Cornell University Library The original of tiiis bool< 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/cu31924021607225 Cornell University Library PA 813.W76 1886 A grammar of the Idiom of the New Testam 3 1924 021 607 225 GRAMMAR THE IDIOM OF THE SEW TESTAMENT, PEEPARED AS A SOLED BASIS FOR THE INTEEPRETATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. BY DR.^GEORGE BENEDICT WINER. SEVENTH EDITION, ENLARGED AND IMPROVED. BT DR. GOTTLIEB LUNEMANN, FB0F£5S0R 07 THEOLUST AT TBS niTlTIBSITT OF SOEniNOEII. REVISED AND AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION. WARREN F. DRAPER. 1886. Entere"^ according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by WAEEEN F. DEAPBE, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. ANDOVBR ; PRINTED BY WAEEEW V. DEAPBR. PEEFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION. When this Grammar first made its appearance, in 1822, tlie object proposed was to oppose the unbridled license with which the diction of the New Testament was then, and had long been, handled in commentaries and exegetical lectures ; and to apply, as far as practicable, the results of an enlightened philology, as deduced and taught by Hermann and his school, to the study of the language of the New Testament. It was high time that some voice should be raised against the inveterate empiricism of ex- positors, and that some effort should be made to emancipate the writers of the N. T. from the bondage of a perverted philology, which styled itself sacred and yet showed not the least respect towards the sacred authors and their well-considered phraseology. The fundamental error — the irpSnov '<}revSo<; — of the Biblical philology and exegesis to which we refer, consisted ultimately in this, that neither the Hebrew nor the language of the N. T-. was regarded as a living idiom (Herm. Eurip. Med. p. 401.), designed to be used by men as the medium of intercourse. Had scholars deliberately inquired, whether those departures from the current laws of speech which were assumed to exist in the Bible in such prodigious multitudes, were compatible with the essential princi- ples of a language intended for the ordinary purposes of life, they would not so arbitrarily have held every kind of anomaly to be permissible ; and would not have delighted to attribute to the Apostles in almost every verse an enallage or a substitution of the wrong construction for the right. The older commentaries belonging to the period of the Refor- mation are comparatively free from such perversions ; but when yi PKEFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION. we read certain commentaries of the 18th and 19th centuries still current, we are constrained to conclude that the main character- istic of the language of the N. T. is a total want of precision and regularity. For these interpreters are continually showing how here a wrong tense is used, there a wrong case, here a comparative for a positive, there o for tk, hit instead of /or, consequently for because, on the other side for on this side (what for so Isa. viii. 20). Such exegetical learning makes a reader quite impatient with the sacred writers for their ignorance of the ordinary principles of language. He cannot comprehend how such men in oral dis- course, where this lawlessness of speech must certainly have been still more conspicuous, could have made themselves understood even, much less how they could have won over to Christianity a great number of persons of education. But this system of explaining every diflBculty by a pro or an idem quod had a serious as well as a ludicrous aspect. For does not Scripture become, as an eminent linguist long ago intimated, like a waxen nose, which every one can twist as he pleases, in proportion to his ignorance of the learned tongues ? Would it have been impossible, or even difficult, for such a man as Storr, for example, had the task been assigned him, to have found in the words of the Apostles any favorite notion whatever ? And does such a view of N. T. diction accord with the dignity of sacred writers ? ^ Every one who now-a-days should insist on using in the ordinary intercourse of life such perversions of language as the following : I shall come to thee to-day for I came to thee to-day ; no prophet ever came out of Galilee for no prophet will ever come out of Galilee (Jno. vii. 62) ; I call you no longer servants for / did not call you mere servants (Jno. xv. 15) ; for Jesus himself tes- tified, that a prophet has no honor in his own country for although Jesus himself testified, etc. (Jno. iv. 44) ; I saw the forest that was magnificently covered with foliage for a forest that was, etc. (Jno. V. 12) ; send me the hook, and IwiU read it, for' thou wilt 1 Eerm. ad Viger. p. 786 : Diligenter caveant tirones, ne putent, viros spiritu sancto afflatos sprevisse sermonem mortalium, sed meminerint potius, illam interpretandi rationem, qua nonnulli theologorum utuntur, nihil esse, nisi blasphemiam. '■^ To what extent expositors of the old school were devoid of all sense of expression may be seen (instar omniiun) in Kvhndl's reasoning, Mt. p. 120 sq. PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION. yjj send me the book, etc. ; to whom it was revealed that for to whom &is was revealed, yet so that, etc. (1 Pet. i. 12 1) ; Christ is dead merefore risen again for hut risen again ; he is not more learned S)r he is not learned; he rejoiced thai he should see, etc., and he saw and rejoiced, for he would have rejoiced if he had seen, etc., he rejoiced even at what he already saw (Jno. viii. 56) ; he began to wash for he washed (Jno. xiii. 56), and the like, — would be re- garded as having lost his reason. Were all the instances of a quid pro quo which many expositors during the decennaries just past have put into the mouth of the Apostles to be collected, the list could not fail to be astounding. When, at the commencement of my career as a university tutor, I undertook to combat this absurd system of interpretation, I was aware that there were scholars far more competent for the task than myself ; and, in fact, what I accomplished in the earlier editions of this book was but imperfect. My attempt, however, was cordially encouraged by distinguished men, and in particular by Vater and D. Schulz. Others pointed out, sometimes indeed in a spirit of bitterness, the imperfections of the work ; and to these unsparing critics I have been greatly indebted, not only in this publication, but in all my exegetical labors. By discussions annexed to the second edition (1828) the grammatical contents of the work were enlarged, and the third edition came out greatly improved, both in copiousness and accuracy, by a more extensive study of the writings of the Greek prose authors and of the Hel- lenistic Jews. Prom that time forward I have labored incessantly to improve the work ; and I have been animated by the aid which philological and exegetical publications suited to my purpose have furnished me in rich abundance. At the same time, the intelligent investigation of the N. T. diction has been daily gaining ground ; and the use of the Grammar by commentators has been growing more and more evident. The work began to attract the attention of professed philologists even. At the same time I have always been far from thinking the correct grammatical elucidation of the N. T. to be its only proper exposition ; and I have, in silence, allowed some to regard me even as an opponent of what is now called the theological interpretation. 1 On this passage see my Erianger Ffingstprogr. 1830. 4to. viii PEEFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION. The present edition — the sixth — will show again on every page, that I have spared no effort to arrive at truth. Deeply, how- ever, do I regret, that in the midst of my labors I was overtaken by a nervous affection of the eyes, which has brought me to the verge of total blindness. This calamity has compelled me to employ the eyes and hands of others to complete this edition. I cannot omit this opportunity of expressing publicly my sincere thanks to all the young friends whose indefatigable assistance only has enabled me, in spite of my frequent forebodings, to accomplish my task. The change in the arrangement of the matter in Part III. will, I trust, be approved. In other respects, it has been my especial aim to treat every point with greater completeness, and in smaller space, than in previous editions ; (the text of the Grammar now occupies eight sheets fewer than before). With this view I adopted all possible abbreviations in the Biblical and Greek citations.! It is hoped, however, that these, as well as those for the names of more recent authors,^ will everywhere be intelligible. The citations have been verified anew throughout ; and, so far as I know, not a single work that has appeared since 1844 has been left unused, or at least unnoticed. The text of the N. T. I have uniformly, that is except when there was a question of various readings, quoted in accordance with the second Leipsic edition of Dr. Tischendorf, which at present has probably the most extensive circulation. May this new revision — the last the work will ever receive from me — contribute to the diffusion of Biblical truth, so far as any such work can. 1 The Greek writers are only quoted by the page when the division by chapters has not obtained currency : Plato, according to the edition hyStephan. ; Strabo and Athe- naeus, by Casaubon; Demosthen. and Isocrat., by H. Wolf; Dionys. Hal., by ReisJce; Dio Cass., by Reimar. ; Dio Chrysost., by Morell. 2 It may be remarked here, that instead of Kuinoel (the Latinized form of the name), KuhnOl, as the family wrote their name in German, is used everywhere, except in Latin citations. I/Eipsio, October, 1855. PEEFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION. Winer's foreboding that the sixth edition would be the last revision from his hand has unfortunately been realized. But even while sensible of his approaching death, the indefatigable man took incessant interest in his Grammar, and labored to the very end of his life to perfect it. Without altering the general distri- bution of matter as it appeared in the sixth edition, he constantly improved the book in details, — by additions of greater or less extent in more than three hundred and forty places, by erasures and reconstructions, by the multiplication of parallel passages from biblical and from profane literature, by a more precise defini- tion of thoughts and expressions, by the correction of trivial over- sights and mistakes, etc. etc. Thus he has not left us without bequeathing to us in this book a legacy richer than ever. When the publisher confided to me the preparation of the new edition which had become necessary, I could not hesitate a moment what course to adopt. It was clear to me, in the first place, that the book must retain absolutely and throughout the character of a work by Winer. This was demanded, on the one hand, by reverence towards the departed author ; whom no one has hitherto surpassed — whom hardly any one among those now living will surpass — in a department which he cultivated with especial fondness for more than a generation. It appeared also, on the other hand, to be a sacred duty towards the theological public, to whom Winer's work, on account of its scholarly exact- ness and copious erudition, justly became long ago a precipus possession and a universally acknowledged authority. I con- sidered myself, therefore, as bound to abstain from every radical X PEEFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION. alteration of the text, either as respects the general arrangement or as respects the development of details. My task, rather, I perceived to be merely this : while preserving in its integrity the character of Winer's book, to increase as far as possible, in the spirit and intent of Winer, its usefulness for students of the present day. I have taken especial pains to work into the text the numerous manuscript notes from Winer's hand. In doing this, Winer's own words have been retained as far as it was any way feasible ; and changes, when uecessar/, have always been restricted so closely, that they affect merely what is unessential, never the matter itself. Further, I have made it a point, not merely to correct silently the obvious oversights and mistakes I met with — and they proved to be more numerous than I expected — and to give to the cross-references a definiteness in which they were often deficient, but also to consult, as far as pertinent, the theological and philological works which have appeared since Winer's death, and to use in this new edition what they contained worthy of attention. Whenever, too, a question of textual criticism is involved, regard has been paid to the read- ings of the Codex Sinaiticus. Yet great self-restraint has been imposed throughout, in order not to augment excessively a work already of considerable bulk. Winer's additions and alterations have been directly incorpo- rated with the text without being indicated by a particular sign. They will be plain to every one who will take the pains to com- pare the seventh edition with the sixth. On the other hand, the additions which I have made have been in all cases marked by square brackets. The square brackets already used by Winer here and there, have consequently been made to give place to other signs ; such as round brackets, dashes, etc. In conclusion it may be remarked that very great care has been taken to secure typographical accuracy. And now may the book, in this its seventh edition, subserve its purpose to afford the interpretation of the New Testament a stable foundation. DR. LUNEMANN. GoTTiiroEH, August 19, 1866. AMERICAN EDITOR'S PREFACE. Winer's Grammar is now for the fourth time rendered accessi- ble to English readers. A translation of the first edition was made by the late Professors Stuart and Robinson, and published at Andover in 1825. The fourth edition of the original, rendered into English by Professors Agnew and Ebbeke, appeared in 1839. Twenty years later Professor Masson's translation of the sixth German edition was published at Eduiburgh (and Philadelphia). The present work was originally announced (in April 1866) as a revision of Professor Masson's. The labor of revision was drawing towards completion, and nearly three hundred pages of the book had been stereotyped, when appeared the seventh German edition, under the supervision of Dr. Liinemann. Some unavoidable delay ensued before the revision and the printing were begun anew in conformity with this new edition. These facts explain why the publication of the present volume follows the original announcement so tardily. The book still remains, substantially, a revision of Professor Masson's translation. The changes introduced have been such as could be made upon the printed sheets of that work. This circiim- stance has frequently affected their form and sometimes their num- ber. But although Professor Masson's version has been retained as the basis of this, it is believed that hardly a paragraph of his work remains altogether unaltered ; and sometimes the alterations amount in effect to a new translation, — a translation which for entire pages has but a few phrases in common with its predecessor. In making the changes described it has been the editor's aim to render the version a faithful reproduction of the original. A faithful translation, he believes, should not only be free from Xii AMERICAN EDITOE'S PREFACE. intentional addition, ^ omission, or alteration, but in a work of this kind should adhere as closely to the author's expression as English idiom will permit. Accordingly, should the renderings seem, here and there, to have lost a little in ease, a compensation will be found, it is hoped, in their increased accuracy. It has not been judged necessary to annotate any interpretation having a doctrinal bearing, even though such interpretation be debatable on grammatical grounds, or to qualify an expression or two respecting tlie sacred writers which may strike many English readers as unwarrantably free ; for the book is likely to be used either by students with mature understandings in exercise, or by pupils under the guidance of competent teachers. The reasons which have led the editor to disregard the request that he would abridge and otherwise alter the original work will be suggested by Professor Liinemann's remarks upon this point. The notation of the sections, etc., has been carefully retained throughout. When it could be done conveniently, the cross-refer- ences have been rendered more definite by subjoining the number of the page. To aid those who may use this book in connection with Commentaries which refer to the Grammar by pages, the paging of the sixth and seventh German editions, as well as of Professor Masson's translation, has been noted on the outer margin of the leaves. The indexes have been revised, and that of Greek words has been considerably enlarged. Further, the Index of Passages in the New Testament has been made complete, and the references themselves have been carefully verified ; this laborious work has been performed by Mr. G. W. Warren, formerly a student in this Seminary, at present Professor of Biblical Interpretation in the Baptist Theological Seminary at Chicago, Illinois. This Index, it is believed, will be highly valued by students. A glance at it will show with how little exaggeration the book may be called a grammatical commentary on the more difficult texts of the New Testament. Other references the editor has been content simply to transfer to the pages of the translation. This will account for their frequent want of uniformity. Pains have been taken to give the work that typographical '^ In a single passage it seemed necessary to append a note ; sec page 598. AMERICAN EDITOE'S PREFACE. XJJi accuracy which is a leading requisite in a satisfactory manual. On this point, however, the editor would not speak too confi- dently ; for even in the seventh German edition, which is as superior to the sixth in accuracy of typography as it is in elegance, errata have been discovered by the score. It is hoped that the mistakes which have slipped in, will not exceed in number those detected, and silently rectified, in the German original. In conclusion, the editor would express the desire that the book in its present form may both facilitate and increase that patient, reverent study of the letter of the Inspired Word, which is indispensable to the fullest reception of it as spirit and life. J. HENRY THAYER. Theoloqical Semiuaey, Andotbe, Mas* October, 1868. NOTE. In this new impression the Biblical references, both in the body of the work and as collected in the N. T. Index, have been verified again. A few of the former, which appear to be wrong as they stand but which the editor had not the means of correcting, have been marked with [?]. The altera- tions ia the N. T. Index are so numerous, that it has been found convenient occasionally to sink an added reference into a foot-note ; and, in inserting other references to the pages, to disregard sometimes the strict numerical order. In some instances, also, the gap left by the removal of erroneous references has not been closed up. The re-examination of this index proves it to be not quite " complete " ; but there are no omissions, it is believed, which a student wiQ regret. J. H. T. Akdover, September, 1873. CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION, PASE On the Scope, Treatment, and History of N. T. Grammar, §§ 1^, 1 PART FIRST. ON THE CHARACTER OP THE N.T. DICTION ESPECIALLY IN ITS GRAMMATICAL ASPECTS. § 1. Various Opinions concerning the Character of the N. T. Diction, . 12 §2. Basis of the N.T. Diction 20 §3. Hebrew- Aramaic Tinge of the N.T. Diction, .... 27 §4. Grammatical Character of the N. T. Diction, .... 35 PART SECOND. THE GRAMMATICAL FORMS AS RESPECTS THEIR FORMA- TION (INFLECTION). § 5. Orthography and Orthographic Principles, ... 40 § 6. Accentuation, .49 § 7. Punctuation, 55 § 8. Rare Forms of the First and Second Declensions, . . .60 § 9. Rare Forms of the Third Declension, 64 § 10. Foreign Words and Words which are Indeclinable, ... 66 § 11. Inflection and Comparison of Adjectives, 68 § 12. Augment and Reduplication of Regular Verbs, . . . . 70 § 13. Rare Forms in the Tenses and Persons of Regular Verbs, . . 73 § 14. Rare Inflections of Verbs in MI and of Irregular Verbs, ... 78 § 15. Defective Verbs, 81 § 16. Formation of Words, 91 XV PAGE Xri CONTENTS. PART THIRD. SYNTAX. A. IMPORT AND USE OF THE SEVERAL PARTS OF SPEECH. CHAPTER I. THE ARTICLE. § 17, The Article as a Pronoun, 104 § 18. Articulus PraepositivTis, a. before Nouns 105 § 19. Omission of the Article before Nouns, . . . . • .119 § 20. Articulus Praepositivus, b. -with Attributives, 131 CHAPTER n. PRONOUNS. § 21. The Pronouns in general, 140 § 22. Personal and Possessive Pronouns, 143 § 23. The Demonstrative Pronoun, 157 § 24. The Relative Pronoun, 163 §25. The Interrogative Pronoun and the Indefinite Pronoun TI2, . .168 § 26. Hebraisms in connection with certain Pronouns, . . . . 1 71 CHAPTER m. THE NOUN. § 27. Number and Gender of Nouns, 174 § 28. The Cases in general, 179 § 29. Nominative and Vocative, . 181 § 30. Genitive, 184 § 31. Dative, 208 § 32. Accusative, 221 § 33. Connection of a Verb (neuter) with its dependent Noun by means of Prepositions, 232 § 34. Adjectives 234 § 35. Comparative, 239 § 36. Superlative, 246 § 37. Numerals, 248 CHAPTER rv. THE VEIJB. § 38. Active and Middle Voices, 251 § 39. The Passive, 260 § 40. The Tenses, 264 CONTENTS. XVU FAOB 281 § 41. The Indicati-ve, Subjunctive, and Optative Moods, . § 42. The Conjunction 'AN with the three Moods, 302 § 43. The Imperative, 310 § 44. The Infinitive, 317 § 45. The Participle, 340 §46. §47. §48. §49. §50. §51. §52. §53. §54. §55. §56. §57. CHAPTER V. THE PARTICLES. The Particles in general, 356 The Prepositions in general, and such as govern the Genitive in particular, 358 Prepositions with the Dative, . Prepositions with the Accusative, Interchange, Accumulation, and Repetition of Prepositions, Use of Prepositions in Circumlocutions, . Construction of Verbs compounded with Prepositions, Conjunctions, .... Adverbs, . . . , . Negative Particles, . Construction of Negative Particles, Interrogative Particles, 384 396 409 423 425 433 462. 473 500 508 B. STRUCTUEE OF PROPOSITIONS, AND THEIR COMBIN^A- TION INTO PERIODS. § 58. The Proposition and its Component Parts in general, . . .512 § 59. Extension of a Simple Sentence in its Subject and Predicate : Attributives, Apposition, 523 § 60. Connection of Sentences : Periods, 537 § 61. Position of Words and Clauses, especially when In-egular (Hy- perbaton), 546 § 62. Interrupted Structure of Sentences ; Parentheses 561 § 63. Broken and Heterogeneous Structure of Sentences ; Anacoluthoh, Oratio variata 566 § 64. Defective Structure of Sentences ; Ellipsis, Aposiopesis, . . • 580 § 85. Redundant Structure of Sentences ; Pleonasm (Superfluity), Diffuseness, 601 xviii CONTENTS. FAOX § 66. Condensed and Expanded Structure of Sentences (Breviloquence, Constructio Praegnans, Attraction, etc.), 619 § 67. Abnormal Kelation of Individual Words in a Sentence (Hypallage), . 631 § 68. Kegard to Sound in the Structure of Sentences; Paronomasia and Play upon Words (Annominatio), Parallelism, Verse, . . . 636 INDEX. I. Index of Principal Subjects, .... ... 643 II. Index of Greek Words and Forms, 652 m Index of Passages in the N. T. explained or cited, .... 668 miEODUCTION. ON THE SCOPE, TREATMENT, AND HISTOEY OF N. T. GRAMMAR. § 1. The language of the N. T., like every other, presents two aspects for scientific consideration, inasmuch as the words which we find in the N. T. following one another in connected discourse may be considered either by themselves, in reference to their origin and their meaning (the material element) ; or as respects their legitimate employment in the structure of clauses and periods (the formal element). The former is the business of Lexico- graphy; the latter belongs to Grammar, which must be carefully distinguished from N. T. Stylistics (Rhetoric). On distinguishing Lexicography from Grammar, see Pott in the Kieler Allgem. Monatsschr. 1851. Juli. The Lexicography of the N. T., of which Synonymy forms a very important part, though its importance was not duly recognized till of late, has always been cultivated in a merely practical manner. A theory of it, however, may be laid down ; which might be styled Lexicology, — a term that has recently come into use. That this theory has not as yet been fully developed and perfected is the less surprising, since even the classic tongues remain destitute of a Lex- icology ; and in the department of Exegetical Theology a theory of Biblical Criticism (higher and lower) is still a desideratum. This deficiency, however, has had a decidedly unfavorable effect on practical lexicography, as might be easily shown by a close examination of the lexicographical works on the N. T. which have hitherto appeared, even the most recent not excepted.'^ N. T. Stylistics or Rhetoric (the latter appellation has already been em- ployed by Glassius and by Bauer, author of Rhetorica Paulina), should exhibit the characteristics of N. T. style in its freedom and individuality, 1 For some remarks on the theory of lexicography, see ScAleiermacher, Hermeneutik, S. 49. 84. A commencement towards a comparative lexicography has been made by Zeller, in his theolog. Jahrb. 11. 443 fF. 1 2 INTRODUCTION. 14 restricted only by the character and aim of the composition ; and this it should do both generally, and in reference to the peculiarities of the genera dicendi and of the respective writers (cf. Hand, Lehrb. d. lat. Styls. p. 25 sq.). In this department much remains to be done, (particularly as respects the theory of rhetorical figures, erroneous views respecting which have at all times caused much mischief in the interpretation of the N. T.). The preparatory labors of Bauer and Dan. Schulze,' however, are of service ; and Wilke has made a compilation (N. T. Rhetorik, Dresd. 1843. 8vo.) worthy of attention. Schleiermacher had already given excellent hints in his Hermeneutik. As respects the discourses of Jesus and the apostolic epistles, it would be best to follow the example of the ancient rhetoricians, and treat in Biblical Rhetoric of the style of reasoning. This would prevent the excessive subdivision of N. T. Exegetics, and the separation of kindred subjects, which, when treated in connection, afford mutual light. Cf., besides, Gersdorf, Beitrage zur Sprachcharakterist. d. N. T. 1 Bd. S. 7 ; Keil, Lehrb. der Hermeneutik, S. 28 ; C. J. Kellman, Diss, de usu Ehetorices hermeneutico. Gryph. 1766. 4to. It may be incidentally remarked, that in their exposition of Exegetical Theology our Encyclopaedias still leave much to be desired. And in practice, too, N. T. Hermeneutics is not properly distinguished from N. T. Philology,^ as we may call that entire department of Exegetical Theology which has just been sketched. § 2. A grammatical exposition of the idiom of the N. T., in so far as it is a variety of the Greek language, would strictly consid- ered involve only a systematic comparison of that idiom with the grammatical structure of the later Greek literary language ; for with this last the idiom of the N. T. is closely connected, botl^ chronologically and generically. As, however-, this later Greek itself has not yet been delineated in its peculiarities as a whole, and as the idiom of the N. T. also exhibits throughout the influence of a foreign tongue (the Hebrew-Aramaic) upon the Greek, N. T. 15 Grammar must be so far extended as to comprise a scientific 1 K. Lud. Bauer, Rhetorica Paullina. Halle, 1 782. 3 pts. in 2 Vol. 8vo. ; also Philologia Thucydldeo-PauUina. Halle, 1773. 8vo. (To these may be added : H. G. Tzschirner, observationes Pauli Ap. epistolar. scriptoris ingenium concernentes. Viteb. 1800. 3 Partes. 4to.) J. Dan. Schuhe, der schriftstellerische Werth und Charakter des Johannes. Weissenf. 1803. 8vo. ; also, der schriftsteller. Werth und Char, des Petrus, Judas und Jacobus, eb. 1802. 8vo. ; also, iiber den schriftst. Char, und Werth des Evang. Markus, in Keil and Taschirner's Analekt. 2 Bds. 2 St. S. 104-151. 3 St. S. 69-132. 3 Bds. 1 St. S. 88-127. ^ I should prefer this old and intelligible appellation, " Philologia sacra N. T." (cf. J. Ch. Beck, conspect. system, philol. sacrae. Bas. 1760. 12 Section. 4to.) to that which Schleiermacher, following classic usage, proposes, "Grammar"; seei&te, on his Her- meneutik, S. 10. KTEODTICTION. 3 exposition of the mode in which the Jewish authors of the N. T. wrote the Greek of their time. If it were proposed e.g. to write a grammar of the Egyptian or Alexan- drian variety of the Greek (as this variety had been moulded there in the mouths of Greek-speaking residents from various parts of the world), it would be enough to collect all its distinctive peculiarities, that is to say, aU that make it a separate dialect ; not indeed simply stringing them 3 together in a fragmentary way, but arranging them systematically under "k ^ the several divisions of grammar, and pointing out how and to what extent they respectively modified the general laws of the Greek language (by abandoning niceties, misusing analogies, etc.). The idiom of the N. T., as it is a variety of the later Greek, should it require a grammar of its own, could only be exhibited as a species of a species ; and thus a grammar of the N. T. would presuppose a grammar of the later Greek. But N. T. 3 Grammar cannot easily be so restricted even in thought, still less can the """^ idea be carried out to advantage. For, on the one hand, the Grammar of later Greek, especially in its oral popular form, has not yet been scien- tifically investigated ; ^ consequently, the groundwork for N. T. Grammar exists Ln thought rather than in fact. On the other hand, the idiom of the N. T. displays also the influence of a non-cognate language, the Hebrew- Aramaic, upon the Greek. N. T. Grammar, therefore, must extend its Umits in two directions : Presuming the reader to be acquainted with the Grammar of classic Greek, it must point out in the manner already described the peculiarities of the later Greek, as exhibited in the N. T. ; and likewise show, in the same scientific way, how and to what extent the Greek was modified by Hebrew- Aramaic influence. It would be wrong, however, to attempt to keep the two quite separate,^ for the mingling of the (later) Greek with the national (or Jewish) element in the mind of the writers of the N. T., produced a single composite syntax, which must be recognized and exhibited in its essential unity. 1 Valuable information, though rather lexical than gi-ammatical, will be found in Lobeck's notes on Phrynichi Eclog. Lips. 1820. 8vo. Previously Irmisck (on Herodian) and Fischer (de vitiis Lexicor. N. T.) liad collected much useful matter. Copious hints relative to the graecitas fatiscens have been more recently presented in the impi-oved texts of the Byzantine writers, and the indices (of very unequal merit) appended to most of them in the Bonn edition ; as well as in Boissonade's notes in the anecdot. graec. (Paris, 1829 ff. V. 8.), and in his editions of Marinus, Philostratus, Nicetas Eugen., Babrius, etc. ; and, lastly, in Muttach's ed. of Hierocles (Berl. 1853. 8vo.), [cf. also his Grammatik der griech. Vulgarsprache in histor. Entwickelung. Berl. 1856. / 8vo.]. To the later Greek element appropriate reference is made likewise in Lobeck's Paralipomena gramraaticae Gr. Lips. 1837. 2 pts. 8vo., in his Pathologiao sermonis Gr. prolog. Lips. 1843. 8vo., and pathol. Graeci serm. elementa, Konigsb. 1853. I. 8vo., and also in j)i)iiaTiK6v s. verbor. Gr. et nominum verball. technologia, ib. 1846. 8vo. 2 Eor judicious remarks on the lexical treatment of Hebraisms, see Schleiermacher's Henueneutik, S. 65. 4 INTRODUCTION. This mode of treating N. T. Grammar will undergo a partial change 16 whenever the grammar of the later Greek language shall have received an independent exposition ; for then it will not be necessary to prove the peculiarities of this later language by examples, — a task from which the N. T. grammarian cannot for the time be released. But one portion of the present contents of a grammar will gradually disappear, viz. the 4 polemic, which opposes inveterate and deeply rooted prejudices, or errors 7th ei which have again made their appearance. As yet, however, this negative vindication of the true character of the diction of the N. T. still continues indispensable ; for, well-known expositors even of very recent date (Kiihnol, Flatt, Klausen in his Evangeliencomm.) have shown us again how deeply rooted is that old grammatical empiricism which deems it an abomination ultra Fischerum (or even Storrium) sapere. Special grammars of separate portions of the N. T., as of the writings of John, of Paul, are clearly out of the question. The distinctive qualities 4 that mark the diction of these writers in particular, consist almost entirely "" ™- in the use of certain favorite expressions, or relate to the department of Rhetoric, as may be seen from the observations of Blackwall in his Crit. Sacr. N. T. II. 2. 8. p. 322 sqq. ed. Lips. To this also peculiarities in the collocation of words are mostly to be assigned. Grammar is but seldom affected by these peculiarities of individuals. Accordingly Schulze and Schulz ' have, on the whole, formed a more correct estimate of such peculiarities of diction than Gersdorf, whose well-known work — no great contribution of sure results even to verbal criticism — must have almost proved its own refutation, if it had had to be continued on the principles hitherto laid down. § 3. Although investigation into the language of the N. T. is the basis of all sound interpretation, yet N. T. Grammar has been • till a recent period almost entirely excluded by Biblical philologists from the range of their inquiries. While the lexical element of the N. T. language has been the subject of repeated investigation, the grammatical has been treated at the most only so far as it stood connected with the discussion of the Hebraisms of the N.T.^ 1 His remarks on the character of the N. T. diction are contained in his dissertation on the Parable of the Steward (Bresl. 1821. 8vo.) and that on the Lord's Supper (Leipzig, 1824; 2d improved edit. 1831. 8vo.), and also in several articles in the Wachlersch. theol. Aunalen. In both dissertations, which are of an oxegetical char- acter, his observations, mostly acute, seem out of place, as they throw very little light on exegesis. Textual criticism, however, might have turned his views to good account, if the distinguished writer had only been pleased to give them to us in full. Cf. also ScMeiermacher, Hermeneutik, S. 129. 2 An honorable exception among earlier expositors is the nearly forgotton G. F. Heupel, who in his copious and almost purely philological Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Strassburg, 1716. 8vo.) makes many excellent grammatical observations. d. INTRODUCTION. 5 Only Casp. Wyss (1650) and G. Pasor (1655) conceived more 17 completely the idea of a N. T. grammar ; but their efforts were unavailing to accomplish its recognition as a special department of exegetical discipline. During a period of one hundred and sixty years after them, Haab was the first to publish a special 5 treatise on the Grammar of the N. T. ; but his rather uncritical work, besides being restricted to the Hebraisms, was adapted to retard the science, rather than to promote it. The first author who in some degree collected and explained the pecu- liarities of the N. T. diction, was the celebrated Sal. Glass (11656) in his Philologia Sacra, the third book of which is entitled Grammatica Sacra, and the fourth Grammaticae Sacrae Appendix.^ But as he everywhere makes the Hebrew his point of departure, and touches upon the language 5 of the N. T. only so far as it coincides with that, his treatise, to say nothing of its deficiencies, can be mentioned in a history of N. T. Grammar only as a weak performance. It serves to remind us, however, of the two writers mentioned above, whose very names, as well as their productions, which belong here, had fallen into almost total oblivion. The one, Casp. "Wyss, Prof of Greek in the Gymnasium of Zurich (tl659), published Dialectologia Sacra, in qua quicquid per universum N. F. contextum in apostolica et voce et phrasi a communi Graecor. lingua eoque grammatica analogia discrepat, methodo congrua disponitur, accurate definitur et om- nium sacri contextus exemplorum inductione Olustratur. Tigur. 1650. pp. 324 (besides the appendix), small 8vo. In this treatise the grammatical pecuharities of N. T. diction are arranged under the following heads : Dialectus Attica, lonica, Dorica, Aeolica, Boeotica, Poetica, 'E^pattfyvcra. This arrangement is awkward in the extreme, since kindred topics are separated and frequently are discussed in four different places. The writer's acquaintance with the Greek dialects, also, was clearly not beyond the ordinary scholarship of his time, as the very mention of a special dialectus poetica shows, and an examination of what he calls Attic renders still more manifest. Still, as a collection of examples, which in several sections is absolutely complete, the volume has value ; and as respects the grammatical Hebraisms of the N. T. the author's moderation might well have been imitated by his contemporaries. George Pasor, Prof, of Greek at Franeker (tl637), known by his small Lexicon of the N. T., — which has been several times republished, finally by J. F. Fischer, — left among his papers a grammar of the N. T., which his son, Matthias Pasor, Prof, of Theology at Groningen (tl658), pub- The Greek erudition of J. F. HombergJc, in his Parerga Sacra. Amstel. 1719. 4to., and ofB. Heisen, in his Novae Hypotheses Interpretandae felicius Ep. Jacobi. Brem. 1739- 4to., is lexical rather than grammatical. ^ In Dathe's edition this Grammatica Sacra forms, as is well known, theirs* book- 6 INTRODUCTION. 18 lished, with additions and improvements of his own, under the following title : G. Pasoris Grammatica Graeca Sacra N. T. in tres libros distributa. 6 Groning. 1655. pp. 787. 8vo. This work is now a literary rarity,' though 7th cd. it is far more fitted than the Lexicon to transmit the author's name to posterity. It is divided, as the title indicates, into three books. The first contains the Inflections ; the second, the Syntax (244-530) ; the third, seven appendices : de nominibus N. T., de verbis N. T., de verbis anomalis, de dialectis N.T., de accentibus, de praxi grammaticae, de numeris s. arithmetica graeca. The second book and the Appendix de dialectis N. T.* are the most valuable portions of the work. For in the first book, and in 6 most of the appendices which form the third, he treats of the ordinary ethcd. subjects of a general Greek grammar, superfluously inserting e.g. full paradigms of the Greek nouns and verbs. The syntax is elaborated with great accuracy and copiousness. The writer points out what is Hebraistic, but seldom adduces parallels from native Greek authors. This useful volume, however, is without a full index. During the interval from Pasor to Haab, the Grammar of the N. T. was treated but incidentally in treatises on the style of the N. T., e.g. by Leusden (de Dialectis N. T.) and Olearius (de Stylo N. T., pp. 257-271). But these authors confined themselves almost exclusively to Hebraisms, and by representing as Hebraistic much pure Greek phraseology, they involved in confusion again the whole inquiry concerning the Grammar of the N. T. Georgi was the first to vindicate the Greek character of numerous constructions usually regarded as Hebraistic, although even he did not escape one-sidedness. His writings attracted but little attention ; while the works of Vorst and Leusden now obtained through the efforts of Fischer new currency, and Storr's well-known book ^ was allowed for many years to exert its pernicious influence on the interpretation of the N. T. without restraint. From the school of Storr appeared Ph. H. Haab (rector of Schweigern, in the kingdom of Wtirtemberg, flSSS) with his Hebrew-Greek Grammar of the N. T., prefaced by F. G. v. Siiskind. Tubing. 1815. 8vo. Over- looking the pure Greek element in the N. T. diction, he directed his 1 Even Foppm (BiWiotheca Belgica, Tom. I. p. 342), who gives a list of Pasor's other writings, does not mention this work. Salthen, Cat. Biblioth. Lib. Ear. (Regiom. 1751. 8vo.) p. 470, bears witness to its extreme rarity, and D. Gerdesius, in his Florileg. Hist. Crit. Libr. Ear. (Groning. 1763. 8vo.) p. 272. 2 Pasor had already himself added this appendix, under the title Idea (syllabus brevis) Graecar. N. T. Dialectorum, to the first edition of his Syllabus Graeco-Lat. omnium N. T. vocum. Amstel. 1632. 12mo. At the end he promises the above full Grammatica N. T. s Observatt. ad analog, et syntaxin Hebr. Stuttg. 1779. 8vo. Some acute gram- matical observations, especially on enallagc temporum, particularum, and the like are to be found in J. G. Straube, diss, de emphasi graecae linguae N. T. in v. d. Honert p. 70 sqq. rNTEODUCTION. 7 attention merely to grammatical Hebraisms, and in the arrangement of the whole he followed the works of Storr and Weckherlin (Hebr. Gram. 19 2 Pts.). If the reviewer in Bengel's Archiv (1 B. S. 406 ff.) is to be credited, " the author has accomplished his task with such diligence, such sound judgment, such accuracy, and such nice and comprehensive knowl- edge of language, as must obtain for it the approbation of all friends of 7 the well-grounded interpretation of the N. T." A very different and '"' •* almost entirely opposite opinion has been expressed, however, by two scholars who must be regarded as most competent and impartial judges in this department: in the n. theol. Annal. 1816. 2 B. S. 859-879, and (by deWette?) in the A. LZ. 1816. N. 39-41. S. 305-326. After long and various use of the book, I am compelled to say that I entirely concur in their decision. The principal fault of the book consists in the author's not having correctly distinguished the classic Greek element from the Hebraistic in the diction of the N. T., and in his having consequently adduced as Hebraistic much either that is common to all cultivated lan- guages, or that occurs as frequently in the classics as in the N. T. ; while from his partiality to Storr's views, he has quite misinterpreted numerous passages of the N. T. by forcing Hebraisms upon them (see proof below). Moreover, the book is full of confusion, the matter is arranged most 7 arbitrarily, and the whole begins with a section on Tropes ! — a subject not belonging to Grammar at all. The last of the reviewers mentioned above does not, accordingly, seem too severe in concluding his criticism with these words : " Seldom have we met a work which was so complete a failure as this, and against the use of which we must warn the public so emphatically." § 4. Further, the detached grammatical remarks in commentaries on the books of the N. T., in miscellanies, and in exegetical mon- ographs, though sometimes exhibiting creditable research, failed to furnish, all taken together, a complete discussion of the Gram- mar of the N. T. These contributions, moreover, were rendered useless by that uncritical empiricism which controlled Greek Philology till the beginning of the present century, and Hebrew till a much more recent period ; just as this same empiricism has imparted to the interpretation of the N. T, the impress of uncer- tainty and arbitrariness. The philosophical method of handling philological subjects, — that method which seeks in national and individual peculiarities of thought the grounds of all phenomena of speech, anomalies even not excepted, — has eifected a complete revolution in the study of Greek ; and the application of tlie same method to the language of the N. T. can alone invest the Grammar 20 of the N. T. with a scientific character, and elevate it to the dignity of a safe guide in interpretation. 8 INTEODUCTION. The empiricism that pervaded Greek philology manifested itself in the department of Grammar mainly in the following particulars : a. The gram- matical structure of the language was apprehended merely in the rudest outline ; hence the relation of kindred forms, e.g. of the Aor. and Perf., of the Subjunctive and the Optative, of the twofold order of negatives (oi and ixTJ), matters in which the genius of -the Greek language is especially conspicuous, was left quite uncertain, b. In regard to those forms the g distinctive power of which had been in general discerned, an unlimited Jtled. interchange was asserted, according to which, one tense, one case, one par- ticle, was used for another ; and even direct opposites (e.g. Pret. and Put., airo and wpds, etc.) were supposed to be interchanged, c. A multitude of ellipses was devised, and in the most simple expression something was said to be understood. This method of procedure, still exhibited in Fis- cher's copious Animad. ad Welleri Grammat. Gr. (Lips. 1798 ff. 3 Spec. 8vo.), was applied by expositors to the N. T. They thought themselves warranted in using still greater liberties than Greek philologists, because the Hebrew, after which the diction of the N. T. was modelled, is charac- terized by want of precision in forms, and want of regularity in syntax, (which, therefore, was not treated systematically but only under the head 8 of enallages and solecisms) } The natural consequences of such views were Sfled. abundantly apparent in the N. T. commentaries of the time ; and Storr^ had the honor of reducing to a sort of system this farrago of grammatical empiricism. Apart from all other evils resulting from such principles, they afforded unbounded license to the caprice of expositors, and made it 21 easy for them to discover in the words of the sacred authors sentiments quite contradictory.' 1 This empiricism was but occasionally and partially comtated by enlightened scholars. Thus numerous misapprehensions of expositors were pointed out, very intel- ligently on the whole, by the Wittenberg professors Balth. Stolherg, in his Tractat. de soloecism. et barbarism, graecae N.F. dictioni falso tributis. Vit. (1681.) 1685. 4to., and Franz Woken, in his dissertation entitled : Pietas critica in hypallagas bibl, Viteb. 1718. 8vo., and particularly in his Enallagae e N. T. graeci textus praecipuis et plu- rimis locis exterminatae. Viteb. 1730. 8vo. Also J. Conr. Schwarz evinces liighly respectable research and judgment in his Lib. de opinatis discipulor. Chr. soloecismis." Cob. 1730. 4to. Such protests, however, either obtained no attention, or were drowned by a contorte I artificiose ! 2 How entirely different from his acute countryman Alh. Bengd, in his Gnomon, who, though he is often drawn into over-refined expositions, and attributes to the apostles Us own dialectic conceptions, might have served for years as a model of careful and instructive exposition. While he turned attention to grammatical inquiries (cf. e.g. Acts iii. 19 ; xxvi. 2 ; 1 Cor. xii. 15 ; Matt, xviii. 17 ; Heb. vi. 4.), he devoted special diligence in lexical matters to synonyms. 'Sunt, says Tittmann (de scriptor. N. T. diligeutia gramm. Lips. 1813. 4to., in Synonym. N. T. I. p. 206), qui grammaticarum legura observationem in N. T. inter- pretatione parura curent et, si scriptoris cujusdam verba grammatice i.e. ex legibus linguae explicata sententiam ab ipsorum opinione alienam prodant, nuUam iUarum legum rationem habeant, sed propria verborum vi neglecta scriptorem dixisse INTRODUCTION. q The Greek philologists were the first to abandon this empiricism. Eeitz's pupil, Gottfr. Hermann, by his work De Emendanda Eatione Grammaticae Gr., gave the first powerful impulse to the rational^ investi- gation of the noble Greek tongue. This method has now, after the lapse of more than fifty years, become so general, and produced such important 9 results, and of late has allied itself so successfully to historical ^ research ''^ «*• that Greek grammar has become transformed. The treatment of the sub- ject has been rational, because a. The primary import of all grammatical forms (the cases, tenses, moods), that is, the notion corresponding to every such form in the Greek mind, was distinctly settled ; and to this primary notion all actual uses of the same form were referred. Thus a multitude of ellipses disappeared, and enallage was reduced within its natural and narrow bounds. b. Even in the case of such deviations from the established laws of the language as had been adopted, either generally or by individual authors, — anacoluthon, confusio duarum structurarum, attractio, constructio ad sen- sum, brachylogia, etc., — pains were taken to show how they originated in the mind of the speaker or writer. The Greek language is thus exhibited as the expression of Greek thought 9 — as a Uvinff idiom. Every form and turn of expression is not merely ^^ '^ stated as a matter of fact, but is traced back to the thinking mind, and an attempt is made to comprefiend it in its origin within the soul. By such a method every unintelligible usage disappears of itself, such as the as- sumption that a writer wishing to express a past event has employed afut. tense; that intending to say out of, he has said at; that wishing to call some one learned, he has called him more learned; that meaning to sub- join a cause, he has written consequently; that desirous of saying I saw a man, he has said I saw the man, etc. For a long time, however. Biblical philologists took no notice of all this 22 progress in Greek grammar (and lexicography). They clung to old Viger and to Storr, and kept aloof from classical philology, under the impression (by no one distinctly avowed, to be sure, in recent times) thatN. T. Greek, because Hebraistic, could not be subjected to the same philosophical method of inquiry. They would not perceive that Hebrew itself, like every other human language, admits and requires a philosophical treat- ment. Through the persevering efforts of Ewald, this truth is now uni- versally acknowledged. No one now denies that the ultimate explanation of Hebrew modes of expression must be sought for in Hebrew modes of contendant, quae tcdibus verbis nemo sana mente praeditus dicere unquam patuit. Hermann's (ad Vig. 788) satirical remarks were just. 1 1 should prefer this epithet to philosophical, because the latter may easily give rise to misunderstanding. All merely empirical philology is irrational ; it regards lan- guage as something merely external, and not as the expression of thought. Cf. TVtt- mann, as above, S. 205 sq. 2 G. Bernhardy, wissenschaftl. Syntax der griech. Sprache. Berl. 1829. 8vo. 2 IQ INTRODUCTION. thought, and that a simple-minded people would be the last to repudiate 10 the fundamental principles of human speech.^ Scholars are no longer con- Itli d tent to give a preposition, for instance, the most diverse meanings accord- ing to the assumed requirements of a context superficially examined. But an endeavor is made to point out the transition from the primary import of every particle to every one of its secondary meanings ; and without this, every alleged signification is regarded as an unscientific assumptioni, A student is no longer satisfied with the vague remark that to a Hebrew, non omnis — which in reason can only mean not every one ■ — is the same as omnis non, that is, nullus ; on the contrary, he refers to the true prin- ciple in every such case to be kept in view. N. T. Grammar, therefore, must strive after a rational exposition of the language of the N. T. if it will attain a scientific basis itself, or secure the same in turn to exegesis. All that has been already achieved in Greek 10 philology must be carefully turned to account. It must, however, be Sit eJ. remembered, that not every nice distinction propounded by the linguists is to be viewed as established (and even the text perhaps altered accordingly), but that philology is constantly progressive. Many views have already required to be considerably modified (those, for instance, relating to the use of ei with the subjunctive) ; others are still matters of disputation even among the best scholars (for instance, certain uses of av). 23 Since 1824, N. T. Grammar in particular has received valuable contri- butions from Fritzsche, in his Dissertatt. in 2 Epist. ad Cor. (Lips. 1824.), in his Commentaries on Matthew and Mark, in his Conject. in N. T. Lips. 1825. 2 Spec. 8vo., and especially in his Comment, on the Epistle to the Eomans, Hal. 1836. 8vo. To these must be added the Dissertations of Gieseler and Bornemann in Rosenmiiller's Exeget. Repert. 2 B., as well as the latter's Scholia in Lucae Evang. Lips. 1830. 8vo., and, in part, his edition of the Acts of the Apostles (Acta Apost. ad Cod. Cantabrig. fidem rec. et interpr. est. Grossenhain, 1848. 8vo. L). Finally, many grammat- ical questions have been discussed in the controversial correspondence between Fritzsche and Tholuck.^ 1 Rational investigation must be founded on historical. The whole field of language must first be historically surveyed, before we can explain individual phenomena. A simple language supposes simplicity of thought ; and the explanation of forms and expressions is more easy in Hebrew, than in languages of less simplicity. The rational investigation of Hebrew implies tracing out all transitions from one signification of a word t» another, all constructions and turns of expression, as they occurred in the Hebrew mind ; since language is merely the image of thought (as thinking is, according to the Hebrew view itself, unuttered speech). To attempt to deHneate a priori the laws of language is absurd. It is readily conceded that the rational method of investi- gation may be now and then misapplied, as even the Greek philologists have not escaped over-refinements. Adherence, however, to empirical stupidity from the appre- hension of such danger is disgraceful. 3 2^nVs!sc^e,TJeberdie Verdienste D. Tholuck's um die Schrifterklarung. Halle. 1831. 8to. Tholuck, Beitrage zur Spracherklarung des N. T. Halle. 1832. 8vo. Fritzsche, nSTTRODTJCTION. H Philological investigation into the language of the N. T. has not re- mained wholly without influence ^ on any of the numerous commentaries which have recently appeared, whether emanating from the critical, evan- gelical, or philosophical school of theology ; although but a few of them H have treated philological points attentively and independently (as van "l" f^- Hengel, Lucke, Bleek, Meyer). An intelligent estimate of improved phil- ological principles in their application to the N. T., has been given by H. G. Holemann, Comment, de interpretatione sacra cum profana feliciter conjungenda. Lips. 1832. 8vo. N. T. Grammar has recently found its way from Germany to England and North America ; partly in a translation of the fourth edition of the present book (New York and London, 1840), and partly in a separate (original ?) work, entitled, A Greek Grammar to the N. T., etc., by the Rev. William Trollope, M.A. London, 1842. 8vo. An earlier work on this subject, entitled, A Grammar of the N. T. Dialect, by Moses Stuart. Andover. 1841. 8vo., I have not yet seen. Moreover, the special gi'am- matical characteristics of individual writers have begun to attract attention (yet see above, p. 4) : Gl. Ph. Ch. Kaiser, Diss, de Speciali Joa. Ap. Grammatica Culpa Negligentiae liberanda. Erlang. 1842. IL 4to. ; also De Speciali Petri Ap. Grammatica Culpa Negligentiae liberanda. Erlang. 1848. 4to. [In Germany, too, works upon N. T. Grammar have since been issued by Alex. Buttmann (Grammatik des N. T. Sprachgebrauchs. Im Anschlusse an Ph. Buttmann's griech. Grammatik. Berl. 1859. 8vo.) and S. Ch. Schir- litz (Grundzuge der N. T. Gracitat nach den besten Quellen fiir Studi- rende der Theol. u. Philol. Giessen. 1861. 8vo.).] Praliminarien zur Abbitte und Ehrenerklarung, die ichgern dem D. Tholuck gewahren mochte. Halle. 1832. 8vo, Tholuck, Noch ein ernstes Wort an D. Fritzsche. Halle. 1832. 8to. Tholuck laid more stress on philological investigation in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hamb. 1836, 1840, 1850. 8vo. The anonymous author of Beitrage zur Erklarung des Br. an die Hebr. Leipz. 1840. 8vo., passes a severe judgment rather on the hermeneutical than the grammatical merits of Tholuck. 1 Even on the commentaries of the excellent BCrusius, whose weakest side is un? doubtedly the philological. 12 PARTI Khcd. 11 ethcd. ON THE CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION, ESPECIALLY 25 IN ITS GRAIMJiIATICAL ASPECTS. § 1. VARIOUS OPINIONS CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OP THE N. T. DICTION. 1. Though the character of the N. T. diction is pretty distinct and obvious, Biblical philologists long entertained erroneous, or at least imperfect and one-sided, views on the subject. For, dog- matic considerations, combined with ignorance of later Greek dialectology, rendered minds in other respects intelligent incapable of perceiving exegetical truth. From the beginning of the ITtli century various distinguished scholars (Purists) repeatedly attempted to demonstrate that the style of the N. T. reaches in every respect the standard of classical purity and elegance ; while others (Hebraists) not only recognized its Hebrew coloring, but in part at least grossly exaggerated it. Towards the end of the 17th century the opinion of the Hebraists obtained the ascendancy ; though it did not altogether suppress that of the Purists, which found very learned defenders. About the middle of the 18th century, however, the Purist party became extinct, and the principles of the Hebraists, slightly modified in some particulars, became universal. Not until very lately have scholars begun to perceive the one-sidedness of these principles, and to adopt the correct intermediate views which Beza and H. Stephanus had already in the main pointed out. The history of the various opinions which from time to time were advanced, often with great controversial bitterness, respecting the Greek style of the N. T., is briefly related in Moras, Acroas. acad. sup. Hermeneut. N. T., ed. Eichstadt, Tom. i. p. 216 sqq. ; in Meyer, Gesch. der Schrifter- kliir. iii. 342 ff. (cf. Eichstadt, Pr. sententiar. de dictione scriptor. N. T. brevis censura. Jen. 1845. 4to.) ; with several important inaccuracies, in Planck, Einleit. in d. theol. Wissensch. ii. 43 ff. (cf. Stange, theol. Symmikta, § 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION. 13 ii. 295 ff.). For the bibliography of the subject see Walch, biblioth. theol. 13 iv. 276 sqq.^ From these sources, with occasional corrections, we present '"'«''■ the following remarks as sufficient for our purpose : 1^ Th. Beza, in his Digressio de dono linguarum et apostol. sermone (on Acts X. 46), in reply to Erasmus's assertion Apostolorum sermo non solum 26 impolitus et inconditus verum etiam imperfectus et perturbatus, aliquoties plane soloecissans, defended the simplicity and force of the N. T. diction ; and its Hebraisms in particular, which, as is well known, he was far from denying, he represented in a very advantageous light as ejusmodi, ut nullo alio idiomate tarn feliciter exprimi possint, imo interdum ne exprimi quidem, — in fact as gemmae, quibus (apostoli) scripta sua exornarint. After him, H. Stephanus, in the prefece to his edition of the N. T. of 1576, combated the views of those qui in his scriptis inculta omnia et horrida esse putant ; and labored to show, by specimens, what fine Greek turns of expression occur in the style of the N. T., and that even the admixture of Hebraisms . imparts to it inimitable force and expressiveness. Though the beauties pointed out are rhetorical rather than linguistic, and the Hebraisms are overrated, yet the judgment of these two masters of Greek is not so one-sided as it is generally said to be, and on the whole comes nearer the truth than that of many later expositors. After Drusius and Glass had specified and explained Hebraisms in the N. T. without opposition, extravagant notions were first promulgated by Seb. Pfochen, in his Diatribe de linguae graecae N. T. puritate (Amst. 1629 ; ed. 2, 1633. 12mo.). Having in the preface stated the subject of his inquiry to be : an stylus N. T. sit vere graecus nee ab aliorum Graecorum stylo alienior talisque, qui ab Homero, Demosthene aliisque Graecis intelligi potuisset §§ 81-129, he endeavors to demonstrate by copious quotations, graecos autores profanos eisdem phrasibus et verbis loquutos esse, quibus scriptores N. T. (§ 29). This juvenile treatise (though in substance ap- proved by Erasmus Schmid, as afterwards appeared from his Opus posthu- mum, 1658) seems, with its strict Purism, to have produced at the time no great impression. The Hamburg rector Joach. Junge (1637, 1639) in reality, though indi- rectly, first gave rise to a controversy on the nature of the N. T. diction. 27 His opponent, the Hamburg pastor Jac. Grosse (1640), though not endors- 14 ing Junge's real opinion respecting the Hellenism (not barbarism)^ of the Wi A 1 See also Baumgarten, Polemik, iii. 176 if. The opinions of the (apologetical) Fathers on the style of the N. T. are given summarily in J. Lami, de erudit. apostolor. p. 138 sqq. They treat the subject less under a philological than a rhetorical point of view. Theodoret, gr. affect, cur. s., triumphantly opposes the aoXoiKuriioX aXievrucoi to the ^vWoyiff^oi arriKoi. 2 Junge himself thus states his true opinion, in a German memorial addressed to the Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs in 1637 [cf. Joach. Jungius Ueber die Originalsprache des N. T. vom Jahre 1637. Aufgefunden, zuerst herausgegebcn und eingeleitet von Joh. Geffcken. Hamb. 1863. Svo.] : I have distinctly said, and I still say, that the style 14 § 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION. 13 N. T. style, admitted its harmlessness.^ Dan. Wulfer, however, came m ed. forward the same year with Innocentia Hellenistarum vindicata (see 1, etc.), in which he asserted that Grosse's reasoning was neither clear nor con- vincing.^ Grosse had now to contend against Wulfer, whose misunder- standings he exposed, and also against Joh. Musaeus, the theologian of Jena (1641-42), who had charged him with vacillation and contradiction, but had in view rather his doctrinal opinions (respecting verbal inspiration) ; so that Grosse published, in all, five short dissertations (1641-42), vindi- cating, not indeed the Grecian elegance, but the purity and dignity of the language of the N. T. Without mingling in these controversies, which descended into odious personalities and were nearly fruitless to science, Dan. Heinsius (1643) asserted the Hellenism of the N. T. diction ; and Thorn. Gataker (de novi instrum. stylo dissert. 1648) wrote expressly against the Purism of Pfochen, with learning, but not without exaggeration. Joh. Vorst now published (1658, 1665) an elaborate and perspicuous list of the Hebraisms of the N. T. which Hor. Vitringa shortly afterwards animadverted upon as highly partial.^ J. H. Bocler (1641) and J. Olearius (1668)* adopted intermediate views, carefully discriminating between the Greek and the Hebrew elements in 28 the style of the N. T., and J. Leusden agreed with them in the main, although he is inferior to Olearius in discretion. of the N. T. is not classical Greek The question an N. T. scateat barbarismis, is so outrageous, that no Christian man ever entertained it before ; I never could be brought to admit that there are barbarous expressions in the N. T., because the Greeks themselves regard a barbarism as a vitium. 1 His two leading positions are thus expressed : quod quamvis evangelistae et apos- toli in N. T. non adeo ornato et nitido, tumido et affectato (!) dicendi genere usi sint impium tamen, imo blaspheraum sit, si quis inde S. literarum studiosus graecum stylu™ sugillare, vilipendcre et juventuti suspectum facere ipsique vitia et notam soloecismorum et barbarismorumattricare contendat Quod nee patres, qui soloe- cismorum et barbarismorum meminerunt et apostolos idiotas fuisse scripserunt, nee illi autorcs, qui stylum N. T. hellenisticum esse statuerunt, nee isti, qui in N. T. Ebrais- mos et Chaldaismos esse observarunt, stylum S. apostolornm contemserint, sugillarint eumq. impuritatis alicujus aceusarint cct. 2 Grosse's dissertation was specially directed against a, possible inference from the proposition that the N. T. is not written in so good Greek as that employed by native Greek authors ; and, essentially, refers to adversaries that (at least in Hamburg) had then no existence. Moreover his whole argument is rather of a negative kind, as appears for example from the resume' (p. 40 of Grosse's Trias) : etiamsi graecus stylus apostolor. non sit tam omatus et afFectatus, ut fuit ille qui fuit florente Graecia, non atticus ut Athenis, non doricus ut Corinthi, non ionicus ut Ephesi, non aeolicus ut Troade, fuit tamen vere graecus ab omni soloecismorum et barbarismorum labe immunis. 8 Vorst in the preface utters his conviction : saeros codices N. T. talibus et vocabitlis et phrasibus, quae hebraeam linguam sapiant, scatere plane. Cf. further, his Cogitata de stylo N. T., prefixed to Fischer's edition of the work de Hcbraismis. * /. Cocceji stricturae in Pfochen. diatrib. were first printed solely for private distri- bution, and afterwards published in Rhenferd's collection. § 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION. 15 It now came to be yery generally admitted that Hebraisms constitute a prominent element in N. T. diction, and give it a coloring, not indeed barbarous, but widely removed from classic purity (see also Werenfels, 15 Opusc. i. p. 311 sqq.).i The same view was advanced by Mos. Solanus, '"''*'• in a tardy but very sensible pamphlet against Pfochen. Even J. Heinr. ^^ Michaelis (1707) and Ant. Blackwall (1727) did not presume to deny the existence of Hebraisms, but tried to prove that the style of the N. T. writers, notwithstanding the Hebraisms, has all the properties of an elegant style, and in this respect is not inferior to the purity of the classics. The last-named scholar begins his work, which abounds in excellent remarks, thus : tantum abest, ut hebraismos in N. T. reperiri infitiemur, ut eorum potius insignem, qua hie divinus abundat liber, copiam ad commoditatem ejus et elegantiam majorem afferre accessionem arbitremur. As little effect, however, had these scholars on the now established opinion as the erudite Ch. Siegm. Georgi, who, in his Vindiciae N. T. ab Ebraismis (1732), re- turned to the strongest Purism ; and in a new work, Hierocriticus sacer (1733), defended his assertions. He was followed, but with no greater success, by J. Conr. Sohwarz, whose Commentarii crit. et philol. linguae gr. N. T. Lips. 1736. 4to., chiefly aimed at demonstrating the Greek purity even of expressions taken for Hebraisms.^ To these must be added, as the last who opposed the misuse of Hebraisms, El. Palairet (observatt. philol. crit. in N. T. L. B. 1752. 8vo.),^ and H. W. van Marie (florileg. observ. in epp. apost. L. B. 1758. Svo.). Through the influence of the school of Ernesti, the more correct estimate of the language of the N. T. was generally diffused over Germany.* Cf. Ernesti's Institut. Interpret. i. 2. cap. 3. 1 Hemsterhuis ad Lucian. dial. mar. 4, 3 : eorum, qui orationem N. T. graecam esse castigatissimam contendunt, opinio perquam mihi semper ridicula fuit visa. Also, Blth. Stolberg, de soloecismis et barbarismis N. T. Viteb. 1681. 4to. and 1685. 4to., wished merely to vindicate the N. T. diction from blemishes unjustly ascribed to it ; but, in fact, attempted to explain away many real Hebraisms. ^ In the anticipation of certain victory he says in p. 8 of his preface ; olim hebraismi, syrismi, chaldaismi, rabinismi (sic !), latinismi cet. celebrabantur nomina, ut vel scrip- tores sacri suam graecae dictionis ignorantiam prodere aut in graeco sermone tot lin- guarum notitiam ostentasse viderentur vel saltern interpretes illorum literatissimi et singularum locutionum perspicacissirai judicarentur. Sed conata haec ineptiarum et vanitalis ita sunt etiam a nobis convicta, ut si qui cet. A satire on the Purists will be found in Somnium in quo praeter cetera genius sec. vapulat. Alteburg. 1761, p. 97 sqq. * Supplements by Pal. himself may be seen in the Biblioth. Brem. nova CI. 3 and 4. On the whole, Pal. produces passages almost exclusively in defence of such signiiicar tions and phrases, as no judicious person would take to be Hebraisms. * Ernesti's view of the N. T. diction (diss, de difficult, interpret, grammat. N. T. ^ 12) may be recalled here : genus orationis in libris N. T. esse e pure graccis et ebraicam maxime consuetudinem referentibus verbis forraulisque dicendi mixtum et temperatum, id quidem adeo evidens est iis, qui satis graece sciunt, ut plane misericordia cltgni sint, qui omnia bene graeca esse conlendant. IQ § 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION. 29 Most of the above-mentioned old dissertations (besides others), written 16 in the Purist controversy, are collected in J. Rhenferd's Dissertatt. philolog. Itked. theolog. de Stylo N.T. syntagma, Leov. 1702. 4to., and in (what may be considered as a supplement to Ehenferd's collection) Taco Hajo van den Honert, Syntagma dissertatt. de stylo N. T. graeco. Amst. 1703. 4to.i 15 Let us endeavor briefly to characterize the eflrarts of those who attrib- 6th ed. uted classical purity to the N. T. diction.^ Their great object was to collect from native Greek authors passages in which those very same words and phrases occur which are found in the N. T., and are there explained as Hebraisms. Now, apart from the cir- cumstance that what is strictly speaking the body of the language was not in general distinguished from the rhetorical element, the Purists entirely overlooked the following considerations : a. That numerous expressions and phrases (particularly such as are figurative), owing to their simplicity and naturalness, are common to all, or at least to many languages, and cannot with propriety be called either Grecisms or Hebraisms.' b. That a distinction is to be made between the diction of prose and that of poetry, and also between figurative expressions employed very rarely and by individual authors to give composition a peculiar elevation (as lumina orationis), and those which have become the common property of the language ; and that, if in plain prose like that of the N. T. expres- sions used by Pindar, ^schylus, Euripides,* etc. occur, or if such expres- sions, as well as rare Greek figurative phrases, recur as ordinary phraseol- ogy, this by no means proves the classical purity of the N. T. c. That when an expression is found alike in Hebrew and in Greek, the training and history of the writers of the N. T. render it in general more 1 The dissertations of Wulfer, Grosse, and Musams, though of trifling importance compared to their size, are missed with regret from this collection, and more of Junge's than the sententiae doct. vir. de stylo N. T. should have been admitted. Besides, of. Blessig, praesidia interpret. N. T. ex auctorib. graec. Argent. 1778. 4to., and Mittenzwoj, locorum quonindam e Hutchiusoni ad Xenoph. Cyrop. notis, quib. purum et elegans N. T. dicendi genus defenditur, refutatio. Coburg. 1763. 4to. An essay by G. C. Drau- dius, de stylo N. T., in the Priraitt. Alsfeld., Niirnb. 1736. 8vo., I hare not seen ; (see Neubauer, Nachr. von jetzt lebenden Theol. i. 253 ff.). ^ Mittenzwey made some remarks on this in his Essay, already mentioned. ' Simplicity and graphic expression are common to Hebrew and Hebrew-Greek with the diction of Homer ; and particular phrases having these characteristics could with as little propriety be called Hebraisms in the latter as Grecisms in the former. In general, languages have points of contact, especially in popular speech, which is universally sim- ple and graphic ; while cultivated diction, as it is coined by the learned, is more isolated. Hence in Latin, for instance, most of what are called Germanisms are to be found in the style of comedies, epistles, etc. * See, on the other hand, Krebs, observ. praef. p. 3. Leusden, de dialectt. p. 37, says, with great absurdity : nos non fugit, carmina istorum hominum (tragicor.) innumeris hebraismis esse contaminata. Accordingly Fischer, ad Leusden, p. 114, finds Hebra- isms in the poems of Homer. § 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION. I7 probable that such expression is copied immediately from the Hebrew, than that it is borrowed from the choicer literary language of Greece. 30 Not to mention, d. That those uncritical collectors huddled together many passages out of Greek authors where, a. the same word indeed occurs, but in a different 17 signification; or, /8. expressions are found only similar, not identical.'""* Further, e. That they unhesitatingly used even the Byzantine writers, into whose language, through the influence of the church, many elements of the Hebraizing N. T. phraseology may have been transferred (as in particular 16 instances can be proved to be extremely probable ; cf. Niebuhr, Index to ^ •* Agath. under t,rjjjiiovcrSai) ; and, at all events, these Byzantine authors are not standards of classic Greek purity. Finally, f. That they passed over, and were forced to pass over, many expres- sions in silence, because they are undeniable Hebraisms.' Thus the evidence produced in favor of Purism was partly defective and partly irrelevant. Besides, most of the Purists restricted themselves mainly to the lexical side of the question ; Georgi alone discussed the grammatical with a fulness sustained by stores of erudition. In proof of the preceding statements, we subjoin several striking exam- ples (cf. also Mori acroas. 1. c. p. 222 sqq.) : And as respects a. Matt. V. 6, ireivtuvres koL Suj/Uvrti rrp/ Suv 8o)/Aara)v is authenticated by ^sop. 139, 1, epi05 liri Ttvos Scii/xaTos ioTW. Pfocben's dissertation contains a great number of such idle and preposterous remarks. b. That Koi/iScr^ai, signifies mori is proved from the Iliad 11, 241 (Georgi, vind. p. 122 sqq.) Koifi^-qa-aTO yaXKiov vttvov, and Soph. Electr. 510 ; that a-irepixa is used also by the Greeks for prohs is proved chiefly from the poets, as Eurip. Iph. Aul. 524 ; Iph. Taur. 987 ; Hec. 254, and Soph. Electr. 1508 (Georgi, vind. p. 87 sqq.) ; that Troi/xaii/eiv means regere, from Anacr. 57, 8 ; that ISeiv and Seotpuv SdvaTov are good Greek, from 31 Soph. Elect. 205 (Schwarz, Comm. p. 410), or from SepKsrSai ktvttov, 1 This applies also to .7. E. Ostermann, whose Positiones philologicae graecum N. T. contextum concernentes have been reprinted in Crenii exercitatt. fasc. ii. p. 485 sqq. 3 18 § 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION. (TKOTov, in tragedians. For Trorqpiov irivtw in a figurative sense (Matt. XX. 22), Schwarz quotes iEschyl. Agam. 1397. That iriTTTtw signifies irritum esse, the established meaning in Hebrew, the same writer proves by Plato's figurative expression, SokcI r/Sovrj ctol TmrTUiKevai Ka^aTrepv. TrXrj- yvxra mb tuiv vvv 8^ Xoyuiv, Phileb. p. 22. e. c. The phrase yivtuo-Keiv avSpa, though not unknown in Greek (Jacobs, Ig ad Philostr. imagg. p. 583), may be derived with assurance directly from Ith d. the common Hebrew phrase vi'^K s'l^ , and regarded in our authors as a Hebraism. In like manner a-TrXdyxya compassion, ^pd land as opposed to water (Fischer ad Leusden dialectt. 31), ^"^os in the sense of shore, oTO/«.a for edge of a sword (cf., however, Boissonade, Nic. p. 282), Traxvveo' to be stupid, foolish, Kvpio? icvpCwv, eUipx^oSai eh rov Koa-fiov are primarily, 17 no doubt, copied from the Hebrew, and are not to be proved to be pure 6tli efiXrip.a, in good Greek signifies peccatum, Schwarz tries to prove by Plat. Cratyl. 400 c, where, however, o^eiKop.o'a, denotes as elsewhere dehita. Equally inappropriate are most of the passages from which Georgi (Hierocrit. p. 36 sq., 186 sq.) attempts to show that in the best Greek authors the preposi- tions €1? and iv are interchanged, as they are in the N. T. Cf. also Krebs, Obs. p. 14 sq. p. That fvpuTK€iv xdpiv (cXcos) Trapa nvi is not a Hebraism, Georgi (Vind. p. 116) tries to demonstrate from a passage of Demosthenes con- taining the words eipia-KecrOan rrjv dprjviqv, rr/v Swpedv, as if the Hebraism in question did not lie rather in the whole phrase (for there is nothing peculiar to Hebrew in using fnd for oUain), and as if nothing depended on the middle voice. Palairet quotes Aristoph. Acharn. KparTjp ai/iaTos, and similar expressions, to justify the use of iror^piov for sors ; and Schwarz defends ttitttuv irritum esse by a reference to Plat. Euthyphr. 14d. oi \afm\ TTccTEiTat o,ti olv throis- Passages containing the words ovre piiya ovre ap-iKpov were quoted to show that the well-known Merismus am [UKpov Icos p.iyd\.ov is pure Greek (Georgi, Vind. p. 310 sqq. ; Schwarz, Comment, p. 917; cf. Schafer, Julian, p. xxi.). In such Merismus itself, 32 however, there is nothing Hebraistic,, but only in the particular formula § 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION. 19 given above airb fjuKp. ecus fiey. Theophan. Cont. p. 615 Bekk. is the first writer in whom this form occurs. KopTros t^s KoiXtas, ocrtpvoi, Georgi (Vind. p. 304) supports by passages in which icapTrds alone is used to denote the fruit of the human body. Aristoph. Nub. irXiov vkiov, more and more, is not sufficient to prove that 8uo 8uo, two and two, is a Grecism ; it would be necessary to produce examples where the repeated cardinal is employed for avh. Suo, dva Tptis, etc., § 37, 3. In the same way oo-o-a S' ttKoijcras fbi^Oifjcqv is vainly quoted from Callimachus to prove that riBevai ih Ttt Sra is pure Greek, as the two phrases are essentially unlike each other. Yet such specimens might be multiplied without end. "What 19 Georgi, Vind. p. 25, produces from Arrian. Epictet. in defence of 6 dSeXi^ds ' "^ alter, seems peculiarly ridiculous. e. Schwarz, p. 1245, asserts, on the usage of Nicetas, the pure Greek character of the phrase viov wages (Sturz, 187), ofdpLov Jish, ipevye- a-dai eloqui (Lob. 63 sq.), eirio-reXXeiv write a letter (cTrtoroXij), ■KcpunraarQai 23 negotiis distrahi (Lob. 415), irrG/ia corpse (Lob. 375), ytwrifiaTa fruges * (Lob. 286), frxok-q school (Lob. 401), 6vpe6i large (door-shaped) shield (Lob. 366), SaJjua house-top, Xoi^t^ offering (Babr. 23, 5), pu/xi; street (Lob. 404 sq.), Trapfyqa-M assurance, confidence, XaXia speech (dialect), Xaftirds lamp, Karao-roX^ long robe*, wvC now (in Attic, this instant) Fr. Rom. I. 182, o-ra/tii/os, wbich in the classics denotes a vessel for holding 22 liquids, was used to signify also a vessel for dry articles, Babr. 108, 18. """i A special peculiarity was to give neuter verbs the transitive or causative signification;^ as, fmOr/reveiv (Matt, xxviii. 19), 6pLap,^ev€iv (2 Cor. ii. 14? yet see Mey.), in the Sept. even t^v, pacnXeiav, and many others ; cf. especially. Psalm xli. 3 ; cxviii. 50 ; cxxxviii. 7, etc., cf. § 32, 1. see Lydius de re mil. 6. 3, esp. Lob. Soph. Ai. p. 382 sqq. Lastly, in the case of fie.Ova-o'i, usage at least so far changed that the word, previously confined to females, was applied to both sexes (Lob. 151 sq.; Schafer, ind. ad^sop. p. 144). c. Words and forms which in classical Greek were seldom used, or only by poets and in the more elevated kinds of style, became ordinary and favorite, and were employed even in common prose ; such as, avdevTeiv to lord it (Lob. 120), /aeo-ovuktiov (Thorn. M. 609; Lob. 53), dXoXijTos (?), Oeoarvyq'! (Pollux 1, 21), Icr^i/trre (Th. M. 370), aXeKrwp (otXtKTpvtav, Lob. 229), /Spex"" irrigare (Lob. 291), iva-S.v) to be puffed up (trop. Babr. 114), arevi^eLV since Polybius for arevi^ecrOaL (Passow), £K)cuvav oq (^''X"'"' -Lob. 726), cTTiQKw (from lonjica stand, Bttm. II. 36), dpyds, ij, 6v 6th ed (^^ ^'^ adject, of three terminations. Lob. 105), iretSds, voo-o-ot, votro-td (i/£0o-o-o4 veoa-cnd, Thom. M. 626; Lob. 206 f), TreTa.op.ai (7r€Top.ai, Lob. 581), aireX.mt.eo' {a.-!royivu>(jKei.v), ktoirvlX.av {a.(^VTrvit,uv, Lob. 224), pavrt^ttv (paiveti/), SeKttTOW (Se/caTeiictv), dporptav (dpoCv, Lob. 254 sq.), ySi/SAapt'Sioi/* (/3tj3Xt8tov, jSijSXiSdpioi'), xjrixiov (i/"'^), Tap,£tov (Tajatetoi/) Lob. 493, KaTajrovrtXetv (waTa- iroi/Tow, Lob. 361), 7rapapovia (wapatfipocrvvr])*, tttvov (-tttcov, Lob. 321), ^Svpurrq<; (for i/?t0upds) Thom. M. 927, urrdpiov (as most of the diminutives in -optoj', e.g. watSaptoi", ovdpiov, Ft. Mr. p. 638). Purely Alexandrian (LXX.) are aKpo/Svaro's and aKpo^va-Tia, Fr. Rom. I. 136; verbal forms in (1) pure, instead of in p,t, e.g. o/ivuo) for o/awfiu, Thom. M. 648. Cf. also $vpdu) for fupe'u, Thom. M. 642 ; Phot. Lex. 313 (Lob. 205, and ad Soph. Aiac. p. 181), pres. /iapiio (^apvym) Thom. M. p. 142, aapovv for a-alpttv Lob. 83, )(o\S.v (xoXovo-Oai), i^ov clvai for efetj/at (Foertsch, de locis Lysiae, p. 60 sq.). Active forms were adopted instead of the middle or deponent verbs usual in the earlier language ; as, ^pvda-a-av Act. iv. 25; from Ps. ii., dyoAXtav Luke i. 47, (.vayytXHav Lob. 269. Compound verbs, in which ' Similar to which is iep«riro from Upeis, which is found in Papyr. Taurin. 9, 14. Ct Sturz, p. 173. § 2. BASIS OP THE N. T. DICTION. 25 the preposition did not add to the meaning, were preferred to the less im- posing and less sonorous simple forms.* Further, as even many compound verbs did not seem expressive enough, numerous double compounds made their appearance (Siebelis, Pr. de verb, compos, quae quatuor partibus 38 constant. Budiss. 1832. 4to.). For members of the human body, however, forms originally diminutive became sometimes the current forms in col- loquial speech; as, wtlov, cf. Fischer, proluss. p. lOsqq. ; Lob. 211 sq., of>TiovJ' Lastly, many substantives received a different gender and in 25 part a corresponding change of termination ; see § 8 note, and § 9 note 2. Ith ei e. Entirely new words and phrases ^ were constructed, mainly by composition and for the most part to meet some sensible want ; as, dAAo- TpioeTTUTKOTTOS*, avOpumopeT Ko'i (Lob. 621), oA-OKXiypos, dyeveaA.oy»p-os*, aXfxa- T£K)(Viria*, SiKaLOKpuria, criTO/xer/Diov, vu)(6rjix£pov (Sturz, 186), TrX-qpo^pia (Theophan. 132), KoXonroiav (Lob. 199 sqq.), al)(/j.aXijrri^€iv and al)(fiaXityr€veiv (for al)(fjui\uyTOV iroteiv, Thorn. M. p. 23 ; Lob. 442), /ico-iTcuav, yvfuvrfreveLv, ayaOoiroLilv (ayaJdoepryiiv) for ayadov Troteii' (Lob. 290), dyoAAtcuns, opodecria, ^4 dvrtXvrpov*, kKfLVKnripHia/^, a\fKropouiivia (Lob. 229), diroKci^oiX/^Eiv (Lob. 341), avrairoKpLvea-dai. (^sop. 172 de Fur.), i^ovOeveiv (Lob. 182 ; Schaf. ind. ^sop. p. 135), cKKaKeev* (the literary Greek knows only eyKaKelv, see my Comment, ad Gal. p. 134, and Mey. on 2 Cor. iv. 1), evSoKelv (Sturz, p. 1 68 ; Fr. Rom. II. 370 sq.), o/ioio^eti/*, ayaOovpyeiv, ayadwrivt), SiacTKOp- TTL^eiv (Lob. 218), (rrpijuwM {rpvt^av. Lob. 381), iyKpareuopuu* (Lob. 442), oocoSetnronjs, olKoSanrorav (Lob. 373), XiOo^oXelv, Trpos^dytov {oxjiov, Sturz, 191), Xoyla, KpdjSjSaros (ctki/ittous. Lob. 63; Sturz, 175 sq.), ireiroid-qiri^ (Lob. 295), (TTTiXos (lojXts, Lob. 28), /JLafiftrj (rrjOrj, Lob. 133 sq.), pacj>Cs {fieXovt), Lob. 90), dypie'Xaios (kotivos, Moeris, p. 68), dyvdnjs*, dyionjs*, erevSunjs, iKTCvuxs and iKrivaa (Lob. 311), dirapa/Saros (Lob. 313). It belongs alike to d. and e. to remark that the later Greek especially abounded: — in substantives in /i.a, e.g. KaraXvua, din-airoSop-a, KaT6p6uip.a, pawUTfia, yeyvrj[jia, hcrpiapji, (Lob. 209), /idTTTurfia*, cvroA/xo, Upoa-vXrjfjLa* (see Pasor, Gramm.N.T. pp.o71— 574) ; — in substantives compounded with truv, e.g. (rvfjifiaOrjTrj^, o-u/xttoXittjs (Lob. 471) ; — in adje'ctives in ivos, e.g. opOpivos 1 That, on the other hand, simple verbs were in later Greek preferred to the corres- ponding compound, Tdf. (Stud, und Krit. 1842. S. .'iOS) tries to prove from the expres- sion iSouAV TiSevat, for which the earlier Greeks had used PovKrii' irpoTiflcVoi. But these phrases may have differed in meaning, see liaphel on Acts xxvii. 12. With greater probability might be adduced here the verbs (mentioned under e.) Seiyiutri^nv and BeaTpi^eiv, for which in the written language we find only TrapaSeiyiiari^eiv and iKdiaTpi^eiv ; so also raprapovi/ for KaraTaprapovy. In the same way the Prussian official style employs FShmng for AuffHirung. ^ It may be mentioned here also, that abbreviated forms of proper names, which probably were current earlier in popular speech, made their way into the ivritten lan- guage ; as, 'Ahfias, Sitavla (for 'lavavla), etc. The derivatives of 5e'x€(rflai were but slightly altered ; as, vavSoxeis, ^evoSoxfis, for TavSoKiis, etc., Lob. 307. * Many such words have been collected from the Fathers by Suicer in his sacrae observatt. (Tigur. 1665, 4to.) p. 311 sqq. 4 26 § 2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. (Sturz, p. 186), irpwiVos, Kaeriit£piv6<:, oa-rpaKLvo^, Sepp.dTLVo Lob. 118 sq. Cf. also such adverbs as Travrore (StuTravrds, £Kao-Torc), iraiSioeev (« iraiStoi), Lob. 93), kclO^'; (Sturz, p. 74), iravoiKi {nauoLKia, iravoiKjjtn'tt, Lob. 515), see Sturz, 187 sq.' 'Ea-xdrw's ex"" is a 26 later phrase (for KaK^is, -irov-qpm ex"v) Lob. 389 ; and KoXoTrotav (see above) !th ed, ^vas used for the more ancient phrase xaXS? iroicii'. It cannot be denied that the preceding list contains many words formed, agreeably to the prevailing analogy of the time, by the Greek-speaking Jews, or even by the N. T. writers themselves (especially Paul, Luke, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; cf. Origen. orat. § 27) ; cf. particularly SpOpi^eiv (oisdn), Xt^o/SoXeiv, ai/iaT£Kxt'o-ta, o-KXTjpo/capSia, ctkXij- poTpo.xrjX.oi, ayadoepyeiv, opOoTroBelu, 6p9oTop.eLv, p-ocrxpTTOLelv, p.€yaXuicrvvr], ra- '7reLvo^, absolutely used, to convert, conversion, irposijXuTos, Trei/Te/coo-Tjj Whitsuntide, Kocr/to? (in a figurative sense), t^vXa.KTr]piov, l7nyap.^pe.v€iv of the levirate marriage. In reference to Christian apostolic words and forms (such as ^an-Tiapa) see § 3 end, p. 36. 2. Grammatical Peculiarities : These are confined mostly to in- flections of nouns and verbs, which were either unknown in the earlier language, or not used in certain words, or at least foreign to the literary Attic : for in this respect also the intermixture of dialects previously distinct became manifest. Moreover, the use of the Dual became rare. 1 Popular Greek naturally adopted single foreign words (appellatives), with slight alterations, from the languages in use in the different provinces along with the Greek. On this, however, we cannot dwell in an inquiry so general as the above. With regard to the Egyptian element in the Septuagint and elsewhere, see Sturz, dialect. Alex, p. 84 sqq. Also Latin and Persian words and expressions have been pointed out in the N. T. ; cf. Olear. de stylo N. T. p. .366 sq. 368 sqq. ; Georgi, Hierocrit. I. p. 247 sqq. and the whole of II. (de latinismis N. T.). Cf. Dresig, dc N. T. gr. latinismis mcrito et falso suspectis. Lips. 1726, 4to., and Snhleiermacher, Hermeneutik, S. 62 f. 2 Most of this description appear subsequently in the Byzantine authors, who abound in double compounds and lengthened forms of words. AVTiat had fallen into disuse was eagerly restored and revived. § 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. £7 The later Greek has few syntactical peculiarities. Certain verbs, for instance, are construed with cases different from those they formerly used 40 to govern (§ 31, 1. cf. Boissonade, anecd. III. 136,154); conjunctions which previously took only the Subjunct. or Optat. are used with the Indie. ; the use of the Optat., particularly in the oratio obliqua, decreases sensibly ; the use of the future participle after verbs of going, sending, etc., recedes before that of the present (or the infinitive) ; Active verbs with kavrov begin to be substituted for Middle, when uuemphatic. Also, in general, more forcible expressions lose their emphasis. On the other hand, ad- ditional expressiveness is aimed at even by grammatical forms, cf. jnei^dxepos, Iva. instead of the Infinitive, etc. But the later varieties of inflection will most appropriately find place in § 4. Later popular Greek had, beyond doubt, different peculiarities in differ- ent provinces. Critics, accordingly, have professed to discover Cilicisms in the style of Paul (Hieron. ad Algasiam quaest. 10. Tom. IV. ed. Marti- 27 anay, p. 204). The four examples, however, which this Father adduces 'tbei are not conclusive (Michaelis, Einl. ius N. T. 1 Thl. S. 161) ; and as we know nothing respecting the provincialisms of Cilicia (see, however, Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 62), it is better at present to dismiss the investigation alto- gether, than to rest it on empty conjectures. Cf. B. Stolberg, de Cilicismis a Paulo usurpatis, in his tr. de soloecismis N. T. p. 91 sqq. § 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF THE N. T. DICTION. 26 Cthei This popular variety of Greek, however, was not spoken and wi'itten by the Jews without foreign admixture. They not only imparted to their Greek style the general complexion of their mother tongue, which consists in vividness and circumstantiality as well as uniformity of expression, but also introduced particular Jewish turns of expression. Yet both these peculiarities are more apparent in their translations directly from Hebrew, than in their orighial composition in Greek. i Lexical Hebraisms (and Aramaisms) are more numerous than grammatical ; and consist partly in the extension of the significa- tion of words, partly in the imitation of entire phrases, and partly also in the analogous formation of new words to express corres- ponding Hebrew terms. Thus originated a Jewish-Greek, which native Greeks did not entirely understand,^ and which they even 41 sometimes turned into ridicule. 1 Herein lies an argument, which has received little attention, why the text of the N. T. is not to be regarded as a translation from the Aramaic, and that too, in a great measure, clumsily executed. 2 Though the opinion of L. de Dieu (praefat. ad grammat. orient.) : facilius Euro- 28 § 3, HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. All the nations which after the death of Alexander continued under Graeco-Maoedonian rule and which gradually adopted the Greek language of their conquerors even in common life, particularly the Syrians and Hebrews, spoke Greek less purely than native Greeks, and imparted to it more or less the impress of their mother tongue (Salmas. de lingua Hellen. p. 121, of. Joseph, antt. 20, 9).' As the Greek-speaking Jews are 28 usually denominated Hellenists, this Oriental variety of Greek, known to Ith cd. us only in the writings of Jews, has not improperly obtained the name 27 of the Hellenistic idiom ; see Buttm. I. S. 6.^ Accordingly, the diction jtjiHl. of the LXX. and of the N. T. (of the Pseudepigrapha of the O. T. and the Apocrypha of the N. T.) has been especially called Hellenistic ; yet it was not Drusius (ad Act. vi. 6), but Scaliger (animad. in Euseb. p. 134), who first employed this term. 42 The Hebraisms of the N. T. — for these only, and not the oriental cast of the periods and arrangement of words, were usually attended to — have been collected frequently and thoroughly ; in particular by Vorst, Leusden (in his Philol. hebr., from which the dissertatio de dialectis N. T. sing, de ejus hebraismis was separately printed by J. F. Fischer, Lips. 1754, paeis foret Platonis Aristotelisque elegantiam imitari, quam Platoni Aristotelive N. T, nobis interpretari, is decidedly an exaggeration. Still, the circumstance mentioned above may in general explain the fact that learned Greek transcribers, or possessors of MSS. of the N. T., often took the liberty of making corrections in order to bring the diction nearer to Grecian elegance ; see Hug, Einl. ins N. T. I. S. 129. 1 It is well known that Greek subsequently became Latinized, also, when the Romans i began to write in that language. The Latin coloring, however, is not veiy marked before the Byzantine literature, even in Greek translations from Latin authors, such as ' that of Eutropius by Paeanius, of Cicero's Cat. Maj. and Soran. Scip. by Theodoms (published by Gotz. Niirnb. 1801. 8vo.). This was partly owing to the much closer affinity between Greek and Latin than between Hebrew and Greek, and pai-tly because these authors had made Greek a special study. ^ This appellation ought to be resumed as a technical term, it is so thoroughly appro- priate. For eWrji/io-T^s in the N. T. (Acts vi. 1) denotes a Greek-speaking Jew; (for compilations respecting iXKi\iiiQ(iv rather than eAATji/io-T^s, see Wetslein II. p. 490 ; Lob. p. 379 sq.). The notion of Salmasius, that in the N. T. Hellenist means a Greek prose- lyte to Judaism, is a rash conclusion from Acts vi. .5, and Eichstadt (ad Mori acroas. herra. I. p. 227) should not have adopted it. Moreover, the controversy between Dn. Heinsius (exercit. de lingua hellenist. L. B. 1643. 8vo.), and Salmasius (hellenistica L. B. 1643. 8vo. ; funus linguae hellen. ib. 1643. 8vo. ; ossilegium linguae hellen. ib. 1643. 8vo.), on the appellation dialectus hellenistica, related not merely to the word Hd- lenistic, but still more to the tenn dialectus, for which Salmasius wished to substitute character or stylus idioticus (de Hellenist, p. 250), compare also Tittmann, Synonym. I. p. 259 sq. Yet the term dialect {SiiKeKTos tojtik^) might be allowable to denote, particu- larly in accordance with the very extensive meaning of the verb Sia\4yeirSai (see, e.g. Strabo 8, 514), that variety of Greek spoken by Hellenistic Jews. Other dissertations on the designation dialect, hellenist. see in Walch, bib. theol. IV. p. 278 sq. and Fabric. biblioth. graec. ed. Harles. IV. p. 893 sq. Thiersch and Rost have begun to call the language of the Greek Bible the ecclesiastical dialect. This, however, is too narrow for the subject discussed above, and the word dialect is inappropriate. § 3. HEBEEW-AEAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. 29 1792, 8vo.), and Olearius (de Stylo N. T. p. 232 sqq.), cf. also Hartmann, linguist. Einl. in das Stud. d. A. T. S. 382 ff. Anm. Still, this matter ought to have been executed with more critical precision.^ Nearly all who have written on this subject hitherto, are chargeable, more or less, with the folloAving errors : a. They did not give sufficient attention to the Aramaic elements in the diction of the N. T.^ In the time of Christ, as all know, the popular speech 29 of the Jews in Palestine was not the old Hebrew, but Syro-Chaldaic ; 'ft »i accordingly, many of the most current expressions of common life ^ must have been introduced into Jewish-Greek from this dialect. Among the 28 older writers Olearius has a special section de ChaJdaeo-Syriasmis N. T. ""■ ™* p. 345 sqq. (cf. Georgi, Hierocrit. I. p. 187 sqq.). More recently, a great deal relating to this subject has been collected by Boysen (krit. Erlauter- ungen des Grundtextes d. N. T. aus der syrischen Uebersetzung. Qued- linb. 1761, 8vo., 3 Stucke), Agrell (oratio de dictione N. T. Wexion. 1798, and otiola Syriaca. Lund. 1816, 4to. pp. 53-58), and Hartmann (as above, 382 ff.). Already had several earlier commentators occasionally directed attention to Aramaisms ; see Michaelis, Eiuleit. ins N. T. 1 Thl. S. 138 ff. ; Fischer ad Leusden, p. 140 ; Bertholdt's Einleit. 1 Thl. S. 158. — Under this head come also the (few) Rabbinisms (see Olear. 1. c. p. 360 sqq. ; Georgi 1. c. p. 221 sqq.), for the elucidation of which much may still be derived from Schottgen, Hor. Hebr. They are mostly terms that may have been used in the Rabbinical schools as early as the time of Christ. b. They overlooked almost entirely the difference in style of the several writers ; so that according to their collections all the books of the 43 N.T. appear to abound in Hebraisms to the same extent. But in this particular no little dissimilarity exists, and Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, James, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews ought by no means to be thrown together promiscuously.* Those learned collectors failed also 1 A new and complete treatise on the Hebraisms of the N. T., elaborated critically and on rational principles, is certainly needed. Meanwhile, the commencement recently made (Z>. E. F. Bdckel, de hebraismis N. T. Spec. 1. Lips. 1840, 8to.) deserves to be I gratefully recognized. 2 Many of the peculiarities pointed out by the Hebraists might with equal propriety be called either Hebraisms or Syriasms : e.g. eh for an indefinite article, and the frequent use of participles with fhcu for a finite verb. It is preferable, however, to regard these and the like as Aramaisms, since they are far more common and more distinctly established in the Aramaic, and occur almost exclusively in those later Hebrew writings the style of which approaches the Aramaic. This refers principally to the diction of the N. T., for the Septuagint exhibits but few Aramaisms. Cf. Olear. p. 308 ; Gesen. Com. zu Jes. I. 63. s To these the Aramaisms of the N. T. are, essentially, confined. For the religious expressions are to be connected (through the medium of the Sept. in the case of the majority of extra-Palestinean Jews) with the Ancient Hebrew, the sacred language. To the same class also belongs edvaros, pestilence, Eev. vi. 8 ; xviii. 8 (snSa , |.^aie) > cf. Ewald, Com. in Apoc. p. 122. * Even in one and the same writer we find a want of uniformity. Thus Luke in his 30 § 3. HEBEEW-ARAMAIC TDJGE OF N. T. DICTION. to show the relation between the diction of the N. T. and that of the Septuagint ; though, great as the resemblance is, considerable dissimilarity exists, and, speaking generally, the style of the LXX. as a direct and in part a literal translation of the Hebrew text is more Hebraistic than that of the N. T. c. They included in their list of Hebraisms many expressions which are not unknown to the Greek prose writers, or are the common property of many languages ; and, in general, they were guided by no distinct notion 30 of what constitutes a Hebraism ; see Tittmann, de causis contortar. inter- Itt ei pretatt. N. T. p. 18 sq. (Synonym. I. p. 269 sqq.) ; de Wette in the A. L. Z. 1816. N. 39. S. 306. They made a threefold use of the term Hebraism, viz. to designate 1. Such words, phrases, and constructions, as are peculiar to the Hebrew (Aramaean) tongue, and to which there is nothing corresponding in Greek prose ; e.g. arX-ay )(yL^ea-0(u, o^ciXiy^ara aiivai, 'Trpo^tnTTOV Kan^dveiv, 01K080- ficiv (in a figurative sense), wXarvvuv r-qv KapSiav, TropevecrOat diricrto, ov Tras (for oiSci';), i^op-oXoyua-Oai tlvi and iv tlvl, etc. 2. Such words, etc. as, though occasionally occurring in Greek authors, are imitated by the writers of the N. T. directly from their native tongue ; e.g. 0-rrepiJ.a for proles (Schwarz, Comm. p. 1235) hebr. S'^t ; avdyKr] distress, calamity (cf D. Sic. 4, 43 ; Schwarz, as above, p. 81) hebr. piaa, niriso, 29 IS , rris ; ipiorav request (as h»^ denotes both request and interrogate, cf. Uid. the Latin rogare) Babr. 97, 3 ; Apollon. synt. p. 289 ; €1% airiivT-qa-iv (D. Sic. 8, 59 ; Polyb. 5, 26, 8) cf nx'ipb ; rripara •riys y^s (Thuc. 1, 69 ; Xen. Ages. 9, 4 ; Dio Chr. 62. 587) cf y-ji< iDSX ; x^^os for littiis (Her. 1,191; Strabo, and others) cf nsiu ; a-rop-a of a sword (ns) cf , besides the Poets, Philostrat. her. 19, 4. So also the expression ei/Suo-acr^ai XpujTov (Tap- Kvvtov IvSva. in Dion. H.), formed after p"is iziab, etc. Cf. above, p. 17. 3. Such words, etc., as are equally common in Greek and in Hebrew, and with regard to which, accordingly, there is room for doubt whether they are to be considered as portions of the popular Greek adopted by the Jews, or as currently employed by them through the influence of their 44 native tongue ; e.g. i^vXcicro-etv v6p.ov, alpa caedes, avrip joined to an appel- lative (avrjp (j>ovcvi), Trais slave, ptyaXvveiv to praise, Siiuk€lv to pursue, {cultivate) a virtue. To this head may be referred many of the grammat- ical illustrations contained in Haab's grammar. 4. Lastly, it cannot be denied that in a great many passages expositors introduced imaginary Hebraisms (Aramaisms) ; as, Eph. v. 26, Iv p-qixaTi Iva. las '^?'n"b5 (see Koppe) ; Matt. xxv. 23, x"-P°^ convivium from Aram. Gospel, where he had to follow the evangelical paradosis, hebraizes more than in the Acts ; the deterioration in the diction after the proem of the Gospel was long ago pointed out. The hymns, also, and the speeches, have more of a Hebrew coloring thati the nar- ative part; cf e.g. Luke i. 13-20, 42-55, 68-79. The linguistic relation of Luke to the Synoptics has not yet been systematically exhibited. § 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. gl n;nn (see Fischer, ad Leusden dial. p. 52) or Hebr. nnaja, Esth. ix. 17, etc. (Eichhorn, Einl. ins N. T. I. 528) ; Matt. vi. 1, Sucauxrvmj alms from Chald. ri^is ; Matt. xxi. 13, k-ga-rai traders (Fischer, ad Leusden dial, p. 48) ; and during the process many a misuse of the Sept. crept in (as Luke xi. 22, a-KvXa supellex, cf. Esth. iii. 13 ; Acts ii. 24, (iSti/es vincula, cf. Ps. xviii. 6). And to crown all, tripav on this side, like 12S (?) ! Cf. also Fr. Eom. L 367.i It is obvious from what has been said that there are two kinds of He- braisms in the N. T., one of which may be called perfect, and the other imperfect. By perfect Hebraisms we mean those words, phrases, and con- structions which are strictly peculiar to the Hebrew (Aramaean) language, and therefore were transferred directly thence into the Hellenistic idiom, (the diction of the N. T.).^ On the other hand, we call imperfect Hebraisms 31 all words, phrases, and constructions which, though to be found also in Ith iL Greek prose authors, are in all probability introduced directly from the Hebrew (Aramaean) : first, because the N. T. writers were more familiar with Aramaean than with Greek ; and secondly, because the phraseology in question was of more frequent occurrence in the former language than in the latter. De "Wette also perceived this distinction, and stated it as follows (as above, S. 319) : " Certainly it makes an essential difference whether a form of speech is wholly foreign to the Greek, or, on the other hand, finds in Greek a point of contact to which it can attach itself." This whole investigation must be carried farther back ; and first of all the origin of the so-called Hebraisms must be considered. In doing this, however, we cannot take the LXX.' as our basis, since they, as translators, 30 furnish no sure testimony respecting that Greek diction of the Jews which fitt ei was formed independently and by oral intercourse. Nor can we immedi- ately use for this purpose the doctrinal parts of the N. T., as the religious phraseology of the Jews in Greek was naturally a close imitation of the Hebrew, and formed on the model of the Septuagint. But it is pre- eminently from the narrative style of the Apocrypha, the Gospels, and the Acts, that the influence of Hebrew on the Greek of Jews is to be most clearly determined. In the first place, it is plain that original writers, scarcely less than 4^ translators, unconsciously gave their Greek style the general impress of the Hebrew- Aramaic idiom, from the influence of which, as their mother 1 In the title of Kaiser's dissertation de linguae aramaicae usu cet.Norimb. 1831. 8vo. the word abusu would be nearer the truth. 2 Blessig's definition is : Hcbraismus est solins hebraei sermonis propria loquendi ratio, cujusmodi in graecam vel aliam linguam sine barbarismi suspicione transfcrre non licet. ' The most important work that has yet appeared on the linguistic element of the Septuagint, is H. W. Jos. Thiersch, de Pentateuchi versione alex. libb. 3. Erlang. 1840. 8vo., from which I have obtained many acceptable illustrations for the later editions of this Grammar. But a complete exhibition of the diction of the Septuagint is very much needed. 32 § 3. HEBEEW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. tongue, they could not rid themselves without great attention and long practice. This general impress consists, partly in explicitness (hence the use of prepositions with cases instead of cases alone, the latter construction implying more abstraction), and a predilection for circumstantiality (<^euy«v olTto it posviirov Ttvds, eyfxx^i? S t a ;( e t /) o s T., Trai/Tes airo fxiKpov eus fjieydkov, Kal tcrrat — Kal iKxeS), and the like ; the frequent use of the pers. and dem. pron. particularly after the relative, the narrative expression xal lyiviTo, etc.) ; partly in the simplicity, and even monotony, with which the Hebrew (agreeably to a co-ordinating, rather than subordinating prin- ciple) constructs periods, and links clause to clause. Hence the sparing use of conjunctions in Jewish-Greek (in which respect the classic authors display so copious a variety) ; hence the uniformity in the use of the tenses ; 32 hence the absence of periodic combination of several subordinate clauses !th cd. into a single sentence, and, in connection with this, the scanty use of parti- cipial constructions, so frequent and so diversiiied among the Greeks. In narration, a further prominent peculiarity of Hebrew-Greek consists in this, that the words of another are almost always quoted directly ; whereas the indirect introduction of quotations gives a distinctive cast to the Greek historical style, and occasions particularly the diversified use of the Optative, a mood almost unknown in the Greek writings of Jews. From this general Jewish influence alone the Greek of the Jews must have received a strongly marked character ; but in particulars it received a great additional influence, and it is these particulars which are usually styled Hebraisms. a. Attaching the derivative meanings of a vernacular word to that foreign word which corresponds to it in primary signification was the simplest mode of Hebraizing (cf. ipwrav ^Xia to interrogate and to request). Hence it would not be strange if the Jews had used BtKaiocrvvq for alms, according to the use of npns. Less dubious instances are oifieiXriixa pec- 3J catum, after the Aram. 2in ; vvfi, Fiiin (Ps. cvi. 47 ; cxxii. 4, and elsewhere in Sept.) ; evXoydv bless, i.e. make happy, like rj^^^ ; ktio-w thing created, creation, cf. Chald. fi^"ia ; Sd^a bright- ness, like 1i23 ; Svvdfj.€K miracles, niiws. The transfer of figurative senses is the most frequent ; as, iror^piov sors, portio Matt. xx. 22 (Dis) ; a-KavSaXov stumbling-block in a moral sense (iiiasa) ; yXoicro-a for nation (TiKJb) ; ij^etXos for speech (nsiu) ; ivannov rov deov (fiiiT; iffib) according to God's judgment ; 46 Kap&ia ivOela. (n'nir"'.) ; TrepiTTwreiv walk, of one's course of life ; 68ds (^'?'n) cf. Schaf. ind. ad Aesop, p. 148 ; dvd6efi,a not merely what is consecrated to God, but, agreeably to the Heb. tnri, to be destroyed, Rom. ix. 3, Deut. vii. 26, Josh. vi. 17, and elsewhere; Xvav Matt. xvi. 19 for declare lawfiU, after the Rabbin. i''Pin. b. Numerous Hebraisms arose from the verbal translation of certain § 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. 33 very common vernacular expressions ; as, irpo'swirov Xo/t)8aveivfor tfi'B sto ; ^ijTeiv \{ivxqv for tt.'B3 ir jsa ; TTotetv IXeos (x^P'") M""ayeiv (coenare) for onb iiSN ; ai/io eicxeeiv (o^ ^31?) fe'ffi; dvtVnj/Ai anrip/jM tivC for b S'^t Cpn ; uios ^avarou for r>,^0~a (ot viol tov w^t^uvos) ; KopTTOs ooT^uos for D'^sbn "'"iQ ; KopTros KoiXtas for 'j^a "i"!!? ; i$- ipXtrrOai ck ttJs oo-<^wos tivos for 'S "'Sbn'a KS^ ; ck KoiKia^ ft-rp-po^ for "ias 'jaaa^ ; d(^eiXi}jua a(j>iivai for saiPI pais (Talm.) ; also crnipi^ea' irpdscmrow avroS for 33 l-iJB Dion ; jroo-a a-dpi for 10a-5>3. '4«L c. The formation of foreign derivatives in imitation of vernacular, im- plies more reflection and contrivance ; as, oXoKavrio/jLa (from oXokovtovv, Lob. 524) for Mbj; (nrXayxyi^iodai from (nrkdyxfo, as Dn'n is connected with a^ianT ; o-KavSaXi^civ, o-KovSaXiJtor^at, like bca?, b"'b~n ; eyKaivi^eiv from eyKatVio, as '^pri is related to rasn ; dvaBifxaT^eiv, like D''"inn ; SpOpi^eiv, like B"'3rn ; perhaps evon-i^co-^ai, like Tiixfi, cf. Fischer ad Leusden dial. p. 27. IXposoTroXr/nTciv, for which even the Hebr. has no single corresponding word, goes still further. All this easUy accounts for the predominant Hebrew- Aramaic complexion of the style of the N. T. writers, who were not, like Philo and Josephus," acquainted with Greek literature, and did not aim at writing correct Greek. Hence, the whole cast of their composition (particularly the want of com- 32 pactness, especially in narration) must have offended a cultivated Greek 6tliei ear ; indeed, numerous single expressions must either have conveyed to a native Greek an erroneous meaning, or have been entirely unintel- ligible (such as aieivtt oijteiXriiuiTa,^ TrposotTTov kap-^dveai, Xoyi^€(r6ai eis SocouxrwTjv, and the like) ; cf. Gataker de Stylo X. T. cap. 5. Hence also 47 is explained why such Hebraistic turns of expression are less frequent in the ori^nal authors of the N. T. than in the translators of the O. T., and in the HeUenistic writers of the N. T. (Paul, Luke, particularly in the 1 A similar Grecism in Latin is e.g. a teneris ■uiiffuiculis (Cic. fam. 1, 6, 3), which although a Greek phrase was quite intelligible to the Romans, as e.g. Kofmhs x^"^™") though it must have had a strange sound, was unquestionably intelligible to the Greeks ; cf. Kopiris ^pivav, Pind. Nera. 10, 22. Still more easily must the Greeks have under- stood KOfnrbs KoiAios, smce fniil, by itself, (for fruit of the body) was used in unambig- uous connections, as well among the Greeks (Arist. polit. 7, 16 ; Eurip. Bacch. 1305), as elsewhere ; cf. Ruhnken, ad Homer, in Cerer. 23. 2 Though even Josephus, when naiTating Old Test, history after the Septuagint, does not always avoid Hebraisms ; see Scharjenberff, de Josephi et LXX. consensu, in Pott'i sylloge, \TI. p. 306 fF. * That is, in the signification of remitting sins, so far, therefore, as regards o(f>ciA^/iaTa. For, tupisvat remit, even applied to offences, occurs in Her. 6, 30, in the expression dc^ieVot aXriav, and o^ciX^/ttoro o^jeVoi rfetoo remittere (obligatory acts), is quite common. In later Greek we find o^ieKoi tiW t^k aSiKtay, Plutai-eh, Pomp. 3+ ; see Coraes and SdiSf. in loc. The well-knoAvn phrase fSpi X'^P'" ^vould likewise have been under- stood by a native Greek, though it would have sounded strange to him (instead of evpiffKeffBcu). 5 34 § 3. HEBEEW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION. second part of the Acts, John, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; cf. Tholuck, Com. Cap. I. § 2. S. 25 sqq.) than in those more strictly Pal- estinean (Matthew, Peter).' And it is obvious, further, that not. all the Hebraisms in the diction of the apostles were adopted unconsciously (van d. Honert, Synt. p. 103). Eeligious expressions — and of these the main portion of N. T. Hebraisms consist — they must have been influenced to retain by the circumstance that in these expressions their religious ideas themselves were embodied, and because Christianity had to be built on a 34 Jewish foundation.^ The existing Greek, too, possessed in fact no phrase- m ed. ology for the profound religious phaenomena which apostolic Christianity disclosed.^ Still, it is an exaggeration to assert, with Eichhorn and Bret- schneider (Prefat. ad Lexic. N. T. ed. 2. II. p. 12),* that the authors of the N. T. in composition did all their thinking in Hebrew or Aramaic. That is the process of a tyro. We moderns even, in writing Latin, after we have attained a certain proficiency, gradually (though never altogether) cease to think first in our vernacular. Men who, though not regularly go trained in the study of language, were constantly hearing Greek spoken gth cd. and very frequently, yes ordinarily, speaking it themselves, must soon have acquired such a command of its words and phrases and such skill in ex- pression, that in composition the Greek would present itself directly, and not solely through the medium of Hebrew or Sjrro-Chaldaic words and phrases.* The comparison of the authors of the N. T. with modern (beginners in writing Latin, or even with (uneducated) Jews speaking 1 The Grecian training of individual writers appears particularly in the appropriate .use of verba composiia and decomposita. 2 Cf. Beza, ad Act. x. 46. Rambach is not altogether wrong in saying (institutt. Tiermen. 1, 2, 2) : lingua N. T. passim ad ebraei sermonis indolem conformata est, ut hoc mode concentus scripturao utriusque test, non in rebus solum scd ipsis etiam in verbis clarius observaretur. Cf. Pfaff. nott. ad Matt. p. 34 ; Olmr. 341 sqq. ; Tittmann, de dUig. gramra. p. 6 sq. (Synon. I. p. 201 sq.). Further cf. J. W. Schrbder, de causis -quare dictio pure graeca in N. T. plerumque praetermissa sit, Marb. 1768. 4to. ; also van Hengel, com. in ep. ad Philipp. p. 19. ^ Some good remarks on this point are to be found in Hvahtroem, spec, de usu graeci- tatis alex. in N. T. (Upsal. 1794. 4to.) p. 6 sq. Van den Honert went even so far as to assert : vel ipse Demosthenes, si eandem rem, quam nobis tradiderunt apostoli, debita perspicuitate et efScacia perscribere voluisset, hebraismorum usum evitare non potuisset. * The latter, however, recalled this opinion, so far at least as regards Paul (Grundlage des evang. Pietism, u. s. w. S. 179). s How easily do we, who never heard Latin spoken by a native Roman, attain the power of at once conceiving in Latin, dixit verum esse, or quam virtutem demonstravit aliis praestare, and the like, without first mentally construing dixit quod verum sit, or de qua virtute demonstravit, quod ea, etc. Thinking in conformity to the genius of one's mother tongue, appears particularly in phrases and figures which have become habitual, and which one introduces unconsciously in speaking or writing a foreign language. So it was with the apostles, who constantly employed, and with perfect pro- priety, along with many Hebraistic expressions, numerous Greek phrases entirely foreign to the genius of Hebrew. § 4. GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION. 35 German, is as incorrect as it is unworthy ; cf. Schleiermacher, Hermeneut. S. 54, 59, 257. Besides, it is forgotten that the apostles found a Jewish- Greek idiom already current, and therefore did not first fi-ame for them- selves most of their phraseology by thinking it out in Hebrew. (Many Greek words are used by the N. T. writers with a specific reference to the Christian system (even in contrast with Judaism), so to 48 speak, like religious technical terms. Hence arises, apparently, a third element of N. T. diction, viz. the distinctively Christian (see Olear. de Stylo N. T. p. 380 sqq. ed. Schwarz ; Eckard, technica sacra. Quedlinb. 1716. 4to.). Compare particularly the words ipya (ipyd.t,€a-6ai Rom iv. 4), TTUTTK, irurreveLv cts Xpiordi' or irurreveiv absol., 6/ioXoyia, Sucauxrvvr} and Sucai- ovcrOai, iK\fryea-6ai, 01 icXijtoi, 01 eKXcKTOi, 01 aytoi (for Christians), 01 TTLtrrol and 01 aTTtoToj, otKoSoju.^ and oocoSo^eiv in the figurative sense, diro'oroXo';, cuayycXc^eo-flai and ici7pv7T€iv absol. for Christian preaching, the appropria- tion of ^aTrruTfia for Christian baptism, perhaps kXSv . . . rov . . . aprov 35 for the holy repasts (the Agape with the Communion), o icdcr/xos, ■^ o-op^ '""•'• o crapKuc6<;, in the familiar theological sense, etc. Most of these expressions, however, already existed iu the O. T. and in rabbinical writings.' Accord- ingly it will not be easy to prove any phraseology to be altogether pecu- liar to the apostles — to have been introduced by them. This apostolic element, therefore, is restricted rather to the meaning and application of words and phrases, and lies on the very outskirts of the province of philo- logical inquiry. Cf., however, Schleiermacher, Hermeneut. S. 56. 67 f. 138 f. [and G. v. Zezschwitz, Profangracitiit u. biblisch. Sprachgeist. Eine Vorl. ub.diebibl.Umbildung hellenischef BegrifFe,bes.der psychologischen. Leipz. 1859. 8vo.J. In the historical vocabulary 7rao-x«u' to suffer, and irapaSLSocrOai to be delivered up, absol., had established themselves as tech- nical expressions for the last earthly fate of Jesus.) Grammatical Hebraisms will be discussed in the next section. § 4. GRAMMATIC^VL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION. 34 As respects the grammatical character of the N. T. diction, those same two elements above mentioned may be distinctly traced. That is to say, here also the peculiarities of the N. T. phraseology are, fandamentally, those of the later (common) Greek language, and consist more in certain forms of inflection than in syntactical combinations. With these are occasionally mingled (though far 1 To attempt to explain such expressions in the Christian terminology of the apostles by quotations from Greek authors (cf. Krebs, observ. praef. p. 4) is extremely absurd. But, on the other hand, it is necessary to distinguish the diction of the apostles, far more tinged as it was with Old Testament peculiarities, from the terminology of the Greek Church, which was constantly growing more and more peculiar. 36 § 4. GRAMMATICAIi CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION. less copiously) Hebrew turns and constructions in the use of all the parts of speech. A predilection for prepositions where the Greeks employ cases alone is especially noticeable. In general the grammatical character of the N. T. idiom conforms to the laws of the Greek language ; the authors of the N. T. have even adopted many constructions peculiarly Greek (attraction of the relative and the preposition), and have observed strictly, though as by mere instinct, numerous distinctions entirely foreign to Hebrew (e.g. that between the negatives ov and /jlij, etc.). 49 We find it true in Greek, as in almost all languages the history of whose growth can be traced, that changes produced by time are lexical in their nature far more than grammatical (compare, for instance, the German of Luther's translation of the Bible with that of the present day). For the 36 later common Greek exhibits but few grammatical peculiarities, and these 1& (d. almost all relate to inflections. "We find, that is to say, first and foremost, a number of inflections in nouns and verbs which either were not used at all previously, and were first formed in later times by the abbreviation or the extension of the original forms, or which pertained exclusively to some one of the dialects. Of the latter sort are, for example, a. Attic inflections,: TiOiaa-i, rj/3ovX-q6riv, ^fieXXe, jSoijXci (^ovXtj), otpei; b. Doric: tj Xt|U.os as fern., ^T(o (ccTTu)), a(jiiwvTaL (dc^etirat) ; c. ^olic : the Optat. in ua in 1st Aor. (yet this was early adopted into Attic) ; d. Ionic : y^pet, a-irdprji, evwa (1st Aor.). As forms quite unknown in the earlier language must be mentioned. Datives like voi, Imperat. kolOov, Perfects like eyyujKav (for iyvtuKacn), 2d Aorists and Imperfects like KwreXtTroaav, cSoXioDtrav, 2d Aorists like etSa/iev, t(jivyav, the Subjunctive Future § 13, 1. e., the Imperf. rip.i6a. To this head specially belong many tenses, regular indeed according to analogy, but in place of which the earlier language used other forms ; as, ■rjij.a.pTr]aa for ^fiaprov, av^M for au^dvo), ijf" from ■^kcd, tlid.yofx.ai for cSo/xai, etc. ; indeed, the multiplication of tense and mood forms, of which for euphony's sake only a few had been previously in use, is one of the char- acteristics of the later language. Further, many nouns received a new 35 gender, as rj for 6 fidros, and acquired thus a twofold declension ; as, Btlicd. irXovTos, eXcos ; see § 9 note 2, p. 65. Peculiarities of syntax are less numerous in the later language, — appearing chiefly in a careless use of the moods with particles. The following are instances under this head in the N. T. : orav with the Indic. Pret., £1 with the Subj., tva with the Indie. Pres., verbs such as yevecrOai, /caraSiKct^eiv construed with the Ace, TrposKuvciv and wpos^uvcTr/ with Dat. of pers. (see Lob. 463; Mtth. II. 902), the weakening of Tva in phrases like OiXw Lva, aftos tva, etc., the employment of the Gen. Inf. (tov ttoiuv) beyond its original and natural bounds, the use of the Subj. for the Optat. in narration after Preterites, and in general the infrequent use of the g 4. GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OP THE N. T. DtCTlON. 37 Optat., which in Modern Greek has entiWly diBappearedi MeWstv, BiKuv, etc., are more commonly followed by the Aor. Inf. (Lob. 747). The neglect of declension is just beginning to appear ; thus, /actci toS li/, and the like (which is, however, put designedly), § 10 end. Subsequently the misapplication of cases and tenses in some instances also occurs. Thus fTvv with the Gen. in Niceph. Tact. (Hase ad Leon. Diac. p. 38), ctird with the Ace. in Leo Grammat. (p. 232) and then in Modern Greek, the inter- change of the Aor. and Pres. participles in Leo Diac. and elsewhere. The Dual was gradually superseded by the Plural. Li a grammatical point of view the N. T. idiom bears few traces of Hebrew influence. True, the grammatical structure of the Hebrew 50 (Aramaic) language differs essentially from that of the Greek ; but this 37 must have tended rather to prevent the Greek-speaking Jews from mixing fth ei vernacular with Greek constructions. (Such mixture of constructions would be far easier to a German in speaking Latin or French.) Besides, every one makes the grammatical laws of a foreign language his own, more easily than he does its store of words and phrases and its general idiomatic peculiarities (cf. Schleiermacher, Hermeneut. S. 73). This is so because the rules of syntax are bat few in comparison with the number of words and phrases, and because these rules too (especially the principal ones, which are fundamental to accurate, not elegant, composition) by oral intercourse are far more frequently brought before the mind. The Jews, therefore, must have been able readily to acquire such a mastery of the grammatical rules of the Greek then current — which by no means possessed all the niceties of Attic — as sufficed for their simple mode of communicating their thoughts. Even the Seventy have succeeded for the most part in recasting Hebrew constructions into accurate Greek.^ Only a few vernacular idioms of frequent occurrence, and not at variance with the rules of Greek Grammar, have been retained to the letter (such as instead of the Optat. an interrogative clause expressing a wish, 2 Sam. 3Q XV. 4, r« jU,e KaTaoTT^orei Kpi.Trjv ; xxiii. 15; Num. xi. 29; Deut. v. 26 ; 6thei xxviii. 67 ; Cant. viii. 1-), or, where it could be done, rendered in accord- ance at least with Greek analogy (as, Oavdrio arroOavacrOe Gen. iii. 4, ma ■jiinpn Deut. XX. 17 ; 1 Sam. xiv. 39 ; Isa. xxx. 19) or by a construction already usual in Greek (see, however, §45, 8), Judg. xv. 2 fua-utv iit-w-rjo-ws for nxJia xbiu, Gen. xliii. 2; Ex. xxii. 17; xxiii. 26 ; 1 Sam. ii. 25, etc.; 1 Certain Greet idioms became quite habitual to them, such as the article with qual- ifying words and phrases after a noun (4 Kvpiot h ovpavip, and the like), the attraction of the relative, etc. Negatives, also, they almost ahvays distinguish correctly. The more extended use of the Greek cases is exhibited by the better translators, as e.g. Gen. xxvi. 10, puKpov ^KoifvliBTi it wanted little that, etc. ^ Cf. Eom. vii. 24, where Fr. adduces similar instances from Greet poets. The con- struction with irtSs (ai') followed by the Optat. or Subjunct. is discussed by Sdiaefer, ad Soph. Oed. Col. p. 523, and Melet. p. 100. 38 § 4, GRAMMATICAL CHARACTEa OP THE N. T. iDlCTlOH. cf. also Inf. with tov} Hebrew constructions thoroughly repugnant to the genius of the Greek, the Septuagint have usually rejected. For instance, the Fem. for the Neut. occurs only in a few passages, where the translators have not duly adverted to the meaning of the text, or have given it a nervously literal rendering ; as, Ps. cxix. 50 ; cxviii. 23 ; ^ and it is hardly 38 allowable to suppose that they designedly employed it for the Neut. In Ithed. other passages the Heb. Fem. refers manifestly to a feminine subject indi- 51 cated in the context ; as, Judges xix. 30. On the other hand, iv ravrg in Neh. xiii. 14 is probably equivalent to Tavrg in Greek authors, in this respect, hoc in genere (Xen. Cyr. 8, 8, 5) or therefore (cf. ravrrj onpropterea quod, Xen. Anab. 2, 6, 7) ; see also 1 Sam. xi. 2. The construction of Hebrew verbs with prepositions is imitated oftenest ; as, <^et8eOi O. IT O TOV ai/AaTOS, KOlVtDVOS IV TLVL, api(TK£Lv and TrposKwetv ivoxTnov TLvos, evSoKEiv and OeXeLv iv tlvl) . Many such peculiarities, however, pertain to antique simplicity, and are accord- ingly in use among the Greeks themselves, especially the poets, and con- 1 Hemsterhuis, ad Lucian. dial. mar. 4, 3 : saepenumero eontingit, ut locutio quaedam native graeca a LXX. interpretib. ct N. T. scriptoribus mutata paululum potestate ad hebraeara apte exprimcndain adhibeatur. 2 The translation of the Psalms is, in general, one of the most heedless. That of Nohemiah is little better. Aquila, who translated word for word (absurdly rendering for instance, the nota ace. S^X by a-iv), cannot be taken into consideration at all in an inquiry into the grammatical character of Hellenistic Greek. In order to give a literal translation he ^^olates without hesitation the rules of grammar ; as, Gen. i. 5, iKtlKftrev 6 6ehs Tijj iparl rj/iepa. And yet he always uses the article with propriety, and even em- ploys the attraction of the relative ; so deeply were both rooted in the Greek language ! ' Imaginary Hebraisms are, the supposed Phr. excell., the 3 essentiae, combinations erroneously regarded as circumlocutions for the superlative like ad\my^ tow Beov, the use of the Fem. for the Neut., and probably the Hypallago already mentioned to (liiiuxja T^s fa^s Taiirrjs for toDto t^ ^lurra t^s ^m^s. § 4. GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OE' THE N. T. DICTION. 39 sequently do not exactly conflict with the genius of the language; as, jravciv airo rivot. Special and more decided instances are : a. The verbal imitation of such Hebrew constructions as offend against Greek propriety ; as, 6/*o\oy«iv a/ nn, jSXcTretv a-Ko sibi cavere a, irpose'^eTo ire/xi/fat, « So^iJo-etoi as a form of negatory oath j b. The repetition of a word to denote distribution, as 8vo Bvo Uni, instead of ova. Suo ; c. The imitation of the Inf. absol. (see above) ; d. The use of the Gen. of an abstract noun for the kindred adjective, and probably the very frequent use of the Inf. with a preposition (and its 52 subject in the Ace.) in narration. The peculiarities classed under a. and b. may be regarded as pure Hebraisms. When, however, it is considered that by far the majority of construc- tions in the N. T. are genuine Greek, and that the N. T. writers have constantly employed such peculiarities of Greek syntax' as differed entirely 39 from their vernacular idiom, — as the distinction of the different past Ttliei tenses, the use of av with verbs, the attraction of the relative, such an expression as oiKovofji.iav TruriareviJ.ai, the use of the Sing, with Neuters, etc., — we shall not be disposed to join in the cry about countless gram- matical Hebraisms in the N. T. That the diction of the N. T. is grammat- ically far less Hebraistic than that of the Septuagint and the Palestinean Apocrypha, as might naturally be expected, will be manifest, if, when the expressions just specified as Hebraistic are observed in the Septuagint, it is also noticed that many a vernacular idiom in the LXX. never occurs in the N. T., or (such as an interrogative clause for the Opt.) only in soli- tary cases in impassioned style. A circumlocution for the Fut., as eo-o/xai StSoVaiTob. V. 14, or the repetition of a substantive to denote every (Num. ix. 10 ; 2 Kings xvii. 29 ; 1 Chron. ix. 27), never occurs there.^ The N. T. writers considered separately exhibit extremely few purely 33 grammatical peculiarities. Only the book of Rev. requires particular, 6th ei though not exceptional, attention in a treatise on the grammar of the N. T. Finally, throughout the investigation into the grammatical character of the N. T. diction, it is obvious that the diversity of readings must be care- ftdly attended to; on the other hand, it is also plain that verbal criticism can be successfully practised only in connection with a thorough acquain- tance with the linguistic (lexical) peculiarities of the several N. T. writers. 1 The more refined elegances of literary Attic are not to be found in the N. T., partly because they were unknown in the popular language adopted by the N. T. writers, partly because they were unsuited to the simple cast of thought of the sacred authors. 2 Yet in the better translated portions of the O. T. and in the Palestin. Apocrypha we find single Greek constructions, on the other hand, instead of which the authors of the N. T. use the corresponding Hebraisms ; thus, in 3 Esr. vi. 10 ; Tob. iii. 8, the Gen. is used with strict Grecian propriety. Further, cf. Thiersch, de Pentat. alex. p. 95 sq. Z PART II. 39 6th ed. jjjj, QB,A.MMATICAL FORMS AS RESPECTS THEIR FORMATIOK. ^^ (INFLECTION.) § 5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRESfCIPLES. 1. The best manuscripts of the N. T. (like those of the Greek classics, see Poppo, Thuc. I. 214 ; Mtth. I. 133) exhibit extraor- dinary variations of orthography, especially in regard to particular words and forms. Amid such diversity it cannot always be de- termined on satisfactory grounds what is correct. However, editors of the text should lay down precise rules, and carry them out consistently. Though the various Codd. have recently been collated with greater diplomatic exactness, still, on many points, a more careful settlement of the facts is to be desired. We submit the following remarks: a. The use of an apostrophe to prevent a hiatus is of much rarer occurrence in the Codd. of the N. T. and of the Sept., than in the texts of native Greek authors (especially the orators ; cf. G. E. Benseler, de hiatu in scriptorib. gr. P. I. iPriberg. 1841. 8vo. ; the same, de hiatu in Demosth. Friberg. 1847. 4to.) : d/xa, dpa, apa, je, ifie, en, iva, wyre, never suffer elision of the last vowel ; Be (before dv') and ovBe very seldom (Matt, xxiii. 16 and 18; xxiv. 21 ; Rom. ix. 7 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 21 ; Heb. viii. 4 ; Luke x. 10 ; 2 Cor. iii. 16 ; xi. 21 ; Phil. ii. 18 ; 1 John ii. 5 ; iii. 17). Only the prepositions utto, Sm, eVt, irapd, jjuerd, and the conjunction aXXa regularly suffer elision, the former particularly before pro- nouns and in phrases of frequent occurrence, as dtr dp-xfl^, etc. ; dvTL only in dvO' wv. Yet the manuscripts vary in those cases, and even the best in particular passages, especially in regard to dXkd. Thus the Cod. Alex. [Sin.] and some others, have in Acts xxvi. 25 aXXai ahqdeiwi ; vii. 39 aOCKJd d-n-doa-avTO ; 2 Pet. ii. 5 dWd § 6. ORTHOGRAPHY AST) ORTHOGRAPHIC PRiNCIPLES. 4I oySoov. The best Codd. have 2 Cor. xii. 14 aXKa v/nas, and Gal. iv. Y aXKa v/os. So also the authority of manuscripts is in favor of, Luke ii. 36 /j-era avBp6<; ; siv. 31 /iexa etKoat ; 2 Cor. vi. 15 fMerct diriaTov ; Rev. xxi. 13 diro dvaroXSiv ; Heb. xi. 34 imo da-Oeveia'i, 41 Jude 14 u-n-6 'ABdfj. ; 2 Cor. v. 7 Sm eiSoi;?. Cf. also Acts ix. 6 ; '""^ X. 20 ; xvi. 87 ; 2 Cor. iv. 2 ; v. 12 ; Lul^e xi. 17 ivl oucov ; Matt. 54 xxi. 5 iirl ovov, etc. There is a preponderance of authority for .„ Luke iii. 2 hrl apxi^epewi, and Matt, xxi v. 7 eVt eOvo'i ; 1 Cor. vi. 11 sthei dXlM direkova-aa-Oe, aSXd iSLicaitodrp-e ; whereas tlie authority is equal in Rom. vii. 13 for dXKd r) dfiaprui and the other reading. Cf. besides, Sturz, dial. Alex. p. 125. That among Ionic authors the same indifference about shunning a hiatus prevails is well known ; and accordingly tliis peculiarity in the N. T. is styled by the earlier biblical philologists an lonism. Elision is neglected, however, by Attic prose authors, though the instances which Georgi produces from Plato cannot all be trusted (Hierocrit. N. T. I. p. 143). See Bttm. L S. 123 if.; Heupel, Marc. p. 33; Benseler, Exc. to his edition of Isocr. Areop. p. 385 sqq. ; Jacobs, praef. ad Aelian. anim. p. 29 sq. ; Thucyd. ed. Poppo III. II. 358. Perhaps this variation is not without principle, as e.g. Sintenis (Plutarch, vit. IV. p. 321 sqq.) has reduced to rules the use of the hiatus in Plutarch. In the N. T., too, the omission of the elision might be occasionally traced to the writer's intent, on one ground or another.; not that the apostles bestowed attention on such things, but so far as they were guided by an instinctive sense of propriety. On this point, however, there is a risk of trifling (Bengel on 1 Cor, vi. 11) Even in Lchm. the poetic quotation from Menander, 1 Cor. xv. 33, is written with the elision — XPV"'^' (f°'" XW"™) of^'"' icaKai; cf. Georgi, Hierocrit. 1. 186. The best Codd., however, of the N. T. [Sin. also] have XpijoTo, which Tdf. has adopted. b. In regard to final ? in outqj?, fie^pi<;, and the so-called v i^e\KvaTtKdv (Voemel, de v et 9 adductis Uteris. Fcf. a. M. 1853. 4to ; Haake, Beitrage z, griech. Grammat. I. Heft), editors have mostly followed the known rule, which, however, has been restricted by more recent grammarians (Bttm. I. 92 flf.). But it is more advisable to be guided in every case by the authority of the best Codd., and accordingly recent N. T. critics have printed ovtco<} and V i(l>e\KvcmK6v throughout, agreeably to the imcial Codd. (Tdf. praef. ad N. T. p. xxiii. [ed. vii. p. liii.]). Critics have tried to deduce from the Greek prose authors a fixed rule for determining when owTtu? or ovra, ehrev or enre, etc., shoiild be used (Bornem. 6 42 § 5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. de gemina Cyrop. recens. p. 89, -whom Poppo in his Index to the Cyrop. follows ; Frotscher,Xeii. Hier. p. 9; Bremi, Aeschiu.Ctesiph. 3 and 4; Schaf. Demosth. I. p. 207 ; Matzner, ad Antiphont. p. 192), and it is in itself not unlikely that the more careful authors were guided in this by euphony (Fraiike in Jahn's Jahrb. 1842. S. 247) 42 and other considerations,^ though ancient grammarians affirm 7th ed. (Bekkeri Anecd. III. p. 1400) that even the Attics wrote v e^eX- ^'- KvcTTtKov indiscriminately before consonants even (Jacobs, praef. 65 ad Aelian. anim. p. 23 sq.), and so it appears in the Codd. ; cf. also Bachmaim, Lycophr. I. 156 sq. ; Benseler, Isocr. Areopag. p. 185 sq. On fi^XP'' ^'^"^ /"'^Xf"' "X/°' ^^^ a%/3t9 in particular, see Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 479. According to the grammarians the Attic orthography requires /^ex/at and a.'xpt even before a vowel (Th. M. p. 135 ; Phryn. p. 14 : cf. Bornem. Xen. Cyrop. 8, 6, 20), and so they are printed by recent editors ; cf. Stallb. Plat. Phaed. p. 183. and Sympos. p. 128 ; Schaf. Plutarch. V. p. 268. See in general Klotz, Devar. p. 231. Yet even in Attic authors good Codd. have not unfrequently the form with ?. In the N. T. the best Codd. give fie-xpi invariably, and a^t even before vowels. Acts xi. 5 ; xxviii. 15 ; but a^/st? o5, Eom. xi. 25 ; 1 Cor. xi. 26 ; XV. 25, etc., preponderates (also Acts vii. 18). Codd. vary also as to v in eiKocri, but the best are said to omit it, see Tdf. praef. ad N. T. p. 23 [ed. vii. p. 54], though in the appar. this matter is but seldom noticed. On avTiKpvs, as most authorities [Sin. also] have in Acts XX. 15, not avriKpv, see Lob. Phryn. p. 443 sq. ; Bttm. II. 366. c. In compounds whose first part ends in 9, Knapp, after Wolf (liter. Analect. 1 Bd. S. 460 flF. ; cf. Kriig. S. 12), introduced the form 9 for o", and has been followed in this by Schulz and Fr., e.g. aj97re/3, 09Tt9, Sv'iKoXo';, ek(pepecv. Still, Matthiae's objections (I. S. 26) deserve great consideration ; and this orthography, as it has no historic warrant, has no great claim to adoption. ' Schneider in Plato, and Lchm. in the N. T., write wairep, ela-aKoveiv, etc. Hm., however, committed himself to the former method. That it is inadmissible in such words as irpea^inepo'i, ^aa-^7]/j.elv, re- \ea(f)opelv, is obvious. d. Of more importance than all this is the untisual mode of spelling certain words and classes of words which is found even 1 The disputed question, whether o'lirus or oSra was- the original spelling (for the former see Schdf. Plutarch. V. p. 219, for the latter Bttm. II. 264), and whether v itj)iKK. really belongs to the forms to which it is annexed (see Rost, Gramm. S. 71 ; Krii. 30) is not relevant here. § S. OfiTHOGRAPHY AND OMHOGUAPHIC r-SlNClPLES. 43 in the manuscripts of tlie N. T. and has been almost without exception adopted into the text by Lchm. and Tdf. This com- prehends pecnliarities of Alexandrian orthography (and pronun- ciation). We notice the following particulars : 1. For li/e/ca we find in MSS. (and in the text, rec.) several times the Ionic form e'veKa or etveKev (AVolf, Dem. Lept. p. 388 ; Georgi, Hierocr. I. 43 182), elsewhere evcKev : the last e.g. Matt. xix. 29 ; Rom. viii. 36 ; the first '"lel Luke iv. 18 ; 2 Cor. iii. 10 ; vii. 12. The authority of good Codd. must 56 alone here decide ; cf. Poppo, Cyrop. p. xxxix and lud. Cyrop. and W. m. Buttm. II. 369. In the N. T. at least no distinction can be fixed between the two forms ; Weber, Demosth. 403 sq. See also Bremi, exc. VI. ad Lysiam p. 443 sqq. 2. According to good MSS. even of tlie N. T. (e.g. Codd. [Sin. and] Cantabr.) and according to the Etymol. Mag. iwein^Kovra Matt, xviii. 12, 13 ; Luke XV. 4, 7, is better written ivarqKovra ; see Bttm. I. 277 ; Bornem. *^ Xen. Anab. p. 47. So also a/aTos occurs according to good Codd. in Matt. XX. 5 ; xxvii. 45 ; Luke xxiii. 44 ; Acts x. 30, etc. ; cf. also Rinck, lucu- bratt. p. 33, a form very common in Greek prose authors (see Schaf. Melet. p. 32 ; Scholiast ad Apollon. Argon. 2, 788), and also found in the Rosetta Inscription, 4th line. It was preferred by Bengel, appar. ad Matt. xx. 5. 3. The Ionic form (Mtth. I. 54) reWepss, Teo-crepaKovra occurs several times in good Codd. (particularly Alex. [Sin.] and Ephraemi) ; e.g. Acts iv. 22 ; vii. 42 ; xiii. 18 ; Rev. xi. 2 ; xiii. 5 ; xiv. 1 ; xxi. 17, and Lchm. and Tdf. have admitted it into the text. It frequently occurs also in Codd. of the Sept. (Sturz, dial. Alex. p. 118). In these ancient documents, how- ever, a and e are often interchanged, and one would scarcely consent to write Matt. viii. 3 iKaOepia-OTj, Luke xvii. 14 iKadepurOrjcrav, or Heb. x. 2 KiKaOepuTfuevov^ with A, and the like. 4. For ^aXavTiov in every place where it occurs, Luke x. 4 ; xii. 33 ; xxii. 35, 36, good Codd. have /SaWan-iov, and this Lchm. and Tdf. have printed. Also in MSS. of Greek authors we find this doubling both in )8aXXavTtov itself (JBornem. Xen. con v. p. 100) and in its derivatives. Bekker in his Plato has adopted it. Yet see Dindorf, Aristoph. ran. 772, and Schneider, Plat. civ. I. p. 75, III. p. 38. The word (cpajS/Jaros is but seldom written with a single /3 (and then mostly KpotySaTTos). 5. As to mcnndio) (yirometfo) for uTronrto^co (from inruyirtov), Luke xviii. 5 ; 1 Cor. ix. 27 var., see Lob. p. 461. It is probably merely a mistake of the copyists ; for Paul undoubtedly used the more characteristic {nrcomaZm and that has now long stood in the text. Whether we should write avuyyatov or avdyaiov can hardly be determined, the authorities for each being nearly equal. The former is derived from the adv. avto, the latter from avd (Ft. Mr. 611). See, besides. Lob. p. 297. 6. The well-known controversy about the right way of spelling adverbs in ( or Et (Hm. Soph. Ai. p. 183 ; Sturz, opusc. p. 229 sqq.), afiects the 44 § 5. ORTHOGEAPHY AND ORTHOGHAl'mC PRINCIPLES. N. T. only in regard to iravotxt Acts xvi. B4 ; ct f'lat. Eryx. 5^2 c. ; Aesch. dial. 2, 1 ; Joseph. Antt. 4, 4, 4 ; 3 Mace. iii. 27. Bloomfield, glossar. in Aesch. Prom. p. 131 sq., is perhaps right in thinking that such adverbs from nouns in os should be written with t only (TravoiKi, properly navoiKol, 51 as some Codd. have in Acts, as above). Still, nearly all the Codd. are in favor of £1 ; see Poppo, Thuc. II. I. 1540 ; Lob. 515. 7. Should we write AamS •r Aa/JiS ? See Gersdorf, Sprachchar. I. 44, 44 who leaves it undecided, yet adopts the spelling with yS. The Codd. usually (fa e4 have it abbreviated, AaS, yet occasionally the older and better, where they give it at full length, have Aavi'S (AaveiS), as Knapp, Schulz, Fr., Tdf. have printed it. Montfaucon, Palaeograph. graec. 5, 1, decided for the latter. Lchm. has invariably AaveiS ; cf besides Bleek on Heb. iv. 7. 8. The name of Moses is written Mujvct^s in the principal Codd. of the N. T. (as in the Sept. and Josephus), and this has been adopted by Knapp, Schulz, Lchm., Tdf. Still, it is a question whether this properly Coptic form, which in the Sept. is justifiable, should not in the N. T. give place to the form Mwo^s, which comes nearer the Hebrew and is certainly more 43 usual;, this passed over also to the Greeks (Strabo 16, 760 sq.) and !th ed Romans, and has been retained by Scholz. On the diaeresis in Maiiicrns, dropped by Lchm., see Fr. Eom. II. 313. 9. As to KoXocrcrai' and KoXmra-aC see the expositors on Col. i. 1. The -first of these forms is found not only on the coins of that city (Eckhel, doctrina numor. vett. I. III. 147), but also in the best Codd. of the classics (cf. Xen. Anab. 1, 2, 6) ; hence it was preferred by Valckenaer, ad Her. 7, 30. In the N. T., however, the form with a has more authority, and has been adopted by Lclim. and Tdf. It exhibits probably the popular pronunciation. 10. For cwco's Acts ix. 7, it is better to write ev£os (cf. avcMs), agreeably to the best Codd. 11. The un- Attic form ovOas, ovOiv, is found altogether in the N. T. only in single though good Codd., Luke xxiii. 14 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 2 f. ; 2 Cor. xi. 8 ; Acts XV. 9 ; xix. 27 : fi-qdev Acts xxiii. 14 ; xxvii. 33 ; see Lob. Phryn. p. 181 sq. It occurs also in the Sept. (Bornem. Act. p. 115) and in Greek papyrus rolls. 12. 'EOvOt^ 1 Cor. V. 7, text, rec, for which all the better Codd. have irvdri (Bttm. I. 78), is unusual, but rests on an unexceptionable retaining of the radical 6 where there is no reduplication (XiSio^^mi, KaOopd^vai), ttiough both the verbs Oveiv and deivai (the only ones of which the stem begins with and which form a 1st Aor.) change the radical 6 in the 1st Aor. into t (Lob. Paralip. 45). The participle 0v6eL<;, analogous in form to the above example, occurs in Dio Cass. 45, 17. (In Aesch. Choeph. 242, the editions have TvOiii). It is not improbable that the first form was employed by Paul, and suppressed by the copyists. 13. For xpewcl>€LXeTr]'s the best Codd. have xp«o^"^«ttjs Luke vii. 41 ■ § 5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 45 xvi. 5, which Zonaras rejects, and it occurs only once in the MSS. of Greek authors ; see Lob. Phryn. p. 691. 14 The rough mutes for the smooth in efj>iBe Acts iv. 29, and ux^tSo) Phil. ii. 23, Lchm. has already adopted on the authority of MSS. Other similar forms are i(j> ikiriSi 1 Cor. ix. 10; dc^eXTrt^ovres Luke vi. 35; ovx 6\j/ea-6e Luke xvii. 22 ; ovx 'lo-uSaiKSs Gal. ii. 14 ; ovx oXtyos Acts xii. 18, etc., (cf. Bornem. Acta, p. 24). Analogous forms occur in the Sept. 58 (Sturz, dial. Alex. p. 127) and in Greek inspriptions (Bockh, Inscript. I. 301, and II. 774), and are explained by the fact that many of those words, as iXirk, tSeiv, had been pronounced with the digamma. 15. Ilpaij? and irpain^ appear in the N. T. to be the better attested readings, though Photius, in his Lexicon, p. 386, Lips., prefers Trpaos ; yet 45 see Lob. Phryn. p. 403 sq. Ithci 1 6. 'ExOh (not x^^S) Lob. path. p. 47) Lchm. has already received into the text, agreeably to the best Codd* 2. Whether such words as Sia ri, "va rl, hid 76, oKkd 7^, dir apri, TOUT eaTi should be written separate or united, can hardly be determined on any general principle ; and the matter is of the less moment as the best Codd. themselves vary extremely. Knapp has printed most such words combined ; and, in fact, two small words in expressions of frequent recurrence are wont readily to blend thus in pronunciation (as the erases in Bio, Bioti, Kodd, wsre, 44 also fiTficen and others, show). Schuiz, on the contrary, defends C'liei their separation. Would he write also et 76, Tot vvv, ovk en, etc. ? How much the Codd. in the main favor their junction may be seen from Poppo, Tliuc. I. p. 455. Schuiz himself, too, has printed Swwraz/To? Mark v. 5, Luke xxiv. 53 ; and Schneider in his Plato follows almost invariably the united mode of writing them. Many inconveniences, however, would arise from carrying out strictly either mode of writing ; and as the oldest and best Codd. of the N. T. are written continuously, thus affording no guidance on this point, it would probably be advisable constantly to combine such words in the N. T. iu the following cases : a. Where the language supplies an obvious analogy, e.g. ovKeTi like fMjKeri, Toi/ydp like Toivvv, oTro\r]fuj/ia, aTrcKTavKatri, evp^copioi/, ov, which Jacobs, in Aelian. animal., re- cently adopted on the authority of a good Cod., nobody will be disposed to introduce into the N. T. ; still less avinf. Cf. Lob. pathol. p. 442. §6. ACCENTUATION. 49 Acts i. 2, 8, 11, 22 ; Jas. i. 7 ; Mark i. 27 ; 2 Cor. vii. 3 ; Phil. ii. 25, etc. (sometimes without giving authorities, Matt. xix. 29 ; John xvi. 14; 1 Cor. iii. 14 ; Phil. iii. 12 ; Eom. vi. 8, etc.), have received these forms into the text. Without more convincing proof, however, than what has been produced by Tdf. praef. ad. N.T. p. 19 [ed. vii. p. 45] all the peculi- arities of the Alex, dialect, and in particular of the Alex, orthography, should not be attributed to Palestinean writers, (as John, Paul, James) ; and it is improbable that the N. T. writers should have followed that orthography only in comparatively few instances.^ Besides, Cod. B in reference to this point has not yet beeil thoroughly collated. According to what Tdf. has said, as above, p. 21, he might have been expected to adopt such forms more frequently. The introduction, therefore, of this orthography into the text of the N. T. — if editors choose to imitate on such points the Codd., even in edi- tions intended for general use — must undergo renewed and thorough consideration ; and at the same time the question may be raised, whether 62 this orthography was not a mode of spelling adopted by the learned rather 49 than the actual pronunciation of the people, somewhat as in Roman in- 7tlie4 scriptions (Schneider, lat. Grammat. I. II. 530 f., 543 f., 566 f. etc.) we find adferre, inlatus, and the like, written according to the etymology. § 6. ACCENTUATION, p] 1. The accentuation of the text of the N. T. is to be regulated, not so miich by the authority of the oldest accented Codd. [to which Lipsius, as above, has attached too much importance], as by the established tradition of the grammarians ; though much still re- mains doubtful, and, in the minute researches of later critics, attempts have sometimes been made to introduce subtilties. We select the following observations : a. According to the ancient grammarians (Moeris, p. 193), ISe should be written tSe in Attic authors only, and iBe in the remain- ing (later) writers ; just as \a/3e and \a/Se are distinguished, Weber, Demosth. p. 173, cf. Bttm. I. 448. Griesb. has so printed (except in Gal. v. 2), and Lchm. everywhere. According to Bornem.'a conjecture (Rosenmiiller, exeg. Repert. II. 267), the word should be written ISi when it occurs as an Imper. followed by an Ace. (RoBQ. xi. 22), and tSe when it is merely an exclamation. It is preferable, however, to follow the ancient grammarians. 1 Of many words, as av?iJ\jiiti$dvetv, a'6ev7) in Attic prose ; see Schneider, Plat. civ. I. praef p. 53. (As to the poets, see Elmsley, Eurip. Med. p. 84 sq. Lips.) As to whether we should write in Jas. i. 15 an-oKva or airoKvei, see below, § 15 p. 88. In regard to the dim. reiciov as paroxytone, like rexi'fov in Athen. 2. 55, see Bttm. TI. 441. ; later editors, however, prefer rixyi-ov in Athen. and Plat. rep. 6. 495 d. In the N. T. the only part of tucvIov that occurs is the Plur. TiKv'ia ; see Janson in Jahn's Archiv VII. 487. 'Roift.viov (from iroi/neViov) should be unhesitatingly preferred to iroifiviov, Janson as above, 507. On dSpoT-^s, /SpaSvrijs as oxytones, see Bttm. II. 417. This accord- § 8. ACCENTUATION. 53 ing to the grammarians is the old accentuation, an exception to the rule; Lchm. has, on the other hand, aBpoTTjn 2 Cor. viii. 20, but PpaZvT^ra 2 Pet. iii. 9. The later Greeks seem to have pronounced these words reguld.rly as paroxytones ; Reiz, accent, inclin. p. 109. On ovKcniv and ovKovv, Spa and Sipa, see § 57, 3, pp. 510, 512. 2. Many forms, as is well known, of the same spelling but dif- fering in meaning, are distinguished from each other by the accents ; as, elfii sum and et/u,i eo (jivpiot, ten thousand and fivpioi, innumerable, Bttm. I. 278). The accented Codd. and even the editors of the N. T. sometimes waver between these two modes of accentuation. Thus for fdvei 1 Cor. iii. 14, Chrysost., Theod., Vulg., etc., read fievel (Fut.), which Knapp and Lchm. have ad- mitted into the text, cf. v. 13 ; Heb. i. 11. In Heb. iii. 16, there is more authority for rtVes than TM/e's, and accordingly recent critics have almost unanimously preferred the former. For mTrepel TO) eKTpcofiuTi 1 Cor. xv. 8, some Codd. have wsTrepet xp i.e. nvt exTpa/MTi, which Knapp has unnecessarily admitted into the text, (it is clearly the correction of persons who took offence at the use of the article here, and besides, has but little authority in its favor) ; 66 so in 1 Thess. iv. 6 e'f rat irpar/fjuiTi, just as unnecessary. In 1 Cor. X. 19, many recent editors write on eiScoXoOvTov ri ia-rcv, fj on eiScoXov Tt eanv (Knapp and Mey.), because there is an emphasis on n (antithetic to ovSev}, and the other accentuation elSeoXodvTov n ecrnv (Lchm.) produces ambiguity, since this might signify : tJiat tliere is anything offered to idols. Yet even supposing the 51 former interpretation unquestionable, it is not necessary to reject ^"i ^ the usual accentuation, in so far as it gives the sense : that an offering to idols is something (not only appears to he, but is in reality). Critics still contend about the accentuation of John vii. 34, 36, ottov elpX iyco, vfiel<: oi hiivaaOe ikdeiv or ottow etfii iyco, etc. (as several Fathers and versions read) ; and in Acts xix. 38 almost all recent editors have accented ar/opatoi (adj. signifying judicial) instead of ar/opaloi. With regard to the first of these passages, John's use of language (xii. 26 ; xiv. 3 ; xvii. 24) gives 53 the preference to e£>t' (see Liicke on the passage, after Knapp, '""*• comm. isagog. p. 32 sq.) ; but in the second, the acute would probably be correct, if we listen to Suidas, and with Kulencamp read in Ammon. p. 4 : ar/6paio<; fikv yap ianv r] fjiMepa, a/yopaio<; Se 6 'Epfj,r]v cfxariav for (jxaruiv, these proposals have originated partly in doctrinal prejudices, partly in ignorance of the language. The last is positively absurd. 3. It is still an unsettled question whether in prose (for to poetry peculiar considerations apply, cf. e.g. EUendt, Lexic. Soph. 1. 476) the enclitic forms of the pronoun, where no emphasis is intended, should be joined to a preposition : whether, for instance, we should 52 write Trapd gov, ev fioi, et? fie, and not Trapa trot), iv epkol, etc. In W"^- the editions of the N. T., even in Lchm.'s (and elsewhere also in Greek books), we constantly find irpo'; fie, ttjOo? ae, but kv aroi, ev efioi, erri ere, et? ifie, iir ifie, etc. ; and only in connection with those enclitic forms in a few passages, Luke i. 43 ; Acts xxii. 8, 13 ; xxiii. 22 ; xxiv. 19 ; cf. Bornem. on the last passage, (mostly at 54 the end of a sentence) from Cod. B and some others the orthotoned Jth ed. pronouns are noted as various readings. Partly on the authority of ancient grammarians, and partly for the reason laid down by Hm. emend, gr. gr. I. 75 sq. that in such combinations the pronoun has the force of a noun, one must be disposed to decide generally for the orthotoned form ; (only 7rp6? fie is defended by a portion of the grammarians, and occurs frequently in Codd.) see also Bttm. §7. PUNCTUATION. 55 I. 285 f. ; Jacobs, Anthol. Pal. I. praef. p. 32 ; Mtth. Eurip. Orest. 384, Sprachl. 1. 110 ; Kru. 76 ; also Ellendt, Arrian. 1. 199. Yet Reisig, conject. in Aristoph. p. 66, and Bornem. Xen. conviv. p. 163, decide otherwise ; and it must be confessed tlaat good MSS. of Greek authors (even besides the case of tt/jo? fie) often have the enclitic forms. Where the pronoun is emphatic, the enclitic forms of course do not occur ; accordingly Knapp and Schulz properly give Jno. xxi. 22, ri tt/jo? o-e. In editions of the N. T. text, the enclitic forms are in general employed agreeably to the established rules of grammarians ; heuce even Fr., not- withstanding Hermann's authority (emend, rat. I. 71, 73), stUl writes o jrais ju,ou (Matt. viii. 6), i$ v/jmv nve^ (Jno. vi. 64), vtto tivwv (Luke ix. 7), and not irai's /uoC, e^ v/jiliiv tices, vito nvutv. Lchm.^ began to accent the pronoun in the last two instances, and also to write irov earw, Matt. ii. 2 ; [ner avTtov icrnv, Mark ii. 19 ; but Trats /lov he left unchanged. He has been followed by Tdf. See, however, the judicious decision of Bttm. 1. 65 £ § 7. PUNCTUATION." 68 1. In all editions of the N. T. down to that of Griesbach inclu- sive, the punctuation was not only deficient in consistency, but also suffered from the mistake that in order to facilitate the under- standing of the text editors punctuated too much, especially with commas. In this way, too, they forestalled the reader and imparted to the text their own exegetical views ; cf. also Bttm. I. 68 ; Schleiermacher, Hermeneut. S. 76. The first person who directed keener attention to punctuation, 53 and attempted to reduce it to fixed principles, was Knapp. He ™'* has been followed, and with additional restrictions, by Schulz, Lchm., and Tdf. (the last adhering mostly to Lchm.).^ None of them, however, gave a general exposition of his principles.'* 55 Punctuation was originally contrived as an aid in reading, espe- '""^ cially in reading aloud, by marking the various resting-places for 1 Yet he (Lchm.) has printed in Acts xxvii. 44, M Twav ; Jno. xx. 23, iiv nvwi/. 2 Cf. in particular Poppo, in the AUg. Lit. Zeit. 1826. 1 B. S. 506 fF. ; Mtth. I. 172 ff. ; [Lipsius, as above, S. 81 ff.]. ' Among the editors of Greek authors /. Bekker has begun to punctuate with greater moderation and consistency, and W. Dindmf still more sparingly. Both, however, seem to have carried the exclusion of the comma too far. * Rinck has proposed (Stud. u. Krit. 1842. S. 554 f.) with regard to punctuation to return to the principles of the ancient Greek grammarians ( Villoison, Anecd. II. 138 sqq.). This, however, would be hardly practicable. 56 §7. PUNCTUATION. the voice. At present, however, independently of the circumstance that punctuation is indispensable in any extended system of vocal signs, its main object is to enable the reader in the act of reading to understand correctly, so far as this depends on perceiving the connection of the words (Bttm. as above). Punctuation therefore must be regulated by the logical, or rather — since the thought is clothed in language — by the grammatical and rhetorical, rela^ tions of the words to each other. Hence it is too much to expect that the exegetical views of an editor should in no degree whatever be suggested by his punctuation, as he has to employ not merely commas, but colons and points of interrogation. As to the proper use of the colon and period in the text of the N. T. there can be no reasonable doubt ; for, the omission of the colon before the direct words of a speaker (Lchm. Tdf.) and the substitution of a capital letter, is an innovation for which there appears to be no sufficient ground. Oh the other hand, the pro- priety of inserting or not inserting a comma is more uncertain. 69 Thus much, however, is clear, that only a grammatically complete proposition ^ having a close connection with another proposition should be separated from it by a comma ; and that for this special purpose the comma was devised. But a grammatically complete proposition comprehends not only a subject, a predicate, and a copula, — three elements that may be either expressed or under- stood, — but all qualifying words also which are introduced to deiine these main elements more precisely, and without which the 54 proposition would convey but an imperfect sense. Hence it was a "flie^- mistake in Griesbach e.g. to separate the subject fropi the verb by a comma whenever it was accompanied by a participle or consisted 56 of a participle with adjuncts (Mark vii. 8 ; x. 49 ; Rom. viii. 5 ; Jtiied. j^ jjjQ_ jj_ 4 . jjj ;|^5-j_ j^ jg ^ mistake to divide 1 Thess. iv. 9 irepl 8e T»y? Kol iv ttoAAu iriaTos icm will be apt to go wrong, as Kai excites the expectation of a second expression co-ordinate with ttio-tos iv iX. The same holds true of the following passages : Eom. iv. 14 ei yap 01 ek vo/jkov KXr/povoixoi, Jas. V. 12 ^Tii> Se i/Auv to vat vol kol to ov ov, 1 Cor. xv. 47 o irpwTos avOfxaTTOi in yrj'S j^oikos, Heb. v. 12 6(j>ei\ovTe'S eii/ai SiSdcrKoXoi Sia toi' )(p6vov irdXiv ^(ptCav ej^ere tov hi8d.d 1 Cor. i. 12, Sarava Mark i. 13 ; 2 Thess. ii. 9, 'E7ra(}>pa Col. i. 7.^ Likewise those ending in unaccented a? make the Gen. in a ; as, Ka'idayTJ, Vokyoda, 'Pa/*a. BijdajSopa Jno. i. 28 would not come under this head, since Origen uses it as a Neut. Plur. ; recent editors have printed sv B-qOavui. AvSSa is imquestionably inflected as 74 feminine in Acts ix. 38 (AvSSt/s), on the other hand in vs. 32 and 35 AuSSa as Neut. Ace. has respectable Codd. in its favor ; cf. my RW. II. 30. Words in apxos ' commonly foUow in the N. T. and later Greek the first declension, and end in apxq^ ; ^ as, iraTpidpxqs Heb. vii. 4, Plur. Acts vii. 8, 9, coU. 1 Chron. xxvii. 22, TCTpap;^s Matt. xiv. 1 ; Luke iii. 19 ; ix. 7, coU. Joseph, antiqq. 18, 7, 1, rerpapxai Euseb. H. E. 1, 7, 4 ; xoXtrapx'/s Acts xvii. 6 ; i0vdp)(tp 2 Cor. xi. 32, coU. 1 Mace. xiv. 47, i9vapxg 1 Mace. XV. 1, 2, iOvdp^rp' Joseph, antiqq. 17, 11, 4, i&vdpxas Euseb. Const. 1, 8; a(ndp)(t]';, hence atruipy^v Acts xix. 31, and axriApxrjv Euseb. H. E. 4, 15, 11 (Asiarcha, Cod. Theodos. 15, 92) ; ocoTovropx^s Acts x. 1, 22 ; xxi. 32 ; xxii. 26, coll. Joseph, b. j. 3, 6, 2, haxTovrapyQi Acts xxiv. 23 ; xxvii. 31 ; Matt viii. 13 where, however, a few Codd. have ocaTovrap^^oi, just as in Joseph, b. j. 2, 4. 3, hcaTovrapxav is found besides hcaTovrap^^. On the other hand, acoTovTap;(t)s occurs almost without var. in the following pas- sages : Matt. viii. 5, 8 ; Luke vii. 6 ; Acts xxii. 25 : (the Gten. Sing. Luke vii. 2, and Plur. Acts xxiii. 23, the former with the same accent and the latter with a circumflex on the last, may be cases of hcaTovrapyrfi • The MSS. even of ancient Greek authors vaiy, indeed, between apxos and apxilJ. but later critics, in them, gire the fonn opxos the preference ; cf. Bomem. Xen. conv. 1,4; Poppo, Xen. CjTop. 2, 1, 22, p. 109. This also corresponds best with the etymology (from apx^s)- So riwapxos, Aeschyl. Choeph. 662. rviuratriipxn^, howeyer, is un- doubtedly the correct reading in Aeschin. Tim. ed. Bremi I. 23. ^ That this was the predominant termination in the Apostolic age appears fiirther ftom the drenmstance that the Romans in rendering such words into Latin gave to them this or a similar form, when they might just as well have chosen the form in archus. Hence Tetrarches, Hirt. bell. Alex. c. 67 ; Liv. epitom. 94 ; Horat. serm. 1 , 3, 12 ; Lucan. 7, 227 ; Alabm-ches, Cic. Attic. 2, 17 ; Jnven. Satir. 1, 130 ; Toparcha, Spartian. in Ha- drian. 13 ; Patriarcha, Tertull. de anim. c.7, 55, and elsewhere. Cf SchSf. Demosth. IL 151. Byzaatine anthois still more fiilly attest the predominance of this fonn. 62 § 8. RARE FORMS OF FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS. Finally, for orparoTeSapx!? ^<^*s xxviii. 16 (Const. Man. 4412, etc.) the better Codd. have (TTpaTOTreBdpxdpri Acts v. 1 (Lchm. '%aTrcj>apa), and (rwetSuti^s v. 2, according to good Codd. See Mtth. I. 183. 2. In the Second Declension the following forms occur : a. 'AvoXko) in Ace. Sing, for 'AiroXKwv from 'A-ttoXXco^ (Acts xviii. 24) Acts xix. 1 ; 1 Cor. iv. 6 (the Gen. regularly 'AttoXKo) 1 Cor. iii, 4 ; xvi. 12) ; cf. Bttm. 1. 155, 199. Good Codd. (Bttm. 1. 155 ; Krii. 45) have Acts xxi. 1 ttjv K& (1 Mace. xv. 23 ; Joseph, antiqq. 14, 7, 2), where the usual form rr/v Ka>v has but little authority. However, together with Km, Ka> is found as indeclin- able in Strabo 10, 489 ; cf. further, Duker, Thuc. 8, 41. b. Not, as Dat. (after the 3d Decl.) of vovs, 1 Cor. i. 10 ; xiv. 15 ; Rom. vii. 25 ; and vo6<; as Gen. for vov, 1 Cor. xiv. 19. Greek authors, instead of vot, usually employ vow, or contr. va>. Not occurs besides only in Simplic. ad Aristot. phys. 31, 25 ; Philo I. 63 (Bekker, Anecd. III. p. 1196), the Byzantines (e.g. Malalas, see index in Bonn ed. Theophan. 28), and the Fathers ; see Lob. Phryn. 453 ; Boissonade, Marin, p. 93 sq. Likewise ttXoo? Acts § 8. EAEE FORMS OF FIEST AM) SECOND DECLENSIONS. 63 xxvii. 9, as Gen. (for irXov'), as in Ajiian. peripl. p. 176 ; Malalas, 5, p, 94 ; Cinnam. p. 86 ; cf. Lob. as above. c. The Vocative 0ee Matt, xxvii. 46 without var. (Jiidg. xxi. 3 ; Wisd. ix. 1 ; Acta Thorn. 25, 45, 57 ; Tcfiodee 1 Tim. i. 18 ; vi. 20), of whicli scarcely an instance is to be found in Greek autliors ; cf. Bttm. I. 151. Even the Sept. has usually Voc. 0e6?. d. We find the Plur. of oa-reov without contraction oo-rea Luke g2 xxiv. 39, and oa-riav Matt, xxiii. 27 ; Heb. xi. 22, and elsewhere. Ttlied. The latter, however, occurs not very unfrequently in Greek prose : Lucian. necyom. 15 ; Plat. Locr. 102 d. (cf. besides, Eurip. Orest. 404 ; Troad. 1177). 'Oarea is more rare ; cf. Plat. Locr. 100 b. ; Aristot. anim. 3, 7 ; Menand. ed. Meineke, p. 196. As Metaplasms we must notice : 1. 'O 8c(r/io? Plur. ra 8eSk, Nom. 64 Sing, of diSiveg, like SeX^iV in later writers not unfrequent, see Bttm. 1. 162 "l" ^ (cf. also KXeiStV Const. Porph. 14, 208). Note 2. In several passages in good MSS. TrXovTos, contrary to general usage, is used as Neuter, Eph. ii. 7; iii. 8, 16; Phil. iv. 19; Col. ii. 2 (Acta apocr. p. 76), a peculiarity probably originating iu the language of the people, as the modern Greeks use indiscriminately both to itXoCtos and o ttXoStos, see Coray, Plutarch, vit. II. p. 58 ; Isocr. II. 103, 106. In the same way we find to ^rjXoi 2 Cor. ix. 2 in Codd. B [and Sin.] ; Phil. iii. 6 in A B [Sin.J (Clem. ep. p. 17 Ittig.) and perhaps to ^^o* Luke xxi. 25, (if the Gen. be accented fjxovs, as it is by Lchm.), according to good Codd., 62 as Malal. p. 121, 436. Compare in later writers, to xXaSos Theophan. 6th ciL contin. ed. Bekker, p. 222 ; see, in general, Benseler, Isocr. Areopag. p. 106. On the other hand, we find in later writers 6 SeiiiTos Luke xiv. 16 B D ; see Hase, ad Leon. Diac. p. 239 ; Schaf. ind. Aesop, pp. 128, 163 ; Boisson. Herod. Epim. p. 22, and Anecd. I. 51 ; and o teixo? Duca? p. 266 Bonn, ; Acta apocr. p. 84. The heteroclite o-koto^ (Poppo, Thuc. I. 225) 9 5ti 8 iO. iJ^OKElGJ^ AJSTD INDECLINABLE WORDS. is found only once as Masc. (Heb. xii. 18 o-ko'tu), but not certain), else always Neut. (ctkoVovs, o-Koret) without a single var. noted. As to e\eos, which the Sept. sometimes use as Masc. (so too Philo I. 284), in N. T. MSS. the Neut. predominates (var. only Matt. ix. 13 ; xii. 7 ; xxiii. 23 ; Tit. iii. 5 ; Heb. iv. 16). ®a/Aj8os has, Acts iii. 10, Gen. Od^i-Pov in C. Note 3. The MSS. have several instances of v subjoined to the Ace. Sing, in a or ^ (e\irt'8av, crvyyev^v, cf. Sturz, dial. alex. p. 127 ; Lob. paralip. p. 142), as Matt. ii. 10 aarepav, Codd. [Sin! and] Ephr. Jno. xx. 25, x^^pa-v Cod. Alex., and in same Cod. Rev. xii. 13 apawav, xiii. 14 eiKovav, xxii. 2 /x^vav, Acts xiv. 12 AiW according to several Codd., and Rom. xvi. 11 ovyyev^, Heb. vi. 19 a(T(JMX.rjv (this also in Codd. Ephr. and Cantab.) ; Rev. i. 13 TToSrjpriv. Likewise in the Byzantine writers we find similar forms (see Index to Leo Grammat. p. 532 ; Boisson. anecd. V. 102), as also in the Apocr. (Tdf. de evang. apocr. p. 137), and in Rev. Lchm. has received into the text the forms quoted above. This subjoined v is probably not iito be considered, with Ross, as an original termination (transmitted in the , jpopular speech), but as an arbitrary extension of the v usual in the Ace. ,af .many sorts of words (Mtth. 208), Lob. paralip. as above. In adjectives of two terminations in rjs, this form is said to be Aeolic, Mtth. 289. More- jover, see also Bornem. on Acts as above. 79 § 10. rOEEIGN WORDS AM) WORDS WHICH ARE INDECLINABLE. 1. In the case of certain Hellenized Oriental names the Sept. and the N. T. writers have introduced a simple mode of inflection, g5 according to which the Gen., Dat., and Voc. coincide for the most Itied. part ,in one and the same form, and the Ace. is designated by v. To this class ,of nouns belong the following : 'Irjcrom, Gen. ^Irjaov Matt. xxvi. 69, Dat. 'Irjaov Matt. xxvi. 17,^ Voc. 'Itjo-ov Mark i. 24, Ace. 'Irjerovv Matt. xxvi. 4 ; Acts xx. 21. Aevi or Aevk (Luke V. 29), Ace. Aevtv Mark ii. 14. 'Iqjo-j}? Gen. 'Itoafj Matt. xxvii. 56 ; Luke iii. 29, etc. (but B D and L have everywhere in Mark 'I&)a?7To?), Bttm. 1. 199. Like 'Ir]a-ov<; is declined the Egyp- tian name ©ayttoO? (Plat. Phaed. 274 d.) Mtth. 1. 198. The word Mft)<777? (^Mcova-rji') is declined in two ways. The Gen. (also in the 63 Greek Fathers and Byzant. authors) is invariably Maxrem (cf. Bthed. Diod. S. Eel. 34, p. 194, Lips.). As to the Dat., however, even good Codd. vary between Maerel (also in Buseb. and Theophan.) and Mcoaf), cf. Matt. xvii. 4 ; Mark ix. 5 ; Luke ix. 33 ; Jno. v. 46 ; ix. 29 ; Acts vii. 44 ; Rom. ix. 15 ; 2 Tim. iii. 8. The Ace. is J Along with these forms, the Codd. of the Sept. often have for the Dat. (Deut. iii. 21, 28; xxxi. 23) and even for theiGen. (Exod. xvii. 14) the form 'Iriaot § 10. FOREIGN AiiB INDECLINABLE WORDS. 67 Macrnv, Acts vi. 11 ; vii. 35 ; 1 Cor. x. 2 ; Heb. iii. 3 (Diod. S. 1, 94) ; only Luke xvi. 29 has without var. Mcoaea (as Euseb. H. E. 1, 3, and often in Clem. Alex., Geo. Syncell., Glycas, etc.). All these forms, with the exception of Mtao-ew?, may be deriyed un- hesitatingly from Nom. Mwoij? (see tlie analogies Bttm. I. 198, 210, 221). For M(oaea}<;, a Nom. Maxrev^ has been demanded; but it does not occur, and after all it is not necessary, since ''Afyi}vTa, but for the Nom. Xohjtfuiv. 2 Elsewhere, on the other hand, we find a twofold mode of declining the word : u. Gen. 'ItpixoC 3 Esr. v. 44, Dat. 'Upixv Pi'ocop. de aedif 5, 9; Theodoret. V. p. 81, Hal., or "lepixoi Joseph, b. j. 1,21,4. Said, under 'npi-yei/iis ; and h from Upitous (Ptol. 5, 16, 7), Gen. 'lepiKoiJi/Tos Strabo 16, 763, Ace. 'lepiicoiJi/Ta 16, 760, and usually in Josephus. 68 § 11. INFLECTION AND COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES. Matt. ii. 3 (iii. 5 ?). The Sept. has only the form ' lepovaaX'^fi ; Joseph., on the contrary, 'lepoa-oXvjMa. To 'irda-)(a, Luke ii. 41 ; Jno. ii. 23 ; as in Sept.^ So also (to) aUepa Luke i. 15, and in Sept. Lev. x. 9 ; Num. vi. 3 ; Isa. xxiv. 9, etc. (Euseb. praep. ev. 6, 10, has Gen. o-tVe/so?).^ The Hebrew Plural termination occurs only in Heb. ix. 5, Xepou/St/x ; this word, however, as in the Sept., is construed as Neut. (Gen. iii. 24 ; 1 Kings viii. 7 ; Ezek. x. 3, etc.) like irvev/j^aTa. Also in Rev. i. 4 a whole phrase (the Greek equivalent for njh'') is treated as indeclinable : dm 6 toi/ xai 6 rjv koI 6 epp^djaevo?, perhaps with design (as the name of the immutable One) like tv, iirjOev, etc. in Greek philosophical writings, even in Aristot. e.g. polit. 5, 3 ; Procl. theol. Plat. 2. ed. Hoeschel /aetoi tov cV, p^topis toC tv (StoUberg, de soloecis. N. T. p. 14 sqq.). On the other hand, in Creuzer's edition of the writings of Proclus we find invariably ck toC ei/ds, iv to! ivi. Cf. also tov 6 Seiva, Schaf. Demosth. III. 282. 81 §11. INFLECTION AND COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES. 1. Adjectives of three terminations, particiilarly those in tos, /uto?, eios, ato9, are not unfrequently (especially in Attic authors) used as adjectives of only two terminations (Elmsley, Eurip. Heracl. p. 77, Lips. ; Monk, Eurip. Hippol. p. 66, and Eurip. Alcest. 126, 67 548, 1043 ; Mtth. 295 ff.) . In the N. T. we find Luke ii. 13 aTparc^ ovpavioa, Bttm. I. 316), is transferred also to the 1st Aor., KareiX'^tfidi] for KaTeXrj6r] Jno. viii. 4, not without var. (see Maittaire, dialectt. ed. Sturz, p. 58) ; traces of this already existed in lonism. 7. A double Augment occurs, a. In aireKaTea-rddr} Matt. xii. 13 ; Mark iii. 6 ; Luke vi. 10, now 70 properly in the text (cf. Lucian, Philopat. c. 27 a-n-eKaTeaTi^a-e, thed-Ducas 29 aTreKareaTrjaav, Theophan. p. 374 aireKaTeopiov(Ti, Matt. xiii. 49, ryvcopLovai Col. iv. 9, KaOapiel Heb. ix. 14, SiaKodapiel Matt. iii. 12, eKiriovcrt Matt. xii. 21, fiuKapiova-i Luke i. 48, etc. Tliis is an Atticism (though the same form was not foreign to the lonians also) ; cf. Georgi, Hieroc. I. p. 29 ; Fischer, Weller. II. p. 355 ; Mtth. I. p. 402. Of jSaTTTi'^o) the common form ^a-mia-ev alone is used Matt, iii. 11. On (TT7)pLip> see § 15. In the Sept. verbs in a^w also are inflected after the same analogy in the Future, e.g. epyaTai, Lev. xxv. 40, dp-Tra xix. 13, etc. Such Attic Futures of contract verbs 70 some liave wished to find in Matt. ii. 4 yevvuTat, Jno. xvi. 17 dewpelre ^^■ (on account of o^eade following), Matt. xxvi. 18 ttolo) ; but all these are Presents. See § 41, 2 ; cf. Fr. Mt. as above, Mtth. p. 403 f. d. Of verbs in aivto, Xevtcaivu) has in the Aor. the Attic form (Bttm. I. 439) XevKuvai Mark ix. 3, and ^aaKaiva Gal. iii. 1 in var. has the equally classic form e^daicqva. But (T7]fiaiv(o has Aor. earjfjMva Acts xi. 28 ; Rev. i. 1, see below, § 15. Maypaivco 1 Cor. i. 20 and ^rjpaivm Jas. i. 11, have the a as verbs in palva do regu- larly. Respecting ^dvai see § 15, p. 89. e. Futures Subjunctive are occasionally noted in individual passages, from a greater or less number of Codd., e.g. 1 Cor. xiii. 3 Kavdrjffmiuu (adopted by Griesbach), 1 Pet. iii. 1 KepBi^dija-covTai, 1 Tim. vi. 8 dpKeaBijtrwfieOa (in botli passages without much au- thority). In the better class of authors such forms probably originate with the transcribers, see Abresch in Observatt. misc. III. p. 13 ; Lob. 721 ; but in later writers, and the Scholiasts particularly (cf. Thuc. 3, 11 and 54), they cannot be rejected (see Niebuhr, ind. ad Agath. p. 418, and ind. to Theophan. p. 682). In the N. T., however, tliere is very little authority for these Subjimctives. 73 Quite isolated are evpi]ari<; Rev. xviii. 14 and evprjo-aa-iv Rev. ix. 6 '""i (yet an Aor. evpfja-ai also occurs, see Lob. p. 721), yvQia-eovrai Acts 88 xxi. 24 (yet cf. Lob. p. 735). (p^cyOe Luke xiii. 28 and Swot? Jno. xvii. 2, are unquestionably Aor.) 2. Peculiar personal endings are : a. The 2d Per. Sing. Pres. and Fut. Pass, and Mid. in et for ??; 76 § 13. RABE FORMS IN THE TENSES as, /Soi/Xet Luke xxii. 42, irapk^ei, vii. 4 (var.), o'^ei, Matt, sxvii. 4 and Juo. xi. 40 (var.). Cf. also Matt, xxvii. 4; Acts xvi. 31 ; xxiv. 8 (var.). In the two verbs oTrrea-dai and ^ovkecrdai this is the form invariably used in Attic (Bttm. I. 348) ; in other verbs it seldom occurs, and almost exclusively in the poets (cf. Valcken. ad Phoen. p. 216 sq. ; Fischer ad Weller. I. p. 119, II. p. 399 ; Georgi, Hierocr. I. p. 84 ; Schwarz ad Olear. p. 225), yet it appears in good MSS. -even of Attic prose, Bttm. as above; but cf. Schneider, praef. ad Plat. civ. I. p. 49 sqq. b. In the 2d Per. Sing, we find the original uncontracted form not only in hvvacrai (Matt. v. 36 ; viii. 2 ; Mark i. 40) where it continued to be the usual form, Bttm. I. 502 (yet cf. hvvri Mark ix. 22 ; Rev. ii. 2, and var. Luke xvi. 2,^ which at first was used only by the poets, subsequently by prose authors also, e.g. Polyb. 7, 11, 5 ; Aelian. 13, 32, see Lob. 359), but we find it also in con- tract verbs, oBwaaat Luke xvi. 25 (Aeschyl. Choeph. 354), icairyaaai Rom. ii. 17 ; 1 Cor. iv. 7, and KWTaKav)(aaai, Rom. xi. 18 ; cf. Georgi, Hierocr. I. p. 184 ; Bttm. I. 347 ; Boisson. Anecd. IV. p. 479. See irivto below. c. In the 3d Per. Plur. of the Perfect av for aat, (from the 1\ old termination avri) ; as, eryvmKav Jno. xvii. 7, TerriprjKav xyu. 6, 6th A eLptjKav Rev. xix. 3, also Luke ix. 36 and Col. ii. 1 ecopuKav in very good Codd., likewise Rev. xxi. 6 ; Jas. v. 4. So also in Sept., e.g. Deut. xi. 7 ; Judith vii. 10 (Acta apocr. p. 235). This form belongs to the Alexandrian dialect ; cf. Sext. Emp. 1, 10, p. 261, and the Papyri Taurin. p. 24 (^iceKvplevKav') ; but occurs also in Lycophr. 252 (^■7re(Tav (Tit. iii. 14), cf. Acts xxiv. 20 ; xxv. 5. The assertion of Elmsley, Eurip. Ipliig. T. p. 232, ed. Lips., that this form did not become usual till after Aristotle's time, has been fully refuted by Mtth. I. 442 and Boruem. Xen. An. p. 88. f. The 8d Per. Plur. of the historical tenses has often, in good Codd., the termination oaav (Bttm. I. 846) ; as, Juo. xv. 22, 24 elyocrav for el^^pv, xix. 3 eSiBoo'ap for iSiSovv, 2 Tliess. iii. 6 irapeXor ^oa-av, and Rom. iii. 13 from Sept. iSoKiovaav. This termination is much used in the Sept. and by the Byzantines ; as, Exod. xv. 27 fjkdoaav, Josh. v. 11 i(f)ar/ocrav, Exod. xvi. 24 KaTekLiroaav, xviii. 26 eicpivoaav, Niceph. Greg. 6, 6, p. 113 el^oarav, Meet. Chon. 21, 7, p. 402 KaTriKOoaav, Niceph. Bryenn. p. 165 fieT^Xdocrav, Brunck, Analect. II. p. 47 ; cf. also 1 Mace. vi. 31 ; Cant. iii. 3 ; v. 7 ; vi. 8 ; Josh. ii. 1 ; iii. 14 ; v. 11 ; vi. 14 ; viii. 19 ; Jiidg. xix. 11 ; i. 6 ; Ruth i. 4 ; Lam. ii. 14 ; Ezek. xxii. 11 ; Exod. xxxiii. 8, etc., Fischer, Weller. II. p. 336 sq. ; Georgi, Hierocr. I. p. 165 sq. ; Lob. Phryn. 349, and pathol. 485 ; Sturz, p. 58 sqq. In the N. T. however, ■with the exception of Rom. as above, only single Codd. give this form, and it may possibly be attributable everywhere to the Alex- andrian transcribers. 3. Of contracted verbs we must note a. The Future iicxem Acts ii. 17, 18 Sept., after the manner of verbs in X, /*, v, p, cf. LXX. Ezek. vii. 8 ; xxi. 81 ; Jer. xiv. 16 ; Hos. V. 10 ; Zech. xii. 10 ; Bttm. I. p. 369. Were it accented sKxecy, it would be, according to Elmsley, the Attic Fut., as this form is both Pres. and Put. ; see Bttm. II. 325. But in Sept. with the same accent it is further inflected, e'^^j^eets, i/cxeelre, Exod. iv. 9 ; xxix. 12 ; XXX. 18 ; Deut. xii. 16. b. The usual forms of the two verbs Siyjrda), ireivdro, in the (Attic) literary language were Inf. Si^^v, Tretvfjv, and Indie. Sti/r^?, St\|f^, etc., Bttm. I. 487. In the N. T. we find instead hf\^av, Bi-yjra Rom. xii. 20 ; Jno. vii. 37, ireuvav Phil. iv. 12, ireLva, Rom. xii. 20 ; 1 Cor. xi. 21, which first occurs after the time of Aristot. (Anira. 72 9, 31, cf. Sallier ad Thorn. M. p. 699 ; Lob. 61). According to^*"'' tlie same analogy we find Fut. Trewdcra) (for Treipija-w') Rev. vii. 16 ; 90 Jno. vi. 35 var. (Isa. v. 27 ; Psalm xlix. 12), and 1st Aor. iireivaaa Mark ii. 25 ; xi. 12 ; Matt. xii. 1,3; xxv. 35 ; Luke iv. 2. Both forms are peculiarities of later Greek ; see Lob. 204. c. Of verbs in em, retaining e in the Fut. etc. (Lob. paral. 435), we find in the N. T. KoXeaa, TeXecrco (Bttm. I. p. 392), also (^opiam 78 § 14. BAEE INFLECTIONS OF VERBS IN MI and iipopecra 1 Cor. xv. 49 (Sir. 11, 5 ; Palaepli. 52, 4). In the classics the usual form is 6y- TiDv in those passages (if not to be taken for an Aor. Particip., see Fr. Mt. p. 383] may- be considered as a corruption of aTroKTevpifTaf, which a few, but good, Codd. have, and which Lchm. and, in part, Tdf. have printed. Cf. besides, Bornem. ad Luc. p. 81. 84 § 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS. j8 f w . 1st Aor. Inf. ^la^aai, in 1 Pet. iv. 2, for which the 2d Aor. fiiSivai is more usual in Attic, Bttm. 11. 130 f., yet see Aristot. Nic. 9, 8; Plutarch. 0pp. II. 367 f., and often in compounds, Steph. Thes. II. 260, ed. nov. The other forms of the 1st Aor. are more frequent, the participle /Stcocra? the most so. PXacrTavo). Aor. e^kaaTrjaa for e^aa-rov Matt. xiii. 26 ; Jas. V. 18 (Gen. i. 11 ; Num. xvii. 8, etc. ; Acta apoc. p. 172) ; cf Bttm. II. 131. Since Aristotle's time the form is not unusual even in the Greek literary language ; Stephani Thes. II. 278. *yafiem. Aor. eyd/irjaa Mark vi. 17 ; Matt. xxii. 25 ; 1 Cor. vii. 9 stands for the older form eyrj/jM (from •ydfico'), as Luke xiv. 20 ; 1 Cor. vii. 28 ; see Georgi, Hierocr. I. 29 ; Lob. 742. Yet iydfiTjaa is found (if not in Xen. Cyr. 8, 4, 20) Lucian, dial. deor. 5, 4 ; Apollodor. 3, 15, 3. Better attested is byaiirjOr^v Mark x. 12 (though not fally established), 1 Cor. vii. 39 ; Lob. 742. 7eXa«i). Put. yeXdato (for yekdo-ofiai) Luke vi. 21. See Bttm. II. 85, 134. ylyvo/Jbai. Aor. Pass, eyev^driv for iyevo/jLrjv Acts iv. 4; Col. iv. 11 ; 1 Thess. ii. 14, etc. ; cf. Thorn. M. p. 189, — an originally Doric form frequently found in the writers of the koivi], Lob. 109 ; Bttm. II. 136. SiSafii. The 1st Aor. eBwKa is avoided in the 1st and 2d Per. Plur. by Attic writers, and the 2d Aor. used instead, Bttm. 1. 509. 78 In the N. T., however, we find eScoKafiev 1 Thess. iv. 2, eSca/coTe '*"'• Matt. XXV. 35 ; Gal. iv. 15, etc. as in Demosth. On Bdia-p see § 14, 1 Remark p. 79. *Si(OK0}. Put. Stajjti) for Sffflfo/tat Matt, xxiii. 34 ; Lukexxi.l2; 81 Bttm. II. 154. Yet cf. Dem. Nausim. 633 c. ; Xen. An. 1, 4, 8 Ithed. (Krii. h. 1.); Cyr. 6,3,13. SvvafMat.. We have merely to remark here that besides the Aor. iBvvr^Orjv, the (Ion.) form ■^Svvda-drjv, with the Augm. rj too, is noted from B among the var. Matt. xvii. 16 (Bttm. II. 155). Suaj, Bvvco. In several good Codd. we find Mark i. 32 the 1st 97 Aor. eBvaa, which among the earlier Greeks has only a causative meaning, Bttm. II. 156. On the other hand the 1st Aor. Svvavro^, as inferior authorities give in Luke iv. 40, is found also Ael. 4, 1 ; Pausan. 2, 11, 7. e 1 8 0) in the sense of know. Pret. o'lZafiiv Mark xi. 33 ; Jno. iii. 2 ; 1 Cor. viii. 1, etc. for 'l.a-iji.ev (Poppo, Xen. An. 2,4, 6), olhare Mark X. 38 ; xiii. 33 ; 1 Cor. ix. 13 ; Phil. iv. 15 for tWe, oihaaiv Luke xi. 44 ; Jno. x. 5 for 'Iffoai ; see Bttm. I. 546 (yet cf. Aristoph. av. § 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS. 85 599 ; Xen. Oec. 20, 14). The 2d Per. Sing. o'Sa? 1 Cor. vii. 16 ; Jiio. xxi. 15 is rather Ionic and Doric (for olaOa), yet it occurs Her. 4, 157 ; Xen. M. 4, 6, 6 ; Eurip. Ale. 790, and frequently in later Greek ; see Lob. 236 sq. The 3d Per. Plur. of the Plup. is written yBeiaav Mark i. 34 ; Jno. ii. 9 ; xxi. 4, etc. for yBeaav ; Bttm. I. 547. elTrelv (2d Aor. elirov). 1st Aor. elira in the N. T. in the 2d Per. Sing. Matt. xxvi. 25 ; Mark xii. 32, and freqiiently. This person also occurs in Attic, Xen. Oec. 19, 14 ; Soph. Oed. C. 1509 (along with elire'i, as often in Plato) ; but it is originally Ionic, see Greg. Corinth, ed, Schaf. p. 481 ; Schaf. Dion. H. p. 436 sq. Imper. emare Matt. x. 27 ; xxi. 5 ; Col. iv. 17, ehrcuTmcrav Acts xxiv. 20 ; likewise very common in Attic, Plat. Lach. 187 d ; Xen. C. 3, 2, 28. We find, besides, in good Codd. 3d Per. Plur. Indie, elirav Matt, xii. 2 ; xvii. 24 ; Mark xi. 6 ; xii. 7, 16 ; Luke v. 33 ; xix. 39 ; XX. 2 ; Acts i. 11, 24 ; vi. 2 ; xxviii. 21, etc. (Diod. S. 16, 14; Xen. H. 3, 5, 24 a var.), the Participle elWa? Acts vii. 37 ; xxii. 24 which is chiefly Ionic, and even the more unusual 1st Per. ehra Heb. iii. 10 ; Acts xxvi. 15 (elirov, on the contrary, predominates in the N. T.) ; see Sturz, dial. alex. p. 61.^ Eecent editors have adopted these forms wherever they are attested by several Codd. In com- position we find airei'rrd/j.rjv 2 Cor. iv. 2 (Her. 6,100), and ■n-poeiirafiev 1 Thess. iv. 6 (eiTrafiev in the 1. Turin. Papyrus, p. 10). Elirov (not elirov, see § 6, 1, k.) Acts xxviii. 26 (according to good Codd.) is to be regarded as 2d Aor. Imperative, a form which we now find also in the text of Mark xiii. 4 ; Luke x. 40, while in other passages elire preponderates. The 1st Aor. Pass, of this verb, epprjdr]v (from pem, see Bttm. II. 166), is sometimes written in MSS. of the N. T. Matt. v. 21, 31, 33 eppeOi^v, as often in Codd. of later 82 (non-Attic) authors, though this form occasionally appears in Attic ^9 writers also ; Lob. 447 (but not in Plato, see Schneider, Plat. civ. ethei II. p. 5sq.). e'«%e£B, later form e/c^ww (Lob. 726). From it comes Put. eic)(em for eK-xevaa Bttm. I. 396. See § 13, 3. a. p. 77. * i'Kedco for eXeeto occurs in several good Codd. in various pas- sages of the N.T., as Rom. ix. 16,18 eXewi'To?, eXea, Jude 23 iXeaie. 98 Also Clem. Al. p. 54, Sylb. (the Florent. edition) has eXea. Cf. also Etymol. M. 327, 30. Similar is iXKoyav Rom. v. 13 ; Philem. 18, also in good Codd. The latter has been adopted by Lchm., 1 ETiroy occurs also in the well-known Eosetta inscription, at the end of line 8. gg § 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS. and after him by Tdf. Fr., Rom. I. 311, declares all these forms to be errors in copying. eX/cft). From tiiis we find, as regularly in Greek authors, a Pres. and an Imperf. Jas. ii. 6 ; Acts xxi. 30. On the other hand, for the Fut. eX^ci) (Mtth. 573) the more unusual ekKvaco occurs Jno. xii. 32 from the other form iXKvo) ; cf. Job xxxix. 10. *iiraive(o. Fut. i-?rat,veaa> 1 Cor. xi. 22, for e-Kaiveaofiai ; see Bttm. I. 388. Yet cf. Xen. An. 5, 5, 8 ; Himer. 20. In general, however, this form is not uncommon ; see Brunck, Gnom. p. 10, 64 ; Schaef. Demosth. II. 465 ; Stallb. Plat. Symp. p. 139. *6 7rtop«;6Q). Fut. iiriopKi]ao) for emopKrjaofjLai Matt. v. 33. See Bttm. II. 85. epxofJ'ai. The Fut. iXevcro/jMi,, both in the simple verb and its compounds, is of frequent occurreuce, but particularly in later prose authors (Arrian. Al. 6, 12 ; Philostr. ApoU. 4, 4 ; Dio Chr. 33, 410 ; Max. Tyr. 24, p. 295) ; in Attic, on the contrary, el/it is used instead (Phryn. p. 37 sq. ; Thom. M. p. 88, 336). Yet in the earlier authors eXevaofiai also is not altogether infrequent, Her. 1, 142 ; 5, 125 ; Lys. Dardan. 12 (p. 233, Bremi) ; see in general Lob. 37 sq. ; Schaef. Soph. II. 323 ; cf. Blmsley, Eurip. Heracl. 210. Instead of the Imperf. r]p')(6fjbriv Mark i. 45 ; ii. 13 ; Jno. iv. 30 ; vi. 17, etc. Attic authors commonly use the Imperf. of et/it, Bttm. II. 183 ; yet see Bornem. Luc. p. 106, cf. Thuc. 4, 120, 121 ; Xen. An. 4, 6, 22. In Attic the imperatives Wi, he from elfit are used for ep'xpv, ep-x^EaOe Jno. i. 47. Also ep')(6fievo<; is said to be rare in earlier Attic, Bttm. as above ; yet it occurs in Plato, Crit. c. 15. (jiKde for ekrfKvde Gal. iv. 4 ; Jno. xix. 39, etc. has been too hastily rejected by Thom. M. p. 418 ; see Sallier on the passage.) ea-Oico. From the poetic form eadm (Bttm. II. 185) we find the Participle ea-6avaKco. Hence imava-ei Bph. v. 14 ; cf. Gen. xliv. 3 : Judg. xvi. 2 ; 1 Sam. xiv. 36 ; Judith xiv. 2. As to the analogical proof of this form, not found in Greek authors, by means of the Subs. vTr6(j>avai<;, see Bttm. II. 312. *epii>. Aor. Partic. eve7«o9 Acts v. 2 ; xiv.l3 (^kveyKavTeddveo. According to several Atticists the 2d Aor. ecpdrjv is to be preferred to the 1st Aor. efOaaa, which, however, often occurs even in Attic writers (Bttm. II. 316), and prevails in the N. T. Matt. xii. 28 ; Rom. ix. 31 ; 2 Cor. x. 14 ; Phil. iii. 16 ; 1 Thess. ii. 16. In the last passage several Codd. have the Perf. e^daKe. vf} (Aor. Pass. Subj.) for iK*• Fut. '^(apria-oiJiai for ')(aiprj(T(o Luke i. 14 ; Jno. xvi. 20, etiei 22 ; Pliil. i. 18 (Hab. i. 16 ; Zech. x. 7 ; Ps. xcv. 12, and often), see Moer. 120 ; Thorn. Mag. 910 ; Lob. 740 ; Bttm. II. 322. It occurs also Diod. Exc. Vat. p. 95. *-X^ap 1^0 fiat. Put. '^apicrofiai Rom. viii. 32 is the non-Attic form for ■^apiovfiai. mOeco. Aor. d'jraia-aTo ^ Acts vii. 27, 39 (Mic. iv. 6 ; Lam. ii. 7 and often, Dion. H. II. 769), for which the better writers used icoaaTo with syllabic augment (Thom. M. p. 403 ; Pol. 2, 69, 9 ; 16, 31, 12). 1st Aor. Pass. aTrcoadijv Ps. Ixxxvii. 6 ; cf. Xen. Hell. 4, 3, 12 ; Dio C. 37, 47. Also Aor. Act. i^aaev Acts vii. 45 for which some Codd. have e^eaicrev (Ellendt, Arrian. Al. 1. 181). That remark, however, respecting the syll. augm. holds strictly only of the Attic authors ; see Poppo, Thuc. III. II. 407. *diviofiai. 1st Aor. mvrja-dfirjv Acts vii. 16, as frequently in writers of the koov^ (e.g. Plut., Pausan.), Lob. 139. In Attic iTrpid/jLrjv is preferred. Note. The later verbal forms are not always used in the N. T. where 103 they might be expected. "We find for instance mofmi, 2d Fut. from irlvo), 1 After the Fut. 6(r» (from HBa). The Aorist form from the other Fut. ie^o-a occurs only in later authors, as e.g. the Particip. elsuBiiv\aKi^(o, l/j,aTi^(o, dvadefiaTi^a) (also in Byzantine authors), Oeor rpi^co (Cinnam. p. 213), cr'7r\a^X''^^°t^"'''' alperl^co, avfj,jjiop(f>L^co (Phil, iii. 10 according to good Codd.). XKopirli^w (puLCKopvi^to) has no distinct stem in the Greek literary language ; it was, however, a provincial, perhaps a Macedonic, form (Lob. 218). As to verbs in t, ^ seldom or never occurring elsewhere, e.g. vijTrid^a), aivid^co (arjOw). 88 Also in evco, as fiecrvTeixo, /Muyeveo, iyKparevofiai, al'Xp.aXwTevm '"""•(Lob. 442), ira/yiSevo3, 'yvfivqTevw. The last is from 'YVfivi]Tri<;, which, according to Bttm. II. 431, is only to be vindicated as a collateral form of jvfiv^'}. From r^vfiv6<;, on the other hand, one would expect jv/ivlttj^, and accordingly the best Codd. [Sin. also] have 1 Cor. iv. 11 <^viiviTeva>, which therefore we must not, with Fr. (conform, crit. p. 21) and Mey., take for an error of the copyist.^ Among verbs in vvm, which signify a rendering what the (concrete) root denotes (as iXapweiv, i.e. iKapov iroieiv') Bttm. II. 387, (TKkr}pvv(o is to be noticed as a collateral form of aKXr^pow, which never occurs in the N. T. Verbs in aivrn (XevKalvai, ^rjpalvm, evcj>palva) Bttm. II. 65 f. ; Lob. prolegg. pathol. 37) require no special remark. The formation of verbs in dec, from primitives in e a>, which is not unknown in Attic (Bttm. II. 61 ; Lob. 151), seems to have 85 been practised more frequently in later Greek ; v^6co, KvrjQco, aXijOa, ***^- are not used at least by the earlier writers. Yet cf. Lob. 254. Verbs in o-kq) (except evpla-Koo and SiBda-Kco) are rare even in 105 the N. T. (Bttm. 11. 59 f.). We find jrjpda-Kw as an inchoative (Bttm. II. 393), but fieOvcrKo), causative from fiedveo, only in the Pass. rafiiffKco, equivalent to yafii^m, is sufficiently attested only in Liike xx. 34. Lastly, we note as altogether singular in formar tion ypTjyopea) (from the Perf iyp'^yopa}, with its cognate iyprjyopeo), Lob. 119 ; Bttm. II. 158. With this verb,^ derived from a redu- plicated Perfect, may be compared, however, eTriKe^eipia) Papyri Taurin. 7, lin. 7. 1 Cf. Lob. Soph. Ai. p. 387. 'OKoBpeia Heb. xi. 28 is, in some good Codd., written o\eflpei5a (from SAeflpos), and Lchm., and with him Tdf., has so printed. I am not aware that the latter form of this Alexandrian word has been preserved anywhere else. 2 DSderlein on reduplication in Greek and Latin derivation in his Reden und Auf- satze n. no. 2. § 16. FORMATION OF WORDS. 93 To derivative verbs in c u u belongs also TrapajSoXevta-BaL Phil. ii. 30, (which Griesb., Lchm., and others, agreeably to the weightiest critical evidence, have admitted into the text). From napajSohys might have been formed most naturally Trapa^oXela-Oou ; but the termination evoi was selected to make the verb signify Trapa^oXov etvai, as liruj-KOTrexiiw in later Greek denotes iirCa-Koirov eivou (Lob. 591), and, what is more to the purpose, there is TrepTrepevea-dat, from TripTrepo^. It would be unwarrantable to grant admission to TrapajSoXeoeaOai only on the assumption of a simple verb /SoXeuccr^ai, (which certainly does not occur). 2. b. Substantives : ^ Derived a. from Verbs (cf. Lob. paralip. p. 397 sqq. and particularly lib. 3 of technologia p. 258 sqq.). With the termination /io? (Bttm. II. 398) from a verb in a^co is to be noted ar/iaafi6<; which does not occur in Greek autliors, like '!r€ipacTfi6<; from Treipd^ai, ivTapoviafw<;, aTreXeyfio';. The most numerous formations, however, are those in p,a (Lob. as above 391 sqq.) and o-t?, the former mostly confined to the N. T. yet always conformed to Greek analogy ; as, fia,irTia-p.a, pdTna-/ji,a from ^aiTTi^eiv etc., ■<{revafia from ■\lrevSea6at, iepdrevfj-a, KaTokvfia (jcaraXveiv), also i^epafia (Lob. 64), daOevTfjxa, durXrifia, avrdX^ "Kop/fia, diroaniaafia, irpo'iKOf/.fia, diravyao'/jM, rjTTrjjxa^ aiTTjfia, Karop- Owfia, (TTepiafia from contract verbs (like (ppovrj/jLa, etc.), mostly in the sense of product or state. Only dvTXrjfia denotes an imple- ment (as substantives in /tto? often do), and KaTaXv/m. the place oi KUToXveiv (Eustath. Odyss. p. 146, 33). Substantives in o-t?, particularly numerous in the Epistle to the 106 Hebrews, nearly all belong to literary Greek. Only 6eX7)a-i<;, aard- iravai<;, 'jrpo'S'Xycn^,^ dirdXvrpmai';, BiKaioxri^, ySt'cocrw, TreTTOi'^T^crt? Lob. 295 (eTTi'TTo^jjo-t?) require notice. As to TrapacrKevij, formed from the stem of a verb in a^co, see Bttm. II. 404. As to olKoBofi-q, see Lob. 490. As to the very common Biadijjcr) (from 1st Aor. of 86 TiOivai), see Bttm. II. 401 ; Lob. paralip. 374. *""* Among abstract nouns from verbs are some in /iov^. We find in the N. T. ifXrjeTfiovrj Bttm. II. 405. On the contrary, eirtXTjo-fiovij comes directly from iirtXriaiiav. UeiaiMovrj, however (also in 1 Cf. G. Curtius, de nomin. gr. formatione linguar. cognat. ratione habita. Berol. 1842 (Zeitschr. f. Alterth. 1846, no. 68 f.). " The form x""''" appears to have been employed only in words compounded with other nouns. Compare the N. T. word alfiareKxvirla (Leo Gramm. p. 287) with ai/ia- Toxvaia (Theophan. p. 510), tpmroxvaia and liiveyxvpia (like ahr-xpia in Eustath. from ala-xpo'i') ; and as evBainovia from evBaififov, so 2 Pet. ii. 16 irapa^povki from irapcK^pav (Lob. prolegg. pathol. p. 238) ; some Codd., however, have the more usual •7rapapoa-vvrj.^ Lastly, we often find Neuters of adjectives in to? used as substan- tives ; as, vTTO^vytov, /jbeOopiov, imoKriviov, a-cfiar/iov (j7rpo<;(pdryt.ov') , etc., see Pr. Pralimin. S. 42. 7. From other Substantives (Bttm. II. 420 if.) are derived etSw- Xeioi^ (etStuXoz/), iXaimv (eXat'a), /ivXcov Matt. xxiv. 41 var. (/ivXo?, /iuXi?) Bttm. II. 422 f. and the Pem. ^aa-Ckiaaa (Bttm. II. 427). 'A^ehptov, peculiar to the N. T., comes from ehpa. The Gentile Fern, from 0oivi,^ is ^oivtaaa ; therefore also Mark vii. 26 ^vpo- 91 been induced to abandon the interpretation genuine. § 16. FORMATION OF WORDS. 99 hand, 1 Cor. iii. 3, taken in connection with 2, shows that in both 94 passages Paul employed the same expression. In the passage from '''"^ Heb. (vii. 16) ivroXr] a-apKLvr} is hardly admissible.^ Among oxytone adjectives in ivo^, expressing a notion of tivie (Bttm. II. 448), are Ka0riiJ,epiv6<;, 6p6piv6<;, irpailvo';, later forms for which earlier authors used KaOrifiepcoi, etc. The like holds true of ra'^^tvo's. Some adjectives derived from substantives end in eivo';; as, (tko- Teiv6<;, 6pr]To<; (cf. vBaTocpopTjTO'i Const. Man. 409), KapBLoyvdHaTrj^ " (Kap8i6Tr\7]KTO'i Theoph. I. 736, KapBioKoXd.TTTrj'i Leo Gr. 441), a-rjTo/Spooro';, 6(j)0aXfioSov\eia, etSeoXoXarpi;?,-' elBcoKodmov (Cedren. 9.5 I. 286, cf. the abstract elhuiXodvaia Theoplian. 415), Sea-fw(f>v\a^ Jtlied. (vo}To(f)v\a^ Theophan. I. 608), opKcofioaui (cf. aTrm/j^oaia, Karcofio- aia), TraTpoTrapdBoros' (deoTrapoBoTo^ Theophan. I. 627), l(rd'y'y€\o<; (Theoph. 1. 16), evwepiaTaro<;, TroXfTrot'/ciXos, the Adverb Tra/xwXTjOei (the Adj. ira/j.wXrjOi]'; is found in good authors), eiXiKpwrj<;, elXi- Kpiveia (Fuhr, Dicaearch. p. 198). To the compound BevrepoirpcoTo^ in Luke vi. 1 (?) comes nearest SevTepoSeKaTT] found in Jerome on Ezek. c. 45. As the latter means second-tenth, so the former second-first. A(oBeKd>^^Tpris frequent in Byzan- tine authors. § 16. FORMATION OF WORDS. 101 Theophan. cont. p. 812), ayadoepyelv and ayaOovpjelp,^ fierpio- Traffelv, etc. This rule, however, has some undoubted exceptions ; Scaliger 113 long ago pointed out hv<;6vrjaKm in Eurip. (cf. Bttm. II. 472). EvSoKelv, therefore, is directly formed from Bo/celv, and not, as Passow maintained, from an intermediate noun B6ko<; (Fr. Rom. II. 370) ; it arose simply from a combination of the words in speaking ; cf. Bttm. II. 470. The same remark applies to KapaBoKelv (not to be referred to SoKevco, Fritzschior. opusc. p. 151) ; no noun 92 KapaB6K0<; exists. Even 6fielpea-6ai, which in 1 Thess. ii. 8 the ^^ "*■ better Codd. [Sin. also] have instead of Ifiecpeadai, might be ad- missible, were it to be derived from o/jlov, ofioi and eipeiv (Ft. Mr. p. 792). To be sure, no verb of the kind with op,, is to be found 93 elsewhere ; for o/MaBico comes from ofiaBo^ ; and 6p,oBpop,elv, ofioSo- "'' '^ ^eiv, 6p,evveTeiv, 6fj,rjpeuetv, ofio^uyetv, 6p.CKelv, even op,ovoelv (Bttm. II. 473), are likewise derived from nouns. Besides, the Genitive, governed as above by the verb, would be strange (cf. Mtth. II. 907). Perhaps, however, the first objection should not be pressed in the case of a word formed in the language of the people. U /xeLpeadai, which occurs in Nicand. Ther. 400 for tp,6ipea6ai, were tlie original form, fieipeaOat and ofieipeaOai might exist side by side as well as Bvpea-dac and oBvpeaOat ; indeed o/Meipeadai is perhaps the true reading (Lob. Pathol. 72). A formation peculiar to the Hellenistic idiom is irpo'iojTroX.Tj-Trrelv (TrjOoycoTroTiTjTTTij?, irpo^wTToXTjilria Tlieodos. acroas. 1, 32, airpo^unro- 'Krj-n-Tos'i, Acta apocr. p. 86). A corresponding verb is aKaTaXTjirrelv in Sext. Emp. I. 201 ; for the concrete derivative, however, compare Ba)po\i]7rTr]. the author has no second distributive clause definitely in mind as yet ; but when he subjoins ol Se epp. it becomes self-evident that iKo\d(f>. applies to a part only of the actors ; cf. Xen. H. 1, 2, 14 ot alxfJ^dXcoroi . . . S'^ovro e? AeiceKeLav, ol S" e? Meyapa, Cyr. 3, 2, 12 ; see Poppo ad. Cyr. p. 292 ; Bremi, Demosth. p. 273. So, in Matt, xxviii., it is first stated in general terms ol evBemi /MtOriTal . . . lB6vre<; avrov irpotseKwrjaav ; that this, however, is to be understood only of the greater number is clear from what follows — ol Be ihia-Toa-av. In Luke ix. 19 ol Se refers regularly to the previously mentioned fiadrp-ai vs. 18, and should seem to denote that all gave the answer which follows ; but the expressions aXKoi Se .' . . aXKoi Se show that the answer was given by only a part of the disciples. Matt. xvi. 14 is more regular : ol Se ^birov ' ol fiev ^Iwdvvrp/ . . . aWoi Be . , . erepoi Be. § 18. ARTICULUS PKAEPOSITIVUS, a. BEFORE NOUNS. 118 1. When o, ^, t6 is employed as strictly an Article before a noun, it marks the object as one definitely conceived,^ whether in ^ Cf. Epiphan. haer. 1, 9, 4. — Herm. praef. ad Eurip. IpMg. Aul. p. 15: articulus guoniam origine pronomen demonstrativum est, definit infinita idque duobiis modis, aut designando certo de multis aut quae multa sunt, cunctis in unum coUigendis. 106 § 18, ARTICTILUS PRAEPOSITIVUS, a. BEFORE NOUNS. 101 consequence of its nature, or the context, or some circle of ideas ''•li ei assumed as known ; as, Mark i. 32 ore eBv 6 ^Xto?, Juo. i. 52 oy^eaOe TOP ovpavov aveqr/oTa, 1 Cor. XV. 8 m<;7repel rm iuTpto/iart, &v with allusion to Exod. xxiv. 8. So 1 Cor. vii. 3 t^ eiX7jv diroBiSoTco the (i.e. matrimonial) attention due, vii. 29 6 Kai,pbmvy € 17 ho^a ek toii? almvai;, xvi. 27 ; Eph. iii. 21 ; Gal. i. 5 ; 1 Pet. iv. 11 ; Rev. v. 13 ; Rev. iv. 11 ^^w eZ \a^eiv TTjv Bo^av koX ttjv rifiijv, Jas. ii. 14 ri rb o, 1 Cor. ix. 13 ol ra lepa ipya^6fj,evoi, Matt. X. 20 ; 2 Cor. ii. 2 ; x. 16 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 16 ; Heb. xii. 27. § 18. AETICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUXS. 109 But the place of the noun may be occupied also by an indeclina- ble part of speech, as an Inf. or an Adverb, 2 Cor. i. IT, or by a phrase, Rom. iv. l-i oi ix vofwv, Heb. xiii. 24 oi airo t^s 'IraXtas (D. S. 1, 83), Acts xiii. 13 ol irepl IlavXov, Phil. i. 27 to. irepi v/ia>v etc. 1 Cor. xiii. 10 (Krii. 92) ; and indeed (after to') by a ^hole proposition, Acts xxii. 30 jv&vai rb rl Ka-niyopelTai (iv. 21 ; 1 Thess. iv. 1 ; Luke xxii. 2, 23, 37), Mark ix. 23 etTrev aiirm to • ei Bvvr) ; Gal. v. 14 o Tra? vo/juy; ev evi \o7&) ire7r\i]po)Tat, iv Tat • arfaw^aeK tov irk-qa-iov y in omni vitae modo. Still less are the following instances to be considered as excep- tional : Jas. i. 2 iraaav %apav rffqaaa-Qe, Eph. i. 8 h> •irda-r] aocjiia. (2 Cor. xii. 12 ; Acts xxiii. 1) all (full) joy, in aU (full) wisdom 106 — for they are abstracts denoting a whole, where every wisdom ^"i ^ and all wisdom substantially coincide, Krii. 106. Only in Eph. ii. 21 there is preponderating authority for Traaa olKoBop-rj, though, since tlie cliurch of Christ as a whole is spoken of, the whole build- ing is the proper translation ; A C [Sin!*] however, actually give the Art., which owing to the Itacism might easily have fallen out. nSs joined to a participle not equivalent to a noun demands particular notice : iras opyt^o/ievos means every one angry (when, if, while he is angry), of. 1 Cor. XI. 4, but ttS.'s 6 6pyi^6[j.evoi Matt. v. 22 every angry person i.q. Tras osTts opyi^eraL ; cf. Luke vi. 47 ; xi. 10 ; Jno. iii. 20 ; xv. 2 ; 1 Cor. ix. 25 ; 1 Thess. i. 7, etc. ; Krii. 89. This distinction must guide our judgment respecting the double reading Luke xi. 4 iravrl otftdkovn and TravTt Tw of^etXovTi, see Mey. TotovTos is joined to a noun without an Art. when such, any such, of this sort, is meant; as, Matt. ix. 8 i^ovo-ia Toiavn/j, Mark iv. 33 Tornvrat Trapa^oXai, Acts xvi. 24 TrapayyeXia Tovuvrrj, 2 Cor. iii. 12. When, on the other hand, a particular object is pointed out as such a or of such a sort, the noun natu- rally takes the Art. ; as, Mark ix. 37 tv tS>v roiovTtav iraiStW (with reference to ircuSiov in vs. 36 that represents childhood), Jno. iv. 23 ; 2 Cor. xii. 3, cf. 102 vs. 2 ; 2 Cor. xi. 13 ; Schaef. Demos. III. 136 ; Schneider, Plat. civ. II. p. 1. 6tli«l- "E/cacTTos, which is seldom employed adjectively in the N. T., is always 124 joined to a substantive without an Art., Orelli, Isocr. Antid. p. 255, (9), Luke vi. 44 iKoarov SivSpcv, Jno. xix. 23 kKaxma a-TpaTuHrrrj, Heb. iii. 13 Ka6' eKimrrjv ■^p.epav, Bornem. Xen. An. p. 69. In Greek authors the Art. often accompanies nouns with Ikoo-tos ; Stallb. Plat. Phileb. p. 93 and Hipp. Maj. 164. 1 Only nouns of the class mentioned in § 19, 1. can, even when joined to ttSs {the whole), dispense with the Article, e.g. iraa-a yn ; cf. Thuc. ed. Poppo, III. II. p. 224. In the N. T. this word always has the Article ; as, Matt, xxvii. 45 M mvnv tt^v yriv, Rom. X. 18, etc. Finally, the passages Thiersch, de Pentat. Alex. p. 121, has quoted to prove the omission of the Art. with ttas (the whole) in the Sept., are for the most part quite irrelevant. 112 § 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. To avTO TTvevfia means the same Spirit ; but avro to ■nvevfi.a the Spirit Himself, Krii. 107. Compare for the former Rom. ix. 21 ; Phil. i. 30; Luke vi. 38 ; xxiii. 40 ; 2 Cor. iv. 13 ; for the latter Rom. viii. 26 ; 1 Cor. XV. 28; 2 Cor. xi. 14; Jno. xvi. 27. In both cases the Art. is never omitted in the N. T. with appellatives, — (Luke xx. 42 ; xxiv. 15 therefore are no exceptions ; Bornem. Schol. p. 158.)^ — as it is sometimes in Greek authors, that is to say in the former case, especially in epic poetry, Hm. Opusc. I. 332 sqq., and in later prose (index to Agath. ed. Bonn. p. 411) ; in the latter case, even in the better prose authors, Krii. Dion. H. 454 sq. ; Bornem. Xen. An. p. 61 ; Poppo, -index ad Cyr. sub verb. 6. Proper names, as they already denote a definite individual, do not require the Art., nevertheless, as the established sign of definiteness, it is often joined to them. First, in regard to geo- graphical names : a. The names of countries (and rivers) more frequently take the Art. than those of cities (cf. die Schweiz, die Lausitz, die Lombardei, das Elsass, das Tyrol, etc.). 107 The following never or very seldom occur without the Art.: Ithei 'lovSaia, 'Aj(ata,, ^lopSdvr]^, ^iToXia, TaXtXaia, Mvcria, 'Acriu (Acts ii. 9, yet see vi. 9 ; 1 Pet. i. 1), Safidpeia (Luke xvii..ll), Hvpla (Acts xxi. 3), KpijTTj (yet Tit. i. 5). Only A'ijv!rToedria-eTai (one . . . the other ; cf., however. Matt. vi. 24 : xxiv. 40 f.) ; 1 Jno. iii. 18 fi-q op/airaiiJi.ev \6vX.), vii. 37 (dXaXous), x. 2 ^apicraioi, X. 46 vloi, xi. 4 iruiXov, xii. 33 Ovaiwv, xiv. 33 '16.kw/3ov, xiv. 60 eis /at'o-oi/, 108 Luke ii. 12 iv aTVT;, iv. 9 o uids, iv. 29 tcos oc^pvos tov opous, vi. 35 ixj/ioTov, ^ 6tli ed. Jno. v. 1 ; Rom. x. 15 ; xi. 19 ; Gal. iv 24 ; 2 Pet. ii. 8, etc. Note 3. Strange to say, most expositors — when contrary to their custom they have paid attention to the Article in the N. T. — have given an erro- neous opinion respecting it. Bengel, to be sure, is an exception. But Kiihnol is an example. After Krause (a sorry voucher), he supposes that in Acts vii. 38 iv rfj iKKk-qtria, owing to the use of the Article, signifies certa populi concio. This meaning may be rendered probable from the context ; but 17 iKK\. considered grammatically merely may (as Grotius and others maintain) just as well denote the congregation bx'iB'^ ^ni^j and 113 the Article would be as regular in that case as anywhere. Again, the Itli ed. would be occasioned, for men speak and write in order that others may understand. Tliu expression, there came a man, supposes also numerical unity, and every one thinks of homo aliquis as homo unus ; but lilav yma'Ktt ex"" cannot be used for yvi/aiKa ^x^'"' "^ '' is possible to have several wives (at the same time, or one after another) ; and conse- quently numerical unity alone is suggested to everybody. Besides, a person would hardly say, the bishop must be the husband of a wife, for, a husband, or married. § 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEEOEE NOUNS. 119 observation of the same scholar on Acts viii. 26 is but half true. 'H epij/xos (oSos) must have been used, if Luke wished to distinguish from the rest one particular road known to his readers. But if his meaning was, this {road) is (now) deserted, untravelled, lies waste, the Article would be as little appropriate as in German. Expositors have taken notice of the Art. 131 also in 2 Thess. iii. 14 Sia 7-5? eirto-To/Vijs, and have on its account denied the possibility of connecting these words with the following (rq^uowOi. Perhaps even the omission of the Article in two Codd. may be thus ac- counted for. Paul, however, might with perfect propriety say 8ta t-^s hrixTToXri'i crrjiJiuova-Oe if at the time he presumed upon an answer from the Thessalonians : ' Note him to me in the epistle (viz. which I hope to receive from you, or which in that event you must send me).' Yet see Lunem. Note 4. The place of the Article is immediately before the noun to which it belongs ; but conjunctions which cannot begin a sentence are regularly inserted between the Article and its noun : Matt. xi. 30 6 yap t,vy6iroL etc. This is well known, and needs no further illustration. Rost, 436 ; cf. Hm. Soph. Antig. p. 146. § 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 1. Appellatives, which as expressing definite objects should have the Article, are, not merely in the N. T. but in the best Greek aiithors, employed in certain cases without it. (See Schaefer, Melet. p. 4). This omission, however, only takes place when it produces no ambiguity and leaves no doubt in the mind of the reader whether the object is to be understood as definite or indefinite, i.e. a. With words which denote objects of which there is but one in existence, and which therefore approximate closely to proper names : thus ^Xios is almost as common as 6 77X405, and 7*5 (^Eartli) not infrequent for r) yfj, (Poppo, Thuc. III. III. 46) ; hence the abstract names of virtues and vices, etc.,^ as aperij, awcfypocrvvrj, KUKia (see Schaef. Demosth. I. 329 ; Bornem. Xen. conv. p. 52 ; Krti. 87), likewise the names of the members of the animal body (Held, Plut. Aem. P. p. 248), very often dispense with the Article. The Article is omitted also before many other appellatives, as 109 6th sd ^ To which must be added the names of sciences and arts (as iTnruc^, see Jacob, Lucian. Toxar. p. 98), of magisterial dignities and offices {Schaef. Demosth. 11. 112; Held, Plutarch. Aem. P. p. 138), of seasons of the year, of corporations (Held, I.e. p. 238), and many others {Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 303 and ad Plutarch. Cleom. p. 199). See also Krii. 87. 120 § 19- OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 114 TToXw, aarv (Schaef. Plutarch, p. 416 ; Poppo, Time. III. I. Ill ; ■"'«''• Weber, Dem. p. 235), cuyp6<; (Schaef. Soph. Oed. R. 630), Mirvov (Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 490; Boniem. Xeu. conv. p. 57), even 132 TTUTTjp, p.'nrrjp, aBe\v) ; fi'qTrjp only in the phrase « KoiXias pLrp-poi Matt. xix. 12. avrip (Jiushand) , 1 Tim. ii. 1 2 yvvaml SiSacrKEtv ovK imTpiiru), oiSe aWevTiiv avhpo's Eph. V. 23 (but 1 Cor. xi. 3) ; Luke xvi. 18 ttSs o a-KoXvuiv rijv ywvatKa avTov ttSs 6 airoXiXvp-ivriv otto avSpb'S ya/xSv, does not necessarily come under this head, though the first ywv'); has the Art. ; for the last words are to be translated : he who marries a woman dismissed from a husband. But in Acts i. 14 one would expect the Art. before yvvai^l (see de W.), not so much in Acts xxi. 5 ; of., however, above. Trpo^onrov, e.g. Luke V. 12 Treawv im Trpo^um-ov, xvii. 16 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 25 ; cf. Sir. 1. 17 ; Tob. xii. 16 ; Heliod. 7, 8 piTtrei iavrov ctti TrpdswTrov, AchUl. Tat. 3, 1 ; Eustath. amor. Ismen. 7, p. 286 (Heliod. 1, 16), Acts xxv. 16 Kara 7rp6sv v£Kpu>v, Matt. xiv. 2 ; xxvii. 64 ; xxviii. 7.) Ncxpot else- where designates dead persons (Luke vii. 22 ; 1 Cor. xv. 15, 29, 32, also 1 Pet. iv. 6 etc.), but ol vcKpoi, the dead, as a definitely conceived totality, Jno. V. 21 ; 1 Cor. xv. 52 ; 2 Cor. i. 9; Col. i. 18.' The Greeks, too, regularly omit the Art. before this word. fiio-ov, in the phrase (eoTrjo-ev) iv p-ia-to Jno. viii. 3 ; Schoem. Plutarch. Agid. p. 126, £65 p,i}s 1 The distinction alleged by van Hengel on 1 Cor. xv. p. 135 between veKpol and oi VcKpoi has no foundation (either in principle or in usage). 124 § 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFOEE NOUNS. KTio-fcos Mark x. 6 ; xiii. 19 ; 2 Pet. iii. 4. Yet -irSxra /crtcrts 1 Pet. ii. 13 ; 136 Col. i. 15 (see Mey.) is everywhere distinguished from ^rao-a r/ ktIctk Mark xvi. 15 ; Rom. viii. 22 ; Col. i. 23. &pa, as in 1 Jno. ii. 18 iaxa-rri wpa cort ; particularly with numerals, as ^v wpa TpLTT) Mark xv. 25 ; Jno. xix. 14, Trept rpiTijv S>pav Matt. xx. 3 ; Acts X. 9, £(DS v oSZv (17, 808), Thuc. 2, 38 8ta p.iy€- 00? T'^s TrdXcujs, 7, 72. So in German, also, the Article is usually omitted after a preposition, e.g. iiber Auflosung des Rathsels etc. In Greek authors, however, in such cases even the Gen. is frequently anarthrous, or if not, it precedes ; as, tGiv ;^(upiW p^aXeirdrijs ; cf. Krii. Dion. H. p. 1 68 ; Jacobs, Athen. p. 18 sq. ; Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 130. (Xen. C. 8, 6, 16 ; Mem. 1, 4, 12; Thuc. 1, 1; 6, 34; 8, 68). 3. c. When several consecutive nouns ^ connected by Kal and denoting different objects^ agree in case and number, each of them regularly takes the Article if they differ in gender ; — not merely when they signify persons, as Acts xiii. 50 ra? (Te^op,eva<; v Trepl tos Tci^as re Koi OTrXo/iaxi'av, Agath. 1 4, 1 2 ras Suvdjacis Kal TToAe/xoi'. But 1 Cor. iv. 9 Oiarpov eyan^drj/xev t(3 Kocrpm koX dyyeA.ois Kal av6piit7rois does not come under this head ; the last two nouns without the Art. particularize the tcS koct/ao) : the world, — angels as well as men. 4. d. If, however, such nouns connected by Kai are of the same gender, the Article is omitted 1) When the connected nouns are regarded as only parts of one whole, or members of one community (Bngelhardt, Plat. Mencx. 128 § 19- OMISSION or THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. p. 253 ; Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 455) ; as, Mark xv. 1 av/M/SovXiov iToirjaavre'i ol ap')(iepelt; < /jLera rSiV Trpea/BvTepwv Kai r^pa/jL/jiarecov 140 (where the elders and scyibes are designated as only one class of individuals, in distinction from the high priests), Luke xiv. 3, 21 ; Col. ii. 8, 19 ; Eph. ii. 20 ; v-. 5 ; Phil. i. 7 ; ii. 17 ; Acts xxiii. 7 ; 2 Pet. i. 10 (Xen. A. 2, 2, 5 ; 3, 1, 29 ; Plat. Phil. 28 e. ; Dion. H. IV. 2235, 5 ; Plutarch, aud. poet. 1 in. 12 in.). 2) When between the first noun and its Article a Gen. or some other attributive intervenes, which also qualifies the second ; as, 1 Thess. ii. 12 eh ttjv eaurov /SacrtXeiav koI ho^av, iii. 7 eiri irdaj] Trj SXiyfrei Kal dvar/Ky rjfiSiv, Rom. i. 20 rj re ai'Sto? avrov BvvafM<; km, eei6rrj'i, Phil. i. 25 ; Eph. iii. 5. Cf. Dion. H. IV. 2246, 9 t^? avTcbv jvvalKai Kal Ovyarepaf, 2089, 4 ; D. S. 1, 86 rrjv TrpoeipTj/xevrjv eTrip-eKeiav Koi ti/jljjv, 2, 18 ; Ael. aiiim. 7, 29 ; Aristot. eth. Nicom. 4, 1, 9 ; 7, 7, 1.^ So also when the common Genitive follows the second noun ; as, Phil. i. 20 Kara ttjv airoKapaZoKiav koI iXiT-lSa 122 p-ov, i. 7 iv rfi anroko^La k. jSe^aocoaei tov evwyyeklov, 1 Pet. ii. 25 7th ed. (on Phil. i. 19 see Mey!). Cf. Benseler p. 293 sq. Under 1. it should be noted, that in a series of nouns forming a single category, only the first has the Article ; as, Acts xxi. 25 tpvXdcra-ea-dai airoiis ... TO atyaa Kai ttvlktov koX iropveiav, Eph. iii. 18 Tt to irXaTOs k. p.rJKO$ k. /3d.do<; 117 K. vij/os, Jno. V. 3 ; 1 Cor. v. 10 ; cf. Her. 4, 71 OdTrrova-i kw. tov olvoxoov k. 6th ed. fxayeipov k. hnroK6[x.ov k. Slt^kovov k. ayye\Lrj(f>6pov, etc. ; Plato, Euthyph. p. 7 c. For instances with proper names, see Acts i. 13 ; xv. 23. 5. On the other hand, the Article is used in the case under consideration, commonly a. When each of the connected noims is to be regarded as inde- pendent (Schaef. Dem. V. 501 ; Weber, Dem. 268), 1 Cor. iii. 8 o (fivTevav Kal 6 ttotI^cov ev elaiv, Acts xxvi. 30 avecn-q 6 /3ac7iXev'i Kal 6 -nyeiiayv, etc., Mark ii. 16 ol rypap,p,aTeLTiip is applied also to God, is nothing to the purpose. Enough that (raniip riixav our Saviour is a perfectly definite predicate, just as his face is ; vp6sairov is applicable to a far greater number of individijals than a-airlip. The words S.38: Tf the expression or<»Tiip ruiHv invariably occurred in the N . T . of a single dejinite individual only etc. contain an arbitrary assumption. Matthies has contributed to the -discussion nothing decisive. § 20. AETIC. PEAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 131 § 20. AETICULUS PEAEPOSITIVUS, b. "WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 1. Attributives (Adjectives, .Genitives, or Adjuncts formed with Prepositions^) annexed to a noun which has the Article, are placed either a. Between the Article and the noun, as d di] 1 Pet. iii. 2, ^ vap ifiov Eiadi]K7] Rom. xi. 27, ^ Kar' inXoyrjv irpoOecri'; ix. 11, to kulvov aiirov /MiT^fieiov Matt, xxvii. 60 ; cf. 2 Pet. ii. 7 ; Heb. v. 14 ; vi. 7. Or, b. After the noun ; in which case a. If they are adjectives,^ or adjuncts with prepositions, tliey uniformly take the repeated Article, but /S. If Genitives of nouns, they usually take it only aa. when these additions are to be strengthened, or to be made more promi- 125 nent (1 Cor. i. 18 d \6709 6 tov a-Tavpov, Tit. ii. 10 ttjv BoBaa-KoXlav '"' ^^^ TTjv TOV aanripo'i r/ficav ; see Schaef. Melet. p. 8, 72 sq. ; Mtth. 727),^ particularly when relationship is added for distinction's sake, as J no. xix. 25 Mapia r] tov KXcoTrd,* Acts xiii. 22 Ja/3t8 6 tov 'leaa-ai, 1 Grenitives of personal pronouns are joined to nouns, as is well known, without the aid of the Article, as S irais /iov. They blend, as it were, with the substantive. 2 It is obyious that this applies only to adjectives used as attributives to substantives. % Luke xxiii. 45 i^xicBv "rh KaTaTreTaatov, just as Her. 1, 59 AvKovpyos 'ApiaToAdtSew and Dion. H. comp. 1 Aiovv(rlov 'AKe^di/Spov (in both passages, however, Schaef. would insert the Arti- cle), or Aristot. polit. 2, 6 'iTmSBa/ios EipvipuiiToi, and Thuc. 1, 24 *c{Aios 'EpaToxAiiSav (Poppo, Thuc. I. 195), Thilo, Act. Thom. p. 3 ; cf Hm. Vig. 701. On the other hand, in Luke xxiv. 10 we must unhesitatingly read, with the most approved MSS., Vlapia ri 132 § 20. AETIC. PEAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES 120 Matt. iv. 21 ; x. 2 ; Mark iii. 17 ; /3/3. when the noun has alreadj ■ its (personal) Genitive, as Matt. xxvi. 28 to alfjid fiov to t^9 Kaivrji; Bia6^ic7]<;, yet the Art. here is not quite established. c. Rarely such attributives, particularly if adjectives, are put before the novin and its Article ; as, Acts xxvi. 24 fji,eyaXr] t^ ^(ovjj e(J3r] see above § 18, Matt. iv. 23 Trepirjyev iv oXy ttj TaXiXala. 144 In case a. more than one attributive may be inserted between the Article and the noun ; as, 6 cuyiot; koX afia)fio<; av6panro<;. The Article then is usually not repeated. With qualifying Genitives or adjuncts appended by means of Prepositions, there are instances of the repetition of the Article ; as, Luke i. 70 Bia o-TOyLtaro? tcov djLWV tS)v aiT alchvo^ Trpo(fjr)Ta)v, 1 Pet. iv. 14 to t^? So^^t;? Kal to tov 6eov ■!Tvev/j,a, i.e. the Spirit of glory and (consequently) the Spirit of God, — the Spirit of glory, which is no other than the Spirit of God liimself. Similar is Thuc. 1, 126 iv ttj tov Jm<; tjj fieylcnri iopTTJ, and Plat. rep. 8, 565 d. -n-epl to iv 'ApKaSia to tov Jio? lepov, only that Kai is wanting here. In case b. also, there is no objection to the accumulation of adjuncts, as Heb. xi. 12 j; a/Ayito? 77 irapa to p^etXo? Trji 6aXdcT(rr]<}, rj ', dvapl6fi7]To^, Rev. ii. 12 ttjv pofKpaiav T-qv SiaTOfiov Trjv o^elav, Krii. ■ 102 ; except that when the last are not connected by /cat (§ 19, 4) ' the Article must be repeated.^ It will be necessary to explain here more minutely, and to con- firm by examples, the case b. a. 126 a. Adjectives and possessive pronouns with the Article are Jth cd. placed after the noun, either Quite alone, as Jno. x. 11 o iroifiriv 6 Kd\.6<;, Acts xii. 10 eVt ttjv TTvkrjv TTJV v, Jno. vi. 13 twv •n-ivTe dpTcov t&v KpiOivcav, Matt. vi. 6 ; Luke vii. 47 ; Tit. ii. 11 ; 'laK^fiov. In general cf. Fr. Mr. p. 696 sq. The collocation of words in Paiisan. 2. 22, 6 Tris *opiif6coj NhS/Stjs does not occur in the N. T. 1 A rare repetition of the Article, in accordance with the above rules, occurs in Rev. xxi. 9 iJAflci' iXs cK tS>v lirTa ayfihuv twd ix^"'""" '■'^r ^irTcl (piiKas (Tcks) yiiioiaas {-rSiv] § 20, ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTEIBUTIVES. 133 Heb. xiii. 20, etc. (The N. T. writers liked to avoid the construction Tov fiovoy. Oeov vlov as intricate ; cf. Jno. iii. 16 ; 1 Juo. iv. 9.) In the text. rec. of 1 Jno. v. 20 ^ i,oari alQ)vio<; we find the adj. 121 without tlie Article after the noun. The better Codd., however,**"'' omit the Article before ^mjj also. The common reading in itself considered is by no means to be rejected, as in such cases later writers begin to omit the Article (Bhdy. S. 323) ,i altliough the examples from Long. past. 1, 16 ; Heliod. 7, 5 ; Diod. S. 5, 40 are 145 not quite parallel to that from John. Besides, ^arj auov. had already come to be regarded as a single idea, cf. Jno. iv. 36. In Liike xii. 12, Griesb. and Schott have ro ttjv fxapTvpiav /xei^co tov ^Icodvvov (a predicate : the witness that I have is greater than, etc., Rost 435) may be com- pared Isocr. Philipp. c. 56 to iMi OvqTov diravTe^ e^ofiev. Further, of. Schaef. Plut. V. 30. b. The Article is used with subjoined amplifications of the principal noun consisting of a noun and preposition : 1 Thess. i. 8 j; Tr/cTTt? v/jMv ri •Kpooi<;, tok ef idv&v, xxiv. 5 7rao-{ Toii; aKpo^vcnia TOV voixov TeKovaa ae etc., if or thereby that it fulfils etc. Cf. Luke xvi. 14 ; Jno. iv. 6, 39, 45 ; 1 Cor. i. 7 ; xiv. 7 ; 2 Cor. iii. 2 ; Heb. X. 2 ; xii. 23 ; 1 Pet. i. 12 (Pr. Mt. p. 432 ; Stallb. Plat. apol. p. 14). So Acts xxi. 8 eh tov oIkov ^tXlTnrov tov evwyyeKua-Tov ovto<; eic twv hrrd is to be translated : qui erat, as being one of the seven (yet some authorities give tov here, which introduces into the passage a false emphasis), Rom. xvi. 1 cf. Demosth. Con. 728 c. Ev^iOeov TovTovl ovd^ rj/uv crvyyevrj, D. S. 17, 38 6 Trah tov e^ eroiv, 3, 23 tov iriTTTOvra Kapm-bv ovTa koXov, Philostr. Apoll. 7, 16 eV Ty vrjcrw dvvBpa ovarj Trporepov, Thuc. 4, 3 ; 8, 90 ; Demosth. Polycl. 710 b. ; Isocr. Trap. 870 ; Lucian. Hermot. 81 ; dial. m. 10, 9 ; Alciphr. 3, 18 ; Strabo, 3, 164 ; Long. 2, 2 ; Philostr. Her. 3, 4 and Sophist. 1, 23, 1. In Eph. vi. 1 6 ra ftiXrj to. Tetrupoifxiva the Article is not fully established (Lchm. has cancelled it) ; if it is not genuine, the meaning of the passage is : the darts, when they hum, or though they bum (to quench the darts of Satan . . . burning as they are). In 2 Jno. 7 ipx6p.£vov belongs to the § 20. AKTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 135 predicate ; and in Gal. iii. 1 'Ii/o-oCs Xp. wpoeypac^rj iv v/jlIv icrTavpiafjiivos is 128 to be translated : Jesus Christ as one who has been crucified ; cf. 1 Cor. '"i *'!• i. 23; (otherwise in Matt, xxviii. 5). The above passage, 1 Pet. v. 10, 6 6e6^, 6 xaXecras ■^/j.Ss . . . oXiyov TraOov- Ttts is peculiarly instructive respecting the use and the omission of the Arti- cle with Participles. Whether the Article is to be used or omitted before the Participle, depends sometimes on the subjective view of the writer. 147 Rom. viii. 1 tois h/ 'Kpurrio Xrjaov, fi.r) kclto, adpKa irepnraTOVoriv etc., with a comma after 'Ir/o-oO, means : to those who are in Christ Jesus, inasmuch as they walk not after the flesh. On the other hand, rots ju.^ Kara crap/ca TreparaTova-iv, with greater prominence of the apposition, means : to those who are in Christ Jesus, as persons who walk not etc., to those who walk not etc. ; cf. Mtth. 718. The whole clause, however, //.rj . . . irvevfia is undoubtedly spurious. When a Participle with the Article is subjoined in apposition to a noun, or put in the Vocative (as if in apposition to a-v), it sometimes denotes ridicule or disapprobation, or prominently points out some peculiarity as a subject of ridicule or disapprobation. Expositors of Greek authors have frequently attributed to the Article itself a derisive force (articulus irrisi- oni inservit, Valcken. Eur. Phoen. 1637 ; Markland, Eurip. Suppl. 110; 123 Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. p. 12, and Apol. p. 70) ; this, however, lies only in ^tli e4 the thought and its special prominence (and in speaking may also be con- veyed by the voice). Here, for instance, may be referred from the N. T. Rom. ii. 1 TO. yap avra irpacrcreK o Kpiviav, Matt, xxvii. 40 o KaTaX.v(ov Tov vaov . . . KardPiqOi diro tov (navpov [Jno. V. 12] etc. See Hm. Eur. Alcest. 708 ; Mtth. 722. 2. To the rule explained under b. there are unquestionable — indeed, -well-nigh standing — exceptions, viz. When an adjunct (consisting of a noun and preposition) which in reality forms with the substantive but one leading idea, is to be linked to the preceding noun simply by the voice, the grammatical connective of the written language (i.e. the Article) is wanting, e.g. Col. i. 8 ^7J\MCTa<; ri/uv Trjv v/jmv aryaTn^v iv TTveu/jiaTt your love in the Spirit, see Huther, 1 Cor. x. 18 /SA-eTrere rov 'laparjX Kara crdpKa (opp. to 'Itr/j. koto, irvivjMi), 2 Cor. vii. 7 rov vfiwv ^\ov inrep efiov, Eph. ii. 11. This takes place especially, a. In the oft-recurring apostolic (Pauline) phrase, eV Xptarat 'Ir]a-ov, or iv Kvpoa, or kuto, a-dpKa, as Col. i. 4 uKouaavre^ ttjv tti- cTTiv vfiS)v iv Xp. 'I. Kal TTjv d/ydirTjv ttjv ew 'rrdvra's tov<; dr/iovi, Eph. i. 15 d/eova-ai; rrjv Ka& V/tia? iriimv iv to5 Kvpiq) 'I. Kal ttjv drydirrfv TTjv ek irdvTa^ Toii? dr/iov<;, Rom. ix. 3 t&v auyyevav fiov Kara aapKa, 1 Thess. iv. 16 ol veKpol iv XpvcrTm dvaaTrjcrovrai irpcoTov the dead in Christ (1 Cor. xv. 18), with which in vs. 17 is contrasted rjfiei<; ol ^a)VTefot unlike this is 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1 t^ eKKXriaia 148 OeaaaXoviKewv iv dea> iraTpl Koi Kvpia, etc. Likewise in 1 Tim. vi. 17 ToZ? TrXoucrt'oi? iv tc3 vvv aluvi ^ are to be connected. Cf. besides. Acts xxvi. 4 ; Rom. xvi. 3, 8, 10 ; Eph. ii. 15 ; Phil. i. 1. b. When the primitive verb was constrxied with a particular preposition, or when the adjunct is half-implied in the noun (Held, Plut. Timol. p. 419 ; Krii. 103), as Eph. iii. 4 Bvvaade voficrat rfjv tjvveaiv p.ov iv t& /xvaTripLW (Josh. i. 7 ; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12 ; Esr. i. 31) cf. Dau. i. 4 a-vvtevre<; iv iracrrj via<; el<; aiirow Koi et? iravTWi, Col. 124 i. 12 (Job XXX. 19) cf. Bahr in loc. ; Eph. iii. 13 ev rat? ffXl-^jrecri «"> «i p,ov vTrep vp.wv (cf. vs. 1), 2 Cor. i. 6 ; Col. i. 24. So Polyb. 3, 48, 11 Trjv T, which Thiersch considers as paene vitiosum I Case a. is to be referred no doubt to the colloquial language, which, having the more expressive aid of the voice, scarcely em- ployed the Article anywhere ; whereas the literary language, for the sake of precision, could less easily dispense with it. Yet from the literary language a few instances even of this omission of the Article may be produced ; cf. Polyb. 5, 64, 6 Bm ttjv tov TraT/sos Bo^av iic Tr)<; d6\'>]crea)<;, Sext. Emp. hypot. 8, 26 ^rjTOV/J-ev irepl tov TOTTov •7rpb<; aKpl/Seoav for tov Trpo? a., as appears from what precedes, Thuc. 6, 55 to? 0T6 /3(Bp,o? arifiaivet koX rj cttt^Xt; Trepl t^? t&v Tvpdvvmv ^ According to Paul's view we are likewise probably to take 6 SUatos 4k ir/o-Tems together in the quotation from the 0. T. in Rom. i. 17 and Gal. iii. 11. In the former passage he wishes to establish by the words of the prophet the proposition SiKawaii/ri fleoS iK TTiiTTctos etc., and not fi (aii 4k StKuiotriinis. Cf Rom. x. G v 4k Trla-reas SiKaioirii/ri. But in Heb. x. 38 4k wla-Teas must undoubtedly be joined to f^o-erai ; see Bleek. 2 Accordingly, in Rom. v. 2 there would be no objection in this respect to connecting rri ttiVtei (which however Lchm. and Tdf. have rejected) els rjjy X"/"" "rainiiv. There are, however, other difficulties. § 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, h. WITH ATTEIfiUTIVES. I37 dBiKim (where Bekker from conjecture has inserted ^ before •rrepl'), cf. Krii. Diou. p. 153 ; Poppo, Thiic. III. I. 234. In classifying such constructions, however, we must be cautious ; ^ 149 many that seem to come under tliis head we shall find, on closer 130 examination, to be different ; cf. EUendt, Arrian. al. I. 315. '"■ '^ a) Sometimes, for instance, a slight transposition of the words may have ensued, as 1 Tim. i. 2 TifioOia yvrjcrio) Tetcvo) iv iriaTei, where the words iv Trta-ret construed according to the sense witli 'yvrja-im would mean genuine in faith ; cf. Xen. A. 4, 3, 23 Kara ras rrpo^riKova-a^ oydat; hr\ rov -TTorafiov, i.e. Kara Ta<; eVt t. tt. wpo'irjK. 6')(6a';. For several reasons, however, it is preferable to take iv irLo-rei there as an adjunct to the compound notion, — genuine child. On the other hand, in 1 Pet. i. 2 it may be that the qualifying clauses kwt^ irpoyvojo-tv 6eov . . . eh vTraKorjv Koi pavria/Mov etc. should be joined to cKXe/cTot?. b) Elsewhere the adjunct belongs as a closer limitation directly to the verb, as Col. i. 6 dcf) ^s rifiepa's rfKovaare koX iiriyvare ttjv X^piv Tov 6eov iv d\rj0eia (see Bahr and Mey.), Eom. iii. 25 ov Trpoidero o Oeof iXaarijpiov Std 7rt(7T6&)? ev tS airov aifian (see Fr. and de Wette in 1.) ; viii. 2 6 v6/jL0ia<; are an explanatory adjunct to e« t^? KdXrjq dvor aTpov, 1 Tim. i. 1 Kar eTrnayrjv 6eov acoTTjpo'i f)fiS)v, 1 Pet. V. 8 o avTihiiKO'i vfJMv Bid^6X,o<;. So also if the appel- lative predicate precedes the proper name, as Kvpio<: 'Inja^ov'; X/ato-TOf 2 Cor. i. 2 ; Gal. i. 3 ; Phil. iii. 20, etc. ; although in the latter case the Article is used for the most part, as 1 Cor. xi. 23 6 Kvpto^ 'Itjo-oO?, and 2 Tim. i. 10 tov o-toT^/sos tj^lmv Xpuarov, Tit. iii. 4 ; 1 Thess. iii. 11 ; Philem. 5, etc. 4. A limiting attributive joined to an anarthrcms noun (appel- lative) , properly dispenses with the Article ; as. Matt. vii. 11 Bo/iara dr/aOd, Jno. ix. 1 elBev avOpawov rvcfikov 6k lyeveri)^, [Matt. ii. 1 fiar/oi diro dvaroKoiv oriental magi] , 1 Tim. iv. 3 a 6 Oeb<; eKTicrev ew fjierak'r)-^ii> /j,erd ev'xapK7Tia<;, i. 5 wydirr] m Kadapa^ /capStas, Tit. i. 6 re/cva e')(a)v TricrTa, firj kv KaTrfyopia acrwrtW rj ai/uTToVa/CTO, Rom. xiv. 17 SiKaioawT] Koi elprjvq Koi ^apa iv irvev/j^aTt dr/io), of. Plat, rep. 2,378 d."H/3o? Se Seer /ttoii? viro vleo^ Kol'HtpaiaTov pt'>/^6t9 132 VTTO 7rarp6<;, fiiX\ovTO<; ry /irjrpl TvirTOfxevig d/jLvveiv, Kot 6eoiJ,aj(fa iTaurxivia-Be. See, however, § 23, 2, p. 158. 542 § 21. THE PRONOUNS IN GENERAL. that the opposite constniction occurs, that is, a Sing, pronoun re- ferring to a Plural noun (Bhdy. 295) ; but i^ ov has become in usage nothing more than an adverb, exactly equivalent in sense to unde. On the other hand, in 2 Jno. 7 ovto? icnuv 6 irXdvof;, etc., appears a transition from the Plural ij,tj o/MoXoyovvre'i, etc. to the collective Singular. Different from this is Acts xv. 36 Kara Trauav mXiv Iv ats, where Tracra iro'Ais of itself (exclusively of the inhabitants), implies a plurality (TrSo-at irdXtts) cf. Poppo, Thuc. I. 92, and 2 Pet. iii. 1 ravri^v 7]Sr] Sevripav viuv ypdcfio) ETricTToXiji', iv ats, etc., where 6ijo is implied in Sevripav. I do not know of an exact parallel, but the opposite construction TravTcs ostis, which occurs not unfrequently, may be compared with it (Rost 468). 129 Note 1. According to some expositors (e.g. Kiihnol) the pronoun now 6th d. and then refers to a noun not expressed till afterwards ; as, Matt. xvii. 18 155 eireTt/t'jo'ci' aura), namely ™ SaLfjioviw, Acts xii. 21 iSr]iJ.rjy6p€i Trpos airous, cf. vs. 22 o 8^//,os (Fr. Conject. I. p. 18 sq.), see Gesen. Lg. S. 740 ; Bornem. Xen. conviv. p. 210. But neither of these two passages proves anything in respect to N. T. usage. In the former, avroi refers to the demoniac himself, since in the Gospels, as is well known, the person possessed and the demon possessing him are often put for each other — (against which it is of no weight that Mark ix. 25 has cTrertjurjcrc to! ;rvciJ/iaTt tu aKaddprio) ; in the latter passage, airoijs refers to the Tyrians and Sidonians (deputies), mentioned in verse 20, as even Kiihnol has acknowledged ; cf Georgi, Vind. p. 208 sq. The verb Sr^/iijyopctv does not interfere with this, as the king's statement was made in a full assembly of the people. Note 2. The Neut. of the interrogative pronoun n's, and of the demon^ strative ovros (airos), are often employed adverbially, to denote wherefore 135 (why) therefore. The former is so used also in Latin and German : quid 7th ed. cunctaris ? was zogerst du ? and originally these pronouns were considered as real Accusatives (Hm. Vig. 882 ; Bhdy. 130). With regard to the strengthened demonstrative avro tovto compare 2 Pet. i. 5 ko). avro tovts a-irovSr]v Tracrav Trapei'seviyKavrei; (Xen. Anab. 1, 9, 21 ; Plat. Protag. 810 e. avTo. ravra vw -^ko) irapa o-e), Mtth. 1041 ; Ast. Plat. legg. pp. 163, 169,, 214. Gal. ii. 10 does not belong here, see § 22, 4. As to tl see passages according to their various relations in Wahl, clav. 483. The Greeks use also o and a for 8i' o and 8i' a (Mtth. 1062) ; but Mey. is wrong in trans ferring to Acts xxvi. 16 the more poetic use of a (see § 39, note 1) j whereas he himself on Gal. ii. 10 rejects on this very ground the proposaJ of Schott to take o for 8i' o ! Likewise the distributive tovto p-iv . . . tovto 8e' partli/ . . . partly Heb. x. 33 is used adverbially (Her. 1, 30 ; 3, 132 ; Lucian. Nigr. 16) ; cf. Wetsten. II. 423 ; Mtth. 740. (On 1 Cor. vi. 11 Tajjra rti/es rJTc, where two constructions are blended, see § 23, r,.) [Note 3. Tt is used not as an interrogative, but as an exclamatory des- ' § 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. I43 ignation of degree, in Matt. vii. 14 ti artirq how strait is the gate ! Luke xii. 49 Tt 6ek(ii how would I (how much I wish !). This use is unknown to the classics, but is found in the Sept., e.g. 2 Sam. vi. 20, where the Hebrew na is rendered in this way.] §22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 1. The personal pronouns, in accordance with Hebrew circum- stantiality, are far more frequently employed in the Greek of the N. T. than in the classics.^ Particularly, AvTov, aov, etc., with substantives (especially in connection 156 with the Middle Voice § 38, 2), as Jno. ii. 12 ; Luke vi. 20 ; vii. 50 ; xi. 34 ; xxiv. 50 ; Matt. vi. 17 ; xv. 2 ; Mark xii. 80 ; 1 Pet. iii. 11 ; Rom. ix. 17 ; xvi. 7 ; Acts xxv. 21, etc. (cf. 1 Mace. i. 6 ; Josh, xxiii. 2 ; xxiv. 1 ; Neh. ix. 34) ; The subject Ace. with the Inf., as Luke x. 85 iya iv toj iiravep- 130 ')(e<7eal. fie d-n-oSaxro), Jno. ii. 24 ; Heb. vii. 24 ; Acts i. 3 ; """'^ Oblique cases with a participle and at the same time with the principal verb, as Mark x. 16 ivar/KaXt,adfj,evo Kocrfiw w, (pm elfii 137 TOV KocTjiov, xii. 47 ovk ^\6ov wa icpivm tov Kocrfxov aXK uva awaco TOV Koajiov (Xen. An. 3, 2, 23 o'l ^aaiXio)'; ukovto^ iv Trj ySacrtXecij? %i»/3a . . . olicovat), Arrian. Al. 2, 18, 2; Krii. 114 (Liv. 1, 10, 1 ; 6, 2', 9 ; 38, 66, 3). Accordingly, even in the fol- lowing passages no one will regard the repetition of the noun as idle: Rom. v. 12 hi evo<; avOpdnrov 17 d/u,apT ia e/s tov Koapov ei<;fi\de, Kal Bia t?j? dpapTia^ 6 OdvaTO^i, Jno. x. 29 6 iraTqp jMov, 09 BeSwKe pot,, pei^cov 'jravTonv iaTL' koL ovBeh SuvaTUi dpTraX,uv eK TTJi 'Xeipb'i TOV TraTpo'i pov. Cf. besides, Acts iii. 16. See § 65' 7tb § 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. I45 In Acts X. 7 the better Codd. have the personal pronoun (see Kiihnol in loc.) and tu Kofivr)\ua is evidently a gloss. The passages which Bornem. Xen. Anab. p. 190 quotes from Greek authors are not all to the point, nor is the reading in all of them fully established. The assertion that it is especially characteristic of Mark to repeat the noun instead of the pronoun avros or exetvos (Schulze in Kail's Analect. II. II. 112) is not entirely correct. In Mark ii. 18 the nouns were indis- pensable, — (the writer could not put into the mouth of the inquirers an iKtlvoi referring to his, the historian's, words) ; in vi. 41, and also in xiv. 67, the pronouns would have been quite unsuitable ; in ii. 27 the nouns were employed for the sake of antithesis ; in i. 34 ; iii. 24 ; v. 9 ; x. 46 we find circumstantiality (as often in Csesar), and not strictly the use of nouns for pronouns. Compare EUendt, as above. 8. The pronoun avTO'i^ is frequently so employed, through the negligence of the writer, that in the propositions inunediately pre- ceding there is no substantive expressed to which it can be directly 158 referred. Such cases may be reduced to four classes : 1) Airs'; in the Plur. very frequently refers to a collective noun, particularly the name of a place or country (cf. § 21, 3), which includes the idea of the inhabitants ; as, Matt. iv. 23 iv rats awa- ywyal<; avrwv, that is raXiXuicov (from oXrjv ttjv TdXiKaiav), ix. 35 (Luke iv. 15) ; Matt. xi. 1 : 1 Thess. i. 9 cf. vs. 8 ; Acts viii. 5 ; XX. 2 ; 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13 ekOaiv eh ttjv TpcadSa . . . a-Trora^dixevo'; auTot?, V. 19 0€b<; ^v iv Xpia-rm Koafiov KaraXXdaaav eaurftj, /i^ XoyiZpfievot; avToii ra ■jrapairTfofiaTa, Jno. xvii. 2. This usage is common enough in Greek authors, cf. Thuc. 1, 27, 186 ; Lucian. Tim. 9 ; dial. mort. 12, 4 ; Dion. H. IV. 2117 ; Jacob, Lucian. Toxar. p. 59.2 Akin to this is, 2) the use of avT6<; in reference to an abstract 132 noun to be deduced from a preceding concrete, or vice versd ; as, ^'^ «''• Jno. viii. 44 y^ev<7rrj<; earl Koi 6 irarrfp aiirov (i/revSoK?) , see Liicke ^^^ in loc.,^ Rom. ii. 26 eav r/ aKpo^va-Tid rd BiKaico/xara tov vofiov v\dcri)crij9, are recognized). In Jno. xx. 15 avTov presupposes that the inquirer knew who was meant, inas- much as it was thought he had taken him away ; or Mary in answering, engrossed with the thought of the Lord, attributes to the inquirer her own impressions. Of. besides, Poppo, Xen. Cyr. 3, 1, 31 ; 5, 4, 42 ; Thuc. III. 1. 184 ; Lehmann, Lucian. II. 325 ; IV. 429 ; Stallb. Plat. rep. II. 286, and, generally, van Hengel, annotat. p. 195 sqq. In Luke xviii. 34 avrot refers to tous SwSeKa and avTovi in verse 31 (what intervenes being a statement of our Lord's). So also in Heb. iv. 13 160 avTov relates to tov 6iov in 12; and aur^s in Luke xxi. 21 to 'lepovaaX-q/ji in 20. Lastly, in 2 Cor. vi. 17 « fiea-ov avriov, in a somewhat transformed quotation from the Old Test., refers to ama-Toi in verse 14 ; and in Rom. X. 18 avrHv suggests to every reader the preachers, who were also men- tioned concretely in 15. On Acts xxvii. 14, where some have referred auT^? to the skip, see Kuhnol in loc. In Luke ii. 22 airwv points to mother and child (Mary and Jesus). Expositors are not agreed whether in Heb. xii. 17 avT-qv refers to fierdvoLav or to eiXoyiav; from the correlation be- tween fvpi(7Kav and lKt,r]Tav, however, the former reference is the more probable. In Matt. iii. 1 6 au™ and hr avrov relate unquestionably to Jesus. A slight inadvertence of another sort appears in Matt. xii. 15 ; xix. 2 ■rjKokov6r]iTav avrio o)(\oi iroAAol /cat iOepiiTrevcrev avrov ^ Travra's. Here the pronoun grammatically refers to ox^oi, but logically this reference can be only a loose one: he healed them, that is the sick in the crowds, collect ively (xiv. 14 iOepoLTrevae tov'; app/uxTrovs airSv). Compare also Luke v. 17. According to some expositors the demonstrative also is, in a similar way, construed ad sensum in 2 Cor. v. 2. After ev Tovrto they supply o-wjaaTt, as being implied in 17 iiriyews ■^p.Civ oIkm toB o-k^vous. But it is much simpler to supply aKi/jvu, from verse 4. That the Greeks, however, did employ the demonstrative as well as airo'; with a want of precision in the reference is well known, cf Matzner, Antiph. p. 200. In fact. Acts x. 10 would be an instance of this, if the reading exaWv for airSiv were correct. 4. A repetition of this pronoun (avro'?), and also of the otlier personal pronouns, occurs, a. When subjoined for the sake of perspicuity, in sentences where the principal noun is followed by a number of other words ; as, Markv. 2 e^eKdoim aimp bk tov ifKoiov ev6ea)<; aTnjvTTjaev avTco, ix. 28 ; Matt. iv. 16 ; v. 40 ; viii. 1 ; xxvi. 71 ; Acts vii. 21 ; Jas. 148 § 22. PEESONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. iv. 17 ; Rev. vi. 4 ; Col. ii. 13 koI vfjua^ veicpov'; ovTa<; ev rot? irapa- 140 Trrafiacrcv Koi ttj aKpoj3vc7Tia ttj? ipov(Tiv ai™ (Xptorw) tv\ov koI wapaKa- Xovcnv avTov (XpujTov), tva avTov (td^Xov) ai/^ijrai, Mark ix. 27, 28. So ouTos in Jno. xi. 37. See below, § 67. In a clause following a relative clause, and where os or its continued influence might be expected, Greek authors frequently — indeed, almost uniformly (Bhdy. 304) — employ koI avrds (oBtos), the writer modifying the construction, (Hm. Vig. 707 ; Ast. Plat. legg. p. 449 ; Boissoij. Nic. p. 32 ; Bornem. Xenoph. conv. p. 196 ; Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 68 ; rep. I. 197; Foertsch, observ. in Lysiam, p. 67; Weber, Dem. 355; Teipel, Scriptores Graec, Germ., Lat. a relativa verbor. construct, saepe neque injuria semper discessisse. Coesfeld, 1841, 4to. ; cf. Grotefend, lat. Gramm. § 143, 5 ; Kritz, Sallust. II. 540). From the N. T. may be quoted under this head, 2 Pet. ii. 3 ols to Kpi/ux CKTraXai ovk dpyci koI rj dirwAeia avTS>v ov word^ei, Acts iii. 13 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6, with less appropriateness Rev. xvii. 2 fjteff ^B iir6pvev(Tav . . . koX ifi.eOva'6'ija'av tK tov olvov t^s iropveia? avrlj'S, where it was necessary to avoid the construction with the relative on account of the nouns to be connected with the pronoun. In Hebrew, as is well known, owing to its great simplicity, the continuing of a sentence without the relative is very common ; yet an idiom foreign to the genius of the language shtfuld not be introduced into the text by supplying ^'ix with the following clause. (In passages such as Jno. i. 6 ; Acts x. 36 ; Luke ii. 36 ; xix. 2, to require the relative instead of airos or ovto's, is to mis- apprehend the simplicity of N. T. diction ; particularly as even Greek authors not unfrequently employ the same idiom ; see Aelian 12, 18 ; Strabo 8, 371 ; Philostr. Soph. 1, 25 ; cf. Kypke I. 347. On the other 150 § 22. PEESONAX, AND POSSESSIVE PEONOTINS. hand, in 1 Cor. vii. 13 for tjtl's e^et avSpa okuttov Kal avTos truvcuSoMt etc. the expression os a-vveuS. etc. might have been used.) In the N. T. 6 avro's, the same, takes after it a Dat. of the person when it denotes the same (identical) with, as 1 Cor. xi. 5 ; cf. Her. 4, 119 ; Xen. M. 1, 1, 13 ; 2, 1, 5 ; Cyr. 3, 3, 35 ; 7, 1, 2 ; Isocr. Paneg. c. 23 ; Plat. Menex. 244 b. ; Dio. Ch. 332, 97. Note. Airds in the Nom., as is well known, never stands in classic Greek for the unemphatic he (Krii. 109, 114). From the N. T. also' no decisive 142 passages can be produced to prove this usage [which Bttm. Gramm. des Jth d. neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 93 f. wrongly concedes] (cf. Fr. Mt. p. 47) ; even in Luke, who employs airds the most frequently (cf., in particular, Luke 163 V. 16, 17; xix. 2), it never occurs without a certain emphasis. It denotes, a. Self, in complex antitheses, and for all the three persons, as Mark 13(3 ii. 25 £7r«Vacr€v avTOs koI oi fjLer avrov. Acts xviii. 19 cKetVous KaTeXnrev, avro's 611 ed, 8e ihcXOdv, etc., Luke v. 37 ; x. 1 ; xviii. 39 ; 1 Cor. iii. 15 ; Mark i. 8 ; Jno. iv. 2 ; vi. 6 ; ix. 21 ; Luke vi. 42 ttSs Sui'acrai \efeiv . . . avro's t^i/ iv Tw 6rfi6a\ixia o-ov Sokov ov /3Xe7ru)i/, Heb. xi. 1 1 ttio-t^i /cat avrr] Sappa 8waju.iv ets KaralSoXrjv o-Trep/iaros eXa/Sev even Sara herself (who had been incredu- lous), Jno. xvi. 27 airos o 7ra.Tr}p ^iXei v/aSs he himself, of himself (without entreaty on my part, verse 26), Eom. viii. 23. Airds was thus used by the disciples in speaking of Christ (compare the well known airos li^a) : Mark iv. 38 ; Luke v. 16 ; ix. 51 ; xxiv. (15) 36. Cf. Fischer, ind. The- ophan. under airds. See, in general, the Lexicons. b. Emphatic Ae, even he: Matt. i. 21 KaXe'crcis to ovo/w, avrov 'Irjcrovv a-UTOs yap ada-n tov Xaov, xii. 50 ; Col. i. 17. Autos is not used for the unemphatic he also in Luke i. 22 {he himself, as distinguished from the rest: lirkyvina-av), ii. 28 (he Simeon, as distinguished from the parents of Jesus, verse 27), iv. 15 ; vii. 5 (he, of himself, from his own resources), Acts xiv. 12 {he Paul, as leader, verse 11), Mark vii. 36 ; [1 Thess. iii. 11 ; iv. 16 ; V. 23 ; 2 Thess. ii. 16 ; iii. 16.] (On the antithesis in Rom. viii. 23 avToi . . . tv eauTois see Fr. in loc.) 5. The reflexive pronoun kavTov, etc., which originally (as com- pounded of 6 and avTo?) belongs to the third person, and in the N. T. is regularly so employed (frequently in antithesis and with emphasis, 1 Cor. x. 29 ; xiv. 4 ; Bph. v. 28, etc.), is also, when no ambiguity is to be apprehended, employed in reference to the first and second persons. It is used a. In the Plural, — as well for the first person, Rom. viii. 23 (J]fiel'i) avTOL iv eauTot? aTevd^ofiev, 1 Cor. xi. 31 ; 2 Cor. i. 9; x. 12; Actsxxiii. 14, etc., as for the second, Jno. xii. 8 tov<; 7rTw%oi;? irdvTOTe 1 According to Thiersch, de Pent. vers. Alex. p. 98, the LXX often use the masc. aMs for he; but not avrii or owto, instead of which the demonBtratiye is regularly em- ployed. In reference to the Apocrypha, Wahl, clavis p. 80, utterly denies such a use. § 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 151 lj^6T€ neff eavTwv, Phil. ii. 12 Trjv eavrmv crcoTrjpMV KUTepyd^eaOe, Matt. iii. 9 ; xxiii. 31 ; Acts xiii. 46 ; Heb. iii. 13 ; x. 25, etc. b. In the Singular, though far less frequently (Bhdy. 272), in reference to the second person, as Jno. xviii. 34 d(j) eavrov av tovto keyei,e? •^/uv TO, oipeikijfiaTa rjfj,S)v w? Kal ijjtiet? ac})iiKafi€v etc., Jno. iv. 10 ail av rjTqa-a<; avrov (while /asked of thee, verses 7,9), Mark vi. 37 86t6 avTol'i ir/ieZ? ^cuyelv {ye, since they themselves have no pro- visions with them vs. 36), Jno. vi. 30 ; xxi. 22 ; Mark xiii. 9, 23 ; 1 Cor. ii. 3f..;. Matt. xvii. 19 ; 2 Tim. iv. 6. So when the person is described by a word in apposition, as Jno. iv. 9 TTw? av 'IovSalo<; Siv etc., Rom. xiv. 4 a-v ti<; el 6 Kpivayv aXKoTpiov oLKeTriv, Jno. x. 33 ; Acts i. 24 ; iv. 24 ; Luke i. 76 ; Eph. iv. 1 ; or reference is made to some preceding description, as Jno. V. 44 (42, 43) ; Rom. ii. 3 ; or such description is assumed as § 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 153 something known, as Jno. i. 30 ; Luke ix. 9 (7, — one who as king is certain of what has taken place) ; Bph. v. 32 (I as apostle) ; Jno. ix. 24 ; Gal. vi. 17 ; 1 Cor. xi. 23. Xi is used in addresses particularly when one out of many is meant, as Jno. i. 43 ; Jas. ii. 3 ; or when the person addressed is made prominent by an attributive, as 2 Tim. ii. 1 ; Matt. xi. 23. These pronouns nowhere occur wholly without emphasis and where they might have been dispensed with (Bornem. Xen. Conv. 187). For when in Eph. v. 32, for instance, we find e^m he T^yco eh XpicTTov, but in 1 Cor. i. 12; Rom. xv. 8 Xeyco Se, — in tlie first passage an emphasis is intended, in the other two, none. Moreover, the Codd. vary much with regard to the use or omission, as well as the position, of these pronouns ; and each case must be decided, not according to any fancied peculiarity of style in the separate writers (Gersd. I. 472 f.), but according to the nature of the sentence. The persoual pronoun is both used and omitted in close succession in 166 Luke X. 23, 24 01 jiXarovrt^ a ^kiTrere . . . ttoWol irpo6aX- fjLol pXeTTovres a pXeTrere are propej'ly none other than those of which the pXi-iTiTe is predicated. Compare 2 Cor. xi. 29 ns axrOa/a koX ovk avOfvC) ; 145 Tw (rKavSaA,t^eTai kol ovk iyii Trvpov/jLai ; where it must be noticed that in 'tt 6(L the latter member irvpovnai (which the apostle applies to himself) is a stronger word than (TKavhaXl£,€a-6ai. In 1 Cor. xiii. 12 tote em'yvuo-oju.ai KaOui^ KOX iireyvmT$T)v, some authorities add iyto to the latter verb ; but incongruously, since the antithesis is expressed by the vox verhi. It may be remarked, in passing, that in some books of the Old Test, the emphatic isix with a verb has been translated by the Sept. ey, koX eKacnri rov 146 Ihtov dvBpa e')(iTv v/j-iov, 1 Pet. ii. 25 iirlcFKOTros Tu>v {j/v)(>^v w/icuv, Heb. xiii. 17, or the heart (the seat of the affections and desires), as in Rev. xviii. 14 cTnOvfilai T-^s V'^X^s o-oV} Matt. xxvi. 38 vepikmros ecrnv r/ i/'v;)(ij fiov, Acts ii. 43 iyevero ■n-aarrj i/t^xb "^o^Sos. Even in Bom. ii. 9 i/t^x'? ^^ ^^^ * mere redundancy ; it denotes that in man which feels the ^Xii/^ts and orEvox^p., even should these come upon the body. In Rom. xiii. 1 Tracra i/fux^ efovcrtats wepcxo^o'^K vTOTcuja-iadia, the words Trao-a t/'i^x'? standing thus alone (cf. 1 Pet. iii. 20) may mean every soul, i.e. every person ; but even in an enumeration of the inhabitants in any place, so many '■'■souls'' (Lat. capita) is not precisely the same as so many " men " (persons). Cf. also Acts iii. 23 Sept. And so the use of the word i/'v^'j contributes everywhere to vivacity or circumstantiality of discourse, which is totally different from pleonasm. Besides, i/^x"? ^^ ^'^^ unfrequently so used in Greek authors also (cf. Xen. Cyr. 5, 1, 27 ; Aelian. 1. 32), particularly the poets (Soph. 148 Philoct. 714; Oed. Col. 499, 1207) ;2 and this use must be deemed not Ith ed. ^ Hebraism, but a relic of antique vivacity of expression. See further Georgi, Vind. p. 274 ; Schwarz, ad Olear. p. 28 ; Comment, p. 1439.' 1 See on the similar phrase SJkoi troi Hm. Lucian. conscr. hist. p. 179 (e.g. Lucian. pise. 16 T\l,u i/iti/ sKSiKoiraaa ttiv S/ktjc). It is a sort of dativus incommodi, § 31, 4b.; cf. 1 Kings XV, 20, LXX. 2 In these passages it is easy to discern the notion of anima, and I do not know why Ellendt, Lexic, Soph. II. 979, takes ^vxi] here for a mere circumlocution. Likewise the passages from Plato which Ast, Lexic. Plat. III. 575, quotes, are deprived of their peculiar shade of meaning by the canon : orationem amplificat. ' Matt. vi. 25, where y^uxh is opposed to aana, can present no difficulty to any one acquainted with the anthropological notions of the Jews. Likewise xapSia is not a mere circumlocution in Acts xiv. 17 ifx-KVKKwv rpocpTJs k, eiKppoffifTfs r^s KapSias vfiuv, and Jas. V. 5 fBp4\f/aTe Tcis xapSias vfiSiv, for otherwise it would have been possible to say, he smote his heart, for him, etc. Yet xapSia is probably used here not merely — as 3' is sometimes — in a material sense, agreeably to the physiological views of antiquity : to strengthen the heart, i.e. primarily the stomach, and through that the heart (even in Greek the signification stomach in KapSi'a has not altogether disappeared), but includes the idea of the pleasures of eating ; see Baumgarten on the latter passage. § 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN. 157 § 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN. 142 6th ed. 1. The pronoun ovtoi; sometimes refers, not to the nouu locally nearest, but to one more remote, which, as the principal subject, was mentally the nearest, the most present to the writer's thoughts (Schaef. Demosth. V. 322 ; Stallb. Plat. Phaedr. p. 28, 157 ; Foertsch, obs. in Lysiam p. 74) ; as, Acts iv. 11 ovr6' <5 in Rom. V. 12, but in both cases very erroneously. In Heb. v. 7, and 2 Thess. ii. 9 there is no difficulty. In 2 Pet. iii. 1 2 8t' rjv can very well be referred 143 to the nearest noun r^fiipa^, and w in 1 Pet. iv. 11 to the principal subject 6th A. Oeo's. On Heb. iii. 6 ov oTkos modern expositors are correct. 2. A demonstrative pronoun preceding a relative clause, if it has no special emphasis, is usually included in the relative pronoun (Krii. 124 f.). This occurs not only a. When, if expressed, it would regularly or by attraction stand 171 in the same case with the relative, as a) Acts i. 24 dvdSet^ov ov i^eXe^a for tovtov ov, Rom. viii. 29 ; Juo. xviii. 26 a-vyyevrj'i asv ov d-rreKoyfrev UeTpot; to diTLov, 1 Cor. vii. 39 ; 2 Cor. xi. 12 ; Phil. iv. 11 ; /Q) Acts viii. 24 otto)? /xTjSei/ itreKOr) eV e/ie Siv elpiJKare for tovtusv a elp. xxi. 19 ; xxii. 15 ; xxvi. 16, 22 ; Luke ix. 36 ; Rom. xv. 18 ; Eph. iii. 20 ; 2 Cor. xii. 17 ; cf. Isa. ii. 8 ; Wisd. xii. 14 ; Tob. i. 8 ; xii. 2, 6. Plato, Gorg. 467 e. ; Phaed. 94 c. ; Isocr. Phil. p. 226, and de pace 388 ; Plut. virt. mul. p. 202 ; Xen. A. 1, 9, 25 ; Dem. ep. 5 in. and Olyn. I. p. 2 a. ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 868. But also, b. When the demonstrative would require a different case, as Jno. xiii. 29 dr/opaa-ov wv xpei'ai' e'%oyu,ei/ (ravra &v), Rom. vi. 16 ; Matt. xix. 11 ; Acts viii. 19 ; xiii. 37 ; 1 Cor. xv. 36 ; 2 Pet. i. 9, cf. Xen. C. 6, 2, 1 dirrfy^eCKa'^ av iBeov, Burip. Med. 785 ip,/ji,eveiv a aov kXvq} i.e. rovTOi<; a, see Elmsley in loc. ; Lysias p. 152 Steph. fi/q KaTorfvyvdyo'Kere dBiKiav rov . . . haTravwmo^ aW oaoi . . . eWtr a-piivoi elcrlv dvaXicrKeuv for tovtoiv ocrot, see Stallb. Plat. rep. 1. 139 ; cf. Kritz, Sallust. II. 301. And in this instance even the prep- osition on which the case of the demonstrative depends is also omitted ; as, Rom. x. 14 irw? iricrTevaova-iv ov ovk riKCfucrav i.e. et? TOVTOV ov, etc.-^ 150 If, when the demonstrative before the relative is omitted, a ?th ed. preposition precedes, the preposition belongs logically either, a) To the relative clause ; as, Rom. x. 14 ttw? eiriKaXeiTovTM el<; ov OVK €Triv eBec fie %ai/36tv, 1 Cor. vii. 39 ; x. 30 ; Jno. xi. 6 ; Rom. xvi. 2 (cf. Isocr. Evag. p. 470 TrXei'ow iv tovtok to?? tottok hiarpi^eiv, rj -Trap' oh trporepov ela)66Te<; fja-av. Cic. Agrar. 2, 27). Also 1 Cor. vii. 1, and Phil. iv. 11 may be so construed. Relative Adverbs, in like manner, often include definite j as, Jno. xi. 32 rfkOev ottov tjv o 'Irja-ov^ (i.e. ixetae ottou), vi. 62 ; Mark V. 40 el ; 2 Cor. xiii. 9 tovto koI ev^ofiai, ttjv v/jlwv KaTapTuriv, 1 Jno. iii. 24 ; 146 V. 4 (cf. Achill. Tat. 7, 2 (pap/iaKov avrw tovto t^? . . . Xuttij? rj irpb'i ''"' '^ aXXov ek to iradeiv Kovvasvla, Plat. rep. 3, 407a. ; Lucian. navig. 3 ; Eurip. suppl. 510 ; cf. Jacob, Lucian. Toxar. p. 136 ; Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 466). Even et's tovto is so used, as Acts xxvi. 16 et? tovto r^ap &(f>0'qv (TOi Trpo^eipiaaaOai ae vrrrjpeT'qv koX fidpTvpa etc., and outws 1 Pet. ii. 15 (1 Cor. iv. 1), and ivTsvOev Jas. iv. 1. Lastly, a demonstrative is thus prefixed to a participial construc- tion ; as, Mark xii. 24 ov Sia tovto irXavaade, fir) etSoTe? Tav '^crefirjaav deserves par- ticular attention, see § 32, 1, p. 222. There are, however, passages in which this construction is neglected ; as, Heb. viii. 2 ttJ? aKrivi)'; t^? aK7]6aif)^ V"^ ex(ipiToicrev (var. iv y), iv. 1 rijs kX^ctcids -79 148 iKK-qOrjTe, 2 Cor. i. 4 Sia r^s irapaKA^o-eios ^s irapaKaXovju.e6o,' where ^s seems (i'li ei to stand for ij, appear to transcend the above rule. But these passages may be accounted for by the well-known expressions KKrjfrw Kokdv, napd- KK7)(nv irapaKaXelv, X"/"" xaptroOv, aya.7n]v a-yairav (§ 32, 2), and by the equally well-known construction of the Passive ; see Gieseler in Rosenm. 1 Cf. also the thorough treatise of G. T. A. Kritger (relating more directly to Latin) in his XJntersuch. a. d. Gebiete der lat. Sprachlehre. 3 Hcfte. Braunschw. 1827, 8vo. ; K. W. Krliger, in his Sprachl. 121, prefers the term assimilation. 2 The form Sstis occurs in the N. T. only as nominative. 5 Here, however, we may, with WaU, consider the Gcen. as dependent on the omitted preposition Suk ; see § 50, 7, p. 421 sq. 104 § 24. THE RELATIVE PRONOUN. Repertor. II. 124.' Also in Acts xxiv. 21 (ovrji ^s l/cpafa icrru}'; etc., probably ^s is not used for rj (^wi/ij Kpa^eiv Matt, xxvii. 50 ; Mark i. 26 ; 155 Ee^^ vi. 10, etc.) cf. Boisson. Nicet. p. 33, but ^tavr]v Kpd^av (Rev. vi. 10 var.), which, though unusual, is not inadmissible ; cf. Isa. vi. 4 (jirnvrj^ -^s iKeKpayov. (In Eph. i. 8 ^s cn-cptWeuo-ev, the verb is to be taken , transitively, as •yvcoptcras in vs. 9 shovrs.) That attraction nevertheless may affect even the Dative of the relative (so as 177 to change it into a Gen.) is shown by G. Kriiger, as above, 274 f. ; cf. Heinichen, Euseb. II. 98 sq. Accordingly Cod. A in 1 Tim. iv. 6 has T^s KaA-^s StSao-KaXtas rji TraprjKoXov&rjKa^. Many expositors, too, as recently Fr. also, resolve Rom. iv. 17 KaTevavri ov ETrt'oTtuo-ev Oeov into Kar. Oeov w ima-T. ; but this is not necessary ; see 2 below.^ On the other hand, Matt. Xiiv. 38 -qcrav . . . ya/ioCires Koi CKyap-t^oi/res o.)(pL ^s ^/Aepas etsijX^e NSe £is TYjv KiPuiTov is probably contracted from a^^pi rijs •^p.. ij ets^X^ev. Similarly Luke i. 20 ; Acts i. 2, 22. In Lev. xxiii. 15 airo t^s ■rjp.ipa? rj^ av TrpoievlyK-qn etc. Bar. 1, 19, we find the same attraction of the Dative of the relative when the two clauses are not merged into one ; for though ^s r/fnepa^ (on which day) also occurs, yet in the Sept. the Dative of time predominates. 2. Sometimes the opposite construction occurs : that is to say, the noun to which the relative refers is drawn into the construction of the relative clause and put in that case in which the govern- ing verb requires the relative to stand. When this occurs, the noun either a. Precedes the relative clause ; as, 1 Cor. x. 16 tov dprov ov KXa)fi€v, ovi^i KOivcovia tov crdofiaro'; ; Matt. xxi. 42 (LXX.) \ldov ov (vnehoKifxaa-av ol ot/coSo/ioOi'Te?, ovTo ^eviadw/iev Mvdaavi etc. by 156 attraction : &y. irapa Mvdamva . . . irap' m ^ep., yet see § 31, 5. "'""'' On 2 Cor. x. 13 see § 59, 7, p. 530. ' ^'^^ For both the constructions specified above there are additional parallels : a) Hippocr. morb. 4, 11 ra? 7^7709 fts cavofma-a, avrai tw a-cofian etc., Lysias bon. Arist. p. 649 ; Aelian. anim. 3, 13 ; Her. 2, 106 ; Soph. El. 653, and Trach. 283 ; Eurip. Bacch. 443 sqq. ; Aristoph. Plut. 200 ; Alciphr. 3, 59, the well-known passage of Virgil (Aen. 1, 577) urbem quam statuo vestra est, Terent. eunuch. 4, 3, 11 ; Sen. ep. 53 ; Wetsten. I. 468. From the Sept. Gen. xxxi. 16 TTju Bo^av fjv d^elXero 6 deo<; . . . "rjfuv ecnai, Num. xix. 22, and from the Acta Petri et Pauli ed. Thilo I. 7 dpKel rifilv rrjp ffkh^iv rjv e'xpfj.ev irapd Uirpov. b) Xen. A. 1, 9, 19 elf riva opan) KUToaKevd^ovTa ^? dp-xpt %(o/3a? (j(a>pav '^? dp'^pc), Soph. Oed. C. 907 ; EI. 1029 ; Eurip. Orest. 63 ; Electr. 860, and Hec. 986 ; Plat. Tim. 49 e. ; Demosth. ep. 4 p. 118 c. ; Plut. Coriol. 9 (Evang. apocr. p. 414 ; Acta apocr. p. 69) ; cf. Liv, 9, 2 ; Terent. Andr. prol. 3. See, in general, Mtth. 1054 f. ; Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 354. Under b. would come also Rom. iv. 17 KarevavTi o5 iiricrTevcre 6eov, if it were to be resolved into /car. Oeov, iv aapKi, ev Tricmi ^S) etc. of. Mtth. II. 1063. In both passages, 181 however, o may also be taken for an objective case : quod vivit, vita, quam vivit. See Fr. on Rom. as above. Note 4. During the reign of empiricism it was believed by many expos- itors that OS is used in prose, besides the well-known cases (Mtth. 742 f.), for the demonstrative. Now, every beginner knows how to construe such passages ; e.g. 2 Cor. iv. 6 o 6eos 6 fhruiv ck (tk6tov<; (jiSis Xd/jixj/ai, os eXanijiev iv rais KapSt'ats etc. In 1 Cor. ii. 9 and Rom. xvi. 27 the construction is anacoluthic. 152 § 25. THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN, AND THE INDEFINITE 6th ei PRONOUN TI2. 1. Not only is the Interrogative Pronoun rk, rl ordinarily used even in indirect questions and after verbs of knowing, inquiring. 159 etc., while o9Tt?, o,ti is never so employed in the N. T. (Matt. xx. 22 Ith ed. Luke xxiii. 34 (Mark xiv. 36) Jno. x. 6 ; Acts xxi. 33 ; Rom. viii. 26 Col. i. 27, etc. ; cf. Xen. C. 1, 1, 6 ; 1, 3, 17 ; Mem. 1, 6, 4, etc. Hm. ad Aeschyl. p. 461 ; EUendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 823), but tI, in particular, stands even in cases where the Greeks would certainly have used o,ti, so that the interrogative is weakened apparently into the German was (Eng. wliaf) ; as, Matt. x. 19 8o6i]creTai iijuv . . . Tt XaXrjuere quod dicatis, Luke xvii. 8 eToi,/jbaa-ov, ri Benrtnja-a), pa/ra, quod comedam (not quid comedam, which in this connection would hardly be allowable in Latin), cf. Bhdy. 443. "0,tc occurs once, Acts ix. 6. The transition to this usage of tI appears in the construction Mark vi. 36 ri (fxiycoaiv ovk exova-t (Matt. xv. 32), for which with little difference of meaning o,Tt ^dycoaiv ovk e^- might have been employed, exactly as in Latin one may say either non habent quid comedant or non hah. quod com. (Ramshorn, lat. Gramm. 368). In the latter form of expression, e^^ew and habere simply convey the notion of having or possessing (that which they might eat, they have not) ; the former comprises the notion of inquiry (accordingly, haheo quid must sometimes be directly trans- AHD THE INDEFINITE PRONOUN TI2. 169 lated 2 know, whaf) : inquiring what they should eat, they have notliing (to eat). Similarly Xen. C. 6, 1, 48 ovk e^o tI fiel^ov eiiro), Hell. 1, 6, 5 ; Soph. Oed. 0. 317 ovk 'ixw ri (f>a) ; see, in general, 182 Heindorf, Cic. N. D.p. 347. (The relative and interrogative are combined in 1 Tim. i. 7 /j-tj voovptb^ firjTe a Xejovai /xTjre irepl rUxav Sta/3£^MovvTai, non intelligentes nee quod dicunt nee quid asserant. So in Greek authors are ri and o,n coupled in parallel clauses. Cf. Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 248 ; II. 261 ; Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 641.) Schleusner, Haab (S. 82 f.), and others, refer to this usage many ex- amples which are of an entirely diflferent nature ; that is to say, in which a. Ti's retains its interrogative force, and must be rendered in Latin by guis or quid, as Matt. vii. 9 ti's Eorat i^ vfimv avOpunros etc., quis erit inter vos homo etc., cf. Matt. xii. 11 ; Luke xiv. 5 ; xi. 5 f. ; or in which b. tis is not an uiterrogative, but the indefinite aliquis, as 1 Cor. vii. 18 ireptTCT/iTj/u.e'i'os Tts iK\-qOr], fir] hricnnicrOoi, was any one called that is circumcised (I suppose the case), let him not become uncircumcised ; Jas. v. 13 KaKoiraOei ns, irpo^evxecrOio. It is inaccurately asserted that tis is used here for et tis. See appendix, § 64. In Jas. iii. 13 we must punctuate with Pott, Schott, and others, tis o-o(^os ... iv vfuv ; Sei^aTu) etc. Likewise Acts xiii. 25 may be read : nva //.e virovociTe elvai ; ovk eiixl iyio. Still, I think the usual acceptation of rtVa for ovriva not to be rejected ; cf. Soph. El. 1167 ; Callim. epigr. 30, 2. Tts is used sometimes, when only two persons or things are spoken 153 of, for the more precise TroTcpos (which never occurs in the N. T. as an W ei adjective) ; as. Matt. ix. 5 ri ydp Icmv evKOTruiTepov ; xxi. 31 tis ck tSv Svo cTToiTjcre ; Luke vii. 42 ; xxii. 27 ; Phil. i. 22. This occurs also in Greek authors (Stallb. PhUeb. p. 168), who do not make so nice a distinction 160 between ti's and -n-orepos as the Romans do between their quis and uter '"> si (though even as respects these last, exceptions are not wanting). It ought not to be asserted that in phrases such as Luke xv. 26 t[ etr] ravTo, Jno. vi. 9 ; Acts xvii. 20, the Sing, of the interrogative is put for the Plur. The Sing, ri sums up the plurality into one comprehensive whole : what (of what sort) are these things (hence also quid sibi volunt) ? On the other hand, in riva € tt/oo? ev crv/jb^aXKeiv, Lucian. conscr. hist. 2 (B? o§v ev, vv vfiMv etc. This distribiitive Singular, as it may be called, is fre- 188 qnent in classic Greek ; as, Xen. A. 4, 7, 16 el-xpv Kvr]/Mia<; km, KpdvT] K. (jbaxd-ipiov . . . Bopv etc. Cyr. 4, 8,11 ; Eurip. Cycl. 225 ; Thuc. 3, 22 ; 4, 4 ; 6, 58 ; Pol. 3, 49, 12 ; Ael. an. 5, 4 ; cf. Cic. Rab. 4, 11 ; Sen. ep. 87. In the Sept. cf. Gen. xlviii. 12 ; Lev. X. 6 ; Judg. xiii. 20 ; Lament, ii. 10 ; 1 Chron. xxix. 6 ; see also 1 The phrases airb or wph irposiirov 011™!/ or iituv, (torek irp. irivrap etc. Luke ii. 31 ; Acts vii. 45 ; Exod. xxxiv. 11 ; Deut. iii. IS; vii. 19 ; viii. 20, etc., I should pnfcr, however, not to refer to this head, as they had already become adverbial. §27. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. 175 testam. patr. p. 565.^ In the N. T. the Plural is the usual con- isg struction in this case (also Luke xxiv. 5; Acts i. 10). See in^'lisi general Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 264 ; Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 158. 165 7th ed. The collective use of the Singular is not to be extended beyond its natural bounds. In 1 Cor. vi. 5 SiaKpiivai dva /xia-ov tov d8eA,<^oS, tov dSeX^oB does not stand for rrj's d8eA,<^dTip-os ; moreover, nothiug would be gained in this way, since dvo. /jiicrov between requires not a collective whole, btit single individuals (the case is different in Matt. xiii. 25). It ought to have run ava fiicTov d8eX<^oi) Kol aZe\ov (Gen. xxiii. 15), or at least tCiv aScXcjiwv avTOV (see Grotius), cf. Pol. 10, 48, 1 ; or the construction is a concise inaccuracy. Meyer's explanation takes for granted also an expression which is inac- curate as it is without example. 2. Conversely, the Plural of class (masc. or fem.) is used although the predicate refers primarily to only one individual, ■when the writer wishes to keep the thought somewhat vague ; as, Matt. ii. 20 redvijKacnv ol ^rp-ovvTe? ttjv ■^^vj^tjv tov iraihiov (Herod the Great alone is meant, vs. 19), cf. Exod. iv. 19. See Aesch. Prom. 67 ; Eurip. Hec. 403 ; Aeschin. adv. Timarch. 21 and Bremi in loc. Person, Eur. Phoen. p. 36 ; Reisig, Conject. in Aristoph. p. 68, and C. L. Roth, gramm. quaest. e C. Tacito. Norimb. 1829, 4to. § 1. On the other hand, in Matt. ix. 8 iSo^aa-av tov Oeov tov Bovtu e^ovalav Toiavr'qv T0Z9 av0 pwTroi^, the reference certainly is not to Christ alone, but the expression must be taken as actually universal, like Heb. ix. 23. In ol XjiaTal Matt, xxvii. 44 a different tradition from Luke xxiii. 39 must be recognized. Lastly, in 1 Cor. XV. 29 virep tr]T5>v Acts vii. 42) is a general form of quotation, like in Paul's Epistles, etc., employed when one does not wish, or is not able, to indicate the passage precisely. Essentially similar is Matt. xxiv. 26 189 eV Tots rafidoK, opposed to ev rfj ep-q/jiio, cf. Liv. 1, 3 Silvius casu quodam in silvis natus. In Matt. xxi. 7 iTrdvm avrSiv probably refers to i/naTta. There would, however, be no intrinsic absurdity in referring it to the two animals, any more than the expression im^e^rjKm iin ovov Koi ttSiXov, verse 5, is absurd. We also say, loosely, he sprang from the horses, though only one of the team, the saddled horse, is meant. 1 In 1 Thess. i. 7 Sste yev4(rSai iiias Titrov iraai rots Trumiovaiv, the Singular is used quite regularly, as Paul had in view the church as a whole. 1 Cor. x. 6, 11 ; 1 Pet. V. 3 are passages of a different kind, where the Singular would be surprising. IIQ § 27. NUMBEK AND GENDER OF NOUNS. Quite erroneously has the Plural iiruTToXai in 1 Cor. xvi. 3 been taken for the Singular (Heumann in loc). Though this Plural may be thus used of a single letter (Schaef. Plutarch. V. 446 ; Poppo, Thuc. 1, 132), yet here the words 8t' ctio-toXSv are certainly to be joined to ■n-efx.xj/b) ; and the sending of several letters to diiFerent persons is ui itself not at all unlikely. 166 3. Not a few nouns which are used by us ordinarily in the Ith ed. Singular, were employed exclusively, or at least predominantly, in 159 the Plural ; this is owing to the objects denoted by them having — from a general or from a Grecian or a Biblical point of view — some sensible or ideal manifoldness or comprehensiveness (Krii. 9f.) ; as, al(ove<; Heb. i. 2 world (oisbis), ovpavoi. coeli (Schneider, lat. Gr. 11. 476) cf. 2 Cor. xii. 2, to, dyia the sanctuary Heb. viii. 2 ; ix. 8, 12, etc., avaToXal, hva^uii (^East, West) Matt. viii. 11 ; xxiv. 27 (Plato, def. 411 b. ; epin. 990 a. ; D. S. 2, 43 ; Dio. C. 987, 32 ; Lucian. peregr. 39), to, Be^id, apia-Tepd, evcovvfia, the right, the left (frequently), dvpai(^/ores, folding-door') Acts v. 19; Jno. xx. 19 (in Greek also nrvKau, but Ovpai, is a regular Plural iu Acts xvi. 26 f. ; Matt. xxiv. 33), koXttoi bosom Luke xvi. 23 (22 Sing.) cf. Pausan. 6, 1, 2 ; Ael. 13, 81 ; also rd ifidna of a (single) upper-garment, Jno. xix. 23 ; xiii. 4 ; Acts xviii. 6 ; the names of festivals iyKalvia, jeviaia, d^vfia (Tlavadrivaia, Saturnalia, Poppo, Thuc. HI. IV. 20), also 'ydfjiok marriage Matt. xxii. 2 ; Luke xii. 36 (cf. Tob. xi. 20) ; likewise cr^wvLa (Germ. Lohnung, soldier's pay) Eom. vi. 23 (Pr. Rom. I. 428), and dpjvpia (^pieces of money, Shekel-pieces') Matt, xxvi. 15 ; xxviii. 12. When the names of countries or cities are Plural, this is due to their consisting (originally) of several provinces (as Qalliae) or settlements ; as, ^Adfivai, Hdrapa, ^IXivTroi, probably also to. 'lepocrokvfia.^ Lastly, nouns denoting a feeling, disposition, or state, express in the Plural the modes or acts in which the feeling, etc. manifests itself; as, 1 Pet. ii. 1 dirode^evoi irdaav kukIuv . . . k. vTroKpia-ea K. (f)66vov<; K. Trao-a? KuraXa'Kidi;, 2 Cor. xii. 20 epi<;, f^Xo9, 6vfioi, ipiOeiai, KwraXaXial, -^tdvpicr fjiol, (pvo'taxrei';, aKaTaaTacriab, 2 Cor. xi. 28 ev OavdroL'i 7r6KKdiciv ayuov. ' Cf. the Latin penetralia, adyta (Vir. Aen. 2, 297). In reference to Phil. ii. 6 to uvol 'ura OeS, where "era is used adverbially, compare the classic usage Iliad. 5, 71 ; Odyss. 1, 432 ; 15, 520 ; Soph. Oed. R. 1179 ; Thuc. 3, 14 ; Philostr. Ap. 8, 26, etc. See Reisig, Oed. Col. 526. 4. The Dual of nouns — except the numeral Svo — does not occur in the N. T., but in its stead only the Plural is used (with Bvo in Matt. iv. 18 ; xviii. 9 ; xxvi. 37 ; Jno. iv. 40 ; Acts xii. 6, etc.) ; likewise in later Greek, generally, the dual-form is rare. Only in Rev. xii. 14: Tpecperai, icaipov koI Kaipoiii Koi rffMcyv Kaipov does the Plural of itself denote two years ; this, however, is an imitation of the Chaldee ^iwa Dan. vii. .25 in the Greek versions, and in this connection it may be remarked that the Chaldee regularly has no dual (my Chald. Grammat. S. 77). Accordingly the Plural, placed between one year and half a year, was allowably made to signify two. In later Greek, ')(p6vo<;, ■ypovot,, came more and more to signify year, years. See also Evang. apoc. p. 60, 61 ; Epiphan. Mon. 29, 28. Bornem. supposes he has found a trace of the Dual in Acts xv. 12 in 191 the reading e^yov/u.ei/to (v is added above the line) of one Cod. from which 33 178 § 27. NTMBEE AND SENDEE OF NOtTNS. Tdf. uotes the reading iirjyovfi.ei>oi, and joyously hails the discovery of this number ! 5. The Neuter, sing, or plur., is sometimes employed to denote a person, when the writer purposely expresses himself in general terms ; as, 2 Thess. ii. 6 to KaTe)(pv oiBare (7 o Kari'^covy, Heb. vii. 7 TO eXarrov vtro rov Kpeirrovot; evXoyelrai (Theodor. in loc), [Matt, xviii. 11], Luke i. 35 ; 1 Cor. i. 27, 28 ra fieopct t. Koai^ov . . . TO, da-devfj, to. e^ovOevrj/iiva (26 ol aofpoi}, Jno. vi. 37 ; 1 Jno. v. 4 cf. 1 ; (1 Cor. xi. 5, but not Col. i. 20 ; Heb. vii. 19 ; Jno. iii. 6 ; see the more recent expositors. In Rom. xi. 32 the established reading is tou? irdvTa'i). Similarly, Thuc. 3, 11 to, Kparta-ra em Toil's vTroSeecrTepov; ^weiTfjyov, Xeu. A. 7, 3, 11 rd fiev (pevjovra ml d-TroSiBpaa-KOVTa rifieh iKavol kcrofieOa BuoKew koI fiacrTeveiv, rjV Be Tt? dvdia-TTjTai, etc., Poppo, Thuc. 1. 104 ; Seidler, Eurip. Troad. p. 61 ; Kritz, Sail. II. 69. 168 6. The Neuter seems to be employed for the Feminine in Mark 1th cd. xji 28 TTOta icrrlv evTdXrj irpcoTT] irdvTcov (for traacov, whioh is a correction). But vavrav has no relation to the gender of the noun, but is equivalent to the general expression omnium (rerum) ; cf. Lucian. piscat. 13 (jlUl TrdvTtov ■^ye aX^0^? i\ocrocf>ta (according to the common reading; otherwise Traz/Tto?), Thiic. 4, 52 to? t6 T]Tr]v iicukei 6 Xa6<; ejXTrpoadev 6 ^XeTrcni/, Malal. 18, 482 ; 10, 247 see Lob. Phryn. 617.2 But Acts i. 12 A'rro opow tov kuXov- fievov 'EXatcbvoi. Usually, however, names, where an oblique case is necessary, take that case, and so are construed as part of the sentence (and dvo'/iaTt merely in- terposed) ; as, Acts xxvii. 1 iKaTOvrapyri oi'd/xaTi 'lovXiui, ix. 11, 12 avhpa. 'kvaviav ovo/xan e.ki\66vTa (xvfli. 2; Matt, xxvii. 32; Luke v. 27), xviii. 7 oiKta TWOS ovoixan 'Iovcttov, also Matt. i. 21, 25 KaXt'creis to dro/na avfov 'Irjo-ovv, Luke i. 13 (as an apposition to oi/o/Aa), even Mark iii. 16 iiriSriKev ovojxa Tw 2t/nu)i't XleVpov. (Different modes of expression are combined in Plut. Coriol. 11.) 172 In Rev. i. 4 the Nom. b u,v k. b r)v ^. 6 epxc/nei/os (nirr; tUe Immutable) Jthed. is designedly used as indeclinable. See § 10. p. 68. 2. Coiucident with a. above is the iise of the Nom. (with the Article) in addressing, particularly in calling or commanding ; consequently, instead of the Vocative, which was intended for this purpose (Fischer-Weller III. 1. 319 sq. ; ilarkland, Eurip. Iph. Aul. 446). This use of the Nom. sometimes occurs, also, in the N. T., as Matt. xi. 26 val, 6 irarfjp (^i^ofioXoyovfial . I am not prepared, with Fr., to pronounce this accent positively wrong. Luke, intending his Gospel for foreign readers, in mentioning for the first time the Mount of Olives, well enough known in Palestine, might naturally say, the so-called Mount of Olives, as in Acts i. 12. But the expression vphs rb ipos rh \ey6ij.evov i\aiui' would have to be resolved into t!) \ey6- lievov 6pos i\aiwvad montem qui dicitur olivarum ; and the Article before 4\. would be by no means necessary. Perhaps even the Syriac translator read 'EXoiiii' ; he renders the above as he does Acts i. 12 : JA^] A.k£) j,-oAlo? ]ia4 but ipos tSiv i\. Matt. xxi. 1, simply |Ai*i1i IJQ^ xxiv. 3 etc. ^ We find even t^v afBptoiroriKos ^oii'^ji/ Theodoret. IV. 1304, tV flebs vpos- tfyopiav III. 241 ; IV. 454, where the Romans (a circumstance which modem writers of Latin generally overlook) always employ the Genitive. § 29. NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. 183 dresses, as in Luke xii. 32 //.^ ol3ov, to jiiicpov -n-oifiviov, viii. 54 (Bar. 4, 5), even in prayers, as in Luke xviii. 11 ; Heb. x. 7. On the other hand, Jno. xx. 28, though directed to Jesus {el-rrev 196 avTwi), is rather exclamation than address; and, in tlie Greek authors, such a Nona, has early and strong prominence (Bhdy. as above, Krii. 12). So also Luke xii. 20 (according to the reading 165 acppcov, and 1 Cor. xv. 36, where d(f)pov has little authority in its ''"' '^ favor), likewise Phil. iii. 18, 19 •jroWol jap irepiiraTovcnv, ov<; iroK- XaKK eXeyov . . . rovi e^^joous tov aravpov tov Xp., a>v to reXos dircoXeiM . . . ol rk eirijeia (j)povovvTe only in addresses, Acts i. 1 ; xxvii. 21 ; xviii. 14 ; 1 Tim. vi. 11, mostly of adjuration and censure (Lob. Soph. Aj. 451 sq., see Fritzsche, Aristoph. 1. 4), Rom. ii. 1, 3 ; ix. 20 ; 1 Tim. vi. 20 ; Jas. ii. 20 ; Gal. iii. 1, or in exclamations, as Luke xxiv. 25 ; Acts xiii. 10. On the other hand, in mere accosting or calling the Vocative without St is employed, as Luke xiii. 12 ; xxii. 57 ; xxiii. 28 ; Matt. ix. 22 ; Jno. iv. 21 ; xix. 26 ; Acts xiii. 15 ; xxvii. 25. Even at the beginning of a speech, where m is regularly prefixed by the Greeks, we find in the N. T. for the most part the Vocative alone : Acts i. 16 ; ii. 14 ; iii. 12 ; xiii. 16 ; xv. 13 (see, however, Franke, Demosth. p. 193) .2 An adjective belonging to a Vocative is put in the Voc. also ; as, Jas. ^'^3 ii. 20 w a.v6pum€ Keve, Matt, xviii. 32 ; Jno. xvii. 11 (but cf. Jacobs, Achill. Jth ed Tat. p. 466) ; on apposition with the Vocative, however, see § 59, 8. Note. Some have erroneously attributed to the language of the N. T. a Hebraistic circumlocution for the Nominative, a. by means of the Ace. with ew, in the phrases eiuai or yiveaOai eis n, (Leusden, diall. p. 132). By far the greater number of the passages ad- duced are quotations from the Old Test, or expressions taken from it that have become standing phrases (Matt. xix. 5 ; 1 Cor. vi. 16 ; Eph. v. 31 ; 1 Hm. praef. ad Eur. Androm. p. 15 sq. says, mihi quidem ubique nominativus, quem pro vocative positum volunt, non vocantis sed declarantis esse videtur : o tu, qui es talis. This applies to some of the above passages but not to all, and ought probably to be assortud primarily only of the poets. ' On 5 before the Vocative, see, in general, Doberenz, Progr. Hildburgh. 1 844, 4to. 184 §30, GENITIVE. Heb. viii. 10, etc.). Besides, it was overlooked that the expression 197 yCj'£(r6ai eis tl Jieri i.e. abire (mutari) in aliq. (Acts v. 36 ; Jno. xvi. 20; Rev. viii. 11) may be used in Greek (Georgi, Vind. 337 ; Schwarz, Com- ment. 285), and is used, by the later authors at least, even in reference to persons (Geo. Pachymer. 1. 345 €is o-uMiU.a;^™? auTois ytVovxat) ; further, it was not considered that in the Hebrew expression equivalent to civat eis «, the i does not properly express the Nom. but corresponds to our {turn or serve) to or for something, (Heb. viii. 10 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 22, cf. Wisd. ii. 14 ; Acta apocr. 169). In 1 Cor. iv. 3 e/tot els eXap^io-Tov eo-rtv signifies, to me (for me) it belongs to what is of least importance, most insignificant (I rank it as such). Eis ovSiv XoyurOnviu Acts xix. 27 is similar: to be accounted as Igg nothing (Wisd. ix. 6).^ In Luke ii. 34 Kttrat £19 ittSxtw the preposition •Hk ed. indicates in like manner the destination, and does not conflict with Greek analogy, see Phil. i. 17 (16) ; 1 Thess. iii. 3, cf. Aesop. 24, 2 €is fid^ovd (Toi aiiXeiav eaofiaL, and the Latin auxilio esse (Zumpt, Gr. S. 549). See, further, § 32. 4. b. p. 228. b. by means of iv as an imitation of the Hebrew Beth essentiae (Gesen. Lgb. 838 ; Knobel on Isa. xxviii. 16), iri the passages Mark v. 25 -ywij ns ovira €V pucrei aLfiaro^, Rev. i. 10 lytvofvqv iv 7ri/cwyu.aTi iv rrj KvpiaKy rifi.ipa, (Glass. I. 31), Eph. v. 9 Kapm^ tov c^wtos iv Trda-rj ayaOiaavvr] (Hartmann, linguist. Einl 384), and Jno. ix. 30 iv touto) Oavfrna-rov icm (Schleusner, under iv). But, in the first passage, elvai iv p. is to be in the state of, etc. In the second, ylvea-6ai iv irvev/MXTL h/ is to be present anywhere in spirit. In the third, elvtu iv is equivalent to contineri, positum esse in (see the expositors). The last passage may be aptly rendered : herein is a marvel- lous thing. Gesenius too has attributed this Hebraistic construction to Greek and Latin writers unwarrantably ; for dvai iv o-o<^ois, in magnis viris (habendum) esse, assuredly contains nothing anomalous, but is quite a natural combination, and is to be rendered, belong to the number of. 'Ev and in would be equivalent to a Beth essentiae only in case the expression were : ev o-o^u, in sapienti viro, for croi^os, sapiens. But no reasonable man can talk so, and in a word the Hebraistic Beth essentiae construction 174 is a pure figment of empirical grammarians ; ^ see my edition of Simonis l&ei. p. 109, and Fr. Mr. p. 291 sq. The other examples adduced by Haab (S. 337 f.) are so manifestly inadmissible that we will not tarry a moment upon them. 198 §30. GENITIVE. 1. The Genitive is acknowledged to be the whence-c&sei — (the case denoting source, departure, or descent ; cf. Hartung, Casus 1 Quite different the expression xp^M^to eis hpyipiov Aoy/feo-floi Xen. C. 3, 1, 38. 2 With the entirely misunderstood Nifl S'nD, Exod. xxxii. 22, compare Ael. 10, 11 hiro9a.viw iv KaKif iarw. Should this too be taken for Ka\6v 4 deS. The pos- sibility of this explanation lies in SiKato<; Trapoi, tm dea Rom. ii. 13 antithetic to hiKaiovadat, and still more immediately in SiKaiovaOcu yrapa rw de& Gal. iii. 11, or evcoTriov rov Oeov Rom. iii. 20. Both sxpressions would be appropriate according to the nature of the SiKaiovaffai in question. But the interpretation Siicaioi o ^eo? rov dvOptoTTov is the more rigorous, and in Rom. x. 3 a better antithesis is gained if St«. 6eov denotes righteousness which God imparts. Compare also Pliil. iii. 9^ ix deov BiKaioavprj. Igg It is obvious from the preceding considerations that the decision between 8th ed. the Subjective and the Objective Genitive rests in many passages not with the grammarian but with the exegete, and the latter in making it must give careful attention to parallel passages also. In Phil. iv. 7 dprivrj 6eov can only mean the peace (of soul) that God gives, according to the custom of the apostles to wish their readers etp'qvrjv OLTTo deov ; and this parallelism is more decisive here than Eom. v. 1 eip^rjv ej^o/AEv IT/DOS Tov Oeov (according to which peace with God must be the translation). Likewise in Col. iii. 15 e^p-qvq Xpto-Toi) I take the Genitive to be Subjective, cf. Jno. xiv. 27. That SjKatoo-uny Trio-TetDs (a single notion : faith-righteousness), Kom. iv. 13, signifies righteousness which /a«p,evoi t^s ^oyrji rov Beov is God's-life ; the life of Christian believers is so called as being a life com- municated, inwardly excited, by God. 200 Whether the Genitive in the phrase eiayyeKtov rov Xpicrrov is to be taken as Subjective (the Gospel made known by Christ), or Objective (the Gospel concerning Christ), may be doubted. For my part I prefer the latter, because in some passages we find the entire expression ciayyeXtov ToC 6eov wep\ tov v'lov avrov (e.g. Rom. i. 3), of which the other is probably but an abridgment ; cf. also e-vayyOuov t^s ^dpiro's rov 6eov Acts xx. 24, and eiayye^iov T^s ySao-iXetas ToB ^«oO Matt. iv. 23 ; ix. 35. Mey. (on §30. GENITIVE. 187 Marki. 1) declares himself now for one view, now for the other. Likewise in Col. ii. 18 expositors are not agreed whether in $pr}&iiaa ayyiXwv the 176 Gen. is to be taken as Subjective or as Objective ; the latter is preferable : "t "i worship paid to angels, angel-worship ; of. Euseb^ H. E. 6, 41 6pria-Kaa twv 8ai//.dvo)v (var.), Philo II. 259 Op. 6eS>v (17 tov 6iov Xatpeto Plat. Apol. 23 c). In 1 Tim. iv. 1 Sai/ioi/auv is undoubtedly a Subjective Genitive. But in pawTUTiuov StSa^^s, Heb. vi. 2, if the latter be considered as the principal noun (see below, 3. note 4), j8a;mcrju. can only denote the object of the 8i8a;(^. In Horn. viii. 23 aiToXvTpma-vi tov criltpxiTO's, according to Paul's teaching, appears rather to signify liberation of the body (from that havXcla T^s (fidopas 21) than liberation from the body. Likewise in Heb. i. 3 ; 2 Pet. i. 9 Ka$api(rp.os tS)v afmpTiuiv might mean purification of sins (removal of sins, cf. Deut. xix. 13), just as one may say KaOapC^ovfai at d/iapnat (of. Ka6dipav ai/Aa to remove by purification, Iliad 16, 667) ; but it is simpler to take tSv dfiapTiSyv as an Objective GenitiVe. In Rom. a. 7 inrop.oi'Tj epyov dya^oi), 1 Thess. i. 3 viroju,ov^ r^s cXn-t'Sos, is simply : steadfastness' of well-doing, steadfastness of hope. Jas. ii. 4 is probably an indignant ques- tion : would ye not in this heconie judges of evil thoughts (your own) ? 2. But the Genitive is likewise employed, b. to denote relations of dependence still more remote (cf. Jacob, Luciain. Alex. p. 108 sq. ; Stallb. Plat. Tim. p. 241 sq. ; Bhdy. 160 ff.). In this way, by a kind of condensed expression, compound designations are formed which must be resolved variously, according to the relation of the ideas composing them. We distinguish, a. The Genitive which expresses relations eintirely external (of 169 place or of time) ; as, Matt. x. 5 6S09 idvwv the way to the gentiles (Heb. ix. 8 cf. Gen. iii. 24. 17 oho^ tov ^vXov t7J<; ^wtj?, Jer. ii. 18 ; Judith V. 14) 1, Jno. x. 7 6vpa r&v irpo^aTcov door to the sheep (Mey.), Matt. i. 11, 12 fieroiKeffia Ba^vX&vo^ the carrying away to Babylon (Orph. 200 eVt ttKoov 'A^eivow ad expeditionem in Axinum, 144 i/oo-To? ocKoio dorhum reditus, Burip. Iph. T. 1066 cf. Schaef. Melet. p. 90 ; Seidler, Eurip. Electr. 161 ; Spohn, Isocr. Paneg. p. 2 ; Bttm. Soph. Philoct. p. 67),^ Jno. vii. 35 r/ biaa-rropk tmv 'EXKrjvav the dispersion (the dispersed) among the Greeks, Mark viii. 27 km^m Kaiaapeid'i Tfj<; ^CkCinrov towns about Oaesarea Ph., situated on its territory (Isa. xvii. 2) ,2 Col. i. 20 al/xa tov aTavpov blood of tlie 201 1 But Matt. iv. 15 *8!is eaXdira-ns ttnd'oubtedly way by the sea (of Tiberias). ^ Vice versa Flat. Apol. 4:0 c. lifTo'iKJiiTis TTJs ffivxv^ ToOrrfirou tov inBevSe (a,waj from this place). ^ This finally comes back to the common topographical (Krii. 27) Genitive, as Jno. ii. 1 Kavtt rfis Ta\i\alas, Acts xxii. 3 Tapahs rijr KiKixias, xiii. 13 f. ; xxvii. 5 ; Luke iv. 26 ; cf. Xen. H. 1, 2, 12 ; D. S. 16, 92 ; 17, 63 ; Diog. L. 8, 3 ; Arrian. Al. 2, 4, 1, see Ellendt, Arrian. Al. 1. 151 ; Bamsham, lat. Gr. I. 167 — and this is simply the Genitive of belonging. 188 §30. GENITIVE. cross i.e. blood shed on the cross, 1 Pet. i. 2 pavrta-fw'i at/ioroq sprinhling (purifying) with blood, 2 Cor. xi. 26 kCvBwoi -rroTaficov 177 dangers on rivers (followed immediately by kIvB. iv TroXet, ej^ da- '""^ \acro-?7 etc.), cf. Heliod. 2, 4, 65 kivSwoo dcCKaaa&v. Designations of time : Rom. ii. 5 (Zepli. ii. 2) rjiiepa 6f)yricn<; t,a>fjuxv Rom. xv. 4. Likewise Phil. i. 8 iv a-nXdyxvoi'; Xpiarov 'I. is to be taken as the Subjective Genitive, though the more precise interpretation may be various. Cf. also Eph. vi. 4 and 171 Mey. Lastly, the correct interpretation of 1 Pet. iii. 21 does not depend 6th el so much on the Genitive (TweiS^crccus dya6TJs as on the meaning of eTrepMrrj/xa ; sponsio would accord perfectly with the context, but this rendering has not been lexically established either by de "Wette or Huther. On Heb. ix. 11 see Bleek. In 1 Cor. i. 27 tov Koo-fiov is the Subjective Genitive ; see Meyer. In 1 Cor. x. 16 to Tror^piov rijs euXoyias means simply the cup of blessing, that is, over which the blessing is uttered ; and in 21 ttot. icvplov 203 means cup of the Lord, where the closer relation of the Genitive is to be gathered from 16, just as in Col. ii. 11 that of XptoroC is to be deduced from 14. Mey. gives a correct decision on Col. i. 14. In Acts xxii. 3 vojxov depends on k. dxpi^Saav. 1 As in Philem. 13 8eer/to! tov cvayy. means bonds which the Gospel has brought. Without reference to the jmrallel passages the above might be rendered : a prisoner belonging to Christ. Others translate it, u, prisoner for Christ's sake. In the N. T. the Genitive is frequently so explained (Mtth. 851 ; Krii. 31 ), yet always incorrectly. Heb. xiii. 13 rhv 6veiSurnhi> Xpur^ov ipepovTes is: hearing the reproach which Christ hare (and still bears). So also 2 Cor. i. 5 irepto'crcuei ri irafl^/iara tov XpurTov els fi/ias the sufferings which Christ had to endure, i.e. from the enemies of divine truth, come (anew) abundanthj upon us ; for, the sufferings which believers endure (for the sake of divine truth) are essentially one with the sufferings of Christ, — only a continuation of them (cf. Phil, iii. 10). So also pi'obably Col. i. 24 at e\l\fifis tov Xpia-Tou and 2 Cor. iv. 10. On the first passaj^e, which has been very variously explained, see Likke, Progr. in loc. Col. i. 24 (Getting. 1833, 4to.) p. 12 sq., and Huther and Mik/. in loc. 190 §30, GENITIVE. Some refer the Genitive o'kov in Heb.iii. 3 to rt/iiji', greater honor of the house . (i.e. in, from, the house), etc. This construction, though not of itself inadmissible, is, for this writer, stiff, and clearly opposed to his design ; see Bleek. On the Genitive of apposition in particular, as ttoXck SoSo'/awv koL To/xoppas 2 Pet. ii. 6 (urbs Romae), crrjfji,€Lov Trcpiroju.'^sRom.iv. ll,see§59,8,p. 531. 3. It was long usual to regard the Genitive of Relationship as a. Genitive with an ellipsis ; as, Mapia 'laKcp^ov, 'JouSa? 'Iukco^ov, 179 AavlS 6 Tov 'leaaaL. But as the Genitive is the case of dependence, ™ "'• and as every relationship is a sort of dependence, there is no essen- tial notion wanting in such expressions (Hm.vEllips. p. 120); only the thought which the Gen. expresses in a very general way (Plato, rep. 3, 408 b.) is left to be defined by the reader according to the facts in the case. Most frequently this Gen. implies son or daughter ; as, Matt. iv. 21 : Jno. vi. 71 ; xxi. 2, 15 ; Acts xiii. 22. But /atjtij/j is to be understood in Luke xxiv. 10 ; Mark xv. 47 ; xvi. 1, cf. Matt, xxvii. 56 ; Mark xv. 40 (Aelian. 16, 30 'OXv/iTria? f) "AXe^av- hpov sc. fjJiTr)p), iraTrip in Acts vii. 16 'JEyn/xcbys tov Sv^^e/u, (cf. Gen. xxxiii. 19 ; similar in- Steph. Byzant. under AalZaKa : t) TroXt? a-wo AtuBaXov Tov^I/cdpov), jvvi] iu Matt. i. 6 ex t»?? tov Qiipiov and Jno. xix. 25 (see my BWB. II. 57f.) cf. Aristoph.eccl. 46; Plin. epp. 2, 20 Verania Pisonis ; a8,eXvu Xoycov aTrpayfiocrvVT], Plat. legg. 3, 690 b. ttjv tov vo/uov €k6vtii}V dp)(qv, rep. 1, 329 b. Tag tcSv otKciW 7rpo7TT;X.aic«7«s tov y.rjpws, Diog. L. 3, 37 and very strained Plat. Apol. 40 c. ju,cToiio;o-is t^s •/fJCTs tou tojtow TOV ivOevSe, see Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 329 ; ad legg. p. 84 sq. ; Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 219 ; Bttm. Demosth. Mid. p. 17, and Soph. Philoctet. v. 751 ; Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. p. Ill sq. ; Bhdy. 162 ; Mtth. 864 (Eritz, Sallust. II. 170). To this head we may also refer 1 Pet. iii. 21 o-apKos airoOtcrK pmrov the flesh's putting away vfflMh (aap^ airorcQercu. pmrov), unless there be here a transposition. In a different way two Genitives are connected together in Jno. vi. 1 i; OaXaxraa r^s raXiXdias rijs TijSeptoSos the Sea of Galilee, of Tiberias. 205 Under the last name alone it occurs the second time in Jno. xxi. 1. Per- haps for the sake of foreign readers John annexed the more definite to the more general designation (cf. Pausan. 6, 7, 3) that they might determine the locality more certainly. Beza in loc. takes a different view. Kiihnol's suspicion, that the words t^s Ttj8. are a gloss, is hasty. The explanation 1 73 of Pauhis. however, — setting sail from Tiberias — if not at variance with 8ft e4 192 § 30. GENITIVE. classic prose, is opposed to the style of the N. T. (cf. Bornem. Acta p. 149), which, in such circumstances, prefers to the simple case the more vivid mode of expression by means of the preposition. Tt/3. cannot be made to depend on the am in ojTrrikOev. Note 4. The Genitive, when placed before the governing noun, either a. belongs to two nouns at the same time, as in Acts iii. 7 avTov al /Sao-as icai TO. a4>vpd, Jno. xi. 48, or b. is emphatic (Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 118 ; Mdv. 13), as e.g. in 1 Cor. iii. 9 Oeov yap ia-fxtv crvvepyol, 6eov yetapyiov, 6eov oIkoSo/jlt^ eore. Acts xiii. 23 tovtov (AautS) 6 6eos diro tov a-n-ipp.aTO'; . . . 181 riyaye (Tuynjpa 'irja-ovv, Jas. i. 26 ei Tts . . . tovtov /Aaratos 17 BprjtTKda, iii. 3 ; Jttrf. Heb. X. 36 ; Eph. ii. 8. The emphasis is not unfrequently founded in an expressed antithesis : Phil. ii. 25 tov crtio-TpaTtaiTTyv /now, v/xuiv 8i aTrooroXov Kal XeiTOvpybv Trji )(piia'S p-ov, Matt. i. 18 ; Heb. vii. 12 , 1 Pet. iii. 21 ; Eph. ii. 10 ; vi. 9 ; Gal. iii. 15 ; iv. 28 ; 1 Cor vi. 15 ; Rom. iii. 29 ; xiii. 4. The Genitive, however, for the most part contains the principal notion : Rom. xi. 13 i9vS>v (xttootoXos apostle of the Gentiles, 1 Tim. vi. 17 ettI ttXovtov ahrjkorrjTi upon riches which are perishable, Tit. i. 7 ; Heb. vi. 1 6 ; 2 Pet. ii. 14. That the placing of the Genitive before the governing noun belongs to the peculiarities of diction of a particular author (Gersdorf 296 ff.), though not in itself impossible (since emphatic combinations are weakened by individual writers), at least cannot be shown to be probable. Cf. more- over, Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 243. Heb. vi. 2 is a difficult passage ; ^airTurpMiv StSax^s (depending on 6ep.eXiov) certainly belong together, and SiSaxijs cannot be torn away so strangely and regarded as the governing noun to all four Genitives, as Ebrard still maintains. But the question is, whether we should here admit a transposition for StSayfii PaTmxjp,sov, as most later expositors do. Such a transposition, however, would be at variance with the whole structure of the verse ; and if /3an-Ttcr/i,ol StSa^s is translated doctrinal baptisms, baptisms in connection with instruction, to distinguish them from the legal baptisms (lustrations) of Judaism, this appellation is confirmed as distinctively Christian by Matt, xxviii. 19 ySairTtVavrfq auTous . . . 8tSao-K0]/T€s awTovs. Ebrard's objection, that Christian baptism is dis- tinguished from mere lustrations, not by instruction, but by the forgiveness of sins and regeneration, amounts to nothing, for Matt, xxviii. says nothing about the forgiveness of sins. As regards the use of the word ;8a7TTtcr/*os, and in the Plural too, what Tholuck has already remarked may be used also in support of the above explanation. 206 Note 5. Kuhnol and others consider Trept with the Ace. in Mark iv. 19 ai Trepi to. Xovrra i'jnOvp.uu as a circumlocution for the Genitive. But, though Mark might have written al tSiv Xolttwv emO., yet the former expression is not only more definite, but inpi obviously retains its force : cupiditates, quae circa reliqua (rel. res) versantur (Heliod. 1, 23, 45 liriBvp,ia Trepi Trp/ XapUXuav, Aristot. rhet. 2, 12 ai irepi to o-wp-a hn6vp,wj), just as (with the Gen.) in Jno. xv. 22. It is another thing when, in § 30. GENITIVE. I93 Greek authors, iripC with, the Ace. is used as a circumlocution for the -^nA Genitive of an object to which a certain quality is ascribed, e.g. Died. S. 6th ei 11, 89 ij ■Trepl TO lepov ap-^aioTTji, and again to irepl toiis KpaTrjpai IBitopxi (of. Schaef. Julian, p. VI. and Dion. comp. p. 23). With more reason might it be said that in 1 Cor. vii. 37 efovo-io ■jrepl toS ISCov 6e\-^p,aTo? this prepo- sition is used with the Gen. as a circumlocution for the Genitive, because the Genitive alone might also have been employed ; but power over (with respect to) Ms own will, is at all events the more definite and full expression. Expositors find a similar circumlocution for the G«n. by means of dird and eK in Acts xxiii. 21 ttjv diro aoS hrayyeXiav, 2 Cor. viii. 7 tjj ef vp-Hv dyaTn;. This, however, is literally amor qui a voids proficiscitur, promissio a te 182 profecta, and is more precise than ry vfuav aydiry, which might also mean '"i ^ amor in vos.' So Thuc. 2, 92 ■q uTro tSiv 'AOrjvaiuiv liorjOiLo., Dion. H. IV. 2235 TToXvv €K TW TTapovTiav Kti'^o'as eXeov, Plato, rep. 2, 363 a. tcLs air airfj^ evSoKifuqcreLs, Demosth. pac. 24 b.; Polyaen. 5, 11 ; D. S. 1, 8 ; 5, 39 ; Exc. Vat. p. 117 ; Lucian. conscr. hist. 40 ; cf. Jacobs, Athen. 321 sq. and Anthol. pal. 1. 1, 159 ; Schaef. Soph. Aj. p. 228 ; EUendt, Arrian. Al. I. 329. Also Rom. xi. 27 f/ Trap' ip,ov StaO-i^Krj must be explained in the same way. Cf Xen. C. 5, 5, 13 ; Isocr. Demon, p. 18 ; Arrian. Al. 5, 18, 10 (Fr. in loc. and Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 193). On Jno. i. 14 see Lucke. None of these passages contains an unmeaning circumlocution. And in 1 Cor. ii. 12 ov TO TTveufia Tov KocTfLov eXdySo/ici', dAAa to Tireu/ia to Ik Oeov , the apostle has of set purpose employed in the parallel to ck Oeov (not to ttv. Oeov or to Oeov). No tolerably attentive reader will admit the alleged circumlocution for the Gen. by means of iv (see Koppe, Eph. p. 60), in proof of which 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; Eph. ii. 21 ; Tit. iii. 5 ; 2 Pet. ii. 7 are adduced. Nor does KOTci constitute a mere circumlocution for the Genitive in the examples usually quoted. In Rom. ix. 1 1 ij Kar' eKhyyrjv TrpoOeaii means the purpose according to, in consequence of, election. In Rom. xi. 21 ot KaTo, vcnv kXASol are the branches according to nature i.e. the natural branches. So Heb. xi. 7 ij Kara ttIxttlv SiKaLoa-vvr). In Heb. ix. 19, too, kotoi tov vojjlov, if referred to iramjs evroXrjs, would not be put for tov vo/aotj, as Bleek per- ceived. Yet, see above, § 22, 7. More pertinent examples are found in Greek writers ; as, Diod. S. 1, 65 ^ kuto, ttjv &pxw o.TroOea-i's the abdication of the government (literally, as regards the government), 4, 13 ; Exc. Vat. p. 103 ; Arrian. Al. 1, 18, 12 ; Mtth. 866. On cvayy. KaTo. Mot^. etc. see 207 Fr. (cf. instances in the nova biblioth. Lubec. II. 105 sq.). It is quite erroneous to take to. ets Xpto-Tov Tra.6rift.aTa 1 Pet. i. 11 for to, XpicTTov Tradrjp.aTa (v. 1). It means (similar to TrepX rrj's ets v/iSs xdpiTos vs. 10) the sufferings (destined) for Christ. It is a different matter, when a Genitive dependent on a noun is ren- dered by means of a preposition because the (corresponding) verb prefers this construction; as, Koivwvia vfuav eig to eiayye'Xtov Phil. i. 5 cf. iv. 15. J 2 Cor. ix. 2 6 ^ vnSiv Q\os iipiiure Tohs irMiovas is referable to attraction. 25 194 §30. GENITIVE. So probably also impwTrifi.a cts 6i6v (after God) 1 Pet. iii. 21, cf. 2 Sam. xi. 7 iirepwTav Eis Biov. 175 i. The same sort of direct dependence occurs in the connection 6tli ed. Qf tjjg Genitive with verbal adjectives and participles whose signi- fication is not such that they (the verbs from which they come) could regularly govern the Genitive (2 Pet. ii. 14 /ieo-Tow /MOi^aklSo'}, Matt. X. 10 a^to? tt}? Tpojyqs, Heb. iii. 1 Kkr)aea)os t^s ciko'vos Rom. viii. 29 (Mtth. 864). "k ei 5. Most closely related to the simple Genitive of dependence after substantives and in reality only an expansion of tliat Genitive into a clause, is the very common elvai or r^tveaOal tivo';. This construction has a still more diversified use in Greek prose (Krii. 28 f. ; Mdv. 57 f. ; Ast, Lexic. Platon. I. 621), than in the N. T. ; and was formerly explained by assuming that a preposition or a substantive was understood. In the N. T. may be distinguished, a. The Genitive of the whole, of the class (Plur.) and of the sphere (Sing.) to which one belongs, 1 Tim. i. 20 &v ia-Tlv'TfJi,evaiopi?eiv airo Rom. viii. 35 ; 1 Cor. vii. 10 ; Heb. vii. 26 (Plat. Phaed. 67 c, but Polyb. 5, 111, 2) ; \v6bv airo Luke xiii. 16 ; 1 Cor. vii. 27 ; eKevOepovv anro Rom. vi. 18, 22 ; viii. 2, 21 (Thuc. 2, 71, also with ek Mtth. 830) ; pveadai airo Matt. vi. 13 (2 Sam. xix. 9 ; Ps. xvi. 13 f.), with 6k Luke i. 74 ; Rom. vii. 24, etc.,Exod. vi. 6; Job xxxiii. 30 ; Ps. Ixviii. 15 ; erco^etu dvo Rom. V. 9 (Ps. Ixviii. 15), and more frequently with e/c, as in Jas. V. 20 ; Heb. v. 7 (2 Sam. xxii. 3f. ; 1 Kings xix. 17) ; Xvrpovv diro Tit. ii. 14 ; Ps. cxviii. 134 (but X. Tivo'i Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 710) ; KaOapiijsiv diro 1 Jno. i. 7 ; 2 Cor. vii. 1 ; Heb. ix. 14, accordingly Kodapm dm Acts xx. 26, cf. Tob. iii. 14 ; Demosth. Neaer. 528 c. (with e/c Appian. Syr. 59) and dOS)o tov fidvva (where some Codd. have S. a. ar yetv airb tov fi. as a correction) .^ On the other hand, in Rom. i. 11 ; 1 Thess. ii. 8 the apostle could not have written /ieraStSwat %«jOfr- cTiiaTO'i or evaryyeXiov (Mtth. 798), as in the first passage a partic- ular charisma as a whole (in fact he says ■xapiafid ri) is meant ; and in the second, the Gospel as something indivisible. Paul did not purpose to communicate a portion of (^from) a spiritual gift, or a portion of {from) the Gospel. c. Verbs of enjoying or partaking : irpo'iKaix^dveaOai, rpoifnji Acts xxvii. 36, iieraXap-^dveiv Tpo^ovv S fihv tov SSotos, 6 Se Kol olvov. 2 Bengd, on Heb. vi. 4, appears to trifle in attempting to make a distinction in this passage between yeietrdat with the Gen. and with the Ace. 2 In the sense of eating up, consuming, (payetv and iaSleiv have regularly the Ace. (Matt. xii. 4; Rev. x. 10) : cf, for distinction, 1 Cor. ix. 7. They also take the Ace. when one's food in general, merely, is described, — of which he ordinarily makes use, which he lives upon ; e.g. Mark i. 6 ^i/ 'luiyvris . ■ . iaBiaiv aitplSas koI fieXi ttypioi', Eom. xiv. 21 ; Matt. xv. 2 ; 1 Cor. viii. 7 ; x. 3f (Jno. vi. 58), cf. Diog. L. 6, 45. It may be stated generally, that iaiiew ti would in no passage be found to be entirely without justification (cf. even 2 Thess. iii. 12) and thus the absence of iaBUiv rip6s (together with &Tr6 or Hk rtms) would cease to be strange. Luke xv. 16 ciTrb raii/ KeparicDV uv fiaSiov o\ XoTpai is probably an attraction. Besides, wc find 4aBUw, irivtiv ti regularly in the Sept. also ; only in Num. xx. 19 iav toD SSards aov Triufiev occurs. §30. GENITIVE. I99 Vei'bs of eating of a,s well as giving and taking q/"are, moreover, 212 in the N. T. invariably joined to their noiins by prepositions : a) By a/iro ; as, Luke xxiv. 42 eireBcoKav avTa> . . . cnrb fieXiaa-iov Ki^piov, XX. 10 ; Matt. xv. 27 t^ Kvvdpia iadiei airo tuv ^frt^laiv roiv iraihuov (cf. '\q bsK and ^arjelv airo Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 706), Luke xxii. 18 ov fj,^ irio) airo tov •yew^iMaTOt Trj'; afiiriKov, cf. Jer. li. (xxviii.) 7, Acts ii. 17 iK'^eSt airb t. •n-i^euyaaro? fiov (liXX.), v. 2 Kol evoa^iaaro arro t?j9 nfifi^, Jno. xxi. 10 evpyKare cnrb twv oi/ro- piojv, Mark xii. 2 'wa . . . \d^y airb rov icapirov tov dfnreX&vo';. b) By 6K ; as, 1 Cor. xi. 28 e'/e tov apTov kaOieTO), ix. 7 (2 Sam. xii. 3 ; 2 Kings iv. 40 ; Sir. xi. 17 ; Judith xii. 2) ; Jno. iv. 14 o? av TrLr) ex tov iiSaxo?,^ vi. 50 6 dpTOo)v (Acts xix. 29), Jno. i. 14 vXijprji; ■^dpiro';, 2 Pet. ii. 14 6 Tiv6<; Lam. iii. 15, 29, p,edveiv and fieOucTKea-dai ck Rev. xvii. 2, 6 cf. Lucian. dial. d. 6, 3).^ Altogether solecistic is Rev. xvii. 3 ^^ifiov rd ovofiara cf. 4. [This solecism is probably to be explained by the analogy of ■ire'TrXrjpai/j.ivoi KapTrov SiKatocr. Phil. i. 11 and the like.] The Dat. after TrXrjpovv, fie6va-K€a6ai etc rests on a concep- tion essentially different ; see § 31, 7. How 1 Cor. i. 7 varepeiadac ev p/r/Sevl 'xapca-fiaTi must be taken, is obvioiis ; cf. Plat. rep. 6, 484 d. c. Verbs of touching (Mtth. 803) so far forth as the touching 190 affects only a part of the object ; as, Mark v. 30 i]y{raro twv I/mticov '"■ ^• (vi. 56 ; Luke xxii. 51 ; Juo. xx. 17 ; 2 Cor. vi. 17, etc.), Heb. xii. 20 215 Kov drjpiov 0iryr) rov opovi (xi. 28). Under this head comes also Luke xvi. 24 ^dirreuv vSaro?, Bhdy. 168 (^^dirretv et? {jB(op Plato, Tim. 73 6. ; Ael. 14, 39). d. Verbs of laying hold of, when only a part of the whole is taken hold of; as. Matt, xiv, 31 e/cretVa? rrjv x^^P'^ eireXdfieTo avrov, 1 To this head may be refeired also ir\oirios with the Gen. Eurip. Orest. 394. In the N. T., however, the preposition 4v is always used ; as, Eph. ii. 4 vKoicrios iv iheei (rich in mercy), Jas. ii. 5. Cf. TrKotnetv, irKovriQeaSat iv iivi 1 Tim. tI. 18 ; 1 Cor. i. 5, etc. 2 On w\r]6iveiv avi Athen. 13, 569 see Schweighaeus. add. et corrig. p. 478. In Matt, xxiii. 25 iawBiv yf/iovinv (cup and platter) 4^ aptrayris xal i,Kpa!i)v re Trpos iKeivovi Koi eKelvwv Trpbs avTovs and (some) of them have intercourse with those ; of those, with them, Thuc. 1, 115 (Theophan. I. 77). In the N. T. a similar construction occurs in Acts xxi. 16 (TwriXOov Kai tu)v fjiaOrjTwv (tvv rjiuv (cf. Pseudarist. p. 120 Haverc. ev oh koL PacriXiKol ■^crav koi tSv ri,jjL(i>fi.ivu>v inro tov /JacrtXeoDs). In such cases, however, the Genitive is regularly accompanied by a preposition ; as, Jno. xvi. 17 eiTTOv EK Tu>v fiaOrfTiiiV axirm etc. 9. Moreover, the Genitive is easily to be recognized as the whence case when joined a. to verbs of accusing, arraigning (sentencing') as Genitive of the thing (Mtth. 848), e.g. Acts xix. 40 KivBwevofiev iyKoXetcrOai, a-Tda-ew;, xxv. 11 ovBev ecrriv &v ovroi Karrf/opovaL ftov, Luke xxiii. 14 oiiBev evpov iv t& dvBpdyrr^ tovtw uitiov &v Kwrrfyopelre Kar aiiTov (yet we find also irepi two? de aliqua re Acts xxiii. 29 ; xxiv. 13, cf. Xen. Hell. 1,7, 2, likcKjo^i'ea-^atTrept TWO? Acts xxiii. 6; xxiv. 21) ; for the offence of which one is accused is that from, out of which 183 the KaTTiyopeiv arises, or proceeds. We must not, however, fail to ^""^ mention that the two preceding verbs are usually in Greek authors construed differently, viz. Karrf/opeiv rivo^ T^ (a construction which can hardly be proved to occur in the N. T. from Mark xv. 3, cf. Lucian. necyom. 19) and iyKuXeiv nvl n Mtth. 849 f.^ b. to KaTaKavj(aadai boast one's self of a thing (borrow glory from something) Jas. ii. 13. On the other hand, the construction eiraivelv rtvd rwof (4 Mace. i. 10 ; iv. 4 ; Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 661) does not occur in the N. T. ; for in Luke xvi. 8 tt}? dBtKia^ is undoubtedly to be joined to oIkov6/jlo<;, and the object of eTraivelv is expressed only in the clause oVt (^povLp-wi eiroitjarev. In general, 217 see on the former construction (Sintenis) in the Leipz. L. Z. 1833, I. 1135. Like iiraiveiv the verb p,iaeiv has in later Greek the Genitive of the thing (Liban.Oratt. p. 120 d. ; Cantacuz. I. 56). c. to verbs signifying to emit an odor (smell, breatlie Iiard) , Mtth. 1 How Karriyope'iv (properly, maintain, assert against one) comes by the Genitive of a person (Matt. xii. 10; Luke xxiii. 2, etc.), is obvious; but KaTaywdiaiKtv tw6s 1 Jno. iii. 20 f. is construed exactly in the same manner (Mtth. 860). Instead of 4yKa\uv nvi (Sir. xlvl. 19) we find in Rom. viii. 33 iyxaK. Kard Tiras, which is as easily accounted, for as KaTTiyopeir ets riya Maetzner, Antiph. 207. 204 §30. GENITIVE. 856 ; for in o^eiv tivoi the Genitive denotes the substance from which the ogew emanates. In the N. T. this Gen. occurs only in a 192 figurative sense, Acts ix. 1 i/jLTrvemv d-jrei\rj<; koi ^ovov panting with, 7tl ei breathing of, threatening and slaughter, cf. Aristoph. eq. 437 ovto'j fjhri KUKiav Kol (rvKO(f)avTia<; irvel Heliod. 1,2 ; Ephraem. 2358. Different from this are <^6vov wveovTe's Theocr. 22, 82, Ovfiov eKTrv^av Eurip. Bacch. 620, where the direct object is expressed: breathing murder, courage, tlie verbs being used as transitive. 10. The Genitive appears to be removed a little farther from its original import, when joined a. to verbs of feeling, in order to denote the object towards which the feeling is directed ; as, airXayxi^i^eadaC nvo'i Matt, xviii. 27. But in German also, sich jemandes erbarmen, we find the Genitive construction ; and in Greek the object was unquestion- ably conceived as operating upon the feeling subject, consequently, as the point from which the feeling proceeds, i.e. is generated. Most verbs of this kind, however, are construed with the Ace, conformably to a difierent conception of the relation ; see § 32, 1 and Hartung, S. 20. b. to verbs of longing and desiring (Mtth. 824 f.), where we commonly say, long for something, hanker after, etc. But the Greek conception of iTnOvfjLeiv tivo^ (except in connections where the Gen. can be taken parti tively, as iTriOv/M. a-oia^, to desire of wisdom) was such that the longing, the desire, proceeds from the good in question, — the good things of themselves entice men to longing. In the N. T. eTnOviMelv invariably (in Matt. v. 28 alone we find a var.) takes the Genitive ; as, Acts xx. 33 apyvpiov 184^ %P'-"''''°" V tf^ctTicTfiov ovSevoia^ means to have a thirst for philosophy, while Sf\jr. (jii\oa-o(f>Lav represents philosophy as something indivisible which 193 one wishes to get possession of. '* "'• Next to the verbs already mentioned follow, c. those of thinking of, remembering (Mtth. 820) ; as, Luke xvii. 32 fJivr/fioveveTe t^? yvvacKO'i Awt, [1 Thess. i. 3], Luke i. 72 nvTjaOfjvai, Buidi^Ki}';, Acts xi.l6; lCor.xi.2; Luke xxiii. 42 ; Heb. xiii. 2; JudelT; 2 Pet. iii. 2 (also vTrofiifiv^a-Keiv Tivct irepi tivo^ 2 Pet. i. 12). We, too, say : einer Sache gedenken, think of a matter, for this process is simply the seizing, laying hold of, a particular with the memory. Correspondingly, in the case oi forgetting a thing, Heb. xii. 5 e«\e- XrjaOe TJJ9 irapaicKria-ew'i, vi. 10 iirCKaOeadai rov epyov vfiav, xiii. 2, 16. But avafiifivrjcrKeadai Heb. x. 32; 2 Cor. vii. 15; Mark xiv. 72 and fjLVTj/jLovevetv Matt. xvi. 9 ; 1 Thess. ii. 9 ; Rev. xviii. 5 often govern the Accusative (Mtth. 820), yet rather in the sense of having present in the mind, holding in remembrance (Bhdy. 177) ; i-jriKav- Bdveadai, likewise is joined to this case in Phil. iii. 14, so sometimes in the Sept. (Deut. iv. 9 ; 2 Kings xvii. 38 ; Isa. Ixv. 16 ; Wisd. ii. 4 ; Ecclus. iii. 14), and even in Attic (Mtth. 821). This double construction rests on a different view of the relation, of which there is a glimpse also in Latin. Verbs of mentioning do not take the Genitive in the N. T. ; but we find, instead, fivrj/iov. -irepl Heb. xi. 22 (cf. /iifivqa-Keadai irepC Xen. C. 1, 6, 12 ; Plut. paedag. 9, 27; Tob. iv. 1). d. Further, the transition is easy to verbs of caring for or neg- kcting (Mtth. 821), Luke x. 34 eiTeixekrjOr) avrov (1 Tim. iii. 5), 1 Cor. ix. 9 firi TMv ^o&v fiiXei, rm Qea> ; (Acts xviii. 17 ; Plut. paedag. 17, 22), Tit. iii. 8 Xva ^povTi^uai koXmv epyav, 1 Tim. v. 8 Tciiv Ihiojv ov Trpovoei, 1 Tim. iv. 14 fir) a/j,ekei tov iv aol 'xapia/jbaTo<; (Heb. ii. 3), Heb. xii. 5 fir) oKiPfwpei ■jratSet'a? Kvpiov. Under this head comes also ^eiheaOat (Mtth. 822),^ Acts xx. 29 ixrj (f)eiS6/j,evoi, 185 TOV TToiixvLov not Sparing the flock, 1 Cor. vii. 28 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4. etc. *"■ '^ 1 In the Sept. this verb is found with the Dat. Ex. xvii. 3 ^Sitf/nicrev i \ahs SSart {for water). Likewise in Ps. Ixii. 2 the Cod. Vat. has iSttfrrjire a-ot (8e^, al. (re) r; rf/uxfl nov. 2 In Latin parcere a/icwi. But in the Greek ipfiSeaBai, judging from the construction, lies rather the notion of restraining one's self _^o»i, sibi temperare etc. In the Sept., however, this verb also takes the Dative, and is construed with prepositions. 206 §30. GENITIVE. 219 On the other hand, we find /ieXet also with irepi in Matt. xxii. 16; Jno. X. 13 ; xii. 6, etc. (Her. 6, 101 ; Xen. C. 4, 5, 17 ; Hiero, 9, 10, etc. ; Wisd. xii. 13 ; 1 Mace. xiv. 43, cf. Strange in Jahn's Archiv II. 400). e. Lastly, verbs of ruling (Mtth. 838) take the Genitive as the simple case of dependence (for to this the notion of preceding also reduces itself, Hartung, S. 14) : Mark x. 42 ol SoKoCj^re? dpxeiv rwv iOvSiv KaraKvpievova-tv ainaiv (Rom. xv. 12 LXX.), cf. also Kvpievetv . Rom. xiv. 9 ; 2 Cor. i. 24, aiidevrelv 1 Tim. ii. 12, KaraSvvacTTeveiv Jas. ii. 6, avOviraTeveiv Acts xviii. 12 etc. — verbs all derived from nouns, and whose construction is to be resolved thus : Kvpiov jivoo^o<; /ear/ell upon, Rom. xi. 25. Elliptically 1 Cor. vi. 13 ; v. 12 ; 2 Cor. vi. 14; Jno. ii. 4 (Krii. 59). b. With a predicate (mostly a substantive), ehai. or yiveadal Tivi denotes what quality for a person a thing has or receives, objectively as well as subjectively (i.e. in his own opinion) ; as, 1 Cor. viii. 9 /atjttq)? ■^ i^ovcrla . . . irp6<;K0/jifj,a 'yeprjTai, toI<; aaOevecrw, i. 18 d X6709 d Tov (TTavpov Toirjv tois fevois for a hurying-ground for strangers, the Dative belongs to the substantive ; cf. Strabo 17, 807 Trpos imSei^iv tok feVois. See Schoem. Isae. p. 264 ; 199 Krii. 68 f. But in 1 Cor. vii. 28 the Dative may be referred to the verb ^^li «•■ of the sentence. Yet see Bhdv. S. 88. ,, 4. The Dative, without being directly involved in the significa- tion of a verb or noun, expresses the relation of the action to some one : 2 Cor. ii. 12 ovk ecryn^ica aveaiv tw Trvev/xaTO fiovfor my spirit (1 Cor. vii. 28), or Luke xviii. 31 TrdvTa to, yeypa/ifieva ■ ■ ■ to) via) 225 TOV dv9pdyirov which were written for him (that they might receive fulfilment in him), (Matt. xiii. 14; Jude 14). Cf besides, Matt. xiii. 52 ; Phil. 1. 27 ; 1 Tim. i, 9 ; Rev. xxi. 2. Especially deserv- ing of notice are, 212 §31' DATIVE. a. The Dative of opinion or decision (cf. above, No. 2) ; as, Plato, Phaed. 101 d. el aoi aKKrfKoi'i ^vfi^wvel rj Svaificovei ; Soph. Oed. C. 1446. So in the expressions Acts vii. 20 ao-retos r& Qe&, 2 Cor. X. 4 hvvaTo, tw 6eS.^ See also 1 Cor. ix. 2. Cf. Wyttenb. Plat. Phaed. as above ; Erfurdt, Soph. Oed. R. 615 ; Kru. 61. b. The Dative of interest, 2 Cor. v. 13 eire i^ka-Tij/Mev, 6eaf elre ao}^povovfi,ev, v/uv (Rom.xiv. 6 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 22), or, more definitely, the dativus commodi and incommodi, Jno.iii. 26 w av jxefiapTvp-qKa';, to whom, in favor of whom (Luke iv. 22; Rom. x. 2 ; 2 Cor. ii. 1 ; cf. Xen. M. 1, 2, 21). On the other hand. Matt, xxiii. 31 fiaprv pevre eavroK on, vloi eore etc., agairist yourselves, cf. Jas. v. 3. Cf. besides, Heb. vi. 6 ; Jude 1 ; Rom. xiii. 2. On Rev. viii. 3, see Ewald. (But Eph. v. 19 XaXoCi'Te? eavToii — aXXTjXot? — yjraXij,ol<;, etc., is a simple Dative of direction : speaking to one another, etc.) 5. The preceding illustrations suffice to show that the Dative is as closely related to the prepositions et? (Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 360)^ and tt/so? (cf. Ast, Plat. legg. p. 568), as the Gen. is to the prepositions t« and airo. Hence in many phrases one of the former prepositions is used instead of the Dative. Thus we find, as every one knows, not only Xiyew rcvi and tt/so? nva (the latter is in Matt, and Mark the usual indeed almost invariable expression, see Schulz, Parab. v. Verwalt. S. 38) — cf. Kpd^eiv tivL Rev. vii. 2 ; xiv. 15, (poovelv rivi Rev. xiv. 18, — but also ev^eaOai, Oem Acts xxvi. 29 (Xen. Cyr. 5, 2, 12 ; Demosth. Conon. 729 c. ; Plut.'Coriol. 9 ; Xen. Eph. 4, 3), and evxea-dat. tt/jo? 6e6v 2 Cor. xiii. 7 (Xen. M. 1, 3, 2) cf. Phil. iv. 6, /3oav nvo Luke xviii. 7 and ^8. tt/jo? tivuHos. vii. 14, ilrevSeo-Oal rivt (Acts v. 4 ; Ps. xvii. 45 ; Ixxvii. 36 ; Jer. V. 12, but not in Greek authors) and i/reuS. tt/jo? Tiva (to lie against one, to be false towards one) Xen. A. 1, 3, 5, KaraWaTTeiv rivi and 200 7i"po9 Tiva Xen. vectig.6, 8; Joseph, antt. 14,11, 3,^ evSo/cew et? TLva ™ f^- 2 Pet. i. 17 and rovi in Greek writers (Pol. 4, 22, 7 ; 1 Mace. i. 43), 226 fid'^ea-Oai Tivi Xen. A. 4, 5, 12 ; Plato, rep. 3, 407 a. and irp6 els rbi/ (piKov (xov dico amico meo, (German, gegen m. Fr.), see v. Lude.mann, Lehrb. 90. 8 Col. i. 20 4iroKOTa\\. eis would be analogous, if this were not designedly a pregnant construction ; see Mei). ■* So besides irapafidWiiv t( twi (Her. 4. 198) also t( vpSs ti occurs (Joseph. Ap. 2. 1 5). Otherwise Mark iv. 30 4v irolf irapaPoh^ Tapa$iKufK>' tV SairiAtlav toB Stov, sea Fr.: but the reading here varies. §31. DATIVE. 213 Xen. M. 4, 3, 2. The construction with a preposition doiibtless 191 attracted the N. T. writers, through the influence of the exphcit ''"' "^ and graphic idiom of their vernacular tongue, and hence wliere the Bat. commodi or incommodi would have been sufficient for native Greek authors, we find et? : Acts xxiv. 17 i\er)fju)cTvva6apTolepeiv ev tlvl 1 Cor. xv. 41 (&oph. Oed. C. 1112 ; Dion. H. ep. p. 225. Krii.). For b. Kara, as almost always tca-ra to e6o66ttv\ov, where, too. the Latin translator has: quidnam essei homintbus bonum etc. Cf. besides, Fabric Pseudepigr. I. 628 SouKeiaoviriv 4v tois ix^poh aiiTav, Arrian. Epict. 1, 18, 8. §31. DATIVE. 219 Yet eV is inserted, regularly in the last case, and frequently also in the first (especially with ea)(arrj rifiipa or rjjMepa tfi'i Kpi(reu>^'}, even in Luke (iii. 1 ; i. 26), cf. Kru. 57 ; the expression rfi eopry or Tat9 iopTali without iv is rare even in Greek authors (Wan- nowski, 88). The Dative of place is not deeply rooted in the N. T. Before names of cities iv is always put ; as, h/ 'F(i>iJi,ri, iv Tvpu Acts xvii. 6 ; xix. 1 ; Rom. i. 7 ; 2 Tim. i. 17 ; iv. 20, etc. But oSos occasionally dispenses with the preposition ; as, Jas. ii. 25 CTepa oSw iK^aXova-a (where, however, the prepos. was hardly necessary) cf. Xen. Cyr. 1, 2, 16, oSiii -iropevio-Oai. Jude vs. 11; Acts xiv. 16 (trop.) cf Lucian. Tim. 5 68(3 ^aSt'^av (Fr. Eom. III. 140 sq.), (TToixeiv Tois Lxyea-t Rom. iv. 12 (jSaivEu/ txveo-t Plut. Sol. 30), with which are to be classed also the figurative expressions ■n-op. tu v iv Sdy/iacrt Karapyqa-a's — an explanation correct doubtless as re- 6th ei spects the sense, but at variance with the grammar ; for according to it Paul must have written : -f^apoyp. to iv rot's Soy/j.ao'i. Now in the first place as regards Eph. ii. 15 the expression tS>v ivroXSiv Iv Soyfiacri must undoubtedly be taken as one idea : commandments in (individual) ordinances, of. § 20, 2. And in Col., all things considered, Soy/xcwi cannot be taken otherwise than as closely connected with to Kaff ^fiSiv x^'poypai^oi' : *^« bond (in force) against us through the ordinances, and Paul perhaps em- ployed the word S6yij.acn in this passage to bring out the notion with prom- inence. Meyer's explanation : what has been written with commandments (Dat. like what has been written with letters), is the more forced, because the word x^'poypat^oi' has acquired from usage so distinct and independent a meaning that it can scarcely take such a Dative after it, as if equivalent to yeypajj-jxivov. Note 2. What Kuhnol remarks on Matt. viii. 1, viz. that Datives absolute are sometimes put for Genitives absolute, as KaTa.j3a.vTi avr^ for KaTajSarroi avTov, Matt. xxi. 23 ikOovn avrw for eX^ovros avTov, was indeed formerly believed, in general, even by scholars (Fischer, "Well. III. a. p. 391 ; Wyttenbach, Pint. Mor. II. 304 ; Heupel, Mark p. 79). In reality, however, all such Datives (at least in the better class of authors, Wannowski, p. 207 91 sqq.) may be as easily explained from the nature of the Dative, as the Jtli ed. Genitive absolute is from the nature of the Genitive ; see Bhdy. 82 ; Stallb. Plat. Protag. 60 ; Eost, Gr. 712 f. The remark cannot with the slightest plausibility be applied to the passages quoted above from the N. T., as both KaTapdvTi and iXOovTi follow the verb aKokovOeiv ; at the same time it must be confessed that the author might also have written : KaraySavTos avTov rjKoXovdtjcrav avTU o;^\ot iroXXoi, cf. Matt. viii. 28 ; Mark v. 2 var. There is only this peculiarity in these constructions, that in all airu) is repeated (because several other words are inserted between the Dative of the participle and the governing verb). In the passages quoted by Kypke I. 47 from Pausan. and Joseph., either there is simply a pronoun joined to the participle, or the pronoun is directly connected with the verb (Joseph, antt. 8, 13, 4) ; accordingly, they do not prove the point in question. Even in Acts xxii. 6, 17 the Datives are not properly absolute. In the latter passage //.oi mroa-Tph^avTi, precisely as in vs. 6, belongs with lyivero. 234 Then follows a quite different construction (with the Genit. absol.) : accidit mihi reverso, cum precabar in templo, etc. Cf. Paus. 3, 10, 7 and 25, 3. Note 3. Two Datives, the one of a person and the other (explaining, more closely defining) of a thing, occur in 2 Cor. xii. 7 ihoO-q /loi o-koXo^ §32, ACCUSATIVE. 221 rrj crapKia thorn was given me for (in) the jlesh, (Exod. iv. 9 ; Gen. xlvii. 24) cf. in Homer St'Soi; oi ^i/t'a xepcrtv ; Reisig, Soph. Oedip. C. 266 ; Elmsley, Eurip. Bacch. p. 49, 80, ed. Lips. ; Bornem. Xen. conviv. p. 214 ; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 81 1 ; Ast, Plat. legg. p. 278. The two Datives in Eph. iii. 5 ; Rom. vii. 25 ; Heb. iv. 2 ; Rev. iv. 3 are of a different nature, and require no remark. Note 4. A very singular Dative occurs in 2 Cor. vi. li n-i) yweu-Oe he- po^uyoBvTcs aTTto-Tots, where some understand o-w, while others attribute 198 this meaning to the Dative itself. But, though the Dat. is sometimes to 6th mL be resolved by with (Reitz, Lucian. VI. 599, Bip. ; Mtth. 907 ; cf. Polyaen. 8, 28), this is an entirely different case. The apostle seems to have expressed himself elliptically, and to have suited the Dative rather to the thought than to the words. He evidently means : iijij yCv. h-ep. koL ovtojs 6/x,o^uyo5i/T£s {o^el(r6ai. to be afraid in reference to something, to 200 fear something (for one's self) is usually construed with the Ace, but ^"' "'• sometimes has aTrd (to he afraid of, sibi ah al. timere) ; as. Matt. x. 28 fu] (^ojSeicr^c airo tu>v a7roKTevoi/TeXeiav, Plutarch. Caes. 55 a.). We find the same construction in a relative clause in Jno. xvii. 26 ij ayairq ^v Tyamjo-as /xe, Eph. ii. 4 ; Mark x. 38 to ^a7m<7/*a o eyu jSanri^OjUou From this must be distinguished the case in which the kindred noun denotes the objective result of the action, consequently a concrete idea, as BiaOiJKriv huvriBeaOat (Judg. ii. 2), fiapTvpiav fiaprvpeiv, ttKovtov irXovreiv (Dan. xi. 2), yfrijipia-fia flrr)(f>l^ea0m,. afiaprdveiv d/iapriav (1 Jno. v. 16), meaning, make a covenant, bear a testimony, etc., Ewald, Gr. 595. For here the noun does not necessarily require the support of an adjective, etc.. (as al6i.v Dem. Polycl. 710 b.), and the connection of the notm and the verb is purely etymological and historical. On the whole phrase- 212 ology under this head, which is far moi'e diversified in classic '"■ '^ Greek, see Wunder on Lobeck's Sophocl. Aj. S. 37 ff. 29 226 §32. ACCUSATIVE. Akin to this construction is opKov ofivvvat Lute i. 73 (Demosth. Apat. 579 c), Piovv )(p6vov 1 Pet. ir. 2 (C^v /Slav D. S. exc. Vat. p. 49), Sepuv (rrXrjya's) TroXXas, dXtyas, which further takes an Ace. of a person (cf. Luke xii. 47). Cf. Wunder, as above, 86. On Luke ii. 44 ^X.6ov ^juepas 6S6v they went a dmfs journey, or Acts viii. 39 eiropeiero rrpi 68w avrdv (cf. oSov /SaSttetv Plut. Coriol. 9 ; LXX. 1 Sam. vi. 9 ; Num. xxi. 33 ; Exod. xiii. 17), scarcely any remark is necessary ; yet see Wunder, 41 f. Analogous is the construction with the Dative ; as, (JMveiv (jtwvfj fieydky Acts xvi. 28, and jSoav or Kpd^eiv <^a)V]) fiey. Mark xv. 34 ; Matt, xxvii. 50 ; Acts vii. 60, opKio ofivvvai. Acts ii. 30, xopj^ x'"P"'' 1 Thess. iii. 9 (dyaXXioo-fiat Xapa dvexXaXi^io 1 Pet. i. 8), K7]pva-(r€w Kfxavy fieydXrj Rev. v. 2 [text, recept.] ; also Troup 6avdTiji.l(eiv rivi rm. On the other hand, in 1 Cor. xiii. 3 ^uiuiav irdina rii iirdpxoiTa means to feed out all my goods, bestow in food. §32. ACCUSATIVE. 227 37 ; Her. 6, 140 ; but ava/Mv. Tivd two? Xen. C. 6, 4, 13), oi teach- ing Jno. xiv. 26, of asking and inquiring Matt. vii. 9 ; Juo. xvi. 23 ; 203 1 Pet. iii. 15 (aiTeti/), Matt. xxi. 24 (Lob. Paralip. 622), Mark iv. 10 ""■ ^ (JptoTuv). On the other hand, eva/f^eXi^eadai is construed only Zr^ in Acts xiii. 32 with two Accusatives, cf. Heliod. 2, 10 ; Alciphr. 3, 12 ; Buseb. H. E. 3, 4, var. For Kpvvreiv Tuvd ri (Mtth. 937) the construction Kpinrretv n airo ruvo'i is invariably used, Col. i. 26 ; Luke xviii. 34 ; xix. 42, or at least indicated. AuhdffKeiv is once joined, but according to a somewhat uncertain reading, to ev tovi of the person, Rev. ii. 14 (as if instructing on a person')} Other and better Codd. have iBlSaa-ice t^j BuXuk, cf. Thilo, Apocr. I. 656 (]> iHb Job xxi. 22). Besides alreiv rivd n, we find alrelv n irapd or diro two? Acts iii. 2 ; ix. 2 ; Matt. xx. 20 (Xen. A. 1, 3, 16). Further, 'xp'i-eiv rivd with the Dative of the material occurs Acts X. 38, as dXeicbew uniformly, Mark vi. 13 ; Jno. xi. 2, etc. ; irrrofiu- livrjGKew nvb. irepl two^ 2 Pet. i. 12, also •jrept^dXKeadai iv Rev. iii. 5 ; iv. 4, rjiJL<^ieap.hio<; ev Matt. xi. 8 ; Luke vii. 25 (Dat. in Plat. Protag. 321a.). For d^aipeladai rtvd ri we find d(f>aip. ri diro TWO? Luke xvi. 3. Heb. ii. 17 tkaa-KitrOai tos ap.apna'; (cf. Ecclus. ixviii. 5 ; Dan. ix. 24 Theodot.) expiare peccata is perhaps to be explained by supposing that the expression 'iXaxrKiaBcu, tov 6e6v tois d/tapTias had begun to be used. In 1 Sam. iii. 14 i^iXaa-O-qcreTai dSt/cta oiKov 'HXi, the verb is strictly passive. The same view essentially may be taken (Mtth. 927, 939 ; Eost 497 f. 503) of the Accusative of a pronoun («', to airo, irdrra) or neuter adjective {[neya, etc.), which is joined to many verbs along with the Ace. or Gen. of a person (as, ^XaTrrav Luke iv. 35, wliTia lab as this probably means teach in Judah. In Acts vii. 22 iirmSeiSTi irdaji aoipitf is not put for vaiav (cf. Diod. S. 1, 91) ; but the Dative is employed to denote the means of training, whereas ^ttcuS. wairav iroipiav would be edoctus est (institutiis ad) sapientiam. The true reading of the passage, however, is probably 4i/ t. (rala, cf. Plat. Crito 50 d. 228 §32. ACCUSATIVE. b. An Ace. of the Subject and of the Predicate (Mtth. 934 f.) ; as, Jno. vi. 15 'Cva iroirjcraxjiv avTov j3aaiXea, Luke xix. 46 vfieipal,veadai Rev. xviii. 20 (Bcclus. xvi. 1 ; 1 Mace. xi. 44 ; Xen. conv. 7, 5), tjvK- XxnrelaOai Mark iii. 5 (Xen. Mem. 3, 9, 8 ; cf. y(a\,€TrS)oi, the following are characteristic of the N. T. : o ttuj-tos the believer, Trio-Toi believers, ayioi, e/cXcKTot, a.impT\oi Rom. xv. 31 ; xvi. 2; 1 Cor. vi. 2; 2 Cor. vi. 15; 1 Tim. i. 15 ; V. 10 ; 2 Tim. ii. 10 ; Heb. xii. 3 ; Matt. xxiv. 22 ; so even with an attributive Adjective, Rom. i. 7 ; 1 Cor. i. 2 kXijtois oyt'ots, or with a 220 Gren. Rom. viii. 33 £kX«/ctoi Otov. In all these cases persons are indicated Ith ed. to whom the quality in question belongs ; and there is no necessity for supplying avOpumoi (or aZek^oi). Likewise where 6 aX-qOivo^ 1 Jno. v. 20 is used of God, or 6 ayios raiv 6iov Luke iv. 34 of Christ, or o ■7rovrip6 (pavepS Matt. vi. 4, 64? ^avepov Mark iv. 22), but also mental and abstract, particularly with a Gen. annexed, as Rom. ii. 4 to ^(prja-Tov t. Bern (.V XPijo'TOTi;?), Heb. vi. 17 to a/Merdderov t^? /SouX^?, Rom. viii. 3 ; ix. 22 ; 1 Cor. i. 25 ; 2 Cor. iv. 17 ; Phil. iii. 8 to virepixov t?}? jvaxreo}';, iv. 5 rb eVtet/ce? v/xuv. Instead of the Gen. another con- struction is selected in Rom. i. 15 ro kut e/ie vpodvfMov (to 7rp66v/M)v 2IO purpose Eur. Iphig. 983). The Plurals of adjectives are regularly Stliei concretes, and denote whole classes of things (persons) ; as, to, opara k. dopara Col. i. 16, iirovpdvia and iiriyeM Jno. iii. 12 ; Phil, ii. 10, TO, ^adea Rev. ii. 24, dpxala 2 Cor. v. 17. Such adjectives, moreover, sometimes are made more specific by the context : thus, 6-rrovpdvM Jno. as above heavenly truths, Phil. ii. 10 heavenly beings, Bph. ii. 6 ; iii. 10 heavenly places (i.q. oipavol, cf. var. Eph. i. 20) etc. In Rom. i. 20 rd dopara tov 6eov the Plural refers to the par- tition that follows, i] T€ diSioavep6v icmv ev auTois. This shows, too, why Paul did not use ^ -yvStrts here. The preceding mode of expression, which flows quite simply from the 221 nature of the Neuter, is not unknown to the Greeks. The later prose 1& A authors in particular adopted it from the technical language of philosophy. At the same time, the examples collected by Georgi (Hierocrit. I. 39) must be carefully sifted. The following may serve as unquestionable parallels : Demosth. Phil. 1. p. 20 a. to tSv OeSiv evficvK, and de fals. leg. p. 213 a. TO do'^aA.es aur^s, Thuc. 1, 68 to Trtorov Trji TroXtTctas, 2, 71 to Sjcr$tvig T^s yvco/Aijs, Galen, protrept. 2 to t^s tcj^t^s ao'TaToi' and to t^s l3axT€(it'} evixeraicuXiaTov, Heliod. 2, 15, 83 to virep^dWov rrj's Xvmjs, Plat. Phaedr. 240 a. ; Strabo 3, 168 ; Philostr. Ap. 7, 12 ; D. S. 19, 55 ; Diog. 286 §34=. ADJECTIVES. L. 9, 63. This construction with the participle is especially characteristic of Thuc. (and the Byzantines). Cf. EUendt, Arrian. Al. I. 253 ; Niebuhr, ind. ad Dexipp. Eunap. and Malch. An abstract noun and neuter adjectives in connection occur in Plutarch, Agis 20 ^ jroXX-^ ciXa^eia koI to irp^ov kcu tjukdvOpuyirov. 3. On the other hand, a notion which should naturally be ex- pressed by an adjective as an epithet/ is sometimes, by a change 211 of construction, brought out by a substantive. Yet the N. T. is eth ed. by no means poor in adjectives ; it can show a considerable number which do not occur in the (early) Greek authors, and some of which have been formed by the apostles themselves (eVtoycrto?, a-ap- 250 kik6<;, TTvevfJMTUCo'i, nrapewKTO's, •jrvpwo';, aKaraKpiro';, aKpoyavuiiois, avetraia-jQjVTO'i, ainoKaTOKpiTO';, d'xeipoTTohjro'i, ^peoaifio<;, eVtwo^i/TO?, exnrepicTTaToi;, i<7d'yye\o<;, KareiBwXoi, KvpiaKO^, Taveiv6(ppwv etc.). This substitution of a substantive for an adjective takes place, a. In such a way that the substantive which is the principal word stands in the Genitive : 1 Tim. vi. 17 /irj yXTriKevM eVi ttXovtov dBijXoT'rjn not to trust in the uncertainty of riches i.e. in riches which are uncertain, Rom. vi. 4 iva ^/iet? iv Katvorrp-i ftu^? -TrepLira- T7](reo/j,ev, vii. 6. This form of expression, however, is not arbitrary, but is designed to give greater prominence to the main idea, which if expressed by an adjective would recede more into the background. It is rhetorical, therefore, not grammatical. Cf. Zumpt, Lat. Gramm. S. 554 and examples from Greek authors in Held, Pint. Timol. p. 368. Properly only those passages come under this head in which, to the substantive that is followed by a Genitive, a verb is joined which from the nature of the case suits rather the substantive in the Genitive, and consequently points it out as the principal noun (as, ingemuit corvi stupor, or the above ekm^. im wXovtov dSijXonjTi). On the other hand, such pas- sages as the following are to be decidedly excluded from this class : '' Col. ii. 5 fiXiiraiv TO v apruiv 1 On the case in which an adjectire as a predicate is expressed by means of a substan- tire for rhetorical reasons, as in 2 Cor. iii. 9 €1 ^ SiaKovia rris KaTaxplirdis S(i{o, see § 58. ■' Fr. Rom. I. 367 sq. has objected to this separation, which however he appears to hare misunderstood. In passages of the second kind the statement is merely logical, in those of the first it is rhetorical. When it is said, live according to the truth of the Gospel, we are to understand the words in their proper and natural meaning (the truth of the Gospel is the rule of life) ; but when it is said, corvi stupor ingemuit, the statement is figurative, like, his blood called for vert,geance. Cic. N. D. 2, .50, 127 belongs to the second class, and foedo odore would be the less exact expression. § 84. ADJECTIVES. 237 signifies: the setting before, exposition, of the bread; and in 1 Pet. i. 2 dyiacr/ios TTTCw/xaros, as a glance at the context will show, is not synonymous with Tcvsvfia ayiov. Lastly, the phrase XajujSaveu' Tr]v iirayyeklav tov wveu- ju,aTos in Acts ii. 33 ; Gal. iii. 14 means : obtain the promise of ike Spirit, which happens when the promised blessing itself is received (KOfii^ca-Bai T7]v IniayyeXiav), when the promise becomes fulfilment. b. Far more frequently so that the noun which expresses a quality (mostly moral) stands in the Genitive : Luke iv. 22 Twyot t^? j^ajotTO?, xvi. 8 olKovofw; t^? oBtKia'i, xviii. 6 KpiTr)v v aya-irq may be rendered : {greater) the greatest (of) among these is love ; see No. 3. Cf. besides, 1 Cor. xii. 23 ; Luke vii. 42 (Lucian, fug. 6). The Comparative is strengthened by annexing ju.oXXoi',^ 2 Cor. vii. 13 vepuKTOTipws fj-aXKov (Plato, legg. 6, 781 a.), Phil.i. 23 ttoWo! fiaXXov Kptla-a-ov (much more better), and in reference to another comparison, Mark vii. 36 o(7ov avTois SteoreAAeTO, avrol jU.oAAoi' irepia-o-orepov iKi^pvcra-ov, see Fr. in loo. ; also by en Heb. vii. 15 irepio-o-oVepov en KaraSijXov (still more evident), Phil, i. 9 ; lastly, by ttoXv, as 2 Cor. viii. 22 ttoXv oTrouSaioTepov. All these are very common in Greek authors (Krii. 79) : on /aoXXoi/ see Wyttenb. Pint. 215 I. 238 ; Ast, Plat. Phaedr. p. 395 ; legg. p. 44 ; Boisson. Aristaen. p. 430 sqq. 6tliei ^in jja,t. cf. Cic. Pis. 14 mihi . . . quaevis fiiga potius quam uUa provincia esset optatior) ; as to en cf. Plat. pol. 298 e. ; Xen. M. 1, 5, 6 ; Cyr. 5, 4, 20 ; Anab. 1, 9, 10, and as to toXv Xen. M. 2, 10, 2 ; Lucian. Tim. 50. In Greek authors sometimes en woXu are conjoined : Xen. M. 2, 1, 27 ; C. 1, 6, 17 ; Anab. 7, 5, 15. Also when prepositions are employed after the Comparative they are designed to give it additional force ; as, Luke xvi. 8 povLfiune.pov virip Tois vlov's Tov <^(oros, Heb. iv. 12 ; Judg. xi. 25 ; xv. 2 ; xviii. 26 ; Heb. ix. 23 KptiTToa-i OvcriaK irapa tovtw;, i. 4 ; iii. 3 ; xi. 4; xii. 24 ; Luke iii. 13. Compare, in reference to vapd, Thuc. 1. 23 jrvKvorepov Trapa. to. Ik toB Trplv )(p6vov /Avijju,ovevoju.eva, Dio C. 38, 97. See Hm. Vig. 862. 2. Instead of the Comparative form, the Positive is used, a. With fiaXKov, partly when the Comparative form seemed uncouth, partly when more emphasis was required (Krii. 78), Acts XX. 35 fiuKapiop iari, fiaXKov BtBovai, rj Xafi^dveiv, 1 Cor. xii. 22 ; Gal. iv. 27. 226 b. With a preposition following which contains the notion of ™ '"• comparison ; as, Philostr. Apol. iii. IdTrapci ■7rdvTaepei rj to rpv^av 6'li '^- etc. Aesop. 121 de Pur. (Tob. vi. 13), in Adject, and Adv. Thuc. 6, 21 ala")(pov jSiMffOevTaf airekdelv rj vcnepov iiri/ieraireiMTreadai, Plut. Pelop. 4 TouTov? av opdm k. SiKaim^ irpov6Tepos alnav ^y Kol Bpacritepos, Her. 2, 46 etc. {Heusbiff. Pint, educ. p. 3). Cf. alscnEeinichen, Euseb. H.E. 1. 210sq. ; .ffcrm. Lucian. conscr. hist. p. 284. §35. COMPARATIVE. 243 eager sc. than to require an exhortation ; vii. 7 w?Te /tte /moXXov y(aprjvai more sc. than for the (mere) arrival of Titus (verse 6), 228 cf. verse 13; Acts xxvii. 13 ao-o-oi/ irapeXeyovTo r^v KprfT-qv nearer '^^^^^ sc. than (verse 8) it liad been possible ; Phil. ii. 28 (nrovSaioTepco^ eirefji^jra avrov sc. than I should have done, had you not been made uneasy by the news of his illness (verse 26) ; i. 12 rk Kar ifie/MoXXov 6t? TrpoKOTTrjv TOW evayyeXiov eKrfKvOev more (rather) for the advance- ment sc. than, as we feared, for the hinderance ; Jno. xiii. 27 & TTOtets TroLTjffov rdxiov more quickly than thou seemest disposed to do, hasten the execution, see Liicke in loc. (Senec. Agamn. 965 citiiis interea mihi edissere, ubi sit gnatus, cf. ocius Virg. Aen. 8, 554). In 1 Tim. iii. 14 Td')(iov (ikTri^cov eXdelv 7rp6<; a-e tox^lov) is generally rendered as the Positive (eV raj^et Lchm. is a cor- rection), while some take it as equivalent to w? Ta'^^ia-ra. The meaning is : I write this to thee, hoping (though I hope) to come to thee more quickly, sooner i.e. than thou wilt need these instruc- tions. The reason of his writing notwithstanding, is contained in iav Be ^paMva etc., cf. verse 15. Heb. xiii. 19 tJiat I may be re- stored to you sooner (than would be the case without your prayers) ; ^ xiii. 23 if he come sooner (than the date of my departure) ; Rom. XV. 15 ToX/j^rjpoTepov eypa-yp-a v/uv mare boldly (frankly) sc. tlian, from your Christian attainment (verse 14), was necessary. On Mark ix. 42 see Pr. in loc. Acts xviii. 26 does not require explanation. In 1 Cor. vii. 38 the relation between the Positive KaXw? iroiel and the Comparative icpeuraov irot,u is plain from verse 86 f. Likewise irepiaaoTepax;, feo much used by Paul, never occurs without a com- parison. Its comparative force is obvious iu 2 Cor. i. 12 ; ii. 4 ; vii. 13 ; xi. 23 ; Phil. i. 14 ; Gal. i. 14 ; Heb. ii. 1 ; vi. 17; but in 1 Thess. ii. 17 •n-epiao'. iffTrovBdcraiMev to nrpo'iayjrov vfiS)v IBelv etc., the ground of the comparison lies probably in the clause : d'7rop(f>ar vu7devTe v/jl&v tt/jo? Kavpov &pa<;. The being deprived of their personal intercourse for a time (which Paul calls being bereaved)^ had made his desire stronger than it would have been had he sus- tained no such relation to them. In 2 Pet. i. 19 the comparative 218 force of ^e^aioTepov can be determined only on hermeneutical ^"' grounds ; but the discordance even of the most recent expositors, shows how occult the reference here is. On the other hand, there can be little doubt that in 2 Pet. ii. 11 after /xet^oi/e? " than those 258 ToXfirp-al avddSeK" ought to be supplied. On Eph. iv. 9 see Mey. 1 BShme, who expresses the meaning of the passage coiTectly in his translation, affirms nevertheless in his comments : non est comparcU. stride inteUigendus. 244 §35. COMPARATIVE. Acts xvii. 21 Xeyeti/ tl koI aKoveiv Kaivorepov is peculiarly characteristic, The Comparative indicates that they desired to hear something newer (than even what was deemed new), and is well fitted to portray the thirst of the Athenians after news. Generally, however, the Greeks employed the Comparative (usually vewrepov) in asking the news ; thus denoting not merely something new (Positive), but something still more fresh than what 229 had, up to that moment, been news ; Her. 1, 27 ; Eurip. Orest. 1327 ; Ith ed. Aristoph. av. 254 ; Theophr. ch. 8, 1 ; Lucian. asin. 41 ; D. Sic. Exc. Vat. p. 24 ; Plat. Protag. 310 b. and Euthyphr. c. 1, see Stallb. in loc. In Matt, xviii. 1 (Mark ix. 34 ; Luke ix. 46 ; xxii. 24) tSv aXKmv at once suggests itself as the ellipsis (jncyioTos would have implied three grades of four even among the Twelve ; Ramshorn, lat. Gr. 316). In the same way, in Matt. xi. 11 o Se /iiKporepos ev ttj /Sao-iAetg. t. ovp., that is, 6 /juKporepos (tuji') aWiov (the Comparative appears to be chosen here as corresponding to the preceding ^ei^aiv), cf. Diog. L. 6, 5 ipm-qOu's tC /jLaKapiwrepov iv avdpmroK, l(^, ajTV)(ovvTa airoBaviiv, Bauer, glossar. Theod. 455 ; Boisson. Philostr. 491. Other expositors after p^iKporepo^ understand 'Iwdvvov toJ ySaTTTio-ToS ; see, in general, Mey. Likewise in Acts xvii. 22 Kara Trdvra v, is properly not prior me, prius vohis ; but the Superlative merely includes the Comparative, as is remarked by Hm. on Eurip. Med. ed. Elmsley, p. 343 : Graecos ibi super- lativum pro compar. dicere, ubi haec duo simul indicare volunt, et maius 219 quid esse alio et omnino maximum. Cf. also Fr. Rom. II. 421, not. It ™ "■ is an entire mistake when in Luke ii. 2 avrri rj dwoypa^^ ■Kpunr) iyivero 259 ■^yepLovcvovTO's rijs Supias Kvpiyn'ov, even recent expositors take vpuirr] for jT-porepa and make the Genitive ■^■yc/xov. etc. dependent on this Comparative : took place before Q. was governor. On this view Luke's language is not §35. COMPARATIVE. 245 only ambiguous (for the rendering : this took place as the first under the administration of Q. presents itself as the most obvious and natural), but also awkward if not ungrammatical. And Huschke (iiber d. zur Zeit d. Geburt J. Chr. gehalt. Census. Bresl. 1840, 8vo.) has not succeeded in adducing a really similar construction ; he merely proves (what everybody admits) that wpGros is followed by the Genitive of a noun. The error of Tholuck (Glaubwiirdigk. d. evang. Geschichte, S. 184) in regarding Jer. 2-30 xxix. 2 in the Sept. as parallel, has been exposed by Fr., as above. ™ '"■ Note 2. Two Comparatives which are correlative, as in Rom. ix. 12 o ju,et^u)v 8o«A.€i;crei Tu iXdtrcrovi (Sept.), cf. 1 Cor. xii. 22 ; 2 Cor. xii. 15 ; Phil, i. 23 sq., or joined with a word expressing proportion, as in Heb. i. 4 toctov'tii) KpeiTToyv yevo/tcvos oof)iX69eoi. 5. Sometimes, in comparative sentences, a part is compared not with the corresponding part but with the whole (Bhdy. 432) ; as, Jno. V. 36 fiapTvpiav fiei^co tov ^Iwdvvov, witness greater than John, that is, greater than that of John ; so Her. 2, 134 irvpafj.lSa koX ovTO's aireKeiireTO iroXKjbv hXaxraco tov "TraTpoi, i.e. than that of his father ; and Lucian. salt. 78 to, St 6iJ.fidT(ov (paivofteva iria-Torepa ehai T(ov a>T(ov Boksl. There is here no proper ellipsis (as the earlier philologists supposed) ; for had the speaker's thought cohi- cided exactly with ours, he would have said t^s tov 'I., t^s tov iTaTp6s ; cf. Aeschyl. suppl. 524 dva^ avaxTcov, and, even as a technical designation, Theophan. contin. 127, 387 6 apxov twv apxovrwv. See also Hm. Aesch. p. 230 ; Georgi, vind. 327 and Nova Biblioth. Lubec. II. Ill sq. In reference to the kindred expression oi aiSive^ T&v almvcov, see the passages in the concordance. 8. What were formerly adduced ^ as Hebraistic circumlocutions 221 for the Superlative, are for the most part either, ^'^ **■ a. Figurative expressions which appear in all languages (and ^^j the explanation of which in the present comes under the depart- [ ment of N. T. Rhetoric) ; e.g. Heb. iv. 12 o \6yo Tjjj x^PV^' The passages adduced by Wetst. and Losner as parallel do not establish Saov iaov, but merely the simple fuxphv 'iaov. On the other hand, cf. Isa. xxvi. 20. 248 §37. NUMEEALS. is no ground for charging Bengel with liaving intended by his " magna et gloriosa" to countenance the Hebraism in question. He merely gives prominence, in his way, to two qualities which a virtus dei will exhibit, — referring to 2 Cor. x. 4. Lastly, a(TTeio are used in precisely the same manner (Gesen. Lg. 233 695), cf. Gen. x. 9 ; Jon. iii. 3 (Sept. m-okK fieydXr) tw 6eai). See 7th ci Fischer, proluss. 231 sqq. ; WoUe, de usu et abusu avfj^o-ew? nomi- ^-jj num divinor. sacrae, in his comment, de parenthesi sacra, p. 143 sqq. ; but the use of the Dative is not, in itself, to be esteemed a Hebraism, cf. Heind. Plat. Soph. 386 ; Ast, Plat. legg. p. 479 a. Haab (S. 162) is quite mistaken in maintaining that even the word XpioTos, annexed to a substantive, merely gives intensity to its signification, e.g. Rom. ix. 1 ; 2 Cor. xi. 10 aXrjOeLa XpurTov, ev XptoTM the most unques- tionable truth. So other expositors would understand Col. ii. 18 OprjdKua Tu>v dyyeXojv as cultus perfectissimus ; cf. 2 Sam. xiv. 20 cro^ta ayyeXov. Note. The strengthening of the Superlative by Travrav (Weber, Demosth. p. 648) occurs in the N. T. only ii» Mark xii. 28 irpdni iravruiv, cf. Aristoph. av. 473. 263 §37. NUMERALS. 1. In expressing the day of the week, el? is always used for the ordinal numeral TrpwTOf, as Matt, xxviii. 1 et? fiiav r&v aa^^dTtov, Mark xvi. 2 Tr/atui' t^? /ita? a-a/S^drav, Luke xxiv. 1 ; Jno. xx. 1, 19 ; Acts XX. 7 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 2. The passages which have been quoted as analogous from Greek authors, merely prove that eh is used of the first member in divisions and enumerations (Weber, Demosth. p. 161), when Seure/so? or aX\o<;, or the like, follows ; as. Her. 4, 161 ; Thuc. 4, 115 ; Herod. 6, 5, 2 sqq. (Georgi, vindic. 54 sqq.). ^ In this case et? no more stands for tt/swto? than in Latin unus, when followed by alter, tertius, etc., stands for primus (cf also Rev. ix. 12 with xi. 14 and Gal. iv. 24). In the quota- tion from Her. 7, 11, 8 el? retains its proper signification, unus, and probably also in Pans. 7, 20, 1, where Sylb. renders it by una.^ 1 Also Foertsck, observ. in Lysiam p. 37, has been able to adduce only passages of this kind. On Diog. L. 8, 20 see Lobeck, Aglaopham. p. 429. 2 ChishuU, antiq. asiat. p. 159, translates /uf ttjs ffavKrjs: die concilii /)Wma. §37. NUMEEALS. 249 The preceding use of the numeral is Hebraistic (Ewald,krit. Gr. 496 ; on the Talmud, see Wetsten. I. 544 ; in the Sept. cf. Exod. xl. 2 ; Num. i. 1, 18 ; Ezra x. 16 f. ; 2 Mace. xv. 36) and has in classical Greek a parallel iu compound numerals ; as, eh koI rpi/rjKo- cTToi; (Her. 5, 89) one and thirtieth. We, too, use in like manner the cardinal numeral in giving the year, page, etc. mainly for brevity's sake, as in the year eighteen, page/orty, etc. For the cardinal one the Singular of a substantive is sometimes used alone ; as, Acts xviii. 1 1 iKaSuTev Iviavrov koI fjLrjvai ef (Joseph, antt. 15, 2, 3), Rev. xii. 14 Tpe'^erai €Kei xatpdv (but Jas. iv. 13). This, how- 234 ever, is not an ellipsis (cf. § 26, 1), as the number one is implied in the IthetL Singular. A similar usage is found in all languages. 2. In 2 Pet. ii. 5 we find an abbreviated use of the ordinal : 223 078 001' IVwe . . . i osition serves merely as an adverb ; Hm. de partic. av p. 6 sq. A different view is taken by Doderlein, Pr. de brachylogia serm. gr. et lat. (Erlang. 1831, 4to.) p. 10. 4. The well-known rule, that in combinations of numbers Kai is commonly inserted when the smaller number precedes, but omitted when the greater precedes (Mtth. 339 ; cf. the Inscript. in ChishuU, antiq. asiat. p. 69 sq.) cf. 1 Cor. x. 8 ; Jno. vi. 19 ; Acts i. 15 ; vii. 14 ; xxvii. 37 ; Rev. iv. 4 ; xix. 4,^ ought not, partic- 235 ularly the latter part of it (Schoem. ad Isaeum 332 ; Krii. 74), to 7th A be taken too strictly ; for there are exceptions to it everywhere, in the N. T. at least several undoubted ones : Jno. ii. 20 TeaaapdicovTa Koi e^ erecriv (without var.), v. 5 rpidicovTa koI 6icra> err) (according to preponderating authority), Gal. iii. 17 ; Luke xiii. 11, 16 ; Acts xiii. 20 ; Rev. xi. 2. Similar instances again and again occur in Greek authors ; as, Her. 8, 1 ei/cocri koI eTrrd, Thuc. 1, 29 i^Bofii]- 224 Kovra koI rnvTe, Dion. Hal. IV. 2090 o^ZorjKoma koL rpeK. In Sept. ^ ^ cf. 1 Kings ix. 28 ; xv. 10, 33 ; xvi. 23, 28 ; Gen. xi. 13 (in Judg. 265 X. 4 Tdf. has given in one verse, rpiMKovTa koI Bvo viol and rpid- Kovra hvo ttcoXov?). 5. When enrdva is joined to a cardinal to denote above, more than, the cardinal does not stand in the Genitive after iTrdveo, but is put in the case which the verb of the sentence requires ; as, Mark xiv. 5 TrpaOrjvai eTrdvco rpiaKoaMV Brjvapicov, 1 Cor. XV. 6 a)(f)9r} iirdveo TrevTaKocTLOK dSe\(f)oi<;. Precisely so (without a case) the Greeks use eKuTTov Plato, legg. 9, 856 d. Ijut] ekarrov BeKa erf) '^eyovoTw; (Thuc. 6, 95), -TrXiov (Pans. 8, 21, 1), Trept (Zosim. 2, 30), ew or k (Appian. civil. 2, 96, but compare Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. 68), fiixpi (Aeschin. fals. leg. 37 ed. Bremi), virep (Pint. virt. mul. 208, Lips. ; Jos. antt. 18, 1, 5) ; see Lob.Phryn. 410 sq. ; Gieseler inRosenmiiller's Repert. II. 139 ff. ; Sommer in the allg. Schulzeit. 1831, S. 963. Latin constructions such as occisis ad hominum millibus quatuor, Caes. b. gall. 2, 33, from the historians, are well enough known. Note 1. That the Neuters Beurepov, TpCrov, etc., signify also the second time, the third time, etc., it is superfluous to remark. They are sometimes accompanied by tovto, as rpirov tovto Ip^oft-aj. 2 Cor. xiii. 1 this is the third time I come, or, now I am coming for the third time, cf. Her. 5, 76 rerapTov tovto. Note 2. For the numeral adverb cttokis we find the cardinal in Matt. 1 Three numerals are sometimes found thus combined ; as, Rev. vii. 4 Ikot^c ■naaapi- KonTa riff trapes xiv. 3 ; xxi. 17 ; Jno. xxi. 11 Ik. irecT^/tovTo rpeis. § 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 251 xviii. 22 in the formula fws JySSo/xTjKovraKts eTrra seventy times seven (times), compare in Sept. Gen. iv. 24 and saia Ps. cxix. 164 (for D-iasB saia) Ewald 498. Taken strictly it means : seventy times (and) seven, that is, seventy- seven times ; but this would not suit the passage. Moreover, that ew? is not to be joined to hrra but to €;88o/a5jk., appears from the preceding lus hn-aKis. (How variously numeral adverbs are expressed in the Sept. may be seen from the following passages: Exod. xxxiv. 23; Deut. xvi. 16; 2 Kings vi. 10 ; Neh. vi. 4 ; J Sam. xix. 43.) CHAPTER IV. 236 Itled. THE VERB. '^^^ I §38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 1. As on the one hand the Active voice of transitive verbs not infrequently assumes also an intransitive (apparently reflexive) signification, so on the other many intransitive verbs have become 225 transitives (causatives) ; — ^""^ Sometimes in consequence of composition, as Sia^aiveiv Heb. xi. 29,-'jrapepy(^ec7dai, Luke xi. 42 ; and sometimes by simple adaptation, as fiaOrjTeveiv nvd ^ Matt, xxviii. 19 (^9piafj,^evetv Tivd 2 Cor. ii. 14 ?), ^aa-ikeveiv nvd 1 Sam. viii. 22 ; 1 Kuigs i. 43 ; Isa. vii. 6 ; 1 Mace. viii. 13 (Lob. Soph. Aj. 385). See § 32, 1, pp. 221 sqq. Those transitive verbs which are frequently or even generally employed as intransitive, are restricted to certain classes of mean- ings that may be easily gathered from the following examples: ayeiv {arymfiev let us go), irapdrfeiv Matt. xx. 30 ; 1 Cor. vii. 31, •n-epidyeiv Acts xiii. 11, ^dWeiv Acts xxvii. 14 (precipitate itself, ruslx),eVt/SaXA,6tv Mark iv. 37 (beat into), d'Troppltrreiv Acts xxvii. 43 (throw themselves off), KkLveiv Liikeix. 12 (incline itself, decline), eKKKLveiv Rom. xvi. 17, avaTeWeM/, ^acrrdveiv, av^dveiv (Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 89 sq. 382 sqq.), aTpe(j)eiv Acts vii. 42, dvaa-Tpe^eiv Acts V. 22 (return), and especially iiria-Tpecpeiv ; eKrpeireiv, irapor- BiSovat Mark iv. 29 ; 1 Pet. ii. 23 (commit, consign one's self), dirkxeiv be at a distance, eirexei'V Acts xix. 22 (hold one's self back, i.e. stay), inrepe-)(etv, (nrevSeiv. In the N. T. dvaKdfnrreiv, irpoKoiTTeiv are only intransitive. In all these cases (which are 1 Here belongs also irposT&Tnu) rtvd to commission one, Acta apocr. p. 172. 252 § 38. ACTIVE AJSTD MIDDLE VOICES. for the most part verbs of motion) the Greeks considered nothing as omitted (not even eavrov'), but the verb denotes tlie action absolutely : he plunges, Germ, stiirzt, into the sea, he turns ; where, however, as no object is mentioned, the reader can only refer the action back to the subject. See, in general, Bos, EUips. p. 127 sqq.; Mtth. 1100 ff. ; Bhdy. 339 f. ; Krii. 184 f. ; Poppo, Thuc. I. 186 ; Fr. Mr. p. 138. On hhovat, and its compounds in particular, see Jacobs, Philostr. p. 363, and on irape-^imtv Ast, Plat, polit. p. 470 ; Wyttenb. Plut. mor. 1, 405. 267 Jno. xiii. 2 tov Siaj36Xricri, see § 58, 9, p. 622. 226 2. The Middle Voice (of transitive verbs) ^ refers back the action '^ '^ to the acting subject, either 1 See L. Kiister, de rero usu verbonim medior. ap. Graecog, and J. Clerid, diss, de verbis Graecor. mediis, both reprinted in the worli of Dresig, to which we refer below. Hm. emend, rat. p. 178 ; Bhdy. 342 ff. ; Host, 562 ff. ; Kru. 140ff'. are more philosophic. Especially cf. Poppo, Progr. de Graecor. verbis mediis, passivis, deponentibus rite dis- cernendis. Prcf. a. V. 1827, 4to., and Mehlhom's critique on it in Jahn's Jahrb. 1>831, 1. 14 fF. ; Sommer in Jahn's Jahrb. 1831, II. 36 ff. ; J. H. Kistemaker, de origine ac vi verbor. depon. et medior. gr. ling, in the Classical Journal No. 44 (Dec. 1820), No. 45 (March 1821). A monograph on this subject in reference to the N. T. is, S. F. Dresigii com- mentar. de verbis med. N. T. nunc prim, editus cura J. F. Fischeri. Lips. (1755) 1762, Svo. On the whole, however, scholars have hitherto represented too many verbs as middle ; a great many such verbs, on account of the constant use of their Aorist Passive, may be fairly regarded as passive, since in Greek as well as in Latin the passive may be used as reflexive. Thus in Kiveonat, lyiipopuu, SiaKove!a8at, ayi/t^eaBm, iiedv&KfiTBai, SoyfiaTiCfirSai (Col. ii. 20), iTiiid^eaScu Fr. (Kom. I. 72), (TvirxnftaTi^fireat, the thought is undoubtedly passive, not middle, as moveri etc. in Latin. Under this head come still more appropriately hpiyeaeai (appetitu/erri), eSjKicreai pasci, etc.; also alirx^i'eiTeai. Compare, in general, East's preface to the third edition of his Greek Dictionary, p. 9 sq and his Gramm. p. 270. Sommer, as above. § 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 253 a. Simply as the immediate object, as Xovo/mm I wash myself, KpvTTTo/iat I conceal myself Jno. viii. 59, airarf)(o^jLM I hang myself Matt, xxvii. 5, Trapaa-Kevd^ofiai, 1 Cor. xiv. 8 ; ^ or, b. Mediately, in case the action is done to or in any way for the 268 subject ; as, i^ar/opd^ofiai I buy for myself, "Trpoe^xpfiai, I hold before myself (Pr. Rom. 1. 171), vi-n-TOfuit ra? %64/Da? I wash for myself the hands, my hands Mark vii. 3, crirdo/jiai, ttjv pLdj(aipav xiv. 47, ebsKo- XovfJMi Acts X. 23 I call in to myself, dirwOiofiai I push away for 238 myself (from me). Compare besides •jrepi-woi.eladai,, KOfXi^eaOai, icaTapTi^ecy6ai, eirwcCkeladat (Oeov) Fr. Rom. II. 403, and the following passages : Matt. vi. 17 ; Luke vi. 7 ; x. 11; Acts v. 2f. ; ix. 39; xviii. 18; xix. 24; xxv. 11; Gal. iv. 10; 1 Pet v. 5; . 2 Thess. iii. 14 ; Heb. x. 5. Sometimes a verb is used in the Active voice of material, and in the Middle of mental objects ; as, KaraXafi^dveiv to seize, Kara- 'Kafj.^dvecrdac to comprehend, dvanOivai put up, dvariOeadav to pro- pound ; probably also ha^e^aioiicrOai 1 Tim. i. 7 ; Tit. iii. 8 : cf. Aristot. rhet. 2, 13. On irpop^eireadai see below, 6, p. 258. At other times a new signification grows out of the Middle, as •rreidofiai I persuade myself i.e. obey, diroXvofiat solve me i.e. discedo, 'Kavofiai I cease, ^vKdaraofiai nva I guard one in reference to myself i.e. I beware of him ; ^ thoroughly transitive are TrapaiTovfiai ti (I deprecate something in my own behalf^ I decline, alpovfiat I 227 take for myself, I choose, direcTrdfi/qv tl I renounced 2 Cor. iv. 2, ixTpeTTOfiai n 1 Tim. vi. 20, aTroSiSofiai n (I give away something from myself} I sell something, diroKpivofiai (I give out a decision from myself) I answer, eTriKoXoviiai icaia-apa Acts xxv. 11 (I call upon the emperor in my behalf) I appeal to. So Xvrpoto properly 1 What verbs regularly express this reflexive meaning by the Middle must be learned from observation. In many (we should rather say in most, see Rost 563), the reflexive sense is never expressed by the Middle, but by the reflexive pronoun laurdy etc. sub- joined, see Bttm. 122, 2. Thus in Matt. viii. 4 SeiKvietv favrSi/ is used to denote show himself, cf. Her. 3, 119; airoicTiiveiv eairr6i> is always employed to express kill himself (Jno. viii. 22); cf. further, Jno. xxi. 18; 1 Cor. iii. 18; 2 Thess ii. 4; 1 Jno. i. 8 (in contrast with a passive Matt, xxiii. 12 ; 1 Cor. xi. 31, or an active Luke ix. 25 ; xxiii. 35), see Kiister, de verb. med. p. 56. Lexicographers should no longer defer an accu- rate investigation of the subject. See also Poppo. as above, p. 2, note; Krii. 146. ^ ^vKd(7(Teir0ai as a Middle means also sibi (aliquid) custodire (Heind. Plat. Gorg. p. 323), and was used of that which one retains in his mind, by Hesiod. op. 263, 561. On the other hand, in the sense of (legem) sibi observare, as in Luke xviii. 21 according to the reading of several Codd. (raura wdvra ii\a^a. 254 § 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. means I liberate, acting as master ; but Xvrpov/iai I liberate /or myself another's captive, Luke xxiv. 21. "When such Middle verb is construed with the accusative of any thing or quality belonging to the subject, the pronoun is sometimes in the N. T. added to the substantive ; as, Matt. xv. 2 ov vLTn-ovraL ras x"/""? avriov, Rom. ix. 17 oirojs ei/Set^co/Aai iv (7oi rrjv 8wa/*iV /wv (in Greek authors iTTiSeiKw/jLai is often so used, Engelhardt, Plat. Lach. p. 9 ; Schoem. ad 269 Plutarch. Agid. p. 144), Acts vii. 58 airiOevro to. Ifidna aiTwi' (where Tdf. without sufficient authority omits the pronoun), Heb. vi. 17 ; Eph. ii. 7 ; 1 Pet. iv. 19. In such instances the pronoun is redundant, and Greek authors usually dispense with it, which the N. T. writers also frequently do, as in Acts ix. 39 ; Mark vii. 3 ; xiv. 47. By the usage under b. is likewise 2 Cor. iii. 18 ■^fui's jravres . . . t^v 8d|oi' KvpLov KaTOTTTpiZpfhevoi to be explained : as it were sihi intueri, beholding ' (for ourselves) the glory of the Lord (as in a mirror), like Philo II. 107. In Rom. iii. 25 ov TrpoiOero 6 6ebi etc., recent expositors have likewise taken notice of the Middle ; yet Philippi seems to have reached the true exposition more nearly than Fr. 3. Finally, c. the Middle frequently denotes an action that takes place by order or with the permission of the subject, — a relation 239 expressed in German by the auxiliary verb (si'c/t) lassen, and in in A Latin usually by curare (cf. Sommer in Seebode, krit. Biblioth. 1828, II. 733) ; as, aStKeladai to allow one's self to be wronged, and aTToa-Tepeiadai to allow one's self to be robbed (both in 1 Cor. vi. 7), d7roypd(}>eeLBeadai, davd^eadai,, ep^eaOai, 'ffyelaOai, Idcrdat, Xo6ria-oix,ai (rot. Agreeably to the parallelism the passage might be trans- ' Marhland (explicatt. Tett. aliquot locor. in the Leipsic reprint of his edition of Eurip. supplic. p. 324 sq.) refers to this head also the passage, famous in the Predesti- nation controversy, Acts xiii. 48, which he punctuates k. MaTevarav, iaoi ?i(\riii4vos ; Liban. ep. 2. 264 § 40. THE TENSES. 2 Cor. ii. 10 where KtxapuTixai (May. to the contrary [in his earlier edd.]) is to be regarded as Middle, and Rom. iii. 9 where Trporj^ccr^ai clearly cannot be Passive ; or the known usage of the writer elsewhere, as in Eph. vi. 10 in respect to evSwaixowOe. 248 §40. THE TENSES. Ztbci 1. With regard to the Tenses of the verb, N.T. grammarians and expositors ^ have been guilty of the greatest mistakes.^ In general, the tenses^ are employed in the N. T. exactly in the same manner as in Greek authors, * viz. the Aorist marks simply the past (merely occurrence at some former time — viewed too as momentary), and is the tense usually employed in narration ; the Imperfect and Pluper- fect always have reference to secondary events connected in respect to time with the principal event (as relative tenses) ; the Perfect brings the past into connection with the present, representing an action in reference to the present as concluded. No one of these tenses strictly and properly taken can stand for another, as com- 237 mentators often would have us believe.^ But where such an inter- 8th ed. change appears to take place (cf. Georgi, Vind. p. 252 sqq. Hiero- 280 crit. I. 58 sq.) either it is merely apparent, and a sufficient reason (especially a rhetorical one) can be discovered why this and no other tense has been used, or it is to be set down to the account of a certain inaccuracy peculiar to the language of the people, which did not conceive and express relations of time with entire precision 1 Cf. Bertholdt, Einleit. VI. 3151 : "In the use of the tenses, it is well known that the N. T. writers pay very little regard to the rules of grammar." ^ Occasioned in part by parallel passages which it was thought must be considered as exactly alike grammatically. The abuse of parallelism in exposition ought some- time to be exhibited separately. ' The three principal tenses with the Greeks were the Present, the Perfect, and the Future : Plut. Isid. u. 9 Ijd eiVi rh yeyovhs koI tiv /cal M/ifvov, cf. Odyss. 1 6, 437. * Cf. , besides the well known grammatical works (especially JBm. emend, rat. p. 1 80 sqq. ; Schneider, Vorles. iiber grie- "i. Gramm. I. 239 ff. ; Kru. 147 ff.), L. G. Dissert., de tempo- ribus et modis verbi graeci Gott. 1808. 4to. ; H. Schmidt, doctrinae tempor. verbi gr. et lat. expositio histor Hal. 1836-1842. 4 Abthl. 4to. An earlier dissertation by G. W. Oeder, Chronol grarmmat. Gott. 1743 (in Pott, Sylloge VII. 133 sqq.) is of little use. On the other hand, the enall. temp, was combated in A. zum Felde, de enall. praes. temp, in S. S. usu. Kil. I'll. 4to., and in Wolcen's work, mentioned above (p. 8, Note ') ; cf. also the views of A' e'ades in Georgi, Vind. 252. ^ The arbitrary int' fchange of tenses (enallage temporum) is accounted a Hebraism, as it is imagined that in Hebrew the Preterite is indiscriminately used for the Future, and vice versa. But the incorrectness of this opinion has been already shown by Gesetilns (Lehrgeb. S. 760 sqq./, and still more thoroughly by Euiaid (Krit. Gr. 523 if.). § 40, THE TENSES. 265 (Krii. 158 f.). The latter occurs chiefly in the interchange (or combination) of those tenses which, like the Preterites, denote one and the same principal relation of time. 2. Accordingly the Present tense, which expresses present time 249 in all its relations (particularly in rules, maxims, and principles of permanent validity, cf. Jno. vii. 52), is used a. Only in appearance for the Future (exactly as in Latin, German, etc.) when an action still future is to be designated as as good as already present, either because it is already firmly resolved upon or because it follows according to some unalterable law ; as, Matt. xxvi. 2 oiSare, on fiera Svo rifiepa'; to 'ird, Acts viii. 36 w? iTropevovto kutu T7)v ohov, f[Kdov iiri ti vBmp, x. 17 ; xvi. 4 ; xxii. 11 ; Luke vi. 19 ; Jno. V. 16 ; xii. 6. b. To denote a continuous or statedly repeated past action (Mtth. ^U7, 1133 ; Schoem. ad Pint. Agid. p. 137 ; Held, Plutarch. Aem. P. p. 267) ; as, Jno. iii. 22 eVei Ster/at/Se p,eT avr&v kol i^dirTi^ev, Rom. XV. 22 iveKOTrTOfiTjv rd ttoWo, tov i\6elv, 1 Cor. x. 4 eirivov fydp i/c irvevfjMT. d.KoXovOovarj'i werpa^ (where twiov denotes simply the past and completed action ; but eirtvov the continuation of it during tlie journey throiigh the wilderness), xiii. 11 ore fjiiriv vqino'i, i^ irpuTevovras . . . fi€T€7re/ti^aT0 5i Kal So'XwTO, etc. Cf. also Plat. Parmen. 126c. toSto eMi/res ^0aSi(oniv koI KareKd^onev rhv 'AvTupSiiiTa etc., and from the LXX. Num. xxxiii. 38 f. livi^r) 'Aapiiv xal airiSavev . . • 'Aapdjv ^v rptuv ical elKOffi Koi eKarhv iToii/, Stc dTrtdvyjffKtf. ^ To take avriKiv, as Huther does, for a Perfect with the meaning of the Present, is as unnecessary as it is grammatically inadmissible. Should ko9^k€v, irposriKev also be regarded as Perfects 'i Must then the Perfect ^ko, elsewhere rare, have established itself just in these forms even in Attic ■? Besides, no passage can be adduced in which these words necessarily have the meaning of a Present, — provided only a reader acquires the power of keeping the German mode of thought subordinate to the Greek. § 40. THE TENSES. 271 manded, my command is at present one previously given) .^ Here the result of the action is usually, but not necessarily (Krii. 151), conceived of as permanent. The following instances are especially instructive : Luke xiii. 2 SoKetre, ori, ol TaXiXaioi ovroi afiaprcoXol irapcL Travra? ... eyevovTo, on TOiavra iretrovdacriv that these GaMeans were sinners because they have suffered, i.e. suffered not merely once or in time past (that would be the Aor.), but that they stand recorded among the historical examples of those who have been cut off by (a violent) death; iv. 6 on ifiol irapahkhorai (j) i^ova-ia) i.e. I am in possession of it, after having received it, commissam habeo potestatem (the Aorist would denote it was delivered to me, which would leave it uncertain whether the pos- session of it still continued) ; v. 32 ow eXriXvOa KaXeaai BiKaiov^ 255 lam not here (on earth) in order to, etc. (in Matt. ix. 13 in nar- Jthei rative style: am rjXOov I came not, was not sent), cf. vii. 20, 50 ; ^^^ Eom. vii. 2 rj inravhpo cTKOfiev 0V& kcopaKafjLev irmroTe. See, further, Liicke in loc. 1 The N. T. does not contain a clear instance of the Hebrew prophetic Perfect ( Gesen. Lg. 764), which in the Sept. is usually rendered by a Future. Akin to it is the usage of the Greek augurs, who begin with the Fut. but continue in the Aorist, Iliad. 4, 158 sqq. ; Find. Pyth. 4, 56 ; Isthm. 5, 51, see Badch not. crit. p. 462. 35 274 § 40- THE TENSES. In Jas. V. 2 o irXoCros vp,S>v (TicrrjTre, Kai ra l/w-na v/jLiav (nfToPptiyTOL ycyovev the Perf. is not put for the Pres. or Fut. ; but the case indicated by the Apostle in TaXaiirmp. ifxiov t. i-n-epxofji.. is viewed as ah-eady present, and consequently the a-rpreiv of the riches as already completed. In Jno. xvii. 22 Sc'StoKa does not signify trihuam ; Christ contemplates his life as terminated, his disciples have already assumed his place. In Luke x. 19 SeScoKa and StSco/it would be equally appropriate ; Tdf. justly prefers the former. That the Perf. is used also for the Pluperf. (which is not impossible), Haab p. 95 erroneously attempts to prove by Jno. xii. 7 eh rriv fifiipav tov luTaia, like scripsi in Latin, in reference to the epistle which is just being written. In the same way £7rej«,i/fa misi is used, out of regard for the fact that to the receiver of 294 the epistle the irt/ATraj has become an iTrefjLxj/a. As to the latter, compare in the N. T. Acts xxiii. 30 ; Phil. ii. 28, dvcVc/it/'a Philem. 11, probablj also tnji'e7r£ju,i/^a/x£i' 2 Cor. viii. 18 (Demosth. ep. 3 ; Alciphr. 3, 30 and 41) ; as similar, ■fj^ovX.rjdrjv 2 Jno. 12. On the other hand, not even eypcuj/a ic 1 Cor. v. 11 can be quoted as an instance of that use. This Aorist, rather, refers in all cases either to a previous epistle (1 Cor. v. 9 ; 2 Cor. ii. 3, 4, 9 ; vii. 12 ; 3 Jno. 9), or to an epistle already brought to its conclusion (Rom. XV. 15 ; Philem. 19 ; Gal. vi. 11 ;' 1 Pet. v. 12), or even to a series of verses just finished (1 Cor. ix. 15; 1 Jno. ii. 21,26 ; v. 13). For an epistle in course of being written ypa.<^w is more usual, 1 Jno. ii. 12, 13 ; 1 Cor. iv. 14; xiv. 37 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 10, etc. As to 1 Jno. ii. 13f. see Lucke. In the Greek writers also this use of the Aor. (or Perf.) for the Pres. is not carefully observed ; cf. Diog. L. 7, 9. See Wyttenbach, Plut. Morai. I. 231 sq. Lips. 262 ^- Lastly, the Aor. is not employed de conatu * (Kiihnol) in Mark ix. 17 Ith kI. yjve.yKa. tov vlov /jlov. These words denote : I brought my son to thee (and I present him now to thee). That i^XOt Jno. xi. 44 need not be thus 1 Schaef. Plut. IV. 398 declares himself against Hm. Soph. Aj. 1105. Yet cf. Hm. Iphig. Taur. p. 109. § 40. THE TENSES. 279 explained, has been perceived by Kiihnol himself ; and Tholuck very prop- erly takes no notice of such an interpretation. On Matt. xxv. 1 see Mey. 6. The PuTUBE 1 does not always denote pure and actual futurity, but sometimes what is possible (as futurity and possibility are 250 closely related) and in fact what may or shoidd take place (ethical S"" "^ possibility), Hm. Vig. p. 747 ; Jacob, Lucian. Tox. p. 134 ; Krii. 156. This is particularly the case in questions. Owing, however, to the great resemblance between the Future and the Aor. Subjunctive and the variations in MSS., the passages in question are not all established. Luke xxii. 49 Kvpte, ei Trard^ofiev ev fia^xaipa are we to smite, etc. ? (strictly, shall we — with thy permission — smite, wilt thou allow us to smite ? cf. Eurip. lo 771 etircofiei' rj air^&iJiev ; rj ru Spdao/jLev ;), Rom. x. 14 ttw? oiv eTriKaKia-ovTai, ek ov ovk eiriaTtv- aav ; how can they call, etc. ? iii. 6 CTrel ttw? Kpivel 6 0eo? tov icoafiov ; Jno. vi. 68 ; Matt. xii. 26 ; 1 Tim. iii. 5 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 16 (Plat. Lys. 213 c. n o?)v Br} ■^(prjaofj.eda, Lucian. Tox. 47 ttws oiiv . . . %jOJjcr6/x6^a toI<; irapoxxTi). On the other hand, in Matt. vii. 24 o/iOKoo-w retains the simple force of the Fut., as does roX/ti^o-M in Rom. xv. 18. In Rom. V. 7 something is expressed which is never likely to take place. 1 Cor. viii. 8 is similar. Iii Rom. vi. 1 aud 15 the Subjunctive is 295 the preferable reading, as also in Luke iii. 10 ; Jno. vi. 5 ; but in Rom. vi. 2 the authority for ^njao/Mev predominates, and the Future here forms a distinct contrast to the Aor. uTreBdvofiev. Mark iv. 13 and 1 Cor. xiv. 7 are strict Futures. In Matt. vii. 16 iirir/voKrecrde does not contain a precept (ye shall), but a simple reference to what time itself will show : by their fruits ye will know them (as ye observe them, in the course of your observations). In Rom. vi. 14 the Fut. expresses au assurance and is essentially connected with the Apostle's i-easoniug. 1 Cor. xv. 29 eVet rt -rroiriaovaiv 01 ^aTTTi^ofievoi vjrep t&v veKp&v is probably to be rendered : else (if Christ is not risen) what will they do (what are they about to do, what do they purpose) who get themselves baptized over the dead (are therefore in such case deluded) ? The Pres. -rroiovaw is manifestly a correction. The phrase ri o?iv ipov/iev always means quid dice- mus ? not quid dicamus. 1 Cor. xiv. 15 wpo'iev^op.ab t& "Trvev/j.an, •7rpo<;6v^ofiat Be Kal vot expresses not a resolution Qn-po^ev^wp-at, is 263 probably only a correction), but a Christian maxim which the be-'""'''' 1 The 3d Fut. Pass. KeKpi(|oftoi occurring once (Luke xix. 40) in not a few Codrl. stands for the 1st Eut., which in this verb is not in use, and has not the meaning which this form has in other cases (Mtth. 1118 f.; Mdv. 114; Janson, de graeci serm. paulo post futuro. Eastenburg, 1844. 4to.). 280 § 40- THE TENSES. liever intends to follow, and is more decided than the Subjunctive. In 2 Cor. iii. 8 earai refers to future So^a. (As to such phrases as SeKeK eTotj/,dcroiJ,ev and ri alprjo-oiMM oii lyvcopi^a), where the Subjunc- tive also would be suitable, see § 41 a. 4, p. 285 and b. 4, p. 299.) In the phrase epet tw dicat aliquis 1 Cor. xv. 35 ; Jas, ii. 18, the Fut. denotes a merely supposable case. But the Greek idiom is here more precise than the Latin : some one will say, I foresee it, I expect nothing else. So epet? ovv dices igitur Rom. ix. 19 ; xi. 19. Heb. xi. 32 iiriXe'v^^ei, ixe Siifyovfievov 6 xpovo<; is decidedly to be taken as a Future : time (I foresee) will fail me (deficiet me tempus, Philostr. her. p. 686 eiriXei-<^ei jxe ij (/xbvt?, cf. also longum est nar- 251 rare for the German-Latin idiom longum essef etc.).^ Also in Luke ^"l- xi. 5 T« ef vfi-Siv e^ei i\ov koI iropevaeTai irpbi avrov /MeaovvKTiov the Fut. is appropriately used ; take away the interrogative form and the ordinary Future remains : none of you will go to his friend at midnight, such importunity will never take place. Lastly, in Matt. v. 39, 41 ; xxiii. 12 the notion of possibility is connected rather with 09Tts than with the Fut. ; and in Jas. ii. 10 the best Codd. [Sin. also] have the Subjunctive. (It would be altogether incongruous to take the Future as indicating nothing more than a wish in Eom. xvi. 20 ; Phil. iii. 15; iv. 7, 9, 19 ; Matt. xvi. 22.) On the use of the Fut. for the Imperative, see § 43, 5, p. 315. 296 Some interpreters have preposterously asserted that the Fut. is used for the Preterite in Rev. iv. 9 oTai/ Buxrova-i to. ^Sa Sd^av . . . tm Kadrj/jLcvio i-n-l rov Opovov . . . TTEcrowTat ol uKoa-i ricrcrapK irpia-^vTe.poi, etc. ; but the passage must be rendered : when (as often as) the beasts shall give glory . . . shaU fall down. On the other hand, the Fut., in expressing general truths, sometimes very nearly assumes the import of the Present ; as, Gal. ii. 16 ii epytav vo/Jiov ov 8tKai(o6ijcreTat Tracra crapf, Rom. iii. 20 : this is a rule which (since the introduction of Christianity) will hold true in the world. Sub- stantially so also in Rom. iii. 30 iTreiTrep cTs o 6eds, os Siicatalo-ci 7repiT0[ii,rjv iK TTiareto's etc., where Si/catow is regarded as an act of God which in the Christian method of salvation will be constantly thus realized. In Luke i. 37 dSui/ar'^crei is used, in an allusion to the O. T., of that which belongs to no particular time, but will always hold true (Theocr. 27, 9 ; see Hm. emend, rat. p. 197), cf. Rom. vii. 3. But in Matt. iv. 4 ^^crerai after Deut. viii. 3 denotes rather a rule established by God : shall live. Note 1. The connection of different tenses by km (Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 274 sq.; Reisig, Oed. Col. 419 ; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 700; Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. p. 59 a.), which has already been illustrated incidentally in the 1 The case is different when the thought is expressed in the Optative with &y, as in Dion. H. 10, 2086 iiri\fliroi &v fie i rijs riii4pas XP^""!. § 41. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 281 above examples, is partly to be accounted for by the fact that when an 264 author is writing without rigorous exactness any one of several tenses'""^ may be employed without difference in the sense ; and is partly intentional (Heb.ii. 14; I Cor. x. 4 ; xv. 4; Jas. i. 24; Jno. iii. 16; Phil. iii. 7sq. ; 1 Pet. iv. 6, etc.). The former, perhaps, is the case in Rev., as iii. 3 ; xi. 10 ; xii. 4 ; xvi. 21, etc. In none of these passages are the tenses used incorrect ; and should any one discover something altogether extraordinary in such combinations (as e.g. Eichhorn, Einl. ins N. T. II. 378), he would only betray his defective knowledge of the Greek language. See my exeget. Studien I. 147 f. Note 2. The tenses are used in the significations above elucidated for the most part only in the Indicative (and Participle) (Hm. emend, p. 189). In the other moods, particularly the Subjunctive, Optative, Imperative, the Aorist rarely denotes past time (1 Pet. iv. 6 ?), but generally retains, in distinction from the Present, only the notion of transientness or instanta- neousness (cf. Pres. and Aor. Jno. iii. 16) Hm. Vig. 748, without refer- ence to any definite time, Eost 587 ; Mdv. 109. §41. THE INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE MOODS.' 252 6th «L 1. According to Hermann, these moods are distinguished from ^^' each other as follows : The Indicative denotes what is actual, the Subjunctive and Optative what is possible merely : — the Subjunc- tive, what is objectively possible (the realization of which depends on circumstances) ; ^ the Optative, what is subjectively possible (simply conceived of, as e.g. a wish),^ Hm. emend, rat. I. 205 sqq. ; ad Vig. 901 sq., more fully de particula av p. 76 sq. ;* cf. also Schnei- der, Vorles. I. 230 IF.^ "With Klotz, ad Devar., we have adhered to 1 Cf. K. H. A. Lipsius, comm. de modorum usu in N. T. P. I. Lips. 1827. 8vo. 2 "In conjunctivo sumitur res experientia comprobanda . . . ; conjunctivus estdebere quid fieri intelligentis ac propterea exspectantis quid eveniat " Hm. partic. 6,v p. 77. " Klotz, Devar. II. 104 : Optativus modus per se non tam optationis vim in se continet, quam cogitationis omnino, unde proficiscitur etiam omnis optatio. Hm. partic. av p. 77 : Optativus est cogitantis quid fieri, neque an fiat neque an possit fieri quaerentis. ' P. 77 : Apertum est, in indicativo veritatem facti ut exploratam respici, in con- junctivo rem sumi experientia comprobandam, in optativo veritatis rationem haberi nullam, sed cogitationem tantummodo indicari. How Kiihner combines this distinction between the Subjunctive and Optative with an original temporal import of both cannot be here explained in detail (Griech. Gr. II. 87 f.). ^ In the following works views quite different from this are maintained : W. Scheuerlein, iiber den Chai-akter des Modus in der gr. Sprache. Halle 1842. 4to. (a Program). W. B/lumlein, iiber die gr. Modi und die Partikein xev u. 6.v. Heilbronn 1846. 8vo. (see John, Jahrb. Bd. 47. S. 3.53 f. and Zeitschr. f. Alterthumswiss. 1848. 104-106; 1849. 30-33). Aken, Grundziige der Lehre von Tempus u. Modus im Griech. Gustrow 1850. 36 282 § 41a. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 265 this theory, as nothing in all respects better seems yet to have been !th ed. propounded ; — least of all by Madvig. In the N. T. these moods in their main distinctions, are employed with strict propriety (Hvviid to the contrary ; — whom Kiihnol ad Acta p. 777 quotes with approval). Only it is noticeable that the Optative, as in the later Greek authors who do not aim at classic refinement, is partially set aside (more still than in Josephus), and in certain constructions is superseded by the Subjunctive.^ S98 a. IN INDEPENDENT PROPOSITIONS. 2. The use of the Indicative in independent propositions is very 253 simple even in classic Greek. In reference to the N. T., accordingly, 6th ei ^g have on this head but two remarks to make : a. The Imperfect Indicative is sometimes employed, as in Latin (Zumpt, S. 446), where we should use the Subjunctive ; as, 2 Cor. sii. 11 iiyo) wcj}eoXov v vfjioiv crvvicrTaaOai debebam commendari 1 ought to have been commended, Matt. xxv. 27 eSei ae ^aXelv thou oughtest to have put etc. (2 Cor. ii. 3 ; Acts xxiv. 19 ; xxvii. 21), Matt. xxvi. 9 '^Bvvaro tovto Trpadrivai etc., xxvi. 24 kuXov ?iv avrS) el ovK ejevvrjdrj it were good for him (woiild have been), satius erat, 2 Pet. ii. 21 Kpelrrov rjv uvtok fir) eTreyvayKevai r-qv ohov rriii hiicawavv7i<; (Aristoph. nub. 1215 ; Xen. Anab. 7, 7, 40 ; Philostr. Apoll. 7, 30 ; Lucian. dial. mort. 27, 9; Diog. L. 1, 64), Acts xxii 22 ov yhp KaOijicev avrbv ^rjv he should not have lived (i.e. he ought to have been put to death long ago), non debebat or debuerat vivere, cf. Mtth. 1138 f. ; Stallb. Plat. Symp. p. 74. The Greeks and Latins here merely state what, independently of circumstances, was proper, what should or should not have taken place ; and the reader, by combining this statement with the actual fact, infers the disapproval of the latter. The Germans (and English) start from the present state of the matter, and by the Subjunctive express disapproval of its origin. Both moods therefore are correct in thought. It must not, however, be supposed that in such Greek constructions there is an omission of av ; for such expressions to the mind of a Greek exclude all thought of a condition under which something would have been good or must have happened ; see Hm. partic. av § 12. 4to. Cf. also Doederlein on Moods and Conjunctions, in his Kedeu u. Aufsatze. Eriangen 1843. 8vo. nr. 9. 1 Modern Greek has, as is well known, wholly given up the Optative ; and it is still a question how far it was used in the popular speech of the ancient Greeks. It is often the case that certain forms and constructions embodying refinements of the literary diction are persistently shunned by the people. § 41a. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 283 'E^ovKofiriv etc. vellem, (without av), is to be explained some- what differently, e.g. Acts xxv. 22 e^ovKofiTjv koL avrb^ tov avOpcoirov 266 uKovaat I too should wish to hear the man (the accoulit of him having Itt ei awakened my curiosity), Aristoph. ran. 866 ; Aeschin. Ctesiph. 274 b. ; Arrian. Bpict. 1, 19, 18 ; Lucian. dial. mort. 20, 4 ; abdic. 1 ; Char. 6, etc. There is expressed here, not a desire which has been active at some former time merely (under different circum- stances) volebam, but a wish still felt by the speaker. This, how- ever, is not stated directly (wfo), for this can be done only when the performance is viewed as dependent solely on the will (1 Tim. ii. 8 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 7 ; Rom. xvi. 19, etc.) ; nor by means of i^ovXojjLrjv av, for this would imply the counterpart but Twill Jwt, Hm. partic. dv p. 66 sq., nor yet by the much weaker ffovXoifiTjv dv (Xen. Oec. 299 6, 12 ; Krii. 163), velim, I could wish; but definitely: 1 was wishing, wished, that is, if it were proper, if thou wouldst permit it (and wish accordingly on this assumption), Bhdy. S. 874 ; Kiihner II. 68, (a conditional clause, therefore, being understood) .^ So also Rom. ix. 3 tjv'^oimtjv yap aiT6v aSeX^wv fjLov optarem ego etc., and Gal. iv. 20, see my Comment, in loc. (It is otherwise in 2 Cor. i. 15 ; Philem. 13, 14, where the Aorists express what actually took place, and in 254 2 Jno. 12 ri^ovKr^eriv.) *"■ ^ In Jno. iv. 4 etc. eSci is to be taken as a genuine Imperf. Indicative, denoting a real fact. On the contrary, in Heb. ix. 26 eTrct ISci avrov iroXXaKts iraJdiiv the particle av might have been expected, as something is expressed that according to a certain supposition must have taken place. The Codd., however, do not give it, and it can be omitted, — just as we say : for (otherwise), if that were the design, he must have often suffered (cf. Hm. Eurip. Bacch. p. 152 ; Bhdy. 390, see § 42, 2). In Rom. xi. 6 ; 1 Cor. vii. 14 ; v. 10, the Indicatives Pres. after ejret (otherwise, aJioquin) are usually rendered as Subjunctives. The meaning, however, of the first two passages is simply this : then (in that case i.e. if «^ ipymv) grace is no longer grace ; then (in case the husband is not sanctified in the wife) are your children unclean. But in 1 Cor. v. 10 nearly all the better Codd. [Sin. also] read d>(f>eiX.ere. See, further, Ast, Plat. legg. p. 162 sq. ; Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. p. 57. In 1 Cor. vii. 1 6i\w Travras avOpumcni^ eivai £iSo[jLai is likewise explained by Pott as equivalent to ^eiSoiI/xijv av. All recent expositors have correctly explained 2 Cor. xii. 9 dp/cet trot ^7 x^^P's /jLov, which Luther inaccurately renders : be satisfied with my grace. The force of the Indicative has been exaggerated in another way in 1 Cor. v. 7 : KaOuK iare a^v/i.01 esse debetis ; incorrectly, see Mey. 3. The Indicative Pres. sometimes occurs also b. in direct ques- tions where in Latin the Subjunctive (in German the auxiliary verb solleii) would be used ; as, Jno. xi. 47 Tiirowviiev ; on ovro'i 6 avOpco- 300 TTo? ■jToWa arifieia Troiei, quid faciamus ? ivhat are we to do ? Lucian, pise. 10 ; asin. 25. The Ind., however, here strictly denotes that something must undoubtedly be done (forthwith) ; so we say, what are we doing ? more resolute and emphatic than wliat shall we do ? TL -TToi&fiev is the question of one who invites to delibera- tion (cf. Acts iv. 16) ; ti Troiovfiev, on the contrary, is the language of one who on behalf of those concerned assumes the determination not only in general to do something, but also to do something definite, and desires simply to draw out a declaration of the specific thing. [That this distinction is not artificial, as Bttm. Gramm. d. N. T. Sprachgebr. S. 180 asserts, has been justly acknowledged by Mey., also, inloc.J On this (rhetorical) Ind. Pres., which mainly occurs in conversation, see Heind. Plat. Gorg. p. 109 and Theaet. p. 449 ; Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 141 ; Bhdy. 396. The Greeks go still further, and even say irivo/jiev we drink i.e. we are to drink, when they mean to proceed to drink forthwith, when the cup has been already lifted up (Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 659). Gal. vi. 10 however, ipya^ofieda to ar/adov, which is the reading 255 in good Codd. viz. AB and which Lchm. has printed [but only in ■ his stereotyp. ed.j can hardly serve as an instance of this usage ; see Mey. As to Jno. xxi. 3, cf. § 40, 2, p. 265. The meaning of 1 Cor. x. 22 ^ Trapa^iyXov/xei' tov Kupiav ; which Schott stiU renders by the Subjunctive, is probably : or do we provoke God ? is that the meaning of our conduct, to awaken God's wrath ? -irapaiC,. expresses, not what is still to take place (as Ruck, takes it [and recently even Bttm. Gramm. d. N. T. Sprachgebr. S. 181 considers as not inappropriate]), but what is already actually taking place. Rom. viii. 24 o fikhru tis, t'l koi (XTrliii ; is not (Schott) quare insuper speret ? for dropping the question § 41a. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AKD OPTATIVE. 285 the passage means, not . he may no longer hope for ; but : he no longer hopes fur. On the Ind. Fut. for the Subjunctive, see § 40, 6, p. 279. The Indicatives in Jas. v. 13 k o k o it a 6 € i rts Iv ifj-lv, d ct c v € t tk iv v/uv, denoting a case represented as real, are attended with no difficulty : some one is afflicted among you, . . . some one is sick among you, etc. Demosth. cor. 351 c. (where a point of interrogation is not necessary, 26S Krii. 160). In Greek authors, even a Preterite is used in this way, i"li«l- Mtth. 1155. 4. The Subjunctive is used in independent propositions a. When an invitation or resolution (conjunct, adhortativus) is expressed (Mtth. 1169) ; as, Jno. xiv. 31 eyeipea-de, dytofiev ivrevdev, xix. 24 ; 1 Cor. xv. 32 cf>dya)fj,ev koL Tricofiev, avpiov yap airoOvrjo-KoiMev, Phil. iii. 15 ocroi ovv reKeiot, tovto 0/)oi'a)/iei',l Thess. V. 6 ypryyopaifiev Kal vij^mfiev, hiike viii. 22. The Codd. occasion- ally vary between the Subjunct. and the Fut. Heb. vi. 3 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 15 ; Jas. iv. 13, but in the first two passages there is prepon- derating evidence in favor of the Subjunctive. b. In undetermined questions (conjunct, deliberativus, Mtth. 1170 ; Bhdy. 896 ; Kiiliner II. 102 f.) ; as, Mark xii. 14 Ba)p.ev ■fj /x.tj B&fiev; shall we give ornot give? ^ora. \i. 1 eTrtfievoy/Mev ry dfULpTia ; 1 Cor. xi. 22 ; also in the 3d and 2d Pers., as Luke xxiii. 31 el iv ra vypa> 301 fvXo) ravTa iroiovcnv, iv t& ^VP^ "^^ yevrirai, ; and Matt. xxvi. 54 TTcij? •TrX.rjpoidaaiv al ypaj)aL ; Tiow shall the Scriptures be fulfilled ? xxiii. 33 7raJ9 (fivyrjre (Jno. v. 47 var.). Under tliis head comes the Subjunctive in certain set phrases ; as, Luke ix. 54 OiXei's eiirco/j^ev irvp KaTa^rjvaL airo tov ovpavov ; (Hm. de ellips. p. 183) vnlt thou that we, are we to bid etc., Matt. xiii. 28 ; xxvi. 17 ; Mark xiv. 12 ; Luke xxii. 9. Cf. Eurip. Phoen. 722 ^ovXet rpdirafiat S?}0' 68ov? aX\a<; Tiva.<; ; Xen. Mem. 2, 1, 1 ^ovXei aKoir&fiev ; Aesch. Ctesiph. 297 c. ; Lucian. dial. m. 20, 3. See also Matt. vii. 4 d^e^ iK^aXw to Kdp a-arava, 'iva -TratSevdaxri p-r) ^atT(fi7)p,€iv, Tit. i. 5 KaTeKiirov ae iv Kpt^rr;, 'iva to, Xehrovra iir bh lopddicrri, ii. 14 09 eScoKev kavrov irepl rj/Mcov, "va 'KvTpdxjrjT au rjp,a<;^ Rom. vi. 4 (TvveTdavepd)d'r], 'iva ra<; a/j,apTia<; rjp.oiv aprj, 258 '^s. 8 kt^avepwdrj, 'iva Xvcrt} to, epya rov Sia/SoXov, v. 13 ravra ejpa^jra ^t^^vp,iv,ivaelBfiTe; cf. Luke i. 4 (Plat. Grit. 43 b. ; rep.9,472c.; legg. 2, 653 d. ; Xen. Mem. 1,1,8; Aelian. 12, 30). In other passages, e.g. Acts V. 26 ijya/yev avrov^ . . . 'iva pir] XiOacrdata-iv, Acts ix. 21 ek TovTo eXrjXvdei, 'iva . . . aydyrj, the Subjunctive may denote an intended result of the occurrence of which the speaker entertained no doubt whatever; cf. Mark viii. 6 iBiBov toi^ fiaOrjTaU avrov, 'iva irapadaxj-i (that they might . . . which they could not refuse to do), xii. 2 ; Acts xxv. 26 Trporfjor^ov avrbv i^ vp,S)v, otto)? tj}? dvaicpiaetii'i yevopivT}^ a-)(M rl ypdyfra. (The Optative would express a design of uncertain result, Mtth. 1182, 1184.) Lastly, the construction in Matt. xix. 13 Trpofrjvi'^Bri avrS to, iraihla, 'iva ra? y(elpa<; iiriidfi 271 avTOL^7)Tai avrwv is 7th rf. perhaps to be explained by the fact that the Greeks in narration sometimes introduce the opinions of another in direct discourse, or 804 at least as though he himself were still present, and consequently employ the same moods which he would have used (Heind. Plat. Protag. p. 502, 504 ; Poppo, Xen. Cyrop. p. 189 sq. and Thuc. I. I. 141 sq.) ; so here : that he may lay his hands upon them, instead of might lay (Optative). The reader is thus more vividly made as it were a beholder of the scene described (Klotz, as above, pp. 618 sq. 682) ; cf. Jno. xviii. 28 ; Matt. xii. 14. As, however, the Optative never occurs in the N. T. in this (/8.) very common construction, we are by no means warranted in ascribing to the sacred writers this nice distinction. They seem, rather, to have unconsciously avoided the Optative — a mood which becomes more and more rare in the later language, and in the popular speech perhaps never conformed to the rules of literary Attic — even where a more cultivated taste in such matters would have certainly given it the preference (e.g. Jno. iv. 8 ; vii. 32 ; Luke vi. 7 ; xix. 4 ; 2 Cor. viii. 6 ; Heb. ii. 14 ; xi. 35 ; Phil. ii. 27, etc.). Even Plu- tarch, in the above construction, usually employs the Subjunctive,^ 1 Even in the earlier authors particles of design are more frequently construed with the Subjunctive after a Preterite than was formerly admitted. See Bremi, Lys. exc. 1- p. 435 sqq. § 41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 289 and ill the Hellenistic language it is everywhere the predominant mood, as may be seen from every page of the Sept., Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, etc. (Thilo, Act. Thom. p. 47). b. The Indicative Future (after a Pres. and Perf. cf. Hm. Vig. 851) ; as, Rev. xxii. 14 fiaKupioi oi -TroiovvTe^ ras ivToKa<; ainov, Xva e'er rat r] e^ov iroiTjirrj Kapirov ■ . . . ei 8e /u^ye . . . fKKoij/w; si fructus tulerit ; . , . sin lib ed. minus (si non/ert) etc. (Plat. rep. 7, 540 d.), Gal. i. 8f. ; see Hm. Vig. 834; Jacob, Lucian. Tox. p. 143 ; Weber, Dem. p. 473. Cf. Her. 3, 36 ; Xen. 265 C. 4, 1, 16 ; Plat. Phaed. 93 b. ; Isocr. Evag. p. 462 ; Lucian. dial. m. 6, 3; 6th (A. DJQ Qjjp_ gg^ g2i. In most cases of this nature et or idv repeated might be used with equal propriety, though the choice of the one conjunction or the other would obviously proceed from a different conception of the rela- tion ; see Fr. Conject. I. 25. In two mutually subordinate clauses ei and idv are distinguished from each other in Jno. xiii. 17 ei ravra otSaTC, fiojidpiyoi iarre, iav iroi^re avrd, if ye know . . . in case ye «?o, and 1 Cor. vii. 36 ei Tis aa')(riiJLOvelv sttl r^v irapBevov avrov vo/xitfii, iav y VTrfpaK/JLOi etc. Rev. ii. 5 ; cf. Kru. 172. 3. Particles of time (Ktu. 175) which 1) in narration denote a definite past event (when, while, etc.) are naturally construed with the Indicative Pret. or historical Pres. ; as ore Matt. vii. 28 ; ix. 25 ; Mark xi. 1 ; xiv. 12 ; Luke iv. 25 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 11 ; to? Matt. 312 xxviii. 9 ; Luke i. 23 ; vii. 12 ; Jno. iv. 40 ; Acts xvi. 4, etc., oiroTe Luke vi. 3, ■nviKa 2 Cor. iii. 15 (Lchm. and Tdf.) cf. Klotz p. 613. So likewise ew? and ew? ov ^ Matt. i. 25 ; ii. 9 ; Jno. ix. 18 ; Acts xxi. 26, etc. ; Mtth. 1197 f. Those which 2) denote a future event (when, as soon as, until) likewise govern, a) if they refer to a dis- tinctly conceived event, the Indicative (Put.) ; as, Jno. iv. 21 epxerai &pa, ore . . . •jrpoiKvvriijere rm irarpi, Luke xvii. 22 ekeucrovTai rjfi.epai,0TeeKi6viJi.r]CTeTe,'x\\\.?ib', Jno. v. 25; xvi. 25; see Hm. Vig. 915. After lea? the Pres. Ind. is in a few instances used for the Put. (§ 40, 2) ; as, Jno. xxi. 22 ; 1 Tim. iv. 13 ew? 'ipxajMi (like ew? ewdveiaiv Plut. Lycurg. c. 29) .^ The Pres. Ind. after ore p. 851), sometimes without MS. authority (Arist. anim. 7, 4 p. 210 Sylb.). On the other hand, we find in Dinarch. c. Philocl. 2, even in Bekker's edition, iav . . . ff\iji(>e, which, according to Khtz's remarks, is not to be altered. ^ This phrase (equiralent to our until) is not peculiar to later prose, except when used without &v. Even in Her. 2, 143 we find eas o£ airf'Selax, and m Xen. A. 1, 7, 6; 5, 4, 16 etc., /uexpw oi, so frequently in Plutarch., more fully /liExpi roirov, Has o5 Palaeph. 4, 2. ^ In the sense of as long as, fas denoting something actual is used as naturally with the Ind. Jno. ix. 4 (xii. 3.5 var. ; Plat. Phaed. 89 c. ; Xen. C. 1 , 6, 9 ; 7, 2, 22 ; Plutarch, educ. 9, 27 etc. ; Klotz, Devar. II. 565). The same mood is used after the Imperat. in Matt. V. 25 iffdi evvoav ry atniSiKtit trov tox^, ewff Btov e? iv rp 6fitf jtter' avrov, where tlic Subjunctive might have been expected, as a merely possible case is indicated. This statement, however, contains a general truth, in which the case in question is represented § dlb. EsTilCATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 297 differs from this. That is employed in general truths ; as, Jiio. ix. 4 ep'xerai, vv^ ore (i.e. ev ff) ovSek hvvaTai ipyd^eaOai, Heb. ix. 17 eVet iMjirore lo^yet (Sta^jj/c?;), ore ^fj 6 Biadifievoi, see Hm. as above, 915. b) If, however, the future event is only (objec- tively) possible, though viewed as under certain circumstances sure 279 to take place, the Subjunctive with a particle of time compounded '"■ "'> with av (orav, iirdv, 'QvUa av) is usually employed, see § 42. The same construction is used, when the particle of time indicates a duration or a future repetition (orav, oaaKi^ av), or a point of time till which something is to continue (eim? av) Mtth. 1199. In the latter case, however, the Subjunctive alone with eto?, eiws o5, a^xpi, irpiv, etc. often occurs, particularly in the later authors ; as, Mark 266 xiv. 32 KaOicrare wSe, ei»? 7r/Do?6u|tu/*at until I shall have prayed, ''"' '^ 2 Pet. i. 19 /ta\ft)9 Troteire •irpo<;e'XpvTe<; . . . eojs oi» rj/Mepa 8iavyda-i], Luke xiii. 8 ac^e? avTrfv koL tovto to ero?, eiu? otov cricd-^ai irepl avTriv, xii. 50 ; xv. 4 ; xxi. 24 ; xxii. 16 ; xxiv. 49 (Heb. x. 13) ; 2 Thess. ii. 7 ; 1 Cor. xi. 26 ; xv. 25 ; Gal. iii. 19 ; Eph. iv. 13 ; Luke ii. 26 p-rj ISelv Odvarov, irplv rj iBy tov XpicTTov. See Plutarch. Cat. min. 59 a/xpK ov TTjv e\bv ehai had been asserted) : whether he is a sinner or not. In such instances the Latin language, as is well known, taking a different view of the case employs the Subjunc- tive.^ The tense of the direct question is introduced into an indirect question in Acts x. 18 eirvvBdvero^ei SlfJ-av evBaZe ^evi^erao, Heb. xi. 8 ; cf. Plat. apol. 21 b. rpropovv^Ti irore 'Keyei, Plutarch. 0pp. II. 208 b., 220 f., 221 c, 230 f., 281 c. etc. ; Polyb. 1, 60, 6 ; 4, 69, 3 ; Diog. L. 6, 42 ; 2, 69, and, in general, very frequently, not to say uni- formly, in Greek authors. b. With the Subjunctive, when something objectively possible, something which may or should take place, is to be expressed (Klotz, 1 In Greek the Objective is expressed in the Objective mood ; in Latin, the Objective, made to depend on -the act of asking and inquiring, is for that reason put as a mere conception : interrogo quid sit. Cf. Jen. L. Z. 1812. no. 194. § 41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 299 Devar. 611) ; as, Matt. viii. 20 o vlb<; rod avOpanrov ovk e^^ei, irov tijv K6^aXr)v KXivt) where he may lay, ubi reponat, Krii. 166 ; Rom. viii. 26 Ti •7rpo^rjka^riavepbv •yei'iyo-eTai, ov8l oKOKpvi^ov, o ov yvuxjOricrercLi koX ets (jjavepov eXOr] (BL [Sin.] have o oi p.7] yviixrdy Koi ets (jiavepbv tXOrj). See below, § 42, 3 b. The passage adduced by Lob. Phryn. 736 from Joseph. Antt. 13, 6 is also not fully established. As to the import of this Subjunctive, see below, § 42, 3 b, p. 307. In Jno. vii. 35 the Fut. Indie, is quite according to rule : ttov oEtos jxiXKa TTopcvetrdaL {Xiymv), OTt ijjiieis ov\ tvprj(Top.iv avrov; whither will this man go, since (according to his statement, vs. 34) we shall not find him? In ovx 316 cwpijo-. the words uttered by him (vs. 34) are repeated in the tense and mood of direct discourse. Acts vii. 40 (a quotation from the O. T.) is also 282 ^^^^ correct: Troirjaov r/fuv Oeovs, o° irpoTropfvcrovTai rjfjLwv qui antecedent Wed. (see Mtth. 1145), Phil. ii. 20; 1 Cor. ii. 16; cf Demosth. Polycl. 711 b.; Plat. Gorg. 513 etc. ; Xen. Hell. 2, 3, 2 ; Aristot. Nic. 9, 11. The use of the Indie. Fut. after d or d apa, also, is worthy of notice in cases such as Acts viii. 22 Sei^OrjTi tov Oeov, tl apa atjieBrjcmai crot fj l-Trivoia T^s KapSLas crov, Mark xi. 13 -^Xdev, el apa evpr/a-a Tt iv avrfj he came, if haply he might find etc. (in Latin, si forte . . . inveniret). The words are here expressed in the mood which the speaker himself would employ : I will go and see, whether I shall find, etc. The Ind. Fut. after ewrcjs Rom. i. 10 is of a different description, but equally well established. In Eph. V. 15 if the sense had been : take heed how you may (can) walk 269 exactly the Subjunctive or Fut. Indicative must have been employed. Sth d. With the Indie. Pres. the question refers to the manner in which the d/cpi;8Ss TTipiiraTuv, as a Christian duty, is carried into eflfect ; see how you realize the aKpifi. TnpnraT., how you set about livin'g accurately. Cf Fritzsch. Opusc. p. 209. 1 Cor. iii.' 10 ckoo-tos /SXeircVo) vZs iTroiKohop-d is not exactly similar to the preceding, inasmuch as in this passage after aXXos e7roiKo8o/[t€t there can be no doubt that reference is made to a matter of fact. 5. The Optative in the oratio obliqua (Hm. Soph. Trach. p. 18) but rarely appears : Acts xxv. 16 tt^o? oxX: aveKpld-qv on ovk ecrjov eOc; ' Pm/ialoi's 'xapi^eaQai riva avdpcoTrov, irpiv ^ 6 KaT/jyopov/jyevoi § 41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJITNCTIVE, ASD OPTATIVE. 301 Kark irpo'smirov 6%^' row KaTrjyopov; tottov re a-TToXoyui^ \a/3ot etc. ; and indeed the instances in which the words of another are indirectly quoted are rare in the N. T. When such instances occur the Indicative is commonly used ; either because the inter- mediate clause where the Optative might have been expected is uttered in the person of the narrator (Bmln. 270) Luke viii. 47 ; Matt, xviii. 25 ; Mark ix. 9 ; Acts xxii. 24, or because by a ming- ling of two constructions the mood of the oratio recta is used for that of the oratio obliqua (which was perhaps in special accordance with colloquial usage) ; as, Acts xv. 5 i^aviarrjcrdi' rwe? t&v . . . ^apiaaiav, XeyovTei on Set -jrepiTefiveiv etc., Luke xviii. 9 elire koX TTpo^ Tivai Toii'i TreTTotOoTa's i(j) eauTOK, otl elal BlKatoi (on the con- trary, Mtth. 1222), Acts xii. 18 ^v Tapa^^o'; ovk 6\vyo<; . . . ri dpa 6 neTpo<; iyevero, ix. 27 ; xxiii. 20 ; 1 Cor. i. 15. Something similar occurs in Attic authors (though for the most part In lengthened sentences) Isocr. Trapez. 860 ; Demosth. Phorm. 586 and Polycl. 710, 711 ; Lys. caed. Eratosth. 19 ; Xen. Cyrop. 2, 4, 3 ; 3, 2, 27 ; 4, 5, 36 ; Hell. 2, 1, 24, and later writers Aelian. 11, 9 ; Diog. L. 2, 82, 74 ; Pausan. 6, 9, 1. See Heindorf, Plat. Soph. 317 p. 439 sq. ; Mtth. 1224 sq. ; Bhdy. 389. Note 1. The consecutive particle aSsre is usually construed with the Infin. (as the simple Infin. may be employed in a consecutive sense), of. § 44. Yet the Finite verb is used, not only where usre begins a new clause (in the sense of quare, itaque), — sometimes in the Indie, as in 283 Matt. xii. 12 ; xis. 6 ; xxiii. 31 ; Rom. vii. 4 ; xiii. 2 ; 1 Cor. xi. 27 ; xiv. 22 ; '^ '^ 2 Cor. iv. 12 ; v. 16 ; Gal. iii. 9 ; iv. 7 ; 1 Thess. iv. 18 ; 1 Pet. iv. 19, etc. (Gayler de partic. negat. p. 218 sq.), and sometimes in the Conjunct, exhort, as in 1 Cor. v. 8 and the Imperat. as in 1 Cor. iii. 21 ; x. 12 ; Phil, ii. 12 ; iv. 1 ; Jas. i. 19, etc. (Soph. El. 1163 ; Plutarch. Them. c. 27),— but also where the clause with wsre forms a necessary complement to the preceding clause, as in Jno. iii. 1 6 ovTiii<; ryyairqaev 6 6e6^ rbv Koa-fxov, wste . . . cSmkcv, Gal. ii. 13 (but in Acts xiv. 1 owtws wste with Inf.). This construction is very common also in Greek authors. Thus wsre occurs with a Finite verb after ovtw in Isocr. Areopag. p. 343, 354 ; de big. p. 838 ; Aegin. p. 922 ; Evag. 476 ; Lysias pro Mantith. 2, and pro mil. 17; Xen. C. 1, 4, 15 ; 2, 2, 10 ; Diog. L. 9, 68, after eU Torrnvrov in Isocr. de big. p. 836 ; Soph. Oed. R. 533 ; see Gayler as above, 221 sq. Cf. Schaef. Plutarch. V. 248. The distinction at least in the better authors seems to be this : €Xov aveixicr&i /j-ov fjuKpov would that ye had patience with me for a little ; b. Of the Fut. Gal. v. 12. With this construction of ck^s^Xov of. Arrian. Epictet. 2, 18, 1.5 oe\6v rts (xem touttjs iKoiix-qO-q, Gregor. orat. 28 (Exod. xvi. 3 ; Num. xiv. 2 ; xx. 3). When o^ikov had once come to be regarded as a particle, the former construction was just as correct in thought as the Imperf. or Aor. Indie, after cMe, Mtth. 1161 ; Klotz, Devar. 516 (aor. de re, de qua, quom non facta sit olim, nunc nobis gratum fore significamus, si facta esset illo tempore) ; the Fut., however, took the place of the Opt. In Rev. iii. 15 some Codd. have otfitXav \pvxpoi ei'^js, others ^s. Both readings make equally good sense. 318 § 42. THE CONJUNCTION "AN WITH THE THREE MOODS.> 1. The particle av, which in general imparts to the expression the impress of being dependent on circumstances (a fortuita qua- dam conditione), and accordingly conditional and fortuitous (Hni, 284 "Vig. 903, 820 ; de partic. av p. 10 sq.), /orfe, si res ita ferat, jser/ic^js, "i^^ fi- perchance (should the case occur) ,2 is used with one of the three moods either in an independent or a dependent clause. Yet its use in the N. T. (as in general in later Greek) is far less copious 271 and diversified than in classic (Attic) writers ; ^ in particular, it is never found joined with a participle. In independent and simple clauses av occurs in the N. T.. ^ Compare, as to the use of this particle, the following monographs ; Poppo, Pr. de nsu partic. &v apud Graecos. Frcf ad Viad. 1816. 4to. (also in Seebode's Miscell. crit. I. 1), Reisig de vi et usu &v particulae in his edit, of Aristoph. nub. (Lips. 1820. 8vo.) p. 97-140. I have mainly followed the theory of Hermaim, from which the views of Buttmann, and still more those of Thiersch (Acta Monac. II. 101 sqq.), partly differ. It is most fully expounded in libb. 4 de particula Sk, which are printed in the London edition of Stephanns's Thesaurus, as -well as in Hermann's Opuseul. Tom. IV., and which were also published separately in Leipsic, 1831. 8vo. With Hermann on all the main points Klotz Devar. II. 99 agrees, while Hartiinp Partik. II. 218fF. widely dissents from both. The opinion hitherto accepted respecting the import of &p has been com- pletely reversed by B. Matthiae in his Lexic. Eurip. I. 189 sqq. ; he pronounces it to he rather a corroborating and affirming particle, and gives- us to understand that his view is a divina et qna nihil unquam verius exstitit descriptio. Further, compare Bdumletn on the Greek Moods (see above p. 281) and MoUer in ScJineideioin, Philolog. VI. 719 ff, 2 Perhaps the hah of the South of Germany may also be compared with it. 8 In the Sept. &v does not occur more seldom than in the N. T. {Bretschneid. Lexic. p. 22 says: multo rarius). It occurs in hypothetical clauses, where it is required. It Is also sometimes construed with the Optative, as in G«n. xix. 8; xxxiii. 10; xliv. 8, and with the Participle in 2 Mace. i. 11 ; 3 Macc.iv. 1. It occurs on almost every page, As to &v in the Apocrypha, see Wahl, Clav. apocr. p. 34 sqq. § 42. THE CONJUNCTION "AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 303 a. With the Aorist ladic. to indicate that something on a certain condition would have taken place (in wliich use a hypothetical proposition is implied in the context) Mtth. 1154 f. ; Rost 606 f. ; as, Luke xix. 23 Zia tI oiik eSwKa^ to •dpyvpiop jmov iirl rfjv rpdire^av ; Koi e'lyo) iXdwv criiv roKw av eTrpa^a avTo, I should (liad the BtBovai TO apyvp. iirl ttjv Tpd-rr. occurred) have collected it with interest. Here the omitted protasis may be easily gathered from the ques- tion hia TL . . . Tpdire^av. The same remark applies to the parallel passage in Matt. xxv. 27 eSet tre ^aXelv to dpjvpiov fiov toI<; Tpaire- ^iVat?, Kal i\6cav iym eKOfMia-dfj/rjv av to ifj.ov criiv T6Kay, and Heb. x. 2 67ret ovK av iiravcravro '7rpoi;v?, ei firj tl av e/c a)vov, except perhaps in case of mutual consent. 2. After conditional clauses with el we find dv in the apodosis 1 Klotz p. 104 : Adjecta ad optativum ista particula hoc dieitur : nos rem ita animo cogitare, si quando fiat, i.e. rem, si fiat, ita fieri oportere ex cogitatione quidem nostra Cf. Mdv. 148 f. 304 § 42. THE CONJUNCTION "AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. with the Indicative to denote hypothetical reality (Rost 627 ; Mtth. 1147 f.), a. With the Imperf. (us\ially), when / would do it is to be expressed, a. After an Imperf. in the antecedent clause, as in Luke vii. 39 ouTo? 61 ^v TTjoo^r^Tij?, ijivcocTKev av etc. were he a, prophet^ 272 he would know, xvii. 6 ; Matt, xxiii. 30 (Fr.) ; Jno. v. 46 ; (viii. 19) ; 6tb ed ^iii 42 . ix. 41 ; XV. 19 ; xviii. 36 ; Gal. i. 10 ; Heb. viii. 4, 7 ; 1 Cor. xi. 31 ; Acts xviii. 14 ; cf. 2 Mace. iv. 47 ; Yalckenaer ad Luc. xvii. 6. /8. After an Aor. in the antecedent clause, as in Hob. iv. 8 el (Tt . . . ovk av ia-aiOrj iraa-a crapi neither of the Aorists is put for the Imperf., but the sense is : had not the. Lord shortened those days (in his decree), all flesh would have perished § 42. THE CONJUNCTION 'AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 305 (might be regarded as already perished). In Heb. xi. 15 ei ju,€v ckeiVijs ilx.vT)ij.6vevov . . . ei)(ov av Kaipov avaKa.fji.tf/ai the Imperf. is used in the principal clause probably because it refers to a continued (past) action (Mtth. 1147 ; Mdv. 117) ; in Latin also the Imperf. is used in the same way (Zumpt, Gramm. 454) haberent : had they in mind . . . they had opportunity (during their life) to return (and would not therefore, at the end of their life vs. 13, have made this profession). The Aor. would have represented the lx.€iv Kaipov as something occurring once, and quickly passing by. Another view of the Imperf. in hypothetical clauses (Franke, Demosth. p. 59, 74) is not to the purpose. In the consequent clause av may be omitted also, particularly with the Imperf. (Hm. Eurip. Hec. 1087 ; Soph. Elect, p. 132, and 321 partic. av p. 70 sqq. ; Bremi, exc. 4 ad Lys. p. 439 sq. ; Mtth. 1152), 278 and in later Greek was more and more frequently omitted, without ^^ "*• designing in all cases to express the emphasis (the positiveness) orig- inally included in this construction without av (Kiihner II. 556).^ The several examples may be arranged as follows : a.) Imperf. in the condition, Imperf. in the conclusion ; as, Jno. ix. 33 el /Mr) rjv ovrm irapa Oeov, ovk r)ivvaTO iroieiv ovSev were he not from God, he could do nothing, Diog. Laert. 2, 24 ; Lycurg. orat. 8, 4 ; Plat, sympos. 198 c. ; Gorg. 514 c. In Jno. viii. 39 the Codd. are about equally divided as to the omission or insertion of av ; if it was used by the writer, it may have been merged by transcribers in the vvv which immediately follows. b.) Aorist in the conclusion, with the omission of rfv in the condition ; as, Gal. iv. 15 el hwarov tov's 6^0a\fj,ov'; vfimv k^opv^avTei ehmKari fioi, where there is not much authority for av. c.) Aorist in the condition, Imperf. in the conclusion ; as, Jno. XV. 22 el ijJi] rjxOov . . . ajMapriav ovk el^ov if I had not come, they would not have sin, cf. Diog. Laert. 2, 21. d.) Pluperf. in the conditional clause (Judg. viii. 19), Imperf. in the principal clause ; as, Jno. xix. 11 ovk el^e? i^ovaimi ovBefiiav Kar e/jbov, el fir) rjv croi BeSofievov avmOev thou wouldst not have ... if it had not been given thee. Acts xxvi. 32; Rom. vii. 7 7ion cognoram . . . nisi diceret ; also, in the immediately preceding Ti}v afiapriav etc., where eyvcov is to be repeated with el fir; Sia vdfiov. This omission of dv occurs especially with KaXov fjv, eSet, exprjv 287 etc. Mdv. 119 ; Bmln. 140 f. ; cf. Matt. xxvi. 24 koKov ^v avrm, el ovk ''!■ '^■ eyevvTqdT) etc., see above, § 41 a. 2. a, p. 282. 1 Similar are such sentences in Latin as Flor. 4, 2, 19 peractum erat bellum sine sanguine, si Pompeium opprimere (Caesar) potuisset, Horat. Od. 2, 17, 27 ; Liv. 34, 29 ; Cic. fam. 12, 24, 2 ; Tac. annal. 3, 14 ; Sen. consol. ad Marc. I. See Zumpt, Gr. S. 447. 34 306 § 4=2. THE CONJtTNCTION "AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 2 Cor. xi. 4 ci o ep^o/Aevos aXKov Irjrrovv Kripvcro-ei ... KoXuis dvei^taOe is rendered : ifhe... preached, ye would bear with etc. (Cod. B alone has avix^trOi, and it has been so printed by Lchm.). Here one would certainly expect iK-qpva-a-fv, but as several words intervene the writer might easily have fallen into such an anaooluthon {if . . . preaches another Jesus ...ye would hear with it dvet;^., as if he had written kK-qpva-uai. As, however, he had used K-qp-ia-a-iL, consistency required dvexeo'^«)i or in order not to hurt the Corinthians he designedly changes the harsh di/e^eo-^e into the hypo- thetical and consequently softer dm;j(. ; in which case, to be sure, one 322 would so much the more have expected av, as the antecedent clause does not correspond with a hypothetical period (cf. also Klotz, Devar. 487 sq.). We find something similar in Diog. L. 2, 69 d tovto ^avkov icmv, ovk av €v TM'i Tuiv OeSiv eoprats iyiv^To. The passage in Demosth. Neaer. 815 a. is of another kind. (That in Rom. iv. 2 t^et Kav)(rifi.a is not put for elx^v av, as Riick. maintained, is apparent to one who attends to Paul's reasoning, and has been correctly shown by Kollner among recent expositors.) 274 3. In relative clauses after 6'?, o^tk, oa-o<;, ottov etc., dv is used, 6tlici a_ "With the Indicative when some matter of fact, something certain tlierefore, is spoken of, " sed cujus vel pars aliqua, vel ratio et modus dubitationem admittuiit " (Hm. Vig. 819) ^ ; as, Mark vi. 56 oTTou av ekeiropevero wherever he entered, ubicunque intrabat (it might be in different places and repeatedly), oavfpbv eXOrj, which is to be rendered : which mat/ not become known and come to light. The relative here points to a perfectly definite con- 308 § 4:2. THE CONJUNCTION 'AN WITH THE THEEE MOODS. ception, and not to anything whatever, quodcunque. On the other hand, one might have expected av in Jas. ii. 10 osris oXov rbv vo/jlov Tr/p-qcrri, Trraxtn) 289 S« €1/ £1/1, yet it is not necessary, inasmuch as the writer conceives the case 7tli nl. as altogether definite : qui (si quis) . . . custodiverit. So also in Matt. x. 33. Ou the other hand, in Matt, xviii. 4 Lchm. has already adopted the Fut. 4. In indirect questions av is used with the Optative (after a Pret. 324 or histor. Pres.) ; as, Luke i. 62 evevevov t&) iraTpi, to ri av deXoi KoXeiaOai avrov how he may perhaps wish him to be called (assumed that he has a wish in the case ; rt diXot etc. would he, how he wished to have him called), Acts v. 24 ; x. 17 ; xxi. 33 (see above § 41, b. 5), Luke vi. 11 SieXaXovv Trpo? dXXTjXov?, Tt av ironjaeiav t& 'Itjaoij what they might do to Jesus, quid forte faciendum videretur (pondering in doubtful mood the different possibilities), ix. 46; Jno. xiii. 24 according to the reading veiiet tovtw Hl/jliov II. irvdecrdai rk av e'lT} trepl ov Xeyet (who it might he, whom they should perhaps regard). The better reading, however, is vevei . . . koI Xer/ei aiirS- eiVe Ti? ia-Tiv irepl ov \iyei. See Klotz p. 509 ; cf. Esth. iii. 13. 5. After the particles of time av followed by a Subjunctive (Mtth. 1194 f.) is used if an (objectively possible) action is to be expressed, — a case which can or will occur, biit in regard to which there is no certainty when (how often) it will occur (Hm. partic. av p. 95 sqq.). Thus, a. orav i.e. or av, Matt. xv. 2 virrTOVTai ra? j^elpa^, orat aprov ecrdiaxjcwhen (i.e. as often as) they eat, Jno. viii. 44 ; 1 Cor. iii. 4 ; Luke xi. 36 ; xvii. 10 orav Troirjarfre irdvTa, Xiyere when ye shall have done. Matt. xxi. 40 orav 'ikOri 6 Kvpw^ ... ri •Koiriaei 276 quando venerit. So usually with the Aorist Subjunctive for the 'ilied. Lat. Put. exact., as in Mark viii. 38 ; Jno. iv. 25 ; xvi. 13 ; Kom. xi. 27 ; Acts xxiii. 35 ; 1 Cor. xv. 27 ; xvi. 3 ; 1 Jno. ii. 28, also Heb. i. 6 (as Bohme and Wahl have already pointed out), while the Subj. Present for the most part denotes a frequently repeated action not limited to any particular time (Mttli. 1195), or exhibits something hi itself future simply as a fact, 1 Cor. xv. 24 (along with the Subj. Aor.). Similar to this are -^viKa dv 2 Cor. iii. 16 (when . . .it shall have turned,'), oa-dKiq dv (^as often as) 1 Cor. xi. 25, 26 (Pres.), eo? dv as soon as Rom. xv. 24 ; 1 Cor. xi. 34 ; Phil. ii. 23. b. The conjunction until that, as ew? dv ^ in Matt. x. 11 eVet (lel- vare, ea)<; dv e^ekOriTe, Jas. v. 7 ; Luke ix. 27, d)(pifwv vjjb&v ipydaaadab rm ^aaCKel . . . ical Kadiaare eVt rijv 7171', Epiphan. II. 368 ej^e Toil's tov Oeov \6yov<; Kwrd "^v^ijv crov koL ■)(peLav /jlt) e^e 'EirKpaviov. In the N. T. this explanation has been applied to Eph. iv. 26. (from Ps. iv. 5.) opyi^eaOe km, fir} dfiapTaveTe be angry and 279 sin not i.e. if ye be angry ye do not sin (Rii.), Jno. vii. 52 ipevvrjaov ^ ^ KoX tSe search, and thou wilt see (Kii.), cf. divide et impera. In Hebrew, constructions of this sort are certainly frequent ; Ewald, 1 According to Moller (Schneidewin, Philolog. VI. 124 ff.) the Imper.Pres. only should be so used. This, it is true, is found in the above passages of the N. T. ; but the question in reference to the N. T. will not be regarded as thereby decided. 2 What Bomem. on Luke xxiv. 39 adduces from Greek authors, is of a different nature. This mode of expression, however, cannot be considered as thereby a Hebra- ism; see Gesen. Lgb. S. 776 (where, however, some passages are quoted which remain doubtful, as Ps. xxxvii. 27, or which at any rate ought to have been separated from the others Gen. xlii. 18 ; Isa. viii. 9). With Eph. iv. 26 (p. 312) those passages have no analogy, otherwise the words of Paul must mean : if ye are angry, yet do not sin, or even : if ye would not sin, then be angry. It is therefore surprising that, notwith- standing this, Zyro (Stud. u. Krit. 1841. 3 Heft S. 685) has had recourse again to this alleged Hebraism. 312 § 43. THE IMPERATIVE. krit. Gramm. 653. But in Jno. vii. the expression is more forcible than Kal o^jret (Lucian. indoct. 29) would have been. The result of the search is so certain, that the exhortation to search is at the same time an exhortation to see. We find the regular construction 328 in Luke x. 28. In the passage from Eph. Paul's meaning is un- questionably this : we should not let anger lead us into sin, of. Ts. 27 (see Bengel and BCrus. in loc.) ; vs. 31 cannot be urged against this. It is only the grammatical acceptation of the expres- sion that is doubtful. It is either logically a single proposition opyi^ofj^voL fit) afiapT. divided into two grammatically, or opyi^eade must be taken permissively (cf. the similar passage Jer. x. 24). For, the assertion (Mey.) that of two closely connected Imperatives the 293 one cannot denote a permission and the other a command, is incor- Vth d. rect ; we may say with perfect propriety : Well, then, go (I give you leave), but do not stay out above an hour. 1 Tim. vi. 12 ayiavC^ov tov koXov ayCiva r^s jriorews, imXa^ov t^s alwitni tfo^i (where the asyndeton is not without special force) must be rendered simply : Jlght the good fight of faith, lay hold of (in and by that fight) eternal life ; cf. Mark iv. 39, see Fr. 'E-mKafi^. t^s fur^s is not here ex- hibited (though it might have been) as the result, but as the very essence, of the contest ; and eiriXa/^./S. does not signify attain, receive. In 1 Cor. XV. 34 iKvrpl/aT€ SiKat'ujs KoX jXT) d/AapraveTe are obviously two exhortations, one of which (Aor.) is to be carried into effect at once, while the other (Pres.) requires continuous effort. Constructions like Jno. ii. 19 Xvo-are tov vajbv tovtov, kol hi Tpunv r]fi.ipaii eyepui clvtov, Jas. iv. 7 avTia-rrp-e tu Sia/ioXio, Kal ^iv^erai a^' i/iGi' (vs. 8), Eph. V. 14 (Sept.) avdcTTa ck twv vcKpmv, Ktxi eirufiWtKTa crot 6 Xpioros, may be resolved like two Imperatives connected by xai : if ye resist the devil, he will, etc. But this, grammatically, requires no remark, as the Impera- tive has here its ordinary import (hortatory), and the structure of these sentences can, indeed must (as incomparably more forceful), be retained in the translation also. Cf. Lucian. indoct. 29 toiis Koupeas toutous ItilukoIiox Koi oi/fei, dial. d. 2, 2 evpvOixa /3atve kol oi/zei, Plato, Theaet. 149 b.; rep. 5, 467 c. ; see Fr. Mt. as above. Even recent expositors quite erro- neously take the Imperative in Jno. ii. 19 ; xx. 22 for the Fut., supporting their view by a reference to the Heb. in such passages as Gen. xx. 7 ; xlv. 18 (Glass. Philol. sacr. I. 286). Inasmuch as every command extends into future time, the Fut. tense, as a general expression of futurity, may be used for the Imperative (see no. 5) ; but the special form (the Impera- tive) cannot, in turn, be employed for the more general (Fut.). Such 280 a substitution would occasion a confusion of tongues, and the observation Sth ed. above alluded to, like so many others, is the offspring of the closet, not of attention to the phaenomena of living speech. Olshausen has correctly § 4=3. THE IMPEKATIVE. 313 opposed Tholuck (and Kuhnol) on Jno. xx. 22, and Tholuck has rectified 329 his error. In Luke xxi. 19 the Fut. is the better reading; see Meyer. 3. In the N. T. the distinction between the Aorist Imperative and Present Imperative is in general maintained (Hm. emend, rat. p. 219 and Vig. 748, of. H. Schmid de imperativi temporib. in ling, graec. Viteb. 1833, 4to. and especially Bmln. 169 ff., and in reference to the latter, MoUer in Schneidewin Philologus VI. 115 ff.). For a. The Aorist Imperat. (cf. § 40 note 2.) denotes an action that is either transient and instantaneous (Ast, Plat, polit. p. 518 ; Schaef. Demosth. IV. 488), or to be undertaken but once ; as, Mark i. 44 aeauTov Sel^ov ra> iepet, iii. 5 eKreivov ttjv X^^P^ """*') ^i- H eKTivd^are Tov "XP^^i Jno. ii. 7 yefiiaare ra? vSpia'; vSaro? etc., xi. 44 'Kvcrare airov QAd^ap.^ k. d^ere ainov inrdryetv, 1 Cor. v. 13 i^dpare tov 294 "TTovrjpov ef vfiwv avTciv, Acts xxiii. 23 eTOLfideraTe aTpaTut)Ta<; Bmko- 'thcd. ffiow forthwith make ready to march. Besides these, see Mark ix. 22, 43 ; X. 21 ; xiii. 28 ; xiv. 15, 44 ; xv. 30 ; Luke xx. 24 ; Jno. ii. 8 ; iv. 35 ; vi. 10 ; xi. 39 ; xiii. 29 ; xviii. 11 ; xxi. 6 ; Acts iii. 4 ; vii. 33 ; ix. 11 ; xvi. 9 ; xxi. 39 ; xxii. 13 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 1 ; Eph. vi. 13, 17 ; Col. iii. 5 ; Tit. iii. 13 ; Philem. 17 ; Jas. iii. 13 ; iv. 8, 9 ; 1 Pet. iv. 1 ; 2 Pet. i. 5, 10. When something to be carried into effect at once is expressed, sometimes vvv or vvvl is added to the Aorist Imperat. ; as, Acts x. 5 : xxiii. 15 ; 2 Cor. viii. 11. The Aorist Imperat. is used also when Stj strengthens the injunction, as in Acts xiii. 2 ; 1 Cor. vi. 20 (Judith v. 3 ; vii. 9 ; Bar. iii. 4 ; Xen. C. 1, 3, 9 ; Soph. El. 524 ; Klotz, Devar. 395). b. The Present Imperat. denotes an action already begun and to be continued (Poppo, Thuc. III. II. 742), or one that is per- manent and frequently recurring. Hence it is commonly employed in the measured and dispassionate language of laws and moral precepts, e.g. Rom. xi. 20 /jltj {r^Xo<^p6vet (as thou now art), xii. 20 idv Treiva 6 6^0 p6^ cov, ■\]rco/jLi^e ainov (constantly in such case), xiii. 3 dekeK jir] ]'^aTe Si,Kaio} 6 eat movevcret, (in order) to worship him (after €p)(^o/iai Matt, xi. 7 ; XX. 28 ; Heb. ix. 24 ; Rev. xxii. 12 ; Jno. iv. 15 ; Luke i. 17, and irifHTrco or aTroaTiXXco Mark iii. 14 ; 1 Cor. i. 17 ; xvi. 3, and, besides, Acts v. 31 ; Rom. x. 7 ; 1 Cor. x. 7) ; 2 Cor. xi. 2 ■^pfioadfiTjv vfia^ evl dvSpl irapdevov ar/vrjv irapaarrjcrai, rai Xpia-roi, Col. i. 22 ; 2 Cor. ix. 5 ; x. 13, 16 ; Jno. xiii. 24 vevei tovtw •7rv9e /SaXaviito wsre XovaatrOau 835 This extended use of the particle in the later language it is better to rec- ognize in the N. T. also, than to consent to forced interpretations, 'fls before the Inf. occurs only in Acts xx. 24 ovBevo's \6yov Trotov/xat, ovBe. ex Tqv ^X'!" f^^ tiij.Ulv i/jLavTio, ws reXeiSxrai tov Bpo/jLov /jiov fura. x'^P°^'> *'* order to finish my course etc., see Bornem. Schol. p. 174 sq. Other forms of the Infin. epexeget. are more naturally annexed § 44. THE INFINITIVE. 3^9 to a pi'oposition or a clause, and assume the form of a grammati- cally governed word, which they were considered to be in part by earlier grammarians : 1 a. Mark vii. 4 TroXXa a irapeXafiov Kpwrelv (observanda acceperunt), Matt, xxvii. 34 eScoKav ax)Ta> inelv o^o<;, Bph. iii. 16 (Thuc. 2, 27 ; 4, 36 ; Lucian. asin. 43 ; Diog. L. 2, 51). b. 1 Cor. ix. 5 expfiev i^ovaiav yvvatKa wepicvyeiv, ix. 4 ; Luke viii. 8 6 e'p^cui' Sna uKoveiv dKovero), li. 1 ; Acts xiv. 5 ; Bph. iii. 8 ; Heb. xi. 15 Kaipo'i dvaKci/iylrai, Iv. 1 (Plato, Tim. 38 b. ; Aesch. dial. 3, 2) Mtth. 1235. In this construction a subject eren may be added to the Inf., as in Rom. xiii. 11 ; cf. Schoem. Plut. Cleom. 187. The Inf. is construed with Adjectives in 2 Tim. i. 12 Swaro? TTjv irapaOrjKTjv fiov (j>vXd^at (Thuc. 1, 139.), Heb. xi. 6 ; vi. 10 ovic aSt/co? 6 0609 eTTtkadiaOai etc., 1 Pet. iv. 3 ; 1 Cor. vii. 39 ; Mark i. 7 ; 2 Cor. iii. 5 ; Luke xv. 19 ; Acts xiii. 25 ; Heb. v. 11 ; 2 Tim. ii. 2 ; Luke xxii. 33. Cf. Ast, Plat. legg. p. 117 ; Stallb. Plat. Euthyd. 204 ; Weber, Demosth. 261 ; Bhdy. 361. 2. But the Inf. may also enter into the construction of a sentence as an integral part of it ; and then its nature as a noun more or less clearly appears. In such cases it is used sometimes as the subject and sometimes as the object. It serves as subject (Mtth. 1239) in sentences such as Matt. xii. 10 et e^ea-n rot? ad^^acri Oepaireveiv is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day (is healing etc. lawful) ? XV. 26 ovK ean icdKov Tui^eiv tov dprov tmv reKvtov, 1 Thess. iv. 3 28<5 TovTo ecTTt de\7)fj,a tov 6eov . . . direj^eadaL . . . d-rro Trj<; Tropvela^ (where '"'' '^ 6 dr/iaa-/jL6^ vpMv precedes, which also might have been expressed by an Inf), Acts xx. 16 oiraxs jxtj yevr]TMavTa> ■xpovoTpi,^i)a-ai (Weber, 336 Dem. 213), Matt. xix. 10 ; Epb. v. 12 ; Pli'il. i. 7 ; Gal. vi. 14 ; Jas. 300 i. 27 ; Rom. xiii. 5 ; 1 Cor. xi. 20 ; Heb. vi. 6 ; ix. 27 ; 1 Pet. ii. 15. ""' "^ If in such cases the Infin. itself has a subject, whether a substantive, adjective, or participle, this is usually connected grammatically with the Inf. and put in the Accusative ; as, Matt. xvii. 4 koXov ianv ■^fid'i &8e elvai, xix. 24 ; Jno. xviii. 14 ; 1 Cor. xi. 13 ; 1 Pet. ii. 15 ; Acts xxv. 27 ; Luke ix. 33 ; xviii. 25. Cf. Matthiae, Burip. Med. p. 526 ; Schwarz, de soloec. discip. Ch. p. 88 sq. When the subject is subjoined to the leading clause (Phil. i. 7 BIkmov e/wl 1 Likewise by those who thought that in the example adduced under b. tx"!^^" i\ov(tiav Ttipiiydv, a rov is omitted before the Inf. [Haitinger in Act. Monac. III. 301) : this is put when the Inf. is regarded definitely as a Gen. (noun) ; without toB it is the Inf. epexeget. The two constructions are somewhat differently conceived, Mtth. 1235. So in Latin, Cic. Tusc. 1, 41 : tempus est abire (cf. Ramshorn S. 423), in other passages abeundi. See in general Stallb. Plat. Phil. p. 213 and Euthyphr. p. 107. (As in Luke i. 9 we find ^Kax^ tov dv/iiaaat, so in Demosth. Neaer. 517 c. fuiyx^ff' PouKeieu/.) 320 § 4:4- THE INFINITIVE. TovTo poveiv etc.), the adjectives construed with the Infin. stand either in the Ace. (Matt, xviii. 8 koXov eroi itrriv ekeXOeiv ek rrjv ^(orjv x^^^ov fj KvWov}, or in the case of the subject, according to an attraction common in Greek authors ; as, 2 Pet. ii. 21 KpeiTTov rjv air 01^, fit] eTreyvcoKevM rrjv oBov t^? SiKawawrj'i rj i'myvovaiv eiria-rpe-^ai, Acts xv. 25 (var.) cf. Time. 2, 87 ; Demosth. funebr. 153 a., 156 a.; Xen. Hier. 10, 2; Bhdy. 369; Kru. 180 (Zumpt 605). In Heb. ii. 10 both constructions are united : e-rrpeTrev airo) . . . dyayovra . . . reKeuacrai cf. Mark ix. 47 : Matt, xviii. 8 (Plu't. Coriol. 14). It is further to be remarked that a. The Inf. in this case sometimes has the Article : viz. where it serves directly as a verbal noun, which takes place not only in sentences such as Rom. vii. 18 to BiKciv irapaKUTai jj.01, to Se Karepyd^eadai to kuXov ov, 2 Cor. vii. 11 avTO toJto to KaTci Oiov X,v!rr)d^vai irocrrjv KaTupydtraTO ifuv cnrovSijv, Phil. i. 21, where the finite verb with its adjuncts forms a complete predi- cate ; but also in the impersonal phrases Ka\6v, aurxpov icrn etc. (Eost 681), if special force is intended to be given to the notion expressed by the Inf. e.g. 1 Cor. vii. 26 koXov avOpiLvw to outws etvat, Gal. iv. 18 KoXov rb ^r/kovcrdaL hf KaXia TraiTOTe, Rom. xiv. 21 ; 1 Cor. xi. 6. In the former case the Article could hardly be omitted ; but in the latter koXoc dvdpwTra outms itvoL it is good for a man so to be (cf. 1 Cor. vii. 1 ; xiv. 35) would have been less forcible in expression.' Phil. i. 29 may also be reckoned in the second class ; in 1 Thess. iv. 6 one such Inf. with the Article is followed by another without it (cf. Plat. Gorg. 467 d. ; Xen. Cyr. 7, 5, 76) ; but in Rom. iv. 13 the Inf. to KXripovofwv ctvai appears as a species of apposition to ri eirayycXia. In Greek authors compare with the above, Plat. Phaed. 62 d. ; Gorg. 475 b. ; Xen. M. 1, 2, 1 ; Diod. S. 1, 93. b. Instead of the Inf., especially when its subject is to be expressed with special force, a complete clause also is used with lav, il, iva (according to the import) ; as, Mark xiv. 21 koXJov tjv avria, ei ovk lyevv^Or), 1 Cor. vii. 8 KoXov avTOL'; icrnv, iav ixtivuitnv d)s K&yu), Jno- xvi. 7 (TVfjL€p€L vfuv, tva iyo) 301 oLTriXOu). Respecting iva, see below, no. 8. This is in part a general 7th ed. peculiarity of the (later) popular language, which prefers circumstantiality ; 287 in part it is to be referred to the Hellenistic tinge of the N. T. diction. Yet something similar occurs in Greek authors, as in Isocr. Nicocl. p. 40, 46. Likewise, when the Inf. is joined with icrri in the sense of it is lawful, or it is possible etc. to . . ., the Inf. is itself the subject ; as, Heb. ix. 5 (Ast, lexic. Plat. I. 622 a.). But 1 Cor. xi. 20 may (in opposition to "Wahl and 1 A difference in meaning between an Inf. with the Art. and without it is certainly not to be assumed. In Gtennan, too, none such exists between das Bden ist segensreich and beten ist segensreich. Yet the Inf. becomes more forcible when used as a substantive with the Article. 6th ed, 337 § 44. THE rNTTNITIVE. 321 Mey.) be further rendered : when ye come together, it is (means) not to eat the Lord^s Supper. Tovto in resumption of the Gen. abs. is not required. 3. The Inf. denotes the object (predicate) in all cases when it is requisite to complete the meaning of a verb, not only after OeXeiv, hvvaaQai, ToXfiav, iiri'xeipelv, cr-TrovBd^eiv, ^ijTelv,^ etc., but also after verbs of believing, hoping (I hope to come, etc.), saying, asserting. The regular usage need not be proved from the N. T., and therefore we have merely to remark, a. If, in such case, the Inf. has its own subject different from that of the principal verb, such subject with all its attributives is put in the accusative (Ace. with Iiifiu.) ; as, 1 Tim. ii. 8 jSovXo/Mac irpiKev-^eaOai tovayelv iravra means : one man has confidence to eat, and tlie may is already implied in Tria-Teveiv. In xv. 9 Bo^aqai denotes, not what the Gentiles should do, but what they actually do ; see Pr. In ii. 21 f. and Eph. iv. 22 f (see above) the verbs to make known and to be instructed, on which the Infinitives depend, inherently denote as well what is (and must be believed) as what ought to be (should be done) ; and, in the same way, we can say : they preached to 339 them not to steal; ye have been taught to lay aside. In Acts x. 22 'Xpr)P'aTlt,ei\oveiKovvTa Xeyeiv, tov KaTa(f>ave<} yeviadai etc. Strabo 15, 717 ; Demosth. Phorm. 603 b. ; Isocr. Aegin. 932 ; Thuc. 291 1, 23 ; 2, 22 ; Heliod. 2, 8, 88 ; 1, 24, 46 ; Dion. H. IV. 2109 ; fi*"!- Arrian. Al. 2, 21, 13 ; 3, 25, 4 and 28, 12. An Inf with, and another without rot), are connected in the same principal clause in Luke ii. 22 f. If a subject is expressed in this construction it is put in the Ace. Luke v. 7. In Phil. iii. 10 also this Inf. denotes design, where tov yvwai. is con- nected with vs. 8 and resumes the thought there expressed. (In the Sept. this Inf. occurs on every page, cf. Gen. i. 14; xxiv. 21 ; xxxviii. 9 ; xliii. 17 ; Judg. v. 16 ; ix. 15, 52 ; x. 1 ; xi. 12 ; xv. 12 ; xvi. 5 ; xix. 3 ; XX. 4 ; Ruth i. 1, 7 ; ii. 15 ; iv. 10 ; Neh. i. 6 ; 1 Sam. ix. 13, 14 ; xv. 27 ; 2 Sam. vi. 2 ; xix. 11 ; Jonah i. 3 ; Joel iii. 12 ; Judith xv. 8 ; 1 Mace, iii. 20, 39, 52 ; v. 9, 20, 48 ; vi. 15, 26.) Different from this, and more closely connected with the notion of the Genitive — hence to be referred to a. — is the use of the Inf with tov after verbs signifying to he distant from, to restrain or debar from, to prevent from ; for these verbs contain the inherent power of directly governing the Gen., and accordingly are uniformly followed by the Gen. of a noun, as Rom. xv. 22 Ei/e/coTrrdjitijv . . . t o 5 ikdilv, Luke iv. 42 kol Kwrii^ov avTOV tov [j.r] ■iropeuecrOai (cf. Isocr. ep. 7, 1012 a.Tri)(iiv tov nva^ diroKTEticHv, Xen. M. 2, 1, 16 ; A. 3, 5, 11), with a pleonastic negative 342 (§ 65) Acts xiv. 18 /j.oA.(s KOTiirava-av toveikiTrp/ eiyat titos ; see Fr. Matt. p. 844. Finally, in Luke i. 73 toI Sovvai in the same way is most naturally connected with opKov, cf. Jer. xi. 5. It soon became usual, however, to employ this construction more loosely, not only a) After verbs involving the idea of (entreatyy 292 command^ determination, and thus indirectly of design, Actsxv. 20 6tli ei icplyf^ . . . eTTiaTeiXai avTol<; tov wire-)(ecr6ai to send them the direction to abstain, Luke iv. 10 (from the Sept.) T049 0776X019 avTnv eVre- XelTat Trepl aov tov SiacpvXd^ai, Acts xxvii. 1 (where it would be forced to connect toO aTroirXelv with the following •n-apeSiBovv}, Cf. Ruth ii. 9 ; 1 Kings i. 35 ; 1 Mace. i. 62 ; iii. 31 ; v. 2 ; ix. 69 ; Malal.Chron.18,458; Ducasp.26l,217,339,a.; Fabric. Pseudepigr. L 707 ; Vit. Epiph. p. 346; — but also, b) For epexegesis, where an Inf. with or without &<;t6 might have been used, and the im- port of the Gen. is lost by blending result and design. Very fre- 343 quently so in the Sept. ; (i with the Inf. denotes both design and result ; as to et? with the Inf. see afterwards). In the N. T. com- pare Acts vii. 19 o5to9 KaTaa-o^i<7dfievo<; . . . exaKaiae tou9 irwripa^ ■f^fjLOiv TOV TToielv eK0eTa to, ^pecfn) etc., so that they cast out (cf. Thuc. 2, 42, and Poppo in loc), and what is still harsher iii. 12 (a? TreTTocijKoa-i row irepiTraTelv ainov (1 Kings xvi. 19). In both 1 Cf. Malalas 14, 357 jJt^o-oto t) Atyovara rhv BainKfa, rod Kare\S(7v fis robs aytovs r6novSj 17, 422 ttvkvus eypiKpe rots ahrois irarptKlois tov ippoyrtcrdrivai tV iroXw, 18, 440 Ke\({i airoarpkclieLv etc. by turning away, in that he turns away (Heb. iii. 12) ; Phil. i. 23 iirtOvfiLav ex^v ei<; TO avaXvaai desire towards departing (to depart), Jas. i. 19 ^paSv<; 649 TO \a\rja-ai, slow to speak, 1 Cor. x. 6 eZ? to /jufj elvai 309 v/ia? eTn.6vfMfTa . . . d-jreaTe'yaa'av, xii. 296 12 e^i]Tovv avrov KpcCTrja-at, v. 3 ov8el<; r]hvvaTO airrov Sfjaat, Luke oth A xviii. 13 oi/c rjOeXev ovSe tou? 6cj)9a\,/j,ov'! et? top ovpavov hrdpai, Jno. 847 vi. 21 ; vii. 44,; Matt. i. 19 ; viii. 29 ; xiv. 23 ; xviii. 23 ; xxiii. 37 ;♦ xxvi. 40 ; xxvii. 34 ; Mark vi. 19, 48 ; Luke vi. 48 ; x. 24 ; xv. 28 ; xix. 27 ; Acts s. lO ; xvii. 3 ; xxv. 7 ; Col. i. 27 ; Gal. iv. 20 ; Philem. 14 ; Jude 3. This is quite regular, and requires no proof from Greek authors, Mdv. 188. (Sometimes, however, we find the Inf. Pres., as in Jno. xvi. 19 ; Acts xix. 33 ; Luke vi. 19, and in parallel passages the Inf. Pres. is used in Matt, xxiii. 37, while in Luke xiii. 34 the Inf. Aor.) Likewise the Inf. Aor. is uniformly con- nected with the Imp. Aor. ; as, Matt. viii. 22 ai^e? roi;? veKpoik 0d'\jrai, Toir? eavr&v veKpow, xiv. 28 ; Mark vii. 27. 1 Stallb. Plat. Euthyd. p. 140: Aoristus (Infln.) quia nliUam facit significationcm perpetuitatis et continuationis, prouti vel initiiim rel progressus vel finis actionis verbo expressae spectator, ita solet usurpari, ut dicatur vel de eo, quod statim et e vestigio fit ideoque etiam certo fiiturum est, vel de re semel tantum eveniente, quae diuturnitatis et perpetuitatis eogitationem aut non fert aut certe non reqliirit, vel denique de re brevi et uno veluti temporis ictu peracta. § 44. THE INPINITIVE. 331 b. After any tense, when an action (rapidly) passing, completed at once, or instantly to begin, is to be expressed (Hin. Vig. as above).; as, Mark xiv. 31 eav fj,e Ber] crvvaTroOavelv aoi, xv. 31 eavrbv ov Bwarac aSxrat, Matt. xix. 3 el t^ecrriv avQpdnra airoKvaai, rrjv ryvvaiKa, 1 Cor. xv. 53 Bel to (pdaprbv tovto ■ evhvaairdai acjiOapaiav. Cf. Jno. iii. 4 ; v. 10 ; ix. 27 ; xii. 21 ; Acts iv. 16 ; Rev. ii. 21 ; 2 Cor. X. 12 ; xii. 4 ; 1 Thess. ii. 8 ; Eph. iii. 18. Under this head comes also Jno. v. 44 Qirva-Teveiv signifies to exercise faith, to become a believer^ . c. In particular, after verbs of hoping, promising, commanding, wishing, and many others, the Greeks frequently employ the Inf. Aor. (Lob. Phryn. p. 751 sq. ; Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 153 ; Ast, Theophr. char. p. 50 sq. ; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 525, 719 ; Weber, Demosth. 343, especially Schlosser, vindic. N. T. locor. adv. Marc- land. Hamb. 1742, 4to. p. 20 sqq.), viz. vrhere the action is to be designated merely as brought to pass ("ab omni teniporis definiti couditione libera et immunis," Stall)). Plat. Euthyd. p. 140 ; Weber, Dem. as above) ; ^ whereas the Inf. Pres. has reference to 311 the continuance of the action, or represents it as just, now occurring, '"'*'■ and the Inf. Put. (after verbs of hoping, promising") I'epresents it as not to occur till some future time of indefinite remoteness (Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 215 sq. ; cf. Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 138; Pflugk, Bur. Heracl. p. 54 sq.). In the N. T. eX7fi'f&) is uniformly followed by the Inf. Aor. [since only in Acts xxvi. 7 is the Infin. Future found as the solitary variant of Cod. B], and none of the examples will occasion any difficulty, especially as it often depends upon the writer how he will view the action ; as, Luke vi. 34 nrq.p aiv eXm^eTe a/KoKa^elv, Phil. ii. 23 tovtov iX-Tru^co irefiyjraL, (u? av cnriSco etc. vs. 19 ; 2 Jno. 12 ikTri^co ryeveaOat Trpos vfj.a.'i, 3 Jno. 14 ; Acts xxvi. 7 ; Rom. XV. 24; 1 Tim. iii. 14 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 7 ; 2 Cor. x. 15.^ Like- wise evayr/iXKetrdat is usually construed with the Iiif. Aor. ; as, 297 Mark xiv. 11 eirriyjeiXaro avrco Bovvac, Acts iii. 18,; vii.5; similarly f* ^ bfjLw/j,(,, Acts ii. 30 opKO) cofjioa-ev avro^ 6 '6m &i.iro/i' "Aprft ye ir^/*tt Terix^u, appropriately quoted by 3/ey. Further, cf. below (no. 7, end). 332 § 44. THE INriNITIVE. Heb. iii. 18 ; Weber, Demostli. 330. After KeXeveiv the Inf. Aor. is more frequent than the Inf. Pres., the latter being used for the most part in reference to a continued action ; as, Acts xvi. 22 i/ceXevov pa^Sl^etv, xxiii. 35 iKeXevae avrov iv toj TrpaiTwpio) vXdcr- a-eaOaL, xxiii. 3 ; xxv. 21 etc. UapaKaXeiv has the Inf. Aor. in Rom. xii. 1 ; xv. 30 ; 2 Cor. ii. 8 ; Eph. iv. 1, etc. ; but the luf. Pres. in Eom. xvi. 17 ; 1 Thess. iv. 10 ; 1 Tim. ii. 1. This explains also the use of the Inf. Aor. after ctoi/aos and h/ iroiim iX^Lv (in reference to the future), as in 2 Cor. x. 6; xii. 14; 1 Pet. i. 5 ; Acts xxi. 13, which is more frequent than the Inf Pres. The former is on the whole rare Iq Greek authors ; yet of Dion. H. III. 1536 (Joseph, antt. 12, 4, 2 ; 6, 9, 2). In the N. T. irpiv also is uniformly used with the Inf Aor. ; and when vpiv refers to the future, the Inf Aor. has the mean- ing of the Put. exact. See Hm. Eurip. Med. p. 343. Whether in the N. T. the Inf. Aor. ever has the force of a Preterite, except in the use considered in 7 a., is questionable. In Rom. xv. 9 TO tOvTj vTrip iXiovi So^acrat tov 6i6v this might seem at first to be the case, as the Inf. depends on Xiyw vs. 8 (Mdv. S. 187) and corresponds to 312 S' Perfect yeyevrja-dai, while Paul would certainly have expressed continuous Jth el. glorifying by a Present. Probably, however, he merely wished to express the act of glorifying without reference to time at all. Likewise in 2 Cor. vi. 1 it is not necessary to take Seiacrdai as a Preterite, as even Mey. does [yet not in the later editions], though the connection which Fr. Rom. III. 241 suggests between vi. 1 and v. 20 is somewhat far-fetched. Probably in later Greek the Inf. Perf quite superseded the Inf Aor. in such cases, as being more expressive ; see p. 334 below, no. 7, end. The Inf. Present is generally employed to express an action just taking place, or (in itself or its results) continuing, or frequently repeated ; as, Jno. ix. 4 ifjs Set ipyd^eadai to, epya tov Tri/x^jravro'; /46, vii. 17 edv Tt? diXrj to 0iXijfj,a aiiTOv Trotelv, xvi. 12 ov Svvaade ^aa-Ta^eiv dpri, iii. 30 ; Acts xvi. 21 ; xix. 33 ; Gal. vi. 13 ; 1 Cor. XV. 25 ; 1 Tim. ii. 8 ; Tit. i. 11 ; Phil. i. 12. Hence it is used in general maxims; as, Luke xvi. 13 ovSeU ot/cer??? hvvarai, Svai Kvpioi^ 349 BovXeveiv, Mark ii. 19 ; Acts v. 29 ; Matt. xii. 2, 10 ; Jas. iii. 10, etc. Verbs of believing, are construed with the Inf. Pres. to ex- press something which already exists or at least has already com- menced (Hm. Sopli. Oed. C. 91) ; as m 1 Cor. vii. 36 ; Phil. i. 17 (16). See Ast, Plat. legg. p. 204. As to KeXevecv with the Inf. Pi'es. see above. If this distinction is not always rigorously observed where it might be expected, this may be explained by the circumstance that in many cases it depends entirely on the writer whether he § 44. THE INFESriTIVE. 333 will represent an action as continuing, or as transient and occupy- 298 ing only a point of the past (cf. Luke xix. 5 ; Matt. xxii. 17) ; and fi'h «i by the fact that some writers are negligent in such matters. Hence in parallel passages we sometimes find the Inf. Aor. and Inf Pres. employed in the same relation; as, Matt. xxiv. 24 cf. Mark xiii. 22 ; Matt. xiii. 3 cf. Luke viii. 5, also Jude 3. The like occurs even in the better Greek authors ; as, Xen. Cyr. 1, 4, 1 el' n tov /SatrtXew? SioiVTO, Toix! •iralBa? iiceXeuov tov Kvpov ZelaOai SiaTrpd^aadai aiplcri, • 6 Se Kvpo<;, el BeoivTO aiiTov ol 7ralBe<;, irepl iravTo^ eVotetro SoaTrpaTTecrOai, 6, 1, 45 ■^v ifie ida-r]v et? tov iroXefiov epyayp iroir/aaaOai Tt? /3ovXoito crvvepyov'i irpoOvfjLov^ (cf. Poppo in loc), Demosth. Timocr. 466 a. fiT) i^elvai Xva-ai (iTjSiva (vo/jLov), iav jxi) iv vofj,o6eTai<;, Tore 8' e^elvat TO) ^ovXofieva . . . Xveiv.^ Cf. also Arrian. Al. 5, 2, 6. We find a perceptible distinction, however, between the Inf. Pres. and the Inf. Aor. in parallel clauses e.g. in Xen. C. 5, 1, 2. 3 ; Mem. 1, 1, 14; Her. 6, 177 etc., see Mtth. 944; Weber, Demosth. 195, 492. In the N. T. cf. Matt. xiv. 22 rjvojyKaae t, etc. In the Codd. of Greek authors the Inf. Pres. and Inf. Aor. are not unfrequently interchanged, see Xen. C. 2, 2, 13 ; Arrian. Al. 4, 6, 1 ; Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 904, 941, etc. So likewise in the N. T., cf. Jno. X. 21 ; Acts xvi. 7 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 35 ; 1 Thess. ii. 12. The preceding remarks will also account for the use of the Inf. Aor. after hypothetical clauses, as in Jno. xxi. 25 anva, iav yfia.rjTaL KaO ev, ov8i avrov olfjiaL TOV KoafjLov ^((oprjcraL nan comprehensurum esse, where some unneces- 350 sarily would insert av ; cf. Isocr. Trapez. 862 ; Demosth. Timoth. 702 a. ; Thuc. 7, 28 ; Plat. Protag. 316 c. (in some of which cases, it is true, d with the Opt. precedes). The expression is more confident (without ov), see Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 43 ; cf. Losner, obs. p. 162 sq. The Inf. Fut. (that is, also without dv, cf. Hm. partic. dv p. 187) is not singular in such constructions, Isocr. ep. 3 p. 984. As to the construction of /^eXkeiv, in particular, with the Inf, that verb in Greek authors is most frequently used with the Inf. Fut. (cf also Ellendt, Arrian. Al. II. 206 sq.), more rarely with the Inf. Pres. (cf Dion. H. IV. 2226, 8 ; Arrian. Al. 1, 20, 13 ; 5, 21, 1, and Kriiger, Dion. p. 498). 334 § 44. THE INFINITIVE. This, however, is not very surprising as the notion of futurity is already implied in /jteWeiv, and the construction is analogous to that of ikTri^cw. It is still more rarely used with the Inf. Aor. (Plat. apol. 30 b. ; Isocr. Callim. p. 908 ; Thuc. 5, 98 ; Paus. 8, 28, 3 ; Ael. 3, 27). This last con- struction, indeed, some ancient grammarians (e.g. Phrynich. p. 336) pro- nounce to be un-Greek, or rather un-Attic ; but they have been thoroughly 299 confuted with a considerable number of undoubted examples by Bdckh, lilli cd. Pind. Olymp. 8, 32 ; Elmsley, Eurip. Heracl. p. 1 17 ; Bremi, Lys. p. 745 if., cf. also Hm. Soph. Aj. p. 149. In the N. T. we most frequently find after fjLeXkeiv, a. the Inf. Pres. (in the Gospels always) ; only in a few passages, b. the Inf. Aor., and that mostly in reference to transient actions, as in Rev. iii. 2 yueXXct dTro^aveiv, iii. 16 /i. t/xc'crat, xii. 4 fi. tskcIv, Gal. iii. 23 Trjv fj-cXXcnia-av manv a.7roKa.Xvij>6rjvai, cf. Rom. viii. 18 (but 1 Pet. v. 1) ; c. more rarely the Inf. Fut., viz. in Acts xi. 28 Xt/^ov fjiiyav /AeAAeii/ lo-eo-^ai, xxiv. 35 dvdiTTacriv iJ.fWtiv tcrea-Oai viKplov^ xxvii. 10 (xxiv. 25). The Perfect Inf. is frequently employed, especially in narration, to denote a past event in its relation to present time ; as, Acts xvi. 27 e/ie\X£v eavrov avaipeiv, vofii^oyv eKire^ev^kvai Toii? Secr/xiov^ had fled, and accordingly were away, xxvii. 18 SofaKre? t^9 vpode- creoj? KeKpaTTj/eivai they had (already) obtained their purpose (and were thus in possession of the advantages), viii. 11 ; xxvii. 9 ; xxvi. 32 ; Heb. xi. 3 ; Rom. iv. 1 ; xv. 8, 19 ; Mark v. 4 ; Jno. 314 xii. 18, 29 ; 2 Tim. ii, 18 (1 Pet. iv. 3) 2 Pet. ii. 21. In several ™ M. of these passages, after verbs of saying, supposing, thinking, a Greek author woxild perhaps have considered the Inf. Aorist as sufficient, Mdv. 187. On. 2 Cor. v. 11 see p. 331 note 2 ; as to 1 Tim. vi. 17 see § 40, 4 a. p. 273. 8. That the N. T. writers sometimes (see below, p. 338 sq.) use I'm where, according to the syntax of (the wntten) Greek prose, simply the Inf. (Pres. or Aor., not the Perf.) should be expected, was 351 correctly admitted by the earlier biblical philologists, but has been resolutely denied by Pr. (exc. I. ad Matt., yet see Rom. III. 230), whom Mey., and almost nobody else liitherto, has followed.^ lu such phrases as the following, Matt. iv. 8 ehre, Iva 01 \ldoi ovroi dpToi yevavTM, xvi. 20 BiecrTeiXaro tol<; iJiadrjraX^, 'iva fj/rfitvl ei7ra)aiv etc., and particularly Mark v. 10 irapeKoXei avrov •jroXkd, 'iva p-r) avTovrogo, inas- much as the object of the command, request etc. is always something to be accomplished, and therefore the purpose of the person com- manding or beseeching,^ Traces of this use of iva already occur 315 in writers of the xotvij. That is to say, in these writers, ^"1 'i a. "Iva after verbs of desiring and beseecJiing alraadj begins to pass over into a that of the objective clause ^ ; as in Dion. H. I. 215 herjaeaOat, t^? 6ir/aTpoa\r]v 'Icodvvov to be rendered : I ivill in order that thou give me? What is the proper object of choice here ? Is it not the obtaining of John's head ? Why then that circumlocution ? And how affected it would be to render Mark ix. 30 ovk fjOeKev "va rt? lyvS), he would not, in order that any one should Icnow ! That nobody should know was precisely his object of choice. Cf. also Acts xxvii. 42 /3ov\ri eykvero, Xva tov'; he(TpMTa vh, ypdp.iv. In the above passages, therefore, the modern Greek translator has almost always retained the "[va in the form vi. § 44. THE INFINITIVE. 337 (Sir. xliv. 18), and, as an isolated instance of the commence- ment of such construction among the Greeks, Teles in Stob. serm. 95 p. 524, 40 tVa Zeii<; yevrjraL i-TnOvfiij&ei. Under this head comes also TToieiv "va in Jno. xi. 37 ; Col. iv. 16 ; Rev. iii. 9 (analogous to iroielv TOW with Inf., see above, no. 4) aud huBovai, 'iva in Mark X. 37 ; see Krebs in loc. Lastly, C. In Matt. X. 25 apKerov tw naOrjry, 'iva '^ev'qTai cu? 6 SiSatr^aXo? avTov, does the interpretation satis sit discipulo non superare magis- trum, ut ei possit par esse redditus seem easy and agreeable ? Cf. Jno. i. 27 ; vi. 7 ; Matt. viii. 8 (Inf. Matt. iii. 11 ; 1 Cor. xv. 9 ; Luke XV. 19, etc.). In John iv. 84 ejjiov ^pcofid ia-riv, "va ttoku to dekrjfia tov TreiJ,-^avT6<; fie does the use of ha seem to be completely justified by the translation mens victus hoc continetur studio, ut Dei satisfaciam voluntati ? In that case tnrovBd^eiv ha must have been the ordinary and most natural construction. That in Jno. XV. 8 the clause with 'iva cannot express the design with which God glorifies himself (Mey.), has already been shown by Liicke; cf. also xvii. 3. To resolve also Matt, xviii. 6 av/jt,ipei avrm, ha Kpe/j,aa0f} ^v\o? oviko^ . . . kuI KaTairovTicrOfi etc. into crii/i. avrm KpejjiacyQrjvai (jlvKov ov. ... ha Kara-Trovr. etc. (by an attraction), would, 1 greatly fear, be generally thought very forced. And Meyer's opinion is too manifestly a shift. See also Luke xvii. 2 ; 302 Jno. xi. 50 ; xvi. 7 ; 1 Cor. iv. 2, 8 ; Phil. ii. 2 ; likewise Luke Citcil. i. 48 irodev /j,ot rovro, ha e\9rj 37 f^rjTTjp tov Kvpiov etc.,^ on which passage Hm. partic. av p. 135 remarks : fuit haec labantis linguae quaedam incuria, ut pro infinitivo ista constructione titeretur. In fact, in all these phrases every unprejudiced scholar must perceive that the clause with ha contains what, in classical Greek, would have been expressed by the simple Inf (Mtth. 1235), just as iu Latin (especially of tlie silver age) aeqmim est ut, mos est ut, expedit ut was employed, where the mere Inf. (as subjeftt) would liave been sufficient, see Zumpt S. 522. Sometimes the construction 817 with 'ha and that with the Inf. are found connected, as in 1 Cor. '''"J ix. 15 KoXhv •yap fwi fiaWov dtroQavelv, rj to Kau^rjfid jmov 'ha tl<; KevaxTTj, where it is easy to perceive what led the apostle to alter the construction ; yet in this passage the 'ha is not fully estab- lished. Thus the traces of the ancient function of the particle of design still exhibited in the examples adduced under a., and even under b. also, have entirely disappeared in the passages last illus- ' Analogous is Arrian. Epictet. 1, 10, 8 jrpaiT(Ji' ^o-tic, ha eyii Koifirieii. Cf. bcjiilc.*, Acta apocr. p. 8, 15, 29. 338 § 44- THE INFINITIVE. trated. And so we see how modern Greek, gradually extending the usage, forms every Infin. by means of vd. How far popular Greek had already declined in the second century, appears from many parts of Phryn., and in particular p. 15 sq. Lobeck's ed. "What Wyttenbach, Plutarch. Mor. I. 409 Lips. (p. 517 Oxon.),has ad- duced from Greek authors to prove the alleged lax use of Iva for ojsre, is not all to the point. In TrelOetv "va (Plut. apophth. 183 a.) the verb is not regarded as supplemented by the clause with iva (by persuasion to effect that), hut as independent: to speak persuasively in order that. Ti /ioi ToiovTO (Tuviyvoi'S, Lva roiaiJrats /«•£ Ko\aK€vcrr]i rjSoval^ (Plut. fort. Alex, p. 333 a.) means : what hast thou discerned in me of the kind in order to flatter ? that is, concisely : what could lead you to flatter me ? In Adv. Colot. p. 1115 a. (240 ed. Tauchn.) ttov t^s dotK-^rov to j3il3Xiov typacjiiv, Tva ... fjuTj Tots iKeivov crvvrdyfjiaa-iv ivrvx'l'S, what was properly but result is attributed to the writer as design ; so we too say : In what desert then did he write his book, to keep you from obtaining it ? • In Liban. decl. 17 p. 472 ovSct's iaTLV ot«enjs Trovijpo's, iva KpiO-ij rrji MaxeSoVcov SouXetas a^ios Iio slave is bad, in order to be judged worthy, — "va is not used for w? after an intensive (so bad as to be), but denotes the design which the slaves' Trovrjpia might have occasioned see § f-S, 10, p. 4(51. These passages are not exactly parallel to the above constructions from the N. T., but they exhibit the gradual transition to them. The phrase opa oVco'? does not come under .this head, and the oTrws also after verbs of beseeching, commanding, etc. '(Matt. viii. 34 ; ix. 38 ; Luke vii. 3 ; x. 2 ; xi. 37 ; Acts xxv. 3 ; Philem. 6, 'etc.), which is not uncommon in Greek authors (Schaef Demosth. III. 416 ; Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 439 ; Holwerda, emendatt. Flav. p. 96 sq.), 303 is usually otherwise explained, Mtth. 1231 ; Rost S. 648. Yet see Titt- 6th ei mann, Synon. II. 59. * Further, John's use of ha (cf Lijcke I. 603, II. 632 f , 667 f ) deserves special attention ; in particular where "va refers complementally to a demonstrative pronoun. Tvi'O cases are to be distinguished : S55 a. 1 Jno. iii. 11 avrri ia-rlv tj ayyeXia, iva d-yaTrtofiti' that we should love, vs. 23, cf. vi. 40. Here the telic force of "va is clearly discernible (in the manner stated above p. 334 sq.), as in iv. 34 i[j.bv j3pSifji,d ia-nv "va ttoioI to OeXr^fia tov Trepuj/avTO'; that I may do (strive to do), vi. 29. In these passages nobody will consider lva as equivalent to oti. On the other hand, b. Jno. XV. 8 iv TOVTO) i&ii^da-drj 6 iraT-qp fiov, lva Kaprnv iroXvv ipriTt is certainly equivalent to the construction with the Inf (Iv t(3 Kapirov ttoXw 318 4'^P^'-^ vfias). The same applies to xvii. 3 avrr) Icrriv rj aluivios ^u)^, 'iva 7tli (n1. yiviiinKwa-iv etc.,' xv. 13 ; 1 Jno. iv. 17 ; 3 Jno. 4 ; like Lulpa (rov) Bo^aa-Brjvai, perhaps wsre Bo$., would have been employed.^ Cf. Ev. apocr. p. 127. As to Rom. ix. 6 oi)( olov Be on €Kiriirro>Kiv 6 Xoyos tov Oiov, where a clause with on seems to be used as a periphrasis for the Inf., see § 64, 1. 6. Note 1. It sometimes appears as if the Inf. Act. were used for the Inf. Pass. (d'Orville, Charit. p. 526) e.g. 1 Thess. iv. 9 irepl t^s ^iXoSeX^t'as ov yyieiav ?X^t£ ypa^ttv vfiuv (Heb. V. 12), but V. 1 oi ^(peiav e-X^re vfuv ypa.(f)€v \fjv)(uiv y^jiSiv fiiWeiv taeo'Sai tov ttXovv (cf. Xen. Hell. 2, 2, 2 eiSuis, on, oo'co av -irXeiov^ o-vXKiySxTLv 3Q4. es TO ao-rv, ^arTov tSv iinTrjBeLon> IvSetav imcrBai, Cyr. 1, 6, 18 ; 2, 4, 15 ; Billed. An. 3, 1, 9 ; Plato, Phaed. 63 c. ; Thuc. 4, 37), which is a blending of two 356 constructions (Hm. Vig. 500) : /xeAActv taeo^Oai tov ttXovv and on fxiXXu ea-ea-dai ttXovs. So especially after verbs sentiendi and dicendi, Schaef. ad Bast. ep. crit. p. 36 ; Ast, Plat. legg. p. 479 ; "Wyttenb. Plutarch. Moral. T. 54 ; Boissonade, Philostr. 284 and Aen. Gaz. p. 230 ; Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. p. 172 sq. This so frequently occurs in the best authors (even in short sentences, Arrian. Al. 6, 26, 10), that it almost ceased to be felt by the Greeks as an anacoluthon, and to the oTt may be attributed merely a vis monstrandi, as when it introduces the oratio directa, cf. Klotz, Devar. 319 p. 692. (Similarly Iva with the Inf 3 Esr. vi. 31.) lil^J- Note 3. A trace of the Hebrew Inf. Absol. presents itself frorii the Sept. in Matt. xv. 4 Oavdna TiXevrard) (Exod. xix. 12; Num. xxvi. 65), and in the diction of the N. T. itself in Rev. ii. 23 ciTroKTevai iv Oavdrw (cf niB^ Hi's), and Luke xxii. 15 eiriOviJLia. iiredv/xria-a, etc. So frequently in the ' The Subjunctive excludes the possibility of taking "va in these cases for v-here {Hooyev. Tpaiticl. 525 sq.) ; .%s, otherwise, it would be necessary to regard theSubj. Aor. as exactly equivalentto theFut. {Lob. Phryn. 723), Yet see Tittmann, Synon. II. 49 sq. 340 § 45. THE PARTICIPLE. Sept. the Inf. Absol. is expressed by the Ablative of a nomen conjugat. annexed to a verb, in a manner not altogether foreign to the Greek idiom (§ 54, 3), as in Gen. xl. 15 ; xliii. 2 ; 1. 24 ; Exod. iii. 16 ; xi. 1 ; xviii. 18 ; xxi. 20 ; xxii. 16 ; xxiii. 24 ; Lev. xix. 20 ; Num. xxii. 30 ; Deut. xxiv. 15 ; Zeph. i. 2 ; Ruth ii. 11 ; Judith vi. 4 (test. patr. p. 634). See, in general, Thiersch p. 1 69 sq. How in still other passages the Sept. expresses the Inf. Absol., see below, § 45, 8, p. 364. Note 4. There is nothing singular in a concurrence of several Infinitives in a single sentence, one depending on another, somewhat as in 2 Pet. i. 15 (nrovSd.(Tui tKacTTOTe e^eiv vfj-cis • • • rrjv tovtoiv fjLVrjfiffjv Troietor^ai. In Greek authors three Infinitives not unfrequently occur thus in im- mediate succession ; Weber, Demosth. 351. §45. THE PARTICIPLE. 1, The verbal character of the Participle appears, partly in its directly governing the same case as its verb (Luke ix. 16 \afioov Toi/? apTovi, 1 Cor. XV. 57 to5 SiSoz^Tt rjfuv to vIko<;, Luke viii. 3 eK Tcov vTrap'^ovToyv avruK, 2 Cor. i. 23 (petSofj.evo'i vjxSiv ovk rjKOov, 1 Cor. vii. 31 ; Heb. ii. 3 ; Luke xxi. 4 ; ix. 32, etc.) ; partly in its regularly retaining the element of time, which can be done more 857 completely in Greek than in Latin and German on account of its copiousness in participial forms. The temporal force of the parti- ciples corresponds, moreover, to the observations made in § 40 upon tlie separate tenses. The simple and ordinary use of the Participle is exemplified, » a. of the Present, in Acts xx. 23 ro irvev^ia Siaf^apTvperai fwi, "Keyov etc., Rom. viii. 24 eXttW j3\eTro/xevrj ovk ea-riv e'XTrt?, 1 Tliess. ii. 4 060) Ta> SoKtfid^ovTi Ta? KaphLat;, 1 Pet. i. 7 ■ypvcrlou tov uttoXXv- p,evov,Iieh.\i\. 8 — something now present or uniformly occurring at all times (Schoem. Plut. Agid. p. 153; Schaef. Plut. V. 211 sq.). b. of the Aorist, in Col. ii. 12 tov Oeov tov ejeipavTO'i Xpicrrov 305 eK Toiv veKp&v, Rom. v. 16 hC evoi a/j,apTi]cravTO>; (something that Cilicd. occurred once by itself), Acts ix. 21. c. of tlie Perfect, in Acts xxii. 3 avrjp yeyevvqfievo'; ev Tapcrm, ava- Te6 pap.fi.evo'i Se iv tj} TroXet TavTrj (past facts still operative), Jno. xix. 35 ecopaKcb'i /j.efuipTvpr]Kep, Matt, xxvii. 37 eiredrjKav • ■ • Tr]v aiTiav aiiTov yeypafj.iMevrjv, Acts xxiii. 3 ; 1 Pet. i. 23 ; 2 Pet. ii. 6; Jno. V. 10; vii. 15; Epli. iii. 18. d. of the Future (rare in the N. T.) in 1 Cor. xv. 87 ov to aw/Ma 320 TO yevqaojievov o-Tretpet?, viewed from the past, Heb. iii. 5 MwtioTj? 1th el § 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 341 'KKTTO'i - . . CO? Oepdirwv et? jiapTvpiov Ttliv \aKr]67]aofjieva)v of those things which luere to be spoken (revealed) ; of. Acts viii. 27 ; xxiv. 11 ; Luke xxii. 49. Moreover, the Present Participle is used a) for the Imperf. in connection with a past tense ; as, Acts xxv, 3 irapeicaXow avrov alrov/jkevoi ^(upiv, Rev. xv. 1 elhov dyyekov^ kina e'xpvra^ irXriyd'; , Heb. xi. 21 'laKa/S diroOvrjaKaiv . . . rjuKoyrjaev, Acts vii. 26 wrjfji,ov. Cf. Aristot. rhet. 2, 10, 13, ttjoos tov<; fiMpiocTTov ovras, Lucian. dial. mar. 13, 2 oij/k ^i^AoTUTrcts vTrepoTrrrji ■TrpuTepov 358 wv. But in Jno. iii. 13 \o's Siv apn /SXctto) is probably : f being blind (from my infancy), a blind man ; only in so far as a reference to a previous condition is included in apn, can it perhaps also be translated, whereas F was. An undoubted Present occurs in 1 Cor. ix. 19 ikevde.pov h T(p ovp., in the signification of qui erat in coelo, would nearly coincide in sense with i 4k tov oip. Karapds. It must here, however, denote something special and more emphatic, and a climax in these predicates is not to lie overlooked. Yet i iiv does not form a third predicate co-ordinate with the two others, but is, as LUcke cor- rectly observes, explanatory of the predicate o vttts toC icSp. 342 § 45. THE PARTICIPLE. a. with a Pres. or Imperat., as Rom. xv. 23 -n-opivo/jiaL SiaKovdv rots a-yiots (the BiaKovelv begins simultaneously with the journey), 1 Pet. i. 9 ayaAAiao-^e . . . KofLiZ,6it,(.voL as receiving (they are so already in the assurance of faith), Jas. ii. 9. As to 2 Pet. ii. 9 see Huther. ~b. with an Aor. (Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 234), as 2 Pet. ii. 4 Trape'SuKci/ ci; 321 "P'-f'-v Tripovfi.ivov<; as those who are kept (contemplated from a present point 3th eJ. of view), Acts xxi. 2 eipovres ttXoIov Sixnrepuiv tis ^owiKfjV on her passage to, bound for (Xen. Eph. 3, 6 in.), Luke ii. 45 viria-Tpitj/av cts 'lepovv. dra- ^TjTovvTi^ avTov Seeking Mm (which began already on the way back), Mark viii. 11 ; X. 2 (Fut. Part, in reference to an action only purposed. Acts xxiv. 17 ; XXV. 13). c. with a Perf., as Acts xv. 27 a.ire(TTdXKap.€v 'lov&av /cat 2tA.av . . . ttTrayycXXovTas to, avrd announcing, with the announcement (they assumed the character of announcers simultaneously with their entrance on their journey), 1 Cor. ii. 1 ; Demosth. Dionys. 739 c. ; Pol. 28, 10, 7. In 2 Pet. iii. 11 TovToiv iravTctiv Xvoi^ei/iav means, since all these things are dissolving, that is, are by their nature destined for dissolution ; the doom of dissolution is already as it were inherent in them. AvOtiaop.anav would express only mere futurity : as their dissolution will at some time take place. The Apostolic (Pauline) terms ol d.TroXKvp.€voi, oi o-w^d/xevoi (subst.) denote : 859 those who are perishing, those who are becoming saved etc., not merely at some future time but already, inasmuch as they refused to believe and therefore are the prey of eternal death. As to Acts xxi. 3, see no. 5, d. with a Conjunct, exhortat., as Heb. xiii. 13 £^epp(uJ/Ae6a . . . tov ovuhurphv avTov (j>ipovT€'i, where the bearing etc. is anne^ced directly to the H^px-> whereas the Fut. Part, would have removed it to some indefinite and distant time. Cf. also 1 Cor. iv. 14. Still less can the Pres. Part, take the place of the Aorist. In 2 Cor. x. 14 oil yap (lis fjir] icj)iKvovp,evoi eh vp,as vTr€peKT€Lvop,€v iavYovs means : as though we reached not unto you (which, however, is the case). In 2 Pet. ii. 18 aTToc^evyoi/Tas, which Lchm. has already adopted, denotes that the escaping has only just begun ; such persons are most liable to be misled. As to Eph. ii. 21 and iv. 22, see Meyer. The Aorist Part., in the course of a narration, expresses either a simiiltaneotis action (Krii. 155), Acts i. 24 •n-po'iev^dfievoL ehrov praying they said (the prayer follows), Rom. iv. 20; Eph. i. 9; Col. ii. 13; Phil. ii. 7 ; 2 Pet. ii. 5; or a j)rcviously past action, where we should expect the Plup., Matt. xxii. 25 6 Trpwro? ja/i^a-a^ ereXevTTjae, Acts v. 10 ; xiii. 51 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4; Eph. i. 4 f. ; ii. 16. If the principal verb refers to something future, the Aor. Part, is equivalent to the Latin Put. exact. ; as, 1 Pet. ii. 12 'iva . . . e« t&v Ka\S)V epyav iiroTTTeixravTe'; ho^daaaiv tov 6e6v, iii. 2 ; Epli. iv. 25 dirodi/iepoi, to ■yjrevBo'i \aXelTe dX?;^etai',Mar.'2: xiii. 13 ; Acts xxiv. 25 ; § 45, THE PARTICIPLE. 343 Rom. XV. 28 ; Heb. iv. 3 ; Hm. Vig. 774. Likewise the Perf. Part, has sometimes in narration the sense of a Plup. ; as, Jno. ii. 9 oi SiAkovoi i^Betaav oi rjvrK'qKOTe';, Acts xviii. 2 evpiov 'lovBalov . . . Trpo?- ^aroj? eXrjXvdoTa d-Tro t. 'IraXta?, Heb. ii. 9 ; E,ev. ix. 1. The Aor. Part, never stands for the Fut. Part. : — not in Jno. xi. 2 (where the Evangelist alludes to an event long past, which he narrates for the first time in chap, xii.) ; also not in Heb. ii. 10, where dyayoVra 307 refers to Christ sojourning in the flesh, who even while on earth led many 6tli eil. to glory (a work which began v'dh his very appearance). As to Heb. 322 ix. 1 2 see below, 6. It is a misuse of parallel passages to translate Mark '"' *'• xvi. 2 avaTiiXavToi toC rjXiov : as the sun rose (so Ebrard still), because Jno. XX. 1, cf. Luke xxiv. 1, has (tkotIxk; en ova~r;?. Such minute discrep- ancies in the gospels one must have the courage to tolerate. As to Jno. vi. 33, 50 apTOi 6 KaTa/Saivtov Ik tov oipavov, compared with apros o (Caracas £K TOV oipavov in verses 41, 51, see Lucke. Neither is the Aor. Part, vised for the Perf. Part, in 1 Pet. i. 13. The Perf. Pass. Part. KaTcyi/cocr/iei/os in Gal. ii. 11 is erroneously rendered 360 reprehendendus. According to grammar and the context it means blamed, see Mey. Likewise in Rev. xxi. 8 c/SSeXvy/tteVos is abominated. On the other hand, in Heb. xii. 18 the Pres. Part. ij/rjXaxjxoiJbevov denotes touchable, for what is touched has the property of touchableness, as to. ^Xen-ofieva means things visible. Cf. Kritz, Sallust. II. 401 sq. Aor. and Perf. Participles are connected and the distinction between them maintained: 2 Cor. xii. 21 tZv TrporifiapTT^Karrtov k. p-ij p.eTavorjcrd.vT(av, 1 Pet. ii. 10 01 ovKriXerjp.ivoi vvv 8e iXerjOevre^ (Sept.) — the former denoting a state, the latter a fact. As to 1 Jno. v. 18 see Liicke ; cf. EUendt, Arrian. Al. I. 129. The connection of the Pres. Part, and the Aor., as in Jno. xxi. 24 ; Heb. vi. 7, 10, or of the Perf. Part, and the Pres., as in Col. ii. 7, in a single proposition, hardly requires to be mentioned. 2. As respects grammatical construction, the Participle is used either a. as a complement to the principal clause, as in Matt. xix. 22 dirrjKOev Xvn-ovfievois (Rost 701) ; or b. it forms for the sake of periodic compactness a secondary clause, and can be re- solved by a relative or by a conjunction (Rost 703 ; Mtth. 1311 ff.), Jno. XV. 2 TTciv kXtj/jm fjurj (j)epov icapirov which does not hear fruit, Rom. xvi. 1 crvvia-Trifit ^oi^r)v, ovaav htdicovov, Luke xvi. 14 etc. ; Rom. ii. 27 17 uKpo^va-rla tov vofwv reXovcra if it (thereby, that it) fulfils, Acts V. 4 ou)(l fiivov aol efieve ; tvhen it remained (unsold), did it not remain thine ? Rom. vii. 3 ; 2 Pet. i. 4 ; 1 Tim. iv. 4 (Xen. M. 1, 4, 14 ; 2, 3, 9 ; Plat. Symp. 208 d. ; Schaef. Melet. p. 57 ; Mtth. 1314), Acts iv. 21 dirikvcrav avTow firjBev evpia-Kovre'; etc. because they found nothing, 1 Cor. xi. 29 ; Heb. vi. 6 (Jude 5 ; 344 § 45. THE PARTICIPLE. Jas. ii. 25), Xen. M. 1, 2, 22 ; Lucian. dial. m. 27, 8 ; Rom. i. 32 oiTive etc. 361 When Participles are used limitatively {although), this import is often 308 indicated by Kairot or Kawrep prefixed, as in Phil. iii. 4 ; Heb. iv. 3 ; v. 8 ; 6tb cd. vii. 5 ; 2 Pet. i. 12 ; cf. Xen. C. 4, 5, 32 ; Plat. Protag. 318 b. ; Diod. S. 323 3j 7 ; I7j 39. Sometimes this meaning is made prominent by an antithetical ■ o/t(us (Kru. 202) , 1 Cor. xi v. 7 Ojoioos to. aij/v)(a. tpwvrjv SiSocTa . . . iav Siaa-ToXijv jxy] 8u, TTcls yvuifrdrjCTiTai to avA.ovju.6vov etc. things without life, although giving out sound, will nevertheless not be understood, unless etc. 3. The connecting of two or more Participles in different rela^ tions (co-ordinate or subordinate one to another) without the copula Kai with one and the same principal verb, is particularly frequent in the narrative style. This takes place not only, a. When one Participle precedes, and another follows, the finite verb, as Luke iv. 35 plijrav avrb rb Saifioviov eh fikcrov i^ijXdev air avTov, fj/TjBev ^Xd^^av avrov throming him down (after he had thrown him down), the evil spirit came out of him without doing him any harm, x. 30 ; Acts xiv. 19 ; xv. 24 ; xvi. 23 ; Mark vi. 2 ; 2 Cor. vii. 1; Tit.ii.l2f.; Heb.vi.6; x.l2f; 2 Pet. ii. 19 (Lucian. Philops. 24, and Peregr. 25) ; but more frequently, b. When the Participles immediately follow one another without a copula, as Matt, xxviii. 2 ar/yeXo<; Kvpiov KaTa^a<; i^ ovpavov, irpaeXOutv d-jreKvXicre tov \l6ov etc.. Acts v. 5 aKovuiv ^Avavla<; Toi)<; X07011? T0UT0K9, weamv i^e\jrv^e, Luke ix. 16 Tui^mv Toix; irevre dpTovs . . . , dva^eyjra<; et? tov ovpavov ei/Xoyrjaev, 1 Cor. xi. 4 Tra? dvrjp Trpo'iev')(pfievo'i f) •7rpo<^r)Tevaiv Kajd Ke<^aXrj'; e-^av, KaTaia')(wei etc. every man that prayeth or prophesieth with his head covered etc.. Luke vii. 37 f.; xvi. 23; xxiii.48; Acts xiv. 14; xxi. 2; xxv. 6; Mark i. 41; v. 25-27; viii.6; Qo\.i.2>i.ev')(api,aTovti,ev...'n-po<;ev)(i- fievoi . . . dKovaavTe<; while we pray, . . . since (after) we heard, 1 The^s^. i. 2 f. ; Heb. i. 3 ; xi. 7 ; xii. 1 ; 1 Cor. xv. 68 ; Jno. xiii. 1 f. ; Col. § 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 345 ii. 13 ; Phil. ii. 7 ; Philem. 4 ; Jude 20, etc. Nothing is more fre- quent in Greelc authors, cf. Xen. Hell. 1, 6, 8 ; Cyr. 4, 6, 4 ; Plato, rep. 2, 366 a. ; Gorg. 471 b. ; Strabo 3, 165 ; Lucian. asin. 18 ; Alex. 19 ; Xen. Bph. 3, 5 ; Alciphr. 3, 43 in. ; Arrian. Al. 3, 30, 7 ; see Heiudorf, Plat. Protag. p. 562 ; Hm. Eurip. lo p. 842 ; Stallb. Plat. Phileb. § 32, and Plat. Euthyphr. p. 27 ; Apol. p. 46 sq. ; Boisson. Aristaenet. p. 257 ; Jacob ad Lucian. Tox. p. 43 ; EUendt, Arrian. Al. II. 322, etc. (In several passages sometimes a smaller and sometimes a greater number of Codd. have the copula ical, as in Acts ix. 40 ; Mark xiv. 22, etc.) The Participles stand otherwise related to each other in Luke ii. 12 eup^qa-ere /ipioi icnrapya.v ; then we have two unconnected clauses side by side : I thank God, I speak more than you all (for that I speak more than you all), cf. Bornem. Xen. conv. p. 71. The Cod. Alex, omits both \a\ai* and Ka)i.a. 44 346 § 45. THE PARTICIPLE. speaking), cf. Her. 9, 79 ; Acts xvi. 34 rp/oKKida-aTO •n-eTria-TevKoxi Tw Oem (Eurip. Hipp. 8 ; Soph. Phil. 882 ; Luciau. paras. 3 ; fug. 12 ; Dion. H. IV. 2238) ; but Rom. vii. 13 does not come under this head, see Eiick. cf. Heusing. Plut. paedag. p. 19 ; Under b. Luke viii. 46 ir^o) eyvav hvvafj.iv i^eXrjXvdvlav (Thuc. 1, 25 jv6vTe<; . . . ovSe/Miav cy(f)l(riv cnro KepKvpa<; rtficopiav oScrav, Xen. C. 1, 4, 7, see Monk, Eurip. Hipp. 304 and Alcest. 152),^ Heb. 363 xiii. 23 yivmaKere tov aSeXo, after Casaubon. ad Athen. p. 452, would render fiavBdifOva-i by Solent; but he has not observed that this meaning belongs only to the Preterite. * Under this head comes also Dio Chr. .5.5, 558 6 'SaKpdrris on ph ttoTs i>v ipAvBavt A,iflo|(!o« tV '■oi' »aT/)l)s rixvrtv, aiei)K6apev {Socrates learned as stone-cutter etc.). 348 § 4=5. THE PARTICIPLE. A verb of the kind specified under a. is once construed with an Adjec- tive — which cannot be thought strange, Acts xxvii. 33 Tco-o-apesKaiSeKttTjji' 365 (Trjiif.povriii.ipav irpos8oKfji€voi has not so close a correspondence to awOrjcrofieOa, that Kavxa>fieda (var.) was to have been expected ; but tlie meaning appears to be but not only shall loe be saved (simply and actually), but while we, so that we etc. (expressive of the joyous consciousness of the saved). In 2 Cor. viii. 20 (neWo/xevoi is to be connected, as to the sense, with a-vveire/itlrafiev in vs. 18. In Heb. vi. 8 e/c^e- povaa does not stand for eKop/ji.r]v StSwre? must be taken as a Part., but the foregoing clause must be under- stood as if it had run ov jap 'ypd<^ofj,ev ravra irdXiv eavrov^ pi/,ricra.v re d|iiddvju.aSoi/ els to dearpov, crvvap- TTcto-avTcs rat'ov Kot 'ApiuTap^ov means either, after they had seized along with themselves (from their quarters) or, while they seized along with them. In Luke i. 9 tXa^^v tov Ovfuaa-ai etseXfloji' ejs tov vaov tov Kupiov, the Part, probably belongs to the Inf. (as the Vulgate takes it) : entering into the temple to burn incense ; Mey. is artificial. As to Rom. iii. 23, see above, p. 352. Eom. ii. 4 requires no elucidation. Likewise the peculiarity oc- casionally found in Greek authors, according to which the principal notion is expressed by a Part, and the secondary by a finite verb (Mtth. 1295 f. ; Hm. Soph. Aj. 172; Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 136), has by some been un- warrantably forced upon the N. T. ; such critics having quite forgotten that the usage in question could not occur independently of any limitation involved in the nature of the ideag to be expressed. To explain 2 Cor. V. 2 &Te.vd^op,£V . . . iirLTroOovUfes as put for iTrmoBovjxev trrevci^ovTEs is emi- nently infelicitous ; the Part, must be regarded as subjoined to the verb, and explained as causal like a-Tevd^ofxev Papovp^voi in vs. 4. 7. The Present Part, (with the Article) is often used substan- tively, and then, as a noun, excludes all indication of time. In Eph. iv. 28 6 KXeirToov fMTjKeTi, KKeTneTto is not for 6 KXi^jrai; (as some Codd. have) ; but, let the stealer i.e. the thief steed no more, Heb. xi. 28. So also when it is accompanied with an Ace. of the Object, or other adjuncts ; as, Gal. i. 23 6 Suukwv rj/jid'i ttots our former persecutor, Matt, xxvii. 40 6 kutoXvcov tov vaov the destroyer of the temple (in his imagination), Rev. xv. 2 ol viKcjpre'; eic tov dijplou (which Eichhorn, Binl. N. T. II. 378, mentions as singular!), XX. 10 ; Gal. ii. 2 (ot SoKovvTe<; see Kypke II. 274 ; cf. also Pachym. 382 1. 117, 138, etc.) ; 1 Thess. i. 10 ; v. 24 ; 1 Pet. i. 17 ; Rom. v. 17 ; '"■ "''■ Jno. xii. 20 (xiii. 11) ; cf. Soph. Antig. 239 ovt elSov o?Tt? fjv 6 Spwv, Pans. 9, 25, 6 OTroid ianv avTOL<; Kal ry /j/rjTpl ra Bpoi/Meva, Diog. L. 1, 87 fipahewi iy'x,6ipei T0t<; trpaTTo/ievot'; (faciendis), Soph. Blectr. 200 o ravra irpda-acov, Plat. Cratyl. 416 b. 6 ra ovofiara ndei€povTa t^s -iroXecos); see Lob. Soph. Aj. 238 sq.; Held, Plut. Aem. p. 252. 8. In quotations from the Old Test, a Part, is occasionally con- .nected with some person of the same verb (and placed before it) ; ;as. Acts vii. 34 IScav elSov from Exod. iii. 7 (cf. Lucian. dial. mar. 4, 3), Heb. vi. 14 evXoycav evKoyijaco ere koX TrXrjdvvajv ifK'qdvvS) ae (from Gen. xxii. 17), Matt. xiii. 14 pkeTrovre^ /SXei/rere (from Isa. vi. 9). This construction is extremely frequent in the Sept., as. Judges i. 28 ; iv. 9 ; vii. 19 ; xi. 25 ; xv. 16 ; Gen. xxvi. 28 ; xxxvii. 8, 10 ; xliii. 6 ; Exod. iii. 7 ; 1 Sam. i. 10 ; iii. 21 ; xiv. 28 ; 1 Kings xi. 11 ; Job vi. 2 ; Ruth ii. 16 ; 1 Mace. v. 40 ; Judith ii. 13 (see Thiersch p. 164 sqq.), and is a Hellenizing of the Hebrew Inf. Absolute (Ewald, krit. Gr. 560 if.), though the LXX, once .accustomed to the construction, sometimes employ it even where the Hebrew contains no Inf. Absol., as in Exod. xxiii. 26. This mode of expression, however, was judiciously chosen, although in Greek prose, with the exception of that isolated Ihmv elBov in Lucian, no perfectly satisfactory parallels can be shown (Georgi, vind. p. 196 sq. has mixed together things dissimilar) ;i for in tlie instances 1 Some passageshave been quoted according to erroneous readings. Plat. Tim. 30c. runs thus : tivituv ^iap airhv cis inoi6ri\Ta S fucicrTtkr ^wlarTitre, Likewise Plat. Lach. 185 d. aKmotiiievoi aKoirovnev is questioned by recent critics, and Mtth. 1301 proposos to read : aKoirovixev & a-Ko-iroviiet'. Yet the singularity here consists more in the con- nection of the Middle and Active. § 45. THE PARTICIPLE. 355 apparently corresponding the Part, carries its own idea, as in Her. 333 5, 95 tf>€vy(ov eK^evyei fuga evadit (Diod. Sic. 17, 83), and still ^c"!- more in Xen. Cyr. 8, 4, 9 viraKoiKov a-xpXfj inrijKova-a,''- Liician. 372 parasit. 48 (ftevyav meWev . . . el<; t. Tavpeov TraXaia-Tpav Karecfivye, see Gataker de stylo c. 9 ; ^ Lob. paralip. p. 522. The later wri- ters are the first to imitate this construction, as Anna Alex. 3, 80 ; Euseb. H. E. 6, 45. Originally this Participle implied an emphasis, though subsequently it may have become weakened. In the three 318 passages quoted above, this emphasis is perceptible. We express Sib cd it by the voice and the position of the words, or by a corresponding abverb, etc. : well have I seen, — surely (richly ?) will I bless thee, — with your own eyes shall ye see, etc. Acts xiii. 45 is a construc- tion of another sort : 01 'lovBaioi avriXeyov rot? vtto tov HavKov 'keyofievoK, dvTiXerfovTei koX ^aa-KfyrjfiovvTe^, where avreXeyov is taken up again in the Part, and strengthened by /3\aacf>. Eph. V. 5 TovTO ta-re yivu>arKovT£9 probably does not come under this head, but lore refers to what is stated in vs. 3 f., and yivuia-K. is construed with oTt: this, however, ye know, aware (considering) that, etc. That, 1 Pet. i. 10, 12 ; Acts V. 4 do not come under this rule, is obvious to every one. Finally, it passes comprehension that Kiihnol should adduce Heb. X. 37 Ipxofievos ^fet (he omits, it is true, the Article) as an instance of the above usage. Note 1. On Participles used absolutely, see § 59. Such is also tvxov, 1 Cor. xvi. 6, which is inserted in the clause as an adverb, Xen. A. 6, 1, 20; Plato, Alcib. 2, 140, etc. Note 2. Sometimes two finite verbs are so closely connected by koX, that the first has, logically, the force of a Part., e.g. Matt, xviii. 21 Troo-aKt? a/uipn^creL eii €/x« 6 aSeX^os /J-ov koI a<^7j(rio avrai, i.e. 6.)).apT7]cravTi. tcu dSeX^uj. This distribution of a single (logical) clause into two grammatical clauses is a peculiarity of Oriental diction, and is of frequent occurrence ; see § 66, 7. Note 3. Luke and Paul (still more, however, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews) are peculiarly fond of participial constructions. Paul accumulates Part, on Part. ; cf 1 Thess. ii. 15 f ; Tit. ii. 12, 13 ; 2 Cor. iv. 8-10. In narration, however, the use of Participles appears on the whole less frequent and less diversified in the N. T. than in Greek his- torical authors. The historical discourse of the N. T. runs on in simple ' It is hardly necessary to remark that the phrase iSiiK o?So (scio me vidisse) Athen. 6, 226 ; Arrian. Ind. 4, 15 does not come under this head. Cf. also ct/cosJo-as oTSo Lucian. dial. mort. 28, 1. ^ This author has rightly set aside the passage from Aeschyl. Prom. 447. But he found himself finally compelled to let the instance from Lucian. dial. mar. stand. Accordingly, viewed linguistically, it approximates the Hebrew mode of expression, a fact which Thiersch should not have questioned. 356 §46. THE PARTICLES IN GENERAL. 334 clauses (which are joined together especially by the oft-recurring Kai) nil ed. and disdains the periodic structure in which the Greeks were so expert. Yet cf. Bornem. Xen. Cyrop. p. 465. 373 CHAPTER V. THE PARTICLES. § 46. THE PARTICLES IN GENERAL. 1. Although propositions and periods can be formed by means of those inflections of the noun and verb whose syntax has been discussed in the preceding pages — (propositions, in particular, by 319 means of Cases, the use of which is so varied in Greek ; periods, 6th ed. by means of Infinitives, Participles, etc.) — yet those inflections alone do not suffice for the great diversity of relations which give origin to propositions and periods. Hence language possesses besides a vast stock of so-called particles, by whose aid it becomes possible to construct all conceivable propositions and all their con- ceivable combinations. Particles are divided, as is well-known, into Prepositions, Adverbs, and Conjunctions (Rost S. 717) ; though respecting the boundary-lines which separate these three species from each other, grammarians have not yet been able to agree. Cf., in particular, Hm. emend, rat. p. 149 ff. Interjections are not words, but sounds ; and lie quite beyond the limits of Syntax, and indeed of Grammar. 2. Without attempting to settle the dispute among' grammarians respecting the boundaries of these three classes of particles, we see at once as much as this : 1) That the classification must be made not on the basis of the words but of their signification ; as it has long been acknowledged that prepositions e.g. often assume the nature of adverbs, and vice versS. (Hm. as above, p. 161), — in fact, that the prepositions are adverbs originally. 2) That all particles either serve merely to complete the struc- ture of a simple proposition and confine their import within its 374 limits, or are designed to join one proposition to another. The latter are properly called Conjunctions; and if the grammarian § 48. THE PARTICLES IN GENERAL. 357 pays regard to the language (expressed thought) rather than to the (pure) thought, he may reckon among them the comparative particle to? (■mirep'), the particles of time (eVet, ore, oirore, etc.), the negative particle of design /a?? etc., so far forth as they are also 335 connectives ; so that these particles, according to their import, '"' "'• may be classed either as adverbs or as conjunctions. The power of adverbs and prepositions, however, is confined to the limits of a simple proposition; the structure of this they serve to complete. Prepositions denote only relations (of substantives) ; adverbs, inhe- rent attributes (of terms of quality or condition, and consequently of adjectives and verbs, inasmuch as the latter are compounded of the copula and a term of quality or condition). See, especially, Hm., as above, 152 ff. We shall perhaps never succeed in effecting a thoroughly satisfactory classification of the particles, since in this matter language practically does not coincide perfectly with the philosophical method of pure theory. Much light is shed on the relation of particles to the structure of sentences by Grotefend, Grundzuge einer neuen Satztheorie. Hannover, 1827. 8vo. ; Kriiger, Erorterung der grammat. Eintheilung und grammat. Verhaltn. der Satze. Frft. a. M. 1826. 8vo. Cf. also Werner in the n. Jahrb. f. Philol. 1834. p. 85 ff. 8. The great copiousness of the Greek language in particles, as 320 developed in the elegant literary Attic, is shared by the N. T. die- 6tli d tion to but a limited extent ; for not only was the (later) popular language of the Greeks in general more frugal in the use of par- ticles, but the N. T. authors also, as they imparted a Jewish tinge to their presentations of thought, did not feel impelled to employ the niceties of Greek composition in the structure of periods. From the nature of the case, however, while they could easily dispense with the great variety of conjunctions, they could least dispense with the prepositions. In treating of particles, N. T. Grammar, if it will avoid encroaching on the department of Lexi- cography, should not take up the particles separately and explain in detail all their various significations, but shoiild endeavor rather, primarily to give only a clear and discriminating deline- ation, of the various modifications of thought which the particles are employed to designate ; and then in every instance to point out how far these varieties of meaning have been expressed by the N. T. writers through the use of the abundant store of particles which the Greek language supplied. At the same time, however, it will take pains to exhibit in its leading traits, so far as the exist- 358 • § 47. THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC. ing State of N. T. Lexicography and Interpretation may permit, the mutual dependence of the significations of the principal parti- 375 cles, and emphatically to protest against the arbitrariness of what is called enaUage particularum. The general subject of the Greek particles had never been in anj considerable degree exhaustively treated even dovra to quite recent times, either as respects the facts (especially in reference to the various periods 336 of the language) or still less as respects their philosophy. The works of Ifted. ]yit. Devarius (Eeusmann's edition, Lips. 1793. 8vo.) and H. Hoogeveen (Amsterd. 1769. II. 4to. condensed by Schiitz, Lips. 1806. 8vo.) are no longer satisfactory, especially as they entirely omit the prepositions. On the other hand, J. A. Hartung, Lehre v. d. Partikeln der griech. Spr. Erlang. 1832 f. II. 8vo. merits recognition. Still more helpful are the acute re- searches with which R. Klotz has enriched his edition of Devarius (Lips. 1835. 1842. II. 8vo.) ; [cf also W. Baumlein, Untersuchung ub. griech. Partikeln. Stuttg. 1861. Bvo.J. Schraut, on the other hand, die griech. Partikeln im Zusammenhange mit den altesten Stammen der Sprache (Neuss, 1848), is too fanciful. A comparative treatment is given by E. A. Fritsch, vergleich. Bearbeit. d. griech. u. lat. Partikeln. Glessen, 1856. 8vo. For the biblical particles a Lexicon Particularum to the Sept. and the Apocrypha is a desideratum, as the concordances and Schleusner also in his Thesaur. Philol. have entirely omitted these words. (Bruder, as is well known, has carefully inserted the particles in his N. T. Concordance.) Tittmann's treatise on N. T. Particles (de usu particular. N. T. Cap. 1, 2, Lips. 1831. II. 4to., also in his Synonym. N. T. II. 42sqq.) is not thoroughly to be commended ; moreover it was interrupted by the death of the acute and learned author, who however did not pay due attention to the actual , usage of the language. 321 § 47. THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENEEAL.i AND SUCH AS GOVERN 6th ei THE GENITIVE IN PARTICULAR. 1. The prepositions correspond to the cases ; hence each accord- ing to its signification is connected with a particular case, viz. with that case whose primary meaning accords with the primary meaning of the preposition. Prepositions are employed where the cases are insufficient to indicate a relation (for these relations are extremely diversified), and sometimes also where a case would 376 have sufficed indeed, but on account of the variety of its uses did 1 Cf. Bm. de emend, rat. p. 161 sqq j B. G. Weishe, de praeposition. gr. comment. Gorlic. 1809 f. ; K. G. Schmidt, quaestion. grammat. de praeposition. gr. Berol. 1829. 8vo.; DSdaidn, Reden u. Aufs. II. nr. 3 ; Bhdy. S. 195 ff. ; Schneider, Vorles. S. 181 ff. § 47. THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC. 359 not appear to the speaker to be definite enough for his purpose. They are relatively more numerous in the N. T. than in Greek prose, because the apostles had not such an inherent sense as cultivated native Greeks of the extended application of the cases ; besides, the Oriental prefers the more vivid expression ; and moreover, the Hebrew-Aramaic language indicates by means of prepositions nearly all those relations which are designated in Greek by cases alone. 2. In treating of prepositions it is necessary, in the first place, 337 to seize with clearness and precision the true primary meaning of '""''• each from which all its applications emanate as from a common centre, and to trace back to this all the various shades of meaning the preposition may have assumed, — i.e. to show how the transi- tion to every such application was effected in the mind of the speaker or writer ; and secondly, to take cognizance of the case, and the necessity for it, which is joined to a given preposition, either in general or in a particular range of significations (Bern- hardi, allg. Sprachl. I. 164 f.), and in turn to make use of this knowledge in fixing the limits of the signification of the prep- ositions themselves. The former, viz. the determination of the primary meaning of the prepositions as exhibited now in their construction with the Gen. now with the Dat. etc., will set in its true light the mutual interchange of prepositions, which in the N. T. has been thought to be wholly unlimited. The latter must be performed without a passion for over-strained refinements, and with a recognition at the outset of the fact that, according to the special, and according to the more or less precise, perception of a relation to be expressed (particularly if mental), one and the same preposition may be construed with several different cases (cf. Hm. emend, rat. 163). In treating of prepositions in the N. T., it is only necessary to add first, a notice of how far later Greek, and in particular the • popular language, extended the use and import of prepositions, obliterated their nicer distinctions, and was led probably even into 822 improprieties in employing them ; further, to pay constant regard "•'' '■'^ to the Hebrew- Aramaic, which delights in the use of prepositions and presents numerous relations under aspects different from the Greek (cf. e.g. ofioaai, ev Ttvo, dTTOKreiveiv ev pofitpaia) ; and finally, not to leave out of sight the distinctively Christian view which 377 underlies the use of many prepositions (e.g. iv XpiarS or Kvpiqi) . The maltreatment of the prepositions until a few decades ago on the 360 § 47. THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC. part of N. T. philologists in Lexicons and Commentaries (e.g. Koppe's N. T.) was really horrible ; ' but it found precedent and support in the purely empirical treatment of the Hebrew prepositions current until Ewald's time, see my exeget. Stud. I. 27 ff. Wahl was the first to pursue a better course ; and almost everybody now has begun to be ashamed of the license just described. As respects in particular the comparative predominance of the Greek element and of the Hebrew-Aramaic in the use of the prepositions, it must not be overlooked, 1) that many constructions which the N. T. writers adopted through the influence of their mother tongue, occur also in Greek poets and later prose writers, so diversified is the use of the Greek prepo- 338 sitions ; 2) that though in the more Hebraistic portions of the N. T. Ith ed. (particularly in the Revelation) the exposition from the Hebrew suggests itself, yet we must not on that account explain the Greek prepositions in all the books indiscriminately by a reference to the Hebrew ; for simul- taneously with the Greek prepositions a multitude of special linguistic relations had been communicated to the Apostles, and close observation shows that as respects the relations expressed by prepositions the Apostles had already become accustomed to think in Cheek; 3) that, especially in Paul (and John), the un-Hellenic application of several prepositions (e.g. fv) is closely connected with doctrinal phraseology, and belongs to the Apostolic (Christian) element in N. T. diction. 3. The proper and the metaphorical significations of each prepo- sition must be accurately distinguished. The former always refer primarily to local relations (Bernhardi I. 290) ; and if these are conceived in great multiplicity by a nation, a corresponding multi- plicity of prepositions is the result. The simple relations of place are but two, — that of rest and that of motion (or even merely of direction, which is viewed as more or less a motion). The latter, however, comprises motion towards and motion /rom. The notion of rest is denoted by the Dative ; that of motion towards, by the Accusative ; that of motion ^om, by the Genitive. ^23 Local designations to which single prepositions correspond are, ^J^ a) of rest : in iv, by the side of Trapd, upon eVt, over iwep, under (uTTo), amid (with') fierd, before irpo, behind fierd, on (up on) dvd, about dfi^if around irepi, over against dvri; b) of (direction) motion toioards a point : into eh, towards Kurd, to tt/do?, upon inrl, to beside irapd, under vtto ; c) of (direction) motion /rom : out of eK,from diro, from under vtto, doijon from Kaid^from, beside irapd. To the last division may be referred through relating to space (Sto) 1 Tittmann, de soriptor. N. T. diligentia gramm. p. 12 (Synon. I. 207) ; nulla est, ti« repugnans quidem significatio, quin quaecunque praepositio earn in N. T. habere dicatur. § 47. THE PEEPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC. 361 (cf. Progr. de verbor. cum praeposs. compositor, in N. T. usu V. p. 3), for which the Hebrew uses ■,», and the German somethnes aus (e.g. aus dem Thore gehen). 4. Language deals at first with tlie ideas of time by taking local relations as the pattern ; hence temporal senses also are put upon most of the prepositions. Not till later does the transition ensue to immaterial, purely ideal relations, which every nation conceives under forms more or less material. This produces a correspond- ing diversity in national modes of expression. A Greek, for instance, says, Xijeiv ire pi nvo<} ; a Roman, dicere de aliqua re; a Hebrew, a la^ ; a German, iiber etwas sprechen. The first views the object as a central point which the speaker as it were encom- 339 passes (to speak about a thing) ; the Roman, as a whole of which '""«i the speaker imparts something to the hearer (^de as it were to speak off something from the object);^ the Hebrew, as the ground on which the speaker stands (to speak on something) ; the German, as something lying before the speaker over which his discourse extends (for liber governs in this connection the Accusative). The notion of origin, and consequently of cause, is most naturally implied in the prepositions from, out of (otto, vtto, irapd, e'/c) ; that of occasion, and consequently also of motive, in tt/jo?, ek (e.g. on the report), ivL with the Dat. and Std with the Ace. (on account of). Here eVt refers to the basis on which something rests ; hence we also use the word ground for reason. Design and aim expressed by to are denoted by eVt with the Dat., or by ets or irpoi with the Ace. Condition is expressed by 67^^' with the Dat., just as we say by a 379 similar metaphor : aitf Lohn Recht sprechen. The object which underlies an emotion is indicated by eVi with the Gen., as in German sich fieuen iiber (rejoice (wer), stolz sein auf (pride one's self on). To speak in reference to an object is Xeyeiv -irepi tivov avCa'i), strictly grace against, for, grace, grace in the place of that which preceded, therefore grace uninterrupted, ^mceasingly renewed. b. ^AiTo, eK, irapd, and inro, all denote issuing, proceeding from ■ — the generic import of the Genitive — but with some diversity as respects the previous mutual relation of the objects in qiiestion. Beyond doubt eK indicates the closest connection ; vrro, one less close; irapd (de chez moi, osa), and especially a-rrS,''- one still more distant. Accordingly, these prepositions may be ranged in 1 The distinction between air6 and iK is perceptible in Luke ii. 4 (cf. also Acts xxiii. 34) ; but in Jno. xi. 1 (see Likke in loc. ) and Rev. ix. 18 iTrci and 4k are employed as synonymous. Cf. also liuke xxi. 18 with Acts xxvii. 34. On the other hand, m the parallel passages Mark xvi. 3 and Luke xxiv. 2 o-tto and Ik are respectively used, — out of the door, the more precise (and suitable) expression, and (away) fiom the sepul- chre, the more loose ; see p. 362. § 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 355 the following order, proceeding from the most intimate connection to the more remote : eK, xnro, irapa, awo. Further, if merely the idea of proceedmg from is to be expressed, airo is used. If the proceeding is definitely thought of as from a person, irapd or vtto is required. If the person is to be indicated only in a general way as the point of departure, Trapd is used ; if represented strictly as the efficient, producing cause, viro is selected, and hence is the 327 regular preposition after passives. Finally, the idea of distance ^"' *••• and separation attaches itself to d-n-6 ; so that both d-n-o and etc express disjoining and removal, while these notions are not directly implied by Trapd and viro. Uapd is used properly in reference to objects proceeding from one's vicinity or sphere of power Qwapd with Gen. used antitheti- cally to TT/jo? with Ace. in Lucian. Tim. 53), e.g. Mark xiv. 43 "Trapayiverat, o-xXoi; •7to\v<; . . . irapd rav dp')(f,epewv from the chief priests (near whom, about whom, they served ; cf. Lucian. philops. 5 ; Demosth. Polycl. 710 b.), xii. 2 'iva irapd tuv yetopywv Xd^y dirb Tov Kapirov part of the produce which was in the hands of the husbandmen; Jno. xvi. 27 on iyo) irapd tov Oeov i^XOov (cf. i. 1 6 X07C9 ^v TT/jos TOV Oeov), V. 41 (Plat. rep. 10, 612 d.) ; xv. 26 ; 343 Eph. vi. 8 ; Luke ii. 1 ; 2 Pet. i. 17. Accordingly, it is joined to '"■ '^ verbs of inquiring and ashing Matt. ii. 4, 16; Mark viii. 11 ; Jno. 383 iv. 9, of learning 2 Tim. iii. 14 ; Acts xxiv. 8 (Xen. C. 2, 2, 6 ; Plat. Euth. 12 e.), the matter to be learned etc. being viewed as in some one's (mental) possession (^diro Mark xv. 45 ; Gal. iii. 2 expressing this more indefinitely ; ex Tii/o? Xen. Oec. 13, 6 with greater precision). It is only in later writers that irapd is used after Passive verbs as exactly equivalent to viro (Bast, ep. crit. p. 156, 286 ; Ellendt, Arrian. Alex. II. 172). In Acts xxii. 30 T^ KaTrjyopevrab irapd tS)v 'lovhaitou, Luke could hardly have said viro Tcbv 'lovSaieov (they had as yet laid no formal charge, had not yet taken measures for a regular prosecution), the meaning is : of what he is accused on the part of the Jews. Matt. xxi. 42 irapd Kvplov iyeveTo avTTj (Sept.) means : this is from the Lord (divinitus, through means under God's control) ; and Jno. i. 6 iyevero dvOpw- 7ro9, direcrTa\fj,evo<; irapd deov : he made his appearance, sent from God, cf. vs. 1 ^v irp6<; tov Oeov. In no passage of the N. T. do we find ■jrapa with Gen. used for Trapd with Dat., as is sometimes assumed in Greek authors (Schaef. Dion. comp. p. 118 sq. ; Held, Plut. Tim. p. 427). In 2 Tim. i. 18 €vpio-K£iv implies the notion of procuring ; (otherwise in Luke i. 30 eSpes x°-P'-^ vapa tu 6iZ 366 § 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. with God.) Mark v. 26 is to be explained by attraction ; probably, how ever, in iii. 21 ot Trap' omtov are Tiis kindred (those descended from him, those belonging to him), see Fr. in loc. cf. Susann. 33. As to Trapd in a circumlocution for the Gen. see § 30, 3, note 5. That ra Trap' vfiCiv Phil, iv. 18, and ra Trap' av™!/ Luke x. 7, are not strictly equivalent to to viiHv (ifierepa), avTwv, is obvious ; in both passages the phrase is accompanied by a verb of receiving (having received the things sent from you i.e. your presents ; eating what is set before you from (by) them). 'Ek originally denotes issuing/rom within (the compass, sphere, of) something (antithetic to eh Luke x. 7 ; xvii. 24 ; Herod. 4, 15, 10 ; Aesch. dial. 3, 11), e.g. Luke vi. 42 eK^aXe Trjv Sokov Ik lov 6cf>6aXfj,ov (it was iv rm 6(p9aXfia}), Matt. viii. 28 e/c tmv fj,v7j/u,eia)v 3?8 e^ep'xpfievot, Acts ix. 3 vepi'^a-Tpa^ev avTov 0w? e« rov ovpavov, SI'^'-Matt. i. 16 6^ ?)<; (Mapia^} ejevvv07) 'Irjaov^, vs. 3 ; 1 Pet. i. 28. Concisely in Luke v. 3 iSlBaaKev etc tov irXoiov out of the ship (speaking from on board) cf. ii. 85. Allied to this is the use of e'/c to denote the material out of tohich a thing is made, Matt, xxvii. 29 ; Rom. ix. 21 ; cf. Herod. 8, 4, 27 ; Ellendt, Arrian. Alex. I. 150 ; then, the mass or store out q/" which a thing is taken, Jiio. 384 vi. 50 Awyelv i^ aprov, Luke viii. 8 ; 1 Jno. iv. 18 ix rov 7rvevp,aTo OVK eifil sk tov a-u)/u.aTo<; ; by an opposite conception we say belong to the body. That €K never stands for Iv (as has been assumed even in Greek authors 346 occasionally, see Poppo, Thuc. 2, 7 ; 8, 62) is beyond question. As to Jlheii. the attraction in Matt. xxiv. 17 aipuv ra e/c t^? oiKtas see § 66, cf. Poppo, Thuc. III. II. 493. 'Ttto signifies from under, out from under (nnM) e.g. Hesiod. theog. 669 Zeu? .. . viro 'x^dovo'; rjKe etc. Plato, Phaedr. 230 b. I Other passages adduced (e.g. by BretecAn.) to prove that 4k mamis on account of , are to be excluded. Rom. v. 1 6 is easily referrible to the idea of source. Acts xxviii. 3 may be rendered, gliding forth out of the heat ; recent editors, however, read ottcS. § 47, PKEPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 369 It commonly accompanies Passive verbs ^ — in order to designate the subject from wliom the action proceeds, wlio liad the power, tlierefore, to do or to omit it, — and Neuter verbs also which can be used as Passives ; as, 1 Cor. x. 9 vtto twi" ocbeav dircoXovro, Matt, xvii. 12 ; 1 Thess. ii. 14 ; 2 Cor. xi. 24 ; cf. Demosth. Olynth. 3, p. 10 c. ; Lucian. Peregr. 19; Xen. Cyr. 1, 6, 45; An. 7, 2, 22 ; Lysias in Theomnest. 4 ; Pausan. 9, 7, 2; Plat. apol. 17 a. and conv. 222 e. ; Philostr. ApoU. 1, 28 ; Polyaen. 5, 2, 15, and Person, Eur. Med. p. 97 ; EUendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 880. In these instances the forces which have produced death, destruction, etc., are regarded as effi- cient causes, killing, destroying, etc. ; if, on the contrary, airo had been vised (cf. iraOeiv airo Matt. xvi. 21), they would liave been 387 designated merely as that from which a result ensued (occasional causes'). In the former case, the Active construction, the serpents destroyed, etc. might have been directly substituted ; in the latter, it would be inaccurate. Cf. the difference between ^d-jneadai airo nvo<; and v-rro Tivo' viiav, probably a.ir6 was used designedly : m your part, by you (though not solely or directly). (Both prepositions occur together in significations obviously different in Luke v. 15 according to some Codd- and in Horn. xiii. 1, cf. Euseb. H. E. 2, 6, p. 115, Heinichen.) 372 § 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. ii. 20 , Jen. xxxvi. 7 etc. ; Her. 2, 64). Acts xvi. 33 is a pregnant construction : eXovaev atro tcov TrXir/MV he washed and cleansed them from their stripes, i.e. from the blood witli which they were covered in consequence of the blows. Matt. vii. 16 is evidently, from their fruits' (objectively) will the knowledge be derived (Arrian. Epict. 4, 8, 10), — (the case is different in Luke xxi. 30 aj) eavTwv jivcoaKeje, 2 Cor. x. 7, where the subjective power wlience the knowledge comes is indicated ; d(f> kavrov, indeed, often signifying sponte'). Schleusner and Kuhnol maintain that airo denotes also 1) in, Acts 333 ^v- "^S Tov aJTOO-TcivTa air avrCiv air 6 IlaiJ.fjivkCa's who had left them in 6lli A Pamphylia. But the obvious meaning is : who had left them (as they 390 were proceeding) out of Pamphylia. This is quite different from iv II., 349 which might have implied that Marcus remained in P. but separated from Jthed. Paul, cf. xiii. 13. 2) de, Acts xvii. 2 SttXeycro avroh awo rmv ypav /jlov at (in) my prayers, 1 Thess. i. 2 ; Eph. i. 16. The import of eVi is not quite the same in Mark xii. 26 eVt tov ^citov at the bush, i.e. concisely, at the passage relating to the bush. 394 Sometimes iiri in a local sense is also used with verbs of direc- tion, and even with verbs of motion (Bhdy. 246) to, towards, forth upon; as, Matt. xxvi. 12 fiaXovaa to fivpov eVt tov aa)fj,aTo<; on (over) my body, Acts x. 11 crxeOo? rt . . . Kadikfievov iirl t?j? 7^9 let down on (to) the earth, Mark xiv. 35 eimrTev km rfj^ jfi<; upon the earth, Heb. vi. 7. So very frequently in Greek authors. Her. 1, 164 ; 2, 73. 75. 119 ; 4, 14 ; 5, 33 ; Xen. Gyr. 7, 2, 1, and Hellen. 1, 6, 20 ; 3, 4, 12 ; 5, 3, 6 ; 7, 1, 28 etc, ; Sturz, Lexic. Xen. II. 258 ; Ellendt, Arrian. Alex. I. 339 ; Wittmann, de natura et potestate praepositionis eVt. Schweinfurt, 1846. 4to. In this application eVi originally includes the notion of remaining on, upon, see Rosl 553 (somewhat differently explained in Krii. 302).^ Such passa- ges as Rev. x. 2 ; Luke viii. 16 ; Jno. xix. 19 ; Acts v. 15 (jidevai eirl TOV etc.) are traceable, like ponere in loco, to a different view of the action, h. MeTCL properly signifies among, amidst (/iecro?), Luke xxiv. 5 tL ^TjTeire tov ^atvTa fiSTo, tSiv veicpaiv ; Marki. 13. Hence it denotes with (together with), Luke V. 30 /leTa twv TeXwvaiv icrdieTe, Jno. XX. 7 ; and that in reference to personal association, Jno. iii. 22 ; xviii. 2 ; Acts ix. 39 ; Matt. xii. 42 ; Heb. xi. 9,^ and alternate action, Jno. iv. 27 XaXelv fieTo. ti,voth«(l, ^^ eXeo? /^eT e/ioO, i. 72 (ds ; probably not Acts xiv. 27), for we regard the individual towards whom kindness is shown as the object, not as the partner, of the act. But p,eTd is applied also to things, Luke xiii. 1 u>v to alfia epn^ev fieTo, twv OvaiSiv avrwv, Matt. ' This distinction was perceived by so early a writer as Bengd (on Heb. vi. 7). ^ Under this head comes also the Hebraistic vXripdinis iie ebcppoawns /ieri tov irpoidiwov aov Acts ii. 28 Sept. (T'J?"'^^); which must not be taken in a merely lot;]) signification. §47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 377 xxvii. 34, especially to express equipment, accompaniment, envi- ronment, Luke xxii. 52 i^eX,rj\vdaT€ /iera /j,a-)(aipa)v, Jno. xviii. 3 ; Matt. xxiv. 31 (Dam. Pantaen. p. 628 c. ; Herod. 6, 6, 19) ; then of accompanying actions and circumstances, particularly states of mind (Bhdy. 255), Heb. xii. 17 fj-era SuKpvcov eK^rjrtjaa'i (Herod. 1, 16, 10), 1 Tim. iv. 14 ; Matt. xiv. 7 ; Mark x. 30 ; Acts v. 26 ; xvii. 11 ehe^avTO rov 7\Ayov fiera ■n-dcrrji; TrpoOvfx.M';, Matt. xiii. 20 ; xxviii. 8 ; 2 Cor. vii. 15 (Eurip. Hippol. 205 ; Soph. Oed. C. 1636 ; Alciphr. 3, 38 ; Arist. magn. Mor. 2, 6 ; Herod. 1, 5, 19) ; lastly, 395 of the inward connection of spiritual objects, Eph. vi. 23 aydTrrj /iSTo, iriaTeax;. In good prose fieTo, never designates the instrumerii as such (Kypke I. 143), ^ — in 1 Tim. iv. 14 /j-erd hiridkaeax; twv X^tpwv is with, amid, the laying on of hands (simultaneously with the act of imposition), Matt. xiv. 7 fie9' opKov interposito jureju- rando (Heb. vii. 21) — yet it borders on this signification in Luke xvii. 15 fierd 0(ai^? fieyaXTj'; So^d^wv (essentially equivalent to cpav^ fiejdXy or iv (fxovfj /i.), and perhaps in Acts xiii. 17 ;^ (cf. Polyb. 1, 49, 9 fiOpoi^e fierd KTjpvy/ji.aTO'i, Lucian. philops. 8 ^orj9elv tivi fieTo, Tij? Ti')(vri<;, as aw is used in other writers, at least in poets, Bhdy. S. 214). As to Matt, xxvii. 66, however, see Fr. It never signifies after ; ^ in Mark x. 30 fieTo, Suoy/jiav is, amid persecutions, as /iera Kivhvvcov is amid dangers, Tliuc. 1, 18 a. Kiihnol and BCrus. erroneously render fierd with the Gen. in Matt. xii. 41 by contra ; the meaning is : the men of Nineveh will appear at the judgment with this generation, i.e. when this generation appears before the judgment-seat, the Ninevites will appear also ; for what purpose (against^ we are first told by the words that follow. (The use of the Gen. with /^era is accounted for by the fact that what- ever attends or surrounds any one bears to him a certain relation of dependence.) 1. Aid. Its primary meaning is through, 1 Cor. xiii. 12 (Plat. Phaed. 109 c.) ; but with the idea of going through is connected always, in the local sense, that oi going forth or out from (thus in 354 Hebrew and Arabic •)?? is the only preposition for the local through ; "b A cf. also Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 191 iic^evyeiv Sv alwvo<;, Matt iv. 4 1 The meaning of luerci \vxvov Fabric. Pseudepigr. II. 143 is : with a light, i.e. fur- nished with a light, carrying it with him, cum lumine, not lumine. On the other hand, cf. Leo Gramm. p. 260 fiaxaipiov iiri^4piTai $ov\6fievos afeXfTv tre |Het' airov, p. 275 etc. ^ Yet /iird here is probably to be understood of the accompaniment : with upraised arm, as he held up his arm over them (to protect them). ' Fabric. Pseudepigr. II. 593 fiero toB 4\0€Tv is undoubtedly an error in transcribing, for T h 4\8eii'. Further, the passages collected by Baphd. Mr. I.e. prove nothing. 48 378 § 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. eKTTopeveadai Bid from Deut. viii. 3, and Zue^epyeaOai Plat. rep. 338 10, 621 a.) ; i hence 8ta governs the Genitive. It is appKed to space 6th ed. j,j simple expressions, Luke iv. 30 avro Bia fieXavo^ kuI KaXd/wv jpdcjjeiv, 2 Jno. 12 (Plut. vit. Solon, p. 87 e.), 2 Cor. vi. 7 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 9; 2 Thess. ii. 2 Bid Xoyov, Si i'maToXfj'i, by word of mouth, by letter, Heb. xiii. 22 Bid Ppa^eav eireareika vfuv paucis scripsi vobis, see § 64 ; thence it is applied to immaterial objects, as in 1 Cor. vi. 14 17/^0? i^eyepei Bid t^9 Bvvdfiecoi; avrov, Rom. iii. 25 ov "rrpoeOero IXacrTijpiov' Bid T))? iricrreas's, Rom. ii. 12 ; Jas. ii. 12 KpiveaOai Bid vofwv ; to persons, as in Acts iii. 16 97 itlo-ti'; t) Bi avrov, 1 Cor. iii. 5 BiaKovoi, Bi Siv eTria-reveraTe, Heb. iii. 16 oi e^eXd6vTe<; i^ Auyvirrov Bid Mcov- treo)?. Thus in particular in the expression Bid 'Irjaov Xpiarov of the (mediatorial) agency of Christ in all its manifestations, Rom. ii. 16 ; V. 1 ; 2 Cor. L 5 ; Gal. i. 1 ; Eph. i. 5 ; Phil. i. 11', Tit. iii. 6 etc.,^ as also in Bid "Trvevfiaroi; (a/^lov') Rom. v. 5 ; 1 Cor. ♦ xii. 8 ; Eph. iii. 16. To this (instrumental) use may be referred likewise 2 Tim. ii. 2 Bid ttoXXwv ftapTvpcov intervenientibus multis testibus, through the interposition i.e. here in the presence of many witnesses, Heb. vii. 9 Bid 'A^pad/J, koi Aevi BeBeKarcoTai through Abraham (that is, in the person of Abraham as representative of the whole Israelitish people, when Abraham was tithed Levi also was tithed). Aid but rarely indicates the causa principalis,^ 1 Cor. 1 Cf. Kuhner II. 281 and my 5th Pi'ogr. de verbis composit. p. 3. 2 This expression comes essentially under the same head when it is joined to praising, thanking, etc. Rom. i. 8 ; vii. 25; xvi. 27 ; Col. iii. 17. Not merely the benefits for ■which thanks are offered are procured through Christ, but even the thanksgiving itself is offered (if so as to be acceptable to God) through Christ who lives with God and continues the work of mediation for his people. The Christian does not give thanks in his proper person, but through Christ, whom he regards as the mediator of his prayer as well as of salvation. Philippi on Rom. i. 8 is unsatisfactory ; Benget on the same passage is better. " As to the Latin per for a, see Hand, Tursell. IV. 436 sq. The urrong done thrcmgh §47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 379 i. 9 (Gal. iv. 7 var.), in other words but rarely seems to be equiv- alent to liro or irapd ; but even in such cases it does not designate 355 the author as such, i.e. as the owe from whom something proceeds, "li «<•■ but rather as the person through whose effort, or kindness etc. ^^^ something accrues to one cf. Gal. i. 1 (without specifying whether 0917 it flows from him directly or indirectly).^ We may add with Pr. (Rom. 1. 15) : est autem hie usus ibi tantum admissus, ubi nvllam sententicLe ambiguitatem crearet; thus in Gal. i. 1, after the discrim- inating use of d-TTo and Bid, Bid alone is employed in summing up, and employed too of God. Many passages, however, have been erroneously referred to this class : in Jno. i. 3, 17 the doctrine of the Logos justifies the per of mediate agency, cf. Origen in loc. (Tom. 1. 108 Lommatzsch) ; ia Rom. i. 5 St' ov is explained from XV. 15 ; Rom. xi. 36, owing to the prepositions kic and ei?, admits no other interpretation ; on Gal. iii. 19 see my Comment. ; in Rom. V. 2 nobody will be misled by Pr's. remarks ; in Heb. ii. 3 Christ is viewed as commissioned by God to proclaim salvation ; as to 1 Pet. ii. 14 see Steiger in loc.^ To the idea of instrumentality Sid can also be referred when used of the state of mind in which one does something, e.g. 84 utto- fwvfji; direKSi'xea-dai, Tpe-xeiv Rom. viii. 25 ; Heb. xii. 1 ; Plut. ediic. 5, 3 ; ^ probably also 2 Cor. v. 7 Bia Trto-Teoj? ■jrepiiraTovfiev. Hence Sid serves as a circumlocution for an adjective, 2 Cor. iii. 11 el to Karapjovfjievov (eo-ri) Sid So^tj? (i.e. evSo^ov) Mtth. II. 1353. /iid is more loosely used of one's equipment, and of the circumstances me, and the -wrong done by me, may on the whole express quite the same thing ; yet the wrong-doer is viewed in these expressions under two different aspects. Probably SicJ is employed purposely in Matt. xxvi. 24 t^j ivSpdirip Si' oZ 6 vihs toD av9p4nrov TrapaSiSoTcu (the betrayer was merely an instrument, cf. Eom. viii. 32) and in Acts ii. 43 iroWd tc Ttpara Kal tTijfieta Si^ tuv airoffrShuv iyivero, as the efficient cause was God himself (Acts ii. 22; xv. 12), cf. 5i^ x^'P'^" v. 12; xiv. 3. That this more precise mode of expression is not observed everywhere and by all writers does not invalidate this exposition. 1 Nearly to the same effect is the remark of Bremi on Com. Nep. 10, 1, 4. Even conceded that Std and iTr6 are wholly identical, it would not follow that Gal. iii. 19 (vi/ws) StarayeU Si' iryyeKav represents the angels as authors of the Mosaic Law (as Schulthess persisted in asserting). To justify any departure from the plain meaning — ordained through angels — far other and more solid reasons must be assigned than those urged by Schulthess. ^ At first sight rivas irapo77fXfas iBt^Kufiev vfuv 5iA rod Kvpiov *l7?(roC 1 Thess. iv. 2 appears strange. But as the Apostle was not acting in his private capacity, but as moved by Christ, the charges he issued were properly charges given through Christ. ' Xen. C. 4, 6, 6 is of a different sort. Also in 2 Cor. ii. 4 eypatpa iiiiv Sick ttoXKSiv StMpiaii is, properly, through many tears. Amid many tears is an expression somewhat similar ; see above, ij-eri p. 376 sq. 380 . § 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. and relations under which he does something, e.g. 1 Jno. v. 6 e\9(bv hC uSaros koX a"fuiTo<; came by means of water and blood, Heb. ix. 12 (yet see Bleek in loc), Rom. ii. 27 a-e top Sia 'ypd/ifiaTov /cal ■n-epnofirj'i trapajSdTTjv ovra with letter and circumcision, i.e. not- witlistanding that thou wast in possession of a written law etc., 356 iv. 11 ; xiv. 20 6 Sta irpo'ncoiiiMaTO'i iaOicov he who eateth with offence oQo (giving offence), (Markland, Lys. V. 329 Reisk.). Applied to time, Bia denotes, a) During (i.e. within a space of time), Heb. ii. 15 Sia iravTO'i tov ^v (Xen. Cyr. 2, 1, 19 ; Mem. 340 1, 2, 61 ; Plat. conv. 203 d.) ; even though the action takes place ™ «!■ ijut once or occasionally within the period mentioned, as in Acts V. 19 ; xvi. 9 etc. (of which laxer use no instances are to be found in literary Greek, Pr. in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 164 sq.). b) After} as St' ermi ifK^iovusv Acts xxiv. 17, properly i7iterjectis pluribus annis, many years intervening,"^ i.e. after tlie lapse of many years (see Perizon. Aelian. p. 921 ed. Gronov. ; Blomfield, Aesch. Pers. 1006 ; Wetst. I. 525, 558), and Gal. ii. 1, cf. Her. 6, 118 ; Plat. legg. 8, 834 e. ; Arist. anim. 8, 15 ; Polyb. 22, 26, 22 ; Geopon. 14, 26, 2 ; Plutarch. Agis 10 ; Lucian. Icar. 24, also Sept. Deut. ix. 11. Lastly, Mark ii. 1 8i ■^/Mepoiv after (some) days (Theophr. plant. 4, 4 St' •^/xep&v twwv), cf. hoa 'xpovov Plat. Euthyd. 273 b. ; Xen. Cyr. 1, 4, 28 (Raphel, Kypke, and Pr. in loc). The following significations have been erroneously attributed to Sid : a. Into (in with the Ace.) : 1 Cor. xiii. 12 ^kiTtofnev 8t' hoTrrpov is said agreeably to a popular notion ; the look passes through the mirror, inas- much as the form appears to be standing behind the mirror. , b. Gum : 1 Cor. xvi. 3 Si lTncrToXu>v tovtovs Trf/xxpa) aTrtveyKtlv etc. is to be rendered, by means of letters, so as to recommend them by letters (Syriac ]^j.i^ls). To be sure, the Apostle means at the same time ^ No one will deny this signification who is not trying to find in the above passage of Gal. confirmation of his own previous decision respecting the chronology of Paul's travels. That the preposition can have this meaning becomes plain, whether, with Mtth. 1352, we derive it from the notion of distance which 5iti in a local sense denotes, or from the notion of passing through a succession of points of time (which are thereby indicated as travelled through, gone over), Hm. Vig. 856. The assertion that iii is thus applied only to a period of time after which something occurs as its result, is a subtilty which has no foundation in usage, and a misapplication of the notion of vieans (itself figurative) to explain a temporal use of the preposition, — a use always most closely connected with its local and primary import. Even, however, were the alleged restriction to be admitted, it would not be impossible to apply the expression 8itk dexar. 4tuv in Gal. ii. 1 to a journey the necessity of which Paul felt in consequence of an active ministry of fourteen years. At least, Karh. i.Tro«i\. in vs. 2 could not be urged as a decisive argument on the other side. ^ Her. 3, 157 SiaKnrltiv ^/ie'pos iexa, Isocr. perm. p. 746. § 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 381 that they themselves should take the letters with them ; but still the import of the Preposition is strictly preserved. e. Ad : 2 Pet. i. 3 KoKiuavro^ r/fj.a's hia. 8df»;5 koI apcrrji is not ad relig. Christ, adduodt eo consilio, ut consequeremini felicitatem etc., but called us by (means of) glory and might, so that in this call God's power and 399 majesty were exhibited (vs. 4, cf. 1 Pet. ii. 9). Some Codd. [Sin. also] give 8o^ (Cat aperrj. d. On account of, for 8id. with the Ace. (only thus in very late writers, e.g. Acta apocr. p. 252) : In 2 Cor. ix. 13 8ia denotes rather the occasion 357 which gives rise to the So$d.^eiv; whereas what follows, errt ttj inrorayg, ™* means, for i.e. on account of the obedience. In 1 Cor. i. 21 oijk tyvto 6 KoarfAOi Sia. T^s aotfilai tov 6e6v may very well be rendered : by means of their (boasted vs. 20) wisdom (it did not conduct them to this result) ; though the interpretation of others, in consequence of (sheer) wisdom, if taken thus : by the possession of wisdom (see above), is grammatically 341 admissible. But 8ia r^s /xco/oias which immediately follows is decisive in 6tli e4 favor of the former explanation. Rom. vii. 4 iOavaruidrjTe t<3 vo/juo Sta tov a-wfiaTO's Xpia-Tov is elucidated by verses 1-3 : Ye were made dead to the law through the body of Christ ; with the death of the body of Christ (which had reference to the law) ye are made dead (slain) to the law. That in 1 Cor. xi. 12 Sta t^s yuratKos is not used for Sta Trjv ywaiKa (wliich would introduce here an extraneous thought) is the more clear from the circumstance that it is manifestly to be taken as corresponding to Jk tov dvSpos ; the distinction between €k and Sta is obvious. In 2 Cor. viii. 8 (Schott) Sta Trjs irep. cnrouSijs is to be joined to BoKip-d^wv, see Bengel. Heb. xi. 39 (Schott) iravres iJi.apTvpr]OevTejiiK6s. The tempestuous wind rushed {from above) down upon the island. In Mark xir. 3 Km-ix^ev avTOv kotA ttjs Ke^aKijs (holding the flask of ointment over his 382 § 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 400 passes from this to denote the level over (through') which some- thing extends ; and thus differs essentially from the local iv (with which by late writers it is often confounded, cf. EUendt, Arrian. Alex. I. 355), as in Luke iv. 14 e^XOev Kaff oXtj^ ttj? Trepi^aypov, Acts ix. 31, 42 ; x. 37, cf. Arrian. Alex. 5, 7, 1 and Indie. 13, 6. Figuratively, it is applied to hostile movement directed against something, as in Matt. x. 35 ; xxvii. 1 ; Acts vi. 18 ; 1 Cor. iv. 6 ; XV. 15; Rom. viii. 33 (the opposite of virep Rom. xi. 2; cf. viii. 34; 2 Cor xiii. 8) ; and is the preposition usiially employed to express 358 this relation. Yet primarily it seems, like the German gegen, to m ed. (jeiiote merely thitlierwards ; while avrl, like contra, includes the notion of hostility in its local signification even. In oaths and adjurations, as in Matt. xxvi. 63 ; Heb. vi. 13, 16, koto 9eov (Schaef. Long. p. 353 sq. ; Bhdy. 238) probably means down from God, calling God down, so to speak, as witness or avenger (Krii. 294). Kiihner II. 284 takes a different view. 342 1. 'Tirep, in its local signification, denotes the being above (over) 6th ed. a place (properly without immediate contact, Xen. M. 3, 8, 9 6 rpK.iov Tov depovs virep ■^fiwv koL twv (TTeywv iropevo/jLevoi;, Herod. 2, 6,19) ; hence in geographical diction the expression situated above a place, imminere urbi, Xen. A. 1, 10, 12 ; Thuc. 1, 137 (Dissen, Pind. p. 431). In the N. T. it is used only in a figurative sense : ^ and 1) most nearly approaching its local import in 1 Cor. iv. 6 iva fiT) eh inrep tov ew? (f>vcyu)va9e, if rendered : that one be not puffed up above the other (so that he fancy himself raised above the other) ; still related also to tlie local sense, 2) to the advantage of, for the benefit of, for (the opposite of Kara Mark ix. 40 ; Rom. viii. 31) any one (die, suffer, pray, care, exert one's self, etc., see 401 Benseler, Isocr. Areopag. p. 164 sq.) Jno. x. 15 ; xi. 50 ; Rom. v. 6 ; ix. 3 (cf. Xen. A. 7, 4, 9 ; Diod. Sic. 17, 15 ; Strabo 3, 165 ; Eurip. Alcest. 700, 711), Luke xxii. 19 ; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Phil. iv. 10 ; Heb. V. 1 ; vii. 25 ; xiii. 17 ; Col. i. 7, 24, probably also 1 Cor. xv. 29, — originally as if bending over one to protect and defend him (cf. head) good Codd. [Sin. also] omit the preposition. As to Karax^fiv icaTd twos, see Plat. rep. 3, 398 a. ; ApoUod. 2, 7, 6. 1 Unless 1 Cor xv. 29 /SoTrrffeffflai vTrhp rap peKpZv be rendered : cause themselves to be baptized over the dead. The passage can only be elucidated by antiquarian research. It is strange, however, that Mei/. should declare the above explanation inadmissible because im4p occurs nowhere else in the N. T. in a local sense. Might not the preposi- tion be used in this most simple local sense in a sint/le passage only ■? The comment of van Hengel, Cor. p. 136, is worthy of attention, though it, too, contains an arbitrary restriction. § 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 383 (id^eadai virip Tivos Xen. C. 2, 1, 21 ; Isocr. paneg. 14) ;^ also elvat, vTrep nvo^ to be for one, Mark ix. 40 ; Rom. viii. 31 ; x. 1 ; Blume, Lyciirg. p. 151. In most cases one who acts in behalf of another takes his place, 1 Tim. ii, 6 ; 2 Cor. v. 15 ; hence virip is sometimes nearly equivalent to uvtl instead, loco (see, especially, Eurip. Alcest. 700) Philem. 13 (Thuc. 1, 141; Polyb. 8, 67, 7).2 3) 'TTrip denotes the siibject on (over') which one speaks, writes, decides, etc., Rom. ix. 27 ; Phil. i. 7 ; 2 Cor. viii; 23 (see Joel i. 3 ; Plutarch. Brut. 1 ; Mar. 3 ; Plat. Apol. 39 e. ; legg. 6, 776; Dcmosth. 359 1. phil. p. 20 a. ; Arrian. Al. 3, 3, 11 ; 6, 2, 6 ; Arrian. Epict. 1, '""J- 19, 26 ; Polyb. 1, 14, 1 ; Dion. H. V. 625 ; Aeschin. dial. 1, 8 ; Aelian. anim. 11, 20 and often), ov for, in reference to, which one gives thanks, praise, Eph. i. 16 ; v, 20 ; Rom. xv. 9, on which one prides one's self, 2 Cor. vii. 4 ; ix. 2 ; xii. 5 ; 2 Thess. i. 4 (cf. in Latin super, in Hebrew h^ -, the phrase de aliqua re loqui, too, is akin, see under ■Kepi') ;^ hence in general, with regard to a matter, 343 e.g. 2 Cor. i. 6, 8 ; 2 Thess. ii. 1 epcor&fjbev v/xa<; virkp rri and the like rig orously by instead of on account of euch parallel passages as Matt. xx. 28 {Fr. Kom. I. 267). 'AvtI is the more definite of the two prepositions. 'Tirt'p signifies merely for men, for their deliverance ; and leaves undetermined the precise sense in which Christ died for them. ' So with BiVxiJj'eo'Stt'; aycwaitTeiii, etc. StaJlb. Plat. Euthyd. p. 119. 384 § 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. {nrep means both times (see de Wette in opposition to Mey.) for Christ i.e. in his name and behalf (consequently, in his stead), cf. Xen. C. 3, 3, 14 ; Plato Gorg. 515 c. ; Polyb. 21, 14, 9 ; Marie floril. p. 169 sq., see above, no. 2) at the end. Others take the second vTrep as in solemn asseverations (Bhdy. 244, whose explanation of this use, however, is assuredly erroneous) by Christ, per Christum. In Eph. vi. 20 tlie phrase irpea^eveiv virip is used in reference to a thing : to act as an ambassador for the gospel (in the cause of the gospel), cf. Dion. H. IV. 2044 ; Lucian. Toxar. 34. §48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. a 'Ej'.i 1) In its local signification (see Spohn, Niceph. Bleinmid. p. 29 sqq.), this preposition refers to an expanse within the bounds of which anything exists. Hence, according to different concep- tions of the relation, it signifies 360 a) First of all in or (when applied to surfaces, heights, etc.) 7th ed. QYi^ Matt. xxiv. 40 iv tS cr/p&, XX. 3 iv rfj cifjopa, Luke xix. 36 ; Rev. iii. 21 ; Jno. iv. 20 ; 2 Cor. iii. 3. The same relation is fre- quently expressed by eVt with greater precision. b) Then (of many) among, Matt. xi. 11 ; Acts ii. 29 ; iv. 34 ; XX. 25 ; Rom. i. 5 ; 1 Cor. v. 1 ; 1 Pet. v. 1 ; ii. 12. "With this is connected h> denoting retinue, Luke xiv. 31 eV 8e«a 'xp^.tAcnv 403 airavTrjaai, Jude 14 (Neh. xiii. 2 ; I Sam. i. 24 ; 1 Mace. i. 17) ; as well as clothing (and armor, cf. Eph. vi. 16 ; Krebs, Obs. 26) 344 Matt. vii. 15 ; Mark xii. 38 ; Jno. xx. 12 (Aelian. 9, 34 ; Her. 2, * «theil. 159 . Callim. Dian. 241 ; Mtth. II. 1340). In a more general use iv is applied to that with which one is furnished, which he brings with him, Heb. ix. 25 ehep'^eTui, iv a"p,ari,, 1 Cor. iv. 21 ; v. 8 ; 2 Cor. X. 14 ; Rom. xv. 29 (Xen. C. 2, 3, 14). c) Less strictly in, at, sometimes of direct cohesion, Jno. xv. 4 KKrjjxa iav firj fieivri iv rfj d/jLTreXu), sometimes of mere proximity (6y, Trapa), Kadc^eiv (elvai) iv Se^iS. deov at (on^ the right hand, Heb. i. 3; viii. 1; Eph. i. 20; Plutarch. Lysand. 436 b.; Dio C. 216, 50 1 'El/ is used (apparently) with the Gen. in Heb. xi. 26, according to the reading admitted into the text by Lchm. from A and other Codd., tuv iv AlyiirTou Byjirmpuiii. Such constructions, by no means rai-e in Greek authors, must, as is well known, be considered as elliptical : iv 77? Alyinrov. Usually, however, only such words as vais, kofni], oIko^ are omitted ; and in the passage in question there is a predominance i f authority for tuv Alyinrrav BntravpCiv; [so Sin. also]. As to the most ancient use of this preposition (in Homer), see Giseke in Schneidewin's Philolog. VII, 77 ff. § 48, PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 385 (much more frequently thus used in Greek authors, Xen. 0. 7, 1, 46 ; Isocr. panath. p. 646 and Philipp. p. 216 ; Plat. Charm. 153 b. ; Diod. S. 4, 78 ; 17, 10, cf. comm. on Lucian. VI. 640 Lehm. ; Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 123).^ On the other liand, it signifies in in Jno. X. 23 and Luke ii. 7, probably also in Jno. viii. 20, where ya^o^vXccK. denotes the treasury as an apartment (or locality), and Luke xiii. 4, as it was usual to say in Siloam, because the foiintain was surrounded with buildings ; perhaps also Matt, xxvii. 5, see Mey. in loc. That in forms of quoting, as ev Aavi^ Heb. iv. 7 ; Rom. ix. 25 (in Cic. or. 71 ; Quint. 9, 4, 8) and even Rom. xi. 2 hv 'H\ia (see van Marie and Pr. in loc. cf. Diog. L. 6, 104), ev should be rendered by in, is obvious. d) Before, apud, coram (Isocr. Archid. p. 276 ; Lysias pro mil. 11 ; Arrian. Epictet. 8, 22, 8 ; Ast, Plat. legg. 285), — a rendering, however, which is unnecessary in 1 Tim. iv. 15 (where, besides, iracnv must be read withoiit iv'). This meaning, however, it bears in 1 Cor. ii. 6 (xiv. 11), see above, § 31. 8 (cf. Demosth. Boeot. p. 636 a. ; Polyb. 17, 6, 1 ; 5, 29, 6 ; Appian. civ. 2, 137),^ also 1 Cor. vi. 2 ev v/mv Kplverat 6 Kocr/ito? (in the orators kv v/uv is often used thus for apud vos, Judices, see Kypke in loc), as well as ev 6cjidaXfjbo2<; rtv. before one's eyes (^ante oc.}, see Palair. and 861 Eisner on Matt. xxi. 42 — a phrase used in this passage of the Sept. ''''' •'''■ figuratively. 2) By an easy transition iv is employed to denote temporal 404 relations, where we use sometimes in, sometimes on (e.g. of festi- vals) Matt. xii. 2 ; Jno. ii. 23, sometimes at (with a siibstantive denoting an event) Matt. xxii. 28 ; 1 Pet. i. 7, also 1 Cor. xv. 52 iv Ty h(T')(arri araXiriyYi at the last trumpet (as soon as it sounds), 1 Thess. iv. 16 ; Heb. iii. 8, and with the Inf. of verbs, Matt. xiii. 25 ; Luke ix. 36 ; xvii. 11. Where it signifies within (Wex, Soph. Antig. p. 167) Jno. ii. 19 it may also be rendered by in (Her. 2, 29), and differs then obviously from Sid ; for iv Tpiaiv ^fj,epat,<; (Plato 1 To render cV y in Heb. ix. 4 by juxta quam, would be to favor archaeology at the expense of grammar. Where iv in a local sense is joined to personal names (in the Plur.), it signifies not so much with as among, in the midst of, (a number, a company, etc.). As to 1 Pet. v. 2 rh iv iiitv irolfiviov, Pott's rendering is quite admissible : the floch existing in the countries where you reside (cf. 5(t£ Eom. xv. 28). Grammatically it would be possible also to join rb iv ifuv to itoiiiivare (quantum in vobis est, as much as in you lies), or, which would undoubtedly be far-fetched, to render rh iv 6u7v troiiiviov the flock entrusted to you, as flvai, KeiaSai. cv Tin means, to rely on, depend on, one. 2 In explaining 1 Cor. as above, Ruckert pronounces in i/iol exactly the same as inol — one of those superficial remarks which, so nakedly stated, one could hardly have expected from a scholar at the present day. 49 386 § *8. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 345 Menex. 240 b.) does not mean that three whole days are to be 6(1 ei spent on something, but only that something is to take place within that space of time, consequently before its expiration. Cf. besides, iv a while, during the time that, Jno.Y. 7; Mark ii. 19; Time. 6,55; Plato Theaet. 190 e. ; Sopii. Trach. 926 (ev tovto) interea Xen. C. 1, 3, 17 ; 3, 2, 12), iv oh during which Luke. xii. 1. Closely related to the temporal signification is the iv of subsistence (i.e. positive and continued existence) Heb. vi. 18 iv ol? a^vvarov ■yfrev- cratrOai, Oeov whereupon, these two assurances being matters of fact, etc., Rom. ii. 12 iv vofji^y fuMipTov under (during the existence, while in possession, of) the law ; — also of condition, Liike viii. 43 7111;^ oiiaa iv pvaei a"/iaTO<;, Rom. iv. 10 ; Phil. iv. 11 (see Eisner in loc. ; Kiihner II. 274), and that, too, inward, Luke iv. 36 ; Tit. i. 6, particularly of the state of mind or feeling, 1 Tim. ii. 2 ; 2 Cor. ii. 1 ; viii. 2 ; Luke i. 44, 75 ; Eph. i. 4 (Heb. xi. 2) ; 2 Pet. ii. 3 ; lastly, — the iv of occupation, 1 Tim. iv. 15 ey tovtok 'iadi, Col. iv. 2 cf. Eph. vi. 20 (Mey. in loc), neut. iv oh Acts xxvi. 12. Cf :Xen. C. 8, 1, 1 ; 5, 2, 17 ; Soph. Oed. R. 570 ; Plato Phaed. 59 a. .and Stalib. in loc. 3) The figurative use of iv, to which we have already made ■some incidental reference, is extremely diversified, perceptibly -exhibiting the progressive deterioration of the language as well as a Hebrew coloring. For iv is used to indicate not merely that •in which something else is (ideally) contained, consists, appcnrs 1 Pet. iii. 4 ; Eph. iv. 3 (ii. 15), 2 Thess. ii. 9 (1 Cor. xi. 25), Phil. i. 9, but also, with great variety of application, a) The basis on which, or the sphere (range, personal or imper- sonal) in which, some power acts, 1 Cor. ix. 15 iva ovrto (vs. 13 f.) yivrirai, iv ifiol that it should be so done on me (in my case), iv. 2, 405 6 iv rjfuv fidffnjre learn in us, Jno. xiii. 35 iv Toinm yvdiicrovTai, Xen. C. 1, 6, 41 (Luke xxiv. 35; 1 Jno. iii. 19), Rom. xiv. 22 /jlt] Kplvmv 6v a> (iv Tovr(p o) hoKiftA^ei, 1 Thess. v. 12 K07nS)VT€ evwyyeXia var.), 1 Cor. vii. 15 ; to denote an ' ethical relation, 2 Cor. iv. 2 irepttraTovvTei; iv iravovpyia (Eph. ii. 3, 862 10 ; V. 2), Rom. vi. 2 \;fiv iv dfiapna (Jr. in loc). Col. iii. 7 (Cic. "■"i fam. 9, 26), cf. 1 Cor. vi. 20 ; 2 Thess. i. 10 ; 1 Jno. ii. 8 ; in a more extended sense, of the object in (on, at) which one rejoices, glories etc., ynipeiv, KavxcicrOai, iv see § 38 p. 232. b) The measure or standard (Thuc. 1. 77 ; 8, 89) in, according to, wloich something is executed, Eph. iv. 16 (Heb. iv. 11), cf. the ' § 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 387 Hebrew a. Many understand it so in Heb. x. 10 iv & OeXij/iart ^ytaafiivoi, ea-fj-iv according, in conformity, to luhich will. Here, however, iv is more precise than Kara. : It is founded in the will of God, that we are sanctified through Christ's sacrificial death. In no other passage does the meaning secundum occur, although even the most recent N. T. Lexicons give copious examples in support of it. 'Ev efioi, according to my judgment, 1 Cor. xiv. 11, is properly: to me (in my conception) cf. Wex, Antig. p. 187. In Rom. i. 24 ; viii. 15 ; xi. 25 (var.) ; Phil. ii. 7 iv denotes condi- tion. 1 Thess. iv. 15 may be translated : this I say unto you in a word of the Lord, cf. 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; xiv. 6. In irepiivarelv iv ao^ia .346 and similar phrases, (to<^m is not represented as a rule according '''1' ^^^ to which, but as an ideal possession, or even a sphere within wliich to walk (see above). To understand iv Xpiara, iv Kvpitg, as mean- ing according to the will or example of Christ, would be to take a flat view of the apostle's conception. Lastly, 1 Tim. i. 18 'iva (TTpmevrj iv avral<; (rat? irpo<^'riTelai' ^) the rendering guajjropter, qiiare, would not be inappropriate. In Rom. ii. \ iv ^ may be rendered dum, or better, with the Vulgate, in quo (in qua re) judicas etc., which gives a sense quite in point, cf. Fr. In Luke x. 20 iv tovtm . . . S-i means, at this (rejoice) that, cf. Phil. i. 18. I am not aware of there being in any Greek author an unquestionable instance of iv roiiry, iv ^, in the sense of therefore, bernnsf. The passages adduced in Sturz, Lexic. XenOph. II- 1 62, admit of another meaning. Xen. A. 1,3, 1 — a passage which iT^yjfe, II. 194, refers to this head — has in the best editions eV! TouTM. Likewise Plat. rep. 5, 455 b., where Ast explains iv S by propterea quod, is susceptible of another exposition ; see Stallb. in loc. 388 § 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 363 tlie sense of propter is never joined to names of persons (see my Ith ci Comment, ad Gal. i. 24, cf. Exod. xiv. 4) ; ^ and in general too many passages have been referred to tliis head, as Eph. iii. 13 ; Jno. viii. 21 ; Jas. i. 25 ; 2 Cor. vi. 12 ; Heb. iv. 11. d) The instrument and means (principally in the Rev.), not merely (as in the better Greek prose authors, see Bttm. Philoct. p. 69 ; Boeckh, Find. III. 487 ; Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 195, and the uncritical collections in Schwarz, Comment, p. 476 ; Georgi, Vind. 153 sq.) where the German in also (or aw/") is admissible, as KaUiv 347 iv TTvpc Rev. xvii. 16 (1 Cor. iii. 13), cf. 1 Mace. v. 44 ; vi. 31 Sfl-rf. (Bfjaai iv iriSaK Xen. A. 4, 3, 8 ; cf. Judg. xv. 13 ; xvi. 7 ; Sir. xxviii. 19 ; Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 104, icaXvirTSiv iv l^iarlu) Ael. anim. 11, 15), fj-erpelv iv fjierpa Matt. vii. 2, aXi^eiv iv dXari, Matt. v. 13 ; Rev. vii. 14; Jas. iii. 9; Heb. ix. 22, but also, through the influence of the Hebrew a, in circumstances quite different from this, where in Greek aiithors the Dative woiild be employed alone as the casus instnrmentalis, as Luke xxii. 49 TraTda-aetv iv fLa-)(aipa, Rev. vi. 8 aTTOKTelvai ev pofKpaia, xiii. 10 ; xiv. 15 Kpd^eiv iv /j,ejaXrj (pcovfj (2 Pet. ii. 16), Matt. vii. 6 KaraTraTeiv iv -rok irocrlv, Luke i. 51 ; Mark 407 xiv. 1 ; Rom. xv. 6, especially in the Rev. (cf. Judg. iv. 13 ; xv. 15; XX. 16, 48 ; 1 Kings xii. 18 ; Josh. x. 35 ; Exod. xiv. 21 ; xvi. 3 ; xvii. 5, 13; xix.l3; Gen. xxxii. 20 ; xli. 36; xlviii.22; Neh.i.lO; 1 Mace. iv. 15 ; Judith ii. 19 ; v. 9 ; vi. 4, 12, etc.).^ Yet such constructions occasionally occur even in Greek authors; as, Himer. eclog. 4, 16 eV ^ij>ei, Hippocr aphor. 2, 36 iv (papfiaKelrjao Kadal- 3(34 pea-dai, Malal. 2 p. 60.^ 'Ev is so used with personal designations, 7tli d. 1 In 2 Cor. xiii. 4 Ao-eej/oC/itei/ ^v air^, as frequently i;t Xpun$ (so variously under- stood by expositors), denotes fellowship with Christ, the relation of fivat iv Xpurr^ (see below, p. 389). The apostle is not weak /or Christ's sake (out of regard as it were for the interest of Christ, to prevent the possible falling away of the Corinthians) ; but weak in Christ, i.e. in and confonnably to (apostolic) fellowship with Christ (who likewise was in a certain sense dadeuiis ; see what precedes). The phrase designates concisely a state which results from bmtig in Christ ; just as the f^v and Smmhv ihcu are referred to fellowship with Christ {9a\nois Lucian. Phalar. 1,5, iv iii/uuriv vTro0\eweiv Lucian. amor. 29 (cf. Wex, Antig. 1. 270), Porphyr. de antro Nymphar. p. 261 aiMjiopiav, iv ofs . . . apu6iieBa, Lucian. asin. 44 as TfSvriKiis iv tois vKiryais (under the blows). Plat. Tim. 81 c. Ti6pau.iiivns iv yahaKTi brought up an milk (cf. Jacobs, Athen. p. 57). In Lucian. conscr. hist. 12 for iv ctKovricii (paveveiv recent editors on the authority of MSS. give evl OK. (p. ; on the other hand, in Lucian. dial. mort. 23, 3 all the Codd. but one hare KaBiKOfifvov iv rp ^a/35^ (not so Ael. 2, 6), yet Lehmann considers the preposition even in this passage as suspicious (cf. Lucian. Lapith. c. 26). See, besides, Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 261 ; Dissert, Pind. p. 487. 1 In Jno. xvii. 10 StSiifoirjuai iv avrois undoubtedly signifies more than Si' outSv. He would have been glorified through them, if they had merely accomplished some external achievement conducive to the glory of Christ ; he is glorified in them, in so far as they in their own persons, in themselves, glorify Christ. In the same way to live and have one's being in God, appears to express man's subsistence, his being rooted as it were, in the divine power, with greater precision than could be done by 5ia. When iv and Std are joined together in one and the same sentence, Sd expresses thus the external means, while iv points to what was wrought in or on one's person, and as it were cleaves to him, Eph. i. 1 iv ^ (XptCTy) ^xofiev t^v aKoKirpteffiv iicL rou t^fxarros avTov (where Mey. is wrong), iii. 6. Even when things, and not persons, are in question, the dis- tinction between iv (referring to mental states or powers) and 811^ (of the means) is perceptible ; as, 1 Pet. i. 5 toiis iv SwdntL 9eov Bpovpou/ievovs Siii. iriVrf mj, see Steiger in loc, i. 22 riyvmSTes iv jf {iiraKoii rfis aKriBeias Sii irviifiwros, Heb. x. 10. Lastly, pas- sages in which iv and Sic£ in reference to things are interchanged in the same proposition. Col. i. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 4fF. 8; 1 Cor. xiv. 19, merely show that both prepositions are identical as respects the sense. Even iv in Matt. iv. 4 iv iroi/Tl JAinari does not appear to be exactly equivalent to iirl in i-n' 6,pr(f fj.6vif ; but the latter {iri) denotes tlie basis, iv the (spiritual) element, of life. At all events, through or by means of would be i.ii inaccurate translation. 390 § 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. viated way, to the being in Christ elvai ev Xpiarm (1 Tliess. ii. 14; Rom. viii. 1 ; xvi. 11 ; 2 Cor. v. 17 ; Gal. i. 22), and Luther's " barbarous " translation (Fr. II. 85) ^ is to be retained. So like- wise in 1 Cor. xii. 3 iv irvevfiaTi. 6eov XaX&v is to be rendered quite 365 literally, speaking in the Spirit of Qod, the element in which tiie ItlieJ. speaker lives (Rom. ix. 1 ; xiv. 17 ; Col. i. 8). e) The price, after the analogy of the Hebrew, Rev. v. 9 cuyo- pd^etv iv TM Mfiart (1 Cliron. xxi. 24). The value of the thing purchased is contained i7i the price (to which the e« of the price then corresponds). Even in the most recent Lexicons the significations of this preposition have been unwarrantably multiplied or its real significations incorrectly applied to passages of the N. T. The interpretations which have been given to the phrase iv oi/ojuaTi rtvos in particular are Protean. The iv here causes no difficulty, for it simply means in. And something takes place ' in a person's name ' when it is comprehended or embraced in his name, is to be set down to his personal activity, cf. Acts iv. 7 (not to his who is the nearest, the immediate, subject, cf. Juo. v. 43). Only the various verbs which are limited by iv ovofiaTi require the expositor's attention, in order that the various senses may be traced back severally in the simplest manner to the literal meaning of the phrase. This task has not yet been performed satisfactorily (yet better by Harless, Eph. S. 484, than by van Hengel, Philip, p. 161 sq.), not even by Mey. Phil. ii. 10 seems to require separate treatment : ovofna here refers to oi/o/ia in vs. 9, and iv oi/djuan denotes the name upon which those that bow the knee unite, on which united all (nav yow) worship. The name which Jesus has received moves all to united adoration. In Tit. iii. 5 iv does not indicate the Jinis or consilium; but epya to, iv BiKaLoa-vvg mean, works performed in the 409 spirit of a St/catos; as to Luke i. 17 ; 1 Cor. vii. 15 see below. In Mark ix. 50 cipTjvevere iv aXXiyXots, the rendering erga is not necessary ; we, too, ' 111 so far as the Christi."iii abides (by faith) in living (inward, hence h) fellowship with Christ, he will do everything in the consciousness of this fellowshii), and through the strength which this fellowship confers, i.e. in Christ, in the Lord ; as a Christian, in a Christian spirit, etc., as the words are frequently rendered, expresses much less than the pregnant phrase in Christ. So in Rom. xvi. 12 who labor in the Lord, conscious of their fellowship with the Lord (unworldly kottiSj' is meant), 1 Cor. xv. 18 luhofell asleep in Christ, in coniscious, steadfast fellowship with Christ (cf 1 Thess. iv. 16; Rev. xiv. 13), Rom. ix. 1 (a passage which even Bengel misunderstood) speak the truth in Christ (as one living in Christ), xiv. 14 persuaded in the. Lord (of a truth of which one in living union with Christ is assured). As to 1 Cor. iv. 15 see Mnj. In the same way eiplffni- trBoi 4v Xp. Phil. iii. 9 is to be explained. See besides, Rom. xv. 17 ; xvi. 2, 22 ; 1 Cor. vii. 39; Phil. iv. I (Eph. vi. 1),1 Pet. v. 10. Fr. Rom. II. 82sqq. is essentially right, though his remarks are not free from misappi-ehensions nor from unnecessary matter See, besides, v. Hengel, Cor. p. 81 . § 48, PREPOSITIONS "WITH THE DATIVE. 391 say : amonj (one another) yourselves. The following interpretations appear still more inadmissible : a. ex^ Heb. xiii. 9 h/ ols ovk ox^cX^^Tjo-av ol TreptTraTjjo-avTes unde (Schott) nihil commodi perceperunt (cf. ditfieXetcrOai am Aeschin. dial. 2, 11). If «v 349 ois is to be joined to wcfieki^O., the preposition indicates the profit that would C't i-^. have originated therein or attached thereto, Xen. Athen. rep. 1,3; Demosth. Pantaen. 631 a. ; but iv oh belongs to TreptTraTjjo-avTes. Matt. i. 20 to iv airy yevvrjOiv means, that which has been begotten in her (in ejus utero). b. pro, loco, Rom. xi. 17 (Schott) hiKtvTpiaOy}^ iv airots (xXaSots) means: 366 grafted on the branches (of which some had been cut off). 'ilsi c. with. In Acts xx. 32 iv tois ^ytaor/teVois signifies, among (with) the sanctified. Acts vii. 14 /xereKaXc'craTO tov iraripa avTOv 'laKo)^ ... iv if/vxa-ls «/8So/A. means, (consisting) in seventy souls ; a is used in the same way in Deut. x. 22 ; I do not, however, know of an instance in a Greek author. Fr.'s explanation of these words (ad Mr. p. 604) appears to me too far- fetched, and it has been rejected by "Wahl also. In Eph. vi. 2 ^rts eo-riv ivToX.rj TrpwTij iv i^frayyiXia undoubtedly means not merely, mmexa, addita promissione, but the first in yromise, i.e. in point of promise (not iv ra^ci Chrysost.). So also Mey. d. hy (of). In Eph. iv. 21 uye Iv avrto eSiSax^ijre if ye were taught in him is closely connected with oMoOia-Oai etc. following, and consequently means, conformably to fellowship with Christ, as believers in Christ. As to iv for eis, see § 50, no. 4, p. 413 sq. b. Xvv with as distinguished from ixerd indicates a more inti- mate union ; ^ as, among persons, partnersliip in calling, faith, fortune, etc. Acts ii. 14 ; xiv. 4, 20 ; 1 Cor. xi. 32. Hence it is generally used in reference to spiritual fellowship, as that of be- lievers with Christ, Eom. vi. 8 ; Col. ii. 13, 20 ; iii. 3 ; 1 Thess. iv. 17 : V. 10 ; or that of believers with Abraham, Gal. iii. 9 (o-w denoting in all these cases not mere resemblance, but actual association). Then in reference to things it denotes powers com- bining and co-operating with a person, 1 Cor. v. 4 ; xv. 10. It would be extended to a less intimate connection in 2 Cor. viii. 19 viith the collection ; yet here iv seems the preferable reading. On 410 the other hand, cf. Luke xxiv. 21 ' $ should be uniformly rendered on the supposition, on the understanding, on condition, that, in as far as. There is no passage, however, in which this would not be artificial and forced ; cf. Riickert, Comment, zu Rom. 2 Aufl. I. 262. § 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 395 1160; Plato Ion 535 b.), elsewhere with the Dat. of the person (Krii. 299) ; sometimes denoting a) What is externally near, by, with, Luke ix. 47, or what is in one's vicinity, province, custody, 2 Tim. iv. 13 ^ekovrjv airkXi-n-ov irapa Kdpircfi, 1 Cor. xvi. 2 (Aristot. pol. 1, 7), Luke xix. 7 (where vapa dfiapT. belongs to KaTaXva-ai}, Col. iv. 16 ; Rev. ii. 13 ; Acts X. 6 ; xviii. 3. Sometimes, and more frequently, b) Li reference to what is ideally near one, in one's possession, power, capacity, etc. (joenes) ; as. Matt. xix. 26 irapd dvdpcoirot'i TovTo dSvvarov iariv, irapd Se 6e& Travra Sward, Rom. ii. 11 ov ydp ian ■rrpo^eoTro\r]-\p'ia irapd 6ea>, ix. 14 ; Luke i. 37 (Trapd rov 6eov is a clerical mistake) cf. Demosth. cor. 352 a. et ian Trap" ifioi Tt? ifiTreipta, Jas. i. 17 ; 2 Cor. i. 17, especially of the judgment, Acts xxvi. 8 Tt airvcrrov Kpiverai irap v/uv etc. (apud vos), Rom. xii. 16 /J,r] yivea-de ^povifwi, trap eavTol<; (Prov. iii. 7) before your- selves (as judges), in your own estimation, in your own eyes, 1 Cor. iii. 19 ; 2 Pet. iii. 8 (Her. 1, 32 ; Plato Theaet. 170 d. ; Soph. Trach. 586 ; Eurip. Bacch. 399, and Electr. 737 ; Bhdy. 257). So likewise 2 Pet. ii. 11 ov ^ipovai kut aircov irapd Kvpi(p (before the Lord as Judge) ^Xda^'qfiov Kpiaov were the words tt. Kvp. genuine, and, substantially, 1 Cor. vii. 24 e/cacrTo? ev a> ixX'^drj, iv Tovra fj^viro} Trapd 9e

^ much more frequently than in the N. T.) f. Ilepi and vtto are never used in the N. T. with the Dative. 1 If iroptJ with the Dat. is employed with a verb of motion, the same attraction must be acknowledged which occurs when iv is so used. But in Xen. A. 2, 5, 27, which Kiilmer adduces as the only instance, recent editors on the authority of Codd. give Trapci TuT4pviiv. On the other hand, see Plutarch. Thcmist. u. 5 and Sintenis in loc. It cannot, however, be denied that in the Dative itself the notion of whither is origiaaliy contamed (p. 214). Cf. Bartung iiber d. Casus. S. 81. 396 § daXiJ.ov<; ek tou? i^adrjrd^ towards his disciples, Rev. X. 5 (et9 tw ovpavov) Xeii. Cyr. 1, 4, 11 ; Aeschiu. dial. 2, 2. In reference to persons it hardly signifies to (tt/dos or m Mdv. 33 ; Bhdy. 215), but among, inter. Acts xx. 29 ; xxii. 21 ; Luke xi. 49 ; Rom. v. 12 ; xvi. 26 ; Plato Prot. 349 a. ; Gorg. 526 b. (when it occasionally approaches the import of the Dative, Luke xxiv. 47, see above, § 31, 5) ; ^ in one passage, into a person's house, Acts xvi. 40 el'^Xdov ek rrjv AvSiav (according to many [minuscule] Codd.) see Valcken. in loc. cf. Lys. orat. 2 in. Strabo 17, 796 ; Fischer, Well. III. II. p. 150 ; Schoem. Isae. 363, and Plutarch. Agis p. 124, (but the better Codd. [Sin. also] give vposi). 415 b) Applied to time, ek signifies sometimes a point, limit for, at which Acts iv. 3 (Herod. 3, 5, 2), or up to, till which, Jno. xiii. 1 ; 2 Tim. i. 12 ;2 sometimes a period (^/or, during, like ctt/) Luke xii. 19 ek TToWa err) (Xen. M. 3, 6, 13). c) Used tropically, of ideal relations, it denotes any aim or end; as, Acts xxviii. 6 jirfhev arom-ov ek avrov ave- pwdevre's eis i/Aos is very nearly : towards you (erga), as elsewhere ?rpds is used. That ere is ever equivalent to 8ta with Gen. is a fiction ; and eis Staraya.? ayyeXwv Acts vii. 53 is most simply rendered upon the injunctions of angels (which, indeed, as respects sense amounts to in consequence of such injunctions), unless the interpretation proposed § 32, 4 b. p. 228 be preferred. As to ets for h see § 50, 4, p. 414 sq. 355 b. ^Avd upon, up along ^ (Bhdy. 233 f.), occurs in the N. T. 6thed. cliiefly in the phrase ava, /j,eaov with Gen. of place, through the midst of, (in^ between, Mark vii. 31 ; Matt. xiii. 25, and figura- tively with Gen. of a person, 1 Cor. vi. 5 BiaKpivat ava fj,eaov tov a86X.06vov out of (from) envy, Bph. ii. 4 Sia ttjv ■rroXXrjv dydinjv (Diod. S. 19, 54 8ta ttjv Wjoos Tou? ■^Tu^i/KOTa? eXeov, Aristot. rhet. 2, 18 ; Demosth. Oonon. 730 c). As to Rom. iii. 25, which even Reiche has misuuder- 373 stood, see Bengel. In Heb. v. 12 Sid rov ■)(p6vov is, on account '"■ "•■ of the time, considering the time (you have enjoyed Christian instruction ;^ not, as Schulz renders it, after so long a time). Sometimes Bid with Ace. denotes apparently the moans (ground or motive and means are very closely connected, cf. Demosth. cor. 354 a. ; Xen. M. 3, 3, 15 ; Liv. 8, 53 ; and in tlie poets Bid is sometimes used with the Ace. even in a local sense, see Bhdy. 236) : Jno. vi. 57 xdyo) ^S> Bid rov irarepa koX 6 rpair^wv fie ^-qaeTai 356 Bi ifii, just as in Long, pastor. 2 p. 62 Schaef. Bid Tas i/uya^a? ^^'' "^ e^rjcre, Plut. Alex. 668 e. But the passage strictly means, / live by reason of the Father, that is, becaxise the Father lives, cf. Plat, conv. 203 e. ; Fr. Rom. I. 197, who adduces as parallel Cic. Rose. Am. 22, 63 ut, propter quos hanc suavissimam lucem adspexerit, eos indignissime luce privaret. Passages moi-e or less similar are Demosth. Zenoth. 576 a. ; Aristoph. Plut. 470 ; Aeschin. dial. 1, 2 ; 418 Dion. H. III. 1579 ; cf. Wyttenb. Plut. Mor. II. p. 2 Lips. ; Sintenis, Phitarch. Themist. 121 ; Time. ed. Poppo III. II. 517. But Heb. V. 14 ; vi. 7 by no means belong here, nor (as de Wette and Ewald still maintain) Rev. xii. 11 iviKrjaav Bid to at/tia, cf. vii. 14 and what immediately follows, koX ovk rijdTrrjcrav ttjv '^v)(fjv etc. As to Rom. viii. 11 (where the reading, indeed, varies) see Fr., and as to Jno. XV. 3 Mey. in loc. In 2 Cor. iv. 5 ; Heb. ii. 9 ; 2 Pet. ii. 2 (where Schott still renders it hj per, which gives a false sense even ; Bengel otherwise) Rev. iv. 11, Bid is quite appropriately translated /or the sake of. So too in Rom. viii. 20^ (where Schott has per again). But in Rom. xv. 15 Bid rrjv ^a/aty ttjv Bodeiadv fwi the ground of this regulation, inasmuch as they are to be prevented. In Greek nuthors also design sometimes in the same way attaches itself to Sio ; see the annotators on Thuc. 4, 40 and 102. 1 The phrase is used thus, essentially, in Polyb. 2, 21, 2 and elsewhere, see Blak on the above passage. Schulz insists in applying the temporal sense of Sid to Heb. ii. 9 likewise. But Sii rh vdBriim tov Bavdrov means, on account of the suffering of death, and is elucidated from the well-known connection, recognized by the apostolic writers, between the sufferings and the exaltation of Christ. ^ Here Sici Tbr uirortifocTa constitutes an antithesis to oix fKovaa, not voluntarily, but hy reason of him that subjected, — by the will and command of God Probably Paul intentionally avoided saying Sick rov iirord^anTos, equivalent to 6 8ehs fiirerofe out^i/ Adam'.« sin was the proper and direct cause of the naraUrris. 400 § 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. the preposition must not, in consideration of xii. 3 Bca tP]<; ■)(a.piro\ Tfjv, XV. 14 Xi.fiot Kara ttjv y^topav throughout the country, all over the country, Acts viii. 1 (2 Mace. iii. 14 ; Strabo 3, 163) ; Acts v. 15 iK0dKfj,ov'; Gal. iii. 1 (Xen. ,Hist. 1, 14 like Kar ofifia Eurip. Androm. 1064, Kar o/jufiaTa Soph. Ant. 756). Likewise in Rom. viii. 27 Kara 0ebv evruyxaveiv does not mean (in a local sense) apud deum, but, properly, towards God, before God.' ' KoTa in its local signification is not properly synonymous with 4v (as even Kiihnol on Acts xi. 1 asserts). KoTti riji/ ir6\w means, throughout the city ; Kaff dS6ii along the road, on the road (as on a line). Even kot' oIkov, where the primary meaning recedes farthest from view, is used to express a different conception from iv olxa (as zu House, at home is different from im House, in the house). Besides, Kard has established itself in many phrases where probably iv might have been used. ^ Hence comes the meaning with, among, as oi ko9' ifias iroirjTo/ Acts xvii. 28, cf. xiii. 1 and other passages; see above, p. 193. Kard with a personal pronoun is em- ployed thus, especially in later authors, as merely a circumlocution for a possessive pronoun ; see Hose, Leo Diac. p. 230. ' Against this explanation, adopted also by Fr. Krehl and others, various objectioTis have recently been raised, particularly by Metj. and Phihppi. The most unimportant of all is that then kot' ourdi' would be used. The emphasis implied in the substantive §49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 40I Closely connected with this is the temporal use of the preposition, sometimes as in Acts xvi. 25 Kara ro ^ecrovvKriov towards midnight, and sometimes as in Matt, xxvii. 15 Kad' koprriv during the festival, i. 20 KaT ovap during a dream, secundum quietem (Herod. 2, 7, 6, Karh <^ws by daylight Xen. C. 3, 3, 25, xark ^lov Plato, Gorg. 488 a.), Heb. ix. 9 also iii. 8 (Sept.) Karh tt/v rjfiApav rov ireipaa-fiov in the day etc., and Kara to aiiro at the same time Acts xiv. 1. Hence it is employed of both place and time in a distributive sense, first with plural nouns, as xarh <}>v\d^ by tribes, Matt. xxiv. 7 Kara tottow, Acts xxii. 19, icark 8vo in pairs 1 Cor. xiv. 27 (Plato, ep. 6, 323 c.), Mark vi. 40 var. ; afterwards frequently with singular nouns, as in Acts xv. 21 kut^ "ttoKiv from city to city (Diod. S. 19, 77 : Plutarch. Cleom. 25 ; Dio Chr. 16, 461 ; Palaeph. 52, 7), Kar hiMVTov yearly Heb. ix. 25 (Plato, pol. 298 e. ; Xen. C. 8, 6, 375 16, Karh p/qva Xen. An. 1, 9, 17 ; Dio C. 750, 74), koF r,fj.epav '"" ^ daily Acts ii. 46 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 2 (Hm. Vig. 860). ^ J] sqA figuratively Kara is the preposition of reference and direc- 420 tion to something : either generally, as in Bph. vi. 21 ret Kar epA quae ad me pertinent. Acts xxv. 14, or in limitation of a general expression (Her. 1, 49 ; Soph. Trach. 102 and 379) Eph. vi. 5 oi Karh aapKa Kvpioi as respects the flesh, so far as concerns the flesh, Rom.ix. 5 e^ av (^lovSauov^ 6 XpiaToi to kutu crapxa (1 Pet.iv. 14), Acts iii. 22 ; Rom. vii. 22 also xi. 28 and xvi. 25 ; or specially a) the measure, the standard, according to, in conformity to, as in Bph. iv. 7 ; Matt. xxv. 15 ; Jno. ii. 6 ; Luke ii. 22 KaTa v6p,ov, Heb. ix. 19 (Xen. Cyr. 5, 5, 6), Acts xxvi. 5 ; Rom. si. 21 KaTa 358 (bvaiv. Matt. ix. 29 Kwra ttjv iriaTiv vp,S>v according to your faith, ^^ ^ as it deserves, 2 Cor. iv. 13 ; Rom. ii. 2 KaTa dXtjOeiav, Matt. ii. 16 KUTo, ■)(p6vov according to the time. Hence it denotes similarity, sort (pattern), Heb. viii. 8f. a-vvTe\ea-(o . . . Siadi]Kr]v Kaivrjv, ov KaTa Tr)v htadrjKTjv, rjv errolrjaa etc. (1 Kings xi. 10), Acts xviii. 14. Likewise with names of persons /cara Tiva usually signifies accord- ing to some one's opinion Col. ii. 8 (Eph. ii. 2) ; 2 Cor. xi. 17, or will Rom. XV. 5 ; 1 Cor. xii. 8 ; cf. Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 91, or is easily felt, and is indicated visibly, too, by the position of /carck 6i6v, though the point of principal moment Ues in imhp ayiav. The translation, according lo God, introduces an entirely unnecessary idea into the passage, since of the Spirit no different intercession can be thought of. ' Also Kofl" kmiT6v fir an^s sdf is usually referred to this use (see e.g. Passaw), but erroneously, as the phrase is not distributive. Ko9' kavriv, and the like, properly means in reference to one's self, whereby something is restricted to a single subject ; hence for one's self, adv. seorsum. As to Ixfi" «■ laurijc, see Fr. Eom. III. 212. 402 § •19- PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. according to some one's pattern and example, as in Gal. iv. 28 KaTCL 'laaaK in the same way as Isaac, ad exemplum Isaaci, 1 Pet. i. 15; Eph. iv. 24 (Plato, Parm. 126 c. ; Lucian. pise. 6, 12; eunuch. 18 ; Dio C. 376, 69 ; cf. Kypke and Wetst. on Gal. as above, Marie, floril. p. 64 sq.). It is used of authors: to kuto, Mardalov evayye- Xiov the gospel (the evangelic history) as recorded by Matthew (according to Matthew's understanding and exposition of it). As to ehai, Kara crdpKa, Kara irvevfia Rom. viii. 5, see the expositors. In the (Pauline) phrase icaT avdpwjrov after the manner of man, in (ordinary) human fashion, (with contexts of various descrip- tions), KaTo, is used more generally: Rom. iii. 5 ; Gal. i. 11; iii. 15 ; 1 Cor. ix. 8 ; 1 Pet. iv. 6 (see Wiesing. in loc), see Fr. Rom. I. 159 sq.^ Cf. in connection with the same use . of Kfird, 421 Rom. iv. 4 kuto, ^aptv by way of grace, 1 Cor. ii. 1 Kad' vTrepoxrjv 376 Xoyov, Phil. iii. 6 ; Eph. vi. 6 ; Rom. xiv. 15 ; Acts xxv. 23 avSpdm 7th eJ. T049 Kar ^^oyijv t^? TroXeo)?. b) the occasion (and the motive), a sense closely allied; to the preceding (hence in Rom. iv. 4 naja xa/jw/ may be rendered also, of (put of) grace), Matt. xix. 3 dirdkvaai Tr)v yvvalica Kard iraaav alrlav for eyery cause, on every ground (Kypke in loc, cf. Pans. 6, 10, 2 ; 6, 18 ; 2, 7), Rom. ii. 5 ; Acts iii. 17 kuto, dyvoiav itrpd^are in consequence of ignorance (Raphel. in loc), Phil. iv. 11 ovx on Kad" vaTeprfo-Lv Xeyco from (in consequence of suffering) want. Tit. iii. 5 ; 1 Pet. i. 3 Kara to avrov e'Xeo?,^ Eph. i. 5 ; Her. 9, 17, (/cara TO exdo^) etc. cf. Diog. L. 6, 10 ; Arriau. Al. 1, 17, 13. Also in Heb. xi. 7 ^ Kara iria-Tiv BiKaioa-vvi} the righteousness which proceeds from faith. c) the intention, purpose,/or, to (Jno. ii. 6), 2 Tim. i. 1 ;^ Tit. i. 1 (cf. Rom. i. 5 ek), and the (necessary) result, 2 Cor. xi. 21 ' In 2 Cor. vii. 9, 10 \me!ir9tu kotA 6e6i> and Ktmri k. 6. is not sorrow produced by God (Kypke in loc), but, as Bengd aptly says, animi Deum spectantis et sequentis, to sorrow according to God i.e. after the mind and will of God. In the passage that follows Paul might in the same way have written fi xarlt rhv K^ff/jLov \iirn. But fi ToD K6(rfi.ov \inrq has a meaning somewhat different : the sorrow of the world, i.e. as the world (those who belong to the world) possesses and experiences it (of course about the things of the koV/ios). Bengel in like manner has duly appreciated the difference between these two expressions. In 1 Pet. iv. 6 icoTtk avepdnrovs means after the manner of men, and is more closely defined by the annexed a-apxi ; just so Korii 6(611 means after the manner of God, which is more closely defined by vvcv/ittTt (for God is irvevna), ^ Accordingly xari sometimes stands parallel to the Dat. (instrum.), as in Arrian. Al. 5, 21, 4 kot" ?xflos rh n^pov /wWov % (ptKtcf ttj 'AA.c^ai'Spow. See Fr. Rom. I. 99. ' Matthies gives an artificial exposition with the remark that it cannot be shown that KOTii expresses object. This import, however, is very naturally involved in the original meaning of this preposition. Moreover, see Mttk, 1356, 1359. ; § 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 403 Kar ari/jiiav "Keyco to (as a, by way of) reproach (Her. 2, 152; Thuc. 5, 7; 6, 31). The signification cum must be rejected, though Kara may sometimes be translated with. In Rom x. 2 359 §17X0? deov aXTC ov kut i-rriyvcoa-iv is zeal for God, but not according ^"' '^• to knowledge, i.e. not as zeal resulting from knowledge manifests itself (cf. above, kut SffvoMv), 1 Pet. iii. 7. In Heb. xi. 13 tcara 7ri(7Tiv airiQavav etc. means : they died in (^according to} faith, without having received etc. ; it was in accordance with faith (with the nature of TriVrt?) that they died having seen only from afar the fulfilment of the promises. The idea of kuto, -irlariv is contained in the second participial clause. e. 'TTFep with Ace. signifies beyond, aioay-over (Her. 4, 188 ; Plato, Grit. 108 e. ; Pint. virt. mul. p. 231 Lips.). In the N. T. it never occurs in reference to place, but is always used figuratively, beyond, over and above in number, rank, quality ; as, Acts xxvi. 13 <^&>? irepikdfi'^av . . . virep Tr)v Xa/MirpoTriTa rov rfKiov, Matt. x. 24 ovK eoTi /jLadr]Tr](; inrep rbv SiSdcrKoKov, Philem. 16 ; Matt. x. 37 6 i\tt)v irarepa virep €/j,e (Aesch. dial. 3, 6), 2 Cor. i. 8 (Epict. 31, 37) ; Gal. i. 14, also 2 Cor. xii. 13 rt v&)? vepl ifii a light shone round about me, Luke 425 xiii. 8 ; also with verbs of rest, as in Mark iii. 34 ol irepl airov KadrjfievoL, Matt. iii. 4 el)(6 ^avrjv vepl ttjv 6crvv about his loins. Then of time, as in Mark vi. 48 Trepl rerdpTTjv ^vKaKrjv about the fourth watch (circa in Latin), Matt. xx. 3 (Aeschin. ep. 1, 121 b.) ; Acts xxii. 6. Lastly, of the object around which an action or a state revolves, as it were, as in Acts xix. 25 ol irepl ra roiavra ipyuTat (Xen. Vectig. 4, 28) ; Luke x. 40 (Lucian. indoct. 6) ; 1 Tim. vi. 4 voffav irepl ^rfrrjaeK (Plat. Phaed. 228 e.). Hence it is sometimes equivalent to in reference to, as in Tit. ii. 7 ; 1 Tim. i. 19 ; 2 Tim. iii. 8 (Xen. Mem. 4, 3, 2 ; Isocr. Evag. 4 ; errorem circa literas habuit, and similar expressions, occur in Quintil. and Sueton.). Cf. above, § 30, 3, note 5 p. 192, and Ast, Plat. legg. p. 37 ; but especially Glossar. Theodoret. p. 317 sqq. Worthy of notice, further, is the phrase ol irepl rov TIavkov Paul and his companions 362 Acts xiii. 13,^ like ol irepl Uevo^wwa Xen. An. 7, 4, 16, ol irepl *"■ ^' Ke/cpoira Xen. Mem. 3, 5, 10, an expression which in later authors denotes the leader alone, Hm. Vig. 700. So probably in Jno. xi. 19 1 Meri in such phrases is used also by Greek authors, though this use seems to become more common in the later language, Malal. 2, 52 iiro\efiiiiTttv fier' a\\ii\i>iy, ,13 p. 317,337; 18 p. 457. ^ Greek writers, as is well known, employ aii.(pt likewise in this circumlocution ; but in simple prose Trcpi is in general far more frequent. That the expression ot jrepl rhv nad\ov means not only the ' surroundings ' (followers, companions, etc.) of Paul, but also includes Paul himself, arises probably from the pictorial nature of the preposition, which denotes what encompasses, and thus Paul's company. An expression somewhat analogous to this is used in German, e.g. MuUers (genit.) i.e. Mfiller and his household. (In Franconia they say, die Miillerschen, the Miillers, also including the head of the family.) § 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 407 ai irepl MdpOav kcu, Mapiav is to be interpreted; for the ainh^ following can only i-efer to the two sisters. Examples (but with- out precise discrimination) are adduced also l)y Wetst. I. 915 sq. ; Schwarz, Comment, p. 1074 ; Schweigh. Lexic. Polyb. p. 463. See also Bhdy. 263. k. 'Ttto originally denotes local motion, underneath, Matt. viii. 8 iva fiov VTTO rr]v a-reyrjv ei<;eX,6y<;, Luke xiii. 34 iiria-vvd^Ui, Trjv voara-iAv ^80 viro rdi; irTepiija^ (Xen. 0. 5, 4, 43 ; Plutarch. Thes. 3) ; also rest, Ith ed. i.e. the being (extending) under a surface, as in Acts ii. 5 oi vtto Tov ovpavov, Luke xvii. 24 (Plat. ep. 7, 326 c.), 1 Cor. x. 1 (Her. 2, 127 ; Plut. Themist. 26; Aesop. 36, 3),i also in Rom. iii. 13 (Sept.) to? aairiBwv mro to, x^^V avrmv under their lips (cf. Her. 1, 12 KaraKpvTTTeiv virb rffv 6vpr)v'). Then figuratively (Bhdy. 267 ; Boissonade, Nic. p. 56), Rom. vii. 14 ■ireiTpdiJikvo<; vtto rijv dfjMptiav sold under sin, into the power of sin, Matt. viii. 9 excv vtt ifuivTov 4(1)' ifms ii $acriKeia TOV SeoS. Here a heavenly gift is spoken of which comes dovm on men ; cf. Acts i. 8. 408 § 49' PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. of the preposition in Acts x. 10 eVeTreo-ev eV avrbu eKoraai'; (v. 5), i. 26 eireaev 6 KXfjpo (cf. Xen. Cyr. 3, 3, 68, see above in the text), which Matthdi erroneously calls a semi- graecam correctionem. Elsewhere certainly the difference between 4iri with Ace. and iirl with Gen. or Dat. is sometimes inconsiderable. "When it is supposed, however, that in Mark xv. 24 (we also say iiber die Kleidung loosen) Phil. ii. 27 (sorrow upon sorrow- so that one sorrow comes upon another already present) the Ace. stands for the Gen. or Dat., a closer examination of the passages shows at once the incorrectness of the supposition. But in Luke xxiii. 28 ; Rev. xviii. 11 the Dat. also might certainly have been employed, cf. Luke xix. 41 ; Rev. xviii. 20, and in Rev. v. 1 the Ace. would have been even more correct. These two constructions, though, are based on somewli.it different views of the matter. We also say iiber elne Sache freuen ( to rejoice over a thing). § 50. INTEECHANGB, ETC. OP PREPOSITIONS. 409 tendence and power over, Rev. xiii. 7 iSoOrj avT& e^ovaia iirl iraa-av ^v\^v. Heb. iii. 6 ; x. 21 (Xen. C. 4, 5, 58), cf.'Luke ii. 8 ; xii. 14, ^acj-iXeveiv eirl, nva Luke i. 33 ; Rom. v. 14 ; cf. Malal. 6 p. 143. c) of the heart's direction, the disposition, hence towards (Pranke, Dem. 127), erga and contra, Matt. x. 21 ; Luke vi. 35 ; 2 Cor. x. 2 ; 364 Rom. ix. 23 (not 1 Pet. iii. 12), Sturz, ind. to Dio C. p. 151 ; hence ^l" ^ to trust, hope, upon Matt, xxvii. 43 ; 2 Cor. ii. 3 ; 1 Tim. v. 5 ; 1 Pet. i. 13, but also (nfkcuy')(yLt,e(T6ai, eVt tivi,, to liave compassion on (towards) one. Matt. xv. 32 ; Mark viii. 2. d) of the direction of thought or discourse, Mark ix. 12 ; Heb. vii. 13 (Rom. iv. 9), or the will, and consequently of the intention and aim, Luke xxiii. 48 (Plat. Crit. 52 b.), Matt. iii. 7 (Xen. M. 2, 3, 13 ; Cyr. 7, 2, 14; Fischer, ind. ad Palaeph. under eVt), Matt. xxvi. 50 60' o (Plato, Gorg. 447 b.), also when aim and result coincide, Heb. x-ii. 10. Lastly, it is used in a very general sense : in ref- erence to, as Matt. xxv. 40, 45 (as to Rom. xi. 13 see a)). On 428 iruxTO'i iiri tl Matt. xxv. 21, see Pr. in loc. §50. INTERCHANGE, ACCUMULATION, AND REPETITION OF 382 PREPOSITIONS. Ith ei 1. The same preposition is employed in the same sentence or in parallel passages (especially of the first three Evangelists) with different cases to denote different relations ; as, Heb. ii. 10 8t' ov Tci TrdvTa Kol Si ov t^ irdvra. Rev. v. 1 ; xi. 10; xiv. 6 ; cf. 1 Cor. xi. 9,12 oi« di/^jo ht,a t^v yvvaiKU, — dw/p 81 a rri' eavTp Schoem. Isae. p. 349, as to Trapd with Gen. instead df 865 Dat. Schaef Dion. p. 118 sq. Hence in detached instances, where '^ an exact parallel may not be found in Greek authors (Luke i. 59 KoXeiv eVt Ttvt cf. Ezra ii. 61 ; Neh. vii. 63 etc.), we are not au- thorized to pronounce the construction un-Greek, particularly if something analogoiis can be adduced (Mtth. 1874), or if the case employed can be easily conceived as connected with the preposition in question. On the other hand, the N. T. writers never use eV2 KhavSia or KXavBiov for eVl KkavSiov, nor construe em of Con- ■dition (stipulation) with the Gen. or Ace. It was not till a lateir period that different cases, which though construed with the 883 same preposition conveyed different significations, began 1;o be Ith ei confounded in the written language of the Greeks, so that e.^. fierd with Gen. and /lerd with Ace. came to be used in the same sense, see above, p. 363. That in the same sentence the same preposition with the same case should be used in different relations and senses cannot be considered any more strange in Greek than in any other language, e.g. Luke xi. 50 ha iK^rjTijdy TO at/xa ■ffdvTO)!' t!!>v irpocfirjTuiv ... ciTro t^s ycveSs Twijrrji airb tov alfiMTO's ApeX etc., Kom. xv. 13 eh to ■jrepuro-tvav v/aSs iv Tfj iXniSi iv &xrvdixii TTVivp-aTO^ ayCov, Jno. ii. 23 ^v iv t. 'Iepo iv vfuv, xii. 12 ; 1 Cor. iii. 18 ; Rom. i. 9 ; Eph. i. 3, 14; ii. 3, 7 ; iv. 22 ; vi. 18 ; Phil. i. 26; ii. 16 ; 1 Thess. ii. 14 ; 2 Thess. i. 4 ; Col. i. 29 ; ii. 2 ; iv. 2 ; Heb. v. 3', ix. 11 f. ; Jno. iv. 45 (xvii. 15) ; Acts xvii. 31 ; 2 Pet. i. 4 (Philostr. her. 4, 1 ; Arrian. Epict. 4, 13, 1). 2. The two different prepositions in the same sentence in Philem. § 50. INTEECHANGE, ETC. OF PEEPOSITIL.. . 411 5 oKovfov aov rrjv arfaTrriv koX ttjv ttiotw', ■^v e)(^ei v/mmv ovve dir oKXcov the two prepositions are quite synonymous, as also in Jno. xi. 1 ; Acts xxiii. 34. In Rom. iii. 30 Paul certairily does not have in view any difference of meaning (between e'/e TrtWeo)? and Sia Trjv ecrraL, and in Exod. vi. 4 iv f/ (yff) Kol 7rapa)Kr]a-av iir avrrj';, Jon. iv. 10. Lastly, in 2 Cor. iii. 11 the distinction urged by Billroth between Bid So^t?? and iv S6^ will 384 hardly stand the test of usage, see above, p. 386. As to Sid of '"" '"'■ condition (state), see p. 379 sq. On the other hand, the difference of import between xard and en-t in 1 Cor. xi. 4, 10 and between ex and Bid in 1 Pet. i. 23 is manifest. 3. Prepositions of kindred signification are substituted for each other in parallel passages in the Gospels and elsewhere ; as. Matt. xxvi. 28 (Mark xiv. 24) alfjia to Trepi voXkuv iic'^vvo/xevov, on the contrary, Luke xxii. 20 to virkp ttoXK. ix^. ; Matt. vii. 16 fi^fi Sij-Avyj^o. 412 § 50. INTEECHANGE, ETC. OF PKEPOS avXKijovatv a-jro aKavd&v a7a(f)v\rjv, on the contrary, Luke vi. 44 OVKS^ aKavd. avWirybva-L avKa; Matt. xxiv. 16 (ftevyeraiaap sttI to, opj] (up to) cf. Palaeph. 1, 10, but Mark xiii. 14 ^£117. eU ra oprj (into) ; Jno. x. 32 Bi,a -rrolov avrcov epyov Xi^d^ere iJ,e ; vs. 33 irepl Kokov epyov ov Xidd^Ofiev ae; Heb. vii. 2 a Koi ZeKUTqv diro iravTcov ifiepiaev 'A^padp^YsA^ koI SeKarTiv 'A^p. eStoKev sk tS>v dKpo6ivia>v; Rom. iii. 25 et? evSei^iv t?j? SiKaioavvrj'; avTov, on the contraiy, vs. 26 7r/3os TTjv evSei^tv t. Sik. avrov. Cf. Xen. Cyr. 6, 4, 43 tt/oo? 431 avTO TO Tetvos 77/3091^70701' . . . ovic idiXco vtt air a ra Teiyyj ajeiv. Here belongs also Heb. xi. 2 ei' ravrr) (rrj TricrTet) ifiaprvp'^drja-av ol "TrpeajSvrepoi, vs. 89 Trai/re? fjiapTvpr]6evTe<; Bid ttj? iria-Teai^ (through faith, i.e. ut instructi fide) ; here the phrases eif)(e iinaTpa- (jsek, Rom. v. 5 97 ar/dirr) tov Oeov iKKe)(VTai, iv Ta« /copStat? rifi&v, Luke V. 16 ; Jno. viii. 37 ; 1 Cor. xi. 18, etc. (in Rev. xi. 11 the reading is very uncertain, and Mark i. 16 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16 do not come under this head). The latter, it was imagined, was used with verbs of rest to signify in, as Acts vii. 4 (^ 7»j) eh rjv u^et? vvv KUToiKeiTe, Mark ii. 1 ets oIkov icm, Jno. i. 18 6 cbv 6^s rov koXttov tov Trarpoy, ix. 7 vv^ai elt ttjv KoKvfi^TjOpav etc.^ a. Now first in reference to iv : the Greeks also, particularly Homer, sometimes use iv with verbs of motion to indicate at the same time the result of the motion, that is, rest?' This they do from a love of terseness peculiar to the Greek race. It is only in later writers, liowever, that such use of iv appears in prose (for Thuc. 4, 42 ; 7, 17 ; Xen. H. 7, 5, 10 have now been emended on MS. authority, Mtth. 1348), e.g. Aelian. 4, 18 KaTrjXde nxdrav iv SiKeXia i.e. he came {and dweW) in Sicily, Paus. 6, 20, 4 avTol KOjilaai (paal t?)? ' IirirohaiieiWi ra oara iv 'OXv/MTria, 7, 4, 3 etc.; Alciphr. 2, 8, p. 227 Wagn. ; Xen. Bph. 2, 12 ; Arrian. Epict. 1, II, 82 ; Aesop. 16, 127, 843 de Pur. ; Dio Cass. 1288, 23 ; cf. Heind. Plat. Soph. p. 427 sq. ; Poppo, Thuc. 1. 1. 178 sq. ; Schaef. Demosth. III. p. 505. The same explanation applies likewise to Matt. X. 16 ; Rev. xi. 11,^ and perhaps also (with BCrus.) to Jno. 368 V. 4, especially if these words are a later addition ; for the other ^^ '^ 1 The above observation must be confined to the two cases specified ; for when ^v and (IS might according to different conceptions be used with equal propriety, it could not be said that one is put for the other, e.g. rouro iyeverd fwi, or toBto iyii/^ro els iiJ-f- ^ The same remark applies to the Hebrew 3 when it appears to be joined to verlis of motion, see my exeg. Studien I. 49 ff. Further, cf. Krebs, obs. 78 f. — Vw ^^ does not come under this head (Lucian. paras. 34 ; cf Poppo, Thuc. HI. II. 891). Neither can Perfects or Pluperfects with 4v, as Karme(pevyivai h rdiro) Plat. Soph. 260 c. ; Thuc. 4, 14, etc., be considered as parallel with the above examples. They show, however, the origin of this usage, cf. Bhdy. 208 ; and in good writers the usage is generally confined to such cases only, Kru. S. 286. Finally, the (not infrequent) construction Ipxetrdai iv Luke ix. 46 ; xxiii. 42; Rev. xi. H, etc. is perhaps to be also excepted when it denotes come (arise) in. ^ The fact that etsepxeaSat iv appears to be an imitation of the Hebrew 3 i<''3 makes no difference, as this Hebrew expression is undoubtedly to be explained in the same way. 414 § 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PEEPOSITIONS. exposition, went down in the pool (into the depths, to produce the 386 Tapay(i], see Lii&ke), is opposed by the consideration, that then in 1& ei SQ circumstantial a narrative a descent of the angel from heaven 433 would first of all have been mentioned. In all other passages the substitution of iv for ek is merely apparent : Luke vii. 17 means went forth (^spread) in all Judea ; Maj-k v. 30 eTnaTpa^eh iv Tc3 o;:^Xp turned him about (turned around) in the crowd, Luke V. 16 ■^v inro')((opSiv iv rat? ip^j/ioK continued retired in the solitary places. If the reading is genuine in Matt. xiv. 3, eOero ev (jivXa/cfj exactly corresponds to the Latin poiiere in loco (for which we, according to a different but equally correct conception, say put into') ; similar is Jno. iii. 35 irdvTa SeSccicev iv t^ %«/3t avrov, 2 Cor. viii. 16 (Eiad. 1, 441 ; 5, 574 ; cf also Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. L 598). In the same way, Matt. xxvi. 23 6 e/4/8ai/«a9 iv r& Tpv^la is, he that dippeth in the dish, an expression as correct as the Ger- man in die Schiissel eintaucht, dippeth into the dish (cf Aesop.' 124, 1). In 1 Cor. xi. 18 awepx- iv iKKXria-ia means, meet in an assembly (as we say, meet in the market-place, in company, etc.). In Phil. iv. 1 6 ort km iv 0ecrcrdKoviKrj ... e t ? rrjv ■xpeiav fxov i-jre/iyjraTe' the expression is abbreviated: ye sent to me (when I was) in Thes- salonica (cf. Thuc. 4, 27 and Poppo, in.loc). As to Jno. viii. 3T there may be doubt how iv v/mIv is to be taken, see Lticke ; but there can be no doubt that iv is not put for ek. As to Jas. v. 5 see de Wette. In Matt, xxvii. 5 iv tu> va& is, in the temple. In Eom. v. 5 the use of the Perfect was sufficient to indicate the correct interpretation (cf Poppo, Thuc. 4, 14) .^ b. More surprising still are the passages adduced in support of the assertion that eh is used for iv. Even in Greek authors eU is not unfrequently construed with verbs of rest ; and then the idea of motion (preceding or accompanying) was originally included, agreeably to the principle of Sremfogwen^ia mentioned above (Heind. Plat. Protag. p. 467 ; Acta Mouac. I. 64 sq. ; IL 47 ; Schaef. De'mosth. 1. 194 sq. ; Schoem. Plutarch. Agis 162 sq. ; Hm. Soph. Aj. 80 ; Jacobs, Ael. anim. p. 406, and, as to Latin, Hartung on the Cases S. 68 ff.), as Xen. Cyr. 1, 2, 4 vo^im et? ra? eauxwi' %(Bpa? CKoaToi TOVTWV TrdpeLaiv, Aelian. 7, 8 'H^ata-Ticov ek ^EK^arrava d-jreOave, Isaeus 5, 46 (cf. Acts xxi. 13), ^ Died. S. 5, 84 Siarpi^cov 1 Passages of Greek authors in which some have erroneously thought 4v is put for fU, have been more correctly explained by Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 247. As to lis for 4p, see iUd. II. 91. As to Latin phrases in which'ire with Ablat. appeared to be used for in with Ace., see Kritz, Sallust. II. 31 sq. 2 Eis x^P^o" ■r^s 'A-pKaUas SirijaKei Steph. Byz. p. 495 Mein. is to be explained in a different manner. § 50. INTEECHANGE, ETC. OP PREPOSITIONS. 415 6« tA? v^a-ov! Paus. 7, 4, 3. (The use of ek with such Terhs as 434 i^eiv, Kude^eaOat — KaOyja-dai, — Mark xiii. 3, cf. Eurip. Iph. T. 620, is of a somewhat different nature, see Bttm. Dem. Mid. p. 175 ; 369 Schweigh. Lexic. Herod. I. p. 282 ; Valcken. Herod. 8, 71 etc. ; *"■ ^ Poppo, Thuc. HI. I. p. 659 ; Fr. Mr. p. 558.) In this way are to f^J^ be explained the following passages : Mark ii. 1, where we say in German also er ist ins Haus, i.e. he has gone into the house and is now there (Her. 1, 21 ; Arrian. Al. 4, 22, 3 ; Paus. 8, 10, 4 and Siebelis in loo. ; Liv. 37, 18 ? Curt. 3, 5, 10 ; Vechner, hellenol. p. 258 sq.) cf. xiii. 16 ; Luke xi. 7 ; Acts viii. 40 ^iXnr'7ro<; evpidr) ek "A^ayrov Philip was found, condwctedi to Azotus (cf. vs. 39 rrvevfui Kvpiov ripiraae tov $t'\., see Wesseling. Diod. Sie. H. 581 ; cf. Esth. i. 5 ; Evang. apocr. p. 447) ; Acts vii. 4 etV r^v vfj.el, Mark xiii. 16 o tis tov aypov etc. ; Mark i. 16 a/i<^ij8aX\oi/Tes aix^i^k-qarpov iv t^ Oakda-crg, Matt. iv. 18 ^aXK. 437 1 The words of 2 Cor. xii. 2 apiroyerro eas Tpirov oipavov are quoted by Clem. Alex, paedag. I. p. 44 Sylb. thus : i v Tplra apTra vfiSsv, to, 8e /ne^' v/xSiv, to, 8e 8i v/j.a.'s, TO, 8 {mep vfjiMV, Acta Ignat. p. 368 Si ov koi /jhO ov T(3 Trarpi rj So^a. Other instances may be seen in Wetst. II. 77 and Fr. Rom. II. 556. 7. When two or more substantives dependent on the same prep- 439 osition immediately follow one another joined together by a copula, 1 Thepdoret has thus explained the passage : avrhs rd; Trdvra irerrotiiKev, airhs tA yeyovSra SiareXe? Kv^epvuv , . . els ainhp a.(popav HiravTas irpos'iiKei vnep /xsv t&v uwap^aj'Tuy X^P^^ dfio\oyovvras , aiTovj/ras Se t^v ^Trena irpofiijBsiaVf ouTtfJ 5e xp^ koI r^v irposiiKovaav hvanfimeiv io^oXoylav. 420 § 50. INTEECHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. the preposition is most naturally repeated, if the substantives in question denote thhigs which are to be conceived as distinct and independent, Weber, Demosth. p. 189 (as to Latin, see Kritz, Sallust. I. 226; Zumpt, Gr. S. 601 f.) ; but not repeated, if the substantives fall under a single category, or (if proper names) under one common class : a. Luke xxiv. 27 a.p^d/Mevo<; cnro Ma)creai<; kol a-Tro iravrtov twi/ "TrpocpTjToiv (Acts XV. 4) ; 1 Thess. i. 5 ev Bvvdfiei kclL hv irvevfiari ar/la) KoX iv ■jrXr]po(^opia TvoKKfi, Jno. xx. 2 ; ^ 2 Tim. iii. 11 ; Acts xxviii. 2 ; Mark vi. 4 ; x. 29 ; xii. 33 ; Eev. vi. 9. Hence it is almost always repeated when two nouns are connected together by koX . . . kuI (Bremi, Lys. p. 8 sq.) or re . . . km, as in Acts xxvi. 29 km, iv oXiyq) KM iv TToXKw (the two are incompatible with each other), Luke xxii. 33 ; 1 Cor. ii. 3 ; Philem. 16 ; Acts xvii. 9 ; cf. Xen. Hier. 1, 5 (but Soph. Trach. 379) ; Phil. i. 7 ev re tow Beafiol'i fiov koI iv Ty aTToXoyia, Acts XXV. 23 etc. (cf. Xen. Cyr. 1, 6, 16 ; Thuc. 8, 97 ; Died. S. 19, 86 ; 20, 15 ; Pans. 4, 8, 2).^ b. Jno. iv. 23 iv Trvevp,aTi, km akrjdeLa. (two aspects of one com- prehensive notion) see Liicke, Luke xxi. 26 diro (po^ov km 7r/3098o- Ata9 Twv iTrep^ofiivaiv (essentially one state of mind), Eph. i. 21 ; 1 Thess. i. 8 ; Acts xvi. 2 ; xvii. 15 (cf. Xen. Cyr. 1, 2, 7 ; Arist. Eth. Nic. 7, 11 in. ; Thuc. 3, 72 ; 2, 83 ; Pans. 10, 20, 2), also when the substantives are connected by re . . . km, as in Acts xxviii. 23 diro re Tov vo/jiov Maaeco^ Kol rSiv "Trpo^rav, i. 8 ; xxvi. 20 (Pranke, Demosth. p. 65), Pans. 10, 37, 2 ; 25, 23 ; Xen. Hell. 1, 1, 3 ; Herod. 6. 3, 2. For instances with proper names, see Acts vi. 9 twv dm 'J J' 2 KikiKia'; KM ^Aalwi, xiv. 21 vTrearpe'^^av eh tyjv Avarpav km 'Ik6- ■ vwv KM 'AvTi6j(eiav, xvi. 2 ; ix. 31 ; Matt. iv. 25. If the substantives are connected disjunctively or antithetically, the preposition is in the former case usually, and in the latter always, repeated, Col. iii. 17 6 ri eav -KOiriTe iv \6ya> rj iv epy^, ii. 16 ; Matt. vii. 16 ; xvii. 25 ; Luke xx. 4 ; Jno. vii. 48 ; Acts iv. 7 ; viii. 34 ; Rom. iv. 9 ; 1 Cor. iv. 3, 21 ; xiv. 6 ; Rev. xiii. 16 ; cf. Paus. 7, 10, 1 (the contrary only in Heb. x. 28 eVl Suo-b fj rpurl fjbdpTva-Lv, 1 Tim. V. 19) ; Rom. iv. 10 ovk iv irepiTOfjifi, dXX iv 440 aKpo/Svcrjia, vi. 15 ; viii. 4 ; 1 Cor. ii. 5 ; xi. 17 ; 2 Cor. i. 12 ; iii. 3 ; 1 On this passage Bengel remarks : ex praepos. repetita coUigi potest, non una fuisse utrumque discipulnm. 2 As to the various eases in which Greek prose writers repeat a preposition after T€ Kai, see Sommer in the Jahrb. f. Philol. 1831. S. 408 f. ; cf. StaM. Phileb. p. 156' Weber, Dem. 189. § 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OE PREPOSITIONS. 421 Eph. i. 21 ; vi. 12 ; Jno. vii. 22 ; xvii. 9, etc. (Alciphr. 1, 31). i 374 Lastly, in comparisons the preposition is always repeated, Acts "'t «!• xi. 18 ; Rom. v. 19 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22 ; 2 Thess. ii. 2 ; Heb. iv. 10 (as to Greek authors, see Scliaef. Julian, p. 19 sq. ; Held, Plut. Aem. 124; Krii. 284). In general, there is a greater tendency to repeat the preposition in' the N. T. than in Greek prose (Bhdy. 201 ; Krug. 284 f. ; Schoem. Plutarch. Cleom. p. 229), which freqiiently or usually omits the preposition, not only before a noun simply connected with one preceding (Bornem. Xen. conv. 159), but also after akXd or ij (Schaef. Dem. V. 569, 760 ; Plutarch. IV. 291 ; Poppo, Time. III. IV. 493 ; Weber, Dem. 389 ; Franke, Dem. 6) before words in apposition (Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 112, 247 ; cf. Bornem. Schol. p. 173) and in answers (Stallb. Plat, sympos. p. 104 sq. ; Gorg. p. 38 ; rep. I. 237). On the other hand, the following passages are singular even in the N. T. : Acts xxvi. 18 eiridTpe^ai airo <7k6tov^ eh ^w? koI ttjs i^ovaia<; rov aarava i-Trl Tov deov, vii. 38 ; 1 Cor. x. 28 ; Heb. vii. 27, but cf. Aristot. Eth. Nicom. 10, 9, 1 irepi re tovtcov koX tmv dper&v, eri Be koL (jtiKiw; etc. (see Zell, Aristot. Eth. p. 442) ; Lysias 1, in Theomnest. 7 ; Dion. H. IV. 2223, 1 ; Diog. L. prooem. 6 ; Strabo 16, 778 ; Diod. Sic. 5, 31 ; Plutarch. Sol. c. 3. In Jude 1 iv is not to be repeated from the preceding clause before 'Irjcrov XptcTTw, as that would be harsh ; but 'Ii/tr. Xp. is the dativus commodi : kept for Christ. Before a noun in apposition the preposition is regularly not repeated, Luke xxiii. 51 ; Eph. i. 19 ; 1 Pet. ii. 4 ; it is only in cases of epexegetic apposition that the repetition can take place, Rom. ii. 28 ^ iv T<3 avep£ iv rfj crapKi ireptTo/i^, Jno. xi. 54, (in 1 Jno. v. 20 there is no apposition). So also in the classics, though usually only when the word in apposition is separated from the principal substantive, Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. p. 127 ; Mtth. 1402. The repetition of the preposition before each of a series of nouns suc- ceeding one another without connectives, as in Eph. vi. 12 dXXa irpos ras d.p)(a.?, Trpos tos e^ovcrtas, Trpos Toiis (cotrjuOKpaTopas Trpos m iri/tu/i. etc., Jno. xvi. 8 (cf. Arist. rhet. 2, 10, 2), is of a rhetorical nature or serves to give greater prominence to the several particulars, see Dissen, 393 Find. p. 519. 7tt ei The preposition with which the antecedent is construed, is usually in Greek authors not repeated before the relative, as Plat. legg. 10, 909 d. airb T^s ij/tcpas, 17s av o irarrjp avriov 0(j}X.rj ttjv Slktjv, 12, 955 b. iv icpots — 441 oh av iOt^y) 2, 659 b. ex tovtov (TTO/juiTos, ovrrep rovi Oeovs iTrtKakiaaro etc. 1 But in such antitheses the preposition is not repeated before an adjective, as 1 Pet. L 23 oitK iK ffiTopas (pdapTTJs &\\^ &^$dpTov. 422 § 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS. Plat. Phaed. 21 ; Gorg. 453e.; Lach. 192 b.; Thuc. 1, 28; Xen. conv 4, 1 ; Au. 0, 7, 17 ; Hiero 1, 11 ; Aristot. probl. 26, 4 and 16; Paus. 9, 39, 4; cf. Bremi, Lys. p. 201 ; Schaef. Soph. III. 317 ; Dion. comp. p. 325; Melet. p. 124 ; Demosth. II. 200 ; Heller, Soph. Oed. C. p. 420; Ast, Plat legg. p. 108 ; Wurm, Dinarch. p. 93 ; Stallb. Plat. rep. II. 291 ; Bhdy. 203 f. 375 So, in the ]Sf. T., Acts xiii. 39 am iravTiov, u>v ovk rjSvv-i^dTjTe . . . SucajMBrjvai, Bill el SiKaioCrai, xiii. 2 atfjopia-are . . . ets to ipyov, o TrposKeitXrj/Aat avrous, Luke i. 2 J ; xii. 46 ; Matt. xxiv. 50 ; Rev. ii. 13 (not 1 Cor. vii. 20) ; on the contrary, Jno. iv. 53 kv ineivrj rg (tipq-, h> -q ehrev, Acts vii. 4 ; XX. 18 (Jon. iv. 10) cf. Demosth. Timoth. 705b. Iv rots }(p6voLia\Siv 6tD<.wv, Aristot. anim. 5, 30 ; Plat. Soph. 257 d. ; Xen. Cyr. 1, 2, 4 ; Diog. L. 8, 68 ; Heinich. Euseb. II. 252. As to the Lat. see Eamshorn S. 378 ; Beier, Cic. offic. I. 123. The Greek authors, also, readily repeat the preposition when the relative is separated by several words from the antecedent, Her. 1, 47 ; Xen. vectig. 4, 13 ; Lucian. necyom. 9 ; Dio Chr. 17, 247. In Greek authors, and especially in the poets, a preposition belonging to two successive nouns is sometimes, as is well known, expressed only once and that before the second noun, Hm. Vig. p. 854; Lob. Soph. Aj. V. 397 sq., the comment, on Anacr. 9, 22 ; Kiihner II. 320 etc. Such an instance has been supposed to occur in Phil. ii. 22 (Heinich. Euseb. II. 252) oTt, (Ls Trarpl reKvov, (Tvv i/jLol iSovXevcrev etc. But the passage contains rather a variatio struoturae. Paul uses arvv i//.ol, bethinking himself that he cannot well say e/xoi iSovXeva-ev : he has, as a child serves his father, served with me, etc. See, in general, the opposite remarks of Bhdy. p. 202 ; cf. however, Franke, Dem. p. 30. Note 1. It is a peculiarity of later Greek, in particular, to combine a preposition with an adverb, especially of place or time (Krti. 266 f.), — > either so as to make the preposition modify the meaning of the adverb, as in OLTO Trpuit Acts xxviii. 23, amb Tripvcn 2 Cor. viii. 10 ; ix. 2, dir' apri Matt, xxvi. 29, OTTO Tore Matt. iv. 17 [xvi. 21] xxvi. 16 [Luke xvi. 16], (KiraXaL 2 Pet. ii. 3. iirepXiav 2 Cor. xi. 5 ; xii. 11 (cf. vTripeu Xen. Hiero 6, 9) ; or so as to blend with an expressive adverb a preposition that seemed weakened by diversified usage (cf. in German : ohen auf dem Dache), as viroKaTio, iwepdvoi, KarevavTi. Sometimes also an adverb is strengthened by the preposition, as irapavriKa. To this class belong likewise such nu- merals as £>a?ra|Eom. vi. 10 etc. (Dio Cass. 1091, 91 ; 1156, 13, analogous to esaTTttf Franke, Demosth. p. 30, irpos a;raf Malal. 7, p. 178), im rpk ;^f)4 Acts X. 16 ; xi. 10 (among the examples adduced by Kypke II. 48 is the 7lh ed. analogous €is rpk, which occurs in Her. 1, 86 ; Xen. Cyr. 7, 1, 4; cf. Hm. Vig. p. 857). Many of these compounds are to be found only in writers 442 that flourished after the time of Alexander,^ some only in Scholiasts, Lob. 1 Yet CI itl, 4s JirciTo, 4s ir^ie, and the like, occur even in Thuc. 1, 129, 130 ; 4, 63 ; 8, 23. As to OTrb fiMpdeev, and the like, see § 65, 2, p. 603. § 51. USE OF PREPOSITIONS IN CIRCUMLOCUTIONS. 423 Phryn. p. 46 sqq. ; cf., however, Kuhner II. 315 ; several, such as airo iripva-i (for which -n-poTrepva-i or eiorepvo-i), are not to be met with even there. Further, cf. Sept. am oirurOiv (■''^n.K«) 1 Sam. xii. 20 and Thilo, Act. Thorn, p. 25. (Consistency in the mode of writing these compounds, whether connected Krii. 266 or separated, has not been observed even by the most recent editors of the N. T.) Note 2. The antique usage of employing (simple) prepositions without a case for adverbs, has been retained, with certain restrictions, in the prose 376 style of all periods, Bhdy. 196. In the N. T. we find but a single example 6'li «i of this: 2 Cor. xi. 23 Suxkovol XptOTOv tla-iv ; — virep eyw l more. The instances which Kypke adduces in loc. are not all similar. Usually in prose such prepositions are supported by a Si or ye (jji.era. Se is especially frequent) Bhdy. 198. Tlpos in addition, besides, may be best compared with the above passage, e.g. Dem. 1 Aphob. 556a. ; Franke, Demosth. p. 94. The form evi with the accent thrown back for cvi (iv), including the substantive verb, occurs several times, see p. 80 ; Bornem. (Stud. u. Krit. 1843. S. 108 f.) attempted, but on insufficient grounds, to introduce arro far from (Bttm. II. 378) in Matt. xxiv. 1. §51. USE OF PREPOSITIONS IN CIRCUMLOCUTIONS. 1. When a preposition with a noun forms a circumlocution for an adverb or (mostly with the aid of the article) for an adjective, the propriety of such a use of the preposition must be shown by a reference to its fundamental signification ; ^ a merely empirical treatment might lead to erroneous conclusions. Note, then, a. '^TTo ; e.g. utto iJ.epov<; Rom. xi. 25 ; 2 Cor. i. 14 in paH (^from a part Kitherwards) , airo fiiM<; (jyvd/j/rys^ Luke xiv. 18 unanimously (proceeding/rom one determination), with one mind. b. Jta with the Genitive usually denotes a mental state viewed as something mediate, a means: in Heb. xii. 1 Bi utto/u.oi'^? may 443 be rendered, with (through) ipSitience, patiently, ussiduQ (similarly Rom. viii. 25 Si vTrofiovij'i uTreKSe'^ofieOa etc., cf. Bi apocrvvTi<; imprudenter Xen. C. 3, 1, 18, St' euXa/Seta? timide Dion. H. III. 395 1360, see Pflugk, Eur. Hel. p. 41), cf. also e.g. Bi da-^aXela'; Thuc. '"■ ^ 1, 17. Of a different nature is Heb. xiii. 22 Bia ^paxe zur Rechten, on, at, to the right, ab oriente gegen Osten, on, to, towards the East. Many phrases, too, arise from abbreviation. 42i § 51. USE OF PREPOSITIONS IN CIRCUMLOCUTIONS. 2 Cor. iii. 11 el rb KaTapyov/ievov Sia So^rj'; etc. (above, p. 379), it denotes a quality with wliicli something is invested. c. Ek expresses a degree (unto) wliich sometliing reaches, Luke xiii. 11 ew to iravreXe^ completely (perfectly) wholly (Aelian. 7, 2, 6« KdX\i,aTov Plat. Eutliyd. 275 b., e? to aKpil3k Thuc. 6, 82) ; this, however, can liardly be called a periphrasis for the adverb. d. 'Ek, e.g. kK fiepov; 1 Cor. xii. 27 ex parte (forth from a part). 'Ek is used especially of the standard (secundum), as in e« twv vofxav secimdum leges, legibus convenienter (rule of conduct drawn as it were out of the laws) ; hence e^ la6T7)To<; according to equality, gY^T equally 2 Cor. viii. 13, sk fiirpovhy measure, moderately J no. iii. 34; 6tli ed. cf. e'f aSUov injuste Xen. Cyr. 8, 8, 18, e'^ 'iaov Her. 7, 135 ; Plato, rep. 8, 561 b., e'/c •n-po^'qKovTmv Thuc. 3, 67 ; see Ast, Plat. legg. p. 267 ; Bhdy. 230. It also denotes the source : ef dvayKj]'; Heb. vii. 12 ; cf. Thuc. 3, 40 ; 7, 27 ; Dio C. 853, 93 (springing out of necessity i.e. necessarily) ; the same explanation applies to e« (7Vfjb^(ovov 1 Cor. vii. 5 ex composito, which, however, under a different aspect (in consequence of an agreement), nearly comes under tlie first use. In the phrases ol ek iricnea)^ Gal. iii. 7, oi eic 7repi,T0/j,rjt; Acts X. 45, 6 6^ evavriat; Tit. ii. 8, oi i^ epideiaepeiv rivi of persons means, offerre alicui (aliquid) ; but irpo'i^epeiv iirl ras a-vvcvya)yd<; to bring before the synagogue^anthor- 447 ities), Luke xii. 11.* Cf. also irpo'sepxea'Oai rivi adire aliquem and ■7rpo<;ep'x,. 7rpo5 tov Xpitrrov 1 Pet. ii. 4 ; ecfjia-Tavai Tivi (of persons) Acts iv. 1, and e^Kndvat eirX t'qv oiKiav xi. 11. See, in general, my second Progr. de verb, compp. p. 10 sqq. 4. Tlie usage of the N. T. is more particularly as follows : 1) After verbs compounded with aTro, a) for the most part utto is repeated (cf., in general, Erfurdt, Soph. Oed. R. p. 225) : so after aTrepxeerOat (followed by a personal noun) Mark i. 42 ; Liike i. 38 ; ii. 16 ; Rev. xviii. 14 (Lucian. 380 salt. 81), after aTroTrtVretv Acts ix. 18 (in a material sense, cf. ^'l"''- Her. 3, 130 ; Polyb. 11, 21, 3 ; in a figurative sense it does not occur in the N. T.), a^undvai desistere a, or to withdraw from a person. Acts v. 38 ; Luke ii. 37 ; xiii. 27 ; 2 Cor. xii. 8 ; 1 Tim. vi. 5 etc. (Polyb. 1, 16, 3) but 1 Tim. iv. 1, see below, dirop^avlr ^ecrOai 1 Thess. ii. 17, airoa-iraadai Luke xxii. 41 ; Acts xxi. 1 (Polyb. 1, 84, 1 ; Dion. H. judic. Thuc. 28, 5), after d^opi^eip Matt. XXV. 32, d-TTo^alveiv Luke v. 2 (Polyb. 23, 11. 4, etc.), dTro')(wpeiv Matt. vii. 23 ; Luke ix. 39, dcpaipela-Oai Luke x. 42 ; xvi. 3 (Lucian. Tim. 45), wjraipeaOai Matt. ix. 15, diraXkdTTeaQai, Luke xii. 58; 1 So airoaTrivai deficere with oird in Xen. C. 5, 4^ and with the Gen. alone in 4, 5, 11. 2 In prose eisUvai or elsepxfirBai fh is usually employed in a local sense, e.g. eis rijv o'lKlav ; but with Tivd or ti;'^ (like incessere aliqnem) in reference to desires, thoughts, .etc. Demosth. Aristocr. 446 b. ; Herod. 8, 8, 4, etc. Yet see Valck. Eurip. Phoen.. 1099. As to eise'pxEO'^B' in particular, see my second Progr. de verb, compp. p. 11 sq. 8 In Greek authors inrexea-dai abstinere usually takes the Gen. ; but in the N. T. it is Bometimes followed by oird, Acts xv. 20 ; I Thess. ir. 3 ; v. 22. * Cf. IT phs Toh iffToij Tpox'\lai irposijpTiiivTo Polyb. 8, 6, 5 ; 3, 46, 8, but (fig.) 9, 20, b irposapTciv Tro\\6. TLva rp itt parriyltf. 428 § 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. Acts xix. 12, airotcpvirruv Matt. xi. 25, airoa-rpe^eiv Rom. xi. 26 Sept., once also after the figurative a-n-odvijaKeiv Col. ii. 20 (cf. Porphyr. abstin. 1, 41), which elsewhere, in the composite sense oi dying to, is construed with the Dat. (see immediately below). b) after aTroXa/i/Swew, irapd is used (with personal nouns), Luke ■vi. 34 ; cf. Diod. S. 13, 31 ; Lucian. pise. 7 Qairo, when the verb signifies to take away by force, Polyb. 22, 26, 8). c) the Genitive follows airo^evyeiv 2 Pet. i. 4 (but not in 2 Pet. ii, 20), amaXXoTpLovv Eph. ii. 12 ; iv. 18 (Polyb. 3, 77, 7), ofpiaTavai (deficere a) 1 Tim. iv. 1 (Polyb. 2, 39, 7 ; 14, 12, 3), diroa-T6peia6aL (fig.) 1 Tim. vi. 5. d) the Dat. is used after diroOvrjaKnv to die to a thing, Gal. ii. 19 ; Rom. vi. 2, (in Rom. vi. 10 the Dat. is to be taken differently) ; similar is aTroyiveadai, rat? a/MapTiaL^ 1 Pet. ii. 24. 399 2) Verbs compounded with dvd in the local sense of up (to), Ith ed, g^j,g construed with, a) ek, when the place to which the motion is directed is indi- cated, e.g. dva^aiveiv to go (travel) up to Luke xix. 28 ; Mark 448 X. 32 (Her. 9, 113), or go up (upon a mountain, into heaven etc.) Matt. V. 1 ; xiv. 23 ; Mark iii. 13 (Herod. 1, 12, 16 ; Plat. Alcib. 1, 117 b. ; Dio C. 89, 97), dva^iireiv Matt. xiv. 19 (Mark vii. 34; Luke ix. 16) Acts xxii. 13, dvdyecv Matt. iv. 1 ; Luke ii. 22 ; Acts XX. 3 (Herod. 7, 10, 15), dvaXafijSdvecrBai Mark xvi. 19, Avar TTLTTTeiv Luke xiv. 10, dvatpepeip Matt. xvii. 1 ; Luke xxiv. 51, dva'^copeiv Matt. ii. 14 ; iv. 12 etc., dvep^eadai Jno. vi. 3 ; Gal. i. 18. b) 77/309, principally when the point at which the motion ter- minates is a person ; as, dva^aLvetv irpo^ rov irarepa Jno. xx. 17, dvaKd/j-vreiv Matt. ii. 12, dvavepb-rreiv Luke xxiii. 7 (dva/SXew. tt^o? riva Plat. Phaed. 116 d. ; Arrian. Epict. 2, 16, 41), yet im nva is also used in such cases Luke x. 6 {dvaK.dp.'ineiv cf. Diod. S. 3, 17), or the Dat. Luke xxiii. 11 dvaTre/MTreiv tivL c) eVt, when the goal of the action is to be designated definitely as an eminence or as a surface on which the motion terminates, (Polyb. 8, 31, 1 dvcu^epeiv eirl ttjv dyopdv (up) to the market, on the other hand dva^alvew eyrl t7)v olKiav like the Lathi ascendere Polyb. 10, 4, 6, dva^aiveiv iwl hiKacmfjpiov freqiiently in Greek authors). Thus we find dva^t,j3d^eiv kirl top alfyiaXov Matt. xiii. 48 (Xen. C. 4, 2, 28 ; Polyb. 7, 17, 9), eVl to «t^vo? Luke x. 34 (Palaeph. 1, 9 ; Xen. C. 4, 5, 16 ; cf. 7, 1, 38), dvaKKiveadav iirl Toii^ ■XppTov's Matt. xiv. 19, dvaTriirTeLV eVl ttjv yr/v Matt. xv. 35 or iirl T^s 'yrj'i Mark viii. 6, dva^alveiv eirl to hoojia Luke v. 19, i-rri § 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 429 (TVKOjxopiav xix. 4 (cf. Xen. C. 4, 1, 7 ; 6, 4, 4 ; Her. 4, 22 ; Plut. educ. T, 13 ; Arrian. Epict. 3, 24, 83 ; Lys. 1 ; Alcib. 10 ; Paus. 6, 381 4, 6), dvaipei,v ewl to ^vXov upon the wood (cross) 1 Pet. ii. 24,^ *"'• avuKafiTTTetv i-n-i Luke x. 6 (Plut. educ. 17, 13). 3) Verbs compounded with avri (againsf) are regularly fol- lowed by the Dat., as Matt. vii. 2 ; Luke xiii. 17 ; Jno. xix. 12 ; Rom. xiii. 2 etc. ; yet see Heb. xii. 4 avTajcovt^eaOai Trpo? n (cf. vs. 3 ij et? aiiTov avTiXojia) , similar to which is avnKela6ai irp6<; Polyb. 2, 66, 3 ; Die C. p. 204 and 777. 4) Verbs compounded with e« are sometimes followed by that preposition (i.e. when out of is to be expressed), and sometimes merely by otto or irapd (i.e. when merely direction from or from the vicinity of is indicated) : thus m^aXKeiv e/t Matt. xiii. 62 ; Jno. ii. 15 ; 3 Jno. 10, etc. (Plat. Gorg. 468 d.) and aTro Matt. vii. 4, eKKXiveiv uTTo 1 Pet. iii. 11 ; Rom. xvi. 17, eKKoinetv e« Rom. xi. 24 (Diod. S. 16, 24), eWtTrren' eK Acts xii. 7 (Arrian. Lid. 30, 3), 449 iKXeyea-OM eK Jno. xv. 19 (Plat. legg. 7 p. 811 a.), iicrropevea-Oai eic Matt. XV. 11, 18 ; Rev. ix. 18 (Polyb. 6, 58, 4) and diro Mark vii. 15 400 (var., not Matt. xxiv. 1) or -rrapd Jno. xv. 26, exfjievyetv in Acts ^''"^' xix. 16, i^aipetv and e^aipelv eV 1 Cor. v. 2 ; Acts xxvi. 17, i^ipy(e(Tdai iK Matt. ii. 6 ; Acts vii. 3 etc. (Her. 9, 12) or -n-apd Luke ii. 1. On the other hand these verbs are but rarely construed with the Genitive, never when used in a local sense except e^ep-xeaOai Matt. X. 14 (and even there not quite indiibitably, see the variants ; yet cf. eKj3aivei.v tiv6<} Jacobs, Philostr. p. 718) ; when used figuratively, however, the Gen. is constant with eKTrlTrreiv (like spe excidere) Gal. v. 4 ; 2 Pet. iii. 17 ; Plat. rep. 6, 496 c. ; Lucian. contempl. 14 (yet with iic Her. 3, 14 ; Dio C. p. 1054, 57), and eKKpifiaaBat Luke xix. 48. Lastly, iKei,v is construed with ev, 2 Cor. iii. 2 of. Plat, de lucri cupid. p. 229 etc. ; Palaeph. 47, 5 (differently in Num. xvii. 2 ; Prov. vii. 3). ^E-jreKrelveadai Phil. iii. 14 (^stretch one's self out after) and, when joined to names of persons, eVt^at- veiv and sTrvfavetv invariably take the Dative alone, Eph. v. 14; Luke i. 79 (cf. Gen. xxxv. 7) ; so also does €iri,(f)epeiv in the sense of adding something to something, Phil. i. 17. 'EiricrKid^eiv has sometimes the Dative of the person, as in Acts v. 15 and probably in Mark ix. 7 (to make a sheltering shade for one, cf. Ps. xc. 4), and sometimes tlie Ace. Matt. xvii. 5 ; Luke ix. 34 (overslmdow, envelope, as transitive). In the Sept. we find also eTria-Kid^. eiri Tiva Ps. cxxxix. 8 ; Exod. xl. 29. 8) Of the verbs compounded with Sta, there are but few in which the preposition is particularly prominent : cf. in the N. T. Sunropevecrdat Slo, (nropi/jicov Luke vi. 1, cf D. S. exc. Vat. p. 30 (but we find also ZiatropeveaOai, TrdXew, yet in the sense of obire, 451 Acts xvi. 4), Siep^eadai Sid Matt. xii. 43 ; 2 Cor. i. 16 to pass through (and consequently out of) something, cf. Strabo 8, 332, and the pregnant Btaaco^eip St' uSaros 1 Pet. iii. 20. Most of them are construed like transitives, with the Ace, e.g. BiuTrXelv sail 383 through Acts xxvii. 5, likewise Siipxecrdai when it signifies pass 8* ^^ through Luke xix. 1 ; Acts xv. 3, Bta^alvecv Heb. xi. 29 etc. 9) Verbs compounded with xard which denote an action de- scending upon a local point, take dm-o or ex when the terminus a quo is to be expressed, e.g. Kara^aiveiv dtro tov ovpavov Luke ix. 54 ; 1 Thess. iv. 16, Kara^. ix rov ovp. Jno. iii. 13 ; vi. 41 ; when the terminus ad quern is to be indicated (Dio C. 108, 23 ; 741, 96) they take irri, ek, or Trpo';, according to the respective nature of the point in view, Luke xxii. 44 ; Mark xiii. 15 ; Acts xiv, 11, perhaps the Dative alone in Acts xx. 9 Kara^epeadai, virvo).^ On the other hand, KaOrja-Oai, Kadi^eiv, Karandevai, ev nvi signify 402 to set down on some place, etc. KaTrp/opelv to accuse, in as far "t «i as the notion of Kard is retained, is usually construed with the Gen. of the person ; KaTryyoptiv ri Kara tivo<; occiirs once, Luke xxiii. 14, and similarly iyKokelv Kurd Tivoipeiv dtro t. Mark xiv. 36 ; Luke xxii. 42, 'Kapkp-)(iaQai ditd t. Matt. v. 18 ; Mark xiv. 35. 12) Most verbs compounded with irepL have become regular transitives, and accordingly govern the Ace. ; as, irepikp'^etTQai 1 Tim. V. 13 (Obire), Trepi^eovvwai, Eph. vi. 14, TrepdcrTdvai Acts XXV. 7. In a material sense, with Trepl repeated, we find once 452 irepiaaTpdineiv Acts xxii. 6 (in the parallel passage Acts ix. 3 it is used as transitive), 'jrepi^divvvadai Rev. xv. 6 (Tre/st to, a-Trj6rf), •7repiKei(j6ai Mark ix. 42 ; Luke xvii. 2 (TrepicnraadaL Luke x. 40), but witli Dat. irepuiri'irreiv (Xriarah, Treipacriiol'i) Luke x. 30 ; Jas. i. 2 (Thuc. 2, 54 ; Polyb. 3, 53, 6 ; Lycurg. 19, 1) and ■n-epiKelaOai Heb. xii. 1. 13) Of verbs compounded with Trpo, only irpoiropeveadai Luke i. 76 repeats the preposition : irpoiropevari -irpo 7rpo<;anrov Kvpiov (Deut. ix. 3) ; in the Sept. ivclyjrcov is also used Ps. Ixxxiv. 14; xcvi. 3 and e/MTrpoa-Oev Gen. xxxii. 16 ; Isaiah Iviii. 8. So in Ltike i. 17 irpoeXevaerai ivdiTnov avjov (but in xxii. 47 Trpoijp'^eTo ainoi';'). Further, see above, No. 2. 14) Verbs compounded with 77/369 repeat that preposition when towards in a local sense is to be indicated, e.g. irpo'^'irl'meiv irpot TOW 7r6Sa9 Tw/69 Mark vii. 25 ; cf. Dio 0. 932, 82 ; 1275, 53 (but irpo'STriTrreiv Toit •yovacrt Diod. S. 17, 13), Trpo'iTiOecrdai 7rpo9 toi'9 384 TTOTepa^ Acts xiii. 36 ; also irpiKKoWda-dai 77/309 t^i' ryvvaoKa cleave »"'<»'• to his wife Mark x. 7 ; Eph. v. 31. On the other hand, with eVt in Matt. vi. 27 TrpoisTidivM eVt Tr}v TJKbKlav. More rarely the Dat. alone is used, e.g. '7rpo<;epx- opei Heb. xii. 22, trpo'i'iTlinet.v oIkIci Matt, vii. 25 (Xen. eq. 7, 6 ; Philostr. Apol. v. 21), and of direction, irpoo)veiv riva call one hither Luke vi. 13). On the other § 53. CONJUNCTIONS. 433 hand, the Dat. alone is almost invariably used when the object ap- 403 proached is a person, e.g. Tr/oo^TrMrrew tivl (to fall down before 14 ei one) Mark iii. 11 ; v. 33 ; Acts xvi. 29, irpo^^epetv rwl (Philostr. Apol. V. 22), Trpo^ip^eaOai tivi to draw near to one, or when the approaching is itself to be taken figuratively, e.g. '7rpo<;dryeiv r& 6em to bring to God 1 Pet. iii. 18 (in Sept. irpoisdr/eiv rm /cvpiqt frequently), irpo'SKKlvecrOal tivi to attach one's self to Acts v. 36 of. Trpo'ii'^eiv rivi Heb. vii. 13 ; Acts xvi. 14, 7rpo';ev)(eadal tivi Matt, vi. 6 ; 1 Cor. xi. 13, irpoiinQevai, \6jov rivi Heb. xii. 19, Trpo^riOea-dai, Ty eKK\7)aoa Acts ii. 41. If the verb implies rest (Trpd? rivi,), it is construed either thus with the Dat. alone, as irpo'ifj.iveiv nvi Acts xi. 23 ; 1 Tim. v. 5, ■7rpopa Tpirri koli ecTTavputa-av avrov (a supplementary statement, as it were, to vs. 24) it was the third hour and (when) they crucified him ; — where ore was early 406 substituted as a correction. From this we must distinguish Luke xxiii. 44 5tli ed. rjv <;') ... oiJTws; frequently /ca/is sub- joined to the latter to increase its force, as in Jas. ii. 26 w?7re/3 TO awfia %(upk TTvevixaTOf veKpov icTTtv, ovtco<; koi fj TriarK %("/''? t(!)v epycov veKpd eartv, Jno. v. 21 ; Rom. v. 18, 21 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22 ; 2 Cor. i. 7 ; Eph. v. 24 ; Heb. v. 3 ; 2 Pet. ii. 12. Sometimes, in fact, Kal in the second member actually takes the place of the compara- ative particle, as in Matt. vi. 10 ryevrjdi^Ta) to OeX-Tj/xd crov lu? iv ovpavw Kol iwl ryri Kal ev vfiiv xa^cbs Kai iv Tois Xoittois eOveinv, Matt, xviii. 83 ; Col. iii. 13 ; Rom. xi. 30 (var.), Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 372; Klotz, Devar. II. 635 ; Fr. Rom. I. 39 ; II. 538 sq. 6. Disjunction comes next under consideration. Simple dis- junction is effected by ^ (which is often repeated, especially in impassioned discourse, Rom. viii. 85) and by rj Kai or even (Matt, vii. 10 ; Luke xviii. 11 ; Rom. ii. 15 ; xiv. 10 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 6 ; cf. Fr. Rom. I. 122) .^ Correlative disjunction, on the other hand, is expressed by rj . . . rj, elVe . . . elVe, sive . . . sive, whether single 410 words or entire clauses are contrasted. Matt. vi. 24 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 6 Jth ei. (^Tot ... ij Rom. vi. 16), Rom. xii. 6 ; 1 Cor. xii. 13 ; 1 Pet. iv. 15, etc. In the N. T. ■^ is never put for Kai, nor Kai for ^, Marie, floril. 124, 195 ; 461 cf. Schaef. Demosth. IV. 33.^ There are cases, however, in which both ^Q\ particles, each agreeably to its import, may be used with equal correctness ethed. (Poppo, Thuc. III. II. 146), e.g. 1 Cor. xiii. 1 and 2 Cor. xiii. 1 (cf.Matt. xviii. 16), also Heraolid. as quoted by Marle.^ "When dissimilia are joined together by Kal (Col. iii. 11), they are merely placed in connection as individual objects, and not exhibited expressly as different or opposite. > According to the nature of the thoughts, the second clause, annexed by means of ft Kai, is either to be considered as supplementary {Bengel on Rom. ii. 15) and is of less importance than the first, or Kal involves an enhancement as in 1 Cor. (Klotz, Devar. II. 592). '■' As to aut for et, see Hand, Tursell. I. 540. On the other hand, disjunction by ^ may in a manner include union by Kai. When we say : Whoever murders father or mother is guilty of the most heinous crime, we mean of course at the same time that whoever murders both his parents is not less guilty. The minus Includes the majus. ' On Kai ...Kaivel... vel, see Schoem. Isae. p. 307. §53. CONJUNCTIONS. 441 In Matt. vii. 1 by xai lav a second case is introduced to which the speaker proceeds (further) ; but the better reading [supported too by Cod. Sin.] is probably ^ xai. In Luke xii. 2 we must supply Kat oitiv kpvtttov. In Matt. xii. 27 Schott has correctly rendered km by porro. In a sentence constructed. like Matt. xii. 37 or would be quite inappropriate; no less so in Rom. xiv. 7. It has been urged by Protestants, on controversial grounds, that ij is used for xat in 1 Cor. xi. 27 os av ka-dirj tov aprov tovtov ^ TTivrj TO iroTripiov tov Kvpiov. But, not to mention that iu this passage several good Codd. give koi (as iu vss. 26, 28, 29), ^ may be explained from the mode then current of partaking of the Lord's Supper, without giving countenance to the Catholic dogma of the communion in one kind, see Bengel and Baumgart. in loc' Should any one insist, however, that rj proves a real distinction in the administration of the sacrament, even more would follow (looking at the matter philologically) than the Catholic interpreters could consent to take, viz. that the cup alone might be sufiS- cient in the communion. In Acts i. 7 (x. 14) ; xi. 8 ; xyii. 29 ; xxiv. 12 ; Rom.iv.13; ix.ll; Eph.v.3^is employed in negative clauses (Thuc. 1,122; Aelian. anim. 16, 39; Sext. Empir. hypot. 1, 69; Fr. Rom. III. 191 sq. ; Jacobs, Philostr. imag. p. 374 and Aelian. anim. p. 457), where in Latin also aut is used for et (Cic. Tusc. 5, 17; Catil. 1, 6, 15 ; Tac. Annal. 3, 54 etc. ; Hand, Turs. 1. 534), and in o{}\ vumv icrriv yvutvax )(p6vovi ^ xaipous the negation applies equally to yvuivai )(p6vovi and yvStvai xatpous (the atten- tion may be directed to the one or the other), so that the sense is exactly equivalent to yv. )(p6v. Kal Kaipov^. When, lastly, xai and n occur in par- allel passages (Matt. xxi. 23; Luke xx. 2), the relation was diiFerently 411 conceived by the different writers. It would be a manifest abuse of '"'"'• parallelism to attempt to prove from this that the two particles are synonymous. Besides, these two particles have been not unfrequently interchanged by transcribers (Jno. viii. 14 ; Acts x. 14 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 1 etc. ; 462 Maetzner, Antiph. p. 97). Cf. also Fr. Mr. 275 sq. ; Jacob, Lucian. Alex, p. 11 ; whereas Tholuck, Bergpred. S. 132 f., reaches no very clear result. 7. Antithesis is expressed sometimes by the simple adversatives (Se, aXXa), sometimes by a concessive construction (^/j^evroi, ofiax;, aXkd ye'). A mutual relation of contrast, and consequently a combination of antithetical clauses, was originally indicated by fiev ...Si (1 Pet. iii. 18 ; iv. 6) ; but this relation was ultimately weak- ened into mere correspondence (Rom. viii. 17 ; 1 Cor. i. 23), and 392 became logically even inferior to parallelism by means of km ... ' «ai' (Hartung II. 403 ff.). The particles aXXd and 8i differ in general like sed and autem (vero), see 1 Even according to our mode of communing it is conceivable that one may receive the bread devoutly, but the cup with sensuous (perhaps sinful) distraction. Accord- ingly we, too, could say, Whoever receiveth bread or cup unworthily. 56 442 §53- CONJUNCTIONS. Hand, Tursellin. I. 559, cf. 425 : The former (the Neut. Plur. of oXAos with a different accent, Klotz, Devar. II. 1 sq.), which may often be trans- lated by yet, nevertheless, imo, expresses proper and strict opposition (cancelling a previous statement or indicating that it is to be disregarded) ; the latter (weakened from SiJ Klotz, 1. c. p. 355) connects while it con- trasts, i.e. adds another particular different from what precedes (Schneider, Vorles. I. 220). When a negation precedes, we find ovk . . . dAAa not , . . but, and also ov (/ixi;) ...Si not . .. but (but rather), e.g. Acts xii. 9, 14; Heb. iv. 13 ; vi. 12 ; Jas. v. 12 ; Rom. iii. 4, ofou ... Bi Heb. ii. 8 (Thuc. 4, 86 ; Xen. C. 4, 3, 13 ; cf. Hartung, Partik. I. 171 ; Klotz, Devar. II. 360). On dAAa and Si we remark specially that, a) aWd is used when a train of thought is broken off or interrupted, whether by an objection (Rom. x. 19 ; 1 Cor. xv. 35 ; Jno. vii. 27 ; Klotz, Devar. II. 11 ; cf. Xen. Mem. 1, 2, 9 ; 4, 2, 16 ; Cyr. 1, 6, 9), or by a cor- rection (Mark xiv. 36; 2 Cor. xi. 1), or by a question (Heb. iii. 16; cf. Xen. C. 1, 3, 11 ; Klotz II. 13), or by an encouragement, command, request (Acts x. 20 ; xxvi. 16 ; Matt. ix. 18 ; Mark ix. 22 ; Luke vii. 7 ; Jno. xii. 27 ; cf. Xen. C. 1, 5, 13 ; 2, 2, 4 ; 5, 5, 24 ; Arrian. Al. 5, 26, 3 ; see Palairet p. 298 ; Krebs p. 208 ; Klotz, Devar. II. 5) ; for in all these instances something different is advanced subversive of what precedes. Cf. also Jno. viii. 26 and Liicke in loc. In a consequent clause (after conditional particles) aXKd, like the Latin at, gives it an adversative em- phasis, and so strengthens it: 1 Cor. iv. 15 iav [x-vpiovs TraiSaywyovs cx'l'''^ iv XpixTTw, dAA.' ov ToAXovs iraripa^ (yet not. Still), 2 Cor. iv. 16 ; xi. 6; xiii. 4; Col. ii. 5 (cf. Her. 4, 120 ; Xen. C. 8, 6, 18 ; Lucian. pise. 24; Aelian. anim. 11, 31 ; see Kypke II. 197 ; Niebuhr ind. ad Agath. p. 409 j Klotz, Devar. II. 93). (The case is different in Rom. vi. 5 ei a-vfitjiVToi 412 yf^ovafxev t(5 0|U.oi(U|U,aTt to5 Oavarov avrov, dAAa Kal t^s S.vacrTa.afiii's icr6p.e6a Iih ed. . . . surely we shall be also etc., see Fr. in loc.) The use of dAAd, when 463 after a negative question it absorbs the answer no, as in Matt. xi. 8 n i^rjXOaTi OedaacrOai ; KaXajxav vm avifjiov (raXevo/jieyov ; d A A a Tt i^rjKdari tSctv ; and 1 Cor. vi. 6 ; x. 20 ; Jno. vii. 48 sq., requires no explanation (see Schweigh. Arrian. Epict. II. II. 839 ; Raphel. ad 1 Cor. as above). In Phil. iii. 8 dAAa fxkv olv signifies at sane quidem ; dAAd opposing the Pres. yfyovfx,ai as a correction to the Perf rjyrjiJ.aL.^ In Rom. v. 14, 15 dAAd occurs ggg twice in succession, in different relations; in 1 Cor. vi. 11 it is repeated 6tli «!. several times, emphatically, in one and the same relation. 1 'AW' ij after a direct or indirect negation, which occurs (occasionally in the Sept. e.g. Job vi. 5 and) three times in the N. T. (Luke xii. 51 ; 2 Cor. i. 13 and 1 Cor. iii. 5, — but in the last passage is probably spurious), must according to the careful investigation of Klotz, Devar. p. 31 sqq., who followed Krik/er (dc formulae 4aV ij et affinium par- ticular, post negation, vel negat. sententias usurpatar. natura et usu. Brunsvic. 1834. 4to.), be referred to Hwo and not to iwd. (In Luke as above 1 am not come on earth to Iring — au/)ht but division.) It is no valid objection to this exposition, that in 2 Cor., as above, i,\\d itself precedes, cf. Plat. Phaed. 81 b. ; see Klotz p. 36. §53. CONJUNCTIONS. 443 b) Be is frequently employed when merely something new is subjoined, something other and different from what precedes, though not strictly something contrasted (Herm. Vig. 845) ; this occurs in 2 Cor. vi. 1 5 sq. ; 1 Cor. iv. 7 ; xv. 35 even in a succession of questions (Hartung I. 169 ; Klotz, Devar. II. 35(5). Hence, in the first three Gospels xai and Se are sometimes found respectively in parallel passages ; in 2 Cor., however, as above, a clause commencing with ^ is inserted in a series of clauses con- taining 8e.^ Like the German aber, 8e is used in particular where an explanation is annexed, — whether as an integral part of a sentence, as in 1 Cor. ii. 6 aotj^iav XaXoC/ici/ iv TOLi reXetois, <;Te (^fievovv), and more sharply by apa, Sto (oOev), rovyapovv, (ovicovv only in Jno. xviii. 37). The causal relation is denoted by oVt, r^dp (Zioti, iirei'), while <»?, Kadu} a on this account that, see p. 394. 6th ed. p_ jjj jj^g j.jjg compound forms elye if that is since, quandoquidem (when no 469 doubt exists) and ehnp if indeed (when no decision is implied), Hm. Vig. p. 834; cf. Klotz. Devar. II. 308, 528, which occur almost exclusively in Paul. The distinction pointed out is obvious in most passages ; as to Eph. iii. 2, see Mey. 1 Pet. ii. 3, and probably also 2 Thess. i. 6, appears to be of a 418 rhetorical nature. On these passages, as well as Rom. viii. 9 ; Col. i. 23, 7th ed. see Fr. Pralimin. S. 67 f. Ei itself retains the signification if, even where in point of meaning it stands for lira since (Acts iv. 9 ; Rom. xi. 21 ; 1 Jno. iv. 11 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4, etc.) ; the sentence is in form conditional : if (as is actually the case), and the categoric force for the moment does not come into view. Sometimes there is a rhetorical reason for this usage (Dissen, Demosth. cor. p. 195; Bornem. Xen. conv. p. 101). So also in expressions in which it may be rendered by that, see § 60, 6. Et denoting a wish, if only, that, for which Greek authors usually employ dOi or d yap (IQotz, Devar. II. 516), occurs, according to the punctuation adopted by recent editors, in Luke xii. 49 koX tI OeKw ; d rjSr] avrj^B-q and what do I wish ? (answer) if if were (only) already kindled ; see Mey. [in his earlier eds.] in loc. "With regard to the Aorist, see Klotz I.e. : si de aliqua §53. CONJUNCTIONS. 449 re sermo est, de qua, quum non facta sit olim, nunc nobis gratum fore significamus, si facta esset illo tempore. Such a question, however, seems rather artificial in the mouth of Jesus. Of the objections which Mey. brings against the common exposition. How 1 wish that it were already kindled! the second, so far as usage goes, is less forcible than the first. [But Mey. now (4th ed.) acknowledges the common interpretation to be correct.] 9. Final clauses are expressed by means of the conjunctions tVa, OTTO)? (&)?). Objective clauses,^ which as they express the object of the principal clause in the form of a perception or judgment merely unfold its predicate, and consequently assume the place of the Objective case in a simple sentence (Thiersch, gr. Grammat. S. 605), I see that this is good, I say that he is rich, are introduced by oTi or tu?. Yet conjunctions are the less indispensable for both kinds of clauses as both may be conveniently expressed by means of the Infinitive, § 44. "On is the proper objective particle, like quod and that. It is used in this sense e.g. also after solemn asseverations, as in 2 Cor. xi. 10 tcrnv aXi^Oiia XptoToS iv ifioi, Gal. i. 20 iSov evamiov ToC Oiov, 2 Cor. i. 18 ttiotos 6 6e6s, Eom. xiv. 11, for these include the idea / aver, cf. Fr. Eom. II. 242 sq. In this way, too, is on to be taken when it introduces direct discourse, Mdv. p. 222 ; cf. Weber, Demosth. p. 346. 'Os (Adv. from the pronoun os Klotz, Devar. II. 757) likewise signifies, after verbs of knowing, saying etc., how, ut (Klotz p. 765) Acts x. 28 470 eTTUTTarrOe, ws aOifinov icmv dvSpl lovSaiio ye know, how (that) it is unlawful for a Jew. Thus the two conjunctions cni and us, when used in objective 399 sentences, proceed from different conceptions of the object, but coincide ^'^ ^• in sense. "Ottus, like ut (quo), besides being an adverb {Jiow, wSs Klotz, Devar. n. 681, cf. Luke xxiv. 20), has become a conjunction. "Iva was originally 419 a relative adverb, where, whither (Klotz, as above, p. 616). From local "ted, direction it was transferred to direction of the will (design), and thus resembles the Latin quo. In the N. T. is expressing design (Klotz p. 760) occurs only in the well-known phrase (Ls &ros dttdv, Heb. vii. 9 ; cf. Mtth. 1265, which, however, recent grammarians are inclined to explain other- wise, Klotz II. 765; Madv. 164. (How ha in the N. T. is used also instead of the simple Inf., see p. 334 sqq.) 10. The regular use of all tliese conjunctions, framed as they were to express the several relations of clauses, would be quite annulled, had the N. T. writers actually employed one conjunction 1 Wetter, uber Subjects . . . und Objectssatze etc. Meining. 1845. 4to. 57 450 § 53- CONJUNCTIONS. for another — if with them Se often were equivalent to -ya/s, yap to ovv, "va to ftJ9T6, etc.i — as expositors, following indeed the scholiasts (Fischer ad Palaeph. p. 6) and earlier philologists, long assumed (Pott, Heinrichs, Flatt, Kiihnol, Schott, even D. Schulz), and as the Hermeneutics of the time (Keil, Hermen. S. 67) tauglit. 471 But such interchange is in every instance only apparent. It rests in part on the circumstance, that the relation of two senten- ces to each other may be conceived sometimes in several ways ^ ; and thus the particular logical connection in a given passage may depend on the conception of the individual (or nation, see below on tW), one which is unfamiliar to the reader ; and in part on a 400 conciseness of expression foreign to the genius of our language. 6th bL Wherever the apostles use a Se they have always thought somehow oiabut; and it is the expositor's duty to reproduce for himself in 420 like manner the connection of thought, and not for convenience' 5tL ed. gjjjg ^Q imagine an interchange of conjunctions perhaps of opposite import. For how absurd to suppose that the apostles actually used /or when they intended to say but, or but when they should have written /or / Any child can distinguish sucli relations. And how .stupid they must have been to think of employing instead of for its opposite therefore ! None but expositors who had never accus- tomed themselves to view language as living speech, or who shrank ifrom the labor of precise thought, could have indulged such an 1 Even the better expositors are not free from this arbitrariness : thus Beza in 1 Cor. -tiii. 7 takes aWd for itague. See in opposition to such intei-pretation my Progr. Con- junctionnm in N. T. accuratius explicandar. caussae et exempla. Erlang. 1826. 4to. It is really strange to see how the commentaries (till within a few decades) undertake again and again to dictate to the apostles, and force upon them almost always some other conjunction than that actually employed in the text. Were we to reckon up the passages, there would certainly remain e.g. in Paul's epistles not more than six or eight in which the apostle has selected the right particle, and not required the subsequent aid of an expositor. This has made the interpretation of the N. T. very arbitrary. Are we not to believe that Paul and Luke knew more Greek than many of their domineering expositors t No one in this matter can appeal to the Hebrew who has not a most irrational idea of that language. Such arbitrary substitutions of one thing for another are impossible in any human speech. Besides, the arbitrariness of the interpreters was the more manifest, because different expositors often attributed to a conjunction senses entirely different in the same passage : (in 2 Cor. viii. 7 e.g aWi according to some is put for yip ; according to others, for oiv etc. ; in Heb. v. 1 1 i, is proved in vss. 23, 24 first from the position of Christ and of the husband, both being /ce^oAat, but secondly — and this is the main argument — from the claim (to be obeyed) which, as for Christ so for the husband, flows from this position. And vs. 24, so far from being a mere repetition of what is stated in vs. 22, concludes the argument, and explains inroTaa-cr. Tol's avBp. u>s Tu Kvpim. The expressive apposition also, awros o-co-nyp etc., does not interrupt the train of thought ; whereas the exposition of Mey., who regards these words as an independent sentence, introduces a state- ment that obstructs the line of argument. As to Acts x. 20 (Eisner in loc), see above, no. 7. p. 442. b) for « ij,ri : In Mark ix. 8 ovkIti ovhiva. elSov, ctWa tov 1-qcrovv /xovov 421 means, they no longer saw any one (of those that they had previously "t c"!- seen, vs. 4), but (they saw) Jesus alone. In Matt. xx. 23 (Raphel and 401 Alberti in loc.) So^^o-erat, borrowed from Bovvai, is to be repeated after aWd, and the conjunction signifies but. c) for sane, profecto : neither in Jno. viii. 26 see no. 7 p. 442, nor in xvi. 2, where it denotes imo or at as in Acts xix. 2 ; 1 Cor. vi. 6. Rom. vi. 5, where aXXd (xat) occurs in the apodosis, does not come under this head. 452 §53. CONJU^TCTIONS. 2. Ae never means a) therefore, then : In 1 Cor. xi. 28 it signifies but, in antithesis to vs. 27 dva^icos iadUiv, but let a man examine himself (in order to avoid bringing on himself such guilt). In 1 Cor. viii. 9 a practical restriction, in the form of an admonition, is annexed to the general principle laid down in vs. 8 : but see to it that this liberty do not become etc. In Eom. viii. 8, if Paul had intended to present Oew dpccrai oi Svvavrai as an inference from what precedes he might have continued with therefore (as Kiick. explains Si) ; but he passes from txOpa. ets Oeov to the other aspect of the matter 6f^ apicrai ov SuVavrat, — a transition which would have surprised no one had 473 there been no parenthetical clause. In Jas. ii. 16 Si, if genuine, means jam vera, atqui. b) for (Poppo, Thuc. II. 291 ; Ind. ad Xen. Cyr., and Bornem. ind. ad Xen. Anab. ; see, on the other hand, Hm. Vig. 846 ; Schaef Demosth. II. 128 sq. ; V. 541 ; Lehm. Lucian. I. 197 ; Wex, Antig. I. 300sq.) :' In Mark svi. 8 u)(i St is merely explanatory ; the cause of this Tp6fi,oi koI cKo-Tttcris is stated in the words i^opovvro yap ; some good Codd., however, which Lchm. follows, [Sin. also] have yap in the first passage. In Jno. vi. 10 the words rjv SI )(6pT0'; etc. are also a supplementary explanation; see above. In 1 Thess. ii. 16 t<^6acre Si forms a contrast to the intention of the Jews avaTtX-qp. avrZv t. ajxapr. : but (as, in fact, they would have it so) the funishment for this is come on them. In Matt, xxiii. 5 TrXarvvova-i Si etc. are special illustrations of Travra to. tpya avrHv TroioBcrt irpos to diaBfjvai ; the yap, adopted by the more recent editors, probably owes its origin to scribes who were troubled by Si. In 1 Tim. iii. 5 ei 8e' ns etc. means, but if one etc. ; the sentence, as will be seen by referring to vs. 6, is a parenthetical antithesis to tov ISlov o'ikov Trpotcrra/Aevov. In 1 Cor. iv. 7 who distiaguisheth thee (declares thee pre-eminent) ? but what hast thou, that thou didst not receive ? i.e. but if thou appealest to the pre-eminence which thou possessest, I ask thee, hast thou not received it ? In 1 Cor. vii. 7 (Flatt, Schott) Si signifies potius. In 1 Cor. x. 11 iypa.cj>rj Si, as even the leading position of the verb indicates, forms an antithesis to the statement that precedes : all these things happened etc. ; but they were written etc. In 1 Cor. xv. 13 Si is a genuine adversative : if Christ is 422 risen, then the resurrection of the dead is a reality ; but if the resurrection Itli ed. of the dead is not a reality, then (by converse reasoning) neither is Christ risen. Verse 14 contains a further inference : but if Christ is not risen, 402 then etc. The one statement of necessity establishes or invalidates the 6th cd. other. In 2 Pet. i. 13 Se forms the antithesis to the words Kaimp eiSoras etc. On Phil. iv. 18 see Mey. "■ In the sense of namely, that is, both conjunctions coincide : by means of Se a new clause is annexed which is part of the statement ; while by means of ydp a clause is presented as a confirmatory illustration of what precedes. The latter mode of expres- sion is often in substance equivalent to the former , see Bm, Vig. p. 845. §53. CONJUNCTIONS. 453 c) Nor does it ever serve as a mere copula or particle of transition : ilatt. xxi. 3 (Schott) say, the Lord hath need of them ; and straightway he will send them, i.e. these words will not be without effect ; but, on the contrary, he will straightway etc. In Acts xxi v. 17 the narration proceeds by means of 8e to another event. In 1 Cor. xiv. 1 Se means hut : but the SiouKEiv T^v ayajrrjv must not prevent you from ^rjXovv to, ttv. On 2 Cor. ii. 12 Meyer's opinion is more correct than de Wette's; Paul refers to vs. 4. In 1 Cor. xi. 2 it would be a mistake to regard, as Riick. does, Se as indicating merely the advance to a new topic (Luther has not translated it at all, while Schott renders it by quidem) ; the words connect themselves (directly) with the exhortation immediately preceding, lu/jurfrai /aov •yt'vecrflc : 474 yet (whUe I thus urge you, I do not mean to blame you) I praise you etc. Likewise in Rom. iv. 3 Luther and many other translators have neglected 8e (at the beginning of a quotation where the Sept. has Kai) ; but Paul is probably as little chargeable as James (ii. 23) with having used the adver- sative particle wantonly or without meaning. It renders iwurTeua-e more forcible, not to say almost antithetic. 3. Tap is incorrectly taken a) for the adversative but (Markland, Eur. suppl. vs. 8 ; Elmsley, Eur. Med. 121 ; see, on the other hand, Hm. Vig. 846; Bremi in the n. krit. Journ. IX. 533) : In 2 Cor. xii. 20 I say all that for your edification ; for I fear etc. (this is the very reason that I say it). In Bom. iv. 13 the clause with yap confirms the last words of the preceding verse, ev aKpajSvaria TT to- TEWS Tov iraTpos etc. In Rom. v. 6 f. the first yap simply refers to the fact which attested the love of God (vs. 5), — Christ's dying for the ungodly ; the second yap explains, a contrario, how death (of the innocent) for the guilty evinces transcendent love ; the third yap substantiates the remark /jloKk vnep SiKaiov etc. 1 Cor. v. 3 means : and ye, have ye not felt yourselves compelled to exclude the man ? for I (for my part), absent in body, . . . have already decided etc. It was, therefore, surely to be expected that ye, who have him before your eyes, would have applied the (milder) pimishment of exclusion. Pott understands yap here in the sense of alias ! As to 1 Cor. iv. 9 see above, p. 446 a) . 2 Cor. xii. 6 is : of myself I will not boast ; for if I should desire to boast, I shall not be a fool (there- fore, I might do so). In Phil. iii. 20 rnuav yap etc. stands in closest rela- tion to 01 Ttt eTTiyeia (jtpov. they that mind earthly things ! (a summary of vs. 19), for our conversation is in heaven (on this very account I warn you against them, vs. 18 f.). In Rom. viii. 6 the clause with yap states the reason why oi Kara Trvd/x.a (vs. 4) to. tov irv. tfipovovcnv, which is, that the i^p6vrjii.a T^s oopKos leads to death, but the <^pov. tov ttt. to life ; vs. 5, 423 however, is confirmatory of vs. 4. In Col. ii. 1 Bengel had already in- dicated the correct interpretation. Heb. vii. 12 (Kuhnol: autem) appends the reason for vs. 11 : for change in the priestly succession and abolition of the law necessarily go together, see Bleek in loc. 2 Pet. iii. 5 explains 454 § 53. CONJUNCTIONS. (Pott) how such men can come forward with such frivolous assertions as 403 in vss. 3, 4. Heb. xii. 3 enforces the preceding resolution rpix'^fi.iv etc., by 6lli ed. reference to the example of Christ. b) for therefore, then : Bengel's remark throws light on Luke xii. 58 : yap saepe ponitur, ubi propositionem excipit tractatio. 1 Cor. xi. 26 elucidates the expression eis rijv e/A-^v dva/^njcrii' vs. 25. In Rom. ii. 28 475 the connection is this : the unoircumcised, who lives agreeably to the law, may convict thee, who, though circumcised, transgressest the law ; for it is not what is external (like circumcision) that constitutes the real Jew. On Heb. ii; 8 see above, p. 447. c) for although : as in Jno. iv. 44 (see Kuhnol) ; but yd-p is simply /or ; Trarpis can only mean Galilee, vs. 43. d) for on the contrary: 2 Pet. i. 9 (Augusti). Ac might have been used, if the apostle had intended to say : but he, on the contrary, who lacks these (virtues) etc. With yap, the sentence confirms (illustrates) the foregoing ovk dpyovis . . . XptcrroB iiriyvwa-iv a contrario (/i^) : for he that lacks these, is blind. This interpretation supplies, too, a more forcible reason for the exhortation in vs. 10. e) for dXX' ofiios nevertheless : 2 Cor. xii. 1 (where indeed the reading is extremely uncertain ; yet the common reading Sij is not so decidedly incorrect asMey. insists) to boast (xi. 22 ff.) is not expedient for me surely; for I will (I will, that is to say, Klotz, Devar. II. 235) now come to visions and revelations of the Lord. Paul in this passage contrasts (cf. vs. 5) boasting of himself (of his own merits) with boasting of the divine marks of distinction accorded him. Of these last he will boast, vs. 5. Accordingly, the meaning is : yet glorying in self is not expedient ; for now will I come to a subject for glorying that excludes all self-glorification and renders it superfluous. * f ) for the mere copula : In Rom. iii. 2 irpSyrov p-lv ydp commences the proof of the statement ttoXv Kara Travra TpoVov. Acts ix. 11 inquire in the house of Judas for Saul of Tarsus ; for, behold, he prayeth (thou wilt therefore find him there), and he hath seen a vision (which has prepared him to receive thee), cf. Bengel in loc. In Acts xvii. 28 rov yap •yci/os etc. is a verse quoted verbatim from Aratus, where, moreover, •yap may be taken as confirmatory of Iv avrio t,u>p,ev koX iavovp,ida xai ctrj^ei'. In Acts iv. 12 the clause ovSe yap ovopA ia-nv etc. serves to unfold, and thus to establish, the statement iv aXXio ovSevl rj a-iarqpia ; and what the second clause adds to the first the attentive reader will easily perceive. In Acts xiii. 27 we may, with Bengel, Meyer, and others, restore the connection thus : to you, ye (foreign) Jews etc. is this word of salvation addressed ; for those at Jerusalem have despised this Saviour. It is more probable, 424 however, that Paul intended to proceed thus : for he is proved to be the Uh eJ. Messiah foretold to our fathers, cf. vss. 29, 32 ff. The recital of the facts in which the prophecies were fulfilled, impairs, however, the formal com- §53. CONJUNCTIONS. 455 pactness of the reasoning. At all events yap is not a mere particle of transition, as Kiihnol asserts. In 2 Cor. iii. 9 it appears to me that the words d yap ^ SiaK. etc. go so far towards establishing the apostle's thought as Staicivia T'^s 8tKatocn;i'ijs expresses something more definite than SiaKovux 476 Tov TTi-ev/xaTos : if the ministration of death was glorious, how shall not the ministration of the Spirit he much more glorious ? Fr.'s exposition, in his diss. Corinth. I. p. 18 sq., seems to me artificial. In Matt. i. 18 404 (Schott), after the words tov 'Irjcrov Xp. ■q ■yeVecris ovtuk rjv, the details S"'*'- commence as is not unusual with yap namely. 4. Ovv is falsely taken a) for hut : Acts ii. 30 (Kuhnol) irpoffi. ovv virdpx- is simply an inference from the sentence that precedes : David died and was buried. He there- fore; in his character of prophet, referred to Christ's resurrection in the words which he used apparently in reference to himself. Acts xxvi. 22 is not antithetic to vs. 21 ; but Paul, reviewing his apostolic life up to this imprisonment, concludes : hy the help of God, therefore, I continue until this day, etc. Even Kuhnol, in his Comment, p. 805, accurately renders ow by igitur ; but in the index ovv is represented as here denoting sed, tamen ! In Matt, xxvii. 22 tI ovv Troi-qcrw 'It/ctoCv is : what then shall I do with Jesus (since you have decided in favor of Barabbas) ? b) for for. In Matt. x. 32 ttSs ovv ostis is not confirmatory of the clause ttoMmv (TTpovduav SuiipeTe i/tew, but resumes and continues the main thought vs. 27 KTjpviare etc. Koi ijJq (jto^ficrOe. Fr. is of a different opinion. In the parallel passage, Luke xii. 8 Xeyu 8 e i/uv • xas 09 av oiMXoyqcni etc., the 8e is substantially the same in sense but more expressive. In 1 Cor. iii. 5 ns ovv io-rlv . . . 'AttoXXio';; who, then (to follow out your party- strifes), is . . . Apollos ? In 1 Cor. vii. 26 ovv introduces the yvai/Ai; which the apostle proposes in vs. 25 to give. c) for a mere copula, or as wholly superfluous : Eom. xv. 17 (KoUner) becomes at once plain by a reference to vss. 15, 16 (Sia r^v X'^P"' ^^'^)' The ovv in Matt. v. 23 is entirely overlooked even by Schott ; but it unquestionably introduces, however, a practical inference (admonition) from vs. 22 (the punishableness of anger etc.). It is more difficult to determine the connection in Matt. vii. 12, and even the more recent ex- positors differ widely from each other. Tholuck's exposition is probably correct, though his review of the various interpretations is far from com- plete. In Jno. viii. 38 /cai u/Aets ovv a ^/coware Trapa tov TraTpos Trotetre the ovv is far from being redundant ; it contrasts with sad irony the conduct of the Jews (you also, therefore) with the conduct of Jesus, representing both as following the same principle. Of the preceding four conjunctions 8e and ovv are the most closely allied ; and hence there are passages where either might have been em- ployed with equal propriety (e.g. Matt, xviii. 31), though even in the mere continuation of discourse (in narration) they are not strictly equiv- .j56 §63. CONJUNCTIONS. 477 alent. Instead of: Jesus found two fishermen, who . . , And (hut) he said 425 to them etc., I can also say : Jesus found . . . So (then) he said to them. ?th ed. The change does not greatly affect the sense, but still there is a difference of conception between the two. In the first case, to the coming and finding them the speaking is annexed as something new and different ; in the last, the thought is this : he said then (availing himself of the opportunity) to them. If in such an instance the narrator employs Se, it cannot be asserted that he ouglit to have used oSi' ; or vice versa. Tap and Se, also, can sometimes be used with equal propriety (see 10, 2, b) p. 452) : In Jno. vi. 10 the evangelist wrote: Jesus said, make the people recline ; now (but) there was much grass in the place. He might also have written : for there was much grass, etc. In the latter case he represents the circum- 405 stance as the incidental cause of the direction ; in the former, it is given 6th ed, as merely explanatory ; see Klotz II. 362 ; of. Hm. Vig. 845 sq. Here also then there is a difference of conception in the two cases. Consequently we may not adduce parallel passages, such as Luke xiii. 35, cf Matt, xxiii. 39, as proof of the perfect equality of Si and ydp. Even, however, if in such cases Se and ovv, Se and yap, axe fretty nearly equivalent, it does not follow that they are interchangeable in all, even their more precise, significations. On the other hand, yap and dXA.a are particles of far too definitive a nature to admit of their being used for each other at will, or even being unimportant. Finally, even in the most ancient Codd. (and versions ') numerous variations are found, in respect to the conjunctions Se' and yap Matt, xxiii. 5 ; Mark v. 42 ; xii. 2 ; xiv. 2 ; Luke x. 42 ; xii. 30 ; XX. 40 ; Jno. ix. 11 ; xi. 30, etc. ; Eom. iv. 15 (Fr. Rom. II. 476), Se and ow Luke x. 37 ; xiii. 18; xv. 28 ; Jno. vi. 3 ; ix. 26 ; x. 20 ; xii. 44; xix. 16 ; Acts xxviii. 9 etc., ovv and yap Acts xxv. 11 ; Rom. iii. 28. 5. "Oti is not equivalent a) to Sid wherefore (as the Hebrew "'3, but likewise erroneously, is sometimes rendered ; see my Simonis under the word, yet see Passow 478 under on) : In Luke vii. 47 nothing but a blind hostility to the Catholics (see Grotius and Calov. in loc.) could misinterpret oti, see Mey. in loc. As to 2 Cor. xi. 10 see above, no. 9 p. 449. Nor is this particle used for Sia ti in direct question (Palairet, observ. 125; Alberti, observ. 151; Krebs, observ. 50 ; Griesbach, commentar. crit. II. 138 ; Schweigh. lexic. Herod. II. 161 [Bttm. Gramm. des N. T. 1 These latter, therefore, where conjunctions are concerned, ought not to be cited in a critical apparatus as authorities without great caution. Yet in general, nothing has been treated so negligently by the earlier critics as the ancient versions ; even the better known and most accessible are, ten to one, brought forward incorrectly, — when, that is to say, either from the nature of the language or the principles on which they were executed they can be made to furnish no evidence respecting a various reading. But it is to be regretted that even in the most recent editions this part of the critical apparatus still appears unsifted. §53. CONJUNCTIONS. 457 Sprachgebr. S. 218]) in Markix. 11 ; even de Wette so understands it, and in support of his opinion refers to the passages which Krebs adduces from Josephus, not considering that there o ti {o,tl, as Lchm. printed it) is used as a pronoun in an indirect question, — a usage that assuredly does not require proofs from Josephus (Kypke I. 178). But as to this passage, 426 see above, p. 167. Fr. was disposed on very slight authority to read rt '"'"'• ovv (from Matt.), which is undoubtedly a correction. In Mark ix. 28 the best Codd. (even the Alex, [but not Sin.]) give 8ta ti, as in Matt. xvii. 19. In Mark ii. 16 Cod. D at least gives the same [likewise Cod. Sin.], yet Lachm. reads ti oti. But oti, though admitted as the true reading, would not necessarily be an interrogative. As to Jno. viii. 25 (Liicke), see § 54, 1 p. 464. b) to quanquam : Kiihnol renders Luke xi. 48 though they killed them, yet ye etc. Beza had already given the right exposition of the passage. In Matt. xi. 25 Kiihnol has himself, in the fourth edition, given up this interpretation ; and in his third edition also explains correctly Jno. viii. 45. c) to ore. As to 1 Jno. iii. 14, see BCrus. In 1 Cor. iii. 13 (Pott) OTI obviously specifies why 19 17/i.epa SijXooo-et etc. Everybody is aware that OTI and 0T£ have often been interchanged by the transcribers (cf. Jno. xii. 41 ; 1 Cor. xii. 2 ; 1 Pet. iii. 20, etc.) ; see Schaef. Greg. Cor. p. 491 ; Schneider, Plat. rep. I. 393 ; Siebelis, ind. Pausan. p. 259. Accordingly in the Sept. wherever oti appears to have the meanihg of when or as, we must un- 400 hesitatingly read ot£ (even in 1 Kings viii. 37), as the recent editions give *""^ on good manuscript authority in aU the passages quoted by Pott on 1 Cor. as above. d) to profecto : In Matt. xxvi. 74 on is recitative ; on the other hand, in 2 Cor. xi. 10 it means that (as after solemn oaths), see above, no. 9 p. 449. In Rom. xiv. 11 (from Isa. xlv. 23) the sense is : I swear hy my life, that etc. Lastly, for a refiitation of the assertion that oti is equivalent to os, as according to some is the case in Matt. v. 45, see Fr. in loc. Vs. 45 declares that by ayairav tov<; exdpov (Ta^S/SaTu. Jno. ix. 2 is to be explained by the Jewish theory of final causes, which in its national exaggeration the disciples shared. Severe, inexplicable, bodily afflictions must be divinely ordained penalties for sin : who then by his sin has moved the penal justice of God to cause this man to be born blind ? The necessary consequence (though undesignedly induced) of afuifyrdveiv is meant, see Lucke in loc. In Jno. xi. 15 "va Tna-riva-ryre is added to 8i' i/iSg by way of explanation : I rejoice on your account (that I was not there), to the end that ye may believe, i.e. now ye cannot but believe. In Jno. xix. 28 Iva means in order that, whether with Luther we join tva tcX. rj ypaiprj to irai^a ■^Siy teteX. (so Mey.), or with Liicke and de Wette to the following AeyEt ; in the latter case iva denotes a purpose attributed by John to Jesus. As to Jno. xvi. 24 see Liicke. In Rom. xi. 31 wa does not indicate the design of the aTreSovvTn, but God's decree which linked itself to this unbelief cf. vs. 32, to bring them salvation (not as merited, but) out of mercy. In connection with the divine plan, then, unbelief is designed etc., cf. also vs. 11. In the 408 same way "s v. 20 f. to be explained, and probably also 2 Cor. i. 9. The "'l' ^ same teleological view clearly finds place in Jno. xii. 40 in a quotation from the O. T. Rom. ix. 1 1 only requires attention to be plain ; and it is fairly surprising that Reiche should still take iva as ecbatic. The meaning 481 of 2 Cor. V. 4 is obvious ; and it passes comprehension how even Schott could render o/a by ita ut. In 1 Cor. v. 5 ek oXeOpov t^^ o-apKos shows how an intention of promoting the good of the TrvEVjua is connected with the apostolic TrapaSovvat tw ^arava; beyond contradiction, therefore, ii'a denotes in order that. In 1 Cor. vii. 29 the words iva xai gl ej^oites etc. indicate the (divine) purpose of o Kaipoi o-uvEOTaXjw.Ei'og etc. The same applies to Eph. ii. 9. In Eph. iii. 10 iva yvapia-Gy etc. is probably de- 460 §53. CONJUNCTIONS. pendent grammatically on tov diroKexpu/it/oieVov in vs. 9, see Mey. In Eph. iv. 14 Iva etc. expresses the negative design of what had been stated- in vss. 11-13. As to Gal. V. 17 (Usteri, BCrus.) see Mey. 1 Cor. xiv. 13 6 kak&v ykuxTay Trpo%ev)(€a6u), Iva hup)t.-qvivri means : let him pray (not in order to make a display of his -ffapiafw. tSiv ykuiaarStv, but) with the intention, for the purpose, of interpreting (the prayer). 1 Jno. iii. 1 behold, how great love the Father has shown us (with the intention) that we should be called children of God ; see Lucke ; BCrus. is not decided. In Rev. viii. 12 ha expresses the object contemplated in the TrAi^Trecr^at of the sun etc. ; for irXijTT. does not denote, as many suppose, the actual darkening of the heavenly bodies, but is the O. T. nsn used in reference to the wrath of God, see Ewald in loc. In Rev. ix. 20 the intention of ix,era.vouv is ex- pressed in Iva fn-q : they did not amend, m order no longer to serve demons etc. The discernment of the fact that the objects of their worship were 429 mere demons and wooden idols, should have led them to /Acravoia, in order Ith ed. tQ emancipate themselves from so degrading a worship. In 1 Thess. v. 4 (Schott, BCrus.) ha denotes design on the part of God, see Lunemann. Under the telic sense comes also John's expression eA.7jA.u6ei' rj wpa ha Jno. xii. 23 : the hour is (by God's decree) come (consequently is present in order) that I etc., cf. xiii. 1 ; xvi. 2, 82. Inaccurate expositors took ha in these passages as in 1 Cor. iv. 3 ; vii. 29 for oVe or orav. 2 Cor. vii. 9 (Riick., Schott) ye were brought into sorrow, in order that (God's purpose) ye might be spared a more severe chastisement. Te did not rather mourn, in order that . . . might he expelled ? Here, it is true, oisre might also be used if atpetr^ai were regarded as the natural result of jrev^^o at. Paul, however, conceives of it as the end : ye should have mourned with this end in view, to expel him. In 2 Cor. xiii. 7 the double ha indicates the aim of Paul's prayer : first negatively, then positively. The correct ex- position of Rom. iii. 19 is probably now to be regarded as settled; see also Philippi. Only BCrus. still hesitates. As to Rom. viii. 17 see p. 459. In 2 Cor. i. 17, however, ha preserves its meaning, whether we explain the passage : what I resolve, do I resolve according to the flesh, that (with 482 the intent that) the yea with me may be (unalterably) yea, and the nay nay (i.e. merely to show my own consistency) ? or thus : in order that with me there should be (found) yea yea, and nay nay (that both should be found with me at the same time, that I should afterwards deny what I had 409 affirmed). In 2 Cor. iv. 7 ha r\ iirtplSoX-^ etc. refers to God's purpose in 6th ei the fact that e)(op.ei> tov Orjcravpbv tovtov iv o o"Tp a kij/o is (rKtvecnv, In Heb. xi. 35 the words iva KpeCrrovos dvatrTao-etus Tup^utriv indicate the purpose with which those persons refused the djroX-uTpwo-ts. On Heb. xii. 27 see Bleek and de Wette. In Rev. xiv. 13 (Schott) probably aTro6vi^(TKOv(7i (from diro6v^crKovT6s) is to be repeated before iva dvaTrawoovrai. Ewald and de "Wette are of a different opinion, cf. above, § 43, 5, p. 317. §53. CONJUNCTIONS. 461 That the expression 'va (ottms) irXrifKoOfj to prjOiv in Matt, or ■^ yp<^Vf Xoyoi in John, which was for some time reduced to a mere ita ut, has in the mouth (of Jewish teachers and so) of Jesus and the apostles (when Tised in reference to an event which has already occurred) the more precise sense of in order that it might be fulfilled, cannot be doubted ; cf. also Olsh. and Mey. on Matt. i. 22. But it certainly was not meant by this that God had caused an event to occur, or impelled men inevitably to act in a certain manner, for the very purpose of fuliilling the prophecies (Tittm. Synon. II. 44) ; the expression is very far from implying any sort of fatalism, Liicke Jo. II. 536.' With this expression, moreover, is Mark iv. 12 also to be classified : all things are done to them in parables, in order that they 430 may see and yet not perceive etc., for : in order that the declaration (in "li «^ Isa. vi. 10) may be fulfilled : they will see and yet not etc. We too are accustomed to interweave such quotations with our discourse, when they may be presumed to be well known. Jesus cannot intend to assert the general impossibility of understanding such parables (for then it would have been strange indeed to speak in parables at all) ; but means that to persons who do not comprehend parables so very plain might be applied the saying of the prophet : he sees and understands not ; and that there would be such men had been expressly predicted. In the defective diction of the Apocalypse Iva is apparently used once, xiii. 13, for mre or is, after an adjective including the notion of intensity : magna miracula, i.e. tarn magna, ut etc. This would be as admissible at least as oti. after an intensive, cf. Ducas p. 34, 28, p. 182 ; Theophan. cont. p. 663 ; Cedren. II. 47 ; Canan. p. 465 ; Theod. H. E. 2, 6, p. 847 ed. Hal., and my Erlang. Pfingstprogr. 1830, p. 11. Yet see p. 338. It is otherwise in 1 Jno. i. 9 (a passage misconstrued even by de Wette and Schott) : he is faithful and just, in order to forgive us (with a view to 483 forgive, that he may forgive) ; cf. in German : er ist scharfsinnig, um einzusehen. This expressed thus : er ist scharfsinnig, so dass er einsieht, conveys in substance the same meaning, yet exhibits the thought under an aspect somewhat different. Here belong also the passages quoted by Tittmann (Synon. II. 39) from Mr. Anton. 11, 3; Justin. M. p. 504. Bengel's remark on Eev. as above : Iva. frequens Joanni particula ; in omnibus suis libris non nisi semel, cap. 3, 16 ev., (Ssre posuit etc. is indeed 410 correct, yet is not to be understood as if John used Iva indiscriminately for fitt A w^T€. The reason why <5st£ so seldom occurs in John is partly owing to the doctrinal turn of his writings, and partly to the fact that he expresses result by other constructions. 1 Bengel, on Matt. i. 22, says, in the doctrinal phraseology of his time yet in the main correctly, ubicunque haec locutio occurrit, gravitatem evangelistarum tueri dehemus et, quamvis hebeti visu nostro, credere ab illis notari eventum non modo talem, qui formulae cuipiam yeteri respondeat, sed plane talem, qui propter veritatem divinam mm potuerit non subsequi ineunte N. T. 462 §54- ADVERBS. Some insist that iva is used for on in Mark ix. 12 yeypaTrrai ewi tov vwv ToS a.v$p(Lwov, Lva iroXXa irdOri koI e$ovSeva>6fj. But the words probably mean, in order that he suffer ; this must be understood as an answer to the question, and epxerai or eXevo-erat supplied before it. Nobody will be misled by the passage which Palairet (obs. 127) has quoted from Soph. Aj. 385 ovx opas, IV el KaKov ; where iva is an adverb. (Some take oucos for on, us in Xen. C. 3, 3, 20 ; 8, 7, 20, see Poppo in loc.) Many render also ottios in order that erroneously by ita ut (Kuhnol, Act. 129 ; Tittm. Synon. II. 55, 58). In Luke ii. 35 (BCrus. ?) it is hardly necessary to refer to the Hebrew teleology to discover the meaning of the conjunction. Acts iii. 19 is plain if ottojs atrocmiKrf tov Xp. vs. 20 be understood of the opening of the kingdom of heaven, as vs. 21 requires. What was remarked in reference to lva. p. 457 sq. elucidates Matt, xxiii. 35. Philem. 6 is connected with vs. 4 : I make mention of thee in my prayers, in order that etc. Meyer's objections to this reference are groundless. In Heb. ii. 9 (Ktihncil) the clause with 6V'}, reXeito?, TroXuT/aoTrw? and TroXu/iejoa)?, prjTa)<;, €dviKa)<; in the biblical sense. Among the remaining adverbs also some belong to later prose, and give offence to the grammarians ; e.g. virepeKccva see Thom. M. 336, ovpavodev, iraiZuodev, fiaKpoOev Lob. 93 sq. The use of the adjective (or partic.) Neut.^ for the correspond- ing adverb, which became more and more common in later Greek, does not exceed in the N. T. the limits observed in the earlier 432 prose: ei. -n-pwrov, vcrrepop, Trporepov and to trporepov, TrKr)a-lov, Tv^ov, eXuTTov, TToXv, TO vvv e-xpv Acts xxiv. 25 /or tlie present (Vig. p. 9, cf. Hm. p. 888), rolvavriov, Xoiirov and to Xoittov (Hm. Vig. 706), Ta-^v, TrvKvd, laa, fiaKpd, iroWd (often, acpoSpa) and rd wroXXd (for the most parf), for most of which no adverbial forms existed. In general, there is nothing peculiar in the N. T. diction in re- gard to the use of adjectives, with or without prepositions (ellip- tically or not), for adverbs : cf. e.g. rov Xoiirov (Hm. as above ; 485 van Marie, florilcg. p. 232 sq.), 7re^, Trdvrr), KaTafiovw;, kut Ihiav, ISia, KadoXov, ek ksvov, and the Lexicons under the words. In- stead of Kara eicovacov Philem. 14 (Num. xv. 3) eKova-Lwi, eicovcria or 6^ eKovaiaf is more common in Greek. It is not necessary to speak of gennine Greek compounds, such as Trapa^fifia ; on the other hand, in conformity with the genius of the Hebrew- Aramaic tongue, abstract substantives with prepositions, instead of adverbial forms actually existing, are more frequent than in Greek authors : e.g. eV dXrjdela Matt. xxii. 16, eV dXr)6eia<; Luke xxii. 59 (for dXrjdo)';'), iv SiKMocrwr] Acts xvii. 31 for SiKaia><;, see above, § 51. In 2 Cor. iv. 16 ^/Mepa icaX 'rjfiepa, as a circumlocution for the adverb daily (Kaff rjjjuepav or to icdff r)^,epav, common in the N. T.), would be without example in the N. T. cf. m'l Di-' , see Vorst, Hebr. 307 sq. ; Ewald, kr. Gr. 638.^ Probably, however, Paul designedly used the expression day by day, to indicate the progress o? dvuKai- vovcrdai ; whereas Ka9^ (eKaaTTjv) rj/jiepav dvaKaivovTao might be taken also in another sense. Further, we find an analogous con- 1 Ho*Gver, what Hm. Eurip. Hel. p. 30 sq. says in elucidation of this use of neuters, deserves consideration. ^ Cf. Wp? Tp ri/iepif Georg. Phrantz. 4, 4, p. 356. 464 §54. ADVEEBS. struction (though only in a local sense) in Mark vi. 39 iirera^ev avaKklvai Trdvra^ avinroa-ia a-vfiTroaia catervatim, {cf. Exod. viii. 14,) vs. 40 aveveaov Trpaaial 'Trpacriai areolatim, see § 37, 3. These words are strictly in apposition, cf. Luke ix. 14. What Georgi in his Vindic. p. 340 has collected is of another sort. 412 When a simple accusative of a noun (substantive) is used adverbially, (ith a. this use arises strictly from an abbreviated construction (Hm. Vig. 883). Besides the well-known xV'-^t under this head come a. tV apx^v throughout, altogether (Vig. 723), which is probably so to be taken also in Jno. viii. 25 (see Lucke's careful examination of the passage) : altogether what I also say unto you (I am entirely what in my discourses I profess to be). The context furnishes no ground whatever for preferring the interrogative to the categoric interpretation ; Meyer's exposition is complicated, and appears to me least satisfactory of all. b. a.KfiL'^v used in later Greek for en, as in Matt. xv. 16; see Lob. Phryn. 123 sq. Adverbs may be joined not only to verbs, but also to nouns, as in 1 Cor. 433 xii. 31 KaO' iir€pj3oX.riv oSbv vfuv 6eiKi/i)/Ai, see no. 2, and 1 Cor. vii. 35 Trpos 1& al. TO evirdpiSpov T<3 Kvpiia aircpunrofTTUis- 2. The adverbial notion is sometimes expressed concretely as adjectival, and subjoined to the substantive (Mtth. 1001 ; Kiihner 48611. 382). This takes place not only when it is to tlie substantive (not to the verb) that a predicate (logically) belongs (though in German an adverb is used),^ but also where such reference to the substantive appears to be more favorable to perspicuity : ^ Acts xiv. 10 avdaTr]dij eVt Toii? TToSa? aov 6p96<;, Mark iv. 28 avTOfidrrj T] jT] Kapirocpopel, Acts xii. 10 (Iliad. 5, 749), Rom. x. 19 Tr/awro? Mcoiiafj^ \eyet (os the first}, 1 Tim. ii. 13 ; Jno. xx. 4 etc. ; ^ Luke ^ So Jno. iv. 18 TouTo &\T)96S cfpTjKas this hast thou spoken as (something) true, hoc verum dixisti. On the other hand, t. a\i)flajs tip. (which Kiihnal demands) would be ambigTious. Cf. Xen. vectig. 1, 2 oVas Se yvaxrBfi, 8t( ctATjfles toOto \4yii), Demosth. Halon. 34 b. tovt6 ye aKtjdes \eyovaiv. 2 Cf. especially Bremi, Exc. 2, ad Lys. 449 sq. , Mehlhorn, de adjectivor. pro adverbio positor. ratione et nsu. Glogav. 1828. See also Vechner, Hellenol. 215 sqq.; Zumpt, lat. Gramm. §§ 682, 686; Kritz, Sail. I. 125; II. 131, 216. In Latin this form of expression is in general still more prevalent. Eichhorn (Einleit. ins N. T. II. 261 ) makes an erroneous application of the rule in supposing that Jno. xiii. 34 hroK^iv Ktuv^iii Si'Sm/ii can signify, anew [Kaivas) will I give you the commandment. But in that case John must at least have written (toCtiji/) tIji' ^ctoXj;)/ Kawiii/ SlSa/ju. Even the position of the words precludes taking ii6vov adverbially in Jno. v. 44 ; see Lucke. 8 Ordinal adjectives are used for adverbs only when Jirst, second, etc. refer to the person ; that is, when something is expressed which the person did before all other persons (was the first to do) ; but when the person is represented as doing a first act, in distinction from other subsequent acts of the same person, the adverb must be used. Cf. also Kritz, Sallust. II. 174. §54. ADVERBS. 4g5 xxi. 34 firjirore iiriffTfj l<^ vfiav being understood) ; as, fidXa (TTparriyos Xen. HelL 6, 2, 39, see Bhdy. 338. Usually they are placed before the noun, but sometimes after it. Even ancient expositors thus understood 1 Cor. xii. 31 Kal £« kclO' vwepfioXrjv oSov vfuv BeiKw/u: a super-eminent {more excellent) way. Such an adverbial adjunct is placed after the noun in 1 Cor. viii. 7 rg cruveiS^cret ecus ci/dti toC eiSiuXou, Phil. i. 26 ; 2 Pet. ii. 3, probably also in 2 Cor. xi. 23 ; see Mey. 3. The adverbial notion of intensity is not unfrequently ex- pressed by joining to a verb a participle of the same verb (see § 45, 8), or a cognate noun in the Dative (Ablative) : Luke xxii. 15 eTriOvfjiia iwedv/jirjcra I have earnestly desired, Jno. iii. 29 X'^/oa %aj/36t impe7ise laetatur, Acts iv. 17 aTreiXrj aTTeikntjcToiiiedd Tet\s straitly threaten, v. 28 irapwy^eKia TraprjiyyelXafiev v/mv, xxiii. 14 avadefiari 414 avedefiaTiaafxev we have hound ourselves under a great curse, Jas. Bth «]. y 17^ from s^pt jjatt. xiii. 14 (Isa. vi. 9) ; Matt. xv. 4 davaTo, TekevTCLTca (Exod. xxi. 15). This form of expression is of frequent occurrence in the Sept. and the Apocr., and is there" aii imitation of the Hebrew Infinitive absolute, of. Isa. xxx. 19 ; liVii 10 ; Deut. 488 vii. 26 ; Exod. xxi. 20 ; Josh. xxiv. 10 ; 1 Saml xii^ 25 ; xiv. 39; Sir. xlviii. 11 ; Judith vi. 4 (Vorst, Hebr. p. 624 sij.); yet it is sometimes found in Greek authors also (Schaef. Soph. II. 313 ; 435 Ast, Plat. Epin. 586 ; Lob. Paralip. 624) e.g. Plat. symp. 195 b. 7th d. ^g^rytoy tpvyg ro 777/30?,^ Phaedr. 265 d. ifiol spalvet'euTo, pev aXXa TraiSia -rreiraladai, Phot. cod. 80, 113 crTrovhrj &-77ftp^'a^etv. Soph. Oed. R. 65 virvKp evBovra, Ael. 8, 15 vUrj ivUrjae. Of a different nature are those passages in which the Dative of the noun, is accompanied by an adjective (or any other adjunct) ; as, Tais.-j»feyHrTats Ttuats eTi/oiijiTav, .^ly/AiowTO) rfj i/o/Ai^o/tEi/Tj ^'//^ta (Schwarz a« aibove)i )«3'hese coincide with the mode of expression explained in § 32, 2 ; cf. XJg&'.A. 4, 6, 33 ; Plut. Coriol. 3 ; Aristoph. Plut. 592 ; Aeschyl. PraaC-ata^ Horn, hymn, in Merc. 572. From the N. T. see 1 Pet. i. ^''ay^}iki.SaSt. x<»P? di/eKXaXijTto) etc. Even the expression ydi/M •ycyo/xijKws i^':tj3emosth. Boeot. 639 a. has no connection with the construction iin' (jueBtion ; it means, as it were, having espoused by marriage i.e. living- itii-lawful wedlock, as ■yajiicto-Sai alone is applied also to concubinage. Even Xen. An. 4, 6, 25 01 ircXTaorai Bpofico eOeovl would except, as Sp6fioddvco also is sometimes used with the Inf. see Wyttenbach, Juliani orat. p. 181 ; cf. rapere occupat Herat. Od. 2, 12, 28), Matt. vi. 5 (pikovat, irpo'sevxeaOaL they love to pray (cf. Ael. 14, 37 S ?i\ios . . . koI i^^pave expresses the rapid scorching of the herbage more aptly than &cot6(\os 4(,i\pave, cf. veni vidi vici, not veniens vidi, or veni vidensque vici. To rise and to scorch is one act ; not, ' after he is risen, he sets about scorching.' It is precisely by expressing each of the moments by a finite verb that their rapid succession is more graphically represented. The second passage, iii. 14 /i}) Ka.TaKavxacr0e koI \fi(iSf(r6f Kara xijj i,\7)6elas, I render (and Wiesinger concurs with me) do not glory and lie against the truth ; xarh rris ii\. belongs properly to Kara- Kavxairdai (Rom. xi. 18). But the apostle to explain kotok. thrusts in forthwith a stronger expression. By resolving it into juj) Karajcavx^iiievoi ^tiZiaSe KOTct t^j iM^- we gain only the tautology Kark r. a\. ifcilSeo-flai, while the Kard in KaroKovx- is wholly neglected. §54. ADVERBS. 471 local sense cms ek, eias itri; yet cf. Diod. S. 1, 27 liu? ca/ceavov}, also with names of persons (even unto, to Luke iv. 42 ; Acts ix. 38 ; cf. Lament, iii. 39), %(u/3t? (Jno. xv. 5 separated from, /mt) /iivovre^ iv efjLol vs. 4, cf. Xeu. C. 6,1,1 ; Polyb. 3, 103, 8, then very fre- quently without and besides'), ifkrfaiov Jno. iv. 5 with Gen., as iu Sept. cf. Xen. Mem. 1, 4, 6 ; Aeschin. dial. 3, 3 (in Greek authors also with Dat.), but irapaTrXTja-wv Phil. ii. 27 with Dat. (with very slight variation of Codd.), ifyvi; with Gen. Jno. iii. 23; vi. 19; xi. 18 etc. and with Dat. Acts ix. 38 ; xxvii. 8, oyire with Gen. Matt, xxviii. 1, efiirpoa-dev with Gen., mria-a (exclusively Hellenistic), OTTia-dev with Gen., virepeKeiva and eXarrov ditto, and also eaco and e^ta with Gen. Several of these are so frequently construed with a case, that they may be taken directly as prepositions ; just as in 60)?, xajpi?, a.'xpi, fie'^pi, the adverbial meaning is already per- ceptibly receding, and iu avev (in the N. T.) has entirely disap- 493 peared. Under this head comes also Phil.ii. 15 /ieo-ov -yeveSs o-KoXtas (cf. Theophan. p. 530), which Lchm. and Tdf. have properly admitted into the text. But in Matt. xiv. 24 to TrXoiov ^Sr] //.eaov rrji OaKatrarj^ rjv the word jxiaov is an adjective : navis jam media maris erat, see Krebs in loc. In general, the use of adverbs with the Gen. in the N. T. diction appears very simple if we compare with it the far bolder constructions employed in the avS)V Kal TMfnrdSoDp 472 §54- ADVERBS. 419 (Arrian. Epict. 24, 113),^ Kom. xv. 24 u<^' v/j,&v irpoTrefi^drjvcu bth AeKei (to Spain), Jiio. vii. 35 ; iii. 8 Qirodev e/c)%6Tat koI ttov VTrdyei), viii. 14 ; xi. 8 ; Luke xxiv. 28; Jas. iii. 4 ; Rev. xiv. 4, etc. This is an abuse easily to be explained in the language of conversation (in w8e and ivddSe, ivravdol, the meanings hie and hue coalesced still earlier, Krii. 268), and which ought not to be denied in the written language of the N. T.^ With respect to other adverbs of place, not only does ecrm stand 494 for within {evBov does not occur in the N. T.) Jno. xx. 26 ; Acts V. 23 (Ezek. ix. 6 ; Lev. x. 18), but also ixeiae for e'/cet Acts xxii. 5 d^cov KoX Tov? eKela-e ovTa<; (see Wetst. in loc, cf. especially ol eKeiae oiKeovT€<; Hippocr. vict. san. 2, 2 p. 35, and the Index to Agathias, to Menander, and to Malal. ed. Bonn.). On the other hand. Acts xiv. 26 o9ev fjaav vapaheZo^evoi rfj •^dpiri,, as even Luther saw, is quite regular, cf. Mey. (and the emendation by Hemsterhuis, r)ev ixit plainly signifies ; having arrived there (cf. the preceding tBi Xalpav is Uipaas), and so might epx^irBai in Jno. xviii. 3 perhaps be rendered. Heb. vi. 20 Sttov TpiJSpojuos elsri\de may mean, where entered ; see BShme, whom Bleeh has not understood. ^ Many passages, to be sure, hare been referred to this head which are of another sort, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 36; Luke xii. 17, 18. Here ixu and oS certainly mean: there, where. Not so Luke x. 1, where HBlanann's translation ubi iter facere in animo erat is false because epxfir6ai does not mean iter facere. Cf. Hm. Soph. Antig. p. 106. 8 It is, indeed, not to be overlooked that forms such as ttov, ttoi, also licei, iKfiaf, might be easily exchanged by transcribers, as actually happens often inMSS. of Greek authors (Schaef. Eurip. Hec. 1062). Nevertheless, in the case of the N. T. the number of such variations noted is extremely small. Also corrections, as Acts xxii. 5 iKti, very rarely occur, since the readers were too much accustomed to such use of these adverbs to take offence at it. Besides, the old (Homeric) language coincides with the later prose in the interchange of local adverbs, while Attic prose keeps the forms moro distinct. § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 473 KUToiKel Vechiier, hellenol. p. 234. Besides, we find them used occasionally with a loose reference, Jno. xx. 19 t. dvpwv KeKXeu- afievwv oTTov rjcrav ol jxaOrfjai there (of the chamber) where, Mark ii. 4 ; cf. Matt. ii. 9 (Krii. 268). §55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 441 Jthed 1. The Greek language has, as is well known, two orders of 420 negatives, ov, oine, oiiKeri (oLrSet?) etc., and /atj, fj,i]Te, firjiciTi, (^firjSek') etc. The distinction between the two has been most fully unfolded 495 by Hermann (ad Vig. p. 804 ff. ; cf. Mtth. II. 1437 ff ; Mdv. 235 ff.). Oi, for instance, is used when something is denied in plain terms and directly (as a matter of fact) ; fii], where something is denied as mere matter of thought (according to supposition, and under conditions) : the former is the objective, the latter the subjective negation.! And this distinction is in substance observed also in the N. T. ; 2 as will be clear first of all, 1 Cf. besides, L. Riditer, de usu et discrim. particul. oi et fi^li. Crossen, 1831-1834, S Commentatt. 4to. ; F. Franks, de particulis negantib. linguae gr. Rintel. 1832-1833, 2 Comment. 4to. (reviewed by Benfey, in n. Jahrb. f. Philol. XII. 147 fF.) ; Baumlein, in d. Zeitschr. f. Alterthumswiss. 1847. nr. 97-99, and remarks, highly instructive on the general subject also, concerning particular uses of both forms of negation in Hm. Soph. Oed. R. 568 ; Ajac. 76 ; Philoct. 706 ; Eurip. Androm. 379 ; Elmstey, Eurip. Med. p. 155 Lips. ; Sdiaef. Demosth. I. 225, 465, 587, 591 ; II. 266, 327, 481, 492, 568 ; III. 288, 299 ; IV. 258 ; V. 730 ; Stallb. Plat. Phaed. p. 43, 144. (The theory of Hermann is combated on the ground of Thiersch's principles by Hartung, Lehre von den griech. Parfik. II. 73 if., and he is followed by Bost, Gramm. 743 ; in the main, however, he at last agrees with Henn., and the doubt through which he was led to his views has been solved by Klotz, Devar. II. 666. G. F. Gayler's essay, particular, gr. sermonis negantium accurata disputatio, Tubing. 1836. 8vo., is an industrious collection of ex- amples, but is deficient in clearness.) On the difference between non and hand in Latin see Franhe I. 7 sq., the review in Hall. L. Z. 1834. no. 145, and Hand, Tnrsell. III. 16 ff. (who at the same time explains ow as the qualitative, ii.ii as the modal negation). The comparison of the Heb. PK with (vlj (Ewald, 530) can be less perfectly carried through; precisely in the more delicate relations the correspondence fails. ^ That the N. T. authors observed almost invariably this in itself delicate difference, is due not to their theoretical knowledge, but to the sense of propriety they acquired by much intercourse with those who spoke Greek ; precisely as we also learn the some- times conventional difference between the synonyms of our mother tongue. In par- ticular instances, however, a foreigner might well be expected to err, since even Plutarch (Schaef. Demosth. III. 289 ; Plutarch. V. 6, 142,475), jtucian (Sc/iae/. Demosth. I. 529 ; Schoemann, Plutarch. Agis p. 93 ; Fritzsche, quaestion. Lucian. p. 44), Pausan. (Franke, I. 14), Aelian (Jacobs, Ael. anim. p. 187), cf. Mdv. 245 ; Mtth. 1444, are said to have sometimes interchanged the two negatives. Cf. also on 8ti /i^ for '6ti ov Ellendt, praef. ad Arrian. I. 24 sq. I would not, however, assert that in these passages gram- matical acuteness might not repeatedly be able to discover the reason for oi or /i^ ; 60 474 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. a. From the examination of a few passages in which the two neg- atives occur together. Jno. iii. 18 6 Trurrevav et's aiirov ov Kpiverai, 442 o 8e jMr] ■jTiaTevcov ■IjStj KeKpirai, OTi /it] veiriaTevKev etc. (cf. Hm. as '"" ^- above 805) ; Kpi'veddai, is denied as matter of fact by ov, i.e. it is asserted that in fact a judgment does not take place. The second ■mcTTevcov, however, is negatived by tlie particle /atj merely as a 496 supposed case, for 6 fii] ttutt. means, who (ever) does not believe, 421 if one does not believe (6 ov Trurrexxov would indicate a definite in- titiied. dividual who does not believe); hence follows also on firj irewlffT., since a case is merely supposed (quod non crediderit). This usage is not contradicted by 1 Jno. v. 10 o /i^ irujTevaiv rm dea ■^evarrjv ireTTOLrjKev airrov, on ov ireirlaTevKev eh rrjv fiaprvpiav etc. Here tlie apostle in the last words passes suddenly from the mere supposition (o /a^ ttjo-t.) to the matter of fact : the /u,^ iricrreveiv had already begun, and John pictures to himself now an actual unbeliever. Mark xii. 14 e^ean Krjvaov . . . Sovvai rj ov ; S&fiev, fj fiij Bcofiev ; where, in the first instance, inquiry is made as to the objective reason for paying tribute ; in the second, a subjective principle is expressed : are (ought) we to give etc. Cf. Hm. Vig. 806, on Aristoph. Thesmoph. 19, and Stallb. Plat. rep. 11. 270. Eph. v. 15 /SXeTTere tto)? dKpi06i><; irepnraTeire, /Mr) to? d<70(j)oi aX)C 0)9 cTotpoi; the /mtj to? aaocfioi, etc. is the direct explanation of ttcos, and like that dependent on /SXeTrere, — hence the subjective negation. 2 Cor. X. 14 ou yap, to? fir) iiKvovp,evoL el<; v/mcL';, vTrepeKTeivofiev eavTov'i we do not overstretch ourselves (objectively negatived), as though we had not reached to you, a mere supposition ; in point of fact it is not so. Cf., on the other hand, 1 Cor. ix. 26. Rom. xi. 21 el yap 6 0eos tmv kuto, (pvaiv KXdEcov ovk i^eiaaTO, fi.riiT(orJKe Tr]v yvvaiKa avrov t^ dSeXm airrov, where fir] eycov is used with reference to the law that made this provision (eav rt? diroOdvri firj 6x<^v etc. VS. 24) : not having, he left behind etc., as one not having in the sense of the law, he left etc. (ovk extov would exhibit the not having as if narrating something purely a matter of fact) ; in Mark xii. 20 we find in the narrative form ovk df]Ke avipfia. Col. i. 23 eiye eTrifiivere ry iriaTei . . . koI fir] fieraicivov- fievoi OTTO Tf)<; iXir., where the Tiot being moved away (in a proposi- tion beginning with e&ye) is put as a condition, consequently as something only supposed. 2 Thess. i. 8 SiSovra iKSimja-iv tok fir] elS6(Ti Oeov Kal tok fir] vTraKovovai Ta> eiiar/y. ; the statement here is general : such as know not God, whoever they are, wherever such are to be found (consequently a supposition), cf. ii. 12. Rom. xiv. 21 KaXov TO fir] ar/eXv Kpia (the not eating as something sup- posed : if any one eat not ; to ov ar/eiv would represent the not 1 Passages from Greek authors in which oi and lii) appear together in the same main proposition, with more or less obvious difference, are e.g. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 1, 3, 68 TotJro oiiK a-jro\oyoufi4vou ^v, a\K^ Kaxois dirnrKTjpauyTos kokcl koI ixrtKert fisTpius, aW^ &p5riv iTTtavafieyov r^s ajropias, 2, 60 AeKTCov, 5ts « fjtriSei/ iari fntropiKTis t4Kos, oviev e'o-Ti pi)Topiici\ (2,107), 2,110; hypotyp. 3, 1, 2; Lucian. catapl. 15 iyii are /ijjSty ex«^ ivexvpoi/ iv rif jSiaj, ovk ayp6vy oii (TvvoiKiav, ov xpv^^v etc. Soph. Antig. 686 oSt viv SwaiiMip/, /i^r" 4iriaraiivn>' Ae'ycii/, Philoct. 1048 ; Demosth. Callicl. 736 b. ; pac. 23 a. ; Phorm. 604 a. ; Xen. C. 2, 4, 27 ; Aristot. polit. 6, 8 ; rhet. 1, 11, 31 ; 2, 2, and 15 ; Lucian. dial. mort. 16, 2 ; adv. indoct. 5 ; Strabo 3, 138 ; 15, 712 ; Himer. oratt. 23, 18 ; Plutarch. Pompej. 23 ; apophth. p. 183 f. ; Aelian. anim. 5, 28 ; Joseph. Antt. 16, 9, 3. Cf. besides, Gayler p. 291. From the Fathers, cf. Origen c. Mare. p. 26 Wetst. ; from the apocrypha. Acta apocr. p. 107. Particularly noteworthy is Agath. 2, 23 4(p^ 8t9&i' fftlifiaTi fiij BaTToy KaTomaiev oi 6pyeis1iot Kives ovk ainlKa hrtfpOiTuvres Staairapaiaiey etc. 476 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. eating as something objective, — an actually existing practice it may be). Rom. xv. 1 6? ev ttj irapovaia etc. to vTrrjKovcraTe, in which case ov would have been indispensable. In accordance with the difference ahove defined, fx,i] in general will express the weaker (cf. also Hm. Philoct. 706), and ov, as categorical, the stronger negation. Nevertheless fiij is also at times more emphatic than ov (Hm. Soph. Antig. 691), inasmuch as, if 444 (even) the supposition is denied, more is expressed than if the ''""^actual existence of a thing (as a fact) is denied. See under no. 5. In like manner is the Latin Jiaud sometimes the stronger, sometimes the weaker negation, Franke I. 7 ; cf. Hand, Tursell. III. 20. Where ov belongs to a single word (verb) to which in the language there is a negative directly antagonistic, it coalesces with that word and expresses this exactly contrary idea, as ovk iav to prevent Acts rvi. 7, ov 423 GiXuv nolle 1 Cor. x. 1. See Franke I. 9 sq., cf. under no. 6. Ov combined 6th ciL with nouns into one idea obliterates their meaning altogether : Kom. x. 19 vapa^rj\(ocrw v/xSs Itt ovk Wvu over a no-nation, ix. 25 KaAe'trcu tov ov Xa.6v fjLov XaAv jxov Ktti TTjv OVK r/yainj iji.€vr]v rjyaTrrj[ji,€vrpf, 1 Pet. ii. 1 — (all quota- tions from 0. T.) ; cf. Thuc. 1, 137 r/ ov SiaXucrts the not breaking (the bridge had not been broken), 5, 60 ^ ovk k^ovaLa, Eurip. Hippol. 196 ovk (XTroSei^ts, see Monk in loc. ; Sturz, ind. ad Dion. Cass. p. 245 ; Fr. Eom. II. 424. How this combination differs from that with /Aiy (ij /a-^ SiaXvo-ts) , see Franke, as above, I. 9. Numerous examples of both in Gayler p. 16sqq. The simple, accented, ov no (Matt. v. 37; Jas. v. 12; 2 Cor. i. 17 f) occurs in answer to a question only in Matt. xiii. 29 ; Jno. i. 21, (for instances from Greek writers, see Gayler p. 161) ; the fuller form ovk eyuyyi would have been more usual. 2. Let us consider now those cases, the most frequent of all, in which a negation is expressed by /aj; ; this takes place : a. In (wishes) commands, resolutions, encouragements, and that not only with verbs of the sort, that is to say Imperatives and Subjunctives, Matt. vii. 1 fir) Kplvere, Gal. v. 26 /ir) ywwfieda ksvo- Bo^ot, 2 Thess. iii. 10, see § 56, 1, but also with words which are § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 477 considered as integral parts of the command, etc., 1 Pet. v. 2 ■Koiixdvare . . ■ ft-r} dvayKaaTW';, 1 Pet. i. 13 f. ; 1 Tim. v. 9 ; Luke vi. 35 ; 1 Cor. v. 8 ; Rom. xiii. 13 ; Phil. ii. 4, 12 ; Heb. x. 25 ; Acts X. 20. b. In telic clauses, with iva Matt. vii. 1 ; xvi. 20 ; Rom. xi. 25 ; Eph. ii. 9 ; Heb. xii. 3 ; Mark v. 43 ; 2 Cor. v. 15 ; vii. 9 ; Bph. 499 iv. 14, or OTTO)? Luke xvi. 26 ; 1 Cor. i. 29 ; Matt. vi. 18 ; Acts viii. 24 ; xx. 16. So also with single words of such clauses, Rom. viii. 4 ; Eph. ii. 12 [?] ; Phil. i. 27 f. ; iii. 9 ; 2 Thess. ii. 12 ; Heb. xii. 27. c. In conditional sentences (Hm. Vig. 805), with el Jno. xv. 22 el jXT) rfkdov, dfj^apTtav ovk eiypaav^ xviii. 30 el fii] ?\v ovTOe<; ort, dvdaTaati veKpoov ovk ea-rtv; On vs. 16 cf. Philostr. ApoU. 4, 16, p. 154. c) Cases in which the proposition with el ov merely negatives 425 the idea which is expressed affirmatively in a corresponding propo- 6th ed. sition, without the ov coalescing with the negatived word into a 1 cl ov and el fi-ii are well distingnished in a single sentence in Acta Thorn, p. 57 ed. Thilo. § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 479 single opposed idea : 1 Cor. ix. 2 el oXKok ovk el/j), dvoa-ToXo^, aXkdje iijuv el/Mi, si aliis non sum apostolus, vobis cei'te sum. Luke xi. 8, cf. xviii. 4. But even in such oppositions later writers use el ov, e.g. Sext. Empir. Math. 11, 5 el fiev arya66v ia-nv, ev tSiv rpmv yev^aerai, el Se oiiK eariv djaOov, fjroi kukov eariv, rj ovre kukov ecTTtv ovTe dr/aOov eartv, Diog. L. 2, 36 el fj,ev jdp n tSiv Trpo<;6vTcov Xi^eiav, SiopOma-ovTai, el S' ov, ovSev tt/sos rifid's, where the sense is 501 not : if, however, they be silent about it, but, if they do not say something useful,^ cf. Judg. ix. 20 ; Judith v. 21 ; Demosth»-lpp. p. 125 a. ; Basilic. II. 525, and Poppo Xen. Anab. p., 35S;fer ^i"^^ d) Cases in which ov likewise antithetically»ds*^^^W*''^'fiR'@^t, however, an express affirmative proposition 'preceding : Ja,s. ii. 11 el ov fioi'x^evcrei'i (with reference to 'the preceding /jLrj iioi'^iidri<;'), ^ovevaeit?|p^« Toi' Kvpiov, ijToi dvdOefia (where the rendering,'' i/* uny''m^l^^ the Lord, would probably not represent the apostle's miS^3p^5'^> 2 Jno. 10 el' ti general vi^ the stronger and more expressive form-)., much- ofteneE^'-tirarn the older writers (who were rather frugal in its use), we maystaite the rule thus (Cf. also Anton, Progr. de discrim. particiil. ov et /atj, Gorlic. 1823, 4to. p. 9) : wliere not in a conditional proposition is emphatic,^ el ov (as in Latin si non') is used ; but where if not stands without emphasis on the negation, el fiij (as in Latin nisi) ; 447 e.g. if thou dost not commit adultery (with reference to the pre- '* *'■ ceding firj fioix-), if any man loveth not the Lord (as he ought), if I am not an apostle unto others, Jno. i. 25 if thou art not the Christ, cf. vs. 20. The emphasis is brought out by an antithesis, either open (1 Cor. ix. 2) * or concealed (1 Cor. xvi. 22). It lies, however, in the nature of the case that ov then negatives only a part of the conditional proposition, not the proposition itself.' 1 Macar. homil. 1, 10. Cf. also idu Diog. L. 1, 105 itu> vios i>p rhv olvov ov epris, yepav yeif6fjL€vos SSap oitreis. 2 Equivalent to el ov noix^iav Itrri, ^oveiav ii, cf. Arrian. Epict. 1, 29, 35 ; 2, 11, 22. On the contrary, Thuc. 1, 32 ti jth\ jierh. Kaxlas, S((|i)s Be /naWor aiiaprltf . . , ivavrla ToKfianLsv. * Mehlhom, as above, gives the rule : nhi simpliciter negatio affirmation! ita opponatur, ut negandi part, voce sit acuenda, semper ov poni, ubi contra verbum voce inprimis, notandum nit esse debere. Cf. also Poppo on Xen. Anab. as above. ' Cf. also e.g. Aesop. 7, 4 ei o4 iroi tovto Trposfififpep, ouk i.v tiiuv abrh irvve^oi\evfS if it were not useful to thee, thou wouldst not advise us to it. 480 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 'Cl'STe (Krii. p. 272 f.) of a consequence even when represented as mere matter of fact is used in the N. T. always with [jl-j and the Infinitive, Matt, viii. 28 ; Mark i. 45 ; ii. 2 ; iii. 20 ; 1 Cor. i. 7 ; 1 Thess. i. 8. Only in 2 Cor. iii. 7 is there a logical ground for it in the conditional proposition ; Engelhardt, Plat. apol. p. 219. 426 After oTi and eiret because (in direct discourse) ov follows regularly, Jno. 6lb A viii. 20, 37 ; Rom. xi. 6 ; Luke i. 34 ; Baumlein S. 773 ; on ij.-j in con- 602 ditional discourse occurs in Jno. iii. 18. On the contrary, we have in Heb. ix. 17, in direct discourse, ZiaO-qK-q ctti vek/dois jScySaia, eTrci /x-^irore Icrxvei, ore ^rj 6 Sia^ejuei/os, which Bohme explains thus : fn-qTrore seems here to negative even the idea of ia-xvuv ; consequently in general to deny more strongly than ovjrore. Yet Bohme's rendering of /a^ttotc by nondum is erroneous ; it means, never, never at all (Heliod. 2, 19). And perhaps the author gave the preference to fi-qTrore on this account also, because he is speaking in general terms and not of any particular testament. How- ever, in later authors the subjective negation frequently occurs in connection with iirei (oTt) quandoquidem, not only where something is clearly desig- nated as a subjective reason (as is perceptible even in Aelian. 12, 63 ; cf. besides, Philostr. Apoll. 7, 16 ; Lucian. Hermot. 47), but also where an objectively valid reason is assigned (Gayl. 183 sqq. ; Mdv. p. 245 ; on Lucian and Arrian in particular, Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. praefat. p. 23 sqq., cf. also Ptol. geogr. 8, 1, 3), in so far as the reason falls back at last on a supposition. Others (Bengal, Lchm.) take fi-qvore in Heb., as above, as an interrogative, as indeed i-n-et often introduces a question, Rom. iii. 6 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 16 ; xv. 29 ; Klotz, Devar. p. 543. This seems to me, however, to be too rhetorical for the style. 3. e. In relative clauses with av (^edv), Luke viii. 18 o? av fir; 'iyrj. Acts iii. 23 (Sept.} iraaa "^v^ij, tjtk eav fir) aKova-r}, Rev. xiii. 15 oaoi av (17} irpo<;KvvriSe ov Sojo-ei Popdv ; even in construction with the Optative, Isocr. Evagor. p. 452 ovk lo-Tiv, osTts OVK av Aia/ct'Sos TrpoKpCveiev, also p. 199 ; Plut. apophth. p. 196 c. Closely allied to this is the phrase tis ia-riv, os ov followed by the Pres. indie. Acts xix. 35 ; Heb. xii. 7 ; cf. Dion. comp. 11 ed. Schaef p. 120, which in sense is equivalent to oiScts icrnv, os ov (for which Strabo 6, 286 has ovSev /iepos avi-^s la-riv, o p-rj ... Tvyxdirei) ; on the Other hand, ovSet's ia-Tiv, OS ov with the Preterite, is beyond the range of those cases in which one would expect /xij, Xen. An. 4, 5, 31 ; Thuc. 3, 81 ; Lucian. Tox. 22 ; asin. 49 ; cf. Heind. Plat. Phaed. p. 233 ; Weber, Demosth. 356 sq. See also Gayl. p. 257 sqq., who, it must be confessed, has not discriminated sufficiently. 4. f. With Infinitives (Mtth. 1442; Kru. 273), not only such as depend on a verb of thinking, speaking, commanding, wishing (of 449 course also in the construction of the Accxisative with the Infini- 'tli ei tive) Matt. ii. 12 ; v. 34, 39 ; Luke ii. 26 ; v. 14 ; xx. 7 ; xxi. 14 ; Acts iv. 17 f. 20 ; v. 28 ; x. 28 ; xv. 19, 38 ; xix. 31 ; xxi. 4 ; xxiii. 8 ; xxvii. 21 ; Rom. ii. 21 f ; xii. 3 ; xiii. 3 ; 1 Cor. v. 9, ll ; 1 Cf. Philostr. Apoll. 7, 27 SifK4yeT0 ft fi^J ixeli/if irpoHfiaive quae illi hand prodessent. From the Sept. may be adduced Exod. ix. 21 4s li^ vposeax^ t^ hiavoia, els rh firifia Kvpiou in opposition to i (poPoififvos rh pripta Kvpiov vs. 20 ; thus just like ei St p.^ in antithesis. Ou and iJi after relat. in parallel propositions, see Arrian. Epict. 2, 2, 4. ^ In propositions with particles of time {Gayler, p 185 sqq.) lai does not happen to occur in the N. T. ; several times ou is quite regularly joined to the Indicative of time, Jno. ix. 4 ; xvi. 25 ; 2 Tim. iv. 3 ; Acts xxii. 11. 61 482 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 2 Cor. ii. 1 ; x. 2 ; Heb. ix. 8, etc., or by which a design is ex- pressed 2 Cor. iv. 4 erixftKma-e to, voT^fiara . . . ek to /jlt) avydaac, 1 Thess. ii. 9 ipya^ofievoi, irpb<; rb /juq iTri^aprjcrat, Acts xx. 27 oi)^ 504 {nrecTTeiXd/MTjv tov fjur] avarfyeT\ai, 1 Pet. iv. 2, — but also where tlie Infinitive is the subject of a proposition, 2 Pet. ii. 21 KpetTTov ?jv avrol<: ; since he can't have learned (since we, surely, know ,him to be such a one as has never learned ? cf. Philostr. ApoU. 3, 22 09 KoX ypd(f)€i fjuT] fiadoiv ypd/M/MaTo). Luke vii. 33 ikijXvdev 'Icodvvrj^ IJLrjTe ecrOlav dprov /ijjre irivajv olvov without having eaten . . . drunken (spoken from the position of those who, observing this, are introduced as saying so) ; owTe eadiav ovre ttlviov would express the predicates as pure matters of fact. In Luke iv. 35 to haip,6vi,ov i^Xdev dif avTov fJurjZh) ^Xdyjrav avTov, by the last words the author does not mean to relate a mere matter of fact (ovBev ^\d-\fr. avrov and did not harm him), but to exclude merely the thought that the evil spirit had in any- way injured the possessed : he had not (as one might perhaps have thought) injured him. Thus fjLT] is very often to be understood : Acts v. 7 ; xx. 22 ; Heb. iv. 15 ; xi. 8 ; Matt. xxii. 12. Cf. what Klotz says, Devar. p. 666 : quibus in locis omnibus propterea /.wj positum est, non ov, 484 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. quod ille, qui loquitur, non rem ipsam spectat sed potius cogita- tionem rei, quam vult ex animo audieutis amovere (Plut. Pompej. 50G c. 64) ; Hm. Vig. 806. In Matt, xviii. 25 /i^ exovTo<; avrov airo- hovvai eKeXevaev axnov 6 Kvpio^ avrov TrpaOrjvai, etc. the first words express a,/act, indeed, as he had not: but in this construction tliey 451 are put in close relation with e'/teX. : he commanded, because that '"" '^ man had not, because he knew that tlie man had not, etc. So also Acts xxi. 34 ; Luke ii. J:5 ; xxiv. 23 ; Acts ix. 26 ; xiii. 28 ; XTii. 6 ; xxvii. 7, 20 ; 1 Pet. iv. 4 ; 2 Pet. iii. 9 ; cf. Plut. Pompej. c. 23 and Alex. 51 ; Polyb. 17, 7, 5 ; 5, 30, 5. On Rom. ix. 11 see Fr. Acts XX. 29 olha on, elcrekevcrovTai, . . . \vkoi /Sapet? ek vfia^, fj,7] (peiSofievoi Tov ttoi/mviov is, as the Future shows, to be taken altogether as an ideal picture. Also Heb. ix. 9 /u.^ Swd/ievai Kara avveihr)a-Lv reXeiaaai etc. is spoken in the view of the writer ; had it been ov Svvdfi. an actual inherent property would have been signified (^not being able'), but such offerings Israelites would not have presented. 1 Cor. i. 28 i^eh.e^aro 6 0eo? to, fj-rj ovra, Iva to, ovTu KaTapyyjarj, where to, ovk ovra would signify (Hm. Vig. 889) the non-existing (as a single negative idea), but ra firj ovra must mean ivhich ivere reckoned as things that did not exist ; the ovra is negatived as a supposition, not spoken actually of nonentities} In 2 Cor. iv. 18 (even in the second proposition, which is categorical) to TCL pKeTTOfLeva stands opposed to, fiTj ^Xe-rr., not ra ov /9Xe7r. (Heb. xi. 1). This last would denote what actxially is not seen 430 (xa. aopara), but to. p.r) pkeir. expresses, in conjunction with jx-q ' aKOTTovvrav rfficbv, the subjective view of the believer, cf. Heb. xi. 7, Also in 2 Cor. v. 21 tov ^r] r^vovra dfiapiiav inrep rjfiS>v dfiapTiav iiroi7](76, the fir), yv. carries us back to the conception of him who makes him dfiapria ; tov ov yvovra would be objective and equiva- lent to TOV dyvoowTa,^ Isae. 1, 11 and Schoem. in loc. 2 Cor. vi. 3 does not read ovSefilav iv ovBevl SiS6vTe<; irpo'iKOTnjv, because this would exhibit merely an actvially existing characteristic, but /j.-rjSe/j.Lav iv firiSevl SiB. irp. because the characteristic is regarded, in connection with ■jrapaKoXovixev vs. 1, as subjectively adhered to and continually striven after. Cf. besides, Luke vii; 30 ; Jno. vii. 49 ; 1 Cor. ix. 20 f. So with co? in subjective speech, 1 Cor. iv. 7 Ti Kavxaa-ai ox; fir) Xa/Stuv ; iv. 18 ; vii. 29 ; 2 Cor. x. 14 ; 1 Pet. ii. 16 ; Gayler 278 sq. (otherwise 1 Cor. ix. 26, see below). 1 Viil 6i>Ta and ovk Svra are united in Xen. An. 4, 4, 15. ^ The remark of Biickert on this passage, that in Greek ou never stands between the artide and participle but always fi-li, is wholly empirical, and false besides, and has been properly refuted by My- § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 485 On the other hand, ov with participles (and adjectives) — with which it occurs far less frequently — negatives actually and with- out qualification (Gayl. 287 sq. ; Mtth. 1442), and hence stands especially with predicates which are denied of definite persons : ^ Phil. iii. 3 ^/xet? ia/Mev rj •jrepnofiij, ol irvevfuni, 0em Xarpevovrei; . . . 452 KoL ovK ev crapKi TreTTot^ore? (the rifiSK, since they actually are '^'"''• irvevfj.. Bern Xarp., are denied to be iv a-apKl TreTrot^ore?) ; 1 Pet. ii. 10 vpsK . . . ol OVK iXerifiAvoi, vvv Se iXerjOevrei;, Rom. ix. 25 (LXX.) ; Heb. xi. 35 eXa^ov yvvaiKe<; . . . aXkot Se ervfiiravicrOrjaav o V Trpo<;Se^dfjLevoi ttjv diroXvTpwcnv (not accepting, i.e. disdaining) ; Col. ii. 19 et«^ i^vaiovp.evo^ . . . Koi ov KpaT&v, although the sen- tence is imperative (vs. 18 ftrjBelayiy ovSk eTTtcv (cf. Epiphan. 0pp. II. 368 etc. ^v Si. o /3ao-iXeus fJ-yj Suva/tevds \aXrj(Tai). But here the not eating and not drinking are related as matters of fact ; whereas the pKittav, which from vs. 8 one might have supposed to be returning, is as a supposition denied antithetically. The remark of Hm. Soph. Antig. 691 is applicable here : /x'^ fortius est, quia ad oppositum refertur : nam ovk eSv simpliciter est prohihere, jxr) kav autem dicitur, quuni, quern credas siturum, non sinit. Accordingly ov pxiirav there would have meant blind outright ; fj.r] ^Xeiruiv affirms not seeing of one who had had his sight and might be supposed to have it again. Cf. also Jno. vii. 49 6 o;^Xos oiiTos, 6 firj yLviiaKwv tov vo/iov, where the o^^Xos is denied an attribute which it could and should have had ; ixrj jlvuxtk. conveys a censure, ov yivdtaK. would be a simple predicate : unacquainted with the law. See besides, Luke xiii. 11 ; Mark v. 26 ; Acts ix. 7 (cf. vs. 3). Although, then, it may be quite true as Schaef. says, Demosth. III. 495 : in scriptis cadentis graecitatis vix credas, quoties participialis constructio (especially that of the Genit. absol.) non ov etc., ut oportebat, sed /i^ etc. adsciscat, cf. also Plut. V. 6 ; Thilo, Acta Thom. p. 28, and above, p. 473 § 55, NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 487 note '2, yet it is indispensable to scrutinize sliarply every passage even from the writers of the koivt^, before asserting that jjnj stands for oi (Ft, Rom. 432 II. 295) ; in particular, as has been already remarked, it should not be ^^'^'^ overlooked that often much depends, especially in the construction of negatives with participles, on the mode in which the author conceives of his subject, Hm. Vig. 804, 806 ; Mtth. 1437, 1441. On the general subject 509 of. also Jacobs, Anthol. pal. III. 244 ; Bahr in Creuzer, Melet. III. 20 ; Schaef. Eurip. Med. 811 ed. Porson.^ 6. Continued negation is, as is well known, expressed by the 454 compound negatives ovBe, fitj^e, and ovre, fxriTe? The difference between the two words has often been discussed in modern phi- lology, but has not yet been developed in all its relations and with complete unanimity ; see especially Hm. Eurip. Med. 330 sqq. (also in his Opusc. III. 143 sqq.) and ad Philoctet. p. 140, then Franke, comm. II. 5 sqq. ; Wex, Antig. II. 156 sqq. ; Klotz, Devar. II. 706 sqq.3 Undoubtedly ovBe and nine run parallel with the conjunctions he and re, and must be explained primarily from their meaning ; accordingly we may say with Herm. that ovre, /MijTe are adjunctive, oiiM, yLtT^Se disjunctive (Se is properly but, and denotes an opposi- tion, Franke II. 5), i.e. the latter add negation to negatiouj the former divide a single negation into parts (which last of course are mutually exclusive).* For instance, Matt. vii. 6 /t^ Sane to ayiov Tol^ being used for fJ-VTe). The sense, however, obviously is : that they were not able (not) even [^so much US'] to eat ; accordingly, /HTjSe must be restored on the authority of the better Codd. (see Fr. in loc), which has been done by Lchm. and Tdf., but not by Scholz. In the same way we must read in Mark v. 3 ovBe aXva-ei, in Luke xii. 26 ovSe e\a,')(^barov Bwaa-6e^ iri vii. 9 ovSe ev tS 'lapa-qX,^ and in Luke xx. 36, wliere ovSe jAp aivoOavdv ero BvvavTut (as good Codd. read) is not parallel to the preceding sentence ovre . . . ovre, but the confirmation of it: neque 435 enim.^ Cf. also Ma.tt. v. 36. In these passages also Scholz re- cti ed. printed the old mistakes. c) as oiire . . . ovre introduce negative members of a partition; and these mutually exclude each other (Hm. Med. p. 332), the reading of some Codd. [Sin. also] oSre oilSa ovre eTrCaTafiai (which Lchm. and Tdf. [2d ed., not so 7th] have received into the text) in Mark xiv. 68 cannot be supported : neque novi neque scio can hardly be said, — the verbs being nearly identical in sense. Cf Franke II. 13 ; Schaef. Demosth. III. 449 ; Fr. in loc. Griesb. has 457 received into the text ovk olSa ovSe eirLarafiai ; cf Cic. Rose. Am, 43 Jth eil. nQjj ^not neque) novi neque scio, which according to the mean- ing of the two verbs is very suitable.^ d) ovre may indeed follow ov, so far forth as ov as respects sense is to be taken for ovre, see Hm. as above, p. 333 sqq. 401 and Soph. Antig. p. 110, in opposition to Elmsley, Eiirip. Med. 4, 5 and Soph; Oed. T. 817; cf. Franke II. 27 sq. ; Maetzner, Antiphon p. 1-95 sq. 5 . Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 444 ; Klotz, as above, 709 sq.* Accord- is remarkable. What is still more strange, however, is, that Griesbach and Sc/iuk have not even noted the var. ^rjS^ given by approved Codd. See, on the other hand, Schoh in loc. '■ On the same ground obS4 should be printed also in Act. apocr. p. 168. Yet DSder- lein, Progr. de brachylogia serm. gr. p. 17, considers o(/t6 correct in such case, maintain- ing that inasmuch as re like nai may denote etiam this negation also may be used in the sense of ne quidem. See in opposition Franke II. H . 2 Bamem. insists on construing oire with the following xai (see no. 7 below, p. 494), but the clause koI vloi etc. goes with laiyyeKoi yip. ' When oSre . . . oiiTE is used, it is true " the two notions are regarded as forming one compound thought" (Mey.) ; bnt this supposes that there actually are two notions, which may be connected affirmatively by as well . . . as. * "In rare cases, and in virtue of a rhetorical figure, it is allowable to drop the com- plementary particle of the one ob, and so inipart to the member thus stripped of its complementary symbol greater apparent independence, and consequently greater rhetorical force ; just as we may say in poetry Not father nor mother, instead of Neither father nor mother," etc. Benfey, as above, 155. Cf. Hm. I.e. 333, 401 and Franke (who diflFers somewhat) 11. 27, (also Dddeilein, Progr. de brachylpgia p. 6). §55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 491 ingly, aiire^ in Rev. ix. 21 is unassailable, Mtth. 1448 ; though the usage in question passes as poetical, Pranke II. 28. The same 513 correlation is to be recognized in Rev. v. 4 ovSels a^io<; evpedr] dvoi^at TO ^ipKiov oiire ^Xeireiv avTo (as Tdf. also reads), cf. Klotz, Devar. II. 709 sq. and the passage adduced there from Aristot. polit. 1, 3, though the writer might also have said : oiiSeU a^. evpedtj ovre dvoi^ai to ^i^Xlov ovtb j3\. But firj . . . fjbrjTe cannot be tolerated in Eph. iv. 27, where the best MSS. [also Sin.J unite in giving M^e, which Lchm. has admitted into the text. This usage is a sort of anacoluthon ; in employing oii the writer had not yet the subsequent parallel member in view. Sometimes it may even have been adopted purposely, in order to give promi- nence to the first word. In Rev. xii. 8 also oiihe appears to me the more correct expression j and it has been adopted by Knapp. On the other hand, in Jno. i. 25 el a-ii ovk el 6 XpiaTo^ ovTe 'H\ta? oijTe 6 ■Kpo oUre etc.) is as allowable as Odyss. 9, 136 ff. 'Itf oh xp^i ireliriui,T6s 4 kSScSs re koI ayAairi Kai Sveiap, since the first two words here, united by re ko(, are regarded as a single notion. In Acts, as above, were we to read nv^t, hiitpinpa still could not mean tria ; but the writer regards &yy. and irvivpa, agreeably to their logical import, as mt leading conception- 494 §55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. logical foundation, is observable likewise in the N. T., cf. koI ov Jno. v. 43 ; vi. 17 ; vii. 36 ; Acts xvi. 7 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 10, (cat /ai; Jas. i. 5 ; iv. 17 ; 1 Pet. ii. 16 ; iii. 6 ; Heb. xiii. 17. 516 For passages in Greek authors which especially illustrate the difference between ovSe and ovre, see Isocr. Areop. p. 345 ovk a.vu>ij.a.\u>i ov8i oraKTWi ovTe iOepdirevov ovtc oipyia^oi' etc., permut. p. 750 a)ST€ jitiyScva /ioi TrioTrore //.rjS cv okiyap^ia ixrjB' iv h'qix.oKparla /xi^Te vjSpiv /xiQTe aSiKiav iyKaKecrai,, Her. 6, 9 ; Isocr. ep. 8, p. 1016 ; Xen. Ages. 1, 4 ; Demosth. Timocr. 481 b. Cf. Mtth. p. 1445. 7. In two parallel propositions, sometimes ovre (^fji-jre) is fol- lowed, not by another negative, but by a simple copula (^kui or Te), e.g. Jno. iv. 11 oine dvrXrj/ia e'xeK, Kal to Se (eKOTriaaa), dX)C r) %ajOt? tov 9eov f) avv ifioi, Augustine : non ego solus, sed gratia Dei mecum (Jno. v. 30) ; ^ Luke x. 20 fir/ Xaipere oTt . . . ■)(aipeTe Se otl etc. nolite tarn propterea laetari . . . quam potius. But in tlie passages from the N. T. referred to this head, when more closely considered, either 1 The first sense, non tarn . . . quam, is the one by far most commonly assumed in the N. T., as the examples which follow show ; and an apparent warrant for it might be found in the fact, that in N. T. Greek the relative negation non solum ... sed is fre- quently expressed, but non tarn . . . quam in point of fact never. ^ No wonder expositors have been partial to such a weakening of the preceding idiom, since even philologists supposed it necessary to soften a strong expression in passages of the ancients where there was not the slightest occasion. Thus Dion. H. IV. 2111 S6^ri tJ &vSp€wv imrriSiiaiv ovk i,\ri6ii(f is Still translated by Reiske: te fortitudinis studiosum esse opinione magis quam re ipsa. For a similar impropriety, see Alberti, observ. p. 71. As to the misapprehension of Palairet (obs. p. 236) in reference to Macrob. Saturn. I, 22, see my grammatische Excurse S. 155. Cic. off. 2, 8, 27 also is easily disposed of according to the preceding remarks. Moreover, any one may see in Glass, as above, p. 421, how the older Biblical interpreters allowed themselves to be influenced even by doctrinal considerations in explaining this idiom. In 1 Pet. i. 12 the weakening of oi ... . S4 into non tarn . . . quam (see Schoit even in the latest edition) arises from misunderstanding 5iaKoi/E?i'. Flait in 1 Cor. vii. 4 wanted to have even the simple oi restricted by a nivov. On 1 Cor. ix. 9 the passage of Philo quoted by ex- positors throws sufficient light. 496 § 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 440 a. an unconditional negation is plainly intended, as may be eth b). gathered from a careful examination of the context : Matt. ix. 13 4Q2 e\.eov deXa koX ov Bvaiav, where Christ, using the words of the 7ft ed. prophet '(Hos. vi. 6), really wishes to have mercy (a state of heart) °^° put in the place of sacrifices (mere symbols), cf what follows : ov ryap rp\.6ov KoXeaai SiKaiov;, aW' afiaprcoKoii'; ; Jno. vii. 16 rj i^rj SiSa'^T) ovK ecrnv e/Mij, dWa rod irkfi'^avTo'; fie, where Jesus speaks of the origin of his doctrine (vss. 15, 17, 18) : my doctrine (whicli ye consider mine, cf. vs. 15) belongs not to me, hvt to God, — has for its author not me, but God, (Christ calls it rj i/if) SiS. in refer- ence to the opinion of the Jews, who in the words ttw? ovto<; r^pd/j^ fjLara olSe, /j,r) /j,e/jLa07jKco 8e, dW' rj 'xdpi'i tov Oeov rj a-vv efiot, Jno. xii. 44 6 iroaTevav 6t? ifie ov Trtcrreuet eh ifie, dXk' eh tov irkfi-^avrd fie, Acts v. 4 (cf. Plutarch, apophth. Lac. 41 ; see Duker, Thuc. 4, 92) ; Luke x. 20 (where many MSS. insert a fiaXKov after he) ; 2 Cor. ii. 5 (Schott). As to Luke xiv. 12 f. see Bornem. and de "Wette in loc.^ 1 Cf. Demosth. Euerg. 684 b. ^■yijo-o/nfi'jj v^plaSat oiix i/id (but he had been abused a^ituaJly) ai^K' eaur^y (t^v /SouX^y) koX rhv Btjixov rbv ypritpurdfievov etc., Aesop. 148, 2 ou ffi fie AoiSopeTs, &AA' d trvpyoSy iv ^ 'Iffraffou. Klotz, Devar. p. 9 : oitK iKivSvvevirev, a\\' lirafley est : non periclitatus sed paSsus est, quibus verbis hoc significatur : non dico istum periclitatum esse sed passum, ita ut, cum ille dicatur passus esse, jam ne cogitetnr quidem de eo, quod priori membro dictum est. ^ Against this view, propounded in the first edition of this work in accordance with the remarks otde Wette (A. L.-Z. 1816 nr. 41 S. 321) and those of a critic in the Theol. Anna!. 1816 S. 873, Fr. dissert, in 2 Cor. II. 162 sq. declared himself. His objections were examined by Beyer in the n. krit. Journ. d. Theol. 3 B. 1 St. ; but Fr. discussed the subject anew in his 2d excursus on Mr. p. 773 sq. I had written the above in sub- stance before I received this excursus, and it agrees essentially with the opinion expressed in the second edition of this Grammar S. 177, and in my grammat. Excurse S. 15.5. 63 498 §55. KEGATIVB PARTICLES. 520 When (oi) /j-rj . . . dWa Kai are correlative, as in Phil. ii. 4 /^^ to. eavrStv eKooTos (TKOTTovvTis, oAAci KOI TO tTipuiv l/cttCTTos, the Original plan of the 464 sentence intended ov .. . dAAa, and Kai was introduced because the writer ™ ™- on reaching the second member determined to soften and qualify the 442 thought. Passages of a similar sort are not unfrequent in Greek authors, ^'^ '^- see Fr. Exc. 2 ad Mr. p. 788 ; cf. Thuc. ed. Poppo III. III. 300, (on the Latin non . . . sed etiam or quoque, see Ramshorn S. 635 f. ; Kritz, Veil. Pat. p. 157 f.). The converse is ov fiovov . . . aXKa (without xai, see Leli- mann, Lucian. II. 551), when the writer drops jxovov, and, instead of a thought parallel to the first, subjoins one that is stronger (which usually includes the former), see Stallb. Plat. symp. p. 115 ; Fr. as above, 786 ff. and Klot2;, Devar. p. 9 sq. So Acts six. 26 on ov /jtovov 'E<^eo-ou, aXXa a'xcSoi' irao-Tjs t^s 'Ao-i'as 6 IlavAos ovtos ireiVas fn^TeaTrjaev iKavov o^^Xov that he not only at Ephesus, hut in all Asia etc., where strict propriety required: hut also in other places, cf. 1 Jno. v. 6 ovk iv t^gin tSSVil |]? vsn ^'-' ^1-u? Uifl?. ; in the last, ovk eiiyot, but good Codd. [Sin. also] have here SMtpvyr], which Lchm. and Tdf. have adopted (Bhdy. 401 ; Krii. 168). The latter reading, however, may be a correction or an error of transcribers. The Subj. is also used in the 0. T. quota- tion Matt. xiii. 15 ; Acts xxviii. 27, where, however, as a permanent result is meant, it is less questionable. The Indie. Fut. (along with a Subj. Aor.) Mark iv. 12 Sept. /LH^Trore eTnarpiyjrcoa-i koI a^edrjo-eTai (according to good Codd.) [as also the Fut. pKr)dr)o^ovfMii, /aj^ttoj? ov^ otou? 6i\(i) evp€ia-iTai (far better supported than ^cio-iyrat) if God has not spared, (I tiear and presume) that he will not spare thee also, ne tibi quoque non sit parciturus, cf. Gen. xxiv. 39. In Gal. ii. 2 dve/Sijv . . . dveSe/iiryv . . . jh^tcos ets Kevbv rpep^co ^ cSpa^iiov, Fr. (Conject. I. note, p. 50) considered the translation ne operam meam luderem aut lusissem faulty in two respects : because instead of Tpix<^ (after a Preterite) the Optative was to be expected; while the Indie. 448 e8/)a/Aov here would mean, what the apostle cannot have intended to say, 6tk ed. that he had labored in vain. Hence Fr. took the words as a direct question : num frustra operam meam in evangelium insumo an insumsi ? He himself, 527 however, afterwards felt that this explanation is forced, and in the Opuscula Fritzschiorum p. 173 sq. gave a different rendering. The difficulty in regard to Tpc'xw entirely disappears, so far as the N. T. is concerned ; indeed, the Pres. Subj.^ is even appropriate, as Paul is speaking of apes- 1 That TpEXo) is Indicative [as is assumed again by Bttm. Gramm. des N. T. Spraehgcbr. S. 303 and even Mei/. Aufl. 4] Usteri and Schott inferred from the fact that l5^a,uo> § 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 505 tolic activity, still continued. And the Pret. Indie. tSpafiov would be justified by the assumption that Paul gave to the whole sentence the same turn of expression that he would have employed, had he uttered the words in a direct form : in order that I run not or have run (for might run, or might have run), cf. above, p. 288. Still simpler, however, is the inter- pretation now adopted by Fr., who takes the Preterite in a hypothetical sense, cf. Mtth. II. 1185 ; Hm. de partic. av p. 64 : ne forte frustra cucur- rissem (which might easily have been the case, had I not propounded my doctrine in Jerusalem). But of course, it is not allowable to refer avedi/jL-riv (as Fr. does) to an intention of Paul to instruct himself (for not the mere exposition of his views could have secured him from having run in vain, but only the assent of the apostles) ; on the contrary, Paul must have been satisfied in his own mind that his views were correct, and only have designed to obtain the very important declaration of the apostles in his favor, without which his apostolic labors for the present and the past would have been fruitless, see de Wette in loc. In 1 Thess. iii. 5 /at^cos is construed with both Indie, and Subjunct. : eire/iu^a eis to yvStvai rrjv ■kiotw u/xaiv, fx/tyKWi ijreipacrev v/A.ci's o Trupa^wv /cat €is Kevov yevrjTai 6 kottos yjpMV I sent to ascertain your faith, (fearing) hst haply the tempter have tempted yov,, and my labor be fruitless. The dififerent moods here are obviously justifiable. The temptation (to waver 471 in faith) might have already taken place ; but whether the apostle's labor ™ * had been rendered fruitless by it depended on the result of the temptation, as yet not known to him, and might be dreaded as impending. Fr.'s interpretation (Opusc. Fritzschior. p. 176) : ut . . . cognoscerem, an forte Satanas vos tentasset et ne forte labores mei irriti essent, appears to me harsh, as /a^ttus would thus be taken in two senses. And I can by no means admit that according to my interpretation the Fut. yiv-qaerai would be required instead of yev-qrai. On the contrary, the Fut. denoting an apprehension which cannot be verified, and in any event will not be verified at some definite future time, would be far too explicit. See also Hm. Soph. Aj. p. 48 and partic. av p. 126 sq. ; Mtth. II. 1186. Note. Verbs oi fearing are regularly followed by the simple /x.^, /jlt^tto}';, etc. not by tva p-rj : hence in Acts v. 26 iva prj XSaa-BSicnv must not be connected with icjioPovvTo tov Xaov, as is done by most expositors (even Mey.) ; but it is dependent, rather, on fiyayev avTovi ov p,eTb, /Juxs, and the 449 words i «i. ^3. The intensive ov fj^rj (in reference to what in no wise will 528 or sliould take place)i is construed sometimes, and indeed most follows ; forgetting that two different moods, according to different conceptions, may be and sometimes are connected with one and the same particle. (See the passage to be quoted immediately : 1 Thess. iii. 5. ) 1 Thus ov |if^ regularly refers to the future (Matt. xxiv. 21 o'/a ou yiyoviv . . . ouS" o4 ^)| yivtpaj.). Moreover, it is nowthe prevalent opinion of scholars, that this idiom 64 506 §56. CONSTRUCTION OP NEGATIVE PABTICLES. freqiiently, with the Suhjuiict. Aorist, sometimes with the Sub- juuct. Present (Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 51, see below), and sometimes also with the In die. Put. (Beugel on Matt. v. 18 is mistaken), see Ast, Plat, polit. p. 365 ; Stallb. Plat. rep. II. 36 sq. ; EUendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 409 sqq. ; Gayl. p. 430 sqq. The difference between the Subj. Aor. and the Put. ludic. (which alone occur in the N. T.) is defined by Hm. Soph. Oed. Col. ver. 853 thus : Conjunctivo Aor. locus est aut in eo, quod jam actum est (see, however, EUendt as above, p. 411 sq.), aut in re incerti temporis, sed semel vel brevi 472 temporis momento agenda ; Futuri vero usus, quern ipsa verb) !ih ed. forma nonnisi in rebus futuris versari ostendit, ad ea pertinet, quae aut diuturniora aliquando eventura indicare volumus aut non aliquo quocunque, sed remotiore aliquo tempore dicimus futura esse. The inquiry whether this distinction is observed in the N. T., is rendered difi&cult by the variations of MSS., of which, in many passages, some have the Indie. Put., and some the Aor. Subj. So far as can be ascertained by the present apparatus of various readings, the Subj. is established in Matt. v. 18, 20, 26; X. 23 ; xviii. 3 ; xxiii. 39 ; Mark xiii. 2, 19, 30 ; Luke vi. 37 ; xii. 59 ; xiii. 35 ; xviii. 17, 30 ; xxi. 18 ; Jno. viii. 51 ; x. 28 ; xi. 26, 56 ; 1 Thess. iv. 15 ; 1 Cor. viii. 13 ; 2 Pet. i. 10 ; Rev. ii. 11 ; iii. 3, 12 ; xviii. 7, 21 f. ; xxi. 25, 27. There is a preponderance of evidence for the Subj. in Matt. xvi. 28 ; xxvi. 35 ; Mark ix. 41 ; xvi. 18 ; Luke i. 15 ; ix. 27 ; xviii. 7, 30 ; xxii. 68 : Jno. vi. 35 ; 529 viii. 12, 52 ; xiii. 8 ; Rom. iv. 8 ; Gal. v. 16 ; 1 Thess. v. 3. There is at least as much evidence for the Subj. as for the Put. in Mark» xiv. 31 ; Luke xxi. 33 ; Matt. xv. 5 ; xxiv. 35 ; Gal. iv. 30 ; Heb. X. 17; Rev. ix. 6 (xviii. 14) .^ The authorities decidedly favor is to be considered as elliptical : ob fiii noffiari for oi SeSoixa or ou (p60os, ov Se'os iarl (there is no fear) juj) ir. see Ast, Plat, polit. p. 365 ; Matthiae, Eurip. Hippol. p. 24; Sprachl. II. 1174 ; Em. Soph. Oed. C. 1028 ; Eartung II. 156. This involves, indeed, the assumption that the Greeks lost sight of the origin of the expression ; for in many passages " there is no /ear that " is not appropriate, (in the N. T. Matt. v. 20 ; xviii. 3 ; Luke xxii. 16 ; Jno. iv. 48). Earlier Em. (Eurip. Med. p. 390 sq.) had explained the phrase differently, cf. also Goyl. p. 402. The connective ov& ii.ii {xal oii fnii) occurs in the N. T. only in Rev. vii. 16 (var.), but frequently in the Sept. e.g. Exod. xxii. 21 ; xxiii. 13 ; Josh, xxiii. 7 ; and ovS^Xs tii) in Wisd. i. 8. Generally, ou jiij is of very frequent occurrence in the Sept., and its prevalence may probably be referred to that effort after expressiveness, characteristic of the later language. The instances have been collected by Gayl. p. 441 sqq. It is not the fact, however, that in the N. T. (Hitzig, Joh. Marc. S. 106) Mark and the Revelation display a predilection for oi fi^ A concordance will prove the contrary. 1 It must not be overlooked that sometimes the Future form may be occasioned in MSS. by a preceding or following Future, as In Jno. viii. 12 ov n^ irepnroT^(r6i . . . 4AA § 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 507 the Fut. in Luke x. 19 ; xxii. 34 ; Jno. iv. 14 ; x. 5. The Put. is 450 established (without Tar.) in Matt. xvi. 22 ov fir] ea-TM a-oi tovto ""'"^ (absit) ne tibi accidat hoc. Accordingly the Subj. is indisputably predominant in the N. T. (cf. Lob. Phryu. p. 722 sq.), and this is no less the case in Greek authors, see Hartung, Partik. 11. 156 f. Hermann's rule on the whole does not apply to the N. T. ; for although several passages might be interpreted in accordance with it, yet others in turn are at variance with it, and the Aor. is em- ployed where the Put. should have been used, as e.g. 1 Thess. iv. 15 OTi rifieli ol ^&vre<; oi irepiXetTro/ievoi ei<: rrjv irapovcrlav rov Kvpiou oil fir) ^Odacofiev Toil's KoifiriBevTa^, where the point of time is very definitely in mind viz. on the day of Christ's second coming ; and Heb. viii. 11, where in ov fir) Bi,Sd^a)cn,v there is reference to a precise time (the Messianic period, vs. 10), and duration also is indicated, cf. Rev. xxi. 25. In fact, the Subj. Aor. in the sense of the Puture had become usual in later Greek, cf. Lob. as above, p. 723 ; Thilo, Act. Thorn, p. 57. Mdv. also S. 127 discovers no perceptible difference between the Put. and the Aor. in this con- struction. (Gayl. 440 sqq. has catalogued all the passages in the Sept. where ov fir) occurs.) The statement of Dawes, however, which recognizes no difference of meaning between the Aor. and Fut. in this construction, but as respects the former allows only the 2d Aor. Act. (and Mid.) in Greek texts, has been almost universally rejected (see Mtth. II. 1175 f. ; Stallb. Plat. rep. II. 343 ; on the other hand,' Bhdy. 402 f.), and cannot be applied to the N. T., where the 1st Aor. is as frequent as the 2d Aor. even in verbs 473 that have a 2d Aor. in common use, (var. see Rev. xviii. 14). Ithei Sometimes ov fir) is followed, according to a few Codd., by a Present Indie, viz. in Jno. iv. 48 iav fir) cnjfieia koI ripara iSrjTe, ov fir) Trttrreijere, and Heb. xiii. 5 Sept. ov firj a-i iyKaToXeiTroi ; indeed, one Cod. (quoted by Griesb.) has in Rev. iii. 12 the Optative, ov fir) i$iX.6oi. The last is un- doubtedly only a mistake of a transcriber, misled by the ear (the case is different in the orat. obliq. in Soph. Philoct. 611, Schaef. inloc. ; cf. also the same on Demosth. II. 321), and the Subjunctive was long ago restored. Likewise in Heb. as above, iyKaraKLiru) is undoubtedly the true reading. But in Jno. iv. 48 perhaps the reading ought to be TncrrevriTi, as the Subj. 580 Present is so used in Greek authors also, as in Soph. Oed. Col. 1024 oS» oi juij TTore j^iopas (fyvyovre^ t^sS tTrev^uji/Tai Oeoi'S (according to Hm. and others), Xen. C. 8, 1, 5 ; An. 2, 2, 12 (see Hm. Eurip. Med. Elmsl. p- 390 ; Stallb. Plat, polit. p. 51 ; Ast, Plat. pol. p. 365), and, as in the passage from John, after a conditional clause with lav in Xen. Hier. 11, 15 eai' Toiis ol37j6^ ; Cf. with the former passages, Xen. C. 8, 1, 5 tovto yap eS ciSfl/at )(p-q, OTi oil fj-r) SunjTat KCpos evpeiv etc. Thuc. 5, 69 ; and with the latter, Neh. ii. 3 Sia tl ov /^^ •yei/Tjrat iroirqpov etc. On ov ix.r) in an interrogative clause, without an interrogative pronoun, construed with a Subjunctive or a Future (Ruth iii. 1), see § 57, 3, p. 511 sq. Note. Not ..., no one . . ., nothing . . . except, is commonly expressed by oil . . ., ovSelg . . ., oiSe'v . . . et /u.^, as in Matt. xi. 27 ; xxi. 19 ; Luke iv. 26 ; Jno. xvii. 12, etc. (Klotz, Devar. p. 524). More rarely the negation is followed by rrX-qv, as in Acts xx. 23 ; xxvii. 22 ; ^ is found only in Jno. xiii. 10 text. rec. : o XeXov/acVos ovk ej^et ^(peiav tj toiis TroSas vlij/acrOai. Most Codd. have el fn-r), and this Lchm. has adopted. The latter, however, may be a correction of the rarer ^, which yet occasionally occurs, Xen. C. 7, 5, 41. §57. INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES. 1. In the N. T., interrogative sentences (cf. Krii. 250 f.) which commence neither with an interrogative pronoun, nor with a special interrogative adverb (ttoj?, ttoO etc.), 474 a. if direct, have usually no interrogative particle (Jno. vii. 23 ; Jth ed. xiii_ 6 ; xix. 10 ; Acts xxi. 37 ; Luke xiii. 2 ; 1 Cor. v. 2 ; Rom. ii. 21 ; Gal. iii. 21, etc.).^ Sometimes, however, contrary to the usage of the written language of the Greeks, ei is employed before a question in which the inquirer merely discloses his uncertainty, without intimating that he expects a reply (see no. 2). b. if indirect, they are introduced by ei (which is here, too, the conditional conjunction).^ 1 Hence it is sometimes matter of dispute among commentators whether a particular sentence is to be taken as interrogative or not, e.g. Jno. xvi. 31 ; Rom. viii. 33 ; xiv. 22 ; 1 Cor. i. 13 ; 2 Cor. iii. 1 ; xii. 19 ; Heb. x. 2; Jas. ii. 4 ; or how many words are comprehended in an interrogation, e.g. Jno. vii. 19; Rom. iv. 1. On this, Grammar can ordinarily give no decision. ^ How e( acquires the general force of an interrogative particle, see Hartung, Partik IL 201 If. ; cf. Khtz, Devar. 508. §57. INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES. 509 In direct double questions mrepov ... ■^ is used only once, Jno. Tii. 17 ; elsewhere the first question is without an interrogative particle, Luke xx. 4 ; Gal. i. 10 ; iii. 2 ; Eom. ii. 3, etc., and only the second has ij, — if negative, ^ ow Matt. xxii. 17 ; Luke xx. 22, or 97 fjLij Mark xii. 14 ; cf. Bos, EUips. p. 759 ; Klotz, Devar. 576 sq. Sometimes, moreover, ^ is used in an interrogative sentence which refers to a preceding categorical sentence (like the Latin an, see Hand, Tursell. I. 349) 2 Cor. xi. 7 ei koI iSmbtij? rm X07&), aXX' ov TT] lyvaxrei . . . r) dfj,apTLav iirolijcra kfuivTov rairetvwv ; or did I commit an offence ? Rom. vi. 3 (Dio C. 282, 20) etc. cf. Lehmann, Lucian. II. 331 sq. 2. The following are instances of the singular use of el in direct questions (especially in Luke) : Acts i. 6 iirripcortov airov XiyovTei ■ Kvpie, el . . . a'TroKaOiardvei'} rr/v ^aaCKelav ; Luke xxii. 49 ehrov • 452 Kvpie, el irard^oixev iv lui'xaipa ; Matt. xii. 10 ; xix. 3 ; Luke xiii. 23 ; fi't «rj, epcuras /xe, ti ti oT8a -Trvperov ayadov ; oiiK e'yojy , i'f'V- 0"^ the other hand, in Gal. ii. 17 Spa might be rendered by ergone: Christ is therefore a minister of sin ? (cf. Schaef. Melet. p. 89 ; Stallb. Plat. rep. 453 II. 223; Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 41.5). Others read apa without a question ; 6th eil. this is opposed, however, by the fact that Paul invariably makes a ques- tion precede /iij yivovro, see Mey. in loc. To the interrogative particles, ttcos, Trore, ttov, etc., which are appropriated 533 to direct questions, correspond, as is well known, in indirect questions (and discourse) the relative forms ottws, oTroVe, ottov, etc. (Bltm. II. 277). Even Attic authors, however, do not always observe the distinction (see Kuhner II. 583 ; Hm. Soph. Antig. p. 80 ; Poppo, ind. ad Xenoph. Cyrop. under irws and ttov), and later writers neglect it frequently. In the N. T. the interrogative forms are predominant even in indirect discourse {TroOev Jno. vii. 27, iroS Matt. viii. 20 ; Jno. iii. 8 ; on ttus see Wahl, Clav. 439). "Oirov in the N. T. is employed rather as a strict relative. 3. In negative interrogative sentences, a. ov where an affirmative answer is expected (Hartxmg, Partik. 476 II. 88) is commonly equivalent to nonne, as in Matt. vii. 22 ov Jthed. Tw era) ovofULTi irpoe^Tevaafjiev ; have we not? etc. xiii. 27; Luke xii. 6 ; xvii. 17 ; Jas. ii. 5 ; Heb. iii. 16 ; 1 Cor. ix. 1 ; xiv. 23. Sometimes, when the speaker himself assumes a negative answer, 01) is used with an expression of indignation and reproach. Acts xiii. 10 ov -rravcrri Stacrrpecjicov ra? oSov? Kvpiov ra,'; ev6eia<; ; wilt thou not cease etc. ? The tone employed indicates, as with us, the par- ^ A different view is taken by Leidenroth, de vera vocum origine ac vi per lingiiar. comparationem investiganda (Lips. 1830. 8vo.) p. 59 sqq. Further, see on &pa and i.pa Sheppard in the Classical Museum, no. 18. §57. mTEEROGATIVE PARTICLES. 511 ticular cast of the question : Wilt thou not cease ? (i.e. thou wilt cease wilt thou not ?) is nonne desines ? but, wilt thou not cease ? (i.e. wilt thou persist ?) is nan desines ? The ov here negatives the verb (non desinere i. q. pergere), see Pranke I. 15. Of. Plut. Lucull. C. 40 ov iravari cri) ifKovrav fj,ev w? Kpdaao'i, ^S)v 8' &>? Aov- KovWo^, Xeymv Se cos Kdrcov ; So also Luke xvii. 18 ; Mark xiv. 60. — 01k dpa in Acts xxi. 38 means non igitur, thou art not there/ore (as I supposed, but as I now see denied) etc. Klotz, Devar. 186, (nonne, as the Viilgate renders it, would rather be, in connection with nevertheless, ap ov or ovkovv, see Hm. Vig. 795, 824). b. Mt; (/(i»jTt) is used, when a negative answer is presiimed or expected (Pranke as above, 18).^ Jno. vii. 31 /xrj ifkeiova a'qp,ela TToiija-et ; surely he will not do more signs will he ? (that is not conceivable), xxi. 5 ; Rom. iii. 5 (Philippi is incorrect), ix. 20 ; xi. 1 ; Matt. vii. 16 ; Mark iv. 21 ; Acts x. 47, etc. Both iuter- rogatives are (in accordance with the above distinction) used con- secutively in Luke vi. 39 /mt^ti Svvarai tik^Xo? tvc^Xoz' oSrjyelv ; ov')(l a/jkifioTepoi ek ^odvvov Treaovvrai ; The assertion of Hra. (Vig. 789), that firj sometimes anticipates an affirmative answer, has been contested by Pranke 1. c. and othei's ; some interpreters, however, have wanted to take it so sometimes in the N. T. (Liicke, Job. I. 602; cf. Fr. Mtth. p. 432). But the speaker always has his eye on a negative answer, and would not be surprised if he received such : Jno. iv. 33 has any one brought him anything to 534 eat ? (I can't believe it, especially here in the country of the Samaritans !), viii. 22 : will he kill himself? (yet we cannot believe that of him), cf Matt. xii. 23 ; Jno. iv. 29 ; vii. 26, 35. Occa- 454 sionally there exists an inclination to believe what is asked ; but ^"' ^ inasmuch as the question is put negatively, the speaker assumes the appearance, at least, of wishing a negative reply. Some have taken iirj in the sense of nonne likewise in Jas. iii. 14 el ^rjKov iriKphv exere . . . /Arj KaTaKav^a^Oe /cal i^evhea-de kuto, ttj? aKrjSelwi — but ■incorrectly. The sentence is categorical : do not boast (of your Christian knowledge, vs. 13) against the truth. When /^^ ov occurs in a question, ov belongs to the verb of the sentence, and lirj alone is interrogatory, as in Rom. x. 18 pJr] om ffKovaav ; did they fail to hear? (i.e. it can't be that they did not hear, can it?) vs. 19 ; 1 Cor. ix. 4, 5 ; xi. 22 (Judg. vi. 13 ; xiv. 3 ; Jer. viii. 4j Xen. Mem. 4, 2, 12 ; Plat. Meno p. 89 c. and Lysias 213 d. ; Acta Apocr. p. 79). On the other hand, ov iiri is merely a strengthened 477 Ith e4 1 As to the Latin num., see Hand, Tursell. p. 320. 512 § 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. form of a simple negation wldch may stand either interrogatively or not: Jno. xviii. 11 ov jxr] iriai avro; shall I not drink it? Arriaii. Epictet. 3, 22, 33, see § 56, 3, 505 sq. Acts vii. 42 [ji,rj cr(j)a.yia /cat 6vmaya r^s (rapKOi, 1 Cor. xiv. 25 ra KpvwTo. r^s KopSias avTov av€pa yCveTai. 4. b. Collectives denoting animate objects are construed with a Plural Pred. : Matt. xxi. 8 6 TrXeto-ro? o-^o^ ecrrpmaav iavrwv ra ifjbdTia (Mark ix. 15; Luke vi. 19; xxiii. 1), 1 Cor. xvi. 15 ocSare ttjv oIkIuv STecfiavd, oTt . . . et? BuiKoviav tok djiot<; era^av eavTov'i, Rev. xviii. 4: i^iXOere i^ aiTrj<;, 6 \a6<; fiov (Hesiod. scut. 327), also ix. 18 aireKi dv6riv(, iyevi^Orjaav al Swdfiui . . . TrdXai dv iv craKKw Kaorj- jxevoL (the inhabitants) /juTevorjo-av. Note 1. Some have thought that a, preceding Sing, verb construed with a (Masc. or Fem.) Plural Subject (the schema Pindaricum, Mtth. 766 ; Hm. Soph. Trach. p. 86) occurs in Luke ix. 28 eyevero . . . a)S€t rjfiipai 6ktu>. But iyivero is to be taken by itself, and , the Sing, and the Plur. would be used together ; but vfieripav [which also Cod. Sin. gives] is here unquestionably to be preferred.) 5. Such sentences as the following are not to be regarded as instances of grammatical discord between the Subj. and Pred. : Matt. vi. 34 apKerov ttj r]fiepa rj Kaicia avrrj'i, 2 Cor. ii. 6 Ikuvov ra> ToiovTO) r] eiriTifi.ia aiirr). The Neuters here are used as sub- stantives : a sufficiency for such a one is, like triste lupus stabulis (Virg. eel. 3, 80) a sad thing for the folds, (Ast, Plat, polit. p. 413 ; Hm. Vig. p. 699). Instances in Greek authors are: Her. 3, 36 a-o(f)6v 77 irpofirjOir), Xeu. Hi. 6, 9 6 TroXe/io? o^ep6v, Diog. L. 1, 98 KoXov ■y]a-vxM, Xen. M. 2, 3, 1 ; Plat. legg. 4, 707 a. ; Plut. paedag. 4, 3 ; Lucian. philops. 7 ; Isocr. Demon, p. 8 ; Plat, conviv. p. 176 d. ; Aristot. rhet. 2, 2, 46 and eth. Nic. 8, 1, 3 ; Lucian. fug. 13 ; Plut. mul. virt. p. 225 Tauchn. ; Aelian. anim. 2, 10 ; Dio Chr. 40. 494 ; Sext. Emp. math. 11, 96. Cf. Georgi, Hierocr. I. 51 ; Wetsten. I. 337 ; Kypke, obs. I. 40 ; Fischer, Well. HI. a. p. 310 sq. ; Elmsley, Eurip. Med. p. 237, ed. Lips. ; Held, Plut. Timol. p. 367 sq. ; Kulnier, Gr. n. 45 ; Waitz, Aristot. categ. p. 292. In Lat. cf. Ovid. amor. 1, 9, 4 ; Cic. off. 1, 4 ; famil. 6, 21 ; Virg. eclog. 3, 82 ; Aen. 4, 669 ; Stat. Theb. 2, 399 ; Vechner, Hellenol. p. 247 sqq. (As to the rhetorical emphasis sometimes involved in this use of the Neuter, see Dissen, Demosth. cor. p. 396.) 518 § 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. Of a different sort, but also deserving of notice, is the construction in 1 Pet. ii. 19 TovTo yap x«P's ; cf- rovTo icmv dva/ivijcrts Demosth. and upon it Scliaefer appar. V. 289 ; fierm. Lucian. conscr. hist. p. 305. 6. If the Subject, or the Pedicate, or both, be compound (Mtth. 760), the grammatical form of the Predicate is determined accord- ing to the following rules : a. If the Subject is composed of the 1st Person and 3d, the verb is put in the 1st Pers. Plur., as Jno. x. 30 iyw koI 6 iraTrjp ev ierfiev, 1 Cor. ix. 6 rj fjLovo'i iya) koX Bapvd^a<; ovk e'^^ofiev e^ovaiav etc. 483 (1 Cor. XV. 11) ; Matt. ix. 14 ; Luke ii. 48 (Burip. Med. 1020) ; 7th ed. but in Gal. i. 8 we find iav ijyaet? rj di\oi 6 re UiKa.TO'i KoX 6 'HpwSv<; (Acts i. 13 ; iv. 27; v. 24; xviii. 5), Tit. ,i. 15 /jbefiiavrai avrwv km, 6 vov<; koI rj avveiSr]cn<; ; or in the Singular, if the Subjects are to be conceived separately, 1 Tim. vi. 4 e^ S)v ylvsTM (j>66vo<;, e'jOt?, ^aa-(fyr]/j,iat etc. Rev. ix. 17 (Thuc. 1, 47 ; Plat. Gorg. 503 e. ; 617 d. ; Lucian. dial. mort. 26, 1 ; Quint, inst. 9, 4, 22) ; 1 Cor. xiv. 24 idv ekeXdrj t« aTrtcrro? rj ISiMTrff (so com- monly when there is a disjunction by t) 1 Cor. vii. 15 ; 1 Pet. § 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. 519 iv. 15) [?] ; Actsv. 38; .xx. 4; 1 Cor. vii. 34 ; or only the first Sub- ject, usually as the principal one, is specially taken into consider- ation, Jno. ii. 2 eickridr) (jcal') 6 'l7](xov7]ij,oi, etc., 1 Cor. iii. 12 e7rot/coSoyu.et cttI tov OefiiXiov '^vcrov, apyvpov, \L6ov^ TtfiLovi, ^u\a, ■X,6prov, KaKdfi-rjv, 1 Pet. iv. 3 ; Heb. xi. 37 ; 1 Tim. i. 10 ; iv. 13, 15 (Cic. fam. 2, 5 ; Attic. 13, 13) ; Rom. i. 29 ff. ; ii. 19 ; Phil, iii. 5 ; Jno. v. 3 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 4-8 ; xiv. 26 ; 2 Cor. iv. 8 f. ; Jas. v. 6 ; 543 1 Pet. ii. 9; Matt. xv. 19 (Col. iii. 11 is peculiar). Similar are Demosth. Phil. 4 p. 64 a. and Pantaen. p. 626 a. ; Plat. Gorg. p. 503 e. ; 517 d. ; rep. 10 p. 598 c. ; Lycurg. 36, 2 ; Lucian. dial, mort. 26, 2 ; HeUod. 1, 6. b. In parallelisms and antitheses, which thus receive additional prominence, 2 Tim. iv. 2 eirLaTT^di, evKalpa)^ aKaipoyf (like nolens 485 volens, honesta turpia, digni indigni, dvco Kara), Aristoph. ran. 157 dvSpwv yvvMK&v, Beier, Cic. off. 1. 135 ; Kritz, Sail. I. 55 ; II. 323), 1 Cor. iii. 2 , yet cf. Acts xiii. 3 eiridevTe^ Ta<; ')(eipa'; airroK aweKvaav, Eph. v. 11 544 fjLr) <7vyK0iv(oveiTe toI<; epjoi<; rot? a.Kap'iroi'i, fidWov Se iXey^ere, 2 Thess. iii. 15 ; 1 Tim. vi. 2, see § 22, 1 p. 143. 9. Of the three constituent parts of a proposition, the subject and the predicate are indispensable ; but the simple copula is im- plied in the mere juxtaposition of the subject and predicate: 6 6eo<; o-o<^6s (which in Greek can only mean, God is wise}. The same holds also when the subject and the predicate are extended, as in Heb. V. 13 Tra? 6 /jberi'^^cov '^oKaicTO'i airet,po<; Xoyov St.Kat,o<7iivr]<;, 2 Cor. i. 21 ; Eom. xi. 15 ; see § 64, 2. But as the predicate is usually blended with the copula, so the subject may be implied in the 486 copula, or in the blended copula and predicate. This takes place, '""*'' independently of any special context, a. When the verb is in the 1st or 2d Pers. (where the subjects are conceived as present, Mdv. p. 6) usually, as in Jno. xix. 22 o jiypacjia, yeypaipa, Rom. viii. 15 ov/c eXd/Sere -n-vevfia 8ovXela<;, as here even the pronouns iyo), av are expressed only when emphasis is intended, see § 22, 6. If now the name of the subject be annexed to the pronoun of the 1st or 2d Pers., as in Gal. v. 2 ijcb UavXo'; Xir^a vpTtv (Eph. iii. 1 ; Rom. xvi. 22 ; 2 Cor. x. 1 ; Pliilem. 19 ; Rev. i. 9 ; xxii. 8, etc.), Gal. ii. 15 rnxeh (pvcret, 'lovSaloi, . . . 66 522 § 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS. ek XpioT. 'Irja. etricrrevaaixev (2 Cor. iv. 11) Luke xi. 39, the adjunct is iu apposition. b. When the verb is in the 3d Pers. (impersonally), and tlien a) a Plur. Active is used, if merely (acting) subjects generally are meant (Mdv. S. 7) ; Matt. vii. 16 /iijrt avWiyova-Lv awo dnav- dSiv aTaj)v\riv ; do they (people) gather etc., does one gather etc. Jno. XV. 6 ; xx. 2 ; Mark x. 13 ; Acts iii. 2 ; Luke xvii. 28 ; Rev. xii. 6. See Fischer, Weller. III. I. 347 ; Duker, Thucyd. 7, 69; Bornem. Schol. p. 84. /S) a Sing. Active, when no definite subject is meant (Mdv. S. 7) of which the verb is predicated, but only the action or con- dition is designated as a fact : vet,, ^povra (Jno. xii. 29 ^povTr/ 6opS,, er^elperai iv d(pOapa-ia (see v. Hengel in loc), 1 Pet. iv. 6 eh tovto Koi veKpoh einjyyeXurdr] etc.. Matt. vii. 2, 7 ; v. 21, etc. This form is connected with the 3d Pers. Plur. Active in a parallelism in Luke xii. 48 a iSoOrj ttoXv, ttoKv ^T^Tij^jjo-erat ■Trap' avrov, km m irapWevro iroKv, vepicraoTepov aiTrjcrovcjiv avrov.^ The forms of quotation, Xcyci 2 Cor. vi. 2 ; Gal. iii. 1 6 ; Eph. iv. 8 etc., cjiflcrC 1 Cor. vi. 16; Heb. viii. 5, eipijKc Heb. iv. 4 (cf. the rabbinic ^a'iNI, see Surenhus. /3i/8X. KaraXK. p. 1 1), iiap-nipei Heb. vii. 17 (ehre 1 Cor. xv. 27), were probably never intended by the N. T. writers to be taken imper- 48y sonally ; but for the most part the Subject (6 ^eos) is directly or indirectly 7lhed. contained in the context. In 1 Cor. vi. 16 and Matt. xix. 5, however, in connection with 7]cri and ehrcv there is an apostolic ellipsis (of 6 6eds). Lastly, in Heb. vii. the best authorities [Sin. also] give fiapTvpeiTau There is nothing at all impersonal in Jno. xii. 40 (one acquainted with 1 It cannot, however, be inferred from this that the 3d Plural Active strictly has a Passive sense (as in Chald., see my Gram. 4 49), for even in Luke xii. 20 ottoitoBo-u' may be taken concretely ; see Bornem. in loc. § 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 523 the Scriptures easily supplies & Otoi), 1 Cor. xv. 25 (O-g scilicet Xpiords from avTOv), Rom. iv. 3, 22 IwicrTeua-tv A^p. to! Oem Koi iXoyiardrj aurip eis 8iKaio(Tvvy)v sc. to TTUTTtxxjaL from tTrtcrTtvor., Jno. vii. 51 lav ixr/ a.Kov(rr] where 6 i/ofios is to be repeated, which is personified as a judge ; in 1 Jno. v. 1 6 from alnlja-ei the word atrouju.ei'os (^eos) might be supplied as the Subject of Suo-et (Liicke) more suitably than ah-Civ ; lastly, in Heb. x. 38 eav v7rooT€LA.ijTat it would perhaps be most simple to educe the general term avdpuinoi from 6 SiWios. The Predicate is involved in tivai when it signifies existere, Matt, xxiii. 30 £t TifiiOa. h> rais rj/iipaK t!ov irartptov etc., Jno. viii. 58 ; Rev. xxi. 1 rj OdXatraa ovK cotiv eri. In this sense adverbs are then annexed for closer specification in 1 Cor. vii. 26 koXov avOpumia to outcos ctvat. §59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE IN ITS SUBJECT AND PEEDICATE: ATTRIBUTIVES, APPOSITION. 1. The Subject and the Predicate of a proposition may be ex- tended in a great variety of ways by adjuncts : And first of all attributively, most commonly by means of adjectives, see no. 2. Personal nouns in particular which denote office, character, etc., receive, with little extension of signification, general personal 546 attributives in the substantives av0pcoTro<;, avrip, yvvi^ etc. (Mtth. 967) Matt, xviii. 23 wjioimOt} . . . av0pto7ra> ^acrikel, xiii. 45 ; xx. 1 ; xxi. 83 (Iliad. 16, 263 avOpw-iro'i oBiTtj^, Xen. Cyr. 8, 7, 14 ; Plato, Gorg. 518 c.) ; Acts iii. 14 yTr]a-a «i Hi. 11, 1 ; see Fischer ind. ad Palaeph. sub dv-ijp, Vechner, Hellenol. p. 188. Cf. on the Hebrew idiom, my Simonis p. 54.). On the other hand, in 1 Cor. ix. 5 yvvaiKa is to be taken predicatively ; it would be wrong, also, to refer to this head passages in which the attributive is strictly an adjective, as in Actsi. 11 ; xvii. 12; xxi. 9 (Nep. 25, 9) ; Jno. iv. 9. In the addresses avBpe'; 'laparjXirai, Acts ii. 22, a,i/Bpe<; 'AOrjvaloi, xvii. 22 ; xix. 35 the emphasis lies on avhpe'}, and renders the address one of respect (cf. Xen. An. 3, 2, 2). Similar forms of address are frequent in the Greek orators. 2. Adjectives (and participles) annexed to substantives attrib- utively to supplement their meaning regularly stand after them, Luke ix. 37 aw^vrria-ev avrai ox^o's ttoXw, Rev. xvi. 2 eyiveTO eX/co? 488 KUKou Koi irovrjpov, Matt. iii. 4 ; Jno. ii. 6 ; 2 Tim. iv. 7 tov cuywva '*«'• Tov KCbhJov ^(ovia-fuit, Lxike v. 36 ff. ; Phil. iv. 1 ; Rev. vi. 12, 13, since the thing itself presents itself to the mind before its Predi- 524 § 59- EXTENSION OP A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. cate. "When, however, the adjective is to receive any degree of prominence, as directly or indirectly antithetical, it is put hefon the substantive ; and this is peculiarly frequent in the didactic style: Matt. xiii. 24 mfiOLotdr] fj /3acriXeia twv ovpavwv dvOpwiro) aireipavTi icaKbv airepfia (vs. 25 ecrrreipev ^i^dvta'), Luke viii. 15 to (jTreaov) iv tfi KaXfj yfj (vss. 12, 13, 14) ; Jno. ii. 10 irpwrov rbv koXov olvov Tidr)aiv, KoX OTuv fieOvaOSxriv, Tore rov eKdaaa) (Rom. i. 23 ; xiii. 3; Mark i. 45 ; Matt. xii. 35) ; 1 Cor. v. 6 oVt fiiKpa ^v/j^rj oXov to <}>vpap,a ^vfj.01 (Jas. iii. 5) ; 1 Pet. iv. 10 eKaaro^ ica6u)<; eXa^ev ydpiapM €19 kavTov'i avTO BcaKovovvTe<; to? icaXol olKovofioi (the kukoI oIk. do not do so), Heb. x. 29 (cf. vs. 28) ; viii. 6 ; Rom. vi. 12 firj ^aaiXeveTco f] afiapria iv Ta> OvtjtS v/jlcov <7a)/xaTl (jtist because the aa)fia is BvrjTov, it woiild be absurd to allow such dominion), 2 Pet. i. 4 ; Mark xiv. 6 ; Heb. ix. 11, 12 ; 1 Tim. i. 19 ; 1 Cor. V. 7 ; 2 Cor. v. 1 ; 1 Pet. iv. 10, 19. Hence in tlie apostolic dic- tion KaivT) icriGi';, Kaivo<; dv6po37ro<;, and for the most part t] Katvr) SiaOi^Krj. But even the adjective put after the substantive may be emphatic when made prominent by the article, Jno. iv. 11 -n-odev cT^et? TO vScop TO ^a)v ; X. 11 670) elfib 6 iroifi-qv 6 KaX6<;, or when placed at the end of the sentence, as in Mark ii. 21 ovBeU . . . eirir pdirrei iwl i/xdnov irdXaiov, Jno. xix. 41 ; Mark xvi. 17 yXtocrcrai,^ 647 XaXtjaovai Kaivaif. In one and the same verse we find an adjective preceding and another following the substantive. Tit. iii. 9 p-apd'i ^T^jTi^aea . . . (ttaT^o? vofUKa';. In general, it must not be forgotten that it often depends on the writer whether he will emphasize the adjective or not. Thus in Jno. xiii. 34 ; 1 Jno. ii. 7, 8 kmvtjv evToXrjv might have been put in distinct antithesis to the old com- mandments, but the Apostle says ivroXrjp Kaivrjv, a commandment which is new. In Rev. iii. 12 we find t^? Kaivi]pova^ Koa/Miov etc. Tit. i. 6 ; ii. 4 f. ; Phil. ii. 2 ; Rev. V. 1 (Job i. 8) see § 58, 7, perhaps with climax Luke vi. 38 (Mtth. 998) ; or because one of the adjectives is more closely related to the substantive, and forms with it as it were one notion, 1 Pet. i. 18 eK tt)? /j,aTa(a<; vfimv dvaa-Tpocfnj'; TraTpoTrapaBoTov, Jno. xii. 3 fivpov vdpSov TTtcTTtKJjs TToXmifiov, where vdpSo'!' «i Kal TO Kav'XTj/j.a /ie^^i reXovi ^e^aiav Karda'^iofiev (var.). Rev. viii. 7. 550 Cf. Iliad. 2, 136 sq. al rifiirepac t aXo^ot Kal vipria TeKva eiar ivl 491 fteydpoi^ TTOTiSiyfievai,, Thuc. 8, 63 'n-v66fievo<; . . . Kal rov Ilrpoii^i,- '"• '^ X^^V ""''' ''■«? "^w dire'KrjXvOoTa, Xen. Cyr. 7, 5, 60. If the substantives are of the same gender, or if the adjective employed has not different forms to express different genders, it is usually expressed but once ; — with the first substantive as in Acts ii. 43 ; Matt. iv. 24 ; Mark ii. 15 ; Eph. i. 21 ; 1 Cor. xi. 30 (2 Pet. i. 10) ; Rev. vi. 15, or with the second as in 2 Cor. , 6. The Plural of an adjective which belongs to two substantives may appear to be used in 1 Pet. i. 18 ov ^Oaproii apyvpixo ^ )(pvcr!,io iX.vTp(!>$r)Te; but (jidapr. must be regarded as a substantive, and apy. and xp- as explan- atory specifications in apposition to it : not with corruptible things, silver or gold etc. 6. Predicative amplifications, which we introduce by as or for, to, are very frequent : 1 Tim. ii. 7 eh o ereOrjv eym Kijpv^, 1 Cor. X. 6 ravra tvttol Tjji&v eyevrjOrjaav, vs. 11 ; xv. 26 ; Matt. i. 18 ; Jno. iii. 2 ; xii. 46 ; 2 Tim. i. 11 ; 1 Pet. ii. 5 ainol m<; Xldot fcoi^Te? otKoSo/Meia-de oIkoi; irvevfiaTiKOi}, 1 Cor. ix. dSeXcfirjv yvvalKa irepid- yeiv, Rom. iii. 25 bv irpoedeTo 6 deo^ IXacrrriptov, Jas. v. 10 iivohayiMa Xd^ere . . . rov<; 7rpo(p^ra<;, Acts vii. 10 ; xix. 19 ; xx. 28 ; xxv. 14 ; xxvi. 5 ; Luke xx. 43 ; 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23 ; 2 Cor. iii. 6 ; 1 Jno. iv. 10, 14 (2 Thess. ii. 13 according to the reading dirapxvv) Plob. i. 2 ; xii. 9 ; 2 Pet. iii. 1 ; Rev. xiv. 4. Sometimes sucli a. Predi- cate is made prominent by the comparative particle o)?, as in 2 Cor. X. 2 Xoyi^o/Mevov'i ri/j,d<; w? Karh adpKa irepvRaTovvTa'i, 1 Cor. iv. 1 ; of. 2 Thess. iii. 15 ; 1 Tim. v. If.; or the Hebraistic construction with 6w is adopted, as in Acts xiii. 22 ff^eipev tov Aavlh uvtok ek 628 § 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. ^aaCKea, vs. 47 ; vii. 21 ; see p. 228. On making the Predicate precede, see § 61. The Predicate is sometimes an adjective, as in Heb. vii. 24 airapd^ixrov exei TTjv Ups) Koi iKaXeatv rj/jLas, Jno. iv. 23 ; Heb. X. 20. On the other hand, a Predicate is sometimes annexed to a pronoun, as in 1 Pet. iii. 21 o {vSoip) Kol i^as avrirvirov vvv crui^et. Such Predicates are sometimes to be taken proleptically (Bornem. Luc. p. 39 ; Krii. 210), as in Matt. xii. 13 a7reKaT€(TTa.6ri vytijs i.e. wsre yevlcrOai vyv?i (Luke xiii. 35 var.) Phil. iii. 21 ; 1 Cor. i. 8 ; 1 Thess. iii. 13. 551 7. Especially diversified are tlie ap^Msitive adjiincts,i -wliich, an- 468 nexed asyndetically, are intended mainly to define more closely one 6th ed. nominal (or pronominal) notion by another. But apposition is, 492 a. Synthetic, in the case of proper names which are disthi- ■ guished by the species or genus, or, if they belong in common to a plurality of persons or of objects, by a distinctive quality : Matt. iii. 6 iv TO) 'lopBavT) TTorafim, Heb. xii. 22 irpotieXTfKvdaTe ^iwv opei, Acts X. 32 oiKia ^ifuovo^ ^vpaio)';, Heb. vii. 4 BeKarrjp 'A^paa/j, eSm/cev ... 6 ■n-arptdp-)(r]^, Acts xxi. 39 ; Rev. ii. 24. b. Partitive (Rost 484) : 1 Cor. vii. 7 eKaaro'; iSiov e^ei X0'Pi''^l^ci'> 6 jxev oi/T(u?, he oma^, Matt. xxii. 5; Acts xvii. 32; xxvii. 44, more simply in Acts ii. 6 t^kovov ets eKaaTo<; rfj ISia BiaXeKTa etc., Eph. iv. 25. c. ParatJietic, when some characteristic of a person or thing is expressed : Luke xxiii. 50 'Iiocnj^, avfjp aya6ov ttoXitoiv koI twv ' The personal pronoun included in a verb takes an apposition in 1 Pet. v. 1 irapaRoKa (h^) i v ovopara ptydXa XiyeTai . . . IXtTTaKoI 553 Koi BtavTos, ^atvoVTai aTre^opevoi, rep. 3, 402 c. ; 7, 533 c. ; Apol. p. 41 a. ; Lucian. Eunucli. 4. 49^ 8. That words in apposition, being co-ordinated with their prin- ted, .cipals, agree with them in case is the well-known rule. It does not extend to gender or number (Ramshorn, S. 294) ; since, in* particular, :a neuter (abstract) may be put in apposition with a personal noun, a plural with a collective singular, a singular with a plural, as Phil. iv. 1 aBeX(f)oi /jlov ayaTrrjToi . . . %a/3a Koi crTe^avo's fj,ov, 1 Cor. iv. 13 ; xv. 20 ; Col. iii. 4 ; Phil. iv. 18 ; Rev. i. 6 ; xvi. 3 (Soph. Oed. C. 472 ; Eurip. Troad. 432 ; Plin. epp. 9, 26 Demosthenes, ilia norma oratoris et rcgula, Liv. 1, 20, 3 virgines Vestae, Alba oriundum sacerdotium, 1, 27, 3 ; 8, 32, 5), 1 Cor. i. 2 T^ eKKXrjcria tov 6eov, ^•yiaa/Mevot,'; iv Xp., rfj ovarj iv Kopivdo), 1 Jno. V. 16 Saxrei aiirm ^osijv, rot? afiapTovovatv firj irpo<; Oavwrov^ 470 cf. 1 Kings xii. 10 ; Xen. Mem. 2, 3, 2 ; Hi. 3, 4. Cf. Vig. p. 41. etlied. 1 Bomemann's exposition (bibl. Stnflien der sachs. Geistl. I. 71 ), according to which air^ is referred to him that asks, and toTs afiaprivomn is taken for a Dativ. commodi (he will give him life for them etc.), appears to me artificial. Aurf cannot well be referred to iSeX^hs anajnivuv a/iapTlav fiii vphs BdvaTw, as oiTeii' here manifestly denotes intercession. § 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 53I Still greater discordance occurs in the apposition contained in Col. iii. 5 veKpcoa-are to, /j-eXr) . . . iTopvdav, aKaOapaiav etc., where the vices are placed beside the members employed in the indulgence of them, the results beside the instruments. See Matth. 974. But even from the agreement of the apposition with the noun in case (apart from what has been established above by 1 Cor. xvi. 21), there are exceptions : a. It is a very common grammatical usage to annex the apposi- tion in the genitive to the noun on which it depends (Bengel on Jno. ii. 21), as in 2 Pet. ii. 6 TrdXet? SoBofj.a}v kuI rofi.6p'pa<; (Odyss. 1,2; Time. 4, 46 ; Krii. 97, like urbs Romae, flumen Rheni in Latin, cf..also Hoffmann, Grammat. Syr. p. 298), Luke xxii. 1 ■fj iopTT] tS)v d^v/Mmv (2 Mace. vi. 7 Aiowcriwv eopTti'), ii. 41 ; Jno. xiii. 1 ; 2 Cor. v. 5 rov appa^ava tov Trvevp.aro'i the earnest 0/ the Spirit (consisting in tlie Spirit), the Spirit as an earnest (Eph. i. 14), Rom. iv. 11 arnxeiov eXa^e TrepiTOfj.rj'; (where some au- thorities give TrepiTOfiT^v as an emendation), Jno. ii. 21 ; xi. 13 ; Acts ii. 33 ; iv. 22 ; Rom. viii. 21 ; xv. 16 ; 1 Cor. v. 8 ; 2 Cor. v. 1 ; Eph. ii. 14 ; vi. 14, 16 f. ; Col. iii. 24 ; Heb. vi. 1 ; xii. 11 ; Jas. i. 12 ; 1 Pet. iii. 3, etc. Under this head comes also Eph. iv. 9 Kare^rj eh ra KaToorepa (^p.iprf) tj}? 7^? (f''!?'JC fiT'Ti"'!)) t^ the lower parts i.e. the earth, or whicii_ constitute tlie earth (similar is Isa. xxxviii. 14 eh to ir^o'i tov ovpavov, cf. Acts ii. 19 ev tw 554 ovpavo) avui . . . iirl Tr}<; yTJ<; kcltw). The Apostle infers from ave^rj a KaTe/Sr) : now Christ strictly and properly came down on earth (and from it ascended again) ; this, contrasted witli heaven, which is here called v-yjrov, is spoken of as a deep or lower region. Clirist's 495 descent into Hades (to wliich the expression is referred in Evang. 7th ed, Apocr. p. 445) as an isolated fact cannot here be taken into consideration ; it would be too restricted to refer the expression aijQjbdXwTeveiv al^x/uiXaiaiav to tiiat. Finally', in Rom. viii. 23 also the interpretation of d7rv fifWoyrav, rb 5e (Tcifia tov Xpurrov. The words are nndoubtedly to be so explained as to make Xpio-ToD '•■ part of the predicate, and dependent on ivrl : but the body is of Christ, belongs to Christ, is in, with, Christ. 2 In the passages adduced by il/ej. onEph., as above, [1st. and2dedn8.] from Erfurdt's Soph. Antig. S.'iS and Schaef. ApoUon. Rhod. schol. p. 235, there is nothing connected with the Gen. apposlt. § 50. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC. 633 anacoluthoii. And it is in general quite intelligible how even a word in apposition, if it is to be introduced as independent, is put in the Nominative without regard to the construction, — a sort of detached insertion. In 2 Cor. xi. 28 ^ cTrto-uoTao-ts /jlov etc. is not an abnormal apposition to )(u>pl^ Tuv TTopeicTos — such a solecism is not to be credited to Paul, — but Subject Nominative, and as such rendered prominent. The apposition to a Vocative stands in the Nominative in Rom. ii. 1 u> avOpioTre ttSs 6 Kpivwv, Rev. xi. 17 ; xvi. 7 ; cf. Bar. ii. 12 ; Acta apocr.. p. 51, 60 ; the epexegesis in these cases is not construed with the Vocative, but introduced independently. Cf. Bhdy. S. 67. In Matt. vi. 9 the adjunct €v Tovs ovpavoK could not have been annexed to Trdrcp by means of the article in any other manner than it is, since the article has no Voc. form. 9. An apposition sometimes refers, not merely to single words, but also to whole clauses (Erfurdt, Soph. Oed. R. 602 ; Monk, Eurip. Alcest. 7 ; Matth. Eurip. Phoen. 228 ; Sprachl. II. 970 f. ; Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 228 ; Krii. 215) ; and the nouns of which it consists, in the Nonx. or Ace. according to the form of the sentence, 472 may then frequently be resolved into an independent proposition fi"" '^ (Wannowski, syntax, anom. p. 47 .sqq. 197 sq.) : a. Substantives in the Ace. (cf. also Lob. paralip. p. 519), as in Rom. xii. 1 TrapaxaXm vfia<;, •jrapaa-Tfja-ai, to, acofiaTa vfx,u>v dvcruiv t,'2<7av, arflav, evapearov t& Oew, rrjv XoyiKrjv Xarpeiav, i.e. r]TK earl \oy. Xarp. qui est cultus etc., 1 Tim. ii. 6 o Bow eavTov avrlXvTpov virep TravTcov, to fiaprvpiov KaipoK IBiois ; — and in the Nominative, as in 2 Thess. i. 4 f. &)?Te ij/xd? avToii'; iv vfuv Kav^aadai ev Tol'i iKK\7iaUu<; tov deov virep rrj? {nrofjLovr]<; vfiSiv koX iriarewi iv 556 iraai, rot? Bioyy/Mol'; vixaiv koL Tai<; deXere, Iva TroiSicnv vfuv ol dvOpanroi ... /cat v/jie2<; Trotetre aurot? Ofioio)^. 563 b. Temporal sentences (see § 53,8), as Luke i. 23 to? iTrXijadriaav ai '^/j.epat . . . aTrrjXdev, Acts xxvii. 1 ; Jno. iv. 1 ; Matt. xvii. 25 ore ekrj\0ev etV rijv olnlav - . . irpoe^Oaaev, vi. 2 orav ovv '7roi?i<; eXerifwavvi]V, firj a-aXma-y} efnrpocrdev <70v, etc. § 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 541 c. Even conditional sentences (§ 53, 8) 1 Cor. ix. 17 el exav Tovro irpdaao), fiiadov ey(m, Luke vii. 39 6 1 ^v ttjSo^jjtij?, eyivaxricev av, Jno. vii. 11 edv tk 6e\r) ro 6eX7]/Ma avrov iroieZv, yvacreTai, etc. That these also are properly to be referred to this head, is apparent from the structure, elsewhere examined, that occurs in Jas. v. 13 KaKowadel rt? iv vfuv, irpcKevxea-Oco, where the conditional clause makes its appearance as independent : nome one among you is afflicted (I suppose the case), let him pray ; 1 Cor. vii. 21 Boij\o<; eKk.rjO-q'i, jjuri <7oi fieKerm, cf. Jas. ii. 19 f. ; Mdv. 224. Here et has by some been unwarrantably supplied ; and it is equally inadmis- sible to regard the first clause as interrogative, see above, p. 285 ; cf. Bhdy. 385; Dissen,Demosth. cor. p. 284sq. So in Latin Terent. Eunuch. 2, 2, 21 negat quis, nego ; ait, ajo. Heind. Horat. serm. 1, 1, 45 ; Kritz, Sail. II. 349. 5. In the cases just adduced a. -c. (as well as in causal sen- tences) a protasis and apodosis are contrasted (Luke i. 1 ; v. 4 ; Matt. iv. 3 ; v. 13 ; Heb. ii. 14, etc.), though the beginning of the latter is not in most cases specially marked, as it is in German by 504 so — (hence sometimes it is doubtful where the apodosis begins, '''' e^ as in Jas. iii. 3 f. ; iv. 15, etc.) ; for when ovtod? seems to be em- ployed for this purpose, or when elra, tots, and in hypothetical constructions dXkd, Se (Jacobs, Ael. anim. p. 27 sq. praef.), apa {ovv ? see § 63), is put before the apodosis, as in Mark xiii. 14 ; Matt. xii. 28 ; Jno. vii. 10 ; xi. 6 ; xii. 16 ; 1 Cor. i. 23 ; xv. 54 ; xvi. 2 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 4 ; 1 Thess. v. 3, etc., it is intended to give prominence to the apodosis, — by oiirw? in particular to refer again to the circumstances expressed in the protasis. It is only in comparative sentences that a. A ouTto? or Kub before the apodosis corresponds often to the (B9, w'iTrep, Kodco'i of the protasis, Rom. v. 15 ; 2 Cor. xi. 3 ; 1 Thess. ii. 7 ; Matt. xii. 40 ; Jno. v. 21 ; xv, 4, 9 ; xx. 21 (outo)? is the most regular correlate of «97rep). OOtoj? after a conditional clause was formerly thought to be purely pleonastic. But in Rev. xi. 5 ouTto? means hoc modo (see the sentence preceding), and in 1 Thess. iv. 14 it refers to the similarity of the lot of believers to that of Christ (a-n-Wave km aveaTtf) ; and these instances have no resemblance to those adduced by Mtth. 1457. (Still less is oinwi 564 redundant after participles in Jno. iv. 6 ; Acts xx. 11 ; see § 65, 9.) 479 In the case of grouping of protasis and apodosis, the protasis is Cft ^ usually repeated in a distinct form after the apodosis, so as to produce apparently a double apodosis, as in Rov. ii. 5 /jLeravorjcrou • 542 § 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. €t Be fir) (^/jLeTavoeli;') , epj(0(Ji,ai croi ra^v . . ., eav fit) fjueravoija-r}'; , w here the length of the sentence occasioned the repetition. This, how- ever, is probably not the case in Matt. v. 18, see § 65, 6, p. 612. 6. Objective, consecutive, final, and causal sentences are con- ceived as distinctly dependent on, and conseqiiently siibordinate to, a leading clause, and are accordingly presented in the form of dependent sentences introduced respectively by on, to?, by w?Te, a)9 (not iva, see § 53, 10, 6 p. 457 sq.) also oSf, apa, by "va or oTToj?, by jdp, oTi etc. sec § 53 (wliere the relation of grammatical dependence is sometimes expressed also by the indirect moods of the verb). Causal are akin to objective sentences; hence both are introduced by ort Qquod), signifying either because or that. El (like the Latin si) is so used apparently in one class of cases, after verbs denoting an affection of the mind, where the objec- tive oTt might have been expected (Hoogeveen, doctr. partic. ed. Schiitz, p. 228 sq. ; Jacob, Lucian. Toxar. p. 52 ; Mdv. 225), e.g. Mai'k xv. 44 i6av/iacrev el rjBrj redvrjKev miratus est si jam mortuus fuerit, 1 Jno. iii. 13 p,r) Oavfid^ere, ei fuaei v/xd<; 6 Koafio^ cf. Fr. Marc. p. 702. But ort is employed when the occasion of surprise (grief etc.) is a positive matter of fact, el when it holers before the speaker's mind as merely a possibility, seems to him doubtful, or at least is to be represented as doubtful : marvel not, if the world hate you (Weber, Demosth. p. 535 ; Mtth. 1474 f ; Rost 622). Similar is Acts xxvi. 8. Sometimes modesty or dif- fidence has led to the selection of this latter form of expression, 505 just as we sometimes hear : he begged him if he would not promise 7th ed. (^Germ. er bat ihn, ob u.s.w.). Cf. with this Acts viii. 22. The affinity of objective and relative sentences is illustrated in Acts xiv. 27 avi^yyeXXov, oa-a iiroLTjo-fv o 6e6s /act avTuiv Koi on tjvol$€v etc. 7. a. Relative sentences still more distinctly assume a dependent character when they are of an appositive nature, whetlier more or less requisite to complete the sentence ; as. Matt. ii. 9 o da-Tr/p, ov elBov, Trporj'yev avrov^, Rom. v. 14 Ahdp,, o? e'crrt tutto? tov fJ.eK- TMVTO'i, 1 Cor. i. 30 Xpia-rw, o? eyevijOr) (To^ia rjixlv etc., Acts i. 2 ; XV. 10. But the form of a relative clause is adopted in two other cases : a. when the discourse, particularly a narration, is con- tinued by 09 and that is resolvable into «at o5to?, as in Acts xiii. 43 ■^KoXov6ri<7av ttoXXoi . . . tcS TlavXrp km t& Bapvd^a, o trivet TT/josX-aXoOi/Te? eiretdov amoit etc.. Acts xvi. 24 e^oKov ek (pvXaKrjv 565 TraparfyelXavTe<} rm Be(rp,ov\aKi ... 09 "TrapcvyyeXLav rbiavTTjv etc., § 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. 543 Luke s. 30 ; Acts iii. 3 ; xiii. 31 ; xiv. 9 ; xvi. 14, 16 ; xvii. 10 ; xix. 25 ; xxi. 4 ; xxii. 4 ; xxiii. 14 ; xxviii. 23 ; y8. when the Subject or Predicate is a relative sentence, e.g. Acts xiii. 25 epxerai, ov 480 ovK el/u a^40? to VTToSrjfia \ucrat, vs. 48 eTriarevo'av, oaoi fjaav Terwy- (ikvoi ek ^(orjv aloiviov, vs. 37 ; Jno. xi. 3 bv 6r] tow ), Acts xviii. 2 ; xxvii. 9 ; xix. 1 iyevero iv r^ rov 'AttoXKq} elvat iv KopivOrp, xx. 1 fieTa to iravaaadai tov ddpv^ov . . . 6 ZTaOXo? e^\dev. Especially do Infinitives with prepositions serve to give compactness and roundness to sentences, and so too the Ace. with the Inf. which 544 § 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. usually represents an objective clause ; as, Heb. \i. 11 iiriOvfiovfiev sKoaTov vfjiwv rrjv airrjv evheiKWcrOai airovhrjv, 1 Tim. ii. 8 ^ovXofiai 7rpo<;€u^6cr6ai avSpa<; etc. § 44, 3, p. 321. 566 b. 2 Cor. vii.l raura? 6% oi/re? iirayyeXia'; Kadaplam/jiev eavTOVKafi.€v, on . . ., orav Tov Oebv a.ya.-ir!o[i.tv (ii. 3), Acts xxvii. 42 tGv orpaTUOTuiv fSovXij iyevero, iva Toiii 8ecrjU,6j3o? fA.iyaT6, xii. 7 ; 1 Cor. ix. 16 ; Acts xix. 4 ; Rom. xi. 31 ; Col. iv. 16 ; Gal. ii. 10 (Cic. div. 1, 40 ; Mil. 2 fin. ; Krii. 236), as well as in 1 Cor. vi. 4 j3ia>Ti,Ka /xev ovv Kpirijpia iav exv'e (such postpone- ment of edv is frequent in Demosth., see Klotz, Devar. p. 484) ; Rom. xii. 3 eKaarep to? ifiepiaev fierpov iricrTeai';, 1 Cor. iii. 6; viii. 7 ; 512 Jno. xiii. 34 (Cic. off. 2, 21, 72) ; 2 Thess. ii. 7 fiovov 6 Karkxaiv ™ '"• apTi em? e'/e fiecrov yivrjTai, finally in Rom. viii. 18 ovk a^id t^ iradriixara t. vvv Kaipov tt^o? t. fieXXovaav So^av d'iroKdKv(^drjvab, Gal. iii. 23 ; Heb. x. 1 ; 1 Cor. xii. 22. b. At other times we find a closer specification, which only occurred to the writer after the sentence had been arranged, 572 brought in afterwards ; as, Acts xxii. 9 to fiev ^w? iOedaavTo, ryv Be c^coinjv ovk rjKovaav tov XaXovvToii fioi, iv. 33 /Meydktj Svvdfj,€i direBiBovv to jiapTvpiov ol diroaTokoi Tf)<; dvaaT dcrews tov Kvp/ou T 970-0 0, Heb. xii. 11 ; Jno.iv.39; vi. 65 ; xii. 11 ; 1 Cor. 486 X. 27 ; Luke xix. 47 ; 1 Pet. i. 13 ; 2 Pet. iii. 2 (Acts xix. 27) ; 6th «l. cf_ Arrian. Al. 3, 23, 1 roti? inro'Kei(^6evTa<; iv Ty Bico^et rij? a-Tpa- Tid<;. To this head should probably be referred also Rev. vii. 17. In 2 Pet. iii. 1 iv ah Bi,eyeLpa) vficov iv virofivrjcrei tt/v etXiKpivfj Bidvoiav the words spaced out are thrust into the current of the sentence as a subjoined closer specification of Biejeipo). c. Words which are to be joined together in sense, are placed near each other ; as, Rom. ix. 21 e^ei i^ovaiav 6 KepafMeix; t. tt'tjXov e'/c TOV avTov (j)vpd/xaTo<; Troifjaat etc., 1 Pet. ii. 16 ; 1 Cor. ii. 11. In Eph. ii. 3 ^iio-et belongs to Tmva, and accordingly has the most suitable place. d. Sometimes the transposition is unavoidable ; as, Heb. xi. 32 eiriXeiyjrei yap fie Birjiyov/xevov 6 ypovo^ ire pi TeBecov, BapaK re Kal 'Sa[i-<\rdiv etc. where, since a long series of names follows with which in ts. 33 a relative clause is to be connected, no other arrangement was possible, vi. 1, 2 ; 1 Cor. i. 30. e. An effort to keep unimportant words in the background, is manifest in Heb. iv. 11 Xva fi-q iv rai avTU) t 4 ? vTroBeir//j,aTi irear] etc. V. 4 ; 1 Pet. ii. 19 ; Acts xxvi. 24. So perhaps in 1 Cor. V. 1 w?Te jvvalKa Tiva tov TraTpd k. \6ya> Luke xxiv. 19 (Fr. Rom. III. 268), 6 ovpavo ed. X. 2, SovXoc . . . ikevQepot, 1 Cor. xii. 13 ; Gal. iii. 28 ; Eph. vi. 8, 'lovSaloi, K. "EX\rive<; Acts xviii. 4 ; xix. 10 ; Rom. iii. 9 ; 1 Cor. i. 24 (cf. Rom. ii. 9 f.) and the like. Deviations from this order occur but sparingly (cases, indeed, may be conceived in which the reverse order corresponds better with the truth, cf. Rom. xiv. 9 ; Heusinger, Pint. educ. 2, 5) ; and if there is exclusive or predom- inant MS. authority for the opposite, it must be unhesitatingly adhered to, e.g. Eph. vi. 12 alfia k. crdp^, Heb. ii. 14 ; Matt, xxiii. 15 19 dakaacra k. t) ^rjpd, Acts ix. 24 rjiiepa'; k. vvKjot; Luke xviii. 7 ; Rom. XV. 18 X67&) K. epytp (Diod. S. exc. Vat. p. 23), Col. iii. 11 'EXKrjv K. 'IovSa2o<;. (Cod. D has in Matt. xiv. 21 ; xv. 38 [and in the latter passage Cod. Sin. also] iraihia kcu, 'yvvalice^;, cf. Caes. b. gall. 2, 28 ; 4, 14.) In the N. T. the order oi 7r68e? km, ai %et/3e9 seems to predominate, as in Matt. xxii. 13 ; Jno. xi. 44 ; xiii. 9 ; Acts xxi. 11. Only in Luke xxiv. 39 f. we find the opposite ra? X'^^pd'i P'Ov Kol Tovs TToSa? (perhaps with reference to the fact that only the hands of persons crucified were pierced, and were there- fore considered principal parts, just as Jno. mentions only the hands). In Rom. xiv. 9 the order veKpol koL ^Si/res is determined by the preceding diredavev koI e^rjcrev. § 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 553 The arrangement of words in the N. T. is more unrestrained, wlien a series of ideas is framed. For then general and special conceptions etc. are not grouped together, but the words follow one another according to some loose association of ideas, or even 488 a resemblance in sound, Rom. i. 29, 31 ; Col. iii. 5. See, in gen- *"■ '^• eral, Lob. paralip. p. 62 sqq. It is necessary to be cautious in applying to such abnormal arrangements the name of hysteron proteron (cf. Odyss. 12, 134 ras jnef apa dftiif/aa-a TEKoSo-a re, Thuc. 8, 66 ; Nitzsch on the Odyss. I. 251 f.). We remark in passing, that on Jno. i. 52 dyyeXous 6eov avaftaivovras Kal Kara/Jat- vovras Lticke has stated the right view of the matter; and that vi. 69 7r«rio-T€T;Ka/i€v icai iyv iiraiovrcov Bo^-p, legg. 12, 943 a. ; Xen. M. 3, 9, 6 ; of. Kuhner II. 628 ; ^ or the negative, instead of 576 being joined to the word denied, is prefixed to the whole sentence, as in Plato, Apol. 35 d. a /xi^re fjr^ovfiai koXo, ehat fj-jjre SUaia, Xen. Eph. 3, 8 on /irj to (fidpfiaKov Oavdcn/jbov rjv ; SO also in Acts vii. 48 aW' o'^X ^ v^uTTo<; iv j^etpoiroirjTot,'; naToiKel. Further, many expositors^ think they find a misplaced negative also in Rom. iii. 9 rt otv ; 'rrpoe')(6fie6a ; ov TraKTw?, i.e. by no means 616 (irdvra'i ov 1 Cor. xvi. 12). This interpretation is unavoidable, 7tt ed. ■5,^hether we translate Tr/ooe^o/ie^a have we an advantage ? or have we a pretext ? The linguistic admissibility of this signification is proved from Theogir. 305 (250 f.)* and Epiphan. haer. 38, 6, as well as by analogies such as ovhlv Trai/Tw? Herod. 5, 34, 65 ; ^ only a transposition, strictly speaking, is not to be thouglit of. The phrase is rather to be understood thus : no, assuredly ; no, by no means ; and the difference between ov TravTa^ when it meant not 1 We must not, however, with Fr. Mr. p. 19, refer to this head iiS4ui (eiiSis). In Mark ii. 8 ; v. 30 it belongs to the participle beside which it stands. Elsewhere, Mark i. 10 ; ix. 1.5, it is put at the beginning of the sentence (see above in the text), and is easily to be construed with the principal verb. Also irdxiv in 2 Cor. xii. 21 is not transposed, but made to precede the whole sentence : lest again, when I come, God humble me. So, probably, also (rxfS6v in Heb. ix. 22 (as if, and almost) applies to the sentence : all things are purged with blood. Cf. Galen, protrept. c. 1 rh /ih SWo (ua axeihi/ &T€xva ttivr' iarl. Aristot. polit. 2, 8 ; Lys. ed. Auger I. p. 204. ^ What Valckenaer, schol. N. T. II. 574, has adduced, is not all well selected. As to other passages, in which even recent scholars assert erroneously the existence of a trajection of the negation (e.g. Thuc. 1, 5 ; 3, 57), see Sintenis, Plut. Themist. p. 2. ' I do not understand on what grounds some of these expositors assert that Grotius's rendering : not in all points, is unwarranted. As little do I understand how ov irdvTus omnino non is called a Hebraism. ?3 K3 too in immediate connection means non omnis ; oi Tras for ovStls is always so separated that the verb is negatived by the oii, see § 26, 1 . ^33 X?, however, with the omission of the verb, which Koppe quotes in loc, I do not remember to have found in the 0. T. * Ot KUKol oit TrdvTus KaKol 4k ycuTTphs y€y6vouriv, ci\A' &vSp€v rjixerepav he puovov, 1 Cor. viii. 4 "jrepl tt}? /S/aaio-etu? o?iv twv elhcoXodvTcov, 2 Cor. x. 1 o? KUTo, irpo'iwirov fjiev Tairewo'i, Jno. xvi. 22 ; Acts iii. 21. Cf. on he (Her. 8, 68 ; Aelian. anim. 7, 27 ; Xen. M. 2, 1, 16 ; 5, 4, 13 ; Diod. S. 11, 11 ; Thuc. 1, 6, 70 ; Arrian. Al. 2, 2, 2 ; Xen. eq. 11, 8 ; Lucian. eunuch. 4 ; dial. mort. 5, 1 ; Sext. Emp. math. 7, 65 ; Strabo 17, 808) Hm. Orph. p. 820; Boisson. Aristaenet. p. 687; Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 302 ; III. I. 71 ; Stallb. Phileb. p. 90 ; Prauke, Demosth. p. 208 ; on ydp Schaef. melet. crit. p. 76 ; V. FritzscheJ quaest. Lucian. p. 100 ; on jj-ev Hm. Orph. as above, Bornem. Xenoph. conv. p. 61 ; Weber, Demosth. 402. On the other hand, apa (see Hm. Soph. Antig. 628) is frequently, contrary to Greek iisage, placed ./?rs^, as hi Luke xi. 48 ; Rom. x. IT ; 2 Cor. v. 15 ; Gal. ii. 21 ; v. 11 etc. ; so also apa ovv in Rom. v. 18 ; vii. 3 ; 2 Thess. ii. 15 ; Eph. ii. 19, etc. Likewise pievovvye begins a period 1 "Eipri, inserted in the direct discourse of a third party, occurs only' in Acts xxiii. 35 ; but ri niv oZc t$ TroAe/iif. Cf. Bornem. Xen. conv. p. 61. This holds also of other conjunctions, see above, p. 363. Also the names ot a single person are separated by such conjunctions, Jno. xviii. 10 Sitiaif olv Tlerpos. 560 § 61. POSITION OF WOEDS AND CLAUSES. case it sometimes emphasizes them as belonging to the two parallel mem- bers alike, as in Acts xxv. 23 crvv re ^^lAtapp^ois koI avSpaa-iv, xiv. 5 ; x. 39 ; cf. Plat. legg. 7, 796 d. ew re TroXireCav koI iSt'ous olkovs, Thuc, 4, 13 and the examples collected by Elmsley as above (also Joseph, antt. 17, 6, 2) 521 and Ellendt, lexic. Soph. II. 796. See, in general, Sommer in Jahn's 7rt ed. Archiv I. 401 ff. In the same way ye is placed after an article or mono- syllabic particle in Rom. viii. 32 ; 2 Cor. v. 3 ; Eph. iii. 2, cf. Xen. M. 1, 2, 27 ; 3, 12, 7 ; 4, 2, 22 ; Diod. S. 5, 40 ; see Matthiae, Eurip. Iphig. Aul. 498 ; Ellendt, as above, I. 344. 682 Many expositors, e.g. Schott, find a trajection of the Kal (even) in Heb. vii. 4 o) Koi SeKaTrjv 'AjSpaajii (Sidkcv, for o) ScKanjv koX AySp. eS. But the emphasis in this passage lies in the giving of a tenth, and Schulz has correctly translated it. 7. Violent transpositions of clauses ^ have been thought to occur a. Acts xxiv. 22, where Beza, Grotius, and others, in explaining the words o ^rjXi^, aKpi^kcrrepov etSa)? to, irepl rij^ oBov, etVas, orav AvcTia<; Kara^fj, hio/^vaxrofiai etc., include etSou? in the clause etVa? etc. and render thus : Felix, quando accuratius . . . cognovero, inquit, et Lysias hue venerit etc. But the arrangement here is quite regular, as later expositors have perceived. Cf. Bornem. in Rosenm. Repert. II. 281 f. b. 2 Cor. viii. 10 oinve^ ov fiovov to •jrotrjcrai aXhA koi to dekeiv •jrpoevrip^aade airo Trepvai, where an inversion has been assumed : non velle solum sed facere incepisiis (Grotius, Schott, Stolz, and others),^ ou account of vs. 11 j; irpoOvp.ia tov diXeiv. This is wrong. The willing strictly indicates merely the decision (to col- lect), and if irpoevrip^aade is spoken comparatively, that is with a reference to the Macedonian Christians, may be put before -jroLfjaai, as expressing a point of more importance : Not only in execution, but even in intention, ye were before the Macedonians. So much 495 the more fitting is it now, that the collection be quite completed.^ etied. n niight have been quite possible for the Corinthians to have been first prompted by the decision of the Macedonians to a similar decision. Mey. in loc. (1st ed.) subtilizes and finally arrives at the 1 On this subject see W. Kahler, satura duplex de veris et fictis textus sacri trajec- tionib. ex Evangg. et Actis Apost. collect. Lemgov. 1728. 4to., and£. Wassenbergh, de transposit. salub. in sanandis vett. scriptor. remedio. Franecq. 1786. 4to. (also reprinted in Seebode's Miscell. Crit. I, 141 sqq.). ^ t 9'* ^?i *" <. ^ 5^ '^t ,0 v ^ . ^ Syriac , nSVl^N .^j |j| inaNn j^. ViN O^ .oA^i-^. ' I cannot admit that in this sense vs. 1 1 must have run, kbI iirtreKeiraTe rh iroi^ffcu : the 6e\fiv, was, of course, completed long ago, but it is necessary to complete the fcoiTJffai also. § 62. INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE ; PARENTHESES. 561 exposition propounded by Fritzsclie (diss, in Cor. II. 9), which de Wette ably combats. This last critic has recently reproduced the above explanation [which Mey. also has adopted in his 2d, 3d, and 4th eds.] , and I recall the view that I formerly upheld. As to Jno. xi. 15, see above, § 53, 10, 6, p. 459. (In Mark xii. 12 there is nothing whatever of the nature of a trajection. To the double clause is annexed, after its conclusion, the ground of the first member, and then in Koi aepei,v etc. ? To assume this would be to sacrifice the perspicuity of the narrative. For what else could those iroXKa crrjiieia have been but miracles of healing ? Thus in the words w?T6 Kara etc. what had been only briefly indicated in vs. 12 recurs in another connection to be narrated more in detail (vs. 15 f.). Accordingly, I cannot bring myself to make with Lchm. vs. 14 a parenthesis. On the other hand, in Acts x. 36 tov \6yov is probably to be connected with vs. 37, and the words oSto? etc., which as a complete sentence express a leading thought that Peter could not well annex by a relative, form a parenthesis ; and in vs. 37 § 62. INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE ; PARENTHESES. 565 the speaker', after this interruption, proceeds, by an amplification of the thought. 4. In the Epistles also parentheses, especially short ones, occur, which contain sometimes a limitation, 1 Cor. vii. 11, sometimes a 687 corroboration, 1 Tim. ii. 7 ; 1 Thess. ii. 5, sometimes a reason or more precise explanation, Rom. vii. 1 ; 2 Cor. v. 7 ; vi. 2 ; x. 4 ; xii. 2 ; Gal. ii. 8 ; Eph. ii. 5 ; v. 9 ; Jas. iv. 14 ; 2 Thess. i. 10 ; 1 Jno. i. 2 ; 1 Tim. iii. 5, or any thought whatever that obtruded itself upon the writer (Col. iv. 10 ; Rom. i. 13). But we find in the Epistles some parentheses also of greater length, as in Heb. vii. 20 f. ol fiev <^dp ... eh rov aluva, since Kaff oqov ov %a)pj? opKcofioaia'! VS. 20 is obviously connected with vs. 22 kuto, Toa-oino KpeLTTovo<: etc. ; and in Rom. ii. 13-15, since vs. 16 eV '^f^^pf ore Kpivel etc. is after all most appropriately connected with Kptdi^aovTM vs. 12, for Kpivel glances back at KpiOijaovrat. Vss. 13-15, however, constitute an independent group of thoughts, appended to vs. 12 as explanatory : it is the doing, not the hearing, of the law which is required, vs. 13 ; but the righteous heathen even are doers of 499 the law, vss. 14, 15. But many lengthened insertions are not ^"' * parentheses but digressions, inasmuch as they check merely the 526 progress of thought and not the sequence of construction. So in '"■ "*■ 1 Cor. viii. 1-3 Paul, after grammatically concluding the clause Trepl Be . . . e)(pfiev, allows himself, from rj 'yv&ffe(A . . . /j,6v^ ao Sid 'IiycroS Xp., fid Tj So^a eh Tov<; almvai, Paul is led away from the intended con- struction by his extended statement respecting God in vss. 25, 26, and, instead of immediately annexing r) Bo^a ek tov:; al&va<;, forms a relative clause out of the contents of the doxology, as if the Dative Sep concluded a sentence. Similar is Acts xxiv. 5, where ixpuTT^ a-a/jLev vs. 6 should without anything further have been added to the participle evpovTet tov avBpa tovtov ; Luke, however, led astray 590 by the relative clause o? Kai etc. has made it, too, a part of the relative sentence : ov koI eKpar. More remarkable are the ana- colutha in periods of smaller extent : ^ as in Acts xix. 34 iiruyvovTe';, 1 Accordingly, in 1 Jno. i. 1 ff. there is no anacoluthon, as ts. 3, bv a grammatically regular repetition of the words of the first verse after the intermediate clause vs. 2, is connected strictly with the beginning of the sentence. 2 In Latin cf. Hirt. bell, afiic. 25 dum haec ita fierent, rex Juba, cognitis . . . , non est visum, etc. Plin. ep. 10, 34. ' One of the most singular is perhaps that adduced by Kyplce 11. 104 : Hippocr. morb 568 § 63- BKOKEN AKD HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE on 'loi^Satd? ecrrt, (J3(ovr] iyevero fila ck TrdvTtov (instead of i(pa>vr}a-ap a7roi'Te?),Markix.20 IBwv (oTrat?) avrov, rbwevixa ev6v^ ia-irdpa^ev avTov (instead of viro rov irvevfjLwro'i iavepw^o<; etc., where elBev in consequence of the words inserted 7th ed. lias acquired a more comprehensive object than belonged to IBcov. In Gal. ii. 6 utto Be rSiv Bokovvtwv elvai ri — oiroloi iroTe rieiaaTo etc. has no grammatical apodosis. The Apostle meant to say : neither (much less) will he spare these 53Q false teachers. But as one instance of divine punishment sug- fth ed. gested itself to his mind after another (vss. 4-8), he first in vs. 9 592 reverts with an altered construction to the thought (generalizing 593 it also) which was to form the apodosis. In Rom. v. 12, to the 6th ei words &<;7rep Bi evoi dvdpmirov 17 aixapria eh rov koct/j-ov €t?9j\06 one might have expected the apodosis : ovrm St' ei/o? avOput-nov (XjOt(TTot)) BiKaiO(Tvv7) KoX Biot, T^9 BiKaiocrvvfjis Jj ^(01]. But, by the 1 To repeat, with Fr. (Progr. I. in ep. ad Gal. p. 24, Opusc. p. 178 sq.), after Sii Si robs TrapeisdKTous \j/euSaS., the words ou/c iivayKiaBi\ irepiTfi. {6 T/tos) is no easier at all. Paul, unless we regard him as an inexpert writer, could only omit these words in case the appended relative clauses had made him lose sight of the commencement of the period. But in this way the explanations of the sentence, which is at any rate irregular, amount pretty much to the same thing. Besides, there would be no singularity of style in the statement : but not even Titus , . . was compelled to be circumcised. And because of the false brethren stealthily brought in, he did not allow himself to be compelled (to be circumcised). 2 In a grammatical point of view cf. Xen. C. 6, 2, 9, where the commencement iirA ii ... ^kSov etc. ^ 12 is resumed in the words i>s oiv Toi/Ta ^Kovatv 6 trrparhs rov Kipov, and the apodosis connected with it. ?2 570 § 83. BROKEN AND HETEEOGENEOUS STEUCTUEE. explanation annexed in vss. 12-14 to ekrjXOev r) a/xapTia koi 6 6dvaTo<;, the regular construction is broken off (though in o? eVrj rv7ro<; tov /j,eXXov7o<; an intimation of the antithesis is given) ; and besides, the Apostle recollects that not merely a simple parallel between Adam and Christ might be drawn (^wirep . . . oiJT(u?), but that something greater and more pervasive has proceeded from Christ than from Adam. Hence the epanorthosis iroXka) fiaXXov, which was noticed by so early an expositor as Calvin. The con- nection is resumed in the words aXX oi'x^ m ro -irapdirTa fia eic. vs. 15, which logically absorb the apodosis, and in el yap . . . direOavov the substance of the protasis vs. 12 is briefly recapitulated. After this Paul combines vs. 18 the twofold parallel (likeness and un- likeness) in one final result. In a similar way must be explained 1 Tim. i. 3ff. Ka6io<} irapeKokeaa entirely wants an apodosis, which escaped the attention of Paul while he was introducing directly into the protasis the object of irapaKoXelv. The apodosis should run thus : ovtw koI vvv irapaKokS), "va Trapar/ryelXr]^ etc. To consider vss. 5-17 as a parenthesis, as even Bengel does, is wholly unnatural ; it is still more absurd, however, to take Ka6m for an untranslatable particle of transition (Heydenreich). Many ancient and modern expositors regard Rom. ix. 22 if. as a very singular and in part double anacoluthon ; see the different views in Reiche. But it is probably simpler to join koI 'iva vs. 22 to riveyKev, and at the end of vs. 23 to conceive the apodosis as suppressed : If God, determined to show forth his ivrath, bore with all long-suffering the vessels of his wrath, . . . also in order to make known the riches etc. . . . : what then ? what shall we say ? (must not, then, all censure be silent ?). The bearing of the cncetn) 6pavepa)67] instead ofvwl Be (^avepa>6ev (cf. Her. 6, 25 ; Thuc. 1, 67), 1 Cor. vii. 37 o? 'eaTi]icev iv t§ KapBia, firj 6'xcov avaryKrjV, e^ovcriav Be ej^ei, (instead of e')((ov)} We must 506 not, with Meyer, refer to this head 1 Cor. iv. 14 ; nor Eph. ii. 3, ^"i «i where rjfjiev is parallel to ave iifiel'; Xeyere on ^eo? vp-ibv ian (where deov vficov elvai might have been used). This, however, is rather to be considered as Attraction ; see below. d. The principal verb in the sentence does not regularly cor- respond to the Nominative or Ace. placed at the beginning of the sentence (casus pendentes, Wannowski, Syntax, anomal. p. 54 sq. ; see, however, H. L.-Z. 1836. I. 338) ; as, 1 Jno. ii. 24 u/^ets, o rjKovaaTe a/ir ap'^fjf, ev iijuv fievero), and VS. 27 kui, v/J,el<;, ro '^la/j.a ekd^eTe air aiiTov ev vfuv fikvei and you, the anointing, which . . . abides in you. In both passages, u/^ew, if placed in the relative clause (Lchm.), would in that position of precedence be too em- phatic. Luke xxi. 6 ravra a Oeapeire, ekevaovrai ■^/u.epai, ev ah oiiK cKpedrjo-eTM Xido^ eirl 'Ki6(p etc. these things which ye behold, — there will come days in which (even to the last stone they will be 607 destroyed) not a stone (of them) will be left on another. So also M'i in Jno. vi. 39 ; vii. 38 ; xv. 2 ; Matt. vii. 24 ; xii. 36 ; Rev. ii. 26 iii. 12, 21 ; vi. 8. Cf. Exod. ix. 7 ; Xen. Cyr. 2, 3, 5 ; Oec. 1, 14 Ael. 7, 1. 2 Cor. xii. 17 /xj; nva &v airearaXKa tt/do? v/^a?, hi avTou eTrXeoveKT-ria-a vfA,a<; ; iov,have I sent to you any one of those etc. in order to defraud you? Rom. viii. 3 to ahvvaTov tov vo/jlov, ev a> rja-devei ... 6 6eo'^ tov eavTov vlov 7re/j,yfra<; . , . KareKpive rrjv dfiapriav ev rfj aapKo, what to the law was imjjossible . . . God con- demned, sending his Son, sin in the flesh, for, that God did, and condemned etc. Here, however, to ahvv. may also be regarded as a predicate placed before a proposition complete in itself, and may be resolved o r^ap ahivarov ian, like Heb. viii. 1 Ke(f>d\aiov em tow \er/ofievoi<;, tolovtov e')(p/Mev dp')(Lepea etc. see § 32, 7 p. 231 ; cf. Kuhner II. 156. Several critics, Olsh. among them, have supposed that there is an Accus. absol. (?) in Acts x. 36 tov Koyov ov aTricmiXe tois uiois 'Icrpai^A etc. the 597 word, which (or which word) he sent first to the children of Israel (namely, the word vs. 35 ev iravTi Wvci etc.). Yet see § 62, 3 p. 564. An anacoluthon peculiar to the N. T. sometimes occurs, where the writer proceeds in the words of an 0. T. statement instead of in his own, e.g. Eom. XV. 3 koX yap 6 Xpio-Tos ovx eavr^ r/ptviv, aXKa, Ka6ws yiypamai, 01 ovciSuTjKol rSiv ovf&iZpvTW o-e iTriinaav hr ifii (instead of — but, to please § 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 575 God, he submitted to the cruelest reproaches) vs. 21 ; ix. 7 ; cf. 1 Cor. ii. 9 ; iii. 21 ; Heb. iii. 7. Yet see below, § 64, 7 p. 598. e. Under the head of anacoluthon comes also the use of fiev without a subsequent parallel clause (made prominent by Be), Hm. Vig. 841 sq, In this case either a) tlie parallel member is easily to be supplied from the clause with fiiv, being in a manner included in it, as in Heb. vi. 16 avOpwrroL /lev yap Kara tov fieL^ovo<; ofivvovcn men swear by the greater, but God can swear only by himself, cf. vs. 13 (Plat. Protag. 834 a.), 535 yet this fiev is doubtful [and wanting also hi Cod. Sin. J ; Col. ii. 23 '"""'• anvd ecTTt Xoyov fiev e'xpvra crocftiwi iv iOekoOprjaKeia Kai etc. which, indeed, have an appearance of wisdom, but in fact are not (Xen. An. 1, 2, 1), Rom. x. 1, where perhaps Paul purposely avoided the painful antithesis (which is brought out in vs. 3 but softened by a compliment), see further 1 Cor. v. 3. Cf. Xen. Hier. 1, 7 ; 7, 4 ; Mem. 3, 12, 1 ; Plat. Phaed. 68 a. ; Aristoph. pax 13 ; see Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 105 ; Held, Plutarch. A. PauU. p. 123. Or /8) the antithetic member is evidently added, but in another construction ; as, Rom. xi. 13 f. e0' ocroi' fiev ovv elpX iyoo eOvatv a7ro<7To\o?, Trjv BtaKovlav fiov So^d^o), elVo)? Trapa^nfKcoa-co p,ov rr)v adpica etc. Here the clause with Se lies wrapt up in etVoj? wapa^., instead of Paul's writing regularly : inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I glorify mine office (preaching zealously to the Gentiles), hut I have in this the benefit of the Jews in view (I will thus render the Jews emulous), I am, indeed, in fact an apostle to the Gentiles, but at the same time in purpose an apostle to the 508 Jews. Or iSili cd. 7) the construction is entirely broken off, and the parallel clause must be gathered by the reader from the sequel, e.g. Acts i. 1 tov fjLev irpoirov \6 etc. is unquestionably an anacoluthon. The Apostle when he used this phrase had in mind a Sevrepov or eha, which, however, in consequence of a change in the thought does not follow. The remark of Wyttenbach (Plut. Mor. I. 47, ed. Lips.) is applicable here : si solum posuisset -irpSyrov, poterat accipi pro maxime, ante omnia (so it is rendered by nearly all expositors) ; nunc quum fiiv addidit, videtur voluisse alia subjungere, turn sui oblitus esse. Cf. also Isocr. Areopag. p. 344 ; Xen. M. 1, 1, 2; Schaef. Demosth. IV. 142 ; Maetzner, Antiph. p. 191. In 1 Cor. xi. 18 irpwrov /jiiv yap uvvipxa/JLevoiv i/xSiv etc., eireira Si is probably implied in vs. 20 ff. ; and Paul properly meant to write : In the first place, I hear that when ye come together there are divisions among you, and further, that irregularities occur at the Lord's Supper. Paul conceives the latter from a different point of view than the divisions. Rom. iii. 2 Tholuck has already correctly explained. Likewise in Matt. viii. 21 eirtrpei/'ov /j-ol irpEiTov aTreXSctj' Koi 6mpai etc. 509 there is nothing corresponding to irpuiTov ; yet we, too, say : let me first 6tli rf. (in the first place) go and bury, — whereupon every one readily supplies according to the context : I will then return (and follow thee, vss. 19, 22). When in the combination re . . . xat a irpuirov is inserted after n, as in Rom. i. 16 ; ii. 9 f., it means especially., chiejly. In 2 Cor. viii. 5, too, o99 irpurrov . . . Kai does not stand for TrpCnov . . . en-ena ; see Mey. An anacoluthon similar to that with fiiv occurs sometimes with km where it ought to have been repeated (as well . . . as also). Thus in 1 Cor. vii. 38 oiqre KoX 6 iKyajuZuiV KoXm woiei, 6 Si fxr) iKyafxIZfav Kpiia-crov ttoiei the sen- tence is strictly speaking so laid out that koL 6 jxii ... KaXws iroiei ought to follow. But Paul, while intending to express himself thus, corrects him- self and employs the comparative, and then the adversative particle appears more appropriate. There is, however, weighty evidence against 8e ; and § 63. BROKEK ASH HETEROGENEOUS STRTJCTURE. 577 it may have been introduced by transcribers for the reason just mentioned, instead of the original xai. II. 1. Different from anacoluthon is the oratio variata (Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 22 ; Jacobs, Aelian. p. 6 ; Bremi, Aeschin. II. 7 ; Mtth. 1530 ff.). It takes place when, in parallel sentences and members of sentences, two (synonymous) constructions have been adopted, each of which is complete in itself — heterogeneous structure. It occurs in accurate writers particularly when the continuance of the previous construction would have been heavy, obscure, or not quite suited to the thought (Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. 254 ; Beier, Cic. off. II. 38) ; sometimes, also, regard for variety of expression has had influence. We subjoin, in the first place, some instances of a simple description : 1 Jno. ii. 2 t\a(7/i6? Trepl tmv dfiapnwv ■^fA.av, ov irepL rSiv fjiierepav 8e fiovov, aXKa km irepl oKov tov ic6<7 p,ov (where, either instead of the last words the writer might have used irepl T&v oXov TOV Koa-fjLov, or instead of the first, -Trepi rfjx&v), similar 537 are Heb. ix. 7 ; Acts xx. 34 (1 Kings iii. 1 ; iv. 30 ; Liician. parasit. '"1 ^ 20) ; Eph. T. 33 koX vfiei; 01 Koff eva €KfJTai aTreOavov, where the regular construction required the continuation of the interrogative form : Kal twv 7rpoceT(o avTov, see above, p. 150 ; cf. similar instances in Luke xvii. 31 and Jno. xv. 5. In Rom. xii. 6 sq. e)(pvTe<; Se •^^apicr/j.aTa Kara ti]v '^apiv . . . ecre Trpo(f)r)Teiav Kara Trjv avaXojlav rij? TrtcrTeaj?, eore BiaKoviav ev rfj BtuKovca, e'lre 6 SiBdcrKcov ev ry BiBacrKoXia, etTe 6 TrapuKoXav ev ttj TrapaK\^aei the construction (Ace. governed by 6xovTe'r}aiv, aXXa cb? i/ro'^o) KpoToXfov iicSuo^eLev aura?. Thuc. 8, 78 ; Xeu. M. 2, 7, 8 ; Hell. 2, 3, 19 ; Anab. 2, 5, 5 ; Aelian. anim. 10, 13. As to Mark xii. 38 f. cf. especially Lys. caed. Eratosth. 21. From the Sept. may be quoted Gen. xxxi. 33 ; Judg. xvi. 24 ; 3 Bsdras iv. 48 ; viii. 22, 80 ; 511 Neh. X. 30. In Mark iii. 14 fF., with the principal words i-n-oirjae ^"i '^ BcoBeica, Lva etc. vss. 14, 15, which are complete in themselves, is connected first the detached statement vs. 16 kuI e-TreOrjKev ovo^ia Tft) ^ifjioyvi. etc. in reference to the chief apostle, then follow in vss. 17-19 the names of the rest in direct dependence on eTrolrjaev, and only in vs. 17 is subjoined a similar statement, which no more breaks the flow of the discourse than in vs. 19 o? kol irapeBwKev etc. does. The whole structure would be regular had Mark said in vs. 16 Stfifova, eS eiredTjKev ovojul etc. Under this head comes also the transition from a relative construction to a personal, as in 1 Cor. viii. 6 «ts ^cos . . . ef o5 to. rraiTa kui 7)ii.w et? avTov, 2 Pet. ii. 3 ots to Kpijxa CKiraXat ovK apyei koI rj aTrulXeta air Civ ov vvora^ei, Eev. ii. 18, see above, p. 149 ; Weber, Demosth. p. 355 sq. Essentially similar is Luke x. 8 ets ^v av woXtv &sip)(rj(r6i, koL hcx'^vrai (ot TTok'iTai) ifxas etc. On Rev. vii. 9 eiSov icai iSov o;;(A.os ... ecrrSTes . . . irepi^e^Xyj/j.ivov;, cf. xiv. 14, see above, § 59, lip. 535. Both passages contain a blending of two constructions, as in Rev. xviii. 1 2 f., where are appended to rbv yo/xov first appositive Genitives, then an Ace. (ttSv fuXov), afterwards (k. iTTTTuiv etc.) Genitives again, lastly (i/'v^as avOp.) another Ace. On the 539 other hand, in ii. 17, in accordance with the proper distinction of cases, '"i «it first a Gen. and then an Ace. are made to depend on Swa-ui. 2. Moreover, the transition (very frequent in Greek prose autliors) from the oratio obliqua to the recta, and vice versa, deserves special attention (d'Orville, Charit. p. 89 and 347 ; Heind. Protag. p. 510 sq. ; Jacobs, Aelian. p. 46, 475 ; Ast, Plat. legg. p. 160 ; Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 451 ; Bornem. Xen. Mem. p. 253 ; . Fr. Marc. p. 212) : Acts xxiii. 22 airekvcre tov veaviav irapayyetKa'^ firjSevl eKKaKrja-ai, on ravra ive^avtaw; ttjOO? /^e, vss. 23, 24 elirev eTovfidcraTe . . . kttjiit) re TrapaaTriaai, Luke v. 14 "rraprjyyeCkev avTw 602 fj/rjSevl einretv, aXKa airekdibv Bel^op, Mark vi. 9 ; cf. Xen. Hell. 2, 1, 25 ; An. 1, 3, 14 and the passages from Joseph, in Kypke I. 229 sq. ; Mark xi. 31 sq. iap e'lTrcofiev • i^ ovpavov, ipel • Start ovv 580 § e*. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. ovK eTri^texicrare ama> ; dW ecTTcofiev e^ dvdpmircov ; i^o^ovvro rov Xaoi^ (where the narrator proceeds in his own words). Witli Acts i. 4 cf. Lysias in Diogit. 12 eireihr) he crvv^Xdofj^ev, rjpeTo avTov rj ryvvi], riva TTOTfi y^vyrjv eymv d^wl TrepX tmv iraiowv TooavTy lyvcofjir] •Xpiiadai, dSeX(f)6<; /J,ev a)v tov Trarpo?, 'iraT7]p S ip,6<; etc. (Geopou. 1, 12, 6). See also Jno. xiii. 29 ; Acts xvii. 3 ; on the other hand, in Matt. ix. 6 the narrator intercalates t6t6 Xeyet ra> irapaXvTiKa among the words of Christ, cf. Mark ii. 10 ; Luke v. 24. This explanation is the simplest. Meyer is artificial. ^ 512 A transition from the Sing, to the Plur., and vice versa, occurs in Eom. 6tliei-iii. 7f. ; xii. 16ff. 20; 1 Cor. iv. (2) 6f. (Aelian. 5, 8) ; 2 Cor. xi. 6; Jas. ii. 16 ; Gal. iv. 6 f. (vi. 1) ; Schweigh. Arrian. Epict. II. I. 94, 278 ; Matthias, Eurip. Crest. Ill ; Schaef. Demosth. IV. 106; Schwarz, soloec. 107. Likewise Rom. ii. 15 Iv t. xapSiais avToiv, avtx,ft.afnvpovcTr]<; avrSiv TTJs o-vvtiST^crews may be referred to this head. The transition from the Sing, to the Plur. in Luke v. 4 is intentional, see Bornem. in loc. As to the Plur. in apposition with a Sing, in 1 Jno. v. 16 see § 59, 8 p. 530. A heterogeneous appositive construction occurs in Rev. i. 6 Iwoiiqmv riixS.'s /Jao-tXetav Upcts tu di(o, see § 59, 8. So also in other construc- tions the Greek authors sometimes place concretes and abstracts in juxtaposition, see Bremi. Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 25 ; Weber, Demosth. 260. Cf also Caes. civ. 3, 32 erat plena lictorum et imperiorum provincia. 540 § 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES ; ELLIPSIS,^ 7tli f'l. APOSIOPESIS. 603 I. The erroneous and variable notions about Ellipsis (and Pleonasm) current until veiy recently, and derived from the uncritical compilations of L. Bos ^ and his followers (cf. Haab p. 276 ff.), and of N. T. philologists in particular, were first cor- 1 Matt. xvi. 11 Tries oh youre, '6ti ov irepl &prtev cJirov ifxlv • Trposexsre 8e atrh ttjs Cruris Tav ^apicralav etc. is of a different sort, as here only the direct words of Jesus, used in vs. 6, are as such repeated. Likewise Jno. x. 36 contains nothing remarkable. 2 See K. F. Krumbhok, de ellips. in N. T. usu freq. in his operar. subseciv. lib. 1. Norimb. 1736. 8vo. no. 11 ; F. A. Wolf, de agnitione ellipseos in interpretatione libror. sacror. Comment. I.-XI. Lips. 1800-1808. 4to. (Coram. I.-VI. have been reprinted in Pott, Sylloge commentt. theol. IV. 107 sqq. ; VII. 52 sqq. ; VIII. 1 sqq.), an uncritical collection. Cf. besides, Bauer, Philol. Thucyd. Paull. 162 sqq. ; Block, on the Ellipses in Paul's Epistles, in his Theologian Part I. (Odensee 1791). ' Lamb. Bos, Ellipses graecae. Franecq. 1712. 8vo. ; Traj. ad Rh. 1755. 8vo. ; ed. C. Schoettqm, 1713, 1728. 12mo. ; ed. J. F. Leisner, Lips. 1749, 1767. 8vo. ; ed N. Sckwebd, Norimb. 1763; c. nott. C. B. Michadis, Hal. 1765. 8vo.; c. prior, editor, suisq. observatt. ed. 6. H. Schaefer, Lips. 1808. 8vo. (reprinted at Oxford 1813. 8vo.), cf. Fischer, Weller. m. I. 119 sqq. ; III. H. 29 sqq. § 64=, DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 581 rected, and sound views established, by Herm. de ellipsi et pleo- nasmo in Wolf and Buttmanu's Mus. antiq. studior. Vol. I. fasc. I. pp. 97-235, and in Herm. Opusc. 1. 148-244, and especially in his notes on Vig. 869 sqq.^ We shall mainly follow him in this dis- 513 cussion, which, however, is primarily intended merely to lay down "'■'' "''• the various classes of ellipses, since Glassius and Haab have already accumulated examples in great abundance.^ 1. Ellipsis (not including Aposiopesis, to be treated under No. II) consists in the omission of a word the meaning of which must be supplied in thought (in order to complete the sentence).^ The omission of such a word (whether out of convenience or an effort to be concise) * is allowable only when, in what is uttered, an 604 indubitable intimation of the omitted word is given (Hm. opusc. p. 218), either by means of the particular structure of the sentence 541 or by virtue of a conventional usage.^ In accordance with the '"'°''- three constituent parts of every simple sentence, such omissions may be arranged under the three main classes of Ellipses of the Subject, of the Predicate, and of the Copula (Hm. Vig. 870 sq.). A real i.e. entire ellipsis of the predicate, however, does not, and probably cannot, occur (Hm. Vig. 872), since the possible predi- cates are too various for the speaker to leave this part of his sentence to be supplied by the reader. Accordingly there remain but the other two sorts of ellipses, and those of the subject are naturally the more limited. The case in which a word or phrase of a preceding clause must he repeated in a subsequent connected clause, either unchanged or altered to suit the construction (Glass. I. 632 sqq.), cannot be called an ellipsis, there being here no actual omission of the word (Hm. Vig. 869 ; Opusc. 151 sq. ; Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 282).« Examples : 1 Ellipsis in Latin is discussed by J. W. Schliclceisen, de formis linguae latinae ellipticis. Miihlhausen, 1830 and 43. two Pr. 4to. An earlier work o(J. G. Lindner on Latin Ellipses (Frkft. a,. M. 1780. 8vo.) is of little value even as a collection of examples. 2 How much the books of Scripture have been compelled to suffer from expositors in the matter of Ellipsis Hm. Opusc. p. 217 intimates, when he terms these books, cereos flecti quorundam artibus. 8 Hm. opusc. p. 153 : ellipseos propria est ratio grammatica, quae posita est in eo, ut oratio, etiamsi aliquid omissum sit, Integra esse censeatur, quia id, quod omissum est, necessario tamen intelligi debeat, ut quo non intellecto sententia nulla futura sit. ' The omission of a word may also sometimes arise entirely or partly from a rhetor- ical cause. See below, no. 3. * Neither of these can, for instance, be shown by those expositors who, to get over the historical difficulty in Jno. xviii. 31, would supply hoc die (festo) in connection with riiiiv ovK c^eariv iiroKTeiVoi ovSeva. ^ It must not be overlooked that this mode of expression gives style greater periodic 582 § e*- DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. a. 2 Cor. i. 6 etre OXi^o/xeda, inrep t!j?cow Tov '^aZfapaiov, VS. 7 ; Luke xx. 24 rtVos exet ciKova /cat Iwiypatjirp/ ; Dill ed. dTTOKpi^evTcs cTttov • Kaio-apos, vii. 43 ; Matt, xxvii. 21 ; Heb. v. 4 oti;;^ cavTu Tts Xa/x^avei t^v ti/imJv, dXXa KaXov/icvos wtto t. ^eoC sc. Xap,p6.vii t. Tip,, (but Xap/S. in the sense of receive). GOn b. Mark xiv. 29 £t iravres CTKavSaXtcrSjjo-ovTai, dXX o4k iyii (crKavSaXio-^^- CTopai, cf. Matt. xxvi. 33) ; Eph. v. 24 wsTrep ^ eKKXrjo-La VTroTacraeTaL tu Xpto-T<3, ovrto . . . ai yui/aiKes tow a.vBpa.vpapa (ayiov) ; Heb. v. 5 o Xp. oip^ iavTov iSo^acrev . . . dXX' 6 XaXr/a-ai Trpos avrov (tSo^. avrov) ; 1 Cor. xi. 1 piprjral 542 1^°^ yivecrde, KaOui's Kayw XptcrroC (^pipriTrjV ilpi) ; xiv. 27 et-re yXuiao^ n^ 7th A XaXf t, Kara 8wo ^ to TrXeterTov rpeis (XaXetrcoo-ai') , cf. 1 Pet. i v. 11; Luke xxiii. 41 iv Tu avTia Kpipwn £? • koX ij/aeis pkv SiKatws {i(Tp,iv SC £V to! Kpipari tovtui) ; 1 Cor. ix. 12, 25 ; xi. 16; 2 Cor. iii. 13 koX ov Kaddirep Mo)i)cr^s ETi^Ei KiiXvppa £7rt TO TTposuyrrov lavTov (riOepev KaX. im to 7rp. ■^pwv),^ cf. besides Matt. xx. 23 ; xxvi. 5 ; Jno. xiii. 9 ; xv. 4, 5 ; xvii. 22 ; xviii. 40 ; Rom. i. 21 ; ix. 32 ; xiv. 23 ; Phil. ii. 5 ; iii. 4 ; Heb. (ii. 13) v. 5 ; X. 25 ; xii. 25 ; Rev. xix. 10 ; Matt. xxv. 9. Under this head comes also 1 Cor. vii. 21 SoCXos £kX'^6i;s, py a-oi peXerui, if, as is most natural, r^s SovXeios be supplied (Lob. paralip. p. 314) ; see Meyer, who has overlooked the fact that even in my fifth edition I made this suggestion. The greatest accumulation of such indispensable repetitions occurs in Rom. xii. 6 ff. c. Neither is there any real ellipsis when an affirmative word is to be supplied from a foregoing negative, — a case of frequent occurrence in Greek authors (e.g. Thuc. 2, 98, 3 Tropevopivw avTco aweyCyviTO pev owSev compactness ; whereas the repetition of the same or a similar expression would in most cases be very heavy. 1 1 Jno. iii. 20 also would, according to Likke's exposition, come under this head, as 7i>'i4(rKo^ei' (oiSa/iEc) is supplied before the second 8ti, vs. 19. I confess, however, that to me this explanation seems very forced. Why might not a transcriber have added, from inadvertence, a second on 1 Lchm. has with A rejected the second '6ti. But it may just as well have been omitted because it was not understood. Or why may not the author himself have repeated the 3t(, as in Eph. ii. 1 1 f. ? see Fr. Proo-r. ad Gal. p. 5 {FritzscUorum opusc. p. 236). The passage has never yet been satisfactorily explained. 2 This case, in which the verb is construed, not with the principal subject, but with the subject of the secondary clause, may be regarded as a sort of attraction, see Kriijer, gramm. Untersuch. III. 72, who at the same time adduces many similar examples, as Xen. C. 4, 1, 3 ; Thuc. 1, 82 ; 3, 67. § 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. 583 Tov crrpaTov d fi-rj ti voo-o), Trposcyt-yveTo 8e, see Stallb. Plat. apol. p. 78 ; sympos. p. 80, and Euthyd. p. 158 ; Maetzner, Antiph. p. 176, on the Lat. cf. Bremi, Nep. p. 345 ; Kritz, Sallust. II. 573) ; as, 1 Cor. vii. 19 17 ir€piTO/j,r] oiiSiv kern, aWa T^qprjcni ivroXZv Oiov {icrTL tl or to, iraVTa icrri), 111. 7 ; 1 Cor. X. 24 fi,rihd.iJ.aTa koI ir^pl d/iapTias ovk rfSoKijtras the general notion Ova-ia.'s is to be educed from oXok. for irepi ap.., as in Heb. x. 38 the general term dv6p«>7ros is to be gathered from Si/catos (cf. Kiihner II. 37). In Rev. vi. 4 we must abstract from Aa/3. t. dp. e/f Tijs yrj's the concrete 01 KwroiKovvm «r myrqi as a subject for crtjia^ovcn. Yet here, too, the omission is but partial. (For examples of all the 515 preceding cases from Latin, see Lindner, lat. Ellips. S. 240 fF.) At the M A same time, in all these cases the incompleteness of the sentence (viewed grammatically and logically) renders it obviously necessary to supply 606 something. This is not the case in Jno. viii. 15 i/iels Kara tyjv a-dpKa Kpivere, iyib oi Kplvui ovSci/a, where on the contrary the second clause is so concluded by ovSei/a that nothing whatever requires to be supplied : ye judge according to the jiesh, hut I judge no one (not merely, no one according to the flesh, but absolutely no one). To supply ko-to. rrjv a-dpKa 543 from the foregoing clause could only be justified by incongruity in the 'H si. sense without such addition. This, however, I am as unable to discover as Olshausen and Lucke. On the meaning, see especially BCrus. in loc. After el 8e p,rj or el Se p,-^ ye (Matt. vi. 1 ; Luke x. 6 ; xiii. 9 ; 2 Cor. xi. 16 etc.; cf. Plat. Gorg. 503c.; Phaed. 63c.; Hoogeveen, partic. gr. I. 345 sq.), and after the expression (current with Paul) ov p,6vov 8e (. . . dAAd Kat), it is peculiarly common to supply a preceding word or phrase ; as, Rom. v. 3 oi p.6vov Se (sc. Kavxp.e6a hr eXTrtSi t^s So'fijs vs. 2), dAAci /cat KOvxwp^Oa etc., V. 11 KwraXKayivTe's a-wO-qa-op-eOa . . . ov p.6vov Se (KaTaXXayivTe^ a-iadrjo:), dXXa koL KavxuifJi,evoi, viii. 23 ; 2 Cor. viii. 19. In Rom. ix. 10 ov p-ovov he, aXKa koX "Pe^eKKa etc. something to be gathered from a more distant part of the context appears to be wanting. It is easiest to supply it from vs. 9 ; cf. vs. 12: and (not only) Sarah received a divine promise respecting her son, but also Rebecca, who was yet the mother of two legitimate sons, etc. In Greek cf. Diog. L. 9, 39 TrevraKoaioK raXavroK Tip.r]6rjvai, /jlt) p,6vov he, aXKa Kai )(a.\KaLS elKoai. Lacian. vit. auct. 7 ov [xovov, dXXa /cai ^v Ovpupelv avrbv emcrTijoTjs, iroXv 584 §64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. ■moToripiD XPV'^ '■<"'' i^vwv, Toxar. 1 (Kypke, obs. 11. 165 ; Hoogeveen, partic. II. 956). Analogous is the expression ov /j-ovov ye . . . aWd used by earlier authors, e.g. Plat. Phaed. 107 b. ov jxavov y, l4>iq 6 SwK/saTr;? (sc. dTrtCTTiav (T£ Sci ej^civ irepi tS>v eip-rjfi.ei'iov) , dAAa ravTa, re ev Xeycis etc., Meno 71 b. ; legg. 6, 752 etc., see Heind. and Stallb. Plat. Phaed. as above. The clause after ov iJ.6vov 8e is (by repetition) expressed in 2 Cor. vii. 7. Also the use of Kav, in the sense of vel certe (Vig. 527 ; Boisson. Philostr. epp. p. 97), is referable to an omission, e.g. Mark vi. 56 tVa kAv tov KpacririSov . . . atj/uiVTai (properly iva S.{j/tm>Tai avrov, Kav tov Kpaaneoov ai^uvTat), 2 Cor. xi. 16, as also ei Kat'in 2 Cor. vii. 8 cf. Bengel in loc. StiU less is it to be considered as an ellipsis when, in one and the same principal clause, a word used only once is to be supplied twice (in different phrases) : Acts xvii. 2 Kara to eunOos tu IlavXM eiirjXBe wpos avrov^ (IlaSXos), xiii. 3 iTTidevTis Tas ^eipas airots a.iriXvav. jCf. further Acts viii. 7. 607 Note. It may sometimes happen that a word is to be supplied in the preceding from the subsequent context (Hm. opusc. 151 ; Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 109 ; Lindner, lat. Ellips. S. 251 ff.), cf. 1 Cor. vii. 39. But in 516 Rom. v. 16 to supply Tra/jaTmo/iaTOS after ii €vo9 from ek tS>v iroXkiov irapa- m eO. 7rTO)/u,aTojv may now be regarded as out of date, see Philippi in loc. And in 2 Cor. viii. 5 IhiaKov serves, as usual, also for the clause beginning with Koi ov, only with the latter it must be taken absolutely : and they did not give as (in extent) we hoped, hut their own selves gave they etc. Only in Mark xv. 8 yjpiaro alTiiaSai KaOm act iiroia avrois it may seem as if it were necessary to supply iroiuv after ah-iiaBai, from iwoUi ; but the words 544 properly run : to entreat according as he always did for them, from which Ith ed. the object of request may be gathered, but not grammatically supplied. As to Eph. iv. 26, however, where some would supply /a?^ from the second member also in the first, see p. 311. 2. The most frequent real omission is that of the simple copula elvai, : a. In the form eari, more rarely in the form fj (yet cf. Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 133), because it is obviously suggested by the juxta- position of subject and predicate (Rost 473 f. ; Krii. 240 f. ; cf. Wannowski, syntax, anom. p. 210 sq.) Heb. v. 13 ttS? o jxeTexfov yaXaKTc; aTreipoi; (e'crTt) \6yov ZiKai.ocvvr)'; , ix. 16 ; x. 4, 18 ; xi. 19 ; Mark xiv. 36 ; Rom. xi. 16 ; xiv. 21 ; 2 Cor. i. 21 ; Phil. iv. 3 ; Eph. i. 18 ; iv. 4 ; V. 17 ; 2 Thess. iii. 2 ; 1 Pet. iv. 17, particularly in questions Luke iv. 36 ; Acts x. 21 ; Rom. iii. 1 ; viii. 27, 31 ; 2 Cor. ii. 16 ; vi. 14 ; Rev. xiii. 4 ; Heb. vi. 8 (cf. Kritz, Sallust. I. 251) and exclamations Acts xix. 28, 34 fieyaXri r/ "Aprefiii § 64. DEFECTIVE STRTJCTUEE. 585 'E(f>ecria)v, but especially in certain set forms of expression Jas. i. 12 /j.uKcipio'i avr)p, o? etc. (Matt. v. 3, 5-10 ; xiii. 16 ; Luke i. 45 ; Rom. iv. 8 ; xiv. 22 ; Rev. xvi. 15 ; cf. 1 Pet. iv. 14), hrjKov on 1 Cor. XV. 27 ; 1 Tim. vi. 7, avar/Kr} with Infin. Heb. ix. 16, 23 ; Rom. xiii. 5, -iricrTcx; 6 deot 1 Cor. i. 9 ; x. 13 ; 2 Cor. i. 18 or TTioTo? 6 X670S 1 Tim. i. 15 ; iii. 1 ; 2 Tim. ii. 11, 6 /cujoto? €771;? Phil. iv. 5, a^i09 6 ipydT7]epeiv ; 4, 6, 33) and Jno. xxi. 22 rt tt/jo? i^i'Kos, but merely the simple ia-rl. In the same way, in Lucian. mere. cond. 25 we find rl Koiv'hv xifif Kol iv ^? 2 Pet. Vig. p. 881 found no fault with this local Gen. which became established in the Pro- nominal adverbs oZ, iroB. And many instances of this very phrase riji (aurrjs) 6S0B (cf. Bhdy. 138) are cited, and that not merely from poets (Krii. Sprachl. II. 2. S. 157) ; cf. in particular, Thuc. 4, 47, 2 and Krii. on the passage, and Thuc. 4, 33, 3. If any one wishes to bring this local Gen. nearer to the primary import of the Gen. (§ 30, 1 ), he may take it perhaps thus : out or foHh from, that (way). But probably it connects itself more simply with the use mentioned in § 30, 11 p. 207. 1 Many adverbial expressions arose from an ellipsis of ih6s (Bttm. ausf. Sprachl. II. 341) or X'^PO' (^08 P- 561), such as 18(91, kot' I'S^ai', Sniioiriif Acts xvi. 37 etc., which no longer suggest to the mind their origin, Bhdy. 185 f Such an adverbial expression also is awb fiias Luke xiv. 18, which cannot be discovered in the literary language of the Greeks, but was probably current in the language of conversation. It is equivalent to with one mind {iK juio? yfivxris Dion. H. II 1058) or with one voice (uno ore, 4k ^uas tpai/Tis Herod. 1, 4, 21). Wahl, clav. p. 45, after Camerar. is too artifical. It is possible, moreover, that the Greeks did not understand any substantive at all originally, but employed the Feminine (as an abstract, Emald, Heb. Gr. 645), just as independently as the Neuter, see Schaef. Bos p. 43 and the Review in the L. Lit. Zoit. 1825. no. 179 ; this, however, Hm. opusc. p. 162 will not admit. 592 § 64. DEFECTIVE STEUCTURE. iii. 4 ; Luke vii. 45 ; Acts xxiv. 11, which, indeed, had already become completely an adverb (cf. however, Matt. xv. 28). The same applies to i^ avTfj<; Mark vi. 25 ; Acts x. 33 etc., which many write as one word, i^avrrj';. Sofio'i (or 61ko<;} Acts ii. 27, 31 et? aSov, cf. Bos p. 14 ; Vechner, Hellenol. p. 124 sq., but the best Codd. [Sin. also] give ek aBr]v. 7^ : Matt, xxiii. 15 17 ^vp"' (opposed to 17 OaKaa-a-a) the continent, dry land (Kypke in loc). The same substantive would have to be supplied in Heb. xi. 26 ol ev Air^vnrTov drjo-avpol (Lchm.). Cf. Her. 8, 3 ; Diod. S. 12, 34. But the reading ol Alyvinov drja-avpoi [which Cod. Sin. also gives] is better supported. X^^P in V Sefto, rj apiarepd Matt. vi. 3 etc., Se^iav SiBovai Gal. ii. 9 (Xen. A. 1, 6, 6 ; 2, 5, 3), iv Be^ia, iirl Trjv Se^idv Bph. i. 20 ; Matt.- xxvii. 29. Spa')(^/Mi] : Acts xix. 19 eiipov dpyvpiov /MvpLdSat; rrkvTe, as we say : he is worth ten thousand. Cf. Lucian. eun. 3 and 8 ; Achill. T. 5, 17. So also the names of measures are omitted Ruth iii. 15. V era's : Jas. v. 7 fiaKpodvfiSiv hr avra> (^KapTra), eius Xd^r/ irpmlfiov KoX Of^ifiov. The ellipsis in all these expressions has been sanctioned by long 551 usage, and for that very reason is plain, especially in particular Ith ei contexts, to all who ai-e familiar with the language (cf. he put 615 down red, he sat on the right, he came in a coach and six}. Other omissions are more special (peculiar to the usus loquendi of a city or community), e.g. irpo^aTiKri (irvKi) Neh. iii. 1) Jno. v. 2 (just as they say in Leipsic, to go out at the Grimrna), yet see Bos under the word irvX'q. Such also are ol Sco8eKa, ol eirrd (BidKovoi) Acts xxi. 8 ; cf. in Greek 01 rpidKovra (rvpavvoi) . 523 To this head have been referred incorrectly many expressions and phrases 6th ed. in which an adjective or neuter pronoun is used independently without any ellipsis (Krii. S. 3), e.g. to Upov (which at an early period had become a substantive) the temple, to hioTmh Acts xix. 35, to (rqpiKov Rev. xviii. 12, in biblical diction to ayiov the holy place (in the tabernacle and the temple), TO i\a(TTr)pwv etc., TO tSia one's own (possession) Jno. i. II,' to. era. what is thine Luke vi. 30, to. KOTonepa T-ijs y^s Eph. iv. 9 (where, however, good Codd. [Sin. also] add ixiprj), to t/ditov tSv KTurfiaTuiv Rev. viii. 9 etc., and the adverbial expressions iv iravTi, eh ksvov, to Xonrov (§ .54, 1). Likewise in Heb. xiii. 22 koywv is not to be supplied after /Spa^ew?/, any more than verbis or the like is to be understood after paucis, or (in quotations) tottij) after h/ heptfActs xiii. 35 ; Heb. v. 6. Also in 1 Cor. xv. 46 to Trvev/iaTiKov and TO xj/vxiKov are used as substantives, and o-w/xa is not to be understood, Lastly, with iv t<3 /xeralij Jno. iv. 31 XP^^f '^ ^'^^ ^° ^^ supplied, but tm § e4. DEFECTIVE STEUCTURE. 693 fiera^ is the Dat. of to /xcra^ (Lucian. dial. d. 10, 1). Even the Gen. of kindred, such as 'Xmrarpoi Tlvppov Acts xx. 4, 'louSas 'laKw^ov, 'Ep.ii.bp Tov 'Sivx^p. (§ 30, 3), is not elliptical, but the Gen. expresses the general notion of belonging to, just as we say : Prussia's Elucher (Hm. opusc. p. 120 ; Kuhner II. 118 f.). For instances from Greek and Eoman authors, see Vechner, Hellenol. p. 122 sq. ; Jani, ars poet. p. 187 sq. But even were vtos, dSEXt^os, and the like, actually omitted in such expressions, it would still be a complete perversion to supply vids before the Genitive in Gal. iii. 20 o Se /Accrinjs ivos ovk arriv, (Kaiser de apologet. ev. Joa. consiliis II. 8). A word can be omitted only when the notion it expresses is conveyed by the context, or may be presumed to be known to the reader. But when it is said : the mediator is not of one, the expression does not even remotely intimate that precisely the word son is to be sup- plied. The sentence by itself merely means : does not appertain to a single individual. And that he appertains to him as son (instead of what surely must be regarded as most obvious, in his very function of mediator) is left wholly to conjecture ! On the other hand, a nnmber of (transitive) verbs have, in a similar way, rid themselves in the course of time of the case of the noun in union witli whicli they formed a current phrase, and are now used all alone to express the same meaning, e.g. Sidr/eiv to live (in an ethical sense) Tit. iii. 3, strictly, to spend sc. tov ^lov 552 1 Tim. ii. 2. So frequently in Greek authors, Xen. C. 1, 2, 2 ; ™ «d. 8, 3, 50 ; Diod. S. 1, 8. Similarly, Bcarpi^eiv sojourn in a place 616 Jno. iii. 22, strictly, spend sc. tov ypovov, see Kuhnol in loc. Cf. in Latin agere, degere (Vechner, Hellenol. p. 126 f.) . Svfx,^aXXei,v Tivi or 7r/3o'9 Tiva Acts iv. 15 ; xvii. 18 to confer, consult with one, originally avfi^dWeiv \070119. sermonem conferre Ceb. 88 ; by the older Greeks chiefly in the Mid. avfi^dWea-dat. n.po<;, (see in opposition Hm. p. 207, cf. § 41, 4 b. p. 285) ; so also et or idv in sentences like 1 Cor. vii. 21 554 SoSXos eKXrjOrjg, fir] aoi fieXera) (Hm. p. 205 ; cf. § 60, 4 c. p. 541) ; so av 'ill '^ (Schwarz, soloec. p. 125) in Jno. xv. 22 et ju,^ ^X^ov . . . d/napTtav ovk eixov 618 and similar sentences (Hm. p. 205, see § 42, 2 p. 303 sq.) ; and so p-ovov frequently in the expression ovk . . . aXXd cf. § 55, 8 p. 495 sq. or 1 Cor. ix. 9.1 It was likewise thought that ■^ was omitted after the comparative in Jno. XV. 13 ; 3 Jno. 4 (BCrus.),but the clauses with iva in both passages ^ M^ Twv $oS>v fii\ei t^ 9ey ; Paul takes into view here only the spiritual sense of the law, and considers it from the same point as Philo, who says : ov "yctp Imep t-dv aKiyav i vifios AA\' uirep twj' voOv koi \6yoi/ ix^"'''"''! ^^ Mey. The irdpTwn following ought to have deterred from such a weakening of the statement. In Rom. iv. 9, before ?j Kal an etiam, a' fiivov is not required; and in iii. 28 fi6vov, in the juxtaposition of TriVrei and x"?'* Ipyup v6ij,ov (since in Paul's view viarti and ^p7ois are mutually exclusive antitheses), would be quite superfluous, and would render the sentence cumbersome. On Rom. iv. 14, see Fr. in loc. 596 § 64- DEFECTIVE STEUCTUKE. are added by way of explanation to the demonstrative pronoun, the Genitive of which is dependent on the comparative. Likewise in instances such as Acts iv. '22 hHv rjv irXtiovwv TEo-o-apaKoi/ra, xxiii. 13, 21 ; xxiv. 11 ; XXV. 6 ; Matt. xxvi. 53 ^ is not to be supplied (though it is elsewhere used in such a construction). The Greeks had become accustomed to abbreviate the phrase in this manner, and probably did not regard the word 7rXeioi/€s here as a comparative (more than), but as an annexed specification, just as elsewhere the neuter (adv.) vXiov is inserted even without government, see Lob. Phryn. p. 410 sq. ; of. Mtth. S. 1019. Lastly, some wanted (Pott still) in 2 Pet. iii. 4 a.^' ^s oi Trarepes iKoifi-qdija-av, TvdvTa ovTws Sta/ieVtt air dpx'?^ ktio-£(us to supply ws before the last words, which would give an appropriate meaning indeed, but would be entirely 526 arbitrary. Two termini a quo are united here in a single sentence, one (ith eJ. closer and one more remote, in so far, that is, as ol Traripei is understood of those very fathers (see in particular Semler) who had received the promise of the irapova-la. (There would be a half ellipsis in a particle, if ov stood for ovTTtii, cf. especially Withof, opusc. Ling. 1778. 8vo. p. 32 sqq. But in .Jno. vi. 17 an oviroi after the preceding ■^Sij is to say the least unnecessary : it had already become dark, and Jesus had not come. In Jno. vii. 8 ovTrui is in fact only a correction ; if we read ovk, we cannot remove the ethical difficulty of the passage by introducing a grammatical one in its place, (see also Boisson. Philostr. her. p. 502 ; Jacobs, Philostr. imagg. 357, and Aelian. anim. II. 250). It does not follow that oi is used for otOTO) in Mark vii. 18 because ovTrOC sk Toyv iraTeptov, vi. 46 ; 2 Cor. i. 24 ; iii. 5 ; Phil. iv. 17 ; 2 Tliess. iii. 9. The phrase, however, became so established by use that its origin was no longer thought of, and so Paul could write in Phil. iv. 11 : ov)(^ oti Kad" vaTeprjatv Xiyo). By the side of this ovj(^ OTI might be placed ov'x^ olov oti, : Rom. ix. 6 ov')(^ olov Si 6tc eKTveirTtoKev 6 \6jo'; tov 6eov, i.e. ov toIov he Xeya, olov oti non tale '(dico), quale (hoc est) excidisse etc. And the olop on of the later writers (Schaef. Gregor. Cor. p. 105) might then be com- pared, and as respects circumstantiality of expression the phrases adduced by Lob. Phryn. p. 427 ox; olov, olov Sxiirep. Moreover, 527 two explanations of that Pauline phrase have been propounded : ''''' ^' a. It has been rendered : hut it is impossible that ; for the re usually attached to olov in this sense is in the iirst place not essential, and secondly it is wanting in the passage adduced by Wetst. from Gorgias Leont. crot ovk fjv olov p,6vov fj.dpTvpa<; . . . eiipeiv, cf. also Kayser, Philostr. Soph. p. 848,^ and in the third place probably also ov'x^ olov re Si might be read (Aelian. 4, 17), and the construction with the Inf. eKTreirTtoKivai tov Xoyov had been resolved by on, after the fashion of the later language (cf. in Latin dico quod}^; de Wette's objection falls to the ground, if we take Xoyo^ deov as Pr. does. b. Some, with Fr., consider ov')(_ olov, as it is often used in later writers, a negative adverb : hy no means, no such thing (properly ov toiovtov ia-TW oti the thing 556 is not such that), Polyb. 3, 82, 5 ; 18, 18, 11. To be sure, the ™'ei finite verb then always follows without on ; but Paul may either have employed oti pleonastically (like ws oti), or have used and construed the phrase in the sense of multum abest ut, far from being the case that. Meyer's solution is in no respect more plausible. 1 Examples of the personal ofifr eo-ri, such as Mey. adduces from Polybius, have no connection with the idiom here examined. Cf. Weber, Demosth. p. 469. 2 On the relation of the Infinitive construction to a clause with 8ti, see Krii. 253. 598 , § 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE. In Rom. ix. 16 apa ovv ov Tov OiXovros ovBc tov Tpc'p^ovros etc., where it is enough to supply eo-Tt, the subject of the impersonal sentence (therefore it is not of him that willeth, does not depend on the will ; see, on elval TWOS, above, p. 195) is to be gathered from the context: viz. the attain- ment of Divine mercy, vs. 15. Similar is Rom. iv. 16 8ia tovto Ik ttio-tcws (tcTTi), iva Kara x°-P''^ (s)> therefore from faith proceeds that of which I speak, namely (primarily gathered from vs. 14) ^ KK-qpovofila. As to Rom. v. 18 see above, no. 2 p. 587. In Matt. v. 38 otjidaXpov avri 6popL/j,a^ eTroirjaev belongs. Similar to this is V. 14. In Greek prose e^, or the like, is suppressed only either where a 6 8i, at 8e indicates the speaker (Aelian. 9, 29 ; anim. 1, 6), or where the mere structure of the sentence indicates that some one (else) speaks, as frequently in dialogues. Van Hengel (annotatt. p. 8 sqq.) is wrong in thinking that this ellipsis 621 (e'. After iva a ■yei'ijrai or ■irkrjpoydri may be understood. The apostle, however, unconcerned about the grammatical sequence, attached the words of Scripture directly to his own as integral parts of the statement, just as in Rom. xv. 3 he introduces in direct dis- course the words of Christ from Ps. Ixix., cf. xv. 21. In 1 Cor. ii. 9 f., however, we must not with Mey. [eds. 1st and 2d] take vs. 10 for the apodosis to d d<^6aA/xds etc. ; but Paul, instead of saying, in continuity with aXKd, TovTo f/fiLv etc., annexes the antithesis directly to the words of the quotation, so that dAAa remains without grammatical sequence. II. Aposiopesis, or the suppression of a sentence or part of a sentence in consequence of emotion (of anger, cf. Stallb. Plat. Apol. p. 35,2 sorrow, fear, etc., cf. Quintil. 9, 2, 54 ; Tiberius and Alexander de figuris in Walz, rhetor, graec. VIII. 536, 450), in 529 which case the gestures of the speaker supply what is wanting ''"' * (Hm. p. 153), occurs, not merely in forms of oaths (§ 55, note 622 p. 500) in which it became usual, but also after conditional clauses in the following passages : Luke xix. 42 el eyvm koI crv, Kalye iv TTJ r/fiipa avOpcoirto 558 TovTw • el Be irvevfia ekaXijcrev airrS rj 0776X09 . . . we find nothing 7th ei g^ii {fi tJils man ; but if a spirit has spoken to him or an angel — (whicli the Pharisees utter with gestures expressive of reserve), sc. the matter is significant, or requires caution. Others take the words interrogatively (Lclim.) : if, however, . . . has spoken ? how then ? what is to be done in that case ? See, in general, Fr. Conject. I. 30 sq. The addition /jlt) deofULxtofiev found in some Codd. is a gloss. Bornem. has quietly retracted his earlier con- jecture. Moreover, it may be doubted whether in the preceding passage an aposiopesis really occurs, or merely a break in the discourse at vs. 10. In Jno. vi. 62 the apodosis, suggested readily by vs. 61, is omitted with an air of triumph : how strange will that appear to you 1 In Mark vii. 11 ijieh Xeyere • iav eXirrj dv0poy7ro<; ra> Trarpi rj ry p-rfrpL' Kop^av . . .0 iav i^ ifiov d)^eXTj6yLeTe etc. the apodosis is to be supplied from vs. 10 : then he does right in keeping his vow, and consequently ye release him in this case from the obligation rifuiv rov iraTepa etc., see BLrebs in loc.^ 2 Thess. ii. 3 ff. is an anacoluthon, and not an aposiopesis. ' Lastly, in Phil. i. 22 the assumption of an aposiopesis (Rilliet) is quite inadmissible. An aposiopesis is in Greek authors^ also most frequent after conditional clauses (Plat, sympos. 220 d.). Indeed when two conditional claiises correspond to each other it is quite common to suppress the apodosis after the first (Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 256 ; Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 197), the speaker hastening on to the second clause as the more important, as in Plat. Protag. 325 d. iav fiev eKwv ireiOrjtai • el he fii] — evOvvovaiv awetXat? Kal TrX-qyak, 623 rep. 9, 575 d. ovkow iav fiev eK6vre<; inreiKcoaiv iav Be p-rj etc. Thuc. 3, 3. So Luke xiii. 9 kov p-ev iroiijcrr} Kapirov • el Be f^iffe, 530 ek TO pxWov iKKoyjreK ainriv if it bear finiit, weU (let it remain) ; 6ih el i)ni {y jiQt^ then cut it down (though here ai^e? airrrjv may be 1 Many expositors find an aposiopesis (1) also in the parallel passage Matt. xv. 5 &s &!* efin; T^ xorpl ^ rp ^7jTp( • tapov % iav €| efiov Qjip^\7j9§i ' Kol oit fiij Tifi-fitni ric iroTe'pa avrov — that is, he acts properly (in conformity to the law). But perhaps fyet see Meyer's objections] we shonld, with Grotius and Bengel, regard tlie apodosis as commencing with ico! ou /i^ : whoever says to his parents ... he is not obliged also (in such case) to honor his parents, he is thereby also (in that case) released from the commandment tIim thv irarfpa. The itoi then would not be pleonastic. " From the . T. cf. Exod. xxxii. 32 ; Dan. iii. 15 ; Zech. vi. 15 ; see KOster, Erlautcr. der heU. Schrift, S. 97. § 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 601 supplied from what precedes). (On the omission after el 8e firj or el Se i^rj ye of the entire conditional clause, to be supplied from the context preceding, see above, p. 583.) As an aposiopesis Spa /i^ might also be regarded in Rev. xix. 10 ; xxii. 9, with which may be compared the forms of dehortation or deprecation, frequent in the tragedians, iJ-ri Tavra Eurip. lo 1335, ixrj a-v ye etc. Yet see above, p. 583 sq. In Rom. vii. 25 to the complaint rt's /ae pvcnTai Ik tov o-w/taros toC 559 6ava.T^ be to God! — also a species of aposiopesis. In unimpassioned style, Paul would have said : thanks be to God that he has already liberated me, etc. Also in 2 Cor. vii. 12 apa el koI eypaij/a vplv some have assumed a res- ervation, where Billroth still wants to supply ■)(p.\eK6v ti. Paul would thus have purposely omitted the word, because the affair still gave him pain. But eypatpa is of itself complete. §65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES; PLEONASM (SUPERFLUITY),! DIFFUSENESS. 1. A Pleonasm ^ is the opposite of an ellipsis, as redundance is the opposite of deficiency. A pleonasm, accordingly, would be exemplified in the addition of a word that is not intended to add anything to the meaning of the sentence (Hm. opusc. I. 217, 222), 624 In point of fact the earlier philologists not only believed in the existence of superfluous words, especially particles (Hm. opusc. p. 226), but Kiihnol on Matt. v. 1 (cf. Weiske, pleon. p. 34) goes so far as to maintain that to opa may be used for opo?. But as this (pleonasm of the definite article) is a downright absurdity, so is the existence of expletives in the Greek literary language a figment. In general, pleonasm, which takes place chiefly in pred- 1 See Fischer, Weller. III. I. 269 sqq, ; B. Weiske, Pleonasm! graeci s. commentar. devocib., quae in sermone Graeco abundare dicuntur. Lips. 1807. 8vo. ; Poppa, Thucyd. I. I. 197 sqq. ; in reference to the N. T. Glass. Phil, sacra I 641 sqq. (it relates, how- ever, more to the 0. T., and is on the whole meagre) ; Bauer, Philol. Thucyd. PaiiU. p. 202 sqq. ; Tzschucke, de sermon. J. Chr. p. 270 sqq. ; Eaah S. 324 ff. ; J. H. Maii diss, de pleonasmis ling, graec. in N. T. Giess. 1728. (10 sheets). This writer had intended to write a work on Pleonasms in general ; see his observatt. in libr. sacr. I. 52. Another work, by M. Nascou, announced in a Prodromus (Havn. 1787- 8vo.), failed, in like manner, to make its appearance. * Glassius, as above, has sensible remarks on the definition of a pleonasm ; cf. also Flacii clavis script, sacr. II. 4, 224, and my 1st Progr. de verbis compos, p. 7 sq. Quintil. instit. 8, 3, 53 gives a simple, but, rightly understood, adequate definition : pleonasmus vitium, cum supervacuis verbis oratio oneratur. 76 602 § 65- EEDUNDANT STRUCTURE. icates (Hm. as above, p. 219), consists in ingrafting into a sentence 531 words the full import of which has been already conveyed in 6th ed. another part of the same sentence (or period), either by the same or by an equivalent expression. Even this, however, is done intelligently only when, a From carelessness, or from want of confidence in the reader's attention, the same thing is (particularly in extended sentences) repeated : noune tibi ad me venienti nonne dixi ? Here nonne is intended in reality to be thought but once. So Col. ii. 13 koI 560 vfia<; veKpov<; 6vra<; iv rot? TrapaTTTd/Miai . . . avve^aoiroirjaev v/JLaTr(p, Rev. xii. 9 (?) cf. V. Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. 14 sq. ; 2 Tim. iv. 9 airovhaaov ekdelv Trp6'i fie Tap(;6a)?, 2 Cor. viii. 24t^j' evSei^tv t. ar/dirq<; . . . ivSeiKviifievoL (yet see § 32, 2 p. 224) cf. Plato, legg. 12, 966 b. Tr)v evSei^iv rm "Sjyqy dSwarelv ivBeiKwaOai, (Xen. Cyr. 8, 2, 5). To this head may be referred also Rom. ix. 29 Sept. m? Tofioppa av & fioimOrffiev (in the parallel member m? . . . av eyevrjOrffiev) , as well as XoyC^ecrffai or rjyeiaOai Tiva ta? 2 Cor. x. 2 ; 2 Thess. iii. 15 ; Lucian. Peregr. 11 (instead of the Ace. alone, cf. 3 lacn Job xix. 11), as even in Greek authors we find vo/ii^eiv o)9 (yet see Stallb. Plat. Phileb. p. 180) and the like. Different are Luke xx. 2 el-jrov •n-po'i avrov X^yovTe<;, Mark xii. 26 ttw? elirev avT& 6 6eo<; Xeywv, Actsxxviii. 25 to Trvevfia iXdXrjaev . . . Xejov etc. In all these passages the Participle serves to introduce (as frequently in the Sept.) the direct discourse (cf. the well-known e7} Xiywv Doderlein, Synon. IV. 13), which might assuredly be annexed immediately to etTrov, elire. Different from this, again, are Matt. xxii. 1 ; Luke xii. 16, and still more Luke xiv. 7 ; xvi. 2 ; xviii. 2, etc. Another mode of introducing the direct discourse, Luke xxii. 61 625 vTri/xvi^crOr] tov Xoyav toS Kvpiov s Xcyot, see Bornem. schol. p. 141, and is not to be deemed a pleonasm. 2. Or when b. one of the synonymous expressions has, from § 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 603 usage, partially lost its meaiiing,^ as in air ovpavodev (Iliad. 8, 365), e^o'xp? Kat ifiavTov (see above, p. 440) ; for the also is already implied in the comparison, which makes this very declaration that something takes place also in the case of a second object. 1 From the department of Etymology may be adduced, as instances of the same nature, the double comparatives iiet^irepos etc., see § 11, 2 p. 69. In German, cf. mehrere, for which pedantic purists would substitute, both in writing and speaking, mehre. ^ Cf.from later writers avh vavraxieev Const. Manass. p. 127, oirb irpmBev or juijictiflei' Theophan. cont. 519, 524, ix Sva-n6eei' Nicet. Annal. 18, p. 359 d., Ik wcuSieev or vi]m6ecv Malal. 18, p. 429 ; 5, p. 117, eWko vepi Cedren. l,p. 716, irfpl . . . tVt/ta Niceph. Cpolit. p. 6, 35, hvff Siv evcKa Theophan. cont. p. 138, avB' &v 'hi Deut. xxviii. 62. On the last examples, see Hm. opusc. 220. 5 OiKoSoiieiv o'tKiav Luke vi. 48 is no more a pleonasm than aedificare domum, as both verbs acquired at a very early period, from usage, the signification of to build (generally). See other instances of the sort in Lobeck, paralip. p. 501 sq. g04 § 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. yS. that an additional negative is annexed to a verb of negation in a clause dependent on that verb and supplementing it, 1 Jiio. ii. 22 o apvoviiivoi;XaKas t^w to-TcuTas jrpo tSv 6vpu>v (Xen. Cyr. 7, 1, 23) ; also in Luke ii. 36 avrr] rfv wpojScjSr/Kvia Iv yjp.ipau; tto AXais (cf. i. 7, 18), for the meaning is : she was/ar advanced (Lucian. Peregr. 27 TroppuiraTO) y^pu)^ TrpoySe/SiyKtos) ; Rev. ix. 7 Ta 6jU.oio)/x,aTa ™i' aKpiSuyv oix.oia iirjrots, for o/Aoui/xaTa signifies 627 /orms, cf. Ezek. x. 22; 1 Pet. iii. 17 ei OiXot to OiXruia tov 6iov si placuerit voluntati divinae, since OeXrjfia means the will itself and diXav the operation of the will (like the stream streams etc.) cf. Jas. iii. 4. In Jno. XX. 4, however, tt p o eSpa/xsv rdxi-ov tov Uerpov is to be taken thus: he ran on before, faster than Peter (closer specification). In 2 Pet. iii. 6 vSari would not be superfluous even if vSariDv were supplied with Sl S)v ; 1 Non otiosam esse negationem in ejusmodi locis, sed ita poni infinitivum, ut nou res, quae prohibenda videatur, intelligatur, sed qua vi ac potestate istins prohibitionis jam non fiat. § 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 605 it would designate water as an element, whereas vSaTa (cf. Gen. vii. 11) would signify the concrete (separate) bodies of water. Cf. further, Jude 4. As to Heb. vi. 6 see my 3d Progr. de verbb. compos, p. 10. That Luke XX. 43 iTroTroSioi/ tSv iroSSv crov (Heb. i. 13) footstool of thy feet, Gen. xvii. 13 6 oiKoyevrp r^s otKi'as crou (Deut. vii. 13) are not, on account of the Gen. annexed, entirely similar to the preceding examples, is obvious. Lastly, such passages as Mark viii. 4 wSe . . . eir ip-qiwx's, xiii. 29 cyyiis . . . Im 6vpaK, 2 Tim. ii. 10 do not properly fall under the notion of pleonasm (Heinichen, Euseb. IL 186), but of apposition. Likewise Mark xii. 23 iu Tji dvaoTacTEt, orav dvatrrStri can hardly be called diffuseness, as the last clause here is an application of the general iv tjj avaar. to the brothers mentioned in vs. 20 ff. See Lob. paralip. p. 534. As a haif pleonasm might oo-fjiri €v(o8ttts Eph. v. 2 (both derivatives of o^io) be regarded, and compared perhaps to wotSuv airais (Eurip. Androm. 613 ; Hm. opusc p. 221). But it signifies an odor of sweet smell; oalt-q is the smell as inhaled, euo)8ta is its quality. 3. c. Lastly, many redundancies are attributable to a blending of two constructions, Hm. opusc. p. 224 ; Vig. p. 887 ; as, Luke ii. 21 ore iTrXi]a67)aav 'op-epat oKrm . . . ical eKXrjOT] to ovofui (instead of iifKriGO. he r^fi. . . . kul, or ore eVX. . . . eickr)6rf), vii. 12 to? T^yyiire 563 T^ TTvXr) TJj? TToXem?, Kal iSoi) e^eKOfii^ero teOvtikw, Acts x. 17. To .'^ this head miglit be referred also Rom. ix. 29 (see iinder a.) ; and it is even possible that otl before the oratio recta originated in this way (Rost, Gr. 641). With more assurance may we explain thus the pleonastic negation in the phrase 6kt6s el jutj (Devar. 1, 74) : 1 Cor. xiv. 5 fieiljaiv 6 •Trpo<^revaiv rj 6 XaXS)v yXma-aai^, iicTo^ el /MY) SiepfirivevTi except he interpret, xv. 2 ; 1 Tim. v 19. The 534 Germans in colloquial speech often employ a similar mode of ■ expression : alle waren zugegen, ausgenommen du nicht ; ich komme nicht, bevor du nicht gesagt hast etc. In the preceding quotation, either e«Tos el Stepfirfvedr] or el /jltj hiepfjuqveinj might have been used. On that and other similar phrases (such as ifkr^v el fii]^ much has been collected by Lob. Phryn. p. 459 ; cf. also Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 869 ; Doederlein, Oed. Col. p. 382 sqq. On the other hand, in the expression el Se /iij je, when it seems to mean, but if not, otherwise (after a negative clause) Matt. vi. 1 ; ix. 17 ; 2 Cor. xi. 16, the negation cannot be considered as pleo- nastic according to the original import of the phrase ; see Pr. 628 Mt. p. 255. 4. Tlie greater part of what has been called pleonasm in the N. T. (and out of it) is circumstantiality or more frequently fulness of expression (Hm. opusc. p. 222 sqq. and Yig. 887 ; 606 § 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTUER Poppo, Thuc. 1. 1. 204 sqq.) ; the former of which arises from the writer's endeavor to be rightly understood, and the latter is de- signed to give vividness, force (solemnity), sonorousness to style. It must also be remembered that the N. T. diction is to a great extent conversational, or akin to it ; and that the above-mentioned peculiarities are pre-eminently characteristic of Oriental expres- sion. Such phraseology differs from pleonasm in this, that every word and part of a word in a sentence contains something intended to add to the general meaning, though it may not be absolutely necessary for the logical completeness of the thought, e.g. Mark i. 17 TTOtTJaa vfm<; yevicrOat aXiei'i avOpmircov, for which Matt, iv. 19 has iroiriaai v/jia^ oXtet? av6pco7r(ov. The opposite is not ellipsis, but conciseness. In the first place, as respects chxumstantiality the following cases are to be distinguished : a. A word, only required once to complete the thought, is repeated in every parallel member where it might have been simply understood : ^ Heb. ii. 16 ov yap ar/yeXav iirtXafi/SdveTai, «XXA cnrepiMiTO<; 'A^p. iiriXa/jj^ dverai, Jno. xii. 3 rjXeii^ev tovs TToSai Tov 'Ir]aov Koi i^ep-a^e rat'; dpi^lv avTi]<; roixs TroSa? avTov, Rev. xiv. 2 ijKOva-a (f}covr]V ex tov ovpavov . . . xal rj ^annj, rjv r)Kov(7a, ix. 21 ; xvi. 18 ; ICor. xii. 12; xv. 54 ; Pliil. ii. 16; 564 iv. 17 ; Jno. x. 10 ; Rev. ix. 1 f. ; Mark i. 40 ; Matt, xviii. 32, cf. 7th eJ. jjj (^j.gg]j authors, Xen. Mem. 2, 10, 3 ; Demosth. Zenoth. 576 c. ; Long. 2, 3 ; Lucia.n. Cynic. 9 ; Jacob, Lucian. Alex. 117 ; Poppo, Thuc. III. II. 23 ; in Latin the expressions, especially frequent in Jul. Caesar, in ea loca, quibus in locis ; dies, quo die etc. Such repetitions ensure perspicuity, particularly when several words in- tervene. Sometimes repetitions have a rhetorical aspect, see no. 5. b. The usual or indispensable instrument (e.g. a human limb) is expressly mentioned along with the action in point : Acts 535 XV. 23 ypdyjravTe<} Bio. %et/D09 alroiv (they were to deliver it), xi. 30 ROQ (^ *-'°^- -^^" ^^) ' ^^^- ^^ ' ^"* ■'■^ vpoKaTrjyyeike 8(,a aTop^aro^ travriov Twv TrpocjyrjT&v, xv. 7 ; Luke i. 70 etc. Cf. from the poets, Eurip. Ion 1187 xe/30"ti' eK'xewv airovhd'i (var.), Hec. 526 f. ; Theocr. 7, 153 iroaal xopevo'cih see Lob. Aj. p. 222 f. (Wunder, Recens. p. 17 sq.). But in Rom. x. 15 (Sept.) to? d>palot ol TroSes t&v eiar/ryeXi^op.evwv 1 We must judge differently many of the repetitions used by the orators who had in view the delivery before the people of what they had written ; cf Foertsch, de locis Lysiae, p. 29. Of a different nature also is the repetition of the same word in Plat. Charm. 168 a. § 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE, 607 eipilvrjv the notion of arrival, implied in 7r6Se5, is very far from being superfluous; and in 1 Jno. i. 1 o ecopaKUfjiev roh 6j>da\- (ioluei<; avOpcioTrcov, see above, p. 606; cf. Exod. xxiii. 15 ; Demosth. ep. 3, p. 114 b. fj km tou? avaia-OrJTov; dveKTow •jToielv hoKel y iveaOai. e. In the course of a narration the Hebraistic Koi iyevsTo is prefixed to particular occurrences : Matt. vii. 28 koL eyevero, ore a-vveTeXeaev . . . i^ew'X'^aa-ovTo, for which a Greek author would say simply, koI ore or ore Se avver. etc.^ On the other hand, in Jno. xi. 11 ravra elTrev, Koi fiera tovto "Keyei, aiiTOK, neither ravra euTrev nor /iera tovto is superfluous ; the latter indicates a pause. To c. might be referred also the use of the participle dvaaras, as in Matt. ix. 9 ai/ao-ras rjKokov6r)(Tfv airw, Mark ii. 14; vii. 24 ; Luke i. 39 (similar to the Hebrew Djrji). But although here dvao-Tas was not nec- essary, yet this participle is by no means redundant in other passages which expositors bring under the same rule. Thus in Matt. xxvi. 62 avacrras 6 dp;^i£p£us Hrrev avria means obviously: he stood up from indig- nation, he rose (from his seat) ; similar is Acts v. 17 ; Mark i. 35 Trpcat ivvuxov Xiav dvao-Tas i^X.6e rising in the morning, while it was still very dark, etc.; Luke xv. 18 dvaa-ras iropivaofjuii Trpos rov Traripa /xov (I will arise and go) / will forthwith, etc. In general, too many participles in the N. T. have been represented as redundant ; and though the decision 631 may occasionally be doubtful, yet very many of them express notions which were they not expressed would be missed. Thus in 1 Cor. vi. 15 a pas ovv to, /leXri rov XpuTTov iroi^crco TTOpvrjs p-iXr] ; (see Bengel in loc. 566 Aristoph. eq. 1130 ; Soph. 0. E. 1270), 1 Pet. iii. 19 tois iv (jyvXaKrj ■jrvf.vp.acn Jtn 60, TTopeu^ets iK-qpv$ev. In Luke xii. 37 TrapeXOuiv Siaxov^o-ei airois drawing near, he will serve them, even tested by our "Western notions, is more striking and vivid than if irapeXOtav had been omitted, (jrapeXOdv in Ael. 2, 30 likewise, does not seem to me redundant). Cf in general, Schaef 1 This always occurs when an additional specification of time precedes the principal clause, and the principal verb is then appended either by ko! (see on this Fr. Mt. p. 341 ), as in Matt. ix. 10 ; Luke v. 1, 12 ; ix. 51, or more frequently without a copula, as in Matt. xi. 1 ; xiii. 53 ; xix. 1 ; xxvi. I ; Mark iv. 4 ; Luke i. 8, 41 ; ii. 1 etc. This usage is most frequent in Luke's Gospel. To render this koi by also, even, is far from a happy thought, Born. Schol. p. 25. Besides, this iyiviro is pleonastic, as the speci- fication of time might be directly joined to the principal verb. § 65, REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 609 Soph. I. 253, 278 ; 11. 314 ; Demosth. IV. 623 ; Pflugk, Eurip. Hel. p. 134; Mtth. 1300 f. Further, with Acts iii. 3 under d. may be compared Acts xi. 22 e^awe- (TTukev Hapva^av SieX^etj/ 2ws 'Ai/Ttox«as (where the ancient versions drop the Inf. as superfluous, though it undoubtedly existed in the text), which, however, properly signifies : tkey sent him out with the commission to go etc. Similar is Acts xx. 1 i^XOev ■ TropevO^vai ek t^v MaKeSovCav he departed to go to Macedonia. Cf. also Caes. civ. 3, 33. On the other hand, 537 I cannot with Born, find a mere redundancy in ol Se Kara^KD^evTcs rov "'" "• amvo/j,dK6yrja-e koX ovk xipnrjaaro, Eph. v. 15 jxr) to? daoipot dW' &>? a-o(j)oi, vs. 17 ; Jno. i. 3 ; .iii. 16 ; X. 5 (xviii. 20) ; xx. 27 ; 1 Jno. i. 6 ; ii. 4, 27 ; Luke i. 20 ; Acts xviii. 9 ; 1 Tim. ii. 7 ; Jas. i. 5, 23 ; 1 Pet. i. 23 ; v. 2 ; 538 Heb. vii. 21 ; x. 37 (Sept.) ; xii. 8 ; Rev. ii. 13 ; iii. 9 (Deut. ^""^ xxviii. 13; Isa. iii. 9; xxxviii. 1 ; Ezek. xviii. 21; Hos. v. 3); icf. Eurip. El. 1057 ^/u kovk dirapvovfiai, Ael. an. 2, 43 om apvovvrai oi dvSpoyjroi aX\' oiioKoyova-i, especially in the orators, Dem. fals. leg. p. 200 c. ^pda-a koX ovk diroKpir^ofiai, see Maii observ. sacr. II. 77 sqq. ; Kypke I. 350 sq. ; Poppo, Thucyd. I. I. 204 ; Hm. Med. ed. Elmsley p. 361 and Soph. Oed. Col. p. 41 ; Philoct. p. 44 ; Jacob, quaest. Lucian. p. 19 ; Weber, Deraosth. p. 314 ; Boisson. Eunap. p. 164 sqq. ; Maetzner, Antiph. p. 157. c. In the following combinations graphic effect is aimed at : Acts xxvii. 20 irepiripelTo eKifi-qv. A savor of death unto death, a savor of life unto life, means : an odor of death which, from its nature, can bring nothing else than death, etc. §65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 611 Redundancy of expression is often erroneously supposed to exist in passages where synonymes are found connected in order to express (as frequently in Demosth.) a single main idea, see Schaef. Demosth. I. 209, 320, 756 ; Plutarch. IV. 387 ; V. 106 ; Weber, Demosth. p. 376 ; Franke, Demosth. p. 12 ; Bremi, Aeschin. I. 79 ; Lucian. Alex. ed. Jacob p. 24 ; Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 619 ; Schoem. Plut. Agis 171 ; cf. Lob. paralip. 61 sq. But Paul, from whom the examples in question have mostly been taken, 568 is not in the habit of combining in one sentence really synonymous expres- '"• «^' sions, — (not even in Eph. i. 5, 19 ; ii. 1 ; iv. 23 ; 1 Cor. i. 10 ; ii. 4 ; 1 Tim. ii. 1 ; v. 5 ; cf. Jas. iii. 13 ; Jno. xii. 49 ; 1 Pet. i. 4 ; iv. 9 ; 1 Jno. i. 1, etc. ; Fr. Rom. II. 372). A more careful study of Greek, but especially of apostolic diction, precludes a supposition according to which e.g. the apostolic salutation xapiq, £A.€os koX eipT^vt], would become extremely flat.^ Likewise there is nothing pleonastic in the combinations ^v^os opy^s Rev. xvi. 19, jreXayos r^s 6a\d(7dv€ia t^s Trapovaiai 2 Thess. ii. 8, o-TrXay^va iXeovs Or oiKTip/tou Luke i. 78 ; Col. iii. 12. The second of these was correctly rendered aequor maris by so early a critic as Wetstein ; ircXayos, that is, denotes the expanse (of the sea), and is thus applied to the surface of a river also, see Schwarz, commentar. p. 1067.^ Aud (TirKaryxya. is a comprehensive expression which is more closely defined by the Genitive. The parallelismus membrorum, which occasionally 539 occurs in the N. T. (see § 68, 3), has nothing to do with pleonasm. As W "•• to the parallel distribution of doctrinal particulars in Rom. iv. 25 ; x. 10, see de Wette on the first passage. 6. The pleonasm of entire sentences is inconceivable. When a sentence is expressed a second time with but slight alteration, the writer's object always is to give to a thought peculiar force, or to exhibit it under diiferent points of view. This occurs in 2 Cor. xii. 7 T^ vTrep^oXfi tuv airoKoKir^eoav "va /if) vTrepaipcofiai, iBodr; 6S4: fioi aKokoylr . . . wa fie KoXacpi^rj, Zva fiij v7repaipo)/j,ai, (where the last words are omitted, it is true, in good Codd. [also Sin.*], but surely only because they seemed superfluous), Rev. ii. 5 /leravorjcTov koX to, nrpSyra epja -Koiriaov el Be /mt) (/tierai'oet?) , ep'xpfiai aot Tap^v Koi Kiv^aco ttjv Xir^viav crov ix tov tottov auTij?, eav /jlt} fieravoTjcrr)^ (cf. Plat. Gorg. 514a. ■^/uv e'n-f)(eipr)Teov ecrTi . . . depaTreveiv, to? ySeXTt'ffTou? aiiToii^ Toiii TroXtVa? irotovvTai; • 1 SchSfer's remark, Demosth. I. 320, " usus (synonymorum) duplex, grarior alter, lit vim concilient orationi, alter levior, ut vel aures expleant vel numeros reddant jucnndiores," has reference primarily only to the orators. 2 The investigation of N. T. synonymes (begun not infelicitously by Bengel) has lately been prosecuted, rather on the principle of free combination than historically, by Tiltmann (de synonymis N. T. lib. I. Lipsiae 1829. 8vo.). Further, cf. also the col- lections and remarks in Bomemann's diss, de glossem. N. T. p. 29 sqq. 612 § 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. avev yap 8rj tovtov, co? ev •vol'; efxirpoaOev evpiaKo/iev, ovoev 6(f>e\o'; . . . eav fJ^r) kuKt] Kayadrj rj Bidvoia fj tS)v jxeWovTtov etc. Stallb. Plat. apol. p. 23). On 1 Cor. xiv. 6 see Mey. On 1 Cor. vii. 26, see above, no. 1 p. 602. On tlie other hand, in 1 Jno. ii. 27 CO? TO aiiTO ■^iafia SiBdaKei vp.d'i . . . Kat, kuOo)'; i8i8a^ev vyu,a?, fji€veiT€ iv amat the resumptive plirase Kadeu'i etc. is so far from being a pleonasm, that it could hardly have been dispensed with. Similar is Rev. x. 3, 4. Of. as to such expressions Hm. 569 Eurip. Bacch. 1060 and Soph. Antig. 691 ; Philoct. 269, 454 ; '"'"'■Reisig, conjeCt. Aristoph. p. 314 sq. ; Hehid. Plat. Phaed. p. 52 and Cic. nat. d. 1, 16 ; Schaef. Demosth. V. 726 ; Mtth. 1641 f. Of a different nature is Rev. ii. 18 olSa ttov KaToiKel<; • oirov 6 6p6vo<; Tov aarava, where ottov 6 Bpovo'i etc. is immediately annexed to explain (as if in answer to) ttov KaToiKei vapicTTdveTe eavTov<; BovXov<; et? inraKorjv, BovKoi, hare &> VTraKOvere would not have been a mere utterhig oiidemper idem, even had ijTot cifiapTia'; et? ddvarov fj v7raKorj<; et? BiKaiocrvvijv not been straightway annexed to BovXoi as a closer specification. As little do the two members of the sentence Rom. vi. 6 iva KarapyqOfi to ffcbp^a Ti}? dp,apTLaiXoao(pCa's ipyov is the occupation of philosophizing, the cultivation of philosophy, cf. 542 just afterwards ap^ai (j>iXo(jo(^iwi (in Latin cf. virtutis opus Curt. 8, 14, 37, ^"'"'• proditionis opus Petr. fragm. 28, 5), not precisely the fabric, system, of philosophy. Xprjp.a is different from epyov, and even XPVI^'^ with ^ Genitive is not properly a pleonasm, see Passow under the word. As to ovo/ia (very frequently regarded as pleonastic, see Kuhnol on Jno. p. 133) Wahl has already given the true view (cf. v. Hengel, Philipp. p. 160), see also my Simon, lexic. Hebr. under nc ; yet this word certainly requires a more precise handling than it has yet received in N. T. Lexicons. (As to a periphrastic use of wo/ao in Greek poets, see Mtth. 965.) In Col. ii. 16 iv p-epei lopTTJ'i rj vavp.rjvia's ij a-a^jSaTtov is no more pleonastic than in respect (or in the matter) of holidays, new moons, etc. Lastly, in Rom. vi. 6 awfiLa TTJ's dfiapTiaq is a single composite idea, the body of sin, i.e. the (human) body ; respecting the relation of which to sin no reader of Paul's epistles can be at any loss. See above, p. 188. 8. Nearly all the earlier expositors asserted, that by a sort of half pleonasm KaXeicrOai is used for eivai (Graev. lection. Hesiod. p. 22 ; Porson, Eurip. Hippol. v. 2 ; Blomfield, Aesch. Pers. p. 128 ; on the other hand, Bllendt, lexic. Soph. I. 912), in which use at the same time there was thought to be a Hebraism (x'lpj, essey. But Bretschn. lex. man. p. 209 sets the matter right by saying : sum videlicet ex aliorum sententia. Cf. van Hengel, Cor. p. 53 sq. 572 As to N'lp? see my Simon, lex. p. 867. In the N. T. KaXeto-^at '"" "'■ always signifies to be named, to he called, Jas. ii. 23 ; Matt. v. 19 ; xxi. 13, especially in reference to names of honor, which denote the possession of a certain dignity, Matt. v. 9 ; Luke i. 76 ; 1 Jno. iii. 1 ; Rom. ix. 26. It is used even as antithetical to ehai (to be), 638 1 Cor. XV. 9 (even so much as to bear the name of an apostle), Luke XV. 19. Nor can ovofid^ea-Oai Rom. xv. 20 (1 Cor. v. 1) ; Eph. i. 21 ; iii. 15 ; v. 3 be weakened down to a mere esse ; (it is even emphatic, as /j/qSe in the last passage shows). ^ It is an 1 The passages adduced by Schwarz, Comment, p. 719 sq., from Greek authors to 616 § 65. REDUNDANT SENTENCES. utter perversion when many expositors render even Heb. xi. 18 iv ^laacLK K\7]6rjcreTdi aoi airep/jia : existet tibi posteritas ; (Schulz, too, very inaccurately translates it : thou wilt receive offspring'}. Evpia-Keadai also is said (see Pott on 1 Cor. iv. 2 ; cf. the annotators on Plut. educ. 13, 5), like a^m (cf. on the other hand my Simouis p. 575), often to be used instead of elvat. But these two verbs are always distinguished from each other by this, that ehai denotes the quality of a thing in itself, while evplaKeaOai denotes that quality as found, discovered, recognized, in the subject. Matt. i. 18 evpeOr] iv ya^Tpl e'^ovaa it proved {it appeared) that she was with child (Jj v iv yaajpl e^ovcra might have been previously 543 said), Luke xvii. 18 oui^ evpidrjcrau vTroaTpk<^avre<; Bovvai 86^av tw *"* '*'■ 6ew el fir) 6 aXXoyevr)<; ovto<; ; ivere none found (as it were, did none show themselves) who returned ? Acts viii. 40 ^/XtTTTro? evpidr] ek "A^cotov Philip was found (cf. nrveviia Kvpiov rfpiraae rov $tX. vs. 39) at Ashdod (properly, transported to Ashdod, by the TTvevfia Kvp. that carried him away), Rom. vii. 10 evpidr] /moi rj ivroXrj rj ew ^oyrjv avrrj ek Bdvarov it proved, appeared (from Paul's personal experience vss. 8-10) that the commandment for life had become to me a commandment for death, Gal. ii. 17 el Se . . . evpedrjfiev koX avTol dfiapruiXoi but if we ourselves were found sinners (before God and man), 1 Cor. iv. 2 ; 2 Cor. v. 3 ; Phil. iii. 9 ; Rev. xii. 8 ovBe totto? evpidr) ainrnv ert iv tw ovpavS neither loas their place' any more found (any more to be seen) in heaven, as we say : every trace of them was blotted out (cf. Rev. xvi. 20 ; xviii. 21 ; xx. 11), 1 Pet. ii. 22 oiihe evpidr) B6\o^ ev tw arofiari avTov nor was guile found in his mouth, no guile could be detected in his words (Rev. xiv. 5). Phil. ii. 7 was correctly rendered by Luther. The Greek passages adduced as parallel, by Kypke I. 2 ; Palairet p. 198 ; Schwarz et al., prove nothing. In Mr. Anton. 9, 9 TO avvarycoyov iv rm KpeiTTOVt itrneivofievov evpiaKero etc. 573 evpicTKOfiat retains its proper meaning : was found. Hierocl. in Jill ed. carm. Pythag. p. 88 ed. Lond. dp^v fiev rav dperav f) (f)p6vr](7i<; eiipicTKerat, is : prudentia virtutum principium esse deprehenditur, 639 i.e. it is found by the considerate that etc. ; Eurip. Ipli. Tanr. 777 (766) irov TTOT ovB" evpr)p,e6a ; ubi tandem esse depreheudimur (deprehensi sumus) ? whither does it turn out that we have wan- dered ? In Joseph, antt. 17 (not 7), 5, 8 evpia-K. refers to those very persons in whose opinion Herod wished to avoid standing prove that KaKftaBai or oooiii^iaBai is used for ilvai, dispose of themselves for an atten- tive reader. The attempt to take nominari for esse in Cic. Flacc. 27 is truly ridiculous. § 65. REDUNDANT STEUCTTJRE. 617 unfavorably. Cf. also Soph. Trach. 410 ; Aj. 1114 (1111) ; Diod. Sic. 3, 39 ; 19, 94 ; Atheii. I. 331 ; Schweigh. Philostr. ApoU. 7, 11 ; Alciphr. 1, 30. In Ignat. ad Rom. 3 Xeyeadai j^piffriavov and evpiffKeaOai, ■xpiernapov are contrasted. ^ 9. Among the particles, w? in particular has frequently been regarded as pleonastic, as in 2 Pet. i. 8 w? -rravTa rifuv t'^? ^et'a? Si/m/ieo)? avTov . . . SeBmpT/f^evrj^. But m? combined with the par- ticiple in the construction of the Gen. absol. imparts to the verbal notion the impress of subjectiveness, of a persuasion or purpose. Hence the preceding passage, taken in connection with vs. 5, must be rendered : persuaded (reflecting) that the divine power has bestowed on us all things, . . . earnestly endeavor etc., ■^ovfjsvoi, on f] eda Sum/its . . . SeBu>p7]Tat (1 Cor. iv. 18), cf. Xen. C. 3, 3, 4 CO? elprivr)v, the parti- cle ft)9 means as (of the characteristic) : as one who reminds you according to the grace of God. In Rom. ix. 32 on. ovk Ik ■n-iareias, oXA' & i^ epytov vojjiov, the expression €K TTioTecos denotes the objective standard ; uk e| tpymv, the purely imagi- nary. 2 Cor. xiii. 7 ; Jno. vii. 10 ; Philem. 14 also are to be traced back to a comparison. And Matt. vii. 29 ^v hiSda-Ktuv &<; i^ova-lav ex"'^' J^''- ^- ^^ So^av 0)5 fjiovoyevov? irapa iraTpo's, mean simply : as one having authority, as of the only begotten etc., and even in these instances the particle does not of itself indicate what exists revera, though, if we regard the sense, 640 this idea is implied in the comparison {exactly as, altogether as, like, i.e. the true, perfect glory of the Son of God, etc.). In reference to (os ctti Acts xvii. 14 we have to remark, that . denotes, as so early a critic as Bengel per- 641 ceived, simply to (die and) be buried. The quotation from Aelian. 12, 52 is of no force ; /j/riKeri there signifies : no longer (as hitherto), just like ovKert, in Jno. xxi. 6. Many used to teach a half pleo- nastic use of ovKert also ; but likewise erroneously. In Rom. vii. 17 vvvl Se ovKert iyw Karepyd^ofiai, airro, dXX,' ly • . . dfMaprla is : 575 now, however, after having made this observation vs. 14 sqq., it is 7th ei ^Q longer I that do the evil, i.e. I can no longer consider myself the primary cause of it, cf. vs. 20. Rom. xi. 6 el Be x^pi'^h oweTi, 1 In Aristot. Pol. 3, 7 is 3ti is used differently ; that is, is corresponds to an ante- cedent oStios. 2 For separated, so that iiri in the course of the sentence resumes is, both particles were used at an early period, Schoem. Isae. p. 294 ; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 566. § 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STEUCTTIBE. 619 i^ epyeov is : if by grace, then (it is) no more (further) of works, i.e. the latter thought is annihilated by the former, it can uo longer exist. Eom. xiv. 13, 15 ; 2 Oor. i. 23 ; Gal. ii. 20 ; iii. 18 are plain. In Jno. iv. 42 ovKen derives elucidation from vs. 41, where Bia tov \6jov uvtov is antithetical to Sta tov \6yov t^? ryvvaiKoi; vs. 39 ; two motives for TncrTeveiv are distinguished, an earlier and a later. As to Jno. xv. 15 see Liicke. Moreover, Xen. A. 1, 10, 12 cannot be adduced in support of such a use of ovKen, and still less (/wj/tert) Xen. Eph. 1, 13 (in Paus. 8, 28, 2 recent editors give om ea-Ti, yet see Siebelis in loc). Of. also Lucian. Parasit. 12 ; Sext. Emp. Math. 2, 47 ; Arrian. Bpict. 3, 22, 86. Likewise ou Aelian. Anim. 4, 3 Jacobs admits tliat owen is used for the simple negation pauUo majore cum vi. § 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES (BREVILOQUENCE, CONSTRUCTIO PRAEGNANS, ATTRACTION, ETC.). 1. The inherent predilection of the Greeks for terseness and compactness of discourse exhibits itself even in prose in various modes of expression, some of which are to be "found in the N. T. They all, however, agree in this, that an intermediate member not absolutely essential to the sense is omitted, and the other parts of the sentence are drawn together into one compound whole. Of. Mtth. 1533 IF. ; Doederlein, de brachylogia serm. gr. et lat. 546 Erlang. 1831. 4to. This breviloquence is akin to ellipsis, yet different from it, inasmuch as in an elliptical sentence the gram- matical structure always indicates the omission of a definite individual word, while in breviloquence the break is always covered up by the structure. To breviloquence belong the following cases : 642 a. To a protasis is joined an apodosis without a direct connection : Rom. xi. 18 el Se icaTaKavj(aaai,, ov crii ttjv pi^av jSacrrafet?, oKKA rj pi^a ae but if thou . . . then know or reflect that, not thou, etc. 1 Cor. xi. 16. The full structure would be: icr9i (Biavoov'), on ov (TV etc. ; cf. Clem, ad Cor. I. 55. The sentence could not be called elliptical unless it ran thus : el he KaruK., on ov av etc. ; then oTi would point to an actually omitted word, such as, know or consider. In like manner, in Latin, scito is often suppressed between the protasis and the apodosis, Cic. or. 2, 12, 51. Cf. also 1 Jno. V. 9 el ttjv fiaprvpiav t&v dvOpcoirav Xafi^dvofiev, rj fiapTvpca 620 § 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STEUCTTJEB. 576 Tov deov /j,ei^Q)v eariv, we must consider that the testimony of God 7th ei etc., or, we must much more receive the testimony of God, which etc. ; 1 Cor. ix. 17. (In Rom. ii. 14, however (Fr.), the protasis and the apodosis are connected without any difficulty.) In Matt. ix. 6 'Iva he elSrJTe, on e^ovaiav e^et d vto? tov dvdpaTrov . . . (roVe "Keyet rat TrapaXvTiica)) eyepOel'} apov aov ttjv kXivtjv, where the words inserted by the Evangelist do not belong to the structure of the sentence : that ye may know . . . stand thou up and take, etc., i.e. the paralytic shall at my command immediately rise up, I command the paralytic : Stand up etc. (analogous to this are the constructions so frequent in the orators, such as Dem. cor. 329 c. 'iva Toivvv elBrjre, on avT06apfj rd vorjiubra vfimv diro Tfj<; dirXoTrfios, Acts viii. 40 $tX. evpiOt) eh "A^wrov (Rom. vii. 10). See, further, Acts xxiii. 11 ; Luke iv. 38 ; xviii. 3 ; Gal. v. 4 ; Rom. vii. 2 ; ix. 3 (XV. 28) ; xvi. 20 ; 1 Cor. xii. 13 ; xv. 54 ; 2 Cor. x. 5 ; Heb. 644 ii. 3 ; X. 22 ; Eph. ii. 15 ; 1 Tim. v. 15 ; 1 Pet. iii. 10. According to some, Heb. v. 7 also comes under this head, see Bleek in loc. (Ps. xxii. 22 Hebr. ; Ps. cxvii. 5 Sept.) ; with more certainty Mark vii. 4 ^ does. This species of conciseness occurs frequently 1 The passage must be rendered ; (on returning) yrom the market (like Arrian. Epict. 3, 19, 5 &>/ iiAi (Spufiev (I>aye7i/ e'/c PaKaveiov), if they have not washed themselves, they eat not. To refer PatTTiaavTai to the /oorf (as KiihnSl does), would be opposed not so much by the usus loquendi (for Pairri(rii6s, derived from ParriC., is in vs. 4 obviously 622 § 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. 648 in Greek prose, cf. Markland, Eurip. suppl. 1205 ; Stallb. Plat. *"'"'■ Euthyphr. p. 60 ; Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 292 sq. ; on the Hebr., how- ever, see Ewald S. 620. Expressions such as Kpimrei,v or Kkeieiv Ti airo Tivo'i (1 Jno. iii. 17'),(i6Tavoeiv d-TTO rrj<; kukIu^ (Acts viii. 22) 578 or e« rwv epymv etc. (Rev. ix. 20 f.; xvi. 11), aTro^XeTreiv and If" ^ d' rj/j.a.'S koL i^XOt a. fiijmv. But such difFuseness would have been intolerable to every classic author also, cf. Eurip. Phoen. 536 h o'kov^ ilsrjXOe koI i^XO' (where to be sure the arrangement is more simple) and Valoken. in loc. See also Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 289. Note. In Acts x. 39 there would in like manner be a brachylogy in the words Kol ^/xeis /Aaprupes TrdvTwv Se 'AttoWuj, fyS., tyu) Sk XjOtorov. In these four 581 statements Paul intended to comprehend all the declarations current in li'li e4 the church respecting religious partisanship ; each uses one of the following 551 expressions. Cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 26. Lastly, 1 Cor. vi. 11 ravrd T6ves ^t, rightly understood, contains no brachylogy, see § 58, 3 p. 513. 4. But the Greek language has a method of blending sentences and parts of sentences so as to give discourse still greater com- pactness and conciseness, viz. by means of what is called Attraction (Bttm. Gr. § 538, 1), which can be termed a species of brachylogy only under one point of view. The name of Attraction, as is well known, has been given by modern grammarians to that mode of expression by means of which two portions of discourse (especially clauses), logically (in sense) connected, are also grammatically (formally) blended. A word (or assemblage of words), which properly belongs to but one of these portions (clauses), is gram- 648 matically extended to the other, and so applies to both at once (to the one clause, logically, and to the other, grammatically), as urbem, qvMm statuo, vestra est; where urbs properly belongs to vestra est (for there are two propositions : urbs vestra est, and quam statuo}, bui is attracted by the relative clause and incorpo- rated into it, so as now to belong to both clauses, logically to vestra est, and grammatically to quam statuo. See Hm. Vig. p. 891 sqq.,* 1 Hm. as above : Est attractio in eo posita, si quid eo, quod simul ad duaS oratlonis partes refertur, ad quarnm alteram non recte refertur, ambas in unam conjungit. Cf. 79 626 § 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE. in particular G. T. A. Kriiger, gramm. Untersuch. 3 Tlieil. The copious diversity of tliis mode of expression encountered in Greek authors, does not, indeed, occur in the N. T. ; yet even there we find not a few instances of attraction which were not recognized as such by the earlier expositors, and which, to say the least, created no small difficulty in interpretation (see e.g. W. Bowyer, Conjectur. 1. 147). 5. Attraction in general, so far as it affects the connection of sentences or clauses, may be reduced to three principal sorts : Either, 1. something is attracted from the dependent by the prin- cipal clause ; or, 2. the principal clause transfers something to the dependent (accessory) clause ; or, 3. two clauses, predicated of one and the same subject, are blended into one. The 1st sort comprehends such constructions as the following : a. 1 Cor. xvi. 15 otSare ttjv olxiav Sreipavd on ia-Tiv d7rapy(rj Ti}? ^A')(atai^, Acts ix. 20 eKijpvcrcrev tov 'Itjo-ovv oti oSto's eanv 6 vlb<; Tov 6eov. This is very frequent, when objective clauses follow a verb of observing, knowing, showing, or declaring, as Mark xi. 32 xii. 34 ; Acts iii. 10 ; iv. 13 ; xiii. 32 ; xv. 36 ; xvi. 3 ; xxvi. 5 1 Cor. iii. 20 ; xiv. 37 ; 2 Cor. xii. 3 f. ; 1 Thess. ii. 1 ; 2 Thess 682 u. 4 ; Jno. iv. 35 ; v. 42 ; vii. 27 ; viii. 64 (Arrian. Al. 7, 15, 7) Miri. xi. 31 ; Rev. xvii. 8 (Gen. i. 4 ; 1 Mace. xiii. 53 ; 2 Mace. ii. 1 1 Kings V. 3 ; xi. 28, etc.). Also when interrogative clauses follow, 652 as Luke iv. 34 olSd a-e, rt? el, Mark i. 24 (see Heupel and Pr. in i6ili ed. Iqq . Boissonade, Philostr. epp. p. 143), Luke xix. 3 ISelv tov 'Irja-ovv, Ti9 ia-Ti, cf. Schaef. ind. Aesop, p. 127;^ Jno. vii. 27 tovtov oiBafiev, iroOev ia-rlv (Kypke in loc). Acts xv. 36 iiriaKen^wfjueQa Tovs dSe\(f)ov<; . . . ttw? e')(pvcri,, 2 Cor. xiii. 5; Jno. xiii. 28 (Achill. Tat. 1, 19 ; Theophr. char. 21 ; Philostr. ep. 64). And the same form of anticipation occurs from clauses with tva, jMrj etc. 649 Col. iv. 17 /SXfiTre rtjv hiaKovLav, 'iva avrrjv TrXrjpoh, Rev. iii. 9 TrotTjo-ia ainov'i, 'iva ■^^oi;o-t,Gal. vi. 1 o^ov/j,ai vfi,a<;, fii^irw'; el/crj KeKoirluKa ek vfxd'i (cf. Diod. S. 4, 40 TOV aBe\, 1 Cor. xiv. 18 ev^apiffTO) ra 6eS irdvTmv v/m&v fiSXKov cra-ai^ XaX&v (var.), see § 45, 4 p. 345. d. The most simple attraction, but one of very frequent occur- rence, is that in which a relative, instead of being put in the case (Ace.) required by the verb of the relative clause, is made to correspond to the verb of the principal clause, and consequently is put in the case governed by it : Jno. ii. 22 iiria-reva-av tw Xoym 4) elirev (for ov'), see § 24, 1 p. 163. e. Lastly, under this head would come 1 Pet. iv. 3 a/j/cero? 6 vapeXTJXvdws j(p6vo? Kal eKoXeaev rifid<;. In the following cases the attraction is carried still farther : 1 Anticipation is properij- to be admitted only when the author applied beforehand to the subject the subsequent predication in the accessory clause. On the contrary, particularly when parenthetic clauses intervene, e.g. Acts xv. 36 the construction ^T<(TK6i/«i/ieflo Tois aS€\ois may at first have been alone intended, and vas exowrty subjoined merely for further explanation. 628 § 68- CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTUEE. 650 1- 1 Cor. X. 16 tov a prop ov K\,&fiev ov')(l Koivusvia rov aa/jbaro'; etc., Jno. vi. 29 "va TrtaTevarjTe et? ov dTreareiXev e'/cetw?, sec § 24, 2 a. pp. 164, 166, or Mark vi. 16 ov iyo) aireKe<^aXiaa 'I(odvv7]v, ohT6v irape^ aiuporipiov rjfxSiv kv rta oiK(a. 2. The very structure of the sentence has been disturbed by the inadvertence of the writer in Luke xxiv. 27 dp^d/ievo'; din M(a(76(B9 KoX anro iravrav t&v irpo^rmv Sirjpfj.'ijvevev avTOK iv irdsaK Taw ypoipaK to, irepl avTov. Here it can hardly be assumed-jthat to Moses and the propliets are opposed certain other books of the 0. T. to which Jesus passed, nor, with Kiihnol, that Jesus first quoted the statements of the prophets, then, as a separate pro- ceeding, began to interpret them (see van Hengel, annot. p. 104) ; but probably Luke meant to say : Jesus, beginning from (witK) Moses, went through all the prophets; see also BCrus. in loc. Instead of this, having aTro in mind, he annexes Trai/re? ■7rpor}Tai in the Genitive. Meyer's device is unsatisfactory. In connection with this passage may be taken Acts iii. 24 Trai^e? ol ■n-po,b. II. 99, insists on the ^ Cf. Glass, philol. sacr. I. 652 sqq. ; Jani, are; km- >t. p. 258 sqq. On the Other hand, cf. Elster, de Hypallage. Helmst. 1845. 4tc. § 67. ABNORMAL RELATION OF IKDIVIDUAL WORDS. 635 existence of liypallage. In 2 Cor. iii. 7 el 17 Bia/eovia rov Oavdrov 657 eV '^pdfifiaaw ivTerviraiiJievr) iv 7u6oi<;, Paul might in contrast with BiaKovla rov irvevfuvro'i have said with greater simplicity : 17 SiaKovla Tov '^pafifiaTO'; eVreTUTrw/xevov ev XtOoii;. But the present connection of the words is not incorrect. Moses' ministry of death was in so far itself ev Xt%t? evTeTvirto fievr), as it consisted in communicating laws threatening and inflicting death, and in administering them among the people. Tlie letter of the law contained the ministry which Moses had to execute. Moreover, there is a grammatical resemblance between this passage and Tac. annal. 14, 16 quod species ipsa carminum docet, non impetu et instinctis nee ore xinojluens. In Heb. ix. 10 eirtKeifieva is certainly not construed with BiKauofj^aai instead of eVt/cet/tei/ot?, but StKair- wfiaui, is in apposition to eVi ^pdofiacriv etc., and eTriKel/jLeva cor- responds to fj,rj hvvdfievai, the neuter being selected because both, hmpa Koi dvaiai, are here included. According to the other reading, BiKaico/j,aTa, which is well supported [by Cod. Sin. also], 559 eiriKeifieva can be referred to that appositive word qtiite regularly. 6th ed. There is more appearance of irregular reference in Luke xxii. 20, where to virep v/j.&v eK'xyvofievov might have been construed with ev TO) aifjLan. But it is not probable that in so short a sentence 590 Luke should have employed iK^vvofievov from inadvertence. It is Itl" «i more likely that, as he had connected SiBofievov with amfia, he joined eK')(yv. to iroTripiov, meaning the contents of the cup, and this metonymy is easier still than the other, to ironqpLov 17 kmvt) Bia9r)Kfr]. This anomaly is obviously not of a grammatical, but of a logical kind, (although to pour out a cup may be said with entire correctness). Yet Schulthess (on the Lord's Supper, S. 155 f.) need not have grown so warm over the matter. In Heb. vi. 1 even Kiihnol has rejected the hypallage, alleged by Palairet and others. On Jno. i. 14 7rX»7/3i?? ^dpLTO'i etc. see § 62, 3 p. 564, and on 2 Cor. xi. 28 and Rev. i. 5, § 59, 8 pp. 532, 533. In 2 Cor. iv. 17 alcoviov ^dpo<; So^rj^ cannot be taken for almviov ^ap. B6^r}v •7rpea-/3. (see Scholiasts). But that N. T. passage is to be rendered quite simply : the exposition of loaves (the sacred usage of laying out loaves). Valcken. even wants to take r) Tpdire^a km r) irpod. dpT. for 17 Tpdir. Twv dpT(ov Trjv eiradev (seine Leiden leiteten ihn zum Gehorsam, cf. Her. 1, 207), see "Wetst. and Valcken. in loc. ; Rom. xi. 17 rtm twv icXdSwv e^eK\d(T6r](xav. Thus, in a series of words, the paronomastic are placed next to each other, as in Rom. i. 29, 31 (jropveia, TTovrjpiei) aKei,<; ,d dvayisvaxTKefi; Jno. ii. 23 f. ttoXXoX eirLcTTevcTav et9 to ovofw, avrov . . . aino 391 ; after M 392 sq. ; after irafii 394 ; after rpis 395. Dawes's rule 507. Declension rare forms of the Ist 60; of the 2d 62; of the 3d 64; declension of foreign words 66 ; of adjectives 68. Defective structure 580 sqq. Cf. Struc- ture of sentences. Defective Verbs 8I sqq. Demonstrative pronouns neut. used adverbially 142 ; irregular reference of 157 ; included in the relative 158; repetition of 159 sq. ; before Sti, 'Im etc. 161 ; before a pred. infin. or a subst. 161 ; before a particip. constr. 161 ; the plur. for sing. 162; position of 162 ; omitted in cases of attraction 165 sq. ; in loose reference 632. Deponent Verbs 258 sq. Derivation by terminations : of verbs 91, of substantives 93, of adjectives 96 ; by composition : of substantives 99, of adjectives 100, of verbs 100 sq. Desiring verbs of, take the gen. 204. Dialect the Alexandrian 20, 21 ; the Hellenistic 28 ; the Christian 35. Digressions 565. Diminutives 96. Discord supposed, between subj. and pred. 517. Disjoining verbs of, take prep. 197. Distributives how expressed in N. T. 249. Doric forms etc. 36. Dual the, not found in N. T. 177. Iilision comparatively rare in N. T. 40. Ellipsis with adj. 234 ; 580 sqq. ; of the copula 584 sq. ; of the subj. 588 ; list of substs. often omitted 590 ; of the noun with trans, verbs 593 ; none of adv. or conj. 595 ; partial of both subj. and pred. in the same clause 596 ; of a whole proposition 598 ; in quotations from 0. T. 599. Snallage of gend. in pronouns 141 ; of numb, in the same 141 ; of the gend. and numb, of nouns 174sq. ; of cases 180; of tenses 264; of prep. 361, 411 ; of numb, with verbs 515 ; of gend. with verbs 517. Enclitics how to be written 54 ; position of 558. Enjoying verbs of, with the gen. 197. Bpexegetical apposition 528; gen. 531. Extension of subj. or pred. of a prop. 523 sqq. 646 ENGLISH INDEX. Feeling verbs of, with the gen. 204. Feminine the, is the neut. used for 1 179, 238; in contempt 179. Foreign "Words declens. of 66 sq. Forms rare of the 1st or 2d declens. 60 sq. ; of the 3d declens. 64 sq. ; of regular verbs 73 sq. ; of verbs in /u etc. 78 sq. Fritzsche K. F. A. lo. Fulness of expression 605, 609 sqq. Future the, Attic 75 ; subjunctive 75 ; mid. for pass. 255 ; ethical {may or should) 279; 3d fat. pass. 279; not used for the pret. 280 ; sometimes nearly equiv. to the pres. 280 ; of a supposable case 280 ; supposed equiv. to the optat. 280 ; for the impera. 315. Gataker Thom. 14. Gender of Nouns new 36, 63, 65; 174 sqq.; the neut. used of a person 178; supposed interchange of 1 78 sq. ; supposed contemptuous force of fem. 179 ; a, noun of any gend. taken merely as a word is treated as neut. 179. Genitive the, of pron. position of 155; import and use of 1 84 sqq. ; objective 185; and subjective 186; of remote dependence 187 sqq. ; of local and temporal reference (see below) 187 sq. ; of relationship 190, 593 ; several gov. one by another 190; separated from governing noun 155, 191 ; two of dif- ferent signif. (pers. and thing) 191 ; placed before its noun 192, 551 ; sup- posed use of irepf, airfj, ^k, irapd, iv, Kwri, fh in circumlocution for 192sq. ; with adjs. and parts. 194; after cTvoi or ylvscrdai 195 ; of separation and removal 196 ; with verbs of the senses, and of beginning, receiving, begging, giving etc. 197 sq. ; partitive 200 sqq. ; gov. by an adverb 203 ; partit. gen. as subject 203 ; with verbs of accusing, boasting, smelling 203 sq. ; with verbs of feeling, longing, remembering, car- ing for, ruling 204 sqq. ; of price 206 ; of place and of time 207 ; absol. 207, 544 ; of material 237 ; with the compar. 239 sq. ; of apposition 531. Georgi Ch. Sgm. 15. Giving verbs of, with the gen. 197. Grammar N. T., scope and treatment of 1 sq. ; history of 5 sqq. ; works upon 10 sq. ; grammat. peculiarities of later Gr. 26 sq. ; of the language of the N. T. 36 sq. Greek later, peculiarities of 20 sqq. Haab Ph. H. 6. Hebraisms opinions on 13 sqq. ; errors of writers concerning 29 sq.; definition of 30 ; perfect and imperfect 31 ; speci- fied 32 sqq. 38 sq. ; in connection with certain pronouns (irSs) 171 sq. ; els and 4v in supposed cu'cumlocution for the nom. 183; suppose(?Hebr. use of a, fem. adj. for neut. 238 ; supposed use of vUs etc. for adjs. (employed as subs.) 238; Hcbr. super!. 246; sup- posed Hebr. interchange of tenses 264 ; in use of imperatives 311. Hellenistic Dialect the term 28 ; its peculiarities cf. 22 sqq. Hendiadys 630. Heterogeneous Structure 577 sq. Hiatus 40 sq. HypaUage 634. Hyperbaton 555 sq. Hypodiaatole the 46. Hypothetical Sentences, four kinds of etc. 291 sqq. Hysteron Proteron 553. Imperative the, 3d pers. plur. of 76; usual import of 310 ; permissive 311 ; two connected by xal 311 ; aor. and pres. distinguished in N. T. 313 sq. ; perfect 315 ; substitutes for 315 sq. Imperfect the use of 268 sqq. ; appar- ently for the aor. 269 ; never for the pluperf. 269 ; conjoined with the aor. 270 ; apparently for the pres. 270. Impersonal Verbs 522, 588. Indeclinable Words accent of 52 ; 61, 67. Indefinite (article) pron. (tIs) sometimes expressed by rfs 117 ; use of 170 ; po- sition of 170sq. ENGLISH INDEX. 647 Indicative the, distinguished from the i subjunc. and the opt. 281 ; imperf. sometimes used for our subjunc. 282 ; pres. in direct questions to be distin- guished from the subjunc. 284 ; after particles of design 289 ; with idii 295 ; with particles of time 296 ; with inter- rogatives in indirect quest. 298 ; after el, cl &pa, eftrois 300 ; in the orat. obliq. 301 ; with S(pe\ov 301 sq. ; with &v 302 sqq. Infinitive the, for the imperat. 316 ; ep- exegetic 318, 326 ; as the subject319 ; as the object 321 sq. ; in the oblique cases, especially to express design 324 sq. ; with the art. 320, 323, 324 ; after iyeveTo 323 ; with 4aTi 320 sq. ; with the ace. 321, 323 ; with toO 324 sqq. ; with Tip 328; with preps. 328 sq.; after irpiv 330 ; pres. and aor. dis- tinguished in N. T. 330 sq. ; perf. 331, 334 ; with iie\Ketv 37, 333 ; 'li/a some- times used for 320, 334 sqq. ; some- times gives place to a clause with et, idy etc. 320; in modem Gr. 336 ; act. apparently for pass. 339 ; after 3ti 339, 573 ; in imitation of Hebr. infin. absol. 339 ; as a means of connection 543. Interjections 356. Interrogative, neut. of tIs used adver- bially 142 ; particles, how construed 298,508 sqq.; clauses 543, twointerrog. predicates blended 628. Interrupted Structure 561 sqq. Ionic forms 36, 62, 84 sq. Iota subscript 46 sq. Jews the, how learned Greek 20 sqq. ; Jewish Greek 27 sqq. Language two aspects of l ; of N. T. history of opinions concerning 12 sqq.; basis of 20 sqq. ; Hebrew-Aramaic tinge of 27 sq. ; grammatical character of 35 sqq. Latin its influence on Byzantine Greek 28 ; Lat. terminations of patronymics 95 ; words in N. T. Greek 103. Letters interchange of InAlex. orthog. 48. Lexicography i. Lexicology i. Masculine supposed to be used for the fem. 178. Metaplasms 6S. Middle Voice its force 252 sqq. ; of mental objects 253 ; in a new signifi- cation 253, 254 ; with ace. often has the pron. expressed 254 ; expressive of the subject's order or permission 254 ; in reciprocal sense 254 ; tenses sometimes in pass, sense 254 sq. ; ac- tive sometimes used for 255 ; act. and mid. sometimes interchangeable 256 ; with louTiji 257 ; apparently for active 258 ; mid. verbs to be distinguished from deponent 258 sq. ; too many verbs regarded as in 252. Moods lax use of with particles 36 ; use of in independent propositions 282 sq.; in dependent propositions 287 sqq. ; with particles of design 287 ; in hy- pothetical sentences 291 ; with parti- cles of time 296 ; with interrogatives 298 ; in oratio obliqua 300 ; with Sstc 301 ; with Sv 302 sqq. ; after condi- tional clauses 303 ; in relative clauses 306 ; in indirect questions 308 ; after particles of time 308. Cf. Imperative, Indicative, Infinitive, etc. Names of persons, from oxytones throw back the accent 51 ; indeclinable ac- cented on last 52 ; contracted 102 sq. ; vrith the art. 112 sq. Negation (473 sqq.) continued 487; un- conditional, in antithesis or followed by 4\\(i 496 ; in oaths expressed by El 500 ; in interrogative sentences 510. Negative Particles 473 sqq. ; objective and subjective 473 ; use of jiij 476 sq. ; in relative clauses with &v 480 ; with the infin. 481 ; with participles 482 ; in succession 487 sqq. ; after an affirm- ative sentence or followed by aWa 495 ; two in a single clause 498 ; with the moods 500 sqq. ; in dependent clauses 502 ; the intensive oti li^ 505 sq.", in interrog. sentences 510. Neuter used of persons 178 ; for the fem. 178 ; verbs connected with their pred. nouns by preps. 232 sq. ; plur., when joined to a sing, and when to a plur. verb 514; adj, used as subst. 517; 648 ENGLISH INDEX neut. adj. or part, referring to a whole clause 533. K". T. Grammar, Language, etc. see Grammar, Language etc. Nomiaative the, absolute 181, 574 ; titular 181 sq.; for the voc. 182; in exclamations 183, 532 ; supposed cir- cumlocution for by means of eis 183 ; by means of 4i> 184. ITouns, proper with altered accent 50 sq. ; derived from verbs 93 sq. ; in ftos 93 ; in |Ua and iris 93 ; in /iovri 93 ; derived from adjectives 94 sq. ; in ttjs 94 ; in oTTis 94 ; in force and use of 302 sqq. ; omission of 282, 305 sq. 307, 333, 595 , for 4dj> 291 ; in relative clauses 306 ; in indirect question 308. i,vd with the ace. 398 ; constr. of verbs compounded with 428. apd$a 79. ivdyKTi 30. avdee/ia 24, 32. aifadefiari^eLy 33. avaKaiv6ta 26. avoxd^Tmiv 251. avaKs7ij6ai 23. avaKXiveiv 23. avaveoicrdai 263. ava^tus 463. aydTTiaai 74. avaviirreiv 23. avaffTpetpeiv 251, 469. avdirTtuTis vexpuv 188. avdffTeiia 24. avaTtT^itv 251. avaTiSrifii 253. avaroKal 176. a;/eAeos 100. avetralffx'ii'Tos 236. S«i;471. avexo/iai augm. of 72 ; forms of 83. ap^p {^oveis etc.) 30 ; without art. 122 ; &vSpes in addresses 610. aiiaprdveiv afiaprlay 225. aiiBpamdpeirKos 25, aviff'TTiiu (rircpnarivl S3 ; &vd(rTa19; hvaffids redundant ■! 608. amlya augm. of 72 ; forms of 83 ; i,v, robs o constr. of 297, 471. BoaX, 71 179. ^tt0ti6s 22. jSafcoi forms of 79. PdKiii'Tioi' form of 43. $d\\eu' 251 sq. $arTt(a constr. of 216, 217, 412 ; mid. 254, 255, 621 ; $airT. Tivit tis ti 622. fidirTuriia 25, 35, 93. ^airTuriiis 621. /SopEfti 24 ; forms of 83. fiaaiKfietv constr. of 180, 206. fiaai\uT forms of 84 ; 251. p\a(ri)>r]neiy constr. of 222, 629. )3\^ir6iv owrd 39 ; ti 223 ; els 233. /3o5v constr. of 212. /Bdo-KEO-eai 252. $ovKeiea0ai 254. $oi\ona in the preterite 278. ypTiyopu 26, 92. yvfitnrfT€vety 25. ywttiKdpiov 96. yvvii ellipsis of 190. Sai/uty, Scu/jLona 23, 239. ^ai/tS spelling of 44. it meaning and use of 441, 443 ; distin- guished from aWd 441 sq. ; piiv . . . Se 441, 443 ; oi {fiii) . . . Se 442 ; ailirai . . . Se442 ; Kai . . . Se 443 ; S^ . . . koT 443 ; never means therefore 452 ; nor for 452 ; nor is it a mere particle of transi- tion 453 ; as related to ydp 456 ; after a single neg. 495, 539 sq. ; position of 558 ; introducing parenth. 562. Sfiyiiwrt^eiv 25, 26. Seiiryos, i 65. SeKarovv 24. Be|ii£ without art. 122 ; rh Sefn^ 176. Sc^io\a$etv 102. Sf^to\d0os 101. SfOfiai constr. of 198. Sepfidrivos 26. Sc(rii6s plnr. forms of 63. SE^cpsK 250. SevTep6irpti>Tos 100. $4 with imperat. 313. Ar)/uas 103. Std with gen. 377 sq. 423 sq. ; with verbs of praising etc. 378 ; denoting the causa principalis 1 378 ; used of time 380 ; with ace. 398 sq. ; in circumlocutions 423; construction of verbs compounded with 431. SmPe0at6oi 253. Sid$o\os without art. 124. Sidyeiv sc. rhy pioy 593. 8io9i)Kai 177. Sia6^Kiiy SiaTleea-eat 225. SioKoveiy 593. SioAAcuro'EU' constr. of 206. ZumaparptPii 102. SimrA.Eii' with ace. 431. itaitovftaBat 23. StmropfieaBai constr. of 431. SuuTKopnl^eiy 25. SiaTpi$eiy sc. rhy XP^'"'" 593. SiSda-Kcty riyl 223 ; iy 227. S(So>;bi forms of 78, 79, 84 ; constr. of. 180, 197, 198. Sieyflpeiy 102. Siepxea-Bai with ace. and with Std 431. SiKcuoKpuria 25, 99. SIkoios iK irUmws 136. SiKotoo-iyri 32 ; etc. 35 ; without art. 120 ; flcoD 186 ; Ttlareas 186. Si6 445. Stiri 445. Su>pitT and eourp with the mid. 257. iydiiTiaa 84. lyyis constr. of 195, 471; iyyiis elvai 465. ^yeipOfjLCU 252. iyeytlBtjv 84. iyKaiyia 176. #7/fai;/^^eu/ 33. ^VKoXeri/ constr. of 203, 431 . iyKsyrpi^eiv constr. of 430. syKparevofiat 25. ^ypa^a equiv. to ypi^a 278. 4y 603. iayaixl^eiv 102. ^Ksifor iKetae 471. iRe'ivos with noun and art. 110 ; referring to the nearest subject 157 ; position of 157, 162; repeated 160. lKe7ffe for iKe'i 472. 4KepSri forms of 86. eWiivl(etv, IXXjiwot^s 28, 94. eXir/feii' constr. of 233, 321, 331, 410. ili6s used objectiyely 153. ifiiropcieffBtu constr. of 222, 429. ^fiirpotrdGV 471. iy anABethessentiael84,513 ; hebraistically for ace. of object 1 226 ; in alleged circumloc. for gen. 193; alleged sign of the dat. 217; 4v Xpurr^ 359, 360, 388, 390 ; with dat. in local use 384 ; temporal 385 ; fig. uses 386 sq. ; ap- parently with gen. 384 ; iy ^, ev roirtp 387; distinguished from SieJ 389; 4v ov6iueti TWOS 390 ; used for eis ? 413sq. 41 5 ; originally identical with els 416; in adverbial and other circumlocu- tions 424 ; construction of verbs com- pounded with 429. evaros 43. iySiffaaSiu XpurT6y 30. eyeyKas 90. f«Ko forms of 43 ; with infin. 329, iviitaifyi 88. iyepyeiy 258, 430. iyexfiv sc. x^^"'' ' ^93. &£ 80, 423. iyyeyffKoyTa 43. iyyeSs or iye6s 44. evoxos constr. of 180, 202, 210, 213. eyraKfjLa 25. iyrevSey looking forwards 161. ivrpeireaeai constr. of 221, 429. iyrpvipay constr. of 430. 83 iv^tov 214 ; ToD flcoB 32. iym-l^eaeai 33. i^dyeiy Ifu 603. iiayaTfWety 102. iiiwiya 24. H^affrpdiTTety 102. i^eKpijiero 87. i^4yev(T€ 91. i^cpxetrBai iie rr/s 6(r/w 102, 250. *E7ra^pas 103. eVef 448 ; with indic. pres. 283. isrei &pa 445. iiretH 448. itret^ilTTep 448. ^irrf iU^ 480. iireiirep 448. ^iretra juctA touto 603. iiTfKtiya accent 52. ejreKTeiye(r6ai constr. of 431. ewfitijia equiv. to ire/jirai 278. iirevSvTtis 25. iirexety 593. iirripedCeiy constr. of 221. M with gen. 374 ; with dat. 392 ; i(ecia, iptSeia 51, 94. cpu inflection 65. 'Epnas 103. ifi^ilBTiv, i^^ie-nv 85. Ipxomoi forms of 86 ; ipx^Tox &pa, Iva 339 ; & ipX&^ivo^ 341. ^pcDToK 22, 30, 32, 335. drOriffis 23. .i(rela forms of 86 ; constr. of 180, 198 sq. .^o-flco 23, 86. .iariviu 78. .?(rxaTos without art. 131. •ivxiTus 463 ; ?x^"' 26. Ifl-a not elfo-a) 52 ; 471, 472. .itrdrcpos 69. 4repos in appos. 530 ; ircpip, iv 592. f Ti in comparison 240 ; position of 553. fToiiios accent 52 ; witli aor. iniln. 332. iTol/Aus 463. eu augm. of verbs beginning with 71. tiayyel^lieiv 24, 35 ; aug. of 71 ; constr. of 180, 213, 223, 227, 229, 260. fiiayyeKiov rod Xpiffrov 186. evapeffTas 463. tliSoKuv 25, 101, 212, 222, 232. evBeas position of 554. tv06fiMS 463. eiwepiffraTos 236. eiiKoyeiif 32. (ipiixi\v 86. jeipioKO) forms of 86 ; constr. of 219 ; eipi- aKeaBai for eTcsi'? 616. s^o'X'^A"'"' 23. Zirvxos accent 51. tixapiffTuv 23, 222. eSxeaetu aug. of 71 ; 212, 259. -euo) verbs in 92. iipinai 422 l">' V/'^^Pt 463. Tlni 297. ?fo 87. ^pf/ios 70. -TipioK substantives in 96. ^pX^tvi\v 86. 'HpwSiaftfs 95. lis for ^ffflo 80. ^Toi . . . ff 440. QTTiia/iat 260. ^Toi 79. GREEK INDEX. 659 ll^K 81. Jixos, t6 65. e&Kaaaa without art. 121. iaKKa 87. eilifios, gen. ein^ov 66. BavarTjtpipos 101. eivaros 29 ; without art. 122. SaviiiCeii/ constr. of 232. Bedo/iot 259. eearpiCeiv 25, 26. 6e6'jn'euaTos 96. eeX» with inf. 37, 321, 327, 333 ; fle'Aa ij malle 241 ; not for '($»' 592 ; Keyiis 463. KepafilKSs 99. Kepdvvvfj.L 87. He(pa\ls 23. HEpas inflection 65. KepSaivQ) 87. K^pul or Kjjpul ? 50. Kivdofuu 252. K\a(a 87 ; constr. of 222. icA.ai' rbi/ &pTOV 35. K\ul>(TU 87. K\eis inflection 65. KXeietv Ti &ir(J rivos 622. KA.€(!iror 103. KKetrrw 87. KAEl/zClf 87. K\7ipovoii.e7y constr. of 200. ol K\7]T0l 35. kAi'^ovoi 22. KKifjLo. ace. 50. K\ivdpiov 96. ^K KoiX/as fl7JTp6s 33. Koijiacreai 267 ; perf. 274. Koi>s 26 ; without art. 123. Kpd$$aTos 25, 43. Kpcifa 87, 274 ; 3d fut. pass. 279. Kpa^w 87. Kpareiv constr. of 202. Kpe'os inflection 65. Kp4fiajxai 87. KpTfxa accent 50. Kpo^eiv 593. KpiwToi 88 ; constr. of 227 ; mid. 253 ; ti airS Ttvos 622. Rrdoiioi 260 ; perf. 274. KTiVis 32 ; without art. 123. KTKTTp, KriaTT) 51. kt(o-ti)s accent 51, 94 ; without art. 122. KvpiaxSs 236. uipios Kvplav 18 ; without art. 124. Kiu and kvc'iv 88. Ka)\ieiv with gen. 196. Kiis, Kai 62. \a$4, \d$e 49. Aa;3(ij' pleonastic ? 607. A«7X<^'''"' constr. of 200. \d0pa 47. AaiXoif not \at\tali 50. AoXid 23. \a\e7v y\ai6s without art. 121 ; oipavol 176. oStc . . . otfre 487 sq. 540 ; oSte . . . oCte . . . Kol oil 489 ; oSre after ou 490 ; oCte ... ^ 491 ; o«TE after oASe'? 492 ; diflf. between and oJSe 494 ; oSre ... ko( 494. bStos with a noun and art. 110; remote reference of 157 ; repetition of 159 sq.; looking forwards 161 ; in expressions of time 161 ; position of 162, 548 ; TauTal62; toSts ir{£vTO 548. oSrais and ouTai41 ; repeated 160; looking forwards 161 ; for oStos ? 465 ; before apod. 541 ; after condit. clauses 541 ; with part. 541 ; in anaphora 618. oipeiKiiiia 32 ; o0eiX'^/»oto atpUvai 30, 33. 80eAov constr. of 301 sq. otfidpiov 23. 0^4 471. 8<|'7)O'0E 88. 6ov 604 ; inaBey 604. vaviox^vs 25. vcwoikI 26, 44. irivra raura and raura irivra 548. •advmiy irdvrp 47. irdiiTwv vrith the compar. 242 ; with the superl. 248. irtCi/ToTE 26. rapi in comparisons 240 ; distinguished from a-iri 364 sq. ; after passives 365 ; with gen. 365 sq. ; with dat. 394 ; with ace. 403 ; constr. of verbs compounded vrith 432. rapafidTris 26. napa$o\e{i€irdai 93. vapaSiaTpiPi) 102. vapaSiioaOcu absol. 35. irapaS^imi, TrapcucaTaSfimi 102. vapcuveiv constr. of 223. irapaHoXEiv 22 ; with infin. 332 ; constr. with 335. jrapa\apiPdytui els 622. vapairKijaiov 471. TrapaaKevd^oiuu 253. iraptvppovia 24. irapeiiPo\4i 22. vapdxftv, vaptx^irBiu 257. TlapfjLcvas 103. ■jraf^iicrla 23. irSs art. with HI ; irSs . . . ou (/t^) 172 ; •sdvri) and irdtn-ri 47 ; irdvTa and tA 664 ^EX. irivTa 116; ^ me compar. 242 ; with lae superl. 248 ; iriina TouTa and TaOra irdvra 548 ; iravrlj 4y 592. vdaxa 68. Ttiffx^iv 35, 594 ; constr. of 412. irarfip without art. 122 ; ellipsis of 190. vaTpidpxns 26. Tlav\os use of art. with 113. iraieaiat with gen. 196, 262 ; vaio/Mi mid. 253, 263. vaxifeLv 18. ttMuv Iva 338. Tii9o)uu 253. TTciflifj 24, 96. ■nvvav etc. 77 ; constr. of 204 sq. ireipdio 91. TtiuriJLOirl) 93 sq. ire\a70s ttJs 6ak6,fftri)s 611. ire^EK^^u 26. Tr4/ara in the preterite 278. WeVTCKOfTT^ 26. veTretpa/jLevos 91. ireTToiflo constr. of 214, 233, 410. weiro/flT^fl'W 25. irepara ttjs yijs 30. iTfp/ in circumlocutions ? 192 sq. ; with gen. 372 ; distinguished from inr4p 373, 41 1 sq. ; with ace. 406 ; constr. of verbs compounded with 432. nepidyeiv 257. TTcpUei/Juu constr. of 229. ncpiTrare^i/ 32. wepiffvaffBai 23. irepiaaoTipus 70, 243. veTi.oii.ai 24. iTETO^ai 88. irrixSiy 65. irii(^ii) 22. irUffiu 88. niA.STos accent 52 ; use of art. with 113. iriVoj 88 ; fut. ttIoiuu 90. iriiTTa 89. jruTTeieii/ constr. of 213, 229, 233, 260. vtaTiK6s 97. TtldTis etc. 35 ; without art. 120. irKaTivitv t^v KapSiav 30. irA.eo' with ace. 224. ir\6'oj» 596. 5rAeo«{fo without art. 120. irATjl^ ellipsis of 589. wK-liv 508. nKnpovv, irKTipovaBai 180, 201, 217, 260, ir\7ipoopla 25. TrKi)4ptiv constr. of 427, 432, 593. irpos^uvttv with dat. 36 ; and ace. 432. GREEK INDEX. 665 irpojttiiroA.7jirTeo/ 33, 48, 101. vpOfTUTrQ\-flirT7]i 101. irpo 24, 74. ^diriiTfia 25. pa^ts 25. peiffa 89. ^EQ) 89. pTJlia without art. 123. {S^o-o-u 22. ftieadca. constr. of 197. pipL-i) 22, 23. 'VdiiTi use of art. with 112. T and s 41 sq. aipPoTov inflec. 63; ret o-tf/S. 177. iraA.7r/fai 89 ; aoKitlQci so. i5 aa\Tr. 522. SajiuCpcu art. with 112. (rdpKivos and trapKtK6s 98. iraira ircipj 33. aapovv 24. aeffd^eaeai 23. (rnnatvu 89. inflec. and accent 67. ^iravia 25. (TTreipTis 62. (TJrepfjLa 30. amXos 25. ffirAci'yx'"" 18; with gen. 611. (nKayxvl^eaeai 30, 33 ; constr. of 221, 233. fftrovSd^u 89. ffTdfjivos 23. aTtyav 23. (TT^Ku 24, 26 ; with dat. 210. OTTripl^w 89 ; UTtipl^eiv vpSaomov auroS 33. irT(J;i«i 18, 30. arpi(peiv for an adverb ? 469. ffrpriviav 25. ffrpuvvveiv eavT^ 594. o-ii when expressed 152. (rtryyei/ts 69. (TvyKpheiv 23. (TvyKupia 24. irvAXajUjSiii'cii' concipere 593. aviifidWeiv Ttvl or 5rp(Js Ttyo SC. Adyous 593. (7v/ifia6iiT-fis 25. (n;|U7ro\fT7)s 25. poiTii>ri 26, 99. raTTfivSippuv 236. raprapovv 25. toSto referring to a single object 162 ; Taura iriij/Ta and irdi/Ta ravra 548. Tttxiis comparison of 69. re distinguished from xal 434 ; re ... re 439 ; Tc . . . 5e' 439 ; Te kuI 489 ; re ydp 448, 539 sq. ; position of 559 ; with vpwTov 576. reKvlov accent 52. rcKvov with gen. of abstracts 238. TcXcViii fut. 77. Ttpfls 65. 666 GEEEK INDEX. reffffepes etc. 43. Tereuxe 89. -Trjs, -oTTji substantives in 94. rlBriiu forms of 78. Tt/iay accent 51. rls, Ti in indirect quest, and for the relat. 168 sq. ; for ir6repos 169 ; tIs 4(Ttiv Ss with indie. 300, and o6 481 ; rl used adverbially 142 ; in exclamations 142 ; Ti Sti 585. Tis, Ti (indef.) not used for elf tis 169; with substs. and adjs. 170 sq.; position of 170, 559; ti aliquid {magni) 170 ; tov, TO not used in N. T. 171 ; ti as ace. with verbs 227. TItos and TTtoj 52 ; never has art. 113. t6 before entire clauses 109 ; before a word as a sound 109, 179 ; before the infin. 320 ; rh ^| fi^wv and the like 230. Toi 434. TOtyapouy 445. Toivvv 445, 559. toioCtos use of art. with 111. TO\imv alleged pleonasm of 612 sq. -Tos verbals in 96 sq. tiSte as a connective 540; before apod. 541. toSto used adverbially 142 ; toIto likv . . . TovTo S4 so used 142 ; tout" Icttw ep- exegetical 530. rpirov 250. Tp6(j>iiios accent 51. rpox^s accent 54. Tpads use of art. with 112. rvyxdi/u 89 ; constr. of 200 ; supposed to be pleonastic 609. rvx^f 355. -Tua-ay in imperat. 76 sq. t!a\0! 22. i0pl(eiv with the aec. iyiTJ accusative 64. SSup ellipsis of 591. ieT6s ellipsis of 592. vths eavirou 33 ; vl6s with abstr. gen. 238 ; supposed to be omitted 190, 593 ; 6 vihs ToC &,v0peiB6s 96. fpepco 90. eiyeiv constr. of 223. *i)\ij accent 52. (jyriirl sc. 6 ee6s 522, 588 ; in direct discourse 558 ; ellipsis of, or of etpri 598. ^edyeiv 23, 90. <^id\i) 22. (poPela-Bai constr. of 223. otvi^ or (poiyi^ t 50. v\axiCu> 26. ipv\aKTi)piov 26. ^vXdiraeiv vS/jiov 30 ; (jivXaxis 225 ; p(t ellipsis of 591 . Xisp^fcu' constr. of 197. Xapis 471 ; x*p'* Tii/os elvoi 465. ^EiS5e(r6ai constr. 212. ^cS(r^a 24. iana ^ri in the ace. 62. uilv 65. uecu 90. &v as an imperf. part. 341. ayeofiai aug. of 70, 90. avriadiiiiv 70, 90. urdptov 24, 96. Spo without art. 124 ; ellipsis of 591 sq. Sip^liriv 88. iis (not &s 462) constr. of 296, 448, 449 ; with Infin. 318 ; always as (not oSras) 462 ; before a series 519 ; before a pred. 527 ; supposed pleonastic 617 ; force of, particularly before gen. abs. 617 ; with a prep, of direction 617 sq.; Sis . . . Kat 440 ; iis 8ti 618 ; is (Ssirep) . . . oVtus 440 ; is tv 308, 309 note ; lis eiros eiweiv 317, 449. aardfiTiv 71. SsiTfp in prot. without apod. 599. ffisTe constr. of 301, 318, 327 ; with a neg- atiye 480. arlov 25. oKpeKflv constr. of 227. ii tj 465*, 527, 616* Matt. iii. 14 269, 436* Matt. i. 19 330 Matt. iii. 15 269 Matt. i. 20 391*, 401* Matt. iii. 16 147*, 151*, 369* Matt. i. 21 141, 150, 182 Matt. iii. 17 132, 232, 278*, 586 Matt. i. 22 461, 562, 563 Matt. i. 24 436 Matt. iv. 1 106*, 374, 392, 428 Matt. i. 25 107 , 182, 296, 436 Matt. iv. 3 Matt. iv. 4 87, 334*, 541 280*, 377, 389*, 392 Matt. ii. 1 113, 139 Matt. iv. 5 622 Matt. u. 2 55, 155, 318*, 446* Matt. iv. 6 373 Matt. ii. 3 68, 111* , 113, 344, 376 Matt. iv. 10 210 Matt. ii. 4 75, 110, 266*, 365 Matt. iv. 11 521 Matt. ii. 6 114, 429 Matt. iv. 12 428 Matt. ii. 7 106 Matt. iv. 15 121, 187* 231*, 590 Matt. ii. 8 287, 607 Matt. iv. 16 147, 247, 602 Matt. ii. 9 104 ,275 , 296, 473, 542 Matt. iv. 17 422 Matt. ii. 10 66, 224 Matt. iv. 18 177, 403*, 417*, 446 Matt. u. 12 260, 428, 481 Matt. iv. 19 228, 606 Matt. ii. 13 79, 267, 434 Matt. iv. 21 113, 132. 190 Matt. ii. 14 104, 428 Matt. iv. 23 131, 132, 145, 186, 426, 539 Matt. ii. 16 365, 370, 401* Matt. iv. 24 110, 436, 527, 539 Matt. u. 17 61 Matt. iv. 25 67, 420, 520, 539 Matt. ii. 18 222 Matt. ii. 20 175, 446* Matt. V. 1 115, 428 Matt. ii. 22 206, 260, 364* , 375, 471, 472 Matt. V. 2 Matt. V. 3 608 195, 215, 551, 585 Matt. iii. 3 61 Matt. V. 4 200, 551 Matt. iU. 4 108, 370, 406*, 523 Matt. V. 5 551, 585 668 N. T. INDEX. 669 Matt. V. 6 205*, 551, 585 Matt. vi. 18 477 Matt. T. 7 551, 585 Matt vi. 19 501, 594* Matt. V. 8 215, 551, 585 Matt. vi. 20 488, 489 Matt. V. 9 122 , 22S , 551, 585, 615 Matt. vi. 22 114 Matt. T. 10 120, 551, 585 Matt. vi. 24 116, 202, 440 Matt. V. 11 222, 551 Matt vi. 25 15t , 209, 299, 488 Matt. T. 13 114 , 293, 388, 541 Matt vi. 26 57, 430, 487*, 514 Matt. T. 15 78,436 Matt. vi. 27 432 Matt V. 16 287 Matt vi. 28 373, 488 Matt. V. 17 127 Matt. vi. 29 110 Matt. V. 18 172. 432 506, 518, 542, Matt. vi. 30 341 »> »» »> 552, 612* Matt vi. 31 519 Matt. V. 19 160, 246' , 310, 543, 615 Matt. vi. 32 200, 548* Matt V. 20 245*, 477, 506 Matt vi. 34 209, 517, 590 Matt. V. 21 85, 210, 219» , 316, 502, 522 Matt T. 22 111*. 209, 213*. 455, 621 Matt. vii. 1 476, 477, 501 Matt V. 23 455* Matt vii. 2 165, 388 , 412, 429, 522 Matt. V. 25 79, 296* 502 Matt. vii. 4 285, 429 Matt. V. 26 506 Matt. vii. 6 388, 487* 503 Matt. T. 27 316 Matt. vii. 7 57, 522, 552, 593* Matt. V. 28 204 Matt. vii. 8 266 Matt. V. 31 85 Matt. vu. 9 169*, 227, 310, 512* 568, 628 Matt. V. 32 56, 496 Matt vii. 10 440, 441* Matt. T. 33 85, 86, 316 Matt. vii. 11 139 Matt. T. 34 222, 389*, 481, 488 Matt. vii. 12 336*, 455 Matt. T. 35 397* Matt. vii. 13 73 Matt. T. 36 76, 490 Matt. vii. 14 143* Matt. V. 37 476 Matt. vii. 15 384 Matt. V. 38 588, 598* Matt vii. 16 279*, 370, 372*, 411,420, Matt. T. 39 168, 280* 481 tt 317*, 620 Mark xvi. 4 ■ 271,446 Mark xiv. 51 118 Mark xvi. 5 345* Mark xiv. 52 223 Mark xvi. 6 538 Mark xiv. 53 215* Mark xvi. 7 438, 521 Mark xiv. 54 348, 433 Mark xvi. 8 452* Mark xiv. 55 71, 270 Mark xvi. 9 73 Mark xiv. 58 345 Mark xvi. 11 259 Mark xiv. 60 118 123, 511 Mark xvi. 12 12i Mark xiv. 61 261 Mark xvi. 15 124, 314 Mark xiv. 64 199 Mark xvi. 17 524 Mark xiv. 65 430 Mark xVi. 18 606 Mark xiv. 67 80, 145 Mark xvi. 19 428 Mark xiv. 68 490 Mark xiv. 69 79 Luke i. 1 276*. 448*, 541, 545, 613* Mark xiv. 71 88 Luke i. 2 545 Mark xiv. 72 205 Luke i. 3 Luke i. 4 545 165, 288 Mark xv. 1 113, 128* Luke i. 5 125 Mark xv. 2 114 Luke i. 6 127 Mark xv. 3 203 Luke i. 8 329, 608 Mark xv. 4 499 Luke i. 9 50, 200* 319, 321, 324, 353* Mark xv. 5 499 Luke i. 12 430 Mark. XV. 6 269 Luke i. 13 182 Mark xv. 7 73 Luke i. 14 90, 211, 232 Mark xv. 8 584* Luke i. 15 68, 506 Mark xv. 10 72 Luke i. 17 318, 61, 146, 432 Mark xv. 12 165, 222 Luke i. 18 ' 152 Mark XV. 13 144 Luke i. 20 164, 349, 364* 486*, 610 Mark xv. 14 113 Luke i. 21 ^32* 515 Mark xv. 1 5 113 Luke i. 22 70; 150* Mark xv. 16 166* Luke i. 23 296, 540 Mark xv. 17 78, 226 Luke i. 24 ' ■' 88 Mark xv. 19 430 Luke i. 2fe 57, 422, 445 Mark xv. 21 121* Luke i. 26 ' "■ 219 Mark xv. 24 408*, 628 Luke i. 27 73 Mark xv. 25 57, 124, 126, 436*, 539 Luke i. 28 585 Mark xv. 30 79, 313 Luke i. 29 161, 299 Mark XV. 31 331, 571 Luke i. 30 . 365* Mark xv. 33 126 Luke i. 31 593*, 607* Mark xv. 34 226 Luke'i. 32 113 Mark xv. 38 603 Luke i. 33 206, 409 Mark xv. 39 591* Luke i. 34 480 Mark xv. 40 190, 603 Luke i. 35 178, 430 Mark xv. 41 140 Luke i. 36 64, 69, 110 Mark xv. 43 113, 348 Luke i. 37 171, 173*, 280*, 395 Mark xv. 44 272* , 298, 542 Luke i. 38 427 Mark xv. 45 113 , 365, 371 Mark xiv. Luke i. 39 70 269 591, 608 680 N. T. ENDEX. Luke i. 40 61 Luke ii. 28 Lake i. 41 608 Luke ii. 30 Luke i. 42 246*, 551 Luke ii. 31 Luke i. 43 337*, 338 Luke ii. 33 Luke i. 44 386 Luke ii. 34 Luke i. 45 585 Luke ii. 35 Luke i. 46 639 Luke ii. 36 Luke i. 47 393, 639 Luke ii. 37 Luke i. 48 75, 430 Luke ii. 39 Luke i. 51 125, 277* 388 Luke ii. 41 Luke i. 53 201, 228 Luke ii. 42 Luke i. 54 202 Luke ii. 44 Luke i. 55 562, 577* Luke ii. 45 Luke i. 57 324 Luke ii. 46 Luke i. 58 128 Luke ii. 48 Luke i. 59 228, 269*, 394*, 410 Luke i. 62 109, 308* Luke iii. 1 Luke i. 64 72, 622* Luke iii. 2 Luke i. 66 174 liuke iii. 5 Luke i. 67 71 Luke iii. 7 Luke i. 68 469*, 551 Lnke iii. 8 Luke i. 70 132 , 562, 606 Luke iii. 10 Luke i. 72 164 , 205, 376 Luke iii. 1 1 Luke i. 73 164, 225, 226, 326*, 577, 628* Luke iii. 13 Luke i. 74 197, 627 Luke iii. 14 Luke i. 75 230 , 321, 386 Luke iii. 15 Luke i. 76 152, 432 , 607, 615 Luke iii. 16 Luke i. 78 611 Luke iii. 18 Luke i. 79 89, 431 Luke iii. 19 Luke iii. 20 Luke ii. 1 254*, 319, 365, 429 534, 608 Luke iii. 21 Luke ii. 2 244* Luke iii. 22 Luke ii. 4 125 329, 330, 364* Luke iii. 23 Lnke ii. 5 73 Luke iii. 27 Luke ii. 7 211*, 385 Luke iii. 29 Luke ii. 8 225 349, 409 Luke iii. 30 Luke ii. 10 208 Luke iii. 32 Luke ii. 11 125 Luke in. 37 Luke ii. 12 118, 345* Luke iv. 2 Luke ii. 13 68, 526 Luke iv. 3 Luke ii. 14 120 Luke iv. 6 Luke ii. 15 427 Luke iv. 7 Luke ii. 16 74 113, 439 Luke iv. 8 Luke ii. 17 132 Luke iv. 9 Luke ii. 18 232 Luke iv. 10 Luke ii. 20 57, 163 Luke iv. 12 Luke ii. 21 324, 329, 438*, 605* Luke iv. 14 Luke ii. 22 147*, 325 401, 428 Lukeiv. 15 Luke ii. 23 123, 562 Luke iv. 16 Luke ii. 24 123, 325 Luke iv. 18 Luke ii. 25 585 Luke iv. 20 Luke ii. 26 122 , 297, 481 Lnke iv. 22 Luke ii. 27 64, 325 Luke iv, 23 150* 607 174 400 519 184* ,397 310, 366, 462* 41, 138, 149, 604* 427 ,593 275 68, 215'' ,230 , 531 196 188*, 226* ,231 342, 344* ,484 199 276 ,518 61, 126, 138* 219 41,60 ,122 375 591 270 614 279 482 105 ,240 404 232 299 261, 412* 223, 525* 61 144 393 72 323 132 232 196, 349* 60 52,66 67 67 52 77 ,499 544 336 271* 214 291 210 118 326 316 382 145, 150, 353* 177 ,211, 217 43, 223, 272* 106 212, 237 847, 416*, 529 N. T. INDEX. 681 Lnke iv. 25 61, 63, 296, 408* Luke vi. 16 131, 190 Luke iv. 26 187, 508 Luke vi. 17 141, 259 Luke iv. 27 375 Luke vi. 18 371* Luke iv. 29 71, 118, 329, 374, 603 Luke vi. 19 268 330, 515 Luke iv. 30 378 Lnke vi. 20 143 396, 607 Luke iv. 31 348 Luke vi. 21 84 Luke iv. 32 232 Luke vi. 23 121 268, 558 Luke iv. 34 234, 626 Luke vi. 25 87 Luke iv. 35 50, 123, 227, 344*, 483*, 544 Luke vi. 27 222 Luke iv. 36 386, 584 Luke vi. 29 501 Luke iv. 38 621 Luke vi. 30 592* Luke iv. 40 84 120, 544 Luke vi. 31 540 Luke iv. 41 346, 514 Luke vi. 34 295 , 331, 428 Luke iv. 42 325 471, 604 Luke vi. 35 Luke vi. 37 45, 118 , 409, 477 506 Luke V. 1 199 348 , 404, 608 Luke vi. 38 112 , 412, 525 Luke V. 2 404, 427 Luke vi. 39 511 Luke V. 3 335, 366* Luke vi. 42 150, 366*, 485 Luke V. 4 397*, 541, 580* Luke vi. 44 111 412, 488 Luke V. 5 394* Luke vi. 47 HI, 155 Luke V. 7 325 Luke vi. 48 73,225,330, 469*, 603 Luke V. 8 549 Luke vi. 49 483 Luke V. 9 163, 544 Luke V. 10 209 211 , 348, 571 Luke vii. 1 275 Luke V. 12 122 198 , 545, 608 Luke vii. 3 338 Luke V. 14 146*, 481 545 , 579, 598 Luke vii. 4 76 Lnke v. 15 268 , 371, 411 Lnke vii. 5 150* Luke V. 16 150, 413, 414* Luke vii. 6 61 Luke V. 17 146* 147 , 150, 436 Luke vii. 7 442, 595 Lnke v. 19 207* 428, 590 Luke vii. 8 349* Luke V. 20 80 Luke vii. 9 490, 493 Luke V. 21 465 Luke vii. 11 590 Luke V. 23 80 Luke vii. 12 211*, 296, 438*, 605 Luke V. 24 580 Lnke vii. 13 233 Luke V. 25 158, 408* Luke V. 27 182 Luke vii. 17 413, 414* Luke V. 29 66 Luke vii. 18 548 Luke V. 30 376 Luke vii. 19 341, 594 Luke V. 32 271* Lnke vii. 20 271 Luke V. 33 85 Luke vii. 21 323 Luke V. 36 430, 523 Luke vii. 22 123, 260 Luke V. 37 150 Luke vii. 25 Lnke vii. 29 227 110, 564* Luke vi. 1 100* 116 , 323, 431 Luke vii. 30 213*, 484 Lnke vi. 2 559 Luke vii. 31 564 Luke vi. 3 Luke vi. 6 296, 519 323 Luke vii. 33 Luke vii. 34 86, 483' 51, 86, 552 Luke vi. 7 253, 288 Luke vii. 36 11' , 270, 336 Luke vi. 8 Luke vi. 10 Lukevi. 11 76, 123 72 303, 308* Luke vii. 37 Lnke vii. 39 Lnke vii. 42 26S , 344, 544 304*, 541 169, 240 582 1 m Luke vi. 12 185, 348 Luke vii. 43 Luke vi. 13 370, 432* Luke vii. 44 IIU 682 N. T. INDEX. Luke vii. 45 345, 592 Luke ix. 13 116, 239, 294*, 516* Luke vii. 47 80, 132, 456* Luke ix. 14 229*, 464 Luke vii. 50 143, 271 Luke ix. 16 Luke ix. 19 106, 116,340,344,428 105*, 138 Luke viii. 2 514 Luke ix. 20 549 Luke viii. 3 138 340, 366 Luke ix. 22 83, 371* Luke viii. 5 105, 225 333, 576 Luke ix. 25 87, 253 Luke viii. 6 90, 482 Luke ix. 26 543 Luke viii. 7 90, 123 Luke ix. 27 198* 308, 506 Luke viii. 8 90 132, 319 Luke ix. 28 58, 116, 516*, 563 Luke viii. 9 270, 299 Luke ix. 31 70 Luke viii. 12 287 Luke ix. 32 83, 340 Luke viii. 13 405* Luke ix. 33 66, 319 Luke viii. 14 369 Luke ix. 34 431* Luke viii. 15 524 Luke ix. 36 76, 158, 385 Luke viii. 16 376 Luke ix. 37 367, 623 Luke viii. 17 300, 307*, 481 Luke ix. 39 427 Luke viii. 18 306, 480* 613* Luke ix. 40 70, 336 Luke viii. 19 70 Luke ix. 41 83 Luke viii. 20 588* Luke ix. 42 544 Luke viii. 21 105 Luke ix. 45 370, 459* Luke viii. 22 285, 519 Luke ix. 46 244, 308, 413 Luke viii. 23 270 Luke ix. 47 ■ 202, 395 Luke viii. 24 128, 610 Luke ix. 49 393* Luke viii. 25 445 Luke ix. 50 168 Luke viii. 28 198, 585 Luke ix. 51 150, 608 Luke viii. 29 63, 218* Luke ix. 52 318, 594*, 607 Luke viii. 30 514 Luke ix. 54 285* 431, 595 Luke viii. 31 336 Luke ix. 57 307 Luke viii. 32 311, 634 Luke ix. 61 362, 629 Luke viii. 34 416* Luke ix. 62 213; 430 Luke viii. 37 515 Luke viii. 38 514 Luke X. 1 70, 150, 249, 398, 472* 527, Luke viii. 39 400 Luke X. 2 270, 338, 559 Luke viii. 40 259 Luke X. 4 43, 493, 501 Luke viii. 41 268, 270 Luke X. 6 428, 429, 583 Luke viii. 43 213 , 386, 499 Luke X. 7 86, 106, 366* Luke viii. 46 346 Luke X. 8 306, 310, 579* Luke viii. 47 301 Luke X. 9 407* Luke viii. 48 549 Luke X. 11 253 Luke viii. 51 499 Luke X. 13 516* Luke viii. 52 222, 268 Luke X. 18 269 Luke viii. 53 268 Luke X. 19 274*, 499, 507 Luke viii, 54 182 , 183, 202 Luke X. 20 Luke X. 21 232, 387* 495*, 497 126, 209 Luke ix. 1 577 Luke X. 23 153 Luke ix. 3 316* 398 , 488, 489 Luke X. 24 153*, 330 Luke ix. 4 314 Luke X. 28 436 Luke ix. 5 480 Luke X. 29 130*, 437 Luke ix. 6 400 Luke X. 30 67, 344, 432, 543 Luke ix. 7 61, .123 Luke X. 32 400, 571 Luke ix. 9 153* Luke X. 34 206, 428 Luke ix. 12 25X*, 515 Luke X. 35 46, 143, 307 N. T. INDEX. 683 Luke X. 36 130* , 396, 430, Luke xii. 12 133 Luke X. 37 376, 456 Luke xii. 13 376 Luke X. 40 85,336 , 406, 432 Luke xii. 14 228, 409 Luke X. 41 610 Luke xii. 15 223, 367 Luke X. 42 246* , 427, 456 Luke xii. 16 Luke xii. 17 71, 78, 602 57, 472 Luke xi. 1 117,440 Luke xii. 18 155, 472* Luke xi. 2 309 Luke xii. 19 396 Luke xi. 3 97* Luke xii. 20 183, 218, 256* 522*, 588 Luke xi. 4 111 Luke xii. 21 397 Luke xi. 5 169, 280* 286 Luke xii. 24 94 Luke xi. 6 367* Luke xii. 26 478*, 490 Luke xi. 7 415 Luke xii. 27 493 Luke xi. 8 363, 45, 200* , 330, 479 Luke xii. 29 437 Luke xi. 10 111 Luke xii. 30 155, 456 , 548*, 549 Luke xi. 11 512, 568* Luke xii. 32 183 Luke xi. 12 295* Luke xii. 35 155 Luke xi. 13 629* Luke xii. 36 176, 367* Luke xi. 17 41, 173 Luke xii. 37 607, 608* Luke xi. 18 445* Luke xii. 42 410 Luke xi. 19 152 Luke xii. 44 393, 410 Luke xi. 20 292 Luke xii. 45 552, 614 Luke xi. 22 31,233 Luke xii. 46 422 Luke xi. 24 483* Luke xii. 47 162, 226, 405, 483* 589* Luke xi. 28 559 Luke xii. 48 164, 229, 522 Luke xi. 29 189* Luke xii. 49 143*, 448* Luke xi. 31 67 Luke xii. 50 297 Luke xi. 33 238* Luke xii. 51 442* Luke xi. 34 143 Luke xii. 53 392* Luke xi. 35 503 Luke xii. 54 116* 265 Luke xi. 36 308 Luke xii. 58 427, 454, 502 Luke xi. 37 74, 338 Luke xii. 59 506* Luke xi. 39 128 , 201, 522 Luke xi. 42 128, 251 Luke xiii. 1 376, 623* Luke xi- 44 84 Luke xiii. 2 240, 271* 404* 508 Luke xi. 46 226 Luke xiii. 4 385* Luke xi. 48 445, 457*, 558 Luke xiii. 7 169 Luke xi. 49 396, 589 Luke xiii. 8 297, 406 Luke xi. 50 123 410, 459 Luke xiii. 9 296* 583, 600* Luke xi. 51 129 Luke xiii. 11 250 424*, 486 Luke xi. 52 65, 74 Luke xiii. 12 183, 271 Luke xi. 53 593* Luke xiii. 13 Luke xiii. 14 73 58,218 Luke xii. 1 386* Luke xiii. 15 129 Luke xii. 2 441*, 481 Luke xiii. 16 197, 218, 250, 563 Luke xii. 3 364* Luke xiii. 17 429 Luke xii. 4 83, 162* Luke xiii. 18 456 Luke xii. 5 299 329, 429 Luke xiii. 19 125, 514 Luke xii. 6 172*, 510 Luke xiii. 22 256, 400 Xuke xii. 8 57, 144, 226*, 455* Luke xiii. 23 509 Luke xii. 9 259 Luke xiii. 24 563 Luke xii. 10 222, 397 Luke xiii. 27 110, 427 Luke xii. 11 128, 299, 407, 427* Luke xiu. 28 75, 88, 309 684 N. T. INDEX. Luke xiii. 29 Luke xiii. 32 Luke xiii. 33 Luke xiii. 34 60 590 590 83, 152, 330, 407 Luke xiU. 35 296, 298*, 456, 506, 508, 528 Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke xiv. 1 xiv. 3 xiv. 4 xiv. 5 xiv. 7 xiv. 8 xiv. 10 xiv. 12 xiv. 16 xiv. 18 xiv. 19 xiv. 20 xiv. 21 xiv. 23 xiv. 24 xiv. 26 xiv. 27 xiv. 30 xiv. 31 xiv. 32 xiv. 35 Luke XV. 2 Luke XV. 4 Luke XV. 6 Luke XV. 9 Luke XV. 14 Luke XV. 15 Luke XV. 16 Luke XV. 17 Luke XV. 18 Luke XV. 19 Luke XV. 23 Luke XV. 24 Luke XV. 25 Luke XV. 26 Luke XV. 28 Luke XV. 29 Luke XV. 30 218 128 143, 202, 521 169, 632 268* 593, 602 459, 503 69, 74, 428, 459* 488, 497 69 276*, 423, 545, 591* 259, 276* 84 128, 520 127 198, 482 126, 479 480 333 41, 384 465 213*, 488 426 297, 407 128, 256* 128, 256* 63, 400* 632 198*, 201, 370 201, 558 58, 608* 319, 337, 615 90 87 121, 199 117,169,299 270, 330, 456 125*, 230 155 Luke xvi. 2 76, 143, 521, 602, 614, 628* Luke xvi. 3 Luke xvi. 4 Luke xvi. 6 Luke xvi. 8 Luke xvi. 9 Luke xvi. 10 227, 346*, 427 196, 589 155, 188 203*, 237, 238, 240, 598* 367 59 Luke XV. 7 Luke xvi. 1 1 Luke xvi. 12 Luke xvi. 13 Luke xvi. 14 Luke xvi. 16 Luke xvi. 18 Luke xvi. 1 9 Luke xvi. 20 Luke xvi. 21 Luke xvi. 22 Luke xvi. 23 Luke xvi. 24 Luke xvi. 25 Luke xvi. 26 Luke xvi. 29 Luke xvi. 31 Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke Luke xvii. 1 xvii. 2 xvii. 4 xvii. 6 xvii. 7 xvii. 8 xvii. 10 xvii. 11 xvii. 12 xvii. 15 xvii. 16 xvii. 17 xvii. 18 xvii. 22 xvii. 23 xvii. 24 xvii. 25 xvii. 28 xvii. 31 xvii. 32 xvii. 33 xvii. 34 Luke xviii. 1 Luke xviii. 2 Luke xviii. 3 Luke xviii. 4 Luke xviii. 6 Luke xviii. 7 Luke xviii. 8 Luke xviii. 9 Luke xviii. 10 Luke xviii. 1 1 Luke xviii. 12 Luke xviii. 13 241* 549 550 64, 173, 332 134, 343 422 122* 229 72, 273* 201 176, 323 176*, 344 201 76 109, 287, 393*, 477, 629 67 123, 477 328, 482* 241*, 337, 432, 632 82, 203, 233 304 74 88, 89, 168, 297* 308* 112, 385 207 377 122 510 511*, 616* 45, 296 488, 501, 522 366, 407, 591 371 71, 268 578 205 310 116, 173, 266* 329* 116, 221 621 444, 479, 595 237 207, 212, 393, 494*, 506, 508, 552 510* 109, 301 173 58, 183, 440 203, 274* 330, 430, 500 N. T. INDEX. 685 Luke xviii. 14 241* Luke XX. 14 287 Luke xviii. 15 108 Luke XX. 16 500 Luke xviii. 17 506 Luke XX. 19 405 Luke xviii. 18 551 Luke XX. 20 128, 202*, 321 Luke xviii. 21 253 Luke XX. 22 509 Luke xviii. 25 319 Luke XX. 24 313, 582 Luke xviii. 27 116 Luke XX. 25 109 Luke xviii. 29 482, 519 Luke XX. 26 202, 232 Luke xviii. 30 506, 508 Luke XX. 27 532*, 604 Luke xviii 31 211* Luke XX. 34 92 Luke xviii. 34 147*, 227 Luke XX. 35 133, 200, 609* Luke xviii. 35 67, 404 Luke XX. 36 490*, 491 Luke xviii. 36 299 Luke XX. 37 63 Luke xviii. 39 150 Luke XX. 40 456, 499 Luke xviii. 40 207 Luke XX. 42 Luke XX. 43 81, 112 527, 605 Luke xix. 1 431 Luke XX. 46 468* Luke xix. 2 149, 150, 160* Luke XX. 47 86 Luke xix. 3 70, 268 371, 626 Luke xix. 4 207, 288, 429, 590, 603, 632* Luke xxi. 3 242 Luke xix. 5 333 Luke xxi. 4 340 Luke xix. 7 395* Luke xxi. 6 392, 574* Luke xix. 8 65 Luke xxi. 8 504 Luke xix. 1 1 468 Luke xxi. 11 439, 637 Luke xix. 13 125 Luke xxi. 12 84 Luke xix. 14 206 Luke xxi. 14 481 Luke xix. 15 152 275, 628 Luke xxi. 16 589 Luke xix. 16 72 Luke xxi. 18 364, 506 Luke xix. 1 7 79 Luke xxi. 19 274*, 313 Luke xix. 23 303* Luke xxi. 21 147* Luke xix. 27 206, 330 Luke xxi. 22 325 Luke xix. 28 428 Luke xxi. 23 128 Luke xix. 29 182 Luke xxi. 24 297, 348* Luke xix. 35 155 Luke xxi. 25 65, 120 , 121, 552 Luke xix. 36 384 Luke xxi. 26 371, 420*, 430 Luke xix. 37 163 164, 373, 395* , 516, 526 Luke xxi. 28 614 Luke xix. 39 85 Luke xxi. 30 372, 594* Luke xix. 40 87, 279* Luke xxi. 33 506 Luke xix. 41 222, 408 Luke xxi. 34 83, 464 Luke xix. 42 125, 197, 227, 438, 599* Luke xxi. 37 415 Luke xix. 43 436 Luke xix. 44 364* Luke xxii. 1 531 Luke xix. 46 228 Luke xxii. 2 109, 299 Luke xix. 47 550 Luke xxii. 6 324 Luke xix. 48 71,87 299, 429 Lnke xxii. 9 Luke xxii. 10 285 207 Luke XX. 2 85 , 441, 602 Luke xxii. 11 603 Luke XX. 4 420, 509 Luke xxii. 14 74, 519 Luke XX. 7 481 Luke xxii. 15 329 339, 466* Luke XX. 9 230 Luke xxii. 16 297, 499, 506, 508 Luke XX. 10 124, 199 Luke xxii. 18 1»» Luke XX. 1 1 468* Luke xxii. 19 116, 153*, 382 Luke XX. 12 105, 468 Luke xxii. 20 403, 411, 513 634, 635* 686 N. T. INDEX. Luke xxii. 21 374 Luke xxiii. 39 175 Luke xxii. 23 109, 299*, 445, 543 Luke xxiii. 40 112 Luke xxii. 24 244, 613* Luke xxiii. 41 159, 582* Luke xxii. 26 587* Luke xxiii. 42 205, 413 Luke xxii. 27 129, 169 Luke xxiii. 44 43, 436* Luke xxii. 30 86, 289 Luke xxiii. 45 131* Luke xxii. 31 325, 610 Luke xxiii. 46 125 Luke xxii. 32 89, 336 Luke xxiii. 48 344, 409 Luke xxii. 33 319, 420 Luke xxiii. 50 524, 528 Luke xxii. 34 507 Luke xxiii. 51 146*, 348 421, 563 Luke xxii. 35 43, 201 Luke xxiii. 53 499 Luke xxii. 36 43, 582* Luke xxiii. 56 276 Luke xxii. 37 109, 513 Luke xxii. 40 375* Luke xxiv. 1 207 248, 275 Luke xxii. 41 » 71, 230*, 427 Luke xxiv. 2 362, 364*, 369 Luke xxii. 42 76, 432, 600 Luke xxiv. 4 174 Luke xxii. 44 431 Luke xxiv. 5 175, 376 Luke xxii. 45 371 Luke xxiv. 10 131, 190 Luke xxii. 47 432 Luke xxiv. 11 233, 514 Luke xxii. 49 62, 279*, 341, 388, 509 Luke xxiv. 13 348, 557 Luke xxii. 50 118 Luke xxiv. 14 212, 268 Luke xxii. 51 201 Luke xxiv. 15 112, f50 Luke xxii. 52 74, 377, 407 Luke xxiv. 16 326 Luke xxii. 53 1.55, 207 Luke xxiv. 18 57, 103 , 112, 630 Luke xxii. 57 183 Luke xxiv. 19 523, 552 Luke xxii. 58 .178* Luke xxiv. 20 449 Luke xxii. 59 463 Luke xxiv. 21 114,254*,391*,444,559,625 Luke xxii. 61 430, 602 Luke xxiv. 23 484 Luke xxii. 66 275 Luke xxiv. 25 183 , 230, 324 Luke xxii. 68 506 Luke xxiv. 27 Luke xxiv. 28 268, 370, 420, 633* 472 Luke xxiii. 1 113, 515, 516 Luke xxiv. 29 121, 325, 405* Luke xxiii. 2 203, 604 Luke xxiv. 30 71 Luke xxiii. 4 128 Luke xxiv. 31 370 Luke xxiii. 5 621* Luke xxiv. 32 268, 348 Luke xxiii. 6 113, 298 Luke xxiv. 35 219, 386 Luke xxiii. 7 67, 428 Luke xxiv. 36 150 Luke xxiii. 8 367* Luke xxiv. 37 350 Luke xxiii. 9 261 Luke xxiv. 39 63, 552* Luke xxiii. 11 428 Luke xxiv.- 41 371 Luke xxiii. 12 129, 350*, 376, 405, 439, Luke xxiv. 42 199 1) » )i 467, 518 Luke xxiv. 46 123, 231* Luke xxiii. 13 113 Luke xxiv. 47 213, 393 396, 624* Luke xxiii. 14 180, 203, 431 Luke xxiv. 49 297 Lake xxiii. 15 219 Luke xxiv. 50 143, 603, 607* Luke xxiii. 26 121, 430 Luke xxiv. 51 428 Luke xxiii. 28 183, 222, 408 Luke xxiv. 52 210 Luke xxiii. 31 218, 285, 550 Luke xxiv. 53 349 Luke xxiii. 32 530* Luke xxiii. 33 122, 552 John i. 1 122*, 181, 365, 405, 551 Luke xxiii. 34 168 John i. 2 122, 124 Luke xxiii. 35 253 John i. 3 173 379*, 610 Luke xxiii. 38 392 John i. 4 114 N. T. INDEX. 687 John i 5 270 John ii. 10 110, 152, 524 John i 6 149, 350, 365*, 585 John ii. 11 61, 110 John i 7 458* John ii. 12 143, 230, 519 John i 8 114, 316*, 317* John ii. 13 539 John i 9 132, 349* John ii. 14 106, 128, 539 John i 10 609 Jolin ii. 15 429 , 439, 539, 559 John i 11 592* John ii. 16 314, 539 Jolin i 12 134 John ii. 17 89, 185 John i 13 177*, 488 John ii. 18 445* John i 14 122, 193, 201, 564*, 617*, 630 John ii. 19 312, 385*, 537 John i 15 222, 244*, 274 John ii. 20 71, 218, 250 John i 16 364*, 437* John ii. 21 531 John i 17 379*, 639 John ii. 22 123, 163, 627* John i .18 160, 341, 413, 415* John ii. 23 67, 68, 155 385, 410, 638 John i 19 438* John u. 24 143, 638 Johni 20 479, 545, 610 John ii. 25 115*, 339 John i 21 106, 114, 476 John i 22 620 John iii. 1 366, 563, 585 Johni 25 479*, 488, 491 Jolin iii. 2 84, 122, 527 Johni 26 217, 261, 412* 537 John iii. 3 537 John i 27 335, 337 John iii. 4 331, 537 John i 28 61 John iii. 5 537, 630 John i 29 266 John iii. 6 178, 639 John i 30 153, 244* John iii. 8 298 , 472, 510, 543 John i 31 217, 561 John iii. 9 537 John i 32 121, 266, 573 John iii. 10 114, 115* 537 Johni 33 408, 412*, 573 John iii. 11 437, 517, 561 John i 34 273* John iii. 12 235*, 478 Jolm i 36 430 John iii. 13 341*, 431, 537 Johni ;38 537 John iii. 14 106*, 540 Jolin i 39 105, 563 John iii. 16 133, 172* , 281, 301, 610 John i 40 230 , 268, 298, 537 John iii. 17 537, 540 John i 41 64 John iii. 18 272, 273, 474*, 480 John i 42 154, 537, 563 John iii. 19 129, 155, 630 John i 43 60, 153, 430 John iii. 20 111,639 Jolin i 44 266 , 313, 537, 563 John iii. 21 122, 155, 639 John i 45 61 John iii. 22 268, 376, 539, 593* John i 46 133 , 267, 537, 543 John iii. 23 144, 471, 514 John i 47 86, 551 John iii. 25 368 John i 49 329, 341 372, 537, 551 John iii. 26 212* John i 50 114 John iii. 27 499 John i 51 162, 239 John iii. 29 79, 199, 466* John i 52 537, 553 John iii. 30 John iii. 31 332, 537 537 John i . 1 61, 187, 540 John iii. 32 437, 537 John i .2 519, 540 John iii. 33 155, 537 John i .3 540 John iii. 34 424*, 543 John i .4 211 274, 537, 585 John iii. 35 414 John i . 5 307 John iii. 36 266* John i . 6 398* 401, 402, 523 John i . 7 201 313, 537, 539 John iv. 1 144* , 239, 268, 540 Johnii .8 313 , 314, 537, 540 John iv. 2 150, 444 John ii .9 8S, 198, 268 274, 343, 540 John iv. 4 383*, 540 N. T. INDEX. 5 113, 396, 444,471, 540 6 134, 367*, 392*, 540, 541, 562, 618* 7 537 8 288, 562 9 88, 152, 365, 523, 537 10 152*, 537, 562 11 132, 494*, 524, 537 12 239, 519 14. 199, 397*, 507 15 318, 488, 537 16 537 17 537 18 110, 464* 19 537, 551 20 384 21 183, 265, 296, 537 22 480, 538 23 111, 210, 420*, 424*, 448, 528 24 538, 551 25 308, 537 26 537, 582 27 376, 393*, 539 28 396, 444 29 114, 511 30 86 31 268, 545, 592* 33 511* 34 337*, 338, 537 35 313, 539, 589, 626, 641* 36 133, 459* 37 114, 363 38 272 39 134, 540, 550 40 177, 296, 335, 540 41 540, 619 42 114, 435, 540, 619* 43 106 44 447, 454* 45 134, 275, 410 46 61, 275 47 70, 155, 274, 336 48 65, 506, 507* 49 79, 330* 50 163, 537 51 207 52 230 53 422, 519, 582 54 604 Johnv. 1 118,125* John V. 2 112, 267*. 392*, 592* John V. 3 128, 520 John John f* John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John,: John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John V. 4 413* John V. 5 59, 230*, 250, 256* John V. 6 537 John V. 7 372, 386, 537, 599* John T. 8 314, 537 John V. 9 539 John V. 10 331, 340 John T. 11 64, 160, 228, 314 John V. 12 135 John V. 13 91, 268, 343 John V. 14 501 John T. 15 64, 268 John V. 16 268 John v. 18 154, 268 John V. 19 261, 306, 307, 543 John V. 20 242, 287 John V. 21 123, 440, 541 John V. 22 131, 548* John V. 23 475 John V. 24 273* John V. 25 199, 296 John V. 26 266 John V. 27 439* John V. 28 82 John V. 29 188, 354 John V. 30 495, 496, 499 John v. 32 109, 225, 513 John v. 35 114, 405, 614 John V. 36 133*, 245* John v. 37 488, 489 John V. 38 489* John T. 39 114 John V. 41 365 John V. 42 185, 263, 482, 626 John V. 43 390, 494, 537 John V. 44 152, 331*, 464*, 573, 578 John V. 45 109, 233, 273*, '537 John V. 46 363, 66, 304 John T. 47 285, 292, 477, 478 John vi. 1 191*, 207 John vi. 2 375*, 515 John vi. 3 106, 428, 456 John vi. 5 268, 279, 287, 607 John vi. 6 150, 564 John vi. 7 335, 337 John vi. 9 117, 141, 169 John vi. 10 73,74, 230*,313,443, 452*, 456* John vi. 13 132, 201, 208, 514 John vi. 14 114 John vi. 15 228, 607 John vi. 16 275 John vi. 17 86, 429, 494, 596* N. T. INDEX. 689 John vi. 18 435 John vii. 14 270 John vi. 1 9 230, 250, 374*, 471 John vii. 15 340, 483*, 496 John Ti. 21 268, 330, 375*, 467*, 614 John vii. 16 496* John vi. 22 79, 131, 275, 568* John vii. 17 107, 293, 332 , 373, 509, 537, John vi. 23 564* j» » j» 541, 614 John vi. 24 57, 268 John vii. 18 537 John vi. 26 496 John vii. 19 271, 508 John vi. 27 496*, 528, 534 John vii. 21 59*, 117 John vi. 29 57, 159 , 166, 338, 628 John vii. 52 271 , 368, 421, 597 John vi. 30 152 John vii. 23 459*, 508 John vi. 31 106*, 588* John vii. 24 224, 314 John vi. 32 276 John vii. 26 511 Jo]p vi. 33 343 John vii. 27 298, 442, 510, 626 John vi. 35 77, 506, 639 John vii. 28 437 John vi. 36 439* John vii. 30 437 John vi. 37 178 John vii. 31 58, 163, 511* John vi. 38 287 John vii. 32 288 John vi. 39 83, 574, 589 John vii. 34 53, 552 John vi. 40 144, 338 John vii. 35 187*, 300*, 472, 511 John vi. 41 343, 431 John vii. 36 53, 494 John vi. 42 159 John vii. 37 77, 293, 525 John vi. 43 376 John vii. 38 89, 550, 574 John vi. 45 175, 189* John vii. 39 163 John vi. 46 597 John vii. 40 107 John vi. 50 114, 199 , 343, 366, 630 John vii. 41 447* John vi. 51 86,87 , 114, 343, 443 John vii. 42 265, 411 John vi. 52 212 John vii. 43 399 John vi. 54 552 John vii. 44 330, 437 John vi. 55 465* John vii. 45 157*, 632 John vi. 56 552 John vii. 48 442, 366, 420 John vi. 57 399*, 440, 549 John vii. 49 442, 484, 486*, 515 John vi. 58 86, 198 John vii. 51 267, 523*, 588 John vi. 60 551 John vii. 52 265,266,311* John vi. 62 159, 600* John vi. 63 114 499, 538, 609 John viii. 3 123 John vi. 64 124, 268, 475*, 543 John viii. 4 72 John vi. 65 368 John viii. 6 268 John vi. 66 367, 550 John viii. 7 394, 467 John vi. 68 279, 549 John viii. 8 268 John vi. 69 553* John viii. 9 249, 621 John vi. 70 436* John viii. 12 506, 513 John vi. 71 70, 190 John viii. 14 John viii. 15 267, 441, 472 583* John vii. 1 268 John viii. 16 293, 558 John vii. 2 528 John viii. 18 538 John vii. 3 79 John viii. 19 304, 488 John vii. 4 292, 630* John viii. 20 275, 385*, 480 John vii. 6 132 John viii. 21 387, 388 John vii. 7 614* John viii. 22 2.53,511* John vii. 8 596* John viii. 23 109 John vii. 10 541, 617 John viii. 25 46, 167*, 230, 438, 457, 464* John vii. 12 105 j» n " 549 John vii. 13 185* John viii. 26 416, 442, 451 87 690 N. T. INDEX. John viii. 27 222 John ix. 41 304 John viii. 29 277* John viii. 33 271 John X. 1 483 John viii. 36 295 John X. 3 154, 537, 540 John viii. 37 413, 414*, 480 John X. 4 514, 537 John viii. 38 455* John X. 5 84, 223, 507, 610 John viii. 39 305 John X. 6 168, 298* John viii. 40 199*, 272, 528 John X. 7 114, 187* John viii. 41 538 John X. 8 372, 514 John viii. 42 304 John X. 9 540 John viii. 44 114*, 138, 145* 308, 467* John X. 10 606 John viii. 45 457 John X. 11 T06» 132, 524, 539 John viii. 51 293, 506 John X. 12 514^540 John viii. 52 506, 519 John X. 13 206,:373 John viii. 53 545, 577* John viii. 54 293, 574*, 626 John X. 15 882, 440 John viii. 55 195*, 209, 482 John X. 16 520 John viii. 56 339* John X. 17 537 John viii. 58 267, 330, 523 Johnx. 18 m John viii. 59 253*, 469* John X. 19 John X. 20 399 456 John ix. 1 139, 367 John X. 21 833, 514 John ix. 2 58, 459*, 545, John X. 22 112 John ix. 3 177, 316, 317*, 488, 514 John X. 23 67, 385 John ix. 4 296, 297, 332, 481 John X. 25 437, 514 John ix. 5 144, 609 John X. 27 514 John ix. 6 427 John X. 28 83, 506 Jolm ix. 7 413, 415*, 563 John X. 29 143 , 144, 242 John ix. 8 114,268 John X. 30 152, 51.8 John ix. 9 209 John X. 32 265*, 368 , 412, 525 John ix. 10 72 John X. 33 152 , 228, 412 John ix. 11 155, 415*, 427, 456 John X. 35 478 .John ix. 13 58, 267, 528 John X. 36 580 John ix. 14 72, 443 John X. 37 478* John ix. 15 298 John X. 38 553 ,John ix. 17 83, 550 John X. 41 144 .John ix. 18 275,296 John ix. 19 114 John xi. 1 364*, 370,411* .John ix. 20 114 John xi. 2 227, 343*, 562 John ix. 21 83, 150, 152, 155, 298 John xi. 3 543 John ix. 22 254, 262, 294, 336 John xi. 4 383*, 405 John ix. 24 153 John xi. 5 268, 443 John ix. 25 298*, 341* John xi. 6 159, 165, 230, 541, 576 John ix. 26 155,456 John xi. 7 603 John ix. 27 331 John xi. 8 436, 472 John ix. 28 222 John xi. 11 608* John ix. 29 66 John xi. 12 292 John ix. 30 72, 184*, 446* John xi. 13 .531 John ix. 31 160, 199, 549 John xi. 15 80, 339*, 459* John ix. 33 70, 305*, 477, 499 John xi. 18 112, 195, 372 471, 557* John ix. 36 437, 620* John xi. 19 275 John ix. 37 273, 274*, 540 John xi. 21 304 John ix. 38 105,210 John xi, 25 87, lU, 513 N. T. INDEX. 691 John xi. 26 506 John xii. 36 238 John xi. 27 273 John xii. 40 155, 459, 494, 522*, 588 John xi. 30 275, 456, 563* John xii. 41 457 John xi. 31 341, 626 John xii. 42 444 John xi. 32 155, 159*, 304 John xii. 43 241* John xi. 33 215*, 527 John xii. 44 456 496, 497 John xi. 37 70, 149, 337 John xii. 46 527 John xi. 38 396*, 430 John xii. 47 144 John xi. 39 313 John xii. 48 160, 483 John xi. 40 76 John xii. 49 611 John xi. 41 396 John xi. 44 229, 278*, 313, 552 John xiii. 1 15S , 339, 344 872, 396, 460, John xi. 45 168 3> Tt tt John xiii. 2 531 572, 638 252* John xi. 47 128, 284* John xiii. 3 272 John xi. 48 155, 192, 607* John xiii. 4 176*, 267* John xi. 49 118, 170*, 341 John xiii. 5 106, 614* John xi. 50 337, 382 John xiii. 6 549, 88, 265* , 444, 508 John xi. 51 70, 71, 562 John xiii. 7 543 John xi. 52 577 John xiii. 8 506 John xi. 54 421 John xiii. 9 552, 582 John xi. 55 539 John xiii. 10 .508 John xi. 56 506, 508* John xiii. 11 353, 562 John xi. 57 72, 275, 294, 336 John xiii. 12 271, 275 John xiii. 14 88, 292 , 528, 5*9 John xii. 1 123, 557* John xiii. 16 239 , 242, 488 John xii. 2 268, 593* John xiii. 17 296*, 612 John xii. 3 97*, 201*, 525*. 606 John xiii. 18 316 317*, 430, 620 John xii. 5 116,621* John xiii. 22 233, 26^ John xii. 6 116, 206, 268 John xiii. 24 308*, 31 » John xii. 7 274* John xiii. 25 407* John xii. 8 150 John xiii. 27 243*, 265, 311* John xii. 9 123, 515 John xiii. 28 405*, 626 John xii. 10 254*, 336 John xiii. 29 158*, 313, 559 , 577, 580 John xii. 11 191, 550 John xiii. 31 277* John xii. 12 106, 515, 526 John xiii. 32 292* John xii. 13 270, 603* John xiii. 33 440 John xii. 15 549 John xiii. 34 336, 464*, 524*, 550 John xii. 16 393, 541 John xiii. 35 173,386 John xii. 17 123, 270 John xii. 18 334, 347, 515 John xiv. 1 317,501 John xii. 20 353, 593* John xiT. 3 265 John xii. 21 331, 370 John xiv. 7 273*, 804 John xii. 23 261, 339*, 460* John xiv. 9 549 John xii. 25 83 John xiv. 11 585 John xii. 26 265 John xiv. 15 314 John xii. 27 442 John xiv. 16 530 John xii. 28 582*, 586 John xiv. 17 488 John xii. 29 334, 522 John xiv. 19 585 John xii. 32 86, 291 John xiv. 21 114 John xii. 33 70, 226 John xiv. 22 562 John xii. 34 261 John xiv. 23 256 John xii. 35 296, 538 John xiv. 24 476 692 N. T INDEX. John xiv. 2S 227, 609 John xvi. 31 508 John xiv. 27 186, 609, 639 John xvi. 32 339, 460, 516* John xiv. 28 304* 513 John xvi. 33 291 John xiv. 30 60 218, 436, 437 John xiv. 31 285 John xvii. 2 John xvii. 3 75, 79, 145, 161, 290, 337 185*, 289 , 338, 525 John XV. 1 132 John xvii. 4 276* John XV. 2 58 ,111, 148,343*, 483, 537,574 John xvii. 5 163 Jolin XV. 3 399, 537 John xvii. 6 76 John XV. 4 314, 384 ,471 , 537, 541, 582 John xvii, 7 76 John XV. 5 471*, 499* , 537, 578, 582 John xvii. 8 553 John XT. 6 141, 277*, 293, 522, 537, 632* John xvii. 9 159 , 166, 421 John XV. 7 310, 537 John xvii. 10 273*, 389* , 389, 562 John XV. 8 161, 278*, 337* 338*, 537 John xvii. 11 163 , 183, 265 John XV. 9 537, 541 John xvii. 12 508 John XV. 10 153*, 537 John xvii. 14 272 John XV. 11 137, 537 John xvii. 15 336, 410 John XV. 12 537 John xvii. 17 538 John XV. 13 338, 537, 539, 595* John xvii. 18 277*, 440 John XV. 14 537 John xvii. 22 274*, 582 John XT. 15 537, 619 John xvii. 23 585 John XV. 16 78, 537, 607 John xvii. 24 123, 265 Jolin XT. 17 336, 537 John xvii. 25 439 John XV. 18 537 John xvii. 26 225 John XV. 19 304 , 429, 537, 609 John XV. 20 163, 292*, 537 John xviii. I 67 John XV. 21 537 John xviii. 2 113, 376 John XV. 22 77,I92*,305*,373,477, 537,595 John xviii. 3 106, 368, 377, 471, 472* John XV. 23 537 John xyiii. 5 113, 582 John XV. 24 77 , 271 439, 475, 537 John xviii. 6 73, 109 John XV. 25 317*, 588, 620 John xviii. 7 582 Jolin XV. 26 141 , 365, 429, 562 John xviii. 10 98 , 182, 559 John XV. 27 267, 443 John xviii. 1 1 John xviii. 12 148*, 313,512* 275* .John xvi. 2 265, 339, 451*, 460 John xviii. 13 60 John xvi. 4 124 John xviii. 14 319 John xvi. 7 320, 337 John xviii. 15 519 John xvi. 8 421, 520 John xviii. 16 395 Jolm xvi. 11 273 John xviii. 20 117,610 John xvi. 12 332 John xviii. 22 226 John xvi. 13 82, 308 John xviii. 23 292 John xvi. 14 266 John xviii. 24 275 John xvi. 15 266 Jolin xviii. 26 158, 159 John xvi. 17 75, 203, 265, 366*, 589 John xviii. 28 267, 288 John xvi. 19 330 Jolm xviii. 30 304, 477 John xvi. 20 87,90, 184 John xviii. 31 581* John xvi. 22 90, 558 John xviii. 32 70, 226 John xvi. 23 227, 499 John xviii. 34 151,261 John xvi. 24 459, 499 John xviii, 36 304 John xvi. 25 296, 481 John xviii. 37 444, 457, 512* John xvi. 26 373 John xviii. 38 , 152 John xvi. 27 112, 150*, 365 John xviii 39 339 John xvi. 30 122,339,387* John xviii. 40 582 N. T. INDEX. 693 John xix. 2 226, 430 John XX. 26 123 , 472, 537, 585 John xix. 3 77, 182 John XX. 27 610 John xix. 4 631 John XX. 28 183* John xix. 5 564, 631* John XX. 29 272* John xix. 6 128, 610 John XX. 30 525 John xix. 7 228 John xix. 9 267 John xxi. 1 191, 374*, 443 John xix. 10 508, 609 John xxi. 2 109 190, 518, 520 John xix. 11 242, 305* John xxi. 3 265, 284, 537 John xix. 12 429 John xxi. 4 85, 408 John xix. 14 124, 189* John xxi. 5 511 John xix. 16 456 John xxi. 6 313, 371, 618 John xix. 19 374, 376 John xxi. 8 65, 188, 216 370, 557, 562 John xix. 21 501 John xxi. 9 275 John xix. 22 271, 521 John xxi. 10 90 IM, 370, 589 John xix. 23 111, 176, 562 John xxi. 11 250, 341 John xix. 24 25' , 285, 373, 502 John xxi. 12 613* John xix. 25 60, 131*, 190, 394 John xxi. 13 607* John xix. 26 183 John xxi. 14 123 John xix. 28 459*, 561 John xxi. 15 85, 190, 549 John xix. 29 201 John xxi. 16 313, 604 John xix. 30 271 John xxi. 17 545 John xix. 31 70, 514*. 561, 562, 563 John xxi. 18 253, 257, 26S John xix. 32 70, 115, 576 John xxi. 20 407* John xix. 35 340 Jolm xxi. 21 169, 550, 562, 586* Joiin xix. 36 162 John xxi. 22 55 152, 296, 58i= John xix. 37 158 John xxi. 23 26.' John xix. 38 632 John xxi. 24 343, 517 John xix. 39 86 John xxi. 25 168, 333*, 482*, 525 John xix. 41 499, 524 Acts i. 1 183, 244, 256, 549, 559, 575*, 621' John XX. 1 106, 248, 343*, 366*, 396 Acts i. 2 164, 275, 542, 543, 556* John XX. 2 420, 522, 588* Acts i. 3 143, 188, 207, 575* John XX. 3 270, 519 Acts i. 4 199, 545, 580 John XX. 4 69,^464, 604* Acts i. 5 161* 216, 412*, 540 John XX. 6 267 Acts i. 6 105,509 John XX. 7 376, 415*, 632 Acts i. 7 195*, 441* John XX. 9 123, 274 Acts i. 8 125*, 407, 420 John XX. 1 1 395, 396 Acts i. 10 174 175, 348, 438 John XX. 12 173, 384, 395, 591* Acts i. 11 85, 110,430 , 523, 549, 610 John XX. 13 298 Acts i. 12 182* John XX. 14 537 Acts i. 13 113, 128, 131 , 190, 518, 520 John XX. 15 147*, 537, 632 Acts i. 14 122, 521 John XX. 16 537 Acts i. 15 250, 562, 503 John XX. 17 201, 428, 537 Actsi. 16 183, 523 John XX. 18 537 Acts i. 1 7 200* John XX. 19 123, 159, 176 234, 248, 267, Acts i.l8 88, 206, 514 H fl >1 185, 473*, 585 Acts i. 19 112 John XX. 21 271, 541, 585 Acts i. 20 286, 435 John XX. 22 312 Acts i. 21 160 , 407, 444, 624 John XX. 23 272, 291, 293 Acts i. 22 164, 621 John XX. 24 483 Acts i. 24 85, 152, 158*, 342* John XX. 25 66 Acts i. 25 432, 631 694 N. T. INDEX. Acts L 2S 408, 433* Acts- ii. I 328, 539 Acts iL a 348, 639 Acts.ii.3 516*, 539 Acta if. 4- 539,614 Acta ii. 5. 370, 407 Actsii. 6 154,516,528 Actsii.9 112,439 Acts ii. 10} 400, 439 Acts ii. II 345, 347 Acts a. 121 303*, 516 Aetaii. 14 183,391, 610 ActsiLir 77,199,370 Acts id. 18- 77, 438 Acts ii. 19' 531 Acts ii. 2a 330, 396 Acts n. 22 379, 523 Acts. ii. 23 73,148 Acts ii. 24 31 Acts ii. 25 88, 397* Actsii 2ft 71,425* Acts ii. 27 156, 592 Actsii. 28; 201,376* Acta ii. 29 113, 384, 549, 585 Acts ii. 30 226, 331, 455*, 603 Acts ii. SI 482, 592 Actsii. 32' 110 Acts ii. 33 214*, 237*, 435, 531, 559 Acts ii. 34 81, 215 Actsii. 36 111* Acts ii. 37 435 Acts ii. 38 393*, 397, 587 Acts ii. 39 307, 415* Acts ii. 40 545 Acts ii. 41 433 Acts ii. 42 348 Acts ii. 43 65, 156, 211*, 379* 439, 527 Acts ii. 45 306 Acts ii. 46 198, 401* Acts ii. 47 110* Acts iii. 1 iOS* 518 Acts iii. 2 171, 227, 325, 354* 522, 543 Acts iii. 3 270, 354, 543, 608, 609 Acts iii. 4 233, 313 Acts iii. 5 ■ 593 Acts iii. 6 211 Acts iii. 7 192, 202* Acts iii. 8 553 Acts iii. 10 66, 392, 626 Acts iii. 11 67, 392, 394, 526 Acts iii. 12 183, 261, 326*, 610, 617 Acts iii. 13 148, 149, 157*, 400, 575 Acts iii. 14 126, 523 Acts iii. 15 123 Acts iii. 16 133, 144, 378, 394* Acts iii. 17 402* Acts iii. 18 606 Acts iii. 19 310*, 462* Acts iii. 20 462 Acts iii. 21 163, 462, 558 Acts iii. 22 82, 307, 401, 545 Acts iii. 23 156, 307, 480 Acts iii. 24 370, 633* Acts iii. 25 114,163,225 Acts iii. 26 134*, 329* Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts Acts :v. 1 207, 427 v. 2 123, 133, 389 V. 3 396, 430, 590 IT. 4 84, 276 T. 5 146*, 323, 415, 590 :v. 7 390, 420," 527, 632* ,T. 9 185*, 448 V. 11 114, 157* v. 12 217*, 454*, 493 T. 13 268, 269*, 434, 544, 626 T. 15 593* 16 284, 331 17 393, 396, 466*, 481 v. 18 344, 481, 488 v. 19 518 V. 20 475, 481, 498* iv. 21 109, 299, 343* 22 43, 196, 239, 531, 596 v. 23 128 24 152, 404, 552 27 439, 518 T. 29 45, 431 ;v. 33 78, 407, 435, 550 V. 34 384 35 306, 403 T. 36 120, 230, 562 ActST. 1 62,171 Acts T. 2 253, 57, 62, 90, 199 Acts T. 4 , 212, 343*, 355, 495*, 497, 585 Acts V. 5 344, 408 Acts T. 7 58, 483, 563 Acts V. 8 206, 298 Acts V. 10 342, 405 Acts V. 12 6.5, 67, 363, 379, 564*, 607 Acts V. 13 .564 Acts V. 14 564* Acts V. 15 374, 376, 400*, 431, 564* N. T. iNIiEX. 695 Acts v. 16 516, 526 "Acts vii. 27 71,90,269 Acts V. 17 520, 608 Acts vii. 29 121, 387* Acts V. 19 176, 380 Acta vii. 30 106* Acts V. 20 237*, 238*, 634 Acts vii. 32 114, 585 Acts v. 21 407* Acts vii. 33 313 Acts T. 22 251* Acts vii. 34 354 Acts V. 23 372 , 472, 545, 604 Acts vii. 35 63, 67, 159 Acts V. 24 129, 275 , 308, 439, 518 Acts vii. 36 121, 524 Acts T. 26 217, 288, 377, 505* Acts vii. 37 82, 85 Acts V. 28 112,201,393 , 408, 466, 481 Acts vii. 38 118, 421 Acts V. 29 332, 518,520, 595* Acts vii. 39 40, 71, 90 Acts V. 30 374 Acts vii. 40 67, 110, 148, 182, 300* Acts V. 31 214*, 228, 318 Acts vii. 41 232 Acts V. 32 191* Acts vii. 42 43, 175, 251, 469*, 512* Acts V. 35 60, 392, 549, 557*, 610 Acts vii. 43 75, 210 Acts V. 36 170*, 184, 261, 433* Acts vii. 44 66 Acts V. 37 106, 621 Acts vii. 45 71, 90, 174 Acts V. 38 296*, 427, 519 Acts vii. 46 71 Acts V. 39 122, 296* Acta vii. 47 ■ 71 Acts V. 40 3^3 Acts vii. 48 554 Acts V. 42 345*, 435 Acts vii. 51 Acts vii. 53 215, 440 228*. 398* Acts vi. 1 28, 268, 405 Acts vii. 58 254 Acts vi. 2 85, 87 Acts vii. 59 549 Acts vi. 3 375 Acts vii. 60 226 Acts vi. 4 128 Acts vi. 5 28, 103, 113 , 120, 214, 233 Acts viii. 1 113 133, 400, 443 Acts vi. 6 632 Acts viii. 2 256, 276, 443 Acts vi. 7 2fe8, 435 Acts viii. 3 113,443,552 Acts vi. 8 113 Acts viii. 4 55? Acts vi. 9 112, 129*, 420 Acts viii. 5 lis!, 125, 145 Acts vi. 1 1 67 Acts viii. 6 113, 329, 435 Acts vi. 13 128, 382 Acts viii. 7 Acts viii. 8 443, 584 443 Acts vii. 2 330, 341 Acta viii. 9 170*, 443 Acts vii. 3 429 Acta viii. 10 114,370 Acts vii. 4 329 , 413, 415, 422 Acts viii. 11 218, 329, 334 Acts vii. 5 276* 331, 397 Acts viii. 12 113 Acts vii. 8 61, 113, 218 Acts viii. 13 348, 435 Acts vii. 9 61, 376 Acts viii. 14 259, 271 Acts vii. 10 73, 138*, 228, 527 Acts viii. 15 71, 122, 373 Acts vii. 11 407 Acts viii. 16 350* 430, 499, 562 Acts vii. 12 63, 345, 347 Acts viii. 17 122, 269 Acts vii. 14 113, 250, 391* Acts viii. 19 46 , 158, 287, 307 Acts vii. 15 519 Acts viii. 20 286 Acts vii. 16 70,90 , 16d, 190, 206 Acta viii. 21 211 Acts vii. 17 163 Acts viii. 22 198, 300, 370 445, 542, 622 Acts vii. 19 157, 326*, 329 Acts viii. 24 158* 166, 430, 477 Acts vii. 20 212, 248* Acts viii. 25 223 Acts vii. 21 73, 143, 147, 228*, 528 Acts viii. 26 119*, 121, 157*, 400 Acts vii. 22 227* Acts viii. 27 318, 341, 375, 593* Acts vii. 24 258, 632* Acts viii. 28 348, 374, 435 Acts vii. 26 48 , 269; 34t, 435 Acts viii. 30 510, 638 696 N. T. INDEX. Acts Tiii. 31 295, 303*, 304, 335, 435, 447 Acts X. 16 422 Acts viii. 34 420 Acts X. 17 268, 308, 371* , 408, 438, 605 Acts viii. 35 71, 607* Acts X. 1 8 268, 298, 543 Acts Tiii. 36 268, 400, 407, 604 Acts X. 20 41 , 442, 451, 477 Acts viii. 38 528 Acts X. 21 584 Acts viii. 39 226, 415, 499 Acts X. 22 61, 138, 199, 322*, 434 Acts viii. 40 71, 415*, 616*, 621 Acts X. 23 Acts X. 24 253* 348 Acts ix. 1 204* Acts X. 25 i 328* Acts ix. 2 106, 107, 195, 196, 227, 294, Acts X. 26 153 396, 552, 559 Acts X. 28 435, 437, 449*, 481 Acts ix. 3 323, 366, 426, 432, 486 Acts X. 30 43, 80 Acts ix. 4 610 Acts X. 32 121, 138*, 404, 528 Acts ix. 6 41, 79, 168, 587* Acts X. 33 345, 592 Acts ix. 7 44, 486 Acts X. 35 120, 574 Acts ix. 8 72, 113 Acts X. 36 149, 164, 564*, 574* Acts ix. 9 486*, 488 Acts X. 37 382, 564* Acts ix. 1 1 182, 313, 454* Acts X. 38 227 Acts ix. 12 182, 430 Acts X. 39 163, 363, 439, 559, 560, 625* Acts ix. 13 371, 549 Acts X. 41 123, 140, 171 Acts ix. 1 5 587 Acts X. 42 50, 552 Acts ix. 17 106, 287, 430, 562 Acts X. 45 424 Acts ix. 18 427, 439 Acts X. 47 326,511 Acts ix. 20 268, 626 Acts X. 48 435 Acts ix. 21 114, 161, 270, 275, 288, 340, »> 1) it 354, 457 Acts xi. 1 341, 400 Acts ix. 24 207, 435, 532 Acts xi. 5 42, 80, 635* Acts ix. 26 268, 484 Acts xi. 6 270 Acts ix. 27 46, 202, 301 Acts xi. 8 441 Acts ix. 31 185, 219, 382, 420 Acts xi. 10 422 Acts ix. 32 61, 323 Acts xi. 11 408, 427 Acts ix. 33 367 Acts xi. 13 106, 435 Acts ix. 34 79, 594* Acts xi. 14 152, 518 Acts ix. 35 61, 275 Acts xi. 15 124, 614* Acts ix. 37 178* 323 Actsxi. 16 205, 216, 412*, 602 Acts ix. 38 61, 471 Acts xi. 17 80 443, 603, 628* Acts ix. 39 253, 254, 376 Acts xi. 19 371, 372*, 392* Acts ix. 40 105, 345 Acts xi. 20 268 Acts ix. 42 213*, 382 Acts xi. 21 435 Acts ix. 43 323 Acts xi. 22 Acts xi. 23 133, 609* 335, 433 Acts X. 1 61, 62, 171 Acts xi. 24 524 Acts X. 3 230 Acts xi. 26 95, 323 Acts X. 4 632 Acts xi. 28 63, 75, 89, 334, 375*, 526 Acts X. 5 313, 396 Acts xi. 29 71,516 Acts X. 6 121, 211, 395, 404 Acts xi. 30 606 Acts X. 7 145, 632* Acts X. 9 124, 407, 544 Acts xii. 1 113, 138, 540 Acts X. 10 146, 147, 330, 408, 430 Acts xii. 2 62, 216, 540 Acts X. 11 267, 376*, 635 Acts xii. 3 268, 468*, 540, 562, 563 Acts X. 13 586 Acts xii. 5 540 Acts X. 14 171, 441, 475, 499 Acts xii. 6 64, 177, 435, 539, 540 Acts X. 15 152, 543, 586, 604 Acts xii. 7 73, 79, 429, 539, 540 N. T. INDEX. 697 Acts xii. 8 314 435, 539, 540 Acts xiii. 43 128, 542 Acts xii. 9 442, 539, 540 Acts xiii. 44 435 Acts xii. 10 72, 126 132, 464, 540 Acts xiii. 45 355* Acts xii. 11 73, 152, 540 Acts xiii. 46 151, 518, 539 Acts xii. 12 435, 539, 540 Acts xiii. 47 228, 259, 528 Acts xii. 13 540, 545 Acts xiii. 48 69, 262*, 543 Acts xii. 14 50 371, 442, 540 Acts xiii. 49 378* Acts xii. 15 540 Acts xiii. 50 126, 539 Acts xii. 16 345, 467*, 540, 544 Acts xiit. 51 342 Acts xii. 17 539, 540 Acts xii. 18 45, 298 301, 445, 540 Acts xiv. 1 301, 323, 401*, 559 Acts xii. 19 396, 415*, 437, 540 Acts xiv. 3 379 Acts xii. 20 371 375, 410, 540 Acts xiv. 4 104, 391 Acts xii. 21 142* , 146, 218, 540 Acts xiv. 5 319,560 Acts xii. 22 142, 540 Acts xiv. 8 73,215 Acts xii. 23 540 Acts xiv. 9 324, 543 Acts xii. 24 539, 540 Acts xiv. 10 48, 82, 108, 464, 528, 553* Acts xii. 25 518, 539, 544 Acts xiv. 11 Acts xiv. 12 431, 539 66, 150*, 539 Acts xiii. 1 400, 520 Acts xiv. 13 90, 372, 630 Acts xiii. 2 262*, 313, 422 Acts xiv. 14 257, 344, 518 Acts xiii. 3 143, 521, 584* Acts xiv. 15 209 , 543, 552, 628 Acts xiii. 4 539 Acts xiv. 16 219 Acts xiii. 8 138 561, 562, 563 Acts xiv. 17 78, 156, 201, 444* Acts xiii. 9 107* Acts xiv. 18 325 Acts xiii. 10 124, 183, 315, 345, 510*, 549 Acts xiv. 19 321, 344, 544 Acts xiii. 11 251 , 268, 486, 585 Acts xiv. 20 391 Acts xiii. 12 232 Acts xiv. 21 223, 420, 539 Acts xiii. 13 109, 187, 372, 406* Acts xiv. 22 430 Acts xiii. 1 5 183, 218 Acts xiv. 23 73 Acts xiii. 16 183, 610 Acts xiv. 26 472 Acts xiii. 17 377 Acts xiv. 27 376, 542 Acts xiii. 19 121 Acts xiii. 20 218, 250 Acts XV. 1 215, 293 Acts xiii. 21 230 Acts XV. 2 373 Acts xiii. 22 113,131,180 190, 228, 527 Acts XV. 3 431 Acts xiii. 23 192* 238 Acts XV. 4 127, 259 , 420, 435, 539 Acts xiii. 24 607 Acts XV. 5 301,370 Acts xiii. 25 169*, 319, 543 Acts XV. 6 128, 539 Acts xiii. 26 237* 238* Acts XV. 7 226*, 606 Acts xiii. 27 454* Acts XV. 8 440 Acts xiii. 28 484 Acts XV. 10 152 318* 488, 542 Acts xiii. 29 454 Acts XV. 12 177, 379, 515 Acts xiii. 30 123 Acts XV. 13 183, 329 Acts xiii. 31 405, 408, 543 Acts XV. 16 469* Acts xiii. 32 223 , 227, 454, 626 Acts XV. 17 141, 310 Acts xiii. 34 618* Acts XV. 19 481 Acts xiii. 35 592* Acts XV. 20 127, 326*, 427, 520 Acts xiii. 36 432, 540 Acts XV. 21 401* Acts xiii. 37 158, 543 Acts XV. 22 255*, 567, 627 Acts xiii. 39 57, 422 Acts XV. 23 128, 133 , 316, 588, 606 Acts xiii. 40 175, 430, 504 Acts XV. 24 322, 344, 545 Acts xiii. 41 88 293, 508 Acts XV. 25 320, 545, 627 698 N. T. INDEX. Acts XV. 26 545 Acts xvii. 20 169 Acts XV. 27 342* Acts xvii. 21 71, 244*. 549 Acts XV. 29 315 , 345, 427, 520 Acts xvii. 22 244*, 523, 610 Acts XV. 31 232 Acts xvii. 24 120, 545 Acts XV. 36 142*, 298, 626, 627* Acts xvii. 25 200, 637 Acts XV. 37 70 Acts xvii. 26 407, 539 Acts XV. 38 372*, 481, 482 Acts xvii. 27 76, 299*, 485 Acts XV. 39 435 Acts xvii. 28 104, 154, 389, 400*, 454* 540, 640* Acts xvi. 2 260, 420 Acts xvii. 29 441, 491* Acts xvi. 3 607, 626 Acts xvii. 30 433 Acts xvi. 4 268, 296, 431 Acts xvii. 31 163, 389*, 410, 424, 463 Acts xvi. 5 215 Acts xvii. 32 82, 104, 123, 528 Acts xvi. 7 333, 400, 476*, 494 Acts xvi. 9 112 219*, 313, 380 Acts xviii. 1 li2 Acts xvi. 10 262* Acts xviii. 2 120, 182, 215, 329, 343, 543 Acts xvi. 11 590 Acts xviii. 3 Acts xviii."4 72, 230, 395 539, 552 Acts xvi. 13 403 Acts xviii. 5 129, 341, 518 Acts xvi. 14 433, 543 Acts xviii. 6 176*, 587 Acts xvi. 15 292, 314, 545 Acts xviii. 7 182 Acts xvi. 16 257*, 323, 543 Acts xviii. 8 113 Acts xvi. 18 553 Acts xviii. 9 610 Acts xvi. 19 202 Acts xviii. 10 593* Acts xvi. 21 332, 493 Acts xviii. 1 1 24.9 Acts xvi. 22 269*, 332 Acts xviii. 12 206 Acts xvi. 23 539 Acts xviii. 13 404 Acts xvi. 24 69, 111, 542, 622 Acts xviii. 14 72, 183, 304, 401 Acts xvi. 25 401*, 518 Acts xviii. "l 5 154 Acts xvi. 26 63, 72, 176, 549 Acts xviii. 17 U3, 202, 205 Acts xvi. 27 70, 334*, 544 Acts xviii. 18 253 Acts xvi. 28 222, 226, 501 Acts xviii. 19 150, 209 Acts xvi. 29 433 Acts xviii. 20 242 Acts xvi. 31 76, 518 Acts xviii. 21 415, 603 Acts xvi. 33 197, 372* Acts xviii. 22 544 Acts xvi. 34 44, 346, 435, 539, 627 Acts xviii. 24 62, 120, 341 Acts xvi. 37 41, 73, 446*, 591 Acts xviii. 25 268 Acts xvi. 39 335 Acts xviii. 26 243, 539, 614* Acts xvi. 40 396 Acts xviii. 27 Acts xviii. 28 259 209 Acts xvii. 2 209, 211,215, 217, 372* 584* Acts xvii. 3 330, 580 Acts xix. 1 62, 219, 323, 543 Acts xvii. 4 262 Acts xix. 2 539, 298, 451, 493, 509 Acts xvii. 6 61, 73, 219, 484 Acts xix. 3 397*, 439, .539 Acts xvii. 9 420 Acts xix. 4 530; 550, 576 Acts xvii. 10 112, 129, 543 Acts xix. 6 71, 539 Acts xvii. 11 299*, 377 Acts xix. 10 408, 552 Acts xvii. 12 523 Acts xix. 11 140, 539, 606 Acts xvii. 13 82, 112 Acts xix. 12 428, 435 Acts xvii. 14 129, 617* Acts xix. 13 226, 408 Acts xvii. 15 112, 420 Acts xix. 14 60, 170 Acts xvii. 16 112, 632 Acts xix. 16 132, 429, 431 Acts xvii. 18 71, 105, 171, 303*, 593* Acts xix. 17 140 N. T. mDBX. 699 Acts xix. 19 527, 592 Acts xxi. 3 112, 260*, 270,349*, 472 Acts xix. 22 251*, 415* Acts xxi. 4 322*, 481, 543 Acts xix. 24 253, 257, 341 Acts xxi. 5 122, 323, 552 Acts xix. 25 367, 406, 543 Acts xxi. 6 430 Acts xix. 26 110, 321, 498* Acts xxi. 8 134*. 592* Acts xix. 27 44. 184*, 196, 228, 550 Acts xxi. 9 S23 Acts xix. 28 584 Acts xxi. 11 155, 552 Acts xix. 29 201, 353* Acts xxi. 12 325, 439 Acts xix. 31 m. 61, 171, 335, 481 Acts xxi. 13 832, 609* Acts xix. 32 242 Acts xxi. 16 165 203, 214*, 341, 513, 589* Acts xix. 33 ^09,. 330, 332 Acts xxi. 17 207, 465 Acts xix. 34 567*, 584 Acts xxi. 18 435 Acts xix. 35 234, 300 , 447, 481, 523, 592 Acts xxi. 19 158 Acts xix. 37 222 Acts xxi. 21 219, 322* Acts xix. 38 53, 590* Acts xxi. 23 211 Acts xix. 39 292 Acts xxi. 24 75, 255 Acts xix. 40 203, 448 Acts xxi. 25 Acts xxi. 26 128, 223, 520 218, 255, 275, 296 Acts XX. 1 543, 609* Acts xxi. 28 114, 272, 344*, 439, 578* Acts XX. 2 145 Acts xxi. 29 321 Acts XX. 3 112,211 , 324, 428, 539, 567 Acts xxi. 30 86 Acts XX. 4 103, 138*, 519, 520, 593 Acts xxi. 31 62, 215* Acts XX. 7 248, 435, 539 Acts xxi. 32 61 Acts XX. 9 341, 371, 375*, 431, 545 Acts xxi. 33 168, 299*, 308 Acts XX. 10 430 Acts xxi. 34 484 Acts XX. 11 541 Acts xxi. 35 323 Acts XX. 12 276 Acts xxi. 36 516, 526 Acts XX. 13 262* Acts xxi. 37 509 Acts XX. 14 415* Acts xxi. 38 106, 114, 134, 511* Acts XX. 15 112, 590 Acts xxi. 39 313, 528, 545 Acts XX. 16 211, 294, 319, 477 Acts XX. 1 7 112 Acts xxii. 2 432 Acts XX. 18 298*, 422, 430, 549 Acts xxii. 3 187, 189* 340*, 559* Acts XX. 20 325, 545 Acts xxii. 4 543 Acts XX. 21 66, 559 Acts xxii. 5 141, 472 Acts XX. 22 215, 483 Acts xxii. 6 121, 220, 323, 406* 432 Acts XX. 23 63, 340, 508 Acts xxii. 7 73 Acts XX. 24 186, 318 Acts xxii. 9 540, 550 Acts XX. 25 384 Acts xxii. 10 • 163 Acts XX. 26 197 Acts xxii. 1 1 268, 371*, 481 Acts XX. 27 325, 482, 604 Acts xxii. 12 528 Acts XX. 28 228, 527 Acts xxii. 13 54, 218, 313, 428 Acts XX. 29 205, 396, 484* Acts xxii. 15 110, 158 Acts XX. 30 621 Acts xxii. 17 220* 323*, 577 Acts XX. 31 552 Acts xxii. 18 137* Acts XX. 32 391* Acts xxii. 19 213* 401 Acts XX. 33 204 Acts xxii. 21 396 Acts XX. 34 577 Acts xxii. 22 282* Acts XX. 35 240 Acts xxii. 24 85, 301 Acts XX. 38 163 Acts xxii. 25 Acts xxii. 26 61, 208, 509 61 Acts xxi. 1 62, 323, 427, 590 Acts xxii. 28 439 Acts xxi. 2 342*, 344 Acts xxii. 29 443 700 N. T. INDEX. Acts xxii. 30 109, 261, 365*, 398* Acts XXV. 2 Acts XXV. 3 539, 54fl 338, 341 Acts xxiii. 1 HI, 262 Acts XXV. 4 540 Acts xxiii. 3 81, 332, 340 Acts XXV. 5 77, 540, 558 Acts xxiii. 5 222, 316, 502, 641* Acts XXV. 6 239, 344 540, 544, 596 Acts xxiii. 6 195, 203, 437, 631 Acts XXV. 7 330, 373, 432, 525*, 540 Acts xxiii. 7 128 Acts XXV. 9 375 Acts xxiii. 8 481, 493*, 540 Acts XXV. 10 227, 242* Acts xxiii. 9 519, 599, 600* Acts XXV. 1 1 203, 253, 267*, 456, 540 Acts xxiii. 10 504, 545, 600 Acts XXV. 12 262*, 538 Acts xxiii. 11 621 Acts XXV. 13 138 342, 518, 544 Acts xxiii. 12 297 Acts XXV. 14 401, 527 Acts xxiii. 13 239, 256, 596 Acts XXV. 15 128, 373, 543 Acts xxiii. 14 44, 128, 150, 297, 466* 543 Acts XXV. 16 122, 297, 300 Acts xxiii. 15 287 , 313, 324, 329 Acts XXV. 17 256, 475 Acts xxiii. 19 202 Acts XXV. 18 168, 373* Acts xxiii. 20 301 Acts XXV. 20 299, 397, 543 Acts xxiii . 21 193*. 297, 371, 596 Acts XXV. 21 143, 332 Acts xxiii. 22 54, 545, 579 Acts XXV. 22 82, 283* 558, 587 Acts xxiii. 23 61, 170*, 313*, 579 Acts XXV. 23 60 402, 420, 560 Acts xxiii. 24 138, 579, 621 Acts XXV. 24 .acs ,499 515, 516, 549 Acts xxiii. 26 588 Acts XXV. 26 288* Acts xxiii. 27 134*, 544 Acts XXV. 27 89, 319 Acts xxiii. 29 203 Acts xxiii. 30 278, 315, 375, 568* Acts XX vi. 1 229, 268 Acts xxiii. 34 364, 366, 411, 582 Acts xxvi. 2 321 Acts xxiii. 35 308, 332, 558 Acts xxvi. 3 Acts xxvi. 4 154, 231*, 124 400, 559, 572 133, 136, 576 Acts xxiv. 1 534 Acts xxvi. 5 401, 527, 626 Acts xxiv. 2 614* Acts xxvi 6 394, 397 Acts xxir. 3 47, 200, 637 Acts xxvi. 7 100,331,543,549,552,593 Acts xxiv. 4 561 Acts xxvi. 8 395*, 542 Acts xxiv. 5 133, 208, 351, 567* Acts xxvi 9 138 Acts xxiv. 6 351*, 543, 567* Acts xxvi. 10 107, 545 Acts xxiv. 7 217 Acts xxvi. 11 268, 545 Acts xxiv. 8 76, 365, 543 Acts xxvi. 12 133, 386, 545 Acts xxiv. 9 614 Acts xxvi. 13 403, 545 Acts xxiv. 10 346, 367 Acts xxvi. 14 396, 545 Acts xxiv. 11 239, 318 , 341, 592, 596 Acts xxvi. 15 85 Acts xxiv. 12 441, 491 Acts xxvi. 16 142, 158, 161, 166, 262* Acts xxiv. 13 203, 491 )) )i t) 439 442, 543, 545 Acis xxiv. 14 161, 219 Acts xxvi. 17 141 429, 545, 550 Acts xxiv. 15 334 Acts xxvi. 1 8 139* 325, 421, ,545 Acts xxiv. 1 7 550, 213, 342, 380*, 453 Acts xxvi. 19 68, 549 Acts xxiv. 19 54, 282, 294* Acts xxvi. 20 352 420, 435, 627 Acts xxiv. 20 77, 85, 375 Acts xxvi. 22 133, 140, 158, 455*. 485, Acts xxiv. 21 123, 164, 203 »i )> jj 550, 559 Acts xxiv. 22 560* Acts xxvi. 23 97*, 123 Acts xxiv. 23 61 Acts xxvi. 24 108, 132 514, 549, 550 Acts xxiv. 25 334, 342, 463 Acts xxvi. 25 40, 558 Acts xxiv. 26 209 Acts xxvi. 26 Acts xxvi. 27 500* 549 Acts XXV. 1 369* 540, 544 Acts xxvi. 29 209,212,235, 303*, 420*, 440 N. T. INDEX. 701 Acts xxvi. 30 126, 128, 519 Acts xxviii. 21 85, 489 Acts xxvi. 31 267* Acts xxviii. 23 121, 372, 420, 422, 439, Acts xxvi. 32 70, 305, 334, 477 » »» ,j 543, 559 Acts xxviii. 24 104 Acts xxvii. 1 62, 78, 182, 261, 326*, 540 Acts xxviii. 25 61, 602 Acts xxvii. 2 224*, 400, 430 Acts xxviii. 26 51, 85 Acts xxvii. 3 200, 321*, 539 Acts xxviii. 27 494, 503 Acts xxvii. 5 133, 187, 431* Acts xxviii. 28 82 Acts xxvii. 6 525 Acts xxvii. 7 484 Rom. i. 1 125, 545, 565 Acts xxvii. 8 471, 539 Rom. i. 2 543, 545, 565 Acis xxvii. 9 63, 334, 543 Rom. i. 3 186, 545, 565 Acts xxvii. 10 334, 339*, 573 Rom. i. 4 123, 188*, 237, 367*, 545, 565 Acts xxvii. 12 242, 299, 400, 405, 545 Rom. i. 5 120 ,186, 379*, 383, 384, 402, Acts xxvii. 13 243*, 334*, 594* jj >i )) 517 , 543, 545, 565, 631 Acts xxvii. 14 147, 251*, 381*, 558 Rom. i. 6 195* , 517, 543, 545, 565 Acts xxvii. 17 209, 210, 504 Rom. i. 7 124, 139, 219, 234, 545, 565, 585 Acts xxvii. 18 256 Rom. i. 8 378, 383, 575, 576* Acts xxvii. 20 120, 484, 488, 610 Rom. i. 9 386, 410 Acts xxvii. 21 87, 183, 282, 443, 481 Rom. i. 10 300, 376* Acts xxvii. 22 223, 508, 633* Rom. i. 11 198* A.cts xxvii. 23 218, 543 Rom. i. 12 155, 577 Acts xxvii. 25 183 Rom. i. 13 436 , 440, 561, 562, 565 A-Cts xxvii. 27 123 Rom. i. 14 209, 439 Acts xxvii. 28 252* Rom. i. 15 223, 230, 235 Acts xxvii. 29 71, 366, 504, 539 Rom. i. 16 221, 247*, 576* Acts xxvii. 30 62 Rom. i. 17 59 136*, 186*, 396, 419, 513 Acts xxvii. 31 61 Rom. i. 19 235* Acts xxvii. 33 4 4, 70, 198,335, 348 Rom. i. 20 123, 125, 128,216, 235*, 439, 638 Acts xxvii. 34 364, 374* Rom. i. 21 71, 582, 624* Acts xxvii. 35 71, 614* Rom. i. 22 321, 627 Acts xxvii. 36 198 Rom. i. 23 206, 388*, 524 Acts xxvii. 37 80, 250 Rom. i. 24 213, 263*, 326*, 387, 417* Acts xxvii. 38 106, 201 Rom. i. 25 404* Acts xxvii. 39 294, 557* Rom. i. 26 237, 404, 571* Acts xxvii. 40 64, 591, 594 Rom. i. 27 417, 571* Acts xxvii. 42 336, 502*, 545 Rom. i. 28 480, 485, 638 Acts xxvii. 43 196, 251*, 528 Rom. i. 29 120, 217, 520, 553, 637 Acts xxvii. 44 105, 323, 528 Rom. i. 30 Rom. i. 31 53* 553, 637 Acts xxviii. 2 420, 539 Rom. i. 32 123, 206, 344* Acts xxviii. 3 257*, 368*, 371 Acts xxviii. 4 366 Rom. ii. 1 135, 183, 387* .533 Acts xxviii. 6 268, 396* 416 Rom. ii. 2 401 Acts xxviii. 8 323 Rom. ii. 3 152, 161*, 183, 509 Acts xxviii. 9 456 Rom. ii. 4 190, 235, 353 Acts xxviii. 1 1 216 Rom. ii. 5 125, 188*, 402, 417* Acts xxviii. 13 465, 528 Rom. ii. 7 187*, 519, 639 Acts xxviii. 14 392 Rom. ii. 8 424, 57S Acts xxviii. 16 62, 73 Rom. ii. 9 156*, 552, 576*, 578 Acts xxviii. 17 127, 129, 323, 485 Rom. ii. 10 578 Acts xxviii. 18 70, 482 Rom. ii. 11 395, 447 Acts xxviii. 20 229 Eom. ii. 12 123, 378, 386*, 447 702 N. T. INDEX. Rom. ii. 13 186*, 447, 565* Eom. iv. 9 129, 321, 409, 420, 587*, 595* Eom. ii. 14 139*, 141, 211, 309, 447, 483 Eom. iv. 10 386, 420 M }t )t 556*, 565*, 620 Rom. iv. 11 133, 190, 380, 531 Eom. ii. 15 440, 565*, 580*, 615 Rom. iv. 12 209, 211, 219, 534, 555*, 577 Eom. ii. 17 76, 122; 233, 569* 610 Rom. iv. 13 123, 186*, 320, 441, 447, Eom. ii. 18 263, 569*, 594 tl n tt 453*, 586 Rom. ii. 19 321, 520, 569* Rom. iv. 14 59, 109, 123, 273, 292, 368, Rom. ii. 20 569* i> ij fi 447, 585, 595 Eom. ii. 21 322*, 481, 508, 569* Rom. iv. 15 123, 447, 456 Eom. ii. 22 481 Rom. iv. 16 69, 368, 585, 598* Eom. ii. 23 123, 233, 569 Rom. iv. 17 164, 165* Rom. ii. 25 293 Rom. iv. 18 329,404,411,465 Rom. ii. 26 145,228,259,293 Rom. iv. 19 50, 486* Eom. ii. 27 134*, 343*, 380*, 454* Rom. iv. 20 215*, 216, 261, 342, 344, 397 Eom. ii. 28 421, 454*, 488, 584* Rom. iv. 21 262 Eom. ii. 29 116 Rom. iv. 22 523* Rom. iy. 24 123, 628 Rom. iii. 1 174, 584 Eom. iv. 25 611,639 Rom. iii. 2 229, 260*, 454*, 514, 575, 576 Rom. iii. 3 585, 638 Eom. V. 1 186* 376, 406 Rom. iii. 4 254, 310, 442 Rom. V. -2 683, 136*, 233, 271, 379 Rom. iii. 5 594, 122, 402, 511, 563 Rom. V. 3 233, 583* Rom. iii. 6 279, 480, 500 Rom. y. 5 453,107,185^ 378, 413, 414, 417 Rom. iii. 7 580 Rom. y. 6 124, 382, 383, 447, 453*, 553 Rom. iii. 8 287, fe80, 628* Rom. y. 7 117*, 279*, 447, 453*, 613 Rom. iii. 9 59, 60, 120, 258*) 264*, 407, Eom. y. 8 137, 383, 553 t) )} yj 548,552,554*, 585 Rom. y. 9 197, 594 Rom. iii. 10 173 Rom. V. 10 262 Rom. iii. 11 81, 109 Rom. V. 11 351*, 583* Rom. iii. 13 77, 407* Rom. v. 12 144, 158*, 394, 396, 562, 569* Eom. iii. 18 185 }t jj t> 599, 609 Rom. iii. 19 110, 460 Rom. v. 13 85^ 123, 476, 570 Rom. iii. 20 171, 186, 280* R6m. V. 14 32,206, 394*, 409,442, 542, 570 Rom. iii. 21 186*, 271 Rom. V. 15 110,442, 541, 570* Rom. iii. 22 186, 418* 443 Rom. v. 16 60, 82, 340*, 368, 396, 584* Rom. iii. 23 201, 274, 352, 35.-) Rom. .. 17 353 Rom. iii. 24 216, 217*, 352* Rom. V. 18 188,440, 445, 558^570*, 587* Eom. iii. 25 96*, 137,152* 228i 254, 3'», Rom. ». 19 110,421,587, 638 f} j> If 399, 412, 527 Rom. V. 20 123, 459 Eom. iii. 26 36S, 412 Eom. v. 21 397, 418*, 440 Eom. iii. 27 116, 582 Rom, iii. 28 120, 456, 595* Rom. vi. 1 279, 285 Rom. iii. 29 192* Rom. vi. 2 86, 168, 210, 279*, 386, 428 Rom. iii. 30 116, 1 86, 280*, 362*, 41 1 *, 448 Rom. vi; 3 136, 509 Rom. iii. 31 78, 87, 123, 609 Rom. vi. 4 136, 137, 236, 288, 444 Rom. vi. 5 292, 442*, 451 Rom. iy. 1 113, 334, 508 Eom. vi. 6 161, 188*, 326, 612*, 615 Rom. iv. 2 306* Rom. vi. 8 49, 86, 391 Rom. iv. 3 453*, 523* Eom. vi. 9 538 Rom. iv. 4 35, 108, 402* Rom. vi. 10 168*, 210, 227, 422, 428 Rom. iv. 5 186, 483 Rom. vi. 11 210* 228, 389* Eom. iy. 7 81 Rom. vi. 12 488. 502, 524* Eom. iy. 8 606, 585 Rom. vi. 13 314, 488 - N. T. INDEX. 703 Epm. vi. 14 120, 279*, 316* Eom. viii. 20 58, 399*, 485 Eom. vi. 15 82, 279, 420, 585 Eom. viii. 21 197, 531, 621 Eom. vi. 16 158, 266, 440, 612* Eom. viii. 22 124, 610 Rom. vi. 17 164*, 261*, 368, 585, 629* Rom. viii. 23 117*, 150, 187*, 528, 531* Rom. vi. 18 197, 210 i) *» »» 583, 637 Rom. vi. 19 128, 210 397 Eom. viii. 24 216, 284*, 340, 437* Rom.vi. 20 210* Rom. viii. 25 292, 379, 423, 543 Rom. vi. 21 60, 141, 158*, 221 Eom. viii. 26 97, 109, 112, 168, 299*, 433 Rom. vi. 22 197, 417* Eom. viii. 27 122, 400*, 584 Eom. vi. 23 176, 389 Eom. viii. 28 Rom. viii. 29, 120, 534 158, 195, 228, 561 Rom. vii. 1 123, 446, 562, 565, 589 Rom. viii. 30 277*, 278 Epm. vii. 2 188*, 209 271*, 293, 446, 621 Eom. viii. 3l 382, 383, 584 Eom. vii. 3 280, 324, 343, 445, 558 Eom. viii. 32 90, 154, 379, 560 Eom. vii. 4 118, 210*, 301, 381* Rom. viii. 33 60, 180 203, 234, 350, 382, Eom. vii. 5 133, 189, 258, 329 ty jy y> 431, 508, 513 Eom. vii. 6 159,236 Rom. viii. 34 382 Rom. vii. 7 189, 305*, 316, 448*, 477 Eom. viii. 35 185, 197, 440 Eom. vii. 8 575 Eom. viii. 36 188, 562 Eom. vii. 9 87 Eom. viii. 38 488 Eom. vii. 10 133 160, 189, 616*, 621 Eom. viii. 39 133 Eom. vii. 11 189 Eom. vii. 12 520, 575* Eom. ix. 1 248* 390*, .537, 540, 562 Eom. vii. 13 41, 123 , 189, 211,^346, 351, Eom. ix. 2 639 tt )) ji 513, 575 Eom. ix. 3 32, 71, 13£ , 283*, 370, 382, 621 Eom. vii. 14 98, 407* 618 Rom. ix. 4 177*, 520 Eom. vii. 15 160 Rom, ix. 5 BOi 230, 375, 401, 551*, 586* Eom. vii. 17 152, 618* Rom. ix. 6 160, 171, 271,. 339*, 597* Eom. vii. 18 320, 530 Eom. ix. 7 40, 575 Eom. vii. 19 160, 528 Rom. ix. 8 110, 160, 228, 514 Eom. vii. 20 618 Eom. ix. 10 583* Eom. vii. 21 59, 149, 534, 557*, 571* Rom. ix. 11 131, 193* 425, 441, 459, 484, Eom. vii. 22 401, 433 y) ty yy 561, 562, 589* Eom. vii. 24 37, 189* ,197, 237*, 286*, 634 Rom. ix. 12 245, 583 Eom. vii. 25 62, 221, 378, 601* Eom. ix. 13 Eom. ix. 14 113, 549 395, 500 Eom. viii. 1 135* 390, 445 Eom. ix. 15 66, 88, 221 Rom. viii. 2 126,, 137*, 197 Rom. ix. 16 85, 445, 598* Rom. viii. 3 231*,23.5*,387*,534,574*,624 Rom. ix. 17 82, 143, 254 Rom. viii. 4 57, 58, 134, 420, 477, 482, 582 Eom. ix. 18 85, 588 Rom. viii. 5 56, 402, 447, 453 Rom. ix. 19 274*, 280*, 588 Rom. viii. 6 453* Rom. ix. 20 183, 465*, 511, 549, 559 Rom. viii. 7 397, 594 Eom. ix. 21 105, 112, 191,366, 397,550 Eom. viii. 8 452* Eom. ix. 22. 108, 235, 570*, 599 Eom. viii. 9 57, 122, 195, 448, 477, 478 Eom. ix. 23 409, 570* Eom. viii. 10 120 Eom. ix. 24 528, 627 Eom. viii. 11 292, 363, 399 Eom. ix. 25 385, 476, 485 Eom. viii. 12 209, 326*, 445, 556* Eom. ix. 26 615 Eom. viii. 14 122 Eom. ix. 27 38^ Eom. viii. 15 387,397,521, 609 Eom. ix. 29 304, 602, 605 Eom. viii. 16 122 Eom. ix. 30 138, 186, 443 Eom. viii. 17 441, 459, 460, 585 Eom. ix. 31 90, 636* Eom. viii. 18 213*, 321, 334, 405*, 550 Eom. ix. 32 582, 617* 704 N. T. INDEX. Rom. ix. 33 233, 435 Rom. xi. 36 108, 379*, 418* Eom. X . 1 133, 383 , 412, 537, 575*, 586 Eom. xii. 1 58, 231, 332, 381*, 533* Kom. A 2 185*. 212, 403*, 447 Rom. xii. 2 519, 578 Bom. X .3 186*, 447, 575* Rom. xii. 3 400, 404, 433, 481, 550, 638 Eom. X 4 123, 447 Rom. xii. 4 548 Eom. X 5 133, 447 Eom. xii. 5 110, 249 Rom. X 6 136, 186 Rom. xii. 6 352, 440, 545, 578*, 582 Eom. X 7 318 Rom. xii. 7 545, 578* Eom. X 3 195 Rom. xii. 8 545 Eom. X 10 120, 396, 611, 639 Rom. xii. 9 537, 585, 586* Eom. X 12 397 Rom. xii. 10 215 Eom. X 14 199,82,158*. 166, 279*, 285*, Rom. xii. 11 476 » ;» jj 480, 632 Eom. xii. 12 210, 217*, 433 Rom. X 15 118, 477, 606 Rom. xii. 14 537 Eom. X 16 171 Rom. xii. 15 376 Eom. X 17 123, 367, 411, 445, 558 Eom. xii. 16 219, 395*, 397, 537, 580 Eom. X 18 111,147* 511*, 559 Rom. xii. 18 230, 585 Rom. X 19 114*, 392, 393, 442, 464*, Rom. xii. 19 594 V ti „ 476*, 511, 528 Rom. xii. 20 77, 293, 313*, 444, 580 Eom. X 20 219, 469* Eom. xii. 21 537 Eom. X 21 405 Rom. xiii. 1 122, 156*, 363, 370, 371, Rom. X . 1 448, 511 )i » i> 537, 582* Rom. X .2 382, 3S5 Eom. xiii. 2 212, 274,301,429 Eom. X .4 179* Eom. xiii. 3 313, 368, 481, 524 Eom. X . 6 283*, 480, 582, 618* Eom. xiii. 4 192, 293 Eom. XI . 7 200 Rom. xiii. 5 319, 585 Eom. XI . 8 94 Rom. xiii. 6 317, 631* Eom. X] . 10 63 Rom. xiii. 7 590* Eom. XI . 11 458, 459, 586 Rom. xiii. 8 17, 1 23, 209, 273, 323, 499, 501 * Eom. XI . 12 639 Eom. xiii. 9 87, 109, 151, 316, 502, 565 Eom. xi . 13 192* 408*, 409, 551, 575* Eom. xiii. 11 195,239,319,366*, 551, Eom. xi . 15 521 j> jj t) 565*, 573*, 585 Eom. xi . 16 582*, 584, 585 Rom. xiii. 13 219, 477 Eom. xi . 17 200 , 292, 391*, 637, 638 Eom. xiii. 14 396, 397, 417, 549, 556* Eom. xi . 18 76, 292, 431*, 470, 501, 619* Eom. xi . 19 118, 280* Rom. xiv. 1 174, 397, 476 Eom. xi .20 216*, 313* Eom. xiv. 2 105, 322* Eom. xi . 21 193*, 401, 425, 448, 474*, Eom. xiv. 3 482 tt It i> 478, 504*, 598* Eom. xiv. 4 152, 154, 210 Rom. xi . 22 363, 578 Eom. xiv. 5 154, 404* Eom. xi .23 620* Rom. xiv. 6 212 Rom. xi .24 154, 429, 4.30 Rom, xiv. 7 441 Rom. xi . 25 42 211, 287, 423*, 477 Rom. xiv. 8 295* Eom. xi .26 428 Eom. xiv. 9 161, 206, 276, 457, 552* Rom. xi .27 131, 193*, 308 Eom. xiv. 10 440 Rom. xi . 28 401 Eom. xiv. 11 209, 449, 457* Rom. xi .30 216, 440 Rom. xiv. 13 323, 502, 529, 619 Rom. xi .31 60, 153*, 459*, 550 Rom. xiv. 14 152, 160, 390*, 609 Rom. xi 32 178 397*, 459, 610, 622 Rom. xiv. 15 383, 402, 619 Rom. xi . 33 191*, 519, 639 Rom. xiv. 16 15.5, 502 Rom. xi .35 436 Eom. xiv. 17 139, 390*, 552 N. T. INDEX. 705 Rom. xiv. 19 133 Rom. xvi. Id 103 Rom. xiv. 20 380,443 Rom. xvi. 16 118 Rom. xiv. 21 65, 158, 198, 320, 475*, 488 Rom. xvi. 17 126, 251 , 314, 332, 404, 429 »> J7 >* 583*, 584 Rom. xvi 18 447 Rom. xiv. 22 159 ,386 , 483, 508, 585 Rom. xvi. 19 283, 397 Rom. xiv. 23 262, 273*, 293, 582 Rom. xvi. 20 Rom. xvi. 22 280* 621 390, 521 Rom. XV. 1 476 Eom. xvi. 25 218, 401, 545, 567* Rom. XV. 2 397 Rom. xvi. 26 186, 396, 435, 567* Rom. XV. 3 74, 118, 222, 448, 574*, 599 Rom. xvi. 27 108, 168, 378, 545, 567* Rom. XV. 4 153*, 189* Rom. XV. 5 78 ,185 286, 321, 401 1 Cor. i. 2 263*, 234, 530 Rom. XV. 6 388 1 Cor. i. 3 122, 124 Rom. XV. 7 118, 122 1 Cor. i. 4 393, 412 Rom. XV. 8 122 , 153 , 185, 334, 383 1 Cor. i. 5 201, 566 Rom. XV. 9 322*, 332*, 383 1 Cor. i. 6 118, 185*, 566 Rom. XV. 11 314 1 Cor. i. 7 134, 201, 480, 499 Rom. XV. 12 206, 233 1 Cor. i. 8 144, 157*, 417* 438, 528, Rom. XV. 13 185, 201, 410 i1 )J >J 566* 624 Rom. XV. 14 201, 373 1 Cor. i. 9 378, 585 Rom. XV. 15 243*,278,379,399*,455,617* 1 Cor. i. 10 62, 336, 381*, 611 Rom. XV. 16 223*, 455, 531 1 Cor. i. 11 65, 190* Rom. XV. 17 230, 390, 455* 1 Cor. i. 12 60, 153, 161, 195, 625* Rom. XV. 18 158 166, 216, 217, 279, 1 Cor. i. 13 60, 118, 508 »j 1, it 498, 552 1 Cor. i. 15 301 Rom. XV. 19 65, 118, 334 1 Cor. i. 16 60, 298, 443 Rom. XV. 20 556* 615 1 Cor. i. 17 118,318,496 Rom. XV. 21 82, 575, 599 1 Cor. i. 18 131, 185, 211, 217 Rom. XV. 22 268, 325, 604 1 Cor. i. 19 83 Rom. XV. 23 324, 326, 483 1 Cor. i. 20 75, 609 Rom. XV. 24 198, 201, 308* 321, 331, 472* 1 Cor. i. 21 144, 381* Rom. XV. 25 265, 342* 1 Cor. i. 22 612* Rom. XV. 26 133, 256 1 Cor. i. 23 135 , 441, 541, 612, 638: Rom. XV. 27 200 , 209, 292, 448 1 Cor. i. 25 235, 239, 245* Rom. XV. 28 343, 378*, 385, 621 1 Cor. i. 26 317, 585 Rom. XV. 29 384 1 Cor. i. 27 108, 178, 189*, 609' Rom. XV. 30 332, 381 1 Cor. i. 28 129, 178, 484* Rom. XV. 31 133, 234 1 Cor. i. 29 171, 477 Rom. XV. 32 122 1 Cor. i. 30 122, 371*, 439, 542, 550 Rom. XV. 33 585 1 Cor. i. 31 599* Rom. xvi. 1 133, 134, 343 1 Cor. ii. 1 185, 342, 402, 607 Rom. xvi. 2 159, 234 ,307 , 390, 448, 638 1 Cor. ii. 3 152, 420 Rom. xvi. 3 136 1 Cor. ii. 4 96, 126, 611 Rom. xvi. 4 562, 566* 1 Cor. ii. 5 420, 586 Rom. xvi. 5 185, 397 1 Cor. ii. 6 218*, 385, 443 Rom. xvi. 7 143, 372 1 Cor. ii. 7 137, 167, 193, 387 Rom. xvi. 8 103, 113, 136 1 Cor. ii. 8 304, 562 Rom. xvi. 10 136, 190* 1 Cor. ii. 9 168, 317 575, 599, 620, 633* Rom. xvi. 11 66, 190*, 390 1 Cor. ii. 10 599* Rom. xvi. 12 390* 1 Cor. ii. 11 133, 271, 550, 551 Rom. xvi. 13 155 1 Cor. ii. 12 193*, 259 Rom. xvi. 14 89 103 1 Cor. ii. 13 194*, 637 706 N. T. [NDEX. 1 Cor. ii. 14 116 1 Cor. V. 7 44,284, 448, 524, 528, 534, 538 1 Cor. ii. 15 116, 559 1 Cor. V. 8 120, 301, 384, 477, 531 1 Cor. ii. 16 125, 300 1 Cor. V. 9 1 Cor. V. 10 106, 278, 481, 555* 128, 129, 283, 445 1 Cor. iii. 1 46, 70, 98, 217, 583, 594 1 Cor. V. 11 278*, 481, 572* 1 Cor. iii. 2 70, 226, 493*, 520, 594, 622* 1 Cor. V. 12 211, 586 1 Cor. iii. 3 99, 447 1 Cor. V. 13 313, 438, 538 1 Cor. iii. 4 62, 308, 447 1 Cor. iii. 5 378, 43? , 442, 447, 455*, 550 1 Cor. vi. 1 254*, 375, 613 1 Cor. iii, 6 247 1 Cor, vi. 2 234, 292, 385, 638 1 Cor. iii. 7 583 1 Cor. vi. 3 124* 1 Cor. iii. 8 128 1 Cor. vi. 4 60, 160, 317, 550, 561 1 Cor. iii. 9 192 1 Cor. vi. 5 80, 173, 175*, 300, 398 1 Cor. iii. 10 298, 300* 1 Cor. vi. 6 214, 442, 451 1 Cor. iii. 11 404* 1 Cor. vi. 7 214, 254* 1 Cor. iii. 12 430, 520 1 Cor. vi. 10 488, 500* 1 Cor. iii. 13 265, 388, 457* 1 Cor. vi. 11 41,142, 162*, 255, 442, 513, 1 Cor. iii. 14 53 J» ft tt 529, 609, 625 1 Cor. iii. 15 87, 150, 378, 443 1 Cor. vi. 12 369 1 Cor. iii. 16 122 1 Cor. vi. 13 211, 586 1 Cor. iii. 17 166, 539, 638 1 Cor. vi. 14 378 1 Cor. iii. 18 253, 287, 410, 613 1 Cor. vi. 15 47, 118, 192, 608 1 Cor. iii. 19 352*, 395 1 Cor. vi. 16 183, 522* 1 Cor. iii. 20 626 1 Cor. vi. 18 223, 233, 310, 538 1 Cor. iii. 21 195, 233, 301, 575 1 Cor. vi. 19 1 Cor. vi. 20 122, 163, 174, 195* 206, 313, 386, 595* 1 Cor. iv. 1 161, 527 1 Cor. iv. 2 168, 337, 386, 580, 616 1 Cor. vii. 1 57, 159, 166, 320 1 Cor. iv. 3 184*, 211, 337, 420, 460, 635 1 Cor. vii. 2 154*, 176, 398* 1 Cor. iv. 4 271, 350, 387* 447*, 630 1 Cor. vii. 3 106, 571, 582 1 Cor. iv. 5 108, 124, 371 1 Cor. vii. 4 495, 538 1 Cor. iv. 6 62, 173, 289*, 323, 382*, 386* 1 Cor. vii. 5 303* 424* j» » It 516, 580, 590* 1 Cor. vii. 7 283*, 368, 440, 452*, 465* 1 Cor. iv. 7 76, 443, 452* 484 » yi fy 528, 603 1 Cor. iv. 8 302*, 538, 609 1 Cor. vii. 8 320 1 Cor. iv. 9 127*, 228, 446, 453, 517, 528 1 Cor. vii. 9 77, 84, 292, 477 1 Cor. iv. 10 411 1 Cor. vii. 10 197, 321, 496* 1 Cor. iv. 11 92 1 Cor. vii. 11 262, 293, 565 1 Cor. iv. 13 530 1 Cor. vii. 12 152, 496*, 502, 520 1 Cor. iv. 14 125, 276 , 342, 485, 573, 578* 1 Cor. vii. 13 150, 502, 577 1 Cor. iv. 15 442* 1 Cor. vii. 14 132, 271, 283*, 389*, 445 1 Cor. iv. 16 545 1 Cor. vii. 15 311*, 386, 417, 518, 538 1 Cor. iv. 17 133, 166, 167*, 226 1 Cor. vii. 16 85, 299 1 Cor. iv. 18 278, 484, 617 1 Cor. vii. 18 169* 1 Cor. iv. 20 586 1 Cor. vii. 19 583* 1 Cor. iv. 21 285, 384, 420 1 Cor. vii. 20 1 Cor. vii. 21 422 541, 582*, 595 1 Cor. V. 1 384, 480, 550*, 615 1 Cor. vii. 22 124 1 Cor. V. 2 315, 429, 436*, 508 1 Cor. vii. 23 538, 539 1 Cor. V. 3 160, 453*, 575 1 Cor. vii. 24 314, 395* 1 Cor. V. 4 391, 562 1 Cor. vii. 25 124, 455 1 Cor. V. 5 160, 459* 1 Cor. vii. 26 1 06, 320*, 455*, 523, 568, 602 1 Cor. V. 6 524 1 Cor. vii. 27 197, 209 N. T. INDEX. 707 1 Cor. vii. 28 84, 205, 211,277,284*, 293* 1 Cor. ix. 25 111, 227, 582 1 Cor. vii. 29 596, 106, 287, 459*, 460, 484 1 Cor. ix. 26 474, 484, 485* 1 Cor. fii. 31 210, 251, 340 1 Cor. ix. 27 43, 502 1 Cor. vii. 32 299 1 Cor. vu. 33 109, 299 1 Cor. X. 1 106, 407, 47S*, 549, 609 1 Cor. vii. 34 215, 299, 519 1 Cor. x. 2 67, 255* 1 Cor. vii. 35 211 , 329, 354, 430, 464 1 Cor. X. 3 133, 198 1 Cor. vii. 36 77, 242, 296, 321, 332, 631* 1 Cor. x. 4 114, 118, 199, 268*, 281, 525 1 Cor. vii. 37 161, 193*, 483, 573* 1 Cor. X. 5 71, 232 1 Cor. vii. 38 242, 243, 439*, 576* 1 Cor. X. 6 175, 329*, 527 1 Cor. vii. 39 84, 158 , 159, 319, 390, 584 1 Cor. X. 7 318 1 Cor. vii. 40 613 1 Cor. A. 8 1 Cor. X. 9 74, 250, 502 143*, 369 1 Cor. viii. 1 84, 562, 565* 1 Cor. X. 10 106 1 Cor. viii. 2 499, 539, 565*, 613 1 Cor. X. 11 175 405 452*, 515, 527, 550 1 Cor. viii. 3 263*, 565* 1 Cor. X. 12 78 301, 504, 613* 1 Cor. viii. 4 123, 444, 558, 565 1 Cor. X. 13 324, 325, 585, 590*, 594* 1 Cor. viii. 5 116, 120 1 Cor. X. 14 223*, 313 1 Cor. viii. 6 149, 419*, 579 1 Cor. X. 16 118 164 189*, 237, 628 1 Cor. viii. 7 185* 191, 198, 216, 450, 1 Cor. X. 17 110, 201, 368 tj )i )> 466, 550 1 Cor. X. 18 114, 135*, 200 1 Cor. viii. 8 279 1 Cor. X. 19 53 1 Cor. viii. 9 211, 452*, 504 1 Cor. X. 20 442, 520 1 Cor. viii. 10 134, 263*, 293 1 Cor. X. 21 124 125, 189*, 200 1 Cor. viii. 11 394, 446 1 Cor. X. 22 284* 1 Cor. viii. 12 155 1 Cor. X. 23 495 1 Cor. viii. 13 65, 506 1 Cor. X. 24 1 Cor. X. 25 496, 583 313 1 Cor. ix. 1 510 1 Cor. X. 27 550, 593*, 614* 1 Cor. ix. 2 211, 212, 444, 479* 1 Cor. X. 28 421 1 Cor. ix. 3 211 1 Cor. X. 29 150 1 Cor. ix. 4 319, 511 1 Cor. X. 30 159, 216 1 Cor. ix. 5 228, 257* 319, 511, 523*, 527 1 Cor. X. 32 439 1 Cor. ix. 6 324, 326, 465, 518 1 Cor. X. 33 483* 1 Cor. ix. 7 198, 199, 216* 1 Cor. ix. 8 402 1 Cor. xi. 1 582* 1 Cor. ix. 9 205 316, 446, 495, 595* 1 Cor. xi. 2 205, 227, 453* 1 Cor. ix. 10 45, 394, 446 1 Cor. xi. 3 114, 118,122 1 Cor. ix. 11 155, 294 1 Cor. xi. 4 111 344*, 381*, 411, 544,594 1 Cor. ix. 12 185, 200, 209, 582 1 Cor. xi. 5 108 , 150, 178, 216* 1 Cor. ix. 13 84, 108, 433 1 Cor. xi. 6 311*, 320, 437*, 478* 1 Cor. ix. 14 367 1 Cor. xi. 7 122, 513 1 Cor. ix. 15 162, 209 ,218,239,276,278, 1 Cor. xi. 8 447 j> ij ft 337*, 386*, 550, 572 1 Cor. xi. 9 409 1 Cor. ix. 16 293, 430, 447 1 Cor. xi. 10 374, 411 1 Cor. ix. 17 229 , 260, 292, 465, 528, 1 Cor. xi. 12 381*, 409 541, 620 1 Cor. xi. 13 319, 433 1 Cor. ix. 18 108, 137, 329 1 Cor. xi. 15 271*, 364* 1 Cor. ix. 19 87 , 242, 257, 341*, 344 1 Cor. xi. 16 582, 613*, 619 1 Cor. ix. 20 87, 123, 278* 1 Cor. xi. 17 396, 420 1 Cor. ix. 21 87, 483, 484, 562 1 Cor. xi. 18 274 ',347, 413, 414*, 575, 576* 1 Cor. ix. 22 170 1 Cor. xi. 20 319, 320*, 444, 576 1 Cor. ix. 24 313, 598 1 Cor. xi. 21 77, 105 708 N. T. INDEX. 1 Cor. xi. 22 86, 174, 285, 447, 511, 1 Cor. xiv. 7 54, 129, 134, 279, 344*, )) ft if 552, 594* >t i> tt 444, 553* 1 Cor. xi. 23 116, 139, 144, 153, 270, 370* 1 Cor. xiv. 8 253 432, 438, 582 1 Cor. xiv. 9 349, 378, 446, 561 1 Cor. xi. 24 153 1 Cor. xiv. 10 123, 638 1 Cor. xi. 25 308*, 386, 403*, 582 1 Cor. xiv. 11 217,218*,385,3«7*,444 577 1 Cor, xi. 26 42, 297, 308*, 317*, 454* 1 Cor. xiv. 13 460* 1 Cor. xi. 27 202, 301, 441* 1 Cor. xiv. 15 62, 279*, 285 1 Cor. xi. 28 199, 452* 1 Cor. xiv. 16 108, 279, 480 1 Cor. xi. 29 343, 552, 638 1 Cor. xiv. 18 345*, 627 1 Cor. xi. 30 267*, 274, 527 1 Cor. xiv. 19 62, 122, 241, 389 1 Cor. xi. 31 150, 253, 304, 638 1 Cor. xiv. 20 215* 1 Cor. xi. 32 391 1 Cor. xiv. 22 184, 211, 212, 301, 496 1 Cor. xi. 34 308* 1 Cor. xiv. 23 1 Cor. xiv. 24 496, 510 518, 609 1 Cor. xii. 1 373 1 Cor. xiv. 25 122, 515 1 Cor. xii. 2 132, 306 457, 526, 571, 636 1 Cor. xiv. 26 520, 538, 625 1 Cor. xii. 3 122, 390* 1 Cor. xiv. 27 401*, 582* 1 Cor. xii. 4 437, 540 1 Cor. xiv. 30 244 1 Cor. xii. 5 437 1 Cor. xiv. 31 249 1 Cor. xii. 6 258, 437 1 Cor. xiv. 33 196 1 Cor. xii. 7 405 1 Cor. xiv. 34 229, 622 1 Cor. xii. 8 105, 378, 401, 411, 419* 1 Cor. xiv. 35 122, 320, 333 1 Cor. xii. 9 419* 1 Cor xiv. 36 396 1 Cor. xii. 12 .'•48, 606 1 Cor. XIV. 37 168, 278, 613, 626 1 Cor. xii. 13 229, 440, 552, 621 1 Cor. xiv. 38 311* I Cor. xii, 15 368*, 404*, 498* 1 Cor. xiv. 39 323 1 Cor. xii. 16 404* 1 Cor. xii. 19 304 1 Cor. XV. 1 71, 438 1 Cor. xii. 22 240 , 245, 528, 549, 550 1 Cor. XV. 2 265, 561, 605 1 Cor. xii. 23 240 1 Cor. XV. 3 412 1 Cor. xii. 27 125, 424* 1 Cor, XV, 4 272*, 281 1 Cor. xii. 28 105, 568* 1 Cor, XV, 6 250 1 Cor. xii. 31 132, 242, 265, 464, 466* 1 Cor, XV. 8 1 Cor. XV. 9 46, 53, 106, 171 337, 565, 615* 1 Cor. xiii. 1 273 292, 440, 441, 549 1 Cor. XV. 11 518 I Cor. xiii. 2 44, 527, 610 1 Cor. XV. 12 123, 626 1 Cor. xiii. 3 75, 226*, 289 1 Cor. XV. 13 123, 452*, 478* 1 Cor. xiii. 4 520, 538 1 Cor. XV. 14 452* 1 Cor. xiii. 5 520, 538 1 Cor. XV. 15 123, 185, 382, 445 1 Cor. xiii. 6 210 , 232, 433, 520, 538 1 Cor. XV. 16 292*, 478 1 Cor. xiii. 7 520, 538 1 Cor. XV. 18 135, 390* 1 Cor. xiii. 8 520, 538, 585 1 Cor. XV. 19 233, 242 1 Cor. xiii. 10 109 1 Cor. XV. 20 123, 527, 530 1 Cor, xiii. 11 80 , 268, 270, 296, 609 1 Cor. XV. 21 123, 586*, 610 1 Cor. xiii. 12 153*, 263*, 377, 380*, 404* 1 Cor. XV. 22 389, 421, 440 1 Cor. xiii, 13 240*, 242* 1 Cor. XV. 23 1 Cor. XV. 24 527 124, 308 I Cor. xiv. 1 453*, 577* 1 Cor, XV, 25 297, 332, 523*, 588*, 589 1 Cor, xiv, 2 549 1 Cor, XV, 26 527 1 Cor. xiv. 4 122, 150 1 Cor, XV. 27 272, 308, 522, 582, 585, 588 1 Cor. xiv. 5 294*, 129, 239, 577, 605* 1 Cor. XV. 28 112, 114 1 Cor. xiv. 6 387, 420, 440, 612 1 Cor. XV. 29 123, 175, 279*, 382*, 480 N. T. INDEX. 709 2 Cor. i. 11 222*, 412 1 Gor. XV. 31 153*, 517 2 Cor. i. 12 70, 98 , 122, 243, 247*, 420 1 Cor. XV. 32 108, 123, 285, 585 2 Cor. i. 13 442* 1 Cor. XV. 33 41,640* 2 Cor. i. 14 423*, 513 1 Cor. XV. 34 312*, 314 2 Cor. i. 15 216, 283* 1 Cor. XV. 35 266*, 280*, 442, 443 2 Cor. i. 16 431 1 Cor. XV. 36 158, 183 2 Cor. i. 17 109, 395 445, 460*, 476, 513 1 Cor. XV. 37 294*, 340, 621 2 Cor. i. 18 449, 476, 585 1 Cor. XV. 38 437 2 Cor. i. 19 272, 476, 558 1 Cor. XV. 39 171 2 Cor. i. 21 521, 584 1 Cor. XV. 40 586 2 Cor. i. 22 417 1 Cor. XV. 41 120, 196, 217, 562 2 Cor. i. 23 340, 619 1 Cor. XV. 42 123, 266, 522 2 Cor. i. 24 206, 210, 555, 597 1 Cor. XV. 43 538 1 Cor. XV. 44 549 2 Cor. ii. 1 161, 212, 323, 386, 482, 529 1 Cor. XV. 46 234, 592* 2 Cor. ii. 2 108, 367, 368, 437 1 Cor. XV. 47 59 2 Cor. ii. 3 159, 208, 278, 282, 409, 410 1 Cor. XV. 49 78, 277* 2 Cor. ii. 4 243 278, 366, 379*, 550 1 Cor. XV. 50 161, 518, 596 2 Cor. ii. 5 292, 497 1 Cor. XV. 51 555* 2 Cor. ii. 6 133, 209, 517* 1 Cor. XV. 52 89,123,385*,436,522*, 555* 2 Cor. ii. 7 46, 323, 502 1 Cor. XV. 53 331 2 Cor. ii. 8 120, 332 1 Cor. XV. 54 541, 606, 621, 639 2Cor. ii. 9 161, 278 1 Cor. XV. 56 114 2 Cor. ii. 10 261, 264*, 448 1 Cor. XV. 57 340, 341 2 Cor. ii. 12 145, 397*, 443, 453* 1 Cor. XV. 58 344 2 Cor. ii. 13 2 Cor. ii. 14 145,211* 328*, 475 23, 251, 389 1 Cor. xvi. 1 133, 313, 373*, 397 2 Cor. ii. 16 397, 584, 610* 1 Cor. xvi. 2 248, 307, 395, 401, 541 2 Cor. ii. 17 110 1 Cor. xvi. 3 60, 176*, 308, 310, 318, >f Jt f> 380*, 543 2 Cor. iii. 1 87, 200, 508, 614 1 Cor. xvi. 4 324* 2 Cor. iii. 2 114, 134, 430, 431, 513, 638 1 Cor. xvi. 5 446, 562* 2 Cor. iii. 3 98*, 384, 420 1 Cor. xvi. 6 159, 355*, 405, 440 2 Cor. iii. 4 555* 1 Cor. xvi. 7 283, 331 2 Cor. iii. 5 319, 367, 411, 597 1 Cor. xvi. 9 437*, 585 2 Cor. iii. 6 83 191*, 228, 438, 527 1 Cor. xvi. 10 124 2 Cor. iii. 7 341, 480, 634, 635* 1 Cor. xvi, 12 62, 336, 373, 554 2 Cor. iii. 8 280* 1 Cor. xvi. 13 313 2 Cor. iii. 9 236, 455* 1 Cor. xvi. 15 6C , 125, 185, 515, 626 2 Cor. iii. 10 43, 271 1 Cor. xvi. 17 153* 2 Cor. iii. 11 379, 411*, 424, 425 1 Cor. xvi. 21 529*, 531 2 Cor iii. 12 111 1 Cor. xvi. 22 79, 479* 2 Cor. iii. 13 2 Cor. iii. 14 329, 582* 46, 534*, 565 2 Cor. i. 2 122, 139 2 Cor. iii. 15 296, 408, 565, 590 2 Cor. i. 3 551, 586 2 Cor. iii. 16 40, 308*, 565 2 Cor. i. 4 163 2 Cor. iii. 17 114, 565 2 Cor. i. 5 189*, 378 2 Cor. iii. 18 124, 174, 229, 254", 370, 2 Cor. i. 6 136, 155, 383, 527, 582* ») )t „ 419, 565 2 Cor. i. 7 440, 572 2 Cor. i. 8 83, 324, 383, 403 2 Cor. iv. 1 565* 2 Cor. i. 9 233, 123 150, 214, 410, 459 2 Cor. iv. 2 41,85,87, 253*, 386, 405, 488 2 Cor. i. 10 233, 273 2 Cor. iv. 3 218* 710 N. T. INBEX. 2 Cor. iv. 4 118, 190, 329, 482, 624* 2 Cor. vii. 1 186, 197, 344, 544 2 Cor. iv. 5 399 2 Cor. vii. 2 538, 609 2 Cor. iv. 6 168,367' 2 Cor. vii. 3 49, 329 2 Cor. iv. 7 195*, 236, 412, 460' 2 Cor. vii. 4 217, 383 2 Cor. iv. 8 355, 485, 520, 638 2 Cor. vii. 5 352*, 568, 572 2 Cor. iv. 9 355, 485 2 Cor. vii. 6 528, 534 2 Cor. iv. 10 189, 355 2 Cor. vii. 7 135, 234, 243*, 584 2 Cor. iv. 11 123, 213, 446, 522 2 Cor. vii. 8 584, 612 2 Cor. iv. 12 301 2 Cor. vii. 9 397, 402*, 460*, 477, 496* 2 Cor. iv. 13 112, 351*, 401 2 Cor. vii. 10 402* 2 Cor. iv. 15 586 2 Cor. vii. 11 161, 216* 320 2 Cor. iv. 16 155, 442, 463* 2 Cor. vii. 12 43, 133, 278 329, 354, 405, 2 Cor. iv. 17 235, 396, 411, 635* tj i> ,1 582, 601 2 Cor. iv. 18 208*, 484* 2 Cor. vii. 13 240, 243, 371, 393* 2 Cor. vii. 14 227, 233, 292, 375* 2 Cor. V. 1 122 , 155, 191, 266*, 293, 524, 2 Cor. vii. 15 205, 377 tj }) ij 528, 531 2 Cor. vii. 16 410 2 Cor. V. 2 147*, 353* 2 Cor. V. 3 560, 616 2 Cor. viii. 1 218 2 Cor. V. 4 83, 107*, 353, 394, 448, 459, 2 Cor. viii. 2 381*, 386, 425 » » »» 638 2 Cor. viii. 3 562, 571* 2 Cor. V. 5 531* 2 Cor. viii. 4 133, 155, 198, 631 2 Cor. V. 6 352*, 430, 562, 573* 2 Cor. viii. 5 122, 572, 576*, 584* 2 Cor. V. 7 41, 120, 379, 565 2 Cor. viii. 6 288, 329* 2 Cor. V. 8 443, 562 2 Cor. viii. 7 193* 315, 450, 451* 2 Cor. V. 10 159, 405 2 Cor. viii. 8 381* 2 Cor. V. 11 186, 331*, 334 2 Cor. viii. 9 157, 341 2 Cor. V. 12 41, 87, 352* 594 2 Cor. viii. 10 323 422, 480, 560* 2 Cor. V. 13 212, 582 2 Cor. viii. 11 313, 324 368, 560*, 585 2 Cor. V. 14 185 2 Cor. viii. 12 307* 2 Cor. V. 15 161, 383, 445, 477, 558 2 Cor. viii. 13 424*, 585, 586 2 Cor. V. 16 292, 301 2 Cor. viii. 15 589* 2 Cor. V. 17 235, 390 2 Cor. viii. 16 414, 585 2 Cor. V. 18 209 2 Cor. viii. 17 242*, 443 2Cor. V. 19 145, 349, 618* 2 Cor. viii. 18 278, 378, 433 2 Cor. V. 20 262, 383* 2 Cor. viii. 19 391, 583 2 Cor. V. 21 186, 382, 484*, 638 2 Cor. viii. 20 2 Cor. viii. 22 63, 351* 240, 637 2 Cor. vi. 1 332 2 Cor. viii. 23 383, 578, 585 2 Cor. vi. 2 522, 565, 609 2 Cor. viii. 24 174, 397, 602 2 Cor. vi. 3 483, 484*, 499 2 Cor. ^-i. 4 78, 87, 181*, 389 2 Cor. ix. 1 133, 447*, 576 2 Cor. vi. 6 389 2 Cor. ix. 2 6S , 193* 208 , 222, 233, 272, 2 Cor. vi. 7 132, 378, 389, 552 )t If J) 383, 422, 629 2 Cor. vi. 8 389 2 Cor. ix. 3 576 2 Cor. vi. 9 573 2 Cor. ix. 5 318, 336 2 Cor. vi. 11 271 2 Cor. ix. 6 176, 392*, 394, 596* 2 Cor. vi. 12 388 2 Cor. ix. 7 446, 587* 2 Cor. vi. 13 530*, 620* 2 Cor. ix. 8 637 2 Cor. vi. 14 211, 221*, 350, 406, 584 2 Cor. ix. 9 469*, 588 2 Cor. vi. 15 41, 234, 443 2 Cor. ix. 10 286, 572 2 Cor. vi. 16 430 2 Cor. ix. 11 211, 572 2 Cor. vi. 17 74, 147*, 201 2 Cor. ix. 12 211, 572 N. T. INDEX. Til 2 Cor. ix. 13 118, 136, 186, 381*, 572* 2 Cor. xii. 1 124, 177, 454* 2 Cor. ix. 14 204, 217 2 Cor. xii. 2 83, 121 , 126, 160, 176, 372, 2 Cor. ix. 15 393, 585 2 Cor. xii. 3 417, 565 111, 626 2 Cor. X. 1 381, 397, 521, 558 2 Cor. xii. 4 83, 331, 626 2 Cor. X. 2 259, 321 322*, 409, 443, 482 2 Cor. xii. 5 * 383, 454 >' 11 fi 527, 602 2 Cor. xii. 6 199, 159, 453*, 502 2 Cor. X. 3 411, 638 2 Cor. xii. 7 177 220*, 550, 561, 611 2 Cor. X. 4 212, 248, 565 2 Cor. xii. 8 336, 383, 427 2 Cor. X. 5 186, 621 2 Cor. xii. 9 11£ , 209, 240, 271, 284 2 Cor. X. 6 332 2 Cor. xii. 10 232 2 Cor. X. 7 122 , 161, 195, 372*, 585 2 Cor. xii. 11 197 282*, 422, 477, 538 2 Cor. X. 9 310* 2 Cor. xii. 12 106, 111*, 410, 575 2 Cor. X. 10 522*, 563 2 Cor. xii. 13 403* 2 Cor. X. 11 161 2 Cor. xii. 14 41. 332, 625 2 Cor. X. 12 81, 87, 150, 209, 218* 331, 637 2 Cor. xii. 15 156, 245 2 Cor. X. 13 163, 165, 318, 396, 530 2 Cor. xii. 17 158, 574* 2 Cor. X. 14 90, 342*, 384, 396, 431, 2 Cor. xii. 18 219 » » It 474*, 484 2 Cor. xii. 19 155, 209, 383*, 508 2 Cor. X. 15 331 2 Cor. xii. 20 65, 176, 219, 453*, 504, 556* 2 Cor. X. 16 109, 318, 587 2 Cor. xii. 21 163,207,222,343,393,482, 2 Cor. X. 18 78,87 .. „ „ 494, 504, 554*, 635* 2 Cor. xi. 1 72, 302*, 442 2 Cor. xiii. 1 250*, 265, 375, 440, 625 2 Cor. xi. 2 117, 185, 258, 318, 534 2 Cor. xiii. 2 128 2 Cor. xi. 3 133, 370, 504, 541, 621 2 Cor. xiii. 3 411, 418 2 Cor. xi. 4 72, 109, 306* 2 Cor. xiii. 4 86, 388* 442, 541 2 Cor. xi. 5 196*, 422, 446 2 Cor. xiii. 5 626 2 Cor. xi. 6 398*, 442, 580, 585* 2 Cor. xiii. 7 212, 321, 460*, 495, 513, 2 Cor. xi. 7 208, 509* jy It II 555*, 617 2 Cor. xi. 8 44, 405, 499 2 Cor. xiii. 8 382, 594 2 Cor. xi. 9 134* 2 Cor. xiii. 9 155, 161, 529 2 Cor. xi. 10 248*, 397, 449, 456* 2 Cor. xiii. 10 278, 494 2 Cor. xi. 11 582 2 Cor. xi. 12 158, 286 Gal. i. 1 122 371, 378, 379, 418* 2 Cor. xi. 13 111,513 GaJ. i. 3 124, 139 2 Cor. xi. 14 112 GaJ. i. 4 133, 383, 412, 525 2 Cor. xi. 16 321, 583, 584, 605 Gal. i. 5 108 2 Cor. xi. 17 401 Gal. i. 6 638 2 Cor. xi. 18 117, 233 Gal. i. 7 109, 118, 513 2 Cor. xi. 20 255*, 609 Gal. i. 8 159, 295, 296, 517, 518* 2 Cor. xi. 21 40, 402*, 563, 618 Gal. i. 10 80, 304, 509 2 Cor. xi. 22 454 Gal. i. 11 402, 549 2 Cor. xi. 23 176,«17,243,423*,466,578* Gal. i. 12 489, 492* 2 Cor. xi. 24 369, 578, 589 Gal. i. 13 269* 2 Cor. xi. 25 74, 272* Gal. i. 14 70, 243, 403 2 Cor. xi. 26 188*, 217, 573, 609 Gal. i. 15 367 2 Cor. xi. 27 578 Gal. i. 16 218* 552 2 Cor. xi. 28 533* Gal. i. 18 428 2 Cor. xi. 29 153* Gal. i. 19 113, 633* 2 Cor. xi. 30 222, 538 Gal. i. 20 449 2 Cor. xi. 32 60, 61, 138 Gal. i. 22 215, 390 2 Cor. xi. 33 429, 606 Gal. i. 23 108, 353*, 545, 631* 712 N. T. INDEX. Gal. i. 24 388 Gal. iv. 8 Gal. iv. 9 475, 486* 263*, 604 Gal. ii. 1 60, 380* Gal. iv. 10 253 Gal. ii. 2 353, 380, 443, 504*, 632* Gal. iv. 11 503*, 626 Gal. ii. 4 255 , 289, 545, 569* Gal. iv. 12 227 Gal. ii. 5 236 Gal. iv. 13 71. 223, 400* Gal. ii. 6 170*, 568* Gal. iv. 15 84, 305, 585 Gal. ii. 7 46. 229, 260*, 271* Gal. iv. 17 289*, 638 Gal. ii. 8 258, 397, 562, 565 Gal. iv. 18 320, 329 Gal. ii. 9 152 , 587*, 592, 613 Gal. iv. 19 141 Gal. ii. 10 142, 149*, 550 Gal. iv. 20 283, 330 Gal. ii. II 343* Gal. iv. 21 407, 537 Gal. ii. 12 446 Gal. iv. 22 173 Gal. ii. 13 216, 301 Gal. iv. 23 104 Gal. ii. 14 45, 236, 405 Gal. iv. 24 118, 248 , 562, 576 Gal. ii. 15 521 Gal. iv. 25 109*, 112, 179* Gal. ii. 16 171, 186, 266, 280 Gal. iv. 26 576 Gal. ii. 17 120, 500, 510*, 616* Gal. iv. 27 240, 485* Gal. ii. 18 87 Gal. iv. 28 192, 402* Gal. ii. 19 210, 428 Gal. iv. 30 506 Gal. ii. 20 168, 227, 619 Gal. iv. 31 44& Gal. ii. 21 123, 558 Gal. V. 1 210 Gal. iii. 1 75, 83, 135*, 149*, 183, 223 Gal. V. 2 227, 521 j» »y ij 400, 537, 549 Gal. V. 4 73, 427 , 429, 621 Gal. iii. 2 365, 509 Gal. V. 6 120 Gal. iii. 7 424*, 445 Gal. V. 7 604 Gal. iii. 8 71, 114,411 Gal. V. 8 637 Gal. iii. 9 301,391 Gal. V. 10 137 , 214, 321 Gal. iii. 10 325, 368, 407 Gal. V. 11 558 Gal. iii. 11 123, 136, 186 Gal. V. 12 255 , 302, 638 Gal. iii. 13 383 Gal. V. 13 394, 596* Gal. iii. 14 237* Gal. V. 14 109 151, 549 Gal. iii. 15 192, 402, 444, 553* Gal. V. 16 219, 506 Gal. iii. 16 166*, 375, 522 Gal. V. 17 307*, 460 Gal. iii. 17 596, 250, 396: Gal. V. 19 515 Gal. iii. 18 123, 619 Gal. V. 20 65, 176 Gal. iii. 19 124, 297, 379* Gal. V. 21 200 Gal. iii. 20 116, 593* Gal. V. 26 209, 476, 502* Gal. iii. 21 123 , 139, 304, 508 Gal. iii. 22 186, 397 Gal. vi. I 537 580, 626 Gal. iii. 23 334 , 396, 550, 558 Gal. vi. 3 170*, 613 Gal. iii. 26 122. 213, 234 Gal. vi. 6 110, 114 Gal. iii. 28 80, 552 Gal. vi. 7 310 Gal. iii. 29 445 Gal. vi. 9 Gal. vi. 10 483, 502 284, 448 Gal. iv. 1 106 Gal. vi. 11 278 Gal. iv. 2 407 Gal. vi. 12 216, 290 Gal. iv. 3 80 Gal. vi. 13 233 287, 332 Gal. iv. 4 86 Gal. vi. 14 123, 319 Gal. iv. 5 123 Gal. vi. 16 437 Gal. iv. 6 580 Gal. vi. 17 153, 207 Gal. iv. 7 301, 379, 580 N. T. INDEX. 713 Eph. i. 3 410, 517, 551, 586 Eph. i. 4 125, 342, 386 Eph. i. 5 342, 378, 402, 611 Eph. i. 6 125, 163, 190 Eph. i. 7 389*, 528 Eph. i. 8 111*, 163, 164* Eph. i. 9 152, 342 Eph. i. 10 397, 528 Eph. i. 11 258, 262 Eph. i. 12 58, 125, 134* Eph. i. 13 213, 216, 528, 562, 586* Eph. i. 14 166, 410, 531 Eph. i. 15 133, 135, 137, 154*, 234 Eph. i. 16 256, 376, 383, 412 Eph. i. 17 78, 152, 290, 416 Eph. i. 18 108, 298, 572, 584 Eph. i. 19 134,190,421,529,611 Eph. i. 20 125,218*,235,384, 430,573,592 Eph. i. 21 420, 421, 527, 566, 615 Eph. i. 23 114, 166, 167*, 258*, 260*, „ „ „ 513, 533, 638 Eph. ii. 1 126, 412, 611 Eph. ii. 2 238*, 401, 634* Eph. u. 3 80, 127, 176, 191* 215*, 238, „ „ „ 386, 410, 550*, 573* Eph. ii. 4 201*, 225, 399, 443 Eph. ii. 5 218*, 565 Eph. ii. 6 235, 278 Eph. ii. 7 65, 137, 254, 410 Eph. ii. 8 192, 217*, 411, 562 Eph. ii. 9 459, 477 Eph. ii. 10 149*, 155, 163, 192, 386, 394 Eph. ii. 11 135,313,562,566*, 578, 582, 602 Eph. ii. 12 177*, 194, 197, 428, 465, 477, „ „ „ 566,578 Eph. ii. 13 118, 341, 578 Eph. ii. 14 114, 181, 228, 531 „Eph. ii. 15 136,138,220*,386,388,528,621 Eph. ii. 16 342, 416* Eph. ii. 17 607*, 609 Eph. ii. 19 558 Eph. ii. 20 128, 130, 185, 431 Eph. ii. 21 83,111*,136,149*,193,342,396 Eph. ii. 22 122, 317 ,Eph. iii. 1 189, 521, 566* Eph. iii. 2 448, 560, 634 Eph. iii. 4 136 Eph. iii. 5 128, 218, 221, 566* Eph. iii. 6 318*, 389 Eph. iii. 8 65, 69, 242, 319, 362 Eph. iii. 10 128; 235*, 362, 459* 90 Eph. iii. II Eph. iii. 12 Eph. iii. 13 Eph. iii. 14 Eph. iii. 15 167, 256 128, 137, 167, 186 136, 166*, 234, 388 404, 566*, 638 111*, 116, 121, 615 Eph. iii. 16 65, 78, 290*, 319, 378, 397, 417* Eph. iii. 18 128, 144, 331, 340, 572* Eph. iii. 19 I 185, 217*, 346*, 638 Eph. iii. 20 158 Eph. iii. 21 108 Eph. iv. 1 136*, 152, 163, 332, 388*, 566* Eph. iy. 2 202, 572* Eph. iv. 3 - 386,572* Eph. iv. 4 ... 417, 584 Eph. iv. 6 ' ' 375, 419* Eph. iv. 7 ' 401 Eph. iv. 8 225, 522 Eph. iv. 9 ^ 69, 243, 531*, 592 Eph. iv. 11 104 Eph. iv. 12 144, 157, 411, 615 Eph. iv. 13 ■ -* :'190*, 297, 528 Eph. iv. 14 ,. .> ; 460*, 477 Eph. iv. 15 397 Eph. iv. 16 ' ■ 256, 386 Eph. iv. 17 , 161, 514, 526 Eph. iv. 18 186*, 189, 215, 428, 526* Eph. iv. 19 213 Eph. iv. 21 199*, 391* Eph. iv. 22 318, 321*, 322*, 342, 347*, „ ,, ., 410 Eph. iv. 23 215, 263*, 611 Eph. iv. 25 313, 342, 528 Eph. iv. 26 120, 311*, 313, 494*, 584 Eph. iv. 27 312,491* Eph. iv. 28 234, 313, 353*, 501 Eph. iv. 29 172, 363, 583 Eph. iv. 30 125, 39b Eph. iv. 31 312 Eph. v. 2 386, 438, 605* Eph. v. 3 . 441, 485*, 615* Eph. V. 4 '^ 270 Eph. V. 5 122, 128, 166,167, 172*, 265, „ „ „ 355*, 518 Eph. V. 6 501 Eph. V. 8 238 Eph. V. 9 184*, 562, 565 Eph. V. 11 143, 521 Eph. V. 12 47, 141, 146*, 319 Eph. V. 13 258* Eph. V. 14 79, 90, 123, 312, 431 Eph. V. 15 300*, 474*, 610 714 N. T. INDEX. Eph. V. 17 584, 610 Phil. i. 15 559 Eph. V. 18 217 PhU. i. 16 184, 332, 368, 561 Eph. V. 19 212*, 216, 351 Phil. i. 17 184 , 209, 332, 368, 431 Eph. V. 20 351, 383 Phil. i. 18 90, 157, 216 ,217*, 232, 387, 585 Eph. V. 21 186, 351* Phil. i. 19 128, 129 Eph. V. 22 154, 351 Phil. i. 20 128 Eph. V. 23 122, 451, 530 Phil. i. 21 320, 333 Eph. V. 24 440, 451* 582* Phil. 1. 22 160, 169, 299*, 513 Eph. V. 26 30, 123, 138* Phil. i. 23 240*, 245, 329*, 397, 578 Eph. V. 27 482, 545, 577 Phil. i. 25 128, 161, 397 Eph. Y. 28 150 Phil. i. 26 136 , 234, 287, 410, 466 Eph. V. 29 278 Phil. i. 27 109, 211, 477 Eph. V. 31 183, 262, 364*, 432* Phil. i. 28 166, 211, 477, 482 Eph. V. 32 153* 397, 443 Phil. i. 29 259, 320, 513 Eph. v. 33 249, 315, 577 Phil. i. 30 112, 572 Eph. Ti. I 182, 390, 537 Phil. ii. 1 122, 526 Eph. vi. 2 126, 316, 391*, 562 Phil. ii. 2 155, 337, 525 Eph. vl. 8 289* Phil. ii. 3 583, 587* Eph. vi. 4 189*, 313, 368* Phil. ii. 4 477, 482, 498 Eph. vi. 5 138, 537, 401* Phil. ii. 5 582 Eph. vi. 6 402 Phil. ii. 6 177*, 209, 323* Eph. vi. 8 310, 365, 552, 621 Phil. ii. 7 342, 345, 387, 616 Eph. vi. 9 192 Phil. ii. 8 122, 215, 257, 443 Eph. vi. 10 264, 537 Phil. ii. 9 140*, 438 Eph. vi. 11 176, 189* Phil. ii. 10 191* 235* 390* Eph. vi. 12 235, 239*, 421, 496, 552, 609 Phil. ii. 11 122, 124, 551 Eph. vi. 13 132, 189*, 313 Phil. ii. 12 151, 301, 313,476*, 477,498, 594 Eph. vi. 14 174, 432, 531 Phil. ii. 13 114, 350*, 383*, 430, 513 Eph. vi. 15 416 Phil. ii. 15 122 , 123, 141,317,471 Eph. vi. 16 108, 134*,384, 393, 531 Phil. ii. 16 125, 410, 606 Eph. vi. 17 709, 123, 166, 313 Phil. ii. 17 128, 393 Eph. vi. 18 122, 383, 410, 412, 437, 631 Phil. ii. 18 40, 227 Eph. vi. 20 384*, 386 Phil. ii. 19 331, 344 Eph. vi. 21 126, 136, 401* Phil. ii. 20 300 Eph. vi. 22 161 Phil. ii. 22 317, 422*, 577* Eph. vi. 23 124, 377 Phil. ii. 23 Phil. ii. 25 45, 308*, 331 49, 192 Phil. i. 1 136, 587 Phil. ii. 27 221, 288, 408*, 471 Phil. i. 2 122 Phil. ii. 28 70, 243*, 278, 346*, 548 Phil. i. 3 110, 392*, 393 Phil. ii. 29 228 Phil. i. 4 256, 637 Phil. ii. 30 93, 122, 191 Phil. i. 5 109, 124, 126, 193 Phil. i. 6 143, 161, 227 Phil. iii. 2 223*. 609, 638 Phil. i. 7 128, 148, 319, 329*, 383, 420, Phil. iii. 3 114, 209, 214, 216, 233, 485*, n It tl 439, 543, 627* >y i> il 529, 593, 638 Phil. i. 8 189*, 204, 388 Phil. iii. 4 344, 582 Phil. i. 9 240, 336, 386, 416* Phil. iii. 5 196, 215, 520 Phil. i. 10 416 Phil. iii. 6 65, 123, 140, 402 PhU. i. 11 133, 140, 201, 229, 378 Phil. iii. 7 160, 168, 228, 274*, 281 Phil. i. 12 243*, 332, 549 Phil. iii. 8 229, 235, 442* Phil. i. 13 63, 578 Phil. iii. 9 122, 133 , 137, 139, 186, 390, Phil. i. 14 137*, 243 n u II 392, 477, 482, 616 N. T. INDEX. 715 Phil. iii. 10 439, 92 129, 189, 325*, 572 Col. i. 24 136 166 , 167, 189, '232, 382 PhU. iii. 12 262 263, 276*, 394, 638 Col. i. 26 227, 573 Phil. iii. 13 321* Col. i. 27 166*, 168, 330 Phil. iii. 14 136, 205, 400*, 407, 431*, 620 Col. i. 28 167, 609 Phil. iii. 15 280*, 285*, 585 Col. i. 29 167, 258, 397, 410 Phil. iii. 16 90, 316*, 513 PhU. iii. 17 549 Col. ii. 1 76, 453 Phil. iii. 18 532, 573, 183, 222, 530, 628 Col. u. 2 58, 65, 410, 572* Phil. iii. 19 114, 183, 532, 564 Col. ii. 5 155 215, 236 292, 442, 444, 469* Phil. iii. 20 124, 139, 141*, 155, 446, Col. u. 7 216, 343, 431 11 13 t) 453*, 551 Col. ii. 8 109, 128, 401, 437, 503*, 520 Phil. iii. 21 324, 528, 624 Col. ii. 9 Col. n. 10 546 572 Phil. iv. 1 301, 390, 523, 530, 537 Col. ii. 11 144, 157, 189*, 216 Phil. iv. 3 69, 125, 313, 439, 545, 584 Col. U. 12 123, 190, 340 Phil. iv. 4 537 Col. u. 13 127 148 218,342,391,412, Phil. iv. 5 219, 235, 585 J) J, „ 344, 433, 602 Phil. iv. 6 128, 212, 405 Col. ii. 14 47, 138, 220, 271 Phil. iv. 7 126, 186*, 280* Col. U. 15 141, 258 Phil. iv. 8 160, 609 Col. ii. 16 420, 502, 552, 615* Phil. iv. 9 160, 280*, 313 Col. ii. 17 166, 532* Phil. iv. 10 87, 233 317*, 323, 382, 546 Col. ii. 18 187*, 190, 232, 248*, 369, Phil. iv. 11 152, 15S , 159, 321, 347, 386, >j n )t 467*, 480* »> jt n 402*, 597 Col. n. 19 83 ,128, 141, 202, 224, 247*, 485* Phil. iv. 12 77, 180, 318, 520 Col. ii. 20 209 , 252 , 261, 370, 391, 428 Phil. iv. 14 155, 345 Col. U. 21 488, 501, 594 Phil. iv. 15 84, 193, 200, 602 Col. ii. 22 127 Phil. iv. 16 228*, 414* Col. ii. 23 349, 575* Phil. iv. 17 597, 606 PhU. iv. 18 237*, 275*, 366*, 452, 528, Col. iU. 1 292 » J> }t 530, 631 Col. iii. 3 271, 272, 391 Phil. iv. 19 65, 137, 280* Col. iu. 4 530 PhU. iv. 21 137 Col. iu. 5 117*, 166* 167, 313, 531*j 553 PhU. iv. 22 629 Col. iii. 6 Col. iii. 7 265* 269, 386 Col. i. 3 344*, 412 Col. iii. 8 107*, 116, 120 Col. i. 4 135 Col. iii. 9 397 Col. i. 6 137, 573 Col. iii. 11 80, 440, 520, 552 Col. i. 7 60, 103, 382 Col. ui. 12 176, 565, 611 Col. i. 8 122, 135*, 390* Col. iii. 13 440, 565* Col. i. 9 137, 412 Col. iii. 14 166*, 393, 565 Col. i. 12 136 Col. ni. 15 186*, 438 Col. i. 13 237, 259 Col. in. 16 439, 566, 572 Col. i. 14 189 Col. iu. 17 126, 307, 378, 420 Col. i. 15 54, 124 Col. iii. 18 182, 270* Col. i. 16 116*, 235, 272*, 389, 419* Col. ui. 23 307 Col. i. 17 150, 419* Col. Ui. 24 370*, 371, 531 Col. i. 18 123 Col. iii. 25 620* Col. i. 19 71, 588 Col. i. 20 178, 187*, 190, 212*, 397 Col. iv. 1 126, 257 Col. i. 21 132, 216, 341, 443, 571 Col. iv. 2 386, 410, 433 Col. i. 22 188*, 318 Col. iv. 3 517 Col. i. 23 124, 448, 475* Col. iv. 5 405, 424 716 N. T. INDEX. Col. iv. 6 298, 316*, 318*, 585 1 Thess. iv. 1 109, 432, 513 Col. IV. 9 75 1 Thess. iv. 2 84, 379* Col. iv. 10 60, 565 1 Thess. iv. 3 319*, 427, 513, 529 Col. iv. 11 84, 513 1 Thess. iv. 4 274 Col. iv. 12 103, 111* 1 Thess. iv. 5 134, 139, 486 Col. iv. 14 103 1 Thess. iv. 6 53, 85, 115 *, 171, 320, 433 Col. iv. 15 102, 145 1 Thess. iv. 7 394*, 411, 417* Col. iv. 16 107* ,337, 395, 550, 629* 1 Thess. iv. 8 497* Col. iv. 17 85, 626 1 Thess. iv. 9 56, 324, 339* Col. iv. 18 155 1 Thess. iv. 10 1 Thess. iv. 14 133, 332 541* 1 Thess. i. 1 136 1 Thess. iv. 15 387*, 506, 507* 1 Tliess. i. 2 256 , 344, 373, 376 1 Thess. iv. 16 135*,150,247*,385,390,431 1 Tliess. i. 3 155, 187*, 190, 205, 615* 1 Thess. iv. 17 83, 135*, 391 1 Thess. i. 5 420 1 Thess. iv. 18 301 1 Thess. i. 6 550 1 Thess. i. 7 111, 130, 175* 1 Thess. V. 1 339 1 Thess. i. 8 136 , 145, 420, 480 1 Thess. V. 2 139* 1 Thess. i. 9 122, 145, 298 1 Thess. V. 3 65, 506, 541 1 Thess. i. 10 123 , 134, 353, 594 1 Thess. V. 4 1 Thess. V. 5 460*- 195*, 196 1 Thess. ii. 1 133, 626 1 Thess. V. 6 285, 502 1 Thess. ii. 3 368, 411, 493* 1 Thess. V. 8 120, 125, 195* 1 Thess. ii. 4 271, 340 1 Thess. V. 10 294*, 391 1 Thess. ii. 5 120, 488, 565 1 Thess. V. 11 173 1 Thess. ii. 6 344,411* 1 Thess. V. 12 335, 386* 1 Thess. ii. 7 307, 541 1 Thess. V. 14 202, 405, 538 1 Thess. ii. 8 101, 198*, 204, 331, 622* 1 Thess. V. 22 120, 427 1 Thess. ii. 9 205, 329 , 482, 552, 587 1 Thess. ,. 23 150, 286, 527 1 Thess. ii. 10 465 1 Thess. V. 24 353 1 Thess. ii. 12 128, 333 1 Thess. V. 27 226 1 Thess. ii. 13 122 191, 258*, 465, 551 1 Thess. ii. 14 46, 84, 154 , 369, 390, 410 2 Thess. i. 1 136 1 Thess. ii. 15 355 2 Thess. i. 4 163, 383, 410, 533 1 Thess. ii. 16 90, 137, 155, 329, 452*, 2 Thess. i. 6 122, 448* n tt jt 594, 604 2 Thess. i. 7 237* 1 Thess. ii. 17 243*, 427 2 Thess. i. 8 475*, 486 1 Thess. ii. 18 437 2 Thess. i. 9 125, 190, 371 1 Thess. ii. 19 155 2 Thess. i. 10 260, 386, 389, 565 1 Thess. ii. 20 446, 513 2 Thess. i. 11 2 Thess. i. 12 206, 397 130* 1 Thess. iii. 1 483 2 Thess, ii. 1 383 1 Thess. iii. 2 113, 386 2 Thess. ii. 2 125, 274, 370, 378*, 421, 1 Thess. iii. 3 184, 328* Jj }J Jl 493, 618 1 Thess. iii. 5 483, 505* 2 Thess. ii. 3 106, 238, 239*, 499, 500, 1 Thess. iii. 6 371* »/ 11 )t 529 545, 599*, 600 1 Thess. iii. 7 128 2 Thess. ii. 4 253, 626 1 Thess. iii. 8 295 2 Thess. ii. 6 178 1 Thess. iii. 9 57, 226 2 Thess. ii. 7 123, 258, 297, 550 1 Thess. iii. 10 155, 552 2 Thess. ii. 8 611, 639 1 Thess. iii. 11 ;i39, 150,316 2 Thess. ii. 9 60, 158, 386 1 Thess. iii. 13 155, 417* 528, 624 2 Thess. ii. 10 2 Thess. ii. 11 189* 236 N. T. INDEX. 717 2 Thess. li. 12 232 475, 477, 482 1 Tim. iii. 1 204, 537, 585 2 Thess. ii. 13 73, 124, 186, 417*, 527 1 Tim. iii. 2 117*, 525 2 Thess. ii. 15 202, 229, 558 1 Tim. iii. 4 117 2 Thess. ii. 16 69, 150 1 Tim. iii. 5 205, 279, 452*, 477, 565 2 Thess. ii. 17 155, 316 1 Tim. iii. 6 1 Tim. iii. 12 191*, 430 117* 2 Thess. iii. 2 584 1 Tim. iii. 13 140 2 Thess. iii. 3 89 1 Tim. iii. 14 69, 243*, 331, 537 2 Thess. iii. 4 137, 233 1 Tim. iii. 15 166*, 243, 298, 627 2 Thess. iii. 5 118, 155 185, 286, 316 1 Tim. iii. 16 123, 24, 260*, 413, 538, 2 Thess. iii. 6 77, 432 »j }) }t 588*, 639* 2 Thess. iii. 7 298 2 Thess. iii. 8 351*, 493 1 Tim. iv. 1 187*, 427, 428 2 Thess. iii. 9 597 1 Tim. iv. 3 139, 622* 2 Thess. iii. 10 161,475 , 476, 477, 478 1 Tim. It. 4 343 2 Thess. iii. 11 274, 347, 638 1 Tim. iv. 6 128, 164 2 Thess. iii. 12 143, 198, 381 1 Tim. iv. 7 257, 313, 405 2 Thess. iii. 13 345 1 Tim. iv. 8 140, 213 2 Thess. iii. 14 119*, 253, 477 1 Tim. iv. 10 410 2 Thess. iii. 15 228 , 521, 527, 602 1 Tim. iv. 11 31.3, 537 2 Thess. iii. 16 150,217 1 Tim. iv. 12 1 Tim. iv. 13 296 537 313, 520, 537 1 Tim. i. 1 139 1 Tim. iv. 14 205, 377*, 537 1 Tim. i. 2 137* 1 Tim. iv. 15 79, 155, 287, 385, 386, 1 Tim. i. 3 315, 321*, 433, 488, 566, 570* 3> » >J 520, 537 1 Tim. i. 4 140, 488 1 Tim. iv. 16 537 1 Tim. i. 5 139, 368, 570* 1 Tim. i. 6 196 1 Tim. V. 1 527, 537 1 Tim. i. 7 169, 253, 488 1 Tim. V. 4 77, 347, 631* 1 Tim. i. 8 638 1 Tim. V. 5 130, 233 ,409 , 410, 433, 611 1 Tim. i. 9 161,211,638 1 Tim. V. 7 813 1 Tim. i. 10 520 1 Tim. V. 8 205 , 239, 259, 477 1 Tim. i. U 229 1 Tim. V. 9 477, 590* 1 Tim. i. 12 348* 1 Tim. V. 10 234, 387, 609 1 Tim. i. 13 341 1 Tim. V. 13 347*, 432, 480* 1 Tim. i. 14 133 1 Tim. V. 14 537 1 Tim. i. 15 107, 234, 585 1 Tim. V. 15 621 1 Tim. i. 16 288, 549 1 Tim. f. 16 83, 590 1 Tim. i. 18 224, 387* 1 Tim. V. 17 206 1 Tim', i. 19 406, 524 1 Tim. V. 18 585 1 Tim. i. 20 195*, 288 1 Tim. V. 19 1 Tim. V. 21 64 313, 375*, 420, 605 477 1 Tim. ii. 1 256, 332, 611 1 Tim. V. 22 200' , 209 ,430, 501, 537 1 Tim. ii. 2 70, 386, 524, 593* 1 Tim. V. 23 127 498" , 501, 537, 548 1 Tim. ii. 3 534 1 Tim. V. 24 171, 537, 559 1 Tim. ii. 4 553* 1 Tim. V. 25 514 I Tim. ii. 6 58, 383, 533 1 Tim. ii. 7 527, 562, 565, 610 1 Tim. vi. 1 407, 537 1 Tim. ii. 8 68*, 28C , 321, 332, 544 1 Tim. vi. 2 143, 202, 502, 521 1 Tim. ii. 9 68 1 Tim. vi. 3 56, 57, 537 1 Tim. ii. 10 158* 1 Tim. vi. 4 406, 518 1 Tim. ii. 12 122, 206 1 Tim. vi. 5 78, 102, 196, 229, 427, 428 1 Tim. ii. 15. 293, 516*, 631* 1 Tim. ii. 1 Tim. vi. 6 13 464 546 718 N. T. INDEX. 1 Tim. vi. 7 585 2 Tim. iii. 15 120, 370 1 Tim. vi. 8 75 2 Tim. iii. 16 96*, 213, 416 1 Tim. Ti. 9 525 1 Tim. vi. 11 120, 183, 313 2 Tim. iv. 1 537, 552, 630 1 Tim. vi. 12 202, 224, 312* 2 Tim. iv. 2 79, 314, 520* 1 Tim. vi. 13 107, 375 2 Tim. iv. 3 83, 481 1 Tim. vi. 15 246 2 Tim. iv. 6 152, 274 1 Tim. vi. 17 136*, 192*, 236*, 273, 334 2 Tim. iv. 7 132 , 224, 523, 638 1 Tim. vi. 18 201 2 Tim. iv. 8 273* 1 Tim. vi. 19 202 2 Tim. iv. 9 602 1 Tim. vi. 20 183,253,314,549 2 Tim. iv. 10 2 Tim. iv. 13 103 22, 395 2 Tim. i. 1 402 2 Tim. iv. 14 78 2 Tim. i. 3 372*, 448* 2 Tim. iv. 15 223, 314 2 Tim. i. 4 155, 544 2 Tim. iv. 16 476, 501 2 Tim. i. 5 582* 2 Tim. iv. 17 74, 259, 514 2 Tim. i. 8 189, 314 2 Tim. iv. 18 621* 2 Tim. i. 10 116, 139, 534 2 Tim. iv. 20 219 2 Tim. i. U 527 2 Tim. iv. 21 372 2 Tim. i. 12 319, 396, 438 2 Tim. i. 13 139 Titus i. 1 402, 565* 2 Tim. i. 14 140, 314 Titus i. 2 565* 2 Tim. i. 15 195 Titus i. 3 534*, 565*, 568* 2 Tim. i. 16 73, 78 Titus i. 5 112, 258*, 288 2 Tim. i. 17 219 Titus i. 6 117*, 139 , 386, 477, 525 2 Tim. i. 18 78, 242*, 321, 365* Titus i. 7 Titus i. 9 192 202 2 Tim. ii. 1 133, 153, 313 Titus i. 10 368 2 Tim. ii. 2 160, 319, 378* Titus i. 11 332, 480* 2 Tim. ii. 3 314 Titus i. 12 69, 154*, 640* 2 Tim. ii. 4 287 Titus i. 13 217, 313 2 Tim. ii. 5 477, 556* Titus i. 15 88, 155, 518, 559* 2 Tim. ii. 6 556* 2 Tim. ii. 7 78, 286 Titus ii. 2 217, 322 2 Tim. ii. 8 313 Titus ii. 4 290, 525 2 Tim. ii. 10 140, 234, 287, 605 Titus ii. 5 101, 154 2 Tim. ii. 11 86, 143, 585 Titus ii. 7 228, 257*, 406 Titus ii. 8 64 , 424, 477, 591 2 Tim. ii. 14 313, 394, 533, 537, 624 Titus ii. 9 154, 482 2 Tim. ii. 16 78 Titus ii. 10 131,482 2 Tim. ii. 18 334 Titus ii. 11 132 2 Tim. ii. 22 223* Titus ii. 12 127, 344, 355 2 Tim. ii. 26 621 Titus ii. 13 Titus ii. 14 130* , 344, 355, 544 197, 288 2 Tim. iii. 1 124 2 Tim. iii. 2 520 Titus iii. 1 313 2 Tim. iii. 4 245, 638 Titus iii. 3 120, 593* 2 Tim. iii. 6 366 Titus iii. 4 139 2 Tim. iii. 8 66, 229, 230, 406 Titus iii. 5 66,139,163 189, 193, 390*, 402 2 Tim. iii. 10 155 Titus iii. 6 163, 163, 378 2 Tim. iii. 11 74, 420 Titus iii. 7 157, 216 2 Tim. iii. 12 614* Titus iii. 8 108,205, 253 2 Tim. iii. 14 314, 365 Titus iii. 9 68, 78. 524 N. T. INDEX. 719 Titus iii. 12 Titus iii. 13 Titus iii. 14 Titus iii. 15 Philem. 1 PhUem. 4 Philem. 5 Philem. 6 Philem. 9 Philem. 10 Philem. 11 Philem. 12 Philem. 13 Philem. 14 Philem. 16 PhUem. 17 Philem. 18 Philem. 19 Philem. 20 Philem. 22 Philem. 23 102 103, 313 77 585 189* 256, 345 139, 155, 410* 338, 416, 462* 189* 164, 628 278, 638 530 189*, 270, 283*, 383 270, 283*, 330, 463, 617 403, 420 313 85, 227, 292 278, 521 137, 198, 286, 549, 638 594 519 Heb. Heb. Heb. Heb. Heb. Heb. Heb. Heb. Heb. Heb. Heb. Heb. I 375* . 2 176*, 228, 438, 527 . 3 125, 187*, 216, 237*, 256, 344, 384 . 4 240, 245, 271 6 210, 308 . 7 352, 405*, 588 . 8 182 9 435, 226, 277*, 404 10 435 II 53, 266 13 228, 271, 367*, 558, 605 14 120 Heb. ii. 1 89, 242, 243 Heb. ii. 2 545 Heb. ii. 3 205, 340, 379*, 545, 621 Heb. ii. 4 545 Heb. ii. 6 89 Heb. ii. 8 442, 446, 447*, 454 Heb. ii. 9 198*, 343, 399*, 462*, 534, 551 Heb. ii. 10 320, 343*, 409, 627 Heb. ii. 11 366, 448*, 585 Heb. ii. 13 582 Heb. ii. 14 200, 272*, 281, 288, 541, 552 Heb. ii. 15 329*, 380 Heb. ii. 16 202, 267*, 606 Heb. ii. 17 209, 227*, 230 Heb. ii. 18 159*, 387* Heb. iii. 1 194, 200, 314 Heb. iii. 2 60 Heb. iii. 3 67, 190*, 206, 240*, 271, 404 Heb. iii. 4 350, 562 Heb. iii. 5 340* Heb. iii. 6 126,158,409,527 Heb. iii. 7 575 Heb. iii. 8 385, 401* Heb. iii. 9 436 Heb. iii. 10 85, 450 Heb. iii. 11 462,500 Heb. iii. 12 194* 329, 416, 503, 538 Heb. iii. 13 111,151,189* Heb. iii. 15 571* Heb. iii. 16 53, 378, 426, 442, 510, 571* Heb. iii. 17 73, 230 Heb. iii. 19 438 Heb. iv. 1 197, 319, 613 Heb. iv. 2 87, 219*, 221, 229, 260, 475 Heb. iv. 3 123, 134, 265, 343, 344, 462, 500 Heb. iv. 4 271, 370. 522, 588, 590* Heb. iv. 7 113, 199, 385 Heb. iv. 8 146*, 304* Heb. iv. 9 445 Heb. iv. 10 154 421 Heb. iv. 11 162, 386, 388, 550 Heb. iv. 12 240, 247 Heb. iv. 13 147*, 406*, 442 Heb. iv. 14 202 Heb. iv. 15 91, 143, 475, 483 Heb. iv. 16 66, 397 Heb. V. 1 230, 382 Heb. V. 2 209, 229 Heb. V. 3 410, 440, 593* Heb. V. 4 106, 550, 582* Heb. V. 5 318, 582* Heb. V. 6 592* Heb. V. 7 152, 158, 197, 371, 621 Heb. V. 8 159, 166*, 344, 637 Heb. V. 10 229 Heb. V. 11 115*, 215, 319, 450 Heb. V. 12 59, 169, 190, 324, 339, 350*, 399* Heb. V. 13 200, 521, 562, 584* Heb. V. 14 120, 195*, 399, 405, 528 Heb. vi. 1 188*, 482, 531, 550, 635 Heb. vi. 2 187*, 192*, 439, 550, 551* Heb. vi. 3 285 Heb. vi. 4 122, 198* Heb. vi. 5 123, 198 Heb. vi. 6 212, 319,339, 343,344,396,605 720 N. T. INDEX. Heb. vi. 7 131, 139, 200, 343, 376, 399, 438 Heb. ix. 1 133, 435*, 575 Heb. vi. 8 195, 351*, 584 Heb. ix. 2 129, 140, 236, 435*, 446, Heb. vi. 9 120, 202, 229 It tJ )i 636* Heb. vi. 10 163, 205, 319, 343, 438, 630 Heb. ix. 3 177*, 246*, 403 Heb. vi. 11 321, 405, 544 Heb. ix. 4 67, 116, 158*, 385* Heb. vi. 12 442 Heb. ix. 5 68, 320 Heb. vi. 13 222, 382, 575 Heb. ix. 6 267* Heb. vi. 14 354*, 443 Heb. ix. 7 131, 203*, 577 Heb. vi. 16 \88;^192,"222, 242, 382, 575* 216, 235, 243,254,387* Heb. ix. 8 176* 187, 482 Heb. vi. 17 Heb. ix. 9 166*, 401, 484*, 527 Heb. vi. 18 134, 202, 386*, 549 Heb. ix. 10 635* Heb. vi. 19 66, 69, 549 Heb. ix. 11 189,242, 410, 485, 524, 525, 530 Heb. vi. 20 472* Heb. ix. 12 69, 73, 86, 154, 176*, 353, t> it » 380, 495, 524 Heb. vii. 1 110 Heb. ix. 13 405 Heb. vii. 2 351*, 412 Heb. ix. 14 75, 197 Heb. vii. 3 488 Heb. ix.l5 185*, 287, 392* Heb. vii. 4 61,-412;.528, 534, 549*, 560* Heb. ix. 16 551*, 584, 585 Heb. vii. 5 344, 486 Heb. ix. 17 297, 394*, 480*, 549 Heb. vii. 6 71, 177*, 271, 273*, 486* Heb. ix. 18 271 Heb. vii. 7 178 Heb. ix. 19 74, 106, 193* 401 Heb. vii. 8 340 Heb. ix. 20 163 Heb. vii. 9 273*, 317*, 378*, 449* Heb. ix. 21 443 Heb. vii. 11 67r26I*, 304*, 482*, 562 Heb. ix. 22 388, 554* Heb. vii. V2 r '123; 192, 424*, 447, 453* Heb. ix. 23 58, 175, 177, 240, 585 Heb. vii. 1^^' 5-4, J. ;. ! i 370,^409, 433, 447 Heb. ix. 24 318,528 Heb. vii. 14 , , , 271, 397, 447 Heb. ix. 25 384, 401* Heb. vii. 15 " ' 240* Heb. ix. 26 271, 283*, 392* Heb. vii. 16 98,99 Heb. ix. 27 319 Heb. vii. 17 522, 588 Heb. vii. 19 178 Heb. X. 1 163, 550 Heb. vii. 20 104, 565*, 586 Heb. X. 2 43,134, 303*, 329, 345, 482, 508 Heb. vii. 21 377, 610 Heb. X. 4 584 Heb. vii. 23 329 Heb. X. 5 253, 277* Heb. vii. 24 108*; 143, 330, 528 Heb. X. 6 71, 222, 277*, 583* Heb. vii. 25 382 Heb. X. 7 182, 183, 325 Heb. vii. 26 197, 438* Heb. X. 8 71, 222, 351*, 563*, 583* Heb. vii. 27 154*, 421 Heb. X. 9 244 Heb. vii. 28 228 Heb. X. 10 138*, 387*, 389 Heb. X. 12 344 Heb. viii. 1 384, 534, 574 Heb. X. 13 297, 344 Heb. viii. 2 163, 176* Heb. X. 14 271 Heb. viii. 3 299 Heb. X. 16 225, 351*, 573 Heb. viii. 4 40, 121, 304, 589 Heb. X. 17 506 Heb. viii. 5 191, 260, 271, 285, 522, 562, Heb. X. 18 584 " )t J) 588, 595 Heb. X. 20 528 Heb. viii. 6 89, 261, 271, 524 Heb. X. 21 409 Heb. viii. 7 304 Heb. X. 22 73, 74, 75, 229, 621 Heb. viii. 8 146*, 209, 436 Heb. X. 24 185, 397 Heb. viii. 9 225, 401, 430, 571* Heb. X. 25 151, 245, 477, 582 Heb. viii. 10 184, 225, 352, 573* Heb. X. 27 170* Heb. viii. 11 174, 507* Heb. X. 28 392*, 420 Heb. viii. 13 195, 271 Heb. X. 29 524, 562 N. T. INDEX. 721 Heb. X. 30 549 Heb. xii. 10 200, 268, 405, 409 Heb. X. 32 205 Heb. xii. 11 196*, 531, 550, 559 Heb. X. 33 142 Heb. xii. 13 641* Heb. X. 34 155, 524, 549 Heb. xii. 15 22, 197*, 252*, 504 Heb. X. 36 192 Heb. xii. 16 206, 364 Heb. X. 37 247*, 355, 585, 610 Heb. xii. 17 147*, 317, 377 Heb. X. 38 136*, 156, 523*, 583* Heb. xii. 18 566, 609, 66, 216*, 343* Heb. X. 39 196 Heb. xii. 19 Heb. xii. 20 259, 433, 604 201, 316, 566* Heb. xi. 1 59*, 484, 485, 546 Heb. xii. 21 566* Heb. xi. 2 260, 386, 387*, 412 Heb. xii. 22 432, 528, 566*, 609* Heb. xi. 3 329, 334, 539, 555* Heb. xii. 23 134 Heb. xi. 4 240 Heb. xii. 24 240 Heb. xi. 5 71, 325 Heb. xii. 25 259, 478 , 582, 594, 633* Heb. xi. 6 319 Heb. xii. 26 262 Heb. xi. 7 193*, 344, 402*, 484 Heb: xii. 27 108, 460, 477 Heb. xi. 8 70, 228, 268, 298, 483 Heb. xi. 9 376 Heb. xiii. 2 205, 467* Heb. xi. 11 150*, 404 Heb. xiii. 4 585* Heb. xi. 12 120, 132, 162, 215, 589* Heb. xiii. 5 232 , 507*, 585, 588 Heb. xi. 13 268, 403* Heb. xiii. 7 191 Heb. xi. 15 305*, 319 Heb. xiii. 8 552 Heb. xi. 16 204, 221, 530 Heb. xiii. 9 391*, 495, 496 Heb. xi. 17 549, 114, 269*, 437, 639 Heb. xiii. 10 199, 366* Heb. xi. 18 405, 616* Heb. xiii. 11 165, 168 Heb. xi. 19 584 Heb. xiii. 12 154 Heb. xi. 20 71 Heb. xiii. 13 559, 189*, 342* Heb. xi. 21 71, 341 Heb. xiii. 15 64, 209, 530 Heb. xi. 22 63, 205 Heb. xiii. 16 205, 260 Heb. xi. 23 230 Heb. xiii. 17 143, 156, 382, 494 Heb. xi. 26 228, 239, 384*, 592, 622 Heb. xiii. 18 373, 517, 614 Heb. xiii. 19 517, 69, 243* Heb. xi. 28 92, 106, 147*, 201, 272, 353 Heb. xiii. 20 133, 134, 137 Heb. xi. 29 121, 251, 409, 431, 524 Heb. xiii. 22 202, 378*, 423*, 592* Heb. xi. 30 67, 408 Heb. xiii. 23 69, 243*, 317, 346* Heb. xi. 32 280*, 439, 550* Heb. xiii. 24 109, 629* Heb. xi. 33 120 Heb. xi. 34 62 James i. 1 133, 316, 588 Heb. xi. 35 288, 353*, 367, 460*, 485* James i. 2 lU, 432 Heb. xi. 37 62, 520 James i. 3 235 Heb. xi. 38 116 James i. 4 477 Heb. xi. 39 381*, 412* James i. 5 201, 482, 494, 610 Heb. xi. 40 258* James i. 6 274, 443, 447 James i. 7 446* 447, 502, 534 Heb. xii. 1 344, 379, 423*, 432 James i. 8 528, 534* Heb. xii. 2 125 206, 271, 364*, 435, 622 James i. 9 132, 622* 622* 75, 277*, 470* Heb. xii. 3 Heb. xii. 4 215, 230, 234, 429, 454*, 477 405, 429 James i. 10 James i. 11 Heb. xii. 5 Heb. xii. 6 205 168, 443 James i. 12 James i. 13 531, 585 97, 194*, 371* 369 Heb. xii. 7 122, 300, 397, 481 James i. 14 Heb. xii. 8 445, 610 James i. 15 88 Heb. xii. 9 221, 228, 436, 527 James i. 16 OOI 722 N. T. INDEX. James i. 17 54, 80, 189, 348, 395, 527, James iv. 2 256, 470*, 482, 594 537, 641* James iv. 3 256 James i. 18 88, 170*, 537 James iv. 4 179*, 229, 307 James i. 19 301, 329, 520, 538 James iv. 5 425* James i. 21 120 James iv. 7 223, 312*, 537 James i. 23 160, 274, 479, 610 James iv. 8 312, 313, 537 James i. 24 278*, 281, 446 James iv. 9 313, 537, 639 James i. 25 140, 237, 388 James iv. 10 257, 261, 537 James i. 26 68, 125, 192, 477 James iv. 13 117*, 162*, 249, 285 James i. 27 89, 161, 319, 529 yt )7 )i 516, 517 James iv. 14 109, 140 , 447, 565, 590 James ii. 1 60, 176, 186 James iv. 15 286*, 329*, 541 James ii. 2 446, 572* James iv. 17 147, 483, 494 James ii. 3 81, 106, 153, 430 James ii. 4 60, 185, 187* 508, 572* James v. 1 341, 516, 537 James ii. 5 63, 189*, 201, 212, 228, 510 James v. 2 274*, 537 James ii. 6 86, 174, 206, 278* James v. 3 60, 89, 124 , 212, 537, 539 James ii. 9 342, 353* James v. 4 76, 371*, 537 James ii, 10 168, 202, 280, 308*, 447, 582 James v. 5 156* 414, 416*, 537 James ii. 11 293, 479* James v. 6 106 , 174, 520, 537 James ii. 12 313,378 James v. 7 308, 314, 592* James ii. 13 100*, 203*, 432, 483 James v. 8 537 James ii. 14 108, 321, 585 James v. 9 372, 537 James ii. 15 350*, 452, 518 James v. 10 228, 527, 537 James ii. 16 580, 585 James v. 11 247* James ii. 17 116 James v. 12 59, 79, 88, 222, 313, 372*, James ii. 18 60, 280*, 367 f? }t 1) 442, 476, 488 James ii. 19 514, 541 Jamfis V. 13 169*, 285*, 541* James ii. 2o 116, 183 James v. 14 408* James ii. 22 270, 433 James v. 16 209 James ii. 23 453*, 615 James v. 17 325, 466 James ii. 25 106, 219, 344, 571 James v. 18 84, 436 James ii. 26 116*, 440 James v. 20 122, 197 James iii. 1 242 1 Pet. i. 1 112, 113 James iii. 2 479 1 Pet. i. 2 122, 137*, 188*, 237*, 286 James iii. 3 192, 541, 549, 599* 1 Pet. i. 3 134, 402, 551 James iii. 4 307, 344, 472, 604 1 Pet. i. 4 520, 525, 611 James iii. 5 524, 548 1 Pet. i. 5 124, 332, 389 James iii. 6 54, 134 1 Pet. i. 6 232, 317 James iii. 7 132, 219* 1 Pet. i. 7 139*, 235*. 340, 378, 385, 459 .James iii. 8 532*, 536 1 Pet. i. 8 226, 466, 485* James iii. 9 222, 388 1 Pet. i. 9 156*, 342* James iii. 10 332 1 Pet. i. 10 355 James iii. 11 128, 591 1 Pet. i. 11 193* James iii. 12 493* 1 Pet. i. 12 82, 134, 355, 495 James iii. 13 511, 137*, 169, 313, 611 1 Pet. i. 13 314, 343 , 409, 477, 550 James iii. 14 174, 432, 470, 494*, 511* 1 Pet. i. 14 238, 352*, 477 James iii. 15 350* 1 Pet. i. 15 HI*, 402 James iiL 17 576 1 Pet. i. 17 353 James iii. 18 219 1 Pet. i. 18 1 Pet. i. 19 133, 216, 525, 527* 525 James iv. I 161, 529 James iv. 1 1 Pet. i. 20 1 313 123, 376 N. T. INDEX. 723 1 Pet. i. 21 529 1 Pet. iv. 1 120, 196, 217, 262*, 263*, 271, 1 Pet. i. 22 186, 389 tt it tJ 313, 412* 1 Pet. i. 23 340, 366 ,411,421,549, 610 1 Pet. iv. 2 84, 225, 226, 230, 329, 482 1 Pet. i. 24 277 1 Pet. iv. 3 176,209,219, 262, 318,319, 1 Pet. i. 25 213 t1 Jt }I 1 Pet. iv. 4 334, 520, 627* 484, 549 1 Pet. ii. 1 176, 527 1 Pet. iv. 5 552 1 Pet. ii. 2 204, 314 1 Pet. iv. 6 123, 223, 281, 402*, 441, 522, 1 Pet. ii. 3 448* »i t> it 630*, 639 1 Pet. ii. 4 122, 421, 427 1 Pet. iv. 7 397 1 Pet. U. 5 317, 527 1 Pet. iv. 8 108, 351, 372 1 Pet. ii. 6 233, 252* 1 Pet. iv. 9 397, 611 1 Pet. ii. 7 160, 164, 529, 549* 551, 571* 1 Pet. iv. 10 210, 516, 524* 1 Pet. ii. 8 397, 438 1 Pet. iv. 11 108, 158*, 163, 582 1 Pet. ii. 9 381, 520 1 Pet. iv. 12 209*, 405, 501 1 Pet. ii. 10 343, 476, 485 1 Pet. iv. 13 200, 209 1 Pet. ii. 11 143, 352 1 Pet. iv. 14 109, 132, 401, 585 1 Pet. ii. 12 108, 342 352,384, 387,411 1 Pet. iv. 15 440, 446, 502, 518, 519* 1 Pet. ii. 13 124 1 Pet. iv. 17 324, 584, 586 1 Pet. ii. 14 379 1 Pet. iv. 18 174 1 Pet. u. 15 161, 319, 465, 529 1 Pet. iv. 19 51, 122, 254, 301, 524 1 Pet. ii. 16 484, 494, 550, 573*, 612 1 Pet. ii. 17 314* 538 1 Pet. V. 1 140,200,334,384,528,529, 537 1 Pet. ii. 19 518, 550 1 Pet. V. 2 314, 385*, 477, 610 1 Pet. ii. 22 167, 616* 1 Pet. V. 3 175 1 Pet. ii. 23 251* 341, 590* 1 Pet. V. 5 253 1 Pet. ii. 24 149*, 210, 407, 428, 429* 1 Pet. V. 6 261, 407 1 Pet. ii. 25 128, 156 1 Pet. V. 7 1 Pet. V. 8 351*, 430 124, 139, 299, 528, 534, 538 1 Pet. iii. 1 75, 154, 289, 351*, 352 1 Pet. V. 9 123, 215 1 Pet. iii. 2 131, 342* 1 Pet. V. 10 58, 134*, 135, 148, 390, 538 1 Pet. iU. 3 195, 531 1 Pet. V. 12 278 1 Pet. iii. 4 386 1 Pet. iii. 5 134 , 154, 233, 268, 341 2 Pet. i. 1 130, 200*, 623 1 Pet. iii. 6 224, 462, 494, 499, 562, 566* 2 Pet. i. 2 286, 545 1 Pet. iii. 7 242, 352, 403, 534 2 Pet. i. 3 109, 381*, 545, 617* 1 Pet. iii. 8 230, 520, 534, 586 2 Pet. i. 4 '157,343,410,428,524,545,566* 1 Pet. iii. 9 46, 161 2 Pet. i. 5 142, 313, 443, 545, 566* 1 Pet. iii. 10 197, 326, 604, 614 2 Pet. i. 6 443, 545 1 Pet. iii. 11 143, 429 2 Pet. i. 7 443, 545 1 Pet. iii. 12 125, 409, 586 2 Pet. i. 8 397, 489 1 Pet. iii. 13 437 2 Pet. i. 9 158, 185, 187, 454», 480*, 553* 1 Pet. iii. 14 146*, 224, 293* 443 2 Pet. i. 10 128, 256, 290, 313, 506, 527, 1 Pet. iii. 15 209, 227, 534 »» jj tr 549, 551 1 Pet. iii. 17 294, 604* 2Pet. i. 11 69, 126, 534 1 Pet. iii. 18 215, 373, 3S3, 412, 433* 2 Pet. i. 12 205, 227, 344 441, 545 2 Pet. i. 13 408*, 452* 1 Pet. iii. 19 543, 545, 608 2 Pet. i. 14 551 1 Pet. iii. 20 125, 156 , 431, 457, 530, 543, 2Pet. i. 15 89, 256, 321, 340 131, 545, 621 2 Pet. i. 16 630 1 Pet. iii. 21 189*, 191*, 192, 194*, 528, 2 Pet. i. 17 212, 278*, 351*, 365, 369* 543, 545, 549, 562 2 Pet. i. 18 352* 1 Pet. IB. 22 543, 545 2 Pet. i. 19 243*, 297, 345, 551 724 2 Pet. i. 20 2 Pet. i. 21 N. T. INDEX. 161, 196 122, 173, 549 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. ii. 4 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. iii. 5 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 2 Pet. 1 John i. 1 1 John i. 2 1 John i. 3 1 John i. 5 1 John i. 6 1 351", 443* 2 399, 400 3 120, 149, 217*, 223*, 386, 422, 466, 579, 639 205, 216, 342*, 448, 478, 545, 566, 569* 5 82, 249*, 342, 344*, 545, 566, 569 6 125, 190, 210*, 340, 531, 545, 566, 569 7 131, 193, 259, 369* 545, 566, 569 118, 268, 545, 566, 569 342, 569* 237, 345, 594* 243*, 395* 159, 397, 440, 628* 18&*, 416, 430* 108,174,192,194*201.238,525 185*, 219 95, 388, 538 342*, 529* 219* 273, 344 273, 292, 428, 514, 534 239, 282, 320, 334, 482*, 627 109, 352, 588*, 641 58, 142*, 527, 537, 550* 190, 191, 205, 318, 529, 550 376, 572 124, 146, 267, 588, 591, 596*, 612, 632* 120, 121, 217*, 351*, 419*, 446, 453*, 467* 604* 518 395, 502 197, 484 87, 120, 125, 514 342* 121, 158*, 400* 524*, 527 219,321 228 110, 143, 405 216, 314, 427, 429 124, 272, 567* 607*, 609, 611 562, 565 132, 287, 443, 562, 567* 161, 199, 499 376, 537, 610 John i. 7 John i. 8 John i. 9 John i. 10 John ii. 1 John ii. 2 John ii. 3 John ii. 4 John ii. 5 John ii. 6 John ii. 7 John ii. 8 John ii. 9 John ii. 10 John ii. 12 John ii. 13 John ii. 15 John ii. 1 6 John ii. 17 John ii. 18 John ii. 19 John ii. 20 John ii. 21 John ii. 22 John ii. 24 John ii. 25 John ii. 26 John ii. 27 John ii. 2 John iii. 1 John iii. 2 John iii. 4 John iii. 5 John iii. 6 John iii. 7 John iii. 8 John iii. 9 John iii. 10 John iii. 11 John iii. 12 John iii. 13 John iii. 14 Johp iii. 17 John iii. 18 John iii. 19 John iii. 20 John iii. 22 John iii. 23 John iii. 24 1 John iv. 1 197 253, 537 461*, 537 537, 551 537 558, 577* 161, 545 483, 537, 610 40, 185, 543 537 124, 524* 267, 386, 524 537 639 80, 146, 278, 400 278 185, 537 529 639 124, 537 73, 74, 304*, 317 371 172*, 278 114, 128, 604 128, 574* 225, 530, 628* 278 277* 339, 574*, 610, 612* 287, 308, 314 122,460*, 537,615 122, 209 114, 537 267*, 288, 537 537 501, 537 161, 267, 288, 537 537 514, 537 161, 338*, 623* 623* 542 273, 457 40, 185, 543, 622 116, 412, 489, 502*, 537 368, 386, 537, 582 155, 203, 537, 582* 214, 256 161, 338 161, 411. 529, 578 514, 537 N. T. INDEX. 725 1 John iv. 2 346 3 John 7 370*, 383, 638 1 John iv. 4 239, 537, 632* 3 John 8 638 1 John iv. 5 537 3 John 9 51, 141, 278 1 John iv. 6 128 , 480, 537, 543 3 John 10 232 , 429, 475, 494 1 John iv. 7 537 3 John 12 261*, 271 1 John iv. 8 475, 537 3 John 13 378 1 John iv. 9 133, 161, 218*, 417*, 537 3 John 14 331 1 John iv. 10 161 , 527, 537, 555 1 John iv. 1 1 292, 448 Jude 1 190, 212, 421* 1 John iv. 12 499, 537 Jude 3 256 , 321, 330, 333 1 John iv. 13 161, 199, 366* Jude 4 130*, 140 , 528, 534, 605 1 John iv. 14 527 Jude 5 343, 620* 1 John iv. 15 114, 307 Jude 6 125, 188*, 216, 273 1 John iv. 16 260, 553 Jude 7 230, 594, 623 1 John iv. 17 137 , 161, 338, 566 Jude 8 443 1 John iv. 20 274* Jude 9 209* 1 John iv. 21 371 Jude 11 Jude 13 189, 206 176 1 John V. 1 178, 537 Jude 14 41, 71, 211, 277*, 370, 384 1 John V. 2 161, 368, 545 Jude 15 163, 222 1 John V. 3 161 Jude 16 116, 572* 1 John V. 4 161,178 Jude 17 205 1 John V. 5 537 Jude 19 114, 116 1 John V. 6 114, 128, 144, 380*, 498 Jude 20 122, 345 1 John V. 9 271, 537, 619 Jude 21 137, 397 1 John V. 10 225, 474* Jude 23 85, 370 1 Johnv. 11 161 1 John V. 12 475, 537 Rev. i. 1 75, 125 1 John V. 13 134 , 278, 288, 549 Rev. i. 2 126 1 John V. 14 161, 256 Rev. i. 3 519 1 John V. 15 295 Rev. i. 4 68, 113, 182*, 536, 587 1 John V. 16 225,475*, 523*, 530*, 537, 549 Rev. i. 5 197, 532, 536* 1 John V. 17 537 Rev. i. 6 530, 580 1 John V. 18 343, 537 Rev. i. 7 222, 410 1 John V. 19 437, 537 Rev. i. 9 268, 521 1 John V. 20 133*, 157*, 162, 234, 274, Rev. i. 10 184* tt It »» 287, 421*, 528 Rev. i. 13 66, 395* 1 John V. 21 314 Rev. i. 14 Rev. i. 16 247 525 2 John 1 113,141,562 Rev. i. 17 114 2 John 2 411*, 578 Rev. i. 18 65 2 John 4 366, 526 Rev. i. 19 514 2 John 6 146, 161 Rev. i. 20 163, 231* 2 John 7 134*, 140, 142*, 157,346,483,632* 2 John 8 259 Rev. ii. 2 76, 321, 545 2 John 10 479 Rev. ii. 3 76 2 John 11 200 Rev. ii. 5 155*, 296, 541*, 611 2 John 12 70, 278 , 283, 331, 378 Rev. ii. 6 595* Rev. ii. 8 87, 276 3 John 2 373* Rev. ii. 9 321 , 545,551,582 3 John 4 69 162, 338, 347, 595* Rev. ii. 10 366, 589 3 John 5 397 Rev. ii. 11 506 3 John 6 122, 345 Rev. ii. 12 132, 525 726 N. T. INDEX. Rev. ii. 13 83,103,395,422,472,610,612* Rev. ii. 14 223, 227 Rev. ii. 16 155, 214*, 376 Rev. ii. 17 198, 579* Rev, ii. 18 108, 579 Rev. ii. 19 i27, 155, 520 Rev. ii. 20 52, 81, 535* Rev. ii. 21 331 Rev. ii. 22 376 Rev. ii. 23 339 Rev. ii. 24 235, 528 Rev. ii. 25 308 Rev. ii. 26 574 Rev. iii. 1 155 Rev. iii. 2 89, 155, 334, 514 Rev. iii. 3 230, 281, 506 Rev. iii. 4 514, 631 Rev. iii. 5 227 Rev. iii. 7 65 Rev. iii. 8 148, 155 Rev. iii. 9 87, 289, 337, 526*, 610, 626 Rev. iii. 10 237 Rev. iii. 12 58 112, 148, 506, 507*, 524, „ „ „ 536*, 574, 603 Rev. iii. 14 524 Rev. iii. 15 155, 302 Rev. iii. 16 334 Rev. iii. 17 114, 117, 271 R«v. iii. 18 226, 577 Rev. iii. 19 470* Rev. iii. 21 384, 574 Rev. iv. 1 79, 535 Rev. iv. 3 68, 215, 221 Rev. iv. 4 227, 250, 535 Rev. iv. 5 114, 166 Rev. iv. 7 108 Rev. iv. 8 345, 398, 526, 536 Rev. iv. 9 280*, 309 Rev. iv. 10 210 Rev. iv. 11 108 Rev. V. 1 408, 409, 525 Rev. y. 2 226, 585 Rev. V. 3 491* Rev. V. 4 227, 491* Rev. V. 6 65, 114, 166, 526, 536 Rev. V. 7 272* Rev. V. 8 74, 114, 166, 516 Rev. V. 9 390, 589 Eev. V. 10 206 Rev. V. 11 536* Rev. V. 12 127, 520, 536 Rev. V. 13 108, 347, 374, 409, 526 Rev. V. 14 74 Rev. vi. 1 199 Rev. vi. 2 409 Rev. vi. 3 199 Rev. vi. 4 148, 583* Rev. vi. 6 206, 587* Eev. vi. 8 29, 108, 182, 234, 388, 574 Eev. vi. 9 420 Rev. vi. 10 164, 182 Rev. vi. 11 83, 174, 289, 297 Eev. vi. 12 523 Rev. vi. 13 74, 523 Eev. vi. 14 366*, 527 Eev. vi. 15 64, 128, 527 Eev. vL 16 409 Eev. vii. 1 409, 552 Eev. vii. 2 120, 148, 212, 341*, 602 Eev. vii. 3 552 Eev. vii. 4 250 Eev. vii. 9 148, 520, 526, 527, 535*, 579 Eev. vii. U 73, 78, 125, 210 Rev. vii. 12 128, 520, 610 Rev. vii. 14 388, 399 Eev. vii. 16 77, 506 Eev. vii. 17 191, 550 Eev. viii. 3 79, 212, 289, 514 Eev. viii. 4 216* Eev. viii. 5 201, 272*, 520 Eev. viii. 7 519, 527, 609 Eev. viii. 8 515 Eev. viii. 9 515, 536, 592 Rev. viii. 11 108, 182, 184, 362, 367, 515 Rev. viii. 12. 460*, 609 Eev. viii. 13 117, 368 Rev. Rev. Rev. Eev. Eev. Eev. Rev. Eev. Eev. Rev. Rev. Rev. ix. 1 ix. 2 ix. 3 ix. 4 ix. 6 ix. 7 ix. 10 ix. 11 ix. 12 ix. 13 ix. 14 ix. 17 343, 606 606 396 171, 474, 633 75, 86, 223, 506 604* 324, 623* 534, 591 179, 248 65 392, 536 518 N. T. INDEX. 727 Rev. X. 1 Rev. X. 2 Rev. X. 3 Rev. X. 4 Rev. X. 5 Rev. X. 6 Rev. X. 7 Rev. X. 9 R«v. X. 10 Rev. X. 11 Rev. xi. 1 Rev. xi. 2 Rev. xi. 3 Rev. xi. 4 Rev. xi. 5 Rev. xi. 6 Rev. xi. 7 Rev. xi. 9 Rev. xi. 10 Rev. xi. 11 Rev. xi. 13 Rev. xi. 14 Rev. xi. 15 Rev. xi. 17 Rev. xi. 18 Rev. xi. 19 Rev. xii. 1 Rev. xii. 2 Rev. xii. 3 Rev. xii. 4 Rev. xii. 5 Rev. xii. 6 Rev. xii. 7 Rev. xii. 8 Rev. xii. 9 Rev. xii. 11 Rev xii. 13 Rev xii. 14 Rev xii. 16 Rev xii. 17 Rev xiii. 1 Rev xiii. 2 Rev xiii. 3 Rev xiii. 4 Rev xiii. 6 Rev. Ix. 18 83,362,364*, 367,371^429,515 Rev. ix. 19 623 Rev. ix. 20 83, 210, 289, 366, 460*, 622 Rev. ix. 21 143, 491, 606 525 852*, 376, 552 612 70, 612 396 222 71, 277* 155, 316* 198 393 536 43, 250 436 536* 294, 541* 375, 396 . 152 267, 589 232, 281, 409 413 83, 514 179, 248 526, 535 533 514 72 528 267 525 281, 334 83 148 214, 327*, 519 491, 616 529, 602 399 66 8, 148, 177*, 249, 370 72 232, 393 65, 374, 410 152 237* 210, 214, 584 222, 405 Rev. xiii. 7 Rev. xiii. 8 Rev. xiii. 10 Rev. xiii. 11 Kev. xiii. 12 Rev. xiii. 13 Rev. xiii. 14 Rev. xiii. 15 Rev. xiii. 16 Rev. xiii. 17 Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. xiv. 1 xiv. 2 xiv. 3 xiv. 4 xiv. 5 xiv. 6 xiv. 7 xiv. 8 xiv. 9 xiv. 10 xiv. 11 xiv. 12 xiv. 13 Rev. xiv. 14 Rev. xiv. 15 Rev. xiv. 17 Rev. xiv. 18 Rev. xiv. 19 Rev. xiv. 20 Rev. XV. 1 Kev. XV. 2 Rev. XV. 4 Rev. XV. 5 Rev. XV. 6 Rev. XV. 8 Rev, Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. xvi. 1 xvi. 2 XVI. 3 xvi. 6 xvi. 7 xvi. 9 xvi. 10 xvi. 11 xvi. 12 xvi. 14 xvi. 15 xvi. 18 xvi. 19 xvi. 20 409, 527 148 62, 83, 128, 388 65, 623* 149 461* 62, 66 307, 480 79, 128, 289, 409, 420, 529 127, 290, 536, 594 43, 79, 536 606 70, 250 472, 527 538, 616 88, 409 126, 536, 552 191, 609 410 87, 91, 191* 210, 631 186, 536* 197, 234, 289, 317*, 341*, 390, 460* 535*, 579 212, 324, 388 133 155, 212 526, 536 372, 557 341 247*, 353, 367* 214, 508, 549, 585 72, 83 106, 432, 525 201 607 523, 524, 607 . 530, 536 538 207*, 533 225, 229, 318 350 622 120, 133 514 5S8, 585 606 191, 611 616 728 N. T. INDEX. Eev. xvi. 21 281, 368 Rev. xix. 16 246* Rev. xix. 21 83 201, 514 Rev. xvii. 2 149, 201 Rey. xvii. 3 201 Rev. XX. 1 65 116, 408 Rev. xvii. 4 94, 226 Rev. XX. 2 536 Rev. xvii. 6 201, 224 Rev. XX. 3 536 Eev. xvii. 8 208, 626, 628 Rev. XX. 4 106 Eev. xvii. 9 149 Rev. XX. 5 297* Rev. xvii. 12 65, 515 Rev. XX. 7 514 Eev. xvii. 13 78 Rev. XX. 8 148 Eev. xvii. 14 536 Rev. XX. 10 353 Rev. xvii. 15 520 Rev. XX. 11 525, 616 Eev. xvii. 16 89, 141*, 388 Rev. XX. 12 72, 368 Eev. xvii. 18 114 Rev. XX. 13 Rev. XX. 14 133, 516 114 Rev. xviii. 2 609 Rev. XX. 15 477, 478 Rev. xviii. 3 190, 514 Rev. xviii. 4 449,515 Eev. xxi. 1 244 523, 527 Rev. xviii. 5 155, 205, 247 Eev. xxi. 2 211, 524 Rev. xviii, 6 163 Eev. xxi. 4 500* Rev. xviii. 7 506 Rev. xxi. 5 228 Rev. xviii. 8 29, 87 Eev. xxi. 6 76, 148 190, 552 Rev. xviii. 9 87, 222, 410 Rev. xxi. 8 343* 520 Rev. xviii. 10 603 Rev. xxi. 9 132 Rev. xviii. 11 222, 393, 408, 499 Rev. xxi. 11 247*, 536* Rev. xviii. 12 234, 520, 536, 579* , 591, 592 Rev. xxi. 12 536*, 514 Rev. xviii. 13 579* Rev. xxi. 13 41, 60, 121 Eev. xviii. 14 75, 86, 156, 370, 427, 499, Rev. xxi. 16 408* 1) )> » 506, 507 Rev. xxi. 17 43, 65, 231*, 250, 534* Rev. xviii. 16 591 Rev. xxi. 21 249 Rev. xviii. 17 223 Rev. xxi. 23 552 Rev. xviii. 20 183*, 232, 408 Rev. xxi. 25 506 , 507, 562 Rev. xviii. 21 506, 616 Rev. xxi. 27 171, 506, 633* Rev. xviii. 22 172 506, 603 Rev. xviii. 23 114, 506 Rev. xxii. 1 128 Rev. xviii. 24 177* Rev. xxii. 2 Rev. xxii. 3 66 172 Rev. xix. 1 526 Rev. xxii. 5 120 Rev. xix. 3 76 Rev. xxii. 8 521 Rev. xix. 4 250 Rev. xxii. 9 598, 601 Rev. xix. 5 209, 536 Rev. xxii. 10 538 Rey. xix. 6 536 Rev. xxii. 11 311* Rev. xix. 8 545 Rev. xxii. 12 318 Rev. xix. 10 114, 582 , 598, 601 Rev. xxii. 13 552 Eev. xix. 11 72 Rev. xxii. 14 289 Rev. xix. 12 536 Eev. xxii. 15 585 Rev. xix. 13 108, 182 Eev. xxii. 16 393 Rev. xix. 14 133, 392, 525* Eev. xxii. 18 638 Rev. xix. 15 141, 191* Rev. xxii. 19 82, 594 ANDOVER PUBLICATIONS, EMBRACING VALUABLE COMMENTARIES AND BIBLICAL WOEES, W. F. DRAPER, PUBLISHER, ANDOVER, MASS. Full descriptive Catalogues free on application. ELLICOTT. Oritioal and Grammatical Oommentariea on St. Paul's Epistles. With Revised Translations. By Rt. Rev. Charles J. EUioott, Bkhop of Gloucester and Bristol. 8vo. Gal atlanB. With an Introductory Notice by Prof. C. E. Stowe, $1.25. Epheslans, $1.25. Thesaalonlans . $1.25. PhlUpplans, Colosslans, Philemon, $1.75. Pastoral Eplstlea, $1.75, The whole Set in Two Volumes, bevelled edges, $6.75. " It is the crowning excellence of these Commentaries that they are exactly what they profess to be — critical and grammatical, and therefore in the best sense of the term, exegetical His results are worthy of all confidence. He is more care- ful than Tischendorf, slower and more steadily deliberate than Alford, and more patiently laborious than any other livingNewTestaraent critic, with the exception, perhaps, of Tregclles." — Prof. Stowe in the Introductory Notice. " To Bishop EUicott must be assigned the first rank, if not the first place in the first rank, of English biblical scholarship. The series of Commentaries on the Pauline Epistle are in the highest style of critical exegesis." — Methodist Quarterli/. " His Commentaries are exactly what he styles thom, critical and grammatical. His notes are brief, modest, unpretending, faithful, laborious, full of the most accurate and varied learning, without the taints of pcd-intry, and always expressed in language of the utmost clearness and simplicity." — Bibliotheca Sacra. HENDERSON. Commentaries, Critical, Philological, and Exegetical, Translated from tho Original Hebrew. By E. Henderson, D.D. 8vo. The Book of the Twelve Minor Prophets. With a Biographical Sketch of the Author by Professor E. P. Barrows. $3.00. Jeremiah and Lamentations, $2.25. Bzeklal, $1.75. " liis Commentaries on the Minor Prophets and on Isaiah, are probably the best specimens of exegetical talent and learning which have ever appeared in England. The same diligence, learning, sobriety, andjudiciousness appear in Ezekiel BS characterize the learned author's commentaries on Isaiah, Jeremiah, and t)ie Minor Prophets." — Bibliotheca Sacra. " The learning, the sound judgment, and the earnest religious spirit of the authof stamp a standard value on his commentaries." — Baptist Quarterly. "Just such a work as a student needs, to got at the exact sense of the original, without any superfluous matter." — American Presbt/terian Reoiem. " This is probably the best commentary extant on the Minor Prophets." ^ (Christian Chronicle. H-4 Books Published by W. F. Drapet. LIGHTFOOT. Et Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, A Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. By J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., Hulsean Professor of Divinity, and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 8vo. $3.00 " For a scholar'a use Dr. Lightfoot's Commentary is invaluable. He and Bishop Ellicott worthily supplement each other. The revised text is one of the best recent c<'ntribution3 to a complete text of the Greek New Testament, and the criticisms jn the text are concise and to the point." — American Presbyterian Beview. " Among the modern English commentaries on the New Testament Scriptures this appears to us to be the best. The critical dissertations, which form a leading feature of it, are in the highest degree valuable." — New Englander. MURPHY. Critical and Exegetical Commentaries, with New Translations. By Jamea G. Murphy, LL.D., T. CD., Professor of Hebrew, Belfast. 8vo. Genesis . With a Preface by J. P. Thompson, D.D., New York. $3.00. Exodu s, $2.50. Exodus, crown 8vo. , $1.25. Leviticus, $2.25. Daniel, 12mo., $1.25. Psaltns , $3.50. " The Commentaries of Murphy have many excellences. They are clear, dis- criminating, and comprehensive." — Baptist Quarterly. " Thus far nothing has appeared in this country for half a century on the first two books of the Pentateuch so valuable as the present two volumes [on Genesis and Exodus]. His style is lucid, animated, and often eloquent. His pages afford golden suggestions and key-thoughts." — Methodist Quarterly. "Like the other Commentaries of Dr. Murphy, his Commentary on the Psalms is distinguished by the ease and perspicuity of its style, its freedom from pedantry, and the excellent religious spirit pervading it." — Bibliotheca Sacra. ' PEROWNE. The Book of Psalms. A New Translation. With Introductions and Notes Explanatory and Critical. By J. J. Stewart Perowne, D.D., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Canon of Llandaff. Reprinted from the Third English Edition. Two Volumes. 8vo. 86.75 " It comprises in itself more excellences than any other commentary on the Psalms in our language, and we know of no single commentary in the German language which, all things considered, is preferable to it." — Baptist Quarterly/. STUART. Critical and Exegetical Commentaries, with translations of the Text, by Moses Stuart, late Professor of Sacred Literature in Andover Theological Seminary. 12mo, Bom ana $1.75. Hebrews, $1.75. Prover'bB, 91.60. Ecclesiastes, $1.25. The Commentaries on the Romans, Hebrews, and Ecclesiastes are edited and revised by Prof. R. D. C. Bobbins . " His Commentary on the Romans is the most elaborate of all his works Eegarding it in all its relations, its antecedents and consequents, we pronounce it the most important Commentary which has appeared in this country on this Epistle. .... The Commentary on Proverbs is the last work from the pen of Prof. Stuart. Both this Commentary and the one preceding it, on Ecclesiastes, exhibit a mellow- ness of sjjirit whicn savors of the good man ripening for heaven In learning and critical acumen they are equal to his former works." — Bibliotheca Sacra. H-5 Books Published by W. F. Draper. ilattmann. A Grammar of tlie N&w Testament Greek. Bj' Alexander Buttmann. Authorized Translation [by Prof, T. Henrj Ihayer.] With numerous additions and corrections by the Autlior. 8to. pp. XX. and 474. Oloth, $2.75 From the Translator's Preface. ••This Grammar is acknowledged to be the most important work which ha ! appeared on N. T. Grammar since Winer's. Its use has been hindered by the fac t that in the original it has the form of an Appendix to the Classic Greek Grammar by the Author's father. The inconvenience arising from this peculiarity has been obviated in this translation by introducing in every case enough fuom that Gram- mar to render the statements easily intelligible to readers unacquainted with that work; at the same time, the Author's general scheme of constantly comparing New Testament and Classic usage has been facilitated for every Student, by giving running referecces throughout the book to five or six of the most current gram- matical works, among them the Grammars of Hadley, Crosby, Donaldson, and Jelf. Additions and corrections in more than two hundred and fifty places have been furnished for this edition by the Author. " The N. T. Index has been enlarged so as to include all the passages from the N. T. referred to in the Grammar ; and a separate Index has been added, compris- ing all the passages cited from the Septuagint. The other Indexes have been materially augmented; the cross-references have been multiplied; chapter and verse added to many of the fragmentary quotations from the N. T. ; the pagina- tion of the German original has been given in the margin ; and at the end of the book a glossary of technical terms encountered more or less frequently in commen- taries and grammatical works has been added for the convenience of students." From the New Bnglander. " One of the ablest books of its class which have been published. Indeed, it holds a rank next below Winer's great work on the same subject In some respects we think the plan adopted gives his work an incidental advantage as com- pared with Winer's. It is a thoroughly scientific treatise, and one which will be helpful to students, both in connection with Winer's and as discussing many points from a different or opposite point of view." From tlie Presbsrterian Quarterly. " Buttmann's Grammar is more exhaustively philological than that of Winer, it has less the character of a concise commentary. It is thoroughly scholarly, lucid, and compact ; and admirably adapted to promote a sound knowledge of the Greek New Testament." From the American Presbsrterian Revie-w. " By far the most important work on the Grammar of the New Testament Greek which has been produced of late years." From the Baptist Quarterly. " It is an indispensable, and, perhaps, the best, grammatical help to the critical Btndent of the New Testament.' From the BvangreUcal Lutheran Quarterly Bevlew. " Most valuable addition to our helps in the study of the New Testament Greek, not at all designed to supplant the excellent work of Winer. It is intended only to be used along with it, or to occupy a place in the same great interest. We have no doubt, however, that many will prefer to use this instead of the Grammur of Winer." "Professor Thayer has performed his task — which has been a great deal more than that of a mere ti anslator — with remarkable fidelity. It is doubtless the best work extant on this subject, and a book which every scholarly pastor will deure K. possess. Its usableness is greatly enhanced by its complete set of Indexes." — Th« Advance. "The work is thorough and exhaustive in its particular sphere." — Befonned Churnh Messenger. " Buttmann's Giisjmar is not i«wnded to supersede Winer's, but while thai may, as ii were, be looked upon as a grammatical commentary — so rich and full is it in illustration and explanation — this is rather a manual for constant refe^ ence." — Christian Union. F-15 Boohs Published by W. F. Draper. Qardiner. Biblical Works by Frederic Gardiner, D.D., Professor in the Berkeley Divinity School : A. Harmony of the Four Gospels in Greek, according to the Text of Tischendorf ; with a Collation of the Textus Eeceptus, and of the Texts of Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tregelles. 8vo. pp. Ivi and 268. $3.00 The distinctive features of this Harmony are, — 1 . A critical text, viz. the text of Tischendorf's eighth or last edition, embodying the latest results of textual criticism. To obtain the final portions of this edition the publication of this work has been delayed several months. The readings of the textus receptus, where they differ from Tischendorf's text, are given in full in the margin ; the variations being designated by a different type. The texts of Griesbach, Lachman, and Tregelles are carefully collated. The relative value of readings as estimated by Griesbach are noted, and original authorities cited in important cases. 2. All distinct quotations from the Old Testament are given in full in the margin, according to Tischendorf's edition of the LXX., together with the vnr. lect. of the Alexandrian text and of the Codex Sinaiticus, and of the several other versions named in the title. 3. A choice selection of parallel references has been placed in the margin, chiefly to point out similar language or incidents in other parts of the Gospels, or passages in the Old Testament, on which the language of the Gospels may be founded. 4. Brief notes relating to matters of harmony have been placed at the bottom of the page. .5. Special care has been, devoted to the chronological order of the Gospel narratives. 6. The columns are so arranged on the page as to combine the greatest clearness consistent with the least cost. The columns are never interwoven on the page. 7. A synoptical table is given of the arrangement adopted by several harmonists, showing at a glance the general agreement on the main points of chronology, and the points of difference where difference occurs. This is a new feature in this work, and will be found very useful to the student. A Harmony of the Tour Gospels in English, according to the Authorized Version ; corrected by the best Critical Editions of the Original. 8vo. pp. xliv and 287. $2.00 This Harmony is a reproduction in English of the author's " Harmony of the Four Gospels " in Greek. Being intended for English readers, so much of the Imroduction and of the notes as require a knowledge of Greek, is omitted. Other notes have been abridged in many cases. Diatessaron. The Life of Our Lord, in the Words of the Gospels. 16mo. pp. 259. $1.00 This work combines in one continuous narrative the events of the life of Christ as recorded by all the evangelists. His genealogy, conversations, discourses, parables, miracles, his trial, death, resurrection, and ascension, are placed in the order of their occurrence ; and in the foot-notes references are made to passages in the Old Testament relating to Christ or quoted by him. ° The life of our Lord has been of late years presented in such a multitude of forms, colored with the views and theories of sucl" a multitude of minds, that it is hoped the present effort to present that life in the exact form of the inspired record, without addition or abatement, may tend to the increase of the real knowledo-e oi the life of the Saviour of mankind. " The work is specially adapted for use in the family and in Sabbath-schools anu Bible-classes. WABREN F. DRAPER, Publisher, D-6 AWDOVEB, MASS. Books Published by W. F. Draper. MnriSTEEIAL OULTUEE (Phelps). By Austin Phelps, Professor of Sacred Rhetoric in Andorer Theological Seminary. 18mo. pp.28. Paper, 10 cents. " Its value is far out of proportion to its size. The sentiments expressed are worthy of attention by the ministry and the churches." — Baptist Quarterly. HYMNS AND CHOIRS i or, the Matter and the Manner of the Service of Song in the House of the Lord. By Austin Phelps and Edwards A. Park, Professors at Andover, and Daniel L. Furber, Pastor at Newton, I2mo. pp.425. $1.25. This volume describes the true design and character of hymns ; it comments on their rhetorical structure and style ; points out the proper method of uttering them in public worship ; and the most important principles and rules for congregational singing. " Perhaps no other volume in the English language discusses the subject of Chris- tian Psalmody more thoroughly, or on the whole, with better taste and judgment. . Considered as a treatise on the art of selecting psalms and hymns, from what- ever collection, for use in public song, and of guiding that part of worship in a Christian assembly, it is a book to be studied by all pastors, and by all expectants of the sacred office." — The New Enghnder. PASTOEAL THEOLOGY (Pond). Lectures on Pastoral Theology. By Enoch Pond, D.D., Professor in Bangor Theological Seminary. Second Edition. I2mo. pp.395. $1.25. " This volume is an excellent and practical treatise upon pastoral duty, and is heartily commended to all who are entering upon or engaged in the holy office of the Christian ministry." — New York Observer. " All the special relations and duties of the ministry are fully and clearly dis- cussed." — American Presbyterian Theological Review. " A valuable feature of the book is its practical character ; pastoral duties an.i relations, and questions which are likely to perplex the minds of young ministers ■Sspecially, being treated with minuteness and plainness." — Congregaiionalist. " No pastor, no young pastor more especially, will carefully ponder the sugges- tions here made without profit." — Methodist Protestant, PULPIT ELOCUTION (EusseU). Comprising Remarks on the Effect of Manner in Public Discourse ; the Ele- ments of Elocution applied to the Heading of the Scriptures, Hymns, and Sermons; with Observations on the Principles of Gesture; and a Selection of Exercises in Reading and Speaking. By William EusseU. With an Intro- duction by Prof. E. A. Park and Rev. E. N. Kirk. Second edition. 12mo. pp. 413. $1.25. " The plan of this work is admirably adapted to aid the student, the minister, and other public speakers in the acquisition of that practical knowledge of speak- ing as an art, which is of very great importance to their influence and usefulness." — Christian Observer. " One of the most thorough publications upon the subject, and is admirably adapted to the correction of the various defects which diminish the influence of pulpit discourse. It is already an established authority in many places." — Literary World. " Full of timely hints and valuable instruction." — Vermont Chronicle. OHUEOH HISTOEY IN MINISTEEI4L EDUCATION (Smyth). Value of the Study of Church History in Ministerial Education. A Lecture delivered to the Senior Class of Andover Theological Seminary. By Prof. Egbert C. Smyth. 8vo. Paper, 25 cents. " It is rich and strong in style, affluent in illustration, apt in statement, and wise in gnggestion, and deserves general reading among the ministry." — Congregaiionalist, Books^ Published by W. F. Draper. HALEY. THE ALLEGED DISCEEPANOIES OP THE BIBLE. By John W. Haley, M.A. With an Introduction by Alrah Hovey, D.D., Frofi.>9ol ia the Newton Theological Institution. Crown 8vo. pp. xii and 473. $1.75. " I do not know any volume which gives to the English reader such a compressed amount of suggestion and instruction on this theme as is given in this volume."— Professor Edwards A. Park. " It would be difficult, by any amount of labor, to produce anything more con- vincing and satisfactory ." — The Interior. HALEY. THEHEEEAPTEE OFSINs What it will be; with Answers to Certain Questions and Objections. By Ue>. John W. Haley, author of " Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. I6mo. 75 cts. " It presents, in a calm and admirable manner, the Scriptural doctrine of future retribution, divested, indeed, of the literalism with which it is sometimes presented, and showing its accordance with the deductions of a soiind philosophy. — Zion'a Herald. HAEEIS. THE KINGDOM OP OHEIST ON EAETH. Twelve Lectures delivered before the Students of Andover Theological Seminary. By Samuel Harris, Dwight Professor of Systematic Theology in Yale College. 8vo. pp. 263. $1.50 " Not often does the Christian pastor have the opportunity to purchase a work BO rich in thought and spirit, so suggestive, stimulating, and helpful." — Baptist Quarterly. " It is a profound and eloquent discussion of one of the sublimest themes that the human mind can consider." — Zion's Herald. HILL. A STATEMENT OP THE NATIJEAL SOIJKOES OP THEOLOGY, with a Discussion of their Validity, and of Modem Sceptical Objections ; also an Article on the First Chapter of Genesis. By Thomas Hill, D.D., LL.D. 8vo. Paper, 60 cents ; cloth, flexible, 80 cents. " Powerful discussions, rich in thought and illustration, and directed with crush 4ig force against the positions of infidel scientists." — TAe Advance. -^ MoOUEDY. AEYO-SEMITIO SPEEOH: \. Study in Linguistic Archaeology. By James Frederick McCnidy. 8vo. pp. xi and 176. $2.00. In two main respects the work claims to have made an advance upon any of its predecessors in the same inquiry. lu the first place the morphologji of the Proto- Semitic as well as of Proto-Aryan roots is fully discussed. Secondly, it is postu- lated that if the two families of speech were ever one, the only evidence of their identity is to be adduced from their expressions for primitive and simple ideas The method employed in this book is to take such elementary notions and see how they have been expressed in the two systems of speech. WEIGHT. THE LOGIC OP OHEISTIiN EVIDENOES. 3y Bev. G. Frederick Wright. 16mo. pp. 328. Cloth. $1.50. This work is now used in a large number of Academies and Colleges as a Text- book. Among the number are Abbot, Bradford, Gushing, Mt. Holyoke Seminary, Smith College, Mass. ; Brunswick, Maine ; Chapel Hill, N. C. ; Cumberland Uni- versity, Tenn. ; North Western, Evanstown, 111. ; Asbury Universi^, Ind. ; Simp- son, Iowa ; Kipon, Wis. ; Drury, Mo. ; Central Wesleyan, Mo. ; Woco, Texas. WEIGHT. STUDIES IN SCIENCE AND EELIGION. By Prof. G. Frederick Wright, author of " The Logic of Christian Evidences." l6mo. $1.50. " The grand point contended for and carried is that ' Christianity, in its appeal to historical evidence, allies itself with modern science rather than with the gutter- ing generalities of transcendentalism,' and that in its beginnings science has no idvantage over religion in solidity of basis." — The Leader. K -2 HEIvPS TO BIBLICAL STUDY. OLD TESTAMENT, Vibbert. A Guide to Heading the Hebrew Text; for the tlse o( Beginners. -By the Eev. W, H. Vibbert, M.A., Professor of Hebrew in the Berkeley Divinity School. 12mo. pp. 67. $1.00 Prom the Bibliotheca Sacra " The student who follows its gnidance cannot fail to read the Hebrew text with ease, certainty, and fluency. One thing only is taught at a time, and that with such clearness and fulness of illustration that there is no escape from understanding it completely." " The unpretentious hook of the Rev. Professor Vibbert is so intelligible, and makes the learner's way so easy, that the man who has the least conscientious desire to pursue the study, cannot fail to be abundantly satisfied. Step by step he is led on, nntil he finds that he understands and can read the text with fluency, and the greatest difficulty is thus overcome." — Episcopal Recorder. Jones. Tlie Elements of the Hebrew Ziangtiage. By Eev. A. D, Jones, M.A. 8vo. pp.163. $1,50 The object of the author is to furnish a Grammar for beginners so simple that it may be introduced into any classical school, and studied in the same manner as those of Latin or Greek, and with equal or greater ease, or that one may take up and study with ease and success even without a teacher. It is a complete outfit — grammar, reader, and dictionary — in a small compass. Mitcbell. Hebrew Introduction. An Elementary Hebrew Grammar and Eeading Book. By Prof, Edward 0. Mitchell, D.D. Containing, I. Grammatical Notes ; II. Exercises in Eeading Hebrew ; III. Selections from Scripture, with Notes | IV. Tables of Paradigms. 8vo. $1.25 This work is prepared for beginners in the study of Hebrew, especially as an Introduction to the new edition of Gesenlus, revised by Professor Mitchell, to which constant references are made. Gesenius ' Hebrew Grammar. Translated by Benjamin Bavies, LL.D,, from Eddiger's Edition. Thoroughly Eevised and Enlarged (1883), on the Basis of the Latest Edition of Prof. E. Kautzsch, D.D,, and from other recent Authorities, by Edward 0. Mitchell, D.D. With full Subject, Scripture, and Hebrew Indexes. 8vo. $3.00 Prom the Presbyterian Review. — " It has the virtne, so rare in works translated from the German, of being in good and intelligible English. It is much more full in the number of topics it treats than most Hebrew Grammars, Its views of the phenomena and the history of the language includes the latest discoveries. "Prof. Mitchell has performed a most acceptable service in furnishing this revised, and in part reconstructed, Gesenius. Prof. Kautzsch's additions to this apparently immortal Grammar are in some cases quite important. Under his sci- entific supervision the system of the noun has undergone an entire reconstruction, which is, in most respects, a wonderful improvement." — The Watchman. Davies* Compendious and Complete Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament. With an English-Hebrew Index. By Benjamin Davies, Ph.D., LL.D. Carefully Eevised. By Edward 0. Mitchell, D.D. 8vo. Half Turkey, $4.75 ; Cloth, $4,00 From the Lutheran Quarterly — " Several features commend its general use. It is a model of beauty and clearness in typography, .... A greater merit is the simplicity and comprehensiveness of the work The whole is arranged on a plan at once simple and natural, and brought within a moderate compass and cost. The irregular and more difficult forms of words are jplaced in alphabetical Order as they occur. There is appended an Eiiglish-HebfetB Index, to aid the student in finding the corresponding Hebrew words. E-5 HELPS TO BIBLICAL STUDY. NEW TESTAMENT. Uitchell. The Critical Handbook. A Guide to the Study of the Authenticity, Oanon, and Text of the Greek New Testament. By Edward 0. Mitchell, D.D. Illustrated by a Map, Diagrams, and Tables. 12mo. $1.75 From Eev. A. P. Peabody, D.D., LL.D., Harvard College.Cambrldgo "I wish to speak of it in terms of superlative commendation, and more than half a centary of conversance with the departmentof literature to which it belongs may entitle me to express an opinion with some good degree of confiJence. I know of no manual that fills the place for which it is designed and fitted Such of the materials as can be tabulated are given in a series of tables, which for simplicity, thoroughness, and comprehensiveness leave nothing to bo desired." From Prof. Alvah Hovey, D.D. — "As a 'Handbook' for frequent use, 1 know of nothing equal to it." Gardiner. The Principles of Textual Criticism f with a List of all the known Greek Uncials, and a Table representing graphically the Parts of the Text of the New Testament contained in each, also the Canons ofEusebius. 8to. pp.64. Paper covers, 50 cents. Cloth, flexible, 75 cts. From the Baptist Quarterly "A trustworthy and useful help." Cary. An Introduction to the GreeJe of the New Testament, By George L. Gary, of the Meadville Theological Seminary. 12mo. pp. 72. 75 cents. " This is substantially a primary Greek Grammar of the New Testament, intended for those who have had no previous knowledge of the language." — Central Baptist. " The simplicity of its method, its conciseness and perspicuity admirably adapt it to the use of such persons." — Theological and Homiletic MontMy. Bnttmann. A Grammar of the New Testament OreeTe. By Alexander Buttmann, Authorized Translation [by Prof. J. Henry Thayer, D.D.] ; with numerous additions and corrections by the Author. 8to. pp. XX and 474. $2.75 Buttmann's Grammar is more exclusively philological than that of Winer, it has less the character of a concise commentary. It is thoroughly scholarly, lucid, and compact. For comparing New Testament and Classic usage running refer- ences arc made throughout the book to the Grammars of Hadley, Crosby, Donald- son, Jelf, and others. Winer and Buttmann supplement each other admirably. From the American Presbyterian Review. — " By far the most impor- tant work on the Grammar of the New Testament Greek which has been produced of late years." Winer. A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament: pre- pared as a Solid Basis for the Interpretation of the New Testament. By Dr. George Benedict Winer. Seventh Edition, enlarged and improved, By Dr. Gottlieb Liinemann, Professor of Theology at the University of Gottingen. Eevised and Authorized Translation. [By Prof. J. Henry Thayer, D,D,]. 8vo. pp,744. $4,00 Winer is the most valuable of all aids for a thorough and fundamental theolog- ical scholarship. Nothing has been left undone by Professor Thayer to make this the most compete and correct edition of the most celebrated of all New Testament Grammars. Three full Indexes have been added. One of them, that of passages in the New Testament explained or cited, occupies sixty pages. The texts that arc merely cited are distinguished from these which are commented upon. In an important sense the book gives a grammatical commentary on the more difflcnll texts of the New Testament. E-6