(QotttcU Hntoetatta Slibtara Jltlfaca, ISStta ^ottt BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF HENRY W. SAGE 1891 Cornell University Library PA 813.R64 1915 3 1924 021 607 217 ..«,...i The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924021607217 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH BOOKS BY PROF. A. T. ROBERTSON CRiTicAii Notes to Broadus' Harmont op the Gospels Life and Letters op John A. Broadus Teaching op Jbstjs Concerning God the Father The Student's Chronological New Testament Syllabus por New Testament Study Keywords in the Teaching op Jesus Epochs in the Lipe op Jesus A Short Grammar op the Greek New Testa- ment Epochs in the Life op Paul Commentary on Matthew John the Loyal The Glory op the Ministry A Grammar op the Greek New Testament in THE Light op Historical Research Practical and Social Aspects op Christianity: The Wisdom op James. Studies in the New Testament. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH BY A. T. ROBERTSON, M.A., D.D., LL.D. Professor of Interpretation of the New Testament in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Louisiiille, Ky. "ExojLiev 5^ TOP dijtravpov tovtov kv offTpaKivois aKeheaiv, iva ri iirep^o'Kij TTJs dvvd/jLeus y rod 6eov Kai ju^ e£ ijfiiav. — 2 COE. 4:7 SECOND EDITION HODDER & STOUGHTON NEW YORK GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY COPTRIGHT, 1914, BY GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged coptbight, 1915, by GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY Composition, Electrotyping and Presswork: THE UNIVERSITY PHBSB, CAMBHIDGB, U. S. A. TO THE MEMORY OF Knljn A. Mranbae SCHOLAR TEACHER PREACHER PREFACE It is with mingled feelings of gratitude and regret that I let this book go to the public. 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 that 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 Vlll 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 Enghsh, 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 speciahst 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 Hnguistic equipment. I have, besides, a smat- tering of Assyrian, Dutch, Gothic and Italian. 1 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 the first scholar in America to make use of Bopp's Vergleichende Grammdtik. 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 Imows 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 modern 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 Gudemann,^ 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 ' Cf. Dr. James Moffatt's remarks in The Expositor, Oct., 1910, p. 383 f. 2 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 1 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 cosmopolitan. In common with all modern linguists I have leaned upon Brug- mann and Delbriick, as masters in linguistic learning. 1 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 Oun — Gave us the doctrine of the enchtic De, Dead from the waist down." ' F. H. Colson, in an article entitled "The Grammatical Chapters in Quin- tilian," 1, 4-8 (The CI. 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.'" 2 The CI. Weekly, May 27, 1911, p. 229. ' Gildersleeve, Am. Jour, of Philol., July, 1909, p. 229. ^ l9ll, 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 (Ldebling)." Dr. A. M. Fairbairn^ 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 modem 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 KOLvi]. Deissmann is the pioneer in this field and is still the leader in it. It is hard to overestimate the debt of modern 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 ' Address before the Baptist Theological College at Glasgow, reported in The British Weekly, April 26, 1906. 2 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. PKEFACE Xi gloomy a statement. Apart from the linguistic value of the papyri and the ostraca which has been demonstrated, these letters and receipts have inter^t as human documents. They give us real glimpses of the actual life of the common people in the first Christian centuries, their joys and their sorrows, the little things that go so far to make life what it is for us all. But the student of the Greek New Testament finds a joy all his own in seeing so many words in common use that were hitherto found almost or quite alone in the New Testament or LXX. But the grammar of the N. T. has also had a flood of light thrown on it from the papyri, ostraca and inscriptions as a result of the work of Deissmann, Mayser, Milligan, Moulton, Radermacher, Thumb, Volker, Wilcken and others. I have gratefully availed myself of the work of these scholars and have worked in this rich field for other pertinent illustrations of the New Testament idiom. The material is almost exhaustless and the temptation was constant to use too much of it. I have not thought it best to use so much of it in proportion as Radermacher has done, for the case is now proven and what Moulton and Radermacher did does not have to be repeated. As large as my book is, the space is precious for the New Testament itself. But I have used the new material freely. The book has grown so that in terror I often hold back. It is a long step from Winer, three generations ago, to the present time. We shall never go back again to that stand- point. Winer was himself a great emancipator in the gram- matical field. But the battles that he fought are now ancient history. It is proper to state that the purpose of this Grammar is not that of the author's Short Grammar which is now in use in various modern languages of America and Europe. That book has its own place. The present volume is designed for advanced stu- dents in theological schools, for the use of teachers, for scholarly pastors who wish a comprehensive grammar of the Greek New Testament on the desk for constant use, for all who make a thorough study of the New Testament or who are interested in the study of language, and for libraries. If new editions come, as I hope, I shall endeavour to make improvements and correc- tions. Errata are sure to exist in a book of this nature. Occa- sionally (cf. Accusative with Infinitive) the same subject is treated more than once for the purpose of fulness at special points. Some repetition is necessary in teaching. Some needless repetition can be eliminated later. I may explain also that the XU A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT works used by me in the Bodleian Library and the British Mu- seum had the citations copied twice with double opportunity for errors of reference, but I have guarded that point to the best of my abihty. I have been careful to give credit in detail to the many works consulted. But, after all is said, I am reluctant to let my book slip away from my hands. There is so much yet to learn. I had hoped that Mayser's Syntax der griechischen Papyri could have ap- peared so that I could have used it, but he sorrowfully writes me that illness has held him back. Neither Helbing nor Thackeray has finished his Syntax of the LXX. The N.- T. Vocabulary of Moulton and Milligan, though announced, has not yet appeared. Deissmann's Lexicon is still in the future. Thumb's revision of Brugmann's Griechische Grammaiik appeared after my book had gone to the press.^ I could use it only here and there. The same thing is true of Debrunner's revision of Blass' Grammaiik des neutest. Griechisch. New light will continue to be turned on the Greek of the N. T. Prof. J. Rendel Harris {The Expository Times, Nov., 1913, p. 54 f.) points out, what had not been recently no- ticed, that Prof. Masson, in his first edition of Winer in 1859, p. vii, had said: "The diction of the New Testament is the plain and unaffected Hellenic of the Apostolic Age, as employed by Greek-speaking Christians when discoursing on religious sub- jects . . . Apart from the Hebraisms — the number of which has, for the most part, been grossly exaggerated — the New Testament may be considered as exhibiting the only genuine facsimile of the colloquial diction employed by unsophisticated Grecian gentlemen of the first century, who spoke without pedairtry — as idiuraL and not as ao^urral." The papyri have simply confirmed the insight of Masson in 1859 and of Lightfoot in 1863 (Moulton, Prol., p. 242). One's mind lingers with fas- cination over the words of the New Testament as they meet him in imexpected contexts in the papyri, as when aperi] (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9) occurs in the sense of 'Thy Excellency,' ^x" irapa- axAv rg ffg kper^, O. P. 1131, 11 f. (v/a.d.), or when vrep^v (Ac. 1 : 13) is used of a pigeon-house, t6v vTepc^v totov rrjs inrapxaixnis airv iv Movxi^vi'P oidas, 0. P. 1127, 5-7 (a.d. 183). But the book must now go forth to do its part in the elucidation of the New ' Prof. E. H. Sturtevant (CI. Weekly, Jan. 24, 1914, p. 103) criticises Thumb because he retains in his revision of Brugmann's book the distinction between accidence and syntax, and so is "not abreast of the best scholarship of the day." But for the N. T. the distinction is certainly usefvil. PEEFACE Xlll Testament, the treasure of the ages.^ I indulge the hope that the toil has not been all in vain. Marcus Dods {Later Letters, p. 248) says: "I admire the grammarians who are content to add one solid stone to the permanent temple of knowledge in- stead of twittering round it like so many swallows and only attracting attention to themselves." I make no complaint of the labour of the long years, for I have had my reward in a more intimate knowledge of the words of Jesus and of his reporters and interpreters. Ta ptifiaTo, a ^ycJ) XeXdXijxa iiuv Tvevfm ianv koX ^uri kcTiv (Jo. 6 : 63). I must record my grateful appreciation of the sympathy and help received from many friends all .over the world as I have plodded on through the years. My colleagues in the Seminary Faculty have placed me under many obligations in making it possible for me to devote myself to my task and in rendering substantial help. In particular Pres. E. Y. Mullins and Prof. J. R. Sampey have been active in the endowment of the plates. Prof. Sampey also kindly read the proof of the Aramaic and Hebrew words. Prof. W. O. Carver graciously read the proof of the entire book and made many valuable suggestions. Dr. S. Angus, of Edinburgh, read the manuscript in the first rough draft and was exceedingly helpful in his comments and sympa- thy. Prof. W. H. P. Hatch, of the General Episcopal Theological Seminary, New York, read the manuscript for the publishers and part of the proof and exhibited sympathetic insight that is greatly appreciated. Prof. J. S. Riggs, of the Auburn Theological Semi- nary, read the proof till his health gave way, and was gracious in his enthusiasm for the enterprise. Prof. Walter Petersen, Ph.D., of Bethany College, Lindsborg, Kansas, read all the proof and freely gave his linguistic attainments to the improvement of the book. Last, but not least in this list, Mr. H. Scott, of Birken- head, England, read the whole book in proof, and in the Accidence verified all the references with minute care and loving interest, and all through the book contributed freely from his wealth of knowledge of detail concerning the Greek N. T. The references in Syntax were verified by a dozen of my students whose labour of love is greatly appreciated. Pres. J. W. Shepherd, of Rio Janeiro, Brazil, and Prof. G. W. Taylor, of Pineville, La., had verified the Scripture references in the MS., which were again verified in proof. The Index of Quotations has been prepared by ' Brilliant use of the new knowledge is made by Dr. James Moffatt's New Testament (A New Translation, 1913). XIV A GBAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Rev. W. H. Davis, of Richmond College, Va. ; the Index of Greek Words by Rev. S. L. Watson, Tutor of N. T. Greek for this ses- sion in the Seminary. All this work has been done for me freely and gladly. The mere recital of it humbles me very much. Without this expert aid in so many directions the book could not have been produced at all. I must add, however, that all errors should be attributed to me. I have done the best that I could with my almost impossible task. I have had to put on an old man's glasses during the reading of the proof. I must add also my sincere appreciation of the kind words of Prof. Edwin Mayser of Stuttgart, Oberlehrer H. Stocks of Cottbus, Pres. D. G. Whittinghill of Rome, Prof. Caspar Ren6 Gregory of Leipzig, the late Prof. E. Nestle of Maulbronn, Prof. James Stalker of Aberdeen, Prof. Giovanni Luzzi of Florence, Prof. J. G. Machen of Princeton, Profs. G. A. Johnston Ross and Jas. E. Frame of Union Seminary, and many others who have cheered me in my years of toil. For sheer joy in the thing Prof. C. M. Cobem of Allegheny College, Penn., and Mr. Dan Craw- ford, the author of Thinking Black, have read a large part of the proof. I gladly record my gratitude to Mr. G. W. Norton, Misses Lucie and Mattie Norton, Mr. R. A. Peter (who gave in memory of his father and mother, Dr. and Mrs. Arthur Peter), Rev. R. N. Lynch, Rev. R. J. Burdette, Mr. F. H. Goodridge, and others who have generously contributed to the endowment of the plates so that the book can be sold at a reasonable price. I am in- debted to Mr. K. B. Grahn for kindly co-operation. I am deeply grateful also to the Board of Trustees of the Seminary for making provision for completing the payment for the plates. It is a pleasure to add that Mr. Doran has shown genuine enthusiasm in the enterprise, and that Mr. Linsenbarth of the University Press, Cambridge, has taken the utmost pains in the final proofreading. I should say that the text of Westcott and Hort is followed in all essentials. Use is made also of the Greek Testaments of Nestle, Souter, and Von Soden whose untimely death is so re- cent an event. In the chapter on Orthography and Phonetics more constant use is made, for obvious reasons, of variations in the manuscripts than in the rest of the book. It is now four hundred years since Cardinal Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros had printed the Greek New Testament under the auspices of the University of Alcald or Complutum, near Madrid, though it PEEFACB XV was not circulated till 1522. Erasmus got his edition into circu- lation in 1516. "The Complutensian edition of 1514 was the first of more than a thousand editions of the New Testament in Greek" (E. J. Goodspeed, The Biblical World, March, 1914, p. 166), It thus comes to pass that the appearance of my Grammar marks the four hundredth anniversary of the first printed Greek New Testament, and the book takes its place in the long line of aids to the study of the "Book of Humanity." The Freer Gospels and the Karidethi Gospels show how much we have to expect in the way of discovery of manuscripts of t"he New Testament. I think with pleasure of the preacher or teacher who under the inspiration of this Grammar may turn afresh to his Greek New Testament and there find things new and old, the vital message all electric with power for the new age. That will be my joy so long as the book shall find use and service at the hands of the ministers of Jesus Christ. A. T. ROBEKTSON. Louisville, Ky., 1914. PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION The second edition has been called for so soon that I did not have the opportunity for rest that I desired before preparing for it. But I have gone steadily through the book with eager eyes. The result is that some five hundred changes have been made in the text here and there, all for the improvement of the book in one way or another, besides the Addenda at the end of the book. Most of the changes are small details, but they are all worth making. The Addenda are as few as possible because of the great size of the volume. I have been more than gratified at the kindly reception accorded the book all over the world in spite of the distraction of the" dreadful war. Many scholars have offered helpful criticisms for which I am deeply grateful. In particular I wish to mention Prof. C. M. Cobern, Allegheny College, Mead- ville, Penn.; Prof. D. F. Estes, Colgate University, Hamilton, N. Y.; Prof. Basil L. Gildersleeve, The Johns Hopkins Univer- sity, Baltimore; Prof. E. J. Goodspeed, the University of Chicago; Prof. D. A. Hayes, Garrett Biblical Institute, Evanston, 111.; Prof. James Moffatt, Mansfield College, Oxford, England; Prof. XVI A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT C. W. Peppier, Trinity College, Durham, N. C; Prof. W. Peter- sen, Bethany College, Lindsborg, Kansas; Mr. WilHam Pitfield, Manchester, England; Rev. Dr. Alfred Plummer, Bideford, Eng- land; Mr. H. Scott, Birkenhead, England; Prof. James Stalker, United Free Church College, Aberdeen, Scotland; Dr. Gross Alexander, Nashville, Tenn. I hope that future editions may make it possible to improve the book still further. Various minor repetitions have been removed, though more still remain than is necessary. But the book is at least made more intelligible there- by. The numerous cross-references help also. In the Neutestamentliche Studien (1914) in honour of the seven- tieth birthday of Dr. Georg Heinrici of the University of Leipzig there is a paper by Heinrich Schlosser "Zur Geschichte der bib- lischen Philologie." He tells the story of "the first grammar of the New Testament Greek" (1655). It is by Georg Pasor and is entitled Grammatica Graeca Sacra Novi Testamenti Domini nostri Jesu Christi. His son, Matthias Pasor, Professor of Theology at Groningen, found his father's manuscript and let it lie for eighteen years because many held grammatical study to be puerile or pedantic and the book would have few readers. Finally he pub- lished it in 1655, since he held grammar to be "clavis scientiarum omnisque solidae eruditionis basis ac fundamentum." He was cheered by Melanchthon's "fine word": "Theologia vera est grammatica quaedam divinae vocis." It is only 260 years since 1655. New books continue to come out that throw light on the lan- guage of the New Testament. Part I (through a) of Moulton and MiUigan's Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources (1914) is now a rich treasure in the hands of students. Sharp's Epictetus and the New Testament (1914) is a very helpful monograph full of suggestions. A note from Dr. Albert Thumb announces that he is at work on a revision of his Hellenismus. So the good work goes on. A. ,T. ROBEHTSON. August, 1915. TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I — INTRODUCTION FAOB Chapter I. New Material 3 " II. The Historical Method 31 " III. The Kou-^ 49 " IV. The Place of the New Testament in the Koivi, ... 76 PART II — ACCIDENCE Chapter V. Word-Formation 143 " VI. Orthography and Phonetics 177 " VII. The Declensions 246 " VIII. The Conjugation of the Verb 303 PART III — SYNTAX Chapter IX. The Meaning of Syntax 379 " X. The Sentence 390 " XI. The Cases 446 ' XII. Adverbs 544 " XIII. Prepositions 553 XIV. Adjectives 650 " XV. Pronouns 676 " XVI. The Article 754 " XVII. Voice 797 XVIII. Tense 821 XIX. Mode 911 " XX. Verbal Nouns 1050 XXI. Particles 1142 " XXII. Figures of Speech 1194 Additional Notes 1209 Index op Subjects 1223 Index op Greek Words 1249 Index op Quotations 1275 Addenda to the Second Edition 1361 xvii LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO I HAD prepared an exhaustive analytic bibliography of the per- tinent literature, but it was so long that, on the advice of several friends, I have substituted an alphabetical list of the main works mentioned in the book. The editions of Greek authors, the pa- pyri and the inscriptions will be found in the Index of Quota- tions. Look there for them. For full histories of grammatical discussion one may turn to Sandys, A History of Classical Scholar- ship, vols. I-III (1906-1908); Gudemann, GrundriS der Geschichte der klassischen Philologie (2. Aufl., 1909); and Htibner, Grund- rilS zu Vorlesungen iiber die griechische Syntax (1883). By no means all the works consulted and referred to in the Grammar are given below. Only the most important can be mentioned. Hundreds that were consulted are not alluded to in the Gram- mar. But the following list represents fairly well the works that have contributed most to the making of my book. The chief journals quoted are also mentioned here. Abbott, E. A., Clue. A Guide through Greek to Hebrew (1904). , Johannine Grammar (1906). , Johannine Vocabulary (1905). Am. J. Ph., The American Journal of Philology (Baltimore). Alexander, W. J., Participial Periphrases in Attic Orators (Am. J. Ph., IV, pp. 291-309). Allen, H. F., The Infinitive in Polybius compared with the In- finitive in Biblical Greek (1907). Am. J. of Sem. L. and Ldt., The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature (Chicago). Am. J. of Theol, The American Journal of Theology (Chicago). Angus, S., Modem Methods in New Testament Philology (Har- vard Theol. Rev., Oct., 1909). , The Koti'ij, the Language of the New Testament (Princ. Theol. Rev., Jan., 1910). Anz, H., Subsidia ad cognoscendum Graecorum sermonem vul- garem e Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina repetita (Diss, phil. Hal., XII, 1894, pp. 259-387). XX A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Apostolides, Essai sur THell^nisme figyptien et ses rapports avec rHell^nisme classique et rHell^nisme moderne (1898). , Du grec alexandrin et des rapports avec le grec ancien et le grec moderne (1892). Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete (Leipzig). Arnaud, Essai sur le caract&re de la langue grec du N. T. (1899). Arnold and Conway, The Restored Pronunciation of Greek and Latin (1885). AuDoiN, E., De la d^clinaison dans les langues indo-europ^ennes (1898). Babbitt, The Use of Mij in Questions (Harvard Studies in Class. Phil., 1901). Bacon, Roger, Oxford Greek Grammar. Edited by Nolan and Hirsch (1902). Bamberg, Hauptregeln der griechischen Syntax (1890). Baron, Le Pronom Relatif et la Conjonctiveen Grec (1892). Barry, W., The Holy Latin Tongue (Dublin Rev., April, 1906); Our Latin Bible {ib., July). Baumlein, Untersuchungen iiber die griech. Modi und die Par- tikeln Kep und av (1846). , Untersuch. iiber griech. Partikeln (1861). Bekker, Anecdota Graeca. 3 Bde. (1814-1821). B^NARD, Formes verbales en grec d'aprfes le texte d'H^rodote (1890). Berdolt, Der Konsekutivsatz in der altern griech. Lit. (1896). Bernhardy, G., Wissenschaftliche Syntax der griechischen Sprache (1829). Bibl. tic, Bibliothfeque de I'^cole des hautes Etudes (Paris). Bihl. Gr. V., Biblioth^que grecque vulgaire (Paris). Bibl. S., The Bibliotheca Sacra (Oberlin). Bibl. W., The Biblical World (Chicago). BiRKE, De Particularum /^i? et oi Usu Polybiano Dionysiaeo Dio- doreo Straboniano (1897). BiRKLEiN, F., Entwickelungsgeschichte des substantivierten In- finitivs (1882). Blass, F., Acta Apostolorum (1895). , Die griech. Beredsamkeit von Alex, bis auf August. (1865). , Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa (1905). , Die rhythm. Kompos. d. Hebr.-Briefes (Theol. Stud, und Krit., 1902, pp. 420^61). , Evangelium sec. Lukam (1897). LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO xxi Blass, F., Grammatik d. neut. Griech. 2. Aufl. (1902). , Hermeneutik und Kritik (1892). , Philology of the Gospels fl 898). , Pronunciation of Ancient Greek (translation by Purton in 1890 of 3. Aufl. of tJber die Aussprache des Griech. 1888). Blass-Debeunner, Grammatik d. neut. Griech. 4. Aufl. (1913). Blass-Thackekay, Grammar of New Testament Greek. 2d ed. (1905). Bloomfield, Study of Greek Accent (A. J. Ph., 1883). BoHMER, J., Das biblische "im Namen" (1898). Boisacq, Les dialectes doriens (1891). , Dictionnaire ^tymol. de la langue grecque (1907 ff.). BoLLiNG, The Participle in Hesiod (Cath. Univ. Bulletin, 1897). BoNHOFFBR, A., Eplktet und das N. T. (1911). Bopp, Vergleichende Grammatik (1857). Br. W., The British Weekly (London). Broadus, John A., Comm. on Matt. (1886). Brockelmann, C, Grundrifi der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen (1907). Brugmann, K., Elements of Comparative Grammar of the Indo- Germanic Languages (translation by Wright, 1895). at Griechische Grammatik. 3. Aufl. (1900), the ed. quoted. Vierte vermehrte Aufl. of A. Thumb (1913). , GrundriiS der vergl. Gr. d. indog. Sprachen. 2. Aufl., Bde. I, II (1897-1913). , Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (1904). Buck, C. D., Introduction to the Study of the Greek Dialects (1910). Bultmann, R., Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch- stoische Diatribe (1910). Buresch, Teyomu und anderes Vulgargriechisch (Rhein. Mus. f. Phil., 1891, pp. 193-232). BuRKiTT, F. C., Syriac Forms of N. T. Proper Names (1912). Burrows, R. M., Discoveries in Crete (1907). Burton, E. D., Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the N. T. Gk. 3d ed. (1909). BuRTON-ZwAAN, Syntax d. Wijzen etijden in h. Gr. N. T. (1906). Butcher, S. H., Some Aspects of the Greek Genius (1893). , Harvard Lectures on Greek Subjects (1904). BuTTMANN, A., Grammatik d. neut. Sprachgebrauchs (1869). Buttmann-Thayer, a Grammar of the N. T. Greek (1880). XXll A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Bywateb, J., The Erasmian Pronunciation of Greek and its Pre- cursors (1908). Byz. Z., Byzantinische Zeitschrift (Leipzig). Cambr. Ph. J., Cambridge Philological Journal. Cath. Univ. Bull., Catholic University Bulletin. Cauee, Grammatica Militans. 3d ed. (1912). Chandler, H., A Practical Introduction to Greek Accentuation. 2d ed. (1881). Chase, F. H., The CredibiHty of the Acts (1902). Christ, W., Geschichte der griech. Literatur bis auf die Zeit Jus- tinians. 4. Aufl. (1905). 5. Aufl. (1913). Chueton, The Influence of the Septuagint upon the Progress of Christianity (1861). Claflin, Edith, Syntax of Boeotian Dialect Inscriptions (1905). Classen, J., De Grammaticae Graecae Primordiis (1829). CI. Ph., Classical Philology (Chicago). CI. Q., Classical Quarterly (London). CI. Rev., Classical Review (London). CI. W., Classical Weekly (New York). Clyde, J., Greek Syntax (1876). CoMPEENASs, De Sermone Gr. Volg. Pisidiae Phrygiaeque meri- dionalis (1895). , CoNYBEARE and Stock, Selections from the LXX. A Gram- matical Introduction (1905). CouRTOz, Les Prefixes en Grec, en Latin et en Frangais (1894). Cremee, H., Biblico-Theological Lexicon of N. T. Greek (1892). Urwick's translation. , Bibl.-theol. Worterbuch d. neut. Gracitat. 9. Aufl. (1902). Cremer-Kogel, neue Aufl. (1912). Cronert, W., Memoria Graeca Herculanensis (1903). , Questiones Herculanenses (1898). CRxnn, W. E., Coptic Ostraca from the Collections of the Egypt Exploration Fund, the Cairo Museum and others (1902). CuRTius, G., Greek Etymology. 2 vols. (1886). , Studien zur griech. und lat. Grammatik (1868-1878). Dalman, G., Grammatik des jiidisch-palastinischen Aramaisch (1894). , Worte Jesu (1902). , The Words of Jesus (1902). Translation by D. M. Kay. Dawes, E. S., Pronunciation of the Gk. Aspirates (1894). D. B., Dictionary of the Bible (Hastings, 1898-1904). D. C. G., Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (Hastings, 1906). LIST OF "WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO Xxiii Deissmann, a., Bible Studies (1901). Tr. by A. Grieve; cf. Bibel- studien (1895) and Neue Bibelstudien (1897). , Biblische Gracitat etc. (Theol. Rundschau, Okt. 1912). , Die Hellenisierung des semitischen Monotheismus (N. Jahrb. f. d. kl. Alt., 1903). , Die neut. Formel "in Christo" (1892). , Die Sprache d. griech. Bibel (Theol. Rundschau, 1906, No. 116). , Die Urgeschichte des Christentums im Lichte der Sprach- forschung (Intern. Woeh., 30. Okt. 1909). , Hellenistisches Griechisch (Herzog-Hauck's Realencyc, VII, 1899). , Licht vom Osten (1908). , Light from the Ancient East (1910). Tr. by Strachan. , New Light on the N. T. (1907). Tr. by Strachan. , Papyri (Encyc. Bibl., Ill, 1902). -, St. Paul in the Light of Social and Rehgious History (1912). Delbruck, B., Ablativ LocaUs Instrumentalis (1867). , GrundriB der vergl. Gramm. d. indog. Sprachen. Syntax. Bde. III-V (1893, 1897, 1900). , Introduction to the Study of Language (1882). Einleitung in das Sprachstudium. 4. Aufl. (1904). 5. Aufl. (1913). , Syntaktische Forschungen. 5 Bde. (1871-1888). Dick, Der schriftstellerische Plural bei Paulus (1900). Dickey, S., New Points of View for the Study of the Greek of the N. T. (Princeton Theol. Rev., Oct., 1903). DiEL, De enuntiatis finalibus apud graecarum rerum scriptores posterioris aetatis (1894). DiETERicH, K., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Sprache von der hellen. Zeit bis zum 10. Jahrh. n. Chr. (1898). Donaldson, J. W., The New Cratylus (1859). Dbaeger, Hist. Syntax d. lat. Sprache (1878-1881). Dvhl. Rev., The Dublin Review (Dublin). DtJKR, Sprachliche Untersuchungen (1899). Dtroff, a., Geschichte des Pronomen Reflexivum (1892, 1893). Earle, M. L., Classical Papers (1912). Ebeling, H., Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zum N. T. (1913). EcKiNGER, Die Orthographic lateinischer Worter in griech. In- schriften (1893). E. G. T., Expositor's Greek Testament. Encyc. Bibl., Encyclopaedia Biblica. , Encyc. Brit., Encyclopaedia Britannica. 11th ed. (1910). XXIV A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Engel, E., Die Aussprache des Griechischen (1887). Eenault, Du Parfait en Grec et en Latin (1886). Evans, A. J., Cretan Pictographs and Pre-Phoenician Script (1895). , Further Researches (1898). Exp., The Expositor (London). Expos. T., The Expository Times (Edinburgh). Fabnell, L. R., Greek Conditional and Relative Sentences (1892). Fakrah, F. W., Greek Syntax (1876). Fick-Bechtel, Die griechischen Personennamen. 2. Aufl. (1894). Field, F., Otium Norvicense. Pars Tertia (1881). Flensberg, Uber Ursprung und Bildung des Pron. auros (1893). Fowler, The Negatives of the Indo-European Languages (1896). FoY, K., Lautsystem der griech. VuIgaFsprache (1879). Frankel, Griechische Denominativa (1906). Frenzel, Die Entwick. des relativen Satzbaues im Griech. (1889). , Die Entwick. der Satze mit -irplv (1896). FucHS, A., Die Temporalsatze mit den Konjunktionen "bis" und "solangals" (1902): FtJHRER, De Particulae cbs cum Participiis et Praepos. punctae Usu Thucydideo (1889). Galloway, W. F., On the Use of M17 with the Participle in Clas- sical Greek (1897). Geddes, a Compendious Greek Grammar (1888). Geldart, The Modern Greek Language in Its Relation to An- cient Greek (1870). Gersdorf, C. G., Beitrage zur Sprachcharakteristik der Schrift- steller des N. T. (1816). Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hebrew Grammar. Geybb, M., Observationes epigraphicae de praepositionum graec. forma et usu (1880). GiLDERSLEEVE, B. L., Editions of Pindar and Justin Martyr. , Latin Grammar. Many editions since 1867. , Notes on Stahl's Syntax of the Greek Verb (1910). , Numerous articles in the American Journal of Philology. GiLDERSLEEVE and Miller, Syntax of Classical Greek. Part I (1900), Part II (1911). Gildersleeve Studies. Volume in honour of Prof. Gildersleeve of Johns Hopkins (1902). Giles, P., A Short Manual of Comparative Philology. 2d ed. (1901). -■ — , The Greek Language (Encyc. Britannica, 1910). LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO XXV Giles-Hertel, Vergl. Grammatik (1896). Tr. of Giles' Manual. GoETZELER, L., De Polybii elocutione (1887). , Einflufi d. Dion. Hal. auM. Sprachgebrauch (1891). GooDSPEED, E. J., Did Alexandria Influence the Nautical Lan- guage of St. Luke? (The Expositor, VIII, 1903, pp. 130-141). Goodwin, W. W.; Greek Grammar. Various editions. , Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb. Rev. Ed. (1890). Geanit, De Inf. et Part, in Inscr. Dial. Graec. Questiones Synt. (1892). Green, Mij for ou before Lucian (Studies in Honour of B. Gil- dersleeve, 1902). Green, B., Notes on Greek and Latin Syntax (1897). Green, S. G., Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek N. T. Rev. Ed. (1904). Gregory, C. R., Canon and Text of the N. T. (1907). , Die griech. Handschriften d. N. T. (1908). , Nov. Test. Graece, ed. Tischendorf. Bd. Ill, Prolegomena (1884-1894). , Textkritik d. N. T. 3 Bde. (1900-1909). Grimm-Thayer, a Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T. (1887). Grunewald, L., Der freie formelhafte Inf. d. Limitation im Griech. (1888). GuDEMANN, A., Grundrifi der Geschichte d. klass. Philologie. 2. Aufl. (1909). Guillemard, W. H., Hebraisms in the Greek Testament (1879). GtJNTHBR, R., Die Prapos. in d. griech. Dialektinschriften (Indog. Forsch., 1906). Hadlby and Allen, Greek Grammar (1895). Hadley, James, Essays Philological and Critical (1873). , Language of the N. T. (vol. II, Hackett and Abbott's ed. of Smith's B. D., 1898). Hahne, Zur sprachlichen Asthetik d. Griechischen (1896). Hale, W. G., The Anticipatory Subj. in Gk. and Lat. (Stud. CI. Phil., 1895). , The Cum CoAstructions (Studies in Class. Phil., 1887). , The Origin of Subj. and Opt. Conditions in Gk. and Lat. (Harvard Studies in Class. Philol., 1901). Hamilton, The Negative Compounds in Greek (1899). Hammer, De re Particulae Usu Herodoteo Thucydideo Xeno- phonteo (1904). Hammerschmidt, tJber die Grundb. von Konjunktiv und Optativ. XXVI A GRAMMAE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Haknack, a., Luke the Physician (1907). — , The Acts of the Apostles (1909). Harris, J. Rendel, Side-Lights on N. T. Research (1908). Harrison, Gessner, A Treatise on the Philology of Greek Prepo- sitions (1858). Harrison, Miss Jane, Prol. to the Study of Greek Religion (1903). Harsing, C, De Optativi in Chartis Aegyptiis Usu. Diss. Bonn (1910). Hartel, AbriB der Gr. d. hom. und herod. Dial. (1888). Hartung, J. A., Lehre von den Partikeln der griech. Spr., I, II (1832-1833). Hatch, E., Essays in Bibl. Greek (1892). Hatch, W. H. P., Some Illustrations of N. T. Usage from Greek Inscriptions of Asia Minor (Journ. of Bibl. Lit., 1908, pp. 134-146). Hatzidakis, G. N., Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik (1892). Havers, W., Untersuch. zur Kasussyntax der indog. Sprachen (1911). Hawkins, J. C., Horae Synopticae. 2d ed. (1909). Heine, G., Synonymik des neutest. Griechisch (1898). Heinrici, K. F., Der literarische Charakter der neutest. Schriften (1908). Heitmuller, W., Im Namen Jesu (1902). Helbing, R., Die Prapos. bei Herodot und andern Historikern (1904). , Grammatik der Septuaginta. Laut- und Wortlehre (1907). , tjber den Gebrauch des echten und soziativen Dativs bei Herodot. Henry, Precis de grammaire du grec et du latin. 5th ed. (1894). Elliott's tr. of 1st ed. (1890). Hermes, Zeitschrift fiir klassische Philologie. Hesseling, D. C., De Koine en de oude dialekten van Griechen- land (1906). Hicks, E. L., St. Paul and Hellenism (Studia Biblica et Eccl., 1896). , Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the N. T. (1896). , Use of Political Terms in the N. T. (Class. Rev., March and April, 1887). Hicks, E. L., and Hill, G. F., A Manual of Greek Historical In- scriptions (1901). LIST OF WOKKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO XXvii HiRT, H., Handbuch der griech, Laut- und Formenlehre (1902). 2. Aufl. (1912). HoBAHT, W. K., The Medical Language of Luke (1882). Hoffmann, F., Neutestamentliche Bibelstudien. 5 Bde. (1903). , tJber die Entwick. des Begriffs der Grammatik bei den Alten (1891). Hoffmann, 0., Das Prasens der indog. Grundsprache (1889). — -, Die griechischen Dialekte, I-III (1891-1898). , Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihr Volkstum (1906). , Geschichte d. griech. Sprache (1911). HoGAETH, D. G., Philip and Alexander (1897). HoLL, K., Das Fortleben der Volkssprachen in nachchristlicher Zeit (Hermes, 1908, 43, pp. 243 ff.). HooLE, C. H., The Classical Element in the N. T. (1888). HoKT, F. J. A., Notes on Orthography (pp. 141-173, vol. II of the N. T. in the Original Greek, 1882). Howes, The Use of M17 with the Participle (Harv. St. in CI. Ph., 1901). Hatch and Redpath, Concordance to the LXX (1897). HtJBNEH, E., GrundriB zu Vorlesungen iiber die griech. Syntax (1883). HtTBSCHMANN, Zur Kasuslehre (1875). Humphreys, M. W., The Problems of Greek (Congress of Arts and Sciences, 1904, vol. Ill, pp. 171 ff.). Indog. Forsch., Indogermanische Forschungen (Strafiburg). Immeb, J., Hermeneutics of the N. T. Tr. by A. H^ Newman (1877). Intern. Woch., Internationale Wochenschrift. Jacobsthal, H. K., Der Gebrauch der Tempora und Modi in den kretischen Dialektinschriften (1906). Jacquier, E., Histoire des Livres du N. T. Tomes I-IV. Ch. ii, Tome I, Langue du N. T. J. kl. Ph., Jahrbuch fiir klass. Philologie (Leipzig). Jannaeis, a. N., a Historical Greek Grammar (1897). , On the True Meaning of the Kotvl] (Class. Rev., 1903, pp. 93 ff.). Jebb, R. C, Attic Orators. 2d ed. (1893). , Introduction to the Iliad and the Odyssey (1892). , On the Relation of Classical to Modern Greek (Appendix to Vincent and Dickson's Handbook to Mod. Gk., 1887). Jelp, W. E., a Grammar of the Greek Language. 2 vols. (1866). XXVllI A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT JoHANNESSOHN, M., Der Gebrauch der Kasus und der Praposi- tionen in der Septuaginta. Teil I (1910). Jolly, Ein Kapitel d. vergl. Syntax. Der Konjunktiv und Op- tativ. , Geschichte des Infinitivs im Indog. (1873). Joy, On the Syntax of Some Prepositions in the Greek Dialects (1905). J. of Phil., The Journal of Philology (London). J. B. L., The Journal of Biblical Literature (Boston). J. H. S., The Journal of Hellenic Studies (London). J. T. S., The Journal of Theological Studies (London). JiJLiCHER, A., Introduction to the N. T. Tr. by Ward (1904). Kaebst, J., Geschichte des hellenistischen Zeitalters (1901). KA.IBEL, Stil und Text der 'kQ-qvaluv Uokirela. Kalker, F., Questiones de elocutione Polybiana (1880). Kallenberg, Stud, iiber den griech. Artikel (1891). Kautzsch, E., Grammatik d. bibl. Aram. (1884). Kennedy, H. A. A., Recent Research in the Language of the N. T. (The Expos. T., xii, 1901). , Sources of N. T. Greek (1895). , St Paul and the Mystery Religions (1913). Kenyon, F. G., Evidence of the Papyri for Textual Criticism of the N. T. (1905). , Handbook to the Textual Grit, of the N. T. 2d ed. (1912). , Palaeography of the Greek Papyri (1899). , Papyri (Hastings' D. B., extra vol., 1904). King and Cookson, The Principles of Sound and Inflexion as Illustrated in the Greek and Latin Languages (1888). Krauss, S., Griechische und lateinische Lehnworter in Talmud, Midrasch und Targum. I (1898), II (1899). Krebs, F., Die Prapositionen bei Polybius (1882. Schanz' Bei- trage). , Die Prapositionsadverbien in der spateren hist. Gracitat. Tl. I (1889). , Zur Rektion der Kasus in der spateren hist. Gracit. (1887- 1890). Krenkel, Josephus und Lukas (1894). Kbetschmer, p., Die Einl. in die Geschichte der griech. Sprache (1906). , Die Entstehung der Koo-i? (Sitz. ber. d. Wien. Akad., 1900). , Die griech. Vaseninschriften ihrer Sprache nach untersucht (1894). LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO Xxix Kkumbacher, K., Beitrage zu einer Geschichte der griech. Sprache (Kuhn's Zeitschr., 1885, pp. 481-545). , Das Problem d. neugriech. fchriftsprache (1902). , Das Programm des neuen Thesaurus d. griech. Spr. (1909). , Die griech. Lit. des Mittelalters (Kultur d. Gegenwart, Tl. I, Abt. viii, 1905). Kuhnek-Blass, Ausfuhrliche Grammatik d. griech. Sprache. 3. Aufl. of Kiihner. Teil I, Bde. I, II (1890, 1892). Kuhner-Gerth, Ausf. Gramm. d. griech. Spr. 3. Aufl. of Ktihner. Tl. II, Bde. I, II (1898, 1904). KuHRiNG, G., De praepositionum Graecarum in chartis Aegyp- tiacis (1906). KuPFF, Der Gebr. d. Opt. bei Diod. Sic. (1903). K. Z., Kuhn's Zeitschrift ftir vergl. Sprachforschung (Berhn). Laposcade, Infl. du Lat. sur le Grec (Bibl. de I'Ecole des hautes fit., 1892, pp. 83-158). Lagarde, p. de, Septuagintastudien. I (1891). Lake, K., The Text of the N. T. 4th ed. (1908). Lambert, fitude sur le dialecte 6olien (1903). Lang, A., Homer and His Age (1906). Laqueur, E,., Questiones epigraphicae et papyxologicae selectae (1904). La Roche, Beitrage zur griech. Gr. (1883). , Das Augment des griech. Verbums (1882). Laughlin, T. C, The Solecisms of the Apocalypse (1902). Lautensach, Verbalflexion der attischen Inschriften (1887). Lefevre, Race and Language (1909). Lell, Der Absolut-Akk. im Griech. bis zu Aristoteles (1892). Leutner, W. G., The Article in Theocritus (1907). LiDDELL and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon. 7th ed. (1882). LiETZMANN, H., Die Mass. Philologie und das N. T. (N. Jahrb. f. kl. Alt., 1908, Bd. 21). , Griechische Papyri ausgewahlt und erklart. 2. Aufl. (1910). LiGHTFOOT, Trench, Ellicott, The Revision of the N. T. (1873). Lipsius, K. H. A., Grammatische Untersuchungen tiber die bibl. Gracitat (1863). Livingston, The Greek Genius and Its Meaning to Us (1912). LoBECK, C. A., Phrynichi ecloga nominum et verborum Atticorum (1820). Lock, W., The Bible and Christian Life (1905). LoiSY, A., Histoire critique du texte et des versions de la Bible (1892). XXX A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT LoTTicH, B., De sermone vulgari Atticorum (1881). LtTTZ, Die Kasus-Adverbien bei att. Rednern (1891). Mabvig, Bemerk. iiber einige Punkte des Griech. (184'8). , Syntax of the Greek Language (1880). Mahafft, J. P., A Survey of Greek Civilization (1897). , Greek Life and Thought (1896). , Progress of Hellenism in Alexander's Empire (1905). , The Greek World under Roman Sway (1890). , What Have the Greeks Done for Civihzation? (1909). Margoliouth, D. S., Language of the O. T. (Hastings' D. B.). Makgolis, The Particle ij in 0. T. Gk. (Am. J. of Sem. Lang, and Lit., July, 1909). Marshall, J. T., The Aramaic Gospel (The Expositor, ser. IV, ii, iii, iv, vi, viii; The Expos. Times, iv, 260). Marti, K., Kurzgef. Gr. d. bibl. aram. Spr. (1911). Mayser, E., Grammatik der griech. Papyri aus der Ptolemaerzeit. Laut- und Wortlehre (1906). Meillet, a., Introduction k I'^tude comparative des langues indo- europeennes (1908). 3d ed. (1912). , L'aoriste en lat. (Revue de Phil., 1897, p. 81 f.). , Notes d'fitymologie Grecque (1896). Meister, R., Beitrage zur Lautlehre d. LXX (1909). , Der syntakt. Gebrauch d. Genitivs in den kret. Dialekt- inschriften (Indog. Forsch., XVIII, pp. 133-204). • , Die griech. Dialekte. 2 Bde. (1882-1889). , Prol. zu einer Gramm. d. LXX (1907). Meisterhans-Schwyzbr, Gramm. d. attischen Inschriften. 3. Aufl. (1900) of Meisterhans. Merriam, a. C., Temporal Coincidence of the Aor. Part, with the Principal Verb (Proc. Am. Phil. Assoc, 1877). Meyer, A., Jesu Muttersprache (1896). Meyer, G., Griech. Grammatik. 3. Aufl. (1896). Meyer, L., Griech. Aoriste (1879). , Vergl. Gr. d. griech. und lat. Spr. 2 Bde. 2. Aufl. (1882^ 1884). Meyer-Lubke, Gramm. d. roman. Spr. 3 Bde. (1890-1899). Middleton, Analogy in Syntax (1892). , The Doctrine of the Greek Article (1855). Milden, The Limitations of the Predicate Position in Greek. Miller, C. W. E., The Limitation of the Imperative in the Attic Orators (Am. J. Ph., 1892, pp. 399-436). MiLLiGAN, G., Selections from the Greek Papyri (1910). LIST OP WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO XXxi MiLLiGAN, G., The Greek Papyri with Special Reference to their Value for N. T. Study (1912). , The N. T. Documents (1913^. MiTSOTAKis, Praktische Gr. d. neugriech. Schrift- und Umgangs- sprache (1891). MiTTEis und WiLCKEN, Grundziige und Chrestomathie der Papy- ruskunde. 2 Bde. (1912). MoFFATT, J., The New Testament. 4 New Translation (1913). MoMMSEN, T., Beitrage zur Lehre der griech. Prapositionen (1886-1895). , Die Prap. (xhv und Mtrd bei den nachhom. Epikem (1879). Monro, D. B., Homeric Grammar (1882). 2d ed. (1891). First ed. used. MoxTLTON, J. H., A Clrammar of N. T. Greek. Vol. I, Prolego- mena (1906). 3d ed. (1908). , Characteristics of N. T. Greek (The Expositor, 1904). , Einleitung in die Sprache des N. T. (1911). , Grammatical Notes from the Papyri (The Expositor, 1901, pp. 271-282; 1903, pp. 104-121, 423-439. The Classical Re- view, 1901, pp. 31-37, 434^41; 1904, pp. 106-112, 151-155). , Introduction to N. T. Greek (1895). 2d ed. (1904). , Language of Christ (Hastings' One-vol. D. B., 1909). , N. T. Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery (Cambr. Bibl. Essays, 1909, pp. 461-505). , The Science of Language (1903). MouLTON, W. F., and Geden, A. S., A Concordance to the Greek Testament (1897). MouLTON and Milligan, Lexical Notes from the Papyri (The Expos., 1908—)- , The Vocabulary of the N. T. Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources. Part I (1914). MozLET, F. W., Notes on the Bibl. Use of the Present and Aorist Imperative (Journ. of Theol. Stud., 1903, iv, pp. 279-282). MuLLACH, F., Grammatik d. griech. Vulgarsprache (1856). MuLLEK, H. C, Hist. Gramm. d. hellen. Sprache (1891). MtJLLEK, I., Handbuch d. klass. Altertumswissenschaft (1885 — ). MtJLLBR, Max, Three Lectures on the Science of Language (1891). Murray, G., A History of Ancient Greek Lit. (1897). MuTZBAUBR, C, Die Grundbedeutung des Konjunktivs und Op- tativs und ihre Entwick. im Griech. (1908). , Die Grundlagen der griech. Tempuslehre und des hom. Tempusgebrauchs. I (1893), 11 (1909). XXXii A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Nachmanson, E., Beitrage zur Kenntnis der altgriech. Volks- sprache (1910). , Epigraphisch-grammatische Bemerkungen (Eranos 11, 1912). , Laute und Formen der magnetischen Inschriften (1903). Nageli, T., Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus. a — e (1905). Navahbe, fitude sur les particules grecques (R. E. A., vii, pp. 116-130). Nestle, E., Einfiihrung in das grieeh. N. T. 2. Aufl. (1899). Introd. to the Textual Grit, of the N. T. (Tr. 1901). , Novum Testamentum Graece. 8th ed. (1910). , Septuagint (Hastings' D. B., 1902). , Septuaginta-Studien. I-V (1886-1907). , Zum neutest. Griechisch (Z. N. W., vii, 1906). Neubaueh, Studia Biblica (1885). N. k. Z., Neue kirchhche Zeitsehrift (Leipzig). JV. Jahrb. kl. Alt., Neue Jahrbiicher fiir das klass. Altertum (Leipzig). NiLssoN, Kausalsatze im Grieeh. bis Aristoteles. I., Die Poesie. NoBDEN, E., Die antike Kunstprosa. 2. Aufl. (1909). Oektel, H., Lectures on the Study of Language (1902). Ogden, De infinitivi finaUs vel consecutivi constr. apud priscos poetas Graecos (1913). Paley, Greek Particles and their Combinations (1881). Pallis, a., a Few Notes on the Gospel (1903). , -H Nm AloB^kv (1902). The N. T. (Gospels) in modem Greek vernacular. Pater, W., The Renaissance (1904). Paul, H., Principles of the History of Language (1888). Tr. Petersen, W., Greek Diminutives in -toe (1910). Pfeifauf, Der Artikel vor Personen- und Gottemamen bei Thuk. • und Herod. (1908). Pfister, Die parataktische Darstellungsform in der volkstiim- lichen Erzahlung (Woch. f. klass. Phil., 1911, pp. 809-813). Ph. W., Philologische Wochenschrift. Ph. Z., Philologus: Zeitsehrift f. d. kl. Alt. (Gottingen). Postgate, J. p.. Contrasts of Ov and M17 (Cambr. Phil. Jour., 1886). Prellwitz, Etym. Worterbuch d. grieeh. Sprache (1893). 2d ed. (1905). Preuschen, E., VoUstandiges griechisch-deutsches Handworter- buch zu den Schriften d. N. T. und d. iibrigen urchristlichen Literatur (1908). LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO XXXIU Pr. Rev., The Princeton Review (Princeton). PsiCHARi, J., Essai sur le grec de la Septante (Rev. des etudes juives, April, 1908). * , Essais de grammaire historique n6o-grecque (1886-1889). Radermacher, L., Neut. Grammatik. Das Griechisch des N. T. im Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache (1911). Ramsay, W. M., Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. 2 vols. (1895, 1897). , St. Paul the Traveller (1896). R. E., Herzog-Hauck's Realencyclopadie. R. 6. Gr., Revue des 6tudes grecques (Paris). Reffel, tJber den Sprachgebr. d. Agathias. Reik, Der Opt. bei Polyb. und Philo (1907). Reinach, S., Pap. grecs et d^motiques (1905). Reinhold, H., De graecitate Patrum (1898). Reisart, Zur Attraktion der Relativsatze in der griech. Prosa. Reitzenstein, Geschichte d. griech. Etym. (1897). Renaud, The Distributed Emphasis of the Pers. Pronoun (1884). Rev. and Exp., The Review and Expositor (Louisville). Rev. d. Ling., Revue de Linguistique de la Phil, compar^e (Paris). Rev. d. Ph., Revue de Philologie (Paris). Rev. of Th. & Ph., Review of Theology and Philosophy (Edin- burgh). Rh. M., Rheinisches Museum (Bonn). RiDGEWAY, W., The Early Age of Greece. Vol. I (1901). Riemann and Goelzer, Grammaire Compar6e du Grec et du Latin. I (1897), II (1901). RiES, Was ist Syntax? (1894). Roberts, A Short Proof that Greek was the Language of Jesus (1893). Roberts-Gardner, Introduction to Greek Epigraphy (1883). Robertson, A. T. A Short Grammar of the Greek N. T. (1908). 3d ed. (1912). , Syllabus on N. T. Greek Syntax (1900). Robertson-Bonaccorsi, Breve grammatica del Nuovo Testa- mento greco (1910). Robertson-Grosheide, Beknopte Grammatica op het Grieksche Nieuwe Testament (1912). Robertson-Montet, Grammaire du grec du N. T. (1911). Robertson-Stocks, Kurzgefafite Grammatik des neut. Griechisch (1911). Rose, A., Christian Greece and Living Greek (1898). XXxiv A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT RossBERG, C, De prapos. graecarum in chartis aegyptiis ptolem. aetatis usu (1909). RouFFiAC, J., Recherches sur les caracteres du grec dans le N. T. d'aprSs les inscriptions de Priene (1911). Rutherford, W. G., A Chapter in the History of Annotation (1905). , The New Phrynichus (1881). RtJGER, Prap. bei Joh. Antiochenus (1896). , Prap. bei Pausanias (1889). Sanday, W., The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel (1905). Sandys, J. E., A History of Classical Scholarship. I-III (1906- 1908). Sayce, a. H., Introduction to the Science of Language (1880). , Language (Encyc. Brit., 11th ed., 1910). , Principles of Comparative Philology (1875). ScHAEFER, Das Partizip des Aor. bei d. Tragikem (1894). ScHAFF, P., A Companion to the Greek N. T. and Engl. Vers. 3d ed. (1889). ScHANZ, M., Beitrage zur histor. Syntax d. griech. Sprache (1882—). Schilling, D., Comm. exeg.-philol. in Hebraism, d. N. T. (1886). ScHiRLiTZ, S. C, Anleitung zur Kenntnis d. neut. Grundsprache (1863). ScHLACHTER, Statist. Unters. uber den Gebr. der Temp, und Modi bei einzelnen griech. Schriftst. (1908). ScHLAGETER, J., Der Wortschatz d. auiSerhalb Attikas gefimde- nen Inschriften (1912). , Zur Laut- und Formenlehre d. aui5. Att. gef . attischen Inschr. (1908). Schleicher, A., Compendium d. vergl. Gr. d. indog. Sprachen. 4. Aufl. (1876). ScHMiD, J., tJber den gnomischen Aor. des Griech. (1894). ScHMiD, W., Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretem. 4 Bde. (1887-1897). Schmidt, De Articulo in nominibus propiis apud Att. scriptores (1890). Schmidt, W., De Elavil Josephi elocutione (1894). ScHMiTT, P., tJber den Ursprung des Substantivsatzes mit Rela- tivpartikeln im Griech. (1889). ScHOEMANN, Die Lehre von den Redet. nach den Alten (1862). Schroeder, Uber die form. Untersch. d. Redet. im Griech. und Lat. (1874). LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO XXXV ScHUEREB, A., A History of the Jew. P. in the Time of Jesus Christ. 5 vols. (1898). Tr. bjjMacpherson. ScHULZE, Der schriftsteller. Charakter und Wert des Petrus, Judas und Jakobus (1802). ScHULZE, W., Graeca Latina (1901). Schwab, 0., Hist. Syntax der griech. Komparative in d. klass. Lit. Heft I (1893), II (1894), III (1895). ScHWEiZEB, E., Bericht liber die Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der griech. Sprachw. mit Ausschlufi der Koin6 und der Dialekte in den Jahren 1890-1903 (Bursian's Jahresbericht, cxx, 1904, pp. 1-152). , Die griech. Sprache in Zeit d. Hellen. (N. Jahrb. f. kl. Alt., 1901, vii, viii). , Grammatik der pergamen. Inschriften (1898). , Neugriech. Syntax und altgriech. (N. Jahrb. f . kl. Alt., 1908, pp. 498-507). ScHWYZER (Schweizer), E., Die Weltsprachen des Altertums (1902). ScoMP, H. A., The Case Absolute in the N. T. (Bibl. Sacra, April, 1902). Seymour, T. D., Homeric Language and Verse (1902). , Life in the Homeric Age (1907). , The Use of the Gk. Aor. Part. (Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc, XII, 1881, pp. 88 £f.). S. H., Sanday and Headlam on Romans. Sharp, G., Remarks on the Definitive Article in the Greek of the N. T. (1803). Sheffield, A. D., Grammar and Thinking (1912). SiMCOX, W. H., The Language of the N. T. (1890). , The Writers of the N. T. SiMONSON, A., A Greek Grammar. 2 vols. (1903, 1908). Smith, R. H., The Theory of Conditional Sentences in Greek and Latin (1894). Smyth, H. W., The Sounds and Inflexions of Greek Dialects. I, Ionic (1894). SoDEN, H. von. Die Schriften des N. T. in ihrer altesten erreich- baren Textgestalt. Teil I, Untersuch. (1902-1910) ; Teil II, Text und Apparat (1913). , Griechisches N. T. Text mit kurzem Apparat (1913). SoLMSEN, F., Beitrage zur griech. Wortforschung (1909). , Inscriptiones graecae selectae (1905). , Untersuch. zur griech. Laut- und Verslehre (1901). XXXVi A GKAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Sophocles, E. A., Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Period (1888). SouTEK, A., Novum Testamentum Graece (1910). The Revisers' Text with a New Apparatus Criticus. Spieker, The Gen. Abs. in the Attic Orators (Am. J. of Ph., VI, pp. 310-343). St. B., Standard Bible Dictionary (Ed. by M. W. Jacobus, 1909). Stahl, J. M., Kritisch-historische Syntax des griech. Verbums der klass. Zeit. (1907). Staurac, tJber den Gebr. d. Gen. bei Herodot. Steinthal, H., Geschichte der Sprachwiss. bei den Griech. und Romern. 2. Aufl. (1890-1891). , Introduction to the Psychology and Science of Language (1900). Sterenbourg, The Use of the Cond. Sentence in the Alex. Ver- sion of the Pentateuch (1908). Sterrbtt, J. R. S., Homer's Iliad with Grammar (1907). Stocks, H., Das neutestamentliche Griechisch im Lichte der mo- dernen Sprachforschung (Neue kirchhche Zeitschrift, XXIV. Jahrgang, 633-700). Strack, H. L., Grammatik des bibl. Aram. 4. Aufl. (1905). Strong, Logeman and Wheeler, Introduction to the Study of the History of Lang. (1891). Sturm, J., Geschichtl. Entwick. der Konstrukt. mit ILpiv (1882). Sturtevant, Studies in Greek Noun Formation (Labial Termi- nations, I, 1910; II, 1911; III and IV, 1913). SusEMiHL, Gesch. der griech. Lit. in der Alexandrinerzeit. I (1891), II (1892). SiJTTERLiN, Gesch. der Verba denom. in Altgriech. (1891). Sweet, History of Language (1900). Swetb, H. B., Introduction to the O.T. in Greek (1900). 2Ed.,'14. , The Apocalypse of St. John (1906). , The 0. T. in Greek according to the Septuagint (1887). 3 vols. SzuczTJRAT, De Inf. Hom. Usu (1902). TiLFY, Chron. und Topogr. der griech. Ausspr. nach d. Zeugnisse der Inschr. (1893). Thackeray, H. St., A Grammar of the 0. T. in Greek. Vol. I, Introduction, Orthography and Accidence (1909). , Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Thought (1900). Thayer, J. H., Greek-Enghsh Lexicon of the N. T. (1887). , Language of the N. T. (Hastings' D. B., 1900). LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO XXXvii Theimer, a., Beitrage zur Kenntnis des Sprachgebr. im N. T. (1896). Th. L.-Z., Theologische Literaturziitung (Leipzig). Th. R., Theologische Rundschau (Tubingen). Th. St. u. Kr., Theol. Studien und Kritiken (Gotha). Thieme, G., Die Inschr. von Magnesia am Maander und das N. T. (1906). Tholitck, Beitrage zur Spracherklarung des N. T. Thompson, E. M., Handbook of Greek and Latin PalsBOgraphy (1893). New ed. (1913). Thompson, F. E., A Syntax of Attic Greek. New ed. (1907). Thomson, J. E. H., The Language of Palestine during the Time of Our Lord (Temple Bible Diet.). Thomson, P., The Greek Tenses in the N. T. (1895). Thouvenin, p., Les Negations dans le N. T. (Revue de Philologie, 1894). Thumb, A., Die Forsch. iiber die hellen. Spr. in den Jahren 1902-1904 (Arch. f. Pap. 3, pp. 443-473). , Die griech. Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus (1901). , Die sprachgesch. Stell. des bibl. Griech. (Theol. Rund., 1902). , Handbuch der griech. Dial. (1909). , Handbuch d. neugriech. Volkssprache. 2. Aufl. (1910). , Handbuch des Sanskrits. I, Grammatik (1905). , Unters. iiber d. Sp. Asper im Griech. (1889). Thumb-Angus, Handbook of the Modern Greek Vernacular (1912). TiscH., Novum Testamentum Graece, by C. Tischendorf. Edi- tio octava critica major. 2 vols. (1869-1872). Trench, R. C., Synonyms of the N. T. 11th ed. (1890). Deutsche Ausgabe von Werner (1907). TsouNTAS and Manatt, The Mycenaean Age (1897). Tucker, T. G., Introduction to the Natural History of Language (1908). Vandacle, L'Optatif Grec (1897). Veitch, W., Greek Verbs, Irregular and Defective. 2d ed. (1871). ViERECK, P., Die griech. Papyruskunde (1899-1905). 34. Jahr- gang 1906. HI. Abt. (1907). , Die PapyrusUteratur in den 70 Jahren bis 1898 (1900). 27. Jahrgang 1899. III. Abt. , Sermo Graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus (1888). ViERKE, De /iii Particulae cum Indicativo Conjunctae Usu An- tiquiore (1876). XXXviii A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Vincent and Dickson, A Handbook to Modern Greek (1887). ViTEAU, J., Essai sur la syntaxe des voix dans le grec du N. T. (Rev. de Phil., 1894). , fitude sur le grec du N. T. I, Le Verbe (1893) ; II, Le Sujet (1896). VoGEL, H., Zur Charakteristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil (1899). VoGBiNZ, Grammatik d. hom. Dial. (1889). VoLKEK, F., Papyrorum graecorum syntaxis specimen (1900). , Syntax d. griech. Papyri. I, Der Artikel (1903). VoTAW, C. W., The Use of the Infinitive in Bibl. Greek (1896). Wackernagel, J., Das Dehnungsgesetz der griech. Komposita (1889). , Die hellenistische Gemeinsprache. (Die Kult. d. Gegenwart, Tl. I, Abt. viii, 1905, pp. 98-305). , Die Sprache des Plut. etc. Telle I, II (1895-1896). Wagner, R., Questiones de epigrammatis graecis ex lapidibus coUectis grammaticae (1883). Walch, Observationes in Matt, ex graecis inscriptionibus (1779). Walker, D., Elementary Greek Syntax (1897). Wabfield, B. B., An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the N. T. New ed. (1914). Warren, Winifred, A Study of Conjunctional Temporal Clauses in Thucyd. (1897). Weber, P., Entwick. der Absichtssatze. Heft I (1884), Heft II (1885). Wecklein, Curae epigraphicae ad grammaticam graecam et ad poetas scenicos pertinentes (1869). Weiss, B., Der Gebr. des Artikels bei den Gottesnamen (Th. Stu. u. Krit., 1911, pp. 319-392). — -, Textkritik (1894 ff.). Weiss, J., Beitrage zur paulinischen Rhetorik (1897). Wellhausen, J., Einl. in die drei ersten Evangelien (1905). 2. Ausg. (1911). Wendland, p., Christentum und Hellenismus (1907). , Hellen.-r6m. Kultur. 3. Aufl. (1912). Wesseley, C, Die lat. Elemente in d. Gracitat d. agypt. Pap. (Wien. Stud., xxiv, 1902). , Lit. der Papyruskunde (Stud, zur Palaogr. und Pap. I, 1901, pp. 17-20; II, 1902, pp. 43-52). , Proleg. ad papyrorum graecorum novam coUectionem eden- dam (1883). LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO XXXIX Westcott, B. F., Language of the N. T. (Smith's B. D.). W. H., Westcott and Hort's Edition of the N. T. in the Original Greek. Numerous eds. • , The N. T. in the Original Greek. Introduction and Appen- dix (1882). Weymouth, On the Rendering into English of the Greek Aorist and Perfect (1894). Wheeler, B. I., The Whence and the Whither of the Modern Science of Language (1905). Whiblby, L., Companion to Greek Studies (1905). 2d ed. (1906). Whitney, S. W., The Revisers' Greek Text. 2 vols. (1892). Whitney, W. D., A Sanskrit Grammar (1891). 4th ed. (1913). , Language and the Study of Language (1867). , Life and Growth of Language (1875). Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, U. von. Die griech. 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 liber die hellen. Spr. in den Jahren 1902-1904 (Archiv f. Pap., 1906, pp. 443-473). 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 Ltine- 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—). Winer-Thaybr, a Grammar of the Idiom of the N. T. (1869). Various eds. WiTKOwsKi, St., Bericht iiber die Lit. zur Koin6 aus den Jahren 1898-1902 (Bursian's Jahrb. CXX, 1904, pp. 153-256). , Bericht iiber die Lit. zur Koin6 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. Weight, J., A Comparative Grammar of the Greek Language (1912). WuNDT, 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). Zabncke, 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). ZiEMEH, Vergl. Syntax der indog. Kompar. (1884). Z. N.-T. W., Zeitschrift fur neut. Wissenschaft (GieBen). PART I INTEODUCTION CHAPTER I NEW MATEEIAL 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 linguistic 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. grammatical study by his Neutestamentliches 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 hke 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 diuturna consuetudine quasi naturae 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 still 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 OF 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, theological. He adhered to his task and lived to see "an enlightened philology, as deduced and taught by Herrmann and his school," triumph over the previous "unbridled hcense."i II. The Service of Winer. (a) Winer'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 appUcation 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) Winer 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. Gottheb Liinemann revised and improved the Neutestamentliches 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 modern Greek. The various editions of Winer-Thayer and Winer-Moulton have served nearly two generations of English and American scholars. (c) ScHMiEDEL. But now 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 Wilhelm Schmiedel, 1894—. ' Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898, p. 20. He adds, "Der alte Winer war seiner Zeit ein Protest des philologischen Gewissens gegen die Willkur eines anmaCenden Empiricismus." Of. also Exp., Jan., 1908, p. 63. NEW MATERIAL 5 (d) BuTTMANN. Buttmann's Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachgdtraiichs had appeared in 1859 and was translated by Thayer as Buttmann's Grammar ofH-T. GreeA;(1873), an able work. (e) Blass. It is not till the Grammxitik des neutestamentlichen Grieckisch 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.^ ni. 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. (a) Deissiwann. 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 Bihelstudien, and his Neue Bihelstvdien followed in 1897. The new era has now fairly begun. In 1901 the English translation of both volumes by Grieve appeared as Bihle 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 spraehl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898, p. 5: "Durch neue Erkennt- nisse befruchtet steht die griechische Philologie gegenwartig im Zeiohen einer vielverheifienden Renaissance, die fordert von der spraohlichen Erforschung der griechischen Bibel, daC 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: "Nieht die Profangracitat ist der sprachgeschichtliehe Gegensatz zur 'biblischen,' sondern das classisohe Griechisch. Die neueren Funde zur Ge- schichte der griechischen Sprache zeigen, dafS die Eigentiimlichkeiten des 'biblischen' Formen- und Wortschatzes (bei den original-griechischen Schrif- ten auch der Syntax) im groiSen und ganzen Eigentiimlichkeiten des spateren und zwar zumeist des unHterarischen Griechisch iiberhaupt sind." 6 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ogy of the Bible. His LicM vom Osten (1908) was his next most important work (Ldght 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. Thimib published his great book on the KOLvq, Die griechische Sprache im Zdtalter des Hel- lenismus, which has done so much to give the true picture of the Koivi). He had already in 1895 produced his Handbuch der neu- griechischm Volkssprache. In 1912 the second enlarged edition was issued in EngUsh by S. Angus, as Handbook of Modern Greek Vernacular. This book at once took front place for the study of the modem Greek by Enghsh students. It is the only book in English that confines itself 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 papyri for grammatical purposes. He demonstrated that the Greek of the N. T. is in the main just the vernacular Koivi] of the papyri. In 1911 the Prolegomena appeared in German as Einhitung in die Sprache des Neuen Testaments. (d) Other Contributions. It is not possible to mention here aU 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, Stude 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 Neur testamentliche Grammatik is in fact more a grammar of the Koivi] 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 numerous additions to the l^ut- 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 EngUsh appeared in 1912. Many special treatises of great value have appeared (see Bibliography), by men like Angus, Buttmarm, Heinrici, Thieme, Vogel, Votaw, J. Weiss, Wellhausen. (e) Richness of Material. Now indeed it is the extent of the material demanding examination that causes embarrassment. And only thirty 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 confirmation 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: TpafifjiaTiKri kanv kixireipLa toov Tapa xoiTjTais re aal avyypa- 4>ivaLv (is kirl t6 voKv Xeyo/ikvcav. 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 little 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. fiir vergl. Sprach- forsch., 1882, p. 484: "Eine zusammenhangende Darstellung des Entwick- lungsganges der griechischen Sprache ist gegenwartig nicht moglich. Auf allzu vielen Punkten eines langen und viel verschlungenen Weges gebricht es an den Vorarbeiten, welche fiir ein solches Unternehmen unerlaBlich 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 Thrax mentions six M^pr; ingi'ammar: 6.vi.ypuns, ii'liyritns, y'Kwaiiav re koJ Jo-to- piuv ;rp4x"Pos inrbboait, trvnoKoylai eSpTjcris, i,va\oylai ixXoyiaiibi, Kpliris xoi- ilii6,Taiv. A generous allowance truly I * Morning Post, Lond,, May 6, 1905. 8 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IV. The New Grammatical Equipment for N. T. Study. (a) Comparative Philology. We must consider the great ad- vance in comparative philology. The next chapter will deal somewhat at length with various phases of the historical method of linguistic study. 1. The Linguistic Revolution. A revolution has been wrought in the study of language. It must be confessed that grammatical investigation has not always been conducted on the inductive principle nor according to the historical method. Too often the rule has been drawn from a limited range of facts. What is afterwards found to conflict with a rule is called an "exception." Soon the exceptions equal or surpass the rule. Unfortunately the ancients did not have the benefit of our distinctions of "regular" and "irregular." Metaphysical speculation with lofty superi- ority to the facts is sometimes charged upon grammarians.^ "Grammar and logic do not coincide."^ Comparative grammar is merely the historical method applied to several languages to- gether instead of only one.^ 2. A Sketch of Greek Grammatical History. The Greek has had its own history, but it is related to the history of kindred tongues. "From the days of Plato's Kratylus downward . . . the Greek disputed as to whether language originated by convention (yofuo) or by nature {^iiaei)."^ 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 etjTnology since.' This period of grammatical activity came after the great crea- tive period of Greek literature was over, and in Alexandria, not ' So Dr. John H. Kerr, sometime Prof, of N. T. in the Pac. Theol. Sem., in conversation with me. * Paul, Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., 1888, p. 18. » lb., pp. 1 £f. 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. 269 f. « lb., p. 261. 8 Op. cit, pp. 629-643. ' See Sayce, Intr. to the Sci. of Lang., 1880, vol. I, p. 19 f.; Dionysius Thrax's rkxp-n ypaniiormi] was developed into a system by Apollonius 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 wa% historical grammar." With Aristotle 6 ypaixiiaTiKos was one that busied himself with the let- ters (ypannara). He was not ay pa finaros; ^ ypajxixaTiKi) 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 ypaniiaruri more hke iipi.Ti,Kri. 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 Bernhardy 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- 1 See Jebb in Whibley'B Comp. to Gk. Stud., 1905, p. 147 f. * See Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. bei den Griech. und Rom., 2. Tl., 1891, p. 179. ' F. Hoffmann, Uber die Entwickelung dea Begrifis der Gr. bei den Alten, 1891, p. 1. * lb., p. 144. The early Gk. grammarians were " ohne riohtiges 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 Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, p. 1. ' See Kretschmer, op. dt., p. 4. 8 F. Blass, Hermen. und Krit., 1892, p. 157 f. ' Steinthal, Gesch. etc., 2. Tl., 1891, p. 1, calls 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 Latinam non solum est necessitas propter intelligendam Grammaticam Graecam, sed omnino neces- sarium est ad intelligentiam Latinae Grammaticae." " Wissensch. Synt. der griech. Spr., 1829, pp. 7, 12. 10 A GRAMMAR OF 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 grammatical 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 afiinity, 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 believing them to have sprung from some common 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." 6 Pott's great work laid the foundation of scientific phonetics.^ Other great names in this new science are W. von 1 Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1901, p. 47. ' See C. Herrmann, Philos. Gr., 1858, p. 422: "Die Natur der philoso- phischen Grammatik 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 linguistic science." J. H. Moulton, Sci. of Lang., 1903, p. 4. * See his Vergl. Gr., 1857. He began publication on the subiect in 1816. ^ Delbnick, Intr. to the Study of Lang., 1882, p. 25. 6 Etym. Forsoh. auf dem Gebiet der indoger. Spr., 1833-1836. NEW MATEBIAL 11 Humboldtji Jacob Griinm,^ Schlegel,^ Schleicher,* Max Miiller/ Curtius,* Verner/ Whitney,* L. Meyer.' But in recent years two men, K. ^rugmann and B. Delbriick, have organized the previous knowledge into a great monumental work, GrundriS der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogerma- nischen S-prachen}° This achievement is as yet the high-water- mark in comparative grammar. Brugmann has issued a briefer and cheaper edition giving the main results." Delbriick 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 GrundriS Brugmann has Bde. I, II, while Delbriick treats syntax in Bde. 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 ManuaU'^ 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. * 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 Verner's law, a variation from Grimm's law, according to which p, t and k, pass into b, 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. 9 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. 12 Die Grundl. 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 GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT of Jolly,! Delbruck,^ Sweet,^ Paul/ Oertel,^ Moulton,« Whit- ney,' Max MilUer,* 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. grammars." ' (b) Advance in General 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" and Gerth," furnishing a magnificent apparatus for the advanced student. Hirt's handbook" gives the modern knowledge in briefer form, a compendium of comparative gram- mar, while G. Meyer 1^ and Brugmann" are professedly on the 1 Schulgr. und Spraohw., 1874. 2 Intr. to the Study of Lang., 1882; 5th Germ. ed. 1908. tiber die Resultate der vergl. Synt., 1872. Cf. Wheeler, The Whence and Whither of the Mod. Sci. of Lang., 1905; Henry, Pr6cia 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. 8 Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891. » Prin. of Comp. Philol., 1875. 10 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 wesentlich richtiges Verstand- nis . . . fiir den Entwioklungsgang der Sprache." Brugmann, Griech. Gr., 1885, p. 4. Cf. p. 3 in third ed., 1901. '1 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. " Ausfuhrl. Gr. der griech. Spr. von Dr. Raphael Kuhner, 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. Bernhard 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 Enghsh a Comp. Gr. of the Gk. Lang. NEW MATERIAL 13 basis of comparative philology. 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. Sl?hanz^ 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-Allen and Goodwin are too well known to call for remark. New grammars, Uke F. E. Thompson's (1907, new ed.) and Simonson's (2 vols., 1903, 1908), continue to appear. (c) Critical Editions of Greek Atjthoes. The Greek authors in general have received minute and exhaustive investigation. The modern 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 iEschylus, 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. Cf. also Wackemagel, Die griech. Spr. (pp. 291-318), Tl. I, Abt. VIII, Kultur der Gegenw. 2 Beitr. zur histor. Synt. der griech. Spr., Tl. I. Cf . also Hubner, Grundr. zur Vorlesung uber die griech. Synt., 1883. A good bibliography. Krum- bacher, Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn's Zeitschr. etc., 1885, pp. 481-545. 8 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 Bernhardy, Griech. Lit., Tl. I, II, 1856; Christ, Gesch. der griech. Lit. bis auf die Zeit Justinians, 4. revid. Aufl., 1905; 5. Aufl., 1908 fl. Far- nell, Gk. Lyric Poetry, 1891, etc. A. Croiset and M. Croiset, An Abr. Hist, of Gk. Lit., transl. by Heffelbower, 1904. 14 A GRAMMAR OF 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 Apostolic Fathers, Greek Christian Apologists and the Apocryphal writings illus- trate the tendencies of N. T. speech. Cf. Reinhold, De Graec. 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 like 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 speciaUsm, and sometimes in linguistic study the speciahst has missed the larger and true conception of the whole. (e) The Greek Inscriptions. 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 (Corpus Inscriptionum Graecaruni) and Theodor Momm- sen (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum). For a careful 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 Mdander und das Neue Test. (1906), and Rouffiac, Recherches sur les Caracteres du Orec dans le N. T. d'apres les Inscriptions de Priene (1911). Deissmann, op. cit., p. 18, thinks that (i7a[7rr;]i' is rightly restored in a pagan inscription in Pisidia of the imperial period. For the Christian inscriptions see Deissmann, op. cit, 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- > Cf., for instance, Die Spr. des Plut. etc., Tl. I, II, 1895, 1896; Krebs, Die Prapositionen bei Polybius, 1881; Goetzeler, Einfi. des Dion. Hal. auf die Sprachgesch. etc., 1891; Schmidt, De Flavii JosepM eloc. observ. crit., 1894; Kaelker, Quest, de Eloc. Polyb. etc. 2 "A herd of speciaUsts 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. Civilization, 1897, p. 3. ' Mycenae and Tiryns^ 1878. NEW MATERIAL 15 lization at Mycenae.' 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 *l.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 ako 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 Iliad and the Odyssey would pick to pieces the Paradise Lost and The Antiquary. "The hnguistic attack upon their age may be said to have at last definitely failed." (T. W. AUen, 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. « Verbalfl. der att. Insohr., 1887. « Antiquit6s hellgn., 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 Sohnsen, Inscr. Graecae ad iUustr. Dial, sel.; Audollent, Defix. TabeUae, 1904; Michel, Rec. d'inscr. Graec, 1883; Dittenberger, Or. Graeci Inscr. Sel., 1903-1905; Roberts- Gardner, Intr. to Gk. Epigr., 1888. See Bibhography. 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'Egypte, 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 I'HeUSnisme figypt., 1908, p. vi. He says: "Les d^couvertes r6centes des archlologues ont dissipiS ces illusions. Des mines de Naucratis, de Daphn6, de Gurob, et de I'lUahoun (pour ne citer que les localit^s dans lesqueUes les recherches ont donn6 le plus de r^sultats) est sortie toute une nouvelle GrSce; une Gr6ce ant^rieure aux Ramsfis . . .; et, si les recherches se continuent, on ne tardera pas, nous en sommes convaincus, k acqudrir la certitude que les Grecs sont aussi anciens en figypte qu'en Grfece mfime." 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 Unear 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.' 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. (/) Fuller 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-Ach£ean tribes, and it was the Pelasgian tribe that made Mycenae glorious.' Homer sings the glories of the Achseans who displaced the Pelasgians, while "the people who play a great part in later times — Dorians, Cohans, lonians — are to Homer little 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 Thumb'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 Koivii see ch. III. * Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901, p. 526. « lb., p. 406. 8 Ridgeway, op. cU., vol. I, p. 337. . ' lb., pp. 666-670. 8 Hoffmann, Die griech. Dial., Bd. I, p. 7. A more recent treatment of the dialects is Thumb's Handb. dor 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 Koivii 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 ^olic, preserved in lyric odes of the Lesbian school. The earliest to be embodied in hterature 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-^Eolic 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. (fif) The Papyri and Ostbaca. 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 coimtries, 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" (Deissmanii, Light, etc., p. 55). The KOLv-ii 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 Koiv^ und die heut. kleinasiat. Mundarten-Unters. zur Gesch. etc., pp. 271-310. Cf. Chabert, Hist, sommaire des 6t. d'^pigr. grecque, 1906. 2 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. cit. > Op. cU. and Bd. II, 1893, Bd. Ill, 1898. See also various volumes of the Samml. der griech. Dial.-Inschr. « Handb. der griech. Dial., 1909. ' Gk. Dialects. s Les dialectes Doriens, 1891; cf. also H. W. Smyth, The Gk. Dial. (Ionic only), 1894. ' Lingua Greca Antica, 1888. Cf. Lambert, fit. sur le dial. 6oUen, 1903. 18 A GRAMMAB OF 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 on purpose write in the lan- guage of the street. It is not therefore a pecuUarity of the Koivfi that the vernacular Greek prevailed then. It always prevails. But the Kadapevovaa has secured a more disastrous supremacy over the Sri/ioTLKr] than in any other language. And we are now able to estimate the vernacular koivti, 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 now 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 Koivii is found in the papyri collections, many volumes of which have already been published (see Index of Quots. for fuller list), while I more are yet to be issued. Indeed, Prof. W. N. Steams® 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 contemporai-y and the later languages."' See the publications of Drs. Grenfell and Hunt,' ' Gr. der griech. Vulgarspr., 1856. 2 tJber das Xgyp.-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; FayAm Pap., 1900; Tebtunis Pap., 1902 (Univ. of Cal. Publ., pts. I, II, 1907; Hibeh Pap., pt. I, 1906; vol. IV, Oxyrhyn. Pap., pp. 265-271, 1904; Grenfell and Hunt, The Hibeh Pap., 1906, pt. I. In general, for the bibliography of the papyri 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 coll|ption (Paris, 1865), etc. For general discussions of the papyri see the writings of Wilcken,* Kenyon,' Hartel,*" Haberiin," 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. Milligan, 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.^o Jannaris,='i 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. Crit. 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; cf. Wessely's Corpus Pap., 1895. ' Griech. Papyrusurk., 1897; Archiv fur Papyrusf orach, und verw. Gebiete, 1900—. » Palffiog. of Gk. Pap., 1899; art. Papyri in Hast. D. B. (ext. vol.). "• t)her die griech. Pap. " Griech. Pap., Centralbl. fiir Bibliothekswesen, 14. 1 f. " Ber. iiber die altere Pap.-Lit., Jahresb. tiber d. Fortschr. etc., 1898, 1899. " Art. Papyri in Encyc. Bibl. " Bui. papyrologique in Rev. des fit. grecques since 1901. " Papyrus-Samml. since 1883. Cf. also Cronert, Mem. Grace. Hercul., 1903; Reinach, Pap. grecs et dSmot. etc., 1905. « Gr. der griech. Pap., Tl. I, Laut- und Wortl., 1906. " Prodromus Gr. Pap. Graec. aetatis Lagidarura, 26. Bd. der Abhandl. der Phil, class, der Acad, zu Krakau, 1897, pp. 196-260. " B. S., 1901; Light, etc.; art. Hell. Griech. in Hauck's Realencyc; art. Papyrus in Encyc. Bibl., etc. " Gr. Notes from the Pap., CI. Rev., 1901; Notes on the Pap., Exp., April, 1901, Feb., 1903; Characteristics of N. T. Gk., Exp., March to Dec, 1904; Prol. to Gr. of N. T. Gk., 1908, 3d ed., etc. "" Sources of N. T. Gk., 1895; Recent Res. in the Lang, of the N. T., Exp. Times, May, July, Sept., 1901. » Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897; The Term Koti-T^, CI. Rev., March, 1903. !« Art. Papyri in Hast. D. B. " Syntax der griech. Pap., Tl. I, 1903. ^* Die Forsch. iiber die hell. Spr. in d. Jahr. 1896-1901, Archiv fur Papsrus- forsch., 1903, pp. 396-426; Die Forsch. uber die hell. Spr. in d. Jahr. 1902-4, 20 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT These are all helpful, but Cronerti jg j-jght in urging that we need a comprehensive discussion of the syntax of the Ptolemaic papyri in order to set forth properly the relation of the papyri both to the N. T. Greek and to the older Attic. This will require time, for the mass of material is very great and is constantly growing.2 But enough already is clear for us to see the general bearing of the whole on the problem of the N. T. It is just here that the papyri have special interest and value. They give the language of business and life. The N. T. writers were partly aypaiinaroi, but what they wrote has become the chief Book of Mankind.' Hear Deissmann* again, for he it is who has done most to blaze the way here: "The papyrus-leaf is alive; one sees autographs, individual peculiarities of penmanship — in a word, men; manifold ghmpses are given into inmost nooks and crannies of personal life in which history has no eyes and historians no glasses ... It may seem a paradox, but it can safely be affirmed that the unliterary papyri are more important in these respects than the literary." Some of the papyri contain hterary works, fragments of Greek classics, portions of the LXX or of the N. T., though the great mass of them are non-literary documents, let- ters and business papers. Cf. also Deissmann, lAght, etc., p. 29. Unusual interest attaches to the fragments containing the Logia of Jesus, some of which are new, dating from the second or third centuries a.d. and showing a Gnostic tinge.^ It is no longer pos- sible to say, what even Friedrich Blass* did in 1894, that the N. T. Greek "is to be regarded something by itself and following laws of its own." That view is doomed in the presence of the papyri. Hatch' in particular laboured under this error. The N. T. Greek Archiv fiir Pap., 111. 4; also Jahresb. tiber die Fortschr. des Class., 1906; Die griech. Papyrusurk., 1899-1905, pp. 36-40; Die griech. Spr. etc., 1901. 1 Archiv fiir Pap.-Forsch., 1900, p. 215. '^ "Zum ersten Mai gewinnen wir reale Vorstellungen von dem Zustand und der Entwickelung der handschriftlichen Lebenslieferung ira Altertum selbst. Neue wichtige Probleme sind damit der Philologie gestellt." N. Wilcken, Die griech. Papyrusurk., 1897, p. 7. Mayser's Tl. II wiU supply this need when it appears. » See Deissmann, Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898, p. 27. * Art. Papyri in Encyc. Bibl. ' See A6-yia 'iTjaov, Sayings of Jesus, by Grenfell and Hunt, 1897. New Sayings of Jesus, by Grenfell and Hunt, 1904. See also two books by Dr. C. Taylor, The Oxyrhyn. Logia, 1899; The Oxyrhyn. Sayings of Jesus, 1905; Lock and Sanday, Two Lect. on the Sayings of Jesus, 1897. " Theol. Literaturzeit., 1894, p. 338. ' Essays in Bibl. Gk., 1892, p. 11 f. The earliest dated papjTus is now NEW MATEEIAIi 21 will no longet be despised as inferior or unclassical. It will be seen to be a vital part of the great current of the Greek language. For the formal discussion of the bearftg of the papyri on the N. T. Greek see chapter IV. A word should be said concerning the reason why the papyri are nearly all found in Egypt.' It is due to the dryness of the climate there. Elsewhere the brittle material soon perished, though it has on the whole a natural toughness. The earliest known use of the papyri in Egypt is about 3400 b.c. More exactly, the reign of Assa in the fifth dynasty is put at 3360 B.C. This piece of writing is an account-sheet belonging to this reign (Deissmann, lAght from A. E., p. 22). The oldest specimen of the Greek papyri goes back to "the regnal year of Alexander ^gus, the son of Alexander the Great. That would make it the oldest Greek papyrus document yet discovered" (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 29). The discoveries go on as far as the seventh century a.d., well into the Byzantine period. The plant still grows in Egypt and it was once the well-nigh universal writing material. As waste paper it was used to wrap the mum- mies. Thus it has come to be preserved. The rubbish-heaps at rayi)vti. airois ixaWov irapkaxo" vcrcrj7 {War, VI, 2. 1). See also 2 Mace. 7:8, 21. Josephus wrote his War first in Aramaic and then in Greek. The testimony of Papias that Matthew wrote his X67ia in Aramaic bears on the question because of the tradition that Mark was the interpreter of Peter. The brogue that Peter revealed (Mt. 26 : 73) was probably due to his Gali- lean accent of Aramaic. Aramaic was one of the languages for the inscription on the cross (Jo. 19:20). It is clear therefore that the Hellenizing work of Jason and Menelaus and Antiochus Epiphanes received a set-back in Palestine. The reaction kept Greek from becoming the one language of the coimtry. Even in Lycaonia the people kept their vernacular though they under- stood Greek (Ac. 14: 11). On the other hand Peter clearly spoke in Greek on the Day of Pentecost, and no mention is made of Greek as one of the peculiar "tongues," on that occasion. It is clear that Paul was understood in Jerusalem when he spoke Greek (Ac. 22 : 2). Jesus Himself laboured chiefly in Galilee where were many gentiles and much commerce and travel. He- taught in Decapolis, a Greek region. He preached also in the regions of Tyre and Sidon (Phoenicia), where Greek was neces- sary, and he held converse with a Greek (Syro-Phoenician) woman. Near Csesarea^Philippi (a Greek region), after the Transfiguration, Jesus spoke to the people at the foot of the mountain. At the time of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus ad- dressed people from DecapoUs and Perea (largely Hellenized), be- sides the mixed multitudes from Galilee, Jerusalem and Judea (Mt. 4 : 25). Luke (6 : 17) adds that crowds came also from Tyre and Sidon, and Mark (3 : 8) gives "from Idumsea." It is hardly pos- sible that these crowds understood Aramaic. The fact that Mark NEW MATERIAL 29 twice (5:41; 7:34) uses Aramaic quotations from the words of Jesus does not prove that He always spoke in that tongue nor that He did so only on these occasiolffe. In Mk. 14:36, 'Aj3/3d 6 irarrjp, it is possible that Jesus may have used both words as Paul did (Ro. 8: 15). In the quotation from Ps. 22: 1, spoken on the cross, Mt. 27:46 gives the Hebrew, while Mk. 15:34 has an Aramaic adaptation. There is no reason to doubt that Jesus knew Hebrew also. But Thomson {Temple Bible, Lang, of Palestine) proves that Matthew gives the quotations made by Christ in the words of the LXX, while his own quotations are usually from the Hebrew. It is clear, therefore, that Jesus spoke both Aramaic and Greek according to the demands of the occa- sion and read the Hebrew as well as the Septuagint, if we may argue from the 0. T. quotations in the Gospels which are partly like the Hebrew text and partly like the LXX.' In Lu. 4: 17 it is not clear whether it was the Hebrew text or the LXX that was read in the synagogue at Nazareth.^ One surely needs no argu- ment to see the possibility that a people may be bilingual when he remembers the Welsh, Scotch, Irish, Bretons of the present day.' The people in Jerusalem understood either Greek or Ara- maic (Ac. 22:2). ij) Grammatical Commentaries. A word must be said con- cerning the new type of commentaries which accent the gram- matical side of exegesis. This is, to be sure, the result of the emphasis upon scientific grammar. The commentary must have other elements besides the grammatical. Even the historical element when added does not exhaust what is required. There still remains the apprehension of the soul of the author to which historical grammar is only an introduction. But distinct credit is to be given to those commentators who have lifted this kind of exegesis out of the merely homiletic vein. Among the older writers are to be mentioned Meyer, EUicott, Godet, Broadus, Haekett, Lightfoot and Westcott, while among the more recent commentators stand out most of the writers in the International ' See C. Taylor, The Gospel in the Law, 1869; Boehl, Alttestamentl. Cit. im N. T., 1878; Toy, Quota, in the N. T., 1884; Huhn, Die alttestamentl. Cit. etc., 1900; Gregory, Canon and Text of the N. T., 1907, p. 394. ' On the Gk. in the Tal. see art. Greek in Jew. Encyc; Krauss, Gricch. und lat. Lehnw. im Tal.; Schurer, Jew. Hist., div. II, vol. I, p. 29 f. ' See Zahn, Einl. in das N. T., ch. 11. On the bilingual character of many of the Palestinian Jews see Schiirer, Jew. Peo. in the Time of Ch., div. II, vol. I, p. 48 f .; Moulton, Prol., p. 7 f. 30 A GRAJUMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Critical Commentary, Holtzmann's Hand Comm., The Expositor's Greek Test., Swete, Mayor, G. Milligan, Lietzmann's Handbuch, Zahn's Kommentar, The Camb. Gk. Test., etc. In works like these, grammatical remarks of great value are found. There has been great advance in the N. T. commentaries since Winer's day, when these comments "were rendered useless by that uncritical empi- ricism which controlled Greek philology."^ V. The New Point of View. It will hardly be denied, in view of the preceding necessarily condensed presentation of the new material now at hand that new hght has been turned upon the problems of the N. T. Greek. The first effect upon many minds is to dazzle and to cause confusion. Some will not know how to assimilate the new facts and to co-ordinate them with old theories nor be willing to form or adopt new theories as a result of the fresh phenomena. But it is the inevitable duty of the student in this department to welcome the new discoveries and to attack the problems arising therefrom. The new horizon and wider out- look make possible real progress. It will not be possible to avoid some mistakes at first. A truer conception of the language is now offered to us and one that will be found to be richer and more inspiring.^ Every line of biblical study must respond to the new discovery in language. "A new Cremer, a new Thayer-Grimm, a new Winer will give the twentieth century plenty of editing to keep its scholars busy. New Meyers and Alfords will have fresh matter from which to interpret the text, and new Spurgeons and Moodys will, we may hope, be ready to pass the new teaching on to the people."' The N. T. Greek is now seen to be not an abnormal excrescence, but a natural development in the Greek language; to be, in fact, a not unworthy part of the great stream of the mighty tongue. It was not outside of the world-language, but in the very heart of it and influenced considerably the futiu'e of the Greek tongue. 1 Winer, Gr. of the N. T. Idiom, Thayer's transl., p. 7. ^ "Nun hat man aber die Sprache der heiligen Biicher mit den Papyrus- denkmalem und den Inschriften der alexandrinischen und romischen Zeit genau verglichen, und da hat sich die gar manchen Anhanger der alten Dok- trin verbliiffende, in Wahrheit ganz natiirliche Tatsache ergeben, dafi die Sprache des N. T. nichta anderes ist als eine flir den Uterarischen Zweck leicht temperierte Form des volkstiimlich Griechisch.'' Krumbaeher, Das Prob. der neugr. Schriftspr., 1903, p. 27. ' J. H. Moulton, New Lights on Bibl. Gk., Bibl. World, March, 1902. CHAPTER II THE HISTORICAL METHOD I. Language as History. The scientific grammar is at bottom a grammatical history, and not a linguistic law-book. The seat of authority in language is therefore not the books about language, but the people who use the language. The majority of well-edu- cated people determine correct usage (the mos loquendi as Horace says). Even modern dictionaries merely record from time to time the changing phenomena of language. Wolff was right when he conceived of philology as the "biography of a nation." The life of a people is expressed in the speech which they use.' We can well agree with Benfey^ that "speech is the truest picture of the soul of a people, the content of all that which has brought a people to self-consciousness." However, we must not think that we can necessarily argue race from language.' The historical conception of grammar has had to win its way against the purely theoretical and speculative notion. Etymology was the work of the philosophers. The study of the forms, the syntax, the dialects came later. The work of the Alexandrians was originally philology, not scientific grammar.* (a) Combining the Various Elements. It is not indeed easy to combine properly the various elements in the study of language. Sayce considers Steinthal too psychological and Schleicher too physical.^ The historical element must be added to both. Paul" objects to the phrase "philosophy of language" as suggesting "metaphysical speculations of which the historical investigation ' See Oertel, Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1902, p. 9 f. 2 Kleinere Schr., 1892, 2. Bd., 4. Abt., p. 51. ' See Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philol., 1875, p. 175 f. * See Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 2, 3. ^ Prin. of Comp. Philol., p. xvi. ° Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., 1888, p. xxi. "The truth is that the science of which we are thinking is philosophy in the same way as physics or physi- ology is philosophy, neither more, nor less." 31 32 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT of language needs to take no count." He prefers the term "sci- ence of principles." The study of language is a true science, a real philosophy, with a psychical as well as a physical basis. It is properly related to the historical natural sciences which have been subject "to the misdirected attempt at excluding them from the circle of the sciences of culture." ^ Language is capable of almost perfect scientific treatment. Kretschmer^ outlines as modern advances over ancient grammar the psychological treat- ment of language, the physiology of sound, the use of the com- parative method, the historical development of the language, the recognition of speech as/ a product of human culture, and not to be separated from the history of culture, world-history and life of the peoples. He thinks that no language has yet received such treatment as this, for present-day handbooks are only "speech- pictures," not "speech-histories." (6) Practical Grammar a Compromise. Historical practical grammars have to make a compromise. They can give the whole view only in outline and show development and interrelation in part. It is not possible then to write the final grammar of Greek either ancient or modern. The modern is constantly changing and we are ever learning more of the old. What was true of Mistriotes' and Jannaris^ will be true of the attempts of all. But none the less the way to study Greek is to look at it as a history of the speech-development of one of the greatest of peo- ples. But it is at least possible now to have the right attitude, thanks to the books already mentioned and others by Bemhardy,' ' Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., 1888, p. xxvii. See Von Ulrich's Grundl. und Gesch. der Philol., 1892, p. 22: "Zu der wissensohaftlichen Grammatik gesellt sich die historische Betrachtung. Sieunterscheidet die Periodisierung der Satze von deren loser Verkniipfung, die wechselnde Bedeutung der Partikeln, den Gebrauch der Modi und Tempora, die erfahrungsmaCig festgesteUten . Regeln der Syntax, den Sprachgebrauch der Schriftsteller." On the scientific study of the Gk. language sketched historically see Wackemagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., TI. I, Abt. 8, pp. 314-316. * Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., pp. 3-5. He himself here merely outlines the historical background of the Gk. language. ' KotA TttCro XoiirAv ^ ypanimToKoyia Siv elpai oCre Afuyfis UrTopMi), oCre A;iii- 7^s alaSfiTtKii ivurTiiiJi,ij dXXd litrkxti iij^orkpuv." 'EXXiji/iki) Tpa/iiiaToXoyla, 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 Neohellenic 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 English and other modern languages. U. 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 ]bhat 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 ' Gesch. der griech. Lit., 1893. 2 VolkerpsychoL, 1900, 3. Aufl., 1911 f. ' Beitr. zur griech. Sprachk., 1890. " Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1885. ^ Beitr. zur hist. Synt. der griech. Spr., Bd. I-XVII. 8 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 Einfiihr. 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. 12 Hist. Gr. der lat. Spr., 1903. Cf. Stolz und Schmalz, Lat. Gr., 4. Aufl., 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." Cf. 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. 1' Whitney, Darwinism and Lang., Reprint from North Am. Rev., July, 1874. " Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 9. See also The Silesian 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 GEAMMAK OF THE GKEEK 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 gi;adual and varied. "A written language, to serve any practical purpose, must change with the times, 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 knirupla. tS>v irapa xotijrals re Kal avyy pa(t>ivcnv d)s iirl TO iro\i) Xeyoixevosv. It was with him a concern for the poets and writers, not "die Sprache des Lebens."' Grammar (7pa/i/iartK)7, ypaw), then, was first to write and to understand what was written; then the scientific interpretation of this litera- ture; later the study of literary 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. 2 lb., p. 13. Kiihner speaks of "das organische Leben der Sprache" and of "ein klares, anschauliches und lebensvoUes Bild des groCen und kraftig bluhenden Sprachbaums." Ausfuhrl. Gr. der griech. Spr., 1. Bd., 1890, p. iii. ' Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 3-6. THE HISTORICAL 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. Numerous 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 hterature, 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 hterary style and expect constant change in each, though not in the same degree. Zarncke 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 Normen einer gespro- chenen Mundart corrigirt." But see Lottioh, De Serm. vulg. Att., 1881; and Apostolides, op. cit. * Prog, of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., 1905, p 137, '• Einleitimg, p. 3. 36 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT tificial Attic of a bygone age. The modem Greek vernacular is a living tongue, but the modern Hterary language so proudly called KcSaptvoma is artificial and unreal.' 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 English 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. (o) The Importance of Comparative Grammar. Julius Caesar, 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 Panini 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 Miiller 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 begirming 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 Literaturspraohe ist nie eine Art Normalsprache. " Schwyzer, Weltspr. des Altert., 1902, p. 12. * King, Intr. to Comp. Gr., p. 2. » Sayoe, Prin. of Comp. Philol., p. 261. • Goblet d'Alviella, Ce que I'lnde doit h la GrSce, 1897, p. 129. ^ King, op. dt., 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, aij|^ some other grammatical works can be regarded in that light. But our fundamental obli- gation is to the Hindu and Greek grammarians.'' (6) 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 modern English 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 English and is starting again on an inflectional career. Agglutinative tongues like the Turkish ex- press the various grammatical relations by numerous separable prefixes, infixes and suffixes. 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, Hke 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 hkeness.^ ■ WHtney, Life and Growth of Lang., 1875—, p. 315. 2 F. Hoffmann, tlber 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 Caucasio Lang., 1908, undertakes to show "fundamental kinship of the Aryan tongues and of Basque with the Semitic tongues." 4 Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901, p. 36. ' Brugmann, Kurze vergl. Gr. der indoger. Spr., 1. Lief., 1902, p. 4. = See MisteU, Charaoteristik der hauptsaehlichsten Typen des Sprach- 38 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (c) The Original Indo-Germanic 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 EngUsh. 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 literature on comparative grammar see ch. I, 2 (j) of this book. There is an English translation of Brugmann's Bdo. I and II called Elements of the Comp. Gr. of the Indo-Ger. Lang., 6 vols., 1886-97. But his Kurze vergl. Gr. (1902-4) is the handiest edition. MeiUet (Intr. h ] 'Etude Comp. etc., pp. 441-455) has a discriminating discussion of the litera- ture. 1 Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 7-9. 2 Kurze vergl. Gr., 1. Lief., 1902, p. 3. ' lb., p. 27. * Pop. Sci. Rev., Jan., 1888. • ^ Einl. in die Gesch. etc., pp. 7-92. ' See Max Miiller, Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 29. ' Sayce, Prin. of Comp. PhiloL, 1876, p. vi. THE HISTOKICAL METHOD 39 (d) Greek as a "Dialect" of the Indo-Germanic Speech. Greek then can be regarded as one of the branches of this original Indo-Germanic speech, just as Frencljijs one of the descendants of the Latin/ like Spanish, Portuguese, Italian. Compare also the re- lation of Enghsh to the other Teutonic tongues.^ To go further, the separation of this original Indo-Germanic speech into various tongues was much like the breakihg-up of the original Greek into dialects and was due to natural causes. Dialectic variety itself imphes 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 comparee 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 proved, though there are many points of contact between Greek and Latin.' But Greek, as the next oldest branch known to us, shows more kinship 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 rom. 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. AfEn. of the Anc. Greeks). ' WMtney, Lang, and the Study of Lang., 1868, p. 185. See Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 5: "Die griechische, lateinische, indische u.s.w. Grammatik Bind die konstitutiven Teile 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. ' Synt., 1897. Phon6t. et fit. des Formes Grq. et Lat., 1901. " Einl. in die Gesch. 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 GRAMMAR 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 unportant 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 limiinous 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." Jannaris himself felt his hmitations when he faced so gigantic a task and foimd it necessary to rest his work upon the classical Attic as the only practical basis.* But so far » Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 72. ' P. 5. Prof. Burrows (Disc, in Crete, 1907, pp. 145 flf.) raises the question whether the Greek race (a blend of northern and southern elements) made the Gk. language out of a pre-existing Indo-European tongue. Or did the northerners bring the Gk. with them? Or did they find it already in the .^gean? 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- Buch von Jannaris, so dankenswert er ist, kann doch nur provisorische Gel- timg beanspnichen, wobei man mehr die gute Absicht und den FleiC als das sprachgeschichthche Verstandnis des Verfassers loben muB." Die griech. Spr., etc., 1901, p. 1. Of. also Krumbacher, Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr. (1884, p. 4): "Eine zusammenhangende Darstellung des Entwickelungs- ganges der griechischen Sprache ist gegenwartig nicht mogUch." But it is more possible now than in 1884. THE HISTOBICAL METHOD 41 he departed from the pure historical method. But such a gram- mar will come some day. (a) Descriptive Historical Grajukiar. Meanwhile descriptive historical grammar is possible and necessary. " Descriptive gram- mar has to register the grammatical forms and grammatical con- ditions in use aC a given date within a certain community speaking a common language." i 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 modern 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. (6) 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 literature 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. ^ Oertel, Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1902, p. 27. Thiimb (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 groBen Hintergrund der hellenistischen Sprachentwicklung l::)eschreiben zu konnen." > Hist. Gr. der hell. 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 all the diversity of dialects there was essential unity in comparison with other tongues. 6 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 coromon opinion for all Greek that was not classic Attic. But Thiersch entitled his great work Griechische 'Grammatik vor- . zuglich 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 httle 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 Unguistic 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 modem 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 modem 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 Krumbacher, Thumb, 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 EngUsh,^ 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 Wackemagel, 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. 5 Hist. Gr. der heU. Spr., 1891, p. 2. * See John Koch, Eng. Gr., for an admirable bibUography 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 diBcussion 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, 1500 e.g. to 1000 B.C.; the Age of the Dia- lects, 1000 B.C. to 300 B.C.; the Age of the Kou/17, 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 kolvIj and the rest is modern Greek. See a different outline by Jannaris' and Hadley and Allen.2 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 Mycenaean 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 Achaeans 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. Milller, Hist. Gr. der hell. Spr., 1891, pp. 42-62, for another outline. ' Gk. Lex., etc., p. 11. ' Tsountas and Manatt, The Mycenasan Age, 1897, p. 316. ' lb., p. 335 ff. « lb., p. 235. ' lb., p. 325. See also Beloch, Griech. Gesch., I., 85: "Auch sonst kann kein Zweifel sein, dal5 die mykenaische Kultur in Griechenland bis in das VIII. Jahrhundert geherrscht." Flindcrs-Petrie (Jour, of Hell. Stud., xii, 204) speaks of 1100 to 800 b.c. as the "age of Mycena5an decadence." ' Cretan Pictographs and Pre-Pha3nician Script, 1895, p. 362; cf. also 44 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ' writing of the Cretans came from a still earlier pictograph. The Greek dialects emerge into light 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 ia the Mycenaean age. Roughly, 300 b.c. is the time when the Greek has become the universal language of. the world, a Welin 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 hke 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 modern Greek, but even he can say: "Even in our miserable modem pigeon- Greek, which represents no real pronunciation, either ancient or modern, 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 kolvti. 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 Mycensean linear script was used 1900 B.C. Cf. Evans, Further Researches, 1898. 1 Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 13. See also Hatzidakis, Einl. in die neugr. Gr., 1892, p. 3. 2 Survey of Gk. CiviUz., 1896, p. 209. Cf. further Mosso, Dawn of CiviUz. in Crete, 1910; Baike, Kings of Crete, 1910; Firmen, Zeit und Dauer der kretisch- myken. Kult., 1909. ' The modern literary language (Ka0apeiovtra) is rcaUy more identical with the ancient classical Gk. But it is identity secured by mummifying the dead. It is identity of imitation, not identity of hfe. Cf. Thumb-Angus, Handb. of Mod. Gk. Vem., Foreword (p. xi f.). ^ Dieterioh, 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 Koivri. 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 granunars.* "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 modern Greek as the common 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 like Volapiik and Espe- 1 "Die heutige griechische Volkssprache ist die naturliche Fortsetzung der alten Kou^." Die neugr. Spr., 1892, p. 8. See Heilmeier's book on the Ro- maic Gk. (1834), who first saw this connection between the mod. vern. and the vern. koiv^i. 2 Transl. by J. H. Moulton in Gr. of N. T. Gk., 1906 and 1908, p. 30, from Rev. des fit. Grq., 1903, p. 220. Cf. 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. bcf. ' lb., p. xUi. ' Hell, die intemat. Gelehrtenspr. der Zukunft, 1888. Likewise A. Rose: "Die griechische Sprache . . . hat . . . sine 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 RoUe einer Weltsprache wird das Griechische nicht wieder spielen." Weltspr. des Altert., 1902, p. 38. Cf. also A. Boltz, Die hell. Spr. der Gegenw., 1882, and Gk. the Gen. Lang, of the Future for Scholars. 46 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT rantOji the latter having some promise in it. But the modem 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 earlier ia inscriptions representing one or an- other of the early dialects. The persistence of early English 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 modem 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 modern 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 pecuUar ecclesiastical Greek, but the N. T. did tend to emphasize the type of Koivi] 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 EngUsh language and of Luther's translation of the Bible on German. V. The Greek Point of View. It soimds 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 Unguists may forget it and so commit a grammatical vice. Even Winer" wiU be found sajdng, for instance: "Appel- latives which, as expressing definite objects, should naturally ' Cf. J. C. O'Connor, Elsperanto 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 Sprachge- brauch des Neuen Testaments, der vielfaltig vom Neugriechischen her eine viel bessere Beleuchtung empfangt als aus der alten klassischen Literatur." Kiihner's Ausf. Gr. etc., 1890, p. 25. Blass also says (ib., p. 26) that "eine wissenschaftUche 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 HISTOEICAL 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 havd*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 iv rcf eiaayaytlv tovs yovfis TO ratSiov 'Iriaovv (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 difficult task that is demanded of the Greek grammarian who to-day under- takes to present a living picture of the orderly development of the Greek tongue "zu einem schonen und groBen 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 1 Broadus, Comm. on Mt., 1886, p. 316. See also Gerber, Die Spr. als Kunst, 1. Bd., 1871, p. 321: "Der ganze Charakter dieser oder jener Sprache ist der Abdruck der Natur des Landes, wo sie gesproohen wird. Die griechi- sche Sprache ist der griechische Himmel selbst mit seiner tiefdunklen Blaue, die sich in dem sanft wogenden agaisohen Meere spiegelt." ' Kiihner, Ausf. Gi. der griech. Spr., 1834, p. iv. How much more so now! ' Expos. Times, Dec, 1906, p. 103. Cf. also F. Overbeck, Hist. Zeitschr., neue Folge, 1882, p. 429 S. 48 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NE"W TESTAMENT subject which has not yet been recognized by many persons in i full importance. Huge as is the library of books that have bei written on the origin of the N. T. and of its separate parts, tl N. T. has not often been studied by historians of literature; thi is to say, as a branch of the history of ancient literatiu-e." 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 KOivri 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-Fre&ch (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,^ and in the West and North the Italic, Celtic and Germanic pressure was strong.'' I. The Term Koivrj. The word Koivii, 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 " ri KOLvfj oder IXXiji't/ci? SidXeKTos." 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, * Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 171-243. But the true Phrygians 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 "HeUenicism." But Hogarth (Philip and Alexander, p. 277) had already used "HeUenisticism," saying: "HeUenisticism grew out of Hel- lenism." • Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 6. 49 50 A GRAMMAR OF 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 KOLvit 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 kolvti both the hterary 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 bibUcal 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 kolvti because it is used either for the vernacular, the hterary style or for aU 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 KOLv-q. There is on the other hand the hterary speech of the orators, historians, philosophers, poets, the pubhc 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 Apostohc 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 foUowing Hatzidakis. Thumb ^ identifies Koivri and Hellenistic Greek and apphes it to both vernacular and written style, though he would not regard the Atticists as proper producers of the kolvt). Moulton^ uses the term Koivri for both spoken and literary KOLvij. The doctors thus disagree very widely. On the whole it seems best to use the term koivt] (or Hellenistic Greek) both for the vernacular and literary kolvti, excluding the Atticistic revival, which was a conscious effort to write not kolvti • Miinchener Sitzungsber., 1886, p. 435. 2 Art. Hell. Griech., Hauck's Realencyc, p. 629. ' lb., p. 630. * Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 19 f. » Die griech. 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 kowti 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. " comiptissima Ungua," and Niebuhr (Uber das Agyp.-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 Koivli. • (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 modern 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 marks the difference. "If then the literature of the Alexandrian period must be called HeUenistic, that of the Roman period must be termed Atticistic. But the popular lan- guage had gone its own way." Gr. of the N. T. Gk., 1898 and 1905, 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. 2 See Kretschmer, Einl., p. 410. Dieterich: "Das Sprachgebiet der Koiv^ 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 Wackemagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 299. * Rutherford, Zur Gesoh. des Atticismus, Jahrb. fiir class. Phil., Buppl. xiii, 1884, pp. 360, 399. So Audoin says: "Ce n'est point arbitrairement que les (Scrivains grecs ont employ^ tel ou tel dialecte.'' Et. sommairc des Dial. Grecs. Litt., 1891, p. 4. 52 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT of modem English. "The orators Demosthenes and jEschines 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 KOLvfi, so the vernacular Attic survived with many changes in the vernacular kolvt]. We are at last in possession of enough of the old Attic inscriptions and the kolvti 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.^ In a sense, therefore, the kowij became another dialect (^olic, Doric, Ionic, Attic, Koivrj). Cf. Kretschmer, Die Ent- stehung der KoLvq, pp. 1-37. But the kolvIi was far more than a dialect. Kretschmer holds, it is fair to say, that the kolvti is " eine merkwiirdige Mischung verschiedenster Dialecte" {op. cit, p. 6). He puts all the dialects into the melting-pot in ahnost equal pro- portions. Wilamowitz-Mollendorff considers the Ionic as the chief influence in the kolvti, 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 iii Asia Minor pure Ionic had about vanished. In the first century B.C. the Attic appears in inscriptions in Boeotia, but as late as the second cen- tury A.D. Ionic inscriptions are found in Asia Minor. Ionic first went down, followed by the jEolic. The Doric made a very stub- born 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. ' Riemann and Goelzer well say: "Qxiant au dialecte attique, grice aux grands 6crivains qui I'iUustrfirent,' gr^ce h la preponderance politique et com- meroiale d'Athfenes, grice aussi k son caract&e de dialecte interm6diaire entre I'ionien et les dialectes en a, il se r6pandit de bonne heure, hors de son domaine primitif, continua h s'^tendre meme aprSs la chute de I'empire poUtique d'Athdnes et finit par embrasser tout le monde sur le nom de langue com- mune {kolvti SL&\eKTos)" (Phonetique, p. 16). And yet the common people understood Homer also as late as Xenophon. Cf. Xenophon, Com. 3, 6, Kal vvv Swaifir/v 8.V 'IXiiSa SXijj" Kai 'OSbaaemv 6,iri arSnaros fiiriiv. 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 literature and proudly conservative of a language tMfet 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 Koivi]^ and held on till almost the beginning of the Christian era before it was merged into the kowij of the whole Grseco-Roman world.' There are undoubtedly instances of the remains of the Northwest Greek and of the other dialects in the kolvti 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 kolvt] 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 koic^ was not a sudden creation. There were quasi-koines before Alexander's day. These were Strabo's alli- ance of Ionic-Attic, Doric-iEolic (Thumb, Handb., p. 49). It is therefore to be remembered that there were "various forms of KOLvii" before the Koivrj which commenced with the conquests of Alexander (Buck, Gk. Dialects, pp. 154-161), as Doric Kotvfi, Ionic Kotcij, Attic KOLvri, Northwest koivti. Hybrid forms are not un- common, such as the Doric future with Attic ov as in iroiriffovvTi (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 tcoivl] 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, Pro!., p. 32. 2 lb., p. 37. ' Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 1) puts it clearly : " Es genugt zu sagen, daC die Koii'^ starksten Zusammenhang mit dem Attischen, in zweiter Linie mit dem lonischen, verrat. In der altesten Periode des HeUenismus zeigt sich daneben geringer EinfluC anderer Dialekte, des Dorischen und Aolischen." * "II est k peine besoin de r6p6ter que ces caractlres s'effacent, k mesure que I'on descend vers I'fire chr^tienne. Sous I'influence sans cesse grandis- Bante de I'atticisme, il s'6tablit une sorte d 'uniformity." Boisacq, Les Dial. Dor., 1891, p. 204. "The Gk. of the N. T. is not, however, mere mivii. In vocabulary it is fundamentally Ionic" (John Burnet, Rev. of Theol. and Phil., Aug., 1906, p. 95). "Fundamentally" is rather strong, but iirAo-ToXos, as ambassador, not mere expedition, ei\oyla, irqarda, give some colour to the statement. But what does Prof. Burnet mean by "mere Kaivi)""! 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 fraiica 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 hfe of the dialects and the second that of the speech-unity, the common speech or KOLvri" (Kretschmer, Die Entst. d. Koi.vii, p. 1). (e) The March toward Universalism. 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 Koivn 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 Koivfj. (a) A World-Speech. What is called i? kolv/j was a world- speech, not merely a general Greek tongue among the Greek tribes as was true of the Achaean-Dorian and the Attic. It is not speculation to speak of the kolvt] as a world-speech, for the in- scriptions in the kolvt] testify to its spread over Asia, Egypt, Greece, Italy, Sicily and tjie 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 Koivri 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 (jibv ew 'Eauroi') 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. " Viereck, Sermo Graecus quo Senatus Popul. Rom. etc., 1888, p. xi. ' See Wilamowitz-MoUendorff: "In demselben Momente, wo die casari- sche Weltmonarchie aUe Strome hellenischer und italischer Kultur in einem Bette leitet, kommt die grieohische Kunst auf alien Gebieten zu der Erkennt- nis, daC ihre Kreise erfiillt sind, das einzige das ihr bleibt, Nachahmung ist." Uber die Entst. der griech. 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 for#gn linguistic area, as we may observe in the case of the Greek Kocvrj."^ 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 KOLvfi. Both Xenophon and Aristotle show the wider outlook of the literary Attic which uses Ionic words very extensively. There is now the " GroC-Attisch." It already has ylvofiai, 'iveKev, —Twaav, eixa and ijveyKa, khoiKajxev and eSoiKav, Paa'CKiaaa, SeiKvvui, aa, vabs. Already Thucydides and others had borrowed ca from the Ionic. It is an easy transition from the vernacular Attic to the vernacular kow'i? after Alexander's time. (Cf. Thumb's Hand- buch, pp. 373-380, "Entstehung der Koivri.") On the development of the KOLv/] see further Wackernagel, Die Kultur der Gegenwart, Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 301 ff.; Moulton, Prol, ch. I, II; Mayser, Gr. d. griech. 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 estabhshed 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 civilizations, which had hitherto been isolated. This unity 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 fiir unsere eigene Kultur entscheidende Bedeutung er- langt hat, beruht auf einer fortschreitenden Occidentalisierung; auch das im Oriente emporgekommene Christentum entfaltet sich nach dem Westen zu und gelangt hier zu seiner eigentlich weltgeschichtKchen Wirksamkeit." 2 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 Eg3T)t, 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) Vernacular and Literary. 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 con'siderably from each other.' This distinction exists from the very start with the koii/^, as is apparent in Pergamum and elsewhere.* This vernacular KOLvi] 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 literary Attic, but the language of social and business intercourse.' This vernacular Koivij at first differed little 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 Koivij. 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 KOLvij. The pure Attic as it was spoken in Athens is preserved only in ' Schwyzer, Weltspr., p. 29. * Sohweizer, Gr. der perg. etc., p. 22. ' See Kretschmer, Die griech. Vaseninschr. und ihre Spr., 1894; and Mei- sterhans, Gr. der att. Insohr., 1900. Cf. Lottich, De Serm. vulg. Attic, 1881. • Sohweizer, Gr., p. 27. » 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 hterary style, as in the frequent use of diminutives, desiderative verbs, metaphors, etc. " Sohweizer, 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 noivfi weniger ein AbschluB als der Anfang einer neuen Entwicklung." On the older Gk. kou^ see Wackemagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 300 f. " Deissmann, Hell. Griech., Hauok's Realencyc, p. 633. « Atticismus, Bd. IV, pp. 577-734. A very unportant treatment of the whole question is here given. THE KOINH 57 the inscriptions.! In the Roman Empire the vernacular Koivq would be understood almost everywhere from Spain to Pontus. See IV for further remarks on the vernafUlar Koivi/. 2. Literary. If the vernacular Koivfj was the natural develop- ment of the vernacular Attic, the literary KOLvf/ 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 literary Attic from the language of the people. * The growth of the literary Koivii was parallel with that of the popular KOLv^ 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 Koivf) 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 ivdecns, irapaipvXaK'li, not because they consciously imitated these writers, but because the kolvti, 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 Koivij was a " compromise between the vernacular kowij and the literary Attic," between "life and school." i" There is indeed no Chinese ' Hirt, Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl., 1902, p. 41. ' Griech. Spr., p. 251. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 26. * Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 5. Deiasmann (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 literary mtvii and vernacular mivii; cf. Die ant. Kunstpr. ' Schwyzer, Die Weltspr. der Alt., p. 15. See also Christ, Gesch. der griech. Lit., p. 305. See Die pseudoxenophontische 'ABrivalwv UdXirela, von E. Kalinka, 1913. " Schweizer, Gr., p. 21. ' Christ, op. cit., p. 688. ' Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 213. See also Goetzeler, De Polyb. Eloc, 1887, p. 15. ' Thumb, ib., p. 225 f. See also Krenkel, Josephus und Lukas, 1894, pp. 283 fF. " Thumb, ib., p. 8. 58 A GKAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT wall between the literary and the vernacular Koivi], but a constant inflow from the vernacular to the written style as between prose and poetry, though Zarncke ' insists on a thorough-going distmc- tion between them. The hterary kolvv would not, of course, use such dialectical forms as tovs iravres, toIs irpaynaTois, etc., com- mon in the vernacular KOivr).^ But, as Krumbacher' well shows, no hterary speech worthy of the name can have an independent development apart fronl the vernacular. Besides Polybius and Josephus, other writers in the hterary kolvti were Diodorus, Philo, Plutarch, though Plutarch indeed is almost an "Anhanger des Atticismus"^ and Josephus was rather self-conscious in his use of the hterary style.^ The literary Koivq 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 kolvti "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 Koivri all the literary prose shows "eine Kunst- 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 or a Rhetoric. The Atticists wrote, to be sure, in the Koivij period, but their gaze was always backwari to the pre-Kotvij period. The grammarians (Dionysius, Phrjmi- ' Zarncke in Gricoh. Stud., Hermann Lipsius, 1894, p. 121. He considers the Homeric poetry a reflection of the still older historical prose and the epic the oldest literary form. See his Die Entst. der griech. Literaturspr., 1896. Cf. Wilamowitz-MoUendorif, 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. * Weissenbcrger, Die Spr. Plut. von Charonea, 1895, pp. 3, 11. 6 Jos., Ant., XIV, I, 1. " Susemihl, Gasch. der griech. Lit. in der Alexandrienzeit, 1. Bd., 1891, p. 2. ' Croiset, An Abr. Hist, of Gk. Lit., 1904, p. 425. « N. T. 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 had. 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, like 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 kolvt] (vernacular and hterary) and this Atticistic reaction affected both to some extent.* This struggle between "archaism and life" 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,^ one ' A sharp distinction as a rule must be made between the language of Arrian and Epict. The Gk. of Epiot. as reported by Arrian, his pupil, is a good representative of the vern. koiw^ 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 liii iarpol ^aav, oiSiv av riv Tuv ypa/ifiaT&ov ixuporepop. ' Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 180. On Atticism ia the KOLvii see Wacker- 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. 8 Moulton, Prol., p. 26. The diction of Aristophanes is interesting as a specimen of varieties of speech of the time. Of. 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 Proclos. 60 A GKAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT must be careful to note whether it is with the book Greek (xa- Oapeiiovaa) or the vernacular (6ixi\ovnivr{).^ This artificial reac- tionary movement, however, had little effect upon the vernacular KOLvIl 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 koivv both as to word-formation =" and syntax.' With Dionysius of Halicarnassus 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 Koivrj. (a) Vernacular 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 koivI), 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 1 Schmid, Der Atticismus etc., Bd. IV, p. 578. * lb., p. 606 f. ' Troger, Der Spraohgeb. in der pseudolong. Schr., 1899, Tl. 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., 1865, p. 77. » Jannaris, op. cit, p. 11. See also Fritz, 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. Erforsch. 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 policemen." On the form of the mtvii see Wackernagel, Kult. etc., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 305. THE KOINH 61 gathered up the treasures of the past, while Alexander opened the flood-gates for the change in the language and for its spread over the world.' "What, however, was lofb 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. Grammar was simplified, excep- tions decreased or generalized, flexions dropped or harmonized, construction of sentences made easier" (Angus, Prince. Rev., Jan., 1910, p. 53). The beguming of the development of the ver- nacular KoivTj is not perfectly clear, for we see rather the com- pleted product.^ But it is in the later Attic that lies behind the Koivri. The optative was never common in the vernacular Attic and is a vanishing quantity in the KOLvrj. The disappearance of the dual was already coming on and so was the limited use of the superlative, -ro^rrav instead of -vtwv, and -aBiacrav instead of -cdcav, ylvofiai, aa, etira, tis instead of irorepos, eKacTO% and not eKartpoi? But while the Attic forms the ground-form* of the KotviJ it must not be forgotten that the kowij 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 Koivij. Steinthal^ indeed caUed 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 Koivi] than the Attic. The truth seems to be the position of Thumb,' that the vernacular Koivij is the result of the mingling with all dialects upon the late Attic vernacular as the base. As between the Doric o and the Ionic ij the vernacular Koivi\ follows the Attic 1 Christ, Gesch. der griech. Lit., 1905, p. 509 f. For "the Attic ground- character of the Kowri" see Mayser, Gr. der griech. Pap. (1906, p. 1). ' Kaibel, Stil und Text der 'kSrivalav HoKireia, p. 37. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 3. Even in the literary noivq the dual is nearly gone, as in Polybius and Diodorus Siculus; cf. Schmidt, De Duali 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 mivii hat lange genug unter dem Gesichtswinkel dea 'Klassicismus' gestanden." Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 10. 8 Gesch. der Sprachw., II, p. 37 f. ' Verhandl. der 32. phil. Versamml., p. 40. » Wochenschr. fur klass. Philol., 1899, p. 3; Die Entst. der Kaivi,, 1900. » Op. ciL, 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 koivti" such as verbs in -uo) instead of -v/xi, in -cacav instead of -(av in contract imper- fects, disuse of the temporal and the syllabic augment in com- position, disuse of reduplication, — ijy 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,. t6v as relative pronoun, Ulos as possessive pronoun. But clearly by "Attic kolv^ " he means the resultant Attic, not the Attic as distinct from the other dialects. Besides the orthography is Attic (cf. tXecos, not IXaos) and the bulk of the inflections and conjugations hkewise, as can be seen by comparison with the Attic inscriptions.' Schlageter^ sums the matter up: "The Attic foundation of the Koivi] is to-day gen- erally admitted." (b) The Other Dialects in the Koiv^. But Kretschmer* is clearly wrong in saying that the kolvy] is neither Attic nor decayed Attic, but a mixture of the dialects. He compares the mixture of dialects in the Koivn to that of the high, middle and low Ger- man. The Attic itself is a kolvti out of Ionic, ^ohc and Doric. The mixed character of the vernacular Koivfi is made plain by Schweizer' and Dieterich.' The Ionic shows its influence in the presence of forms like idirj, (nreipris, eiSvla, —virjs, KaB' eros (cf. vetus), bcrka, xn-^^i^v, ^\a^kuiv, xpvffkov, —as, -ados; absence of the rough breathing (psilosis or de-aspiration, ^EoUc also); dropping of HL in verbs hke 5t5i3; klBoiv (xtrcoi'), rkaaepa, irpaxrad} for tp^ttoj (Attic also), etc. Ionic words like p.ov-6(f>dcL\iios (Herod.) instead of Attic eTtp-66a\ixos 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 o-ireipijs in the koivIi. 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 in Alex- 1 Moulton, Pro!., p. 33 f. 2 Unters. zur Gesch. d. griech. Spr., 1898, p. 258 f. ' Meisterhans, Gr. der Att. Inschr. * Der Wortsch. der auCerhalb Attikas gefundenen att. Inschr., 1912. ' Wochenschr. fur klass. Phil., 1899, p. xvii. ' Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 201 f. ' Unters. zur Gesch. etc., p. 259 f . » Arrian, II, 20. 5. ' Myer, Das Heerwesen der Ptolemaer und Romer in Agypten, 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 Pergamurftialso. The mixing of the Attic with foreign, before all with Ionic, elements, has laid the foundation for the Kowii? 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' iEoUc has the a for tj in proper names and forms in OS. Bceotian-^olic uses the ending -oaav, as eixoo-af, so common in the LXX. Moulton* points out that this ending is very rare in the papyri and is found chiefly in the LXX. He calls Bceotian- Mo]io also "the monophthongizing of the diphthongs." In the Attic and the Ionic the open sound of 77 prevailed, while in the Boeotian the closed. In the kowij the two pronunciations existed together till the closed triumphed. Psilosis is also Ionic. The Doric appears in forms like Xa6s (Xecbs), va6s (veoii), irtdfco (Trtefco), icnrovSa^a, 17 Xi/i6s, to ttXovtos, dXe/crcop, KXi/Sapos (xptjSaj'os) ; and in the pronunciation perhaps P, y, S had the Doric softer sound as in the modern Greek vernacular. But, as Moulton^ argues, the vernacular KOLvfi comes to us now only in the written form, and that was undoubtedly chiefly Attic. The Arcadian dialect possibly contributes a.ewvTai, since it has d^ecocrfljj, but this form occurs in Doric and Ionic also.^ Cf. also the change of gender rj 'Kifibs (Lujce) and to ttXovtos (Paul). The Northwest Greek contrib- uted forms like apxovTois, tovs \eyovTes, rJTai {ij/J.'rjv cf. Messe- nian and Lesbian also), iipiiTovv (like Ionic), e'txocrai' (cf. Boeotian), XeXuKac. The accusative plural in -es'is very common in the papyri, and some N. T. MSS. give reaaapes for TWapas.' The Achsean-Dorian Koivfj had resisted in Northwest Greece the inroads of the common Greek for a century or so. The Mace- ' H. Anz, Subsidia ad cognoscendum Graec. Serm. vulg. etc., 1894, p. 386. Mayser, Gr., pp. 9-24, finds numerous Ionic peculiarities in the Ptolemaic pap. far more than ^olic and Doric. He cites — rcoffac, ij.axaipv^> '"J^", ("(nev, dptwv, yoyyi^a, vapaBi\Kr), Tk(T Polybius, 28. 8, 9. ^ 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. Insohr., 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 Ups must soon and inevitably suffer thor- ough-going modification." « Mahaffy, Survey of Gk. Civihzation, p. 220. Cf. Geldart, Mod. Gk. Lang, in its Rela. to Anc. Gk., p. 73, for discussion of "the levelling tendency common to all languages." THE KOINH 65 (d) New Wokd^, 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 out 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 cvvayoyyii used of a religious meeting, rrapoLKos (not the Attic ukroiKos) for stranger, axoo-roXos and Kariixv'^'-^ in their old senses like those Americanisms which preserve Elizabethan English ("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 kolv^i, for we cannot mark off a definite line of cleavage. We mention ayaiTTi, i/yLOTti^, ayvoTrjs, oJ9ecriJ.os, aSkr-qai^, aWorpioeirlaKOTOs, a/cara- XuTos, aKpoariipiov, avdpoiirapeaKOS, avTikvTpov, avaKaivbu (and many verbs in -6to, -dfco, -tfw), avay evviuii, fiairTurfua, (many words in -/xa), PaiTTLafws, PaTTLffTris, ypriyopeco (cf. also (tttiku), SeLatSaL/wvla, Srjvapiov, SiKaioKpiaia, eKeqixoaiivr}, CKKaKeu, e/c/iUKTijpifci), Oeiorris, Oebirvtvaros, \oyia, KaTrixe(^, Kpa^arTos, /iadriTeiiii}, olKoSecnroTris, opdpi^co, 6\f/apiov, bipiiVLOV, irpocTKaLpos, pofutmia, avix^ovXiov, TeKcoviov, vlodeaia, moir65iov, i\a5e\- v6(j>daKfUK {ireporfidaXiws) , vovdeaia {vovderriaii) , o'lKohofiri (oi- > Hicks, St. Paul and Hellen., in Stud. Bibl. et Eocl., 1896, p. 6. Mayser (Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 24^35) gives an interesting list of words that were chiefly "poetical" in the classic literature, but are common in the papyri. The poets often use the vernacular. Some of these words are iXUrup, Pi0pi>- cTKo), Skanios, dufia, iKriviuraia, evTpejrofiaL, ^Tratrfeo, hrttreUa, ddXiro}, KaratrrkWoj, KOL^jLoofiai, KOTTos, \aoi = people, fikpifiya, vi]TioSt oiKTjTiipiov, ireplKeifiai, trpotrtlxavktij, (T/ciXXo), (TTerfii, aupavTatii, Aeros. New forms are given to old words as ^iiirava from Xefiru, etc. Ramsay (see The Independent, 1913, p. 376) finds iiiparfua (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. 2 See W.-Sch., p.' 19, n. 8. 66 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT KoSonrjcris) , oveiSiafios {oveiSos), OTraaia (oi/'ts), irav5oxevs (iravSoKfiis), ■7rapa4>povia {-rrapcKfipoavvr]) , pavri^oi {paivcc, cf. /SaTTTifoj, jSaxrco), o-t^kco (earriKa), Tanetov {Ta.p.ielov) , reKvlov (and many diminutives in -lov which lose their force), iratSapiov (and many diminutives in -apvov), vaiax)p.ai (^ucoo/iat), etc. Words (old and new) receive new meanings, as avaicKivu) ('re- cline at table'). Cf. also amTrtTTTO), avaKeipai,, a.vTi.\kyoi ('speak against'), awoKptff^vai (passive not middle, 'to answer'), baiphvuov ('evil spirit,' 'demon'), SSifm ('house-top'), kpoirdoi ('beg'), evxapurrki) ('thank'), inaTeWo} ('write a letter'), bi/apiov ('fish'), aif/iivMv ('wages'), TapaKokko ('entreat'), wappriaia ('confidence'), irepiawao- pai ('distract'), TraiSevcii ('chastise'), irruip.a ('corpse'), avyKpivu ('compare'), axoki] ('school'), 4>dav(,) ('come'), xopra^i^ ('nourish'), XPvmTL^oi ('be called').' This is all perfectly natural. Only we are to remember that the difference between the KOLvrj vocabulary and the Attic literature is not the true standard. The vernacular KOLvri must be compared with the Attic vernacular as seen in the inscriptions and to a large extent in a writer like Aristophanes and the comic poets. Many words common in Aristophanes, ta- boo to the great Attic writers, reappear in the kolvti. They were in the vernacular all the time.^ Moulton^ remarks that the ver- nacular changed very little from the first century a.d. to the third. "The papyri show throughout the marks of a real lan- guage of daily life, unspoilt by the blundering bookishness which makes the later documents so irritating." It is just in the first century a.d. that the kolvti comes to its full glory as a world- language. "The fact remains that in the period which gave birth to Christianity there was an international language" (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 59). It is not claimed that all the points as to the origin of the koivti are now clear. See Hesseling, De koine en de oude dialekten van Griechenland (1906). But . enough is known to give an intelligible idea of this language that has played so great a part in the history of man. (e) Phovincial Influences. For all practical purposes the Greek dialects were fused into one common tongue largely as a result of Alexander's conquests. The Germanic dialects have gone farther and farther apart (German, Dutch, Swedish, Nor- wegian, Danish, English), for no great conqueror has arisen to 1 Schlageter (Wortsch. etc., pp. 59-62) gives a good list of words with another meaning in the koivt). 2 Cf. Kennedy, Sour, of N. T. Gk., pp. 70 f ., 147. ' CI. Quar., April, 1908, p. 137. THE KOINH 67 bind them into one. The language follows the history of the peo- ple. But the unification of the Greek was finally so radical that "the old dialects to-day are mergecMnto the general mass, the modern folk-language is only a continuation of the united, Hel- lenistic, common speech." ' So completely did Alexander do his work that the balance of culture definitely shifted from Athens to the East, to Pergamum, to Tarsus, to Antioch, to Alexandria.'' This "union of oriental and occidental was attempted in every city of Western Asia. That is the most remarkable and interest- ing feature of Hellenistic history in the Graeco-Asiatic kingdoms and cities."' Prof. Ramsay adds: "In Tarsus the Greek qualities and powers were used and guided by a society which was, on the whole, more Asiatic in character." There were thus non-Greek influences which also entered into the common Greek life and language in various parts of the empire. Cf. K. HoU, "Das Fort- leben der Volkssprachen in nachchristlicher Zeit" {Hermes, 1908, 43, p. 240). These non-Greek influences were especially noticeable in Pergamum, Tarsus and Alexandria, though perceptible at other points also. But in the case of Phrygia long before Alexander's conquest there had been direct contact with the Arcadian and the iEolic dialects through immigration.^ The Greek inscriptions in the Hellenistic time were first in the old dialect of Phrygia, then gliding into the Koivii, then finally the pure Koivfi.^ Hence the KOivi] won an easy victory in Pergamum, but the door for Phry- gian influence was also wide open. Thus, though the Kocvi] rests on the foundation of the Greek dialects, some non-Greek elements were intermingled.^ Dieterich' indeed gives a special list of peculiarities that belong to the Koivii of Asia Minor, as, for in- stance, -av instead of -a in the accus. sing, of 3d deck, proper names in as, tIs for iaris, ocrris for 8s, ei/xai for ei/it, use of 0eXw rather than future tense. In the case of Tarsus "a few traces of the Doric ' Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. etc., p. 417. ^ Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 6. The multitudinous mod. Gk. patois illus- trate the Koivri. ' W. M. Ramsay, Tarsus, Exp., Mar., 1906, p. 261. * Schweizer, Gr. der perg. Inschr., pp. 16 ff. ' lb., p. 25. » Bmns, Die att. Bestrebungen in der griech. Lit., 1896, p. 12, says: "Statt ihrer (classische attische Sprache) regiert ein gemeines Kebsweib, das aus irgend einer phrygischen Spelunke stammt — das ist der hellenistische Stil" ! A slight exaggeration. Cf. Brugmann, Vergl. Gr., p. 9. ' Untersuch. zur Gesch. etc., pp. 258 ff. The speech of Asia Minor has in- deed close affinity with that of Paul and Luke and with all the N. T. writers. Cf. Thieme, Die Inschr. von Magn. am Miiander und das N. T., 1906. 68 A GKAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT dialect may perhaps have lingered" in the Koivrj, as Ramsay sug- gests {Expositor, 1906, p. 31), who also thinks that ^'ooK^pos for vecoKopos in Ac. 19 : 35 in D may thus be explained. But no hard and fast distinction can be drawn, as -av for -p as accusative appears in Egypt also, e.g. in dvyaripav. Is it proper to speak of an Alexandrian dialect? Blass^ says so, agreeing with Winer-SchmiedeP (17 'AXe^avdptoov StaXeKTos)- This is the old view, but we can hardly give the name dialect to the Egyptian Greek. Kennedy' says: "In all probabiUty the language of the Egyptian capital had no more right to be called a dialect than the vernacular of any other great centre of population." Schwei- zer* likewise refuses to consider the Alexandrian Koivr) as a dialect. Dieterich' again gives a Ust of Egyptian pecuUarities such as ol instead of ai, -a instead of -as in nominatives of third declension, adjectives in -ij instead of -o, eaov for o-oO, Ka^eis for e/cacTos, im- perfect and aorist in -a, ww for rjv, disuse of augment in simple verbs, indicative mstead of the subjunctive. Mayser (Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 35-40) gives a Ust of "Egyptian words" found in the Ptolemaic papjTi. They are words of the soil, like irdirupos itself. But Thumb « shows that the majority of the so-called Alexandrian peculiarities were general in the Koivq hke riSBoaav, elxav, ytyovav, iiipaKes, etc. "There was indeed a certain un- wieldiness and capriciousness about their language, which displays itself especially in harsh and fantastic word-composition." As examples of their words may be mentioned KaravcoTL^onevos, vapa- (Tvyy paeLv, ^CKavdpm-Ktiv, etc. It is to be observed also that the KOLvq 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. 2 Gr. des neut. Sprachid., § 3. 1, n. 4. ' Soxir. 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 kolvt), which differed from the hterary mivii, 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 characteristic 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. Grace. Serm. vtdg. etc., 1891, p. 262. "Nee quae Apostohdes homo doctjis Alexan- drinus nuperrime protuht omnes cahgines propulsaverunt. Certe nemo jam existet qui cum Sturzio Macedonicam dialectum ibi quaerat, sed altera e parte neminem puto judicare illam quae vulgo appellatur dialectum Alexan- drinam solis vindicandam esse Alexandrinis." Of. 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 Uke the Welsh, Scotch, Irish, etc. But as a whole the vernacular Koivfi 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 /xou 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. Thumb ^ 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 jnany 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 numerous examples of the papyri through both the Ptolemaic and the Roman rule in EgjT)t. 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 Enghsh Icnown to him is spoken in Edinburgh and Louisville. These two cities, for geographical reasons, are not provincial. » Griech. Spr. etc., pp. 102-161; Theol. Litoraturzeit., 1903, p. 421; cf. also Moulton, Prol. p. 40. Moulton sets over against kii6s the fact that John's Gospel uses tva 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., ai-t. Papyri, p. SSS*". See also id., Palffiog. of the Gk. Pap., 1899. 70 A GKAMMAR 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 spelling; and their value for the student Ues 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 instinct with Ufe, 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 papyri therefore we find all grades of culture and of ilhteracy, as one would to-day if one rmnmaged in the rubbish-heaps of our great cities. One need not be surprised at seeing tov firiTpm, tov 6kai.v, and even worse blunders. As a sample Jannaris' gives a^etuSets vKaipaTliv ypi.- /iara fiel dScoTwv, for a^LOidels inr' avrSiv ypafifj-ara fir] eidoTWv. Part of these are crass errors, part are due to identity of sounds in pronunciation, as o and u, et and 17, et 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 KOLurj of Egypt this letter of the echool-boy Theon to his father has keen interest (see O. 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. 3-59. "The distinction holds good, even if we cannot go all the way with Deissmann in pronouncing all the Pauhne writings ' letters ' rather than 'Epistles.'" G. Milligan, Gk. Pap., p. xxxi. ' "Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 7. Quoted from Griech. Urk., Berlin, 13«, belonging to year 289 a.d. * The papyri contain "exempla ex vita deprompta, cum sermo scripto- rum ut solutae ita poeticae orationis nullo modo veram nobis imaginem ser- monis iUius aetatis praebeat. Etenim sermo, quem apud auctores heUinisticos deprehendimus, arti, non vitae, debetiir." Witkowski Prodr. gr. pap. Grace, etc., 1898, p. 197. He urges that in case of variations in forms or sjmtax one must inquire "utrum ab aha qua dialecto petita sit an in Aegypto nata, utrum ab homine Graeco an barbaro formata." lb., p. 198. He thinks it is necessary that we have "hbrum de sermone papyrorum, Ubrum de sermone titulorum, librum de sermone auctorum poeticae et pedestris orationis iUius aetatis, Ubrum de dialecto Macedonica tractantem." lb. THE KOINH 71 Qkcov Qicovi Tcp irarpl xatpetj'. /caXoJs eTTOtrjtres. oi)K a.irkvqxks fj^e far' e- aov tis iroXiv. i] oh 6e\is dim'e/c/ceti' /ie- t' kcrov els 'A\€^av5plap oh fiii ypa^j/o} ere e- iriaToMiv oirt \a\Si ue, oire vtyevcii ae, elra. &v 5i eX^jjs els 'AXe^avBpiav, oh /ii) Xd/So) x^'PO''' wapd [a\ov ovre vaKi xalpca ae Xvirov. afi /ii) dekys aireveKai /x[e], ravra ye[l]veTe. Kal 17 fiiiTTip jmv elire 'Ap- XeXdcj) OTL avaararoZ fie ' appov ahrbv. /caXcos hk 'eiroiqaes. bSipa fioi 6X€/ti^e[s] IxeyaXa apaKia. ireirXavriKav rjixds eKe[T], rg i7;U€p^ 1/3' OTi tTrkevces. \vTr6v irep^l/ov d{s\ IJ,e, irapaKoKai ae. afj, p,r) TifjApjis oh p,ii 4>a.- 70;, oh tii) irelpoi' ravra. kpiiade ae eiixioixai). TvI3l 17]'. On the other side: airodos G^covt [ajiro Bewvaros vtS). Milligan {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): 'Edi' iroWavoWuv rkjjs, kav Jjv apaevop, ii^es, kav fjv difKea, iK^oKe. {g) R^suMiS. To all intents and purposes the vernacular kolv^i is the later vernacular Attic with normal development under 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 Koivri everyTvhere (cf . Thumb, Griech. Spr., p. 200). The literary Kot,vii was homogeneous, while the vernacular KOivf) 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 Koivii (Moulton, Prol., p. 5). We do not know certainly how the ancient Attic was pronounced, though we can approximate it. The modern Greek vernacular pronunciation is known. The Koivfi 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. ol, -q, v, v, t=ee in feet, or aL=e" (Angus, op. cit., p. 79). Besides itacisms the t-monophthongizing is to be noticed and the equalizing of o and 03. The Attic tt is aa except in a few instances (like eKarroiv, KpeirTcov). The tendency is toward de- aspiration except in a few cases where the reverse is true as a result of analogy (or a lost digamma) . Cf . €' eXTrlSt. Elision is not so common as in the Attic, but assimilation is carried still further (cf. knnecu). 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 -tet- in forms like iretv and raiiiiov probably comes by analogy. OWds and ixr]dd% are the common forms till 100 B.C. when oiiSeis and nrjdeh 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 KOLvi] was not averse to foreign elements if they were useful. Xenophon is a good illustration of the preparation for the Koivfi. Cf. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 8. Word-Formation. There is the natural dropping of some old sufiixes and the coining of new suflBxes, some of which appear in the modern Greek vernacular. The number of compound words by juxtaposition is greatly increased, like irK-qpo-^pkoi, xetpA-rpa^oi/. In particular two prepositions in compounds are frequent, like lb., p. lii. * Ess. in Bibl. Gk., 1889, p. 2. 2 Ess. and Rev., p. 477. ' lb., p. 11. » Lang, of the N. T., 1890, p. 20. « Dogmatik, 1863, p. 238. ' BibUco-Theol. Lex. of N. T. Gk., 1892, p. iv. " W.-M., 1877, p. 38. Of. W.-Sch., p. 28. 78 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Greek or Koivij is quite right, only we have no such grammar even yet. Winer made little use of the papyri and inscriptions (p. 21 ft. n.). We still sigh for a grammar of the Koivfi, though Thumb has related the kolvti to the Greek language as a whole. Kennedy' contended that there was "some general characteristic" about the LXX and N. T. books, which distinctly marked them off from the other Greek books; but "they are both children of the same parent, namely, the colloquial Greek of the time. This is the secret of their striking resemblance." Even in the Hastings' Dictionary Thayer^ contends for the name "Hellenistic Greek" as the proper term for N. T. Greek. That is better than "bibUcal" or "Jew- ish" Greek, etc. But in simple truth we had better just call it N. T. Greek, or the Greek of the N. T., and let it go at that. It is the Greek of a group of books on a common theme, as we would speak of the Greek of the Attic orators, the Platonic Greek, etc. It is not a pecuhar type of Greek except so far as that is due to the historical conditions, the message of Christianity, and the pecuharities of the writers. Deissmann,* however, is the man who has proven from the papyri and inscriptions that the N. T. Greek is not a separate variety of the Greek language. He denies that the N. T. is hke the LXX Greek, which was "a written Sem- itic-Greek which no one ever spoke, far less used for literary pur- poses, either before or after."* Blass^ at first stood out against this view and held that "the N. T. books form a special group — one to be primarily explained by study," but in his Grammar of N. T. Greek he changed his mind and admitted that "a grammar of the popular language of that period written on the basis of all these various authorities and remains" was better than limiting oneself "to the language of the N. T."^ So Moulton' concludes: "The disappearance of that word 'Hebraic' from its prominent place in our delineation of N. T. language marks a change in our conceptions of the subject nothing less than revolutionary." The new knowledge of the koivt] has buried forever the old controversy between Purists and Hebraists.* The men who wrote the N. T. » Sour, of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. 146. « Art. Lang, of the N. T., Hast. D. B., 1900. ' B. S., 1901; HeU. Griech., Hauok's Realencyc. etc. « B. S., p. 67. 5 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 2. 6 Theol. Literaturzeit., 1895, p. 487. ' Prol., p. 1. ' Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 120. It lasted "solange die biblische Gra- citat als etwas isoliertes betrachtet wurde." Thumb attacks the idea of a N. T. dialect or a peculiar bibUcal variety of the Koivii, 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 Jpusiness and bosoms."' Wackernagel understates the matter: "As little as the LXX does the N. T. need to be isolated linguistically." ^ (6) Proof that N. T. Greek is in the Vernacitlar Koivq. The proof is now at hand. We have it in the numerous contemporary Greek inscriptions already 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. 300. ' CI. Rev., 1887. " Ejtp. Times, vol. X, pp. 9 S. " 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, Dittenbergcr, 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 homeliness 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 particular, 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 Monlton' puts it, "the Holy Ghost spoke absolutely in the language of the people." The evidence that the N. T. Greek is ia the vernacular (coiwj 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 ia the papyri or inscriptions: dYair?;, axaTayvwcros, dvafao), avatTTaTou), avTiMinirTap, aWoytvjis, diXap7upos, aWevreo}, Ppoxv> ivavTi, ivBiSvaKU}, ivinnov, h-iKCLTaparos, kiriawwyoyyi), evapearos, ewrpoffajTreco, lepaTevciJ, ifiaTL^b}, KaTaireraaita, Karayyekevs, Kariiyosp, Kaj9apii;o}, kokklvos, KvpiaKos, XtiTOvpyiKiK, Xo7eio, ve6(l)VTOs, 60etXiJ, irapaPoXevofiai, ireptaaeia, 7rXrjpo<^p«o, irpooKaprkprqaK, irpo(TKVvriTris, TpoaevxV) irpoiTOTOKOs, ffLTOiikrpiov, (TwavriKapfiavonai, iKoTrpo}Tevpevawa.Tris, etc. For a lively discussion of these words see Deissmann (Bible Studies, pp. 198-247; Light, etc., pp. 69-107). The recovery of the inscription on the marble slab that warned the gentiles from the Upov is very impressive. Mrfiiva aWoyovTJ tiairoptveaBcu. kvrds tov irepl to Upov rpuc^aJCTOU Kol ircpi/SoXau. 8s 5' av \r](t>6y, favTcHi airios earai Sia to i^oKoXovdeiv Bavarov. The words above are no longer biblical ava^ \ey6pxva. 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 dSeX^os in the sense of ' common brotherhood,' dfl^TTjffis, a/ieTavoTiTos, d/iK^orepoi = ravres, ava- CTpeonai., ava(j)kp%, SZfw., eav — av, el p.r]v, elSos, eis, acTeveia, €kt6s, eKTWaaaci), iv, kveSpebu), Ivoxos, IvTvyxo-voi, €7rtj3aXa)i', eiri, irapeTri&rjpas, irapeais, Trdpot/cos, wapo^vvopMi., iraTpowapaSoTOS, irepunraM, xepir^/iyco, ir^xySj irKeoveKTeco, wKijOos, irXripoipopkca, wpayita, ' ProL, p. 5. THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 81 irpcLKTiap, irpecr^iTepos, irpSdtffK, irpoakx'^t irpocrKaprepko}, irpcKJyliTTis, craTrpos, ericiiXXw, ffK6\o\l/, apMpkyhivoi, aovdapiov, aireKovkaTup, o-toctis, ffTparevofiai,, pa'yi^o}, atjivpli, cvyyevrii, ffvp,Po{iKiov, avveiSriiTLs, ffvv- exw, trvvevdoKkca, avvevux^lMLi, avvlaTriixi, adfia, auT'ljp, rripTicns, rin^oz, vioi, vlos 6eov, vioBtala, inro^iiyiov, {nroirSSiov, ii7r6<7Ta xpovos, i^oj/uiov, yl^vxfiv 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 Koivii in the Roman Empire in the first century A.D.i This is not a complete list, for new words will 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. (Papyri) is very incomplete. After compiling this Ust 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 Koivri, 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 iWriyopeci), &,VToda\fii(i}, iLiroicapaSoKla, detaLSaifiovla, kyxp'iM, kyyi^u, lirtxoprjT^o), eiSoKeca, evKaipkcc, Bpiafi^eio}, 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 alaBririipiov, appafiiiv, /Sair- Tifw, e{ixc''Pi(yT'i,a, Kvpla, ixvcTijpMv, i\a8iKTi (Lu. 2 : 2) is not "taxing," but "en- rolling" for the census (very common in the papjTi). 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 KOLvtj also in using many compounded ("sesquipedahan") words like aveKSLriyriTos, ape^epaivrjTOS, aWoTpioeiria-KOTros, vwepevrvy- xa-va, etc. There is also the same frequency of diminutives, some of which have lost that significance, as irXoMpiov, dirapiov, wt'lov, etc. The new meanings to old words are well illustrated in the list from the papyri, to which may be added avaXvu, ivrpoTrr], fcooTrotew, (Txo^ri, xopTa^(^, 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, 5vS)V and 8v(tI, 'eyevapjrtv, eKajSa, eXeras, eXeixf/a, rjySa, i]voiyqv, ■qpirayriv, fj^a, SaScoKes, olSes, h/pa-^es, riBw, cirdpris; the imperative has only the long forms -TU)aa.v, -aduKjav, etc. The various dialects are represented in the forms retained in the N. T., as the Attic in jSoiiXei, 5t56a«rt, ^/xeXXe, etc.; the Ionic in fiaxaipvs, yivofiai, yivixTKia, etc.; the Doric in a4>'«^vTai, t^tco, etc.; the jEolic in awoKTewu, 3d plural in -aav, etc.; the Northwest Greek in accusative plural in -£s, perfect in -av (3d plural), confusion of -axe and -eo verbs, etc.; the Arcadian-Cyprian group in accusative singular in -av, a(l>toii'- T-at (also). It is curious that Thayer in Hastings' D. B., follows Winer's error in giving edidoaav as an example of a form like elxoaav, for the present stem is 8ido-, and aav is merely the usual hl ending. * See Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 4-20. Among the syntactical pecuharities of N. T. Greek which are less numerous, as in the kowti, the following are worthy of note and are found in the kolvti: the non-final use of I'm; 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 etfil; article with the infinitive (especially with kv and els); cu^es and fiXkire with sub- jtmctive without conjunction; the absence of the dual; use of 6, though Moulton (p. 246) has found in the papyri avev and x'<'P's so used with xSs. The use of ^rj/m, in the sense of "la'i 'thing' is a Hebraism after the LXX. The classic Greek already has X670S in this sense. IIpA- (Twirov \aij.paveiv D'^SB s^toj is a clear Hebraism. Ilpo(raiT6\rifnrTka> first appears in the N. T. So also is apeaKeiv kvicirvdv nvos rather than apk(TKHv TLvl a Hebraism. Cf . the circumlocutions xpA irpoaiirov t^s elabbov avrov (Acts 13 : 24) rather than the simple irpd abrov. The frequent use of the article in address, though occasional in Greek, ' Swete, Intr. to the O. T. in Gk., 1900, pp. 381-405. ^ Schtirer, 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 ^ji or eo-Ti and the participle suits both the Hebrew and the analy- tic tendency of the noivii. Cf. the more fraquent use of the instru- mental kv. So the frequent construction elvai els is due to h in Hebrew, though in itself not out of harmony with the Greek genius. It occurs in the papyri. 'Awd 7rpoo-cb7rou='i.?&a and wpd 7rpoo-djiroi;="i56^ are both Hebraisms. The use of di86uai in the sense of riBevai is due to lOJ having both senses (Thackeray, Gr. of the 0. T. in Gk., p. 39) ; cf . Deut. 28 : 1, Secret ce mepavo). So riiJi,kpaL takes the flavour of the Hebrew 'o'^'ni and elp'fivri is used in salutation like tiiiia. The superfluous pronoun calls for notice also. The frequency of kv t4> with the infinitive is due to 5. So also vtos occurs in some Hebraistic senses like 1|, but the papyri have some examples of vlos for 'quality,' 'characteristic' Thack- eray (p. 42) notes the Hebrew fondness for "physiognomical expressions" like dcftdaKfios, irpocrcairov, (rrSfia, xf^p, ttovs, etc. The in- creased use of avrip and avdponros like ic''s rather than tU, was, 'tKaaros must be observed. The very extensive use of prepositions is ac- cented by the Hebrew. Kai kykvero translates ^f^'^1. 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 a little of just that kind. Kennedy ' gives thirteen words common to the LXX and the N. T. (Thackeray, Gr., pp. 31 ff., gives a list of "Hebra- isms in Vocabulary") and counts "twenty Hebrew and Aramaic words which do not occur in the LXX, e.g. ^L^avuiv, fiapMvds, paKo., d)aavvL" The words in the N. T. known to be Hebrew and not Aramaic are as follows: d/3aS6a)i'=liia^; dXX7jXoutd=n;"lii3n; a^riv ='iO^; apnaye886}v = y\'^^ni ID; appa/Scbj' = liS'iS ; /3aT0s=ria; fieeX^e^ov^ = 2«t iisa; Poavtipyes='0'i^ "^55 (cf. Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 49); /3iio-(ros=f1S (cf. also Pvaatvos); e^paiarl from ia»; ^Xei="'^S (MSS. Mt. 27:46); Kap,i{Ko%='^'>yi] iovdat^oi, lov8a'i€(ns, ykevva, k/cXT/o-ia, KbpuK, X670S, XuTpAco, novoytvi}^, ■nvev^a, acorripla, xpto"''6s, ktK. (See longer Ust in Swete, Introduction to 0. T. in Greek, p. 454.) So also many N. T. phrases are found in the LXX, hke eUiiv 6eov, oir/ii) eiiwSias, irpbauirov irpos ■Kphcrwirov, \aij,^a,veiv TrpAcrw^roi', 17 8i,a(TTopa, ktX. (ib.). The O. T. apocrjqjhal books also are of interest on this point. We have a splendid treatment of the LXX Greek by Thackeray. He shows "the Koivii basis of LXX Greek," as to vocabulary, orthography, accidence and syntax (pp. 16-25). He notes (ra, TeaaepanovTa, finds v movable before consonants, vam, vvktov, TrKiipris indeclinable, a 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. Cf . Swete, p. 457 f . » Swete, ib., p. 307. * Moulton, Prol., p. 13. "i 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^hows that it had previ- ously been done. The quotations in the N. T. from the O. 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 O. 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 Introduo- 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- • Megilla, I, 8. Cf . Hamburger, Realencyc, art. Griechentum; R. Meister, Prol. zu einer Gr. der Sept., (Wiener Stud., xxix, 27). ^ 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 sho^s the same thing to be true of Die Leip. Pap. frag, der Psalmen, 1903. ' Swete, Intr., etc., p. 402. AU these facts about LXX quotations come from Swete. ' lb., p. 404. See ib., p. 404 f., for bibliography on N. T. quotations. 5 lb., pp. 29 ff. 100 A GRAMMAR OF 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 SeptiMgint are of great value. Swete^ laments that the N. T. grammars have only "incidental references to the linguistic 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 Koivrj 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 Ukeness 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 Koi.vri. 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 hke 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," like * 6 KpLT^is TTJs adidas, is paralleled in the papyri and the inscriptions, though not so often as in the LXX. Cf. Radermacher, N. T. Greek, p. 19. So also (p. 21) toTs 4| kpuBdai (Ro. 2 : 8) is like k ir\Tipovs in the papyri and already in the tragic poets. Thumb' properly takes the side of Deissmann against Viteau's exaggerated » Intr., p. 289. > lb., p. 299. " lb., p. 9. « Exp. Times, ill, 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, seU 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. THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 101 idea of LXX influence (following Hatch). It is not always easy to decide what is due to the use of the LXX and what to the development of the koivI) vernacular. 'One must have an open mind to light from either direction. Deissmaim^ is clearly right in calling for a scientific investigation of the Hebraisms of the LXX. Even the LXX and N. T. use of kptT'li (Is. 42 : 8, 12; 1 Pet. 2:9; 2 Pet. 1:3) is paralleled by an inscription in Caria.^ We are not then to think of the Jews or the Christians as ever using in speech or literature the peculiar Greek used in the trans- lation of the Hebrew 0. T., which in itself varied much in this respect in different parts. The same intense Hebraistic cast appears in the 0. T. apocryphal books which were originally in Hebrew and then translated, as Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, 1 Macca- bees, etc. Contrast with these the Greek of the Wisdom of Solo- mon, 2 Maccabees and the Prologue to the Greek translation of Ecclesiasticus, and the difference is at once manifest.' The Wis- dom of Solomon is of special interest, for the author, who wrote in Greek and revealed knowledge of Greek culture, art, science and philosophy, was yet famiUar with the LXX and imitated some of its Hebraisms, being a Jew himself. Cf. Siegfried, "Book of Wisdom," Hastings' D. B. It must never be forgotten that "by far the greatest contribution of Alexandrian prose to the great literature of the world is this very translation of the 0. T."* The name Christ (Xptcrros) is found in the LXX "and so the very terms Christian and Christianity arose out of the language em- ployed by the Alexandrian interpreters." ^ The only Bible known to most of the Jews in the world in the first Christian century was the LXX. The first complete Bible was the Greek Bible. The LXX was the "first Apostle to the Gentiles" and was freely used for many centuries by the Christians. Conybeare and Stock {Set. from the LXX, p. 24) go so far as to say that the N. T. itself would not have been but for the LXX. Certainly it would not ' Hell.-Griech., Hauck's Realencyc, p. 638. ' Deissmann, B. S., pp. 95 f ., 360 ff. Cf . GautzBchius, Spec. Exercit. Gr., 1778, p. 23. H. Anz, Subs, ad cognos. Graec. Serm. etc., 1894, p. 385, points out that poetic words are in the LXX also through the common speech. Cf . Lipsius, Gr. Unters. iiber die bibl. Grac, 1863, p. vii. • Deissmann, B. S., p. 76 f. He rightly calls attention to the fact that many of the Ptolemaic pap. are contemporary with the LXX and bristle with proof that the LXX on the whole is in the vernac. koict? of Egypt. The Hebraisms came from the Hebrew itself in the act of translating. * Mahaffy, Prog, of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., p. 80. « Churton, Infl. of the LXX Vers., 1861, p. 1. 102 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT have been what it is. "The Bible whose God is Yahweh is the Bible of one people, the Bible whose God is Kiptoj is the Bible of the world" (Deissmann, Die Hellen. des Semit. Mon., p. 174). Thackeray {Grammar of the 0. T. in Greek, pp. 25-55) gives a careful survey of the "Semitic Element in the LXX Greek." He admits that the papyri have greatly reduced the number of the Hebraisms heretofore noted in the LXX. He denies, however (p. 27), that the Greek of the LXX gives "a true picture of the language of ordinary intercourse between Jewish residents in the country." He denies also any influence of the Hebrew on the vernacular Greek of the Jews in Alexandria outside of the vocabu- lary of special Jewish words like aKpajSvcrTia. He thinks (p. 28) the Book of Tobit the best representative of the vernacular Greek of the Jews. There are more transliterations like yeiMfxis for Ara- maic s"iiiii (Heb. 13) in the later books where the early books had irapoiKos or irpoaiiKuroi. The fact of a translation argues for a fading of the Hebrew from the thought of the people. In the early books the translation is better done and "the Hebraic character of these books consists in the accumulation of a nimiber of just tolerable Greek phrases, which nearly correspond to what is normal and idiomatic in Hebrew" (p. 29). But in the later books the Hebraisms are more numerous and more marked, due to "a growing reverence for the letter of the Hebrew" (p. 30). We cannot follow in detail Thackeray's helpful sketch of the transliterations from the Hebrew, the Hellenized Semitic words, the use of words of like sound, Hebrew senses in Greek words like SLSci}fu = T'iJdirifiL after "IfiS, vlds aSiKias, doi iSapjSdpots. John (5 : 2; 19 : 13, 17, 20; Rev. 9 : 11; 16 : 16) uses 'E/Jpaio-Ti in the sense of the Aramaic. So Luke has 4 •E/3pats StiiXeKros (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/Jpotj 00)1/17. The two kinds of Jewish Christians are even called (Ac. 6 : 1) "EXXr)j'taBa.= nriBtlSi; Kop;3a»'as = »Da'naip SP'^ii!?; names of persons like Kjj(^as=!*B''3; Taj3ei0d=sr!''aD, etc. Aramaisms of syntax are seen in the following. The expression jivtcOai 6av6.Tov seems to be in imitation of the Aramaic. Well- hausen {Einl. in die drei Evang., pp. 31 ff.) suggests that eTs Ka6' els (Mk. 14 : 19) is a hybrid between tfie Aramaic els els (but this is an old Greek idiom) and the vernacular {Koivi]) kojB' eh. He suggests also that Aramaic meanings are found in such words as o-tbfew', irotetv Kapirdv, avfi^ovXtov Troieiv (StSovai), elpi/VT], eiprivriv 8L56vai,, 656s 6eov, TKripwfia, etc. As already explained, apart from the question of a possible original Aramaic Mark and an original Aramaic Matthew and Aramaic sources for the early chapters of Luke and the first twelve chapters of Acts,' many of the discourses of Christ were undoubtedly in Aramaic. There was translation then from this Aramaic spoken (or written) gospel story into the vernacular Koivri as we now have it in large portions of the Synoptic Gospels and possibly part of Acts. The conjectural efforts to restore this Aramaic original of the words of Jesus are suggestive, but not always convincing. On the whole subject of Semitic words in the Ptolemaic papyri see Mayser, Grammatik, pp. 40-42. The list includes ap{p)a^6ii>, piiacros, Khixivov, Xi^ovos, (rvKLfiivos, x'tcoj'. It is not a very long list indeed, but shows that the Orient did have some little influence on the Greek vocabulary. These words oc- cur in older Greek writers. ' Schfirer, Hist, of the Jew. Peo., etc., div. II, vol. I, pp. 29-^0. Cf. mod. Yiddish. " Cf. Bickel, Zeitschr. fiir Cath. Theol., viii, 43. This would then mean, " Lord, come." Cf . Rev. 22 : 20. W. H. give it fiap&v 6.66.. ' See Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., ch. XI; Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 17- 78; Wellhausen, Einl. in die drei Evang. (Die aram. Grundl. der Evang., pp. 14-43). 106 A GRAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (/) Varying Results. It is natural that different writers in tlie N. T. should diverge in the amount of Semitic influ- ence manifest in their writings. They all used the vernacular Kotj'17 which in itself may have had a very faint trace of Semitic influence. But of the nine authors of the N. T. six were prob- ably Palestinian Jews.^ Now these six writers (Mark, Mat- thew, James, Peter, Jude, John) are just the very ones who reveal the Semitic mould of thought. It is often merely the Hebrew and Aramaic spirit and background. In Mark the Aramaic influence appears; in Matthew^ the LXX is quoted along with the Hebrew, and Aramaisms occur also; in James there is the stately dignity of an 0. T. prophet with Aramaic touches (cf. his address and letter in Ac. 15) but with many neat turns of Greek phrase and idiom; Peter's two letters pre- sent quite a problem and suggest at least an amanuensis in one case or a different one for each letter (cf. Biggs, Int. and Grit. Comm.); Jude is very brief, but is not distinctly Hebraic or Grecian; John in his Gospel is free from minor Semitisms be- yond the frequent use of /cai like "], but the tone of the book is distinctly that of a noble Jew and the sum total of the impres- sion from the book is Semitic, while the Apocalypse has minor Hebraisms and many grammatical idiosyncrasies to be discussed later, many of which remind one of the LXX. If the absence of the optative be taken as a test, even when compared with the vernacular KOLvq, Matthew, James and John do not use it at all, while Mark has it only once and Jude twice. Peter in- deed has it four times and Hebrews only once, but Luke uses the optative 28 times and Paul 31. The remaining three writers (Paul, Luke, author of Hebrews) were not Palestinian Jews. Paul was a Hellenistic Jew who Icnew his vernacular Koivii well and spoke Aramaic and read Hebrew. His Epistles are addressed chiefly to gentile Christians and naturally show little Semitic flavour, for he did not have to translate his ideas from Aramaic into Greek. In some of his speeches, especially the one delivered in Aramaic, as reported by Luke in Ac. 22, a trace of the Semitic point of view is retained. In contrast with Ac. 22 note Paul's address on the Areopagus in 17. The author of Hebrews makes abundant use of the LXX but exhibits possible Alexandrian origin or training, and it is not clear that he knew either 1 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 #hether he was famihar with the Aramaic. There seems little 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 genuine Hebraisms in Luke like 'koyovs in sense of things (9 : 28 but classical authority for this exists), Sia (TTOfiaTos (1 : 70) are due to the LXX, not the Hebrew. The use of kv 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 tQ in70(jrp'etiv tov 'Iria-ovv (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 Tc^ (TTeipeLv (common to all the Sjoioptics, 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 Kai iykvero (almost peculiar to him in the N. T.), which at once suggests ''i':i'^,l. He doubtless got this from the LXX.^ He has three constructions, viz. Kai kyevero /cat ^XBe, Kal kytuero Jj^Be and Kai kyevero k'Kdetv. The first two' are common in the LXX, while eykvero ekdelv is due to the Greek vernacular '^'' as the papjTi testify. The superfluous acjiels, vp^aro, etc., are Ara- maisms, while elfii and the participle is Aramaic, like the Hebrew, and also in harmony with the analytic vernacular Koivii. Nestle ^^ ' Biesenthal (Das Trostsohreiben 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 . Cf. 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 iv 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 times, 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.j'pp. 50 ff. We have the type krykvero fihBi 146 times, and 'eykvero Kal ri>St 269 times in the LXX, but tykvtTo k\6uv only once (1 Kgs. 11:43 B). " Moulton, Prol., p. 17. " Zeitschr. fur neutest. Wiss., 1906, p. 279 f. 108 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT agrees with Blass (p. 131) in taking oimS^uv kv in Mt. 10 : 32 and Lu. 12 : 8 as a Syrism. a with nnin is not in the Hebrew, nor 6fio\. kv in the LXX, but "'lis is used with a in the Jewish-Arar maic and Christian-Syriac. Nestle refers to diiohoyobpTuv tQ 6v6- fiari (Heb. 13 : 15) as a Hebraism, for in such a case the Hebrew used ^. The LXX and the Aramaic explaia all the Semitisms in Luke. Dalman' ventures to call the LXX Hebraisms in Luke "Septuagint-Graecisms" 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 pecuharities 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 little 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 xowi) 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 mihtary and official terms was to be expected,' though certainly not to the extent of Romanizmg 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, ComeUus, Claudia, Clemens, Crescens, Crispus, Fortunatus, Julia, Junia, Justus, Linus, Lucius, Luke, Mark, 1 Wds. of Jes., p. 41. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 4. 2 lb., p. 72. » Comm. on Mk., 1898, p. xUv. » Prol., p. 20. 8 Griech. Spr. etc., p. 152. ' Hoole, Class. Element in the N. T., p. 4. ' Pro Archia 10. Cato lamented : ATroXoSat 'Pu/mZoi t4 irp&yiuiTa ypaiiii&ruv 'EWrivmay 6.vait\i)aekvTts (Plut., Cato Maj. 23. 3). Cf. Colin, Rome et la Grtee de 200 k 146 avant J&us-Christ (1905). » Schiirer, Jew. Peo. in Time of Ch., div. II, vol. I, pp. 43 £f. 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 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 109 Niger, Paul, Priscilla, Publius, Pudens, Rufus, Sergius, Silvanus (Silas), Tertius, Titus among the Christians themselves (Jewish and gentile), while Agrippa, Augustus (translated Se/Saoros), Caesar, Claudius, Gallio, Felix, Festus, JuUus, Nero (Text. Rec), Pilate, Tertullus are typical Roman names. Note the Roman cities mentioned in Ac. 28, Csesarea 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 Koivi], 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."i 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: kcaapiov (as), Srivapiov (denarius), ?xw=aestimo (?x« M« ttapxiTiiii.kvov, Lu. 14 : 18), eipaKi/Koov, dpiaftfievuv, Kevrvpiuv (centurio), Krjvcros (census), Ko5pav- TTis (quadrans), Kokuvia (colonia), KovarTcaSia (custodia), X€7twj' (legio), 'KkvTiov (linteum), Xi/SepTiws (libertinus), Xtrpa (Hbra), /*&- KeWov (macellvun), ixeti^pava. (membrana), p,'i\Lov (mille), fi68u)s (modius), l^o-Ti/s (sextarius), irpaiTiipiov (praetorium), atKapios (si- carius), aLfuKlvdiov (semicinctium), aovSapLov (sudarium), awiKov- Xotrup (speculator), at rafiepvai. (tabema), rtrXos (titlus), cjieXovris (paenula), (^ipov (forum), vKa(Taei.v 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 S> with the vocative, avv as equal to Kal, 6s = Kal oBros {qui = et hie), 7a/ieco with dative =nit- bere alicui, infinitive alone with /ceXeuco. There is no evidence that the absence of the article in Latin had any influence on the ver- nacular Koivii, 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 le.^ Other foreign words had, of course, entered the kolvIi or the earlier Greek, like ^ouvds (Cyrenaic and Sicilian) ; piSr] (Gallic or Celtic); hyyapevm (even ^schylus), ya^a, Ta,pa,5uao%, aavSaKuiv (Per- sian); xi-riiv (Oriental); Kpa^arros (cf. Latin grabatus), ■wapep.fioki], pvnt] (Macedonian) ; appa^iiv, KLvvafucnov, kv/juvov, fivd (Phoenician) ; ^atov, /StjSXos, ^vcrcTos, fflvain, aivdoiv (Egyptian or Semitic?); ftfci- viov (Arabic?). On the Egyptian words in the Ptolemaic papyri see Mayser, Grammatik, pp. 35-40; on the Persian words, ib., p. 42 f ., including y6.^a and irapdhticos. 'ZIvo.tl 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 fiap^apoi to the real Greeks and inevitably brought laxities into the vernacular. Cf. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., pp. 9ff., who gives a good discussion of the Latinisms in kowij writers. * Atticismus etc., p. 64. Cf. Georgi, De Latinismis N. T., iii, Vita, 1733. ' On this whole subject see Ronsch, Itala und 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 OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT V. The Christian Addition. But was there a Christian ad- dition if there was no separate biblical Greek, not to say a special Christian Greek? Winer ^ admitted "religious technical terms" in the Christian sense, but thought that "the subject scarcely lies within the limits 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 civiUzation, 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 unfamiliar 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. Cormect 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. ' B. S., p. 65 (note). ' Encyc. Bib., art. Papyri, p. 3562. * Prol., p. 20. Cf. Thumb, Griech. Spr., p. 182 f. « Smith's D. B., art. N. T. ' The Gk. World under Rom. Sway, 1890, p. 389 f. Butcher, Harv. Leet. on Gk. Subj., 1894, p. 2 f., calls the power of Jew and Gk. on modem life 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 religion of Judea that of civilized 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 ks the Attic had been for the ancient world. Winer 1 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 difficulty 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 "biblical" Greek idea as to imagine that we can find in the vernacular Koivfi all that Christianity has to offer. The Christian spirit put a new flavour into this vernacular Koivij 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 simpUcity and winsomeness, and Renan 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 alien to Hellenism, the » 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." Deissmaim (Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, p. 8) accents the difference between the Christian ideas and the Grseco-Rom. heathen words that express them. * lb., p. 12. Norden (Die griech. Kunstpr., Bd. II, pp. 453 ff.) indeed thinks that the N. T. wants the "freedom" {Freiheit) and "serenity" {Hei- ierkeit) of the ancient Uterature. 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 — blitheness or repose, and Allgemeinheit — generaUty or breadth, are the supreme characteristics of the Hellenic ideal." Walter Pater, The Renais- sance, 1904, p. 225. " Die griech. Kunstpr., Bd. II, p. 456. ' lb., Bd. I, p. 290. ' lb., Bd. II, p. 463. 114 A GKAMMAR 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 in 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 in the N. T. The touch of Ufe is what distinguishes the N. T. writings from the philosophical, historical, religious and ethical writmgs of the time.' In the Synoptic Gospels this quality reaches its height. "Far above these details is the spirit, the literary 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 itseK 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 beginning, in fact, was Jesus Himself" {ib., p. 245). The N. T. is in close sympathy 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, how;ever necessary and fundamental granmiat- 1 Cf. Hatch, Infl. of HeUen. on Christ. ^ Gesch. der griech. Lit., 1905, p. 912. ' Hicks, Gk. Phil, and Rom. Law in the N. T., 1896, p. 12. * Mahaffy, Surv. of Gk. CiviUz., 1897, p. 309. 6 Thayer, Hast. D. B., art. Lang, of the N. T., p. 40''- 6 Rodwell, N. T. Gk., 1899, p. 2. ' Hast. D. B., ib. Cf. Schaff, 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 notel^that the influence of Christianity is chiefly lexical, not grammatical.' But a few points in syntax are to be observed, as in expressions like iv XpLdTc^^; kv 'Kvp'uf] xumhca^ iv with locative, eis with accusative, kiri with the locative or the accusative, ina-Tevoo with the dative, with the accu- sative or absolutely. As to the lexical element the lists of dra^ evfrrifiha 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 diriXPio'TOs, ^Tepo5i3acr/caXew, eiiayyekiaTrjs, avvcrravphtj), i^eu- SASeX^os, yj/ivhairbaTo\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 a!yaii-i\, 0.710,^0), 07105, dSeX^os, Ilvt[tvvos, avniu.- aBia, &iro\vTpo}aLs, &.ir6}\eia, LiroaToKos, a/woaToKi], apros, jSactXeia, fiair- Tifto, PaitTiana {—fios), yKSxraa, Sta/coj'os, Si/catoco, eipijvr], iKK\r)aia, ixKeKTSs, 'ekiri^co, eXTrts, ewlaKOTros, 'eiriaTpk(f)Ofuii, 'epya, evwyy'eKiov, eiiay- yehl^ca, k^vtrla, fcoij, Oavaros, tepeiis, Ka\ku>, KaTaXKayr], KaraXKa.o'ffO}, KHipixrffu, kXtitos, Koafws, KOivcovia, \vrpov, Twrpou, neravoui, 686s, ira- paicKijTOs, iriaris, irto-Tos, inffTebd), irvevna, Tvevfiarucos, irpeapvTepos, irp6(TK0Hna, aap^, ffrai/pos, avveiSriaLS, ffoifco, aciiTitp, aurripia, roTreiJ'os, Tair€i,vov ovpavQv 32 times, while he paxlegomena ist bedenklich zusammengeschrumpft; es handelt sich im Neuen Testament meistens um ovraj ebpriiiiva, nicht airaj tipjiniva." ' 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 Tzschirner's Analecta, II, 2, 3). See Hawkins, Hor. Syn.2, 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 4 /Sao-tXeto toO deov 4 times (Mk. 14; Lu. 32); he uses 6 rariipb ovpavLos 7 times and 6 irariip 6 kv rots obpavoh 13 times; he 12 times quotes the O. T. with the formula 'iva (ottws) TrXr/pwflg rd fniBiv or T&re iirXripdidri rd prjB'ev, whereas Luke does not have it at all, Mark only once and John 7 times; jcar' ovap occurs 6 times and no- where else in N. T.; Uke Luke he uses koX ihoh often (27 times) and iSoh after the genitive absolute 11 times; he alone speaks of 17 d7ta ;r6Xis and 7r6Xts tov p.eya.\ov /SatriXetos; like Mark he uses 'lepocroXvixa always save once (23 : 37), whereas Luke usually has 'lepovaoMip.; ofivvoi kv or ets, common in Matthew, does not occur in the other Gospels; Td(^os, not in the other Gospels, is found 6 times; awTiXeia rbv aiSivos occurs 6 times, and only once more in the N. T. (Heb.); note the pleonastic use of avdpanros as avdpu- TTos /SatriXciis; he twice uses ets to ovona, but the other Gospels kv tQ bvbpAiTL or eiri; the oriental particularity is seen in using irpoakpxouM 51 times while Mark has it only 5 and Luke 10 times; avviiyuv is used by Matthew 24 times; the vernacular kolvIi is manifest in many ways as in the use of iMvocjydaXtios (like Mark), KoXXuj3io-TaJ. 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 TroXXi, while Mark has it 9 times. He has Sk where Mark has Kai about 60 times. Matthew has 6n 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. xxf.). The periphras- tic tenses are less common in Matthew than in Mark and Luke (op. cit., p. xxii). Matthew is less fond than Mark of redundant phrases {op. dt., p. xxvi). The Gospel is largely in the form of discourses with less narrative element than Mark. The style is more uniform and less graphic than either Mark or Luke and so less individual.^ (c) LtjKE. 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 famiUar 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-xxxi; 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 OP 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 w^ich have their scene in Palestine he feels it congruous to retain the rough diction of his sources" (Moulton, Camb. Bibl. Essays, p. 479). One thing is certain about him. He had a good command of the vernacular Koivi] and even attains the hterary Koivij 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.^ Renan* 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. Cf . Blass, Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa, p. 42). But we need not go so 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 stiU aTra^ 'Keyo/ieva. 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 abun- ' Schaff, Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 55. He calls attention to the fact that the intra, of Herodotus and Luke are about equal in length. Cf. Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., pp. 7 ff. ' St. Luke the Prophet, 1901, p. 81. » Davidson, Intr. to N. T., ii, p. 17. * Lea Evang., pp. 232, 283. ' Plummer, Comnl. on Luke, 1896, p. xlvii. « Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 1895; Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem?; Chase, Credibility 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. ' 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 cosmopolite tone, who yet knows how to be popular also (Deissmann, lAght, p. 241 f.). He not only has a rich vocabulary, but also fine command of the Kot,vii 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 h t43 (37 times) and of Tov with the infinitive (25 instances); Chase, Jude (Epis. of). Hast. D. B. * See Thayer's hst (Lex., p. 709). For fresh discussion of the gram, aspects of Jude and 2 Pet. see Mayor's Comm. (1908). He accepts the genuinenesB of Jude, but rejects 2 Peter. ' Maier, Der Judasbrief, 1906, p. 169. * Bigg, Comm. on St. Peter and St. Jude, p. 225. » 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 m the N. T., like dmo-rpo^;?, 4'vxll> 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 Koivri; both use a number of classical words like avayKaaT&s (1 Peter, Plato), vXacrTos (Her., Eur., Xen., 2 Peter) ^; both use pic- ture-words^; both seem to know the Apocrypha; both refer to events in the life 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 httle 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 Hke Taprapoco; 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 pXep-iia (2 : 8), though it is not "baboo Greek" (Abbott)^ nor like modern "pigeon EngUsh"; 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 {Ldght, 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 stUl 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 likelier than a thorough student to be certain that it is spurious." Spitta,' Bigg' and 1 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 schriftsteUer. Charakter imd 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 SokIiiwv and hptTi). * Vincent, Word-Studies, vol. I, p. 621. " Exp., ser. 2, v. III. Chase, Hast. D. B., p. 808^ finds needless difficulty with T!-apaakpav (2 Pet. 1:5), for vapa is 'alongside,' 'in addition.' 8 Writers of the N. T., p. 64. ' Der Zweite Brief des Petrus. ^ 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 who either wrote out Peter's ideaaf» 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 ayp&nfiaToi and iduoTai 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 rrjs irapocKlas vficov xpovv (1 ■ 17) and once that seen in to PovXriiia rSiv kdvSiv (4 : 3), the rule in the N. T. The article is generally absent with the attributive genitive and with prepositions as ds pavrurnAv aiixaros (1 : 2). There is a refined accuracy in 1 Peter's use of dis (Bigg), cf. 1 : 19; 2 : 16, etc. A distinction is drawn between fir/ and ov with the participle in 1:8. Once Iva occurs with the future indicative (3 : 1). The absence of av and the particles iipa, ye, kirel, kTeiSrj, re, Bij, iron, ircos is notice- able. 1 Peter makes idiomatic use of p,h, while 2 Peter does not have it. 2 Peter uses the "compact" structure of article, attribu- tive and noun, hke 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, Jvde 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 ?x" (2 Pet. 1 : 15) and as result (2 Pet. 3 : 1 f.). 1 Peter has the article and future participle once (3 : 13) d KaKuaoip. Both 1 Pet. (1 : 2) and 2 Pet. (1 :2) have the optative ifKriBvvMri (hke Jude). 1 Peter twice (3 : 14, 17) has d 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 1 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 GKAMMAR OF THE GKEBK 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 Haggadist. Simcox' says that "there is hardly a line in his writings 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^ replies that PorphjTy 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 kolv^ 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 SvTtva /cai irpSiTov ct>r]iu irpot^ranivov ' 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 Hellen., Stud. Bib., IV, i. ' Urchristentum, pp. 174r-178. 8 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 Church Quart. Rev. (Jan., 1907) shows that all the new words in the Past. Epis. come from the LXX, Aristotle, mivfi writers before or during Paul's time. Cf. Exp. Times, 1907, p. 245 f . THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 129 66ynaTos &.vvTodeLKTov). Baur' says that he has "the true ring of Thucydides." Erasmus {ad Col. 4 : 16) says: "Tonat, fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus." Hausffeth^ correctly says that "it is hard to characterize this individuality in whom Christian fulness of love, rabbinic keenness of perception and ancient will- power so wonderfully mingle." It is indeed the most personaP and the most powerful writing of antiquity. He disclaims classic elegance and calls himself ISi^Tris t4> X67<{) (2 Cor. 11 : 6), yet this was in contrast with the false taste of the Corinthians. But Deissmann {St. Paul, 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 summer brook. But it is passion, not ignorance nor carelessness. He was indeed no Atticist. He used the vernacular Koivfi 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 literature.* The difference between the vernacular and the liter- ary Koivri is often a vanishing point. Paul's style is unhellenic 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. Tzschirner, Observ. PauU ap. epist., 1800; La- sonder, De ling. paul. idiom., 1866. 2 Der Apost. Paulus, p. 502. ' Renan, St. Paul, p. 232. Cf. also Jacquier, Hist, des Livres du N. T., tome P', 1906, p. 37: "Son grec, nous le verrons, n'est pas le grec Htt&aire, 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. s 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 BaU, St. Paul and the Rom. Law (1901). Cf. Thack., Rela. of St. Paul to Contemp. Thought (1900). Paul's use of vd/ws shows knowledge of the Roman lex as weU the Jewish Torah. 9 Mahaffy, Surv. of Gk. CiviUz., p. 310. 130 A GEAMMAR 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 numerous, as in Gal. 2 : 6-9. He uses prepositions with great frequency and discrimination. The genitive is employed by Paul with every variety of applica- 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/3paTos ef 'E^paLoiv, but he handles his Greek with all the freedom of a Hellenist. He thinks in Greek and it is the vernacular koipti of a brilliant and well-educated man in touch with the Greek culture of his time, though remaining thoroughly Jewish in his mental fibre. The pecuhar 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 el nj a-ir^ayxva. 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 e) which is very helpful and makes use of the papyri and inscriptions. The most striking thing in this study is the cosmopolitan character of Paul's vocabulary. There are very few words which are found only in the Attic writers, like alaxporris, and no cases of Atticism, though even in the letters a to e he finds some 85 that belong to the literary Kot.vl] as shown by books, papyri and inscriptions, words like adavaala, aBtTkic, etc. In some 50 more the meaning corresponds to that of the literary KOLvt], as in avaXvco (Ph. 1 : 23). To these he adds words which appear in the literary KOLvii, papyri and inscriptions after Paul's time, words like apiraytio^, am^fjv, etc. Then there are words that, so far as known, occur first in the N. T. in the Christian sense, like tKKKrjiria. But the vernacular koivti as set 1 Life of St. Paul, vol. I, p. 630. ' Der Wortsch. des Apost. Paulus, 1905. He says (p. 86): "Es iiberrascht uns nicht mehr, daB jeder paulinische Brief eine Reihe von Wortern enthalt, die den ubrigen unbekannt sind." This is well said. Each letter oimM 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 avTiflkfiP6i.voiJ.ai, dYtdfco. Espe- cially noteworthy are some nice Greek points that are wanting in Paul (as well as in the rest of the N. T.) and in the papyri and inscriptions, as olos re eifii, aiadavofiat, iravv, fioKa, exo/iat (seldom in the inscriptions), etc. Nageli 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 afiriv or when he translated He- brew. His Aramaisms (like d;8/3a) are few, as are his Latinisms (like irpaiTcbptov). "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, in 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 Literatur des Altertums, 2. Aufi., p. 159. Cf. Die Kultur der Gegenwart, Tl. I, Abt. 8, 1905). Deissmann {Ldght, p. 234) sees 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 HeUen. (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 HeUen. des Paulus (2 Cor. in Meyer); Wilamowitz-MoU., Die griech. Lit. des Altert. (p. 167) ; G. MiUigan, Epis. to the Th. (1908, p. Iv). Paul had a f;ill 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 vemac. mipfi 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 (K) Writer 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. Hamack suggests Priscilla as the author. If Paul had "imperial disregard for niceties of construction," He- brews shows "a studied rhetoripal 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 the constant quotation of the LXX. The grammatical peculiarities are few, like the fre- quent use of irapa in comparison, kird 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 Tt oh; tL 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 nh and re as well as 66£v and 8U>. The optative occurs only once and illustrates the true KOLvij. The studied style appears particularly in ch. 11 in the use of irl(TT€i. The style is hortatory, noble and eloquent, and has points of contact with Paul, Luke and Peter. The vtjcabulary, like the style, is less like the vernacular Koivri 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 pecuhar to this Epistle are found in the Uterary kocvti. 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 iut>opS,v, aUrdijTtipiov, iravfiyvpts, irpoiTorbKM. West- • Hast. D. B., Hebrews. « 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 1", 1906, pp. 457 ff.). Cf. Blafls, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 1, 5, 279, 280 f ., 288 f ., 296 £f., 303 f. THE PLACE OP THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 133 cott' considers the absence of words like eha-yyk\u>v, twoTiipiov, 7rXijp6co remarkable. The chief bond of contact in the vocab- ulary of Hebrews with the Koivii is in the use of "sonorous" words like lnvTiKaB'urrriiii, eim-epla-TaTos, but the author is by no means an Atticist, though he does approach the literary kolvIi. 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 Uke an intruder among the N. T. company of popular books" {Ldght, p. 243). (i) John. The Johannine question at once confronts the mod- em grammarian 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 viol (ixarbs (12 : 36), Kai in the sense of "and yet" or "but" (cf. Hebrew 1 and Kai 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 hke the vernacular (and literary) koivt}, but the cast of thought is wholly Hebrew. Ewald* rightly calls its spirit "genuinely Hebrew," while Renan^ 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." Schaff^ compares Paul to an Alpine torrent and John to an Alpine lake. There is indeed in this Gospel great simplicity and profundity. John's vocabulary is somewhat lim- ited, some 114 words (12 doubtful, Thayer, Lexicon, p. 704) be- 1 Comm. on Heb., p. xlvi. ^ Exp. Times, Nov., 1906, p. 59. ' Cf. Drummond, 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'fivang. de S. Jean, vol. I, pp. 226, 232. ' Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 66. 134 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT longing to the Gospel alone in the N. T. But the characteristic words are repeated many times, such as dX^fleia, djuaprta, ywdiam, 56?a, fcoij, Koafios, Kplats, X670S, /xapTvphu, ricTTeiico, (tkotos, <^ws, etc. "He rings the changes on a small number of elementary words and their sjmonyms."^ But words like kKKK-qala, evayykXiov, iuto.- voia, irapa^oXri, iriaris, (7o4>ia do not occur at all. However, too much must not be inferred from this fact, for xtoreiKo and 660776- Xifco do appear very often.^ Other characteristics of the Gospel are the common use of Iva in the non-final sense, the distinctive force of the pronouns (especially ketvos, k/ws, iStos), the vivid use of the tenses (like Mark), the unusual use of o5j',' foji) aioivm is frequent (21 times, and more than all the rest of the N. T.), fre- quent repetition, favourite synonyms.* The Johannine use of Kai, dk, dXXd, 7dp, el, &tl, ixi), oh, 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 as the Gospel save that ovv 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; Sitcds 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 'Lva p.i] is very common in Gospel and Apocalypse; oSc is almost absent from the Apocalypse 1 Abb., Joh. Vocab., p. 348. ^ lb., p. 158. Abbott has luminous remarks on such words as Turrdia, k^oucrla, 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 aU of these are in the transitional sense. Cf. Abb., Joh. Gr., 1906, p. 166. * On Joh. Synon. (like 0a>pia>, bpbw) see ch. Ill of Abbott's Joh. Vocab., 1905. In John bplua is not used in present (though often iiipaKo), but iflXJiru and deapioi. 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. xh ff . The absence of oBx, 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 OP THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINE 135 as in Epistles and the discourses of Jesus, being common as tran- sitional particle in narrative portion of GospeP; apa, common in other Evangehsts and Paul, is not fouffd in Gospel, Epistles or Apocalypse; /jikv, 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; oio-re, which appears 75 times elsewhere in the N. T., is not found in Gospel, Epistles or Apocalypse save once in Jo. 3 : 16; ^i^ irore, 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 jutj ttcos, which John does not have) ; naprvpkca is more fre- quent in Gospel than in 1 John and Apocalypse, but ixaprvpLa is as common in Apocalypse as Gospel; bvoim is frequent in Gospel and Apocaljrpse as applied to God; oUa is found less often in /Ipoca- lypse than in Gospel; aXridi.v6s is common in Gospel, Epistle and Apocalypse, though aXridris and dXij^eta do not appear in the Apoca- lypse; viKaia occurs only once in Gospel (16 : 33), but is common in 1 John and Apocalypse; dLdco/ii. is more frequent in Gospel and Apocalypse than in any other N. T. book (even Matt.); dei- KWfiL appears about the same number of times in Gospel and Apocalypse; \6yos is applied to Christ in Jo. 1:1 and Rev. 19 : 13; the peculiar expression /cai vvv kaTlv which occurs in John 5 : 25 is similar to the Kai kaijcev of 1 Jo. 3 : 1, and the /cat ovk eial 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 ungram- matical because of the numerous departures from usual Greek assonance. The solecisms in the Apocalypse are not in the reajm of accidence, for forms like a(t>fJKes, ireTToiKav, didu, etc., are com- mon in the vernacular Kot-irfi. The syntactical peculiarities are due partly to construdio ad sensum and variatio strudurae. Some ("idiotisms" according to Dionysius) are designed, as the expres- sion of the unchangeableness of God by dTro 6 div (1:^). As to 6 rfv the relative use of 6 in Homer may be recalled. See also ri oiai in 11 : 14, 6i/.oiov vlov in 14 : 14, oial tow 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. 467. 2 Apud Eus. H. E, VII, xxv. 136 A GRA.MMAR OF 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 'key^v and exdauca{' arrive '), xopra^oi ('feed '), etc. The list could be greatly extended, but let these sufiice.* A specimen of modern Greek vernacular is given from Pallis' translation of Jo. 1 : 6-8: ByiJKe evas avdponros (jToXp,kvo% kirb t6 0e6" t' ovofia rov 'liaavrjs. Avtos ^pde 710 Kripvyixo., yid, va K'rjpv^ei to (Jjccs, ■Koi) va kolvu Kt,' oKol ya irLaTiil/ow. Aev elrav bietvos to 4>m, wapa 710 va Kijpd^ei to s. The literary modem Greek in these verses differs very little from the original N. T. text, only in the use of vwrjp^ei', ovoixa^oixevos, dta va, 5kv, rjro. Moul- ton^ in an interesting note gives some early illustrations of modem Greek vernacular. In the second century a.d. hov is ' It still persists in Pontic-Cappadocian Gk. according to Thumb, Theol. Literaturzeit., 1903, p. 421. * There is a riot of indifference as t6 case in the vernacular Byz. Gk., as aim TTJs yvvaiKbs. Cf . MuUach, Gr. der griech. Vulgarspr., p. 27. Jean Psichari, 'P65a Kal MflXo (1906), has written a defence of the mod. Gk. vernao. and has shown its connection with the ancient vernac. The mod. Gk. has like free- dom in the use of the genitive case (cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 32 ff.). 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 AkoXouSS, 6.mba, ATron-ffl, etc. The double ace. goes beyond anc. Gk. usages (op. cit., p. 36) as 3Xo piSira tA 0Xtira, '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 OP 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. exovaes as nominative and accusative plural. And Ramsay {Citie^nd Bish., II, p. 537) gives kiTLTriSeixTovv as third plural form on a Phrygian inscription of the third century a.d. As one illustration note Paul's use of KaTkx(>> (Ro. 1 : 18). In modern Greek dialects KaHx'^=fi^evpu, '1 know.' PART II ACCIDENCE CHAPTEE V WORD-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 Horner.^ After Photius etymology "rules the whole later grammatical hterature."^ 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 apphed 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 kTvudXoyla is, of course, from ervfios 'and \6yos, and er-vfios, meaning 'real' or 'true,' is itself from the same root er- from which er-ebs, 'true,' comes. So also er-afco, 'to test.' Compare also San- skrit sat-yas, 'true,' and sat-yam, 'truth,' as well as the Anglo-Saxon soS, 'sooth.' To eTVfwv 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. ^ Reitzenstein, Gesch. der griech. Etym., 1897, p. vi. » Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. etc., 2. TL, pp. 347 ff. * "6 irvfios \6yos heiCt ja auch 'die wahre Bedeutung'; dal5 man hier trv- fiK sagte und nicht &\riei]s, liegt daran, dal5 ionische Sophisten, namentlich Prodikos, die Etymologie und Synonymik aufbrachten." F. Blass, Hermen. und Krit., Bd. I, Muller's Handb. d. klass. Alt., 1892,- p. 183. 6 See Pott, Etym. Forsch., 1861; Curtius, Gk. Etym., vols. I, II, 1886; PreUwitz, 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 GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT gave etymology a surer hold.''^ Curtius means etymology in the modern sense, to be sure. n. Roots.2 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"=/esw 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 ij (though ijk 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 imited into a single word as Ti-iii, 'say I.' 1 Curtius, Gk. Etym., vol. I, p. 16. ^ The whole subject of N. T. lexicography calls for reworking. Deissmaim is known to be at work on a N. T. Lex. in the hght 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 what is here given aims to follow the lines of historical and comparative grammar. We must wait in patience for Deissmann's Lex. George MiUigan is at work with Moulton on his Vocabulary of the New Testament. Of. also NageU, Der Wortsch. des Apost. Paulus, a portion 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. s MS. notes on Gk. Gr. 6 Cf. on slang, Wedgwood, Intr. to the Diet, of the Eng. Lang.; Paul, Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., p. 175. ' GUes, 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 noun, "walk," for instance. The moderlt view is that verbs are nominal in origin (Hirt, Handb., p. 201). The pronominal roots may furnish most of the suffixes for both verbs {prifiaTo) and nouns (ovofiaTo). Verbs, substantives and pronouns (avTCDvofiiai), there- fore, constitute the earliest parts of speech, and all the others are developed from these three.^ Adjectives {ovdnara 'eiridtra) are merely variations from substantives or^ pronouns. Adverbs (eirtp- pritmra) are fixed case-forms of substantives or adjectives or pro- nouns. Prepositions {irpodkaeis) are adverbs used with nouns or with verbs (in composition). Conjunctions {civStaiMi) are adverbs used to connect words and sentences in various ways. Inten- sive {hiTLTaaeui) 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 niunber 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 (aXa, Mk. 9 : 50), with which compare Latin sal, EngUsh sal-t. So vavs (Ac. 27 : 41), Latin nav^s. In- stead of aXs the N. T. elsewhere follows the Koivri in using rb oXaj, and rb irXoiov instead of vavs. In irovs {ir68-s) the root is only slightly changed after the loss of 5 (analogy of oSs or oSobs). The pronoim eh (ev-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/e and sometimes without any tense-suffix for the pres- ent, like a-n'i). The whole subject of verbs is much more complicated, but in general the non-thematic forms are rapidly disappearing in the N. T., while in the vernacular modem Greek the non-thematic or fu verbs are no longer used (save in the case of fliMi), as BiSia for 5lSca-ni, for instance. A number of these roots go back to the common Indo-Germanic stock. Take Sik, the root of Mkvv-hi. The Sanskrit has dig-a-^mi; the Latin dic-o, in-dic-o, ju-dex; the Gothic t&iho; the German zeigen. Take the thematic verb (TKeir-Tb-tiai. The Sanskrit root is spag ('look'), spaf =spy. The Zend has fpaf, the Latin spec-do, spec-^lum, spec-to, etc. In the Greek root metathesis has taken place and cireK has become ' "tlber das relative Alter der einen oder der anderen Wortklasse laCt sich nichts Sicheres ausmachen" (Vogrinz, Gr. des hom. Dial., 1889, p. 164). ' Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., p. 281. 146 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (TKeir in oKk-K-To-ixai ('to spy out'), o-KOTr-17 ('a watching'), (r/coTr-td ('a watch-tower'), ano-K-os ('a spy,' 'a goal'), o-zcdi^ ('owl').' Cf. Ph. 3 : 14 Kara. aKoirbv. The old Greek writers'' made n\)ijTiipuiv= juDs TTIpeLvl TTT - Words with Formative Sixffixes. The Indo-Germanic languages have a highly developed system of affixes,' prefixes, infixes, suffixes. The suffixes are used for various purposes, as case-endings of nouns, as personal endings of verbs, as aids in the creation of words (formative suflaxes). The Greek is rich in these formative suflBxes, which are more or less popular at various peri- ods of the language. The suffiixes 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 derlvar tive substantives, primitive and derivative adjectives. There are, of course, in the N. T. Greek no "special" formative suffixes, though the Koivq does vary naturally in the relative use of these terminations from the earlier language. In the modem Greek a number of new suffixes appear hke the diminutives -xouXos (ttuXos, 'foal'), kt\. "In all essentials the old patterns are adhered to" in the N. T. word-formation.^ See also Hadley-Allen (pp. 188 ff.) for the meaning of the Greek formative suflBxes. (a) Veebs. On the stem-building of the verb one can consult Hirt or Brugmann for the new point of view.* Without attempt- ing a complete list of the new words in the /cotp^, 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 mivii. The ten-* > Cf . Rachel White, CI. Rev., 1906, pp. 203 ff., for interesting study of hrurK-fjirToi. 2 Blass, Hermen. und Krit., 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 koivIi words. 3 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. ' Brug. op. cit. Hirt, Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl.,' 1902, pp. 360-391. 6 Schmid, Der Atticis. etc., 4. Bd., p. 702. WORD-FORMATION 147 dency is all towards the dropping of the non-thematic or fu forms both with the simple root and with the sufHx. The remnants of the iju. forms, which are not quite obsolete^n the N. T., will be given in the chapter on the Conjugation of the Verb. Here may- be mentioned axoWvui., which uses the suffix -vv} Thematic verbs made from the root by the addition of o/e are very common, hke X^7-a), Xeix-o) (Xitt). The N. T., as the KOLvi], has new presents like Kpii^u, viiTTO}, x^vvu, 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 Tt/^d-w from nuij, while verbals (post- verbals, Jannaris") are made from verbs. The simple denomi- natives,' ending in -aco, -kw, -tica, -afw, -tfco, are not always distinguished from the intensive verbals or the causative denomi- natives, though -6u, -aivco, -ivco more commonly represent the latter. 'OttAkco (from Sirroi) besides Ac. 1 : 3 appears in the LXX, Hermes, Tebt. Papyri. Cf. also the rare \ifnravoi. The Koivii is rich in new verbs in -cw. Verbs in -au are common in the N. T., as in the Kotvfi, hke Tifivixa, St^dco, fdco, etc. 'Aw-faco occurs in Artem., Sotion, inscriptions, etc. In the modern Greek verbs in -dco have gained at the expense of verbs in -tu.* They belong to the oldest Greek speech and come from feminine stems in -a.^ Verbs in -dfoj show great increase in the N. T. as in the Koivfi and modern Greek,^ like ayL&^oo {ayios, ayl^co, LXX), h.vraLk^u {hTa4>M, Anthol., Plut.), j-jjTrtdfw (vTiTTLos) in Hippocrates, crTvyva^co (from arvyvos) in Schol. on ^sch. and in LXX bpos, LXX, pap.), but Swarkia (only in N. T.) is to be noticed on the other side.' 'hjcaipkia (from a/caipos) is found ' On history of the m verbs see Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 234. In the pap. verbs in -viu keep the non-thematic form in the middle, while in the active both appear. Moulton, 01. Rev., 1901, p. 38. , « Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 300. ' Harris, MS. Notes on Gk. Gr. « 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 list of derivative verbs in the Ptol. pap. Cf. Frankel, Gr. Don. « Thumb, Handb. of Mod. Gk., V., p. 135 f. There is frequent inter- change between forms in -Af. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 61. 148 A GEAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT in Diodorus; einrpocruTkco (fiVTrpbawiroi) is found in Gal, 6:12 (b papyri, 114 b.c; oirws einrpoao}iriaij.fv, Tebt. P. No. IQuf.). Cf. Moulton, Expositor, 1903, p. 114. These verbs have always been very numerous, though -eu gradually retreats before -ow. Tpriyo- pkio (Arist., LXX, Jos.) is formed from the perfect eypiiyopa, which is not in the N. T., but Winer long ago found a similar form in 47riK«x«'P^'^ (Papyri Taurin. 7).' 'EKarTovkca (Arist., LXX, pap.) is from eKarTou. 'EXXo7€a> (and -aoi) is in inscriptions and papyri. 'E^aKoXovdku (Polyb., Plut., inscriptions) is not "biblical" as Thayer called it. AWevreoj {aWevTr]^, avros and hiea) is in the KOLvri, according to Moeris, for the Attic avroSiKiu. (In the late papyri see Deissmann, lAght, p. 85.) No great distinction in sense exists between -cua and -eu. Verbs in -evus are also very common and are formed from a great variety of stems. AixjuaXaireiio) (from alxfia-\ciiTos) is read in 2 Tim. 3: 6 only by D= EKL al. pi. Or., the form in -ifw bemg genuine. It is, however, common in the LXX, as is kyKparfboiuu (1 Cor. 9 : 25), from eyKpaT^s (in Aristotle). Vvfivneijai (not yvuvri- reicj}, Dio Chrys., Plut., Dio Cass., etc.) is found in 1 Cor. 4 : 11 and is from yvfivriTrjs. ZijXeue (Simplic, Democr.), not fi7Xcixro»', is the correct text in Rev. 3 : 19 (so W. H. with ABC against NP). Both are from f^Xos. Gpio/i/Seiio (from dplanPos) is in the literary KoivriJ' 'lepareiiui (Lu. 1 : 8) is from Upeis and is found in the LXX, the Koi-vri writers and the inscriptions. Meo-tretu (Heb. 6 : 17) is from liealrris and is found in Arist., Polyb. and papyri. MaBriTeiu is from nadrjrrjs (Plut., Jambl.); d\o9pevoj (Heb. 11:28, LXX) is from SXedpos (ADE read oktepeicov in Heb. 11:28). In Ac. 3 : 23 k^oKedpevu is the form accepted by W. H. after the best MSS. of the LXX.' Uayidebco (Mt. 22 : 15) is from irayls and occurs in the LXX. Hapa-^oKeiiopai is the correct word in Ph. 2 : 30 against CKLP which read xapa-jSouXeiiojuot. The word " is from irapo-/3oXos, which has not been found in other writers, but an inscription (ii/A.D.) at Olbia on the Black Sea has the very form TrapafioXevaafievos used by Paul (cf. Deissmann, Ldght, p. 84). UepirepehoiMi. (1 Cor. 13 : 4) is made from -rkpirepos and is found in 1 W.-M., p. 115. ' Cf. Oplan^ov Aakyav, triumphum ogere. Goetzeler, Einfl. d. Dion, von Ital. auf d. Sprachgeb. d. Plut., 1891, p. 203. Deiss. (Light, p. 368) gives this word (with iperii, i^ovaia, 66 Ja, laxln, upiros, ;ic7oXci6t7;s) as proof 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. ■WORD-FORMATION 149 Antoninus. Xprtcmiofuu is from xp'jc'^os. Three verbs in -doj appear which are made from verbs in -Aw and -ku, viz. aXridco {d.\to}), Kvfido} {kv6m)i vfidu {vkui), one (vfidai) b^g found also in Plato Polit. (p. 289 c). Cf. modern Greek dero} {rie-ntii). The causative ending -6co is usually formed on noun-stems and is very common, sometimes supplanting verbs in -eiio or -ifo, as kva-Kaivlxa (Isocrates, Aw/catvifa))/ hvaaraTbu (from ovkaTaros, LXX, papyri. Cf . LvaaraTot jue, ' he upsets me,' Deissmann, Light, p. 81) ; iujy-virvoci) {Anihol., classical d^uTrvifco); 5e/car6w (classical SeKciTedc-i) ; So\i6ci) (LXX, from SoXios); Svvanou (LXX, eccl. and Byz., from SW/iis); k^vSevoca (often in LXX, but W. H. read k^ov5evt(a in Mk. 9 : 12, Plutarch even k^ovSevl^w) ; BeniKUxa (LXX) is from Bt))^u>v; Kavaou (from Kavaos, Disc, Galen); K«0aXi6a> (Lob., ad Phryn,, p. 95, Kc^aXtfo), though not in any known Greek author) W. H. read in Mk. 12 : 4 with NBL as against Ke<^aXai6co and it means 'beat on the head' (cf. /coXo^ifw). So KoXojSoca (from k6Xo/3os, Arist., Polyb., Diod.); w/cpow (from veKpos, Plut., Epict., M. Aur., inscriptions); Kparaiooi (LXX, eccl.), from Kparivo}; a-apoca (Artem., ApolL, Dysc), from aalpoj (capos); ffij/iei6w (from aimuov, Theoph., Polyb., LXX, Philo, Dion. Hal., etc.); adevbu (Rhet. Gr.), from adtvkdi {adkvoi); xapir&u (LXX, Jos., eccl.), from x»P's. Verbs in -60 do not always have the full causative idea,^ Aft6c<) = 'deem worthy' and StKai6a)='deem righteous.' Verbs in -ifw 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 -tfco are very common in modern Greek. TacTif w (LXX, Athen.), for instance, in the N. T. has displaced Salvos, and jSaTrrtfco (since Plato) has nearly supplanted jSAtttw. 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 KOLvii appearing in the N. T. are as follows: atperifw (from alperos, LXX, inscriptions); aixMaXwrifco (literary Koivii and LXX), from aixfJto.- XwTos; LvcudeixaTL^u (LXX and inscriptions), from drd^e/ta; Aj/e/iifw (Jas. 1 : 6) is found in schol. on Hom. Od. 12, 336, the old form being di'e;it6w; dTecifco (from 6.Tivi\s, Arist., Polyb., Jos.); 5et7/xaTifw .(from SdyiM) appears in apocryphal Acts of Peter and Paul; SoyiMTlioi (from birfnd) is in Diodorus and the LXX; 'ey^itu (from 4776s, from Polyb. and Diod. on); i^-vKvi^u (from \)itvos, LXX, Plut.); dearpL^u (from Bkarpov) in ecclesiastical and Byzantine writers, bStarpl^u being in Polybius; iAiarifw (from Ih6.tu}v) is ' Cf. SUtterlin, Zur Gesch. der Verba Denom., p. 95. = lb. 150 A GKAMMAB OF THE GBEEK NEW TESTAMENT found in Serapeum papyrus 163 B.C.; louSaifco (from 'lovSahs) is found in the LXX and Josephus and is formed like eKKrivl^u and similar ethnic terms; Kadapi^w (classic Kodaipu, from KoBapbt, LXX Jos., inscriptions); KpvaTaKKl^oi (from KpuaraWos, Rev. 21:11) is still "not found elsewhere" (Thayer); nvKrrjpi^oi (from /iwcrijp, 'the nose') is in the LXX; 6pdpL^o> (from opdpos) is in the LXX; ireXe/cifw (from TeKeKvs) is common in literary Koivii; crKopirl^bi (akin to ump- irios, root skerp) is in LXX and in Uterary kolvti, Attic form being (TKe5dvvvnL, old Ionic according to Phrynichus; airXayxvl^onai (from cirXayxva, Heb. D'^»n^) occurs in LXIX, Attic had an active airXayxvii"^; (rvij,p.op(j)l^o3 (from (7Vfiixop6w (EKL), though neither word is known elsewhere, perhaps coined by Paul; uXaKtfw (from v\aKii) is in LXX and Byzantine writers. Of verbs in -iifw, yoyyd^oo (ono- matopoetic, like rovdpv^ia of the cooing of doves) is in the LXX and the papyri. Verbs in -vvco are fairly common, like Trapo^ivo}. Only one word calls for mention, cTKXijpiicaj (from o-kXt/pos), which takes the place of the rare cKXripdco and is found in LXX and Hippocrates. No new verbs in -aivu> (like ev(j>palvo)) appear in the N. T. Verbs in -am are, like the Latin verbs in -sco, generally either inchoative or causative. It is not a very common termination in the N. T., though evplaKCii, ycvoiaKw and 5t5dtrKco occur very often, but these are not derivative verbs. In the N. T. the inchoative sense is greatly weakened. The suffix belongs to the present and the im- perfect only. In modern Greek it has nearly disappeared save in the dialects.' TanlcrKO} (accepted by W. H. in Lu. 20:34) rather than 7ajutf w is causative (Arist. pol.) ; yqpaaKos and ludwKii) both come from the earlier Greek.^ 'Ei'-5iSii-vri {hrL-Xavd-avco, hri.-'kqc-p.iav, Sirach). Iiay^vri (LXX, Plut., Lucian) has suffix -i)vi) (cf. -ovo, -ovt), etc.). Aia- aitop-a. {pLa-aitelpui, LXX, Plut.) and irpocr-evx-^ {irpoa-evx-o^ai; LXX, inscriptions) use the sufiix -a (-1;). Cf. a.-Ko-ypa4-i] (N. T., papyri), diro-Soxi? (inscriptions), fipoxn (papyri), ifiirXoKri {kfiirKeKoo, inscriptions), dLa-rayfi (dM-raacrcc, papyri, inscriptions, later writ- ings). The agent is usually -tt/s (Blass, Gr., p. 62), not -reap or -Tjjp as in StojKTr/s (from StdjKoj, earliest exanaple) and So-ttjs (from Si-So}-fu, classic 8oTrip. But cf. aoi-rrip). See yvojarrjs {yi-vixTKO}, LXX, Plut.), KTUT-TTii (kt'l^oj, Arfst., Plut., LXX), iTTi-trTa-TTjs (ouly in Luke, eipurrrmi). See further under compound words for more examples. In modern Greek — njs is preserved, but -rcop and thjp become -ropris, -rripas. Jannaris, op. cit., p. 288; Thumb, Hand- hook, p. 49. I pass by words in -eus, -mv, -rpov, etc. 2. Secondary or Derivative Substantives. Only important words not in common use in the older Greek can be mentioned. (a) Those from verbs. Words in -fuis expressing action. From verbs in -dfco come ayuaa-fiSs (ancient Greek 071^03, but later form common in LXX and N. T.); ayvicr-pos (from ayvl^o}, Dion. Hal., LXX, Plut.); d.irapTi,ir-fii6s (Dion. Hal., ApoU. Dysc, papyri); apvay-p^ {apivh^u is from root dpx, like Latin rapio. 'kpray-jxbs once 152 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT in Plutarch, apmyv common from ^schylus)*; yoyyva-ids (from yoyyh^ca, Antonin.) ; 'tvTaLatr-ii6s (Plutarch and scholia to Eur. and Arist., ^I'Ttt^iAfco) ; IfiaTia-fios (from inari^w, LXX, Theophr.,Polyb., Diod., Plut., Athen.); ireipaa-iw^ (from iretpafw and common in the LXX). From verbs in -ifu we have Pairria-ixos (Blass, Or. 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 iC BD*FG 47, 67**, 71, a Western reading rejected by W. H.; bv€ihi(T-ixbs (Plutarch and Dion. Hal.); irapopyur-ubs (not found earlier than LXX nor in Koivri writers, Dion, uses irapopyi^oi) ; mpia- m6s (Sap., Polyb., Jos., Plut., Test. XII Patr.); ^avTur-fi6s (LXX); a-a|8/3aTi(r-/j6s (Plut. and eccl. writers); (TupovLa-ixbs (Jos., Plut., etc.); \('i£vpL(r-fi6s (from yj/Ldvpi^w, LXX, Clem. Rom., Plut., ono- matopoetic word for the hissing of the snake). The ending -ii6s survives in literary modern Greek. Cf. Jannaris, op. cit, p. 288. The tendency to make new words in -/ids decreased. The modern Greek vernacular dropped it (Thumb, Handbook, p. 62). Abstract nouns in -«tX)J (common in the papyri), 6(f)d\7iiJLa (Plato, Arist., LXX). Words in -fia (resulj^ are more common in the later Greek and gradually take an abstract idea of -<7is in modern Greek.^ The new formations appearing in the N. T. are a-^vorj-na (O. T. Apoc, from dyvokw); alrlco-na (correct text in Ac. 25 : 7, and not airlana, from, airtdo/iat). Cf. alriuais in Eustathius, p. 1422, 21. This form as yet not found elsewhere); avT\r]iia (from 6,vT\hu, Plut., what is drawn, and then strangely a thing to draw with, -like avTkqTrip or avrXriTripLov) ; air-air/aa-ixa (from Axairyafw, and this from At6 and airyij, in Wisdom and Philo); 6.To-a-KLa€Spiiv (prob- ably from the Macedonian a4>ebpos, and that from 'iSpa and diro) which may be compared with Koirpiiv; Ppa^tiov (from fipafievs, Me- nand. Mon., 0pp., Lycoph., Clem. Rom.); ekaiMv (from eXoiov, like afiTeX-dov from a/iweXos, in the LXX, Jos., inscriptions and papyri),^ with which compare fivXcov (-S>vos) in Mt. 24 : 41 accord- ing to DHM and most cursives instead of fihXos. Moulton {The Expositor, 1903, p. Ill) has found 4>oi.Ki)v {~S>vos), 'palm-grove,' in A. P. 31 (112 B.C.). El8cc\€Lov {-iov W. H.), found first in 1 Mace, and 1 Esd., is formed after the analogy of iwvv = 'pla,ce of olives' or 'oUve orchard' in vol. I of the Bar. 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 all MSS. and is correct in Lu. 19 : 29 (ag. W. H.) and 21 : 37 (ag. W. H.). 'EKcu&v is right in Lu. 19 : 37, etc. In Lu. 19 ; 29; 21 : 37, question of accent. Cf. also kiiireKiiv (from a^TcXos, LXX, Diod., Plut.) which is now found in the pap. WORD-FORMATION 155 (from Kvptos, originally adj., eccl. and Byz. writers). Supo-i^oti'iKio-o-a is the text of N AKL, etc., in Mk. 7 : 26 as against Xvpa ^oivkKTaa in BEFG, etc. In either case ^ivlKtaca, not pov-la (from irapo- p(j}v. Greek writers use irapa^po-ahvri, but cf. eu8a.i.iJov4a from ib- daliMv). So irepiero-eia (from irepwreros, LXX, inscriptions, Byz.). W. H. use the ending -ta with KaKoiraBe-La (from Kaxoiroflijs). With -aivri several new words occur from adjectives in -os with the lengthening of the preceding vowel, as ayaBoi-aivri (from 070^65, eccl.); ayua-aivT] (from 0710$, not in earlier Greek writers); neydXu-avvr] (from stem fieyaXo of fiiyas, LXX and eccl.). These forms are like Upu-avv-i] from lepos (also in N. T.) which is as old as Herod, and Plato. Still p^aKo-aiivri and Upo-aiivrj are both found in inscriptions or in Glycas.^ Most of the words in -o-uwj belong to the later language.' 'EXerino-avvri (from 'iKdjiuav, Callim. in Del., Diog. Laert., LXX), like other words in -avvq, loses the v. So TaTreivo-(j>po-crvvr] (Jos., Epict.). Rather more numerous are the new words in -ttjs,* as 0716-71/5 (from 0710$, 2 Mace); ayvo-rris (from ayvos, inscriptions); aSrlXb- Tjjs (from a3?jXos, Polyb., Dion. Hal., Philo); d^eXo-rijs (from d0eXijs, eccl. writers, ancient Greek d^^Xeia); yvfivo-rtis (from yvn- v6s, Deut., Antonin.); naTaib-rris (from lidraioi, LXX and eccl. writers); p.eya\H6-Tris (from ;u67aXeTos, Athen., Jer.); ttio-tijs (from ir'uav, Arist., Theophr., LXX). ' AKoBap-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 rd SoKLiuov (from Sodfiias, Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 259 f., Dion. Hal., Long., LXX, papyri). Like neBopiov (the Syrian reading for opia m Mk. 7 : 24) is Tpoas, -ov from irpoff-a- 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 63. ' Cf. W.-Sch., p. 124, n. 14. On the termination -aOvrj Bee Aufrecht, Ber. Zeitschr. fur vergl. Sprachf., 6. Heft. ' W.-M., p. 118, n. 1. • On words in -njs see Lob. ad Phryn., p. 350; Buhler, Daa griech. Secun- darsuffix tijs, 1858; Frankel, Gesch. d. Gr. Nom. Ag. (1910). WOED-POEMATION 157 yilv, inscriptions), vKaK- TTipiov is the neuter of the adjective <^uXaK-TiJpios, -a, -ov (from ijtvkaKTiip, eiSoiiai) is not yet found elsewhere than in 1 Cor. 2 : 4, but Blass^ regards .it as "a patent corruption," iretfloTs for ireuBol. The evidence is in favour of ireSots (all the uncials, most cursives and versions). 4>A7os (from root ^07-) is a substantive in the N. T. with paroxy- tone accent as in the grammarians, the adjective being <^a7-6s. The other new adjectives from roots in the N. T. are verbals in -Tos. There is only one verbal (gerundive) in -t4os (Lu. 5 : 38, elsewhere only in Basil), and that is neuter {^Mrkov), "a survival of the literary language in Luke." ' The sense of capabiUty or possibility is only presented by the verbal 7rafli7-T6s (from root ■KoB-, 7rd(rxco, eccl. writers). But the weakened sense of the verbal in -TOS, more like an ordinary adjective, is very common in the later Greek.* But they are rare in the modern Greek (Thmnb, Handb., p. 151). These verbals correspond to the Latin participle in -tus,^ like yvuards, or to adjectives in -bilis, like oparSs. They are common in the N. T., though not many new formations appear. They are usually passive Uke ypair-ris (from .ypcupos, Georg. apol., LXX), though vpoa-ijKv-Tos (irpoo--Jpx-o/ii", root -ijXuS-, LXX, Philo) is active in sense. The ancient form was ' This termination became rather common in the later Gk., as, for instance, in iLvaKaKvTrTlipwv, SajT^ptoK, davarfipwv, lajuar^piof . See also Stratton, Chap- ters in the Hist, of Gk. Nomi-Formation, 1889. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 64. So W.-Sch., p. 135. ' Viteau, Ess. sur la Synt. des Voix, Rev. de Philol., p. 38. • Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 297. 'Eictiy also is wholly adjective and nt\'\uv sometimes so. Cf. Brugmann, Grundr. d. vergl. Gr., p. 429. s W.-M., p. 120. Cf. Viteau, Ess. sur le Synt. de Voix, Rev. de Philol., p. 41. For deriv. adj. in the Ptol. pap. see Mayser, Gr., pp. 447-455. 158 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT iirriXvs. A number of new verbals were formed on compound words which will be discussed later. For the syntactical aspects of the verbal adjectives see discussion of the participle (cf. Moul- ton, Prolegomena, p. 221). 2. Secondary or Derivative Adjectives. (a) Those from verbs. 2trto--T6s (from (tltI^oi, Jos., Athen.) is to be mentioned. It is equivalent to the Latin saginatus and is passive in meaning. (j3) Those from substantives. Some new words in -ivos occur as a/jLapauTLvos (from anapavros, Philost., inscriptions); mdrniep-ivos (from Kad' finepav, Athen., Plut., Jos.) is for ancient Kadrip,kpios; KOKK-Lvos is from kokkos (LXX, Plut., Epict., papyri) ; 6pdp-iv6s (from opOpoi, LXX, older form opdpios), with which compare iarep-ivoi (from eo-irepa, from Xen. on) in the minusc. 1, 118, 209 (Lu. 12 : 38); irpo)Lv6s (so W. H., from Tpinl, for the older Trpdiios, LXX, Plut., Athen., etc.); tvp-lvos (from irvp, Arist., LXX, Polyb., Plut.);. Tttxiws (from TOxa) from Theocritus on (LXX also). There are several words in -lkos, like Wvlkos (from Wvo%, Polyb., Diod.); Kepafi-LKos (from Kkpafios, Hipp., Plat, pol., LXX) which supplanted the earlier Kepafiuis, Ktpa/xeoDs; Kvpi-ams (from Kiiptos, -oKos instead of -ik6s after t, eccl. writers) is found in papyri of Faylim and in inscriptions of Phrygia and Lydia.^ So \eiTovpyi- Kos (from \eLTovpyia, LXX, papyri) and ovikos (from ovos, in a con- tract in the Faydm Papyri dated Feb. 8, a.d. 33). Of special interest are several words in -ivos and -i/cos. 'OarpkK- Lvos (from oarpaKov, Hipp., Anthol., LXX), 'made of clay,' 'earthen'; aapK-Lvos (from v, irepleiiii., LXX) no seri- ous problem in etjmaology arises, for xepi retains the i in composi- tion with vowels. It is used with Xaos, to express the idea that Israel belongs to God as his very own.^ H-utt-ikos (from irto-ros, 1 See Trench, N. T. Synon., 1890, pp. 268 ff. 2 See Rev. of the N. T., pp. 194-234. Deiss., B. S., p. 214, calls attention to Grimm's comment on 2 Mace. 1:8 about tous iiru>valovs being added to tovs &PTOVS by "three codices Sergii." Cf. W.-Sch., p. 136 f., n. 23, for fuU details. Cf. Bisohoff, 'Eirioiffios, p. 266, Neutest. Wiss., 1906. Debrunner (Glotta, IV. Bd., 3. Heft, 1912) argues for k-wl riiv olaav iifiipav, 'for the day in question.' ' Cf. Li^tfoot, Rev. of the N. T., pp. 234-242, for full discussion of 160 A GKAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Plato, Diog., Dion. Hal., in sense of persuading, but Artem., Cedrenus and other late writers in sense of 'genuine') is hardly to be derived from mriaKw or irlca and hence = 'drinkable.' 'Genuine nard' is a much more probable meaning. For curious details see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 138, n. 24. IIoTOTr6s is from the older irodairos and occurs in Dion. Hal., Philo, Jos., papyri. (5) Those from adverbs. From avu come aviirepos (Polyb., LXX, Arist.) and avu-repiKSs (Hippoc, Galen) ; e^ci-repos (LXX, Strabo, etc.). See also kcris-repos (only N. T.); Kari-repos (Theoc, Hippoc, Athen.). Cf. Hagen, Bildung d. griech. Adverbien. (d) The Advebb. The adverb (^eiSo/iews (from the participle eiS6fievos, Plut., Mosch., Alex.) is a new word of this nature. Cf. bno\oyoviikv(j3% in the older Greek. So tvxov, Svtcos and mep^dKKbv- Tojs. The neuter accusative singular and plural of adjectives con- tinue to be used adverbially. BaBeois occurs also in Theoc. and jEUan. 'Akixtiv (Theoc, Polyb., Strabo) is in the inscriptions also as well as kv d/c^at (cf. Ditt., Syll. 326, 12). 'E^paiarL (Sirach) is properly formed (cf . 'EXXijcto-ri) from 'E|3pots. 'louSai'/cus is in Jos. See also idviKui (ApoU. Dysc, Diog. Laert.). Eire?' (correct text Mk. 4 : 28) is a rare Ionic form for eira (papyri also). Keyfis is used from Arist. on. 'OXitcos occurs out of the N. T. only in Anthol. and Aquila. Updorus (correct text Ac. 11 : 26) occurs here for the first time. 'Pr/ras is found in Polyb., Strabo, Plut. 'Poifia'CaTl is common in the literary Koivri (Plut., App., etc.) and in Epictetus. Sco/iartKws comes from Aristotle and Plutarch, TuTTtKiSs is in the ecclesiastical writers. $uos (Thorn. Mag.); a-^vbi]na (0. T. Apoc, papyri); aypi-S^aioi (Arist., papyri); a-^vokoo (Apoc, papyri); d-SiyXArijs (Polyb., Dion. Hal., Philo); d-Std-Kptros (from Hippocrates down); d-Std-XeiTTTos (Tim. Locr., Attic inscriptions, i/B.c); d-8ia-00opia (not in ancient Greek); a-dvvaTkoi (LXX, ancient Greek means 'to be weak'); a-Bkniros (for earlier d-9^jui«7Tos) ; a-deciios (LXX, Diod., Philo, Jos., Plut.); a-derkc] (LXX, Polyb.); a-Kaipeoo (Diod.); a-dkTi)6a.pTos (Arist., Wisd., Plut., inscriptions); d-<^iX- ayados (papyri and 2 Tim. 3:3); a-^CK-apyvpos (Diod., Hippoc, inscriptions, papyri).' With apxi-— (from apx^) we have dpx-d77€Xos (eccl.); dpx-i«pa- TtKOi (inscr., Jos.); dpx-tepeus (LXX, inscr.); apxi-voifiiiv (Test, of 12 Patr., wooden tablet from Egjrpt, Deissmann, Exp. Times, 1906, p. 61); kpxi--ovv-a.ywyo% (inscr., eccl.); apxt-reXt!))'?/! (only in Lu. 19:2); apxi--Tp'i.-KKi.vo^ (Heliod., cf. o-u/xTroo-i-dpxijs in Sirach). Cf. a.pxi--vKa.KiT't)s, P.Tb. 40 (B.C. 117), apxi^-Secrfio-clyiiXa^ (LXX). With d- connective or intensive are formed a-vepiM (for a-vtT- Tios, LXX, cf. Lat. con^epot-4us), a-revi^co (Polyb., Diod., Jos., Lucian).^ With Sva- we have Svcr-ffaaTaKTos (LXX, Philo, Plut.); dva- evriptov (late form, correct text in Ac. 28 : 8, older form Sva-evrepia); » 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. Wack. (Verm. Beitr. zur griech. Sprachk., 1897, p. 4) suggests that JSijs is from d.d and -Se, not from d- and iSetv. Ingenious! Cf. Wack. again, Das Dehnungsgesetz der griech. Composita, 1889. ^ Cf. on d- connective or intensive, Don., New Crat., p. 397. Also Doder- lein, De aX^a intenso, 1830. WORD-FORMATION 163 8v(r-tpniivevTos (Diod., Philo, Artem.); Sva-v&rjTos (Arist. Diog. Laert.); bva-^yqixla (LXX, Dion. Hal., Plij^)- With ijMi- (cf. Lat. semi) are found only fini-davijs (Dion. Hal., Diod., LXX, Strabo), ■fifii-upop (so W. H., Strabo, Geop., KP have -iipiov). Cf. rj/iiffus. For cjj- note vijTrtdfw (Hippoc, eccl.). (c) Agglutinative Compounds {Juxtaposition or Parathesis). This sort of composition includes the prepositions and the cop- ulative composition (dvandva). This last is much more com- mon in the kolvI] than in the older Greek. Cf. Jannaris, op. cit., p.,310, and Mayser, Gr., p. 469. 1. Verbs. The new compound verbs are made either from compound substantives or adjectives or by combining adverbs with a verb-stem or noun-stem or by adding a preposition to the older verb. This last method is very frequent in the later Greek due to ''a love for what is vivid and expressive." ^ This embel- lishment of the speech by compounds is not absent from the sim- plest speech, as Blass^ shows in the case of Titus, where over thirty striking compound words are found, omitting verbals and other common ones. Moulton {CI. Quarterly, April, 1908, p. 140) shows from the papyri that the compound verb is no mark of the literary style, but is common in the vernacular also. The preposition fills out the picture as in Ayrt-AieTpeco (Lucian), and so dvri.-'Kafifia.vco (Diod., Dio Cass., LXX). So also observe the realistic form of the preposition in e^-aaTpairTu (LXX, Tryphiod.) in Lu. 9 :29; Karo-Xtfldfw (eccl. writings) in Lu. 20 : 6. The modern Greek even combines two verbs to make a compound, as iratfw-7eXaj. As examples of new compound verbs may be given d.yadovpyiu, &ya6oepykBaKiJ,kco (Sap., Polyb., eccl. writers) ; ax-aXTrifw (LXX, Polyb., Diod., inscriptions); a-Ko-yp64oiut.i. (papyri); Airo-flijcrou/jifw (Sir., Diod., Jos., Epict.); d7ro-K€0aXtfw (LXX, Epict., etc.); oM- tvrkio (Polyb., papjTn); yovv-jrerku (Polyb., Heliod., eccl. writers); 5i.a-yvo}pi^ (LXX, ApolL, Diod.); kn-^areioi (inscr.); kv-Kaivi^u (LXX); h- Kcuceu (Polyb., Synun. translation of LXX, Philo, Clem. Rom.); h-xp'M (Tob., Strabo, AnthoL, Epict.); e^-aprtfo) (Jos., Hipp.); k^-iaxvu (Sir., Strabo, Plut.); kn-aKrivoo} (Polyb.); kri-aiaK(i) (LXX, Acta Thom.); kin-xopTjyku (Dion. Hal., Phal., Diog. Laert., Alex. Aphr.); erepo-SiSacrKaKioo (eccl. writers); eTepor^vyica (LXX); eb-apearka (LXX, Philo, Diod.); eb-doKku (probably simply from eC and doKeco, as there is no such form as 86kos or eCSo/cos, and cf. Kapa-doKkoi in Polyb., Diod., Dion. Hal.); eWv-dpofiku (Philo); ev-mipku (from Polybius on, papyri) ; eb-rpoir-coTrkd) (P. Tb., Chrys.) ; dripio-fiaxkoo (Diod., Artem., Ign.) ; ^ooo-yovkai (Theophr., Diod., Lucian, Plut.) ; f coo-xoi^o (Arist., Theophr., LXX) ; KaK-ovxkbi (from obsolete /ca/c-oCxos, i.e. KaKdv, ix<^, LXX, Diod., Dio Cass., Plut.); KoKo-TToikca (Etym. Magn., LXX, Philo); Kara-jSapeto (Polyb., Diod., App., Lucian papyri) ; KaT-aycavi^onai. (Polyb., Jos., Lucian,, Plut., ^Uan); Kar-avTaoi (Polyb., Diod., eccl. writers, papyri) ;^ Kara-Kki]po-5oTko3 (LXX); Ka.Ta-Tovk(j> (2 and 3 Mace, Hipp., Polyb., Diod., Jos., .^1., etc.); Kar-eJ-oucrtafto (only N. T.); KaT-oirrpl^ti. (Athen., Diog. Laert., Philo); if the conjectural Ktv-tp.-^aTibia. in Col. 2 : 18 be correct (as is now no longer probable), Mv-e/t- /SaTTjs has to be presupposed; 'Ka-roixkco (LXX, Diod., Dion. Hal., Strabo) ; \uBo-p6\ko3 (LXX, Diod., Plut.) ; \oyo-iiaxkoi (only instance, in 2 Tim. 2 : 14) ; naKpo-dvukca, (LXX, Plut.) ; ndS-tprnvdim (Polyb., Diod., Sir., Plut.); p.era-pap4>lM (Diod., Philo); fieTpuy-voBku (Philo, Jos.) ; lioaxo-TOLeo} (LXX and eccl. writers) ; ixv-uirk^u (Arist.) ; olao- Stairorkw (Lucian, Plut.) ; bixdpop,ai. is a puzzle (Fritzsche derives it from 6/ioD and etpw, but other compounds with bpjov have instru- mental-associative, not genitive case, as bpj.-\k(ii, from oiii\o% (bfiov, 'l\ij); Photius and Theophr. get it from 6iwv ■fipixoadai; hut, as Nicander uses ndpopai. ip,tlpop,a.i, modem editors print biiu- pbp.tvoi in 1 Th. 2 : 8 (6-, W. H., elsewhere only in Job and Symm., Ps. 62) ; bpBo-irohkta (only instance) ; bpdo-roiikoi (LXX, eccl. WORD-FORMATION 165 writers) ; dx^o-roitca (only in Ac. 17:5); Tapa-Pokebonai (inscr. ii/A.D.); irap-euT-kpxonai (Polyb., Philo, Plut.); Trept-Xa/iirco (Diod., Jos., Plut.) ; 7rXijpo-<^op«£o (LXX, eccl. wfters) ; xpo-eX^rif a; (Posid., Dexipp., Greg. N.); irpocr-ey7ifw (LXX, Polyb., Diod., Lucian); irpoa-KKrjpbui (Philo, Plut., Lucian); ttpoo-wxo-Xijaitt^w (N. T. word); avv-av^avd} (LXX, inscriptions); avv-airoaTeKKui (LXX, papyri, in- scriptions); opko3 (LXX and eccl. writers, so ACE and some cursives in Ac. 13 : 18) ; iirep-Tr\eova^o} (Ps. Sal, He- rond., Herm.); viro-\ifnravco (Themist., Dion. Hal., eccl. and Byz.); <^iXo-7rpa)T€6a> (Artem., Plut.) ; 4>pev-aTaTao} (eccl. and Byz. writers) ; Xpovo-rpifiko) (Arist., Plut., HeUod., Byz. writers). Thus, it will be noticed, verbs compounded with nouns are very common in the (C01C17. 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 Koivri; cf. Schmid, Att. IV, pp. 708 ff. Mayser gives a long Hst 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 Koivfi here. So it is with avTL-irap-kpxonai. (Anthol., Wisdom, eccl. and Byz. writers) in Lu. 10 : 31 ; avT-ava-w\i]pbw in Col. 1 : 24 (Dem., Dio Cass., Apoll. Dysc); avTi-dia-TWrifiL (Philo, Diod.); diro-zcaT-aXXatro-o) (not in old Greek), hri-dui-Taffa-ofuii (only in N. T.); in-crvv-ayco (LXX, iEsop, Polyb.); /car-e^-oi/a-tdfo) (only in N. T.); irap-eiff-kpxoiJMi. (Polyb., Philo, Plut.); irpo-ev-apxofidi. (only in N. T.); aw-a.va-iiiypvfit, (LXX, Plut.); ri in the ethical sense (LXX, Polybius on, inscriptions in Pergamum and Magnesia) ; ava-xvcis (Strabo, Philo, Plut.) ; avd- {jTaros (Polyb., Dion. Hal., Lucian, Plut., inscriptions); clvtL-Xvtpov (one translation of Ps. 48 : 9, Orph.) ; avH-xpi-crTos (probably formed by John, eccl.); apyvpo-Koiros (Plut., LXX, papyri); apatvo- Koirris {AnthoL, eccl.) ; airo-Kapa-SoKia (verb -eo) in LXX, Jos., Plut.) ; aaL-apxt^ (inscriptions, Polyc); ya^o-4>v\aKt.ov (LXX, Jos., Strabo); yXoiaab-Kopjov (earlier yXoKTcroKoiJieLov, LXX, Jos., Plut., Longin., in- scriptions, papyri); 8eun-8a.LiJiov'i.a (Polyb., Diod., Jos., Plut.); Sea/io- v\ov (Clem, of Rome, N. T. Apoc.) ; Slkcllo- Kpiffia (Test, xii Pat., eccl., papyri); So)po-l^6-^^6\li (Strabo, Ag. and Theod., eccl.); Xo7o-Moxta (onl^in 1 Tim. 6:4); liaraLo-Xoyia (Plut., Porph.); necro-vbK-riov (Arist., LXX, Koivi] writers); (itao- ■ Tovxpv (Erat.) ; nt(j-ovpa.vr\iJ.a (Manetho, Plut.) ; fier-oiKeaia (LXX, Anthol.); /xicrd-aTro-doaia and -56t7js (eccl.); nwpo-Xoyla (Arist., Plut.); voiM-Sidaa-KoKos (eccL); wxO-vp^pov (Alex., App., Geop.); ot/co-Seo-TTOTTjs (Alexis, Jos.j Plut., Ign., etc.); oiKo-doiiri (possibly Arist., Theophr., certainly LXX, Diod., Philo, Jos., Plut., con- demned by Phrynichus); olvo-irorris (Polyb., LXX, Anthol., Anacr.); okiyo-irLCTia (eccl. and Byz.); 6\o-KXripia (LXX, Diog. Laert., Plut.); opK-ciiiwala (LXX, Jos., to, opK-oifwaia in Attic); opo-dtcria (eccl.); ocjjdaKiJ.o-Bov'KLa (only instance is in N. T.); ■KoKiv-yeveaia (Philo, Longin., Lucian, Plut.); iravTo-Kparcap (LXX, eccl., Anthol.); Tapa-«XijTos (Aq. Theod., Diog. Laert., Dio Cass., papyri, inscriptions); irapa-xetfiacrla (Polyb., Diod.); vaTpi-Lpxns (LXX); irepi-deats (Arr., Gal., Sext.); ■wtpi-KoB-apua (LXX, Epict., Curt.); irepL-oxi! (Theophr., Diod., Plut., etc.); irepL-TOfiri (LXX, Jos., papyri); 7rept-^i7/io (Tob., Ign.); xpau-iraWa (Philo, Ign.); irpo- aiiXiov (Pollux); Tpo-aaPfiarov (LXX, eccl.); irpoa-aiTrjs (lit. KOivi]); ■irp6(T-Koniia (LXX, Plut.); rpo(r-KapTkpr)(Ti,s (inscriptions, 81 a.d.); irpoa-KvvriTris (inscriptions, eccl., Byz.); Trpocr-a.jiov "EXXtjcikcSs, Moeris); irpoaonro-XiiiJ.wTris (Chrys.) ; ■Kpocomo-'kqiJ.ij/la (eccl.) ; irpcoTo-Kadedpia (eccl. ; xpcoTo-KXio-ia (eccl. writers); Trptaro-roKux, (LXX, Philo, Byz.); pa/35-oCxos {pafibos, exco, literary Koivq); pahi-ovpyrjixa (literary KOLvi], eccl.); aap5-6vv^ (Jos., Plut., Ptol.); (n,To-pkrpiov ( Polyb., Diod., Jos., inscriptions); a-Krivo-Triyia (Arist., LXX, Philo, inscriptions); aKrivo-iroLos (^lian, eccl.); (TKKripo-KapdLa (LXX); o% (LXX), etc.; TO-TTUVO-^poaiivri (Jos., Epict.); TeKvo-yopla (Arist.); Terpa-apxii^ (Strabo, Jos.); vlo- deaia (Diod., Diog. Laert., inscriptions); {nrep-e/cetm (Byz. and eccl.); viro-ypafi[ji6s (2 Mace, Philo, eccl.) ; uTro-Xeiyitjua (from iiro-Xflirco, LXX, Arist., Theoph., Plut., Galen); viro-Xrivtov (LXX, Demioph.); {iiro-irodiov (LXX, Lucian, Att.); iiro-tnoKi) (Jos., Plut.); inro-rayri (Dion. Hal.); mo-Thiroiais (Sext. Emp., Diog. Laert.); ^pej'-axarjjs (papyri, eccl. writers) ; xo^i^o-^'-^o-vov {LI^IX) ; x«p6-7Poi' (Polyb., 168 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Dion. Hal., Tob., Plut., Artem., papyri); xp«-«0eiXk7)s (from XP^os or xpecos and 6<^€tXeT)js, LXX, ^Esop, Plut., Dion. Hal.); XPWTo-Xoyia (Eust., eccl. writers); xpuco-X'^os (Diod., LXX, Jos.); Xpvao-wpaaos (only in Rev. 21 : 20) ; \t/evS-aSeK4>6i, \l/evS-arb(TTo\os, \f/€v8o-5iSariTris (ancient Greek xl/evBo/xavTis) is found, in LXX, Philo, Jos. ; xj/evdo-naprvs (LXX) and . ^'^vdo-ixaprvpia both go back to Plato and Aristotle. The papyri show many examples of such compounds. Cf. Ku/w-ypaiiiMTevs, P.Tb. 40 (B.C. 117). 3. Adjectives. It will not be necessary to repeat the adjec- tives formed with inseparable prefixes a- etc. The method of many grammars in dividing the compounds according to the element in the first or second part has not been followed here. It is believed that the plan adopted is a simpler and more rational exposition of the facts. These adjectives are compounded of two adjectives hke okiyo-i'vxoi, an adjective and substantive like aKpo-ycavLoios or vice versa avdpcoT-apeaKos; a substantive and a verbal like xe'Po-Totrjros; a preposition and a verb like cvfi-iraJBiiSj with two prepositions and verbal like Trap-ettr-aKTos; an adverb and a preposition and a verbal like ei-wpoa-deKTos, etc. The ad- jective compounds used in the N. T. characteristic of the kolvti are somewhat numerous. ' AyaBo-iroLos (Sirach, Plut.); d^/ot-eXotos (Anthol.); aKpo-yoiviaios (eccl.); aXKo-yevris (LXX and Temple inscriptions meant for gentiles to read); av-e^i-KaKos (from ava, 'exo/jiai and KttKos, Lucian, Justin M., Poll., papyri); avOpcoT-ApeaKos (LXX, eccl.); diro-SeKToj (Sext. Emp., Plut., inscriptions); &to-aw- ayioyos (2 Esdr.); &pTi-yevvriTos (Lucian, Long.); avTo-Kara-KpiTos (eccl. writers); Papv-nixos (Strabo); ypa-iiSr/s (from 7paOs, tldos, Strabo, Galen) ; 6€^to-Xd(3os (true reading in Ac. 23 : 23, late eccl. writers) ; Sevrepo-TpSiros (cf . Seurep-eo-xaros, only MSS. in Lu. 6:1); 5i-da\aiT(Tos (Strabo, Dio Chrys., eccl.); di-^vxos (eccl.); h-dafiPos (Polyb., eccl.); bi-revrj^ (Polyb., Philo); U-Tpoiios (only in ND Heb. 12: 21, other MSS., iv-rpofios, LXX, Plut.); k-0o/3os (Arist., Plut.) ; kiri-BavaTLOs (Dion. Hal.) ; kin-irddriTOi (eccl.) ; tTipb-y\oia- aos (LXX, Strabo, Philo); ih-kpearos (Wisd., eccl., inscr., but Xen. has ei/apeo-rcos) ; eC-zcoxos (Polyb., LXX); ev-\oyriT6s (LXX, Philo); eh-ixeraSoTos (Anton.); ev-irap-eSpos (for Text. Rec. ah-vpba- tbpos, Hesych.) ; ev-irepi-cTaTos (only in Heb. 12 : 1) ; tb-irpbaSiKTos (Plut., eccl.); eipi-xwpos (Arist*., LXX, Diod., Jos.); eii-o-irXaTxros (Hippoc, LXX, eccl. writers); 0eo-Si5oKTos (eccl.); dtb-rvtva-ros (Plut., Phoc, eccl. writers, inscriptions); la-iiyyeKos (cf. lab-dtos, WORD-FORMATION 169 Philo, eccl.); io-o-rt/wj (cf. lao-xf/vxos, Philo, Jos., Plut., Lucian, ^lia, etc.) ; Kadiiinepivds (from Kad' ijixkpav, Judith, Theophr., Athen., Plut., Alciph., Jos.); Kar-eiSuXos (only in Ac. 17 : 16); /cevo-Sofos (Polyb., Diod., Philo, Anton., eccl. writers); Xa-^euTos (LXX); 'hiiT-ovpyiKhs (LXX, eccl. writers); noKpo-xpivm (LXX, Hipp., Agath.); naTai.o-\6yos (Telest.); fioyi-\6iKos (LXX, schol. to Lucian); wo-^utos (LXX, papyri, Aristophanes?); oKTa-^nepo^ (eccl. writers); oKi-yb-Tnaros (only in N. T.); b'Ki-yb^vxos (LXX, Artem.); 6\o-TeK7)s (Plut., Hexapla, eccl. writers); irav-ovpyos (Arist., KOLpii, LXX); ira/oa-XuTiKos (eccl. writers); irap-eicr-a/cTos (Strabo); Tap-eirL-Srifios (Polyb., Athen., LXX); TaTpo-irapaSoTos (Diod., Dion. Hal., eccl. writers); irecTe-Kat-Skaros (Diod., Plut., etc.); xoXXa-irXa6priTos (only in Rev. 12 : 15 and Hesych.) ; irpo-fiariKos (from irpo-Parov, LXX, Jo. 5:2); irpoa-Kaipo^ (4 Mace, Jos., Dio Cass., Dion. Hal., Strabo, Plut., Herodian); xpo-<^i7ruc6s (Philo, Lucian, eccl.); TTpwrd-TOKos (LXX, Philo, Anthol., inscriptions, eccl.); o-7;t6- PpoiTos (LXX, Sibyll. Or.) ; o-KXijpo-TpaxijXos (LXX) ; o-K&iXij/co-jSpcoros CTheophr.) ; aiifi-pop^os (Lucian, Nicand.) ; avix-iraB'fis (LXX) ; ubv- ypvxos (eccl. writers) ; avv-tK-^tKTos (only in 1 Pet. 5 : 13) ; o-iiv-ffoj/ios (eccl. writers); cv-araTiKos (Diog. Laert.); Taireiv6-(j>poiv (from ra- Ttivos, ^priv, LXX, Plut.); rpi-areyos (Dion. Hal., Jos., Symm.); L\-ii5ovos (Polyb., Plut., Lucian, etc.); <^iX6-5eos (Arist., Philo, Lucian, etc.); piv-airaTris (eccl. writers); x^'P-oT^Tos (Artem., Plut., etc.); x^i-po-TroiriTos (LXX, Polyb., Dion. Hal., papyri); xpyo'o-SaKTiXtos (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 mivij. 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-riacrapes (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. Blaas, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 70. 170 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT prepositions. These are usually formed either from adjectives like €v-6iT!-i.ov (neuter of kv-iairios) or by composition of preposition and adverb as in mep-hvo), or preposition and adjective as in k-7re- pitj-aov, or two or more prepositions (prepositional adverbs as in dir-6j'-oi'Tt), or a preposition and a noun-root as in airo-Tbiuas, or a sub- stantive and a verb as in vow-exSis, or an adjective and a substan- tive as in Trav-Kh)dd, or an adjective and an adverb as in ■ko.v-toti, or a preposition and a pronoun as in ^f-aurijs. In a word, the com- pound adverb is made from compound adjectives, substantives, verbs with all sorts of combinations. The KOLvii shows a distinct turn for new adverbial combinations and the N. T. illustrates it very clearly. Paul, especially, doubles his adverbs as in \rw(.p- iK-irepiaaov. 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 Kotvri developed according to its own genius and that even the Atticists could not check it. In Luke irav-irKridd (Lu. 23 : 18) and irav-oiKil (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-avTiov). 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 compound adverbs used in the N. T. characteristic of the KOLvri are here given. As the list of adverbs is much smaller than those of verbs, substantives and adjectives, compounds with a- privative are included here. 'A-Sta-Xetirrcos (Polyb., Diod., Strabo, 1 Mace, papyri) ; ava-ixeaov and avd-fiepos is the Text. Rec. in Rev. 7 : 17 and 1 Cor. 14 : 27, but this is not the modern edit- ing, rather ava fiktrov, etc.; av-avTL-priTws (Polyb., etc.); avn-irkpa, (Xen. avTL-Trepav, Polyb., etc.); air-evavTi (Polyb., LXX, papyri and inscriptions) ; d-irept-o-TracrTcos (Polyb., Plut.) ; airo-rdiias (Polyb., Diod., Wisd., Longin.); 5ri\-avyc!>s (so NCLA in Mk. 8 : 25 for rriX-avy&i) ; Sta-TrajTos is the way Griesbach and Tisch. print dt-a xavros ; e/c-iraXai (Philo and on, inscriptions) ; k-reycos (Polyb., LXX, inscriptions); ev-avn (LXX, inscriptions); kv-6i-inov (Theoc, LXX, papyri); k^-awiva (LXX, Jamb., Byz.); k^-avrfjs (Theogn., Arat., Polyb., Jos., etc.); ect>-dira^ (Lucian, Dio Cass., 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 65. Cf. Mayser's Gr., pp. 485 if. Jannaris, § 1490. WORD-FORMATION 171 etc.); Ka0-e^rjs (^lian, Plut.); Kar-ev-avri (LXX, Hermas); Kar- €v-i)inov (LXX) ; vovv-exSis (Arist., Polyb.) ; irav-irXridel (Dio Cass.) ; irac-oi/cei (rejected by the Atticists for ■Kavoidq. [LXX], Plato Eryx., Philo, Jos.); xdv-Tore (Sap., Menand., Dion. Hal., condemned by the Atticists for eKaaroTe); irap-eKTOS (LXX); irpocr-cjidTus (LXX, Polyb., Alciph.); inrep-avoi (Arist., LXX, Polyb., Jos., Plut., etc.); virep-eKeiva (Byz. and eccl.); vwep-eK-Trepicaov (Dan. 2:22, Aid., Compl.); uirep-eK-xepto-orcos (T, W. H. marg. 1 Th. 5:13, Clem. Rom.); virep-Xiav (Eust.); vrep-TepLcaSis (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 Sid iravTOS, i4>' aira^, kK-TraXai, koB' rjtiipav, Kad' o\ov, VTtp kKelva, 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 kolvt) was fond of compound words, some of which deserve the term sesquipe- dalian, like KaTaSvva(7Tevoi, avvavTiXafiPavofmi,, etc. We must not for- get that after all these modern 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-Aristotelian. 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 aipaSos, PAS, iii, 375; Fick-Bechtel, p. 16) an ab- breviation of 'ETa4>p68LTos (Ph. 2:25; 4:18), but it does not fol- low that, if true, the same man is indicated in Ph. and Col.; "Ep/uSs (Ro. 16:14) is from the old Doric form abbreviated from "Ep- juoScopos; 'Ep/i^s (Ro. 16:14) may be merely the name of the god given to a man, though Blass doubts it°; Zr/vas (Tit. 3:13) is from Zriv65(iipos; QevSas (Ac. 5:36) is possibly an abbreviation of QeoSwpos; 'lovvias (sometimes taken as feminine 'lowia, Ro. 16:7) may be 'lovvi.as as abbreviation of 'lowiavos; K\e6iras (Lu. 24:18) is apparently an abbreviation of KXeoTrarpos ; Aovk&s (Col. 4 : 14 ; Phil. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11) is an abbreviation of AovKavos and of Aoixtoj'; Nu/i0as (Col. 4:15) is probably derived from HviujidSupos; 'OXu/iTraj » See Fick-Bechtel, Die gfiech. Personennamen, 1894; Pape, Worterbuc'i der griech. Eigennamen, 1842, ed. Benseler, 1870; Keil, Beitr. zur Onomatolo- gie; W. Schulze, Graeca Lat., 1901 ; Hoole, the Class. Elera. in the N. T., 1888; Kretsch., Gesch. der griech. Spr., Die Icleinasiat. Personennamen, pp. 311-370. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 71. 3 W.-Sch., p. 143. * Deiss., B. S., p. 187. s Cf. W.-Sch., p. 143 f., for objections to this derivation. In a Faydm pap. (Deiss., B. S., p. 149) 'AToWijvios occurs is Kal {rvpurrl 'IwMflos. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., 1900, p. 175. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 71. Cf . also Fick-Bechtel, p. 304. Fick (xxxviii) takes it from 'EpfWKpi.Tiis, as also 'Ep^as. ' Ramsay (Exp., Dec, 1912, pp. 504 ff.) quotes inscription of Pisid. Antioch where Aoukos and Aofcxtos are used for the same person. WOKD-FORMATION 173 (Ro. 16:15) is apparently abbreviated from 'OXuAixioSoipos, though 'OXu/xTTiai/os is possible; TLapnevas (Ac. 6^) is probably an abbre- viation of HapiiiviBris, though Blass' suggests Uapfihuv; IIarp6/3os (Ro. 16:14) is derived from Uarpo^Los; SiXoj (Ac. 15:22, etc.) is the same man as HiKovavds (MSS. often 2tX|8aws), as Paul always calls him (1 Th. 1:1, etc. So Peter in 1 Pet. 5:12); Sre^aras (1 Cor. 1:16; 16:15, 17) may be either a modification of ST4(^a- vos or an abbreviation of XTe(l)avri6pos', ScixaTpos (Ac. 20:4) is read SwffixaTpos by a dozen of the cursives and the Sah. Cop. Arm. versions, while 2too-i7raTpos is the correct text in Ro. 16:21, but it is not certain that they represent the same man, for ScoTrarpos is from Bercea and Scoo-iTarpos from Corinth, though it is pos- sible. 'Apx^Xaos, NiKoXaos appear in the N. T. in the unabbreviated forms, though in the Doric the abbreviated 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 'ktria, 'ApTeiMs{'Apre^i8upos), etc. Kupia is a common proper name (cf. Hatch, Journal of Bibl. Lit., 1908, p. 145). For the papyri illustrations see Mayser, Gr. der griech. Papyri {Laut- und WorUehre, 1906), p. 253 f. Cf. also Traube, Nomina Sacra (1907), who s hows that in both B and X as well as D the abbreviation IHC XPC is found as well as the more usual TC XU. Cf. Nestle, Exp. Times, Jan., 1908, p. 189. Moul- ton {CI. Quarterly, April, 1908, p. 140) finds 'AKouo-iXaos in the body of a letter in a papyrus and 'Akovtl, 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 ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 71. Cf. Meisterh., Gr. der att. Inschr. (pp. 114- ll8), 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 aKavSaXov, for instance. It is a shorter form of the old Greek word aKavdaXtidpoi', ' trap-stick.' The root § 149, new ed., 1904. ' Cf. Skeat, Prin. of Eng. Etym., 1st ser. (Native Words, 1892); 2d ser. (Foreign Words, 1891). 176 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT here and illustrated. With Skaios, for instance, one should com- pare ojyaBbs, ayios, KoBapos, KaX6s, oaios, before he can obtain a complete idea of N. T. goodness or righteousness. We see Jesus himself insisting on the use of a-yoBhs for the idea of absolute goodness in Mk. 10 : 18, ov&eh ayados ei fiii eh 6 dtds. Both &,yaB&s and StKotos occur in Lu. 23 : 50. In Lu. 8 : 15 the phrase Kap&la d7a5)j Kal koXji approaches Socrates' common use of xaXds k' ay oBos 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, T^pas, Shva/us and crrinetov are all three used to de- scribe the complete picture of a N. T. miracle. Neos is 'young' and 'not yet old,' Kaivos 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 modem Greek vernacular (Thimib, 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 in 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-lights is all that is attempted. I. The Uncertainty of the Evidence. It is difficult 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 hterary Greek.i 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 " Janoaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 19 f. 177 178 A GRAMMAR OP 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 hfe is best here, as always, without artificial impulse or restraint. In seeking to restore the orthography of the Koivii 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 before 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, ri and sometimes ei. Indeed Jannaris' asserts that "the sjonbols ?j and cc, in numerous cases also i, originated at school as mere compensatory marks, to represent positional or 'thetic' e or o." It is not surprising with this origin of vowels (and consonants do not differ) that variations always exist in the sound 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 MiUigan, Gk. Papyri, p. 93 f.) in which we have "phonetic" spelling in abundance: Kai 5la iravrcolv] evxoiial cai iiyeialveiv. T6 ■KpomchvTjixa, cov [tol]S) Kar' aiKcurTrjv fifialpav irapi, T<3 Kupicj) [S£p]ax€i5et. FeiviiaKeiv trat ^eXw kt\. There is here inter- change of e and at, of i and a. (b) The Dialect-Coloubed Vernaculak. The dialects explain some variations in orthography. One copyist would be a better representative of the pure vernacular Koivq, while another might ' A Hist, of Egypt, 1906, p. 45. 2 Meisterh., Gr. etc., p. 3; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 26 f.; Solmsen, Inscr. Graecae etc., pp. 52 ff. ' Op. cit., p. 27. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 6. 6 Prol., p. 42. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 179 live where Attic, Ionic, Doric or Northwest Greek had still posi- tive influence. Often what looks like a ^eaking-down of the lan- guage is but the survival or revival of old dialectical forms or pronunciation. But these variations are mainly due to the per- sonal equation. It was not till the time of Marcus Aurelius that the learned grammarians succeeded in formulating the artificial rules which afterwards prevailed for writing the old classical Greek. The first century a.d. was still an age of freedom in or- thography. Even in the fourth century a.d. the scribe of K pre- fers t rather than ei, while in the case of B et often occurs where i is the rule elsewhere. This is not mere itacism, but is also indi- vidual preference.! "The oldest scribes whose work we possess (centuries 4 to 6) always kept themselves much freer from the schools than the later." ^ But, even if Luke and Paul did not know the old historical spelling in the case of i mute (subscript) and €t, it is merely cutting the Gordian knot to "follow the By- zantine school, and consistently employ the historical spelling in the N. T." and that "without any regard to the MS. evidence." It is not the spelling of the Byzantine school nor of the Attic dialect that we are after, but the vernacular Greek of the first cen- tury A.D., and this is not quite "the most unprofitable of tasks," as Blass would have us believe.^ (c) The Uncials. They do complicate the situation. On some points, as noted above, the great uncials N 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 speUing. The Syrian class of documents 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 "peculiarities of a local or strictly dialectic nature" in the N. T. StiU Hort (Notes on Orth., p. 151) allows the Doric iSayioi (iSriyecS) in "single MS." like B and D, irpoaaxtiv in B, liatrtria in D, etc. Hirt (Handb. d. Griech., p. 63) attributes much of the vocal change to dialect-mixing and analogy. On K and B see Hort, op. cit., p. 806 f. ^ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 6 f. = lb., p. 7. Hort (p. 302 f. of the Intr. to the N. T. in Orig. 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 minutiee which W. H. so conscientiously gather from the great uncials." Certainly "finahty is impossible, notwithstanding the assistance now afforded by the papyri" (Thack., Gr., p. 71). 180 A GRAJMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the vernacular kolvIi of the first century a.d. The Syrian class, for instance, reads Kairepvaouju, not Ka(j)apvao{jiJ,. 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 and 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 modern 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 spellings 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 pecuUar speUings of the N. T. are simply spellings of common life. 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 (Appollonius 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. cit., p. 56) denies that this » Op. cit., 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 speUing." Cf . also Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, p. 2. For furthei: remarks on the phenomena in the LXX MSS. see Swete, O. T. in Gk. p. 300f. ■' Op. cit., p. 304. » Op. cit, 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 Papyri. They strengthen the case for the uncials. Deissmanni 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 ia.v=SLV in relative clauses is worked out well by Moulton to prove this point. In the papyri dated b.c. the proportion of eav to iiv 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 iav = iiv. The usage appears in B.C. 133; copyists are divided in dififerent 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 oWels (jiridds) "from its cradle to its grave" (from 378 B.C. to end of ii/A.D.) and shows how in ii/A.D. oiSeis 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 Koivfi with reasonable correctness. n. Vowel-Changes (o-TOixeta B. S., pp. 202 ff. 2 prol., pp. 42 ff. ' B. S., pp. 202 ff. On the whole subject of the difficulty of N. T. orthog. see W.-Sch., pp. 31 ff. Deiss. (B. S., p. 180) is clearly right in denying a "N. T. orthography" save as individual writers, as now, have their peculiar- ities. For general remarks about vowel changes in LXX MSS. see Swete, 0. T. in Gk., p. 301 f.; Thack., Gr., vol. I, pp. 71-100; Helbing, Gr., Laut- u. Wortl., pp. 3-14. * Nicklin, CI. Rev., 1906, p. 115, in review of Rutherford's A Chap, in the Hist, of Annotation, 1905. ' Cf. Bekker, Anec. Gr., vol. II, p. 783. 182 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT tween long and short vowels, as indeed was never done in the case of t and v. The Ionic invented^ for long o. Before the introduction of the Ionic alphabet, I.E. a and e were represented by z. H was at first the aspirate like Hebrew H and then now aspirate and now long e or a as the inscriptions amply show. It is very common in the early inscriptions to see i thus used as long and o likeAAdse, as in hai. and ros. Cf. e, o for spurious diph- thongs ft, ov. The kinship of these vowels with the PhcEnician alphabet is plain, as a is from H, e from H, i from ♦, o from p, v from the doubling of 1 (and so a Greek invention). It is inter- esting to note that the Sanskrit has three pure vowels, a, i, u, while e and o are diphthongs in origin. In Sanskrit a far surpasses all other vowel-sounds, more than twice as many as all other vowel- sounds put together.^ Schleicher' speaks of the weakening of a into i and u, and thus he goes back to an original a sound for all the vowels. In Latin also a breaks into e, i and m.* Even in Attica in the first century b.c, in spite of Archinos' law, the in- scriptions use sometimes at and ae, et and t, jj and i, v and t, v and VI, I and €t interchangeably.^ Uniformity did not exist in one dialect, not to mention the persistent differences between the various Greek dialects. These changes were going on constantly all over the Greek world in the first century a.d. For the alphabetical changes in the dialects see Buck's Greek Dialects, pp. 15 ff. These inter- changes between vowels are interesting. (a) The Changes (Interchanges) with a. The first sound made by a baby is &. These changes became dialectical peculiari- ties in many words like the Lesbian Kpkros {kpoltos, "ablaut" variar tions), the Boeotian ixrepos (erepos), Doric iapos (Upos).^ So in the vernacular Attic we find iperri (apeTrj) where o breaks to e before € (vowel assimilation), as in the Ionic-Attic a sometimes changes to e after i and u.' See Kuhner-Blass* for many examples. ' Riem. and Goelzer, Gr. Comp. du Grec et du Lat., Phonfit., p. 38. Cf. also Donaldson, The New Crat., pp. 207 ff.; K.-Bl., Griech. Gr., Tl. I, Bd. I, pp. 39 ff.; Earle, Names of the Grig. Letters of the Gk. Alph. (Class- Papers, 1912, pp. 257 ff.); Flin.-Pet., Form, of the Gk. Alph. (1912). But Sir Arthur Evans gets the Gk. Alph. from Crete. 2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 10. ' Vergl. Gr., p. 55. His opinion is now considered antiquated. * Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 149 f. ' T61fy, Chron. und Topog. d. griech. Ausspr. etc., 1893, p. 39. See also Larsfeld, Griech. Epig., 1892, pp. 494 ff.; King and Cookson, Sounds and Inflex. in Gk. and Lat., 1888. « K.-Bl., Tl. I, Bd. I, p. 115 f. ' Hirt, Handb. der griech. Laut- u. Formenl., pp. 115, 119. Td is the form ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 183 a and e. 'Ayyapdu appears as l77ap. in N (Mt. 5 : 41) and NB (Mk. 15 : 21) .1 The New Ionic elveKev (njigre commonly iveKev) has nearly displaced the Attic liveKa which Blass^ admits only in Ac. 26 : 21. 'Elrev for elra appears in Mk. 4 : 28 as a rare Ionic form. Herodotus' had both etra and ?x«tTa. Ka^aptfco in the aorist (active and passive) and perfect middle has e for the second a 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 (Uarapa) occurs in AC in Ac. 21 : 1. TecraepaKovra 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 uapavra and trepacra survive. Likewise W. H. always give the preference to reaaepa, though the papyri do not use it till the fourth century a.d.^ But in the inscriptions r'ecaepa is found several times,' one case in the first century a.d.* Teo-o-epas, however, does not occur in the N. T. MSS., though the papyri have it in the Byzantine age.' The Ionic and the modern Greek have rkaatpes and Ttaaepa. The N. T. thus differs from the mivii papyri, but is in harmony with the Ionic literature and inscriptions. In some MSS. in both LXX and N. T. in Doric and Boeotian, while 76 is found in the Ionic, Attic and Cypriote (Meister, Griech. Dial., Bd. II, p. 29). 1 Deiss., B. S., p. 182, gives hyapias 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 Phrjm., p. 204) both of these words are icrxarws /SAp^apa. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 20. " Moulton, Prol., p. 46. ^ lb. For assimilation between a and e in modern Glc. dialects see Dieterich, Unters. etc., pp. 272, 274. In mod. Gk. vernacular «, frequently displaces initial e or o. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 14. ' Dieterich, Unters. ziu: 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 Apostohc Fathers and the N. T. Apoc. rkaatpa and Teo-o-epdKocTo are common as well as kKoBtpiaBri (Reinhold, De Grsecitate 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 l/cotw, iyyapeiw, iTektiffaaBai (for similar confusion of aorist and fut. inf. see kKcj^ei^aaBai, 2 Mace. 9 : 22 V). Tbrcrepa and T&Taep&KovTa axe very common also in the LXX MSS. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, p. 5; Thack., Gr., p. 62f. This speUing occurs as early as iv/b.c. in Pergamum (Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 163 f.). In Egypt it hardly appears before i/a.d. and is not common till ii/A.D. (Thack., Gr., p. 62). The uncials give the later spelling. See "Additional Notes." 184 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT rkaaapes is accusative as well as nominative, like the Achaean dia- lect, but this is another story. N in Rev. 3 : 16 has x^i^^pis. The common (Ionic and Northwest Greek) use of -eu instead of -ow with verbs as in ^pcor^oj will be discussed in the chapter on Verbs. Conversely e is sometimes changed to a. 'A/i^iAfei is accepted by W. H. in Lu. 12 : 28 rather than either the late d^u^iefei or the early a.ij.i.ivi'v(n. The form kpawaoo instead of kpewaoi W. H. have everywhere received into the text, and so with k^epawau and ave^e- pahvTjTos. XB always read it so, sometimes AC. It is supported by the papyri. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 113; Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, p. 7, for similar phenomena in the LXX. Initial e often becomes a in modem Greek vernacular, as dXa- <^p6s {k'Kap6s), avrepa {^evrtpa), etc. Cf. Thumb, Handbook, p. 14. So the Doric xidfu is used in the N. T. everywhere save in Lu. 6 : 38, where, however, ireirLea-fikvos has the original idea ('pressed down,' not 'seized'). Both occur in the LXX. The Attic forms 0idXij, ilaXos are retained in the N. T. (as in LXX) rather than the Ionic and vernacular Koivi] forms in «, a mark of the influence of the literary 1 Koivn. Some verbs in -ew also use -cm forms, like ^Xedco, kTiSoyau, |updw. See the chapter on Verbs. Changes in a take place in a few Hebrew proper names. Kairep- vaovp, is the Syrian reading for Ka^apvaovp, (W. H.). So W. H. read MaXeXe^X in Lu. 3 : 37,not M€X.(Tisch.),and NaflacaijX. SeXa5i^X(in- stead of SaX.) appears in B. Thumb ^ remarks that these changes between a and e occur to-day in the Kappadocian dialect. a and t|. The Doric forms 655,765, 65S.yS) are found in the koivti, though Schweizer' calls it hardly a Dorism. So in N. T. MSS. we have irpoaaxeco in B (Ac. 27 : 27) and paaau in D (Mk. 9 : 18). The Ptolemaic papyri regularly have avrjXlaKeiv till ii/A.D. (May- ser, Gr., p. 345). For a and 9 see ri and jj under (c). a and 0. The changes* between these two vowels are seen in the Lesbian vwa (uir6). Arcadian rpiaKacrLoi, Doric eiKari {tiKoai), etc. W. H. give ^aTToKoyko) in Mt. 6 : 7 (cf. PaTTapl^<>)) instead of jSot- To\oyeo3. ABK and twice K and many cursives have ■Trpos KoXaaaaeis ' Dieterich Unters. etc., p. 70. Cf . Thack., Gr., vol. I, p. 75 f. So AoX;uotIo in 2 Tim. 4 : 10, though C has AeX^. as Lat. has both. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 21. Both forms are in the pap., Deiss., B. S., p. 182. 2 Hellen. (Griech. Spr.), p. 76. See also Radermacher, N. T. Gr., pp. 34 S. ' Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 49. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 62, xpS^aSai for xP?'*""- So A in 2 Mace. 6 : 21. ♦ K.-BL, Tl. I, Bd. I, p. 117 f. Cf. Meisterh., Gr. etc., p. 117, where Attic inscr. are shown to have NeoiroXiTijs. OKTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 185 as the title, while in Col. 1 : 2 nearly all MSS. read h KoXoo-raTs. 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 KoXocr- crai. In Mk. 13 : 35 B has fietraviKTLov and D in Lu. 11:5 instead of fiecoviiKTUiv} In 1 Tim. 1 : 9 W. H. give ii,r)Tpo\ifai.s and Tarpo- Xcjiaw (instead of -oXoiais) on the authority of XADFGL. Blass* compares Trarpo-KTovos. a and vris and i(f)vi5Los instead of at<^. So /cepea for/cepato is accepted' in Mt. 5 : 18; Lu. 16 : 17, and KptwaXrj for Kpanrakr] in Lu. 21 : 34. Likewise W. H. receive Aacrea for Aao-ata in Ac. 27 : 8. NAC in 2 Pet. 2 : 17 read X^XaTros, but XatXo^ is the undoubted reading in Matthew, Luke. The uncials all have peSri, not patSij, in Rev. 18 : 13. So all the early uncials but A have Su/co/iopea (not -ata) in Lu. 19 : 4. Hort* accepts also eK6vris for ^atXocrjs (2 Tim. 4 : 13), though* Moulton ' doubts, because of the Latin paenula. ' W.-Sch., p. 47. ' Notes on Orth., p. 150. Cf. on at and e, Mayser, Gr., p. 107. 3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 9. ■< W.-Sch., p. 47. ' 'Ett" &i/a.yKcus "Alexandrian only" according to Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 151. ' lb. ' lb. Cf. the Western Katco^uKtas for Kevocjiavlas in 1 Tim. 6 : 20. In 1 Th. 3 : 3 instead of aaivtaBai FG read aikveaeai. Nestle (Neut.-Zeit., 1906, p. 361) finds parallels in the forms auuvonkvoiv and aiavBtls. ' Notes on Orth., p. 151. 9 CI. Rev., 1904, p. 107. The pap. give ttmimXtov. ORTHOGRAPHY 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 i;, ,, o. e and ei. In the Boeotian these were%eely interchanged' and the same interchange occurs in the Doric, New Ionic and Attic as ttX^wj* or irXeiaiv. The Attic inscriptions^ show this common 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 e, r], ei. Sooner or later ei became everywhere a monophthong (Buck, Greek Dialects, p. 28). But the Koivi] usually wrote u before vowels rather than e (Thackeray, Gr., p. 81). The LXX MSS. reveal the same traits as the N. T. 'ApeoTrayiTTis 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 rixpe B.G.U. 423 (II/a.d.). Akvnov (Jo. 13 : 4, Latin linteum) is a change in the other direction, Latin i to Greek e. Blass* says that Xevreov would have looked 1 Moulton, CI. Rev., 1904, p. 108. Cf. also Moulton, Prol., p. 46, and Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., pp. 47 ff., has good discussion of this short- ening of 7) to e and also a to o. " E and 7; interchange times without number from v/b.c. down to ix/a.d." (Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 36). Reinhold (De Graec. Patr. etc., p. 101 f .) shows how the confusion between ij and « led to forms like I4y kyiiyert. Cf. the mod. Gk. areKW (crriiKw) and Bkra (Bi/Ta). ' Unters. etc., p. 136. ' Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 43 f. « Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, pp. 33, 434; 1904, p. 107. Cf. Mayser, Or., p. 80 f . ' "AXteis occurs in pap. also. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 307; Thackeray, p. 84. 6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 22. OKTHOGEAPHY AND PHONETICS 189 unnatural to a Greek. Ni70(iXtos also is alone well-attested,^ not vri'. ' 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 iav. ' Cronert, Mem. Graeca Here, p. 130. * Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 326. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 191 Indeed Attic often contracts this particle eav=fiv.^ But eav= modal av is found in Xen. Mem., ^ kav apjioTrxi, in Lysias, o8s kav fiovKr]dSios) is read in Herod, i. 32. ' Prol., p. 46; CI. Rev., 1901, p. 33. See also Thackeray, p. 83. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 193 papyri here agree. Deissmanni calls attention to the use of el liCLv in a Doric inscription of the first century b.c. Blass {Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 306) observes that a papyrus reads Kjjpia for Keipla (cf. Jo. 11:44, Keip-, Kijp-, Kip-iais). Ill and ei. , In the old Attic there was no t/i in writing, only «i, since ij was not used as a vowel. As early as 400 b.c. the Attic used ijt and ei interchangeably, kX^oj becoming K\doi, KXj7s = KXew, X^gTovp- y6s=\tiTovpy6s, 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.5 In the N. T. Xeirovpyos, ~ia, -€iv, -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 everywhere, the other dialects using xi save the Ionic. The Koivrj has Xl save in /3oiiXei, otei, o\^et. In the N. T. jj is universal according to W. H. save in Lu. 22 : 42 where jSoiXei is genuine, though some MSS. have ei in other passages. Blass* observes that this is a literary touch in Luke for the colloquial dtXeis. Hatzidakis ' notes how difiicult this process made it to tell the difference between irot^ffjjs and iroiii\oyiiau, 2 Cor. 12 : 21 fiti rairtiviiaei., Ro, 3 : 4 (Ps. 51 : 6) * B. S., pp. 205-8. Cf. Dittenb., Syll., No. 388, p. 570. See ako Mayeer, Gr., pp. 74r-79, for careful discussion. » Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., pp. 36 ff. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 39 and 49. See also Mayser, Gr., pp. 79 f., 126-131. ' Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 60 f . * Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 50 f. ' Schweizer, op. at., p. 60. " Mem. Graeca Hercul., p. 37. ' Nachm., op. cit., p. 61. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 8. poiAa, olei, i^a in Ap. Fathers (Goodspeed, Index). ' Einl. in d. neugr. Gr., p. 306. He gives exx. from the N. T. Apoc. " Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 8. " W.-Sch., p. 47. Moulton (Prol., p. 168) would take indifferently inri.ya or u7r'47ij in Rev. 14 : 4. For many similar exx. in the inscr. see Dittenb., ivm hv iiripxei (117. 17), dp^aav (352. 66), etc. 194 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT w/o^o-ets (cf. StKatcoSijs), Ac. 5 .' 15 tva trurKiaaH, 8 : 31 kav oSriyqati. Winer-Schmiedel would find the aorist subjunctive and not the future indicative. This is possible but by no means certain, since the future indicative was undoubtedly used both with k&v and tva (oircos). W. H. read 'luavei instead of xi in Mt. 11:4; Lu. 7 : 18. TQ SioLKTiTei occurs in papyri Brit. Mus. I, Nr. 2. 135. In 2 Cor. 2 : 9 AB 109 have fj where ei is probably correct. 11 and T). Irrational Iota. The iota subscript was iota adscript till the twelfth century a.d., but as early as the third century b.c. it was not pronounced.^ When €i was practically equal to t) in sound, it was natural that xi M should be. The i was then dropped in sound long before it was subscript.^ Gradually it was felt to be a matter of indifference in some words whether this iota was written or not. Examples of tj instead of jj occur in the inscrip- tions of Pergamum^ as hv rj as well as in the Attic.^ Moulton finds irrational i adscript (excot, for instance) abundant in the Ptolemaic Tebt. Papyri {Classical Review, 1904, p. 106). Cf. Mayser {Gr., pp. 122-126) who gives many examples. In the N. T. t has dropped from OvqaKni. Indeed since the second cen- tury B.C. t adscript in the diphthongs ^, jj, to had become mute. Hort,^ however, argues for the retention of i in fgj'^ and infinitives in -^i* instead of the Doric-Attic form, as well "as in dS^ios, ekfj, f^Sov, "HpcpSjjs, Kp\)4>y, \adpa, Travraxfj, iravrii, ivpLpa., crcofci), iirepQov, ^^ov, though he hesitated to put crifco 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 jj. The best edi- tors print also 8rinoaiq,, iSia, ix-qrpo'Xiloaj.s, TraTpoXciais, irarp^os, Trefj}, 'Z.ap.odpq.KT], Tpuas, though fiLfxvrjCKco and TTpaos. W. H. have forms in -oiv also, as KaTa,aKr]vo2v (Mt. 13: 32). Moulton' gives a curious example of the loss of the irrational t in the case of the subjunctive § which sometimes in the papyri appears as tjv, having lost the i, and taken on irrational v. As a matter of fact iota adscript (iota 1 Blass, Pronun., etc., p. 50. ^ Hirt, Handb. d. Griech., p. 114. ^ Sohweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 65. * Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 64. In the iv/s.c. the Attic often wrote a for tji, but not for n- In the Thess., ^ol. and Ionic inscriptions the t with a, ri, o) is freely omitted or wrongly inserted (irrational i), as in TV 7r6Xa, tA ipn, 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. jtoX- \ol yap x^pis "^o^ t ypa^ovGi rcis 5oTtKAs, Kai ^K^aXKovai. Sk rb Wo% ^ufftK^J* oXtmv oiK exov. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 29 f. Schweizer (Perg. Inschr., p. 47) cites T-qiv divomv. ' Introd. to N. T. Gk., p. 314. ^ Mayser, Gr., p. 121, finds no l 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 fjiSitrav in D (Mk. 1 : 34) and ^vXm in K (Lu. 23 : 31).i Forms with and without the mute iota appear in the Herculaneum pa- pyri,'' as dKTJi or dKrj. Blass* would also restore t to avTi.irkpa{a). He doubts if i was written in such new optative forms as Sdoriu {8oiriv Attic) though it should be put in the text. Ti\ and V. Since these two vowels came to be pronounced alike as in modern 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 dripa {6bpa), UTiCTripiov (fivar.), aKVTrpov {aKrJTTpov) , etc.^ It is already in the Egyptian Koivfi according to Thumb.^ Hence we are not surprised to see the N. T. MSS. get mixed over rifieis and ifieis. Especially in 1 Peter does this itacism lead to a mixing of the historicaF standpoint as in 1 : 12, where v/mv is read by XABCL, etc., rifup by K and most cursives Syr*"'' Cop. In 1 Pet. 5 : 10 the MSS. similarly support vnds and ij/iSs. In 2 Cor. the personal relations of Paul and his converts are involved in this piece of orthography as in 8 : 7 e^ vfiuv h vfuv (NCDE, etc.) or ef iJ/iaJK kv vixiv (B 30, 31, 37, etc.). See especially Kad' rifias in Ac. 17 : 28 (B 33 Cop., etc.) which reading would make Paul identify himseK with the Greeks on this occasion. (d) The Changes with i. For i and e see under (6) ; for t and ij see under (c); for iota subscript (adscript), mute or irrational i, see imder (c). For irrational iota see also Infinitive under Verb. The papyri show it in queer forms like aXrjdrji., \eym, P. Oxy. 37 (a.d. 49). I and ei. The interchange between these vowel-symbols began very early (certainly by the sixth century b.c.^) and has been very persistent to the present day. The inscriptions give numerous examples' in the fifth century B.C., such as aTroKfivi}, ''Eiraxppodei.Tos. This was apparently the beginning" of itacism which was extended to V, 7j, and then to ij, ot, vl. Jannaris'^ thinks that the introduc- 1 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 fif. * Hatz., Einl. in neugr. Gr., p. 304. « Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 48. « Hellen., p. 171. ' Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 310. On the subject of ?; and v see Mayser, Gr., p. 85 f. He denies (p. 86) that the itacising pronunciation of v prevailed in the Ptolemaic period. 8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 47. » lb. " lb. " lb., p. 41. 196 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT tion and rapid spread of ij contributed to this confusion as by that time ei was pronounced hke 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 €i (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 «i and i. Dieterich' thinks that this itacism had its widest development in Egypt. The Ptolemaic papyri of ii/B.c. show itacism very frequently. It is only the more illit- erate scribes that use et for i, though B has optiov (Thackeray, Gr., p. 86 f.). Thumb^ considers the interchange between t and et in the Koivri on a par with that between o and w. In Pergamum' the change from t to et is much more common than that from et to I, though forms in -la for -eta occur, as d/i«Xia. The same thing is true in Magnesia, where rjneiv {rmiv) is common.' The Hercu- laneum papyri tell the same story,' while it is so common in the Egyptian papyri 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 i 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 aoipii 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 et closely approached that of t. ^ 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 et, 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 e, v and ,. or et, ot and v (Warfield, Text. Grit, of the N. T., p. 103). s Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 53 f. « Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 35 f. Cf. Egyp. pap. also. ' Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., pp. 27 ff. « Prol,, p. 47. For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, pp. 7 ff. Thack. (Gr., p. 86 f.) thinks that the orthography in this point is older than that ot X and A. « Warfield, Text. Grit, of the N. T., p. 103. " Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 152. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 197 longer insisted in the vernacular on the distinction between long or short i and ei. The examples here ^presented will give a fair idea of the situation. For the textual evidence see careful dis- cussion by Gregory .1 Where ei is written for i it is to' be pro- nounced like I. El is shortened to i in some abstract substantives, -io instead of -da, as^ 'ATToXia, ayvla (possibly), perhaps ^Kpi^ia, aXafovia, avaSia, apeaKia, perhaps aireiBia, ede\o6pri(TKla (but dprjaKdoL), etSojXoXarpta (but \aTpeia), elXiKpLvia, perhaps eKTfvia, kiruida, kpLBia, iptirjvla, Itparla, Kaicapia, KaKoriBla, KanoTadia, /coXa/cta, Kv^la, AooSt/cio,, Hayia, nedoSla, d4)da\fwdov\ia {BovXia doubtful), possibly iraiSta (cf. Ps. 53 : 5), ToXiria, iropla, ttcox'm, irpay/jMrla, irpavTadla, probably ZajLiapia, SeXeuKta, perhaps arpaTia, (^ap/iOKio, $iXa5eX0ia, Jx^eXio. Deissmann' shows that it is \oytla., not Xo7ia in the papyri and so in 1 Cor. 16 : 1 f. Some MSS. have ^xdpxeia (for -ta), evrpaireXeLa (for -Lo), late MSS. Ko\o3vela. The endings -€iov and -etos appear sometimes as -lov, -los. So 01710s, "Aptos (Hayos), affrios, 5aviov (cf. Savi^o}, SaviTris) , iravSodov, (TTOtrxiov. Strong testimony exists for all these. So also -ivbs for -eivbs appears in opivbt, itkotlvos, (jxiotivos. Further examples of t for et are found as in the MSS. in dSta- XtiTTOS, di/eJcXtTTTOs, dXii^co, aindea}, aTriJBris, aindia, aTo5e8iyfikvos, "Apeoira- yirris, Sly/ia, e^aXic^co, Karakekiixixevos (Ac. 25 : 14), even Kpiacuv, Xt/i/ia, X1TOUP76S, iiapyapiTTis (cf. iroXirrjs, Texvirrjs), juetriTiys, o'lKTlpca, irapa- StynaTL^w, TiBos, iiTroXt/ijua, ^tXoj'iKos, i.\ovLKla, xp«0(/>tX£T7js. This is not to mention the verb-forms l8ov, Uav, "iSev which W. H. count alternate forms in Revelation, but which are pure examples of itacism. In the case of 'Ik6viov (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 eldka,, not iSka. Vdvonai and yavixxKOi are very common in the best MSS. 'B./xeiv and ifxeiv are rarely seen, however. 'A^elvri, ToKeikala, 'EXa/^etxTjs, AeueiTTjs, Aeuetrt/cos, Xeiac, 'Niveveirris, IleiXaros, Sa/iapeiTr;s all are found, as well as TpaTrefetTrjs, ^apiiaatoi. Tdxetoc appears in John and Hebrews. In the Pas- toral Epistles, Hort^ finds -Xeix- for -Xitt- forms. Ketpiats is correct in Jo. 11:44. Hort^ also prefers TavoiKel, but TafiirXridei is undisputed. Such verb-forms occur as p.dyvvni, tuixolo}, feiaco. 1 Prol., pp. 83-90. * According to Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 153. ' B. S., pp. 142 f., 219 f. 5 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 u as 'ASSel, 'kpvd, 'E(rX«£ 'HXet, MtXx«t, l^ijpel. Cf. also^ 'kSixdv, 'Axeifi, Beviaiitiv, Aavtid, 'EXtaKetjU, 'Icapeifi, Keis, Aeueis, NeipdaXdfji., XaXelfi, XenteLv, Xfpov^elv, Xopa^dv. So also 'EXeio-ajSer, 'HXetas, Qvareipa, 'Idetpos, 'Iep«ix(i, 'loxrets, 'Ofetas, 2aT<^eipa, Ta^etfla. Cf. also ^Xet, pafifid, pafi^ovvd, aa^axSo-vti. But ♦ appears as t in 'AfiivaSa^, MeXxiceSk, Sivd, Sitiv, Likewise the MSS. usually read 'Avavlas, Bapaxtas, 'Efe/ctas, Zaxa- ptas, 'lepefiias, 'lexovLas, MaOdias, MarraBlas, Ovplas. In many of these examples of changes in i and et the testimony is greatly divided and one must not stickle too much for either spelling. The papyri and the inscriptions have nearly all of them. See 1 (c) for remarks on the difficulty of relying on the uncials in the matter of orthography. It is impossible to be dog- matic on the subject. I and 0. It is a peculiar change, as Blass^ observes, that we have in biitipbp.evoi for IfieipofievoL (1 Th. 2:8). It appears in the LXX (some MSS. for Job 3 : 21 and Symm. at Ps. 62 : 2). The only example so far brought to light is iiwepoiielpeadat in Iren. 60. Winer-SchmiedeP sees no comparison in KaravrpoKv for KaravTupv. Meisterhans^ gives airavrpoKv for inravTiKph. I and 01. Jannaris* defends the exchange of i and oi possibly as early as the fifth century b.c. Certainly in the first century B.C. AiiyovaroLvos occurs in the inscriptions.' Ot was exchanged with et and jj as well as with i. In the N. T. the only example is in Mk. 11:8 where ACSVXr Or. have (rrot/Sds for the usual arL^ds (from ffreipoi). N and a few other MSS. read cttu/SAs. Zonar. illustrates this also by using (XToi^k^. Cf. also ctol^ti, orot/SAfw, etc. This word thus illustrates well the common itacistic ten- dency, showing forms in -t, -ot, -v and -ei (in the verb). The LXX has only cttIxos and o-rtxtfco, not o-roix- (Thackeray, Gr., p. 92). I and V. These two vowels sometimes have the force of the consonants^ j (y) and v (cf. Latin). Cf. av- (af) and tv- (ef) in modern Greek, and e in xoXecos. In modern. Greek " every i- or e-sound which collides in the middle of a word with a succeeding 1 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 155. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 22. But it is quite possible (see j) that this is a case of prothetic o. ' W.-Sch., p. 62. < Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 81. s Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 53. Cf. on the other side K.-Bl., I, 3, p. 53. « Jann., ib., p. 52. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 112. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 27, 55, etc. OETHOGEAPHY AND PHONETICS 199 vowel, loses its syllabic value and becomes consonanted" (Thumb, Handb., p. 10). So a.yi.os = ayos. The t is the last of the five original vowel-sounds in this order: a, o, u, e, i. This relative value has persisted in modern Greek (Thumb's Handbook, p. 12 f.). Jannaris^ gives kiroidohyievoi as an illustration of this gradation in sound. But as a matter of fact the interchange between i and v is not frequent. Meisterhans'' finds only five examples in the Attic inscriptions, two of which, ^v^'Kiov and MiruXiji'atos, are found in N. T. MSS. (assimilation). Examples occur in the Kot.vi} of Asia Minor, though Thumb' agrees with Kretschmer in calling it a "barbarism." Still the old distinction in sound between i and v slowly broke down till in modern Greek the two vowels have the same sound. BiipvWos in Rev. 21 : 20 is spelled also in MSS. jSij- ptXXos, /SupiXXos, jStpuXXtos, a fine illustration of itacism. D reads ;3i//3Xos for /3ij3Xos in Mk. 12 : 26 and Lu. 20 : 42. In Ac. 20 : 14 MiTvKi]vn is the correct text for the old Mur., but AE have Mtru- XtcT/ and L MuruXtvij. For the Tpuy'CKiov of Strabo and the By- zantine writers the Textus Receptus addition to Ac. 20 : 15 has TpuyvKla, other MSS. TpujvWlov, TpuyvXiov.* The LXX shows also ijfivcTv in 9 Dan. 7:25 (B). The Ptolemaic papyri vary in this word (Thackeray, Gr., p. 95). In Lu. 19 : 8 D has ^tivacoL. (e) The Changes with o. For changes with o see under (a), for o and « under (6), for o and t under (d). and ov. The old Attic used Aider Kopos, which Phrynichus^ pre- fers, though Thucyd. and Plato have the form in -ovpos also (Epic or Ionic). In Ac. 28 : 11 only some of the cursives have the form in -opos. Both forms appear in the inscriptions.'' This exchange is rather common in the Ptolemaic papyri (Mayser, Gr., pp. 10 f., 116f.). In the LXX X shows sometimes ok for ovk (Thackeray, Gr., p. 91). The modern Greek dialects have much diversity of usage on this point. Cf. Thimib, Handb., p. 8. 1 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 0b0\os, Pv^Xlov, etc., in the pap. * Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 22. In Athens before 403 b.c. o stood for 0, M, OV (Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 24). 5 Lobeck, p. 235; The New. Phryn., p. 310. Cf . K.-BI., 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 i0o\dnriv as the mod. Gk. vernac. (Thumb, Neugr. Vollcsspr., p. 6). Cf. Buresch, Phil, li, 89. Most common bet. vi/iii b.c. ace. to Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 37. ' Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 66 f. 200 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT and V. The MSS. vary between ^ irpaos (Syrian) and rpavs in Mt. 11 : 29; 1 Pet. 3 : 4, as well as between Trpaorjjs and irpairris 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 koivt]. The LXX has the v form. The papyri have other illustrations (Mayser, Or., p. 97). Cf. HoTtoXot in Ac. 28 : 13 for the Latin Puteoli. and (1). Originally o represented both the short and long sounds so that it was easy with careless pronimciation for more or less con- fusion to exist after co came into use. The Boeotian Pindar, for instance, has Atcovucros instead of Atowaos.^ The New Ionic foj; (parox.) appears in heu of fcoi^. 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 earhest 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 httle evidence of the inter- change (Thackeray, Gr., p. 89) . Jannaris finds it common. The modem Greek makes no difference in sound between o and w ex- cept medial o as in not. "In the early papyri the instances of confusion between o and co are iimumerable."' The inscriptions tell the same story about the KOLvij in Magnesia* and Pergamum.' In some instances,* like 66/ia for dS>iJ.a and wpodona, an co is shortened to o after the analogy of e from ri in ekfia. In the N. T. MSS. "probably the commonest permutation is that of o and &>, chiefly exemplified in the endings -o/jiev and -co/iec." ' It is useless to fol- low the MSS. through their variations on this point. In Ro. 5 : 1 exdJAtec is supported by all the best documents and gives a difficult sense at first, though a better one on reflection than ixoiitv. 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 aino rpSirwi.. Mayser (Gr., pp. 97 ff .) finds only two exx. of this confusion of o and CO in the Ptol. pap. of iii/s.c, but seventy in the next two. 6 lb. Cf. Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 19 f. " Nachm., 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. ' Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 309. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS \ 201 W. H. cannot decide between opk(funev and opkip,tv (Mk. 6 : 37), Ikaonai (Mt. 13 : 15; cf. Is. 6 : 10), Iva Kavdrjo-iafiai or Kouxiio-cD/iai (1 Cor. 13:3), tva ^vpijirovTai (Ac. 21:24). In all these instances syntactical questions enter also besides the mere question of vowel interchange.' The o appears instead of co in irona (1 Cor. 10 : 4; Heb. 9 : 10), irpoLnos (Jas. 5 : 7), Sroi'/cos (Ac. 17: 18),' cvKoiiopka, not -iixcpka (Lu. 19 : 4), xpeo^tX^Tijs according to W. H. and not xpto^eCKertis (Soden) nor xp&a4>eiKkTrii according to LU, etc. (Lu. 7 : 41 ; 16 : 5). But w is correct apparently in AyajdoKrivr], ayiwainnj, kv5i>iiriai.s (Rev. 21 : 18, Soden -S6n-), lepoiaivTj, fieya'Ktaaivii, TrpcoiVos. So also the LXX, but irpoifios (Thack., Gr., p. 90). Codex B shows others in the LXX (*.). In Lu. 18 : 5 and 1 Cor. 9 : 27 the MSS. vary between fiirwiridfw (from vir-^inov) and {nroma^o} (— xi^fco old form), though the best MSS. read iwuir^ In Ro. 13 : 3 r^i &,yadQ epyi^ may possibly be tQ ayaSoepyQ. So in 2 Pet. 3 : 6 5i' Siv may be^ for Si' ov. In Rev. 4 : 7 f . ?x«^j', not ixov (Soden), is read by the best MSS., though the substantive is ^'H^ov. Now second century B.C. papyri have inrbuvniia ^x"" where w and o are exchanged.^ (/) The Changes with u. For the changes with v and i see under (d), v and o under (e). X) (md €1). Only one example of this exchange appears in the N. T., that of Tp£vdoy- yos as applied to avWafiri concerned the eye rather than the ear and meant more biliteral than bivocal. The spurious diphthongs show the process in a state of completion. The papyri, unlike the inscriptions, do not dissect a diphthong at the close of a line.' Where two vowels do not blend into one syllable, it is necessary to indicate it. Hence from very early times marks of diaeresis were used to show that each vowel has its own sound. The mark is put over the t or v which might otherwise be considered to unite with the preceding vowel. These marks are found in the oldest N. T. MSS. with such words as dXXr/Xo6ia (Rev. 19 : 1; but in the case of proper names transliterated from the Hebrew or Aramaic W. H. follow the Hebrew or Aramaic spelling. Cf. Hort, Intr., p. 313. So in other examples below), 'Axaia, 'Axa'kos (1 Cor. 16 : 17), Bridcraidd, Taios (also TaTos in Ac. 20:4, etc., but cf. Allen, Harvard Studies in Class. Philol., ii, 1891, pp. 71 ff.), 3ii)X£f€w (Mt. 23 : 24), "E/SpaiVri, k\ut (Mk. 15 : 34), 'E0- palfi, however, or 'E^p^/t (NL in Jo. 11 : 54), 'Rca'tas, though B usu- ally without,^ 'lovSaiKois, Icrxdi- (2 Pet. 2 : 11), Katd^as, KdiV (W. H. Kaiv), so W. H. Kaivav (not Ka'ivav nor -d/x), Aeueirijs and not AeuiTT/s in W. H., Acots (W. H. -is), Mwuo-ijs in W. H., not Mcamris, NiveueiTjjs and not Nweutxjjs, xpoijuos according to W. H., but irpcai, irpwLvbs. W. H. have UToXenatSa in Ac. 21 : 7 and 'FiaixaLari in Jo. 19 : 20. D reads Xopa^aiv. The Semitic etymology complicates the matter with some of these words.' Many of the MSS. use diaeresis at the beginning of words as in tm.^ HA regularly write i/i), while coiJ is correct also.' See Giles' on the subject of diphthongs. For iota subscript see under (c). (j) Apileeesis and Phothetic Vowels. 0^Xw, not idk\co, is the only form in the N. T., as it is the common form in the Koivii and is that used in modern Greek. It is as old as Homer, and since 1 Hatz., Einl. etc., p. 304. Cf . K.-Bl., Bd. I, pp. 243 ff. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 29. ' lb., p. 43. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 153 f. * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 17. So 'Uacral. « lb. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 34. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 10. « Gregory, Prol. etc., p. 108. ^ Comp. Philol., pp. 158 ff. 206 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 250 B.C. is the only form in the Attic' and lonio^ inscriptions. The augment, however, is always ??. Cronert' finds efleXw after consonants. The koivti does not follow the Ionic in the use of Ketvos for iKeZvos. Aphaeresis is frequent* in the modem Greek vernacular, xet and kei, 8tv for ovSev, etc. But the N. T. has only exOks (so LXX) m the best MSS. (cf. Jo. 4 : 52 NABCD; Ac. 7:28 NBCD; Heb. 13:8 NACD), the usual Attic form' though the papyri sometimes have x^« instead of the common kxdis- The N. T. does not have Svpofmi, KiWw, neipoiicu., where o is dropped. Cf. Kuhner-Blass, Tl. I, Bd. 1, p. 186. The form ^eipofiai. (cf . ofiHpoiievoL in 1 Th. 2 : 8) occurs in Nicander for llidpofiaL. It is possible that in 6{6)tieipoimi we have prothetic o instead of aphaeresis. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 152; Winer- Schmiedel, p. 141. See Additional Notes for full hst. (k) Elision. Besides the use of the movable final v and s the Greeks had two other methods of obviating hiatus (eUsion, era- sis). The hiatus was distasteful to the finished writers, though more freedom was exercised in poetry. The avoidance of hiatus was always a more or less artificial matter and hiatus was un- avoidable in the most careful Attic writers, as in the case of 3n, Trepi, irpo, ri, tl, the article, relative, the small "form-words'' (/tai, et. All?), etc. But the harsher hiatus Hke kb'iZoro air^ would be avoided by the hterary kolvt) writers as well as by the Atticists. The inscriptions and the papyri show far less concern about hia- tus than do the literary writers of the Kowii. As might be expected the N. T. books agree in this matter with the vernacular Koivi\ and the MSS. vary greatly among themselves. Blass* considers this situation in harmony with the tendency to greater isolation of the words in the later language. Indeed he thinks that only one^ book in the N. T. (Hebrews) shows the care of an artistic writer in the avoidance of hiatus. By omitting the 0. T. quota* tions and chapter 13 he finds that hiatus where there is a pause is a matter of indifference, as also with Kal. He finds fifty-two other instances of hiatus, whereas Romans goes beyond that num- 1 Meisterh., Gr., p. 178. 2 Smyth, Ionic Dial., p. 482. Cf. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 155. ' Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 133 f. ^ Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 13. 6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18. Cf. on hiatus K.-Bl., I, pp. 190 S. « lb., p. 296 f. On indifference of later Gk. to hiatus see Bischoff, Neut. Wiss., 1906, p. 268; Thieme, ib., p. 265. Moulton (Prol., p. 92) quotes Kaelker (Quast., p. 245 f.) as saying that Polyb. uses Sans for 6s merely to avoid hiatus. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 160. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 207 ber as far as ch. 4 : 18. But even then Blass has to admit cases of harsher hiatus in Hebrews, hke ASeX^oi ££7101, 'evoxoL riaav, etc. The Attic inscriptions show that the v*nacular tongue did not care much about hiatus.^ The lighter ehsions hke 5' were used or not at will, while the heavier ones like St/cat' Sttcos were rare. The same indiiference to eUsion appears in the kovvti inscriptions^ and in the papyri.' In general in the N. T. eUsion takes place regu- larly before pronouns and particles and before nouns in combina- tions of frequent occurrence^ like Kar' oIkov. Blass* has carefully worked out the following facts in the N. T. MSS. Te, oiire, m^7«, aiia, apa, ye, kiik, en, Iva, Siare, etc., do not undergo elision nor do noun- or verb-forms. The verse of Menander quoted in 1 Cor. 15 : 33 is properly printed xfiV^To. 6>itXiat by W. H.* Even the compound words reaaepaKOVTaeTiii (Ac. 7 : 23) and eKarovTaerris (Ro. 4 : 19) do not suffer eUsion, while reTpa-apxn^ has no eli- sion in KCA (Alexandrian, Hort). ToDr' ecTi or Tovrkari, is the only example in the pronouns that we have in the N. T.^ It is in the particles then that most N. T. elisions occur, though there are comparatively few. 'AXXa, according to Gregory,* has eUsion in 215 cases and fails to have it in 130, though the MSS. vary much. Hort' observes that in dXXd eUsion is usual before articles, pro- nouns and particles, but rare before nouns and verbs. Ro. 6 : 14r-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 elision outside of os 5' av, but here frequently, while W. H. read Si aM''\n Ph. 2 : 18 after KBP. In 2 Cor. 3 : 16 W. H. put ^vUa 8' av in the margin, text riv. Si kav (so Tisch., Nestle). In oiiSk elision takes place several times, as in oiS' av (Heb. 8 : 4), oiS' ei (Ac. 19 : 2, NAB), oid' tva (Heb. 9 : 25), oiS' &n (Ro. 9': 7), oiS' oh (Mt. 24 : 21; Heb. 13 : 5), oM' ovtw (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, Hellen. etc., p. 82. * Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 146. " Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18. Cf. also Gregory, p. 93 f. ' Moulton (CI. Rev., Feb. 31, 1901) finds that the pap. hke the Lat. have a vowel not used in the metre. The inscr. 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 ToOr' diriyv in Jo. 20 : 22. ' Prol., p. 93 f. ' Notes, p. 146. 1° Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18. 208 A GRAMMAR OP 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 3i' 'A/3paaju in Heb. 7 : 9. EUsion is most conmion with 5td as Si' kaoTrrpov (1 Cor. 13 : 12), "because there were already two vowels adjacent to each other" Blass' thinks. 'kvTi has elision only in avd' Sjv (Lu. 1 : 20, etc.). Elsewhere the prepositions show eUsion with pronouns and in current phrases as in ciTr' apxijs, air' aprt, ax' avTov, iir' kfwv, ctt' abrcf, /car' 4/te, kut' IS'iav {kojB' I5iav), Kar' oIkov, iier' hiu>v, wap' S)v, v' fifuav' {vfiup)^ inr' obdev6s (1 Cor. 2 : 15) .^ So the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 137). (Q Crasis. The Attic ofi&cial 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 /cat and the article.^ The same thing is true of Per- gamum.^ In the N. T. it is confined also to /cai and the article. And in the case of /cat crasis only occurs if the following word is a pronoun or a particle. Kat thus often, though not always, coalesces with kyd) and the oblique cases, as Ka.yo3, Kafioi, Kafik. If there is a " distinct co-ordination of eycb with another pronoun or a substantive," crasis does not take place.' Even the MSS. vary greatly.' Ka/cetvos also is found as well as /cd/ceT and xaKtWev. 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 — Kal 'tkv (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 Tabra. for Tama in 1 Cor. 9 : 8 or Tama for to. aiiTo. in Lu. 6 : 23, 26 ; 17: 30, though supported in Luke by some good MSS. He does, how- ever, accept Tovvofia ui Mt. 27:57 and TobvavTLov 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). » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18. See Additional Notes. 2 For more minute details about the prep, see Gregory, Prol., pp. 94 ff. ' Meisterh., Att. Inschr., pp. 70 ff. * Magn. Inschr., p. 74. ' Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 133. Cf. Mayser, Gr., pp. 158 ff., for the common pap. exx. like Kiyiii, r&KriBes, etc. " Hort, Notes on Orth.,p. 145. ' See Gregory, Prol., p. 96; Von Soden, I, p. 1380. » See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18, and W.-Sch., p. 38; Von Soden, I, p. 1380. Blass gives K&vtBliiiu 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. 13f. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 209 III. Consonant-Changes (o-roixeta (rii|iS were used in Attic for J, yp. It is only since 403 B.C. that the Greek alphabet (aX^a ^rjTo) has had regularly twenty-four letters. Jannaris' gives an interesting study of the way the Greek letters looked in eighth, sixth, fifth and fourth centuries B.C. as shown by the inscriptions. In the inscriptions, however, Kbirira continued to be used (like Latin Q) and jSaO or Biyafifia. This last, though called double ya-nna, perhaps represents the Phce- nician vau. On the use of digamma in Homer see Ktihner-Blass.'* It is a half-vowel in fact, as i and v are partly consonant in force, like Latin u (v) and i (j).° The dropping of digamma affected many words, some of which have the rough breathing, though Thumb ° and Moulton' think that this is an accident simply, and the rough breathing is due to analogy and not to the digamma in cases like Kad' eVos, etc. But changes in the use of the consonants did not cease when the Euclidean spelling reform was instituted 403 B.C. As the vowels underwent steady development, so it was and is with the consonants. B early began occasionally to have the force of v, and y sometimes the j value of i as in modern Greek, and it was even inserted (irrational 7).* In general in the Koivij the ' Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 21. " lb. Cf. Meisterh., Gr. etc., p. 3. ' lb., p. 24 f. On the whole subj. of changes in the pap. see Mayser, Gr., pp. 163-248. For general remarks about consonant-changes in LXX MSS. see Swete, O. T. in Gk., p. 301. ■> Bd. I, pp. 85-101. ' lb., pp. 77-85, 101-103. The mod. Gk. pronounces aiTSs=aftos. The inscr. give the form dFuraO. Cf. Riem. and Goelzer, Phon^t., p. 34. " HeUen., pp. 245 ff. ' ProL, p. 44. But Sommer, Gr. Lautstudien, shows that the rough breathing is sometimes due to digamma. « Thumb, Hellen., p. 187 f.; cf. p. 134 f. for intervocal y. 210 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT consonant-changes are much fewer than those of the vowel. Such peculiarities as ca, ylvofiai, 'KiiiJ.ij/oixai are common (Thackeray, Gr. p. 100). (6) The Insertion op Consonants. In the older Greek B is inserted in kv-b-pbs, and so with ^ in utayju-^-pla.} The Attic used either form in knn{fi)T\r}tJ.i, kixTl{fi)Trpr]ni. So in Ac. 14 : 17 DEP read eiJ,TLiJ,-!r\S>v (D kv-), and in Ac. 28 : 6 N"BHLP most cursives have iriinrpaadai. The LXX MSS. show the same variation. D in Lu. 2 : 32, etc., has 'l(T-T-par]\. The retention of p, in all the forms (derivatives also) of \ap,^avo3 (root Xa/3) is in ac- cord with the usage of the papyri ("almost invariably") ^ and the inscriptions of the KotviJ, and is due to the Ionic Xa^u^o^ai.' Hence Xij/ii/'o/xai, k\rip4idr]v, 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 p forms. In the Byzantine period (vi/viii a.d.) the classic XijipopaL reappears. Cf. Thack- eray, Gr., p. 108 f.; Mayser, Gr., p. 194 f.; Cronert, 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 ^07(7)1X11X01' is inserted by the Syrian class only and is not to be accepted. In Heb. 11 : 32 TT is added to Xapccov {'Lap-^iiv) . So also in Ac. 3:7 (NABC) 5 is added to a-<^i;(6)p6;' which is as yet "unexplained."* In the case of 'A8papvvTr]vQ (Ac. 27: 2), read by W. H. on author- ity of AB 16 Copt, instead of 'KbpapvTrrivQ, a slightly different situation exists. Two ways of pronouncing and spelling the name of the city existed. (c) The Omission op 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 aprnv, not apKTov. 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 X, also (save in Mk. 3 : 22) read /3eafe/3oiiX instead of |3eeXfe|Soi/X. Tlpopai and yLvi^aKoi are the exclusive forms in the N. T., though some MSS., as in the papyri and inscriptions, have 761^-. Nach- ' Blass compares the insertion of consonants in Semitic names like "Eir-S- 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 m with \aii,0a.vQi. Cf. Gregory (Prol., p. 72) for list and references of the various compounds of \afi06.vu> and '^ijittf^is in the N. T., dva—f kvi-Ki—, &vTt—, dTTO-, Kara—, juera— , Trapa—, irpo- irpoa—. The LXX MSS. have \r]ij4/op.a.i (Q \ri\j/ovTai) and 'ekiip4>env. Cf . Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 22. * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 24; W.-Sch., p. 64. 5 lb., p. 65. ORTHOGRAPHT AND PHONETICS 211 manson* states clearly the facts. The Ionic as early as the fifth century B.C. used the 7tv forms, andth^Doric shows the same situation in the fourth century. Even in Athens the yiv forms appear, and in the koivt) the 7171/ forms vanish. TdKyoda follows the Hebrew ril;3^3 rather than the Chaldaic »0^3r? in having only one X. According to Winer-SchmiedeP the two forms KavSa and KXavSa (Ac. 27 : 16) represent two different islands near each other, which were confused in the MSS. It is hardly worth while to remark that aa.p8iov (correct text in Rev. 4 : 3) is a substantive, while (xapdivos (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 kolvIj. The phenomena in the N. T. in general correspond to the situation in the Koivri.^ 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 pepavnaiikvos is read by NACDP in Heb. 10 : 22 as in Ionic and late Greek, peptfifievoi, in D (Mt. 9 : 36), and TrtpipepaiMfievos in N (Rev. 19 : 13). Blass'' observes ' Magn. Inschr., p. 108. Cf. also Hoffmann, Griech. Dial., Bd. Ill, p. 173; Meisterh., p. 128; Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 165; Schmid, Atticismus, Bd. IV., p. 579 (for the Atticistic 7171'); Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 91 f.; Reinhold, De Graec. Patr. etc., pp. 46-48. In the LXX ylvojiai. and yivinrKu are uniform. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 21. Thack. (Gr., p. Ill f.) finds illustrations of the omission of intervocalic y in the LXX uncials as in the pap. (Mayser, Gr., p. 167 f.). ' P. 65, where a fuU discussion of the geographical points is given. 3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 10. * P. 65; cf. also Riem. and Goelzer, Phon^t., pp. 225 ff. " See Thumb, Hellen., pp. 20 fl.; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., pp. 122 ff.; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., pp. 88 ff.; Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., pp. 74 if. 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 ipi.\f/ev, 'App. Both ippafiiiv and apapiiv occur, and it is in the pap. that we can often find the true Ptolemaic spelling. A curiously has usually ykinnia and B yivvqua. ' 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 kolvIi (Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 124, avavrtpiiTU!, etc.; Nachm., Magn. etc., p. 91) and even in the Attic inscr. (Meisterh., p. 95, ivapiiBevres, etc.). Cf. Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p. 42, for exx. of kpiiaaro, etc. 212 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT that the Syriac versions use sttini for "Pi/iijj, though some Attic inscriptions use initial pp. In Mt. 9 : 20 alfioppoovaa is correct (XL one p). In Ac. 10:29 BD 61 read avavrLpi/Tus, and in Ac. 19 : 36 BL have avavTi.pr,Ti^v. In Ac. 27 : 43 W. H. follow NC in cLTopixl/avTas, and in Lu. 19 : 35 all but the Syrian class read kvi- piyj/avTes and NAB have the same form in 1 Pet. 5:7. In Mt. 9 : 36 the Neutral (and Alexandrian) class has epiii/ievoi., the Syrian kpp., while D has pepiixfi-. In Mt. 15 : 30 NDL read epi^av, while only the Syrian class has eppi^av, and so in Ac. 27: 19. But in Lu. 17: 2 eppiTTaL is supported by all MSS. save n and p"'. In Jo. 19 : 23 apa.os is read by W. H., though B has app. In 2 Cor. 12 : 4 Uppyira is right as appccaros in Mk. 6 : 5, 13, etc. In 2 Cor. 1 : 22 W. H. follow BCD vs. NAL in reading kppafiSiva, 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 Suipricaoiv is supported by ABCRUA. In Mt. 26 : 65 W. H. give Siiprt^ev on the authority of only 9' according to Tisch., though BL read Siepiiaa-eTo in Lu. 5 : 6. But rpoirkprj^ev in Lu. 6 : 48 is supported by KBDL and in 6 : 49 by BDL. In Ac. 16 : 22 weptpri^avTes is the reading of all uncials save P, but most cursives follow P. But in Ac. 14 : 14 all MSS. have Siappij- ^avres and in Lu. 9 : 42 the same thing is true of eppTj^ev. In Mk. 2 : 21 iinpaTTeL is read by all the best MSS. and the Syrian class is divided, and the same is true of Mt. 26 : 67 kpawiaav. In 2 Cor. 11:25 'epa.^h'i.(j6i]v is correct, while likewise kpavTiatv (Heb. 9:19, 21) has all save late Syrian support. So ~pp- in kppkBi} (BD ippijd-i\, 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^oi,iivoi. W. H. follow B alone in 2 Cor. 1 : 10; 2 Pet. 2 : 7 with ipbaaro, while in Col. 1 : 13 B is joined by FGP. In 2 Tim. 3 : 11 AD read kpbffan, and NAC 37 give epvadriv in 2 Tim. 4 : 17. All MSS. have eppcoade (Ac. 15 : 29). Mvppa (B) is changed to Mvpa in the Syrian text (Ac. 2 : 5; cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 160), but Winer-Schmiedel (p. 58) found only Mvpa in the inscriptions. Uapapvciiiev (Heb. 2 : 1) is read by all the pre-Syrian classes. Uapprjaia, Tappri The inscr. show rvpds 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. 5 Deiss., B. S., pp. 109 f., 184. Cf. Thackeray, p. 118. » Gregory, Prol., p. 79. ' In Mk. B (5) has irpA/SaTos, but is not followed by W. H. in Jo. and Ac. (6). Thumb, Hellen., p. 22, argues for p0 as the correct form from mod. Gk. usage. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 328) cites both KpA/SarTos and Kpa^driov from Arrian's Diss. Epict. and k/)Aj3ottos from the pap. Cf . Moulton's note in Einl. 214 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Latin grabatarius (CIGII 2114 d t). K, however, has 10/11 times the strange form KpafiaKTos {-tt- only in Ac. 5 : 15). Aao-k (Ac. 27 : 8) is Aaccata in some MSS. MajwcocSs, from Aramaic sjidsd is correct. Ma(7oo/iai is the right reading in Rev. 16 : 10 (NACP). Only the Western class has TfKijyLVfyqs for TrXrjixixvfyr]^ in Lu. 6 : 48. W. H. properly have paKos, not pdxKos, from pijyvvni (Mt. 9 : 16- Mk. 2 : 21). In the Western interpolation in Ac. 20 : 15, W. H. read IpuyvKiov, not -vWiov nor -lKujv. Some Latin MSS. read hysopus for ucro-coxos in Jo. 19 : 29 and Heb. 9 : 19. ^vyeXos, not -eXXos, is read in 2 Tim. 1 : 15 by all save A and most cursives. Cf. ^vyk^Los in CIGH 3027. The Hebrew and Aramaic proper names call for special re- mark. "Awas=15n (Josephus 'Avavos) may be due to the drop- ping of a or to the analogy of "Avva=nT\. W. H. (Ac. 1:23; 15:22) prefer BapaaPfias (from »aB-i|i, 'son of the Sabbath') to Bapo-a/3as (from s«ao ia, 'son of Saba').i The Text. Rec. has Ttvri- captT (W. H. Vtvv^ffapkT) in Mk. 6 : 53, elsewhere -vv-.^ Topoppa is read in LXX and N. T. (Mt. 10 : 15, etc.), rriJas. W. H. accept 'EXto-atos, not 'EXitrtr. (Syrian) in Lu. 4 : 27 = sai)5K. 'Itami (Lu. 3 : 32, etc.) comes from -iffl^. The N. T. and 1 Mace, have 'lowirri, but the ancient grammarians and lexicographers pre- fer '16x1/.' In Lu. 3 : 27 'Icoavau (indeclinable) is the right text. W. H. prefer 'Icoava (ini*^) to 'Icoavva in Lu. 8 : 3; 24 : 10. But more doubt exists concerning 'Icodvr/s, 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 'luavvrjs 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 'loiavav and now 'Icaavov. This fact opposes the derivation of the name 'Icaawris from 'Iwav&v-ris, leaving the -T/s unexplained.^ Maptd/x (Q'^'i,'?) = Mapi,ap.nr\ in Josephus.* TAtcKTMs is from the Aramaic sn;'ca = Hebrew n'^ipan, but the Syr- ' Cf. W.-Sch., p. 57. 2 Cf. Pliny (Nat. Hist., V, 15. 71 for Ttvr,) also. In W.-Sch., p. 57, the point is made that the unpointed Targums do not distinguish between 1?'M and 1D'?J. ' W.-Sch., p. 56, =''3; or ;3;. Cf. on this subject Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 26 f. ' Blass,*Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 328, quoting E. Lippett. = Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 159. ' W.-Sch., p. 57; E. Bibl., p. 2504 f. « Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 11. s Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 11. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 215 ian class reads Meo-tas in Jo. 1 : 41 (42) ; 4 : 25. "Lappa., Heb. niffl (feminine of "ito), is read by MSS. generally in N. T., though L has Sapas in Ro. 4: 19 (vulg. *Sarae).* All the MSS. have w in Souo-dwa (Lu. 8: 3) after the Heb. nsmiic ('a lily')- Xappdv is supported by most MSS., though D and a few cursives have Xapav in Ac. 7 : 2 after the Hebrew Tin. The LXX has Xappav and the Greek writers (Strabo, etc.) have KAppat, Latin Carrhae. Doubling of the Aspirate. As a rule the aspirated mutes (d, x, - In Philemon 2 D has 'Acl>4>ia, while 3 has 'Axirta (so vulg.) and FG, etc., even 'Afi(j)ia. In Mk. 7 : 34 all MSS. have €(/)0a9d (or icjxpeda) save A and two Coptic MSS. which have 'eTr4>a6a. W. H. give 'Ma66a.'ios = Hebrew n-;tiKi in the N. T. (Mt. 9:9ff., etc.), and UaJddkv in Mt. 1 : 15. W. H. read MardaT in Lu. 3 : 24, but Ma66aT in Lu. 3 : 29. In Ac. 1 : 23, 26 W. H. have Ma6eias, but in Lu. 3 : 25 f. they pre- fer MoTTa0tas to Ma66a6las. In Ac. 5 : 1, W. H. consider Sci^^etpa Western and read 'Zk-w(l>€i.pa (either Aramaic '^'I'^&D, 'beautiful,' or Hebrew I'^Bp, 'precious stone').' 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, 'ckk, ix, fjK and even i (cf. Latin) are found in Attic inscriptions,^ as hy vTiauv, etc. Only sporadic examples outside of «^ and k appear in the N. T. as avkyXt-TTTos in D (Lu. 12 : 33), aireydvcrei in B (Col. 2 : 11), i^yova in D (1 Tim. 5 : 4), eggona, not engona? The Attic inscriptions even have s assimilated in roiiX XWovs. The most ' On the whole subject see Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 1S9, and Blaas, 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 ff. " 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 yaarpl, in nkaif, eiv, etc. Cf . Helbmg, 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 ai/Xi (Mt. 27 ; 46) in L and in the LXX 'Aepniiv, 'Aevdiip. 216 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT common assimilation between separate words is in words ending in -V, especially with the article and iv. Examples like Tij/t iroXw, t6\ \6yov, Tip 'PoSlov, ek Aeafiiff, ia 7^iSS>vi,, etc., are very common.' Similar phenomena occur in the Koivri inscriptions, though the failure to assimilate is far more noticeable. See list of examples in Nachmanson.^ As a rule the papyri do not assimilate such cases.' In the N. T., as in the later mivri 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, ey yaaTpl in A (Lu. 21 : 23), ej Kai/S in AF (Jo. 2 : 11), ift lik) and the Uquid /i except kvirepiwaTriacii (2 Cor. 6 : 16), possibly kvTv&jiv (Ac. 9:1), and evwpocrdev once (Rev. 4 : 6) and Western class elsewhere. So assimilation takes place before the liquid X, as iWoyau. But before the palatals k, y the usage varies, though before x we have ^xpti^t" (Rev. 3 : 18) with K reading kv. ' Meisterh., p. 110 f. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 97. ' Magn. Inschr., p. 100 f . Cf . also Schweizer, Perg. etc., p. 127; Jann., 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. 47 f. ' Blafls, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 12. Cf. Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 61. « 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. vemac. see Thumb, Btandb., p. 24f. OETHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 217 We read ivyiypaixiAvri in 2 Cor. 3 : 2 f . (KABCDFG) and kvml- vta, ivKaivi^ca, evKaTOt/cew, ^fKauxujuai, ivKevTMu, kvKpLvo}, though ky- Ka\ku, iyKhjiM, etc., and kyKaTaKeliru except in Acts.' As to cue here is Hort's decision. 2vpir- he accepts save in avy.vbaia.. On the other hand Hort has only avvPaa-iKeiiw, avvfii^a^os, elsewhere avfi^- as in (7u/i;3oij'a>; only avv()u, but avfuj)- as in (rvfuphpu. With the palatals Hort reads awK- always, as in avvKodrjfiai., only o-u77e- viis, avyKoKinrru, but avvxpi^lJ'O-i- and ahyxvoi'^- He has both avvKaXkoi, avvKtmovfiai, and avKKan^avu, avWkyu; avviutBtiTiis, etc., but cvufiop- ^tfco, (ru/i/iop0os. Hort lias o-wf&j, etc., but (rh^vye; a-vv\l/vxos, but has both awa-TavpSo}, etc., and ava-TpkctM, etc. For the detailed MS. evidence see Gregory.^ Hort also prefers iraKivyevetyia, but is doubtful about Kevxpio-l, ita.vKKqBd. (/) Intebchangb 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 h sound was rare in the older Indo-Germanic languages and easily glided into u or v? The Greek fiaivu is like venio in Latin, /Sios is like vivus though different in his- tory. In modern Greek ^ has sound of v. In -the N. T. as in the LXX all the uncials have u in AaueiS (W. H.) where the minuscules read Aa^iS.* In the case of fitkiap (2 Cor. 6 : 15) it is from "1?^ ^5 ('lord of the forest'), while the Text. Rec. /SeXiaX is from ^S>]:^ ('worthlessness').' The variation between pa and pp, Moulton' ob- serves, runs down to modern Greek. The Attic pp did not displace the Ionic and early Attic per entirely in the Attic inscriptions.' In the N. T., like the rest of the Koivri, usage is divided.' Hort (p. 149) prefers Epariv except S.ppT]v perhaps 4/4 times in Paul. In the Gos- pels and Acts dapaos and the two imperatives dapaei, Bapatirt are uniform, but in 2 Cor. (5 : 6, 8; 7: 16; 10 : 1, 2) and Heb. (13 : 6) • About h> in composition see Gregory, Prol. etc., p. 76 f.; Soden, I, p. 1383. 'Ev in MSS. appears in composition as kv-, ty- and even ex-, as iKKiirqv. On ivirpoaOtv in the pap. see Mayser, Gr., p. 45. 2 Prol. etc., p. 73 f. Of. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 91-97, for the history of this subject during various stages of the language. » Cf. Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 98, 124 • Cf. W.-Sch., p. 66 note. ' Cf. ib., p. 58 note, for further discussion. • Prol., p. 45. Cf. also Thumb, Theol. Literaturzeit., XXVIII, p. 422. ' Meisterh., Att. Inschr., pp. 99 f. ' Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 125; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 94. In the pap. Hpfyiiv "greatly preponderates over apa-nv" (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 dappiiv is the correct text, f displaces a- in a few words. Voiced (T in union with voiced consonants had the sound of z, and f was pronounced ah} 'A^taros (Ac. 8 : 40) ii'=io»i, Ashdod. Lagarde's LXX has 'Aae556iS in Josh. 11:22 (A has 'Ao-jjSdiS, B 'AaeXdii). »~t? is rendered also 'Efpas or 'EaSpas. But in the N. T. period f is changing from the ds sound to z. 'Ap/io^ui, not the Attic apfiOTTui, is the N. T. form.^ Lachmann has pati'os for iuuttos in Rev. 1 : 13. In 1 Th. 5 : 19 BDFG (Western class) read mwrnt? simply phonetic spelUng. Hort* considers Zp.vpva as Western only in Rev. 1 : 11; 2 : 8, but the papyri and inscriptions both give it.* The most noticeable feature of all is, however, that the Attic and Boeotian tt did not hold against the Ionic aa- (though even Thucydides and the Tragic poets used ca). Papyri, inscriptions and N. T. MSS. all unite in using aa as the rule, though all occasionally have tt. It does not seem possible to reduce the usage to an intelUgent rule.^ 'EKirXrifTOfjievos is ac- cepted by W. H. in Ac. 13 : 12, elsewhere aa. Both iXaaauv (Jo. 2:10; Ro. 9:12) and i\&TTo,v (1 Tim. 5:9; Heb. 7:7) are foimd, but only the "literary" (so Blass) words ekaTToai (Jo. 3 : 30; Heb. 2 : 7, 9) and eXaTTovkw (2 Cor. 8 : 15). Similar diversity exists between ^aaov (1 Cor. 11 : 17; 2 Cor. 12 : 15) and iiaaiiBriTe (2 Cor. 12 : 13) on the one hand and fiTTrip,a (1 Cor. 6 : 7; Ro. 11:12) and rtTTaaOai (2 Pet. 2 : 19 f .) on the other. In Heb. 6:9; 10:34 W. H. read Kpeiaaova, elsewhere KpeiTTova (Heb. 1:4; 7:7, 19, 22; 8:6; 9:23; 11:16, 35, 40; 12:24), and Hebrews has some literary influence, an argument for Blass' idea above. Paul has KpeiTTov only in 1 Cor. 7 : 9, while Kpetaaov is found in 1 Cor. 7:38; 11:17; Ph. 1:23. Hort accepts KpetrTov in 1 Pet. 3:17 1 GUes, Man. of Comp. Phaol., pp. 113, 115. On the whole subject of the exchange of consonants in the pap. see Mayser, Gr., pp. 169-188, 219-224. For the LXX exx. (piSiv, oWh; yKGiaaa, yXwrra; (j>vKaaa, <^u\aTTa>; '(kaaamv, tKcLTTojv; apfniy, Bappu, etc.) see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 17-20; Thack., Gr., pp. 100-124. ■■= Of. Rutherford, New Phyrn., p. 14. = Cf. af/Sarros in N (Mk. 9 : 43), iyvt^iiih-os, etc., in pap. (W.-Soh., p. 59). * Notes on Orth., p. 148. ' Deiss., B. S., p. 185. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 45; Dittenb., 458. 41, & « Cf. Thumb, HeUen., pp. 53, 78 ff.; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 125; Xachm., Magn. etc., p. 95 f.; Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 32; Prol., p. 45; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 23; Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 148; Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p. 43 f. Giles (Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 115) thinks that the ca in Athens was a hterary mannerism and pronounced just like tt. OKTHOGKAPHY AND PHONETICS 219 and 2 Pet. 2:21 (doubtful). Cf. ai)ixtpov for the Attic riifitpov. "Opvi^ (Lu. 13:34) is called Western by^ort, though Moulton^ observes that it has some papyrus support and is like the modern Greek (Cappadocian) opvix- (g) Aspiration of Consonants. There is besides some fluc- tuation in the aspiration of consonants. See under (d) for the double aspirates like 'A<^0ia, etc. This uncertainty of aspiration is very old and very common in the inscriptions and papyri,^ though the N. T. has only a few specimens. W. H. read 'AxeXSa/iax in Ac. 1:19, &m ipn. So paK6. (Mt. 5:22), Hp/n, but (ra^axOavd (B has -KT-) in Mt. 27 : 46. TevvrjcrapeT is correct; the Syrian class has -k6 in Mt. 14 : 34. W. H. have uniformly Ka^apvax>bii, and read Nafap^r save in four passages, Nofap^fl in Mt. 21 : 11; Ac. 10 : 38, and Nafapd in Mt. 4 : 13; Lu. 4 : 16. In Lu. 11 : 27; 23 : 29 DFG have iiaadol for /iao-roi, likewise }< in Rev. 1 : 13. 'WW-q is read by cursives, Clem., Or., etc., in 1 Cor. 5:7. In o\)d€ls and ntldds after elision of e the 5 has blended with the eis as if it were T and become 6. It is first found in an inscr. 378 B.C. and is the usual form in the pap. in iii/B.c. and first half of ii/B.c. By I/a.d. the 5 forms are supreme again (Thack., Gr., pp. 58 ff). Blass' finds oWivbs in Lu. 22 : 35 (ABQT); 2 Cor. 11 : 8 (NBMP); oWkv in Lu. 23 : 14 (NBT) ; Ac. 15 : 9 (BHLP) ; 19 : 27 (NABHP) ; 26 : 26 (NB) ; 1 Cor. 13 : 2 (XABCL); urtBkv in Ac. 27 : 33 (NAB). But i^ovdevkca in the LXX and the N. T. prevails, though W. H. (after BD) read i^vSevrid^ in Mk. 9 : 12. N and ND read the Attic iravSoKelov, -evs in Lu. 10:34f., but W. H. accept iravSoxiiov, -eis (from SexoAiat). Xaperra in Lu. 4 : 26 is the LXX rendering of fiBls. Tpoiroe\KV(TTLK6v (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. English articles a, an (Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 208). ' Prol., p. 45. Cf. Thumb, HeUen., p. 90. ^ Cf. W.-Sch., p. 59. ' 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 ff. * Moulton, Prol., p. 45. The Ptol. pap. have both spellings, Deiss., B. S., p. 185. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 173. 220 A GKAMMAK OP THE GKEEK 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 e.g., and most common in the koivti, vanishmg again in the modem 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 kolvti 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 modem Greek vernacular, when not pro- nounced (Thiunb, 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 -ai, 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. (NABC) are in harmony with the Koivri 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 fid^iav (Jo. 5' : 36) as a good example of the irrational v in N. T. MSS. (ABEGMA). Cf. also the irrational p with the subjunctive in the papyri. So Mi' rjv apaevov P. Oxy. 744 (i/B.c.) for p. 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 tme 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, ' Att. Inschr., p. 114. " Schweizer, 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 ^eXx. occurs before con- sonants also. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 22 ff.; Thack., Gr., pp. 134 ff. So as to movable s. Cf. /i^xpi wjuax and ju4xpu ov in LXX. ' Einl. etc., p. Ill, like luTopifiiiv 6 voJk. Cf. Schweiz., Perg. Inschr., p. 137. * Prol., p. 49. Cf. also Reinhold, De Graec, p. 37. s W.-Sch., p. 62. « 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 littera v 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, ^ort gives a considerable list of examples where the u is wanting in one or more of the older uncials, but where W. H. have v, as in dpoOo-ic (Mt. 4:6), iraaiv (Mt. 5 : 15), etc. But in Lu. 1 : 3 Uo^e is read by NBCD. In Ac. 24 ; 27 KaT^Xnre is supported by ^iB. 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 ai, than after c* W. H., however, have etrao-t 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 ifiirpoadev, t^(>i6tv, BinaBtv in the N. T. Likewise Ttkpvai is correct in 2 Cor. 8 : 10; 9:2.' The variable s calls for a few words more. All good MSS. give avTiKpvi Tmv in Ac. 20 : 15.^ But as in Attic, the N. T. MSS. usually have cixpi and ju^xP' even before vowels. "Axpi (always before consonants) thus precedes vowels some fifteen times, and once only do we certainly* have axpts (Gal. 3 : 19), though it is uncertain whether it is- followed by av or oS. Mexpi is always used in the N. T. before a consonant and once before a vowel, M«XPi 'liakvov (Lu. 16 : 16). The early N. T. editors used to print oCtoj before consonants and oiirws 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; 23:11; Ro. 1:15; 6:19; Ph. 3:17; Heb. 12:21; Rev. 16:18.« (i) Metathesis. i'atXoi'jjs (2 Tim. 4 : 13), Latin paenula. 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 irvtvua Saab and irvevfia yj/CKbv. That ' See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 19; Gregory, Pro!., p. 97. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 328, and references there given. Cf. Thack., Gr., p. 135. ' Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 19) quotes Attic usage for vkpvaiv before vowels. * For the Horn. avTikpv and further items see W.-Sch., p. 63 and note. 'A.VTIKPVS (KoravTiKpi) in Attic is 'downright,' not 'over against' (Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 20). Cf. for the pap. Mayser, Gr., pp. 242 ff. ^ Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 148. But W. H. read fixpw o5 in Heb. 3 : 13, else- where axpi o5. For further discussions of Sxp' and nkxpi see W.-Sch., p. 63 note. " For illustrations from the noivii insor. see Nachm., Magn. Insohr., p. 112. Cf. Reinhold, p. 37 f. 222 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT is to gay, 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.i This form was an evolution from H (Phoenician H, he) then \- and H, 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 modem 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 ^olic and Ionic. And even in the Attic inscriptions the usage is very irregular and uncertain. Numerous examples like HEKATON occur, but some like HEN also, so that even H was not always rough .^ The modern Enghsh 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 = r; 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 JEolic, was distinguished by psilosis, and the kolvIi largely^ fol- lowed the Ionic in this respect. More certain is the use of the aspirated consonants x, 0, 4>, 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 was general in the earlier forms in vii/A.D., ib., p. 65. 2 Of. 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 .lEolic and Ionic psilosis occur in «r' bioi Kar' iva as well as exx. of aspirated consonants hke naS' b^idaXnobs, koB' ivimirbv, i' tlStv, not to mention ofe aipaKoaai and obx '■bob. 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 Griech., 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 Brugraann, 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 tjg the disappearance of a digamma, though sometimes a smooth breathing displaces it, as ipyov from Fepyov^ (cf. Enghsh 'work'). Then again the disap- pearance of 0- has the same result, as iaap6s=tep6s.^ It is not strange therefore that usage in the Koivri is not uniform. Examples like iir' abrov, vcj>' aiiTov, o\)k idopSifiev, etc., appear in the Pergamum in- scriptions, not to mention Ka6' eras, Kad' idiav, etc.^ The same story of uncertainty is told elsewhere in the kolvti as in Magnesia,^ Herculaneum.* Some of this variation is probably due to anal- ogy,^ so that though "de-aspiration was the prevailing tendency," * yet the N. T. shows several examples in the opposite direction. (c) Variations in the MSS. (Aspiration and Psilosis). The aspiration of the consonants k, tt, t in case of elision is therefore a matter of documentary evidence ' and occurs in the case of avrl, ewl, Kara, fiera, ok, vtto. The N. T. MSS. vary considerably among themselves as in the LXX, though some like D in the Gospels and Acts are wholly untrustworthy about aspiration." In general Attic literary usage cannot be assumed to be the Koivi) vernacular. Hort" prefers ^Adpafiwrrivos (Ac. 27:2) like Hadrumetum. 'AXoao (1 Cor. 9:9 f . ; 1 Tim. 5 : 18) is connected with aXcos or aXurj and may be compared with aTn/Xi&jrjjs (rJXtos).'^ Hort (p. 144) prefers tiXucris (Mk. 5:3), but eiXt/cpii'iJs and eiXi/cpifla, though eiX. has ancient authority. 'A^eXTrtfovres is read by DP in Lu. 6 : 35 and the LXX has several similar instances,*^ not to mention one consonants see Riem. and Goelzer, Phon6t., pp. 194 ff., and for the dialects and interaspiration see K.-BL, Bd. I, pp. 107-114. 1 Cecil Bendall, Jour, of Philol., 1904, pp. 199 ff. ' R. Weiss, De Dig. etc., 1889, p. 47. Cf. also Panes, De Dig. Hesiodes Quest., 1887, p. 48. ' Cf . Sommer, Griech. Lautstudien, 1905, p. 2. On metathesis in aspiration, as ex" fe"), see Meisterh., p. 102, exx. of ex" in Attic inscr. v/b.c. See also article by Pemot in Rev. des fit. Grq., 1906, pp. 10-23, on La Mfitathfese dans les Dial, de Chio. * Schweizer, Perg. Inschr. etc., pp. 116 ff. The Attic had only ISios, but ioprii (Meisterh., p. 87). ' Nachm., 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., b^' tVor (458. 71), Kofl' 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. »» 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 GKAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT in Hermas and in the Attic' In Ro. 8 : 20 W. H. accept hfi' eXTTiSi, while various MSS. support it in Ac. 2:26; 1 Cor. 9: lO- Ro. 4 : 18; 5:2; Tit. 1 : 2, and FG have kojB' iXiriSa in Tit. 3 : ?! Hort^ thinks this is due to digamma dropped as well as in the case of a.i5o} (Ph. 2 : 23), but analogy to a4)opa.v may be the explana- tion.' "E(^t5e is read by a few MSS. in Ac. 4 : 29 as e^iSev in Lu. 1 : 25. Gregory* gives many examples of d(/>-, e^-, koB- with eXirifo and dbov in the LXX. W. H. offer ovx ISov as an alternative reading in Ac. 2 : 7, while B reads oiix ISovres in 1 Pet. 1 : 8 and ovx eUov in Gal. 1 : 19. A has oix o^^eade in Lu. 17: 22. W. H.^ put ovx 'lovSaUSis in the margin in Gal. 2 : 14. KaB' I8iav appears in X 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 X or D. XB have it in Mt. 24 : 3. The form koB' ISLav is common in the Koivq inscrip- tions and the papyri. KadeidcaXov is read by M in Ac. 17: 16. On the other hand Kad' eros, so common in the Koivr\ (cf. Latin vetus), is not found in the N. T., all MSS. in Lu. 2 : 41 reading ko.t' Ito%. Hort^ considers ovk ecrriKev (Jo. 8 :44) to be merely the imperfect indicative of arriKca. So also as to t(TTt)K€v in Rev. 12 : 4. {< has i(t>iopKri(TeLs in Mt. 5 : 33, a form common in the Doric inscrip- tions.' DP have k^lopKos in 1 Tim. 1:10. In Rev. 12:11 A reads ovx vyairrjaev, while OIIX 0X170$ is read in the LXX and pa- pyri as well as a number of times in Ac. (12 : 18 by NA, 14 : 28 by iV, 17 :4 by B, 19 : 23 by NAD, 19 : 24 by N, 27 : 20 by A). In Ac. 5 : 28 D has icJMyayetv. W. H. print on the other hand cLTTOKaTiaTaveL in Mk. 9 : 12 rather than aTOKaTaaravei. though with hesitation.' So likewise W. H. give kiriaTarai. instead of k4>i(TTa,Tai 1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 16. Cf. Thumb, Unters. d. Spir. Asper, p. 65. 2 Notes on Orth., p. 143. » Moulton, Prol., p. 44; Thumb, Spir. Asper, p. 71. Moulton (CI. Rev., Mar., 1910, p. 53) now says: "I am quite willing to be convinced that the long-lost digamma was an accessory here if no better explanation turns up." Thumb (Spir. Asper, pp. 11, 71) admits the possibility of the digamma ex- planation in some cases. " Prol., p. 91. ' Cf . Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 313 f ., where Hort really favours obx 'louS. and the rough breathing for all the forms of 'Io65as, 'loviaios, etc. For the varia- tions in the LXX MSS. see Thack., p. 125. « Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 312. ' Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 363. For this transfer of aspiration cf. Curtius, Gk. Verb, II, 109. Nestle (Am. Jour, of Theol., July, 1909, p. 448) urges that, since the Gk. of the Bible ia an "east-west language," attention must be paid to oriental tongues. He notes that the Coptic has aspiration in kelpis, hisos, for t\TU, tms. ' Notes on Orth., p. 168. ORTHOGBAPHY AND PHONETICS 225 in 1 Th. 5 : 3 (like B in Sap. 6 : 8), a wholly unusual ^ absence of aspiration in compounds of iaTT]fii. For the LXX phenomena see Thackeray, Gr., p. 127 f . It is whoU^ doubtful whether dfiel- po/iot or dneipofiaL is right (1 Th. 2:8). Oix evpov in some MSS. in Lu. 24 : 3, and oiik 'iveicev in 2 Cor. 7 : 12, Blass'' considers as cler- ical errors, though they are cormnon in the LXX and in the in- scriptions.' N.T. MSS. (late cursives) even have akkoi, bartiiv, &x)^s, etc. For nrjdds, oiidds see this chapter iii (/), the Inter- change of Consonants and chapter on Pronouns. (d) Transliterated Semitic Words. The aspirate in the case of transliterated Semitic words (chiefly proper names) causes some difficulty. Blass* calls it "insoluble," though he accepts Hort's practice as rational,^ expressing K and if by the smooth breathing and H and n by the rough breathing. The MSS. dis- agree and are not consistent, but Blass calls the result of this procedure "strange." Hence Hort argues for "AiSeX (n), 'Aj3paa/t (X), "A7aj8os (P), "kyap (H), 'AjceKdafiix (H), dXXjjXoita (n), 'AX<^aios (n), 'Avavlas (H), "Avva (H), 'Apkrai (H), ' Api/iaJBaia (H), "Ap MayeSiiv In), 'EiSip (];), 'E/Spalos (j;), 'Expats (P), 'E/SpalWi i}?),^ 'EXtaatos i^), 'EX^oSa/i 00, i\o}t (a), 'Efiniip (PF), 'Eviix (fl, but 'Eviss, iOt'Eppiijj, (n, but 'E(T\d, N), Eiia (n), ^\ei (N), but "HXei (H), 'HXeias (X), "Hp (^), iiTtTonrof (K),' d)(ravv& (PT), "Qffr/^ (M). Hort* gives, moreover, the smooth breathing to all names beginning with ' as 'Ilaaias. Besides he considers it a "false association"' to connect 'lepe/iias, 'lepetxti, 'lepoffoXvfM {—fielTTjs), 'lepovaaXiifi with Upos, though Blass retains 'lepoaoXvfia rather inconsistently." (e) The Use of Breathings with p and pp. W. H. follow Tischendorf and Lachmann in dropping the breathings in pp as in apprira (2 Cor. 12 : 4), though retaining the rough breathing with initial p as in ^iifiara (ib.). Winer *^ argued that the Romans heard an aspiration with pp, since they used Pyrrhus, Tyrrhenus, etc. W. H. seem justified in using the smooth breathing with the first p in the word pepavTiaixkvoi (Heb, 10 : 22) by old Greek cus- ' Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 144. » W.-Sch., p. 39. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 16. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 16. . « 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 iaa. ' 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. S3. 226 A GRAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT torn.* The MSS., of course, give no help in the matter. The breathing with p is not written in the modern Greek vernacular text as in PaUis or Thumb. (/) The Question of Avtov. This is somewhat knotty. It seems clear that as a rule avrov and not aiirov is to be printed in the N. T. A number of reasons converge^ on this point. The older Greek often used avrov rather than iavrov as shown by the aspiration of the prepositions like atj)' avrov, 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 earlier 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 atavrov, not iravrov. The earUest uncial MSS. of the N. T. and the LXX that use the diar critical marks belong to the eighth century, but they aU have avrov, not avrov. 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 avrov. But the matter is not quite so easy, for the kolvIi inscrip- tions give examples of vcj)' avrov in first century b.c. and a.d.' Mayser^ also gives a number of papyri examples like koB' avrov, lied' avrov, v4>' avrSiv, where the matter is beyond dispute. Hort agrees with Winer in thinking that sometimes aiiroO must be read unless one insists on undue harshness in the Greek idiom. He in- stances Jo. 2 : 24, avTOS 5i 'Ir/aovs ovk twlarevatv aiirov avrols, and Lu. 23 : 12, irpoinrfjpxov yap kv exOpq. ovres Tpds avroiis. 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 {aii- rov, aiirov), Eph. 1 : 5 (aiirov), 10 (aiir^). Col. 1 : 20 (aiirdv), 2 : 15 (aiirio). W. H. print auroD about twenty times. Winer leaves the matter "to the cautious judgment of the editors." V. Accent. (a) The Age of Greek Accent. The MSS. are worth as lit- tle for accent as for breathings. The systematic application of accent in the MSS., like the regular use of the spiritus lenis, dates » Cf. W.-Sch., p. 40 f. ^ On the whole matter see Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 144 f.; W.-M., p. 188 f.; Buttmann, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. Ill; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 35. ' Nachm., Magn. Inschr., pp. 84, 144; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 161. * Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 306. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 227 from the seventh century a.d.' Hort^ caustically remarks that most modern grammarians have merely \^^Brked out " a consistent system of accentuation on paper" and have not recovered the Greek intonations of voice, though he has little to offer on the subject. Chandler' indeed laments that modern scholars scatter their Greek accents about rather recklessly, but he adds : " In Eng- land, at all events, every man will accent his Greek properly who wishes to stand well with the world." It is a comfort to find one's accents irreproachable, and Chandler rightly urges that the only way to use the accents properly is to pronounce according to the accent. The ancients were interested in Greek accent. Herodian in his KadoXiKri irpo(riadla investigated the accent of 60,000 words, but the bulk of his twenty books is lost. Chandler* found most help from Gottling, though others have written at length on the subject.^ There are no accent-marks in the early inscriptions and papyri; in fact tradition ascribes the invention of these signs as a system to Aristophanes of Byzantium in the third century b.c, though the beginnings appear in the preceding century.* He and his disciple, Aristarchus, made the rules at any rate.' The Alex- andrian grammarians developed these rules, which have shown a marvellous tenacity even to the present day in the modern Greek, though, of course, some words would naturally vary in accent with the centuries.* There is the Harris papyrus of Homer in the first century a.d. which has accents, and clearly the word had the accent in pronunciation like English long before it was writ- ten out. After the fourth century a.d. the use of accentual rhythm in Greek in place of quantitative rhythm had a tendency ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 66. Cf . also pp. 507 ff. on the Origin and History of Accent. ^ Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 314. ' Gk. "Accentuation (1881), p. xxiii. * lb., p. xvii. * Cf. Meister, Bemerk. zur dorischen Accentuation (1883); Hadley, On the Nat. and Theory of the Gk. Accent. (Ess. Phil, and Grit., pp. 110 ff.) ; Wheeler, Die griech. Nominalaccente (1885) ; Bloomfield, Study of Gk. Accent (Am. Jour, of Philol., 1883); Wack., Beitr. zur Lehre vom griech. Akzent; Brugmann, Griech. Gr. (1900), pp. 150 ff.; K.-Bl., I, pp. 317 ff.; for further Ut. see Brug- mann above. On accent changes in mod. Gk. see Hatz., Einl., pp. 418-440; Thumb, Handb., p. 28 f. For the accent in the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 24. Here the same MSS. present the same problems that we have in the N. t. « Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 62. ' Riem. and Goelzer, Phon^t., p. 77. ' Krumb., Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn's Zeitschr. fiir Sprachl., 1885, p. 521. Cf. also Hatz., Einl. etc., p. 418; Chandler, Gk. Accen- tuation, p. v; Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 150. 228 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT to make the accent rather more stable.' "Of all the phonetic pecuUarities of a language accent is the most important." ^ The earUer use of accents and breathings was probably "for the text of poetry written in dialect"^ (cf. our reading-books for children). They were not written out "in ordinary prose till the times of minuscule writing," though Euthalius (a.d. 396) made use of them in his edition of the N. T.* The Christian hymns early show signs of changing from tone (pitch) to stress as is the rule in modern Greek. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 6. (&) Significance op Accent in the Koiv^. In Greek it is pitch, not stress, that is expressed by the accent, though in mod- ern Greek the accents indicate stress. "In the ancient Sanskrit and the ancient Greek the rise and fall in musical tone was very marked."^ In English we are familiar with stress-accent. "Had- ley has ably argued that the compass of tone used by the Greeks was a musical fifth, i.e. from C = do to G = sol, involving also the intermediate third or E = me."* It was not a stronger current of breath,' but a higher musical note that we have. It was in a word "das musikalische Moment."** Hadley (" Nature and Theory of Gk. Accent," Essays Philol. and Crit., p. Ill f.) points out that TTpoffuSLa. comes from a root meaning ' to sing ' (like the Latin ac- centus) and so ogiis and jSapiis answer to our high and low pitch. Giles' thinks that in the original Indo-Germanic language pitch and stress-accent were more evenly balanced. The accent singles out one syllable sharply and raises it higher than the rest, though as a matter of fact each syllable in a word has an accent or pitch lower down in the scale. Cf. the secondary accent in the English "incompatibility." The Harris papyrus of Homer even accents every syllable in each word.'" Then again " the accent of a sen- tence is as much under the influence of a law of some kind as the accent of the word."'' Language without accent or musical va- ' Sophocles, Lex. of Rom. and Byz. Period, p. 48. 2 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 91. » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 14. * lb. Cf. Gregory, Prol., p. 114, for specimen from Euthalius. 6 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 92. " Harris, MS. Notes on Gk. Gr. Cf . Riem. and Goelzer, Phon6t., p. 77 (., for a disciission of the musical aspect of the matter. ' Arnold and Conway, The Restored Pronun. of Gk. and Lat., 1895, p. 18. ' Sohweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 129. • Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 94. " Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 65. " Bloomfield, Study of Gk. Accent, Am. Jour, of Philol., 1883, p. 22. Ct. Plato, Crat., 399 A-B. Hirt (Der Indoger. Akzent, 1895, p. 17) contends for the two-tone principle. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 229 riety in tone would be hopelessly monotonous and ineffective. An instance of the importance of accent and breathings is seen in o5 ob, Ac. 19 : 40. • (c) Signs of Accent. In practical usage (in our school gram- mars) there is only one distinction, the accented syllable and the unaccented syllables. The Greeks themselves distinguished the pronunciation of the acute and the circumflex. The differ- ence is well illustrated by ei/tt and tlnL The three signs (acute or o^eia, grave or papeia, circumflex or irepimroitj.kvri) come to symboUze the higher pitch of the accented syllable.^ Originally the accented syllable was marked by the acute and all the unac- cented syllables by the grave (merely the absence of the acute), but by and by this use of the grave accent was felt to be useless and was dropped.^ Then the grave accentual mark of falhng in- flection was used for the acute when an oxytone word comes before another word (not enclitic), though this "grave" accent has the pitch of the unaccented syllable. Similarly in contraction of two syllables with acute and grave (") arose the circumflex, the grave and the acute making acute still. The actual use in pronunciation of both acute and grave in the contracted syllable disappeared, so that the circumflex in pitch differed little, if any, from the acute. The difference, for instance, between the acute in Sr/Xdxrai and the circumflex in 5ijX(3o-ai was not perceptible in sound.^ The Greek and the Latin agree in having the accent only on one of the three last syllables and thus differ from English and French for instance. It is not necessary here to go into the rules (not wholly arbitrary) which the Greeks developed for the accent of words. In the use of unaccented words (proclitics or enclitics) Greek does not differ radically from English. If the Greek has iv oUcc, the English has "at-home." 'If the Greek has eivt noi, the English has "tell-me."^ (d) Later Developments in Accent. There was not in- deed uniformity among the dialects in the use of accent. They agreed only in the one point of not accenting further back than the third syllable from the end. "In other respects the Greek dialects show the widest divergencies in their accentuation. The two antipodes are iEolic and Doric, which are so closely allied phonetically: ^Eolic throws the accent as far back as possible in 1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 66. " lb., pp. 65, 68. ' Hadley, tJber Wesen und Theorie der griech. Beton., 1872, pp. 409, 415. * Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 96. Giles thinks that words like i4>ep6fjie0a originally had the accent further back. Of. Ricm. and Goelzer, Phon^t., p. 80, for Plato's word of 17 syllables and Aristophanes' word of 78. 230 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT all words, e.g. fiaaLKevs^fiaaiKtis, . . .; Doric, on the contrary, faithfully preserves the original oxytone accent. Between these two dialects lie Ionic and Attic, which, however, are much nearer to Doric than to ^olic. But all the dialects, including Doric observe the rule that, in those forms of the verb which are capa- ble of being conjugated, the accent goes back as far as possible." ' iEolic, for instance, has ij ctj where the Attic has 17 crij. But all the dialects^ have iyi), eyoiye. On this point in general see Kiihner-Blass, I, pp. 323 ff. The Dorians even had avBpinroi, kXhaav, etc. Perfect uniformity was no more possible in Greek than in English. The modern Greek preserves the three-syllable accent rule. Examples like eivLaae, ifipaSvaa-e are not exceptions, since the t and v count as consonants. Of. Thumb, Handb., p. 28. French follows tone like the ancient Greek. Pecheur is 'fisher,' while pecheur is 'sinner,' for example, a difference only in quality, not in accent. (e) N. T. Peculiarities. Where so much is in doubt, ex- cessive refinement is certainly not desirable. But the follow- ing points call for remark, and Gregory' can be consulted for the actual evidence (very slight) from the N. T. MSS. on the subject of accent. D alone among the older uncials has the accent (and that the occasional circumflex) save by the hand of a corrector. 1. Shortening Stem -Vowels. There is quite a tendency in the KOLvri towards shortening some of the stem-vowels, especially in words in -fui. Hence W. H. do not follow the Attic accent here, but that of the KOivq, and give us /cXtyita, /cpi/ia, iiiyixa (cf. eXt^/ia), vro/ia, xp'i'O'l^o-t though as to xp'i-<^l^o- Blass^ suggests that xpif^Mf 's correct because of xpi<^™s and because B (1 Jo. 2:20, 27) has Xpeifffia. Analogy plays havoc with rules. Herodian* says that t and V were usually shortened before ^. So W. H. give us Krjpv^, Krjpv^aL, arripl^ai (Ro. 16 : 25), probably 4>otj>i.^, xolvi^. Accord- ing to Winer-Schmiedel' this rule applies to ^ also, but W. H. and Blass' do not agree. So W. H. have 0Xi^ts, ptfay (Lu. ' Henry, Comp. Gr. of Gk. and Lat., Elliott's transl., 1890, p. 93 f. Cf. Meister, Bemerk. zur dorischen Accentuation, p. 1. ^ Cf. 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. 5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 15. " P. 68. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 15. Blass urges that B has eXe^is, but W. H. refuse to foUow B in matters of orthography. But the Herculaneum rolls here rein- force B with et before t//. On the whole subject see Lipsius, Gr. Unters., pp. 31 ff.; Lobeck, ParalL, pp. 400 ff.; Cobet, N. T. Vatic, pp. xlixff. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 231 4:35). By parity of reasoning W. H. reject the circumflex ac- cent in i\Kbcrai, "KLvov, nhpov, (rirtXos, (TTv)\o%.(TvvTeTpi4>9ai (Mk. 5:4), though avvrpi^ov (Lu. 9:39) and oKvKa ^u. 11:22). Cf. nWo^, fiapyaptraL, vIkos, (tItos, (tvkov, etc. W. H. read xl/iixos also. The length of V in Kiiirrca is uncertain; divaKl^'at, and irapaKvtl/at usually appear in the N. T. W. H. have, however, Kpa^ov in Gal. 4 : 6 and XatXai^ in Mk. 4 : 37. But iaravai (Ac. 12 : 14) is right, though apai (Mt. 24 : 17), 9u/iiao-ai (Lu. 1 : 9) because of long a. Cf. also k-wapai (Lu. 18 : 13), kn^avai (Lu. 1 : 79), Trpa^at (Ac. 26 : 9), but irtdo'at (Jo. 7 : 30). So KaraKvaai (Mt. 5 : 17), Kar&jQvvai (Lu. 1 : 79) and KtoXOtrai (Ac. 10 : 47). 2. Separate Words. These are not so easily classified. W. H. read ayopaioi, not aybpaioi; avTiicpvs, not avTiKpv; dj'TtTrepa, not avri- Tepa{v); aTTodtKTOs, not awodeKTos but e/cXeKTOs, evXoyrjTOs, nicrduTos; apea-da (from apecTKeiico) , with which compare kpidia (from epidtviS); axpeios (Attic oxpetos), as also epriiJ,os (Attic hpijfios), eroLfios (Attic eToifios), fiicpos (Attic iiGipos), oixoios (Attic ofiotos), xXwpos (Attic xXco- pos); /SpaSuTijs (3d decl.), but adpoTujs (3d decl.); ja^o^vKauov, not -iiov and dbiiKiov, with which compare r^doviov, yXoicrcroKoiJ.ov being for the earlier 'yl\wacoK6piiov; Skapiri, not 5eap,i]; Sterijs (Mt. 2 : 16), not 5i4t?7s (Attic), and so with other compounds of -arijs, like emfovraeT'fis, etc., but eKarovrapx^v (Ac. 23 : 17) is from —apxv^i ^^t -apxos; e'nrov is the imperative (Mt. 18 : 17), for etTroi' is only Attic, and Charax calls dirov Syracusan,^ with which one may compare Ue {Idk only Attic according to the Alexandrian gram- marians, though Bornemann urged I5k when verb and Ide when exclamation) and Xa,/3e (Xa/Se only Attic); OpriaKos (Jas. 1 : 26), not Bprjaicos; tSpojs (Lu. 22:44), not i5p&; Ipavra (Mk. 1:7), not the Attic lp.avTa; L(Tos, not the Epic teros^; Ixdvs (Mt. 7: 10), not ix6vs; ba^vs (Mt. 3:4), not 6cr0s; lo-xws, not lo-xCs; xXets in nominative singular (Rev. 9 : 1), though xXets (1 : 18) and KXeT3as (Mt. 16 : 19) in accusative plural, etc., with which compare tto^s (Mk. 9 : 45), not Tvovs, and arj% (Mt. 6:19), not o-jjs; KTiarris (1 Pet. 4:19), not KTLcriis, as ypbiarris, etc.; Kpiiwrr], not KpmTii (Lu. 11 : 33); /^oyt- XdXos (Mk. 7 : 32), not -XaXos; iivKdiv (Mt. 24 : 41) is read only by DHM and most of the cursives, p,v\os being correct; nvptadcav {-as) as in Lu. 12: 1; Rev. 5: 11, not the Attic p,vpiaSS>v, and so as to XtXtdS&jj';' 6p7i;ta (Ac. 27:28), not 6p7wa; oia (Mk. 15:29), not ova; TTolpivLov (Lu. 12 : 32), not •Koip.vlov, and rpv^Xiov in Mk. 14 : 20 • Cf. W.-M., p. 58. 2 As shown in W.-M. (p. 60), the N. T. MSS. have itrw, not daw, though eis, not is. 232 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (called no diminutive by some),* but reKviov always; wXiinnvpa (Lu. 6:48) is preferred by Winer-SchmiedeP as nominative to rXrif/r fivpT]s rather than —nvpa; irovqpbs always, not irdvTJpos in the physical sense (Rev. 16:2) and wovripos in the moral (Gal. 1:4)'; Trp^ipo (Ac. 27 : 41), not irpoipa; (nrttpa (Mk. 15 : 16), not (nrdpa) (jMapos (1 Tim. 5 : 13), not ^Xuapos. The compound adverbs kiriKftva, bwep- kKeiva 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, "A7ta, not a7ta, in Heb. 9:2. W. H. read dXXa, not dXXa, in Jo. 6 : 23. In Jas. 1 : 15 W. H. have ciTroKueT (from -ew), not cLTOKveL (from -Kiico). So W. H. print apa (interrog.) in Gal. 2: 17, not apa (illative). Avrri and avrri are easily confused, but W. H. prefer avrri to avTTi in Mt. 22:39 (avr'a in margin); Ro. 7:10; 1 Cor. 7:12; and avr-l] to avrri in Lu. 2:37; 7:12; 8:42; Ro. 16 : 2. In Rev. 2 : 24 the adjective ^oBia is correct, not the sub- stantive |Sd0ea (uncontracted from fiados). Ae^ioXA/3os or 3e^t6Xa- j3o$ is possible in Ac. 23 : 23 (cf. Winer-Schmiedel, p. 69). So W. H. give us kyxptffo-L (infinitive) in Rev. 3 : 18, not eYxpiirat (imperative). Cf. also 'eKi.Ti.ixi]<7ai (Jude 9), optative, not infinitive -^orat. Note the difference between ^o/Jij^ijre (subjunctive) and 4>ofii)dr)Te (imperative) in Lu. 12 : 5. In Jo. 7 : 34, 36, W. H. prefer dp.1 rather than et/xi (not elsewhere used in the N. T. save in com- position with prepositions diro, els, k^, kirl, abv). In Mk. 13:28 and Mt. 24 : 32 W. H. have k^uj; (present active subjunctive), not €K0u7j (second aorist passive subjunctive). In Lu. 19:29; 21 : 37 W. H. prefer ''EKaiSiv, not 'EXatwj' (the correct text in Ac. 1 : 12, and possibly in Luke also according to the papyri, though 'EXatcora would be the form expected).* In Mk. 4 : 8, 20, W. H. put iv in the text and iv in the margin. "Evt, not ivi, occurs with ok several times, once (1 Cor. 6 : 5) oIk hi h. In Lu. 9 : 38, W. H. read €irt|8X€^ai (infinitive), not k%i^\t\j/ai, (imperative). In 1 Cor. 5 : 11 W. H. read j? (subjunctive), not fi (conjunction as Rec). In Ro. 1 : 30 W. H. follow most editors in giving deoarvyels (pas- sive), not BeoarvyeLs (active sense of the adjective). In Mk. 5 : 29 all editors have the perfect tarat, not the present larai. In Lu. 22 : 30 W. H. read Kadrjade (subjunctive), not KoBriade (indicative) nor KaOiiaecBe (future, margin). In 1 Cor. 9 : 21 W. H. prefer Kip8a.vS> (future indicative) to Kipbkvu (aorist subjunctive), and in 1 Cf. W.-S., p. 73. 2 lb., p. 72. ' lb., p 69. ' Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 69. On accent of the vemac. see Apostolides, rXu(r«Kai UtUrai (1906). ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 233 1 Cor. 6 : 2 Kpi.vovci.v (future) to Kpivovaiv (present indicative in marg.). In Mk. 12 : 40 we have /^a/cpa, not naKpq.. In 1 Cor. 3 : 14 W. H. prefer iievtl (future) to ixkvei (present), and in Jo. 14 : 17 they have ntvu. In 1 Cor. 4 : 15 (14 : 19) and Mt. 18 : 24 no distinction can be m^de in the accent of /iupiot ('innumerable') and juipiot ('ten thousand') because of the cases. Dr. E. J. Goodspeed, of Chi- cago University {Expository Times, July, 1909, p. 471 f.), suggests uv for ^iiToiv in Jas. 1 : 17 "altogether absurd." 4. Enclitics (and Proclitics). Prochtics 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 airov nvas (Mk. 12 : 13), etval nva (Ac. 5:36), iSov Tives (Mt. 28: 11), o86v daiv (Lu. 8: 12), aahverol kare (Mk. 7 : 18), y&p kare (Mk. 13 : 11), Kal ^r,daKpiOv aov (both in Mt. 7 : 4). Cf. also kyoi at (Jo. 17 : 4), ab p^ (17 : 8), but t'l kpol Kol aroi (Lu. 8 : 28). With prepositions generally the enclitics are accented, as kv col (Jo. 17 : 21), though fp.Trpoadkv px>v and oirlco} pov (Jo. 1 :30 both, and so continually with these two prepositions). '^voiTiov kpx)v (Lu. 4 : 7) and kvuTLov pov (Ac. 2 : 25) both appear. With the prepositions usually kpov, not pov, occurs as htKa kpov (Mt. 5 : 11). It is only with xp6s that we have much trouble. The N. T. editors have generally printed irpos a, but W. H. have that only in Mt. 25 : 39, elsewhere irpis ck as in Mt. 26 : 18. Usually we have, according to W. H., irpos pe as in Mt. 25 : 36; Jo. 6 : 65; 7 : 37, etc., and where the "me" is emphatic in sense, 1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 77. OBTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 235 as Mt. 3 : 14; 11 : 28, in the first of which Tisch. and Griesbach have irpds nk, a usage not followed by W. H., though kept in the LXX text of B, as in Is. 48 : 16, etc.* W. H. a few times prefer irp6s hfik (not enclitic) as in Lu. 1 :43; Jo. 6:35, 37 (both ways here), 44 (marg.), 45; Ac. 22 : 8, 13; 23 : 22; 24 : 19. Occasionally the enclitic nvk is found at the beginning of a sentence, as in Mt. 27 : 47; Lu. 6 : 2; Jo. 13 : 29; Ph. 1 : 15; 1 Tim. 5 : 24. 5. Proper Names cannot always be brought under rules, for in Greek, as in English, men claim the right to accent their own names as they will. On the accent of the abbreviated proper names see chapter V, v. It is difficult to make a clear line of distinction as to why 'Avrliras (Rev. 2 : 13) is proper, but 'Aprenas (Tit. 3 : 12), save that in 'Aprenldupos the accent was already after /*. But cf. KXe67ras (Lu. 24 : 18) and KXojTras (Jo. 19 : 25) .^ In general one may say that proper names (geographical and personal) throw the accent back, if the original adjectives or sub- stantives were oxytone. This is for the sake of distinction. 'AXe^aj'- SpivSs (Ac. 27 : 6; 28 : 11) is the adjective. "Aaaos (Ac. 20 : 13 f.) is doubtless correct, though Pape gives 'Ao-(r6s also.' In 'Axai/c6s (1 Cor. 16 : 17) the accent is not thrown back nor is it in 'AiroXXdjs (1 Cor. 16 : 12). ' kchvKpiTos (Ro. 16 : 14) retains the accent of the adjective, like Tp6cj>iiioi (Ac 20 : 4) and 'Tfikvaios (1 Tim. 1 : 20). But we have BXAffros (Ac. 12 : 20), AioTpicjiris (3 Jo. 9), 'Eirat- v€Tos (Ro. 16 : 5), "Epa<7T05 (16 : 23), 'Ep/wykvris (2 Tim. 1 : 15), EliTvxos (Ac. 20:9), Kaprros (2 Tim. 4 : 13), probably 'Oj'jjo-i<^opos (2 Tim. 1 :16; 4 : 19), UA.Tapa (Ac. 21 : 1), Hippos (Ac. 20:4), livvTbxn (Ph. 4 : 2), Xoiadkvns (1 Cor. 1 : 2), 'iliu^v (Ac. 6 : 5), Tii- X«os (Ac. 20:4) ^iXt/tos (2 Tim. 2 : 17). But Xpt^ros always re- tains the oxytone accent whether proper name (1 Tim. 1 : 1) or verbal adjective (Mt. 16 : 16). In 2 Tim. 4 : 21 Aitos, not ATkos, is read. So Titos (2 Cor. 2 : 13, etc.). In Ac. 27 : 17 S^iprts is read by W. H. But ^rjKik 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, MapKos, etc., but W. H. do not accept this easy principle and give us MdpKos in Ac. 12 : 25, etc., Kpio-^ros (1 Cor. 1 : 14), etc. W. H. likewise ' Cf. Lipsius, Gr. Untera., p. 61. Cf. also W.-Sch., p. 78. ' In W.-Sch., p. 74 f ., see remarks 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 GRAMMAE OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT throw the accent back on Latin names like Koiapros (Ro. 16:23), UpiffKiWa (Ac. 18:2), I,eKovvSos (Ac. 20:4), TkprvXKos (24:2), but we have on the other hand Tatos (Ro. 16 : 23), not Tdios, Obp- Pavos (Ro. 16 : 9), StXouaj-os (2 Cor. 1 : 19), Sxeuas (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 'Aapiiv, 'AfiadSiiv, 'A/3td, 'AjSioM, 'A.ppaaix, to take only the first two pages of Thayer's Lexicon, though even here we find on the other side "A/SeX and 'A^iadap. If you turn over you meet "kyap, 'kbkti, 'M&d, 'Mialv, 'Afcop, 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 'EXtifep (29), ZopojSd/SeX (27), kkp^ex (36), $dXe/c (35).' The in- flected Semitic words often throw the accent back, as "Afwros, 'Id/ca)/3os, Adfapos. Many of the Aramaic words accent the ultima, as 'A|8/3d, VoKyoda, Kop^av, 'EXcoi, aaPaxdavei, etc. For further re- marks on the subject see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 26-31. The difliculties of the LXX translators are well illustrated here by Helbing. VI. Pronunciation in the Koivri. 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 speUing is not a safe guide in pronunciation, for the pronunciation 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 Reuchlin 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- 1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 75. ' W.-M., p. 59. » Cf. also Gregory, Prol., p. 102 f.; W.-Sch., p. 75; Westcott, Notes on Orth., pp. 155, 159; Thackeray, pp. 150 ff. * Blass, Ausspr. des Griech., 1888, p. 7. ' Nolan, The Gk. Gr. of Roger Bacon, p. xx. OKTHOGKAPHY AND PHONETICS 237 tine scholars pronounced ancient and modern alike. Jannaris* quotes the story of Voss, a Dutch scholtir (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 Graecique 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 Uterary squib to "take off" the new non-Byzantine pronunciation, though he was taken seriously by many. Dr. Caspar Ren6 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 pronimciation 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 at from e, ei and ot, from t 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 Eton, 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 modem Greek is. Miiller,^ for instance, calls the "Erasmian" pronunciation "false" because it treats Greek "as dead." Geldart {Modern Gk. Language in Its Relation to Ancient Gr., p. vii) says: "Mod- ern Greek is nothing but ancient Greek made easy." It is not 1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 31 f. Cf. Mayser, Gr., pp. 138-151. '.Blass, Pronun. of Anc. Gk., Purton's traasl., 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 modem 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 Koivij, and thus represent a common stream with many rills. The vari- ous dialects have made contributions to the pronunciation of the Koivri 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 irtpl o-rei^dcou, called ^schines a jiiaOoiTov, but had accented the word erroneously, namely, nicdoiTov, whereupon the audience corrected him by cry- ing niudiiiTov."^ 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, et=t, »; = t, ii=i, w=u, ot = i, ^ = v (English v).^ Clearly then in the Koivi) the process of itadsm was already at work before the N. T. was written. What was true of the Koivq 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! "'Ifffuv, ' Lautsystem der griech. Vulgarspr., 1879, p. 83 f. 2 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, B = (h, (indicative) and -oiinv (subjunctive), -adai, (infinitive) and -ade (indicative middle), etc. It is possibly as well to go on pronouncing the N. T. Greek according to the literary Attic, since we cannot reproduce a clear picture of the actual vernacular Koivii pronunciation, only we must understand frankly that this ' Cf. Riem. and Goelzer, Phon6t., p. 41. 2 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 540. ' Riem. and Goelzer, Phon6t., pp. 41, 46. Thumb (Hellen., p. 228) warns us against overemphasis of the Boeotian influence. * Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 31. "The pronunciation of ancient Gk. in the manner of the present Greeks had been traditionally accepted at all times, before and through the Middle Ages, as a matter of unquestioned fact." » Phonfit., p. 56. "En resume, la prononciation grecque ancienne ^tait, BUT presque tous lea points, difE^rente de la prononciation modeme." ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 241 is not the way it was done. On the other hand the modern Greek method 'misses it by excess, as the literary Attic does by default. There was, of course, no Jewish pronun(fl*ation of the /coij'ij. The Coptic shows the current pronunciation in many ways and prob- ably influenced the pronunciation of the Kotwj in Egypt. Cf. a German's pronunciation of English. Vn. Punctuation. In the spoken language the division of words is made by the voice, pauses, emphasis, tone, gesture, but it is difiicult to reproduce all this on the page for the eye. Many questions arise for the editor of the Greek N. T. that are not easy of solution. Caspar Ren6 Gregory insists that whenever N. T. MSS. have punctuation of any kind, it must be duly weighed, since it represents the reading given to the passage. (a) The Paragraph. As early as Aristotle's time the para- graph {irapa'Ypa4os) was known. A dividing horizontal stroke was written between the lines marking the end of a paragraph. Some other marks Uke > (SlttXtj) or 7 (Kopoivis) 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 English 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 (/ce^aXaia), but long before him Clement of Alexandria spoke of ■KepiKowai and TertuUian of capitula. These "chapters" were later called also tItKoi? The 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 uttocttitm^ = our comma. 6 Of. Gregory, Prol., pp. 345, 348; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 17. D has the trrlxoi 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. ]^ : 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 (TtploSos) gives very little trouble to the modern 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 ev. 6 yeyovev iv, not tv 6 ykyovev. h (Jo. 1:4). So W. H. read davna^ert. Sia tovto Moivcrrji in Jo. 7 : 22, not Bavixa^ere Sia TOVTO. Mojuo-^s, etc. The colon (kSiKov),'^ 'limb of the sentence' formed a complete clause. See Jo. 3 : 31 for example of use of colon made by W. H. The comma {Kd^fia) is the most common division of the sentence and is often necessary, as with the voca- tive. So AiSacTKaXt, tL Toiricrciinev; (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 unusual 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 Kapirbv in Jo. 15 : 2 and 6 vi-kHv 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 juaflaji' in Ac. 23 : 27 f. That would help the character of Claudius Lysias on the point of veracity. (c) WoKDS. 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 hacToM) or bvo&uKJToM), a comma used to distinguish between ambiguous words, as iarl coCs, not iaTlv oi5s. But W. H. make no use of this mark, not even in 6, ti to distinguish it from the conjunction oti.. 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 all marks save tlie period and comma. 2 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 diaeresis (") reference may be had to the discussion of diphthongs and diaeresis in this chapter under II (i). W. H., hke other modern editors, use the apostrophe (') (or smooth breathing) to represent elision, as aw' dpx^s (Mt. 24:21).2 The coronis is the smooth breathing used also to show when crasis has taken place, as in Ki.fwl (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 ctXXd ye, I'm H, tovt' ian, etc., are printed. The MSS. give no help at all, for tovto Sk ktrnv in Ro. 1 : 12 is not conclusive against tovt' ioTiv elsewhere.* W. H. prefer dXXd yt (Lu. 24 : 21; 1 Cor. 9 : 2), IpL ye (Ac. 8 : 30), bib. ye (Lu. 11 : 8; 18 : 5), tl ye (2 Cor. 5 : 3, etc.), mi ye (Ac. 2 : 18; 17:27), 5s ye (Ro. 8:32), hik iravTos (Mk. 5 : 5, etc.), 3td tL (Mt. 9 : 11, etc.), tva tL (Mt. 9 : 4, etc.), et TTcos (Ac. 27: 12), firi iroTe (everywhere save in Mt. 25:9 where iiriTOTe), fii) irov (Ac. 27 : 29), i^ii iroos (1 Cor. 9 : 27, etc.), ni] Tis (1 Cor. 16 : 11, etc.). So also Srj\ov 6tl in 1 Cor. 15 : 27, So-rts ovv (Mt. 18 : 4). But on the other hand W. H. print Sion as well as e'lTe, ovTe, firiTe, cbare, Kalwep, firjirore (once), uriSeTore, niiSewu, ovSeiroTe, firiKen, oii/cert, uriirco, outtco, ixi)Tiye, even nijye (Mt. 6 : 1), KaOa, Kado, KaOcos, KoBhwep, KajBoTi, Ka66\ov, ilxnrep, oicei, tocnrepet (1 Cor. 15 : 8), etc. But W. H. give us koB' els in Ro. 12 : 5, avi, piirov in Mt. 13 : 25, etc.; Kara fidvas in Mk. 4 : 10, koB' oaov in Heb. 3 : 3. Adverbs like e-weKeiva (Ac. 7 : 43), iirepeKeiva (2 Cor. 10 : 16), irapeicrbs (2 Cor. 11 : 28) are, of course, printed as one word. W. H. prop- erly have vTep 470) (2 Cor. 11 : 23), not mepeyo}. In Ac. 27:33 TeaaapecTKaiSeKaTos is one word, but W. H. have 'lepa IloXts in Col. 4 : 13 and Nea irSXis 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-Schmiedel* at minute analysis does not throw much light on the subject. (d) The Editor's Prerogative. Where there is so much con- fusion, what is the editor's prerogative? Blass ' boldly advances ' W.-Sch., p. 35. ' See this ch. ii (k) for discussion of elision. For origin and early use of the apostrophe see Thompson, Handb., etc., p. 73. ' See this ch. ii (I) for discussion of crasis. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 88. ■* Thompson, Handb., etc., p. 72. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Glc., 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 PHONETICS 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 punctuation-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. ' Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 318. CHAPTER VII THE DECLENSIONS (KAISEIS) 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" (iTTiSo-ts) of noun and verb and even adverb, but practically inflec- tion is applied to nouns and conjugation (xXto-ts f>riixaTo>v=i7v^vyia) to verbs. Noun {ovoixa) does, of course, include both substan- tive and adjective without entering the psychological realm and affirming the connection between name and thing (cf. Plato's Cratylus). I. THE SUBSTANTIVE (TO "ONOMA) The Substantive {t6 ovofia) is either concrete {cwixa) or abstract {■KpoLyfia), ordinary appellative (ow/wa irpoariyopLKov) or proper (8vo/ja KVplOv) . 1. History of the Declensions. It is only since the seventeenth century a.d. that modern grammarians distinguish for conveni- ence three declensions in Greek. The older grammars had ten or more.^ In the modern Greek vernacular the first and third de- clensions have been largely fused into one, using the singular of the first and the plural of the third.' Thumb {Handbook, pp. 43 ff.) divides the declension of substantives in modem Greek vernacular according to gender simply (masculine, feminine, neuter). This is the simplest way out of the confusion. In San- skrit five declensions are usually given as in Latin, but Whitney* says: "There is nothing absolute in this arrangement; it is merely believed to be open to as few objections as any other." Evidently 1 Donaldson, New Crat., p. 421. It is in the accidence that the practical identity of N. T. Gk. with the popular mmii is best seen, here and in the lexical point of view (Deissmann, Exp., Nov., 1907, p. 434). 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 102; Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 264.. ' lb., pp. 105, 111. Cf. Hatzidakis, Einl. etc., pp. 37611. ^ Sans. Gr., p. 111. 246 THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIZ) 247 therefore the ancient Greeks did not have the benefit of our mod- ern theories and rules, but inflected the substantives according to principles not now known to us. The various dialects exercised great freedom also and exhibited independent development at many points, not to mention the changes in time in each dialect. The threefold division is purely a convenience, but with this justi- fication: the first has a stems, the second o stems, the third con- sonant and close vowel (t, u) stems. There are some differences in the suffixes also, the third declension having always the genitive ending in -os. In the third declension especially it is not possible to give a type to which all the words in all the cases and numbers conform. Besides, the same word may experience variations. Much freedom is to be recognized in the whole matter of the de- clensions within certain wide limits. See metaplasm or the fluc- tuation between the several declensions. 2. The Number of the Cases (irrciwreis). The meaning and use of the cases will have a special chapter in Syntax (ch. XI) . (o) The Histoky op the Forms op the Cases. This is caUed for before the declensions are discussed. The term " case " {TTcoaLs, casus) is considered a "falling," because the nominative is regarded as the upright case (xrao-is opdii, eWela), though as a matter of fact the accusative is probably older than the nominative (TTTcoo-ts bvotM(TTiK.i\ or bpdi]). The other cases are called oblique (TrXaytat) as deviations from the nominative. In simple truth the vocative (/cXijTtKiJ or irpoaayoptvTiKri) has no inflection and is not properly a case in its logical relations. It is usually the noun-stem or like the nominative in form. There are only three other case-endings preserved in the Greek, and the grammars usually term them ac- cusative (tttSxth alriaTiKrj), genitive {irrlbais yeviKrj) and dative {TTTuacs 8oTi,K^).^ There is no dispute as to the integrity of the ac- cusative case, the eariiest, most common of all the oblique cases and the most persistent. In the breakdown of the other cases the accusative and the prepositions reap the benefit. In truth the other oblique cases are variations from the normal accusative. But this subject is complicated with the genitive and the dative. It is now a commonplace in comparative philology that the Greek genitive has taken over the function of the ablative (d(^at- ptTiKri) also. In the singular the Sanskrit had already the same ■ Mod. Gk. vernac. has only three cases (nom., gen. and ace.) and these are not always formally differentiated from each other. The mod. Gk, has thus carried the blending of case-forms almost as far as mod. Eng. Cf . Thumb, Handb., p. 31. 248 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ending (-as) for genitive and ablative, while in the plural the San- skrit ablative had the same form as the dative {bhyas; cf. Latin ibus). Thus in the Sanskrit the ablative has no distinctive end- ings save in the singular of a stems like kamdt ('love') where the ablative ending -t (d) is preserved. In Latin, as we know, the ablative, dative, locative and instrumental have the same endings in the plural. The Latin ablative singular is partly ablative, partly locative, partly instrumental. Some old Latin inscriptions show the d, as bened, in altod marid, etc. In Greek the ablative forms merged with the genitive as in the Sanskrit singular, but not because of any inherent "internal connec- tion between them, as from accidents affecting the outward forms of inflection." 1 The Greek did not allow t or 5 to stand at the end of a word. So the Greek has wpos (not tpot for irpori). KaXcos may be (but see Brugmann^) the ablative koXcot and so all adverbs in -cos. The meaning of the two cases remained distinct in the Greek as in the Sanskrit. It is not possible to derive the ablative (source or separation) idea from the genitive (or yivos) idea nor vice versa. The Greek dative {boriKif) is even more compli- cated. "The Greek dative, it is well known, both in singular and plural, has the form of a locative case, denoting the place where or in which; but, as actually used, it combines, with the mean- ing of a locative, those of the dative and instrumental."' This is only true of some datives. There are true datives like 65(j), xcopa. The Indo-Germanic stock, as shown by the Sanskrit, had originally three separate sets of endings for these cases. 1 Hadley, Ess. Philol. and Grit., Gk. Gen. or Abl., p. 52. Cf. also Mileg, 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 D6cl. 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, tJber das Dem. und den Urspr. der Casuszeichen etc., 1826; Hartung, Uber die Casus etc., 1831; Hilbschmann, Zur Casuslehre, 1875; Rumpel, Casusl., 1845; Meillet, Intr. k rfitude Comp., pp. 257 ff.; Penka, Die Entst. der Synkr. Casus im Lat., Griech. und Deutsch., 1874. See also p. 33 f. of Hubner, Grundr. zu Vorles. liber die griech. Synt.; Schleicher, Vergl. Griech.; Schmidt, Griech. Gr., etc. ^ Brugmann (Griech. Gr., 1900, p. 225), who considers the s in oBtus, ktX., due to analogy merely, like the s in 'fyyb-t, ktX. But he sees an abl. idea in fe-xis. Cf . also ovpavb-dt hke coeli-tus. ^ Hadley, Ess. Phil, and Grit., p. 52. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIS) 249 The Greek plural uses for all three cases either "the loca- tive in -art or the instrumental forms in»-ots."' "The forms in -ats, Latin -is, from -a stems, are a new formation on the analogy of forms from -o stems." ^ 'Mi]V7tIep€iv are probably locatives also without the t, while the infinitives in -at (Sd/ievai, 8ovvai, XeXuKevat, Xiecdai,, XOcat, etc.) are datives.^ The instrumental has left Uttle of its original form on the Greek singular. The usual Sanskrit is a. Cf. in Greek such words as a^ia, eVe/ca, tva, fieri., irapa, ireSa, possibly the Doric /cpu^a, Lesbian aXXa. Brugmann^ thinks the Laconic T'li-TOKa— Attic Tu-TOTt Is instrumental like the Gothic he (English wh'g). Cf. the in " the more the better," etc. Another Greek suffix -t, (Indo-Germanic, bhi) is found in Homer, as /Sti/^t, df6(l>Lv (plural). But this -t 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- culiarity of the Indo-Germanic tongues. Neuter nouns illustrate ' Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 287. ' lb., p. 290. For survivals of the dat. -at see the Rhodian xat (Bjorkegren, De Sonis dial. Rhod., p. 41). ' Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 228. Cf. the Lat. doml, Romw(i). For nu- merous exx. of loc. and dat. distinct in form in the various dialects see Meister, Griech. Dial., Ed. II, pp. 61 ff.; Hoffmann, Griech. Dial., Bd. I, p. 233 (dat. -ot, loc. -i; dat. -m, loc. -oi). Cf. Collitz and Bechtel, Samml. d. griech. dial. Insohr., 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, eixuXS). See Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I. Tl., p. 194. 250 A GRAMMAR OF 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 modern 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) Origin 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 there 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. 2 Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 271. Bergaigne (Du R61e de la D^riv. dans la D^cl. Indo-Europ., M6m. 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 Delbriiok, 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. -t, -8i; instr., -i^i, -^iv', abl., -dev). ' Giles, op. cit., p. 273. * Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 149. Cf . also Keck, tlber d. Dual bei d. griech. Rednem etc., 1882. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIs) 251 3. Number (dpiejids) in Substantives. The N. T. Greek has lost the dual (Sw/cos) and uses only the singular (iviKos) and the plural {irXTjdvvTLKos). The Sanskrit and the Hebrew had the dual, but the Latin had only duo and ambo (and possibly octo 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 twins. 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 ^(Eolic and the New Ionic, and its use in the Attic was Umited and not consistent.^ The dual is nearly gone in the late Attic inscrip- tions,* while in the koivt] 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 Suo (not dvw) for all the cases (as genitive in 1 Tim. 5 : 19), save dvcl{v) for the dative-locative- instrumental, a plural form found in Aristotle, Polybius, etc., and called a barbarism by Phrynichus.'" Only in 4 Mace. 1 : 28 A Svolv is found, but SveZv in NV, as in Polybius and the Atticists (Thackeray, p. 187). For examples of 8val{v) see Mt. 6:24; Lu. 16 : 13; Ac. 21 : 33; Heb. 10 : 28, etc. In the papyri, however, 56a), SvSi, Sveiv occasionally appear '^ along with 8val(y). In the modern Greek the dual is no longer used. "A/i0co has vanished in the N. T. while d/t^orepoi occurs fourteen times (Mt. 9 : 17, etc.), 1 Tattam's Egyp. Gr., p. 16. » Prol., p. 57. 3 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, 01. 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.-Bl., I, p. 362, for further items about the dual. " Deissmann, B. S., p. 187. For Svaiiv) in the inscriptions see Dittenberger, 118. 22, etc. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 313. For similar situations in the LXX MSS. (toIs Sio, tois Svcri, and A Svolv, H Sveiv) see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 53. Cf. also C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 25. 252 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT once (Ac. 19 : 16) apparently in the sense of more than two, like the occasional use of the Enghsh "both" and the Byzantine use of d^u^orepot and "two clear examples of it in NP 67 and 69 (iv/A.D.).'" Once for all then it may be remarked tjiat in the N. T. both for nouns and verbs the dual is ignored. The dual was rare in the later Ionic and the kolvt] follows suit (Radermacher N. T. Gk., p. 184). The syntactical aspects of number are to be discussed later. 4. Gender (-yevos) in Substantives. In the long history of the Greek language gender has been wonderfully persistent and has suffered little variation.^ It is probably due to the natural differ- ence of sex that grammatical gender' arose. The, idea of sense gender continued, but was supplemented by the use of endings for the distinction of gender. This personification of inanimate objects was probably due to the poetic imagination of early peo- ples, but it persists in modern European tongues, though French has dropped the neuter (cf. the Hebrew) and modern English (like the Persian and Chinese) has no grammatical gender save in the third personal pronoun {he, she, it) and the relative.^ Anal- ogy has played a large part in gender.* The Sanskrit, Latin and Greek all gave close attention to gender and developed rules that are difficult to apply, with many inconsistencies and absurdities. In Greek 7)Xios is masculine and creXijoj feminine, while in German we have die Sonne. and der Mond. Perhaps we had better be grateful that the Greek did not develop gender in the verb like the Hebrew verb. Moulton^ thinks it "exceedingly strange" that Enghsh should be almost alone in shaking off "this outworn ex- crescence on language." The N. T., like Homer and the modem Greek, preserves the masculine (apaeviKov), feminine (drfKvKSv) and neuter {obbkTepov). Some words indeed have common {koivSp) sex, like 6 77 Trats, ovos, Oibs, while others, applied to each sex, are called epicene {kirlKoivov) , like 17 dXcoTrij^, apKTos. In German we actually have das Weib ('wife')'- (a) Variations in Gender. They are not numerous. 'H a^vacos (x'i'pa) is a substantive in the LXX (Gen. 1 : 2, etc.) and the N. T. (Lu. 8:31, etc.), elsewhere so only in Diogenes Laertes. 1 Moulton, Prol., p. 80. « Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 103. ' Paul, Prin. of Hist, of Lang., pp. 289 8. Brugmann thinks that gender came largely by formal assimilation of adj. to subst. as i.v0piinrot kukSs, x<^p^ Upa. Dan. Crawford, the Bantu missionary, claims 19 genders for Bantu. * Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 26 f. ' Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 64, 259. Prol., p. 59. On the whole subject of gender see K.-Bl., I, pp. 358 ff. THE DECLENSIONS (kaISEIs) 253 In Mk. 14 : 3 W. H. and Nestle properly read rfiv iM^aarpov, though the Western and Syrian classes ifive tov &\. after Herod- otus, and a few of the late MSS. to 6X. In Rev. 8:116 (not f/) &\l/ivdos is read, though K and some cursives omit the article, be- cause the word is a proper name. In Mk. 12 : 26 all editors have 6 jSaros (the Attic form according to Moeris), elsewhere ^ P6.T0i (Lu. 20 : 37; Acts 7 : 35). Qeos may be either masculine as in Ac. 19 : 11 or feminine as in Ac. 19 : 37, but in Ac. 19 : 27 we have 6e6, (Text. Rec. also in 35, 37), an "apparently purposeless variation."' Thieme {Die Inschr. von Magn., p. 10) says that il fleos is used in the inscriptions of Asia Minor in formal religious language. Burnet (Review of Theology and Philosophy, 1906, p. 96) says that in Athens i^ 966s was used in every-day language, but fi fled in the public prayers, thus taking the Ionic dea. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Papyri {Laut- und Wortlehre, 1906), p. 254 f., for papyri illustrations. Blass^ considers i^ 'lepouo-aXiJ/j (Ac. 5 : 28, etc., the common form in LXX, Luke and Paul) feminine be- cause it is a place-name, and hence he explains iraa-a 'lepoa-dXviia (Mt. 2 : 3) rather than by 7r6Xis understood. Ai7J'6s in Rev. 14 : 19 strangely enough has both masculine and feminine, rriv \r]i>6v . . . TOP ixkyav but a fem. (bis). The feminine is the common construc- tion, but the masculine is found in LXX in Is. 63 : 2 only. AWos is always 6 in the N. T., even when it means a precious stone (Rev. 5 times), where Attic after 385 b.c' had ij. AtjLi6s is mascu- line in Lu. 4 : 25 as in the Attic, but is chiefly feminine in Acts and Luke, hke the Doric and late Attic, as in Lu. 15 : 14; Acts 11 : 28.* In Lu. 13 : 4, Jo. 9 : 7, 11 we have 6 ZtXaxiM, while Jose- phus has both ii (War, V, 12. 2) and 6 {War, II, 16. 2). Blass^ explains the use of 6 in the Gospels by the participle direo-TaX/i^cos in Jo. 9 : 7. Xrafivos in Heb. 9 : 4 is feminine after the Attic instead of the Doric 6 (tt., as in Ex. 16 : 33. In Rev. 21 : 18 (21) we read also 6 iiaXos rather than fj vaKos as is customary with • Moulton, Prol., p. 60, but he adds "is explained by inscriptions.'' Cf. Nachmanson, Magn. Insohx., p. 126, for many exx. « Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 32. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 160. Mk. and Jo. have only t6 'lepoo-AXu^o and Mt. usually. ' Meisterhans, Att. Inschr., p. 129. < Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157. Moulton (Prol., p. 60) finds Xt^s now masc. and now fem. in the pap. LXX MSS. show similar variations. Cf. Helbing' Gr. d. Sept., p. 45; Thaok., p. 145 f., for same situation in LXX concerning /3dToj, 4XA/3a(rrpos (-ok), Xijvis, trri.ni'os. Cf. C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 27, for further exx. ° Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 32. 254 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT precious stones.* "Tcauiros (Heb. 9:19; Jo. 19:29) reveals its gender only in the LXX (Lev. 14 : 6, 51 f.) where it is masc. in BA, fern, in E and 1 (3) Ki. 4 : 19 BA. The neuter t6 oXas occurs in papyri as early as third century b.c. (Moulton and Milligan, Expositor, 1908, p. 177). (6) Intekpeetation of the LXX. In Ro. 11:4 Paul uses rg j3doX rather than the frequent LXX tQ ^kaX. The feminine is due, according to Burkitt, to the Q'ri npa {aiaxi>vr)). Moulton speaks of 17 iSdaX as occurring "three times in LXX and in Ascerv- sio Isaiae ii. 12."^ But ri jSdaX occurs "everywhere in the pro- phetic books, Jer., Zeph., Hos., etc." (Thayer), though not so common in the historical books, far more than the "three times" of Moulton. In Mk. 12 : 11 and Mt. 21 : 42 the LXX aiirT? is due to riKT, though the translators may have "interpreted their own Greek by recalling Ke(j)aKfiv yiovias."^ 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 httle 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 jSoppa (Lu. 13 : 29; Rev. 21 : 13) and was common in the Attic after 400 b.c. Note also naixwvS. (Lu. 16 : 9). It is fre- quent in the LXX, papyri, inscriptions, though mainly in proper names. These proper names in -as, chiefly oriental, make the genitive-ablative in -a or, if unaccented -as, in a. So AxOXa and 'AkvXov in papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 187), though no gen. in N. T. (only -as and -av) 'AypiTra,^ (Ac. 25 : 23), 'Avavia ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p, 26. Of. Theophrast, De lapid. 49, for v »eXos. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 59. He corrects this erratum in note to H. Scott. = lb. < Jannaris, Hist. GIc. Gr., p. 106. Swete, O. T. in Gk., p. 304 f., has some good illustrations and remarks about the declensions in the LXX. ' Both 'Aypiirira and 'k-yp'nrirov occur in the pap. Of. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, pp. 34 and 434. This gen. in -a gradually became "a ruling principle" for all substantives in -as (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 108, 110). See Thumb, THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIs) 255 (from -OS, so Thayer), "Avva (Lu. 3:2), 'Airtiras (indeclinable here or mere slip for -a. Rev. 2 : 13), 'Apha^ Cor. 11 : 32), Bapa^ps. (gen. does not appear, only nom. -as as Mk. 15 : 7, and accus. -Siv as 15:11, etc.), BapvdiSa (Gal. 2 : 1 ; Col. 4:10; see Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 187), 'ETro<^pa (Col. 1:7), 'l^pfiav (Ro. 16 : 14, Doric accusative), Zrjvdv likewise (Tit. 3 : 13); 'HXeia (Lu. 1 : 17) accord- ing to NB (so W. H.); 'loMa (person, Lu. 3 : 33; Mk. 6:3; tribe, Mt. 2 : 6; Heb. 8:8; land, Lu. 1 : 39), 'luvS. (Mt. 12 : 39), Kata^a (Lu. 3:2; Jo. 18: 13), Kij0a (1 Cor. 1 : 12), KXcottS (Jo. 19:25), Aomas (only in nominative, as Col. 4 : 14, but genitive would be -a), 'ZaravS. (Mk. 1 : 13), SiXas (dative SiXa in Ac, and genitive SiXa in Jos. Vit., 17), S/ceua (Ac. 19 : 14), Srs^aw (1 Cor. 1 : 16). Nach- manson finds the Doric genitive fairly common with such short proper names and mentions Sjjra in his list.' Very common in modern Greek, cf. Hatzidakis, Einl., p. 76. (6) The Attic Genitive- Ablative. The usual Attic form for the masculine gen. abl. (ov) is found also as in Aipias (so Lobeck, Prol. Pathol, p. 487), 'AvSpiov (Mk. 1:29), Bapaxlov (Mt. 23:35), 'EfeKtou (so LXX), 'HXeiou (Lu. 4:25), 'liaalov (Mt. 3:3, etc.), 'lepfiilov (Mt. 2: 17), AvaavLov (Lu. 3:1), Ovpiov (Mt. 1:6), Zoxa- piov (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 -17s with genitive-ablative in -ov. 'lai'i'^s and 'lafifipfjs (2 Tim. 3 : 8) only appear in the N. T. in the nominative. KprjUKris (2 Tim. 4 : 10) and UoiiSrjs (2 Tim. 4 : 21) belong to the 3d declension. Eu<^parjjs (Rev. 9 : 14; 16 : 12) has only accusative and dative (instrumental-loca- tive) in the oblique cases in the N. T., though the genitive-ablative form is -ov. 'Epui8ov (Mt. 2 : 1) and 'lopSavov (Mt. 3 : 5) follow the usual rule like a,8ov (Mt. 16:18). 'AxeXX^s (Ro. 16:10), 'Ep^^s (Ro. 16 : 14), like KoSp&vTrjs (Mt. 5 : 26) and 0eX6ci7s (2 Tim. 4 : 13), have no oblique case in the N. T. save the accusative {-ijv).^ 'looavrjs 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 Bapicoj-a 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. Insohr., p. 139. ■' Cf. 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 koii/^ inscr. The gen. ih -ov is more common in the pap. than that in 256 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Xoicrdkvris has accusative in -riv (Ac. 18 : 17) for the first declension and is heteroclite.' We have only ^tarSov in Mk. 7 : 4. Words like veavlas have the genitive-ablative in -ov (Ac. 7 : 58). (c) Voc. in -a of masc. nouns in -ttjs in BeairoTa, kiricTiTa, Kap- SiOyvHcTTa, VTOKpLTa. Cf. q,&7]. {d) Words in -pa and Participles in -via.. These come reg- ularly^ to have the genitive-ablative in — i/s and the dative-locative- instrumental in -?) like the Ionic. Moulton^ indeed thinks that "analogical assimilation," on the model of forms like bb^a, 66^ris, had more to do with this tendency in the kolvti 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 naxai-pr\s (Rev. 13 : 14), ir^rmixvpris (Lu. 6 : 48), 7rp4)pTjs (Ac. 27 : 30), XaTKJjeipji (Ac. 5:1), arelpris (Ac. 21 : 31; 27 : 1). In Acts B is prone to have -as, -q. as with D in Ac. 5 : 1, but W. H. do not follow B here. In Ac. 5 : 2 (rvvftSvirji may be compared with kiri^e^riKviris (1 Sam. 25 : 20), and other examples in the LXX,^ but the forms -vias, -via. still survive in the Ptolemaic period.' The preference of the LXX MSS. and the early papyri for /Ltaxatpas {-pa) shows that it is a matter of growth with time. In the early Empire of Rome -pris forms are well-nigh universal. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 142. On the other hand note the adjective ardpa, (Lu. 1 : 36) . Words like i7;uepa {-pa) and aXrfiua, n'tS, (la, eta) preserve the Attic inflection in -as, q..^ (e) The Opposite Tendency to {d). We see it in such exam- ples as AbSSas (Ac. 9 : 38, but Soden reads -5j/s with EHLP) and MdpSas (Jo. 11: 1). Moulton' finds the Egyptian papyri giving Ta/ivadas as genitive. Gep^ua is given by Lobeck, though not in N. T. (genitive -ijs, Ac. 28:3), and note irpvuva. 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; 01. Rev., 1901, p. 34. where a number of exx. are given like Apoipris, KoBriKvlris, 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. 8 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. Zouadwas in LXX, C. and S., Sel. fr. the LXX, p. 26. THE DECLENSIONS (kaISEIs) 257 Moulton' suggests that N{)n4>a.v (Col. 4 : 15 according to the cor- rect text) is not due to a Doric Niiam^Si', but by a "reverse analogy- process" the genitive Nu/i(^r;s produced th^hort nominative Nu/i0o like S6^a, 36fijs. Blass^ calls xp^f^o-" (Rev. 1 : 13) "a gross blunder, wrongly formed on the model of xpwrds 1 : 12," but Moulton' holds that we have "abundant parallels." (J) Double Declension. This phenomenon appears in the case of Nki* UoXlv (Ac. 16 : 11) and 'lepq. HoXei (Col. 4 : 13), the adjective as well as the substantive being treated separately in the first and third declensions. (g) Hetekoclisis {irepoKXiaK) and Metaplasm (fieTaTrXaa-fio^) . Blass^ makes no distinction in his treatment of heteroclisis and metaplasm, though the distinction is observed in Winer-Sehmie- 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 Svaeurkpiov rather than dvaevre- pla (supported only by a few cursives). The form dea (Ac. 19:27) and the usual Attic ij deos (Ac. 19 : 37) are both found. This varia- tion between the first and the second declensions is well illustrated by To/jAppas (2 Pet. 2:6) and Toubppuv (Mt. 10:15; -ois, Mk. 6:11 Rec), Kiiarpav (Ac. 14:6) and Auo-Tpots (Ac. 14:8). Moulton' finds abundant parallel in the Egyptian papyri use of place-names. In Rev. 1:11 ABC and some cursives read QvaTupav instead of the usual Gudreipa. So in Ac. 27 : 5 some of the MSS. read Mhppav instead of Mhppa as accus., a reading confirmed by Ramsay,^ who found the accus. in -av and the gen. in ~uv. Moulton' cites f/ 'lepoaoKvua 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 -apx»?s 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 Proc. Camb. Philol. Soc, Oct., 1893, p. 12. 2 Gr., p. 25, but 4th ed., p. 28, cites P. Lond. I, 124, 26, xpwS" fl 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 heterocUsis under metaplasm. « Prol., p. 48. ' lb., p. 244. « St. Paul the TraveUer, p. 129. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 48. » lb. •» lb. Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 34. " Notes on Orth., p. 156. 258 A GKAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT irregular." In the N. T. forms in -apxvs, like most of the dialects and the kolvti, are greatly in the majority.^ Thus in the N. T. we have 'AaMpxv^ (Ac. 19:31; not in nom. in N. T.), i6vd,pxni (2 Cor. 11:32), ■waTpLo.pxns (Heb. 7:4), iroXirapxvs (Ac. 17:6, 8), TtTpaa.pxv^ (Lu. 3 : 19), but always x'X'ipxos- In the addition of the /3 text to Ac. 28 : 16 the MSS. divide between arpaToiriSapxos (HLP) and -apxt^ (cursives). 'EKarbvrapxos 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 -x»;s is read by the best MSS. (as Ac. 10 : 1). The first and the third declensions show variation in St^os (old form 5ti/'a) in 2 Cor. 11 : 27, where indeed B has St^p instead of h'v4/tL. WiKT] (the old form) survives in 1 Jo. 5 : 4, but elsewhere the late form cT/cos prevails (as 1 Cor. 15 : 54 f.). The LXX likewise shows TO 8l\pos, TO vLKos interchangeably with the ij forms. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 49; Thackeray, Gr., p. 157. The dative 'Iwavti (third declension) instead of 'loiavg (first declension) is accepted a few times by W. H. (Mt. 11 : 4; Lu. 7 : 18; Rev. 1 : 1). XaXanlvn (first declension) for XaXafuvi. (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 xeipav 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), daeiS^x' in Ro. 4 : 5 (NDFG), LffTkpav in Mt. 2 : 10 (NC), d.<7a\rjp in Heb. 6 : 19 (ACD), Aiav in Ac. 14 : 12 (DEH), ekovav in Rev. 13 : 14 (A), p.ijvav in Rev. 22 : 2 (A), ToSrjpriv in Rev. 1 : 13 (A), avyytvrjv in Ro. 16 : 11 (ABD), iyvv in Jo. 5: 11 (N). Blass' rejects them all in the N. T., some as "incredible," though properly recalling the Attic Tptriprjv, Arj iJoaBivriv. Moulton* finds this conformation to the " analogy of first declension nouns" very ^ common in "uneducated papyri, which adequately foreshadows « • Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 28; K.-Bl., I, 3, 502. Cf. also W.-M., p. 70 f.; W.-Sch., p. 82; Soden, p. 1387 f . For illustrations from the LXX see W.-M. Cf. also Nachmanson, Magn. Inschir., p. 121. For numerous pap. examples of compounds from apxoi see Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap. (Laut- u. Wortl.), p. 256 f. For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 37 f. Thack., Or., p. 156, finds -apx'js 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 (kAISEIS) 259 its victory in modern Greek." The inscriptions ^ as well as the papyri have forms like yvvatKav, S.i>8pai>, etc. It is these accusative forms on which the modern Greek nominative in Hpxavras 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 Acr^aXTji' in Heb. 6 : 19, avyyevrjv in Ro. 16 : 11, and x"Poi' in Jo. 20 : 25. These nouns are treated here rather than under the third declension because in this point they invade the precincts of the first. The LXX MSS. exhibit the same phe- nomena (iXTrlSav, /lovoyevriv, 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 5e^id x"pa (Volker, Papyrorum Graecorum Syntaxis etc., p. 30 f.). (h) Indeclinable Substantives. These are sometimes inflected in some of the cases in the first declension. BridavM is accusative in Lu. 19 : 29, and so indecUnable, like BrjdcjjayTi, but elsewhere it is inflected regularly in the first declension (so -lav Mk. 11:1, etc.) save once or twice in B. Bridcraida has accusative Bridcrai,8av in Mk. 6:45; 8:22, but it may be only another alternate inde- cUnable form (Thayer) like MayaSav. So likewise ToXyoda has accusative in -av in Mk. 15:22. Hort* finds "the variations between Mapla and the indeclinable Mapiafi" "singularly intricate and perplexing, except as regards the genitive, which is always -Las, 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 Maptd^u, while Mary of Clopas is always Mapta. Mary Magdalene is now Mapiafi, now Mapia. In the Aramaic as in thp Hebrew probably all were called Maptd/i. Mapia is merely the Hellenized form of MapidAi. It is probably sphtting too fine a hair to see with Hort^ a special appropriate- ness in Mapid/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 Koikt}, p. 28) finds this ace. in -av in various dialect inscriptions. Cf . also Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p. 24, for xApiTOK, etc. * Notes on Orth., p. 156. ' lb. 260 A GKAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT cur, like ri 656s. But the neuter has a separate inflection. Modern Greek preserves very few feminines in -os.' Thumb {Handb., p. 53 f). gives none. The main pecuUarities in the N. T. are here noted. (o) The So-Callbd Attic Second Declension. It is nearly gone. Indeed the Attic inscriptions began to show variations fairly early .^ The kolvt] inscriptions' show only remains here and there and the papyri tell the same story .^ Already Xa6s (as Lu. 1 : 21) has displaced Xews and vaos (as Lu. 1 : 21) yeis, though veu- Kbpos survives in Ac. 19 : 35. 'Aj'a7atoj' likewise is the true text in Mk. 14 : 15 and Lu. 22 : 12, not avcoyeuv nor any of the various modifications in the MSS. In Mt. 3 : 12 and Lu. 3 : 17 ij aXaji; may be used in the sense of 17 aXcos (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.fr. LXX, p. 26; Thackeray, Gr., p. 144. 'ATroXXis has accusa- tive in -d>v in 1 Cor. 4 : 6 and Tit. 3 : 13, though the Western and Syrian classes have -ci in both instances. In Ac. 19 : 1 'AttoXXw is clearly right as only A^L 40 have -uv. The genitive is 'AiroXXii without variant (1 Cor. ter). So the adjective I'XeoJs is read in Mt. 16 : 22 and Heb. 8 : 12, though a few MSS. have 'iXeos in both places. The best MSS. have rvv Kw in Ac. 21 : 1, not Kcbv as Text. Rec. Cf. 1 Mace. 15 : 23. Blass^ compares aiSws of the third declension. (6) Contraction. There is little to say here. The adjectives will be treated later. 'Oo-roCv (Jo. 19 : 36) has 6(rTea, accus. pi., in the best MSS. in Lu. 24 : 39 and oiTTicov in Mt. 23 : 27 and Heb. 11 : 22. So also bcyrkiav in the Western and Syrian addition to Eph. 5 : 30. 'Opvkov (Rev. 18 : 2) and bpvta (Rev. 19 : 21) are without variant. The papyri show this Ionic influence on uncontr^cted vowels in this very word as well as in various adjectives (Moul- ton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 435). For examples in the LXX (as boTkav 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 8 considers it remarkable that the N. T. shows 1 Jann., 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. 6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25. Neiis appears in 2 Maco. 6 : 2, etc. « Prol., p. 48 f . He thinks it proof that the N. T. writers were not iUiterate, 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 Kiipios into /cfipis and TaiSlov into iraiSiv, for instance, since the papyri h%ve so many illustrations of this tendency. The inscriptions ^ show the same frequency of the -w, -tv forms which finally won the day in modern Greek. Cf . Thumb, Handh., p. 61. (c) The Vocative. In the o declension it does not always end in 6 in the masculine singular. 0e6s 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 Oei (Mt. 27 : 46). This usage is found occasionally in the LXX and in the late papyri.^ So also Paul uses Tifiddte twice (1 Tim. 1 :18; 6:20). Aristophanes had 'kn'i6et, Lucian Tt/ioflee, and the in- scriptions 4>CKbdet? Note also the vocative uios AaueiS (Mt. 1 : 20) and even in apposition with Kupte (Mt. 15 : 22). The common use of the article with the nominative form as vocative, chiefly in the third declension, belongs more to syntax. Take as an instance of the second declension juij o^ov, t6 fiiKpdv irolixviov (Lu. 12 : 32). {d) Heteroclisis 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. NoOs is no longer in the second declension, but is inflected like /Sous, viz. vobs (2 Th. 2:2), vot (1 Cor. 14 : 15, 19). So ttXoos in Ac. 27 : 9, not ttXoO.^ The most frequent inter- change is between forms in -os, masculine in second declension and neuter in the third. In these examples the N. T. MSS. show frequent fluctuations. T6 ^Xeos wholly supplants t6v 'i\eov (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 iXeov. Without variant we have kXkovs and eX4et. On the other hand 6 fiJXos is the usual N. T. form as in the ancient Greek (so fi7Xco, Ro. 13 :13; 2 Cor. 11 : 2), but to f^Xos is the true text in 2 Cor. 9 : 2 and Ph. 3:6. In Ac. 5 : 17 only B has fjJXous, and all read fi^Xou 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. 2 Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, pp. 34, 434. 3 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 81. In the LXX both SeAs and Bek 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 inscr., as (5oOs, Ms in late Gk. For pap. exx. of /SoDv, ttXoDp and xovv see Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 257 f., 268 f. 262 A GEAMMAE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT earlier rixri according to Moeris and Blass.' In Lu. 21 : 25 W. H. read iixovs from rjxii, but Hort^ admits ijxovs from to rjxos to be possible, and Nestle reads ^xoi's in his sixth edition. In Ac. 3 : 10 C reads danfiov instead of da/i^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 to ttXoOtos, but 6 irXoDros in Gospels, Jas., Heb., Rev. The genitive is always -rov. To (TKOTos instead of 6 (jkotos is read everjrwhere in the N. T. save in the late addition to Heb. 12 : 18 where aKOTiii appears, though ^64>cf is the true text. The form daicpvcnv (Lu. 7 : 38, 44) is from SaKpv, an old word that is found now and then in Attic, but Td SaKpvov appears also in Rev. 7: 17; 21 : 4; SaKpvccv may belong to either decl. XdPISaTov {-rov, -tw) is the form used in the N. T. al- ways, as Mk. 6:2, but (rdj3/3av (from Ionic vrixkoiv or through assimilation to neu- ters in -os), not the Attic irrixeoiu. In Jo. 21 : 8 only A Cyr. have iTTixewv and in Rev. 21:17 only N.' For the genitive singular of 'Icdtr^s and Maraffo-ijs see 6 (e). (/) Contraction. It is not observed in opicav (Rev. 6 : 15) and xet^ecoi' (Heb. 13 : 15). In both instances the Ionic absence of contraction is always found in the LXX (Prov. 12 : 14). This open form is not in the Attic inscriptions, though found in MSS. of Attic writers and the poets especially.* In the Koivii it is a "widespread tendency" to leave these forms in -os uncontracted, though eT&v is correct in Ac. 4 : 22, etc." So the LXX, Thackeray, Gr., p. 151. (g) Pkopek Names. Mcouo-^s has always the genitive-ablative Mcouo-ecjs (Jo. 9 : 28), though no nominative Mwvaevs is known. The genitive Moxrij appears usually in the LXX, as Num. 4: 41, and, the vocative Mucrj as in Ex. 3 : 4. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 163 f. W. H. have McovaeZ (always with v. r. -arj) as in Mk. 9 : 4, except in Ac. 7 : 44 where the form in -fi is due to the LXX (usual form there).' The accusative is Mcovaka. once only (Lu. 16:29), else- where -rjv, as in Ac. 7: 35 (so LXX). SoXo^tooj' (so in the nom- inative, not -S>v) is indeclinable in X in Mt. 1 : 6 as usually in the LXX. But the best MSS. in Mt. 1 : 6 have the accusative 2o\op.Siva, a few -copra. So the genitive SoXojuwj'os in Mt. 12 : 42, » W.-Sch., p. 86. So Sir. 25 : 3, etc. The LXX also has the Ionic gen. •yripovs. See Thaok., 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 tt'tixSii'. See W.-M., p. 75. In LXX note iriixeos and injxeus, irr/xeav and irrixS"'. 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. Uponiietis had an Attic nom. -^s, gen. -km, Thumb, Handb., § 330. 1. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIs) 269 though a few MSS. have -S>vtos. The Gospels have uniformly the genitive in -cows. But in Ac. 3: 11 W. H. accept SoXo/icSi'Tos (so also 5 : 12), though BD etc. havf cows in 5: 12. Cf. ZtvowvTos (from nominative -coy). AioTpe^ijs (3 Jo. 9) and 'Epjliot^j/tjs (2 Tim. 1 : 15) occur in nom. There are other proper names (Roman and Semitic) which are inflected regularly like 'BafivKiiv (Mt. 1:11), VoKKmv (Ac. 18 : 12), 'EXatcic (Ac. 1 : 12) KaTayri, Sitoj', Sira, etc. There are other indeclinable Hebrew and Aramaic words such as Kop^dv (Mk. 7 : 11), fiawa (Rev. 2 : 17), Trdo-xa (Lu. 2 : 41), (tI- Ktpa (Lu. 1 : 15 as in LXX). The gender (fem.) of the inde- clinable oval (Rev. 9 : 12; 11 : 14) is probably due, as Blass^ sug- gests, to B\bpi.%. In 1 Cor. 9 : 16 oval is used as a substantive (so also LXX). The use of 6 &v Kal 6 rfv koX 6 epx^/ifvos in the nominative after diro in Rev. 1 : 4, etc., belongs more to syntax than to accidence. It is evidently on purpose (to express the unchangeableness of God), just as 6 StSdo-KaXos /cat 6 Kvpios is in apposition with jue (Jo. 13 : 13) in lieu of quotation-marks. II. THE ADJECTIVE ("ONOMA 'EHieETON) Donaldson' 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 unimportant 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 Une 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 likewise Giles in his Comparative Philology has no distinct treatment of adjectives. The adjective is an added descriptive appellative {ovo/xa kwidirov) while the substantive is an essential appellative {ovofia owtaaTiKov) . But substantives were doubtless ' See further list in W.-Sch., p. 91. » New Crat., p. 502. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 32. ■< Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 29. s 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 ]». T. h tc^ 'lopSavn iroranQ (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.2 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 simpHfy adjectives to the one declension (-os, -jy, -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 (Thumb, Handb., p. 66). In modern 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. 66, 259. Cf. Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 239. , 2 Donaldson, New Crat., p.' 474. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 139. 3 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30. ^ Donaldson, New Crat., p. 602. ' 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 GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK 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 airoLLs, nUap, (t>vyas. In fact they are used of animated beings. In the N. T. we have apira? (Mt. 7 : 15; 1 Cor. 5 : 10), weuri^ (2 Cor. 9 : 9. Cf. ifKavrJTes, Jude 13 B), and auyyevls (Lu. 1 : 36). Xvyytvls is a later feminine form like evyevis for the usual avyytviis (both masculine and feminine) which Winer' treats as a substantive (so Thayer). Strictly this feminine adjective belongs* only to words in -Ti)% and -eus. Blass^ quotes evyeviSuv yvvaUSsv by way of com- parison. Modern Greek still has a few of these adjectives in use. The ancient adjectives in -ijs (eiyevris) have disappeared from the modem Greek vernacular (Thumb, Handb., p. 72). (b) 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 iXecos (Mt. 16 : 22). But a few simple adjectives of the second declension never developed a feminine ending, as, for instance, ^ap^apos (1 Cor. 14 : 11), e{ai)4>vlSios (Lu. 21 : 34), (jwTi]pios (Tit. 2 : 11).« In the N. T. iiavxos has changed to ijffiix'os (1 Pet. 3:4). The adjectives in the third declension which end in -rjs or -wv have no separate feminine form. So eiiyivris (Lu. 19:12), eio-e/Sijs (Ac. 10:7) nd^uv (Jo. 15:13), etc. Then again some simple adjectives varied' in usage in the earlier Greek, especially in the Attic, and some of these have only two endings in the N. T., like diStos (Ro. 1 : 20), epjjMos (Ac. 1 : 20, etc., and often as substantive with 7^ or x^P"- uot expressed), Koc/itos (1 Tim. 2:9), oipdwos (Lu. 2:13; Ac. 26:19), <^X6apos (1 Tim. 5:13), ^pbvim (Mt. 25:2, 4, 9), i^^'iKiixos (1 Tim. 4:8; 2 Tim. 3: 16). With still others N. T. usage itself varies as in the case of aUivm (Mt. 25:46, etc.) and aluvla (Heb. 9:12; 2 Th. 2:16, and often as a variant reading) ; eroi/ws (Mt. 25 : 10) and eToi/iij (1 Pet. 1:5); /idratos (Jas. 1 : 26) and fiaraia (1 Pet. 1:18); 8/«jios (Rev. 4 : 3, second example correct text) and ojuoia (Rev. 9 : 10, » K.-Bl., I, p. 547 f. 2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 143. - W.-M., p. 80. But cf. W.-Soh., p. 97. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33. b ib. ' Cf. K.-Bl., I, p. 535 f., for fuller list. Some of the simple verbals in —ros also had no fern., as cSwjtos. ' 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 6fwiots in the margin instead of 6/ioias, 19) ; So-tos (1 Tim. 2:8; so probably, though dtriovs may be construed with eTratpoKTas instead of x"pas). The early Attic inscriptions furnish examples of two endings with such adjectives as So/ci/tos (no fem- inine example in the N. T.) and Xoiiros with either two or three (N. T. only three).' The papyri furnish iprj^ios and oipavios as feminine and others not so used in the N. T., as Skatos, utrpios, aTopifxas.^ It was the rule with compound adjectives to have only two endings, for the most of them never developed a feminine form, as 6 (ij) aXoyos.^ This tendency survives in the inscriptions, especially with compounds 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, eis Kkripovofjilav aBapTov koX ky.iav- Tov KoX a/iapavTOV. Cf . Jas. 3 : 17. (c) Adjectives with Three Terminations. The great ma- jority of Greek adjectives, like ayoBos, -ij, -6v, developed three endings and continue normal (cf. Thumb, Handbook, p. 68), as is universal in the modem Greek. Some of the compound adjec- tives also had three endings, especially compounds in -lkSs and -tos, as [iovapxi-Kii, ava^la (Plato) .^ The same thing is observed in the inscriptions' and the papyri.' In the N. T. we have several examples, as apyos, -ri (Attic always apyos, though Epimenides has -17) in 1 Tim. 5 : 13; Tit. 1 : 12; Jas. 2 : 20 according to BC. In Mk. 4 : 28 avToixarri is not entirely new, for classic writers use it. In 2 Jo. 13 (and probably also 1) we have kXeKTiJ. In Mt. 4 : 13 the MSS. give irapoBakaaaia, but D has -Mv. However, in Lu. 6 : 17 TrapoXios is the feminine form, though occasionally the LXX and older Greek had -la, varying like the other compounds in -tos. Other adjectives of three endings belong to the third and 1 Cf. Meisterh., Att. Insehr., p. 148. Cf. also olicios, K6v, while AC have xpvatcov. Xpvcav 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 xpvcrS-v v apyvpav, and L. P." (ii/iii a.d.) also has xp^^W V apyvpfjv.^ 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 ^adkm in Lu. 24 : 1 and -wpakm in 1 Pet. 3 : 4 instead of the usual form in -os. Hort^ considers the variations in riixiavs as "curious," but they find abundant parallel in the 1 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157 f . For pap. exx. of uyi^v 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 ZwKparijv, TpLiipriv). It is common ii/A.D. 2 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. riiv Upfiv KvjiaKiiv on Rom. tomb (Kaibel, Epi- gram. Graeca, 1878, p. 269). • » Notes on Orth., p. 158. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIZ) 275 papyri as does XP""'^"'' above.* In Mk. 6 : 23 ^/iiirous, not -eos, is the genitive form, the usual (Rrobably only) form in the pa- pyri.^ The neuter plural finiaea has practically no support in Lu. 19:8, though ■fiixLari is the Text. Rec. on the authority of late uncials and cursives. To. fin'urv has slight support. W. H. read TO. rjuLaia (XBQ 382, L having itacistic -eta) and derive it from a possible fiiiiaLos.^ But it is possible, if not probable, that -^tiiaeia was the earlier form changed by itacism to rnxlcia.^ The plural of vfjffTLs is vijareis (Mk. 8:3; Mt. 15: 32), and not vijo-Tts as already shown.^ For participles in -uta, -uiijs see this chapter, i, 5, (c). As a rule the forms in -uItjs and -pijs predominate, but note a-reipq. in Lu. 1 : 36.* In the case of ^yii^s, whereas the Attic had accu- sative fryta (u7t7j in Plato, Phadr. 89 d), the N. T., like the inscrip- tions, papyri and the LXX, has only 1171^ (Jo. 5: 11, 15; 7 : 23).^ In Jo. 18 : 1 xeiAiappou is almost certainly from xe'Mappos instead of the classical x^'M^tppoos-* In 2 Pet. 2 : 5 oySoov is not contracted, though sometimes the papyri have o75ous, 67S011J'.' (/) Indeclinable Adjectives. The papyri have cleared up two points of much interest here. One is the use of xXijpr/s in N. T. MSS. in an oblique case. In Mk. 4 : 28 Hort (Appendix, p. 24) suggests T\ripr}s uItov (C* two lectionaries) as probably the original. In Ac. 6 : 5 W. H. put av&pa ir\ripris in the margin, though TfXijpij is read only by B among the MSS. of importance. In Jo. 1 : 14 all the MSS. (save D 5 followed by Chrys. and Theoph.) have xXi7pi;s. Moulton" indeed suggests that xXijpij was the original text, which was changed to the vulgar 7rXi7pijs. But the argument can be turned round just as easily. In almost every N. T. instance of an oblique case of TrXi^pr;s good uncials have the indeclinable form (Moulton, Prol, p. 50). The LXX also has examples of indeclinable ir\i]pr)% (cf. Hort, Appendix, p. ' Xpvakcf is exceedingly common in the pap. (Moulton, CI. Rev., Dec, 1901, p. 435). " Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 294 f. Cf. also Deiss., B. S., p. 186; Moul- ton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 34. So also the LXX, Thack., Gr., p. 179. s Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 87. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 52. * Cf. W.-Sch., p. 87. 'Biiitraa occurs in Antoninus Liberahs (ab. 150 a.d.) and oinetos is analogous. 5 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157. « Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25. ' Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 35. For adjs. with ace. in -q (and sometimes p added, -n") see Dieterich, Unters., p. 175. Cf. this ch., 11, 2, (d). 8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25. » Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 294. i» Prol., p. 50. See Cronert, Mem., p. 179; Turner, Jour. Theol. St., I, pp. 100 B. Milligan (N. T. Doc. s, p. 65) finds one ex. of indecl. ttX^pjjs b.c. 276 A GEAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 24). So Job 21 : 24, NABC. The examples of irXi7p7js so used are "fairly common" in the papjnii and come as early as the second century b.c.^ There seems therefore no reason to refuse to con- sider Tkripris in Jo. 1 : 14 as accusative and to accept it as the text in Mk. 4:28 and Ac. 6:5. The other example of indeclinable adjectives is foimd in comparative forms in -co, like ir\eUo. Moul- ton^ points out that in Mt. 26 : 53 NBD read TrXewo Biideica 'KeyUipas, while the later MSS. have mended the grammar with irXeiow. He quotes also Cronert* who has furnished abimdant e-ddence from the papyri and literature of such a use of these forms just like irXijpijs. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Papyri, p. 63 f. 3. Comparison of Adjectives. The comparative is a natural development in the adjective, as the adjective itself is a growth on the substantive. (a) The Positive (deriKov ovofui ob ovofia airKovv). This is the oldest form of the adjective, the most common and the most per- sistent. It is not always true that the comparative and superla- tive forms represent an actually higher grade than the positive. The good is sometimes more absolute than better or even best. See ayaBoi in Mk. 10 : 18, for instance. Sometimes indeed the posi- tive itself is used to suggest comparison as in Mt. 18 : 9, kci\6v aoi kariv da-eXBeiv . . . ^ dim x^'^fM^t '"'X. This construction is common in the LXX, suggested perhaps by the absence of comparison in Hebrew.* The tendency of the later Greek is also constantly to make one of the degrees do duty for two. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 181. But this matter belongs rather to the syntax of compari- son. Participles are, of course, used only in the positive save in a few cases where the adjective-idea has triumphed wholly over the verb-conception.' Verbals in — ros sometimes have comparison, though fiSXXov may be freely used with participles. (6) The CoMPAKATivE (avyicpiTLKov bvofid). The stem may be (besides adjective) either a substantive (fiaffCKeh-repiK) or an adverb (irpo-repos). Cf. Monro, Homeric Grammar, p. 82. The primary comparative-ending -ioiv (Sanskrit iyans) is probably kin to the ad- jective-ending -LOS.'' This form along with the superlative -kttos is "^ Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 35. For the indeel. -rMipris in Acta Thomae see Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p. 24. Cf. Sir. 19 : 26. See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 52. It is not till i/A.D. that it is common in the pap. Thack. (Gr., p. 176) thinks it not genuine in the LXX. * lb., p. 435. But see Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 297. » Prol., p. 50. * Philologus, LXI., pp. 161 ff. ^ w.-M., p. 302. 8 K.-BI., I, p. 553; Schwab, Die Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comparative, 3. Heft, 1895, pp. 152 £f. ' Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 290; Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30. THE DECLENSIONS (kaISEIS) 277 probably originally qualitative in idea and does not necessarily imply excess. In the modern Greek these forms are not used at all.i They have disappeared before th* secondary comparative form -repos, which even in the earlier Greek is far more common. The ending -repos does imply excess and appears in various words that are not usually looked upon as comparatives, as e-repos ('one of two'), em-repos ('each of two'), rj/ik-repos (nos-ter), vfik-repos (vos-ter), i)o--Tepos.* So also dev-repos like wpo-Tepos (cf. Latin al-ter, Eng- lish other) is a comparative form.' "The comparison-suffixes luv, KTTos, repos belong to the Indo-Germanic ground speech."^ In the N. T. the forms in -uav, as in the papyri,^ hold their own only in the most common words. Schwab {op. dt., p. 5) makes -aros older than -raTos. 'Afieivcov is not used in the N. T. and pk\- TLov only as an adverb once (2 Tim. 1:18). 'EXdo-o-coj' appears four times, once about age as opposed to nel^wv (Ro. 9 : 12), once about rank as opposed to Kpelaauv (Heb. 7:7), once about excel- lence (Jo. 2:10) as again opposed to Kpeuraiav, and once as an adverb {ekaaaov, 1 Tim. 5:9) in the sense of less, not /iLKporepos ('smaller'). '"Hao-oj' (neuter only) is found in 1 Cor. 11 : 17 as op- posed to Kptiffcrov, and as an adverb in 2 Cor. 12 : 15. KdXXtov (Ac. 25 : 10) is an adverb. Yipdaawv is confined to Peter, Paul's Epis- tles and Hebrews (some eighteen examples, ten of them in Heb.). Metfwj' is common (some fifty times), though some of them dis- place the superlative as we shall see directly. The neuter plural (jid^ova) appears once as /^eifw (Jo. 1 : 50).* Once also (3 Jo. 4) the double comparative form /letforepos occurs, several simi- lar examples appearing in the papyri, as fiei^orepos, fieKavToorepov, TTpea^vTepcorkpaJ A few other examples in poetry and late Greek are cited by Winer-Moulton,* like KpeiTTortpos, ixti^ovonpos, nn.^b- 1 Cf.'Thumb, Handb., p. 73. ^ Cf. Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 292; Brug., Indoger. Forsch., 1903, pp. 7ff. ' Cf. Ascoli in Curtius' Stud, zur griech. und lat. Gr., 1876, p. 351. < Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., Heft I, 1893, p. 3. ' Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 298. He mentions /SeXriuy, k\aTepos. Cf. English vernacular "lesser." Taxiov (W. H. eiov), not daaaov, is the N. T. form as we read in the papyri also.' Cf . Jo. 20 : 4, etc. Xelpuv is found a dozen times (cf. Mt. 9:16). The ending -repos is more and more the usual one. Cf. Toixiirepos (Heb. 4:12). Some comparative adjectives are derived from positive adverbs like i^direpos (Mt. 8:12), effcorepos (Ac. 16:24), KarcoTepos (Eph. 4:9). These latter adjec- tives are common in the LXX and the later Greek, not to say- Attic sometimes.^ AtTrXoTepos (Mt. 23 : 15) is for the old Attic StirXoutrrepos. So Appian also. Cf. a-KKbrepov, Anthol. Pal., Ill, 158 (Dieterich, Unters., p. 181). The Ionic already had oKiyiirepos and Taxdnpos (Radermacher, Gr., p. 56). Cf. ayaddorepos (Hermas, Mand. VIII, 9, 11) and ayaduiraros (Diod., 16, 85). The rules for the use of -uirepos and -orepos apply in the N. T. As naWov is often used with the positive in lieu of the comparative ending, so it is sometimes with the comparative, a double comparative (/uSXXoj' Kptiaaov, Ph. 1:23; fiSXXov irtpKraoTtpov, Mk. 7:36), a construction not unknown to the classic orators of Athens where emphasis was desired.^ Paul did not perpetrate a barbarism when he used eXaxicrorepos (Eph. 3 : 8), a comparative on a superlative. It "is correctly formed according to the rule of the common language."'' Cf. also such a late form as eo-xarcijTepos.^ (c) The Superlative (virepderiKov ovond). As with the com- parative, so with the superlative there are primary and secondary forms. The primary superlative ending -toros (old Indian isthas, Zend, and Goth, ista) ^ did not perhaps represent the true super- lative so much as the elative (intensive like English "very") super- lative.'' It was never very widely used and has become extinct in modern Greek.* The Koivri inscriptions show only a few examples like ayxi^fTTa, eyyiara, koKKlctos, Kpariaros, iiiyiaTos, irXeiaros.^ In the papyri Mayser'" notes piXriCTov, eKax^rov (-io-tj/ also), mWl- ari), Kpa.Ti.aTOS, TrXeTcTot, Tax'wTriv (— Krra), x^'P'"'''"'/''' In the N. T., however, the superlative in -laros is more common than that in -raros, though none too frequent in itself. They are besides usu- ally elative (intensive) and not true superlatives." D reads iy- ' Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 35. Cf. also dneivdrepos in the older language (Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 34). ' W.-M., p. 81; Thack., Gr., p. 183. ' Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Heft III, p. 66. * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 34. » W.-M., p. 81, Jann., p. 147. « K.-Bl., I, p. 554; liirt, Handb. etc., p. 291. ' Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 144. ' Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 160; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 143. i» Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 298. " Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIs) 279 yicrra in Mk. 6 : 36. '0 eXdxio-ros (1 Cor. 15 : 9) is a true superla- tive, a thing so rare in the N. T. that Blass^ attributes this ex- ample either to the hterary lan^age or to corruption in the text.' But Moulton^ is able to find a parallel in the Tb.P. 24, ii/B.c. But more about true and elative superlatives in SjTitax (ch. XIV, xiv). In 2 Cor. 12:9, 15 (D in Ac. 13:8), we have TjSuTTa. KpaTLcrre (Lu. 1 : 3, etc.) is "only a title" (Moulton, p. 78). MaXitrra appears a dozen times only, though lioKKov is exceedingly common. Blass' indeed suggests that a popular sub- stitute for fiaXiara as for TrXettrTa was found in the use of irepto-o-os. This is much more true of the use of Trepio-o-os as the equivalent of ndXkov or irKe'uav (cf. Mt. 5 : 37; 27 : 23). Paul uses the comparative adverb irepiacoTepcas (Ph. 1 : 14. Cf . double comparative in Mk. 7: 36). In Heb. 7: 15 (cf. 2:1; 13 : 19 -cos) TepicaoTtpov tTL /cara- 6ijXoc we have more than /laXKov. Cf. niyiaros (2 Pet. 1 : 4) and 7rX«rov to be true to the Greek genius.^ In Mt. 27: 64 we have both e(Txa.ros and irpSiros used of two, earat 77 haxarri ifKavt] x^ipwv rrjs wpiirris. Uporepos is indeed used in the sense of the former in Eph. 4 : 22, whereas irporepov in the sense of the first of two does appear in Heb. 7:27 {rpbrepov — hfeird)? It is probably a de- fect in both Latin and Greek that the same forms were used to express the elative and true superlative sense (so as to compara- tive also).' As the dual vanished, so it was inevitable that with the same principle at work either the comparative or the superla- tive would. Outside of eo-xaros and rrpSiros where the principle crossed with a different appUcation because wporepos 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. « Farrar, 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 ^perlative, a usage occasion- ally found in classical Greek,'' and found now and then in the papyri.' See 1 Cor. 13: 13 to. rpla TavTa'fiei^ciiv di tovtuv ri ayaTrrj. See also 6 /teifcov (Mt. 18:4). But this matter will call for more comment under Syntax (ch. XIV, xiii, (i)). m. 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 modern 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 it 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 17 x'^'"'S (Lu. 14 : 31), x'^'O' .(2 Pet. 3 :8), ottokis (Mt. 18:21).' Number thus embraces sep- arate ideas. (6) The Cardinals (ow'/tara apiO/jirjTiKa). 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 (5ia-K6(noi, -at, -a) they have the regular 1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33. He cites the mod. Italian also which malces no distinction between the comp. and superl. ' Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., II, pp. 172 S. » Moulton, 01. 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. s Moulton, Prol., p. 58. « Cf. K.-Bl., 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, fila, 'iv is very interesting, for which see the compara- tive grammars.! jjjj jg 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, eh. XIV, xv, (a), but it may be remarked here that the papyri have rfj niq. Kal ei/cdSt (Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 35). The indeclinable use of eh (or adverbial use of Kara) is common in later Greek. Cf. koB' eh in Mk. 14 : 19; (Jo. 8:9); Ro. 12 : 5.^ So modern Greek uses eva as neuter with which Mayser^ compares eva as feminine on an early ostrakon. But the modem Greek decUnes ems, fila, eva in all genders (Thumb, Handb., p. 81). OMeis and ^i^eis are both very common in the N. T. with the inflection of els. Mr]deis occurs only once (Ac. 27 : 33). W. H. admit oWels only seven times (all in Luke and Paul, as Ac. 20 : 33), and once (Ac. 15 : 9) ovSev is in the margin. Jannaris {Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 170) calls this form in 6 chiefly Alexandrian, rare in Attic, but Mayser (Gr., p. 180) notes ovSeh as " Neubildung" while oWels is good Attic. For history of it see Orthography and Pho- netics, 3, (/). The frequent use of 8vo as indeclinable save in the plural form Svai in the later Greek has already been commented on in this chapter (i, 3), as well as the disappearance of afutxio be- fore afi^repoL. Indeclinable 8vo is classical, and after Aristotle 8vai is the normal dative (Thackeray, Or., p. 186). Tpla (possibly also rpts) is occasionally indeclinable in the papyri.* The common use of r'eacepa in the Koivi] and the occasional occurrence of reacapes as accusative in N. T. MSS. (Uke Northwest Greek) have been noticed in chapters VI, 2, (a), and VII, i, 7, (c).^ Xlej-re, ef and exrd need not detain us. The originally dual form oktco is found only ten times, and five of them with other numerals. 'Ewia appears only five times, while Sera is nothing like so conunon as eTra, not to mention the first five cardinals. "EvSeKa is found six times, but SwSeKa 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, 5ka comes first, usually without Kal, > Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 211; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 311; Giles, Man., p. 394. On numerals in the LXX see Thaok., Gr., pp. 186-190; C. and S., Sel. fr. the LXX, p. 30 f. 2 Cf. W.-M., p. 312. So &m tls (Rev. 21 : 21). ' Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 312. Perhaps the earUest ex. of indeclinable iva. 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 StKa o/crd) (Lu. 13 : 4), though once with KaL (Lu. 13 : 16). But unUke the papyri the N. T. never has 8eKa8bo.^ But deKairkure (as Jo. 11 : 18) and SeKarkccapes (as (Tal. 2 : 1) occur several times each. EiKocrt is a dual form, while TpLaKovra and so on are plural.^ 'EKarov is one hundred like a-7raj. W. H. accent iKaTovTaeriis, not -eTjjs. Usually no conjunction is used with these numerals, as t'lKoai rea-aapes (Rev. 19 : 4), eKarov eiKocrt (Ac. 1 : 15), but rtaaapa.- Kovra /cat H (Jo. 2 : 20). Cf. Rev. 13 : 18. In the LXX there is no fixed order for numbers above the "teens." Thackeray, Gr., p. 188. The N. T. uses xiXwi often and 5i(rxiXiot once (Mk. 5 : 13) and TpttrxtXtoi once (Ac. 2 : 41). The N. T. examples of nvpio^ by reason of case do not distinguish between fibpioi, 'ten thousand' (Mt. 18 : 24) and livpioi, 'many thousands' (1 Cor. 4 : 15). The N. T. uses /iupids several times for the latter idea ('myriads'), some- times repeated, as nvpiaSes iivpiASoiv (Rev. 5 : 11). So also xtX'^s is more common in the N. T. than x'Xiot, both appearing chiefly in Revelation (cf. 5 : 11). In Rev. 13 : 18 B and many cursives have x?s'=e?aK6crtoi i^riKovra e?, while the cursive 5 has xw' = e^aK6- (7iot SeKa e^. As a rule in the N. T. MSS. the numbers are spelled out instead of mere signs being used. (c) The Ordinals {ovoixara raKTiKo). They describe rank and raise the question of order, xio-Tos.' They are all adjectives of three endings and all have the superlative form -ros save irpo- rtpos and dw-repos which are comparative.* In most cases the ordinals are made from the same stem as the cardinals.^ But this is not true of Trpcoros nor indeed of 5ev-Tepos (not from 8vo, but from devofiai).^ Cf. the English superlative 'first' (with suffix -isto). IIpioTos has driven irporepos out of use in the N. T. except as an adverb (or t6 irporepov) save in one instance, irporkpav avaarpo^r]v (Eph. 4 : 22). The disappearance of irp&Tos before the ordinal use of ets 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., Uke the vernacular papyri' (so Ionic and Koivit generally), puts the smaller 1 A^Ktt bio is normal in the pap. of the Ptol. age. Cf. Rec, Ac. 19 : 7. Cf. Thack., Gr., p. 188. So also ikna rptU, and even ikna luas once. Always ikKO. reo-o-apes, bina wivre, StKa bKrii. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 35. 2 Giles, Man., p. 398. ' K.-Bl., I, p. 622. Cf. Brug., ttAo-tos, CI. Philol., 1907, p. 208. * These both have a superl., as Trpwros and Sedraros (Horn.). Biug., Gk. Gr., p. 212. 5 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 GRAMMAE OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT number first and as a compound with Kal, only the second half of the word in the ordinal form. So TeacaptaKaideicaTos (Ac. 27: 27), not TerapTos Kal 3kaTos (Attic).' But the papyri show examples of the usual Attic method,^ as ivaros Kal dKoarbs. The distinction between the decades (like TputKocrbs) and the hundreds (hke rpio- KoaioixTos) should be noted. In modern Greek all the ordinals have disappeared out of the vernacular save irpwros, Seiirepos, rpl- ros, Terapros.^ The article with the cardinal is used instead. (d) Distributives in the N. T. The multiplicative distrib- utives (with ending — ttXoDs) occur in the N. T. also. 'AttXoDs as an adjective is found only twice (Mt. 6 : 22; Lu. 11 : 34), both times about the eye. AittXoOs appears four times (as 1 Tim. 5:17). Cf. the Latin sim-plex, du-plex, English simple, diplomatic. The proportional distributives end in -irKaauav. As examples one may note iKaTOvrairKaalova (Lu. 8 : 8) and iroKKaifKaalova (Lu. 18 : 30). Cf. Enghsh "two-fold," "three-fold," etc. One of the com- monest ways of expressing distribution is by repetition of the numeral as in biio 5vo (Mk. 6:7). Cf. crvfnr6da\iJjov aov and ev tQ cxpdaKiiQ cod 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 ov, oT, e (without nominative) was chiefly 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 koivti 1 K.-Bl., I, p. 579, have only five. 2 Hirt, Handb., p. 296. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 84, for mod. Gk. ' Cf. K.-BL, 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, Phongt., p. 336. * Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 302 f. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 165. 5 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 33. He illustrates by the Eng.: "I will lay me down and sleep." Cf. intv in Mt. 6 : 19 f. « Riem. and Goelzer, Phon^t., p. 341. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIS) 287 in the use of aiiros (common also in Attic) instead of o5 as the third personal pronoun. It is used in all three genders and in all cases save that in the nomiffative it usually has emphasis (cf. Mt. 1 : 21), a matter to be discussed under Syntax. Indeed airos, whatever its etymology, is originally an intensive pro- noun (like Latin ipse), not a personal pronoun.' The "frequent and almost inordinate use" (Thayer) of avros in the LXX (cf. Jer. 18 : 3 f .) and the N. T. is noticeable. So modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 86) (6) The Intensive Peonoun. The N. T. has nothing new to say as to the form of the intensive aMs. It is usually in the nominative that it is intensive like airos fi6vos (Jo. 6 : 15), though not always (cf. Jo. 14 : 11). The modern Greek ^ uses also a shorter form rod, etc. (also Pontic droO), as personal pronoun. The use of 6 abros may be compared with 6 iStos. See ch. XV, iii, (g). (c) Reflexive Pkonouns. The reflexive form is nothing but the personal pronoun plus the intensive aiiTos. The reflexive is one use of this intensive in combination with the personal pro- noun. They were originally separate words.' So avrds 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 (kfuivTov, aeavTov). In 2 Th. 1:4 avToiis vixas is obviously inten- sive, not reflexive. In 1 Cor. 7 : 35 riiiwv avrSiv it is doubtful.^ See ch. XV, IV, for further discussion. The contracted form aavrov is not found in the N. T. It is common in the Kingdom books in the LXX and occurs in the papyri. See even carov in o-ii /SXeTre (Tanv airo twv 'lovda'uav, B.G.U. 1079 (a.D. 41). So as to avrov. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 190. The modem Greek uses tov enavrov fjLov for the reflexive (Thumb, Handb., p. 88). The reflexive for the third person* (usually iavrov in the singular, about twenty tiines avTov, etc., in W. H., as avrov 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. airov, Pet. 1. 15, 15) and the 1 Flensberg (tjber Urspr. und Bild. des Pron. airos, 1893, p. 69) denies that it is from av, but rather from 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 1 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 atp' iavrov against airo ceavTov (KBCL) in Jo. 18 : 34. In Gal. 5 : 14 and Ro. 13 : 9 only Syrian uncials have iavrov 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 (SoKco 1X01, for instance).* (d) Possessive Pronouns (KTrjriKal avTtowfiiai). 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, ff(j)kTipos) have entirely disappeared. S6s is found in only two of Paul's letters: 1 Cor. and Phil., and these only three times. 26s is found about twenty-six times and vfierepos eleven (two doubtful, Lu. 16:12; 1 Cor. 16:17). 'T/xkrepos appears in Paul only in 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Ro. 'Rfikrepos appears only nine times counting Lu. 16 : 12, where W. H. have ifierepov in the margin, and Ac. 24 : 6 which W. H. reject. It is only e/ids 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 knos, 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 argument. The Gospel of Luke has kp.6s 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 k/ws is natiirally in the mouth of Jesus (or of John his reporter) more than a6s, 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.). < 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. 6 Theol. Literaturzeit., 1893, p. 421. ' ProL, p. 40 f. He admits that the other possessives do not tell the same story. « 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 V'Stos need only be mentioned here. The Boeotian inscriptions show f'lSios in this sense as early as 150 B.C. (Claflin, Syntax of Bwotian Inscriptions, p. 42). The line of distinction between the pronouns is thus not always distinct, as when iavrSiv {aircov) 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 modern, his being origi- nally neuter also. (e) Demonstrative Phonouns (SeiKTiKoi avravv/^iai). But deictic must have a special limitation, for all pronouns were pos- sibly originally deictic (marking an object by its position). The anaphoric {avaopiKal) 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.'' "05e* 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. rASe 'Kkyti (as Rev. 2 : 1, etc.). The others are T&Se (Ac. 21 : 11), T^Se (Lu. 10 : 39), r^livSi (Jas. 4 : 13) .^ ' Simoox, Lang, ot the N. T., p. 54. Dr. Abbott (Joh. Gr., p. 295) thinks that John's love of contrast leads him to use iiuls as often as all the Synoptists. 2 So Riem. and Goelzer in their Phon6t., pp. 316 S. » lb. 4 Gildersleeve (Am. Jour, of Phil., 1907, p. 235) considers 6Se the pron. of the first person, oBtos of the second, iKflvos of the third. 6 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 GRAMMAR OF 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, and chiefly here also raSe 'Kk-yu (Thackeray, Gr., p. 191). There are also many examples of os as a demonstrative, as Ro. 14 : 5 and also cf . 6, ^, to with 6e, as ol Sk in Mt. 27 : 4. This latter de- monstrative construction is very common. Aiitos is beginning to have a semi-demonstrative sense (common in modern Greek) in the N. T., as in Lu. 13 : 1, kv aiirQ tQ Kaipif. There is little to say on the non-syntactical side about keiyos and ouros save that both are very common in the N. T., ovtos extremely so, perhaps four times as often as kelws which is relatively more frequent in John.^ Blass^ points out the fact that oiiroa-l does not appear in the N. T. (nor in the LXX), though the adverb vvv-l is fairly common in Paul and twice each in Acts and Hebrews. Ovxl is much more frequent especially in Luke and Paul. Smyth^ compares k-Ktivos (Keivos in Homer) to Oscan e-tanto. Modern Greek uses both forms and also €-ToOros and toDtos in the nominative.^ Of the correlative demonstratives of quality rolos is not found in the N. T. and roLoade only once (2 Pet. 1 : 17). Tou>vtos (neuter ToiovTo and -ov) occurs less than sixty times, chiefly in the Gospels and Paul's earlier Epistles (Gal. 5 :21). We find neither t6o-os nor Toaoabi and toctoOtos (the only correlative demonstrative of quantity) is less frequent than rotoDros (cf. Lu. 7:9). The neuter is also in -ov and -o. Of the correlatives of age ttjKmovtos alone is found four times (cf. Jas. 3:4). -See also ch. XV, vi. (/) Relative Pronouns {avao} is gone, but Lp^brepoi lingers on in some four- teen instances (cf. Mt. 9 : 17). 'KK\i]\bripoi the only surviving dual pronoun, and it goes down in the modern Greek along with kp^oTtpoi..* It is less common (97 times) in the N. T. 1 Dieterich, Unters., p. 202; Hatz., Einl., p. 207. 2 Thumb, Handb., p. 95 f. » lb., p. 98. * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 179. The pap. (Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 312) show a few examples of kulvrepos, liriikrepos, Sirdrepos. Once (Prov. 24 : 21) the LXX has nifikrepos. THE DECLENSIONS (kAISEIs) 293 than oXXos (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 'erepos belongs to Syntax. The use of els t6v ha as reciprocal (1 Th. 5: 11) and of iavrcov (1 Cor. 6:7) along with other uses of ftXXos and h-epos will receive treatment under Syntax. V. ADVERBS CEniPPHMATA) 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. inrep kyco (2 Cor. 11 : 23). That is a perfunctory error which assimies 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 at many points and glide 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. ' 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 . Cf . Schroeder, tJber die form. Untersch. der Redet., p. 35 f.; Delbriick, Grundr., Bd. Ill, p. 536 f. 294 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 2. Formation of the Adverb. The name suggests a mere addendum to the verb, an added word (like 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 Kod' els in the addition to John's Gospel (Jo. 8 : 9), t6 Kad' els (Ro. 12 : 6). Cf. ava-nl^. Examples of the various cases as used in the N. T. will be given without attempting to be exhaustive. The Koi.vri and the modern 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 modern Greek accusative plural is more common even in the comparative (Thumb, Handb., p. 77). Take for the positive avpiov, eWii (s added later), hyyv{i), nkya, ukaov, ifkijalov, TToXii, raxv, cijixepov, dXXa (aXXa), ttoXXo, iMKpliv. The com- parative may be illustrated by xiartpov, ^ikriov, and the superlative by irpuiTov (and irpcora) and rfhcrra. Cf . also TaxlcTriv. Sometimes the article is used with the adjective where the adverbial idea is encroaching, as t6 Xoixoj', to. TroXXa, and note also riyv apxfiv (Jo. 8 : 25), substantive with article. But the substantive alone has abundant examples also, as aKixiiv, dpxvv, Bcapeav, irkpav, X'^P"'- 1 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 (kAISEIs) 295 XxeSov is a specimen of the adverb in -Sov, -da. Cf . also onodvua- 86u, jSotfijSoi'. The accusative in adverbs is specially characteristic of the Koivii (cf. Mayser, Gr. d.^riech. 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. (5) The Ablative. All adverbs in -ois are probably ablatives. KdhSis, for instance, is from an original Ka\S>8. The S (Sanskrit t) is dropped and a final s is added.' Cf . old Latin meritod, fadlumed.^ The oOtcos, cos of the Greek correspond exactly with the old Sanskrit tad, ydd^ The ending in -os comes by analogy to be exceedingly common. Practically any adjective can by -ws make an adverb in the positive. Some, like dSiaXeiirrajs, belong to the later Greek (KOLvij).^ Participles also may yield such adverbs as ^etSo/tevajs (2 Cor. 9:6), biw\oyoviih>m (1 Tim. 3 : 16), 6vTm (Mk. 11 : 32). Radermacher {N. T. Gk., p. 54) cites apKovvrm, TeTokixrjKOTuis (Diod., XVI, 74. 6), etc. The bulk of the adverbs in -cos are from adjectives and pronouns. But the examples of -- dvnaSov (Ac. 18: 12). For -ijs we may note e^aivris, e^s, k(t>e^rjs. Those in -6e{v) are numerous, like avtaOev, i^wdev, ovpavSdev, ttcuSlo- dev, etc. AiiTodi. is common in the papyri, but not in the N. T.' The deictic i appears in vwL and ovxl- An example of -ts appears in MoXis (cf. fuyyis Text. Rec. in Lu. 9:39). For —rl note "E/Spai- arl, 'EXXTjj'to-Ti, AvkoovuttI, 'Pco/iaiVri. For — /ca take ^vka. For -y we have vvv, waXiv. For —re we may mention o-re, iro-re. Then -$ is added in the case of 8is, rpls and various other words like &xpK) eWiis, fiixpi-i) oiiTus, TerpaKLS, X'^PWj etc. 'E/teTcre is an instance of —ae. Then — ros appears in kros, ecros, Finally -xa is seen in ev- wxa. The papyri furnish parallels for practically all these N. T. examples (and many more).' "Airaf seems to stand by itself. (c) CoMPOiJND Adverbs. 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. * Handb,, p. 321. ' Griech. Gr., p. 252. Cf . also p. 229 f., where he acknowledges the other point of view as possible. « Grundr., p. 60 f. ' In Lat. adv. are partly remnants of case-forms and partly buUt by anal- ogy. Draeger, Hist. Synt., p. 109. For Gk. see also Lutz, Die Casus-Adv. bei att. Rednem (1891). ' Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 456. » 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 (kAISEIs) 297 ing of several words into one word, perhaps with modification by analogy. The Koivi] is rather rich in these compound ad- verbs and Paul fairly revels in Iftiem. As samples take eKiraXat (2 Pet. 2:3), Karhavn (2 Cor. 12:19), Karevdiinov (Eph. 1:4), Trapaurka (2 Cor. 4:17), dirpoirwToX^/uTrTws (1 Pet. 1:17), xapa- XPWa (Lu. 1:64), virep6.vu (Eph. 4: 10), inrtpkKtLva (2 Cor. 10: 16), {nrfp€Kirepi.cTs exovcra (Pap. Brit. M., 42). EC, so common in Attic, has nearly gone in the N. T. (only in Mk. 14 : 7; Mt. 25 : 21, 23; Ac. 15 : 29; Eph. 6 : 3 quot.). EBye occurs also in Lu. 19 : 17 (W. H. text, margin eC). KaXiSs is common. BeXnov ap- pears once (2 Tim. 1 : 18) and Kpeiaaov often (1 Cor. 7: 38). The comparative adverb SLirXorepou (Mt. 23 : 15) is irregular in form (aTkoixTTtpov) and late.^ (6) Adverbs op Place. These answer the questions "where" and "whence." "Whither" is no longer a distinct idea in N. T. Greek nor the Koivq generally. Even in ancient Greek the distinc- tion was not always maintained.^ Blass^ carefully illustrates how "here" and "hither" are both expressed by such words as ivOaSe (Ac. 16 : 28; Jo. 4 : 16), oddly enough never by kpraWa, though &de (especially in the Gospels) is the common word (Lu. 9 : 33, 41). But ket is very common in the sense of 'there' and 'thither' (here again chiefly in the Gospels) as in Mt. 2 : 15, 22. 'E/ceto-e ('thither') is found only twice, and both times in Acts (21 : 3; 22 : 5), which has a literary element. So oS in both senses (Lu. 4 : 16; 10 : 1) and mov (very common in John's Gospel, 14 : 3 f.). The interrogative wov (Jo. 1:39; 3:8) follows suit. The indefinite irov is too little used to count (Heb. 2 : 6) and once without local idea, rather 'about' (Ro. 4 : 19). 'AXXaxoO occurs once (Mk. 1: 38), but iravraxov several times (Lu. 9 : 6, etc.). '0/ioO is found four times only (Jo. 4 : 36, etc.), and once D adds 6/i6o-e (Ac. 20 : 1 Moulton, Pro!., p. 171. 2 lb., p. 171 f. But adv. from verbs are "late and always rare," Giles, Man., p. 342. 3 Gr. of N. T. Gr., pp. 58ff. "lb. 'lb. « lb. 300 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 18). Uavraxfiiv) likewise is read once (Ac. 21:28), Syrian class -ov. In Ac. 24 : 3 xAyrijd?) is contrasted with iravTaxov- Other adverbs of place in the N. T. are avu, 'tvrbs, kKTos, etrco, e^w, k&tui. A number of adverbs answer to the question "whence." They are usually words in -6ev. 'AWaxodev (Jo. 10 : 1) is found only once in the N. T. "Avweec (Mk. 15 : 38) is more frequent, though never Karoidev. The only pronominal forms that appear in the N. T. are iKeWev (Rev. 22 : 2, rather common in Matthew), ivBev (Mt. 17 : 20), kvTtWev (twice in Jo. 19 : 18, and in contrast with iKdOev Rev. 22:2), T&vTodev (Mk. 1:45), Sdev (Mt. 12:44), Tddep (Mt. 21:25). The last two are fairly frequent. Blass' notes how "stereotyped and meaningless" the ending -dev has become in many examples, especially with enirpoadev (common in Matthew and Luke) and &Tci Giles, Man., p. 341. Cf. also Krebs, Die Prapositionsadverbien in der spateren hist. Grac, Tl. I, 1884. 2 Giles, ib. On "Nouns used as Prep." see Donaldson, New Crat., pp. 478 ff. ' lb. 4 Green, Handb., etc., p. 138. " Giles, Man., p. 343. 302 A GREEK GRAMMAR OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Kovv). But Blass has not given a complete list. Cf. also dcori, odev, ov, oTToi, irore, etc. Fifteen other Attic particles are absent from this N. T. list. The matter will come up again in eh. XXI. (c) Adverbs and Intensive Particles. Ukp is an older form of irep-L Usually, however, as with ye, the origin is obscure. Others used in the N. T. are 5i], Briirov, /xiv, toL (with other par- ticles). Seech. XXI. (d) Adverbs and Interjections. Interjections are often merely adverbs used in exclamation. So with aye, devpo, devre, ea, I5e, l8ov, ova, oiial, S>. Interjections may be mere sounds, but they are chiefly words with real meaning. "A7e and Me are both verb- stems and idov is kin to 'ide. The origin of the adverbs here used as interjections is not always clear. Obai as in Mt. 11:21 (common in the LXX, N. T. and Epictetus) has the look of a dative, but one hesitates. As a substantive 17 ovai is probably due to d\i\(/is or TttXaiircopta (Thayer). Cf. chapters XII, v, and XVI, v, (e), for use of article with adverb, as rd vvv. For the adverb like adjective, as ij ovTm xi)pa (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. AeDpo sometimes is almost a verb (Mk. 10:21). The rela- tive adverb cos is used as an exclamation in cos cbpaioi (Ro. 10 : 15) and cos ave^epeiivriTa (Ro. 11 : 33). The interrogative xcos is like- wise so employed, as xcos biianokov 'ean (Mk. 10 : 24), ttcos ctuc^xoa"" (Lu. 12 : 50), xcos k^'CKei airSv (Jo. 11 : 36). Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 258. Thus we see many sorts of adverbs and many ways of making them. CHAPTER VIII CONJUGATION OP THE VERB ("PHMA) I. Difficulty of the Subject. The discussion of the verb gives greater difficulty than that of the noun for two reasons especially. For one thing the declension (/cXio-is) of nouns is more stable than the conjugation {av^vyia) of the verb. This difficulty applies to both the forms and the syntax of the verb.' There is besides spe- cial difficulty in the Greek verb due to the ease and number of new verbal formations.^ Sanskrit and Greek can be compared with more ease than Greek and Latin. Giles' indeed calls the Latin verb-system "only a mutilated fragment" of the original parent stock, so that "a curious medley of forms" is the result, while in the syntax of the verb no two Indo-Germanic languages are fur- ther apart than Greek and Latin. Both noun and verb have suffered greatly in the ravages of time in inflection. It is in de- clension (cases) and conjugation (personal endings) that noun and verb mainly differ.* "These suffixes [used for the present tense], however, are exactly parallel to the suffixes in the substantive, and in many instances can be identified with them."^ II. Nature of the Verb. (a) Verb and Noun. In itself verbum is merely 'word,' any word, and so includes noun also. As a matter of fact that was probably true originally. In isolating languages only position and the context can determine a verb from a noun, and that is often true in English to-day. But in inflected tongues the case-endings and the personal endings mark off noun and verb. But in simple truth we do not know which is actually older, noun or verb; both probably grew up together from the same or similar roots. ^ Schoemann,^ however, is much more positive that "the first word > Giles, Man., p. 403 f. ' Hirt, Handb., p. 332. = Man., p. 404. * Steinthal, Zeitschr. fur Volkerpsych. etc., p. 351. Of. Schleicher, Unter- scheidung von Nomen und Verbum etc., 4. Bd. der Abh. d. phil. etc., 1865, p. 509. ' Giles, Man., p. 424. ' Schroeder, Uber die form. TJntersch. d. Redet. im Griech. und Lat., 1874, pp. 10 ff. ' Die Lehre von den Redet. etc., 1864, p. 31. 303 304 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT which man spoke was essentially much more a verb than a noun." But, whether the verb is the first word or not, it is undoubtedly the main one and often in the inflected tongue forms a sentence in itself, since the stem expresses the predicate and the ending the subject.' It is worth noting also that by the verb-root and the pronominal root (personal endings) the verb unites the two ulti- mate parts of speech. The verb and noun suffixes, as already said, are often identical (Giles, Manual, etc., p. 424). In all sentences the verb is the main part of speech (the word par excellence) save in the copula {kaTi) where the predicate is com- pleted by substantive or adjective or adverb (another Unk be- tween verb and noun). "A noun is a word that designates and a verb a word that asserts" (Whitney, Am. Jour, of Philol., xiii, p. 275). A man who does not see that "has no real bottom to his grammatical science." (6) Meaning of the Verb. Scholars have found much diffi- culty in defining the verb as distinct from the noun. Indeed there is no inherent difference between nouns and verbs as to action, since both may express that.^ The chief difference lies in the idea of affirmation. The verb affirms, a thing not done by a noun ex- cept by suggested predication. Verbs indicate affirmation by the personal endings. Affirmation includes negative assertions also.' Farrar^ cites also the German "abstract conception of existence" (Humboldt) and action (Tdtigkeitswort) , but they do not fit the facts. Curiously enough many ancient grammarians found time to be the main idea in the verb. (c) Pure and Hybrid Verbs. The close kinship between nouns and verbs appears in the verbal nouns which partake of both. The infinitive is a verbal substantive, and the participle is a verbal adjective. There is also the verbal in —ros and -rkos. Some of the properties of both verb and noun belong to each. They are thus hybrids. They are generally called non-finite ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 1. In the Sans, it is to be noted that the noun had an earlier and a more rapid development than the verb. The case-endings appear first in the Sans., the verb-conjugation in the Gk., though the personal endings are more distinct in the Sans. ' Cf . Gamett, Philol. Ess. » Cf. Gr. G&. of Port Royal; Farrar, Gk: Synt., p. 38. * lb. He considers the verb later than the noun because of its complex idea. Cf. Schramm, t)ber die Bedeutung der Formen des Verbums (1884); Curtius, Die Bildung der Tempera und Modi im Griech. und Lat. (1846); Junius, Evolution of the Greek Verb from Primary Elements (1843); Lauten- sach, Verbalflexion der att. Inschr. (1887); Hogue, Irregular Verbs of Attic Prose (1889). CONJUGATION OP THE VERB ('PHMa) 305 verbs, because they do not make affirmation. They have no per- sonal endings. They fall short of being mere verbs, but they are more than the noun. The pure -^rb has personal endings and is thus finite (limited). The two must be kept distinct in mind, though they run together sometimes in treatment. The finite verb has person and number expressed in the personal ending.^ The verbum finitum has modes while the verbum infinitum (in- finitive and participle) has no modes. III. The Building of the Verb. This is not the place for a full presentation of the phenomena concerning verb-structure. The essential facts as to paradigms must be assumed. But attention can be called to the fact that the Greek verb is built up by means of sufl[ixes and affixes around the verb-root. So it was originally, and a number of such examples survive. Afterwards analogy, of course, played the main part. The oldest verbs are those which have the simple root without a thematic vowel Uke 0?j-/ii or 'e-^ri-v. This root is the ground floor, so to speak, of the Greek verb. On this root the aorist and present-tense systems were built by merely adding the personal endings. This was the simplest form of the verb. There is no essential difference in form between i-ri-v and ^-o-TTj-y. We call one imperfect- indicative and the other second aorist indicative, but they are originally the same form.^ The term second aorist is itself a misnomer, for it is older than the so-called first aorist -era or -a. The thematic stem (vowel added to root) is seen in verbs like -Xiir-o/e. On this model the rest of the verb is built. So all Greek root-verbs are either non- thematic or thematic. The denominative verbs like n-ixa-ca ■ are all thematic. On roots or stems then all the verbs (simple or compound) are built. The modes, the voices, the tenses all con- tribute their special part to the whole. The personal endings have to carry a heavy burden. They express not only person and number, but also voice. There are mode-signs and tense-suf- fixes, but no separate voice suSixes apart from the personal endings. The personal pronouns thus used with the verb-root antedate the mode and tense suffixes. The Sanskrit preserves the person-endings more clearly than the Greek, though the Greek has a more fully developed system of modes and tenses than the later classical Sanskrit.' It seems certain that these pro- ' Cf. Brug., Grundr., Bd. II, pp. 2, 837. On difference between finite and non-finite verbs see Curtius, Das Verbum d. griech. Spr., p. 1 f. 2 Hirt, Handb., p. 363 f. Cf. also Giles, Man., pp. 425 ff. = Donaldson, New Crat., pp. 570 ff. 306 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT nominal suffixes, like -jui, -en, -ri, are not in the nominative, but an oblique case^ connected with the stem: fjie, ae, tl (cf. demon- strative to). But the subject of personal endings is a very exten- sive and obscure one, for treatment of which see the comparative grammars.^ There is a constant tendency to syncretism in the use of these personal endings. Homer has fewer than the Sanskrit, but more than Plato. The dual is gone in the N. T. and other endings drop away gradually. The nominative pro- noun has to be expressed more and more, like modern English. IV. The Survival of -|Jii, Verbs. (a) A Cross Division. Before we take up modes, voices, tenses, we are confronted with a double method of inflection that cuts across the modes, voices and tenses. One is called the ~ni inflection from the immediate attachment of the personal endings to the stem. The other is the -co inflection and has -the the- matic vowel added to the stem. But the difference of inflection is not general throughout any verb, only in the second aorist and the present-tense systems (and a few second perfects), and even so the -fii conjugation is confined to four very common verbs (tT/jut, laTTifii, dlSiofii., TWrijiL), except that a number have it either in the present system, like delK-vv-fiL (with vv inserted here), or the aorist, like €-/35j-c.' The dialects differed much in the use of non-thematic and thematic verbs (cf. Buck, "The Interrelations of the Greek Dialects," Classical Philology, July, 1907, p. 724). (6) The Oldest Verbs. This fact is a commonplace in Greek grammar. It is probable that originally all verbs were -fii verbs. This inflection is preserved in optative forms like \voLfii, and in Homer the subjunctive^ idk'Kcjfj.i., Umni., etc. The simplest roots with the most elementary ideas have the -m, form.^ Hence the conclusion is obvious that the -/ii conjugation that survives in some verbs in the second aorist and present systems (one or both) is the original. It was in the beginning 'Key-o-fu with the- matic as well as 0r)-/it with non-thematic verbs.^ (c) Gradual Disappearance. In Latin the -/ml ending is seen only in inquam and sum, though Latin has many athematic stems. In Enghsh we see it in am. Even in Homer the -jut ' Donaldson, New Crat., pp. 570 ff. Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 39. 2 Cf. Hirt, Handb.,pp. 355 ff.; Giles, Man., pp. 413 ff. 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 232 f. ^ Monro, Hem. Gr., p. 51. ' Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 46. » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 2. Cf. Clyde, Gk. Synt., 5th ed., 1876, p. 54; Riem. and Goelzer, Phonet., pp. 347 ff. CONJUGATION OP THE VERB (tHMA) 307 forms are vanishing before the -co conjugation. Jannaris (Hist. Gk. Gr., p." 234) has an excellent brief sketch of the gradual vanishing of the -/ui forms which flourished chiefly in pre-Attic Greek. The LXX MSS. show the same tendency towards the disappearance of -/it forms so noticeable in the N. T., the papyri and other representatives of the KOLvr). See numerous parallel illustrations in Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 104-110. In the LXX the transition to -co verbs is less advanced than in the N. T. (Thackeray, Gr., p. 244) and the middle -/^t forms held on longest. In the kolvti this process kept on till in modern Greek vernacular elfiai is the only remnant left. In the Attic deUvvni, for instance, is side by side with SeiKvvoi. In the N. T. we find such forms as didSi (Rev. 3:9), iarui (Ro. 3:31, EKL), cvmaTw (2 Cor. 3:1, BD). (d) N. T. Usage as to -fii Verbs. The -fii 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 -III 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 jSaXXw (?-j3Xij-To instead of the thematic and later k-^oK-t-To) "prim- itive aorists." In the early Epic the root-aorists and strong thematic aorists outnimiber the a or weak aorists by three to one.' The important N. T. -ixi verbs will now be considered. BaXvo). Only in composition in N. T. {ava-, irpocr-ava-, avv- ava—, airo-, Sia—, e/c— , in-, Kara—, fiera-, wapa-, irpo-, (TVIX-) . In the LXX it is rare in simplex. The papyri use it freely with nine prepositions.^ Note the common forms like avi^ri (Mt. 5:1). The "contract" forms are in the imperative as in the Attic poets (et(7)3a, KarajSa).^ Mayser* gives no examples from the papyri, nor does the LXX have any (LXX only ava^ridi, KaraPridi., -fivre, -^vrca, -p^Twaav).'' So avafia (Rev. 4 : 1), ava^are (Rev. 11 : 12), /card/Sa (Syrian class in Mk. 15 : 30), Kara^Lrco (Mt. 24 : 17; 27 : 42. Of. " Cf . King and Cookson, Prin. of Sound and Inflexion, 1888, pp. 225 ff. 2 Gk. Gr., 1893, p. 245. s Thompson, Horn. Gr., 1890, p. 127. ^ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 50. * Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 389. « Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 364 f. ' W.-Sch., p. 115. Cf. Veitch, Gk. Verb, p. 110. 308 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT also Mk. 13 : 15; 15 : 32; Lu. 17 : 31), Aieri/Sa (Mt. 17 : 20). On the other hand note the usual KarajSijSt (Mt. 27 : 40,'etc.), /xeri.- Pridi. (Jo. 7:3), ■wpoaavh^-qBi (Lu. 14 : 10). The forms in -drco, -are, -aroxrav are like the Doric. rivcocTKO). This verb in the Ionic and Koivi] '/iv. form is very- common in John's Gospel and the First Epistle. It is used in com- position with am-, Sm-, eiri-, Kara-, irpcr-, the papyri adding still other compounds.^ The N. T. shows the usual second aorist forms Uke iyvuiv (Lu. 16 : 4). What calls for remark is the second aorist subjunctive yvoi instead of yv^. W. F. Moulton's view^ on this point is confirmed by the papyri' parallel in avobot and accepted by W. H. and Nestle. Analogy seems to have worked here to make yvol like 3oi. But Winer-Schmiedel (p. 115) cite 71'oT from Hermas, Mand. IV, 1, 5 X. It is in accordance with the contrac- tion of -ow verbs when we find forms like yvoi, doZ, etc., 6jj = oi in- stead of &!i = Q. For 7^01 see Mk. 5 : 43; 9 : 30; Lu. 19 : 15. But see also yvQ in Jo. 7 : 51; 11 : 57 (D has yvot) ; 14 : 31; Ac. 22 : 24 (iiTL-). But the MSS. vary in each passage. In the LXX the regular yvco occurs save in Judith 14 : 5, where B has knyvoZ. AC8(0|jLi. This very common verb is frequently compounded {ava—, avT-, diro-, hia.-, 'eK—, kin—, juera-, xapa— , irpo-) as in the papyri.* The old indicative active appears only in irapeSoaav in the hterary preface to Luke's Gospel (1 : 2).^ Elsewhere the first aorist forms in -m (like rJKa, i9r]Ka) sweep the field for both singu- lar and plural. These k forms for the plural appear in the Attic inscriptions in the fourth century b.c' and rapidly grow. In the papyri Mayser' finds only the k aorists. The other modes go regularly 56s, 8u, etc. The indicative middle occasionally, as the imperfect, has e for o of the root. This is possibly due to proportional analogy (e^eSero : k^edofiriu = kkvero : 'eKvbiir]v) .^ These forms are hirkheTo (Heb. 12 : 16), k^kbero (Mk. 12 : 1; Mt. 21 : 33; Lu. 20 : 9). The usual form aireboade, etc., appears in Ac. 5 : 8; 7:9. The subjunctive active third singular shows great varia- tion between Sol, 5(? (cf. yvdi above), and Sijj (especially in Paul's Epistles).^ The LXX MSS. occasionally give -hoi and • Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 391. « W.-M., p. 360 note. » Moulton, Prol., p. 55. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 137, 325, for irm doT. Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, pp. 37, 436. < Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap,, p. 392. « Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 188 f. " Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 49. ' Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 367 f. » So W.-H., Notes on Orth., p. 167 f. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 121. For pap. exx. see Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 37. « Cf. Blaas, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 49. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB ('PHMa) 309 even -Sg by assimilation (Thackeray, Gr., p. 255 f.). For papyri examples see references under yiviiaKca. Mark four times (all the examples) has TrapoSot accordinglio the best MSS. (4 : 29; 8 : 37; 14 : 10 f.) and John one out of three (13 : 2). Tisch. (not W. H.) reads diroSoi in 1 Th. 5 : 15, but all MSS. have airoS^ in Mt. 18 : 30. W. H. accept SQ in Jo. 15 : 16; Eph. 3 : 16; 1 Th. 5 : 15 (dxo-). Most MSS. read Scbj; in Eph. 1 : 17 and 2 Tim. 2 : 25, in both of which places W. H. put S(^ (opt. for SoLtj) in the text and Sun in the margin. The opt. 54"? appears in the LXX (Jer. 9 : 2) in the text of Swete. Con. and Stock, Sel. from LXX, p. 45, give 54"? twenty-nine times in LXX and So'lt] three times as variant. They give an interesting list of other forms of didcaiit. and its compounds in the LXX. Hort' is doubtful about such a subjunctive in Swj? except in the epic poets. Blass^ is willing to take Scbp, and Moulton' cites Boeotian and Delphian inscriptions which preserve this Homeric form. He adds that the subjunctive seems "a syntactical necessity" in Eph. 1 : 17 and 2 Tim. 2 : 25. The opt. d<^ = doiri (cf. subjunctive 5627=3(3) is with- out variant in 2 Th. 3 : 16; 2 Tim. 1 : 16, 18.^ Blass^ scouts the idea of a possible first aorist active 'edcacra from tw Scbo-j (Jo. 17 : 2 K^AC), Scbo-w/iei/ (Mk. 6 : 37, ND), on the ground that v and ei, o and o) so often blend in sound in the kolv^. The so-called future subjunctive will be discussed later (ch. XIX). "ItifJU. Not in simplex in N. T. (see p. 314 for details), but d^iTj/x' is quite common (especially in the Gospels), and avviriiu less so. Besides a few examples occur also of avitjiu., Kadirjui, irap'vqui. The papyri* use the various prepositions freely in com- position with tijixi. The common ixi second aorists, hke a^es (Mt. 3 : 15), d# (Mk. 12 : 19), kvkvTes (Ac. 27: 40), are found. In the indicative active, however, the form in -m is used alone in both singular and plural, as d^i^Ka/iej' (Mt. 19 : 27), d^jj/care (Mt. 23 : 23), d^^fcai' (Mk. 11 :6). This is true of all the compounds of hiiu. in the N. T. as in LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 252). The form d(^^/c€s (Rev. 2 : 4) is on a par with the second person sin- gular perfect active indicative as accepted by W. H. in Ke/coiriaKes (Rev. 2 :3), irkirruKes (Rev. 2 : 5), tiXij^es (Rev. 11 : 17).' ' A(j)iiKaiJ.fv is aorist in Mk. 10 : 28 as well as in its parallel Mt. 19 : 27 1 Notes on Orth., p. 168. Cf. also W.-8ch., p. 121. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 48 f. ' Prol., p. 55. Cf. Dittenb., Syll., 462. 17, etc. < Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 168. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 49, 212. 8 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 o-ufij/caTt in Mt. 13 : 51. The per- fect in -twa 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-TT||i,i. This verb is used freely by itself, especially in the Gospels, and occurs in twenty prepositional combinations ac- cording to Thayer (av-, hr-av-, k^-av-, avd-, d0-, 5t-, iv-, ef-, kir-, k—, Kar-ecj}—, crvv-e4>—, Kad—, omti-koB—, a,iro-Kad~, /xe9— , irap—, xepi— , irpo—, (Tvv-), going quite beyond the papyri in richness of expression.^ The second aorist active indicative ea-rrj (airka-Tri, etc.) is common and is intransitive as in Attic, just like kaTodri (cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 50). The other forms are regular {arci, (TTrjdi, etc.) save that drao-ra (like avafia) is read in a few places (Ac. 9 : 11; 12 : 7; Eph. 5 : 14), but (TTrjdi, avacrTTjOL (Ac. 9 : 6, 34), 'eirlriK(Te (Mt. 23 : 23), not to say iiipaKes (Jo. 8 : 57), i\ii\v8a (Ac. 21 : 22, B also). Moulton (Prol., p. 52) considers -es a "mark of imperfect Gk." For further exx. of this -es ending in the LXX and koi.vI) see Buresch, Rhein. Mus. etc., 1891, p. 222 f. For 117^1 and its compounds in the LXX see C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 45 f., showing numerous -w forms, &rjKa.v (Xen. ^Kav), 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 iar&vai and its compounds m the LXX see interesting list in C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 43 f., giving -w forms, transitive iaraKa, 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 OP THE VERB ("PHMA) 311 imperfect and aorist." It is common in the N. T. as aorist (Mt. 4 : 7, for instance, etjni). It is no^lways possible to decide. 2. Some -fit Presents. It is difficult to group these verbs ac- cording to any rational system, though one or two small groups (like those in -vviu, -j/jui) appear. The presents are more com- mon in the N. T. than the aorists. The list is based on the un- compounded forms. AetK-vu-jJii. Already in the Attic 8ukvvco is common, but Blass' observes that in the N. T. the middle-passive -fu forms are still rather common. It is compounded with di/a- Lto-, kv-, km-, iira-'. No presents (or imperfects) occur with aj/a- and wo-. The word itself is not used very extensively. The form ddKWfii, is found once (1 Cor. 12 : 31), -uco not at all. So on the other hand Set/c- vvei^ occurs once (Jo. 2 : 18), -us not at all. AeUwcnv is read by the best MSS. (Mt. 4 : 8; Jo. 5 : 20). The middle hdeUvvvTai. ap- pears in Ro. 2 : 15. The -/xi participle active is found in Ac. 18 : 28 (eindeLKviis) and 2 Th. 2 : 4 {aToSetKvvvTa). The middle -/xi par- ticiple is seen in Ac. 9 : 39; Tit. 2 : 10; 3:2 {-v/jxvos, etc.). In Heb. 6:11 the infinitive hSikwudai is read, but 8eiKvveLv (Mt. 16 : 21 B -vvai).^ The other N. T. verbs in -vfii (diroXXu/it, ^iivvvni, vto- ^uivvvfu, ofivv/xL, a^kvvvixi, cTpiivvviii, vvocTTpojvvvfj.i., 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 -wm were the first to succumb to the -oj inflection. In the LXX the -in forms are universal in the middle, but in the active the -co forms are more usual (Thack., Gr., p. 245). A(Sa>|ii. See under (d), 1, for list of compounds in the N. T. Attic Greek had numerous examples from the form 3i56-w {blbov, kdiSovv, -ovs, -ov). This usage is extended in the N. T. as in the papyri' to 5t5co (Rev. 3:9), though even here BP have 3iSufii. In Wisd. of Sol. 12 : 19 5l8oXs occurs, but Lu. 22 : 48 has the regular iropaSiSojs. AiScoffL is common (in LXX, Ps. 37 : 21, SidoZ appears) and Moaaiv in Rev. 17 : 13. The uniform imperfect kblSov (Mt. 15 : 36) is Uke the Attic. Hort observes that Mk. (15 : 23) and Ac. (4 : 33; 27 : 1) prefer kmow. Jo. (19 : 3) has, however, khlbo- aav and Acts once also (16 :4). Ai5ou (Attic present imperative) is read by some MSS. in Mt. 5 : 42 for S6s. In Rev. 22 : 2 the 1 lb., p. 48. " In the pap. both -wm' and -bw, but only -vimi. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 392. 3 Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 37. Cf. Deiss., B. S., p. 192. Mod. Gk. has Uia. 312 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT text has participle airoSiSovv for -6v (marg. -ois), while -irapaSi- SCiv is read by N in Mt. 26:46 and D in Mk. 14:42, etc.' The middle-passive forms in -ero (imperfect) from a present SiSoj ard like the aorist forms, which see above. So SieSiSero (Ac. 4 : 35) and TrapeStScTo (1 Cor. 11 : 23). So also subjunctive irapaSiSoi is found only once (1 Cor. 15 : 24) and is probably to be rejected (BG), though the papyri amply support it.^ In the imperfect iSiSoaav holds its place in the LXX, while in the present the -/it forms generally prevail (Thackeray, Gr., p. 250). The LXX is quite behind the N. T. in the transition from -fxi to -co forms. Avvaiiai, The use of Shvn (Mk. 9 : 22; Lu. 16 : 2; Rev. 2 : 2) in- stead of dvpaaai argues for the thematic Sivonai. Elsewhere bbvacai (Lu. 6 : 42, etc.). This use of bwig 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 Koivi}. It is not surprising therefore to find B reading bhvoiiai (also -6fitda, -bixevos) in Mk. 10:39; Mt. 19:12; 26:53; Ac. 4:20; 27:15; Is. 28: 20 (so X in Is. 59 : 15). The papyri ^ give plenty of illus- trations also. MSS. in the LXX give Svvofiai and Siivg. EI[jl£. The compounds are with olt-, tv~, ef- (only i^eariv, e^ov), Trap-, avv-, avv-Tap-. 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 Vfir/v, ijfieda regularly (as Mt. 25 :43; 23 : 30), as modern Greek uniformly has the middle present elfuu, etc., as well as imperfect middle. Cf. already in ancient Greek the future middle 'eco/jiai. The use of vt^V, seen in the papjTi* and inscriptions' also, served to mark it off from the third singular rjv. But examples of fji^eu still survive (Ro. 7:5, etc.). Moulton^" quotes from Ramsay" a Phrygian inscription of elimi for early fourth century a.d. He cites also the Delphian middle forms ^rai, ioit'TaL, Messenian ^vrai, 1 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 ^v in Ac. 20 : 18. " Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, II, 565. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (tHMa) 313 Lesbian iaao, as early instances of this tendency, not to mention the Northwest Greek.^ The peculij|f classical second person jyo-fc is found in Mk. 14:67; Mt. 26:69, but elsewhere ^s (Jo. 11:21, 32, etc.), the common form in the noivrj.^ ^Hre (Ro. 6 : 20, for in- stance) is regular. So with the imperative iadi. (Mt. 2 : 13, etc.). "Htco (as 1 Cor. 16 : 22) is less common' than the usual ^o-tco (Gal. 1:8). "EaTu- and avviijui, ' Just so the pap., Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 395. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 52. Cf . also for pap., Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 38. For LXX see Thackeray, p. 272. ' W.-Sch., p. 118; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 177; Reinhold, De Graec, p. 89. * Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 398. CONJUGATION OF THE VEKB (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. 'AvLrmi indeed has only dSiei'Tes (Eph. 6 : 9) in the present stem. So also KoBLrifii, shows only KaBikiavov {-fikv-qv) in Ac. 10 : 11; 11 : 5, while irapLriiii has no present, but only an aorist (Lu. 11: 42) and a perfect passive (Heb. 12 : 12). 'k^lrnii, is the form of the verb that is common in the N. T. In Rev. 2 : 20 ac^eis is probably a present from d<^eco.^ But Blass (p. 51, of N. T. Gram- mar) compares the Attic a4>ieis and rideis. Only a(t>lrifii (Jo. 14 : 27) and a4>'ir]ai (Mt. 3 : 15) occur, but in Lu. 11:4 a,4>ioixev is from the Ionic d<^iw (cf. StSo). So also in Rev. 11 : 9 axjjlovciv and in Jo. 20 : 23 marg. W. H. have a^'vovTai. Elsewhere i^ievrai, (Mt. 9 : 2, etc.). In the imperfect ^cfnev from arifji.l both in the present and the imperfect (aorist). The only forms in the N. T. are ^t/^i (1 Cor. 7 : 29), rialv (Mt. 13 : 29), o-(rlv (Ro. 3:8), and the common ec^i; (Mt. 4:7). It is regular -fii in the LXX. Xpfj. This impersonal verb had a poetic infinitive xpvvai^ of the -jut inflection, but Veitch (p. 627) and L. and S. get it from xpaoi. At any rate XPV 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 -in. Perfects. There are only three verbs that show the active perfects without {kjo, in the N. T. (mere root, athematic). @vr\(rKa. The compounds are dxo- (very common), o-uc-airo- (rare). The uncompounded verb occurs nine times and forms the perfect regularly as an -w verb (rkOvriKa), save that in Ac. 14 : 19 DEHLP read redvavai instead of TtBvrtukvai, but the -fxi form is not accepted by W. H. The N. T. has always nBvrjKtjjs, never reBvecos. In the LXX these shorter second perfect forms occur a few times in the more literary books (Thackeray, Gr., pp. 253, 270). They show "a partial analogy to verbs in -/m" (Blass, Gr., p. 50). Ot6a is a -fit perfect in a few forms {Ufiev, to-Te) from root tS- (cf . Latin vid-eo, Greek €1501;). The word is very common in the N. T. and o-iiTOtSa is found twice (Ac. 5 : 2; 1 Cor. 4:4). The present per- fect indicative like the papyri^ usually has otSa, otSas, oUe, oibantv, -are, -aarw, which was the Ionic inflection and so naturally pre- vailed in the Koivi). Three times indeed the literary Attic lart ap- pears (Jas. 1 : 19; Eph. 5 : 5; Heb. 12 : 17). The passage in James may be imperative instead of indicative. In Ac. 26 : 4 laaaiv (lit- erary Attic also) is read. The imperfect also runs jjSetv, i}5ets, etc. "YLibuaav (Mk. 1 : 34; 14 : 40) is hke IcrvKticav (Rev. 7:11).* The other modes go regularly etSco (Mt. 9 : 6), eiSevai (1 Th. 5 : 12), eid6)s (Mt. 12 : 25). The LXX usage is in accord with the N. T. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 278. "IcTTTiiii. See Aorist (1) for compounds. The second perfect is in the N. T. only in the infinitive eo-rdmi (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 ol {Iva tlSSifiev, 1 Cor. 2 : 12) and the periphrastic form as ^ TreTron/Kojs (Jas. 5 : 15. Cf . TreiroidoTfi &iiev, 2 Cor. 1 : 9) and usually in the passive as iJ ir€ir\yipconkvri (Jo. 16 : 24). In Lu. 19 : 40 Rec. with most MSS. read KiKpa^ovrai (LXX). In the papyri riv sometimes is subjunctive = ^t. Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 38, 1904, p. 108; Prolegom- ena, pp. 49, 168. He cites oaa kav fjv in Gen. 6 : 17 E. But the modern Greek constantly uses hav with the indicative, and we find it in the N. T. and papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 203 ff.). Some of the papyri examples may be merely the indicative with iav, but others undoubtedly give the irrational v. In the LXX the subjunctive shows signs of shrinkage before the indicative with kav, orav, Iva (Thackeray, Gr., p. 194). (e) The Optative {evKTiKri). Like the subjunctive the opta- tive is poorly named, as it is much more than the wishing mood. As Giles ^ remarks, difference of formation is more easily discerned in these two moods than difference of meaning. In the Sanslcrit the subjunctive (save in first person) gave way before the optative, as in Latin the optative largely {sim originally op- tative) disappeared before the subjunctive.' The Greek, as already stated, is the only language that preserved both the subjunctive and the optative,* and finally in the modern Greek the optative has vanished, ^17 ykvoiTo being merely "the coflSn of the dead optative." ^ It is doubtful if the optative was ever used much in conversation even in Athens (Farrar, Greek Syntax, p. 142), and the unlearned scribes of the late Greek blun- ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 48. But in 1 Cor. 16 : 2 we have regularly 6«o- SSnai (marg. efoauSg). Hort (Notes on Orth., pp. 167, 172) is uncertain whether fioSuToi is perf. ind. or subj. (pres. or perf.). He cites xapof);XoB/«>' (1 Cor. 10 : 22) and SiaPepoMvj'Tcu. (1 Tim. 1 : 7) as possible pres. subjs. 2 Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 458. Cf. Drug., Griech. Gr., p. 337, for Ust of works on optative. ' Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 202. Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 503 f. • Giles, ib., p. 459. On the blending of subj. and opt. in Ital., Germ, and Balto-Slav. tongues see Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., 2. Tl., p. 585. Cf. the Byz. Gk. mingUng of subj. and ind. in Hatz., Einl., p. 216 f. s Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 84. 326 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT dered greatly when they did use it (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 204). Moulton {Prol., p. 240) agrees with Thumb that the opta- tive was doomed from the very birth of the kolvt}, and its disappear- ance was not due to itacism between ot and ■g, which was late. Clyde,' however, suggests that the blending of sound between ot and xi had much to do with the disappearance of the optative. But apart from this fact the distinction was never absolutely rigid, for in Homer both moods are used in much the same way.'' And even in the N. T., as in Homer and occasionally later, we find an instance of the optative after a present indicative, ov -wabo- fmi evxa.pi.(TTCOv tva d<^r] (Eph. 1 : 17, text of W. H., subj. Scop or SQ 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 tr; (le) and the thematic ot (composed of o and t)- The 0- aorist has a+t besides the form in -eta. This two-fold affix for the optative goes back to the earlier Indo-Germanic tongues* (Sanskrit ya and I). The optative was never common in the language of the people, as is shown by its rarity in the Attic inscriptions.* The Boeotian dialect inscriptions show no optative in simple sentences, and Dr. Edith Claflin reports only two ex- amples in subordinate clauses.^ The optative is rare also in the inscriptions of Pergamum.' The same thing is true of the pa- pyri.* In the N. T. the future optative no longer appears, nor does the perfect. The classic idiom usually had the perfect subjunctive and optative in the periphrastic forms.' Examples of the peri- phrastic perfect optative survive in the papyri,'" but not in the N. T. There are only' sixty-seven examples of the optative in the N. T. Luke has twenty-eight and Paul thirty-one (not including Eph. 1 : 17), whereas John, Matthew and James do not use it at all. Mark and Hebrews show it only once each, Jude twice and Peter four times. The non-thematic aorist appears in the N. T. some- times, as 8wri (perhaps by analogy). So W. H. read without reser- vation in 2 Th. 3: 16; Ro. 15: 5; 2 Tim. 1 : 16, 18. This is the ' Gr. S., p. 85. 2 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 219. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 179. * Riem. and Goelzer,Phon6t,,p. 461. Cf. K.-Bl., Bd. II, p.40 f.; Brug.,Gk. Gr., pp. 337 ff. ' Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 166. « Synt. of Bceot. Dial. Inscr., pp. 77, 81. ' Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 191. 8 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 326. » K.-BL, Bd. II, p. 99. " Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 327. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB ("PHMa) 327 preferred text in Eph. 1 : 17; 2 Tim. 2 : 25, but in Jo. 15 : 16; Eph. 3 : 16, W. H. read 5^ (subjunctiv^. In Eph. 1 : 17 the margin has ddiii (subjunctive) also.' The inscriptions^ and the papyri^ show the same form {-(^v instead of -oiriv). In Eph. 1:17 Moulton* considers Scbjj (subjunctive) absolutely necessary in spite of the evidence for Stprj (optative). But see above. The aorist optative in -at is the usual form, as KaTivdiivai (1 Th. 3: 11), -irXeovaaai. Kal Trepifftreiio-at (1 Th. 3:12), KarapTlaai. (Heb. 13:21), etc., not the .iEolic-Attic -ete. So also 7rot170-a1.ec (Lu. 6:11), but ^'r]\aes (cf . modern Greek as and third person subjmictive) is creeping in as a sort of particle with the subjunc- tive. So &4>es kicfi&Xoi (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.-Sch.,p. 119. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 165. 8 Riem. and Goelzer, Phon^t., p. 372. Cf. Brug., Griech. Or., p. 345. » Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 468; Hirt, Handb., p. 430; Wright, Comp. Gk. Gr., p. 334. " Moulton, Prol., p. 179 f. " V. and D., Handb., p. 81. Cf. Dieterioh, 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 OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT tive. Cf. 8evTe cnroKTeLvufiev in Mt. 21 : 38. Besides aye, SeOre we may have 6pa with the subjunctive (Mt. 8:4), /SX^Trere with future indicative (Heb. 3 : 12). 9. Prohibitions. Here the aorist subjunctive with /iij 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 firi in 3d person. So ^ Kara^aru (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 ippwcrde (Ac. 15: 29; in 23 : 30 W. H. reject ippwao) and ■irtcjilixoicro (Mk. 4 : 39). The perfect imperative also occurs in the periphrastic form as ea-TwcTav wepLe^uKTukvai (Lu. 12 : 35). 11. Periphrastic Presents. Other periphrastic forms of the im- perative are la-di. evvoSiv (Mt. 5 : 25), Icrdi ex<>iv (Lu. 19 : 17), /ii) ylveade irepo^vyovvres (2 Cor. 6 : 14) and even la-re yivdiCKovres (Eph. 5 : 5). 12. Circumlocutions. But even so other devices (see Syntax) are used instead of the imperative, as the future indicative {a.ya- irricTeis, Mt. 5 : 43) ; Iva and the subjunctive (Eph. 5 : 33) ; a ques- tion of impatience like ov Tava-jj SiacrTpeclxjiv (Ac. 13 : 10), etc. VI. The Voices (SiaeeVeis). (a) Transitive and Intransitive. 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 edida^a, 'e8i.5a^aij.riv, iMkxOriv, which may be transitive in each voice. On the other hand eip,l, ylvopai, eKWrjv are intransitive. The same verb may be transitive or intransitive in the same voice, as a7w. A verb may be transitive in Greek while intransitive in English, as with KarayeKad} 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 Delbriick argues that the aorist imper. did not come into use until after the pres. imper. The imper. was originally only positive, not negative. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB ("PHMa) 331 actually find Green ^ making four voices, putting a neuter (pidi- Ttpov) voice (using active and middl^ endings) on a par with the others! The Stoic grammarians^ did speak of a neuter voice as neither active {KaT7jybpy]ixa 6p66v) nor passive {himov), meaning the middle (fiearj). 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 (aXXoTadrjs) or intransitive {aiiToiraBris). 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, Handb., p. 112. (6) The Names op the Voices. They are by no means good. The active (htfyyeTLKri) 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 (ji^ari) 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 (ToBriTLKri) is the best term of all, for here the subject does experi- ence the action even when the passive verb is transitive, as in iSiSaxdriv. But this point encroaches upon syntax. 1 Handb. to the Gk. of N. T., p. 55. 2 Cf. Dion. Thr., p. 886. Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 40. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 179. * Sans. Gr., p. 200. 5 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 is as active as the "active" voice. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 119. 332 A GEAMMAR 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^ro, 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/ii7(ro/iat) 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 (r;, 6ri, rja, drja-). Some languages never developed a passive (Coptic and Lithuanian, for instance), and in modern English we can only form the passive by means of auxiliary verbs. Each language makes the passive in its own way. In Latin no distinction in form exists between the middle and the passive, though the middle exists as in potior, utor, plangor, etc. Giles' thinks that the causative middle (hke 5i5acKonai, 'get taught') is the explanation of the origin of the Greek passive. Cf. pairrKrai (Ac. 22 : 16). It is all speculation as between the active and mid- dle. An old theory makes the middle a mere doubhng of the active (as iia-fiL= fiai) .* Another view is that the middle is the original and the active a shortening due to less stress in accent, or rather (as in rWeiMiL and TWrifii) the middle puts the stress on the reflexive ending while the active puts it on the stem.^ But Brugmann' considers the whole question about the relation between the per- sonal suffixes uncertain. Of one thing we may be sure, and that is that both the active and the middle are very old and long antedate the passive. (d) The So-called "Deponent" Veebs. These call for a word (cf. ch. XVII, iii, (k)) at the risk of trespassing on sjoitax. Moulton' is certainly right in saying that the term should be ap- plied to all three voices if to any. The truth is that it should not be used at all. As in the Sanskrit* so in the Greek some verbs were used in both active and middle in all tenses (like Xico) ; some verbs in some tenses in one and some in the other (like Palvu, » 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 /3i7(ro/iai); some on one voice only (like Kei/tai). As concerns voice these verbs were defective rather than deponent.* Note also the common use of the second perfect active with middle verbs (yivo/xai., yeyova).'^ A number 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: arauo-co (Jo. 5 : 25, 28, etc., but drafio-oAiat, Ac. 17 : 32), A/*apTiJ(rw (Mt. 18 : 21), L-wavriicui (Mk. 14 : 13), dpTrdcrw (Jo. 10 : 28), iSX^i^to (Ac. 28 : 26), TeXAo-co (Lu. 6 : 21), hii^oi (Mt. 23 : 34), fijffco (Jo. 5 : 25), kmopK'l,(rw (Mt. 5 : 33, LXX), K\aio^iridr)ioiJ,tv (Lu. 11:4). The subjunctive SoZ and optative S(^ri have likewise received discussion as well as the optative -ai and -ei€. But some interesting points remain. The use of -oaav instead of -ov is very common in the LXX (as Jer. 5 : 23, 26) and was once thought to be purely an Alexandrian peculiarity (Simcox, Language of the N. T., p. 37). For the LXX phenomena see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 65-67; Con. and Stock, Sel. from the LXX, p. 32 f . The LXX is the principal witness to the -oaav forms (Thackeray, Gr., p. 195), where they 1 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 53. ' Gk. Gr., p. 346. ' Of. Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 54. The same thing has happened in Eng. where the loss is nearly complete save 2d and 3d pers. sing. * It is not worth while here to take time to make a careful discussion of each of these endings. For the hist, treatment of them see Brug., Grieoh. Gr., pp. 345 ff.; Giles, Comp. Philol., pp. 413 ff.; Riem. and Goelzer, Phon6t., pp. 348 ft. 336 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT are exceedingly frequent (ib., pp. 212 ff.). It is not so abundant outside of the LXX, but the Boeotians used it for the imperfect and optative.' Mayser'' has found more examples of it in the Tebtunis Papjoi, both aorist and imperfect, than Moulton' had discovered. The inscriptions also show it.^ In the N. T. the con- tract verb eSoXtoCo-ai/ (Ro. 3 : 13) is a quotation from the LXX. In Jo. 15 : 22, 24, the imperfect Axoaav has to be admitted. In 2 Th. 3 : 6 TrapeXa^oaav is read by NAD and W. H. put it in the margin. The text irapeKa^ere is supported by BFG. This use of the -/xi inflection may be compared with the use of tw-o-oi' in the imperative. In the modem Greek it is common with con- tract verbs (cf. LXX) like kSdkiovaav above. The modem Greek ep&JToOtra is a new formation (Thumb, Handb., p. 171) modelled after it. Blass^ needlessly hesitates to accept -ay in the present perfect instead of the usual -arjKes. It is rare in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 215) ; found in A (Ex. 5 : 22, d7r£(7TaXK£s) and in eSuKes (Ezek. 16:21; Neh. 9:10). The modern Greek has it as in eSeaa, -es (Thumb, Handb., p. 152). We have both ^ada (Mt. 26 : 69) and ^s (Mt. 25 : 21). The form in -da is vanishing (Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 166). Cf. also Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 321. The papyri have otdas, as N. T., and ei^j/s. But see -fit Verbs. Much more common is the use of the first aorist endings -a, -as, etc., with the second aorist stem and even with the imperfect. This change occurs in the indicative middle as well as active. This matter more technically belongs to the treatment of the 1 Pro!., p. 53. Cf . Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 169. The N. T. does not foUow illiterate pap. in putting -oat to aorist stems (Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 36). ' lb.; Prol., p. 52. ' B. S., p. 192. * Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 321. 5 Unters. etc., p. 239. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 46, cites ApoU., Synt., I, 10, p. 37, as saying that ftprixes, iypa^pis, ypml/tToi, etc., gave the grammarianB trouble. « Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 46. ' Cf. W.-Sch., p. 113. 338 A GRAMMAK OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT aorist tense, as the -a is part of the tense-stem, but it is also con- veniently discussed here. The Attic already had eiira, 'evura, ijveyKa. The Attic inscriptions indeed show 'eaxa, evpafiriv and even the imperfects ijXin^a, iijjepa.^ This tendency towards uniformity spread in the /cotcij somewhat extensively.^ Moulton' finds the strong aorists with -a chiefly in "uneducated writing" in the papyri, but common in general. This process of assimilation of the strong with the weak aorist was not yet complete.* Blass* thinks it an "intermediate" form already in the anciient Greek which spread in the Kolvn. Cf. the liquid form fj-yyetXa. But both the strong and the weak aorists appear in the N. T. Thackeray {Gr., p. 195; cf. also pp. 210 ff.) notes that the -av termination was finally extended to all past tenses, though in the LXX the imperfect forms are due to later copyists. In the modern Greek we note it regularly with KarkXa^a, fideKa, dxa, etc. (Thumb, Handb., pp. 152, 160, etc.). Hort^ has a detailed discussion of the matter in the N. T. This mixture of usage is shown in eiira and dirov. The -a form is uniform with endings in -t (eliraTt, eiiraTu, e'lTaTWcrav) . Both dirov and eixe OCCUr. We have airenra.p.fffa (2 Cor. 4:2) and Tpodirafiev (1 Th. 4:6). The participle is usu- ally -uv, but sometimes el'xas. Both elwas and elirfs, elirov and eiTrav meet us. We always have the ijveym inflection save in the infinitive and the imperative. And even here we once have di'e- vkyKai. (1 Pet. 2 : 5) and once also irpoaiveyKop (Mt. 8 :4 BC). So also with eTeca we have the weak or first aorist inflection in the indicative and imperative plural ■wkuaTe (Lu. 23 : 30; Rev. 6 : 16). But in these two examples Hort' (against W. H.) favours ireceTe on MS. grounds (KABD, KBC). In Lu. 14 : 10; 17 : 7 kvln^eae is correct. The other forms that are accepted by W. H. are i^aXav 1 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 183 f. ^ Dieterich, Unters., p. 237 f. For the inscr. see Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 181 f.; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 166 f. 8 CI. Rev., 1901, p. 36. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 368 f. « lb. Cf. Deiss., B. S., p. 190 f. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 45. The LXX is in harmony with this tendency also. Is it CiUcian according to HeracUdes? W.-Sch., p. Ill note. Cf. in Horn, forms Uke fi^ovTo, t/S^trsTo, where the sec. aorist endings go with the first aorist stem (Sterrett, Horn. II., N. 42). 6 Notes on Orth., p. 164 f. See also Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 45; W.-Sch., p. Ill f. The LXX MSS. tally with the N. T. in the use of -a. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 62-65; C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 35 f. ' Notes on Orth., p. 164. Moulton (Prol., p. 51) speaks of "the fmictionally useless difference of ending between the strong and the weak aorist." CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (thMa) 339 once (Ac. 16 : 37); kire^aXav twice (Mk. 14 : 46; Ac. 21 : 27); etSav, tlSanev in a few places (Mt. 13 : l':^ Lu. 10 : 24; Mt. 25 : 37, etc.); the indicatives aveZXav (Ac. 10 : 39), LuelXare (Ac. 2 : 23), avelXaro (Ac. 7:21), ftXaro (2 Th. 2 : 13), k^ttUfiriv (Ac. 23 : 27), ^eiXaro (Ac. 7 : 10; 12 : 11); aipav once (Lu. 8 : 35, or &,vevpav), eipa^ev once (Lu. 23 : 2), and iipanevos once (Heb. 9 : 12); the imperatives 'eX- Oare, k'SBaroj uniformly, both ^\dav and ^\dov, once a.TTJ\da (Rev. 10 : 9), regularly ijXdafiev (Ac. 21 : 8). There are many other ex- amples in various MSS. which W. H. are not willing to accept, but which illustrate this general movement, such as airkdavav (Mt. 8 : 32, etc.), -eXa^av (Jo. 1 : 12), eka^aixev (Lu. 5:5), kUfiare (1 Jo. 2 : 27), k^ifiakav (Mk. 12 : 8), inav (1 Cor. 10 : 4 D), i(l>vyav (Lu. 8 : 34 D), Kark^ayav (Mk. 4 : 4 D), cvvicrxav (Ac. 7 : 57 D), ytva.p.tvos (Lu. 22 : 44 N), etc. But let these suffice. Moultoni is doubtful about allowing this -a in the imperfect. But the papyri support it as Deissmann^ shows, and the modern Greek' reinforces it also as we have just seen. W. H. receive elxav in Mk. 8:7; Ac. 28 : 2 {■Kapttxav); Rev. 9:8; eixaMSf in 2 Jo. 5. But D has etxav in Jo. 15 : 22, 24; N has £X«7aj' in Jo. 9 : 10; 11 : 36, etc. There is a dis- tinct increase in the use of the sigmatic aorist as in ytudprriaa (Mt. 18 : 15), o4n\cee (Lu. 13 : 28). It appears already in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 235). But see further under vii, (d). The past perfect has the -eiv forms exclusively as uniformly in the Koivii^ So dcTriKuaav (Rev. 7 : 11), it&eiaav (Mk. 14 : 40), ict- iroi^Keiaau (Mk. 15 : 7). So the LXX. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 68. But the imperfect k^eirav (Ac. 17 : 15) is to be observed. (t) The Middle Endings. These call for less remark. Bov- Xei (Lu. 22 : 42) is the only second singular middle form in -et, for S^jj (Mt. 27 : 4) displaces 3^€t. The inscriptions^ sometimes show jSoiXjj. Blass* regards /SoOXei a remnant of Uterary style in Luke, 1 Prol., p. 52. So Buresch, Rhein. Mus., 46, 224. Hort (Notes on Orth., p. 165) needlessly considers iKxiere (Rev. 16 : 1) a second aorist imper. instead of the present. Cf. k^ix^av (usual form in Rev. 16 : 6). Cf. W.-Sch., p. 111. But Karkxeev (Mk. 14 : 3) is the usual Attic aorist. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 65. 2 B. S., p. 191, iUyas, etc. 3 Cf. Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 36; Geldart's Guide to Mod. Gk., p. 272 note. ' With rare variations in the inscr. and pap. Moulton, Prol., p. 53. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 320 ff. « Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 168. Cf. also Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 328. The pap. do not show otei and &\l'a, but only ^oiXa. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 47. For otv, &^v, and /SoiXu in LXX MSS. see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 60 f.; C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 33 f. B in the LXX shows a fondness for -« forms (itacism). Cf. Thack., Gr., p. 217. 340 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT but the papyri also have ^oiiXei. The occasional use of Sivg (Mk. 9 : 22 f .) has been discussed under -fii Verbs. It appears only once in the LXX, but the "poetic and apparently Ionic" ItIo-tj/ is more frequent (Thackeray, Gr., p. 217). Cf. also Kadov (Jas. 2 : 3) as LXX and mBji (Ac. 23 : 3). On the other hand we have a.yxi holds on (Thackeray, p. 218). The -(rat form is universal in modern Greek. The love of uniformity made it triumph. But see Contract Verbs for further discussion. The middle form fi/xriu (Mt. 25 : 35) and TJtieda (Mt. 23 : 30) is like the Koivfi generally and the modern Greek et^tai. Cf. also eo-o/uot. For i^kSero (Mt. 21 : 33) with loss of root o and w inflection (thematic e) see -/it Verbs. Cf. also e^eKpentro (Lu. 19:48). The LXX has -evTo for -ovTo (Thackeray, p. 216). (j) Passive Endings. As already observed, the passive voice has no distinctive endings of its own. The second aorist passive, like e-(t>avri-v, is really an active form like e-iSjj-c {e-&.iqi (first aorist active, cf. iirul)a.mi in Lu. 1 : 79) rather than the passive ^avg. Note kvv, though k<^6n in Mk. 13 : 28), ffui'^ueto-at (Lu. 8 : 7) and irapeKrtdinicav (Ju. 4) for iSvv (Rec. Mk. 1 : 32) which the LXX retains (Thackeray, Gr., p. 235). In the LXX, when a verb had both first and second aorist passive forms, the first disappeared {ib., p. 237). But see vii, (d), for further discussion. (k) Contract Vebbs. The use of -o-at was mentioned abpve. It appears' in Kavxaaai (1 Cor. 4:7; Ro. 2 : 17, etc.) and oSwaaai. (Lu. 16:25) where ae regularly contracts into a. See xapfeo-oi (=-«i<7oi) P. Oxy. 292 (a.d. 25). Verbs in -oco. The confusion with verbs in -«o) is already seen in the Ionic (Herodotus). The LXX in general preserves the dis- tinction between -aoi and -e&j verbs, but KAB occasionally have the confusion (Thackeray, Gr., p. 241). In the modern Greek the blending is complete. One conjugation is made up, some forms from -ow, some from -tto (Thumb, Handb., p. 169 f.). The N. T. MSS. vary. W. H. receive iipisrow in Mt. 15 : 23 (NBCD), but ijpiiTdsv in Mk. 4 : 10 though -ovv is here supported by KC and by single MSS. elsewhere. Hatzidakis {Einl. in d. Neug., p. 128 f.) considers iipisTovv due to Ionic influence. In Mt. 6 : 28 we have Koinovaiv in B 33, but W. H. reject it, as they do vikovvti in Rev. 2 : 7, 17; 15 : 2, and KareT^Xwi; (Lu. 8 : 53).=' In Mk. 14 : 5 W. H. read kve^pLfiuvTo (XC -ovpto) and in Jo. 11 : 38 ^M/3p'M'<'Me''os (N A -oiiievos). So there is a variation as to ■fiTTuvrai (2 Pet. 2 : 20) from riTT&ofiai. and ^o-o-cifljjre (2 Cor. 12 : 13) from iaaSw after the analogy of kXaaadu.^ W. H. print fgc (Ro. 8 : 12). This is a matter of much dispute with the editors, but it is more than doubtful if W. H. are correct. On the other side see Winer- SchmiedeH and Moulton.* But both fiw (Ro. 8 : 12) and xpao- Mttt (1 Tim. 1 : 8) have the 17 contraction rather than a (-ijco verbs, Moulton, Prol., p. 54). In Ro. 7 : 9 B even has i^rjv for i^uv. But the KOLvij uses xpScffat, though not in the-N. T.^ Paul > Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 328, for xapieiffoi. The LXX (1 Ki. 14 : 6 A) shows AirefevoOffot. The only certain instance in the LXX is ktoo-oi (Sir. 6 : 7). See Thack., p. 218. Cf. further Hatz., Einl., p. 188. ' Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 166. ' Ib. Moulton (CI. Rev., 1901, p. 36) cites hUa and Ti/joBires from pap. * Pp. 42, 116 note. ' Prol., p. 54. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 61. The pap. support {"Sk, not fSv. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 347. So in general the pap. are in harmony with N. T. usage here, Mayser, pp. 346 ff. ° Moulton, Prol., p. 54. 342 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT has xpi?™' (pres. subj.) in 1 Tim. 1:8. Elsewhere also the o forms prevail in the noivi) as in di\l/S,u and wtivav. So ireivq, (1 Cor. 11 : 21), Tretvav (Ph. 4 : 12), 8i\l/q. (Ro. 12 : 20) as subjunctive (so TTtLva same verse). The LXX keeps Attic ^rjv and xp^c^ai, but 5L\l/av and ireivav (Thackeray, Gr., p. 242).^ Verbs in -eco sometimes show forms in -ao). So kWoya in Phil. 18, eWoyarai in Ro. 5 : 13, eXedre in Ju. 22, 23, and ekeuvros in Ro. 9 : 16, but eXeeT in Ro. 9 : 18. LXX has both forms. The KOLvr] usually has the -eZv forms.^ For further examples of this confusion between -aoi and -eco in LXX and isolated N. T. MSS. see Winer-Schmiedel.' In 1 Cor. 11:6 all editors print ^vpS/rdai (cf. Ktlpacdai just before), though in 1 Cor. 11:5 e^vfyrjfievr] and ^vprj- (jovrai (Ac. 21 : 24) probably come from Jupeco.* Cf. eao, kdaoi.^ Contraction does not always take place with ee in verbs in -eo). In Lu. 8 : 38 W. H. follow BL in giving eSetro, but Hort* admits that it is not free from doubt. Blass^ and Moulton* consider k&ktTo correct and the contraction a mere correction, and it is sup- ported by the LXX and papyri. AP even have eSeeTro. In Rev. 16 : 1 €/cx«eT"£ is undoubtedly right and i^kx^tv in 16 : 2, but note kxtirat (Mt. 9 : 17). In Mk. 14 : 3 Karexetv is to be noticed also (cf. Attic aorist). On the other hand in Jo. 3 : 8 note irveT, eJeTrXet (Ac. 18 : 18), TrXuv, inroirXiiv (Ac. 27 : 1 f.). In the LXX these words appear now one way, now the other.' Aeco ('to bind'), peco have no €e forms in the N. T. W. H. accept in text only i^ovdtveia in all the dozen examples in the N. T. (as Lu. 18 : 9, k^ovdiPowTas), but in Mk. 9 : 12 they have S instead of 6.^" Observe also aS>vTai or the regular a(t>uvTai. In the N. T., W. H. give kppWv (Gal. 3 : 16; Mt. 5 : 21, etc.), but Hort" thinks the Attic kppijdT) should appear always in Matthew. Verbs in -occ have two knotty problems. In Gal. 4 : 17 fj/XoCre and 1 Cor. 4 : 6 ^ucrtoDo-^e are regular if indicative. But if they are subjunctive, the contraction or] is like the indicative oe (cf. indica- 1 W.-Sch., p. 116 note. Cf. KaTVpaftkvos (Mt. 25 : 41). 2 Hatz., Einl., p. 128 f . Moulton (CI. Rev., 1904, p. 110) cites povS>vTe^ and ■per contra &.yairovvT€s from pap. ' P. 117 note. * Hort (Notes on Orth., p. 166) prefers ^bpaaBai. after Plut. and Lucian. ' Cf . W.-Sch., p. 116 f . See further on this mixing of contract verbs, Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 349. The LXX MSS. show much the same situation as to contract verbs that we find in the N. T. and the pap. Helbing (Gr. d. Sept., pp. 110-112) gives the facts in detail. « Notes on Orth., p. 166. » Cf. Thack.,Gr., pp. 242ff.; W.-Sch., p. 115 note. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 47. " Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 166. 8 Prol., p. 54. " lb. BD always have it. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB ('PHMa) 343 tive and subjunctive of -ow verbs). So Blass' and Moulton.* Hort' doubts the indicative here. If eMuraL (1 Cor. 16 : 2) be regarded as a present subjunctive no problem in contraction is raised.* But in Col. 4 : 17 we have the subjunctive in I'm ttX?;- poTs as in Attic for both indicative and subjunctive. In Ro. 3 : 13 kddXiovcrav is the common LXX form in -oaav. The other point is the infinitive in -ovv or -otv. W. H. give -olv for this infinitive everywhere except ir\i)povv in Lu. 9 : 31.' Cf. -^i* and -%v in W. H. Blass^ considers the -olv termination "hardly established for the N. T." since even in the N. T. the evidence is "small," though "of good quality" Hort contends.' In Mt. 13: 32 KaraaKTivoiv is supported by BD (in Mk. 4 : 32 by B), in 1 Pet. 2 : 15 verbs, of course, takes place only in the present, imperfect and present participle. VII. The Tenses (xp6voi). (a) The Teem Tense. It is from the French word temps, 'time,' and is a misnomer and a hindrance to the understanding of this aspect of the verb-form. Time does come finally to enter relatively into the indicative and in a limited way affects the op- tative, infinitive and participle. But it is not the original nor the general idea of what we call tense." Indeed it cannot be shown of 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 48. Cf. K.-BL, Bd. II, p. 587. 2 Prol., p. 54. ' Notes on Orth., p. 171 f. * Moulton, Prol., p. 54. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 167. « Hort, ib., p. 166. « Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 48. ' Notes on Orth., p.l66. 8 Prol., p. 53. Cf. Nestle (Am. Jour, of TheoL, July, 1909, p. 448) for juo(rrt77oi>' in Coptic. ' Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 349; Raderm., p. 74. '» Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 170. " Cf . Delbruck, Grundl. d. griech. Synt., Bd. IV, p. 80; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 469 f.; Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 481 f. See Swete, O. T. in Gk., p. 305, for remarks about tenses in the LXX. 344 A GEAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT any verb-form that it had originally any reference to time. We must therefore dismiss time from our minds, in the study of the forms of the tenses as well as in the matter of syntax. It is too late to get a new name, however. (b) Confusion in Names. The greatest confusion prevails in the names given to the various tenses. The time idea appears in the names present, past perfect and future. The state of the ac- tion rules in the names aorist, imperfect and perfect. Thus it is clear that the time idea did not prevail with all the names that the grammarians used. In the indicative, indeed, in the past three tenses appear, in the present two, in the future one (sometimes two). In the other modes as a rule only three tenses are found; in truth, in the subjunctive, optative and imperative practically only two are in common usage, the aorist and the present. As a matter of fact there are nine possible tenses for each voice in the indicative: the aorist present, the imperfect pres- ent, the perfect present, the aorist past, the imperfect past, the perfect past; the aorist future, the imperfect future, the perfect future. These ideas do occur. In the past the distinction is clear cut. In the present no sharp line is drawn between the aorist and durative (unfinished or imperfect) save when the peri- phrastic conjugation is used or when Aktionsart comes in to help out the word itself. In the future, as a rule, no distinction at all is made between the three ideas. But here again the peri- phrastic conjugation can be employed. As a rule the future is aoristic anyhow. For further discussion see Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 180; Farrar, Greek Syntax, p. 120, and the references there to Harris' Hermes, Harper's Powers of the Greek Tenses, and H. Schmidt's Dodrina Temporum Verbi Graeci et Latini. The modem Greek preserves as distinct forms the aorist, present, im- perfect; the future, the perfect and past perfect using periphrastic forms. Mr. Dan Crawford reports 32 tenses for Bantu. (c) The Verb-Root. There were originally two types of verb- roots, the punctiliar and the durative. The tense called aorist (adpiaros, 'undefined action') is due to the use of the pimctiliar verbs (the idea of a point on a line). The present tense comes out of the durative verb-root. But it is worth repeating that tenses are a later development in the use of the verb.^ Hence it was natural that some verbs never developed a pres- ent tense, Hke tUov, and some made no aorist, Hke opow. The de- fective verbs thus throw much Hght on the history of the tenses. ' Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 482 f . CONJUGATION OF THE VERB ('PHMa) 345 Out of these two ideas grew all the tenses. Each language had its own development. Some aorists in Sanskrit had no presents, hke the Greek dirov. Each tense in tHfe Greek pursued its own way. It is a complex development as will be seen. The idea of com- paring the aorist to a point and the present to a line is due to Curtius, but it has since been worked out at length.' Instead of saying "irregular" verbs, Delbruck {Vergl. Syntax, Tl. II, p. 256) speaks of "several roots united to one verb." This Aktionsart or kind of action belongs more specifically to syntax.'' But it is not possible to make a modern study of the tense formations without having clearly in mind this important matter. It will come out at every turn. Along with the various tense-suffixes which came to be used to express the tense-distinc- tions as they were developed there remains also the meaning of the verb-root itself. This is never to be left out of sight. Prepo- sitions also enter into the problem and give a touch much like a suffix (perfective). So BviioKtiv is 'to be dying* while kwoBavtiv is 'to die' and oLiroTeBvriKkvai is 'to be dead.' Of. ?xei> and dTr^x", iayov and Kark^tov. But more of this in Syntax. The point here is simply to get the matter in mind. (d) The Aorist Tense {aopiaroi XP^^"^)- I* is not true that this tense was always the oldest or the original form of the verb. As seen above, sometimes a durative root never made an aorist or punctiliar stem. But the punctiliar idea is the simplest idea of the verb-root, with many verbs was the original form, and logic- ally precedes the others. Hence it can best be treated first. This is clearer if we dismiss for the moment the so-called first aorists and think only of the second aorists of the -fu form, the oldest aorists. It is here that we see the rise of the aorist. Henry' has put this matter tersely: "The ordinary grammars have been very unfortu- nate in their nomenclature; the so-called second perfects are much more simple and primitive than those called first perfects; the same is the case with the second aorists passive as contrasted with the first aorists," etc. The same remark applies to second aorists active and middle. The non-thematic second aorists represent, of course, ' Cf. Mutzbauer, Grundl. der Tempuslehre (1893); Delbruck, Grundl. d. griech. Synt., II, pp. 13 ff.; Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 470 ft.; Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 480 f.; Moulton, Prol., pp. 108 ff. ' Thumb (Handb., p. 123) likewise feels the necessity of a word about Aktionsart under Morphology. » Comp. Gr. of the Gk. and Lat., Elliott's transl., 1890, p. 105 f. note. Cf. Leo Meyer, Griech. Aoriste, 1879, p. 5 f . 346 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the most primitive form. The survivals of these forms in the N. T. have been discussed under -fu Verbs. The diBference between the strong aorist (both thematic and non-thematic) and similar presents is syntactical and not formal.' The point is that the strong aorists and the corresponding presents represent the simple stem of the verb. Brugmann^ indeed treats them together. It is not possible to make an etymological distinction between the imperfects eft)r}v, eypaov and the aorists iarriv, itvyov. The im- perfect, of course, differs from the present only in the augment and secondary endings.^ The kinship between the aorist and present stems is further shown in reduplication. Reduplication in the aorist, as rJYaYov, is supposed to be originally causative.^ Cf. the use of it with inceptive presents like yL{y)voii Bnig., Griech. Gr., p. 268. 2 lb. Cf. ako Riem. and Goelzer, Phon^t., pp. 396, 410, 414. So K.-Bl., II, p. 92 f. ' Cf. Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 453 f. * So Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 308. Cf. Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 371. Cf. K.-Bl., II, p. 30 f., for Ust. ' Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 298. » See interesting Usts in Sterrett's II., N. 38 ff. ' V. and D., Handb. etc., p. 79 f. 8 K.-Bl., II, p. 102 f. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 313; Delbriick, Grundl., etc., IV, pp. 75 ff. Hartmann (De aoristo secundo, 1881, p. 21) makes too much distinction between the second and first aorists. " Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 313. "> Sterrett, Horn. II., N. 42. CONJUGATION OF THE VEKB ("PHMa) 347 tension of this usage (after the analogy of the perfect) is seen in the Byzantine and modern Greek ^ form k\WriKa for eKWriv. There is one more aorist form, the aorist passive. As already shown, the so-called second aorist passive (-i?^), Uke ia.vrjv, kx&priv, is merely the second aorist active.' The so-called first aorist passive in -6r]v 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 modern 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 fiijmi., Yvumi, SoOj'ai, Sdmi, Beivai, irpiaaOai, ffrrjvai.. 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 iduKa, W-qKa, arJKa occur always ex- cept that Luke (1:2 in the literary introduction) has irapkbocav. Elsewhere 'tSi^Kare (Mt. 25 : 35), WriKav (Mk. 6:29), dc^ij/care (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 found in the discussion of -^t verbs and includes avk^ifv, 'iryvciv, earrjv, i^tiv, 0}vanr]v, and all the forms of dovvai, elvai and Btivai save the indicative active. > V. and D. Handb., etc., p. 81, but in particular Thumb, Handb., p. 144. 2 Cf . K.-Bl., II, p. 93 f . ' Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 399 f. * Sterrett, Horn. II., N. 42 f. 6 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 126. Cf. Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 45. • Munro, ib., p. 47. ' Cf. Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., pp. 180 ff.; 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. 265. 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 Uke ejSaXai', 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. 'Efiioiaa (1 Pet. 4 : 2) is a case in point instead of the old Attic ifi'iMv. So is ejSXd- arrim (Mt. 13:26; Heb. 9:4; Jas. 5 : 18) rather than ipKaarov. Both kyafir^aa (Mt. 5 : 32) tod 'eyrifia (Mt. 22 : 25) occur. Cf. Hel- bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 93 f., and Thackeray, Gr., pp. 233 if., for LXX illustrations. 'H^a occurs a few times instead of the common r/Yayoc, as kira^ai (2 Pet. 2:5), eirto-wd^at (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 afiaprijcw is slip- ping in beside afiapToi (Mt. 18 : 15; Ro. 5 : 14, 16, cf. verse 12). Blass finds it in Emped., LXX, Lob., Phryn., 732. W. H. accept ebvaiv (Mk. 1 : 32 on the authority of BD (NA, etc., e«u). Luke in Ac. 24 : 21 has the reduplicated aorist kkpafct like the LXX, but usually the N. T. has the late form Upa^a as in Mt. 8 : 29 (e/cpa^av), though once the Attic avkKpayov appears (Lu. 23 : 18). Once Luke (Ac. 6 : 2) has KaraXeif ocras, a form that Blass^ finds in Herm., Vis. VIII, 3. 5, and Mayser* observes a,vTei.\fjopi(Tafiev (1 Cor. 15: 49) and kppkdr, (Mt. 5 : 21), but eicl)6pv (1 Cor. 9 : 21), elsewhere -ijo-a; k^eK&dapa (1 Cor. 5:7); kXevKavav (Rev. 7:14); kariixam (Rev. 1:1); ^xu^ami (Lu. 1 : 79) . In Rev. 8 : 12 and 18 : 23 note 4>&vTg, not (t>av^. The Koivij begins to use -dm and -apa with all verbs, and it is well-nigh universal in modern Greek. The LXX agrees with the N. T. (Thackeray, Gr., p. 223). A few -^va forms survive in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 140 f.). The second aorist passive has a few late developments of its own. This substitution of the second aorist passive for the first is a favorite idiom in the N. T.* The Koivij shows hkewise fond- ness for the -^v formations.^ This is true of the inscriptions" and the papyri.^ This development is directly the opposite of that in the case of the second and first aorist active and middle. It has already been observed that in Homer the passive aorist is very rare. Perhaps the increase in the use of -r]v forms is partly due to the general encroachment of aorist passive forms on the middle, and this is the simplest one. The Attic, of course, had many such forms also. Here are the chief N. T. examples: riyyeXriv (air-, av-, hi-, Kar-, Lu. 8 : 20, etc.) is in the LXX and the papyri; riuoiyriv (Mk. 7:35, etc.), but y]volxOn<^a-v also (Rev. 20:12); ijp- ■^a.yr)v (2 Cor. 12 : 2, 4), but the Attic rfpirkcBr) (Rev. 12 : 5); &io- pvyijvaL is read by some MSS. in Mt. 24:43; 316x017171' (Gal. 3 : 19), hTiTaytiv (Ro. 8 : 20, etc.), but the Attic SiaraxOiVTa (Lu. 17: 9 f.); ' Cf. W.-Sch., p. 105. " Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 360 ff., for careful discussion and references for further research. ' So Tovioi and 4>opioi{e) in the LXX. Cf. W.-Soh., p. 105. * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 43. ' Cf . Schmid, Attioismus, IV, p. 694 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 KareKaTiv (Rev. 8 : 7; 1 Cor. 3 : 15), but Attic 'e^tKavdr,aav (Ro. 1 : 27); Karevvyriv (Ac. 2 :37); bcpifi-qv (Jo. 8 : 59). So also k4>{ntv in- stead of i(i)vv follows the analogy of hppbriv (Heb. 2 : 1) and exapriv (Lu. 22 : 5). Thus we have kK(l>vfj (Mk. 13 :28)i and (rvp4>vu(rai (Lu. 8 : 6-8). Forms like kirKiiyriv (Rev. 8 : 12) and ^^dvijy (Mt. 1 : 20) are Attic. On the other hand the poetical kXWijv (Mt. 14 : 19 avaKXudijvai.) has displaced the Attic iKKlvrjv. ' AireKTavdriv oc- casionally appears (as in Mk. 8 : 31 and Rev. six times) where the Attic would have avtBavov, and eTexOtiv (Lu. 2:11) when the Attic would usually have iyevofirfv. Both iytvr)dr]v (Mt. 6 : 10 and often in 1 Th.) and eyevoniiv (Mt. 7 : 28) are common, as r)bvvi]d'i)v (Mt. 17 : 16) and e8vva.adr]v (Mk. 7 : 24). The many aorist passives in the deponent sense have already been noticed under vi, (e). (e) The Present Tense (o eyeo-Tm? %/3oVo?). The present indicative, from the nature of the case, is the most frequent in actual use and hence shows the greatest diversity of develop- ment. Brugmann^ finds thirty-two distinct ways of forming the present tense in the Indo-Germanic tongues and thirty of them in the Greek. But some of these represent very few verbs and for practical purposes a much simpler classification is suf- ficient.' Unfortunately the grammars by no means agree on the simplification. As samples see Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 425 f.; Hadley and Allen, p. 122 f.; Monro, Homeric Grammar, p. 9; Riemann and Goelzer, Phonetique, pp. 394 ff.; Kiihner-Blass, 11, pp. 88 ff. In simple truth the facts are so varied that they lend themselves to many combinations more or less artificial. One of the most satisfactory is that of Monxo, who has the his- torical instinct at least in his arrangement. 1. The Root Class. This is the simple non-thematic present like (j}rifiL This is the logical one to put first, as with the aorist like i-fi-q-v. This class is disappearing in the N. T. though hbva- p,aL, ti/jii, tip,!, in composition {ela—, e^), KcuB-ri-fiat,, Ku-fiai, Kpena-fiai appear. 2. The Non-Thematic Reduplicated Present. So 5t-5w-/ti, Z-jj- pL, l-(TTT]-pi,, d-xpri-pi, ovlvq-pi, irip-vKri-pL, ri-Ori-pi,. It was never a very large class, but holds on in the N. T. And -w forms are common with these verbs. 1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 110, for exx. in Jos. and LXX. Cf. also Helbing, Gr. d, Sept., p. 95 f. MSS. simply read -0ui). ^ Grundr., II, pp. 836-1330. In Horn, the same root wiU form a present in several ways, as ^x", 1^x<->, iaxlLvw. Cf. Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 40. ' Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 423. CONJUGATION OF THE VEKB (tHMA) 351 3. The Non-Thematic Present with -pa- and -vv-. So in the N. T. afj^i-k-vw-iii, air-6\-\v-ni, Sei^^vv-fii, ^eiiy-vv-jxi, ^dsv-vv-fu, Kar- dy-vv-HL, Kepa-vvv-HL, Kopk-vw-fu, Kpe-tia-vvv-jM, iji,ly-vv~fii, ofi-vv-ni, irriy- vv-nh priy-w-tii, (rPk-vw-ni, ffrpoi-vvv-ni, but these all have more commonly the -w forms.* 4. The Simple Thematic Present. So 'Keycc, \voi. This was a constantly increasing class at the expense of the -fu verbs. It had several branches also including root-verbs like ayoi, ypaei)y-w {vy), ai)TM, TriKw, rpiiyw, BXt^w, irvtyw, etc., Hadley and Allen's "strong vowel class,'"* and the many contract denominative verbs like Tink-iii, ^iKk-03, d^Lo-bj. But see the i Class for these contract verbs. New verbs were added to this list from nouns and some also from verb-stems, ypr\yopk-avTi^(i}, etc. In all the -fco forms the t has united with a palatal (guttural) or hngual (dental), a matter determined by the aorist or future. So (^uXdtr-crco is from <^uXd/c-jco, pa^03 from = aLpii}. In Ka'ui> and /cXatw the v has dropped between a and t. In the N. T. verbs in -alvu, -alpoi have -ava, -apa in the first aorist active as already shown under the aorist tense (d). 'A/i(^idfco (Lu. 12 : 28) is an example of a new present for axjjLkvwfxi. Cf. also oLTOKTevvovToiv (Mt. 10 : 28) in some MSS. for the older a-iroKTtiuoi, -WW, -VJ03. See Blass' for the variations in the MSS. at many places in the N. T. with this word. So kKxvwco (Mt. 26 : 28, etc.) in the best MSS. for kxeu. Only in Mt. 9 : 17 we have kxetrai from iKxkco and in Rev. 16 : 1 kx^are^ in some MSS. (0) The V class is also well represented in the N. T. with the- matic stems. It takes various forms. There is the v alone, as Kap.-vo3, —av as a/iapT-avw, -ve as a,(l>-i.K-veo-imi. Sometimes the c is repeated in the root, as Xa/iiSdvoj (Xo/3), iJiavdavu {p.aff), rvyx&voi (tvx)- In the Koivi] (so LXX and N. T.) this inserted v (m) is retained in the aorist and future of 'Xap.^avu {k\i]p4>dTi)v, Xij/^^ojuat) contrary to literary Attic. So the papyri. (7) The CTK class. It is commonly called inceptive,' but Del- briick* considers these verbs originally terminative in idea, while Monro ^ calls attention to the iterative idea common in Homer with the suffix -o-xe, -(tko. The verbs with c/c may be either with- out reduplication, as fid-crKoi, dvif-aKos, iXd-cr/co/iat, 0d-o-Kco, or with reduplication as 7t(7)j'a)-o-Kco, hSa-aKXii (for Si-fidx-c/cw), iiL-fivij-uKOii, Ta-ax^ (for v&B-aKcS). Cf. apk-aKW, yafi-itTKd}, jripa-ffKca, eiip-icTKOi, nM-(TKO}. Reduplication is thus a feature with root-verbs (non- thematic) like di-dca-iii and thematic fike yL{y)vo-iMi as well as the (TK class. For redupHcation in the aorist and the perfect see (h). The iterative idea of some of these ck 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 1 Gr.of N.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. ' Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 436. * Grundr., IV, p. 59. Cf. Brug., Grundr., II, § 669. ' Horn. Gr., p. 34. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB ('PHMA) 353 always a labial stem like Hir-ro], ^dir-ru, t{ix-tu. The root may end in /? as in /caXiix-To;, ir as in riiir-Tu, or <^ as in fiav-Tu. It is even possible that ttt may represent an«t)riginal x/ (cf. iota class). (e) The class. Cf. &\i]-8(i3, ea-du, Kvii-du, vij-Oo} in the present. The modern Greek has developed many new presents on the basis of the aorist or the perfect (Thimib, Handb., p. 143). (/) The Future Tense (6 iJ,e\Xmv xpovo<;). 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 a- 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 eaeade \a\ovvTes (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 da and the subjunctive or BeXu and the remnant of the in- finitive, like our English "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, vTrayu aXieveLv (Jo. 21 : 3). The other disciples respond kpx6iieSa, Kal ijm«s ayofiai. It is possible that those with variable vowel like edonai may really be the same form as the Homeric subjunc- tive (like lontv as opposed to l/iev).^ Uiofiai. is common in Attic (N. T.) and is from aorist root (e-m-ov). The form ^wyonai (LXX and N. T.) is analogous (aorist, ecpayov). The Attic used x«ev^onat (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. sio) shows itself in the Aktionsart of the tense. So Moulton notes irpodjco (Mk. 14 : 28) as durative, but a^u (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 -tfco. It is like the Doric -aeo/e. So we have -to-^oj, drop- ping ff we get -iku=-i.Si. These verbs in -tfco are very common in the later Greek. In the N. T. the usage varies between this form of the future and the aoristic form in -<7o/e. The LXX, like the Ptolemaic papyri (Thackeray, p. 228), has usually -ub in first sin- gular and so fieroiKiSi (Ac. 7:43) and rapopy lSj (Ro. 10 : 19), both quotations. Elsewhere W. H.^ prefer the forms in -iaco, and Blass^ thinks that in the original passages of the N. T. the -Lau forms are genuine. So the forms in -iaei. (like fiairTicei) are uniform in the N. T. (Lu. 3 : 16) save Kaj9api.il (Heb. 9 : 14) and 5iaKaffapi,u (Mt. 3 : 12) .* MSS. vary between acpopLtZ and -iati, ^ajnet and -iaei, xpoviei and -iffei. Cf. Blass.' So in Eph. 6:8; Col. 3: 25, the MSS. vary between Konidrai and KOfiiaeTaL. Some MSS. read KotuohfitvoL in 2 Pet. 2 : 13.* All editors' accept KonieZcde in 1 Pet. 5 : 4. The active plural W. H.'" print as -lovcn always (as naKa- piovtnv, Lu. 1 :48) save in yv is common in the LXX and ' And this Teaov/iai is possibly not from irtT-ffovtiai, but a change of t to ayoiiai (Lu. 14 : 15), 0eii^o/iat (Jo. 10 : 5). Xap^ao/iai. (Lu. 1 : 14) Blass' regards as Attic future from the aorist (exapriv) as compared with the future xatpijcroi from the present. Both aKovacj (Jo. 5 : 25) and aKovaofmi (Ac. 21 : 22, chiefly in the Acts) are found, and ^r/au (Jo. 5 : 25) and f^o-ojuat (Jo. 11 : 25). The so-called second future passive as seen in the case of xop^o'o- tiai above is really just the middle ending with a put to the aorist active stem. There is no difference in form or sense between ^rj-ffo-fmL and a (Jo. 19:22), otda (Jo. 10:4), o\oi\a (air- Mi. 10 : 6), etc. These forms are found in the LXX. Cf. Hel- bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 103; Thackeray, Gr., p. 252 f. But the kolvti gave up the shorter (without -a) forms of the plural indicative active perfect of icrrrj/ii (co-Tajuev, earare, iaraaiv). See this chapter, IV, (d), 3, for details. 3. The K Perfect. This is a new type created by the Greek lan- guage of which no adequate explanation has yet been offered. The Attic inscriptions already had the k form (Meisterhans, p. 189 f.). It is apparently at first in the singular, as in 'iarriKa (pi. eaTap.iv), etc.* One might think that just as tJkco has a perfect sense like Kuixai and finally had a few perfect forms ^ (like ifiKaaiv), so by analogy some K verbs became the type and analogy did the rest. But Giles' ob- serves that the stems of the twelve or fourteen k perfects in Homer all end in a vowel, a liquid or a nasal, not one in k. And then the 1 Riem. and Goelzer, Phon^t., p. 445. 2 Sterrett, Horn. II., N. 43. So -yir/ova, ttoiBa, \i\oiva, itk-KoiBa, etc. » Gk. Gr., p. 323. < Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 372 ff. 6 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 159 f. « Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 412 f. ' In the LXX fjKaiJ.ev, TJKan, fiKaaiv occur. The pap. add KoBrjuvlas, f/KSruv, ilKkvai.. Wackern., Theol. Literaturzeit., 1908, p. 38. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 103 f.; Thack., Gr., p. 269. The pap. show the perfect forms in the plural. Mayser, p. 372. s Man., p. 450. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB ("PHMA) 359 three k aorists {tSuKa, WtiKa, ^ko) call for explanation. But per cordra there are some perfects in Homer which have k stems like 5e- dopKa, ioiKa, T^TTj/ca, etc. So that aft?r all analogy may be the true explanation of the k perfects which came, after Homer's time, to be the dominant type in Greek. But the -ko perfects are rare in Homer. The examples are so common (8k8taKa, etc.), in the Koiuii as in the classic Greek, as to need no list. Note eo-rij/ca intransi- tive and eo-TttKa transitive. 4. The Aspirated Perfects. They are made from labials and palatals (a and Tkrpcxtm.} Ho- mer did use this aspirate in the peculiar middle form like Terpd- tparai.^ He has indeed TkTpo4>a from rpe^co' and probably just here, we may see the explanation by analogy of Ttrpo^a. from Tpk-Kw and so of all the aspirated forms.* An important factor was the fact that K, y, x were not distinguished in the middle perfect forms. As a N. T. example of this later aspirated perfect take wpoaeurivoxa (Heb. 11: 17). Cf. also eiXi7<^a, ireTpaxa, rkraxa. 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 /cotwj some active perfect forms drop the distinctive endings and we find forms like U^paKav and ecbpaKes. Helbing {Gr. d. Sept., pp. 101-103) gives LXX examples of root- perfects like eppuya, k perfects like rWeiKa, ea-rriKa and transitive effTCLKa, aspirated perfects hke epprixa. The middle and passive perfects did use the reduplication, but the endings were added directly to this reduplicated stem as in X^-Xu-/tat. On the history of the ending -xa see Pfordten, Zur Geschichte des griechischen Perfectums, 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 vidi 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 ' GUes, 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, Man., 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 K€K\rin€vos. The perfect active is now made with ?x'>' and the passive participle (exw Se/iho) or with 'ix<>i and a root similar to the third singular aorist sub- junctive (ex" 8^<^fi' or Sk(rn)- Cf. Thumb, Handh., p. 161. The only K perfect in modern Greek is eCpr/Ka, "the only certain rem- nant of the ancient perfect" {ih., p. 148). Cf. €x« Ae irapxtTTiixkvov (Lu. 14 : 18). Cf. also -ireTWpciifievriv exere t^v KapSiav ifiSiv (Mk. 8 : 17). This is much hke the Enghsh perfect in reahty, not like the Greek ex'<' and aorist participle (like exco d/couo-as). Cf. Sonnen- schein, Greek Grammar, Syntax, 1894, p. 284. The perfect pas- sive in modern Greek vernacular is formed hke exw 'kvdfj {-ei) or XeXvuivos dfiaL.^ 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 €i5S) (eiSrJTe, 1 Jo. 5 : 13), ap- pears only in the periphrastic conjugatiop, of which a few examples remain. So the active, as § ireroiriKdiis (Jas. 5 : 15), ireTotSdres Sifuv (2 Cor. 1 : 9), and the passive, as Siciv TeriKuMixkvei (Jo. 17 : 23), g KiK\i)ixkvos (Lu. 14 : 8), S ireirXripuiixkvri (Jo. 16 : 24). So also Jo. 17 : 19, 1 Cor. 1 : 10, etc. The imperative makes a little better show- ing. We still have lare (Jas. 1 : 19; Eph. 5:5; Heb. 12 : 17 all pos- sible indicatives), Telfiwao (Mk. 4 : 39) and eppucrde (Ac. 15 : 29). The periphrastic imperative perfect is also found as 'iffToiaav T€pLe^o}(Tfihai (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 -xa 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, Hom. 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 n^es for the three tenses of per- fect action in the indicative. The Stoics ' called the present perfect ffwreXiKos (or reXetos) xpovos kvmrus, the past perfect crvPTtXiKd^ (t€- Xetos) xpovos irap(^xVl^^vos, the future perfect o-urreXiKos (reXetos) xporas likWoov. Sometimes the present perfect was called merely 6 irapa- Keifievos xpovos, the past perfect 6 iirepcrvvTeKiKos xpovos, and the future perfect 6 fier' oKiyov piWcav xp^vos {futurum exadum). 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 redene- \Imto (Mt. 7 : 25) and eXijXieei (Jo. 6 : 17), but k^k^XvTo (Lu. 16 : 20) and irepieSeSero (Jo. 11 : 44). Cf. etxov airoK€i,fjiv7iu (Lu. 19 : 20) in the light of modern 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 -i? is a new formation, a contraction of -ea into -7]. In the N. T., however, only -eiv is used. It is not certain whether the past perfect is an original Indo-Germanic form. The futixre perfect was always a very rare tense with only two ac- tive forms of any frequency, earii^u and reBvij^ia. The middle and passive could make a better showing. In Heb. 8:11 dhiiaovaiv is probably future active (from LXX),* and in Lu. 19:40 some MSS., but not NBL (rejected by W. H.), give KeKpa^ovrai. (cf . LXX). In Heb. 2 : 13 (another quotation from the LXX) we have the periphrastic form i(70fMi. ireiroiffiis. The future perfect passive occurs in the N. T. only in the periphrastic form in such examples as ^orai Sedefikvov (Mt. 16 : 19), iarai 'Ke'Kvfiiva (Mt. 18 : 18), icovrai BiatieiiepLo-fievoi. (Lu. 12 : 52). Cf. 'icrij KaT[a]T€dei.ti[k]vo^) 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 Horner.^ The papyri likewise show some examples.* ' K.-Bl., II, p. 2f. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 201. Brug. calls the past perf. a "neue BMung." ' Handb. etc., p. 416 f. * So Hirt follows Wackem. in seeing a new stem here elSri~. Cf. ib., p. 416. B in Deut. 8 : 3 has eWriirav like the aorist eXSriaa from Arist. onwards. Cf . Mayser, Gr., p. 370; Thack., Gr., p. 278. . ' Sterrett, Hom. 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 GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT The present perfect and the past perfect also have the periphrastic conjugation. So we find with comparative indifference^ ianv yeypafifieva (Jo. 20 : 30) and in the next verse ykypairrai. So also fjv yey pafifikvov (Jo. 19:19) and iireytypaTTTo (Ac. 17:23). Cf. also Lu. 2 : 26. The active has some examples also, though not so many, as eo-rais el/xi, (Ac. 25 : 10), and ^aav TpoeupaKores (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 a in the present stem, like TeXe(tr)a), aKov{a)oi. Hence TereKecfiai, fiKovffixai. (riKoixrBriv) , etc.^ Others are dental stems like Treid-os, wt- Tttiup.ai. Others again are v stems which in Attic (apparently analogical) changed to tr, as <^aicco, Tre^atr/iai, but in the N. T. this V assimilates to the /* as in i^pannevos (Mk. 11 : 20) from ^rjpalvco, ixepLiaiintvoi (Tit. 1 : 15) from fualvco. Then again some verbs take the (T by analogy merely, as in the case of 'iyvoianai, 'eyv6iaBt]v (1 Cor. 13 : 12), KkXeta/iat (Lu. 11 : 7), UXovaixai (Heb. 10 : 23). Qi) Reduplication (BnrXa(naa-ii6<; or ai/oStTrXuxn?). 1. Primitive. Now this primitive repetition of the root belongs to many languages and has a much wider range than merely the perfect tense. Hence it calls for separate treatment. It is older, this repetition or intensifjdng of a word, than either the inflection of nouns or the conjugation of verbs.' Root reduplication ex- isted in the parent language.* 2. Both Nouns and Verbs. Among nouns note ay-cayos, Pap- /3opos, Pe-firi\os, etc. But it was among verbs that reduplication found its chief development.^ 3. In Three Tenses in Verbs. It is in the aorist, the present and the perfect. This is precisely the case with the Sanskrit, where very many aorists, some presents and nearly all perfects have reduplication.* In Homer' the reduplication of the second 1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 202 f. Brug. (Griech. Gr., p. 330 f.) points out how in prehistoric times 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 illustr. of both ct and v {ft). ' 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. » Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 176. Fritzsche (Ques. de redupl. graeca; Curtius, Stud, zu griech. and lat. Gr., pp. 279 ff.) considers the doubUng of the syl- lable (iteration) the origin of all reduplication like Ap-ap-laicw, Pi.-0i.-^ia. » Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 222. ' Sterrett, Horn. II., N. 32. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB ("PHMa) 363 aorist is much more frequent than in later Greek, but forms like fiyayov, fjueyKov, tlirov, persist in N. T. Greek and the koivt] gener- ally. Cf. kkpafa in Ac. 24 : 2"l. The Greek present shows reduplication in three classes of presents, viz. the root class (like Sl-hufii, l-ri-fii, l-arrini, etc.), the thematic presents (like yi-^vo-iuxi, TTi-TTTO), etc.), inceptive verbs (like yL-yvd^-a-Koi, etc.). The most common reduplication in Greek is, of course, that in the perfect tense, where it is not like augment, mode-sign or per- sonal endings. It is an integral part of the tense in all modes, voices and persons. And yet it is just in the perfect that re- duphcation disappears in the later Greek. In the vernacular the extinction is nearly complete.' Even presents^ hke jvooctku occur in modern Greek. Dieterich' gives numerous examples of dropped reduplication in inscriptions and papyri. It is absent in the modern Greek vernacular, even in the participle.* 4. Three Methods in Reduplication. Perhaps the oldest is the doubling of the whole syllable, chiefly in presents and aorists, like yoy-yii^oj, dp-apio-/cco, rjy-ay-ov, etc. This is the oldest form of re- duplication'^ and is more common in Greek than in Latin.^ The later grammarians called it Attic redupUcation because it was less common in their day,' though, as a matter of fact, HOmer used it much more than did the Attic writers.* But perfects have this form also, as i.KriKoa, i\ri\vda, etc. But the reduplication by t is confined to presents like St-5w/it, yi-yvoixai, yt-yviiaKO}, etc. And most perfects form the reduphcation with e and the repetition of the first letter of the verb as X^-Xu/ca. But Homer had wkinOov and other such aorists. Elrov is really an example of such an aorist. 5. Reduplication in the Perfect. The history is probably as follows in the main. Originally there were some perfects without reduplication,' a remnant of which we see in olSa. The doubling of the whole syllable was the next step hke dK-17/coa, k-ypni-yop-a, eX-ii^vOa, airokoiXa, etc., like the present and aorist usage.'" Then comes the e with repetition of the initial letter of a consonant- > See Jann., Hist. Gr., p. 190 f., tor exx. like «tokto even in Polyb., and later ypaiiixkvoi, etc. 2 lb. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 148 f. » Unters. etc., p. 215. ' Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 409. * Thumb, Handb., p. 148 f. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 190. 5 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 369. ' Sterrett, Horn. II., N. 32. 9 Cf. Brug., Comp. Gr. (transL), IV, p. 384. Cf. also Hirt, Handb. etc. p. 407; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 259. '» lb., Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 70-82, treats together augment and redu- plication, not a very satisfactory method. 364 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT stem like \i-\oiva. But here some further modifications crept in. The aspirates did not repeat, but we have rk-deiKa. Those with o- did not repeat it, but instead used the rough breathing as lpalvovTo (Ac. 7:#1), eimpeiTo (Ac. 11:29), eWv- Spoiiijaatiev (Ac. 16:11), eixapiarriatv (Ac. 27:35).i But on the other hand we have •qipt.aiKov (Mk. 14 : 55), vpoariii^avTo (Ac. 8 : 15), ■rjvxofivv (Ro. 9:3), riiiSdKriaav (Ro. 15:26); of oi, okodoti^Ori (Jo. 2 : 20), etc., but cfKoSoiniaev (Lu. 7 : 5), etc.; of a, d^afiev (Gal. 2 : 5) just like Attic; of e, hiepnijvvaev (Lu. 24 : 27), SuytLpeTo (Jo. 6 : 18), AviBr, (Ac. 16 : 26), akBr}aav (Ro. 4 : 7, Ps. 32 : 1); of o, itpo- opiiijiriv (Ac. 2 : 25; Ps. 16 : 8), and some MSS. in Lu. 13 : 13 {&vop- Oiidrj) and Ro. 9: 29 (bfioiMrifiev) ; of i, laxv^ev (Lu. 8 : 43), kavoifnv (2 Cor. 3 : 6) and laro (Lu. 9 : 11); of i]Ti\)aaiiev and -aav. Sometimes the preposition itself is treated as a part of the verb when put directly to the verb, as ri4,iev (Mk. 1 : 34), rtvoL^tv (Rev. 6:1), Sirivoiyev (Lu. 24 : 32), ka- BevSou (Mt. 25-: 5), eKciflijTo (Mt. 13 : 1), eKadicrev (Jo. 19 : 13), ka- Oe^ero (Jo. 4 : 6). In Mt. 13 : 15 kKannvaav (from Is. 6 : 10) is assimilation of Karafivu. Verbs beginning with ev- vary in aug- mented tenses between ev- and tju-, but when followed by a vowel, the verb is treated as a compound Uke evriyyeKicaro above. 7. Double Augment. It is fairly common in the N. T. In the seen (Thack., Gr., pp. 196, 199 f.). The pap. often have -apWriv for -jipWriP (Mayser, pp. 127, 336). 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 ^7070^ and dirov the augment is added to the aoristic re- dupUcation. But in idopuv (Jo. 6 : 2 in Tischendorf s text, W. H. edeiipow) there is a clear case of double augment like the double reduplication in etipciKa. So also the N. T. regularly riSvvridriv (Mt. 17 : 16) and even riSwacBr] (Mk. 7 : 24). Both iSvvaro (Mk. 6 : 5) and rtShvaro (Mk. 14 : 5) appear and the MSS. vary much. This t] (analogy to HiBtKav) first arises in the Attic in 300 b.c' With MeXXw, riixeXKov is the usual form (Jo. 4: 47), though iiieWov occurs also (Jo. 7: 39). BobXonai in the N. T. never has 17, though the Text. Rec. has it in 2 Jo. 12. On the other hand dekoo always has tj (Gal. 4 : 20, ijOeXov) even after the initial e was dropped. 'AiroKa- 6l(rTr]ni has always a double augment, one with each preposition. So aireKarecTri (Mk. 8 : 25) and airemTeaToffri (Mk. 3 : 5).^ So LXX and later Greek.^ But in Heb. 12 : 4 avriKaTea-TriTe is the true text.* 'Avolyo) has a pecuhar history. It now has single augment on the preposition, as TJvoL^ev (Rev. 6:3), now double augment of the verb, as avic^^ev (Jo. 9:14), now a triple augment on verb and preposition, as ^j/etJixSijcac (Mt. 9 : 30). ' kvkxoiJ.a.1., on the other hand, has only one augment, as avecxbiirjv (Ac. 18 : 14) and avtixiaOt (2 Cor. 11:1). For double augment in the LXX see Thackeray, (?r., pp. 202ff. Vin. The Infinitive {■f\ dirape[i<()aTos e'YKXio-is). The most striking development of the infinitive in the Koiv-q belongs to syntax, and not accidence.^ Hence a brief discussion will here suffice. Blass, for instance, in his Grammar of N. T. Greek, has no discussion of the infinitive under "Accidence," nor has Moulton in his Prolegomena. But the infinitive has a very in- teresting history on its morphological side. 1. No Terminology at First. Originally it was a mere noun of action {rmmen actionis). Not all nouns of action developed into infinitives. Brugmann^ quotes from Plato t'^v tov deov 86<7i.v vfiv where a noun of action (fibais) is used with the dative. This is, of course, not an infinitive. The older Sanskrit shows quite a variety of nouns of action used in a "quasi-infinitive sense,"' governing cases Uke the verb, but having no tense nor voice. 2. Fixed Case-Forms. The first stage in the development was reached when these nouns of action were regarded as fixed case- » Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 169. * Hort, jSTotes on Orth., p. 163. 2 So inscr. Letronne, Rec. II, p. 463. ' Dieterich, Unters., p. 209. » W.-Sch., p. 103. « Comp. Gr. (transl.), II, p. 471. ' Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 203. On these infs. in posse see Bmg., Comp. Gr., IV, p. 599. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB ("PHMa) 369 forms. That stage was obtained in the Sanskrit. At first the da- tive was the most common case so used along with the accusative, genitive, ablative and sometimes t*e locative. In the later San- skrit the accusative supplanted the rest (turn or itum). Cf. the Latin supine.' But the Sanslcrit infinitive, while governing cases, never developed tense nor voice, and so remained essentially a substantive. 3. With Voice and Tense. But the second stage appears in the Greek and Latin where it had its most characteristic develop- ment.^ The infinitive becomes a real verbal substantive. Here voice and tense are firmly estabhshed. But while, by analogy, the Greek infinitive comes to be formed on the various tense and voice stem's, that is an after-thought and not an inherent part of the infinitive. There was originally no voice, so that it is even a debatable question if riixyj-aai, for instance, and hciberi are not formed exactly alike.' The active and the passive ideas are both capable of development from SurarAs Oavnaaau, 'capable for won- dering.'* The. passive infinitive had only sporadic development in single languages.^ The middle is explained in the same way as active and passive. The tense-development is more complete in Greek than in Latin, the future infinitive being peculiar to Greek. The Latin missed also the distinctive aorist infinitive. But here also analogy has played a large part and we are not to think of XOtrai, for instance, as having at bottom more kinship with 'i\vaa than with \i)epuv, for instance. But the cases used with the infinitive will be discussed in Sjoitax. 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, -(rat, -kvai., -(nvai (Homer), -o-^at (-9at). Those in -adai, alone give any trouble. It is probably a compound (o-, dai), but its precise origin is not clear.^ The locative is seen in -etc, and Homeric -/tec, 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 fjKdov ayop&aai, 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. (transl.), IV, p. 7. * Brug., Comp.Gr. (transl.),p.7. ' K.-BL, II, p. 4. s Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 90. 8 Cf. Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 469 f.; Brug., Grundr., II, § 1093. 8. ' Hirt, Handb., p. 432; Giles, Man., p. 470. s Moulton, Prol., p. 202. » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 154. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB ("PHMa) '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 -ei.v and -vai remain longest (Thackeray, Gr., pp. 210, 257). The causes for the disappearance of the infinitive in later Greek till^n the modern 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 on. and I'm (modern Greek m). 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 (&Ti, oTT&Js, Iva).^ Cf. Latin. The English infinitive has an inter- esting history also as the mutilated form of the dative of a ge- rund.* 8. Some N. T. Forms. Not many N. T. forms call for special remark and those have been explained already, such as -olv (Mt. 13 : 32; Heb. 7:5), ivuv and even -rtlv for irieiv (Jo. 4:9). In Lu. 1 : 79 iiri^dvai instead of the Attic iintlifjvai is noticeable. In Ph. 4 : 12 we have Treiyav, not -rjv. The Coptic has the infinitive jua- (TTiyyoip (cf. W. H. KaTaaKrivotv , Mt. 13 : 32; Mk. 4 : 32, and airoht- Karotv in Heb. 7:5). In 1 Cor. 11 : 6 we find both neipaaBai and ^vpaadcLL. In Mk. 14 : 71 ofivvmL is the regular -lu form. In Heb. 11:5 evape(TTriK€vai is without reduplication in AKI. In Lu. 9: 18 (11 : 1) a periphrastic infinitive appears, kv t^j dvai. aMv irpo- aeuxomvov. The augment occurs with dvecjjx^^j'ai in Lu. 3 : 21. Cf. ia-o/iaL Si,S6pai in Tob. 5:15B. IX. The Participle (ii liexoxii). 1. The Name. This does not really distinguish this verbal ad- jective from the verbal substantive, the infinitive. Both are par- 1 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 ia 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 infiection like other adjectives. Clyde ^ would include parti- ciples in the infinitive. So Kiihner-Blass.' Dionysius Thrax^ puts the participle right: Merox)? i» lb. 6 Brug., Comp. Gr., IV, p. 605. " Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 37. 8 lb., II, p. 456. 12 Prol., p. 222. CONJUGATION OP 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, fi\riTkov (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 tKoiv, nkWoiu 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-Hne 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 Sanskrit 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 hke the Sanskrit. The perfect ending (--iwes, -^os, -^s, Greek -cos, -or, -vi) is difficult of explanation, but is Hkevdse 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 -fuevo is uniform and is like the Sanskrit. The Greek aorist passive participle ending (-devT) is pecuUar to the Greek and is made by analoigy from the old active form hke av-kvT-s {ap-eLs), 1 Brag., 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 -rios in the pap. and "the -ros participle is common in neg. forms." Note that he calls it a participle. * Brag., Comp. Gr., II, p. 457. 5 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 347. » Indog. Forsch., V, pp. 89 ff. Cf. Moulton, ProL, p. 221. 7 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 202. » Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 474. 9 Hirt, Handb., p. 436 f. 374 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT like Latin, manens} The participles survive in modern Greek, though the active, like the third declension, takes on the form 7pa0oj'ras {ypacjxav).^ The modern Greek uses chiefly the present active, the past passive participle (Dieterich, Unters., p. 206), and some middle or passive participles in -ovfievos or -afievos (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 0tXo/ieroxot 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 kolv^ 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 pecuHari- ties as to the forms of the participle. In Rev. 19 : 13 ptpanfikvou has been cited under the question of reduplication. 'Ecrrus is more frequent than iartiKiis. Other perfects like dTroXcoXis 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. Modern 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 1 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 473. Cf. the Sans, passive part, in -td or -nd, Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 340. 2 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. 27:49, aiiawy, Jo. 6 : 64, 1 Cor. 15 : 37; Heb. 3:5; 13 : 17; 1 Pet. 3 : 13. Then there are the doubtful forms Kavaoliiava (2 Pet. 3 : 10, 12) and Koiuoiiieiioi (2 Pet. 2 : 13). ' Brug., Comp. Gr., IV, p. 444. « Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 394. ' Brug., Comp. Gr., IV, p. 446. CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (tHMA) 375 not appear, though once a good chance for the periphrastic perfect optative arises as in Ac. 21 : 33, kTrvvBavero rts el'?; Kal H kari.v Trewoiri- Kiis. The perfect subjunctive is Sien in the N. T. only in the periphrastic form both in the active, as ^ Trexoiij/ccis (Jas. 5 : 15), and the passive, as i xeirXijpcoMti'Tj (Jo. 16 : 24). i So 2 Cor. 9 : 3. The periphrastic perfect imperative is illustrated by iaroiaav trepit- ^utTiikvai (Lu. 12 : 35). No example of the periphrastic perfect in- finitive appears in the N. T., so far as I have noticed, except KaTeaToXukvovi vTapxav (Ac. 19 : 36). A periphrastic perfect par- ticiple also is observed in ovras aTriWoTpiojukvous (Col. 1 : 21). Colloquial Attic has it (Arist. Ran. 721) and the inscriptions (Syll. 928«2 ii/B.c.) a-roKeKpinevris oSffTjs (Moulton, Prol, p. 227). In the indicative the periphrastic form is the common one for the future perfect, both active, as ^0-0^01 ireTOLdcos (Heb. 2 : 13), and passive, as eo-rai 'keXvuha (Mt. 18: 18). Cf. Lu. 12: 52. Moulton {Prol, p. 227) finds three papyri with aorist participles in future perfect sense. With ylvofiai, note yeyovare exovres (Heb. 5 : 12). Cf. Rev. 16 : 10, kyevero kaKoriatihri. Cf. 2 Cor. 6 : 14; Col. 1 : 18; Rev. 3 : 2. The past perfect is very common in the passive, as Jjv yey pafinevov (Jo. 19 : 19), but less frequent in the active, as ^aav irpotcopaKSres (Ac. 21:29). In Ac. 8 : 16 we not only have vv ^tti- irtiTTCiSKiJis, biit even ^i^aTTiirnkvoL vTrjpxov (cf. also 19 : 36). Cf. also ^v Kdfievos as equal to rjv redeLfihos (Lu. 23 : 53) ; ^v eorajs (Lu. 5:1); 61X0" aicoKeiixevriv (Lu. 19 : 20), like exe -Kap-Qr-qixkvov (Lu. 14 : 18), since Kettuii is perfect in sense. The present perfect is common also in the periphrastic form in the active, as eo-rcos dfil (Ac. 25 : 10), and especially in the passive, as yey pafifxhov kcxTlv (Jo. 6 : 31). The periphrastic aorist appears only in fjv ^'krfdds (Lu. 23:19) and only in the indicative.^ But note kykvero crriK^oPTa (Mk. 9:3). The periphrastic future indicative is found several times in the active, as iaovTai iriirTovTes (Mk. 13: 25), and the passive, as 'iaeade fuaovfievoi (Lu. 21 : 17). The present tense is written periphrastically in the imperative, as ladi evvouiv (Mt. 5: 25; cf. Lu. 19 : 17), and even with yivofiai, as uri yiveaBe erepo^vyovvTis (2 Cor. 6 : 14). Cf. Rev. 3:2. In Col. 1 : 18 we find an aorist subjunctive with a present parti- ciple, IW ykvriTai TrpoireiKav. The present infinitive occurs in kv tc^ thai avrdv irpo(revxi>mvov (Lu. 9 : 18; 11: 1). As an example of the present indicative active take a. kanv 'ixovra (Col. 2 : 23), and of ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 331. Kcktu;uoi and neKTiiiaiv had no following in Gk. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 204. I am chiefly indebted to Blass for the facts in this summary. 376 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the passive take S kartv ii(9tpfir]vev6fi€vov (Jo. 1 : 42), though this last is not strictly an instance in point. Cf. also kaHv wpoaava- xXijpoOo-a (2 Cor. 9 : 12). The periphrastic imperfect is the most common of all. It is not imknown to the old Greek, and is abundant in the papyri and the KOLvii generally, but it is even more frequent in the LXX (Thackeray, 6r., p. 195) and in the Aramaic. As Blass' shows, not all the examples in the N. T. are strictly periphrastic, like ^(rav . . . d.ypav\ovvT€s (Lu. 2:8). But they are abundant enough, as one can see on almost any page of the Gospels. Take ^crav kva- ^aivovres Kal rjv Trpoayoiv (Mk. 10 : 32). So Ac. 2: 2, ?j<7av KoBrfnevoL, and Gal. 1 : 22, fjuriv a.yvoovp,evos. For list of important verbs in the N. T. see Additional Notes and my Short Grammar of the Greek N. T. (third ed.), pp. 48-56, 241-244. For such verbs in the LXX see Thackeray, Gr., pp. 258-920 (Table of Verbs); Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, pp. 128-135. For list in the papyri see Mayser, Gr., pp. 387-^15. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 203. PART III SYNTAX CHAPTER IX THE MEANING OF SYNTAX (STNTASIS) I. Backwardness in the Study of Syntax. What the Germans call Laut- und Formenlehre has received far more scientific treat- ment than has syntax. In 1874 Jolly' lamented that so little work on syntax of a really valuable nature had been done. To a certain extent it was necessary that the study of the forms should precede that of syntax.^ The full survey of the words and their inflections was essential to adequate syntactical investiga- tion. And yet one can but feel that syntax has lagged too far behind. It has been the favourite field for grammatical charlatans to operate in, men who from a few examples drew large induc- tions and filled their grammars with "exceptions" to their own hastily made rules. Appeal was made to logic rather than to the actual facts in the history of language. Thus we had grammar made to order for the consumption of the poor students. Others perhaps became disgusted with the situation and hastily concluded that scientific syntax was impracticable, at least for the present, and so confined their researches either to etymology or to the forms. In 1891 Miiller' sees no hope of doing anjiihing soon for modern Greek syntax except in the literary high style on which he adds a few remarks about prepositions. Thumb* likewise has added a chapter on syntax to his Handbuch. If you turn to Whitney's Sanskrit Grammar, you will find no separate syntax, but merely some additional remarks on the "uses" of the aorist, the present, the subjunctive, etc. Monro in his Homeric Grammar follows somewhat the same plan, but with much more attention to the "uses" of cases and modes. Brugmaim^ in his Griechische Grammatik devotes far more space to Formenlehre, » Schulgr. und Sprachw., p. 71. ^ Riem. and Goelzer, Or. Compar^e du Grec et du Lat., Synt., p. 7. > Hist. Gr. der hell. Spr., p. 172. * Handb. der neugr. Vollcsspr., 1895; Handb. of Mod. Gk. Vernac, pp. 179-206. " P- vii. 379 380 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT even in the third edition, which chiefly differs from the second in the increased attention to syntax. Giles in his Manual of Com- parative Philology, even in the second' edition (1900), kept his discussion of the uses of the noun and verb apart and did not group them as syntax. When he wrote his first^ edition (1895) nothing worthy of the name had been done on the comparative syntax of the moods and tenses, though Delbriiclc had written his great treatise on the syntax of the noun. When Brugmann planned his first volume of Kurze vergleichende Grammatik (1880), he had no hope of going on with the syntax either with the "GrundriB" or the "Kurze," for at that time comparative gram- mar of the Indo-Germanic tongues was confined to Lauir- und Formenlehre? But in the revision of Kiihner the Syntax by B. Gerth has two volumes, as exhaustive a treatment as Blass' two volumes on the Accidence. In the Riemann and Goelzer volumes the one on Syntax is the larger. Gildersleeve {Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 115) speaks of his convictions on "Greek syntax and all that Greek syntax implies." No man's views in this sphere are entitled to weightier consideration. May he soon complete his Syntax of Classical Greek. As to the dialectical inscriptions the situation is still worse. Dr. Claflin* as late as 1905 complains that the German mono- graphs on the inscriptions confine themselves to Laut- und For- menlehre almost entirely. Meisterhans in Schwyzer's revision (1900) is nearly the sole exception.^ Thieme* has a few syntactical remarks, but Nachmanson,' Schweizer* and Valaori' have noth- ing about sjmtax, nor has Dieterich.'" The same thing is true of Thumb's Hellenismus, though , this, of course, is not a formal grammar. A few additional essays have touched on the syntax of the Attic inscriptions" and Schanz in his Beitrdge has several writers'^ who have noticed the subject. The inscriptions do in- deed have limitations as to S3mtax, since much of the language is official and formal, but there is much to learn from them. Thack- eray has not yet published his Syntax of the LXX. nor has Hel- bing. » P. xi. 2 p. yiii f. a Kurze vergl. Gr., 3. Lief., 1904, p. ill f. * Synt. of the Boeot. Dial. Inscr., p. 9. * Gr. der att. Inschr. But even he has very much more about the forms. ' Die Inschr. von Magn. etc., 1906. ' Laute und Formen der magn. Inschr., 1903. ' Gr. d. perg. Inschr., Beitr. zur Laut- und Formenl. etc., 1898. « Der delph. Dial., 1901. " Claflin, Synt. of the Boeot. Dial. Inscr., p. 10. i» Unters. etc., 1898. ^ Dyroff, Weber, Keck. THE MEANING OF- SYNTAX (STNTAHIZ) 381 We are somewhat better off as to the papyri as a result chiefly of the work of Dr. James Hope Milton, who has pubUshed his re- searches in that field as appUed to the New Testament.^ Cronert in his Mem. Graeca Hercul. has a good many syntactical remarks especially on the cases,^ but no formal treatment of the subject. Volker' has not finished his good beginning. No syntax has come from Mayser yet, who stopped with Laut- und Formenlehre, though he is at work on one. Moulton does not profess* to cover all the syntactical points in the papyri, but only those that throw light on some special points in the N. T. usage. n. New Testament Limitations. It is evident therefore that the N. T. grammarian is in a poorer plight when he approaches syntax. And yet, strange to say, the N. T. grammars have largely confined themselves to syntax. Winer-Moulton, out of 799 pages, has only 128 not syntax. Buttmann, out of 403 pages (Thayer's translation), has only 74 not syntax. In Winer-Schmiedel syntax is reached on p. 145. Blass begins syntax on p. 72, out of 305 pages. Moulton in his Prolegomena starts syntax on p. 57 (232 in all). The present book has given the discussion of the forms more space at any rate. It is at least interesting to note that N. T. granmiarians have reversed the example of the comparative philologists. Is it a case of rushing in where angels fear to tread? One may plead in defence that the demands of exegesis are great and urgent, not to say more congenial. The distinctive character of the N. T. teaching is more closely allied to lexicog- raphy and syntax than to mere forms. That is very true, but many a theologian's syntax has run away with him and far from the sense of the writer, because he was weak on the mere forms. Knowledge of the forms is the first great step toward sjmtax. Deissmann even complains of Blass for assuming too much in his Syntax and not making enough comments "to rouse up energet- ically this easy-going deference of the youthful reader" {Exposi- tor, Jan., 1908, p. 65). Blass ^ urges, besides, that it is just in the sphere of syntax that 1 See CI. Rev., Dec, 1901, pp. 436 ff.; Apr., 1904, p. 150; Exp., 1904, series on Charact. of N. T. Gk.; Pro!., 1906. 2 Pp. 159 ff. ' Synt. der griech. Pap., I, Der Art., 1903. * CI. Rev., Dec, 1901, p. 436. Debrunner (p. xi of his 4. Aufl. of Blass' Gramm. d. N. Griech., 1913, which he has kindly sent me as I reach this point in the galley proof) laments: "Fur die Studien der hellenistischen (und der mittel- und neugriechischen) Syntax gilt leider noch das Wort jroXis lih 4 Bepur/iSs, ol Si ipyirai dX£7oi." » Gr. of'N. T. Gk., p. 72. 382 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the N. T. variations from the ancient Greek can be best observed, in this and the change in the meaning of words. This is true, but just as much so of the Koivrj in general. This is just the opposite of Winer's view,' who held that the N. T. peculiarities of syntax were very few. The explanation of the difference lies partly in the imdeveloped state of syntax when Winer wrote, though he wrote voluminously enough himself, and partly in the wider con- ception of sjTitax that Blass^ holds as being "the method of em- ploying and combining the several word-forms and 'form-words' current in the language." On the other hand attention must be called to the fact that the study of the forms is just the element, along with vocabulary, mainly relied on by Deissmann in his Bible Studies to show the practical identity of the vernacular koivti in the papyri and in the N. T. Greek. Burton' puts it rightly when he says of the N. T. writers: "The divergence of their language from that of classical writers in respect to syntax is greater than in reference to forms of words, and less than in respect to the meaning of words, both the Jewish and the Christian influence affecting more deeply the meanings of words than either their form or their syntactical emplojrment." Deissmann* readily admits that Christianity has a set of ideas peculiar to itself, as has every system of teaching which leads to a characteristic terminology. But one is not to think of the N. T. as jargon or a dialect of the KOLvri in syntax.^ It is not less systematic and orderly than the rest of the vernacular Koivri, and the kolvti is as much a real language with its own laws as the Greek of Athens.' As remarked above, the KOivii showed more development in syntax than in forms, but it was not a lawless development. It was the growth of life and use, not the artificial imitation of the old language of Athens by the Atticists. Blass' properly insists on the antithesis here be- tween the artificial Atticist and "the plain narrator of facts or the letter- writer" such as we meet in the N. T. Deissmann (Ex- positor, Jan., 1908, p. 75) holds that Christianity in its classical epoch "has very little connection with official culture." "It re- jects — this is the second result of our inquiry — it rejects, in this 1 W.-M., p. 27. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 72; cf. p. 3 also. ' Notes on N. T. Gr., 1904, p. 22. * B. S., p. 65. 6 Thumb, Die Bprachgesehichtl. Stell. des bibl. Griech., Theol. Ru., 1902, p. 97. • Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 3. ' lb., p. 721 THE MEANING OF SYNTAX (STNTAEIs) 383 epoch, all the outward devices of rhetoric. In grammar, vocabu- lary, syntax and style it occupies a place in the midst of the peo- ple and draws from the inexhaustible soil of the popular element to which^it was native a good share of its youthful strength." This is largely true. Men of passion charged with a great message do strike forth the best kind of rhetoric and style with simplicity, power, beauty. It is bUnd not to see charm in Luke, in John, in Paul, James and the writer of Hebrews, a charm that is the de- spair of mere "devices of rhetoric" or artificial rules of style and syntax. It is not surprising to find variations in culture in the N. T. writers, men who had different antecedents (Jew or Greek), dif- ferent environment (Palestine, Asia Minor and possibly Egypt), different natural gifts and educational advantages, as seen in Peter and Paul. These individual peculiarities show themselves easily and naturally in syntax and style. See chapter IV, The Place of the N. T. in the KoLvii, for a larger discussion of this matter of the peculiarities of the N. T. writers. But even in 2 Peter and the Apocalypse one has no difficulty in understand- ing this simple vernacular kolvIi, however far short these books come of the standard of Isocrates or Demosthenes. The study of N. T. syntax is a worthy subject and one entirely within the range of scientific historical treatment so far as that subject has ad- vanced. III. Recent Advance by Delbriick. Just as Brugmann is the great name in the accidence of comparative grammar, so Del- briick is the great name in syntax. Brugmann gladly recognises his own indebtedness to Delbriick. He has sought to follow Del- briick in the syntax of his Griechische Grammatik^ and in the Kurze vergleichende Grammatik.^ It is not necessary here to re- count the story of how Delbriick was finally associated with Brugmann in the GrundrUJ, and the Syntax by Delbriick brought to completion in 1900. Brugmann tells the story well in Kurze vergl. Or. (pp. vff.) and Delbriick in the GrundriB itself. It is a great achievement and much led up to it. Delbriick has recounted the progress of comparative grammar in his Introduction to the Study of Language (1882). In 1872 he had pubhshed Die Re- sultate der vergleichenden Syntax. In 1879 he brought out Die Grundlagen der griechischen Syntax {"Synt&ktische Forschungen," 1 P. vii. 2 P. ix. He feels "als Schuler unseres BegrUnders und Meisters der ver- gleichenden Syntax." 384 A GEAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Bd. IV). That marked him as the man to do for syntax what Brugmann would do for forms. Delbruck does not claim all the credit. Bernhardy in 1829 had published Wissenschaftliche Syn- tax der griechischen Sprache, but Bopp, Schleicher and the rest had done much besides. The very progress in the knowledge of forms called for advance in syntax. In 1883 Hiibner wrote Grund- rilJ zu Vorlesungen iiber die griechische Syntax. It is not a treat- ment of syntax, but a systematized bibliography of the great works up to date on Greek syntax. It is still valuable for that purpose. One can follow Brugmann' and Delbruck, Vergl. Syn- tax, Dritter Teil, pp. xvi-xx, for later bibliography. As the foun- ders of syntax Hiibner^ points back to Dionysius Thrax and Apollonius Dyscolus in the Alexandrian epoch. The older Greeks themselves felt httle concern about syntax. They spoke cor- rectly, but were not grammatical anatomists. They used the language instead of inspecting and dissecting it. Delbruck {Vergleichende Syntax, Erster Teil, pp. 2-72) gives a lucid review of the history of syntactical study all the way from Dionysius Thrax to Paul's Principles of the History of Language. He makes many luminous remarks by the way also on the general subject of syntax. I cannot accent too strongly my own debt to Delbruck. Syntax, especially that of the verb, has peculiar difficulties.' Not all the problems have been solved yet.^ Indeed Schanz so fully appreciates the situation that he is pubUshing a series of ex- cellent Beitrdge zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache. He is gathering fresh material. Many of the American and Euro- pean universities issue monographs by the new doctors of philos- ophy on various points of sjmtax, especially points in individual writers. Thus we learn more about the facts. But meanwhile we are grateful to Delbruck for his monumental work and for all the rest. rv. The Province of Syntax. (a) The Word Syntax {a-vvra^K). It is from awraaaco and means ' arrangement ' {constructio) .^ It is the picture of the orderly marshalling of words to express ideas, not a mere medley of words. The word syntax is indeed too vague and general to express clearly all the uses in modern grammatical discussion, but it is 1 Griech. Gr., p. 363. ' Giles, Comp. Philol., pp. 404 f., 475. 2 Grundr. zu Vorles., p. 3. * Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 7. * Farrar (Gk. Synt., p. 64) quotes Suetonius as saying that the first Gk. gr. brought to Rome was by Crates Mallotes after the Second Punic War. THE MEANING OF SYNTAX (STNTASIS) 385 too late to make a change now.' Gildersleeve (Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 269) says that some syntacticians treat "syntax as a rag-bag for holding odds and jhds of linguistic observations." (6) Scope op Syntax. But the difficulty is not all with the term, for the thing itself is not an absolutely distinct province. What the Germans call Lautlehre ('teaching about sounds') is indeed quite to itself. But when we come to define the exact line of demarcation between syntax or the relation of words on the one hand and single words on the other the task is not always so easy. Ries'' indeed in his very able monograph makes the contrast between syntax (or construction) and single words. His scheme is this: Under Wortlehre ('science of words') he puts Formenlehre ('theory of forms') and Bedeutungslehre ('meaning of words').' He also subdivides syntax in the same way. Syntax thus treats of the binding of words together in all relations. Brugmann* fol- lows Delbriick'^ in rejecting the special use of syntax by Ries. Brugmann^ considers the breaking-up of the sentence by Ries into single words to be wilful and only conventional. It is in- deed true that single words have a teaching both as to the word itself (form-word, as prepositions) and the form (inflection).' That is to say, two things call for consideration in the case of single words: the facts as to the words and the inflection on the one hand and the meaning of these facts on the other. Now Ries refuses to give the term syntax to the meaning of these facts (words, inflections, etc.), but confines syntax to the other field of word-relations. One is bound to go against Ries here and side with Delbriick and Brugmann. (c) Construction of Words and Clauses. We use syntax, therefore, both for construction of the single word and for clauses. But one must admit the difficulty of the whole question and not conceive that the ancients ran a sharp line between the form and the meaning of the form. But, all in all, it is more scientific to gather the facts of usage first and then interpret these facts. This interpretation is scientific syntax, while the facts of usage are themselves syntax. Thus considered one may properly think of syntax in relation to the words themselves, the forms of the ' Drug., Griech. Gr., p. 364. * Was ist Syntax? 1894, p. 142. ' lb., p. 142 f. Ries calls it a "naive misuse of the word syntax" not to take it in this sense. But he is not himself wholly consistent. * Griech. Gr., p. 363 f.; Kurze vergl. Gr., Ill, p. vii. 5 Grundr., V, pp. 1 S. » Kurze vergl. Gr., Ill, p. vii. ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 363. 386 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT words, the clauses and sentences, the general style. Clyde makes two divisions in his Greek Syntax, viz. Words (p. 126) and Sen- tences (p. 193). But this formal division is artificial. Here, as usual, Delbruck has perceived that syntax deals not only with words (both Wortarten and Wortformen), but also with the sentence as a whole and all its parts {Vergl. Syntax, Erster Teil, p. 83). How hard it is to keep syntactical remarks out of acci- dence may be seen in Thackeray's vol. I and in "Morphology" in Thumb's Handbook as well as in Accidence of this book. (d) HiSTOBiCAL Syntax. But this is not to fall into the old pitfall of the Stoic grammarians and apply logic to the phenomena of grammar, using the phenomena of various grammatical cate- gories previously laid down. Plato indeed first apphed logic to grammar.' The method of historical grammar and comparative grammar has had a long and a hard fight against the logical and philosophical method of syntax. But it has at last triumphed. "They sought among the facts of language for the illustration of theories," as Dr. Wheeler^ so well puts it. We still need logic and philosophy in syntax, but we call these two agents into ser- vice after we have gathered the facts, not before, and after the historical and comparative methods have both been apphed to these facts. Thus alone is it possible to have a really scientific syntax, one "definitely oriented" "as a social science" dealing with the total life of man.' (e) Ieeegulaeitibs. We shall not therefore be surprised to find many so-called "irregularities" in the use of sjmtactical prin- ciples in various Greek writers. This is a point of the utmost im- portance in any rational study of syntax. The personal equation of the writer must always be taken into consideration. A certain amount of elasticity and play must be given to each writer if one is to understand human speech, for speech is merely a reflection of the mind's activities. If a tense brings one to a turn, perhaps it was meant to do so. This is not to say that there are no bar- barisms nor solecisms. Far from it. But it is unnatural to expect all speakers or writers in Greek to conform slavishly to our mod- ern grammatical rules, of most of which, besides, they were in blissful ignorance. The fact is that language is life and responds to the peculiarities of the individual temper, and it is to be re- membered that the mind itself is not a perfect instrument. The ' Sandys, Hist, of CI. Scholarship, vol. I, p. 90. 2 The Whence and Whither of the Mod. Sci. of Lang., p. 97. a lb., p. 107. THE MEANING OF SYNTAX (sTNTASIs) 387 mind is not always clear nor logical. The ellipses, anacolutha, etc., of language represent^ pM-tially the imperfections of the mind. "It often depends on the writer which of the two tenses he will use," Winer^ remarks about the aorist and the past per- fect. It always depends on the writer which tense and which everything else he will use. Pray, on whom else can it depend? The writer happens to be doing the writing. He decides whether he will conform to the usual construction or will give added pi- quancy by a variation. This assumes, of course, that he is an educated writer. If he is not, he will often have the piquancy just the same without knowing it. " Syntactical irregularities are numerous in Greek," Clyde' observes, and, he might have added, in all other living languages. Greek is not, like "Esperanto," made to order by any one man. In point of fact what we call idioms are the very pecuUarities (Mtijuara) which mark it off from other languages or at least characterize it. Some of these idioms spring out of the common intelligence of men and belong to many tongues, others mark the variations of certain minds which gain a following. Compare the rapid spread of "slang" to-day, if it happens to be a "taking phrase." Hence rules of syntax ought not to be arbitrary, though many of them are. Those that really express the life of language are in harmony with, the facts. In general I would say that the fewer rules one gives the better for the student and for the facts. V. The Method of this Grammar. (a) Pkinciples, not Rules. As far as possible principles and not rules will be sought. The Greek grammarian is an interpreter of the facts, not a regulator of the facts. This point calls for special emphasis in syntax where the subjective element comes in so largely. (6) "The Okiginal Significance. The starting-point there- fore in the explanation of any given idiom is to find the original significance. This is not always possible, but it generally is. His- torical and comparative grammar lend strong help in this en- deavour. Always the best place to begin is the beginning if you can find it. (c) FoKM AND Function. I would not insist that form and function always correspond. One does not know that the two did so correspond in the beginning in all instances. It is hard to prove a universal proposition. But certainly one is justified in beginning with one function for one form wherever he finds it to 1 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 function 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 (Kapetv, dfcoDcrat). 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 Delbriick {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 Kiihner- 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 foxmd. 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 EngHsh is a matter of little 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- » N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 1. * lb., p. 3. THE MEANING OE SYNTAX (STNTASIS) 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 mina 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 English 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 sjmtax 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- CAdtably determine how one interprets the Greek idiom. Take vdari in Ac. 1:5, for instance. In itself the word can be either locative or instrumental with jSairTtfco. 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. ' Sjrnt. of Class. Gk., p. iv. C. and S., Sel. fr. theLXX, p. 22, observe that the life of a language lies in the syntax and that it is impossible to translate syntax completely. The more Uteral a translation is, like the LXX, the more it fails in syntax. CHAPTER X THE SENTENCE I. The Sentence and Sjmtax. 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 .^ n. 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- iia) expressed (avToreKris \6yos). 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."' (6) Two Essential Parts. Only two parts are essential to this complex inteUigible 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 modem Unguists hold that the verb is nominal in origin, 1 K.-G., I, p. 1. Cf. Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., Ill, p. 623; Delbmck, Vergl. Synt., 1. Tl., pp. 73-85. 2 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 235. Opposed to this idea of a sentence as due to sjTithesis is the modem psychological definition of Wundt who defines a sentence as "die Gliederung einer Gesamtvorstellung." ' 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; Sayce, 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 (jjdest, 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., Uke Airkxn- (Mk. 14 : 41), irpoiti^Ttvcov (Mk. 14 : 65), irpoex6M«(?a (Ro. 3:9), dkXw (Mt. 8:3), obxi (Lu. 1 : 60). Com- pare also woptvBriTL, ipxov, irolricop (Mt. 8:9). (d) Elliptical Sentence. Indeed, as seen in the case of ouxi (Lu. 1 : 60) the sentence does not absolutely require the expression of, either subject or predicate, though both are impUed 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 Kvpie (Mt. 8:2), with which compare iiraye, ZaTava (Mt. 4 : 10), the interjections like 07* (Jas. 5 : 1), ia (Lu. 4 : 34), l5oi (Rev. 14 : 14), Ide (Jo. 1 : 29), oiai (Rev. 8 : 13). These interjections may be used alone, as ia (Lu. 4 : 34), «r with other words, as oval and ISe above. Of. Martha's Noi, Kbpie (Jo. 11 : 27), two sentences. Jo. 11 : 35 {kSaKpvaev 6 'liiaovs) 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., like the Koiirli in general, uses the pronominal subject more frequently than the older Greek (cf. Enghsh). Often a glance at the context is 1 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 nouns 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 Tapeylvovro Kal 't^airTl^ovTo (Jo. 3: 23), epxoirat (Mk. 2 : 3), etc. Sometimes indeed close attention is required to notice a change of subject which is not indicated. So Kal e(t)a'Yov iravTis Kal kxopTa (Lu. 2 : 15), kyhero Sk, awqvTijaev (Lu. 9 : 37). So also KoL iarai, iKxtS) (Ac. 2 : 17). One is strongly re- minded of the similar usage in the LXX, not to say the Hebrew %'1'jl. Moulton' prefers to think that that was a development from the KOLvri (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, Kal iyivtTo Kal ^v 5i5de\os (Jas. 2 : 14), rl ovv and tIs ii £beX«a (Ro. 3 : 1), tI yap (Ro. 3 : 3), etc. Exclamations, as well as questions, show the absence of the copula. Thus d)s (bpaToi (Ro. 10 : 15), us &vt^epavvriTa (Ro. 11 : 33), fxeyoKri 17 "ApreuLS 'E(l>«rlo>v (Ac. 19 : 28). As a matter of fact the copula may be absent from any kind of sentence which is free from ambiguity, as naK&pioL ol KojSapoL (Mt. 5 : 8), T?j is used. For further examples of the absence of ianev see Ro. 8 : 17; Ph. 3 : 15. For eT see Rev. 15 : 4 {on iwvos oo-ios). In Jo. 14 : 11 both elfiL and iv &LaBi)KSiv (Eph. 2 : 12) But the genitive, the case of genus or kind, is the case usuallj employed to express this subordinate relation of one word t( another. This whole matter will be discussed under the genitivf case and here only one example will be mentioned, 6 Trarijp r^i 56^7;s (Eph. 1 : 17)', as illustrating the point. (/3) Apposition. This was the earliest method. Apposition ii common to both subject and predicate. Sometimes indeed th( 1 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 t< be noticed later. On the grouping of words around the subst. see Delbriick Vergl. Synt., 3. Tl., pp. 200-221. For various ways of grouping words aroune 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 irepi ToD vaov tov aijiiaros aiirov (Jo. 2 : 21), a predicate example where "temple" and "body" are meftit to be identical. So with ri oUia tov ffKrivou^ (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 aviip, avOpwiros, ywri with words in apposition seems superfluous, though it is perfectly intelligible. The word in apposition conveys the main idea, as avrip irpoiiTris (Lu. 24:19), avdpcoros oiJCoSeo-xorijs (Mt. 21 : 33). Cf. &v5pes dSeXc^oi (Ac. 1 : 16) and HvSpa 4>ovka. (Ac. 3 : 14). So also avbpes 'lapatiXeirai (Ac. 2 : 22), av8pes 'MrivaZoi. (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 irpos yvvatKa XVP^^^ (Lu. 4 : 26), avSpiirc^ o'lKoSeairoTxi (Mt. 13 : 52, but note also 21 : 33), Si/iwyos Bvpirkos (Ac. 10:32). Sometimes the word in apposition precedes the other, though not usually. Thus 6 Koa/jios tjjs dSwias, 4 yXSiaaa (Jas. 3:6); kcI yap to xdirxa fificov Mdri, Xpiaros (1 Cor. 5:7). Rut this is largely a matter of definition. The pronoun, of course, may be the subject, as iyi) 'Irjo-oDs (Rev. 22 : 16). So iyis IIoOXos (Gal. 5:2). Cf. vvv iifiets ol iapiaaZoi. (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 'Appaap. 6 TvaTpikpxn^ (Heb. 7 : 4) a descriptive title is given. Cf. also el kyih evu^a huCiv tovs iroSas, 6 Kipios ml 6 didaaKoKos (Jo. 13 : 14). Partitive or distributive ap- position is common, when the words in apposition do not cor- respond to the whole, as ol 8i aneKrjcTavTes axifXdov, os y-tv eis tov Ibuiv ay pbv, os hi 'ewl rr/u kpnroplav avTOV (Mt. 22 : 5). Often the word in apposition is merely epexegetic, as ri eoprii tSiv 'lovSaioiv 57 aKTiuoirriyla (Jo. 7:2). Autos is sometimes used in emphatic apposition, as 6 Xpio-rds Ke^aXi) ttjs kKXijtrias, aiiTos aoiTrip tov aiip.a- Tos (Eph. 5 : 23). The phrase tovt' iaTiv is used in epexegetical apposition with the subject, as 6X1701, tovt' ecriv oktu \l/vxa.l (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 k^Xridi] 6 bpiKuv 6 ju^as, 6 'iKuiv avrov (Jo. 15 : 13), locative h Toim^ yiviicKoixev on iv amQ fikvofiev (1 Jo. 4 : 13). Cf. 'Skyoj tovto 6tl kacrros vixSiv X«76i (1 Cor. 1: 12). Like- wise the infinitive may be in apposition with tovto, as kptra enavTQ TOVTO, t6 iirj ToXiv hi \iiTxi irpos v/ias 'eKBelv (2 Cor. 2:1). Cf. also Lu. 22 : 37 where to- rai iieta 6.v6ficov iXoyicrdri is in apposition with TO yey paiiyJkvov Set TeXeadrjvai iv kfu>'c. For an extended predicate with numerous classes see Rev. 13 : 16, irotet iravTas, toiis p,LKpoiis Kal Tovs neyaKovs, Kal tovs ir}iovapepwdfj to. ipya tov 6 tod (Jo. 9 : 3) and iijjavriaav TO. pjjyuara (Lu. 24 : 11). In Rev. 1 : 19 we find a tlclv Kal S. iiiWtL yeveadai. The predicate adjective will, of course, be plural, even if the verb is singular, as \vapri(xa}; and an inscription, possibly a rescript of Hadrian, 0. G. I. S 484, Xoi>/ue»' — [fiereireii-] ^afiriv — PovKrjdeis — eBo^iv fifietv — kSoKiimaaixa/ — twiarevov — fjytic&iiriv — pofii^ca. Besides, Blass* admits that we have it in IJo. 1 : 4, where ypa^ofiev does not differ in reality from ypcufxa of 2 : 1. But in Jo. 21 : 24 olSafiiv probably is in contrast to John, who uses olnai just 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 80. ' W.-Th., p. 517. ' lb., p. 166. * Prol., p. 86. ' Der schriftsteU. Plu. 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 tht moment. Thus ireieoneda— ixoniv (13 : 18) and the next verse irapamXw — diroKaratrraflw. Cf . also 6 : 1, 3, 9, 11, with 13 : 22 f. Now as to Paul. In Ro. 1 : 5 he has St' oS iMfioiiev xapiv koL avocroKiiv. Surely he is talking of no one else when he mentions LitoaroKiiv. Blass' overlooks this word and calls attention to xo-pi-v as applicable to all. Then again in Col. 4 : 3 iitav is followed in the same verse by S45e/iot. It is clear also in 1 Th. 2 : 18, ■ndeXria-aiJ.ev — ^tb ^iv IlaOXos. 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 xopaKaXco (10 : 1), dappSi, 'Koyl^oiMi, (10 : 2), arpa- Tev6iJ,eda (10 : 3), i}/t«ts (10 : 7), Kavx'llo'C'iiJ.a.i,, alaxwdriaoixai (10 : 8), 36|a) (10 : 9), kaiikv (10 : 11), Kavxijabntda (10 : 13), etc. It is not credible that here Paul has in mind any one else than himself. Cf. also 2 Cor. 2 : 14-7 : 16 for a similar change from singular to plural. The use of the literary plural by Paul sometimes does not, of course, mean that he always uses it when he has a plural. Each case rests on its own merits. Jesus seems to use it also in Jo. 3 : 11, b o'iSaiiev XaXoC/iEf Kal 6 icopaKa/jiev p,apTvpoviJ,ev. In Mk. 4 : 30 (tws 6fjx>Lbvoi. Mt. 15 : 19; rds wopveLas 1 Cor. 7:2. In 2 Cor. 12 : 20 and 1 Pet. 2 : 1 both the singular and the plural occur. Cf. Mt. 15 : 19. This use of the plural of abstract substantives does indeed lay stress on the separate acts. Some words were used almost exclusively in the plural, or at any rate the plural was felt to be more appropriate. So aiSives in the sense of 'world' (Heb. 1 : 2) or 'eternity,' as ets tovs aiSivas tG>v aidivuv (Gal. 1:5), or with singular and plural, as rod alSivos tuv aiuvuv (Eph. 3 : 21). Cf. also to Hyia for 'the sanctuary' (Heb. 8 : 2) and ay La ay loiv for 'the most Holy Place' (Heb. 9:3). The word obpa- yos 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 fi ^aai- \eia tSsv ovpavSiv uniformly in the N. T., as Mt. 3 : 2. The Hebrew t)'T?i? is partly responsible for ovpavol. 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 k 5e^iuv, k^ apiarepSiv, k^ eiioiviiMV (Mt. 25 : 33), eJs tA de^td. p.kpr} (Jo. 21 : 6), kv rois he^wts (Mk. 16 : 5), ATrd iivaToK&v (Mt. 2 : 1), dx6 &vvv ifMJiv (Eph. 6 : 14), iSoBr] avToZs aroXri \evKi] (Rev. 6 : 11), oiTro xpotrcbiroi) tSiv irari- pcov (Ac. 7:45), 5td crToixaTOs iravTwv (Ac. 3 : 18), ex ttjs x^'Pos aiiTcoc (Jo. 10 : 39). In 1 Cor. 6 : 5, ava ixkaov tov ASeX^oO, the difficulty lies not in ukaov, but in the singular d56X<^oO. The fuller form would have been the plural or the repetition of the word, aSeXc^oD /cat d56X<^oD. 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 {jkireKaQiatv txdi'co avrSiv) it is probable that ahrSiv refers to rd i/zdTia, not to t^jv ovov Kal TOV irSiKov. In Mt. 24 : 26 h rg ip'l]iii^ and kv rots Tandois are in contrast. In Mt. 27 : 44 ol Xjjo-Tai 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 etrev kv ■jrapa^oXats is followed by only one parable, but there were doubtless others not recorded. In Mt. 9 : 8, kSo^aaav t6v Oeov t6v 86vTa k^ova'uiv ToiavTrjv toIs avdpinroK, we have a double sense in bhvTa, for Jesus had the k^ovaiav in a sense not true of avOpuiTrois who got the benefit of it. So in Ac. 13 : 40 t6 eipTjfikvov kv rots irpo(j)r]Taii is merely equivalent to kv ^L^Xui t&v ■Kpo^iiTSiv (Ac. 7 : 42). On these special matters see Winer- Schmiedel, p. 251. Cf. xepouiSeiv (Aramaic dual) and (caroo-Kid- fovra (Heb. 9:5). 1 Cf. also Delbnick, Vergl. Synt., 1. Tl., pp. 133-172, 3. Tl., pp. 240-248; K.-G., Bd. I, pp. 271 £f.; Brug., Griech. Gr., 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 Gender. 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 Xt/ioi' neya\i:]v, not fikyav. In. Rev. 14 : 19 two genders are found with the same word, e^dXev els riiv \'qvbv tov Bv/wv tov Otov t6v fieyav. 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 deos (Ac. 19 : 37, cf . Bea 19 : 27) and similar words is discussed in the chapter on Declensions. In Rev. 11:4 at eo-Tcores skips over Xvxviat. curiously^ and goes back (the participle, not the article) to ouTOi (ouToi eiaiv at 8vo eKalai Kal at 8i)o \i>xvlai al iviiinov rov Kvpiov T^s yrjs kcrwTts). But more about the Apocalypse later. In Mk. 12 : 28, irola. kcTTlv evroKri irpoiTi] iravroiv, Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 178) thinks that iracrSiv would be beside the point as it is rather the general idea of omnium. Is it not just construction Karo avveaiv? In Ph. 2:1 d tls a-wKaxva is difficult after ei tl wapafiWiov and el Tis Koivojvia. Blass^ cuts the knot boldly by suggesting ei n in all the examples here which Moulton' accepts with the sense of si quid valet, but he cites papyri examples like kiri ti niav twv . . . oUilbv, Par. P. 15(ii/B.C.); el&'e ri irepcatTajpanfiaTa, B.U.326 (ii/A.D.). See also kav 8e tl ak\a incai.Tridlhp.ev, Amh. Pap. 11, 85, 11, and kav &k Tl a/3poxos yevriTai, ib., 15. Cf. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 184. Perhaps after all this correction may be right or the text may be corrupt. The scribe could easily have written tw for nm because of the preceding examples. A nodding scribe may even have thought (TTrXaxva feminine singular. But what is one to say of fi obal in Rev. 9 : 12; 11 : 14? Shall we think^ of ^Xii^is or raXatTrw- pia? In Mt. 21 : 42 (Mk. 12 : 11), vrapA Kvpiov 'eyeveTo airri Kal eariv ' But Moulton (CI. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 151) cites from the pap. numerous false gender concords like riiv irmTuiKbTa, etc. Cf. Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p. 57; Krumbacher, Prob. d. neugr. Schriftspr., p. 50. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 81. » Prol, p. 59. i W.-Sch., p. 255. THE SENTENCE 411 daviiaffTT), we may have a translation of the Hebrew nsT (Ps. (117) 118 : 23), for ovtos is used just before in reference to Xudov. TovTo would be the Greek idiom for avrr]. It is even possible that aiiTTi may refer to KeaKiip ywvlas. So also rfj BaaX in Ro. 11:4 comes from the LXX (Jer. 2:8; 2 : 28; 7:9; Hos. 2 : 8). Cf. rfj BdaX Tg SafioKa 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 eanv dXijfleta; (Jo. 18 : 38). Cf. also Ti oBy 6 voims; (Gal. 3 : 19), rl kanv avdpcoiros; (Heb. 2 : 6), ti av eiij ToDro; (Lu. 15 : 26), et 8oKet tls elvai tl firiSev iav; (Gal. 6 : 3). But on the other hand note dval tlvo. (Ac. 6 : 36), ourij kcTiv 17 nt- yaXri birokq (Mt. 22 : 38), rts 17 ■KpbcfKrjix^/t.i; (Ro. 11 : 15), Tis krjs (Lu. 12 : 23). Indeed TaDra may be the predicate with persons, as TavTo. Tives TJTi (1 Cor. 6 : 11). The neuter adjective in the predi- cate is perfectly normal in cases like Uavov TipovTes (Ac. 5 : 16). Cf. Lu. 19 : 37. So (at eKKXjjertot) kKohovTts (Gal. 1 : 22 f.). But in Rev. 21 : 14 to TtLxos 'ix<^v seems a mere slip. But f^c — ex'^v (Rev. 4 : 7) may be mere confusion in sound of ixov and exwc. See also (jxavii — \krf(iiv (4:1), cj)caval — \kyovres (11 : 15), 'Kvxvlai. — iaTUTts (11:4). Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 87) cites ^ifov — aaTpaiTTuv 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 o-Tpartas ovpavlov (Lu. 2 : 13) is not a breach of concord, for ovpavlov is feminine. If mas- culine and feminine are used together and the plural adjective or participle occurs, the masculine, of course, prevails over the fem- inine when persons are considered. Thus ^v 6 xarijp aWov Kal fi fir/Trip Bavp.a,^ovT€s (Lu. 2:33). So also 'Ayplirvas koI BepvlKT] dcrira- crdfievot. (Ac. 25 : 13) and even with the disjunctive ij, as dSeX0is ^ dSeX^ij yvixvoi (Jas. 2 : 15). In Rev. 8:7 the neuter plural is used of two nouns (one feminine and one neuter), xaXafa Kal rvp p,€ij.ty- p-kva. Cf. also (t^apToXs, apyvpic^ fj xpv'ri-V (1 P^t. 1 : 18), really ap- position. XIoiK^Xois vbaoLS Kal jSatrdTOts (Mt. 4 : 24), 7rdcri;s dpx^s (cat > Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 77. THE SENTENCE 413 i^owias (Eph. 1 : 21), etc. But on the other hand note ir6Xts ^ ol- Kia ixepurdelea (Mt. 12 : 25), the same gender. But when different genders occur, the adjective is usually repeated, as in iroTairol \ldoi. Kal iroTairal oiKoSo/Mi (Mk. 13 : 1), iracra S6crts Kai irav buipijua (Jas. 1 : 17), ohpavbv Kaiv6v Kal yrjv Kaivijv (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, Supa re Kal Bva-lai fifj bvvkixevai, the last substantive is followed, while in Heb. 3 : 6, hav ri/v irapp7)aiav koI t6 /ca6xr7/ta juexpt T^Xous fii^aiav Kamffxco/xei', the first rules in gender.' Per contra note vldv &p(Tev in Rev. 12 : 5. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 86) cites <^iXe T€Kvov 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. (a) Adjectives. They concur in the case of the substantive with which they are used. The variations are either indeclinable forms like tXiJpijs^ in Jo. 1 : 14 (agreeing with avrov or 56^av) or are due to anacoluthon, as Jas. 3 : 8 ri/v S^ yKSiaaav ouSeis baiiaaai. hiivarai, 6,vdp6nra)V aKaraa-TaTov KaxSv, fxtarii iov (so W. H. punctuate). (6) Pabticiples. They lend themselves readily to anacoluthon in case. Thus eSofe toTs kiroaToKois koI toIs irpta^VTkpoK, ypatf/avTis (Ac. 15 : 22 f.). See Mk. 7 : 19 KoBapi^uv. Mk. 6 : 9 has vTodeSe- fiivovs, whereas before we have outoTs and alpo3ov — 6 Siaroxos (= Siad.) in Letr. 149 (ii/A.D.), 'AvTut>i\ov "EW-nj^ — iTirapxvs in B.G.U. 1002 (i/B.c). Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 60. The Apocalypse is thus by no means alone. See also Trapa to[v Hoarjovnov tov evpovra B.G.U. 846 (ii/A.D.), ^Kovaa Todrjs '\tyoiv P. Par. 51 (b.C. 160), kp,^ XeXuxas TToXtas excov, lb. In particular the participle is common in the nom- inative in the Apocalypse. In the case of dTro 6 icv Kal 6 rjv Kal 6 ipxafievos the nominative is evidently intentional to accent the unchangeableness of God (1:4). Cf. this formula in 1 : 8; 4 : 8,■ l : 17; 16 : 5. '0 vlkSiv occurs as a set phrase, the case being ex- pressed by avTos which follows. So in 2 : 26 airia (jripuv also) ; 3 : 12 avrbv, 21 avT(^. But in tC^ vmSivti. SiicTw aiirQ 2 : 7, 17, the case is regularly in the dative without anacoluthon. The wrong case appears with excoi' in 1 : 16 (almost separate sentence) if it is meant to refer to avrov or gender if (^ojcij; 9 : 14 (6 ixt^v in apposi- tion with ay-yD^cfi) ; 10 : 2 ^x'^" (sort of parenthesis, cf . 1 : 16) ; 14 : 14 ex^v (loosely appended); 19 : 12 (loose connection of exc^v). In 5 : 6 and 17 : 3 exoiv 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 ij ^kyovna (2 : 20) and Xeyuv (14: 7). In 14 : 12 ol Tiripovvrts is a loose addition like 4 Kara^aivovaa (3 : 12). More difficult seems ev Kapivia ireirvpiiipi- j'jjs (1 : 15), margin Ttirvpwpkvoi. In 19 : 20 ttjj' \[p,vrjv rov Tvpos T^s Kaiopevris the participle agrees in gender with \ipvriv and in case with -wvpos. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 86) cites a.Texci> Trap' aiiTov tov opoXoyovvra (Amh. Pap. 11, m to na, 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, ov SidoKTM yap TipTiv ix^Lv ti SvaTvxovvTes; Flinders-Pet. Pap. Ill 42 C (3) 3, adiKobptOa viro ' AiroWooviov kpffaWoiv. Dittenberger (Or. inscr. 611) gives Se/SatTToO 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 exovTts (cf . this word in Rev.) is used with vplv, THE SENTENCE 415 and 2 Cor. 7 : 5 ij/xaic — dXifioixevoi. 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 {\a6v Xeyovres) is worth singling out for its bearing on both ease and number. Nestle (Einf. in das griech. N. T., p. 90 f.) notes the indeclinable use of \eyo:i> and Xe- yovT€s in the LXX, hke ihsi. 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 anaeoluthon in a sentence is just the necessity of breaking off and making a new start. But the Apocalypse demands more than these general remarks. Winer (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 ajpanixaToi koX iSiuraL. 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 Koivri 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 1 Exp., Jan., 1904, p. 71; CI. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 151; Prol., pp. 9, 60. 2 CI. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 151; Pro!., 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 loo. 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 hjrpothesis 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 tiue to the great ideas of the book. In the Isle of Patmos John, if still there, would have Uttle 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. (d) Other Peculiarities in Apposition. Further examples of apposition call for illustration. Thus in 1 Jo. 2 : 25, aiirri earlv ii e7ra77€Xta, ^v avros iwriyyeiXaTO rnj-lv, ttiv ^oitji' r-qv aiiivwv, we have t^v fcoiji' in the case of the relative (because nearer) and not in that of the antecedent. Then again in Jo. 1 : 38 ^afiPei is explained as SiSdffKaXe, vocative in the predicate (cf. also 20 : 16), while in 1 : 41 Meaciav is naturally interpreted as XpiaTos. In Jo. 13 : 13 6 8iS6,- cricaXos is in apposition with fie where we would use quotation-marks. But this passage needs to be borne in mind in connection with Revelation. In 1 Cor. 16 : 21, rfj kfifj x^i-pl IlaiiXou, note the geni- tive in apposition with the possessive pronoun ^/ig according to the sense of the possessive, not its case. Once more the common use of the genitive of one substantive in practical apposition has already been noted in this chapter. III, (c), 5, Apposition. Thus ri ioprri tS)v a^vjjLwv (Lu. 22 : 1). The use of tovt' 'idTiv 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 : ll'; 11 : 16, etc. In aijrbs (Turfip rod ffu/xaTos (Eph. 5 : 23) airos gives emphasis to the apposition. Inverse attraction of antecedent to case of the rela- tive (see Pronouns) is really apposition. (e) The Absolute Use of the Cases {nominative, genitive, ablw- tive and accusative). These will receive treatment in the chapter on Cases. Some of the peculiar nominatives noted in Revelation are the nominativus pendens, a common anacoluthon. Cf. ravTa S. deuptiTi (Lu. 21 : 6), 6 vlkSov (cai 6 r-qpSiv (Rev. 2 : 26). The paren- thetic nominative is seen in Jo. 1 : 6, '6voixa abri^ 'luiLvrji, where 'Icoi- vrii might have been dative. But here merely the mention of the fact of the absolute use of the cases is all that is called for.* > Prol., p. 9. See also Zahn's Intr., § 74. " Cf. Gildersleeve, Gk. Synt., p. 3; Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 373-376. THE SENTENCE 417 X. Position of Words in the Sentence. (a) Freedom from Rxjles. The freedom of the Greek from artificial rules and its .response to thfe play of the mind is never seen better than in the order of words in the sentence. In EngUsh, since it has lost its inflections, the order of the words in the sen- tence largely determines the sense. Whether a substantive is subject or object can usually be seen in English only thus, or whether a given word is verb or substantive, substantive or ad- jective. Even the Latin, which is an inflectional tongue, has much less liberty than the Greek. We are thinking, of course, of Greek prose, not of poetry, where metre so largely regulates the position of words. The N. T. indeed enjoys the same freedom^ that the older Greek did with perhaps some additional independ- ence from the vernacular koivtj as contrasted with the older lit- erary language. The modern Greek vernacular has maintained the Greek freedom in this respect (Thumb, Handb., p. 200). The Semitic tongues also have much liberty in this matter. In Eng- lish it is common to see words in the wrong place that make ab- surd bungles, as this, for instance: "The man rode a horse with a black hat." In Greek one may say <^tXer 6 Trari^p t6v vtov, 6 wa- riip i^tXei t6v vlbv or 0iXet tov viov 6 iraTrip, according to the stress in the mind of the speaker.^ (6) Predicate often First. In Greek narrative, where the rhetorical element has less play, the predicate very commonly comes first, simply because, as a rule, the predicate is the most important thing in the sentence. Thus fMKapioL ol irrcoxoi t4) wvev- IMTi (Mt. 5 : 3), evkoyrifjievTi av iv yvvai^Lv (Lu. 1 :42), iykvero dk (Lu. 2 : 1), mi iKopebovTo (2 : 3), kvk^ri &k (2 : 4), etc. But this is true so often, not because of any rule, but simply because the predicate is most frequently the main point in the clause. Blass' even undertakes to suggest a tentative scheme thus: predicate, sub- ject; object, complementary participle, etc. But Winer^ rightly remarks that he would be an empirical expositor who would in- sist on any unalterable rule in the Greek sentence save that of spontaneity. (c) Emphasis. This is one of the ruling ideas in the order of words. This emphasis may be at the end as well as at the begin- 'ning of the sentence, or even in the middle in case of antithesis. The emphasis consists in removing a word from its usual position to an unusual one. So aKvKbv y'KvKii woirjaai, iiScop (Jas. 3 : 12). Thus 1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 287. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 287. 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 312. * W.-Th., p. 651. 418 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT in Lu. 1 : 12 we have Kal ^bfios kwkirecev kir' avrov, but in Ac. 19 : 17 Kal eireirev Iwitup in Jas. 3:3. A genitive may be on each side of the substantive as" in iifiSiv OLKLO. Tov (TKijvovs (2 Cor. 5:1). Sharp contrast may be ex- pressed by proximity of two genitives, as in t6v QeotjjiKe (Ac. 1 : 1), or at either end according as occasion requires. Some set phrases come in formal order, as iivSpes d5eX<^oi xai irarepes (Ac. 7 : 2), like our "brethren and sisters," "ladies and gentlemen," etc. Other conventional phrases are av5pas Kal yvvatKas (Ac. 8 : 3), x'^P'-s yvvaLKcov Kal Traidiuv (Mt. 14 : 21), viiKra Kal rjjxepav (Ac. 20 : 31), (7dp| Kal alfia (Mt. 16 : 17), fipSxns Kal Toais (Ro. 14 : 17), ^6ivtciiv Kal veKpuv (Ac. 10 : 42) ; Triv yrjv Kal Trjv dakacrcrav (Ac. 4 : 24), ■ffKio} Kal aeXijvii (Lu. 21 : 25), tov oiipavov Kal tjJs yrjs (Mt. 11 : 25), 'ipyoi Kal Xoytj) (Lu. 24 : 19), 'lovSaLovs re Kal "EXXrjcas (Ro. 3:9), SoDXos ov5i eKevdepos (Gal. 3 : 28). The adverb generally has second place, as {nfrri\dv \iav (Mt. 4:8), but not always, as \iav yap avT'eaTiq (2 Tim. 4 : 15). Blass' notes that Matthew often puts the adverb after imperatives, as KaraffaTco vvv (Mt. 27:42), but before indicatives, as ert varepu (Mt. 19 : 20), a refinement somewhat unconscious, one may suppose. In general the words go together that make sense, and the interpretation is sometimes left to the reader's in- sight. In Eph. 2 : 3, fmeda reKva <^6crei opyrjs, note the position of 4>vda.\fiovs. Here airov is entirely removed from 66s {ib.). So ci fwv ytxrets tovs tto&cls (Jo. 13 : 6) where some emphasis by contrast may exist in spite of the enclitic form /uou. Cf. vfuv kfioi in Ph. 3:1. But on the other hand we have 6 a.8e\4>6s imv in Jo. 11 : 21 (cf. 11 : 23 aov) and rod Trarpds nov (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 to. irdKKa. at ypaixfiara els fiavlav Trept-TpeTH. (Ac. 26 : 24), but the matter goes much beyond the personal pronouns, as in kv Tveiinan /Sairno-^Tj- aecrde ayi-V (A-C. 1 : 5), niKpav ixus SvvanLv (Rev. 3 : 8), etc. But a large amount of personal liberty was exercised in such trajection 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 full 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 too-oiitu) KpeirToiv yevb/jiivos tup &.yyk\oiv oacf 8iav ■finerepniv &'e. It stands in the sixth place in Test. XII. Patr. Judah, 9:1 (Mr. H. Scott reports). In the case of ye it follows naturally the word with which it belongs as in Ro. 8 : 32 (os ye), even in the case of aXXa ye (Lu. 24 : 21) which is always separated in the older Greek. Cf. also e'i ye Eph. 3 : 2. "Ai* in the apodosis (not =eai') or with relatives or conjunctives, never begins a clause in Greek. It is usually the second word in the apodosis, either after the verb, as elirov 'av (Jo. 14 : 2), or after ovK, as ovK av (Mk. 13 : 20), or the interrogative, as rts &v (Lu. 9 : 46). With the relative av follows directly or as the third word, as os av and OS h'av (Mt. 23 : 16). Te usually follows the word directly, as in irovripoOs re (Mt. 22 : 10), even after a preposition, as aiv re XiXtapxois (Ac. 25 : 23) ; but note tuv Wvwv re (Ac. 14 : 5). (j) Fluctuating Words. There is another group of words that vary in the matter, now postpositive, now not. Thus &pa ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 290. * Prol., pp. 100 ff. Cf. also LXX, as Amos 1:1; 4:7, etc. THE SENTENCE 425 may be first in the clause (Mt. 12 : 28), contrary to older Greek custom. So also apaje (Mt. 7 : 20) and apa ovv (Ro. 7:3). Except in a few instances like Eo. 8 : 1 tft examples where apa is post- positive in the N. T. are in questions after the interrogative or after a conjunction. Once (Ro. 10 : 18) fiepovvye begins the sen- tence. Tolvvp occurs only three times and twice begins the sen- tence (Lu. 20 : 25; Heb. 13 : 13) as roiyapovv does (Heb. 12 : 1). The indefinite rls sometimes comes first in the sentence, as nvh 5e (Lu. 6:2). EncHtics can therefore stand at the beginning, though not commonly so. In the case of 'iveKev its position is usually be- fore the word except with the interrogative, as rivos 'iveKev (Ac. 19 : 32), or a relative, as ov eiveKev (Lu. 4 : 18). But xap'f follows its case save in xo-pi-vtivos (1 Jo. 3 : 12). Xojpts precedes the word, but note o6 xwpw (He®". 12 : 14). The N. T. therefore shows rather more freedom with these words. (Jc) The Order of Clauses in Compound Sentences. Blass* considers this a matter of style rather than of grammar. When the whole sentence is composed of a principal clause, with one or more subordinate clauses, the order of these clauses is largely dependent on the flow of thought in the speaker's mind. In the case of conditional as Mt. 17 : 4, final as in Mt. 17 : 27, and rela- tive clauses as in Mt. 16 : 25, the dependent very often precedes the principal clause. There is usually a logical basis for this order. But in Jo. 19 : 28 the final clause somewhat interrupts the flow of the sentence. Cf. also Ro. 9 : 11. In 2 Cor. 8 : 10, o'lrivei oh fuSvov TO iroLrjaai dXXd Kal to deXeiv irpoevijp^aade airo Trepucri, there is no violent change of order. Logically the willing preceded the doing and makes the natural climax. Blass^ is undoubtedly right in refusing to take t'lvl Xoyqj ebriyye\i.aaij.t}v as dependent on el kix- TexeTe (1 Cor. 15 : 2). In Jo. 10 : 36 we meet a somewhat tangled sentence because the antecedent of ov is not expressed. Here \eyeTe is the principal verb, the apodosis of the condition, and has two objects (the relative clause and the 6ti clause) with a causal clause added. So in Jo. 10 : 38 we have a good example of the complex sentence with two conditions, a final clause, an object- clause, besides the principal clause.' XI. Compound Sentences. (a) Two Kinds of Sentences. The sentence is either simple or complex. The complex is nothing but two simple sentences » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 291. ' lb. ' On the whole subject of the position of words in the sentence see K.-G., Bd. II, pp. 592-604. 426 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT put together. All that is true of one part of this complex sentence may be true of the other as to subject and predicate. The same linguistic laws apply to both. But in actual usage each part of the complex sentence has its own special development. The two parts have a definite relation to each other. Originally men used only simple sentences. Cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 552. (6) Two Kinds of Compound Sentences {Paratadic and Hypotactic). In parataxis (irapAra^is) we have co-ordination of two parallel clauses. Take Mk. 14 : 37 as an example, Kal epxerai Kal evpiaKei avroiis KaOevdovras, Kal \kyet. tQ Tltrpco. In hypo- taxis (uTTorafis) one clause is subordinated to the other, as in ohK ' olSart Ti aireZade (Mk. 10 : 38) where tI airtlade is in the accusative case, the object of oUare. Parataxis is thwule in the speech of children, primitive men, unlettered men ancralso of Homer. Cf. Sterrett, Homer's Iliad, N. 49. On the two kinds of sentences see Paul, Principles of Language, p. 139 f. See also Delbriick, Vergl. Syntax, 3. Tl., pp. 259-286; Brugmann, Griech. Gr., pp. 551 ff.; Kiihner-Gerth, Bd. II, p. 351. (c) Paratactic Sentences. They are very common in the Sanskrit and in Homer (cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 555) and in the Hebrew. In truth in the vernacular generally and the earlier stages of language parataxis prevails. It is more common with some writers than with others, John, for instance, using it much more frequently than Paul or even Luke. In John Kai sometimes is strained to mean 'and yet,' as in 3 : 19; 4 : 20, etc' The Koipij shows a decided fondness for the paratactic construction which in the modem Greek is still stronger (Thumb, Handb., p. 184). As in the modem Greek, so in the N. T. Kal, according to logical sequence of thought, carries the notion of 'but,' 'that,' besides 'and yet,' introducing quasi-subordinate clauses. For details concerning paratactic conjunctions see chapter on Par- ticles. In the use of Kai (cf. Heb.!) after hfhtTo the paratactic Kai borders very close on to the hypotactic &ti. Thus eykvero 8i Kal — abrds TO irpoaoiirov kariipLafv (Lu. 9 : 51). (d) Hypotactic Sentences. They are introduced either by relative pronouns or conjunctions, many of which are relatives in origin and others adverbs. The subject of conjunctions will demand special and extended treatment later on (chapters on Modes and on Particles), and so will relative clauses. On the use of the relative thus see Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 553. The propensity of the later Greek for parataxis led to an impoverishment of particles. 1 Abbott, Job. Gr., p. 135. THE SENTENCE 427 Hypotactic sentences, once more, are either substantival, ad- jectival or adverbial, in their relation to the principal or another subordinate clause. Thus in Lu.*2 : 2 rd ttcSs avk^eaatv is the sub- stantive object of i^riTovv, as to rh etrj is of tJvv^i)T€iv in Lu. 22 : 23. As a sample of the subject-clause in the nominative take oh ixtXei COL oTi 6.iro\\()neea (Mk. 4:38). In Mt. 7: 12 So-o eav deXriTe is an adjective sentence and describes ir&vTa. In Mt. 6 : 16 irav vqaTeh- rire is an adverb in its relation to yiveade. In the beginning the hypotactic sentence corresponded closely to the principal sentence. Cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 554. On the whole subject of substantive, adjective and adverb sentences see Kiihner-Gerth, Bd. II, pp. 354-465. The matter has further discussion under Modes (Subordinate Clauses). XII. Connection in Sentences. (a) Single Words. These have connectives in a very natural* way, as Sbvhiiiv xai k^ovalav — daifiovia Kal vocrovs (Lu. 9:1). But common also is /cat — KaL (Jo. 2 : 14), re — Kai (2 : 15), and rarely T€ — re (Ac. 26 : 16). This tendency to break up into pairs is well shown in Ac. 2 : 9-11. For v see Mt. 5 : 17, ciXXd 2 Cor. 7 : 11, ov5i Rev. 5:3. In enumerations the repetition of Kai gives a kind of solemn dignity and is called polysyndeton. Gf. Rev. 7 : 12 ij evKoyia Kal ri do^a Kal 17 ccx^to Kal i) evxapiarla Kal 17 Ttjui? Kal ij SivaiMK Kal i) icxus tQ deQ. Cf. also Rev. 4 : 11; 5 : 12; Ro. 9 : 4. Note also a similar repetition of aire in Ro. 8 : 38 f . For /^^re see Jas. 5:12. So with ^ in Mk. 10:29. Perhaps, as Blass sug- gests,^ polysyndeton is sometimes necessary and devoid of any particular rhetorical effect, as in Lu. 14:21. But asyndeton is frequent also. It often gives emphasis. 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, ireir'Kripoi- fievovs irAcrjj aSiKiq, wovriplq. wXeove^iq. Kadq., ixearoiis dbvov tvpeTas KaK&v, yovevaiv direi5ets, acvverous, aavv- e'tTovs, vLarSpyovs, aveXerifiovas. Cf. also 1 Cor. 3 : 12. Sometimes the connective is used with part of the list (pairs) and not with the rest, for the sake of variety, as in 1 Tim. 1 : 9 f . An ex- ample like evKaipoisaKaipus is compared by Blass ^ to nolens volens. • On the whole subject of connection in sentences see Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., 3.T1., pp. 406-437; Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 551-566; K.-G., Bd. II, pp. 224^515. On asyndeton in general see Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., pp. 342-358. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 277. ' lb. 428 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (b) Clauses. But connection is by no means uniform between sentences. This remark applies to both the paratactic and the hypotactic sentences. Asyndeton in sentences and clauses is on the whole repugnant to the Greek language in the opinion of Blass.i Hence complex sentences in the N. T. usually have con- nectives, but not always. 1. Paratactic Sentences. The co-ordinating conjunctions form the most frequent means of connecting clauses into one paratactic sentence. These conjunctions will receive special treatment in the chapter on Particles and here only some illustrations can be given. Koi, T«, Se, ov8e, nrjSe, fitv and Se, ovre, dXXa are the most frequent particles used for this purpose. They are more common indeed in historical writings, as in the Gospels and Acts. But in the Gos- pels the use of Kai varies a good deal. Mark, for instance, has it more than 400 times, while John contains it only 100.^ Deissmann calls this use of /cat primitive popular Greek. The presence of dialogue in John hardly explains all the diff'erence, and even in John the first chapter uses it much more frequently than the last. As a good example of the use of Kai turn to Mt. 4 : 23-25. Of. Lu. 6 : 13-17 and Mk. 9:2. Te is common chiefly in the Acts, as 14 : 11-13. Sometimes the use of Kai between clauses amounted to polysyndeton, as in Jo. 10 : 3, 9, 12. A4 is perhaps less common in clauses (Jo. 4 : 5) except with ixkv (Mt. 3 : 11). For 5^ Kai see Jo. 2 : 2. OMe is illustrated by Mt. 5 : 15, aXKa by 5 : 17, oiire by Ac. 28:21. But asyndeton appears also, as in Lu. 6 : 27 f., 6,yairdTe, TroietTe, evkoyelre, irpocrevxio'de, even if it be to a limited extent. Of. Gal. 5 : 22. Blass^ points out that that is not a case of asyndeton where a demonstrative pronoun is used which re- flects the connection. Cf. thus the use of tovtov in Ac. 16 : 3; Jo. 5 : 6. Winer^ finds asyndeton frequeqt in cases of a climax in impassioned discourse, as in 1 Cor. 4 : 8, r|5j; KeKoptcrnivoL kark- fjdri eTrXouTijcraTe, x'^P^s rificov 'tfiaaiKevaare. The absence of the connective gives life and movement, as in o-tojira, ire^t/uojo-o (Mk. 4 : 39). Ob- serve also viraye irpSiTOV 8La\\&.yridL (Mt. 5:24), Unraye 'eKey^ov (18: 15), eyetpe S,pov (Mk. 2 : 11), iyeipeade Hyufiev (Mt. 26 : 46), aye, KXabaare (Jas. 5:1). This use of 075 is common in the old Greek (Gilder- sleeve, Greek Syntax, p. 29). But in Jo. 1 :46 we have ^pxov Kai ISe. In 1 Tim. 3 : 16 the fragment of an early hymn is neatly bal- anced in Hebrew parallelism. 1 Gr. of N. T. Gr., p. 276. ' Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 134. On the subject of asyndeton in John see Abbott, pp. 69 ff. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 276. ' W.-Th., p. 538. THE SENTENCE 429 °0$ k^avepisdi} kv aapKi, kSiKaiiidr] ^ TrveiiMTi, &dr] ayyeKois, bcripvxOri kv Wveaiv, kTLaTiWrj kv Koa-fu^, 6.veKijH(j)6ri kv So^jj. Here the connective would be quite out of place. In contrast the connective may also be absent, as in bueZs irpoaKweiTe 8 oiiK olSare, ■fifiets irpocrKwovfiev 8 o'i5ap,ev (Jo. 4 : 22). So Ac. 25 : 12. Cf. in particular 1 Cor. 15 : 42 ff., aTeiperai kv 4)Bop^, kydperai kv d^flapffi^" airtipeTat, kv kTipiq,, kr/dperai kv bb^xt' o-ireiperai. kv aadtveiq., kyiiperai kv dwana' cricelptTai, aSifia \j/vxtK6v, kjeiperai cSifia irveviiaTiKov. Here the solemn repetition of the verbs is like the tolling of a belj. Cf. also Jas. 1 : 19, raxvs eis t6 &.Kovaai,, /SpaSus els t6 XaX^o-ai, ^padiis eis opy-qv. John is rather fond of repetition with asyndeton in his report of Jesus' words, as kyii elfii t) 656s nal ij oKiideM Kai i) fcoij' ovbeh epxerai irpds t6v irarkpa el fir) 81 kfiov (14 : 6). Cf. 10 : 11; 15 : 13, etc. But this sort of asyndeton occurs else- where also, as in 1 Cor. 7 : 15, ov SeSovXcorai 6 dSeX06s. Cf . also 7 : 23; Rev. 22: 13. A common asyndeton in Luke occurs after /cai kykvero without another Kal, as eiTrei' ris (11:1). 2. Hypotactic Sentences. In the nature of, the case they usu- ally have connectives. The subordinating conjunctions are more necessary to the expression of the exact shade of thought than in paratactic clauses. The closeness of connection varies greatly in various kinds of subordinate clauses and often in clauses of the same kind. The use of the correlative accents this point, as olos 6 eirovpavios, toiovtol Kal oi ewovpaviOL (1 Cor. 15 : 48); cocrirep — oUrois (Mt. 12 :40). But real antithesis may exist without the correla- tive, as in Mt. 5 : 48; 6 : 2. In relative clauses the bond is very close and is sometimes made closer by agreement of the relative and antecedent not only in number and gender but even in case, as oh (Lu. 2 : 20) and t6v aprov ov (1 Cor. 10 : 16). There may be several relative clauses either co-ordinate (Ac. 3 : 2 f .) or subordi- nate to another (Ac. 13 : 31; 25 : 15 f.). So also the use of elra, t6t6, apa, Kai, dXXd, de in the apodosis accents the logical connection of thought. Cf. Mt. 12 : 28; Mk. 13 : 14; Jo. 7 : 10; 20 : 21; 1 Cor. 15 : 54; 2 Cor. 7 : 12, etc. But much closer than with tem- poral, comparative, conditional, or even some relative clauses is the tie between the principal clause and the subordinate objec- tive, consecutive, final and causal clauses. These are directly de- 430 A GRAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT pendent on the leading clause. Interrogative sentences when in indirect discourse really become object-clauses, like rd ris apa etri (Lu. 22 : 23), object of cvp^riTtlv. The on, tva, 6irw (and cis rarely) clauses are closely knit to the principal clause as subject, object (direct or indirect) of the verb. There is a natural interblending between object and causal sentences, as shown by the use of on for both and Slotl in late Greek in the sense of 'that,' objective on. Cf. quod and quia in late Latin, and English the "reason that" and colloquial the "reason why." In Greek 6n even interchanges with el (cf. English "wonder if" and "wonder that"). So Wavjxaatv d 7J5ri TkdvriKev (Mk. 15 : 44). Cf. Ac. 8 : 22; 26 : 8. Clauses with the consecutive idea usually have the infinitive in the N. T. Hy- potactic sentences cannot be here discussed in detail, but only as illustrating the point of connection between sentences. Winer' is hardly right in describing as asyndeton Jas. 5:1'3, KaKoradei m kv vfuv; Tvpoaevxkado), where ei is not used, and the structure is para- tactic. He cites also SoOXos kKKridij^; juij aoi. fieXkrw (1 Cor. 7:21). The questions in Jas. 2 : 19 f . are also paratactic. But more cer- tain examples exist than these, where either a conjunction has dropped out or, as is more likely, we have original parataxis. Thus a^es k/3dX&) (Mt. 7:4), a^es Uoj/xep (Mt. 27 : 49) can be compared with SeDre Mere (Mt. 28 : 6), Sevpo kitoareiKoi (Ac. 7 : 34), SeOre awoKTeivcofiev (Mk. 12 : 7) and the common Greek idiom with aye, 4>'epe. Cf. Jas. 5:1. In Mk. 15 : 36 note a^ere 'I5(anev. One verb really supplements the other much as the infin- itive or participle. Cf. English "let us see." In the modern Greek as (abbreviation of ct^es) is used uniformly as the Enghsh and al- most like a particle. Of a similar nature is the asyndeton with ei\eLs (rvWk^wfiev (Mt. 13 : 28) and fiobXeuBe hiroUcu (Jo. 18 :39). Cf. B'eKert iroLrjaoj (Mk. 10 : 36). Cf. also eyeipeade Siyufjxv (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 &pa, Spare, /SX^xere, we can find examples of both the conjunctional use of firi and clear cases of asyndeton with some on the border line. Thus clearly conjunctional pij is found in pXeirina Hfi Tritrv (1 Cor. 10 : 12), pXbrere fiii iweKdv (Ac. 13 : 40), ^hrere tii\ ■wapaLTT)irifii (Mk. 11 : 16). One is inchned 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 «aXdi' abrif el oiiK kyevviidii (Mk. 14 : 21), ev rohri^ yivuaKonev Stl (1 Jo. 5 : 2), /SouXi) kytvero Iva (Ac. 27 : 42). (c) Two Kinds of Style. There are indeed two kinds of style in this matter, the running {elpojjievri) and the periodic (iv irepiodois) or compact {KaTtcTpaiiiiivr]), to use Aristotle's terminology.' In the words of Blass'' the running or continuous style is character- istic of the oldest prose as well as unsophisticated, unconventional prose like the vernacular KOiv-q, and hence is the usual form in the N. T. The periodic style, on the other hand, belongs to " artistic- ally developed prose" like that of Demosthenes and Thucydides. As a matter of fact the 0. T. narrative is also in the running style, while the prophets sometimes use the periodic. The longer N. T. sentences are usually connected by /cat or use asyndeton as shown above. But occasionally something approaching a real period appears somewhat like that of the great Greek writers, but by no means so frequently. Interesting examples of some length may be found in Lu. 1 : 1^; Ac. 15 : 24-26; 26 : 10-14, 16-18; Ro. 1 : 1-7; 1 Pet. 3 : 18-22; 2 Pet. 1:2-7; Heb. 2 : 2^. In Lu. 1 : 1-4 Blass^ notes that the protasis has three clauses and the apod- osis two, while in Heb. 1 : 1-3 he finds some ten divisions of the sentence which is not so neatly balanced as the passage in Luke. It is noticeable that Luke uses this classic idiom nowhere else in his Gospel, while the Epistle to the Hebrews has a fluent oratorical style of no little beauty. Chapter 11 finds a splendid peroration in 12 : 1 f., which should belong to chapter 11 as the closing period in the discussion about the promises. Cf. a similar peroration, though not in one sentence, in Ro. 11 : 33-36. So also Ro. 8 : 31- 39, where verses 38 and 39 form a really eloquent period. Blass' indeed gives a rather free interpretation to the term period and applies it to sentences of only two parts like a conditional sentence when the condition comes first, sentences with antithesis with Itkv — 5k, disjunctive clauses with fi, or parallelisms with re — Kal. He even finds a period in a case of asyndeton like 1 Cor. 7 : 27. But this is to make nearly all complex sentenceg periods. Blass' > Arist. Rhet., iii. 9. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 275, who amplifies this point. ' lb. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 280. THE SENTENCE 433 opinion on this point is to be borne in mind when he argues for literary rhythm on a considerable scale in the N. T. Paul indeed has some noble periods like Eph. 1:3-14; 2 : 14-18; 3 : 14-19. He would show many more than he does but for the fact that he seems to grow impatient with the fetters of a long sentence and breaks away in anacoluthon which mars the fulness and sym- metry of the sentence as a period. Cf. 2 Cor. 8 : 18-21; Ro. 12 : 6-8; Col. 1 : 9-23. In Ro. 3 : 7 f . the KaBdis and on clauses make a not very strong culmination. The ground element in Paul's speech is the short sentence. Only occasionally does he combine these into a period.' But Paul does use antithetic and comparative particles and apposition. One other reason for the absence of rhetorical periods is the avoidance of prolonged passages of indi- rect discourse. In truth none of that nature occurs at all, so that we do not have in the N. T. passages of much length in indirect discourse such as one meets in Xenophon or Thucydides (cf. Cffisar). But the quotations are usually direct either with recita- tive oTt (Mt. 9 : 18) or without (Mt. 9 : 22). Winer ^ well remarks that what the style thus loses in periodic compactness, it gains in animation and vividness. But the use of the participle in giving periodic compactness is to be noticed, as in Ac. 23 : 27. The at- traction of the relative to the case of its antecedent, as already observed, adds another bond of union to the compactness of the relative sentence as in Lu. 5:9. (d) The Parenthesis {•jrapev6eri (Ac. 23 : 35), oi i^eMoMat (Ro. 9:1), ev a.(j>poai)vxi \kyia (2 Cor. 11 : 21), etc. But the insertion of ria'iv and l^ 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 paralj^ic, of X^Yet tQ TapaXvTLKQ (Mk. 2 : 10). Mt. (9 : 6) adds r6re. Lu. (5 : 24) has etirev tQ irapa\e\vfievu. The Synoptists 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 like Svojua avr^ 'luavris (Jo. 1 : 6), NikoStj/uos ovofiaaiir^ (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 ^aau 8i ■flfiipai rS>v a^vp.cav (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 Ti. Cf . also oiael fifiipai oKrii in Lu. 9 : 28, which can be explained otherwise. In Mt. 24 : 15 the parenthetical command of Matthew or of Jesus, 6 avaywiia-KOiv voelrui, 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. OBi' may look back beyond the parenthesis as in Jo. 4:7 ff. (Abbott, Jo- hannine Grammar, p. 470). See Jo. 10:35 Kal oh Sumrai Xufl^mt •fj ypa^ij. 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, iStvde, 1896, p. 11. As ^lustrating 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 iiya-n-qaev avrovs be regarded as a paren- thesis and verses 1-5 be considered one sentence (note repetition of etScos) 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^. He resumes by the repetition of inpl — eiSaiXodiiTcov olSafiev. Cf . also a similar resumption in Eph. 3 : 14 tovtov x^-pi-v after the long digres- sion in verses 1-13. This construction is not, however, a technical parenthesis. (e) Anacoluthon. 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 (avaKoXovBov). The completion does not follow grammatically from the beginning. The N. T. writers are not pecuUar 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 'eSo^ev avrols — exi/caXoDpres (iii. 36. 2). It is just in writers of the greatest mental activity and ve- hemence 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 maldng 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 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 279. 2 S. M. Provence, Rev. and Exp., 1905, 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 irSiv fnjua apybv S XaKijaovaw ol avdpcavoL &iroS(j}aovaLv irtpl aiirov (Mt. 12 : 36) observe how irav pfjua is dropped in the construction and Ttpl avrov used. In xas ovv oam 6p.dKoyr]- (7€L — bp,o\oyr]v airkaroKKa wp6s vp,as, Si' avTov 'eir\eov'tKTt)aa vp,as;). Here indeed Siv is attracted into the case of tovtoiv unexpressed. A simpler instance is A Mcou- o-^s oStos — otSanev t'l iyevtro avrcf (Ac. 7 : 40; Ex. 32 : 1). Blass^ finds anacoluthon in Mk. 9 : 20 (iSuv abrbv to in/evim cwtaira- pa^ev aiiTov), but surely this is merely treating Tvevp^ as mascuhne (natural gender). But in Ac. 19 : 34 (kinyvovTes Si '6ti 'lovSaibs 'tanv (jioivii 'eyevtTo p,la Ik t&,vtcijv) there is a clear case of anacoluthon in 1 Joh. Gr., p. 32. ' Or. of N. T. Gk., p. 283. THE SENTENCE 437 the change to kK iravruv. The writings of John show similar illustra- tions. There is no anacoluthon i^ Jo. 6 : 22 m the text of W. H., which reads eUov on. instead of Ibiiv Sti— ore (margin of W. H.). But in 6 : 39 there is real anacoluthon {irav 8 moiKkv /iot uri airoKkcria k^ avTov) in the change from wav to k^ airov. It is possible to re- gard Trap ni) herei as equivalent to oMets and not Uke ttSs — ni] in Jo. 3 : 16. In 7 : 38 another suspended subject is found in 6 tti- artvtav eis e/*e (cf. avrov further on). But 10 : 36 is hardly anacolu- thon,2 since one has merely to supply the demonstrative kKdvi^ or the personal pronoun ourqj with ^krytrt to make the sentence run smoothly. In 15 : 2 ttSj' xX^/ia — airb we have very slight anacolu- thon, if any, since both may be in the same case (cf. resumptive use of oSros). But in 15 : 5 the matter is comphcated by the in- sertion of Kkyoj ev avTCf (6 fikvuu ev k/Jiol Kayii kv aiirQ oCtos (jtkpti) . In 17 : 2 {irav o SkSuKas air^i Sditret aiiTois) we have the more usual ana- coluthon. In 1 Jo. 2 : 24 {vfiets S ^Koia-are air' &pxvi tv ifuv nevkrtii) vfi€is may be merely prolepsis, but this seems less hkely in verse 27 {vfiets TO xP'-'ry^o- o ^Xa/Sere air' airov iikvti ev viuv) where note the position of ujuets and kv iifiiv. In Rev. 2 : 26 the anacoluthon (6 vlkSiv — Scoffco avT(^) does not differ from some of those above.' So also as to Rev. 3 : 12, 21, but in 2 : 7, 17 {tQ vlkSivti Soxrw avrif) the case is the same and may be compared with Jo. 15 : 2, 5. Cf. the probable reading (W. H. bracket avr^) in Rev. 6 : 4 as well as Mt. 6 : 4 (LXX) ; 5 : 40 (t^S dkXovri — avrci), where there is no real anacoluthon, but a resumptive use of avr^. Cf . also VSs repeated after parenthesis in Col. 1 : 22. The LXX has other similar ex- amples like Josh. 9 : 12; Ps. 103 : 15. A similar resumptive use of 4i occurs in the text (not marg. in W. H.) of Ro. 16 : 27. In a sim- ilar way a relative clause may be left as a suspended subject or object, as in Lu. 9 : 5, oaoi av firi dkxc^vrai u/^as — airoTLvdaaeTe kir' airois. Cf. Mt. 10 : 14; Lu. 10 : 8, 10. Cf. this with the very common use of resumptive ovtos after the article and the participle, like 6 virofitlvas els rk'Kos oSros acodriaerai (Mt. 10 : 22). 2. Digression. A somewhat more complicated kind of anacolu- thon is where a digression is caused by an intervening sentence or explanatory clause. Those naturally occur mainly in the Epistles of Paul where his energy of thought and passion of soul overleap all trammels. In Jo. 5 : 44 the participle is dropped for the indica- tive fj/TeiTe. In Jo. 21 : 12 (oxiSels kToK/jia rdv fjiajBriTiJov k^eraaai avrov Sii TLs el; eiSores) the question breaks the smooth flow and eldores ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 283. = Abbott, Job. Gr., p. 33. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 283, calls it a "very awkward instance." 438 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT agrees in case with ovdeis and number with imBriTSiv. With this compare the change from 'iva /^i? a'ipcocnv in Mk. 6 : 8 to the infini- tive uri evbvaaadai in verse 9. Nestle has, however, evdiaijaOt. In Mk. 7 : 19 {KoBapi^iov iravra to. ^pdoixara) the participle can be con- nected in thought, as Mark probably did, with X€7et 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 rjv ov dwov is taken by Abbott as a part of the Baptist's statement, but W. H. read ovtos ^v 6 tiwdiv as a parenthetical remark of the writer. So in Jo. 20 : 18 /cai raOra elirev avrfj does not fit in exactly after on. "EtopaKa top Kvpiov. The added clause is the comment of John, not of Mary. The margin of Ac. 10 : 36 (W. H.) with 6v is a case of anacoluthon, but the text itself is without 6v. In Ac. 24 : 6 the repetition of 6v Kai leaves eipov- Tis cut off from 'tKparqaanev. In Ac. 27 : 10 (BewpSi on — likXKtiv) the on. clause is changed to the infinitive, a phenomenon noted by Winer ^ in Plato, Gorg. 453 b. The anacoluthon in Gal. 2 : 6 (diro 5^ tS>v Sokovvtwv etval n — b-wolol wort rjcav ovSkv fioi 5Latp€L — irpbawTrov 6 Beds avdpwirov ov Xa/ifiaveL — k/xol yap ol SoKovpres ov8ev TpocavWivro) is noteworthy for the complete change of construction as shown by the repetition of the oi SoKovvrts in the nominative and followed by the middle instead of the passive voice. Observe the two paren- theses that led to the variation. It is easier in such a case to make a new start, as Paul does here. In Gal. 2:5 Blass^ follows D in omit- ting oh in order to get rid of the anacoluthon, as he does also in Ro. 16 : 27 (&), but it is more than hkely that the difficulty of the an- acoluthon with oh led to the omission in D. One of the most strik- ing anacolutha in Paul's Epistles is found at the end of Ro. 5 : 12 where the apodosis to the ciaTrep clause is wanting. The next sen- tence (axpt Tap) takes up the subordinate clause itj)' ^ riixaprov 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 cis. 2 Pet. 1 : 17 shows a clear anacoluthon, for the participle Xo/3c!)i' is left stranded utterly in the change to Kai ravrrtv riju ({xavriv rtixtis i]Kovcaixev. Winer* seems to be wrong in finding an anacoluthon in the long sentence in 2 Pet. 2 : 4-10. The apodosis is really oUtv in verse 9 (verse 8 being a long parenthesis as W. H. rightly punc- 1 Joh. Gr., p. 34. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 284. 2 W.-Th., p. 573. * W.-Th., p. 569. THE SENTENCE 439 tuate). However, Winer' is justified in refusing to see anacoluthon in many passages formerly so regarded and that call for no dis- cussion now. See further Mt. 7:9; 12 : 36; Mk. 2 : 28; 7 : 3 f. Lu. ll:llf.; 12:8, 10; 21:6; Jo. 6:39; 17:18; Ac. 15: 22 if. 19 : 34; 24 : 20; 26 : 3; Ro. 16 : 25-27; 1 Cor. 9 : 15; Col. 2 : 2 4:6; Eph. 3:8; 2 Cor. 7:5; 1 Th. 4:1; Heb. 3:15; 10:15 f. 1 Tim. 1 : 3-5; Ju. 16. It is very common in the Apocalypse as in 2 Corinthians and Galatians. 3. The Participle in Anacolutha. It calls for a word of its own in the matter of anacoluthon, although, as a matter of fact, it occurs in both the kinds of anacoluthon already noticed. The reason is, the free use of the participle in long sentences (cf . Paul) renders it pecuUarly subject to anacoluthon. The point with the participle is not that it is a special kind of anacoluthon in any other sense. Gal. 6 : 1, /caTapTtfere, (TKOTTUV aeavTov, firi Kal av ireipaaBfjs may be regarded as anacoluthon in the change of number, but it is a natural singling-out of the individual in the application. In 2 Cor. 5 : 12 the ellipsis of 7pd<^/ief ravra with SidovTis is SO harsh as to amount to anacoluthon. Cf . also OXifio/xevoi in 2 Cor. 7:5. It is less certain about rmWonevoL in 2 Cor. 8 : 20, for, skipping the long parenthesis in verse 19, we have crweTeii^a/iev. But in the paren- thesis itself x^i^poTovrideis is an example of anacoluthon, for regu- larly exitpoTovrjSri would be the form. In 2 Cor. 9": 11, 13, the participles irKovTi^ofievoi and 5o^afoj'T£s have no formal connection with a principal verb and are separated by a long parenthesis in verse 12. But these participles may be after all tantamount to the indicative and not mere anacoluthon. Just as sequimini (sec. pi. mid. ind.) = iirofuvoi, so other Greek participles may correspond to the indicative or imperative.^ Moulton^ cites numerous ex- amples from the papyri which make this possible for the Koivi]. But Moulton^ sees a sharp difference between the "hanging nom- inative" Uke ^xw o vofios in Heb. 10 : 1 (if bivavrai be accepted, W. H. SvpaTCLL marg.) and 'ixovres in Ph. 1 : 30, where, however, W. H. make a long parenthesis and seek to connect exovrts with ffrT)KtTt (verse 27). These are indeed mere anacolutha, but one wonders if the connection between these and Ro. 12 : 6 (exoj'res) 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. fSMoulton, Pro!., p. 223. ' lb. * lb., p. 225. 6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 285. 440 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT imperative, verse 15 infinitive, verse 16 * participles, IB*" impera- tive, 17 participles. Here the participle does seem to be practi- cally equivalent to the imperative (cf. inf. also). See Participle (Verbal Nouns) 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 auexofJ^voL may not be anacoluthon, but may be in ac- cord with ijs iK\'f)6r)Te. Col. 1 : 26 is the case of the indicative rather than a participle {kcjiavepoiOrj, not ir€(t>avepciofievov) . See 1 Cor. 7:37 where exoiv is succeeded by exei, but (W. H.) kyelpas /cat KajBiaas (Eph. 1: 20). Cf. Rev. 2:2, 9. As to Heb. 8: 10 (10: 16) 8l8o{,s is explained by Winer ^ as referring to Siadria-o/ML without anaco- luthon, while Moulton' considers it equal to an indicative and parallel to eTrtypa^a). I am inclined to agree with Winer on this point. In 2 Cor. 5 : 6 ff. Paul, after using Bappovvres, repeats it in the form of dappovixev because of the intermediate clauses before he expresses evdoKovfifv, the main verb.* Finally compare i' ov av i5hs t6 irvevfia'KaTafiaivov Kcd p.evov hr' ahrbv (Jo. 1 : 33) with to Tvevfm KaTa^aivov c!)s irepLffTepav k^ ovpavov, koX i/Jtetvev hir' avrbv (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 Dv£ to Absence of 6k and iiWa. Winer ^ considers the absence of 8k or aXXa to correspond with fikv as a species of anacoluthon, and Blass* shares the same idea. As a matter of fact (see chapter on Particles) fikv does not require 8k either by etymol- ogy or usage. It is rather 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. (/) Obatio Variata. 1. Distinction from Anacoluthon. Sometimes indeed the line between anacoluthon and oratio variata is not very clearly drawn. Thus in Lu. 17 : 31 {ds earai kwl tov 8coixa.TOs koI to, aKtin) avTOv kv rg olKiavkpo0ovvTo Tov 3xXoy) after the quelEion rather in the nature of ana- coluthon, though in Mt. 21 : 26 o^o{,^eea is read as indeed a few MSS. do in Mark. So also Mt. 9 : 6, where the writer injects into the words of Jesus rdre Xe7et r^ Tapa\vTLKca, we probably have anacoluthon rather than orah'o wanata (see (d), Parenthesis). (fif) Connection between Sepaeate Sentences. So far we have been considering the matter of connection between the vari- ous parts of the same sentence, whether simple or complex, and the various compUcations that arise. But this is not all. The Greeks, especially in the hterary style, felt the propriety of indi- cating the inner relation of the various independent sentences that composed a paragraph. This was not merely an artistic device, but a logical expression of coherence of thought. Particles Uke Kai, 8k, dXXd, yap, ovv, b-q, etc., were very common in this connec- tion. Demonstrative pronouns, adverbs, and even relative pro- nouns were also used for this purpose. I happen to open at Mt. 24 : 32-51 a paragraph of some length. The first sentence begins with &k. The sentences in verses 33 and 34 have asyndeton and so are without a connective. In verse 36 bk reappears, while the two sentences in verses 37 and 38 both have yap. Verse 40 begins with t6t«, a common word in this usage in Matthew, as kv avT% t^ &pa is in Luke. Verse 42 begins with ovv as its connective, while 43 drops back to 5^. In 44 5ia tovto answers as a link of union while 45 uses dpa. Verses 46 f. have asyndeton while 48 has 8k. This long sentence completes the paragraph save the short sentence in verse 51 introduced by kel. I think this paragraph a fair sample of the didactic portion of the Gospels. Asyndeton occurs, but it is not the rule. In the Gospel of John ovv is a much more frequent con- nective between sentences than Kal, as any chapter (11 for instance) will show. The Beatitudes (Mt. 5 : 3-12) have no connectives at all, and are all the more effective because of the asjnideton. Winer^ finds this didactic asyndeton common also in James, the Gospel of John (cf . 14-17) and 1 John. But asyndeton is sometimes noticeable also in the non-didactic portions of John, as 20 : 14-18. No formal rules on the subject can be made, as the individual speaker or writer follows his mood of the moment in the matter. The point is to observe that, \^hile asyndeton often occurs, in general Greek writers even in the N. T. use connectives between separate sentences. ' W.-Th., p. 536. 444 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (h) Connection between Paragraphs. It is only natural to carry the matter one step further and unite paragraph with paragraph. For a discussion of the origin of the paragraph see the chapter on Orthography and Phonetics. The paragraphs in our printed Greek texts are partly the work of the modern editors, yet not wholly so. But even in real or original paragraphs the connection varies greatly. In some there will be none at all, but an entirely new theme will be presented, whereas with others we merely have a new aspect of the same subject. I happen to turn to the sixth chapter of John. The chapter opens with nerd. toOto, a real connective that refers to the incidents in chapter 5, which may have been a full year before. The next paragraph in W. H. begins at verse 14 and has ovp. At verse 22 there is no connective ex- cept rg eiravpiov which may be compared with the rare of Matthew. The paragraph at verse 41 has ovv again, which is very common in John in this connection, as can be seen illustrated also in verses 52 and 60. At verse 66 the paragraph begins with k tovtov, a real connective. If we go into chapter 7 we find nai in verse 1, 5e in verse 10, 8e again in verse 14, odi> in verse 25, no connective in verse 32, 5e in verse 37, ovv in verse 45. Asyndeton on the whole is rather more frequent in the Gospel of John than in the Synoptic Gospels.! Abbott 2 gives a detailed discussion of the kinds of asyndeton in John. In Paul's Epistles one would expect little asyndeton between the paragraphs especially in the argtunentative portions. In general this is true, and yet occasionally even in Ro. asyndeton is met as in 9 : 1; 13 : 1. But in chapter 8 every paragraph has its connective particle. Note also oSv in 12 : 1 at the beginning of the hortatory portion after the long preceding argu- ment. As between sentences, there is freedom in the individual expression on the subject. For Hort's theory of the paragraph see Intr. to N. T. in Gr., p. 319. By means of spaces he has a system of sub-paragraphs, as is plain in the text of W. H. Xin. Forecast. There are other things to be considered in the construction of the sentence, but enough has been treated in this chapter. What remains in syntax is the minute examination of the relations of words (cases, prepositions, pronouns, verbs in mood and voice and tense, infinitives and participles), the relations of clause with clause in the use of subordinating conjunctions, the particles, figures of speech (aposiopesis, ellipsis, paronomasia, zeugma, etc.). There is a natural order in the \levelopment of these matters which will be followed as far as possible in the dis- ' Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 70 f. ' lb. Cf. W.-Th., p. 537. THE SENTENCE 445 cussion of sjTitax. The individual words come before the relation of sentences or clauses. In th#. discussion of words either nouns or verbs could be taken up first, but, as verbs are connected more closely with conjunctions than nouns they are best treated just before conjunctional clauses. Prepositions are properly discussed after cases. The article is a variation of the demonstrative pro- noun. But at best no treatment of syntax can handle every aspect and phase of language. The most that can be ^,chieved is a pres- entation of the essential principles of N. T. syntax so that the student will be able to interpret his Greek N. T. according to correct grammatical principles derived from the living language of the time. CHAPTER XI THE CASES (HTfiSEIS) I. History of the Interpretation of the Greek Cases. (a) Confusion. Perhaps nowhere has confusion been worse confounded than in the study of the Greek cases. The tendency- has been usually to reason backwards and to explain past phenom- ena by present conditions. The merely logical method of syntax has turned the pyramid on its apex and has brought untold error into grammar. 1 The Stoics took interest in grammar for philo- sophical purposes and gave the logical bent to it in lieu of the his- torical. Dionysius Thrax and Apollonius Dyscolus went off on the wrong trail in the matter of the Greek cases. (6) Bopp's Contribution. Bopp brought dayhght out of darkness by comparative grammar. Hiibschmann^ gives an ad- mirable history of the matter. He illustrates the eight cases copiously from the Sanskrit, Zend and Persian. Thanks now to such workers as Schleicher, Brugmann, Delbriick, the eight Indo- Germanic cases are well wrought out and generally acknowledged. Cf . brief discussion of the forms of the Greek cases in chapter VII (Declensions). Greek grammarians still dififer, however, in the terminology applied to the cases. In 1911 the Oxford and Cam- bridge scholars issued a tract "On Terminology in Grammar," but confusion still reigns. See also W. Havers, Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indog. Sprachen. When the Stoic gramma- rians wrote, the genitive and ablative had the same forms, and the locative, instrumental and dative likewise. There were oc- casional survivals of distinction like oIkol and oIkoj, Cypriotic instrumental apS, and dative apai, etc. But in general the work of syncretism was complete in the respects just mentioned, though ' Hubschmann, Zur Casuslehre, p. v. ' lb. Cf . Dewischeit, Zur Theorie der Casus (1857) ; Rumpel, Die Casuslehre (1875). Hadley (Essays Phil, and Crit., Gk. Gen. as Abl., p. 46) speaks of "the Beckerite tendency, too frequently apparent in Kuhner, to impose a meaning on language rather than educe the meaning out of it." 446 THE CASES (nXfiSEIs) 447 in Arcadian the genitive and the locative took the same form^ (cf. Latin Romae, domi). ButJ;he grammarians, ignorant of the history of the language, sought To explain the genitive and ablative ideas from a common source. Thus Winer ^ boldly calls the gen- itive the "whence-case" and undertakes to explain every usage of the genitive from that standpoint, a hopeless exercise in grammat- ical gymnastics. The same sinuosities have been resorted to in the effort to find the true dative idea in the locative and instru- mental uses of the forms called dative by the grammars. (c) Modern Usage. Some modern grammarians' help mat- ters a good deal by saying true genitive, ablatival genitive, true dative, locatival dative, instrumental dative. This custom recog- nises the real case-distinctions and the historical outcome. But some confusion still remains because the locative and the dative never mean exactly the same thing and are not the same thing in fact. It partly depends on whether one is to apply the term "case" to the ending or to the relation expressed by the ending. As a matter of fact the term is used both ways. "Ovofia is called indiscriminately nominative, vocative or accusative, according to the facts in the context, not nominatival accusative or accusatival nominative. So with /Sao-tXets or iroXeis. We are used to this in the grammars, but it seems a shock to say that TroXecos may be either genitive or ablative, that ifioi may be either locative, instru- mental or dative. But why more of an absurdity than in the case of ovofio. and TToXets? The only difference is that in the gen.-abl. the syncretism of form apphes to all Greek words. For various examples of syncretism in the forms of the Greek cases with fragments of distinctive endings also see Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 375 f.; Brugmann, Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 420 f.; and chapter VII (Declensions). (d) Green's Classification. I agree with Green,* whom I shall here quote at some length: "I shall classify the uses of the cases under the heads of the Aryan Cases, as in every instance the true method of explanation of any particular idiom is to trace its connection to the general meaning of the original Aryan case, to which the case in Greek or Latin corresponds, and not arbitrarily to distinguish the uses of any case in Greek or Latin by terms which cannot be properly applied to that case; e. g., the term dative of manner is no explanation. Manner cannot be expressed 1 Hoffmann, Griech. Dial., Bd. I, p. 303. ^ W.-Th., p. 184 f. » Cf. Babbitt, A Gr. of Attic and Ionic Gk., 1902. * Notes on Gk. and Lat. Synt., 1897, p. 11. 448 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by the true dative case. The correct explanation is that the use is instrumental, but the instrumental case in Greek has coalesced in form with the dative. This method of explanation has the ad- vantage of demanding fewer set terms, while at the same time it requires a logical connection to be made between the particular use in question and the fundamental meaning of the case involved. Such an explanation is the better the simpler the words used in it are." This is wonderfully well said and has the advantage of be- ing true, which is not always said of grammatical comments. It is the method of history, of science, of life. It is the method pur- sued in the etymology and history of a word. It is the only way to get at the truth about the significance of the Greek cases. (e) Syncretism of the Cases. This method of interpretation does not ignore the syncretism of the cases. On the other hand it accents sharply the blending of the forms while insisting on the integrity of the case-ideas. There are indeed some instances where either of the blended cases will make sense, like rj? 3e^i§ rod Oeov v^^udds (Ac. 2 : 33), which may be locative 'exalted at,' instrumen- tal 'exalted by,' or dative 'exalted to' (a rare idiom and in the older Greek), 'the right hand of God.' Of. also rfj ^Xxt3t iaiiBrjuiv (Ro. 8: 24). So in Heb. 12:11 xapSs and Xuttj/s may be explained either as genitive or ablative. But such occasional ambigiiity is not surprising and these instances on the "border-line" made syncretism possible. In general the context makes it perfectly clear which of the syncretistic cases is meant, just as in English and French we have to depend on the order of the words to show the difference between nominative and accusative. Yet no one would say that nominative and accusative are the same in Eng- lish and French.i (/) Freedom in Use of Case. As a matter of fact it was often immaterial whether a writer or speaker used one of several ways of expressing himself, for the Greek allows Hberty and flexibility at many points. Thus t6 ykvos and rq) ykvei would either answer for the specifying idea, irpocKWioo is used with either accusative or dative, nLii.vi](rKonai with accusative or genitive, etc' But this is not to say that one construction is used for another or is identical with the other. The difference may be " subtle, no doubt, but real" (Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 66). Moulton properly {ib) cites the ' Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 75, illustrates the rapid disappearance of case-endings in the Irish tongue, which as late as I/a.d. had a full set of inflec- tions, whereas by the fifth century only traces of the dat. plur. survive. « W.-Th., p. 180. THE CASES (nTfiSEIs) 449 well-known distinction between the accusative and genitive with d/coiico in Ac. 9 : 7 and 22 : ^as disproof of apparent self-contradic- tion and a gentle hint not to be too ready to blur over case-dis- tinctions in Luke or elsewhere in the N. T. He notes also genitive and accusative with yeiieadai in Heb. 6 : 4 f . and the common use of €ts with accusative after verbs of rest and iv with locative even after verbs of motion. But it is hazardous to insist always on a clear distinction between ds and kv, for they are really originally the same word. The point is that by different routes one may reach practically the same place, but the routes are different. Indeed one may take so many different standpoints that the border-lines of the cases come very close sometimes. So k^ dpto-repas (abl.), iv apLarepS. (loc), ds apLcrrepav (acc.) are all good Greek for 'on the left' (we have also in English 'at the left,' 'to the left').^ n. The Purpose of the Cases. (a) Aeistotle's Usage. He apphed the term ittwo-is to verb, noun, adverb, etc., but the later grammarians spoke only^ of the tttSxtis 6vbp.a,ro%, though as a matter of fact adverbs and prepo- sitions are in cases, and even conjunctions and other particles are usually in cases. But in ordinary parlance substantives, ad- jectives, pronouns, the article are in cases and have inflection. The cases originally had to do only with these. The adverbs were merely later modifications or fixed case-forms. (6) Wokd-Relations. The cases were used to express word- relations, the endings serving to make it plain what the particular case was. The isolating languages, like the Chinese, show such relations by the order of the words and the tone in pronunciation. Modern English and French use prepositions chiefly besides the order of the words. These word-relations concern substantives in their relations with other substantives, with adjectives, with prep- ositions and with verbs. So adjectives and pronouns have all these relations. It is immaterial whether verb or substantive is the earliest in the use of a case with a substantive. In the old Sanskrit practically all the word-relations are expressed by the eight cases. This was a very simple plan, but as language became more complicated a great strain was bound to be put on each of these cases in order to convey clearly so many resultant ideas. As a matter of fact the ground-meaning of the case-forms is not known.' On Origin of Case-Forms see chapter VII, r, 2, (c). 1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 67. ' Cf. Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw., p. 259; HiibBchm., Zur Casual., p. 3. ' Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 374. 450 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ni. The Encroachment of Prepositions on the Cases. (a) The Reason. The burden upon the cases was too great. Even in the later Sanskrit a number of set case-forms (adverbs) came to be used with some of the cases to make clearer the exact relations of words, whereas in the older Sanskrit no such helpers were felt to be needed. This was the beginning of prepositions. Prepositions have a wrong name. They do not come before any- thing essentially, and just as often in Homer came after the noun. Indeed buixkruv aTo is not anastrophe, but the original type.^ Nor was the preposition originally used with verbs. The preposition is merely an adverb that is used with nouns or in composition with verbs. But more about that hereafter (Prepositions). The point to note here is that when the burden upon the cases grew too great adverbs were called in to make clearer the meaning of the case in harmony with the analytic tendency of language.^ (6) No "Governing" of Cases. These adverbs did not govern cases. They were merely the accidental concomitants, more or less constant, of certain cases. At best "the cases could express relationship only in a very general way. Hence arose the use of adverbs to go with cases in order to make the meaning more specific. These adverbs, which we now call prepositions, in time became the constant concomitants of some cases; and when this has happened there is an ever-increasing tendency to find the important part of the meaning in the preposition and not in the case-ending."^ This quotation from Giles puts the matter in a nutshell. In spite of the average grammarian's notion that prep- ositions govern cases, it is not true. The utmost is that the prep- osition in question is in harmony with the case in question.* (c) Not Used Indifferently. These prepositions were not used indifferently with all the cases. They are, of course, impos- sible with the vocative. But the nominative may be used with such adverbs, not called prepositions by the grammarians because it seems difficult to explain a preposition "governing" the nom- inative. But Paul does not hesitate to say virep kyu (2 Cor. 11 : 23) though a-rrep is not construed with e7co. Cf. also els Kara eh (Mk. 14:19), Ka8' els (Ro. 12:5). It is not certain that any preposi- tions are [see xii, (/)] used with the true dative and few with ' Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 341. " lb. 3 lb., p. 272 f. * Cf. Delbnick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 173. Farrar (Gk. Synt., p. 94 f.) puts the matter succinctly: "It is the case which borrows the aid of the preposition, not the preposition which requires the case." THE CASES (nxnsEis) 451 the instrumental (aixa, pa- yiadriTe), viz. Mk. 1 : 15 (iruTTeveTe kv t^ evayyeyu^) , and he follows Deissmann^ in taking kv as 'in the sphere of.' Hiarevo} kri 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 irt- areicii eis occurs 45 times (37 in Jo. and 1 Jo.) in the sense of 'mystical union with Christ,' like Paul's kv XpitrrQ.^ 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 Imow per- fectly well, were not strangers to the vernacular kolvti, 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 1 Moulton, Pro!., p. 61 f. ^ lb., p. 62. Helbing, Die Prepos. bei Herodot und andern Histor. (1904), pp. 8ff., gives a summary of the uses of kv and eh. Cf. also Moulton's re- marks on Helbing's items (Prol., p. 62). » Moulton, Prol., p. 62. * Prol., p. 67 f. » Cf. HeitmuUer, Im Namen Jesu, I, ch. 4. 6 In Christo, p. 46 f. ' Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 68. 454 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Kotcij. They knew the import of the Greek cases as used at that time by the people at large. (6) Cases not Used for 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 {awicrTavoPTes iavroiis us deov SiaKovoi) do we have an instance of it, for the nominative (lit. plural) means ' as minister of God I commend myself,' while the accusative (SiaKovovs) 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 irddo- fiai, the instrumental with xP'^t"^'-, 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 aKoicS). In the vernacular KOLvii 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 1 W.-Th., p. 180 f . The ancients developed no adequate theory of the cases since they were concerned Uttle with syntax. Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 37. THE CASES (nxflSEis) 455 genitive, accusative and els 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 Hterary koivti are really derived from the vernacular. But' not all the verbs fall in with the decay of the dative-locative-instru- mental. Thus TpooKvvdv 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 literary Greek. Moulton^ finds that out of 46 examples Kpartiv has the genitive only 8 times, but bia^kpav has the ablative always. 'Evrp^ireo-flot takes only the accusative, and the accusative appears with verbs of filling (Rev. 17: 3).' Moulton concludes his resume of Krebs by calhng attention to the list of verbs that were once intransitive, but are transitive in the /coici^. 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. ivepjitv, crvvepyetv, kiripx^o^Oo,!., Kara^apeiv, KaToKaKeiv, KaTairoveiv, Ka- TL Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 325. 2 Zur Rection der Casus in der spat. hist. Grac, 1887-90. » Prol., p. 64. ' Moulton, 01. Rev., 1904, p. 153. « lb.; 01. Rev., 1901, p. 436. « Prol., p. 65. ' Ib. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 102. Of. Thumb, Theol. Lit., XXVIII, p. 422, for mod. Gk. usage. As a matter of fact the ace. was always more pop- ular in the vernac. Gk., and no wonder that the pap. show it to be so even with verbs usually in the lit. lang. used with other cases. Of. Volker, Pap. Graec. Synt., 1900, p. 5 f. « Middleton, Anal, in Synt., pp. 47-55. Farrar, 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 Grammar. 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 iv imxalp'n (Lu. 22 : 49) the locative case is not out of place. The smiting (TraTa^ontv) is conceived as located in the sword. Cf. kv pa^Boi (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 kv 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 (irrwais SpGrj, evGeia, 6vo^a(mKi\). For the older books on the nominative case see Hiibner, Grund- riss etc., p. 36. (a) Not the Oldest Case. The first thing to observe about the nominative is that it is not the oldest case. The accusative is treated first in some grammars and seems to be the oldest. That is the proper historical order, but it seems best on the whole to treat the so-called "oblique" cases together. The term "oblique cases" (irrao-eis irXayuti) has a history. The nominative was not originally regarded as a case, but merely the noun {ovoiio). So Aristotle.^ The vocative is not a real case, as we shall see di- rectly. Hence a case (casus) was considered cbs awd rod bvotiaros ■KtiTTOiKvIa, a real tttSxtls. All the true cases therefore were oblique. Indeclinable words are drrcoTa. When the nominative was con- sidered a case it was still called by the word for noun (ovonaa-TiKti, nominativus) , the naming or noun case. The Hindu grammarians indeed call the nominative prathamd ('first') as the leading case, not in time, but in service. This is merely the logical arrangement followed by the Western scholars.^ There was once no need felt for a nominative, since the verb itself had its own subject in the personal endings.' But originally one may suppose a word served 1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 67. ' Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 89. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 113; Giles, Man., p. 301. THE CASES (nTfiSEIz) 457 as subject of the verb and may have become an ending. Even the impersonal verbs like fcaXois ix^i have the subject in the same way. The use of a special dtse for this purpose was an after- thought. (6) Reason fob the Case. Why then was the nominative used? Why was it ever originated? Its earliest use was in apposi- tion to the verbal subject alluded to above.' Greater precision in the subject was desired, and so a substantive or pronoun was put in apposition with the verbal ending.^ Sometimes both substan- tive and pronoun are employed as in avros S^ kyii UavXos xapa/caXw (2 Cor. 10 : 1). Other languages can even use other cases for such apposition in the predicate. Cf. Enghsh It's me, French c'est moi and Latin dedecori est. And the Greek itself shows abundant evidence of lack of concord of case in apposition (cf. Rev. in the N. T.).' But the nominative is a constant resource in appositional phrases, whatever case the other word may be in. The whole subject of apposition was discussed in the chapter on the Sentence. Cf. 6 avdpuTos oBtos, where the same point apphes.^ Cf. i.vfip ris 'Avav'uK (Ac. 5:1). In the modem Greek this usage partly re- places the explanatory genitive, as airvpl aivairi, 'mustard seed' (Thumb, Handb., p. 33). (c) Predicate Nominative. The predicate nominative is in line with the subject nominative. It is really apposition.^ The double nominative belongs to Greek as to all languages which use certain verbs as a copula like elvat., ylveaBai, Kokeladai, etc. Cf. (Ti et Jlkrpos (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 ovofiCL earl fioi.^ Thus in the N. T. eKkiidri t6 Svofia avrov 'It/ctoOs (Lu. 2: 21), aviip KoXovnevos ZaKxam (Lu. 19 : 2), ^v ovona, tQ boiiKt^ MdXxos (Jo. 18 : 10), as well as' 'Itoaci/s karlv bvofia aiiTov (Lu. 1 : 63). The use of the nominative in the. predicate with the infinitive in indirect discourse {(jAaKovrt^ thai aocJMi, 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. 2 Cf. Delbmck, 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. 6 Cf. DelbrUck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 393 f.; Monro, Horn. Gk., p. 114 f. « Cf. K.-G., I, p. 44. ' Cf. W.-Sch., p. 256. 458 A GBAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT €is and the accusative rather than the predicate nom. Moulton' denies that it is a real Hebraism since the papyri show the idiom iaxov Trap' vnuv els S6.{veLov) a-Tipnara, K.P. 46 (ii/A.D.), where eis means ' as' or 'for,' much like the N. T. usage. But the fact that it is so common in the translation passages and that the 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 etmt {iaovTai eh (xapKa ixlav, Mt. 19 : 5, which can be compared with Lu. 3 : 5; 2 Cor. 6 : 18; Ac. 8 : 23, etc.), ytvecdai {kyevridri eis Ke^\r]v yiavlas, Mt. 21 : 42, with which compare Lu. 13 : 19; Jo. 16 : 20; Rev. 8 : 11, etc.), kyeipeiv els fiacnUa. (Ac. 13 : 22), eXoyladr] els hiKaioavvriv (Ro. 4 : 3 ff.). 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, 'ep.ol els i\a.xi-v could be in Luke a nominative (abundantly confirmed • Prol., p. 71 f. 2 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 (nTQ2EIs) 459 by the papyri). The most that can be said about the passages in Luke is that the nominative^Xato)!' is entirely possible, perhaps probable.' In Rev. 1 : 4 (aird 6 uv Kal 6 rjv Kal 6 ipxoiiepos) 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 otto, for in the same sentence he has otTro tSjv TzveuiMTOiv. 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 KoKkaeis to ovofia avrov 'Iriaovv. Cf. Mk. 3 : 16 ovofia Tlerpov and Ac. 27 : 1 iKarovTapxtl ovofiari 'louXiCjj. Cf. Ac. 18 : 2. It is, of course, nothing strange to see the nomina- tive form in apposition with a vocative, as vfieZs ol (j>api erri (Lu. 13 : 16). The use of idov with the nominative is very common and may be a case of ellipsis. Cf. ISov (jxxivfi k tcoj' ovpavSiv \kyov(Ta (Mt. 3 : 17). Cf. Heb. 2 : 13, etc. In Mk. 6 : 40 observe aveweaav irpa Geo^iXe (Ac. 1 : 1), but Kpariare Geot^tXe in Lu. 1 : 3. Moulton -likewise notes the absence of S> in prayer in the N. T. (though sometimes in the LXX) and considers " the progressive omission of &" 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. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 327. ' Delbruck, Syntakt. Forch.,' IV, p. 28. ^ jann.. Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 327. * C. and S., Sel. from the Sept., p. 56. « Pro!., p. 71. 464 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT our has done.' Blass^ notes that in most of the N. T. examples it expresses emotion, as to 711ml (Mt. 15 : 28), «& 7€i'ed ainaTos (Mk. 9 :19), u wXripris (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 w in formal address. Simcox' notes that Demosthenes often said avSpes 'KBrivaioi just as Paul did in Ac. 17: 22. Paul says w av&pts once (Ac. 27: 21). But the addresses in the N. T. are usually without 5> (cf. Ac. 7:3). (d) Adjectives Used with the Vocative naturally have the same form. Thus & avBpoiirt K€ve (Jas. 2 : 20), SoOXe irovrjpe (Mt. 18:32), TTciTtp ayi€ (Jo. 17:11), KpaTiare Geo^tXe (Lu. 1:3). In Jo. 17 : 25 we read xarijp St/tate, clearly showing that irariip was regarded as a true vocative form. In Lu. 9 : 41 di yevta aTiaros 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 'Ia)o-7)<^ vlos AaueiS, and in 15 : 22 W. H. read in the text Kvpie vlds AaveiS. Cf. also Mt. 20 : 30. So Kvpie, 6 Beos, 6 iravTOKparoip (Rev. 15 : 3), and & avdpoiire, toLs 6 Kplvcov (Ro. 2 : 1). In the last instance the participle and article naturally are unchanged. See again oupavi ml ol ayioi, etc. (Rev. 18 : 20). Cf. also irartp i)p,Civ 6 kv toTs ovpavoh (Mt. 6 : 9). So Kvpik nov iraTtip, B.U. 423 (ii/A.D.). But two vocative forms are put together also. So 'Iriaov vie rod inl/icrov (Lu. 8 : 28), T&rep Kvpn tov ovpavov (10 : 21), Ttjo-oD vU AavelS (18 : 38). In Ac. 13 : 10 the nominative form is followed by two vocative forms, u irX'/jpris iravros 86\ov ktK., vii duifioXov, kxBpi iraarris SiKaLoavvris. But ir\ripris 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 TTJs kwi.Tripri(rLs, N. P. 38 (iii/A.D.). (/) Vocative in Predicate. The vocative is rarely found in the predicate, though not grammatical predicate. This was oc- ■ • 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. 3 Lang, of the N. T., p. 76. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 378. * K.-G., I, p. 50; Giles, Man., p. 302; Monfo, Horn. Gr., p. 116. Cf. also C. and S., Sal. from the Sept., p. 55. THE CASES (nxnsEis) 465 caslonally 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/Sef, o XeyeTai, fiedepiirivevofievov Ai8abv Tvevfua). Even here the Aramaic, if Jesus used it, had the article. Moulton' considers that iSao-iXeO in Ac. 26 : 7 admits the royal prerogative in a way that would be inappropriate in the mockery of Jesus in Jo. 19 : 3 (xatp*) 6 jSao-iXeOs tS>v 'lovSaiuv). But Mk. 15 : 18 does have (Sao-tXeO tS>v 'lovSa'uav, due, according to Moulton, to "the writer's imperfect sensibility 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 jSoo-iXeO while the margin reads 6 PaaiXebs. In Rev. 15 : 3 we have 6 ^aaCKebs rSiv aUivuv. In Heb. 1 : 8 it is not certain whether (6 Bpbvos aov 6 6e6s) 6 6e6s is vocative or nominative. But 6 SecTOTiys 6 0710$ Kal &\ridi,v6s (Rev. 6 : 10) is vocative. As examples of participles in the vocative take 6 KaraKvuv (Mt. 27 : 40) 1 Giles, Man., p. 302; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 377. Cf. Delbnick, Vergl. Synt., p. 397 f. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 70. ' Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 70. Cf. K.-G., I, pp. 46 ff. * Vergl. Synt., p. 398 f. ' Prol., 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. ' Pro!., p. 70. Cf. Jann., ffist. Gk. Gr., p. 327. 466 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT and ot kfiirewXrianevoL vvv (Lu. 6: 25). In Rev. 4 : 11 we have also the vocative case in 6 /cuptos /cat 6 6e6s. In Jo. 20 : 28 Thomas ad- dresses Jesus as 6 xiiptos fiov Kal 6 6t6s ixov, the vocative hke 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 Kvpie 6 dws is the LXX way of addressing God, not 6 Kupios koL 6 Beds. But after he had written he appends a note to p. 95 to the effect that "this is not quite satisfactory. For xiii. 13, ^wveTre fxe 6 StSdo-xaXos Kal 6 Kvptos, and Rev. 4 : 11 ajtos el, 6 Kuptos Kal deos rnjxiv, 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 alTiaxiKii tttwctis). (a) The Name. It signifies httle that is pertinent. Varro calls it accusandei casus from alnaotuii, while Dionysius Thrax explains it as KttT' alriav ('cause'), a more likely idea. Glycas calls it also TO aiTLov. 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 airla, and trans- lated alTMTtKri, accusativus — hopeless stupidity, from which grammar did not emerge till 1836, when Trendelenburg showed that atrtartfcj) tttSxtls 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 English "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 alrMTiaKi]. Steinthal, Geschichte d. Spr., p. 296. (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 kyuv (old form of eyoi), Sanskrit aham, tvdm, Boeotian tow, Latin idem, all have the 1 W.-Th., p. 183. 2 jod. Gr., pp. 93 S. THE CASES (nXfiSEIs) 467 accusative ending though in the nominative. If it is true that the accusative is the oldest ca«e, perhaps we are to think of the other obUque cases as variations from it. In other words the ac- cusative was the normal oblique case for a noun (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 literary 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 modern 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 literary language grew, then an increase in the kolvt) vernacular,* the later Greek,^ and especially the modern 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 Koivrj shows it also, as Krebs' has carefully worked out with many verbs, (c) The Meaning of 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 ui the soul of the speaker.'" Hiibschmann" treats the expansion » Mullach, Gr. der griech. Vulgarspr., pp. 328-333. 2 Giles, Man., p. 306. ' Jebb, Vincent and Dickson's Handb. to Mod. Gk., p. 307. ♦ Volker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec, p. 5 f. « Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 328. « Hatz., Einl., p. 221. ' Zur Rect. der Casus in der spat. hist. Grac. (1887-90) . Cf . also Moulton, Pro!., pp. 63 S. « DieGrundl. 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 Casus!., p. 133. For list of books on the ace. see Hiibner, Grundr. etc., p. 40 f. Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 44, agree with Hubschm. 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 {oUiav, Mt. 7 : 24) and the inner {k(po^rfi7i(!av b^ov fikyav, 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 earUest use or not, a matter impossible to decide. We still in EngUsh 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) TCL/xe a-KLTL, ' 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. ' WWtney, Sans. Gr., p. 90. ' Man., p. 303. ' See K.-G., I, p. 311 f. for exx.; Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 96. Extremely com- mon in Sanskrit. THE CASES (nxflSEiz) 469 cases thus represent purely grammatical relations, those of subject, object, possession, remoter object and instrument." The place- adverb does supply the place oi the terminal accusative, but not entirely of the locative, ablative and instrumental. Some MSS. in Ac. 27 : 2 read TrXetj' tovs Kara Ti}v 'Aaiav tottovs, but the best (W. H.) have els after rXetv. In iireirXevcrafiev ri}v KiiTTpoj' and TO izeKayos StoTrXeuffai'Tes (cf. English " sail the sea"), verses 4 f ., the prepositions in composition help to explain the case. In Mt. 4 : 15 65ov BaXaaaris 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 ot Tr]v vapakiav, which presents the same difficulty as to case. Winer" suggests okoDcres with oi, 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 s-pace 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 naKpav (Ac. 22 : 21) is a good example. Take Jo. 6 : 19 kXriXaKores tos araSlovs eiKoai irevre ij TpiaKovra, Lu. 22 : 41 airia-iraffOri air' avTU>v iiaei \idov fioKijv. The accusative tells "how far." Observe in Lu. 2 : 44 rjKdov fipipas oSov. UpoceXduv (iiKpov (Mt. 26 : 39) is a good example of this use of the accusative. In Ac. 1 : 12 o-ajS/Jdrou ixov c^bv varies the construction by the insertion of exoy. In Lu. 24 : 13 similarly we have airkxovaav araSiovs i^iiKovra. Cf. Mt. 14 : 24. The use of otto, as ojs diro cTabuav deKairhre (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 irp6 and makes a mere Latinism unlikely. So O.P. 492 (ii/A.D.) /jter' kviavrdv 'eva. Diodorus and Plu- tarch use the same idiom. It is clearly not a direct Latinism. In modern Greek the accusative is common for locality or place affected (Thumb, Handh., 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 I 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. tL code iaTJiKare 6\r]v Tqv rifiepav apyol (Mt. 20 : 6); ToaavTa erij SouXeiico croi (Lu. 15 : 29). A good example is efittvav rriv ij/xepav kKeivqv (Jo. 1 : 39). Cf. Jo. 2 : 12; 11 : 6. In Lu. 1 : 75 W. H. (text) read Trao-ats rats iiii,kpa{.s (instr.). Another good illustration is airtS-qirqciV xpovovs iKavois (Lu. 20 : 9) . Cf . kK Srjvaplov rrjv '^fikpa.v (Mt. 20 : 2) where the accusative well brings out the agreement between the landlord and the labourers. In vmra /cat riixtpav (Mk. 4 : 27) the sleeping and rising go on continually from day to day. Cf. r\ij,kpav k^ rip,kpas (2 Pet. 2:8). The papyri examples are nu- merous, like TOKovs StSpdxMOus rrjs /xvas top iJ,fjva eKacrrov, A.P. 50 (ii/B.c). Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., Dec, 1901. The plural is like- wise so used, as rds iip.kpas — tos vvKras (Lu. 21 : 37). Perhaps httle difficulty is felt in the accusative in Ac. 24 : 25, t6 vvv exov TTopevov. So also as to to \oLTvbv (or Xonrbv) in Mk. 14 : 41, ro irXeicrTov (1 Cor. 14: 27), and even kveKoirTb^niv to, woXKa (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 little stress on duration. Indeed a point of time may be in- dicated. Cf. TO irpbTtpov (Jo. 6 : 62), irpbrepov (Heb. 10 : 32), ■KpSiTov (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 kojB' rifikpav, Lu. 19 : 47) in the accusa- tive. We can now go on to to reXos (1 Pet. 3 : 8) and even ttjv &pxvv (Jo. 8 : 25). But a more difficult example is found in Jo. 4 : 52, kxdis cbpav e^5bfir)v, where a point of time is indicated. See also Tolav &pa.v in Rev. 3:3; iraaav ibpav (1 Cor. 15:30). One may conjecture that this use of ilipav 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 to \oivbv above. Cf. also tiJj' 17^^- pav Trjs TevTrjKoaTrjs ytveadai els 'lepocrbXvfia (Ac. 20 : 16). In Blass- Debrunner, p. 98, examples are given from ^schylus, Euripides, Aristotle, Demosthenes, where cbpav = eis ibpav. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 63, for to TrtixTTov eTos (O.P. 477, ii/A.D.) 'in the fifth year.' To rrapbv B.U. 22 (ii/A.D.) means 'at present' (Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 437). In the modem Greek vernacular the accusative is used freely to designate a point of time as well as extent of time THE CASES (nTQSEIs) 471 (Thumb, Handb., p. 37). So in the N. T. the accusative is widen- ing its scope again. In Ac. 10 :^0 axd TerdpTijs rj/iipas fiexpi- rahrris Trjs ilipas ^liTiv Tijv evarriv trpoceuxonevos we can see an interesting ex- ample where Tijv ivarriv is explanatory of the previous note of time, a point of time, and yet a whole hour is meant. In Ac. 10 : 3 {irepl &pa.v ivkT7]v) observe irepi, though some MSS. do not have the preposition. Cf. also necroviiKTiov (ace.) ij a\eKTopocl)0}vLas (gen.) ^ irpwi (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 Tolq. ibpq. (Lu. 12 : 39). It is not difficult to see the appro- priateness of the accusative in TeaaapeaKaiSeKaTriv arififpov ruikpav irpoaSoKcovTes ao-iroi StareXetTe (Ac. 27 : 33). It is good Greek with the ordinal. (g) With Transitive Verbs. 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 irmer 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, /iij bixviiere fxrire t6v ovpavov fir/Te rriv yfjp (Jas. 5 : 12). In English dfivvco is rendered by 'swear by.' Cf. ipya^eade fiij rriv ^pcoaiv (Jo. 6 :27), EngUsh 'work for.' Not all Greek verbs are transitive, as et/ii, for example. The same verb may be used now transitively, now intransitively, as efievov tj^Ss (Ac. .20 : 5) and efievev irap' avrols (Ac. 18 : 3). So 6 /JX^xtov ev tQ Kprnrii (Mt. 6 : 4) and TL hi pXiTHs to Ka.pevyeTe awo rrji eiSwXoXaTpeias (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. Or., p. 75. ' Green, Handb., etc., p. 230. 472 A GRAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT But for practical purposes many Greek verbs were used with lib- erty. In the case of tjyofiio/iai. with accus. (Mt. 10 : 26, 28) or with Atto and ablative (Mt. 10 : 28) we have a Hebraism. Moulton (ProL, p. 102) admits that this use of airo is a "translation-Hebraism" Oa). It occurs in both Mt. (10 : 28) and Lu. (12 : 4) and repre- sents probably the Aramaic original. Cf. opdre Kal v\a(T(reecrov (Ac. 20 : 16), etc. Another introduc- tory remark about transitive verbs is that it is not a question of the voice of the verb. Many active verbs are intransitive like eijui; middle verbs may be either transitive or intransitive; even passive verbs may be transitive. Thus rJKovov ravra (Lu. 16 : 14), eKTriaaro xi^plov (Ac. 1 : 18), and m'7 ow (poffridiJTe avroiis (Mt. 10 : 26) are all 'transitive constructions. Cf. Mk. 8 : 38; Ro. 1 : 16; 2 Tim. 1 : 8 for kTraLaxvvoiMi (passive) with accusative. One cannot, of course, mention all the N. T. transitive verbs that have the accusative. Here is a list of the most frequent verbs that are not always transitive, but sometimes have the aceasor tive} 'kbiKkos indeed may be either transitive (Mt. 20 : 13) or intransitive (Ac. 25 : 11), in the one case meaning 'do wrong to,' in the other 'be guilty.' BXoxtw (only twice in the N. T., Mk. 16 : 18; Lu. 4 : 35) is transitive both times. Btn/fleco has only da- tive (Mk. 9 : 22) and dw^eX^a) only accusative (Mk. 8 : 36). In Lu. 17 : 2 we have XvaireKei avrQ. 'Airopeop,aL is always intransitive in the N. T. (hke Stax.) except in Ac. 25 : 20 (so ancient Greek some- times). 'Axoo-Tp^M"" 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 £f. THE CASES (nTQZEIs) 473 {itTeaTpiniyniriLV lie) is so used. For like use of the aorist or future passive with accusative see hrpairiiaovTai t6v vi6v nov (Mt. 21 : 37), where the earlier writers generally had dative (kpTpkronai) ; kirai- ffxvvd^ /te (Mk. 8 : 38) from kicaiaxiivonai, whereas alaxiivofiai is in- transitive (iird and abl. in 1 Jo. 2 : 28). So also oiSiv diracpldri (Mk. 15 : 6) as ohbkv hviplvaro (Mt. 27 : 12), but note aTracpieri irp&s om h fi^fia (Mt. 27 : 14). Cf. H kiroKpiB^ (Mk. 9:6). For ^ofiriB^Te oiiToiis see Mt. 10 : 26 and note (^ojSijfl^re diro tuv airoKruvovTuv (10 : 28) which happens to be in imitation of the Hebrew idiom (ia) as of the English "be afraid of." (Cf. above.) See Jer. 1 : 8. In Mt. 10 : 31 ixlv like Attic) in Lu. 6 : 28. Cf. Mk. 11 : 21 ; Jas. 3 : 9. For XoiSop^to with accusative see Jo. 9 : 28; Ac. 23 : 4, and for 'Kvfmlvofiai see Ac. 8 : 3. The MSS. vary in Heb. 8 : 8 between airovs and aiiTots (as in Attic) with fiefi(t>ofiai, but W. H. read ai- Toirs. In Mt. 5:11 and 27 : 44 dveidL^oi has the accusative, though Attic used the dative. The accusative alone occurs with iffpi^ui (Lu. 11 : 45). So also both eiiXoyku (Lu. 2 : 28) and KaKoKoyeu (Ac. 19 : 9) have the accusative. In Ac. 23 : 5 oiK 'epets KaKus is found with the accusative. In the margin of Jo. 1 : 15 W. H. give Sv elirov. In Jo. 8 : 27 we have t6v irarkpa avrots eXeyev, with which compare o8s i\eyov (Ph. 3 : 18), a construction common in the older Greek. A similar construction is found in Attic Greek with ev (koXcSs) iroiko, kokcSs iroieu, etc. In the N. T., however, note ai- Tots e5 TToteti' (Mk. 14 : 7) and koXSis ■troieiTe toTs niaovaiv (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 yehofiai 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; Selirvov, Lu. 14 : 24; Swpeas, Heb. 6 : 4; firjSevds, 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.: iWiaaw, SovKeixa, iiriBvuku, tjnTvyxi'Vco, iTiXavBdvoiMU, l|4pxo/xai, eiSoKioi, Karriyopko), Kpariio, Kvpieioi, XuttIoi, Traplaraixai, voptioiuu, ■ir\rip6o>, iitapTiua, xp^oiMi., etc. ^ Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 77. 474 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT is found in Jo. 2 : 9 {to vScap) and Heb. 6 : 5 {koXov deov prjua). In Rev. 17 : 3 we even have yifiovra ovonara instead of bvonaruv. The accusative appears with yowirerkoi (Mk. 10 : 17), but absolutely in Mk. 1 :40, and with efnrpoffdev in Mt. 27 : 29. In Rev. 2 : 14 8id6,aKu has the dative (riS /SaXa/c), a construction which might a priori seem natural with this verb, but not so used in Greek (cf. Latin and English).' Ati^dco and ireivoM are intransitive in the N. T. save in Mt. 5 : 6 where the accusative is used, not the usual genitive. Apao-o-o/ittt appears only once (1 Cor. 3 : 19) in a quotation from the LXX and has the accusative. 'EXe^co is transitive (Mt. 9 : 27, etc.) as is oUTtipca (Ro. 9 : 15, quotation from LXX). 'EnTropeio- juat occurs only twice, once intransitive (Jas. 4 : 13), once with ac- cusative (2 Pet. 2:3). 'EveSpevco 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). 'EwiOvfieo} is found with the genitive (Ac. 20 : 33) or with the accusative (Mt. 5 : 28) according to W. H. (BD, etc.). 'Epya^ofiaL is often transitive, but rriv daXacrcav kpya^ovraL (Rev. 18 : 17) is somewhat unusual, to say the least. EiiayyeXl^o- fiai. (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 eta77., construing riiv — kirayyeXiav with oti. Taiirriv 6 Beds kKTreirKT]poiK.iv. This is rather forced, but even so the '6ti. clause would be in the accus. EbboKku 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). Euxapto-reco in 2 Cor. 1:11 occurs in the passive (to xapt(r/ia evxapi(TTT]0{D in a construction that shows that the active would have had an accusative of the thing and a dative of the person. Cf., for instance, irXeoveKTrjOcofiev in 2 Cor. 2 : 11 with ivKtov'tKTrjtja vfias (2 Cor. 12 : 17 f.), only evx. did not go so far as to have the accusative. On the other hand in the N. T. dappioi is not transitive (2 Cor. 10 : 2 instr.), though in the older Greek it was sometimes. It occurs absolutely (2 Cor. 5:6), with h (2 Cor. 7 : 16), with els (2 Cor. 10 : 1). Gau/iafco has the accusative in Lu. 7 : 9, Ac. 7 : 31 and Ju. 16. Qpianpivoi has the accusative in 2 Cor 2 : 14 and Col. 2 : 15, though the verb has a different sense in each passage. 'lepovpykci> occurs only once (Ro. 15 : 16) and with the accusative. In Heb. 2 : 17 iXao-Ko/iat has accusative of the ' Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 80. THE CASES (nTflSEIs) 475 thing as in LXX, Philo and inscriptions (Blass, Gr. of N. T., p. 88). KauxaoAiai has accusative^ 2 Cor. 9 : 2 and 11 : 30. KXatco has accusative in Mt. 2 : 18 (O. T. quotation unUke LXX), but ewi in Lu. 23 : 28. However, D omits kirl. KKTipoi/ontu has only the accusative. KoTTOfiai. has accusative in Lu. 8 : 52 {iwl Rev. 1:7). KpaTeai out of forty-six instances in the N. T. has the genitive in only eight, rest accusative. (Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 65).^ Ma- driTevco is a late word and has the accusative in Mt. 28 : 19 and Ac. 14 : 21. The other examples (Mt. 13 : 52; 27 : 57) are passive, but in Mt. 27 : 57 the active (intr.) is the marginal reading of W. H. Cf. old English verb "disciple." Me/i^o/^iai has the accu- sative, not dative, in Heb. 8 : 8, but the text is doubtful. Mkvoi is usually intransitive, but in Ac. 20 : 5, 23, the accusative occurs (sense of 'wait for'). Cf. also accusative with avaiikvos (1 Th. 1 : 10), irepi.iJ.kvo} (Ac. 1 : 4), virop.tvoo (Heb. 10 : 32) in sense of 'en- dure.' NtKdco is transitive with accusative usually, but in Rev. 15 : 2 it uses k with ablative. So ^evifo^uat is transitive with ac- cusative in Heb. 13 : 2. "Oixwfii usually has kv (Mt. 23 : 16, etc., cf. Hebrew |), sometimes Kara (Heb. 6 : 13), or occurs absolutely (Mt. 5 : 34), but the accusative (sense of 'swear by,' common in ancient Greek, cf. Hos. 4 : 15 for LXX) appears only in Jas. 5 : 12, except opKov op ibiioaev (Lu. 1 : 73), a cognate accusative. The papyri show it with the accusative, B.U. 543 (i/B.c). Moulton, CI. Rev., Dec, 1901. 'OcetStfu has the accusative, not the dative, in the N. T. 'Opd^u has the accusative in both instances that occur in the N. T. (Mk. 5 : 7; Ac. 19 : 13), while e^opd^co (Mt. 26 : 63) has the accusative and Kara also (ae Kara tov dtov). 'O/io- Tioykio is common with the accusative or absolutely, but in Mt. 10 : 32 (two examples) and Lu. 12 : 8 (two examples) ev is used as the translation of the Aramaic a. Moulton ^ is unable to find any justification for this idiom in Greek and calls attention to the fact that both Matthew and Luke have it in a parallel passage as proof of the Aramaic original as the language of Jesus. One may note 7repi|3aXetTat ev luarlois (Rev. 3:5). The use of kv riiuv i^eKe^aro (Ac. 15 : 7) is not parallel as Winer' observes. Here ev rnxlv means 'among us.' In Ac. 27 : 22 Tapaivkco (like TapaKaXeco, Blass, Gr. of N. T., p. 90) has the accusative instead of the dative of the person. In 2 Cor. 12 : 21 Tevd'eu has the accusative, but eirt in Rev. 18 : 11. Moulton {Prol., p. 67 f.) has a very helpful discussion of xttrreiiw ' Moulton (ib., p. 235) comments on Wellhausen's remark that D prefers uniformly ace. with A/coio), Kariiyopiw and xpariw. " Prol., p. 104. ' W.-Th., p. 226. 476 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT when not absolute and not meaning 'entrust.' Under the dative his remarks will be pertinent. UurTevca is often absolute (Jo. 1 : 50) and often means 'entrust' when it has the accusative (Jo. 2 : 24). UpoffKvvtu in the ancient Greek uses the accusative regularly. In the Ptolemaic inscriptions the accusative is still the more usual case,i but the N. T. uses the dative twice as often as the accusative.'' In Jo. 4: 23 the accusative and the dative occur with little differ- ence in result.' Cf. also Rev. 13 : 4, 8. Abbott* observes that the dative is the regular usage in the LXX. As to iaTtpiu we find it used absolutely (Mt. 19 ': 20), with the ablative (Ro. 3 : 23) and once with the accusative {ev ire harepet, Mk. 10 : 21) as in Ps. 22 : 1. Some of the MSS. in Mark have trot, as the LXX usually.* $61170) occurs absolutely (Mt. 2 : 13), with kiro (Mt. 23 : 33), with Ik (Ac. 27:30) or with the accusative (Heb. 11:34; 1 Tim. 6:11). So eK(t>fvyci is transitive (Lu. 21 : 36) with accusative while d7ro<^eu7w has accusative in 2 Pet. 2 : 20. $DXd(ro-a> has, of course, the accu- sative, but in Ac. 21 : 25 two accusatives occur with the sense of 'shun.' In Lu. 12 : 15 the middle is used with dx6 and in 1 Jo. 5 : 21 0uXd|aTe iavra avb. XpaofMi. still uses the instrumental (cf. utor in Latin), as Ac. 27: 3, 17, etc., but in 1 Cor. 7: 31 the ac- cusative is found (xpci/iewi t6v Koafiov) in response to the general accusative tendency. Cf. KaraxpumvoL in the same verse. The accusative with xp^f^i^ appears in later writers.' It remains in this connection to call special attention to the in- transitive verbs which have the accus. by reason of a^preposition in composition. This applies to intrans. verbs and trans, verbs also which in simplex used some other case. 'Ava furnishes one example in ava-daWco (Ph. 4 : 10) if t6 (t>poveZv 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. 'AireKiri^ia (Lu. 6 : 35) is indeed transitive with accusative, but so is ^Xirtfco (1 Cor. 13 : 7; 2 Cor. 1 : 13, etc.) sometimes. Here are some examples of 5td: riiriXayos dunrKebaavres (Ac. 27: 5), Sieiropeh- ovTo Tos ir6X6is (Ac. 16 :4), 8u\Qdiv ttiv MaKtSovlav (Ac. 19 :21; cf. ace. in Lu. 19 : 1 and gen. iKelvrji in 19 : 4). In Heb. 11 : 29 (3te/3);- (xav TTIV daXaaaav cl)s fitd ^pas yijs) Blass ' notes both accusative and genitive (with 5td). Even htpyio} has the accusative in 1 Cor. 12 : 6, 11. As examples of xard observe Kart^aiyt\aa vfias (2 Cor. 12 : 1 Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 436. > Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 89. ' 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 GASES (nTSJZEIz) 477 16), iiias KarafipafitveTO} (Col. 2 : 18), KarriyciJvlaavTo /SaciXeias (Heb. 11 : 33). Note also KaTaao^KTc^vos t6 yivos (Ac. 7 : 19). Cf. Kara- xpd^lievoi in 1 Cor. 7 : 31, but instrumental in 1 Cor. 9 : 18. For irap6. note irapaPalvere rijv ivroKiiv (Mt. 15 : 3) and irapipx^aBt riiv Kp'uTiv (Lu. 11 : 42; cf. 15 : 29 and Mk. 6 : 48). Hepl furnishes several examples like k&tK^rtv yvvaiKa wepiayeiv (1 Cor. 9:5; cf. Mt. 9 : 35, etc.), but intransitive in Mt. 4 : 23. This verb, ayu, however, is both transitive (Mt. 21 : 7) and intransitive (Mk. 1 : 38) in the simple form. Il€piepx6tievai. has the accusative in 1 Tim. 5 : 13, but elsewhere intransitive. So irtpikaTtiaav ahrbv in Ac. 25 : 7, but intransitive (irepieo-TWTa) in Jo. 11 : 42. In Mk. 6 : 55 we find irepieBpanov S\rip t^iv x'l'pii'. With irpS one notes irpoayoi (Mt. 14:22, irpoayeiv ahrbv), Tpoiipxtro avrois (Lu. 22 :47), with which compare TpoeXevaerai. hijTiov avrov (Lu. 1 : 17). In Ac. 12 : 10 both hikpxoiMi and rpoepxofiaL are used with the accusative. Jlpoff4>uv£ii3, like irpotrKvvkca, has either the accusative (Lu. 6 : 13) or the dative (Mt. 11 : 16). If 6 Beds be accepted in Ro. 8 : 28 {TTCiVTa avvipyei a 6f6s), which is more than doubtful, then avvepyeZ would be transitive (cf. instr. in Jas. 2 : 22). For virkp observe inrepeKTeivonev iavrois (2 Cor. 10 : 14) and i^ virepexovaa ir&vra vovv (Ph. 4:7). With vw6 we can mention xmoixkvw (1 Cor. 13 : 7, but see ijJkvu itself), iTtiTrKeiiaaiJ.tv rrjv Kp-ljTriv (Ac. 27 : 7) and vrialov Si ti iiroSpaiiovres (Ac. 27 : 16). Thus it will be seen that in the N. T. the accusative with transitive verbs, both simple and compound, follows the increase in the use of the accusative in Hne with the current vernacular. Sometimes indeed the object of the verb is not expressed, but really implied, and the verb is transitive. Thus Tpocrixere iavroh (Lu. 17 : 3) implies t6v vow. Cf. also ■Kpoakxere airb tS>v if/evSoTrpcxjyi]- Twv (Mt. 7 : 15) and kirtx'^'' tiSs (Lu. 14 : 7); Kara K£4>d\rjs exi^v (1 Cor. 11 : 4). In kindiiffeTai aoi (Ac. 18 : 10) xeipas must be suppUed, and with Siirpi^ov (Ac. 15 : 35) xpi>vov is needed. {h) The Cognate Accusative. It may be either that of in- ner content, ixapiia-av xa-P^v (Mt. 2 : 10), objective result anapra- vovra aiMaprlav (1 Jo. 5 : 16), (fivKaaaovm v\aKas (Lu. 2 : 8), or even a kindred word in idea but a different root, as Sap^ererat 6X1705 {irXyiyi-s, Lu. 12 :48). Considerable freedom must thus be given the term "cognate" as to both form and idea. The real cognate accusative is a form of the Figura Etymologica as appUed to either internal or external object. The quasi-cognate is due to analogy where the idea, not the form, is cognate.' The cognate is not very 1 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 304. 478 A GEAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT common in the papyri/ but in the Hebrew the idiom is very fre- quent.* It is perfectly good Greek to have' this "playing with paronymous terms," as a passage from Plato's Protagoras 326 D illustrates, viroypwj/avTK ypaiifias ry ypacj>l8i ovtcc to ypafifmretov. Cf. TLs iroinaLva Troifivriv (1 Cor. 9:7). So also in Lu. 8 : 5, e^iJXflei' 6 airdpcav tov aireipat. rbv 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 modern 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 urJike the papyri, shows an abundance of the cognate ac- cusatives. The accusative of the inner content may be illustrated by rriv SiKaiuv KpioPr]9rJTe (1 Pet. 3 : 14), av^tL Trjv v.v^r]va (1 Tim. 6 : 12), iifio\6yr](ras ttjv KoXriv ofioXoyiav {ib.), ida.vp.aaa. iSdiv avTrjv davp.a pkya. (Rev. 17: 6). Cf. Rev. 16 : 9. In Mk. 10 : 38, t6 fikirTiaiw. S iyi> PairTL^op.aL, and Jo. 17: 26, fi dyavq fjv riyaTrrjcas p.e (cf. Eph. 2 : 4), the relative shows this use of the accusative. In Jo. 17 : 26 and Eph. 2 : 4 (^w riyawriaev ripas) the cognate accusative of the inner content is used along with the accusative of the person also.* Indeed in Eph. 4 : 1, Trjs KkqaeoK fjs eKKridriTe, the relative has been attracted from the cognate accusative. The modern Greek keeps this use of the accusative. Some neuter adjectives are used to express this accusative, but far less frequently than in the ancient Greek.^ Thus, ireiroiSoss avTO TOVTO (Ph. 1 : 6), TraVTa icxviti (Ph. 4 : 13), vqaTtvovaiv irvKva. (Lu. 5 : 33), iravra eyKpaTexjeTai (1 Cor. 9 : 25), perhaps even tpItov tovto epxopaL (2 Cor. 13 : 1), ij.riStv 5i.aKpi.v6iJ.evos (Jas. 1:6), ovSiv vaTt- prjaa (2 Cor. 12:11). Cf. the interrogative tL vcTtpGi (Mt. 19:20), ' Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 436. But note itiiitiav itvi^Luxraiaiv, B.U. 146 (ii/iii), TTpoaKvvtiv TO irpoffKvmjtia Letr. 70, 79, 92 (i/B.c). 2 C. and S., Sel. from the Sept., p. 56. ' lb., p. 57. ■• lb., p. 56. ' Abbott, Job. Gr., p. 76, finds no instance of such a construction with iyairoo in anc. Gk. 6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 91. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 329. THE CASES (nTfiSEIs) 479 the relative 8 yap airWavev and S 5^ fg (Ro. 6 : 10). Cf. also S vvv fw kv (Tapd (Gal. 2 : 20) which i^y be equal to 'in that,' adverbial accusative.' In 2 Cor. 12 : 13 the accusative relative follows the nominative interrogative tL kaTiv 6 rja-auidriTe. This neuter accusa- tive of the adjective easily ghdes into the purely adverbial accu- sative, like Tra^Ttt TrS.ai.v apkaKoi (1 Cor. 10 : 33), 'wavTO. nov p.kp,vr}(jOe (1 Cor. 11 : 2). As a further example of the more objective result one may note jlxiiaKiiTevaev alx/MkciKrlav (Eph. 4 : 8, LXX), but Winer ^ rightly shows that this type is chiefly represented in the N. T. by the rela- tive. So tmpTvpla fjv fiaprvpei (Jo. 5 : 32), SiadriKr] rjv ha.driv\a.a(7ovT€s ijTiiv avrov elxov (Mt. 14 : 5). Cf. 21 : 26. In 2 Th. 3 : 15 note fii) ciis ix9p6v riyeiade, dXXa vovdeTitre cos d.5«X- 001'. In 1 Cor. 4 : 1 observe also ij^as XoyLt^iudo: avdpuiros cos iirri- ptras Xpi,tTrov. In 2 Cor. 10 : 2 we have cos with the participle, tous Xoyi^ofjievovs iJ/iSs cis Kara crdp/ca irepiTarovvTas. In 2 Cor. 6 : 4 cos deov Smkovoi is not exactly what cos StaKovovs would be. Cf . cos with the predicate nominative in Ro. 8 : 36 (LXX). Sometimes etrai is used as the copula before such a predicate accusative where the sense is not greatly altered by its absence or presence. As a matter of fact with etmi we have indirect dis- course with the accusative and infinitive. So {nroKpLvop.kvovs iavTovs SiKalovs elvai (Lu. 20 : 20), where D does not have tlvai. Cf. crvv- ecTTrjaare eavToiis ayvoiis elvai (2 Cor. 7:11), ^oyl^eade iavroiis elvai vacpois (Ro. 6 : 11), but ADEFG do not have ehai. In Ph. 3 : 7 we do not have elvai, while in verse 8 we do after riyovfiai. The predicate accusative with tls used to be explained as an un- doubted Hebraism.^ But Moulton^ is only willing to admit it is a secondary Hebraism since the papyri show a few examples like eaxov Tap' v/xSiv ds da{veLOv) (nrkpfiara, K.P. 46 (ii/A.D.), "a recurrent formula," a probable vernacular "extension of eis expressing des- tination." Moulton pertinently remarks that "as a loan" (c!)s or just the accusative in apposition) and "for a loan" (eis) "do not differ except in grammar." But certainly the great frequency of eis in the LXX as compared with even the vernacular koivt) is due to the Hebrew ^ which it so often translates.' Cf . dcoatrk pai rr\v ira2Sa Tavrrjv ets yvvalKa (Gen. 34 : 12). Cf. the similar use of eU and the accusative instead of the predicate nominative (Xoyifojuat ets Ro. 2 : 26, etc.). Winer ^ shows parallels for this predicate accu- sative from the late Greek writers. The N. T. exhibits this ac- cusative in ets TTpocjiiiTriv aMv elxov (Mt. 21 : 46), avedpbpaTO avrov ■ Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 332, 378, who says that it is absent in mod. Gk. But mod. Gk. does use ■yia instead of pred. ace, as Ix" Toils ffpaxovs 7ta Kpip^an (Thumb, Handb., p. 36). Cf. also W.-Th., p. 228; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 93. 2 prol., p. 72. ' C. and S., Sel. from the Sept., p. 81 f. Cf. also W.-Th., p. 228. * lb. In the mod. Gk. the ace. of the thing to some extent takes the place of the dat. or abl. (Thumb, Handb., p. 37). 482 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT iavT^ ds viov (Ac. 7 : 21), eXd/Jere t6v vo/wv tis Siaray as d77eXwv (Ac. 7 : 53), ijyeipev rbv AauetS auToTs ds fiaaiXia (Ac. 13 : 22), TideiKi. at ds <^ajs eOvaJK (Ac. 13 : 47, LXX). When all is said, one must ad- mit some Hebrew influence here because of its frequency. Ph. 4 : 16 is not a case in point. See further under eis. But there is another kind of double accusative besides the pred- icate accusative. It is usually described as the accusative of the person and of the thing. This in a general way is true of this group of double accusatives. Some of these were also cognate accusatives, as in KaTaKKlvan ainovs KKurias (Lu. 9 : 14) and, accord- ing to some MSS., Sriaare avra decfias (Mt. 13 : 30), tjv riyaTrrjaas m« (Jo. 17 : 26; cf. also Eph. 2:4), both of the outer and the inner ob- ject. Cf. the passive 6 eyu /SaTrrifoAiai (Mk. 10 : 38) which really implies two accusatives in the active. Further examples of this cognate accusative of the inner object with the negative pronoun may be seen in oi/Siv ne ^StKijcraTe (Gal. 4 : 12; cf. 5 : 2), /iijSdc ^\a- 4/av (Lu. 4 : 35). See also Ac. 25 : 10. In Mt. 27 : 44 the second accusative is likewise a pronoun, t6 avrb wvtibi^ov abrbv, while in Mk. 6 : 34 it is an adjective, MaaKtiv avrovs iroKKa. Indeed didaaKoi is just one of the verbs that can easily have two accusatives {asking and teaching). Cf. also vfias SiSdfet iravra (Jo. 14 : 26. In Ac. 21 : 21 we have a normal example, airoaTaalav h- bkaKHs a-Ko McouCTecos roiis — '\ov5aiovs. In Heb. 5 : 12 we note three accusatives, but one is the accusative of general reference with the infinitive, roD ScSaaKeiv u/uSs riva to o-roix"". Cf. Mt. 15 : 9 where one accusative is predicate. In Rev. 2 : 14 kSidaaKtv t& Ba- \a.K we have the dative, a construction entirely possible in the ab- stract,' but elsewhere absent in the concrete. The number of verbs like SiSdo-Ku which may have two accusatives is not consider- able. They include verbs hke alrkos in Mt. 7:9, hv aiTijcret 6 vlbs avTov apTov, but not Mt. 6 : 8 where fi/uSs is merely accusative of general reference with the infinitive, though we do meet it with alTio) in Mk. 6:22f.; Jo. 16:23; 1 Pet. 3:15. But instead of an accusative of the person we may have the ablative with awo as in Mt. 20 : 20 BD (against irapa), alrovaa TL air' airov, and in 1 Jo. 5 : 15, or the ablative with irapa as in Jo. 4 : 9, irap' ifiov ireZv alreh, and the middle xiTrjaaTo in Ac. 9 : 2. 'Epoirata likewise has two accu- satives in Mt. 21 : 24 {kpurhaoi vp,a.s Kayi) \byov ivci); Mk. 4 : 10; Jo. 16 : 23. ' kvaiiiiiviiaKO} in both active and middle is used only with the accusative in the N. T. (fiitivqaKoiiai only with the geni- tive save adverbial accusative in 1 Cor. 11 : 2), and two accusa- 1 Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 80. THE CASES (nTHSEIs) 483 tives occur in 1 Cor. 4 : 17, Ss iifias avafivricreL rds 65ovs ixov, and in 2 Tim. 1 : 6 (o-e dmfcoirupeii', both \j^ the accusative). With iixo/ii/tyij- o-Kco the genitive occurs once in the passive (Lu. 22 : 61), the accu- sative elsewhere, and two accusatives in Jo. 14 : 26, iTonvqcrtL ii/ias navTa, and in Tit. 3 : 1 (avrobs moTacatcdaC) . In 1 Cor. 14 : 6 ob- serve tI huas ii^t\i](ru. In 2 Pet.. 1 : 12 Trept Tohruv occurs rather than a second accusative. EvayYtKl^otxai usually has accusative of the thing and dative of the person, as in Eph. 2 : 17; 3 : 8, etc. But in Ac. 13 : 32 the accusative of person^ and thing is found, and the same thing is true in Ac. 14 : 15 (u/iSs — kTti.aTpkeiv), taking object-sentence as "thing." Indeed in Gal. 1 : 9 {tl rts u/ias eiia7- yeKL^eraL Tap' o irapeha^ere) the same thing exists, for while the antecedent of 6 would be Trapa rofjTo, n is really implied also, ti iropd 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 airocTepeoi the ablative is retained {ttjs aXrjdeias) . But in the N. T. neither airoaTepkco, nor d^aipew, nor kputttco has two accusatives. Either the ablative alone occurs or with airo (Lu. 16 : 3; Lu. 19 : 42; Rev. 6 : 16). With ^vKaaatadai (Ac. 21 : 25) avTow 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^kbvcav avrov ttjv xXaAi63a (Mt. 27 : 31; cf. Mk. 15 : 17; Lu. 15 : 22), kvkSvca.v aii- Tov TO. luaTia avrov (Mt. 27 : 31; cf. Mk. 15 : 22). But ap.4>ikvvvp.i does not have two accusatives nor TrepLTiBij/jLi (Mt. 27:28). In Lu. 23:11 some MSS. give two accusatives with irept/SaXcSii', but NBLT omit avrov. In Jo. 19 : 2 the text is beyond dispute luariov '!rop4>vpovv irepti^aXov ahrov. Cf. 7r€pt|8aXeTrat iv (Rev. 3:5). Moreover xpt'^ has two accusatives in Heb. 1 : 9 (expto-ec ere 6 Bt6% l\aijov), a quotation from the LXX. In Rev. 3 : 18 KoKXovpiov is not the object of £7xpTo'at, but of ayopdaai. 'AXei^co is not used with two accusatives, but has the thing in the instrumental case (Mk. 6 : 13). UXrjpocii 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. 'Opxifco o-e rdv deov (Mk. 5 : 7) is a case in point (cf. 'e^opKiu in Herod.). See ' Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 78 f ., argues unsuccessfully against the idea that eiayytKl^oiiai. has two aces. 484 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT also Ac. 19 : 13 and one example of hopd^ca in 1 Th. 5 : 27. The idea is really to "cause to swear by." In Jas. 5 : 12 {oixvvtTe firiTe Tov ovpavbv fii/Te ttjv y^v fir/Te &X\ov riva &pKov) we have two con- structions, one "swear by," the other the cognate accusative. So hMiiapTvponai in 2 Tim. 4: 1 f. Cf. P.O. 79 (ii/A.D.) onvhos AvTOKp&Topa Kaiaapa Map[/co]»' Avpri\iov — oKridfj ilv[ai] to, irpo-. Hori^u is a good example of the causative sense. Thus Ss 8.v TOTiaxi i/xSis TroTi)pu>v Maros (Mk. 9 : 41). Cf. Mt. 10 : 42; 1 Cor. 3:2. In Ro. 12 : 20 ^cojuifco 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 ^oprtfere tov^ kvdpii- irous cj)opTia SvcrficuTTaKTa. Cf . ^XaTTtocas airov ^paxv tl in Heb. 2 : 7 (LXX). Finally some words of doing good or ill have two accusatives. Thus firjdiv fi\a\l/av avrov (Lu. 4 : 35) where the pronoun is really a cognate accusative, as is the case with vp.as oiBiv ii^€Ki)vpav (Lu. 16 : 19), kKavnaTiaOrjaav Kavixa fiiya (Rev. 16 : 9), bapijcerai iro\- Xds (ttXjjyAs, Lu. 12 : 47, 6Xt7as, 48), ri fikirTiafia o Pairrii^oiML ^av- Tiad^pai (Mk. 10 : 38, two examples), "iv Trvevna kiroTiadrjfjLev (1 Cor. 12 : 13), ireTeiafieda to, KpeLaaova (Heb. 6:9), ireirXripoififvoi Kapirdv SiKaioavvris (Ph. 1 : 11; Col. 1 : 9 Iva irKTjpwBrJTe ri)v hw'i/yvuaiv and cf. Ex. 31 : 3, Ij/exXTjcra avrhv irveviia (ro^ias) and compare 2 Tim. 1 : 5 for genitive {'iva xap£s TrXijpajfiai), ^rjiiujidrjvaL rijv ^vxijv avrov (Mk. 8 : 36). Cf.alsoMt. 16 :26;Ph.3 :8;Heb. 10 :22. See 6 ii^v k^ i/xov ii(t>e\ri6^s (Mt. 15:5); ri iiijiikrfirtceTai (Mt. 16 : 26) ; Ppaxv ri irap' AyyiXovs ri^arrcofikvov (Heb. 2 : 9) with active (two aces.) in Heb. 2 : 7. Once more observe MiKohixtvoi. niadbv {lSlkms (2 Pet. 2 : 13). The predicate accusative, it should be said, becomes the nomina- tive in the passive, as in avrol vioi 6tov KKtidrjaovTcu (Mt. 5:9). Cf. Heb. 5 : 10; 2 Tim. 1 : 11. Some verbs which have only one accusative in the active or middle yet retain the accusative of the thing in the passive with the person in the nominative. This is a freedom not possessed by the Latin. The person in the active was generally in the dative. Thus Paul a number of times uses tnaTeimym {inaTevBrivai, to evay- ykXtov 1 Th. 2:4; h-uTTevdr] t6 [iapTvpiov 2 Th. 1 : 10; cf. also 1 Cor. 9 : 17; Gal. 2 : 7; Ro. 3 : 2; 1 Tim. 1:11). Then again xepi, paXKonai is frequently so employed, as ireptPe^rifiivos cnvSova (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 Blass' has it, though the future middle does occur in Rev. 3 : 5 with h, and the aorist middle with the accusative in Rev. 19 : 8. In Rev. 4 : 4 we have TepifiiPkriiihovs Ifiarlois (loc), and margin (W. H.) kv tfi. Once more irepiKeLiMi is used as the passive of irtptTlBtjui with the accusative of the thing, though the verb itself means to 'he around' instead of 'be encompassed with.' So Titv aXvav irepl- Kti/Mi (Ac. 28 : 20). Cf. also Heb. 5 : 2, but in Lu. 17 : 2 we have Trepi 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 KarrixoviMevos t6v Xoyov (Gal. 6 : 6) does not really differ from as iSiSaxBrin above. In Sedenevos tovs tto- 5as Kal rds x"pas (Jo. 11:44) we see a close parallel to 7rept/3e/3X?j- fikvos above. Note active in Mt. 22 : 13. In die^Sapiikvciiv t6v vovv (1 Tim. 6 : 5), pepavriafievot rds Kap8ias (Heb. 10 : 22), \e\ovafiivoi TO aSiiia (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 Tijv aiiTiji' e'iKova p.€Tap.op^ovp,tda (2 Cor. 3 ; 18) and perhaps even of rijv avTTiv avTiixiuBiav irKarvvdriTe (2 Cor. 6 : 13). In Ac. 21 : 3 dc- a^avavres, not ava^iavkyrts, is the correct text, as Blass' observes. The impersonal verbal in — reoj' 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 ets aa-Kous Kaivoii /SXijreoj'. This verbal is more usually transitive than the personal form in -reos, which is not found in the N. T. {k) 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 KadlaraTai rd Trpds rov deov (Heb. 5:1). See also avkireaav ol avSpes TOP apid/wv d)s irevTaKLcrxi-^i^'- (Jo- 6 : 10),^ rov rpoTOV eawop- vevaaaai. (Jude 7), &v rpbirov opvLS eiria-vvayei, (Mt. 23 : 37) and 2 Tim. 3 : 8 (dv rpb-Kov). Cf. avtlxfcrOe pav fiiKpov ti (2 Cor. 11 : 1). In Ro. 15 : 17 the whole verbal phrase is concerned with to. xpos deov, but see Ro. 12 : 18, to ef vp.S)v utTO. iravrcav &v6p6}wo}v dprivtiovTiS, where ri e^ vpHv is ace. In Ro. 1 : 15 ri Kar kp.k may be nom. In Heb. 2 : 17 this adv. ace. occurs with the adj. as in TrurrAs dpxtepeus rd irpos rov deov. So also with a subst. as in 6 Xpiaros t6 Kara akpKa (Ro. 9:5). The Text. Recept. in Ac. 18 : 3 had okijvo- jToids Triv rkxvriv, but W. H. read cKrivoiroiol tjj rexvp- Indeed the > Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 93. = Giles, Man., etc., p. 309. » Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. 91, 93. * Cf. Abbott, Job. Gr., p. 75. So 2 Mace. 8 : 16. THE CASES (nTOSEIs) 487 instrumental is usual in the N. T. in such instances/ as fipadets rfj Kap8iq. (Lu. 24 : 25), 2upo0oii'i/«o-q^ t^ Yeyei (Mk. 7 : 26), Kiirpios r^ yiva (Ac> 4 : 36), wavrl Tp6w' v/xlv. The phrase t6 Kad' els (Ro. 12 : 5) is accusative, even though els itself is nominative in form. In 1 Cor. 11 : 18 see also nkpo% ti wicTexxa. Perhaps thus is ■ to be explained the accusative with the interjection in Rev. 8 : 13 oiial Tovs KaToiKovvras. Cf. omi 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, vri r^c ifte- rkpav Kaiixv^t-"- In Mk. 6 : 39 (TviiTToaia avp.irbaia may be looked at as nominative (cf. irpaam 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 avrb TOVTO (2 Pet. 1:5), and koI tovto may be accusative also (Ph. 1 : 29, etc.). Cf. also tovto nkv — tovto dk (Heb. 10 : 33). In Ac. 15 : 11; 27 : 25 we have KaB' Sv Tpmov. In Ph. 4 : 10 {aveBaKtTt to iirkp kpov povHv) the infinitive is probably the accusative of general reference. Cf. top irodav -Troveis aird cKoXawov, B.U. 380 (iii/A.D.). There are indeed other expressions that come more closely to the pure adverb. Such, for instance, are to Kad' r/fiepav (Lu. 11:3; 19:47; Ac. 17:11), Tiiv dpxV (Jo. 8:25), to \onr6v (Mk.. 14:41; Ph. 3:1; Heb. 10: 13, etc.), to irpoTepov (Jo. 6:62, etc.), to irpwTov. (Jo. 10 :40; 12 : 16); to irXeiaTov (1 Cor. 14: 27), tA ttoXXA (Ro. 15 : 22, MSS. xoXXaws), tA vvv (Ac. 17 : 30), to vvv ixov (Ac. 24 : 25), TO r^Xos (1 Pet. 3 : 8). In the case of t6 Xot7r6i' (1 Cor. 7 : 29) it may be either accusative or nominative. In 2 Cor. 6 : 13 Tiyv avTLiuaOiav is considered adverbial accusative by some, as is iravTa with apk(TKco (1 Cor. 10 : 33) and with fikfivricde (11 : 2). Observe also t6 aiiTo (Ph. 2 : 18; Mt. 27 : 44). Cf. ovbiv xpfi-av exco (Rev. 3 : 17), and the common use of tI in the sense of 'why' as in Mt. 17: 10 {Sia 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 fur lat. Lex. und Gr., vol. X. 2 Griech. Gr., p. 378. » Volker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec, pp. 10-13. ^ Giles, Man., etc., p. 309. 488 A GRAMMAR 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 aKfiriv (Mt. 15 : 16), 8b)pe&.v (Mt. 10 : 8), xapiv as a preposition (Eph. 3 : 1, etc.). But adjectives in the accusa- tive were numerous in Horner^ 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 ttoXii (2 Cor. 8 : 22), d\Lyov (Mk. 6 : 31), likaov (Ph. 2 : 15), raxb (Mt. 5:25), XoLirov (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 xoXXa in Ro. 16 : 6, though this may be construed as cognate ace. with kKoiriaaev. Cf. Jas. 3 : 2; 1 Cor. 16 : 12, 19. For the comparative singular note nSXkov KptZa-aov (Ph. 1 : 23), airovdaiorepov (2 Cor. 8 : 22), Sfvrepov (1 Cor. 12 : 28), TepiaaoTepov (Mk. 7:36), /SeXTtoi/ (2 Tim. 1 : 18), eXarTov (1 Tim. 5 : 9), varepov (Mt. 22 : 27), raxetov (Jo. 13 : 27), etc. Cf. xoXu (XTovdaLorepov (2 Cor. 8: 22) with ttoXX^ /xaX- \ov (Ph. 1 : 23), the instrumental and usual idiom in the N. T. In the superlative it is usually the plural form like ^dicrra (2 Cor. 12 : 9), naXiara (Ac. 20 : 38), rdx^ra (Ac. 17: 15), etc. But note ■wpSiTov (1 Cor. 12 : 28), tpItov (ih.). 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, ol8a ae t'ls d (cf. Lu. 4 : 34), Lu. 19 : 3, IWiv 'Itiaovv tis 'tanv. But in Mt. 15 : 14 we have a kind of prolepsis (not the technical sort) without any change of case, TV(t>\ds tu0X6j' eav odriyfj. In the case of firi nva &v aTrkaraKKa Trpos vfids, Si' aiiTOV kifKeovkKrqca i/ids; (2 Cor. 12 : 17) the TLPa is left to one side and anacoluthon takes place and the sen- tence is concluded by 5t' avrov. (m) The Accusative by Inverse Attraction. Thus op- Kov bv Sifwatv (Lu. 1 : 73), TOP aprov ov KXcofiev (1 Cor. 10 : 16). Cf. TO iroTTipLov (1 Cor. 10 : 15). In Mk. 3 : 16 but for the parenthesis ((cai eiridriKtv ovo/xa 'Zlpxavi) Herpov we should seem to have the dative and the accusative in apposition. 1 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 93. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 348 f.; Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., Ill, p. 625 f. 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 331. 3 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 85. THE CASES (hTOSEIs) 489 (n) 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 English, and a clause with oti 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 on clause in Greek. Besides, not only is the infinitive a verbal substantive ^ and in a case like 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 ecos av Idua-Lv Tov vlov tov avdpdjTov epxo/j^vov (Mt. 16 : 28). Here the ac- cusative is the object of 'iScoaiv and the participle is descriptive of viov. 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 aaxv/J^velv — vofii^ei (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 aa:KovTes etvai acxjioi (Ro. 1 : 22), or the accusative may be used. This accusative may be with a verb that can have two accusatives, as in eydi efiavrdv ov 'koyl^Ofmi KaTeL\ri Giles, Man., etc., p. 311. » Hadley, Ess. Philol. and Crit., p. 48. = Cf. W.-Th., p. 236. • * Sans. Gr., p. 98 f. » Tl. I, p. 331. Cf. Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 102. « Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 185 f ., 307-380. ' Griech. Gr., p. 385. ' Giles, Man., etc., p. 315. Cf. Donaldson, Gk. Gr., pp. 464 ff. ' In late Gk. the true gen. survives while the abl. fades further away. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 333. 494 A GRAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT for the case itself. Thus in Mt. 1 : 12 we have niToweaiav Ba/SuXw- 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 O. T. What the geni- tive says is that it is a 'Babylon-removal.' That is all. So in Mt. 12 : 31, 7j Tov TvevfxaTos /3Xao-<^i7/ita, 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 modern 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 avrov, ov, ttov, oirov, o/tiou, 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 -oio, 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 ahj evpovres TTolas eiaiveyKwaiv avrbv and 19 : 4 tKelvqs rj/ieXXev StepxecSai 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 irolq., eKelv]] (as D has in Lu. 19 : 4). Moulton^ finds often in the papyri votov, Xt/36s, though in Rev. 21 : 13 we have the ablative* airb vbrov. In Ac. 19 : 26 we have a very striking example that the commentaries have failed to notice as Moulton' observes. It is ov fwvov 'E(t)e(Tov dXXd (rx^Sdv iraarjs ttjs 'Ana t^s Taireiviiatois (and rgs So^ris, Ph. 3 : 21), t6 awna rrjs cop/cos (Col. 1 : 22), PaiTTLatm neravoias (Mk. 1:4), riiiepas oSov (Lu. 2 : 44), 6 oIkovo- fwi Trjs aStKias (Lu. 16 : 8). And even expressions like viol (jxiiros (1 Th. 5 : 5) are shown by the inscriptions and coins (Deissmann, Bih. Stud., p. 165) to be not mere Hebraisms, though far more fre- quent in the LXX than in the N. T. because of the Hebrew. Other examples are "Koyois rfjs xo^pito^ (Lu. 4 : 22), ctmOos iK\oyrjs (Ac. 9 : 15), trjceinj opyrjs (Ro. 9 : 22), Kpirrjs rgs adiKlas (Lu. 18 : 6), ■waBri ATtyuias (Ro. 1 : 26), vlos ttjs ayairrfs (Col. 1 : 13), voftov rfjs iXevdeplas and aKpoar-qs ewikriffnovrjs (Jas. 1 : 25), inravyaana ttjs 86^s (Heb. 1:3), KapSia awiaTlas (Heb. 3 : 12), pi^a iriKpias (Heb. 12 : 15), ij ir\r]yri tov Bavarov (Rev. 13 : 3), where the descriptive attribu- tive genitive expresses quahty like an adjective indeed, but with more sharpness and distinctness. Cf . again tv KaivoT'qTi ftogs (Ro. 6 : 4) and k-wl irKohTov a5r]\bTi}Ti, (1 Tim. 6 : 17). In Heb. 1 : 3, ti? p7lp.aTi Trjs dvvafi&as 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 (nTOSEIs) . 497 pendent on SwAjueois. Cf. 2 Th. 1:7. I doubt the wisdom of Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 237) in saying that in to. p^ftara t^s fwijs rafiTTjs (Ac. 5 : 20) the demonstrflive goes in sense with piiixaTa. The same objection applies to 6 \6yos Tijs crcoTtiplas radrris (Ac. 13 : 26) and k rod aoiiiaros rod davarov robrov (Ro. 7 : 24). Besides viol 0a)T6s above observe a similar idiom in rkw <>cot6s (Eph. 5:8), rkKva dpyrjs (Eph. 2 : 3), rkca iiraKoijs (1 Pet. 1 : 14), rtKva Karapas (2 Pet. 2 : 14), viol aTeidias (Eph. 2 : 2), 6 vlds rrjs dTrwXetas (2 Th. 2 :3). Cf. also ol viol rod vviJ,<)>Sivos (Mt. 9 : 15); 6 ui6s t^s d7a7n;s oiroO (Col. 1 : 13), 6 acSpwxos t^s Avoh'ms (2 Th. 2:3). One may instance further the use of ■fifiepa opyrjs (Ro. 2:5), iltitpa aatriplas (2 Cor. 6 : 2 quot. from 0. T.), •n/xipa kinarKoirrjs (1 Pet. 2 : 12), ■fitxkpa avadel^em (Lu. 1 : 80) where the LXX may be appealed to for abundant illustration. The genitive of place or country is descriptive also. Thus Na- fop^T TIJS TaXtXatas (Mk. 1 : 9), Tapac^ t^s KtXtKtos (Ac. 22 : 3), jfris iarlv TrpoiTTj p,epL5os rfjs MaKidovlas 7r6Xts (Ac. 16 : 12), etc. This geni- tive of quality or descriptive genitive is largely extended in the LXX by reason of translation (Thackeray, p. 23). 3. The Predicate Genitive. While having the copula tlvai, yi- veaOai, etc., in reality' it is to be explained as a genitive with sub- stantives. It is not the copula that affects the case of the genitive at all. It is just the possessive genitive in the predicate instead of being an attribute. Often the substantive or pronoun is re- peated in sense before the predicate genitive. Thus ovk eanv dxa- Tacrraalas 6 debs (1 Cor. 14 : 33). Cf. ^/ieis o\)k iafiiv vroaToXrjs — dXXd iri(7Tews (Heb. 10 : 39), iraaa raiSeia ov doKel xopas dvai (Heb. 12 : 11). So ^v yap kTuv diiSeKa (Mk. 5 : 42). So Lu. 2 : 42. Cf. also i&v Tivas aiipp t^s dSov ovras (Ac. 9 : 2), and indeed kykvero yv6i- uris (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 (jtuTos kare Kai viol ■fip.kpas (1 Th. 5 : 5) and oIik hcrnh vvktos ovbk aKbrovs (1 Th. 5 : 6) and fifikpas ovres (verse 8).^ We may continue the illustrations like kyii elfit, UavXov (1 Cor. 1 : 12), ovk kark iavr&v (1 Cor. 6 : 19), tov dtov ov tip.1 (Ac. 27:23), Trd^Ttt hp&v karlv (1 Cor. 3:21), oix i>liSiv karlv yvuvai (Ac. 1 : 7), Iva iiiMv ykvriTai fi Kktjpovopia (Lu. 20 : 14), rlvoi ahrSiv iarai yvvri (Mk. 12 : 23), TeXeiwv iarlv ri artpta. rpo(i>rt (Heb. 5 : 14), XpioToO tlva.1 (2 Cor. 10 : 7), uv kcTlv ^iyekos /cat 'Eppoykvris (2 Tim. 1 : 15), iva ■/! iireppoXfi rrjs dvv&fiecos jj tov (2 Cor. 4 : 7), and finally, " W.-Th., p. 195. Is no distinct type, Giles, Man., p. 317. ' 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, &p earo) ovxi> — Koa/ios (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 (of. predicate nominative) and not a verbal genitive. As an example of the objective genitive in the predi- cate take (jKOLvbaKov el ifiov (Mt. 16 : 23): In the modern 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.^ Kiihner-Gerth' may also be consulted for other poetical examples. In the N. T. we note x6Xets llodoficov Kal Tofioppas (2 Pet. 2 : 6) which Blass compares with 'IXiov Trb\i.v of Homer and observes* that xoXecos Qvarelpoiv (Ac. 16 : 14) is merely the geni- tive of TToXts QvoLTiipa (cf. TToXet 'loTTTTj/ vo. Ac. 11:5). In 2 Cor. 11 : 32 the adjective is used as riiv ttoKlv Aa/iaa-KrivSiv, while in Rev. 18 : 10 we have true apposition. One may note further rod vaov Tov au/xaTOs avrov (Jo. 2 : 21), tov appafi&va tov irvfifJiaTOS (2 Cor. 5 : 5), (rrjfieZov ittpiToixrjs (Ro. 4 : 11, AC Tepirofiriv) , to arfixetov t^s idtrecos (Ac. 4 : 22), ij KoliJ,r]is avTov (2 Cor. 2 : 14), ^ 'Kpocopa tuiv kdvCiv (Ro. 15 : 16), t6 IxecoTOixov TOV ^paynov (Eph. 2 : 14), 6 defii\ios tSiv airouToKiav (Eph. 2 : 20), BefieXioi ixtTavolas (Heb. 6:1), to airoKpifia tov BavaTOV (2 Cor. 1 : 9), 6 e/uTrXoK^s TpixS>v — kocjxos (1 Pet. 3 : 3), 6 avos rijs fco^s (Rev. 2 : 10), 6 (TTeavos rrjs So^jjj (1 Pet. 5 : 4), 6 ttjs SiKauxjhvqs (rTk(t>avos (2 Tim. 4 : 8), eopri) tS>v a^vudiv (Lu. 22 : 1), eopri) tov iraax"- (Jo. 13 : 1), 5^ okia tov aKi}vovs (2 Cor. 5 : 1), ij dTrapxi) tov irvehfiaTOS (Ro. 8 : 23), ttiv iTrayyeXlav tov irvtvfmTos (Ac. 2 : 33), vdfios riaTeus (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. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 335. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 73 f. ' II, p. 264. « Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 98. Cf. also W.-Sch., p. 266 f. THE CASES (nTBSEIz) 499 idiom in this as in so many other matters. Poetry often expresses better than prose the language q( the people. In Eph. 4 : 9 €is to. Karimpa fikpri rrjs 757s we probably have not this usage, but the ablative after the comparative. Cf. Ellicott in loco. In Jo. 21 : 8 TO Slktvov tS>v IxBviav the genitive merely gives the content (cf. material and quantity as opposed to quality). Cf. also oKafiaarpov fivpov (Mk. 14 : 3) and Kepamov vdaros (Mk. 14 : 13), 076X77 xo'i^P^f (Mt. 8 : 30) and iKardv fiarovs eXatou (Lu. 16 : 6). 5. The Svbjective 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 apphed to the merely possessive genitive noted above.' Take Ro. 1 : 17 where SiKaioaiivrj 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 ayairr] rod Xpiarov awtxei' i7mSs. 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 otto rrjs ayaiTTis rod deov ttjs kv Xpttrrcf 'Irjaov. Abbott^ is apparently right in finding only a couple of passages in the N. T. where d7axij is used with the objective genitive (2 Th. 2 : 10, ij 07. rfjs dXij^eias; Lu. 11 : 42, irapkpxeade T'fjV Kpiav koX rriv aydirriv tov deov). Jo. 5 : 42 Ti]V ayairriv rod deov ovk exere ev eavroXs might be either subjective or ob- jective,- but see Ro. 5:5. In Ph. 4:7 v eipijvr\ tov deov 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, bwkp aKr]6eias deov, we seem to have the sub- jective genitive. Note also SiKauxrvvri Trio-reajs (Ro. 4 : 13), which is explained as subjective by Paul in the phrase ^ SiKaLoavvr} e/c irio-Tews (Ro. 10 : 6). In 1 Tim. 4:1, SiSao-KoXiais datfiovioiv, we have again the subjective genitive. Some passages are open to doubt, as evayyiXiov ttjs xdpfos tov deov (Ac. 20 : 24), eiia77eXioi' tjjs jSatriXeias .(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 ff. 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 English preposi- tions used to translate the resultant idea. Thus in Mk. 11 : 22 exere ir'uTTiv deov we rightly translate ' have faith in God,' though the genitive does not mean 'in,' but only the God kind of faith. Of. Ro. 3 : 22. Take Mt. 12 : 31, i) 5i rod irvthmTos /SXacr^jj/ita, where the context makes it clear that it is blasphemy 'against' the Holy Spirit. Another striking example is Ac. 4 : 9, iirl evep- yeaig. avBpoiTov aaBevovs, where the good deed is done 'to' a sick man. In Jo. 7: 13, 6id tov v 'lovdaicov, it is fear 'towards' or 'in reference to' the Jews, while Jo. 17 : 2, i^ov(TLa xacrijs aapKds, means authority 'over' all flesh (cf. k^ovcrlav irvevfiaTOiv hKoBaprtav, Mt. 10: 1, and r^s biiSiv k^ovaias, 1 Cor. 9: 12). In 1 Cor. 10:6, TVTToi iiiiSiv, we have types 'for' us. In Jo. 18 : 29 we have accu- sation 'against' this man, KaTrjyoplav tov avOpoivov, etc. Each ex- ample calls for separate treatment. So t6 arifielov 'luvS. (Lu. 11 : 29) may be the sign shown in Jonah, while vofws tov &.vSp6s (Ro. 7:2) is the law ' about' the husband (cf . 6 vofios tov 'keirpov, Lev. 14: 2). In 1 Pet. 2: 19, 5ia awtlSriaiv deov, it is a good conscience 'toward' God, while iv tj; irpoaevxv tov deov (Lu. 6 : 12) we have prayer 'to' God. "0 f^Xos tov dUov aov (Jo. 2 : 17) is zeal 'con- cerning' thy house. See Ro. 10: 2; cf. also Heb. 11: 26, Tbv bvei- Sia-fidv TOV XptoToO. In Col. 2 : 18, OprjaKelq. tSiv &yyk\ciiv, it is worship 'paid to' angels, while els t-^v iwaKoviiv tov XpiaTov (2 Cor. 10: 5) is obedience 'to' Christ. But see per contra viraKoii Trio-recos (Ro. 1 : 5) which is subjective genitive. In 1 Cor. 1 : 6, fmpTiipiov tov XpiaTov, we have again witness 'concerning' Christ. Cf. also 6 \6yos 6 TOV aravpov (1 Cor. 1 : 18) and d/coai TroXkfiwv (Mt. 24 : 6). So in 1 Cor. 8 : 7. 17 awelSricns tov elSusXov is consciousness ' about' the idol, not the idol's consciousness. See also the two objective uses of ayaTri tov deov (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 6Pos deov (Ro. 3 : 18) is objective, and note also 2 Cor. 5 : 11 (tov ^6^ov tov Kvpiov). Eph. 5 : 21 is objective. See also Kad' iiroixovfiv ipyov ayaBov (Ro. 2 : 7), 'in' a good work, and eis SiKaioia-iv fwijs (Ro. 5 : 18), 'to' life. Cf. kvkaTa- aiv foj^s — Kpiaeccs (Jo. 5 : 29). Indeed one may go on and include those genitives of "looser relation" usually set off to themselves. They are really just the objective genitive. So as to 656s Wviiv (Mt. 10 : 5), way 'to' the Gentiles; 6Sdv daXaaaris (Mt. 4 : 15), way THE CASES (nXOSEIz) 501 'by' the sea; ti)j' Siaaitopav tuv 'EWrivciiv (Jo. 7 : 35), dispersion 'among' the Greeks; TrpS^ara ^ayrji (Ro. 8:36), 'doomed to' slaughter; dipa tuv irpofikTuv (Jo. 10: 7), door 'to' the sheep; m«- roiKiala Ba/JuXaJyos (Mt. 1 : 11 f.), and even &iro\\iTpc>iv irapafia.- aeoiv (Heb. 9 : 15), though this last may be regarded as an ablative. But fiaiTTKTuuv 8i8axvv (Heb. 6 : 2) is objective genitive. Note also Tpcnrrjs dxoo-Kiaa-jua (Jas. 1 : 17), a shadow 'cast by' turning, and ■wiarei dXvdilas (2 Th. 2 : 13), faith in the truth. In Heb. 10 : 24, irapo^vafidv aja,ir7]s Kal Kokuv 'ipytav there is little cause for com- ment. The same remark applies to kMvvol iroranuv, XjiaTtav (2 Cor. 11 : 26). In Jo. 19 : 14 tJ irapacKevri tov trkcxa- probably al- ready means the day 'before' the Sabbath (Friday).^ Cf. ^ Trapa- jSoX^ TOV (TireipovTos (Mt. 13 : 18). Cf. also the genitive of price, xoij't? alrov drjuaplov (Rev. 6:6), 'for' a penny; a.vTa.\\ayp.a t^s iwxrjs airov (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 of Relationship. For lack 6i 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 ij 'laKoi^ov (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 MapLa ij 'Icoo-^tos, 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 ah^tjjp. But in Jo. 19 : 25 Mapla 17 tov KXcoira it is the wife (yvvri) that is meant. So in Mt. 1:6k ttjs tov Oipiov. In Lu. 6 : 16 and Ac. 1 : 13 we have 'Iov8as 'laKu^ov, which probably means the brother (dS«X06s) of Jude in view of Jude 1 (aSe\4>ds 'la/cci/Sou) rather than son. But vlos is the word usually to be supplied, as in 'Id/cw/Soy tov tov ZefieSaiov (Mt. 4: 21), t6v 'loii- dav Si/wdyos (Jo. 6 : 71), 'ZIijmv 'luavov (Jo. 21 : 15 ff.), AaveiS tov TOV 'leo-trat (Ac. 13 : 22). See also Ac. 20 : 4, SdjTarpos Uvppov. Cf. Lu. 3 : 2 where vl6s is used, as viol generally is for ' sons of Zebe- dee' (Mk. 10 : 35). In Jo. 21 : 2 we have ol tov Ze/SeSatou so used. 1 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 92. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 95. » W.-Th., p. 190. 502 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT But sometimes the article refers to the family in general as in vTo Tuv XX677S (1 Cor. 1 : 11). Cf. oi Trepi avrSv (Lu. 22 :49). In Mk. 5 : 35, airo rod a.pxi^o'vvayuyov, 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 ets 'idr]v, while some MSS. have els aSov (cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 395) and the MSS. vary also in Ps. 16 : 10 (LXX). Cf. h tQ ^Sv in Lu. 16 : 23. It is more likely that in Lu. 2 : 49, kv toZs tov iraTpbs, we have the idea of 'house' rather than that of 'business.' Cf. els to. i5ta (Jo. 19 : 27) and ds to. I8ia and ol Wioi in Jo. 1:11. See ev toIs K\avS{iov), P.O. 523 (ii/A.D.), for 'house' of. It is a classic idiom. Cf. Lysias els to, tov a5e\^ov. These constructions are all in har- mony with the ancient Greek idiom.^ In an example like to ttjs aXitdovs Trapoi/xias (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 iv TovToiv (Mt. 6 : 29), t6 5kKo.Tov TT\s xoXeojs (Rev. 11 : 13), ecos ^/iio-ous TTis jSatrtXttas (Mk. 6 : 23), riniav Kaipov (Rev. 12 : 14), TO, 71^,1(71.0, fwv tSiv vwapxovToov (Lu. 19 : 8), TO Trepicrcrevov twv K\a(TiJ,aTOiv (Mt. 15 :37), TO TpiTov TTjs -Yrjs (Rev. 8:7). See further h tup p,e\S>v cov (Mt. 5 : 29), rtm twv ■Kpo4>r]TSiv (Acts 7 : 52), roiis TTOixois tSiv ay'iMv (Rom. 15:26), ol Xonroi tSiv avdpiiitwv (Lu. 18:11), fivptaSes txupikbuiv Koi X'XidSes X'XidScoj' (Rev. 5 : 11), to. Tjiuaw. pw tCiv virapxovTOiv (Lu. 19 : 8) and the curious to, aiiTo, tSjv iroBrjpATuv (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, avvffSBov tGiv nad-qTwv, where the partitive genitive is alone. 9. The Position of the Genitive. In general one may note that the genitive usually comes after the limiting substantive, as Tijv ykevvav tov irvpbs (Mt. 5 : 22), but the genitive comes first if it is emphatic like "EXXiJi-wv iroXii T'Krjdos (Ac. 14 : 1) or if there is sharp contrast like Tdv i}aei opyrjs (Eph. 2 : 3). Cf. also Ph. 2 : 10; Ro. 9 : 21, etc. But note eis aXivpov (TOLTa Tpla (Mt. 13 : 33). 10. Concaienation 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, fivrinovevovTes {ijiSiv tov ipyov Tfjs Trio-reois Kal TOV KOTTOV TTJs ayaTTris Kal rfjs iiropiovrjs rrjs eKTiSos tov Kvplov rifiS}v 'Irjo-oO XpurroO. 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, Tijj' ekevdeplav t^s S6^r]s tS>v Ttavuv tov deov, and in verse 23 T171' airoXvTpiaatv tov (rdifjuxTos rificiv. 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 iroTijpiov tov otvov tov 6vij.ov TTjs opy^s avTov, and five occur in Rev. 19 : 15, counting the appositives, ri/v Xrjvdv tov olvov TOV Bvpiov TTJs opy^s TOV 6fov TOV iravTOKpciTopos. 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: vird Tuiv ayiav ■irpo(j)'i]TSiv Kal Trjs tS>v airocToKuv vixG>v kvToXrjs TOV Kvplov. Cf . Ph. 2 : 30 also. In 2 Cor. 3 : 18, av6 Kvpiov irvevfmTos, it is not clear whether Kvpiov is genitive or is the ablative in apposi- tion with Trv6i)p.aTo^. In Jas. 2 : 1 it is difficult to put into brief compass the Greek idiom, ttjj' ttuttiv tov Kvpiov ■qnGiv 'It/ctoO XptcToD tt\s So^s. Here 'Iij. Xp. is in apposition with Kvpiov. Kvpiov has iliiliv and is itself the objective genitive with ir'nTTiv, while t^s So^jjs is probably in apposition with 'Iij. Xp. (see Mayor in loco). ig) 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 plenus, by analogy to vacuus, the ab- lative is used and also because the ablative and instrumental forms ' Cf. Green, 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. 5 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 inrapxovra fwv (1 Cor. 13 : 3). Cf. Lu. 12 : 33; Lu. 2 : 27, t6 etdianivov rod v6nov; and Ph. 3 : 8, t6 virepkxov t^s yvwctscos. The adjective itself is so used in 1 Cor. 10 : 33, rb kiMvrov avfj^opov. Cf . 1 Cor. 7 : 35. But different is avu- fibp(t>ovs Tjjs elKovos tov vlov airov (Ro. 8 : 29). Here we have the true adjective, but the genitive is due to the principle just stated. In (Tvpepyoi, Ro. 16: 21, we have the substantive also. The case with verbals in -tos may be considered genitive, but see the ab- lative also. Thus ot ayairriTol dtov (Ro. 1 : 7), ytwrirol yvvaiKuv (Lu. 7 : 28), kK\eKTol deov (Ro. 8 : 33), kXtitoI 'IijtroO (Ro. 1 : 6). In StSaK- rol dtov (Jo. 6 : 45), oiiK kv SiSaKTols avdpojirivris ao4>ias \6yoLS (1 Cor. 2 : 13) one may question if we do not have the ablative. But in eiiXoyriiievoL tov varpos (Mt. 25 : 34) the genitive is likely the case. There is only one adjective in -ik6s in the N. T. which has the genitive, kpltlkos ivdvfiriaeuv (Heb. 4 : 12). "A^ws is very common with the genitive in the N. T., as a^iov rfjs lieravoias (Mt. 3:8). But ava^Los probably has abl. because of a- privative, as dra^ioi iffrt KpLTrjpicov eXaxio-Twc (1 Cor. 6:2). Delbruck^ 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 (ivvo/ios Xpiarov) we have a very "bold use" of the genitive' due to the substantive idea involved (vo/ms). But prob- ably in Heb. 3 : 12, Kap5ia irovjjpd aTnarlas, the genitive is dependent on KapSLa, not irovripa. "Eroxos brings up an unusual genitive in Mt. 26 : 66 evoxoi davdrov, and Mk. 3 : 29 (correct text) evoxbs kanv aiiavi)v ovK fiKovaav (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 Akoiio) itself has two senses which fall in well with this case-distinction, one 'to hear,' the other 'to understand.' Cf. o5 ovk iJKovcrav (Ro. 10 : 14) and uri ovk ^Kovcrav (Ro. 10 : 18). And yet the genitive can be used where the sense is meant, though not stressed, as iJKovcra <^cov^s (Ac. 22 : 7), but ijKovcev (jxaviiv (Ac. 9:4; and 26 : 14).' But see further imder 3. 1 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 308. 2 Giles, Man., p. 315. ' Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., pp. 87 ff ., has an extensive discussion of the gen. and ace. with Ajtoiw, 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 (nTfiSEIz) 607 3. Verbs of Sensation. One of the chief classes of verbs that may be used with the genitive j^ 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 delicate 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 amvoi, about which some remarks have already been made. It is not necessary to give an exhaustive list of the instances of a/couco. A typical one is fJKovaev aviMJKavlas /cat xopSiv (Lu. 15 : 25). The gen- itive is used either with things, as in this illustration, or with per- sons, as in avTov d/coiiere (Lu. 9 : 35). For accusative with persons see Eph. 4 : 21. Besides the use of the accusative with this verb, both with the classic distinction as above and without, there may also be the accusative and the ablative as in Ac. 1 : 4 ^c riKovaare nov. Then again the verb itself is used in the sense of hear, to un- derstand, and even to obey (hearken). The sense of hearken is often in John's Gospel with the genitive, as ovk rJKovaav avTuv to, TrpojSara (Jo. 10 : 8). Cf. Rev. 3 : 20, etc. The apparent double genitive in the last passage rrjs (jyosvijs iiov is not to be attributed to the verb, for iwv is merely possessive. Cf . Ac. 22 : 1. Blass^ makes careful distinction between the usages in the various N. T. writers, but that is not to be pushed too far. In 2 Cor. 6 : 2 (LXX, Is. 49 : 8) we have hrijKova-d aov, but iiraKobu uses the dative (Mt. 8 : 27). But we have kirr]KpoSivTo avrCiv ol deafiioL (Ac. 16 : 25) in the sense of hearken. No verb of smelling is used with the genitive in the N. T., but efiTTvecov dxetX^s mt ^ovov (Ac. 9 : 1) is certainly analogous, as Blass"* observes, who refers to the LXX for parallels (Josh. 10:40, Trav knirvkov foj^s), for both genitive and accusative. Cf. Johannessohn, Der Gebr., p. 36. Thus ov fiij yevcriTai Bavarov (Jo. 8 : 52), but in Heb. 6 : 4 f. we have the genitive and accusative right together, a matter hardly accidental,' yevcafikvovs t^s Scopefis, yevaafihovt 6eov prjfia. 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 Kopecdevres Tpo(t>fis (Ac. 27 : 38) and Toinovs xop™"''"' oLproiv (Mk. 8:4). Cf. also ixtTtka.p.^avov Tpo^rjs (Ac. 2:46) and irpoatKa^ovro Tpo(t>TJs (Ac. 27:36). At^aw and irtivau use only the accusative (Matt. 5:6). The verbs of touching can be briefly disposed Of. Thus ^aro Twv lp.a.T'uav (Mk. 5 : 30) and often in the Gospels. So Kov 6r\plov Biyxi tov opovs (Heb. 12 : 20), but ^ri\a(t>a(a 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 ec6$ avde^eraL (Lu. 16 : 13) ; to. ixofieva TTJs auTriplas (Heb. 6:9); avnX&fieTo 'laparfK waiSos aiirov (Lu. 1 : 54) and oi Trjs evepyecrlas avTiXaii^avofievoi (1 Tim. 6:2); ^TreXdjSeTo aiiTOu (Mt. 14:31), and iirCKa^onivos tiJs x"P^s tov Tv\ov (Mk. 8:23), where the part taken hold of is indicated; kKp&Ttiaev ttjs x^tpos airrjs (Mt. 9 : 25), where the part is again in genitive, but the whole is in the accusative in Kparricras tov 'Io)avr)v (Mt. 14 : 3) ; Trtao-as ab- rdv TTJs x^i-po^ (Ac. 3:7), where the whole is in the accusative and the part in the genitive. Blass' notes that this last (irtdfw) is a "vulgar" word. But here, as usual, the N. T. is in harmony with the vernacular. The papyri'' show ixopai with the genitive as well as iLVTL\ap.p&.voiMi. So kxofievos )uou,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 kiriXd^covTai, avTov X670U (cf. also verse 26), though here aiiTov is probably dependent on "Koyov. 4. Verbs of Emotion. These naturally have the genitive, such as to desire, care for, neglect, ha'^e compassion, spare, bear with, aim after, obtain, remember, forget, enjoy, etc. 'EwiJBvuicii has the genitive in Ac. 20 : 33, apyvpiov rj xpi"''""' ^ luaricriiov obdevos, but the accusative probably in Mt. 5 : 28 (text uncertain, but LXX has accusative, Ex. 20 : 17). 'Opkyonat, also has the genitive, as in Heb. 11 : 16, KpehTovos bpkyovTai. Cf. 1 Tim. 3 : 1, where both bp^erai and kirtdvi^et are used with the genitive. Cf. also biiapb- fievoL vfiS)v (1 Th. 2 : 8). The verbs of concern are fairly numerous and uniform. Thus avexofievoi dXX^Xcov (Col. 3 : 13) in the N. T. as in the older Greek. So firi afikXei tov kv crol xo-p'i-'^l^'''''^ (1 Tim. 4 : 14), /H17 oXiyiipH iraiSeias Kvpiov (Heb. 12 : 5). But these three verbs may have the ablative. 'AvkxoiMi. here is ' hold oneself back from.' Like the earlier Greek also is 'eirefiekiidri aliTov (Lu. 10 : 34) and fiii t.S>v fioSiv fik\ei. tQ 6ec^; (1 Cor. 9:9). Blass' considers obSiv rohTuv Tc^ TaWiMVL eneXev (Ac. 18 : 17) the personal construction, » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 101. • Moulton, 01. Rev., Dec, 1901, p. 437. > Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 104. THE CASES (UTOSEIS) 509 as often in the classical Greek. But already in the Attic inscrip- tions (Meisterhans, p. 211) we Ipve ^mMeXeojuat with the dative. So, too, irept appears with the genitive in Jo. 10 : 13, etc. Consider further tuv IS'imv Kal fiakiara olKeUav oil irpovoei (1 Tim. 5 : 8) and Iva f)ovTi^u(nv KoKuv ipyuv (Tit. 3:8). In Mt. 6 : 34 we have liepi- livi)ati ainrjs, though some MSS. read to, iavTTJs. Once again take ToO iSiov ovK ieLdi &pTov (verse 17, clearly ablative) and xopirt (verse 30, associative in- strumental by analogy of avvKotvuviu). Cf. KiKoivwvrjKtv al/jLaros Kal o-op(c6s (Heb. 2 : 14), though elsewhere in the N. T. the associative ' Blass. Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 102. 510 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT instrumental occurs with persons. MiraSiSufu has only the ac- cusative and instrumental. As to fierakafi^avca and TrpoaXafi^avu 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 Uke kirKijaBrj ri iroXts rfjs avyxvaeois (Ac. 19 : 29), ireifKrjpdjKaTe riiv 'lepovcaX^qn ttjs 3i5ax^s vfiSiv (Ac. 5 : 28), yen'iaare TOLS vSplas iiSaros (Jo. 2 : 7), itepiaaivovrai aprcov (Lu. 15 : 17), evkirkri- (xev ayoBSiv (Lu. 1 : 53). In Latin words of filling (plenum, etc.) use the ablative or instrumental, as the Greek has the ablative with words of lacking {vcmpovvTai t^s So^rjs (Ro. 3 : 23). By analogy therefore we find k and the ablative with TrXrjpou), as ewXripudri be T^s 6(Tnrjs (Jo. 12 : 3) and 7e/itfw, as eytfiLatv avrov Ik tov irvpos (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, ol doKovvres apxtiv tS>v WvQv KaTaKvpiaiovaiv avrcov Kal ol fieyciSoi avrSiv KaTe^ovaia^ovaiv avTccv. Other examples are avdvirarevovTos according to some MSS. in Ac. 18 : 12, avdevreiv avdpos (1 Tim. 2 : 12), ^aaiXfvei rrjs 'lovSaias (Mt. 2 :22 XB; elsewhere eiri), fiye/wvevovros rrjs 2uptas (Lu. 2:2), Kv- pievofi€v vfioov TTJs TTtcTTeaJS (2 Cor. 1 : 24), KaraSwaffTehovaiv vpMV (Jas. 2 : 6), TerpaapxovvTos rrjs Troupatas (Lu. 3 : 1). These verbs all have a distinct substantive-affinity like 'be ruler of,' etc. See fur- ther Lu. 22 : 25 for Kvpitvw and eiovcia^o}, Mt. 16 : 18 for KaTiaxvu. 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 Srjvapiov with (ru/u^coi'jjcras (Mt. 20 : 2) may be noted, but in verse 13 drjvapiov crweilyajvqaas. Cf. also riyopaffav k^ avTuip (Mt. 27:7) with irpaB^vai woXKov (Mt. 26 : 9). 'Ayopa^u> is used also with kv (Rev. 5:9). So again one may note kKTrjaaro x^pi^v ^^ hujOov TTJs aSiKMs (Ac. 1 : 18. Cf. Lu. 16 : 9, k rod iiatuavd) with fiurdov e^exi)dr)cav (Ju. 11). Cf. hiA with Treptiroteo/tat (Ac. 20:28). These examples show that it was easy to go from the genitive to k^ and the ablative. Consider also uv-qaaro Tip/qs apyvpiov (Ac. 7: 16), aaaap'uni ituiKelTai (Mt. 10 : 29), Toaoirov airkSoaBe (Ac. 5 : 8), ^70- 1 Cf. Delbnick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 340. THE CASES (nTS22EIs) 511 paadrire Tifiijs (1 Cor. 6: 20). In Mk. 14: 5, ■Kpaefjvai ewavca Brivapiuv TpiaKoaMv , the adverb hiravco has n© effect on the case as is shown by oxjidri hravu irevTaKocrloLs dSeXc^ois (1 Cor. 15 : 6). Blass' compares the use of ck in the Attic inscriptions with xpa^ijmi. And Monro (Homeric Grammar, p. 109) considers this the ablative, which is certainly possible. But on the other hand the undoubted genitive with ci|t6w suggests the idea of exchange or barter as the true ori- gin and thus a real genitive. 'AXXdo-o-to is not so used itself, but buying and selling easily fall in with the notion of worth. Thus Iva u/iSs djtcixrjj rrjs iCkqaews (2 Th. 1 : 11), (caTa^toj^^cai Tr}s ^aaiXeias (2 Th. 1:5). Cf. also 1 Tim. 5 : 17; Heb. 3 : 3; 10 : 29. On the whole one is inclined to this explanation of the usage and to treat it as a true genitive. Cf . Rev. 6 : 6 for the genitive of price without a verb. But the use of dx6 with verbs of buying and selling goes back in single instances to the Attic time (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 91). ^0 are^avov StSocres dTro irivritKOVTa XP^<^^V, Inscr. of Magn., 16, 29. 8. Verbs of Accusing and Condemning. Blass^ observes that the old Greek usage of the genitive of the thing has well-nigh vanished in the N. T. We do have kyKokeiadat, araaews (Ac. 19 : 40), but TTipi with the genitive is the usual construction in the N. T. both with eyKoKio: (Ac. 23 : 29), Kplvu (Ac. 23 : 6), and even Karriyo- pkoi (Ac. 24 : 13). However, in the case of Karriyopecii we do find oiv in Lu. 23 : 14 and Ac. 25 : 11, but in each instance the genitive seems to be due to attraction to the case of the suppressed ante- cedent Toinuv. Cf. Ac. 24 : 13 for irepi. Still the point is not ab- solutely certain and wv could be due to Karrijopku. At any rate mTijyopkb) is also used with the genitive of the person as in Iva Karr)- yopiitruaiv avrov (Mt. 12 : 10). Cf. also Mk. 15 : 3 where we have genitive and accusative, Karriydpow ahrov roXXd. Moulton {Prol., p. 235) notes that D often has accusative with Karrjyopba as with aKoioj, Kpareco. 9. Genitive Due to Prepositions in Composition. Some verbs have the genitive because of the preposition in composition which gives a distinct change in idea to the verb. The preposition is often repeated with the noun. As a matter of fact the only' prep- osition that seems to figure thus in the N. T. is Kara which is used with a number of verbs with the genitive.* Not all the Kara com- ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 105. He cites Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 173. = lb., p. 104. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 106. ^ Jann: (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 341) comments on the blending of meaning be- tween prep, and verb in the later Gk. 512 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT pounds use the genitive. Cf . the accusative case and note as illus- trations of the accusative in the N. T. KaTayciivi^ofiai, KarafipafitiKa, KaTaSucdfo), KaraKplvoi, KaTaao(j>i^onai. It may be that some of the verbs already instanced as using the genitive may owe it to Kara in composition, Uke Karjiyopku (Mt. 12: 10). But the point seems to be reasonably plain as to Karey'iktav avrov (Mt. 9 : 24), kav Kara- yiv(j3(TKxi iiiJMv 17 /capSta (1 Jo. 3 : 20, and note verse 21), though iliubv might go with KapSici), KaTaxauxarai ?Xeos Kplc&as (Jas. 2 : 13), KttTaXaXeiTe dXXijXcoi' (Jas. 4 : 11), aov Karapaprvpovaiv (Mt. 27 : 13), KaTtvapKrjaa rinup (2 Cor. 12 : 13), KaTaaTpriviAauxnv tov Xpi(7ToO (1 Tim. 5 : 11), aiaxinnis KaTa(f>poviia\vs (Mk. 14 : 3); but in Mt. 26 : 7 the text of W. H. has h-i with genitive as some MSS. in Mk. 10. Attraction of the Relative. A word only is needed about the attraction of the relative, a matter treated properly in the chapter on Pronouns, which see. Here it may only be noted that the genitive (as of other oblique cases) of the relative sometimes appears with a verb when the case is due, not to the verb, but to the antecedent. Thus we note irepl iravroiv &v kiroiriaev (Lu. 3: 19), an idiom common in Luke, but rare elsewhere, as aarkptav 08s erSes (Rev. 1:20). {]) The Genitive of 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 tov is not unknown to ancient Greek, though nothing Uke 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 k^eXkadai. (Dan. 6 : 14). For the N. T. note i^>Sev 6 ffirdpuv TOV uxeiptLv (Mt. 13 : 3). The substantival nature of this infinitive with tov is well shown in Kaipos tov ap^acdai (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. (k) 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, Pro!., p. 216. * Man., etc., p. 339 f. THE CASES (nTnzEiz) 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. Gr., p. 523) discusses the genitive absolute separately from both genitive and ablative. Cf.Moulton,Ci.jffie«., 1901,p.437. MuUach' 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 modern Greek the genitive absolute is more commonly para- phrased in harmony with the general disuse of the participle. However, in the vernacular koivti "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 disconnected from the rest of the sentence as in avaxo3fnia.vrj airc^ (Mt. 1 : 20), a usage more common apparently in the N. T. than in the papyri. But note /xou KLvSvvvcravros tis BaKaaaav eaaxrev, B.U. 423 (ii/A.D.), where ne is implied with ea-oxrev. One even notes the genitive ab- solute when the nominative is present as in fivrjaTevdelarjs rrjs ixrtrpoi avrov Maptas — ivp'tdj} (Mt. 1 : 18). Moulton' notes "a violent use" of the genitive absolute in Heb. 8 : 9 from the LXX, where we have tv rinepa 'eirCKafiop.kvov fwv. 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 riixepq. ivreCKankvov aov avri^ (Baruch 2 : 28). See further under Parti- ciples. IX. The Ablative ("Ablatival Genitive") Case (•n d<|>aip€TiKTi TTTwais). 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 acpaiperiKri it is also called rrarpLKri. The name is quite appropriate. (b) 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 SLKaioahvri Oeov (Ro. 1 : 17) as ablative, 0(ov being the source of the righteousness. More Ukely are the following examples: rriv eK^aaiv t^s ava(Trpo Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 71. THE CASES (nrnsEis) , ' 615 3) as probably parallel. In Heb. 12 : 11 xapSs and Xwt/s may be considered either true genitivewor ablatives. Doubtful also are imoa-TdXrjs and Tricrrecos in Heb. 10 : 39. But we have a clear abla- tive in Ac. 20 : 37 luavds di K\avdn6i tyevero irdvTcov. Moulton^ notes the obvious fact that ATr6 and k (with abl.) are freely used for the old " partitive genitive." Delbruck ^ thinks the genitive of material originally abl. Cf. viii, (/), 8, for the true genitives in the parti- tive sense. This partitive gen. may be illustrated by iv tovtwu (Mt. 6 : 29) which is to be compared with'ej/ e| avrSiv (Mt. 10 : 29). In Jo. 3 : 25 the use of k makes clear the ablative, kykvero fi^TTjo-is k Tuv nadiiTSiv. Blass' rather needlessly explains this usage by appeal to the Hebrew i??. Note also ttSs k^ vixCiv (Lu. 14 : 33). The matter may be further illustrated by rh avrSsv (Lu. 7 : 42) and tLs k^ iixuv (Mt, 6 : 27). Indeed with ris, as Blass* observes, the N. T. nearly always uses k^ in such examples. He finds the oppo- site true of TLS save in John. Thus ri-vh tup ypa/MnaTkov (Mt. 12 : 38), but TLvis k^ avTcov (Lu. 11 : 15. Cf. Jo. 6 : 64). But diri is also found with ris (Mt. 27: 21). One may note also tIs kv viilv (Jas. 6 : 13). A classical but curious use of this idiom, like the parti- tive genitive (already noted), is as the subject or object. The explanation lies, of course, in the ellipsis. Thus awrj^dov mi tSiv fioJdriTciv (Ac. 21 : 16) may be compared with elwav kK tSiv nadyiToiv (Jo. 16 : 17), k Tov oxKov avvtpifiamv (Ac. 19 : 33). Cf. Rev. 11 : 9. Take Mt. 23 : 34 as an example of the use as object, k^ aiiT&v cLTOKTeveLTe, k^ a\)T(av fia,(TTi.y6}(reTe. Cf. especially k tSiv TkKvoiv crov irepiiraTovvTas (2 Jo. 4). In Ac. 15 : 2 we have the full ex- pression Ttras aXXous k^ aiiTuv. Brugmann (Griech. Gr., p. 397) notes the syncretism between the ablative and the genitive with the superlative. See a like confusion in the predicate (Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 148). W. Havers {Indog. Forsch., XXXI, Bd. 1, Heft 3, 1912) "on the splitting 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, kin(TTriiJ,rjs Kevos, kXeWepos aiSovs, but see Ktihner-Gerth ^ for a full list in the ancient writers. Thus in the N. T. we find with preposition Kadapos otto tov alVaros (Ac. 20 : 26), a clear ablative. Cf. also kXivdkpa airo tov vbjwv (Ro. 7 : 3) and kKeWepos k iravTOiv (1 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 with abl. 516 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Cor. 9 : 19). But the ablative occurs without prepositions. So levoi Twv SiadriKuv (Epb. 2 : 12). It is probably best to regard the verbal adjectives as having the ablative in these examples: ayaTrirol 0eov (Ro. 1 : 7), yfvvTiTois yvvaiKSiv (Mt. 11 : 11), SlSoktoI Oeov (Jo. 6 : 45), didaKToh irvevfULTos (1 Cor. 2 : 13), kXjjtoi 'It/o-oO XpwrToD (Ro. 1:6). One may also suggest here evXoyrnievoi tov irarphs (Mt. 25 : 34), but on the whole it is to be regarded as a true genitive. The ablative with adjectives with o- privative have "plentiful illustrations from papyri."^ For instance AKiySuvos Ttavrdi klvBvvov Tb. P. 105 (iii/s.c), ttjs els airavras tvipytaias — afioridriTOS B.U. 970 (ii/A.D.). In Mt. 27:24 we find adijios ei^i airo tov alfiaros with OTTO. Cf. also aa-wiKou airo tov kociiov (Jas. 1 : 27). Thus we easily see the ablative in ctfcaraTroo-Tous d/^apTtas (2 Pet. 2 : 14), dcdfios /cpt- TtjpUov (1 Cor. 6 : 2), avofios Oeov (1 Cor. 9 : 21), aireipos Xoyov (Heb. 5 : 13), aireipaaros KUKciv {3 as. 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: lerxuporepos pov (Mt. 3 : 11), fuKpoTepov 8v itavToiv tS)v aiveppaTiav (Mk. 4 : 31), ir\elovas tSjv irpiyrcov (Mt. 21 : 36), irKeiov rrjs Tpo(t>rjs (Lu. 12 : 23), wovrjpdTepa iavrov (Mt. 12 : 45), fiei^cop TOV Kvpiov (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"' y-'h iXcTTov iTwv i£,i]KovTa (1 Tim. 5 : 9). In Jo. 5 : 36, napTvp'tav fiei^b) tov Tcodwu, it is not clear whether it is the witness borne by John or to him. In Ac. 4 : 19 dtov after f) is genitive, not ablative, due to kKoiiuv. The superlative may likewise have the ablative as in irpSiTos pov (Jo. 1 : 15), a usage found in the papyri.'' Abbott' rather needlessly endeavours to explain irpCiTos as a substantive meaning 'chief,' like tQ wpuiTca ttjs vr/aov (Ac. 28: 7). Note also iroia 'uttIv kvToKi) irpwTi) tclvtuv (Mk. 12 : 28) where TT&vTcov is neuter plural (a possible partitive genitive). Cf. ^(Txa.Tov TtavTUiv (1 Cor. 15: 8). The positive irepi-aaos may even have the ablative, as rd irepia-adv tovtojv (Mt. 5 : 37). Cf. TrXeToi' with the verb irepuTfftioi and the ablative irKetov t5>v — ^api/rauav (Mt. 5 : 20). In Eph. 3:8, kp,oi roi 'eKaxt-fTOTtpc^ irdvTuv ay'uav, the com- parative and the superlative are combined. (e) The Ablative with Prepositions. It is very common in the N. T. Thus &vtv \6yov (1 Pet. 3 : 1), &irkvavTi itkvTuv (Ac. 1 Moulton, Prol., pp. 74, 235; CI. Rev., 1904, p. 152 f. ' lb., 1901, p. 437, v (Mt. 28 : 1) b\l/k means 'late from' (Moulton, Prol., p. 72). Cf. b\l/i T^s &pas. Par. P. 35, 37 (ii/B.c), l^irtpov t^s &pas Tb. P. 230 (ii/B.c.) and 6^^ toutwi' in Philostratus (Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 312). Cf. Blass-Debiuimer, p. 101, for still other examples in late Greek. See also ner' oklyov tovtuv in Xen., Hellen., I, 1, 2. The list of such adverbs was growing constantly. This is a con- siderable list, but the ablative idea is patent in all with the no- tion of separation. An interesting example of the ablative is riiv djrd cov kvayyeXiau (Ac. 23 : 21). In irip, irpb, irpos it is the com- parative idea that is involved and that implies separation. Hence it seems likely that {nr6 is to be construed also with the ablative rather than the genitive, though this point is debatable. "In both Greek and Latin the ablative expresses the agent as the source of the action, almost invariably with prepositions" (Buckland Green, Notes on Greek and Latin Syntax, p. 32). There is some truth here. For the ablative with prepositions in Cypri- otic see Meister, Bd. II, p. 295. See chapter on Prepositions. A number of adverbs are themselves in the ablative case, hke koKSis, oDtws (all adverbs in -£os), S.va, etc. (/) The Ablative with Verbs. The ablative is not used so frequently with verbs as the accusative, genitive or dative, and yet it is by no means uncommon. Of course, wherever Lto (cf. Ac. 5 : 2), k (cf. Mk. 1 : 10) and irapa (Mt. 2 : 4) are used with the ablative after a verb, these examples ^ are not considered, but they throw light on the use of the same case without the preposition. 'Air6 and k have only the ablative. The ablative is so common with compound verbs like a^iaTTmi, kiroaTtpkca, etc., that no effort is made to separate the simple from the compound verbs. There ' Indeed, as Winer (W.-Th., p. 197) remarks, the prep, is most frequently employed. 518 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT are examples where the ablative seems to be due purely to the preposition, as rijs x"P'™s k^eireaare (Gal. 5:4); cf. same word in 2 Pet. 3 : 17). But in many other instances the ablative idea in the verb is due to the effect of the preposition. 1. Verbs of Departure and Removal. This is the simplest ablative with verbs. Take, for instance, ovk a.(j>La-TaTo tov lepov (Lu. 2 : 37) where the ablative idea is perfectly plain. So also aToarrjaovTai TLves TTJs TTio-reos (1 Tim. 4:1). The predicate ablative of source in 2 Pet. 1 : 20 {kinXvaecas) was noticed under the discussion of substantives. As a rule ctiro, k or wapa will be found with the mere idea of departure. So x^^pi-^t^ o.t6 (1 Cor. 7 : 10). In Lu. 7 : 6 airkxo} has airo, but ND have merely the ablative. Naturally verbs meaning to free from, to separate, to deprive of, to hinder from, etc., use the ablative. 'EXevdepou always has awo (Ro. 6 : 18), as /caffapifco awo (1 Jo. 1 :7), XOoj airo (Lu. 13 : 16), Xouoj airo (Ac. 16 : 33), \vTpbo} awd (Tit. 2 : 14), pvoixai airb (Mt. 6 : 13), (Tcofw otTTo (Ro. 5 : 9) and k (Ro. 7 : 24). Cf. also nedlaTrnjn 'tK in Lu. 16 : 4. But we have the ablative alone in a.Tn{K\oTpiwnkvoi. t^s foiijs (Eph. 4 : 18), aireaTeprifikvoov t^s aXrjBelas (1 Tim. 6 : 5), airoXeXvaai rrjs acrdtveias aov (Lu. 13 : 12), KoBaipetadai t^s (leyaKeLOTiiTOS aiJTrjs (Ac. 19:27),^ kparoDcTo rod p.ri kTvyvwvaL (Lu. 24:16), kKiiKvatv avTovs TOV fiovXrifMTos (Ac. 27 :43). Cf. Lu. 10 :42, avrrjs. This use of the mere ablative was not unknown to good prose in the ancient Greek. Moulton^ finds it also in the papyri. Thus toxituv a4>tKe L.Pb. (ii/B.c), a^eKkadai Siv eSoiKav O.P. 237 (ii/A.D.). One may note here again kirixTa) with the ablative in Gal. 5 : 4 and 2 Pet. 3:17. Cf. kojMo) d7r6 (Lu. 6 : 29). 2. Verbs of Ceasing, Abstaining. So one may interpret oi fipaSvvei Khptos T^s ^7ra77€\tas (2 Pet. 3:9), the marginal reading in W. H. (1 Pet. 4 : 1) irtwavTaL anaprias, and a.ir'exi'rdai eidiaXodvroiv (Ac. 15 : 28; cf. also 15 : 20; 1 Tim. 4 : 3; 1 Pet. 2 : 11), though d7r6 also is used with direxo/nat (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 Karairavoi see Rev. 14 : 13; Heb. 4 : 4, 10. 3. Verbs of Missing, Lacking, Despairing. Thus we note Siv Tives a.(TTOxyt An "impossible" reading to Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 106. ' CI. Rev., 1901, p. 437. THE CASES (nTfiSEIs) 519 4. Verbs of Differing, Excelling. Here the comparative idea is dominant. We observe iroWSiv crpovBUiiv ha^kpert vjiw (Mt. 10 : 31), Tijv iwep^aWovaav rrjs yvuatw ay&irriu (Eph. 3 : 19), virephxavras eavTuv (Ph. 2:3), iartpriKkvaL t&v inrepXlav LiroaToKoiv (2 Cor. 11 : 5; cf. use of {laTtpku in sense of lack above. Here the comparative idea of iiorepos is uppermost. 5. Verbs of Asking and Hearing. These may also use the abla- tive. This is the usual construction with Sko/xai, especially in Luke, as Skonal o-ou (Lu. 8 : 28). The person is in the ablative, but the thing will be in the accusative, as dko(mi Sk to p,ri vapbiv Bapprjaai (2 Cor. 10 : 2). So also note ijv iiKohaark imxj (Ac. 1 : 4), but both airb (Lu. 22 : 71) and irapd (Jo. 1 : 40), and k (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 biiaw airQ rov jxavva where the point lies in the idea of "some" of the manna, but B reads r6 and K k toD. In the same verse note the accusative S&jct&j avrQ ^rj^mv \evKr]u. When the whole is ex- pressed in the N. T. the accusative is used. Thus (jjayetv dSciAdOvra (Rev. 2 : 14), but iadlei awd tSiv ^txtcoj' (Mt. 15 : 27) and k rov ap- Tov iaditroi (1 Cor. 11 : 28). Thus also wivuv otvou (Lu. 7: 33), but Triere e? airov (Mt. 26 : 27), 6s av irin k rov liSttTOs (Jo. 4 : 14). Cf. also hkyKare a%6 rSiv b^apUav (Jo. 21 : 10). Phrynichus says: 'iiri.ov o'Lvov 'AttikoI, olvov "EWrives — i^ayov Kpkus 'AttwoL, Kpkas "EXXijces. Cf. ciTrd Tov KapTov Swaovaiv (Lu. 20 : 10), tva XajSj; otto tSiv KapirSiv (Mk. 12 : 2). Cf. also 1 Jo. 4 : 13. Cf. Mt. 28 : 1; Ac. 21 : 16. See Moulton, Introduction to the Study of N. T. Gk., p. 172, where the "partitive gen." is shown to be often ablative in idea. In modern Greek airb is the regular construction for the partitive sense, as bCict pjov airb tovto, 'give me some of that' (Moulton, ProL, p. 245). Prepositions diro and k are thus uniformly used in the N. T. with this construction of the part (clearly ablative therefore) save in Rev. 2 : 17 above and in irpoo-eXd/SocTo Tpo^^s (Ac. 27:36). In this last example the MSS. vary a good deal. MeTaXa/ijSdpco (see (i), 3) maybe abl. or gen. in inreKkufiavov Tpo^^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 litToiKanpavu and 7rpo(T\ap,pi.vu. ■ Examples like Ro. 9 : 16; Heb. 12 : 11 may be regarded as either ablative or genitive. 7. Attraction of the Relative. Thus k rod vSaroi o5 iydi disau ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 100. 520 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT aiiT^i (Jo. 4 : 14), obSiv kKrds Xeywy Siv re oi irpoi]Tai 'eKakijaav (Ac. 26 : 22). Cf. Pronouns. X. The Locative ("Locatival Dative") Case (t^tottikt] irrfflo-is). (o) The Name Locative. It is derived from the Latin focits* and is a "grammatical neologism," but is modelled after vocative. Still Delbruck* prefers "local" to locative and uses it. It is indeed a local case. It is worth noticing that in the Thessalian dialect the old genitive had this locative ending' as did the Arkadian* also, though this -oi may have come from -oio. The Latin gram- marians took this i for the dative.* We have remnants of the ending in English here, there, where. The modern grammars gen- erally recognise the distinction in the three cases (locative, instru- mental and dative), which have usually identical endings, though Blass* is correct in saying that it is not always possible to decide the case. However that uncertainty exists but seldom. Jannaris' makes four cases, counting the associative as a separate case. Compare the blending in the Latin. (6) The Significance of the Locative. It is indeed thie simplest of cases in its etymological idea. It is the in case as Whitney* finds it in the Sanskrit. It is location, a point within limits, the Umits determined by the context, not by the case itself. The word itself is the main determining factor in the resultant sense, and each example has its own atmosphere. There is indeed variation in the resultant idea. Hence, besides in, we come to the ideas of on, at, amid, among, by, with. This development was not only in the early Greek' but in the still earlier Sanskrit. The use of the locative without ev is much more common in Homer than in the later Greek. In the modern Greek vernacular indeed the locative disappears along with the instrumental and dative before els and the accusative. As to kv it adds so little to the locative case that it is not surprising to find it so frequently used, especially as the locative, instrumental and dative all used the same endings. Thus we may compare tQ TrXoiapicj) ^\dov (Jo. 21 : 8) with ev irXoiq) (Mt. 14 : 13), i55oTi /SaTTTifco (Lu. 3 : 16) with /SaTTTifw 'ev i)5an (Mt. 3:11), rg eaxarxi ■htii.pa (Jo. 6 : 40) with 'ev rfj icxa-rv ^likpq, (Jo. 6 : 44). The tendency in the older Greek was constantly towards the use of 'ev, though the mere locative survived, es- ' Cf. Riem. et Goelzer, Synt., p. 196. « Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 109. » Vergl. Synt., I, p. 182 f ., foUowing Gaedicke. ' Hist, of Gk. Gr., p. 342. » Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., p. 307. » Sans. Gr., p. 101. * Hoffmann, Gr. Dial., Bd. I, p. 303. » Giles, Man., etc., p. 329 f. ' Biem. et Goelzer, Synt., p. 197. THE CASES (hTOZEIs) 621 pecially in some constructions. In Mt. 13 : 52 MSS. vary be- tween the mere locative rg /3a(rtXei^ and kv with locative and els with accusative. (c) Place. This was probably the original locative. Place of rest was put in the locative without a preposition. As already indicated, this usage abounds in Homer.' Some of these distinc- tively locative forms persisted in the Greek as in the Latin. Thus oIkoi, 'IcdiMi, MapaBSivi, 'ABijvgai, Qijpaov rots Sbypaaiv, the adjective is used as a substantive. In 1 Cor. 14 : 20 we have the locative with substantive, verb and adjective, p,i] iraidla ylvtaQt rati 4>peaiv, dXXd rjj KaKiq. vniTiA^en, rais Si (t>pealv T^Xeioi yiveade. (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 dju^t, ava, ixerk (Buck, Class. Phil. II, 264), and when the so-called dative is found in Greek with iv, iivl, -irapa, TepL, Trpos, iiro, it is really the locative case.^ But with a compound verb the case may not always be locative, as instance wpoKuntvov rj/uv (Heb. 12 : 1). A number of the preposi- tions like &fil, olvtI, iv (ivi), iirl, irepi, Trpos {vpor't) are themselves in the locative case. Cf. the locative adverbs of time already mentioned and 'E^paiarL (Jo. 5 : 2), 'EWrivLari (Jo. 9 : 20), /ckXcj) (Mk. 3 : 34), the conjunction Kal, etc. There are only four prepo- sitions in the N. T. that use the locative. As examples note iv t0 1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 103. " Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 101. THE CASES (nTflSKIs) 525 'lopS&vn (Mt. 3:6), iirl dhpats (Mt. 24:33), Trapd t^ aravpQ rod 'Iriffov (Jo. 19:25), irpos tc? iu»'jjju«C[) (Uo. 20:11). But of these jrpos has the locative only 6 times, irapd 50, while kirL has it 176 times.^ 'Ei', of course, having only the locative, is very common. One may note here iv 7rpci)rois (1 Cor. 15 : 3) almost like an adverb. (i) The Pbegnant Construction of the Locative. It is common in the N. T. with h, as the accusative with els after verbs of inotion 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 ds in origin and early usage must be borne in mind when one approaches these two prepositions. Cf. 6 fls rdv aypdv in Mk. 13 : 16. On the other hand note 6 «/*/3a^as litr inov rriv x"pa iv tQ Tpu/SXitj) (Mt. 26 : 23). Here Mark (14 : 20) has els to rpvfi'Klov. This interchange of ev and els is a feature of the LXX (Moulton, Prol., p. 245). Originally there was no difference, and finally h vanishes before els 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 iffawTl^ovTO 'ev rcfi 'lopS&vg Toran^, while Mk. (1 : 9) reads e^aTTTlaBrj els t6v 'lopdivriv. Cf . kv okcj) karlv, text of Mk. 2 : 1 and marg. els oIkov kariv. This same pregnant idiom appears with Tapa as ardaa 6iri(Tw Trapd roiis woSas avrov (Lu. 7: 38). See also Mk. 4 : 1. Cf. again kp.fi&,vTi els t6 irKoiov (Mt. 8 : 23). But observe the locative with kv in composition (Ro. 11 : 24). With ovotw, we have the mere locative (Mt. 7 : 22), kv and the locative (Mt. 21 : 9), kicl and loca- tive (Mt. 18 : 5), els and accusative (Mt. 10 : 41; 28 : 19).^ Cf. also Mt. 12:41. XI. The Instrumental (" Instrumental Dative ") Case {r\ XpiloTiirii irrffio-is). (o) The Term Instrumental. As applied to case it is mod- ern and the adjective itself appears first in the fourteenth century.^ The Hindu grammarians, however, recognised this case.* There are not wanting signs indeed that it survived in the Greek as a sep- arate case-form. Meister^ concludes that in the Cyprian dialect the instrumental was still a separate case-form (a "living" case). He cites dpa, ebxu\S., besides aiiv rbxa, and in Ktihner-Gerth* we find oIkoi locative, oUta instrumental, and oUcf dative. Other exam- ples are oajo, Slxa, raxa in later Greek, not to mention the many ad- ' Moulton, Prol., p. 106. * Whitney, Sana. Gr., p. 89. » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 123 f. ' Gk. Dial., II, p. 295. ' Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 207. » I, p. 405. 526 A GRAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT verbs' in -a and — ?j {—q., -jj) like Kpu^g, \a9pq., (ny^, ^Ig., etc. This corresponds with the Sanskrit singular ending, and the plural bhis may be compared with the Homeric ^i (^if), as deocf)!,, d€6(j)t.v. 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 rfj Se^iq. Tov deov wl/oodds (Ac. 2 : 33; cf. also 5 : 31). The grammars have no Greek term for the instrumental case, but I have ventured to call it xpijo'Tt/o? tttSo-is. The increasing use of prepositions (h, Sid, nera) makes the mere instrumental a disappearing case in the N. T. as compared with the earUer Greek,* but still it is far from dead. (Jb) Synceetistic? 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. Delbriick, Vergl. Syntax, I, p. 231. Hence neither term covers exactly the whole situation. We have a similar combination in our English "with" which is used in both senses. So also the Greek criv (cf. Latin curn) and even nera (e^i7X5are fiera naxaipuv /cat ^vXcav, Mk. 14 : 48). In Mk. 14 : 43, /xer' adrov — utTO. ixaxaipuv, 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 Travraxv (W. H. text, Ac. 21 : 28). In Jas. 2 : 25, irtpq. 65$ » 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 /it {peri). Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 103. 6 Giles, Man., p. 334. Cf. Draeger, Hist. Synt., p. 428. • Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 99. ' Helbing, Uber den Gebrauch des echten und sociativen Dativs bei Herod., p. 58f. THE CASES (nTfiSEIs) 627 4/c|3aXoDo-a, 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 Delbnick^ show. The Sanskrit had it also as the time "by the lapse of which anything is brought about."' The singular, like xpovt^ kavcf (Lu. 8:27; Ac. 8:11), finds parallel in the papyri,* as is seen also in Pindar, Euripides, Aristophanes, Thucydides." For the papyri note ttoXXoIs XpovoLi N.P. 50 (iii/A.D.), xpovv A.P. 77 (ii/A.D.). Cf. Polybius xxxii, 12, ToXXots xpovois (Moulton, Prol., p. 76). There is no doubt about the plural instrumental in Ro. 16 : 25, xp^voi.% aiciivlois, a parallel to which Moulton" finds in the epistolary formula in the papyri, kppSxjBai ere cuxojuai iroXXoTs xpovoii. 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 t$ xpl>vvTos. Thus to aufia avnnop4>ov tqj auiiMari (Ph. 3 : 21) and ahfuj)VToi T(^ duoiii/xaTi. (Ro. 6 : 5), but crhfiiiofKJxjs has the genitive t^s* eU6vos in Ro. 8 : 29 like a substantive. The other compounds in avv are treated as substantives* with the genitive, Uke awaixiio.- XcoTOs, avyytviis, avvepyos, ovvrpo^xK, neroxos (Heb. 1:9). But note havTios avToh (Mk. 6 : 48), virevavTuov riixiv (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. 'AKoKovBkco is a common instance, as riKo\oWriaav aiirQ (Mk. 1 : 18). Cf. also awaK. (Mk. 5 : 37). Rather oddly two/Mi is not so used, but once we find avveiirero abrif (Ac. 20 : 4). So ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 121. Cf . Schmidt, de Jos. elocut., p. 382 f. » lb. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 115, « lb. THE CASES (nxnsEis) 529 difUy^To ai)Tois (Ac. 20 : 7), though 7rp6s (Mk. 9 : 34) also is used. Other compounds of 5iA with this case are dLa\\&.yr]ei t^ ASeXi^^i (Mt. 5:24), 5i6/3Xi^fl7j aiirQ (Lu. 16:1), tQ SiajSoXcj) diaKpivdntvos (Ju. 9), roLS 'louSaiois SiaKariiXkyxfTo (Ac. 18:28). But closely allied to these words are Ka.rri\\6i.yrineu tQ flee? (Ro. 5 : 10), aoi KpLdfjvai (Mt. 5 : 40), d}fil\u oOrt? (Ac. 24 : 26), which last may have 7rp6$ and accusative (Lu. 24 : 14). Then again note irtpo^vyovvTes (2 Cor. 6 : 14), toTs TvevfiariKols kKoivcjivriaav (Ro. 15 : 27), KoKKaaBai aiiToh (Ac. 5 : 13), ivrvyx'livti- t^ OeQ (Ro. 11:2). Cf. further i.vdpl SkSiTai (Ro. 7 : 2)'and m«M'7M^«"?«' ^vpi (Rev. 15 : 2). In Rev. 8 : 4 we may (R. V. dative) have the associative-instrumental' rats irpotreuxais with 6,vipiri. Moulton cites iiroSciKrci} aoi tQ ?i'7i(rTa 5odri(Toiikv(^ 6\l/C)ivL(f, B.U. 69 (ii/A.D.) 'with your next wages' (CI. Rev., Dec, 1901). Cf. the old Greek avrots &v8p6. Tjjo-oO (Jo. 18 : 15), avvtiirtTO air^ (Ac. 20 : 4), a-vvripyu rois ipyoa (Jas. 2 : 22), cvvfjXdtv aiiToTs (Ac. 9 : 39), avvtadiei avrois (Lu. 15 : 2), avvevdoKeiri rots epyois (Lu. 11 : 48), avvevuxoinevoi, biitv (2 Pet. 2:13), avvflx^TO tQ 'Koycf (Ac. 18:5), (Tw^il(Top,ev aijT^ (Ro. 6 : 8), avv^riTetv abrQ (Mk. 8 : 11), trwefwo- irotjjo-ev T({) XpurrQ (Eph. 2:5), ivT(s air^ (Col. 2 : 12), avvttrTWTas aiirc^ (Lu. 9 : 32), avyKadi]p.a>oi. airoii (Ac. 26 : 30), avvKaKoiraOriaov Tb(Tti, in Gal. 2 : 15 and rt? Tpocriiinf in Gal. 1 : 22. Here are some of the chief examples with verbs: xdptTi nerexoi (1 Cor. 10 : 30), irpoaevxop.ivr} aKaTaKaXvirria tj Ke^aXjj (1 Cor. 11:5), irepiTiiridTJTi tQ Wei (Ac. 15 : 1), TJ7 wpodkaei Trpoafikveiv (Ac. 11 : 23), '6tl iravrl rpbirw, elre wpocjida'H e'lTe a\r]de'i.q., Xpttrroj KarayyeWtTai, (Ph. 1 : 18, all three examples), avaKtKa\vp,iikv(a Trpoircbxc.) KaTOTTTpi^bfievoi (2 Cor. 3 : 18). Blass notes also pairiapaaLv abrbv 'eSapov (Mk. 14 : 65) as a vulgarism which finds a parallel in a papyrus'" of the first century 1 K.-G., I, p. 435. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 118. THE CASES (nTnsEis) 531 A.D., KovSaXots i\aPev. Cf. rg filq,, B.U. 45 (iii/A.D.). But often /xeri. and the genitive (/isra j3[aj, Ac. 5 ^6), kp and the locative (iv 5ka XiXiiiffiJ', Lu. 14 : 31), Kord 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 "K&yoj 'kkynv, (juiycov (jivyfj, ^ihaei. Tre<^umai', etc. They call it the "cognate dative." That will do if instrumental is inserted in the place of dative. Moulton' admits that this idiom, like the participle ^irovrts ^\ep€Te, is an example of "translation Greek," but thinks that a phrase like k^oKidpevaa o\)K k^oiXedpevtrav (Josh. 17:13) is much more like the Hebrew infinitive absolute which is reproduced by this Greek instru- mental or participle. Blass^ insists that the classical parallels yaficf yanetv, (jsvyy (t>t\}yei.v are not true illustrations, but merely accidentally similar, an overrefinement in the great grammarian, I conceive. The Latin has the idiom also, Uke curro curricula. Here are some of the important N.T. instances: d/cojj aKovcrere (Mt. 13:14), avaJBknaTi, avedefiaTicaixev (Ac. 23:14), ivvTvioii ivvTviaadr)- aovTOii (Ac. 2 : 17), iinBvfiiq, tirtOviirjaa (Lu. 22 : 15), davarci} TeKevraTca (Mt. 15 : 4), ApKCf Sifiocrev (Ac. 2 : 30), i^kcTricrav iKcrracei ixtyaXii (Mk. 5 : 42), 7rapa77eXi^t irapriyyiLXafiev (Ac. 5 : 28), irpocrevxfl rpoariv^aTO (Jas. 5 : 17), xap? xatp« (Jo. 3 : 29; cf. 1 Pet. 1:8). Cf. also ctt;- [iaivoiv TToicj) davarif rj/ueXXec axodvijCKeLV (Jo. 18 : 32) and arifiaivoiv iroicfi Oavaroi do^acrtL rbv 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 Ukely ' Moulton, Prol., p. 75. ^ C. and S., p. 60 f . ' Prol., p. 75 f . Cf . eiwov eav6.T(f in Homer. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 119. » 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 GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT have the means than the manner. Cf. apKeiaSe rots 6\puvloK in Lu. 3:14. (h) Degree of Difference (Measure kin to idea of man- ner). The accusative is sometimes used here also with the com- parative, as TToXu fiRWov (Heb. 12:9). But in Lu. 18:39 we have xoXXc? iJ&Wov (cf. Mt. 6:30). Cf. ttoXX^ tmWov, P. Par. 26 (ii/B.c). In Ph. 1:23 we find the instrumental with the double compara- tive TToXXcS ixaWov Kpeiaaov. In particular observe roaohTi^ naKKov oaif pXkTTtTe (Heb. 10 : 25) which corresponds to the EngUsh idiom "the more, the less" in "the more one learns, the humbler he grows." As a matter of fact the Enghsh "the" here is instru- mental also, as is seen in the Anglo-Saxon Sy. Cf. also roaohrif KpdrTwv (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: kydi di XifiQ S)5e airoWv/jiaL (Lu. 15 : 17), 'Iva aravpif tov X/DtcTToO ii'fi SiiiKuvrai (Gal. 6 : 12), Xiiirjj KaTaToOfj (2 Cor. 2: 7), tij'^s Si rfj (TVVTjdelq, icrdlovatv (1 Cor. 8:7), ov SuKplBrj rfj aTtariq, dXXd iveSvvatiiidri rjj TricTtL (Ro. 4 : 20), rfj aTrtcrrt^t i^eK\ci.iT6r)aav (Ro. 11 : 20), ■fjXerjdrjTe tjj Tohrcov &.iretBig, (Ro. 11 : 30), tQ vfieripu h\i€i tva Kal airol vvv k\€ri6S>cnv (11 : 31), nij ^tvi^ecde t§ kv ipZv Ttvpiicu (1 Pet. 4 : 12), TOULVTOiLi yap Bvclais evapepa'ivovTo kv toTs 'ipyois (Ac. 7:41). With eau/idfo) we find tv (Lu. 1 : 21), kivi (Lu. 4 : 22), irtpi (Lu. 2 : 18), &ik (Rev. 17: 7), not to mention d (1 Jo. 3 : 13), Srt (Lu. 11 : 38).»* (j) Means. But no usage of this case is more common than that of means. With things sometimes we call it means, with persons agent, though more often the agent is expressed by md with genitive-ablative (cf. ah with the ablative in Latin). There is no essential difference in the root-idea. Donaldson {New Cratylus, p. 439) calls it the "implementive case." This is, of course, an idiom found with verbs. Note especially xpkoixai (cf. Latin utor with instrumental, not ablative), tQ IlaiXcp xp'n<'li-p,ivo% (Ac. 27: 3), iroXXg irappricrlq, xP^f^o- (2 Cor. 3 : 12), kav ris air^ » Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 118. Cf. for the pap. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 438. THE CASES (nTfiSBIz) 533 voiiliMs XP?™' (1 Tim. 1 : 8), in which examples we have both thing and person.' Cf. 1 Cor. 9 : 1^15, etc. But see accusative in 1 Cor. 7:31. Among the many examples we can only select the most striking. Thus /ii? irore 'ISuaiv tols dttidaXixois (Mt. 13 : 15), i^k^oiKev TO, Tcvthnara X67C[> (Mt. 8 : 16), ireSats Koi oKiaeai StStadai (Mk. 5:4), \l/i)xovTa rais xv'i'' (Lu. 6:1), Tais dpi^lv k^inaaatv (Lu. 7:38), ^Xti^ei' t§ /lipcfi {ib.), 6irv(i} (Lu. 9:32), 0tX^/iaTt ira- padiSas (Lu. 22:48), rats imylais e^ea-raKivai aiirobs (Ac. 8:11), ^XP'O'"' aiiTOi' irvevfiaTi, Kal Su^'d/iei (Ac. 10 : 38), aveiXev 'lafcw/joy ' liaxaipv (Ac. 12 : 2), SeSdnaarai Tg (^iicrei (Jas. 3 : 7), avvaxrixSr] avrSiv TjJ iiroKpiira (Gal. 2 : 13), ireTrXT/pco/i^cous TrdirH aStKia, irovripig,, ktX. (Ro. 1 : 29), xttp""' ^"■''^ o-eo-«o-/*€j'oi (Eph. 2 : 5, 8), /iij ixfBbcKtaOe olvcf (Eph. 5 : 18), pepavTurfihop alimrL (Rev. 19 : 13), Tvebpari. (Ro. 8 : 14), oh (l>6apTots, apyvplcf rj xpuc^Vi ^XurpciflijTe, dXXd, rifilc^ a'Lp.a.Ti (1 Pet. 1 : 18 f.), $ T'S riTTijTat (2 Pet. 2 : 19), kacttpayicdriTe tQ TTvehpaTi. (Eph. 1 : 13), TTT/XiKOts vplv ypafifiaaiv eypaipa tjj e/if} x^'P' (Gal. 6 : 11, one dative and two instrumental cases). Cf. Kora- Kpwovaiv aMv Bavarcff (Mk. 10 : 33, but davarov in D, and in Mt. 20 : 18 N has eis Bb-varov). See the frequent use of irlcrei in Heb. 11, which is more than mere manner, though in verse 13 we have KOTO viaTiv. Moulton {CI. Rev., Dec, 1901) cites Si^Xwo-oc ^ TrXoicj) l?4pxei ^ fij-v, O.P. 112 (iii/iv A.D.). Cf. Jo. 19:39 f., beovlois nera t&u aptisfiaTuv for proximity of /ierd to the instrumental. Moulton (Prol., p. 76) notes "the remarkable instrumental in Ep. Diogn. 7, $ roiis ovpavoiis Uriaev." Besides some examples are open to doubt. Thus KaraKavau irvpl aafika-rcc (Mt. 3 : 12) may be either locative or instrumental. The same might be true of T(f irXoiapiCj) ^\dov (Jo. 21 : 8) and ifiaTTiaev CSoTt (Ac. 1:5), though the locative is pretty clearly right here. Then again in Ac. 22 : 25, wpokreimv rots i/iaaiv, we have either the instrumental or the dative. But in 2 Pet. 1 : 3 ISiq. 86^37 Kal dperg (marg. in W. H.) are clearly instrumental, not dative. In Ro. 8 : 24, Tg kXiriSi. i(T(jidi]ij,ev, 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 iv (the case with h 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 xmaeai.. Cf . Helbing, Der Instru- mental in Herod., 1900, p. 8. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 117. » K.-G.,II,p.464f. « Moulton, Prol., pp. 76, 104; CI. Rev., 1904, p. 153. 534 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ^ did make it more frequent in the LXX. Some of the uses of if and locative, like h naxalpv aToKovvrai. (Mt. 26 : 52), iroXefiricru kv rfj pofitjyala (Rev. 2 : 16), ei* (t)6vco /laxaipTjs airidavov (Heb. 11 : 37j, are fairly equivalent to the pure instrumental case, as a.vu\ev /*a- Xatpj/ (Ac. 12 : 2),7recroOj'rot CTOiiari fiaxa-lpTIs (Lu. 21 : 24). But others without h in Blass' list are more debatable and may be construed as merely locatives after all, as seen above. Besides the exam- ples already mentioned, Trvpl aXccrdiiatTai. (Mk. 9 : 49) may be com- pared with h Tivi avTO aprvcTtTt (9 : 50) and kv rivi oXiadijaeTat, (Mt. 5 : 13). See further Mt. 7:2 and kp ^6.^3^ i\do> (1 Cor. 4 : 21) which stands over against ev ayaTra irveviiari re irpavTTjTOS. Some doubt remains as to whether the instrumental case is used for the agent. In the Sanskrit' the instrumental is a common idiom with a perfect passive verb or participle. But the Latin uses the dative in such an example as is seen by mihi, not me. Most of the grammarians take the Greek passive perfect and verbal as the Latin with the dative.^ But Delbriick' recognises the doubt in the matter. The one example in the N. T. is in Lu. 23 : 15, ovdev a^Lov Bavarov eariv irtTrpayp,€vov avrif. D here reads iv avT& and Blass ^ suggests that the right reading is without veirpayfifvov as in Ac. 25 : 5. If is possible also that in 2 Pet. 2 : 19, iS tk fiTxriTai, we have person, not thing, of whom (Am. St. V), not of what. Cf. also Jas. 3 : 7. One may mention here also as a possible instru- mental Kayo) thpidSi v/up (2 Cor. 12 : 20), cos kypoicdri airols (Lu. 24: 35), (S^Stj d77eXow (1 Tim. 3 : 16), but these are most probably true datives. The usual way of expressing the agent in the N. T. is viro for the direct agent and Sia for the intermediate agent, as in Mt. 1 : 22. But other prepositions are also used, like diro (Ac. 2: 22), k (Jo. 1 : 13), ip (Col. 1 : 17), xapA (Jo. 1 : 6), etc. See a real distinction between vt6 and ep in Ro. 12 : 21. (fc) With Prepositions. The Greek uses the instrumental with only two prepositions dfia and vtos (cf. 12 : 18) and tyyl^ovTi, rg AanacKQ (Ac. 22 : 6). Cf. fJ77ia-£i' rg ttiiXjj (Lu. 7: 12). It is not used for the notion of time. (d) The Dative with Substantives. I am not here insisting that the dative was used first with substantives rather than with verbs, ^ but only that the dative has often a looser relation to the verb than the accusative or the genitive.' It is more common to have the verb without the dative than without the accusative or genitive (Brug., ib.). This is seen also in the common use of the dative as the indirect object of verbs that have other cases and in the use of the dative with substantives somewhat after the manner of the genitive. Not all substantives admit of this idiom, it is true, but only those that convey distinctly personal relations. But some of these substantives are allied to verbs that use the dative. So exrxapi-TTiGiv rQ deci (2 Cor. 9 : 12), B\'t\(/iv rfj aapd (1 Cor. 7 : 28), aveaiu t^ irveliij.aTi fiov (2 Cor. 2 : 13), ckoXo^ tjj aapKL (2 Cor, 1 Pro!., 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. « Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 185. But see E. W. Hopkins, Trans. Am. Hist. Assoc, XXXVII, pp. 87 ff. ' Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 95. 8 Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 277. » Brug., Griech Gr., p. 399. THE CASES (iiTnsEis) 537 12:7), &viiirav(nv rats ^uxaTs ifi&v (Mt. 11:29), duBLa t^ dtQ (2 Cor. 2 : 15), ds Ta.4>i\v tol% ^evon (Mt. 27: 7), toIs 6.iroWvfiivois IMpla (1 Cor. 1 : 18). Cf. Lu. 5 : 14. With some of these ex- amples verbs occur, but the dative is not here due to the verb. Some of them are in the predicate also, as x^pw tQ deQ (Ro. 7 : 25), with which compare marg. eiixapicrToi. See Lu. 10 : 5. Cf. Tois LaBivkaLv (1 Cor. 8:9). So in 1 Cor. 9:2, et aXXots ou/c ei/xl kKoaTokos, dXXa 76 vixiv eliii, the dative is not due to dfiL Cf. in next verse ^ inii awoKoyia rots ini kvaKplvovciv. Cf. also avTois in Ph. 1 : 28. So y^Aios kavrdis (Ro. 2 : 14), e^oi 0dwTos (Ro. 7 : 13), and, not to multiply examples, romo /wl Kapirds ^pyov (Ph. 1 : 22), ri kTriaraals fiot (2 Cor. 11 : 28). Cf. Ro. 1 : 14; 8 : 12. In 1 Cor. 4 : 3 both the dative and eis and accusative occur, but properly so, ifiol Si eis ^Xaxicroi' iarLv. Cf . 1 Cor. 14 : 22 for the same thing. The dative due to attraction of the relative is seen in oh Lu. 9 : 43. (e) With Adjectives. This dative occurs naturally. These adjectives and verbals, like the substantives, have a distinctly personal flavour. Here are the most striking examples: aweiJBris rg obpav'uf oTTTaalq, (Ac. 26 : 19), Lptcra aWQ (Jo. 8 : 29), LpKtTov tQ liaJdriTxi (Mt. 10 : 25), cliririXoi Kai a/jMnriTOL aiirifi (2 Pet. 3 : 14), do-Telos t4) 6eQ (Ac. 7:20), 7»'wffT6s tc^ apxieptZ (Jo. 18 : 15), SoDXa rg aKoBapaii}. (Ro. 6 : 19), bwara tQ 6e(^ (2 Cor. 10 : 4), iXeWepoi rg diKatoalivg (Ro. 6 : 20), kfjuttavfj — i)ixlv (Ac. 10 : 40), evoxos isarai. t^ cvve-' dpl(f (Mt. 5 : 22), TO tvaxtv^v koI eviraptSpov t^ Kvpl (Ac. 16 : 15), TTiaxovs Tif Koap^ (Jas. 2:5), (rurripios irSicriv (Tit. 2 : 11), 4) . . . iiTT'ljKooi (Ac. 7:39), i\oi (Ac. 19 : 31), ci^eXi/ia toTs avBpmrois (Tit. 3 : 8). Wellhausen {Einl., p. 33 f.) calls evoxos tQ "ungriechisch." But note Evoxos eo-TW toTs itrow e7rtTe[i]M'"s, 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 tUodos avTQ. (/) With Adverbs and Prepositions. The dative is found a few times with adverbs. Thus cIjs dcricos Kai diKaius Kal a.fikp,TrTics ip,iv TOLS wiaTtvovaiv eyevri6rip,ev (1 Th. 2 : 10), oval tQ Koapx^ (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 /cotoi, irapai, iraXai, xnjuai all 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. 163, finds iKoXoWm with dat. in pap. 2 Griech. Gr., pp. 226, 228. 538 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Sanskrit! 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 £77115 has the dative twice in the N. T. (Ac. 9:38), rfj 'loiriry; Si kyyh (Ac. 27 : 8), though the genitive is the usual case employed. Cf. kyyi^ic with dative, Ac. 9:3; 10 : 9; Jas. 4 ; 8. Brugmann' admits the dative with avrlov, havrlov, wKria-lov in the older Greek, though no N. T. examples occur. Delbriick {Grundl., p. 130) finds the dative with h-l. ig) 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. "A<&6s aWQ Kal rd IfiarLov (Mt. 5 : 40), aes riixti' to, b4)tCKi\na.Ta. rinSiv (Mt. 6 : 12), av6i$x^''l^°-v aiirQ (marg.) 01 ovpavol (Mt. 3 : 16), Sure to ayiov rots Kvciv (Mt. 7:6), hoBrjvai rots TTOixoh (Mk. 14 : 5), vfxtv irpSiTOV . . . aireareikev (Ac. 3 : 26), a,Tu\riepov avrQ watSia (Mk. 10 : 13), eiiayyeKi^ofmL bfjuv xapdi' fiey6.\r]v (Lu. 2 : 10), S)4>^Ch.ev avrQ eKarov 57]vapia (Mt. 18 : 28), iravra aTo56i(Toi cTOL (Mt. 18 : 26), 6\bpLV iyeipeiv rots Seafiols fiov (Ph. 1 : 17), T0LT]CT(i3 Si5e rpth riv KeKO€\os (1 Cor. 15 : 32), TL ■fin'iv Kol 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 tL kfwl Kai aol (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. o-ot in Mt. 18 : 17) belongs here. A very simple example is avn^kpei yap aoi (Mt. 5 : 29). Moulton^ cites a papyrus example for epxopai o-ot (Rev. 2 : 5, 16), though from an iUiterate document. For ^ueXei see Ac. 18 : 17; 1 Pet. 5 : 7. 3. Direct Object. Then again the dative is often the direct object of transitive verbs. These verbs may be simple or com- pound, but they all emphasize the close personal relation like trust, distrust, envy, please, satisfy, serve, etc. Some of them vary in construction, taking now the dative, now the accusative, now ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 111. ' Prol., p. 75. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 113, calls this the ethical dative. The so-called dative of "majesty" Blass considers a Hebraism. He compares dffTeios T§ Bs^ with ir6\is f^yoMi tQ diif (Jonah, 3:3), "a very great city.' But it is doubtful if the N. T. follows the LXX here. 540 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT a preposition. But this is all natural enough. Thus nal rfiricrTovv avTots (Lu. 24 : 11), i.TreiBS>v tw vlQ (Jo. 3 : 36), eirtiBovTo aiiT(^ (Ac. 5 : 36), viraKoiiovaiv avrQ (Mk. 1 : 27). Once we find the dative with irtiroiBa (Ph. 1 : 14), but elsewhere prepositions, as kv (2 Th. 3 : 4), eis (Gal. 5 : 10), tirl (Lu. 18 : 9). In particular Tnareijoi calls for a word. Deissmann' has made an exhaustive study of the subject, and Moulton'' has given a clear summary of results. This verb may be used absolutely (Jo. 20 : 31) or with an object clause (ib.) in the sense of believe. Moreover, it often means entrust (Gal. 2:7). Leaving out these uses Moulton finds that TrurTevco occurs with the dative 39 times and always in the sense of believe or trust (especially in John, as Jo. 5 : 46, ei yap kinaTevtTe MwucreT kwLaTevere av kfio'i). It is rather remarkable that h occurs only once (Mk. 1 : 15, Trurrevere kv rC^ iiiayytK'uS) explained by Deissmann' as mean- ing 'in the sphere of,' to which Moulton agrees. In Eph. 1: 13 kv more properly belongs to ka^payiadyjTe. The LXX uses kv rarely with irurrevu and no other preposition. But in the N. T. eis occurs 45 times (37 times in John's Gospel and 1 Jo.) while kiri ap- pears 6 times with the locative and 7 with the accusative. Moul- ton objects to overrefining here between els and eirl (at most like believe in and believe on). So also as to accusative and locative with ewl. What he does properly accent is the use of these two prepositions by the Christian writers to show the difference be- tween mere behef (dative with iriaTebcii) and personal trust (ets and eTTi). This mystic union received a further development in Paul's frequent kv XpicrQ. The relation between kv t^ ow/ian and kwl tQ dvop-ari. is parallel.* We must note other groups with the dative, Hke verbs of serving. Thus Sltikovovv avT^ (Mt. 4 : 11), tQ vol SovXevu vo/Mf deov (Ro. 7 : 25, both instrumental and dative here), Xarpevtiv aiirQ (Lu. 1 : 74), wrriptTelv air^ (Ac. 24 : 23). But in Ph. 3 : 3 we have the* instrumental with "kaTptboo, and vpoaKvvkia uses either the dative (Mt. 2:2) or the accusative (Jo. 4 : 23), not to mention kvurrMv (Lu. 4:7). The dative with bovKbia 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 de(f apkaai (Ro. 8:8), kvefipi-nSivTo aurg 1 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. » Prol., p. 67 f . 3 In Christo, p. 46 f. • Moulton, Prol., p. 68; HeitmtiUer, Im Namen Jesu, I, ch. i. THE CASES (nTfiSEIs) 541 (Mk. 14 : 5), neTpuyiradeip rots Lyvoomiv (Heb. 5 : 2), 6 hpyi^Snevoi t(^ 6.Se\(^ (Mt. 5 : 22), Apm (joi (2«Cor. 12 : 9), oXXiJXow (jjdovovvTes (Gal. 5 : 26, accusative, margin of W. H.). Once more, we may note verbs meaning to thank, to blame, to enjoy, etc. So iiixo-pi^cTui aoi (Jo. 11 :41), kyKoXelTua-av aXXijXots (Ac. 19 : 38), kweTlfiria-ev aiirots (Mt. 12 : 16), toTs ^vt/xois ^irtrdcro-et (Lu. 8 : 25). So also irpoakra^ev avrifi (Mt. 1 : 24), SteoreXXero aiirots (Mk. 8 : 15), knot xo^Sire (Jo. 7: 23). But KtKeiu has accusative, though the dative occurs in the papyri. There remain verbs meaning to confess, to lie, to help, to shine, etc. Thus we find d/jMhoyoivrcov r^ 6v6ixaTi. (Heb. 13 : 15)^ and di'0a);iioXo76TTO T^ BeQ (Lu. 2 : 38), ovK bpeb(T(ji Mpdnrots (Ac. 5 : 4), jSoijflei iuot (Mt. 15 : 25, but ic^eXew has accusative), iva ^alviaaiv oiiTj} (Rev. 21 : 23). In the later KOLvi] we find Porjdioi with accusa- tive or genitive (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 110). Cf. also t^j 6ti^ Tpoaeixeadai (1 Cor. 11 : 13), ^ (ivTiarriTt (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 apxet o-oi (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 Enghsh into the Greek. The same remark applies in a way to tI iiiuv So/cei (Mt. 18 : 12), irpeirei ayiois (Eph. 5:3). But there is no doubt about tL krYtviTo avrC/ (Ac. 7 : 40), aiiT(p avixfiaivav (Mk. 10 : 32), and the passive constructions like diroXetxeTai cafifiaTianos t^ XacS (perhaps dativus commodi, Heb. 4:9), kcjiavri avrQ (Mt. 1 : 20), kppijBri rots dpxalots (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 iik\ei tQ flecS (1 Cor. 9 : 9). See iv aoi Xetjret (Lu. 18 : 22), but h af iarepti (Mk. 10 : 21). 5. Possession. The Greek, like the Latin, may use the dative for the idea of possession. Thus ovk ^v avrols roiros (Lu. 2:7), ovk iariv crot /xepis (Ac. 8 : 21), viuv kariv ij kirayytklo. (Ac. 2 : 39), t'lvi. iarai (Lu. 12 : 20), eicrii' iipHv rkaaapes &v8pes (Ac. 21 : 23), 'eariv avviideia viiiv (Jo. 18 : 39), kav ykvriTal tlvl avdpoiv(^ (.koltov TpofiaTa (Mt. 18 : 12). The idiom is extended even to examples like ov firi iarai aoi tovto (Mt. 16 : 22), 'etrrai x^pd aoi (Lu. 1 : 14). Cf. Ac. 2 : 43; Lu. 9 : 38. This is a frequent idiom in the ancient Greek and a perfectly natural one. This predicative dative at bottom is just like the usual dative. 6. Infinitive as Final Dative. Giles^ calls attention to the in- ' So Mt. 10 : 32, but note A/ioXo7u h abrS, in Lu. 12:8. = Man., p. 327. 542 A GBAMMAR OF THE GBEEK NEW TESTAMENT finitive as a final dative. This was the original use of the dative in — ai, the expression of purpose. So ff\BoiJ.tv irpocKwrjaai abrQ (Mt. 2:2). Here we have the dative form and the dative of pur- pose. Cf. the old English "for to worship." This dative form con- tinued, however, when the case of the infinitive was no longer dative. 7. The Dative of the Agent. It was discussed under the instru- mental and there is nothing new to be said here. The one clear example is found in Lu. 23 : 15. But not very different is the idiom in Mt. 6 : 1 (irpos to deadrjvai avroZs) and 23 : 5. Cf. also 2 Pet. 3:14. 8. The Dative because of the Preposition. We have already had examples of this. Compound verbs often have the dative where the simplex verb does not. The case is due to the total idea of the compound verb. The dative occurs with avari- defiai in Ac. 25 : 14; Gal. 2:2. So' with avri, as & avTiarriTe (1 Pet. 5 : 9), avrCKkyei tiJ Kataopt (Jo. 19 : 12), avTiKelfievoL avr^ (Lu. 13 : 17), Tw aylto avTitriirreTt (Ac. 7 : 51). 'Axo in airoTaffaofiai goes with the dative (Mk. 6 :46). The same thing is sometimes true of kv, as iveiraL^av avrw (Mk. 15 : 20), kfi^Xt^^ai avrols (Mk. 10 : 27). Sometimes with avn- we have wpos, as with kv we find kv or Tpbs after the verb. With kvtlxev avrQ (Mk. 6 : 19) we must supply Oviibv or some such word. Ets and iirl usually have a preposition after the compound verb, except that compounds of kirl often have the indirect object in the dative (especially 'ewtridrini) . But compare eTTLTaa-aoi and kiriTinaoi above. Cf. tirecrr] avTOLs (Lu. 2:9), but eirt repeated (Lu. 21 : 34). With xapa we note irap'exoi and irapipo W.-Th., pp. 462-473. • Griech. Gr., p. 250. On final s in adv. see Fraser, CI. Quarterly, 1908, p. 265. « Wliitney, 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 conceriftig 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. II. Adverbs with Verbs. (a) Commonest 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 iTipprma 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 . xAp"*) 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 Koivii 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 eiapktrrus. A few examples will suffice for the normal usage in the N. Tj See the majestic roll of the adverbs in Heb. 1:1, TroKvfiepus Kal iro\vTp6irus ir&Kai. Cf. (rirovSaiorkpus (Ph. 2 : 28), irepicro-oT^pws and rdxetoj' (Heb. 13 : 19), irepaLrkpco (Ac. 19 : 39) as examples of comparison. (c) Peedicative Uses with yivofiai and elfii. There is nothing out of the way in the adverb with ylvofjuu in 1 Th. 2 : 10, is oclcas Kai SiKalus Kal inkfiirTias vfiiv toTs iriaTdjovaiv eyevijBrifiev. Here the verb is not a mere copula. Indeed elfiL appears with the adverb also when it has verbal force. Thus (coflcbs aXijfl&is iaHv (1 Th. 2 : 13) is not equivalent to xaflis dXij^es kanv. Cf. (coflcos iTov (Mt. 19 : 10), t6 oCtcos etvai (1 Cor. 7:26). Cf. 1 Cor. 7:7. The adverb in all these instances is different from the adjective. Cf. tL ne eiroiijo-as ovtois (Ro. 9 : 20) for > W.-Th., p. 462. » lb., p. 463. 546 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT a similar predicate use of the adverb. Cf. also oiircos weffijv and ovTws 6 Beds kv viuv karlv (1 Cor. 14 : 25) and ahtdSi^ in Mt. 14 : 33, In Ph. 4 : 5, 6 xiiptos €7711$, the copula karlv is to be supplied and here the adverb is not far from the adjective idea. Cf. also ir6ppa) ivTO's (Lu. 14 : 32), ixaKpliv (Mk. 12 : 34), Ua (Ph. 2:6). (d) With "E^oj. It has some idiomatic constructions with the adverb that are difficult from the English point of view. Thus Tous /ca/c(3s exovTM (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 exw. So eo-xdrcos €x« (Mk. 5 : 23) and in Jo. 4 : 52 KoixipoTtpov iaxev the comparative adverb. One must be wiUing for the Greek to have his standpoint. Cf. ovTa%a^, and etas apri in 1 Cor. 15 : 6. Thus aird, ■wkpvai (2 Cor. 9 : 2), ciTr' avoiBev ews Karoi (Mk. 15 : 38), air' apri (Mt. 23 :39), &.wd naKpbdtv (Mt. 27:55), Airi irpwl (Ac. 28:23), ■Aixa. irpuL (Mt..20 : 1), ews apri (Mt. 11 : 12), e'ojs rpis (Lu. 22 : 34), ■iw eTT&Kis (Mt. 18 : 21 f.), e'cos e?co (Ac. 21 : 5), ecos iau (Mk. 14 : 54), ecds irdre (Mt. 17 : 17), eus SiSt (Lu. 23 : 5), etc. For this doubling of adverbs see Iktos d ixri (1 Cor. 14 : 5) in the realm of conjunctions. Moulton {Prol., p. 99) finds in the papyri k rote, O.P. 486 (ii/A.D.), and note av6 Tepvai (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 Tapa 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 oirot. Instead we find tov vir&yei (Jo. 3 : 8) and oirov kyrJKkv y.e libvov, the adjective itovov 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 ixbvos means that Luke is alone with Paul. So in Lu. 24 : 18 av /Mvoi may be contrasted with fnovov Tiarevaov (Lu. 8 : 50). The point is specially clear with irpSiros and irpurov. Thus in Ac. 3 : 26 we have vnZv TpSiTov avaariiaas, not vfitv irpiiTOLs. It is not 'you as chief,' but 'the thing is done first for you.' So also Ro. 2 : 9 ('lovSalov re wpuTov Kal "EXXtjTOs). But in 1 Jo. 4 : 19 note ij/teis ayairSiiiev, on avTos irpSiTos riyawriaev rifiSis. ' God is the first one who loves.' Cf . also ?i\6ev irpS>Tos els to nvquelov (Jo. 20 : 4) where John is the first one to come to the tomb. In Jo. 1 : 41 the MSS. vary between irpSiros and TpuTov (W. H.). One can but wonder here if after all xpSros 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 opdSis (Mk. 7 : 35) and avkarriOi eiri Tovs irbSas (tov dp66s (Ac. 14 : 10). The English has a similar distinction in "feel bad" and "feel badly," "look bad" and "look badly." We use "well" in both senses. Cf. iSpatos 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 avronaTri ^ yrj Kapiro^ptt (Mk. 4 : 28) and ahroparri rjVolyTi 1 lb., p. 20. 2 ib.^ p. 19. 550 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (Ac. 12 : 10). In Lu. 21 : 34 the same construction is found with ev'iSLos v itiikpa kKeivrj. The ancient Greek idiom of the adjective rather than the locative of time appears in Ac. 28 : 13, Sevrtpaioi, fi}Soiieu. So bpBpival (Lu. 24 : 22). The same use of the adjective rather than the adverb meets us in 1 Cor. 9 : 17, d yap eKwv tovto irpaaaco — ei 8e aKwv, just as we see it in the ancient Greek. Cf. the Latin nolens volens. See Ro. 8 : 20. In neaos the Greek has an adjective that we have to use a phrase for. Thus iikcros iifuov arijKu (Jo. 1 : 26), ' there stands in the midst of you.' Cf. a very different idea in inxepas /Mearjs (Ac. 26 : 13), 'middle of the day.' X. Adverbial Phrases. (a) Incipient Adverbs. Some of these are practically ad- verbs, though they retain the case-inflection and may even have the article. Thus ttiv apxhv (Jo. 8 : 25), to \onr6v (Ph. 3:1), TovvavHov (Gal. 2 : 7), to irpSiTov (Jo. 12 : 16), to irpoTepov (Jo. 6 : 62), TO irXela-Tov (1 Cor. 14 : 27), to nad' rjntpav (Lu. 19 : 47), toO \oi,to\) (Eph. 6 : 10), etc. These expressions are not technically adverbs, though adverbial in force. Cf. also the cognate instrumental like xapq. xatpet (Jo. 3 : 29). So O.P. 1162, 5 (Iv./a.d.). (6) Pbepositional Phrases. These adjuncts have the sub- stantial force of adverbs. Indeed there is little practical differ- ence in structure between diro irkpvai (2 Cor. 9 : 2) and iiTtpXiav (2 Cor. 11 : 5), mepavu (Eph. 4 : 10) and ecos mTOi (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 hke irapaxpriita (Lu. 1 : 64) and an adverbial phrase like Trapd tovto (1 Cor. 12 : 15). Cf. also irir Ktiva (Ac. 7 : 43), virtpkKtiva (2 Cor. 10 : 16), KadoKov (Ac. 4 : 18). In Ro. 7 : 13 Kad' virtpfiokifv is used with an adjective. Other examples are kolt' iSlav (Mt. 14 : 13), Kara fiovas (Mk. 4 : 10), /card tKohawv (Phil. 14), KttT* iviavTov (Heb. 10 : 1), k bwTkpov (Mk. 14 : 72), e/c rPvxn% (Col. 3 : 23), k^ Lpxns (Jo. 6 : 64), dx' dpxijs (2 Th. 2 : 13), «$ Kevbv (Ph. 2 : 16), kv &\r,deiq. (Mt. 22 : 16), kv Trpcirow (1 Cor. 15 : 3), kv SiKauxjvvg (Ac. 17:31), kir' a\r]delas (Lu. 22:59), Kad' rfiikpav (Mk. 14 : 49), kv wktI (1 Th. 5 : 2), kv kKTeveiq. (Ac. 26 : 7), am nkpovs (Ro. 11 : 25), k fiipovs (1 Cor. 12 : 27. Cf. iJikpos tl, U : 18), KaTO. iikpos (Heb. 9:5), diro /iias (Lu. 14 : 18), eis t6 iravTtKks (Heb. 7 : 25). With fikaov we have quite a list, like ava ixkaov (Mt. 13 : 25), k pi^Te Kal ykpTiade. But I doubt if deXu 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 dkXii iroietv means 'is willing to do.' So in Jo. 8 : 44, etc. The text is obscure in Col. 2 : 18 and » W.-Th., p. 468. ' C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 97. 552 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT there BeKwv may have an adverbial force. Blass' conceives that in Mt. 6 : 5, (t>i.\ov(nii . . . irpocreOxfcrOai, we may translate ' gladly pray.' But what advantage has this over 'love to pray,' 'are fond of praying'? ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 258. Of. W.-Th., p. 467. CHAPTER XIII PREPOSITIONS (HPOeESEIS) I. The Name. As is often the case, so here the name describes a later development, not the original, nor the essential, idea. (a) Some Postpositive. Prepositions may indeed be post- positive like the Latin mecum, the Greek tovtov x^pi'V, reKucav irkpi (anastrophe). In the Turkish tongue' they are all postpositive. And Giles {Manual, p. 341) thinks that dixfrnroiv airo is earlier than &,ird onimTCiiv. (6) Not Geiginallt Used with Verbs. Moreover, the name implies that they properly belong with verbs (prae-verbia, rpodkaeis). But we now know that the use with verbs was a much later development. There are indeed in Greek no "inseparable" prepositions, which are used only in composition with verbs. In the Attic, outside of Xenophon, aiiv was used mainly in composi- tion.^ In the N. T. &fut)l is found only with compound words like dM<^tj3(iiXX&), afitjJtevvviM. 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 arbitrarj''. 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 &uev, for instance, with the abla- tive. It is not found in composition with verbs nor by itself > 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-huit 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, dpi ou ipi, SiKT, fa et yn" But these are not the "prepositions" under discussion. ' Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 414. 653 554 A GRAMMAB 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. n. The Origin of Prepositions. (a) Oeiginally Adverbs. 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 line can be drawn." Thus even in Homer a/x0t, 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 fob 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 analjrtic 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 ec, for instance, with the locative, airo 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 obhque cases (except the dative) to make clearer the case-idea.^" 1 W.-Th., p. 356. 2 Man., etc., p. 341. » Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 659. Cf. Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 123. * lb., p. 659. Cf. Grundl., IV, p. 134. ' Griech. Gr., p. 429. « Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 94. • lb., p. 430. 9 lb. ' Giles, Man., etc., p. 341. " Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 414. PEEPOSiTioNS (npoeESEis) 555 (c) Varying History. The adverbs that come to be used with the cases vary greatly in their hisjj^ry. 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 (di'a els, Rev. 21:21; Kara eh, Mk. 14:19; iirep iydi, 2 Cor. 11 :23). Some are used both with nouns, and in com- position with verbs, hke ky, irtpi and the other seventeen "proper" classical prepositions. 'AiJii occurs only in composition. Others are not used in composition with verbs, but are no longer mere adverbs like avev. Others are employed both as adverb and with cases of nouns, like a/ia, i^oi, etc. Some occur both as preposi- tion and conjunction, like axPh fitxph im, t\^v. Some figure as substantive, adverb and preposition with case, like xttP"*- III. Growth in the Use of Prepositions. (a) Once No Prepositions. As already noted, in the Sanskrit there is no separate class of prepositions, though a number of ad- verbs are already coming to be used as prepositions, and verbs have some prefixes. Some adverbs in Greek are occasionally used with cases, like djicos and the genitive, but are not prepositions. Here we see the use of prepositions started, tentatively afany rate. We may suppose a time further back in the history of the Indo- Germanic tongues when no adverbs were used with cases, when the cases stood all alone. (6) The Prepositions Still Used as Adverbs in Homer. Not only do the "adverbial" prepositions have their usual freedom, but a considerable number of adverbs are found in composition with verbs. Homer marks a distinct advance over the Sanskrit in the increase of prepositions. There is in Homer a real class of prepositions. But in Homer the limitation of the preposition to cases of nouns and composition with verbs is far from being estab- lished. 'AfujjL, iv, etc., may be simply adverbs, 'on both sides,' ' inside.' ' So common is the separation of the preposition from the verb that the term tmesis is used for it, but no strict line can be drawn between this usage and the ordinary adverb.^ (c) Decreasing Use as Adverbs after Homer. It is not common thereafter for the eighteen classical prepositions, those used in composition with verbs as well as with cases of nouns, to occur separately as adverbs. It is not common, but still pos- sible. This list comprises a/ii^t, dm, avri, airb, 5td, eis, ej, 'fv, hri, Kara, ixera, irapa, irepi, irpo, xpos, l has dropped out entirely save in composition, and ava is nearly confined to the distributive use and iva ixecov, a sort of compound preposition.' It occurs only 12 times, omitting the adverbial use in Rev. 21 : 21. 'ApH appears 22 times, but as Moulton* explains, five of these are due to avd' &v. But dx6 is very abundant in the N. T., as are Sia, eh, k, h, eiri, Kara, ixera, Trpos. But irapa, irepi, %pb, avv, virep, vto are, like dra, already going the way of ancl>L 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. 'Ev and th far outnumber any of the other prepositions in the N. T.' And h leads tis by a good margin. Moulton takes kv as unity and finds the other N. T. prepositions ranging as follows: ava. .0045, ivri .008, dxo .24, 5id .24, els .64, k .34, kiri .32, xard .17, Me™ .17,' irapa .07, irepi .12, irpo .018, Trpos .25, arvv .048, iiirip .054, vto .08. The three commonest prepositions in Herodotus'" are ets, ev and kiri, in this order. In Thucydides and Xenophon the order is h, • Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 121. 2 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 95; Egger, Gr. Comp., p. 195. » Moulton, Prol., p. 100. ■* lb. ' Die Prap. bei Polyb., 1882; cf. p. 3. ' Die Prap. bei Herod, und andem Hist., 1904. ' Johannessohn, Der Gebr. der Casus und der Prap. in der Sept., TI. 1, 1910. Cf. also C. and S., p. 80 f. s Prol., p. 98. ' lb., p. 62. " See Helbing, Prap. bei Herod., p. 8 f., for the facts here used. PEEPOsiTiONS (npoeESEiz) 567 e£s and iiri. But Xenophon varies the order of frequency in his vrarious books. In Polybius the thre^chief prepositions are Kari., Trpds, eis] in Diodorus ds, Kara, xpos; in Dionysius kv, eirl, eis; in Josephus (War) irp6s, eU, KarL, {Ant) ds, kirl, irpos; in Plutarch iv, vpos, eis; in Dio Cassius h, els, kirl. In the N. T. the three main ones, as seen above, are kv, eis, kK, though kirl is not far behind k. In the literary Kotvi/ it will be seen that the use of eis is nearly double that of kv, whereas in the N. T. eis is ahead of kv only in Mark and Hebrews.' In the vernacular koivt], kv makes a rather better show- ing. The large increase of the adverbial prepositions in the N. T., as in the KOLvfi, calls for special treatment a little later. It may be here remarked that they number 42, counting varying forms of the same word like owiadev, dwicru. (e) In Modern Greek. The varying history of the eighteen prepositions goes still further.^ Thus 6,vtL{s) survives in the ver- nacular as well as dTro (dire), Slo, (Ttd), eh («, ak, 's), ixera (jue), Kara {kL) and (is. Cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 100 ff. The bulk of the old prepositions drop out in the mediaeval period. Their place is supplied largely by the later prepositional adverbs, as ava. by at'co, k^ by ejco, but partly also by a wider use of the remaining preposi- tions, as eis for kv and wpos, lik for o-w. Then again all prepositions in the modern Greek use the accusative case as do other adverbs, and sometimes even with the nominative (7[d o-o06s, '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. (o) 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 calling those numerous adverbs prep- ositions which are used with cases, 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. &ai<^i does not appear outside of composition. In most dialects a.(i. 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 "xaXxecTepos grammarian" arrives "who will toil right through the papyri and the kolvti 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 ev-KaKico, etc., but "there is a growing tendency to use the compounds, especially those with 6ta, /card and avv, to express what in the oldest Greek could be sufficiently indicated by the simplex."* The N. T. does not indeed show as lavish a use of compound verbs as does Polyb- ius, the chief representative of the literary koivti of his time. But these 5tTrXa 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, Horn. Gr., p. 123. 2 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 Kou/ri. 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. 6 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 Aegjfptiis 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. PREI«OSITIONS (nPOGESEIs) 559 (d) Repetition after Verb. Sometimes the preposition is repeated after the verb, as in the older Greek. The prepositions most frequently repeated are aird, k^ eis, iv, iirl. 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 airfiXdev citt' aiiTov (Mk. 1 : 42). With Atto indeed Winer ^ finds that for the most part the preposition is repeated in the N. T. Thus we note also airap6^ air' abruv (Mt. 9 : 15), a.v (Ac. 9 : 18), kiropi^aviadkvTti iuj) vjjmv (1 Th. 2 : 17), ck^oplaei Lie' aXXiiXajc (Mt. 25 : 32), aireiriraaBr) air' aviSiv (Lu. 22 : 41), hiroarp'&l/ei. airb 'laKd)^ (Ro. 11 : 26), aTroxwpeire Air' ifiov (Mt. 7 : 23), Air6(rT5jT€ 6.ir' i/iov (Lu. 13 : 27, but not 2 : 37). Likewise k may. be repeated as with k/3aXXei k rod driaavpov (Mt. 13 : 52), 'eK <7ov k^eKevaerat (Mt. 2 : 6), k^aipovfievos eK tov XaoD (Ac. 26 : 17), i^eKe^anriv 'eK rod Kbaiwv (Jo. 15 : 19), €k t^s Kaia (jtiaiv i^eKoirris (Ro. 11 : 24), k^eireaav tK t&v x^I'P'^v (Ac. 12 : 7), kKiroptvbuevov 'tK ToO arbfiaros (Mt. 15: 11), 'tK^vyttv 'tK tov oIkov (Ac. 19 : 16). Verbs compounded with ds "uniformly repeat ets" (Winer- Thayer, p. 430). So, for instance, ticijyayov (Lu. 22 : 54), elaikvai (Ac. 3 : 3), iiarfketv (Mt. 2 : 21), dinropehovTai. (Mk. 1 : 21), ei(Tkpus (Ac. 17:20). With 'ev we observe the repetition in some verbs appears, though often tis occurs instead both where motion is implied and where the idea is simply that of rest (pregnant construction). As is well known, h 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 ev, 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 iv where one has to admit the practical iden- tity, like ets oUbv kartv (Mk. 2 : 1, marg. in W. H.), b Ssv eis Tbv koXttov TOV irarpbs (Jo. 1 : 18), etc. For the frequent LXX examples see Conybeare and Stock, p. 81. Still, for the sake of uniformity, only examples of iv are here given, like in^axf^as iv tQ Tpv^\ioovT€s iv Tttts dirarats (2 Pet. 2 : 13). A number of verbs have kirl repeated, such as ^:rt;8e/3)jKd)s kirl with accusative (Mt. 21:5), ^xi|3dXXet ^iri with accusative (Lu. 5 : 36), kirrjptv kir' k/xk (Jo. 13 : 18), k4>a\6iJ,evos kw' avToOs (Ac. 19 : 16), eTreXeiitreTat eTrt ak (Lu. 1 : 35), hriSe kwl ras kt\. (Ac. 4 : 29), kvkKUTO kir' avT(^ (Jo. 11 : 38), kTk^\ej/ei> kirl ttjv ktK. (Lu. 1 : 48), kwkirtaev kir' avTOV (Lu. 1 : 12), 4x' ovStvi avr&v kvLTewTcaKos (Ac 8." 16), kinpl\l/ayTes kir' ahrov (1 Pet. 5:7), kiriTidkaciv kirl toxis ktX. (Mt. 23: 4), kTOiKoSo- fiti kTi TOP /ctX. (1 Cor. 3 : 12), kTroiKodoiJ.ri6kvTes kirl tQ kt\. (Eph. 2:20). As to 5ta not many verbs have it repeated, but note Smto- ptheadai avrov 3ta aitopipMV (Lu. 6 : 1), diea6£riaav 5l vSaros (1 Pet. 3:20), Supxirai 5i' aviidpcav (Mt. 12:43), hiitpx^TO ha ukaov (Lu. 17:11). A similar rarity as to repetition exists in the case of mrd, but we note KaTriyopeire Kar' avrov (Lu. 23 : 14), KaraKavxacde Kara rrjs a\rideias (Jas. 3 : 14). Very seldom is irapA. repeated as in irapeXA/Sere Trap' fiiuiv (1 Th. 4:1, cf. ITh. 2:13;2Th. 3:6). Ilepi is repeated with more verbs than irapL Thus TepuuTrphl/ai wepl kiik (Ac. 22 : 6), irepie^caaixivoi, irepl to, ktK. (Rev. 15 : 6), Ttpi- Kurai. Tepl tov kt\. (Lu. 17: 2), irepiecnraTO irepi iroXXi?!' (Lu. 10 :40). IIpo, like nera, shows no example of repetition in the critical text, though some MSS. read irpoiropeva-g Tpo irpouinrov (for kvwiriov) in Lu. 1 : 76. As examples of -wpos repeated take TpocrKoWridri&iTai. wp6s ri/v ict\. (Eph. 5 : 31), irpoaereafv Tpds roiis ktK. (Mk. 7: 25), Tpoaerkdri Tpds Tovs ktK. (Ac. 13 : 36). It is seldom repeated. As a lonely example of cvv repeated see avve^woTobiaev aiv air^ (Col. 2 : 13). We have no example of iiro repeated and but one of iiwkp in some MSS. (not the critical text) for Ro. 8 : 26 {virtpevTvyx^vu — VTTip fifJXOv). (e) Different Pbeposition after Verb. Once more, a dif- ferent preposition may be used other than the one in composition. This is, of course, true where the meaning differs radically, as in kpco in Mk. 14 : 36, and irapkpxoiiai. in Mt. 5 : 18. Verbs compounded with k (besides k) may have airo as iKKkivoi in 1 Pet. 3 : 11, or irapa as k^epxofiai in Lu. 2 : 1, while iKTopeiioixai shows either k (Mt. 15 : 18), aTo (Mt. 20 : 29) or irapa (Jo. 15 : 26). So compounds of Kara use either dx6 as KaTa^aiva (Lu. 9 : 54) or k as ib. (Jo. 6: 41). See further discussion under separate prepositions. Compounds of av6. likewise are followed by ets as with ava^alvu (Mt. 5 : 1), auayo3 (Lu. 2 : 22), avaffXiircj (Lu. 9 : 16), ava\ap.Pa- vojmi (Mk. 16 : 19), drnxiTTTco (Lu. 14 : 10), ava^kpw (Lu. 24 : 51), a.vkpxopa.1 (Gal. 1 : 18); or by kirl as a,va$alvcc (Lu. 5 : 19), dva/3i;8afw (Mt. i3:48), avaKaixTTTu (Lu. 10:6), avaKXlvonai. (Mt. 14:19), avairiiTTO} with accusative (Mt. 15 : 35) or genitive (Mk. 8 : 6), ava(j)kpi\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 ' W.-Th., p. 433. ' Prol., p. 115. » lb. 564 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK 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 applied 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.' Moultoh gives a number of luminous examples such as dvfia-KO} 'to be dying,' a-wodavtiv 'to die (off) '; tvyeiv ' to flee,' 5La\ntiv ' to escape (flee clean through) '; hiim 'to pursue,' KaraSttoKco 'to hunt down'; r-qpetv 'to watch,' awTq- peiv 'to keep safe'; ipya^ecdai 'to work,' KaTepyk^eadon. 'to work out (down to the end),' etc. The preposition 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- ixai, Oiaofiai, decapkw, \oyi^oixaL, KivSvvebu, /ieXXco, opyl^op-aL, irpacffo}. He finds that the papyri support this "perfective" use of the preposi- tion as between simplex and compound. N. T. illustrations are interesting. Thus ayov (Mt. 6 : 25) and Karkcjxiyov (Mt. 13 : 4). As one further illustration note apn yiviouKia k pipovs (1 Cor. 13 : 12) and TOTt Si einyv(ji(TOfiat, Kadiiis Kal erreyvcoad'ijv {lb.). In general, on the whole subject of prepositions in composition see Delbriick, Ver- » Moulton, Prol., p. 112. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 111. 2 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 furjjier 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 Koivij 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 di.vTi.-Trap-fj'Kdev (Lu. 10:31f.), avv-a.vri-'K&PriTai (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), VTtp-tv-Tvyx^vii' (Ro. 8 : 26), avr-ava-irKripu (Col. 1 : 24), a-vv-irapa-'Ka- Peiv (Ac. 15 : 37), Trpoa-ava-irXripSi (2 Cor. 9 : 12), avrL-SM-rWefiai, (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 Pbeposition with Diffebent Cases. Sometimes the same preposition is used with different cases and so with a dif- ferent resultant idea. Take 5ta, for instance. In 1 Cor. 11 : 9 we have ovK kriadri avfip Sm ttiv 'yvvalKa, while in verse 12 we read avqp ha Trjs TumiKos. In Heb. 2 : 10 the whole point turns on the dif- ference in case, 5i' &v ra iri-vra Kal 8i ov to iravra. In Heb. 1 1 : 29 the verb with SiA in composition has the accusative while 8iA alone has the genitive, dikfiricrav rfiv 'Epvdpav QaXacaav ws 5ta ^pa,% 7i}s. Cf. 3tdju^crou(Lu. 4:30) andSia M^croi' (Lu. 17: 11). But the resultant idea is here the same. 'Ext is a pertinent illustration. In Rev. 5 : 1 we find kirl t^v be^t&v and kirl toO dpbvov, while in Rev. 11 : 10 observe kitl t^s 717s and kir' avroZs. Cf. also Rev. 14: 6. So again in Mt. 19 : 28 note kxl Opovov and kirl dpovovs and in Mt. 24 : 2 eirl XiOov, but XWos hirl X20a) in Lu. 21 : 6. Cf . ^iri tov and iirl TTjv in Rev. 14 : 9. So 'tKiri^w exi 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 Sia, kirl and irapA. 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 even in modern Greek am KapSixis, Hira fiias, Kara BiafioXov (Thumb, Handb., pp. 103 ff.). 566 A GRAMMAR OF 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 eariier 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 h irvevnan /cat A'Srideiq. as in dxo (^6/3ou Kal TpoaSodas in Lu. 21 : 26. Cf. also h Aiicrrpois Kal 'Ikov'k^ (Ac. 16 : 2), but in verse 1 observe /cat ets Akp^riv Kal ds Micrpav, where perhaps the double conjunction plays some part. Indeed with Kal — Kal or re — Kal the preposition is commonly repeated. Thus Kal h 6X170) Kal h> fxeyoKco (Ac. 26 : 29), h> re roTs Secr/tots jxov Kal kv TJj ^^0X0719 (Ph. 1:7). With disjunctive conjunctions the repetition is usual also, as a-Ko aKavdSiv fj awo rpi^oKwv (Mt. 7: 16). With antithesis the repetition is the rule, as /ii) kv aoT]TS>p (Lu. 24 : 27), irpos Xiixwva Herpov Kal Trpds top aWov (Jo. 20 : 2), kv 8vvaiJ,tL Kal ev TrveiifiaTi aylw Kal kv irXriporpopiq, (1 Th. 1:5). In a comparison again the preposition is repeated, as kir' avroiis — &aTrep Kal k' rjtias (Ac. 11: 15). But even with disjunctive conjunctions the preposition is not always repeated, as kwl dvalv rj Tpialv (Heb. 10 : 28). In Ac. 26 : 18 airo is not repeated, though ds occurs in one member of the sentence and kiri in the other. In Jo. 16 : 8 vepi is repeated for rhetorical reasons, irtpl afiaprlas Kal wepi diKaioavvris Kal irtpl Kpl- o-eojs. Cf. Eph. 6 : 12 where the repetition occurs without a con- junction, irpos Tas apxas, Tpos rds k^ovclas, irpos tovs KOtrfiOKpaTOpas, ' etc. Cf. also Jo. 17 : 9. (c) Repetition with the Relative. The preposition is not always repeated with the relative. Usually the classic authors did not repeat the preposition with the relative when the antece- dent had it.^ So the N. T. shows similar examples, as kv fifikpais ah kiretSev (Lu. 1 : 25), eh to epyov o ■KpocrKeKkriiJ.ai (Ac. 13 : 2), 6,w6 irh- Tbiv Siv (Ac. 13 : 39), etc. But the repetition is seen in such ex- amples as eis Trjv '^Tjv ravTrjv, ds ^v (Ac. 7:4); airb irpwTiijs rip,kpas, h.(i>' ^s (Ac. 20 : 18). In Jo. 4 : 53, kKdvQ ttj oipa, kv §, the preposition oc- curs with the relative, but not with the antecedent. However, there is very httle difference between the mere locative case and kv added. Especially noticeable* is a case where the antecedent is » Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 158. = W.-Th., p. 422. 2 W.-Th., p. 420. * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 174. PREPOSITIONS (nPOSESEIs) 567 not expressed and the relative has the preposition of the antece- dent. So irepi &v in Jo. 17 : 9 is equal to irepl tovtuv o8j SeScoxds ^L. Cf. di ov (Jo. 6 : 29). (d) Condensation by Vaeiation. Once more, the variation of the preposition is a skilful way of condensing thought, each preposition adding a new idea. Paul is especially fond of this idiom. Thus in Ro. 3 : 22 we note SiKauxxiivr] 5i deov Sia irlcrTecos TtjctoD Xpto-ToO els iraxTos. Cf . verses 25 f . A particularly striking example is i^ oiroO KOil 8i avrov Koi ets avTov to Tavra (Ro. 11 : 36). Cf. also Col. 1 ; 16 ^J' avT(f 'tKTlcBri to, Tavra — 5t' avrov Kal els avrov hcricrai. Cf. iir'i, hit., kv in Eph. 4:6. In Gal. 1 : 1 Paul covers source and agency in his denial of man's control of his apostleship by the use of diro and ha. See Winer-Thayer, p. 418 f. Cf. also utto Kupiou ha ToO irpo(l>iiTov (Mt. 1 : 22) for mediate and intermediate agent. One should not make the prepositions mere synonyms. Cf. vwep (Ro. 5 : 6), 6.vTi (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 Functions of Prepositions with Cases. (a) The Case before 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 (veicev, x'^P'^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 irapd, 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 id& exprimOe par un cas employ^ adverbialement." Riem. and Cucuel, Synt. Grec, 1888, p. 213. ^ Delbruok, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 653. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 433 f. ' K.-G., I, p. 451. Cf. Delbriiok, Grundl. etc., p. 134. < K.-G., I, p. 450. 568 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (d) The Ground-Meaning of the Preposition. This must always be taken into consideration. ^ It is quite erroneous to say that Trapa, 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 English, 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 Ax,one with Prepositions. See also ch. XI. The vocative was obviously out of the question, and the nominative only appeared with pure adverbs like a,v& eh (Rev. 21 : 21). Cf. Mk. 14 : 19; Ro. 12 : 5, Kad' 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. Delbriick thinks that the Greek dative did come to be used sometimes with kiri as in Homer, eirt Tpiieaai iiaxeaBaL.* Indeed some N. T. examples of erri may naturally be datives like ^o-TrXa- yxvicGi] br' aurols (Mt. 14 : 14), fiaKpodviJ,r](Tov eir' k/wi (Mt. 18:26). But usually even with kirl the case is locative, not dative. We do have two examples of ^77115 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, Sta, e-wL (J) 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 first mentioned ('whence,' 'where,' 'whither' cases) called upon most of the prepo- sitions. The dialect inscriptions give many proofs of this matter. Thus aird and i^ both appear in the Arcadian and Cyprian dialects 1 K.-G., I, p. 451. 2 lb. ' Delbriick, Grundl. etc., pp. 130, 134. Ct. also Monro, Horn., Gr. p. 125. * lb., p. 130. 6 lb., p. 134. PREPOSITIONS (nPOGESEIz) 569 with the locative as well as the ablative.' 'A^f^t originally oc- curred with locative, accusative and genitive. The same thing was true of kiri, iMera wepL and vwo (possibly with ablative, not genitive). Indeed irepi once used the ablative also. Uapa and irpos were used with locative, accusative or ablative. It is pos- sible indeed that irpos may have been used with five cases, adding true dative and true genitive to the above.^ In the case of kirl four cases occur (Delbruck) since it apparently used the dative also. Other prepositions once were used with two cases, as av& and iv with locative and accusative (even the gen. with h and els like eis q.Sov), whereas Kara seems to use accusative, genitive, abla- tive. IIpo originally had locative as well as ablative, while mep had ablative (genitive ?) and accusative and 3id accusative and genitive. 'AvH has only genitive, while avv has only instrumental. 'Aiu^i is no longer a free preposition in the N. T., but occasionally occurs in the papyri. (g) No Adequate Division by Cases. It is very difficult, there- fore, to make any adequate division of the prepositions by the cases. There were indeed in early Greek two with only one case, eight with two, and eight Tvith 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 modern Greek els and the accusative have superseded ev and the locative and the dative proper also. Even abv and the instrumental disappear in the modem Greek verna- cular before jue (jieTo) 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, ■ Delbriick, Grundl., p. 129. . Cf. Hadley and AUen, pp. 252-260. ' Brug., Griech. Gr., 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. ' Mullach, Gr. Volg., pp. 376 ff.; Vollcer, Pap. Graec. Synt., p. 30. ' Cf. Geldart, Guide to mod. Gk., p. 247; Thumb, Handb., pp. 100 ff. 570 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT though the range of the prepositions in the matter of cases is greatly limited. The seventeen "proper" prepositions {at^pl drops out) in the N. T. use the cases as will be now shown. 1. Those with One Case. 'Avd, avrl, airo, els, ka, kv, irp6, aiv use only one case, eight as opposed to two in the early Greek {LvtI and aiiv). The cases used are not the same (accusative with ivd and eis; genitive with avrl; ablative with hirb, kK and rpd; locative with kv; instrumental with (riiv), 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 nora.). The use of the genitive (abl.) is due to literary influence. The com- mon proper prepositions in modern Greek are ets, airo, /xk, yia, and less commonly Kara, Tapa, dirts, 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: SiA, iiera, irepl, iirkp, viro. The cases used are genitive and accusative each with 3td, nera, Tepi; ablative and accusative with inrip and iiTo. In the case of wepl some of the examples can be explained as ablative (from around) , while viro seems, like iirkp, 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: kirl, /card, irapd, irpos, unless Trepi, iirkp and mo have both ablative and genitive. Kard in Mt. 8 : 32, Sipp.iiaei> Kara tov Kpriixvov, is used with the ablative. Epos indeed only has the genitive once (Ac. 27 : 34) and that is due to the literary influ- ence on the N. T.^ If irpos drops out, only three prepositions still use three cases, barring irepl, virkp and virb. Of these ira.pL is not very common (gen. 78, ace. 60, loc. 50), still less Kard, while 'tirl is still frequent (ace. 464, gen. 216, loc. 176). 4. Possibly Four with kwl. In the case of kwl indeed we may have to admit four cases, if there are examples of the pure dative like Mt. 18 : 26, fmKpodiijxria-ov ex' kfiol. But at any rate kirl and irapk alone show the old freedom in the use of the cases. (i) Each Preposition in a Case. Like other adverbs the prepositions are fixed case-forms, some of which are still apparent. Thus avrl is in the locative case, like kv{i), kirl, irepl. Cf. also irpoH (irpos) . The forms SmI and iiral occur also (datives) . The old dative Tapal occurs, while Tropd is instrumental. So ava, 5td, /cord; liera are 1 Moulton, Prol., p. 106. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 571 in the instrumental case. What vt6 is we do not know. But the case in which the preposition may be jtself 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 am and may be the same as the Lesbian, Thessalian and Cyprian 6v. Cf. English "on." It may be compared with the Old Per- sian and Gothic ana, the Latin and German an. One may com- pare the Greek iiv and Sanskrit ana.^ The fundamental idea seems to be "on," "upon," "along," like German auf, and this grows easily to "up" like Uvea in contrast with Kara {kLtw). Homer uses the adverb am as an ellipsis to mean "up." The locative was once used with ava, 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 dm 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 (di/d els) the word is merely adverb (cf. Homer), not preposition.^ Of the remaining eleven instances, four are examples of dj-d neaov with the genitive, a sort of compound prepositional phrase with the idea of "be- tween" (like Mt. 13 : 25), similar to the modern Greek ava/jxaa, and found in the LXX, Polybius, etc. One (1 Cor. 14 : 27, ava fikpos, means 'in turn,'' while the remaining six are all examples of the distributive use, like ava Svo (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, yivu- cKtLi a avaytvoicKeLs, the point turns on dm-, but it is not clear how dm- turns "know" to "read." See Ac. 10 : 20 avaaras Kara- ^■qdi 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. 'Apo does not survive in modern Greek ver- nacular (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 366). In the papyri dvd shows some new compounds not in the N. T., like kvawopevonai (Mayser, ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 436; K.-G., I, p. 473. On the N. T. prep. 8ee also Tycho Mommsen, Beitr. zu d. Lehre von d. griech. Prap. (1895). ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 178, cites some late Gk. exx. of ivi. as adv. Clearly not a Hebraism. Deiss., B. S., p. 139. 3 Blafls, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 122, cites Polyb. 572 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Gr. d. Griech.Pap.,p. 486). Delbriick, Vergl. Syntax, I, p. 734, con- siders dvd, like avri, one of the "proethnic" prepositions. It is rare in the papyri and the inscriptions (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 115). But avacrraToZ /le, 'he upsets me' (P.Oxy. 119, ii/iii a.d.) is strangely like Ac. 17 : 6 oi rriv ok. avaaTariiaavTei. (b) 'AvtC. This preposition is in the locative case of avra. 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, avraia (air-, UTT-), emvrios, ' at the end' (avTi). 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.i It is obviously the real adnominal genitive and not ablative (cf. Sanskrit adverb dnti) that we have with avrL and is like the genitive with the adverbs &vTa, avrlov, avria, and the adjective avTLos, etc.^ In Homer indeed avH has just begun to be used in composition with verbs so that it barely escapes the list 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 time§ 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, olvtIkhimi, avriXa/xPavofmL. It is absent from the inscriptions of Magnesia and Pergamon (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 115). In some of the compounds the original idea of the preposition comes out finely. Thus in a.vT-o^doKjmv'rl^ avkfuc (Ac. 27 : 15) the preposition merely carries on the idea of the 606aX/x6s. The boat could not look at ('eye, face to face') or face the wind. This root-idea is always present in avri and is the basis from which to discuss every example. It is equally plain in a word like a.vTi-Tap-7J\dev (Lu. 10: 31 f.). The priest and Levite passed along on the other side of the road, facing. (dirO the wounded traveller. Note a.vri.-piiK\€T€ in Lu. 24 : 17, where the two dis- 1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 368. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 740. 2 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) 673 ciples were exchanging words (casting them from one to the other as they faced each other, avri) with (^e another, an intimate and vivid picture of conversation. Cf. also the contrast between SlvtI and Kard. in iv6s avdi^erai (' cleave to,' ' chng to,' ' hold one 's self face to face with') mi rod irepou Karacjjpovricrei, (Mt. 6 : 24). In the double compound avv-avTL-\an^6.viTai TJj aaBevtiq, rnxSiv (Rom. 8 : 26; cf. Lu. 10 : 40) the fundamental meaning is obvious. The Holy Spirit lays hold of our wealoiess along with {ahv) us and carries his part of the burden facing us {avTi) as if two men were carrying a log, one at each end. Cf. avTi.-\aix^a.viada.i in Ac. 20 : 35. The English word "antithesis" preserves the idea also. Note Kariji'Tijaaiuej' avn- Kpw Xiou (Ac. 20 : 15) where in both verb and preposition the idea of face-to-face appears. So dx-aj'Tiitret (Mk. 14:13), avrl-vepa (Lu. 8 : 26), kv-avrl-ov (20 : 26). Now the various resultant ideas grow out of this root-idea because of different contexts. Take the notion of opposition (against). The word does not mean that in itself. The two disciples were talking in a friendly mood (ai'Ti-/3dXXeTe) , but if a man makes himself king he avn-XkyeL t& Kato-apt (Jo. 19 : 12) in a hostile sense. It is the atmosphere of rivalry that gives the colour of hostility. We see it also in the word di'Tt-xP'o'Tos (1 Jo. 2:18), di/Tt-TrtirTeTe t^ vvev/MTi (Ac. 7:51). In Lu. 21:15 three instances occur: &VTL-aTfjvai., a,vT-tntttv, avTi-Kdnevoi. Cf. dfTi-Swos (Mt. 5 : 25). There is no instance of the uncompounded preposi- tion in this sense. The idea of "in the place of "or "instead" comes where two substantives placed opposite to eaich other are equiva- lent and so may be exchanged. The majority of the N. T. ex- amples belong here. In 6(l>da\ti6v avrl 6<^0aXMoO (Mt. 5 : 38; cf. also avri oSovTos) there is exact equivalence like "tit for tat." So also Kaxdv avrl KaKov (Ro. 12 : 17; 1 Th. 5 : 15; 1 Pet. 3 : 9), 'Koi.doplav dyrt XotSopias (1 Pet. 3:9). None the less does the idea of exchange (cf. d.vT-aWa.'YiJ.a, Mk. 8 : 37) result when a fish and a snake are placed opposite each other, avrl IxBvos b^iv (Lu. 11: 11) or one's birthright and a mess of pottage (Heb. 12 : 16). In Mt. 17 : 27, ivrl e/xoC 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 Xirpov 6.utI mWSiv (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 apri of itself means " instead," which is not true, but because the context renders any other resultant idea out of the question. Compare also avriXvTpov virip iravruiv by Paul (1 Tim. 2 : 6) where both dcri and hirkp combine with \ijrpov 574 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT in expressing this idea. Cf. di'Ti-Tuiros (Heb. 9 : 24). In Mt. 2 : 22 avTL Tov Trarpds the substitution takes the form of succession as son succeeds father on the throne. Cf. kvd-iywaTOi (Ac. 13 : 7). In Jas. 4 : 15 avrl tov \iyeLv 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 ^ Ko/ir] avH irepL^dKaiov. Blass' considers x'ip"' avrl xO'P^Tos (Jo. 1 : 16) as "peculiar," but Winer ^ rightly sees the original import of the preposition. Simcox' cites from Philo xaptras yeas avrl irdkaLOTtpcov iTiSlSucrtv 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 a.v6' Siv 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 avrl robrov (Eph. 5 : 31) where the LXX (Gen. 2 : 24), which Paul does not quote, has evtKev tovtov (cf. Mk. 10 : 7; Mt. 19 : 4). There is yet another idea that comes out in composition like AvT-airo-dlBufu (Lu. 14 : 14) where Ato has the meaning of 'back' and avrl of 'in return' (cf. "in turn"). Cf. avr-airo-KplvoiMi (Lu. 14 :6) and avd-ofioKoykw (Lu. 2 : 38). In Col. 1 : 24, 6,vT-ava-Tr\rip6co, Paul uses avri in the sense of 'in his turn' (answering over to Christ). As Christ, so Paul fills up the measure of suffering. One may remark that prepositions in composition often best show their original import. (c) 'Aird. The etymology of this preposition is very simple. We note the Sanskrit dpa, Latin ah, Gothic af, English of, off. Some of the older dialects used the form dirii (Arcad., Cypr., Thess.) and the Epic dTrot is to be noted.^ We may compare &4> (airs) with Latin aps {ah; cf. k, e^). The case of a-wh cannot be deter- mined, but observe dirai above. In the Arcadian and Cyprian d-TTu is found with the locative, but in the literary Greek only the ablative is used with diro, a case in perfect harmony with the meaning of the word. The nominative Atto 6 Hiv in Rev. 1 : 4 is, ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 124. « W.-Th., p. 364. ' Lang, of the N. T., p. 137. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 225 f. The vague word &vH\riti.\pi.t (1 Cor. 12 : 28) is frequent in petitions to the Ptolemies (pap.). Cf. P. Par. 26 (b.c. 163-2). < Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 437. Cf. Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 666 ff. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 575 of course, for a theological purpose, to accent the unchangeable- ness of God. It is one of the most tqgacious of the prepositions, being extremely frequent in the N. T. both with nouns and in composition with verbs. Jannaris' gives an interesting sketch of the history of dx6 in the later Greek. In the modern Greek it is used with the accusative (the ablative only in set phrases). This accusative usage is found as early as Hermas.^ 'Ek finally vanished before drro (cf. h before eis), but in the modern Greek am also supplants to some extent dm, irp6s and inro. The expla- nation of diro is somewhat complicated therefore' since the increase of its use is due partly to the general tendency regarding prepo- sitions (cf. diro with ablative instead of the "partitive genitive") and partly to its supplanting other prepositions Uke ex, xapd, mo. 1. Original Significance. It can be easily perceived in the N. T. It is clear enough in airo-KOTTO}, for instance, ' to cut off,' as aw-eKoil^ev Jlirpos t6 iiHov (Jo. 18 : 26). Cf. awo-KoKiiTrTw, 'to take the veil off,' 'unveil' (cf. Mt. 10: 26 for contrast between KaKOvTu and dTroKaX.). So airo-dijiai, 'a treasure-house for putting things away' (Mt. 3 : 12). Cf. 6,ir-ediim(Tev (Mt. 21:33) for 'a man off from home.' So dx- k^eiTiv in Heb. 11:26 and a^-opSivre^ in 12:2. It is needless to multiply examples from the compound words* like itro-xoipeoi. Moulton' seems right against Blass* in considering dis dxd araSlcav SemirhTe (Jo. 11:18) not a real Latinism, but a mere accidental parallel to a millibus passuum duobiis. The same idiom occurs in Jo. 11 : 18; 21 : 8 and Rev. 14 : 20. It is indeed rather late Greek (Strabo, Diodorus and Plutarch), but it is not such a manifest Latinism as Jannaris' supposes. It is not the meaning of d7r6 that is imusual here, but merely the position. We say ten miles off, not off ten miles. Cf. dTro iopas 6', 'at 9 o'clock,' P. Oxy. 523 (ii/A.D.). The idea of "off " or "away from" is enough to explain the bulk of the N. T. passages. The context as a rule does not alter this simple idea. Thus airb rfjs TaXiXaLas (Mt. 3 : 13), diro rod iiSoTos (3 : 16), diro LvaroXuv (2:1), jSdXe dx6 aov (5 : 29), dxo rod iroviipov (6 : 13), aird tov nvqixelov (Lu. 24: 2), dx' kfjiov (Mt. 7: 23), mTtitavatv hnrb wavrcav (Heb. 4 : 4), &ird rrjs cbpas eKeipris (Mt. 9 : 22), M Tuv aimpnuv (Mt. 1 : 21), a4>avTos kyhtro dx' aWSiv (Lu. 24 : 31), hbBiiM dxi TOV XptoToD (Rom. 9:3). Here the ablative case and ' Hist. Gk. Gr., pp.. 369 ff. " lb., p. 373. ' Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 137. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 369. * Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 487. ^ Prol., p. 102. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 95. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 227, also sees Lat. influence here. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 371. 576 A GKAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the root-idea of the preposition make all clear. The question of place, time, person or abstract relations cuts very little figure in the matter. Wherever the ablative case is natural in Greek, there ctTro may appear to make clearer the case-idea of source or separation. Conybeare and Stock (p. 84) consider the idiom aTo 'A^paafi ecos Aaveld (Mt. 1 : 17) a Hebraism. The construction is in the LXX, but there is nothing un-Greek about it. For awb in expressions of time take d0' ^s r\tikpas (Col. 1:9). In Mt. 7 : 16, hirb tSiv Kapwujv kinyvdocreade, the notion of source is the real idea. Cf. SieXk^aro avrots airo tuv 'Ypa(l>uv (Ac. 17: 2). In Ac. 16: 33, e\ovaiv airo t&v ttXtjtwj', it seems at first as if the stripes w^eie washed from Paul and Silas and not, as here, Paul and Silas washed from the stripes. Winer ^ suggests the addition in thought of "and cleansed." Cf. Kadaplaointv eavTois aTro iravrds fio\v(rfiov (2 Cor. 7:1), which idiom Deissmann {Bible Studies, p. 216) illus- trates from the inscriptions, and on p. 227 he further cites from the inscriptions three examples of 'Kovop.aL Ltto in illustration of Ac. 16 : 33. Cf. cLTT-ivl^aro tAs x^^^pa^s (Mt. 27 : 24). In Ac. 15 : 38, t6v airotTTavra air' avrcov inrb Tlap,vKLa^, no difficulty should be found in the threefold use of dx6, since the Greek, unlike the English, loves to repeat words in varying relations. Here we have kirb in com- position, with persons, with place. See 'A^cjios diro roO oLimtos (Mt. 27 : 24) . Certainly there was never any reason for thinking KoBapbs &Tb rod alfiaTos (Ac. 20 : 26) a Hebraism, since it is the pure abla- tive idea, and the usage is continuous from Demosthenes to late Greek writers and papyri.^ We even find irXariis iirb tuv &fio)v, Pap. Par. 10, 20 (Radermacher, p. 116). The Pastor Hermae shows airb after iyKpaTevofiai, Ka.6api^op.ai, iraiofuu, v (Jo. 21: 10), eKxecS aird Tov irvevfrnTos (Ac. 2 : 17), kadUi, aird ruv ypixi-t^v (Mt. 15 : 27), trlta 6,w6 TOV yeviiimTos (Lu. 22 : 18), rlva aird tSiv 8vo (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 oi aird twv 'KpwTi.avSiv, Pelagia (Usener, p. 28) as fairly parallel with oval — aird tS>v cKavSaXuv (Mt. 18:7). The partitive use of the ablative with dx6 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 TOV airb KeXTcov (jto^ov in Polybius XVII, 11, 2 (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 116). Cf. -ipSvfia &t6 TpixSiv (Mt. 3 : 4) with the old genitive of material. 4. Comparison with kK. But diro needs to be compared more particularly with k which it finally displaced save^ in the Epirot dx or ox. But the two are never exactly equivalent. 'Ek means 'from within' while awo is merely the general starting-point. 'Atto does not deny the "within-ness"; it simply does not assert it as h does. Thus in Mk. 1 : 10 we read avafialvuv k tov iiSaToj when ' Moulton, Prol., p. 102. » Sel., etc., p. 83. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 126. * Moulton, Prol., p. 102. 578 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the assertion is made by k that Jesus had been in the water (cf. Kara — eis, ava — k in Ac. 8 : 38 f.). But in Mt. 3 : 16 we merely read avi^ri diro tov vSaros, a form of expression that does not deny the k of Mark. The two prepositions are sometimes combined, as i^e\detv clt' aiirijs (Ac. 16 : 18) and dc^optoOtrtc k fikffov (Mt. 13:49). Even with the growth in the use of a-ro it still falls behind k in the N. T.' Both dx6 and k are used of domicile or birthplace, but not in exactly the same sense.* Thus in Jo. 1 : 44 see ^v 5i 6 ^i\nriros diro BridtraLda, tK rrjs TroXecos 'Av8peov, where aTTo corresponds closely with the German von and French de which came to be marks of nobility. So in verse 45, 'Icoo-tJc^ tov ard Naf apex, where (in both verses) no effort is made to express the idea that they came from within Nazareth. That idea does appear in verse 46, k Nafaper. In Lu. 2 : 4 both airo and k are used for one's home (aird T7JS FaXtXaias k ^Xecos Nof aper) . Indeed k in this sense in the N. T. seems confined to ttoXw.' Both appear again in Jo. 11 : 1. Cf. also Jo. 7 : 41 f., k rfjs TaXiXalas, awd BriOXeifi, where the two prepositions are reversed. The Latin versions render both diro and k here by a.'* Cf. aird ' Apifiadaias (Jo. 19 : 38). Abbott' is clear that John does not mean to confuse the two prepositions, but uses each in its own sense, though air6 is not found in the older writers for domicile. The sense of variety, as in English, may have led to the use of now one, now the other, since at bottom either answers. So Luke in Ac. 23 : 34 has k rotas krapxilas, but dirA KtXtKias. Cf. Ac. 1 : 4. Blass^ notes that outside of John the N. T. writers use otto for one's country. So even Luke in Ac. 24 : 18, diro Trjs 'Ao-tas. The MSS. indeed vary in some instances between diro and k as in Ac. 16 : 39 with t^j xoXecos. Cf . MS. variation be- tween diro and irapa in Mk. 16 : 9. Cf. also Ac. 13 : 50 for k — diro. In a case like ol diro ttjs TraXtas (Heb. 13 : 24) the preposition does not determine whether the persons are still in Italy or are outside of Italy. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 237. But Deissmann {Light, etc., p. 186) thinks that diro here means 'in,' like diro $/iaO in an ostra- con from Thebes, a.d. 192. Cf. tS>v dir' 'O^vpvyx^v ToXeccs, P. Oxy. 38, A.D. 49. 'Airo is also, like 4/c (Ac. 10 : 45, etc.), used for mem- bers of a party in Ac. 12 : 1, tlvm tOiv air6 ttjs kKKXtialas, an un-Attio usage. But on the whole the two prepositions can be readily dis- tinguished in the N. T. 5. Comparison with irapa. As to xapd, it suggests that one has 1 Moulton, Prol., p. 102. ■• Abbott, Job. Gr., p. 228. ' Abbott, Job. Gr., p. 227 f. ' lb., p. 229. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 125. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 125. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 579 been by the side of the one from whom he comes. In relation to God we find kx tov deov e^rfKdov (Jo. 8 : 42), irapd rod iraTpds k^rj'Kdov (16 : 27), airb Beov k^rj^des (16 : 30). C? irpds t6v dedv (Jo. 1 : 1). It would be overrefinement to insist on a wide and radical difference here between aTo, k and irapa; and yet they are not exactly syn- onymous. In the older Greek Trapa was the common preposition for the conscious personal depaaiture.^ But in N. T. diro occurs also with persons. So aKrjKoaiiev dir' aiirov (1 Jo. 1:5), nadetp d^', vnoov (Gal. 3:2), iraptXafiou diro rod Kvpiov (1 Cor. 11 : 23). One must not, however, read too much into otto, as in Gal. 2 : 12, where nvas diro 'laKco^ov does not mean 'with the authority of James,' though they doubtless claimed it. Of. Mk. 15 : 45; 1 Th. 3 : 6. One doubts if we are justified in insisting on a radical distinction between irapa tov irarpos (Jo. 10 : 18) and diro tov Kvpiov (1 Cor. 11 : 23) save as etjonology throws light on the matter.^ 6. Compared with vvo. The MSS. of ancient writers,^ as of the N. T., varied often between avb and vt6. 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 a-wb is the correct text. The use of OTTO with the agent is not precisely like {itto, though one has only to compare a-wb with Latin ab and English of to see how natural it is for airb to acquire this idiom. Observe KarecexSew avb tov virvov (Ac. 20:9). So in Jas. 1:13, dTrd Beov xetpdfo/iat, we trans- late 'tempted of God.' The temptation, to be sure, is presented as coming from God. Cf. also 6 nurBbs 6 a4)vaTepi)iievoi d0' i)pMV (Jas. 5:4), where the keeping back of the reward is conceived as coming from you. Cf. Ac. 4 : 36. In Mt. 16 : 21, woBeiv axb Tuv irpea^vTipoip, 'at the hands of,' is a free rendering of the idea of agency or source. In Lu. 16 : 18, a.iro\tKvnev7]v dTrd dvbpbs, note the repetition of dx6. This idea of removal is present in iadrjvai airb (Lu. 6 : 17) and in evoxKoviJievoi avb (6 : 18) it is agency. There may be a zeugma in the last clause. In Lu. 9 : 22, awodoKcuaadrjvaL airb tG>v vp&r^vTipv, we have the same construction as in 16 : 18 above (cf. 17: 25). Cf. vTOLnaffnevov airo tov Beov (Rev. 12 : 6) and Ac. 2 : 22 airoSeSeijuivov airb tov Beov. The use of airb after substantives throws some light on this matter. Thus rfiv diro o-oD eTayyeKlav (Ac. 23 : 21), airb aov ciiixeiou (Mt. 12 : 38). This use of diro 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 airb comes to express. ' W.-Th., p. 370. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 125. » Cf. W.-Th., p. 370. » Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 138. 580 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT It may also be used for the idea of cause, an old usage of {nro. For instance, take diro t^s x^tpSs avrov uird7ei (Mt. 13 : 44), 6.iro tov (^ofiov eKpa^av (14 : 26), obal tQ Kbaix(:o a-ro rSiv CKavhaKoiv (18 : 7), Koincafievovs awo ttjs Xiixijs (Lu. 22 : 45), obKkri taxvov airo tov ttXtjSous (Jo. 21 : 6), ovK hk^twov airo ttjs 86^s (Ac. 22 : 11). Cf. further Lu. 19 : 3; 24 : 41; Ac. 12 : 14; 20 : 9; Heb. 5 : 7, etc. The LXX gives abundant illustration of the same idiom, ^ the causal use of cLTTo. As a matter of sound see ^<^' 6v and Axj)' ijs in Heb. 7 : 13. (d) Aid. Delbriick^ says: "Of the origin of Sia I know nothing to say." One hesitates to proceed after that remark by the master in syntax. Still we do know something of the history of the word both in the Greek and in other Indo-Germanic tongues. The form Sia may be in the instrumental case, but one must note Siai (datiye) in the lyric passages of ^schylus, not to say the Thessalian 5te.' But there is no doubt about 5td being kin to 8vo, Sis. Sanskrit dva, dvi (cf. tray as, tn), dvis; Latin duo, bis (cf. Sanskrit dvis, Greek fits, b=v or v); German zwei; English two (fem. and neut.), twain (masc), twi-ce, twi-Ught, be-tween, two-fold, etc. 1. The Root-Idea. It is manifest in Bia-Koaixn, Stcr-xiXtot, Si-Spaxiia, 5i-5rXo0s (cf. d-7rXoDs). The etymology of the word is 'two,' Bbo, as shown in these three words as well as in Sis, St-irXoai, all of which occur in the N. T. Thus it will be seen how persistent is the ety- mological force in the word. Cf. Mk. 6 : 37; Rev. 18 : 6; Mk. 5 : 13. See also SU fivpiiSes (Text. Rec, Svo fi. Rev. 9 : 16), 5i-Xo7os (1 Tim. 3 : 8), 5i-(TT0fu>s (Heb. 4: 12), 51-4'vxos (Jas. 1 : 8), Sl-5paxiMv (Mt. 17: 24), Ai-SuMos (Jo. 11 : 16). Cf. kaxiffdr, els Siio (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-6a\acr(Tos originally meant 'resembling 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 iniepSiv Sia-^tvonivuv tlvSiv (Ac. 25 : 13) , ' some days came in between ' (5td) . Cf . Sia-yviiaoimi to. koB' vpRs (Ac. 24 : 22) with Latin di-gnosco, dis-cerno and Greek-English dia-gnosis (SLa-^vcoaiv, Ac. 25:21). Aia-OriKri is an arrangement or covenant between two (Gal. 3 : 17). See Si-aipovv (1 Cor. 12 : 11); S(.a-8iSo3p,i. (Lu. 11:22) 'divide'; oWiv Si-tKpivev fiera^v iiniav re /cai abrSiv (Ac. 15 : 9) where /iera^fi explains 5id. Cf . SiA-Kpuris (Heb. 5 :14), 'dis- » C. and S., p. 83. » Vergl. Synt., I, p. 759. ' K.-Bl., II, p. 250. Cf. KaraL, irapal, inral. PREPOSITIONS (npoeE2Eis) 581 crimination'; Sta-XetTrco (Lu. 7 : 45), 'intervals of delay'; Sia-Xico (Ac. 5 : 36), 'dis-solve'; 5ta-juepifw (Ac. 2 : ^S), 'dis-tribute'; SLa-pi]yvvni (Lu. 8 :29), 'rend asunder'; Sia-o-Kopirifto (Jo. 11 : 52), opposed to (^w- ayo), 'di-sperse'; Sto-o-iraoj (Mk. 5:4), 'rend in two'; 3ia-<7iretp£o (Ac. 8:1)=' scatter abroad ' ; 5i.a-cTropd (Jo .7:35),' dispersion ' ; Sta-trr^XXw (Heb.l2:20), 'divide'; 6id-o-T7)Ma(Ac.5:7), 'distance 'or 'interval'; 5ta-o-ToXj) (1 Cor. 14: 7), 'distinction'; Sta-TWeMC" (Lu. 22: 29), 'dis- pose'; Sia-(l>kpb) (Ac. 27:27, Mt. 6:26), 'bear apart,' 'differ'; 5id- tjiopos (Ro. 12 : 6), 'different '; 3i-xafa) (Mt. 10 : 35), ' set at variance ' ('cleave asunder'). These numerous examples ought to be suffi- cient to show what the real meanihg of the word in itself is. A particularly noticeable instance appears in Lu. 24 : 51, where we have Si,-k(TT7i atr' ahrSov. 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 6t' fip,tpuv means 'interval of days,' 'days between,' 'after some days,' though surely no one would think that 5ta really means 'after.' Cf. Mt. 26 : 61, Slo, rpidv rifiepSiv (cf. kv, 27 : 40); 5i' fTuv irKeLovdJv, Ac. 24 : 17; Gal. 2 : 1, 3ia StKareaaapwv IrSiv. Cf. Ac. 5 : 7. In Ac. 1 : 3, St' rifiepuv TtacepaKovra OTrravbixevo^, 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 Slo, wktos (Ac. 5 : 19; 16 : 9, etc.), 'by night,' diA 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 5ia, 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), 5id fikaov Sa/tapias (cf. 5id fikaov, 4 : 30), and even here note the genitive after ukaov. Some MSS. in Jo. 8 : 59 read also 8td likiTov. 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 Si.a-KoJBapi.t't TTiv oKwm (Mt. 3:12), 'will thoroughly cleanse.' Cf. also Sia-zSatw ' Jann., Hist. Gr. Gk., p. 374. ' Monro, Horn. Or., p. 145. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 105. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 132. 582 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (Heb.ll:29), 5ta-|3X^ir&)(Mt.7:5), 5t-o77€XXw (Lu.9:60), Sia-ypriyopk) (Lu. 9 :32), Si-kyco (1 Tim. 2:2), SiaSixoiiai (Ac. 7:45), Sw-Kort- Xe7xojuai (Ac. 18 : 28), Sia-iiaxoiMi (Ac. 23 : 9), Sia-nkvo) (Lu. 1 : 22), dia-vvKTepevc>} (Lu. 6 : 12), di-aviioi (Ac. 21 : 7), bia-irapaTpifii) (1 Tim. 6:5); 3ta-o-eicvKa.crir(i3 (4 : 10). This sense of Sta 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, Stepxerat Si' avvbpm roTTiiiv, h{,k ^rjpSis (Heb. 11 : 29), 5ta rfjs Sa/iaptas (Jo. 4 : 4), Std Tvpds (1 Cor. 3 : 15), 5i' ia&rrTpov (1 Cor. 13 : 12). Cf. Ac. 13 : 49; 2 Cor. 8 : 18. In E.0..15 : 28, LveKeiiconon St vfiSiv els Xiraviav, Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 378) takes Si' iiuiv 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 ^ to ets. But some examples occur in the N. T. hke Si' oKris vvKTos (Lu. 5:5), which may be compared with 5id irajris tov ^v (Heb. 2 : 15) and the common phrase Sia. iravris (Mk. 5:5). Here the idea of through is applied to time. Rouffiac (Recherches, p. 29) cites Sia tov x^'^f^vos o\ov from inscriptions of Priene 112, 98 and 99 (i/B.c). The agent may also be expressed by Si6.. This function was also performed in the ancient Greek, though, when means or instrument was meant, the instrimiental case was com- monly employed.^ Aid ig thus used with inanimate and animate objects. Here, of course, the agent is conceived as coming in be- tween the non-attairmient and the attainment of the object in view. One may compare ypa^avTts Sid xetpds ahruiv (Ac. 15 : 23) with Sxio eTTicTToXds, 5td N?j56/«)i» piav, Sia Kpov'iov fiaxaipo4>6pov piav, B.U. 1079, A.D. 41 (Milligan, Greek Pap., p. 39). So oi ek\o> Std fieXavos Kal KoKa/jiov trot ypi.ijieiv (3 Jo. 13), SiA, 7Xd)tro'Jjs (1 Cor. 14: 9^, TO. Sia TOV iriifiaTOi (2 Cor. 5 : 10), Sia tS>v ottXcoj' (2 Cor. 6:7), iiiire Sia xceUjUaTos nr/re 5td X670U /ti^Tt 81 iTi(TTo\rjs (2 Th. 2:2). In 2 Pet. 3 : 5 note the difference between e^ uSaros and Si' vSaros. Abstract ideas are frequently so expressed, as a-taua-nkvoi Sia xio-Tewj (Eph. 2 : 8), Sia. de\r)naTos deov (Eph. 1 : 1), Sia tov eiayyeXiov (1 Cor. 4 : 15), 5td v6tu>v (Ro. 3 : 27), Si' kroKaXi^tois (Gal. 1 : 12). Cf. 1 Cor. 6 : 14. When Std occurs with the personal agent, he is regarded as the in- termediate agent. Sometimes the immediate agent is also, ex- pressed by mo. So inrb Kupiou Std tov irpo(t>riTov (Mt. 1 : 22, etc.). Cf. also Sid T^s yvvaiKos — k tov Beov (1 Cor. 11 : 12), where source and mediate agent are distinguished. In Gal. 1 : 1, dir' avSpiiruv — 1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 374. ' lb., p. 375. PREPOSITIONS (nPOGESEIs) 583 5t' av9pi)irov, Paul takes pains to deny both ideas. In 1 Cor. 8 : 6, i^ ol — h' ov, the first refers to God th# Father as the source of all things and the second refers to Jesus as the mediate agent by whom all things come into existence. Cf. Col. 1 : 16. Indeed God himself may be regarded as source, mediate agent, and ulti- mate object or end, as Paul does in his noble doxology in Ro. 11 : 36, oTt k^ aiiTov Kal 8i' avrov Kal eis avrdv rd iravra. There are other instances also where God is looked upon as the intervening cause or agent. So 8i' ov (Heb. 2 : 10; 1 Cor. 1:9). But 5td is often used with Christ in regard to our relation to God (cf . Paul's use of iv). Thus Ro. 1 : 8; 5 : 1, etc. Cf. 5i' k/wv in Jo. 14 : 6, Sia, toXXwi' fiapriipoiv (2 Tim. 2 : 2), Si' ayyk'Kwv (Heb. 2 : 2). The intermediate idea of dia appears well in 1 Cor. 3 : 5 SiaKovoi Si' Siv iiruTTevaare, Heb. 3 : 16 Sid Mciiva-kos, Ro. 5 : 5 Sid Tveifiaroi. In 1 Th. 4 : 2, TLvas irapdyyeXias kSdiKapiev vixiv Sid tov Kvpiov 'Irjcrov, the matter seems turned round, but, as Paul was the speaker, he con- ceives Jesus as also making the commands. Abbott, Johannine Grammar, p. 236, rightly argues in favour of 'through him ' (not ' it ') in Jo. 1 : 7. It is important to note Sid 'Ijjo-oO XpiaroD (Eph. 1 : 5), pregnant with meaning. Cf. Schettler, Die paulinische Formel "Durch Christus," pp. 28 ff. This use of Sid occurs in the papyri (Wenger, Die Stellvertretung im Rechte der Papyri, 1906, p. 9 f.). Christ is conceived as our representative (Deissmann, lAght, etc., p. 340). It is not far from the notion of means like Sid Triareus to that of manner like Sid Tapa^oXrjs (Lu. 8:4). Indeed the two shade off into one another as Si' Spafiaros (Ac. 18 :9). Note also St' d7dirr;j (Gal. 5:6), Si' £7ra77eXias (Gal. 3 : 18), Stci fipaxei^v (Heb. 13 : 22), 5i' oXiycov (1 Pet. 5 : 12), St' vdaros Kal aifiaTos (1 Jo. 5 : 6), Std ypd/jtimTOS Kal irepirofirjs (Ro. 2 : 27), Std TrpoaKOfifiaTos (14 : 20), Sid Sojijs (2 Cor. 3 : 11), St' iwoixovfji (Heb. 12 : 1), Std iroWSiv SaKpvuv (2 Cor. 2:4). Cf. Rom. 2 : 27. But here also the notion of between is always present. This is true even in a case like Std Tuv olKTipfMv TOV 6eov (Ro. 12 : 1). Cf. also Std rijs x^pi-Tos in Ro. 12 : 3 with Std rriv X'ip"' in 15 : 15. 4. 'Because of.' With the accusative Std comes to be used with the idea of 'because of,' 'for the sake of,' 'on account of.' The notion of between is still present. Take Mt. 27 : 18, Std i in Ph. 1 : 26. Note also h kixol Khpie in late LXX books (Thackeray, Gr., p. 14). One may compare 'ewoi-qaav iv air^ (Mt. 17 : 12). There seems no doubt that duoXoyiu kv (Mt. 10 : 32; Lu. 12 : 8) is due« to literal translation of the Aramaic. The use of kv with bjivbvai (Mt. 5 : 34) is similar to the Hebrew 3. 8. Accompanying Circumstance. It is needless to multiply un- duly the various uses of kv, which are "innumerable" in the LXX' where its chief extension is due to the imitation of the Hebrew a.' But by no means all these uses are Hebraic. Thus kv for the idea of accompanying circumstance is classical enough (cf. kv '6irh)K dvai, Xen. Anab. 5. 9, like English "The people are up in arras"), though the LXX abounds with it. It occurs also in the papyri. Cf. Tb.P. 41 (119 B.C.). Here kv draws close to ixeri. and (riv in ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 131. Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 144, con- siders this an "extras-grammatical" point. 2 Prol., p. 103. With this cf. voiiu iv (Mt. 17 : 12; Lu. 23 : 31), an idiom paralleled in the LXX. Cf . k^iKkiwro iv iiujl (1 Chron. 28 : 4), iph-wa iv air^ (IChron. 28 :6). ' Prol., p. 103. ' Pro!., 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 (nPOGESEIs) 589 usage. Note, for instance, kv 8iKa xtXiAcw' {iiravTrjaai, (Lu, 14 : 31), ijXflec iv AyLais livpi&aiv avrov (Ju. 14), ij/*ira(nv avaka^byrts (Eph. 6 : 16), y aroKais irepiiraTeiv (Mk. 12 : 38), Ipxavrai kv kv8vna&iv vpo^&TOiv (Mt. 7:15), kv Xeu/coTs Kade^oiikvovs (Jo. 20:12), neraca- TikaaTO — iv ^ux^'s (-A-C. 7: 14), elckpxfTai. kv aluari (Heb. 9 : 25), kv T^ iiSaTi Kal kv r<^ alVari (1 Jo. 5 : 6), kv /Jd/SStj) ^Xflto (1 Cor. 4 : 21), iv irh)piiiu>.Ti (Ro. 15 : 29), kv KeXtixr/iaTi (1 Th. 4 : 16), irepipaXeiTai kv J/iorlots (Rev. 3 : 5; cf. Mt. 11 : 8). Note also kv ixvarrip'uf XdKovfiev (1 Cor. 2 : 7) where 'in the form of is the idea. These examples show the freedom of the preposition in this direction. Somewhat more complicated is a passage like avdpuiros kv irveijiiaTi anoBapTt^ (Mk. 1 : 23), which Blass* properly compares with Tvevpa liKoSaprov Ixa (Mk. 3 : 30), and the double use in Ro. 8 : 9, i/^eis bk ovk kcrk kv aapd &\Ka kv irvevfiari, ettrep trveviM deov olKti kv ifuv (followed by TTViviM XpiffTov OVK exet)' The notion of manner is closely al- lied to this idiom as we see it in kv Simuxj-tv^ (Ac. 17 :. 31), kv Tapprj- d^ (Col. 2 : 15), kv raxet (Lu. 18 : 8, cf. raxii and raxkcos). Cf. Mt. 6:18 and Jo. 18:20. 9. 'Amounting to,' 'Occasion,' 'Sphere.' Moulton* considers Mk. 4 : 8, 'kei.\^naTi, as "predicative" use of kv. He compares Eph. 2 :15,kv baypaaiv, 'consisting in decrees.' Certain it is that in Rev. 5 : 9 rjybpacas kv tQ at/xaTi tIpi. (Mt. 5 : 13), nerpioi iv cj nhpt^ (Mt. 7 : 2).^ The construction in itself is as old as Homer.' Cf. hv dijjdaXfiois Fi-Skcdai. (II. i. 587), kv irvpl Kaleiv (II. xxiv. 38). It is ab- normally frequent in the LXX under the influence of the Hebrew ?,* but it is not so common in the N. T. Besides, the papyri show undoubted examples of it.^ Moulton finds Ptolemaic ex- amples of h> naxai-PV) Tb.P. 16 al. ; BiaXvonivai kv Tcp \lhQ Par. P. 28 (ii/B.c), while 22 has tQ XinQ diaXvdijvai and note toiis kvtaxi)- fikvovs iv TLciv ayvorjixacnv, Par. P. 63 (ii/s.c.) . We can only say, therefore, that the LXX accelerated the vernacular idiom in this matter. The Aramaic probably helped it on also. The blending of the instnunental with the locative in form facilitated this usage beyond a doubt," and the tendency to use prepositions abundantly helped also.^ But even so one must observe that all the N. T. examples of kv can be explained from the point of view of the locative. The possibihty of this point of view is the reason why kv was so used in the beginning. I pass by examples like /SaiTTtfco kv vSaTi, PairTiaei kv irvehnari ayLcf /cat Trvpi (Mt. 3 : 11) as probably not being instances of the instrxraiental usage at all. But there are real instances enough. Take Lu. 22 : 49 el ra- ra^onev kv fiaxalpv! Here the smiting can be regarded as lo- cated in the sword. To be sure, in Enghsh, we translate the resultant idea by 'with,' but kv in itself does not mean 'with.' That resultant idea can only come in the proper context. So kv T(3 Beefe/3oi;X HpxovTi t&v SaL/wvioiv k/JaXXet (Mt. 12 : 24). Here the casting out is located in the prince of demons. Cf . Kptcco kv &v8pl (Ac. 17: 31), kv ^pax'iovi (Lu. 1: 51), kv 86\(f (Mk. 14 : 1), kv (j>6v(^ fiaxalpris (Heb. 11 : 37). The Apocalypse has several examples, like ■KoKepiijco} kv rfj ^fufiaiq, (2 : 16), aTOKTeivai kv poijupaig. aal kv "KifiQ Kal kv Bavarco (6 : 8), kv jxaxaipv airoKTtvet (13 : 10). In Rev. 14 : 15, Kpa^oov kv (av^, 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 Koivi] 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. 5 Moulton, Prol., pp. 12, 61, 104, 234 f . » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 379. , 8 lb., p. 61. s joh. Gr., p. 256. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 591 amples of Deissmann and Moulton do not exactly parallel the N. T. instrumental use. For repetition of kv see 2 Cor. 6 : 4 ff. (/) Ets. There is nothing to add to the etymology of ds as com- pared with that of iv save that ds is known to be really h-s as we find it in the inscriptions of Argos, Crete, etc. So kvs 'AOavaiau} This s seems to have been added to kv by analogy to e^.^ Usually with the disappearance of v the form was eis, but Thucydides, like the Ionic and Doric writers a,nd 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 ^olic ets gradually drove out all the other forms.* Originally, therefore, kv alone existed with either locative or accusative, and ets appears nowhere else save in the Greek. The classic use of ets A't'Sou (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 elff-Kucdai means merely to lie within. But, though ets 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 ets plus the accusative. The resultant idea would often be 'into,' but this was by no means always true. Ets is not used much in composition in the N. T. and always where motion is involved save in the case of da-aKovu where there seems little difference between ds and kv (cf. 1 Cor. 14 :21; Mt. 6:7). In itself ds expresses the same dimension relation as kv, viz. in.^ It does not of itself mean into, 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 earUer Greek. This was naturally so, since in the vernacular ets finally drove kv out entirely and did duty for both, just as originally kv did. The only difference is _that ets used the one case (accusative), whereas kv used either ac- • Solmsen, Inscr. Graecae, p. 46. ^ Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 438. He treats iv and els together. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 376. ' Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, II, p. 525. Cf. also 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 kvs bpBbv (before vowel), but h t6v (before consonant). « K.-G., I, p. 468. 592 A GRAMMAR 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 {hs) with only the general notion of the accusative case. Certainly the vernacular laid less stress on the distinction between eis and kv than the literary language did. Though ets falls behind h 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 ds oc- cur. Some of these were referred to under kv, where the "pregnant" use of iv for eis occurs. Hatzidalds gives abundant examples of kv as ds and eis as kv. Cf. eis 'AXe^dvSpetai' ka-ri, B.U. ii. 385; eis rvvfiov Keliiai, Kaibel Epigr. 134; KivdvveiicravTOs eis BaXaa-crav, B.U. 423 (ii/ A.D.). Deissmann {Light, p. 169) notes Paul's uvBivois kv flaXdao-jj 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 kfiairTiadri eis t6v 'lopSavriv as an example. The idea of motion in /SaTrrifco suits eis as well as kv in Mk. 1 : 5. Cf. vl^paL eis (Jo. 9:7). But in Mt. 28 : 19, /Sairrifoi'Tes eis rb ovofia, and Ro. 6 : 3 f., eis Xpicrrbv and eis rov ddvarov, the notion of sphere is the true one. The same thing may be true of jSaTr- TLcrBrjToi eis a4>e(TLv rdv atia.pTi.Siv (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 t:ma iab as Tholuck does {Beitrdge zur Spracherkldrung des N. T., p. 47 f;). Indeed the use of '6voixa for person is common in the papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 196 f.). Deissmann gives examples of eis ivoiia, kv' bvoixaros, and the mere locative bvbfuiTi, from the papyri. The static use of eis is seen in its distributive use like kv in Mk. 4 : 8, eis rpiarnvra km. kv i^Kovra mi iv eKarov. 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. 122. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 593 Kiipiiaauv els tAs avva'yiayas (Mk. 1 : 39) where there is some excuse for the "pregnant" explanation because «i ^\div. So eKdoiv Ka.T<^Kn- atv eis voKiv (Mt. 2 : 23; 4 : 13), but note only Trapv/cTjo-eyeis y^v (Heb. 11 : 9) and tbpkdn ds "A^caTov (Ac. 8 : 40). Cf. Kadrinkuov els rd 6pos (Mk. 13 : 3), 6 els rdv aypdv (Mk. 13 : 16), tols els top oIkov (Lu. 9 : 61), els rijv koIttiv elaiv (Lu. 11 : 7), ejKa.TaKebpets els q.8r]v (Ac. 2:27; cf. verse 31), toTs eis iJ.aKpav (2 :39), els xoKriv — 6vTa (Ac. 8 : 23), iiriiTxev xpo^ov els Trjv 'kalav (Ac. 19 : 22), lurodavelv els 'Iepou(raX)7M (Ac. 21 : 13), eis 'Viifirtv naprvpfjaai (Ac. 23 : 11), TtipetaBat eis KaKrapiac (Ac. 25 : 4), b Siv els tov koKttov (Jo. 1 : 18), ol rpeis els TO iv elaiv (1 Jo. 5:8), eis fjv arijTe (1 Pet. 5 : 12). Nor is this quite all. In some MSS. in Mk. 2 : 1 we have ets oIkov eanv (XBDL b otiiv). In Ac. 2 : 5 the MSS. vary between eis and ev as in Mk. 10 : 10. Another instance is found in Eph. 3 : 16, KpaTauiidrjvaL els TOV 'e(Tca avdpuTTov. Cf. Jo. 20 : 7; Mk. 13 : 9. But in ■earrri els t6 likaov (Jo. 20 : 19, 26) we have motion, though 'earri els tov alyioKov (Jo. 21 : 4) is an example of rest. Jo. 17 : 23 is normal. In Mt. 10 : 41 f., eis ovopia irpoiiTov (p,a3riTov, SiKaiov) one can see little dif- ference between eis and kv. Certainly this is true of Mt. 12 : 41, neTevoriaav eis Kijpvyim 'Iwva, where it is absurd to take els as ' into' or 'unto' or even 'to.' See also awrjyp.kvoi els to 'epav oTO^ua (Mt. 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 ev so with eis, the noun itself gives the boundary or limit. So eis tijv oldav (Mt. 2 : 11), eis to opos (5 : 1), eis TO irpaLTiipLov (27 : 27), eis ^dXoircrai' (17 : 27), eis t6v ovpavbv (Rev. 10 : 5), eis Wvi] (Ac. 22 : 21), eis weipaa/wv (Mt. 6 : 13), eis to livninelov (Jo. 11 : 38), eis ttjv 656v (Mk. 11 : 8), eis tovs imdr}Ta,s (Lu. 6 : 20), eis Tohs Xno-Tds (Lu. 10 : 36), eis Kkbr)v (Rev. 2 : 22), eis Ttt Se^ia (Jo. 21 :6), eis n/c (ce^aXiyc (Mt. 27:30), eis rds ajKoKas (Lu. 2 :28), eis fiXoc t6v k6c^v (Mk. 14 : 9), eis ipRs (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 princi- ple, such as els d\lyl/iv (Mt. 24:9), awayeiv els ev (Jo. 11:52), eis r^v ^uijv (Mt. 18:8), els Kplciv (Jo. 5:24), els maKO'fiv (2 Cor. 594 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 10 : 5), els x^ipas (Mt. 17 : 22), etc. For many interesting exam- ples of €v and CIS see Theimer, Die Prdpositionen eis, h, ex im N. T., Beitrdge 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 vKa^ai ds kKdvqv riyv rinkpav where 'until' suits as a translation (cf. 'against'). Cf. Ph. 1 : 10, eis ■fiixifmv XpiffTov. Not quite so sharp a limit is eis ttiv aipiov (Mt. 6 : 34). Cf. 1 Pet. 1:11. There is little that is added by the preposition to the accusative in such examples as €is to iikWov (Lu. 13 : 9), eis Tov aiwva (Mt. 21 : 19), eis yeveas Kai yeceAs (Lu. 1 : 50), eis t6 SLi]veKks (Heb. 7:3), etc. Cf. Lu. 12 : 19. But a more definite period is set in cases like els tov Kaipbv (Lu. 1 : 20), els to liera^b (r6.ppciTov {Ac. 13 :42). 4. Like a Dative. It is not strange to see els used where disposition or attitude of mind is set forth. Indeed already eis and the accusative occur where the dative alone would be sufii- cient. This is especially true in the LXX, but the papyri show examples also. Cf. ol els Xpl(tt6v (Mart. Pauli, II). Moulton (Prol., p. 246) cites Tb.P. 16, ov \riyovTes ttjc [els] olOtovs aWaSlq,, "where eis actually stands for the possessive genitive." One must remember the complete disappearance of the dative in modern Greek * ver- nacular. Note rrjs \oyia,s ttjs els tovs &ylovs (1 Cor. 16 : 1), wXovTii els irdvTas (Ro. 10 : 12), TrXeorafw eis (Ph. 4 : 17), kXeJifwaiivas itovijaiiiv els t6 Wvos (Ac. 24 : 17), \eLTovpy6v els to. edvri (Ro. 15 : 16), 6,T0^\kTrii> els (Heb. 11 : 26), X^t" ew (Ac. 2 : 25), 6p.vbca els (Mt. 5 : 34 f.), tA avTO els aXKrfKovs (Ro. 12 : 16), iricTeveiv els (Mt. 18 : 6), xf^l"'''^ «'S (Eph. 4 : 32), ayLvriv els (Ro. 5:8), etc. If one entertains hostile feelings the resultant idea with eis will be 'against,' though the word does not of itself mean that. So in Lu. 12 : 10 eis Tbv vl6i> rod avdpdjTTOv (cf . KaTo. in Mt. 12 : 32) and eis to dyi-ov irvevfia ^'\aa<\)i)- HrjcravTi, 0'Ka.(Tv (2 Cor. 2 : 12). Here the second eis suggests th» purpose of his coming. Cf. also TOVTO iroitire eis rriv i/ifiv avafivri6^ov in Ro. 8 : 15, eis evdu^Lv in Ro. 3 : 25, eis fwiji' aidivtov in Jo. 6 : 27. One may not doubt also that this is the idea in Mt. 26 : 28, to irepl ttoWSiv kKxvvvofievov eis &4>e eis (Jo. 13 : 29), tU airavTrjo^w (Mt. 25 : 6), eis hravTrja-iv ai/T^ (Jo. 12 : 13).' Cf. ^vKoiv eis k'KaiSiva.s nov (Fay. P., 50 a.d.), 'sticks for my olive-gardens' (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 157), ds tinrov kvox^ointvov (P. Fl.-Pet., ii. xxv, 226 B.C.), 'for a sick horse' (Deissmann, B. S., p. 118). Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 112) cites wKoSoiiriaev — eis iavTov (83 N. Chr. Wadd. Inscr., 2614). 6. Predicative Use. But there remains one more use of eis which, though good Koivii, was greatly accelerated by the influence of the LXX.^ This is where eis occurs in the predicate with dfii or ylvo/iai, kt\. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 16 f.) quotes IW firj eis i/caiiiov ykvriTai, P. Fay. 119, 276 (100 a.d.); Heliod., MtUo-p.Nl, 14, ripi irripav eis KoBkSpav Troiriaaphii]; and even the Attic author .(Eneas 114, 5 H, ywaiKas dw\l(TavTes ois es avSpas. Thus in Lu. 3 : 5, iarai to. (tkoXici eis tWelas (Is. 40 : 4). So iaeade /xoi eis vtoiis Kal dvya- Tkpa.% (2 Cor. 6 : 18, LXX); iaovTai, ol 8{io eis (rapna ixiav (Mt. 19 : 5; cf. Gen. 2 : 24); ^ Xinrri ip^Siv eis xap"" yeviicreTai (Jo. 16 : 20). Cf. Lu. 13 : 19. As already remarked, this predicate use of eis ap- pears in the papyri' and in the Apostolic Fathers,* but not with ' This can no longer be called a Hebraism, since the pap. have it. Moulton, Prol., p. 14. Cf. eis AirAyrijo-iK, Tb. P. 43 (ii/B.c). Rouffiac (Recherches, p. 28) finds eiKoi eis (ttv^dKr/v in inscr. of Priene 50, 39 (ii/B.c). ^ C. and S., p. 81 f. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 71 f. Cf. K.P. 46 (ii/A.D.) etrxov irap' ifiHv SA (yeiov) ffirfp^iara, '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, cites an ex. from Theogn. 596 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the frequency that we find it in the LXX. Cf. pp. 481 f. Blass' credits eis in &iraye eis elpijvriv (Mk. 5 : 34) to the Hebrew through the LXX (cf. 1 Sam. 1 : 17). Cf. also eis 5iaTa7ds d77€Xwj' (Ac. 7 : 53) where eis is much Uke kv. In general therefore, as with hi 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 k-wi, ■wapa and xpos. The growth in the use of eis is shown by its appearance where 'fwi or irpos would be ex- pected in the older Greek. Cf. epxerai eis irbXiv (Jo. 4:5), where the point is not 'into,' but 'to.' So 11 : 31, iirkyti, eis tA nvrifietov. In 11 : 38 D has eiri, not eis. So in Mk. 3 : 1 , Lvtx^P'Qitv irpis riiv 6a\addKn(f. In Ac. 8 : 38 f . we have both eis to vdup and k tov MttTos. So in Mk. 1 : 10 ava^aivuv k tov vSaTos a previous presence iv Tij) BSttTi is implied. In a case like KaTa^aivovTcav k tov opovs (Mt. 17: 9; parallels in Mk. and Lu. diro) we are not to suppose that they had been in a cave, but merely up in the mountain (cf . Eng- lish idiom), the term "mountain" including more than the earth and rock. Cf. eis ri bpos in Mt. 5:1. But in Mt. 8 : 1 we merely have i,T6 tov bpovs. Note likewise dpl^ k Trjs (ce^aX^s (Lu. 21 : 18), k Tuiv xtipSiv (Ac. 12 : 7). Thus we explain also Kpenafjievov to dripLov k Tijs X"pi5s aiiTov (Ac. 28 : 4), k Seftcoc (Mt. 20 : 21), e? kvavTias (Mk. 15 : 39), etc. It is not necessary to record all the verbs with which k occurs. In Lu. 5 : 3 kSida(TK€v k tov ir\oiov the teaching is represented as proceeding out of the boat (Jesus was in the boat). One may compare with this kydpeTai k tov Seiirvov (Jo. 13 : 4), AcaXfiajj k tSiv yaficov (Lu. 12 : 36), airawXieLV tov \i6op k Trjs dvpas (Mk. 16 : 3), diaixwdkvTa k rfls daXaaaris (Ac. 28 : 4). 4. Time. With expressions of time k gives the point of de- parture, like k veoTijTos (Mk. 10 : 20), k^ &.pxm (Jo. 6 : 64), k^ kavSiv Xpbvoiv (Lu. 23 : 8), k rov aUbvos (Jo. 9 : 32), k iroWS>v kTuv (Ac. 24 : 10), k Toi)Tov (Jo. 6 : 66). In cases where succession is involved the point of departure is really present. Thus with k SevTepov (Jo. 9 : 24), k TplTov (Mt. 26 : 44), iip.kpa.v k^ ■fudpas (2 Pet. 2:8). Other adverbial phrases have a similar origin as with k fikpovs (1 Cor. 12 : 27), k fihrpov (Jo. 3 : 34), 4| 6.v&yKr,s (2 Cor. 9 : 7), k (n)na,vov k^ aKavdSiv (Mt. 27 : 29), where the material is expressed by k^. 7. Cause or Occasion. Closely alUed to the above is the notion of cause or occasion which may also be conveyed by k. Thus note TO k^ vpSiv in Ro. 12 : 18, ipaaSivTo k tov irdvov (Rev. 16 : 10), SiKMOidevTas tK Tritrrecoj (Ro. 5:1), e| 'ipyuv (Gal. 3 : 10), k tov evayyeXlov ^rjv (1 Cor. 9 : 14), e? acdevtias (2 Cor. 13 : 4), k tov p.a- fiojvS, (Lu. 16 :9). Cf. also airWavov k tuv vSarcav (Rev. 8:11). Perhaps here belongs kirXiripwdri kK ttjs 6a-p,rji (Jo. 12 : 3). Cf. yepi^o) kK in Jo. 6 : 13 (Abbott, Johannine Gr., p. 253). At any rate a ' Job. Gr., p. 251 f. PREPOSITIONS (nPGGEZEIs) 599 number of verbs use k in this general sense like cIx^eX^oj " (Mk. 7:11), fwtoOafiat (2 Cor. 7:9), d5oceTo-0at (Rev. 2:11), w'XovTtois (Rev. 18 : 3), xoprAfcffeat (Rev. 19 : 21), kSttm^oi (Jo. 4 : 6), fciw (Ro. 1 : 17), etc. Cf. k^\aa4>i)mo<^v t6v Beov k rrjs ttXtjy^s (Rev. 16 : 21), Indeed in with the notion of price does not differ radically from this idiom. Thus ijydpaaav I? aiTSiv t6v aypdv (Mt. 27: 7), iKr^aaro k luadov (Ac. 1 : 18), avfujtuviicTas k Srjmptou (Mt. 20 : 2). 'Ek Sta- rayrjs, 'by order,' was a regular formula in the papyri (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 87). Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 248, finds the idiom k tup Ttaaapmv Lvkfuav (Mk. 13 : 27) in the papyri as well as in Zech. 11 : 6. 8. The Partitive Use of k. It is not infrequent, marking an in- crease over the earlier idiom.' Thus in Jo. 16 : 17 k rS>v ficuBriTSiv is even used as the subject of elirav. Cf. Ac. 21 : 16 without k. See also Jo. 7 : 40. John is specially fond of the partitive use of k (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 115) and the inscriptions and papyri have it also. Cf . dci^p k tSjv Tpurevovrosv, Petersen-Luschan, Reisen, p. 113, xviii. A. 5. Further examples are avdpuTos k tSiv ^apiaaUav (Jo. 3 : 1), juij TK k tCiv cLpxovTCiiv (Jo. 7 : 48), k toO SxXou aKovaavres (Jo. 7:40), davardiKTOVffiv i^ vfuiv (Lu. 21 : 16), ef a{iTS>v airoKTeveire (Mt. 23 : 34), fiXtirovaiv kK t&v \aS>v (Rev. 11 : 9), diriKovow kK rSiv irapxivTuv (Lu. 8 : 3), k^ aiiroO (jiayii (Jo. 6 : 50), k rod irvebfiaTOi SkSuKev (1 Jo. 4 : 13), irivuv k rov iidaros (Jo. 4 : 13), obSels 'ti abrHv (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 Ssv k ttJs okqQda^ (Jo. 18 : 37), 01 k vbpov (Ro. 4 : 14), 6 k ■jritrraws (Ro. 3 : 26), ol k irepi- To/iijs (Ac. 11 : 2), 01 'iK kpid'ias (Ro. 2 : 8), etc. The partisan use is allied closely to the partitive. Cf. Ph. 4 : 22 oi k t^s Kato-apos ohm. See further ch. XI, Cases. 9. 'Ek and h. A word in conclusion is needed about the so- called blending of k with k. Blass' doubts if this classic idiom appears in the N. T. The passages that seem to have it are /iij KaraiSiTctf Spai to, k Trjs oklas avrov (Mt. 24 : 17) where h might in- deed have been employed, but k coincides in idea with S.pai.. Cf. Mk, 13 : 15, where k does not have rd before it. In Lu. 11 : 13 6 iroT))p 6 i^ oipavov Sdxrei irvevna ayiou W. H. bracket 6 before i^, and with A the sending of the Holy Spirit by the Father has ' Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 145. ' Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 100. lb., p. 258. Cf. also Field, Ot. Norv., Pars III, Mk. 5 : 30, on rijp ti airov III'. 600 A GEAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT caused ef to displace iv which would otherwise have been regular. In Jo. 3 : 13 some MSS. add 6 Hiv kv t^j ohpavQ to 6 uWs tov 6.vdpinrov, thus making Jesus in heaven at that moment when he was speak- ing to Nicodemus. In Col. 4 : 16, Tijy k AaoSt/cias, the k assumes, of course, that an Epistle had been sent to Laodicea, and suggests that the Colossians get it from (Ik) them. Cf. Ro. 3 : 25 f. for examples of Std, kv, els, irpbs, Ik. See airb and irapa. (K) 'Eiri. See Sanskrit dpi (locative case), Zend aijri, Latin ob, Lithuanian pi. 1. Ground-Meaning. It is 'upon' as opposed to vwo. It differs from inrep in that iiri 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 iv, as is seen in ws iv ovpavw Kttt eiri 7^s (Mt. 6 : 10). 2. In Composition in the N. T. It is very common, always re- taining the root-idea (cf. iir-ev^ina, 2 Cor. 5:2), though sometimes the perfective idea is clear. Thus with iir-ai,Tiw in Lu. 16 : 3, ctti- yivixTKOi in 1 Cor. 13 : 12,' iir'i.-jv(0(n,s in Col. 1 : 9, iirL-reKita in 2 Cor. 8 : 11. 3. Frequency in N. T. In the N. T. kirl is still in constant use, though it ultimately dropped out of the vernacular^ before iTrhvio. Note ecos ivi Si.a\[cyYi. SvpSiP. So compare iyyiis iariv eiri dvpais (Mk. 13 : 29) with ecrriKa eirl Tijy diipav (Rev. 3 : 20). Here the notion of rest exists with all three cases, though in Rev. 3 : 20 Kal Kpohw may have some effect on the presence of the accusative. Once more observe Kadlcji ewl Bpovov and KoBrictaBe eiri SoiSe/ca dpovovs in Mt. 19 : 28. Rev. 4 : 2 gives us hrl t6v Ophvov KajBimevos, verse 9 (marg. of W. H., text of Nestle) tQ KoBiinkvcf iwl tQ 6p6vcfi, while verse 10 has rod KoBijiikvov kirl ToD Bpovov, 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 "KanPavu has eiri tov furcoTOv avrov ^ hrl t^v x«ipci omtov (cf. Ac. 27 : 44). Compare also XWos ^iri "KiBov in Mt. 24 : 2 with XWos eiri Xiflq) in Lu. 21 : 6. In Ph. 2 : 27 the MSS. vary between \i)Tti]v eiri Xiinjc and \i)ir7\v eiri Xiiirj;. Cf. also iir' 6\lja and ^iri ToKKSiv in Mt. 25 : 21. The use of Tnarevo} hrl 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 eis also used with this verb as well as dative (both common in John). Once we have irio-reico h (Mk. 1 : 15). See Moulton, Prol, p. 68. But, after all is said, the only practical way to study kwi 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 kXdeiv krl rd. iSara (Mt. 14 : 28), irepteirari/o-ej' ^iri ra HiSara (14 : 29), avaireauv kTrl 1 Lang, of the N. T., p. 146. 602 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT TTJv yrjv (Mt. 15 : 35), aKoros iykvero 'ewl iracrav rrjv yrjv (Mt. 27: 45), iropiiiov iwl Trjv dd6v (Ac. 8 : 26), kire^ahov ras x^'^pM kvl tov 'IijtroBv (Mt. 26 : 50), avainauv hrl t6 arifios (Jo. 13 : 25). The meta- phorical use is in harmony with this idiom. Thus <^6/3os tirkirtaiv 'eit' avTov (Lu. 1 : 12), KarkaTricras avrov iirl to. ipya (Heb. 2 : 7), fia- (TtXeiKret eirl tov oIkov (Lu. 1 : 33), ha, ^Trtff/CT/p&xrjj eir' ifik ij Siva/us tov Xpto-ToO (2 Cor. 12 : 9). Cf. 2 Cor. 1 : 23, ^Tri/caXoO/ioi kirl T'fjv kii'fiv \l/vxvv. But not all the accusative uses are so simple. In a case like Mt. 7 : 24, dijKoSofiriaev kwl TTjv irkTpav, some idea of motion may be seen. But that is not true of Mt. 13 : 2, xas 6 oxXos iirl t6v aiyioKdv laTrjKei,. Cf . also Kadrjiievov eirl to TeKdiVLOv (Mt. 9 : 9) and others given above. So eTrt to irpo(TKtaKau>v KaddiSuv (Mk. 4 : 38), ■mtviM, rjv ayiov kir' avT&v (Lu. 2 : 25), eiieivtv kv' aMv (Jo. 1 : 32), kirkiiTri(Ta.v kirl tov wvKSiva (Ac. 10 : 17), k' iijias avairavtrai (1 Pet. 4 : 14), Kakv/xijia kwl Trjv KapSiav KeiTai. (2 Cor. 3: 15), taovTai dXiJflouirat kirl TO avTo (Lu. 17: 35). Here it is hard to think of any idea of 'whither." Sometimes indeed kwl seems not to imply strictly 'upon,' but rather 'as far as.' So with 'ipxovTM kirl Th nvriiitiov (Mk. 16 : 2), KaTk^Tjaav kirl Tr\v daXaaaav (Jo. 6 : 16), ^\dov kirl rt vhup (Ac. 8 : 36). The aim or purpose is sometimes expressed by ^tti, asJirl TO fiaTTiaixa (Mt. 3 : 7), 40' 8 Trdpet (Mt. 26: 50). It may express one's emotions as with irMTihui kxi (Ro. 4 : 24), ^Xxifco kirl (1 Pet. 1 : 13), aTr\ayxvil;op.aL kir'i (Mt. 15 : 32). Cf. k' bv yeybvti in Ac. 4 : 22 and the general use of k-wl in Mk. 9 : 12 ykypaTTai krl t6v vldv TOV avdpiiirov. In personal relations hostility is sometimes sug- gested, though k-wl in itself does not mean 'against.' Thus cos eTTi \iicTTriv k^rifSaTe (Mt. 26 : 55). In Mt. 12 : 26 40' eavTdv ifiepiadri is used side by side with iiepiudelca koB' iavT^s in the preceding verse. Cf. also Mk. 3 : 26, etc. Abbott^ notes that John shows this usage only once (19 :33). For kirl with the idea of degree or measure see k^' oaov (Ro. 11 : 13). Cf. kirl to clvto in the feense of 'all together' (Ac. 1 : 15). With expressions of time kirl may merely fill out the accusative, as with kirl tTi] Tpia (Lu. 4 : 25, marg. of W. H.), kirl riixepas TrXeious (Ac. 13 : 31), e^' ocrov xpovov (Ro. 7 : 1), or a more definite period may be indicated, as with eicl Tr/v iapav t^s irpoaevxfjs (Ac. 3 : 1),' kirl Trjv alipwv (Lu. 10 : 35). It is common with adverbs like «0' airaf, kirl Tpk, etc. 5. With the Genitive. The genitive with km has likewise a wide range of usages. Usually the simple meaning 'upon' sat- 1 Blass, 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 (npoeESEis) 603 isfies all requirements, as in irl K\ivris (Mt. 9:2), k^' od 4"co56aiijto (Lu. 4 :29), Krjpii^are kirl tS>v Swuaroiv Q^t. 10 : 27), epxonevov kirl v((l>eK&v (Mt. 24 : 30), WriKtv kirl rod (rravpov (Jo. 19 : 19), KoBlms kirl Tov ^iiixaroi (Ac. 12 : 21), kirl t^s (ce^aXijs (Jo. 20 : 7), ejri ttjs OdKaacris (Rev. 5 : 13), ^l ^vKov (Ac. 5 : 30). In Mk. 12 : 26, k-rl tov fikrov, an ellipsis in thought occurs in the passage about the bush. Sometimes, indeed, as with the accusative, so with the genitive, Jiri has the idea of vicinity, where the word itself with which it is used has a wide meaning. Thus in Jo. 21 : 1 eirt ttjs daXaacrrjs seems to mean 'on the sea-shore,' and so 'by the sea.' So with kirl rijs 65ov (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 kwl rr]v 6a\a(T(rav which is not ambiguous like the genitive in Jo. 6 : 19. Cf. Ac. 5 : 23 kirl r&v dvpSiv. The classic idiom with kiri 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. kykvero t6 itKoIov kirl ttjs yijs (Jo. 6 : 21), Kadt.kp.evov kwl ttjs yrjs (Ac. 10 : 11), |3aXoD(ra t6 p,vpov kirl rod cu>p.aTos (Mt. 26 : 12), hnirTtv kirl Tijs 7^5 (Mk. 14 : 35), yevo^ievos eirl tov totov (Lu. 22 : 40), tov kir' avTrjs kpxoiiivov (Heb. 6:7), xecrcii' kirl ttjs yfjs (Mk. 9 : 20). In these ex- amples we see just the opposite tendency to the use of the accusa- tive with verbs of rest. Cf . TrecreiTai kirl Trjv yriv (Mt. 10 : 29) with Mk. 9 : 20 above and ^aXiiv kirl ti/v yrjv (Mt. 10 : 34) with Mk. 4 : 26. With persons kirl and the genitive may yield the resultant meaning of 'before' or 'in the presence of.' Thus kirl riyepovoiv (Mk. 13 : 9), Kplvecdai kirl tSjv clSLkuv (1 Cor» 6 : 1), kKTOs el pfi kirl Siio fj TpiSiv itaprOpuv (1 Tini. 5 : 19), kirl UovtIov nttXdroii (1 Tim. 6 : 13), kirl aov (Ac. 23 : 30), kir' kpov (25 : 9). Blass^ observes how in Ac. 25 : 10 eo-rcbj i^l tov /Si^/iaros Kaicapos the meaning is 'before,' while in verse 17 the usual idea 'upon' is alone present (Kadiaas kirl TOV piipaTos). Cf. kirl TLtov in 2 Cor. 7: 14. With expressions of time the result is much the same. Thus kir' kax^Tov tuv xpot"^" (1 Pet. 1 : 20) where kiri naturally occurs (cf. Ju. 18). With krl Tuv irpoaevxHv pov (Ro. 1 : 10) we have period of prayer denoted simply by km. Cf. kirevxopai kiri (Magical papyrus, Deissmann, Ldght, etc., p. 252). There is no difficulty about kirl Tfjs peToi- Kta'm (Mt. 1 : 11). With persons a fuller exposition is required, since kirl 'SXa.v&iov (Ac. 11 : 28) is tantamount to 'in the time of Claudius' or 'during the reign of Claudius.' Cf. also kirl apxiepew "Avva (Lu. 3:2), kirl 'm^iaaiov (4 : 27), krl 'A^Map dpxtepatos (Mk. ' Joh. Gr., p. 261. " Lang, of the N. T., p. 147. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 137. 604 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 2 : 26). Cf. br' avTTJs in Heb. 7:11. The idea of basis is a natural metaphor as in kir' dXjjSelas (Lu. 4 : 26), a iiroleL ixl tS)v aadevovvTwv (Jo. 6:2), ' ^, like kxl TovTc^ 6ti., in Ro. 5 : 12 and 2 Cor. 5 : 4. Cf . k(l>' ^ k^povelre (Ph. 4 : 10) where 'whereon' is the simple idea. See ' For hrl Tov Eiipykrov in Prol. to Sirach see Deiss., B. S., p. 339 f. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 137. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 605 also eirl irapopyuTnQ {inS)v (Eph. 4 : 26), cf. 2 Cor. 9 : 15. The idea of aim or purpose seems to coniS in cases like eirl ipyoii ayadots (Eph. 2 : 10), k' ^ Kdl KaTe\rindriv (Ph. 3 : 12). Note also Gal. 5 : 13, k-n-' kXevBepiii,; 1 Th. 4 : 7, ovk ex' a.KaBapcl' {ifuv (2 Cor. 9 : 14). This seems a clear case of the dative with kirl supplementing it. The same thing may be true of k' vfuv in 1 Th. 3 : 7 and Ro. 16 : 19. Cf. also ireiroiBb- Tas k4>' eauToTs in Lu. 18 : 9 and iiaKpoBvivqaov kir' kfiol in Mt. 18 : 26 f . So Lu. 1 : 47 eirl rcf de^. In Lu. 12 : 52 f., rpeTs kirl SvriTev(raL kirl Xaois in Rev. 10 : 11. In Jo. 12 : 16, ?jv kir' avrc^ ytypap.p,kva, and Ac. 5 : 35, kwl rots avOpdiiroa ToiiTots, the idea is rather 'about' or 'in the case of.' Cf. also T?s ytvoiikvris kirl Xretjiavw (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, krl trdcnv Sk toiitok; Heb. 8: 1, kirl rots \eyofikvoLs. 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. {{) 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 Kari. It is probably in the instrumental case,' but an apparently dative form Karai survives a few times. Brugmann^ compares it with Old Irish cet, 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. 2 Griech. Gr.,_ p. 443. Cf. also Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 759 f. ' lb. 606 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT sometimes find the ablative case used when the result is doum from, then the genitive down upon, and the accusative dovm along. But 'down' (cf. K&Toi) seems always to be the only idea of the preposi- tion in itself. In the N. T. three cases occur with Kara. 2. Distributive Sense. Kara came to be used in the distribu- tive sense with the nominative, . hke ara and (tvv, 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 eis Kara th in Mk. 14 : 19 (and the spurious Jo. 8 : 9), TO KoS' els in Ro. 12 : 5. The modern Greek uses /carets or Kadtva^ as a distributive pronoun.^ Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 138 f., considers also els Kad' Uaaro^ (A Lev. 25 : 10) merely the adverbial use of KOLTo.. But see koB' iva in 1 Cor. 14 : 31, Kara 8e ioprrju (Mt. 27:15). 3. Kara in Composition. It is true to the root-idea of 'down,' like /carc/3?j in Mt. 7 : 25, Karayayeiv in Ro. 10 : 6. But the various metaphorical uses occur also in composition. Often KarA occurs with "perfective" force.' So, for instance, observe Karaprlau, (1 Pet. 5 : 10), KaTi]yoivi(ravTo (Heb. 11 : 33), KanS'iM^ev (Mk. 1 : 36), KaraSovKoL (2 Cor. 11 : 20), KaraKavaeL (Mt. 3 : 12), KarojudSere (Mt. 6:28), Karavoriaare (Lu. 12 : 24), Kar^TaiKraj' (Ac. 14:18), (cara- WLVovres (Mt. 23 : 24), KaraaKevkaeL (Mk. 1:2), Karepya^ecBe (Ph. 2 : 12), KaTk(t>ayev (Mt. 13 : 4), KoBopaTai, (Ro. 1 : 20). This preposi- tion vies with 5td and avv in the perfective sense. Karax^^ in Ro. 1 : 18 is well illustrated by 6 Kaikxi^v tov Ovjxov 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, Korec^iXijo-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,^ Delbrijck.' 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^aXtv Kar' aiirrjs avefios TVcjjc^viKds (Ac. 27 : 14), where avTrjs refers to KpiiTijv, and the meaning (cf. American Standard Revi- sion) is manifestly 'down from' Crete. In 1 Cor. 11:4, irpo^r/reto)' /card K€0aX7js ^x'^") we have 'down from' again, the veil hanging 1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 178. ^ Horn. Gr., p. 145. ' lb.; Moulton, Prol., p. 105. » I, p. 475. s Cf. ib., pp. 115 ff. ' Vergl. Synt., I, p. 760. < Grieoh. Gr., p. 443. PREPOSITIONS (nPOGESEIs) 607 down from the head. In Mk. 5 : 13 we find SipniicTev ij 07^X1? Kara, Toy Kpvuvov (cf. Mt. 8 : 32; Lu. 8 : 3^) where 'down from the cliff' is again the idea. 5. With the Genitive. It is more usual with Kari. than the abla- tive in the N. T. as in the earlier 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 KaraKvpievaas aficf>oTkpei3v (Ac. 19 : 16). Some MSS. in Mk. 14 : 3 have Kara with t^s /ce^oX^s, but without it Karkxttv means 'pour down on' the head. In 2 Cor. 8 : 2, ij Kara ^adovs irrwxetd, 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 Kad' oXt/s ttjs xept- xojpou; Ac. 9 : 31 Kad' oXi/s rrjs 'louSaias (so 9 : 42; 10 : 37). The older Greek would have used the accusative in such cases. But cf. Polyb. iii, 19, 7, Kara rrjs vr\aov SLea-irapTjcrav. The notion of 'against' is also more common^ in the kolvti. But in the modern Greek vernacular Kara (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 a.re brought together. Cf. English vernacular "down on" one. This Kara then is 'down upon' rather literally where the Attic usually had iirl and accusative.' Among many examples note Kara rod 'Irjaov fiapTvpiav (Mk. 14 : 55), vvp4"iv Kara, irevdepas (Mt. 10 : 35), Kara rod Trveu/iaros (Mt. 12 : 32), Kara rod llav\ov (Ac. 24 : 1), etc. Cf. Ro. 8 : 33. Sometimes nera and Kara are contrasted (Mt. 12 : 30) or /card and virep (Lu. 9 : 50; 1 Cor. 4:6). The other use of /card 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, e^opKifco ae Kara tov 6eov. Cf. Heb. 6 : 13, 16. In 1 Cor. 15 : 15 knaprvpricrafiev Kara tov 6tov may be' taken in this sense or as meaning 'against.' 6. With the Accusative. But the great majority of examples 1 Delbruck, ib., p. 761. 2 Jebb, in V. and D., Handb., etc., p. 313. » Blaas, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 133. 608 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT in the N. T. use the accusative. Radermacher (A''. T. Gr., p. 116) notes the frequency of the accusative in the papyri where irept 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 Kara, 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 like dx^X^e Ka6' oKrjv rriv woXiv Kijpba-acov (Lu. 8 : 39), Sir/pxavTO Kara rds Kco/xas (Lu. 9:6), Kara Trjv bbbv (Lu. 10 : 4), 'ey'tviTO Xi/iAs Kard TT\v x<^P<'-v (Lu. 15 : 14), Kara tt]V 'KCKiKiav (Ac. 27 : 5), pXeirovra Kara, Xt|3a (Ac. 27 : 12), Kara fi€(T7]fi^piav (Ac. 8 : 26), Kara ■Kpoaontov (Gal. 2:11), /car' 6(j}da\ixovs (Gal. 3:1), Kara aKowov (Ph. 3 : 14). The no- tion of rest may also have this construction as Kar' oIkov (Ac. 2 : 46). Cf. rriv Kar' oIkov avrrjs kKKKr](riav (Col. 4 : 15). Cf. Ac. 11 : 1. In Ac. 13 : 1 a rather ambiguous usage occurs, Kara rriv ovaav iKKkrialav irpocjirjrai.. But this example may be compared with r&v Kara 'lov- daiovs Wwv (Ac. 26 : 3), ol Kad' ii;uas TroiTjrot (Ac. 17: 28, some^MSS. Kad' fifms), vofiov rod Kad' iipRs (Ac. 18 : 15). This idiom is common in the literary Koivi] and is one of the niarks of Luke's literary style.^ But this is merely a natural development, and Kark with the accusative always expressed direction towards in the ver- nacular.* Schmidt {de eloc. Joseph., p. 21 f.) calls Kara a sort of periphrasis for the genitive in late Greek. .Cf . ra Kar' 'ep,i (Ph. 1 : 12). It is more than a mere circumlocution for the genitive' in the examples above and such as r'^v Kad' vfias iriarriv (Eph. 1 : 15), ro Kar' e/ie (Ro. 1 : 15), rb Kara alipKa (Ro. 9 : 5), rd Kar' 'enk (Eph. 6 : 21; cf. Ac. 25 : 14), avdpacnv rols Kar' k^oxvv (Ac. 25 : 23; cf. par excellence). Kara is used with expressions of time like Kar' 'tKtivov rov Kaipbv (Ac. 12 : 1), Kara rb fieaoviiKr lov (Ac. 16 : 25), Kad' iKaarrjV iip,kpav (Heb. 3 : 13), Kara Trap cra^fiarov (Ac. 13 : 27). The notion of distribution comes easily with Kara, as in Kara toKiv (Lu. 8:1), Kard ras (Twafwyas (Ac. 22 : 19), Kar' ?ros (Lu. 2 : 41), Kad' ruikpav (Ac. 2 : 46), koB' ha iravres (1 Cor. 14 : 31), Kar', 6voixa (Jo. 10 : 3), etc. See Mt. 27 : 15=Mk. 15 : 6. Cf. Kard. 8vo, P. Oxy. 886 (iii/A.D.). As a standard or rule of measure Kara is very common 1 Gk. Synt., p. 100. ' Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 266. ' Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 149; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 133. * Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 384. 5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 133. PREPOSITIONS (nPOGEZEIs) 609 and also simple. So mrA to evayyeXiov (Ro. 16 : 25) with which compare the headings' to the Gopjels like KarA. MaBdcuov, though with a different sense of eiiayyeXiov. Here the examples multiply like Kara vofujv (Lu. 2 : 22), Kara cfiixnv (Ro. 11 : 21), Kara xaptv (Ro. 4 : 4), KttTa 6e6v (Ro. 8 : 27), Kara T'fjV Trianv (Mt. 9 : 29), Kara hvvajxiv (2 Cor. 8:3), Ka6' iiwepffokliv (Ro. 7 : 13), Kara avvyvoin-qv (1 Cor. 7:6), etc. Various resultant ideas come out of different connec- tions. There is no reason to call Kara iraaav airiav (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' evakfieiav, the notion of tend- ency or aim appears. We must not try to square every detail in the development of Karii or any Greek preposition with our translation of the context nor with classic usage, for the N. T. is written in the Koivri. This preposition is specially common in Acts and Hebrews. Kar' iSlav (Mt. 14 : 13) is adverbial. But Kara irpbawirov is not a mere Hebraism, since the papyri have it (Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 140). As a sample of the doubling up of prepositions note aweirkaTi] Kar' avT&v (Ac. 16 : 22). • (j) McTd. Most probably ;u€ra has the same root as iikaos, Latin medius, German mit {miSi), Gothic mip, English mid (cf. a-mid). Some scholars indeed connect it with a/^a and German samt. But the other view is reasonably certain. The modern Greek uses a shortened form nk, which was indeed in early vernacular use.^ Some of the Greek dialects use TreSa. So the Lesbian, Boeotian, Arcadian, etc. Mera seems to be in the instrumental case.' 1. The Root^Meaning. It is ('mid') 'midst.' This simple idea lies behind the later developments. Cf. ixera^i and avafxecra. We see the root-idea plainly in /ierecopffco (from lier-tcapos, in 'mid-air'). In the N. T. we have a metaphorical example (Lu. 12 : 29) which is intelligible now in the day of aeroplanes and dirigible balloons. The root-idea is manifest also in iikr-oiirov (Rev. 7:3), 'the space between the eyes.' 2. In Composition. The later resultant meanings predominate in composition such as "with" in iJXTaSlScofiL (Ro. 12 : 8), /teraXa/i- Pavco (Ac. 2 : 46), nerkx<^ (1 Cor. 10 : 30); "after" in /xeTaTenTco (Ac. 10 : 6) ; or, as is usually the case, the notion of change or transfer is the result as with ij,eBiov Kpi- verai. Cf. Jo. 16 : 19. This notion gives no difficulty to Enghsh students, since our "with" is so used. But Moulton" admits a translation Hebraism in Lu. 1 : 58, kiieyoKyvev Kipioi r6 eXeos avTOv tier' avTrjs. But what about So-a kiroiriaev 6 Beds fier' airuv 1 Lang, of the N. T., p. 149. Cf. Thayer, under v x^^-pSiv (1 Tim. 4 : 14), where the idea is rather 'simultaneous with,' but see psTo. opKov (Mt. 14 : 7), ptra v pera airov ('in the corn 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 Si fipuv (rvvkffri pera t&v apxovTcav; In later Greek the instrumental use comes to be common with pera (cf. English "with").' In Lu. 10 : 37 6 iroiiicas t6 'eKeos per' av- rov Debruimer (Blass-Deb., p. 134) sees a Hebraism. But see Herm. S. V. 1, 1, kirolriae per' epov. The metaphorical use for the idea of accompaniment occurs also like pera Svudpeus Kal So^ris (Mt. 24: 30), pera airovSrjs (Mk. 6: 25), pera SaKpvuv (Heb. 12: 17), pera ' Lang, of the N. T., p. 150. ^ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 133 f. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 387. For itera compared with jropd see Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 268. 612 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (^6/3ou Kal rpbuov (2 Cor. 7: 15), wappricTlas (Ac. 2 : 29), Oopvfiov (Ac. 24 : 18), etc. Deissmann {Bible Studies, pp. 64, 265) finds in the papyri examples of /ieTo Kal like that in Ph. 4 : 3. Cf. Schmid, Der Attidsmus, III, p. 338. In the modern Greek vernacular nk is confined to accompaniment, means or instrument and manner. Time has dropped out (Thumb, Handb., p. 103 f.). 6. With the Accusative. At first it seems to present more dif- ficulty. But the accusative-idea added to the root-idea ("midst") with verbs of motion would mean "into the midst" or "among." But this idiom does not appear in the N. T. In the late Greek ver- nacular utra. with the accusative occurs in all the senses of juera and the genitive,' but that is not true of the N. T. Indeed, with one exception (and that of place), /uera to debrepov KaTairkTaap,a (Heb. 9 : 3), in the N. T. nera with the accusative is used with expres- sions of time. This example in Hebrews is helpful, however. The resultant notion is that of behind or beyond the veil obtained by going through the midst of the veil. All the other examples have the resultant notion of "after" which has added to the root- meaning, as applied to time, the notion of succession. You pass through the midst of this and that event and come to the point where you look back upon the whole. This idea is "after." Cf. fi€Ta. dho rinkpas (Mt. 26 : 2). In the historical books of the LXX /jLera. ravra (cf. Lu. 5 : 27) is very common.^ Simcox' treats ov fitTo, TToXXas Tavras rnxipas (Ac, 1:5) as a Latinism, but, if that is not true of irpo, it is hardly necessary to posit it of /ierd. Cf.. nera ijukpas t'Uocn Herm. Vis. IV, 1, 1. The litotes is common. Jannaris^ comments on the frequency of nera to with the infinitive in the LXX and N. T. So /^erd to avaaTrjvai (Acts 10 : 41). Cf. 1 Cor. 11 : 25; Heb. 10 : 26, etc. This comes to be one of the common ways of expressing a temporal clause (cf. hrei or oTe). Cf. lieTo, ^paxO (Lu. 22 : 58), ^eTo, mKpbv (Mk. 14 : 70), adverbial phrases. (/b) Ilapd. 1. Significance. Delbriick^ does not find the etymology of irapd clear and thinks it probably is not to be connected with -pdra (Sanskrit) , which means ' distant.' Brugmann ^ connects it with the old word 'pura like Latin -por-, Gothic /awra, Anglo-Saxon /ore (cf. German vor). Giles' thinks the same root furnishes xapo's (gen.), 1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 387. « Lang, of the N. T., p. 151. 2 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 266. * Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 386. ' Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 755, 761. « Kurze Vergl. Gr., II, p. 474; Griech. Gr., p. 446. ' Comp. Philol., p. 342. PREPOSITIONS (nPOGESEIs) 613 ■vraph (instr.), irapal (dat.), irepi (loc). He also sees a kinship in these to irtpav, itkpa, irp6s. 2. Compared with irpds. In meaning ' irapa and Tp6s do not differ essentially save that irapi. merely means 'beside,' 'along- side' (cf. our "parallel"), while irp6s rather suggests 'facing one another,' an additional idea of contrast. This oldest meaning explains all the later developments.^ Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 116) thinks that the N. T. shows confusion in the use of Trapa (SieKoyl^ovTo Trap' [marg. of W. H. and Nestle, kv in text] iavrols, Mt. 21 :25) and SieKoyi^ovTo irpAs iavroiis (Mk. 11 :31). But is it not diversity the rather? 3. In Composition. The preposition is exceedingly common in composition, though with nouns it falls behind some of the others a good deal. IlapA does not survive in modern Greek vernacular save in composition (like avL and k) and some of its functions go to clttS and cJs.' All the various developments of Trapa appear in composition, and the simplest use is very common. Thus xapa- PoXil (Mk. 13 : 28) is a 'placing of one thing beside another.' So iropa-5aX(lt(7-(7ios (Mt. 4 : 13) is merely 'beside the sea.' Cf. also ■Ka.pa-di)Ktj (2 Tim. 1 : 14), irapa-naBeadds (Lu. 10 : 39), Tropa-KaXew (Ac. 28:20), Traplx.-KKr)roi (Jo. 14:16), irapa-\k.yoiJ.ai. (Ac. 27:8), TTop-dXtos (Lu. 6 : 17), irapa-nhu (Heb. 7 : 23; cf. fievcH /cai Trapa-juei/w Ph. 1 : 25), Trapa-TrX^w (Ac. 20 : 16), rapa-ppku (Heb. 2 : 1), xapa- ridrinL (Mk. 6 : 41), xap-et/it (Lu. 13 : 1), etc. A specially noticeable word is irdp-oii'os (1 Tim. 3:3). Cf. also avTi-irap-rj^Bev in Lu. 10 : 31 f. Sometimes xapa suggests a notion of stealth as in Trap- 6i(r-(i7&) (2 Pet. 2 : 1), irap-6to--5iia) (Ju. 4), Tap-e'uy-aKTos (Gal. 2 : 4), but in -Kap-iia-kpxoixai in Ro. 5 : 20 this notion is not present. Cf . Mt. 14 : 15, li wpa ffBri waprikdev, 'the hour is already far spent' ('gone by'). Note also the Scotch "far in" like modern Greek vapatikcra (Moulton, Prol., p. 247). A few examples of the "perfective" use occur as in irapo^ijvu (Ac. 17 : 16), irapa-iriKpaivu (Heb. 3 : 16), Trapd- (Tiinos (Ac. 28 : 11), irapa-rripko} (Gal. 4 : 10, but in Lu. 14 : 1 the idea of envious watching comes out). With ■jrapa-(f>povba the no- tion is rather 'to be beside one's self,' 'out of mind.' Cf. also Trapa- TriTTTw in Heb. 6 : 6, found in the ostraea (Wilcken, i. 78 f.) as a commercial word 'to fall below par.' For TropewxXeti' (Ac. 15 : 19) see irapevoxKetv iJmSs, P- Tb. 36 (ii/B.c). Hapct 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. » Delbruck, Die Grundl., p. 130. ■• Moulton, Prol., p. 106. 614 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 4. With the Locative. Uapa with the locative is nearly confined to persons. Only one other example appears, lar-qKuaav xapd t^ aravpco (Jo. 19 : 25). This confining of irapa to persons is like the usual Greek idiom, though Homer ^ used it freely with both. Homer used it also as an adverb and in the shortened form rap. The only instance in the N. T. of the locative with irapA. after a verb of motion is in Lu. 9 : 47, earijcrev amb Trap' eaurqi, though here D reads iavTov. The locative with ■wapd leaves the etymological idea unchanged so that we see the preposition in its simplest usage. Cf. ov axeKairov irapa. KapTCf (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 KaraXCffat irapa (Lu. 19 : 7), nkvai irapa (Jo. 14 : 17), Jei'ifw irapk (Ac. 21 : 16). Cf. Ac. 21 : 8. In Rev. 2 : 13; Mt. 28 : 15, Tap& has the idea of 'among.' The phrase irapa tQ dtQ (Lu. 1 :30) is common. The word is used in ethical relations,^ also hke xap' kfwi (2 Cor. 1 : 17). Cf. Ti airicTTOp Kpivtrai irap' vjuv (Ac. 26 : 8) and (jipbvipjoi Trap' iavTois (Ro. 12 : 16). Ilapa with the locative does not occur in Hebrews. 5. With the Ablative. But it occurs only with persons (like the older Greek). The distinction between irapa and dir6 and k has already been made. In Mk. 8:11 both irapA and diro occur, fijToOjTes irap' avrov (ji]p.ti.ov diro tov ovpavov (cf. 12 : 2), and in Jo. 1 : 40 we have both irapd and kK, els hK tG>v Svo tS>v aKovakvTuv irapa 'Icoavov. In a case like Jo. 8 : 38 the locative is followed by the ablative,' tajpa/ca irapd t<3 irarpi — ijKomaTe xapd tov irarpds, though some MSS. have locative in the latter clause also. But the abla- tive here is in strict accordance with Greek usage as in a case like dKoCcrai irapd aov (Ac. 10 : 22). On the other hand in Jo. 6 : 45 f. we find the ablative in both instances, 6 d/couo-as xapd tov Taipos — 6 &v irapa tov dead (cf. 6 &v eis tov koKitov tov iraTpos in Jo. 1 : 18). But this last xapd implies the coming of Christ from the Father, like xapd TOV xarpos €^ij}\0ov (Jo. 16 : 27). Ilapd with the ablative means 'from the side of as with the accusative it means 'to the side of.' The phrase ot irap' abTov therefore describes one's family or kinsmen (Mk. 3 : 21). In the papyri the phrase is very common for one's agents, and.Moulton* has found one or two hke ot irap' ijIxGiv iravTes parallel to ol irap' aiiov in Mk. 3 : 21. Cf. also to, irap' • Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 134. 2 Simcox, Lang, of N. T., p. 151. ' Abbott, Job. Gr., p. 271. * Prol., p. 106. In G. H. 36 (ii/B.c), B. U. 998 (ii/B.c), P. Par. 36 (ii/B.c). Cf. BlasB, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 138. PREPOSITIONS (nPOOESEIz) 615 airSiv (Lu. 10 : 7) for one's resources or property. RouflSac {Re- cherches, etc., p. 30) cites kSairav^ev irap' iwurov (cf. Mk. 5 : 26) from inscription from Priene (111, 117). Note also i} Trap' knov SiadriKTi (Ro. 11:27) with notion of authorship. With passive verbs the agent is sometimes expressed by irapA. as in owreo-TaX/iecos wapa deov (Jo. 1:6), toIs XeXaXTj/u^wis irapa 'Kvpiov (Lu. 1:45). Cf. Text. Rec. in Ac. 22 : 30 with KarriyopttTai irapA. tS>v 'lovhaloiv, where W. H. have hirb. Ilapd occurs with the middle in Mt. 21 : 42, TrapA Kupiou iykv€To. In the later Greek vernacular irapa with the abla- tive helped supplant iro along with otto, and both irapa and {/to (and €k) vanished^ "before the victorious diro." 6. With the Accusative. It is not found in John's writings at alP as it is also wanting in the other CathoHc Epistles. The accusative is common in the local sense both .with verbs of motion and of rest. The increase in the use of the accusative with verbs of rest explains in part the disuse of the locative.^ One naturally compares the encroachments of els upon ev. We see the idiom in the papyri as in ol ■wapa ck deoi, P. Par. 47 (b.c. 153). The use of vapa with the accusative ■with verbs of rest was common in Northwest Greek (Buck, Greek Dialects, p. 101). Thus in Mt. 4 : 18 we find Teptirarcov Tapa tiji* da\aaa-av logically enough, but in 13 : 1 we meet kKoBtiTo irapa tijc daXaacrav, and note KoJdrifitvoi. irapa ttjv oSov (Mt. 20 : 30), eorcbs Trapd t'^v \ifivriv (Lu. 5 : 1), earlv ouiia Tapa BaKacaav (Ac. 10 : 6), SibaaKuv irapa doKaaaav (Mk. 4:1), avared paiifihovs irapa Toiis ttoSos (Ac'. 22 : 3). Cf. Ac. 4 : 35. So no difficulty arises from ^pt^ov :rapd roiis iroSas (Mt. 15 : 30). There is no example in the N. T. of irapd in the sense of 'beyond,' like Homer, but one where the idea is 'near to,' 'along- side of,' as fjKOev irapa Tr)v OaKaaaav (Mt. 15:29). But figura- tively Trapd does occur often in the sense of 'beside the mark' or 'beyond.' Once* indeed we meet the notion of 'less than,' as in TecraapaKOvra irapa piav (2 Cor. 11:24). Cf. irapd rdXai'Toi' coi irkirpaKa, B.U. 1079 (a.d. 41), where irapd means 'except.' The modem Greek vernacular keeps Trapd rpixa, 'within a hair's breadth' (Thumb, Handb., p. 98). The notion of 'beyond' is common enough in classic writers and is most frequent in He- brews in the N. T. It occurs with comparative forms like 8ia<^o- piirepov (Heb. 1 :4), TrXewcos (3 : 3), KpdTToai. (9 :23; cf. 12:24), » Jam., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 391. ' Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 270. • Blaas, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 138. * W.-Th., p. 404. Blasa, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 138, less naturally explains irapi. here as meaning 'by virtue of,' but not Debrunner. 616 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT with implied comparison like riXaTTOKras Ppaxv n (2 : 7), or with merely the positive like anapruiKol (Lu. 13:2; cf. 13:4). Indeed no adjective or participle at all may appear, as in o^etX^rai 'ei'evovTo irapa wavras (Lu. 13:4; cf. 13:2). The use of the posi- tive with irapa is like the Aramaic (cf. Wellhausen, Einl., p. 28). Here the notion of 'beyond' or 'above' is simple enough. Cf. irapa after aXXos in 1 Cor. 3:11 and rtpkpav in Ro. 14 : 5; Heb. 11 : 11. The older Greek was not without this natural use of irapa for comparison and the LXX is full of it.* In the later Greek vernacular the ablative and r} both retreat before irapa and the accusative.^ In the modern Greek vernacular we find vapa and the accusative and even with the nominative after comparison (Thumb, Handb., p. 75). The notion of comparison may gUde over into that of opposition very easily. Thus in Ro. 1 : 25, eXaTpeutrav tjj KTlaa irapa tov Kricavra, where 'rather than' is the idea (cf. "instead of"). Cf. Ro. 4 : 18, rap' kXirida kir' i'Xirldi, where both prepositions answer over to each other, 'beyond,' 'upon.' So in 2 Cor. 8 : 3 Kara SvvafiLv and irapa 5vvafiLv are in sharp contrast. Cf. Ac. 23 : 3. In Gal. 1 : 8 f . Trap' S has the idea of 'beyond' and so 'contrary to.' Cf. Ro. 11 : 24; 1? : 3; 16 : 17. To exceed in- structions is often to go contrary to them. In a case like irapa vo/Mv (Ac. 18 : 13), to go beyond is to go against. Cf. Enghsh trans-gression, irapa-irTia/Ma. Once more Trapd with the accusative strangely enough may actually mean 'because of,' like propter. So in 1 Cor. 12 : 15 f. irapa tovto. Cf. D in Lu. 5 : 7. The Attic writers used Tropd thus, but it disappears in the later vernacular.' The notion of cause grows out of the idea of nearness and the nature of the context. Farrar* suggests the Enghsh colloquial: "It's all along of his own neglect." (0 IlepC. There is some dispute about the etymology of irepi. Some scholars, like Sonne,^ connect it in etymology and meaning with wep. But the point is not yet clear, as Brugmann^ con- tends. Whatever may be true about the remote Indo-Germanic root, irepi belongs to the same stem as wapa and is in the locative case hke pari in the Sanskrit.' Cf. also Old Persian pariy, Zend pairi, Latin per, Lithuanian per, Gothic fair-. Old High German far-, fer, German ver-. The Greek uses irept as an adverb (Homer) ' C. and S., p. 85 f.; Thack., Gr., p. 23. ' lb., p. 390. ^ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 389. * Gk. Synt., p. 104. ' K. Z., 14, pp. 1 ff. Cf. Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 700. " Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 475. ' Brag., Griech. Gr., p. 447; Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 700. PREPOSITIONS (nPOGESEIs) 617 and the ^Eolic dialect^ even uses irkp instead of irepL The inten- sive particle rep is this same word^ 1. The Root-Meaning. It is 'round' ('around'), 'on all sides' (cf. dM<^i, 'on both sides'). Cf. Tipi^ (Ac. 5 : 16), where the root- idea is manifest. Cf. Latin circum, 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. irepirjyev (Mt. 4 : 23), irepioo-rpa^at (Ac. 22 : 6), irepiearuTa (Jo. 11 : 42), irepiedpafiov (Mk. 6 : 55), irtpi.v^ (Ac. 27:16), which would thus have the ablative in aKaris. But Monro* admits that the origin of this notion with wepi is not quite clear. On the other hand, the use of wepL in composition may throw light on the subject. In 2 Cor. 3 : 16, Trept-atpeTrai to KoXvfifia, 'the veil is taken from around.' Cf . also Ac. 27 : 20. The same notion occurs in irepi-Kadapua (1 Cor. 4 : 13) and irepbl/rip.a (ib.), 'off-scour- ing' and 'off-scraping.' The same idea of from around occurs in wepi-pri^avTes to. l/iaTLa (Ac. 16 : 22; cf. 2 Mace. 4 : 38). In Lu. 10 : 40 this idea appears in a metaphorical sense with Trepieo-TraTo, 'drawn away' or 'from around,' 'distracted.' See irepio-Trai, P. Brit. M. 42 (b.c. 168) for 'occupy.' Cf. also the notion of beyond in wepiepyos (1 Tim. 5 : 13), irepikeliru (1 Th. 4 : 15), Trept/iei/co (Ac. 1 : 4), irepiovaLos (Tit. 2 : 14), wepi.a'aevb} (Jo. 6 : 12), irepia-aos (Mt. 5 : 37). In the last example, to Tepia-a-dv tovtojv, 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, wepi aixaprias, the idea is that we may be freed from sin, from around sin. Thayer (under xepi) 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 wtpL See XptcTTos aira^ Trept a/iapTiSiv airkdaptv in 1 Pet. 3 : 18. It is worth observing that in Gal. 1 : 4 W. H. read virkp rather than Trept, while in Heb. 5 : 3 W. H. have wepi rather than vwep. Cf. Mk. 14 : 24. In Eph. 6 : 18 f. we have Seijcei wepi wavTOiv tS>v ayicov, Kai iiwkp e/ioO, where the two prepositions differ very little. But in 1 Pet. 3 : 18 (see above), mep dSkcoc, the distinction is clearer. Cf. Jo. 16 : 26; 17 : 9. See Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 152 f. D has iwkp with kKxvvvbp.evov in Mt. 26 : 28 rather than wepi. Cf . Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 134. Cf. wepi with iXaa/ws in 1 Jo. 2 : 2. The ablative with vwip renders more probable this ablative use of wepi. 5. With the Genitive. This is the common case with wepl in the 1 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 133; Sterrett, The Dial, of Horn, in Horn. II., N 47. 2 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 714. Cf. vepaiTipoi, Ac. 19 : 39. « Griech. Gr., p. 448. Cf. Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 476. < H6m. Gr., p. 133. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEiz) 619 N. T. If the genitive and ablative examples are counted together (the real ablatives are certainly fe^^ they number 291 as against 38 accusatives.! But in the later Greek the accusative gradually drives out the genitive (with the help of 5ia also).^ The genitive was always rare with irepi 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 irepl oS be taken with (TTadivres, which is doubtful.' Curiously enough the Gospel of John has the genitive with irepi almost as often as all the Synoptic writers and the accu- sative not at all in the critical text, Jo. 11 : 19 reading xpos rfiv Mdpffoc.* This frequency in John is due largely to the abundant use of liaprvpkoi, Xkyca, \a\kco, 7p(i<^a), etc. Cf. Jo. 1 : 7, 22; 7 : 13, 17, etc. Uepl may occur with almost any verb where the notion of ' about,' 'concerning' is natural, hke 4(77rXa7xi't(r5'? (Mt. 9 : 36), riya.va.Krriaav (20 : 24), tik-Ka (22 : 16), k-Keyxbiavos (Lu. 3 : 19), idadixaaav (Lu. 2 : 18), etc. The list includes verbs like iiKobco, yivixrKoj, SiaXoyi^oixaL, kvOvtiiofiai, ^irtfr/T^o), etc. The usage includes both persons, like ■KpdatiixeaBe irepl i)nS>v (1 Th. 5 : 25), and things, like wepl hv8vfuiTos tI nepiiivare (Mt. 6 : 28). One neat Greek idiom is to. irepl. Cf. Tk irepl Tfjs dSoO (Ac. 24 : 22), tA irepl 'Iriaov (18 : 25; Mk. 5 : 27),' TO Trept eixavrov (Ac. 24 : 10). Blass^ considers iroielv irepl airov (Lu. 2: 27) "an incorrect phrase," which is putting it too strongly. Cf. \ayxi-voi irepi in Jo. 19 : 24, like classical fxaxofiai irepi. Sometimes irepi appears rather loosely at the beginning of the sentence, irepi T^s Xo^tas (1 Cor. 16 : 1), irepi 'AiroXXo) (16 : 12). Sometimes irepi is used with the relative when it would be repeated if the antece- dent were expressed, as in irepi Siv kypaxf/are (1 Cor. 7:1) or where irepi properly belongs only with the antecedent, as in irepi Siv SkSuK&i pjoi (Jo. 17:9). In Lu. 19 : 37, irepl iraawv Siv etSov hwaixeoiv, the preposition strictly belongs only to the antecedent which is in- corporated. In a case like irepi iravrtiiv evxotw.i (3 Jo. 2) the subject- matter of the prayer is implied in irepi as cause is involved in irepi Tov Kadapi(Jnov (Mk. 1 : 44) and as advantage is expressed in irepi abTTji (Lu. 4 : 38). But this is merely due to the context. 6. With the Accusative. This construction in reality occurs with much the same sense as the genitive. The accusative, of course, suggests a placing around. It is rare in the N. T., but in later Greek displaced the genitive as already remarked. But it does not survive in the modern Greek vernacular. With the accusative 1 Moulton, Prol., p. 105. « Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 272. 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 392. ^ Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 135. » W.-Th., p. 373. 620 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT irepi is used of place, as in tr/cdi^o) irepl ainiiv (Lu. 13 : 8), x€pj rbv TOTTov tKeivov (Ac. 28 : 7). Cf. Mk. 3:8. So with expressions of time, as in irtpl Tpirriv wpav (Mt. 20 : 3). Note the use of irtpl with the different parts of the body, as irepl rriv 6(rvv (Mt. 3:4), irepi rbv rpaxv^ov (18 : 6). Cf. Rev. 15 : 6. Ilept is used of persons as in irepi- acTTpa\j/ai. irepl 'ep,e (Ac. 22 : 6), el&av irepl avTobs (Mk. 9 : 14). An ancient Greek idiom occurs in ol irepl TlavXov (Ac. 13 : 13), like ol irepl "Eevo^GiVTo. (Xen. Anab. 7, 4, 16), where the idea is 'Paul and his companions.'' But in a case like ol irepl abrbv (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, irp&s ras irepl Mapdav Kal Maplav, where only Martha and Mary are meant,^ the critical text being irpis rrjv MapBau. Blass' notes that only with the Philippian Epistle (2 : 23, ra irepl e/xe) did Paul begin the use of the accusative with irepl (cf. genitive) in the sense of 'con- cerning,' like Plato. Cf. in the Pastoral Epistles, irepl rrji/ irllaTiv (1 Tim. 1: 19), irepl t^iv iX^fideiav (2 Tim. 2: 18). But Luke (10: 40 f.) has it already. Cf. wepl rd Toiavra (Ac. 19: 25). But kukXcj) in the LXX, as in the Kocvri, is also taking the place of irepl (Thack- eray, Gr., p. 25). 'Anct>l could not stand before irepi, and finally irepl itself went down. The entrance of irkp into the field of irepl will call for notice later. (m) Ilpd. Cf. the Sanskrit prd and the Zend fra, Gothic fra, Lithuanian pra, Latin pro, German /wr, vor, English /or (/or-ward), fore (/ore-front). The case of irp6 is not known, though it occurs a few . times in Homer as an adverb.* Cf . air6 and iiir6. The Latin prod is probably remodelled from an old *pro like an abla- tive, as prae is dative (or locative). ' 1. The Original Meaning. It is therefore plain enough. It is simply 'fore,' 'before.' It is rather more general in idea than avri and has a more varied development.^ In irpi rijs dbpas (Ac. 12 : 6) the simple idea is clear. 2. In Composition. It is common also in composition, as in irpo-aiikiov (Mk. 14 : 68), 'fore-court.' Other uses in composition grow out of this idea of 'fore,' as irpo-fialvca (Mt. 4 : 21), 'to go on' ('for-wards'), irpo-Koirrco (Gal. 1 : 14), irpo-ayoi (Mk. 11:9; cf. &ko- \ovdeu in contrast), ttpo-StjXos (1 Tim. 5 : 24), 'openly manifest,' 1 W.-Th., p. 406. » lb. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 134. * Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 149. ' K.-G., I, p. 454. Cf. Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 716. PKEPOsiTiONS (npoeESEis) 621 'before all' (cf. Gal.3: 1, irpo-eypacjiri); Trpo-exco (Ro. 3 : 9), 'to sur- pass'; irpo-aiJ.apTa.vco (2 Cor. 12 :21) 'to sin before,' 'previously'; ■Kpo-opl^w (Ro. 8:29), to 'pre-ordain.' Cf. irp6-Kpip.a (1 Tim. 5: 21), 'pre-judgment.' In these respects the N. T. merely follows in the wake of the older Greek.i One may illustrate irpb still further by the comparative irpb-npos and the superlative irpu-ros (cf. Doric TrpS-ros). Cf. also -irpd-croi, Trpo-irkpvai. 3. The Cases Used with irp6. These call for httle comment. It is barely possible that oiipavodi rp6 in Homer may be a remnant of a locative use.^ Brugmann' thinks that a true genitive is seen in rpd dSov, but this is not certain. But the ablative is probably the case. In very late Greek irp6 even appears with the accusative.* It is not in the modern Greek vernacular. The ablative is due to the idea of comparison and is found also with the Latin pro.^ Upo occurs only 48 times in the N. T. and is almost confined to Matthew's and John's Gospels, Luke's writings and Paul's Epistles (12 times). 4. Place. Thus it occurs only in four instances, irpo rijs Oiipas (Ac. 12 : 6), irpo tSiv dvpSiv (Jas. 5 : 9), irpo tov irvKSivos (Ac. 12 : 14), irp6 TTJs Tr6Xecos (14 : 13). Cf. enirpoadev (Mt. 5 : 24), which is more common in this sense in the N. T. Some MSS. have irpo in Ac. 5 : 23. In Cyprus (borrowing from the literary language) to-day we still have wpd K£<^aX^s, 'at the head of the table' (Thumb, Handb., p. 98). 5. Time. This is the more common idea with irpo in the N. T. Thus we find such expressions as roiis irpo vficov (Mt. 5 : 12), irpo Kaipov (8 :29), xpA tov KaTaKkva/xov (Mt. 24 : 38), Tp6 tov apioTov (Lu. 11:38), irpb tov iracxi (Jo. 11:55), xp6 tG>v aliivuv (1 Cor. 2:7), Tpd xe'MiSi'os (2 Tim. 4 : 21). This is all plain sailing. Nor need one stumble much at the compound preposition (translation Hebraism) irp6 irpoacowov (7ov (Mk. 1 : 2 and parallels). Cf. Ac. 13 : 24; Lu. 9 : 52. Nine times we have irpo tov with the infinitive, as in Lu. 2 : 21; 22 : 15; Jo. 1 : 48. Here this phrase neatly expresses a subordinate clause of time (antecedent). Cf. ante quam. A real difficulty appears in Tp6 8^ fifiepSiv tov irAcrxo. (Jo. 12 : 1), which does look like the Latin idiom in ante diem tertium Kalendas. ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 449. » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 149. Cf. Delbruck, Die Gmndl., p. 132. The inscr. show the loc. also. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 393. ' Griech. Gr., p. 449. * Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 393. » Cf. 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), xpA d/iepov dkKa Twv nvarripioiv. The idiom occurs also in the inscriptions, wpd Xe KdXavSSiv AiyyomTuv, I.M.A. iii. 325 (ii/A.D.), and the papyri, Trpo) Svo vnepov, F.P. 118 (ii/A.D.). So Moulton proves his point that it is a parallel growth like the Latin. Rouffiac (Recherches, p. 29) re-enforces it by three citations from the Priene inscrip- tions. Cf. also Trpo Tr6XKS>v tovtcov rtnepGiv Acta S. Theogn., p. 102. Moulton thinks that it is a natural development from the abla- tive case with Trpo, 'starting from,' and refers to 6\f/i (xafi^aTuv 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 Trpo erSip btKareaaapm (2 Cor. 12 : 2), 'fourteen years before (ago).' Abbott^ con- siders it a transposing of Trpo, but it is doubtful if the Greek came at it in that way. Simcox* calls attention to the double genitive with irpb in Jo. 12 : 1, really an ablative and a genitive. 6. Superiority. IIpo occurs in the sense of superiority also, as in Trpo iravTi^v (Jas. 5 : 12; 1 Pet. 4 : 8). In Col. 1 : 17 irpb ■Kavrtav is probably time, as in Trpo iiiov (Jo. 10 : 8; Rom. 16 : 7). Cf. Trpo TOVTOiV TaVTUV ID. Lu. 21 : 12. in) Ilpds. The etymology of Trpos is not perfectly clear. It seems to be itself a phonetic variation' of Trpori which is found in Homer as well as the form ttoti (Arcad. iros, ttot in Boeotian, etc.). What the relation is between totL and Trpori is not certain.' The Sanskrit prdti is in the locative case. The connection, if any, be- tween Trpos and Trpo is not made out, except that Trpo-ri and prd-ti both correspond to wpo and prd. Thayer considers -ri an adverbial suffix. 1. The Meaning. '' It is the same as Trpori and Trori. The root- idea is 'near,' 'near by,' according to Delbriick,* though Brug- mann' inclines to 'towards.' In Homer Trpos has an adverbial ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 394. Cf. Viereck, Sermo 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. s grug., Griech. Gr., p. 449. * Lang, of the N. T., p. 153 f. « lb. ' Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 726. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 449. » Die Grundl., p. 132. 9 Griech. Gr., p. 449. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 623 use, 7rp6s Sk, with the notion of ' besides.' ^ 'Near,' rather than 'towards,' seems to explain the r«iBultant meanings more satis- factorily. The idea seems to be 'facing,' German gegen. Cf. TTpdo'UTov. In 6 \6yos ^v irpds rbv Qibv (Jo. 1 : 1) the literal idea comes out well, ' face to face with God.' 2. In Com/position. Probably one sees the original notion in irpoc-eSptiu, 'to sit near' (cf. Eurip., etc.). Some MSS. read this verb in 1 Cor. 9 : 13, though the best MSS. have ■iraptSpivu. But we do have irpok\aiov (Mk. 4 : 38) and irpoix-iikvco (Mt. 15 : 32; 1 Tim. 5 : 5). Cf. also irpo(7-(l)6.yu)v (Jo. 21 : 5), and -Kpoa-opiil^o) (Mk. 6 : 53). The other resultant meanings appear in composition also as 'towards' in izpocf-d'yo) (Lu. 9 : 41), 'to' in irpoa-KoXMu (Eph. 5:31), 'besides' in irpoff-ot^eiXo) (Phil. 19), 'for' in wpba-Kaipoi (Mt. 13 : 21). This preposition is common in composition and sometimes the idea is simply "perfective," as in irpoff-Kaprepku (Ac. 1 : 14), irpda-TTtivos (Ac. 10 : 10). 3. Originally with Five Cases. The cases used with 7rp6s 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 . xp6, 3) speaks of "the true genitive" with irp6; it is only rarely true of Trp6s and inrep. The genitive with irp6s is wanting in the papyri and the Pergamon inscriptions (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 117). And in the N. T. no example of the genitive or dative appears. In Lu. 19 : 37 irpAs rfj KaTaffaaei might possibly be regarded as dative with iyyl^ovTof, but it is better with the Revised Version to sup- ply "even" and regard it as a locative. In composition (irpoo-4x«T€ iavrots, Lu. 12 : 1) the dative is common. 2 Maccabees shows the literary 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 rpds t^s vntrkpas (TUTriplM inr&pxfi: 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 irp6s in the N. T. is nearly confined to two cases. Moulton* agrees > Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 728. Up6s, as well as turi., 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 OF 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 Trpos tov -irorafiov, 'by the river' or 'towards the river.' In the modern Greek vernacular irpos fades ^ before ets and awo 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 Uterary language (Thumb, Handbook, p. 106). 5. With the Locative. Upos 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 httle remark. Cf. -rpos t$ Spei (Mk. 5:11), irpos ™ ixvt]p,d<^ (Jo. 20 : 11). They are all with verbs of rest save the use with kyyl^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 xpos as 'near' or 'facing.' Moulton counts 104 examples of irpos 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 irpbs t& vvkSivi., as late p-s 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 -wpbs in the N. T. is seen when one notes that the number is 679.^ This was the classic idiom ^ with 7rp6s both literally and meta- phorically. It is not necessary to say that xpos with the accusative means 'towards.' The accusative case implies extension and with verbs of motion -wpos ('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 avexooprjcrev irpds rrjv Ba\a,aaa.v (Mk. 3 : 7). In Mk. 11 : 1 note both ets {'lepocokvua) and irpos (ri' opos) with eyyi^w. 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 (eis) 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 wpds ffk. There seems to be something almost intimate, as well as personal, in some of the examples of irpos. The examples of 7rp6s with per- sons are very numerous, as in k^tTopebero irpos avrbv (Mt. 3 : 5), 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 140. « Moulton, Prol., p. 106. ^ Jann., Gk. Gr., p. 366. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 394. » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 142. » Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 155. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 625 SeCre irp6s ne (Mt. 11 : 28), etc. But one must not think that the notion of motion is essential to thg^use of 7rp6s and the accusative (cf. els and iv). Thus in Mis. 4 : 1, irSs 6 oxXos irpos rriv OfKaaaav 'ti:i T7JS 7^s ^aav, note both evri and irpos and the obvious distinc- tion. Cf. also depnaiv6n€vos irp6s t6 S>s (Mk. 14 : 54). It is not strange, therefore, to find irpos rmSis daiv (Mt. 13 : 56), irpos a-i iroitS rd irAffxa (26 : 18). Cf. also rot irpos ri/v Bvpav in Mk. 2 : 2. The accusative with irp6s is not indeed exactly what the locative would be, especially with persons. In Mk. 14 : 49 we find Kod' riiikpav finriv irpds ifias kv Tri Trpos vovdfaiav riixuv (1 Cor. 10 : 11), Trpos tL (lirev (Jo. 13 : 28), 6 Trpos ttju eXeTj/uocriij'Tjj' KaJdrifievos (Ac. 3 : 10). Cf. 1 Cor. 14 : 26; 15 : 34. Some examples of the infinitive occur also in this connection, like Trpos to deaOrjvai, avrols (Mt. 6:1), irpos to KaTaKavaai, aiiTO. (13 : 30), etc. In Trpos Td Seiv Trpo(Ttvxe(rdai (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 MuiKTJJs Trpos ttiv aicKripoKapblav vixGiv eirerpeil/tv (Mt. 19 : 8). There is no difficulty about the notion of comparison. It may be merely general accord as in Trp6$ to dkXrum avTov (Lu. 12 : 47), Trpos TTIV oKrideiav (Gal. 2 : 14), or more technical comparison as in oiiK o^ia TO. irajBrjuaTa tov vvv Kaipov irpos rfiv iJ,kX\ov(rav 56^av airo- Ka.\v(t)drjvai. (Ro. 8 : 18). With this may be compared Trpos 66vov in Jas. 4 : 5, where the phrase has an adverbial force. (o) Hvv. The older form ^vv (old Attic) appears in some MSS. in 1 Pet. 4 : 12 (Beza put it in his text here). This form ^bv is seen in ^vvos. In /xeTa-^ii both ^uerci and ^v{v) are combined.^ Del- briick' is indeed in doubt as to the origin of avv, but see Momm- sen,* and some (Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 343) consider ^iv and a\)v different. 1. The Meaning. This is in little dispute. It is ' together with.' * 1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 139. 2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 454. » Vergl. Synt., I, p. 730. * Entwick. einiger Gesetze fur d. Gebr. d. griech. Prap. iieri., abv and aim, p. 444. ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 454. PBEPOSiTioNS (npoeESEiz) 627 Cf. Latin cum and English con-comitant. The associative in- strumental is the case used with o-df as with 0.^0. and it is just that idea that it was used to express originally.' It never departed from this idea, for when the notion of help is present it grows naturally out of that of association. The Attic, according to Blass,^ confines aiiv to the notion of 'including,' but the Ionic kept it along with /ierA for ' with.' 2. History. It is not without interest. In Homer it is sometimes an adverb (tmesis). Indeed it never made headway outside of poetry save in Xenophon, strange to say. The Attic prose writers use jti€Ta rather than avv. Thus in 600 pages of Thucydides we find nera 400 times and fto 37, while Xenophon has avv more than nerd.. In Demosthenes the figures run 346 of fiera and 15 of avv, while Aristotle has 300 and 8 respectively.' Monro* thinks that nerh displaced aiv in the vernacular while crhv held on in the poets as the result of Homer's influence and finally became a sort of in- separable preposition like dis- in Latin (cf. d^<^i- in N. T.). In the modern Greek vernacular aiv is displaced by fii (nera) and some- times by a/ia.^ The rarity of trijv in the N. T. therefore is in har- mony with the history of the language. Its use in the N. T. is largely confined to Luke's Gospel and Acts and is entirely absent from John's Epistles and the Apocalypse as it is also from Hebrews and 1 Peter, not to mention 2 Thessalonians, Philemon and the Pastoral Epistles. It is scarce in the rest of Paul's writings and in Mark and Matthew,* and John's Gospel has it only three times (12 : 2; 18 : 1; 21 : 3). It occurs in the N. T. about 130 times (over two-thirds in Luke and Acts), the MSS. varying in a few instances. 3. In Composition. Here (t{jv is extremely common. See Ust of these verbs in chapter on Cases (Instrumental). Cf. Thayer's Lexicon under avv. The use in composition illustrates the asso- ciative idea mainly as in aw-ayu (Mt. 2 : 4), (rvv-kpxoiiai. (Mk. 3 : 20), though the notion of help is present also, as in avv-avTi-XanffavoiJiai, (Lu. 10 :40), Delbruck, Die Grundl., p. 133. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 132. * Horn. Gr., p. 147. » Cf. Mommsen, Entw. etc., p. 4 f. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 366. ' Cf. on the whole subject Mommsen, Entw., p. 395. 628 A. GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT The verb o-w^xw (Lu. 22 : 63; Ac. 18 : 5) is found in the papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 160. Cf. Moulton and Milligan, Expositor, 1911, p. 278). As already explained, the case used is the associative-instrumental. In the very late Greek the accusa- tive begins to appear with o-iv (as indeed already in the LXX!) and both (riv and a/xa show^ examples of the genitive Uke fiera. 4. N. T. Usage. There is very little comment needed on the N.T. usage of the preposition beyond what has already been given.'' The bulk of the passages have the notion of accompaniment, like aiiv } (Ro. 8 : 26). In the late Greek vernacular iiTrep fades' before inripavu and Sia and already in the N. T. the distinction between xept and virep is not very marked in some usages, partly due to the affinity in sound and sense.* Passages where the MSS. vary between fiTr^p and Trepi are Mk. 14 : 24; Jo. 1 : 30; Ac. 12 : 5; Ro. 1 : 8; Gal. 1 : 4, etc. 3. With Genitive? A word is needed about the cases used with hrip. There is no trouble as to the accusative, but it is a mooted question whether we have the true genitive or the ablative. Brugmann^ views the case as genitive without hesitation and cites the Sanskrit use of upari in support of his position. But ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 146; Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 228. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 398. « Jann., ib., p. 366. * lb., p. 398. ■■ Griech. Gr., p. 451; Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 464. 630 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT I on the side of the ablative we note Kuhner-Gerty and Monro,^ while Delbriick' admits that either is possible, though leaning to the genitive. Where such doctors disagree, who shall decide? The Sanskrit can be quoted for both sides. The main argument for the ablative is the comparative idea in iirep which naturally goes with the ablative. On the whole, therefore, it seems to me that the ablative has the best of it with iirkp. 4. With Ablative. Certainly as between the ablative. and the accusative, the ablative is far in the lead. The figures^ are, abla- tive 126, accusative 19. On the whole, therefore, virep drops back along with mo. There is no example of the strictly local use of vvep in the N. T. unless ol ^aim^biievoi vvep tGiv viKpGiv (1 Cor. 15 : 29) be so understood, which is quite unlikely.'^ This obscure passage still remains a puzzle to the interpreter, though no difficulty arises on the grammatical side to this or the other senses of Wtp. The N. T. examples are thus metaphorical. These uses fall into four divisions. The most common is the general notion of 'in behalf of,' 'for one's benefit.' This grows easily out of the root-idea of 'over' in the sense of protection or defence. Thus in general. with irpoa- evxonaL (Mt. 5 : 44), b'eonai (Ac. 8 : 24), ayupl^ofiai. (Col. 4 : 12), KaOlarapai (Heb. 5 : 1), Trpokpw (ib.), etc. The point comes out with special force in instances where Kara, is contrasted with mip as in els virtp rov b>6s ^vcvovadt Kara tov iripov (1 Cor. 4:6). Cf. also Mk. 9 : 40; Ro. 8 : 31. We must not, however, make the mistake of thinking that iiirep of itself literally means 'in behalf of.' It means ' over.' It is sometimes said that LvtI means literally 'instead' and iirkp '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 dvTi or iirep. In the Gorgias of Plato (515 C.) we have irep mv for the notion of 'instead.' Neither does irp6 (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- 1 I, p. 486. 2 Horn. Gr., p. 147. « Moulton, Prol., p. 105. ' Vergl. Synt., I, p. 749. = Cf. W.-Th., p. 382. « Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 156. Winer (W.-Th., p. 38) impUes the same thing. ' Ib. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 135, has nothing on this use of irkp. Moulton, Prol., p. 105, merely calls iwip "the more colourless" as compared with avrl. JfKEPOSITIONS (nPOGESEIs) 631 band, inrkp occurs seven times, more than avrl and irpo together. Cf . Thucydides I, 141 and Xenophen Anab. 7 : 4, 9 for the substi- tutionary use of ivkp. In the Epistle to Diognetus (p. 84) we note 'Kvrpov inrip ■fiimv and a few lines further the expression is airaXXaTiJ. Paul's combination in 1 Tim. 2 : 6 is worth noting, avT'Chirpov iirkp iravTcov, where the notion of substitution is manifest. There are a few other passages where inrep 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 (ird Karapav). In verse 13 he carries on the same image. Christ bought us "out from under" the curse (k rfjs Karapas rod vo/wv) of the law by becoming a curse " over" us {tevbiifvoi hrip yjpMv 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 inrkp 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 hvkp is explained as meaning substitution, Iva els avSpiairos aTodavn wrkp toO XaoO Kal fifi o\ov TO Wvos AxoXijTat. Indeed Abbott ^ thinks that "in almost all the Johannine instances it refers to the death of one for the many." In Philemon 13, vwip aod not duiKovy, the more obvious notion is 'instead.' One may note 'iypai}/a iwip avrov firi iSSros ypantiara, P. Oxy. 275 (a.d. 66), where the meaning is obviously 'instead of him since he does not know letters.' Deissmann {Light, p. 152 f.) finds it thus (eypatj/ev iirep avrov) in an ostracon from Thebes, as in many others, and takes vwip to mean 'for' or 'as representative of,' and adds that it "is not without bearing on the question of virip in the N. T." Cf. iypa-^a fi[7rep aurlcoD aypaixnitTov, B.U. 664 (I/a.d.). In the papyri and the ostraca imkp often bore the sense of 'instead of.' In 2 Cor. 5 : 15 the notion of substitution must be understood because of Paul's use of apa ol iravres cnrfBavov as the conclusion^ from els inrip iravTcov airidavev. There remain a ' Joh. Gr., p. 276. '^ Cf. Thayer, p. 3, under iirip. In Pausanias (Ruger, Die Prap. bei Pans., 1889, p. 12) iwip occurs about twice as often as AutL. A. Theimer (Beitr. zur Kenntn. des Sprachgeb. im N. T., 1901, p. 25), speaking of Jo. 11:50, says: "Der Zusatz nii iiXov tA Bvos AiriXriTai, die Bedeutung an Stelle anstatt." 632 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT number of passages where the notion of substitution is perfectly natural from the nature of the case. But in these passages one may stop in translation with 'in behalf of if he wishes. But there is no inherent objection in vwkp itself to its conveying the notion of 'instead' as a resultant idea. In fact it is per se as natural as with di'Ti. In the light of the above one finds little difficulty with passages like Ro. 5 : 6 f.; 8 : 32; Gal. 2 : 20; Jo. 10 : 11, 15; Heb. 2 : 9; Tit. 2 : 14, etc. In Mk. 10 : 45 we have Urpov avrl iroXKSiv and in 14 : 24 to alixa fiov — to eKxvvvofitvov virep iroWuv. But one may argue from 1 Jo. 3 : 16 that irkp in case of death does not necessarily involve substitution. Surely the very object of such death is to save life. The two other uses of vwkp may be briefly treated. Sometimes the resultant notion may be merely 'for the sake of,' as in iiwip rrjs So^Tjs rod Oeov (Jo. 11 ". 4), virip aXrjdelas deov (Ro. 15 : 8), iir^p tov ovo/xaTos (Ac. 5 : 41), ixip Xpicrrov (Ph. 1 : 29), etc. This is natural in relations of intimate love. A more general idea is that of 'about' or 'concerning.' Here virip encroaches on the province of irepL Cf. 2 Cor. 8 : 23, iiwip Tirov, 2 Th. 2 : 1, {nrep ttjs wapoufflas tov Kvp'iov. Perhaps 1 Cor. 15 : 29 comes in here also. Moulton^ finds commercial accounts in the papyri, scores of them, with inrkp in the sense of 'to.' We see the free use ('concerning') with verbs like Kavxa-opai (2 Cor. 7 : 14), 4>povku (Ph. 1:7), /cpafoj (Ro. 9 : 27), kpoirkw (2 Th. 2 : 1), etc. The Latin super is in line with this idiom also. Cf. Jo. 1 : 30, mkp 01) hydi flwov. In 1 Cor. 10 : 30, tL (SXocr^jj/ioO/iai iirip o5 kyd) evxcpiaTS), the preposition suits antecedent as well as relative. In 2 Cor. 1 : 6 and Ph. 2:13 virip suggests the object at which one is aiming. Cf . iwip Siv ij^ovKbpada a.ireffToXKap.ev, P. Goodspeed 4 (ii/B.c); ii;r^po5 X^ctft, P.Oxy.37(A.D.49); mip dpo/Scows, P. Grenf . ii. 67 (a.d. 237), 'by way of earnest-money.' 4. The Accusative with iwep calls for little remark. The literal local use of inrtp occurs in D in Heb. 9 : 5, vT'kp d' a.vTi]v, "an unpar- alleled use," 2 in the sense of 'above,' the other MSS. having vTepdiVco. The accusative with inrkp has the metaphorical sense of 'above' or 'over,' as in ovk 'iaTiv na.driT'/is inrep tov SiSaaKoKov (Mt. 10 : 24). Cf. also to 6vo^a t6 xiirkp icav bvop.a. (Ph. 2:9), Kt4>aKi]v\ivlp irLvTo. (Eph. 1 : 22), ovKeTi tos bovKov dXXA xntkp 5ov\ov (Phil. 16). This notion easily gets into that of 'beyond' in harmony with the accusative case. Thus virkp a yeypairTai (1 Cor. 4 : 6), ireipa- aBnvai. inrkp 3 Shvacdi (1 Cor. 10 : 13). Cf. iirkp hhvap.iv (2 Cor. 1 : 8), 1 Prol., p. 105. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 313. PBEPOSITIONS (nPOBESEIs) 633 iirip TToWovs (Gal. 1 : 14), bir^p rrjv \aiJ,Tp6TriTa (Ac. 26 : 13). Clas- sical Greek only shows the beginning of the use of vwep with com- paratives,^ but the N. T. has several instances. Thus the LXX often uses it with comparatives, partly because the Hebrew had no special form for the comparative degree.^ But the KOLvij shows the idiom. So we find ippovificoTepoi virip robs vtoiis (Lu. 16 : 8), Top,uiTepos virip wacrav ix&xai'Pa.v (Heb. 4 : 12). In Jo. 12 : 43 W. H. read ijirep in text and iirkp in margin after nSXKov. But inrkp has the compara- tive sense of 'more than' after verbs, as 6 CkSiv irarepa ^ iirirtpa iirip kfik (Mt. 10 : 37). In the LXX the positive adjective occurs with ivip, as 'ivSo^os iiT^p rois aSeX^oiis (1 Chron. 4:9). In Ro. 12 : 3, jlh) iirep(l>povelv Trap' S 8eZ 4>pove2v, note the conjunction of iirkp and TapL Moulton (Prol., p. 237) cites iir^p iavrdv (jspoveiv, T.P. 8 (ii/s.c). Blass' doubts whether wrep\la.v, vTepeKirepiacrov can be properly regarded as compounds. He would separate mkp as an adverb, inrep Xiav. But the modern editors are against him. It has disappeared in modern Greek vernacular before 71a (Thumb, Handb., p. 105). (q) 'Yird. Little is called for by way of etymology since ix6 is the positive of vwip. Cf. the Sanskrit upa, Latin sub, Gothic uf, possibly also German auf, English up, ab-owe. The fornj inrS is of unknown case, but the Elean dialect* has ira-, and Homer ^ has also vrai (dative.) 1. The Original Meaning.^ This was probably 'upwards' or 'from under.' Unlike Kara, {iwo never means 'downwards.' As a matter of fact, 'up' and 'under' are merely relative terms. The very EngUsh word up is probably (ito. Cf. Ci/'t 'aloft,' iix-rtos 'facing upwards,' vir-aros 'uppermost,' inf/iaros. The meaning of under or beneath is common in the N. T., as vir6 t6v ixbhov (Mt. 5 : 15). 2. In Composition. Here iirb appears simply with the notion of 'under' as in vto-kclto) (Mk. 7 : 28), {nr-coina.^co (1 Cor. 9 : 27), utto- ypanndi (1 Pet. 2 : 21), {nro-rdStov (Mt. 5 : 35), iwo-Skio (Mk. 6:9). Cf. also viro-Seijtia (Jo. 13 : 15), viro-^iyiov (Mt. 21 : 5). In iiwo- Kpiais (Mt. 23 : 28), inro-KpLrijs (Mt. 6 : 2) the notion of an actor imder a mask lies behind the resultant idea. The idea of hos- pitality (under one's roof) is natural with viro-bkxonai (Lu. 10 : 38), viro-Xafipavu (3 Jo. 8). In Ro. 16 :4 {ywo-TWrini, has the idea of 'put under,' as mro-^iivvvni (Ac. 27: 17), 'undergird.' In utto- 1 lb., p. 108. * Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 452. 2 C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 84. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 139. 3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 135. » lb. Cf. Brug., ib. 634 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 'Ka.fiuv elirev (Lu. 10 : 30) the notion of interrupting or following a speech comes from the idea of 'up' in viro, taking up the talk, etc. The "perfective" idea appears in vro-XdTco (Ro. 11 : 3), 'leave be- hind or over.' So with iixo-rpex'^ (Ac. 27 : 16), ' run under or past.' Cf. mro-Tr\kcc (Ac. 27:4, 7), 'sail close by.' But in vTo-wviai (Ac. 27 : 13) the preposition minimizes the force of the verb, ' blow softly.' Cf. our swspicion, the French soupgon. So with under- estimate. In {nro-fiaXKo} (Ac. 6:11) the notion of suggestion has an evil turn, but in inro-iJ,i,ixvfiv dripiosv). 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 iirb, like d7r6XXuA*ai (1 Cor. 10 : 9), \aiifi6.vu (2 Cor. 11 : 24), w&ffx^ (Mk. 5 : 26), {nrofihu (Heb. 12 : 3). In the case of passive verbs the usage follows the tradi- tional lines. Cf. Mt. 4 : 1 for two examples, LviixOv bi^b rod irvtv- ' W.-Th., p. 407. » 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 GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT liaros, TrtLpa.(T6rjvaL viro rod Sta/36Xou. It is to be noted that in Lu. 9 : 8 iiTTo is not repeated with aKXoiv. The bulk of the N. T. instances of viro occur of personal agency like e/SaTrrtf ocro vir' aiirov (Mt. 3 : 6), hieciraadai vw' avrov (Mk. 5:4), etc. Sometimes, when dia. is added to viro, a distinction is made between the intermediate and the mediate agent, as in to pridev iiro Kvplov Sia tov Trpor]Tov (Mt. 1 : 22). Cf. 2 : 15. There is nothing peculiar about the use of viro in 2 Pet. 1 : 17, (jtuvfji eyex^tio-jjs viro rrjs fieya'XoTpiirods 36^7js.^ But vto is not the only way of expressing the agent. Besides Std for the in- direct agent airo is the most common^ substitute for viro, though k and Trapd both are found for the notion of agency. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 116) speaks of awd as "die eigentlich pradestinierte Partikel." The instrumental case and kv and the locative must also be recalled. But 5ta with the accusative (motive or cause) must not be confounded with this idea. Cf. Lu. 21 : 17 for inro with ablative and Sm 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 efiirpoadiv, 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 hst 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 h Si, irapa di, and this separation from a verb is no longer considered a * " surgical operation" (tmesis) . Cf . Seymour, Homeric 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. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 151. * Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 414. PREPOSITIONS (nPOGESEIs) 637 adverbs which were sometimes used with cases. These adverbial prepositions varied constantly in the history of the Greek. Some of them, like avev, iyj\j%, evtKa, 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 ciTro/cdTCj Ax6. In the" modern Greek the improper prepositions are used either with the genitive (only with enclitic pronoun) or by the addition of 's, airo, fik 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,^ lik& dittos rod eiiayyeXiov (Ph. 1:27). Some of these prepositional adverbs, as already shown, occur both as adverbs, as aim rai kXTrl^uv (Ac. 24 : 26), and as prepositions, as ana airoh (Mt. 13 : 29), while others appear only as prepositions with cases, as avev tov warpos (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 airdvoidev (Judges 16 : 20) may be compared with kravcoBev (classical also), and iiroKaroidev (Deut. 9 : 14), which in ancient Greek is only an adverb. Simcox^ carefully explains iviiriov, so common in the LXX, as a translation and imitation of *i5isa, but even Conybeare and Stock ^ surrender this word as not a Hebraism before Deissmann's proof.' The N. T., like 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 Jicos noted above is not in- cluded. Cf. iiira^ rod iviavrov (Heb. 9:7). Conybeare and Stock (p. 87) even count kxoneva ir'trpas (Ps. 140 : 6), but surely that is going too far. Cf. ra Kpdacova Kal exo/JitPa trcoTTjpias (Heb. 6:9). There is more excuse for claiming katortpov t^s /coXu/u/3)j9pas (Is. • Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 366. 2 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 hst do not appear in the N. T., while 12 are in the N. T. that he does not mention, viz. tvavn, ivi>wiov, narkvavTi, KaTevinriov, KVK\60tv, fiiiTop, birlaui, Aif'^i irapaTrXijaiov, irapeKTds, iiriKeiva, inrepeKirepuraov. This list by Krebs shows the freedom in the koivti 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 a^o (instrumental) and kyybs (dative). 1. "A/Lia. It is probably in the instrumental case itself. Brug- mann* connects the word with the root of els, fila, 'iv as seen in a-Taf, d-7rXoOs, Cretan a^uaws, Latin semel, Sanskrit sama, English same. Cf. also ofiov, e-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 8^ Kai (1 Tim. 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 Hfia avv with the instrumental, a sort of double preposition after the manner of the later Greek (1 Th. 4 : 17; 5 : 10) and once afm irpial with adverb (Mt. 20 : 1). The use of aixa aiiv Thayer explains by taking dfia as an adverb with the verb. Only once does it occur as a simple preposition with the instrumental, afio, avrols (Mt. 13:29). For the later revival of iifia and use like fiera see Jannaris.^ In 2 Esdr. 17 : 3 bn is translated by a/ia. In the Acta Nerei a/ia is used only with the genitive (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 119). 2. "Avev. It is of uncertain etymology.* Homer has another form, avevdev, the Eleatic &vev-s, the Epidaurian &vev-v, the Megarian &VIS. 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 x^-P^v. Two of these (1 Pet. 3 : 1; 4 :9) occur with abstract words, and one (Mt. 10 : 29) with roO irarpos. The word is rare in the late Greek, especially with a case.^ 3. "AvTLKpvs {some editors avTiKpii). 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, Hvtlkpvs Xiov. It occurs in modern Greek vernacular (Thumb, Handb., p. 109). 4. 'AjTixepa (dcn-TT^paj', Polybius, etc.). It is just dj-Ti and ire/jav combined. Thucydides uses avTLvkpas as adverbial preposition. Only one example occurs in the N. T. (Lu. 8 : 26), avrlvepa. t^s 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. ^ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 337. In Eleatic Sceus occurs with the ace. PBEPosiTiONS (npoeESEiz) 639 TaXiXatas. The case is open to dispute, since avrl comes with the genitive and vipav with the ablatjye. '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. 'ATtmvTL. It is a triple compound of airo, kv, avri. A number of adverbial prepositions were formed on avrl as a base. In the N.T. we find also hiavTi, kvavriov, KarevavrL. These are late, except kvavriov (from Homer on. Cf . avra, 'ev-avra). Polybius uses awhavTi 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 Karkvavn in the text and awkvavTi. 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 avri 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 in the N. T. (Lu. 22 : 6, 35). The case is clearly the ablative, and the meaning is 'without.' One example, arep oxi^ov, is with persons and the other, arep fidKkavTlov, is with a thing. 7. "Axpi(s). It is related to /xkxplis) whatever its origin. Cf. usque in Latin and axpi «is like v^que 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 axpi- o5 (Ac. 7 : 18) and axpi ^s finkpas (Mt. 24 : 38) it is both preposition and conjunc- tion (resultant temporal phrase). Leaving out these examples, axpt is found 30 times in the N. T. (W. H. text) and some MSS. read S.xpi in Ac. 1 : 22 and 20 : 4, while in Mt. 13 : 30 the MSS. vary between oxpt, m^XP' and ews (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 oxpt tov vvv (Ro. 8 : 22). 8. 'Ey76s. It is a mere adverb (see comp. kyyirepov, superl. 'iyyiara) possibly related to 'ey^vr). 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 GRAMMAR OF 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 €771)5 (cf. Jo. 11:54). Only four times does kyyiis have the dative (Ac. 9 : 38; 27: 8), counting the indeclin- able 'Iepov(ra\rin (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. 'Ektos. 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 kros X€7coj' &v in Ac. 26 : 22. Three times we have kros ti iii) (1 Cor. 14 : 5; 15 : 2; 1 Tim. 5 : 19), which is a pleonasm due first to the use of krds el. Deissmann {Bible Studies, p. 118) cites an inscription of Mopsues- tia for "this jumbled phrase," pecuUarly apropos since Paul was Cilician, kris el /ii) [e]av Maym libvt] de\\yi\crT). Once (Mt. 23 : 26) kros is probably a mere adverb used as a substantive, though even here it may be regarded as a preposition. 10. "'SfiirpoaOev. This is merely ev and irpdadev 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. "EvavTL. (Cf. 'ivavra in Homer.) It is one of the 6.vTi 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 evavHov. 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. 'EvavHov. This is, of course, merely the neuter singular of ivavrlos (cf. Mk. 6 : 48), and is common in the older Greek as in the LXX. For the papyri see 'evavriov b.v5pCiv rpiuv P. Eleph. 1 ' Bmg., Griech. Gr., pp. 198, 254. 2 lb., p. 456. ' C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 87. The LXX used a number of prep, to transl. '^sS. Cf. Swete, Intr. to the O. T. in Gk., p. 308. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 641 (B.C. 311). In the N. T. it does not occur as a mere adverb, but we find it five times as a preposition with the genitive (cf . Lu. 1 : 6), all with persons (cf. Latin coram)* 13. "EveKa. It occurs in three forms in the N. T., either iviKo. (Lu. 6 : 22), htKw (9 : 24) or i'lvtKtv (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 Koivij, 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 uncertain, but the form eiyeKev is Ionic and partially in the koivti supersedes the Attic.^ The preposition occurs 26 times in the N. T. Once (2 Cor. 7 : 12) we find it used with rod and the infinitive. Cf. evtKev and 3ta Lu. 21 : 12, 17. ,14. 'Ei-Tos. It is like the Latin in-tus (opposite of kros) and has the same ending -ros. 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. kTos, 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 evros. 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: ^ PaaiKeia tSiv ovpavSiv evros vjjmv iariv. 15. ''Evimiov. This is the neuter singular of the adjective ivi)inos which (Thayer) is from the phrase hv inrl (6 kv inrl &v). Homer uses ra kviiiria, but no example of the adverb or preposition hd}iru)v 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 "'SpS. 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 ' Brag., Griech. Gr., p. 457. 2 C. Taylor, The Oxyrhyn. Sayings of Jesus, 1905, pp. 7, 11. Besides in Polyb. ivT6s is always the opposite of 4kt4s. 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 KareixiiirLov. In the N. T., ivuiriov 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, 'Kvoiinos — kvisinov — Ka.Tevinn.ov iBM. Z., 1910, pp. 263-270). 16. "E^co. It is an adverb from e^ (cf. eau, «) and is probably in the ablative case like oi)r&)(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^o) t^s okias (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^udev. It is the same word plus the suffix -dev, 'from without,' and was common in the poets (cf. iacaBev). The case used is the ablative. In the N. T. it is much less frequent (13 times) both as adverb and preposition than 'e^c>>. Indeed, if t6 e^o)6ev rod Trorijpiou (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 kvros (Mt. 23 : 26). Cf. Lu. 11:40. 18. 'Eir-dj/co. This is just the preposition kH and the adverb &vca. It occurs in Attic Greek both as adverb and as preposition. As an adverb it is rare in the N. T. (4 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 TrpaBfjvaL), once where a pronoun is really implied (Lu. 11:44). As a preposition we find it fifteen times in the N. T. Cf. e-Kavos opovs (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 {a)7ravu 's (Thumb, Handbook, p. 109). 19. 'Eirketm. It is merely eirt and kKtiva. Thayer suggests the ellipsis of fikpr]. It occurs in the Attic Greek both as adverb and as preposition. In the N. T. it appears only once in a quotation from Ainos 5 : 27 and as a preposition with the ablative in the sense of 'beyond' (Ac. 7 : 43. Cf. iwepeKeLva) . 20. "Eo-co. It is the adverb of ks (cf. 'i^oi) and is in the ablative ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 129. PREPOSITIONS (npoeESEis) 643 case. The form eJo-w (els) does not occur in the N. T. nor in the LXX. Indeed the word eaoi is foipd only nine times in the N. T. and only one, ecu rrjs ouXijs (Mk. 15 : 16), is the prepositional use. The case used with it is the genitive. This, however, is a gen- uine example, while iacadev (12 times) is never a preposition in the N. T., for even Lu. 11 : 39, to icroidev iixdv, has the article. Cf. kaiiTepov t^s KoKvn^y]6pas (Is. 22 : 11). 21. "Ecos. In Homer it is both demonstrative and relative ad- verb (from etos, eicos).i Cf. &s and cos. The use of &s 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 ecos as conjunction is used in the N. T. It is equally common in the N. T. as preposition and conjunction, if the phrases ews oB, ecos otov be treated as conjunc- tions, as indeed they are, though technically composed of the preposition ecos 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 &,bov (Mt. 11:23), ?cos ohpavov (Lu. 10: 15), ecos 'Aj'Ttoxetas (Ac. 11 : 22); with persons, like ecos avrov (Lu. 4 : 42) ; with expressions of time, like ecos T^s (rr]iJ.epov (Mt. 27: 8), ^cos Sipas kva,Tr]s (27 : 45); with abstract expressions, like ecos davdrov (Mt. 26 : 38) ; with notion of measure, like ecos rip.L,Tovs (Mk. 6 : 23). See Rom. 3 : 12 ?cos ecos (LXX). Cf. dTTo — ecos in Mt. 1 : 17; 20: 8; 27: 51. Seventeen of the ex- amples are uses of ecos with an adverb, like ecos kotco (Mt. 27: 51), ecos fiprt (Jo. 2 : 10), while seven instances of ecos irore occur, like Mt. 17 : 17. Four times ecos occurs with another preposition, like ecos irpos (Lu. 24 : 50), ecos kiri (Ac. 17 : 14), ?cos Hca (21 : 5). In Mk. 14 : 54 note 'icos iaoi els. Once (cf. Demosthenes, Aristotle, LXX) we find it with the article and the infinitive ecos rov e\9ttv (Ac. 8 : 40). In ecos T^Xous (2 Cor. 1 : 13), the phrase is almost adverbial. In D (Ac. 19 : 26), ?cos 'E4>iaov, Blass^ finds the notion of 'within.' In the LXX 2 [Heb.] Esdr. 6 : 20, e'cos els irLvres, and 1 Chron. 5 : 10 A, ecos iravres, Deissmann (B. S., p. 139) sees a Hebraism. 22. KarevavTL. It is not found in the older Greek, but appears in the LXX and the N. T. It is especially frequent in the Book of Sirach.' But in poetry" we find Karkvavra and the word is merely » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 151. ' C. and S., p. 87. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 127. 644 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the threefold preposition Kara, kv, avri. The MSS. in the N. T. often vary! between KarevavTi and awkvavTi as in Mt. 21 : 2; 27: 24; Ac. 3 : 16, etc. In Mt. 27 : 24 and Mk. 12 : 41 W. H. put dTr^wm in the margin. KarevavTiov, found in Hesiod and Herodotus, does not occur in the N. T. There are only nine examples of KarkvavTi 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. KarhavTi 6eov ev XpLffrai (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. KarevisTnov. It is just kpojTiov (see above) and Kara. Homer uses KaTevioira with the genitive, but Karevdnnov appears in the LXX. The N. T. shows only three examples (cf. the frequency of ivuinov), 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. KvKkodiv. 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 dpovov (Rev. 4 : 3 f.) and once as an adverb (4 : 8). 25. Kii/cXt{) 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 rod dpovov (Rev. 4 : 6; 5 : 11; 7 : 11). Cf. k^kXcj) m^xp' (Ro. 15 : 19). 26. Metro)'. 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 /teaoc which were used as prepositions, some of which survive in the N. T., like ava fiea-QV, 8id fiiaov (rov), els fiicrou (and els to fikaov), kv ixicoi (and iv tQ ixeiTCjj), e/c iJ,k<7ov, Kara p,kaov. But these will be discussed later. The adjective ukaos occurs with the genitive (Lu. 22 : 55; Jo. 1 : 26), so that it is not strange to find the adverb with the genitive as in Ph. 2 : 15, ukaov yevm^. In Mt. 14 : 24 W. H. put ukaov in the margin and D reads ixkcov in Lu. 8:7; 10 : 3. See Hatzidakis, Einl., p. 214, for examples. Cf. Homeric fieffariyvs. The mod- ern Greek vernacular uses p,€aa 's, /ieo-' cltS (Thumb, Handbook, p. 108). ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 128. 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 374. PREPOSITIONS (nPOGESEIs) 645 27. Merafii. Like so many of the adverbial prepositions, it is a compound (juerd, ^bv). 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 fiera. 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 Bia and fiera^v appear. 28. M-kxpi- Like axpt and ecos, 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 ixexpis ov be treated as a conjunction (cf. axpi ov, ecos 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. "Onadev. It is of uncertain etymology, perhaps related to iirl. 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 aviadev tov 'li]crov (Lu. 23 : 26). It means 'from behind' and so 'after' (Mt. 15 : 23). It is the opposite of 'ifiirpoaBev. I 30. 'Oiriaw. It is the opposite of Tpoaoi (cf. iroppu) and is an ablative adverb from ottk (as above). It is very common in the older Greek as an adverb, but it is extremely common in the LXX as a preposition.^ In the N. T. owiaca occurs alone as an adverb only twice (Mt. 24 : 18; Lu. 7: 38), though we meet eis to. birlaw seven times as in Mk. 13 : 16. But as a preposition we find it 26 times, mostly with persons, as in the common biriaus /wv (Mt. 3 : 11). It is used with the ablative, 'behind.' Cf. Sevre oTriaoo in Mt. 4 : 19. 31. 'O^e. This word seems to be another variation of oiris and occurs in the ancient Greek, both as an adverb and as a preposition with the genitive (Thuc. 4, 93) with the sense of ' late on.' But Philostratus shows examples where o^e with the ablative has the sense of 'after,' Uke 6^^ TouTa)j'=' after these things.'' Philos- tratus uses it also in the sense of 'late on.' The papyri use it in the sense of 'late on' with the genitive.* So 6\l/i rrjs &pas P. Par. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 129. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 312. 2 C. aad S., p. 87. * Moulton, Prol., p. 72 f. 646 A GRAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 37 (ii/B.c). Hence in Mt. 28 : 1, o\l/i o-ajS/JaTWj'. may be either late on the Sabbath or after the Sabbath. Either has good support. Moulton* is uncertain, while Blass^ prefers 'after.' It is a point for exegesis, not for grammar, to decide. If Matthew has in mind just before sunset, 'late on' would be his idea; if he means after sunset, then 'after' is correct. Cf. Sh rod o-a/S/Sarou (Lu. 18 : 12). 32. napa-irXi7(noj'. It is merely the neuter of the adjective xapaTrXiJo-tos. This adjective usually had the associative-instru- mental, seldom the genitive. But the one example of the adverbial preposition in the N. T. (Ph. 2 : 27), davkrov, has the genitive. See 33. Hap-e/cTis. It is a late compound for the earlier Tropk. It appears in the N. T. only three times, save in the margin of Mt. 19 : 9 of W. H.'s text. Once it is a mere adverb (2 Cor. 11 : 28), and twice it is a preposition with the ablative (Mt. 5 : 32; Ac. 26 : 29) meaning 'without.' 34. Jikpav. It comes from the root xep (cf. Trepdo), 'fare,' 'ferry,' etc.). Ionic ■Kkpr]v. It is an adverb (cf. adv. irkpa), probably accusative case. Both as adverb and as preposition with ablative (sometimes with accusative), it survives from Homer. In the N. T. it occurs ten times as an adverb in the phrase tU rd wkpav (Mt. 8 :18). It is found 13 times as a preposition with the abla- tive, chiefly in the expression irkpav rod 'Iop5a.vov (Mt. 4 : 15). 35. TlXriv, Doric wXav. It is probably from ir\kov, 'more,' and so is used with the ablative. In the N. T. it occurs only four times as a preposition with the ablative and in one of these we find ir\iov — TrX^y ToiiTuv (Ac. 15 : 28). Twice it is a mere adverb, irX'fiv Sti (Ac. 20 :23; Ph. 1 : 18), unless indeed the on clause is in the ablative. Cf. English "except that." In all the other rather numerous instances ttXiJj' is an adversative conjunction at the beginning of a clause (cf. 5^) as in Mt. 11 : 22. These three usages come on down from the older Greek. 36. nXijo'toj', Doric xXarioi'. The word is allied to vkXas and is neuter adj. from irK-qaios. In the older Greek the adverb occurs absolutely or with the art. 6 TXtjaiov, 'neighbour,' as in the N.T. (Mt. 5 :43). As a preposition it appears with the associative- instrumental or with the genitive. But in the N. T., it is found only once and with the genitive in Jo. 4:5. In Lu. 10 : 29, 36, the genitive is also found with ifKriaiov, but the word here has more of the substantive idea ('neighbour') than the prepositional usage. 37. 'Tittp-avw. It is a simple compound that in the late Greek ' Moulton, Prol., p. 72 f. = Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 97. PREPOSITIONS (nPOGEZEIs) 647 gradually displaced ^ iirkp. It occurs in writers from Aristotle on both as adverb and as prepositioij^and is common in the LXX.^ In the N. T. we find it only three times and with the ablative each time. Twice it occurs literally of place (Heb. 9:5; Eph. 4 : 10) and once pf rank (Eph. 1 : 21). 38. 'TTrep-keij/a. It is merely virkp and the pronoun ketm (cf. i%-eKHva in Ac. 7 : 43) which appears in the Byzantine Greek. It occurs only once in the N. T. (2 Cor. 10 : 16), ds to, tnrepkKei.va i/xSiv, with the ablative in the sense of 'beyond,' 'into the (regions) beyond you.' 39. 'Tirep-tK-TrepL(T(Tov. It is written separately in Liddell and Scott and some N. T. editors print it iwkp kirepttro-oD. It is found in Dan. 3 : 22 (Aid., Com-pl.). W. H. read it three times (Eph. 3 : 20; 1 Th. 3 : 10; 5 : 13), though in the last passage fixepex- Treptao-ws is put in the margin by W. H. As a preposition with the ablative, we find it only in Eph. 3 : 20 {S>v attracted to case of omitted antecedent). 40. "Tiro-Kdrw. It is another compound word which in the an- cient Greek was used. both as adverb and as preposition and es- pecially in the Koivit writers (Polybius, Diodorus, Plutarch). In the late.Greek it gradually' displaced itcb. In the LXX both hrep- avoidev and irepKaTudev occur as prepositions as well as KaToinaOev^ In the N. T. it is no longer adverb, but appears as preposition eleven times with the ablative, five of them with tGiv roduv (as Mk. 6 : 11). The examples are all literal, not metaphorical. Cf. VTOKOLTca rijs rpaire^ris (Mk. 7: 28). 41. Xapiv. This word is just the accusative of x^pts and it is still common as the substantive in the accusative (Lu. 1 : 30). The ancients used it freely with the genitive and with the posses- sive pronoun, 'ep,iiv x^pi-v. The idea of 'for the sake of (cf. Latin gratia) may be due to apposition originally. The usage continues in the late Greek.'' Among the ancients it was generally post- positive, but in the LXX it is now one way, now the other. In the N. T. it occurs nine times, and is postpositive (as Gal. 3 : 19) always except 1 Jo. 3 : 12 with interrogative. It is only once in the Gospels (Lu. 7: 47). 42. Xwpts. It is of doubtful etymology (cf. x'lw, xi^P"*)) but ap- 1 Jann„ Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 367, 397. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 366. 2 Cf. Deiss., B. S., p. 283 f. * C. and S., p. 86 f. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 337. X&piv as a prep, is in poetry till 50 B.C., when it appears first in prose. Cf . Meisterh., p. 222. He gives an interesting ex. of the prep, in Attic insor. 648 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT pears in Homer freely as an adverb and in Pindar as a preposition. It holds on steadily in both senses. In the N. T. we have only one pure adverbial use (Jo. 20 : 7), while as a preposition with the ablative we find it 40 times. The usage is chiefly with persons (Mt. 14: 21) or abstract relations (Mt. 13 : 34), though it may be used with place (Lu. 6 : 49). In Ro. 10 : 14 note xt^P^s KtiphaaovTOi without the article. It is postpositive once, o5 xwpis (Heb. 12 : 14). Ramsay, C. and B., II, 391 (No. 254), cites from the inscriptions Xcopis ei uri ri iradii (Moulton, Prol., p. 239). Of these 42 words in the N. T. the following are only used as prepositions: ixvev, avriTrepa, airkvavri, arep, tvavTi, ivma, kviiiriov, kirk- Kiiva, Karevinnov, Tra.pwTrKrjai.ov, virepeKtiva, virtpavco, vwoKaTU. Of the rest ixtaov is also adjective; xapit substantive; irXrialov substantive and adjective; dxpt, scos, nkxPh ■tXiji' conjunctions; and the rest are also adverbs. IX. Compound Prepositions. A considerable number of these adverbial prepositions are compound words. So are a.vTi-Kpv{s), ivrl-wepa, ax-iv-avri, ffi-rpoaBev, iv-avri, kv-avHov, €v-6)wlov, kir-avcii, kir-eKeLva, nera-^v, irapa-TrKiiffiov, irap-tKTOs, virep-avu, virep-eK-Trepiaaov, vTo-Karu. The modern Greek vernacular shows similar forms in awoKaToi a.ir6, airairlaoj airo, airk^ci) cltto (Thumb, Handb., p. 110). See chapter XII, vi. X. Prepositional Circumlocutions. Blass calls these Hebraisms and it is true that the frequency of these phrases in the LXX and the N. T. is due to the influence of the Hebrew idiom. But the construction itself is good Greek, though not so common, as the papyri show.^ (a) Mkaov. This word furnishes a number, one of which, ai/d tikaov, "has turned up abundantly in the papyri."^ In the N. T. we find this compound preposition only four times. Moulton thinks that in 1 Cor. 6 : 5, huLKplvai aiia pkaov tov a&tK^v, the text is corrupt, but probably the phrase is not to be taken too Uterally and etymologically (cf. ha here). Atd p^kuov is read once (Lu. 17: 11) and 5ta iikaov once in W. H. (Lu. 4 : 30). Eis iikaov (Mk. 14 : 60) appears once, but th r6 p.kv (ra^arwv (Ac. 20 : 7), /^exp' t^s o-ijAiepoi'' (Mt. 11 : 23), 40' ^s (2 Pet. 3 : 4), rj? ^?^s (Ac. 21 : 1). But Blass rightly supplies ihpa with d^' ^s in Lu. 7 : 45, as with o^ias (Mt. 8 : 16), irpw£as (Mt. 27: 1). To conclude the list of feminine examples with rg -KViobaxi (Ac. 27:40) supply avpq., with kv TJj 'EX- XT/ciKg (Rev. 9:11) supply yXcio-o-n (but of. rg 'E/3paiSi SiaXkrv, Ac. 22 : 2), with ttoXXos and 6X1705 (Lu. 12 : 47 f.) supply 7rX7j7as, with d7r6 M'Ss (Lu. 14 : 18) insert (avri$. But mr' Iblav (Mk. 6 : 31) and Iblti. (1 Cor. 12 : 11), though stereotyped, may refer to 65$. Cf. also /card ju6cas (Mk. 4 : 10) as an instance of 6S6s. So Sri/jioiTi^ (Ac. 16 : 37). Words like (rwri^pios (Tit. 2:11), aiiinov (Jo. 6 : 47), einrt- plararov (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 iroriipLov ^pvxpov (Mt. 10 : 42), where BSaros is referred to. So iiSojp is meant by t6 y^vKv Kal to iriKpdv (Jas. 3 : 11). With kv XewoTs (Jo. 20 : 12), one must insert IimtIois as with ev iuaXoKoTs (Mt. 11: 8). Cf. irop^vpovv in Rev. 18 : 16. With Tov StoTTtToOs (Ac. 19 : 35) Blass' suggests d7dX/iaros, and with T& TpiTov TTJs 7ijs (Rev. 8 : 7) we must supply nkpo^ ("not classical," Blass). Cf. eis TO iep6»'(Mt. 21:23). In Mt. 6 : 13, d7r6 toD TroKTjpoO, most likely diafioXos is meant,'' not mere evil. In Mt. 19 : 17 we have Trepi tov AyoBov explained by 6 d7a96s, 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 iikaov (Jo. 20 : 19), iv tQ kpvttu (Mt. 6:4), eis avtp6v (Mk. 4 : 22), ixiTo. fiiKpov (Mt. 26 : 73), iv ukac^ (Mt. 10 : 16), kv 6\lyui (Ac. 26 : 28), kv p^yAXcii (26 : 29), puTa ^paxv (Lu. 22 : 58), etc. Cf. e£s i,ya6a (Jer. 24:6). Very common is the adverbial usage of this neuter like fipaxd (Ac. 5 : 34), fiiKpov (Mt. 26 : 39), n6vov (Mt. 8 : 8), rd irpuTov (Jo. 12 : 16), but the adjective's rela- tion to the adverb will receive special treatment. See xi. Cf. tQ SvTi. Sometimes the neuter singular was used in a collective sense for the sum total (cf. English "the all"). Thus in Jo. 6 : 37, 39, TT&v 6, 17 : 24 6, 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. iravra (Col. 1 : 16) where the universe is thus described. Cf. to. ovto. and to. iiii bvra (1 Cor. 1 : 28). B in the LXX (Helbing, p. 51) frequently has ira.v = Tra.vTa (ace. sing, masc). (Cf. also Ps. of Sol. 3 : 10; 8 : 23 V; Test, xii, Pat. Reub. 1 : 10 -wav apTov, Gad 3 : 1 irav vojwv.) See also the common collec- tive neuter in the LXX (Thackeray, Grammar, p. 174 f.). Usually the neuter plural is concrete, however, as in to. dpara Kal i.6pa.Ta (Col. 1 : 16), where irdcra is thus explained. Cf. to. fiadia (Rev. 2 : 24), apxaia (2 Cor. 5 : 17). In Ro. 1 : 20, as Winer ^ points out, TO. aopara makes more concrete ?/ re atdios dvvafiis aal deiSTris. But one must confess that in Eph. 3 : 10, iv rots kTrovpavLois, it is not clear what the idea is, whether places, things or relations. In Jo. 3 : 12 eiriyeia and kirovpavia seem to refer to truths. In 1 Cor. 2 : 13, irvevnaTt-KOis irviVfiaTiKO. avvKplvovres, Sb like ambiguity exists, but the presence of \6yoLs 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 to SiKaiov Tb.P. 40 (b.c. 117) and (jh.) ra KadTjKovra. Winer^ was troubled over t6 doKiniov rrjs Tricrrecos (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 xpwoS 5oki.ij,Iov, P.E.R. xii. 6 f . (93 a.d.), 'good gold.' One need not be troubled over to yvwarov (Ro. 1 : 19) any more than over the other neuter adjectives. Cf. t6 xpwri" rod 6eov (Ro. 2 : 4), 7-6 nwpdv rod dtov and rd &crdeves rov 6eov (1 Cor. 1 : 25), rd ineraderov rrjs jSouXtjx (Heb. 6 : 17), t6 k\apdv rfjs 6Xi^«ws* (2 Cor. 4 : 17), ro Lbvvarov rov vopav (Ro. 8 : 3), t6 bwarov abrov (9 : 22). It is thus frequent with the genitive. Cf. also rd Kar' k^i irpb- 0VIWV (Ro. 1 : 15). See Heb. 7:8. In Lu. 12 : 23, ij xl^vxh TtKtibv eariv t^s rpoc^ijs, we have irKuov because the abstract idea of thing is expressed. This also is a frequent Greek idiom. Cf. obhkv (1 Cor. 7: 19), S (1 Cor. 15 : 10), ravra (1 Cor. 6 : 11). IV. Agreement of Adjectives with Substantives. (a) In Number. It is not necessary to repeat what has been ' W.-Th., p. 235. Cf. lateness of the forms in -onSs (only two in Horn.). Hoffmann, Uber die Entw. des Begr. des Griech. bei den Alte'n, p. 2. In 1 Tim. 5 : 17 note inr\n% (from -6oi). 2 lb. » B. S., p. 259 f. ADJECTIVES ('EnieETA) 655 said on this subject in chapter X, vii, (6), on concord between adjective and substantive in numb^. 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 ixBaix^oi with 6 Xaos in Ac. 3 : 11, nor ttX^Sos Kpa^ovT€s in Ac. 21 : 36. (&) In Gender. For concord in gender see chapter X, viii. Here again the construction according to sense is normal like o-rpa- Tias oipavlov alvobvTcov (Lu. 2 :1S) , but ovpavlov in the same phrase is the feminine (cf. aliivi.o%, etc.). The N. T. does not have the Attic idiom with ^/iicrus of agreement with the gender of the gen- itive substantive, though it is still in the LXX. Cf. tAs finlaeis tS>v AfiapTuHv (Ezek. 16 : 51). Instead see ^cos i^/iicrous tijs pav a.va(TTpo4>fjs -iraTpOTapaSbrov (1 Pet. 1 : 18), where, however, irarpo- irapaSbrov 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 ttoXXoi (Mk. 5 : 9), bpjoia (Mt. 13 : 31), (TOJTi^ptos (Tit. 2 : 11), eVoiMa (Lu. 14 : 17), Mw (Jo. 4 : 11), >MaaKOiv (Mt. 7:29). But adjectives are predicate with- out a copula, as in Ti Aie X^eis ayadbu (Mk. 10 : 18), b Toiiiaas y.t iiyirj (Jo. 5 : 11; cf. 7 : 23), abawavov driaco to evayykXiov (1 Cor. 9 : 18), neyaXTfi Tg cjtoiv^ (Ac. 26 : 24), kirapafiaTov €X«t Tr]v Upwcriivriv (Heb. 7: 24). Cf. Mt. 4 : 18 with Mk. 1 : 7; 1 Cor. 11:5. As examples of the verbal in —ros take iradrjTbs (Ac. 26 : 23) and ym- (TTbv (Ac. 4 : 10) with which last compare the attributive use in Ac. 4 : 16 yvojarbv (T7]p.e1ov. Cf. Mk. 3:1. As further interesting examples of the predicate adjective, note SXos (Jo. 9 : 34), bbuiMi 4>avSiiJi€v (2 Cor. 13 : 7), vyii^s (Mt. 12 : 13), irpwros (Jo. 20 : 4), e^paTos (1 Cor. 7:37), bpBb^ (Ac. 14 : 10), phvos (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 yvumbv. Cf . raiiras in Ac. 1 : 5. » Cf. K.-G., I, pp. 268 ff. 2 Horn. Gr., p. 117. ADJECTIVES ('EniGETA) 657 This distinct predication * with the adjective in an oblique case is seen in tovto aXridis eZpjjxas (Jo. 4 : ]^) and is a classical idiom.^ Note the use of -rAvra as predicate for 6 Beds in 1 Cor. 15 : 28 as with Xpt-arSs in Col. 3 : 11 for the totality of things. VII. Adjective Rather than Adverb. See ch. XII, ix, for dis- cussion of this subject. A few items are added here. Cf. ■wpSiros Mojuo-ijs Xeyet (Ro. 10 : 19), 'Moses is the first who says,' with Tp&Tov SiaWAyridi t^ d3eX Monro, ib., p. 119. ' lb. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 141. * Faxrar, 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 GRAMMAR 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 eyiviTo 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 SfjXos (1 Cor. 15 : 27 is impersonal construction) or with (jmvfpos. But we do have (pavepovfievoL oti, kare kTiarokri XpiffToO (2 Cor. 3:3). Cf. XptffTos KrjpixraeTai. on in 1 Cor. 15 : 12. Note also a^ios tva Xuffo) (Jo. 1 : 27), but the impersonal construction is found with SiKawv in Ph. 1 : 7. See also Uavos tva in Mt. 8 : 8. Avvaros oc- curs with the infinitive (2 Tim. 1 : 12). This personal construction is probably due to assimilation of gender by analogy.^ Cf. Soku (roct)6s elpai (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 Oavarov (Mt. 26 : 66), the ablative with ^kvoi tuv SloBtikSiv (Eph. 2 : 12), the da- tive (Mt. 20 : 1) and accusative with S/uotos vldv a.v9pi)irov (Rev. 14 : 14), the ace. with Tnaros to. irpos rbv deov (Heb. 2 : 17), the da- tive with evoxos TH Kpiaet, (Mt. 5 : 21) and koXov aol kariv (Mt. 18 : 8), the instrumental with lo-ous riixlv (Mt. 20 : 12), the locative with /SpaSets T% KapSiq. (Lu. 24 : 25). Cf. locative in Col. 2 : 13 f. The adjective is, of course, used with various prepositions, as to ayadov irpos ■Ko.VTO.s (Gal. 6 : 10), xtcrTis a> eKaxiaroo (Lu. 16 : 10), ^pahvs eis bpyijv (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 case. The case of the infinitive will vary with the adjective? Thus in afios ic\T]dfjvaL (Lu. 15 : 19) the infinitive is probably in the genitive case. Cf. also a ^tos tra Xio-co (Jo. 1: 27). With Swards KuKvcrai (Ac. 11 : 17) we have the accusative of general reference. In the case of kavos fiaaraaai (Mt. 3 : 11) we may see either the accusative of general reference, as above, or the dative, according to the original idea of the form and the common case with Imvbs. Cf. also iKavbs iva eiaeX^jjs (Mt. 8:8). The instances of both in- finitive and ha are numerous in the N. T. As specimens of the infinitive and preposition after the adjective, take tox^is eJs rb d/coOaai, PpaSiis els to \a\rjcai. (Jas. 1 : 19). Indeed the genitive 1 Gk. Synt., p. 89. ' Middleton, Anal, in Synt., p. 15. ADJECTIVES (-EnieETA) 659 article toO with the infinitive occurs with adjectives where it would not naturally be looked for, as in 'imi^l kantv rov avtKetv (Ac. 23 : 15). Cf. iToiixbs et/ii irofniitadai (Lu. 22 : 33). But see further /3poS«Ts rov nareieiv (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 sufifice 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 like Hanepos iiiois dSov. But that is going too far even if we call it antimeria. He quotes Milton {Par. Lost,yn, 161), "Meanwhile inhabit lax," and Shakespeare {Taming of Shrew, I, i, 89), "Thou didst it excellent." We can see the difference be- tween ivaaTtidi. bpdSs (Ac. 14 : 10) and 6p6Sis inpLvas (Lu. 7 :43). But, as already observed, the difference between ndvov and nbvcf 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 iidvov is adjective (Jo. 8 : 29) or adverb (Gal. 1 : 23). So as to niKpov (Jo. 7 : 33 and 16 : 19), iroU (Lu. 12 :48 and Ro. 3:2), 6\Lyov (Mk. 1 : 19), etc. UpSiTov, for instance, is very common as an adverb (cf. Mt. 7 : 5, and even t6 ttp&tov is found, Jo. 10 :40), but irpiiTus occurs only once (Ac. 11:26). It is needless to multiply here examples hke these. Other cases are used besides the accusative to make ad- verbs from adjectives, as the ablative in TrpcIjTajs above, the geni- tive as 6mo0 (Jo. 4 :36), the associative-instrumental as Srjfwalg. (Ac. 16 : 37). Cf. ■koKKc? (Ro. 5:9). All degrees of comparison furnish adverbs, thus xoXfi (Ro. 3 : 2; 2 Cor. 8: 22), Tr\iov (Jo. 21 : 15), n&KurTa (Ac. 20 :38). The accusative singular of the com- parative is the common adverb of that degree as irepLaadrepov (Heb. 7: 15), but see Tepia-o-or^pais (2 Cor. 1 : 12). In the super- lative both the singular as irpSiTov (Lu. 6 : 42) and the plural as lioKiara (above). These examples sufficiently illustrate the prin- ciples involved. Xn. 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 OP 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 Hght implies darkness. And then many of the oldest com- parative forms have no positive at all and never did have, like d/i(^6T€pos, apiarepos, fikXrepos, devrepos, etc. More of this under the comparative. The point to get hold of just here is that the ad- jective per se (hke 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 6r\\vTkpa as opposed to male, 6piiv (Heb. 9 : 2 f., frequent in the LXX), irola kvToKr) /xeyoKri ev tQ v6p.(a (Mt. 22 : 36). Cf. ^aciXevs ISaaiXkcov (Rev. 19 : 16), KvpLos twv KvpuvbvTiav (1 Tim. 6:15), Tov alSivos tS)v aiuvosv (Eph. 3:21). The vernacular Koivij uses repetition of the adjective, as in /xeyaKoL iMyaXoi, B.U. I, 229, lxey&\oii> Kal neyaKoiv ayadS>v, Inscription of Thera (Herm. 1901, p. 445), depiici depnk, Herondas IV, 61. Cf. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 57. The positive suggests contrast clearly in tSiv toW&v (Mt. 24 : 12). Cf. ol ttoWoI in Ro. 5 : 15, 19; 1 Cor. 10 : 33. Here the majority is the idea, a comparative notion. Cf. Paul's use of Toiis TrXetoms (1 Cor. 9:19) and Matthew's 6 irXeia-Tos 6xXos(21:8). See also Mk. 12 : 37 6 irohis oxXos and Lu. 7:11 6x>tos holds the field when only two objects or persons are in view, like tp&tos pov (Jo. 1 : 15), irpSins and aXXos (20 : 4), etc. Cf. our 'first story' when only two stories are contemplated, 'first volume,' etc. And as an adverb Tporepov sur- vives only ten times (cf. 2 Cor. 1 : 15), while irpwrov is very com- I 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. 5 lb., pp. 4fF. 8 Moulton, Prol., p. 77 f.; CI. Rev., 1901, p. 439; 1903, p. 154. ADJECTIVES (-EnieETA) 663 mon. Luke does not use irporepos (adjective or adverb) so that TTpuTos in Ac. 1:1 with X670S does not imply Vpiros. Moulton^ finds irporepos only once in the Grenfell-Hunt volumes of papyri so that this dual form vanishes before the superlative Tpcbros. 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 (Stdgerung) , 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 aveKrorepov ii}Tepov and laxvporepov (1 Cor. 1:25). (c) Without Suffixes. But the comparative did not always use the comparative suflixes, though this was usual. Sometimes juaXXoc was employed with the positive, though this idiom is not very frequent in the N. T. Thus we find naWov with koKos (Mk. 9 :42), with ixaKapiov (Ac. 20 : 35), with avayKoia (1 Cor. 12 : 22), with iro\\6. (Gal. 4:27). Once indeed (2 Tim. 3 :4) p.aXKov oc- curs with one adjective before ij and not with the other after rj. The • Greeks preferred to put both qualities in the comparative degree when two adjectives were compared.' But here we have ^iKr)Sovoi. fiaWov ij ^iXoBeoi. "In Jo. 3 : 19 fiaWov — r} is used with two substantives" (H. Scott). In Phil. 16 we have a distinc- tion drawn between p.a\i(TTa and fnaWov with a.5t\(j)dv ayaTrriTov. No example occurs in the N. T. of two comparatives with ^, but in Ro. 9 : 12 we have 6 fid^uv SovXexjaa. tQ Oiaaaovi and in Heb. 1 : 4, ToaoiiTCf KptiTTUv yivhjxevos oac^ diacjjopoiTepov. (d) Double Comparison. Sometimes indeed naWov occurs with the comparative form itself. This apphes to adjectives and adverbs. Thus fiaWov irepiffcroTepov (Mk. 7 : 36), Trepicaorkpois nSXKov (2 Cor. 7: 13). Cf. en /jmWov km pRWov (Ph. 1:9), irepiaalyrepov in KaraSri^ov (Heb. 7:15). Recall also the double comparative form like vernacular English "lesser," p.ei.^oT'epav (3 Jo. 4), and the comparative on the superlative ^XaxtoroTepos (Eph. 3:8. It oc- ' Prol., p. 79. > Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc.. Heft i, p. 21 f. ' Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 42. 664 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT curs in Test, xii, Pat. Jos. 17: 8). All this is due to the fading of the force of the comparative suffix and the desire for em- phasis. Homer has x^i-porepos, .iEschylus fiei^ovwrepos and inrtpre- pcii-epos, Xenophon ^erxarajrepos, Aristophanes wporepaiTepos. Cf. Schwab, Hist. Syntax etc., Heft iii, p. 60. Modern Greek verna- cular has TrXeioTepos and xf^porepos. The papyri give illustrations like irpeafivTepurkpa (Moulton, Prol., p. 236). Cf. Latin double comparative dex-ter-dor, sinis-ter^or. See list in Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 147. This double comparative is due to analogy and weakened sense of the form (Middleton, Analogy in Syntax, p. 38). Other means of strengthening the comparative were the accusa- tive adverb ttoXii, as in Heb. 12 : 9, 25 (cf. 2 Cor. 8 : 22), and in particular the instrumental woXKQ, as in Lu. 18 : 39. In 1 Cor. 12 : 22 we have toWQ fiaWov over against acrdevkarepa. But in Ph. 1 : 23 note ttoXXc? fiSXhov upetaaov where all this emphasis is due to Paul's struggling emotion. The ancient Greek used all these devices very often. Cf. Schwab, Hist. Syntax, etc.. Heft iii, pp. 59 ff. Blass {Gr. ofN. T. Gk., p. 143) rightly observes that in 2 Cor. 12 : 9 ^jSto-ra imWov are not to be taken together. The older Greek used also fiiya and imKpi^ to strengthen the comparison. Cf. Mayer, Verstdrkung, Umschreibung und Entwertung der Com- parationsgrade in der dlteren Grddtat, 1891, p. 16 f. (e) Without Object of Comparison. Sometimes the com- parative form is used absolutely. It is beside the mark to say with Clyde ^ that this idiom occurs "through politeness for the positive." It is not used for the positive. It is true that no ob- ject of comparison is expressed, but that is because the context makes the point perfectly clear. In rapid familiar conversation this would often be true. Blass^ also thinks that sometimes the comparative is no more than a positive. Winer ' more justly holds that the point of comparison may "ordinarily be gathered from the context." The point is always in the context. Thus 3 iroieTs iroiriaov rkxevov (Jo. 13 : 27) may mean more quickly than Judas would have done but for the exposure. Note that this is a con- versation and Judas would understand. In Heb. 13 : 19 iripuxaoT'e- pojs and rdxetov correspond easily, and in verse 23, kav r&xtLov ipxvrai, perhaps it means ' if he come before I leave. ' None of the examples of Blass are convincing, for xpeo-/36repos, though used of an official, is one who is older (elder) as compared with vecbrepos, and the bishop is not to be a neophyte (1 Tim. 3:6). The point, of course, lies 1 Gk. Synt., p. 41. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 142. » W.-Th., p. 242. ADJECTIVES ('EnieETA) 665 more in length of experience than of age. Deissmann (B. S., p. 154 f .) finds in the papyri 6 Trpea^impos 6 /ci/i'js, an official title. Pap. Lugd. A, 35 f. (Ptol. Per.). In Ac. 17: 21 Kaivorepov means, of course, something newer than what they had recently heard. Socrates said to Hippocrates when he came in (Plato, Protagoras 309 C): JU17 Ti vewrepov a77eXXets; Then again, in Ac. 17: 22, Setci- Saiiwvearepovi 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 aKpifikartpov k^kdevTo teaches that ApoUos received more accurate information than he had previously had. Cf. 'e^eTaa6ri(T€TaL irtpl tovtov aKpipkarepov, B.U. 388 (ii/A.D.). Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 439. So in Ac. 24 : 22 kKpi^karepov etSojs means that Felix more accurately than one would suppose, and in verse 26 irvKvorepov shows that he sent for Paul more fre- quently than he had been doing before. Ac. 25 : 10 k&Wiov ^ttiyi- viioKus is an interesting example. Paul hints that Festus knows his innocence better than he is willing to admit. Cf. ^eXriov av yivixTKeis (2 Tim. 1 : 18), 'better than I.' BeXriuv 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 even without the expressed object of comparison is not just the positive. So in Ac. 27 : 13 aa(rov iraptXeyovro clearly means 'nearer than they could do before' (cf. irapa.\ey6iJ.€voL in verse 8). Again in Jo. 4: 52 Koixil/brepov eaxev (note the construction) is 'better than before the word of Christ was spoken.' As further illustrations, not to overdo the point, note p-dWov in 2 Cor. 7:71 (cf. Ph. 1 : 12), aTovSatdrepos in 2 Cor. 8 : 17 (cf. 2 Tim. 1 : 17) and (TTovdaiorkpui in. Ph. 2 : 28 (cf. 1 Th. 2 : 17), roXuriPorkprn (Ho. 15: 15), iiei^oves (2 Pet. 2:11), Karwrepa in Eph. 4 : 9. The common expression 01 tXbIovs (Ac. 19:32), and tovs TrXetoms (l 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 4>avep6Tepov, 10 : 28 pk\Tu>v. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 142. 666 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT merely the resultant idea. Cf. irepois X6yois TrXeLoaiv (Ac. 2 : 40). The older Greek shows this idiom. ^ (/) Followed by v- This ^ is merely the disjunctive conjunc- tion. But fi 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, rj is not common after irKe'Mv and eXarTusv 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.) TrXeiw 7r^x«« hvka. Cf. Schwab, Hist. Syntax, Heft ii, pp. 84 ff. Cf. also kirdvoi 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 {irXtZov tS>v $ap.), 'than that of the Pharisees.' So in Mt. 26 : 53 TrXetw duSeKa Xtyuo- vas occurs with no change in the case of XsYicoms. In Ac. 4 : 22; 23 : 13; 24 : 11 hkewise r? is absent without change of case. So in Ac. 25 : 6 oil irXetous 6/cTcb rj 3ka, for rj here does not go with ;rXetous. But in Lu. 9 : 13 we do find ovk eialv 'fifitv irkelov fj aproi, irhre. 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 r) (2 Tim. 3:4); with a conjunction, as kyyhrtpov tj ore (Ro. 13 : 11); with an infinitive, ewcoiroiTepov eiaeKBeiv ij {dceKduv to be repeated, Mt. 19 : 24. Cf . Ac. 20 : 35) ; with a genitive (same form as the ablative would be if ri w^re absent), like xijiSiv Lkovuv liSXKov ^ Tov Beov (Ac. 4 : 19); with a dative, like LveKTOTtpov 72/ "Ziobbimv r\ rfj iroXei eKeiva (Mt. 10 : 15). These are all pertinent and striking examples. There remain others (against Blass' view) which are not so justified, like irKeLovas nadriras iroiei ^ TcoAi'fjs (Jo. 4 : 1), riyLwiierav iidWov t6 ck6tos fj t6 (j>Sis (Jo. 3 : 19), etc. But it remains true that j) is becoming rare in this usage in the N. T. {g) 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 (■EniOETA) 667 Indeed the various constructions after the comparative (particle like fi, case, preposition) occur in tijie other Indo-Germanic lan- guages.i Schwab^ estimates that in Attic prose the ablative after the comparative stands in relation to fi as 5.5 to 1 and in poetry 18 to 1. Blass' thinks that in the kolvti 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 ixd^cov tovtoiv (Mk. 12 : 31), nel^wu rod iraTpds rifiSii/ (Jo. 4 : 12), ifKkov rovroiv (Jo. 21 : 15), iroijxjirepov t&v avdpojTuv (1 Cor. 1 : 25), etc. Cf. 1 Jo. 3 : 20; Heb. 7 : 26. Sometimes the comparison is a httle complicated, as in Mt. 5 : 20, vnSiv fi Swato- aivr] ir'Keiov tS>v jpaiiiiaTeuv, where ' righteousness' is dropped in the second member. Note irKetov as a fixed or stereotyped form.* Cf . also Jo. 5 : 36. In Mt. 21 : 36, aXXous SouXous TrXeiocas tuv irpuTuv, note the use of comparative and superlative side by side. {h) Followed by Prepositions. Prepositions occur not in- frequently after the comparative. We have already seen the positive so used with irapa, and irpos. Wellhausen^ considers this positive use like the Aramaic. In the classical Greek we see begin- nings of this usage.^ In the modern Greek, the normal^ way of expressing comparison is to use dTro with the accusative and occa- sionally irapa with the nominative. The examples of the use of Trapa are chiefly in Luke and Hebrews. Thus Lu. 3 : 13, firjSiv vKkov Tapa TO diaTerayp.ivov {ip,lv; Heb. 1 : 4, 8ia4)Op63Ttpov irap' avrovs; 3 : 3, irXeiovos So^t/s Trapd, Moivarjv; 9 : 23, KpelrTOcn dvaiais irapa raiiras. So Heb. 11:4; 12 : 24. Examples of vvip in this sense occur likewise in Lu. 16 : 8, cjjpovLpAiTepoi iiirkp rovs vtoiis; Heb. 4 : 12, TOfiwrepos iirip iraaav p,a.xaipav. In the LXX* Comparison was usually completed by means of ivapa or virkp. (j) 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 Kotvij. Indeed one may broadly say with Blass,' that in the Koivii vernacular the comparative with the article takes 1 lb., p. 1. " 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. ' Einl. in die drei ersten Evang., p. 28. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 236. « Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 108. ' Thumb, Handb., p. 76 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 GRAMMAR 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 modern Greek. The root-difference between the comparative and the superlative is that between "twoness" and "moreness." As the notion of duaUty 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. Cf. 1 Cor. 13 : 13 ixei^o>v di tovtwv fi ayairrj where three things are compared. In English we say "greatest of these." Sir W. M. Ramsay gives iravTuv nei^ov in a Christian inscription.^ In Mt. 18 : 1 we have tLs apa fiel^uv, etc. Cf. Mk. 9 : 34. So in Mt. 11 : 11 (cf. Lu. 9 : 48) note 6 Si fiiKpSrepos (but ilote also /iti^oiv aiiToC). In Lu. 7 : 42 f., irKtiov and t6 irXdov 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.) rriv dftet- vova aipeaiv bibovri., 'to the highest bidder.' Winer' indeed finds similar examples in Demosthenes and Athenagoras. Note the adverb 'iaripov iravro^v (Mt. 22: 27), obviously as superlative. So in 1 Tim. 4 : 1, ec varkpois Kaipots. In Eph. 4 : 9, rd Karurepa pkpt] is likewise in the superlative sense. The Epistle of Barnabas shows similar examples. Blass^ reminds us that the Itahan does not dis- tinguish between the comparative and the superlative. The mod- ern Greek to-day says 6 ao^oinpos h-Ko 6\ovs 'the wisest of all.'' 1 Thumb, Handb., p. 73. 2 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.. Heft i, pp. 17 ff. ^ 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 ('EniGETA) 669 Moulton' notes the fact that, while KpdTTcav and xetpcoj' in the N. T. are strictly comparative, they have^no superlative, but he notes (p. 236) that the papyri show x«£pto-Tos, as Tb.P. 72 (ii/s.c). XrV. The Superlative Adjective (■uirepGeTiKbv Svofia). 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 eo-xoTos and vpuro^ are the only excep- tions to this disappearing tendency. Under the weakening of dualism irpdrepos goes down. Usually (ta-xaros refers to more than two, the last of a series or last of all, like h ^o-xdrj; viiepq, (Jo. 11 : 24), iaxo-Tov^ TavTwv (1 Cor. 15 : 8). Sometimes first and last are contrasted, like ij kaxarri irXavrj x^i-P^v T^s xpcbrijj (Mt. 27 : 64) . Note comparative also. Cf. Mt. 19 : 30. So 6 irpSiros /cat 6 eo-xaros about Jesus (Rev. 1:17). In the LXX €v xio-rei (Ju. 20) and tijc aKpifitaTOLTriv alpecnv (Ac. 26 : 5), true superlatives in -raTo^. In Rev. 18 : 12; 21 : 11 TiixiioTaTos is probably elative. Cf. /wvuiTaTos, 1 Ki. 8 : 39. The list is indeed very small. (c) The Elative Superlative. In the sense of 'very' or 'ex- ceedingly' it comprises the great majority of the superlative forms that survive in the N. T.^ In the papyri the immense majority of superlative forms are elative. Cf. Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 439. KpArio-Tos is elative always in the N. T. and is indeed merely a sort of title. ^ So /cpdrtoTe in Lu. 1:3. So ijSicrTa is only elative (2 Cor. 12 : 9, 15). Miy laros occurs only once (2 Pet. 1 : 4) and is elative, rd rt/ita Kal ixkyurra rjfuv kirayyiXnara (permagnus, Blass). In Lu. 12 : 26 eXdxto-TOj' is elative as also in 1 Cor. 4 : 3; 6 : 2, while in Eph. 3 : 8 the comparative superlative eXax'o-To- repos is doubtful.^ HXetaros, generally elative in the papyri,* is so in Mk. 4 : 1, ox^'^os TrXetoros. MdXto-ra occurs some 12 times and is usually elative, as in Ph. 4 : 22. (d) No Double Superlatives. The scarcity of the superla- tive in the N. T. removes any ground for surprise that no double superlatives occur. In Eph. 3 : 8 tKaxi.(TTOT'eprov ifiSiv (Jo. 15 : 18), tpcotos ^ov (Jo. 1 : 15), and possibly in eir' iaxarov • Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33. Blass considers rg hymTb.Tv (Ju. 20) elative. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 78. » lb., p. 236. 6 Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Heft iii, pp. 70 ff. * lb., p. 79. « Cf. Abbott, Job. Gr., pp. 11 ff. ADJECTIVES (-EnieETA) 671 T&v fjtiipSiv Tobrcav (Heb. 1:2), though this passage may be merely the genitive. (/) No "Hebraistic" Superlative. It is gratuitous to con- sider d(7T€Tos tQ 6e(^ (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 peculiarities of the numerals are not many. (a) Eh and II/xSto?. The use of els rather than wpSiTos 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 modern 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. tjj mq, koi ei/cdSt, B.U. 623 (ii/iii a.d.), a construction like liiq. Kal e'lKadi tov ixrjvos in Haggai 2:1.^ The Germans, like the Enghsh, can say "page forty." * In 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 eTs stands in enumerations when Sebrepos or aXXos follows, and in compound numerals a closer par- allel is found, like els Kal rpianoaros, 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 xpSros is not derived from els, though Moulton*" admits that the Hebrew has the same peculiarity. Moulton*' further objects that if Semitic influence had been at work we should have had rg irkvTe 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 iiia., not by xp&)T7/. This was obviously in harmony with the KOLvi) 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. ' Pro!., p. 95 f. • Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 144. ' lb. Cf. Thumb, Handb., etc., p. 82. " ProL, p. 96. » Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 187 f. " lb. • Pro!., 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 irptiTj. v in P.P. iii. 28, though the Hterary Koivit 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 quotes the verse as rg luq.. 2 Meisterh., Att. Inscr., p. 160. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 96. * lb. Aeica occupies first place from thirteen upwards, but with ordinals the reverse is true. ' Like the LXX. C. and S., p. 30. 8 W.-Th., p. 249. ' Prol., pp. 98, 107. ADJECTIVES ('EnieETA) 673 (d) The Distributives. There is no trouble over the classic use of ava (Mt. 20 : 9) and Kari. (Mk. « : 40) in this sense. We have already (chapter XIII, ava and Kard) discussed dj/d els (Rev. 21 : 21) and Kad' eh (Ro. 12 : 5). The point here that calls for comment is whether 8(io Sio in Mk. 6 : 7 is a Hebraism. Cf. dvd Svo [Svo] 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 avixirocna avuirbaia (Mk. 6 : 39), irpacnal irpaaiai (verse 40). Moulton^ cites also Seafias Seo-^ds, as the read- ing of Epiphanius for Mt. 13 : 30. But Winer^ had himself cited jEschylus, Persae, 981, fivpia iJ,vpLa, and Blass ^ compares in Eris, the lost drama of Sophocles, n'lav fiiav. The Atticists had cen- sured this as "colloquial," but at any rate "it was not merely a creation of Jewish Greek." Deissmann^ besides quotes rpia rpla from the Oxy. Papyri. W. F. Moulton* had already called atten- tion to the fact that modern Greek shows the same usage. Hence we must conclude, with Moulton' and Thumb,* that the koivIi de- velopment was independent of the Hebrew. Moulton' comments also on the reading of B in Lu. 10 : 1, ava Svo Sbo, and notes how in the papyri fieyaXov /i€7dXou=the elative superlative fieyi(TTov. See also Kara Sio Svo in P. Oxy. 886 (iii/A.D.). For the proportionals the N. T. has only -TrXaaluv, not the classic -TrXdfftos. Cf. iKaTovTaTKaaloiv, Mk. 10 : 30 and Mt. 19 : 29 NCDX; iroXXairXao-iwj', Lu. 18 : 30 and Mt. 19 : 29 BL. Cf. Blass-Debrunner, p. 38. (e) The Cardinal 'Ettto. With epSop.7]KovTaKis eirra (Mt. 18 : 22) rather than eTrrdKiy D the rendering 'until seventy times seven' is certainly possible in itself and follows hterally the Greek words. The identical expression (i/SSo/tij/copTdKis exrd) 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. ' Pro!., 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-6Spa a4>6Spa from the LXX and tWis eiidis from the Byz. Gk. ' Prol., p. 97. « Hellen., p. 128. » Prol., p. 97. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 330, cites from Gosp. of Pet. 35, di/d &ito Sim. 674 A GRAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Winer' interprets as "seventy-seven times." Moulton' considers rightly that the passage in Genesis settles the usage in Matthew to which an allusion may be made. He cites a possible parallel from the Iliad, xxii, 349, S£K(iiKK[Te] Kai FtUoai. (/) Substantive not Expressed. Sometimes with numerals the substantive for money is not expressed. Thus apyvpiov ^vpiaSas Tevre (Ac. 19 : 19), but in Mt. 26 : 16 note apyvpia. The use of tp'ltov tovto (2 Cor. 13 : 1) is merely an instance of the adjective used absolutely without a substantive. Cf. the neuter t6 dtvrtpov (2 Cor. 13:2). (g) Adverbs with Numerals. They have no effect on the construction. Thus irpa.drjvai kwavu TpLaKos 3t(rxiXiot (Mk. 5 : 13), cbo-el Treira/ctcrxiXtoi (Mt. 14 : 21), iKarovTaer'i]s irov (Ro. 4 : 19). In the case of ojs and (haei we really have conjunctions.' In Jaw eTTTa/cis (Mt. 18 : 21) we have, of course, the preposition. Cf. Winer-Moulton, p. 313, for classical parallels with 'i\aTTov, irKkdv, tU, iv, TTtpl, iirep, iJitXPi- (h) Els AS Indefinite Article. The Greek, as a rule, had no indefinite article. The older Greek did occasionally use ns with no more apparent force than an indefinite article, but usually nothing was used for that idea in -Greek. Still in Aristophanes (Av. 1292) Moulton* rightly sees els KdTrrjXos, as an example of the later Koivri idiom. Aristophanes indeed preserves much of the colloquial speech. In the modern Greek evas may be used.^ Els became naturally more popular than tk since it has all three genders.* Moulton' finds numerous papyri illustrations. The modem languages have followed the Greek model here, for the EngUsh an (Scottish ane) is really one, like the German ein and the French un. It is therefore hardly necessary to fall back on the Hebrew precedent* in the use of in^, though it here coincided* with the KOLvii idiom. Hence N. T. usage on this point is in full accord with the development of the Greek. Cf. els ypammitm (Mt. 8 : 19), p.la. ■Kaiblumi (26: 69), ula xvpa ttwxij (Mk. 12:42), els d^eiX^Tijs (Mt. 18 : 24), etc. In Jo. 6 : 9 some MSS. have h with iraiSapLov, but the sense is not materially altered either way. Cf . TjKovaa evos deToD (Rev. 8 : 13), LBuv avK^v ulav (Mt. 21 : 19), etc. > W.-Th., p. 251. * Prol., p. 97. 2 Prol., p. 98. Cf. W.-M., p. 314. ' Thumb, Handb., p. 81. • Cf. Green, Handb., etc., p. 276. « Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 170. » Prol., p. 97. Cf. Wellhausen, Einl., p. 27. 1 Blaas, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 144. ADJECTIVES ('EHIGETA) 675 Moultoni properly criticizes Meyer on Mt. 8: 19 for his "exegeti- cal subtleties" in denying this idiijpi for els in the N. T. {i) Eh = Ti ProL, p. 95. » Ib. CHAPTER XV PRONOUNS ('ANTfiNTMIAI) For the antiquity and history of pronouns see rv in chapter VII (Declensions). We are here concerned, not with the form, but with the use of pronouns.^ As a matter of fact all pronouns fall into two classes, Deictic (SeiKTixai) and Anaphoric (dca^opi/cai). They either "point out" or they "refer to" a substantive. So we get the modern terms, 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 r[ TrpotrwiriKal dvT and ■finiis. It is easy to find in the N.T. numerous examples where ^7^1 shows contrast. So kydi xpfi'O-v iSxw ird cov Pairri.(rerjvai (Mt. 3 : 14), ky i^ abrSiv d (Lu. 22 : 58) one is reminded of the Latin Et tu, Brute. See Lu. 10 : 15; Ac. 23 : 3; ^ Kal ai H i^ovdevds (Ro. 14 : 10). As ex- amples of the plural take iaeaOe bfieh (Mt. 5 : 48), Sore ahjots vfieCs ^ajilv (Mk. 6 : 37). See keiTOs and i/iets contrasted in Jo. 5 : 38; i/ieis in verse 39 and also in 44 f. Cf. Ac. 4:7; Lu. 10 : 24, and in particular u/ieTs 'o^eade (Mt. 27: 24). For uyueTs and iJmcis con- trasted see Jo. 4 : 22. In Jo. 4 : 35, ovx ujus's X^yere, we have the same inclusive use of the second person that we noticed in the first. In Ra 2 : 3, 17, the second person singular occurs in the same repre- sentative sense that the first has also. Cf . also Ro. 9 : 20 ; 1 1 : 17, etc. In Jo. 3 : 10, av d 6 5t5do-/caXos, 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 ai etiras (Mt. 26 : 64), av \kyeis (27 : 11), ujueis X^yere (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. * Bernhardy, Wissensch. Synt. der griech. Spr., 1829, p. 45. 6 ProL, p. 86. PRONOUNS ('ANTONTMIAl) 679 but TrXiix (Thayer) is against it in Mt. 26 : 64. S6 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 lilce eyii and o-ii. No nominative was used for ov, ol, etc., and this pro- noun was originally reflexive. Besides it is not used in the N. T., though literary koiwJ writers Uke Aristides, Arrian, Lucian, Polyb- ius use it.i 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 dt, 6 fih, oCros, kKeXvos, Ss 5k, SSe, etc.). The N. T. shows examples of all these constructions which will be illustrated in the discussion of the demonstrative pronouns. But the N. T. uses also aMs as the subject, an idiom foreign to Attic writers, but found already in Homer ^ and common in the modern 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 auros in contrast with other persons is natural like oiirds Kal oi fier' airov (Mk. 2 : 25). We are not here considering the intensive use of auT6s as'self northeuseof 6 ailiTos 'the same.' There is Vo' dis- pute as to use of aiT6s as emphatic 'he' in the N. T. like the Pytho- gorean* (Doric) aiiT^s hfia. So Ac. 20 : 35 auros e?ire>', 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 avrds yd.p i\ii aMs hcrriv, Mk. 14 : 44. Strong emphasis also appears in examples like Kal airds tanv irp6 vLvrtnv (Col. 1 : 17). In Mt. 8 : 24 auTds bk and Mk. 4 : 38 Kal aiirds Jesus is the chief person in the story and the pronoun has emphasis. Cf. likewise Lu. 1 : 16, 17; 24 : 21; Mt. 16 : 20. In Lu. 19 : 2 W. H. and Nestle » W.-Sch., p. 191. * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 164. » Thumb, Handb., p. 90. * Lang, of the N. T., p. 60. Cf. C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 29. » Prol., p. 86. 680 A GRAMMAE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT follow B in reading Kal ahrb^ twice. Some emphasis is present both times. In Ac. 7 : 21 (Rec.) the pronoun abrbv appears three times. As regards /cat airi), the editors differ between this accent and Kal wtirri in Lu. 7:12; 8:42; 1 Cor. 7:12; Ro. 7:10. In Lu. 2 : 37; Ro. 16 : 2, Nestle agrees with W. H. in Kal abri). But in Lu. 2 : 37 avrij xhfo- may be a 'widow by herself.' ' There is no real reason for objecting to the feminine use of this idiom. The plural ahni appears in Mk. 7: 36; Lu. 2 : 50; 9 : 36. The only remaining question is whether abrbs occurs in the nominative free from any emphasis just hke the personal ending in a word. It is in Luke's Gospel and the Apocalypse^ that such instances occur. It is not a question whether ahrbs is so used in ancient Greek. Winer' denies that any decisive passages have bieen adduced in the N. T. of such unemphatic use. Certainly the matter is one of tone and subjective impression to a large ex- tent. And yet some examples do occur where emphasis is not easily discernible and even where emphasis would throw the sentence out of relation with the context. What emphasis exists must be very slight. Cf. Lu. 1 : 22; 2 : 50; 6 : 8; 8 : 1, 22; 15 : 14; 24: 14, 25, 31; Rev. 14 : 10; 19 : 15. Thus we see all grades of emphasis. Abbott^ holds that in John ahrbs never means 'he,' either emphatic or unemphatic, but always 'himself.' But in Jo. 2 : 12 (aiirAs Kal i} mriip avTov) there is little difference between the emphatic 'he' and 'himself.' Cf. also 18 : 1. But the inten- sive idea is clear in Jo. 4 : 2, 12. In 4 : 53 it might be either way. In the LXX we find abrbs sometimes unemphatic. Cf. Gen. 3 : 15 f.; ISam. 17:42; 18:16. (&) The Oblique Cases of the Personal Pronouns. 1. Originally Reflexive. In pre-Homeric times the pronominal stem was reflexive."^ The reflexive form, as distinct from the per- sonal pronoun, was a later development. The personal pronouns may be reflexive in Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns, Pindar and the other Lyric poets.' Indeed, the early Attic inscriptions' show the same thing, not to mention the Dramatic poets and Herodotus.' It was only gradually that the distinctively reflexive form came into common use in the Attic prose, first for the third person, and 1 W.-Sch., p. 195; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 164. 2 Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 61. > W.-M., p. 187. « Joh. Gr., p. 279. " Dyroff, Gesch. des Pron. Reflex., 1. Abt., p. 16. ' lb., pp. 68, 75, 80 f. ' lb., 2. Abt., p. 1 f. 8 lb., 1. Abt., pp. 90 f., 126 f. PRONOUNS ('ANTfiNTMIAl) 681 then for the first and second persons,^ The use of the personal pronoun in -the reflexive sense survived longest in the vernacular. It is not " abnormal" therefore to finffin the N. T. (vernacular Koivri) the personal pronouns where a reflexive form might have been used. The N. T. does not here exactly represent Attic Uterary prose. Cf. ap&TU Tov aravpov aiirov (Lu. 9 : 23), juerd to k-yepdfjvai /i€ vpoa^oi (Mk. 14:28; cf. Lu. 10:35), ^dXe dirA aoO (Mt. 5:29). See Ro. 15 : 16, 19. It is not necessary to split hairs here as to whether the reflexive idea is present. It is in perfect harmony with the Greek history. Indeed English does not differ here from the Greek. 2. AiiTov. The use of avrov rather than ov and c^cjc is noticeable. As a matter of fact, however, avrov had long been the main pronoun for the oblique cases of the third person. In archaic and poetic forms the early use of o5 and cr^aji' survived.^ In the N. T. avrov is the only form found, as in aiirSiv, aiiroXs, ahrbv (Mt. 17 : 22 f.), Kr\. 3. Genitive for Possession. The genitive of the personal pro- noun is very common as a possessive rather than the possessive pronoun or the mere article. In Jo. 2 : 12 avrov occurs twice, but once (ot aSeXtJMi) we do not have it. These examples are so common as to call for mere mention, as 6 rrariip fwv (Jo. 5 : 17), toc Kpa^arrov aov (5 : 8), TOV Kpafiarrov avrov (5:9). The presence of the personal pronoun in the genitive is not always emphatic. Thus no undue emphasis is to be put upon avrov even in its unusual position in Jo. 9 : 6, nor upon aov in 9 : 10, nor upon fiov in 9 : 15. See chapter on The Sentence. See also ^xdpos roiis dcjidaXfiobs avrov eis roin fiadriras avrov (Lu. 6 : 20), kv TJj iiTTO/iOfij viJ,S>v Kri]v in Lu. 24 : 31. See further chapter VII, v, 4. (c) The Feequency of the Personal Pronouns. It is at bottom a differentiation from the substantive, though the roots are independent of verb and substantive and antedate historical evidence.^ This pronoun came into play where the sense required it. Thus Kal eindevTfs rds x^'Pis avrots aireXvcav^Ac. 13 : 3). Cf. Mk. 6:5. There is no doubt of the fact that the N. T. uses the pro- noun in the oblique cases more frequently than is true of the older Greek.' What is the explanation of this fact? The Hebrew pro- nominal suffixes at once occur to one as the explanation of the situation and Blass accepts it.* The LXX shows a similar "lavish use of pronouns." * But a glance at the modern Greek reveals the same fondness for pronouns, and the papyri abundantly • prove that the usage belongs to the vernacular koiciJ.* Cf. dj/^Kyw rois 609aX/iois juou Par.P. 51 (ii/s.c), AaniruvL nvodripevrfi iSuKa avrif O.P. 299 (i/A.D.). Thumb' suggests that this abundance of pro- 1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 165. 2 Wundt, Volkerpsych., 1. Bd., 2. Tl., 1904, p. 47. » Cf. W.-Th., p. 143; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 164. * Cf. also Simcox, Lang., etc., p. 53. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 84 f. 6 C. and S., Sel., etc., p. 65. ' Hellen., p. 108 f . PEONOUNS (-ANTflNTMIAl) 683 nouns is natural in the vernacular. Blass' finds "a quite peculiar and tiresome frequency" of the prongun in the N. T. This is only- true in comparison with literary Attic. The N. T. is here a natural expression of the vernacular. Thus in Lu. 6 : 20 note airov twice, iix&v twice in Lu. 21 : 19, cov in Mt. 6 : 17 as the reflexive twice (aXei^ai cov rifv Ke4>aXriv Kal rd irpocrwirov riTai. (Ac. 15 : 32). Cf. ^T^i) 5^ a6r6s, P.Oxy. 294 (a.d. 22). In 2 Cor. 10 : 1 note auros ^70; Ila'OXos. There is nothing particularly essential in the order whether airos tyw or eyo) airoj (see above). "E7co7e is not in the N. T. (b) Varying Degrees of Emphasis. For a list of the vari- ous shades of meaning possible with avrbs see Thompson, Syntax of Attic Greek, p. 59 f. In Ro. 15 : 14 avros occurs with the first person and auroi with the second in sharp contrast. In Shake- speare we have "myself" as subject: "Myself have letters" {Julius Cmsar, iv. 3).^ Cf. Latin ipse. In Jo. 2 : 24, aiiros 5^ Tijo-oDs, we have Jesus himself in distinction from those who believed on him. In 1 Cor. 11 : 14 ij ^iitrts auri? is 'nature of itself.' Note, airol diSaTt (1 Th. 3 : 3), 'ye for yourselves.' In Ac. 18 : 15, oiAeo-ee avToi, we find 'ye by yourselves.' Each instance will vary slightly owing to the context. Cf. avroi (Ac. 16 : 37); avros iwvos (Mk. 6 : 47). On avToi p.ev ovv see Ac. 13 : 4. See a' iavr&v (Lu. 12 : 57), not ahTol. (c) Auto? WITH OuT09. In Ac. 24 : 15, 20, the classical idiom airol oStoi occurs. Cf. eis avrb tovto (Ro. 9 : 17), xeiroi^ccs avro tovto (Ph. 1 : 6), airo rovro (2 Pet. 1 : 5, accusative of gen. reference). Cf. 2 Cor. 7: 11. The other order is found in '^pa\f/a tovto aM (2 Cor. 2:3). {d) Alito? almost Demonstrative. In Luke oiirds 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 avrfj TTJ (bpq. (Lu. 2 : 38), kv avrci T(f Kaipio (13 : 1), kv airj/ t§ ■fifiipq, (23 : 12). The modern Greek freely employs this demonstra- tive sense. Cf. Thumb, p. 90. Moulton {ProL, p. 91) finds this demonstrative use of avros 6 in the papyri. So abrdv rbv 'Kvrkv, O.P. 745 (i/A.D.). Moulton thinks that ahrbs 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 afiTois rots kXtjtoTs (1 Cor. 1 : 24). Cf. Kal adroiis in Ac. 15 : 27 (cf. 15 :32). But examples occur even in the first and 1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35. PEONOUNS (-ANTflNTMIAl) 687 second persons. Thus knov oiiroO (Ro. 16 : 2), a-ov airrjs (Lu. 2 : 35) airoiis finas (2 Th. 1 : 4), ef iinSiv aiirS^ (Ac. 20 : 30, probable text). Here the use is intensive, not reflexive. The same thing is pos- sible with vfiSiv ahrSiv in 1 Gor. 7 : 35 (cf. 11 : 13). But I think this reflexive. This intensive use of ainb^ with ktuiv and «roO is found in Attic. In auTuv iiix&v and iinGiv only the context can decide which is intensive and which reflexive. Cf . Thompson, A Syntax of Attic Greek, p. 64. Cf. k^ avruv tSiv veKpoTa4>vi]|j.(a). (a) Distinctive Use. As already explained in this chapter under Personal Pronouns, the originals of the personal pronouns in oblique cases were also reflexive.^ Only gradually the distinc- tion between personal and reflexive arose. But even so the per- sonal pronouns continued to be used as reflexive. Hence I cannot agree with Blass^ that ifiavrov, aeavrov, iavrov "have in the N. T. been to some extent displaced by the simple personal pronoun." It is rather a survival of the original (particularly colloquial) usage. Thus we have in Mt. 6 : 19 f. flrjo-aupifere vfuv 6r]aavpovs, 5 : 29 f . and 18 : 8 f . /SAXe &ir6 aov, 6 : 2 /xi) aaXirla-ns 'inTpoadkv aov, 11 : 29 &pa.Ti t6v fi/yiv /iov ^<^' i/iSs, 17 : 27 dos &vTi kiiov Kal aov, 18 : 15 iXiy^ov . . . titra^i) aov Kal aiiroO. Matthew has rather more of these survivals. But see d.i^ii} to. irepl k/xk (Ph. 2 : 23), rd kolt' k^k Tp6dviws (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 airov and avTov would look just alike. It is a matter with the editors. See chapter VI, iv, (/), for details. Thus W. H. give dparco Tov aravpbv aiirov (Lu. 9 : 23), but ovk kiricrTivtv mnbv airols (Jo. 2 : 24). In Lu. 9 : 24 we have rriv xl/vxvv avrod, but in 14 : 26 TV" ^vxw eavTov. In the last passage eavrov occurs with irarkpa and 4'vx'n'', but not with the other words. Cf. atrca, Ac. 4:32. In the hght of the history of the personal pronouns the point is not very material, since avTod can be reflexive also. The Attic Greek used to have SokSj hol. But Luke in Ac. 26 : 9 has eSo^a kixavrQ as Paul in 1 Cor. 4 : 4 says efiavrQ avvoiSa. Old English likewise 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, /ie twice. See also chapter VII, iv, 4, (c). (b) The Absence oe the Reflexive from the Nominative. It is impossible to have a reflexive in the nominative. The in- tensive pronoun does occur as avros kyw (2 Cor. 10 : 1) . The English likewise, as already shown, early lost the old idiom of "myself," "himself" as mere nominatives.^ Cf. d0' iavrov, Jo. 11 : 51, where avTos 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 deXia iravras avdpiiTTOvs elvai cos /cat eixavrbv (1 Cor. 7:7), avveldrjCLV 8e Xe7co ovxl ttjv eauToO dXXd Ti\v rov trkpov (10 : 29). But on, the other hand, note hyij3 kv tQ €iravipxiv avrSiv apparently survive, as in Ac. 20 : 30; 1 Cor. 5 : 13 and probably so in 1 Cor. 7: 35; i^tv avro'is in 1 Cor. 11 : 13. But the common idiom for the second person plural is undoubtedly iavr&v, as Tvpoakx^n iavrols (Lu. 17: 3). Cf. Mt. 25 : 9; Ro. 6 : 13; 1 Jo. 5 : 21, etc. There are some seventy examples of iavrSiv for first and second persons plural in the N. T. (Moulton, Prol., p. 87), as is the custom in the papyri, chiefly in illiterate documents. Cf. iva yeivdofieBa Trpfis ToTs Kad' iavTOiis, Tb.P. 6 (ii/s.c); tfa KOnia-isiJteda ra iavrSiv, Tb.P. 47. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 167. 2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 421. Cf. Meisterh., Att. Insclir., 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 iavrSiv for first and second persons plural. We even find reflexive and personal together like vfiZv iavroXs (Ex. 20:23). (/) Article with. The reflexive is used with or without the article and in any position with the article. But curiously enough aeavTov is never so found and knavrov only once in sharp contrast, fj.'fl ^tjtQiv to ifiaVTOV crvn4>opov ciXXa to tS>v iroWSiv (1 Cor. 10:33). Instead of this reflexive genitive (possessive) we have the genitive of the personal pronoun. Cf. ti/xS) t6v iraTtpa nov (Jo. 8 : 49), ac^es TO SQpov (Tov (Mt. 5 :24). The examples of iavTov are, of course, abundant as in ttju iavTov avXrjv (Lu. 11 : 21), the common idiom in the older Greek. But note also the order to epyov eavrov (Gal. 6:4), iavTOV Tovs TToSas (Ac. 21 : 11), dovKovs eavTov (Lu. 19 : 13), Kfjirov iavTov (Lu. 13 : 19). These are all attributive, but the sense is not quite the same in the two last. The use of abTov in such examples has already been noted as in Mt. 16 : 24. Sometimes the MSS. vary between iavTov and aiiTov as in Lu. 4 : 24. The plural iavToov is likewise found thus, tovs iavrSiv veKpois (Mt. 8 : 22), tQ KvpU^ iavT&v (Mt. 18 : 31), iavTuv TO. IfiaTM (Mt. 21 : 8). See further chapter XVI, The Article. (g) Reflexive in the Recipkocal Sense. This use of iavTuu does not really differ in idea from aX\ri\riTris. Moulton {CI. Rev., 1904, p. 154) cites ■fiixoiv iStoj', Ch.P. 4 (ii/A.D.), Uiov aiiTov, N.P. 25 (ii/A.D.), and eis iSiav iwv xpt'tav, B.U. 363 (Byz., Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 440). In mod- ern Greek 6 i5tos = 6 avros (Thumb, Handb., p. 97) or 'self,' iyw b Mtos, 'I myself.' Cf. ttjl avrrji. 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 Pronoxm {r\ d|ioipaCa dvTwvtiiiia). 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. 'AXXi^Xtoj' is, of course, reduplicated from ttXXos, 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 irpos aXXoc XeYovres; 19:32, aXXot aXXo rt eKpa^op; 21:34, aXXoi S,Wo Ti 'eirttf>6ivovv. Cf. in the papyri aS\o kyii, oXKo wavres, B.U. 1079 (a.d. 41). But the true reciprocal aXXi^Xajc has no nom- inative and is necessarily plural or dual (in older Greek). It occurs 100 times in the N. T. (W. H.) and is fairly well distributed. We have examples of the genitive (Ro. 12 : 5 aWri^cov fik^rj), the ablative (Col. 3 : 13 avexbiievoi kWriKoiv), the accusative (1 Cor. 16 : 20 acnraaacrde aXXijXous, 1 Jo. 4 : 7 ayaTrufiev aXXl^Xous), the locative (Ro. 15 : 5 kv aWriXoii), the dative (Gal. 5 : 13 dovXevere aXKifKoii). The prepositions are used 48 times with kWriXoiv. This pronoun brings out the mutual relations involved. In 1 Th. 5 : 11, irapa- KaXtire dXX^Xous Kal oiKoSofxetTe eh top iva, note the distributive explaining the reciprocal. Moulton {Prol., p. 246) compares the modern Greek 6 'Ivas tov aWov. In Ph. 2 : 3 note both dXXi^Xow and iavToov. In 1 Th. 5 : 15 we have eis aWiiXovs Kal eis iravras. 1 Prol., p. 90. Cf. Jann., Plist. Gk. Gr., p. 613. PRONOUNS ('ANTONTMIAl) 693 In 2 Th. 1 : 3 note iv6s iKaarov and eh aXXijXous. The N. T. does not, like the LXX (Ex. 10 : 23), ugp d5€\06j as a reciprocal pro- noun. The middle voice is also used in a reciprocal sense as in (Tvve^QvKehaavTo (Mt. 26:4). Cf. chapter XVII, Voice. VI. Demonstrative Pronouns (SeiKTiKal dvT»vu|xtai). (a) Nature. Curiously enough the demonstrative pronoun, Uke 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.i Originally all pronouns were " deictic," "pointing." The "anaphoric" use came gradually.^ Indeed the same pronoun often continued to be now deictic, now anaphoric, as 0%, 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 i.y6}, ci), 6Se, oBtos, 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 o5€, oSros, iKeicos, os, ocrris. The "relative" in the modern sense would be only os, octtls, oIos, ocros, etc. As a matter of fact, for practical purposes the two Greek terms "deictic" and "ana- phoric" may be placed beside the Latin "demonstrative" and "relative." See further chapter VII, iv, 4, (e). (6) Different Shades of Meaning. The demonstrative pro- nouns do not indeed always have the same shade of meaning. They may point out, as far or near (oSe, oBtos, kKetvos), as in ap- position (keiTOs), as well known (ketcos), as already mentioned (resumptive oCtos, o5e).^ These uses belong to the various de- monstratives and will come out in the context. I do not care to press the parallel with the personal pronouns (first, second, third person demonstratives) as applied to 65e, oStos, keiws. The pro- nouns had best be treated separately, not according to the spe- cial uses. (c) 'O, ij, TO. This was the simplest demonstrative.^ The gram- marians* call this word apdpov wporaKTiKov as distinct from os which is apdpov {nroTaKTi.K6v. As a matter of fact 6, i), to is the same word as the Sanskrit sd {sds), sA, tddJ The Lithuanian nominative sing- » Synt., p. 763 f . ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 168 f. * Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 779. » lb. » K.-B1., I, i, p. 603. " Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 145. See Gildersleeve, Synt., pp. ii, 216-226. ^ ' Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 189. 694 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ular was td-s, td, and the Greek nominative plural ol, al came "in- stead of ToL, rai" (Brugmann, Comp. Gr., vol. Ill, p. 327). This form, like der in German and this in English, was used either as demonstrative, article or relative. See Kiihner-Gerth, I, p. 575. One is not to trace actual historical connection between 6 and der (cf. Brugmann, Griech. Or., p. 559). Its old use was a sort of personal demonstrative (cf. aii 8e in Lu. 1 : 76).^ Cf. also ai Si rl and 7] Kal (711 rl (Ro. 14 : 10) and ah Hs (14 : 4). Cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 428. This substantival use is the main one in Horner.^ Indeed, as a demonstrative it means rather contrast than far or near like 6Se, oBtos, keii'os, but after all o5e is nothing but 6 with the ending -5e. The demonstrative xise of 6 is seen in Toiis oaoi in Agathias^ and t&v 6aa in Maximus of Tyre.* This demonstrative as antecedent to the relative (toi!is ol') appears in Justin Martyr^ and Tatian's Oration to the Greeks.^ Plato shows a good many examples ' (like t6v 6s, t6v 6aos). We meet in Xenophon and Demosthenes* Kaf t6v as demonstrative, especially tov km t6v, to Kal TO, TO. Kal TO,. The modern Greek uses tov, t^s, twv, etc., as short forms of avTov, etc., and Jebb' pertinently asks if this is not "a return to the earliest use of 6, ^, to as a pronoun." The demonstra- tive 6 is frequent in the comic writers. Cf . Fuller, De Articuli in Antiquis Graeds Comoediis Usu, p. 9. Volker ( Syntax, p. 5) gives papyri illustrations of demonstrative 6 (6 di, tov 5k, vpds rod, 7rp6 TOV, TO, ixkv, TO. 5k, etc.).'" The oblique cases have only two ex- amples in the N. T., one a quotation from Aratus, tov Kal (Ac. 17: 28), the other toiis fikv, tous 5e (Eph. 4 : 11), where contrast exists. It is possible indeed that t6c in Ph. 1 : 11 is demonstra- tive. Cf. also TOV dir' dpx^s in 1 Jo. 2 : 13 and t^iv in 1 Cor. 10 : 29. In Mt. 14 : 2 (Mk. 6 : 14) at is nearly equivalent to 'these.' In Mk. 12 :5 the correct text is oBs fiiv, etc. But in the nominative the examples of this demonstrative in the N. T. are quite numerous. There are three uses of the nominative in the N. T. (1) One is the demonstrative pure and simple without any expressed contrast. So ol 5i kpainaav (Mt. 26 : 67), ol Si eSl- aTaaav (Mt. 28 : 17). In Mt. 26 : 57 ol Si KpaTTjaavra we may have ' Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 67. ^ Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 176. » Reffel, Uber den Sprachgebr. des Agathias, 1894, p. 5. * Diirr, Sprachl. TJnters., 1899, p. 27. ' Cf. Gildersleeve's ed. of First Apol., ch. 6 and note to p. 116. « Otto's ed., pp. 24, 90. ' Cf. Gildersleeve, Justin Martyr, p. 116, for others. 8 Hadley and Allen, Gk. Gr., p. 216. » V. and D.'s Handb., etc., p. 297. '» Cf. Moulton, ProL, p. 81. PRONOUNS ('ANTQNTMIAl) 695 this usage or merely the article. In Acts we often have ol ixkv ovv in this sense, usually with the particijjle (Ac. 1 : 6; 8 : 4, 40). But even in these two examples there is apparently an implied con- trast. In Mt. 16 : 14 and Lu. 9 : 19 the use of oi di merely refers to those already mentioned in an oblique case. (2) The use of 6 lih, 6 Se, etc. This is no longer very frequent in the N. T.i So 6 tiiv oOtcos, 6 S^ ovTcos (1 Cor. 7:7); ot nkv, 6 Sk (Heb. 7 : 20, 23); ol nkv, oi Sk (Ac. 14 : 4); o^ ixkv, fiXXoi Sk, irepoi 8k (Mt. 16 : 14 f.). In Mt. 13 : 23 we most Ukely have 6 tikv, fi 5^, not 6 nkv, 6 8k. Cf. 8 nkv (Lu. 8:5). In Ac. 17 : 18 note rwes, ol 8k, and in Ro. 14 : 2 Ss nkv, b8k. (3) The most common use of the demonstrative is where 6 8k, i) bk, oi 8k refer to persons already mentioned in an oblique case. Thus in Mt. 2 : 5 ot 5e refers to irap' avrup. So in ot 5^ (Lu. 23 : 21) the reference is to airots, while 6 8k in the next verse points to aMv. In Mk. 14 : 61 6 Sk refers to 'Irjo-oOi', as in Ac. 12 : 15, ri 8k to avT'^v. In Lu. 22 : 70 6 8k has no antecedent expressed, but it is implied in the el-n-av Trdi/res before. (d) "O?. The grammarians call it &p6pov {itotolktikSv or relative.* It did come to be chiefly relative, as already the Sanskrit yds, yd, ydd has lost its original demonstrative force.' But in the Lithu- anian j-i-s Brugmann {Comp. Gr., Ill, p. 332) finds proof that the pro-ethnic i-o was demonstrative as well as relative. Cf. also t-m in Homer=both 'there' and 'where' and then 'that.' In Homer Ss, like &s (us), is now demonstrative, now relative, and was originally demonstrative.'* This original demonstrative sense con- tinues in Attic prose, as in the Platonic ^ 5' os; (cat 6s; 6v nkv, ov Sk, etc.^ However, it is not certain that the demonstrative use of 8s (/caJ OS, ^ 3' os) is the same word as the relative. Brugmann' in- deed finds it from an original root, *so-s like 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 8i aireKplOrt, and also Ss 5^ obK fKa^tv in Mk. 15 : 23. Indeed Ss 8i\ in Mt. 13 : 23 is close to the same idea. But this verse furnishes a good example of this demonstrative in contrast, S ij.kv eKarbv b 8k i^Kovra o Sk rpikKovra. This example happens to be in the accusative case (cf. Ro. 9 : 21), but the nominative appears also as in a p.kv eiviaev (Mt. 13 : 4), Ss likv ets t6v lSlov aypov, Ss 8i kirl rijj/ kp,iroplav (Mt. 22 : 5), Ss fikv iriarehei (Ro. 14 : 2), Ss likv yap Kpiva. — Ss 5^ Kplvti (14 : 5). So 1 Cor. 11 : 21. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 145. 2 K.-B1., 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 GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Instances of other cases occur also. I see no adequate reason for refusing to consider ov iiev tSeipav, ov Si airkKTUvav, 6v Si 'fkiJBo^SKqaav (Mt. 21 : 35) examples of the demonstrative os.' Cf. Lu. 23 : 33. In the accusative plural note oBs ixiv, oBs 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 ^ ij.kv, aXXcjj 5^, ktK. For the dative plural see oh iiiv, oh Sk, 2 Cor. 2 : 16. In 1 Cor. 12 : 28 we have oBs nkv as demonstrative without any corresponding oBs Sk. Cf. ol niv ovv in Ac. 8 : 4, 25; 11 : 19; 15 : 3, 30, and 6 /xiv ovv 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. avd' Cf. W.-Sch., p. 217, where it is observed that elsewhere often 8td tovto points to what goes before. 700 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT is predicate), roOro yap x^pis ei. Here the ei clause is in the same case as tovto, nominative. So in Jo. 2 : 3 we have eav in apposition with kv TOVTO) (locative). In 1 Jo. 5 : 2 the correct text has oTav in similar apposition with h TovTu. 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 SrjXovvTos Tov irvdiiiaTos tov ayiov, iirjiro} Tre(t>avepSiifimv in 1 Pet. 2 : 15.1 Cf. Ro. 1 : 12 where tovto — awirapaKKridrjvaL are merely subject and predicate. In 2 Cor. 7 : 11 the nominative infinitive, to \vwridrjvaL, occurs with aM tovto. Indeed in Mk. 12 : 24 the causal participle is really explanatory of tovto (5td tovto wKapacde, ixi) elSoTes). It is possible to see a similar example^ in Lu. 8 : 21, a.5e\4>oi p,ov ovtoL dcTiv ol — aKoiovTes. Here in truth ovToi. seems unnecessary. 5. Use of the Article. The article commonly occurs with the noun when the noun is used with ouros. 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 avToi ovtol (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 706777 17 yvvalKa, avTos b avSpas (Thumb, Handb., p. 92). It is immaterial whether OVTOS comes first, as ovtos 6 TtKuvqs (Lu. 18 : 11), or last, as 6 iivdpu- iros OVTOS (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 ri XVP"- "■'J'^v v ^70x17 (Mk. 12 :43), or 08705 may, like the adjective, be brought within the rule of the article. So tIs 4 ' For exx. in earlier Gk. and literary noivii see W.-Sch., p. 217. 2 W.-Sch., p. 218. PRONOUNS ('ANTfiNTMIAl) 701 Kaivfj aiirr] [i)] bird cov XaKov/xhri Sidax'fi (Ac. 17: 19).* Even if the second article be admitted here, the noint made still apphes. The position of ohos with the article, oStos 6 rather than & ovtos, does not mean simply the predicate idea, though the position is predi- cate. But not so rriv f ^ova-Lav raiirriv fiTracraf' 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 {ovtos 6 (i.vqp = 'this, the man') or predicative sense (d kviip oCros= 'the man here')- Probably so, but in actual usage the connection is much closer than that. See Lu. 15 : 24, oStos 6 vlbi nov. Cf. the French idiom La RSpublique 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 OVTOS is used. When ovtos occurs with proper names in the N. T., the article is present. So Ac. 1:11 ovtos 6 'Irjaovs, 19 : 26 6 IlaOXos oCtos, 7 : 40 6 yip Muivcrrjs ovtos, 2 : 32 tovtov t6v 'Iriaovv, Heb. 7 : 1 ovtos yap 6 MeXxio-eSe/c, except in Ac. 6 : 14 'IijaoOs 6 NafojpaTos ovtos, where the article is used with the adjective, not with 'Iriaovs. 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 ToOra rkm must not deceive us. The copula kaTiv must be supphed between. The American Revision indeed calls in the English relative to render the idiom ov to, TkKva Trjs aapKds raCra TkKva Tov 6iov. Cf. the simple predicate use in 1 Cor. 6:11, mi TaOra nves ^Ti. In Lu. 1 : 36, ovtos niiv Iktos kcrTiv, the substantive is predicate. The same thing is clearly true of Lu. 2 : 2, ai)r»j 6.Troypai\ irp6>Ti) 'eikvtTo. Cf. also tovto b/uu ffrineiov in Lu. 2 : 12. Some MSS. have t6, 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, TavTrjv t^iv yvmiKa, the article does not occur in L 47°^. Winer ^ considers the reading without the article "miexception- able," since the woman was present. In Lu. 24 : 21 the predicate accusative really is found, tpIttiv TavTr/u rinkpav a.7ci a4>' ov ravra hykviTo, a common Greek idiom difficult to put into EngHsh. It is not 'this third day,' but 'this a third day.' Cf. also 2 Pet. 3 : 1, TahTt\v SevTipav 7pA<^aj kinv arifieiuv, even the American Revisior has a wrong translation, 'this beginning of miracles.' It is rathe] 'this Jesus did as a beginning of miracles.' But X and Chrys, here have rriv. In Jo. 4 : 18, tovto oKtidis dpijKas, the EngUsh 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. 1 : 5, ou jueTci iroXXas ravras ijfiepas, several difficulties appear. The litotes, ov inra. ttoXXos, does not have the usual order .^ Cf . Ac. 27 : 14 for tier ' ov ttoXu. There is be- sides a use of iJ,€Ta somewhat akin to that of Tp6 in rpd i^ rnxepuv roi ■waaxa (Jo. 12 : 1).^ The order would more naturally be oh iroXXds Tjixepas fiera raiiras or oii iroWicv rifiepSiv yuerd raiiras. However, the predicate use of Tairas without the article permits the condensa- tion. The free translation 'not many days hence' is essentially cor- rect. It is Uterally 'after not many days these' as a starting-point (from these). In Jo. 21: 14, rovro f/Sri rplrov e4>ai'epi)dr] Tjjo-oCs, 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, Tpirov tovto. The most difficult instance to understand is in Ac. 24:21, wepl ^las TavTris (i>covfjs fjs 'tKkKpa^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 ^ ^oivii fi kykveTo ^v fila avTrj. 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 ToiiTov wpaynaTos, raOra dSi/ci^- juoTa, TOVTO KTTJfjM from inscriptions in Magnesia (Petersen-Luschan, Reisen in Lykien, p. 35, n. 54) and earriaav ToSe ixvfjua 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 ktTcos. Cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 426 f.; Thompson, Syntax of Attic Greek, p. 67. See also chapter XVI. 7. Ouros in Contrast with iKtivos. The distinction between odt for what follows and ovtos for what precedes^ (not strictly observed in the ancient Greek) amounts to little in the N. T., since bSe is so rare. But o5tos does, as a rule, refer to what is near or last mentioned and eKtivos to what is. remote. See aOrTj and oStos in > W.-Sch., p. 221. 2 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 tovto in 2 Cor. 13 : 9. This idiomatic use of odros is plain in Ac. 7 : 19. In 1 Jo. 5 : ^ oBros really refers to avrov {iv tQ vl^ aiTov) and so no difficulty exists. In Ac. 4 : 11 oBtos is resumptive and takes up the main thread of the story again (cf. ovTos in verse 9). In Ac. 8 : 26 oCttj may refer to Ta^av, but more probably (see 3, end) refers to 656s, a more remote substantive, indeed. In Lu. 16 : 1 again only the sense^ makes it clear {avOpu- iros TLS rjv icKomios 8s etx^f oIkovoiwv, Kal ovtos) that ovtos refers to olKOvbuov. In Lu. 18 : 14, Kare^ri ovtos deSiKauaiMevos ets tov oIkov avrov Trap' eKetvov, the two pronouns occur in sharp contrast, one point- ing out the pubUcan, the other the Pharisee. In such contrasts oStos 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; keij/os ToOnfi in Jo. 5 : 38, and Tavra keicois in 1 Cor. 10 : 11. In Jo. 1 : 7 f. both oStos and iKtivos are used of John and in proper idiom.^ Instead of e/cetras we might have had oStos properly enough because of aiirov, but ketcos calls us back pointedly to Tcodcijs. Cf. Abbott, Johannine Grammar, p. 236. Note oCtos 6 X670S — 6 fjiaJBrjrTjs ketras in Jo. 21 : 23. In 1 Cor. 6 : 13, 6 3^ Bids Kal Tavrriv Kal ravra Karapyriaei,, we find oCros used for both the near and the remote. The number and gender make it clear. In 1 Cor. 9 : 3 auTij points to what follows. In a case like kv Tovrip xi^'P" (Ph- 1 : 18), the main thought is meant by the demonstrative. So with kv Toirtf SlSciiixi' tovto yap iiuu cvij4>kpa (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 — 6s. So oBros -irepl ov (Mt. 11 : 10), oBtos oc, (Jo. 7 : 25), oBros os (Ac. 7 : 40), TOVTO— 6 (Ph. 2:5). See interrogative demonstrative and rela- tive in Tis koTiv oBtos os (Lu. 5 : 21 ; 7 : 49) ; ri tovto o (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 aiiTo and TOVTO are incorporated into the relative clause, 6 Kal kairovBaaa avTb TOVTO iroLTJ(rai. • Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 171. ^ Blass, ib., p. 172, explains ketxos as showing that the discourse passes from John to Jesus. But iKuvos refers to John. ' Thomp., Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 66. 704 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 9. Gender and Number of ovtos. See chapter X. In general, like other adjectives, ovtos agrees with its substantive in gender and number, whether predicate or attributive. Cf. Jo. 2:11. In 1 Cor. 6 : 13, Kal ravTrjp 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 mtiv 17 Awa- /xts ToO deov. So (T/ceOos kiCKoyrls kcTiv /iot ovtos (Ac. 9 : 15), ovtoi and Wvri (Ro. 2:14). Cf. also Ju. 12, ovtoi. — vee\ai, SkvSpa, Ku^ara, acTtpes; 2 Pet. 2 : 17, ovtoL eicnv Tiiyai, and ovtoi — eXaiat (Rev. 11 : 4). In these examples assimilation to the gender of the predicate does not occur. . Cf. raOra tL, Jo. 6:9. In Mt. 21 : 42 (Mk. 12 : 11), irapa Kvpiov kyheTo avTij, 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 x^^pitl €(TTe aecrcaafikvoi 5td xifrreajs" Kal tovto ovk k^ vp£>v, there is no reference to TTitTTews 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 avT-q would have done, an ancient Greek idiom, tovto ykp xo-pis el — TOVTO xiip's irapa BeQ. In 1 Cor. 10 : 6 the same prin- ciple applies, TavTa 8e tvitol rjpMv hyevtidtjaav. A striking example is found in 1 Cor. 6 : 11, koI TavTo. Tives fJTe. Here TavTa is much like TOLovTOL, but more definite and emphatic. For this use of OVTOS see also Jo. 12 : 34. In Ph. 3 : 7, aTiva r\v fwi xepdri, raCra fiyrituii — ^ritilav, assimilation to the gender of the predicate is also absent. Sometimes the plural ra Ora occurs where a single object is really in mind. The adverbial phrase /iercl TavTa (Lu. 12 : 4) can refer either to one or more incidents. It is not necessary to consider TavTa as singular in idea in Jo. 19 : 36 and 1 Cor. 9 : 15. But the usage does appear in 3 Jo. 4, fiti^oTepav tovtwv ohK ?x" xapt" (or xo-po-v), and the adverbial accusative Kal raOra in Heb. 11 : 12. Some MSS. have Kal raOra instead of Kal tovto in 1 Cor. 6 : 8. But assimilation to the predicate both in gender and number occurs. So in Lu. 8: 14 f., to .. . ireaov, oSrot elctv ot kKohaavTts. The same thing' appears in Gal. 4:24, aTiva 'mtlv aXKr)yopo{)niva' avTai. yap daiv bvo dtaB^Kai.. Note the assimilation of aiir?/ in Lu. 2 : 2; 8 : 11; 22 : 53; Jo. 1 : 19; Ro. 11 : 27; 1 Cor. 9 : 3; 1 Jo. 2 : 25; 5 : 3, 4, 9, 11, etc., and ovtos in Mt. 7 : 12. 10. The Adverbial Uses of tovto and ravTa. See chapter XII. ' W.-Sch., p. 219. PRONOUNS (-ANTfiNTMIAl) 705 Here we have Kal tovto (adverbial accusative or nominative ab- solute) like Latin idque (English 'and that too') in 1 Cor. 6 : 6 (CD" ravra), 8 (L Tavra); Rol 13 : fl; Eph. 2 : 8 (this last could be otherwise explained). Kal ravra, the usual classical idiom/ ap- pears in Heb. 11: 12 with a concessive participle. In tovto fikv, TOVTO Sk (Heb. 10 : 33) Blass^ sees a literary usage. In 2 Cor. 2 : 3 Paul has tovto avTo in the adverbial sense, while Peter (2 Pet. 1 : 5) turns the phrase around /cat aWd tovto 8e. Cf . the adverbial use of Ke<^aXoiov in Heb. 8 : 1. The case of ovtos in Jo. 21 : 21 is noteworthy. 11. The Phrase tovt' eanv. 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 8k. In 1 Mace. 4: 52 ovtos 6 fiiiv XacrtXiv is in appo- sition with the genitive.' Here oBtos performs the function of tovt' iiTTiv. Cf. the case-irregularities in the Apocalypse. 12. In Combination with Other Pronouns. Mention may be made of kv tovti^ ovtos (Ac. 4 : 10) and other instances of the double use of OVTOS. Cf. Mk. 6 : 2. Cf. ovtos ovtco in Mk. 2 : 7, rama oiiTOJs (Ac. 24:9), oiirajs tovto (1 Cor. 5 : 3), and in 2 Pet. 3 : 11 TovTcov oiiTOis wavTuv. Examples of avrd tovto are common in Paul (Ro. 9 : 17; 13 : 6; 2 Cor. 7 : 11; Ph. 1 : 6. Cf. 2 Pet. 1 : 5). For tovto avTo see 2 Cor. 2 : 3, avTo tovto Ro. 13 : 6. For avTol ovtoi see Ac. 24 : 15, 20. For toOto 6X01/ cf. Mt. 1:22; 26: 56. There is no doubt some difference between raOra Travra (Mt. 4:9; Lu. 12 : 30; 16 : 14) and irkvTa raOra (Mt. 6 : 32). "In the first ex- pression, iravTa is a closer specification of TaCra; in the second, iraira is pointed out demonstratively by means of raCra."* 13. Ellipsis of ovtos. 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 S Xeyu iinlv 'tv rg cKOTiq, e'iiraTe (Mt. 10:27). Sometimes the implied demonstrative must be expressed in the Enghsh translation. The simplest form of this s, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 171. ' W.-Sch., p. 219. 2 lb. * W.-Th., p. 548. 706 A GEAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT idiom is where the case of the demonstrative would have been the same as that of the relative. Thus o-uYYev))? &V o5 a-weKo^l/eu nkTpoiTdiiTlov (Jo. 18:26). Cf. Sj^'in Ac. 1 : 24. In Ac. 8 : 24 cSv is for TovTCxiv a by attraction. But the ellipsis occurs also when a different case would have been found.* So in Mt. 19 : 11 oh diSorai would have been ovtol oh SeS. In Jo. 13 : 29 &v would have been preceded by toOto. Cf. also Ac. 8 : 19; 13 : 37, etc. In Ro. 10 : 14, TTcos ■KiaTeiKTua-Lv ov ovK T^Kovaav, the antecedent of oB would be either TovTco (or kirl ToiiToj) or more probably eis tovtov (preposition also dropped). When a preposition is used, it may belong to the rela- tive clause, as in tccs eiriKaXkaojVTai eh ov ovk eiriarevaav (Ro. 10: 14; cf. Jo. 19 : 37), or to the implied demonstrative, as in Iva inaTeiarjTe eh ov airecrreiKev (Jo. 6 : 29). In Ro. 14 : 21 ^j* ^ illustrates the prep- osition with the relative, while in the next verse it illustrates the preposition with the antecedent. In Jo. 11 : 6 ei* ^ tottoj is an example where ev would have been used with both antecedent and relative. So as to a0' wv in 2 Cor. 2 : 3, etc.^ The same principle of suppressed antecedent applies to relative adverbs, as in rjXdev Sirov fjv (Jo. 11 : 32), strictly eKelffe oirov. 14. Shift in Reference. It is possible that in Ac. 5 : 20, XaXeTre hv tQ lepQ tQ \aci tto-vto. to. pijixara ttJs f ojtjs TahTTjs, a slight change in sense has occurred, raiiTrjs more naturally going with p^fiara. Cf. iK rod aiiixaros rod davarov tovtov (Ro. 7 : 24) . But the point is not very material. (g) 'E/cetJ'09. Cf . Latin ille. The old form (Epic, Pindar, Tragic poets) was Kelvos or nrjvos (Doric and Lesbian).^ Brugmann^ indeed connects it with the old Indo-Germanic root Ico. The locative adverb k-KeZ (cf. Kel-di, KeX-dev, Doric, Lesbian) is the immediate source of the pronoun KeT-vos, i-KeZ-vos. Cf. English hi-ther. The original usage was therefore predicate."* Thus in Thuc. i, 52. 2, vrjes ketmt kTiirKeovai ('ships yonder are sailing ahead'), we must not confuse it with at vijes eKeZvai ('those ships'). Cf. the "adver- bial" use of ovTos. By a strange coincidence, while at work on this paragraph (Nov., 1908), I received a letter from Rev. R. H. Graves, D.D., of Canton, China, concerning Chinese pronouns, suggested by the chapter on Pronouns in my Short Grammar of the Greek N. T. He says: "The ordinary pronoun for the third person is h'ei. In Canton we also use fc'm. Compare kaws." He mentions other accidental similarities, but I dare not venture into Chinese etymology. > W.-Th., p. 158. » Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 242 f . - lb., p. 426 f. 2 Cf. ib., p. 159. * lb. PRONOUNS ('ANTONTMIAl) 707 1. The Purely Deictic. We have a few examples in the N. T. So in Jo. 13 : 26, kKuvbs kanv ^ 'e^ii jS^co rb \f'ojiJ,lov Kal Swcw avTi$, for Judas was present at the table. In Mt. 26 : 23 we have oBtos. A gesture may also have accompanied the remark of the Pharisees in Jo. 9 : 28, ai) ixadnirris el hKeivov. Cf. also Jo. 19 : 21. If iKetvos in Jo. 19 : 35 be taken as an appeal to God as a witness to the truth of what the writer is saying (possible, though by no means cer- tain), the usage would be deictic. Blass^ considers that "every- thing is doubtful" as to this verse, a doubt shared by Abbott.^ For myself I think that iKetvos is here anaphoric and refers to avTov (cf. the similar reference of oStos to abrov in 1 Jo. 5 : 20; but see Remote Object). Another possible deictic example is in Jo. 7: 11. Jesus was not present, but in the minds of the people a subject of discussion. Cf. also 9 : 12. 2. The Contemptiious Use (cf. oSros). It appears unmistakably (see 1) in Jo. 9 : 28, aii nadrjT'fis el eKeivov. It may also exist^ in Jo. 19 : 21. Cf. the solemn repetition of ketj/os with 6 avdpwKos in Mt. 26 : 24, as well as the change from ovtos in verse 23. 3. The Anaphoric. This is the more frequent use of this pro- noun. Thus in Jo. 1 : 8 eKetvos takes up ovtos of verse 7 (Tcoaj/Tjs of verse 6). In Jo. 18 : 15 6 5^ fioBrjTris kKetvos resumes the story of aXXos fiaiBriTris immediately preceding. Cf. aXXos and iKelvos in Jo. 5 : 43. In Jo. 13 : 25 kKetvos refers indeed to the preceding roirco (cf. kKetvos oirm). In Jo. 5 : 19 the reference is to irarkpa just before. Cf. Jo. 4 : 25. 'Emfos Se (Jo. 2 : 21) is continuative like ovtos. The articular participle may be followed by the resumptive kKetvos. So b irki^as lie — kKetvos Jo. 1 : 33). Cf. Jo. 5 : 11; 2 Cor. 10 : 18. So in Jo. 1 : 18 the pronoun refers to Oebs followed by b Siv. Cf. Mk. 7 : 20 kKttvo. See Jo. 14 : 21. For distinction between kKetvos and aiiTov see 2 Tim. 2 : 26; 3 : 9. 4. The Remote Object (Contrast). This is not always true, as is shown by Jo. 18 : 15. Cf . Tit. 3:7. It is common, thus to refer to persons who are absent. So in Jo. 3 : 28 (cf. Jo. 7: 11) John speaks of Christ in contrast to himself, aireaToXfikvos eifd i/xirpocrdev kKeivov. So in verse 30, eKetvov — kfik. In 1 Cor. 9 : 25 note kKetvoi nkv — ■liij.ets 8e. So in 10 : 11 keiwis — ■17/iwc, 15 : 11 c'tTe kyoi ehe kKetvoi. In Ac. 3 : 13 the contrast is sharp between u/^eTs — kKeivov, and in 2 Cor. 8 : 14 between iifiSiv ■ — kKeLvuv (cf . kKelvoiv — huGiv in same verse). Cf itfiv — kKelvois in Mt. 13 : 11. In Jo. 5 : 39 kKetvai » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 172. * Joh. Gr., pp. 285, 667. • Abbott, ib., p. 568. He cites Mt. 27 : 19, 63 as exx. of the good and the bad sense of Jmcos. Cf . Lat. ille. 708 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT is in opposition to vneis, as tKetvos to vfieZs in the preceding verse. Cf . 2 Cor. 8 : 9. For a contrast between those present in the same narrative see oCros and tKeZvos in Lu. 18 : 14. Cf. keTi/os and avros in 1 Jo. 2 : 6 and tovto rj kelra in Jas. 4 : 15. It is common in ex- pressions of place, like Sia ttjs 65ov eKdvris (Mt. 8 : 28), eis oXrjv TTiv yrjv tKdvqv (9 : 26; cf. tv 9 : 31), etc. It is frequent also with general phrases of time, like iv rah i^ikpais ketvats (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 raurais in this phrase and that in 6 : 12 D has keirats rather than raurats. In particular observe the phrase kKdv-n i, wipa 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 ketras is quite emphatic. Abbott^ notes that in John's Gospel, outside of dialogue, keTras 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 ketras is not always so em- phatic even in John. Cf. Jo. 9 : 11, 25; 10 : 6; 14 : 21; 18 : 17; Mk. 16 :10ff; 2 Tim. 3 : 9. 6. With Apposition. It is not common with words in apposition. But note Jo. 16 : 13, eKelvos, t6 Tved/xa Trjs aXrjdelas (cf. Jo. 14 : 26). Note also ketj/o jLviloffKeTe, otl (Mt. 24 : 43) after the fashion of ovTos with oTt. Cf. also the resumptive uses with participles (Jo. 1 : 18, etc.). 7. Article with Nouns except when Predicate. When the noun is used with ketcos in the N. T., the article always appears, except when predicate. In Jo. 10 : 1, ketras kXcttti/s ka-rlv, the substantive is predicate, as in 10 : 35, ketcoi/s etxev deovs. With adjectives we may note the repetition of the article in Jo. 20 : 19 and the am- biguous position of keti/77 in Heb. 8 : 7 due to the absence of bi.adi)Kr). With 6X0S we find this order, ets SKr}v tt/v yrjv fKeivriv (Mt. 9 : 26, etc.) and xSs the same, iraaav riiv 64>eiKriv 'eKtlvriv (Mt. 18 : 32, etc.). 8. As Antecedent to Relative. So ketws kcnv ^ (Jo. 13 : 26), kKelvov iiTTip ov (Ro. 14 : 15) keiTOis 8l' ovs (Heb. 6 : 7). Note also iKeZvos kariv b ayairSiv (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. PRONOUNS ('ANTfiNTMIAl) 709 mark, inasmuch as they bear on the personaUty of the Holy Spirit. In 14 : 26, 6 5k irapaK\riTos, to Tvevfia to ayiov 6 Trk/jul/ei 6 Trarrjp kv tQ ovbuaTl ixov, kKeivos {ifMs SiSa^ei, the relative 6 follows the grammatical gender of irj/eOAia. 'Ekuvos, however, skips over irveviio. and reverts to the gender of irapd/cXijros. In 16 : 13 a more striking example occurs, OTav 8k e\6ji eKelvos, to irv€viJ.a ttjs cikridelas. Here one has to go back six lines to kKeivos again and seven to TrapoKXijros. It is more evident therefore in this passage that John is insisting on the personahty of the Holy Spirit, when the grammatical gender so easily called for keira. Cf . 6 in Jo. 14 : 17, 26 and avTo in 14 : 17. The feminine keii^s in Lu. 19 : 4 evidently refers to oSov unex- pressed. 10. Independent Use. The frequency of kKeivos 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, 63; 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. (h) Auto'?. It has undoubtedly developed in the koij/ij a demon- strative force as already shown in 3, (d), and as is plain in the mod- ern 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 kv avT^ Tjj oIkLo, (Lu. 10 : 7), ' in that house.' Moulton' notes that ' in Mt. 11 : 25 (parallel to Lu. 10 : 21) we have kv kKeivw t^ KaipQ and in Mk. 13 : 11 ^k ketj-j; Tg o>pq. (parallel to Lu. 12 : 12 kv avTxi TT) oipq). The tendency was not foreign to the ancient Greek and it is common enough in the modern vernacular* to find avTos 6= 'this.' (i) The Correlative Demonstratives. Only four occur in the N. T. One of them appears only once and without the article, (jxavvs kvexOelcris avrQ ToiaaSe (2 Pet. 1 : 17). It has died in. the ver- nacular (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 63) like oSe, T-qKucoahe and Toaoc&e. TjjXiKoDros appears once as predicate, TTiKiKavTo. 6vTa (Jas. ' Abbott, ib. For the Job. use of cmIkos 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. 2 Prol., p. 91. » Ib. * Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 320, 351. 710 A GRAMMAE 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 ourwj nkyas (Rev. 16 : 18) and so redundant. The other two are toioOtos and ToaovTos. ToiovTos is the demonstrative of quality (Latin talis) and it is used with a good deal of freedom. It is, of course, merely ToTos and oStos combined. The compound form alone occurs in the N. T. and became more frequent generally.' ToioOtos 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; Ro. 1 : 32; 1 Cor. 7: 28; 2 Cor. 10 : 11, etc.). In Jo. 4 : 23, TotoiiTous fiyret tovs TpotxtcvvovvTas, the articular parti- ciple is in the predicate accusative. When used with substan- tives TOiovTos 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 at 8vvan€Ls Toiavrai (cf. o5tos, iKelvos). It comes before the substan- tive (Jo. 9 : 16) or after (Ac. 16 : 24). It is used as the antece- dent of olos (Mk. 13 : 19; 1 Cor. 15 : 48; 2 Cor. 10 : 11) following olos. But note also toioiitovs ottoIos in Ac. 26 : 29, tolovtos os in Heb. 7 : 26 f.; 8:1, and in 1 Cor. 5 : 1 towlvt-q ^rts. We even have toioOtos d)s in Phil. 9. Cf. xocos — tolovtos in a Logion of Jesus, P.Oxy. IV, p. 3, 1. Too-oOtos {t6(tos, oStos) is the pronoun of degree (Latin tantus), both size, ToaavTr)v TlaTiv (Mt. 8 : 10), and quantity, aprot. TocovToi. (Mt. 15 : 33). It occurs with the article only once, 6 ToaovTos xXoOtos (Rev. 18 : 16). Sometimes it appears without a substantive, as in Ac. 5:8; Gal. 3:4; Heb. 1 : 4, etc. It is the correlative with oaos in Heb. 1 : 4 roaoiirco — So-cjj, 7 : 20-22 koB' oaov — Kara. ToaovTo, and in 10 : 25 roaoWig — Sccj). It is worth while at this point to note the correlative adverbs, omois ibare (Ac. 14 : 1), oiiTOJs Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 162. 2 Thaok., Gr. of O. T. in Gk., vol. I, p. 192. PRONOUNB ('ANTONTMIAl) 711 (6) 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. Enghsh that, German der. Homer often used re and ns with 6 and os 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 Clauses. The relative becomes then the chief bond of coimection between clauses. Indeed many of the conjunctions are merely relative adverbs, such as iis, 6re, orcos, 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 3s 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 Syntactica apud Thuc. Questiones, 1900, p. 1). (rf) "Os. 1. In Homer. See discussion of the demonstrative os for origin.* But already in Homer the relative sense, apOpov vToraKTiKov, 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 8s went from dem. to rel. before A did. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., pp. 186 £f. * :^arrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35. 'Oa-re survives in Pindar, Bacch., Ion. and Trag. choruses. Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 68 f. ' 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. ' Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 186. So 8s y&p is ambiguous. On the anaphoric demonstr. Ss cf. Delbnick, Vergl. Synt,, III, p. 310; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 241. 712 A GRAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 05 and tbe 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 ^i?i*,. Moulton^ observes that in Polybius the distinction between 6s and ocrrw has "worn rather thin." In the LXX os is frequent,^ but in the modern Greek Ss "is used rarely even in writing."' It is wholly absent in the vernacular. The modern Greek vernacular uses wov or orov. In the oblique cases the conjunctive pronoun rod, rrjs is added to iroO (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), neXri oirov. Here 6irov = ev oh. The vernacular car- ried it further. He cites modern English vernacular, "The men as he met." Indeed in Rev. 2 : 13 oirov really points to an un- expressed Tap' vfiiv. In Col. 3 : 11 oirov is almost personal. The occasional apparent confusion between os and interrogative pro- nouns will be discussed directly. On the whole, 6s in the N. T., as in the Koivri generally, is still used in accord with the classic idiom. 3. With Any Person. In itself, of course, os, like 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, Tiiwdeov, OS kcTiv fuiv TfKvov. So in Col. 1 : 24 inrip tov (Tci/iaTos avTOV, o hcTTLV ij tKKkricia; Col. 2 : 10 ev avrii, os kcTiv 17 Kea\'fiv e? o5, Phil. 10 tckcou 6v, Rev. 13 : 14 driplcf 8s. In Gal. 4 : 19 oiis is preceded by both J^iSs and TiKvia. In 2 Jo. 1, iK\eKTfj Kvplq. /cat rots reKvois avTrjs, ovs, the gram- matical gender (feminine and neuter followed by masculine) is ignored entirely. Cf. Ph. 2 : 15. In a passage Hke 1 Cor. 15 : 10, d/xl 8 tifu, there is no mistake. See OS above in verse 9. It is not 'who I am,' but 'what I am,' not exactly olos either, but a more abstract idea than that. Cf . 6 in Jo. 4 : 22, used twice for the object of worship, God. So in 1 Jo. 1 : 1 observe &v^ — 8 auriKbaixfv, S iwpa.Ka,iitv (cf. verse 3) for Jesus. One may recall here that the collective abstract neuter, irav 6 (Jo. 6 :37, 39; 17 : 2), is used for the disciples. Cf. 3 — mKiivoi (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, ivTo\riv Kaivfiv ypiutxa i/uv, 6 iariv oKtides, ' which thing is true.' ^ So Eph. 5 : 5, TrXeoj'kTTjs, 8 (Western and Syrian classes read 6s) kanv eiSco- \o\aTpris, 'which thing is being an idolater.' A particularly good example is Col. 3 : 14 where 8 comes in between a feminine and a masculine, riiv aydTrijv, 6 kcmv eriivSeayeiv is the idea referred to,^ though in Mk. 2 : 26 and Lu. 6 : 4 we have oils. The neuter gender is only natural here. In Ac. 2 : 32 oS is most likely 'where- of,' though 'of whom,' referring to 'Iriaovv, is possible. So as to 3 : 15. But there is no doubt as to Ac. 11 : 30, 8 koi iirolri(rav; 26 : 10, 8 Kal kiroiriaa; Gal. 2 : 10, 6 Kai kcnrovSaaa aiiTO tovto iroiijaat (note here the use of avro tovto in the relative clause) ; Col. 1 : 29 eis Kal KOTiw (cf. ets o in 2 Th. 1 : 11; 2 : 14; 1 Pet. 2:8). Cf. also 8 Kai fi/itts avTiTvirov vvv (fii^ti jSaTrrttr/ia (1 Pet. 3 : 21). Per contra see in the papyri '6v used hke o after analogy of Toiomoiy).^ Note in passing 8 6 in Lu. 2 : 15, like ^ r^ Tern Heb. 9 : 2. 5. Number. Here again, as a rule, the relative concurs with the antecedent in number, as in kcT^p bv (Mt. 2:9), deov Ss (Ro. 2:6). The construction according to sense is not infrequent, as in ir\rjdos 01 (Lu. 6 : 17 f.), KaTci TToXic irdcrav kv ah (Ac. 15 : 36, note distributive idea), pMpo\oy[a ij tvTpaiveKia a (Eph. 5 : 4, where feminine singular could have occurred because of rj), 7ei'€as — h oh (Ph. 2 : 15), Sev- rkpav ifiLv ypdctxa 'tTi.(iT6Ki\v, kv ats (2 Pet. 3 : 1, referring to both, probably) . Cf . 5 — Xerocras (Rev. 5:13). On the other hand note the change from the plural to the singular in 17/i^pat biibeKa acj)' ^s (Ac. 24 : 11), and kv oipavols — k^ o5 (Ph. 3 : 20). For the neuter plural in the relative (cf. raOra) to cover a vague general idea see Siv in 1 Tim. 1 : Q, &vd' Siv Lu. 1 : 20, kv oh Lu. 12 : 1 (cf. Ac. 26 : 12), k(l>' 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 pronouns (so 1 W.-Sch., p. 233. ' Mayser, Gr., p. 310. PRONOUNS (antontmiai) 715 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 d.yp^ Sc, Mk. 13 : 19 Kr'ureois ^v, Jo. 2 : 22 XoTcj) ov (cf. 4 : 50), Jo. 4:5 x^^pi^v o (CD o5). Tit. 3 : 5 ^ptcov a, Mt. 27 : 60 nvr\nei(^ o, Ac. 8 : 32 ypaclifjs ijv. Not to be exhaustive, one may refer to the rather long Ust in Winer-SchmiedeP (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 Attractionis Pronominum Rel. Usu Aristotelico, p. 94). (jS) Cognate accusative. The accusative in Ro. 6 : 10, 6 aTWavev, o fS, and Gal. 2 : 20, o fS, may be called adverbial. In reahty 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 iUiterate of them,"' show numerous 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. ^v (^s) in Mk. 13 : 19, 6v {^) in Jo. 2: 22; 4: 60, 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 in Mark (7 : 13)," whereas it "is very common in Luke" (Hummer, 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." 1 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 TTpaynaTos ov (Mt. 18 : 19), X670U ov (Jo. 15 : 20), iravroiv &v (Ac. 1:1; 3 : 21; 22 : 10), diadiiKris ^s (Ac. 3 : 25), kTayye\ias ^s (7:17), Wvwv &v (7:45), Tvebnaros ay iov 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 TrapoicXijtrecos ^s irapaKoXovixeda (2 Cor. 1:4), x"/"'''''* ^s ixo^piruaep (Eph. 1:6), K\ri(Teciis ^s kKKfidrjTe (4:1), (pupijs ^s 'tKkKpa^a. (Ac. 24 : 21), ipyoiv aaefitlas &v riak^Tiaav (Ju. 15).* There are examples also of the accusative attracted to the ablative. So k tSiv Keparicov Siv (Lu. 15 : 16), e/c Tov iiSaros oB (Jo. 4 : 14), d7r6 tHov 6\f/apicav 5iv (21 : 10), £K TOV irvevfiaros 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, e\ev9epa iffrlv & OeXet. yaixtidrjvai, unless yafir]drjvai be repeated, when (J 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 fifikpg. fi — h (bpa fi (Mt. 24 : 50. This is not an instance of one preposition for antecedent and relative), kwl TcLaiv oh (Lu. 2 : 20; 9 : 43; 24 : 25), kv TO) ovofxari crov & (Jo. 17 : 11 f.), ev rep ii,v})im.Ti, ^ (Ac. 7 : 16), kv avSpl & (17 : 31), eTTt r(3 Xoyo) $ (20 : 38), kirl rfj aKadapcri^ g (2 Cor. 12 : 21), kTfl 'ipyoLs &.ya9oh oh (Eph. 2 : 10) ,2 kv — e\[^wi.v als (2 Th. \:4l), kv T(i TTorripiif ^ (Rev. 18 : 6). This is probably true also of 1 Cor. 7 : 20, kv rfj kMicu g kKKijdr), where riv would have been the cognate accusative.^ For attraction to the instrumental see Trapa- 36(761 fi (Mk. 7 : 13), 66^n ^ (Jo. 17 : 5, but W. H. have rjv in margin), (TriiJ.eioi,s oh (Ac. 2 : 22), OvcrLais ah (Heb. 10 : 1, but W. H. as). In a few instances it is an open question whether we have attraction or not. Thus in Jo. 13 : 5, t$ 'Kevric^ & rjv hu^wankvos, either the in- strumental w or the accusative o (cf . Jo. 21 : 7) is correct. In Ac. 9 : 17, kv T^ bbQ fi vpxov, the cognate accusative ijv is possible, though the locative originally is more likely. In 1 Th. 3 : 9, krl r&aji rfj xapq. V XO'i-poiJ.ev, a cognate accusative was possible (^v) 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. PKONOTJNS ('ANTDNTMIAl) 717 to the locative or an original instrumental. In Col. 1 : 23, rod ev- ayyeKiov oB iiKohcaTi, either the aceusative or the genitive might occur with aKovia. But in 2 Tim. 1 : 13, \6y(av Siv Tap' eiiov fjKovcras, the accusative was almost certainly the original form.' Cf. Ac. 1:4 ^v riKoiiaaTe /xov. Plummer (On Luke, p. li) notes that this attraction in Luke is particularly frequent after iras (Lu. 2 : 20; 3 : 19; 9 : 43, etc.). In Lu. 5 : 9, kirl rfj aypij. tS>v ixBhwv Siv {fj) avveXa^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, ecos ttjs rifiepas ^s ave\iitJLdr]. This is in accord 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 StSao-KaXias j? irapriKoXovdriKas, but the rest have ^s. A dative has been attracted into the geni- tive along with incorporation and the preposition in Ro. 4 : 17, KarevavTi ov eiricTevcev 6tov = KarivavTi tov deov & 'ewiaTtvatv. So the phrase a^' fis (Ac. 24:11; 2 Pet. 3:4, but Lu. 7:45 oipas) is an ab- breviation of d<^' rmipas § (locative attracted to ablative). In Ac. 20 : 18 we actually have cnro ttpoji-tjs fiij,epa% d4>' fjs kirk^rjv, but as a point of departure (ablative) rather than a point of location (locative). Cf. also d0' ^s rinkpas (Col. 1 : 6, 9) where the incorpo- ration resolves itself into d0' rinipas ■§. So likewise axpt ^s iiixkpas (Mt. 24 : 38; Lu. 1 : 20; 17 : 27; Ac. 1 : 2) really comes from axpi ■fllikpas V (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 imattracted form (instrumental to genitive like ireipaafiov) . In Mk. 10 : 38 f., TO fiaiTTKrua S fiainl^oixai, the relative is in the cognate accusative retained with the passive verb.^ See further chapter on Cases. (3) 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: "wv probably a primitive error for Sv." ^ Cf. W.-Sch., p. 226 f. 718 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT idiom.' One example, \idov 6v airtdoKlfiaaav, occurs in Mt. 21 : 42; Mk. 12 : 10; Lu. 20 : 17. It is from the LXX (Ps. 118 : 22). In I Pet. 2 : 7 W. H. read Xidos. Cf. also Lu. 1 : 73, oprnv dv &iiioatv, which might have been opKov o5 after ixvriadrjvai,.^ See also 1 Cor. 10 : 16, Tov ixprov ov K\S>iiev. Hence also to iroTijpiov 6 evXoyovfiev of verse 15. If 6v is a part of the text (not W. H.) in Ac. 10 : 36, we have rdv 'Koyou '6v? Sometimes anacoluthon occurs also as in vav ^Ha apyov 6 — wepl avrov, Mt. 12 : 36; Tras os Ipu — a.epovaaL a riroifiacrav apiapara; Jo. 6 : 14, ibbvres a eTolrjcev crtp^la (W. H.) ; Mt. 7:2, Iv ^ yap Kplnari Kpivtre KpiSrjaecrde, ical b> ^ /xerpip /ierpeiTe lierprjdijceTaL v/uv, Mk. 4 : 24; Lu. 6:38; Mt. 24:44, J ov SoKttre a)p^ = Lu. 12:40 (not Mt. 24:50). For further examples of this simple incorporation see Mt. 23:37 = Lu. 13:34 (the set phrase, adverbial accusative, 6v rpdmv), so also Ac. 1:11; 7:28; 15:11; 27:25; Mk. 2:19 {'daov xpovov; but not 12:46 = Mt. 24:50); 17:29f.; Jo. 6:14; 9:14; II : 6; 17 : 3; Ac. 7 : 20; 25 : 18; probably 26 : 7; Ro. 2 : 16; 7 : 19; 9 : 24 (oiis — vp&s note); 16 : 2; Ph. 3 : 18 (but probably only predicate accusative like Mk. 15 : 12); 2 Tim. 1:6 (5i' ^v). In 1 Jo. 2 : 25 there is not exactly incorporation, but apposition to the relative. In Lu. 8 : 47; Ac. 22 : 24 and Heb. 2 : 11 the case is the same also, but the preposition would have been needed only with the relative. Cf. Phil. 10; 2 Tim. 1 : 12; Heb. 13: 11. See Siv — irovripwv, Ac. 25 : 18, where there is incorporation and attraction to the case of the antecedent. The same thing is true 1 Cf. Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 71. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 175. ' Cf. Blass, ib., and Comm. on Acts in loco. * This is more than "occasional," as Blass says (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 174). He rightly notes the absence of the article. PRONOUNS ("ANTSiNTMIAl) 719 of Rev. 17 : 8, where p\eir6vT(av agrees with Sip. In Heb. 13 : 11, &v ^6}cap — ToiiTuv, the substantive i|^ incorporated, but the demon- strative is repeated afterwards. Cf . also 8 — avrd tovto (Gal. 2:10). It is possible that Ro. 4: 17 belongs here, the preposition KarirnvTi being understood twice. The same thing'may be true of Lu. 1 : 4, TrepJ &v KarrixriBris \6yuv ri/v &av or irepl \6yuv oils). 2) But sometimes besides incorporation there has resulted a change of case also. The antecedent may be drawn into the case of the relative (cf. inverse attraction) as in Mk. 6 : 16, Sv kyd) aire- KecjiaXiaa 'Itii&vrjv o5tos iiytpdr]. Here the demonstrative pronoun is resumptive. The change is made from nominative to accusative. The same thing is true of the spurious passage in Jo. 5 : 4, ^j SijiroTe KardxiTo voarjuari (change from genitive to instrumental). This is probably true of Ac. 21: 16, S-yovres Tap' ^ ^€vi.aes>p.iv Mm- auv'i TivL KvirpLcf. The resolution of this passage is not certain, but it may be &yovTes Mp&a-uva xap' (J (change from accusative to locative).' But irpds Mvicruva may be correct. In Ro. 6:17, h%r}KohaaTe eh 8u wapeSSBrjTe tvtov Sidaxv^, the resolved form would probably be TVT(f) SiSaxijs ew dv TapeSodrjre. In Heb. 7 : 14, eis ^K ^v\r\v, the substantive would have been in apposition with ki. ToiiSa (the ablative) . In Heb. 10 -AOkv ^ etKi)naTi the ac- cusative rd dkXrifia is present in the preceding sentence. The same thing is true of 1 Pet. 1 : 10, irepl ^s cwrrjplas {auTiipiav 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 Kapovos), Kara t6 fikrpop Tov Kapdpos ov kp,kpiv kyp kroiriaep TopripSip (Lu. 3 : 19), irepl iraa&p Siv elSop 5vp&.p.eci>v (19 : 37), where the incorporation is only partial. It is clear therefore that in the great majority of instances there is no change of v Karrj- xqvTai irepl crov ovSei'= tovtcxiv a, etc. Exactly SO Siv 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 re elSks ixe Siv re 64>9ri(T0fiai aoi, it is the second Siv that gives trouble. The antecedent would be tovtwv 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), Siv xp^'mv, the antecedent would be in the accusative. So also wepl Siv, Ac. 24 : 13. In Lu. 17 : 1 Si' ov is resolved into toiitcj) Si ov (dative). In Ro. 10 : 14, xws inaTebaoKnv oS ovk iJKovaav, we probably have ov — els,TovTov (or toiitco) ov. The examples of the ablative are not many. See Jo. 7 : 31 where Siv after rXeLova crrjueia is to be resolved into rovroiv a. (abl. and ace). So in Ac. 26 : 22 kros Siv='eKT6s rovroiv a. In Heb. 5 : 8 &0' Siv=aTd rovroiv a, while in 2 Cor. 2 : 3 axji' 5iv=a.v6 robroiv i4>' Siv. Cf. Lu. 6 : 34, xap' Siv; 1 Cor. 10 : 30. In Ac. 13 : 39, awd ir&vruv Siv, the one preposition covers both ablatives. For the dative I note ols deSorat (Mt. 19 : 11), where the antece- dent like iravres would have been in the nominative. Cf . Lu. 7 : 43, 47 ^; Ro. 15 : 21 ols and 2 Pet. l:' oh (Ro. 6 : 21), iv oh (Ph. 4 : 11), iirip o5 (1 Cor. 10 : 30), iv ^ (Ro. 14: 22), ds 6v (Ro. 10 : 14), wepl Siv (1 Cor. 7: 1), etc. This "one" maybe the antecedent, as in d<^' S>v (Heb. 5 : 8)=d7r6 tovtuv a, eh ov (Jo. 6 : 29)= ew tovtov ov, irepl Siv (Jo. 17: 9) = x€pt ToiiTOiv oiis, virep a (1 Cor. 4 : 6) = {nrip TaOra a, d0' Siv (Heb. 5 : 8)=dx6 tovtoiv a, eh ov (Jo.' 19 : 37)=ets tovtov ov, etc. Or the "one" may be the relative, as hC oB (Lu. 17:1)= ToiiTcp St' ov, 'e(t>' ov (Heb. 7:13) = o5ros e<^' ov, etc. The use of prepositions is common in the same way with the relative and its incorporated antecedent. See 'ev ^ Kpi/MaTL (Mt. 7 : 2), oxpt ^s finepas (Lu. 1 : 20), 5i' ^i- aiT'iav (Lu. 8 : 47), xap' ia — Mva' oh (Ro. 6 : 21), etc. The tem- poral and causal use of the relative phrases is common. Cf. h ^ (Heb. 2 : 18). Indeed Kadd (Ro. 8 : 26) is Ka3' 6, Koddn (Ac. 2 : 45) is Kad' OTL, Kadawep (Ro. 4 : 6) is Kod' airep. Cf. icj)' oaov (Mt. 9 : 15), KoS' ocroj'(Heb. 3 :3). Adverbs show the same phenomena as other relative forms. Thus in Ro. 5 : 20 oB has no antecedent. In 1 Cor. 16 : 6 o5= keto-e o5. So mov in Jo. 11 :32=keT(r« otov and in Jo. 20 : 19 kvTo.\jBa. oTTou. In 2 Sam. 14 : 15 8= conjunction. 10. Pleonastic Antecedent. The redundant antecedent incorpo- rated into the relative clause has attracted considerable attention. In Herodotus 4, 44 Ss — ovtos occurs,' and Blass^ cites Hyper. Eux. § 3, Siv— ToiiTtav. But in ancient Greek it was a very rare usage. In Winer-Schmiedel' examples of pleonastic oBtos are cited from Xenophon, Diodorus Siculus, Pausanias, Sophocles. Pleo- nastic afiTos appears in Aristophanes, Birds, 1237, oh dvrkov aiToh. Reference also is made to Sophocles and Lucian. In the LXX the idiom is extremely common, manifestly under the influence of the Hebrew ii) ll?^ (cf. Aramaic 1). It "is found in all parts of the LXX and undoubtedly owes its frequency to the Hebrew original. But the fact that it is found in an original Greek work, such as 2 Mace, (xii, 27 kv fj . . . h ai/rjj) and a paraphrase such as 1 Esdras (iii, 5, 9; iv, 54, 63; vi, 32), is sufficient to warrant its presence in the KOLvq."^ For numerous examples of the idiom in the LXX see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 200, and Winer-Moulton, p. 185. Cf. also Conybeare and Stock, Selections, pp. 65 ff. As a matter of fact the examples are not very numerous in the N. T. It occurs several times in Rev. (3:8 tjv — airijv, 7:2 oh kSodri aOroh, 7:9 8v — aiiTov, 13:8 ov — aiTov, 20 : 8 wv — avTuiv) . Outside of the Apocalypse, which so strongly bears the influence of the LXX, the usage is very rare. See Mt. 3 : 12, ov t6 tttvov kv t% x^i-P^ aiirov, an example hardly parallel as a matter of fact. But a clearer instance is Mk. 1 : 7 (and Lu. 3 : 16), oB — auTov, and still more so 7 : 25, ^$ e^x^ ™ dvyarpLov avTrjs. Cf. also o'ia — TotauTJj (Mk. 13 : 19), oTos — 1 K.-G., II, p. 433. ' P. 201. Cf. also W.-M., p. 185. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 175. * Thack., Gr. of O. T. in Gk., p. 46. PRONOUNS ('ANTfiNTMIAl) 723 tjjXuoOtos (Rev. 16 : 18), ok — oilrajs (Mk. 9 : 3), Sirou — ket (Rev. 12 : 6, 14), Sirou — kw' ahrSiv (Rev. Ig : 9).i In Ac. 15 : 17, e0' o6s — ^ir' aiiTovs, 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 modern Greek vernacular, 6 yuiTpds iroO top eoreiXa, 'the doctor whom I sent for,' since the modern Greek vernacular just as readily uses TToO without aiiTov. Psichari complains that Thumb* also has not explained clearly this idiom. But Psichari beUeves 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, i^ S>v — ki, avTwv. See also P. Amh. II, 11, 26, oirep (t>av€pdv tovto kykvero. 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 EngHsh "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 i/uv, W. H. reject kv ifiv. In Gal. 2 : 10, S— oiiTo TOVTO, we have the intensive use of avTo, but tovto is pleonastic. In 1 Pet. 2 : 24, os — aiiTos, we have again intensive avTos. 11. The Re-petition of os. Winer* rightly remarks that it is a misapprehension of the Greek genius to expect the relative rather than avTos or oSros in a case like Jo. 1 : 6; Lu. 2 : 36; 19 : 2; Ac. 1 Cf. Blaas, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 175; Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 59. = Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 175, cites o5 7} ttvo^ airov, from Clem. Cor. i. 21. 9. ' Essai sur le grec de la Sept., p. 182. * Hellen., p. 128. 6 Cf. also Jann., Hist. 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 OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 10 : 36. The old Greek could, and commonly did,i use ovtos or more usually avros with Kal to continue the narrative. Blass^ rather curiously calls it "negligent usage." Cf. Lu. 13 :4, e0' o8s hrtaev 6 iripyos Kal airiKTecvev avrovs; 1 Cor. 8 : 6, e^ oB — Kal tls avrov and 5l' ov — /cat Si.' avrov (cf. Heb. 11 : 4); 2 Pet. 2 : 3, oh — Kal avTcov; Rev. 17: 2, fied' rjs — Kal aiiTTjs. In Lu. 17: 31 Kal 6 occurs rather than /cat avros. Cf . Jo. 13 : 24. In Jo. 1 : 33, e^' ov — /cat iir' avrov, the repetition of the relative would have been impracticable. But in 1 Cor. 7 : 13 Paul might very well have written r/rts — Kal OS rather than /cat ovros (a sort of parenthesis). It is common,^ also, to have neither the relative repeated nor the demonstrative. So OS 7€ rov Idiov vlov oSk h(f>ti(Taro, dXXa virip rinS>v iravrcov iraptdoiKtv airSv (Ro. 8 : 32). Cf. Ph. 4 : 9. But the relative may be repeated. A good many such examples occur in the N. T. Kat may be used, as S>v /cat S>v (Ro. 4:7). Cf. also 0V — & Kal (Ac. 27 : 23) and S>v re — Sivre— (Ac. 26 : 16). Cf. 1 Cor. 15 : 1 f ., 8 — 8 Kal — h Si Kal — 5t' o5 /cat. See Jo. 21 : 20. But examples occur also of the repetition of the relative with- out any conjunction, as in 6s — 6v — wap' ov (Ac. 24 : 6). See 1 Cor. 4 : 17. Cf. ocra— oo-a, etc. (Ph. 4:8). This repetition of os 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 otTt^es — S>v — Siv — /cat ef Siv. The use of avd' Siv oca together (Lu. 12 : 3) finds abundant par- allel in the LXX, easily falhng in with the Hebrew construction* with 11^!*. Thus a double relative occurs. In Ro. 4 : 21 the conjunction of Srt 6 is merely accidental; but that is not true of o — on in 1 Jo. 4 : 3. Cf. also otoj' on. in Ro. 9 : 6. 12. A Consecutive Idea. This may be implied in os. Thus in Lu. 7 : 4, agtos eo-Tti' ^ Trape^v rovro. One is reminded of qui in Latin.^ Cf. also rls i<7n.v ovros 6s Kal anaprias a(l>LTjpa.^0VTi% ev rji. KUfii]L oIkovciv, R. L. 29 (iii/s.C.); (jipovriaas Sl' S>v 8tl ravTo. epyaceijvai,, P.P. ii. 37 (ii/B.c). It is a little surprising, however, to find 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 otSec — Siv xPti-O'V 'ix^Te, Mt. 6 : 8; d;ra77eiXoT€ d aKovtre, 11 : 4; tiSvla o ykyoveu, Mk. 5 : 33; avtypoire 3 kiroiriaev, Lu. 6 : 3 (cf. Mt. 12 : 3 Ti); M eiSws \tyfi., 9 : 33; Si' rjv atrial' ij^aro aiirov airiiyyeiKev, 8 : 47 (cf . Ac. 22 : 24) ; SiSd^et vn&s S. Set eiwelv, 12 : 12. But not 2 Tim. 1 : 12! And then in 1 Tim. 1:7 we find d Xkyovcrtv and wepl tIvup StajSe- ^aiovvrai used side by side after juij voovvTis. Cf. also Jo. 18: 21. One may compare' also Lu. 11:6, ova ix<^ » irapoB'nau) avrco, with Mk. 8 : 2 (Mt. 15 : 32), oOk exovtnv H (l>a.yoi(nv. See also cos ladri in Lu. 8 : 47, and note ws in Lu. 23 : 55; 24 : 35, not to mention OCOS, OTTOtOS. 16. The Idiom ovSeis kanv 6s. It occurs in the N. T., as Mk. 9 : 39; 10 : 29; Lu. 1 : 61; 18 : 29; 1 Cor. 6 : 5. For oiSefs kanv 8s ov see Mt. 10:26 (cf. Lu. 8:17). Here one is reminded of the old idiom oiiSels octtls. Mayser {Grammatik, p. 310) calls attention to the papyri use of ov= 6 after analogy of ToriTS)v otrives ipxovrai. Cf. also Mt. 7 : 26; 13 : 52; 21 : 33, etc. The value of the pronoun sometimes does not differ greatly from oTos and ex- presses quality. Thus evvovxoi. otrti'es, Mt. 19 : 12; aXXots yeupyots otrives, 21 : 41; irapdkvoK airives, 25 : 1, etc. Once indeed we actu- ally have TOMhrt) ^rts (1 Cor. 5:1). Cf. also itorair'ii ri yvvti ^rts (Lu. 7:39). See also Gal. 4 : 24, 26. Then again it may be merely explanatory as in 7uj'atKes iroXKal — atrti'es riKoKoWria-av r^ Ttjo-oO (Mt. 27: 55). Cf. Mk. 15 : 7; Lu. 12 : 1; Col. 3 : 5; Rev. 11 : 8, etc. This use of 3o-rts is particularly frequent with proper names. ' Quest., p. 245 f . ' Gr., p. 139. For the confusion between Ss and So-rts see also Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 558 f. ' W.-M., p. 209, n. 3, where a very helpful discussion occurs. * V. and D., Handb. to Mod. Gk., p. 302. » Thack., Gr., p. 192. « Mayser, Gr., p. 310. 728 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT So Lu. 2 : 4, els toKlv AavelS fJTis KoXeirai BijSXe^/x. Cf. also Lu. 8 : 26; Ac. 16 : 12, etc. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 303, takes the ex- planatory or illustrative examples = 'now he,' 'one that.' Moul- ton' points out that oo-tis at the beginning of a parable (cf. Mt. 20 : 1) is really a type and so appropriate. In an example like Lu. 1 : 20, ToTs X67ots fiov oinvts TrXijpu^ijtroj'Tat, Moulton takes it to be 'which for all that' (almost adversative), while in Lu. 10 :42 TJTts ovK acpaLpedrjaeTai ai'T?s='and it shall not be taken away from her.' There is no doubt about the causal use of o(ttis (cf. qui and quippe qui). See Jo. 8 : 53, 'Afipaafi ocrrts aTtdavtv ('seeing that he died'); Ac. 10 : 47, olTives to irvevna to aytov eKafiov ('since they re- ceived the Holy Spirit'). Cf. also Ac. 7 : 53; Ro. 2 : 15; 6 : 2; Heb. 8 : 6; 10 : 35; Eph. 3 : 13; Ph. 4:3; Col. 3 : 5; Jas. 4 : 14; 1 Pet. 2 : 11, etc. 5. Value of os? It is a matter of dispute whether in the N. T., as usually in modern Greek, oo-tls has come already to have merely the force of os. There are undoubted examples where it is equal to 6s odv. 'Why' is the natural and obvious idea.* So in Mk. 9 : 28 &tl is read by the great mass of MSS. (including NBCL), though AD and a number of others have 6tA tL, some even have otl Slo, t'l (conflate reading), a few TL OTL. In John 8 : 25 both W. H. and Nestle print as a ques- tion, Trjv apxhv o tl koX \a\S> vpXv; The Latin versions have quod or quia. It is a very difficult passage at best. Tijc apxvv 6 tl may be taken to mean 'Why do I speak to you at all?' (t^p 6,px^v=oKois). But there may be ellipsis,^ 'Why do you reproach me that (6tl) I speak to you at all?' If necessary to the sense, fin may be taken here as interrogative.^ Moulton' admits the N. T. use of offTLs in a direct question. Recitative &tl is even suggested in Winer-Schmiedel, ^ but the occasional interrogative use of '6tl is sufficient explanation. But the passage in Jo. 8 : 25 is more than doubtful. Chrysostom takes otl there as relative, Cyril as causal.' 10. Indirect Questions. In ancient Greek oo-rts is exceedingly common in indirect questions, sharing the honours with tis."" The astonishing thing about this use of &' baov xpovov. 5. Repetition. In Mk. 6 : 30 we have in W. H. oaa /cat oca (not Tisch.) . But in Ph. 4 : 8 ocra is repeated six times without Kot. In Heb. 10 : 37 oaov oaov (LXX) is in imitation of the Hebrew in Hab. 2 : 3. Cf . also Is. 26 : 20 and D on Lu. 5 : 3 where oaov 6aov=6\iyov of the other MSS.' But that this is not an essential Hebraism, but a vernacular idiom in harmony with the Hebrew, is now clear.'' 6. With.av. Note the use as an indefinite relative (Mk. 6 : 56; Lu. 9:5; Jo. 11 : 22; Ac. 2 : 39; 3 : 22, etc.) and with ii,v (Mt. 7: 12; 18 : 18; 23 : 3; Mk. 3 : 28, etc.). 7. Indirect Qiiestions. The instances are fairly numerous. So aKOvovres oaa xoiet (Mk. 3:8); d7ra77etXoj' oaa — irexoijjKev (5 : 19). Cf. 5 : 20; Lu. 8 : 39; 9 : 10; Ac. 4 : 23; 2 Tim. 1 : 18, etc. 8. In Comparison. "Oaov (oac^) is used in comparative sentences usually with roaovro {roaoxiTi/). Cf. Mk. 7:36; Heb. 1:4; 8:6; 10 : 25. 9. Adverbial. 'E0' oaov (Mt. 9 : 15; 25 : 40; Ro. 7: 1, etc.) and KoB' oaov (Heb. 3 : 3; 7 : 20; 9 : 27) partake of the nature of con- junctions. (i) 'HXweo?. This form was used to express both age and size. Hence the corresponding ambiguity of ^XtKio. Cf. for age Jo. 9 : 21, for stature Mt. 6 : 27. The pronoun is absent from the LXX, never very common, but survives in the literary modem Greek.^ It appears also in the papyri." Like the other relatives it might have had a double use in the N. T. (relative and indirect in- terrogative). But the few examples are all indirect interrogatives: Col. 2 : 1 dhkvai tiXIkov ayS>va (ix<^, Jas. 3 : 5 iSoii rjKlKov irvp Ti'KlK'qv 1 P. 224. 2 But in the pap. Moulton finds kpovpuv — ocrav (Prol., p. 93). As a matter of fact in the N. T. 6 ek\w dXXot ri av. Cf. Mt. 26 : 39 ovx a.yo3^yo3(nv. Cf. oi)k ?x*' 'toO — kXcj'27 (Mt. 8:20), but oTov — 4>ayoi (Mk. 14 : 14). See in the papyri, ovSiv exc^ tL ttoi- ijo-co (701, B.U. 948 (iv/v a.d.), as quoted by Moulton (CI. Rev., 1904, p. 155) . But even so Xenophon has this idiom, and Sophocles, Oed. • Thack., Gr., p. 192. * Thompson, Synt., p. 74. 2 Prol., p. 77. ' Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 67. 3 lb. ' Prol., p. 93 f.; 01. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 154 f. ' Dieterich, Unters., p. 200. * Thumb, Theol. Literzaturzeit., xxviii, p. 423 (quoted in Moulton, Prol., p. 94). - Prol, p. 93. 738 A GBAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Col. 317, has ovk v Ipjiav;). The same thing is true of 1 Cor. 15 : 35 (irotc;) a-di/iart epxavrai;), cf. also 1 Pet. 2 : 20. . In 1 Pet. 1 : 11 we find both Tj.va and wolov in apparent contrast. Other possible instances are Jo. 10 : 32; Ac. 7: 49 (LXX); Jas. 4 : 14. The common h irolq. k^ovtxla (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 irolov iwehjiarbs eo-re (Lu. 9 : 55), a spurious passage, however. 2. Non-qualitative. But some examples clearly have lost the qualitative sense. In the modern Greek irotos is used regularly^= Tts, and is the usual interrogative. Note the accent Trotos. Indeed examples of this weakened sense of ttoTos Jannaris^ finds as early as jEschylus and Euripides. See (a), 3. In Mt. 24: 42 ovk dibare Tcolq, ri^Lepq, 6 KvpLos i)n&)v epxirat there seems to be merely the force of Tis, not quaUty. Cf . also 24 : 43 Tolg. ^uXa/cg, Lu. 12 : 39 Tolq. cbpa, Ac. 23 : 34 irotas eirapxelas, Rev. 3 : 3 irolav ibpav. This is probably true also of Mt. 22 :36 Toia tvToKi] (Mk. 12 : 28). In Lu. 5 : 19 TToias and 6 : 32 f. Trota x^pw 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 ottoZos. Cf. in- dicative in Mt. 21 : 24; 24 : 42; Jo. 12 : 33; 21 : 19, and the sub- junctive in Lu. 5 : 19 Ai'7 irolas eifftvkyicuaiv. XIoios is found in the LXX and in the papyri. (c) IIoVo?. 1. Less Frequent than tolos. It occurs chiefly in the Synoptic Qospels (twenty-seven times in W.H. text). 2. Meaning. It is used in the sense of 'how much' (t6(xc(i Mt. 12 : 12), 'how great' (ttoo-oi/ Mt. 6 : 23), and of 'how many' {irSaovs apTovs ex^Tt; Mt. 15 : 34). Eleven examples of irbacf occur almost like an adverb (Mt. 7: 11; 10 : 25, etc.). The use of irbcos xp^vos — d)s (Mk. 9 : 21) is noteworthy. 1 Thumb, Handb., p. 94. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 163. Cf. Dieterich, Unters., p. 202. PRONOUNS ('ANTKNTMIAl) 741 3. In Indirect Questions. See oiiK iKoim irdm aov Karauaprvpovaiv • (Mt. 27:13). Cf. Ac. 21 : 20, et^ 4. The Exclamatory Use. This is found in Lu. 15 : 17 irdaoi filadLOL Tov Trarpbs fiov, and in 2 Cor. 7: 11 Tdariv Ka.Teipy6.aaT0 ifuv airovdijv. The exclamatory use of tws may be mentioned (Mk. 10 : 23 f.; Jo. 11 : 36). Cf. cbs in Ro. 10 : 15 and 11 : 33. Cf. TTocros — COS in Mk. 9 : 21. 1. Rare. It is found only twice in the N. T. (Gal. 6 : 11; Heb. 7:4) and W. H. put lyXkow in the margin of Gal. 6 : 11. It is rare alsoi in the LXX (cf. Zech. 2:2), and has disappeared from the modern Greek vernacular, 2. Indirect Questions. Both of the N. T. examples are indirect questions. The example in Heb. 7 : 4 describes greatness of Mel- chisedek (how great), the one in Gal. 6 : 11 presents the size of the letters (how large). (e) IIoTaTro'?. It is the late form for xoSair6s. It no longer in the N. T. means 'from what country,' but merely 'of what sort' = xoios. It is found only once in LXX (Susanna O 54, "where it keeps some- thing of its original local meaning").^ It exists in the late Greek vernacular.' It occurs once in a direct question (Mt. 8 : 27) and once probably in an exclamation (2 Pet. 3 : 11). Four times we find it in indirect questions (Mk. 13 : 1; Lu. 1:29; 7:39; 1 Jo. 3:1). In Lu. 7 : 39 it is contrasted with tIs. (/) IIoTe/so?. As a pronoun it has vanished from the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 192) and from the papyri (Moulton, Prol, p. 77). The only example in the N. T. (cf. LXX, Thackeray, p. 192) is in an alter- native indirect question as the conjunction troTepov (Jo. 7:17). Cf. Latin utrum—an. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 176) cites Herm., Sim., ix, 28. 4. DC. Indefinite Pronouns {dvTavv\Llai dtfpioToi). (a) Th. 1. The Accent. Jannaris^ calls it "irrational" to accent the nominative tIs rather than rts. But then the nominative singular never has an accent unless at the beginning of a sentence or in philosophical writings (Thompson, Syntax, p. 76) and cannot otherwise be distinguished in looks from rij the interrogative. 2. Relation to tLs. The same connection is seen in the Latin ' Thackeray, Gr., p. 192. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 95. 2 lb. ^ Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 163. 742 A GBAMMAE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT quis, ali-quis and quis-quis (cf. Tiaris in Argive dialect).' Bnig- mann^ considers -kl- in o{i-kI, iroWaKi-s the same word as ri and cites Kis in the Thessalian dialect. Just as in modern Greek tIs disappears before iroios, so ris vanishes before Kavds (Thumb, Handb., p. 95). But in the N. T. ns is still very common, espe- cially in Luke and Acts. In general the usage is in harmony with that of ancient Greek. We do not have hwi in the N. T. In Ac. 25 : 26 note tl ypaij/ai. and tI ypa\[/co. Cf . Lu. 7 : 40. See tw tI, Ro. 8 : 24, in margin of W. H. 3. Tcs as "Suhstantive. As a substantive tk may be equal to 'any one,' 'anybody' or 'anything,' as in ovSk t6v irarepa tis kn- yivucKei, Mt. 11:27; xcos SvvaTal tls, 12 : 29; el rts deKei, 16 : 24; iav rts iiiitv tlir-g n (note both examples like tivSs tl Lu. 19 : 8; cf. Mk. 11 : 25; Col. 3 : 13), Mt. 21 : 3. For several instances of tl = 'anything' see Ac. 25 : 5, 8, 11. But the substantive use of tls may be = ' somebody' or 'something,' as epx^TaL tls Lu. 8:49, dpafubv Sk TLS Mk. 15 : 36, {/tS tlvos Heb. 3 : 4. Cf. Lu. 8 : 46. Often the partitive genitive (or ablative) occurs with tls as substantive. So TLvis tS>v ypajxixaTeuiv Mt. 12 : 38, tis tS>v tiajBrjTcov Lu. 11 : 1, tis tK Tov ox^ov 12 : 13. The plural is usually = 'some,' as Mk. 9 : 1; 1 Cor. 9 : 22. In Homer tls was sometimes "public opinion, the man in the street" (Gladstone, quoted in Thompson's Syntax, p. 75). This idiom is very nearly represented by etTev Se tls k tov SxKov, Lu. 12 : 13 (cf. 11 : 1; 7 : 36). In Heb. 2 : 6, dLefiapTipaTo ■Kov TLS, the Tis is really quite definite in the writer's mind, though he writes thus. 4. With Numerals = 'About.' With numerals tis 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 TLves, is the correct text. In Lu. 7 : 19, vpocrKa\ecra,ij,evos Sio tlvcls tSjv tiaOrfTOiv, the meaning may be 'about two,' but it could mean 'certain two' just as well. The same thing is true of Ac. 23 : 23, irpov 'twobiiaev, we must not' connect eKaoTov with ev. 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 a(j>fJTt e/catrros Mt. 18 : 35, kiropeiovTO iravres — eKacros Lu. 2 : 3, etc. The same thing is true in Eph. 5 : 33 vfieh koB' eva t/cao-Tos. This is a classical construction.^ 6. Rare in Plural. So e/cao-Tot Ph. 2 : 4, but even here W. H. have eKaaros in the margin. » 7. Repetition. Note the repetition of eKaaros in Heb. 8:11 (from Jer. 31 : 34). This translation of la"^!* by eKcuTTos rather than avrip is an instance of independence of Hebrew literalism. Cf. Mt. 18 : 35 with Gen. 13 : 11; Ro. 15 : 2 and Eph. 4: 25 with Is. 3 -.5 (Winer-Schmiedel, p. 246). For avrip = iKaaros in the LXX (literal books) see Thackeray, Gr., p. 192. (c) 'AWos. Cf. Latin alius, Enghsh else. 1. Used absolutely = 'An-other,' 'One Other.' This is the com- monest use of the pronoun. Cf. 1 Cor. 12 : 8-10 where S.\\c$ occurs six times. So Mt. 13 : 5-8 where SXXa appears three times. But it is found alone also, as aXhovs, Mt. 27 : 42. For aXXos tw see Lu. 22 : 59. Cf. oOdiv SXXo (Gal. 5 : 10) = 'nothing else.' It occurs in modern Greek vernacular. 2. For Two. But fiXXos occurs where the idea of two is present (pair). Here irepos might have been used, but even in Euripides, I. T. 962 f., Blass' finds darepov — t6 8' aXXo, though he considers it a "most striking encroachment" for aXXos to supplant eVepos in this fashion. Moulton {CI. Rev., 1901, p. 440) cites rfjs niv fuas — tijs 8' aXXjjs G. H. 23=^ (ii/B.c.) ; 56o, t6v /liv 'em — Kal t6v SXKov B.U. 456 (iv/A.D.). Moulton^ explains the existence of Kal rfiv &XX?jc (auiydva) in Lu. 6 : 29 as a failure on Luke's part to correct his source, a Uke failure appearing in Mt. 5 : 39, unless that was his source. But the matter goes much further than that. In Mt. 12 : 13 fl aWri refers to the other hand (x«ip). In Jo. 19 : 32 note rod irpi>Tov — Kal Tov SXXou.^ Cf. also Jo. 18 : 16; 20 : 3 f. In Jo. 5 : 32 eye!) and aXXos are contrasted. So Mt. 25 : 16, to. irhre ToKavra — aXXa ireuTe, for which Blass° finds "complete illustration in classi- ' W.-Sch., p. 246 f. * Prol., p. 79. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 179. ^ W.-Sch., p. 245. » lb., p. 180. 8 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 180. PRONOUNS ("ANTONTMIAl) 747 cal authors." There are other N. T. examples such as axXijj- in Mt. 19 : 9, tA Siro — axXa Sio Mt. 2^: 17, &\\r,v Mk. 10 : 11, S.\\ov 10 : 12, aXXoj' irapA/cXijToy 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 /laBriTris (18 : 16; 20 : 2, 3, 4). The article may be repeated, as in Jo. 18 : 16; 19 : 32. 5. The Use o/oXXos a\\o = 'One One Thing, One Another.' This is classical and is illustrated in Ac. 19 : 32; 21 : 34. In Ac. 2 : 12, aXXos irpis S.\\ov, the idiom is almost reciprocal like dXXiJXcdi/. 6. In Contrast for ' Some — Others.' We have oXX?j /ikv — aWri dk, 1 Cor. 15 :39 and 41; & fih — &X\a Sk, Mt. 13 :4 f. (cf. Kal oXXo, Mk. 4:5); ol fikv — aXKoi Bi — 'iTepoi. dk, Mt. 16:14; Kal aXXoi — aXXot 5^, Mk. 8:28; inrd nvuv — SXKoiv, Lu. 9 : 8; 6 els — h aXXos, Rev. 17 : 10. 7. Ellipsis of aXXos is possible in Ac. 5 : 29, Herpos Kal ot (sc. clXXot) &v6(TTo\oL. Blass' cites also Ac. 2 : 14, Jl^rpos avv tois (sc. XotTToTs) evSeKa. But psychologically this explanation is open to doubt. 8. The Use of aXXos and ^repos 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 fiXXos and ?Tepos, 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 irepov to aXXo for the very reason that Paul is not wiUing to admit that it is a gospel on the same plane (aXXo) as that preached by him. He admits enpov, but refuses ciXXo. The use of el ixr) by Paul does not disturb this interpretation. The same thing would seem to be true of 2 Cor. 11:4, aXXof '\riaovv — irvevfia 'irepov — evayy't'Kiov irepov. 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 'irepov (cf. Gal. 1 : 6) and the Spirit preached by them, while he is unwilhng to admit an- other (aWov) 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 fiXXa rwv SiKalosv from Xen., Mem., IV, 4. 25. Cf . also aWa in the sense of ' but.' Cf . dXXa aXX?? in 1 Cor. 15 : 39. ' lb. ' lb., p. 318. 748 A GRAMMAE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Indeed in 1 Cor. 15 : 39, 41, oKKti /jiv — aWrj Si, it is expressly- stated that the glory is not i^ avrri. In verse 40 Mpa occurs. Here aXXos seems to be used in the sense of 'different,' like erepos. In Latin alius was often used where earlier 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 avT&v is seen in Mt. 17 : 25. In Heb. 11 : 34 it has the notion of alienus. (d) "Ere/oo?. 1. Absolutely. So often as in Lu. 14 : 19 f., but it is also used more frequently with substantives than is aXXos. Cf. Lu. 4 :43; Ac. 7: 18 (LXX), etc. For eVepos ns see Ac. 8 : 34; Ro. 13 :9. For the genitive with erepos cf. Mt. 8 : 21. 2. With Article. The article is also more common with eVepos than with aXXos. Cf. Mt. 10 : 23; 11 : 16, etc. 3. Second of Pair. A common, probably the original, use of erefios is for the second of a pair. Cf. Latin alter. It is the only surviving dual pronominal word in the N. T. (except afi^o- Ttpoi), and is common in the LXX^ and the papyri.^ For abv Irepq. fiig. see P.Tb. 421 (iii/A.D.). The examples are rather abun- dant in the N. T. of this dual (comparative) sense (i-repos). So TOP eva — ■ Tov irtpov, Mt. 6 : 24; av — ^ ertpov, 11:3; tv tQ erepcj) TT-Xolv, 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 : 6, kv eripia aa^p&rcfi, 9 : 56 eis irkpav K6ip.riv, Ac. 20 : 15 rg erkpa. Cf. also Mt. 10 : 23. See also, t6v erepov 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 kckos." The N. T. examples are rather numerous. So kyiveTo — t& eiSos Tov Tpoa6>irov aiirov h-epov, 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. 1 Thack., Gr., p. 192. « Cf. W.-Sch., p. 244. 2 Mayser, Gr., p. 312. * Synt., p. 77. PRONOUNS ('ANTONTMIAl) 749 Cf. also irkptas in Ph. 3 : 15 and ev erip^i ixop4,fj Mk. 16 : 12 (dis- puted part of Mark.)^ Cf. Ac. 17:21. We have already seen that aK\os may be equal to 'diffe^nt' (1 Cor. 15 : 39). "Erepos occurs in verse 40 in the sense of 'different.' Ramsay (on Gal. 1 : 6) argues that, when erepos 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 'irepos 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, i-veSei^ev irkpovs i^dop.'ljKOVTa 8vo. In Mt. 12 : 45, tTTO. 'irtpa Tvevfiara TOvrjpoTepa ^ouroO, the notion of difference is present. This difference may also be implied by Luke in 23 : 32, /cat eVepoi KaKovpyoL d{jo. Cf. Lu. 8 : 3. But this is hardly true of Ac. 2 : 13. In Ac. 4 : 12 the point of 'irepov 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 irpSiTos, 6 deWe- pos, 6 'irepos. So in 1 Cor. 4 : 6, els iirkp rod ivds (/>ucrtoOcr06 koto, tov irkpov, the third is again presented by 'irepos. Then, again, 'irepoc occupies third place in Mt. 16 : 14 ind Heb. 11 : 36. In Mt. 15 : 30 it comes in the fifth place. Blass^ admits that this use of 'irepos " at the close of enunierations 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 erepcjj occurs in the third and the eighth places. We are not surprised then to learn that the papyri furnish plenty of examples where 'irepos refers to more than two.' Blass indeed considers this extension not correct, and Moulton seems surprised that Luke should change the correct ciXXos (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 erepos. Cf. xoXXa Kai 'irepa 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 'irepos 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, irepa ph)—er'epa 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 t«, Lu. 11:15 f.; with 8 ijikv, Lu. 8 : 5 f.; with ol fikv and aXXot, Mt. 16 : 14. But ' Cf. W.-Sch., p. 245. " Moulton, Prol., p. 79. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 179. 750 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT neither ovdertpos (m'/S-) nor oWkrepos iiJ.r]8-) occurs in the N. T., though ixr]deTepos is read in Prov. 24 : 21. In Clem. Horn. XIX, 12 we have oWeTepos. (e) Other Antithetic Pronouns. For els — els (Mk. 10 : 37), els — 6 8k (Gal. 4 : 24 f.), 6 eis — 6 tiXXos (Rev. 17 : 10) see els under Numeral Adjectives. So likewise rts may be contrasted with ris (Ph. 1 : 15), with tiXXos (Lu. 9 : 7 f.), with eVepos (1 Cor. 3 : 4). For the very common 6 p.ev — 6 8e, os fiiv — 6s Sk see Demonstrative Pronouns. The repetition of the substantive is to be noted also. So OLKOS eirl oIkov iriirTei, Lu. 11 : 17; 6 aaTavas rov caravav eK|3dXXet, Mt. 12 : 26 (cf. Lu. 11 : 18). This notion of repetition is seen in finepc/. Kal rifiepa (2 Cor. 4 : 16; cf. Heb. Sii^T ^lii). Cf. also els mi els (Mt. 20 :21; 24 : 40 f.; 27: 38, etc.); 6el$ — 6 2repos, Lu. 7:41. For els — Kal eh — ml th see Mk. 9:5= Mt. 17 : 4= Lu. 9 : 33. This threefold repetition of eis is rhetorical.' The distributive use of els with Kara and dm (cc KaB' ec, els Kad' eis, 6,va eh) was treated under Numeral Adjectives. XI. Negative Pronouns (dvT(ovu[iCai dpvTiTiKaC). (a) OvSek. 1. History. Note this accent rather than ovSeh. OvSeh is sup- planted in modern Greek vernacular by Kaveis, but oiiSiv survives as negative particle in form 8ev. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 171. 2. Ovdeh. This is made from oiire eh (sometimes also from obde eh, '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 peculiarity of the Alexandrian school. Meister- hans' has shown from the inscriptions how oWels and firideh 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, oWels and firideh had disappeared from current speech, and yet a number of instances survive in the MSS. of the O. T. and the N. T., though others were probably replaced by o08eh and firideh.^ In- 1 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. 6 Thumb, Hellen., p. 14; Mayser, Gr., p. 180 f. « Thack., Gr., p. 60. PRONOUNS ('ANTONTMIAl) 751 deed oWeis was a sort of fashion (Moulton, CI. Rev., Mar., 1910, p. 53) that came in iv/B.c. and v^ished ii/A.D. It was nearly extinct in N. T. times. See further chapters VI, iii, (o) and VII, HI, 2. 3. Gender. The feminine form is less frequent in the N. T. than the masculine and neuter. The word occurs with substantives (Mk. 6:5), with other pronouns (oXXos, 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 oi5h is seen in Gal. 4 : 1 oiiSiv 6io0€pei SovXov, but the cognate accusative is a possible explanation (Gal. 2:6). Cf. ov8ev in 1 Cor. 7: 19. In Rev. 3 : 17, ovSiv xpe'tt" 'exfjiJ.a, Ro. 3 : 20 (Gal. 2 : 16) ov diKauoOricreTai iracra cap^. See also Ac. 10 : 14 ovSeiroT€ — irav. Cf. ov5e irdv Rev. 7 : 16; 9 : 4. It is true that this idiom is very common in the LXX"- as a translation of 53 — s*5. Cf. Ex. 12 : 16, 43; 20 : 10, etc. But it is not without analogy also in the papyri use of xas "with prepositions and adjectives of negative meaning. Thus avev or x"P's Tao-j/s virepdeaeus, a recurrent formula, awirevdevoi iravTos ^xt/iou, Tb.P. 105 (ii/s.C.); dixa xdffT/s k^ovcias, Plutarch, Cons, ad Uxor., 1 (cf. Heb. 7 : 7)."^ Clearly the construction was in harmony with the Koivri. 3. Mri — xas. The same principle applies. Cf. 1 Cor. 1 : 29, ox&js p.71 KavxficrrjTai. xaca crap^. Here it is ' no flesh' as above with ov — xas. See also Rev. 7 : 1. On the other hand /iij xas (1 Jo. 4 : l)='not every' like ov xSs. ' W.-M., p. 215. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 246. Cf. CI. Rev., Dec, 1901, p. 442; Apr., 1904, p. 155. PRONOUNS (-ANTONTMIAl) 753 4. 06 M — Tap in Rev. 21 : 27 does not differ at all from the oil — ttSs and firi — iras in construction. 5. Has — ov. Here the ancient Gffeek idiom to a certain extent comes to one's relief. ^ But the sb — 5^ lies behind the LXX translation. It is less harsh than ov — xas. Cf . Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 178. The denial about Tras is complete as with o{i — ttSs. See 1 Jo. 2 : 21, irSiv ypevdos kK t^s AXTjOeios oxik 'icTiv. Cf. 1 Jo. 3 : 15; Eph. 5:5; Rev. 22 : 3. 6. lias — firi 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 firidds would have pleased an older Greek more. 7. IIos — ov iiii. In Rev. 18 : 22 the same explanation holds. 8. Oil — Tavres. With the plural ohK eialv itLvTts e^ ijti&v, 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 oil — iros in the singular favours the first. 9. JlLvTts ov. With irajres oh KoifiridriaofjieOa, 1 Cor. 15 : 51, the oil goes with the verb. The effect is the same as ttos — oii above. 'We all shall not sleep' means that 'none' of us shall sleep. 'We shall all be changed.' Per contra, see oii irAires, Ro. 10: 16 = 'not all.' » W.-M., p, 215. CHAPTER XVI THE ARTICLE (TO "APePON) I. Other Uses of 6, r\, t6. For the demonstrative & and the relative 6 see chapter on Syntax of Pronouns. It is confusing to say with SeyfEart': "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 Contribxjtion. The development of the Greek article is one of the most interesting things in himian 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 ol irXkovis, ol 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. iiber griech. Gr. ' Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 41. < Delbriiok, Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 507 ff. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 424. ' Delbriick, op. dt. Cf. also Thompson, Synt., p. 41 f. » Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 178 ff. ' Thompson, Synt., p. 41 f. » Cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 40 £f.; Jebb. in V. and D.'s Handb., p. 193 f. » Moulton, Prol., p. 80 f . " Synt. d. griech. Pap., pp. 5 ff. " Lang, of the N. T., p. 45. 754 THE ARTICLE (tO "APePON) 755 (6) Derived from the Demonstrative. The Greek article is the same form as the demonstrative b, ^, rb. 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 ilk. But while this is true, the demonstrative, relative and article should not be confused in idea. The Greek grammarians appHed &.pBpov to all three in truth, but distinguished them as &pdpov TcporanTiKov (dem.), 'apBpov iiroraKTiKbv (rel.), apBpov bpiariKbv (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 collected material for it. But even here I must demur against "the substantive use of the article" (p. 216) instead of plain substantival demonstrative. Gildersleeve uses "article" in two senses (form and idea). The Latin word articulus has the same root as the Greek &pBpov (ap- as seen in 6.p-ap-iou) irkptiatv aixtiii xiXxeiT;. Here alxn'ii explains 17 and 17 wavers between demonstrative and ar- ticle and illustrates the transition. So with new proper names b 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 singUng 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 • Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 794. ' Horn. Gr., p. 178. 2 Griech. Gr. * lb. 756 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT known. The article is therefore t6 opiariKdv apBpov, the definite article. The article is associated with gesture and aids in pointing out like an index finger. It is a pointer. It is not essential to language, but certainly very convenient and useful and not " otio- sum loquacissimae 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 yfj, ovpavds, Tijo-oOs. The use of a prepo- sition with definite anarthrous nouns is old, as ev oinc^. 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 (ro^la, 6 IlaOXos. 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 from 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 list of such sins is given in "The Revision of the New Testament,"^ such as 'a pinnacle' for to irrepiyiov (Mt. 4:5). Here the whole point lies in the article, the wing of the Temple overlooking the abyss. So in Mt. 5 : 1 t6 opos was the mountain right at hand, not 'a mountain.' On the other hand, the King James translators missed the point of nera. 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^S aixaprcaXQ. The vital thing is to see the matter from the Greek point of view and • Quoted by Farrar, Gk. Synt., 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. 8 Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 70. * lb. ' Lightfoot, Trench, EUicott, p. xxx f. THE ARTICLE (tO "APGPOn) 757 find the reason for the use of the article. In Mt. 13 : 55, 6 tov TeKTovos vlos, it is the son of the (w^ known to us) carpenter. In 1 Cor. 4:56 iiraivos means the praise due to each one. Cf . 6 fiiados in Ro. 4:4. In 1 Cor. 5 : 9, ^i* rg ^ttio-toXj), Paul refers to a previous letter which the Corinthians had received. In 15 : 8, r^i tKTpw^aTi, 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, rbv liodiov, TTiv \vxviav, the article singles out the bushel, the lamp- stand present in the room. In 15 : 26, toTs KwapioLs, Jesus points to the little dogs by the table. In Lu. 4 : 20, t6 ^l^XLov oltoSovs t<5> {iirripkrii, the roll was the usual one and the attendant was there at his place. So in Jo. 13 : 5, jSctXXet vScop eis tov vLWTfjpa, the basin was there in the room. The article in Jo. 7 : 17, yvwaerai Tepl rrjs 8i.8axvs, 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 Tovripovs Kat ayadois (Mt. 5:45); St/catos vwep adlKOiv (1 Pet. 3:18). Cf. in particular 1 Cor. 12 : 13 eire 'lovdaZot dre "EWrjvts, 12 : 29. So also irov ffo06s; TToO ypafifiarevs; (1 Cor. 1 : 20). But it is quite common to use the article with different classes. So in Mt. 8 : 20 note at dXoJxe/cas, to. xereicd. So at "yvvalKes (Eph. 5 : 22), oi avdpts (5 : 25), TO. TeKva (6:1), ol irarepes (6 :4), ol 8ov\oi (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 ttuxoL, etc. Cf. rois ao^ohs, to. aaOevfj, etc., in 1 Cor. 1 : 27. So ot LKpoarai and ot Trotr/rat in Ro. 2 : 13. Cf. Rev. 11 : 18; 22 : 14. It is very common to find the singular used with the article in a representative sense for the whole class. So in 6 vl6s tov avdpdivov (Mt. 8 : 20, and often) Jesus calls himself the Son of Mankind. Cf . Lu. 10 : 7, 6 epydTtis, where the labourer represents all labourers. In Mt. 18 : 17 note 6 Wvlkos Kal 6 TeXticTjs. The Gospel of John is especially rich in examples of this kind (both ideals and types).' Other examples are Mt. 12 : 35 6 ayadds Mpojiros, 12 : 29 tov laxupov, Jas. 5 : 6 tov SUaiov, 2 Cor. 12 : 12 tov dxoo-roXou, Gal. 4:16 K\ripov6p,os, Mt. 13 : 3 6 cireLpoiv. But even here the article is not always needed. So TouSatou re -wpSiTov Kal "EWrivos (Ro. 2:9). Cf. koKov Te Kal KaKov, Heb. 5 : 14. In examples hke 6 ovpavds Kal v 757 (Mt. 24: 35), where there is only one of the kind, the explanation is not far from the class from class • Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 47. On literature upon the article see E. Schwartz in the Index to Eusebius, p. 209. 758 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT idea. So deos, like proper names, may use the article where we do not need it in EngUsh (Jo. 3 : 16). Volker {Syntax, p. 19) notes in the papyri examples like ywii Kal viol, fj ywr/ Kal ol vloi, yvvii koi oi vloi, 6 avrip Kal TtKva. For the generic article see further Gilder- sleeve, Syntax, pp. 255 ff. (c) Qualities from OtSer Qualities. The English does not use the article with abstract quahties unless they have been pre- viously mentioned. But French and German are like the Greek in the use of the article here. It is not necessary to have the ar- ticle with qualities. So in 1 Cor. 12 : 9-11 the gifts mentioned have no article. So in chapter 13, ayairriv in verses 1-3, but 4 dTaTTTj in 4, 8; but irlaTLs, eKiris, aydwri (verse 13). In 1 Jo. 4 : 18 <^6/3os is first Without the article, then is repeated with the article, while 17 ayawTi each time. There is much of the same freedom as to the use or non-use of the article here as elsewhere. Cf. Ro. 12 : 7, 9; 13 : 9 f.; Col. 3 : 5. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 150) from the ■ standpoint of the German sees more difficulty in the absence than in the presence of such articles. But he is correct in saying that the relative in Col. 3 : 5 explains the use of the ar- ticle. It is interesting to observe that in the Ust of attributes of God in the songs in Rev. 4 : 11; 5 : 13; 7: 11, the article is ex- pressed with each quality, while in 5 : 12 one article (rriv) is used with the whole list. In Ro. 13 : 7 the article is used with each thing and quality. It is possible that tQ here is the article also for which the participle has to be supplied. But for the absence of nh and Se one might suspect t4> to be the demonstrative. In Ro. 16 : 17, (TKOTetv Toi)s ras SixocTaaias Kal to. aK&,v8a\a irapa rrjv BiSaxvv fjv vfieh ifiaOeTe iroiovvras, note how. neatly robs, tAs, to, ttiv come in and illustrate the three uses of the article. Note also the neat classic idiom tovs — iroiovvTas. For the article with abstract nouns see further Gildersleeve, Syntax, pp. 257 £f. V. Varied Usages of the Article. (a) With Substantives. 1. Context. Whether the substantive is pointed out as an in- dividual, class or quality, the context makes clear. The Enghsh may or may not have need of the article in translation. • But that point cuts no figure in the Greek idiom. Thus in Ac. 27 : 23, Tov Beov pv eifii, the article points out the special God whose Paul is and is to be preserved in English. In the very next verse, 6 Bebs, we in Enghsh do not need the article, even if, as is unlikely, the angel has the notion of "the special God." Cf. also Jo. 1:1. In Mt. 23 : 2, ol ypaiinartts Kal ol ^apiaaZoi, the two classes are THE ARTICLE (tO "APePON) 759 distinguished as in English. In Ro. 11 : 36, i) 56|a, it is the glory- due to God. See 6 iiiados, 1 Cor. ^: 18 (cf. Ro. 4:4). 2. Gender of the Article. It will, of course, be that of the sub- stantive. Cf. rriu — rbv — rb in Lu. 2 : 16. But sometimes the construction is according to the sense. So in Mt. 4 : 13, riiv Naf apo, because of the imphed irbXiv. Cf. also Ka4>a.pvaovti ri/v. But in Gal. 4 : 25, rd Si "Ayap, Paul purposely uses the grammatical gen- der of the word rather than the natural feminine. Cf . also 6 a/iiiv (Rev. 3 : 14), where Jesus is meant. But note the usual to kixijv in 1 Cor. 14 : 16. The N. T. does not have the neuter article with the plural of a Hebrew word, as we occasionally see in the LXX (Thackeray, p. 34). Cf. r^j /SecXei/* (Ezek. 27: 4). 3. With Proper Names. This seems rather odd to us in English, since the proper name itself is supposed to be definite enough. But at bottom the idiom is the same as with other substantives. We do not use the article with home, husband, wife, church, unless there is special reason to do so. The word itself is usually sufficient. We must rid ourselves of the notion that any substan- tive requires the article. But, just because proper names are so obviously definite, the article was frequently used where we in EngUsh cannot handle it. But this is very far from saying that the article meant nothing to the Greek. It meant definiteness to him. We often have the same difficulty with the article with classes and qualities. Sometimes we can see the reason for the use of the article with proper names. So t6v 'Irjaovv ov UaOXos Ktipvaaei, Ac. 19 : 13. But in most instances the matter seems quite capricious to us. The writer may have in mind a previous mention of the name or the fact of the person being well known. In 2 Tim. 4 : 9-21 the proper names are all anarthrous. The same thing is true of Ro. 16, even when the adjective is not anar- throus, as in 'AireWrjv rdv SbKifiov ev Xptcrr^J (verse 10). So in the ancient Greek for the most part the article was not used with proper names (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 229). Its use with per- sons is a mark of familiar style, but Plato uses it for anaphora or for contrast. In some sections it is common to use the article with titles, as The Reverend Doctor So-and-So. In South Germany der is used with the name alone.^ It seems needless to make extended observations about the presence or absence of the Greek article with names of countries, cities, rivers, persons. The usage among Greek writers greatly varies about rivers, mountains, etc. Cf. Kallenberg, Stu. iiber den 1 W.-Th., p. 113. 760 A GRAMMAE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT griech. Art., 1891). See exhaustive treatment by Gildersleeve {Syntax, pp. 236-253) and his paper in American Journal of Philol., XI, pp. 483-487. Different words vary. "Names of cities most rarely have the article when connected with prepositions,"' but that is true of other words also. 'lepovaaKiin does not have the article save when an adjective is used (so Gal. 4: 25 f.; Rev. 3 : 12) except in one instance (Ac. 5 : 28). Curiously 'lepoaoKvfia has the article (in the oblique cases) only^ in Jo. 2 : 23; 5:2; 10 : 22; 11 : 18. As instances of the article used with a city mentioned the second time (anaphoric) see Ac. 17 : 10, els Bipoiav, and 17 : 13, kv TJj Bepoia; 17:15, ^cos 'ABr)vuiv; and 17:16, kv rats 'AS^rais. For further details see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 152 f. Substantives in apposition with proper names may have the article, as in "Hp4)5i;s 6 /SacriXeus, Mt. 2:1; and 6 jSacrtXeiis "HpcjiSijs, Mt. 2:3; or not, as "Hp4)5ou ^acCKkoss, Lu. 1:5. In /Sao-iXeC 'A7piTxa, Ac. 25:26, it is like our 'King George.' So in Xeno- phon, when the King of Persia is meant we find ^aaiXeis. In Mt. 3 : 6, 6 'lopSavrjs rora/ios, we have the usual order, but see the order reversed and the article repeated in Rev. 9 : 14; 16 : 12. Cf. Tov opovs Swa (Ac. 7:30) and opovs Xlv&, (Gal. 4:24), rd opos Stajy (Rev. 14 : 1) and liiiv Spet (Heb. 12 : 22). For the article with appositive proper names see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 231. Cf. 'loiiSas 6 'IffKapLoiTijs, Mt. 10 : 4; 'KpifSrjs 6 TeTpaapxv^ 3'iid 'Iccavris 6 fiaTTLCTris, 14 : 1 f.; 'Irjo-ovs 6 NafaprjTOS, Mk. 10 :47; Ac. 1 : 13, Xi/xoiv 6 fi7Xa)Ti7s, etc. Here the word in apposition has the article, but not the proper name.^ Cf. 1 Cor. 1:1. In the Gospels as a rule 'IrjiroOs has the article. Xpio-ros in the Gospels usually has the article = the Anointed One, the Messiah. In the Epistles it usually is like a proper name and commonly without the article,^ illustrating the development of Christology in the N. T. Indeclinable proper names usually have the article if the case would not otherwise be clear. Cf. the Ust in Mt. 1 : 2-16, where the nominative has no article, but the accusative does have it. So 'lo-paijX in Ro. 10 : 19, but tov 'lo-paijX in 1 Cor. 10 : 18. See also Mt. 22 : 42; Mk. 15 : 45; Lu. 2 : 16; Ac. 7 : 8; 15 : 1 f.; Ro. 9 : 13; Heb. 11 : 17. The use of rdv Bapafifiav in Lu. 23 : 18 is not abrupt. In Xenophon's Anabasis the article is not often used with proper names unless the person is previously 1 W.-Th., p. 112. 2 lb. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 153. 8 See further W.-Sch., p. 153. « Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 152. THE ARTICLE (tO "APGPOn) 761 mentioned.^ In Homer the article appears only occasionally with a proper name when a new persc» is introduced, and "marks the turning of attention to a person," ^ rather than pointing to a particular person as in Attic. "In short the Homeric article contrasts, the Attic article defines." But, as a matter of fact, no satisfactory principle can be laid down for the use or non-use of the article with proper names.^ For good discussion of the matter see Gildersleeve, Am. Jour, of Philol., XI, pp. 483 ff. In modern Greek the article occurs with all kinds of proper names (Thumb, Handb., p. 41). Moulton {Prol., p. 83) admits the inability of scholars to solve "completely the problem of the article with proper names." Abbott {Joh. Gr., p. 57 f .) notes that John gen- erally introduces a proper name without the article and then uses it. The papyri also follow this classical idiom of using the article with proper names when mentioned a second time. So when a man's father or mother is given in the genitive, we usually have the article. Cf. Deissmann, Phil. Wochenschrift, 1902, p. 1467; Moulton, Prol., p. 83. The papyri throw no great light on the subject. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 95), claims that the papyri confirm the N. T. usage. In the papyri slaves regularly have the article, even when the master does not (Volker, Syntax, p. 9). For SaCXos 6 Kal IlaOXos (Ac. 13 : 9) the papyri show numerous parallels. Cf. Deissmann, Bible Sticdies, pp. 313 ff. Mayser {Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 310 f.), as already shown, takes d here as rela- tive. See also Hatch, Journal of Bibl. Lit., Part II, 1908, p. 141 f. In Luke's Ust (Lu. 3 : 23-38) 'Iwo-^c^ has no article, while all the long line of genitives have tov including rod deov. Among the ancient writers 6 Beds was used of the god of absolute religion in distinction from the mythological gods.* Gildersleeve {Syntax, pp. 232-236) gives a full discussion of the subject. In the N. T., however, while we have irpos tov 6e6v (Jo. 1:1, 2), it is far more common to find simply deos, especially in the Epistles. But the word is treated hke a proper name and may have it (Ro. 3 : 5) or not have it (8:9). The same thing holds true about irveviia and Tvevixa ixyiov, Kvpcos, Xpiaros. These words will come up for further discussion later. ' Zucker, Beobachtungen iiber den Gebr. des Artik. bei Personenn. in Xen. Anabasis, p. 6. ^ Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 179. » Cf. Schmidt, De Articulo in nominibus propriis apud Att. scriptores (1890); K.-G., I, pp. 602 ff.; Kallenberg, Stu. uber den griech. Artikel (1891). * Simcox, Lang, of the N. T., p. 48. Cf. also B. Weiss, Der Gebr. dea Artikels bei den Gottesnamen, Th. Stu. Krit., 1911, pp. 319-392. 762 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 4. Second Mention (Anaphoric). The use of the article with the second mention of a word is very frequent. Thus in Jo. 6 : 9, aprovs Kal b\j/kpia, but inverse 11 tov% aprov^ — Kal hi tS)v tnj/o-pluv. See Lu. 9 : 13. Cf. also uSojp in 4 : 10 and to vScap in verse 11. So fiayoL in Mt. 2 : 1, but Toi)s nayovs in verse 7; fifawa in 13 : 25, but TO ftfai/ia in verse 26. Cf. Ac. 9 : 4, 7; 9 : 11, 17; Jas. 2:2, 3; Rev. 15 : 1, 6. In Jo. 4 : 43, ras diio i)iJ.kpas, 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 IlaOXos, but 6 IlaOXos 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 koXos 6 vonos (1 Tim. 1 : 8) is a different construction from 6 iroifiiiv 6 koXos (Jo. 10 : 11). 1. The Resumptive Article. The use of the article and the adjective is perfectly normal in tQv ayioiv -KpotjyijTuiv (2 Pet. 3:2). Cf. rg kaxa-ria vnepq, (Jo. 6 :40). See also Lu. 1:70; Jas. 2 : 7. This repetition of the article with the adjective as in 6 woiixriv 6 KoXSs above is quite common also. Abbott^ thinks that this re- duplication of the article "adds weight and emphasis to the ar- ticle." Cf. Tj} Tpirxi 'fifikpc), (Lu. 9 : 22) with rg fiiiipa tij TpiTjj (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, wpo^ara tA c/id (10 : 27). So t6v a8e\ct>6v rov 'iSiov in Jo. 1 : 41. In Homer the substantive usu- ally comes before the article and the adjective. The resumptive 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 Sid tGiv aKovaavroiv (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 irovripos hK rov irovr\pov irpo4>kpei. rd ■Kovr)pbv. See in the papyri to kitcovvov aiirgs to \evKdv TO irapa aol, P.Tb. 421 (iii/A.D.). 2. With the Adjective Alone. It appears so with all genders and both numbers. Cf. 6 a7ios (Mk. 1 : 24), rg kpiifi^ (Mt. 3 : 2), t5 &yae6v (Gal. 6 : 10), ol tttccxoI (Mt. 5:3), tAs vkas (Tit. 2:4), to dpara (Col. 1 : 16), to, iroXXa in Ro. 15 : 22, ol aocjioi in 1 Cor. 1 : » Joh. Gr., p. 63. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 181. 2 lb., p. 64. THE ARTICLE (tO "APePON) 763 27, ai 'iToinoi in Mt. 25 : 10, etc. All these examples are obvious enough. The ellipsis is simple an4usually supplied from the con- text. The three uses of the article occur with the adjective alone. The individual use appears in such examples as 6 ayios tov deov (Jo. 6 : 69), 6 SUaios (Ac. 22 : 14), 6 aXridivos (1 Jo. 5 : 20), 6 wovripos (1 Jo. 5 : 18), TO TToXi and rd dXlyov (2 Cor. 8 : 15), rd LyoBov cov (Phil. 14), TO MvvaTov tov vbfxov (Ro. 8:3), Ti}v ^ripav (Mt. 23 : 15), rots aylois (Ph. 1 : 1), h roh. kwovpavLois (Eph. 1 : 3). The generic or representative (class from class) is very common also, more frequent indeed. So 6 3kaios (1 Pet. 4 : 18), tov ayadov (Ro. 5:7), TOV wTcoxov {3 as. 2 : 6), to is Trrcoxoiis (2 : 5), ol xXo6o-tot (5 : 1). So rd Kam and to, ayada (Ro. B :8), t6 kyadov (Lu. 6 : 45). Cf. in particular Ro. 12 : 21 hiro tov xa/coO, kv t^j ayaOQ to kckov. Cf. also Ro. 13: 3 f., TO ayadov (Gal. 6 : 10), rd kavov (Ac. 17: 9), to KaUv (2 Cor. 13:7), to iiyiov (Mt. 7:6), Ta 6pia (Mt. 19:1), tSiv airoplpMv (Mk. 2 : 23). The .use of the neuter singular with the article as the equivalent of an abstract substantive Blass' notes as "a peculiar 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 KOLvij, not to mention the papyri,' show the same construction. Deissmann has made it plain from the papyri that to 5oK.lp,u>v ifiSiv Trjs TicTtoK in Jas. 1 : 3 (cf. 1 Pet. 1 : 7) belongs here. See also TO luapbv TOV diov (1 Cor. 1 : 25), t6 ifi&v avTciv avp^pov (7 : 35), t6 i\a(t>pdv ttjs &\l\l/ecos (2 Cor. 4 : 17), to Trjs vfieTipas 'ayawris yvijcnov (8 : 8), TO yvuKJTov tov deov (Ro. 1 : 19), to xp'^o'tiJi' tov 6tov (2 : 4), t6 irepicra-ov (3 : 1), to dwarov aiiTOV (9 : 22), Td iiri^tKis {)fiS>v (Ph. 4 : 5), TO a/iiTaderov Trjs ^ovXfjs (Heb. 6 : 17), t6 aiiTrjs aaBevis (7: 18). Ex- amples of the plural in this abstract sense occur in to. /caXd — to, aatr pa (Mt. 13 : 48), to. abpaTa (Ro. 1 : 20), rd KpvTTa tuv avBpdiircav (2 : 16), TO. KpvTTo. TOV (TKOTovs (1 Cor. 4 : 5), rd irdcra (Col. 1 : 16), Td opord /cat Td abpaTa (ib.). The neuter adjective with the ar- ticle sometimes appears in the collective sense for persons. So t6 eXaTTov (Heb. 7:7), Td dudtKCKJtvXov iip.lav (Ac. 26:7), Td /twpd ToO Kbaiiov — Td aaOevrj tov Kbcrnov (1 Cor. 1 : 27 f.). See further Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 262. 3. The Article not Necessary with the Adjective. Blass,^ who 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 155. ' Cf. Schmid, Atticismus, IV, p. 608. • Deiss., B. S., p. 259. * Of. 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 t^ cJMvtpQ (Text. Rec, Mt. 6:4), yet eis (I)avep6v eKdeiv prevails (Mk. 4 :22; Lu. 8 : 17), since the thing is not yet in existence. But it is a rather fine point, since both kv KpvwTCf (Jo. 7 : 4, 10) and eis KpimTi}v (a subst. Lu. 11 : 33) occur as well as kv t^ cl>avepcfi (Mt. 6 : 4, Text. Rec). In Ro. 2:2'S>kv t& kpovTa (Ro. 2 : 18). Cf. to. vTrapxovTa fwv ('my belongings') in 1 Cor. 13 : 3, for the more in- dividual use. The representative or generic sense is found in 6 (TTeipav (Mt. 13 : 3). The article with the participle is very com- mon as the equivalent of a relative clause.^ In Mt. 5 : 32 was 6 i.To\vuv and OS kav — yafiTjay are parallel. See also Col. 1:8. So ot ir6irto-TeuK6res (Tit. 3:8), 6 eliriiiv (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 ^v comes in between). But note tQ ay awuvTi fifias Kai \vaavTt ij/ifis (1:5). Winer ^ makes a special point of the use of a definite participle with an indefinite pronoun like Tivks elcnv ol Tapaacrovres {ip.S,s (Gal. 1 :7), fjifi Tis ifias iCTai b avKaytayiav (Col. 2:8), oKKo^ ktyTiv 6 tiaprvpCiv (Jo. 5 : 32).' He also notes the definite subject where the German would have an indefinite one as in ohn icTiv 6 avvluiv (Ro. 3 : 11). Cf. also the article and the future participle in 6 mTaKpivHv (Ro. > Cf. K.-G., I, p. 594. ' W.-M., p. 136. ' More frequent in John than in the Synoptists. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 59 f. THE ARTICLE (tO "APePON) 765 8 : 33), Ac. 20 : 22 to. awavriiaovTa. Cf. Is. 1 : 31, ovk yorat 6 a^kaiav. More of this when the Participl^is reached (ch. XX). For the repeated article see Tg xapiTt rg hoBda-a (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 koiv^ the article is used with the infinitive in any case (save vocative) and very much as with any abstract substantive. The Iliad 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 Kodicai (Mt. 20 : 23), the accusative t6 XaXeTi^ (1 Cor. 14 : 39; cf. Ac. 25 : 11), the genitive ^Xxis iraaa rod ffoi^taBai (Ac. 27 : 20; cf. Lu. 24 : 29), the ablative kKparovvro tov piij kinyvSivaL (Lu. 24 : 16; cf. 2 Cor. 1 : 8), the locative h tQ airdpuv (Mt. 13 : 4), the instrumental t$ ^i? ebpiiv (2 Cor. 2 : 13). The dative does not occur in the N. T. with the article, but see deacaadai. (Mt.. 11 : 7). For the articular infin- itive with prepositions see Mk. 5:4; 14:28, etc. The article is frequently missing with ds iretv 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 Adverbs. This is no peculiarity of the Koivij, 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 vmder Cases and Adverbs concerning the ad- verbial expressions (really adjectives), like t6 irpS>Tov (Jo. 12 : 16), TO 'KoiTTov (Ph. 4:8), to. toXKo. (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. avoi and to, kLtu (Jo. 8 : 23), 17 avpiov (Mt. 6 : 34, ellipsis of rtpkpd), 17 ewaipiov (27 : 62), 17 (xrjfiepov (Ac. 20 : 26), 6 a/x^v (Rev. 3 : 14), to ap.7]v (1 Cor. 14 : 16), t6 vvv (Lu. 5 : 10), tA vvv (Ac: 4 : 29), 6 ■w\T)alov (Lu. 10 : 27) and note xXrytrioi' alone = 'neighbour' in Lu. 10:29 and 36, to vai and t6 oi (2 Cor. 1 : 17), to Ho£ev (Mt. 23 : 25), ot Uo£ev (1 Tim. 3 : 7), ol i^co (Mk. 4 : 11, W. H. text), t6 kvTSs (Mt. 23 : 26), ™ inirpo- adev and to birlaoi (Ph. 3 : 13 f.), etc. Note two adverbs in Heb. • Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 179. » Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 69. 2 Moulton, Prol., pp. 81, 216. " K.-G., I, p. 594 f. 766 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 12 : 27, TO 'Eti ftira^ (quotation). In some of these examples there is the ellipsis of a word (note different genders), but not always. There are besides the adjectival uses of the adverb, like 6 eo-co av- dfxairos (Eph. 3 : 16), 6 efw avOpoiTos (2 Cor. 4 : 16), 6 vvv /caipos (Ro. 3 :26). Clyde ^ compares rd vw with Scotch "the noo." if) With Prepositional Phrases.^ Cf. ol otto t^s "IraXias (Heb. 13:24), ol k vbtmv (Ro. 4 : 14), ol ex TraptroM^s (Ac. 11: 2), oi Ko3' hia (Eph. 5: 33), to tK fiepovs (1 Cor. 13: 10), to. irepl vnQv (Ph. 1 : 27), 01 aim airri^ (Lu. 9 : 32), to koB' fmepav (Lu. 11 : 3), t6 xar' 'tjik (Ph. 1 : 12; cf. Ro. 1 : 15), to /cari aapKa (Ro. 9 : 5), ro ^? iixSiv (12 : 18), TiJ ava hrjvapvov (Mt. 20: 10, W. H. text), 01 irepl UavKov (Ac. 13 : 13, classic idiom), ol fier' avrov (Mk. 1 : 36), rots h rj} oidq, (Mt. 5 : 15), TO. /card top v6p.ov (Lu. 2 : 39), to. ev toIs ovpavots and TO, iirl Trjs yrjs (Eph. 1 : 10), Triv els iravTas roiis ayiovs (1 : 15), to KoB' eh (Ro. 12 : 5), 6 ev tui ^avep^ (2 : 28 f.), etc. In Ac. 18 : 15 note vbpov Tov KoB' ii;uas, where the article occurs with the preposi- tional phrase, but not with the substantive. On ol irepl = a man and his followers see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 264. (g) With Single Words or Whole Sentences. Here the word is used verbatim, asT-6 eyds (Plato, Crat, 405 d).' Cf. t6 "Eti OTTO J St/XoT above (Heb. 12 : 27) and rd "kyap (the name Hagar, Gal. 4:25). So to 3^ 'Ap^/Jj; (Eph. 4:9). With sentences the ar- ticle sometimes marks the quotation as in t6 Et hbvia (Mk. 9 : 23), rb Oh (jtovebaeis — s Sei v/xas, Ro. 8 : 26 t6 yap tI irpocrev^6}fieda, Lu. 1 : 62 'ev'evevov Tb tI av d'eKoi KoKeltrdai, 9 : 46 eluifK- 6ev SiMl\oyL(Tixbs Tb tIs av elri liei^oiv, 19 : 48 oxjx ijCptc/cov rb tI iroiijacjiaiv, 22 : 2 k^iiTow TO xcos ave\6s in Lu. 6: 16 (cf. Ju. 1). The neuter plural is common for the notion of "affairs" or "things." So to. iavrwv and rd Xpto-roO Tt/o-oD (Ph. 2:21), to. Kalaapos and to tov deov (Lu. 20:25), tA ttjs aHpiov (marg. W. H., Jas. 4: 14), to tov kocjuou (1 Cor. 7:33), to Trjs a-apKos and to tov irvevixaros (Ro. 8:5), rd t^s dpiivt\i (14 : 19), etc. One may note also here kv toTs tov iraTpos nov (Lu. 2 : 49) for ' house of my Father.' Cf. hv Tols KSavd{lov), P.Oxy. 523 (ii/A.D.). See els to, i5ia and ol tdioL (Jo. 1: 11). The neuter singular has an abstract use like to TTJs aXridovs irapoifiias (2 Pet. 2:22), t6 t^s cu/c^s (Mt. 21: 21). (i) Nouns in the Pbedicate. 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. dedi J\v b X670S."' As a rule the predicate is without the article, even when the subject uses it. Cf. 'tjii iivOpcoTos dixi (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 rule holds wherever the subject has the article and the predicate does not. The subject 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, Oeos ijc 6 X670S, the subject is perfectly clear. Cf. 6 X670S cdpl kytviTo (Jo. 1: 14). It is true also that b debs v" o ^byos (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 . Staura8, tJber den Gebr. d. Gen. bei Herod., p. 25. ^ Milden, 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 GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT been Sabellianism.' See also 6 deos ayairrj earlv (1 Jo. 4: 16). "God" and "love" are not convertible terms any more than "God" and "Logos" or "Logos" and "flesh." Cf. also ol depiaral ayyeXoi daiv (Mt. 13 : 39), 6 X670S 6 aos oKrideta karLV (Jo. 17: 17), 6 c6|UOs anapria; (Ro. 7:7). The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea. Cf. also kydponroKTovos and yptmrqs (Jo. 8 : 44). In Eph. 5 : 23, avi]p kcnv Kec^aXi?, the context makes it clear (W. H. marg. aviip Ke^aXi? ecrrtj') that avrip is subject even without the article. In Jo. 9 : 34, kv aixapHais aii yyevvfidrji 6\os, the article with 6X0S 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 implied. 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 Xvxvos Tov cw/xaros kariv 6 b4>daK)xh% (Mt. 6 : 22), fi/iets iar^ t6 aXas rrjs yrjs (Mt. 5 : 13), 6 di aypos kari-v 6 Kocrfios (13 : 38), (ri el 6 XpicTTOS (16 : 16), eh eartv 6 iiyados (19 : 17), Hs apa, iffrlv 6 Tnarbs 60DX0S (24 : 45), TOVTO eoTLV TO tik jxov, tovto 'eariv to aln& fuixi (26 : 26, 28), ail el 6 /SoctXeus (27: 11), uu el 6 vtos ptov (Mk. 1 : 11), ovx ovtos k(7TLV 6 TeKToiv (6 : 3), OVTOS kcTiv 6 KKr)povbpx)s (12 : 7), oil ykp kcFTe vfiels ot 'S.aKovvTes (13 : 11), ij foji) ^v t6 0cos (Jo. 1:4), 6 Tr/oo^ijrjjs el ah (1 : 21), av el 6 StSdcKaXos (3 : 10), oBtos kaTi,v & irpo(jyfiTris (6 : 14), oBros k(TTLV 6 S.pTos (6 : 50; cf. 51), t6 ■wvevp.k 'eaTW ri ^uoiroiovv (6 : 63), kryw el/xi to (pan (8 : 12), ovx ovtos 'eaTiv 6 KoBrifievos (9:8; cf. 19 f.), kyii elp.1 ri Bbpa. (10 : 7), kyi} eljxi, b iroipriv (10 : 11), kyii elfii, ri dmoraffts Kai r) fco^ (11 : 25, note both articles), kyoi eini ij bSbs koX 17 aKi]Oei.a 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. ' P. 159. THE AKTICLB (tO "APePON) 769 •fl ^wi) (14 : 6, note three separate articles), k«Tc6s k(TTiv ayairciv lie (14 : 21), oBtos kcnv 6 XidosJAc. 4 : 11), ovt6s eo-Ttc ij di/vafiis (8 : 10), oiix oBtos eoTii' 6 ropB^aas (9 : 21), oBtos ^o-tij' 6 avdpcovos (21 : 28), oBk ftpa o-B et 6 AlyiwTLOs (21 : 38), 17 Ke<^aXi) 6 Xpiaros ^o-Ttv (1 Cor. 11 : 3), 6 5^ KBpios t^ Tr^/eO/id ^oriv (2 Cor. 3 : 17), avros koTTLv 1} etpi?*-?? ij/icoi' (Eph. 2 : 14), 0€6s eo-Ttv 6 kvtpyihv (Ph. 2 : 13), i}/iets 7ap ^ff/iei' 17 irepi.TOni) (3:3), 17 a/xapTia karlv ij dvoixia (1 Jo. 3:4), iyw ei/iL t6 "AX(^a Kal t6 ^Q (Rev. 1:8), kyii djxi 6 irpSiTos Kal 6 eaxaros (1 : 17, note both articles), aii el 6 ToKaiircopos (3 : 17), etc. This list is not exhaustive, but it is sufficient to illustrate the points involved. Note 6 |8a(riX6Bs(Mt. 27:11) and /Sao-iXeBs (Jo. 1:49). Even the superlative adjective may have the article as in Rev. 1 : 17above. But see ol e(TXo-TOL TrpaJTOt /cat ol irpSiroL ecxaroi (Mt. 20 : 16) for the usual construction. Cf. ecrxarri upa (1 Jo. 2 : 18). See further iv ^ffxcirais ■ftp.epaLs, Jas. 5 : 3; 2 Tim. 3 :1; kv kmpQ eaxo-Tv, 1 Pet. 1 : 5, and Tjj eaxarii fifiipq., 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 17^105 toBs aTToo-ToXous ea-xarovs airiSei^ev. Cf. Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 326. (j) DiSTKIBUTIVE. Cf. k SrivapLov rriv rjiikpav (Mt. 20 : 2), airaf Tov iviavTov (Heb. 9:7), Sis rod aaP^arov (Lu. 18 : 12), eirrdKis T^s vfiepas (Lu. 17:4). This is, to be sure, an ancient idiom fa- miliar also to the English (cf. our "by the yard," "by the pound," etc.). It is found in the papyri.^ But e/caoros is not Used in the N. T. with the article. Cf. 01 koB' ha eKaoros (Eph. 5 : 33). We have once hp,6Tepa to. irXoTa (Lu. 5:7), and several times ol a.p.^b- repoL (Eph. 2 : 18), t& a/j^orepa (2 : 14). Cf. toBj Svo in Eph. 2 : 15. Cf. Thompson, Syntax of Attic Gk., p. 51. (k) Nominative with the Article =VocATrvE. 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 rat, 6 irarrip (Mt. 11 : 26), TO oXaXov Kai Kco "Kadv (Lu. 3 :21). If oCros also is used, we have rriv e^ovalav ravT-qp dirtKrap (Lu. 4:6). Cf. oi aiirov fiirai'Tes (Ac. 16 : 33). The construction of Tras 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 irax and the article.* In the singular TTos may be used without the article in the sense of 'every.' So vavra ireipafffibv (Lu. 4:13), irav arbiM, (Ro. 3 : 19), iraaav avvelSriaiv kvBpdsTtuv (2 Cor. 4:2), wav Skvhpov (Mt. 3 : 10), etc. Blass' dis- tinguishes between ?Koo-Tos='each individual' and 7ras='any one you please.' nSs 6= ' all.' So xoffo ii x6X« (Mt. 8 : 34) = ' all the city' {die game Stadt).* This is the order and it is very common. Cf. 7rao-a>' riiv 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 161. Cf. Diels, Gott. Gel.-Anz., 1894, pp; 298 ff. » Cf. K.-G., I, pp. 631 ff. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 161. « W.-Sch., p. 187. 772 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT yrjv (Mt. 27 : 45), iravTl to) oI'ko) (Ac. 10 : 2). Even without the ar- ticle iras may be ' all,' if it is a proper noun, like irSiaa 'lepocroXu/ia (Mt. 2:3), iras 'lo-paiJX (Ro. 11:26). In Ac. 2:36, ttSs oIkos 'lo-paijX, 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 iraffji yvdotret (1 Cor. 1 : 5) and Traaav rrjv yvwaiv (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 iraffav riiv irlariv (1 Cor. 13 : 2), but Trao-jj tro^i^i (Ac. 7: 22). There may indeed be occasionally the difference between a specific instance like irao-j; rj} BXi^ei riiiSiv (2 Cor. 1 : 4) and a general situation like ttoctj; 9Xii/'ei {ib.).^ But see waan virofMv^ (2 Cor. 12 : 12), ■waa'ji ayv'ia. (1 Tim. 5 : 2), utTo. wapprialas xcktt/s (Ac. 4 : 29), etc. See also Taaa aa.p%= iba-ba (Lu. 3:6), usually with ov (Mt. 24 : 22). But note again TrXT/pcotrai iracav diKaioavvriv (Mt. 3 : 15) and iracris rrjs Tpoi] is ' every Scripture,' if separate portions are referred to. Cf . Jo. 19 : 37, erepa 7pa0ij. Usually in the singular in the N. T. we have fi jpari, but twice ypacfyri occurs alone as definite without the article, once in 1 Pet. 2 -.6, iv ypa^yii, once in 2 Pet. 1 : 20, ypa4>TJs. Twice in the plural (Ro. 1:2; 16:26) the article is absent. In Col. 4: 12 Iv iravrl de\ri- p.aTi Tov deov it is 'every,' 'whatever be the will of God for you' (Moffatt). In Jas. 1:17, warra 56o-ts, we have 'every,' as in irai'Tos TpoauTTov (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 was 6 anovoiv (Mt. 7 : 26) is practically equivalent to Tras oo-Tis aKodet. (7: 24). Cf. iras 6 ipyi^opievos (Mt. 5 : 22), iras 6 1 W.-Th., p. 111. Cf. 1 Sam. 7 : 2 f. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 162) calls this imitation of Hebrew. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 162. » Cf. W.-Sch., p. 187. THE ARTICLE (tO "APGPOn) 773 ff'Kkruv (5 : 28), irSs 6 iiroUuv (5 : 32), ttSs 6 alruv (7:8), etc. But sometimes we find Tras without the article as in iravrds &ko{)ovtos (Mt. 13 : 19), iravrl ixjyeiXovTL (hu. 11:4), where some MSS. read t4>. See Tavrl rcf ■wurrebovTi, (Ro. 1 : 16). The abstract neuter ttoj' rb is regular. So ttSj' t6 dairoptvbuevov (Mt. 15 : 17), Trac t6 b^eCKb- ixevov (18 : 34). Cf. -n-av 6 in Jo. 6 : 37, 39. The idiom 6 7ros='the whole,' 'the totaUty,' is not frequent in the singular. It occurs twice. ' See t6v rAvra xp^vov (Ac. 20:18), 6 iras vbfios (Gal. 6 ; 14), das gesamte Gesetz? Cf. also Barn. 4 : 9, 6 Tras xp^vos. Here the whole is contrasted with a part. '0 ttos vbtu)%= 'the entire law,' 'the whole law.' It was never so common a con- struction in the ancient Greek' as ttos 6. In the plural Trai/Tes is used sometimes without the article. The article is not necessary with proper names, Uke irb.vT& 'kBrivatoi. (Ac. 17: 21). Cf. iravTes 'louSaiot (26 : 4). But the article is absent elsewhere also, as in ■Kb.vm ipyarat. dSucias (Lu. 13 : 27), xacras &vdpi)irovs (Ac. 22 : 15; cf. Ro. 5: 12, 18), iraaip ayaeots (Gal. 6:6; cf. TaaLV Tots in 3 : 10), irLvruv ay'uov (Eph. 3:8), iravrts ayyeKoi (Heb. 1:6). These examples are not numerous, 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, ir&vTcav eu r^j awa- yoyyfj, because of the adjunct. But that objection applies chiefly to the literary style. See ol Hyiot. xAcTes (2 Cor. 13 : 12). The usual construction is irao-oi at yeveal (Mt. 1 : 17), iravras tous &px('ep(ii (2 :4), etc. Sometimes we have the other order like raj xoXeis ttAtos (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 examples of the attributive position are found, like 01 -iriiVTes avSpes (Ac. 19 : 7)= 'the total number of the men,' as in the ancient idiom. See, also, ai iracrat i/'uxai (Ac. 27 : 37), tovs a-vv airoTs irAj'Tas 0710115 (Ro. 16 : 15), ol aw inol iravres aSe\ol (Gal. 1:2), TOUS TravTas fiimi (2 Cor. 5 : 10). The last example =' we the whole number of us.' Cf . Ac. 21 : 21. But we also find ot irb-vres without a substantive, as in 2 Cor. 5 : 15; 1 Cor. 9 : 22; Ro. 11: 32; Eph. 4: 13; Ph. 2:21. In 1 Cor. 10 : 17, ot' TrAj'Tes k toO ivds aprov nerixoiiev, note the contrast with rov ivbs. Still more common is ra xacTa for 'the sum of things,' 'the all.' Cf. Ro. 8 : 32; 11 : 36; 1 Cor. 11 : 12; 12 : 6, 19 (cf. here tA iravra » Green, Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 192. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 189. 2 W.-Soh., p. 189. 8 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 52 f. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 161. , 774 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT and 'iv); 2 Cor. 5 : 18; Col. 1 : 17, etc. The use of iravres alone (1 Cor. 12 : 29), or of ir&vra (1 Cor. 13 : 7), calls for no comment. ' The story of oXos is brief. It is never attributive in position in the N. T. It has also an indefinite meaning which iras does not have. Thus kvi-avTov 6\ov (Ac. 11: 26)= 'a whole year.' JISs does not have this idea apart from the article. So J|o. 7 : 23, .Tr\ irXdcij (Mt. 27: 64), rg ^(txAtjj itukpq. (Jo. 6 : 39, etc.), t6 'iaxo-Tov Xeirrov (Lu. 12 : 59), etc. The construction 6 iaxaros alone (Rev. 2 : 8) and to. eaxara Tov &pdp(iiTov (Lu. 11:26) is classical.^ So is indeed also ttolvtuv icxa-Tos (Mk. 9:35), h KaipQ kbira rg ipOpuTrlvji, the repeated article makes for greater clearness. THE ARTICLE (tO "APePON) 777 17 : 5), Tiiv 7^)/ riiv ayadiiv (Lu. 8:8), to <^ajs t6 AXtjOivov (Jo. 1:9), t6 HSup t6 fwi/ (4:11), & Kaipds 6 e^As (7:6), i} &tnre\os fi ^Kridivri (15 : 1), rd irvev/ia to irovtipov (Ac. I^ : 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 difficulty in Heb. 9 : 1, to Te ^7101' KoafUKov, which may be compared with 6 3xXos xoXus above (Jo. 12 : 9).^ Perhaps both 57101' and Kokpov(rav. Cf. to irvp to al6>VL0v to iiToiiiatrnkvov (Mt. 25 : 41), 6 ixaBifT'^s 6 fiXXos 6 yvcaaTds (Jo. 18 : 16), Trjv pofi4>aLav ttiv b'uTToixov Tiiv b^eiau (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 fi6.pTvs 6 ;rio-T6s, 6 irpoiToroKos — /cai 6 S.PX01V- Cf. Rev. 12 : 9; 1 Pet. 4 : 14. For this common classic idiom see Gildersleeve, Syntax, pp. 328 ff. In Ph.l :29, v/ilv exa- p£ffflij rd iiirip XpioroO, the two infinitives following, each with to, explain the first t6. 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 irpwros xai 6 eo-xctTos /cai 6 ^&v (Rev. 1 : 17; cf. 22 : 13). Cf. also d &v — Kal 6 ipx^mvos (1 : 4, 8). But ordinarily the one article is sufficient for any number of adjectives referring to the same substantive. So 6 ToKaiwoipos Kal k\ei,v6s Kal tttwxos /cai tuc^Xos /cai yvfivds (Rev. 3 : 17). In Mt. 24 : 45, 6 ina-Tos SovXos /cai p6vi.iJi,os, the /cai carries over the force of the article.* So likewise the presence of another attribute may explain the probable predicate position iraTpoTrapaSbTov (1 Pet. 1 : 18) and x«po7rotijTou (Eph. 2 : 11).' See further (c), 5. 5. With Anarthrous Svbstantives. There is still another order.* It is eLpiivT)v T^v kfiriv (Jo. 14 : 27). Here the substantive is indefinite and general, while the attribute makes a particular apphcation. Cf. v6im 6 Svmnevos (Gal. 3 : 21). Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 93) finds this idiom frequent in the Koivfi. So yvvaiKa ttiv iiiyeveaTo-Triv (I. G., XII, 7 N. 240, 13). 6. With Participles. The participle may come between the ar- ticle and the substantive hke the attributive adjective, as in ttiv ilToiimaiikvTjv {ipxv ^aaiKelav (Mt. 25 :34). Cf. 1 Tim. 1 : 10; Ro. 8 : 18; 1 Cor. 12 : 22; 1 Pet. 1 : 13. On the other hand (cf. 5), 1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 177. « Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk.,, p. 160. > Cf. W.-Sch., 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, ol — Trpo(t>riTevaavTes. 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 — &m- yevvriaas, 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, Syntax, 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 t6 vScop TO ^S>v above (Jo. 4 : 11), oi jpafifiaTets oi — Karafi&vTes (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. TratSiots rots iv iyopq, Ka3r)iJ,kvois (Lu. 7 : 32), 7i;caiK6s ai crvvaKoKovdowai, ahrQ (23 : 49), h/yytKov rov dct>6kvTos avT^ (Ac. 7:35), xpvaiov rov aToWvfiivov (1 Pet. 1 : 7), and in particular ov5i yap 6vop,a. kanv irepov ri Stboixkvov (Ac. 4 : 12). Cf. also Ac. 1 : 12; Gal. 3 : 21; Ro. 2 : 14 {Wv-q to. nr\ vbixov ixovTo). But in Biov Tov ijelpavTOs (Gal. 1:1), Xpiarov tov dovros (1 : 3 f.), the proper names are definite without the article. So 'Irjaovv t6v pvofxevov (1 Th. 1 : 10), etc. Participles in apposition with per- sonal pronouns may also have the article. Cf. kyii eip,i 6 'KaKSiu croL (Jo. 4:26), T(j>vr}v bitx^iiaav (2 Pet. 1 : 18), rots TrveiipxiaLV — oLTtiJBiicracLV (1 Pet. 3 : 19 f.), apwayevra rdv toiovtov (2 Cor. 12 : 2), tov avSpa TovTov (TvKKr]p4>ekvTa (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- > Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 243. THE ARTICLE (tO "APePON) 779 ticiples, as in roO 6.yar'fiffavT6s ixe Koi TapaS6vros (Gal. 2 : 20), rqj 6.yaTcivTi. kclI 'KbaavTi (Rev. 1:6). The use of the article with the participle in the predicate is illu«fcrated by 0eds 6 Socatwi/ • rls 6 Ka- iraKpivuv; (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 ywii oma (Mk. 5 : 25), dtQ ^wvTi (1 Th. 1 : 9), &v9p6}Ti^ oIkoSohovvti (Lu. 6 : 48). (6) With Genitives. From the nature of the case the genitive as the genus-ease is usually attributive. In general the construc- tion in the N. T. follows the ancient idiom.' 1. I'he Position between the Article and the Substantive. This is common enough, and especially so in 1 and 2 Peter. So ^ rod diov naKpodviila (1 Pet. 3 : 20); 1 : 17; 2 : 15, 3 : 1. See in partic- ular demonstrative pronouns like rg kKeLuov x^i^ti- (Tit. 3:7). Plato {Soph., 254a) has ret rrjs ruv iroWuv \('vxvs Snnara. For a series of such genitives in this position see 6 — Kdafios (1 Pet. 3: 3). For adjective and genitive see 3 : 4, 6 Kpvrrbs tijs Kapdlas avdpuiros. Cf. Mt. 12 : 31; 1 Pet. 5:1. In 1 Pet. 4 : 14 the article is re- peated, t6 TTJs 56?5js ml rd tov deov Trvevixa. See also Jo. 1 : 40, tSiv dbo T&v &Kovcra.vTov. 2. Genitives after the Substantives without Repetition of the Ar- ticle.^ This is even more common. Thus t6v 4>bfiov tGiv 'lovbaioiv (Jo. 20 : 19), TTJS Lyb-TTT)^ tov deov (Ro. 8 : 39). Cf. 2 Cor. 4 : 4; Ro. 8:2; 1 Th. 1 : 3. Sometimes the two types are combined, thus il kirlyeios iiiMV okla tov (tkiJi'ous (2 Cor. 5:1), Trjs tS>v a.TocTTh'Kuiv in&v kvToX^s TOV Kvpiov Kal cycxiTrjpos (2 Pet. 3:2). The personal pro- nouns illustrate either order except that fjtov is nearly always out- side (but see tuv TraTpiKuv pov irapaS6(recov, Gal. 1 : 14, and ku tjj TrpdiTj/ liov LToKoyiq., 2 Tim. 4:16); either, as is usual, 6 xiiptAs p.ov (Jo. 20 : 28) or fwv Tobs 6ea\txok (Jo. 9 : 11). We find tjJ airrov X&pi-Ti (Ro. 3 : 24) and Tdv \a6v avrov (Mt. 1 : 21) and airoO h rg iy&wri (Jo. 15:10. Cf. 9:6; 11:32), Tiiv iavrov aiAiju (Lu. 11 : 21) and T'fiv, akpKa iavrov (Gal. 6:8), Tiiv yeveav Tf/v iavrov (Lu. 16 : 8) and iavruv tA I/j^ltm (Mt. 21 : 8). Cf. also t6 ovopA aX^v (Mt. 6: 17), tov &ptov fifioiv (6 : 11), ip.Siv TOV ipyov (1 Th. 1 : 3), rfiv {>p,S>v di.ykvy)v (Col. 1 : 8), etc. With the partitive the usual (but see Jo. 6 : 70; 9 : 16, 40) position is this: rd Tplrov Trjs yrjs (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 X670S 6 ToD arixvpov (1 Cor. 1 : 18), t$ Wei. tQ Mojuo-^coj (Ac. 15 : 1), ttjv 3i5o- oKoXiav rr/v tov acorrjpos rjuSiv (Tit. 2 : 10). This construction is not very common.' 4. The Article Only with Genitive. Cf. tjouo-ias /cai imTpoTfji Trjs Toov apxi-epecov (Ac. 26 : 12). Cf. Ac. 1 : 12, opovs rod, with Lu. 19 : 29, t6 opos to. Here again the article is almost pure demon- strative as in Jas. 1:25, vo/wv TtKeLov tov t^s IX€i)9epias=' perfect law, that of liberty.' Volker {Syntax, p. 16) finds abundant illus- trations of these positions in the papyri. So with proper names like Mapta fi Taxoi^ou (Mk. 15 : 40), AavelS 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. xiiXat q.Sov (Mt. 16 : 18), ariixeiov TepiTOfirjs (Ro. 4 : 11), vofiov TiffTeois (3 : 27), etc. The con- text must decide whether the phrase is definite or not. Cf. deov vm (Mt. 27: 54), eiepyeaiii, avdpoiirov (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(f vopx^ TTJs d/iapTias (Ro. 7 : 23) and vofii^ anapTlas (7:25). The genitive anapTias is an abstract noun which may or may not have the article. But vofiai is definite in either instance in 'the law of sin.' See again tu> v6p.u> rod 8(ov (7 : 22) and v6p.co deoii (7 : 25). 6«6s can be definite with or without the article. So, again, to 4>p6vrjna TOV Tvevfiaros (8 : 6) and TTVivna, deov, irvevfia XpicrroO (8:9), hpaiiitiaTi aapKos (8: 3) and t6 4>povr}ixa t1\s capKos (8 : 6). Cf. also 6 voixbs rod irvevfJiaTOi t^s foi^s (8:2), ttjv eKevdepiav rrjs 36fijs t&v rkKvuv rod deov (8 : 21), Tiji/ 5ciopeav TOV ayiov Trvev/xaTos (Ac. 2 : 38), fiiffKos yeveaeus 'Iricov Xpiarov (Mt. 1:1). Cf. 1 Th. 1 : 3; Rev. 1:1. These ex- amples could be multiplied indefinitely. If one member of the group is a proper name, the article does not always appear. So Ty eKKXriaig. QeacrdkovLKiojv (1 Th. 1 : 1), but -rats ^/CKXi/atats t^s FaXa- Tias (Gal. 1:2). Note also deov warpos vfidv (Eph. 1 : 2) and 6 deds 1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 159. 2 The Doctrine of the Gk. Art., 1833. Cf . Mk. 10 : 25 W. H. text and marg. ' Cf. W. F. Moulton's remarks, W.-M., pp. 146, 174, 175. THE ARTICLE (tO "AP0POn) 781 Kal trariip tov Kvp'iov ■fjuSiv (1:3). Cf. also to ipyov Kvpiov (Ph. 2 : 30), t6 TTViviia Xpiarov (1 Pet. 1 : 11; d.^kc. 16: 7). Such examples as these with proper names are after all "very rare." ^ See Mt. 1: 12; 16 : 13; Ac. 2 : 38; Rev. 12 : 17. Then again other phrases otherwise definite do not require the article. So the prepositional phrase h 5e^t.q, rod deov (Ro. 8 : 34; cf. Heb. 1 : 3), but note ry Se^iq. TOV dtov (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 apxvv tSiv ariiieiuv (Jo. 2 : 11)= ' a beginning of miracles.' In Mk. 1 : 1, apxi? TOV fiayy eXlov 'Iriaov Xpiarov, the notion may be the same, though here apxri is more absolute as the title of the book. In Ro. 3 : 25 it is possible to take eis 'evdei^Lv ttjs SiKaioa-vvris avTod—'ior a showing of his righteousness,' while in 3 : 26 wpds Tr/v ivSti^iv t^s SiKtttoffiij'jjs aiiTov may refer to the previous mention of it as a more definite conception. Compare also t^iv tov Oeov 5i.Ka.u)ci)vnv (Ro. 10 : 3) and SLKaioavvri Beov (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. dtov vl6s, Mt. 27 : 54) only the context can decide. Sometimes the matter is wholly doubtful. Cf. uios avdpojirov (Heb. 2 : 6) and top vlov tov avBpunrov (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 o-^pa- 7i5a rrjs diKaioavvrjs (Ro. 4:11), airXoTriTL Trjs KoivuvLas (2 Cor. 9:13). Hence vl6s tov Oeov (Mt. 4:3, 6; Lu. 4 : 3) and 6 vios tov Btov (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 6ti ol veKpol aKovaomiv TTji a.\ii Ttjs yvvaiKds cos Kal 6 Xpitrris /cec^aXi) tjjs eKKXrja-las (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, xec^aXi) TTJs ywaiKos, K&fmX^ rrjs eKKXijo-ios, aoniip tov aoifmrosi). See VIII, (j). Cf. ^ivot Twv bioBrjKwv rijs ^ira77eXias (Eph. 2 : 12). So ioprii rSiv 'lovhaiMv (Jo. 5 : l) = 'a feast of the Jews,' opxcov tS>v 'lovbauav (3 : 1). Cf. Ac. 6:1. Cf. PaiTTLtTiw. fieravoias eis aijieinj' afrnpruiiv (Mk. 1 : 4) and ets a(t>e(nv rSiv afuxpriSiv hiubv (Ac. 2 : 38), eis Kowoivlav tov vlov (1 Cor. 1:9), prepositional phrase. But enough of a some- what thorny subject.^ (c) With Adjuncts or Adverbs. In general the same usage appUes to adjuncts as to adjectives. 1. Between the Article and the Noun. Thus ^ ayco kX^cis (Ph. 3 : 14), 7) Kar' biKoyriv irpWeais (Ro. 9 : 11), it irap' kfiov SiajBriKr] (11 : 27), 6 b> &^ax"fTif aSiKos (Lu. 16 : 10), Tijc h t^j cci 6daKiiQ 8ok6v (Mt. 7:3), ol Ik wepLTOfirjs wiaToi (Ac. 10:45), rats irpSrepov hi rfj iyvoi^ itiCiv h-uBvfjilcus (1 Pet. 1 : 14). Cf. Ro. 2 : 27. 2. Article Repeated.^ Thus iravrcop tO>v a-ireppATcav rCiv k-wl ttjs yrjs (Mk. 4:31), al dwaneis at ev tols ovpavots (13:25), rrjs airoKv- rpiiatois T^s kv XpicrQ 'Irjcrov (Ro. 3 : 24), ri. ira9r]fmTa to, Sia tov vbpov (7: 5), 17 kvTo\ri fi ets fuiji' (7: 10). See further Mt. 5 : 16 Lu. 20:35; Jo. 1:45; Ac. 8 : 1; 24:5; 26:4; Ro. 4:11; 8:39 15 : 26; 16 : 1; 1 Cor. 2 : 11 f.; 4 : 17; 2 Cor. 2:6; 9:1; 11 :3 Ph. 3 : 9; Col. 1 : 4; 1 Tim. 1 : 14; Rev. 5:5; 11:2, 19, etc. In Eph. 1 : 15 we find both constructions tt/v koB' iiias wiuTLv ml Tr]v eis iravTas Toiis ayiovs. In Rev. 8:3 (9 : 13), Td dvaiaaTripiov rd xpv- crovv TO kvuiinov tov dpovov, the article is repeated with both adjec- tive and adjunct. 3. Only with Adjunct. So oIkovohIclv Beov t^iv kv irlvTu (1 Tim. 1:4), 5i.KaL0(T{ivr]v Trjv eK Tritrrecos (Ro. 9 : 30), iv arykirj) rjj 'ev Xptor^) 'Itjo-oD (2 Tim. 1 : 13). For numerous classic illustrations of these three positions see Gildersleeve, Syntax, pp. 285 ff. 4. Only with the Noun. In such cases the adjunct may be either attributive or predicate. Only the context can decide. In conver- sation the tone of voice, the manner, the inflection make clear what in written speech is ambiguous. Still in most instances in the N. T. the point is plain.' The cases here dealt with are those that occur without other defining phrases. In Eph; 6 : 5 some MSS. read rots KvpLois KaTo. aapKa. So in Lu. 16 : lO we find both b iv k\axi(TTCfi abtKos and d TncTos h i'\axlv x^i-P^ypo-'t'ov toTs S6yimcnv (Col. 2 : 14), ttjs kfiijs Tapovcrlas irakiv xpos ifias (Ph. 1 : 26), rijv kx Oeov diKaioavvriv kvl tjj irlaTU (3 : 9), ttji' kpi'fiv avaLiJTpopovpovixivovs Sid. Trftrrecos (1:5). But sometimes the several adjimcts (cf. adjectives and genitives) are inserted between the article and the substantive. So TTJs kv tQ K6(Tfiv iv iiriBvixiq. KtiOopas (2 Pet. 1:4). Cf. Ac. 21 : 28. For similar position of several genitives and adjimcts see 2 Pet. 2:7; Lu. 1:70. In particular note Ro. 16:17 for the various phrases between rovs and iroiovvras. Note the many ad- juncts in Ro. 3 : 25 f. See further vi, (o), 6. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 160. ' lb., p. 159. " W.-Sch., p. 180. * The three regular positions are common. Cf . Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 286. « Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 160. 784 A GRAMMAR OF 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 els t6v davarov avrov i^airTicrdriiiev and in the next verse we read aweTacfyrniev avrQ Sm tov jSairTia/iaTOS eh tov davarov. It is plain, therefore, that here eis tov davarov is to be construed with ^airriirfia- Tos, not with (7vveTa\dv iK ytverrjs (Jo. 9 : 1), &vBpci}iros iv ■Kvehiiari aKadaprc^i (Mk. 1 : 23), x^PO' ^^ irvehfiari d^icj) (Ro. 14 : 17), tTL KoB' virepfio\riv bbbv (1 Cor. 12 : 31), etc. Note in particular 2 Cor. 11 :23, 27. The older Greek furnishes illustration of this idiom.' > W.-Th., p. 136; W.-Sch., p. 180. 2 W.-Sch., p. 180. » lb. But Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 159) doubts it. THE ARTICLE (xO "APGPON) 785 (d) Several Attributives with KaL 1. Several Epithets Applied to the Same Person or Thing. See already under vi, (a), 4. Usuall^only one article is then used. For classic examples see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 330. So, for in- stance, 6 TaXatTTcopos /cai k\eivds Kal VTOixos Kal tv(J)\6s Kal yv/ivos (Rev. 3:17). This is the normal idiom in accord with ancient usage. So Mk. 6:36 vlos Tfjs Maptas Kal a5e\4>ds 'laKoifiov, Lu. 6 : 49 6 5^ aKovaas Kal fiii TOLTjaas, Ac. 3 : 14 r6v Hyiov Kal SUaLov, Jas. 3 : 9 t6v Khpiov Kal Tarepa, 2 Pet. 2 : 20 (3:2) rod KvpLov Kal (rcorrjpos, 1 Tim. 4 : 3 ToTs TTio-Tots Kal iTreYvuK6(7i. 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 TpSiros Kal 6 iaxaros, Kal 6 f ajc, one article would have been sufficient, but would have obscured the separate affirmations here made. Cf. also rd "AMo. Kal Td 'n in 1 : 8; 21 : 6. In Jo. 21 : 24 W. H. read 6 fiaprvpSip irepl TovTcav Kal & 7pd^as ravra, but they bracket mi 6. The second article is very doubtful. A similar superfluity of the second ar- ticle appears in the second fi (brackets W. H.) in Ac. 17 : 19, and in the second t6 in 1 Pet. 4 : 14, t6 t^s 36?r;s Kal t6 tov dtov TTVivfia (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 found 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 to both.' So 6 dtds Kal varfjp rilMav (1 Th. 3 : 11) and tov Kvplov •fifiuv Kal (ruiTijpos (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. rcji deQ Kal xarpi ■fi/j.wv (Ph. 4 : 20), 6 deds Kal irariip tov Kvpiov fiixSiv (1 Pet. 1 : 3; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3). The presence of fifiuv with Kvplov does not affect the construction any more than the use of Kvplov itself or flfiSiv 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 dtov ■fip.&v Kal o-cottJpos 'It/o-oO Xpto-ToO. Curiously enough Winer'' endeavours to draw a distinction between this passage, "where there is not even a pro- noun with aoiTfjpos" and the identical construction in 2 Pet. 1 : 11, TOV Kvplov finibv Kal (TUTrjpos 'Ijjo-oD Xpio-ToO, which he cites' as an example of "merely predicates of the same person." Stranger 1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 155. ' W.-Th., p. 130. ' lb., p. 126. 786 A GRAMMAR 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, t6v fidvov deairorrip Kal Kvpiov rinSiv '\-rj(xovv XpLcrrov, the same point holds, but the fact that Kvpios is so often anarthrous like a proper name slightly weakens it. The same remark applies also to 2 Th. 1 : 12, rod deov iinSiv Kai Kvpiov 'Irjaov XpLcrrov, and Eph. 5 : 5, ei/ rg ^aaiXeiq, tov XptCToO Kal 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 Kvplov fifiuv Kal acoTrjpos (2 Pet. 1: 1, 11). In Tit. 2 : 13, TOV iieya\ov deov Kal awTrjpos rjiicov XptcrToO 'Irjaov, it is almost certain that one person is again described. Cf. also Tijv fiaKapiav eKwida Kal 'eirL<^dvei.av Trjs Sofrys, 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 fieyoKov deov evepy'tTov Kal auTrjpos (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: " Familiarity with the everlasting apotheosis that flaunts itself in the papyri and inscriptions of Ptolemaic and Imperial times lends strong support to Wendland's contention that Christians, from the latter part of i/A.D. onward, deliberately annexed for their divine Master the phraseology that was impiously arrogated to themselves by some of the worst of men." 2. When to be Distinguished. Then the article is repeated. So Mt. 23 : 2 oi ypaixixareh Kal ol ^apiaaioi, Mk. 2 : 18 ot ixaJdriral 'liaavov Kal ot ^apiaaXoi,, 6 : 21 tois lieyiaTaaiv avTov Kal tois x'^'^iPXO's Kai TOLS TTpoiTOis, 11 : 9 Ot Tpoo/yovTes Kal ol aKoXovdovvTes, 11 : 18 (cf. 14 : 43) 01 dpxtepets Kai ot ypanfiaTels, Mk. 12 : 13 tSov ^apuTaUav Kal tSiv *lip(^dLavS)V, Lu. 11:39 TOV woTripiov Kal tov irlvaKos, 15 :6 Tovs VTei)ii3v Kal 6 ttotI^uv, Jas. 3 : 11 TO y\vKv Kal to iriKpbv, Ac. 26: 30 6 /SatriXeiis kciI ofiyeixosv, Rev. 18 : 20 oi 07101 Kai ol aTrb(jTo\oi Kal ot xpoc^^rai. Cf. Rev. 11 : 4; > p. 168. ' On Swri7P in ZNTW, v. 335 f. 2 Prol., p. 84. ■ Prol., p. 84. THE AETICLE (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 %-ords of quaUty hke the Hst in Rev. 7 : 12, or examples like rds (7ui'a7co7ds kclI tAs apxas Kal tAs i^ovalas (Lu. 12 : 11). It is not contended that these groups are all absolutely distinct (cf. ol ypannarels Kal oi $apto-alot), 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^ Lvkficii ml t^ KKvdoivi. rod iiSaros, Mk. 2 : 18 oi iiaBr}Tal 'loi&vov kolI ol $apt(ratot, 11: 15 ras rpairk^as t&v KoWvPurTcbv Kal Tas KaOkSpas t&v ircaKoivTcov. 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 0iXas Kal ydrovas (Lu. 15 : 9), tovs vofiLKoiis Kal $aptcraious (14 : 3), rcis irXoTeias Kal pvfias (14 : 21), t&v Tpecr^vrkpuv Kal ypaiifiarkiav (Mk. 15 : 1), t&v 'EinKovp'uav Kal 'Stwlkcov (Ac. 17 : 18), Twv ^apicraiuv Kal SaSSou/caW (Ac 23 : 7), tcov Airoo-riXajj' Kal irpotjiriTSiv (Eph. 2 : 20), tjJ dTroXo7t^ Kal /3e^atc!)cret rod (iayyeXlov (Ph. 1:7), t6 ttXAtos ml nrJKOs Kal fiados Kal ii^os (Eph. 3 : 18), t^iv K\1jcriv Kal kKkoyfiv (2 Pet. 1 : 10). Cf. T'f,v in Tit. 2 : 13. So in Mt. 17 : 1 (W. H. text) we have t6v Ukrpov Kal 'Uxuifioy Kal 'losavriv, 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 Tijv airoKapaSoKlav Kal eXirlSa fiov, 1 : 19 rrjs i[iuv Seijcews Kal iTixopriylas tov Tvevixaro^, 2 : 17 tJ fluerf^ Kal 'KeLTOvpylg, t^s Triorecos. 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 rfj M-aKidovLg. Kal iv rg 'Axai{i, while in the very next verse we meet hv rfi MaKeSovig. Kal 'Axalq, as in Ac. 19 : 21. These two Roman provinces are distinct, but adjacent. Cf. also ttjs 'lovSalas Kal 'SaiJ.apLas (Ac. 8:1; cf. 1 : 8), TJjs 'lovSaias Kal FaXtXaias Kal Xanapias (9 : 31), where these sec- tions of Palestine are treated together. Cf. Ac. 27 : 5. In Ac. 15 : 3 note t'/jv re ^olvIktiu Kal Saimplav', the two sections treated together are not even contiguous. In Ac. 15 : 23, Kara rifv 'AvTt&- 1 Cf. W.-Th., p. 128. ' W.-Sch., p. 156 f. 788 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Xti-av Kal Supiav Kal KiKiKiav, we have a city grouped with two coun- tries (as in Lu. 5 : 17; Mt. 4 : 25), while in 15 : 41 we meet riiv l^vpiav Kal Trjv KtXtKtoi' (W. H. text). Hence no absolute conclu- sions can be drawn from the one article in Ac. 16 : 6, rriv ^pvyLav Kal raXariKijv 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, Trjs 'Irovpalas Kal Tpax<^vLTi.8os x'^pis- But the matter is not wholly whimsical. In Ac. 2 : 9 f . note the T-qv with Meo-o- ■KOTap.lav, which stands alone, while we have also Uovtov Kal rriv 'Aaiav, probably because the province of Asia (not Asia Minor as a whole) is meant. Then again we meet ra ixept] ttjs At^Suijs ttjs Kara Kvprivriv, because of the details stated. In Ac. 6 : 8 f . the use of ray twice divides the synagogues into two groups (men from CiUcia and Asia on the one hand, men from Alexandria, Cyrene and Libertines (?) on the other). The matter is simple geography but for AL^epTivicv, 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, wvlktov, does not. So in Ac. 13 : 50 we have rdv JlavXov Kal B., while in 15 : 2 we find ri3 11. Kal t(^ B. Then (cf. 4) in Mt. 17 : 1 observe the one article with Peter, James and John, while in Heb. 11 : 20 we see e{j\6yr](Tev 'Itraa/c top TaKwjS Kal top 'HcraO. The articles here empha- size the distinction between subject and object as in Mt. 1 : 2-16. Cf . also tSiv clt. Kal tS>v irp. (Ac. 15 : 4) and ol air. Kal ot irp. (15 : 6) with-TOJj' aTT. Kal irp. T&v (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 avayiv6i(XKoiv Kal ol aKovovres (Rev. 1:»3), T?5s (TapKOS Kal tS)V SuiVOiSiP (Eph. 2 : 3), TrjV c(r6|Setac Kal ras KOfffiLKas iirL0vfiLas (Tit. 2 : 12). But one article may also be found, as in rcf Kocpx^ /cat 0,77^X015 koI avOpinroLi (1 Cor. 4:9). Here, however, the anarthrous words "particularize the rif Kdapx^."' Yet in 1 Jo. 2 : 16 irav to h r!^ Koaixca is "particularized" by three words each with the article. 6. Difference in Gender. So, if the gender is different, there is likewise usually the repetition of the article. Cf . Ac. 17 : 18 rov 'Ir/ffodv Kal TrjV avaaraaiv, Mt. 22 : 4 ot ravpoi p.ov Kal to, (rtTtuTci, -Lu. 10 : 21 Tov ovpavov Kal rrjs yrjs, Ac. 13 : 50 rds tvffxhiMvai /cat tous irpiiiTOVs, Ro. 8 : 2 Trjs anapTMS Kal tov OavaTov, Col. 4 : 1 to dUaiov 1 Cf. W. M. Ramsay, Expos., 1895, July, pp. 29-40. 2 W.-Th., p. 127. THE ARTICLE (tO "APePON) 789 Koi Ti)j' t(r6T7jTa, Eph. 2 : 1 rots irapaTTTiifiacrLV Kal Tais djuopTtats, Heb. 3 : 6 tiji- irappripaytio{is (Lu. 14 : 23), Tcov oXoKavTUfiaTCOv Kal Oucnoiv (Mk. 12 : 33), to. kyToKpaTa Kal 8i.da(TKa\ias (Col. 2 :22). If indeed the words differ in both gender and number (as in Col. 2 : 22), it is still more customary to have separate articles. Cf ., for instance, Lu. 14 : 26, rdv irarkpa iavrov Kal riiv nrjr'epa Kal Ti)u yvvaiKa Kal to, rtKva Kal tovs ASeX^oiis Kal rds dSeX^ds. 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 ?)Xtos Kal creKi]vr], Pap. L, Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 195. 9. 7. With Disjunctive Particle. If a disjunctive preposition be used, there will naturally be separate articles (even when Kal is the connective), whatever be true about number and gender. So liera^v rod vaov Kal rod dvaiacrripiov (Mt. 23 : 35 cf. Lu. 11 : 51). So when the conjunction r) occurs as in t6v vo/iov ij to us Trpo^ijras (Mt. 5 : 17), rij warpl rj rfj p,r\Tpl (15 : 5), to ckotos r) to 4>m (Jo. 3 : 19), UTTO TOP fibbiov r] iiTro rffv KklvrjV (Mk. 4 : 21), t(^ Xao) rj rots Weai (Ac. 28 : 17). Blass'^ makes the point that outside of Ac. 14:5, tSjv idvSiv re /cat 'lovda'uav, we generally find the repeated article with T€ Kal. Even here 'lovdaiwv as a proper name does not need the article. Cf. 'lovSaluiv re koI 'EXKrjvcov in 14 : 1, but o re o-tpottjtos Kal ol dpxtepeis (5 : 24) with difference in number also. VII. Position with Predicates. It is not the use of the article with the predicate noun, like oSros mtlv 6 kXijpovojuos (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 . neyaXy 4>ii irpiiTr) (Lu. 2 : 2) because it is in the pred- icate. Cf. TovTo oKrflk dpriKas (Jo. 4 : 18). The position of avrfj T% KoKovfikva (Lu. 1 : 36) may be noted. D in Mk. 7 : 5 reads kol- vais Tois x'^pfflv} 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., Anah., 1, 3, 14, Vin. The Absence of the Article. I do not care to use the term "omission" in connection with the article. That word im- plies 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 r&ume 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 EngHsh 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 formulse 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, pritiara fojijs akovlov, 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 » 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 summary 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 rdv 'Irjaovv Sv IlaDXos Kijphaaii (Ac. 19 : 13), but t6v IlaOXoj' in verse 15. The reason is apparent in these three examples. Words in apposition with proper names are usually anarthrous. Cf. Mt. 3 : 6; Mk. 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. irdXai $Sou (Mt. 16 : 18), dvdo-Tao-is veKpS>v (Ac. 23 : 6), xo-pi-Ti- Otov (1 Cor. 15 : 10), X670J' Oeov (1 Th. 2 : 13), -KoriipMv Kvpiov (1 Cor. 10 : 21), vlk Stai36Xou (Ac. 13 : 10), etc' In particular, personal pronouns in the genitive were not always felt to need the article. Cf. KrjTTov iavTov (Lu. 13 : 19). See further v, {h). The LXX uses this idiom freely (Blass-Debrunner, 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." — Macbeth. (c) Prepositional Phrases. These were also often consid- ered definite enough without the article. So kv o'lkc^ (1 Cor. 11 : 34. Cf. iv tQ oIku, '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 dvA observe &ua /x^pos (1 Cor. 14 : 27). With &t6 note &ir' &ypov (Mk. 15:21), dir' 6.yopS.s (Mk. 7:4), dx" ovpavov (Lu. 17: 29), dir' obpavSsv (Heb. 12 : 25), diri dwToX^s (Rev. 21 : 13), d^rA dTOToXcov (Mt. 2 : 1), dir' dpx^s (1 Jo. 1:1), dirA /cara^oX^s (Mt. 13 : 35), dxi ixipovs (Ro. 11:25), &ir6 veKpQv (Lu. 16 :30). Cf. Rev. 21 : 13, 6.ir6 /Soppa, &ir6 v6tou, dird dvaiiuv. So fixpt Kaipov (Lu. 4 : 13). For Si6. note 3td vvkt6s (Ac. 5 : 19), Sid iikaov (Lu. 4:30), Sid. tikaov (17:11). » See on the whole subject K.-G., I, pp. 598 ff. ' Pp. 162 ff. » See extensive list in W.-Sch., p. 166 f. * Prol., p. 82. 792 A GEAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT For els see ds ^Sriv (Ac. 2 : 27), eU ohpavbv (1 Pet. 3 : 22), e£s Lypby (Mk. 16 : 12), e£s B/jXaccav (Mt. 17:27), e2s oUov (Mk. 3 : 20), M TTpbacMov (Mk. 12 : 14), d% ukaov (Mk. 14:60),' €is oikIoj' (2 Jo. 10), €is t4Xos (Mt. 10 : 22). For kv may be noticed kv ovpavQ (Mt. 6 : 20), iv oipavols (Heb. 12 : 23), kv in^icTTots (Lu. 2 : 14), kv de^iq. (Heb. 1:3), h Kocrfu^ (Col. 2 : 20), 41- d7pv fleoO (Ro. 1:1), airb b^aKii£>v (tov (Lu. 19:42), k Se^iuv fwv (Mt^20 : 23), dir' Apxvs K6 ^paxlovi avrov (Lu. 1:51), etc. (e) Titles op Books or Sections. These may be without the article, being already specific enough. So Ei/a774Xioi' /carA MapKov before the Gospel in many MSS., apxfi rov evayyeXiov (Mk. 1:1), j3i/3Xos yevka-eus 'Irja-ov Xpiarov (Mt. 1:1), ' AwokoXv^/ls 'Irjaov XpuTTov (Rev. 1:1). A good example of anarthrous headings may be seen in 1 Pet. 1 f. (cf. Hort, 1 Peter, p. 15), where no article occurs in the whole opening sentence of five lines. The article is used quite idiomatically in 1 Peter. (/) Words in Pairs. 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 /cai ritiepas (Mk. 5:5), rinepas Kal vvktos (Rev. 4:8). They occur singly also without the article, as wktSs (Jo. 3:2), rmkpas (Rev. 21:25), fikcrris VVKTOS (Mt. 25 : 6). See also other pairs like kv ovpav& eiTe kwl 7^s (1 Cor. 8 : 5; cf. 2 Pet. 3:5), TaTipa {j mrkpa. (Mk. 7: 10), ^SivTas Kal veKpois (1 Pet. 4:5). Indeed the anarthrous construc- tion is common in contrast with v, "Ve, ovre, fiijTe, ov — aWa (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 : 16.i Cf. also avrip £K yvvaiKos (1 Cor. 11:8). Some of these usages belong to proverbs, formulae and enumerations. See Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 260. The Koivr; (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. aTroypact>i) irpuTri (Lu. 2 : 1), yjv ibpa tpLtti (Mk. 15 : 25), ^v d)s Utv (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 airo Trpcbrijs rt/jikpas (Ac. 20 : 18), 'iws TpiTov oipavov (2 Cor. 12 : 2), ax6 reTapTtis i}/i€pas (Ac. 10 : 30), irepl icpav krijv (Ac. 10 : 9), kv erei, irevTeKaiSeKaTic (Lu. 3 : 1), a'cos clipas kvaTTis (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 GRAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT in Sie\d6vTes irpcoTriP (j)vKaKriv Kal Sevrepav (Ac. 12 : 10). Cf. Mk. 15 : 33, yevofievrj! ibpas tKrrjs. 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, (i). Cf. deos ^v 6 X670S (Jo. 1:1), 6 deoi ayairri karlv (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, ev ecrxarc}) Kaip^. (i) Abstsact Words. In English the presence, not the ab- sence, of the article with abstract words needs explanation. Hence the anarthrous hsts 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 d e^ecmv avSpl yvvcuKa axoXOcrat (Mk. 10 : 2; cf. 1 Cor. 7: 10), irapaSdocrei dSeX^ds o.SeX^di' eis davarov Kal irarrip reKvov — riKva kirl yoveis (13 : 12), ois novoyovovs Trapa xarpos (Jo. 1 : 14), yovevaw a-rrttdeLS (Ro. 1:30). Cf. also Eph. 5:23, avlip ia^TLV Kecjicikii rrjs yvvaiKis, 6 Xpierds /ce0aXi) rrjs iKKXrjcrias and avT6s aoiT'fip rov (risfiaros. In ai. yvvoLKes rots avSpaaiv (verse 24) note the generic article, class and class. See vlos — irariip (Heb. 12 : 7).* (fc) Only Object op Kind. These partake of the nature of proper names and often occur without the article. They also often have the article. Some of these anarthrous examples ap- pear in prepositional phrases like e^ apiffrepuv (Lu. 23 : 33), €k Se^uiv (ib.), etc. These may be passed by (already discussed). The point is best illustrated by such words as yrj and ohpavoi (2 Pet. 3 : 5). Cf. EngUsh "heaven and earth." Cf. (/), Words in Pairs. GaXacro-a we find sometimes anarthrous with prepositions (Ac. 7 : 36; 10 : 32) and in Lu. 21 : 25 r\xovs daXaaari^ Kal craXou. But it has the article in contrast with 7^.' See also Lu. 21 : 25 kv iJXto) Kal aeXrivji Kal Earpois, Mt. 13 : 6 iiXiov auartiXavTOs, 1 Cor. 15 : 41 So^a 'ffKlov. So we can say "sun, moon and stars," etc. Oamros should also be noted. Cf. 1 Cor. 15 : 21; Mt. 16 : 28; 20 : 18; Lu. 23 : 15; Ph. 1 : 20, etc. It is anarthrous as subject, object, with adjectives and with preposi- • Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 150. 2 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 82 f.; W.-Sch., p. 170. » W.-Th., p. 121. THE ARTICLE (tO "APePON) 795 tions. Many of these examples occur with prepositions Kke Lu. 21 : 25 above, or with a genitive lik^i^ SiafioXov (Ac. 13 : 10). ^ Cf. 1 Pet. 5 : 8. The word deos, like a proper name, is freely used with and without the article. But it is "beyond comparison the most fre- quently in the Epistles vrithoid the article." ^ This may be alone as subject, deds (Ro. 8 : 33) ; as a predicate, Beds fjv 6 X670S (Jo. 1:1); as genitive, yviicreois deov (Ro. 11:33); with prepositions, ev 6e^ (Jo. 3 : 21); with adjectives, Beds (vXoyriTos (Ro. 9:5); with participles also, BeQ ^SivTi KoX aXridiv^ (1 Th. 1:9); in conjunction with Trarrip (Gal. 1:1). These illustrations can be greatly multiplied. So also irvtvua and -rvevna ayiov may occur with and without the ar- ticle. Garvie' quotes Bartlet on Acts as saying that when Trvtvua ayiov 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 wvevfia with a genitive hke irvtvua Xpt-crnd (Ro. 8 : 9) and with a preposition, €K TTveviidTos (Jo. 3:5), accounts for some examples. An example like oBtto) ^v irvevfia (Jo. 7 : 39) merely illustrates the use of irvfvfta like Beds as substantially a proper name. As for Middleton's rule that the article is absent when the personality of the Holy Spirit is taught,* that is nullified by Jo. 14 : 26, to Trvevna to ayiov, where the Holy Spirit is spoken of in distinction from the Father and the Son. Cf. also 15 : 26. See also to irvevixa to ayiov (Lu. 3 : 22), at the baptism of Jesus. Kiipios, like Beds and Trj-eO/xa, is often prac- tically a proper name in the N. T. In the Gospels it usually refers to God, like 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 hke the common h KvpUa (1 Cor. 7 : 22), or the genitive like rd ^pyov Kvplov (1 Cor. 16 : 10), but especially Kvpios 'Iriaovs Xpto-ros (Ph. 1:2; 2:11, etc.). In the Gospels 6 XpwTTos 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 XpKTTos as a proper name and even in the words of Jesus as re- ported in Mk. 9 : 41, XpiaTov, and in the address of Peter in Ac. 2 : 38, Ttjo-oO Xpio-ToO. It was a natural growth. In Paul's Epistles Xpia-Tos is more frequent than 6 XpiaTbs? There is even a de- velopment in Paul's use of Ti;croOs Xpunbs and XpiaTos TijtroOs. I Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 148. » Cf. W.-M., footnote, p. 151. i" W.-Th., p. 122. 5 W.-Th., p. 124. » Expos., Oct., 1909, p. 327. « See Rose's list for Paul's use of Kbpios, XptarSs, etc., in Middleton's Doc- trine of the Gk. Art., pp. 486 fi. It is based on Textus Rec. 796 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK N^W TESTAMENT In his earlier Epistles the former is the rule (cf. 1 Th. 1:1), while in the later Epistles he prefers Xpurros 'Ir/aovs (2 Tim. 1:1). Other examples of this idiom are seen in Koafios, which even in the nominative is anarthrous, knot Koa/ios earavpuiTaL (Gal. 6 : 14). Cf. Ro. 4 : 13. See also a> Koufic^ (Ro. 5 : 13) and diro Kara/SoX^s kocimv (Lu. 11 : 50), etc. N6/ios is a word that is used with a deal of free- dom by Paul. In general when vojxos is anarthrous in Paul it refers to the Mosaic law, as in kwavawavji v6/ia> (Ro. 2 : 17). So kav vonov irpaaa-Qs (2 : 25), etc. It occurs so with prepositions, as tv voncj) (2 : 23), and in the genitive, Uke €^ epYwc vofwv (Gal. 2 : 16). Cf. kyii dta vbyxtv voim^ airWavov (2 : 19), vvo vonov dXXd biro X'^pti' (Ro. 6 : 14). In eTtpov vofiov (7: 23) v6/tos= 'principle,' and is here indeterminate. In 2 : 14, Wvri to. nri vofiov exovra, the Mosaic law is meant, but not in eaurots elalv vonos. It is at least problematical whether vofws in 2 : 13, ol aKpoaral vonov, and ol ■wovifTal voiwv (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 modem indefinite article in the use of eh and ns. 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 ns is seen in vofimos Tts (Lu. 10:25). The tendency was constantly for €Ts to displace t«, so that "in modem Greek the process is complete," ^ i.e. els 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 eTs='a' see els ypap,iJ.aTti)s (Mt. 8 : 19).^ The indefinite article does not appear with predicates in the modem Greek. ^ Unus in the sense of the indefinite article is one of the peculiarities of the Latin Vulgate (Jacquier, Le N. T. dans I'Sgl. Chr., Tome II, p. 122). ' For a full and detailed discussion of the whole matter see W.-Sch., 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, Gmus) I. Point of View. For a discussion of tlie nature of the verb see chapter VIII, Conjugation of the Verb, i and ii. (a) Distinction between Voice and Teansitiveness. See II, (b), 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 fimdamental 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 TfpLfjyt (Mk. 6:6), &.iroppl\l/auTas (Ac. 27: 43).^ The modem Greek preserves the same 1 Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 279. * Griech. Gr., p. 467. 2 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.^ (b) 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. That 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 op the Voices. Cf. chapter VIII, vi, (6). The 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 {ykvn]), "based on a fancied resemblance to the genders." We in English follow the French voix (Latin dox), 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 ' Thumb., Handb., p. 112 f. ^ Krit.-hist. Synt. d. griech. Verbums, p. 42. ' Thompson, Synt., p. 158. * Notes on Stahl's Synt. of the Gk. Verb in Am. Jour, of PhiloL, 1908, p. 275. ' Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 233. ' Whitney, Sans. Or., p. 201. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 362. VOICE (AiAeEsis) 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 difiiculty 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 unsatisfactory. Cf. further for this matter, chapter VIII, VI, (d). II. The Active Voice (SidBecris ivipyenKf\). The Stoics called the active bp9ri also. (o) Meaning of the Active Voice. In this voice the sub- ject is merely represented as acting or existing, for state (cf. elfii) must be included as well as action. It is not certain whether the active or the middle is the older, but the active is far the more common. (6) Either Transitive or Intransitive. There is nothing peculiar in the N. T. about this. Each verb has its own history. One originally transitive may become intransitive and vice versa.^ Cf. 870) which may be intransitive ajQifiev (Mt. 26:46; cf. the inter] ectional dye, Jas. 4 : 13) or transitive fiyayov avrbv (Lu. 19 : 35). In S.pavTes (Ac. 27 : 13, 17) the object is probably understood (t^v vavii). Cf. also aii^dj/o) in Mt. 6 : 28 and 2 Cor. 9 : 10. BdXXu is usually transitive, even in Jo. 13:2 (cf. Ac. 22:23), but it is intransitive in Ac. 27: 14 (e/SaXev, 'rushed')- Cf. BXao-Tavw in Jas. 5:18 (tr.) and in Mt. 13:26 (intr.). So Ppkxoi is transitive in Lu. 7 : 38, but intransitive in Mt. 5 : 45. 'Eyeipw is usually tran- sitive (Mt. 10:8), but see Mt. 26:46. Ei;a77€Xifa) is transitive in Rev. 10 : 7, but intransitive in 14 : 6. "Exw is transitive except when used with adverbs, when, as in ancient Greek, it may be intransitive. Cf . roiis KaxSis exoiros (Mt. 4 : 24), eaxdrajs exa (Mk. ' Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 404 f. ' Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 200. > Griech. Gr., pp. 459 ff. Cf . Thompson, Synt., p. 159. • Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 357. 800 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 5 : 23), ^Sv 'exovra (Jo. 11: 17), oiircos ^xei (Ac. 7: 1), t6 vvv Ixov (Ac. 24 : 25). KXivco is transitive in Mt. 8 : 20, but intransitive in Lu. 9 : 12. In Ac. 7 : 42 (Ph. 4 : 7). Here the substantive has dropped out in most cases and the verb comes to stand alone (cf. irpoo-exw vovv). Cf. avaKapwro (Mt. 2 : 12), eKKXivoi (Ro. 16:17) and irpoaKoirTOi (Jo. 11:9). KaraTrauo) is transitive in Ac. 14:18, but intransitive in Heb. 4:4, 10. Cf. airoppiiTTu in Ac. 27 : 43. Srpe^co shows intransitive compounds with &va- (Ac. 5 : 22), dTTo- (Ac. 3 : 26), Ixt- (Lu. 2 : 39). The modem Greek surpasses even the kolvti in its faciUty for making all sorts of com- pound verbs (tr. and intr.) and in particular verbs compounded with nouns, like iTtKvoTpb4>7icev and k^tvoboxnatv (1 Tim. 5 : 10). Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 112. (d) DiFFEKBNT Tenses Vary. Thus where both second and first aorists occur, the second is intransitive and the first transitive. Cf. Utt) (Lu. 6:8), but ^trTijo-ei/ abrb (Mk. 9 : 36). This distinction applies to all the compounds of ttrTr//it. Acts 27 : 28 {SuiariiaavTes) is no exception, as rifv vavv is to be supplied. Some of the "strong" or primitive perfect actives are intransitive when the present is transitive. Thus kvki^a (1 Cor. 16 : 9) from avoiyoi, (nroKia\a (Mt. 10 : 6) from airbWvui, Icrkvai (Lu. 13 : 25) from Ur-qui, irkiroiJda VOICE (aiagesis) 801 (Ro. 2 : 19) from ireidoi, aka-nira (Jas. 5 : 2) from ffijTrw. Moulton* seems to confuse "transitive" ^^th "active" and "intransitive" with "middle" in his discussion of these perfects: "We have a number of cases in which the ' strong' perfect active attaches itself in meaning to the middle." The middle is not in itself intransitive, nor is the active in itself transitive. "The conjecture that the perfect originally had no distinction of active and middle, its person-endings being pecuUar throughout, affords the most prob- able explanation of the facts: when the much later -Ka perfect arose, the distinction had become universal." It is doubtless true that in the primitive -a perfect there was no distinctive middle form. But why seek for a middle sense in the primitive perfect active because it happens in many cases to be intransitive? It does happen that ykyova (Jo. 1 : 4) is found with yivonai and i\^\vda (Jo. 17 : 1) from ipxofiai, two intransitive middles. It is also true that future middles are the rule with a few verbs which have this primitive, but not always intransitive, perfect. So it is with d/c7j/coa (trans., Ac. 6 : 11), etXijt^a (trans.. Rev. 11 : 17), ireirovda (intr. as the verb itself is, Lu. 13 : 2), rkrvxa. (trans., Heb. 8 : 6). So with KkKpayev (Jo. 1 : 15, intr. Hke the verb itself), though KtKpa^onai, (some MSS. in Lu. 19 : 40) is future perfect middle. OiSa (Jo. 10 : 4) is transitive, though defective, while ?ooca (Jas. 1:6), like eioj^a (Mk. 10 : 1), is intransitive. But ykypaa (Jo. 19 : 22) is transitive. (e) The Active as Causative. But this usage is not due to the voice, and is, besides, common to all languages.^ Cf . the Hebrew Hiphil 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. t6v fi\iov abrov dLvarkWei. (Mt. 5 :45), strictly causative. But in Jo. 19 : 1, eXa/Sey 6 XliXaros tov 'Iricovv Kal knaa-Tlyua-ev, the other kind of causa- tive occurs. So also with irepikrenev (Ac. 16 : 3). There was in- deed a remarkable increase in the LXX in the number of verbs used in the causative sense, many of which had been usually in- transitive. Cf. ^aaCKthw, which occurs 36 times in the causative sense in the LXX (cf. Judg. 9:6).* The Hebrew Hiphil is partly 1 ProL, p. 154. ' Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 359. » Gildersleeve, Synt. of 01. 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 -ow, like KaraSovXao} (Gal. 2:4). (/) Active with Reflexives. Certainly there is nothing unusual in this construction. Cf. aSscrov aeavrdv (Mk. 15 : 30), ifiaXev eavrov (Jo. 21:8), irpocix^Te iavTols (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 KaraSovXaZ (2 Cor. 11 : 20) is used "for" the middle. It is true that ;reipdfco in the KOivli supplants the Attic ireipaofiai, but this is not due to a confusion of voice. With iroiko 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 TTOiticBaL ava^oKijv, \6yoi>, tropelav, airovSiiv. And the MSS. vary greatly between active and middle of iroiica with eXeos (Lu. 10:37), iwvriv (Jo. 14:23), KOTerov (Ac. 8:2), avvdj/waiav (23: 13), but not with avfi^ovXiov (Mk. 15: 1), MUrtaiv (Lu. 18:7 f.), avaTpo(j)riv (Ac. 23:12), TToXeiiov (Rev. 11: 7). But this is precisely what we find in the kolvti (inscriptions and papyri). Cf. Rader- macher, N. T. Gr., p. 120. So even jSiAfco and eiriXavdavci (Mayser, Gr., p. 386). The same tendency appears in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 114). Cf. SLepfnj^ev rd. lp,a.Tta airov (Mt. 26:65). In these examples Blass has in my judgment read too much into the active voice. But it is certain that in irpoakxtre iavTOLs (Lu. 12 : 1) there is more emphasis on the reflexive idea than in (j>vKa.(TaeaBe (12 : 15). Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 157. (g) Impersonal Active. Some impersonal verbs occur in the active. Cf. Trepikxtt kv rg Tpa^jJ (1 Pet. 2 : 6), and 'e^pe^ev (Jas. 5 : 17). {h) Infinitives. These do not always reflect the force of the voice, especially in the "epexegetic" use,' like our EngUsh "fair to see," "good to eat." Cf. Kptffrjvai and Xa^elv, Mt. 5 : 40. The infinitive has no voice in Sanskrit. See further under Infinitive (ch. XX, Verbal Nouns). (i) Active Verbs as Passives of Other Verbs.^ Thus, dwo- Ovi] Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 200. » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 7. ' Cf. 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). 6 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: aipew, 'I take'; alpkoymi, 'I take to myseK' ('choose'); avafii/ivfi- cTKu, 'I remind'; a.vaixi.nviicKO)iaL, 'I remind myself ('remember'); ciirex'^, 'I hold off'; airkxoiiaL, 'I hold myself off' ('abstain'); airoblbuixL, 'I give back'; oTroStSo/iat, 'I give back of my own' (' sell') ; diroXXu/it, 'I destroy' ; dTroXXu^tat, 'I perish'; a.vTl^3, 'I fasten'; ixTTTOnaL, 'I touch'; apxco, 'I rule'; apxoimh 'I begin'; ^ovXevos, 'I counsel'; fiovXevonai, 'I take counsel' ('deliberate'); ya/iku, 'I marry' ('bridegroom'), ya/xkoixai ('bride'); yevoi, 'I give to taste'; yevonai,, 'I taste'; ypatjxa, 'I enrol'; ypaalvco, (paivofiai) . Cf. Hatzidakis, Einl., pp. 201 ff.; 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 (Beitrdge zur Syntax des griechischen Mediums und Pasd- 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 Koivii to disappear, before the active and the reflexive pronoun (cf. N. T.), but the direct middle ' Prol., p. 158 f. He cites also erwapai X6701/, 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 ff.; K.-G., Bd. I, pp. 100 ff.; Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., pp. 49 ff. ' Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 278. « Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 7. VOICE (aiagezis) 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 adWve, admits of a direct middle." ^^ In modem Greek this direct reflexive is nearly the sole use of the middle.' The modern Greek has no distinction in forms between middle and passive, but the middle signification survives. Thus Xofifo/iai means 'I bathe myself (Thimib, Handb., pp. HI, 114). Thumb finds the direct reflexive use common. Moulton* practi- cally confines this idiom in the N. T. to d7rij7?oro (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), iKpififi, is passive, as Moulton' points out. But in 5s "KovaatJtkvn (2 Pet. 2 : 22) the direct middle is evident, as Moulton admits in the Appendix (p. 238). Cf. Xoiaaads (Is. 1 : 16), 'wash you.' Note also dir«Xo6(ra<7Se, 'washed yourselves' (1 Cor. 6: 11, correct transla- tion in margin of Rev. V.). A good example also is depiuuvd/juvos (Mk. 14 : 54), 'warming himself (Rev. V.). It is rather gratuitous to doubt the direct middle xapao-KeuAo-erai, 'prepare himself (1 Cor. 14:8). But Moulton adds ixii vKiWov (Lu. 7:6) to Winer's list and illustrates by "the iUiterate contemporary papyrus O.P. 295, /ii) o-kXiiX\6 icLT^p" (active and reflexive pronoun). So also ItavTlawvTai (W. H., Mk. 7 : 4) and fiatrTiarwvTai. (marg.) are both direct middles. Zwo-at (Ac. 12 : 8), 'gird yourself,' is also direct middle. AoynaH^eirde (Col. 2 : 20) is probably direct middle, 'sub- ject yourselves to ordinances.' And bwoTaaaeade (Col. 3 : 18) may be also. "AirTonai. (' fasten myself to,' 'touch') is really the direct middle (Mk. 8 : 22). •EirfKr&.vdfievos (Ph. 3 : 13) is 'stretching myself forward.' Cf. also iTreo-reiXAjuiji' (Ac. 20:27), 'withdraw myself; &VTtTa(Ta6nit>os (Ro. 13:2), 'line one's self up against.' In the case of TrepijSdXXojuai it is probable that we have the direct middle 'clothe one's self (Mt. 6 : 29). The accusative of the thing is added in Rev. 3 : 18. It is possible to regard ^miraheade (Mt. 26 : 45) as direct middle. ' AToyp&xl^aadai. (Lu. 2 : 5) may be merely the direct middle, 'enrol himself,' though the causative idea is possible. In Lu. 12 : 15 ^uXdo-o-eerOe ('guard yourselves from') follows the classic idiom, 'kvexomvoi aKKifKoiv (Eph. 4 : 2) is also the direct middle, 'holding yourselves back from one an- > Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 360. ♦ lb. a lb. » W.-Th., p. 253. » Moulton, Prol., p. 156. « Pro!., p. 156. 808 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT other.' The same thmg is true of axexecOat eiSuXoObruv (Ac. 15 :29). In 1 Pet. 5: 5 Taireiixxjippavvriv i^Kon^iaaaadi, 'gird your- selves with humiUty,' we may have the same idiom. In Ac. 18 : 5, (Twdxero t(3 Xoto), we may have the direct middle, 'held him- self to the word.' There are to be added, besides, some of the causative middles, hke jSairTitrat (Ac. 22:16), 'get yourself bap- tized' (cf. iPairrlaavTo, 1 Cor. 10:2). It is true that the list is not a large one, but the idiom is clearly not obsolete in the N. T. The causative middle has a wider use also, as will be shown directly. (g) Causative or Permissive Middle. Cf. the German sich lassen. This occasional use of the middle does not distinguish it from the active and occurs both with the direct and the indi- rect use of the middle.^ It is just so in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 114 f.). It is, hke transitive and intransitive, more the notion of the word than a phase of the middle voice.* In later Greek the causative sense occurs only with the direct middle.' It is not to be forgotten that originally there was no passive form at all. The verb-idea and the context then alone decided the voice as between middle and passive. Even in the aorist and future, where the passive later has a distinct form, the line was not always sharply drawn, especially in the future. More about this a little later. But in the aorist in particular one hesitates to find a passive voice in the middle form, though it sometimes happens. Some few of these causative middles could be explained as passives, but by no means all. Certainly eKKe^aixkvovs (Ac. 15 : 22) is a true middle. A considerable residuum remains. "In Tb.P. 35 (ii/s.c.) eavrdv aiTLactrai, 'will get himself accused,' is a middle.' * In Ac. 22 : 16, fikirTicai koX airokovcai, rds afiaprias aov, we have the causative middle, one a direct, the other an indirect, middle, 'get yourself baptized and get your sins washed away.' So then ifiairrliTavTo (W. H. text in 1 Cor. 10 : 2) is causative, though many MSS. read kfiairTicrdrja-av. Blass^ has eccentric notions of textual criticism, for he rejects the middle here and contends for it in Lu. 11 :38 on the authority of one minuscule! Blass^ also argues that the sense of 'let' or 'allow' belongs to the pas- sive rather than to the middle, but this is by no means certain. Thus adiKtiade and airocTtpeiaOe (1 Cor. 6 : 7) may be middles (cf. actives in next verse), 'let yourselves be wronged and robbed.' » Gildersleeve, Synt. of Class. Gr., p. 67. •• Moulton, Prol., p. 162. ^ Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 162. n Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 187. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 361. « lb., p. 185. VOICE (aiagesis) 809 This permissive sense of the middle is closely allied to the causa- tive and approaches the passive. ^ In Lu. 2 : 5 6,iroyp6,\l/aadaL may be (see (/) above) causative, ' havf himself enrolled,' though ciTro- 7/)d0€(70at (2 : 1) is passive. In Mt. 5 :42 Savlaaadai is 'to have money lent' ('to borrow'). MKrOdoaaaBaL (Mt. 20 : 1) is 'to let out for wages' ('to hire'). In- 1 Cor. 11 : 6, /cetpdo-flco, KtipaaBai. v ^vpaadai (or ^vpaaOai) , we find the permissive middle. Cf. ^upij- (Tovrai TTju Ki4>al\.i]v (Ac. 21 : 24). But dTOKo-^ovTai. (Gal. 5 : 12) is causative, 'have themselves castrated' (cf. Deut. 23 : 1). So dire- XovffaaOe, according to text of Rev. V. (1 Cor. 6 : 11). In Rev. 3 : 5 Trepi/SoXeTrat comes rather close to the passive sense. See (/) above. In Lu. 14 : 18, 19, 'ex^ p.e ivapxirritikvov, we have a con- struction more hke modern English. The causative idea in Lva- K&paKaiwaacrdaL to, travTO, h t(^ Xpia-rQ (Eph. 1 : 10) is not due to the voice, but to the verb itself {-60S). 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, iTorayfiaeraL, 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, aicavlav \vrpbiciv eiipafievoi, Jesus is represented as having found eternal redemption by himself. He found the way. In Mt. 16 : 22, ■wpoaKafibnevos ainbv, 'Peter takes Jesus to himself.' In Mk. 9 : 8, irtpi^'KeJ/atJ^voi, 'the disciples themselves suddenly looking round.' In Lu. 8 : 27, ok kvebbcaro tfidnov, 'did not put a garment on himself.' In 8 : 52, eKOTTovTo avriiv, 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 Trpoo-KaXeo-djuecos (Mt. 10 : 1) represents Jesus as calling the dis- ciples to himself. Cf. eicr/caXoDjuat (Ac. 10 : 23). So irpoaKaix^Lveadf. (Ro. 15 : 7; cf. also TrpoaeXd^ero) is 'take to yourselves.' Kaluapa kTriKoKovtiai (Ac. 25 : 11) is 'I call upon Caesar in my behalf.' kipijao- ' Thompson, Synt., p. 162. 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 360, 362. = Moulton, Prol., p. 157. 810 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT juat (Ph. 1 : 22) is 'I take for myself ('choose'), while KTriariaee (Mt. 10 : 9), though only in the middle, means 'provide for yourselves' (' procure') . In awaadfievos rriv judxatpai' (Mk. 14 : 47), the possessive is probably sufficient, 'drawing his own sword' (cf. AirkaTacev — avTov in Mt. 26 : 51). 'EKTiva^aixtvos to. luana (Ac. 18 : 6) is rather 'shaking out his clothes from himself,' while dTreci^aro ras x^'pas (Mt. 27 : 24) is probably 'he himself washed his hands.' In airoideZcree ahrbv (Ac. 13 : 46; cf. Ro. 11: 1) the idea is 'ye push it away from yourselves' ('reject'). 'kTkbocBe (Ac. 5 : 8) is 'ye gave away for your own interest' ('sold'). 'Eco0-(>i(raro (Ac. 5 : 2) means ' kept back for himself.' In kiriSeiKviiJievai xtTwyas (Ac. 9 : 39) the women were 'showing garments belonging to themselves.' Note the fulness of meaning in 7repte7rotiJir6Sria\iiv (Mt. 6 : 17). Cf. viirTovrai, tAs x"pas (Mt. 15: 2) without the pronoun. So in Lu. 14: 1, Kal airol fjcav irapaT-qpovtievoi, the avrol wavers between mere personal and intensive. Cf . the active in Eph. 5 : 26, irapaaTrjcrfi aur^s iavTCf. But in Jo. 19 : 24 the LXX quotation is given as Sienepiaavro — iavTOLs, while in Mt. 27 : 35 it is merely dLeneplaavTo. Note also atavrbv iraptx^ixivos (Tit. 2 : 7) and TroioO/iat — kiwinQ (Ac. 20 : 24). See also kvfdp'ej/aTo aiiTbv iavTri els vi6v (Ac. 7 : 21) and 1 Tim. 3 : 13 ^auroTs TtpiToiovvTai. Most of the examples, however, in the N. T. occur with verbs which are not found in the active. Cf . Lu. 9 : 23 Lpv^akaOu iavrbv, Ac. 24 : 10 to, wepi ifiavTov 6.ird\oyovnai, 26 : 2 ^yr]tMt ifiavrbv. Ph. 3 : 12 ^/iauT^v oiwu \oyl^oiMi. (k) Dynamic (Deponent) Middle. "I would fain call the drip-pan middle, the TravSe/crrjs 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 I Moulton, Prol., p. 157. » Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 361. ' Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 166. * Gildereleeve, Am. Jour, of PhQol., 1908, p. 277. » Synt., p. 161. 812 A GRAMMAR OF 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 applies as well to active verbs that have no middle as to middle verbs that have no active. The term is usually appHed 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 modern 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 alaOavofiat (Lu. 9 : 45), apveo/xai (Lu. 12 : 9), irpoaiTiaoiiai (Ro. 3 : 9), do-TrdfoMat (Ac. 25 : 13), Sia/Se/SaiouAiai (Tit. 3 : 8), mra- \oLnfia.votio.L (Ac. 4 : 13, but note KaToKa/x^avo} in the same sense in Ph. 3 : 12), kvTiWoixai (Heb. 11 : 22), kirCKavdlivotiai (Mt. 16 : 5), tvxotKu. (Ro. 9:3), fiykofiai. (Ph. 3:8), Xoyi^oiiaL (Ph. 4:8), iiaivonai (Ac. 26 : 25), neixev^ofmi. In other instances the old classic middle has vanished in the N. T. before the active future, as in d/xapri^o-co, &TavTriaco, apwaaoi, ye\&au, KXaiiaoi, Kpk^ca, iral^bi, fitiaoo, etc. Some verbs, like iLKovu, fAw, use either voice in the future. Some of these middle futures create no difficulty. Thompson'' calls them all "strict middles," but most of them are as "deponent" as the verbs in the previous section. Clyde' quotes Curtius' explanation that an act in the future lies mainly in the mind of the speaker. But on the whole the matter remains unexplained, though the number has greatly decreased in the N. T. as in the Koivii generally.* See also Dieterich, ' Monro, Horn. Gr.,'p. 7. So the other poets. Thompson, Synt., p. 165. ' Synt., p. 165. » Gk. Synt., p. 60. * Moulton, Prol., p. 154. 814 A GRAMMAK OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Untersuch., p. 205; Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 120. MoultoQi justly takes "the existence of this large class of futures as addi- tional evidence of a close connection between the middle flexion and ■ the stressing of the agent's interest in the action of the verb." The use of the middle future (and occasionally aorist) as passive comes under the passive voice, for it is really passive. See under iv. (m) The Middle Retreating in the N. T. This is happen- ing because of the active (cf . iixaprhaoi above) as well as the passive. This is true of the koivt] in general.^ There was a considerable amount of variation and even of confusion among writers in the later period.^ Different words had different histories in the mat- ter. But we have just seen from the Ust of "dynamic-deponent" middles plenty of evidence that from the day of Homer on the function of the middle voice was indistinct in many verbs.^ "The accuracy with which the middle was used would naturally vary with the writer's Greek culture."* And, it may be added, with the author's feelings at the moment. The judgment of Simcox* is right, that the middle "is one of the refinements in Greek idiom which is perhaps beginning to be blurred in some of the N. T. writers, but is preserved to a greater or less extent in most." But it is no more "blurred" than in other writers of the Koivi). It is simply that all the distinctions of earlier times did not sur- vive with all the verbs. On the whole, in the N. T., aWSi is used colloquially and aiToO/tat for the more elevated style, but usage varies with different writers as in the LXX. Cf. Abbott, Johannine Gr., p. 389. So barepku in Heb. 4: 1, but {larepovnai, in Ro. 3 : 23. But the change in the N. T. is mainly in the disuse of the middle, not in a new use of it. From Homer to modem Greek plenty of middles are hard to define, and the N. T. is no more erratic than the rest of Greek, not to say of the Koivi/ (Moulton, Prol, p. 159). But the dehcate distinctions between the active and the dynamic middle are lost in modem Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 112), if indeed they ever really existed. IV. The Passive Voice (SiAGeo-is iraOiiTiicTJ). (a) Origin of the Passive. See chapter VIII, vi, (e), for a discussion of the rise of the passive voice.' In Sanskrit the middle ' Moulton, Prol., p. 155. Cf. Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 42. 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 363 f. ' Hatz., Einl., pp. 194 ff. Cf. Thumb, Hellen., p. 127. « Moulton, Prol., p. 158 f. 5 lb., p. 159. " Lang, of the N. T., p. 95. ' Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, pp. 121 ff. VOICE (aiageziz) 815 was liable to be used in the passive sense.^ As is well known in Homer, the future passive ^rms do not occur except two, HvyiiaeaBai and Sai^creai (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 ((caKws ?xw, irLaxoi), 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' kffXiini^v, 'eKr&.iJ,riv, kaxbnr]v occur as passives just like /SAXXo/iat, ^xoM^i. "Even in Attic kaxbmv appears as a passive, tax^v^ 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. Of. French je me trouve and the use of reflexive pronouns in Engfish. (6) 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. irAirxw inrd in Mt. 17:12). ' kiroKTavdfjuai (Mk. 9 : 31) occurs as well as awodvqaKav. The use of irepiKeinai as the transitive passive (Ac. 28 : 20) of ■KipniBtini 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 earlier 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. KarriyopeiTaL iwd tuv 'lovSaiuv (Ac. 22 : 30). Other N. T. examples are 8uiKovri6rjmi. (Mk. 10 : 45), kyKoKeiadai (Ac. • Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. 201, 275. » Thompson, Synt., p. 162. ' Cf. Brag., Griech. Gr., p. 464. * Gildersleeve, Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 278. > Sterrett, The Dial, of Horn., N. 27. « Brag., Griech. Gr., p. 464. ' Gildersleeve, Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 279. « Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 359. 816 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 19:40), evapeareLffdai (Heb. 13:16), Kareyvcoaftevos (Gal. 2:11), IxapTvpeiadai. (Ac. 6:3), xPV/J^o.ri^i'^Bai (Mt. 2 : 12). Blass (Or. of N. T. Gk., p. 185) notes that "only in Lu. 2 : 26 do we have ?jv avT^ KtxpiimTi-ofii,er)Tt (12 : 5), ^o^uaBt (12 : 7). Cf. also dTToSefao-^at (Ac. 18 : 27) and irapi5kx9riaav (15 : 4), where the voices are distinguished, Oeaaaadai tovs avaKei/xevovs (Mt. 22 : 11) and Tpos rd deadrjvai aiirots (Mt. 6:1), "Koy urafievos (Heb. 11 : 19) and eXoylaeri (Lu. 22:37), lacroTo (Lu. 9:42) and Ladr] (Mt. 8 : 13), kpdffaTo (Col. 1 : 13) and 'epvaviic€Tai. (Mt. 24 : 30), ixoTOTi^ffeTat (1 Cor. 15 : 28).' In 1 Cor. 15 : 28 note also ixoTa-yj), which reinforces the argument for the true passive. But the future passive may also be devoid of the passive idea and even transitive just hke the aorist passive. Cf. kTcoKpiJdiiaop.ai (Mt. 25 : 37), kvTpair'qaovTo.i, t6v vlbv (Mt. 21 : 37), o^ilBii<7ona.i (Heb. 13 :6). The passive k4>aLp(6i)atTai (Lu. 10 :42) has the usual sense, but one wonders if in S)v re (xtidiiaonal o-oi (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 8097jTi='show thyself (1 ' Gildersleeve, ib., p. 73 f. Cf. Hartel, AbriC der Gr., d. hom. und herod. Dial., 1888, p. 40. ^ Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 463 f. » Moulton, ProL, p. 162. * Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 61; Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 171. « Cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 115, 125. « Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 363. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 163. Cf., for the LXX, Helbing, Gr., p. 98. 820 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Ki. 18: 1). It is possible, of course, for Siv to be attracted to the case of Tohruv from oh ('in which,' 'wherein'). Then o^S-qaoiml aoi would be 'I will appear to thee.' Note the new present dxTd- vofiai (Ac. 1:3). But the future middle persisted in yevqffonai, bvvijCTOnai, kirineKTicToixai, iropeiKTonai. (g) The Agent. with the Passive Voice. As already noted, the Greek has no difficulty in using a verb in the passive which was not used with the accusative in the active. Thus note ^7KaXei- cdai (Ac. 19:40), KaTHtyopeiTat vto tSov 'lovSaloiv (Ac. 22: 30), ireTi- arevixai to eva-yyk\iov (Gal. 2:7).' A few verbs idiomatically use the dative with the passive. Thus eyvdSadri t& 1,av\ui (Ac. 9 : 24), tvpWriv (Ro. 10: 20), e^dj-rj (Mt. 1 : 20), &eri (1 Cor. 15: 7 f.), etadfjvaL (Mt. 6:1).^ The direct agent is most commonly expressed by iiro (Mt. 4:1), the intermediate by 8ia (Mt. 1 : 22). The agent (see chapter on Prepositions) is also expressed by diro (2 Cor. 3 : 18), k (Gal. 4 : 4), Tapa (Jo. 17: 7). See also discussion under Instrumental Case (chapter XI, Cases) for discussion of abrS with ka-Tlv -n-erpayijikvou (Lu. 23 : 15), whether dative or instrumental. In the N. T., as, in ancient Greek (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 72), the instrument is sometimes personified and treated as an agent. Cf . K&Xaiiov viro avkpjov aoKivbixevov; (Mt. 11 : 7). Qi) Impersonal Construction. This is the usual idiom in the Coptic in lieu of the absence of the passive. But it is often rather rhetorical than syntactical as Moulton shows.' He com\ pares also the French on, the German man, the EngUsh one. Wellhausen* shows how in the Aramaic this impersonal plural was common. One notes akovaiv (Lu. 12 : 20), where a passive would be possible. Cf. crwayovaiv Kal fiaWovcLV Kal KaUrai (Jo. 15 : 6) where the passive occurs in Kaierai. Note in particular h^ripavdri Kal ffwayovciv aiira (Jo. 15 : 6). Cf. also Tpk^aw avTT}v (Rev. 12 : 6). The use of the impersonal passive like wKTreiierai and ofioKoyeLTai (Ro. 10 : 10) is another matter and calls for no comment. It is rare in Greek as compared with Latin (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 77). Cf. the plural in 10 : 14 f. See also the personal construction m 1 Cor. 15 : 12 el 5^ Xpiards KtipviraeTai bri. ' Cf. Gildersleeve, Synt., etc., p. 77. » Prol., p. 58 f. 2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 185. < Einl., p. 25 f. CHAPTER XVIII TENSE (XPONOZ) I. Complexity of the Subject. Probably nothing connected with syntax is so imperfectly un- derstood by the average student as tense. This is due to various causes. 1. The Difficulty of Comparing Greek Tenses with Ger- manic Tenses. "The translators of our EngUsh version have failed more frequently from their partial knowledge of the force of the tenses than from any other cause." ' Ignorance, one may add, both of English and Greek still stands in the way of proper rendering of the Greek. The English, like the other Germanic tongues,^ has only two simple verb-forms. We have a great wealth of tenses in EngHsh by means of auxiUary verbs, but they do not correspond with any of the Greek tenses.' It is the com- monest grammatical vice for one to make a conjectural translation into EngUsh and then to discuss the syntactical propriety of the Greek tense on the basis of this translation.* Burton^ indeed justi- fies this method for the benefit of the English student of Greek. But I submit that the practice brings more confusion than help. " The Aorist for the English Perfect, and the Aorist for the English Pluperfect" Burton urges as "a pertinent illustration." But that method keeps the student at the English standpoint, just the thing to be avoided. The Greek point of view affords the only sure basis of operation. Winer' laments that "N. T. grammarians and expositors have been guilty of the greatest mistakes" here, though it cannot be said that Winer himself always lives up to his just ideal. Translation into English or German is the least point to note in judging a tense. » Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 123. » K.-G., Bd. I, p. 129. ' 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 koivti. 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 difiiculty exists for the English translators. Curious devices (possibly slips) sometimes occur, like iyii et/tt koBUtoholi (B in Ju. 6: 18), iaonai SiSovai (BA in Tob. 5: 15).' But such translation Greek left no lasting impress on the Greek of the N. T. save in irpoa-ideTo irifvpaL (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. ' Ernault, Du Parfait en Grec et en Lat., 1886, p. 164. Cf. Jann., Hist. Ok. Gr., p. 440. * Mutzb., Die Grundl. d. griech. Tempusl., 1893, p. vi f. 5 Cf. Swete, Intr. to O. T. in Gk., p. 308. » Sterrett, Dial, of Horn., N. 42. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 44. « Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 482. TENSE (XPONOS) 823 5. " Aktionsart" of the Verb-Stem. Aktionsart ("kind of ac- tion") must be clearly understood. J?he 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 0epco (fero), the other punctihar (momentary), Uke ^vtymv (tuli). So bpiua, tlhov; TokjiisM, 'iT\r]v. With other verbs the distinction was not drawn sharply, the root could be used either way (cf. ^ly-jui, i-ay-ov is punctiliar, while kadiu is linear or durative. Moulton'' rightly observes that this is the explanation of "defective" verbs. Moulton notes exo as a word that can be used either for durative, as in Ro. 5:1, or punctiliar, like aorist iaxov (cf. iaxes and €x«« in Jo. 4 : 18). The regular idiom for a papyrus receipt is iaxov irapA coO. 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" (pMnA;vybvT&, the perfective sense of /cara coincides with the effective aorist. So even when the tense is durative, the notion of completion is expressed in the preposition as contemplated or certain. In TeBvrjKiv (Lu. 8 : 49) the perfect tense of the simplex is sufficient, but not so in awWavep (Lu. 8 ."53). QvijcrKu as simplex became obsolete outside of the perfect, so that Lir^vnaKtv (Lu. 8 : 42; cf. 2 Cor. 6:9; Heb. IJ : 21) occurs for the notion of 'dying.' "The linear perfective expressed its meaning sufficiently, denoting as it does the whole process leading up to an attained goal."* Moulton notes also the itera- tive use of airodviicKos in 1 Cor. 15 : 31, and the frequentative in 1 Cor. 15 : 22. See also the "perfective" use of diroKTetyco, the active of airodviiaKO}. In dx6XXu/ii and &ir6Wvnai (air6XwXa) the sim- ' So Giles, Man., p. 478; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 187. 2 Grieoh. Gr., p. 472. * Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 482. • Ptol., p. 112. 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 114. 828 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT plex is obsolete. Even in the present tense the force of diro- is obvious. Cf. Tois airoWviikvois (1 Cor. 1 : 18), cnroKXvfiai (Lu. 15 : 17), airoKKviJieda (Mt. 8 : 25), where Moulton' explains a.Tor- as suggest- ing "the sense of an inevitable doom." Cf. also (l>evyo} (Mt. 2 : 13), 'to flee,' with SLaevyw (Ac. 27:42), and kKcjievyw (Heb. 2:3), 'to escape,' KaTat\r/oi (Heb. 6 : 18), 'to find refuge' ; rripka (Ac. 24 : 23), 'to watch,' with StaTTjpeco, 'to keep continually' (Lu. 2 : 51), and avvTi)pkoi (Lu. 2 : 19), 'to keep together (safely)'; o-7rau (Mk. 14 : 47), 'to draw,' with Sioo-Traw (Mk. 5 : 4), 'to draw in two'; /caico (Jo. 15 : 6), 'to burn,' with /cara/cauo (Ac. 19 : 19), 'to bum up'; Kpivw (Jo. 5 : 30), 'to judge,' with KaraKpivu (Mt. 12 :41), 'to condemn'; Xiioi (Lu. 3 : 16), 'to loosen,' with KaraXvos (Mt. 24 : 2), 'to destroy'; exo (Ac. 13 : 5; Rev. 10 : 2), 'to have' or 'hold,' with ^tt^xw (Ac. 3 : 5), 'to hold on to,' and awkxoi (Lu. 8 : 45), 'to hold together' or 'press,' and aTrex'J (Mt. 6:5), 'to have in full,' etc. As to awkxco for 'receipt in full,' see Deissmann, Ldght, p. 110 f. The papyri and ostraca give numerous illustrations. It is not necessary to make an exhaustive list to prove the point. Cf. fievS) Kal irapafievSi (Ph. 1 : 25), xO'i'fx^ K°-^ (Twxaipoi (2 : 17), where the point hes in the prep- osition, though not "perfective" here. So ytviaaKo/xevri Kal avajivoi- oKopivy) (2 Cor. 3 : 2), LvayLviiaKtrt ^ Kal hwi/yivoiaKeTe (1 : 13), perpeZre avripeTprfiriaeTaL (Lu. 6 : 38), exovrts — Karexovres (2 Cor. 6 : 10). Cf. 6K/3aXe (Mt. 22 : 13). In some verbs ^ the preposition has so far lost its original force that the "perfective" idea is the only one that survives. Dr. Eleanor Purdie (Indog. Forsch., IX, pp. 63-153, 1898) argues that the usage of Polybius as compared with Homer shows that the aorist simplex was increasingly confined to the constative sense, while the ingressive and effective simplex gave way to the "perfective" compounds. Moulton' is inclined to agree in the main with her contention as supported by j;he papyri (and Thumb thinks that modem Greek supports the same view). At any rate there is a decided increase in the number of compound verbs. The ingressive and effective uses of the aorist would natu- rally blend with the "perfective" compounds. But it remains true that the Aktionsart of the verb-root is often modified by the preposition in composition. 11. "Aktionsaet" with each Tense. It is not merely true that three separate kinds of action are developed (punctiliar, dura- tive, perfected), that are represented broadly by three tenses in all the modes, though imperfectly in the present and future tenses of the indicative. The individual verb-root modifies greatly the 1 Moulton, Prol., p. 114. » lb., p. 112. ' lb., pp. 115-118. TENSE (XPONOS) 829 resultant idea in each tense. This matter can only be hinted at here, but must be worked out mqj;e carefully in the discussion of each tense. The aorist, for instance, though always in itself merely point-action, "punctihar," yet may be used with verbs that accent the beginning of the action or the end of the action. Thus three distinctions arise: the unmodified point-action called "constative," the point-action with the accent on the beginning (inceptive) called "ingressive," the point-action with the accent on the conclusion called "effective." The names are not particularly happy, but they will answer. "Constative" is especially awkward.' In real- ity it is just the normal aorist without any specific modification by the verb-meaning. Hirt^ does not use the term, but divides the aorist into "ingressive" and "effective" when there is this special Aktionsart. But the use of these demands another term for the normal aorist.' As an example of the "constative" aorist for the whole action take kaKr/voiaev (Jo. 1 : 14), for the earthly life of Jesus. So also k^rjyfiaaTo (1 : 18), while eykpero (1 : 14) is "ingressive," and accents the entrance of the Logos upon his life on earth (Incar- nation). 'Weaa&ufda (1 : 14) is probably "effective" as is kXafionev (1 : 16), accenting the result ("resultative," Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 475). So likewise in the so-called "present" tense various ideas exist as set forth by the various "classes" of verbs or "con- jugations." The perfect and the future likewise have many varia- tions in resultant idea, growing out of the varying verb-idea in connection with the tense-idea. These must be borne in mind and will be indicated in the proper place in discussing each tense. 12. Interchange of Tenses. The point here is not whether the Greeks used an aorist where we in English would use a per- fect, but whether the Greeks themselves drew no distinction be- tween an aorist and a perfect, a present and a future. It is not possible to give a categorical answer to this question when one recalls the slow development of the Greek tenses and the long history of the language. There was a time long after the N. T. period* when the line between the aorist and the perfect became very indistinct, as it had been largely obliterated in Latin. It is a question for discussion whether that was true in the N. T. or not. The subject will receive discussion under those tenses. The future grew out of the present and the aorist. The present continued to be used sometimes as vivid future, as is true of all languages. But it is a very crude way of speaking to say that one tense is used ' Moulton, Prol., p. 109. ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 475. ' Handb. d. Griech etc., p. 392. * Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 440. 830 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT "for" another in Greek. That would only be true of ignorant men. In general one may say that in normal Greek when a cer- tain tense occurs, that tense was used rather than some other be- cause it best expressed the idea of the speaker or writer. Each tense, therefore, has its specific idea. That idea is normal and can be readily understood. Various modifications arise, due to the verb itself, the context, the imagination of the user of the tense. The result is a complex one, for which the tense is not wholly responsible. The tenses, therefore, are not loosely interchange- able. Each tense has a separate history and presents a distinct idea. That is the starting-point. Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 264) is entirely correct in sajdng: " No one of these tenses strictly and properly taken can stand for another." Writers vary greatly in the way that the tenses are used. A vivid writer like Mark, for instance, shows his lively imagination by swift changes in the tenses. The reader must change with him. It is mere common- place to smooth the tenses into a dead level in translation and miss the writer's point of view. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 124) is doubtful whether in the N. T. we are justified in making "sharp distinctions between the imperfect, aorist or perfect; a subjunctive, imperative, or infinitive of the aorist or present." But for my part I see no more real ground in the papyri and in- scriptions for such hesitation than we find in the ancient Attic Greek. Thumb {Handb., p. 116) notes that modem Greek, in spite of heavy losses, has preserved the distinction between linear and punctiliar action even in the imperative and subjunctive. I shall discuss the tenses according to the three ideas designed by them rather than by the names accidentally given. n. Punctiliar Action. This is the kind of action to begin with. It is probably not possible always to tell which is the older stem, the punctihar or the linear. They come into view side by side, though the punctiliar action is logically first. The aorist tense, though at first confined to verbs of punctiliar sense, was gradually made on verbs of durative sense. So also verbs of durative action came to have the tenses of punctiUar action.^ Thus the tenses came to be used for the expression of the ideas that once belonged only to the root. The Stoic grammarians, who gave us much of our termi- nology, did not fully appreciate the aorist tense. They grouped the tenses around the present stem, while as a matter of fact in many verbs that is impossible, the root appearing in the aorist, ' Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, pp. 241, 316. TENSE (XPONOS) 831 not in the present. Cf. ^-o-tij-i' {^L-(rTr}-ni) , 'e-\a.p-o-v (kafi^av-cS), etc. This error vitiated the entire theory of the Stoic grammarians.* Grammatical forms cannot express the exact concord between the logical and the grammatical categories,^ but the aorist tense came very near doing it. By Homer's time (and Pindar's) the distinction between the aorist and imperfect tenses is fairly well drawn, though some verbs like 'i-cjiri-v remain in doubt.' So we start with the aorist tense. In modern Greek the ancient aorist is the base-form on which a number of new presents are formed (Thumb, Handb., p. 143). J. C. Lawson (Journ. of Th. St., Oct., 1912, p. 142) says that Thumb would have smoothed the path of the student if he had "dealt with the aorist before proceeding to the present." 1. The Aorist (adptcrTo?). The aorist, as will be shown, is pot the only way of expressing indefinite (imdefined) action, but it is the normal method of doing so. The Greek in truth is "an aorist- loving language" (Broadus).* In the kolv/i the aorist is even more frequent than in the classic Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 120), especially is this true of the N. T. Gildersleeve^ does not like the name and prefers "apobatic," but that term suits only the "effective" aorist. The same thing is true of "culminative." The name aorist does very well on the whole. I doubt if the aorist is a sort of " residuary legatee," taking what is left of the other tenses. The rather, as I see it, the aorist preserved the simple action and the other tenses grew up around it. It is true that in the expression of past time in the indicative and with all the other moods, the aorist is the tense used as a matter of course, unless there was special reason for using some other tense. It gives the action "an imd fiir sich." The common use of the "imperfect" with verbs of speaking (&^, iXeye) may be aorist in fact. (a) Aktionsart in the Aorist. (a) Constative Aorist. There is still a good deal of confusion in the use of terms. Gildersleeve {Syntax of Attic Gr., p. 105) prefers "complexive" to "constative." Moulton' comments on Miss Purdie's use of "perfective" in the sense of "punctiliar." ' Steinthal, Gesch. d. Sprach., p. 306 f. ^ Paul, Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., p. 300. ' Cf. Gildersleeve, Am. Jour, of Philol., 1883, p. 161; Monro, Horn. Gr., pp. 32, 45. * Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 137. ' Am. Jour, of PMol., 1908, p. 397 f. " Prol., p. 116. 832 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT So Giles' uses "perfective or momentary" for the aoristic action, but he also (p. 478 note) uses constative. But Moulton^ also makes a distinction between "constative" and "punctiliar," using "pimctiliar" for real point-action and "constative" for what is merely treated as point-action. That is a true distinction for the verb-root, but the growing number of constative aorists was in harmony with the simple idea of the tense. Brugmann' rests constative, ingressive and effective aorists, all three on the punktueU idea and draws no sharp distinction between "punctil- iar" and "constative." Delbriick^ divides the punktueU or aorist into Anfangspunkt or Ingressive, Mittelpunkt or Constative and Schlv£punkt or Effective. The constative accents the "middle point." The idea of Delbruck and Brugmann is that punktueU action is "action focused in a point." ^ "The aorist describes an event as a single whole, without the time taken in its accomplish- ment." ° It seems best, therefore, to regard "constative" as merely the normal aorist which is not "ingressive" nor "effec- tive." The root-difference between the aorist and the imperfect is just this, that the aorist is "constative" while the imperfect "describes."' The "constative" aorist just treats the act as a single whole entirely irrespective of the parts or time involved.* If the act is a point in itself, well and good. But the aorist can be used also of an act which is not a point. This is the advance that the tense makes on the verb-root. All aorists are punctiliar in statement (cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 109). The "constative" aorist treats an act as punctiliar which is not in itself point-action. That is the only difference. The distinction is not enough to make a separate class like ingressive and effective over against the purely punctiliar action. Thumb (Handb., p. 122) passes by "constative" as merely the regular aorist "to portray simply an action or occurrence of the past," whether in reality punctiliar or not. He finds both ingressive and effective aorists in modern "Greek. But Thumb uses "terminative" for both "ends" (initial and final), a somewhat confusing word in this coimection. The papyri show the same Aktionsart of the aorist. So note constative 1 Man., p. 481 f. ' Griech. Gr., pp. 475-477. 2 Prol., p. 116, but not on p. 109. * Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 230. ' Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 184. But Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, p. 157, "momentan, effektiv, ingressiv." « Moulton, Intr. to the Stu. of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. 190. ' Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 302. « Moulton, Prol., p. 109, prefers "summary" to "constative." TENSE (XPONOS) 833 '6ti, ne kwaiBevcTM KaXws, B.G.U. 423 (ii/A.D.). Thus in Jo. 2 : 20, 'itaatpo.KovTa Kal ?^ ireciv olKodonvdri 6 vads oBtos, 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, ^Xfloj', we have a very simple constative aorist, just punctiliar 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 on almost any page of the N. T. Cf. in Ac. 10 : 22 f., kxprif^Tlcrdrj, Heratrifjal/aaBaL, aKovaai, k^eviaev, crvvrfKdov. 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 iKafyrepriaev (Heb. 11 : 27) we have a verb naturally "durative" in idea, but with the "constative" aorist. Cf. also kKpvfir] Tpi/xrivov (Heb. 11:23), where a period of time is summed up by the constative aorist. Cf. k^aciXivatv 6 Bavaros airb 'ASafi nkxpi M. (Ro. 5 : 14). A good example is e^riaav Kal ipcurlXevaav IxtTo. Tov XpicTov xlXta e'"'? (Rev. 20 : 4). Here 'e^ri' $ wavres rinaprov (Rom. 5 : 12). Note in particular the summary statements in Heb. 11, as airWavov ovtol iravres (13), oCtoi iravrei — oiiK iKoyklaavTo (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, iravTK iaxov avrriv. So rpts ipafiSi<7driv, rpis kvavayqcra (2 Cor. 11 : 25). In Mk. 12 : 44, iravres — e/SaXoc, avrr) Sk — e/SaXey, the two actions are contrasted sharply by the aorist. There is no difficulty in its iwkp iravTcav &irWaveV apa ol ir&VTes ojckBavov (2 Cor. 5 : 14). The same verb may sometimes be used either as constative (like k^aai- ' Moulton, Prol., p. 115. = Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 193. 834 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Xevaav, 'reigned,' Rev. 20: 4 above) or ingressive (xal ifiaaLkevaas, 'assumed rule,' Rev. 11: 17, though true here of God only in a dramatic sense). Thus kaiyijcev (Ac. 15 : 12) is 'kept silence' (constative), but ciyriaai (verse 13) is ingressive as is eaiyrjaav (La. 9 : 36). Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 21. In Gal. 5 : 16, ov uri reKecriTe, we have the constative aorist, while w\ripS>aai. is effective in Mt. 5 : 17. In line with what has already- been said, Pakeiv may mean 'throw' (constative), 'let fly' (ingres- sive) or 'hit' (effective). Cf. Moulton, Prol, p. 130. Illustra- tions occur in the N. T. in l/SaXev avrov ds v\aKriv (Mt. 18 : 30, constative, 'cast' or 'threw'), /SdXe aeavrbv ivreWev KCLTos (Lu. 4: 9, ingressive, 'hurl.' Note kvrevdev, as well as "perfective" force of KCLTu. Cf. Mt. 5 : 29), UPaKev Kar' avTTJs (effective, 'beat,' Ac. 27: 14). (/3) 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 ewTOJxevaev, 2 Cor. 8:9, is 'became poor'; efijo-ec, Ro. 14:9, is 'became alive' (cf. a.Tr'(da.viv just before).'' Perhaps in Jo. 16 : 3, oi)K eyvwaav, the meaning is ' did not recognise.' ' But this could' be constative. But it is clear in Jo. 1 : 10. So in 6<7ot iXa^ov avTov (Jo. 1 : 12) the ingressive idea occurs, as in ou iraptKa- i8o>' in verse 11. Cf. eKKavaev (Lu. 19 : 41) =' burst into tears ' and eyvc)}^ (vs. 42) = ' camest to know.' So eS&Kpvaev (Jo. 11:35). In Mt. 22 : 7 upyiadr] = ' became angry.' Cf . also /i^ So^rjre (Mt. 3 : 9), a^inrvoiatv (Lu. 8 : 23), idvpMrt (Mt. 2 : 16). In Lu. 15 : 32 i^riciv is ingressive, as is iKoifiridri (Ac. 7: 60), laxi'aa.p.tv noKis (Ac. 27: 16), ixicrriauaLV (Lu. 6 : 22), r)yaTn)aev (Mk. 10 : 21), eXuTrtj- 6riT€ (2 Cor. 7:9), TrXovrrjcriTe (2 Cor. 8:9). The notion is com- mon with verbs expressing state or condition (Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 16). Moulton quotes fiaacKevaas amirariaeTai, 'having come to his throne he shall rest,' Agraphon, O.P. 654. See also iXa^a ^iaTLKdv irapd Katcrapos, B.G.U. 423 (ii/A.D.). Moulton (Prol., p. 248) cites Jo. 4:52, Kot^/ortpov laxev, 'got better,' and com- pares it with kav Kon(Tar]s avrov, Kal iXaXei opOws (7:35). A similar distinction ap- pears in a77eXot irpoarfXdov Kal SiriKovovv avrcg (Mt. 4 : 11); hrectv Kal iSidov (13 : 8) ; KaTe^ri \ai\a\(/ — Kal avveirXripovvTO (Lu. 8 : 23) ; ^pe t6v Kpa^aTTOV avTov Kal xepieiraTet (Jo. 5:9); dve/Sij — Kal e8lSa(TK€V (7 : 14) ; k^i]\6ov Kal mpavya^ov (12 : 13). In Lu. 8 : 53 note KareykTixov and aireBavev. Once again note e'iSaixev — Kal kKuXimfiev in 9 : 49 and Karevoovv Kal eUov (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 •iinx>v — hnvov; in 11:23, iraptSaiKa, irapiSiSero. The same sort of event will be recorded now with the aorist, as ttoXi^ TrXJjeos iiKoKovdrjcrev (Mk. 3:7), now with the imperfect, as i^KoXovBu SxXos ttoXus (5 : 24). Cf. Lu. 2 : 18 and 4: 22.= But the changing mood of the writer does not mean that the tenses are equivalent to each other. A word further is necessary concerning the relative fre- quency of aorists and imperfects. Statistical syntax is interesting, 1 Gildersl., Synt., p. 114. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 192. » Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 398. ' Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 30. ' lb. TENSE (XPONOZ) 839 laborious and not always conclusive. Schlachter' has applied statistics to Homer. In both Iliad and Odyssey the aorists in the indicative are more numeroJfe than the imperfects. Gilder- sleeve^ found a similar result in Pindar. Jacobsthal {Der Ge- brauch der Tempora und Modi in den kretischen Dialektinschriften) finds the aorist surpassing the imperfect. But Hultsch' found the imperfect very abundant in Polybius, and Prof. Miller^ has added statistics for other writers. "The imperfect divides the crown with the aorist in different proportions at different times and in different spheres.'"^ A further extended quotation from Gildersleeve' is pertinent: "Not the least interesting is the table in which Schlachter has combined his results with Pro- fessor Miller's and from which it appears that the use of the aorist indicative gradually diminishes until it finds its low-water-mark in Xenophon. Then the aorist thrusts itself more and more to the front until it culminates in the N. T. The pseudo-naivete of Xenophon suggests an answer to one problem. The Hellenica has the lowest percentage of imperfects, but it mounts up in the novelistic Kyropaideia. The other problem, the very low per- centage of the imperfect in the N. T. — e.g. Matthew 13 per cent., Apocalypse 7 — Schlachter approaches gingerly, and well he may. It stands in marked contrast to Josephus whose 46 per cent, of imperfects shows the artificiality of his style, somewhat as does his use of the participles (A. J. P., IX 154), which, accord- ing to Schlachter, he uses more than thrice as often as St. John's Gospel (41:12). This predominance of the aorist indicative can hardly be dissociated from the predominance of the aorist im- perative in the N. T. (Justin Martyr, Apol. I, 16. 6), although the predominance of the aorist imperative has a psychological basis which cannot be made out so readily for the aorist indicative. Besides, we have to take into consideration the growth of the perfect and the familiar use of the historical present, which is kept down in St. Luke alone (A. J. P., XX 109, XXVII 328)." The personal equation, style, character of the book, vernacular or literary form, all come into play. It largely depends on what '■ Stat. Unters. liber den Gebr. der Temp, und Modi bei einzelnen grieoh. Schriftst., 1908. ' Am. Jour. of. Philol., 1876, pp. 158-165. ' Der Gebr. der erzahlenden Zeitf. bei Polyb. (1898). * Am. Jour, of Philol., XVI, pp. 139 ff. Of. also L. Lange, Andeut. uber Ziel und Meth. der synt. Forsch., 1853. ' Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 242. • lb., p. 244. 840 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the writer is after. If he is aiming to describe a scene with vivid- ness, the imperfect predominates. Otherwise he uses the aorist, on the whole the narrative tense par excellence.'^ "Hence the aorist is the truly narrative tense, the imperfect the truly descrip- tive one; and both may be used of the same transaction." ^ (5) Relation to the Past Perfect. It is rather shocking, after Winer's protest that the tenses are not interchanged, to find him saying bluntly: "In narration the aorist is used for the pluper- fect."' Burton* helps the matter by inserting the word "Eng- lish" before "pluperfect." Winer meant "German pluperfect." Gildersleeve* does much better by using "translated." "We often translate the aorist by a pluperfect for the sake of clear- ness." Goodwin* adds more exactly that the aorist indicative merely refers the action to the past "without the more exact specification" which the past perfect would give. That is the case. The speaker or writer did not always care to make this more precise specification. He was content with the mere narra- tive of the events without the precision that we moderns like. We are therefore in constant peril of reading back into the Greek aorist our English or German translation. All that one is entitled to say is that the aorist sometimes occurs where the context "im- plies completion before the main action,"' where in English we prefer the past perfect. This use of the aorist is particularly com- mon in subordinate clauses (relative and temporal and indirect discourse).* It must be emphasized that in this construction the antecedence of the action is not stressed in the Greek. "The Greeks neglected to mark the priority of one event to another, leaving that to be gathered from the context." ^ Strictly therefore the aorist is not used for the past perfect. The Greeks cared not for relative time. In Mt. 14 : 3 it is plain that eSriaev and airtd'tTo are antecedent in time to ^Kovaev, verse 1, and elTtv in verse 2, but the story of the previous imprisonment and death of John is introduced by yap in a reminiscential manner. In Mt. 2 : 9 ov il5ov points back to verse 2. Cf. also 6tl k^iiuaaev (Mt. 22 : 34) ; ora kvkirai^av aircf, k^iSvmv aiiTov (27 : 31) . So in 28 : 2 ' Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 158. 2 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 77. * N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 22. ' W.-M., p. 343. 6 Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 109. « Gk. Moods and Tenses, p. 18. Cf. GildersL, Synt., p. 109. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 47. 8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 437. » Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 76. Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, p. 169. TENSE (XPONOS) 841 kyivero is antecedent to ^\6ev in verse 1. In 27: 18 note in par- ticular gSei OTi irapidcoKav and compare with eyivue\bv ye kfiaaCKeiiaaTe. A similar remark ap- pUes to use of the aorist indicative in conditions of the second class (past time), without &v in apodosis (Gal. 4 : 15) or with av (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 ' 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, Hom. 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 irdvava, '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 "Ecjidaaa." The Greek 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 Enghsh." 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 pecuUarity lies in the Enghsh, 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 heXeiiTriaev (with apri), 5 : 28 knoi- xewtv, and 14 : 15 iraprj\dei> and 17 : 12 ^X^e (with ^Srj) ; 6 : 12 CKpriKaniV, 12 : 28 e4>da(Tev, 14 : 2, etc., riykpOr}, 16 : 17 a.ireK&\v\[/e, 18 : 15 kKepSricTas, 20 : 12 'tTolriaav -as, 26 : 10 ripyaaaro, 26 : 13 kiroirice, 26 : 65 kfi\ai}KaT€ (23 : 23); KaTkarrriffev (24 : 45); iirolriaev (27 : 23) '; i\ykpe-ii (28 : 6); k^karnt (Mk. 3 : 2l);6.-wkdav& (5 : 35; cf. tI in aKhWm; 5 : 36. Cf. AXXa KaOthSti); elSanev (Lu. 5 : 26); ■wapebbdri (10 : 22) ; TjfiapTov (15 : 21); -iyvwcav (Jo. 7 : 26); &.(t>mev (8 : 29); iXa^ov (10 : 18); ^Sei^a (10 : 32); kSS^aaa (12 : 28. Cf. So^Ao-co); ?w^a (13 : 14); k^tKiikmv (13 : 18); riyairriaa (13 : 34); 'eyviipiaa (15 : 15); ovk eyvuicav (16 : 3); fjpav — WriKciP (20 : 2) ; kmAmre (21 : 10) .^^ Cf. Mk. 14 : 8. Abbott remarks, that the Greek perfect does not lay the same stress on what is recently completed as does the English "have." Cf. also ovk •eyvca (1 Jo. 4 : 8. Cf . 1 Cor. 8:3); k^vep6)dn (1 Jo. 4 : 9. Contrast (/.■KtaraKKtv in verse 9 and rijaTriKaixev, Tiyairrjaafitv in margin, in verse 10 with riyavriaev and ox^oretXej' in verse 10) ; iXaPov (Ph. 3 : 12) ; •ifxadov (4:11); kdOio-ec (Heb. 1:3); k^kaT^ev (2 Cor. 5 : 13). The same event in Mk. 15 : 44 is first mentioned by ^5?? reOuriKev and is then referred to by ifSi/ (or irdXai) airWavev. The distinction is not here very great, but each tense is pertinent. However, TeBvrjKtv means practically 'to be dead,' while aTre6avtv = 'died,' 'has died.' Cf. Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 108. (tj) Epistolary Aorist. This idiom is merely a matter of stand- point. The writer looks at his letter as the recipient wiU. It is probably due to delicate courtesy and is common in Latin as well as in the older Greek, though less so in the later Greek.' The most frequent word so used was 'iypaif/a, though 67re/i^a was also common. The aorist has its normal meaning. One has merely to change his point of view and look back at the writer. In 1 Jo. 2 : 12-14 we have the rhetorical repetition of ypa.4>oi, iypa^a (note the perfects after oti). But in 1 Jo. 2 : 21 eypa^a may be the epistolary use, though Winer* protests against it. Here as in 2 : 26, ravra iypapa, 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, Kadiis irpokypaipa ev 6X170), the allusion may be to what Paul has just written or to the whole epistle, as is true of exeoretXa (Heb. 13 : 22). Certainly ypd^co is the usual construction in the N. T. (1 Cor. 4 : 14; 14: 37; 2 Cor. 13 : 10, etc.). "Ey pa\ffa usually refers 1 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, iypaij/a refers to a previous letter, as seems to be true also in 2 Cor. 2 : 3, 4, 9; 7: 12; 3 Jo. 9. But ivtpl/a. is found in undoubted instances as in Ac. 23 : 30; Eph. 6 : 22; Ph. 2 : 28; Col. 4 : 8. So avkirfixil/a. in Phil. 11 and r)fiov\ifii)v 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. eTrefji,\(/a, B.G.U. 423 (ii/A.D.), 'iypa^a inrip avTOV p.^ IBotos ypap.para, P.Oxy. 275 (a.d. 66). There is therefore no adequate reason for denying its presence in the N. T. examples above. (6) 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 'ipxop.ai, 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 KL dv p.^ (rovfi\idalr)(nv (historical pres.), irpocrj\dov (aor.), SiriKouovv (imperfect). In Mt. 13 :45f. note kariv, ^titovvtl, eipiiv, &ire\dS.vapria-(a (Deiss- mann, Licht, p. 153). But there is no necessary confusion here. The modern Greek preserves clearly the distinction between punctiliar and hnear 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 (hnear) 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. 2 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 Uttle point in these exceptions. Abbott rightly notes the variations in the major uncials between -laii and -Ifn in Mk. 9 : 43-47. Mr. H. Scott finds kav with pres. subj. also (W. H.) in Mk. 1 : 40; 9 : 47 (4 in aU). In Lu. he adds 5 : 12 (=Mk. 1 : 40); 10 : 6, 8, 10 (.ki.v to be supplied); 13 : 3; 20 : 28 (8 in 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 bis; 26 : 35 (12 in all). But he makes 78 aor. subjs. with iiv in the Synoptics. 850 A GKAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT with kav in Mk. (9 : 45; 14 : 31) and two in Lu. (6 : 33; 19': 31), apart from /«7 and except changes with exco and OeXw; The aorist subj. in the Synoptics is well-nigh universal with kav. 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 dehberate- ness, even in the same sentence, to distinguish between the begin- ning of 'knowing' and the development of it."^ Cf. Iva yvun Kal 'yivijiaKf\T€ (10 : 38) and d raOra olSare, naKapioi iffre kav iroirjre avra (13 : 17), where the pres. is again used purposely. Note also John's Ti TOLoiiiev (6 : 28) and Luke's tL TroLTiauifiev (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. ^ai' tls rriprja-g (Jo. 8 : 51) and kav TTipufiev (1 Jo. 2:3); 6tl &v airiia-rjTe (Jo. 14 : 13) and 8 Slv airSinev (1 Jo. 3 : 22). But Paul also knows the punctiliar force of the aor. subj. Cf. afiaprriacofiev (Ro. 6 : 15) with kntitvufiev (6:1), where the point lies chiefly in the difference of tense. See also 2 Tim. 2 : 5, kav dk Kal 6.d\fj tw, oi (TTt4>avovTai. kav nil vonipMs d^Xiyo-g. Cf. ToirJTe in Gal. 5 : 17. In deliberative ques- tions the aorist subj. is particularly common, as in BSifiev ^ /ii) dwnev (Mk. 12 : 14). In dprjvriv 'ixi^nev (Ro. 5 : 1) the durative present occurs designedly = ' keep on enjoying peace with God,' the peace already made {SiKaioidkvTes). Moulton (Prol., p. 186) thinks that the aorist subj. in relative clauses like 6s av (fjoveva-g (Mt. 5 : 21), or Sttou kav KaTa\a^xi (Mk. 9 : 18), or conditional sentences like kav &airaar]-[is (to one already writing) and ^17 Tpdi^j/s (to one who has not begun). ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 240. 2 Prol., p. 122. » lb., p. 122 f. 852 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT The distinction is not admitted by all modern scholars.* But the difficulty lies mainly in the use of the present imperative, not in the aorist subj. Examples like ixri Bavfiacrxis (Jo. 3:7) do occur, where the thing prohibited has begun. Here it is the constative aorist rather than the ingressive which is more usual in this construction. Moulton^ quotes Dr. Henry Jackson again: "Mi) Spdo-jjs always, I believe, means, 'I warn you against doing this,' 'I beseech you will not'; though this is sometimes used when the thing is being done; notably in certain cases which may be called colloquial or idiomatic, with an effect of impatience, /^i) (/)poj'Tt(rj;s, 'Oh, never mind!' ixri Sdcxis, 'Never fear!' jxi) fcvjuoo-jjs, 'You mustn't be surprised!' " Add also /ii) (^o/3r;0Ss (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 ni] with the pres. imper. and 84 of adj with the aorist subj. In Matthew there are 12 examples of ij,i) with the pres. imper. and 29 of /iij 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 ht) iroiei type to fi-fj Totiicriis 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. ll:2-i. However, the point is 1 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 yu^ or /jirjSi without 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 i&v or Iva, 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 iiii 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 difiaculty. Cf. ij.r) vofilcniTe (Mt. 5 : 17); n'n^laevkyK-as rifias (Mt. 6 : 13; Lu. 11:4); firi dcrtKBtiv eis tov ireipafffidv (Lu. 22:40). Cf. /ii; caKwicfis (Mt. 6 :2), 'don't begin to sound,' and ^i? Briffavpi^ert (6 : 19), ' they were already doing it.' Note again ^i) Sdre fir]bt fioKrire (Mt. 7:6) and a"? KplvtTt (7:1). With Mt. 3 : 9 /ii) 56f?;r6 \kyeiv com- pare Lu. 3 : 8 jiiij ap^adi \eyeLV. But in Lu. 3 : 14, p,riSkva SiaaeiariTe nr]8^ avKokpeT€ 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 &'yMa0'fiTU, yivrjOriru, 86s, &es and eXaeXde — 7rp6 Tjj ayairn ttj e/ijj (Jo. 15 : 9). The action, durative in itself, is treated as punctiliar. Cf. Mt. 26 : 38, p^lvare oiSe Kal yprjyopuTe tier' tfiov (Mk. 14:34). So with fiaKpodvjxiicraTe 'icos Trjs Trapovaias Tov Kupiov (Jas. 5:7); tjjj/ -irapaOrjKriv ' (16:12) and jSao-rao-at (Rev. 2:2); mcTtvaaL (Jo. 5:44) and TiaTthiiv (12 :39).^ Abbott notes also that iroi^aai occurs in John with Svvafmi. only in Jo. 11 : 37, whereas iStLv, dcriKdtZv, ytvvri- Brjvai are natural (3 : 3ff.). So with 6e\o3 note \aPeiv (Jo. 6 : 21); iriaaai (7 : 44), but kpurav (16 : 19). In Mt. 5 : 17 f. KaraXOo-at and ttXtjp&jo-oi are effective, but (nyijaai (Ac. 15 : 13) is ingressive, while otT^ffoi (Mt. 6 : 8) is constative. Cf . Lu. 7 : 24 f . The aorist inf. is rare with /xiWu (airoKdkvdr}vai, Ro. 8 : 18; Gal. 3 : 23, though &iroKa\iirT€(rBai in 1 Pet. 5:1). So ipieWov airodaviiv (Rev. 3:2). Cf. Rev. 3 : 16; 12 : 4. A good example of the constative aorist * Gilders!., 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, &vtv tov 7l7v«r8ot yevtaSai iiSvvaTov. ' Moulton, ib., p. 130. » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 196 f. « Abbott, Joh. 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., ovk ijhBov KaraKmai (Mt. 5 : 17), the subj., eliruntv vvp Karapijvai (Lu. 9 : 54), the imper., &es darl/ai (Mt. 8 :22). But the aorist inf. is common also with durative tenses like k^iirovv Kparrjaai (Mk. 12:12); oiiK TjBtKtv — k-rapai (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, oTi oilrus YtypaTTTai iradttv Kai avaaTrjvaL 'tK ViKpQiv, we have the usual timeless aorist, the subject of ykrypaTTai. So ni) Ibuv (2 : 26). In Ac. 3 : 18 iraJdtlv is the object of irpoKaTi}yyeCkev. The aorist and pres. inf. with prepositions vary a good deal. The aorist occurs with nera (Mt. 26 : 32; Lu. 12 : 5, etc.), with irpo (Lu. 2 : ?1; Jo. 1 :48); 7rp6j (Mt. 6:1); eis (Ph. 1 :23); and even with kv sometimes (Lu. 2 : 27), but only once with Siii (Mt. 24 : 12). Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 49 f. The following are Mr. H. Scott's figures for the Synoptics: Articular Infinitive t6 TOB «ia Tb els TO kv tQ litTi. -rb Trpb Tov irpis t6 Total P A p A P A P A P A •P A p A P A P A Perf. 2 4 9 22 12 1 1 6 31 8 6 3 2 S 57 55 4 6 31 13 Perf. 4 7 39 7 116 17 There are more articular presents than aorists in N. T. (/) The Aorist Participle. The tenses got started with the parti- ciple sooner than with the inf. (cf. Sanskrit), but in neither is there time except indirectly. The Sanskrit had tenses in the participles. The aorist part, is not so frequent in Homer as is the present.' But "the fondness of the Greeks for aorist parti- ciples in narrative is very remarkable."* (a) Aktionsart. That is present here also. Thus we find the ingressive aorist, ntTap.e\-(]0d% (Mt. 27:3); ^^-qdeiaa (Mk. 5:33); hyvor)(javTe% (Ac. 13 : 27); ayaiTTjaas (2 Tim. 4 : 10). The effective ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 197. 2 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 63. » Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 244. * Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gr., p. 213. TENSE (XPONO2) 859 aorist appears in TrXijpdjo-oj'Tes (Ac. 12 : 25), the constative in o-w- irapa.\a^6vTes (ib.). Further exai^jples of the effective aorist are iretirocres to6s 6x^ovs Kai Xtftio-ai-Tes rdp Uavkov, (Ac. 14 : 19); Si/taiw- dkvT€i (Ro. 5 : 1). The constative is seen again in irapaSobs (Mt. 27:4); iriaTfOcavTes (Jo. 7: 39). The aorist participle in itself is, of course, merely punctiliar action. (|8) "0 and the Aorist Participle. The punctiliar force of the aorist part, is well illustrated in this idiom. It differs from the relative {6s + verb) in being a more general expression. In Mt. 23 : 20 f., 6 6^60-0$ bnviiu, we have identical action, not ante- cedent. The aorist is, strictly speaking, timeless (Burjion, Moods and Tenses, p. 69). "0 6/i6(7-as='the swearer,' 6 Xa/3&)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 & 'Ka^wv (Jo. 3 : 33) probably = ' the Baptist' with Tras 6 &Kov(ras — fiaOuv (6 : 45) and oi ^Koiaavrts, oi iroiiiaavTes (5:25,29). '0-|- aorist part, may be used with any tense of the ind. Thus 6 Xo/Stiv in Jo. 3 : 32 occurs with iacfipayLa-eu, irSs 6 6.Ko{i(Tas (6 : 45) with ipxfrai, oi iroiiiffavTes (5 : 28 f .) with kKTroptbaovTai,. Cf. Mt. 26 : 52, xaires oi Xaj36i'Tes ii6,xo.i.pav 'tv /mxalpv iiroXoOi/Tat, 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 inronelms ds TeXos oh-os aud'iifftTM (Mk. 13 : 13). So Mt. 10 : 39. Note the resumptive oSros. Cf . 6 7J'o6s — xoi fii) iroiiJ,6.rris 6 Kal irapaSoiis airSv (Mt. 10:4; cf. also 27:3); usually the phrase is 6 irapaSiSobs (26 : 25; Jo. 18 : 2, 5). So in Ac. 1 : 16 both yevo^kvov and Kai k/id^ao-a rois 1 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 iroSas avTov. Cf . Ac. 7 : 35 Tov 6devTos, 9:216 iropdrjaas. 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 vr] than with aKovoi? This aorist part, is ab- solutely timeless, not even relatively past. It is another in- stance of the coincident aorist part. So oaa riKovaafiev yevoneva (Lu. 4:23), Weupovv top Xaravav cos aarpawriv eK rod oiipavov Treaovra (10 : 18). In ireaovra we have the constative aorist.' Contrast the perfect in Rev. 9:1, ddov aarkpa tK rod ovpavov ireirTcoKOTa tis Tijv yrjv, and the present in Rev. 7 : 2, tlbov aXKov ava^aivovTo. (linear), and dSapkv riva, tv tQ bvop-arl cov kK^dWovTO, daifMVLa (Lu. 9 : 49). Cf. eUev avbpa—dueKdovTa Kal kTnekvTa (Ac. 9 : 12. So in 10 : 3; 26 : 13) ; riKovaaiiev — evex^itcav (2 Pet. 1 : 18). 2. PuNCTiLiAR (AoKiSTic) PRESENT (o eveffTft)? jj;/)oVo9). 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 punctihar and Unear 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 lin- 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 e-^Tj-j/, whether aorist or imperf.). The present is formed on punctihar 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 separate tenses for punctiliar and linear action in the ind. of present time. "The forms eifii, elfii, 4>rifii, a7w, ypactxa, etc., in which the stem has the form generally found only in aoriats (§11, § 31) may be 1 Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 408. 2 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. 11, p. 152 f. s 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. We may com- pare the English use of I am, I go (now archaic in the sense of / 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 (punctiliar) action. Some pres- ents are also "perfective" in sense like iJkco. The so-called "pres- ent" tense may be used, therefore, to express an action simply (punctiliar), a process (durative or linear), a state (perfective or perfect).^ Some of the root-presents (like T)-yui) are aoristic. The perfect came originally out of the root-meaning also (cf. rj/cw, oUa) and grew out of the present as a sort of intensive present.' The notion of state in vlkSi, Kpard, fiTrSifiai is really that of the perfect. So the momentary action in |8t; (i-^ri-v) be- comes linear in the iterative ;8i-/3a-w, 'patter, patter.' Moulton* clearly recognises that " the punctiliar 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 (xd7co)," while irwyalvw is linear. So irayalvta is 'I keep going,' while iraT&j 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 (ind.) = undefined action in the past. In the case of ayco we see a root used occasionally for punctiliar, 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 arid constative uses also. The common tlni (Jo. 10 : 11) is often aoristic. A fine example of the constative aorist pres- ent occurs in Lu. 7 : 8, iroptWrjTi, Kal voptvercu — epxov, Kal Ipx^Tai — mlriaop, Kal Trotei. Cf. ^fop/ctfo) «re (Mt. 26 : 63); 6p& (Ac. 8 : 23); ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 45. ^ Giles, Man., p. 484. ' lb., p. 491 f. « Prol., p. 119 f. ' Giles, Man., p. 485. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 120. -> Synt. of CI. Gk., p. 81. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 433. 866 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ipri ^X^TTw (Jo. 9 : 25). The frequent iyri(rLv (Mt. 14:8); ov \anPa.vai — &Wa \eyu (Jo. 5:34), etc. In Mk. 2:5 a^ievrai is effective aorist present as in iarai (Ac. 9:34). Cf. 0(701 oiiK exovaiv, oh-ives ovk eyvcoaav (Rev. 2 : 24) ; irodtv ^\Bov and TTodev •epxoiiai (Jo. 8 : 14) ; 6X" — ri>^Sev (Jo. 16 : 21). Moulton (Prol, p. 247) notes how in Mt. 6 : 2, 5, 16, arkxovai, the combination of the aoristic pres. and the perfective use of airS makes it very vivid. "The hypocrites have as it were their money down, as soon as their trumpet has sounded." The "perfective" a7rex« (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 hmBicav is gnomic, and in verse 3 we have the aoristic presents (gnomic also), Xeyovciv yap /cat ov iroiovaiv. Note Jo. 9 : 8. Cf. also cbs \eyov(nv (Rev. 2 : 24). Good instances are found in 1 Cor. 15 : 42 ff., airdpeTai. So ibcnrep oi iwoicpiToJ iroLowL (Mt. 6:2). Abbott^ has great difficulty with kic ttjs TaXi- Xatos irpo^ijTTjs ovk hyelptrai (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 English and is a survival of "the original stock of our languages." "It antedates the differentiation into imperfect and aorist." The "Annalistic or Note-Book Present" (like 717- vovTai iraiSes 8v6) is practically the same use of the aorist present. Moulton' suggests yevvarat 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. Qt., p. 47. TENSE (XPONOS) 867 futuristic (prophetic) use of the present. Brugmanni 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 {Gr., 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 Uke the imperfect.2 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 ff.) 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/B.c.) iviyu — dpS> — KXaiya — kiropivoiiriv — mi 'epxoiiai — eXeyov, etc. Moulton illustrates \iya 'Ir/o-oOs in the Oxyrhynchus Logia by Kaicrap \kyei, Syll. 376. See also d(^i7p7rapLov airodvrja-Kontv (1 Cor. 15 : 32) we have a verb in which the perfective prefix has neutralized the inceptive force of the suffix -iffKw: it is only the obsoleteness of the simplex which allows it ever to borrow a durative action."^ The aoris- tic origin of many present-stems has already been shown (and some perfectives like jjk&j). Thus all three kinds of action are found in the present (punctiliar, durative, perfect). All three kinds of time are also found in the present ind. (historical pres- ent = past, futuristic present = future, the common use for present time). Some of these "momentary presents" are always future. So ei/it in old Greek prose,^ but Homer uses et/it also as a pres- ent.'' The N. T. uses ^pxo/iat and Topevo/mi in this futuristic sense (Jo. .14 : 2 f.)j not etfii. Indeed "the future of Greek was origi- nally a present" (Jebb in Vincent and Dickson's Handbook, p. 323). That is too strong, for the future ind. often comes from the aorist subj. In the N. T. such so-called futures as wieaat, and ipayeaai (Lu. 17:8) are really old aorist subjs. Cf. Mt. 24:40f. The futuristic pres. occurs in the inscriptions and papyri, as in Petersen-Luschan, p. 160, N. 190, av 5i ns aSiKria-g, moKeirai. See o/i /i57 wavceTai,, epx^rai, B. M. II, 417 (iv/A.D.), avriypaij/ov Kaydi ava^aivw, O. P. 1157, 25 f. (A.D./iii), ypk^ov fioi. Kal TrkjXTros avTC^ hTTuB^iKriv, O. P. 1158, 23 f. (A.D./iii). Cf. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 124. In South Italian Greek the futuristic present is the only means of expressing the future ind.* The other use of the futur- istic present is the dramatic or prophetic' " This present — a sort of counterpart to the historic present — is very frequent in 1 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 309; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 484. 2 Giles, Man., p. 485. ^ pj-ol., p. 120. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 189. * Gildersleeve, Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 393. 6 Moulton, Prol., p. 120. « Gildersl., Synt., p. 84. ' Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 10. 8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 434. » Giles, Man., p. 485. 870 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the predictions of the N. T."i It is not merely prophecy, but certainty of expectation that is involved. As examples note Mt. 17:11 'HXeias epx^rai Kal airoKaraiTT^aet. wavra, 24:43 iroiq, ^vkaKfj 6 (cXexTr/s epxeTOt, 26 : 2 ylverai Kal — TrapaSiSorai, 26 : 18 iroicS to Taaxo., 27 : 63 kytlpofiai, Lu. 3 : 9 eKKOTTeraL Kal /SaXXerai, 19 : 8 SidaijXL Kal airoSlSuini,, Jo. 4 : 35 6 Bepiands epxerai, 8 : 14 ttoO virayu, 8 : 21 vwayo} Kal ^i]Tri(X€Te, 10 : 15 rrjv \l/vxvv fiov ridrini, 12 : 26 oirov eifil €70), 20 : 17 ava^aivoi, 21 : 23 oii/c air<£vii, as it has "generally got rid of alternative forms.'" So also dpk^oixai {rpkxi^ was durative and bpaixovixai (jeSpaiiov) 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, Joh. Gr., p. 352. « Moulton, Prol., p. 150. ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 479. ' Thompson, Synt., p. 219. * Giles, Man., p. 447. TENSE (XPONOS) 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 pdlsive punctiliar.^ Very few of the hst 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 (^amrat (LXX, Prov. 11 : 31) is durative and certainly .^ayijo-eroi (Mt. 24 : 30) is punctiUar. So in Lu. 16 : 31 miadijaovTat is punctiliar (effective), but irdaoiJiaL does not occur in the N. T. So KTiiaeaOt tAs i^uxas i>nS>v (Lu. 21 : 19) seems to be durative, though no fut. passive of this verb appears in the N. T. So also dricreTa.i. (cf. Ac. 26 : 16) is ingressive, but o^oimi may be either durative (Mt. 5 : 8; Jo. 1 : 50; 19 : 37; Rev. 22 : 4) or punctihar (Jo. 1 : 39; Heb. 12 : 14, etc.). An excellent example of the effective future is found in 6 inroneivM eis rtXos cdidriairaL (Mt. 10 : 22), So the same form in the future may be either punctiliar or durative, as irpod^o) vfias (Mk. 14 : 28) is durative, while a|«i is punctiliar (ef- fective =' bring').' lldaoixiv is punctiUar (effective) in Mt. 28 : 14 and durative in 1 Jo. 3 : 19. So yvwaoixai is punctiliar or dura- tive (Rev. 2 : 23). As punctiliar yviicoiiai 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 Aktionsart 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 punctiliar and dura- 1 Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, pp. 114 ff., 170 ff.; Giles, Man., p. 483; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 441. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 150. ' lb., p. 149. * Burton, N. T. Moods and TenseSj p. 33. 6 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 punctiliar aorist are Kokko-eis (Mt. 1 : 21) ingressive; irapaKXridrjcFovTai (Mt. 5 : 4) effective, and so xop''''>-<'^WovTai., but 'iKeiiBriaovTai, is in- gressive while KKrjdriaovTai, is effective. In 1 Cor. 15 : 22, 28 note ^oioiroirjdriaovTai. and inroTayr]creTaL (effective). In Jo. 8:32 note eKivdepiiaei effective =' set free' (cf. eKeWepoi ytvqaeadi, verse 33).' So then both in origin and use the future is chiefly punctiliar. {h) The Modal Aspect of the Future. The future indicative is not merely a tense in the true sense of that term, expressing the state of the action. It is almost a mode on a par with the subjunctive and imperative. Gildersleeve^ puts the matter plainly when he says: "The future was originally a mood." In both Greek and Latin the forms of the future come for the most part from the subj. and it must be treated as a mode as well as a tense. Indeed Delbriick' and Giles* put it wholly under moods. It partakes, as a matter of fact, of the qualities of both mood and tense, and both need to be considered. The modal aspect of the fut. ind. is seen in its expression of will and feeling. Like the subj. the fut. ind. may be merely futuristic, volitional or deliberative. We have a reflection of the same thing in our shall and will. The fut. ind. has had a precarious history in Greek. Its place was always challenged by the present and even by the aorist ind., by the subj. and imper. modes, by peri- phrastic forms. It finally gave up the fight as a distinct form in Greek.^ See under 3, (a). In the modern Greek the distinction between the periphrastic fut. and the subj. is practically lost." The modal aspects of the fut. ind. appear clearly in subordinate clauses where the tense is common. In indirect discourse the future ind. merely represents the direct discourse (cf . Ro. 6 : 8). The future with the descriptive or identifjang relative' (Jo. 6 : 51) shows no modal features. But it is found in other relative clauses where purpose (Lu. 7 : 27) or resiflt (Lu. 7:4) is ex- pressed. The future has also a modal value in temporal clauses (Rev. 4 : 9; 17: 17), in final clauses (Lu. 20 : 10; Heb. 3 : 12), in ' Moulton, Prol., p. 149. " Synt., p. 115. 8 Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 320 f . * Man., pp. 500, 505; Thompson, Synt., p. 218. 6 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 552. « Blass, Hermeneutik und Krit., 1892, p. 199. ' Gildersl., Synt., p. 115. TENSE (XPONOS) 873 conditional sentences (Lu. 19 : 40), in wish (Gal. 5 : 12). In Rev. 3 : 9 the fut. ind. and the aorist subj . occur side by side with I'm. But in independent sentences also tfee modal aspects of the future appear. (a) Merely Futuristic. This is the most common use of the future and in itself would not be modal. It is the prospective, what hes before the speaker.^ The predictive^ (or prophetic) future has to be classed as aoristic (usually constative), though the question as to whether the action is durative or punctiliar may not have crossed the speaker's mind. Cf . Mt. 21 : 37 evrpa- irriaovTai., 41 OTroXecrei, 43 apdiiaerat. — dodiicreTat,, 24 : 30 aTrotrreXei, etc. Cf. Mk. 13 : 24-27. Further good examples of the predic- tive future are in ]VIt. ll:28f.; 12 : 31. Unfortunately in Eng- Ush we have no estabUshed principle for the translation of the predictive future. In the first person it is done by "shall," and naturally by "will" in the second and third persons. It is not always easy to distinguish the merely futuristic from the volitive future, "but we have to reckon with an archaic use of the auxil- iaries which is traditional in Bible translations."' The use of "shall" in the second and third persons is almost constant in the R. V. both for the volitive and the futuristic uses. If "shall" could be confined in these persons to the volitive and "will" to the futuristic, even "the solemnly predictive,"* it would be a gain.^ Thus in Mk. 14 : 13 aTravrriaei would be 'will meet.' In Mt. ll:28f. avavaijcru would be 'shall give you rest' (R. V. 'will'), dfyfiaere 'will find' (R. V. 'shall'). But avaTravaoi here may be volitive. If so, 'will' is correct. So in Mt. 12 : 31 ai'Kov Kal wopeiaerai — Kal eiTTjj oiiT^j, the fut. ind. (rhetorical) and aorist subj. occur side by side if we can trust the reading. Cf. Mt. 7: 6, with fiiiiron; Eph. 6 : 3, with I'm (0. 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 best MSS. (see W. H. and Nestle texts) support the fut. ind. in some instances. As an example of merely interroga- 1 lb. i" 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 GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT tive deliberative questions with fut. ind. take et irara^ofiev iv na- xaipv (Lu. 22 : 49). In Jo. 18 : 39, /SouXeafle awoXiffoi, we may have the fut. ind. or the aorist subj., but note fiov\e(rde. The N. T. examples are nearly all rhetorical. So Mt. 12 : 26 ttcoj crro^ijaeTai, Mk. 4:13 TraJs — yvcoaecde, Jo. 6 : 68 irpos riva aweXeva-ofieda. Cf. fur- ther Ro. 3:5; 6:1 (the common ri kpoviav;); 9 : 14; 1 Cor. 14 : 7, 9, 16; 15 : 29, 51; 1 Tim. 3 : 5. Cf. Lu. 20 : 15. Cf. 6.yop6.(K^iiev Kal BiicFOfiev (Mk. 6:37). (c) The Future in the Moods. The future differs from the other tenses in this respect, that in the moods where it occurs it has always the element of time. This is not true of any other Greek tense.^ (o) The Indicative. It is far more common here than in the other moods. In direct discourse the fut. ind. expresses absolute time. Cf. t6t€ oipcvTai (Lu. 21:27). In the gnomic future the act is true of any time (cf. gnomic aorist and present). So /j6Xts iiTrep SiKaiov tk airodavetTai. (Ro. 5:7); xPmM'''i(rii- (7:3), etc. In indirect discourse the time is relatively future to that of the principal verb, though it may be absolutely past. So with kvb- fiiaav OTi Xrifoj/ovTai. (Mt. 20 : 10); etwev armaivoiv tto'kj} davarif do^aaei Tdvdedv (Jo. 21: 19). 2 (0) The Subjunctive and Optative. There never was a fut. im- perative. The so-called fut. subjs. in the N. T. have already been discussed. W. H. admit o^rjffdi to the text in Lu. 13 : 28, but claim it to be a late aorist subj.' The same thing may be true of 86i(Tn, read by MSS. in Jo. 17 : 2; Rev. 8 : 3, but not of Kavdi}ar(iijxa.i in 1 Cor. 13 : 3. This may be a lapsus calami* for mv- xi^cai/iai. Hamack (The Expositor, May, 1912, p. 401) quotes Von Soden as saying: " Kavd^fiaca/xai — not KavBrjo-onaL — is to be rec- ognised as the traditional form in families of MSS. which do not give Kavxvrj(jbiJ.ivov (1 Cor. 15 : 37) ; b KwroKpivuv (Ro. 8 :34); tS>v \aKr]Br\(Toixkvwv (Heb. 3:5). (rf) 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, 0. C. 816, XuTTjj^els tdti, and O. T. 1146, oh auairiiaai iaa, but no examples of the aorist participle and ?<7o/iot occur in the N. T. They are all present parts, (like iataOt uLaov/jievoi, Lu. 21 : 17) and so durative. In the LXX we actually have the inf. with •icoiiai (Num. 10 : 2; 2 Sam. 10 : 11; Tob. 5 : 15). The use of iueXXw with the aorist inf. approaches the punctiliar future.'' Cf. ilneWtv ■Kpocrayayeiv (Ac. 12 : 6) ; fikWovaav airoKa.'Kv(j)6f]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 SeXco and in the later Greek helped drive out the future form. It is disputed whether in the N. T. 6e\ca is ever a mere future. But in a case hke 6k\eis elircanev (Lu. 9 : 54) we note the deliberative subj.' Cf. Mt. 13 : 28. So fioh\tade LiroKvaoi (Jo. 18 : 39). BoiiXo/zat is less frequent in the N. T. than 0^Xco and can hardly be resolved into a mere future. It is purpose. Cf. examples with the aorist inf. in Mt. 11:27; Ac. 5 : 28; 17 : 20. With 6eXco the aorist inf. is the usual construc- tion, and it is nearly always easy to see the element of will as dominant. In a few cases SeXoi seems to shade off towards the voli- tive fut. ind. Cf . Jo. 5 : 40, ov dk\tTt eKdelv irpos ixe, Ac. 25 : 9, de- Xeis — Kpid^vaL; Here we have an approach to the later usage, but the auxiliary has not yet lost its force. Cf. also Jo. 6 : 67; 9 : 27; Jas. 2 : 20, where the formula is polite. But in Jo. 7 : 17 the R. V. rightly preserves "willeth." So in Mt. 16 : 24. Herodotus shows a fondness for kdkXca as a quasi-auxiliary, and the connec- tion between him and the modern Greek usage is doubtless through the vernacular. Cf. Jebb in Vine, and Dickson, p. 326. Even 1 Ct. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 335. 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 443. Cf. Delbnick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 253. "The difference between pres. and aor. furnishes the explan. of iii\Kw with aor. ind." Giles, Man., p. 479. » Moulton, Prol., p. 185. TENSE (XPONOS) 879 Siva/ittt may contain an "inceptive future."' In Lu. 20 : 36 the MSS. vary between Bdvavrai and ^XXouo-tj;. But in the N. T. diivafiai retains its real force even in examples like Mk. 2 : 19; 3 : 2i; 10 : 38; 14 : 7; Jo. 13 : 37; Ac. 17 : 19. In Ac. 25 : 26 note yp&Apai ovK ix<^ (cf. fXw '"i 7pa^£o). III. Durative (Linear) Action. The principles underlying the use of the tenses have now been set forth with sufficient clearness to justify brevity. 1. Indicative. ' (a) The Present (6 kvearus) for Present Time. It has already been seen that the durative sense does not monopolize the "pres- ent" tense, though it more frequently denotes linear 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. airoWiiixtda (Mt. 8 : 25. Contrast aorist cSiaov. So Mk. 4 : 38; Lu. 8 : 24); apkvvwTai (Mt. 25 : 8); ^v ^ epxc^ai (Jo. 5:7); aivei (1 Jo. 2:8); avvxivverai (Ac. 21: 31); reXeirai (2 Cor. 12 : 9); dav- IM^O) on ovTcas raxecos ixeTaTWeade (Gal. 1:6); kTn(TTpktT€ (4:9); "ixowiv (Mk. 2 : 19). Cf. 1 Th. 3 : 8. In these examples the dura- tive action is very obvious and has to be translated by the progressive (periphrastic) form in English, 'We are perishing,' 'Our lamps are going out,' etc. But in the case of Bavfia^w (Gal. 1:6) 'I wonder' brings out the durative idea, though 'ye are changing' is necessary for fieTaTWeaOe. Cf. exet (Jo. 3 : 36) where 'has' is durative. Cf. ^riTovnev (Lu. 2 : 48), ov eHkofitv (Lu. 19 : 14). (;8) The Progressive Present. This is a poor name in lieu of a better one for the present of past action still in progress. Usu- ally an adverb of time (or adjunct) accompanies the verb. Gildersleeve' calls it "Present of Unity of Time." Cf. karlv ews apTi (1 Jo. 2:9). Often it has to be translated into English by a sort of "progressive perfect" ('have been'), though, of course, that is the fault of the English. "So in modern Greek, i^yjvTa ixrjvas ' oS "epxofmi (Lu. 13 : 7) Toaavra erri dovXtvca aoi (15 : 29); irokhv ^5ij xP^vop ex«t (Jo. 5 : 6) ToaovTOV xP^vov fie6' hfiuv eifii (14 : 9) ; dir' &PXV^ M*'"' ^Moi' ^i^Tt (15 27); xaXoi SoKtiTt (2 Cor. 12 : 19). Cf. 6.ir6 Ppk)mi (Lu. 18 : 12); blho^iu koL airoSl8coiJ,L (19 : 8, unless it refers to a new purpose in Zaccheus, when it would be aoristic); 6 evXoyovixev (1 Cor. 10 : 16); 6v KXcifitv (10 : 16); irpo\a,n^ava (11:21); KarayytK- \iTe (11 : 26); ecdiei Kal Trlvei (11 : 29); KOiimvra.i (11 : 30); ovx a/iap- TVLvtL (1 Jo. 3:6); aiMpravei (3:8). Cf. Mt. 9 : 17. Probably also acl>iofi€v (Lu. 11:4). (5) The Inchoative or Conative Present. Either an act just beginning, like yiperai (Mk. 11:23), tWiis aKapSaXl^ovTai (4:17), XtSAfere (Jo. 10 : 32), vi-n-TSLs (13 : 6), iroLets (13 : 27), ^Tei (Ro. 2:4), or an act begun but interrupted like ireldtLs (Ac. 26:28; cf. 2 Cor. 5 : 11), avayKa^eis (Gal. 2 : 14), SiKaLovadt (5:4), 0^7- Ka^ou(nv (6 : 12). Indeed Xida^ere (Jo. 10 : 32) and vlirreLs (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 k/3aXXei which is durative. Cf. ijytTo in Lu. 4 : 1 (but Mt. 4:1, avrixBri). So in Mk. 1 : 21 ei(TiropevovTai. is durative. The same thing seems to be true of aKoKovdovaiv in 6:1. (f) The Deliberative Present. 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. ri TOMVfiev; (Jo. 11:47), 'What are we doing?' Cf. tI Trotijo-ei (Mt. 21:40) with TL itoi&ixev (Jo. 6 : 28) and rl woLiiacafiev (Ac. 4 : 16). The im- plication of the question in Jo. 11:47 is that nothing was being done. In Mt. 12 : 34, xios hhvaade ayoBa XaXtZv; a durative delib- erative question is expressed by means of SvvaaBe and the pres. inf. Cf. a similar construction with SeZ 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 4eliberative question is a rare idiom. Blass' finds parallels in colloquial Latin and an ex- ample in Herm., Sim., IX, 9, 1. (rj) The Periphrastic Present. The examples are not numerous in the LXX.* Cf. Num. 14 : 8; 1 Ki. 18 : 12, etc. It is rare in ' Goodwin, M. and T., p. 11. » lb. 2 Cf. Blaas, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 210. ■• C. and S., Sel., p. 68. TENSE (XPONOS) 881 the N. T. Moulton' warns us that "ixuv hrl and 8iov karl (with other impersonal verbs) are both classical and vernacular." In the present tense the idiom is on puMy Greek lines, not Semitic. For classical examples see Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 81). So the impersonal verbs (and ?xw) stand to themselves ^ in support from ancient Greek and the kolvIi. Cf. ienv ixovra (Col. 2 :23); irpe- irov kaHv (Mt. 3:15); i^6v (sc. kari) in Ac. 2 : 29 and 2 Cor. 12 : 4; Skov 'ttrrlv (Ac. 19:36. Cf. 1 Pet. 1:6). Other examples are ^(TTciis «i/i( (Ac. 25 : 10), 'icnv Karepxaiiivri (Jas. 3 : 15), eo-Tij; wpoaava- irXijpoOira — dXXci Kal iripiaaevovaa (2 Cor. 9:12), kaTiv 6,Wi]yopob- fiepa (Gal. 4 : 24) and, in particular, explanatory phrases with a 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. (fl) 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 &Se\it Goodwin, M. and T., p. 9; Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 10; Gildersl., Synt., p. 87. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 120. 882 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ent and future time it is clear that "time" is secondary even in the ind. In the other moods it has, of course, no time at all. As examples of the durative present in this sense take irapaSiSorai (Mt. 26:45), avaPaivofiev (Mk. 10:33), inrayco HKieitiv and kpxoii^a. (Jo. 21:3), hkpxotuj.i. (1 Cor. 16:5), txotiev (2 Cor. 5:1). MeXXco and the pres. inf. is, of course, a prospective present. This idiom is very common in the N. T., 84 examples with the pres. (6 aor., 3 fut.) inf., though, of course, ixkWu is not always in the pres. ind. Cf. Mt. 2:13; 16:27, etc. (6) The Imperfect for Past Time (6 TrapoTaTi/cos). Here we have the time-element proper, the augment probably being an old adverb for "then," and the action being always durative. "The augment throws linear action into the past."' The absence of a true imperfect in English makes it hard to translate this Greek tense. (a) Doubtful Imperfects. They are sometimes called "aoristic" imperfects. This term is not a happy one, as Gildersleeve^ shows in his criticism of Stahl for his "synonym-mongering" and "multipUcation of categories." The only justification for the term is that, as already shown in the discussion of the aorist, it is not possible always to tell whether some forms are aorist ind. or imperf . ind. The same root was used for both forms, as only one form existed and it is hard to tell which tense the form is. A certain amount of obscurity and so of overlapping existed from the beginning.' We see this difficulty in ^v, etpa as aorists (Thumb, Handb., p. 143). Thumb {Th. L.-Z., xxviii, 423) thinks that in the N. T. i(l)€pov had begun to be treated as aorist, but Moulton {Prol., p. 129) demurs, though he admits the possibility of punctiliar action in irp6aipe to bCipov in Mt. 5 : 24 {ib., p. 247). See also kp€ Kai tSt, 4>kpe KoX jSaXe 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 modern Greek i,t 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 iXeytv and tlvev 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) isltrictly durative always (im- perfect). It may be sometimes actually aorist also. So as to tri (Mt. 4:7); i\eyev (Mk. 4 : 21, 24, 26, 30, etc.), etc. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 192, fails to make a clear distinction. Note iKiXivov (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- punktuell." 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 modern Greek preserves this idiom (Thmnb, Handb., p. 121). In 1 Cor. 10 : 3 f. itjiayov and iiriov give the summary (con- stative) record, while iiripov presents an explanatory description. See further irpoafjXOov Kal SiriKdvovv (Mt. 4:11); ireaev Kal kSiSov (13:8); iviara^av Kal iK&Bevdov (25:5). Sometimes the change from aorist to imperf. or vice versa in narrative may be due to the desire to avoid monotony. In Mt. 26 : 59 we have ovx eBpoi', in Mk. 14 : 55 oiix ebpiaxov. The aorist tells the simple story. The imperfect draws the picture. It helps you to see the course of the act. It passes before the eye the flowing stream of history. It is the tense of Schilderung.* Cf; elxtv t& 'ivSv/xa airov (Mt. 3:4), i^fTToptiero (3:5), i/SairrtfovTo (3:6). The whole vivid scene at the Jordan is thus sketched. Then Matthew re- verts to the aorist (3 : 7). Cf. fjpxovro in Jo. 19 : 2. So 8s &<^€iXev abrQ (Mt. 18: 28) aptly describes a debtor as iirviytp, 'the choking in his rage.' See the picture of Jesus in 4fl«bpei (Mk. 12:41). Cf. kdfiipovv (Lu. 10 : 18), k^e\kyovTo (14 : 7), TipufiUirtTo (Mk. 5 : 32), maravTo (Lu. 2 :47; cf. Ac. 2 : 12). Cf. Lu. 9 : 43^5; 16 : 19; Mt. 8 : 24. A good example is kuXiero d^pifwi' (Mk. 9 : 20). Cf. further, IwixTiv koL ■n-poaiiix'tTo (Mk. 14:35), the reahstic scene in Gethsemane (Peter's description probably); kirtdbixti Kal ov8eh idlSov (Lu. 15 : 16) ; c!)m£Xow irpis AXXiJXous (24 : 14) ; e^eirX-liaaovvTo (Mt. 7:28); Mdti. (2 Cor. 3 : 13); ^KoXiuflei Kal iKiSriTo (Mt. 26 : 58). A splendid example of the descriptive durative is kauawa (Mt. 26 : 63) = 'kept silent.' So kir\ioniv (Ac. 21:3). Note kv(y- fu^ov (Ac. 21 : 29) between past perfect and aorist. Cf. 4<^iX«i » Moulton, Prol., p. 128. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 436. ' Sexauer, Der Sprachgebr. d. rdm. Schriftst. Achillea Tatius, 1899, p. 29. » Gilderal., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 242. * Hultsch, Der Gebr, d. erzaJilenden Zeitf. bei Polyb. 884 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (Jo. 11 : 36), dter^pa (Lu. 2 : 51. Cf. 2 : 19). See the picture of Noah's time in Lu. 17:27. Cf. kTopevovro x"ip<»''''« (Ac. 5 :41), Quite striking is rikirl^oiitv 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 kiro'njaa or eiroiow. 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. xoXXot TrXoiKTiot ^/JaXXov (Mk. 12 :41); kwviyovTo (5 : 13), where the separate details are well described .by the vivid imperfect. The notion of repetition is clearly present in ripcora 'tKeriiuiabvqv (Ac. 3:3); ijpira atirbv (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. TapeKoKow aTovSaLis (Lu. 7:4, W. H.); Trapjjvu (Ac. 27 : 9). It is well shown in Bapra- /3as epovXtTo, IlaCXos ii^iov (15 : 37 f.), the one opposing the other. In Ac. 24 : 26 repetition is shown in dj/xtXet by irvKvorepov nera- ireniroijxvos. Cf . aXXot 5^ aXXo rt eTecjiwvovv (21 : 34) ; kTwdavero in verse 33; koB' rifikpav kKoBe^bmv (Mt. 26:55); 'hvirTov (27:30); oirou rjKovov (Mk. 6:55); Karriyopovv iroXXa (15:3); OTT^Xuei' ov irapxiTOvvTo (15 : 6. Cf. eltiidfi airokveiv ov ij6e\ov, Mt. 27 : 15); hk- vtvov (Lu. 1 : 62); ^/SaTTTtfec (Jo. 3 : 22); ?Xue (5 : 18); hdlSoaav (19 : 3) ; e^iivvves (21 : 18) ; kridow (Ac. 3:2); kTriirpaaicov /cat bieixkpi^ov (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, kiropevovro /car' ins. (5) The Progressive Imperfect. Sometimes the imperfect looks backward or forward, as the case may be.^ Thus Ti on efijrelr^ ixe (Lu. 2; 49); ^j' tixtre aw' apx^s (1 Jo. 2:7); kv€KOTTbp.i}v (Ro. 15:22); ifieWov (Rev. 3:2). This idea is, however, often ex- pressed by /ieXXo),' but without the backward look also. Cf. Lu. 9 : 31; 10 : 1; Jo. 4 : 47; 6 : 71, etc. In kKLvSiivevov (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), (|3). The Text. Recept. gives a good exairiple in ^v xaXat to irXolov ev ukaco rrfs OdXacraris (Mk. 6 :47). See also ^v yap k^ havSiv xpovoov dkXcov ISeZv avrov (Lu. 23 : 8). » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 191. 2 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenaes, p. 13 f. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 13. 3 Gildersl., Synt., p. 94 f. TENSE (XPONOS) 885 (e) The Inchoative or Conative Imperfect. Here the accent is on the beginnmg of the action eijjjier in contrast to preceding aorists (just begun) or because the action was interrupted (be- gun, but not completed). 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 modern Greek maintains this idiom (Thumb, Handb., p. 121). As examples of the first sort where "began" brings out the idea, note kdldaaKe (Mt. 5 : 2. Cf. Jo. 7 : 14); kU\H (Mk. 7 : 35. Cf. Lu. 1 : 64); kXaw;- (14 : 72); SupiicatTo (Lu. 5:6); SteXaXouc (6 : 11); aweTXrfpowTo (8 : 23); tTeada^ev (9 : 34. Note ingressive aorist k^o^iidticav) ; kirk^aKw (23 : 54) ; exe- yivoxTKov (Ac. 3 : 10); kKripvaaeu (9 :20); SitKpivovTo (11 :2); Karriy- yeXKov (13:5); Wopiifiovv (17:5); wapcui^dveTo (17:16); awtKoyeiTo (26:1); irotovvTo (27:18); iXwro (27:41). Cf. Lu. 13:13, 17. In iKi.'Kovv (Lu. 1 : 59) we see both ideas combined. The action was begun, but was sharply interrupted by ovxl, dXXa from Eliza- beth. Cf. vvv efiyTouv (Jo. 11:8). A good instance of the inter- rupted impcrf. is irpoak^epiv in Heb. 11 : 17. Examples of the conative imperfect (action begun, but interrupted) are diendSKvev (Mt. 3 : 14) ; kSiSow (Mk. 15 : 23, in contrast with ovk iXafiev) ; iKuXioixev (Lu. 9:49); h^ijTovv (Jo. 10:39; cf. 19:11); h6p.i^ev (Ac. 7 : 25. Note oii (rvviJKav) ; avviiWaa-trev (7 : 26. Note dircbo-aro) ; iirudtv (Ac. 18:4); rivayKa^ov (26:11); but not Gal. 1:13." Moul- ton (Prol., p. 247) cites the conative pres. apayKa^ovcriv (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 5^ ovk fjdeXev (followed by i^oKev, Mt. 18 : 30) and preceded by irap&caXtt (iterative), ov8eU iSiSov (Lu. 15 : 16), oiiK ^eXtv (15 : 27. Note upyMrj), ovk iTrUrTevev (Jo. 2 : 24), ov yd.p r^eKw (Jo. 7:1), obSth krdXfM (21 : 12), ovk euav (Ac. 19 : 30). Cf. Mt. 22 : 3. (ij) The "Potential" Imperfect. This is a peculiar use of the tense for present tune, where the present ind. fails to meet the requirement of the situation. Gildersleeve {Syntax, p. 97) calls it "modal" use, iSu, etc. The imfulfilled duty comes as a surprise. This "modal" force of the imperfect ind. appears still in the 1 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 128. » Gildersl., Synt., p. 95 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 338. 886 A GRAMMAR OF 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 hke ejSouXo/ir/J' (Ac. 25 : 22), fiov\oixaL would be too blunt (cf. 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 l^ovKbixttv irpbrepov has its usual signification. In Phil. 13 f . i0ov\bij.rtv (a past preference) is set over against obSb i]d'tki](ra (a past decision).' Another example is fidiXov TraptZvai. irpos iiMs apTL (Gal. 4 : 20). Note apri. For the force of the pres- ent see 1 Cor. 10 : 20; Col. 2:1; and especially Lu. 19 : 14, oi dkXofiev. In Jo. 6 : 21, rjdeXou, the usual notion occurs. An ex- ample is found in Ro. 9 : 3, r]\)x6ij.y\v, where Paul almost expresses a moral wrong. He holds himself back from the abyss by the tense. He does not say ei5xoMai (cf. 2 Cor. 13 : 7), nor tv^ainriv av (Ac. 26 : 29). Note ov xl/eOSonat in Ro. 9:1. In Ac. 27 : 29 jjSxojto has its usual force. Wishes about the present are naturally unattainable. In the ancient idiom dBe or el yap was used with the imperf. ind. or &4>tKov and the inf. Callimachus, b.c. 260, uses S3eKov with the ind. The augmentless form 6(j>e\ov appears in Herodotus (Moul- ton, Prol., p. 201). In the N. T. only otj)t\ov is used with the imperf. for wishes about the present. Cf. 6e'tvai., (25 : 27) ^Sei ere fiaXetu, (26 : 9) kSbvaro irpaffrjvai Kal Sodijvai, (26 : 24) KaXov rjv avrQ (no inf. here), (Ac. 22 : 22) ou yap KaBfJKev aiirdv ^ijv, (24 : 19) ovs eSei brl aov irapeZvai., (26 : 32) airo\eKv<70ai. edwaro (note perf. inf.), (27:21) eSei fifi kvdyeadai • Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 15. « W.-Th., p. 282. TENSE (XPONOS) 887 KpSfjaal T«, (2 Pet. 2 : 21) kpsIttov ^v avrots /ii) kinyvuKivai (perf. inf.), (2 Cor. 2 :3) 40' &v edei /xe xo^etv,' {Col. 3 : 18) cis Af^/cee ^v Kuptqj. (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 iSei applies to both the past and present, probably . with an implication against the attitude of the elder brother. In Heb. 2 ; 10 iwptirev and 2 : 17 &4>tiKep 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. aixapriav ovx tixoaav (Jo. 15 : 22, 24), where vvv &k is used to explain the point. So ovk eixes (Jo. 19: 11). In 1 Cor. 5 : 10, ci^efXeTe &pa — i^tKOtlp, and Heb. 9 : 25, ^irei idti — Tadeiv, we only have the apodosis. Cf . el ^v — kylvuxTKtv 6.v (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. {B) In Indirect Discourse. In general the imperfect in indir. 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 elxbv rbv 'Itakvuv 6ti. irpotjiiiTrji j}j» (Mk. 1 1 : 32) ; eldov on ovk ^v (Jo. 6 : 22. Cf . ovk ianv in verse 24) ; 3ti xpoo'oiTijs ^v (9 : 8) ; kireyivooaKov on fjv 6 KajBrjuevos (Ac. 3 : 10), while in 4:13 ^aav is rightly antecedent to kTeyivu- (TKov, ^buaav &n — birrjpxiv (16:3). In Ac. 3 : 10 the idiom ap- proaches that in Jo. 1 : 15, oBtos ^v 6 el-!r6)v (a parenthesis), where the verb is thrown back to past time. Our idiom more natu- rally calls for kanv 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 fjv and the present participle was cer- ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 192; Abbott, Job. Gr., p. 339. This imperfect is particularly common in John. » Synt., p. 96 f. 888 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT tainly not so great. And yet it is just in the imperfect in the N. T.- that this idiom is most 'frequent. It is not unknown in the an- cient Greek.' Schmid^ finds it rare in the koivti, 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 Koti/17 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 ^v 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. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 24. From Pelagia (p. 18) Moulton {Prol., p. 249) cites fjuriv awepxatievos. For a papyrus illustration see &cra rjv KoBriKovTa, 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 ^u SiSa- <7Kcov (Mt. 7:29); w exi^v (Mk. 10:22); ^trov am/SoiwcTes (10: 32); ^v irpoaevxofifvov (Lu. 1 : 10); Kaioixkvr\ rfv (Lu. 24 : 32). But sometimes it is the iterative imperfect as in ^jv havojwv (Lu. 1 : 22); rtv bihaoKiiiv to koB' ritdpav (19 :47).* In Lu. 5 : 17 the peri- phrastic imperfect and past perfect occur in the same sentence. In Lu. 23 : 12 note irpov-rrijpxov 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 nSet (Mt. 27: 18); el6idei (27: 15); 'urri,Kei. (Jo. 18 : 5). (c) The Future for Future Time. The future is mainly aoristic (punctiUar), 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. s Moulton, Prol., p. 227. 2 Atticismus, III, p. 113 f. « Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 16. « Moulton, Prol., p. 227. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 149. * C. and S., Sel, p. 69. TENSE (XPONOS) 889 drawn. As already shown, the modern Greek has a special dura- tive future by means of da Uo) (pres^pubj.). 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 adxrei (Mt. 1 :21); /SoTrriaet (Mt. 3 : 11); iXmovaiv (12 : 21); iffTai. (La. I : 14 f.); kirujTp&j/a and irpoekei/aeTai. (1 : 16f.); i\- idiaco (Jo. 12 : 32) ; ^ijaoixtv (Ro. 6:2); Kvpuijau (6 : 14) ; ^aar&aeL (Gal. 6:5); eirireXeo-ei (Ph. 1 : 6) ; x^irh'^oiJ.a.i (1 : 18) ; f i;Ti7(rou- aiv (Rev. 9 : 6). Burton' calls this "the progressive future." Of. Ac. 7:6. Durative also is aSiKijo-et with ov fiii (Lu. 10 : 19). So oil /ii7 Si\f/iia€L (Jo. 4 : 14; cf. 6 : 36); ov nii aKoiXovdriaovaiv (Jo. 10 : 5). Examples of the volitive durative future are the legal pre- cepts (comimon in the LXX) so often quoted in the N. T. Cf. oil ofitiadi (Jo. 6 : 20) ; juij Kpivere (Mt. 7:1); nrjKtTL afiaprave (Jo. 5 : 14) ; nil eavna^ere (5:28); firi doKetre (5:45); liriKkri (r/cuXXe (Lu. 8:49). The durative force of the pres. imper. is well seen in mdtbSeTe Kal avairaveffde (Mt. 26 :45). Cf. also iravTOTe xaipsTe, dStaXeiTrrcos 7rpo£LP bixiv (Ph. 3 : 1) and to b.ya,To,v 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. ov SimiJMi TToielv (Jo. 5 : 30. Cf. Mt. 6 : 24); tA dk\tiv (Ro. 7: 18); aitapraveiv (1 Jo. 3:9); irpoaevxeadai (1 Cor. 11 : 13); ToO TroTeti/ (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 tju/S^mi — (cai Trpoayeiv (Mt. 14 : 22). Cf. ahttv in Ac. 3 : 2. The frequent usg of ixkXKw 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. 4''ai (Mt. 22:23; Ro. 1:22);- k/3AXXew (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., h tQ dvai aiiTov irpoaevxofiivov, which occurs twice (9 : 18; 11:1). Cfi 2 Chron. 15 : 16. Only two fut. infs. in the N. T. seem to be durative (Ac. 11:28; Jo. 21:25). The pres. ihf. is most natural with kv (cf. Lu. 8:40), and is common with Std (cf. Mt. 13 :5f.); eis (Ro. 12 : 2); but not (pres. 3, aor. 9) with Trpos (Mk. 13 : 22). It is used only once with irpo (Jo. 17 : 5) and is not used with /iera. Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 49 f . 5. Participle. The present participle, like the present inf., is timeless and durative. (a) The Time of the Present Participle Relative. The time comes from the principal verb. Thus in TrcoXoOcres €(t>epov (Ac. 4:34. Cf. TTwXijcras fjveyKev in verse 37) the time is past; in nepifivQu Svvarai (Mt. 6 : 27) the time is present; in iaeade nwoiinevoi (Mt. 10 : 22), 6 iSXeTTCoc aTToSojo-et (Mt. 6 : 18), cnj/ovraL rbv vlov rod avBp6)wov kpxo- fievov (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. eiAayowra (Ac. 3 : 26); dxaTT^Xoi-ros (15 : 27); SiaKov&v (Ro. 15 : 26). In Ac. 18 : 22, k^\dev Siepxofievoi ritv VaKaTLKrjv x^po-^i the pres. part, is coincident with the verb. In 21 : 2 f . the pres. parts. SiairepSiv and a-n-o^pTi,- ^6p.evov are futuristic (cf. 3:26; 15:27). Blass compares it with b kpxoiievoi (Jo. 11 : 27) and kpxbiitvov (1 : 9). This use of the pres. part, is common in Thuc. (Gildersleeve, A. J. P., 1908, p. 408). (c) Descriptive. ■ But usually the pres. part, is merely descrip- tive. Cf. Mk. 1 : 4; Ac. 20 : 9; 2 Cor. 3 : 18; 4 : 18. There is no notion of purpose in ayovres (Ac. 21 : 16). In roii$ (Tw^ofikvovs (Ac. 2 : 47) the idea is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of toxis ayia^oiikvovs in Heb. 10 : 14 (cf. 10 : 10). 1 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 52. 892 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (d) Conative. It may be conative like the pres. or imperf. ind. as in wiWuiv (Ac. 28 : 23) or tovs eicepxonevovs (Mt. 23 : 14). (e) Antecedent Time. By implication also the pres. part, may be used to suggest antecedent time (a sort of "imperfect" part.). So Tv\6s oiv apTL /SXexoj (Jo. 9 : 25). See .further Mt. 2 : 20; Jo. 12 : 17; Ac. 4 : 34; 10 : 7; Gal. 1 : 23. Cf. 6 /SaxHfwv (Mk. 1 : 4). (/) Indirect Discourse. An interesting example of the pres. part, with the object of a verb (a sort of indir. disc, with verbs of sensation) is found in dSaixkv nva eK^aWovra 5at/ti6cia (Lu. 9 :49). The pres. part, is common after elSov in Rev. (10 : 1; 13 : 1; 11: 14; 18 : 1; 20 : 1, etc.). Cf. Ac. 19 : 35, Yiyoxr/cet tijc iroXiv omav. {g) With the Article. The present participle has often the itera- tive (cf. pres. ind.) sense. So 6 KKkirnou (Eph. 4 : 28)= 'the rogue.' Cf. 6 KaToXvoiv (Mt. 27:40); ol ^nrowTts (2 : 20). The part, with the article sometimes loses much of its verbal force (Moulton, Prol., p. 127; Kijhner-Gerth, I, p. 266). He cites from the pa- pyri, TOts ya/j.ovin, C. P. R. 24 (ii/A.D.). Cf. to. virapxavra (Lu. 19 : 8). So in Gal. 4: 27, ij oh r'lKTOvca, ri ovk coBivovaa. (h) Past Action Still in Progress. This may be represented by the pres. part. So Mk. 5 : 25; Jo. 5 : 5; Ac. 24 : 10. Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 59. (i) " Svhsequent" Action. Blass' finds "subsequent" action in the pres. parts, in Ac. 14 : 21 f. and 18 : 23. But in 14 : 21 f. note vite(TTpf4/av d% rriv Avarpav — kincrTripi^ovTes tos i^uxas tS>v naBi\- tS)v, the aorist ind. is "effective" and accents the completion of the action. The pres. part, is merely coincident with the "effective" stage. It is a point, not a process in the aorist. (j) No Durative Future Participles. The few fut. parts, in the N. T. seem to be punctiliar, not durative, unless to yevriaoiitvov (1 Cor. 15 : 37) be durative, but this example is pretty clearly ingressive punctiliar. IV. Perfected State of tlie Action (6 teXeios y\ (ruvrcXiitds). 1. The Idea of the Perfect. (a) The Present Perfect. The oldest of the perfects. "The perfect is a present perfect." ^ Such it was in the beginning im- doubtedly. The past perfect and future perfect are both built upon the present perfect stem. Both are comparatively rare, especially the future perfect. The use was at first also confined to the indicative. Moulton {Prol., p. 140) calls it the most im- portant exegetically of the Greek tenses. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 198. Cf . K.-G., Bd. II, p. 121 f. 2 Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., p. 395. TENSE (XPONOS) 893 (&) The Intensive Perfect. This use (or the iterative) was prob- ably the origin of the tense. So j^Xu/iat='I perish,' 3XwXa='I perish utterly.'' Ci. also 6v'fi•••• 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 . ixaprvpet with 6.irkaTa\Kev and iiefiapripri- Kfv in Jo. 5 : 36 f.; ela^yaytv — Kat Keao'ivoiKev (Ac. 21 : 28) ; on. kTk^yij, Kal Sri iyTiyepTai, (1 Cor. 15 : 4); kKTiadi] — hcTLarai. (Col. 1 : 16); ijcraj', eSwKtts, reTTipriKas (Jo. 17:6). The perfect active is frequently in- transitive,^ as has been already shown under Voice. Cf. larrifii, ecTTriKa, aToWv/xi., airdXoiKa, etc. 2. The Indicative. (a) The Present Perfect (6 IcecrTcbs avvreXiKos ^ xapoKetjueyos). 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 koiv^i 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 punctiliar 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 lie 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 redeafieda and naprvpov- fup. Burton* follows Gildersleeve, but he admits the doubt on 1 Giles, Man., p. 493. " Synt., p. 99 f. 2 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 23. « N. T. M. and T., p. 37 1. > Prol., p. 147. TENSE (XPONOS) 8% 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 list 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 iarriKa, 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 eotxa (Jas. 1:6); ivki^ya (2 Cor. 6: 11); ol8a (Mt. 6:8); KcrTr/m (Rev. 3 : 20) ; kviarriKa (2 Th. 2:2); Tiiroida (Ph. 2 : 24) ; KiKpayev (Jo. 1 : 15) which is an example of Gildersleeve's emotional intensives and due according to Blass* to the "literary language," nefivrjuai. (1 Cor. 11 : 2); rkdv^Ka (Lu. 8 :49). Most of these verbs have an inchoative or conative or iterative sense in the present. Moulton^ has shown from the LXX and the pap5Ti that KtKpaya is vernacular kouoJ and not merely literary. He thinks that, while (cpAfo) in the LXX is durative, nkKpaya is merely pxmctiUar. See (fl) The Aoristic Perfect. It is possible also that iretrurTeiiKafitv Kal kyvi)Kaixev (Jo. 6 : 69) belong here. It is less open to dispute that KOTa/Se/SjjKa (Jo. 6 : 38) is a present state. Cf. KeKoifiriTai (Jo. 11 : 11). But more doubtful are ^Xm/ca (Jo. 5 : 45) ; ^ynnai (Ac. 26 : 2) ; vkTreLafiat (Ro. 8 : 38).* But rerapaKTai (Jo. 12 : 27) seems to fall under the intensive perfect. Cf. iarcus elfiL (Ac. 25 : 10). (|8) The Extensive Present Perfect = a completed state. This act may be durative-punctiliar like ^YYtKev (Mt. 3 : 2) with a backward look ( •). Cf. thus iiyiivicrnai, T^rkXaca, TtT-iipriKa (2 Tim. 4:7). This consmnmative effect is seen in reriifnjKav (Jo. 17:6), kXiiXvOev (12:23) and Treir\r]p6)KaTe (Ac. 5:28). Cf. Heb. 8 : 13; 10 : 14. In Jo. 20 : 29, 6ti iiipaKas fie TeiricrTiVKas, the cul- mination is just reached a few moments before. But more fre- quently it is the punctiliar-durative perfect where the completed act is followed by a state of greater or less duration (• ). In Jo. 19 : 22, o ykypa^a ykypa(j)a, we have an example of each. Cf. the common ykypatrrai (Mt. 4:7). 'It was written (punctiliar) and still is on record', (durative). Thus is to be explained in- stances like dpriKtv in Heb. 10: 9 (cf. elirov in 10 : 7). 'The state- ment is on record.' It is only in appearance that irpoaeviivoxfp and • ireirobjKtv (Heb. 11 : 17, 28) seem different. This common usage in Hebrews has been compared to that in Thuc. vol. I, pp. 2, 6, etc. 1 Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 269 f. 2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 15. ' Mom-o, Horn. Gr., p. 22. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 198. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 347 f. » Prol., p. 147. • lb.; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 199. 896 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Cf. further Heb. 7:6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 20, 23, where the perma- nence of the Jewish institutions is discussed. Jo. 6 : 25 yiy oms has punctiHar and durative ideas ('earnest and art here')- Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 347. In Col. 1 : 15 eKT'urdr] is merely punc- tiUar, while in verse 16 eKTUTTM adds the durative idea, whereas in verse 17 again awearriKev has lost the punctiliar and is only durative. In 1 Cor. 15 : 4 iyriyepTai stands between two aorists because Paul wishes to emphasize the idea that Jesus is still risen. Usually riyepdri was sufficient, but not here. Cf. karripiKrai (Lu. 16:26). Cf. a^bjivrat. (Lu. 5 : 23); e/ocexwrat (Ro. 5:5). John is especially fond of this use of the present perfect. Cf . 1 : 32, 34, 41; 5:33, 36 if. In chapter 17 the present perfects call for special attention. Cf. 1 Jo. 1 : 1 for contrast between the pres- ent perfect and the aorist. (7) The Present Perfect of Broken Continuity} As already ex- plained, we here have a series of links rather than a line, a broken graph (••••>■•■•). Perhaps Tewpaxa. n in Ac. 25 : 11 is to be so understood. But certainly it is true of airkaraXKa (2 Cor. 12 : 17) where Paul refers to various missions to the Corinthians. In particular Moulton^ notes the examples with Ttv, where John sees Jesus with the book in his hand. It is dull to make eCktiitev here=eXa/3ej'. Another example of this vivid perfect is kaxhuanev (2 Cor. 1:9), a dreadful memory to Paul. So with iaxnKtv in 7 : 5. A particularly good instance is yiyovev (Mt. 25 : 6), where the present perfect notes the sudden cry (cf. aorist and imperf. just before). Cf. eipriKev 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 aire\ri\vdev (Jas. 1 : 24) between two aorists. James sees the man. 'He has gone off.' Cf. Mt. 13 : 46, arekdosv irkxpaKw irkvTa ocra elxev Kal riyopacrev avTov. In Lu. 9 : 36 i6}paKa.v is "virtu- ally reported speech."^ Cf. aKtiKoa/jiev (Ac. 6 : 11, but iiKomatiev in 15 : 24). («) 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. TereXeiajTai (1 Jo. 2:5); SkSerai, (1 Cor. 7 : 39)^; KtKpnai. and imriaTiVKev (Jo. 3 : 18); KaraKkKpirai (Ro. 14 : 23); ireirXiipuKev (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 instances. 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 OLTrriyyeiKav ovSev S>v io>paKav, Ac. 10 : 45 i^eaTrjcav on kKKtxvrai. In Mk. 5 : 33, eiSuIa o yk^ovev ourg iJXflej', the perfect preserves the ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 200. * Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 39. 2 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; 15 : 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. (tj) 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 Se86^acrnai (Jo. 17:10), SidwKa (17: 22), TeTeKearai (19 : 28), aea-riirev and ykyovev and Kariwrai in Jas. 5 :2f. (cf. icrraL Ka.1 ^ykyerai). 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.' (e) The "Amistic" 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 punctiliar idea drops out and only the durative remains in some present perfect forms (like olha). It is not per se unreasonable to suppose ^ that with some other verbs the durative idea should disappear and the form be merely punctihar. 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 — ijfca in the aorist pass. ind. in modern Greek illustrates one way confusion could • Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 15; Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 101. 2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 296. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 440; Moulton, Prol., p. 142. TENSE (XPONOS) 899 arise (Thumb, Hmdb., p. 144). Cf. eSwKa, 5i8caKa. In the modem Greek all other remnants of the ol* perfect form are gone save in the participle, which has lost its reduplication, like Seiikvos. But had it begun in the older Greek? Jannarisi answers Yes and cites Thuc. 1, 21, oBre ws irotijrai vixpr/Kacn — oiire ojs \cyyo'Ypaoi, ^vvWecav. But this may be the dramatic historical perfect. Jebb'' answers Yes and quotes Demosthenes and Lucian; but these again may be merely the rhetorical dramatic perfect. The grammarians and schohasts, under the influence of the Latin, did come to lose all consciousness of any distinction and explained one tense by the other.' The present perfect was always more common in every-day Hfe, as we have noted. The papyri prove this abundantly.* Moreover, the present perfect grew in popular use at the expense of the aorist, where the aorist might have been employed. There is thus no strong presumption against the pos- sibility of such confusion in the N. T. Besides, " the line between aorist and perfect is not always easy to draw."* This is especially true of an event just past which may be described by either tense. Moulton^ admits that "the LXX and inscriptions show a few examples of a semi-aoristic perfect in the pre-Roman age, which, as Thumb remarks (Hellenismus, p. 153), disposes of the idea that Latin influence was working" thus early. But Moulton rightly rejects ldev, and in 7 : 14, elpriKo., are mere preterits in sense." Well, I do deny it as to tCKT]4>tv in Rev. 5 : 7 and 8 : 5, where we have the vivid dramatic colloquial historical perfect. The same thing is possible with AptiKo, 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. x. M. and T., p. 44. * Moulton, Prol., p. 141. ° Prol., pp. 143 ff. « lb. 900 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT "residuum of genuinely aoristic perfects." He admits ykyova 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 yeyova 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 wpoafie^TiKevai — yeyovtvai, — TereKevKevai, all three apparently vivid historical perfects. The example in Josephus {Apion, 4 : 21) may be the same. We have left eiXi/<^a, dpriKa, ecrxvi"''! vtwpaKa. The last Moulton' refuses to admit as an aorist in sense, since "the distinction is very clearly seen in papyri for some centuries" between irkxpaKa and riyopaaa. He cites O. P. 482 (ii/A.D.), X'<'P'S &v aireypcal/afjiriv Kal irkirpaKa. Be- sides in Mt. 13 : 46 irewpaKtv is in a vivid parable (dramatic his- torical perfect). Moulton notes the confusion as worse in illiterate papyri, like ovk k\ov(Tap,riv ovk ffKiixe {= ■fjXeLixp.ai) , 0. P. 528 (ii/A.D.). As to effxijKa the matter is more plausible in one example (2 Cor. 2 : 13). Blass* affirms the true present perfect sense for 'eaxvua 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 for yeyova in any N. T. writer.^ There is some analogy between ecrxvKa and e07j/ca and a(j)fjKa, and 'iia^r]Ti]<7ec>JS 'a> rfj vop,fj yevopkvovs (=-ots). Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 122) thinks that the perfect in the Koivq comes within the sphere of the aorist at times. Thackeray {Gr., p. 24) thinks that etX^a in Dan. 9 4 : SO*" and Uxnua, 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 Uxni^a as preterit here is the fact that Paul did have aveo-ts for his spirit after Titus 1 Cf. Buresch, Tir/ovav (Rh. M., 1891, p. 231 note). 2 Prol., p. 146. • lb., p. 142. 6 Prol., p. 145. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 200. » lb., p. 146. TENSE (XPONOS) 901 came. But it was a partial avetrts as the Epistle shows. It is therefore possible that in 2 Cor. 2 ^3 we do have a present per- fect = preterit punctiliar (cf. k^Xdov), 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 punctiUar. 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 iirxvKi- He had advanced it "with great hesitation" and as "a tentative account." "The pure perfect force is found long after Paul's day: thus in the formula of an lOU, dixoXoyCo iaxijKkvai irapa, aov Sia xs'pos e^ oikov xp?"'"' (vtokov (B. U. 1015 in the early iii/A.D.), 'to have received and still possess.' " We have €i\ij(^a and elprjKa left. Take eVXiji^a. In Rev. 3 : 3 we have ixvrnjLoveve ow irws €iX7j0as Kal fJKOvcras /cat rripei, /cat fierav&riaov. It is preceded by aipriKa in the proper sense. This is an exhortation about the future. If ^/couo-as had been a/oj/coas no difficulty would exist. The perfect would emphasize the permanence of the obligation. It is as easy to say that ri/coucras=a perfect as that €tXr;(^as = an aorist. Both are abstractly possible and neither may be true. The reception may seem more a matter to be emphasized as durative than the hearing (punctiliar). It is a fine point, but it is possible. Cf. ireTolriKev Kal eXeTjcec in Mk. 5 : 19. Cf. Jo. 3 : 32. The mere fact of the use of aorists and perfects side by side does not prove con- fusion of tenses. It rather argues the other way. It is possible with Blass' to see the force of each tense in HipaKev and fjKovaev in Jo. 3 : 32 (cf. 1 Jo. 1 : 1-3). Note also eiariyayev /cat KeKolvuKtv (Ac. 21 : 28). Cf. Lu. 4 : 18 where Nestle puts period after p.e. Moulton'' does find such confusion in the illiterate documents among the papyri. Simcox {Lang, of the N. T., p. 105) wishes to know what "distinction of sense" exists between i\afiov and rere- 'Kflbjfiai in Ph. 3 : 12. It is very simple and very clear. "EXa^ov denies the sufficiency of Paul's past achievement, rereXetoj/tai de- nies it as a present reality. Cf. Ro. 13 : 12. I have already ex- plained etXij^a in Rev. 5 : 7 and 8 : 5. There is surely no trouble about eiX7j0a in 2 : 28. In 1 1 : 17 again, otl e'iXiji^es t'/iv dvvaixlv aov rijv iiiyk\i)v Kal e^aaikevcras, it is not etXjjc^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 ifiaal- Xeuo-as, which may be used to accent the ingressive idea or as a practical equivalent of the perfect. The use of elpjj/ca (Rev. 7 : 14) and etpriKav (19 : 3) seems more like a real preterit than any- other examples in the N. T. In 7 : 14, B reads etwov. I would not labour the point over these two examples. If such a confu- sion of tenses occurred anywhere in the N. T., the Apocalypse would be the place 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 Moulton^ "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 e'ifnjKa 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 sajring that the N. T. writers may be guilty of this idiom,^ but they have not as yet been proven to be. Cf. kxapriv ort, evprtm in 2 Jo. 4. The distinction between the perf. and pres. is sharply drawn in Jas. 3 : 7, Sa/iAferat koI htbanaarai. (i) The Periphrastic Perfect. For the origin of this idiom see discussion in connection with the Past Perfect, (6), (jj). The use of exw (so common in later Greek and finally triumphant in modern Greek) has a few parallels in the N. T.* Cf . 'ixe iie Tapxirrinkvov (Lu. 14 : 19 f.) with Latin idiom "I have him beaten." Cf. ?xw Ktiixtva (Lu. 12 : 19, pres. part, used as perf.), k^pannevriv exw>' rfiv xeipa. (Mk. 3:1). Cf. Mk. 8 : 18; Heb. 5 : 14; Jo. 17 : 13, ixoxriv — TreTr\r]po>ixevr]v. Here the perf. part, is, of course, predicate, but the idiom grew out of such examples. The modern Greek uses not only e'xco 8ep.kuo, but also depikpa, but, if a conjunctive pron. precedes, the part, agrees in gender and number (cf. French). So TTjv exu iScafievY], 'I have seen her' (Thumb, Handb., p. 162). Passive is et/iai dep.ivos. The use of ylvojmi is limited. Cf . 'e^kvero ' Prol., p. 145. 2 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. 6 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 438, TENSE (XPONOS) 903 k(TK0T03ntvr) (Rev. 16 : 10), a mixture of tenses (cf. Mk. 9:3). See Ex.. 17: 12; Ps. 72 : 14. Peculiar is^eyomre exovres in Heb. 5 : 12. It is dfil 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 conunon than the extensive. As examples of the inten- sive (=present) take TreTeia/ikvos iariv (Lu. 20 : 6). So Jo. 2 : 17; Ac. 2 : 13, etc. For the extensive use (= completed act) note kaTiv ireirpaynevov (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 ^ku, irkpuiii, riTTa- o/iai, Kit/Ml, have already been discussed under 1, (a), (ri). Cf. airo- KUTai (2 Tim. 4:8). (6) The Past Perfect (6 {nreparvuTeKiKoi). (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- tiUar) 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 vTrepawTiKiKSs {plus-quam-perfectuin)= more than perfect in the sense that it always refers to an antecedent date, "a past prior to another past"^ is not always true. (0) 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 suflScient 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 » N. T. M. and T., p. 40. » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 201. ' Giles, Man., p. 457. * Thompson, Synt., p. 217. * Moulton, Pro!., 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 GRAMMAR 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. ). This is true of Lu. 8 : 29, xoXXoTs xP°vois cwrtpvaKei aMv. It is an ' 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; 1 Jo. 2 : 19. See Con- ditional Sentences, ch. XIX. (rj) The Periphrastic Past Perfect. This construction had al- ready begun in ancient Greek. In the third person plural of liquid 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 etx"' Stfiivo, 'I had bound,' rj fu>vv Sefiivos or etxa Sedei. "Exw was at first more than a Jnere auxiliary, though in Herodotus it appears as a true auxiliary. The dramatists also use it often.^ In the N. T. the examples with elxov are not nu- merous. Cf . avKrjv elxtv rts TeVTevfdvriv (Lu. 13 : 6) ; fjv elxov airo- KfLfihriv (Lu. 19 : 20), really predicative accusative participles with exoi. But the past perfect with the perfect partic. and ^v 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, ^aav fiefiapr^nkvoi; Lu. 15 :24, fjv dTroXojXcbs. Cf . also Lu. 1 : 7. Examples of the extensive type are r/cav 'eKrikudbres (Lu. 5 : 17); fiaav rpoiupaKores (Ac. 21 : 29). For examples in the LXX see 2 Chron. 18 : 34; Judg. 8 : 11; Ex. 39: 23, etc. See also Pe^airTiaiievoi inrrjpxov (Ac. 8 : 16). (6) Special Use of eKeliJ,Tiv. This verb was used as the passive of TidriiiL. The present was = a present perfect. So the imperfect was used as a past perfect, as in Jo. 20 : 12, oxou ketro rd (juiim= ' where the body had lain ' or ' had been placed.' So in Jo. 2 : 6 ^aav Kei/ievai is a periphrastic past perfect in sense. Cf . Lu. 23 : 53, vv Kdfievos. See also 19 : 20. Perhaps a similar notion is seen in dfiodvuaSdv irapijaav (Ac. 12 : 20). (c) The Futiire Perfect (6 neWwv (rvvreXiKos). There was never much need for this tense, perfect action in future time.^ It is rare in ancient Greek and in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 194). The only active forms in the N. T. are dSriau (Heb. 8 : 11, LXX, pos- sibly a mere future) and the periphrastic form iaofiai irtirouSiK (Heb. 2 : 13, LXX also). Both of these are intensive. Most of the MSS. 1 Thumb, Handb., pp. 161, 165. ' Jebb in Vine, and Dickson's Handb., p. 329. ' N. T. M. and T., p. 45. ■> Am. Jour, of PhiloL, 1908, p. 395. TENSE (XPONOS) 907 read (ceKpifoj-roi in Lu. 19 :40, but NBL have Kpk^ov, which occurs nine times (Mt. 9 : 6; Mk. 2 : 10; Lu. 5 : 24, etc.). But in this form the per- fect sense is gone. See tva elSrjre, P. B. M. 1178 (a.d. 194). In- deed, the perf. subj. was always very rare in Greek. In the Sanskrit the perf. tense, outside of the Vedic language, never de- veloped to any extent except in the ind. and the participle.' In the classic Greek it was in subj. and opt. a mark of the literary style and did not really belong to the life of the people. The perf. subj. is absent from the vernacular modem Greek. A little reflection will show how usually there was no demand for a true perfect, combining pimctiliar and durative, in the subj. Even in the literary style of the older Greek, when the perf. subj. did occur it was often the periphrastic form in the active and nearly always so in the passive.^ "The perfect of the side-moods is true to the kind of time, completion, intensity, overwhelming finaUty." ' By "kind of time" Gildersleeve means kind of action, not past, present or future. Cf. the LXX also. Is. 8 : 14; 10 : 20; 17:8. In Lu. 14 : 8 there appears to be a conscious change from kXt/Ojjs to /iijirore jj KeKkijfikvoi, possibly suggesting a long-standing invi- tation by the latter. In Jo. 3 : 27, iav /lii jj dtSoiJ.ivov, it is punc- tiliar-durative. In 16 : 24, IW j? ireir\ripo3nkvri (cf. 1 Jo. 1 : 4), the consimamation is emphasized (durative-punctiUar), extensive per- » Whitney, feans. Gr., p. 292. » Goodwin, M. and T., p. 31 f. Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 140. » Gildersleeve, Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 401. 908 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT feet (completed act). The same thing is true of 17: 19, Iva Sxriv iiyiaayikvoi, and 17 : 23, 'Lva Siauv TtTeKtiojiikvoi,. In Jas. 5 : 15, k&v fj xeTTotTjKcbs, we seem to have the perfect of " broken continuity." In 2 Cor. 1 : 9, iva ixi] miroidores &fiev, it is merely intensive. 4. The Imperative. What has been said of the rarity of the perf. subj. can be repeated concerning the perf. imper. Out of 2445 imperatives in the Attic orators the speeches themselves show only eight real perfects (Gildersleeve, Syntax, Part I, p. 158. Cf. also Miller, "The Limitation of the Imperative in the Attic Orators," A. J. P., xiii, 1892, pp. 399-436). In Is. 4 : 1 one may note KeKKriadoi intensive. The perfect imper. is common in Homer.i In. the late Greek it occurred most frequently in the purely intensive perfects or in the third person singular of other verbs.^ But it is gone from the modern Greek and is nearly dead in the N. T. In Jas. 1 : 19 tare may be imperative (intensive) or ind. See the formula 'ippoiade (Ac. 15 : 29) and eppcccro in Text. Rec. (23 : 30).' The only other example is found in Mk. 4 : 39, cLoiira, ire^ifioxTo, where it is also intensive like the others. The durative idea is in both ciinra (linear pres.) and irecfyinwao, 'keep on being quiet' and 'keep the muzzle on.' The periphrastic perf. imper. occurs in Lu. 12 : 35, eaTUjaav Tepie^oxr/xevai, (intensive). Cf. Kawiitvoi. The time of the perf. imper. and subj. is, of course, really future. 5. The Infinitive. There were originally no tenses in the inf. (see Sanskrit), as has already been stated. But the Greek developed a double use of the inf. (the common use, and indir. discourse). (a) Indirect Discourse. In indir. discourse (cf. ch. ,XIX) the tenses of the inf. had the element of time, that of the direct. But in the N. T. there is no instance of the perf. inf. repre- senting a past perf. ind.* The tense occurs in indir. discourse, but the time is not changed. Cf . Ac. 14 : 19 iavpov 'e^ia t^s to- Xetos, voixi^ovTts fjSrj TfSvqKkva,L, (12 : 14) a.wijyyei\ev icTavai. So di'tvai in Lu. 22:34; ytyovkvai (Jo. 12:29); ytyovkvai (2 Tim. 2:18). These examples are also all intensive perfects. So with Col. 2 : 1, OfKoi ii/xas eidkvai. In 1 Tim. 6 : 17, 7rapd77€XXe {n['Ti\o(j)pove'iv ixTjSi ifKirLKkvai. (indir. command), the intensive perf. again occurs. In Lu. 10 : 36, hoKti aoi yeyovevdi, we have "the vivid present of story-telling."* Cf. ireirpaxtvai. (Ac. 25 : 25). On the whole the ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 22. ' Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 52. 2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 23 f. ^ Moulton, Prol., p. 146. So Heb. 4 : 1. " Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 200 f. TENSE (XPONOS) 909 perf. inf. is rather common (44 times, according to H. Scott) in the N. T.i See further Jo. 12 : 18; ike. 16 : 27; 27 : 13; Ro. 15 : 8; Heb. 11: 3. (6) Perfect Infinitive not in Indirect Discourse. (a) Subject or Object Infinitive. Cf. 2 Pet. 2 : 21, n'fi kirtyvu- Kkvai, where the tense accents the climacteric aspect (durative- punctiliar) of the act and rather suggests antecedence (extensive) to fjv. In Ac. 26 : 32, airokeXvadai idiivaro, we have an instance of the obj. inf. with implied antecedence (extensive). Note also 56s kpyaaiav h.irtfKKix.xOa.i (Lu. 12:58). In Ac. 19:36 KarecnaKiikvovs iirapxeiv is a periphrastic form of the subject inf. In 2 Cor. 5:11 note 7re<^o»'€pwo-0ai with eXTrifw. Cf. 1 Pet. 4 : 3 (with dpice- Tos). Not very different is the use with ibare (Ro. 15 : 19). (j3) With Prepositions. At first it may seem surprising that the perfect tense should occur with the articular inf. after preposi- tions. But the inf. does not lose its verbal character in such con- structions. It is still a verbal substantive. It is, of course, only by analogy that the tense function is brought into the infinitive* For the papyri note in t^ yeyovivai, P. Oxy. 294 (a.d. 22); virip Tov awoKeXvcrdai. ae, P. B. M. 42 (b.C. 168). Cf. jxtra to tlfnjKkvai (Heb. 10 : 15), the only instance with utrd. Here the tense has the same force as tipr)Kev in 10 : 9. It stands on record as said. We find it also with ds, as in Eph. 1 : 8, ds to tiSkvai. (intensive) and €1$ TO yfyovkvai (Heb. 11:3). It is most frequent with Sta and the ace. (causal sense). So Mk. 5 : 4, SeSeadai. Kai dieairaaBaL Kal avvTiTpl^Oai (extenfeive). See oUodonrjcdai (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 5id, els and (leTo.. 6. The Participle. (a) The Meaning. The perf. part, either represents a state (in- tensive) or a completed act (extensive). Examples of the former are /ceKoxiaKojs (Jo. 4:6); eorcis (18 : 18); to iUados (Lu. 4 : 16). In- stances of the latter occur in 6 eiXTj^ois (Mt. 25 : 24) ; TreiroiriKOTes (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 KtKoiriaKiis e/caflefero, (19 : 33) tt- 5ov ^Sij TedvrjKdTa, (Ro. 15 : 14) iaTe — ireT'kriptJinivoL. But by sug- gestion the act may be represented as completed before that of 1 W.-Th., p. 334. ' Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 71. 910 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the principal verb and so antecedent action. Thus larriKiKTav — weiroiriKOTes (Jo. 18 : 18) ; Trpoff^ciTCOs iXrjXvdoTa (Ac. 18:2); aTroXeXu- liepriv (Lu. 16 : 18); eifyqKOTos (Mt. 26 : 75). This antecedent action may be expressed alsd by the intensive perfect as in h^\6ev 6 rt- dvriKw (Jo. 11 : 44), but Sedefitvos is coincident action. So in Mk. 5:15 luariaiitvov is coincident, but t6v 'taxnudra antecedent. Cf. Rev. 6 : 9. The modem Greek keeps the perf. part. (Thumb, Handh., p. 167). (c) The Perfect Tense Occurs with Various Uses of the Participle. The attributive part, has it. Cf. ot airearaKiifvoi (Ac. 10 : 17). Sometimes a distinction is drawn between the aorist and the perf. part. Cf. 6 Xa^div in Mt. 25 : 20 with 6 el\ni)s (25 : 24); 6 KoXkaai in Lu. 14 : 9 with 6 KeK\r)Ki)s (14 : 10). Cf. 2 Cor. 12 : 21; 1 Pet. 2 : 10. The predicate participle also uses it. Cf. Lu. 8 : 46; 16: 18, 20 f.; Jo. 19 : 33; Ac. 18 : 2; Heb. 13 : 23. With Rev. 9:1, eldov irewTUK&ra, compare Lu. 10 : 18, kOtiipovv ireaovTo. (the state, the act). (d) The Periphrastic Participle. There are two examples of this unusual idiom. Cf. Eph. 4 : 18 taKOTuinkvoi rg dLavoiq. bvres, (Col. 1 : 21) ovras aTrniXKoTpuonevovs. The durative aspect of the perfect is thus accented. Cf . Heb. 5 : 14 for ?xw used periphrastically. CHAPTER XIX MODE CErKAISIS) Introductory. For a brief sketch of the number of the modes and the reasons for treating the indicative as a mode see Conju- gation of the Verb, chapter VIII, v, (a). References are there given to the pertinent Uterature. The use of av is given a brief treatment below in coimection with the modes. The subject of conjunctions is divided for logical consistency. The Paratactic Conjunctions belong to the same division with Paratactic Sen- tences, while Hypotactic Conjunctions fall under Hypotactic Sen- tences. The conjunctions could of course be treated in sepa- rate chapter or as a division of the chapter on Particles (XXI). That will be there done (v, 1) for Paratactic Conjunctions. Hy- potactic Conjxmctions will there receive only summary treatment and can best be discussed in detail in connection with subordinate clauses. And there are advantages in the present method. It needs to be said also that the division of the treatment of modes into those of Independent and Subordinate Sentences (A and B) is purely arbitrary and for the sake of clearness. There is no real difference in the meaning of a mode in an independent and a dependent sentence. The significance of each mode will be sufH- ciently discussed under A (Independent Sentences). The inclu- sion of all the subordinate clauses imder mode is likewise for the sake of perspicuity. Voice, tense, mode thus stand out sharply.' The difficulty of making a clear distinction in the significance of the modes has already been discussed in chapter VIII, v, (fc). A mood is a mode of statement, an attitude of mind in which the speaker conceives the matter stated.^ Apollonius Dyskolos first described moods as ^uxtfoi BioBkaus. That is a correct descrip- tion of the function of mood as distinct from voice and tense.' ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 445 ff., has this plan, I had already made my outline before reading his treatment of the subject. ^ ^ Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 185. » Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 498; K.-G., I, p. 200; Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 220. See Sandys, Hist, of Class. Scholarship, III, p. 458. 911 912 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT The mode is the manner of the affirmation, while voice and tense have to do with the action of the verb (voice with relation of the subject to the action of the verb, tense with the state of the action). But even so the matter is not always clear. The mode is far and away the most difficult theme in Greek syntax. Our modem grammatical nomenclature is never so clumsy as here in the effort to express "the dehcate accuracy and beauty of those shght nuances of thought which the Greek reflected in the synthetic and manifold forms of his verb." ' So appeal is made to psychology to help us out. " If the moods are ^ux'^^t SiadkceLs, why is not every utterance modal? Why does not every utterance denote a state of the soul? A universal psychology would be a universal syntax." ^ Every utterance does denote a state of the soul. This is one argument for treating the indicative as a mode. The verb is neces- sarily modal from this point of view. But the term is naturally confined to the finite verb and denied to the infinitive and participle. Dionysius Thrax does call the infinitive a mode, but he is not generally followed.' Gildersleeve ^ notes also that "moods are temporal and tenses modal." He sees that the order moods and tenses is the natural sequence in the Enghsh (cf. chapter VII, v), but he follows the order tenses and moods in his Syntax of Classical Greek, though it is hard to separate them in actual study. Gildersleeve^ laments also that SioBeais came to be applied to voice and iyK\i.cns to mode (cf. enclitic words as to accent), "but after all tone of utterance is not so bad a description of mood." It is possible that at the beginning the indicative was used to express all the various moods or tones of the speaker, as the accusative case originally included the whole field of the oblique cases. It was only gradually that the other moods were developed by the side of the indic- ative (thus limiting the scope of the ind.) to accerit certain "moods of mind, i.e. various shades of desire,"* more sharply, Thompson calls this development "artificial," since no other race but the Greeks have preserved these fine distinctions between in- dicative, subjunctive, optative, imperative, not to say injunctive 1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 136. 2 Gildersl., "A Syntactician among the Psychologists," Am. Jour, of Philol., Jan., 1910, p. 74. » Cf. Steinthal, Gesch. d. Sprachw., pp. 309, 628. * Am. Jour, of Philol., XXIII, p. 127; XXX, p. 1. 6 lb., XXX, p. 1; Synt. of Classic. Gk., p. 79. ' Thompson, Synt., p. 510. MODE (ErKAISIs) 913 and future indicative (almost a mode to itself). But that is too severe a term, for the modes were a gradual evolution. The in- junctive was the unaugmented indicative, like Kiiov, Xmcde, Xicaade, 'KWrjTe, 'Kvere, Xvcare, axes.' Moulton'' says: "Syntactically it rep- resented the bare combination of verbal idea with the ending which supplies the subject; and its prevailing use was for prohi- bitions, if we may judge from the Sanskrit, where it still remains to some extent alive. The fact that this primitive mood thus occupies ground appropriate to the subjunctive, while it supphes the imperative ultimately with nearly all its forms, illustrates the syntactical nearness of the moods. Since the optative also can express prohibition, even in the N. T. (Mk. 11 : 14), we see how much common ground is shared by all the subjective moods." Yes, and by the indicative also. The present indicative is often a practical future. Originally the subjunctive had the short vowel (cf. 'ioiJ,ev in Homer). The distinction between the indic- ative and subjunctive is not always clear.' The subjunctive in Homer is often merely futuristic. The affinity between the sub- junctive and the optative is very close. The indicative continued to be used in the volitive sense (past tenses) and of command (future tense). Thus the other modes were luxuries of the lan- guage rather than necessities, while the indicative was the original possessor of the field. As already shown (chapter VIII, v) the injunctive survived in the imperative and subjunctive. The future indicative continued to fulfil the function of all the modes (cf. the indicative before the rise of the other modes). Thus the future indicative may be merely futuristic, or volitive, or delibera- tive. The same thing is true of the subjunctive and the optative. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 184 f. Thompson {Syntax, p. 186) curiously says that "the indicative, however, assumed some of the func- tions of the other moods." If he had said "retained," he would have it right. He had just said properly enough: "It would be an error, with regard both to their origin and functions, to regard the moods as separate and water-tight compartments." The early process was from simpUcity to variety and then from variety to simplicity (cf. again the history of the cases). The struggle be- tween the modes has continued until in the modern Greek we have practically only the indicative and the subjunctive, and they » Moulton, Prol., p. 165. ' lb. Cf. also Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 510. The injunctive had "a meaning hovering between the imperative, conjunctive and optative." » Giles, Man., p. 459. 914 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT are in some instances alike in sound (Thumb, Handb., p. 115 f.). The subj. is "considerably reduced" in use in the modern Greek. The optative has disappeared entirely, and the im- perative, outside the second person, and the future indicative are expressed by periphrasis. Even the infinitive and the par- ticiple in the Koivrj have felt the inroads of the subjunctive.' It is true that as a rule we see the modes to best advantage in the simple sentence,^ though essentially the meaning in the com- pound sentence is the same. But it is true, as Gildersleeve' urges, that "the predominance of parataxis over hypotaxis is a matter of style as well as of period. Hypotaxis holds fast to constructions that parataxis has abandoned. The futural subjunc- tive abides defiantly in the dependent clause of temporal sen- tences and dares the future indicative to invade its domain. The modal nature of the future, obscured in the principal sentence, forces itself upon the most superficial observer in the dependent clause." In a broad sense the indicative is the mode of objective statement in contrast with the subjective modes developed from it. But the description needs modification and is only true in a general sense. The N. T. idiom as of the Koivfi in general will be found to differ from the classic Greek idiom here more than is true of the construction of the tenses.* The disappearance of the optative is responsible for part of this change. But the effort must now be made to differentiate the four modes in actual usage whatever may be true of the original idea of each. That point will need discussion also. The vernacular in all languages is fond of parataxis. See Pfister, " Die parataktische Darstellungsform in der volkstiimUchen Erzahlung" {Woch. f. klass. Phil., 1911, pp. 809-813). A. INDEPENDENT OR PARATACTIC SENTENCES (HAPATAKTIKA •ASlfiMATA) I. The Indicative Mode (\d70s dTro<})avTiKds or ii 6piavTiK6s. The indic- ative is the most frequent mode in all languages. It is the nor- mal mode to use when there is no special reason for employing another mode. The assertion may be qualified or unqualified." This fact does not affect the function of the indicative mode to make a definite, positive assertion. Cf. Jo. 13 : 8, for instance. A fine study of the indicative mode is afforded in Jo. 1 : 1-18, where we have it 38 times, chiefly in independent sentences. The subjunctive occurs only three times (1 : 7 f.). The use of vv, iy't- vero, ^'Kdev, ovk tyvo), TrapkKaPov, ieS-a^ov, iSoiKtv, kdeaaaneOa, etc., has the note of certitude and confident statement that illustrate finely the indicative mode. 2. Kinds of Sentences Using the Indicative. (a) Either Declarative or Interrogative. The mere declaration probably (and logically) precedes in use the question.' But there is no essential difference in the significance of the mode. This extension of the indicative from simple assertion to question is true of all Indo-Gennanic tongues.* Cf. Mt. 2 : 2; Mk. 4 : 7; Jo. 1 : 19. The simple assertion is easily turned to question. Cf . iireivaaa ykp kSiiKark fwi (payetv, kSL\l/riaa (cat kiroTlaaTe /ie, ktK., and w6t€ at elSoiifv irtivSivra kolI iBpk^ay.ev, ktK. (Mt. 25 : 35-39). For the change from question to simple assertion see inaTthm tovto; kyd> TewiarevKa (Jo. 11 :26f.). Cf. Ac. 26 : 27. The formula ai "KkyiK is sometimes used for the answer, as in Mt. 27 : 11; Lu. 22 : 70; Jo. 18 : 37. So also ai) eWas in Mt. 26 : 25, 64. The question without interrogative words is seen in Mt. 11 : 28; Jo. 13 ; 6; Ac. 21 : 37; Ro. 2 : 21-23; 7 : 7, etc. Sometimes it is diffi- » Vandacle, L'Optatif Grec, 1897, p. 111. ' K.-G., Bd. I, p. 201. ' lb. Der Redende stellt etwas als wirklich. « Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 445. » Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 297 f. « Burton, M. and T., p. 73. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 445. » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 205. 916 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT cult to tell whether a sentence is declarative or interrogative, as in 1 Cor. 1:13; Ro. 8 : 33 f . For this very reason the Greek used various interrogatory par- ticles to make plain the question. Thus Stpa, ye yivdiaKw S. Am- yivwaKeis; {Ac. 8 : 30. Note the play on the verb). Cf. Lu. 18:8; Gal. 2 : 17. It is rare also in the LXX (cf. Gen. 18 : 9; 37 : 10; Jer. 4 : 10), but apa is common.^ It is a slight literary touch in Luke and Paul. The use of ei in a question is elhptical. It is really a condition with the conclusion not expressed or it is an indirect question (cf. Mk. 15 :44; Lu. 23 : 6; Ph. 3 : 12). It is used in the N. T., as in the LXX quite often (Gen. 17: 17, etc.). This construction with a direct question is unclassical and may be due to the Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew O by el as well as by Mi?-^ Cf. Mt. 12 : 10, Et e^ea-nv rois aa^fiaaiv depaTevarai; see also Mt. 19 : 3; Mk. 8 : 23; Lu. 13 : 23; 22 : 49; Ac. 1 : 6; 7 : 1; 19 : 2; 21 : 37; 22 : 25. Note frequency in Luke. In Mk. 10 : 2 (parallel to Mt. 19 : 3) the question is indirect. The idiom, though singular, has "attained to all the rights of a direct interrogative"^ by this time. The idiom may be illustrated by the Latin an which in later writers was used in direct questions. So si, used in the Vul- gate to translate this ei, became in late Latin a direct interroga- tive particle. A similar ellipsis appears in the use of ei (cf. Heb. 3 : 11) in the negative sense of a strong oath (from the LXX also).^ The particle rj is found in the LXX Job 25 : 5 B, but not in the N. T.^ So far the questions are colourless. The use of interrogative pronouns and adverbs is, of course, abundant in the N. T. Thus ris, either alone as in Mt. 3 : 7, with apa as in Mt. 24 : 45, with yap as in Mt. 9 : 5, with ovv as in Lu. 3 : 10.'^ See the double interrogative rts ri in Mk. 15 : 24. For H TovTo (predicative use of tovto) see Lu. 16 : 2. For the eUipsis with iva t'l (cf. M ri in Mt. 9 : 11; €ts Tt in Mk. 14 :4) see Mt. 9:4, and for tL on note Lu. 2 :49 (cf. H ykyovev 6tl in Jo. 14: 22). The use of Tt in Ac. 12 : 18 and 13 : 25 is interesting. Ti is an accusative adverb in Mk. 10 : 18. A sort of prolepsis or double accusative occurs in ol5a ai ris el (Mk. 1:24). Other pronouns used in direct questions are ttoTos (Mk. 11:28), tocos (Mk. 6: ' Viteau, fitude sur le Grec du N. T. Le Verbe, p. 22. Some editors read &pa in Gal. 2 : 17, but see Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 259. See &pa in Mt. 18:1. 2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 260. ' W.-Th., p. 509. * Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 179. ' Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 22. « Cf. Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 178. MODE (efkaisis) 917 38), TTOTairds (Mt. 8 : 27). The sense of S in Mt. 26 : 50 is dis- puted, as of 6ti in Mk. 2 : 16; 9 : li, 28; Jo. 8: 25.' The use of interrogative adverbs is frequent. Cf . irore (Mt. 25 : 38) ; ecos ir6Ti (Mt. 17 : 17); ttws (Lu. 10 : 26); ■kov (Lu. 8 : 25); iroirUis (Mt. 18:21). Alternative questions are expressed by rj alone as in 1 Cor. 9 : 8, or with H — ^ as in Mt. 9 : 5. The case of ij ris is different (Mt. 7:9). Exclamations are sometimes expressed by the relative forms, like ojs (hpaioi in Ro. 10 : 15, but more frequently by the inter- rogative pronouns Uke -iroaa (Mk. 15 : 4); irriXiKOi (Gal. 6 : 11); ri (Lu. 12 : 49) ; iroa&.Ki.s (Mt. 23 : 37). Cf. wdaov in Mt. 6 : 23. (6) Positive and Negative. If an affirmative or negative an- swer is expected, then that fact is shown by the use of ov for the question expecting the affirmative reply and by uri for the negative answer. As a matter of fact, any answer may be ac- tually given. It is only the expectation that is presented by ov or /i^. This use of oh is like the Latin nonne. So oi) rep <7rirebaafi€v; (Mt. 7 : 22). Cf. Mt. 6 : 25; 13 : 27; 13 : 55; Lu. 12 : 6; 15 : 8; 17 : 17; 1 Cor. 9:1; 14 : 24; Jas. 2 : 5; Heb. 3 : 16, etc. This is the common classic construction. The use of ov may suggest indignation as in ovk avoKpivTa ouSkv; (Mk. 14 : 60. Cf. ovK aireKfjlvaro oliSev in verse 61). So with oi iravari haaTpksjxav; (Ac. 13 : 10). Surprise is indicated by ovk apa in Ac. 21 : 38. Ouxi is common. Cf. Lu. 6 : 39. Ovkovv occurs once in the N. T. (Jo. 18 : 37). The presence of m shows that the answer "no" is an- ticipated (the only instance of ixi) with the indicative in a princi- pal sentence). Gildersleeve^ calls oh "the masculine negative" and (1,71 "the feminine negative." There is certainly a feminine touch in the use of miJ by the woman at Jacob's well when she came to the village. She refused to arouse opposition by using ob and excited their curiosity by p,T). Thus iJ,r\Ti oBtos i(TTiv 6 XptoTos; (Jo. 4: 29).' The examples in the N. T. are very numer- ous. The shades of negative expectation and surprise vary very greatly. Each context supplies a slightly different tone. Cf. Mt. 7 : 9, 16; 12 : 23; 26 : 22, 25; Mk. 4 : 21; Lu. 6 : 39; Jo. 6 : 67; 7 : 26, 35, 47, 51 f.; 21 : 5; Ro. 9 : 14; 11 : 1. Both ob and fi^ may occur in contrast in the same sentence. So firi Kara avdpuirov Tavra XaXSi, ^ (cat 6 vdfios ravra ob \eyei; (1 Cor. 9:8). Cf. Lu. 6 : 39 ixriTi Sbvarai TV\6s TV Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 206. 920 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Set in verse 14) ; Ac. 27 : 21. It is an easy step from this notion to that of an obligation which comes over from the past and is not lived up to. The present non-fulfilment of the obligation is left to the inference of the reader or hearer. It is not formally stated. It happens that in the N. T. it is only in the subordinate clauses that the further development of this use of eSei comes, when only the present time is referred to. Thus in Ac. 24 : 19, oBj iSei M cov TraptLvai. They ought to be here, but they are not. Our Eng- lish "ought" is likewise a past form about the present as well as about the past.^ So 2 Cor. 2 : 3, A0' &v 'iSu /a xo-i-pn-v- In Heb. 9 : 26, kirel eSu avrov voWaKis iradetv, there is an implied condition and eSei is practically an apodosis of the second-class condition, which see. The same process is seen in the other words. Thus in 2 Cor. 12 : 11, eyi) S>^ti\ov v4>' vfiuv avviaraadai, we have a simple past obligation. So in Lu. 7 : 41; Heb. 2 : 17. Note common use of the present tense also, as in Ac. 17 : 29. Cf. 8 6}(t>e'i.\ofiev iroLrjaai TeTOLTfKafitv (Lu. 17: 10), where the obligation comes on from the past. But in 1 Cor. 5 : 10, kinl oj^etXere opa kK tov Kocr/wv i^t\6etv, we have merely present time under consideration and a practical apodosis of a second-class condition implied. I do not agree with Moulton^ that iiv 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. Xpij occurs only once in the N. T. (Jas. 3 : 10), whereas Trpoar/Kei. (Attic) is not found at all, nor 'i^ean (but e^ov) nor e^fjv.^ But kbvvaro 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 iis avrjKev (Col. 3 : 18) and a om avrjuev (Eph. 5 : 4) are both pertinent, though in subordinate clauses. Note in particular ov yap KoBrJKev aMv f tjc (Ac. 22 : 22), 'He is not fit to live.' In Mt. 26 : 24, KoXdv ^v abrif d ovK eyevvfiBi], 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, KpttrTov yap ^v avrois p.ri kirtyvuiKkvai, rfjv 6S6v Trjs 5iKat,oa{)vris. 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 ISei in Gk. GildersL, Synt., Pt. I, p. 144 f. Cf . chapter on Tense. 2 Prol., p. 200. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 206. <• W.-Th., p. 282. * Prol., p. 200. » Synt., Pt. I, p. 144. MODE (efkaizis) 921 Handb., p. 128). The use of 'ifieWov in Rev. 3 : 2 approaches this potential indicative. Cf. Thompson, Syntax, p. 274. For the use of the infinitive rather than the indicative see rj — Treo-eli' in Lu. 16 : 17. So also Iva and subjunctive as in Jo. 6 : 7. Cf. Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 21. The use of 6X1701; or fiiKpov with an aorist does not occur in the N. T. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 445. (7) The Apodosis of Conditions of the Second Class. This matter has already been touched on slightly and is treated at length under Conditional Sentences. It can be merely sketched here. The condition is not always expressed and iiv usually is present. The use of av, however, in the apodosis is not obUga- tory.i We know very little about the origin and meaning of av anyhow. It seems to have a demonstrative sense (definite, then, in that case) which was shifted to an indefinite use. Cf. t6v nal Tou, tA 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 kolvIi 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 afiapriav ovK dxoaav is in opposition to the present reality because it is followed by vZv Si vpo^aaiv ovk 'ixovaiv. The same thing is seen in verse 24 when vvp Si iupaKaaiv follows. In verse 19 av k(t)i\ei is used, the usual construction. In Lu. 17 : 6 k'KtyeTe av and inriiKovaev av are used after the protasis el exere (first- class condition). This is a mixed condition. So also the marginal reading in W. H. in Jo. 8 : 39 is kvoiuTe after d-kcrrk and is fol- lowed by vw bk ^rjTtlrt (cf. above). The absence of av seems more noticeable in John's Gospel. Cf. Jo. 19 : 11, ovk itxts k^ova-iav Kar' enov oxibinlav el firi ^v 8e8ofikvov aoi avwBev.^ Paul has the same' idiom. Thus Gal. 4 : 15 ei bwarov tovs 64>da\/iovs vfiSiv k^oph^avres kSuKark noi and Ro. 7 : 7 ti)v anapriav ovk eyvuv el fiii Sia vofiov, Trjv re 1 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, Pro!., 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 yap eiriBvulav ovk ^Seiv d /iri 6 vSnos. The MSS. vary in the support of av as in Gal. 4 : 15, where EKLP (and H'D") 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 S.v.^ This particle comes near the beginning of the clause, though not at the begin- ning. It does not precede ovk (of. 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. Ldnguae Graecae, ed. sec, 1806, p. 35) makes av mean simply 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 K&yi) eXdiiv avv tok($ av hrpa^a avrb (Lu. 19 : 23) and Kal k\6(l>v iyu 'tKomadnrjv av to efidv aiiv rbKif (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 Slv 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, ov av ■firovvro. 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 av, 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 : 1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 206. '' Moulton, Prol., p. 200. ' lb. Cf. Moulton, Class. Quart., Apr., 1908, p. 140. Moulton (Pro!., p. 200) cites without av O.P. 526 (ii/A.D.) o6 irapkptvov, O.P. 530 (ii/A.D.) TraXii' aoi. i.Tre(rT&\Keiv, Rein. p. 7 (ii/B.c.) o6k arrkaTrti, all apodoses of 2d class conditions. The mod. Gk. here uses the conditional 66. (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, Hom. Gr., pp. 236 f. ' Moulton, Pro!., p. 201. MODE (efkaisis) 923 19; Heb. 11 : 15, or, as commonly, a present condition (cf. Lu. 7 : 39). The aorist would naturally^enote 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 au jjSuTe in Jo. 14 : 7. (S) Impossible Wishes. These impracticable wishes were in- troduced in Attic by tWe or ei yap, which used also S)iKov with the infinitive. From this form a particle was developed 64>ikov (aug- mentless) which took the place of tide and tl 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, 6(l>e\6v ye k^aai- Xeiaare (1 Cor. 4:8), and twice with the imperfect about the present (2 Cor. 11 : 1; Rev. 3 : 15). "O^eXov occurs once also with the future (Gal. 5 : 12). Many of the MSS. (D-'EFGKL) read &(l>eKov 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 edpa/xov in Gal. 2: 2, of unrealized purpose, see Final Clauses. Radermacher {N. T. Gr.,- p. 127) quotes 6(l>eKou eiitLvas, Achilles Tatius, II, 24, 3, and &dyonai. The subjunctive is always future, in » lb. Cf. Thompson, Synt., p. 187. * Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 235. ' W.-Th., p. 284. 6 Moulton, Prol., p. 199. > Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 210. « Thompson, Synt., p. 218. MODE (ErKAI2Is) 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 diffefs 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. (b) The Subjunctive 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 /iri 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 in 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 are 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 modern opinion. But Giles' is justified in saying: "The original meaning of these moods and the history of their development is themost 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. ' Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 216. s Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., 1907, p. 191. ' Die Grundl. d. griech. Synt., p. 115 f. » Comp. Philol., p. 502. 926 A GRAMMAK OF 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 modern Greek' the subjunctive has not only displaced the optative, but the future indicative and the infinitive. But even so in modern 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 (Bava) 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 subjunctive, while "wish" came to be that of the optative. But this position is sharply challenged to-day. Goodwin i" 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. Brugmann'' denies that a single root-idea of the subjunctive can be found. He cuts the Gordian knot by three uses of the subjunctive (the voUtive, the deliberative, the futur- 1 Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., Jan., 1909, p. 11. 2 Cf. Baumlein, Unters. (iber griech. Modi (1846, p. 25 f.). ' Ct. 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 tlie deliberative and futuristic uses as the same. Sonnenschein^ sees jjo distinction between volitive and deliberative, to which Moulton' agrees. "The objection to the term 'deliber3,tive,' 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 voUtive. 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 possibiHty. It aims after actuaUty, "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 Moglichkeit. I have ventured in my Short Grammar^^ to call the subjunctive and optative the modes of doubtful statement, 1 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. ' CI. Rev., XVI, p. 166. » Synt., Pt. I, p. 147. ' Pro!., p. 184. ' lb., p. 148. * Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 235 t. « Horn. Gr., p. 231. ' Konjunktiv und Optativ, p. 8 f. ' Unters. uber die griech. Modi, p. 35. Cf. Wetzel, De Conjunctivi et Op- tativi apud Graecos Usu, p. 7. '» Hammerschmidt, Uber die Grundb. von Konjunktiv und Optativ, p. 4. " Pp. 129-131. As a matter of fact both Delbriick and Goodwin fail to establish a sharp distinction between the subjunctive and the optative. Cf. Giles, Man., p. 504. 928 A GRAMMAR OF 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 line, but in a general way this outUne is correct. The subjunctive in principal sentences appears in both declarative and interrogative sentences. Cf. elpr]vriv ex'^M^'' Tpdj TOP dibv (Ro. 5:1), t[ eiiroi vfuv; (1 Cor. 11 : 22). It is found in both positive and negative statements. Cf . dcofitv rj /xri dwtiev; (Mk. 12 : 14), fiij ffxto-cojuec avTov, dXXd "Kaxi^^ev (Jo. 19 : 24). It is the mood of doubt, of hesitation, of proposal, of prohibition, of anti- cipation, of expectation, of brooding hope, of imperious will. We shall, then, do best to follow Brugmann. 3. Thkeepold Usage. The three uses do exist, whatever their origin or order of development.^ (a) Futuristic. This idiom is seen in Homer with the negative oil as in ov3i tSwfiL, 'I never shall see.' It is an emphatic future.^ This emphatic future with the subjunctive is common in Homer with av or k€v and once without. Gildersleeve^ calls this the "Ho- meric subjunctive," but it is more than doubtful if the usage was confined to Homer. Moulton {Prol., p. 239) quotes P. Giles as saying: "This like does for many dialects what the subjunctive did for Greek, putting a statement in a polite, inoffensive way, asserting only verisimilitude." Note the presence of the subjunc- tive in the subordinate clauses with eav (et).* The presence of oi here and there with the subjunctive testifies to a feeling for the futuristic sense. See ^ns oii /carotKKr^g (Jer. 6 : 8). In the modern Greek, Thumb {Handb., p. 195) gives a Siu TnaTeOfis, where 8kv is for ovSkv. The practical equivalence of the aorist subjunctive and the future indicative is evident in the subordinate clauses, particularly those with ei, I'm, 6s and oar is. Cf. 6 irpoaevkyKn (Heb. 8 : 3). This is manifest in the LXX, the N. T., the inscriptions and the late papyri.^ Blass* pronounces ws avOpwiros fiaKii (Mk. 4 : 26) "quite impossible" against NBDLA. But Moulton' quotes 01) Ttd% from inscriptions 317, 391, 395, 399 'al. in Ramsay's Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, ii, 392. For the papyri, Moulton {Prol, p. 240) notes B. U. 303 (vI/a.d.) Topd(rxa)='I will furnish,' A. P. 144 (v/a.d.) eXdco='l will come.' The itacisms in -ajj and -crei prove less, as Moulton notes. The examples in the papyri of itacistic -o-et, -an are "innimierable." In Ac. 5 : 16, W. H. 1 Cf. Giles, Man., p. 505. « Moulton, Prol., p. 240. 2 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 198. « Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 321. ' Synt., Pt. I, p. 153. ' Prol., p. 240. * Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 503. MODE (efkaisis) 929 print iva — einaKLaaeL (B, some cursives). Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 136) is quite prepared to take ttSis vyriTt (Mt. 23 : 33) = 7riSs 0e£ife(70€. This is probablj^deliberative, but he makes a better case for kv tQ ^ripca H ykvqrai (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 tiVco cot is quoted as = 4pco 0-01.2 In a, principal clause in Clem., Horn. XI. 3, we have xat oOtcos — bvvrjB'^, and Blass has noted also in Is. 33 : 24 a^e^g yap avTOLs 17 d/iopTia. We cannot, indeed, trace the idiom all the way from Homer. "But the root-ideas of the subjunctive changed remarkably little in the millennium or so separating Homer from the Gospels; and the mood which was more and more winning back its old domain from the future tense may well have come to be used again as a 'gnomic future' without any knowledge of the antiquity of such a usage." ' 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 /iT7 oil after verbs of fearing and caution. Cf. 2 Cor. 12 : 20 and MSS. in Mt. 25 : 9 (jiri tot€ ovk apKeo-jj). It is even possible that the idiom 01; iii] is to be thus explained. Gildersleeve* remarks on this point: "It might even seem easier to make oh belong to alaxvvdco, thus combining objective and subjective negatives, but it must be remembered that ov with the'subjunctive had died out (except in (/.ri 06) 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 ai^ as an abbreviation of firiv. If either of these explanations is true, the N. T. would then preserve in negative principal sentences the purely futuristic subjunctive. Burton ' is clear that anyhow "the aorist subjunctive is used with ov n'fi 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 oii fiij KaKoiroLriaovaiv oidi firi SvvcavTai. The future ind. with 011 /iij is rare in the N. T., but ov /iij with the aorist ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 208. = Justin Martyr, p. 169. 2 See also Hatz., Einl., p. 218. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 449. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 186. ' N. T. M. anJ T., p. 78. * Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 2, 372. 930 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT subj. appears in the W. H. text 71 times.' It cannot be said that the origin of this oii nij construction has been solved. Goodwin^ states the problem well. The two negatives ought to neutralize each other, being simplex, but they do not (cf. /ii) oii). The ex- amples are partly futuristic and partly prohibitory. Ellipsis is not satisfactory nor complete separation (Gildersleeve) of the two negatives. Perhaps oii expresses the emphatic denial and n^ 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 o\j nii ae avw, ovS' ov nil at iyKaTa\iiru (Heb. 13 : 5) ; o\> n^ airaiXkaji (Mk. 9 : 41) ; ovKkri oil nil tLoj (Mk. 14 : 25). Cf. Lu. 6 : 37 etc. See oii ixii 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 ijmkpoBvuu) 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 nil (jJO^iiBfi, Kiipie, Kai So^aaei t6 ovona.; See also the rts ef inSiv i^ti (j>iKov Kai iropeixrerai, irpos avTov — /cat tLifji aiirQ; (Lu. 11:5). It is difficult to see here anything very "deliberative" about e'iirjj as distinct from efet. It may be merely the rhetorical use of the futuristic subj. in a question. Have the grammars been correct in explaining all these subjunctives in questions as "deliberative"? Certainly the future ind. is very common in rhetorical and other questions in the N. T. (6) Volitive. There is no doubt about the presence of the voli- tive subjunctive in the N. T. The personal equation undoubtedly cuts some figure in the shades of meaning in the moods, here as elsewhere.' Gildersleeve* would indeed make this "imperative sense" the only meaning of the mood in the standard language after Homer. He does this because the deliberative subjxmc- tive expects an imperative answer. But, as already seen, that is a mooted question. Brugmann* takes pains to remark that the element of "will" in the volitive subjunctive belongs to the speaker, not to the one addressed. It is purely a matter of the context. It occurs in both positive and negative sentences and the negative is always nv- The usage is common in Homer." Monro interprets it as expressing "what the speaker resolves or in- • Moulton, Prol., 3d ed., p. 190. But in the Germ, ed., p. 300, Moul- ton names 74. He had given 78 in the first Engl. ed. " M. and T., pp. 389 ff. See also pp. 101-105. ^ Giles, Man.,-p. 505. ' Griech. Gr., p. 500. * Synt., Pt. I, p. 148. « Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 197. MODE (efkaisis) 931 sists upon." In principle the hortatory subjunctive is the same as the prohibitive use with nij. It was a necessity for the first person, since the imperative was deficient there. Moulton' ventures to treat this hortatory use of the first person subj. under the imper- ative, since the Sanskrit grammars give the Vedic subjunctive of the first person as an ordinary part of the imperative. The other persons of the Sanskrit subj. are obsolete in the epic period. Thus bhardma, bharata, bharantu are compared with ^kpwyav, (jykpiTf, fp6vTuv (Attic for Koivii ^tpkruaav) . Moulton^ appeals also to the combination of the first and second persons in con- structions Hke eyeiptade ayufiev (Mk. 14:42). This example il- lustrates well the voUtive idea in &yo}nev.^ The first person is usually found in this construction. Cf. also ayuixtv (Jo. 11:7); (jtaycofiev Kal irlcoiiev (1 Cor. 15 : 32) ; ixt^ii^fv (Ro. 5 : 1, correct text); (jypovcinev (Ph. 3 : 15); ypriyopS>p,ev Kal viioiii(v (1 Th. 5 : 6). Cf. Lu. 9 : 33 in particular (infinitive and subj.). In 1 Cor. 5 : 8, ciffTe €oprdfw/i€j', the subjunctive is hortatory and Siare is an ipferential particle. Cf . further Heb. 12 : 1 ; 1 Jo. 4 : 7. As ex- amples with /ii7 see jwiJ (fxlcroiiiev (Jo. 19 : 24) ; p.rj Kadevdcaiiev (1 Th. 5:6). The construction continued to flourish in all stages of the language.* We have SeDre aTOKteivosfiw (Mk. 12 : 7. Cf. devre Idere, Mt. 28 : 6) and o<^es IScofiev (Mt. 27:49). In ft^es the sin- gular has become stereotyped.* This use of a^es was finally shortened into os in the modern 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 &s exv for kxircS). In the N. T. ft^es is not yet a mere auxiliary as is our "let" and the modern Greek &s. It is more like "do let me go."* Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 134) quotes a4>e% Sei^ufiev, Epict. I, 9, 15. In the first person singular the N. T. always has a^es or Sevpo with the hortatory subjunctive.^ Thus ci^es kjSdXco (Mt. 7 : 1 Prol., p. 175. ' lb. ' See 1 Cor. 10 : 7-9 for the change from first to second persons. * Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 447. .6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 208. But see fi^ert Uw^iev (Mk. 15 : 36), though KD here read 40«s. « Moulton, Prol., p. 176. Jannaris (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 448) derives &s from i^aae {iatrov}, fitre. ' It was rare in classic Gk. not to have aye or ipe or some such word. Cf . Goodwin, M. and T., p. 88; Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 148 f. The volitive 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 KOToJttiffn, P- Oxy. I, 128, 9. So in the inscr. ToiaDra TiSn, Pontica III, 62, 8 932 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 4); Lu. 6 :42 and Sevpo awoaTeiKco (Ac. 7:34, LXX). Moulton' cites d<^es iyi) avrfiv Bprivricro} from 0. P. 413 (Roman period). We do not have to suppose the ellipsis of Iva, for aes is here the auxiliary. In Jo. 12 : 7, a<^es avrriv tva rripriaii, it is hardly prob- able that tva is just auxiliary,^ though in the modern Greek, as already stated, os 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 iij 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? — which in the dialect of Elis" (to go on with Moulton's rather long sentence) "pro- duced such phrases as ewineKeiav iroLridTaL NiKodponop — 'let Nico- dromus 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.D.)." See Moulton, Prol, p. 178. In the LXX, Jer. 18 : 8, note Kai kTnfj, parallel with awoarpa- (priTo: in 18 : 11. In the modern Greek we have wishes for the fu- ture in the subj., since the opt. is dead. So 6 Beds (jjvXa^n, '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 A, Sc^, Kiipios vfiSiv /cat eiprjTe avaTavciv, but B has optative. In the Veda the prohibitive ma is found only with the conjunctive, thus seeming to show that the imper- ative was originally used only in positive sentences. This idiom of All? 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: p.ri cjjoPridfjs (Mt. 1 : 20); nil vo/ito-Tjre (5: 17); /X17 daeviyKjis (6: 13). The use of Spa and opSiTe with fi-ii and the aorist subj . is to be noted. Some of these are examples of asyndeton just like a^es. Thus Spa firidevl p.ri5iv eiTrvs (Mk. 1 : 44; cf . Mt. 8:4). So also '6pa /xii (Rev. 22 : 9) where the verb toltjcjis is not expressed. Cf. also Spa irotripoua etvai. (2 Cor. 11 : 16); /ii? rts ii/uSs 4^a- TTttT^o-jj (2 Th. 2:3). Elsewhere juij and the aorist imperative occur in the third person. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 134) quotes /I'll and 3d person aor. subj. from KotyiJ writers, inscr. and papyri. Careless writers even use mi? otv aXXcos iroifjs, B. G. U. Ill, 824, 17. Even Epictetus (II, 22, 24) has ah) airodtv a%oaiv^. No less volitive is an example with oh nii, like oh iiij hak\Br\Te (Mt. 5 : 20), which is prohibitive. So ov mi) yt^ffs (Jo. 13 : 8) ; ov ixri viii (Lu. 1:15). There is an element of will in iSira iv fj ix'ia Kepaia ov fiii irapeXOn (Mt. 5 : 18) in the third person. In Mt. 25 : 9, /ii7 irore oil nil apKiv TOKoiv oKiycopria-gs (Cicero, Att. vi. 5). The modern Greek uses va and subj. as imperative for both second and third per- sons (Thumb, Handb., p. 127 f.). Note also nri 'iva avaffrardiffrii ilnas, B. G. U. 1079 (a.d, 41), not 'iva mi?. Moulton {Prol, p. 248) quotes Epict., IV, 1, 41, 'iva nii ncopos fj, dXX' 'iva ixadxi. The use of ek\<» Iva (cf. Mk. 6 : 25; 10 : 35; Jo. 17: 24) preceded this idiom. Moulton' even suggests that Trpocreixeo-Se IVa mi? eXSrjre tis Treipatrfiov (Mk. 14 : 38) is as much parataxis as opare Kal (jjvXaaaecde (Lu. 12 : 15). This "innovation" in the Koivri takes the place of oircos and the future ind. * Moulton (Prol., p. 177 note) cites oircos m"' m kpeis!, Plato, 337 B, 'don't tell me,' where 3ircos='in which case.' The use of m^ after words of caution and apprehension is probably 1 But Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 278) holds the opposite view. 2 Prol., p. 179. ' lb., p. 178. 934 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT paratactic in origin.* Moulton' note^ the use of the present subj. with expressions of warning as well as the aorist. Thus in Heb. 12 : 15, eriaKOTOvvres (I'll tis ^ifa iriKpias ewxXg. But this 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 8i rjs \aTpevoinfv (Heb. 12:28); oirov ayo3 (Lu. 22 : 11). See discussion of Sub. Clauses. (c) Deliberative. There is no great amount of difference be- tween the hortatory (volitive) subjunctive and the deliberative. The volitive is connected with the deliberative in Mk. 6 : 24 f., Ti aiTijffco/Liat; Oi'Xdj Iva S^s. Thus iroL^acoixev, 'suppose we do it,' and Tt iroiiiacoixev; 'what are we to (must we) do?' do not vary much. The interrogative' is a quasi-imperative. Gildersleeve* notes in Plato (rare elsewhere in Attic) a "number of hesitating half- questions with nil or /iij oil and the present subjunctive." It is possible that we have this construction in Mt. 25 : 9, iiii irore ob nfi (W. H. marg. just ov) kpKkari riixiv koI viuv. It is but a step to the deliberative question.* This is either positive or negative, as in Mk. 12 : 14, SS)p.ev rj fiii SQ/iev; So also ov nij as in Jo. 18 : 11, oil nri ir'uc avro; Cf. also Lu. 18 : 7; Rev. 15 :4. The aorist or the present tense occurs as in Lu. 3 : 10, tI oHv woiijcruntv; and in Jo. 6 : 28, t'l iroiiiniv; so X^7a) in Heb. 11 : 32. Cf. the indicative ri Toioviiev; in Jo. 11:47 and the future ri oh kpovfiev; (Ro. 9 : 14). The question may be rhetorical (cf. Mt. 26 : 54; Lu. 14 : 34; Jo. 6 : 68; Ro. 10 : 14) or interrogative (cf. Mt. 6 : 31; 18:21; Mk. 12:14; Lu. 22:49)." The kinship between delib. subj. a,nd delib. fut. ind. is seen in Mk. 6 : 37, 6,yopa(runev ml Si)aofi€v; The first person is the one of most frequent occur- rence (cf. Ro. 6:1), tL alrriacaiiai (Mk. 6 : 24). But examples are not wanting for the second and third persons. Thus ir&s tj>vyriTt airo TTjs Kplaeus ttjs yekvvi)^; (Mt. 23 : 33); tI yevrirai.; (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 irepov irpoaSoKcinev; (Mt. 11 : 3) and 'tTaivkao) hpS.%; (1 Cor. 11 : 22). But note Ti etTTO) bjxiv; in the last passage. In Lu. 11:5 we have both 1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 212 f. 2 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. " Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 77. MODE (efkaisis) 935 Tis ejei and dvn. So t£ Sol (Mk. 8 : 37, ACD Sdoaei) may be com- pared with ri Scicrai (Mt. 16 : 26).' This ambiguity appears in H TToi^ffco; and 'iyvu ri iroiijau in Lu.Tl6 : 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 ., nil fis in Mt. 5 :42. The final triimaph 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, /iijK^rt liijSels tt,vai 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 fiaimaai. The use of xo-'i-pii-v 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 infinitive as often. It is very common in the papyri, as IIoXuKpaTJjs rcoi xarpt xalpeiv, 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 x"ip«"' and KKalav , are clearly parallel with evkoyeire Kai p,ri Karapaade. So in Ph. 3 : 16 o'Toix"!' is to be compared with the hortatory 4>povS)nev. Blass* needlessly wishes to emend the text in 2 Tim. 2 : 14, so as not to read p.ri Xoyo/mxelv. This use of the inf. occurs also in Tit. 2 : 9. We probably have the same construction in fifi (rvvavajxlywadai (2 Th. 3 : 14), though it may be explained as purpose. In 1 Cor. 5 : 12 KplviLv is the subject inf. In Lu. 9 : 3 after el-n-ev the quo- tation begins with MriSev aipire and is changed to firiTt 'ixti-v (indi- rect command). In Mk. 6 : 8 f. both forms are indirect (one with iva firjSev aipoiffiv, the other with ni) kvBixracrdai) . The marg. in W.H. has fifj ivSmriffde. 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- ' Hatz., Einl., p. 192. Cf. Thumb, HeUen., p. 130 f. ' Prol, p. 179 f. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 222. ^ w.-Th., p. .316. « lb. « lb., pp. 350ff. MODE (efkaizis) 945 plains it on the ground of ellipsis of the copula as is so common with adjectives (cf. Mt. 5 : 3-11). I^e 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 serise of the imperative are not numerous, but one of them seems very clear. Thus Tb. 59 (i/s.c.) kv oh eav wpoaSkfjade (wv iiriTacraovTks not. irpodvfiorepov. It is preceded by a genitive abso- lute. Moulton gives another equally so: G. 35 (i/s.c.) kinixt\6ixivot. h>' vyudvijTe. Moulton* cites also the Latin form sequimini (= ewbuivot) for the second middle plural present indicative. The similar looking form sequimini 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 kolvti 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. evkoyriTds 6 6e6s (2 Cor. 1:3). Shall we supply kariv or fjTu (^ffTw) as we have it in 1 Cor. 16 : 22? In a case like 1 Pet. 3 : 8 f. it is plain that the unexpressed 'iare would be im- perative, but Moulton notes the curious fact that iare (impera- tive) does not appear in the N. T. at all, though we have ladi five times, iaru or ^tw fourteen, and 'iarcaaav twice.' There are in- ' Gr., p. 180. • ProL, p. 223. « lb., p. 225. 2 W.-Moulton, p. 732, n. 5. * lb. « Hellen., p. 131. ' Mr. H. Scott notes the absence of tare in the H. R. Cone, of the LXX, in Veitch, in Ktihner-Bl., Mayser, Helbing, Thackeray. In Goodspeed's 946 .A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT stances more or less doubtful, as fTnpl\f/avTfs (1 Pet. 5 : 7), which is naturally taken with raireLvoidriTe as Moulton^ now admits. He evidently reacted too strongly against Winer. This use of the participle should not be appealed to if the principal verb is pres- ent in the immediate context. Sometimes it is a matter of punc- tuation as in Lu. 24 : 47, where W. H. give in the margin ap^anevoL 6.7:6 'lepovaaKrin vfieis (MpTvpes Tohroiv, instead of 'lepowaXini- vp.tis. The marginal punctuation takes the participle as an im- perative. The MSS. sometimes vary, as when NC give ivdel^acrdi in 2 Cor. 8 : 24, while B, etc., have kvSeiKviintvoi.^ But a num- ber of unmistakable examples appear both in Paul and Peter, though "Paul was not so fond of this construction as his brother apostle."' Thus exovres (1 Pet. 2 : 12) must be so explained or taken as anacoluthon (cf. dTrexeo-flai). So inroTaa-aontvoi (1 Pet. 2 : 18; 3:1) reminds one of Eph. 5 : 22, an "echo" according to Moulton. Other examples occur in 1 Pet. 3:7, 9, possibly 16 also; 4 : 8 £f. Besides kvex&fievoi and o-xouSAfoi'Tes (Eph. 4 : 2 f.) and xyiroTaaabnevoi (5 : 2 f .) in Paul the most outstanding example is in Ro. 12 : 9 f ., 16 f . These participles occur in the midst of impera- tives or infinitives as imperatives (12 : 15). The asyndeton makes it impossible to connect with any verb. In verse 6 ix°vTt% ap- pears as a practical indicative. Moulton* adds to these 2 Cor. 9 : 11 f. and Col. 3 : 16. See also Heb. 13 : 5. But Lightfoot^ put in a word of caution when he said: "The absolute participle, being (so far as regards mood) neutral in itself, takes its colour from the general complexion of the sentence." The participle is not technically either indicative, subjunctive, optative or im- perative. The context must decide. In itself the participle is non-finite (non-modal) Uke the infinitive, though it was some- times drawn out into the modal sphere. 5. Uses of the Imperative. (a) Command or Exhortation. In general the imperative keeps within the same limits observed in the classical language, but that is not a narrow groove." It is the mood of the assertion of one's will over another or the call of one to exert his will. Thus Index Pat. he finds it only in 1 Clem. 45 : 1, and the accent is doubtful here. He finds it also in Test. XII Pat. Reub. 6:1. It could have been used in Napht. 3 : 2 and in Ign. Eph. 10 : 2. 1 Prol., p. 181, against his former view in Expositor, VI, x. 450. 2 lb. > lb. » On Col. 3 : 16 f. * lb. " Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 221. MODE (efkaisis) 947 ayaroiTf roiis kx^pois ifiuv (Mt. 5 : 44); daekde els t6 Ta/uflov aov Kal 7rp6ff«u?oi (6:6); iriiVTore xatp«T6 (ITh. 5:16). Moulton' finds the imperatives "normal in royal edicts, in letters to inferiors, and among equals when the tone is urgent, or the writer indis- posed to multiply words." The imperatives in Rev. 22 : 11 are probably hortatory. (6) Prohibition. This is just a negative command and differs in no respect save the presence of the negative ni/. Thus firi Kpl- vere (Mt. 7 : 1), mi) ^^tlaOe (Jo. 6 : 20). Often the presence of the imperative in the midst of indicatives is shown by iii) as in ixi) T\avS.a6e (1 Cor. 6:9). We do, indeed, have oii with the impera- tive in marked contrast, where the force of the negative is given to that rather than to the mode. Thus in 1 Pet. 3 : 3, eo-rw ovx A — kAo-^os, aXX' 6 KpvTrrds t^s KapSias avOpcawos. The same explana- tion applies to oi n6vov — aXXa /cat in 1 Pet. 2 : 18, but firi iibvov is regular in Jas. 1 : 22, etc., because of the absence of aXXa. In cases of contrast with ob — AXXA (with participles and impera- tives) the reason for oir is thus apparent (H. Scott). In Mt. 5 : 37 o8 o'i (like vol vat) is the predicate (like a substantive), not the negative of iarco. In 2 Tim. 2 : 14 ew' ov8iv xpwi-l^ov {^ parenthetical expression of jui) \oyoimxiiv used as an imperative), the negative goes specifically with the single word xPV'^-f^v. Cf. also 1 Cor. 5 : 10. The upshot is that p.i\ remains the negative of the imperative. Cf. jui^ not. K&wovi irapexe (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 Koivij). 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 7:29. > Prol., p. 173. * lb. » Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 158. » Mt, ' 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, ^schylos, 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, poridriaov 'fifuv, (Lu. 17 : 5) xpoadei fiiMV iricTTLV, (Jo. 17: 11) Ttiprjaov aiiTovs iv Tcji ovbuaTi cov. (d) Permission. All this is in strict line with the ancient Greek.'' A good illustration is seen in Mt. 26 : 45, KcudevSere Xotxdc Kal d.va- ■jraiieade. 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 TrXripdiaare (Mt. 23 : 32), though it is the permissive use of the imperative. The note of permission is struck in 'eKdarcii and kwiaTpacpriTO} (Mt. 10 : 13). Cf. the fut. ind. in Lu. 10 : 6. See further x^P'^^i'^^o} (1 Cor. 7: 15); ayvoe'iTcc (14 : 38, W. H. marg.). In 2 Cor. 12 : 16 Utu Se is Uke our 'Let it be so' or 'Granted.' In Mt. 8 : 31 airotrretXoi' is en- treaty, while vTayere is permissive. In 1 Cor. 11:6 Keipacdu 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, Xiio-are TOP vahv TOVTOV, Kal h rpiclv rifikpais kytpCi aiiTov. This is much the same as kav Xvatfre. It is not a strict command. We have para- taxis with Kai, but it is equivalent in idea to hypotaxis with kav. So with avTiar'^re tQ Sta/SoXcj), Kal v (Jas. 4 : 7 f .) ; avaara 'eK rdv vtKpcov (LXX), Kai kTL(f>aijau aoi b Xpicros (Eph. 5 : 14). See also ixii Kpivtre, Kal ov p,ri KpidrJTe' Kal p.ri KaraSiKafere, Kal ov p.r\ KaraSLKacrdfJTf dTroXiiere, Kal aToXvdriaeade' Sldore, Kal dodi/criTai v/uv (Lu. 6 : 37 f.). Then again ixaKpodbnTjaov kir' kfioi, Kal TcLvTa airoh6iau> ' Moulton, Pro!., p. 173. 2 Am. Jour, of Philol., Apr., 1909, p. 235. ' Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 80. * Cf . Gildersl., Synt., Ft. 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 0-ot (Mt. 18 : 26). So also tovto iroki Kal fi^o-j/ (Lu. 10 : 28); ipxeo0ridr}Ti (Lu. 12 : 5). B. DEPENDENT OR HYPOTACTIC SENTENCES (YHOTAKTIKA •ABIIIMATA) Introductory. (a) Use of Modes in Subordinate Sentences. There is no essen- tial difference in the meaning of the modes in subordinate clauses from the significance in independent sentences. The division is not made on the basis of the modes at all. Leaving out the imperative because of its rarity in subordinate sentences, the other three modes occur in almost all the subordinate clauses. The same mode-ideas are to be sought here as there. The subor- dinate clauses make no change in the meaning of mode, voice or tense. Burton' does say: "Others, however, give to the mood or 1 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr,, p. 511. 2 Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 164. See also Thompson, Synt., p. 190 f. » N. T. M. and T., p. 81. MODE (efkaisis) 951 tense a force different from that which they usually have in prin- cipal clauses. Hence arises the necessity for special treatment of the moods and tenses in subordinate clauses." I cannot agree to this as the reason for the separate treatment. Sometimes in in- direct discourse after secondary tenses there may be a sequence of modes (true also in ancient Greek with final clauses after sec- ondary tenses), but that is so slight a matter that it bears no sort of proportion to the subordinate clauses as a whole. Gilder- sleeve {A. J. of Phil., XXXIII, 4, p. 489) regards the subordinate sentence as "the Ararat in the flood of change" and parataxis and hypotaxis as largely a matter of style. Some of the modal uses have survived better in the subordinate clauses, as, for instance, the futuristic aorist subj. (cf. Sarcs LpviiaitTai in Mt. 10 : 33), but the subordinate clause did not create the idiom. Originally there were no subordinate sentences.' " In dependent clauses the choice of the mood is determined by the nature of each individual case"^ as is true also of independent sentences. The qualifica- tion made above about the sequence of modes was always op- tional and is absent from the N. T. except a few examples in Luke. The great wealth of subordinate clauses in Greek with various nuances demand separate discussion. But we approach the matter with views of the modes already attained. (6) The Use of Conjunctions in Subordinate Clauses. In chap- ter XXI, Particles, full space will be given to the conjunctions (co-ordinating, disjunctive, inferential, subordinating). Here it is only pertinent to note the large part played in the Greek language by the subordinating conjunctions. It must be admitted that the line of cleavage is not absolute. The paratactic conjunctions were first on the field.' Popular speech has always had a fondness for parataxis.^ In the modern Greek vernacular "the propensity for parataxis has considerably reduced the ancient Greek wealth of dependent constructions" (Thumb, Handb., p. 185). Hence long periods are rare. So the Hebrew used l both as paratactic and hypotactic. In the Greek /cai we see a partial parallel.^ In Mt. 26 : 15, rl fleXer^ /riiitLs (Jo. 10 : 36). Thus again a subordinate clause may be so loosely connected with the principal clause as to be virtually in- dependent.' Thus the relative, as in Latin, often introduces a principal ■ sentence, a paragraph, forsooth, as h oh (Lu. 12 : 1) and &vd' Siv (12 : 3). But, on the whole, we can draw a pretty clear line between the independent and the dependent clause by means of the conjunctions. The case of asyndeton, treated else- where (cf. The Sentence), concerns chiefly parataxis, but some examples occur in hypotaxis, as in xai eyevero — elirkv tls (Lu. 11:1) where the elirti' tis clause is the logical subject of kyivero. (c) Logical Varieties of Subordinate Clauses. Each subordinate clause sustains a syntactical relation to the principal clause after the analogy of the case-relations. The normal complete sen- tence has subject, predicate, object. Each of these may receive further a,mplification (see chapter X, The Sentence). The pred- icate may have a substantive (as subject or object). This sub- stantive may be described by an adjective. An adverb may be used with predicate, adjective or substantive. Thus the sen- tence is built up around the predicate. In the same way each subordinate sentence is either a substantive (subject or object like an on clause), an adjective like oo-rts or an adverb like oirou. This is therefore a point to note about each subordinate clause in order to get its exact syntactical relation to the principal clause. It may be related to the predicate as subject or object, or to the subject or object as adjective, or to either as adverb. A, relative clause may be now substantive, now adjective and now adverb. In simple truth most of the conjunctions have their origin as relative or demonstrative pronouns. In Ktihneir-Gerth^ the subordinate clauses are all discussed from this standpoint - alone. Thumb (Handb., pp. 186 ff.) follows this plan. One questions the wisdom of this method, though in itself scientific enough. Burton' has carefully worked out all the subordinate clauses from this standpoint, though he does not adopt it. Then, again, one may divide these clauses according to their form or their meaning.^ Viteau* combines both ideas and the result is rather confusion than clarification. There may be a series of subordinate clauses, one dependent on the other. So in 1 Cor. > Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 194. » N. T. M. and T., p. 82. 2 Tl. II, 2. Bd., pp. 354-459. * Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 194 f. ' Le Verbe: Syntaxe des Propositions, pp. 41-144. MODE (efkaisis) 953 1 : 14, efixoP'O'TW ot' ouSeva inSiv k^inrriaa tl fir) Kplawov Kal Tatov, I'm liil Tts elirji '6ti els t6 iij,6v ivoyta kfiaTTladrjTe. See also Mk. 6 : 55 and section 10 in this chapter. The infinitive and the participle are used also in subordinate clauses, but they do not directly con- cern the problem of the modes save in indirect discourse. They are so important and partake of the functions of both noun and verb, to such an extent that they demand a separate chapter — XX. 1. Relative Sentences. (a) Relative Sentences Originally Paratactic. The relative os, as is well known, was first an anaphoric substantive pronoun.' At first the relative clause was paratactic, a principal sentence like the other.* Cf. Ss y&p in Homer, where Ss may be taken' as de- monstrative or relative. In its simplest form the relative was unnecessary and was not even a connective. It was just a rep- etition of the substantive.* "The relative force arises where OS (and its congeners) connects and complements."^ Indeed, the relative sentence is probably the oldest form of parataxis.' It is only by degrees that the relative clause came to be regarded as a subordinate clause.' As a matter of fact, that was not always the case, as has been seen in such examples as h oh, avB' &v (Lu. 12 : 1, 3). But it is not true that this subordination is due to the use of the subjunctive mode.* The effect of case-assimilation (cf. gender and number) and of incorporation of the antecedent was to link the relative clause very close to the principal sentence.' Cf. Heb. 13 : 11. (b) Most Svbordinate Clauses Relative in Origin. This is true not merely of 6tl and &re which are accusative forms'" of o, but also of other adverbs, like the ablative dis, ottus, ecos. These sub- ordinating conjunctions therefore are mostly of relative origin." ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 556. ' lb., p. 559. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 186. Stahl, Hist.-krit. Synt., p. 523, points out that the relative sentence is either ''synthetic or parathetic." • Schmitt, Uber den Ursprung des Substantivsatzes mit Relativpartik. im Griech., 1889, p. 12. « Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 383. • Frenzel, Die Entwick. des relat. Satzb. im Griech., 1889, p. 4. ' Thompson, Synt., p. 383. ' Baron, Le Pronom Relat. et la Conj. en Grec, 1892, p. 61. • Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 557. It was not always done (attraction) either in Herod, or Thuc. Cf. Reisert, Zur Attraktion der Relativsatze in der griech. Prosa, p. 30 f . '» Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 561. " Thompson, Synt., p. 384. 954 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Cf . tva, 6ir6re and perhaps el. Uplv, kird, &xpi; ('■^XPi' are not relative. Thus the subordinate clauses overlap. Burton,' indeed, includes ecos under relative sentences. That is not necessary, since thus nearly all the subordinate clauses would properly be treated as relative sentences. See the relative origin of various conjunctions well worked out by Schmitt,'' Weber' and Christ.^ These clauses are mainly adverbial, though objective (and subject-clause also) oTi (indirect discourse) is substantive simply. The word cos occurs in Homer with the three values of demonstrative, relative and conjunction (cf. English "that")-' But here we pass by these conjunctions from relative or demonstrative roots.* The relative pronoun alone, apart from the adverbial uses, introduces the most frequent subordinate clause, probably almost equal in some authors to all the other classes put together. In 1 Peter the rela- tive construction is very common. Cf. 1 Pet. 1 : 6-12; 2 : 21-24. At any rate it is the chief means of periodic structure.' Take as an instance the period in Ac. 1 : 1-2. Note o)v, S.xpi' v^ v^has, oBs, ols, all the subordinate clauses in the sentence except infinitive and participles. See also 1 Cor. 15 : 1-2, where four relatives occur and tLvl 'Koycc is almost like a relative. Cf. further Ro. 9 : 4 f . The relative sentence may be repeated indefinitely with or without Kal. (c) Relative Clauses Usually Adjectival. They are so classed by Kiihner-Gerth.* The descriptive use followed the original substantive idiom just as the relative itself was preceded by the demonstrative. Thus the use of the relative clause as subject or object like 6 and the participle is perfectly consistent. So 05 av kfj,^ Se^T/rat Sex*''"''! tov anroaTt'CKavTb. fie (Lu. 9 : 48). Cf. also Mk. 9 : 37; Ac. 16 : 12. The descriptive character of the relative clause is well shown in tV ixaxo-ipav tov ■Kveiiyna.TOs 6 kariv prjfia deov (Eph. 6 : 17). Cf. Ss in 1 Tim. 3 : 16. The adjectival use of the relative sentence is accented by the use of the article with it in Ro. 16 : 17, OKOTeiv tovs tos Sixoc^aiTtas Kal to. aKavSdKa irapa Ttjc 5i8ax'fiv fjv ipiets inadere iroiovvras. Here the relative clause is ad- jectival, but in itself a mere incident between robs and xoioOcras. 1 N. T. M. and T., pp. 126 ff. ' tlber den Ursprung des Substantivsatzes mit Relativpartik. im Griech. " Entwiokelungsgesch. der Absichtsatze. * Der Substantivs. und das Rel. cbs. ' Baron, Le Pronom Rel. et la Conjonction en Grec, p. 130. i " Frenzel, Die Entw. des rel. Satzb. im Griech., p. 4. ' J. Classen, Beob. liber den homerischen Sprachgeb., 1867, p. 6. « Bd. II, pp. 420ff. MODE (efkaisis) 955 The clause is simply adjectival with Tras 8s in Lu. 12 : 8. That comes to be its most usual charaffcer. So with 8i' ijs in Heb 12 : 28. (d) Mode& in Relative Sentences. There is nothing in the rela- tive pronoun or the construction of the clause per se to have any effect on the use of the mode.' The relative, as a matter of fact, has no construction of its own.^ In general in dependent clauses the choice of the mode is determined by the nature of the indi- vidual case.' Outside of relative clauses the choice in the N. T. is practically confined to the indicative and the subjunctive. The optative holds on in one or two examples. With the relative some examples of the imperative occur, as has already been shown. Cf. 1 Cor. 14 : 13; Tit. 1 : 13; 2 Tim. 4 : 15; 1 Pet. 5 : 9; Heb. 13 : 7. Cf. 69ev /caTowiJo-aTe (Heb. 3:1). But the mode is not due at all to the relative. In a word, the relative occurs with all the constructions possible to an independent sentence.* The indica- tive is, of course, the natural tense to use if one wishes to make a direct and clear-cut assertion. Thus ovSels 'ianv 6s oK^^/cec ri)v oldav (Mk. 10 : 29). Cf. Jo. 10 : 12. The various uses of the sub- junctive occur with the relative. The dehberative subj. is seen in TTOV karlv t6 KardXu/id fiov ottov t6 iraaxa fierd. t&v naBfiTuv fiov (jmyio; (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, oix ^ovaiv iKeivoi oiroi i)yu(nv. See also Tarbell, Class. Re- view, July, 1892, "The Deliberative Subj. in Relative Clauses in Greek." The subj. may be volitive as in Ac. 21 : 16, aYoi/Tes Trap'

kpei in Heb. 9:7). In Heb. 12 : 28, 8i' fjs \aTpebunev, the subj. may be conceived as either volitive (hortatory) or merely futuristic, more probably vohtive Hke exw- litv. Clearly futuristic is the subj. in Mt. 16 : 28, olrives oh /ifi yebaoivrai Oavarov. These examples appear isolated. The subj. with Sxrre may be noted as in 1 Cor. 5 : 8, Siare iopTa^u/iev (de- liberative). But the futuristic subj., so rare in the independent sentence after Homer, is very common in the relative clause with ' See, per contra. Baron, Le Pronom Rel. et la Conjonotion en Greo, pp. 61 ff. = Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 189. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 452. * Thompson, Synt., p. 383. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 217, ejqjlains this subj. as due to a "final mean- ing." D in Mk. reads VTai (Mk. 9 : 1). In 2 Cor. 8 : 12, el i) irpoBvfiia xp6fC€iTat, Kado eav exjj, evirpoadeK- Tos, oil Kado ovK ex€i, 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- wise, 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 6Tav 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, 8s av ^oveiio-jj, '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 &v, 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. 2 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 Kkv is with particular and definite examples. Moulton {ProL, p. 166) translates Homeric kyu) 5k Ktv avrds 'iXufuu 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 (kav) 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 av in the kolv^ 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, Srai' ijvoL^ev. But 6Tav elaaTo. Cf. also a efieXKov (Rev. 3 : 2) and the com- mon &vd' S>v (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 (Uke Latin also). The Attic idiom is the future ind., and the future ind. also appears in the N. T. So OS /caroo-Keudcret (Mk. 1 : 2; Mt. 11 : 10; Lu. 7:27), 5s {11J.S.S avaixvijaei, (1 Cor. 4 : 17) which may be contrasted with the merely explanatory relative os ecrlv nov rkwov in the same sentence. So otru'es awoSoxrovaiv aiirQ (Mt. 21:41); 01 irpoiropei- covrai (Ac. 7 : 40; Ex. 32 : 1) ; ovk isxco o TrapaBijcru (Lu. 11:6) where the Attic Greek would ' have otl. Sometimes Iva occurs where a relative might have been used. So 2 Cor. 12 : 7 eboBr) ixoi ctkoKo^ — Iva iJ,e Ko\aavepbv. The variety of construction with 0$ is illustrated by Mt. 24 : 2 (Lu. 21 : 6), OS oil KaToKvdiiaeTai,, and Mk. 13 : 2, 6$ oh /iij kotoXuAb. 1 Draeger, Hist. Synt., Bd. II, p. 527. 2 Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 118. » Cf. K.-G., Bd. II, p. 421. ' N. T. M. and T., p. 126. « Moulton, Prol., p. 185. « Goodwin, M. and T., p, 217. ' Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 218. ' See Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 135. MODE (efkaisis) 961 The classic idiom preferred the fut. ind. for purpose with the relative (Schmid, Attidsmus, IV, p. 621), but Isocrates (IV, 44) has i' oh i.\oTinriB(arJKtv TTiv OLKiav, Lu. 7 :49 tw ovt6s koTLV OS Ktti ctjuaprias a4>lr)aiv; Cf . 2 Th. 3 : 3 TTio-Tos OS with 1 Jo. 1 : 9 ttio-tos iVa. An example^ -of the concessive use of oiTtces is seen in Jas. 4 : 14, oiTii'es ovK hrlcraaOe ttjs aiipLou Toia ij fwij v^i^u. The conditional use of the relative clause is only true in a modified sense, as already shown. The relative os and ooris, whether with or without av, does not mean el' rts or kav ns, though the two constructions are very much alike. There is a similarity between et ns dtXei (Mk. 9 : 35) and 8s &v ek\ri (10 : 43). But I do not agree to the notion of Goodwin^ and Burton" that in the relative clauses we have a full-fledged set of conditional sentences on a par with the scheme with the conditional particles. That procedure is entirely too forced and artificial for the Greek free- dom and for the facts. There is a general sort of parallel at some points, but it is confusion in syntax to try to overdo it with care- ful detail as Viteau* does. "Ai' is not confined to the relative and conditional sentences, but occurs with eus, rplv, us, tva, ottcos (temporal and final clauses). The indefinite relative like os eai' 0eXil (Mk. 8 : 35) or So-tis btu3Ktr/i\afi (Mt. 10 : 32) is quite similar in idea to a conditional clause with hkv Tts or d tis. But, after all, it is not a conditional sentence any more than the so-called 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 218. ' Blass, ib., cites also kavds XOirai in Mk. 1 : 7. « N. T. M. and T., p. 126. » M. and T., pp. 195 ff. * Cf. K.-G., Bd. II, p. 422. ' N. T. M. and T., pp. 119 ff. " Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 118. » Le Verbe, pp. 136 ff. 962 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT causal, final, consecutive relative clauses are really so. It is only by the context that one inferentially gets any of these ideas out of the relative. All that is true about the indefinite relative clauses has already been explained under that discussion. I there- fore pass by any treatment of the kinds of conditional sentences in connection with the relative clauses. (h) Negatives in Relative Clauses. When the subj. occurs the negative is /iri, as in 8$ S.v nfi 'ixv (Lu. 8 : 18), but ov iir) is found in Mk. 13 : 2, OS OX) ixri KaTaXvOfj. So in Mk. 9 : 1 and Mt. 16 : 28 we have ov fii/. With the indicative the negative is ov, as in os ov Xa/i/3dv€t (Mt. 10 : 38); 6s yap ovk 'ian kuO' vfiS>v (Lu. 9 : 50). Oc- casionally when the relative is indefinite the subjective negative /i^ occurs with the indicative. So ^ jui) Tapeanv ravra (2 Pet. 1 : 9) ; o /ii7 oixo'Koyet (1 Jo. 4 : 3) ; a fif/ 3ei (Tit. 1:11). So also D in Ac. 15 : 29. Moulton {Prol., p. 171) calls this use of ni] a survival of literary construction. He gives also some papyri examples {ih., p. 239) of ni] in relative clauses: B.U. 114 (ii/A.D.) riv aTroSiSaiKev avrQ nijTe Shvarai Xa/SeTi', C.P.R. 19 (iv/A.D.) a firi cvve^oivricra. The use of /ii7 in relative clauses is more common in the koivt} than in the clas- sic Greek (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 171). He cites examples from late Greek writers. There is nothing gained by explaining oil in relative clauses after the fashion of el ov in conditional sen- tences as is done by Burton.* 2. Causal Sentences. (a) Paratadic Causal Sentences. These do not properly be- long here, but there are so many of them that they compel notice. The common inferential particle yap introduces an in- dependent, not a depei^dent, sentence. Paul uses it usually to introduce a separate sentence as in Ro. 2:28; 1 Cor. 15:9. In 1 Cor. 10 : 17 both ort and yap occur. It will be treated in the chapter on Particles. Phrases like av6' &v (Lu. 12 : 3), Sid (Mt. 27:8), StoTrep (1 Cor. 8:13), odev (Ac. 26:19), Si' fjv alrlav (2 Tim. 1:6, 12), ov xapiv (Lu. 7:47) are not always regarded as formally causal. The construction is sometimes paratactic. In- deed, the subordination of the on and Sion clauses is often rather loose.^ Thus there is very little difference between on (begins the sentence with W. H.) in 1 Cor. 1 : 25 and yap in 1 : 26. Cf. also e-ireiSri in 1 : 22. See further on in 2 Cor. 4 : 6; 7: 8, 14, and Sion in Ro. 3 : 20; 8 : 7. The causal sentence is primarily para- 1 N. T. M. and T., p. 180. » Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 274. Cf. also Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 98. MODE (efkaisis) 963 tactic. See Mt. 6:5; Lu. 11 : 32; 1 Cor. 15 : 29; Heb. 10 : 2. The subordinate relative is a lat»r development.* (6) With Subordinating Conjunctions. One may say at once that in the N. T. the mode is always the indicative. There is no complication that arises save with iird when the apodosis of a condition of the second class is used without the protasis as in Heb. 10 : 2, kirel ovk av kvaiiaavro. Here the construction is not due at all to kird. In the same way we explain kird Uei in Heb. 9 : 26 and krd ix^dXere &,pa in 1 Cor. 5 : 10. There is ellipsis also in the rhetorical question in 1 Cor. 15 : 29, iird tI iroiiiaowiv; But in Ac. 5 : 38 f . two complete conditional sentences {kav and d, protasis and aplodosis) occur with &tl. In a word, it may be said that the indicative is used precisely as in the paratactic sentences. Cf . Jo. 14 : 19, 8rt eyci f to Kol ifius f i^ffere. The negative is usually ov as in IJo. 2 : 16. Once in the N. T., Jo. 3 : 18, oTi jui) ireirLtTTevKev, we have ti-q, but ov is seen in 1 Jo. 5 : 10, 8rt ov ireiriarevKev. "The former states the charge, quod non crediderit, the latter the simple fact, quod nan credidit" (Moulton, Prol, p. 171). Cf. Sn fiii in Epictetus IV, 4, 11; IV, 5, 8-9. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 162, 535. The distinction is subtle, nTj being more subjective and ideal. In Heb. 9 : 17, iirel liii rdre (or fiii irore) £o-x6«, we likewise meet ixij. In B. G. U. 530 (I/a.D.), krl y,i\ kvTkypa\l/a% a,VT§ — otl ovk exe/ui^as irpos (76, note kirl (ei) nil and oTi oiiK with true distinction. With ov we have the objec- tive fact, with (lit the element of blame (jikiJ,iTai) appears. "The comparison of Plutarch with the N. T. shows a great advance in the use of on a"?" (Moulton, Prol, p. 239). Cf. also E. L. Green, Gildersleeve Studies, pp. 471 ff.; Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 171. He cites &tl /«) exets, Epictetus IV, 10, 34. It is making inroads on 6tl oil. We sometimes have &vd' S>v in a truly causal sense as in Lu. 1 : 20, and that is true also of ddev in Mt. 14 : 7. In Heb. 2:18kvv is practically causal. So also k' ^ is causal in Rp. 5 : 12; 2 Cor. 5:4; Ph. 4:10. Cf. e(^' v St!)"', P- Oxy. 38 (a.d. 49). The classical kef)' ^ re does not occur in the N. T. See kcj)' ^ Scitrei, 'on condition that he give,' P. Oxy. 275 (a.d. 66). Then tis has almost the force of a causal particle in Mk. 9:21; Jo. 19 : 33; Mt. 6 : 12 (cf. Lu. 11 : 4, /cai y&p); 2 Tim. 1 : 3. The same thing is true of Kad6)s in Jo. 17 : 2. Kad' oaov is causal in Heb. 7 : 20 (9 : 27) and k^' baov in Mt. 25 : 40, 45. So ko96ti in Lu. 19 : 9 (cf. 1:7). In Ac. 17 : 31 HLP. read 5i6ri. 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 cos on in 2 Cor. 5 : 19; cbs oTi Beds rj" '^^ 'KpiarQ kocfjjjov KaraWaaaciiv eavTCi (cf. our "since that"). Here the Vulgate has gwomam. But in 2 Cor. 11:21 the Vulgate renders is on by quasi, as in 2 Th. 2:2, cos on kvkaTJiKtv. 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 modern Greek'' it takes the form 7taTi. Once (Ro. 8 : 21) some MSS. (W. H. read otC) have 5i6n in the sense of objective on ('that') as in later Greek (cf. late Latin quia = quod). Instances of causal 5i6ri may be seen in Lu. 1 : 13; Ro. 1 : 19, etc. It is compounded of &iA and on (cf. English "for that"). In Ph. 2 : 26 5t6n is causal and on is de- clarative. In modern Greek Si6n survives in 17 KoBapevovaa. The vernacular has d^oO, eweidri, yiaTi (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 o— on and on o in Ro. 4: 21. It is accusative neuter on. (cf. 6n av TpoaSairaviiajis 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 Gr., p. 158). The English "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 oTL occurs three times in succession. In Lu. 9 : 49, kco- "Kiionev avTov on ovK aKoXovdei fied' vnSiv, the present is used because of a sort of implied indirect discourse. In Mk. 9 : 38 W. H. read 6n oOk riKoXobdei. A good example of causal on is seen in Ro. 5 : 8. The precise idea conveyed by on varies greatly. In Jo. 9 : 17, n (TV Xe7€i$ irepl abrov, 6n rivkcf^ev aov roi/s 64)Ba\iuo{js; the use of Sn 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 3n. So in Jo. 2 : 18, tI ariyteiov 3ei- Kvbeis fi/ilv, on ravra iroieis; Akin to this construction is that in • Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 98. ' lb. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 454. * Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 189. ' As Viteau does in Le Verbe, p. 100. The LXX does show the idiom, as in 1 Kl. 1 : 8, tZ etrrt trot. Srt K\aiei,si MODE (efkaisis) 965 Jo. 14 : 22, tI ^^Yove;/ on, which is shortened into rl &tl in Ac. 5 : 4. There is a correspondence sometimes between Slo, tovto and Sn (Jo. 10 : 17); oiiras and &n (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 kirel, iTeiSi], tireiSriTip. As a matter of fact iirei-dri-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.'' 'EweiSri is read by "W. H. in Lu. 7 : 1 and Ac. 13 : 46, but eiret dk 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. 1: 21 f. 'Exet, 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, hwd eis irpo^ijTTjf eixov. The classical idiom of the el- lipsis with kirel 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 k-rel irSis (Ro. 3 : 6) and kwei ri (1 Cor. 15 : 29). In 1 Cor. 14 : 16, kml khv, it is equivalent to 'otherwise' and in Ro. 11:22 to 'else,' kirel koX av eKKoirrjaTi. 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 on (a direct reason).* The N. T. shows examples of Bavfia^u ei in this sense (Mk. 15 : 44; 1 Jo. 3:13), though Oavfia^u on is found also* (Lu. 11:38; Gal. 1 : 6). "On is the N. T. construction' with ayavaKTkca (Lu. 13 : 14); k^oiwXoykonaL (Mt. 11 : 25); evxapurrkoi (Lu. 18 : 11); iikKei (Mk. 4 : 38); xaipo) (Lu. 10 : 20); xoUco (Jo. 7 : 23). Cf. &n and «■ v in Ph. 4 : 10. On the possible causal use of Sre 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 os 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 GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Feb. 12 : 6. For Sims note Mt. 7 : 15; Ro. 6 : 2. See also oB XaptJ* (Lu. 7 : 47) and Si' fjv airiav (8 : 47). (d) Ata TO and the Infinitive. The construction is common in the N. T., occurring thirty-two times according to Votaw' as compared with thirty-five for the 0. T. and twenty-six for the Apocrypha. It is particularly frequent in Luke.^ Cf. Lu. 2:4; 8 : 6; Ac. 4 : 2; 8 : 11, etc. It is not in John except in 2 : 24, Sia TO avTdv yiviicKiLV. Blass^ rejects it here because the Lewis MS. and Nonnus do not have the passage. Here note that ort is used side by side with Sia t6. So in Jas. 4 : 2 f. we have 5td rd jui) aiTeZffdaL vfias and Stort KaKois aiTeiade on a parity. Cf. Ph. 1 : 7, Kadtjjs and Sia. to. In Mk. 5 : 4, 5ia to SeSkadai Kal Sieairkadai Kal avvTeTpiv Kal ovx ws 01 jpafifiaTUs, the first d>s 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, s av iK(t>ofietv (here alone in the N. T. with infinitive) =' as if to frightei^' "ilamp 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), onrTrep — oiircos naL So Jo. 5 : 21. So ibarep — dxraircas (Mt. 25 : 14-18); ili(nrep — oiiras (13 : 40). We find cbavep also with the participle (cf. Ac. 2:2). Often the verb is wholly wanting as in Mt. 6 : 7. We meet aya\riv Kkivg (Lu. 9 :58). But the subj. with iav in otov iav aTtpxv (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 otov 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. 'Otov is used also in metaphorical relations, as in Heb. 9 : 16. The correlative adverb exei occasionally appears with otov as in Lu. 12:34; 17:37; Jo. 12:26. Kal is a correlative in Jo. 17:24. The use of 6tov in classical Greek is confined to indefinite sen- tences, but the N. T. shows a frequent use (especially in John) 970 A GRAMMAR 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 Clauses in Origin and Idiom. Blass'' bluntly says that temporal clauses introduced by ore and orav "are generally only a special class of relative sentence, and ex- hibit the same constructions." The same thing is true of local sentences. Burton' carries this conception to such a point that he has no separate treatment of temporal sentences at all. This is surely going too far. Thompson* sees the matter. rightly when he says: "The vague original relative import becomes specialized." Hence we expect to find both definite and indefinite temporal clauses as with other relative (and local) clauses. Definite tem- poral clauses may be illustrated by Mt. 7 : 28, 3t€ eriXeatv b 'Iri- aovs Tovs \6yovs tovtovs, 'e^eKKijCiTOVTO ol oxXoi. The indefinite is shown in Jo. 15 : 26, ^rav e\&xi (> irapoKXjjros. The temporal clause may be indefinite in its futurity, frequency and duration.^ In- definite futurity is the most common, indefinite duration the least common. The modes used in temporal clauses in the N. T. are the indicative and the subjunctive. These uses conform to the historical development of the two modes. There is one example of the optative in a temporal clause (Ac. 25 : 16, irpds ovs airtKpi- Orjv oTi oiiK eoTiv Wos 'l?u)iiaioi,s xi^Pif ^"'^'''^ ^'■''" avOpoiTov rrplv i] 6 Karrj- yopovfievos Kara irpoacoTOV 'exoi' tovs Karrjyopovs totov re dxoXoYias- Xd/Soi Trepl Tov eY/cXiJ/iaros). Here, as is evident, the optative is due to indirect discourse, not to the temporal clause. The subjunc- tive with ap {irplv fi av exv — XdiSjj) occurs rather than the opta- tive according to sequence of modes. This sequence was optional and a classic idiom, and so is found in the N. T. only in Luke's writings. Observe that ianv is retained in the indicative. This sentence is a fine illustration of the Greek subordinate clauses. In the context in Acts it is seen that four dependent clauses pre- cede the TTplv rj clause in the long sentence. The use of &v or idv in temporal clauses has very much the same history as in other relative clauses. The usage varies with different conjunctions and will be noted in each instance. The point of time in the temporal clause may be either past, present or future. It is a rather complicated matter, the Greek temporal clause, but not so much so as the Latin cum clause, "in which the Latin lan- » Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 152 f. * Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 329. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 218. « lb., p. 328. « N. T. M. sind T., pp. 118, 126 £f. MODE (ErKAISls) 971 guage is without a parallel." ' The different constructions may- be conveniently grouped for discussion. Just as the optative with temporal clauses vanished, sd**there came a retreat of va- rious temporal conjunctions. As a result in the later Greek the construction is much simpler.^ (&) Conjunctions Meaning 'When.' The classic use of the op- tative for repetition with such clauses has been effectually side- tracked in the vernacular kolvIi (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 130). Only the ind. and subj. modes occur in these clauses. 'Eirei has y.anished' in this senise, save in Lu. 7 : 1 where it is a variant (mar- gin in W. H. and Nestle) for kiruSii, the correct text. Curiously enough this is also the only instance of the temporal use of exeiSiJ in the N. T., exeiSi) eirXi^pciKrei'. It is a definite point of time in the past and naturally the indicative occurs. There are three examples of kirav with the subjunctive (Mt. 2 : 8, eirA-v evprire; Lu. 11 : 22, kirav viKriaji; 11 : 34, kirav fj where it is parallel with orav j5). There are only two instances of ■fiviKo. (2 Cor. 3 : 15, 16, iivka S.V hvayivojaKfirai, ^vUa kiv kinaTpbj/'Q). It is the indefi- nite idea as the subjunctive shows. Note av and hav (indefi- nite also and with notion of repetition). Nestle (AEH) reads bvoTt ktreivaaev in Lu. 6 : 3, but W. H. and Souter (NBCD) have ore. 'OiriTaK does not occur in the N. T. "Ore and orav are both common and in all parts of the N. T. The connec- tion between ore (cf. 6-dev, Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 254) and Homeric ore and os re (Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 191) is disputed.* Cf. the conjunction 6 from os and on from oo-tw. Homer used Sre as a causal conjunction Uke on. 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, ore iiyyiaav ds 'lipotroKvua. The present time is rare, as in ore yir/ova avifp fn 1 Cor. 13 : 11; ore fg in Heb. 9 : 17. In Mk. 11:1 irty'ltovffiv 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 Sre is preceded by a word like S>pa (Jo. 4 : 21, 23) or inxiptx. (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. ' "EirtJ 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 ius eiTTjjTe in Lu. 13 : 35, but Nestle still reads im rj^ei Sre el-rriTe. The text is in much confusion, but at any rate here is manuscript evidence for the subjunctive with ore without av. This is in har- mony with what we saw was true of os and So-tis. It is also a well-known Homeric idiom.^ Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 164) cites ore ap^rai (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, orap tSijre. The present subj. does occur when the notion of repetition is implied, as in Mt. 15 : 2, orav aprov kadloKnv. Cf. Mt. 6 : 2. Once the idea of duration seems manifest (Jo. 9 : 5, orav kv tQ Kbafic/ Si), but usu- ally it is future uncertainty simply. It is not necessary to take the common aorist subj. here as the Latin futurum exactum? Cf . orav irapaSoZ in Mk. 4 : 29. The av {ore av) is always present save in the doubtful ore eiTnjre 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 avk\djis ket. On the other hand a number of examples occur of orav with the indicative (cf. eav and ottou av with the indicative). Homer, Iliad, 20, 335, has ore Kev ^vfifiKii- aeai avT^. So in Rev. 4 : 9 we find orav Swffovcriv. The close affin- 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 64/eade, though W. H. put otpriade in the text. A good many manuscripts likewise have orav with the future ind. in Mt. 10 : 19 and 1 Tim. 5 : 11. Cf. orav 'iffrai. in Clem., Cor. 2, 12, 1. Moulton (Prol., p. 168) notes in the papyri only a small number of examples of av with temporal clauses and the ind. Thus orav iPrjixev in Par. P. 26 (ii/s.c); irav iirvdonriv in B. U. 424 (ii/iii a.d.); oirorav avaipovvrai in B. U. 607 (ii/A.D.). It is common in the LXX, Polybius, Strabo, etc. See Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 463; Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 164. Ramsay {Cit. and B., ii, p. 477, no. 343) gives orav e^cav iyii a "curious anti-Christian inscription" (Moulton, Prol., p. 239). A few in- stances occur of orav with the present indicative. So 6Tav ari]- KtTt in Mk. 11 : 25. Here^ some MSS. have the subj., as in Ro. 2 : 14 some read orav iroteT. Cf . also various readings in Mk. 13 : 4, 7. This construction is not unknown in earlier writers, though more common in the koivt]. Cf. Ex. 1 : 16; Ps. 101 : 3; ' Cf . Mutzbauer, Konjunktiv und Optativ, p. 97. 2 W.-M., p. 387. ' Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 125. Cf . Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 463. * Cf. W.-M., p. 388. MODE (ErKAISIs) 973 Prov. 1 : 22; Josephus, Ant., xii, 2, 3; Strabo, I, 1, 7; Act. Apocr., 126. In 2 Cor. 12 : 10, brav acdtvSi, vm probably have the present subj. Cf. 1 Th. 3 : 8, kav arriKfTe. The examples of orav with the aorist or imperfect indicative are more numerous. In Thucyd- ides ore was always definite and .dirore indefinite.^ "Orai' with the optative appears in Xenophon.^ The Atticists have iireiSav and birhrav (sic) with the opt. (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 165). In the KOivi] the field of orav is widened, as already shown. Aga- thias uses orav with the aorist indicative.' It is common in the Septuagint to have orav with past tenses (Gen. 38 : 11; 1 Sam. 17:34, orav fipxero; Ps. 119:7, orav eKaXovv; 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, orav ixtv ovm rjaap, kytvtro to Skov. Strabo I, 1, 7 has orav pa.'yl^a Ti\v i^Bofiriv. But, as Moulton {Prol., p. 248) observes, it is possible to regard k^iTopevovro in Mk. 11 : 19 as pictorial rather than iterative and the papyri examples of orav, as seen above, allow either usage. Simcbx' explains this "lapse" on the ground that Mark and the author of the Apoca- lypse are the least correct of the N. T. writers. But the idiom belonged to the vernacular kolvti. See Ex. 16 : 3,' 64)eXov airedavo- fiev — orav kKoBlaaixfV kirl tSsv Xe/SijTcoj' /cat ricdlofifv aprovs. 'Oo-d/cis is only used with the notion of indefinite repetition. It occurs ' Winifred Warren, A Study of Conjunctional Temp. Clauses in Thucydides, 1897, p. 73. '0« is found twice in 1 Thuc. with the optative, but Miss Warren reads ivSre. ' Baumlein, Unters. tiber die griech. Modi und die Partik. Ktv und Sc, 1846, p. 322. • Reffel, Uber den Sprachgebr. des Agathias, p. 24. * Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 123; W.-M., p. 388 f. » W.-M., p. 389. « lb.; MuUach, Vulg., p. 368. ' W.-M., p. 389. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 218. » Lang, of the N. T., p. 111. 974 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT three times in the N. T. (1 Cor. 11 : 25 f.; Rev. 11 : 6), each time with iav and the subjunctive. These points are all obvious. '& is rather common in the N. T. as a temporal conjunction. It is originally a relative adverb from 6s and occurs in a variety of constructions. The temporal use is closely allied to the com- parative. Cf. cos ^XaXei riiitp kv rg oScp (Lu. 24 : 32). So Jo. 12 : 36. The temporal aspect is sharp in Mk. 9 : 21 where cos means 'since.' The examples in the N. T. are usually in the aorist or imperfect indicative as in Jo. 6 : 12, 16; Ac. 8 : 36 and chiefly refer to definite incidents. In 1 Cor. 12 : 2, cos &v ^ytadt, we have the imperfect ind. with av for the notion of repetition (cf. orav). So in Aristeas 7, 34, d)s av rjij^avTo. In modern Greek aav (from (lis &v) is used for 'when' (Thumb, Handb., p. 192). The use of cos ai'='as if is that of conditional, not modal, av, and is very common in the papyri (Moulton, Prol., p. 167). See Conditions. As early as' i/s.c. the papyri show examples of cos av= 6Tav (orig- inally c!)s af='as soon as'). Cf. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 164; Rhein. Mus., 1901, p. 206; Hib. P. 1, 44, 45. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 164) gives cos oi' olixai, Dion. Hal. and Dio Chrys., cos &v aiifivov edo^ev, Luc. Alex. 22. But cos is used a few times with the subjunctive, thrice with 6.v (Ro. 15 : 24; 1 Cor. 11:34; Ph. 2: 23), once without av (Gal. 6 : 10), cbs Kaipov 'exi^f^^v. In classical Greek this futuristic subj. would have ii.v (Moulton, Prol., p. 248 f.). With the last construction compare Mk. 4 : 26. In the temporal use cos av is not common in Attic. In Mk. 9 : 21 note vbtTos xP^vos — COS. In Ac. 17 : 15 we have cos rLxi-i^ra, a remnant of the rather frequent use of cos with superlative adverbs. It is possible that /cameos has a temporal sense in Ac. 7:17 (cf . 2 Mace. 1:31). (c) The Group Meaning 'Until' {'While'). The words in this^ list have a more complex history than those in the preceding one. They are &.xPh t^^XPh '^^ ^^^ %piv. "Axpi (twice in the N. T., axP's, Gal. 3 : 19 and Heb. 3 : 13) is more frequently a preposi- tion (cf. 6.XP'- Kaipov, Lu. 4 : 13) than a conjunction. It is rare in Greek prose and axpt av only in poetry .^ But Philo (I, 166, 20) has SxP's °-v — cfikaeie. But the simple conjunction is less fre- quent than the compound form (preposition and relative), as axpt ov (Lu. 21:24) and axpt h Vfiipas (Mt. 24:38). Sometimes the MSS. vary between ^xPh P-hcP'; and ecos, as in Mt. 13 : 30 (prepo- sition). Cf. Ac. 1 : 22. Past tenses of the indicative are used of an actual historical event. No example of the simple c.xpi ap- ' Meisterh.-Schwyzer, Gr. d. attisch. Inschr., p. 251. MODE (ErKAIZIs) 975 pears in this construction in the N. T., but we have ftxpt ov iLvkarij (Ac. 7:18) and fixpi ^s ■iinkpas eltrrgdev (Lu. 17:27). The only instance of the present ind. is in Iieb. 3 : 13, &xpts ov t6 c'iiiiepov (caXeTrat. Here the meaning is 'so long' (linear) or 'while' (cf. &os). The more common use is with reference to the indefinite future. In two instances (Rev. 17 : 17, axpc Tt\ecr6iipay'i.(TO)iiev in Rev. 7 : 3 and iixpi- reKead^ in 20:3, 5; fixpi ov ^Xfljj in 1 Cor. 11:26; axpt ^s -finipas ytvr]Tai in Lu. 1 : 20) or with &v (axpw &v ixe^i in Gal. 3 : 19, though W. H. put just oxpts oB in the margin). Here the time is relatively fu- ture to the principal verb TpoatrWri, though it is secondary. The subj. is retained instead of the optattve on the principle of indi- rect discourse. As a matter of fact av occurs only twice, the other instance being Rev. 2 : 25 above. Cf. cixpis orav irXripwdfj, O. P. 1107, 3 (v/a.d.). M^xpis (so twice, Mk. 13: 30; Gal. 4 : 19, and once litxpi, Eph. 4 : 13) occurs only three times as a conjunc- tion. In Eph. 4 : 13 it is p.txpi' simply, in the other examples likxpii ol. In all three instances the aorist subj. is used without av for the indefinite future. The use as a preposition is more frequent. Cf. juexpt 'ludvov (Lu. 16 : 16) and /i^XP« atnaroi (Heb. 12 : 4). It means 'up to the point of.'' The Koivii writers show a rather varied use of m^xP' (cf. Diodorus, Strabo, Polybius, Josephus, Justin Martyr). They, like the papyri, have juexpi and M^XP'y o5 with and without cic (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 140). "Ews is much more frequent in the N. T. both as preposition (cf. ?cos ovpavov, Mt. 11 : 23) and as conjunction. The prepositional use is illustrated also in kos rod i'Kduv (Ac. 8 :40). The prepositional use (more frequent than thq conjunctional) goes back as far as Aristotle and denotes the terminus ad quern. "Ecoy is Attic for Homeric ^os and Doric Hs.^ As with axpi and nkxpi, we find ews alone as a conjunction (Mt. 2:9), ?a)s o5 (Mt. 14 : 22) and toss 6tov (5 : 25). It is used both with the in- dicative and the subjunctive. When an actual event is re- corded in the past only the aorist indicative is used. This is the usual classic idiom.' So 'iois ^\6ev (Mt. 24:39), icos ov ireKev (1 : 25), icos &TOV i(t>i)vriaav (Jo. 9 : 18). When the present ind. appears with 'ius the notion is 'while,' not 'until,' and it is either a con- temporaneous event, as in 'ius avrds &.iro\vei t6v 6x\ov (Mk. 6 : 45. » Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 563. 2 lb., p. 200. > Goodwin, M. and T., p. 235. 976 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Note dependence on rivayKaaev, like indirect discourse), or a lively proleptic future in terms of the present, as ineojs tpxoiiai irpoatxt Txi avayvtiiaei (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 airokvan and -ei. In Mt. 14 : 22 the reading (in the parallel passage) is 'iois ov ottoXiio-jj. Cf. the construction with the Latin dum. In Lu. 19 : 13 W. H. read h ^ tpxonai instead of cojs 'ipxofai. Instead of toss riixkpa karlv (Jo. 9 : 4) W. H. have is in the margin, though keeping e'cos in text (as does Nestle). If ecjs is genuine, it is clearly 'while,' not 'until.' In Jo. 12 :35f. W. H. read in the text cos, not ecos. We have, besides, ecos otov tl in Mt. 5 : 25. Most of the examples of tcos deal with the future and have only the subj. after the classic idiom.^ The future, be- ing identical in form with the aorist subj., is possible in the cases of ecos OX) avairkixypoi (Ac. 25 : 21) and ecos otov ctkci^co (Lu. 13 : 8), but the regular subj. is the probable idiom. In Lu. 13 : 35 some MSS. have ecos ^fe^ (see (6)), but W. H. reject j/^et &t€. Both ecos ov and ecos otov are common, but always without a.v. So ecos oB aj'eXcocrti' (Ac. 23 : 21) and ecos otov irXripudfj (Lu. 22 : 16). With simple ecos it is more common to have av. So ecos ai* airoScJis (Mt. 5 : 26), but note ecos 'eK6ji (10 : 23). "Av is not essential in this construction. Cf. Lu. 12 : 59; 15 : 4; 22 : 34. In Mk. 14 : 32, Jcos Trpoo-eiijco/iat, the notion is rather 'while' than 'until.' Cf. Mt. 14: 22; 26: 36; Lu. 17: 8. But the note of expectancy suits the subjunctive. In Mt. 18 : 30, 'efiaXev avTov ek (t>v\aKriv ecos awoSc^ to 64>€LK6fievov, the subj. is retained after secondary tense of the in- dicative as in indirect discourse. "Ecos occurs after negative verbs also (cf. Tpiv), as in Lu. 22: 34. Moulton {Prol., p. 169) quotes Tb. 6 (ii/B.c.) ecos likvwcnv, G, H. 38 (I/b.c.) ecos Kara/Sjjs. In the papyri av, as in the N. T., is often absent from these conjunctions meaning 'until.' Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 140) finds ?cos and < the subj. common in the papyri, the inscrs. and the kolvti 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 Koivii 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. Jiplv is a comparative form (cf . superlative wpu-Tos) 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. 2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 235. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 219. MODE (efkaisis) 977 prius} It is the neuter accusative singular. It is really the same in idea as rporepov, 'before,' 'forme4y.' Pindar uses it as a prep- osition with the ablative irplv copas = irpd ibpas. The original con- struction with wpLv 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). Cf. irpli> airodaveiu (Jo. 4 : 49), wplv 'Afipaap, yevkcdai, (8: 58). Five times we have irplv fi, as in Mt. 1 : 18. Luke alone uses the clas- sic idiom of tcpiv 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 l5eXv Oavarov irplv [fj] av Wn tov XpLardv Kvpiov, the subj. is retained according to the usual rule in indirect dis- course in the Koivri (so often in the Attic). In Ac. 25 : 16, as al- ready explained heretofore, irplv fj ?x<" — Xa/Joi after aireKpi8r]v on o\)K ItTTiv 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 Im av here. A few MSS. have Tplv ft in Lu. 22 : 34.* The papyri writers do not show the same consistency as Luke in the use of irpiv.^ But note fi^re Sidorco — Tplv axir^ eirioreXXT/Tai, 0. P. 34 (ii/A.D.). For 'until' tcos kept the field. Indeed in Lu. 22: 34, ov (^wvijo-ei (riifiepov oKtKTwp ecos rpis airapvr}a-[}, we see eojs where irplv would usually come (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 164). Very early irpo TOV and inf. also began to displace Tplv (see Verbal Nouns). In the modern Greek irplv holds its place (also irpl va, o' ^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 ^juepas. 'Ej' ^ is not always temporal. It may be merely local (Ro. 2:1), instrumen- tal (Ro. 14: 21) or causal (Ro. 8:3). The temporal use is much Uke ecos in the sense of 'while,' as in Mk. 2 : 19 (Lu. 5: 34) ec tj 6 vvfjLcjjlos fjXT' aiirSiv kariv. Cf. Jo. 5 : 7, ei* (J epxofiai. with ecoj epxopai in Jo. 21 : 22. In Lu. 19 : 13 the Text. Rec. has ews 'epxo/iai, but h ^ is the true reading. In 1 Pet. 1 : 6 ^c ^ has its antece- dent expressed in the preceding sentence and means 'wherein.' In Mk. 2 : 19 we see oaov xpovov for duration of time. In Mt. 9 : 15 the shorter e^' &aov occurs, while in Heb. 10 : 37 note oaov &es kjSaXco (Lu. 6 : 42), ^oiiXeade airoKvaw; (Jo. 18 : 39), deKeis iToiiJ,aaiiifj,iv (Mk. 14 : 12) are probably instances of this original idiom rather than of a mere eUipsis of iva.^ Cf. also the possible origin of oh nrj as oD'- /iij. This ' M. and T., pp. 105-137. 2 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 iwois and us gradually disappear. ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 555. s Goodwin, M. and T., p. 109. MODE (efkaisis) 981 disconnected idiom was felt to be especially bare in the positive form, but the negative paratactia* construction with jitij 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 /uij (originally the mere negative in para- taxis and the negative conjunction in hypotaxis) there came Iva firi, ojrcos fir).* 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<^pa, for instance, is not in the N. T., nor is the idiom of oTTws with the future indicative after verbs of striving. (a) "Im. The etymology of I'w is not certain. A fragment* of Hesiod has tv avrQ. Perhaps iV-a is derived from this form. But at any rate in Homer 'tj'a=k€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' (mO is not clear.^ But we have a similar transition in the Latin id, English that, German daB. Sophocles in his Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods gives nineteen uses of ha 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 Iva came to be used in all these ways in the Byzantine period. In the koivij 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, Pro!., p. 185. 2 Am. Jour, of Philol., 1883, p. 419. < Goodwin, M. and T., p. 107. ' Entwickelungsgeschichte der Absichtsatze (1884, 1885). « Dyroff, Gesch. des Pronomen reflexivum, 1892, p. 71. ' Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 566. » lb. 982 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT of iva, much preferring ottcos and oxws av.' So in epic and lyric poetry iva is overshadowed by o^pa and in tragedy by cbs, 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 Iva, 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 Iva 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 Iva. Thucydides used oxcos three times as often as 'iva, and ws as a final particle only twice. Xenophon in the first three books of the Anabasis has bircos one and a half times as often as tva, and cos nearly as often as 'iva. But Polybius (books I-V) uses 'iva exclusively, and the N. T. has 'iva about twelve times as often as ottws, and is perhaps once. It is thus not simply that 'iva displaced oirus and cos, 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 modern Greek vernacular every phase of the subj. and the old future ind. can be expressed by va {'iva) and the subj.^ NA is used also with the ind. The intention in modern Greek is brought out a bit more sharply by 7td v6, (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 'Lva 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 'iva is in the accusative case of general reference. Thus in k\-!l\vda 'iva nadoi (cf . veni ut discam, ' I am come that I may learn') lva 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 n6.do}. As already explained, the subj. is the predominant mode, as in tovto 5i &\ov ykyovev 'iva irXT/pwflg (Mt. 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 tva is n'fi, as in tva tirj KpidrjTt (Mt. 7:1). The aorist subj. is the normal tense, of course, as in tva neraSQi (Ro. 1: 11), though* he present occurs to denote a continuous action, as in Iva nareiniTe (Jo. 13 : 19). Cf. tva yvHiTe Kal yiv6)(TKriTe (Jo. 10: 38). The perfect subj. occurs in elSSi, as I'ra «i5gs (1 Tim. 3 : 15); Iva dSufuv (1 Cor. 2 : 12); tva dSrjre (1 Jo. 5: 13). Cf. also Jo. 17: 19, 23; 1 Cor. 1 : 10; 2 Cor. 1 : 9 {tva H^l TtTOLddres &iJ.ev) ; tva iraptaKivaaiikvoi. ^t€ (2 Cor. 9:3). The subj. is regularly retained after a secondary tense of the indica- tive as in avk^i\ tva tZ-g (Lu. 19 : 4) ; kxeriixria-ev tva firidevl ttiruaiv (Mt. 16 : 20). Cf. Mk. 8 : 6. There is no instance in the N. T. of the optative used with tva after a secondary tense of the indica- tive. It is true that W. H. read tva ScJjtj in the text of Eph. 1 : 17 (iva Si>ii or SQ in the margin), but this is after a primary tense, oii iraboimi. It is the volitive use of the optative and is not due to tva. It is hke the optative in a future wish.' This use of the opt. with I'ra after a wish is not unlcnown to classic Greek.'' It is the subj., not the opt., that is seen in IVa irXTjpots (Col. 4 : 17), I'ra irapaSol (Mk. 14 : 10) and in the sub-final 'ira 71-01: (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 Tore StJDj is after a primary tense as in Eph. 1 : 17, and here again the text is uncertain (cf . Scoj; in margin and avavtiyj/caaiv 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, Prol, p. 197). The N. T. writers, more like Diodorus and Polybius, fail "to rival the littirateurs in the use of this resuscitated elfegance." Moulton speaks also of "the > Cf. W.-H., vol. II, App., p. 168. « W.-M., p. 363. ' On the sparing use of the opt. with final sentences in late Gk. see the tables in Diel, De enuntiatis finalibus apud Graecarum rerum scriptores posterioris aetatis, 1894, pp. 20 ff. See also Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 132. Moulton (Prol., p. 197) notes how the Atticists revelled in the opt. with Iva, iras, is. Josephus has 32 per cent, opts., Plut. 49 (Lives), Arrian 82, Appian 87! Polyb. has only 7, Diodorus 5. These are true mti/^ hterati. Moulton finds only one pap. of this period with opt. with tva, O.P. 237 (late ii/A.D.), tva — Swrfitlriv. In iii/A.D. he notes L.Pw., tv'—etrii in primary sequence. Tb. 1 (ii/B.c.) actually has ^iUiira xpiAMTUrSiio-oiTO. * Weber, Entwickelungsgeschichte der Absichtsatze, p. 243. 984 A GRAMMAR 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 ff., VI, pp. 53 ff. There is no trouble to find in the papyri, inscr. and Koivri 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 'Lva was not used with the future ind.' It was not com- mon even with ottcos, ois and ^i?- The similarity in form and sense (not to mention itacism of -^ and -et) 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 lva /caux'j- (TuiML is supported by XAB, 'Lva KavB-qawixai by CK and 'Lva muflij- aonai. by late documents.^ In Gal. 2 : 4 the best documents have IVa KaTo&ovKoiCTovaiv instead of -aciitnv. In Jo. 17 : 2 the MSS. vary between 'lva biiau and Sojcrjj. So in Jo. 15 : 8 note 'Lva (tiiprjTe Kal yev-qcrOe {yevijaeade in margin of W. H.); Eph. 6 : 3, I'm ykvriTai nal 'ia-g. But the idiom is well established in the N. T., especially in the Apocalypse. Thus tea dewpria-ovBS>aiv Ac. 3 : 19 f. OTTCOS aj* eX^cotrc!' — Koi a-roaTe'iX-g, 15 : 17 ottcos av kK^rjrricroKnv from Amos (so A, but B without iiv) 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 Sttcos &.v in Diodorus XIV, 80, 8, Aris- teas, § 239, inscr. of Hahcarnassus (iii/s.c), Jahrb. d. Ost. Inst. XI, 56. But it is rare and ottcos steps into the background be- fore ha. 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 ha over Sttcos (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 157 note). The nega- tive is, of course, always mi?, as in Ac. 20 : 16, oxcos mi? Twr/rai. The subj. is used indifferently after primary tenses (Mt. 6 : 2, TTowDcrt;' OTTCOS So^acdSxTLv) and secondary tenses (Ac. 9 : 34, iraptrripovvTo OTTCOS aiirdv avk>Mcnv) . Cf. Ro. 9 : 17. It is interesting to note that in the N. T. Sttcos is almost 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 ha {ha mvvaxi, ottcos irLaauciv) and may be used for the sake of variety as in ha yivriTaL Sttcos yevr/TaL (2 Cor. 8 : 14). Cf. also Lu. 16:28; » Moulton, Prol., p. 197; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 417. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 211. MODE (efkaisis) 987 1 Cor. 1 : 29; 2 Th. 1 : 12, though IVa— IW appear in 1 Cor. 4:6; Gal. 4 : 5.' In 1 Cor. 1 : 17 ^pte Iva ahj and ottws uri in 1 : 29. But Lva has "invaded the territory of ottcos, as with povT'i.^ei,v and o-xouSctfew" (Moulton, ProL, p. 206). In modern Greek Sirojs has lost all telle force (Thumb, Handb., p. 198). Sometimes OTTOS represents the main purpose and the infinitive the subor- dinate purpose, a constructioh amply illustrated in the papyri.^ So then, though ottcjs as a pure final conjunction is disappearing in the N. T., it yet occurs with the same concept on the whole. (7) 'fis. 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. KB read cos reXetcljo-co in Ac. 20 : 24 instead of (iis reXetcoo-ai (cf. Lu. 9 : 52). W. H. and Nestle read raXeioxrco, but Souter (Rev. V.) gives reXetaio-at. It is the last leaf on the tree and a fluttering one at that. The form could be the future ind. or aorist subj. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 158) finds final ayttv (Mt. 26 : 17) and iroLfiaffconev I'm cfyayris (Mk. 14 : 12). The telic inf. is common in the Kotvii writers generally (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 152). Cf. Xenophon of Eph., 393, 28, kkriXWei irpocrev^acrdai. It is com- monest with verbs of movement (Moulton, Prol., p. 205), as in kav avafiu) Kayii irpoaKvvfjaai, Par. P. 49 (ii/B.c). This infinitive may be resolved easily into the original dative (or locative), as in Jo. 1 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 GRAMMAB OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 21 : 3, iirayu aXLtveiv, 'I go a-fishing'; Mt. 2 : 2, rjXOontv irpoaKvvrja-ai, 'we went up for worshipping.' ' It is easy to see the purpose in the dative form of irpoaKwrjcrai, but less clear in the locative dXteueti' (probably due to syncretism). Moulton^ suggests that the locative was originally a sort of designed result and gradually the line of cleavage vanished between the two forms as was true of Iva (and ut). "The burden of making purpose clear is in all these cases thrown on the context; and it cannot be said that any difficulty results, except in a minimum of places." This idiom has a much wider range in Homer than in Attic writers and is again more prevalent in the N. T. than in the Attic* A few ex- amples must suffice: oiik ^"KBov KaraXvaai, aWa ■KKit]pSiaai (Mt. 5 : 17); 6 'IjjctoDs avrixBv — ireipaffOfjvai md rod StajSoXou (4:1); ovk rjXBov /ca- Xeaai dimlovs (Mk. 2 : 17); irhpeciiev aKovffai (Ac. 10 : 33). Cf. Lu. 18 : 10; Ac. 11 : 25; 12 : 13; 13 : 44, etc. Less frequent is the inf. with Tov for the idea of purpose. Votaw* notes but 33 such ex- amples of direct purpose in the N. T., though the O. T. shows 734. These 33 are almost confined to Matthew, Luke and Acts. Cf . TOV diroXecat (Mt. 2 : 13) ; TOV (TTttpai (Lu. 8:5); tov aiTetv (Ac. 3:2). See both together in Lu. 1 : 76 f., 79; 2 : 22, 24, -wapaaTriaai — Koi TOV bovvai. For a full discussion see "Articular Infinitive" (Verbal Nouns). Paul seems to avoid it as a rule. But see Ro. 6 : 6; Ph. 3 : 10. The use of wore and the inf. for pure purpose is rare in the N. T., some half-dozen instances.' Only indisputable examples should be claimed. Thus cio-re kjSaXXeiv (Mt. 10 : 1). Cf. Mt. 15 : 33; 24 : 24; 27 : 1; Lu. 4 : 29; 20 : 20. Radermacher {N. T. dr., p. 160) cites P. Oxy. I, 52, 7 (325 a.d.), inaraXhTos SicTe Trjv hoBtaiv "eyypao}vij(Tai. For further examples of telic SiaT€ in the inscriptions and writers of the Ko-vfi see Koch, Obser- vationes grammaticae, p. 20. It is more frequent in the LXX. Radermacher even cites a case of final oidre with the subj. in a late papyrus, B.G.U. Ill, 874, yeypa^tina vixiv cio-Te irknypr]Ti. There are two examples of cos in W. H., cbs iTOinkcai (Lu. 9 : 52, other editors &aTi) and cbs tiros eiireiv (Heb. 7:9). In Ac. 20 : 24 most editors have cbs TeXeiSxrai, 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 els TO and irpos to occur with the inf. in the papyri, the latter ' Moulton, Pro!., p. 204. * Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 21. ' lb., p. 207. ' 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.) Sxcos eiSjj irapkaearai {=Oai) — Trpos t6 tvxIv, O. P. 237 (ii/A.D.) oircos (jipovTLiTiii — xp6s to /xtj — iVTvyxavtLv. The pa- pyri have €ts to kv uriSevl ixeixfjjdfjvai as a "recurrent formula." Cf. P. Fi. 2 (iii/A.D.) 4 times. Moulton gives numerous papyri ref- erences for telic eis t6. The examples with els 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 common in Paul (50 exx., H. Scott). So eis t6 cTrj- pixOrjvai (Ro. 1:11), €is TO elvai (8:29). Cf. 1 Th. 3:5; Eph. 1: 12; Ph. 1 : 10). The instances of irpos to are few (12) and chiefly in Luke and Paul. Cf . irpds t6 deadrjvai, (Mt. 6:1); -irpds t6 ShvturBai (Eph. 6 : ll).i id) 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 kolvti. A few remnants survive like tpx^TaL 'HXetas CFOsauiv (Mt. 27:49), av'efirjv ivpoaKVviiepei. iva airoKrirai, the iva clause is the subject of avfjixj>ip€L and is a subject-clause in the nominative case. There is a great variety of phrases * which thus use iva. So apKtTdv iva -yhriTai, (Mt. 10:25; 18:6). Cf. 1 Pet. 4:3 (inf.). See also kavos iva (Mt. 8:8), though elsewhere inf.; a^tos iVa (Jo. 1 : 27), but inf. in 1 Cor. 16 : 4, as often; awfideLa viuv iva (Jo. 18 : 39) ; kXrfKvdev &pa iva (Jo. 12 : 23) ; kimL eis IXaxtcroi' eanv iva (1 Cor. 4:3); iiidv PpS>fia icm.v iva (Jo. 4 : 34); XuertreXeT — iva (Lu. 17 : 2) ; tovto, iva eX0j) (Lu. 1 : 43) ; ^ijTeiTai iva (1 Cor. 4:2); xapdv 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 avri) iva (Jo. 17:3); nei^ova raii- TJjs, iVa (15 : 13, ablative); ev roiiru, iva (15 : 8, locative); xopty, 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 dTaTrare (subj.) is in apposition with kvjoKr). 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 'eppkBt) iva aduriaovaiv (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 eSodr] iva /xri airoKTtivcacLV avToiis, aXX' iva ^aaaviadiiaovTai. In Jo. 17 : 3 some MSS. read iva yiviitrKovuiv (read by Treg. and Tisch.). Object-clauses with iva after verbs of striving, beseech- ing, etc., largely displace oircos. Many of these verbs use also the infinitive and a few retain ottojs.* 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.'s Handb., p. 320. « Cf . Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 228. « Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 225 f. ' W.-Th., p. 338 f. ' lb. MODE (efkaisis) 993' Thayer under Iva (2). Cf. Acta Pauli et Theclae, 29, irpdaev^ai iirip Tov rkKvov ixov, Iva f^ceTai. With these verbs Iva gives the purport or object rather than the purpose. This use of Iva is very- rare ' in classic Greek, though in itself not out of harmony with the Greek genius. The parallel between Iva in this sense and on is seen in Jo. 11:50; 1 Jo. 5:3, 9, 11. Per contra see 1 Jo. 5: 13 for distinction. Cf. also on 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 (m) to the exclusion of the inf. and oirws. 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 ayyapivu (Mt. 27 : 32) ; a7oXXtdo/ioi (Jo. 8 : 66) ; ayoivl^oiML (Jo. 18 : 36) ; airkonai (Col. 1 : 9) ; d7ra776XXa) (Mt. 28 : 10. So TrapaYYeXXo), Mk. 6:8); airo- ffTkWoi (Ac. 16 : 36); 6.(l,ir,fiL (Mk. 11 : 16); jSouXeioAiai (Jo. 12 : 10); and (TUMjS. (Mt. 26 : 4); fiXiwic (1 Cor. 16 : 10); yp6.co (Mk. 9 : 12); Stao-rlXXoMai (many MSS. in Mt. 16 : 20) ; S^o/xat (Lu. 9 : 40) ; StSw/i' (Mk. 10 : 37); evroKriv SiSojjLtt (Kan^avoo), as in Jo. 11 : 57 (13 : 34 15 : 12); evreWofMi (Mk. 13 : 34); ^xn-t/iaco (Mt. 12 : 16; 16 : 20, W. H.); k^opd^co (Mt. 26 : 63); kpo^r&w (Mk. 7: 26); elirov (Mt. 4 3); and X^t'o (Ac. 19 : 4); OiXoi (Mk. 6:25); ianv diXriixa (Mt. 18 14) ; f jjX6co (1 Cor. 14 : 1) ; f^jr^co (1 Cor. 4:2); Kripixraco (Mk. 6 : 12) liepiiivaoi (1 Cor. 7 : 34) ; irapaKoKku (Mt. 14 : 36) ; TreWoi (Mt. 27 20); iroikbi (Jo. 11:37); irpoaeixofuu. (Mk. 14 :35); (TwrWefiai (Jo 9:22 and inf.); riBrifiL (Jo. 15:16); Mdtro-oAiai (2 Pet. 3:17) This is a most interesting list. Kalker (Questiones de elocutione Polybiana, 1880. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 20) has shown how Polybius favours Iva with verbs of commanding like aireonai, xa- payyeWco, etc. No real distinction in sense can here be drawn between the inf. and iva. The later KOLvrj (and so the N. T.) car- ried this use of 'iva much further than did Polybius, who had more affinity with the old literary Greek. There is no need to appeal to Latin influence for this sub-final use of 'Iva, as Moulton (p. 208) abundantly shows from the papyri. So 0. P. 744 (i/B.c.) ^pcoriS ae 'iva nil aycaviaa-jis, N. P. 7 (i/A.D.) 'iypa^a 'iva aoi v tSkoiv oXiycopiiaxis, B. U. 48 (ii/iii A.D.) Iva bpxxrt jtvoineBa. There is a doubtful ex. of this sense of ha in Soph., Oed. C. 155, though ottojs was so used.' It appears in Arrian and Epictetus. In the modern Greek the vd clause sometimes "ap- proaches the nature of a principal sentence" (Thumb, Handb., p. 198). But this elliptical imperative is undoubted in the N. T. Cf. Mk. 5 :23, iVa ato;/ kind^s. So also Mt. 20 : 32; 1 Cor. 7: 29; 2 Cor. 8:7; Eph. 4 : 29; 5 : 33. With this construction com- pare the asyndeton without lva in Mk. 10 : 36, tI dekere iroLijau vjxiv; As already explained, this may be mere parataxis (two questions). Cf. Iva in Mk. 10 : 35 and Gal. 5 : 17.^ (/3) "Oircos. It is much rarer in the N. T. in these constructions. It no longer occurs with the future ind. after verbs of striving. The papyri show ottojs occasionally in this sense also. Moulton {Prol., p. 208) cites B. M. 21 (ii/s.c.) i^^loxra at mm dTroSo^S, while "d^ioi c. infin. occurs in the same papyrus." Radermacher (iV. T. Gr., p. 141 f.) quotes Theoph. ad Autolycum, 2, 34 laru aoi kpw- vav TO. Tov Otov oTTws Svvfiaet, inscr. from Magn., 90, 12 (ii/s.c.) k^pbvTujiv oxcos — airoKaTacrSiaiv. The few examples in the N. T. are all in the subj. Burton notes only three (Mt. 12 : l4; 22 : 15; Mk. 3:6), and all three after avix^oUkiov i\a^ov (eSlSovv). The clause thus partakes of the nature of an indirect deliberative ' Prol., p. 178. 2 lb. » W.-M., p. 396. * See art. by Jann., Expositor, set. V, vol. IX, p. 296. MODE (efkaizis) 995 question (cf. Mk. 11:18, ttus). They are all after secondary tenses. There are some instance^in the N. T. of oircos after verbs of beseeching, though many verbs that in Attic had this idiom no longer have it. Thus Sttcos and the subj. occur with Seoyuat (Mt. 9 : 38), alrionaL (Ac. 25 : 3), epwrAco (Lu. 7:3), irapaKaXew (Mt. 8 : 34), irpodixixoiiai. (Ac. 8 : 15). (7) MiJ, ahJ ttcoj, ixi) iroTt. The usual construction in the nega- tive sub-final clauses is ha ni\, but a small list of verbs commonly have ni) 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 Zva. In the N. T. the subj. always oc- curs with ni) except in Col. 2 : 8 /SXeirere jui? rts ivTau Thus fiXiwere /ii} Tts ifids ir\avi\ofiko- Mai (Ac. 27: 17). In Ac. 23 : 10 some MSS. have tiiKa^ko/xai., but oPovvTo yap t6v \adv n9i 'kiBaadSiaiv (note subj. after secondary tense), there is a prolepsis of rbv \abv? M.ii vus is found after ^\iiru with the aor. subj. (1 Cor. 8 : 9) and ^ojSfe/Liai (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, ffKOTTH nil — i(TTiv, and in Gal. 4:11, (^o/SoO/iat itiSis fifi ttcos eiKJJ KeKowiaKa tls hfias. This is in strict accord with Attic idiom.' The papyri show it also (Moulton, Prol, p. 193). So Par. P. 49 (ii/s.c.) 6,yoiuiSj n^i ttots i-ppcaaret, N. P. 17 (iii/A.D.) iKJjoipovfie p.ii &pa kvdp6i(TK(av 'eXadev fiSart. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 141) adds examples of fut. ind., as Enoch 6:3, (jtofioviiai p.ii oh dekqatre; Dio Chrys., xxxiv, 44, oh yd,p eort kLvSvvos, ah) MaKkooTwv kaoixkvwv d.irdtvk~ arepoi S6^eT(. The negative in such a clause is oh. Thus 0o/3oO/iai nil irojj ohx olovs deKca eipos (2 Cor. 12 : 20). This is to show contrast to nil- Cf . Col. 2 '.8, nil t's 'ecrrai — Kal oh. Sometimes a verb of fearing is implied, though not expressed (cf. eUiptical use of tea and Iva nil)- Thus Ac. 5 : 39, /iij irore ebpedrJTe. This is a possible explanation of n^ to''* "^ A") i^px-kaxi (or nil T'on oi/c) in Mt. 25 : 9 » Burton, N. T. M. and T., pp. 88, 96 f. » Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 95. » Goodwin, M. and T., p. 133. 996 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (note negatives) and firi wore Surj (2 Tim. 2 : 25). Mt? woTt is used with the aorist subj. after irpoo-exw (Lu. 21 : 34; Heb. 2:1), with a present subj. after ^mfikoiMi (Heb. 4:1), with a pres. opt. after TrpocrSo/cao) (Lu. 3 : 15, indirect question), with a fut. ind. after jQXtTr&j (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 /SX^ttco 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 hke 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 a^toj eaTLv ^ ?rape Jr; (Lu. 7:4); ovk ^X" o irapadriaw (11 : 6); ovdha exw oaris nepLfivrjcu (Ph. 2 : 20). Cf. ax^i tI ypaipui (Ac. 25 : 26) and rl ypa\pai ovk exco (ib.). Rader- macher (A^. T. Gr., p. 138) quotes from Achilles Tatius, IV, 16, 3, airoyevaoiiai roaovTOV oaov KaKeivt] Xd/32J. (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 Iva and ottojs together.* Some of these verbs have only the inf. in the N. T., as alcrxvvonai, a^toco, acKtu, /SouXo/uat, SoKiw, edco, iTri.dviJ,iw, hnirc£k(i2, kinTpeirco, ^ttix^'P'^'^) KeXeuo), OKveu, irapaivkui, xetpdo), airovba^ia, Taaaca and compounds, 4>povTiiw, ofikoiui.i. in the sense of 'to be afraid to do' (Mt. 2 : 20). Many of the verbs that use sub-final I'm may have the inf. also. Thus iroti7crw ii^as yev'tcrdai (Mk. 1 : 17). So also ^ov\ebop.a.i, alreofiai, irpocrehxonai, Xeyw, etc. Cf. a^tos XCtrat (Ac. 13 : 25) and a^ios Iva Xiio-o) (Jo. 1:27). In 2 Cor. 9 :5 the inf. is used after the I'w clause to express an epexegetie or complementary purpose {ravTriv tToifirjv elvai), a rather common usage. Cf. in 1 Cor. 9 : 15 both Im and the inf. in a broken sentence. Moulton^ argues that in Paul the majority of cases of rod with the inf. are epexegetie (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 /xri kXdelv in Lu. 17 : 1 is not purpose, nor tov eicttSeiv in Ac. 10 : 25. Cf . also Mt. 21 : 32, TOV ifiaTivvon,. Luke uses tov and the inf. more than 1 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. 3 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 217. MODE (efkaisis) 997 any other N. T. writer. In Lu. 18 : 1, 7rp6s rb Mv is not final. Eis TO and the inf. we find chiefly in Paul (44 examples, Moulton, Prol., p. 218. Mr. H. Scott mates 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 toO and the inf. (Moulton, Prol., p. 219 f.). So B. U. 1031 (ii/A.n.) p6vriavipo}d^, we have I'm (cf. dXX' Iva) used' like axTxe 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. EpicL, II, 2, 16) ovtco juwpAs ^v, IVo mi) %• Sophocles in his Lexicon gives a quite extensive Ust of passages in the Koivq writers where I'm has the consecutive sense. He has probably claimed too many, but some of them are real instances. Even Josephus has 'tra in the sense of conceived result.* Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 156) cites Epictetus, IV, 3, 9, kXeWepos yap el/xL Kal 0iXos rod Beov Iv' fKuv Treidcojuai abrQ. ' Several other examples occur in Epic- tetus. So, then, we conclude that 'iva 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 I'm dvvoivTai fol- lows ToaovTov and I'm has the force of SitTTe. (j3) "fiore. This conjunction is merely cbs and Tk='a,n.d so.' In Homer tbs is both a demonstrative and a relative. Either idea may appear in cba-re. It is really a comparative particle.' In the early writers the inf. was more common than the ind. with cio-re. 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 cio-re in the N. T. probably 30 do not come up for discussion under either final or consecutive clauses. The word in these examples is merely an introductory inferential par- ticle like ovv. The structure is wholly paratactic. In this sense of 'therefore' the particle occurs with the ind. twenty-one times. Cf. Mt. 12 : 12, Siare e^euriv. Once the subj. appears, 1 Cor. 5 : 8, Si to1$ KkaSois avrov, (Mk. 4 : 37) axTTe rj^rj yip.l^tadai. TO tXoZov, (Ac. 15 : 39) wcrre axox^pio'SiJj'at avTois air' a.Wi]\(i3V. Ta- tian took coore consecutive in Lu. 4 : 29 (Moulton, Prol., p. 249). Consecutive ware and inf. is too conamon in the inscriptions and papyri for Radermacher to mention {N. T. Gr., p. 160). We do not have Cbare after a comparative (^ Ibare) in the N. T. There is no example of axrre nor of icj}' Jjre in the sense of 'on condition that.' In Gal. 2 : 9 ti'a has practically that idea. (y) 'fis. Thayer considers that in Heb. 3:11 and 4 : 3 we have the consecutive use of cos. It is a quotation from the LXX (Ps. 94 : 11) and is possible, though the simple 'as' is sufficient.^ But 1 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. i>s rather than diare occurs both with the inf. and the modes. Cf. Wehmann, De uo-re particulae usu Heroditeo Thucydideo Xenophonteo, 1891, p. 40. NLODE (^EFKAISIS) 1001 bis has kept its place as a consecutive particle in the KOLvii (Rader- macher, N. T. Gr., p. 160). (5) "On. There is no doubt about the consecutive use of 6rt in the later Greek.^ We find it in the LXX, as in Ex. 3 : 11, tis dill €7di oTi Topeiaofiai irpos ^apaii; 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, tIs apa o5t6s kanv on Kal 6 Sivenos Kal i) daXacca iiraKoiei avTia; In Mt. 8 : 27 note ■Korairbs on (cf. oOrcos &crTe). See also Heb. 2 : 6 (Ps. 8:5); Lu. 4 : 36. Radermacher (iV. T. Gr., p. 160) quotes Acta Christophori, 68, 18, rotoCroi yap ehiv oi deol inSsv OTi viro yvvawos eKLvfidriaav. Moulton {Prol., p. 249) gives tI SlSoIs Tots afivoZs e\ov with the inf. occurs in Herodotus, and the form is thus probably lonic.^ For noivri par- allels see "Impossible Wishes" under Indicative Mode. Cf. cin^ei- \ov (TvvlffTaaBai. in 2 Cor. 12 : 11. It is found in the LXX* as a conjunction, as in Ex. 16 : 3, 6e\ov aireSavonev. Cf. Num. 14 : 2; 20 : 3. Moulton^ suggests that its application to the second and » W.-M., p. 413 f. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 236. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 219. « W.-M., p. 414 note. " Prol., p. 218. See further Ogden, De infinitivi finalis vel consecutivi constructione apud priscos poetas Graecos, 1913. ' See ch. on " Wishes " in my Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 157. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 201. " In W.-Sch., p. 29, reference is made to €t o(l>e\ov l<^6Xa|as in Job 14 : 13 and et yap a^EXov Svvaliiiiv in Job 30 : 24. Evidently oiptXov 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 eWe and ei yap are wanting as particles of wishing. For a wish about the past we have the aorist ind. So 64>e\6v ye l/Sao-t- Xthcare (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, oc^eXox aueixeffde, and Rev. 3 : 15, o<^6Xoj' rjs. The Text. Rec. here has 6(t>t\ov elris, but it is baseless. However, we do find the fut. ind. for a future wish. So Gal. 5 : 12, b€Kov aTOKoil/ovTai.. Wishes as a separate idiom are vanishing in the N. T. But S^eXoy appears in Lucian, Athenagoras, Greg. Naz., Socrates. Cf. Sophocles' Lexicon. To compensate for this loss we have the strong assever- ations with oh ixi} (Mt. 13 : 14), the use of d like the Hebrew cn (Mk. 8 : 12; Heb. 4 : 3), «: iii]v (Heb. 6 : 14), the use of the parti- ciple like the Hebrew inf. absolute (Mt. 13 : 14). The distinction between wish and supposition with d was sometimes hard to make in Homer.i The relation between wishes and conditions is not clear. 8. Conditional Sentences. (a) Two Types. No hypotactic clause is more important than this. For some reason the Greek conditional sentence has been very difficult for students to understand. In truth the doc- tors have disagreed themselves and the rest have not known how to go. The theory of Hermann, followed by most Germans (Winer ,^ Blass'), is the one that I learned from Broadus and have expounded in my Short Grammar^ It is also that of Gilder- sleeve.^ This theory in brief is that there are four classes of con- ditions which fall into two groups or types. The two types are the determined and the undetermined. The point in "deter- mined" is that the premise or condition is assumed to be true (or untrue). A positive statement is made in either case and the* conclusion follows logically from this premise. The indicative is the one used for this type (the first and second class conditions, real and unreal, or fulfilled and unfulfilled). The other type is the undetermined condition. Naturally the indicative is not allowed here. The element of uncertainty calls for the subj. or the opta- tive. The difference therefore between" the third and fourth class conditions is just that between the subj. and the opt. They are both modes of doubtful, hesitating affirmation, but the optative 1 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 227. Cf . Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1909, p. 14. 2 W.-M., pp. 363 ff. ■■ Pp. 161 ff. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 213 f. » Am. Jour, of Philol., 1882, pp. 435 ff. MODE (efkaisis) 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 outUne 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 modern 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 (kav and the subj.). La Roche' prefers "objektive Moglichkeit" for the third class and "subjektive Moglichkeit" for the fourth class (d and the opt.). This is also the language of Winer ,^ "objective possibility" and "subjective possibility." Farrar^ prefers the words Possibility, Impossibility, Slight Probability, Uncertainty. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 142) calls d with ind. "objektiv," lav with subj. "an sich objektiv," d with opt. "subjektiv," d 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 Koiv-q ("so mlissen wir scharf scheiden zwischen Volkssprache und der Koin6"), a mistaken view in my judgment. It is best to use koivt} for both the ver- nacular and literary language. This brings us face to face with the other theory, the one adopted by Farrac^ 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 1 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, yill, 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 el." 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 Kiihner- Gerth, II, p. 465, except that the third class is lost sight of and merged with the first. Burton' follows Goodwin through all his 1 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. Of. Am. Jour, of Philol., 1909, p. 10. ^ M. and T., p. 147. » N. T. M. and T., pp. 100 ff. Famell (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 (efkaisis) 1007 ramifications. A word further is demanded by way of warning. One must not try to explain the Gr«ek condition by the Enghsh 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 el or e&.v. 'Eav is nothing but ei av. The av is not essential to either protasis or apodosis. Homer' used el with the subj. with or without k€ or av. The Attic Greek^ sometimes has el av with the opt. and Demosthenes used el av with the past ind. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 127) quotes Joh. Philop. De ceterni- tate 430, 28 (iii/A.D.) el — i)bi)vaTo &v. He gives also (p. 163) Kav — porieoiij, Diod. XI, 37, 3; kav fiii — pvaairo, Diod. I, 77, 3. The modern Greek uses Slv (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 the standard forms of the conditional sentence and then note the variations and modifications. (b) 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 assumption. Gildersleeve (Am. Jour, of Philol., 1882, p. 435) observes that this is the favourite condition: "It is the favourite condition when one wishes to be or seem fair, the favourite condition when one is sure of the premiss." The construction is el (sometimes eav)^ and any tense of the in- » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 210 f . » Baumlein, Unters., pp. 352 ff. « 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 el is uncertain. El is the same as a£ in Homer (and Doric). 1008 A GRAMMAR OP 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 hght 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 suffice. Thus in Mt. 12 : 27, el kyi} kv Beefe/3o6X l/c/3aXXco TO. dac/iovM, ol viol vfiSiv ev tlvi eK^aWovtiLv; This is a good example (cf. also Gal. 5 : 11) to begin with, since the assumption is untrue in fact, though assumed to be true by Jesus for the sake of argument. The question is a reductio ad ahsurdum. In verse 26, tl & Xaravas tov Xaravav e/c/SaXXet, i4>' iavTov knepladi), 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 be ev iwevnan deov 'er/di eK^aWoi tA boLLiibvia, apOL 'e(j)6acev €0' v/uSs ij ^atriKela. Note apa with the aorist. For the past ind. in both clauses see Ac. 11 : 17 (el eduKev, TLs vrnv); 1 Cor. 15 : 2; Rev. 20 : 15 (el ns ovx evpkdri, e^Xiidri). For the present ind. in both clauses note Mt. 19 : 10 (ei oiircos 'effrlv — oil avp.(j>kpeL) ; 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 (TKavSaXicBiiaovTai,, oKavSaKurdii- o-oMai). Cf. Mk. 14 : 29; Lu. 19 : 40; 1 Cor. 3 : 15; 2 Tim. 2 : 12; 1 Cor. 3 : 14 f . But such Httle 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 El) makes it exclamatory. 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 ease.' This is more probable. MODE (efkaisis) 1009 4:2; 15 : 27; 1 Jo. 4 : 11), past^and future (Jo. 13 : 32; 15 : 20: Lu. 16 : 11), present and future (Mt. 17:4; Jo. 5 :47; 11 : 12; Ac. 5 : 39; 19 : 39; Ro. 8 : 11). In PCor. 9 : 11 ei iairdpaixev and d depLaofiev occur side by side. Examples of the imperative in the apodosis occur as in Mk. 4 : 23 el rts ?x«' ^to. aKoiieiv, arnvkru. Cf . Mt. 5:29; 8:31;Lu. 4 :3; Ac. 16 : 15; Jo. 7:4; 18:23. In Lu. 4 : 3, «£ vlos d Tov Qtov, drk, 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 'prove 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 [d KaKcis eXaXijca, iJiapTvpriV>iv. The use of hav with the ind. is rather more frequent in the late Koivi\. Finally ei came to be "a mere literary alternative." ^ In the mivii in Pisidia and Phrygia iav occurs with the aorist ind., the pres. ind. and the future ind. as well as with the subj.^ The papyri examples are umnistakable, as kav 5ei in Tb. P. 58 (ii/B.c), ^dv oUtv B. U. 546 (Byz.), kav ^aiverai A. P. 93 (ii/A.D.), kav b' dc'iv 0. P. (ii/A.D.), kav K€\eveLS 0. P. 1150, 2 f. (vi/A.D.), iav ixaxovaiv Par. P. 18, kavirep eKifK-qpixTovcLv Par. P. 62 (ii/s.c.).' Radermacher (iV. T. Gr., pp. 83, 163) cites others from the papyri and in- scriptions. So Heberdey-Wilhelm, Rdsen, p. 137, i&v 5k tls di](Tu; Eum. Hippiatr., p. 244, 30, iLvirtp ivopxns taTiv. Perhaps ex- amples like kav rjv are not to be counted as instances, since ^v for g is sometimes subj.^ In general, the difference between ei and kav is considerably lessened in the mivi), though it must be » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 420. ' Compernass, De Sermone, p. 35 f. » Moulton, Prol., p. 168. * lb., pp. 49, 168, 187; 01. Rev., XVIII, p. 108. For the usage of the LXX see Sterenberg, The Use of Cond. Sent, in the Alex. Version of the Pen- tateuch, 1908. 1010 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT remembered that kav was never confined to the subj. nor ei to the ind. and opt. 'Eav ^a6a occurs in Job 22 : 3, and Moulton^ quotes it from Hb. P. 78 (iii/s.c.) as "certainly subj." Cf. also iav fj^av Tb. P. 333 (iii/A.D.), and a number of undoubted examples of kdv with past, present and future tenses of the ind. from Koivij writers are given in Sophocles' Lexicon under kav. Thayer calls it "a somewhat negligent use, met with from the time of Aristotle on." It was just a normal development in the Koivq till in the modern Greek &v is used indifferently with either ind. or subj. So av to 'Kaves, 'if you did so,' av Sii^do-jjs, 'if you thirst' (Thumb, Handb., p. 194 f.). Theophylact in his Proem to Luke has iav firi Wkppti, In the N. T. we note tav oiSafiev (1 Jo. 5 : 15) ; kav arriKeTe (1 Th. 3:8), where no mistake is possible between the two modes (ind. and subj.). In 1 Th. 3 : 8 HD have critKriTe, but in Lu. 6 : 34 there is considerable support for eav davd^ere, as there is for kiv re airodv^cTKoiitv in Ro. 14 : 8. In Gal. 1:8a few MSS. read iav tbay- yikl^erat.. It is possible to treat eav iiaprvpih as pres. ind., Jo. 5 : 31; 8 : 14. There is undue scepticism on Blass' part^ concerning eav and the fut. ind. It is true that the MSS. are generally di- vided, but there is no real room for doubt about following NBCE in Ac. 8 : 31, 'eav b5rf^i]aei, except for possible itacism with -jj. That is possible also in Rev. 2 : 5 where W. H. read 'eav fieravoiicrxis. But there is no room for itacism in Mt. 18:19 kav avfujjwvriaovcnv, supported by XBDELA 33, although rejected by W. H. and Nestle (FGKM have -uaiv), nor in Lu. 19 : 40 kd.v , B. M. 233 (iv/A.D.) el n av — draXcocrns, Tb. P. 28 (ii/s.c.) ei Kav SvvaraL. In these the modal av (iav) is separated from ei and used as if with 6s, oirov. Rader- » Prol., p. 168. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 215. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 169. MODE (eFKAISIs) 1011 macher (N. T. Gr., p. 162) cites also Joh. Philop., De odern., p. 85, 19, €1 ohK av — {nr&pxv- Deissman^ sees no analysis of kav jiij Ti in this, though Moulton contends for this explanation. The use of el xepketTaL 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 ifony in 1 Cor. 14:38, ei tk a7J'06i, iiyvottrai. The negative of the protasis in the first class condition is practically always oi in the N. T. We have d ov as a rule, not el iiij. In the classic Greek the rule was to use el tiij, and ei ov appeared only where the ov coalesced with a single word (the verb generally) or for sharp antithesis or emphasis.* But in the N. T., as in the kolv^ generally and occasionally in the Attic,^ we meet el oii in the condition of the first class. Jannaris* notes 34 examples of ei oh 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 nij occurs only five times with the simple logical condition, and the examples are not quite nor- mal except the one in Mk. 6 : 5, ovk 'ebhvaTo el firi kBepawevaev (a simple past condition), and in 1 Tim. 6 : 3, e'l tis — jui) Tpoaevxerai (Blass calls this an "abnormal" instance from the literary style. It is surely not "abnormal"). But see 1 Cor. 15 :2 inros el fir) etKjj kitiarevcaTe, 2 Cor. 13 : 5 ei ixrjTL ahbKiiwi kare, Gal. 1:7 el nil Tives elaiv. Elsewhere the negative is ov. 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 £1 oh is the natural combination. In general Blass ^ is correct in saying that oh is the negative of the ind. and nii 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 modem Greek bkv (from ohh'ev) supplants oh with the ind. and nii{v) goes with the subj. That is the goal, as Moulton observes,' which is not yet reached in the N. T., for /tiJ occurs in questions of doubt with the ind. and el ixi] still holds on. Even in the modern Greek," Thumb (Handb., p. 195) gives dkv with subj. or ind. in conditions as & Siv Tnarevjis and a 8iv irij'Yium. Rader- • B. S., p. 204. * lb. 2 W.-Th., p. 477. « Prol., p. 171. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 429. « Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 253. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 170. Cf . Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1880, first copy. * Prol., p. 170. Cf. P. Thouvenin, Les Negations dans le Nouveau Testa- ment, Revue de Philol., 1894, p. 229. 1012 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT macher (iV. T. Gr., p. 172) cites Pap. Wess. xxvi, ti oh SiSorat. But the point to get clear is that in the first class condition the normal negative in the Koivii is ei o\i. 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 el Kal top Btbv ov <^o/3oD/uat ovSi avBfMirov 'evrpeironai and Jo. 1 : 25 d av ovk el 6 Xpiards. In the latter case the nega- tive is very emphatic. So in Jo. 5 : 47 et ov TUTreveTe. 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 et ov TTOiw, el 8e iroLW. Note also Kav fifi TLCTTevrjTe. So in 5 : 46 f. et irt- crevere, el 8i — ov Trtorei/eTe. See further Lu. 11:8; Jas. 2 :11; 2 Pet. 2:4. In Mt. 26 : 42 note et ov bvvarai tovto irapeKBelv kav n')\ irioj. In Ro. 11 : 21, et ovk ecl)elnev. This construction occurs occasionally in classical Greek. It' was frequent in Homer and in the Attic poets, but is rare in our nor- malized texts of Attic prose, though a few examples occur in Thuc, Plato, Xenophon.' This "laxity" increased till finally ei, like ore, vanishes before kav {av) which is used indiscriminately with ind. or subj., while ei is a mere "literary alternative." In modern Greek av has driven ei out of the vernacular. In Deut. 8:5 AF have el m iraibevaji. Cf. Judg. 11:9. Moulton* finds the same construction in the papyri as does Deissmann,* 1 Baumlein, Griech. Modi, p. 177. » Gildersl. (Am. Jour, of Philol., XXXIII, 4, p. 490) complains that in Germany no standing is given to his distinction between the "minatory and monitary" use of d with the future indicative. He first promulgated it in 1876. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 420, 464. " Prol., p. 187. Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 167. 6 B. S., p. 118. 1018 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT though it is rare in the early papyri. "^ Moulton {Prol., p. 187) cites O. P. 496 (ii/A.D.) 6^ Si ^v (=5), though he" seems curiously unwilling to admit the examples in the N. T. As to tKTos €t nr] in 1 Cor. 15 : 2, we have the ind. with this com- bination. Deissmann (B. S., p. 118) cites inscr. e/tros ei nr) ki.v — 6e\i)u-a. It is true that in the N. T. as a rule tl goes with the ind. and kav with the subj. It is mainly in the future conditions that the line is breaking down. In Mt. 12 : 29 we have kav ^i) 6ijap and then SiapTaaei, but W. H. break the sentence into two. Besides the normal edc and the occasional el in this condition we have also ac (shortened form of eav, not the modal av). Thus Jo. 12 : 32 cii' v^f/caBSi, 13 : 20 av two. Tifopui, 16 : 23 av ti alriicrriTe. It occurs in the N. T. only six times (cf. av /^t? in Jo. 5 : 19) and all in John. Cf. Ac. 9 : 2 J<. But note Lu. 12 : 38, kolv — kclv eXSjj Kal eupj; (contrac- tion of Kal+k&v). Cf. Mt. 21 : 21 ; Lu. 13 : 9. It is absent from the Attic inscriptions, but supplants iav in modern Greek. It is not clear why ecij' disappeared thus in modern Greek. The Ionic form is V-^ The future conditions are naturally the most frequent of all. Just as the second class condition was debarred from the fu- ture, so the third class condition is confined to the future (from the standpoint of the speaker or writer). The first class condition covers past, present and future. In 1 Cor. 10 : 27 note et rts KaXet and eav tk etirj/. In Ac. 5 : 38, kav fj and ei — earlv, a real distinction is preserved. Gamaliel gives the benefit of the doubt to Christianity. He assumes that Christianity is of God and puts the alternative that it is of men in the third class. This does not, of course, show that Gamaliel was a Christian or an inquirer. He was merely willing to score a point against the Sadducees. Here, indeed, the supposition is about a present situation, but kav and the subj. contemplate the future result (turn out to be). So kav "exvre in 1 Cor. 4 : 15; kav jj in Mt. 6 : 22. 'Eav deXifis in Mt. 8 : 2 is future in conception. In Jo. 5 : 31, kav liaprvpSi (possibly pres. ind.), the idea would be 'if perchance I bear witness.' Cf. also 8 : 14. In such instances the matter may be looked at as a present reality (so el (TKavdaXi^ei Mt. 5 : 29) > The Phrygian inscr. show similar exx. Cf . Ramsay, Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, II, 292. Burton (N. T. M. and T., p. 105) admits that it is an over- refinement to rule out el and the subj.' Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 240. 2 Prol., p. 187. ' Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 43; Meisterh.-Schw., p. 225 f. In Jo. 5: 19 we have both uses of S,v (conditional and modal). In Mk 5 : 28 note kd.v &\l/uiiuu k&v tS>v luarlav, not a repetition of modal av, but a particle k&v = ' even.' MODE (ErKAISIs) 1019 or a future possibility (so edi' uKavSaXiav, Mk. 9 :43). Cf. also iav a.yaTri\(rr\T€ in Mt. 5 : 46 with d ayairSiTe in Lu. 6 : 32 (in verse 33, kav ayadoTTOi^Tt) .'■ In Jo. 13 : 17 note ei ravra ol'Sare, fMKapioL iare kav iroifJTe aira. Here we have the first and third class con- ditions happity combined with clear distinction. Jesus assumes the knowledge as a fact, but the performance is doubtful. The tense is usually the aorist, though sometimes the pres. subj. occurs. Thus eav aKohtrxi (Mt. 18 : 15); kav 3ti^$ (Jo. 7: 37). In 2 Tim. 2 : 5 note kav dk Kai adXfj rts, ov (rTe Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 220. MODE (ErKAisis) 1023 4 : 4 and /it€TaTtee/j^i'r;s in Heb. 7 : 12. Cf. also Heb. 2 : 3; 1 Cor. 11:29; Gal. 6 : 9. This use of t]ge participle is still very fre- quent' in the N. T. In Mt. 16 : 26 we have iav Kep8ii(rn, while in Lu. 9 : 25 note KepS^o-as. In Lu. 19 : 23, K&yi} kXddiv civ t6k(rei avrQ; the two questions do the same thing in a rough sort of way (anacoluthon). Cf. 1 Pet. 1 : 24. In Mt. 26 : 15, tI B'eKirk not, Sovvai Kay^6ixevoi; (Lu. 13 : 23). Cf. Mt. 12 : 10; Lu. 12 : 26; 22 :49; Ac. 17:27; 19 : 2. Radermacher {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 mufi." 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, oXos hairovovnai d "E. xaX- Kovs ifwoKeaiv. The protasis here may conform to the first class condition as in ei ex«i (Lu. 14 : 28) ; A xcos rJSr; ttot^ evo8oidriv awoiTToXoiv ovK etdov el fi'fi 'laKufiov t6v a.biK(i)bv. The effect here is to make el /ii? seem adversative instead of exceptive. Cf. Mt. 12 : 4. For iav uri in this construction see feal. 2 : 16. In 1 Cor. 7 : 17 ei nr/ has the sense of ' only' and is not to be con- strued with TrepiiraTeirw. The use of el ixr) occurs in questions ex- pecting a negative answer, as in Mk. 2 : 7, tIs SvvaraL a4i,hai d/xap- Tias el /jLTi eh 6 Oeos; In 1 Cor. 7:5, el fiiiTi [iiv], we have rt (cf. e'l TL in Mt. 18 : 28) added and possibly also &v. B here omits av, possibly to "ease a difficulty" as Moulton^ suggests. If genuine, it would be a sort of analysis of eav into el av that occurs in the illiterate papyri. For examples see under 8, (6), (a). For el niiTi with the ind. pres. see 2 Cor. 13 : 5 and the subj. aorist. See Lu. 9 : 13. The use of kros el liri probably comes by analogy from eKTos el (cf. Latin nisi), but it occurs in the N. T. without verbs only in 1 Tim. 5 : 19. Elliptical also are el fifi Iva (Jo. 10 : 10); el ij.ri orl (2 Cor. 12 : 13);- el ixr, orav (Mk. 9 : 9). In Jo. 14 : 11 note €1 5^ ni) in the sense of 'but if not,' 'otherwise.' Cf. Mk. 2 : 21 ; Rev. 2 : 5, 16. For el be urije see Lu. 5 : 36. Other forms of el used elliptically are el ■wep (Ro. 3 : 30) ; wtrei (Mt. 3:16); cotnre- pel (1 Cor. 15 : 8). Ei be htj and el 8k nrj ye became such fixed phrases^ that they occur even when the preceding sentence is negative (Mt. 9 : 17) or where kav nrj would be more natural (Lu. 10 : 6, where the phrase answers to kav j5). Cf. Lu. 13 : 9. In Jo. 14 : 2, el Sk fi'fi, elirov av, the conclusion is expressed. In 2 Cor. 10 : 9 we have tbs av without a verb =' as if.' It is common to have dre — elre (1 Cor. 8 : 5) without the verb. The use of Kav without the verb is also found in the sense of 'if only,' 'at least.' So in Mk. 5 : 28; 6 : 56. In 2 Cor. 11 : 16 we have both €1 bk nil ye and kclv (bk^ade to be supplied). In Lu. 12 : 38 note Kav — K&v. The suppression of the protasis occurs in all the ex- amples of the potential opt. already discussed, as in Ac. 26 : 29. Even in the deliberative questions of the opt. with civ the same thing is true. Cf. Ac. 17: 18 (direct); Lu. 1: 62 (indirect). The protasis is also suppressed sometimes with kirel. Cf. 1 Cor. 15 : 29, kirel tI iroiTjaovaiv; Here a protasis of the first or (more prob- ably) of the third class must be supphed. So in Ro. 3 : 6; 11 : 6, ' Prol., p. 169. 2 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 111. 1026 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 22. In 1 Cor. 14 : 16, eTrei eav evXoyTJs irws 'epei, the ellipsis still occurs in spite of eav. In Heb. 9 : 26, eiret eSei, and 10 : 2, kwil oh av iiravaavTo, the protasis would belong to the second class, as is true also of ewtl ucjietXeTe apa in 1 Cor. 5 : 10. In 7 : 14, brd S,pa karlv, the protasis would be of the first class. (5) Concessive Clauses. These are really just conditional* clauses with the addition of Kai. In Kal d and koI kkv {k^v) the sense is 'even if and is climacteric. Burton^ seeks to draw quite a distinction between concessive and conditional clauses. He cites Mt. 26 : 33, ei irkyre^ aKavSaXicdi^crovTai. ev aoi, hycb ovSkTort (TKavSoKLffdiicToimL, as an instance of the concessive idea without Kal. It is possible that we may read the idea into this passage because in the parallel passage in Mk. 14 : 29 we read ei /cat — dXX' iyi}. Cf . also kolv Sin in Mt. 26 : 35 with iau de-g in Mk. 14 : 31. The use of el (iav) 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 ei 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, Kal yap eiirep elalv — [aXX'] i}p.1v eh Oe6s, 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 (eav).* So in the N. T. we have Kal eav Kplvcj (Jo. 8 : 16). So also Gal. 1 : 8. For Kav see Jo. 8 : 14, k&v naprvpS). So Mt. 21 : 21; 26 : 35. See Jo. 10 : 38, el S^ ttolSi, kcLv ifwl 7rtcrre{n7Te. The clauses with eav 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 diSiculty. 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. 18 : 4, ei Kal rbv Bebv oh ^o/JoO/iai oi)5i Hudpwirov 'evrpkironai., 5i,k ye t6 irapkxeiv, ktK. Note 7e as in 11 : 8. Cf. Col. 2 -.5, ei Kai — aXXA. > Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 215. < Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 465. 2 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 (ErKAIZIs) 1027 There is considerable variety with ei /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 Tra(rxoiTe,%fe have one instance of the fourth class. With edi' /cat and the subj. we find, of course, the third class. So Gal. 6:1, iav Kal irpoXritKJidfj. Cf. 2 Tim. 2 : 5. In 1 Cor. 7:28, kav Kal yanri dk aoL Xeyo} OTL (TV el UtTpos, there is no change in the second person. Cf. also Jo. 11 : 27; Gal. 2 : 14. But in Mt. 20 : 10, kvbixLaav 6n ir\eLov Xrinif/ovTaL, the direct discourse would have \r)iiij/bnfSa. So Lu. 24 : 23. Compare kXafiop.ev in Mt. 16 : 7 with ix^Te in v. 8. Note tL (t>a.yi>}fiev (direct) in Mt. 6: 31, but t'l d6vov irapidoiKav avrbv, the aorist is used for antecedent action. Cf. icapabibiiKtiaav in Mk. 15 : 10. See also Mt. 16 : 12, on ovK eiTrec. But in Jo. 2 : 25, abros yap 'eylvuxTKev rl rjv kv tQ av- 6pi>Tci>, the direct form^ would have ka-rtv, not rju. So with j|5ei n ifieWev iroietv (6:6); ovk eyvooaav on tov iraTkpa avrdls iXeytv (8 : 27). Cf. also 11 : 51; 12 : 16, 33; 18 : 32. In Ac. 19 : 32, oiK TJSeiaav Tivoi eveKa avve\r]\vdti.aav, the past perfect stands when the direct would have the present perfect. In Ac. 16 : 3, fiSeicrav on "EXXtji" 6 iraTrip avTov xnrfipxiv, the imperfect may indicate that Timotheus' father was no longer Uving, 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, i beyond the usual vernacular. And with Luke the idiom is almost confined to indirect questions. Luke never has the opt. after OTL or COS. 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, irplv ij ixoi — re XajSot. And even here ok 'iaTiv after 3rt 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 ei \pri'Ka'fiaeiav (Ac. 17 : 27); d bvvarbv el'77 (20 : 16); d xcos bvvaivTo (27:12). Here after primary tenses we should have ekv and the subj. or d and the future ind. Cf. Ph. 3 : 12; Ro. 1 : 10. Cf . ri TpAr^co in Ac. 25 : 26. As already explained also, the indirect questions with d and the ' In archaic Lat. the ind. was used in indirect discourse as in Gk. Cf. Draeger, Hist. Synt., Bd. II, p. 460. « Goodwin, M. and T., p. 263. » Madvig, Bemerk. uber einige Punkte der griech. Wortfug. 1848, p. 23. * Goodwin, M. and T., p. 273. MODE (eFKAISIS) 1031 optative (Ac. 25 : 20; 27 : 39) are instances where the indicative would be used in the direct. Even in indirect questions Luke usually keeps the mode of the dirdtt. So the indicative as in r6 ris — SoKei (Lu. 22 : 24), the subjunctive as in to ttws — dTro^^i (22 : 4) or the optative as in to tI av BtKoi. (1 : 62). The indicative is never changed to a subjunctive as in Latin. When the subj. in Greek occurs in an indirect question it does so because it was the subj. in the direct. Thus oh yap fjSei tL awoKpiBfj (Mk. 9:6). Cf. Mt. 6:25, 31, ri (t>a.yriTi, tL (ftaywixev. So Lu. 22:2, 4; Ac. 4: 2L 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 iiv) in an indirect question where the direct had the indicative. Cf. Trorairds etrj in 1 : 29. So 8 : 9, kirripdsTwv tw e'LTj. In Ac. 21 : 33, ewvvdaveTo tIs elr] Kal rl koTiv irewoiriKiii, 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 Koivii parallels are given. In yivoiTo KpaTeZv irdo-Tjs fjs av alprjcde xci/oas, 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, tL S.V dkXoi,; with Lu. 1 : 62, r6 tL av dk\oi. 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, t6 tis av eiTj (cf. to tis eiTj 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, aii? Trore elrj, we also have the opt. in an indir. question. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 165) quotes Diod. I, 75, 5, kirnSiiv — irpdcBoiTo. 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 otl or cbs. Burton' confines it to indirect assertions and indirect questions, but admits that it also covers indirect commands and promises. Take Mt. 14 : 7, (hfidXoyriatv aiir^ Bovvai S ^oj' oirijcrijTat. The in- 1 Moulton, Prol., p. 198. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 471 f. 2 N. T. M. and T., p. 131. So most of the grammars. 1032 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT finitive 8owai 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 Sojo-oj. But, after all, it is practical indir. discourse, though the analogy of tense construction breaks down in this instance. But note fut. infinitive with Sifuxrev 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 oxcos retreated before iva, so declarative aais (Ac. 21:31). It is in apposition also with iv bvonari. (Mk. 9:41). We see also tv Toircf on (1 Jo. 3:16). Some- ' See Sophocles' lipxicon under us. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 413. Moulton (Prol., p. -212) gives C.P.R. 19 (iv/A.D.) irpdnjy /3i/3\£a kindkSoiKa Tji a% iniitXtiq, ws OTI iPovKifijiv. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 212. « Moulton, Prol., p. 211. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 231. » Jann., Hist, Gk. Gr., p. 413. ' Mitsotakis, Praktische Gr. der neugriechischen Schrift- und Umgangs- sprache, 1891, p. 235. 1034 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT times oTi itself seems to imply kv TobT(^ (Ro. 5:8) or xepj tovtov (Mk. 1:34) or els kKeivo (Jo. 2 : 18). Cf. tovto Sn (Rev. 2:6). Another irregularity of construction 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 ori. Gf. further Ac. 9:20. It is a rather common idiom. Cf. Mt. 25:24. See especially Jo. 8 : 54. In Ro. 9 : 6 note oux olov 5^ 6rt. In 1 Cor. . 15:27 S^Xov fin is almost adverbial, but that is not true of irpb- hrjKov OTi in Heb. 7:14. The elliptical rl on (Lu. 2:49) may be compared with rl ykyovev on in Jo. 14:22. The elliptical o\>x OTL (cf. Jo. 6:46) is like the corresponding English "not that." ' The OTI. clause may be in the nominative (subject clause) as in Mk. 4 : 38, ou jueXei (rot on airoWijfifBa; More usually it is, of course, in the accusative (object clause) as in Jo. 11 : 27, irtirl- artvKa 8n. The on clause may also be in apposition with the loca- tive as in Mk. 9 : 41. In Gal. 1 : 20, ISob 'eviiviov Beov 6ti., we have a solemn oath as in akqdtLa on (2 Cor. 11: 10); tiotAs oti (1:18); naprvs 6ti. (2 Cor. 1 : 23) ; duvvw oti (Rev. 10:6); f w kyii, '6ti (Ro. 14 : 11). Sometimes the personal construction occurs with Sri, as in 1 Cor. 15 : 12, Xpttrrds KripiicrceTai Stl. In Jas. 1 : 13 we either have recitative oti or oratio variata. In Jo. 4 : 1 we have one in clause dependent on another. "On may be repeated in parallel clauses as in Jo. 6 : 22; Ac. 17 : 3; 22 : 29; 1 Cor. 15 : 3. In 1 Jo. 5 : 9 we have two examples of 3n, but one is causal. In Jo. 1 : 15 ff. the three are all causal. In Jo. 11 : 50 we have 6ti and Iva in much the same sense. Not so 1 Jo. 5 : 13. Cf. Iva in 1 Jo. 5 : 3 with OTL in 5: 11. The verbs that use declarative on in the N. T. are very numer- ous. A few have only Stc. Thus Mk. 11:32, airavrej tlxov tAc 'Iwavriv '6tl wpoipriTrjs rjp (note rjv). Blass' calls this use of ix'^ a Latinism like habeo. Cf. also vroXafiPavco 6tl (Lu. 7:43), a clas- • sical construction. So also XaXeoj (Heb. 11 : 18); cruMi3t/3oifa) (Ac. 16:10); (T(j>payl^oi (Jo. 3:33); yvtapi^ia (1 Cor. 12:3); 4ju0a- nfo) (Heb. 11:14); i^oiJ.o\oyeca (Ph. 2:11); Karvx^oi (Ac. 21: 21); K-qphacoi (1 Cor. 15:12); airoStUvvfii. (2 Th. 2:4); fiTivim (Lu. 20:37); vtoMkwij.i. (Ac. 20:35); ^avepoo/^at (2 Cor. 3:3); dxoKaXinrro) (1 Pet. 1:12); wapaSiSuinL (1 Cor. 15:3); iraparl- 6'rjnL (Ac. 17:3); Trpo^rjretw (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 oti or the infinitive. In Lu. • Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 231. MODE (efkaisis) 1035 9 : 18 f . with \kyu we have the inf. and 6tl side by side. So also in Ac. 14 : 22 with Trapa/caX^co. Oy^side of \kyco and avriKeyu 'ejniiapTvpku, KaraKplvu and TapMaKioj 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 list of the uses of these verbs. In margin of W. H. in Jo. 5 : 15 we have avayykWca with 6tl, but the text has ftirov. But see on. also in Ro. 2 : 4 (ayvoeui), Mt. 12 : 5 {avayivisaKO}) , Lu. 18 : 37 (dTraTTeXXaj), Ac. 25 : 16 (airoKplvofiai) , 1 Jo. 2: 22 {apveo- fmi), Ac. 17: 6 (fioacS), 1 Pet. 2 : 3 {yeionai) , Ro. 10 : 5 (Tpa^co), Mt. 16: 21 (SeiKvOo)), 1 Cor. 1 : 11 (SijXiw), Ac. 10: 42 {Si.ap.apTvpofiai) , Ac. 17 : 3 (Siavoiyw), Mk. 8 : 31 {diSaaiM), Mt. 6 : 7 (SoKkoS), Ac. 9 : 27 idrnkopai), Lu. 24 : 21 (iXirltu), Mt. 6 : 26 {in^Xkiro}) , 1 Cor. 11:2 (eTraivecS), Ac. 13 : 32 (evayyeKL^otiaL), Lu. 18 : 11 {evxapi.(rTeu) , Rev. 2 : 4 (^xw Kard nvos), Lu. 11 : 38 {davfia^u) , Jo. 6 : 5 {deaonai.), Ac. 4 : 13 (mraXa/iiSdyo/iai)) Lu. 12 : 24 (KaTavoicc), 2 Cor. 5 : 14 (kpLvu), 2 Pet. 3: 5 (Xave&vw), Mt. 3 : 9 (X^7co), Ac. 23 : 27 (p.avBA.vo}) , 2 Cor. 1 : 23 (fiaprvpa top 6e6v kizucaXovfiai) , Heb. 7: 8 {paprvpktii) , Ac. 20 : 26 {napTipofiai), Mt. 27 : 63 {nip.vl]-qii.l, in classical Greek almost always with the infinitive (Ro. 3 : 8), we twice hate gn (1 Cor. 10 : 19; 15 : 50). For gn and then the inf. see Mk. 8 : 28 f . The substantive nature of the 'on clause is well shown in 1 Th. 3 : 6. For '6ti with the inf. see Ac. 27 : 10. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 159) cites on — vTapxeiviToiaFrohlus' Inrem 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 (Soao) (Ac. 25 : 24) ; yivixTKdi (Heb. 10 : 34) ; KaraXanPavoixaL (Ac. 25 : 25); fiykonai (Ph. 3:8); voku (Heb. 11 :3). 'Awokpivonai has it only twice (Lu. 20 : 7; Ac. 25 :4). See also d7ra77eXXcij (Ac. 12 : 14); airapveoiiai, (Lu. 22:34); duaxvpi^onat. (Ac. 12:15); Srj\6tii (Heb. 9:8); iirayYeWofuu (Mk. 14:11; Ac. 7:5); kiTLfiapTiiponat, (1 Pet. 5:12); KaraKpivoj (Mk. 14:64); ixaprvpeu (Ac. 10:43); irpoaiTib.op.ai (Ro. 3:9); irpoKaTayyeKKu (Ac. 3 : 18) ; aripjilvoi (Ac. 11 : 28); XPW"-'^''-^'^ ^^- ^ -26). Some of these are words that are not used with any construction very often, some occur only with the infinitive, like kTnSeiKvvoo (Ac. 18 : 28); irpocrSoKau (Ac. 3 : 5; 28 ; 6); inroKplvop.ai (Lu. 20 : 20); movokoi (Ac. 13 : 25; 27 : 27). There is, besides, the inf. with ^ovXopai, 6k\o3, KeXeico, etc., more exactly the simple object inf. Other verbs that have occasionally the inf. are in the list given under (a), those with either Sn or the inf. like apvkonaL (Heb. 1 1 : 24) ; ypcKJico (Ac. 18 : 27) ; Shkvvu (Ac. 10 : 28) ; SiSaaKcij (Lu. 11 : 1); Sta/xaprupo/iat (Ac. 18 : 5); Siavolyo} (Ac. 16 : 14. Cf. Tov in Lu. 24 : 45); eiayyeXL^ofiai. (Ac. 14 ; 15), avfi^ovXtiiui (Rev. 3 : 18). In Luke and Paul the inf. of indir. discourse is fairly common with Xkyco (Lu. 9 : 18, 20, etc. Cf. Mt. 11 : 24; Mk. 3 : 23) and with vofii^u (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. * Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 267. MODE (ErKAisiz) 1037 anyhow and is rare in Homer.' It is not easy to draw the hne between jSoiiXo^at and KeKtiiu with the inf. on the one hand and 'kkyia and KOMtfoj with the inf. on the olfler.^ At bottom the con- struction is the same. The question of the ease 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): fjyyeiXav on 6 KDpos kviKritre becomes fiyyeiKav tov KDpoj' on eviK-qcev, but on kvl- Kria€v=viKrjcraL" (A. /. P., XXXIII, 4, p. 489). To go no further, Gildersleeve shows that the on construction is later than the ace. c. inf. But the grammarians went astray and called this accusative the "subject" of the inf., and, when some other case appears with the inf., it is an " exception" to the rules of the gram- marians, though in perfect harmony with the genius of the Greek inf. Even Moulton^ says: "In classical Greek, as any fifth-form boy forgets at his peril, the nominative is used regularly instead of the accusative as subject to the infinitive when the subject of the main verb is the same." Now, there is no doubt about the presence of the nominative in such an instance. But why say "instead of the accusative"? The nominative is normal and natural in such a construction. This construction probably, al- most certainly, antedated the accusative with the inf.^ We still > Monro, Hem. Gr., p. 162. * Horn. Gr., p. 162. 2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 269. » Prol., p. 212. ' Gk. Synt., p. 139. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 162. 1038 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT meet it in the N. T. The oldest idiom was to have no noun with the inf., as in Lu. 24 : 23, ^\dav Xeyovaai Kal owTaaiav ayyeKoiv iwpa- Kfvai. The context makes it perfectly clear that the word ovTaaiav is the object of tuipaKevai and the rest is matter of easy inference. Cf. Ac. 26 : 9 (with Mv); Jas. 2 : 14; 1 Jo. 2 : 6, 9; Tit. 1 : 16. In the majority of cases in the N. T. the noun is not repeated or referred to in the predicate. So in Lu. 20 : 7 we have inrmpl- dijaav ixri etSecat, but in Ac. 25 : 4 ^fjaros aTeKplBr/ Trjptiadai top IlaO- Xov els Kaiaapiav, iavTOV 5i neXKeLv. It is easy to see why TlavXov has to be in the ace. if expressed at all. We could have had avTos rather than iavrov which probably is just co-ordinated,with IlaGXov. Cf. KptTijs etwi in Ac. 18 : 15; Mt. 19 : 21 TeXeios efwi, Ph. 4 : 11 ejiadov avrapKris elvai, where the principle is the same, though not technically indirect discourse; it is the predicate nominative. So with /SouXo/iat, fleXw, fjjT^co, etc. The personal construction is a good illustration of the nominative. Cf. Heb. 11:4, kixaprvpijOr] elvai 5t/catos. The nominative occurs also in Ro. 1 : 22, v, where avrbs (cf. Ro. 9 : 3) would have been suf- ficient. Cf. also Ac. 5 : 36 (cf. 8 : 9) Xer^v elval nva iavrSv, (Ph. 3 : 13) £70) kjxavTov oCtto) Xoyl^onai KaTeiXrjcjikvaL, (Heb. 10 : 34) yivii- CTKOVTts txeiv eavToijs Kpdaaova inrap^LV, (Eph. 4 ; 22) awodkaBai fi/ms (some distance from the verb kSiSa.xOv'i) • See also Ac. 21:1; Ro. 1 : 20 f. Blass thinks that in 2 Cor. 7 : 11 the classical Greek would have had 6vTas, Bot eirat. Even so, but the N. T. has 1 Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 238 f. 2 Prol., p. 212 f. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 237. MODE (efkaisis) 1039 €lmi. An example like Lu. 20 : 20 (see above) is hardly pertinent, since the participle on which the inf. d^ends is itself in the accu- sative. Cf. Lu. 6 : 4.1 In Ac. 25 : 21, tov UaiiXov iirLKaXeaa/jikvov rr]pu(T6aL avrov, the pronoun could have been assimilated to the case of IloiiXou (aiiTov). So also in Rev. 2 : 9; 3 : 9, tSjv Xeyovruv 'lovSaiovs elvat eavrow (different order in 3 : 9). We find the same lack of assimilation in Ac. 22 : 17, fjtoi — nov — ne, and in 25 : 27 liOL — Trk/iTTovTa and in Heb. 2 : 10 avr^ — d7a76j'Ta. In 2 Pet. 3 : 3, yLviiaKovre^ is due to anacoluthon (cf . 1 : 20) as with airkxeadai — ixovres (1 Pet. 2 : 11 f.) and with areWofievoi. (2 Cor. 8 : 20). So Lu. 1 : 74 ■fiiilv pvaOevras, 5 : 7 (leTkxoLs 'eKdbvTM. The Greek of the N. T. did sometimes have assimilation of case as in Ac. 16 : 21, & oii/c 'e^ea-Tiv fiixiv irapaSexea-dai, ovS^ ■jroietv "Pco/iotots ovaiv. So also 15 : 25, eSo^ev iifiLv yevofikvois onodviiaddv eKXe^ankvois {-ovs margin of W. H.) Treju^Ojt (cf. accusative retained in verse 22, kXeJa/i^rous). Cf. also Lu. 1 : 3; 9 : 59; 2 Pet. 2 : 21. Contrast i8o^i fioi. of Lu. 1 : 3 with iSo^a kfiavri^ of Ac. 26 : 9. The same situation applies to the cases with the articular infinitive. Cf. Mt. 26 : 32, liera to iyepdrjval ne irpoa^oo. Here the /ie is not necessary and avros could have been used. So with Lu. 2 : 4, SiA to eimi avrov. The avrov is superfluous, as in Heb. 7 : 24.^ Cf . Lu. 10 : 35, 'eyiii iv tQ kiravtpxi- aOai p.€ dTToSdxrco aoi. 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, kv t& eiaayaytiv tovs yovtli rd TraiSLov 'l7](Tovv, where the context makes plain that iraiSlov is the object of 610-0707611' and 70ms the ace. of general reference. The article tQ 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 ace. with the inf. was normal when the substantive with the inf. was different from the subject of the principal verb. Cf. Ro. 3 : 8, (jxttrlv TLvei ■fifj.as \kyeiv Sri (note inf. after riiJ,i, and 6tl after \kya'i.vofiai ('appear'), as in Mt. 6 : 16. Besides, the participle has disappeared from use with aladavonai, iMvBavu, iik- fivriiML, (Tvvlrini,. The participles with fiav9i.voi in 1 Tim. 5 : 13 are additional statements, as the Revised Version correctly translates. With the inf. navdavoi means 'to learn how,' not 'to learn that.' ' Analogy in Synt., p. 64. MODE (efkaisis) 1041 Cf. Ph. 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 6pw ruiaprriKiis meant 'I see that I have sinned.' In the N. T., however, we have declarative on in such clauses (Mk. 5 : 29; 1 Jo. 3 : 14). i Viteau^ rightly insists on a real difference between the participial conception and the de- clarative oTL or the inf. If the idea is one of intellectual appre- hension merely, an opinion or judgment, we have bpSi on (Jas. 2 : 24). If it is a real experience, the participle occurs as in Mk. 8 : 24, d)s dkvSpa bpSi irepiiraTovvTas. So in Ac. 8 : 23, eis (rOvSetrfiov 6pu) o-e 3cTo. There is something in this distinction. Cf. ^X^ttw 6tl (Jas. 2 : 22), but the participle in Heb. 2 : 9, 'Irjaovv karretpavo}- nkvov. In Mk. 8 : 24 we have on, with /SXexco and the part, with bpSi. The reahstic quaUty of the part, is finely brought out in Mk. 9 : 1, his av 'iSoxrtv ri/v ^acriXelav tov Oeov iXriXvdviav kv Svvaixei. Note the tense as in Lu. 10 : 18, Weiipovv tov Tlaravav — weaovra. Cf. 9:49; 21:20; Ac. 11:13; 17:16. See Jo. 19:33, cbs ddop ^Stj aiiTov redvriKOTa. The tense of the direct is preserved. See for Beupko), Mk. 16 : 4 and Lu. 24 : 39, Kadws k/jik duapelTe ixovra. For kTriarafiai take Ac. 15 : 7 and 24 : 10. Cf. also fivrjuovevca with on (Ac. 20 : 31) and the part. (2 Tim. 2:8). It is very clear in ebpiaKu) (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 tiptdri (xovcra. In Lu. 23 : 2 we find three participles. AoKt^dfw in the N. T. has only the inf. (Ro. 1 : 28) and the participle (2 Cor. 8 : 22). So with ■fiykofmi (Ph. 2 : 6; 3 : 7). Cf. also ixe ixt irapxiTi)- likvov (Lu. 14 : 18). In 2 Jo. 7 note the part, with 6po\oye(a. In verse 4, irepiiraTovvTas with evpiaKoo, the case agrees only in sense with k tS)v rkKvwv. The difference between on with oUa (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 7ti'£d(rK£o. See oTt in Mt. 21 : 45, the inf. in Heb. 10 : 34. The usual idiom is on, but note Lu. 8 : 46, iyvtav Bbvaiuv k^tKiiKvdvtav air' k/xov, 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, 'iyvu tQ aiiixan on 'iarai. In ' Blaas, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 246. ^ Le Verbe, p. 53 f. 1042 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Mk. 5 : 30 kTnyLvucKoi 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. (Ac. 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 (jioivri does occur in 11:7; 22:7. Blass has an overrefinement on this point. As with the ace. construction of the part, with aKovu, 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, aKowas axirQiv av^ri- TOVVT03V. 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. lO : 18. In Mk. 6 : 8 we have oratio variata. The sentence starts with Iva and concludes with the inf. Hence the part. {iiroSedefiivovs is construed with the inf. See the ace. part, in Rev. 4 : 4 as explained by etdov in verse 1, though iSoi and the nominative have come between. (5) Kal kykv€To. One hardly knows whether to treat this con- struction as indirect discourse or not. It is a clear imitation of the Hebrew "^n?! and is common in the LXX with two construc- tions. It is either koL iykviro rai with finite verb (or iykvtTo 5k) as in Gen. 24 : 30; 29 : 13; Josh. 5 : 1, etc.), or we have asyndeton, Kal kykviTo plus finite verb (Gen. 22 : 1; 24 : 45, etc.). For iykvtro we often find kyevrjdri (1 Sam. 4:1; 11 : 1, etc.). This asyndeton is also common in the future as Kal 'i6,ywixtv; in Mt. 6:31 and tL ^dyrire (6 : 25). See also rod /ikveis; of Jo. 1 : 38 and d8av irov nkvet 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 exet tov ttjv Ke(l>a\riv KKivjj, and after sec- ondary tenses also as in Mk. 9 : 6, oi yap jjSti H aTOKpidfj. 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 oi' which has already been discussed twice. See Ac. 17 : 18, tI Slv deXoL, for the direct form, and Lu. 1 : 62, tI &v 64Xot, for the indirect. Cf. Lu. 9 : 46; Ac. 5 : 24. In 2 Tim. 2 : 25, a"? vrore 5iir, (W. H. have Soip in margin), we have the optative without av after a primary tense if Soirj 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, el apaye ^'i}\oi4>i)o^iidriTe rdv, 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 . /tjj ^o/SjjS^Te in verse 4. In Mt. 10 : 28 we have o^etade. 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 irapiiyyeiXev avroh tva ixridev aipcoat-v, Mt. 16 : 20 tTrtrifiriiTev tols iiadrjTats tva fi-qdevl emta- aiv, 2 Th. 3 : 12 wapayyeWofiev Kal TapaKoXovfiev kv Kvp'uo 'lijaov XpiaT^ tva — • kaBlucnv, Ac. 25 : 3 aiTOVfjievoi. ottcos neTairkfifl/riTai.. 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 ottos and I'm which are sub- ordinate to the first Iva after kpuTd. But we cannot follow this use of ha. after 0eXco and such verbs where it is more or less purely objective. The recitative ort with the imperative in 2 Th. 3 : 10 is not an instance of indirect command, but simply the direct command preserved. (7) The Infinitive. It seems more obvious and is still common in the kolvti, though retreating before tva. The negative is, of course, y,i]. This use of the infinitive must not be confounded with the idiom for indirect assertion (declarative) as. in Mk. 12 : 18, otTtPes \krY0V(TLV avaaTaaiv imtj etvai. Note Ac. 21 : 21, \kyuv liij TipLTeiivHV aiiTOus TO, TeKva uriSi Tots WecTLV irepiTraTUV, where we have prohibition, not assertion (note incidentally the two accusatives) with \fr((i3v (same verb as above). So also 23 : 12, \kyovTts liiiTt ^aytiv ixiiTe Telv. Cf. 21 : 4. Simple enough is the construction after elwa in Lu. 9 : 54, dwwp.tv irvp KaTa^rjvcn; See also Mk. 8 : MODE (efkaisis) 1047 7. In Mt. 16 : 12, crwTJKav on oiiK elirev irpoakxii-v (cf. irpoakxire in verses 6 and 11), we have the declarative Sn and the indicative followed by the inf. in indirect commlnd. In Lu. 2 : 26, f^v avrQ KexpvfiaTLanhov fi^ I8elv davarov, the construction is like that of in- direct command, but the sense comes nearer to the mere object infinitive. See the direct Buktco in Mk. 6 : 23 reproduced in the indirect by Sovmi (Mt. 14 : 7). There is a certain amount of free- dom taken in such transference to the indirect. In Ac. 18 : 2, 5td TO Siareraxivat KXavSiov x^pifeo-ffai ir&vTas, the inf. is dependent on an inf. Other instances of the inf. in indir. command are seen in Ac. 25 : 24, /Sowjres firi Seiv aiirov ^rjv, 26 : 20, aT'liyyeWov utravoiiv. In 2 Th. 3 : 6 we have irapayy'iKKoinv areWecdai, while in verse 12 we have ira. In verse 10 the direct quotation follows this same verb. In Mk. 6 : 8 f . we have both tva fiij atpcaaiv and fir) kvSvaaardai (marg. of W. H., Mr) evSicrriaBe) after irapriyyeiKeu. Luke (9 : 3-5) gives it all in the direct form. In 2 Th. 3 : 14, tovtov ariiJieiovade, p,ri avvavaniyvvcdai avri^, 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, h/paipa hixiv p.ri (Twavanlyvv- cdai (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' iXde'iv Kal evpetv, tl-wkv re, we have the infinitive (object-clause subject of 'eyevtro) and the finite clause tXirh re side by side. Cf. Ac. 4 : 5 f . for inf. followed by xai and the indicative. So in Lu. 9 : 19 we have the infinitive construction and the on construction side by side after a.iroKpt.BkvTes elirav. In Ac. 14 : 22, irapaKoXovvTei inp.kvei,v Tjj Tr'uTTei Kal Stl — 5ei, the construction glides from the inf. into oTi. In Ro. 3 : 8 the recitative on is dependent on the inf. \eytiv after (jtaalv. In Ac. 9 : 27, Bi^TiyficravTO wSis kv tj 63^ tlSev top Kbpiov Kal on e\a\riaev aircf, Kal irSis ktK., 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, Trepifikvetv rijv kirayytKlav tov irarpos rjv riKovaark fiov. Cf. also 23 : 22. See also Jo. 12 : 29. This change appears in Mk. 6 : 8 f., if the true text is ivSiaTjade. But the change may be just the reverse, from the direct to the indirect, as in Ac. 23 : 23, tiTev 'Eroi/iAffaTe — kttivti re irapacrrfjcrat. In 27 : 10 on. occurs with the inf., a mixture of the 6n 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, 0. P. 237 (ii/A.D.), SrfKSiv otl el to, oXtjOtj (pavfir] firiSk Kpiaeus Seladai TO irpayna. 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, /jtapTvpu hfuv ort, ei dwarov — eddoKare p.oL. Here the copula riv is suppressed. In Lu. 19 : 15 note uT^ev 4>(j3vi)d^vai—oh Se&iiKu. So after primary tenses the pri- mary tense follows, as in Mk. 11 : 23, XeYw oti. bs av e'iirji — mtoi avTii. 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, elirtv nil ttSojs \eyeL. Another example of the relative clause appears in Mt. 18 : 25, kKkXtvaev — irpadfjvaL — /cat oaa exei- Even after a con- dition of the second class the primary tense may be retained, as in Lu. 7 : 39, tfylvuicrKtv av rk Kal iroTairri ij yvvi] tJtis airTtra.L avrov oTi. aixaprcoXos karLv. For a causal sentence see kKui\vop,tv airov oti ovK aKoXovdeZ fxtO' ■fifiZv (Lu. 9 :49). A temporal clause with the subjunctive appears in Mt. 14 : 22, rivajKaaev — Tpoaynv — eus off airoKvaxi. See also Ac. 23 : 12, avedepATKrav — eojs ov diroKTt'iVuxnv. In 25 : 16, however, we have the optative in the subordinate clause of time with irplv f) {txoi., XaPoi) after aireKpidriv, 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, otl tp, 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 Xkyu 6ti we have os av el-irn which has oratio recta, but the relative clause proceeds with Kal fif/ SiaKptd^ dXXd iriffTeiig oTi o XaXeT ylverai. The relative 6 XaXet is the fourth involution of subordinate clauses after Xkyu. 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 (efkaisis) 1049 After avkdero \kyuv we have oratio recta. The first step is the rela- tive clause irtpl ov — hvectyavKTav, on whj^h hangs irpds oi)s 6.TreKpidriv, which in turn is followed by 6tl oOk Utlv and that by xapifeo-Sai, and this again by irplv ^ ixoi — Xa/3oi. The Trpiv ^ clause is the fifth involution in the oratio recta. Cf . also Ac. 3 : 19 ff. {irpi>% t6 i^a\iaaiv rti'es ij/iSs \kyeiv otl, kt\. So also Mk. 6 : 55, vepi^kpuv '6irov fJKovov otl iqrip (infinitive, relative, declarative). So again 1 Cor. 11 : 23 f. (8ti, fi, etiriv and oratio recta) . Here also the 6 clause is in appo- sition with the oTi clause. Cf. Lu. 19 : 15 (inf., Im, rl). In Ac, 7 : 25, ivo/u^ev o-ufi^mi roiis &8e\aTos fe'-yKXio-is or t6 &7rape|ji<|>aTov 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 or 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 actionis. 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. KOLvoivla tixarl (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 -^tum (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 \vaai (cf. also 8oFevai, 8ovvai, with Sanskrit davdne; Homeric Fid/itmi with Sanskrit vidmdne) or the > Goodwin, M. and T., p. 297. ' lb., p. 203. 2 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 GEAMMAK OF THE GKEEK NEW TESTAMENT locative in Xveiv} 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 davdrie vdsundm = 5ovvai rSiu (vyaBuv? This substantive aspect is clearly seen in the use of xavrds with tov f^v in Heb. 2 : 15. The first* step towards the verbal idea was in the con- struction bovvaL TO. ayada. Moulton^ illustrates the border-land of the Enghsh 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, 8ovmi TO. ayada = 'ioT giving the good things,' while Ibelv to. ayadd = 'm 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 6e\eL \vu, rjdeka dedtl, 'fx<^ Secret, remnants of the ancient infini- tives \veLv, Sedijvai, Setfai (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.' (a) 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 or voice. This original epexegetical use of the inf. as the dative of limita- tion has survived with verbs, substantives and adjectives. So 6 xpovos TOV TeKetp (Lu. 1:57). Cf. our "a wonder to behold." See fiwaroi SovKeiieiv (Mt. 6 : 24), op/iri v^plaai (Ac. 14:5), kacos XOo-ai (Mk. 1:7). See also Jas. 1: 19, raxus e£s rb d/coOcrai, where e£s 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 ' Cf. Giles (Man., p. 470) for \i)-uv and its relation to the Sans, -san-f, ■■ 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. otSare SMvaL (Mt. 7: 11), 'knows how to give' (for 'giving'). Homer has fiv 8' £e^t= '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 irpiv 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 -at 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), rd (jivkaduuv. But even here rh 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, seerns to have been developed first in the Greek.^ But it was the loss of the dative force as an 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.' ' 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 ursprunglichen 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, Horn. Gk., pp. 158 ff. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 515. ' Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 299. 8 Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1882, p. 195. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 568. 1054 A GRAMMAR OF 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 than 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 KoLvii Period. The inf. begins to disappear before Iva 1 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 (Essai 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 THMATOS) 1055 on the one hand and ort on the other. Jannaris' outlines the two chief functions of the inf. in its developed state to be pro- spective (purpose like Iva) and dectarative (subject or object like OTL, and 'iva 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 tov and the inf. in the Koivri, 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 'ico and oti. The two contradictory tendencies work at the same time.'' On the whole in the Koi.vii the inf. has all the main idioms of the classic age (with the marked absence of i(t>' ^ re) and the new turn given to TOV and iv 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 tov and the inf. The total nimaber 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 iva 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 auxihary verbs, and it is going even there as is seen from the use of 'iva with ^eXo) in the N. T. Cf. Mk. 9 : 30. In the Koivij we find I'm with PoiiXo/jmi and Shva/jiai in Polybius, the LXX and later koivti writers.' As the inf. disappears in the later Greek strange combinations appear, as in Malalas and Theophanes we 1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 568. 2 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, tor list of verbs with Iva in late Gk. 1056 A GRAMMAR OF THE (SREEK NEW TESTAMENT meet irpo rod with the subjunctive {rpi rod eTipplif/coaLV, irpi tov evoidSjaiv) .^ The inf. never had a monopoly of any construction save as the complement of certain verbs like fiovXa/xai, di\w, 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 de\cii as a mere auxiliary is common enough in Herodotus 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 tea 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 tm side by side or the inf. and OTL parallel. Even in the classical Attic we find ottos after iret- paofmL (Xenophon).*. As ottcos disappeared I'm stepped into its place. In Latin ut was likewise often used when the inf. could have occurred. The blending of tva and 6tl in the kolvt] 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 Sum/^ai and /ieXXw. 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, d.rapkfi(l>aTov prjixa, aTrapkp4a- Tos 'iyKKiai^. Apollonius 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, 1 Rueger, Beitr. zur hist. Synt. d. griech. Sprache, 1895, p. 11. ' 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, Erliiut., p. 296. » Jolly, Gesch. des Inf. im Indoger., 1873, p. 16. " lb., p. 22. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT THMATOS) 1057 just as they mistranslated yeviK-q by genitiviis.^ Bopp^ rightly perceived that the inf. has a nonpnal 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 appear 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 Xdeii' 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 t6 yvGivai.. 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. ' Cf. 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 GRAMMAE 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 ■wpa.aativ and 17 irpafis. Both have verbal stems and both are abstract. The difference^ lies in the tense and voice of TTpaaaeiv. But irpaaatLv has all that is in Trpa^is 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 op the Infinitive. (a) Case {Svbject 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 iwl ixSXKov aToBavetv, (Heb. 4 : 6; 9 : 27) awoKHTai TOts avBpinroLi aira^ airoBavelv, (Mt. 18 : 13) kav yevri- TaL ebpeiv ahrb, (3 : 15) Tpkirov ecrrlv fifuv ir\ripS>aai, (Ac. 21 : 35) avve^ri ^ara^eadai, (Lu. 6 : 12) iyivero e^eWetv avrov, (18 : 25) evKO- iriirepov iol3ri8fjs wapa- Xa^eZv, (5 : 34) Xkyoi vfiiv firi ofiocrai, (16 : 12) om ttira> ■Kpoaixti.v, (Lu. 18 : 1) xpos TO 5eiv wpoaevx^adai (both infs. in the acc, one with xpos, the other general reference with Bftv), (Ro. 15:8) 'keyta Xpiardv Smkovov yeyevfiaBai. (cf. Ac. 27: 13), (2 Cor. 10:2) 'Koyi^op.ai. To\iJ.rji\oTLfif1(Tdai ■fjavxcL^ii-v Kcil Trpdaaeiv ret tSia Kal kpya^eadai. (note the interrelation of these infs.). See further Mk. 5:28; 12:12; Lu. 16:3; Jo. 5: 18; Ro. 14: 2; Gal. 3: 2; 1 Cor. 10 : 13. In the acc. also are the articular infs. with prepositions like els (Ro. 1: 11); 5ta (Ac. 8 : 11); Me™ (Lu. 22 : 20); irpSs (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 avH (Jas. 4:15); Sia (Heb. 2:15, 5ta iravrds tov ^rjv); -iveKa (2 Cor. 7: 12); kos (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. t6 avrov rpaTTuv, Plato, Rep. 433. The genitive may be found with iin\avda.voiJi.at. as in Mk. 8 : 14, 'eireXddovTO Xa/JeTi' (cf. eTTLXaOkcrBai tov ipyov in Heb. 6 : 10. But we have to. brltrw in Ph. 3 : 13). At any rate in Lu. 1 : 9, i\a.xi TOV dvixiAaai (cf. 1 Sam. 14 : 47), we have an undoubted genitive. Cf. also ixtTep.ikriB7tTe tov inuTewai. (Mt. 21:32). The very common use of tov with the inf. must also be noted. Most of these are genitives, as in tov LiroXkaai (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. VEHBAL nouns ('ONOMATA tot "PHMATOS) 1061 with substantives just as other substantives are used. This is a fairly common idiom. See A(^27:20 eXirts xacra rod <7cbfe- adai, (1 Cor. 9:10) iw' kXTiSi rov fierixeiv, (Ro. 15:23) ii^iTiSuav &i iX'^v Tov kXdeiv, (1 Pet. 4:17) Kaipds rod ^p^aaOai, (Heb. 5:12) XPiiav TOV MaaKuv. Note, in particular, Ro. 11:8, Ui^Ktv ahroh h de6s irutvua Karavi^ecas, d(l>da\novi tov lirj pXeirtiv, Kal SiTa tov firi &Ko{)€iv, where the infs. are parallel with KaTavb^ecos. Cf. Lu. 1:57, 74; 2:6; 10:19; 21:22; 22:6, etc. Note especially Ph. 3:21, Kard TrjV evif)yeiav tov Svvaadai avTov Kal virord^ai. Let these suffice. They illustrate well how the inf. continued to be regarded as a real substantive. The genitive occurs also with adjectives as in /SpaSeTs tov xleiKkTi)i Trot^o-at, 'debtor for doing'; Heb. 11 : 15, Kaipov avaKapAl/ai., '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. (b) 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., t6 v\aaayiiv, t6 <^tXt (' kissing') = Td ^iXetj' (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 arti^cial. Moulton (Prol., p. 214) con- cludes from a study of the inscriptions that the articular inf. only invaded the dialects as the Kotvij 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. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 164. » Goodwin, M. and T., p. 315. * Birklein, Entwickelungsgeschichte, p. 91. ' Gildersl., Contrib. to the Hist, of the Inf., Transao. of the Am. Philol. Asso., 1878, pp. 5-19. ' Goodwin, M. and T., p. 315. H3rpereideB, he adds, even exceeds Demos- thenes. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 576. " lb., p. 577. 1064 A GRAMMAR OF 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. ne^d 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 mediaeval 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 koli/ti 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 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 233. » lb. 2 Prol., p. 213. « Prol., pp. 213 ff. > Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 233. ' lb., p. 213. ♦ Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 579. » 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 tirttes, 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 difference. 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, tI ianv t6 e/c vtKpSiv avaaTrjvai, the article is almost demonstrative, certainly anaphoric (cf. verse 9). The same thing is true of 10 : 40 where t6 KadLaat refers to Kodlacofiev 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, iv tQ eicrayayeZv tovs joveis rd iraidLov. 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 yap to ^rjv XpiaTos Kal to avoBavuv Kep5os. 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, ' 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 §een how the genitive inf. with tov occurs with verbs, substantives, adjectives and prepositions. The ablative inf. with TOV is found with verbs and prepositions. The ablative use is not here under discussion, since it involves no special diffi- culties save the redundant /iij. We may note that in Critias rod 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 . jwij d/ieXiio-js TOV ecoxX^cai Qoivlij}, 0. P. 1159, 11-13 (iii/A.D.). There is no special diCBculty with tov and the inf. with verbs as object except in a case like Mt. 21 : 32 where tov iriaTevcai. "gives rather the content than the purpose of neTeneKriBriTe." * The instances with substantives like Ac. 14 : 9, itxei ir'urTLv tov aud^vai., 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^iv ivkpyeiav tov Svvaadai. As to adjectives, as already noted,, it is doubtful if in 1 Cor. 16 : 4, eav Si a^wv J tov Kafii iropeveadai, the inf. is to be taken with a^ioc as genitiv6. 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, £7«v€to ToKenos 'ev tQ oiipavQ, 6 Mtx^jX (cat ol a/yyeKoi avTov TOV ir6\fnrj Birklein, Entwick., p. 9. * Moulton, Pro!., 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.' But many of the examples are not final or consecu- tive. It is only in Luke (Gospel 23, Acts 21) and Paul (13) that TOV 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 ^. 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, eykveTO eirl Kaphlav Aaveld tov Trarpos fiov tov oiKoSonrjaai olkov. So 1 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 -oi and the locative -t {-eiv). Now the genitive TOV and the dative -at 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.: Pres. 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. Cf . 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 GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT in Lu. 17 : 1, avkvSeKrdv kanv tov /xfi kXdilv. See also Ac. 10 : 25, kyk- vero TOV eictKdeiu, and 27: 1, iKplBri tov avoirKtiv. 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 allied to it, 0. P. 86 (iv/A.D.) Wos TOV TapaaxiOvvai. See Winer-Moulton, p. 411, for numerous examples in LXX. But very much like it is the use of rov as object-inf., with eir^XXo/iat in Lu. 4:10 (Ps. 90 : 11); KaTavevco in 5 : 7; orij/Dtfco in 9 : 51; Trotew in Ac. 3:12; KaKooi in 7: 19; eirioreXXw in 15 : 20; TrapaKaXeoj in 21 : 12; awTldenat in 23 : 20. Cf. also tTot/ios 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 d/ieXeic tov yp6.eiv, B. U. 665 (I/a.d.) ; Mt. 18 : 25 and Jo. 5 : 7 (?xw) with iV ixi TOV iruiKttv, B. U. 830 (i/A.D.); 1 Cor. 9 : 6 with kiovclav — tov — OkaBai, C. P. R. 156; Lu. 22 : 6 with evKcuplas — 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 toO 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. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOs) 1069 list of prepositions, the number is very much enlarged, especially in Polybius, who has 90 with x&Pl^ 115 with afia, 504 with Sia, 160 with Tpos, 74 with els, 24 with ev, 90 with iri, 33 with ixera, 41 with irepijonly one with Tropd.^ The idiom was here again later than the articular inf. itself and was also Attic in origin and Hterary. 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, eis rd kv /jiridevl nen4>6ijvai, and particu- larly in the case of irpds to. Cf. wpos to rvxiv, B. U. 226 (i/A.D.); xpos TO firi — ej'ryYx^i'eiJ', 0. P. 237 (i/A.D.) ; irp6s to — SetiBrjvat (lb.). 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 ava. 'kix^l had it only with the geni- tive, Kara with the accusative, irapk with the ace, xepi with the ace. and gen., irpos with ace. and loc, bvkp with the ablative, biro 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. avTi tov Xeyeiu in Jas. 4 : 15. A few instances are found without the article. Thus olvtI Si apxeaflat (note pres- ence of 5e between) in Herodotus I, 210. 2. It appears thus three times in Herodotus. So also in ^schines, Eum. 737, we have TrXiiv yaftov rvxeiv.'' So Soph., Ph., 100. Winer* finds two in Theodoret (cf. IV, 851, irapd avyKKisdtaBaC) . The papyri give us eis |3d^at, 0. P. 36 (i/A.D.), and the common vernacular phrase' tU irilv ('for drinking'). Cf. S6s px>i ireiv in Jo. 4 : 10. Moulton"* cites also an example of axpt from Plutarch, p. 256 D, and one from an inscription of iii/s.c. (0. G. I. S. 41, Michel 370) eiri — \an0avei.v. The instances without the article are clearly very few. Moulton {ProL, p. 81) suggests that the significant frequency of 1 Allen, The Inf. in Polyb., p. 33. 2 De Inf. at Part, in Inscr. Dialect. Graec. Questiones Synt., 1892, p. 73. ' Pro!., 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. ' W.-M., p. 413. " lb. 1070 A GKAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (is ireZv in the papyri is due to Ionic influence. The LXX furnishes several instances of anarthrous eis, as eZs kK^vytiv in Judg. 6 :11 (cf. 2 Esd. 22 :24; Sir. 38 : 27; Judith 4 : 15). Note also e'ws &Siiv in 1 Mace. 16 : 9; eos civ o'lKTupriaai in Ps. 122 : 2 (so Ruth 3:3); M«xpts "B £7710-01 in Tob. 11: 1. Cf. also irKiiv with anar- throus inf. in Poly bins, etc. The tenses have their full force in this prepositional construc- tion, as in Mk. 5 : 4, 5ia to — hi&kaBai koX SnawaaBai. koX — awTtrpi- dai. Naturally some tenses suit certain prepositions better, as kv with the present tense.' The principles of indirect discourse apply . also to the inf. with prepositions. Cf. iJL€Ta to kyepdrjvai fie irpoafoj (Mk. 14: 28). In the N. T. the accusative seems to occur always even when the nominative predicate would be possible,^ as in 3id TO peveiv avTov (Heb. 7 : 24). So also Lu. 11:8. But note Xen., Cyr., I, 4. 3, 5ta to i\ofiaBris elvai. 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 EngUsh "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, 5id, eis, ev, k, iitTa, irpo, Trpos) and two the prepositional adverbs evtKa and e&js. It remains now to examine each in detail. 'AvtI 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 avTi. It does not occur in Polyb- ius. In the N. T. we have only one instance, Jas. 4 : 15, avTl TOV Xeytiv. Votaw gives one for the LXX, Ps. 108 : 4, avTi tov ayairav. Atd has 33 instances in the N. T., all but one (genitive, Heb. 2 : 15, Sia. TravTos tov ^rjv) 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. ' 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 2Q,} all with the accusative. The idiom 5id t6 is so frequent in Xenophon and Thucfrdides that as compared with on it stands as 2 to 3.^ In later Greek (kolvti and Byzantine) it comes to displace even I'm and ottws, though finally shifting to 5ia va in modern 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 Sia t6, as in Mt. 13 : 5 f., 5ta to nii ^xeiv. It is not merely the practical equivalent of on and 5i6ti, but is used side by side with them. Cf . Jas. 4 : 2 f ., Sia t6 /xri airet- adai iifias — Slotl /ca/cws airetade. 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 (fer) ; 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 kirl to and xpos t6 with the inf.^ But the N. T. does not use exl with the inf. There is no doubt about the final use of eis to whatever is true of the consecutive idea. In the late Greek Jannaris' notes a tendency to use els t6 (cf. jSpaSiis eis to XaX^coi in Jas. 1 : 19) rather than the simple inf. Cf . 1 Th. 4 : 9. But this tendency finally gave way to tva. 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 ets 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 tv uri&tvl iieiicl>drjvai, P. Fi. 2 (iii/A.D.) 4 times. In 1 Pet. 4 : 1, eis t6 — jSiSKTai, note the long clause. There is no doubt that in the N. T. eis t6 has broken away to some extent from the classic notion of purpose. That idea still occurs as in Ro. 1:11, eis t6 a-TTipLxOv"""- This is still the usual construction. Cf. Ro. 3:26; 7: 4; 8 : 29; Eph. 1 :12; Ph. 1: 10; 1 Th. 3 : 5; Jas. 1 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. • Birklein, Entwick., p. 107. 2 Birklein, Entwick., p. 107. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 487. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 375 f. » Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. * Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 165. » Prol., p. 218. » Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 161. " lb., p. 220. 1072 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 1 : 18; 1 Pet. 3 : 7; Heb. 2 : 17, and other examples in Mt. and Heb., to go no further. In Paul we notice other usages. In Ph. 1 : 23, 'fwiBvu'iav d% to avaXmai, we have it with a substantive and in Jas. 1 : 19 it occurs with the adjectives toxus and PpaSis. It is epexegetic also with the verbal adjective deoSiSaKToi in 1 Th. 4 : 9. Besides, we find it as the object of verbs of com- mand or entreaty giving the content of the verb as in 1 Th. 2 : 12; 3 : 10; 2 Th. 2 : 2, epoirSiiiev tis to (iri Tax^ws ffakevdrjvai. Cf. also 1 Cor. 8 : 10. So in Mt. 20 : 19; 26 : 2; 1 Cor. 11 : 22 there is a really dative idea in eis to. Just as Iva came to be non- final sometimes, so it was with eis t6, which seems to express con- ceived or actual result (cf. toC also) as in Ro. 1 : 20; 12: 3; 2 Cor. 8 : 6; Gal. 3 : 17. Cf. the double use of ihare for 'aim' or 'result.'^ The perfect tense can be used with eis to as in Eph. 1 : 18 eis to elSevai and Heb. 11 : 3 els to yeyovkvai, the only instances. But the present or aorist is usual. These developed uses of eis to occur to some extent in the LXX (1 Ki. 22 : 8; 1 Esd. 2 : 24; 8:84). 'Ev T(S appears in the tragedies.' It is found 6 times in Thu- cydides, 16 in Xenophon, 26 in Plato.' But Blass^ observes that the classical writers did not use kv rep in the temporal sense of 'while' or 'during.' Moulton'' sought to minimize the fact that in the 0. T. ev rcji occurs 455 times (45 in the Apocrypha) and that it exactly translates the Hebrew a and held that it did not in principle go beyond what we find in Attic writers. But he took that back in the second edition^ under the suggestion of Dr. E. A. Abbott that we must find Attic parallels for 'during.' So he now calls this "possible but unidiomatic Greek." In the N. T. we have- h t^ and the inf. 55 times and 3/4 in Luke. In the Greek Bible as a whole it is nearly as frequent as all the other prepositions with the inf.' The Semitic influence is un- doubted in the 0. T. and seems clear in Luke, due probably to his reading the LXX or to his Aramaic sources.' Cf. Lu. 1 : 8; 8 : 5 (ej/ t4) cirelpeiv); 24 : 51; Ac. 3 : 26; 4 : 30; 9 : 3, etc. Jan- naris' sees here a tendency also to displace the participle. The 1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 236; Moulton, Prol., p. 219; Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 161. 2 Birklein, Entwick., p. 108. » Moulton, Pro!., p. 215. » Prol., p. 215. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 237. « P. 249. ' Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. ' But Dalman, Worte Jesu, p. 26 f., denies that it is an Aramaean constr. » Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 379. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT THMATOz) 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. ?: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 dcTayayelp, (3 : 21) kv tQ ^airTKTdrj- mi, where Blass' sees the equivalent of the aorist participle (cf. 'It/ctoD ^a.TTiaBkvros) 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 kv t4> 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 r^ {nrora^at. in Heb. 2: 8; Gen. 32 : 19, kv t& eipeZv. 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, kv r^ Xkyew, 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. kirl tQ kfial Trapafikviv, O. P. 1122, 9 f. (a.D. 407). "'E.vtKtv Tov 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, ivtKtv tov tjiave- pwOrjvai. Tr/v airovSriv vfiSiv, where it is clearly causal as with the two preceding participles, IvtKev tov adiK'fiaavTOS, evenev ■ tov aSLKridkvTOS (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, Ik tov 'ix^iv), 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 mdo dv exti- 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 Polybius k rod with the inf. has a more varied use (departure, source of knowledge, source of advantage).' He uses it 25 times. "Eftjs ToO, likewise, occurs but once (Ac. 8 : 40, ews rod kXdelv), and with the genitive. Birklein does not find any instances of ?a)s Tov and the inf. in the classic writers, though he does note fikxpi. TOV and less frequently axpi tov.^ Cf. /itexpt tov irXtLv, P. B. M. 854 (i/ii a.d.). But in the 0. T. Votaw^ observes 52 instances of €cos TOV and 16 in the Apocrypha. Cf. Gen. 24 : 33; Judith 8 : 34. We have already noted the anarthrous use of ccos iXOtiv in 1 Mace. 16 : 9 A. Cf. Gen. 10 : 19, 30, etc. So also e'us oB and ;uexpi(s) ou 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 Tpiv and the inf. Mera to is found only a few times in Herodotus, Plato and Demosthenes.^ 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. Mard to vanished 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, iieTo. Td kyepdijvai fie. 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. IIpo TOV in the ancient writers was used much like irpiv and in the temporal sense. ^ It gradually invaded the province of Tplv, 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, Tpd TOV wapafielvai. Polybius has it 12 times.*" In the 0. 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, wpo TOV kXdeZv ttiv iriaTiv. There is no essential differ- 1 Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 34 f. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 386. 2 Entwiok., p. 105. ' Birklein, Entwick., 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 rpiv and the inf. and TTpd Tov and the inf. The use of ir^v 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 irp6 is in the ablative case. Cf. ablative' inf. with purd in Sanskrit. ILpiv 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 «os TOV, not to say eos alone as in ecos eKdelv (1 Mace. 16 : .9). The use of the article is the common idiom. The fact of wpiy and the inf. held back the development of xpd rod. In modern Greek irpo tov as irpoTov occurs with the subj. (Thumb, Handb., p. 193). In the N. T. Trplp is still ahead with 13 examples. The instances of irpo 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. Il/ods TO is the remaining idiom for discussion. It was used by the ancients in much the same sense as eis to and iwl to, ' looking to,' 'with a view to.'^ The idiom is very common in Polybius,' 150 examples, and there are 10 of xpos ry. But in the O. T. we have only 14 examples and 12 in the Apocrypha.^ The N. T. shows 12 also. Some of the LXX examples are of irpds tI^ (Ex. 1 : 16; 2 Mace. 7 : 14), but in the N. T. they are all xpos to. In the papyri Moulton^ finds xpos t6 rather more common than eis t6. In the N. T. Matthew has it five times (5 : 28; 6 : 1; 13 : 30; 23 : 5; 26 : 12). These express aim unless 5 : 28 is explanatory of pXiTuv.^ Mark has it once, 13 : 22. Luke has it twice (18 : 1, where Trpos to 8e1v means 'with reference to'; Ac. 3 : 19 only NB, while other MSS. read eis).^ Paul's four examples (2 Cor. 3: 13; Eph. 6 : 11, DEFG eis; 1 Th. 2 : 9; 2 Th. 3 : 8) all give the "subjective purpose."* Both present (3 times) and aorist (6 times) tenses occur. Cf. xpos to dfadrjvai in Mt. 6:1. (rf) The Infinitive with Substantives. Numerous examples of the inf. with substantives were given in the discussion of the cases of the inf. The matter calls for only a short treatment at this point. The use of the inf. with substantives was ancient' and natural, first in the dative or locative and then in the genitive 1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., § 983; Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 158. Homer used vplv with the inf. after both positive and nSgative clauses. 2 Birklein, Entwick., p. 107. « lb., p. 218. » AUen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 33. ' Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 236. • Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. « W.-M., p. 414 note. » Prol., p. 220. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 154. 1076 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT with Tov. It was always common in the classic Greek. ^ The usage is common in Polybius with both the anarthrous and the articular inf.^ The same thing is true of the 0. T. and the Apoc- rypha.' It is so frequent as not to call for illustration. The meaning is that of complement and the inf. most frequently oc- curs with words of time, fitness, power, authority, need, etc. It is abundantly used in the N. T. both with and without the article. Some anarthrous examples are (Mt. 3 : 14) xp^'i"-'' pairTKrBrjvai, (Lu. 2 : 1) Soyixa avoypa.ei'hia, doKkw, otjiLrini, alrkoi, hpwTOM, apxa/iai, etc. It is clear, therefore, that the inf. with verbs is by no means dead in the N. T., though the shadow of 'iva is across its path. As illustrations of the great wealth of verbs with the inf. in the N. T. note (Mt. 11 : 20) rjp^aro oveidi^eiv, (27 : 58) eKkXivatv airododTJvaL, (Mk. 12 : 12) k^riTOVV Kparfjaai, (Lu. 16 : 3) o-KaTTTeLv ovK l(rxvc», iwaiTftv aia^xwofiat. Almost any verb that can be used with a substantive can be used with the inf. The use of the inf. with -irpoaTldefiai is a Hebraism. Cf. Ex. 14 : 13. See Lu. 20 : 12, irpoo-iOeTo Teix^/ai. 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 6.yairav after b^i'CKco (Ro. 13:8); irapaiTovpai to airodoLveiv (Ac. 25 : 11); tov TepLiraruv after iroikoi (Ac. 3 : 12); eincrTeT\ai. rod aTixtcdai. (15 ." 20); Karetx'"' tov fifi iroptbtadai (Lu. 4 : 42). In 1 Ki. 13 : 16 we have tov kinaTpbl/ai. with diiva/iai. These are just a few specimens. See Cases of the Inf. (g) The Appositional Infinitive. The grammars draw a dis- tinction here, but it is more apparent than real as Votaw* well says. The inf. in apposition is that with nouns; the epexegetical inf. is used with verbs. But at bottom the two uses are one. They are both limitative. With nouns the appositional inf. re- stricts or describes it. It is a common enough idiom in classical Greek' and is found also in the LXX. In the N. T. observe Ac. 15 : 28 wXriv TOVTWV tSiv kira.va'yKe^, diTrexeo-^at, (Jas. 1 : 27) dprjaKila, KaOapa Kal &iJ.lavTos — airr] eaTiv, eTricr/ceTrretr^ai. Cf . further Ac. 26 : 16; 2 Cor. 10 : 13; Eph. 3 : 6, 8; 4 : 17; 1 Th. 4 : 3 f.; Heb. 9 : 8; 1 Pet. 2 : 15 (oilrcus). The articular inf. may also be apposi- tional as in Ro. 14 : 13, tovto KpivaTe nS.\\ov, to jut) TiBkvai.. So also 2 Cor. 2 : 1; 7 : 11; Ro. 4 : 13; 1 Th. 4 : 6 Ms. In the N. T. and the Apocrypha it is only to (in the articular use) that is apposi- tional, but in the 0. T. 15 out of the 17 instances have tov with- out any reference to the case of the noun.* It is worth noting that 'iva is common also in appositional clauses (cf. Lu. 1:43; 1 Cor. 9 : 18), especially in the writings of John (Jo. 4 : 34; 15 : 8; ' Hellen., p. 125. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 233. « Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 17. ' Cf. Hadley and AUen, § 950; Goodwin, § 1517. * Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 29. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOs) 1079 17 : 3; 1 Jo. 3 : 11, 23; 4 : 21; 5 : 3, etc.). We find Srt also in 1 Jo. 2:3;3:16).i ^ 5. Verbal Aspects of the Infinitive. It is worth repeat- ing that the same inf. is substantiye as well as verb. Each inf. does not, of course, have all the substantival ^nd 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) Voice. The Sanskrit inf. had no voice. In Homer the inf. already has the voices, so that it is speculation 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 Sirmros davixaaai, ' capable for won- dering,' and ajtos davnaaai, '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, 36$ kpyacriav awr^Waxdai air' avTov, it is clear that the passive voice is meant whatever the origin of the form -adai. The reduplication shows the tense also. The same remark applies to Mk. 5 : 4, 5td to SeSiadai /cat dteaTaaBai. iir' aiiTOV ras akvaeis. See also 5 : 43, elTev Sodrjvai avrfj ^ayttv. No special voice significance is manifest in (jiayeiv, 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 ahnost all the ideas of the finite verb. ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 576. * Prol., p. 203. " lb. ' In Ac. 26 : 28, irtiSas Xpurnavov iroiijaai, one notes a possible absence of the strict voice in voiijaat. But it is a hard passage. 1080 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 'eating' and is the ace. of general reference with SodTJvai which in turn is the direct object of elirev. But Sodrjvai has the passive force beyond a doubt. Cf . further ixoXeXiiir^at ediparo in Ac. 26 : 32 and fvtKev Tov 4>avepudTJvai in 2 Cor. 7 : 12. In general, therefore, after the inf. is fully devejoped, the voice in the inf. appears exactly as in the modes. So tov airkxecdai. (Ac. 15 : 20); cnroyphj/acdai (Lu. 2:5); kirCkoBkadai (Heb. 6 : 10); yanrid^vai. (1 Cor. 7: 39); KK-qdrivai. vlb% (Lu. 15 : 19). Cf. dtkaaadai (Lu. 7 : 24) and dtadrivaL (Mt. 6:1). (&) 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. subj., opt. and imperative) except as the future inf. echoes the expectation of a verb like 'tKirl^oi (or ^ueXXco) 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 tactum and inf. tangere)? "The oL Cf. Ac. 17: 30; 1 Pet. 3 : 17. Words like Sel, avayKH] 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 cos wapoiKovs — aTrexeo-Sat. Freedom also exists. In Mk. 9 : 47 we have koXov ae kcTiv /lovo- da\tiov e'KTtXdfiv, while in Mt. 18 : 8 we read koKov aol eanv fiovS- (Mk. 6 : 39), and verbs like kpreWofiai, kirLTpkiru, ■wapayykWoi, and impersonal expressions like cTVfikpei., Wos kariv, adifUTOp, alaxpop, etc. As shown above, koKop kanp is used either with the ace. or the dative, as is true of \ky(a (cf. Mt. 5 : 34, 39 with Ac. 21 : 21; 22 : 24). Blass^ adds also Ac. 5 : 9, avuecjiuviidi] vfup TTupkaai. He notes also that irpoa-Taaao} occurs with the ace. (Ac. 10 : 48) as is true of eTLraaau (Mk. 6 : 27) and raaao} (Ac. 15 : 2). Even cvfjicjikpiL appears with the ace. and inf. (Jo. 18 : 14) and e^earip (Lu. 6 : 4, where D has the dative, as is true of Mt. I Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 239-241. ^ lb., p. 240. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOS) 1085 12 : 4). With iyevero Blass^ observes how clumsy is kyhero noi — yevkcBai ne (Ac. 22 : 17). The ace. ^d inf. occurs with kykvero (Ac. 9 : 32) and the dative also in the sense of it 'befell' or 'happened to' one, as in Ac. 20 : 16. In Ac. 22 : 6, kykvtTo liot — TrepiacrTp6.\(fat (/)a)s, the two constructions are combined. Blass^ further observes the independence of the inf. in adding an ace. of general reference besides the ace. with a verb of asking, as in Ac. 13 : 28 jJTiJo-ai'To UeiXarov avatpedijvaL avrov, (1 Th. 5 : 27) op/cifo) iyuas avayvoicrBijvaL TTiv kiria-ToKriv. In Ac. 21 : 12, TrapeKoXovfiev — rod ixr\ avafialvuv avrov ets 'lepovv. (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 Set, Ac. 25 : 24, PoSivTes fir) Seiv avrov ^rjv /xriKeri., 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 i^eanv, 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. SoKeca has the personal construction, as in Ac. 17 : 18, 8oKet KdrayyeKeis tlvai, (cf. Jas. 1 : 26; Gal. 2 : 9, etc.), but we find Uo^e not in Lu. 1 : 3 (cf. Ac. 15 : 28, etc.) and even eSofa eixavr^ Seiv xpS^at (Ac. 26 : 9). The Koivi) seems to use it less frequently than the ancient Greek. Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 148) quotes Vett. Valens, p. 277, 19, 56^€t — irr&pxftv avrrfv rr/v a'ipecriv. We have btSoKiixaantda inarev- Brjvai (1 Th. 2 :4) and ifiaprvpriBri tlvai (Heb. 11:4). One may compare the personal construction with on (1 Cor. 15 : 12; 2 Cor. 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 241. ^ lb. ' Cf. Middleton, Analogy in Synt., p. 9. Maximus of Tyre has it in a rel. clause. Dtirr, Sprachl. Unters., p. 43. * Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 239. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 239. 1086 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 3 : 3; 1 Jo. 2 : 19). The personal construction occurs with Trpeira (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, jirrjcavTO IleiXaTOj', avaipeBTJvaL avTov, and in 5 : 21, 6.Ti(rT€i,\av axdrjvai avrovs (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.^ 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 cbs tTos dinlv, 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 867/^0 aTroypa(l>e(r6aL iraaav T^v oiKovixhriv (Lu. 2 : 1) and irapkSosKev avTotis els aSoKLfjiov vovv, TTOLiiv TO, p,^ KaOifKovTa (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 rabTtjv irolprfv elvai cos eiiXoyiav is subsidiary to the tva clause preceding, as is often the case. Vi- teau^ notes that the construction is frequent in the Epistles. Cf. Eph. 1 : 16-18 {Iva — eis rd elSkvai.), 3 : 16 f. {tva — KpaTauadrjvaL, Karoi- Krj(ra,L), Col. 1 : 10 {'iva — TrepiirarrjaaL) , 4 : 3 {^iva — XaXijcat). Further examples occur in Lu. 1 : 54 ^ivqffdrivai, 1 : 72 iroLfjaac Kal nvr\- adrjvaL, 1 : 79 lirK^Svat tov KarevOvvai, Ac. 17 : 27 ^Tiretv, 2 Pet. 3 : 2 pvT}ad7)vai. 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, kiriKaTaparos ttSs os ovk 'ep,iikvti iraaiv tols yeypap,pb>oi,s ev t^ /St/SXtco tov vbp,ov rov '■KOi^iaai avra. But certainly 1 Thomspon, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 239. 2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 517. ' Griinewald, Der freie formelhafte Inf. der Limit, im Griech., p. 21 £. « 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 aTi/xa^etrBaL (Ro. 1 : 24) after irapkduKev is just as truly epexeget- ical as is TroieTi' in verse 28 after irapeSuKev. So also Ro. 7:3; 8 : 12; 1 Cor. 10 : 13. Burton* looks%t the epexegetical inf. as "an indirect object," as in Lu. 10 : 40, i^ dSeX^i? /wv iwvqv ne KaTtXenrev diaKovetv. 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 tva 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 Koivij. 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, o irap'tKaPov Kparetv ('for keeping,' 'to keep')- So Mt. 27 : 33, iduKav ahrCf irulv olvov ('for drinking,' 'to drink'). So Mt. 25 : 35, ibii- mrk noL tJMyeiv. 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 Koivii 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 dra/Saivo, etc. It is noteworthy that this inf. was not admitted into Latin except with a verb of motion. Moulton {Prol, p. 205) cites Par. P. 49 (ii/s.c.) iav avafica Kayu> irpoffKvvfjaai, as parallel to Lu. 18 : ' N. T. M. and T., p. 147. ■'■ Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 265 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 OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 10, avefiriffav — irpoaih^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 localizing 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., toD and the inf., ds to and the inf., irpos to and the inf., oio-re and the inf. There is no ex- ample of t' & 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 riKBofiey ■irpo(rKvvfj(rai. avrQ; (5:17) ovK rjXdou KaraXOffat, dXXa xXT/pcotrat; (7 : 5) 5ta;8Xe^eis eKJSaXeLV to Kap- <^os; (11:7) tI k^riXdare els rriv iprjiwv deacacdai (so verse 8, ideiv); (20 : 28; Mk. 3 : 14) aTrooreXX]? avToiis KrjpOa-a-tLv; (5 : 32) 7repte|8Xe- Trero Ideiv; (Lu. 18 : 10) cive/Jiyo-a;' irpoaeij^aadai; (Jo. 4: 15) fitepxco^at hddSe avrXeiv; (Ac. 10 : 33) irapeaixev d/coOcai; (2 Cor. 11:2) Ttp/io- (TafiTju vpas — irapaffTTJaaL; (Rev. 5 : 5) kv'iK-qcrtv — • avol^ai; (16 : 9) oh fitTevoriaav 8ovvai. 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) ^riTfiv TOV diroXecat, (13 : 3) i^fjXdev tov aweipeLv, (Lu. 21 : 22) tov TrXrjo-Sijwt wavTa, (24: 29) tov p,etvaL. See further Ac. 3 : 2; 5 : 31; 26 : 18; 1 Cor. 10 : 13; Gal. 3 : 10; Heb. 10 : 7, etc. The use of TOV JU17 is, of course, the same construction. Cf. Ro. 6 : 6, tov p,r)KeTi 8ov\evetv 'fjpRs. Cf. Ac. 21 : 12. In Lu. 2 : 22 note irapaa-Tfj- arai, and in verse 24 tov SoOcat. Purpose is also expressed by eis t6 as in 1 Th. 3 : 5, 'eirep,\^a eh to yvGivai., and by tvphs to as in Mt. 6 : 1, Trpds TO deaffrjvaL. In the N. T. cotrre with the inf. of purpose is rare. Originally purpose was the idea with aio-re, or conceived result. Actual result with uare was expressed by the indicative. ' Prol., p. 205. Allen gives no ex. of the simple inf. of purpose in Polyb., only rod, fio-Tc, iij>' <|> Tc. Cf. Inf. in Polyb., p. 22. * Moulton, Prol., p. 216. Thuc. was the first to use tov and the inf. for purpose (Berklein, Entwickelungsgesch., p. 58). » lb., p. 217 f. * Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 21. VERBAL NOUNS ("ONOMATA TOT "PHMATOz) 1089 In the LXX the notion of purpose is still common, especially in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Letiticus.' In the N. T, there are only 7 instances, leaving out Ac. 20 : 24, according to W. H., and only 6 if we follow W. H. in Lu. 9 : 52. See Mt. 10 : 1, UuKev av- ToZs k^va-iav ihari 'tK^aWeiv. Here the notion of Sicre (=d)s, re, 'and so') is simply 'so as,' not 'so that.' See also Lu. 4: 29, Siart KaraKprinviaai. Cf. further Mt. 15 : 33; 27 : 1; Lu. 20 : 20. Burton^ thinks that in Mt. 27 : 1 cliaTe gives rather content than pur- pose. One must not confuse with rod and the inf. of purpose the somewhat analogous construction of tov and rod tiij after verbs of hindering. This is in reality, as was shown, the abla- tive and the regular object-inf. (substantival aspect). Cf. Lu. 4 : 42; Ac. 20 : 27; Ro. 15 : 22. Votaw^ notes 22 verbs in the LXX and the N. T. that use this idiom. The only common one is KoiXvu. See further Final Clauses in chapter on Modes for papyri examples. (h) 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, iviKriaiv 6 "Keoiv avoi^ai. The lion had opened the book and so it was actual result. So also Ac. 5 : 3, 3ia ri kirKiipcaaev 6 (Taravas ttiv KapSlav cov, xj/evcaadai ae. 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, etrat to Wvri. Cf . also 4 : 22, airo- etadai. This is not a Hebraistic (Burton) idiom, but falls in na- turally with the freer use of the inf. in the kolvti. See also Ac. 15 : 10 iiriBetmi. ^vySv, (Heb. 5 : 5) yevridfivai apxitpia. Where it is clearly result, it may be actual or hjrpothetical.^ 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. 8 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 O. T. it is quite common. The 12 examples in the N. T. are usually hypothetical, not actual. So Ro. 1 : 10 evo- Sci>6ricronaL iXdelv wpos vfias, (Eph. 3 : 17) KpaTa.tcii6rjvaL, KaTOiKrjaai, (6 : 19) yviapiaai, (Col. 4 : 3) XaX^crat, (4 : 6) elhtvai, (Heb. 6 : 10) ^TTiXo- diadai. 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. 5 : 3; Rev. 5:5. In the O. T.^ we have actual result with Tov and the inf., but no examples occur in the N. T. Not more than one-half of the examples of tov and the inf. in Luke, who gives two-thirds of the N. T. instances, are final.' Some of these are examples of hypothetical 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, /icre/ieXijSjjT-e rod Tiarev- <7at, thus, though in reality it is rather the content of the verb.^ There is similar ambiguity in Ac. 7 : 19, kKanuaev tov touIv. But the point seems clear in Ac. 18 : 10, oiiSels e-indijaeTaL aoi tov KaKuiffaL (re, and in Ro. 7 : 3, tov fiij elvai avrriv /iotxiXtSo. If TOV can be oc- casionally used for result, one is prepared to surrender the point as to eis TO 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 t6 /xri fcooToveto-^ai. So also Ro. 6 : 12, eis TO vTraKoiitv. It may be true also of Heb. 11:3, ek t6 ytyovkvai. See further Ro. 12 : 3; 2 Cor. 8 : 6; Gal. 3 : 17.« Votaw' argues for actual result in Ro. 1 : 20, ets to dvai. avTovs avaToXoyiiTovs. It is hard to deny it in this passage. But it is Sj(TTe 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 Si A^flaX- iiois aov To5 kmyv&val ne; See ako 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. « lb., p. 14. 9 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 i^jgre. Thus Mt. 13 : 54 kSidatrKev aiJToi)s ware kKir\i]aaeaBai /cat Myeiv, (Mk. 9 : 26) ibare roiis iroWovs XkyeiV, (Lu. 12 : 1) caare TrepLiraTeiv aXXijXous, (Ac. 5 : 15) (barf k0e- ptiv. 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 ivij(rai, (Jo. 4 : 49) wplv airodavetv. 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 oKus, eirei, iireiSri, ei, diori. and the relative pronouns.* Con- " Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 29. 2 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 161, mentions only 23. ' The inf. with vpiv is common in Hom. See Monro, p. 158. * B^nard, Formes verbales en Grec d'aprSs le Texte d'H^rodote, 1890, p. 196. See also Sturm, Die Entwick. der Konstrukt. mit irpic, 1883, p. 3. 1092 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT temporaneous action is described by kv tQ, especially in Luke. Cf. Lu. 1 : 21, hv T(^ xpov'i-^^i-v. See Prepositions with Infinitive for further remarks. Subsequent action is set forth by /terd t6 as in Mt. 26 : 32; Lu. 12 : 5, etc. In Ac. 8 : 40, eos rod kXdfLV, 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.' R. Wagner^ notes that in Homer this use of the inf. oc- curs with- the nom. The papyri still show examples like 6 Setm T(5 detva x°-'-P^'-v-^ Gerhard* holds that in such cases there is ellipsis of \kfu. The Attic inscriptions^ frequently have the absolute infinitive as imperative. Deissmann {Light from the Ana. East, p. 75) notes that, as in German, it is common in edicts and no- tices. Cf. imperatival use of infinitive in modern French. He quotes from the "Limestone Block from the Temple of Herod at Jerusalem" (early imperial period): Mridtpa aWoyevrj ehiropevecrdai evTos Tov Ttpl TO Upov Tpvcl>aKTov Kal TreptjSoXou, ' Let no foreigner enter within,' etc. See also Epictetus, IV, 10, 18, 'iva 5^ ravra yhriTai, ou ixLKpa 8f^aa9aL ovSi fuKpGiv airorvxiiv. 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, tQ ahrQ uToixiiv. But Moulton'" rightly objects to this needless fear of this use of the inf. It is clearly present in Ro. 12 : 15, xalpe^v, kXaieiv. The case of Lu. 9:3 is also pertinent where fir/ re 'ixeiv 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 the 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 'iSu, in Mt. 23 : 23, ravra 5i Trotijcrat KaKetva /xii acfutvai., after the Lewis Syriac MS., and also Kavxaadai. — in 2 Cor. 12 : 1 after H. The ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 162. ^ Der Gebr. des imper. Inf. im Griech., 1891, p. 12. ' Reinach, Pap. grecs et dSmotiques, 1905. * Unters. zur Gesch. des griech. Briefes, Phil. Zeitschr., 1905, p. 56. ' Meisterh., p. 244. « 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 THMATOs) 1093 imperatival use of the inf. was common in laws and maxims and recurs in the papyri.' So A. P. S^I/a.d.) k^eivai, luadSiaai.. Rader- macher {N. T. Gr., p. 146) quotes Theo, Progymn., p. 128, 12, €pe ^tireLV, where the inf. is used as a deliberative subj. would be. He gives also the Hellenistic formula, ds dvuaij.iv etrat rriv k/xiiv, 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, xatpetf. The nom. is the nominative absolute also. Cf. 2 Jo. 10, where xalpei.v is the object of Xiyere. Radermacher {N. 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, Bowt avTiav= dovvai 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, ojs exos eiirtlv, is but a step further on the way. There is but one instance of this sort with cos in the N. T.* Cf. rod TroXefirjaaL in Rev. 12 : 7, where it is an independent parenthesis. (Z) Negatives. The ancient Greek used firi chiefly with the inf. except in indirect assertion where ov of the direct was retained. But we see ov with the inf. after verbs of saying as early as Ho- mer, rii ovx vTOfieivaL, Iliad, XVII, 174. Thus ov won a place for itself with the inf., but many verbs retained mi7 as verbs of swearing, hoping, promising, etc. But special phrases could have oil anjrwhere and strong contrast or emphasis would justify ou.^ Votaw' finds 354 instances in the Greek Bible where the inf. it- self is modified by the negative. Of these 330 have m^ and the rest have compounds of fir]. The anarthrous inf. with m*? he notes 59 times in the 0. T., 32 in the Apocrypha and 47 in the N. T., 139 in all. The articular inf. with /xri he finds in the 0. T. 136 times (toO 99, to 37), in the Apocrypha 21 times (toO 10, t6 11), in the N. T. 35 times (toD 15, t6 20), 192 in all (roO 124, t6 68). With the anarthrous inf. the negative more frequently occurs with the principal verb as in ov ekXai. We do have ov in infinitival clauses, as will be shown, but in general it is true to say that the inf. directly is always negatived by iiii 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. 310ff. 6 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 414. « Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 58. 1094 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT all sorts of uses of the inf. So the subject-inf. uses fiii, as itpeiT- Tov Jjv avToZs nil kirtyvuKhvat. (2 Pet. 2 : 21), both the anarthrous as above and the articular as in Lu. 17 : 1. The, object-inf. likewise has /xri, as in Lu. 21 : 14, dkre kv rats KapSlais ifiSiv nii irpo/ieXeroj'. For the articular accusative with firi see Ro. 14 : 13. We have it with indirect commands as in Mt. 5 : 34, \eyca iifuv ixi) bnbaai, and in indirect assertion as in Ac. 23 : 8, Xkyovciv fiii tlvai avaaraaiv firjTe ayyt\ov iirire wuevfia. We have it with rod fir] as in Jas. 5 : 17, tov firi ^pk^ai, and with prepositions as in 2 Cor. 4 : 4, eis TO nil ahyaaai. With verbs of hindering and denying the negative nv 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 nil o^ 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 KoiXvovra (jjopovs Kaiaapi 8i5dvai, (Ac. 4 : 17) a.ireL\riaci)ixe6a avToZs ixriKeri XaXetj*, (Gal. 5 : 7) Tts v/ms ivkKO\j/ev aXij- Beltf. nv TTiidecrBaL, (Ro. 15 : 22) iveK0irT6p,riv tov 'ikdtiv, (Lu. 4 : 42) KOLTtixov aiiTdv tov fj,il iropeheadai., (Mt. 19 : 14) fiil KoikvtTe avra i\Betv TTpos ixe, (1 Cor. 14 : 39) rd XaXelv fiii KoikheTe, (Ac. 14 : 18) /x6Xts KaTtTOLvaav tOvs 6x^ovs tov fiV BveLV aiToh, (Ac. 8 : 36) Ti KwXiiei jue PaTTiadijvaL, (10 : 47) ixijTi t6 idcop SvvaTat, KccKva-ai rts tov p,il |3air- TiadrjvaL, (20 : 20) otSev i)Tea-Tei\a,firiv tov fiii avayyelXai. Rader- macher {N. T. Gr., p. 149) illustrates "the Pauline t6 nv with the infinitive" by Sophocles' Eledra, 1078, to re nri fiXkTuv kTo2p.a., and the inscr. (Heberdey-Wilhelm, Reisen in Kilikien, 170, 2), tA nv^kv' aXXoj' — 'eKuaaitvKeiv. We may note also Ac. 4 : 20, ov SwafieBa iiii XaXeii/, where the negative is not redundant. Cf. also Jo. 5 : 19, ov SvvaTaL iroitiv oii&ev, where the second negative is redundant, but it repeats the ov. Some MSS. have a redundant negative nil with el&tvat. in Lu. 22 : 34 (cf. 1 Jo. 2 : 22 after on) and with TpoaTedrj- 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, XavBaveiv aiTdv tovtoiv ov TeLdo/xat oWiv. Here oWkv strictly goes with XavBaveiv in spite of its position after TeWon^h but ov is construed with irtWopiai, and so ovBkv is used rather than nrjBkp or nv^ev. But in Mk. 7 : 24, ov8kva rjdtktv yvSivai, it is not best to explain oiib'tva with the inf. in this fashion. This looks like the retention of the old classic use of ob with the inf. which ' See Thompson, Synt., pp. 425 ff. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOz) 1095 the grammars are not willing to allow in the N. T.' Epictetus uses ov with the inf. as in IV, 10, 18, ou niKpi de^aadai ov8i fiiKpSiu airoTvxitv. 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 'eri. xP^'m /cara tjjj/ ra^w' MeXxto-eSiSK trepov aviaraadaL Kal oil Kara rifv tol^lv 'Kkyecdai; It is true that oi comes just before Kara t^v ra^Lv, but it is rather forced to deny it any connection with Xeyeadai. See also Ro. 8 : 12, b4)tiKkTai. ov rfj capd Tov Kara aapKa ^rjv, where, however, ov occurs outside of tov and is directly concerned with rj} aapd. Other examples of sharp contrast by means of ov are found, as in Ac. 10 : 40 f ., UuKtv aMv ktiavT} yeveaOai, ov iravrl t^ Xatp dXXa fiaprvaL; Ro. 7:6, uiare Sov- "Ktveiv iv KaivorriTL Trvevfiaros Kal ov TraXoiorT/Ti ypanfiaros; Heb. 13 : 9, /3«/3atoD<70ai ov ^pisnaaiv (but here no contrast is expressed). In Ro. 4 : 12, 16, with els to, we find oh iibvov — aXXd Kal. (m) "kv with the Infinitive. This classic idiom has vanished from the N. T. save in 2 Cor. 10 : 9, cos av (KdapT6s, xpriaros, 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, kSxivarov 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 to adbvaTov tov vbpov is the 'impotency' or the 'impossibility' of the law.' There is no' notion of tense or of Aktionsart in these verbals in -tos and so &ya-irriT6s does not dis- tinguish' between d7a7rw/x€i'os, ayairrideis and riyaTnuiivos. Moul- ton thus properly notes the fact that in Mt. 25 : 41 we have KaTt)pap,kvoi,, 'having become the subjects of a curse,' not Karapa- TOi, 'cursed.' It is interesting to note xo-pS- avfKKaXriTif Kal Bedo- l^aaubna in 1 Pet. 1 : 8, but here a.viK\iCKr}Tos is active in sense, 1 Moulton, Prol., p. 221. * Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 761. 2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 347. > Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 37. = Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 200. « Of. Viteau, Essai but la Sjmt. des Voix, Revue de Philol., p. 41. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 221. s ib. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOs) 1097 'inexpressible.' The ambiguity comes also iu our English parti- ciple 'borne' used for aipdfievov in Mk. 2 : 3, and the punctiliar 'brought' used for hvexOei(Tav in 2lPet. 1: 18. With these Moul- toni contrasts ripfihov ('taken away') in Jo. 20 : 1. It is worth while to study a few more examples from the lexical point of view. In general the passive sense is more common, as in ayairri- Tos (Mt. 3 : 17); emeros (Lu. 9 :62); 5i5a/cT6s (Jo. 6 :45); Bwwvev- aros (2 Tim. 3 : 16); OeoSiSaKTos (1 Th. 4:9); ypairros and kpvtttSs (Ro. 2 : 15 f.).2 Here (Ro. 2: 15 f.) to KpvTTa is used just like a substantive (neuter adjective in plural). But ^earos (Rev. 3 : 15) is active in sense as is aavveros (Ro. 1 : 31), though amvdtTos next to it (paronomasia) is made from the middle (rvvrWeiMi ('cove- nant').* Sui'€t6s, sometimes passive in sense in the old Greek, is always active in the N. T., as in Mt. 11 : 25, but 0c7?t6s (Ro. 6 : 12) is 'liable to death,' not 'dying,' as iradriTos (Ac. 26 : 23) is 'capable of suffering.' Cf. the Latin adjectives in -bilis. The verbal in —reos is later than that in -tos and does not oc- cur in Homer. It is probably a modification of the verbal -tos to express the idea of the predicate-infinitive, like 'this is not to eat (to be eaten).'* It is really a gerundive and is used in the per- sonal or impersonal construction, more commonly the latter.' The personal is always passive in sense, while the impersonal is active and may be formed from transitive or intransitive verbs.' It expresses the idea of necessity. It was never'as com- mon as the verbal in -tos and is not unknown in the papyri,* though not frequent. It is more like the verb (and participle) than the verbal in -tos in one respect, that it often uses the cases of the regular verb.' This is seen in the one example in the N. T. (Lu. 5 : 38) olvov vkov eis kaKow pXvrtov. It is the impersonal construc- tion, though the agent is not here expressed. This example of -rkov in Luke is a survival of the literary style (cf. Viteau, "Essai sur la Syntaxe des Voix," Revite de Philologie, p. 38). See Theo, Progymn., p. 128, 12, d yanriTeov. 1 lb., p. 222. ' Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 707. ' In Sans, the verbal adjs. in -td are sometimes called passive participles (Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 340). This form does not belong to the tense system. * Moulton, ProL, p. 222. s Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 184, 525. ' Goodwin, M. and T., p. 368 f. » Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 707. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 222. " But even with -tos this sometimes appears as in SiSaxToi 6eov (Jo. 6 : 45) where we have the ablative. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 522. 1098 a geammar of the greek new testament 2. History of the Participle. (a) The Sanskrit Participle. This was more advanced in its development than the Sanskrit infinitive, which had no voice or tense. In the Veda the aorist, present, perfect and future tenses have participles.' The distinction in the structure of the parti- ciple as compared with the other verbal adjectives lies just in this point. The mere verbal is formed on the verb-stem, while the participle is formed on the tense-stem.^ In the Sanskrit also both voices (active and middle) show these participles. Thus already in the original Indo-Germanic tongue it appears prob- able that the participle existed with voice, tense, Aktionsart and government of cases.' The Greek participle is thus rooted in this pro-ethnic participle as seen by the very suffixes -nt-, -^meno-, -wos- (^Ms).* (6) Homer's Time. Already in Homer and Hesiod the parti- ciple occurs as a fully developed part of speech. It occurs on an average of 8|- times per page of 30 lines.' In Hesiod the parti- ciple is chiefly attributive, while the predicate participle is less common than in Homer.' This use of the participle as the prac- tical equivalent of the hypotactic clause is a purely Greek develop- ment (copied by the Latin to some extent) within historical times.' The participle is a literary device, and flourished best with writers of culture who were 4>iKoiikToxoi.^ 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 Trept- Po\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 1 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. " Williams, The Part, in the Book of Acts, 1909, p. 7. « Boiling, The Part, in Hesiod, Oath. Univ. Bull., 1897, III, p. 423. ' lb. 8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 505. » 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 Koivii. Here we note a sharp difference in the several styles of writing. The Atticists like Josephus with 20, and 2 Maccabees with 23j, lead in conscious imitation of the ancients. They go beyond them in fact. But the writers of the literary Koivi] 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 6^ while' the papyri show 6-|. 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 ll| 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 : 13f.; 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. 2 lb., p. 10. • lb., p. 505. > lb. ^ Williams, Part, in Acts, p. 23. * Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 604. ' 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^^is KaTtarpaiiixkvi]) and is seen at its highest in Isocrates. See, for example, the "Ciceronian period" in Isocrates, p. 82. Jebb'' con- trasts this with Xe^ts tipoixkvi), 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 /SXeTrere, /SXeTrere, /JXeirere (Ph. 3 : 2) has rhetorical ef- fect. In the vernacular modern Greek, therefore, we see a retreat 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 -ovfj.evos or -i,fj,€vos and perfect pas- sives like de/ikuos (no reduplication) .^ A few are made from aorist stems hke ISuiiJikuos (Thumb, Handb., p. 150). The use of the part, in the modern Greek is very limited indeed. 3. Significance op 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. S.u-iitvos. We see remnants of this usage in the N. T. like eKiiv (Ro. 8 : 20), aKoiv (1 Cor. 9 : 17). Other participles come in certain uses to be only substantives (adjectives, then substantives), though the true participial use occurs also. Cf. 'i.px<^v, 'a ruler' (Mt. 20:25); ■fiyovtievos, 'a governor' (Ac. 7 : 10) ; to. mapxovTa vyiSiv, 'your belong- ings' (Lu. 12 : 33). In general "the adjective represents a qual- ity at rest, the participle represents a quality in motion."^ But 1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 505. » 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. « Boiling, The Part, in Hesiod, Cath. Univ. Bull, 1897, HI, P- 422. VEKBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT THMATOs) 1101 not all verbs express motion. The mere adjectival notion is more common in the Latin, as in prceteritus, quietus, tadtus, etc. In Mt. 17 : 17, 7€j'eo airto-ros (cat Sieo-rpa/i/iej'T?, the verbal adjective and participle occur together. (&) 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 conj unctions. ^ 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 '^v prjfiarcov Kal TTjs tSjv ovofiaruv iSiottjtos. 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 KoXSiv.^ 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 » 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, eiraiTetv alax^voixai, the idea is 'I am ashamed to beg and do not do it/ while iiraiTuiv altrxi'voiiai 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 aicxwo- fiai \kycav. So tipxoiuai 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, apxoiitvos aivop,ai, in the N. T., but the part, occurs in Mt. 6 : 16, 18 {vrtaTthwv). 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 irpok6a Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 245. » lb. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT THMATOs) 1103 (Ac. 8 : 16) and TrpoUxApxw (Lu. 23 : 12). It is doubtful if the participle belongs to the verb in 1 Tim. 5 : 13, LpyoX irnvBLvovaiv irepiepx6iJ.tmi, but, if so, it is not to te understood as like the inf .» In Ph. 4 : 11; 1 Tim. 5 : 4, the inf. occurs with (lavd&vu according to classic idiom. At any rate, if irepiepxonevai (1 Tim. 5 : 13) is a circumstantial part., something has to be suppHed with apyal. The part, in 1 Tim. 1 : 12, iriarov fie riyriaaTo eifiivos, 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 ^Kouaav tovto ambv ■wtirovqKkvai t6 ayjixtlov (Jo. 12 : 18) and aKovofitv yap Tivas irepiiraTOVVTas (2 Th. 3 : 11). The participle is a descriptive adjective even though in indi- rect discourse (of. Lu. 4 : 23; Ac. 7 : 12). See 1 Cor. 11 : 18 for the inf. again. In Mt. 7:11, oiSare Sotmra ayada Si.56vai, the inf. with olSa means 'know how to give.' But in Lu. 4 :41, ■gSeiaav t6v XpuTTov avTov eirat, it is mere indirect discourse. For the part, see 2 Cor. 12 : 2, olSa — apirayevra top toiovtov (cf. Mk. 6 : 20). In Ac. 3 : 9 note el5ev avrdv wepiiraTovvra. Here we have the same root, though a different sense. OlSa is common with on,. But yivwaKos occurs both with the inf. as in Heb. 10 : 34, yipuaKovres ex^v iav- Toiis Kpeia-a-ova iirap^iv, and the participle as in Heb. 13 : 23, yivui- (TKere tov aS€\6v rmwv Ti/xodeov aTroKekvfiivov. Cf. Lu. 8 : 46, kyo} g-ypcoj' Si)vap,iv i^e\ri\vdvMv, 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 oiwXoyko} as in Tit. 1 : 16, Btdv ofioXoyovatv eiSevai, and 1 Jo. 4 : 2, o d/wkoyet 'Iriaovv tv aapKi eXrfKvBoTa (cf. 2 Jo. -7). Cf. also Ac. 24: 10 ovra ae Kpirriv iincTaixevoi and SoKina^co in 1 Th. 2 : 4 and 2 Cor. 8 : 22. Note difference between Iva evpwaw Karityoptiv avrov (Lu. 6 : 7) and evpioKei avroiii KaOevSovras (Mk. 14 : 37). Cf. Indirect Discourse. Further examples of the supplementary participle come later. These sufficiently 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 ff. 1104 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Jannaris' adjectival and adverbial; Blass' attributive and in additional clause; Hadley and Allen's attributive and predi- cate; Delbriick-Brugmann's external, objective, adverbial. Then Williams' 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. (a) 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 ij Kara^aivovaa in apposition with Tijs naivrjs 'lep. does not conform in case. There is a difiiculty of both case and gender in ireirvpoiij.kv'r)^ in Rev. 1 : 15. See also TrX^ffos Kpa^ovTts (Ac. 21 : 36) where the number and gender both vary. In Mk. 4 : 31 note bs — Sc iravTwv tS>v (xirepfiSiTuv where &v ■ takes the gender of cntkpna. Cf. also ^v Kadijuevai (Mt. 27:61). 1 The Part, in Acts, p. 5. ' Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 249. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOZ) 1105 But these matters are discussed adequately in chapter on The Sentence. (b) 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 iiScop ^civ (Jo. 4 : 10), ' hving water,' which is just as really attributive as to i)3wp t6 ^Siv (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, xaXiciis ■r)xS3v ^ KvufiaXov dXaXafoi'. 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 rjxos oxnrep €ponivr)s irvorjs /Siatas (Ac. 2 : 2) and dvpa rivetfyixevri (Rev. 4:1). It is not always easy to draw the line between the anarthrous attributive participle and the predicate participle of additional statement. Cf. avrip yeyewrj/ikvos h TapaQ, avareBpap,- fikvos Se h rg TroXet TauTj? (Ac. 22 : 3). If 6 occurred before these par- ticiples, we should have the articular-attributive participle which is equivalent to a relative.^ So in Ac. 10 : 18, we have 6 k-iriKoKov- p.evos Ukrpos, but in 10 : 32, o$ ^irtKaXeiTat Tlerpos. Cf . Lu. 6 : 48, oiwios iaTLV apdpuiirca oUodop^vvTi, oiKiav, with Mt. 7 : 24, av5pl oaris ioKohopiiaiv avrov rriv oULav. See also Lu. 6 : 49. Cf. Ro. 8 : 24, eXTTis pXeiropevrj ovk "tariv kXiris. Cf. Mt. 27 : 33. The problem is particularly real in Mk. 5 : 25, 27. W. H. indicate by the comma after ehdovaa that they regard the participles with ywri (oCo-a, ira- dovaa, SaTdvricraaa, oj^eXTj^eTcra, i'Xdoma) up to that point as attribu- tive. They describe the woman who comes. Then the sentence proceeds with the predicate-circumstantial participles (aKoiKrava, kXdovira) before T^\f/aTo. Luke (8 : 43) makes the matter plainer by putting a relative clause after the first participle. The anar- throus attributive participle is closely bound to the substantive or pronoun even when it is an additional statement. See Mt. 12 : 25, TrSffa ^ao-iXeia p,epi(T6ticra Kad' eavrrjs kprtpovTai. ■ See also Lu. 6 : 40; 2 Th. 2 : 4; Rev. 2 : 15. In Mt. 13 : 19, Trairds knohov- Tos, we probably have the genitive absolute and so predicate cir- cumstantial, but even here avrov occurs, though remote. Cf. iras 6 kKoiiwv (Mt. 7 : 26) and ttSs octtis aKohu (7 : 24), where we see how nearly these constructions approach each other.' But the anar- 1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 330. ^ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 242. ' This use of ttSs without art. occurs occasionally in class. Gk. See K.-G., II, p. 608 f. 1106 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT throus indefinite participle is clearly found in Jas. 4 : 17, eldon ovv KoXdv irouLV Kal (iri iroiovvTi, i-ixapHa avrQ eartv. This passage may throw some light on Mt. 12 : 25. In Mt. 13 : 35, 5id rod ■Kpo4>-l)Tov 'KeyovTos, 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 ix^v is interesting in Rev. 15 : 1, tlSov ayyi'Kovs iirTO, ixovras ifKriy&s. The anarthrous indefinite participle is seen also in a few con- structions like irpocreTlBtvTo TLUTevovTes t^ Kvpicf (Ac. 5 : 14), where the participle means 'believing men' and has xXijSj; in apposition with it. See also ^covi) ^oCivros (Mk. 1 : 3, LXX), k^eKthaerai. ijyoii- fievos (Mt. 2: 6, LXX), ovk eariv avv'iMv and ovk (cttlv tK^riTuv (Ro. 3 : 11, LXX) where 6 is more conamon, 'ixei-s ket 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 Ktipicaovros (Ro. 10 : 14). Here the idea is not 'without preaching,' but 'without one preaching,' 'without a preacher.' For 'without preaching' we must have X^jpis Tov KTipiiacrtiv. See once more xitp*"' p^eTo. x'^I'P^vtujv, KKalnv fieTo, KKaibvTuv (12 : 15) and hirl TToioOjTas (1 Pet. 3 : 12). In 1 Cor. 15 : 27, kr^s tov iwora^wTos , we have the usual articular construction. (0) Articular. The articular participle occurs a few times in Homer.2 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 ttiv riToip,aapevriu tip.lv 0aai-vopevov aaripos (Mt. 2:7); rrjs irpoKtiu'eviis avTif xo-pS.% (Heb. 12 : 2). Cf. Jude 3. The substantive may pre- cede and the -article may be repeated, as to vScap t6 ^uv (Jo. 4:11); t(> cthpa TO yevtiaopevov (1 Cor. 15 : 37) ; t<5> 6eQ t(3 8i86vtl (1 Cor. 15 : 57). Cf.Mt. 26:28; 27:44; Jas. 5:1; Ro. 2:11. In Mk. 12:38 the article is repeated as in 12 : 40 (apposition) when the nom- inative reminds us of the common anacoluthon in Revelation. 1 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 'Irjo-oOs 6 Xeyoiievos Xpio-ros (Mt. 1:16); 6 eiriKoXov^evos Uirpos (Ac. 10 : 18). Cf. 1 Th. 1 : 10; 2 Tim. 1 : 8 f. For a long passage see 6 — SisTa-Kuv (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 xoprov Tov aypov criitiepop ovra /cai abpiov ets KXlfiavov fiaWofievov. See also Ac. 12 : 10; 13 : 32; 26 : 4, 6; Heb. 2 : 2; Heb. 12 : 3, where in the long clause the participle with TOMhrriv comes in be- tween TOV and moneiitvyiKbra. and a good distance from avrCKoylav. Sometimes the article is used with the participle, but not with the substantive, as in xaiSiois toTs kv ayopq. KodrifiivoLs (Lu. 7 : 32); xpv Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 243. » Prol., p. 228. 1108 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT With ai oBcrai in Ro. 13 : 1 we may compare Par. P. 5 (ii/B.c), t(t>' Upkwv Kal lepeiuv rSiv ovrcav (coi ovauv. So N. P. 49 (iii/A.D.), ToO 6vTo% iniv6% 'the current month.' The passage in Ac. 5 : 17 reads ij ovaa a'ipeais, and 28 : 17 has tovs ovras tS>v 'lovSalcov Trpcirous. Moulton agrees, we may note, with Sanday and Headlam (in loco) in taking 6 &v kTl tclvtuv (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 &v and Seos is in apposition to 6 Xpioros. 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 Sexontvoi ii/iSs ifie S^xerat, Kal 6 kfie fiexo/iecos Sexerai tov airoaTti- Xavra fie. Note also 6 Bexoixevos and the next verse and os &v iroTlav 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 evpuv rriv ^vxvv avrov aToXeaet avrr/v 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 av el 6 ipxofitvos (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 ne irapy- TVfikvov (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 1 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 167. ^ jb., p. 169. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT "PHMATOS) 1109 as in t6 ayadou. It is not strange, therefore, that the parti- ciple also shows substantival uses. These are sometimes anar- throus, as in apxcav (Mt. 9 : 18), ■fiyoinevoi (Mt. 2:6). But, as a rule, the participle as a substantive is articular. Cf. Lu. 12 : 33, TO. iiirapxovTa inSiv, where the genitive shows the substantival character of this participle. Cf. further 2 : 27 to ildi.cTfi.kvov toO vofiov, (1 Cor. 7 : 35) xp6s to iiiS>v aiirSiv avfujjepov, (Ph. 3 : 8) Sici t5 inrepkxov Ttjs yvuffeois, (Mt. 14 : 20) t6 ■Kepiaatvov rdv Khaanarosv, (Ro. 7: 23) tQ '6vtl, (Heb. 12 : 11) irpds t6 irap6v, 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 evpo^v and 6 diroXetras (cf. 6 kyaJdos, 6 Ka- Kos). The substantive use of the participle is a classic idiom.' The use of the neuter participle as an abstract substantive is not so common in the N. T. as in the ancient Greek.^ But see further TO yeyovb^ (Lu. 8 : 56), to. yivop^va (9 : 7), to diroXccXis (19 : 10), to, kpxoiieva (Jo. 16 : 13), TO vvv exov (Ac. 24:25), to, /ii) 6vTa, -to, ovto, (1 Cor. 1 : 28), to aiiKoiiixevov (14 : 7), to SeSo^aafikvov (2 Cor. 3 : 10 f.), Td SoKovv (Heb. 12 : 10), etc. In Lu. 22 : 49 note t6 kao/itvov. One is not to confuse with this idiom the so-called "substantive parti- ciple" of some grammars, which is a term used for the substanti- vizing of the verbal force of the participle, not the adjectival. Thus Burton' calls the supplementary participle like that in Ac. 5 : 42, oiiK e-KaiJovTo SiSaaKovTts, and in Lu. 8 : 46, eyvv evMyiiaw (Heb. 6:14), from the LXX again. Blass {Gr. of the N. T. Gk., p. 251) calls this construction "thoroughly un-Greek." There are other pleonastic participles like the common airoKpideh etwev (Mt. 3 : 15) which is somewhat like the vernacular: "He ups and says" (Moulton Prol., p. 15 f.). Cf. also tovto eiwdiv Xeyei (Jo. 21: 19), airehduiv irkirpaKev (Mt. 13:46), 'he has gone and sold.' So also avaaras fjXBtv (Lu. 15: 20), 'he arose and came.' Once again note XajSoOo-a eveKpv\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, dwe a.s; VI, 68, 5, e6js 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 eiipb)v airaikkaei above implies that evpuv is antecedent to diroXeo-et which is future. In Ac. 24 : 11, av'e^i\v irpoa-Kwijcruv, 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 modem 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 ovtos rjv o eiirdiu (Jo. 1 : 15), oStos ^v 6 — Kaei)fieuos (Ac. 3:10), where the principal verb is thrown into the past. 1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 522. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 126. He notes Heb. 10 : 14, rois Ayia^oiitvaus, 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 th6 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 instances, but that fact does not prove priority or 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. vri(7T€{j(ras kT.elmaev (Mt. 4 : 2) where the fasting expressed 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. While this came to be the more common idiom ' Schaefer, Das Partizip des Aoristes bei den Tragikem, 1894, p. 5. ' lb. 3 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 ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOs) 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 the genius and history of the Greek participle. For numerous examples of both uses see the chapter on Tense. A good instance is seen in Mt. 27 : 3, wo-P- Tov vapadovs al^a oBQov. So also iiroKaPv Scoaeis — XuTpoxracrd juou ra ijudrta. It SO happens that the N. T. shows a great number of such examples. See Mk. 15 : 30 (rSiaov Kara^as, (Lu. 2 : 16) rjXdav dtis, 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 rov dvniaaai elceKduv els top vadv, where it is obviously coincident. The same thing is true of Heb. 11 : 27, Kar'tKiirw Myvirrov, ixfi ^oPrjdek. Cf . also Ac. 7 : 35 bv ^pvi^aavTo > Moulton, Prol., p. 131. ^ St. Paul the Traveller, p. 212. » See Ballentine, Bibliotheca Sacra, 1884, p. 787, for discussion of N. T. exx. « N. T. M. and T., p. 65. 1114 A GEAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT dirbvTK, (13 : 22) ttTTfv na.pTvpr\aai. 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, elhtv avSpa elaeXdbvra Kal 'ein:6kvTa. So ideiipovv t6v 'Saravav ■KtabvTa (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 to the 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 irapadovs in Mt. 10 : 4 and 6 irapaSLSois in 26 : 25. So 6 tiTOJv in Jo. 5 : 12; 6 ToiTicas 5 : 15; ^ (iXei^akpe.iv tQ diQ. Cf . also ayaySvTa — reXeiiSo-oi (Heb. 2 : 10). This coincident use of the aorist participle is by no means so rare in the ancient Greek as is sometimes alleged.^ The action was specially likely to be coincident if the principal verb was also aorist.' Like the other articular participles, the aorist participle may be the practical equivalent of the relative. So in Lu. 12 : 8 f . Ss S.v d/xoXoyiiaeL and 6 iLpvrja&fievos are used side by side. ' N. T. M. and T., p. 66. ' See Leo Meyer, Griech. Aor., p. 125. » Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 140. See Seymour, The Use of the Gk. Aorist Part., Trans. Am. Philol. Assoc, XII, p. 88 f . VERBAL NOTJNS ('ONOMATA TOT "PHMATOS) 1115 (7) The Present. As the aorist participle is timeless and punc- tiliar, so the present participle is ^imeless and durative. The participle is thus, like the infinitive, ahead of the present indica- tive, which does not distinguish between punctihar and durative action. A careful treatment of the force of the present participle has been given under Tense. The real timelessness of this parti- ciple is shown in the fact that it is used indiscriminately with past, present or future tenses of the indicative. So xcoXoC^res 'i(l>ipov (Ac. 4:34); airodvijciaav evkfr/rjaev (Heb. 11:21); Kanrtp &v vlos etiaOev (Heb. 5:8); ixep<.nvSiv dwarai (Mt. 6 : 27) ; e(reai<^ diroSwo-ei (Mt. 6 : 18). There will be Aktionsart in this participle also. Some of these words are really punctiliar (5exo- /itti, for instance). But, in general, the present participle gives linear action. The present participle may have relative time. This relative time is usually simultaneous or coincident. This is only natural. Sometimes, however, this relative time may be antecedent action, a classic idiom.^ Examples of this idiom were given under Tense, but add Jo. 9:8, 01 Btupovvres to ■Kportpov, where the adverb of time helps to throw the participle back of ^fTfov, as 'apTi with pXkTTw makes the verb later than ru0X6s wv in 9 : 25. Cf . also Gal. 1 : 23, 6 SiiiKcov fjims irori vvv evayyeKi^trai, 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, efci! ffrrjKovTts airk^Teikav Ka\ovPTes. 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 ^'Kdtv ^■qr&v, (13 : 7) ipxofiaL ^tjtSiv. 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, fjv aTro(j)opTi.^6p,euov t6v yo/iov. 'The ship was appointed to unload her cargo.' Cf. Mt. 6 : 30; 1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 47; Gildersl., Synt., Part I, p. 139. 1116 A GRAMMAR OP 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 datpxofii- vovs acjiiere dcrtKdeiv, (27 : 40) 6 Kardkvuv tov vabv, (Ac. 28 : 23) Tei- doiv avTovs. The notion of repetition (iterative present) occurs also as in Ac. 2 :47, wpocreTldet, roiis a-co^onhovs, 'kept adding those saved from time to time.' So woiKovvTes t^tpov Kai krWow (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: twXijo-oj TjveyKev (4 : 37). It is not clear, however, why the present parti- ciple occurs in 3 : 8, k^aXKhixevot ecrri Kal TrepieirArei, unless it is to note that he kept on leaping and walking (alternately). Cf. this notion in verse 8, TepiTrarSiv Kal aXKoixevos. Cf . also in 5 : 5, (iKoinav iTiauv e^epv^ev, where irtcrojv is antecedent to the verb, but 6.ko{iuv is descriptive (linear). The notion of distribution is perhaps pres- ent in Heb. 10 : 14, robs ayia^ofievovs, 'the objects of sanctification.' ^ Certainly 6 nXtTToiv is iterative in Eph. 4 : 28. Cf. Ac. 1 : 20; Col. 2:8. It is interesting to note the difference between the present and the aorist participle in Mt. 16 : 28, tcos av 'iScaaiv rdv vidv TOV avdpiiirov kpxonevov, and in Ac. 9 : 12, eldev iivSpa eiaekdovra. The perfect participle of the same verb and in the same construction occurs in Mk. 9 : 1, ?cos di,v ISoxnv ttjv PacnXeLav rod deov eXrfKvBvtav tv Swafiei. The three tenses of the participle of TriTrToj may also be illustrated by the punctiliar notion of the aorist in ireabvra in Lu. 10 : 18, the durative notion of TiirrdvTuv in Mt. 15 : 27 and of iriiTTovTes in Mk. 13 : 25, the perfect notion of ireirroiKbTa in Rev. 9 : 1. (8) The Perfect. This tense brings little that is distinctive in the participle. Cf. TertKvMy.kvoi. (Jo. 17; 23), TrexoMjKdres (18:18), 7rpo(7vTevij.kvriv, (Heb. 5 : 14) rd aiadtiriipLa yeyvfivaafitva kxovTuv. 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 eorcbs, TedvrjKus, eiStis. But it is only relative time, not absolute, and the leading verb may itself be punctiliar, 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 kiri tQ avu^tfir]- k6ti avTC^ in Ac. Sv 10. Cf. Mk. 5 : 15, deoipovcnv t6v SaifiovL^onevov Ka.Bi\y£VOV luariankvov Kal (raKppovovvra, rdv iaxVOTa tov ^eyiSova, Kal kcjiopiiBricrav. 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, tfiaTifffikvov, is still true (punctiliar plus linear) and describes the man's present state; the other, t6u kaxvi^ora, 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^fjXdeu 6 redvqKdis 5eSe- ixipos. Here SeSenevos is still true, though reOvriKcos is not. Lazarus had been dead, but is not now. We see the same situation in 1 Cor. 2 : 7, ttiv aTroKeKpvmikvrjv. The widsom of God is no longer hidden. The point is still clearer in Ro. 16 : 25 f., ixvarripiov xpo- voii at&jpiois aeaiyrifikvov l\os without &v occurs also in the Koivi] (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 169). Curiously enough \avdavca appears once with the participle in the LXX (Tob. 12 : 13) as in the N. T. (Heb. 13 : 2). In the Koi.vii the inf. supplants the part, as it had already gained a foothold in the old Greek.' Note also the adverb as in 'Kcudpg. hK^aWovuiv (Ac. 16 : 37). ^6avo3 continued in use through the koii'Ij, but with the sense of ' arrive,' ' reach,' not the idiomatic one ' arrive before.' This latter notion appears in Tpotfidavu (cf. ■Kpokati^avoi), which has it once only in the N. T. (Mt. 17: 25), while the inf. is seen in TpokXa^ev fivpiaai (Mk. 14 : 8). As early as Thucydides the inf. is found with Prol., p. 229. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 245. 1122 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Ac. 16: 34, ^YoXXiAo-aTo TreTrKTreu/cis, and in 2 Pet. 2: 10, ov rpk/Mv- t7Lv ^\aa(t>rifiovvTes. The examples with ayavaKTeu (Mt. 21 : 15, etc.) and xoipu (Mt. 2 : 10, etc.) all seem to be circumstantial.' The same thing is true of 'Kviriu. The participle does not occur in the N. T. with aiaxvvoixai. The step over to the circumstantial parti- ciple of manner or cause is not very far to take.^ (5) Indirect Discourse. This participle is clearly supplementary and in the N. T. is usually connected with the object of the prin- cipal verb. The nom.' of the part, ^x'"'*''" appears with the pas- sive thpkdi) in Mt. 1 : 18 as noted above. The active in the N. T. would have had on and the ind., if the reference was to Mary. The classic Greek could have said evptv txovaa, but the N. T. Greek, evpev on exei. Cf . also evpeBels cbs Mpcoros in Ph. '2:8. But 1 Tim. 5 : 13 has to be noted. This subject was treated in detail under Indirect Discourse (see Modes). See that discussion for details about the different verbs, some of which, besides the participial construction, may instead use the inf. or on. and the indicative. Here it is sufficient to give enough illustrations of this participle in indirect discourse with verbs of mental action to show the real complementary nature of the participle. The tense, of course, represents' the tense of the direct. With most of these verbs (especially* ol8a, navdhvoi, bfioXoykcS) the participle is giving way to the inf. or Sn, but still the idiom is common enough to attract notice in all parts of the N. T. Cf. yelvaiaKe aavrdu 'i^ovra, P. B. M. 356 (i/A.D.). It is common to explain this participle as the object of the principal verb after the analogy of the inf. in indirect discourse. So Jannaris* calls it "the objective participle" and Burton^ "the substantive participle as object." Blass' more correctly perceives that it is the substantive or pro- noun that is the object while the participle is a predicate adjec- tive agreeing with this object. It is easy to see this point where no indirect discourse occurs, as in Heb. 7 : 24, awapa^aTov ^x«' rriv lepciiawriv, whel'e ^xw does not mean to 'opine' and where the verbal adj. occurs. But see the participle in 5 : 14, twv to. aurdri- riipia yeyvuma/ikva kxovruv, or, still better, Lu. 14 : 18, ^x* M« Trapn- TTinivov, where 'ix<>> means 'consider' and we have the participle. > 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. 6 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 497. 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, I'm Sedeixkvovs avroiis ayayg. See also 24 : 27. Then note Ph. 2 : 3, AXXiyXous rtyoi/xtvoi. hwepkxovTas.^ The addition of ws does not change the real consffuction as in rous ^oyi^ofikvovs ■finds c!>s Kara aapKa irtpnraTovvTas, 2 Cor. 10 : 2; cos kxOpov ■^ytiade, 2 Th. 3 : 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.), kau ofioXoyrja'as Kbpuov 'IrfCTOVV, and 2 Jo. 7, bnoKoyowTes 'Iijo-oOf Xpicrov kpxofievov kv aapKi. The presence or absence of the copula does not materially change the construction when an adj. or substantive is the second ace. Thus note 2 Cor. 8 : 22, ov kSoKifiaaafiev a-irovSatov ovra, and Mk. 6 : 20, eiStos avrbv avdpa S'tKaiov. So we have no part, after elBov in Jo. 1 : 50; Mt. 25 : 38, though it occurs in Ac. 8 : 23; 17: 16. Blass^ calls this an "eUipse" of the participle, an idiom common in classical Greek. It is hardly necessary to appeal to the "ellipse" to explain it. The predicate force of ovra comes out well in Ac. 8 : 23. If no substantive or adj. is used, the parti- ciple is itself the full predicate and represents the predicate of the direct discourse. Cf . Mk. 12 : 28 aKovaas airuv cvv^r\TobvTtav, (Lu. 8 : 46) iyvwv 8vvafiiv k^ekri\v9viav air' kfiov. 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 elSov {kpxdnevov, but Mk. 9 : 1 has 'tKrikvOuiav) , Mk. 5:30 after kirxyivixTKos, 7:30 after evpiaKu (cf. also Lu. 23 : 2), Lu. 10 : 18 after deoipkca (cf. in particular Ac. 7:56), Jo. 1:38 after dtaonai, 7:32 after Uovco, Ac. 19 : 35 after TicaxTKo), 24 : 10 after kiriaraiJiai, Heb. 2 : 9 after fiXkToi, Heb. 13 : 23 after yivisffKoi, 2 Cor. 8 : 22 after SoKi/idfco, Ph. 2 : 3 after riykoixai, 2 Jo. 7 after dfioXoyku. The punctiliar idea is present as in re- ffovra in Lu. 10 : 18, or the linear as in kyyi^ovaav (Heb. 10 : 25), or the perfected state as in irtirrosKOTa (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, (d)) also Jo. 4 : 39, rrjs yvmiKos /xap- Tvpovcrris, and Heb. 8 '.9, kv riiikpij. kTiXa^ofikvov nov. The first ex- ample is really the attributive participle like tov irpo(t>nTov Xkyovros (Mt. 21:4). The second example is more difficult, but it is a quotation from the LXX (Jer. 31 : 32) and is not therefore a model of Greek. The fwv has to be taken with rip.kpq, and the 1 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 359 ff. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 246. ' N. T. M. and T., p. 176. 1124 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT participle would be a circumstantial temporal use. It is prob- ably suggested by the original Hebrew, as Moulton {Prol., p. 47) admits. Cf. Barn. 2 : 28, h inj^kptf, ivTuXafievov cov aiir^. Cf. kirl irapovaiv bfiitv, B. G. U. 287 (a.d. 250). The reference of Burton to Josephus, Ant. 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 circumstantial 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 pronoun 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 far as there is a sort of parallel with the subordinate conjunctional clauses which are adverbial (cf. ore, Iva, iis, for instance, in Mt. 25 : 20, 24). He rightly also calls attention to the weakness of the Greek because of its wealth of participles, since so much ambiguity is possible. Does a given circumstantial participle bear the notion of 'because' or 'al- though'? Only the context can tell, and men do not always in- terpret the context correctly. One more remark is necessary. By means of the circumstantial participle the sentence may be lengthened indefinitely. Good illustrations of this freedom may be seen in the periodic structure in Thucydides, Isocrates, Lysias and Demosthenes. But the N. T. itself has examples of it as is seen in 2 Pet. 2 : 12—15, /SXac^Tj/ioCvTes, ahiKoinaioi, riyoiiiitvoi, kvrpv- (ff) Varieties of the Circumstantial Participle. Here are treated only those examples which have syntactical agreement in case with some substantive or pronoun in the sentence. It may be repeated that this participle does not express the ideas called by the usual classification into participles of time, manner (means), cause, purpose, condition, concession. Hence it is proper to group the examples together. The classification is only justified by the context and occasional use of a particle.* The same classification is possible also for the absolute use of the participial clause. The examples are too numerous for exhaustive treatment. A few must suffice. Time. It is not the tense that is here under discussion, though naturally the different tenses will vary in the way that time is treated (antecedent, simultaneous, future), as already shown. The point more exactly is whether a given circumstantial parti- » Jann., Hiat. Gk. Gr., p. 499. » Jebb, in V. and D., p. 333. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 229. * lb. Cf. Alexander, Partic. Periphrases in Attic Orators (Am. Jour, of Philol., IV, p. 291 f.). ' Certainly we cannot admit the idea that the part, itself has different meanings. Cf. Paul, Prin. of the Hist, of Lang., p. 158. 1126 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ciple occurs in a context where the temporal relation is the main one rather than that of cause, condition, purpose, etc. It is usu- ally a mistake to try to reproduce such participles by the English 'when,' 'after,' etc., with the indicative. To do this exaggerates the nuance of time as Moulton* observes. It is generally suflBcient to preserve the English participle or to co-ordinate the clauses with 'and.' The slightness of the temporal idea is well seen in the pleonastic participles avaa-rai (Mt. 26 : 62), airoKpideii (Mt. 3 : 15, very common in the Synoptic Gospels. John usually has aireKpidri Kal tlirev as in 1 : 49), airtKBuiv (Mt. 13 : 46), \a^iiv (13 : 31, cf. verse 33), iropevdevTts (21 : 6). Here the notion is temporal, but very slightly so. Cf. also irpocrdds tlirev in Lu. 19 : 11. The use of a.p^a.p,tvos as a note of time is seen in Mt. 20 : 8 f . ; Lu. 23 : 5; 24 : 47; Ac. 1 : 22. In Ac. 11 : 4, ap^a/xevos Il^rpos k^tTlBeTo avrols KoBe^rjs, the part, is slightly pleonastic,^ but note contrast with Kadi^fjs as with ecos Tuv -wpuToiv in Mt. 20 : 8. Cf. epxop,evo[s] epxov, P. Tb. 421 (iii/A.D.). Sometimes the temporal idea is much more prominent, as in SioSeiicravTes (Ac. 17: 1), tXdoiv keij'os eKky^ei t6i> Koafnov (Jo. 16 : 8). So also Mt. 6 : 17, av 8i v-qareviiiv oKtiipai. Here the descriptive force of the participle is distinctly temporal. In examples like Mk. 1 : 7 Kbj/a% \vaai t6v liiavra, Ac. 21 : 32 xapa- \a^div cTpcTiioTas KariSpafiev iir' avrovs, there is precedence in order of time, but it is mere priority with no special accent on the temporal relation.' Cf. Mt. 2 : 16; 13 : 2. In Ac. 24 : 25 f. we have some interesting examples of the participle. In dLoKeyonhov avTov we see the temporal notion of 'while' with the genitive absolute. In rod likXkovTOi the temporal notion in this attribu- tive part, is due to fikWia. In yev6p.evos it is mere antecedence with &.w€Kpi6ri (almost simultaneous, in fact). In t6 vvv txov the attribu- tive participle again has the temporal idea due to the words themselves. In luroKa^iiv we have antecedence emphasized by Kaipbv. In ojua Kal 'eKirl^oiv we have the linear notion stressed by alia. In irvKV&repov avrov neTaTfixTdixevos oip,i\€i, avrii the note of repetition in irvKvortpov reappears in participle and verb. An interesting example is also seen in Heb. 11 : 32, eTrtXel^ei /ic ht}- yov/ievov o xpovos, where in a poetic way time is described as going off and leaving the writer discoursing about Gideon and the rest. In 1 Pet. 5 : 10, okiyov irajBSvras, the adverb of time makes it clear. The note of time may appear in any tense of the participle and with any tense in the principal verb. It is not always easy to ' Prol., p. 230. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 249. ' lb., p. 248. . VEKBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT "PHMATOz) 1127 discriminate between the temporal participle and that of at- tendant circimistance or manner. Moultoni and Blass' make no distinction. These two uses ar*the most frequent of all. A good example of this ambiguity occurs in Ac. 21 : 32, where TrapaXafiwv (cf . Xafiiiv in ancient Greek) may be regarded as merely the attendant circumstance. So also the notion of occasion wavers between time and cause. Cf. &.Ko{iovTts (Lu. 4:28). For ws with this participle see 1 Cor. 7 : 29 ff. Manner. The ancient use of €x' kavrSiv. Cf . also kpoiv in Jo. 19 : 39. In Jo. 18 : 3 we have Xa/Saji/ used in practically the same sense as /ierA in Mt. 26 : 47. Cf. also \a^i}v in Mt. 25 : 1. In Lu. 1 : 64, eXaXei evSoySiv, the part, is one of manner, as in Mt. 19 : 22 airrfKdev \virovfievos, (Mk. 1 : 22) cos k^ovaiav exuv, where us makes the point plainer, (1 : 4) KTipiictruv, where the participle is not the periphrastic construction with kytvero, (1 : 5) i^ofwKoyobne- voi, (Ac. 3 : 5) eirtix^f a-vTots irpoaboKSiv tl (a picturesque bit of descrip- tion), (2 Th. 3 : 11) ixr\bev kpya^ofikvovs dXXa irepiepya^ofikvovs (a real pun). It is hard to tell how to classify a participle hke that in Gal. 6 : 3, liridiv &v. It makes sense as temporal, causal or modal. But there is no doubt in a case like Lu. 19 : 48 'k^acpkfieTo aiirov aKoiiuv or Ac. 2 : 13 SioxXeuofoj'Tes ^eyov or cos ovk iikpa dkpuv (1 Cor. 9 : 26). This notion of manner appears in the participles that have an adverbial notion like crevaas (Lu. 19 : 5 f.), kwifiakuv (Mk. 14:72), Tvxov (1 Cor. 16 : 6), ^Xkirovres (Mt. 13 : 14); irpoadels tlirev (Lu. 19 : 11). Cf. also omjSX^^as eiirei' in verse 5. So also the pleonastic participles like airoKpiBeis (see above) may be looked at either as temporal or modal or even adverbial. See further Kpe- fiaaavres (Ac. 5 : 30), o-u/ujSt/Safcoj' (9 : 22) as good examples of the modal participle. Burton' makes a separate division for the participle "of attendant circumstance," but this is not neces- sary and leads to overrefinement. These examples are either temporal as in k^eKdovrts (Mk. 16 : 20), kXeJa^uecous (Ac. 15 : 22) or modal as So^a^onevos (Lu. 4 : 15), dcaXa/Scbi' (2 Tim. 4 : 11) or pleonastic as a-ireKpWrjcrap Xkyovaai (Mt. 25 : 9). Blass' term "conjunctive" {Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 249) throws no particular light on the point. In 1 Tim. 1 : 13 dTcocov is manner. In Ac. 1 Prol., p. 230. = Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 248. ' N. T. M. and T., p. 173. Cucuel and Riemann (Regies Fondamentales de la Synt. Grecque, 1888, p. 110) consider this notion an "exception," but it is not necessary to do that. 1128 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 18 : 18, Ketpd/tevos, we have in truth both the temporal and the modal. But it is easy to spHt hairs over the various circumstan- tial participles and to read into them much more than is there. Cf. 2 Cor. 4 : 1 f. See /JaTTTifocTas and SiSdaKovTes in Mt. 28 : 19 f. as modal participles. So diyvoSiv in 1 Tim. 1 : 13. Cf. Kara ayvoLav in Ac. 3 : 17. Means. It is usual' to distinguish means from manner in the participle. There is a real point, but it is not always clear where manner shades off into means. But some instances are clear. Cf. Mt. 6 : 27, ris nfpinvuv Siivarai irpoadelvai; So also navTevonivr] in Ac. 16 : 16. Thus the maid furnished the revenue for her masters. In Heb. 2 : 10 ayayovra and 2 : 18 ireipacrdds we may also have instances of this notion, but the first may be temporal and the second causal. Jannaris^ blends the treatment of man- ner and means and notes how this participle disappears in the later Greek. Cause. The ground of action in the principal verb may be sug- gested by the participle. Cf. Skaios /cai firi deKiav avTTiv Seiyiiariaai. kPovXrjOrj, Mt. 1: 19; fniaprov irapadois alfia, 27:3; kxapricrap idovres, Jo. 20: 20. As a matter of fact this idiom is very frequent. Cf. further Mt. 2 : 3, 10; Jo. 4 : 45; 21 : 12; Ac. 4 : 21; 9 : 26; 24 : 22, etScijs — eiiras, Ro. 6 : 6, yLvojcKovres, and 9, etSores; 2 Pet. 3 : 9; Col. 1 : 3 f.; 1 Tim. 4 : 8; Jas. 2 : 25. For cbs with this parti-, ciple see 1 Cor. 7 : 25, cos r]\tr\iJ,kvos. In Ac. 24 : 22 etSus may be taken as 'wishing to know,' though Felix may also have actually had some knowledge of Christianity (cf. Paul's appearance before Gallio). So also eiScos (24:22) may mean 'wishing to know.' The N. T. no longer has are, olov, dla with the part, as classic Greek did.' In Jo. 5 : 44 a causal participle 'haii^avovres is co- ordinate with ^i]TtiTe. Pur-pose. The use of the participle to express aim or design has already been discussed several times from different points of view (Tense, Final Clauses, Tense of the Participle). This fine classic idiom is nearly gone in the N. T. Purpose is expressed chiefly by ha or the inf. For the future part, of purpose see Mt. 27:49; Ac. 8 : 27; 22 : 5; 24 : 11, 17. In Heb. 13 : 17, & airoSaaovTK, there is as much cause as purpose. Blass* wrongly accepts aairacofxevoL in Ac. 25 : 13. The present part, is also used in the sense of purpose where the context makes it clear. So Ac. 3 : 26, aireaTeiXev avrdv evXoyovvra. Cf . Lu. 13 : 6 f . ; Ac. 15 : • Goodwin, M. and T., p. 333. » Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 335. 2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 504. * Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 248. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOS) 1129 27; Ro. 15 : 25. But it is not absent from the papyri. Cf. P. Goodsp. 4 (ii/B.c.) airiaraKKanw — KOLvo\oyr](j6ix&'6v crot. So also the present part., P. Oxy. 275 (a.d. 66), Sio.Kovov[v]Ta koX 7roto[C]vra. Condition. The use of the conditional disappeared more rapidly than the temporal and causal in the later Greek.* It is only the protasis, of course, which is here considered. It is still a common idiom in the N. T. In Mt. 16 : 26 we have kav rbv Koanov 6\ov KepSrjcr-g, while in Lu. 9 : 25, we find icepdriaas Tov Koafwv Skov. Here it is the condition of the third class plainly enough. See iroiiiaas Un, kt\., in B. G. U. 596 (a.d. 84). In 1 Cor. 11 : 29, /iij 8La.KpLvwv, it may be the first class condition with ei that is the equivalent, but one cannot always be certain on this point. Cf. Ro. 2 : 27, reXoOo-a; Gal. 6 : 9, /ii) eKKvofievoi; 1 Tim. 4 :4, \afiPav6- fievov; Heb. 2:3, afieXriaavTes; 7:12, fieTaTiBenivTis. Moulton^, de- nies that the participle stands in the N. T. for a condition of the second class (imreal condition). In Lu. 19 : 23, Kayu e\d Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 259. 2 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 Aiist., 1892, p. 17. s, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 252. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT "PHMATOS) 1131 use of the genitive absolute, iirivv6€l(Trii Sk ixoi kTnfiovXijs els t6v av- dpa eaetrdai. The papyri use k^6vT0s rather than efij-.i We do not have the ace. absolute in Ph. 1 : 7, since u/ios ovras is a resumption (apposition) of v/jaf 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 Koivn 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. Of. Mk. 4 : 17, tlra yevo- litpTIs dXbl/eoK ij Siuyfwv Sta tov \6yov eWvs cKavSaXtfovTai; Ac. 12: 18, yevoiikvris Si finkpas' ^v rapaxos ovk 6\iyos; 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, aov Si ttoiovvtos — ij Apto-Tepa aov; 9 : 10; Ac. 17 : 16. In Mk. 14 : 3 we find a double gen. absolute ovtos avrov — KaraKeinkvov abrov. 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 » OiK iiSvTO!, 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. ' 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. 8 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.) x^'P'^ on- foi. ravra 'fKo'vqaa^, e^uoO tj.€Tafie\oixevov irtpl firjSivos. It is fairly common in the N. T. We have it even when the part, refers to the^ subject of the verb, as in Mt. 1 : 18, y,VT)aTevddaris rijs fnirpos avTOV Maptas — • evpkdt] exovaa. In Ro. 9 : 1 the construction is regular, though not and nov occur. In Mt. 8 : 1 we find KaraPavros avrov — riKoKoWt]- aav airQ. 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 \a\ovvTos — eirlaTaxrav tis avTov. Cf. also Mt. 18 : 25; Ac. 28 : 17. Quite unusual is Ac. 22 : 17 where we have p.oi viroaTpk- \l/avTi, ■wpoaevxop.ivov fwv and ytvkadai fie. 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 Sn^udhros, B. U. 970 (ii/A.D.). See Mt. 17: 14, eXOovToiv; 17:26, el-wovTos; Ac. 21:31, i^rjToiivrwv. In Lu. 12:36, ekdbvTO^ Kal KpomavTos eWtciis avoi^uaiv avrw, we have the genitive participle although aiirQ is present. Cf. B. G. U. 423 (ii/A.D.) oTt iMV KLvBtmavTos €is OaXaaaav 'icooae, where fie the object of ecrcocre 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 nominaitive absolute as a sort of anacoluthon appears in the ancient Greek. Cf. Plato, Apol. 21 C, Kal 5La\ey6nevos avrw, iBo^k fioi 6 avrip eluai (ro4>6s. As the genitive-absolute, like other circumstantial 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 Koivi] 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 1 Cf. Moulton, Prol., pp. 74, 236; CI. Rev., XV, p. 437. * 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 'PHMATOS) 1133 easy.i "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 (coti/ij (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, €v\oyriT6s 6 deos, either k^Tiv or earw 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.'' Of. drroo-Tu- yovvres . TO Tovrjpov, KoWoiixevoi, tc^ ayadi^ (Ro. 12 : 9), for instance, where we have a complete sentence without connection with anything else. The preceding sentence is 17 d7dirr; awKOKpiTos (an independent sentence itself) and it is followed by a series of independent participles (verses 10-13). In verse 14 we have abruptly eiiKoyeirt — /cai m Karapaade (imperatives) and then the absolute infinitive xalp^-" (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 idiom just noted. In general it may be said that no participle 1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p 505. " Le Verbe, pp. 200 ff. ' lb., pp. 500, 505. » Prol., pp. 180 ff., 222 ff. » Gr. of Gk. N. T., p. 283. » Hellen., p. 131. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 180, cites Meisterh., pp. 244r-246, for the use of the imp. part, in decrees. It is the nominalivus 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 Sk, it is clear that we can- not carry on the participle as subordinate to ixof^fv or ka/ifv in the preceding verses. W. H. boldly start a new sentence. In either case, whether we have comma or period before, we must take exovTts as imperatival or indicative, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, supply kaiikv or afiei> as iroieiTe is supplied in Ro. 13 : 11 with Kal eldores tov 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, 4>^pov(ji, bairand, etc.). The frequent ellipsis 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 iirontvoL) 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/s.c.), tSil ovv arniaivoixevwi 'Hpari TrapriyyiXKOTts ivonnov, 'I gave notice in person' (no verb follows). Tb. P. 42 (ib.), riSiKruikvos (no verb fol- lows). A. P. 78 (ii/A.D.), filav Trdo-xcoi' tKacTore, etc. (no verb)." This may serve as a sample of many more like it. 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 exoires does not agree with the irapoi/cous. We may now approach the passages in dispute between Winer' and Moulton.* Moulton passes by Winer's suggestion that in 2 Cor. 4 : 13 'ixovTt% is to be taken with irurrevoixtv. This is probable, though awkward. So in 2 Pet. 2:1 the participles can be joined with ■Kapuaa^ovaiv. But in Ro. 5 : 11 it is, Moulton argues, somewhat forced to take ob novov Se, AXXa Kal Kavx^iJ^fvoi, 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 (rTeXXoixevoi in 2 Cor. 8 : 20. Winer connects it with avveiren\l/a.fi€v in verse 18 and he is supported by the punc- tuation of verse 19 as a parenthesis by W. H. But even so in verse 19 we have oi tjI>vov &k dXXA koL xc^poTovrideis (cf. Ro. 5 :11) stranded with no verb. Moulton also passes by Heb. 6 : 8 and 2 Pet. 3:5. In Heb. 7 : 1 Moulton follows W. H. in reading & (not » Moulton, Prol., pp. 180, 183 f. ' W.-Th., p. 351 f. 2 lb., pp. 223 f. * Prol., p. 224 f. VERBAL NOUNS ("ONOMATA TOT THMATOs) 1135 8s) (rvvavrricras on the authority of C*LP against NABCDEK 17. So he sees no necessity for taking ip/xrivevSnevos as an indicative. In Heb. 8 : 10; 10 : 16, Moulton takes SiSovs as parallel with kTn- yp&if/u, whereas Winer would resolve kinypa.il/03 into a participle. Here Moulton is clearly right. In Ac. 24 : 5, dpovres yap, we have anacoluthon as both Winer and Moulton agree. Moulton adds: "Luke cruelly reports the orator verbatim." Moulton omits to comment on Winer's explanation of the parenthetical anacolu- thon in 2 Pet. 1 : 17, Xa^diiv yap. It is a violent anacoluthon and Winer does not mend it. Note 2 Cor. 5 : 6, dappovvres, where after a parenthesis we have Oappov/jxv Si (resumptive). But Moulton takes 2 Cor. 7:5 flXi/Sojuei/oi as an example of the "indicative" participle. So does he explain Ro. 12 : 6 exovrts, and 'ixcov in Rev. 10 : 2. In Ac. 26 : 20 the MSS. vary between airayyeWuv and avi]yyeXKov. In Heb. 10 : 1 excov will also be independent if Sdvavrai be read. In Ph. 1 : 30 'ixovTes has vixtv above and halts in the case agreement. On the whole, therefore, we may con- clude that, while every instance is to be examined on its merits, a number of real examples of the idiom may be admitted in the N. T. Viteau' has entirely too large a list of such instances. Many of them admit a much simpler explanation as in Ph. 1 : 30 above. In Revelation, it is true, there is more than usual laxity in the agreement of the participle, especially when it is in apposition. There is also a change from nominative to accusative between Idov and dSov as in Rev. 4 : 1-5; 7:9; 14 : 1-3; 14 : 14, etc. But there are real examples in Rev., as Kal 'ixoiv (1:16), \kyuv (11 : 1). With all this development along a special line we must not forget that the participle is both adjective and verb. Blass^ has a careful discussion of "the free use of the participle." In Col. 1 : 26 he notes that the participle airoKtKpvmxevov is con- tinued by the indicative k(j)av€pci>dr]. Cf. Jo. 5 : 44. (g) Co-ordination between Participles. Blass' uses the term "conjunctive" participle instead of a special use of the "cir- cumstantial" participle. It is not a particularly happy phrase. But it does accent the notion that this participle, though an addition to the principal verb, is still joined to it in gram- matical agreement. Blass^ shows clearly how identity of action may be expressed by two finite verbs, as well as by the pleonas- tic participle of identical action. Cf . Jo. 1 : 25 Kal iipiiTtiaav aiirov Kal elwav (Mt. 15:23 ripurovv \hyovT€s), 12:44 eKpa^tv Kal ttirev > Le Verbe, pp. 201 ff. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 247. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 284 f. < lb., p. 250. 1136 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (Mt. 8 : 29 tKpa^av Xeyovres), 13 : 21 knapTvprjcev koX tlwe (Ac. 13 : 22 tlirev ix(xprvpr)aas) , 18 : 25 rjpvriaaTO /cat elinv (Mt. 26 : 70 ripv/j- araro 'Kkyoiu), where John prefers the particularity of the finite verb. But see also Lu. 6 : 48, 'i(TKa\{/ev Kal k^oBwev, ' 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 connected by Kai as in Ac. 3 : 8, irepiTariov kclI aXXo/ievos Kal aivSiv tov Oebv. But we have asyndeton^ in Ac. 18 : 23, Stepxe/ievos 7171' VaKaTLKr]v x'^pc^v, (7Tijptfa)v Toiis fiadriT&s. Cf. Lu. 6 : 38, fikTpov KoKov ireineciikvov ataa- \tvp.kvov mepeKxvvvonevov Soiaovaiv. Sometimes Kal occurs only once as in Mk. 5 : 15, KaBi]ne.vov tfiaTurfievov Kal ac>}(j>povovvTa. There may be a subtle reason for such a procedure as in Ac. 18 : 22, KaTeXSo))/ ets Kaicraplav, ava^as Kal acriraaa/xevos, where the first parti- ciple stands apart in sense from the other two. Cf . also Mk. 5 : 32. In a list of participles one may be subordinate to the other as in Mk. 5 : 30, iwiyvovs h tavrca ttjv ef avrov &hvap,LV 'e^eKdovaav ein<7Tpa(j>eis. This accumulation of participles is only occasional in the Synoptic Gospels (cf. Mt. 14:19; 27:48; and, in particu- lar, Mk. 5 : 25-27), but very common in Acts and the Pauline Epistles. Blass^ concedes to Luke in Acts "a certain amount of stylistic refinement" in his use of a series of participles, while with Paul it is rather "a mere stringing together of words," an overstatement as to Paul. Luke was not an artificial rhetorician nor was Paul a mere bungler. When Paul's heart was all ablaze with passion, as in 2 Corinthians, he did pile up participles like boulders on the mountain-side, a sort of volcanic eruption. Cf. 2 Cor. 3:8-10; 6:9f.; 9:llff. But there is always a path through these participles. Paul would not let himself be caught in a net of mere grammatical niceties. If necegsary, he broke the rule and went on (2 Cor. 8: 20). But Moulton' is right in saying that all this is "more a matter of style than of gram- mar." It is rhetoric. (h) Ov and /U17 with the Participle. It is worth noting that in Homer* ov is the normal negative of the participle, nrj occur- ring only once, Od. 4. 684, and in an optative sentence of wish. It cannot be claimed that in Homer yuij has won its place with the participle. In modern Greek fir] alone occurs with the pres- ent participle (Thumb, Handb., p. 200). It is generally said that 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 250. ' Prol., p. 231. ' lb., p. 251. i Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 262 f. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT 'PHMATOS) 1137 in classical Attic ou is always the negative of the participle unless condition or concession is implied when the negative is fir/. But if one looks at all the facts up to 400 b.c. he will go slow before he asserts that fxr; is proof that the participle shows a conditional or concessive force.^ Jannaris^ claims the rule only for Attic, "though even here ov is not rarely replaced by /iij," that is to say, the rule does not apply even in Attic. The use of " replaced" is wholly gratuitous when it is admitted that the rule does not apply outside of Attic. It is so hard to be historical always even in an historical grammar. If one takes the long view, from Homefr with its one use of nii to the modern Greek with nothing but fiij, he sees a steady progress in the use of //ij which gradually ousted oil altogether. The Attic marks one stage, the kolvti an- other. It is true that in the Attic there is a sort of correspondence between ov and the participle and the indicative with oi on the one hand, while, on the other, uri and the participle correspond to the subjunctive or the optative with /iij. But ov occurred in Homer with the subj. and ixij persisted with the indicative. The lines crossed and the development was not even, but on the whole JU17 gradually pushed ov aside from the participle. In the N. T., as in the kolvti generally, the development has gone quite beyond the Attic. In the Attic the use of oii was the more general, while in the Koivr] the use of fiij is normal. In the N. T. there is no need to explain fi'fi with the participle. That is what you expect. Cf. Lu. 12 : 33 ni) iraXaioifieva, Jo. 5 : 23 6 fj/q Tiniav, Ac. 17 : 6 fifi e{ip6vT€s, Heb. 11 : 13 lirj Koiiurafxevoi. In the N. T. it is ov that calls for explanation, not /ii?. But it may be said at once that the N. T. is in thorough accord with the koivt] on this point. Even in a writer of the literary /coicij like Plutarch' one notes the in- roads of iiij. The papyri go further than Plutarch, but still have examples of ov, like ov nacbixiiciikvai. P. Par. (b.c. 163), rbv ovk tv \evKais kadrja-iv kv dearpc^ KoBicavTO. 0. P. 471 (ii/A.D.), ovSeirto ireirKri- fKOKOTwv O. P. 491 (ii/A.D.), oil dwaixevos A. P. 78 (ii/A.D.).^ Moul- ton« thinks that in many of these papyri examples there is "the lingering consciousness that the proper negative of a downright fact is oil." In general it may be said of the Koivii that the pres- ence of 06 with the participle means that the negative is clear-cut » Howes, The Use of m4 with the Part., Harv. Stu. in Class. Philol., 1901, pp. 277-285. 2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 430. ' Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255. * See further exx. in Moulton, Prol., p. 231. » Prol., p. 232. 1138 A GBAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT and decisive. Cf. Mt. 22 : 11 ovk ivBeSvfikvov evdv/ia y&iwv, (Lu. 6 : 42) oil p\kiro3V, (Jo. 10 : 12) b luudwrbs koI ovk wv irotiiiiv, (Ac. 7 : 5) OVK ovTOs avT^ TSKVov, (17 : 27) Kal ye ob fiaKpav — iirapxovTa, (26 : 22) ovdiv eKTos Xtyuv, (28 : 17) oi8h Toiriaas, (1 Cor. 4 : 14) ovk kv- Tpeiruv, (9 : 26) cos ovk aepa dkpuv, (2 Cor. 4 : 8) dXX' ov orecoxupoi- HevoL, (Ph. 3 : 4) Kal OVK ev aapKi ireTovdoTes, (Col. 2 : 19) Kal ob Kparuv, (Heb. 11:1) wpay/MTCtiv ob ^Xiironkvoiv, (11 : 35) ob irpoffdi^afu- vot, (1 Pet. 1 : 8) OVK ISovres, (2 : 10) ol obK iiK&)p,evoi,. In all these we have no special departure from the Attic custom, save that in Ac. 17 : 27 the participle is concessive. But we have just seen that the Attic was not rigid about ob and mi? with the participle. In two of the examples above ob and ixi} come close together and the con- trast seems intentional. Thus in Mt. 22 : 11 we have obK iv8e8v- ixivov ev5vfia yapiov, while in verse 12 we read mi? ex'^'' 'tvbvua yd/iov. The first instance lays emphasis on the actual situation in the description (the plain fact) while the second instance is the hypothetical argument about it. In 1 Pet. 1:8 we read 6v ok Idovres dyairare, ets bv apri nil dpSiVTes TnarebovTes Si d7aXXt2re. Here ob harmonizes with the tense of ISovres as an actual experience, while fiii with bpSivTes is in accord with the concessive idea in con- trast with TncTtvovres. Cf. Hort in loco who holds that the change of particles here is not capricious. "Though Blass thinks it arti- ficial to distinguish, it is hard to believe that any but a slovenly writer would have brought in so rapid a change without a rea- son." ^ It may be admitted further that "in Luke, Paul and Hebrews we have also to reckon with the literary conscious- ness of an educated man, which left some of the old idioms even where mi? had generally swept them away."^ See also tA nii koSti- Kovra (Ro. 1:28) and Text. Rec. to. ob avriKovra (Eph. 5:4). Cf. Ml? and ob in Ac. 9 : 9. Blass' notes that the Hebrew sj is regu- larly translated in the LXX by ob without any regard to the Greek refinement of meaning between ob and ixij with the par- ticiple. Hence in the N. T. quotations from the LXX this peculiarity is to be noted. Moulton^ observes also that, while this is true, the passages thus quoted happen to be instances where a single word is negatived by ob. Cf . Ro. 9 : 25 riiv obK iiyawrinevriv, (Gal. 4 : 27) 17 obK TiKTOvcra, fi obK oiSLvovcra. A case like Ac. 19 : 11, ob ras rvxobaas, is, of course, not pertinent. It is a "common vernacular phrase,"^ besides the fact that ob is not the > Moulton, Prol., p. 232. < Prol., p. 232. ' lb. " lb., p. 231. » Gr. of N- T. Gk., p. 255. VEKBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT "PHMATOs) 1139 negative of the participle i any more than it is in Ac. 19 : 11; 28 : 21. Moulton^ also rules out oiiK ifpv (2 Cor. 12 : 4) on the ground that it is the equivalent of the indicative. The copula is not ex- pressed. But note ovk e^6vTos, P. Oxy. 275 (a.d. 66). On this count the showing for ov with the participle is not very large in the N. T. Luke has ov five times with the participle (Lu. 6 : 42; Ac. 7 : 5; 17 : 27; 26 : 22; 28 : 17). Paul leads with a dozen or so (Ro. 9 : 25; Gal. 4 : 27 twice; 1 Cor. 4 : 14; 9 : 26; 2 Cor. 4 : 8, 9; Ph. 3 :4; Col. 2 : 19; 1 Th. 2:4). Hebrews has two (11 : 1, 35) and Peter three (1 Pet. 1:8; 2 : 10; 2 Pet. 1 : 16, oi — &k\a). Matthew has only one (22 : 11), and note firi exuv in the next verse. The MSS. vary also between the negatives as in Mt. 22 : 11, where CD have firi which Blass' adopts with his whimsical notions of textual criticism. At any rate Mat- thew, Luke (Gospel) and John use /mj almost exclusively with the participle, while Mark, James, the Johannine Epistles and Revelation do not have oii at all with the participle. In Ro. 8 : 20, ovx eKovaa, the old participle is merely an adjective as in Heb. 9:11. In Ro. 9 : 25, rdv ov Xaov, the negative occurs with a substantive (quotation from LXX). The ancient Greek would usually have added ovra. {i) Other Particles with the Participle. The ancient Greek* had quite a list of adverbs (particles) that were used with the circumstantial participle on • occasion to make clearer the precise relation of the participle to the principal verb or substan- tive. Some of these (like are, olov, oTa) no longer occur with the part, in the N. T. But some remain in use. These particles, it should be noted, do not change the real force of the parti- ciple. They merely sharpen the outline. The simplest form of this usage is seen in the adverbs of time like to irporepov (Jo. 9:8); TTork (Gal. 1 : 23. Cf. Eph. 2 : 13; Lu. 22 : 32); irvKvortpov (Ac. 24 : 26). In Mk. 9 : 20; Jo. 5 : 6 note other expressions of time. More idiomatic is the use of tWhs as in datXBovaa eWOs (Mk. 6 : 25). Cf. also ijSv l^Ms tevoiiivns (Mk. 15 :42), ?Tt &v (2 Th. 2 : 5) and apTi eMdvTos Tinodkov (1 Th. 3:6). Blass* denies that a/ia with the participle in the N. T. suggests simultaneousness or immediate sequence. He sees in afia /cat i\iri^03v (Ac. 24 : 26) only 'withal in the expectation,' not 'at the same time hoping.' I question • BlasB, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255 f. ^ ProL, p. 231. » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255. Cf. Gildersleeve, Encroachments of m4 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 afia apevres (27:40); Trpoirevxofievoi ayua Kal Tepl iiixSiv (Col. 4:3), where it requires some overrefinement to refuse the classic idiom to Luke. Under the concessive participle we saw examples of Kal 7€ (Ac. 17:27), Kalroi (Heb. 4:3), Ka'nrep (Heb. 5:8, etc.). There is also the use of oiuas in the principal sentence to call at- tention to the concessive force of the participle (1 Cor. 14 : 7). So oiiTOJs points back to a participle of time or manner (Ac. 20 : 11). Worth noting, besides, is koX tovto as in Ro. 13: 11, though here a finite verb may be implied. So also koI ravra veveKpoinevov (Heb. 11 : 12). There remain is, dio-et, oxrirep. The use of dicrd (Ro. 6 : 13)- and of ilKTwep (Ac. 2:2) is limited to condition or comparison. It is only with ois that there is any freedom or abundance. Blass ^ notes the absence of the accusative abso- lute with (Sis 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 ovx WS) 'not as if,' in Ac. 28 : 19; 2 Jo. 5. The N. T., like the classical Greek, uses cos without the participle in abbreviated expressions like cbs t$ Kvp'ua (Col. 3 : 23); dis kv iifikpg. (Ro. 13 : 13); i>s St' ^p.G>v (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 cos is with the ■ participle, it does not change the nature of the participle with which it occurs.' The participle with cos may be causal, tempo- ral, conditional, maimer, 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, i>s implies nothing in itself on that point. The context alone must determine it.^ The various uses of cos itself should be recalled. There may be nothing but com- parison, as in cos k^ovalav excop (Mk. 1 : 22) ; cos ovk akpa hkpoiv (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 cos 6 biaKovSiv. The causal idea is prominent in cos ii^erititvos (1 Cor. 7:25). Cf. Heb. 12 : 27 and D in Ac. 20 : 13, cos /i^XXcoi'. The concessive or conditional notion is dominant in 1 Cor. 7 : 29 f . ; 2 Cor. 5 : 20, cos tov deov irapaKa- \ovvTos 5i' ri/iSiv. So also in Ac. 3 : 12; 28 : 19; 2 Jo. 5. In Lu. 16 : 1, cos SioffKopiri^osu, the charge is given by Jesus as that of the » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 253. » lb. ' Fiihrer, De Particulae is cum Participiia et Praepositionibus punotae Usu Thucydideo, 1889, p. 7. * Goodwin, M. and T., p. 343. VERBAL NOUNS ('ONOMATA TOT "PHMATOS) 1141 slanderer (SiepXrieri) and the context implies that it is untrue (only- alleged).^ Pilate makes a similar^use of cos a,iro(TTpt4)ovra t6v \a6v in Lu. 23 : 14. He declines by the use of cbs to accept the cor- rectness of the charge of the Sanhedrin against Jesus. For a similar use see cbs fikWovras (Ac. 23 : 15) ; cbs ^ikWiav (23 : 20) ; irpo- <^d(7et cbs fieWovTuv (genitive absolute 27: 30). But in 2 Cor. 5 : 20 (see above) Paul endorses the notion that he is an ambassador of God and cbs 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 cbs 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 fxiTaKTrfi-qaoixeixav. Cf. also ih., cbs Slv vto rfjs XLfirjs SiaKvofievoi,. The inscrs. show it also, 0. G. I. S. 90, 23 (ii/B.c), cbs av — (rvvearriKvias. Blass ^ finds a genitive absolute with COS ixv in Barnabas 6 : 11. All this is interesting as fore- shadowing the modern Greek use of adv as a conjunction.' > 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 HAPAeHKAl) 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 irapaOriKr) 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 under 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 fimction 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 ' 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 narticles go back to the Indo- Germanic time and hence their etjonology is unknown. He treats the particles from the standpoint of their origin so far as known. Hartungi takes a much narrower view of particles. He discusses the paratactic conjunctions 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, nouns, pronouns, 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 under 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 sufficient discussion in special chapters. In the same way the construction of hypo- tactic conjunctions came in for somewhat careful treatment ia 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., Tl. I, 1832; Tl. II, 1833. ' lb., Tl. I, p. 37. Schroeder (tJber 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. " Doctrina Particularum Linguae Graecae. Ed. Secunda, 1806. * See above. " De Graecae Linguae Particulis, vol. I, 1840; II, 1842. 1144 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 1861 Baumlein produced his Untersuchungen uber griech. Parti- keln. Paley' 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."* Jannaris 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 (like apa, 8i, ovv), so that a strict division on this basis is not possible.^ II. Intensive or Emphatic Particles (irapaSriKai i^^o-TiKo-i or TrapairXiip(0|iaTiKol ij,aTiKol aivSeafwi, {elal Si o'iSe' Si), pa, TV, TTov, Toi, drjv, ap, Srjra, Trip, ttco, ixr/v, av, av, vvv, oivv, Kkv, yk, dXXd, ixijv, ToLvvv, TOiyapovv). Some of these (like cipa, ovp, dXXd, and one might add yap, 8k) are so prevailingly conjunctival that they are best treated under conjunctions. Others (like Kkv, /5d) belong to earlier stages of the language. The discussion of av could have come here very well, since it is undoubtedly intensive whatever its actual meaning, whether it is blended with el into tav or used with 6s, oans, Iva, Sttojs, cIis, 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 hke 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, qao^ TapSvres ovSkv di(j>eKe7.v Shvavrai ovre fifiv X'^P'^'^OkvTes Xvixaivovrai. He contradicts his disparagement by the use of firiv in this very sentence. The adverbial nature of the intensive particles is well shown by the variety of usage of the modal adverb outojs. See Thayer's Lexicon for the N. T. illustrations, which are very numerous (some 200). In Jo. 4:6, eKaBk^ero oiircos kirl tjJ Triyfj, we have a good example of the possibilities of oDt&js. The local adverb 7ro6 dwindles from 'somewhere' (Heb. 2:6) to 'somewhat' in Ro. 4 : 19. Cf. also Sri tov ('surely') in Heb. 2 : 16. Some of the temporal adverbs also at times approach the emphatic particles. Cf. t6 \onrbv in Ph. 3:1; 4:8 (see Kennedy in loco) almost' = oB)'. But in the N. T. apn and ^Sr) are always strictly temporal. How- ' Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 400. ' Cf. Uhlig'B ed., p. 96, and Schol. Dion. Thrax in Bekk. An., 970. 10. » So mod. Gk., Thumb, Handb., p. 184. PARTICLES (aI nAPAGHKAl) 1147 ever, irore sometimes loses its notion of 'once upon a time' (Gal. 1 : 23) and fades into that of 'eveijj, as in 1 Cor. 9:7; Eph. 5 : 29. In ijSj/ Tork (Ro. 1 : 10; Ph. 4 : 10) it is more the notion of culmination (' now at last ') than of time. But in /iij 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 vwi where the sense differs little from 5ij or ovv. 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 dk gives the contrast to the preceding conditions, 'but as it is.' Cf. also IJo. 2 : 28, Kal vvv, reKvia, where John's emotional appeal is sharpened by the use of vvv. Cf. likewise Kal vvv devpo in Ac. 7:34 (LXX). Cf. Kal vvv, B. U. 530 (i/A.D.). In general, the N. T. language, hke the Eng- lish, 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. Illustkations. (a) Tk. We may begin with ye. The origin of yk is by no means certain. In the Boeotian, Doric and Eleatic dialects it is 7a. It seems to correspond^ to the A; in the Gothic mi-k (German mi-ch). Cf. Greek ifie-^e. 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 Kotj'iJ 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. 2 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 541. ' PartikeUehre, I, p. 344 f. Cf. K.-G., II, pp. 171-178. * K.-G., II, p. 171. ' Paley, The Gk. Particles, p. 14. 8 PartikeUehre, I, p. 326. 1148 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT /cat 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/xoss. But that is not always true of 76. 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, 5td ye rriv avaidlau avrov. Here, however, the yk more properly belongs to apatdiav, since that is the point, not the preposition Sii.. The same slight variation from the classic idiom appears in 18 : 5, 5id. ye ro irapkxH'V fioi Koirov Trjv XVP°-v Taiirrjv. The concessive minimizing idea comes out clearly in Jo. 4 : 2, Kalrotye 'Itjaovs avTos. See further apa ye and Kal ye in Ac. 17 : 27, and, in particu- lar, ctXXa ye vfjxv eifii (1 Cor. 9 : 2) where again the ancient idiom would prefer vfuv ye, 'to you at least' (if not to others). Once more note e'i ye in Eph. 3 : 2; 4 : 21; Col. 1 : 23, and el 8k fir/ ye in Mt. 6 : 1; 9 : 17, etc. There is a keen touch of irony in Ro. 9 : 20, CO avOpoiire, fievovvye a\i ris el; Cf. iipaye 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 avv irarn toOtols, where the ascensive force is accented by Kai, ci/v and aXXci (affirmative here, not adversative), and the climax of the crescendo is reached in yk. The same cHmacteric force of the particles occurs in Ph. 3 : 8, dXXA ixev dbv ye Kal rjyoviJiai. Travra ^i]p.iav elvai. ' I go, ' says Paul, 'as far as to consider all things to be loss.' Cf. apa7e in Mt. 7: 20 and Kai ye in Ac. 2 : 18 (Joel 3:2). So we have S.pa. ye in Ac. 8 : 30. A fine example is os ye rod Idlov viov ovk etjielaaTo (Ro. 8 : 32). So 10 : 18. There is irony again in Kal o^eKbv ye k^aaCKeb- arare (1 Cor. 4:8), and note the position of yk apart from Kal. In Homer yk is very common with the pronouns,' but in the N. T. we have only 6s ye (Ro. 8 : 32). We no more find €701 ye, but €7cb ttkv (Mt. 3 : 11), eyii — ai) (3 : 14), kydi 5k (5 : 22), aMs kyu (Ro. 9:3). Indeed all of the thirty examples of yk in the N. T. occur with conjunctions (paratactic or hypotactic) or other par- ticles except those in Lu. 11:8; 18 : 5; Ro. 8 : 32. Cf. apaprla yk k(TTiv ('indeed it is sin') in Hermas, Vis., i, 1.8. The particles with which ye is found in the N. T. are aXXd ye (Lu. 24 : 21) ; &pa. ye (Mt. 7: 20); &pa ye (Ac. 8 : 30); el ye (Eph. Z ■.2); el bk p.ii ye (Mt. ' Baumlein, Griech. Partikeln, 1861, p. 54. ^ Grundr., p. 85. Cf. also Nagelsbach, Comm. de particulae -yk usu Horn. ' 1830, p. 4. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 258. PARTICLES (aI HAPAeHKAl) 1149 6:1); Kai ye (Ac. 17: 27); KairoLje (Jo. 4:2); Mi7TtTe (1 Cor.. 6 : 3) ; 64>i\oi' 7€ (1 Cor. 4:8); mwoOj/te ^o. 9 : 20). Cf. SiA ye in Lu. 11:8; 18 : 5. T&p is compoimded of yk and apa, but it will be treated under conjunctions, though it is sometimes not much more than an intensive particle. Cf. ri yap KOKdv kToiriaev (Mt. 27:23). (6) Aij." It has likewise an uncertain etymology.' It appears in the Attic poets as Sal (cf. vrj, mt) and is seen in composition with 5?j-Ta, 8ri-irov, kirei-Sri, ■JJ-Stj.^ In rj-Sri we probably have' ij and SiJ. It was originally temporal in idea and goes back to the Indo-Germanic period. Jannaris^ thinks that Sk and 5^7 are one and the same word (cf. fikv and n-qv) and holds that the difference is due to the transliteration from the old to the new alphabet when alone a distinction was made between e and e (ij). Thus the spelling Si] was confined to the intensive particle, while 56 was the form for the conjunction. It is certain that in Homer there is confusion between 5k and Sri before vowels.* In Homer also Si? may begin a sentence, but in the N. T. as elsewhere all the examples are postpositive (but not enclitic). Blass* does not treat it as an intensive particle, but as a con- secutive particle. It is hard to follow Blass' theory of the par- ticles. Like the other intensive particles it has no Enghsh or German equivalent and is a hard word to translate. It is climacteric and indicates that the point is now at last clear and may be assumed as true.' Cf. Latin jam nunc, vvv — ^5»j (1 Jo. 4:3); ffSr] irork (Ro. 1 : 10). The similarity in sense be- tween Sri and one usage of Sk may be seen in Ac. 6 : 3, tirto-zce- 4fa(Tde Se (Sri), where W. H. put Sri in the margin. Cf. /cat cv Sk in Lu. 1: 76. Ari is not genuine in 2 Cor. 12 : 1. There are left only six N. T. illustrations, counting S-q irov in Heb. 2 : 16, oi yap Sri irov ayykXwv kTiKanfiaverai,. In Mt. 13 : 23, 6s 5)) Kapiroct>opfl, it occurs in a relative sentence, 'who is just the man who.'* The other examples are all with the hortatory subjunctive (Lu. 2 : 15; Ac. 15 : 36) or the imperative (Ac. 13 : 2; 1 Cor. 6 : 20) in accord with the classical idiom. There is a note of urgency in A^opUrare Si] (Ac. 13 : 2) and So^kaare Sii (1 Cor. 6 : 20). The pas- sage with Sri irore in Jo. 5 : 4 has disappeared from the critical text. 1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 547. 2 lb.; Prellwitz, Et. Worterbuch, p. 73. » 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 ixijv, VI) and vat. Somewhat akin to the positive note in Sri is the use of v Mi?" 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 rj {fjFt, iiFk).^ Cf. V Si? ivSri)- In w^p (Jo. 12 : 43) and rjroi (Ro. 6 : 16) we have the comparative or disjunctive ij. In Homer it was often used in connection with other particles.^ We may pass /x^v for the pres- ent. If rj were genuine in Hebrews the usage would be in strict accord with classic construction for a strong asseveration. But certainly el nr)v 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/B.c. Cf. ei ixijv, P. Oxy. 255 (a.d. 48). So that it is mere itacism between ^ and ei. The Doric has el for ij where Moulton* holds against Hort' that the distinction is strictly orthographical. See further chap- ter VI, Orthography and Phonetics, ii, (c). So then el juV has to be admitted in the Koiv-q as an asseverative particle. It is thus another form of ^ ii.r]v. Jannaris^ gives a special section to the "assevera- tive particles" vit and na. We do not have /la in the N. T. and vi) only once in 1 Cor. 15 : 31, KaB' r/fiepav avoOvitaKos vri Ti]v vfierkpav Kavxiifi-v- N)i is a pecuUarity of the Attic dialect and is used in solemn asseverations (oaths, etc.) and means 'truly,' 'yes.' It is probably the same word as val, the affirmative adverb which oc- curs over thirty times in the N. T. Nai 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 respectful address, Nat, Kipte (Jo. 11: 27). It may be used as a substantive (like any adverb) with the article (2 Cor. 1 : 17) or without the article (Mt. 5 : 37), where it is repeated. It occurs with a.iii)v in Rev. 1:7. It stands in contrast with oh in Mt. 5 : 37 and 2 Cor. 1 : 17. There was an old form mi-x' (cf. oii-xO- 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 nd-nd ('so — so'). (d) Mej*. We know a little more about iikv, which is postposi- tive, but not enclitic. It is only another form of /ii^i/ which occurs in the N. T. only in Heb. 6 : 14. The Doric and Lesbian use imv and the Thessalian na — 5^. So then it seems probable' that nhv ' Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 541; K.-G., II, p. 144. 2 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 248. » Moulton, Prol., p. 46. « Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 410. « lb., p. 46. ' Griech. Gr., p. 544. ' App., p. 151. 8 lb. PARTICLES (aI nAPAGHKAl) 1151 (fiA, used with words of swearing after a negative), ixr/v and iJiev are one and the same word. Indeed, in Homer > 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 fikv (firiv) the subjective confirmation and in 5ij 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 (fjiv and mV) vith a notion that firjv was merely emphatic with single words, while fikv 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 ij.h 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 fiiiv and other particles, but it is not anacoluthic, as Winer ^ holds, for fiev to occur without the presence of 5k or dX\a. The older language is naturally richer^ in this original idiom with /xev, 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 (ii/A.D.), irpd /xev wavriav. The old idiom sur- vived best in the vernacular and in poetry, while the Uterary prose was more careful to use the antithetical or resumptive fiiv. This M^'' solitarium, as the books call it, may have a concessive or restrictive force.* Cf. ei liiv yap 6 ipxoixevos (2 Cor. 11 : 4), where there is no thought of S^ or dXXa. It is seen also rather often in the Acts. Cf . 1 : 18 oStos ^h oliv 'tKriiaaro xwpioj', (3 : 13) Sv bp-tis idv TapedwKare (cf. ipih Sk in next verse which is copulative, not adversative), (3 : 21) ov del ovpavou p,tv dk^acOai, (3 : 22) Mcouo-tjs niv elTrev, (17 : 12) iroWoi fiiv ovp k^ aiiruv kirlarevaav, (21 : 39) kyw avBpwroi iikv eifii, (23 : 18) 6 pev ovv TapaXafioiv (cf. also 23 : 31), (27 : 21) eSa p.kv, (28 : 22) irepi piv yap ttjs atpecrecos rauTT/s, and the in- stances of ot pkv m>v like Acts 1 : 6; 2 : 41; 5 : 41; 8 : 25, where no contrast is intended. See ei pkv olv in Heb. 7 : 11; i? m*" evboda in Ro. 10 : 1; e^' '6aov pkv olv dpi kydi in 11 : 13. Cf. 2 Cor. 12 : 12; 1 Th. 2 : 18, iy^ pkv. Cf . also the single instance of pevovv as one word (Lu. 11 : 28) which is obviously without contrast. The same thing is true of ptvowye (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 1 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 251. * W.-Th., p. 575. 2 K.-G., II, p. 135. ' Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 409. » Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 409. ' Hartung, Partikellehre, II, p. 404. 1162 A GKAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT of the instances of ixkv oiv in the N. T. are resumptive, not cor- relative or antithetical.^ There remain the instances where /j^v implies contrast. It is just a step in advance of the original idiom. Cf. Mt. 8 : 21, k-KiTpej/bv ^ot icpSnov aire\detv, where there is nothing to correspond to itpOnov. The hrara is involved in what precedes. So with irpwTov and re — koX in Ro. 1 : 16 and tpS>tov — Kai in 2 Cor. 8 : 5. The Kai does not answer to the -wpSiTov? Just so we have t6»' nb> ttpcotov Xoyov in Ac. 1 : 1 without a Sebrepov 5e, though the clear implication is that the Acts is the second book. In 1 Cor. 11 : 18, irpwrov fiev yap, the contrast is implied' in verses 20 ff ., but in Ro. 1 : 8, irpdrov ixkv evxcpMrSi, 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 p.kv, meaning 'first of all in truth.' Cf. trpSiTov p,kv in Ro. 3:2. In Ro. 7 : 12, 6 ij,kv vofios, there is no contrast stated, but in verse 14 it is given by Se, yet without nkv. In Col. 2 : 23, anvd. idTiv X670V p.h 'ixovra ao(t>las, the antithesis is really stated in ovu iv timS, ktX. without an adversative particle. In 1 Cor. 5 : 3 the p,kp stands alone, while Attoji' and irapdov are contrasted by Se. In Heb. 12 : 9 there is contrast between the fih clause and the next, which has no particle (only -iroXv fiaWov). In Ac. 26 : 4, 6, p.ev is followed by Kai vvv by way of contrast and by ra vvp in 17 : 30. Cf. fitv — (cai in 1 Th. 2 : 18, ^ev — rk in Ac. 27 : 21, where there is practically no contrast. But see 8 fiiv — Kai erepov in Lu. 8 : 5 ff., o fiiv — Kai aWo in Mk. 4 : 4 if . We have nev — 'iireLra in Jo. 11:6; Jas. 3 : 17; 1 Cor. 12 : 28. These are all efforts to express antithesis. We see this also in nev — TrXijv in Lu. 22 : 22 and in lih — dX\k in Ac. 4 : 16; Ro. 14 : 20; 1 Cor. 14 : 17. In Mk. 9 : 12 f . AXXd is independent of the p.ev. But it is the fiiv — 8k 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 fikv 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 litv 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 nkp. • lb., p. 266. PARTICLES (aI HAPAeHKAl) 1153 Romans, 1 Corinthians and Hebrews. Paley' thinks that nkv and 3^ may contain the roots of one (ixia) and two (Sio). But certainly the correlative antithesi? is not necessary to either of them, though with 5e there is the notion of addition. Cf . in this connection (ikv — /cat (Mk. 4:4; Lu. 8 : 5) and t6t€ nkv (Jo. 11:6). There are varying degrees of contrast where ixkv and hk occur together. There may be no emphasis on the iitv and very little on the 5e, which is not essentially adversative. The y.kv may pre- serve almost its original idiom while &k has slight contrast. So Lu. 1 1 : 48, apa ixdpTvpks hare nal (rvvevSoKeiTe rots epyoLS tS>i> irarkpoiv, on avToi nh> airiKTeivav aiiTovs iijueis di OLKoSofitZre. The whole sen- tence is quoted to show that it is agreement (correspondence), not opposition, that is here accented. In verse 47 we have 8k, but not nkv, 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, ''Ey(h nkv eiixi IlaiiXou, ''Eyis &k 'kiroKKis, 'Eyo) bk Kr;<^o, ''E.yds U Xpiarov. It is thus the context that decides how pointed is the contrast. It is not the words fiiv and 5^ that inherently mean opposition. Indeed, the contrast may be indi- cated by 5^ alone as in Mt. 5: 22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44; 25:46; Ac. 12:9; Heb. 2 : 8 ; 4 : 13 ; 6 : 12.^ We see a good illustration of clear antithesis in John's words about his baptism and that of Christ in Mt. 3: 11, kyd> iikv—6 Sk. See further 20:^23; 22: 8; 23: 28; 25: 33, Kal ffTrja-ei, ra fikv irpS^ara kic de^iSiv avrov to, Sk ^ptc^ia k^ tvoivhiJMV. The examples are numerous. See ol mv — oi Sk (Ph. 1 : 16 ff .) ; oBs likv — ofis Sk (Jude22); TLvks fikv — TLvks Sk (Ph. 1: 15); els m^k — els Sk (Heb. 9:6f.); oi fikv — a'KXoL Sk (Mt. 16:14); SXky, nkv — HWri Sk (1 Cor. 15 :39); tovto nkv — rovro Sk (Heb. 10 :33); -rpuTov iikv — hreira Sk (Heb. 7:2); ei ixev ovv — el Sk (Ac. 19 : 38 f .) ; ei fikv — vw Sk (Heb. 11 : 15 f.), etc. These examples fairly exhibit the N. T. usage of ixkv. It is often a matter of one's mood how much emphasis to put on ^kv and Sk, as in Mt. 9 : 37 and Mk. 14 : 38. In fikvroL there is always strong contrast. As examples of nkv—aWa in sharp contrast see Ro. 14 : 20; 1 Cor. 14 : 17. So also fikv — TrX^y (Lu. 22 : 22). (e) Hep. It is probably a shortened form of irepi (cf. perfect) or irkpi 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 1 The Gk. Particles, p. 34. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 266. ' Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 545. 1154 A GRA.MMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT occurs. But in Homer this is not true, while irkp follows Kal only once.^ There is no doubt about the etjonology of this particle.* Some' even connect it directly with irkpav or irepa. Cf. irepairkpa (critical text in Ac. 19:39). But this idea does not conflict with the other, for irept is the locative of iripa. It is an Indo- Germanic root, and the original notion of iripi occurs in Trepi- TTt/jTrXij/it, irepi-rXriBris, nu-per, per-manere, per-tinax, sem-per, etc. It means then to do a thing to the limit (beyond), thoroughly. There is a note of urgency in irep. It is intensive as ye, but prob- ably tends to be more extensive also.* Sometimes the emphasis in irip is in spite of opposition* as in miirep 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 Katirep oiv vlos (Heb. 5:8). The Textus Receptus has ovirep in Mk. 15 : 6, but W. H. read only 6v, but Sunrep appears twice as an inferential conjunction (1 Cor. 8 : 13; 10 : 14). See Hinrep, 0. P. 1125, 6 (iii/A.D.). The other examples are all with conjunctions, as eav-irep (Heb. 3: 14; 6:3); elxep (a half-dozen times, all in Paul, as Ro. 8 : 9; 1 Cor. 15 : 15); eirelTep (some MSS. in Ro. 3 : 30, but the best MSS., as W. H. give, have etirep) ; etreiSiiirep (only Lu. 1:1); ^irep (only the crit- ical text in Jo. 12 : 43) ; KoBairep (some 17 times, all in Paul save Heb. 4 : 2), Kadwcrirep (Heb. 5 : 4 and a varia lectio in 2 Cor. 3 : 18), Sitrirep (some 36 times, chiefly in Matthew, Luke and Paul, as Mt. 6:2), diairepel (once only, 1 Cor. 15: 8). (/) Tot does not occur alone in the N. T., but only in composi- tion. It is enclitic as in rJToi, Kairoi, fievroi, but it comes first in Toiyapovv and rolvvv. The etymology is not certain. Brugmann* takes it to be a fixed form of the ethical dative col (rot). Others' take it as the locative of the demonstrative rb. 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 ^roi once (Ro. 6 : 16), Kairoi twice (Ac. 14 : 17; Heb. 4 : 3), Kairoiye once (Jo. 4 : 2), nivToi eight times, five in John's Gospel as Jo. 4 : 27 and once in Paul (2 Tim. 2 : 19), Toiyapovv twice (1 Th. 4 : 8; Heb. 12 : 1), toLvvv three times (Lu. 20 : 25; 1 Cor. 9 : 26; Heb. 13 : 13). "Omojs is an adversative par- ' Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 257. ' Griech. Gr., pp. 402, 525. ' 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. PAETICLES (aI HAPAeHKAl) 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. III. Negative Particles (orTtpriTiKal irapadfJKa 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 (rrepj/Twos for this negative conception. It is in reality an ablative idea as (TTfpkta 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 6.{v) called alpha privative, Sanskrit a{n), 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 dn/iafto.' The use of d- {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. dSoKiixos, aSida, aiteiBiis, aaiveros, aavvOeTos, &(7ropyos, aveKeriiuov (Ro. 1 : 28-30). 1. The Objective Ov and its Compounds. (a) Origin. This is unknown. Hiibschmann* sees a connection with the Latin hand as do other scholars.^ Fowler « takes it as an original intensive particle like pas in the French ne pas and -xi (Indo-Ger. -Qhi) in oi-xL The Zend ava is also noted and the Latin au {au-fero)J But there is no doubt that oO in the Greek took the place of the Sanskrit nd, Latin ne- (ne-que, ne-sdo; the re- lation of ne ne-quidem, ne-quam to this ne is not known), Gothic ni. The use of the Greek oh corresponds to the Sanskrit nd. ' Anon., Notes on Negative Postfixes in Gk. and Lat., 1884, p. 6. » Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 447. s Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 529. • Cf. Das indoger. Vokal-System, p. 191. s 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. Delbriick, Grundr., IV p. 519. ' But Draeger (Hist. Synt., p. 133) says that this connection with the Lat. hand cannot be shown. 1156 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (b) History, As far back as Greek goes we find ov, but ob did not hold its own with ixrj in the progress of the language. Within the past century ov 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 oid. But modern Greek has ov5e and oiire (Thumb, Handb., p. 200). In the Boeotian dia- lect, it may be noted, ov never did gain a place. We have seen a(i8ev used as an adverb, an idiom that goes back to Homer.'' Jannaris' explains that the vernacular came to use ovdkv and fxi)- 8fv for emphasis and then on a par with ov and firi. Then ov5iv dropped ov and firiSep lost dkv, leaving 8kv and /xri for the modern Greek. At any rate this is the outcome. Atv is the negative of the ind. in modem Greek except after vd and final clauses when we find pd fxi) (Thumb, Handb., p. 200). And 5h is the regular negative in the protasis of conditional sentences both with ind. and subj.* The distinction between od and /xij did become more or less blurred in the course of time, but in the N. T., as in the koivI] 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. Aiv may represent fnjSev (Rendel Harris, Exp., Feb., 1914, p. 163). (c) Meaning. Ov denies the reality of an alleged fact. It is the clear-cut, point-blank negative, objective, final.^ Jannaris^ com- pares ov to oTt and ixri to Iva, while Blass* compares 06 to the indicative mode and iirj to the other modes. But these analogies are not wholly true. Sometimes, indeed, oi coalesces with the word as in ov ^77/^1 = not merely 'I do not say,' but 'I deny.' So ovK Idu (Ac. 16 : 7) = 'I forbid.' Cf. ov dk\cc (Mk. 9: 30); ovk exoi (Mt. 13: 12); ovk dyvok(a (2 Cor. 2 : 11). See also top ob \o.bp in Ro. 9 : 25 (LXX) where ov 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 ' Fairar, 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 Negations 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 oil are in harmony with th^true meaning of the particle. (i) The Indicative. We meet ov with the indicative in both in- dependent and dependent clauses. (o) Independent Sentences. Here the negative ov is universal with the indicative in declarative sentences. The force of oh {ovK before vowels, ovx before aspirate) is sometimes very power- ful, like the heavy thud of a blow. Cf. om kSuKare, oiK 'eworlaare, ov (TwriyaytTe, ov xeptejSaXere, ovk hwea-Kktf'aiTde (Mt. 25 : 42 f.). The force of all these negatives is gathered up in the one ob in verse 44. In verse 45 ov and ovdk are balanced over against each other. See OVK eirwev in Mt. 7:25. Cf. ov wapeXaPov in Jo. 1:11. In Mt. 21 : 29 see the contrast between €701, Kvpie and ovk airrj'Kdev. Note the progressive bluntness of the Baptist's denials till ov comes out flat at the last (Jo. 1:21 f.). In the N. T. ov alone occurs with the future indicative used as a prohibition, though the classic idiom sometimes had /J17. Cf . ov ^oj-eucreis (Mt. 5:21); OVK 'icrecOe cos ol viroKpiTaL (6 : 5), etc. Still, Blass' quotes firiSiva liiari(TeT€ in Clem., Horn., Ill, 69. The volitive subjective nature of this construction well suits ^117, but ov is more emphatic and suits the indicative. In Mt. 16 : 22, ov ixri iarai col tovto, we have ov fifi in the prohibitive sense. When ov occurs alone = 'no,' as at the end of a clause, it is written ov as in oi5, p,-/] rare (Mt. 13 : 29) ; TO OK oi) (2 Cor. 1:17). But in interrogative (independent) sentences ov always expects the answer 'yes.' The Greek here draws a distinction between ov and nv 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 ov. We may leave pr; till we come to it. Ov in questions corresponds to the Latin nonne. Cf. Mt. 7 : 22, ov tQ o-cp bvopan 'eKpo4>riTev(Tapev kt\., where ov is the negative of the whole long question, and is not repeated with the other verbs. See further Mt. 13 : 55; Lu. 17 : 17; 1 Cor. 14 : 23. In 1 Cor. 9 : 1 we have ov four times (once ouxO- The form ouxt is a bit sharper in tone. Cf. Mt. 13 : 27; Lu. 12 : 6. In Lu. 6 : 39 we have pii with one question, pi)Ti Svvarai Tu^Xis tv4>\6v d5riyiZv; and ovx'i- with the other (side by side) ovxl djU06repot eis fioBvvov kpirtaovvrai.; There is a tone of impatient indignation in the use of ov in Ac. 13 : 10, ov iravaji SLaffTpecjXjiv ras dSoiis tov Kvpiov rds evdeias; In Ac. 21 : 38, ovk apa cv el 6 AlyvTTLos; the addition of iipa means 'as I supposed, > 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 ov and ovSkv in both question, oix iiroKplvg ovSkv; and the descrip- tion of Christ's silence, Kai ovk kirtKplvaTo obbkv. In Lu. 18 : 7, oh fifl iroiriaTu — /cat fiaKpoBvfiei iir' avrols; we come near having ov y,ii in a question with the present indicative as well as with the aorist subjunctive. In a question like jui) ovk 'ixofifv; (1 Cor. 9 : 4) oii is the negative of the verb, while fiij is the negative of the sentence. Cf. Ro. 10 : 18, 19. In 1 Cor. 9 : 8 we have iiii in one part of the question and ov in the other, fiij Kara avOpuirov ravra XaXco, fj Kal & v6px)s ravra oO Uyei; In Mt. 22 : 17 (Lu. 20 : 22; Mk. 12 : 14) we have ij oi); as the alternative question, and Mark adds ^ /n^. Babbitt^ holds that "ov is used in questions of fact, while in other questions (e.g. questions of possibility) jui? 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. ov and AXXa in Ro. 9:8. So oil yap — dXX' o in 7: 15. In 7: 18 f. note oi)' ov side by side. Cf. also position of oii in Ac. 1:5; 2 :15; Ro. 11 :18 (ob (Til — aXXa). So dXX' ovk iyis in 1 Cor. 6 :12. (0) Subordinate Clauses. In principle the use of oi 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 oii is almost the only negative used in the N. T., the examples of p.'ii 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, olVtces ob liovov — Trpoeviip^aade (cf. Ro. 10 : 14; Jas. 4:14), and in indefinite relative clauses where /tij is possible, but by no means necessary, as in Mt. 10 : 38, 5s ob \ati^Lvu (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 tii). Cf. ob p,ii atjjedfj Side \i6os iirl \Wov OS ob KaraXvdriaeTai (Mt. 24: 2). It is a common enough idiom in the old Greek, as we see it in 10: 26 (Lu. 12: 2), obStv kariv KtKa- \vntievoi' 8 obK 6.iroKa\v(l)dii(TeTa,i. Cf. Lu. 8:17, where the second relative has ob fir/ yvoiadxi, and Ro. 15:18 for the negative ob in principal and relative clause. In Mk. 4 : 25 note 8s exei and 8s obK €x«. Cf. 8 deKco and 8 ob ek\u (Ro. 7 : 15, 19). Practically the same* construction is ob with the relative in a question, as ris » W.-Th., p. 5n. * Harv. Stu. in Class. Philol., 1901, The Use of M:} in Questions, p. 307. ' W.-Th., p. 481. * Thouvemin, Les Ndgations, etc., p. 233 f. PARTICLES (aI HAPAeHKAl) 1159 i(TTLv Ss 06 in Ac. 19:35; cf. Heb. 12:7. For further illustration of ob with relative clauses see Mt^2 : 2; Mk. 2 : 24; Jo. 6 : 64- Lu. 14 : 27; Jo. 4 : 22; Ro. 15 : 21; Gal. 3 : 10; Rev. 9:4. In temporal clauses with the indicative ov comes as a matter of course.i This is true of a definite note of time as in Ac. 22 : 11, (OS obK ivefiXeirou, and of an indefinite period as in Jo. 4 : 21, &pa oTt oOre (cf. also 9 : 4, vi^ fire ovdeis). In comparative clauses with the indicative the negative comes outside in the principal sentence, since comparison is usually made with a positive note. So ob Kadamp (2 Cor. 3 : 13); ob KaOoss ifKir'uyanev (8:5); ovk eifii ibtnrtp (Lu. 18 : 11); obx (is (Ro. 5 : 15 f.). We do have 6i% obK akpa dkpuv in 1 Cor. 9 : 26 (participle) as in 2 Cor. 10 : 14 we have ob yap, (bs jui? kLKvoviJievoL, where the two nega- tives are in good contrast. In local clauses likewise the use of ob is obvious, as in 6irov obn elxev yjjv iroWriv (Mt. 13 : 5) ; oirov ob dhXtis (Jo. 21 : 18. Here the ob is very pointed); ov di ovk eanv vbpos (Ro. 4: 15). In causal sentences ob is not quite universal, though the usual negative. Cf. Mt. 25 : 45 e<^' &epei. Cf . also ei ob iroUa and el wolSi 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 ob has made distinct iiuoads on ei fiij 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, avvTJKav '6tl obK elirev ■Kpoa'exeiv. In 16 : 11 note vm ob voelre '6ti ob wept apTUP elirov bfuv; 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 5^ ISicixai, Iliad, I, 262. This futu- ristic use of the subj., as we have seen (Modes), largely passed over to the future indicative,' so that ob disappears from the subjunc- tive almost entirely both in principal and subordinate clauses. 1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 429. * Jebb, V. and D.'s Handb., p. 339. 2 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 oi before miJ with participles. In Jer. 6 : 8 B readi^rJTts ob KaToiKurdy where NAQ* have KaToiKLcrOricreTai. It is to be remembered also, as already noted, that in the modern Greek Sh occurs in the protasis with subjunctive as well as with the indicative, as 8. 8iv TrLarehxis (Thumb, Handbook, p. 195). This is partly due, no doubt, to the obscuration of the oii in Skv, but at bottom it is the futuristic use of the subj. We have already noted the use of ^i? ovx in 2 Cor. 12 : 20 with eCpw after (jmlSovnai, where the ob is kept with the subj. (classic idiom) to distinguish it from the conjunctional /ut^. It is also a case of the futuristic subj., not volitive as in final clauses with Im or ottcos. In Mt. 25 : 9 the margin of W. H. has HV TTOTe ovK apKe(rxi without a verb of fearing, though the notion is there. The text has firi Trore ov ii-q. Jannarisi boldly cuts the Gordian knot by denying that ni) in oi fir/ is a true negative. He makes it merely a shortening of mV- If so, all the uses of ov ixri with the subj. would be examples of ov with the subj. Some of these, however, are voUtive or deliberative. This view of Jan- naris is no,t yet accepted among scholars. It is too simple a solution, though Jannaris argues that ov iiijv does occur as in Soph. El. 817, Eur. Hec. 401, and he notes that the negation is continued by ov 8e, not by iow) SL Per contra it is to be observed that the modern Greek writes mV as well as ixi), as I'd ^ir|v elxe irapadis, 'because he had no money' (Thumb, Handb., p. 200). But, whatever the explanation, we do have ov ixi] 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, ob /*i) irka; the answer is in accord with ob. (iii) The Optative. In the N. T. there are no instances of the use of ob 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 ob 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, &v 'iaru obx f> — Kdanos, dXX' 6 KpvTTos, ktK. It is the sharp contrast with dXX' that explains the use of obx- Cf. also ob fxbvov in 1 Pet. 2 : 18, where the participle stands in an imperative atmosphere. 1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 433. 2 Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 200. 1162 A GRAMMAR 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 juij ft^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 oii with the inf. in indirect assertion. This is usually explained on the ground that the ov 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 oO (jyijaip biiauv where ov formally goes with (jyriaw, but logically with bixruv. From this use Monro conceives there came oh with the inf. itself. But the situation in the N. T. is not quite so simple as Blass'' makes it. In Jo. 21 : 25, ov5' avrbv oliuu xwoto'*"', the negative does go with oltiai. But this is hardly true in Mk. 7 : 24, nor in Ac. 26 : 26. Besides ov occurs in a number of clauses dependent on the inf., as in Heb. 7: 11; Ro. 8 : 12; Ac. 10 :41; Ro. 7:6; 15: 20; Heb. 13: 9; 1 Cor. 1 : 17; Ac. 19 : 27. For the discussion of these passages see Infinitive, ch. XX, 5, (Q. .It is proper to say that in the N. T. we still have remnants of the old use of of) with the inf., though in general fiij is the negative. In Ro. 15 : 20 obx owov after eiayyeXi^eadai. stands in sharp contrast with aXXa Kodiiis. In 2 Cor. 13 : 7 we have /ii) Toifjcrai i/jias KaKov iiTjhkv, ovx 'iva — AW Iva where the obx is clearly an addendum. Burton' explains ds oWkv Xoyicdrjvai in Ac. 19 : 27, "as a fixed phrase," but even so it is in use. Besides, there is /t'7 'Koyotiaxetv kir' ov8iv XP^ai-lMv in 2 Tim. 2 : 14. See also koL oii after Siart 8ov\evet,v in Ro. 7 : 6. The use of ovSiv with the inf. after ob with the prin- cipal verb is common enough. Cf. Mk. 7 : 12; Lu. 20 : 40; Jo. 3 : 27; 5 : 30; Ac. 26 : 26, etc. Burton* notes that in the N. T. ov tu>vov occurs always (cf. Jo. 11 : 52; Ac. 21 : 13; 26 : 29; 27: 10; Ro. 4 : 12, 16; 13 : 5; 2 Cor. 8 : 10; Ph. 1 : 29; 1 Th. 2 : 8) ex- cept once ah) twvov in Gal. 4 : 18. The use of ov imvov occurs both in limiting clauses and in the sentence viewed as a whole. (vi) The Participle. There is little to add to what was given on 1 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 430. » N. T. M. and T., p. 184. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255. * lb., p. 183 f. PARTICLES (aI HAPAeHKAl) 1163 the subject of oii and fiTj with the participle under the Verbal As- pects of the Participle (see Verl^l 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 ov. At any rate ov is well established in Homer. We may simply accent the fact that the encroachment of /iij on ou with the participle gives all the greater emphasis to the examples of ob which re- main. Cf. 6 ovK Siv TToiiiiiv (Jo. 10 : 12); cos ovk Skpoiv (1 Cor. 9 : 26). There is no trouble in seeing the force of ob 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 ou. So t6v ob \a6v in Ro. 9 : 25 (LXX), oi Xa6s in 1 Pet. 2 : 10 (LXX), 'stt' oiK Wvei in Ro. 10 : 19 (D? «i Deut. 82 : 21). But this is by no means a Hebraism, since it is common in the best Greek writers. Cf. ij oil SiaXvais in Thuc. 1, 137. 4 and 17 ovk k^ovcia in 5, 50. 3. Cf. OVK apxiepkos in 2 Macc. 4 : 13. As Thayer well says, ov in this construction "annuls the idea of the noun." The use of od to deny a single word is common, as in ov dvdav (Mt. 9:13). Cf. OVK k/ik in Mk. 9 : 37. In general for ov with exceptions see ouk ev ao4>lol (1 Cor. 1:26). What is note- worthy is the litotes so common in the N. T. as in the older Greek. Cf . iht' oh iroKv (Ac. 27 : 14) ; /ier' ov ttoXXos i^/iepas (Lu. 15 : 13); ovk 6\lya (Ac. 17:4); ok dtri^Mou (21: 39). Cf. ou/c k /xt- Tpov (Jo. 3 : 34); ov ixerpius (Ac. 20 : 12). Ou irds and -n-Ss ov have received discussion under Adjectives, and so just a word will suffice. Ou iraaa (rkp^ (1 Cor. 15 : 39) is 'not every kind of flesh.' Cf. oil iravrl tQ \aQ (Ac. 10: 41); ou -iravTts (Mt. 19 : 11); ou Traj/Tws (1 Cor. 5 : 10). But ok 6.v kadidv irdaa a&p^ (Mt. 24: 22) means 'no flesh,' like the Hebrew sJ-ia. The construction in both senses is more common in John than in the Synoptic Gospels. It is perhaps worth while to note the use of ovSkv or oWkv (1 Cor. 13 : 2) as an abstract neuter in the predicate. In general, attention should be called to the distinction made by the Greeks between negativing a word and a sentence. This is one reason why with the imper., subj. and inf. we find oi) with 1 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 juij is the normal negative of the clause. (e) Kai Oil. In general when a positive clause is followed by a negative we have Kai 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, Br}(T€Tai (Mt. 10 : 26) ; ttiSs oii votlTe 8tl ov, ktK. (16 : 10) ; oii roXuria-u tl \a\etv Siv oil KareLpyaaaro Xptirros (Ro. 15 :18); oiiic oMare on — ov Khqpovonij- ffovcLv (1 Cor. 6:9). In Mt. 24:2 oii follows oii uri. See also Lu. 8 : 17. The uses of p.ri ov and oii /J17 are treated later. But note oii, p.ri TTore — kKpi^ixrrire (Mt. 13 : 29) where ov stands alone. The solemn repetition of ov — oii in 1 Cor. 6 : 10 is rhetorical. Qi) The Intensifying Compound Negative. We have seen how ov can be made stronger by xt (pvxl, as in Lu. 1:60). Brug- maim' considers this an intensive particle and different from the Homeric' kI (ov-kI) which is like rt (nis, kl, rts, tl). So also oii5« was originally just oii 5e ('and not,' 'but not') and is often so printed in Homer.* In the sense of 'not even' see Mt. 6 : 29. The form ohStls is intensive also, originally 'not one indeed'^ and was sometimes printed oii5^ els (Ro. 3 : 10) for even stronger emphasis. But ov — tk also occurs (Jo. 10:28). Cf. also oii5^ Tcs (Mt. 11: 27); oii Shvv ert (Lu. 16 : 2); oOre — rts (Ac. 28 : 21); 1 Cf. W. H. S. Jones., CI. Rev., Mar., 1910. = Griech. Gr., p. 528. * lb. » Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 259. ' Brug., Gj-iech. Gr., p. 528. PARTICLES (aI HAPAGHKAI) 1165 o{i — iroTi{2 Pet. 1:21). The adverbial form oiSkv occasionally occurs in Homer. The form oWek (cf. Ac. 26 : 26), which flour- ished for a limited period in the koluti, has already had sufficient discussion. Various other compound negatives were built up on ov, as ovSaiiSis (Mt. 2:6); omirca (Jo. 20 : 9) ; ovdeTrore (Mt. 7 : 23) ; ovK€TL (Mt. 19 : 6). OvKovv was used so much in questions that it lost its negative force (Jo. 18 : 37), unless one writes it oiKovu. OSre 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 ovdi and olne belongs to the discussion of conjunctions (cf. ovre — oire — ovSk in Ac. 24 : 12 f .),. but the examples in the N. T. of the other compound negatives with ov are numerous. Farrar^ gives some good illustrations of old English. " No Sonne were he never so old of years might not marry," Ascham, Scholemaster. Modern 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 likewise the He'brew uses two negatives to strengthen each other (cf. 1 Ki. 10 : 21; Is. 5 : 9). A good example is Mk. 5:3, oi}8i oMti ovdeis. So ovdels outtcj (11:2). The commonest kind of example is like ov 5vvaa6t touXv ovS^v (Jo. 15 : 5). Cf. 2 Cor. 11:8. Another instance of triple negative is Lu. 23 : 53, oiK rjv ov5eh odwoi. The ov is sometimes amplified' by ovre — ovre as in Mt. 12 : 32, as well as by ov5k — ovSt as in Jo. 1 : 25. Plato shows four negatives, ovdevl ovda^rj ovSanSis ov5efiiav KOivuvlap (Phaedo 78 d). The combinations with od m may also be noticed, as oiibh ov ixi] (Lu. 10 : 19); ov ixri ae avw oOS' ov. iii] ae hyKaToKiToi (Heb. 13 : 5); oiiKhi. ov nii (Rev. 18 : 14). There is no denying the power of this accumulation of negatives. Cf. the English hymn "I'll never, no, never, no, never forsake." (t) The Disjunctive Negative. We frequently have oh "where one thing is denied that another may be established."* Here « W.-Th., p. 499. ' Cf. W.-Th., p. 499. 2 Gk. Synt., p. 189. ■• Thayer's Lex., p. 461. 1166 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT there is sharp antithesis. The simplest form is ov — 5e as in Jas. 2 : 11, or ov — dXXa as in Mt. 15 : 11; Mk. 5 : 39; Lu. 8 : 52; Ac. 5 : 4; 1 Cor. 15 : 10; 2 Cor. 3 : 3, etc. In Jo. 7 : 22 we have ovx oTi — aWa, as also in Ph. 4 : 17. In Ph. 4 : 11 obx on oc- curs alone without dXXd. In 2 Cor. 7 : 9 we have ovx otl — dXX' oTi. In 1 Jo. 2 : 21 we have om Irypail/a, iifilv 6ti — dXX' otl where more naturally we might expect 'iypa\ffa oix otl — dXX' otl. Winer' makes rather overmuch of the possible rhetorical dis- tinctions between the varying shades of emphasis in the differ- ent contexts where ov — dXXd occur. Cf . further oiix 'Lva — &Wa. (Jo. 6 :38); ovx Lva — aW I'm (Jo. 3 : 17). We usually have ov ixbvov — dXXd Kai (Jo. 5:18; Ro. 1:32, etc.), but sometimes merely ov iwvov — dXXd (Ac. 19 : 26; 1 Jo. 5:6). Sometimes the negative is not expressed, but is to be supplied in thought as in Mt. 11: 7-9. Then again we may have only the negative as in oil ^poiiiaaLv (Heb. 13: 9), leaving the contrast to be supplied in the thought. The contrast may even be expressed by Kai ov as in Mt. 9 : 13, eXeos SeXco /cat ov dvalav (LXX). But we have already entered the sphere of the conjunctions as in the parallel oiiTe — Kai in Jo. 4 : 11. So 3 Jo. 10. 2. The Subjective Negative M»; and Its Compounds. (a) The History of Mij. The Ionic, Attic and Doric dialects have /t!7, the Eleatic has nd, like the Sanskrit rm. In the old Sanskrit ma was used only in independent sentences, while vkd occurred in dependent clauses.^ In the later Sanskrit rm crept into the dependent clauses also. It was originally a prohibitive particle with the old injunctive which was in the oldest San- skrit always negative with ma? In the later Sanskrit nm was extended to the other modes. In the Greek we see m'7 extended to wish and then denial.^ Wharton^ undertakes to show that /iij is primarily an interrogative, not a prohibitive or negative par- ticle, but that is more than doubtful. Already in Homer " iiii had estabUshed itself in a large and complex variety of uses, to which we have to appeal when we seek to know the true nature of the modal constructions as we come to them."^ The distinc- tion between ov and p,ij goes back to Indo-Germanic stock and has > W.-Th., pp. 495 ff. 2 Thompson, Synt., p. 448; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 528. « Thompson, ib., p. 499. * Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 260. » The Gk. Indirect Negative, 1892, p. 1. Cf. also Babbitt, The Use of M4 in Questions, Harv. Stu. (Goodwin Vol.). « Moulton, Prol., p. 170. PARTICLES (aI HAPAeHKAl) 1167 survived into modern Greek. But from the very start m made inroads on oi, so that finally /ii} occupies much of the field. In the modern Greek ^17 is used exclusi^ly with participle, in prohibi- tions and with the subj. except in conditions, and occurs with va (va nil) and the ind. Gildersleevei has shown in a masterly way how fii] made continual encroachments on oi. In the N. T., out- side of ti oil, the advance of nri is quite distinct, as Gildersleeve shows is true even of Lucian. So as to the papyri and the inscrip- tions. The exact Attic refinements between ov and /117 are not reproduced, though on the whole the root-distinction remains.'' (6) Significance of Mij. Max Miiller' gives an old Sanskrit phrase, mt, khphalaya, 'not for unsteadiness,' which pretty well gives the root-idea of a"?. It is an "unsteady" particle, a hesi- tating negative, an indirect or subjective denial, an effort to pre- vent (prohibit) what has not yet happened. It is the negative of will, wish, doubt. If ov denies the fact, /i^ denies the idea. M17 made one advance on ov. It came to be used as a conjunction. We see this use of ma in the late Sanskrit.* But the origin of this conjunctional use of ti.ii is undoubtedly paratactic in clauses of both fear and purpose.* It is obviously so in indirect questions' where /iij suggests 'perhaps.' Campbell' argues that "the whole question of the Greek negatives is indeterminate." This is an extreme position, but there is no doubt a border-line between ov and fiii which is very narrow at times. One's mood and tone have much to do with the choice of ov or /^ij. Cf. Jo. 4:29, juij TL ovTos kcTiv 6 XpKTTos; whcrc ov would have challenged the op- position of the neighbours by taking sides on the question whether Jesus was the Messiah. The woman does not mean to imply flatly that Jesus is not the Messiah by using firi ti, but she raises the question and throws a cloud of uncertainty and curiosity over it with a woman's keen instinct. In a word, fiii is just the nega- tive to use when one does not wish to be too positive. Mij leaves the question open for further remark or entreaty. Ov closes the door abruptly.* The LXX uses ij.ii for is. • Encroachments of M^ on 06 in Later Gk., Am. Jour, of Philol., I, pp. 45 ff. " Moulton, Prol., p. 170. Cf. also Birke, De Particularum uri et oi> Usu Polybiano Dionysiaeo Diodoreo Straboniano, 1897, p. 14 f. 2 Oxford Inaugural Lecture, Note C. * Thompson, SjTit., p. 448. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 192 f . « lb. ' On Soph. Trach., 90. 8 Cf. Postgate, Contrasts of Oi and Mi}, Cambridge Philol. Jour., 1886. 1168 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (c) Uses of Mr). In general we may follow the outline of oi. (i) The Indicative. Blass' expounds the two negatives by say- ing that "ov negatives the indicative, fi'fi the other moods, includ- ing the infinitive and participle." But, unfortunately, the case is not so simple as that. "In reviewing Blass, Thumb makes the important addition that in modern Greek Ski/ belongs to the indicative and /u)j(y) to the subjunctive."^ But 8iv occurs in the protasis with the subj. in modern Greek, as we have seen. Be- sides, as Moulton' adds, "ixij has not been driven away from the indicative" in the N. T. It may be said at once that /iij with the indicative is as old as historic Greek.* The Sanskrit sug- gests that originally nv was not used with the indicative. But already in Homer yitij occurs with the indicative in prohibition, wish, oath, fear, question.^ "The essence of these idioms is the combination of the imperative tone — which shows itself in the particle — with the mood proper to simple assertion."* But in the N. T. we no longer have fiii with the fut. ind. in prohibition, except in case of oi ixi). In independent sentences we have ixi} with the indicative only in questions. "It's use in questions is very distinct from that of oh and is maintained in the N. T. Greek without real weaken- ing."' In Jo. 21:5, ^ratSta, jii) rt 7rpo(r0a7tov ^x^re; we have a typical example with the answer ov. Blass* expresses needless objection to this "hesitant question," as Moulton rightly ex- pounds it. Cf. Jo. 4:33; 7:26; and Ro. 11:1, n^ aTcoaan; with the answer in verse 2, om aTisaaro. See Jo. 7 : 51, where Nicodemus adroitly uses fi^i in a question and the sharp retort of the other members of the Sanhedrin ;ui) /cai ah; The difference between ob and /x-q in questions is well shown in Jo. 4 : 33, 35. In the use of jui? the answer in mind is the one expected, not always the one actually received as is illustrated in the question of the apostles at the last passover. They all asked fir] n eyco eijut, pa/3- jSet; The very thought was abhorrent to them, 'It surely is not I.' ^ But Judas, who did not dare use ov, received the affirmative answer, cv eliras (Mt. 26 : 25). Mi} rt comes to be used intensively much like oix' (both chiefiy in questions). In the case of /iij oh » Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 253. » Moulton, Prol., p. 170. » lb. * Vierke, De m4 Particulae cum Indicativo Conjunctae Usu Antiquiore, 1876. ' Monro, Horn. Gr., pp. 260 £f. « lb., p. 261. ' Moulton, Prol., p. 170 f . Moulton gives an interesting note on the use of TTaiSla as "lads" in the mod. Gk. 8 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 254. » lb., p. 254. PARTICLES (aI nAPAGHKAl) 1169 in questions (Ro. 10 : 17f.; I Cor. 9 :4f.; 11:22) iii, is the in- terrogative particle while oh is th^negative of the verb. In dependent clauses ixi) occurs with the indicative with the second class conditions (e£ nif) always except in Mt. 26 : 24 (Mk. 14 : 21). Cf . tl (XT) in Jo. 15 : 22, etc. There are also four instances of d ij,ri with the ind. in conditions of the first class.' So Mk. 6:5; 1 Cor. 15 : 2; 2 Cor. 13 : 5; Gal. 1:7. We have fir) in a few relative clauses, as a /xi) 5et (Tit. 1 : 11); (J jui? Trapeanv ravra (2 Pet. 1:9); S A"? 6iJ.o\oy€i (1 Jo. 4 : 3, W. H. text). Cf. Ac- 15 : 29 D. There is a certain aloofness about /xri here that one can feel as in Plato who, "with his sensitiveness to subtle shades of meaning, had in nii an instrument singularly adapted for purposes of reserve, irony, politeness or suggestion." ^ This use of lirj with the relative and indicative is clearly a remnant of the literary construction.' This literary use of /iij with the relative was often employed to charac- terize or describe in a subjective way the relative. There is a soli- tary instance of fiii in a causal sentence, on jir\ TiTriarevKev (Jo. 3 : 18), which may be contrasted with on ov irevlanvKiv (1 Jo. 5: 10). For on ixri ex«« see Epictetus, IV, 10. 34, and on aot. ob, IV, 10. 35. Radermacher (N. T. Or., p. 171) quotes (t>aalv on ah? 8et, Diog. of Oinoanda, Fragm. IV, 1. 9. There is, besides, eirel amj rare ivxvti, in Heb. 9 : 17, according to the text of W. H., though they give in the margin kird ni] irore — biadknevos; In that case (the marginal reading) ni) von would introduce a question. See further Causal Clauses. In clauses of design we have I'm yef) with the ind., as in Rev. 9 : 4, Iva firi abiKijaovcLv. The margin of W. H. in 13 : 17 has ha nil TLs SiiTOTai. Moulton* explains fi.ri with the ind. after verbs of apprehension as not originally a conjunction, but nii in the sense of 'perhaps' (paratactic, not hypotactic). So Lu. 11:35, cKOTei nil TO (l>S>s — ffKOTOi eanv. Cf. also Col. 2:8; Heb. 3 : 12; Gal. 4: 11; 1 Th. 3:5. The papyri give abundant parallels. Moulton {Prol., p. 193) cites ayoivia a"7 to'"« apputrrei, P. Par. 49 (ii/B.c). The use of ij.ii as a conjunction in clauses of design and fear with the indicative is parallel to the use of the negative par- ticle fiii, but does not fall here for discussion. (ii) The Subjunctive. After all that has been said it is obvious that iMii was destined to be the negative of the subj., first of the volitive and dehberative uses and finally of the futuristic also. The few remnants of od with the subj. have already been dis- cussed. For the rest the normal and universal negative of the 1 Moulton, Prol., p. 171. » Moulton, Prol., p. 171. ' ' Thompson, Synt., p. 441. * lb., p. 192. 1170 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT subj. is JU17. Cf. Ml) evKaK&fiev (Gal. 6 : 9). In Mk. 12 : 14, Su/iev rj fiif bSinev; (cf. ov just before), we see how well /ti? suits this delibera- tive question. The use of /ii? with the aor. subj. in prohibitions need not be further stressed. Wherever the subj. in a dependent clause has a negative (save after the conjunction /tjj after verbs of fearing) the negative is /ii). Cf. Ss av lift ixv (Lu. 8 : 18); tva nil tkdriTe (Mk. 14 : 38), etc. It is needless to give more examples. (iii) The Optative. It is only the optative of wish that uses /tij. It was rare to have the negative precative optative in the old Sanskrit.! Bu^ already in Homer /ttij is used with the optative for a future wish. In the N. T. there is no example of fiii with the optative except in wish. It is seen chiefly in /xi) yhoiro, as in Ro. 3 : 4, 6, 31 ; Gal. 6 : 14, etc. But note also the curse of Jesus on the fig-tree in Mk. 1 1 : 14, fir/deis Kaprdv (j)a.yoL. (iv) The Imperative. It seems that the imperative was origin- ally used only affirmatively and the injunctive originally only negatively with via. The oldest Sanskrit does not use rim with the imperative.^ In Homer we find once jui) hdeo (II., IV, 410) and once lifi Karabbaeo {II., XVIII, 134) and once /ii) aKovaaroj (Od., XVI, 301). The second person aorist imper. in prohibitions did not take root and the third person only sparingly (in the N. T.). See Mt. 6 : 3, Ml? yvuru.^ The original negative injunctive ap- pears in the form firi Troi^o-ns (Latin ne feceris). The imperative in Greek follows the analogy of this construction and uses fiij uniformly. Cf. Lu. 11: 7, /*^ ij.ol kottous iraptxe. For the difference between nii with the present imperative and firi with the aorist subjunctive see Tenses and Modes. Cf. Mk. 13 : 21, nfi wKTrevere, with Lu. 12 : 11, firi /lepifivriariTe, and fifi ^o^tiaBt with jxi] ^o^ifirJTt (Mt. 10 : 28, 31). It is obviously natural for /J17 to be used with the imperative. For a delicate turn from oh to ij,r\ see Jo. 10 : 37. But Radermacher {N. T. Gr., p. 171) cites ovbivl k^karia from an inscr, (Benndorf -Niemann, Reisen in Lykien und Karien, 129 N. 102). (v) The Infinitive. As we have already seen, the oldest Sanskrit inf. did not use the negative particles, and in Homer^ ov appears to be the original negative. But there are a few instances of /xri with the inf. in Homer. They occur when the inf. is used as an im- perative (cf. in the N. T. 1 Cor. 5 : 9; 2 Th. 3 : 14), for an oath, a wish or an indirect command. It is thus from the imperative and other finite modes that nii crept into constant use with the inf. 1 Thompson, Synt., p. 499. ' lb. ' lb., p. 495 f. * Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 263. PARTICLES (aI HAPAeHKAl) 1171 It came to be the normal idiom with the inf. outside of indirect assertion and in antithetical or eiiftphatic phrases (see under ov). Thompson! challenges the statement of Gildersleeve: "Not till the infinitive came to represent the indicative (in indirect state- ment) could ou have been tolerated with the infinitive." Thomp- son adds: "But this toleration is established in Homer." Just as we saw m4 make inroads on ov in other constructions (cf. parti- ciples), so it was with the inf. Even in indirect statement firi came to be the rule (cf. the Atticist Lucian). Even in the Attic ov did not always occur with the inf. in indirect statement.^ The facts as to the use of ixji with the inf. in the N. T. have been already given (see Infinitive and Indirect Discourse). Cf., for instance, \eyovvTov. So as to verse 8 and Tit. 1 : 7. There is no difficulty as to the use of ixr\ in Col. 3 : 2 and 2 Th. 3 : 6. (d) The Intensifying Compounds with Mij. The same story in the main that we found with oi is repeated with iii). There is no tirixh but we have ixi]ri. in this sense. The examples in the N. T. are all in questions (cf. Mt. 7: 16: Jo. 18 : 35) except one, ei nr)Ti (Lu. 9 : 13). The position of ni] may give it emphasis as in Jas. 3 : 1 (cf. oh in Mt. 15 : 11). The use of the compound 1 Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 263. ' Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 231 f. * Thompson, Synt., p. 255. * Thompson, Synt., p. 410 f. PAKTICLES (aI HAPAeHKAl) 1173 negative as a second (or third) negative is simply to. strengthen the negative as is true of oh. Cf. Mk. 11 : 14 /ij/Ktrt iiriM% 4>a.yoi., (Ac. 25 : 24) kTilSoSivres fiij deiv avT%> fflv fxriKkri., (Ro. 13 : 8) firidevl tiriSev 6(t>€i\€Te, (2 Cor. 13 : 7) a"? — nv^h, etc. Besides itujSeis there is firieh (Ac. 27:33), ntjSk in the sense of 'not even' (Eph. 5 : 3), fivye (Mt. 6:1), ju'/SsTore (2 Tim. 3:7), nvdi-iru (Heb. 11: 7), litiKkri (Mlc. 9 : 25), nviroTe (margin of W. H. in Heb. 9 : 17. Else- where in the N. T. a conjunction), /XT/Sa^ws (Ac. 10 : 14), firiwov (Ac. 27:29), ^iiTroi (Ro. 9:11), fivr^ye (1 Cor. 6:3), Mi?ris (2 Th. 2:3). Mrjirm is only a conjunction in the N. T. If /^jj is followed by ov as in 1 Jo. 3 : 10, 6 /ii) toluv 5iKaioofiov dXXd XdXei, Ac. 18 : 9. We have tiri — it^iiv in Lu. 23 : 28. In Lu. 10 : 20 we really have /i^ on — U on. Moulton {Prol., 240) does not find ixrt on in the N. T., but considers mnyt in p. 1 Cor. 6 : 3 as tantamount to it. See Jo. 13 : 9 for iii) iibvov — dXXd Kal. So Ph. 2 : 12. We need not trench further upon the conjunctions. 3. Combination of the Two Negatives. (a) M17 oh. This is very simple. It is in the N. T. confined to questions where /uij 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 {Prol., p. 192) quotes > Cf. W.-Th., p. 494. 1174 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Plato's Prolog. 312 A, aXX' apa jui) oOk iiroXanfiaveLi. Cf. also jui) ovxl in Jer. 23 : 24. So Ro. 10 : 18, /«) oOk rJKovaav; 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 firi comes in one part of the question and oii in the other. We do have /lii TTOJs ovx evpu after o^ovii.aL in 2 Cor. 12 : 20, but here /ui) is a conjunction and ohx is the negative of eiipw, both retaining their full force. The construction in 1 Jo. 3 : 10 is not pertinent. (6) Ov fiij. The use of ob — juiJ in Ac. 4 : 20 is not under discus- sion, nor the redundant iii] after oi) (Ac. 20: 20, 27), but only the idiomatic oi /xii with the aorist subj. (rarely present) or occasion- ally the fut. ind. Cf. ov lii) ayo}, oi fii) Ttlvca in the boy's letter, P. Oxy. 119 (ii/iii a.d.). See Is. 11 : 9, oi /ii) KaKOTroiijcovciv oidi tiT) bivusvTai. Whatever the origin of this vexed problem, the neg- ative is strengthened, not destroyed, by the two negatives. We need not here recount- the various theories already mentioned.^ See Tense and Mode. Let it go at Gildersleeve's suggestion that it was originally oi)- /iij. Moulton {Prol., p. 249) quotes Giles to the effect that this explanation was offered in the Middle Ages (the ancients have all our best ideas) and notes "in one if not both of the best MSS. of Aristophanes it is regularly punctuated oi;' jxi}." In Mt. 13 : 29 we have oi) • ^ij irore — kptf coo-jjTe where nii is a conjunction. Gildersleeve notes that oi ixi] is more common in the LXX and the N. T. than in the classic Greek.^ But Moul- ton {Prol, pp. 187-192) will not let it go at that. "In the LXX xb is translated oi or oi fiii indifferently within a single verse, as in Is. 5 : 27." It seems probable that the force of oi ni\ has worn down in the LXX and the N. T. In the non-literary pa- pyri "oi fir] is rare, and very emphatic," Moulton notes. He urges also that in spite of the 96 examples in the text of W. H. the idiom in the N. T. is as rare as in the papyri when the 13 LXX quotations and the 57 from the words of Christ are removed, "a feeling that inspired language was fitly rendered by words of a peculiarly decisive tone." But in these 70 examples the force of oi fi'fi is still strong. Of the other 26 some are probably weak- ened a bit as in Mt. 25 : 9; Mk. 13 : 2; Jo. 18 : 11. It is only in the Gospels and the Apocalypse (64 and 16 respectively) that oi firi occurs with frequency. It is interesting to observe that on this point Moulton gets the Gospels and Revelation in har- » Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 389 ff.; Thompson, Synt., pp. 431-138. ' Justin Martyr, p. 169. PARTICLES (aI HAPAeHKAl) 1175 mony with the papyri by eliminating the 70 passages due to Semitic influence. Cf. Gildersleeve {A. J. P., iii, 202 ff.) and Bal- lentine {ib., xviii, 453 ff.)- But Rftdermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 172) explains Mt. 24 : 21, ol'a — ov8' ov /«) yevriTai, not as a Hebraism, but as a "barbarism" like the Wesseley Papyrus xxvi, obS' oi iiii ykvriTaL fiot yvvri. He quotes also Pap. Lugd. II, p. 107, 9, kav dkXvs yvvaiKas ov fii) (TxeBrjmi,. Cf. ov nij aSiKriOfi (Rev. 2 : 11) ; oii firi icrrai (Mt. 16 : 22). There is a climax in Rev. 7 : 16, ov — ov5k — ovSk /ij) iriafi. Even oii /xri was not strong enough sometimes, so that we have ovSk and ov fir] in Heb. 13 : 5, oi ixij v, where the "connective" force of /cat is certainly very slight. So also Jo. 20 : 30, ^XXd /cat aXXa arifieia. See further Jo. 1 : 16, Kai x^^pi-v ^vtI xAptTos, where the clause is an explanatory addition. Cf . (Ac. 22 : 25) /cai LKarUpiTov, (1 Cor. 2 : 2) /cat tovtov karavpunevov, (Ro. 13 : 11) /cat tovto (Latin idgue) which is our 'and that too' where we combine 'and' and 'also' ('too') in the Kai, (Heb. 11 : 12) Kai raCra (frequent in ancient 1 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, /cai tovto ovk ef i/jiSiv, where TovTo refers to the whole conception, not to x'^P'-ti- 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 Seos koX irarrip (2 Cor. 1:3); KoXjJ Kal aya6y (Lu. 8 : 15). But the words may be very loosely joined in idea, as ol $opi(rotoi Kal SaSSouKotot (Mt. 16 : 1). Kai may be used to connect all sorts of words, clauses and sen- tences. Thus Xe7co "Epxou, Kal epxerai (Mt. 8:9). The use of Kai after the imperative is seen in Mt. 11:29. The chain with Kai 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 (mt to connect ort clauses). In Rev. 12-16 every paragraph and most of the sen- tences begin with /cat. 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 Kai translates the Hebrew "]. But Thumb' has found this repetition of Kai in Aristotle so that the Hebrew influence simply intensified a Greek idiom. We have noted the use of /cat with re (rk — /cat. Cf. Ro. 1 : 20). The use of /cat — /cat is far more common in the sense of ' both — and' as in Ac. 2 : 29, /cot kTtktvrrtae /cat kra^. 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 /cat — ^. Cf. Kav — K&v (Lu. 12 : 38). A. Brinkmann contends that in the papyri and late Greek kolv 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 /cat — /cat — Kal ob (so Jo. 6 : 36), and in Jo. 17 : 25 /cat ov — &i — /cat. It is usual to have /cat oh after an affirmative clause as in Jo. 10 : 35. Cf. /cai Ml? in 2 Cor. 9 : 5. See Negative Particles. In Lu. 12 : 6 /cat ob follows a question with ouxi- Kat connects two negative sentences in Lu. 6 :37. For oCre — /cat see Jo. 4 : 11. Sometimes /cat be- gins a sentence when the connection is with an unexpressed idea. Children use "and" thus often in telling stories and asking questions. Cf. koI uv ?ja9a in Mt. 26 : 70 (and 73) fike Et tu, Brute. See also Mk. 10 : 26, Kal rts SvmTat, ffbidrjvaL. So also Lu. 10 : 29; Jo. 9 : 36; 2 Cor. 2 : 2. Cf. also the use of /cat in parenthesis as in Ro. 1 : 13, /cot eKcoXWriv S-xpi-. to^ Sevpo. The context gives other turns to /cot 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 HAPAeHKAl) 1183 3 : 19; 4 : 20; 6 : 49; 7 : 30; 1 Jo. 2 : 9. The examples are common m John's Gospel (Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 135 ff.). See Jer. 23 : 21. In Mk. 4 : 4 note ^^i" - kciL. In 1 (Jpr. 10 : 21 we have ob - Kai in contrast. Cf. also Mt. 3 : 14, Kai ai, ipxv Tp6s fu; So also Ph. 1 : 22, Kai Ti alpijaoiMi. 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 (ob — /cat) ; Mk. 12 : 12; Lu. 20 : 19; Jo. 18 : 28. Tholuck' so takes ml in Ro. 1 : 13 (the parenthetical /coi). Sometimes Kai seems imitative of the Hebrew 1 by almost having the sense of 5ti or -Iva ('that') as in Mt. 26: 15; Mk. 14:40; Lu. 9:51; 12: 15. In particular note Kai iyivtro nal (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 v& or iroO, declarative and even consecutive (Thumb, Handb., p. 184). In Mk. 3 : 7 Kai comes near taking the place of 6, for in the next verse there are five instances of Koi co-ordinate with each other, but subordinate to Kai in verse 7. Sometimes after Kai we may supply 'so' as in Kai XaAwret, Mt. 5 : 15; Kai fiXkwofiev, 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, f/p &pa Tpirri Kai iaravputrav (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 Koi idov in the apodosis, ' and behold,' as in Lu. 7 : 12. In 2 Tim. 2 : 20 note Koi followed by a nev — a St. In Ph. 4: 16 note Kai thrice (one='even,' two = 'both — and'). (iii) Ak. This conjunction is generally ranked wholly as an ad- versative particle.* Monro* says: "The adversative 6e 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 Spracherklarung d. N. T., p. 35. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 262. * So Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 407. 8 lb. » Horn. Gr., p. 245. 1184 A GRAMMAR OF 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 -8e (otKa-Se, o-Se, TO(x6s-8t), while Hartung' connects it with Svo, Sis, and Baumlein^ with dtv-repos. The enclitic -5e thus means 'again/ 'back,' while the conjunction 5e would mean 'in the second place' or 'a second comment' or 'an important addi- tion' (517). 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 rk and /cat. I prefer therefore to begin with the narra- tive and transitional (copulative) use of 5e. Kiihner-Gerth^ call this use of 8t for 'something new' {elwas Neues) copulative and give it separate discussion. Abbott^ has the matter correctly: "In classical Greek, 5k, calling 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 8e 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 8e 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 Sk, which appears with every name alike. In Mt. 23 : 4 we have both uses of St. The first is properly translated 'yea' and the second 'but' (adversative). See further 1 Cor. 4: 7.(Se and 5^ /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 8k for special emphasis, as 8iKau)(rvvri Sk in Ro. 3 : 22 (cf. 9 :30). A new topic may be introduced by 8k 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 Sk in explanatory parenthesis is seen in Jo. 3 : 19 ('And this is,' etc.); 19 : 23 ('Now the coat,' etc.). For 01s 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. ■> Joh. Gr., p. 104. PARTICLES (aI nAPAGHKAi) 1185 as elsewhere it is sometimes not clear whether 8i is copulative or adversative. Cf. 3:1, fjv 8k. Is Nicodemus an illustration or an exception?! The resumptive use of 8k, 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 /cai 8e, as in Lu. 1 : 76, Kal av 8k, where 8k means 'and' and /cat 'also' Cf. further Mt. 10 : 18; 16 : 18; Jo. 15 : 27. In Jo. 6 : 51 we have koX 8k in the apodosis of the condition in this sense. A^ 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. 9:1) as shown in chapter on Sentence. In accord with the copulative use of 8k we frequently have ov8k and ix7)8k in the continuative sense, carrying on the negative with no idea of contrast. Cf. Mt. 6 : 26, ov crireipova-iv oiSk depi^oviriv oi8e (jwayovaiv. So also 6 : 28; Mk. 4 : 22, etc. In Jo. '7 ; 5, oi)8k yap, we have ov8k in the sense of 'not even' as often (Mt. 6 : 29, etc.). In Mt. 6 : 15 ovSk means 'not also' (cf. also 21 :27, etc.). All three uses of Kal are thus paralleled in ov8k (merely ov 8k). For li7)Sk in the continuative sense see Mt. 7:6. It means 'not even* in 1 Cor. 5 : 11. For the repetition of continuative firjSk see 1 Cor. 10 : 7-10. In Mk. 14 : 68, oire oUa oiire kiricTanai (some MSS. oiiK — oi8k), we come pretty close to having aire — oOre in the merely continuative sense as we have in oiire — Kal (Jo. 4:11; 3 Jo. 10). (iv) 'AXXa. Here there is no doubt at all as to the etymol- ogy. 'AXXa is a virtual proclitic (cf . cti and kirl), and the neuter plural was aXXa (aXXo, 'other things'). Baumlein^ does take dXXA as originally an adverb. But in reaUty it is 'this other matter'^ (cf. ravra and tovto). In actual usage the adversative came to be the most frequent construction, but the original copulative held on to the N. T. period. It is a mistake to infer that AXXos means 'something different.' In itself it is merely 'another.' Like 8k the thing introduced by dXXa is something new, but not essentially in contrast.* So the classic Greek used dXXo fii]v in the emphatic continuative sense.^ Blassi^ observes that "the simple dXXd also has this force of introducing an accessory idea." Cf. 2 Cor. 7: 11, irSffriv KareLpyaa-aro ifuv a-Trov8riv, dXXd airoKoyiav, dXXd ayavaKTrjaiv, dXXd <^6/3oj', dXXd einirodriaiv, dXXd f^Xoy, dXXd kSiKijo-ti'. All these six examples are confirmatory and continuative. See further Lu. 24 : 21, dXXd ye mt avv irdaLv tovtoh, where it is cli- 1 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 105. * K.-G., II, p. 286. 2 Unters. iiber griech. Partikeln, p. 7. ' lb. ' Paley, Gk. Particles, p. 1. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 269. 1186 A GRAMMAB OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT macteric, not contradictory. The story is carried on by dXXo Kai in verse 22. Cf. also 2 Cor. 1 : 9; Lu. 12 : 7; 16 : 21. In Ph. 1 : 18, xO'i'p'^, clWA. Kal xapijo-o/iai, the connection is very close. The most striking example of all is Ph. 3 : 8, AXXA fievovvyi Kal riyovncu. In 2 Cor. 11 : 1, aXXa Kal avkxe'uii' 5k oh Tov aliavos rovrov, an exception is filed to the preceding. This adversative use of 5k is very common indeed. Cf. further Mk. 2:18; Lu. 5 : 5; 9 : 9, 13; 24: 21; Ac. 12 : 15; Ro. 8:9ff. (ii) 'AXXd. Just as oXXos (cf. 2 Cor. 11:4) can be used in the sense of eVepos (when it means 'different,' not merely 'second'), so 1 Joh. Gr., p. 100. 2 lb., p. 99. PARTICLES (aI nAPAOHKAl) 1187 dXXa, can mean 'another' in contrast to the preceding. With a negative the antithesis is sharp as in Lu. 1 : 60, ovxl, dXXa KXr/dii- cerai 'Iwavris. So Jo. 6 : 32, ov McoUfr^s — AXX' 6 Trarijp (cf. 6 :38). Cf. Mk. 9 :37; 1 Cor. 15:37. In verse 39 of 1 Cor. 15 note aWa aWri nh — aXXr; 5e where both dXXd and aXX?; have the no- tion of difference due to the context. In 1 Cor. 9 : 12 note dXXd twice. In Mt. 15 : 11 ov begins one clause and dXXd the other. Cf. 2 Cor. 4:5, oi yap iavroiis K'qpii e0' ^ "have entirely disappeared" (Thumb, Handb., p. 186). Thumb goes on with the story. We have cos in cav and (iare va.= 'until.' "Ort is gone before irov and va, though ottcos has revived. * On the relative origin of conjs. like 8ti, Sre, ottws, s, ?us see Baron, Le Pronom Relatif et la Conjonction, 1891, pp. 95 ff. ^ Cf . Nilsson, Die Kausalsatze im Griech. bis Arist. See also Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1907, p. 354 £. PARTICLES (,AI nAPAGHKAl) 1193 NA has greatly extended its functions. Some survive greatly inodified, like A0oO, kLv, dr^ — elre, kvQ, iireiS^, Tplv, cbj irov (e'ccj), TToO (oiroi;), TrporoD, etc. The parat^tic conjunctions are "pressed into service to form dependent clauses" as at the beginning. Parataxis turns into hypotaxis. VI. Interjections. Wineri 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 (ftye) 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 ISe in Jo. 1 : 29, 1'Se 6 &.ixvos tov Otov. Cf. Stvpo (Mk. 10:21), Stvre (Mt. 11:28). AeOpo is very vivid in Jo. 11:43, Adf ap€ SeOpo e^co. 'ISou is either used absolutely (Mt. 11: 10) or with the nominative (Rev. 4 : 1) and is of frequent occurrence. Kat i&oi) is good Greek, but its frequency reminds' one of the Hebrew idiom. We have ea 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, ohai, oval. Twice it is used with the accusative (Rev. 8 : 13; 12 : 12), as the object of thought. Usually the dative is found with oval as in Mt. 11 :- 21; Lu. 6 : 24 f.; 11 : 42. The word occurs mainly in Matthew and Luke. Sometimes we have S> with the vocative as in Mt. 15 : 28, Si 7^01. So Ac. 13 : 10; Ro. 2:1; Gal. 3 : 1. There is usually some vehemence or urgency when w is used. But not always. See Ac. 1:1; 18 : 14. In Ro. 10 : 15 cos is an exclamatory particle, as tI 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 Scaliger and Destutt de Tracy in regarding them as words far 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. ' Mtiller, De interjecfionum apud Sophoclem, Euripidem que Usu, 1885, p. 3. * Gk. Synt., p. 201. CHAPTER XXII FIGURES OF SPEECH (rOPriElA SXHMATA) 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, vcTtpov irpbrtpov, 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 comment. 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 {aiivBecrisy 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, • Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 295. * Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa, 1905. 1194 FIGURES OF SPEECH (ropriEiA sxhmata) 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 t\l 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 hke Polybius. We are surely not to look for the antithetic style of the Attic orators (Isocrates, Lysias, Demosthenes).' If there is esthetic beauty in 1 Cor. 13 or Heb. 11, it may be the natural aesthetic of Homer's rhapsodies, not the artificiahties 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- MoUendorff 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). 2 Hermeneutik und Kritik, 1892, p. 198. The true grammarian is but too willing-to see the other point of view. Cf . Gildersl., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1908, p. 266. 3 Hahne, Zur sprachl. Xsthetik der Griech., 1896, p. 4. * Hermeneutik und Kritik, p. 198. ' Cf. the controversy between him and Principal Garvie in The Expositor for 1911 anent Garvie's book, Studies of Paul and His Gospel (1911). « 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, hoiwever, 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 little 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 0. T. And yet, on the whole, the Greek runs 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 O. 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 • 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 pauhnische Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe, 1910. FIGURES OF SPEECH (rOPriEIA SXHMATa) 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 ^f 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 i 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 human 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 aypaixixaros Kai idicorris (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 untenable 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 Mtilheim" (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 follow the lead of 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 Hellen. d. Paiilus, Komm. zu II Kor.) sees Paul's "Eigenart." 2 Der Uterarische Charakter d. neut. Schriften, 1908. a Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 295. * Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romisohen Kunstprosa, 1905. 1198 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT in. Figures of Idea or Thought (o-x'»iK'<*^Ta Siavolas). 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 ri oh> to irtpuraov tov 'louSaiou; (4 : 10) xcos ovv tKoy'iaOr); ev irepi.Toij/g ovn ij iv aKpo^variq,; This is quite like the diatribe in Epictetus and other Koti'17 writers (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 182). Cf . 1 Cor. 7 : 18 ff. Other ques- tions are quite emotional, as in 2 Cor. 11 : 22. In Ro. 8 : 31-35 we have a "briUiant 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 light. 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, iSicoTt/oj (l>papa(n$. 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 (elpuvda) in the N. T. We see it in the words of Jesus. See the high scorn in nal ifieh irXripdoaare rb ukrpov Twv irarkpuv i/xSiv (Mt. 23 : 32). This is the correct text, not TKrtpoKreTe. So also /caXcos adereiTe Tr\v kvToKriv tov 6eov (Mk. 7 : 9) and oTi oiin hdhxiTOLL irpoiiTr]v 6.iro\ktTdai 'i^u 'lepovaaKrux (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 fnew 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, iv a^poavvxi \iyoi (cf. also 11 : 1 f., 16 f ., 23) and epidiorthosis, as in Ro. 3 : 5, Kara avdpcowov \iyu}. Cf. also 1 Cor. 7: 3; 12 : 11; Ro. 8 : 34; Gal. 4: 9. So Paul uses paraleipsis, as in 2 Cor. 9:4, /iri ttos KaTaurxwdunev fineis, Iva juj) \eywiiev u/xtTs, instead of ni] irore KaTaiaxvvdrJTe. As Blass' suggests, Paul's innate delicacy of feeling makes him take the reproach on himself. Cf. also Phil. 19, tva ni) \kyu! otl Kolatavrbv /xoi irpoao- ^d\tK. So in Ro. 7 : 4 Paul says Kal vfieis WavariidrtTe rQ vofic^ rather than bluntly assert Kal 6 vSixos airWavtv (or WavaTiiBr]). There is sometimes a lack of parallelism {heterogeneous structure). Cf. 1 Jo. 2 : 2, IKaafios irtpl tSiv afiaprtSiv rifiuv, ov wept rS>v ijiierkpuiv fiSvov, aXXd Kal oXov tov Koafwv, instead of tSjv SXov tov Kocfiov. Cf. also Ph. 2 : 22, xarpi — avv efu>i. Cf . TrepiiraTetv Kal aatraanovs in Mk. 12 : 38 f., rriv ixkvovaav ev ritiiv Kal fit6' rifiSiv iarac in 2 Jo. 2. IV. Figures of Expression ( W.-Th., p. 639. s Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 300 f . ' Green, Handb. to N. T. Gk., p. 355. « lb., p. 302. FIGURES OF SPEECH (rOPriEIA SXHMATa) 1201 words that do not properly go together, as in 1 Cor. 3 : 2, 70X0 ii/ias eTTorttra, oi) /Spco/wo. So also Lu. 1 : 64, avedfix^V '''° (rroixa avrov Trapoxpwa /cat ij y'XSxxaa avrov. Cfl. 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. Kuhner- 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 Kapdiq. KoKfj /cat ayadfj, and the use of 6.ya- iraco and 0tXew side by side in Jo. 21 : 15-17 where Peter makes a point of using <^iX€co. See chapter on Formation of Words.^ The play on words takes many turns. The onovmtopoetic words like 7077iif CO (cf. our " murmur ") are very simple. Cf. Jo. 6:41. Ex- amples of initial alliteration occur, like irovripiq,, irXeoceJi^ (Ro. 1 : 29) ; iffpiffTas, vwepri^avovs (1 : 30) ; aTeudtis, aavverovs, affwdirovs, aaropyovs, ave\eriii6vas (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 KaKoiii KaKuss (Mt. 21 : 41) ; iv iravrl iravTore iraaav (2 Cor. 9:8); 6 v6p.os w/ii/icos (1 Tim. 1:8), and uses parechesis for differ- ent words of similar sound, like Xt/^oi Kal Xoi/mL (Lu. 21 : 11) ; ifiaffev b4>' &V litoSiv (Heb. 5:8); Teppove'iv — povtlv (Ro. 12:3); p.rihh> kpja^onkvovs, aXKh Trtpiepya^oiikvovs (2 Th. 3 : 11). Cf. also Mt. 27: 9; Lu. 9 : 60; Ac. 23 : 3; 2 Cor. 3 : 2; 1 Cor. 11 : 29 ff.; Ph. 3 : 2 f.; 2 Cor. 4 : 8 f.; Ro. 1 : 20; 5: 19- 12:15; Eph. 4:1. Even so there is a certain amount of overlapping in the two figures. The ancients did not smile because a pun was made. It was merely a neat turn of speech and was very common. So Jesus says to Thomas, nii ylvov EirurTos dXXd Trio-T^j (Jo. 20:27). (c) Contraction and Expansion. It is difficult to draw lines between groups among these figures of speech. Zeugma, as we have seen, can very well come in here as a sort of ellipsis. The ellipsis of subject or predicate came up for discussion under 1 II, p. 570. . 2 Cf Trench, N. T. Synonyms; Heine, Synonymik d. neut. Griech. ' W -Th., p. 636. ' Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 298. 1202 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT The Sentence. But a few more words are needed here. Cf. iriaTos 6 dtos (2 Cor. 1 : 18) ; 6 Kvpios iyyvs (Ph. 4:5) as samples of the absence of the copula. So Jo. 14 : 11; Ac. 19 : 28, 34; 2 Cor. 11:6. It is not always clear what verb is to be supplied, though d/il and yivofiai. are the most common. Cf. (t>covii TrdXic k SevTfpov Trpos abrov, Ac. 10 : 15; om iv \6y(f ij fiaaiKfla rod Otov, AW iv 8vv&nei, 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 'exc^v must be suppUed with 6 ac- cording to a common Greek idiom. Cf . also Ro. 13 : 7, t$ rdv 4)6pov, where Winer* supplies axoSiSomi KfKtvovri. Cf. also 1 Cor. 4:6. It is easy to supply 6 Btos in passages hke Heb. 1:7 Xe- 7ei, 4 : 3 eipTj/ce. The context supplies the noun in a case hke Ac. 21 : 31, ^riToivTUV re aMv aTOKTeivai. Cf. Jo. 20 : 2, ^pav tov Kvpiov ('people took away'). In Ac. 21: 16, ihai djuaprias — t6t6 X£7ei t^J irapa- XvTuctfi 'Eyeipe ap6v aov tt/v K\iv7)v, kt\. Here the Evangelist has inserted T&re X^et tQ irap. 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, aXX' Iva irXripcceSxriv 01 ypatJMi. So Jo. 13 : 18; 15 : 25. Cf. Ac. 1 : 1, where ijp^aTo implies Kal Sie- reXei before iroieiv re Kal SiSaaKeiv &XP<- ^^ ^f^^po-h ki'X. See a similar use of ap^a/ievos in Mt. 20 : 8, Lu. 23 : 5. A case Hke Lu. 24 : 47, Ap^antvoi, amounts to anacoluthon or the use of the participle as a principal verb. Cf . also KoBapl^wv in Mk. 7 : 19. Various ex- amples of ellipsis-like zeugma are also instances of brachylogy. No clear line of distinction appears. So m comparisons we sometimes have to fill out the sense. Cf. Rev. 13 : 11, etxe KkpaTa dim ofjma apvUfi, i.e. Kkpaaiv apviov. Cf. 1 Jo. 3 : 11 f.; 2 Pet. 2 : 1. Other instances of brachylogy may be seen in Lu. 4 :26f.; Jo. > Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 294. ' W.-Th., p. 600. 1204 A GRAMMAR OP 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, (rixru ew ttjv fiao{jp,evos on ovk eartv (1 Jo. 2 : 22) ; iroKiv eK devrepov (Ac. 10 : 15), etc. Cf. also the cognate accusative. Re- dundances like these examples are not linguistic vices. They seem pleonastic to the technical student who is unwilling to allow for the growth of the language. Emphatic words have the constant tendency to become less so and to need re-enforcement. This love of emphasis in the N. T. is natural to conversation and to a certain extent has the Oriental richness and wealth of colour.^ We see the same thing in the 0. T. and in the papyri letters. It is a sign of life and in particular life in the East. These vivid details give life and beauty to the picture. Cf . eKTtivas riiv xeipo (Mt. 26:51); epxerai 'IryaoOs koi Xa/i/Sopet (Jo. 21:13); ypayj/avres Sia x^i'POi avT&v (Ac. 15 : 23) ; iipoKbryqae koL ovk ripvqaaTo (Jo. 1 : 20). Epexegetical clauses are common. Cf. T-qv X071K171' Xarpeiav ii/iSiv (Ro. 12 : 1), in apposition with the infinitive clause, irapaffTfjaai, kt\. So 1 Cor. 7 : 26, on koSov avdp6}ir(f, as' an expansion of tovto KoKov v-rapxii-v. In Jo. 7 : 35 oti is probably causal. We meet hyperbole in Jo. 21 : 25, obd' avrov otfiai, tov Koafiov xopw^i'" TO. ypatjiofji.eva /3ij3Xta. Cf . also Mt. 13 : 32. Litotes is common enough, as in Ac. 1 : 5, ov p.eTa xoXXas ravras 'fifikpas; 14 : 28, xp^vou ohK 6\iyov. See also 15 : 2; 19 : 11, 23 f.; 21 : 39j 27 : 14, 20; 28 : 2. Meiosis is, of course, only a species of hyperbole by understatement. Cf. Paul's use' of it in 1 Th. 2 : 15; 2 Th. 3 : 2, 7. We may put together two remarks of Milligan.* "St. Paul had evidently not the pen of a ready writer, and when he had once found an expression suited to his purpose found it very difiicult to vary it." "St. Paul had evidently that highest gift of a great writer, the instinctive feeling for the right word, and even when writing, as he does here, in his most 'normal 1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 295. 2 Cf . A. J. Wilson, Emphasis in the N. T., Joiir. of Theol. Stu., VIII, pp. 75 ff. s Milligan, Comm. on Thess. Epistles, p. Ivii. * lb., p. Ivi f. 1206 A GRAMMAR OF. THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT style, and with an almost complete absence of the rhetorical figures, so largely practised in his day, he does not hesitate to avail himself of the more popular methods of adding point or emphasis to what he wants to say." There is no necessary in- consistency in these two statements. Add another from Milligan* which will help to reconcile them. "We readily recognise that the arresting charm of the Apostle's style is principally due to 'the man behind,' and that the highest form of all eloquence, 'the rhetoric of the heart,' is speaking to us." So it is with all the N. T. writers more or less. They are men of genius, of varying de- grees of culture, and men of love for Christ and man. Language with these men is not an end in itself. They do not say "pretty" things and toy with them. As the words of Jesus are spirit and life, for they throb and pulse to-day (Jo. 6 : 63), so the Letters of Paul are ^apetai mi laxvpai, as even his enemies admit (2 Cor. 10 : 10). The Judaizers at Corinth did not discuss the rhetorical niceties of these Letters. They felt the power of the ideas in them even when they resisted Paul's authority. Paul used tropes,^ but he smote hearts with them and did not merely tickle the fancy of the lovers of sophistry.' Paul denied that he spoke kv iriBots ias X6701S, though his words seem to the lover of Christ to be full of the highest appeal to the soul of man. One must discount this disclaimer not merely by Paul's natural modesty, but by contrast with the Corinthian's conception of irtOos. They loved the rhetorical flights of the artificial orators of the time. (d) Metaphors and Similar Tropes. We need not tarry over antiphrasis, ambiguity, hendiadys, hypokorisma, oxymoron, peri- phrasis, polyptoton, syllepsis, and the hundred and one distinc- tions in verbal anatomy. Most of it is the 'rattle of dry bones and the joy of dissection is gone. We may pause over Metaphor (juToctwpa) , since little progress could be made in speech without the picture of the literal and physical carried over to the moral and spiritual as in 6 iroi/iiji' 6 Ka\6s (Jo. 10 : 11). Cf. the greatest metaphor in the N. T., Paul's use of awfui for the church (Eph. 1 : 22 f.). The Simile is just a bit more formal, as is seen in the use of o/jOLos in Mt. 13 : 52, ttos ypamxanvs 5;uoi6s iartv avdpinrcf oiKoSeairoTji. 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 (irapajSoX^) ' Comm. on Thess. Epistles, p. Ivi f . ' Cf. Heinrici, Zum Hellen. des Paulus, Komm. zu 2 Kor. ' 1 Cor. 2 : 4. FIGURES OF 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 {6.\\nyopia) 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 {litTOiwuia) and Synecdoche iavPiKSoxn) 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. Kai fykvero &Ti kreXeaev 6 'Irjcovs Tois X670US TOVTOvs, t^eirXiiacrovTO ol oxXot iirl rfj Sidaxfi avrov' rjv yap 5t- SaaKCiiv avToiis dis k^ovaLav txwi' Kal oirx