909). PARTICLES (aI nAPAGHKAl) 1189 Vett. Val., p. 138, 11; ^re-^, I. G. XII, 2, 562, 5 (Roman time); ^re— ^re, Quaest. Barth., pp. 24, 30. ♦ (ii) Eire — elre {kavre — iavre). These conditional particles are like the Latin we — dve. Cf . 1 Cor. 10 : 31, elre — dre — elre. So 12 : 13; 14 : 7. We have elre eight times m 3 : 22. In 14 : 7 it follows ^ — ^ in verse 6. For kavre — iavre see Ro. 14 : 8. (iii) Oire — oireijiiiTt — /i^re). We have seen that there is noth- ing inherent in oUre to make it disjunctive. Cf. Jo. 4: 11; 3 Jo. 10. It is simply ov and t£ (cf. oi Si), a negative copulative con- junction. In Rev. 5 : 3 f. we have ovSe — ovre (cf. Gal. 1 : 12) and the next verse oiSeis — aire. In Ac. 24 : 12 f . we have oiire — o6t€ — oire — oWe. Cf . Lu. 20 : 35 f . In Jo. 5 : 37 f . note oiire — oirt — KoX oil. In 1 Cor. 6 : 10 note ovre — ovre — ov — oi. In Jas. 3 : 12 cf . oiire after question. A good example of the correla- tive ovre — oHiTe is 1 Cor. 3:7. In Ro. 8 : 38 f. ovre occurs ten times. In Ac. 23 : 8 we find /tij — /ii^re — /t^re. This is also just a copulative negative conjupction {uri re). In Mt. 5 : 34r-36 we have fiii — fj,iiT£ — At^T€ — /i^T« — urire. In 2 Th. 2 : 2 we have ij.'qSk — ju^Te — liiire. In Lu. 7 : 33 ij.il — fiijTe, while in 9 : 3 fir/dev is followed by niire five times. There is often some confusion in the MSS. between jUTjSe and fiiire, oiSk and oire. Blass^ rejects aire ol8a oHiTe kiria-Ta/iai in Mk. 14 : 68 (NBDL), but on whimsical grounds. (d) Inferential Conjunctions. It is not easy to draw a dis- tinction between "inferential" and "causal." There is no doubt about &pa and odv. These are inferential parataetic par- ticles. What about yap? Monro ^ calls it causal. Kiihner-Gerth' treat all three as causal. Perhaps it is just as well to reserve the term " causal" for the hypotactic particles on, kirei, etc. One has to be arbitrary sometimes. And even so these particles (apa, olv, yap) were originally just transitional or explanatory in sense. Blass* calls them "consecutive" co-ordinate conjunctions. (i) "Apa. The etymology seems to be clear, though not ac- cepted by all scholars. The root dp- (Ap- op- utkci, 'to fit') suits exactly.^ It means then 'fittingly, accordingly.' Cf. our "ar- ticulate" (ar-ticulus). The word expresses some sort of corre- spondence between the sentences or clauses. It was postpositive in the ancient Greek, but in the N. T. it is not always so. Cf. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 265. ' II, p. 317. ' Horn. Gr., p. 253. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 272. ' Cf. K.-G., II, p. 317 f., for the discussion of the theories. So Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 539. 1190 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Mt. 12 : 28; Ac. 17: 27. It occurs some 50 times in the N. T., in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Hebrews. The original notion of mere correspondence is apparently pre- served in Lu. 11:48, apa fiaprvpes kare, 'so ye are witnesses.' Cf. also Ac. 11: 18. In Mk. 11 : 13; Ac. 17:27, d apa has the idea of 'if haply.' Klotz takes apa to describe the unexpected and strange, something extrinsic, while Baumlein considers it a par- ticle giving point to what is immediately and necessarily conclu- sive. Most of the N. T. instances seem to be clearly illative. Cf. Mt. 17: 26 f.; Ro. 7: 21. It has ye added several times (cf. Mt. 7:20; 17:26f.; Ac. 17:27). Paul is specially fond of &pa oh (Ro. 5 : 18; 7 : 3, 25, etc.). Once he has apa vvv (Ro. 8:1). "Apa occurs also in the apodosis (Mt. 12 : 28; Gal. 2 : 21). We have p.iiri apa in a question in 2 Cor. 1 : 17. (ii) Tap. There is no doubt as to the origin of this word. It is a compound of yk and apa and is always postpositive. It is called c{ivSe(Tp,os airioXoyLKos, but it does not always give a reason. It may be merely explanatory. We have seen that apa itself was originally just correspondence and then later inference. So then yk can accent as an intensive particle either of these ideas. It is a mistake, therefore, to approach the study of yap with the theory that it is always or properly an illative, not to say causal, particle. It is best, in fact, to note the explanatory use first. Thayer wrongly calls the illative use the primary one. The word is common in all the larger books of the N. T. It is least common in the Gospel of John and in Revelation. In Matthew and Luke it is much more frequent in the discourses and is rare in the strict narrative. In Mark and John it is about half and half.^ In gen- eral the N. T. use of yap is in accord with that of the classic period. The explanatory use is common in Horner.^ The N. T. examples are numerous. Cf. Mt. 19 '. 12; Mk. 5 : 42; 16 : 4; Lu. 11 : 30; 18 : 32. Here the explanation follows immediately. Sometimes the explanation comes in by way of appendix to the train of thought. So Mt. 4 : 18, ^aav y&p dXt«Ts. Cf. also Mk. 2 : 15; Ro. 7:2. In questions we have good examples, particularly H yap. So Mt. 27: 23, ri yd.p KaKov eiroiiiatv; Cf. Ro. 3:3. In Ac. 16 : 37, oi yap, dXXa, we have to resolve 7ap into its parts and make the phrase =' not much, but.' In Jo. 9 : 30, hv to6t£j) yap, the man uses yap with fine scorn, 'why, just in this,' etc. In Jo. 19 :6 it is hardly creditable to Pilate's common sense to take 7ap as illative. Cf. also Jo. 7 : 41; Ac. 19 : 35; Mt. 9 : 5. Tap sometimes » Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 102. « Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 253. PARTICLES (AI nAPAeHKAl) 1191 gives the major premise (Mt. 26 : 62), more often the minor prem- ise (2 Pet. 1 : 15 f.), sometimes both (Jo. 3 : 19 f.). The purely illative use of 7dp is simple enough, though the force of the ground or reason naturally varies greatly. See Mt. 1 : 21, avrds yap (rdiKTii; (6 : 24) ^ yap; (Ro. 8 : 18) 'Koyi^onai yap. Paul begins every sentence with yap in Ro. 8 : 18-24. For Kal yap see Ro. 11: 1; 15 : 3. The precise relation between clauses or sentences is not set forth by y&p. That must be gathered from the con- text if possible. Cf . Jo. 4 : 44. Note yap — 6ti in 1 Tim. 6 : 7. (iii) Olv. The etymology of olv is unknown. Brugmanni thinks it probable that it is derived from *6 kv or 6 bv (cf. ovras, tQ ovtC). The Ionic also has S}v (so Lesbian, Doric, Boeotian). But, how- ever that may be, it is important to note that the particle is not illative nor even consequential in Homer .^ .It is merely a transitional particle relating clauses or sentences loosely together by way of confirmation. It was common in this sense in Homer, though rare in the Attic writers save in nb oliv. But it is very frequent in the Gospel of John as a mere transitional particle. In this Gospel it occurs about 200 times, nearly as frequent as all the rest of the N. T., though it is rare in the other Johannine writings. In John's Gospel, outside of 8 examples in the words of Jesus, the rest occur in the narrative portion.' Abbott* seems puzzled over the many non-illative instances of oCy in John and suggests that "the writer perhaps had in view the objections of controversialists." But this is wholly gratuitous and needless in the light of the history of the particle. Probably a majority of the instances in Jphn's Gospel are non-illative as in Homer, the original use of the word.* Luke preserves the literary Attic idiom by the common use of p,h> div as in Ac. 15 : 3, 30, etc. But John boldly uses olv alone and needs no apology for doing so. It just carries along the narrative with no necessary thought of cause or result. It is, because of John's free use, one of the conunonest particles in the N. T. and is oftener in the narrative books than in the epistles.^ It is interesting in John to take a chapter and note when olv is merely continuative and when illative. Cf . ch. 11, for instance, verses 3, 6, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 31, 32, 33, 36, 38, 45, 47, 54, 56. So we start off again in 12 : 1 with 6 051- 'It/o-oDs ' Griech. Gr., p. 549. ' Abbott, Job. Gr., p. 165. 2 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 255. *■ lb., p. 168. ' Cf. K.-G., II, p. 326. See also Weymouth, App. A, Rendering into Eng. of the Gk. Aorist and Perfect, 1894. 6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 272. 1192 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (continuative). It is the commonest comiective between sen- tences in this Gospel. We modems do not feel the same need for connecting-particles between independent sentences. The an- cient Greeks loved to point out these delicate nuances. The in- terrogative oiK ovv occurs only in Jo. 18 : 37. A good instance of the purely illative use is in Mt. 3 : 8, woiiia-aTe ovv Kapirbv. It is common in Paul's Epistles (Ro. 5:1; 6 : 12, etc.). Paul is fond also of &.pa olv (Ro. 8 : 12) and of ri o5y (6 : 1, 15; 7: 7; 8 : 31, etc.). Ovv is always postpositive. 2. Htpotactic Conjunctions (avvBea-fioi inroraKTiKoi). The conjunctions used in the N. T. with subordinate clauses have been discussed and the constructions given in detail already. See Modes (Subordinate Clauses). The relative, temporal, compara- tive, local, causal, final and consecutive, apprehensive, conditional and declarative conjunctions make a goodly list. But it is not necessary to go over the same ground again. Most of these con- junctions, as previously shown, are of relative origin.* All are adverbs. It was necessary to treat at length the paratactic con- junctions which antedate the hypotactic in origin and were always exceedingly abundant in the vernacular. The hypotactic belong to the more highly developed speech, but one must not think that the hypotactic conjunctions regulate the construction of the sen- tence. They get their meaning from the sentence, not the sentence from the conjunction. The other view is a mechanical theory of language out of harmony with the historical growth of both mode and particle.2 Hypotaxis grew out of parataxis. This paratactic origin survives in many ways. Cf., for instance, the relative at the beginning of sentences, as kv oh (Lu. 12 : 1). So also 6tl in 1 Jo. 3 : 11 f. The Greek is particularly rich in its subordinating conjunctions as compared with the Sanskrit and the Hebrew. Each subordinate clause possesses a case-relation toward the principal sentence as substantive, adjective or adverb, so that the sentence expansion is on the lines of the word-relations. In gen- eral the disappearance of the ancient Greek conjunctions from the modern Greek is noticeable. 'Owore (oTorav), ctxP's, m^xP's, et, k4>' ^ "have entirely disappeared" (Thumb, Handb., p. 186). Thumb goes on with the story. We have cos in aav and ojare va=' 'until.' "On is gone before irov and vi., though Sttcos has revived. 1 On the relative origin of conjs. like 5ti, »re, «7rcos, dis, ews see Baron, Le Pronom Relatif et la Conjonction, 1891, pp. 95 S. 2 Cf . Nilsson, Die Kauaalsatze im Grieoh. bis Arist. See also Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1907, p. 354 f. PARTICLES (aI DAPAeHKAl) 1193 M has greatly extended its functions. Some survive greatly modified, like 6xj)ov, kav, elre — elre, hcf, hreiSii, irplv, cos irov (?ws), TToD (oirov), irpoTov, etc. The paratactic conjunctions are "pressed into service to form dependent clauses" as at the beginning. Parataxis 'turns into hypotaxis. VI. Interjections. Winer* considers interjections to be mere sounds, and so entirely outside of the sphere of syntax and in- deed of grammar. But one^ of the imperatival forms (076) is exclamatory in origin. Or is the interjection an imperative in origin? We see this form still used as an interjection in Jas. 4 : 13. So also tSe in Jo. 1 : 29, i5e 6 &/*"«>$ tov deov. Cf. 8evpo (Mk. 10:21), Sevre (Mt. 11:28). Aevpo is very vivid in Jo. 11:43, Adfape Sevpo 'i^co. 'I8ov is either used absolutely (Mt. 11 : 10) or with the nominative (Rev. 4 : 1) and is of frequent occurrence. Kai IBoi is good Greek, but its frequency reminds one of the Hebrew idiom. We have 'ta in Lu. 4 : 34. Once ova occurs (Mk. 15 : 29) with the vocative. So oval is found with the vocative in Lu. 6 : 25. It is found absolutely in Rev. 18 : 10, 16, 19, oM, oM. Twice it is used with the accusative (Rev. 8 : 13; 12 : 12), as the object of thought. Usually the dative is found with ovai as in Mt. 11 : 21 ; Lu. 6 : 24 f. ; 11 : 42. The word occurs mainly in Matthew and Luke. Sometimes we have & with the vocative as in Mt. 15 : 28, S, T^vai. So Ac. 13 : 10; Ro. 2 : 1; Gal. 3 : 1. There is usually some vehemence or urgency when Si is used. But not always. See Ac. 1:1; 18 : 14. In Ro. 10 : 15 iis is an exclamatory particle, as H is in Lu. 12 : 49. It is not quite true, therefore, to say that interjections lie quite outside of gram- mar. Indeed, language may come from just these ejaculatory sounds, like "mama" with the babe. Tragedians' naturally use interjections more frequently. People differ greatly in the use of "Oh" and "Ah." The English audiences are fond of "Hear, hear," while the American crowds love to clap their hands or stamp their feet. Farrar* follows ScaUger and Destutt de Tracy in regarding them as words par excellence and as having high linguistic importance. Grammar can deal with emotion as well as with thought. » W.-Th., p. 356. ' Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 171 f. ' Miiller, De interjeotionum apud Sophoclem, Euripidem que Usu, 1885, p. 3. * Gk. Synt., p. 201. CHAPTER XXII FIGURES OF SPEECH (rOPriEIA 2XHMATA) I. Rhetorical, not Grammatical. Strictly speaking there is no need to go further in the discussion of the points of syntax. There are various matters that the grammars usually discuss because there is no N. T. rhetoric. These points belong to language in general, though in some of them the Greek has turns of its own. Each writer has, besides, his own style of thought and speech. See discussion in chapter IV. Under The Sentence we have already discussed the ellipsis (of subject, predicate or copula), matters of concord, apposition, the position of words (emphasis, euphony, rhythm, .poetry, prolepsis, wrepov wpoTepov, postpositive words, hyperbaton, order of clauses), simple and compound sen- tences, connection between words (polysyndeton and asyndeton), connection between clauses and sentences (paratactic and hypo- tactic) and asyndeton again, running and periodic style, parenthe- sis, anacoluthon, oratio variata, connection between paragraphs. These matters call for no further comutnent. They could have been treated at this point, but they seemed rather to belong to the discussion of sentences in a more vital way than the remain- ing rhetorical figures. For attraction and incorporation see Cases and Relative Pronouns. The points now to be discussed have not so much to do with the orderly arrangement {avvd&nsy as with the expression and the thought. II. Style in the N. T. The characteristics of the N. T. writers received treatment in chapter IV. The precise question here is whether the writers of the N. T. show any marks of rhetorical study. We have seen already (The Sentence, Rhythm) that the scholars are divided into two camps on this subject. Blass^ (but not Debrunner) argues that Paul's writings and the Epistle to the Hebrews show the influence of the rules of rhythm of the literary prose of Asia (Asianism) and Rome (Pausanias, Cicero, 1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 295. 2 Die Rhythmen der asianisohen und romischen Kunstprosa, 1905. 1194 FIGUEES OF SPEECH (rOPriEIA ZXHMATa) 1195 Curtius, Apuleius). Deissmann* will have none of it. It is a pretty quarrel and, as usual, there is truth in both views. One must get his bearings. We can all agree with Blass^ at once that the N.T. writers are not to be compared on this point with the literary masters of Attic prose, but with writers like Polybius. We are surely not to look for the antithetic style of the Attic orators (Isocrates, Lysias, Demosthenes).' .If there is aesthetic beauty in 1 Cor. 13 or Heb. 11, it may be the natural aesthetic of Homer's rhapsodies, not the artificialities of Isocrates. Blass* admits the poverty of the Oriental languages in the matter of periods and particles and does not claim that the N. T. writers rose above the 0. T. or rose to the level of Plato. And yet Norden in his Antike Kunstprosa claims that in his best diction Paul rises to the height of Plato in the Phcedrus. Wilamowitz- Mollendorff likewise calls Paul "a classic of Hellenism." Sir W. M. Ramsay is a stout advocate for the real Hellenic influence on Paul's life.* But Ramsay scouts the word "rhetoric" in con- nection with Paul: "I can hardly imagine that one who had ever experienced the spell of Paul could use the word rhetoric about the two examples which he mentions from First Corinthians, and Romans."^ There was in Paul's time artificial rhetoric with which Paul evidently had no connection, nor did any of the writers of the N. T. One cannot believe that Paul, for instance, studied at one of the famous schools of rhetoric nor that he studied the writings of the current rhetoricians. This much may be freely admitted about all of the N. T. writers, who wrote in the language of the people, not of the schools. Deissmann' correctly says: "The history of Christianity, with all its wealth of incident, has been treated much too often as the history of the Christian literary upper class, the history of theologians and ecclesiastics, schools, councils and parties, whereas Chris- tianity itself has often been most truly alive in quarters remote ' Theol. Lit., 1906, p. 434; The Expositor, 1908, p. 74. See also his St. Paul (1912). ' Hermeneutik und Kritik, 1892, p. 198. The true grammarian is but too willing to see the other point of view. Of. GildersL, Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 266. ' Hahne, Zur sprachl. Xsthetik der Griech., 1896, p. 4. * Hermeneutik und Kritik, p. 198. ' Of. the controversy between him and Principal Garvie in The Expositor for 1911 anent Garvie's book, Studies of Paul and His Gospel (1911). 6 The Expositor, Aug., 1911, p. 157. ' Light from the Ancient East, p. 404. 1196 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT from councils." This is all pre-eminently true and we must never forget that Jesus was a carpenter, John a fisherman and Paul a tentmaker. And yet Deissmann* himself will say of John: "St. John has no liking for progress along an unending straight road; he loves the circling flight, like his symbol, the eagle. There is something hovering and brooding about his production; repetitions are in no wise abnormal with him, but the marks of a contemplation which he cherishes as a precious inheritance from St. Paul and further intensifies." There is a perfection of form in the Parables of Jesus that surpasses all the rules of the grammarians and rhetoricians. The eagle flight of John makes the cawing of the syntactical crows pitiful. The passion of Paul broke through all the traditional forms of speech. He lacked the punctilious refinements'* of the Stoic rhetoricians, but he had the cyclonic power of Demosthenes and the elevation of Plato. Even Blass^ sees that "the studied employment of the so-called Gorgian assonances is necessarily foreign to the style of the N. T., all the more because they were comparatively foreign to the whole period; accident, however, of course produces occasional instances of them, and the writer often did not decline to make use of any that suggested themselves." This would seem modest enough to satisfy Deissmann. In particular Blass^ notes "the absence of rhetorical artifice in the Johannine speeches." He finds httle of that nature in Mark and Luke. "But in Matthew there really is some artistic sense of style," but it is "mainly drawn from Hebrew and not from Greek." The many quotations in this Gospel show a close use of the LXX and the Hebrew O. T. And yet, on the whole, the Greek nms smoothly enough. Konig has a valuable article on "Style of Scripture" in the Extra Volume of Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, but he deals mainly with the 0. T. There is in truth little that is distinctive in the style of the N. T. apart from the naturalness, simphcity, elevation and passion of the writers. It is only in the Epistle to the Hebrews that Blass^ finds "the care and dexterity of an artistic writer" as shown by his occasional avoidance of hiatus, but even here Blass has to strain a point to make it stick. Bultmann^ draws a definite parallel between the style of Paul and the Cynic-Stoic 1 Light from the Anc. East, p. 410. ' J. Weiss, Beitr. zur paulinischen Rhetorik, 1897, p. 168. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 298. « lb., p. 302. 6 lb., p. 296. • Der Stil der paulinische Predigt und die kynisch-stoiache Diatribe, 1910. FIGURES OF SPEECH (rOPriEIA ZXHMATa) 1197 Diatribe and makes his point, but even so one wonders if after all Paul uses question and answer so skilfully by reason of definite study of the subject or because of his dialectical training as a rabbi and his native genius in such matters. It is per se, how- ever, entirely possible that Paul knew the common Stoic dialectic also as he did the tenets of current Stoicism (cf. Paul's work in Athens). The examples of figures of speech in the N. T. are due to the nature of speech in general, to the occasional passion' of the writer, to the play of his fancy, to unconscious expression of genius, to mere accident. We must not make the mistake of rating men like Luke, Paul, James and the author of Hebrews as boorish and unintellectual. They lived in an age of great culture and they were saturated with the noblest ideas that ever filled the hiunan brain. As men of genius they were bound to respond to such a situation. They do show a distinct literary flavour as Heinrici" has so well shown. In 1 Cor. 13 we have finish of form and thought. Even John, called aypaixnam /cat Ididorris (Ac. 4 : 13), rose to the highest planes of thought in his Gospel. Deissmann in his St. Paul goes to the extreme of making Paul a mere man of affairs devoid of theological culture, — an imtenable position in view of Acts and Paul's Epistles when he says: "His place is with Amos, the herdsman of Tekoa, and Tersteegen, the ribbon-weaver of Miilheim" (p. 6). We may brush aside the artificial rules of Gorgias as too studied efforts for the N. T. Indeed, the men of the time had largely refused to foUow the lead pf Gorgias of Sicily, though his name clung to the figures of speech. His mannerisms were not free from affectation and pedantry.' The Attic orators of the fourth century b.c. had their own rules for easy and flexible practical speech. The writers and speakers of the later time modified these in their own way. We are not concerned here to follow Blass* in his effort to prove that Paul and the writer of Hebrews were students of the current rhetoricians. This we fail to see, but we do see that the language of the N. T. was a living organism and exhibits many of the peculiarities of human speech which the rhetoricians have discussed. For convenience, therefore, we adopt their terminology. ' Norden (Die ant. Kunstprosa, Bd. II, p. 508) speaks of Paul's use of rhe- torical figures as due to his "Ton." Heinrici (Zum HeUen. d. Paulus, Komm. zu II Kor.) sees Paul's "Eigenart." 2 Der Uteraiische Charakter d. neut. Schriften, 1908. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 295. * Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa, 1905. 2 1198 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ni. Figures of Idea or Thought ((rxii|iaTa SiavoCas). Blass» observes that these figures of thought belong more to the later period of Attic, oratory. Some of them are distinctly rhetorical in character, as the rhetorical question of which Paul makes abundant use, especially in the Epistle to the Romans. Blass makes a good critique of such questions as showing dialectical liveliness and perspicuity, as in Ro. 3 : 1 ti olv to irtpiaahv tov 'lovSalov; (4 : 10) ircos otv eXoyiadri; ev irepiTOfi^ 6vti ^ kv d/cpojSuo-ri^; This is quite like the diatribe in Epictetus and other Koivi] writers (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 182). Cf. 1 Cor. 7 : 18 £f. Other ques- tions are quite emotional, as in 2 Cor. 11 : 22. In Ro. 8 : 31-35 we have a "brilliant oratorical passage," worthy of any orator in the world. There are others almost equal to it, Ro. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11; 1 Cor. 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15; 2 Cor. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13. Here we have oratory of the highest kind with the soul all ablaze with great ideas. The words respond to this high environment and are all aglow with beauty and Hght. Certainly the Epistle to Hebrews is oratory of the highest order, as are the addresses in Acts. Blass' thinks that Luke is distinctly "unprofessional {idio- tisch) " in his manner of presenting the great speeches in Acts, ISiojTLKri (^paeris, not rexvLKTi pa(Ti%. That is true, but one would have a martinet spirit to cavil at the word eloquence here. The discourses of Jesus in Matthew, Luke and John are above all praise in content and spirit. One cannot think that Jesus was a technical student of rhetoric, but he sang with the woodrobin's note, and that far surpasses the highest achievement of the best trained voice whose highest praise is that she approaches the woodrobin or the nightingale. There is perfection of form in the thoughts of Jesus whether we turn to the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, the Parables in Luke 15, or the Discourses in the Upper Room and On the Way to Gethsemane in John 14-17. The style of the reporters does not conceal the consummate skill of Christ as the "Master Preacher" of the ages. There is undoubted use of irony (elpuveia) in the N. T. We see it in the words of Jesus. See the high scorn in./caJ i/ius ir\qpiiaaTi to ixtTpov T&v TaTkpoiv ifioov (Mt. 23 : 32) . This is the correct text, not irXTjpcixreTe. So also (caX&is adeTelre ttju kvToKTjv tov deov (Mk. 7 : 9) and OTL oiK ivdixfrai. Tpo4>itT'qv airohkcdai e^co 'lepovcraKrip. (Lu. 13 : 33). » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 304. ' lb. The " Terminology of Grammar " is not fixed like the laws of the Medes and Persians. Cf. Rep. of the Joint Com. on Gr. Terminol., 1911. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 305. FIGURES OF SPEECH (rOPriEIA ZXHMATa) 1199 There is more of it in Paul's writings. Cf. 1 Cor. 4: 8; 2 Cor. 11: 19 f.; 12 : 13; Ro. 11:20. There was never a more nimble mind than that of Paul, and he knew how to' adapt himself to every mood of his readers or hearers without any sacrifice of principle. It was no declaimer's tricks, but love for the souls of men that made him become all things to all men (1 Cor. 9 : 22). He could change his tone because he loved the Galatians even when they had been led astray (Gal. 4 : 20). The rhetoricians call it prodiorthosis, as in 2 Cor. 11 : 21, kv a^poaivjj Xkyu (cf. also 11 : 1 f., 16 f., 23) and epidiorthosis, as in Ro. 3 : 5, Kara avdpojirov Xkrya. Cf. also 1 Cor. 7: 3; 12 : 11; Ro. 8 : 34; Gal. 4:9. So Paul uses paraleipsis, as in 2 Cor. 9:4, fiii ttcos KaTaiaxwdSinev riiieh, Iva fii/ 'Kkyciifiev vfiels, instead of fiij ttotb KaTaiaxuvBrJTe. As Blass^ suggests, Paul's innate deUcacy of feeling makes him take the reproach on himself. Cf . also Phil. 19, Iva jui) Xer&J on Kal aeavrdv iwt. irpoao- (^etXets. So in Ro. 7 : 4 Paul says Kal ifieis WavaToidrjTe t& voijm rather than bluntly assert Kal 6 voims airWavev (or WavarduBri). There is sometimes a lack of parallelism (heterogeneous structure). Cf. 1 Jo. 2 : 2, IKaajJids rrepl tGjv a/iapTL&v fjij.wv, ov irtpl t&v r^ixerkpwv fiovov, aWa Kal o\ov rod Koapxiv, -instead of tS>v okov tov Koctuov. Cf . also Ph. 2 : 22, Trarpi — ciiv kiwi. Cf . irepLiraTtiv Kal curwacrfiovs in Mk. 12 : 38 f., rriv tikvovaav kv ri/uv Kal fieO' rj/iSjv hrrai in 2 Jo. 2. IV. Figures of Expression (axTiiiara X^|£v avdpinrwv — tuiv avdpwircav, or sym- ploce (both alike) as in k^eXk^aro 6 Beds tva Ko.Taurxi'V'll) i^eXk^aro 6 Beds I'm KarauTxlivv- Cf. Heb. 2 : 16. The manuscripts vary a deal in 1 Cor. 1: 25 ff., and Blsiss has to juggle the text in order to make it come out in "rounded periods of three sections." What if this finesse was praised by dilettante rhetoricians when they found it in Pemosthenes or Cicero? Surely Paul was not a "stylist" of the fashion of Cicero nor even of Demosthenes. Perhaps no orator "would have regarded the eloquence of this passage with other feelings than those of the highest admiration." Doubtless so, but for the passion and force, not for the mere word-play. Just so the three poetical quotations (Ac. 17 : 28; 1 Cor. 15 : 33; Tit. 1 : 12) do not justify straining after accidental lines in Ac. 23 : 5; Jas. 1 : 17; Heb. 12 : 12 f., or elsewhere. Blass* is so fond of finding poetic parallelism in the Gospels that he actually makes it tilt the scales against the best manuscripts in some passages as in Mt. 5 : 45; 7 : 13 f.; 25 : 35. This seems much like eisegesis. (6) Contrasts in Words. There is the solemn repetition of a word with powerful effect (the epanadiplosis of the rhetoricians), but Blass does not claim this as a rhetorical device in the N. T. It is natural to strong emotion. Cf . kiruyTOLTa 'einaraTa (Lu. 8 : 24) ; Kbpie Kvpie (Mt. 25 : 11) ; aravpcocrov crahptacov (Jo. 19 : 6) ; Rev. 18 : 2, iTecev hrtaev. See Ph. 3 : 2. Cf . also the two hours of shouting in Ac. 19 : 34. Climax is as old as Homer. This is again a perfectly natural method of emphasis. Cf. the links in the hst of virtues in 2 Pet. 1 : 5-7. See also Ro. 5 : 3-5; 10 : 14. There is a cumu- lative force in the repetition. Per contra, zeugma puts together > W.-Th., p. 639. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 300 f. 2 Green, Handb. to N. T. Gk., p. 355. « lb., p. 302. FIGUKES OF SPEECH (rOPriEIA ZXHMATA) 1201 words that do not properly' go together, as in 1 Cor. 3 ; 2, j6.\a inas hrSrura, oi) fipSiiia. So also Lu. 1 : 64, kveigx^V ™ a-rofia airov Tapaxp^m Kal ^ y\S>a-(Ta airov. Cf . 1 Tim. 4 : 3. This construc- tion is usually explained as elliptical, one verb (as above) being used where two are necessary for the full statement. Kiihner- Gerth* treat it as a species of brachylogy. The use of synonyms is not absent in the N. T., though not in the richness of the classic idiom. Cf. Lu. 8 : 15, kv xapSip, koKtj Kal iLjaBfj, and the use of 070- waci) and <^iX^co side by side in Jo. 21 : 15-17 where Peter makes a point of using ipiKicii. See chapter on Formation of Words.^ The play on words takes many turns. The onomatopoetic words like 70776f&> (cf. our "murmur") are very simple. Cf. Jo. 6 : 41. Ex- amples of initial alliteration occur, like irovripla, TrXtove^iq. (Ro. 1 : 29) ', ippiuTas, VTrepri(j>avovs (1 : 30) ; &ireuBeLS, aavvkrovs, (uTvvB'eTOV%, aardpyovs, aveXerifwvas (1 : 30 f.). It is hard to tell whether this is conscious or unconscious. There are also instances of paronoma- sia and annominatio. Paronomasia is rather loosely applied in the books. Winer' uses it only for words of similar sound, while Blass* confines it to the recurrence of the same word or word- stem, like KOKOvi KaKus (Mt. 21 : 41) ; iv iravrl iravTore iraaav (2 Cor. 9:8); 6 vbijos voixlpois (1 Tim. 1:8), and uses parechesis for differ- ent words of similar sound, like Xt/xot Kal Xoi/ioi (Lu. 21 : 11) ; 'ifiaJBev &' Siv hradev (Heb. 5:8); 4>Sovov ipovov (Ro. 1 : 29) ; aaw'erovi kaw- e'erovi (1 : 31). See also 2 Cor. 10 : 12; Ro. 11 : 17. The point is a fine one and need not be pressed. But annominatio deals with the sense as well as the sound. Thus ILhrpos and irerpa in Mt. 16:18; yLvdsaKeis a avayiviicKtis (Ac. 8:30); mep(f>pove1v — poveiv — a(iivii iroKw be devrtpov irpos aiiTov, Ac. 10 : 15; oiiK h \6jui ij jSao-iXeta tov Beov, aW kv Swaixei, 1 Cor. 4: 20. Cf. Jo. 21 : 21; 1 Cor. 5 : 12. Usually the context makes clear what verb is wanting, as in Mt. 27:25; Ac. 18 : 6; Ro. 4 : 9; 5 : 18; 2 Cor. 9 : 7; Gal. 2 : 9; Rev. 1 : 4. In 2 Cor. 8 : 15 the participle 'ixo^v must be supplied with o ac- cording to a common Greek idiom. Cf. also Ro. 13 : 7, tQ top cjyopov, where Winer > supplies airoSi86vai KiKthovri.. Cf. also 1 Cor. 4:6. It is easy to supply 6 debs in passages hke Heb. 1:7 Xe- yei, 4 : 3 Apr]Ke. The context suppUes the noun in a case hke Ac. 21 : 31, ^riToijvTiiiv re avTov a-KOKTeivai. Cf. Jo. 20 : 2, ?ipav t6v KvpLov ('people took away')- In Ac. 21 : 16, crvvffKBov Kal tSiv pxiBrj- tSiv, supply Ttces as in Lu. 11 : 49, rivas. Many verbs are con- sidered clear enough without the object. So Stayw {sc. jStoy) in Tit. 3:3; -Kpoakxcis {sc. vovv) in Lu. 17 : 3, 'errkxt^ in 14 : 7, ivkxca {sc. xoXov) in Mk. 6 : 19; o-u/ijSdXXo) {sc. 'Kdyovs) as in Ac. 4 : 15 (cf. Lu. 24 : 17, avTifiaWeri with object) ; cruXXa/i/3di'co in Lu. 1 : 31. It is unnecessary (see Adjectives) to recount again the many instances of the adjective without a substantive where the gender and number and context make it clear. A few common examples suf- fice. For the absence of rjpkpa note rg tpitj? (Lu. 13 : 32) ; 17 aiipioj' (Mt. 6 :34); t?s (xi)p.epov (Mt. 27:8); rg hxomv^ (Lu. 13 :33); rg 'einoixT'o (Ac. 16 : 11); jj e^ijs (21: 1); rg hkpa. (Ac. 20 : 15). Tg is easily suppUed in Mt. 23 : 15, g ^pa, and in Heb. 11 : 26, kv Aiym- Tov. Supply y^Sxraa in Rev. 9 : 11, ^k rg 'EXXiji-t/cg. So with 686s in Lu. 5 : 19, xoias; 19 :4, ketPTjs. We miss IixLtlov in Jo. 20 : 12, iv XtvKOLs, and OSop in Mt. 10 :'42, ^vxp6v. So with x«ip in Mt. 6 : 3, g bt^ia, g apurrepa, and x'^P" in Lu. 17 : 24, eK rgs — eis rgj*. Much more serious is the ellipsis in Mt. 26 : 5, and Gal. 5 : 13, where the context must supply both verb and subject. Cf. also ovx on — dXX' in Jo. 7 : 22. In a case like 2 Th. 2 : 3 f., on Mv— ,oti, there is no apodosis expressed. These are but samples of the ellipses common to Greek (cf . el 8k p.i]) as to all languages more or less. It is not worth while to try to bring under this rhetorical figure all the lapses and turns of style in each writer. Cf. the absence of the verb with iVa in 1 Cor. 1 : 31, with to /ig in 4 : 6, with Iv 8k in Ph. 3 : 13, with toCto 8k in 2 Cor. 9 : 6, with ha ' W.-Th., p. 590. FIGURES OF SPEECH (ropriEiA sxhmata) 1203 again in Gal. 2 : 9. Cf. also Mk. 14: 29; 1 Cor. 10 : 24; 2 Cor. 5:13. Aposiopesis stands to itself since it is a conscious suppression of part of a sentence under the influence of a strong emotion like anger, fear, pity. Curiously enough Blass,' who sees so many rhetorical tropes in the N. T., denies that any instances of aposio- pesis occur in the N. T. I do not consider his objections well founded. We may dismiss Mk. 7 : 11 and Lu. 22 : 42 because of the true text (see W. H.), and need not quibble over Spa ^i? in Rev. 22 :,9. We may agree with Winer ^ that we have simply anaco- lutha in 2 Th. 2 : 3 ff. But we have left others hke Mk. 11 : 32, dXXa dwu/jxv • k^ avdpuiroiiv; — t(j)ofiovvTO top ox^ov. See also Lu. 13 : 9, K&v iih> Toirjcrij Kaprov el 8e iiriye, eis to /jikWov iKKo^f/eis avTrjp. So again 19 : 42, el eyvois Kal av. So Jo. 6 : 62, kav oLv 6ecoprJTe rbv vidv Tov avBpuTov Lva^alvovTa otov fjv to ■wpoTspop; Then again Ac. 23 : 9, 61 5k irvevixa kXaXria^ev omtQ tj ayyiKos — . It is possible to regard Ro. 7 : 24 as aposiopesis. What differentiates these pas- sages from ellipses or abbreviations of other clauses (cf. Mt. 25 : 14; Mk. 13 :,34; 2 Cor. 3 : 13) is the passion. One can almost see the gesture and the flash of the eye in aposiopesis. We need not follow minutely the various sorts of hreviloquence or brachylogy that are possible. Thought moves more rapidly than expression and the words often crowd together in a com- pressed way that may be not only terse, but at first obscure. A good illustration occurs in Mt. 9 : 6, ha dk eiSiJre oti. e^ovalav 'kxfi- ^ vios TOV avdpoiirov hrl Trjs 7^5 acjyLkvaL a/iaprtas — tots \kyei, t<3 wapa-^ 'hrriKQ "E7etp€ apov aov Tr/v kXi^jjc, ktX. Here the Evangelist has inserted Tdre Xkyei t^ Trap, before the conclusion to make it clearer. The same thing is done in the parallel passages in Mk. 2 : 10; Lu. 5 : 24 (an incidental argument for a common document for this paragraph). Cf. also Mk. 14:49, dXX' Iva irXripoidSiaLv at 7pa^at. So Jo. 13 : 18; 15 : 25. Cf. Ac. 1 : 1, where ^p^aTo imphes Kal Sie- Tk'Kei before iroieiv re Kal didaaKeiv axpi ^s ij/iepas, kt\. See a similar use of ap^a/xevos in Mt. 20 : 8, Lu. 23 : 5. A case like Lu. 24 : 47, ap^afievoL, amounts to anacoluthon or the use of the participle as a principal verb. Cf . also KadapL^cav in Mk. 7 : 19. Various ex- amples of ellipsis-like zeugma are also instances of brachylogy. No clear line of distinction appears. So in comparisons we sometimes have to fill out the sense. Cf. Rev. 13 : 11, elxe KkpaTa 8vo ofioia apvi(f}, i.e. Kkpacnv apvlov. Cf. 1 Jo. 3 : 11 f.; 2 Pet. 2 : 1. Other instances of brachylogy may be seen in Lu. 4 :26f.; Jo. 1 Gr. of N- T. Gk., p. 294. » W.-Th., p. 600. 1204 A GRAMMAB OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 5 :36; 15 : 11; Ac. 27:22; Gal. 2 : 16. The so-called construc- tio praegnans belongs here also. Cf. 2 Tim. 4 : 18, (xoiaei els rriv ^aopa) , since Uttle progress could be made in speech without the picture of the literal and physical carried over to the moral and spiritual as in 6 Troiiiijv 6 /caXos (Jo. 10 : 11). Cf. the greatest metaphor in the N. T., Paul's use of aSina for the church (Eph. 1 : 22 f.). The Simile is just a bit more formal, as is seen in the use of ofioios in Mt. 13 : 52, ttSs ypamxartiis 6ij.ol6s icmv avdpiiirc^ okodecriroTj). ■ Parables are but special forms of the metaphor or simile and form the most characteristic feature of the teaching of Jesus in so far as form is concerned. The parable (irapa/SoX^)) ' Comm. on Thess. Epistles, p. Ivi f . ^ Cf. Heinrici, Zum Hellen. des Paulus, Komm. zu 2 Kor. ' 1 Cor. 2 : 4. FIGURES OP SPEECH (ropriEiA sxhmata) 1207 draws a comparison between the natural and the moral or implies it. It may be a crisp proverb (Lu. 4 : 23) or a narrative illustra- tion of much length, as in the Sower (Mt. 13). The Allegory (dXXijYopia) is a parable of a special sort that calls for no explana- tion, a speaking parable (cf. the Good Shepherd in Jo. 10 and the Prodigal Son in Lu. 15). Metonymy (iieTOJvvixla) and Synecdoche {(TvvtKdox'/i) are so much matters of exegesis that they must be passed by without further comment. It is certain that no words known to man are comparable in value with those contained in the N. T. Despite all the variety of diction on the part of the reporters, probably partly because of this very fact, the words of Jesus still fascinate the mind and win men to God as of old. Kal kykvero ore 'ertkecev 6 'Ir;croi3s rois X670US TOVTOvs, k^eirkqacFovTO ol oxXot iirl rfj 8iSaxfi avrov' rjv yap 81- daaKWV avrovs d>s i^ov